Aug 27, 2024 Planning Commission

UH, EVENING COMMISSIONERS.

OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS GONNA BE ADAM GREENFIELD.

ADAM, YOU WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES.

ADAM GREENFIELD HERE.

UM, SPEAKING IN SUPPORT OF SINGLE STAIR REFORM.

I KNOW THAT WAS ON THE AGENDA FOR THIS EVENING AND IT GOT PULLED, BUT, UM, THE ENTHUSIASM I HAVE FOR THIS REFORM, UH, CANNOT BE HELD BACK.

UM, THIS IS, UH, THIS IS NOT ONLY GONNA BE VERY, VERY HELPFUL FOR ADDING HOUSING TO OUR STOCK, UH, BUT ALSO WALKABILITY.

WHEN WE, WHEN YOU THINK OF THE, THE MOST WALKABLE HUMAN SCALED, UH, CITIES AROUND THE WORLD ROW HOUSING IS OFTEN ABUNDANT IN THEM.

THAT KIND OF FINE GRAINED HUMAN SCALED DEVELOPMENT.

UM, ACTUALLY ONE OF MY EARLIEST MEMORIES IS LIVING IN A ROW HOUSE.

AND IT IS EXACTLY THE KIND OF DEVELOPMENT THAT I THINK IS GONNA MAKE THIS CITY EVEN MORE BEAUTIFUL.

UM, AND, UH, VERY STRONGLY SUPPORT THE, THE WORK THAT'S BEING DONE TO MAKE THIS POSSIBLE.

IT IS ONE OF THE WORLD'S MOST ABUNDANT FORMS OF HOUSING.

THERE'S NO REASON WHY AUSTIN CAN'T DO IT TOO.

IT'S GONNA BE A WONDERFUL ADDITION.

AND, AND WHEN THIS, THIS HOUSING KIND OF HOUSING COMES ONLINE, I THINK WE SHOULD REALLY CELEBRATE IT.

AGENDA IS THE APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETING OF JULY 23RD.

DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMUNICATION CHAIR THAT CONCLUDES THE SPEAKERS FOR PUBLIC COMMUNICATION? THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT, WE'LL MOVE ON.

THE FIRST ITEM ON THE CONSENT

[APPROVAL OF MINUTES]

DOES ANYONE HAVE EDITS TO THOSE MINUTES? SO IN THE EMAIL THAT I SENT OUT, WE DID HAVE TO POSTPONE THOSE MINUTES TO THE NEXT MEETING DATE.

OH, WE ARE POSTPONING THE MINUTES.

UM, SO THE, THAT WILL BE ADDED AS A POSTPONEMENT TO THE NEXT MEETING, THE JULY 23RD, UM, MEETING MINUTES.

FROM THAT IS TO VOTE ON THE CONSENT AGENDA, ITEMS THAT ARE CONSENT APPROVAL, DISAPPROVAL, POSTPONEMENTS AND PUBLIC HEARINGS OR NON-DISCUSSION ITEMS, VICE CHAIR ZAR.

OUR FIRST ACTIVITY MOVING ON

[Consent Agenda]

WE'LL READ THE PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA AND IDENTIFY THOSE THAT ARE CONSENT, POSTPONEMENT AND NON-DISCUSSION AND COMMISSIONERS.

YOU'LL ALSO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO REQUEST CONSENT ITEMS TO BE PULLED FOR DISCUSSION.

VICE CHAIR.

UM, SO OF COURSE PART OF OUR CONSENT AGENDA WILL BE THE POSTPONEMENT OF THE MINUTES FROM OUR JULY 23RD MEETING TO NINE 10.

MOVING ON TO THE PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS I NUMBER TWO, PLAN AMENDMENT NPA DASH 2023 DASH 2 0 1 7 0.01 ANDERSON SQUARE, DISTRICT FOUR.

THIS ITEM IS UP FOR DISCUSSION TODAY.

ASSOCIATED REZONING ITEM NUMBER THREE C 14 DASH 2023 DASH EIGHT ZERO ANDERSON SQUARE, DISTRICT FOUR.

THIS ITEM IS UP ALL UP FOR DISCUSSION.

ITEM NUMBER FOUR IS THE PLAN AMENDMENT NPA DASH 2018 DASH 0 0 2 1 0.02.

SKYLINE ALT OF MIXED USE DISTRICT THREE.

THIS ITEM IS UP FOR APPLICANT INDEFINITE POSTPONEMENT I.

NUMBER FIVE IS A REZONING C 14 DASH 24 DASH 0 7 9.

SPECS, WINE, SPIRITS, AND FINER FOODS DISTRICT 10.

THE ITEM IS UP FOR CONSENT.

I NUMBER SIX IS REZONING C 14 DASH 2024 DASH 0 7 1 THORNTON ROAD, MULTIFAMILY DISTRICT FIVE.

THIS ITEM IS UP FOR DISCUSSION I.

NUMBER SEVEN IS A REZONING C 14 DASH 2024 DASH 0 0 9 5 11 0 3 DISTRICT NINE.

THIS ITEM IS UP FOR CONSENT I NUMBER EIGHT IS A REZONING C 14 DASH 2024 DASH 0 1 0 6 19 12 WEST 35TH STREET, DISTRICT 10.

THIS ITEM IS UM, ALSO UP FOR CONSENT.

AND NUMBER NINE IS A REZONING C 14 DASH 2023 DASH 0 1 3 4 22 0 1 WILLOW CREEK DRIVE, DISTRICT THREE.

THIS ITEM IS UP FOR STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO UM, TEN EIGHT I.

NUMBER 10 IS A CONDITIONAL USE IN ENVIRONMENTAL VARIANCE SPC DASH 2 23 DASH 0 1 0 C, STANE PARK DISTRICT TWO.

THIS ITEM IS UP FOR CONSENT.

I NUMBER 11 IS AN LDC AMENDMENT C 20 DASH 2023 DASH 0 4 5, SITE PLAN, LIGHT PHASE TWO AND IN INFILL LOTS.

THIS ITEMS UP FOR DISCUSSION TONIGHT.

I NUMBER 12 IS OUR LOCAL AMENDMENT, THE INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE.

THE TIME IS WITHDRAWN FOR TONIGHT.

AND CHAIR, THAT CONCLUDES ALL OF OUR PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS AND THE MINUTES AS WELL.

ALRIGHT, FIRST QUESTION, DO WE HAVE ANY COMMISSIONERS THAT NEED TO RECUSE OR ABSTAIN FROM ANY ITEMS ON THE AGENDA? OKAY.

UM, MS. GARCIA, DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON ANY OF THE CONSENT ITEMS? NO, WE DO NOT.

[00:10:01]

AND DO ANY COMMISSIONERS HAVE, UM, COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS OR OTHERS ALWAYS WANT TO PULL ANY OF THE ITEMS? MR. MAXWELL? UH, YES.

I JUST WANTED TO SHARE A QUICK COMMENT REGARDING ITEM NUMBER FIVE.

UM, THE REZONING RELATED TO THE SPECS REDEVELOPMENT.

UM, FOR THOSE OF YOU MAY NOT BE AWARE, THIS IS AT THE FORMER RANDALL'S SITE ON UH, 35TH STREET.

AND I AM NOT PULLING THIS ITEM, BUT I DID WANNA EXPRESS SOME DISAPPOINTMENT, SHALL WE SAY, AS A PLANNING COMMISSIONER BECAUSE I FIRMLY DON'T BELIEVE THAT THIS IS THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE OF THIS LAND.

AND I WOULD ALSO POINT OUT THAT THIS IS NOT THE ONLY NEW SPECS WE'RE GETTING.

THIS AREA IS A, UM, WALKABLE TRANSIT RICH AREA, HAS GREAT AMENITIES, GOOD SCHOOLS, A LOVELY NEIGHBORHOOD.

IT HAS MIXED FAMILY, MIXED MULTIFAMILY NEARBY.

AND WE HAVE A SIMILAR SITE JUST DOWN THE STREET ALSO ON NORTH LAMAR.

UM, SAME THING JUST NEAR ENFIELD, WHERE IT'S ALSO GOING TO BE A SPEC SLICKER.

AND WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THE SAME THING WHERE IT'S A COMMERCIAL SPACE COMING INTO A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT IS QUITE LOVELY, EXCELLENT SCHOOLS, GREAT NEIGHBORS, REALLY LOVELY, AND ALSO MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING.

SO WHEN I SEE TWO CASES LIKE THIS, ALTHOUGH ONE OF THEM IS COMING BEFORE US TONIGHT, THE OTHER ONE IS NOT.

I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT I DON'T NECESSARILY THINK THAT HAVING TWO LIQUOR STORES COME TO THESE WONDERFUL NEIGHBORHOODS IS THE BEST USE OF WHAT WE COULD BE DOING WITH THESE LANDS.

AND I WOULD PARTICULARLY SAY THAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THIS SITE THAT IS BEFORE US BECAUSE IT IS ADJACENT TO SETON HOSPITAL.

AND WE KNOW THAT SOMETHING LIKE HOUSING WE DISCUSS ENDLESSLY IN TERMS OF HOW MUCH WE E EXPECT OUR DEVELOPERS TO BRING TO THE TABLE, THE COMMUNITY BENEFITS WE'RE LOOKING FOR THE TYPE OF HOUSING THAT THEY'LL BE PROVIDING.

AND WE'RE NOT HAVING THAT DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS CASE.

AND I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S REASONS FOR THAT, BUT I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT I FIND THIS DISAPPOINTING AND I REALLY DO HOPE THAT OUR DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY, OUR COMMERCIAL LANDLORDS, EVERYBODY THINKS TWICE ABOUT THESE TYPES OF DEVELOPMENTS GOING FORWARD.

I'D LIKE TO BE SHOWN AS STANDING ON THIS ITEM.

MOVE ON TO OUR FIRST PUBLIC HEARING TONIGHT.

COMMISSIONER COX.

DID I SEE YOUR HAND? OH, OKAY.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, OR WANTING TO PULL? OKAY.

UM, SO WE HAVE OUR CONSENT AGENDA TONIGHT.

IS THERE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA? OKAY.

UM, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BARRA RAMIREZ.

ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR? ALRIGHT.

UNANIMOUS NOTING THAT COMMISSIONER MAXWELL IS ABSTAINING FROM ITEM NUMBER FIVE.

ALRIGHT, THIS CONCLUDES THE CONSENT AGENDA.

SO WE'RE GOING TO

[Items 2 & 3]

THAT'S ITEMS NUMBER TWO AND THREE, THE ANDERSON SQUARE PROJECT.

UH, FIRST WE WILL HEAR FROM MS. MEREDITH AND MR. RUEZ MARINE MEREDITH PLANNING DEPARTMENT.

ITEM NUMBER TWO IS NPA 20 23 0 0 1 7 0.01.

ANDERSON SQUARE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT NINE TEN NINE TWELVE NINE FOURTEEN NINE SIXTEEN, TEN TWELVE AND 10 12.

1100 1100 AND A HALF, 1100 0 2 AND A HALF.

WEST ANDERSON LANE, 79, EXCUSE ME, 79 0 5 AND A HALF.

8 0 0 3 8 0 0 5 ANDERSON SQUARE AND 79 40 79 5800, 800, I'M SORRY, 8,000, 8,000 AND A HALF AND 8,002 RESEARCH BOULEVARD SERVICE ROAD.

THE PROPERTIES ARE LOCATED WITHIN THE CRESTVIEW WI WOOTEN NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING AREA.

IT IS THE REQUEST TO CHANGE THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP FROM MIXED USE TO HIGHER DENSITY MIXED USE LAND USE, AND IS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF CHAIR.

WE WILL NOW HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT FOR FIVE MINUTES.

OH, WE'LL HEAR FROM, UH, MS. CEZ.

I APOLOGIZE.

GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONER SHERRY TIS WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.

THIS IS ITEM NUMBER THREE, WHICH IS THE ASSOCIATED ZONING CASE.

C 14 20 23 0 8 ANDERSON SQUARE.

AGAIN, THE ADDRESSES ARE 9 10, 9 12 9 14 AND 9 16, 10 12 AND 10 12 AND A HALF.

1100, 1100 AND A HALF, 1102 AND WEST ANDERSON LANE 79 0 5 AND A 88,003 AND 8,005 ANDERSON SQUARE, 79 40 79, 50 8,008,000 AND A HALF, 8,002 RESEARCH BOULEVARD SERVICE ROADS SOUTHBOUND.

SO THE REQUEST IS FROM C-S-M-U-M-P AND CS ONE MP TO C-H-P-D-A MP ZONING.

THE STAFF RECOMMENDS C-H-P-D-A COMMERCIAL HIGHWAY PLAN DEVELOPMENT AREA NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, COMBINING DISTRICT ZONING FOR THIS PROPERTY.

AS THE PROPERTY FALLS WITHIN THE NORTH MAR TRANSIT CENTER STATION AREA, THE STAFF RECOMMENDS ADDING PROHIBITED AND CONDITIONAL USES FROM THE RECENTLY ADOPTED EO ORDINANCE TO THE PDA OVERLAY.

AND I WILL LET YOU REFER TO THOSE IN YOUR BACKUP INSTEAD OF READING THEM

[00:15:01]

ALL FOR YOU TONIGHT.

THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION IS A 16 ACRE TRACK OF LAND THAT IS DEVELOPED WITH A RETAIL CENTER THAT CONTAINS SEVERAL USES, SUCH AS A HOBBY LOBBY, A GYM, AN INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY COMPANY, LAW OFFICES, AND A BINGO HALL.

THERE IS COMMERCIAL ZONING AND OFFICE AND COMMERCIAL USES SURROUNDING THE SITE TO THE NORTH, SOUTH, EAST, AND WEST.

THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING C-H-P-D-A MP ZONING BECAUSE THEY WOULD LIKE TO REDEVELOP THE SITE WITH A MIXTURE OF USES THAT WILL INCLUDE HOUSING.

THE PROPOSED PDA OVERLAY WILL HAVE ALL THE PERMITTED USES AND CONDITIONAL USES UNDER THE CH ZONING DISTRICT THAT ARE PERMITTED AND THE CONDITIONAL USES FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

AND THAT IS WHAT THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING.

THE PROPOSED SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IS A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 120 FEET, MAXIMUM LIGHT SIZE OF 20,000 SQUARE FEET, MAXIMUM FLORIDA AREA RATIO OF EIGHT TO ONE, NO MINIMUM SETBACKS, MAXIMUM BUILDING COVERAGE OF 95% AND MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS COVER OF 95%.

AND THE MINIMUM SITE AREA IS NONE.

THE STAFF RECOMMENDS THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR C-H-P-D-A MP ZONING THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION.

MISSI INTENDED THE CH BASE DISTRICT.

THIS TRACT OF LAND IS LOCATED IN AN ESTABLISHED RETAIL CENTER AT THE NORTH-WESTERN INTERSECTION OF TWO ARTERIAL ROADWAYS.

WEST ANDERSON LANE AND RESEARCH BOULEVARD, OR AS REFERRED TO AS HIGHWAY 180 3.

THE PROPERTY IS ADJACENT TO COMMERCIAL ZONING TO THE NORTH, SOUTH, AND WEST.

AS THE PROPERTY UNDER CONSIDERATION FALLS WITHIN THE NORTH AMERICA TRANSIT CENTER STATION AREA, THE STAFF IS RECOMMENDING PROHIBITING USES THAT ARE NOT CONDUCIVE TO THE GOAL TO ENCOURAGE MARKET SUPPORTED DEVELOPMENT ALONG TRANSIT CORRIDORS.

THEREFORE, THIS STAFF RECOMMENDS PROHIBITING USES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ADOPTED EO ORDINANCE FOR THIS PROPERTY.

LET ME SWITCH HERE.

REASONING FOR THIS STAFF RECOMMENDATION.

THE PROPOSED C-H-P-D-A ZONING WILL PROMOTE CONSISTENCY AND ORDERLY PLANNING IN THIS AREA AS THE PROPERTY IS SURROUNDED BY COMMERCIAL ZONING AND OFFICE AND COMMERCIAL USES TO THE NORTH, SOUTH, AND WEST.

THE PROPERTY IS NEAR A DESIGNATED TOWN CENTER.

IT'S NEAR CRESTVIEW STATION AND A NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER, THE NORTH LAMAR AND BERG AS DESCRIBED IN THE IMAGINE AUSTIN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

THERE ARE NUMEROUS TRANSIT OP OPTIONS IN THIS AREA, SUCH AS CAP METRO BUS, RAPID BUS LINE ALONG NORTH LAMAR BOULEVARD AND CAPITAL ME CAPITAL MEA ROAD BUS ROUTES ALONG RESEARCH BOULEVARD, WEST ANDERSON LANE AND ANDERSON SQUARE.

THERE ARE BUS STOPS ADJACENT TO THIS PROPERTY ON WEST ANDERSON LANE AND ANDERSON SQUARE.

IN ADDITION, THIS SITE IS WITHIN WALKING DISTANCE OF LIGHT RAIL CRESTVIEW STATION AND NORTH LAMAR CAPITAL METRO TRANSIT CENTER.

AND SO I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.

THANK YOU SO MUCH.

GOOD EVENING PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS.

WE WILL NOW HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT FOR FIVE MINUTES.

I'M ALICE GLASGOW REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT.

THE, UH, CASE IN FRONT OF YOU, ITEMS TWO AND THREE, UH, REPRESENT THE ANDERSON SQUARE SITE.

UM, SHERRY AND MAUREEN GAVE YOU A GOOD OVERVIEW OF, YOU KNOW, WHAT'S THERE TODAY THE SITE COMPRISES 16 ACRES AND UM, AS YOU CAN SEE THERE ARE SEVERAL BUILDINGS THERE.

THE HOBBY LOBBY, A GYM, UM, A TIRE STORE, UM, AN OFFICE, AND A BINGO POWER AT THE END WHERE THE SOUTHERN TIP OF THE PROPERTY.

SO OUR RE OUR REQUEST, UH, ORIGINALLY WAS FOR A STAFF IN C-H-P-D-A AND OUR HEIGHT REQUEST WAS FOR 250 FEET OF HEIGHT.

BUT WHEN MET WITH STAFF, THEY INDICATED THEY COULD NOT SUPPORT THE TWO 50 CENTS.

THE CH ZONING DOES NOT HAVE COMMUNITY BENEFITS BAKED INTO IT.

AND, UM, AT THAT TIME WE HAD NOT FINALIZED OUR, UH, AGREEMENTS WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD CONTACT TEAM.

UH, WE FILED THIS CASE IN APRIL OF LAST YEAR, SO WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON IT FOR QUITE A WHILE.

UH, WE'VE MET WITH THE WOOTEN NEIGHBORHOOD CONTACT TEAM.

WE HAVE A DRAFT, UH, LIST OF COMMUNITY BENEFITS THAT THEY SENT TO, UH, TO, TO US.

THAT'S MY CLIENT AND ME AND WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON, UM, ON ADDRESSING THOSE.

AND, UH, WE HOPE TO HAVE ONE FINALIZED VIA BEFORE WE GET TO THE CITY COUNCIL.

SO THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN OUR ASK, UH, FROM WHAT STAFF IS RECOMMENDING IS JUST THE HEIGHT DIFFERENTIAL WOULD LIKE TO GO BACK TO A REGIONAL HEIGHT OF 250 FEET SUBJECT TO THE, UM, FOR US FINALIZING THE COMMUNITY BENEFITS AGREEMENT.

COULD YOU GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE? THERE WE GO.

SO YOU JUST SAW THE MAP AHEAD BEFORE YOU THAT SHOWED THE, THE, THE SITE AS IT IS TODAY.

AND, UM, THE VISION FOR THE SITE IN THE FUTURE WOULD BE TO HAVE, UM, A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT THAT, UM, HAS RESIDENTIAL, UH, A POSSIBLE HOTEL IF YOU KNOW, IF IT'S POSSIBLE TO HAVE IN THE FUTURE.

UH, AND ALL THOSE ITEMS ARE LISTED IN OUR, UH, ZONING TRAFFIC ANALYSIS THAT HAS BEEN APPROVED BY STAFF AND IS PART

[00:20:01]

OF YOUR BACKUP IN THE, UH, ZONING STAFF REPORT.

UM, THIS CONCEPT PLAN IS, UM, UH, ENVISIONED AND GUIDED BY SUB CHAPTER E THE COMMERCIAL DESIGN STANDARDS.

YOU CAN SEE THE INTERNAL CIRCULATOR CIRCULATION ROUTES AND THE, AND THE DRIVEWAYS HAVE BEEN REDUCED FROM SIX DRIVEWAYS CURRENTLY TO JUST FOUR.

AND, UM, A TD HAS, UH, AS PART OF THE ZTA, UH, THE FOUR DRIVEWAYS THAT THAT HELP CREATE THE INTERNAL CIRCULATION ROUTE THAT IS REQUIRED UNDER SUB CHAPTER E IS WHAT YOU SEE HERE.

UH, SO AGAIN, THIS IS A CONCEPTUAL VISION FOR THE SITE AND UM, UM, WE HOPE THAT YOU CAN SUPPORT, UM, OUR AMENDED OUR REQUEST GOING BACK TO THE ORIGINAL FOR THE HEIGHT.

BUT, UH, THE REMAINDER OF OUR REQUEST FOR THE PDA THAT SHERRY JUST READ ARE STILL THE SAME SUBJECT AGAIN TO US FINALIZING OUR COMMUNITY BENEFITS AGREEMENT WITH THE WOOD NEIGHBORHOOD CONTACT TEAM.

I'LL BE GLAD TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE.

ON MANY OF THE ROOFS, BUT WE HAVEN'T DECIDED HOW MANY, WHAT STANDARD UNDER WHAT CONDITIONS.

WE WILL NOW BE HEARING FROM THOSE.

SPEAKING IN FAVOR, RYAN NIL IS OUR PRIMARY SPEAKER IN FAVOR.

RYAN, YOU WILL HAVE FIVE MINUTES.

I CAN'T HEAR YOU.

HELLO COMMISSIONERS.

MY NAME'S RYAN NIL.

I'M THE CHAIR OF THE WOOTEN NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN CONTACT TEAM.

UM, AND I'M GONNA GIVE YOU AN UPDATE ON THE NEGOTIATIONS WE'VE BEEN HAVING WITH ALICE.

SO WHAT WE'RE WORKING TOWARDS IS IF WE CAN COME TO AN AGREEMENT ON ALL OF THESE POINTS, THEN WE ARE SUPPORTING THE PDA AT 250 FEET.

UH, SO THE CONTACT TEAM'S GOALS ARE BASICALLY TO CREATE A WALKABLE, BIKEABLE, ENVIRONMENTALLY SUSTAINABLE DENSE DESTINATION THAT IS WELL CONNECTED TO EXISTING AND FUTURE TRANSIT INFRASTRUCTURE.

WE ALSO WANNA FUND LOCAL NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENTS.

WHEN THIS PROJECT IS 100% BUILT OUT, IT WILL DOUBLE THE POPULATION OF THE NEIGHBORHOODS.

SO WE SEE THE NEED FOR SOME IMPROVEMENTS NEARBY AND WE WOULD LIKE TO SAVE THIS PINK GORILLA 'CAUSE IT'S THE MOST INTERESTING THING ABOUT THIS PARCEL RIGHT NOW.

SO I'M GONNA GO THROUGH THE AGREEABLE STUFF PRETTY QUICKLY.

UM, SO WE'VE COME TO AN AGREEMENT ON, WE'D LIKE TO SEE A CAR FREE POEO, OH, .

UM, WE'D LIKE TO SEE THAT THE, THE PROJECT EMBRACES ANDERSON LANE, ANDERSON SQUARE AND CREATES A PE PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY AREA FOR THOSE TWO STREETS.

UH, WE'VE GOT SOME IDEAS ABOUT INTERNAL CIRCULATION AND SHADE COVERAGE THAT WE'VE AGREED TO.

UM, WE'VE HAD CONVERSATIONS ABOUT BIKE PARKING, TRIP REDUCTION, ACHIEVING DIVERSITY OF STREET FRONTAGES AND BLOCK PERIMETERS AND ALL THAT'S BEEN AGREEABLE.

UM, WE'VE EVEN HAD CONVERSATIONS THAT ARE AGREEABLE WITH SUPPORT FROM THE APPROPRIATE GOVERNMENT AGENCIES.

SO RECONNECTING THE GRID AT DALE AND WATSON FUNDING SHADE STRUCTURES, UH, FOR BUS ROUTES ON THE SITE AND INTEGRATING BIKE SHARE IF CAT METRO FEELS THAT'S APPROPRIATE AND MAKING IMPROVEMENTS USING THE STREET IMPACT FEE ON THE SITE AT THE TWO MAJOR INTERSECTIONS WOULD REQUIRE SUPPORT FROM THE CITY ON THOSE THINGS WHERE WE'VE NOT YET COME TO AN AGREEMENT ON TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE IS FUNDING FOR THE RED LINE PARKWAY INITIATIVE, WHICH IS JUST A HALF MILE AWAY.

AND IT WAS MENTIONED EARLIER, IT'S WALKING DISTANCE FROM THE CRESTVIEW STATION.

SO THIS WOULD CONNECT THE PARCEL TO HIGHLAND TO THE SOUTH AND THE Q2 STADIUM AND THE DOMAIN TO THE NORTH ONCE THOSE SECTIONS ARE COMPLETED.

UM, WE'VE NOT YET COME TO AN AGREEMENT ON CAR PARKING.

WE'VE GOT SOME LANGUAGE HERE THAT I, WE THINK REPRESENTS WELL, WHAT THE APPLICANT WOULD AGREE TO, BUT IT'S QUITE A FAR DISTANCE FROM WHAT WE ORIGINALLY ASKED, WHICH WAS TO HAVE A HUNDRED PERCENT UNDERGROUND PARKING AND UNBUNDLED PARKING.

AND SO WE'RE STILL TRYING TO COME TO A MEETING POINT THAT WORKS FOR BOTH PARTIES.

UM, SOME MORE AGREEABLE STUFF SUPPORT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON PROHIBITED USES.

WE SUPPORT THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING GUIDELINES PASSED BY COUNCIL FOR PDA ON JULY 18TH.

UM, WE'VE COME TO AN AGREEMENT ON BUSINESS AND STOREFRONTS TO ENCOURAGE LOCAL BUSINESSES IN A GROCERY STORE.

GOT SOME PARK STUFF WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT IN REGARDS TO DETENTION PONDS AND AIR FILTRATION AND RAINWATER COLLECTION.

UM, SOMETHING THAT WE'VE AGREED TO PROVIDED THE PARKS DEPARTMENT AGREES TO IT, IS THAT THE OWNER WILL MAINTAIN THE PARK LAND THAT IS DEDICATED TO, YOU KNOW, THE PARKLAND DEDICATION THAT'S ON SITE.

UM, THEY'LL AGREE TO MAINTAIN IT PROVIDED THEY GET TO MAINTAIN OWNERSHIP OF IT AND NOT GRANT IT OVER TO THE PARKS DEPARTMENT IF THAT IS AGREEABLE WITH THE PARKS DEPARTMENT.

UH, WHERE WE HAVEN'T AGREED ON PARKS AND ENVIRONMENTS IS THERE'S GENERAL AGREEMENT THAT WE SHOULD HAVE SOLAR PANELS

[00:25:01]

AND ADDITIONALLY, WE ARE TRYING TO DECIDE ON HOW TO FUND SOME WOOTEN PARK IMPROVEMENTS.

EITHER, UH, MORE MONEY SOONER OR LATER OR LESS MONEY SOONER IS KIND OF THE CONVERSATION WE'RE HAVING AT THE MOMENT.

AND THEY'VE AGREED TO SAVE THE PINK GORILLA, WHICH WE FIND, UH, VERY AGREEABLE.

UM, SO THAT'S MY PRESENTATION AND IF Y'ALL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON THE SPECIFIC ITEMS, I KNOW I WENT THROUGH IT REALLY QUICKLY, IT WAS A LOT, BUT, BUT YOU KNOW, WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON A LOT OF DIFFERENT THINGS AND IT'S FAIRLY COMPLICATED AND I JUST MAINLY WANTED TO HIT ON THE THINGS WE'RE STILL WORKING ON, BUT I THINK WE'VE MADE A LOT OF PROGRESS.

THANK YOU SO MUCH.

WE WILL NOW BE HEARING FROM ADAM GREENFIELD.

ADAM, YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES.

EVENING AGAIN, COMMISSIONERS ADAM GREENFIELD WITH SAFE STREETS AUSTIN.

UH, WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THE WOOTEN NEIGHBORHOOD, UM, TO DEVELOP THE VISION THAT RYAN JUST PRESENTED ON.

AND I JUST WANNA SPEAK OVERALL TO THE, UM, ABSOLUTE IMPORTANCE OF GETTING THIS DEVELOPMENT RIGHT AND, AND GETTING IT TO A HIGH STANDARD.

UM, WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT ANDERSON LANE, IT'S NOT REALLY A PLACE YOU THINK TO GO TO, TO HAVE A NICE WALK, UH, BUT IT ABSOLUTELY COULD BE.

IT COULD BE AN AMAZING BOULEVARD THAT, THAT THE COMMUNITY WOULD FLOCK TO.

AND THIS SITE IS THE, UM, EASTERN, UH, ENTRANCE TO THE ANDERSON LANE, UM, CORRIDOR.

IF WE CAN GET THIS RIGHT, GET THIS TO A HOT HIGH STANDARD, THEN WE COULD SET FORTH A, A DOMINO RALLY EFFECT THAT COULD THEN LEAD TO SIMILAR STANDARDS THE REST OF THE CORRIDOR.

AND ONE DAY IN THE FUTURE, UM, LEAD TO A PLACE THAT'S ACTUALLY REALLY BEAUTIFUL.

UM, I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE MIGHT BE A TEMPTATION BECAUSE ANDERSON LANE IS NOT THAT PLEASANT RIGHT NOW FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT TO TURN AWAY FOR ANDERSON LANE AND TURN IN.

AND, UH, SAFETY EXHAUST IS VERY MUCH RECOMMENDING THAT THIS DEVELOPMENT EMBRACE ANDERSON LANE AND GIVE IT SOME OF WHAT IT NEEDS TO GET UP ON ITS FEET AS A GREAT PLACE.

SO, YOU KNOW, MAKING SURE THE BUILDING COMES RIGHT UP TO AND DEFINES THE SIDEWALK, THAT THERE'S A SHADE STRUCTURE THAT SHADES THE ENTIRE SIDEWALK.

THAT THERE ARE TREES, THAT THERE'S PLACEMAKING.

YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE REASONS WHY THE PINK GORILLA IS SO POPULAR IS BECAUSE IT'S, YOU FEEL LIKE YOU'VE ARRIVED SOMEWHERE WHEN YOU ARE THERE.

AND THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO, TO A WALKABLE BIKEABLE ENVIRONMENT.

UM, SO WE'RE, WE'RE DETERMINED TO STAY ENGAGED WITH THIS PROJECT.

WE WANNA SEE IT, UH, RAISE THE BAR FOR DEVELOPMENTS OF THIS KIND IN AUSTIN.

AND UM, YEAH, THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAS DONE A GREAT JOB, UM, DEVELOPING THE VISION SO FAR.

SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS CHAIR.

THAT CONCLUDES THE SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM.

THE APPLICANT NOW HAS THE OPPORTUNITY FOR A THREE MINUTE REBUTTAL COMMISSIONERS.

I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO REBUT.

WE ARE IN AGREEMENT.

IT'S JUST A MATTER OF CONTINUING TO WORK AS WE HAVE BEEN FOR THE LAST YEAR, ALMOST YEAR AND A HALF.

ALRIGHT, I'M GOING TO TAKE A VOTE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

IS THERE A MO, UH, MOTION FOR THAT? THE MOTION BY COMMISSIONER MAXWELL AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON.

UNLESS THERE IS OPPOSITION, WE'LL CONSIDER THAT MOTION PASSED AND WE'LL GO RIGHT INTO OUR ROUND ROBINS.

SO THE FIRST COMMISSIONER WITH A QUESTION, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, AND THEN COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, I BELIEVE.

I THINK THE, THE MOST, UM, WHERE WE'RE, WE'RE THE FIRST TO PART STILL IS IN REGARDS TO CAR PARKING.

UM, I'D LOVE TO JUST MAYBE ASK WHOEVER'S FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD THERE, IF THEY CAN JUST SHARE, YOU KNOW, I'M HEARING DIFFERENT THINGS FROM DIFFERENT GROUPS I'M HEARING, UH, THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE READY TO GO, LET'S VOTE ON IT TONIGHT.

AND I'M ALSO HEARING FROM FOLKS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND, AND AROUND THE AREA WHO ARE SAYING SUPPORTIVE, BUT WE'RE NOT READY FOR DIFFERENT REASONS.

AND I'M JUST CURIOUS KIND OF WHERE WE ARE.

SO, UH, THIS IS RYAN NELIGAN.

UM, WE ARE WORKING TOWARDS AN AGREEMENT AND WHEN WE WERE FIRST HAVING CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THIS, I THINK, I THINK THE GOAL WE'RE WORKING TOWARDS IS TO HAVE AN AGREEMENT IN FRONT OF THE COUNCIL BY NOVEMBER.

AND THERE WAS AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT BY BOTH PARTIES THAT WE MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE HASHED OUT 100% OF THE AGREEMENT WHEN WE CAME TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

SO, SO LIKE WE ARE, WE ARE PREPARED FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO DECIDE TO POSTPONE IT OR NOT POSTPONE IT.

BUT, BUT I THINK TO DIRECTLY ANSWER THE QUESTION, WE HAVE NOT YET COME TO A COMPLETE AGREEMENT AND WE'RE GONNA TAKE TIME TO COME TO THAT AGREEMENT BY NOVEMBER.

GOTCHA.

AND, AND CAN YOU HIT THE HIGH POINTS? LIKE WHAT ARE THE TWO BIGGEST AREAS WHERE YOU'RE JUST STILL TRYING TO GET THERE? YEAH, SO TO HIT THOSE, AGAIN,

[00:30:01]

AND SO, YOU KNOW, THE MORE CAR PARKING YOU HAVE, THE MORE ATTRACTIVE THE CAR PARKING, THE MORE LIKELY PEOPLE ARE GONNA WANT TO DRIVE THERE.

SO WE'VE, WE STARTED OFF WITH A PRETTY LIKE HIGH BAR ON WHAT WE WANTED TO SEE IN REGARDS TO CAR PARKING, WHICH IS, UM, YOU KNOW, A HUNDRED PERCENT UNDERGROUND AND UNBUNDLED AND, YOU KNOW, WE, WE'D ALREADY CONCEDED THAT UNBUNDLING MIGHT NOT BE APPROPRIATE.

UM, AND THEN IT KIND OF CAME TO WHERE WE WERE AT.

UH, AND THE APPLICANT'S, AND MAYBE SHE CAN STATE HER CURRENT POSITION, BUT WHAT I HAD ON THE SCREEN EARLIER, WHICH WE DISCUSSED LAST NIGHT, WAS, UH, ABOUT LIMITING SURFACE PARKING TO ONLY ON STREET AND LOADING AND ACCESS TO HAVE A WRAP AROUND, UM, PODIUM OR, UH, JUST STANDARD PARKING GARAGE AND IF IT'S A, IF IT'S NOT A WRAP, TO HAVE IT SCREENED AND TO TRY TO MAXIMIZE KIND OF ACTIVE SPACES ON THE FIRST LEVEL IN MINIMIZE PARKING AND, UM, PARKING AND DEAD SPACE ON THE FIRST LEVEL.

SO THAT'S LIKE ONE OF THE, THE BIGGEST FUNDS WE'RE STILL TRYING TO COME TO AN AGREEMENT ON.

ADDITIONALLY, WE WANNA FUND THE RED LINE PARKWAY SUM, AND THE MAIN STICKING POINT ON THAT IS WHAT TRIGGERS THE FUNDING.

UM, THEY WOULD LIKE TO FUND IT IF THEY'RE ABOVE 120 FEET, BUT WE THINK IT WOULD BE BETTER IF IT WASN'T LIKE A YES NO PROPOSITION BECAUSE WE WANT TO AVOID A SITUATION WHERE THEY'RE INCENTIVIZED NOT TO GO OVER 120 FEET TO AVOID THE FUNDING.

SO THAT, THAT'S ANOTHER ONE.

UM, SO REAL QUICK, UH, LET ME, LEMME JUMP IN.

SO, UM, THANK YOU.

THANK YOU FOR ALL OF THAT MR. NE, UM, STAFF.

QUICK QUESTION.

SO WHAT I'M HEARING IS IT'S IT'S PRETTY AWESOME.

THE NEIGHBORHOODS REALLY COME TOGETHER AND THEY'RE JUST REALLY TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WAYS TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS DEVELOPMENT IS AS WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE AND WELL CONNECTED AS POSSIBLE.

SO I'M JUST CURIOUS KIND OF WHAT TOOLS DO WE HAVE TO HELP ENSURE THAT THEY GET WHAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR? AND I'M, I'M JUST CURIOUS KIND OF, I KNOW THAT BRODY OAKS WAS A PUD AND THIS ISN'T A PUD, BUT KIND, WHAT DO WE HAVE AT OUR DISPOSAL TO HELP SEE THIS THROUGH? THAT'S RIGHT, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON.

UM, WHEN THE APPLICANT CAME IN WITH THEIR INITIAL PROPOSAL, THE STAFF MET WITH THE APPLICANT AND SAID THAT WE DID NOT FEEL LIKE WE COULD SUPPORT A HEIGHT OF 250 FEET, UH, THROUGH A PDA BECAUSE THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT YOU WOULD NORMALLY GET IN C-H-P-D-A WOULD BE 120.

SO WE WERE ENCOURAGING A-A-P-U-D WHERE WE COULD ACTUALLY SEE COMMUNITY BENEFITS ON THE SITE THAT WERE REVIEWED BY THE STAFF AND THEN PRESENTED TO COMMISSION AND COUNCIL.

SO SUBSEQUENTLY, UH, THE APPLICANT AMENDED THEIR CASE TO REDUCE THE HEIGHT TO 120 FEET, WHICH WAS THE CH STANDARD.

AND SO WE WERE SUPPORTIVE OF THAT BECAUSE THE PROPERTY DID NOT INCLUDE THE COMMUNITY BENEFITS THAT YOU COULD GET THROUGH A PUD.

WHAT WE HAVE BEFORE US IS C-H-P-D-A.

AND SO THESE COMMUNITY BENEFITS THAT THE APPLICANT AND THE, UM, NEIGHBORHOOD HAVE AGREED TO, THE MAJORITY OF ALL OF THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE IN A PRIVATE AGREEMENT.

THAT WOULD NOT BE SOMETHING THAT COULD BE PART OF THE ZONING.

UM, IT IS VERY SPECIFIC IN THE CODE, WHAT YOU CAN INCLUDE IN A PDA DOCUMENT AND THOSE ITEMS ARE NOT THINGS THAT BE IN, COULD BE INCLUDED IN A PDA DOCUMENT.

AND I DID CHECK WITH OUR LEGAL STAFF EARLIER TODAY JUST TO VERIFY THAT I PULLED UP THE SECTION ON PDAS IN THE CODE AND THEY VERIFIED THAT IF IT'S NOT SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OR USES OR A FEW OTHER SPECIFIC ITEMS PER CODE, YES, THESE ARE THINGS THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE DONE THROUGH PRIVATE MEANS.

WE'RE AT TIME.

COMMISSIONER ANDERSON.

COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, I BELIEVE I SAW YOUR HAND UP EARLIER.

UM, NO, I WAS, I WAS GONNA GO LATER IF SOMEBODY ELSE WANTS TO GO FIRST.

I'M STILL FORMULATING MY THOUGHTS.

YEAH, THAT'S VERY CHALLENGING.

COMMISSIONER CO.

YEAH, I GUESS FOR MR. NIL AGAIN, UM, HI.

THANKS FOR BEING HERE.

UM, I HAVE BEEN IN YOUR SHOES, SO I VERY MUCH ADMIRE, UH, WHAT YOU'RE DOING AND ALL THE TIME YOU'RE PROBABLY PUTTING INTO THIS.

UM, I GUESS I'M CURIOUS ABOUT THE POSTPONEMENT, UM, DISCUSSION THAT YOU HAD WITH COMMISSIONER ANDERSON.

YOU KNOW, YOU'RE, YOU'RE ONLY LEVERAGE THAT YOU'VE GOT AS THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS THROUGH THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND COUNCIL.

UM, IF THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVES THIS AND IF COUNCIL APPROVES IT, THERE'S, THERE'S REALLY NOTHING, THERE'S NO LEVERAGE THERE FOR A DEVELOPER

[00:35:01]

TO WORK WITH YOU.

AND I'M A LITTLE CONCERNED THAT THIS IS BEING SUBMITTED AS A PDA INSTEAD OF A P AND I'M JUST CURIOUS IF, IF THAT MATCHES YOUR UNDERSTANDING THAT Y'ALL WERE TRYING TO ENTER INTO SOME SORT OF PRIVATE LEGAL AGREEMENT OR IF YOU WANTED TO ACTUALLY SEE THESE, WHAT I THINK ARE VERY GOOD DESIGN STANDARDS ACTUALLY IN SOME SORT OF ZONING ORDINANCE.

SO WE WERE DEFINITELY AWARE OF THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND THE PUD UH, RULES.

AND SO FROM THE BEGINNING WE'VE BEEN NEGOTIATING TOWARDS A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT AND, AND YEAH, LIKE ONE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS IS LIKE, HOW CAN WE ENFORCE THAT AND NEGOTIATE THAT? UM, BUT THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH SAFE STREETS IS THAT THEIR ASSISTANCE IS THERE TO KIND OF HELP US REVIEW AND CONFIRM THAT THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT IS ENFORCED BECAUSE WE DON'T EXPECT THAT THE NEIGHBORS ASSOCIATION ON ITS OWN IS GONNA BE ABLE TO DO THAT WORK.

WE, WE'VE DONE WEIRD THINGS WITH ESCROW ACCOUNTS WITH LEGAL COUNSEL.

IT'S, IT'S, IT'S, IT GETS EXTREMELY MESSY WITH PRIVATE COVENANTS AND NEIGHBORHOOD GROUPS.

UM, SO I, I'M CURIOUS ABOUT, UH, THE DISCUSSION RELATED TO FACING ANDERSON BECAUSE THE GRAPHIC I SAW KIND OF DIDN'T DO THAT, THE POCKET PARK WAS INTERNAL TO THE PROJECT, AND I DO AGREE THAT THAT KIND OF HAVING THIS DEVELOPMENT MAKING ANDERSON A MORE WELCOMING PLACE IS DESPERATELY NEEDED.

DO ANY OF YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD WANTS, UH, SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSES THAT, THAT TOPIC? YEAH, UM, SO THERE'S TWO VERSIONS YOU CAN REFERENCE.

I, I SENT A, A COPY OF THE POWERPOINT PRESENTATION TO ALL THE COMMISSIONERS EARLIER THIS AFTERNOON, AND YOU CAN SEE THE ORIGINAL VERSION OF THOSE ASKS IN THE BACKUPS TO, UH, I WILL STATE THAT THE POWERPOINT PRESENTATION MIGHT HAVE AMENDED VERSIONS, BUT THEY'RE, THAT WAS PRETTY AGREEABLE FOR THE MOST PART FROM THE INITIAL ONES.

SO I EXPECT THE CHANGES TO BE PRETTY MINIMAL.

UM, BUT YEAH, THOSE, THOSE ARE MANY POINTS THAT ADDRESS THAT QUESTION DIRECTLY.

AND WHAT ARE, WHAT ARE THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S THOUGHTS ON THE 250 FOOT REQUESTS? WAS THERE ANY, WAS THERE ANY REQUEST TO TRY TO GET THAT STEP BACK TOWARDS THE HIGHWAY OR ARE Y'ALL COMFORTABLE WITH 250 FEET ACROSS THIS WHOLE SITE? YEAH, SO THE IDEA HAS BEEN THAT THE EXTRA HEIGHT IS HOW WE GET THE AMENITIES THAT WE'RE ASKING FOR.

AND THEN QUESTION FOR STATS BY CAN THANK YOU MR. NEW.

YOU'RE WELCOME.

I, MR. WADE, COMMISSIONER .

UM, SO IS THERE ANY AFFORDABLE HOUSING REQUIREMENT IN THIS PDA ZONING? NO, THERE IS NOT AT THIS TIME, NO.

AND MY UNDERSTANDING FROM WHAT YOU SAID BEFORE IS THERE'S JUST ABSOLUTELY NO WAY TO GET ANY OF WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE WITH THIS PARTICULAR ZONING, NOT THE AMENITIES THAT ARE LISTED IN THE APPLICANT'S POWERPOINT OR IN THE LETTER THAT WAS INCLUDED IN BACKUP.

YOU KNOW.

AND DID THE, DID THE APPLICANT GIVE YOU ANY SORT OF REASON WHY THEY, THEY WEREN'T INTERESTED IN A PUD? UH, I BELIEVE THEY JUST WERE SEEKING C-H-P-D-A.

UM, THEY FELT THAT THE PDA WOULD MEET THEIR NEEDS, SO, AND AS YOU SAW THE, THE SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, THEY APPROACHED IT THROUGH THE PDA.

INTERESTING.

AND I CAN LET THEM SPEAK TO THAT IF THEY WOULD LIKE TO FURTHER, BUT YES, UH, YEAH, I PROBABLY WON'T HAVE TIME.

MAYBE SOMEONE ELSE COULD PICK THAT UP.

DO WHERE DO, DOES DOMAIN CAP AT TWO 50? THE TWO 50 NUMBER SOUNDS FAMILIAR.

NO DOMAIN IS ACTUALLY HIGHER DOMAIN STEPS DOWN.

IT STEPS DOWN FROM OPAC DOWN TOWARDS BURNETT ROAD.

SO IT ACTUALLY HAS HIGHER HEIGHTS ALONG THE HIGHWAY AND IT'S BEEN AMENDED GOODNESS.

11? YEAH, LIKE 10, I WAS GONNA SAY 10 TIMES.

BUT IT'S BEEN AMENDED SO MANY TIMES THAT THAT'S WHY, BECAUSE WE'VE INCREASED THE HEIGHT IN THE DOMAIN WITH THE FOCUS BEING TOWARDS THE MAJOR HIGHWAYS, IT STEP BACK.

BUT I DON'T KNOW SPECIFICALLY.

AND IF I HAVE A FEW MORE SECONDS, WE'RE, I'M REALLY GONNA PICK YOUR, WE'RE AT TIME COMMISSIONER COX.

OKAY, THANK YOU.

I'LL CHAIR, I'LL, I'LL TAKE UP FOR MY TIME.

AND UH, COMMISSIONER COX, PLEASE FINISH YOUR QUESTION.

OH, THANK YOU VICE CHAIR.

I WAS JUST GONNA REALLY PICK YOUR BRAIN AND SEE IF YOU REMEMBERED THE, THE, UH, DEVELOPMENT THAT WE APPROVED ON SOUTH LAMAR NEAR 71.

I COULDN'T FIND IT FAST ENOUGH.

WHAT IF YOU REMEMBER AT ALL THE HEIGHTS THAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THERE, WHERE THEY PUT THE CRANES UP IN THE AIR AND THAT SORT OF THING? OH, I DON'T, BECAUSE BRODY, BRODY OAKS, I BELIEVE, YES.

I WAS NOT THE CASE MANAGER FOR BRODY OAKS, SO, UM, .

OKAY, WE'LL GO 2 75 IS WHAT I'M HEARING,

[00:40:01]

UM, STAFF, I BELIEVE YOU CAN HELP ME ANSWER THIS QUESTION, OR THIS MIGHT BE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.

UM, YOU KNOW, THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAS A REQUEST FOR LOOKING AT WOODEN PARK IMPROVEMENTS AND HOW THEY WOULD BE, HOW WOULD THIS USUALLY INTERSECT WITH, UH, SOMETHING LIKE OUR PARKLAND DEDICATION OR FEE? HOW WOULD THAT WOULD BE REVIEWED BY THE PARKS DEPARTMENT IF IT WAS? WELL, WHEN THE TIME AT THE TIME OF SITE PLAN? UM, DEPENDING ON THE NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND THE DEDICATION, UM, OF COURSE IT WOULD BE REVIEWED IF IT WAS A PUD THROUGH THE ZONING PROCESS.

THAT MAKES SENSE.

SO IF, IF THIS WAS INDEED A PUD, THIS WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE DISCUSSED WITH THE PARKS DEPARTMENT AND THE PARKS DEPARTMENT WOULD FIGURE OUT WHETHER IT'S GONNA BE ON SITE OR OFFSITE.

CORRECT.

IT COULD GO TO A PARTICULAR PARK.

UM, I APPRECIATE THAT VERY MUCH.

UM, THANK YOU.

THIS MIGHT BE A QUESTION EITHER FOR MR. NEIL.

MR. NEIL, I'LL ASK YOU.

AND THEN MS. KLASKO, I MIGHT ASK YOU NEXT AS WELL, OR ANYONE, THIS IS RELATED TO THE RED LINE PARK WHEN I'M LOOKING AT YOUR PRESENTATION SLIDE.

THANK YOU FOR SHARING THOSE.

UM, SO THE OTHER ONE THAT I SAW THAT THERE WAS NOT AGREEMENT ON CURRENTLY WAS A RED LINE PARKWAY.

CAN YOU PLEASE WALK US THROUGH WHAT THE ASK IS, WHAT THE CONVERSATION HAS BEEN LIKE? YEAH, SO THE, UM, THE SITE IS LOCATED TO THE NORTH AND WEST OF THE TRAIN TRACKS.

WERE THE RAILROAD RUNS AND THERE'S SEVERAL DIFFERENT ACCESS POINTS NEARBY THAT YOU COULD ACCESS IF THERE'S ONE AT CRESTVIEW STATION, MORROW STREET, ANDERSON LANE, WOOTEN PARK DRIVE, UM, AND A LITTLE BIT FURTHER NORTH.

SO THERE'S FOUR DIFFERENT ACCESS POINTS WITH BETWEEN ABOUT LIKE 0.4 OF A MILE AND MAYBE ABOUT A MILE.

AND IT JUST, ONCE IT'S COMPLETE, WE THINK IT'S GONNA BE A REALLY GREAT REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION TRAIL FOR THIS PART OF TOWN.

LIKE I SAID, I THINK YOU COULD GET FROM LIKE HIGHLAND A, CC HIGHLAND, ALL THE WAY UP TO THE DOMAIN AND THE Q2 STADIUM.

UM, SO, SO WE THINK IT'S KIND OF A REALLY IMPORTANT PIECE OF TRYING TO MINIMIZE CAR USAGE OF THIS SITE IS TO HAVE THOSE SORT OF BIKING ROUTES.

UM, AND SO, SO YEAH, WE'VE HAD A FEW DIFFERENT CONVERSATIONS ABOUT IT.

I THINK, I THINK THEY HADN'T QUITE CONSIDERED THE IMPACT.

SO WE, WE'VE GONE THROUGH A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT ROUNDS AND ENDED UP WITH WHAT YOU SAW IN THE PRESENTATION, WHEREAS THEY, THEY WILL AGREE TO, UH, I BELIEVE IT'S A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS IF THEY BILL OVER 120 FEET.

AND SO OUR CURRENT CONCERN IS JUST THAT MAYBE WE DON'T LOVE THE 120 FOOT TRIGGER 'CAUSE IT MIGHT INCENTIVIZE THEM NOT TO BUILD UP TO THAT.

SO THAT'S KIND OF THE, THE STATUS OF THAT POINT.

UH, MS. KLASKO, CAN I ASK, UM, YOU TO MAYBE HELP FURTHER SOME OF THAT CONVERSATION AS WELL? THANK YOU MR. NIL.

THANK YOU COMMISSIONER AZAR FOR THE QUESTION.

SO THE QUESTION ABOUT THE RED LINE, UM, FIRST WHEN WE FIRST, UH, SAW THE, THE REQUEST IS MY CLIENT DID NOT SEE HOW, HOW THE RESIDENTS OF OUR PROJECT WOULD BENEFIT FROM THE RED LINE 'CAUSE OF THE CONNECTIVITY.

AS YOU CAN SEE, WE DON'T, THERE'S IT A DIRECT CONNECTION TO THE RED LINE.

IT'S IN A WAY OF, UH, FURTHER EAST WE ARE.

UM, BUT, UH, WE DID RECEIVE A MAP FROM THE FOLKS FROM THE TO SHOW IN THE FUTURE REALLY IF THE, UH, COULD YOU PLEASE PULL UP MY MAP, MY PRESENTATION? IT'S BEST TO PROBABLY SHOW THAT, UH, THE, MY PRESENTATION.

SO, UM, YOU SEE DALE DRIVE, DALE DRIVE DEAD ENDS, THERE IS A COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT CURRENTLY THAT IS THERE.

SO THE POINT, SO IN THE FUTURE, WHENEVER THE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT IS REDEVELOPED, THE GOAL IS THAT THEN RE RESIDENTS FROM OUR SITE WOULD THEN BE ABLE TO BIKE THROUGH DELL DRIVE, WHICH IS NOT THERE.

AND SO TO THE RED LINE, SO THE POINT MY, OUR CLIENTS MATES LIKE DONATING $250,000 FOR SOMETHING THAT, UM, MAY OR MAY NOT HAPPEN ANYTIME SOON.

UM, THAT'S REALLY WHERE THE, THE WE, UH, THE AMOUNT, UH, UH, COMES FROM AND ALSO THE, THE TRIGGER.

SO WE, WE ARE GONNA CONTINUE TO TALK ABOUT BETWEEN OUR AND COUNCIL REALLY THROUGH THE TRIGGER POINT WHEN THE FUNDS WOULD BE AVAILABLE.

SO IT'S, WE WE'RE STILL OPEN TO HAVING THAT DIALOGUE.

UM, SO UNLIKE YOUR COMMUNITY PARK, THE PARKS DEPARTMENT IS STILL, WE'RE GONNA WORK WITH 'EM REGARDING AND THAT BENEFITS THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND OUR RESIDENTS HERE.

SO THANK YOU.

ANDERSON, WE SHARE ANDERSON LANE FROM D SEVEN.

ALRIGHT, COMMISSIONERS, LET MAY WAIT TO SEE OUR ONLINE COMMISSIONERS.

ALL RIGHT, NEXT QUESTION.

COMMISSIONER HAYNES.

THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR.

AND I'LL TAKE JUST A FEW SECONDS TO EDITORIAL LIES, EVEN THOUGH IT'S DISTRICT FOUR, UM, D SEVEN AND I'M, I'M SURE MY FELLOW COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONER JOHNSON WILL AGREE WITH ME.

UH,

[00:45:01]

IT IS ALL YOU FOLKS THAT ARE SAYING ANDERSON LANE'S NOT A GOOD PLACE TO BE.

IT IS A GREAT PLACE TO BE.

UH, WE'VE GOT COVER THREE, WE'VE GOT ENCHILADA EMA, UH, DON'T DIS ANDERSON LANE, PLEASE.

SO WITH THAT EDITORIAL, UM, UH, LET ME HAVE THE, ACTUALLY LET ME HAVE THE, UH, UH, MR. YES, THANKS MR. NEIL.

UM, UM, I APPRECIATE YOU AS, UM, AS COMMISSIONER COX WAS SAYING, IT FEELS PROBABLY LIKE YOU'RE FIGHTING THE DRAGON OR FIGHTING LOTS OF INCOMING, UM, YOU GOT A LOT OF INCENTIVES IN HERE AND, AND I COMMEND YOU FOR THAT.

UM, I DON'T SEE ANYTHING ABOUT AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

UM, HAVE, HAVE YOU ASKED FOR THAT? WHAT, WHAT'S BEEN YOUR REQUEST? SO, SO I I, I BREEZED OVER THAT ONE QUITE QUICKLY.

WE, WE AGREED TO JUST IMPLEMENT THE CITY COUNCIL'S JULY 18TH PDA GUIDELINES, UH, IN THIS PROJECT.

SO THEY WERE, WHILE WE WERE HAVING THE NEGOTIATIONS, THE COUNCIL, UH, SO YEAH, SHE JUST HANDED ME THE GUIDELINES.

SO THE GUIDELINES ARE THAT FOR, OH, IT'S BEEN A WHILE SINCE I'VE LOOKED AT THIS.

UH, OKAY.

PDAP.

SO, OKAY, SO IF IT'S, UH, THEY CAN DO 12% AT 60% MFI, IF THEY'RE AT 90 FEET AND IF THEY GO, UH, OVER 120 FEET, IT WOULD BE 15% AT 60 MFI OR 12% AT 50 MFI.

SO THAT, THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE'VE BOTH AGREED TO, THAT THOSE GUIDELINES ARE, ARE GOOD FOR THIS SITE SINCE IT WAS DESIGNED FOR THE PDA ANYWAYS.

AND YEAH.

AND, AND YOU PLAN TO INCORPORATE THAT INTO THE, INTO THE, THE COVENANT? YES.

AND THE YES.

AND, AND Y'ALL ARE, LOOK, THIS IS A NEGOTIATION BETWEEN TWO PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS OR PRIVATE PARTIES.

AND, AND I GET, I'M NOT TRYING TO GET IN BETWEEN YOU, UH, KEEP NEGOTIATE, BUT WE COULD, AS COMMISSIONER COX SAID MORE ELOQUENTLY THAN I CAN, WE COULD DO A LOT OF THIS THROUGH ZONING AND, AND JUST, YOU KNOW, THIS IS GONNA BE A, AN ENFORCEMENT AND POLICING NIGHTMARE.

IF YOU DO THIS THROUGH A PRIVATE PARTY, JUST MY, AND YOU KNOW, I'M STILL THE NEW KID ON THE BLOCK HERE.

I I'M STILL LEARNING THIS STUFF, BUT I CAN TELL YOU, YOU'RE, YOU THINK THIS NEGOTIATION'S TOUGH RIGHT NOW AS YOU GET DOWN THE ROAD, KEEPING SOME OF THIS GOING IS GONNA BE TOUGH.

SO, WELL, YOU GOTTA PLAY THE HANDS YOU'RE DEALT NOT THE ONE YOU WISH YOU HAD.

UH, MSLA, UH, UH, YOU'RE AGREED TO THE, TO THE, UH, AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMPONENTS? YES.

UM, THAT'S ALL I GOT.

THANKS MADAM CHAIR.

SEEING COMMISSIONER MAXWELL.

UM, YES.

SO I ACTUALLY HAD A QUESTION FOR STAFF FIRST, AND THEN I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT.

UH, AND THIS IS JUST MOSTLY RELATED TO CLARIFICATION BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY WE'VE HAD SOME CONVERSATIONS ABOUT PDS VERSUS PDAS, RIGHT? AND IT SEEMS LIKE THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF A ARBITRARY HEIGHT CHANGE HERE BETWEEN THE ONE 20 AND TWO 50.

CAN WE TALK ABOUT THAT AND HAS COUNCIL CONSIDERED MAKING THIS A LITTLE BIT MORE? BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE WE'RE REALLY DEALING WITH TWO DIFFERENT THINGS AND MAYBE THIS IS A LITTLE BIT OF A SQUARE PEG, ROUND HOLE SITUATION.

SO, UM, I'M NOT SURE I REALLY UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION.

THIS, THE APPLICANT ORIGINALLY PROPOSED A HEIGHT OF 250 FEET THROUGH THE PDA, THE CH BASED DISTRICT WILL GET YOU TO 120 DEPENDING ON THE IMPERVIOUS COVER THAT YOU BUILD ON THE SITE.

UM, THE STAFF WAS RELUCTANT TO RECOMMEND THAT LEVEL OF HEIGHT AT THIS LOCATION WITHOUT HAVING ANY ASSURITY OF COMMUNITY BENEFITS.

SO WE WERE LOOKING AT THE PDA PRO OR THE PUD, SORRY, NOW I'M DOING IT.

WE'RE LOOKING AT THE PUD PROCESS, WHICH IS WHERE THE STAFF COULD ACTUALLY REVIEW, UH, THE PROPOSED COMMUNITY BENEFITS, WHICH THE APPLICANT IS OBVIOUSLY TALKING TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD ABOUT.

UM, BUT IT WOULD ACTUALLY GO THROUGH STAFF DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW, UM, TO, FOR THE DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS TO REVIEW THE SITE AND TO LOOK AT THE CAPACITY AND WHAT WOULD NORMALLY BE REQUIRED AND THROUGH THE TIER REQUIREMENTS IN A PUD.

YEAH, AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT I WAS ACTUALLY TRYING TO GET AT IS, YOU KNOW, IS IN THIS SITUATION YOU ALL HAVE, IT'S, IT'S MOVING FORWARD AS A PDA, BUT IT SEEMS LIKE A PUD REALLY MIGHT, A PUD MIGHT ACTUALLY BE THE BETTER TOOL HERE.

GET THERE AT THAT HEIGHT WITHOUT DOING A PUD WITH BENEFITS.

AND I WAS JUST CURIOUS, LIKE, IS THERE A WAY TO SORT OF SAY, NO, THIS REALLY DOESN'T WORK FOR A PDA BECAUSE I, I, I THINK I SHARED THE CONCERNS TO OTHER COMMISSIONERS HAVE MENTIONED ABOUT THIS IS A PRIVATE COVENANT, HOW ARE WE GONNA ENFORCE IT? THERE'S ALSO A LOT OF QUESTIONS RELATED TO SORT OF SUPERIORITY BECAUSE WE ARE TRYING TO ENSURE THAT, AND WE WOULD BE DOING THAT IF THIS WAS A PUD, BUT WE'RE NOT DOING THIS 'CAUSE IT'S A PDA.

SO I GUESS I'M JUST CURIOUS FROM STAFF PERSPECTIVE, IS THERE A WAY TO SORT OF SAY TO AN APPLICANT LIKE, NO, ABSOLUTELY THIS DOESN'T SQUARE PEG, GROUND HOLE? THAT WAS SORT OF MY QUESTION.

WE DID .

SO WE, WE MET WITH THEM AND WE SAID, OKAY, UH, WE REALLY CAN'T

[00:50:01]

SO WE SAID WE COULD GET THERE, YOU KNOW, THROUGH A PDA BY LIMITING IT TO 120.

AND SO THAT'S WHERE WE LEFT IT.

AND UM, YOU KNOW, THE APPLICANT AMENDED THEIR REQUEST AND THEN, YOU KNOW, THE EOD CAME ALONG, OF COURSE WAS IN THE PROCESS AND WE LOOKED AT PROHIBITING CERTAIN USES THAT WERE NOT, YOU KNOW, CONDUCIVE TO THIS SITE BECAUSE THEY WERE AUTOCENTRIC.

SO WE REMOVED THOSE USES IN OUR RECOMMENDATION AS PART OF OUR RECOMMENDATION.

UM, AND THAT'S WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW.

SO, UM, I DID WANNA ANSWER COMMISSIONER COX'S QUESTION.

I LOOKED UP THE BROD OAKS PUD AND IT IS 270 FEET, 75 FEET AND HEIGHT AS THE MAX WITH THE BENEFITS.

SO, SO YEAH.

AND THEN I GUESS ONE OTHER QUESTION REGARDING THIS IS THAT WE'RE SEEING THINGS LIKE A EO AND LIKE A LOT OF GREAT CONNECTIVITY AND THAT'S ALL WONDERFUL, BUT IF THIS WAS JUST GOING FORWARD AS A REGULAR PDA, THAT WOULDN'T BE REQUIRED.

THAT'S ALL PRIVATE COVENANT.

AND WE HAVE OBVIOUSLY A WONDERFUL NEIGHBORHOOD TEAM THAT'S REALLY TRYING TO MAKE THIS A GREAT WITH SUPPORT FROM LOCAL ADVOCACY GROUPS.

SO I GUESS I'M JUST CONCERNED THAT, YOU KNOW, OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS MAY NOT HAVE THOSE OPPORTUNITIES OR THAT ENGAGEMENT.

SO WHY ARE WE SAYING THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO THAT TYPE OF PLACE MAKING FOR A PDA AT ONE 20 THAT YOU DO HAVE TO DO IF THIS WAS A PUD AT TWO 50? AND I GUESS THAT'S KIND OF A ZONING QUESTION AND I'M, I'M JUST CURIOUS IF, IF THAT HAS BEEN CONSIDERED IN TERMS OF THOSE DIFFERENCES.

WE WERE LOOKING AT THE INTENSITY OF DEVELOPMENT ON THE SITE AND WHAT WE THOUGHT WOULD ACTUALLY, YOU KNOW, BE DEVELOPED HERE.

AND, AND SO THAT'S WHERE WE LANDED ON, WE HAVE MANY DISCUSSIONS, BACK AND FORTH, EVEN JUST AMONGST STAFF ABOUT WHETHER WE COULD SUPPORT THIS.

BUT UNDERSTAND, I MEAN, THE DOMAIN IS A PDA TOO.

SO, AND WE HAVE SET THAT PRECEDENT WHERE WE HAVE DONE PDAS, WHERE WE'VE INCREASED THE HEIGHT.

UM, WE, THAT TOOK A LOT OF WORK.

I WAS THE CASE MANAGER YES.

ON THE DOMAIN.

AND THAT DID TAKE A LOT OF WORK AND A LOT OF PROHIBITED USES AND SETBACKS AND THINGS THAT WE INCORPORATED INTO IT TO MAKE THAT PDA WORK.

UM, THIS BEING A 16 ACRE SITE, IT WOULD MEET THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR A PUD, WHICH IS 10 ACRES.

UM, SO IT WAS SOMETHING THAT WE PUT THERE OUT THERE TO THE APPLICANT, BUT UNDERSTAND AS STAFF, WE CAN ONLY REVIEW WHAT THEY APPLY FOR.

ABSOLUTELY.

AND SO THAT'S WHERE WE ARE.

I DID HAVE ONE QUICK QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.

UM, REGARDING THE PARKING.

UM, WE HAVE OBVIOUSLY MADE A HUGE EFFORT IN AUSTIN TO BE, YOU KNOW, REALLY TAKE AWAY OUR PARKING MINIMUMS AND I'M SO GLAD THAT YOU ALL ARE OPEN TO THESE CONVERSATIONS, BUT, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT REALLY DOES JUST KILL GOOD KIND OF WALKAWAY NEIGHBORHOODS OUTTA THOSE PARKING PODIUMS, AND IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU ALL ARE TRYING TO WORK THROUGH THAT, BUT I'M JUST CURIOUS, IS THERE AN OPPORTUNITY TO REALLY GET THE PARKING TO A GOOD PLACE, YOU KNOW, POT, POTENTIALLY MORE UNDERGROUND PARKING OR CERTAINLY LESS PARKING ON SITE? I GUESS I'M CONCERNED THAT THAT SEEMS TO BE A REAL STICKING POINT AND IF THERE'S A LOT OF PARKING PODIUMS THAT IS REALLY GOING TO SAY RUIN THE VIBE OF WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO HERE.

YEAH, WE, WE ARE GONNA CONTINUE TO REALLY WORK THROUGH ALL OF THIS THINGS BETWEEN ON COUNCIL AND, UM, I WOULD LIKE TO, UM, TO ADD THAT, UH, THE, UM, SOME OF THE DISCUSSIONS WE HAD IS REALLY BORROWING ALSO FROM THE, UH, BRODY OAKS PUD.

IN FACT, THEY HAVE A SECTION REGARDING, UH, SCREENING FOR THE PARKING GARAGES.

THERE ARE NO REQUIREMENTS FOR UNDERGROUND PARKING FOR THE BRODY OAKS PUD I'VE READ ALL OF IT.

AND THE LANGUAGE WE HAD UNDER PARKING IS THAT THEY WOULD HAVE SCREENING IN A MORE DELINEATED, UH, DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT THE SCREENING WOULD BE FOR PARKING GARAGES.

SO WE ARE COMMITTED TO WORKING THROUGH THIS.

AND, AND BY THE WAY, YOU GUYS DID APPROVE, UH, I HAD DANNY'S PUD, UM, FOR 3, 230 FEET AND I CAME BACK TO YOU FOR THE PINNACLE PLAZA FOR THE HOTEL, DOUBLE TREE HOTEL, WORKED WITH THE SWEET DEAL NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION TO DO C-H-P-D-A AND THEY GAVE, ALLOWED US TO GO TO 330 FEET.

WHEN I ASKED WAS JUST TWO 80.

SO WE DO RECENTLY WENT BY CONSENT, SO MAYBE JUST DIDN'T.

OKAY, WELL, WE'LL HAVE TO MOVE ON.

UM, THANK YOU.

NEXT QUESTION.

UH OH, COMMISSIONER JOHNSON.

I SHOULD, I SHOULD KNOW THE ANSWER TO THIS, BUT I DON'T.

UM, QUESTION FOR STAFF.

UM, SO MS, SO YOU MENTIONED THAT THE PDA CANNOT DO MOST OF THE MODIFICATIONS OR REQUIREMENTS THAT WERE INCLUDED IN THE, THE NEIGHBORHOOD REPRESENTATIVES PRESENTATION.

WHAT, JUST VERY BRIEFLY, WHAT CAN A PDA MODIFY? IS IT ONLY THE REQUIREMENTS THAT APPLY TO THE BASE ZONING DISTRICT IN SUB CHAPTER C OF THE ZONING CODE? SO LET ME PULL IT UP REALLY QUICK.

HERE ARE THE PDA REQUIREMENTS.

REGULAT REGULATIONS ESTABLISHED BY A PDA COMBINING DISTRICT MAY MODIFY, PERMITTED OR CONDITIONAL USE USES AUTHORIZED IN THE BASE DISTRICT EXCEPT FOR SUBCHAPTER E, WHICH IS COMPATIBILITY.

UH, ARTICLE 10, THE SITE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO THE BASE DISTRICT OFF STREET PARKING OR LOADING SIGN REGULATIONS OR LANDSCAPING SCREENING REGULATIONS THAT ARE APPLICABLE IN THE BASE DISTRICT.

THAT'S IT.

SO JUST TO UNDERSTAND THAT AS AN EXAMPLE, UNDER PARKING, WOULD

[00:55:02]

BUT, UM, IS THE WAY PARKING IS REGULATED IN THE BASE DISTRICT, IN THIS CASE, CH, SUCH THAT A PDA ORDINANCE COULD PROHIBIT SURFACE PARKING, BUT ALLOW STRUCTURED PARKING? I, I DO NOT BELIEVE SO.

I DIDN'T REQUIRE PARKING ANYMORE, BUT, UH, WHEN THEY SPEAK TO PARKING, I BELIEVE THEY MEAN THE REQUIRED PARKING, WHICH OF COURSE, SINCE THIS TIME, YOU KNOW, WE PA PASSED THE PARKING REGULATION CHANGES.

SO WE CAN'T CONTROL THROUGH THIS, WHETHER IT WOULD BE SURFACE PARKING OR UNDERGROUND PARKING THROUGH A PDA.

AND IT'S NOT REGULARLY, PARKING ISN'T TREATED AS A USE WHEN IT COMES TO ONSITE PARKING FOR DEVELOPMENTS LIKE IT'S AN ACCESSORY USE TO THE PRINCIP PRINCIPAL USE? IT WOULD, IT WOULD BE JUST ONSITE.

YOU KNOW, THERE'S TWO, TWO DIFFERENT CATEGORIES, OFFSITE ACCESSORY PARKING, AND I'D HAVE TO PULL IT UP.

UM, BUT THIS WOULD BE ONSITE FOR THE ACTUAL DEVELOPMENT, SO.

SO IT WOULDN'T BE CONSIDERED AN ACCESSORY USE JUST PART OF NO, IT WOULDN'T BE AN ACCESSORY.

IT WOULD JUST BE PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT.

SO, UM, THANK YOU.

AND THEN ANOTHER QUESTION.

SO, UH, THE APPLICANT AND MR. N BOTH MENTIONED THE, THE PDA GUIDELINES.

I REMEMBER HEARING ABOUT THOSE COME FROM COUNCIL DIRECTION.

WHEN, WHEN ARE THOSE BEING ADOPTED? WHAT'S THE TIMELINE ON THAT? UH, FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN PDAS.

AND IS THAT GONNA COME TO PLANNING COMMISSION? I DON'T KNOW WHERE THEY ARE ON THE GANTT CHART IN THE PROCESS.

THAT WAS A RESOLUTION TO INITIATE THAT PROCESS TO DO A DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM ON JULY 18TH FOR AFFORDABILITY IN PDAS.

SO I'M NOT SURE WHERE THAT IS IN THE PROCESS.

THAT IS FAIRLY QUICK THAT THAT JUST WAS MM-HMM.

, UH, PASSED AS A RESOLUTION, SO.

UM, AND THEN A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT, MS. GLASGOW.

UM, SO JUST WHILE YOU'RE WALKING UP TO THE PODIUM, UH, WHY DID YOU CHOOSE TO PURSUE A PDA AS OPPOSED TO A PUD? I'M JUST CURIOUS YOUR REASONING OR YOUR CLIENT'S REASONING BEHIND THAT DECISION.

WELL, THE, THE PUD, UH, FIRST OF ALL IS IT'S MORE EXPENSIVE THAN, UM, THAN REGULAR ZONING.

AND, UH, THE PDA TOOL HAS BEEN HERE FOR A WHILE.

IN FACT.

MM-HMM, , MR. SO JUST INDICATED THAT THE DOMAIN AS IT IS TODAY WAS ADOPTED THROUGH A PDA, YOU KNOW, L-I-P-D-A TO CREATE WHAT YOU HAVE THERE TODAY.

AND, UM, THE, UH, THE SITE IS DEVELOPED USING SUBJECT E, YOU KNOW, THAT HELP THE SITE LOOK THE WAY IT IS.

SO, UM, REALLY WE USE THE P TWO, WHICH, UH, I HAVE DONE SEVERAL TIMES.

THIS IS MY PROBABLY SIXTH, UH, CASE WITH A PDA THAT HAS BEEN APPROVED, UM, THROUGH THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

MORE RECENTLY, I JUST INDICATED DID ONE IN, UM, DISTRICT, UH, ONE ACTUALLY, ACTUALLY HAD, HAVE HAD THREE.

AND THE, ALL THOSE CASES I THINK WENT BACK ON CONSENT EXCEPT FOR THE DENNY'S, UH, WHICH YOU GUYS HAD TO, WE HAD THE ALLY PDA ISSUE BECAUSE OF THE ACREAGE.

COUNCIL HAD TO AMEND THE PDA MM-HMM.

SO I THINK COUNCIL IS NOW FINALLY LOOKING FORWARD AND, UH, CREATING, UH, COMMUNITY BENEFITS INTO THE PDS STANDARDS.

SO THE RESOLUTION COUNCIL PASSED, UH, DIRECTING STAFF TO INITIATE THE CODE AMENDMENT AND BRING IT TO THEM BEFORE I THINK 2025 WHEN THEY RECALIBRATE THE OTHER DENSITY BONUSES.

SO, YOU KNOW, MAYBE, MAYBE WE'LL GET A COUNCIL AND WE'LL JUST SAY, WE'LL, YOU KNOW, IF THAT IS ADOPTED, WE CAN COMPLY WITH THAT, WHICH WILL HAVE THE COMMUNITY BENEFITS TOO.

SO WE CAN STILL DO, GO THAT ROUTE AND, AND NOT PURSUE THE AND SORRY TO CUT YOU OFF, JUST DO I STILL HAVE TIME FOR ONE MORE QUESTION? YOU HAVE 18 SECONDS.

UH, MR. OTIS, I'M SORRY TO MAKE YOU RUN UP.

UM, IS THERE ANYTHING EXPLICITLY IN CODE THAT PREVENTS US FROM GOING OVER 120 FEET IN A PDA OR IS THAT SIMPLY COMMON PRACTICE BASED ON THE EXISTING ALLOWANCES FOR HYATT AND THE CH BASED DISTRICT? NO, THERE IS NOTHING IN THE CODE PREVENTING YOU FROM GOING OVER, UH, 120 FEET AS YOU CAN SEE IN THE DOMAIN.

UM, SO IT BASICALLY WAS STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.

IF THE APPLICANT WAS NOT GOING TO DO A PUD, WE FELT THAT THIS HEIGHT, 120 FEET CH BASED DISTRICT HEIGHT WAS MORE APPROPRIATE AT THIS LOCATION WITHOUT THE COMMUNITY BENEFITS OF A PUD.

SO WHAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO DO IS AMEND THEIR ZONING APPLICATION TO MAKE IT A PUD ZONING APPLICATION.

WE HAVE TWO MORE SPOTS FOR QUESTIONS MIGHT HAVE BEEN GETTING ANSWERED ALONG THE WAY.

I'LL CIRCLE BACK.

I KNOW VICE CHAIR WANTED TO TAKE A SPOT IF NO ONE ELSE HAD QUESTIONS.

SO, VICE CHAIR.

UM, THANK YOU CHAIR.

THIS WOULD BE A QUESTION FOR STAFF IN THE NIGHT.

ACTUALLY HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN THIS AS WELL.

SORRY, MR. VEES.

UM, I, I GUESS THE FIRST QUESTION IS, IF, IF, IF THE APPLICANT WERE TO SORT OF CHANGE IT TO A PUD, WHAT WOULD THAT LOOK LIKE? THEIR REQUEST? SO THAT MS. GLASGOW IS CORRECT, THAT IF THEY WANTED TO AMEND THEIR REQUEST, IT WOULD BE ADDITIONAL FEES.

[01:00:01]

AND WE BASICALLY WOULD START OVER BECAUSE THEY WOULD HAVE TO, UM, COME IN WITH A PUD LAND USE PLAN AND PROPOSAL OF WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING TO DO ON THE DIFFERENT SITE.

YOU KNOW, ON THE, IF IT WAS MORE THAN ONE TRACK, DEPENDING ON HOW THEY LOOK AT THE LAYOUT OF THE PROPERTY.

AND THEN IT WOULD NEED TO GO TO ALL OF THE REVIEW STAFF, UM, TO GO THROUGH THE PUD RE REVIEW PROCESS.

SO I ALSO BELIEVE ACTUALLY THEY WOULD PROBABLY HAVE TO DO A DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT FIRST TOO, BECAUSE THERE HASN'T BEEN A DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT AND THAT IS A REQUIREMENT FOR PUD SUBMITTALS, UM, ON THE PROPERTY.

SO THAT STEP WOULD HAVE TO GO FIRST BEFORE THEY COULD ACTUALLY SUBMIT A PUD APPLICATION, SO GOT, GOT IT.

AND, AND WHAT IN, DURING A REGULAR PUD PROCESS, I'M NOT SURE IF YOU CAN HELP ME ANSWER THIS QUESTION, BUT HOW WOULD THE NEIGHBORHOOD WORK ON SOME OF THE THINGS THAT THEY'RE WORKING ON? IS IT USUALLY STAFF THAT'S MAKING THE DETERMINATION ON WHAT THE CITY WOULD LIKE TO SEE, OR IS THERE ALSO A CONVERSATION WITH THE NEIGHBORS ON WHAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO SEE AS PART OF THE PUD? SO USUALLY IN A PUD PROCESS, OBVIOUSLY, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE TIER REQUIREMENTS IN THE CODE THAT MAKE UP WHAT IS A PUD.

SO THE TIER ONE REQUIREMENTS ARE, THIS IS WHAT, YOU KNOW, THIS JUST MAKES IT A PUD TIER.

TIER TWO IS WHAT MAKES IT EXCEPTIONAL, WHAT MAKES IT, UM, YOU KNOW, A COMMUNITY BENEFIT.

IT MAKES IT A PROJECT THAT IS WORTHY OF THE PUD UH, REGULATIONS.

SO DURING THAT TIME, USUALLY OBVIOUSLY STAFF HAS CONVERSATIONS WITH THE APPLICANT, WITH THE NEIGHBORHOODS.

UM, AS MS. COMMISSIONER COX CAN ATTEST IT TO, WHEN WE DID THE GROVE AT CHILL CREEK PD, THERE WERE NUMEROUS CONVERSATIONS WITH THE NEIGHBORHOODS THAT WERE INVOLVED AS WELL AS CITY COUNCIL OFFICES, AS WELL AS, UH, OTHERS DEPARTMENTS, UM, TO, AND THEN THE APPLICANT AS TO WHAT THE BENEFITS OF THE PUD WERE THROUGH THEIR APPLICATION.

THANK YOU, MR. NIL, CAN I ASK YOU A QUESTION? THANK YOU.

I I THINK YOU'RE HEARING QUITE A DEGREE OF CONSTERNATION FROM A NUMBER OF COMMISSIONERS REGARDING SORT OF THE PUD VERSUS PDA AND I.

AND I'LL BE HONEST, I THINK FROM A POLICY PERSPECTIVE, IT SEEMS LIKE A BEAUTY ACTUALLY WOULD BE BETTER FROM A POLICY MAKING PERSPECTIVE.

I'LL BE HONEST, I THINK I'M GETTING A LITTLE STUCK RIGHT NOW ON ONE THING, WHICH IS IF THERE WAS THAT MOVE, I, WHAT I WOULD NOT WANT IS FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO FEEL LIKE ALL THE WORK THAT Y'ALL HAVE DONE HAS SORT OF GONE TO WASTE OR SOMETHING.

AND I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'RE, WE'D BE WILLING TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD IN THAT WAY RIGHT NOW, BUT I WONDER IF YOU HAVE ANY THOUGHTS ON SWITCHING TO PED OR THE AMOUNT OF WORK THAT YOU AND YOUR NEIGHBORS HAVE PUT IN? WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE? SO I, I, WE'VE DEFINITELY PUT IN A LOT OF WORK.

UM, WE'VE MET THREE WEEKS IN A ROW ON MONDAY EVENING FOR ABOUT HOUR AND A HALF TO TWO HOURS TO TRY TO, YOU KNOW, KIND OF GET TO WE'RE, WE ARE, UM, I NEVER CONSIDERED LIKE THAT IT COULD BE OR SWITCHED TO A P.

SO, SO I HAVEN'T, I'M KIND OF THINKING OUT LOUD.

UM, BUT ONE OF THE THOUGHTS I DID HAVE WAS THAT I THINK THE PUD PROCESS, YOU KNOW, WOULD'VE HAD MORE SUPPORT FROM MORE LOCATIONS, WHICH WOULD'VE BEEN, YOU KNOW, HELPFUL, UM, AND APPRECIATED.

UM, SO I MEAN, I THINK THAT IT WOULDN'T, I THINK WE COULD USE A LOT OF THE MATERIAL, SO I THINK IT WOULDN'T NECESSARILY LIKE CHANGE WHAT WE'RE ASKING.

BECAUSE THE PROCESS CHANGED.

I THINK WE'VE SPENT ENOUGH TIME TALKING ABOUT IT THAT WE'RE PRETTY, WE HAVE A VISION FOR WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE.

SO I DON'T KNOW THAT UNLESS THE PROCESS REQUIRED A TON OF EXTRA INPUT, I DON'T KNOW THAT WE WOULD NEED TO PROVIDE A TON OF EXTRA INPUT.

UM, SO I GUESS THOSE ARE KIND OF MY RAMBLING THOUGHTS.

THIS IS A LITTLE BIT OF AN UNFAIR QUESTION YOU CAN CHOOSE TO DENY TO ANSWER IT.

UM, WHICH WOULD BE, IF WE WERE TO ASK FOR THAT, OR IF THE APPLICANT WOULD, I DON'T WANT THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO FEEL LIKE THE RUG GOT PULLED OUT FROM UNDERNEATH YOUR FEET.

LIKE, WOULD THERE BE A CONCERN IF THERE WAS A SWITCH? IT LOOKS LIKE OF COURSE IT WOULD, IT WOULD REQUIRE YOU ALL TO ENGAGE IN A SEPARATE PROCESS.

, EVEN THOUGH A LOT OF THAT WORK SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN DONE.

YEAH, I THINK I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE IT BACK TO THE GROUP BEFORE I WOULD COMMIT TO AN ANSWER ON THAT, BECAUSE IT WAS, IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S NEVER BEEN CONSIDERED OR CONCEIVED UNTIL THIS MOMENT.

SO, NO, I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND THAT.

AND THANK YOU FOR PUTTING UP WITH MY QUESTIONS.

YEAH, THANK YOU.

THAT'S REALLY HELPFUL.

COMMISSIONER COX? NO, I WAS GONNA MAKE A MOTION.

UM, I DON'T SEE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, SO LET'S WE'LL HEAR YOUR MOTION.

I WAS GONNA MAKE A MOTION TO POSTPONE THIS ITEM TO OUR SEPTEMBER 24TH MEETING.

SECOND.

SUBSTITUTE MOTION STAFF RECOMMENDATION.

UH, WOULD YOU LIKE, LIKE TO SPEAK A SUBSTITUTE? UH, YES.

[01:05:02]

AND TO CLARIFY, THAT'S FOR BOTH THE MPA AND THE REZONING? CORRECT.

IS THERE A SECOND FOR THE SUBSTITUTE? I, I'M SO SORRY, CHAIR.

CAN I ASK A CLARIFYING QUESTION? STAFF, CAN YOU PLEASE SHARE WHAT YOUR RECOMMENDATION ON THIS IS SO WE KNOW EXACTLY WHAT IT IS THAT WE'RE VOTING ON HERE? SO THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION THAT'S BEFORE YOU ON THE ZONING CHANGE IS FOR C-H-P-D-A-N-P ZONING.

UM, IT WOULD INCLUDE THE PROHIBITED USES THAT ARE LISTED IN YOUR BACKUP FROM THE EOD ORDINANCE AND THE CONDITIONAL USES FROM THE EOD ORDINANCE.

IT WOULD ALSO LIMIT THE PROPERTY TO ALL OTHER CH UH, BASED DISTRICT USES.

UM, LIMIT THE HEIGHT TO MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 120 FEET MAX, MAXIMUM LOT SIZE OF 2000, UH, 20,000 SQUARE FEET MAXIMUM FLORIDA AREA RATIO OF EIGHT TO ONE.

THE MINIMUM SETBACKS WOULD BE ZERO FOR THE FRONT YARD, ZERO FOR THE SIDE, UH, STREET SIDE YARD, ZERO FOR THE INTERIOR SIDE YARD.

ZERO FOR THE REAR YARD, THE MAXIMUM BUILDING COVERAGE WOULD BE 95%.

THE MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS COVER WOULD BE 95%, AND THE MINIMUM SITE AREA WOULD BE NONE.

SO THAT'S WHAT'S INCLUDED IN THE CURRENT APPLICATION, UH, FOR THIS PDA ALONG WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO PROHIBIT THE CERTAIN USES THAT ARE LISTED IN YOUR BACKUP.

I CAN READ THEM OUT LOUD, BUT YEAH, ACTUALLY I'M, I, I APPRECIATE THAT AND I'M SORRY, I MISUNDERSTOOD.

SO THANK YOU FOR VICE CHAIR FOR HAVING THAT CLARIFICATION.

I'M GONNA WITHDRAW BEFORE THERE'S A SECOND ON IT.

NOTED.

SO WE GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER COX AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON TO POSTPONE THIS ITEM, UH, ITEMS TWO AND THREE UNTIL SEPTEMBER 24TH, WHICH WOULD BE OUR SECOND MEETING IN SEPTEMBER.

COMMISSIONER COX, DID YOU WANNA SPEAK TO YOUR MOTION? YEAH, I, I'M, I MEAN, WE'VE, WE'VE HAD THE CONVERSATION, WHICH I THINK WAS REALLY GOOD ABOUT PDA VERSUS PI THINK PDA IS AN EXTREMELY DEFICIENT ZONING CATEGORY RIGHT NOW, AND I AM GLAD THAT WE, THAT COUNCIL IS STARTING TO MAKE THE MOVES, UM, TO ADDRESS THOSE DEFICIENCIES.

UM, THE FRUSTRATING PART ABOUT THIS, UH, OTHER THAN THE PDA VERSUS PUD IS THAT WE HEARD FROM THE APPLICANT, YOU KNOW, THAT, OH, THIS HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR A YEAR AND A HALF, YADA YADA, BUT YET EVERYTHING IS SO INCOMPLETE.

AND SO I I, I THINK BY POSTPONING THIS, BY JUST ONE MONTH, I'M NOT EXPECTING ALL OF THESE PROBLEMS. I'M NOT EXPECTING A PUD TO COME OUT OF NOWHERE.

I'M NOT EXPECTING, YOU KNOW, UH, SOME MAGICAL SOLUTION TO ALL OF THESE ISSUES.

BUT I DO WANT TO CREATE SPACE FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO GO BACK AND THINK ABOUT THIS.

AND I ALSO WANT TO CREATE A BIT MORE TIME FOR, IF, FOR THE ORIGINAL IDEA OF HAVING A PDA WITH A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT PRIVATE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT, I WANT TO SEE HOW THAT IS FLESHED OUT.

AND, AND, AND THEN THAT GIVES US THE OPPORTUNITY TO, TO REVIEW THAT AND SEE IF THIS PLANNING COMMISSION FEELS COMFORTABLE WITH TRYING TO INCORPORATE WHAT I THINK SHOULD BE BASELINE COMMUNITY BENEFITS IN A PRIVATE RESTRICTED COVENANT VERSUS AN ACTUAL ZONING ORDINANCE IN A PUT.

UH, AND I, SO, AND I THINK ONE MONTH, UH, GIVES EVERYBODY A LITTLE BIT OF BREATHING ROOM TO TRY TO FLUSH ALL THAT OUT SO THAT IT CAN COME BACK AND WE CAN MAKE A MORE FORMAL DECISION ON THIS ZONING CASE.

PLUG IN, UM, AND GET THEM TO WORK.

ANYBODY SPEAKING AGAINST COMMISSIONER MUELLER? AND I APOLOGIZE FOR THE CONFUSION ON THE SUBSTITUTE, BUT, UM, I, I, I THINK WE HEARD FROM STAFF IN THEIR PRESENTATION, AND I APOLOGIZE IF I AM INCORRECT, BUT IT SOUNDED LIKE STAFF FELT THAT THIS WAS A BETTER SITE FOR A PUD.

UM, I THINK WE'RE, AGAIN, IN A SITUATION WHERE WE'RE TRYING TO BACKFILL AND MAKE A PDA WORK WITH TOOLS WE DON'T HAVE, AND FOR RESULTS WE WON'T GET.

I THINK THE SITE IS VERY IMPORTANT FOR, UH, A NUMBER OF REASONS CITY STAFF PRESENTED TO US.

SOME OF THE AREA PLANNING THAT GOES FROM THE DOMAIN AND THE 180 3, 360 CORRIDOR.

I'M A BIG FAN OF PLANNING.

I APPRECIATE THE WORK THAT THE STAFF HAS PUT IN ON THAT, AND I THINK THIS AREA TIES IN.

I DO THINK IT'S A GREAT AREA AND IT TIES IN, AND I THINK THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS VERY CORRECT TO BRING UP THE IMPORTANCE OF THE RED LINE, UM, COMING THROUGH TO THIS AREA, PARTICULARLY AS WE LOOK TO PROMOTE, UM, MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION AWAY FROM A CAR CENTRIC FOCUS.

SO I, I'M NOT HAPPY WITH THIS THE WAY IT IS, AND EVEN IF IT COMES BACK AS, UM, AS A REVISED PDA, I'M GONNA HAVE TROUBLE WITH IT.

I DON'T LIKE THE RCS.

I THINK THEY'RE VERY DIFFICULT AND WE LOOK FOR WAYS TO, TO

[01:10:01]

AND THEY, AND I JUST THINK IT'S THE WRONG TOOL.

I THINK WHAT WE'VE GOT, AGAIN, IS A CASE OF THE WRONG TOOL ON THE WRONG ZONING SITE, NOT GETTING ANY AFFORDABLE HOUSING AT ALL.

WE'RE BEGGING FOR THE COMMUNITY BENEFITS WE NEED, AND IT NEEDS TO INTEGRATE INTO THE OTHER AREAS THAT THE STAFF'S ALREADY WORKED HARD TO PLAN.

THAT'S, THANK YOU.

ANYBODY SPEAKING AGAINST.

UM, VICE CHAIR SPEAKING FOR THANK YOU CHAIR AND THANK YOU COMMISSIONER AL FOR ALLOWING ME TO ASK THAT QUESTION EARLIER.

UM, I, I AGREE.

I THINK I WANNA POSTPONE THE ITEM TO HAVE THE ABILITY FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO GO AND FIGURE OUT THE DETAILS.

I WILL SAY THOUGH, I ALSO PARTIALLY AGREE WITH YOU, COMMISSIONER AL, I'M HAVING A LOT OF TROUBLE HONESTLY WITH THINKING LIKE WHETHER THIS SHOULD MOVE FORWARD AS A PDA OR NOT.

THE ONLY REASON I WOULD BE SUPPORTING THAT, FRANKLY, AT THIS POINT WOULD BE, SO I DON'T WANT THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO FEEL LIKE THE WORK THAT THEY'VE DONE HAS GONE AWAY.

SO I WANT THEM TO BE ABLE TO BUILD ON IT AND WORK ON THAT.

HAVING SAID THAT, I, I DO UNDERSTAND THAT WE'VE APPROVED PDAS IN THE PAST, INCLUDING THE DENNY'S CASE, BUT THERE'S A DISTINCT DIFFERENCE THAT WAS LESS THAN TWO ACRE SITE, WHICH WAS MUCH SMALLER, HAD A HIGHWAY FRONTAGE ONLY, WE'RE NOW TALKING ABOUT A 16 ACRE SITE REGULARLY, WE WOULD HAVE SEEN THINGS LIKE THIS COME AS UDS.

SO, UH, I'LL JUST BE HONEST, I'M STRUGGLING A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE I, WHILE I, I THINK ENOUGH WORK HAS GONE INTO THIS BOTH FROM THE APPLICANT AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND I WANNA THANK THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE APPLICANT BOTH FOR WORKING WITH EACH OTHER AND RESOLVING A LOT OF THIS.

THANK YOU MS. KLASKO FOR THAT AS WELL.

BUT I REALLY HOPE THAT AS WE MOVE FORWARD, WE DON'T SEE SITES OF THIS SIZE OR THIS CALIBER ACTUALLY BE ANYTHING LESS THAN BES BECAUSE THERE IS A PROCESS FOR DOING SOMETHING LIKE THIS.

AND I WANNA SUPPORT THE WORK THAT HAS ALREADY GONE INTO IT.

BUT AT THE SAME TIME, I'LL JUST BE HONEST, I'M STRUGGLING BECAUSE I DON'T WANNA SEE MORE OF THIS.

UM, SO I THINK AT LEAST A, UM, POSTPONEMENT GIVES US THE TIME TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYTHING THE NEIGHBORHOOD WANTS IS CAPTURED AND COMMITTED TO, AND THEN WE CAN MOVE FORWARD.

SO THANK YOU, UH, FOR MAKING THAT MOTION.

AND THEN LAST ABOUT FOR COMMISSIONER ANDERSON.

SO, UH, I, I'VE HEARD FROM A LOT OF FOLKS IN THIS AREA.

THEY'VE REACHED OUT REALLY EXCITED ABOUT THIS PROJECT, BUT ALSO REALLY WANTED TO MAKE SURE IT'S DONE CORRECTLY.

UM, I'D ALSO LIKE TO SAY A HUGE THANKS TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE COMMUNITY, UH, FOR BEING INVOLVED.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT DOUBLING THE NUMBER OF HOMES IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, AND I'VE BEEN ON THIS COMMISSION SINCE 2017.

I'M A, I'M ACCUSTOMED TO FOLKS REACHING OUT WITH REASONS WHY WE SHOULD REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF HOUSING.

THERE'S ALWAYS REASONS TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF HOUSING, AND THEY'RE NOT DOING THAT HERE.

WE ARE BEING ASKED TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS IS A WALKABLE, BIKEABLE, WELL CONNECTED ADDITION TO THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD THAT IS REALLY ABOUT PLACEMAKING AND, AND, AND ALL THESE ASKS ARE REALLY AMAZING.

IT'D BE GREAT TO HEAR SUCH ASKS MORE AND MORE IN THE FUTURE.

AND I'M HOPING IN THIS MONTH THAT THE APPLICANT CAN HEAR THIS LOUD AND CLEAR.

IF THEY NEED MORE TIME IN THE FORM OF THEM HAVING TO DO A PUD, SO BE IT.

MY GUESS IS THEY DON'T WANT TO DO THAT.

AND I UNDERSTAND THAT PUDS TAKE FOREVER AND THEY ARE VERY EXPENSIVE AND IT'D BE GREAT AS A CITY TO HAVE BETTER ZONING TOOLS.

CURIOUS WHERE TOWN ZONING IS.

SEEMS LIKE WE INITIATED THAT A COUPLE YEARS AGO.

UM, YOU KNOW, I, I'M NOT SAYING THAT WE HAVE TO HAVE A FINISHED PRIVATE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT BY THE TIME THIS COMES BACK TO US, BUT IT WOULD BE GREAT FOR ALL THESE FOLKS WHO HAVE NOT BEEN JUST SHOWING UP FOR WEEKS.

AS MR. NEIL SAID, I KNOW FOR A FACT MR. NEIL WAS IN MEETINGS WELL OVER A MONTH AGO ON THIS, SO I KNOW HE SPENT A LOT OF TIME ON THIS, AS HAVE MANY OTHERS.

IT WAS ONE MEETING I WAS IN WITH 40 PEOPLE TALKING ABOUT THIS FOR TWO HOURS AND THEY'VE DONE THIS REPEATEDLY.

SO, UM, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE'RE CONSIDERING THE ENTITLEMENTS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, THEY'RE REALLY, YOU KNOW, THE ASKS THAT I'VE BEEN HEARING FROM ALL THESE FOLKS ARE DEFINITELY NOT OVER THE TOP IN ANY WAY.

SO REALLY HOPING THAT THE APPLICANT TAKES THIS SERIOUSLY AND COMES BACK WITH ALL THESE FOLKS BEING 100% ON BOARD WITH EVERYTHING THEY'RE SAYING WITH THE COMMITMENTS THAT THEY'RE LOOKING FOR.

4, 5 9 AGAINST AND ABSTAINING.

LAST CHANCE TO SPEAK AGAINST, OKAY, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THIS.

THIS IS TO POSTPONE UNTIL SEPTEMBER 24TH.

THIS IS FOR ITEMS TWO AND THREE.

ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR.

IS THAT A YELLOW COMMISSIONER JOHNSON? OKAY, SO WE HAVE NINE TO ZERO TO ONE WITH COMMISSIONER JOHNSON.

ABSTAINING COMMISSIONER.

OH, I'M SORRY, COMMISSIONER.

SO THAT'S EIGHT TO ZERO TO TWO WITH COMMISSIONER MOALA JOHNSON ABSTAINING.

CASE, WHICH IS ITEM NUMBER SIX, THORNTON ROAD.

RIGHT, THANK YOU STAFF, THANK YOU TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

THANK YOU TO APPLICANT ON THOSE.

WE'LL MOVE ON TO OUR NEXT DISCUSSION

[6. Rezoning: C14-2024-0071 - Thornton Road Multifamily; District 5]

WE'RE HEARING FROM MS. HORY.

GOOD EVENING, CYNTHIA HORY WITH PLANNING APARTMENT.

THIS IS ITEM

[01:15:01]

SIX ON YOUR AGENDA CASE C 14 20 24 0 0 7 1.

THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON 2 3 1 3 2 3 1 5 2 4 0 1 AND 2 4 1 3 THORNTON ROAD.

THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION IS APPROXIMATELY 4.3 ACRES DEVELOPED WITH COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS AND HAS FRONTAGE ON THORNTON ROAD, A LEVEL ONE STREET.

THE SITE IS CURRENTLY ZONED CS AND MF TWO.

THE PROPERTY HAS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO THE NORTH, SOUTH, EAST, AND WEST.

THERE ARE MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENCES TO THE SOUTH AND WEST.

THE PROPERTIES DIRECTLY TO THE NORTH HAVE ART GALLERIES AND WORKSHOPS TO THE EAST ACROSS THE RAILROAD TRACKS OR MOBILE HOME RESIDENCES.

AND THE SOUTH AUSTIN RECREATION CENTER STAFF IS NOT RECOMMENDING THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR C-S-M-U-V DB 90 D COMBINING DISTRICT.

THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS GENERAL COMMERCIAL SERVICES VERTICAL MIXED USE BUILDING CSV COMBINING DISTRICT.

THE PROPERTY HAS SOUGHT MULTIPLE REZONINGS IN THE PAST, WHICH HAVE EITHER BEEN DENIED BY CITY COUNCIL OR WITHDRAWN BY THE APPLICANT.

A CD HAS STATED THAT THERE HAVE NOT BEEN ANY IMPROVEMENTS TO THORNTON ROAD SINCE THE CASE IN 2016 WAS DENIED, PROVING THAT THERE IS NO INDICATION FOR CHANGING THE ORIGINALLY ESTABLISHED BASED ZONING OF CS WHILE DB 90 HAS BEEN APPROVED ON LEVEL ONE STREETS IN THE PAST.

EACH ZONING CASE HAS VARYING CONDITIONS THAT THE STAFF REVIEWS WHEN MAKING A RECOMMENDATION.

THERE ARE CONCERNS ABOUT GRANTING, UM, THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST ON THORNTON ROAD.

THIS STREET IS A LEVEL ONE WITH TWO LANES AND ONLY ONE WAY IN AND OUT OF WEST OR TORF STREET FOR APPROXIMATELY 350 UNITS AS IT DEAD ENDS.

GRANTING SUCH ZONING WOULD RESULT IN A 57.51% TRAFFIC INCREASE FOR THORNTON ROAD.

THIS STREET IS CURRENTLY OPERATING AT AN UNDESIRABLE LEVEL PER THE NTA AND THE PROPOSED VALUES WILL FURTHER THIS ISSUE.

THE SITE IS 0.2 MILES FROM LAMAR BOULEVARD ACTIVITY CENTER WITH A BUS STOP ON OLD TORF AND THORNTON 0.16 MILES AWAY.

THE SITE IS NEAR PROXIMITY TO MULTIPLE ARTS STUDIOS, A MUSIC SCHOOL, AND HAS A FEW CREATIVE SPACES ON THE PROPERTY AS WELL.

IF THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST IS GRANTED, THE OVERALL PROJECT WOULD CONSIST OF APPROXIMATELY 350 RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND WILL BE SEEKING A COMPLETE MODIFICATION FOR THE GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL SPACE REQUIREMENT.

I'LL BE HERE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.

WE WILL NOW BE HEARING FROM THE APPLICANT FOR EIGHT MINUTES.

HE'S GONNA BE RECEIVING THREE MINUTES OF DONATED TIME FROM APRIL BROWN.

APRIL, ARE YOU PRESENT? HE'S NOT HERE.

I JUST NEED MY PRESENTATION UP AND WE'LL BE HEARING FROM THE APPLICANT FOR FIVE MINUTES.

COOL, THANK Y'ALL.

UH, MICHAEL WHALE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT.

NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.

UH, THE POLICY DECISION.

WAIT FOR HIM TO GET GOING.

THERE WE GO.

THE POLICY DECISION AT THE CORE OF THIS CASE CONCERNS WHETHER A DB 90 MID-RISE PROJECT IS APPROPRIATE ON A CALMER LEVEL, ONE STREET LIKE THORNTON ROAD AND IS THE CA AND IN THIS CASE, WE BELIEVE IT IS APPROPRIATE AND HERE'S WHY.

THREE REASONS.

FIRST, A STREET LEVEL IS A DESCRIPTION OF THE ROLE A STREET PLAYS IN THE BROADER NETWORK.

ITS WIDTH AND ITS DESIGN SPEED.

AND THAT THE STREET LEVEL DOES NOT NECESSARILY DETERMINE WHETHER DB 90, MID-RISE HOUSING IS APPROPRIATE OR NOT.

SECOND, THE CITY IN A NUMBER OF RECENT PRESIDENTIAL DECISIONS HAS IN FACT DETERMINED THAT MID-RISE HOUSING CAN BE APPROPRIATE ON LEVEL ONE STREETS, DEPENDING ON OTHER FACTORS, WHICH BELIEVE WE BELIEVE IS GOOD POLICY AS IT ALLOWS A DIVERSITY OF HOUSING TYPES ON THESE LOWER SPEED STREETS.

AND THIRD, THIS PARTICULAR SITE IS APPROPRIATE FOR A DB 90 MID-RISE BASED ON ITS ZONING, ITS CONTEXT, AND ITS LOCATION WALKING DISTANCE FROM FOUR TRANSIT LINES ON TWO CORRIDORS.

NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.

SO FIRST STREET LEVEL IS A DESCRIPTION.

NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.

STREET LEVEL IS A DESCRIPTION OF THE ROLE A STREET PLAYS IN THE BROADER NETWORK.

IT DOES NOT NECESSARILY DETERMINE WHETHER A CERTAIN ZONING DESIGNATION IS APPROPRIATE.

TO ILLUSTRATE THIS, WE'LL TAKE A BRIEF TOUR OF FOUR STREETS IN AUSTIN TO SEE IF WE CAN PERCEIVE THE STREET LEVEL FROM THE TYPES OF HOUSING ON THEM.

FIRST UP, GUNTER STREET IN EAST AUSTIN, AND WE'LL SEE ON THE NEXT SLIDE.

THANKS.

IT'S A LEVEL TWO STREET.

THIS IS OASIS STREET IN THE MIDDLE OF WEST CAMPUS, AND WE'LL SEE IF WE GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE'S.

A LEVEL ONE STREET.

PEKA STREET IN TARRYTOWN, WHICH IS NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.

AND FINALLY, NEXT SLIDE.

WIL AMINO DELCO DRIVE THE CITY'S NEW PERMITTING AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER, WHICH IS NEXT SLIDE.

AGAIN, THE STREET LEVEL IN AND OF ITSELF DOES NOT NECESSARILY DETERMINE WHETHER A DB 90 MID-RISE IS APPROPRIATE OR NOT.

NEXT SLIDE IN CITY PRECEDENT SUPPORTS THIS POINT.

THERE ARE A NUMBER OF RECENT INSTANCES IN WHICH THE CITY HAS APPROVED MID-RISE BUILDINGS, 75 FEET, 90 FEET, AND EVEN HIGHER ON LEVEL ONE STREETS NEAR TRANSIT CORRIDORS.

CITY ZONED WITH THE E TODD OVERLAY THREE MONTHS AGO WITH A RANGE OF HEIGHTS, SOME AS HIGH AS 120 FEET.

HERE WE HAVE TRAVIS HEIGHTS.

AND IN BLUE YOU CAN SEE ALL THE LEVEL ONE STREETS.

NEXT SLIDE IN GREEN, YOU CAN SEE THAT THE PROPERTIES THAT FRONT ONTO LEVEL ONE STREETS THAT THE

[01:20:01]

AND WHILE SOME OF THESE PROPERTIES ARE RIGHT OFF THE CORRIDOR ITSELF, A NUMBER OF THEM ARE A BIT FARTHER IN.

THE COMMON FACTOR IS THAT ALL OF THEM ARE WALKING DISTANCE TO A TRANSIT CORRIDOR.

MOST OF THESE SITES NOW I'VE TAKEN ONE OR TWO AWAY.

THESE ARE THE ONES REMAINING ACTUALLY HAVE THE HIGHEST E ET A DESIGNATION ALLOWING AN ADDITIONAL 60 FEET ON TOP OF THEIR BASE HIKE.

HERE YOU'LL SEE ANOTHER EXAMPLE, TWO SITES ON TOY ROAD THAT HAVE ACTUALLY FEATURED A NUMBER OF MULTIPLE, UH, REZONING CASES OVER THE COURSE OF SEVERAL YEARS, INCLUDING THE MOST RECENT FOUR MONTHS AGO.

CONFIRMING THAT A 90 FOOT MID-RISE IS APPROPRIATE ON A LEVEL ONE STREET, AGAIN WALKING DISTANCE TO A CORRIDOR.

SO 90 FOOT MID-RISE CAN BE APPROPRIATE ON A LEVEL ONE STREET.

WE BELIEVE IT IS APPROPRIATE AT 2313 THORNTON BASED ON ITS CURRENT ZONING.

ITS CONTEXT AND ITS LOCATION WITHIN WITH WALKING DISTANCE OF FOUR TRANSIT ROUTES ON TWO CORRIDORS.

YOU CAN SEE THE PROPERTY HERE, ROUGHLY 4.3 ACRES THAT HAS BEEN COMMERCIALLY ZONED SINCE 1967.

IT CURRENTLY HAS CS ZONING, WHICH FOR REFERENCE ALLOWS BUY RIGHT MANY DIFFERENT USES THAT ARE MORE INTENSIVE THAN MID-RISE.

MULTI-FAMILY, INCLUDING THINGS LIKE CAR REPAIR, CAR REPAIR, BODY SHOP, HOTEL, MOTEL.

THIS PROPERTY IS NOT AN OUTLIER EITHER.

THORNTON ROAD ALREADY FEATURES MORE CS ZONING TO THE NORTH OF US, AS WELL AS OTHER MULTIFAMILY ZONING AS MS HAD, UH, POINTED OUT TO THE SOUTH OF US AND ACROSS THE STREET.

WE'RE ALSO BOUNDED TO THE EAST BY THE RAIL AND BEYOND THE RAIL, THE MOBILE HOME ZONING.

IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THORNTON ROAD IS NOT A DEAD END STREET.

THE RESIDENTS WHO WILL LIVE AT 2313 THORNTON WILL BE ABLE TO TRAVEL THROUGH THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD IN VARIOUS DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS.

WE ARE REQUESTING THE ABILITY TO DO A RESIDENTIAL PROJECT WITH ONSITE AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

THE UL TURF AND THORNTON INTERSECTION.

FINALLY, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, THIS SITE IS WITHIN A 10 MINUTE WALK OF FOUR TRANSIT ROUTES ON TWO CORRIDORS.

THAT INCLUDES ONE OF ONLY TWO METRO RAPID BUSES IN THE ENTIRE CITY.

RIGHT NOW, THE 8 0 3 1 OF, UH, ONE OF ONLY FIVE NIGHT OWL BUSES IN THE CITY PROVIDING SERVICE UNTIL 3:00 AM ONE HIGH FREQUENCY ROUTE, THE 300 BUS AND A FOURTH ROUTE, THE THREE BUS AS WELL.

WE BELIEVE THAT THIS INFORMATION DEMONSTRATES THAT A 90 FOOT MID-RISE PROJECT IS APPROPRIATE HERE, SIMILAR TO WHAT WE'VE SEEN ALONG OTHER TRANSIT CORRIDORS.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, CHAIR.

WE WILL NOW BE HEARING FROM OUR SPEAKER IN FAVOR.

HE WILL BE JOINING US VIRTUALLY.

UM, MICHAEL GINI.

MICHAEL, PLEASE PRESS STAR SIX AND PROCEED WITH YOUR REMARKS.

UH, THANK YOU.

I'M JUST HERE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.

I DON'T NEED TO SPEAK.

WE WILL NOW BE MOVING ON TO OUR SPEAKERS IN OPPOSITION.

OUR PRIMARY SPEAKER IN OPPOSITION IS DANA LASTMAN.

DANA WILL BE RECEIVING THREE MINUTES OF DONATED TIME FROM DAVID ANSEL.

DAVID, ARE YOU PRESENT? DANA? YOU WILL HAVE EIGHT MINUTES.

HELLO, MY NAME IS DANA LASTMAN AND I STAND BEFORE YOU TODAY TO EXPRESS OPPOSITION TO CASE NUMBER C 14 2 0 2 4 0 0 7 1.

I'M SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF THE CARRIAGE PARK CONDO ASSOCIATION AT 2 2 1 6 THORNTON ROAD, A 22 UNIT OWNER COMMUNITY.

ADDITIONALLY, I'M REPRESENTING MANY HOMEOWNERS FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD, SOME WHO ARE HERE IN PERSON, AND MANY WHO HAVE SENT IN EMAILS WITH THEIR OPPOSITION.

WE PASSIONATELY BELIEVE THAT BOTH THE OWNER AND THEIR AGENT'S APPLICATION AND THE CITY, CITY STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS WILL HAVE ADVERSE EFFECTS TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, PARTICULARLY FROM A TRAFFIC AND LIFE SAFETY PERSPECTIVE.

THIS PROJECT IS APPROXIMATELY 1,250 LINEAR FEET FROM THE INTERSECTION OF WEST UL TORF AND THORNTON ROAD WITH TRAFFIC PATTERNS THAT ARE EXACERBATED BY ITS PROXIMITY TO THE RAILROAD TRACKS.

THE PICTURE I'VE INCLUDED AND THAT'S ON YOUR SCREEN, DEMONSTRATES THE CURRENT TRAFFIC FLOW AT THIS INTERSECTION.

THORNTON ROAD, WHICH IS A CITY OF AUSTIN, LEVEL ONE STREET, CONSISTS OF 30 INCHES OF CLEAR SPACE FRONT OF CURB TO FRONT OF CURB WITH SPORADICALLY AVAILABLE SIDEWALKS.

THIS CROSS SECTION PAIRED WITH STREET PARKING RESULTS IN THE CURRENT TRAFFIC PATTERNS THAT REQUIRE DRIVERS TO OFTEN YIELD TO ONCOMING TRAFFIC WEAVE IN AND OUT OF PARKED CARS, TRASH CANS, AND PEDESTRIANS.

THE CONGESTION ALONG THORNTON ROAD IS BEST DISPLAYED AT ITS INTERSECTION WITH ULT TORF, WHICH EXPERIENCES FREQUENT BACKUPS, WHICH OFTEN REQUIRE QUICK AND UNSAFE MANEUVERING TO MERGE ONTO ULT TORF.

ADDITIONALLY, THE DAILY BACKUPS AT THIS INTERSECTION ARE EXACERBATED BY THE AT GATE RAILROAD CROSSING ALONG UL TURF, APPROXIMATELY 200 LINEAR FEET FROM

[01:25:01]

THE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS PROVIDED FOR THIS PROJECT SHOWS AN ESTIMATED INCREASE OF 1,406 VPD ON THE ROAD WITH NO ANALYSIS OF FOOT TRAFFIC.

BUILDING A 350 MULTIFAMILY HOME WILL NO DOUBT INCREASE THAT FOOT TRAFFIC SIGNIFICANTLY.

AND SAFETY IS AN ISSUE CURRENTLY.

IT'S AN OBSTACLE TO DRIVE UP AND DOWN THE ROAD.

SUCH AN INCREASE IN TRAFFIC AND PEDESTRIANS WOULD MAKE THE ROAD VERY DANGEROUS FOR PEDESTRIANS WHO REGULARLY WALK AND RUN.

BUT THERE'S NO SIDEWALK COMPLETELY ALONG THE SIDE OF BOTH ROADS.

AND THE SIDEWALK THAT IS THERE IS SO NARROW WE HAVE TO MOVE TO LET SOMEONE ELSE PASS WITHIN THAT SIDEWALK.

THE OWNER AND THEIR AGENT'S APPLICATION SEEKS A DENSITY THAT IS FAR BEYOND WHAT IS APPROPRIATE FOR OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.

AND THORNTON, A LEVEL ONE STREET.

A DEVELOPMENT OF THIS SIZE IS MORE APPROPRIATELY LOCATED ON A LEVEL THREE STREET SUCH AS SOUTH LAMAR OR A GREATER STREET LEVEL.

THE APP, THE APPLICATION REPRESENTS A GROSS MISUSE OF THE TOOLS THE CITY HAS WORKED TO PUT INTO PLACE TO ALLOW FOR THE OVERALL INCREASE IN HOUSING UNITS, INCLUDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS.

WE ARE CONCERNED THAT A MARKED INCREASE IN TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS AND PEDESTRIAN INJURIES WILL OCCUR IF THE OWNER AND AGENT OR THE CITY'S STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVED WITHOUT SOME MAJOR RESTRUCTURING AND IMPROVEMENTS OF THE TRAFFIC FLOW, LIKE TRAFFIC LIGHTS, BROADENING OF THE STREET, WIDENING OF THE SIDEWALKS, AND ADDITIONAL SIDEWALKS WHERE NONE EXIST.

WE CAN'T UNDERSTAND HOW THESE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE SOUND PAYING INTO A POOLED PROGRAM IS AN ABSOLUTE, ABSOLUTE NO FOR THORNTON STREET.

WE NEED THERE TO BE SIGNIFICANT CHANGE.

AND WITH THAT COMES SIGNIFICANT SPEND.

THE INTERSECTION AT OR ALT TORF AND THORNTON CAN BARELY HANDLE THE CURRENT TRAFFIC FLOW.

HOW CAN WE PHYSICALLY SUPPORT 1,406 MORE CARS EACH DAY? CURRENTLY TRAFFIC WAITING TO TURN ONTO THORNTON GETS BACKED UP ALL DOWN ALT TORF AND ALL DOWN SOUTH LAMAR.

TRAFFIC WAITING TO TURN INTO OLTORF GETS BACKED UP ALL THE WAY DOWN THORNTON ROAD BECAUSE OF HOW NARROW THE STREET IS DURING THIS TIME, THORNTON ROAD IS UNSAFE, UNUSABLE, AND WHEN YOU'RE STUCK IN THE CAR, IT'S A COMPLETE GRIDLOCK AT EVERY WHICH ANGLE.

CAN'T GET OUTTA THE NEIGHBORHOOD, IT CAN'T GET INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

UNFORTUNATELY, THERE ARE NO OTHER OUTLETS TO SUPPORT THIS PRESSURE.

ON THORNTON, THE BLUE BONNET EXIT ON THE MAR IS NOT SUITABLE FOR A MASS INCREASE DUE TO THE LARGE DEVELOPMENT IN PROCESS ALREADY AT BLUE BONNET AND LAMAR, THE INFRASTRUCTURE OF THORNTON ROAD SIMPLY CANNOT SUPPORT THIS DEVELOPMENT REQUEST OR THE REQUEST OF THE CITY WITHOUT A MARK SAFETY RISK FOR THE RESIDENTS ON FOOT AND IN VEHICLES, WE ARE PRO DENSITY, PRO DIVERSITY AND PRO AFFORDABILITY.

THIS JUST ISN'T THAT CITY STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, WHILE LESS INTENSIVE STILL DOES NOT PROTECT THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND ITS RESIDENCE.

THORNTON ROAD IS A LEVEL ONE STREET, WHICH AS DEFINED BY SECTION 2.4 0.1, THE CITY OF AUSTIN CODE IS TO SERVE PRIMARILY RESIDENTIAL DESTINATIONS, TYPICALLY WITH NO RETAIL OR MIXED USE.

THE VERTICAL MISUSE BUILDING COMBINING DISTRICT V REQUEST IS SO LOOSELY AND VAGUELY DEFINED, LEAVING THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND ITS RESIDENTS WITH NO PICTURE OF WHAT THIS PROJECT WILL ULTIMATELY BECOME, WHO THE DEVELOPER IS AND HOW IT WILL AFFECT THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

AT BEST, THE RECOMMENDATION FOR HALF SIZE MULTIFAMILY UNIT WILL STILL YIELD AN EXTRA 703 VPD AN INCREDIBLE INCREASE IN FOOT TRAFFIC.

AND WITH NO DESCRIPTION ON THE RETAIL USE, THE NUMBER COULD DOUBLE, TRIPLE, OR EVEN WORSE.

AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE ARE DEEPLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE TRAFFIC AND SAFETY OF OUR COMMUNITY AND FURTHER DISAPPOINTED IN THE CITY'S RECOMMENDATION THAT DOES NOT ALIGN WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ROAD.

IF YOU ALL VOTE THIS THROUGH AS A CITY, WE THINK THAT YOU'RE SETTING YOUR RESIDENTS UP TO FAIL, GET INJURED OR WORSE DIE.

NO ONE IN THEIR RIGHT MIND WILL LOOK AT THE TRAFFIC PATTERNS, THE TRAIN, THE ABSENCE OF A LIGHT AT THE INTERSECTION OF UL TORF AND AND THORNTON.

AND THE FACT THAT THORNTON IS A LEVEL ONE STREET AND THINK THAT THE DEVELOPER ADDING 350 HOMES, I WOULD PROBABLY GUESS THESE HOMES HAVE MORE THAN ONE CAR AND THERE'S DEFINITELY MORE THAN ONE PERSON LIVING IN THE HOME.

ADDED TO THIS STREET IS A WELL-ESTABLISHED AND THOUGHT OUT PLAN GIVEN THE STRUCTURE RIGHT NOW OF THE TRAFFIC.

FURTHERMORE, WE'D WANNA KNOW WHAT TPW WOULD RECOMMEND SEEING THE INCREASED TRAFFIC FLOW IN PROXIMITY TO THE TRAIN.

I DON'T EVEN THINK A LIGHT CAN BE ADDED AT THAT INTERSECTION BECAUSE PEOPLE CAN'T WAIT ON THE TRAIN TRACKS.

SO IS IT EVEN A VIABLE OPTION? ARE THERE VIABLE OPTIONS TO MODERATE THE CONTROL OF TRAFFIC FLOW AND SAFETY WHEN ADDING THIS MANY PEOPLE AND CARS TO A ALREADY VERY CROWDED STREET AS IT IS, IT'S DANGEROUS, AND OVER 1400 MORE CARS TO THE SITUATION BECOMES A STAGNANT PARKING LOT WITH NO WAY OUT AND NO WAY IN WHAT HAPPENS IN AN EMERGENCY HOWLING AN AMBULANCE, A FIRE TRUCK OR A POLICE CAR BE ABLE TO GET TO THE RESIDENCE ON THORNTON ROAD? THEY WON'T.

BOTH THE OWNER AND THE AGENT'S APPLICATION AND CITY STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION

[01:30:01]

IS NOT THOUGHT OUT PLAN, AND SERIOUSLY LACKS CONSIDERATION TO THE SAFETY AND WELLBEING OF THE CURRENT RESIDENCE.

ON THORNTON, WE ARE IN COMPLETE OPPOSITION AND REQUEST YOU DENY.

OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS LORRAINE ATHERTON.

LORRAINE, YOU WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES.

OH, THANK YOU.

UH, I'M LORRAINE ATHERTON.

I'M ACTUALLY, UH, UH, ACTIVE IN A MEMBER OF THEILER NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, BUT I'M HERE TO SUPPORT THE SOUTH LAMAR NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION'S PREVIOUS WORK ON, UH, THORNTON ROAD.

UH, UH, UH, DIRECT YOU TO, UH, THE LETTER FROM, UH, DATED AUGUST 8TH, 2016 FROM THE SOUTH LAMAR NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, UH, DESCRIBING THE THE PREVIOUS ZONING CASES AND, UH, ESPECIALLY ON THE, UH, I BELIEVE IT'S ON THE SECOND PAGE, UH, THERE'S A FOOTNOTE REFERRING TO THE MEMORANDUM TO MAYOR AND COUNCIL FROM GREGORY GUERNSEY, OCTOBER 3RD, 2014.

UH, THAT'S THE, UM, IN, IN 2014, THE CITY COUNCIL RESPONDED TO A HERCULEAN EFFORT FROM THE SOUTH LAMARR NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, UM, UH, BY CREATING THE SOUTH LAMARR MITIGATION PLAN.

UH, IT'S, IT'S LOOKS AT ALL OF THESE, THESE, UH, UH, THE DRAINAGE AND TRAFFIC AND OTHER ISSUES THAT THE THE NEIGHBORS ARE CONCERNED ABOUT.

AND CITY STAFF PRODUCED A PLAN PRESENTED BY GREG GUERNSEY IN 2014, UH, UH, UH, SUPPORTING, UH, SUPPORTING ALL OF THESE, UH, UH, THESE PROPOSALS.

UH, IN 2015 AND 2016, UH, THE ZILKER AND SOUTH LAMORE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS OPPOSED ATTEMPTS TO UP ZONE THE TWENTY THREE HUNDRED AND TWENTY FOUR HUNDRED BLOCKS OF THORNTON ROAD AS, UH, UH, UH, AND THE, UH, THE 2016 REZONING CASE WAS WITHDRAWN BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL COULD FINALIZE ITS APPROVAL OF MF TWO.

ITEM SIX ON YOUR CURRENT AGENDA IS ESSENTIALLY A REVIVAL OF THE, THE REQUEST FOR VMU THAT WAS DENIED IN 2015, ONLY MUCH WORSE TODAY, 10 YEARS LATER, IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SOUTH LAMORE MITIGATION PLAN IS PROCEEDING VERY SLOWLY TO IMMINENT DOMAIN CASES INVOLVING THE ACQUISITION OF DRAINAGE EASEMENTS ON EITHER SIDE OF THE 2300 BLOCK OF THORNTON ROAD ARE ON THE CITY COUNCIL'S AUGUST 29 AGENDA.

IT WOULD BE WISE TO PUT OFF ANY REZONING OF THESE PROPERTIES UNTIL AFTER CONSTRUCTION BEGINS ON THE DRAINAGE PROJECTS.

UH, 0.4 IN THE ZNA LETTER IS RELEVANT TO YOUR AGENDA.

ITEM 11, I'M, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.

THIS IS, THIS IS A VERY CO UH, UH, THIS HAS BEEN PLANNED TO DEATH CITY STAFF PREVIOUSLY AND CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MF TWO ON THESE PROJECTS.

THANK YOU, MR. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY OTHER QUESTIONS.

APPRECIATE IT.

OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS BRUCE BERG.

HE'LL BE JOINING US VIRTUALLY.

UH, BRUCE, PLEASE PRESS SIX AND PROCEED WITH YOUR REMARKS.

YOU WILL HAVE ONE MINUTE.

IT LOOKS LIKE HE'S NOT IN OUR QUEUE.

SO MOVING ON.

UH, OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS JAMES MAYS.

JAMES, YOU WILL HAVE ONE MINUTE.

CAN I TAKE HIS TIME? WE GOT LISTEN.

OF YOU MIGHT RECOGNIZE ME AS THE INSPIRATION FOR THE MOVIE SCHOOL OF ROCK.

UH, HEY EVERYBODY.

UM, FIRST I JUST WANNA THANK EVERYBODY ON THE COUNCIL FOR YOUR WORK, EVERYTHING YOU DO FOR THE CITY OF AUSTIN.

UH, YOU MAY KNOW ME AS THE OWNER OF BANDAID SCHOOL OF MUSIC.

I'M ONE OF THE PEOPLE WHO SPOKE ON BEHALF OF, UH, THE BUSINESS OWNERS IN THE THORNTON ARTS AND MUSIC STUDIOS.

WHEN WE, UH, WE PUSHED BACK ON THE REZONING 10 YEARS AGO.

UH, SOME

[01:35:01]

I, I WANNA TALK ABOUT THREE THINGS, UH, THAT ARE AFFECTING FLOODING, TRAFFIC AND THE CULTURE OF AUSTIN, WHICH IS SOMETHING WE DON'T TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION A WHOLE LOT.

FLOODING HASS BEEN BEEN ADDRESSED IN THE LAST SPEAKER.

WE HAVE BACKUP A LOT OF WATER BACKUP EVERY TIME IT RAINS IN THE THORNTON MUSIC AND ART STUDIOS.

THAT'S GONNA GET WORSE.

THIS IS RIGHT NEXT DOOR.

UH, IN TERMS OF TRAFFIC, UH, BANDAID SCHOOL OF MUSIC, WE BRING IN 200 FAMILIES A, UH, A WEEK ON THAT STREET ALREADY.

UH, AN ADDITIONAL 1400 TRIPS PER DAY IS GONNA FAR EXCEED THAT 300 TRIP THRESHOLD.

WOW.

AND, UH, CULTURE, I JUST WANTED TO SPEAK ON THE CULTURE OF THE PEOPLE WHO MOVE INTO THESE PLACES ARE 25 TO 33 YEAR OLDS WHO, UM, WHO DON'T REALLY OBSERVE THE AUSTIN CULTURE.

THEY DON'T REALLY KNOW MUCH ABOUT IT.

THEY DON'T, UH, BUY A LOT LOCALLY.

THEY BUY THEIR THINGS ONLINE.

A LOT OF OUT-OF-STATE LICENSE PLATES.

AND I, THANKS.

AND I ALSO JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT, UH, IF YOU'RE CONCERNED ABOUT AFFORDABLE HOUSING, I'D LIKE YOU TO KNOW THAT THE THORNTON FLATS THAT IS ON THORNTON, WHICH IS 104 UNITS, HAD SEVEN SMART, AFFORDABLE UNITS.

AND THOSE ARE BEING CONVERTED INTO CONDOS NOW AND THEY'RE ALL BEING SOLD AND THERE ARE GONNA BE NO AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS IN THOSE CONDO UNITS.

FINAL.

SO THE IDEA OF THINKING THAT YOU'RE GETTING AFFORDABLE HOUSING OUT OF THIS THANK, THANK YOU IS EVENTUALLY GONNA BE WRONG.

WE WILL NOW BE HEARING FROM KIM VIRE.

KIM, YOU WILL HAVE ONE MINUTE.

GOOD EVENING.

THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK.

MY NAME IS KIM VIRE.

I LIVE, I OWN AND LIVE IN A RESIDENCE THAT IS ABOUT A BLOCK NORTH OF THE PROPOSED REZONING SITE.

I STRENUOUSLY OBJECT TO THE REQUESTED REZONING AND ALSO TO THE CITY'S COUNTER PROPOSAL.

EITHER DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE A DISASTER FOR THORNTON ROAD.

UH, IT'S BEEN PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED THAT THERE'LL BE AN INCREASE FROM 217 TO 1,623 TRIPS PER DAY, VEHICLE TRIPS PER DAY.

A QUOTE FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC ANALYSIS.

THORNTON ROAD IS CURRENTLY OPERATING AT AN UNDESIRABLE LEVEL FOR THE STREET.

1400 MORE CARS A DAY TRYING TO GET OUT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD BY TURNING ONTO ALTOR, ESPECIALLY IF THEY'RE TURNING LEFT TOWARD LAMAR WILL BE A TRAFFIC NIGHTMARE.

CRAMMING A LARGE MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT ONTO HIS STREET, WHICH HAS SUCH SIGNIFICANT AND OBVIOUS LACK OF CAPACITY TO REASONABLY ACCOMMODATED IS NOT ACCEPTABLE.

OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS GANA SLO SLO VVA, UH, G GANA.

YOU'LL HAVE ONE MINUTE.

HI COMMISSION MEMBERS.

THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY.

UH, SO I ALSO LIVE IN CARRIAGE PARK, UH, ALONG WITH DANA AND I THINK SHE DID AN AMAZING JOB OF OUTLINING THE COMMUNITY CONCERNS.

UM, I WANTED TO TAKE A MORE PERSONAL APPROACH IN THE NEXT WHATEVER, 45 SECONDS.

UH, SO THERE ARE TWO THINGS THAT REALLY ARE KEY TO ME, UH, IN REGARDS TO THIS DEVELOPMENT, WHICH I OPPOSE.

THE FIRST ONE IS I WALK QUITE OFTEN IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, WHICH DAN ALREADY MENTIONED, DOESN'T ACTUALLY HAVE FULL SIDEWALKS ON BOTH SIDES.

UH, AND AN ADDITIONAL 1400 CARS IS, UH, ACTUALLY PRETTY DEVASTATING TO THE PEDESTRIANS THAT ARE ON THE ROAD.

UM, AND A LOT OF THE, I WAS LOOKING AT THE PICTURES THAT THE APPLICANT PRESENTED IN A LOT OF THOSE ROADS, YOU CAN ACTUALLY HAVE TWO CARS PASSING AT THE SAME TIME.

UM, AND THAT IS, EVEN IF YOU HAVE PARKED CARS ON THE SIDE, UH, THAT IS NOT POSSIBLE ON THORNTON ROAD TODAY.

SO IF YOU HAVE, WE, WE ACTUALLY HAVE QUITE A FEW CARS THAT ARE PARKED ON EITHER SIDE OF THE ROAD AND ONLY ONE CAR CAN ACTUALLY PASS THROUGH THE MIDDLE.

UH, THE OTHER THING IS I ACTUALLY DRIVE TO THE OFFICE EVERY DAY, EVEN THOUGH I WALK IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD QUITE A BIT.

UM, AS I ASSUME THESE FOLKS DO, THEY WILL ALSO HAVE TO DRIVE TO THE OFFICE, WHICH WILL INCREASE THE, UM, UH, THE, THE JUNCTURE POINTS.

THANK YOU SO MUCH.

WE WILL NOW BE HEARING FROM OUR NEXT SPEAKER, CONNOR KRAUSE.

CONNOR, YOU WILL HAVE ONE MINUTE.

UM, HELLO COUNSEL.

UH, THIS IS MY FIRST TIME AT CITY COUNCIL, BUT I DO, UM, OWN A HOME AND LIVE DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE LOTS INVOLVED IN THIS CASE.

I WATCH THE PEOPLE AT THE BOXING GYM OUT MY FRONT WINDOW EVERY SINGLE DAY.

UH, GENERALLY JUST WANNA ECHO A LOT OF THE POINTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE HERE.

UH, TRAFFIC STUDY, MOST NOTABLY, WE'RE ALREADY ABOUT AT DOUBLE THE CAPACITY FOR THE ROAD AFTER THE WORK.

ABOUT THREE AND A HALF TIMES THE CAPACITY FOR THE ROAD.

UH, THERE IS NOT CONSISTENT SIDEWALK END, END I RUN IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

YOU HAVE TO RUN A HUNDRED YARDS, SWITCH SIDES BACK AND FORTH THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE WAY.

UM, THE TRAIN TRACK PROBLEM, I THINK CAN'T BE OVERSTATED.

UH, THE TRAFFIC BACKS ALL THE WAY UP TO MY HOUSE THIS

[01:40:01]

LOT.

UH, ON THORNTON, IT BACKS ALL THE WAY UP TO LAMAR ON UL TORF, UH, AND, AND THE OTHER WAY ALMOST TO, UH, WHAT ARE THEY? SOUTH FOURTH STREET THE OTHER WAY.

SO, I MEAN, THAT'S, THAT'S A HUGE PROBLEM.

IT'S 20 MINUTES AT A TIME MANY TIMES A DAY.

UH, THE FLOODING POINT THAT WAS RAISED, UH, THE WATER COMES UP OUT OF MY STREET TRAIN EVERY SINGLE TIME IT RAINS.

I DON'T REALLY KNOW EXACTLY HOW THAT'S RELATED, BUT IT, YOU KNOW, CAN'T BE A GOOD THING.

AND THEN LASTLY, THE PARKING POINT THAT WAS JUST MADE.

UH, IF, IF THERE ARE DOUBLE PARKED CARS, WHICH IS, IT'S IN FRONT OF MY HOUSE, IT'S THE WHOLE LENGTH OF THE ROAD.

UH, TWO CARS CAN'T PASS AT THE SAME TIME AGAIN, I DON'T THINK CAN SUPPORT 50% MORE TRAFFIC.

SINCE OUR VIRTUAL SPEAKER HAS NOT YET JOINED, THAT CONCLUDES OUR SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM.

WE WILL NOW BE HEARING FROM THE APPLICANT FOR A THREE MINUTE REBUTTAL.

AND THEN COMMISSIONER ANDERSON.

UH, MICHAEL WHALEN ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT.

I, I WANTED TO MAKE, UH, FIVE PRIMARY POINTS.

UH, YOU KNOW, FIRST AND FOREMOST THE PRIMARY SPEAKER, AND I, I FORGOT I DIDN'T PICK UP THE LAST NAME.

I THINK DANA WAS THE FIRST NAME INDICATED THAT LEVEL ONE IS FOR RESIDENTIAL AREAS AND WE ABSOLUTELY AGREE.

SECOND POINT, THIS SITE IS CURRENTLY ZONED CS AND IT PROHIBITS RESIDENTIAL.

NO RESIDENTIAL IS ALLOWED UNDER THE CURRENT, UH, ZONING AND THERE IS NO CONDITIONAL OVERLAY PROHIBITING ANY USES.

SO ANY OF THE USES IN ONE OF THE MOST INTENSIVE, IF NOT, UH, ZONING CATEGORIES CAN BE UTILIZED AT THIS SITE.

UH, STORM WATER FLOODING WAS MENTIONED.

THERE ARE OBVIOUSLY NO FACILITIES ON THIS SITE AT ALL.

WE WOULD HAVE TO FULLY COMPLY WITH, UH, CURRENT, UH, DETENTION AND WATER QUALITY.

AND I MENTIONED WATER QUALITY.

'CAUSE IF YOU LOOK ON PROPERTY PROFILE, YOU'LL SEE A LITTLE, UH, A LITTLE BIT OF IT ACTUALLY HITS THE CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE BACK BY THE, UH, RAILROAD.

SO OBVIOUSLY WE'LL HAVE TO COMPLY WITH, UH, WATER QUALITY FACILITIES.

I WANNA ALSO KNOW THE LEVEL ONE STREET IS A CALMER STREET.

IT'S MEANT TO BE WHEN YOU READ WHAT IS A LEVEL ONE STREET, IT IS THE STREET WITH QUOTE, THE LOWEST SPEED END QUOTE.

IT'S A LOWEST SPEED STREET.

IT'S MEANT TO BE SAFER WHEN YOU WIDEN A STREET LIKE THAT.

AS WE'VE NOW LEARNED OVER THE LAST DECADE SINCE THE STUDY WAS DONE IN 2014, UH, YOU GET PEOPLE THAT GO MUCH, MUCH FASTER.

AND THEN FIFTH, AND I THINK MOST IMPORTANTLY, AND YOU CAN CHECK ME OUT ON THIS, ON GOOGLE MAPS FROM THIS SITE ON THE SIDE OF THE, UH, STREET THORNTON THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, THERE IS A COMPLETE AND CONSISTENT SIDEWALK ALL THE WAY TO BOTH, TO ALL OF THE BUS STOPS, ALL FOUR ROUTES ON TWO TRANSIT CORRIDORS.

SO PEOPLE WON'T HAVE TO WAIT IN THEIR CARS AND GRIDLOCK.

THEY WILL HAVE AN EASY WAY TO ACCESS THE SIDEWALK AND GET FROM THE SIDEWALK TO FOUR MAJOR BUS ROUTES.

I'VE ALREADY MENTIONED THE 8 0 3, 1 OF ONLY TWO, A LATE NIGHT, ONE OWL LATE NIGHT.

THE, THE LATE NIGHT ONE OWL ONE RUNS TILL 3:00 AM AND THEN THE 300 AND THE THREE.

SO YOU'VE GOT EXTRAORDINARY ACCESS, UH, ALMOST UNIQUE WHEN YOU CONSIDER VARIOUS PARTS OF TOWN WITH A COMPLETE CONSISTENT SIDEWALK ON THAT SIDE OF THE ROAD.

SO FOR THOSE REASONS, AGAIN, I GAVE YOU MANY EXAMPLES OF WHERE, UH, UH, MID-RISE, UH, UH, MULTIFAMILY IS FOUND CLOSE TO A TRANSIT.

AND YOU CAN SEE WHY FOR THE VERY REASONS THAT, UH, I ESTABLISHED IN THE PRESENTATION AND ESPECIALLY NOW THAT, AND I APPRECIATE THEM HIGHLIGHTING THE SIDEWALK, THAT THIS IS A PLACE WHERE THERE IS A CONSISTENT SIDEWALK LEADING ALL THE WAY TO THOSE, UH, FOUR BUS ROUTES.

THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH.

I THANK YOU TO OUR SPEAKERS.

IS THERE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, VICE CHAIR AND SECOND BY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, COMMISSIONER HAYNES .

ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU.

UM, THAT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

WE WILL MOVE ON TO OUR QUESTIONS.

WHO HAS THE FIRST QUESTION? COMMISSIONER JOHNSON.

UH, QUICK QUESTION FOR STAFF.

SO WHAT WAS IT JUST A MISTAKE SAYING THAT THORNTON WAS A DEAD END ROAD IN THE STAFF REPORT? BECAUSE I DID READ THAT AND IT'S, I MEAN, IT'S LITERALLY NOT, SO WAS THAT JUST AN ACCIDENT OR, OR IS THERE SOME OTHER MEANING THAT HAD YEAH, SO THORNTON DOES END AT THE END OF THE STREET.

THORNTON ROAD DOES DEAD END.

IT DOES CONNECT FURTHER DOWN INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT IT DOESN'T, IT DOES STOP DOWN THERE AT THE BOTTOM.

LIKE THORNTON SPECIFICALLY, I DO UNDERSTAND IT CONNECTS AND IT'S NOT AN EXACT DEAD END.

YES, I UNDERSTAND THAT.

I I THINK PERHAPS THAT COULD BE MORE CLEAR YEAH.

IN FUTURE REPORTS BECAUSE SORRY ABOUT THAT.

THAT, YOU KNOW, I LOOK AT THE MAP.

I, I LIVED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR A WHILE.

THREE DIFFERENT INTERSECTIONS WITH LAMAR AND OLD WHARF FROM THORNTON ROAD.

MY WIFE DID FOR A LONG TIME.

UH, YOU CAN ACCESS 2 90 71 BANISTER LANE,

[01:45:01]

SO IT'S A LITTLE, JUST A LITTLE CONFUSING TO READ THAT.

UM, IS THERE ANY POLICY OFFICIAL ADOPTED POLICY THAT SAYS HIGH DENSITY OR, OR DENSE HOUSING IS INAPPROPRIATE ON LEVEL ONE STREETS? 'CAUSE I THINK THE APPLICANT MADE A VERY COMPELLING PRESENTATION SHOWING THAT WE HAVE MANY LEVEL ONE STREETS IN ALL PARTS OF TOWN DOWNTOWN, THE EAST SIDE, MORE SUBURBAN AREAS THAT HAVE RELATIVELY OR VERY HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, EVEN MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT.

SO THERE'S NOTHING PROHIBITING IT OR SAYING THAT IT CAN'T HAPPEN ON A LEVEL ONE STREET? NO.

UM, AND THEN IN TERMS OF GOALS THAT ARE ESTABLISHED UNDER EITHER THE A SMP OR THE IMAGINE AUSTIN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT INCREASING HOUSING ON OR NEAR CORRIDORS, IS THAT USUALLY INTERPRETED AS MEANING LITERALLY ON A CORRIDOR OR A TRANSIT PRIORITY NETWORK OR WITHIN A CERTAIN DISTANCE? IT IT, ARE THERE GOALS IN THE ASS MP FOR INSTANCE, THAT TALK ABOUT, UH, THE NUMBER OF HOUSING UNITS WITHIN A, A QUARTER OR A HALF MILE OF THOSE TRANSIT NODES? NO, NOT EXACTLY.

UM, THE, THE V HAS A, A PORTION, I DIDN'T BRING THAT PORTION UP HERE WITH ME.

THAT DOES STATE THAT IT COULD BE, UM, ON A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY.

SO THAT'S WHERE V CAN COME INTO PLACE.

SO A CAV BASED OR A CS BASED ZONING WOULD BE A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY.

SO THAT'S WHY WE'VE PUT THE V THERE, BUT IT DOESN'T STATE ANYTHING SPECIFICALLY TO IT ONLY BEING ON A CORRIDOR.

AND I GUESS MY QUESTION WAS MORE A, A BROAD SORT OF POLICY QUESTION OF, YOU KNOW, DOES CITY POLICY CONTEMPLATE UH, MIXED USE AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AT HIGHER DENSITY CITIES NEAR, BUT NOT PHYSICALLY ON CORRIDORS LIKE LAMAR AND OTHER TRANSIT NETWORKS? AND IT SOUNDS LIKE THE ANSWER IS YES.

TRANSPORTATION PUBLIC WORKS.

IT'S NOT ALWAYS IMMEDIATELY ON THAT CORRIDOR.

UM, AND THEN I GUESS THIS MIGHT BE FOR YOU MS. AUDREY, OR, OR I DON'T KNOW IF TRANSPORTATION OR TPW STAFF IS HERE, BUT YES, THEY ARE.

THEY ARE.

WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT A ZONING TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS OR ZONING TRAFFIC ANALYSIS, UM, DOES THAT TYPICALLY INCLUDE CONSIDERATION OF, OF LIKE OFFSITE IMPROVEMENTS THAT MIGHT BE REQUIRED OR, UH, I, I'M, I GUESS I'M STILL WRAPPING MY HEAD AROUND HOW THE STREET IMPACT FEE WORKS AS WELL.

WHEN IF SAY THIS SITE IS RESOUND AND COMES IN FOR A SITE PLAN, WOULD THERE BE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE CITY TO REQUIRE OFFSITE IMPROVEMENTS SUCH AS A SIDEWALK ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF FORTON OR WOULD THAT STRICTLY BE A, A STREET IMPACT FEE THAT'S CALCULATED AND PAID BY THE APPLICANT? DANIELLE MOORE FROM TRANSPORTATION IS HERE.

UM, SO TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, YEAH, TYPICALLY FOR THIS TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT IT WOULD BE, UM, A STREET IMPACT FEE THAT'S PAID.

SOMETIMES THE DEVELOPER CAN CHOOSE TO CONSTRUCT THOSE IMPROVEMENTS, UM, IN LIEU OF PAYING THAT THOSE FEES.

TYPICALLY WITH A TRADITIONAL SITE PLAN, WE DON'T DO OFFSITE IMPROVEMENTS UNLESS IT'S IDENTIFIED, UM, IN A ROADWAY CAPACITY PLAN, UM, RELATED TO THE CF.

GOTCHA.

AND SO THAT WOULD ONLY POSSIBLY BE TRIGGERED AT SITE PLAN FOR A LARGER DEVELOPMENT THAT THAT MEETS THE TIA THRESHOLD? IS THAT CORRECT? THE 2000 TRIPS OR MORE? SO SIF IS NOT RELATED TO A TIA THRESHOLD SIF IS, UM, RELATED TO, YOU KNOW, THE EXISTING USES, THE PROPO PROPOSED USES, WE GO THROUGH A CALCULATION TO FIGURE OUT, UM, WHAT THAT FEE WOULD BE.

THIS SITE, UM, I THINK IT'S ABOUT 1600 DAILY VEHICLE TRIPS.

SO IT WILL NOT TRIGGER A TIA, UM, WHICH IS WHY YOU SEE THE NTA, THE NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS, UH, WITH THE ZONING CASE.

I THINK THAT'S, I THINK THAT'S ALL THE QUESTIONS I HAVE.

ACTUALLY, IF I DO, I STILL HAVE TIME.

CHAD, YOU HAVE, UM, FIVE SECONDS , WOULD THIS SITE HAVE TO COMPLY WITH STORM WATER DETENTION AND, AND WATER QUALITY REQUIREMENTS? I'LL JUMP IN WITH MY TIME, YES, BUT, SO GO AHEAD.

I'D LOVE TO THANK YOU.

CARRY THAT.

YES, IT WILL, BUT IT'S AT THE TIME OF SITE PLAN NOT OKAY.

BUT, BUT THERE'S NO, YOU KNOW, SPECIAL CONDITIONS OR ANYTHING ABOUT THIS SITE THAT WOULD EXEMPT THEM SOMEHOW FROM, FROM BEING SUBJECT TO THOSE REQUIREMENTS AT THE TIME OF SITE PLAN? NO.

OR DOES IT LOOK TO TAKE A STEP BACK OR IS THERE NOT GONNA BE ANY DIFFERENCE? 'CAUSE WHAT I LOOK AT GOOGLE MAPS DOES NOT LOOK TOO IMPRESSIVE AS FAR AS DETENTION OR QUALITY.

COMMISSIONER ANDERSON.

UM, I'D LIKE TO CONTINUE WITH THAT SAME LINE OF THOUGHT.

SO, UH, WE KNOW THE WORLD IS WARMING, WE KNOW THAT WARM WA WARM AIR HOLDS MORE MOISTURE AND SO, UM, HEARD SOME CONCERNS ABOUT FLOODING.

UM, IS SOMEHOW WATER QUALITY GOING TO BE IMPROVED THROUGH THIS DEVELOPMENT FROM EXISTING CONDITIONS? SAME WITH WATER DETENTION,

[01:50:01]

I MEAN, IT'S THE TIME OF SITE PLAN.

I CAN'T, I CAN'T ANSWER THAT QUESTION NOW.

WELL, WE KNOW WHAT THE REQUIREMENTS WILL BE AS SITE PLANS, SO MAYBE WE CAN SPEAK TO THAT.

I, SORRY, COULD YOU REPEAT THAT ONE MORE TIME? SO WHEN THEY DO GO TO SITE PLAN MM-HMM FOR THIS TYPE OF ZONING, THEY WILL BE REQUIRED TO DO WHAT? YES.

GIMME ONE SECOND.

I'M GONNA PULL UP THE SITE PLAN COMMENTS.

IT'S A STAFF REPORT.

AND WHILE YOU LOOK AT THAT, PERHAPS DIFFERENT STAFF, PERHAPS THE SAME.

UM, IT, IT ALMOST SOUNDED LIKE A SPEAKER WAS SAYING THAT AFFORDABLE HOUSING WASN'T GOING TO OCCUR AND I THOUGHT THAT THIS DENSITY BONUS REQUIREMENT HAS REALLY STRONG AFFORDABLE HOUSING REQUIREMENTS.

CAN STAFF SHARE THAT POTENTIALLY THAT SPEAKER WAS, UH, NOT INFORMED OF THE REQUIREMENTS OR IS THERE SOMETHING I DON'T KNOW ABOUT OR ARE THEY ASKING FOR A WAIVER TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR THESE ENTITLEMENTS ON THIS SIDE? NO, THEY'RE, THEY'RE NOT.

I THINK MAYBE THEY'RE JUST SAYING THAT IT WAS LOW.

NOT NECESSARILY THAT THERE'S NOT ANY, BUT UM, DB 90 AND V BOTH WILL REQUIRE AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

EXCELLENT.

AND WHILE YOU'RE STILL LOOKING INTO THAT MM-HMM.

OR DO YOU HAVE AN ANSWER? YEAH, SO IT DOESN'T SAY ANYTHING HERE IN SITE PLAN REGARDING WATER QUALITY OR ENVIRONMENTAL.

I MEAN THERE'S AN ENVIRONMENTAL SECTION AND , THAT'S ALL I CAN SAY FOR THAT RIGHT NOW I DON'T HANDLE THAT PORTION.

PERHAPS THE APPLICANT CAN SPEAK TO THAT.

SHERRY, AS YOU KNOW, AT THE TIME OF ZONING, WE DON'T REVIEW UH, THE DETENTION ON A PROPERTY.

THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WILL BE HANDLED AT BY WATERSHED AT THE TIME OF SITE PLAN APPLICATION.

AND SO WITHOUT KNOWING THE REQUIREMENTS, THE LOCATION OF THE BUILDINGS, WHAT YOU KNOW IS REQUIRED FOR OPEN SPACE DETENTION, YOU KNOW, WATER QUALITY ON THIS SITE, THAT WILL ALL BE LOOKED AT AT THE TIME OF SITE PLAN.

UM, COMMISSIONER BERGER RAMEZ.

IS THE APPLICANT NEARBY? I GUESS WHAT I'M TRYING TO ASK IS RIGHT BEHIND THIS YES.

LOOKING AT CURRENT CONDITIONS, DO WE EXPECT CURRENT CONDITIONS TO BE IMPROVED, STAY THE SAME OR GET WORSE THROUGH THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THIS PROPERTY? EITHER WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATION OR WHAT YOU WERE ASKING FOR MICHAEL WEIGH ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT MUCH IMPROVED.

THERE'S ZERO THERE NOW, NOTHING.

SO YOU'RE GONNA HAVE BOTH DETENTION AND WATER QUALITY.

EXCELLENT.

THANK THE CHAIR.

ALRIGHT, NEXT QUESTION.

THIS IS FOR MS. MORIN.

UM, SO REGARDING THE STREET IMPACT FEES, IT LOOKS LIKE FROM THE ROAD ROADWAY CAPACITY PLAN THAT A SIGNAL AT THORNTON IS PART OF THE ROADWAY CAPACITY PLAN.

WOULD THE FEES GO TOWARDS INSTALLING A SIGNAL HERE? SO YES, YOU ARE CORRECT.

UM, THIS THE INTERSECTION OF OLD TO AND THORNTON, THERE IS A SIGNAL IDENTIFIED IN THE ROADWAY CAPACITY PLAN.

UM, SO YES, THESE FEES COULD GO TOWARDS CONSTRUCTING THAT.

IT REALLY DEPENDS AT SITE PLAN, THE FINAL, YOU KNOW, THE UNIT COUNT, UM, HOW MANY AFFORDABLE UNITS AND WHAT THAT, UM, SCF FEE ENDS UP BEING.

AND ARE THERE, DO YOU KNOW OF OTHER DEVELOPMENTS IN THE AREA THAT HAVE DEDICATED FUNDS, FUNDS TO THIS SIGNAL? THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION.

I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY IF THERE ARE OTHER DEVELOPMENTS IN THE AREA.

I MEAN, I'M SURE THERE WILL BE SOON.

IT'S CERTAINLY HIGH PRIORITY.

UM, AS THERE BUS STOPS IN BOTH DIRECTIONS SO PEOPLE HAVE TO CROSS THE STREET TOGETHER.

YEAH, FOR SURE.

UM, THE OTHER THING I WANTED TO ASK, IT LOOKED LIKE IN THE A SMP, THERE'S DEDICATED RIGHT OF WAY.

DO YOU KNOW IF THE APPLICANT WILL BE DEDICATING RIGHT OF WAY? UM, SO EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY IS 50 FEET.

A SMP REQUIRED IS 58.

SO THERE SHOULD BE A COUPLE OF FEET OF RIGHT OF WAY THAT'S SO DEDICATED.

SO IMPROVE THE SIDEWALK CONDITIONS IS PROBABLY PART OF WHAT THEY'LL BE DELIVERING.

AND THEN I ALSO SAW THAT THERE'S, UM, URBAN TRAIL EASEMENT REQUIREMENT.

SO WOULD THAT BE ON THE BACK OF THEIR PROPERTY? YEAH, SO THE URBAN TRAIL EASEMENT REQUIREMENT WOULD BE ALONG, UM, ADJACENT TO THE RAILROAD.

SO WITH THE HOPE THAT IT WOULD CONNECT SOMEDAY.

AS YES, AS NEW DEVELOPMENT COMES IN, WE'LL GET, YOU KNOW, THAT EASEMENT ALONG THE RAILROAD.

AND THEN MY LAST QUESTION IS FOR THE APPLICANT, MR. WAYLON.

UM, IT'S ABOUT TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT PLANS.

I'M CURIOUS IF YOU HAVE ONE, IF YOU'RE PLANNING ON, UM, BECAUSE AS WE SEE, THE ROAD IS ALREADY AT AN UNDESIRABLE LEVEL, SO INCREASING IT BY 57%, I HOPE THAT YOU'D HAVE SOME KIND OF MITIGATION EFFORTS MICHAEL WEIGH ON, ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT.

UH, THAT'S GONNA OBVIOUSLY HAPPEN AT SITE PLAN.

UM, AND IT'S PART NOW OF, UH, WHAT'S REQUESTED BY, UH, MS. MARIN AND OTHERS FROM TRANSPORTATION.

UH, THEY STRONGLY REQUESTED DURING SITE PLAN AND SO THAT BECOMES PART OF THE PROCESS NATURALLY.

I THINK THAT, YEAH, THAT'S ALL I GOT.

OTHER QUESTIONS? UM, UH, COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE? YEAH, I HAD A COUPLE QUESTIONS.

[01:55:01]

I GUESS STILL RELATED TO TRANSPORTATION IN THE INTERSECTION WITH ALDO AND WHARTON ROAD.

UH, SO MAYBE THIS IS FOR A TD.

DID I READ IN THE STAFF REPORT THAT SOME OTHER IMPROVEMENTS AT THORNTON AND AL DORF WERE IDENTIFIED AS PART OF ANOTHER PROJECT? OR AM I GETTING THAT CONFUSED? I THOUGHT I READ SOMETHING ABOUT DEDICATED, UH, ADDITIONAL PAVEMENT WIDTH TO PROVIDE, UH, LEFT AND RIGHT TURN LANE.

UM, SO YOU ARE REFERRING TO THE ROADWAY CAPACITY PLAN, SO AS IN ADDITION TO THE SIGNAL THAT'S IDENTIFIED? YEAH.

UM, RF AND LAMAR, THERE IS, UM, ANOTHER DEDICATED LANE THAT'S ALSO IDENTIFIED A TURNING LANE.

AL, ALDO AND THORNTON? NO.

AND THORNTON, ULT WHARF AND LAMAR.

SO THAT'S AT, AT RF AND LAMAR.

YEP.

SO AT THE INTERSECTION WITH AL DORF AND THORNTON, IT'S ALSO IDENTIFIED AS A POTENTIAL FUTURE SIGNAL.

CORRECT.

A FUTURE SIGNAL.

HAVE ANY SIGNAL WARRANT STUDIES BEEN DONE AT THAT INTERSECTION YET? IT SOUNDS LIKE FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS THAT THERE'S SORT OF, THEY SEE SIGNIFICANT, UH, CHALLENGES AT THE INTERSECTION TODAY.

? YEAH.

THERE, THERE HAVE BEEN STUDIES, UM, THERE ACTUALLY CURRENTLY JUST TO THE EAST, UM, THE EAST OF THE RAILROAD TRACKS.

THERE'S ACTUALLY A PEDESTRIAN HYBRID BEACON COMING IN NOW.

UM, BUT THERE IS, UM, YES, THERE HAVE BEEN STUDIES AT THAT INTERSECTION OF THE THORNTON AND RF.

AND, AND I CAN, I ASSUME RIGHT NOW THAT IT DOESN'T MEET WARRANTS FOR, UH, SIGNAL? I BELIEVE IT MEET WARRANT, IT MEETS WARRANTS, WHICH IS WHY IT'S IN THE ROADWAY CAPACITY PLAN TO OBTAIN FUNDING.

OH, IT DOES, UH, IT DOES MEET WARRANTS.

COMMISSIONER COX? YEAH.

QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT FIRST? I THINK SO, MR. WAYLAND, UM, I, I MAY HAVE MISSED IT AND I APOLOGIZE.

ARE, ARE YOU GOING TO DO A TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS AT SITE PLAN? UH, A AS YOU WELL KNOW, UM, FROM YOUR WORK, UH, COMMISSIONER THAT IF IT'S REQUESTED AND REQUIRED, WE WOULD HAVE TO DO ONE.

UM, WE HAD TO DO, UH, AN NTA HERE TAKE COUNTS, PROVIDE, PROVIDE THOSE COUNTS, AND THEN HAVE THE CITY CONDUCT AN INDEPENDENT REVIEW, WHICH THEY DID, AND THE MEMO YOU HAVE IN THE BACK, IN THE BACKUP AS WELL.

SO, AS YOU WELL KNOW FROM YOUR EXPERIENCE IN DOING SITE PLANS, WE'LL DO, WE WILL, IF REQUESTED, HAVE TO DO ONE.

UM, WHAT WE'RE HEARING IS THAT WARRANT STUDIES HAVE ALREADY BEEN DONE AND, AND WE DO NEED A SIGNAL AT THORNTON AND UL WHARF.

UM, IF IT WAS TO GET YOU OVER THE FINISH LINE FOR THE, OH NO, MR. WAYLAND DISAPPEARED.

SORRY, MR. WAYLAND, IF IT WAS TO, TO GET YOU OVER THE FINISH LINE, WOULD YOU COMMIT TO, UM, FULLY FUNDING A SIGNAL AT THAT INTERSECTION? WELL, I, I THINK WHAT, UH, FIRST AND FOREMOST IS, UH, AND, UM, MS. MORIN, UH, FROM A TD CAN TALK TO THIS BETTER THAN I CAN'T.

THE SIF WILL BE, UH, I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT AMOUNT, BUT, UH, CLEARLY HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS, UH, FOR THE SITE ARE CERTAINLY MORE THAN A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS.

I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT NUMBER.

300, 300, OVER $300,000 FOR THE SITE.

SO, UM, I'M, I'M PREPARED TO COMMIT THOSE SIF DOLLARS TO GETTING THAT, UH, A LIGHT THERE.

'CAUSE THAT'S WHAT'LL, THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT'LL HAPPEN.

I I IMAGINE, COMMISSIONER, IF THE MONEY ISN'T ALREADY UTILIZED TO BUILD THAT, UH, TRAFFIC LIGHT, UH, BEFORE THE SITE PLAN GETS DONE AND GETS IN INTO THE PROCESS.

SO YOU'LL, THAT MONEY, AS YOU KNOW, THE ZTA, THE NTA HAS IDENTIFIED CERTAIN THINGS.

WE KNOW THAT THE PLANS THAT, UH, COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE AND OTHERS HAVE IDENTIFIED, UM, HAVE CERTAIN ASPECTS THAT NEED IMPROVEMENT.

AND WE ALSO KNOW FROM, UH, ALL THAT'S BEEN WRITTEN AND ALL THAT'S BEEN DONE BY GREAT TRANSPORTATION STAFF IS EXECUTING AND DEPLOYING THE SIFT DOLLARS IN THE GENERAL AREA.

THAT IS THE WAY IT WORKS.

THAT'S THE WAY YOUR PROJECTS HAVE GONE THROUGH AS WELL.

BACK IN THE NAPKIN SKETCH RIGHT NOW, IS THAT A SIGNAL AT THAT INTERSECTION WOULD BE AT LEAST A HALF A MILLION.

IS USING THOSE S DOLLARS IN THAT WAY, IT WOULD BE, IT'D BE GREAT TO USE THAT 300,000 TO, TO AS BASICALLY TO FILL SIDEWALK GAPS TO GET RESIDENTS IN YOUR DEVELOPMENT, UH, TO THOSE BUS STOPS THAT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT.

AND ABSOLUTELY.

AND, AND, AND IT'S GOOD.

IT'S GOOD BECAUSE WE HAVE, AS YOU WELL KNOW, AND AS YOU'VE JUST ALREADY PROBABLY LOOKED ON GOOGLE, 'CAUSE I KNOW YOU'RE PROFICIENT, WE HAVE A CONSISTENT AND CONSTANT, WE HAVE A CONSISTENT AND CONSTANT SIDEWALK FROM THE SITE ALL THE WAY TO THE BUS STOPS WHERE THERE ARE FOUR ROUTES, INCLUDING THAT 8 0 3 AND THAT LATE NIGHT OWL ONE.

UH, AND THE 300 AND THE THREE, YEAH.

MY CONCERN IS THAT I, I, MY BEST GUESS JUST

[02:00:01]

SO WE'RE NOT THERE WITH THE, UH, THE SIF FUNDING.

I GUESS, UH, LAST QUESTION FOR THE TRANSPORTATION STAFF, UM, AND AGAIN, I MAY HAVE MISSED THIS AND IT'S NOT IN THE BACKUP, BUT IS TRANSPORTATION STAFF NOT GOING TO REQUEST A FULL TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS DURING SITE PLAN? SO, LIKE I MENTIONED, THIS ZONING CASE, I THINK IT'S THE NET TRIPS IS 1,406.

SO THAT WOULD NOT TRIGGER A TIA, SO, SO BY CODE THEY HAVE TO TRIGGER 2000 DAILY TRIPS OR MORE.

SO EVEN WITH THE, THE CONSTRAINTS THAT EVERYONE KIND OF RECOGNIZES THE WARRANT STUDIES THAT'S BEEN DONE ON THE INTERSECTIONS AROUND THIS DEVELOPMENT, THAT, THAT, THAT, I MEAN, I'VE LOOKED AT THE OVERALL COUNTS.

I I I, I WOULD'VE BEEN SHOCKED IF, IF THE, IF IT DID NOT MEET WARRANTS AT THIS INTERSECTION FOR A SIGNAL, UM, EVEN WITH ALL OF THAT CONSIDERED AND TRANSPORTATION'S SUCH AN ISSUE, Y'ALL WOULDN'T BE CURIOUS TO KIND OF HAVE A BETTER UNDERSTANDING AN IDEA OF WHAT THE TRAFFIC SITUATION WOULD BE WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT.

UNFORTUNATELY, WE ARE BOUND BY CODE.

SO BY CODE WE CANNOT REQUEST IT UNLESS IT TRIGGER, IT TOPS THAT 2000 DAILY TRIPS OR MORE.

SO THERE'S NO MECHANISM FOR YOU TO DO A SPECIAL REQUEST? NO.

OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, UH, COUPLE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT.

FIRST, UM, AND AS YOU'RE WALKING UP HERE, I'LL GO AHEAD AND AHEAD AND ASK, SO, UM, ONE THING I JUST WANTED TO REALLY CLARIFY WITH THE DB 90, WE WOULD BE LOOKING AT AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING BONUS.

DO YOU HAVE A ROUGH IDEA OF HOW MANY AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS THAT WOULD BE AND WHAT SORT OF LEVELS WE MIGHT BE LOOKING AT IN TERMS OF AFFORDABILITY? UH, YEAH.

SO, UH, AT THE THREE 50 NUMBER, THAT'D BE 42 AND 400, BECAUSE I'M, YOU KNOW, IT'D BE A 3 54.

SO IT'D BE, UH, WOULD BE, UH, 48.

UM, THAT WOULD BE THE RANGE, AND IT WOULD BE AT 60% MFI, AND THAT'S WITHOUT TAX CREDITS, WITHOUT ANY SUBSIDY FROM THE GOVERNMENT THAT'S BEING BORN, AS YOU WELL KNOW FROM THE MARKET UNITS THAT ARE THERE.

EXCELLENT.

AND THEN YOU DID MENTION THAT IT'S CURRENTLY ZONED COMMERCIAL, AND WE'VE SEEN SOME COMMERCIAL IMPROVEMENTS ALONG THAT AREA, BUT I GUESS WHAT I'M CURIOUS ABOUT, IF WE DIDN'T MOVE FORWARD WITH HOUSING, OR FOR SOME REASON WE DENIED THE HOUSING HERE, I MEAN, THAT SEEMS LIKE WE MIGHT END UP WITH A WORSE OUTCOME IN SOME WAYS, BECAUSE YOU MIGHT END UP WITH SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE A COMMERCIAL.

I MEAN, WHAT IF SOMEONE DECIDED TO PUT A, I DON'T KNOW, LIKE TRUCKING OR SOMETHING IN THERE? AND I, I GUESS I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT HAPPENS IF WE DON'T MOVE FORWARD WITH THE, I MEAN, I DON'T WANT, I DON'T WANNA SPECULATE.

WE'RE HERE TO BE, UH, TO PROMOTE HOUSING.

WE THINK THERE'S A GREAT OPPORTUNITY FOR HOUSING CLOSE TO A TRANSIT, UH, AREA.

AS I ALREADY INDICATED IN MY PRESENTATION, IT'S CS WITH NO PROHIBITED USES AT ALL.

SO ANYTHING WOULD BE OPEN.

THAT IS NOT THE DESIRE.

THIS IS A, UH, AN OWNER WHO'S INTERESTED IN HOUSING, NOT IN ANYTHING ELSE AT THIS POINT.

UM, GREAT.

AND THEN ONE FINAL QUESTION FOR YOU.

UM, I DID NOTICE THAT A COUPLE OF THE NEIGHBORS HERE, BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU HAVE DONE SOME NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH AS WELL, AND, UH, AND THERE'S OBVIOUSLY A GROWING DEMAND FOR LIVING IN THIS AREA.

DOES, UM, DO YOU FEEL THAT, OR HAS THE RESPONSE BEEN POSITIVE IN TERMS OF SOME OF THE OTHER, UH, GROUPS THAT YOU'VE SPOKEN WITH IN TERMS OF MAKING THIS CHANGE? NNI MEAN, I DON'T, I WOULD NOT SAY THAT THERE IS A POSITIVE FEELING, UH, IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD ABOUT, UM, UH, UH, WELCOMING OTHER NEIGHBORS WHO ARE RENTING, WHO ARE GONNA, UH, ACCESS, UM, UH, AND UTILIZE THE, UH, AMENITIES THAT ARE THERE.

UH, AND SO I WOULDN'T SAY THAT THAT THAT HAS OCCURRED.

AND THEN A COUPLE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.

UM, I'M A LITTLE CURIOUS ABOUT THIS BECAUSE, UM, FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO MAY WORK, WE'VE SEEN SEVERAL PROJECTS ON A STREET CALLED EVERGREEN, WHICH IS JUST DOWN THE STREET FROM THIS, UM, ACTUALLY RIGHT ALONG, UH, THE UNION PACIFIC ROAD LAW AND EVERGREEN IS AN ACTUAL, ALSO A VERY NARROW STREET, AND WE'VE APPROVED SEVERAL VMU CASES THERE.

, VMU AND DB 90 ARE QUITE SIMILAR, IS THAT CORRECT? THEY HAVE SIMILARITIES, YES.

AND THE, THAT EVERGREEN STREET IS ALSO A BLOCK OR TWO BLOCKS OFF FROM SOUTH LAMAR, AND THAT WAS APPROVED FOR VMU BY THIS VERY SAME BODY AND INCLU INCLUDED IN AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

SO I GUESS I'M A LITTLE CONCERNED ABOUT THE INCONSISTENCY BECAUSE IF VMU IS BEING REPLACED BY DV 90, AND THEN WE'RE SAYING THAT WE HAD VMU CASES WHERE THIS WOULD'VE BEEN APPROVED, BUT NOW WE HAVE CONCERNS RELATED TO DV 90.

THAT SORT OF RAISES SOME QUESTIONS TO ME.

SO, WHICH IS, I, I MEAN, I GUESS, DID THE RULES CHANGE? LIKE WHAT WAS THE, SO WHAT WOULD BE THE DIFFERENCE? BASICALLY, THE STAFF IS RECOMMENDING CSV ON THIS SITE, SO WE'RE RECOMMENDING THE VM U.

FAMILY, SO, OR TRIGGERING PROPERTY.

SO I GUESS, I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, WHAT IS THAT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN VM U2? SO IF THE VM U2 EXISTED STILL, WHAT WOULD BE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THAT AND DB 90? YES, SO THERE ARE COMPATIBILITY DIFFERENCES.

SO DB 90 HAS THE 25 FOOT, UH, COMPATIBILITY, UH, RESTRICTION.

AND THEN V IS THE SAME AS CITYWIDE.

SO IT WOULD VARY DEPENDING ON HOW FAR THEY ARE FROM SINGLE

[02:05:01]

SO, JUST TO BE CLEAR, THE ONLY REAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A-V-M-U-T CASE AND A DB 90 CASE IN THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION WOULD BE THE COMPATIBILITY? NO, AND THE HEIGHT.

SO THERE'S ALSO GONNA BE A HEIGHT RESTRICTION.

SO DB 90 WOULD ALLOW UP TO 90 FEET, UH, V WOULD NOT ALLOW UP TO 90.

SO IT WOULD BE THE BASE ZONING DISTRICT.

OH, VM U2 WOULD ALLOW UP TO WHAT LEVEL OF HEIGHT? WE'RE NOT DOING VM U2 I, I'M AWARE, I'M ASKING IF VMU STILL VM U2 STILL EXISTED.

IT'D BE THE SAME AS DB 90, I BELIEVE.

SO THEN I GUESS WHAT I, AGAIN, THIS INCONSISTENCY ON EVERGREEN, WHICH IS A, A SITE JUST DOWN THE ROAD FROM THIS EXACT LOCATION, WE DID ALLOW FOR VM U2 IN INCLUDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING ON A STREET.

THAT'S A VERY SIMILAR WIDTH TO THORNTON.

SO I'M JUST CURIOUS WHAT HAS CHANGED BETWEEN THOSE ZONING DECISIONS AND THIS ZONING REVIEW? THE FACT THAT VM U2 DOES NOT EXIST ANYMORE.

THAT'S ALL I NEEDED TO KNOW.

OTHER QUESTIONS? I SEE.

UM, COMMISSIONER MU HASN'T GONE YET.

ACTUALLY, I, I, I'LL THROW THAT BACK TO STAFF.

IT LOOKED LIKE TO ME IN THE BACKUP THAT WE HAD, THAT STAFF INCLUDED ACTUALLY A LOT OF HISTORY YES.

UM, ON THIS SITE.

SO I DON'T SEE THAT THIS SITE WAS EVER A MU TWO.

I SEE THAT THERE WERE APPLICATIONS THAT CAME IN AND WENT FOR MF AND THAT IT LOOKS LIKE YOU GUYS SAID YOU WERE RE RECOMMENDING SOME COMBINATION WITH, UH, MULTIFAMILY TWO.

AT ONE POINT THERE WAS A MULTIFAMILY FOUR REQUEST, IS WHAT I'M LOOKING AT.

SO, PAGE, DO WE HAVE ANY IDEA HOW LONG AGO THAT WAS? YES.

SO PAGE TWO WILL SHOW A PARAGRAPH ON THE SITE HISTORY.

UM, THERE WAS A CASE IN 2022 THAT WAS WITHDRAWN.

THEY WERE REQUESTING TO REZONE FROM CS TO CSMU AND THEN ANOTHER CASE IN 2016.

THEY WERE REQUESTING CS TO MF FOUR CO STAFF DID NOT RECOMMEND MF FOUR CO.

THEY RECOMMENDED MF TWO.

THIS CASE WAS LATER WITHDRAWN OR DENIED BY COUNSEL.

AND THAT WAS BECAUSE OF WHAT, WHAT REASON WAS STAFF.

IT DIDN'T, THE REASON WHY STAFF DIDN'T RECOMMEND IT.

UM, GIMME ONE SECOND.

I DON'T HAVE THIS.

GIMME ONE SECOND.

I'M, I'M TRYING TO PULL IT HERE.

BUT IT LOOKS LIKE, UH, MF FOUR DID GO TO CITY COUNCIL HERE.

IT'S SAYING THAT PLANNING COMMISSION DID RECOMMEND MF FOUR THERE, WHICH WAS NOT WHAT CITY STAFF RECOMMENDED.

BUT THEN COUNCIL DENIED IT, BUT IT DOESN'T SAY WHY.

AND THEN A TD STATED NO IMPROVEMENTS TO THORNTON SINCE THE CASE HAD BEEN DENIED IN 2016.

UM, THEY, I HAVE THE CONDITIONS LISTED, BUT I DON'T HAVE THE REASON WHY I DIDN'T, I HAD NOT WATCHED THE CASE BACK FOR THAT ONE.

SO COUNSEL'S ALREADY LOOKED AT THIS IN A DIFFERENT KIND OF FORMAT FOR HOUSING AND SAID THIS WASN'T, I MEAN, THEY DENIED IT ON SECOND AND THIRD.

CORRECT.

I GUESS.

SO LET ME ASK THEN THE, TO THE DEVELOP, UH, TO MR. WAYLON, UM, WHAT DO THEY THINK HAS CHANGED THAT'S GONNA GET THEM THROUGH COUNSEL.

UM, THANK YOU.

MICHAEL WAYLON ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT.

UH, WELL, I THINK A LOT HAS CHANGED IN, IN THE, IN THE, IN THE LAST FEW YEARS.

AND I THINK THERE SHOULD BE SOME CLARIFICATION TO THE, THE 2020.

THE, THE PRIOR CASE, UH, WAS WITHDRAWN BECAUSE THERE WAS A RESIDENCE IN COMMERCIAL ZONING ORDINANCE THAT PASSED.

AND THEN THAT ORDINANCE, UM, UH, WAS HELD VOID.

AND THAT'S WHAT PROMPTED THEN, UH, STORY BUILT WENT UNDER.

AND THAT'S WHAT PROMPTED THEN THIS, UH, SUBSEQUENT CASE DOING DB 90.

THE FOCUS NOW, OF COURSE, AS YOU KNOW, FROM UH, COUNCIL, IS BEING SURE THAT THERE'S, UH, ENOUGH DENSITY ON AND WITHIN THE, UH, THE, THE, THE CORRIDOR, UH, WALK SHEDS, IF YOU WILL.

TO ENSURE FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION ADMINISTRATION GRANTS AND FUNDING.

WE'RE FAR FROM THAT DENSITY WHERE, I MEAN, WE'RE VERY, VERY FAR FROM IT.

WE TYPICALLY ARE IN THE LOW, UH, TO, UH, MEDIUM RANGE.

AND I THINK PART OF THE, UH, WHAT I THINK IS BEEN A FOCUS IS TWO THINGS.

ONE, MORE HOUSING GENERALLY, UH, AND MORE AFFORDABLE ONSITE AFFORDABLE HOUSING SO THAT WE CAN PLANT SOME FLAGS, ESPECIALLY WHERE THERE'S A COMMERCIAL RIGHT NOW, RIGHT.

THERE'S NO ABILITY TO DO RESIDENTIAL.

IT'S BEEN COMMERCIAL SINCE 1967.

AND, UH, I THINK, YOU KNOW, WE'RE AT A POINT IN OUR HISTORY WHERE WE NEED MORE DENSITY WITHIN VERY, WITHIN A, A MEANINGFUL WALK SHE TO DO THAT.

SO I, I, YOU KNOW, THAT, I THINK THAT'S WHY I, I THINK IT'S AN APPROPRIATE CASE TO PRESENT FOR THIS TYPE OF POLICY DISCUSSION TO COUNCIL.

LAST SPOT FOR A QUESTION.

VICE CHAIR.

CAN YOU TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT, SO WHEN WE LOOK AT THE MAP, THERE'S THE MF TWO PROPERTY IN YOUR, THE PROPERTY THAT YOU'RE PRESENTING, SORT OF WRAPS AROUND IT.

UM, MR. REAL, AND I'M SORRY, I'M GONNA HAVE TO ASK YOU TO COME BACK.

UM, UM,

[02:10:01]

CAN YOU SPEAK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT'S, WHAT IS THE CURRENT USE OF THE PROPERTY? WHAT DOES IT LOOK LIKE, WHAT IT WILL LOOK LIKE ULTIMATELY? OR, OR WHAT, WHAT DOES IT CURRENTLY HAVE ON THERE THAT THE PROJECT WILL BE SORT OF WRAPPED AROUND? UM, UH, ON THE IMAGE YOU MEAN WHY IT'S, WHY IT'S DESIGNED THE WAY IT IS WITH THE MF TWO CUTOUT PIECE.

OH, NO, I, I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IS ON THAT MF TWO PARCEL CURRENTLY.

OH, THERE'S NOTHING ON THERE RIGHT NOW ON THE MF TWO PARCEL.

THAT'S SOMEBODY ELSE'S PARCEL.

AND IF Y'ALL WERE TO HAVE AN ENTRY, IT WOULD BE SORT OF IN THE NORTHERN PART OF THAT PARCEL AS IT EXTENDS AROUND TOWARDS THORNTON.

THAT'S THE CS PARCEL ON THE, ON OUR J YEP.

IT WOULD, WE WOULDN'T BE DOING ANYTHING WITH THAT.

IT WOULD REMAIN THE WAREHOUSES IN THE, UH, THAT ARE THERE.

OR IT WOULD RETAIN THE CS ZONING THAT'S THERE.

AND WE UNDERSTAND THAT.

NO, I APPRECIATE THAT.

UM, AND THEN, YEAH, THERE'S NO, THERE'S NO C THERE'S NO SF UH, ABUTTING THE PROPERTY.

IF I, IF THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE SEEKING.

THERE'S MF TWO TO THE, UH, SOUTH.

THERE'S THE CS TO THE NORTH, THERE'S THE MF TWO THAT IS THAT CUTOUT THORNTON ROAD ACROSS THORNTON ROAD.

THERE'S, UH, THE SF AND THEN WE HAVE THE RAILROAD TRACKS BEHIND US ON THE EAST WITH THE MOBILE HOME, MOBILE HOME HOUSING, UH, ZONING, EXCUSE ME, UH, UH, BEHIND THAT.

AND, AND CONSIDERING THE SINGLE FAMILY IS SORT OF ACROSS THE STREET, I'M GONNA ASSUME THAT IT WILL TRIGGER COMPATIBILITY, EVEN IF IT IS DB.

I CAN YOU TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE COMPATIBILITY AS IT WOULD IT, IT, IT WOULD NOT, DB 90 IS, UH, 25 FEET, UH, IF IT'S ADJACENT, IF IT'S A, A TOUCHING IT IF YOU'RE DOING THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

'CAUSE WE, SO THAT'S PART OF THE INCENTIVE IS TO INCENT THAT, UH, TYPE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

AND CAN YOU REMIND US AGAIN OF THE AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENTS WITHIN THE DB 90 ORDINANCE? IT'S THE SIX.

IT'S, UH, 12% OF THE UNITS AT, UH, 60% MFI.

AND REMEMBER, THERE'S THE PROPORTIONATE MIX.

THEY HAVE TO HAVE ACCESS TO ALL AMENITIES.

ALL THE THINGS HAVE BEEN LOADED ON TO THE DB 90, UH, ORDINANCE.

AND IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, THE AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENT FOR DB 90 IS HIGHER THAN THAT FOR VMU.

IT IS, IT IS HIGHER.

THE V-M-U-V-M-U ALONE AT 60 FEET IS 10%.

UM, AND, UH, THE DB 90 IS, UH, UH, 12%, BOTH AT 60% MFI.

I DO HAVE A QUESTION FOR OUR TRANSPORTATION STAFF AS WELL.

I KNOW WE'RE NOT AT SITE PLAN RIGHT NOW.

WE'RE STILL AT THE ZONING SORT OF PHASE.

CAN YOU TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT KIND OF, UM, IMPROVEMENTS OR OTHER THINGS WE MIGHT SEE FROM A DEVELOPMENT SUCH AS THIS ALONG THORNTON AT THE TIME OF SITE PLAN? COULD YOU TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THAT? SO, AT TIME OF SITE PLAN, THE SITE WOULD NEED TO, UM, PROVIDE SIDEWALKS AMPLE, SO LEVEL ONE ROADWAY, IT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE FIVE FOOT SIDEWALKS, UM, AND THEN A SEVEN FOOT TREE AND PLANTING ZONE ALONG THE SITE'S FRONTAGE.

SO IF I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY, WE, WE HAVE THE STREET, THE FIVE FOOT SIDEWALK, AND THEN THERE'S A PLANTING, UM, CORRECT ZONE AS WELL IN ADDITION TO RIGHT.

OF ANY RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION THAT'S REQUIRED.

YEP.

AND THEN IN ADDITION, OF COURSE, WE WOULD HAVE THE TRAIL EASEMENT AT THE BACK CORRECT.

AS WELL.

I THANK YOU.

I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT.

I DO HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION FOR OUR ZONING STAFF.

I'M NOT SURE IF Y'ALL CAN HELP ME ANSWER THIS.

I SEE.

MR. RILLA, DID YOU WANNA ADD SOMETHING? PLEASE GO AHEAD.

YEAH, I APOLOGIZE.

I MADE A MISTAKE.

I APOLOGIZE.

IT'S 80% MFI FOR V RIGHT NOW BECAUSE I DON'T THINK THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAS A PLAN TO REDUCE TO 60.

I EXPECT IT'LL BE LOWERED AT SOME POINT, BUT IT IS 80% RIGHT NOW.

BUT DB 90 WOULD BE 60%, FIVE 60.

WOW.

THAT'S A BIG DIFFERENCE.

UM, I JUST AM, THIS IS A GENERAL QUESTION.

I'M NOT SURE YOU CAN HELP ME ANSWER THIS.

IN THE PAST, I KNOW THE VMU ORDINANCE THAT DIDN'T HAVE A REQUIREMENT FOR SORT OF BEING ON THE CORRIDOR, OR I KNOW WE'VE SORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ITSELF HAS NOT ALWAYS FALLEN IN LINE WITH THAT.

CAN YOU SPEAK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT HOW WE'RE LOOKING AT VM U'S APPLICABILITY OFF THE MAIN TRANSIT CORRIDOR RIGHT NOW? SORRY.

LIKE WHY IT'S APPLICABLE AND WHY WE'RE RECOMMENDING IT? YES, YES.

THIS IS JUST A GENERALLY, I I WAS JUST CURIOUS ABOUT THAT.

SO JUST AS A STAFF, WE DECIDED, SORRY, LEMME PULL IT UP BECAUSE SURE.

TAKE YOUR TIME.

UH, BASIS OF RECOMMENDATIONS, IT SHOULD ALLOW REASONABLE USE OF THE PROPERTY.

UH, VERTICAL MISUSE BUILDING WOULD ALLOW FOR REASONABLY PROPERTY INCOME.

RESTRICTED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS ARE STILL INCENTIVIZED WITH A V DESIGNATION.

UM, THE ZONING SHOULD PROMOTE A TRANSITION BETWEEN ADJACENT AND NEARBY ZONING DISTRICT LAND USES AND DEVELOPMENT INTENSITIES.

UM, THIS WOULD ALLOW FOR AN EXCHANGE IN INCREASED DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL.

THE DEVELOPMENT IS REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH AFFORDABLE HOUSING REQUIREMENTS.

ZONING SHOULD NOT CONTRIBUTE TO AN OVER ZONING OF AN AREA.

THERE ARE CONCERNS ABOUT GRANTING SUCH AN INTENSE ZONING ON THORNTON ROAD.

THE STREET ON THORNTON, WAS THAT THE MAIN YES.

AND CAN I JUST QUICKLY ASK ONE, SO I, I UNDERSTAND THAT SORT OF HAVING A COMPATIBLE MIX OF USE IS, IS, WAS STAFF'S CONCERNED THE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ACROSS

[02:15:01]

OR WAS THERE A ABUTTING PROPERTIES AS WELL? THAT AND THE RELATED CASE HISTORY STAFF IN THE PAST HAS NOT RECOMMENDED SOMETHING OF THIS INTENSITY.

WE ARE AT THE END OF OUR SPOTS.

I'M LOOKING.

COMMISSIONER JOHNSON.

YEAH, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION FOR THE, A APPLICANT REQUEST OF C-S-V-M-U DB 90, UM, INCLUDING THE WAIVER OF THE GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL REQUIREMENT.

UH, INFRASTRUCTURE IS RIDICULOUSLY EXPENSIVE.

LOOKING, I SEE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MAXWELL.

COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, DO YOU WANNA, UM, SPEAK TO YOUR MOTION? YEAH, I MEAN, I, I THINK WE'VE HEARD A LOT OF FOLKS WHO ARE, UH, WORRIED ABOUT THE IMPACT THAT SUCH A DEVELOPMENT WOULD HAVE ON THIS STREET, ON THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.

UM, I THINK SOME OF THOSE REMARKS ARE PERHAPS MORE, UM, MEANINGFUL THAN OTHERS.

I, I, FRANKLY, I'M, I, EVERY TIME I HEAR SOMEONE TALK ABOUT HOW NEW HOUSING WILL KILL PEOPLE OR NEW HOUSING WILL ALLOW PEOPLE WHO DON'T FIT THE PREFERRED AUSTIN LIFESTYLE TO LIVE HERE, IT, IT HURTS ME.

THAT'S A SHAMEFUL THING TO THINK AND TO SAY COMPLETELY UNFOUNDED AND UNBASED IN REALITY.

UH, I THINK ANYBODY WHO LIVES IN THIS DEVELOPMENT WHEN IT'S BUILT, WILL BE IN AUSTIN NIGHT BECAUSE THEY LIVE IN AUSTIN.

THEY WILL CONTRIBUTE TO WHAT MAKES AUSTIN THE WAY IT IS AND THE WAY IT WILL BE IN THE FUTURE.

AND THAT'S A WONDERFUL THING WE SHOULD CELEBRATE.

I THINK THE QUESTION BEFORE US TODAY IS FUNDAMENTALLY WHETHER THIS SITE IS APPROPRIATE FOR ABOUT TWO FLOORS, MORE HOUSING, INCLUDING MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING THAN WHAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE ALLOWED? THE ANSWER IS YES.

UM, THERE ARE SIX WAYS TO GET OFF OF THORNTON ROAD, ONLY ONE OF WHICH GOES TO OLTORF.

UH, THAT'S BY BIKE, BY FOOT, OR BY CAR.

THERE ARE ACTUALLY SEVERAL CUT THROUGHS THROUGH PARKS IN THE DEL CURTO AREA THAT WOULD INCREASE EVEN MORE OPTIONS FOR PEOPLE WALKING OR BIKING OR ROLLING TO GET AROUND.

UM, CLEARLY THERE'S AN ISSUE AT, AT OLD TORF AND THORNTON, WE NEEDED SIT.

THE CITY NEEDS TO THINK ABOUT HOW TO IMPROVE THAT INTERSECTION.

I'VE SEEN IT MANY TIMES GOING TO A BGB OR WHEN I LIVE DOWN THE STREET, IT DOES BACK UP, YOU KNOW, DOZENS OF CARS BACK.

THAT'S NOT WORKING WELL.

WE NEED TO FIX IT.

UH, HOPEFULLY THIS DEVELOPMENT WILL PAY HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO THE CITY TO TRY AND FIX THAT PROBLEM IF WE ALLOW IT TO GO FORWARD.

BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, THERE'S NOTHING IN GOOD PLANNING PRINCIPLES THAT SAYS 350 HOUSING UNITS, 40 ISH OF WHICH WILL BE AFFORDABLE, UH, WOULD CAUSE HARM TO THIS NEIGHBORHOOD OR TO OUR CITY.

EVERYTHING SAYS IT WOULD DO GOOD.

AND SO I I WHOLEHEARTEDLY SUPPORT THAT COMMISSIONER SPEAKING AGAINST COMM, COMMISSIONER COX.

YEAH, I MEAN, AS SOON AS I SAW THIS CASE, I KNEW IT WAS A FOREGONE CONCLUSION, WITH THIS PC.

BUT, UM, BUT I, I DO THINK THAT PARTICULARLY FOR THE RESIDENTS IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD AND RESIDENTS IN, IN MANY OF OUR NEIGHBORHOODS AROUND AUSTIN, I I WOULD IMAGINE THAT THIS IS SIMPLY ANOTHER CLASSIC CASE OF HOUSING DENSITY TAKING PRECEDENCE ABOVE ALL ELSE, INCLUDING, UH, OTHER QUALITY OF LIFE FACTORS AND SAFETY FACTORS, UH, FOR EXISTING AND FUTURE RESIDENTS OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.

UM, ASIDE FROM ALL OF THE ISSUES THAT I'VE SAID MANY, MANY TIMES WITH DB 90, I WON'T REPEAT IT, BUT I, I THINK I COULD HAVE SUPPORTED SOMETHING LIKE THIS IF WE HAD FIRMER COMMITMENTS TO, FROM THE DEVELOPER TO ACTUALLY RESOLVE SOME OF THOSE, UH, VERY WELL KNOWN, UH, TRAFFIC AND SAFETY ISSUES IN THIS AREA.

UM, UNFORTUNATELY, THE WAY WE'RE SET UP, I I, I JUST FEEL LIKE IT'S TOO LOOSEY GOOSEY, ATDS HANDS ARE TIED.

AND I DO, I, I AM A STRONG BELIEVER THAT NEW DEVELOPMENT SHOULD PAY FOR ITSELF.

UM, AND, AND IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE THAT, INSTEAD OF SIF FUNDS GOING INTO A POT OF MONEY THAT MAY BE USED IN A DECADE, BUT PROBABLY WON'T COVER ANY OF THE IMPROVEMENTS THAT WE ACTUALLY NEED, I WOULD LIKE TO ACTUALLY GET FIRM COMMITMENTS FROM DEVELOPERS TO PAY FOR THE IMPROVEMENTS THAT WE KNOW WE NEED TO SUPPORT THEIR OWN DEVELOPMENT, UH, AND TO PROTECT THE SAFETY AND QUALITY OF LIFE OF EXISTING RESIDENTS.

SO FOR ALL OF THOSE REASONS AND A FEW OTHERS, UM, I'M NOT GONNA SUPPORT THIS CASE.

COMMISSIONER SPEAKING FOR COMMISSIONER MAXWELL.

UM, YES.

UM, AS A RESIDENT OF THIS AREA AND SOMEONE WHO'S BEEN REALLY EXCITED ABOUT THE VERTICAL MIXED USE PROGRAM ON SOUTH LAMAR AND HOW SUCCESSFUL IT'S BEEN IN BRINGING SO MANY PEOPLE, I JUST FEEL THAT THESE BENEFITS REALLY DO OUTWEIGH THE LONG TERM.

UM, IN THE LONG TERM.

WHAT SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT WE'VE HEARD TONIGHT.

AND I, I JUST WANNA WHOLEHEARTEDLY ECHO WHAT I THINK COMMISSIONER JOHNSON WAS

[02:20:01]

SPEAKING TO, WHICH IS, WE KNOW WE NEED HOUSING, WE KNOW WE NEED AFFORDABLE HOUSING, AND OF COURSE WE ALSO KNOW THAT WE NEED REALLY GOOD TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS TO MANAGE THE ADDITIONAL GROWTH THAT WE'RE BUILDING TO OUR, IN OUR CITY.

AND I, I DO UNDERSTAND COMMISSIONER COX'S CONCERNS THAT THERE'S NOT REALLY HARD AND FAST, YOU KNOW, SORT OF GUARANTEES, BUT TO ME, THE IMPROVEMENTS IN THE IDEA THAT WE MIGHT ACTUALLY GET A LIGHT AT THORNTON, WHICH WOULD BE A HUGE BOON FOR THAT WHOLE NEIGHBORHOOD, I THINK THAT IS A WORTHWHILE THING TO BE ASKING FOR AND SOMETHING THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD COULD CONTINUE TO REQUEST.

AND I WOULD ALSO SAY THAT I, I JUST DO WANT A LITTLE BIT OF CONSISTENCY BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT VMU HAS WORKED ON THE CORRIDORS, AND WE KNOW THAT THE CITY COUNCIL HAS ASKED US TO THINK ABOUT WHERE ELSE WE CAN ADD DENSITY OUTSIDE OF THOSE CORRIDORS, BECAUSE FAMILIES WHO LIVE IN MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING SHOULD ALSO GET TO LIVE IN NEIGHBORHOODS.

THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE TO LEAVE LIVE JUST ON CORRIDORS WITH LOUD CARS, NOISE POLLUTION, ALL OF THOSE ADDITIONAL WIDE STREETS.

WE WANT THEM TO ALSO BE ABLE TO LIVE IN AREAS LIKE THIS.

AND EARLIER, I'D LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT I DID MENTION THAT I DIDN'T LOVE WHAT I SAW WITH THE COMMERCIAL PROGRAM BEING DONE IN A DIFFERENT AREA OF TOWN.

THIS IS A GOOD REUSE OF A COMMERCIAL SPACE.

THIS ALLOWS US TO ENSURE THAT WE DON'T END UP WITH SORT OF INCOMPATIBLE USES RELATED TO COMMERCIAL ZONING AND ACTUALLY GET SOME HOUSING INSTEAD AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING THAT'S GUARANTEED THAT WE'LL BE PART OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.

UM, THERE'S GREAT SCHOOLS AND A GREAT COMMUNITY HERE.

OBVIOUSLY WE HAVE VERY PASSIONATE NEIGHBORS, SO LET'S MAKE IT ACCESSIBLE TO MORE PEOPLE AND MAKE SURE THAT THAT MIXED USE IS REALLY IN EVERY PART OF OUR NEIGHBORHOODS IN AUSTIN.

SPEAKING AGAINST MADAM CHAIR PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY.

UH, I CAN'T, I CAN'T DO MUCH ON THIS COMMISSION, BUT I CAN COUNT.

UM, IF COMMISSIONER JOHNSON'S MOTION DOESN'T GET A MAJORITY, WHAT, UH, WHAT'S THE PROCESS THAT WE FOLLOW? DOES IT JUST GO, WE CAN, WE CAN, WE CAN ENTERTAIN ANOTHER MOTION AND IF NO OTHER MOTION, THEN IT JUST GOES ON WITHOUT A RECOMMENDATION.

PERFECT.

AND THEN ABSTAINING AS COMMISSIONER MOALA AND COMMISSIONER HAYES.

ANYBODY SPEAKING AGAINST, UH, COMMISSIONER MU? I'M NOT SURE THIS IS REALLY AGAINST, PER SE, I'M KIND OF TORN ON THIS CASE A LITTLE BIT, UM, BECAUSE HIGH DENSITY PROJECTS HAVE COME THROUGH HERE BEFORE AND STAFF RECOMMENDED AGAINST, AND SO DID CITY COUNCIL AND EVEN A LOT OF THE CURRENT COUNCIL MEMBERS RECENTLY.

AND THEN WHEN WE HEARD ABOUT WHAT'S DIFFERENT, THE, YEAH, THERE'S A PUSH FOR DENSITY AND YEAH, WE'VE WANTED AFFORDABILITY, BUT AS IT RELATES TO THE CORRIDORS, THIS ISN'T, THIS ISN'T ACTUALLY ON THE PROJECT CONNECT CORRIDOR.

THIS IS ON ONE OF OUR, OUR RAPID CORRIDORS.

BUT I, I'M JUST, I, I'M, I'M, I'M KIND OF CAUGHT IN THE MIDDLE ON THIS ONE.

UM, I SEE SOME POSSIBLE UPS, BUT I SEE DOWNS AND I'M CONCERNED THAT IT HASN'T GONE BEFORE.

UM, AND I, I DON'T THINK THAT A LOT HAS CHANGED THAT, YOU KNOW, MAKES IT VIABLE FOR THIS GOING FORWARD.

I I THINK THAT PLENTY OF PEOPLE HAVE SEEN PROBLEMS WITH IT ALL ONE SPOT, FOUR OR AGAINST, OH, COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE, JUST A BRIEF COMMENT SPEAKING FOR THE PROPOSED FOR THE PROJECT.

UH, IT'S ABOUT THE WIDTH OF THORNTON ROAD AND SAFETY.

UH, WE'VE HEARD A LOT OF TALK ABOUT HOW THE STREET WOULD BE INHERENTLY UNSAFE BECAUSE OF THE TRAFFIC AND BECAUSE OF HOW SLOW, UH, HOW EVERYBODY'S MOVING.

AND I JUST WANNA REMIND EVERYBODY THAT NARROW STREETS NOT THAT 30 FEET IS ACTUALLY ALL THAT NARROW, UH, AND SLOW SPEEDS ARE THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT THING WE CAN DO TO HELP PEDESTRIAN SAFETY.

SO WHEN PEOPLE TALK, I MEAN, I LIVE ON THE STREET IN, IN CLARKSVILLE THAT HAS, UH, YOU KNOW, SIDEWALKS WITH TELEPHONE POLES IN THE MIDDLE OF THEM IN A STREET THAT'S LIKE 20 FEET WIDE.

AND, YOU KNOW, IT'S SAFE BECAUSE EVERYBODY IS MOVING SLOWLY.

SO THIS IS ANOTHER POINT THAT ALONG THORNTON ROAD, YEAH, THERE WILL BE VEHICLES AND PEDESTRIANS WALKING.

THEY HAVE SIDEWALKS, QUITE FRANKLY, BUT THEIR SAFETY THERE, SPEED IS WHAT'S KILLING PEOPLE.

WHICH IS WHY WHEN WE PUT THESE PROJECTS ON CORRIDORS LIKE LAMAR, WHERE WE STILL HAVE REAL SPEED PROBLEMS, IS WHERE I, YOU KNOW, I WORRY, I DO THINK THAT WE, UH, THAT IT SHOULD BE IMPROVEMENTS AT ALT WHARF AND THORNTON.

AND I'M GLAD THAT THE CITY IS MOVING FORWARD WITH I, BUT I BELIEVE IN THE CONCEPT OF ROUGH PROPORTIONALITY TOO.

AND THE DEVELOPER'S RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR, THEIR CONTRIBUTION TO THOSE PROBLEMS. BUT THEY DO NOT, UH, THEY EXIST TODAY AND THEY SHOULD CONTRIBUTE TO THE SOLUTION, BUT I DON'T THINK IT'S FAIR FOR THEM TO BEAR THE FULL COST OF IT.

SO, THANK YOU.

AND FINAL SPOT AGAINST.

ALL RIGHT, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE.

THIS IS FOR, UM, THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST.

THIS WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MAXWELL.

ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, THOSE AGAINST ONE

[02:25:01]

SO THAT'S SEVEN TO ONE TO TWO.

THAT MOTION PASSES.

THANK YOU TO ALL OF OUR SPEAKERS.

UM, WE ARE GOING, CAN, CAN I MAKE A QUICK POINT OF PRIVILEGE? YES, GO AHEAD, CHAIR.

I WOULD JUST LIKE TO GIVE A SHOUT OUT TO THE BOSS LADY ON THE MOTORCYCLE AND THE PICTURE ON GOOGLE MAP SAID THORNTON AND OLD TOF, BECAUSE SHE HAS A PINK SISSY BAR AND A FULL PINK RIDING SUIT WITH CHECKERS.

SO IF ANYBODY KNOWS WHO SHE IS, TELL HER SHE IS AWESOME.

'CAUSE THAT'S JUST THAT I'M TALKING ABOUT.

THAT WASN'T YOU, .

ALTHOUGH I'M GONNA BUY ONE JUST LIKE .

ALL RIGHT, WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON TO OUR FINAL DISCUSSION CASE THIS EVENING.

THAT IS NUMBER 11, SITE PLAN LIGHT.

WOW.

IS MR. BRENT LLOYD HERE? LOOK OR ON THE PHONE? OKAY.

IS HE MAKING HIS WAY IN? OKAY.

LET'S TAKE A QUICK, UH, FIVE MINUTE BREAK.

SO PLEASE RECONVENE AT 8 39.

MR. LLOYD, IF YOU WANNA MAKE YOUR WAY AND START YOUR PRESENTATION.

TO GET STARTED ON ITEM NUMBER 11.

SO WE'RE GOING

[11. LDC Amendment: C20-2023-045 - Site Plan Lite Phase 2 & Infill Lots]

THIS IS SITE PLAN LIGHT PHASE TWO, AND INFILL LOTS IS WAITING ON THE PRESENTATION.

OKAY? OKAY.

UH, THANK YOU BRENT LLOYD, DEVELOPMENT OFFICER WITH DSD.

UM, APPRECIATE THE COMMISSION'S TIME AND INTEREST IN THIS MATTER.

WE'RE HERE TO PRESENT ON AN ORDINANCE.

UH, WE'VE COME TO REFER TO AS INFILL PLATS AND SITE PLAN LIGHT.

AND WITH ME TONIGHT FROM DSD AS, UH, LINDY GARWOOD, PRINCIPAL PLANNER, AND KEITH MARS, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR.

WE ALSO HAVE THE ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER, LIZ JOHNSON.

UH, MATT HOLLAND, AND THE CITY'S FLOODPLAIN ADMINISTRATOR, KEVIN SCHUNK HERE AS WELL.

ANDY HOLM FROM AUSTIN ENERGY IS PRESENT, AND WE HAVE OTHER STAFF PARTICIPATING REMOTELY.

SO WE'LL JUST DIVE IN.

UM, WE'RE GONNA TALK, JUST GIVE SOME GENERAL BACKGROUND AND I WANNA DISCUSS SEPARATELY THE TWO SETS OF AMENDMENTS, INFILL PLOTS, AND SITE PLAN LIGHT PART TWO.

AND WE WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THE COMMISSION HAS TIME FOR QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS.

SO, STARTING WITH INFILL PLOTS, UM, I'M GONNA TRY TO BREEZE THROUGH THIS, BUT I THINK, YOU KNOW, IT'S BEEN, THE COMMISSION NO LONGER ACTS ON SUBDIVISIONS, AND SO I WANNA MAKE SURE EVERYBODY HAS AN APPROPRIATE FRAME OF REFERENCE FOR WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

SO, SUBDIVISION IS THE DIVISION OF LAND INTO, INTO ONE OR MORE LOTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF SALE, TRANSFER DEVELOPMENT, OR EXTENSION OF UTILITIES.

GENERALLY SPEAKING, UNLESS THERE'S SOME SORT OF A, AN EXCEPTION THAT APPLIES, LAND HAS TO BE PLATTED TO BE DEVELOPED.

UM, INFRASTRUCTURE AND AMENITIES ARE TYPICALLY DEDICATED AT SUBDIVISION, UH, WHICH SERVES MULTIPLE LOTS, AND IT PROVIDES A WIDER LENS TO LOOK AT THE IMPACTS OF DEVELOPMENT ON THE SURROUNDING AREA.

THEN JUST A BUILDING PERMIT OR SITE PLAN.

OUR REGULATIONS DISTINGUISH, UH, BETWEEN COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISIONS BECAUSE WITH A COMMERCIAL SUBDIVISION, YOU KNOW THAT THE SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENT IS GONNA REQUIRE A SITE PLAN.

AND A SITE PLAN THEN PROVIDES A VEHICLE TO APPLY A LARGER SET OF REGULATIONS.

SO WITH COMMERCIAL SUBDIVISIONS, MORE REGULATIONS ARE DEFERRED FROM SUBDIVISION TO THE SUBSEQUENT

[02:30:01]

PERMITTING PROCESS.

WITH RESIDENTIAL, AS SOON AS YOU'RE THROUGH PLOTTING, YOU GO STRAIGHT TO BUILDING PERMIT.

AND BUILDING PERMITS ARE REVIEWED FOR A VERY STREAMLINED SET OF REGS.

SO THAT'S AN IMPORTANT DISTINCTION IN OUR REGULATIONS.

UM, SUBDIVISIONS HAVE PRELIMINARY PLANS, FINAL PLOTS, SUBDIVISION CONSTRUCTION PLANS, AND, AND RE SUBDIVISIONS.

AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE TODAY.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WITH INFILL PLOTS, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TAKING EXISTING PLOTTED LOTS OR LAND STATUS PARCELS AND DIVIDING THEM INTO MULTIPLE LOTS OR TRACKS, UH, AS OPPOSED TO A GREENFIELD SUBDIVISION WHERE YOU'RE STARTING WITH RAW LAND AND CREATING A WHOLE NEW SUBDIVISION.

UM, A KEY DISTINCTION AND A KEY, I THINK, DRIVER OF, PART OF THE INCENTIVE FOR THESE AMENDMENTS IS THAT WITH A SUBDIVISION, A SUBDIVIDED INDIVIDUAL LOT THAT HAS A UNIT ON IT, YOU, YOU OWN THE LAND, YOU OWN EVERYTHING.

YOU'RE NOT IN A HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION WITH YOUR IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORS.

UM, IT'S A SEPARATE TRACK THAT IS, UH, TRANSFERRABLE, UM, WITHOUT HAVING TO DO MEETS AND BOUNDS DEEDS.

UM, AND CONDOMINIUM REGIMES ARE, ARE LOTS THAT HAVE MULTIPLE UNITS ON THEM.

UM, SO YOU HAVE, YOU WILL HAVE, UH, THE KIND OF CONDO REGIME THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS GENERALLY MULTIPLE DETACHED OR ATTACHED UNITS ON A SINGLE LOT.

AND THAT REQUIRES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATIONS AND A, A RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE INDIVIDUAL UNITS WHERE THE LAND IS HELD IN COMMON OWNERSHIP AS OPPOSED TO A SEPARATE WHERE YOU OWN THE LAND AND THE STRUCTURE.

UH, SO GREENFIELD SUBDIVISIONS, UM, OUR CODE IS REALLY BUILT AROUND THE IDEA OF A GREENFIELD SUBDIVISION.

WE'VE MADE SOME ENHANCEMENTS OVER THE YEARS THAT KIND OF NOD TO THE NEEDS OF INFILL, BUT FUNDAMENTALLY, OUR CODE IS VERY SUBURBAN IN TERMS OF HOW IT TREATS THE SUBDIVISION PROCESS.

AND A GREENFIELD SUBDIVISION, AGAIN, IS WHERE YOU'RE STARTING WITH RAW LAND AND YOU'RE DOING THE, THE FULL MEAL DEAL.

YOU'RE DEDICATING OPEN SPACE, YOU'RE DEDICATING, UM, POTENTIALLY, UH, EASEMENTS FOR PRESERVATION.

YOU ARE DOING PARKLAND DEDICATION, WATER QUALITY CONTROLS, DRAINAGE PONDS, YOU'RE DEDICATING STREETS.

UM, THIS IS THE, THE CLASSIC GREENFIELD SUBDIVISION.

AND YOU SEE WE'VE GOT RED LINES DRAWN AROUND THREE OF THE LOTS.

AND THAT LEADS INTO OUR NEXT SLIDE, WHICH IS AN INFILL SUBDIVISION.

SO IN THE PLATTING CONTEXT, INFILL RE SUBDIVISION OF LOTS IS DIVIDING THEM EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY SUBDIVISIONS INTO NEW, SMALLER LOTS.

CURRENT REGULATIONS, PARTICULARLY DRAINAGE AND WATER QUALITY, ARE TAILORED TO GREENFIELD SUBDIVISIONS RATHER THAN RESIDENTIAL INFILL.

AND THIS RESULTS IN THINGS LIKE MICRO PONDS, DRAINAGE PONDS THAT ARE, YOU KNOW, NOT ALWAYS SERVING A LOT OF VALUE, UM, AND A LOT OF REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE TRIGGERED SIMPLY BY VIRTUE OF THE FACT THAT WE DON'T HAVE A CODE THAT'S VERY CALIBRATED TO INFILL.

UM, SO THE RESOLUTION THAT, UH, SORT OF SET THE STAGE FOR THE INFILL PLOT AMENDMENTS THAT WE'RE GONNA TALK ABOUT TONIGHT IS IT AIMS TO ESTABLISH AN EFFICIENT PROCESS TO CREATE INFILL LOTS WITHIN RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISIONS AND FACILITATE FEE, SIMPLE OWNERSHIP, AND A SMALL LOT DEVELOPMENT FORM.

THIS VERY MUCH DOVETAILS INTO THE HOME TWO AMENDMENTS, UM, RIGHT SIZE REGULATIONS TO SCALE THE INTENSITY OF INFILL DEVELOPMENT, UM, EXPLORE MAKING WAIVERS AND VARIANCES ADMINISTRATIVE, AND INCLUDE OTHER CHANGES TO CREATE, TO FACILITATE THE CREATION OF INFILL LOTS.

SO IN 2023, UM, IN RESPONSE TO STATE LEGISLATION, THE CITY LOOKED FOR WAYS TO STREAMLINE AND IMPROVE THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS.

AND I THINK THE, SOME OF THE AMENDMENTS THAT WE ADOPTED ALREADY ON THE BOOKS IN 2023 ARE RESPONSIVE TO THE GOALS OF THE INFILL PLAT RESOLUTION.

AND SO I WANNA JUST HIGHLIGHT WHAT THOSE ARE.

FIRST AND FOREMOST, WE ELIMINATED COMMISSION APPROVAL FOR PLOTS, WHICH MEANS ALL APPLICATIONS WITHOUT VARIANCES ARE APPROVED BY STAFF.

THAT THAT'S WHY YOU ALL DON'T SEE SUBDIVISIONS VERY OFTEN ANYMORE.

AND THE STATE LEGISLATION, STATE LEGISLATION DIDN'T REQUIRE US TO DO THAT, BUT IT GAVE US THAT OPTION.

AND WE, WE JUMPED ON THE CHANCE BECAUSE WE RECOGNIZED THAT IT FURTHERS THE GOALS OF INFILL PLOTS, AND IT FURTHERS A LOT OF CITY GOALS TO BETTER STREAMLINE THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS.

UM, WE STREAMLINED THE APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS, WE EXTENDED APPLICATION DEADLINES, AND WE MADE IT SO FLAG LOTS NO LONGER REQUIRE VARIANCES.

SO NOW THE AMENDMENTS THAT WE HAVE PLACED BEFORE YOU TONIGHT, AND THAT WE'RE, WE'RE HOPING YOU WILL RECOMMEND, UM, ARE TARGETED CHANGES TO REGULATIONS FOR RESIDENTIAL RESUBS.

AND THEY'RE AIMED AT MAKING THE

[02:35:01]

PROCESS MORE EFFICIENT AND LESS CO COSTLY FOR LANDOWNERS SEEKING TO RE SUBDIVIDE INTO SMALLER LOTS THAT ARE AUTHORIZED UNDER HOME.

TWO, UM, THEY FOCUS PRINCIPALLY ON THE CODE AMENDMENTS FOCUSED PRIMARILY ON DRAINAGE REGULATIONS, AND THERE'S A REASON FOR THAT.

IT'S NOT THAT DRAINAGE IS THE ONLY REGULATORY OBSTACLE TO INFILL, BUT DRAINAGE REGULATIONS AND THE DIRECTIONS, UH, FOR DRAINAGE IS REALLY CODIFIED IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE IN A WAY THAT A LOT OF OTHER REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS ARE NOT.

A LOT OF THE CHALLENGES THAT CONFRONT INFILL OUTSIDE OF DRAINAGE ARE MORE IN ADMINISTRATIVE CRITERIA MANUALS AND DEPARTMENT PRACTICES.

SO THE ORDINANCE WE HAVE, WE'RE GONNA TALK ABOUT MORE THAN DRAINAGE TONIGHT, BUT THE ORDINANCE THAT WE PLACED BEFORE YOU IS FOCUSED ON DRAINAGE.

FOR THAT REASON, IT'S IN THE CODE.

SO WE'RE SEEKING TO ENSURE THAT DRAINAGE REQUIREMENTS ARE RIGHT SIZE TO INFILL DEVELOPMENT, AND ALSO SUFFICIENT TO ENSURE THAT DEVELOPMENT DOES NOT INCREASE RISK OF LOT TO LOT FLOODING.

AND WE HAVE STAFF HERE TONIGHT WHO CAN SPEAK TO THAT.

UM, I THINK, YEAH, SO SUMMARY OF OUR PROPOSAL, UM, DRAINAGE PLAN IN LIEU OF ONSITE DETENTION AND DRAINAGE STUDIES.

SO FOR RE SUBDIVISIONS OF PLATTED RESIDENTIAL LOTS, ONSITE DETENTION AND DRAINAGE STUDIES WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED IF THE TOTAL LAND AREA DOES NOT EXCEED A QUARTER OF AN ACRE.

SO ESSENTIALLY, IF YOU'RE RE SUBDIVIDING AND THE, YOUR APPLICATION DOES NOT INCLUDE MORE THAN A QUARTER ACRE, YOU WOULDN'T HAVE TO DO MORE, NO MORE DRAINAGE THAN YOU WOULD IF YOU WERE JUST BUILDING WITH A BUILDING PERMIT.

SO THERE WOULD BE NO DRAINAGE STUDIES REQUIRED, NO VOLUMETRIC ANALYSIS, AND CERTAINLY NO ONSITE DETENTION FOR RESUBS THAT ARE OVER A QUARTER ACRE, BUT NO GREATER THAN ONE ACRE.

UM, APPLICANTS WOULD BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE A DRAINAGE PLAN DEMONSTRATING THAT WITH ALL WITHOUT ALTERING NATURAL TOPOGRAPHY, STORM WATER RUNOFF WILL BE DISCHARGED TO AN EXISTING STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM OR INTO RIGHT AWAY.

AND THIS IS, UH, CONSISTENT WITH RSMP REGIONAL, UH, STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN CRITERIA.

UM, AND IT'S INTENDED TO BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE AN EASY SUBMITTAL.

UM, IT WOULDN'T REQUIRE THE SAME LEVEL OF DESIGN PROFESSIONAL INVOLVEMENT OF THE SAME LEVEL OF ENGINEERING OR ANALYSIS THAT GOES INTO A TRADITIONAL DRAINAGE STUDY.

UM, AND IT, BUT IT WOULD HELP TO SCREEN OUT, UM, SOME OF THE PROJECTS THAT ARE REALLY MORE LIKELY TO CREATE TANGIBLE DIRECT FLOODING IMPACTS TO THE SURROUNDING AREA.

UH, SO FOR PROJECTS THAT MEET THESE CRITERIA, THE AMENDMENTS ELIMINATE ALL COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH MICRO, MICRO PONDS AND DRAINAGE STUDIES.

YOU'RE EITHER DOING NO DRAINAGE AT ALL, OR YOU'RE DOING A VERY STREAMLINED DRAINAGE PLAN THAT IS INTENDED TO BE USER-FRIENDLY, EASY TO PREPARE, AND EASY TO GET THROUGH THE REVIEW PROCESS.

SO ADDITIONALLY, WE HAVE, UH, REVISED THE IMPERVIOUS COVER, UH, COVER ASSUMPTIONS THAT ARE USED, UH, FOR THIS TYPE OF SUBDIVISION.

AND I, I JUST WANNA SAY A COUPLE WORDS ABOUT IMPERVIOUS COVER IN, IN THE CONTEXT OF SUBDIVISION.

SO WHEN YOU'RE COMING IN WITH A BUILDING PERMIT OR A SITE PLAN, YOU'RE ACTUALLY SHOWING WHAT'S ULTIMATELY GONNA BE BUILT.

YOU HAVE THE VERTICAL CONSTRUCTION, YOU HAVE THE SITE LAYOUT, AND SO YOU'RE SHOWING ACTUAL IMPERVIOUS COVER, BUT WITH SUBDIVISIONS, YOU'RE DRAWING LOT LINES AND YOU'RE MAKING CERTAIN DEDICATIONS, BUT YOU REALLY ARE NOT BUILDING ANYTHING YET.

SO IN TERMS OF HOW WE ANALYZE IMPERVIOUS COVER IN THE CONTEXT OF SUBDIVISION, WE USE ASSUMPTIONS.

AND SO NO CHANGE PROPOSED TO IMPERVIOUS COVER LIMITS, UM, WHICH MEANS IT'S 45% AND SF THREE AND SF TWO, BUT THE ASSUMED IMPERVIOUS COVER, UM, IS GOING TO BE CHANGED IN A MANNER THAT WILL FACILITATE INCLUDING MORE LOTS IN A SUBDIVISION APPLICATION.

UM, SO CURRENT CODE ASSUMES 2,500 SQUARE FEET OF IMPERVIOUS COVER FOR ALL LOTS UNDER 10,000 SQUARE FEET.

AND THAT IS UNREALISTIC FOR SMALLER INFILL DEVELOPMENT FOR LOTS BELOW 57 50.

THE STAFF PROPOSAL IS TO USE ZONING IMPERVIOUS COVER, WHICH WE THINK ESTABLISHES A MORE REALISTIC BASELINE FOR APPLYING WATER QUALITY AND DRAINAGE REGULATIONS TO INFILL.

SO WATER QUALITY CURRENTLY IN CURRENT CODE, IF YOU DON'T EXCEED 8,000 SQUARE FEET OF IMPERVIOUS COVER, THEN NO WATER QUALITY CONTROLS ARE REQUIRED.

AND SO THESE MODIFIED IMPERVIOUS COVER ASSUMPTIONS ARE GOING TO ALLOW APPLICANTS TO INCLUDE MORE, LOTS MORE SMALLER LOT DEVELOPMENT WITHIN A SUBDIVISION APPLICATION WITHOUT TRIGGERING WATER QUALITY CONTROLS, BECAUSE WE'RE BETTER CALIBRATING THE ASSUMED IMPERVIOUS COVER TO THE REALITY OF

[02:40:01]

THIS DEVELOPMENT FORM.

SO IT'S A LITTLE BIT OF AN ABSTRACT ESOTERIC CONCEPT TO UNDERSTAND, BUT IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT AND WE BELIEVE THAT IT WILL, UM, ADD A LOT OF VALUE IN TERMS OF FACILITATING INFILL DEVELOPMENT.

UM, WHAT IS GOING ON HERE? UM, OKAY.

AND SO THIS IS, AGAIN, THIS GETS TO THE IDEA OF BETTER CALIBRATING AND TAILORING OUR REGULATIONS TO THESE INTERMEDIATE TIERS OF DEVELOPMENT THAT ARE INCREASINGLY COMMON IN, UH, A DEVELOPED CITY THAT IS, IS REALLY DEVELOPING UNDER AN INFILL MODEL MORE THAN WE EVER HAVE BEFORE.

UM, LIMITATIONS ON INFO PLAT REGS.

SO ONLY APPLICABLE DETRACTS WITHIN ALLY PLATTED SUBDIVISIONS WHERE LOTS ARE BETTER SUITED TO INFILL DEVELOPMENT.

WHEN SUBDIVISIONS HAVE BEEN APPROVED AS RESIDENTIALLY PLATTED, UH, SUBDIVISIONS, THEY'RE OFTENTIMES NOT ALWAYS THE CITY'S HISTORY OF, YOU KNOW, REGULATORY REVIEW IS NOT ENTIRELY CONSISTENT.

BUT WITH RESIDENTIALLY PLATTED SUBDIVISIONS, THERE GENERALLY HAS BEEN SOME LEVEL OF REVIEW FOR DRAINAGE AND SOME LEVEL OF REVIEW FOR ENSURING THAT THE LOTS ARE ADEQUATELY SITUATED WITHIN A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT FORM.

UM, THE PROCESS IS NOT AVAILABLE IF THE RE SUBDIVISION REQUIRES A PLAT VACATION.

SO IF YOU'RE GONNA JUST SCRAPE THE ENTIRE PLAT AND GET RID OF POTENTIALLY CONDITIONS THAT ARE IMPOSED ON THE PLA, UM, AND GO BACK TO RAW LAND AND START WITH A GREEN FIELD, THEN THIS, THIS PROCESS WOULD NOT BE AVAILABLE.

THIS THIRD BULLET IS, SHOULD BE SCRATCHED .

UH, IT IS IN AN EARLIER VERSION OF OUR PROPOSAL, WE EXCLUDED PROPERTIES WITHIN THE, UM, THE WILDLAND URBAN INTERFACE, THE WWE, UM, AND WE'VE DETERMINED IN LIGHT OF THE UPCOMING CHANGES TO THE WWE THAT ARE GONNA BE COMING FORWARD SOON, THAT WE DON'T THINK THAT EXCLUSION IS NECESSARY.

WE THINK THAT THOSE, THE W THE NEW WWE MAP AS IT'S CURRENTLY PROPOSED IS GOING, IS GOING TO INCLUDE A LARGE AREA OF THE CITY, AND IT HAS SUFFICIENT PROTECTIONS AGAINST DEVELOPMENT.

IT EXACERBATING WILDFIRE RISK THAT EXCLUDING THIS PROCESS FROM, UM, TRACKS THAT ARE IN THE WOOEY JUST DOESN'T ADD A LOT OF VALUE.

IT'S NOT NECESSARY IN OUR VIEW, IN LIGHT OF THE CHANGES THAT ARE PROPOSED FOR WOOEY, SO THAT NO LONGER APPEARS IN OUR ORDINANCE.

UM, IT DOES NOT WAIVE RESTRICTIONS ON DEVELOPMENT IN FLOODPLAIN OR THE EROSION HAZARD ZONE.

SO IF YOU'RE IN A MAPPED FLOODPLAIN, UM, THE STANDARD REGULATIONS THAT LIMIT DEVELOPMENT, UM, IN A FLOODPLAIN WILL CONTINUE TO APPLY RELATION TO PROPOSED HOME TWO AMENDMENTS.

INFILL PLOT AMENDMENTS WILL ENABLE, ENABLE AN EASIER PROCESS FOR APPLICANTS TO RE SUBDIVIDE INTO SMALLER LOT SIZES PROPOSED FOR HOME.

TWO, THE AMENDMENTS WILL SUPPORT AN EASIER PROCESS FOR THE CREATION OF FLAG LOTS UNDER THE REVISED REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE PROPOSED IN A HOME.

TWO, GONNA MOVE ON TO SITE PLAN LIGHT PART TWO AND WHICH WILL GO QUICKER.

SO SITE PLANS REQUIRED FOR RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS, FIVE OF FIVE OR MORE DWELLING UNITS.

UH, THE SITE PLAN PROCESS IS HISTORICALLY WHAT WE USE TO TRIGGER THE FULL LEVEL OF REVIEW REQUIRED UNDER THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THE CORRESPONDING CRITERIA MANUALS, UM, WHICH ENTAILS A LOT OF INTERDEPARTMENTAL COORDINATION AND REVIEW UNDER A, A LOT OF DIFFERENT DISCIPLINES.

SO WITH THE PASSAGE OF OF THE SITE PLAN, LIGHT RESOLUTION COUNCIL PROVIDED DIRECTION TO PROPOSE A MODIFIED SITE PLAN PROCESS IN TWO PHASES.

SO THE FIRST PHASE IS PROJECTS OF ONE TO FOUR DWELLING UNITS WITH THE GOAL OF CONFORMING THE PROCESS TO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AS CLOSELY AS POSSIBLE.

SO THE GOAL FOR SITE PLAN LIGHT PART ONE IS TO MAKE UP TO FOUR UNITS ON A LOT AS CLOSE TO A SINGLE FAMILY LEVEL OF REVIEW AS POSSIBLE.

AND WE BELIEVE THAT WE, WE HAVE MADE GREAT STRIDES IN THAT DIRECTION AND THAT, UH, EVENTUALLY, AND I THINK WE'RE MAYBE A COUPLE MONTHS SHY OF, OF MEETING THIS, BUT EVENTUALLY FOUR UNITS WILL GO TO DIRECTLY TO A RESIDENTIAL, UH, SINGLE FAMILY LEVEL OF REVIEW.

WE STILL ARE USING THE SITE PLAN EXEMPTION PROCESS, WHICH IS AN INTERMEDIATE TIER OF REVIEW TO CAPTURE SOME REQUIREMENTS THAT, UH, CONTINUE TO APPLY.

BUT WE HAVE, UM, I KNOW IT HASN'T BEEN AS, AS QUICK AS, AS SOME OF THE, UH, DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY WOULD, WOULD LIKE TO HAVE SEEN, BUT WE HAVE MADE GREAT STRIDES IN ACHIEVING THE GOALS OF THE, OF THE SITE PLAN LIGHT PART ONE, UM, PROJECT.

SO THE SECOND PHASE FOCUSES ON DEVELOPMENT OF FIVE TO 16 UNITS WITH THE GOAL OF BETTER TAILORING THE REGULATIONS TO THE SCALE AND INTENSITY OF THESE DEVELOPMENTS.

AND THESE ARE DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE GONNA HAVE MORE IMPACTS ON THE SURROUNDING AREA THAN A SINGLE FAMILY HOME OR THAN A ONE TO FOUR UNIT PROJECT, BUT NOT AS MUCH AS A BIG COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN.

[02:45:01]

UM, SO THE AMENDMENTS IN BOTH PHASES ARE LIMITED TO NON ZONING REGULATIONS.

SO IT'S IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THAT, YOU KNOW, COUNCIL HAS NOT INCREASED THE NUMBER OF LOTS THROUGHOUT THE CITY WHERE YOU CAN ACTUALLY DO FIVE TO 16 UNITS.

SO THIS IS REALLY FOCUSED ON DIS CALIBRATING THE NON ZONING SIDE OF THE LEDGER TO ALLOW THESE PROJECTS, UM, WHERE YOU HAVE THE APPROPRIATE ZONING.

AND WHAT THAT'S GONNA MEAN REALLY IS MULTIFAMILY ZONE TRACKS.

UM, AND A LOT OF THOSE TRACKS ARE GONNA BE, THE INCENTIVE IS GONNA BE TO DEVELOP LARGER PROJECTS TO DEVELOP BIGGER APARTMENT BUILDINGS.

BUT WE THINK THAT FOR SMALLER MF TRACKS, THIS WILL CREATE OPPORTUNITIES FOR, UM, FOR SITE PLAN, LIGHT STYLE OF DEVELOPMENT, AND ADDITIONALLY AFFORDABILITY AND LOCKED PROJECTS.

WE DEFINITELY, IN THE PAST, I'VE, I'VE HEARD DIRECTLY FROM APPLICANTS THAT THEY WANT TO DO, UM, PROJECTS OF UP TO FIVE OR 16 UNITS, UM, AND THEY HAVE THE AFFORDABILITY UNLOCKED ABILITY, THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO THAT UNDER AFFORDABILITY UNLOCKED, BUT SOME OF THE NON ZONING STANDARDS, PARTICULARLY DRAINAGE, ARE AN OBSTACLE TO THAT.

SO THIS WILL, UH, FACILITATE AFFORDABILITY UNLOCKED PROJECTS.

UM, MR. LLOYD, HOW MUCH TIME DO YOU MORE TIME DO YOU THINK? I'M GONNA, UM, NO MORE THAN FIVE MINUTES.

AND I'M GONNA, I'M GONNA SPEED IT UP SURE.

IF UNLESS THERE'S OPPOSITION TO THAT ONE.

CAN I RECOMMEND SEVEN MINUTES IF WE CAN? OKAY.

LET'S NOT SPEED IT UP.

I KNOW THIS IS COMPLEX.

DEPARTMENTS ARE GONNA MAKE GOING FORWARD.

LET'S GIVE STAFF THE TIME TO BE ABLE TO PRESENT.

SO I THINK I, I, I WENT OFF SCRIPT A LITTLE BIT AND I COVERED SOME OF THIS, BUT WE'VE MADE, I THINK, SUBSTANTIAL STRIDES IN, IN SITE PLAN, LIKE PART ONE IN TERMS OF REALLY ALLOWING UP TO FOUR UNITS ON A LOT WITH A LEVEL OF REVIEW THAT IS CLOSE TO A SINGLE FAMILY HOME AS WE CAN GET.

AND WE'RE, WE HAVE MORE WORK TO DO ON THAT, BUT I THINK WE'RE AT A 75 TO 80% LEVEL, UH, OF ACHIEVING THAT.

UM, SO, SO THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS FOR SITE PLAN LIGHT PART TWO, SO THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS WOULD ESTABLISH, AGAIN, AN INTERMEDIATE REVIEW PATH THAT'S CLOSER TO SINGLE FAMILY THAN TO FULL SITE PLAN.

AND FOR SITES THAT DO NOT EXCEED A HALF AN ACRE, APPLICANTS WOULD BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE THE STREAMLINED DRAINAGE PLAN THAT I DISCUSSED WITH INFILL PLOTS.

AND THAT IS A DRAINAGE PLAN DEMONSTRATING THAT WITHOUT ALTERING NATURAL TOPOGRAPHY, STORM WATER RUNOFF WILL BE DISCHARGED TO AN EXISTING STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM OR PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.

FOR PROJECTS THAT MEET THESE CRITERIA, THE AMENDMENTS ELIMINATE ALL COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH MICRO PONDS AND DRAINAGE STUDIES.

SO THE PROPOSAL WOULD ALSO CLASSIFY FIVE TO 16 UNITS AS A SMALL PROJECT SITE PLAN.

AND THAT PROVIDES A VEHICLE FOR REDUCING REVIEW FEES, STREAMLINING THE PROCESS, AND ELIMINATING NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS, ADDITIONAL PROCESS IMPROVEMENTS TO BE PURSUED ON AN ONGOING BASIS WITH OUR PARTNER DEPARTMENTS AND THROUGH FUTURE COST OF SERVICE STUDIES.

THIS IS NOT ALL GONNA HAPPEN AT ONCE.

THE CODE WILL LAY A FOUNDATION, UM, FOR MAKING POSITIVE IMPROVEMENTS, IT WILL IMMEDIATELY LIFT SOME SUBSTANTIAL AREAS OF REGULATION.

BUT THERE IS GONNA BE FOLLOW UP REQUIRED, BECAUSE AGAIN, AS I MENTIONED, A LOT OF THE CHALLENGES THAT INFILL DEVELOPMENT CONFRONTS IS NOT DIRECTLY IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, BUT IT ARISES MORE FROM ADMINISTRATIVE CRITERIA MANUALS AND DEPARTMENT PRACTICES.

SO WE HAVE REQUESTED FOR BOTH SETS OF AMENDMENTS, WHICH ARE CONTAINED IN THE SAME ORDINANCE, WE'RE ASKING FOR A 90 DAY DELAYED EFFECTIVE DATE.

THESE, AND, AND THAT MAY SEEM LIKE A LONG TIME, UM, BUT THESE ARE CHALLENGING AMENDMENTS THAT REQUIRE A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF INTERDEPARTMENTAL COORDINATION TO APPLY.

THEY'RE GOING TO REQUIRE CHANGING ASPECTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS THAT WE DON'T CHANGE VERY OFTEN.

AS A CITY, WE FREQUENTLY AMEND OUR ZONING REGULATIONS.

IT'S, WE, WE FAIRLY FREQUENTLY AMEND WATER QUALITY REGULATIONS, OUR ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLS, BUT THE DRAINAGE REGULATIONS AND SOME OF THE OTHER REGULATIONS THAT REALLY GET INTO, YOU KNOW, THE GEARS AND LEVERS OF HOW DEVELOPMENT WORKS ON THE GROUND ARE, ARE THINGS THAT WE DON'T TRADITIONALLY CHANGE VERY OFTEN.

AND SO WE ANTICIPATE SOME CHALLENGES IN WORKING THROUGH WITH OUR PARTNER DEPARTMENTS AND GETTING EVERYTHING READY TO IMPLEMENT.

AND THAT'S WHY WE, WE'VE ASKED FOR THE 90 DAYS.

SO IN ADDITION TO THE CODE AMENDMENTS, WE ARE ALSO OFFERING UP SOME TANGIBLE COMMITMENTS AS ON CHANGES THAT

[02:50:01]

AND THESE ARE NOT THINGS THAT REQUIRE YOUR APPROVAL OR COUNCIL'S APPROVAL.

THESE ARE ON THE ADMINISTRATIVE SIDE, BUT THEY ARE SUBSTANTIAL, UH, IMPROVEMENTS THAT WE BELIEVE WILL HELP, UH, TO IMPROVE THE REGULATORY LANDSCAPE FOR INFILL.

SO ONE OF THE, WE CONDUCTED A TESTING SESSION AND WE'VE HAD MULTIPLE, YOU KNOW, DISCUSSIONS IN TERMS OF INTERNALLY AND EXTERNALLY ON SOME OF THE VERY TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF THESE AMENDMENTS.

AND ONE OF THE BIGGEST IMPEDIMENTS THAT WE'VE HEARD ABOUT IS THE REQUIREMENT THAT IF YOU'RE WITHIN 550 FEET OF AN EXISTING STORM DRAIN, THAT THE DEVELOPMENT HAS TO DIRECTLY CONNECT TO THE EXISTING STORM DRAIN SYSTEM, UM, AND WATERSHED PROTECTION UPON, YOU KNOW, HEARING, UH, COMMENTS THROUGH THE TESTING PROCESS.

AND, YOU KNOW, REALLY REVIEWING THE SORT OF HISTORY OF, OF THE REQUIREMENTS AS THEY CURRENTLY EXIST HAS PROPOSED THAT THEY WILL INITIATE CHANGES TO THE DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL THAT WOULD ELIMINATE THE CONNECTION REQUIREMENT ALTOGETHER IF THE SITE DOES NOT EXCEED A HALF AN ACRE.

AND FOR SITES THAT ARE UP TO ONE ACRE, THE APPLICANT DEMONSTRATES THAT STREET GUTTER AND STORM DRAINING INLET CONTAINS THE A HUNDRED YEAR, UH, FULLY DEVELOPED FLOW RATES FOR THE APPLICABLE DRAINAGE AREA.

SO IF EITHER ONE OF THOSE REQUIREMENTS ARE MET, THERE WOULD BE NO CONNECTION REQUIRED REGARDLESS OF DISTANCE.

UM, AND THEN OTHERWISE IT WOULD JUST BE A 350 FOOT DISTANCE REQUIREMENT AS OPPOSED TO 550 FEET.

SO WE BELIEVE THAT THIS IS GOING TO ADDRESS WHAT WE HAVE HEARD, UH, IS ONE OF THE BIGGEST OBSTACLES TO INFILL DEVELOPMENT, UM, TOGETHER WITH DRAINAGE.

UM, RS, UM, WATERSHED PROTECTION IS ALSO PROPOSED TO INITIATE AN AMENDMENT TO THE DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL THAT WOULD ALLOW PROJECTS OF UP TO FIVE TO 16 UNITS PER ACRE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE RSMP PROGRAM IF THEY DO NOT EXCEED ONE ACRE.

SO THIS WOULD AVOID REQUIREMENTS TO PROVIDE ONSITE DETENTION FACILITIES, AND IT WOULD BASICALLY BE THE RSMP PROGRAM, AND WE HAVE STAFF HERE WHO CAN SPEAK TO THAT IF THE COMMISSION WANTS TO GET INTO THAT LEVEL OF DETAIL.

BUT IT'S A PROGRAM THAT, UM, ALLOWS DEVELOPERS TO CONTRIBUTE TOWARDS INFRASTRUCTURE WITHOUT HAVING TO DIRECTLY PROVIDE ONSITE DETENTION FACILITIES.

AND IT'S CURRENTLY LIMITED IN A MANNER THAT WOULDN'T FACILITATE THE FIVE TO 16 UNIT PROJECTS.

BUT UNDER THIS AMENDMENT, IF YOU DON'T MEET THE STANDARDS THAT I JUST DISCUSSED A FEW MINUTES AGO ABOUT THE STREAMLINED DRAINAGE PLAN, OR POTENTIALLY IF YOU'RE LESS THAN A QUARTER ACRE, NO DRAINAGE AT ALL, IF YOU DON'T MEET THOSE ENHANCEMENTS, THEN YOU AT LEAST GET TO DO RSMP.

SO THIS IS A, THIS WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD SORT OF PROVIDE AN AVENUE TO HELP OUT PROJECTS THAT DON'T QUITE MEET SOME OF THE RELAXED STANDARDS THAT WE ARE, ARE PROPOSING IN OUR CODE AMENDMENTS.

UM, TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC WORKS, AND WE HAVE TRANSPORTATION AVAILABLE TONIGHT.

UM, PARTICIPATING REMOTELY, THEY HAVE PROPOSED TRANSPORTATION CRITERIA, MANUAL CHANGES TO REDUCE THE, UH, MINIMUM WIDTH FOR A MINOR DRIVEWAY TO 10 FEET, ALLOWING RIBBONS, UM, SOMETIMES CALLED HOLLYWOOD STRIPS, UH, TO BE PERMITTED AS A DESIGN ELEMENT WITHOUT A WAIVER PROCESS.

UM, REDUCING REQUIREMENTS FOR JOINT USE, ACCESS EASEMENTS, UH, AND STREAMLINING THE WAIVER PROCESS FOR DRIVEWAY SPACING, CLARIFYING COMMENT REPORTS RELATED TO PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS.

SO WE'VE RECEIVED A LOT OF FEEDBACK FROM STAKEHOLDERS ON THE PROCESS SIDE AND, UH, TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC WORKS, TPW HAVE PROPOSED WE, WHAT WE THINK ARE SOME REAL TANGIBLE IMPROVEMENTS THAT WILL, UH, BENEFIT THE REVIEW PROCESS.

UM, AT THIS POINT, UH, I WANNA TURN THINGS OVER TO MATT HOLLAND, WHO'S GONNA TALK A, A LITTLE BIT, IS GONNA KIND OF GET WONKY WITH YOU ON SOME NUMBERS AND GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF A, OF A LENS INTO THE NUMBER OF PROPERTIES THROUGHOUT THE CITY THAT ARE POTENTIALLY GONNA BENEFIT FROM THE CHANGES THAT WE'VE PRESENTED.

UM, CHAIR, JUST A QUICK POINT OF PRIVILEGE.

THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF ISSUES WITH FOCUS ON THE, ON THE CAMERA FEED ONLINE, PROBABLY ON A TXN.

IT'S ALMOST CONSTANTLY GOING IN AND OUT OF FOCUS.

UM, SO I DON'T IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT STAFF IN THE ROOM CAN TRY TO, TO FIX.

THANK YOU FOR LETTING US KNOW.

COMMISSIONER JOHNSON.

MR. HOLLAND, HOW MUCH TIME DO YOU THINK YOU'LL NEED FOR THE LAST FEW SLIDES? UM, I CAN, I CAN BLOW THROUGH IT IN ABOUT FIVE MINUTES, I THINK, AND WHAT I CAN DO IS JUST SAVE SOME OF THE DETAIL FOR ANY DETAILED QUESTIONS YOU GUYS HAVE.

AND DON'T FEEL LIKE YOU NEED TO RUSH, BUT I, I WANNA GIVE YOU ENOUGH TIME BECAUSE THIS IS, IS COMPLICATED, BUT IT, IT HELPS US PUT THE TIME ON THE CLOCK.

HAPPY TO ANSWER MORE DETAILED QUESTIONS AS WELL.

THAT SOUNDS GOOD.

SO, FIVE MINUTES, YOU SAID.

ALRIGHT, LET'S, LET'S TRY FIVE.

ALRIGHT, SO, MAN, HOLLAND WATERSHED PROTECTION.

THANK YOU FOR

[02:55:01]

YOUR INTEREST IN THIS.

UM, SO THIS TABLE DESCRIBES THE, THE LAYOUT THAT, UM, THAT BRENT MENTIONED EARLIER, UH, FOR THE TWO, TWO SEPARATE PLANS.

SO WE GOT INFILL SUBDIVISION, UH, SEPARATED OUT FROM SITE PLAN, UH, LIGHT THERE.

UM, ONE KEY THING IS, UH, THIS IS, THIS IS, IF YOUR SITE IS ABLE TO HANDLE IT, IT HAS THE CHARACTERISTICS NEEDED.

SO NOT EVERY SITE IS GONNA FALL INTO ONE OF THESE BINS.

UM, AND SO IF YOU'RE OVER 20, IF YOU'RE A SUBDIVISION AND YOU'RE OVER A QUARTER ACRE IN LESS THAN ONE ACRE, YOU'RE GONNA NEED TO SHOW YOUR WATER DRAINS PRETTY CLEARLY TO THE RIGHT OF WAY OR TO A STORM DRAIN SYSTEM.

IT COULD BE CREEK, ET CETERA.

BUT IF YOU CAN DO THAT, THEN YOU CAN AVOID DOING ALL THE DETENTION AND SO FORTH THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

HOWEVER, IF YOU NEED TO DO MORE ELABORATE GRADING, AS IN COMING IN AND SCULPTING THIS YOUR SITE AND PUTTING IN MAYBE A SWALE AND DOING SOME EXTRA STUFF, THAT'S GONNA KICK YOU INTO A SEPARATE CATEGORY OF SOMETHING WE'RE ALREADY DOING IN THE DRAINAGE CRITERIA, IT'S ALREADY AN OPTION, BUT IT, IT, IT OPERATES THROUGH THE REGIONAL STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM.

SO THERE'S REALLY, UM, YOU KNOW, IF YOU KINDA LAY IT OUT, THIS, THIS SHOWS EXACTLY WHAT'S HAPPENING THAT'S NEW, BUT THERE ARE SOME EXISTING THINGS THAT ARE STILL IN PLACE, INCLUDING DETENTION.

YOU MAY HAVE A SITE THAT'S TILTED THE WRONG WAY, UH, TO PUT IT KIND OF BASICALLY, UM, SUCH THAT YOU CAN'T EVEN GRADE IT TO GET TO THE ROAD OR GET IT TO A DRAINAGE SYSTEM.

AND SO THOSE SITES ARE GONNA BE LIMITING AND YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO CONTINUE TO PUT IN A DETENTION POND IN THOSE PROJECTS.

AND SO I JUST WANTED TO KIND OF MENTION THAT.

UM, AND SO WE'VE ACTUALLY HAD SOME FEEDBACK FROM THE AUSTIN, UH, INFO COALITION, AND THEY'RE SAYING, HEY, THIS IS GONNA BE A, A REDUCTION IN THE NUMBER OF LOTS.

AND THAT IS, THAT IS TRUE THERE.

YOU NOT ALL THE LOTS ARE GONNA FIT THIS MODEL.

UM, BUT A BUT A DECENT NUMBER, UH, WILL.

AND SO WE CAN, UH, TALK ABOUT THAT.

AND SO, UH, FOLKS CAN TALK MORE ABOUT THAT.

AND THE SAME THING WITH THE SITE PLAN.

THERE IS NO OPTION ON THE SITE PLAN SIDE WHERE YOU CAN ABSOLUTELY AVOID DETENTION.

YOU HAVE TO HAVE, YOU CAN AVOID IT IF YOU CAN, IF SITES TILTED THE RIGHT WAY.

UM, YOU CAN USE THE EXISTING, UM, DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL SYSTEM, UH, TO USE GRADING AND SO FORTH.

BUT THAT HAS FULL, UM, UH, PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SEAL REVIEW AND, AND, AND OVERSIGHT.

AND IT ALSO HAVE, UM, AND IT WOULD ALSO BE INSPECTED BY THE CITY IN TERMS OF THE LOT COUNT.

THIS IS THE JUST TOTAL LOT COUNT OF THESE LOTS BY SIZE.

ARE ALL OF THESE GONNA BE SUITABLE FOR THIS? AND, YOU KNOW, CAN YOU USE IT? IS IT TILTED THE RIGHT WAY? ESSENTIALLY, THE ANSWER IS GONNA BE NO.

UH, THIS IS JUST THE TOTAL LOT COUNT.

SO BETWEEN ZERO AND 0.25 ACROSS THE ENTIRE CITY AND GET THE MAP THERE FOR SF ONE, TWO, AND THREE ZONE SITES, YOU KNOW, ABOUT THREE QUARTERS OF 'EM ARE GONNA BE IN THAT CATEGORY THAT IF YOU WANTED TO SUBDIVIDE IT, YOU COULD, UM, UH, WITH THIS PROPOSAL.

'CAUSE IT'S REALLY THE SAME SIZE AS THE OTHER LOTS AROUND IT.

WE'RE BASICALLY IN THE SPIRIT OF WHAT THE COUNCIL'S ASKING FOR, SAYING, LOOK, IF YOU CAN DO IT NEXT DOOR USING A BUILDING PERMIT WITH NO, WITH NO OVERSIGHT AND SO FORTH, WE'RE GONNA ASK YOU THE SAME THING.

YOU STILL HAVE TO FOLLOW STATE LAW AND SO FORTH, UM, TO GET TO, TO MAKE SURE YOU DON'T FLOOD YOUR NEIGHBORS AND SO FORTH.

BUT WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR ADDITIONAL REGULATIONS THROUGH HERE.

A REALLY KEY THING TO NOTE IS, AT THIS LEVEL, MICRO DETENTION IS NOT, WE BELIEVE IN A VERY EFFECTIVE ENGINEERING SOLUTION, AND WE DON'T, WE'RE NOT RECOMMENDING IT DOWN TO THIS LEVEL AND BELOW THIS, UM, QUARTER ACRE LEVEL.

IT'S JUST, WE, WE THINK IT'S, IT'S KIND OF A BRIDGE TOO FAR OR I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE RIGHT METAPHOR IS, BUT YOU GET MY POINT.

UM, AND WE REALLY THINK IT HAS VERY LIMITED BENEFIT AND THERE'S A LOT OF COST ASSOCIATED WITH IT AND A LOT OF PERMANENT MAINTENANCE AND INSPECTION.

AND WE'RE, WE, WE DO, WE DON'T, WE'RE NOT, WE'RE NOT WANTING THAT TO BE, UM, IN THE MIX.

THAT'S OUR STRONG RECOMMENDATION, UM, FOR THE, FOR THESE VERY SMALL SITES.

AGAIN, LOOK LIKE THE ONE NEXT DOOR THAT HAS NO SUCH, UH, REQUIREMENTS AND WE DON'T THINK NEEDS THEM.

UM, THIS ONE, I'M, I'M GONNA, I'M GONNA SKIP THIS ONE.

YOU CAN LOOK AT IT IN YOUR PACKET.

IT'S JUST, IT'S ON THIS IS THIS, THIS IS THE SAME INFORMATION EXCEPT I TRIM OUT THINGS THAT ARE NOT UNDER AN ACRE.

'CAUSE REALLY THIS ONLY APPLIES TO EIGHT THINGS UNDER AN ACRE BECAUSE THERE'S WAY FEWER SITES THAT ARE SITE PLAN LIGHT, MEANING, UM, ZONED, UM, MF ONE, TWO, OR THREE.

AND SO THE VAST MAJORITY OF THESE TODAY ARE ALREADY PRETTY SMALL.

UM, AND THE, THE LARGER ONES, IT JUST IS GIVING YOU SOME, UH, SOME CONTEXT.

UM, SO I THINK IT'S REALLY USEFUL TO UNDERSCORE, WE'VE HEARD A LOT FROM OUR, OUR, FROM THE, FROM THE PUBLIC ABOUT IMPERVIOUS REAL CONCERNS ABOUT IMPERVIOUS COVER SAYS, ARE WE GONNA, WE GONNA SEE MORE, UH, IMPACTS AND BAD THINGS HAPPENING WITH THIS? AND I'LL REITERATE THAT, THAT HOME ONE AND, AND HOME TWO, NEITHER ONE OF THOSE RAISED IMPERVIOUS COVER, IT'S STATED 40, WHETHER, YOU KNOW, YOU THINK THAT'S A GREAT IDEA OR NOT, THAT IS EXACTLY WHERE IT STAYED.

IT'S 45% AND IT HASN'T CHANGED.

SO OUR, OUR PROPOSAL WON'T BE CHANGING THAT.

UM, I'M

[03:00:01]

THERE'S A WAY MORE TO TALK ABOUT.

WE'VE PROBABLY HAD AN HOUR AND A HALF DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS AT ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION LAST WEEK AND BE HAPPY TO DIVE INTO ANY DETAILS.

SO ANYWAY, THAT'S IT FOR MY, OUR PRESENTATION.

ALL RIGHT, WAITING YOUR QUESTIONS.

ALRIGHT, THANK YOU SO MUCH.

UM, BEFORE WE GET TO OUR SPEAKERS, UM, I WANT TO EXTEND OUR TIME TO 11 O'CLOCK SECOND.

UM, ANY OPPOSED TO THAT? NOTING COMMISSIONER COX? OPPOSITION .

ALRIGHT, LET'S GET STARTED ON OUR SPEAKERS CHAIR.

COULD YOU RESTATE THE SECOND FOR THAT MOTION? UH, VICE CHAIR.

OKAY, THANK YOU.

AND WE'LL NOW BE HEARING FROM OUR SPEAKERS AND OPPOSITION.

OUR PRIMARY SPEAKER AND OPPOSITION IS ANA AGUIRE.

ANA, YOU WILL HAVE FIVE MINUTES.

GOOD EVENING CHAIR, A HE AND COMMISSIONERS.

MY NAME IS ANNA AGUIRE.

I'M A DISTRICT TWO RESIDENT AND I'M SPEAKING ONLY ON ME MY BEHALF.

I'M SPEAKING AGAINST ITEM 11.

THERE WAS NO COMMUNITY NOTIFICATION ON THESE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

I CAN ASSURE YOU IF MORE PEOPLE WERE AWARE OF THIS, THEY WOULD BE HERE AND OTHER ORGANIZATIONS AS WELL.

FLOODING IS AN EXTREMELY IMPORTANT ISSUE FOR DISTRICT TWO RESIDENTS.

I NOTE THE ARGUMENT CONTINUES TO BE AFFORDABILITY, YET THERE HAVE BEEN NO DEMONSTRATED EFFORTS THAT RESULTED IN INCORPORATING AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENTS IN ANY OF THE RECENT LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE CHANGES.

NOT IN HOME PHASE ONE, NOT IN HOME PHASE TWO.

IF THIS, IF THIS WERE ABOUT AFFORDABILITY, YOU NEED TO MAKE IT ABOUT AFFORDABILITY.

AUSTIN IS FLASH FLOOD ALLEY.

UNLIKE OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS.

THE WATERSHED PROTECTION DEPARTMENT IS ONE OF PROBABLY A HANDFUL CHARTS WITH PUBLIC SAFETY.

WHAT WILL BE THE CUMULATIVE IMPACT OF THE RUNOFF THIS POLICY WILL CREATE DURING THE 2013 AND 2015 LOWER ONION CREEK CATASTROPHIC FLOODS.

THE FLOW OF THE WATER ALONG ONION CREEK WAS TWICE THE SPEED OF THE FLOW OF NIAGARA FALLS.

IF YOU CAN IMAGINE THAT IT WAS VERY DESTRUCTIVE.

MANY FLOOD VICTIMS, MOSTLY PEOPLE OF COLOR WERE MARGINALIZED PRIOR TO THOSE FLOODS.

WE CONTINUE TO WARN CITY STAFF AND LEADERS THAT FLOODING IS GETTING WORSE.

WILL THIS COMMISSION MARGINALIZE US? PLEASE DON'T.

HOW WAS THE FLOOD MITIGATION TASK FORCE REPORT TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION THAT THESE PROPOSED CHANGES WERE CONSIDERED? WHAT WILL BE THE ADDED IMPACT ON CREEK LOCALIZED AND LOT TO LOT FLOODING? WHERE ARE THESE PROPOSED PROJECTS GOING TO BE LOCATED? WHAT ABOUT THE DRAINAGE INFRASTRUCTURE? ESPECIALLY IN AREAS TARGETED BY THE 1928 MASTER PLAN OR OLDER NEIGHBORHOODS? THESE AREAS DO NOT HAVE THE DRAINAGE CAPACITY TO HANDLE THE INCREASED DENSITY, THEREFORE, THEY'RE GONNA BE MORE VULNERABLE TO FLOODING.

WE'RE WORRIED WE KNOW ABOUT THE VARIANCES.

WE SEE THEM ALL THE TIME.

WHO WILL PAY FOR THE DAMAGE CAUSED BY THE RUNUP AND INCREASED FLOODING TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW REQUIRING NO ADVERSE IMPACT.

DOWNSTREAM DEVELOPERS OR THE CITY SHOULD PAY FOR ENGINEERING STUDIES FOR PROPERTY DOWNSTREAM.

SO THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS CAN HAVE AN ESTABLISHED BASELINE DATA SPECIFIC TO THEIR PROPERTY IN THE EVENT THEIR PROPERTY FLOOD.

AFTER PROPERTY SUBSTREAM ARE DEVELOPED OR REDEVELOPED.

BUYOUTS OR RELOCATION FUNDS SHOULD NOT BE AN OPTION.

AND FOR THE RECORD, RELOCATION FUNDS ARE OFFENSIVE, ESPECIALLY FOR COMMUNITIES OF COLOR AS WE KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS.

MEANING IN LOW, IN THE LOWER ONION CREEK AREA, NO LONGER LIVE THERE AND THEY DON'T KNOW, DON'T LIVE MOSTLY IN AUSTIN.

WHAT ABOUT PROPERTIES WITHIN THE ATLAS 14TH FLOODPLAIN? DURING THE HOME HEARINGS, I SPOKE PUBLICLY AND ASKED THAT NO NEW DEVELOPMENT OR REDEVELOPMENT BE ALLOWED WITHIN THE ATLAS 14TH FLOODPLAIN.

THAT PLEA WHEN NOT HEARD HOMES CONTINUE TO BE BUILT IN THE FLOODPLAIN.

WHAT ABOUT THE DRAINAGE UTILITY FEE? WOULD BEES INCREASE FOR ADDITIONAL IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE ALLOWED? I MENTIONED EARLIER WE DID NOT GET A NOTIFICATION ON THESE PROPOSED CHANGES.

STAFF HAVE PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THEY HAD MEETINGS WITH STAKEHOLDERS.

I ASSURE YOU I WAS NOT ONE OF THOSE STAKEHOLDERS AND NEITHER WERE OTHER NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, COMMUNITIES THAT WERE VULNERABLE AND IMPACTED BY THIS PROPOSAL.

WE WERE NOT THERE.

I CANNOT TAKE CREDIT FOR THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT AND THE AUTHOR IS UNKNOWN, BUT IT HAS BEEN SAID WHEN THOSE OF US IMPACTED THE MOST ARE NOT AT THE TABLE, WE'RE DEFINITELY ON THE PLATE.

THOSE OF US THAT ARE THE MOST VULNERABLE, INCLUDING PEOPLE NEW TO AUSTIN THAT UNKNOWINGLY BUY OR RENT PROPERTIES WITHIN THE FLOODPLAIN ARE ON THIS PLATE.

I'M ASKING THAT WE BE INCLUDED AS STAKEHOLDERS IN THIS PROCESS.

I'M ASKING THAT WE BE INVITED TO THE TABLE TOGETHER WE CAN WORK

[03:05:01]

ON PUBLIC SAFETY.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME, CONSIDERATION AND SERVICE TO OUR COMMUNITY.

WE WILL NOW BE HEARING FROM LORRAINE ATHERTON.

LORRAINE, YOU WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES.

OH, THANK YOU.

THAT LOOKS GOOD.

THAT SHOWS UP WELL, UH, UH, ON THE SCREEN.

I'M LORRAINE ATHERTON.

I LIVE AT, UH, 2009 ARP DALE, WHICH IS, UH, UH, JUST ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THIS, THIS BLOCK.

UH, IN THE PICTURE.

UH, THIS IS, UH, STORM WATER, UH, AT 24 0 6 BLUEBONNET LANE IN MARCH 28TH, 2006.

IT'S COMING FROM A SIX UNIT PROJECT, UH, THREE DUPLEXES, UH, ON THE FAR END OF THIS BLOCK.

UH, 24 0 9 ANN ARBOR, UH, THAT WERE ALLOWED TO AVOID ONSITE DETENTION.

THEY MET, UH, ALL THE WAIVERS AND, UH, UH, BENEFITED FROM A STREAMLINED PROCESS INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM WHAT MR. LLOYD AND MR. HOLLAND JUST DESCRIBED.

THIS WAS 20 YEARS AGO.

UH, AT THE BEGINNING OF CONSTRUCTION.

UH, MY NEIGHBOR'S, UH, UH, MY, MY BACKYARD AND MY NE NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE WERE FLOODED.

MY NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE WAS DAMAGED, SERIOUSLY DAMAGED.

UH, SO ALTHOUGH THE, THE, UH, SO-CALLED DEVELOPER, UH, GOT A REALLY GOOD DEAL ON, UH, ON A, A CHEAP, UH, UH, UH, PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER TO GET HIS, ALL OF HIS WAIVERS APPROVED.

UH, MY NEIGHBORS AND I HAD TO RAISE THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO HIRE, UH, A COMPETENT ENGINEER TO DO A DR.

REAL DRAINAGE STUDY AND COME UP WITH A PLAN TO CORRECT THE MISTAKES MADE BY THE FIRST ENGINEER.

AND AT THE SAME TIME, UH, AS THE CONSTRUCTION WAS COMPLETED AND THE, UH, UH, THE NEW OWNERS, UH, UH, TRIED TO OCCUPY THEIR, UH, THEIR NEW CONDOS, THEY FOUND THAT THE HOUSES THAT THEY, THE NEW HOUSES, THE NEW DUPLEXES WERE FLOODING THEMSELVES.

THEY HAD TO HIRE, THEY HAD TO RAISE THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO HIRE THEIR OWN ENGINEER TO DESIGN A LEGITIMATE DRAINAGE PLAN.

UH, NEXT, NEXT PHOTOS NEXT.

UH, THAT'S, UH, A PICTURE OF EROSION AGAIN IN THE RIGHT OF WAY AT 24 0 6 BLUE BON LANE.

UH, THIS IS ON 13 MAY.

UH, THE RUNOFF AT, UH, THANK YOU.

IT'S AUSTIN'S CLAUSTROPHOBIA.

OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS BILL OLIVER.

BILL WILL BE RECEIVING THREE MINUTES OF DONATED TIME FROM VIRGINIA PALMER, VIRGINIA.

ARE YOU PRESENT? RIGHT.

BILL, YOU'LL BE RECEIVING SIX MINUTES.

NO, REALLY? WELL THEN THAT CASE ON BRING THE LONG VERSION.

THANK YOU COMMISSIONERS.

I'VE LIVED IN AUSTIN SINCE THE SEVENTIES, AND USUALLY RIGHT NEXT TO A CREEK THAT FLOODS EVERY TIME IT RAINS, IT'S GONNA RAIN A LOT MORE.

I LOVE THOSE CREEKS TOO.

I LIKE 'EM WHEN THEY COME AND MEET ME AT THE, YOU KNOW, THE WATER LINE, HOWEVER, STARTS STARTING TO FEEL A LITTLE CLAUSTROPHOBIA AROUND THIS CITY.

I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S THE PLAN.

THIS IS THE NOT A COMMISSION FOR THAT.

CLUSTER PHOBIA.

CLUSTER FOIA.

THINK IT'S FLOODING.

NOW WATCH IT OVERFLOW.

CLUSTER FOIA.

CLUSTER FO.

TEAR THEM HOUSES DOWN.

THEY TAKE UP TOO MUCH GROUND.

IT'S AUSTIN'S CLAUSTROPHOBIA.

[03:10:03]

SAME THING FOR THE TREES.

THEY ONLY MAKE YOU SNEEZE.

IT'S AUSTIN'S CLAUSTROPHOBIA.

IF YOU LIKE SKINNY JEANS LIKE LIVING LIKE SARDINES, YOU'LL LIKE CLAUSTROPHOBIA.

IF YOU LIKE YOUR RUNOFF, LIKE O HENRY LIKES A PUN OFF, YOU'LL LIKE CLUSTER PHOBIO.

THE FLOODING THAT IT'S SENDING WILL BE THE SURPRISE ENDING FLASH FLOOD.

MOTHER FLUSHER PHOBIA.

IT'S A SURE STORE FOR PARTICLE BOARD PREFAB WINDOWS AND PREFAB DOORS.

STABLE TOGETHER FLOOR BY FLOOR.

A FAST FANTASY FOR BOARD LANDLORDS.

YOU CAN DO THE MATH PALS OF PAYPAL.

GET THE CASH AND WE GET CLUSTER PHOBIO.

WELL DAMN THEM SONS OF DITCHES.

WE GOT TOO BIG FOR OUR BRIDGES.

A SURE SIGN OF CLUSTER.

WE'VE GOT GRIDLOCK, WE'VE GOT SPRAWL FRIENDS, WE'VE GOT IT ALL.

LET'S GET CLUSTER PHOBIA.

IF YOU NEED A LOT OF LUSTER, I THINK YOU'RE OUT OF LUCK.

THESE CODES ARE WRITTEN BUSTER FOR AN ASTER CLUSTER.

FIO CLUSTER.

THE COUNCIL CALLS IT HOME.

IT'S MORE LIKE TO CLUSTER TRIPLE FIO.

YOU THINK THE WATER'S HIGH.

WATCH THE TOWERS GROW.

CLUSTER FIO.

CLUSTER FIO AUSTIN'S BLUSTER, FOAL CULTURE BUSTER FOAL FLASH FLOOD GUSHER PHOBIA.

AUSTIN CULTURE BUSTER PHOBIA.

RING IT ON.

THEY'RE WONDROUSLY COMPLEX.

THANK YOU, THANK YOU.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS AND YOUR SONG.

OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS CRAIG NAZAR.

CRAIG, YOU WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES.

CRAIG NASER, CONSERVATION CHAIR, LONE STAR CHAPTER SIERRA CLUB.

HERE'S A QUOTE FROM THE WRITER AND REGENERATIVE FARMER, WENDELL BERRY.

WE HAVE LIVED OUR LIVES BY THE ASSUMPTION THAT WHAT WAS GOOD FOR US WOULD BE GOOD FOR THE WORLD.

WE HAVE BEEN WRONG.

WE MUST CHANGE OUR LIVES.

SO IT'LL BE POSSIBLE TO LIVE BY THE CONTRARY ASSUMPTION THAT WHAT IS GOOD FOR THE WORLD WILL BE GOOD FOR US.

AND THAT REQUIRES THAT WE MAKE THE EFFORT TO KNOW THE WORLD AND LEARN WHAT IS GOOD FOR IT.

CLIMATE CHANGE IS A SYMPTOM OF HUMANS BELIEVING THAT THE EARTH BELONGS TO US.

THE EARTH DOES NOT BELONG TO US.

SOILS ARE ALIVE.

THEY STORE CARBON AND CLEAN THE AND STORE WATER.

THEY SUPPORT HEALTHY ECOSYSTEMS, PARTICULARLY TREES.

IMPERVIOUS COVER KILLS SOIL.

THE CHANGES PROPOSED, THE CHANGE PROPOSED IN ITEM 11, FINANCIALLY INCENTIVIZED, MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS COVER.

AND EVEN THEN, WHAT THAT MAXIMUM NUMBER IS, IS NOT CLEAR.

WHATEVER IT IS, IT CAN BE INCREASED AT THE WHIM OF CITY COUNCIL.

YET WE ARE TOLD THAT 45% IS THE MAXIMUM.

SOMETHING HERE DOES NOT ADD UP.

WHAT WE DO KNOW IS THIS CLIMATE CHANGE IS CAUSING LARGER AND LARGER RAIN EVENTS.

AUSTIN ALREADY HAS HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF UNMET LOCALIZED FLOODING NEEDS.

WE NEED THE SOIL FOR ENOUGH TREES TO MEET OUR 50% TREE COVERED BY 2040.

YET WE DO NOT HAVE THE POWER TO SAVE THE TREES.

WE HAVE ALL OF THIS IS CRYSTAL CLEAR.

THE 45% IMPERVIOUS COVER NUMBER BY THE WAY, MAY HAVE JUST AS WELL COME FROM THE SOUTH END OF AN ARMADILLO HEADING NORTH.

IT WAS AT BEST A GUESS.

HOWEVER, SCIENCE TELLS US THAT IN MOST SOIL TYPES, IMPERVIOUS COVER OVER 10% BEGINS TO THE DEGRADATION OF WATER QUALITY AND INCREASES FLOODING.

DENSITY CAN BE GREAT, BUT NEW CONSTRUCTION IS NOT LIKELY TO BE AFFORDABLE.

WE WILL NOT PRESERVE A LIVABLE AUSTIN OR A LIVABLE PLANET BY MAKING THE SAME MONEY DRIVEN DECISIONS OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT.

AND I KNOW THE WATERSHED PROTECTION DEPARTMENT, I LOVE THESE GUYS.

THEY'RE REALLY GOOD.

THEY HAVE GIVEN THEM BEEN GIVEN AN IMPOSSIBLE TASK HERE.

WE TALKED ABOUT THIS AS CITY COUNCIL WHEN THEY APPROVED HOME TWO.

AND THEN THEY SAY, HERE, WATERSHED, FIX IT.

MAKE IT WORK.

I DON'T

[03:15:01]

KNOW IF YOU CAN MAKE IT WORK, BUT AT ANY RATE, LOCALIZED FLOODING IS A PROBLEM.

IT'S A PROBLEM MY NEIGHBORHOOD.

IT'S A PROBLEM ALL OVER THE CITY AND I DON'T THINK, I THINK THIS IS MORE LIKELY TO HURT THAN TO HELP LOCALIZE FLOODING.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS GOING TO BE JENNY GRAYSON.

SHE'LL BE JOINING US VIRTUALLY.

JENNY, PLEASE PRESS STAR SIX AND PROCEED WITH YOUR REMARKS.

YOU WILL HAVE ONE MINUTE, RIGHT.

SO MOVING ON TO OUR NEXT SPEAKER.

WE WILL BE HEARING FROM KAREN KREPPS.

KAREN IS ALSO GONNA BE JOINING US VIRTUALLY.

KAREN, YOU'LL ALSO HAVE ONE MINUTE.

PLEASE PRESS STAR SIX AND PROCEED WITH YOUR REMARKS.

SO IT LOOKS LIKE NEITHER OF THEM ARE PRESENT AT THE MOMENT.

SO MOVING ON.

WE WILL BE HEARING FROM JEFF KESSEL.

JEFF, YOU WILL HAVE ONE MINUTE.

OKAY, MOVING ON.

OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS TANIA.

KAREEM.

TANIA, YOU WILL HAVE ONE MINUTE.

HI, GOOD EVENING.

MY NAME IS TANIA.

UM, I'M REPRESENTING SAVE OUR SPRINGS ALLIANCE.

I'M HERE TODAY TO OPPOSE AGENDA ITEM 11.

I WANT TO NOTE THAT THE WATER PROTECTION DEPARTMENT, UH, WATERSHED DEPARTMENT, SORRY, WPDA TEAM IS DOING THEIR BEST TO ADDRESS COMMUNITY CONCERNS WHILE BALANCING THE INTEREST OF CITY COUNCIL.

HOWEVER, I'VE NOTICED A PATTERN WITH THE CITY WHEN IT COMES TO PUSHING OUT ORDINANCE THAT RELATE TO LAND DEVELOPMENT.

THEY'RE RUSHED, WHICH CONSISTENTLY SILENCES THE COMMUNITY VOICES AND ELIMINATES THEM ALMOST COMPLETELY FROM THE PROCESS.

AS A LAND DEVELOPMENT ENGINEER OF 10 YEARS, I WASN'T EVEN AFFORDED A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME TO ASSESS THESE ORDINANCES, NOR WAS I PROVIDED WITH THE STUDIES OR THE MODELS THAT THE DEPARTMENT CLAIMS THAT THE PROPOSED RUNOFF IMPACT IS NEGLIGIBLE TO THE EXISTING STORM INFRASTRUCTURE.

I EXPRESSED THIS LAST WEEK DURING MY PUBLIC COMMENT AT THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MEETING, AND I'LL EMPHASIZE THIS AGAIN.

THE INFORMATION PROVIDED TODAY AND LAST WEEK TO THE PUBLIC ABOUT THESE AMENDMENTS IS INSUFFICIENT.

AND THE LANGUAGE IS INACCESSIBLE ALREADY.

DAMN IT.

HE'S GOT MY TIME.

ROY WHALEY AUSTIN.

IT HAS TO BE DONE BEFORE.

THAT WAS THREE MINUTES.

WHO'S OUR NEXT SPEAKER? OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS ROY WHALEY.

ROY WILL HAVE ONE MINUTE, 20 MINUTES.

I'D RATHER HAVE TANIA COME UP AND FINISH HER COMMENTS.

I WAS TOLD THAT I WOULD BE ABLE TO DO THAT.

HERE YOU GO.

HOWEVER YOU WANNA USE YOUR NAME.

NO, I WANT YOU TO SAY IT.

I CAN'T.

I'M ALLOWED.

I'M NOT ALLOWED.

I WAS TOLD THAT I WOULD BE ABLE TO DO THAT.

I THOUGHT YOU MEANT YOU WOULD DONATE TIME.

YOU WERE GONNA TAKE THAT BACK.

DID NOT REALIZE THAT YOU MEANT YOU WERE GONNA, IT WAS A MISUNDERSTANDING THEN ATTORNEY.

BUT THAT IF YOU WOULD, UM, .

IF THAT'S NOT ALL RIGHT, YOU COULD JUST START.

AND THE SECOND PART YOU DON'T, THIS ONE RIGHT HERE.

OH, OKAY.

I'LL BREAK IT INTO TWO PARTS.

INSUFFICIENT.

I HONESTLY THINK IT'S INSULTING THE CREEK FLOODING AND LOCAL FLOODING STUDIES COMPLETED IN THE 2017 AREN'T, INCAR AREN'T INCORPORATING IN THESE PRESENTATIONS.

I WAS ONLY RECEIVED THESE STUDIES JUST HOURS PRIOR TO STANDING BEFORE YOU TODAY.

I HAVEN'T BEEN ALLOWED THE TIME TO EVEN DO WHAT I'VE BEEN PAID TO DO, WHICH IS REVIEW THESE FINDINGS.

SO I'M NOT HERE TODAY TO REFUTE WATERSHED PROTECTIONS, FINDINGS.

AND THE SECOND PART, YOU DON'T SEE MANY RESIDENTS TODAY BECAUSE THEY HAVE, UH, BEEN SUCCESSFULLY INTIMIDATED AND DETERRED FROM SHOWING UP.

BUT I CAN ASSURE YOU THAT THEY ARE, THEY ARE DEEPLY CONCERNED ABOUT THESE DRAINAGE.

UH, UM, I CAN'T READ THAT.

AND JUST THE OTHER PROPOSAL IN, UH, THE LAST YEAR, THE CITY IS RUSHING A PRO, A PROCESS TO FIT AN AGENDA.

MAY I FINISH? YOU CAN FINISH THE SENTENCE, YES.

TODDLERS AND FORCE FEEDING US THESE POLICIES WHILE SAYING, CLOSE YOUR NOSE AND SWALLOW.

TO FIT AN AGENDA WHILE IGNORING THE VALID CONCERNS OF RESIDENTS, THESE POLICIES KEEP FOLLOWING THE SAME FORMULA.

A RESIDENT WHO FEARS THAT THIS ORDINANCE WILL LEAD TO MORE FREQUENT FLOODING AND HER NEIGHBORHOOD SAID IT FEELS LIKE THE CITY IS HOLDING ALL OF OUR LIMBS DOWN.

LIKE WE'RE

[03:20:01]

JUST TRUST ME.

IT'S FOR THE GREATER GOOD.

THANK YOU, MS. RILEY.

I DID NOT SAY THAT NEARLY AS WELL AS SHE DID, AND I DON'T LOOK NEARLY AS GOOD SAYING IT, BUT THANK YOU FOR LETTING ME DO THAT.

REALLY GOOD TO KEEP MADING BACK.

ZONING CHANGES FREQUENTLY.

OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS KATHY BARTLEY.

KATHY, YOU WILL HAVE ONE MINUTE.

ALL RIGHT, MOVING ON.

OUR FINAL SPEAKER IS BOBBY LAVINSKY.

BOBBY, YOU WILL HAVE ONE MINUTE.

HI.

I WAS SIGNED UP.

I DON'T UNDERSTAND.

BOBBY LAVINSKY IS A SPRINGS ALLIANCE.

UM, TANZI IS OUR NEW SCIENCE DIRECTOR.

SHE KNOWS WHAT SHE'S TALKING ABOUT.

SHE'S ACTUALLY DONE DRAINAGE, UM, INFRASTRUCTURE IN HER PAST.

AND I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO ASK QUESTIONS OF HER.

UH, MUCH OF THE ANALYSIS ASSUMES NO IMPERVIOUS COVER, UH, INCREASES.

UM, BUT THERE'S REALLY NO TRUE CAP AT 45% WHILE ONE HOME, UH, USING 45% IMPERVIOUS COVER HAS THE SAME IMPACT AS A FOUR UNIT PROPERTY.

THAT'S TRUE, 45% IS NOT TRULY A CAP HERE.

THE 45% CAP DOESN'T EXIST AS CHANGES, UH, WOULD APPLY TO MULTIFAMILY OWNED SITES UP TO 65%.

THAT LAST SLIDE THAT MATT HOLLAND HAD, UH, SHOWED HOW MANY PROPERTIES OUR ZONE MF THREE AND COULD TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THIS UP TO 65% AS INFILL OCCURS IN PREVIOUS COVER, WILL INCREASE AND SAYS, HITTING A REAL CONVERSATION ABOUT DRAINAGE IN AUSTIN.

UM, LET ME JUST SUGGEST THIS.

AN EASY FIX TO SOME OF THE COMPLAINTS HERE TONIGHT WOULD BE TO AMEND IT BY SAYING THIS SECTION SHALL NOT APPLY TO A SITE DEVELOPED MORE, UH, THAN 45% IMPERVIOUS COVER.

THAT WOULD BE TRUTH IN ADVERTISING AND THE ANALYSIS THAT YOU'RE DOING.

UM, IF NOTHING ELSE, PLEASE REMOVE AREAS THAT, UH, WITH KNOWN FLOODING AND UNDERSIZED INFRASTRUCTURE BECAUSE LOCALIZED FLOODING IS WIDESPREAD IN AUSTIN, THE FLASH FLOOD ALLEY.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS, CHAIR.

SO WE HAVE ONE MORE SPEAKER THAT SIGNED UP ON THE WRONG ITEM AND IS REQUESTING TO SPEAK, UM, ON THIS ITEM.

THEY SIGNED UP IN TIME THOUGH.

YES, I'LL ALLOW IT.

SO, UH, OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS BRAD MASSENGILL.

BRAD, YOU'LL HAVE ONE MINUTE.

THANKS Y'ALL.

UM, I'M BRAD MASSENGILL.

I'M A A BOARD MEMBER OF THE SOUTH BOSTON CREEK ALLIANCE AND, UH, WE HAVE ORGANIZING CALLED THE FRIENDS OF MYSTERY CREEK.

THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THIS IS ABOUT, BUT FRIENDS OF MYSTERY CREEK IS THESE UNIDENTIFIED AND EPHEMERAL STREAMS THAT ARE ALL OVER OUR VALLEY CITY.

WE LIVE IN A RIVER VALLEY.

UM, EVERYTHING FLOWS DOWN TO, TO THE LAKE OR THE RIVER, AS IT WERE.

AND ALL THIS MAY WORK ON THE, UH, FOR THE NUMBER TWO ON THE SITE PLAN LIGHT THING ABOUT LETTING WATER GO TO THE STORM DRAIN.

BUT IN SOME OF OUR NEIGHBORHOODS, THERE'S NO STORM DRAIN.

THERE'S JUST DITCHES AND NATURAL FEATURES.

AND IF WE START LETTING PROPERTIES GO WITHOUT A DRAINAGE REVIEW, WE'RE GONNA BE DOING THIS BUCKET BRIGADE THING AND PASSING FLOODING DOWN TO OUR NEIGHBORS ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE LAKE.

AND THAT'S NOT RIGHT.

UM, WE'VE GOT THESE THINGS CALLED RAIN THE RIVER.

THAT'S SOMETHING Y'ALL SHOULD BE CONSULTING WITH ALL THIS STUFF.

THANK YOU, SIR.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS, CHAIR.

THAT CONCLUDES THE SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM.

THANK YOU TO OUR SPEAKERS.

UM, IS THERE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING? VICE CHAIR SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MAXWELL.

UM, ALL IN FAVOR? THAT'S UNANIMOUS.

AND THEN THE, UH, SITE PLAN LIGHT WOULD BE MF ONE, MF TWO, MF THREE, AND MAYBE SF FIVE AND SF SIX.

WE WILL MOVE ON TO OUR QUESTIONS.

WHO HAS THE FIRST QUESTION? COMMISSIONER M THANK YOU CHAIR.

I THINK I'D LIKE, UH, WE HAVE WATERSHED, CORRECT? WE DO, YES.

THE QUESTIONS ARE GONNA BE FOR WATERSHED.

I, UH, AND IF SOMEBODY, WHILE THEY'RE COMING UP, IF SOMEBODY CAN CONFIRM, IT SOUNDED LIKE THERE THIS PROPOSAL IS APPLYING ONLY TO PARTICULAR PROPERTIES THAT MEET VERY SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS.

SO THIS WOULD NOT APPLY TO EVERY, UM, THIS SITE PLAN LIGHT OPTION WOULD NOT APPLY TO EVERY PROPERTY THAT MIGHT OTHERWISE BE ELIGIBLE TO DEVELOP THIS WAY.

IT IS ONLY FOR THESE PARTICULAR PROPERTIES.

I THINK IT'S MY, YEAH.

MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE, THIS IS, UH, THESE INFILL PLAT IS ELIGIBLE FOR SF ONE, SF TWO, SF THREE,

[03:25:02]

UM, THAT'S CORRECT.

BUT I THINK, UH, COMMISSIONER, YOU'RE, YOU'RE RIGHT THAT IN ORDER TO AVAIL YOURSELF OF THE MODIFIED DRAINAGE STANDARDS THAT OUR COMMENTS HAVE FOCUSED ON, YOUR SITE IS GONNA HAVE TO MEET CERTAIN LIMITATIONS.

AND THAT RELATES TO THE ACREAGE LIMITS AND WHETHER OR NOT YOU HAVE THE CORRECT TOPOGRAPHY TO ESTABLISH FLOWS INTO A STORM DRAIN SYSTEM OR PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.

YOU MENTIONED THE DISTANCE TO THAT DRAINAGE SYSTEM.

EXACTLY.

SO THERE'S GONNA BE A LOT OF PROPERTIES THAT MAY HAVE THE RIGHT ZONING, BUT THEY ARE NOT GONNA MEET THE CRITERIA TO USE THIS PROCESS.

AND PREVIOUSLY, OKAY.

SO I THINK THIS IS IMPORTANT FOR PEOPLE IN THE PUBLIC WHO ARE PAYING ATTENTION TO UNDERSTAND THAT WE'VE GOTTA LOOK AT AS THIS MOVES ITS WAY TO COUNCIL, WE'VE GOTTA LOOK AT THAT.

IT'S, IT'S NOT APPLYING TO EVERY POTENTIAL PROPERTY.

IT'S A VERY SELECT SET OF PROPERTIES THAT MAY BE ELIGIBLE FOR THIS PROCESS THAT MAY BE GOOD OR BAD DEPENDING ON WHAT YOUR SITUATION IS AND WHAT YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD SITUATION IS.

SO, UM, WE HEARD FROM SOS THAT, UM, I GUESS THE, THE THOUGHT PROCESS IS THAT BECAUSE EVERYTHING IS CAPPED AT THE 45%, THAT WE CAN MAKE SOME ENGINEERING ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT HOW THAT'S GONNA APPLY AS THIS DEVELOPMENT TAKES PLACE.

AND SO I KIND OF WANTED TO HEAR FROM WATERSHED, LIKE, WHY YOU GUYS THINK THIS WILL WORK AND WHY THE EXISTING STORM INFRASTRUCTURE IS GONNA WORK ON THIS.

DO WE HAVE ANY TEST BASIS FOR GOING WITH THAT OR WHAT KINDA, WHAT'S THE SCIENCE BEHIND IT? UM, SURE.

AND SO, UM, THE, WE JUST LOST CITY FEED.

UM, I WANNA MAKE SURE I'M GETTING THAT QUESTION RIGHT.

SO WE DID, UH, BACK, BACK WHEN THE, THE, THE CITY WAS LOOKING AT OTHER CODE AMENDMENTS, UH, SOME YEARS AGO.

AND THE, AND DURING THE CODE NEXT AND LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REVISION PHASE, WE DID SOME STUDIES AND THAT, UH, THAT THE, UH, A PREVIOUS SPEAKER WAS, WAS REFERRING TO.

AND SO WE DID LOOK AT, UM, A, WE HAD A, A REALLY DETAILED CASE STUDY OF ONE OF THE STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEMS IN SOUTH AUSTIN.

IT ACTUALLY WAS ONE THAT WOULD HAD KNOWN FLOODING PROBLEMS. AND WE WERE CONCERNED ABOUT IT.

AND IN FACT, WE'RE DOING A CIP PROJECT TO CORRECT THOSE PROBLEMS RIGHT NOW, UH, ON DEL CURTO.

AND SO WE ACTUALLY HAD THE, THE, A CONSULTANT DO A DETAILED STUDY.

AND SO THEY LOOKED AT IT, THEY LOOKED AT, UM, INCREASING THE, UM, LIKE BASICALLY MAXING OUT ALL THE HOUSING ALL THE WAY TO, UH, TO 45%.

IN FACT, THEY EVEN RAISED IT A LITTLE BIT JUST IN CASE TO 47.

UH, REALLY THOSE ARE, YOU KNOW, MAX OUT AT 45.

UM, AND WHEN WE RAN THE NUMBERS FOR A VARIETY OF DIFFERENT STORM SIZES, WE WERE FINDING EXTREMELY, EXTREMELY SMALL INCREASES IN PEAK FLOWS AND, UH, WATER SURFACE ELEVATIONS, MEANING, UH, THE FLOODING AND ALONG THE WAY AND THE DRAINAGE SYSTEM DOWN BELOW IT.

UM, I THINK THAT, SO WHEN WE, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE KNOW WE HAVE FLOODING ISSUES, PARTICULARLY IN SOME OF OUR CORE AREAS ALREADY, I GUESS MY QUESTION BECOMES, IF THAT INFRASTRUCTURE IS NOT DRAINING THE WATER PROPERLY NOW, HOW DOES NOT LOOKING AT DEVELOPMENTAL CHANGES FIX THAT? THAT'S AN OUTSTANDING, THAT'S AN OUTSTANDING QUESTION.

AND SO I THINK WHEN A WHOLE BUNCH OF THIS DISCUSSION, JUST LIKE THE PROPOSAL ITSELF, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SMALL SCALE HOUSING, WE'RE ALSO TALKING ABOUT SMALL SCALE LOTS.

AND WHEN YOU LOOK AT SOMETHING LIKE THAT IN THE CONTEXT OF A LARGER DRAINAGE AREA, WHETHER IT'S, UM, A WHOLE WATERSHED, WHICH IS REALLY JUST LIKE ZERO IMPACT WHATSOEVER FOR THESE, BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THE, LIKE A, A LOCAL FLOOD SCALE DRAINAGE, OF COURSE THE DRAINAGE IS NOT GONNA BE IMPROVED IF YOU HAVE ADDITIONAL INFIELD DEVELOPMENT GOING IN.

BUT IT'S NOT, THE, THE INCREMENTAL INCREASE THAT THAT'S WE'RE FOCUSING ON IS VERY, VERY SMALL.

AND I'M NOT GONNA STAND UP HERE AND SAY, HEY, WHO CARES? NO BIG DEAL.

I DON'T WE'RE WE, WE WATERSHED ARE EXTREMELY INTERESTED IN THIS CASE.

WE'RE ACTUALLY LITERALLY FIXING THIS PARTICULAR PROBLEM, BUT THE SCALE.

BUT WHAT, WHAT'S WHAT I WANT TO CONVEY IS THE SCALE OF THE PROBLEM IS WAY BIGGER THAN WHAT'S GOING ON WHEN YOU ADD THESE LITTLE PRETTY SMALL AND IN, IN, IN, IN, UM, INCREMENTAL IN INCREASES.

UM, AND WE HAD A REALLY GOOD DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION.

I REALLY, REALLY DON'T WANT TO CONVEY LIKE, WE DON'T CARE.

NO BIG DEAL.

IT IS, IT IS A BIG DEAL.

BUT THE, BUT WE, WE WANT THE, WE WANT THE SOLUTION TO ACTUALLY BE MEANINGFUL AND ACTUALLY HELP.

AND SO WE, AND THE PLAY INTO LIKE OUR FLOOD PLAN COMMISSIONERS AND THINGS, DON'T, DON'T, DON'T THOSE GO EVERY 10 YEARS.

COMMISSIONER MUHA, WE'RE WE'RE, THAT WAS THE END OF YOUR TIMES OF, UH, WHO IS NEXT? COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE.

THANK YOU COMMISSIONER AL.

ACTUALLY, THAT'S THE PERFECT LEAD INTO MY QUESTION.

AND THIS, I GUESS THIS IS FOR MR. SCHUNK ON WATERSHED PROTECTION.

UM, YEAH.

UH, WHAT IS THE IMPACT TO THE HYDROLOGIC MODELING AND THE HYDRAULIC MODELING OF OUR FLOODPLAINS FROM THESE

[03:30:01]

PROPOSED CHANGES? I'M KEVIN SCHUNK.

I'M THE CITY'S FLOODPLAIN ADMINISTRATOR.

AND WHEN WE DO OUR WATERSHED WIDE FLOODPLAIN STUDIES, WE USE THE IMPERVIOUS COVER THAT THE ZONING ALLOWS TO DEVELOP A, WHAT WE CALL A FULLY DEVELOPED FLOODPLAIN.

THIS PROPOSAL THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TONIGHT DOES NOT INCREASE ALLOWABLE IMPERVIOUS COVER.

SO THE MODELS THEMSELVES ARE GOING TO BE PREDICTING THE AMOUNT OF WATER BASED UPON A SINGLE FAMILY ZONED LOT.

SO THERE WON'T BE ANY CHANGE FROM THAT, FROM THE NUMBERS THAT WE USE IN OUR, IN OUR MODELS ITSELF.

SO THERE WON'T BE ANY, ANY IMPACT ON THE CREEK SYSTEMS CREEK FLOODPLAINS BASED UPON, UM, THESE ALLOWANCES THAT, THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT, THIS TALKED ABOUT WITH THIS PROPOSAL, OUR, OUR FLOOD PLAIN MODELS ALREADY ASSUME A MAXIMUM THE, THE IMPERIOUS COVERS MAXED OUT FOR ALL THESE SINGLE FAMILY PROPERTIES OR THE MF ONE, TWO, OR THREE PROPERTIES.

IT'S ALREADY ALL THE WAY THERE.

AND THE, THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THAT'S ACTUALLY GONNA HAPPEN IS NOT GREAT THAT EVERY SINGLE ONE IS GONNA GO THAT HIGH, BUT WE GO AHEAD AND PUT IT IN THE MODEL TO BE CONSERVATIVE.

SO THEN WHAT I'M HEARING IS THAT OUR MODELS ACTUALLY ALREADY ACCOUNT FOR ALL THIS IMPERVIOUS COVER AND THEN SOME, AND IN MANY CASES, A LOT ACTUALLY FROM MY OWN PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE, SO THAT THESE CHANGES FOR THESE SMALL LOTS, UH, WILL NOT, UH, CHANGE OUR FLOODPLAIN MAPPING.

NOW THAT'S NOT TO SAY THAT WE WON'T SEE INCREASED FLOOD HAZARDS.

WE CAN TALK ALL ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL AND, YOU KNOW, INCREASES IN PRECIPITATION AND FREQUENCY AND INTENSITY OF STORMS. I'D LIKE TO PIVOT, UH, I GUESS MAYBE THIS QUESTION MIGHT BE FOR YOU, MR. SHAN OR MAYBE MR. HOLLAND.

AND THIS SPEAKS TO, UH, THE, I GUESS THE QUESTION OF THE SMALL SITES THAT ARE LESS THAN 0.25 ACRES WHERE WE WON'T BE REQUIRED TO REDUCE A DRAINAGE REPORT.

UM, HOW, HOW WILL, HOW OR HOW DO WE PROTECT AGAINST LOT TO LOT FLOODING OF, YOU KNOW, ARE THERE OTHER REGULATIONS WITHIN THE CITY OR STATE LAW THAT, UH, ALREADY PROTECT AGAINST THAT? YOU KNOW, I'M THINKING OF THE TEXAS WATER CODE SECTION 11, UH, 0.0 86.

IF YOU'VE GOT, IF Y'ALL COULD SPEAK TO THAT FOR A SECOND, I'D APPRECIATE IT.

AND YOU'RE RIGHT ON IT.

THAT IS, THAT IS WHAT, THAT WOULD BE THE, THE LAW WE WOULD LOOK TO, UH, TEXAS STATE LAW SAYS YOU CANNOT CHANGE DRAINAGE PATTERNS.

YOU CAN'T REDIRECT WATER ONTO YOUR NEIGHBORS AND CAUSE FLOODING.

AND SO THAT'S WHAT, THAT'S THE PROCESS WE USE RIGHT NOW FOR ALL BUILDING PERMITS.

AND SO WE HAVE, WE JUST, I GOT THE, RAN THE DATA.

WE HAVE BETWEEN 3005, 5,000 BUILDING PERMITS EVERY YEAR GO THROUGH.

AND THEY'RE ALL BUILT USING THAT STANDARD.

WE, THE CITY OF AUSTIN STAFF DON'T LOOK AT THE DRAINAGE ON THOSE.

THEY, THEY RELY ON THE, IN THE INDIVIDUAL PROJECTS TO, TO ENFORCE THAT THEMSELVES.

DO WE, DO WE HAVE THE OCCASIONAL ISSUE? YES.

UM, IS IT WIDESPREAD? WE DON'T, UH, WE DON'T THINK SO IN TERMS OF LIKE, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THAT LARGE VOLUME, BUT IT IS STATE, STATE LAW.

THERE'S ACTUALLY ALSO IN THE PLUMBING CODE AND SOME OTHER THINGS HAVE THAT AS WELL.

BUT THAT'S NOT THE MAIN DRIVER.

ALL DRAINS TO A PARTICULAR LOCATION.

THAT'S ALL THE QUESTIONS I HAVE.

MR. COX CHAIR.

JUST ONE PERSONAL PRIVILEGE, UH, MR. HAN, UM, I APOLOGIZE FOR SENDING THAT EMAIL FROM MY WORK ACCOUNT, BUT I JUST WANT EVERYBODY TO KNOW YOU.

YOU ANSWERED MY QUE IT WAS EARLY THIS MORNING AND I THOUGHT IT WAS ON MY CITY ACCOUNT AND I WAS ON MY WORK ACCOUNT.

AND YOU ANSWERED MY QUESTION IN A VERY TIMELY MANNER.

AND I CERTAINLY APPRECIATE YOUR PROFESSIONALISM AND YOU'RE TO BE COMMENDED.

COMMISSIONER COX, WE KEEP TALKING ABOUT PREVIOUS COVER.

UM, AND, AND AS OUR FLOODPLAIN MANAGER PROBABLY KNOWS THAT'S, THAT'S ONLY ONE COMPONENT OF OUR, OUR BASIN MODELING.

AND WHAT I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IS HOW WE ACCOUNT FOR THE DIFFERENCE IN LAG AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION WHEN WE'RE CREATING A LOT MORE OPPORTUNITIES FOR DEVELOPMENTS THAT MAY HAVE REQUIRED DETENTION TO THEN FEED DIRECTLY INTO OUR STORMWATER SYSTEMS. AND I, I, I OFTEN HIRE SUB CONSULTANTS TO DO MY DRAINAGE FOR ME 'CAUSE I HATE DRAINAGE, BUT, BUT I KIND OF FEEL LIKE THAT IS JUST AS IMPORTANT OF AN ASPECT.

AND I LIVE REALLY CLOSE TO SHOUL CREEK, SO I'M VERY SENSITIVE TO THE SHOUL CREEK FLOODING ALONG NORTH LAMAR.

UM, AND, AND I FEEL LIKE THE TIME OF CONCENTRATION ISSUES ARE JUST AS AN ISSUE, MAYBE MORE SO, UM, IN A BASIN LIKE SUL CREEK THAN, THAN JUST STRICTLY TALKING ABOUT THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF IMPERVIOUS COVER.

SO IN OUR FLOOD PLAIN STUDIES, WE CREATE WHAT'S CALLED A DRAINAGE AREA.

THAT'S AN AREA THAT

[03:35:01]

IN DOING THAT, WE THEN TELL THE MODEL HOW LONG IS IT GOING TO TAKE WATER TO GET FROM THE TOP OF THAT AREA TO THE BOTTOM OF THE AREA.

AND THAT'S THE TIME OF CONCENTRATION.

AND THAT AREA IS QUITE LARGE.

IT'S NOT JUST A FEW SINGLE FAMILY LOTS OR MAYBE MAYBE A A ONE BLOCK.

IT'S A, IT'S A SIGNIFICANT AREA THAT INCLUDES QUITE A FEW SIGNAL, SINGLE FAMILY LOTS.

SO A REDEVELOPMENT WOULD NOT CHANGE THE OVERALL ATOMIC CONCENTRATION FOR THE MOD IN THAT'S USED IN THE MODEL ITSELF.

IT, IT WILL BE UNAFFECTED WE'RE MAKING, BUT IF WE'RE MAKING FAIRLY SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES, UM, THAT WOULD ENCOURAGE, YOU KNOW, SIZES OF DEVELOPMENTS THAT WE WANT TO SEE, YOU KNOW, THAT FIVE TO 16 UNIT TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT THAT MAY HAVE BEEN REQUIRED TO HAVE A SMALL DETENTION POND VERSUS NOW THEY DON'T, WOULDN'T THAT MULTIPLIED BY HOWEVER MANY THOUSANDS WAS ON THAT POWERPOINT THAT WE SAW THE NUMBER OF LOTS, I MEAN, WOULDN'T ON A BASIN WIDE BASIS, WOULDN'T, WOULDN'T THAT ACTUALLY CREATE A NOTICEABLE CHANGE? THOSE THOUSANDS OF PROPERTIES THAT WERE IDENTIFIED ARE SPREAD ACROSS THE ENTIRE CITY AS ARE OUR FLOOD PINE MODEL.

SO WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT ONE DRAINAGE BASIN IN ONE MODEL, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE HUNDREDS OF DRAINAGE BASINS WITHIN MANY MODELS THAT, THAT THIS IS GOING TO OCCUR IN.

SO IT'S NOT JUST CONCENTRATED IN ONE DRAINAGE AREA.

BUT WOULDN'T YOU KIND OF ADMIT THAT, THAT A LOT OF THIS IS GEARED TOWARDS KIND OF URBAN INFILL AND WE DON'T ACTUALLY HAVE THAT MANY DIFFERENT DRAINAGE BASINS WITHIN THE CORE OF OUR CITY.

AND SO I, I FEEL LIKE THIS IS GONNA HAVE AN OUTSIZED IMPACT ON, ON WATERSHEDS LIKE THE SHOAL CREEK WATERSHED.

I I JUST FROM THE SIZE OF THE FLOOD POINT, THE, OF THE WATERSHEDS WE HAVE SHOAL CREEK, WALL CREEK AND THE URBAN AREA, UH, WEST PO AND EAST POLAND BLUNT, THE SIZE OF THOSE WATERSHEDS ARE QUITE VERY LARGE WHEN COMPARED TO THE SIZE OF THE LOT THAT MIGHT BE TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THESE PROPOSALS.

AND THAT THE ADDITIONAL WATER THAT MAY BE RUNNING OFF OF THOSE SITES TO THE DRAINAGE SYSTEM, THE WILL IS NOT GOING TO AFFECT THE OVERALL FLOODPLAIN MODEL ITSELF AND THE, AND THE, AND THE MAP FLOODPLAIN.

THAT'S A BOLD STATEMENT.

I HOPE I VERY MUCH HOPE THAT YOU'RE CORRECT IN THAT, IN THAT ASSESSMENT.

UH, I, SWITCHING GEARS REAL QUICK WHILE I STILL HAVE A FEW SECONDS, I'M A LITTLE CURIOUS ABOUT WHY WE'RE DIVIDING THE TRIGGERS BETWEEN HALF ACRE AND ACRE.

AND, AND THE REASON IS BECAUSE, AND, AND MAYBE I'M JUST CONFUSED BY THIS, BUT IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AN ACRE IN THE CENTRAL CITY, THAT'S A HUGE AREA.

WE JUST CHANGED OUR MINIMUM LOT SIZE TO 1800 SQUARE FEET, WHICH MEANS WE CAN HAVE 24 LOTS IN AN ACRE WITH THREE UNITS ON EACH OF THOSE LOTS.

SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THAT ONE ACRE TRIGGER POTENTIALLY ENCOMPASSING 70 PLUS UNITS.

OR AM I MISUNDERSTANDING THE TRIGGERS ON THIS? DO YOU WANT TO, COULD THEY POINT OF PRIVILEGE TO POINT OUT TO COMMISSIONER COX THAT WE DO NOT ALLOW THREE UNITS ON AN 1800 SQUARE FOOT LOT.

THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE FOR THREE UNITS IS STILL 57 TO 50 SQUARE FEET.

OKAY, SO, SO EVEN SO IS THERE A REASON WHY WE DIDN'T ALIGN THESE TRIGGERS MORE SO TO THE SQUARE FOOTAGES OF THE MINIMUM LOTS, WHETHER IT'S ONE OR THREE UNITS THAT WE APPROVED FOR HOME ONE AND HOME TWO WE'RE AT TIME.

I'LL LET YOU RESPOND TO THAT, THAT QUESTION THOUGH.

UH, COMMISSIONER COX? THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.

I'M NOT SURE I CAN THOROUGHLY ANSWER IT, BUT I THINK THE, THE CUTOFF POINTS FOR THIS, YOU KNOW, THIS ORDINANCE WAS DEVELOPED VERY MUCH WITH AN EYE TOWARDS HOME TWO, BUT I THINK THE CUTOFF POINTS WERE BASED MORE ON SORT OF, UH, PERCEIVED DRAINAGE IMPACTS RATHER THAN TRYING TO JUST DOVETAIL EXACTLY WITH THE NUMBERS THAT ARE IN HOME.

TWO, I CAN SAY THAT I WANT TO EMPHASIZE, UH, WHAT COMMISSIONER JOHNSON SAID THAT IF A PROPERTY IS A LOT IS LESS THAN 57 50, THEN THAT'S GONNA DEVELOP AS A, AS A WHAT WE CALL A, A SMALL LOT SINGLE FAMILY USE.

AND THAT WOULD BE LIMITED TO ONE LOT PER, UH, ONE UNIT PER LOT.

SO YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO HAVE HOME ONE STYLE DEVELOPMENTS OF UP TO FOUR UNITS ON THAT.

AND THEN I ALSO JUST WANNA SHARE SOME NUMBERS THAT MAY BE RELEVANT TO YOUR QUESTION.

UM, IF YOU'RE DOING A A ONE QUARTER ACRE, UH, DEVELOPMENT FOR INFILL PLOTS, THAT COULD BE UP TO SIX LOTS IF YOU'RE DOING THE VERY MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF 1800 SQUARE FEET, AND IF YOU'RE DOING ONE ACRE, UM, THAT WOULD ALLOW POTENTIALLY 24 LOTS

[03:40:01]

AT 1800, UH, FEET PER LOT AND THOSE WOULD TRIGGER DIFFERENT DRAINAGE STANDARDS.

BUT THOSE ARE, UH, THOSE ARE SOME NUMBERS THAT I THINK ARE KIND OF RESPONSIVE TO THE OVERALL, UM, TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT THAT THIS ORDINANCE WOULD TRY TO FACILITATE.

LINDY GARWOOD, UM, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

NEXT QUESTION.

UH, REALLY QUICK, THE QUARTER ACRE, IT'S NOT AN, IT IS NOT A RANDOM NUMBER.

IT'S, WE CHOSE IT BECAUSE IF YOU TAKE 2 57 50 LOTS TOGETHER, WHICH WE USED TO BE THE MID, LIKE IT'S JUST THE SMALLEST SUBDIVISION YOU COULD MAKE, IF YOU CAN'T GO LOWER THAN THAT, YOU CAN TAKE THE TWO LOWEST PIECES, STICK 'EM TOGETHER, AND THAT'S THE SMALLEST SUBDIVISION.

SO WE USE THAT.

SO THAT WOULD BE IN TERMS OF LIKE HOW YOU WOULD CARVE THAT UP.

SO YOU HAD ONE ACRE, I MEAN, UM, SO YEAH, JUST AS A, JUST AS A, AS A KEY ITEM ON LIKE WHAT, WHAT'S GOING ON HERE AND WHY ARE WE CHOOSING THESE VARIOUS NUMBERS? THANK YOU.

UM, I SEE COMMISSIONER JOHNSON.

YEAH, UM, I THINK THIS IS MOSTLY FOR, FOR MR. LLOYD.

UM, ONE OF THE SLIDES YOU POINTED TO IT WAS LABELED RSMP AMENDMENT.

UH, AND DO PLEASE ANSWER VERY BRIEFLY, UM, TALKED ABOUT FIVE TO 16 UNITS PER ACRE, UM, ALLOWING PROJECTS UP TO FIVE TO 16 UNITS PER ACRE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE RSMP IF THEY DO NOT EXCEED ONE ACRE, IS THAT A, IS THAT A MISTAKE? SHOULD THAT JUST SAY FIVE TO 16 UNITS OR ARE YOU SAYING THAT IF THE DENSITY EXCEEDS 16 UNITS PER ACRE, YOU WILL NOT BE ALLOWED TO PARTICIPATE IN R SM P? UM, I THINK OUR PROPOSAL IS THAT, LET'S SEE, ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT WHICH, WHICH PIECE OF IT IS THIS? THIS IS SITE PLAN LIGHT.

THIS WAS THE PART THAT BRENT LLOYD WAS, WAS TALKING ABOUT PANEL, RIGHT? YEP.

LINDY, YOU MIGHT BE, OR MISS GARWOOD MIGHT BE ABLE TO, YES.

THAT WAS JUST A MISTAKE.

IT IS FIVE TO 16 UNITS, UM, FOR THE ACRE, NOT PER ACRE.

AND SO, UM, ANOTHER COMMENT THAT MR. LLOYD MADE DURING THE PRESENTATION WAS THIS WILL GET US TO MAYBE 75 TO 80% OF THE WAY TOWARDS OUR GOALS ON SITE PLAN LIGHT.

WHAT, WHAT'S HOLDING US BACK? WHAT OTHER CHANGES WOULD GET US TO MAKING THAT INFILL SITE PLAN PROCESS THE SITE PLAN LIGHT FOR FIVE TO 16 UNITS? OH, WHAT MY, MY COMMENT COUNCIL'S VISION, MY COMMENT ON THE 75 TO 80% WAS ABOUT SITE PLAN LIGHT, UH, PART ONE, UM, WHICH IS UP TO FOUR UNITS ON A LOT.

AND WHAT I WAS TRYING TO CONVEY WITH THAT IS THAT WE'RE DOING EVERYTHING WE CAN TO GET THOSE PROJECTS TO BE LIKE A SINGLE FAMILY LEVEL OF REVIEW.

AND I THINK FOR THE FOUR UNIT PROJECTS IN PARTICULAR, WE STILL HAVE SOME WORK TO DO.

UM, BUT, BUT WE'RE, WE'RE CLOSE AND THAT'S WHAT I MEANT.

UNDERSTOOD.

AND, AND APOLOGIES FOR CUTTING YOU OFF, I'M JUST THINKING OF TIME.

UM, AND IT IS FOR YOU AGAIN, MR. LLOYD.

UM, THE DRAINAGE PLAN, THE SORT OF STREAMLINED DRAINAGE PLAN FOR, UH, LARGER THE, THE SITE PLANS OF 20 ACRE, AND I THINK IT WAS INFILL PLAT SUBDIVISIONS GREATER THAN A QUARTER ACRE.

WILL THAT REQUIRE, UH, SEAL PLANS FROM AN ENGINEER OR IS THAT SOMETHING THAT A CONTRACTOR OR SOMEBODY WITHOUT CERTIFICATION COULD PREPARE? OKAY, I'M JUST THINKING OF THE COST IMPLICATIONS OF .

SURE, YEAH.

THAT, THAT WAS, THAT WAS DEFINITELY IN OUR THINKING ON THIS.

WE WERE TRYING TO MAKE IT SIMPLE.

IF THE DRAINAGE WAS GONNA BE A FLOWING IN A SIMPLE FASHION AND NOT CREATING LOT TO LOT FLOODING ISSUES FOR BETWEEN 0.25 AND ONE ACRE FOR THE SUBDIVISION AND BETWEEN ZERO AND AND HALF AN ACRE FOR SITE PLAIN LIGHT, YOU COULD HAVE SOMEBODY BASICALLY TAKE, UM, THE PROPERTY PROFILE TOOL AND SHOW TOPO AND SHOW HOW THE THING IS LOGICALLY JUST PROCEEDING RIGHT TO OR RIGHT AWAY OR RIGHT TO THE DRAIN.

IT WOULDN'T REQUIRE, IT WOULD NOT REQUIRE PE INTO THE, BUT ONCE YOU HAVE TO GRADE, THEN YOU KICK IN THE PE AND THE OTHER, UH, CURRENT PROCESS.

UM, AND IF I STILL HAVE TIME, YOU HAVE A MINUTE.

50.

WAS IT ACTIVELY DISCUSSED OR CONSIDERED CHANGING OTHER CODE-BASED REQUIREMENTS TO, UM, THE SUBDIVISION PROCESS FOR INFILL PLATS SUCH AS WAIVING THE REQUIREMENTS TO COMPLY WITH PARKLAND DEDICATION? THAT'S JUST AN EXAMPLE.

SO OBVIOUSLY THERE WERE A LOT OF CHANGES TO CRITERIA MANUALS AND POLICY AND PROCEDURES TALKED ABOUT IN THIS PRESENTATION.

I'M CURIOUS ABOUT SOME CHANGES THAT COULD HAVE BEEN MADE IN CODE THAT WEREN'T.

UM, SO MR. LLOYD, CAN YOU BRIEFLY SPEAK TO, YOU KNOW, WHAT, WHAT DID YOU GUYS CONSIDER, I KNOW WE'VE POSTPONED THIS SEVERAL MONTHS ALREADY.

WHAT HAS BEEN CONSIDERED AND WAS TAKEN OFF THE TABLE, UM, FROM THIS ORDINANCE? OR DID WE JUST ONLY LOOK AT DRAINAGE CODE? NO, I MEAN, I THINK THERE WERE, THERE WERE, THERE WERE A LOT OF ITEMS THAT WERE CONSIDERED AND DISCUSSED, BUT I'M NOT, I'M NOT SURE SPECIFICALLY WHAT YOUR, WHAT YOUR QUESTION IS.

COULD YOU RESTATE IT? SURE.

WERE,

[03:45:01]

I'M NOT PROPOSING IT, UH, WAIVING RIGHT OF WAY, DEDICATION, OTHER CODE BASED REQUIREMENTS THAT CREATE SIGNIFICANT COST BARRIERS TO SUBDIVISION OTHER THAN DRAINAGE.

I KNOW DRAINAGE IS ONE OF THEM, BUT, BUT WHAT CONSIDERATION HAS THERE BEEN OF, OF MAKING CHANGES TO CODE THAT ISN'T DRAINAGE THAT COULD MAKE IT CHEAPER TO DO INFILL PLAT SUBDIVISIONS AND RE SUBDIVISIONS? SO WE DID, WE DID TALK THROUGH SOME OF THOSE ITEMS AND, UM, I THINK THAT RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION, UH, THE, THE TPW UM, REALLY TRIES TO MINIMIZE THE IMPACTS OF THE RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION PRO REQUIREMENTS ON THIS SCALE OF DEVELOPMENT.

BUT IT'S AN IMPORTANT PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS.

AND I THINK OUR THINKING IS THAT JUST ELIMINATING THAT ALTOGETHER WOULD NOT BE A GOOD IDEA.

AND SO WE'VE NOT BEEN COMFORTABLE WITH THAT.

WE, I DON'T HAVE THE NUMBERS, UM, I DON'T HAVE THE NUMBERS AVAILABLE RIGHT NOW, BUT THE IMPACT OF PARKLAND DEDICATION IS NOT THE PRIMARY.

THE PARKLAND DEDICATION FEES THAT CAN BE REQUIRED FOR THIS SCALE OF DEVELOPMENT IS NOT A PRIMARY IMPEDIMENT TO INFILL.

AND SO WHEN YOU LOOK AT ALL THE OTHER, UH, POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND PARKLAND DEDICATION IS IMPORTANT.

AND OUR ABILITY, AS I THINK THE COMMISSION KNOWS TO, TO OBTAIN PARKLAND DEDICATION HAS BEEN LIMITED.

AND SO WE DID NOT, UH, CHOOSE TO PROPOSE CHANGES TO THAT.

UM, AGAIN, WE FEEL THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIREMENT, THAT IS THE BIGGEST CHALLENGE FOR, UH, THESE PROJECT IS DRAINAGE.

AND THAT IS WHY FOR A CODE, FROM A CODE STANDPOINT, WE FOCUS PRIMARILY ON THAT, BUT WE'RE PROPOSING THINGS THROUGH THE CRITERIA MANUAL PROCESS THAT WE THINK ARE GONNA BE VERY SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENTS TO THE REGULATORY LANDSCAPE FOR INFILL.

OF IMPERVIOUS COVER, NO MATTER HOW MUCH OF THE LOT SIZE RIGHT.

I KNOW CHAIR COHEN HAS A QUESTION AND THEN WE'LL TAKE COMMISSIONER MAXWELL.

UH, FIRST I SHOULD PROBABLY START BY SAYING THIS IS ONE OF THE FEW TIMES WHEN THE BOA CAN ACTUALLY INPUT SOMETHING THAT WE'VE SEEN AN UPTICK IN.

SO OVER THE PAST TWO YEARS, WE HAVE SEEN A MODERATE UPTICK IN CASES, UH, FOR VARIANCE REQUESTS WHERE THERE HAVE BEEN ISSUES FLOODING IN HOUSES.

USUALLY THESE ARE PLACES THAT HAVE BEEN BUILT OUT TO THE MAX IMPERVIOUS COVER WITH LIKE A, MAYBE AN EXTRA SLAB FOR LIKE POOL DECKING OR AC SLAB, AND THEN IT GETS SOLD AND A NEW OWNER COMES IN AND REALIZES THAT THEY'RE HAVING FLOODING ISSUES OR THEIR NEIGHBORS HAVING FLOODING ISSUES AND NOW THERE'S PROBLEMS THEY COME FOR US FOR VARIANCE.

SO I, MY QUESTION WAS REALLY FOR WATERSHED AND UH, WHEN YOU WERE DISCUSSING THE CONSERVATIVE MODELING THAT WAS BEING USED, IS THAT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ANY OF THESE OFTEN UNPERMITTED THINGS THAT WE SEE, LIKE KITTY POOLS OR A PLAY SCAPE OR, UH, AN ADDITIONAL SLAB FOR LIKE, UH, AN ADDITIONAL AC CONDENSER? ABSOLUTELY.

UM, SO GREAT QUESTIONS.

UM, AGAIN, THIS GOES BACK TO, SO WHEN WE LOOK AT FLOODING AND DRAINAGE ISSUES, WE, WE LOOK AT THESE KIND OF IT CONTINUUM AND YOU'VE GOT, AT THE VERY SMALLEST LEVEL, YOU HAVE LOT TO LOT KIND OF CONCERNS AND MAYBE EVEN SUB THAT IN THIS, IN THIS CASE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT SOME VERY SMALL SCALE STUFF.

ALL IMPORTANT CAN CAUSE ISSUES SO LOT TO LOT.

AND THEN YOU PROCEED ONTO LOCAL FLOOD WHERE YOU'VE GOT KIND OF YOUR DRAINAGE SYSTEMS, STREET DRAINAGE AND SO FORTH.

AND THAT GOES ON UP TO THE CREEK FLOOD LEVEL WHERE YOU HAVE BIG WATERSHEDS OR BIGGER WATERSHEDS WITH, UM, FLOOD PLAINS, ALL OF WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TODAY.

I MEAN, WE DEFINITELY WANNA REDRESS THE LOCAL FLOOD PIECE 'CAUSE THAT'S WHAT MOST OF THE, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS HAVE BEEN.

WE DON'T THINK THAT THE LOCAL FLOOD SYSTEM IS NOT HELPED BY THIS, BUT IT IS NOT THE, THE, THE, THE DIFFERENCE IS VERY SMALL.

AND SO WE'RE, WE DON'T THINK THAT'S A BIG ISSUE.

AND WE, WE CAN TALK MORE IN DEPTH ABOUT THE, THE, THE SPECIFICS OF SOME OF THE STUDIES WE'VE DONE.

WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IS A GREAT AND IMPORTANT QUESTION.

IT HAS TO DO WITH LOT TO LOT.

AND YOU CAN PUT A FENCE IN THAT BLOCKS FLOWS AND REDIRECTS IT.

YOU CAN PUT A, A RETAINING WALL IN AND HAVE, YOU KNOW, OR YOU KNOW, A PUTTING IN A A A AN ILL THOUGHT OUT, UM, A FOUNDATION THAT RAISES THE LEVEL AND REDIRECTS SO THAT YOU GET GOT SOME GREAT EXAMPLES.

THOSE ARE SUCH SMALLER SCALE THINGS THAT'S THIS ORDINANCE OR ANY ORDINANCE IS REALLY NOT GONNA BE ADDRESSING THAT.

AND THOSE ARE GENERALLY ADDRESSED WITH FOLKS WORKING TOGETHER WITH EACH OTHER.

YOU KNOW, IT'S A DIFFICULT SITUATION.

YOU CAN EVEN HAVE A LAWSUIT OVER THAT KIND OF STUFF.

AND THAT MAYBE WHAT WHAT YOU'RE SEEING THERE, UM, THOSE ARE, THOSE ARE A BIG DEAL THAT CAN INFECT PEOPLE.

BUT FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, YOU KNOW, IN TRYING TO REGULATE THIS LARGER PICTURE THAT'S THAT'S, THAT'S A LITTLE MORE MICRO THAN WE CAN GO THINKING ON A MORE MACRO SCALE FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT WITH, EVEN THOUGH IT'S THE SAME, WELL I GUESS IT'S THE SAME AMOUNT

[03:50:01]

STILL GONNA BE THE 45%.

YEAH, THE 45% REMAINS.

I MEAN, IF YOU CARVE IT UP, YOU STILL GOT THE 45, YOU'RE GONNA GET THE SAME NUMBER OF THE ULTIMATE FOOTPRINT OF THAT.

IT'S GONNA STAY THE SAME, WHETHER IT'S IN THE LITTLE PIECES OR IT'S ONE THING, IT'S GONNA HAVE THE SAME EFFECTIVE DRAINAGE IMPACTS AS WELL.

THANKS COMMISSIONER MAXWELL.

HAD A COUPLE QUESTIONS FOR MR. LLOYD, UH, SPECIFICALLY.

UM, I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE HISTORY OF THIS BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY WE'VE HEARD SOME CONCERNS ABOUT SORT OF ALL THESE RAPID CHANGES, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT WE STARTED TO LOOK AT SOME OF THESE INFILL PLAT AND SITE PLAN LIGHT AS IT WAS AT ONE POINT CALLED, UM, THIS HAS BEEN UNDER CONSIDERATION FROM COUNCIL AND BY YOUR OFFICES BY DSD FOR QUITE SOME TIME.

IS THAT CORRECT? UM, I MEAN THE HISTORY OF SOME OF THESE PROVISIONS GOES BACK TO THE LINE DEVELOPMENT CODE REWRITE.

SO YEAH.

AND THEN THERE THE RESOLUTIONS, UH, THAT I SUMMARIZED IN THE PRESENTATION, I THINK ONE OF 'EM WAS 20 22, 1 OF 'EM WAS 2023.

AND THESE ARE CHALLENGING AMENDMENTS.

THESE ARE AMENDMENTS THAT GET TO ASPECTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS, ASPECTS TO OUR REGULATIONS THAT WE HISTORICALLY DON'T AMEND.

AND THEY'RE ONES THAT REQUIRE A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF INTERDEPARTMENTAL COORDINATION AND UH, THAT REALLY DO TOUCH ON HEALTH AND SAFETY CONCERNS.

AND WE, WE FEEL LIKE THE LIMITATIONS THAT WE'VE INCLUDED IN THESE PROVISIONS ARE MORE THAN SUFFICIENT TO ADDRESS THOSE CONCERNS.

BUT THESE, THESE WERE CHALLENGING AMENDMENTS TO GET BEFORE YOU TONIGHT FOR SURE.

AND GREAT.

AND JUST FOLLOWING ALONG, UM, COMMISSIONER JOHNSON'S, UM, LINE OF QUESTIONING BECAUSE I THINK THERE IS ALSO THIS CONCERN THAT YOU ALL ARE LOOKING AT SOME ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES AND THEN POTENTIALLY THESE CHANGES RELATED TO SOME OF THE DRAINAGE CRITERIA, BUT WE KNOW THAT THERE MIGHT BE ADDITIONAL WORK NEEDED.

AND I GUESS MY QUESTION IS WOULD WE EXPECT OR HOPE THE COUNCIL MIGHT COME BACK WITH ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE ALONG SOME OF THE OTHER THINGS THAT HAS MAYBE BEEN LEFT OFF OF THIS OR WHAT WOULD MIGHT BE THE NEXT STEP IF WE START TO SEE SOME SUCCESS WITH THIS? AND TO YOUR POINT, THE CONCERNS THAT WE'RE HEARING HAVE BEEN SORT OF ADDRESSED AND ANSWERED.

I MEAN, I, SOME OF THE REQUIREMENTS THAT WE'VE HEARD ARE IMPEDIMENTS, WHICH WE HAVE NOT PROPOSED CHANGES TO WOULD BE FOR EXAMPLE, UH, SERVICE EXTENSION REQUESTS FOR THROUGH THE AUSTIN WATER PROCESS.

AND THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT RELATES TO THAT VERY MUCH GETS INTO THE SUFFICIENCY OF AGING INFRASTRUCTURE THAT'S GONNA BE REQUIRED TO SERVE IN FILL DEVELOPMENT.

AND THERE ARE NO EASY ANSWERS TO THAT PROBLEM.

AND I, AND I THINK THAT IN TALKING WITH AUSTIN WATER, THEY'RE CERTAINLY OPEN TO DOING EVERYTHING THEY CAN TO CONSIDER FORWARD THINKING WAYS TO MORE EQUITABLY ACCOMMODATE, UM, DEVELOPMENT THAT IS IMPACTING INFRASTRUCTURE THAT HAS TO BE UPGRADED.

UM, BUT IT'S NOT SOMETHING, IT'S A COMPLEX ISSUE.

AND SO IF THEY'RE, YOU KNOW, COUNCIL WANTED TO PROVIDE DIRECTION TO LOOK AT THOSE ISSUES, UH, WE WOULD STRONGLY ENCOURAGE THAT THAT BE DONE WITH THE CONSULTATION OF AUSTIN WATER EXECUTIVE STAFF.

BUT IF AUSTIN, UH, IF THE COUNCIL WANTS TO DO THAT, THAT I THINK AUSTIN WATER IS AVAILABLE TO HAVE THAT DIALOGUE AND TO CONSIDER POTENTIAL CHANGES, ONE CHANGE THAT THEY HAVE COMMITTED TO, WHICH I OUTLINED, WHICH IS OUTLINED IN THE STAFF REPORT, IS SIMPLY DOING MORE TO ENSURE THAT INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIREMENTS FOR PROJECTS ARE IDENTIFIED EARLIER IN THE PROCESS SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE SITUATIONS WHERE SOMEBODY'S FAR ALONG IN THE REVIEW PROCESS AND THEN IT, IT GETS FLAGGED IN A COMMENT THAT THEY HAVE TO UPGRADE AN EXISTING LINE AND THAT CAN ADD TREMENDOUS UH, FINANCIAL BURDEN ON PROJECTS.

AND SO I THINK THERE IS SOME RECOGNITION ON THE PROCESS SIDE THAT THERE ARE SOME IMPROVEMENTS THAT COULD BE MADE THAT THEY HAVE COMMITTED TO.

SO I GUESS THAT'S MY KIND OF OVERALL QUE SET OF QUESTIONS HERE IS THAT WE ARE SEEING SOME CHANGES THAT OBVIOUSLY HAVE RAISED SOME CONCERNS, BUT THERE ARE MANY OTHER THINGS WE COULD BE DOING BOTH ADMINISTRATIVELY AND POTENTIALLY WITH FUTURE COUNCIL DIRECTION.

AND WE MIGHT HOPE THAT MAYBE SAY A YEAR OR TWO YEARS FROM NOW WE WOULD HAVE A PROCESS THAT WOULD BE MUCH MORE EFFICIENT.

IS THAT SORT OF THE GOAL AND HOPE OF DSD AS THEY LOOK AT THESE CHANGES? I THINK WE WOULD, WE WOULD LOOK TO AUSTIN WATER TO LEAD THAT EFFORT.

AND AGAIN, I THINK THAT OUR CURRENT PROPOSAL INCLUDES THE CODE AMENDMENTS THAT WE'VE OUTLINED AND THEN ALSO IN OUR STAFF REPORT WE'VE COMMITTED TO SOME VERY SPECIFIC CRITERIA MANUAL CHANGES SPECIFICALLY WITH REGARD TO THE STORM, UH, WATER CONNECTION REQUIREMENT.

UM, AND THEN I THINK, UM, YOU KNOW, IF COUNCIL WANTS TO PROVIDE MORE DETAILED DIRECTION WITH REGARD TO SOME OF THE HARDER ISSUES THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT HERE IN THE LAST FIVE MINUTES, I THINK THAT THEY'RE CERTAINLY AVAILABLE TO DO THAT.

I CANNOT SPEAK FOR AUSTIN WATER, UM, BUT I DO KNOW THAT THEY RECOGNIZE THE CHALLENGES AND THAT THEY ARE DEFINITELY COMMITTED AS A, AS OUR WATER UTILITY TO DOING WHAT THEY CAN TO IMPROVE THE, IMPROVE THE REGULATORY LANDSCAPE

[03:55:01]

FOR INFILL.

AND I GUESS MORE BROADLY, I GUESS WHAT I WAS JUST CURIOUS ABOUT IS THAT AS DSD LOOKS AT THESE TYPES OF CHANGES, THE GOAL HERE IS TO ACTUALLY SPEED UP PERMITTING, ALLOW MORE SORT OF DEVELOPMENT AND THOUGHTFUL WAY.

AND I GUESS WHAT I'M CURIOUS IS THAT, DO YOU FEEL LIKE WE'RE MAKING PROGRESS BY MOVING FORWARD WITH THIS FIRST SET OF AMENDMENTS AS YOU ALL HAVE PROPOSED THEM WITH ADDITIONAL TRI CRITERIA MANUAL? ABSOLUTELY.

THIS FIRST SET OF AMENDMENTS IS NECESSARY BUT NOT SUFFICIENT.

SO THIS FIRST SET OF AMENDMENTS IS GONNA REALLY TACKLE SOME OF THE BIGGEST CHALLENGES THAT CONFRONT AND FILL DEVELOPMENT.

AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WILL HAVE TO HAPPEN IF THESE AMENDMENTS PASS AND IF, AND IF YOU'LL RECOMMEND THEM TO COUNCIL AND AND ALLOW THIS TO MOVE FORWARD, IS THAT, UM, WE WOULD HAVE TO REVISE OUR REVIEW PROCEDURES.

THE, THE STREAMLINED DRAINAGE PLAN THAT WE OUTLINED, THAT'S GONNA BE A WHOLE LOT EASIER THAN FULL DRAINAGE REVIEW, BUT IT'S GONNA REQUIRE TRAINING STAFF.

IT'S GONNA BE REQUIRE, IT'S GONNA REQUIRE CREATING SORT OF A NEW PROCEDURE WITHIN OUR REVIEW PROCESS.

AND I THINK THAT'S, UH, THAT'S WHY WE'VE REQUESTED A 90 DAY DELAY SO THAT WE CAN REALLY WORK INTERDEPARTMENTALLY TO FIGURE OUT HOW THOSE RESPONSIBILITIES ARE GONNA BE APPORTIONED AND MAKE SURE THAT WE CAN PROVIDE ADEQUATE TRAINING TO STAFF.

ALRIGHT, OTHER COMMISSIONERS WITH QUESTIONS? WE DO HAVE SPOTS FOR EVERYONE TONIGHT IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO USE THEM.

MY CHAIR.

UM, I HAVE A BUNCH OF QUESTIONS.

I THINK I'LL START WITH QUESTIONS MAYBE FOR MR. LLOYD OR DST STAFF.

UM, JUST ONE QUESTION I HAVE STARTING OFF MS. LLOYD.

MR. LLOYD FOR YOU IS, YOU KNOW, WE'VE HEARD FROM SOME STAKEHOLDERS THAT THERE WOULD LIKE TO PERHAPS POTENTIALLY SEE IF THERE WAS A WAY TO SPLIT THE INFILL RE SUBDIVISION, UH, PART OF THIS ORDINANCE AND LOOKING AT THE SITE PLAN PIECE.

CAN YOU SPEAK A LITTLE BIT TO THAT? I KNOW THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS HAD SOME CONCERNS ABOUT NOT TAKING THESE TOGETHER.

CAN YOU PLEASE HELP US UNDERSTAND, UNDERSTAND THOSE ? UH, YES.

I MEAN WE, WE FEEL ALTHOUGH THE, THE NUMERIC THRESHOLDS FOR THE INFILL PLOTS AND SITE PLAN LITE ARE DIFFERENT, UM, WE, UM, THEY ALL RELATE TO THE SAME SUBJECT MATTER AND THEY ALL SORT OF FEED INTO THIS COMMON REQUIREMENT OF A MODIFIED OF A DRAINAGE PLAN THAT IS NOT FULL DRAINAGE ANALYSIS AS MATT HOLLAND MENTIONED, IN MOST CASES, NOT EVEN ENGINEERED AT ALL.

UM, AND SO THEY BOTH MAKE USE OF THAT AS A DRIVER FOR RELAXING THE STANDARDS.

AND SO WE THINK IT MAKES SENSE, UM, FROM A TRAINING STANDPOINT, FROM A DEPARTMENT OPERATIONS STANDPOINT TO BRING THESE TOGETHER CONCURRENTLY.

THAT MAKES SENSE.

IF I'M HEARING YOU CORRECTLY, IT'S PART OF IT IS OF COURSE THE DRAINAGE IN THE WAY WE'RE WORKING ON THOSE REQUIREMENTS, BUT ALSO IN TERMS OF HOW BOTH OF THESE WILL BE IMPLEMENTED AND HOW WE TRAIN STAFF.

'CAUSE WE WOULD LIKE TO DO IT AT ONE POINT RATHER THAN STACKED.

ABSOLUTELY.

THAT'S VERY HELPFUL, THANK YOU.

UM, THE OTHER, UH, QUESTION I HAD, AND I GUESS I'LL MAKE A QUICK, I THINK BUILDING ON WHAT, UM, COMMISSIONER MAXWELL WAS SAYING, I REALLY HOPE, YOU KNOW, I APPRECIATE AUSTIN WATER AND OTHER FOLKS COMING TO THE CONVERSATION AND I REALLY APPRECIATE WATERSHED WORKING WITH Y'ALL.

THIS IS, AS YOU'VE MENTIONED, IT'S AN INTERDEPARTMENTAL CROSS-DEPARTMENTAL THING.

SO I REALLY HOPE THAT WE CAN TAKE THAT FURTHER.

UM, MEAN OF COURSE WE WOULD MAKE THAT RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL TO SEE HOW DO WE BRING IN THE DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS TOGETHER TO ACCOMPLISH MORE WITHIN THIS WORK, BUT ALSO AS WE MOVE FORWARD, HOW DO WE SORT OF BRING IT ALL TOGETHER? AND I APPRECIATE Y'ALL'S WORK ON THAT.

UM, I THIS MIGHT BE A QUESTION, MR. HOLLAND, FOR YOU OR FOR ANYONE ELSE FROM WATERSHED, WE HAVE HEARD SOME CONCERN, UM, YOU KNOW, IN THE COMMUNICATION WE RECEIVED REGARDING LOT TO LOT FLOODING.

OF WAY OR TO IT STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM.

SO COMPLETELY THINKING, I'M A LAY PERSON WHO DOES NOT UNDERSTAND ANY OF ANY OF THIS.

HOW ARE WE MANAGING ESSENTIALLY ISSUES WITH LOT TO LOT FLOODING AS A PART OF THIS? WHETHER YOU'RE ON, YOU KNOW, 0.25 ACRES OR LESS, OR 0.25 TO ONE OR SO ON, HOW RIGHT.

WHAT CHANGES ARE BEING MADE TO LOT TO LOT FLOODING? SO, GREAT QUESTION.

A LOT TO LOT FLOODING IS THE, IN, IN MY MIND, THE BIG ISSUE WITH THIS ORDINANCE WE'RE, WE'RE, WE'RE ESPECIALLY CONCERNED AT THIS SCALE.

WE'RE ESPECIALLY CONCERNED THAT THINGS COULD GO SIDEWAYS WITH LOT TO LOT FLOODING.

AND SO YOU'LL SEE THAT THE PROPOSAL, UM, YOU KNOW, 0.25 TO ONE, TRYING TO GET IT TO THE STREET, TRYING TO GET IT TO THE RIGHT OF WAY.

WELL, THE WHOLE POINT IS NOT, NOT NEGATIVELY AFFECTING NEIGHBORS.

WE'RE EXPECTING, UM, NOT THAT IT, THERE IS A TINY RISE IN THE, IN THE FLOOD, IN THE, IN THE PEAK FLOWS AND SO FORTH AS, AS THIS COMES OFF.

BUT IT, IN, IN THE, IN THE SCALE OF A DRAINAGE SYSTEM, IT'S NOT, IT'S, WE NEED TO FIX.

IF THERE'S A PROBLEM THERE AND WE NEED TO FIX IT, IT'S PROBABLY GONNA BE A CAPITAL SOLUTION.

IT'S GONNA BE SOMETHING CONVEYANCE.

SO LOT TO LOTS A BIG DEAL.

WE'RE GONNA FOCUS ON THAT.

THAT'S WHY WE KEEP, YOU KEEP SEEING OVER AND OVER AGAIN, TRY TO GET THE WATER TO THE RIGHT

[04:00:01]

THE, FOR THE PROPERTIES THAT ARE BELOW, UH, 0.25, WE'RE NOT ASKING YOU TO DO MORE THAN YOU WOULD DO FOR A, FOR A, A BUILDING PERMIT ALREADY, BECAUSE YOU COULD, WE THINK THAT SCALE IS, IS BEING APPROPRIATELY HANDLED ALREADY, UM, BY THE SYSTEM WE ALREADY HAVE IN PLACE.

AND SO WHERE WE'RE NOT WANTING TO, TO TREAT, I MEAN THAT WAS THE WHOLE PREMISE OF THE, OF THE CITY'S, UH, THE CITY COUNCIL'S REQUEST.

HOW DO YOU SCALE THIS LIKE YOU WOULD A BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE SAME TYPES OF PROJECTS? WE THINK THAT'S GETTING DOWN TO THAT MICRO SCALE.

WE CERTAINLY DON'T THINK, UM, DETENTION PONDS ARE AN APPROPRIATE SOLUTION AT THAT STAGE.

AND JUST AT THE BUILDING PERMIT STAGE LOT TO LOT FLOODING IS SOMETHING THAT'S LOOKED AT AS WELL.

WHEN WE'RE JUST GOING THROUGH A BUILDING PERMIT, THE GREAT QUESTION, IT IS NOT LOOKED AT BY THE CITY.

IT IS AN EXPECTATION.

AND, AND IF SOMEBODY IS NOT ACHIEVING THAT, THEN YOU CAN RUN INTO ISSUES AND YOU END UP RUNNING INTO LAWSUITS AND SO FORTH.

WE SEE BY AND LARGE PEOPLE HANDLING THAT, MAKING IT WORK, ET CETERA.

I MEAN, WHEN WE SEE THAT THERE'S 3,500, 4,000, 5,000 DRAINAGE PERMITS A YEAR, ALMOST ALL OF THOSE ARE, UM, YOU KNOW, ACHIEVING THAT, THAT OBJECTIVE.

DO WE SEE THE OCCASIONAL, YOU KNOW, PROBLEM YES.

BUT DO WE NEED, DO WE FEEL WE NEED TO REGULATE EVERY SINGLE ONE IN ORDER TO AVOID A FEW UM, ISSUES? THAT'S, THAT'S THE POLICY CALL BY COUNSEL.

THEY COULD SAY, OH, WE'RE GONNA GO IN AND SWOOP IN AND LOOK AT ALL THE BUILDING PERMITS TOO.

SO WE, WE, OUR OUR, OUR RECOMMENDATION AT THIS POINT IS NO, WE DON'T THINK THAT'S A, THAT'S AN APPROPRIATE, AND SO WHAT I'M HEARING IS STAFF HAS LOOKED CAREFULLY AT LOT TO LOT FLOODING AS PART OF THIS CONVERSATION LOOKING AT THE DIFFERENT SCALES.

IT'S, YES, IT'S AT THE CENTER OF THE PROPOSAL.

ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS WITH QUESTIONS? MADAM CHAIR? YES, COMMISSIONER.

THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR.

UM, EITHER FOR MR. SHAK OR MR. HOLLAND, EITHER WATERSHED IT'S, IT'S A WATERSHED QUESTION.

I'LL LET Y'ALL FIGURE THAT OUT.

UH, A LITTLE BIT OF EDITORIALIZING AS, UM, COMMISSIONER COX SAID HE LIVES CLOSE TO SHOAL CREEK.

SHOAL CREEK IS MY BACKYARD.

AND SO AS Y'ALL WERE, UM, FOUR OR FIVE YEARS AGO, I GUESS IT'S ALMOST BEEN FIVE NOW, AS WE STARTED TO LEARN THIS WHOLE NEW PROCESS OF ATLAS 14, I'LL TELL YOU ITS BEFORE I WAS HERE AND, AND, AND ALL THOSE GOOD THINGS, MY NEIGHBORS AND I WERE FRUSTRATED.

UH, WE, WE GOT THIS BRAND NEW THING CALLED THE, UH, YOU KNOW, THE 25 YEAR FLOODPLAIN.

AND, AND UH, YOU KNOW, WE USED TO BE IN THE A HUNDRED AND THEN ON, ON TUESDAY WE WERE IN THE 25 YEAR FLOODPLAIN.

AND WE WERE TOLD, YOU KNOW, I CAN'T, I CAN'T MOVE A FENCE.

I CAN'T PUT UP AN A DU, I CAN'T, UH, YOU KNOW, BARELY DO A GARDEN.

I MEAN, AND, AND IT IS RESTRICTED.

I I UNDERSTAND IT.

AND, AND I TELL YOU MY NEIGHBORS AREN'T HAPPY EITHER.

UH, WE, WE GET IT.

BUT, BUT WE LIVE ON SHOAL CREEK AND I UNDERSTAND THAT.

AND SO WHEN WE COME FORWARD WITH THIS IDEA THAT, WELL, THESE MICRO CHANGES ARE JUST GONNA BE MINIMAL WHEN YOU TELL ME I CAN'T, AND, AND IT'S NOT, YOU CAN GO GET A VARIANCE, YOU CAN DO THIS.

I CAN'T.

AND, AND THAT, AND, AND THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE IN A LOT OF WATERSHED SHOAL CREEK'S NOT THE, IT, IT'S ONE OF THOSE, I THINK IT'S THE THIRD MOST FLOODED AREA, BUT, YOU KNOW, ONION CREEK, WALLER CREEK, WE ALL HAVE PARTS OF THAT.

AND SO MY, MY QUESTION IS, UH, WELL, ELEMENTARY QUESTION.

WHEN, WHEN ARE WE GONNA FINISH WITH THE ATLAS 14 MODELING? WE'RE, WE'RE CLOSE, AREN'T WE? IT'S NEXT YEAR.

WE ARE WORKING ON A FLOODPLAIN MAPPING PROJECT THAT WILL REMAP EVERY FLOOD PLAIN IN THE ENTIRE CITY.

AND, AND THEN SOME MEANING WE'LL BE CREATING SOME AREAS THAT ARE NOT MAPPED TODAY THAT WILL BE MA MAPPED AFTER THE PROJECT IS DONE.

THE UNIN CREEK WATERSHED IS THE FIRST ONE IN LINE, AND WE ARE, UH, THINKING WE'LL HAVE PRELIMINARY RESULTS BY THE MID, MID NEXT YEAR.

AND THEN ALL THE OTHER WATERSHED FOLLOW AFTER THAT, A YEAR AFTER THAT.

SO ONION WILLIAMSON INCLUDES WILLIAMSON SLAUGHTER, SOUTH BOGGY, ALL THE TRIBUTARIES OF ONION MID NEXT YEAR.

UM, OKAY.

I THOUGHT, I GUESS I THOUGHT IT WAS GONNA BE A LITTLE BIT QUICKER THAN THAT.

'CAUSE MY, MY QUESTION IS, UM, EVEN IF THEY'RE MICRO CHANGES, EVEN IF THEY'RE, UM, INSIGNIFICANT, I THINK IS ONE OF THE WORDS I USED, SHOULD WE WAIT UNTIL WE GET THE MODELS FINALIZE? I MEAN, EVEN IF WE MAKE A LOT OF MINOR CHANGES ON THE GRAND SCHEME OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN AND THE COMPLEX WATERSHEDS AND THE FLOOD ALLEYS AND EVERYTHING YOU'VE HEARD IT'S KIND

[04:05:01]

OF A BIG DEAL.

AND SHOULDN'T WE, RATHER THAN MAKING ASSUMPTIONS, AND I KNOW THAT DRIVES ENGINEERS CRAZY.

I'M NOT ONE, SO, UH, BUT I KNOW WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU, WHEN YOU ASSUME.

UM, BUT RATHER THAN MAKING ASSUMPTIONS, SHOULDN'T WE WAIT UNTIL WE GET THE MODELING TO MAKE SURE WE GET IT CORRECT? SO THE, THE MODELING THAT WE'RE DOING IS ON THE LARGE WATERSHED BASIS AND THE EFFECTS OF ANY INFILL DEVELOPMENT CASES THAT OCCUR WITH THE PROCESS OF PROCESS DEBRIS THAT WE PROPOSED, WE DON'T FEEL MAKE AN IMPACT ON THOSE LARGE WATERSHED STUDIES ON LOCAL STU LOCAL, NOT LOCAL FLOOD PLAINS, LOCAL STORM DRAIN SYSTEMS. WE ARE GOING THROUGH A PROCESS, A PROCESS OF MODELING, MODELING THOSE ALSO MUCH FURTHER OUT YEARS WISE AS FAR AS GETTING IT, UH, THAT PROCESS DONE.

SO THAT'S GONNA BE A PROCESS OF THE MODELING STORM DRAIN SYSTEMS IN NOT JUST CREEKS, BUT THAT PROCESS OF STORM DRAIN SYSTEMS IS, UH, IN ITS INFANCY AND IT'S A VERY, VERY LARGE PROCESS OF PROJECT.

SO IT'S GONNA TAKE US MANY YEARS TO GET ANSWERS ABOUT WHERE IS THE RISK FROM STORM PRINT SYSTEMS THAT WE, SAME THING SOMEWHERE THAT WE KNOW ABOUT, ABOUT FLOOD RISK FROM, UH, CREEKS.

WELL, I, UM, AND, AND I GUESS THE, UM, FINAL EDITORIALIZATION, UH, IN 26 SECONDS IS THAT I HOPE YOU UNDERSTAND THAT, YOU KNOW, ME AND MY NEIGHBORS, WHEN WE ARE TOLD NO, YOU CANNOT.

AND THEN YOU COME AND SAY, WELL OVER 118,000 DIFFERENT LOTS YOU CAN, AND WE'RE NOT EVEN GONNA REQUIRE YOU TO DO ANYTHING, OR WE'RE GONNA STREAMLINE WHAT YOU CAN DO BECAUSE IT'S REALLY A MINOR DEAL.

THE JUXTAPOSITION THERE IS HARD TO, HARD TO WRAP OUR ARMS AROUND SOMETIMES.

I, BUT I, I DO AGAIN, APPRECIATE YOU ANSWERING MY QUESTIONS SO EARLY THIS MORNING AND FROM MY WORK ACCOUNT.

SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

MY PLEASURE.

AND, AND AT THAT, THAT YOUR COMMENT DOESN'T GO LOST, IT'S NOT LOST IN US.

WE UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE DIFFERENCES IN, IN THE WAY WE, UM, UH, WE LIKE TO BE THE SAME.

AND IT WOULD BE GREAT TO BE THE SAME WITH EVERYBODY.

CERTAIN THINGS NEEDS NEED TO BE TWEAKED CERTAIN WAY.

AND I UNDERSTAND THAT LISTENING TO A PROPOSAL LIKE THIS MAY BE CONTRARY TO OTHER ANSWERS OR DISCUSSIONS YOU'VE HAD WITH CITY STAFF.

THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE TRY TO RECTIFY, BUT THANK YOU.

CAN I ADD ONE LITTLE COMMENT TO THAT? I THINK WHEN YOU'RE, WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT WATERSHEDS, UH, MS. GUIRES COMMENT WAS EXCELLENT WITH, UH, EARLIER TALKING ABOUT PUBLIC SAFETY, TALKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, MAJOR CONCERNS WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING THAT'S RIGHT NEAR THE CREEK, RIGHT NEAR IN THE, YOU KNOW, A, A FLOODWAY, THAT'S A BIG, THAT'S A BIGGER DEAL AND WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE, UH, NEW UNITS INTRODUCED.

THAT WAS PART OF THE ATLAS 14 ORDINANCE.

NO NEW UNITS, SO NO, NO A D YOU ALREADY NAILED IT.

I'M WELL AWARE OF REQUIREMENT.

SO WE DON'T, SO WE TAKE THAT VERY SERIOUSLY.

UH, THIS OTHER THING, WE'RE TAKING IT SERIOUSLY TOO, BUT WE, BUT IN LOOKING AT THE STUDIES AND WHAT WE'RE THE, THE, THE IMPACTS OF THE, THESE OTHER SYSTEMS ARE SUCH THAT WE'RE NOT, WE'RE, WE DON'T HAVE THE SAME CONCERNS.

WE HAVE OTHER CONCERNS, BUT WE DON'T HAVE THE SAME CONCERNS.

BUT, BUT AGAIN, UH, YEAH, I KNOW I'M OUT, BUT I CAN'T EVEN DO A FENCE BLOCKING FLOWS, .

THAT IT CAN ONLY APPLY TO PROPERTIES THAT ARE GONNA BE AT OR BELOW THAT 45% IC SO THAT YOU'RE PRESUMABLY YOUR ASSUMPTIONS HOLD UP.

UM, OTHER COMMISSIONERS WITH QUESTIONS.

I KNOW WE'VE TALKED ABOUT A LOT TONIGHT, SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE EVERYONE HAS THEIR QUESTIONS ANSWERED AND DON'T KILL ME.

BUT ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM THOSE, UH, COMMISSIONERS THAT HAVE ALREADY GONE? I SEE COMMISSIONER COX, COMMISSIONER MOTO AND COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE, AND THEN WE WOULD'VE BEEN AT THE TOTAL OF 11 COMMISSIONERS ASKING QUESTIONS ANYWAY, SO WE'LL GO IN THAT ORDER.

ABSOLUTELY.

IT MAKES A DIFFERENCE.

I CAN'T PROMISE THE ANSWERS WILL BE SHORT, BUT I CAN ASK THE QUESTIONS QUICKLY.

, GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER.

UM, I GUESS SO I HAVE, UH, BACK FOR WATERSHED.

SORRY.

AND THANK YOU GUYS SO MUCH.

UM, REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR, YOUR EXPLANATIONS AND YOUR ANSWERS ON THIS.

AND IT'S, AND IT'S A, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE CONCERNED IT'S IMPORTANT.

UM, WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE WAY THE LANGUAGE WAS DONE ON THIS, WHAT, WHAT ABOUT ADDING THE LANGUAGE SINCE, SINCE ALL THE PRESUMPTIONS ARE BASED ON THIS 45% IN CURVY IMPERVIOUS COVER, THAT'S WHERE THE MODELING CAME FROM.

THAT'S WHERE ALL THE DRAINAGE AND EVERYTHING THAT YOU'RE TELLING US, YOU'RE BASING THE PREMISES ON, WHY NOT HAVE THAT LANGUAGE IN THIS? WOULD YOU GUYS OBJECT? OR MAYBE THAT'S A QUESTION FOR MR. LLOYD.

WOULD YOU OBJECT IF WE ADDED THAT ON THAT THAT WHAT WE'RE LOOKING TO DO IS ONLY GOING TO APPLY TO THE PROVISIONS THAT ARE ALREADY IN THERE, BUT ALSO

[04:10:01]

UM, THAT WOULD BE ACCURATE FOR THE INFILL PLAT ORDINANCE PIECE OF IT.

AND THEN THE, THE SITE PLAN LIGHT, UM, WE, YOU KNOW, YOU NOTICE THERE'S A SHIFT THERE.

WE'RE NOT GOING ALL THE WAY TO AN ACRE, WE'RE JUST GOING TO A HALF AN ACRE.

AND THAT'S BECAUSE WE, UH, THOSE ARE A LITTLE BIT HIGHER AND IMPERVIOUS.

THEY CAN GO TO 60 OR 65%.

I DON'T, UH, YOU KNOW, MF 1 23.

SO WE WORK, WE'RE, UM, WE'RE OUR RECOMMENDATIONS HOLDS THAT WE'RE OKAY WITH THAT FOR THOSE PRODUCTS FROM THE ZERO TO HALF AN ACRE LEVEL BEING OKAY TO USE.

SO, SO I I I GUESS WHAT I'M HEARING, YOU'RE SAYING 45, THERE'S REALLY TWO, TWO PIECES.

THERE'S 45 AND THEN THERE'S THE MF LEVEL, RIGHT? I DUNNO IF THAT MAKES SENSE SENSE, BUT I THOUGHT YOU SAID THAT EVERYTHING WAS BASED ON THE PRESUMPTION OF 45 AND THAT WOULD INCLUDE THE HALF TO ONE ANCHOR.

DID I MISUNDERSTAND THAT? UM, WELL, WE'RE, WE WERE, I THINK WE WERE CLARIFYING 'CAUSE THERE WAS, WE WE'RE GETTING A LOT OF PUBLIC, UH, COMMENTS ABOUT LIKE, OH, WE'RE WORRIED ABOUT IMPERVIOUS COVER GOING UP, WE'RE WORRIED ABOUT THE IMPACTS OF IMPERVIOUS COVER AND WE'RE WANTING TO CLARIFY.

NO, THOSE AREN'T CHANGING.

WE'RE NOT, YOU KNOW, THIS PROPOSAL IS NOT PROPOSING INCREASED IMPERVIOUS COVER FOR EITHER PRODUCT.

EITHER THE INFO PLAT SINGLE FAMILY, WHICH GONNA STAY AT 45 AND THOSE OTHER ONES ARE STAYING AT, UH, EITHER 60 OR 65 WHEREVER THEY ARE.

SO ONE OF 'EM IS A LITTLE BIT BIGGER 'CAUSE IT'S 45.

WE'RE WILLING TO, AND WE ALREADY HAVE IN PLACE A DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL PROVISION THAT SAYS MANY OF THESE SAME THINGS.

YEAH, I THINK, I THINK THE CONCERN IS THAT GIVEN ALL THE CHANGES WITH WHAT'S HAPPENING WITH THE ZONING IS THAT, THAT THERE WOULD BE A MECHANISM TO CHANGE HOW THE PROPERTY IS ZONED AND ENTITLED SO THAT AN SF THREE BECOMES AN MF THREE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT AND THEN YOU END UP WITH HIGHER IMPERVIOUS COVER YEAH.

THAN WHAT WE'RE ORIGINALLY ACCOUNTING FOR.

THAT'S A GREAT, OH, THAT'S A FANTASTIC QUESTION.

IF THAT HAPPENED, YOU WOULDN'T, YOU WOULD HAVE TO SHIFT INTO THAT OTHER CATEGORY.

YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO GO UP TO AN ACRE.

YOU WOULD HAVE TO STAY AT THE HALF ACRE LEVEL AND DO SITE PLAN LIGHT.

'CAUSE YOU WOULD BY, BY DEFINITION WITH THAT.

SO SO WE YOU WOULD YEAH, WE'RE WE'RE ACCOUNTING FOR BOTH OF THOSE AND EACH ONE HAS, IT IS CALIBRATED A LITTLE DIFFERENTLY.

THOSE ARE GREAT QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU COMMISSIONER COX.

WELL, THAT ANSWER JUST RAISED MORE QUESTIONS, BUT I'LL, I'LL STICK TO MY ORIGINAL QUESTION.

UM, I I, I HEAR A LOT OF, OF STATEMENTS, UH, SAYING LIKE, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T FEEL, OR WE DON'T THINK THAT THESE ARE GONNA MAKE A BIG IMPACT.

UM, AND I CERTAINLY TRUST Y'ALL'S Y'ALL'S JUDGMENT ON THAT, BUT, BUT THEN I ALSO HEAR Y'ALL MENTION STUDIES.

AND SO I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IF WE ACTUALLY HAVE THE, THE MODELING AND THE DATA TO SUPPORT THE NOTION THAT THOUSANDS OF THESE LITTLE CHANGES ARE NOT GOING TO MAKE AN IMPACT.

AND, AND REALLY ULTIMATELY WHAT, WHAT I'M THINKING ABOUT IS, IS DIRECTLY TIED TO WHAT COMMISSIONER HAYES SAID IS I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE PRETTY CONFIDENT WE CAN'T BE A HUNDRED PERCENT CONFIDENT ON ANYTHING, BUT, BUT PRETTY CONFIDENT THAT MAKING THESE CHANGES ARE NOT GOING TO START WIDENING FLOODPLAINS AND START, YOU KNOW, CATCHING A WHOLE BUNCH OF PROPERTIES WITHIN THOSE BOUNDARIES THAT END UP BEING EXTREMELY RESTRICTIVE ON WHAT THE HOMEOWNERS OR PROPERTY OWNERS CAN DO TO THOSE PROPERTIES.

BECAUSE WE ARE TRYING TO MAKE AN EFFORT TO LOOSEN UP AND EXPEDITE THE REVIEW OF, OF, OF OTHER DEVELOPMENTS.

SO I, MATT MENTIONED EARLIER THAT WE DID SOME, UH, STUDIES AND AN ANALYSIS DURING THE CODE NEXT PROCESS ON CHANGES IN IMPERVIOUS COVER IN THAT CASE AND HOW THEY AFFECTED A LOCAL DRAINAGE SYSTEM AND LOCAL FLOOD HAZARDS.

AND THE RESULTS SHOWED THAT THE IMPACTS WERE VERY MINIMAL .

WE TOOK THAT RESULTS OF THAT STUDY AND APPLIED IT TO WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT TODAY WITH RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND INFILL LOTS AND, UH, SITE POND LIGHT.

AND IT'S A, IT'S A, IT'S A VERY SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCE AND A MATTER OF FACT IT MAY ACTUALLY BE THAT IT'S EVEN LESS OF AN IMPACT ON THIS SITUATION.

SO WE'RE BASING OUR DECISION ON STUDIES THAT WE HAVE DONE FOR ANOTHER PREVIOUS PROCESS THAT WE'RE APPLYING TO THE SITUATION TODAY.

THAT'S, THAT'S HELPFUL TO UNDERSTAND.

AND THEN, AND THEN MY, MY LAST QUESTION IS ABOUT THE, UH, STORMWATER, THE REGIONAL STORMWATER UH, MANAGEMENT PROGRAM.

UM, I ACTUALLY HAVEN'T DONE A PROJECT THAT CONTRIBUTED TO THAT, BUT I HAVE HEARD SOME CRITICISM THAT IT, IT, AT LEAST THOSE FUNDS TAKE AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF TIME TO ACTUALLY REALIZE ANY SORT OF IMPROVEMENTS OR, OR MAYBE THERE'S A HUGE BACKLOG OF IMPROVEMENTS IN THAT PROGRAM AND, AND WE'RE JUST

[04:15:01]

LACKING THE FUNDS.

I'M JUST CURIOUS IF, IF WE, IF, IF YOU CAN HELP US UNDERSTAND KIND OF THE STATUS OF THAT AND HOW THESE CHANGES MAY HELP OR HURT OUR STORMWATER, OUR REGIONAL STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM.

SO WHEN THE RS AND P PROGRAM REVIEWS AND APPROVES DEVELOPMENT CASES AND RECEIVES PAYMENT ON SO THEY DON'T HAVE TO DUE DETENTION ON THEIR SITE, THAT MONEY CAN ONLY BE SPENT BY WATERSHED IN THE EXACT SAME WATERSHED IN WHICH WE COLLECTED IT.

SO WE CAN'T COLLECT SOMETHING FROM A DEVELOPMENT IN SHOAL CREEK AND, AND DO SOMETHING IN WALLER CREEK.

WE HAVE TO DO IT IN SHOAL, WHICH WAS THE ORIGINAL WATERSHED THAT, WHERE THE DEVELOPMENT WAS LOCATED.

UM, SO THEREFORE, WHEN WE, WHEN WE AS A DEPARTMENT ARE LOOKING AT OUR FIVE YEAR PLAN AND IDENTIFYING CAP PROJECTS THAT WE'RE GOING TO DO, WE LOOK AT THE RSS AND P ACCOUNT, IF YOU WILL, ACCOUNTS FOR EACH WATERSHED AND SAY, OKAY, WE CAN HELP FUND THIS PROJECT WITH SOME S AND P MONEY SINCE IT'S IN THE SAME WATERSHED.

BUT IF WE DON'T HAVE PROJECTS IN A PARTICULAR WATERSHED, WE MAY NOT, MAY NOT BE ABLE TO, AT THAT POINT IN TIME SPEND RS AND P MONEY WE ARE LOOKING AT, AT DIFFERENT THINGS NOW, NOWADAYS IN WATER, SAY WORDS, MAYBE WE DON'T JUST FUND CIP PROJECTS WITH OUR S AND P FUNDS.

MAYBE WE FUND SMALL IN-HOUSE PROJECTS.

AND THAT'S BEEN SOMETHING THAT WE'VE BEEN TRANSITIONING TO OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS.

AND THAT'S GONNA BE, I THINK, A WAY FOR US TO BE SPENDING MORE OF THE RS AND P ACCOUNT MONEY QUICKER.

THANK YOU COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE.

WELL, AND, AND ONE OF THE THINGS Y'ALL MENTIONED WAS AS LIKE, CONCERN ABOUT MORE LOCALIZED FLOODING.

AND SO I'M HOPING THAT MAYBE THOSE FUNDS, IF THOSE FUNDS ARE BACKLOGGED IN SOME WAY, COULD BE, COULD BE UTILIZED TO ADDRESS A LOT OF THESE LOCALIZED FLOODING CONCERNS THAT WE HEAR ALL THE TIME.

EVERY SINGLE ZONING CASE THAT COMES UP, SOMEONE TALKS ABOUT A FLOODING ISSUE.

UM, AND IF THERE'S A, IF THERE'S A PUBLIC WAY TO ADDRESS THAT, THEN HOPEFULLY, HOPEFULLY MAYBE AN INCREASE IN CONTRIBUTIONS TO THAT PROGRAM, UM, WILL ALLOW US TO TAKE CARE OF SOME OF THAT STUFF.

YOU'RE, I, YOU'RE EXACTLY CORRECT THAT WITH THOSE RMP FUNDS, WE CAN FIX THE LOCALIZED FLOOD PLAN FLOODING ISSUES, WHEREAS WE, MAYBE WE USED TO RELY ON THAT MONEY FOR CAP PROJECTS, NOW WE'RE THINKING ABOUT, OKAY, HOW CAN WE SPEND THE MONEY ON SMALLER PROJECTS THROUGHOUT THE SAME WATERSHED? GREAT.

YEAH, THANK YOU.

AND I'LL, I'LL KEEP THIS BRIEF, BUT I HAVE, UH, FORGIVENESS, I ASK FOR FORGIVENESS FROM OTHER COMMISSIONERS.

I'M GONNA GO INTO THE WEEDS A LITTLE BIT ON DRAINAGE WITH WATERSHED PROTECTION JUST A LONG LITTLE LONGER BECAUSE I THINK I'M HEARING CONCERNS FROM THE COMMUNITY AND FROM OTHER COMMISSIONERS TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHY SORT OF REDUCING THESE DRAINAGE REQUIREMENTS DOESN'T CAUSE MUCH, UH, CONCERN ON THIS, ON PART OF WATERSHED PROTECTION.

AND, YOU KNOW, TONIGHT I SIT HERE AND I REALIZE I MOVED TO AUSTIN 30 YEARS AGO THIS WEEK, AND I CAME FROM WISCONSIN WHERE I DID FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT AS AN INTERN IN COLLEGE.

AND FOR THE LAST 30 YEARS I'VE PRACTICED DRAINAGE ENGINEERING, UH, THROUGH ALL THROUGHOUT TEXAS, UH, AS WELL AS IN FLORIDA AND OTHER STATES.

AND I WILL SAY FIRST, UH, KUDOS TO WATERSHED PROTECTION OF, I DON'T KNOW, OF, UH, ANOTHER CITY THAT HAS AS COMPREHENSIVE AND AS TECHNICALLY THOROUGH OF A STORMWATER MANAGEMENT DIVISION AS A CITY AND AS SOMEBODY THAT'S TRIED TO GET THINGS PERMITTED THROUGH THE CITY IN THE PAST, THAT'S ALSO SOMETIMES MADDENING, RIGHT? BUT, UM, LIKE I REALLY APPRECIATE ALL THE WORK YOU'RE DOING TO SORT OF ON A TECHNICAL BASIS UNDER LIKE TEASE THIS APART AS TO WHY THESE CHANGES, UM, AREN'T OF, OF CONCERN OF, YOU KNOW, AND SPECIFICALLY THAT'S CALIBRATING DRAINAGE OR SMALL LOTS WITH LIMITED, FREQUENTLY DISCONNECTED IMPERVIOUS COVER, UH, AND RECOGNIZING THAT WE'RE, THEY'RE NOT THE PROBLEM IN TERMS OF INCREASING FLOODING HAZARDS.

SO I THINK MY QUESTION OR WHAT I'D LIKE MAYBE TO EXPLORE A LITTLE BIT MORE WITH, UH, MISS WITH YOU, MR. SHAN OR MR. HOLLAND IS, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE HAVE OUR CURRENT REQUIREMENTS REQUIRE THESE DRAINAGE STUDIES, WHICH THEY DO MANY THINGS, BUT PRIMARILY THEY'RE LOOKING AT THIS HYDROLOGIC IMPACT, HOW MUCH MORE WATER IS COMING FROM A PROPERTY BECAUSE WE'VE CHANGED IT.

SO THE RELATIVE IMPACT OF THE POST PROJECT VERSUS PRE-PROJECT, AND WHEN WE HAVE SUCH A SMALL SITE WHEN YOU'RE TRYING TO DO THIS STUDY, THE FUNDAMENTAL, LIKE THE TOOLS WE HAVE TO MODEL, THESE ARE LIMITED.

UH, AND COMMISSIONER COX SPOKE TO, UH, TIME CONCENTRATION, YOU KNOW, THE TOOLS ARE REALLY GOOD AND THEY KEEP GETTING BETTER, BUT WE'RE STILL LIMITED WITH THE, QUITE FRANKLY, THE SOFTWARE AND THE INPUTS AND THE UNCERTAINTY AROUND IT.

SO A LONG LEAD INTO

[04:20:01]

A QUESTION ABOUT HOW CAN A BUNCH OF SMALL MICRO PONDS NOT HELP FLOODING.

DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? THE QUESTION, UH, I I THINK DOES FOR, AND FIRST LET ME THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS.

I APPRECIATE THAT WE HAVE SOME GREAT STAFF THAT WE WORK WITH ON AND, AND WE HAVE A, WE HAVE EXCELLENT STAFF TO DO SOME FLOOD PLAIN AND DRAINAGE ANALYSIS AND STUDIES.

SO THANK YOU.

UM, WE UTILIZE THE BEST TECHNOLOGY WHEN WE'RE DOING FLOOD PLAIN STUDIES, AND THAT'S FLOOD FLOODPLAIN STUDIES ALL THE WAY DOWN TO LOCALIZED FLOODPLAIN FLOOD RISK ANALYSES, AND THAT'S MODELS THAT WE USE FOR HYDROLOGY HYDRAULICS.

AND THEN WE'RE NOW WE'RE USING WHAT'S CALLED TWO DIMENSIONAL MODELS TO ANALYZE, UH, FLOOD RISK AROUND LOCAL FLOOD, LOCAL STORM DRAIN SYSTEMS. WE USE THAT NEW SOFTWARE BECAUSE IT PROVIDES US WITH THE BEST ESTIMATE OF THE RISK THAT WE NEED TO, THAT WE WANT TO CONVEY TO THE PUBLIC AND THAT WE WANT TO USE AS REGULATION PURPOSES TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC FROM, UH, FROM NEW DEVELOPMENT.

SO THAT'S, THAT'S KIND OF, I, I GUESS MY ANSWER FOR HOW ARE WE INCORPORATING THAT? WE'RE YOU, WE'RE INCORPORATING IT BY USING THE MOST TECHNOLOGICALLY ADVANCED MODELS AVAILABLE TODAY.

TALK ABOUT JUST A FOLLOW UP TO THAT.

I MEAN, AND I'LL SPEAK A LITTLE BIT FROM MY OWN PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE.

WHEN WE BUILD THESE SMALL PONDS, YOU KNOW, WE MAY BE REDUCING THE PEAK FLOW JUST DOWNSTREAM OF THE POND, BUT WHEN WE START LOOKING AT WHERE ALL OF THIS WATER GOES AND COLLECTS, IT'S, IT'S, IT'S ALL PART OF THIS LARGER SYSTEM.

AND WHEN WE, WE CAN MAKE SOMETHING BETTER IN ONE PLACE AND ACTUALLY MAKE IT WORSE IN ANOTHER LOCATION.

AND I THINK THAT'S KIND OF MY POINT IS THAT SOMETIMES HAVING A WHOLE BUNCH OF SMALL PONDS, WHEN YOU LOOK AT IT, AND, AND I I KNOW Y'ALL AT WATER PROTECTION HAVE DONE THIS ON, ON DIFFERENT WATERSHEDS.

WHEN YOU LOOK AT ALL THESE SMALL PONDS AND RUN THE MODELS WITH OR WITHOUT THEM, THE ACTUAL IMPACT DOWN IN THE STREAM, FOR EXAMPLE, IN SHOAL CREEK WITH THOSE PONDS, IT'S NOT A GIVEN THAT HAVING THESE SMALL PONDS WILL MAKE THINGS BETTER.

AND THAT'S WHY, JUST BECAUSE IT'S, IT'S QUITE COMPLICATED.

BUT, YOU KNOW, RECOGNIZING THESE SMALL LOTS, UM, YOU KNOW, GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS OF DOING A STUDY THAT WILL GIVE, I MEAN, I'LL SAY THIS IS MY OPINION, AMBIGUOUS ANSWERS THAT CAN BE WITH LOTS OF PRECISION.

AND WE, WE CAN SHOW LOTS OF SIGNIFICANT FIGURES, I SHOULD SAY LOTS OF, YOU KNOW, NUMBERS AFTER THE ZERO.

BUT THE INPUTS WE'RE WORKING FROM ARE STILL, YOU KNOW, SUBJECTIVE, WHAT IS THE MOISTURE IN THE SOIL WHEN IT STARTS RAINING, WHAT SOIL TYPE DO WE HAVE, COMMISSIONER SKIN MORE GROUND COVER AND ALL OF THOSE THINGS.

AND I THINK THAT JUST THAT, THAT THE MODELING CAN GIVE US REALLY SPECIFIC ANSWERS, BUT WE STILL ARE DEALING WITH NATURE AND SOME UNCERTAINTY IN IT.

AND I REALLY APPLAUD THE CITY TAKING A STEP BACK AND REALIZING THAT THE BENEFIT OF BUILDING MORE INFILL HOUSING OF IS, IS, UH, YOU KNOW, IS RELEVANT AND THAT THE POTENTIAL RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH, UM, REDUCING THE SORT OF PERMITTING PROCESS AND THE BUREAUCRACY OF THESE STUDIES.

COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE, WE'RE AT THE END OF YOUR TIME, SO I WOULD JUST, JUST ONE QUICK, CAN I GET ONE QUICK COMMENT ABOUT THAT? SO I WOULD JUST SAY THAT FROM A, UM, HYDROLOGY STANDPOINT, ANY POND, WHETHER, NOT NECESSARILY SMALL PONDS, BUT MEDIUM PONDS, LARGE PONDS AFFECT THE HYDROLOGY OF THE WATERSHED.

ALL OF THE PONDS DO THAT.

AND WE DO NOT INCORPORATE EVERY SINGLE DETENTION POND IN THE CITY INTO OUR MODELS.

THERE IS NO WAY WE WOULD BE ABLE TO DO THAT.

THERE'S WAY TOO MANY OF THEM, AND THAT WOULD MAKE THE MODEL EXTREMELY COMPLEX.

WE FEEL THAT THE WAY WE'RE MODELING THINGS NOW GIVES US A VERY ACCURATE REPRESENTATION OF THE FLOOD RISK FOR THAT PARTICULAR STREAM.

AND ONE FINAL COMMENT, YOUR, UH, COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE, YOUR COMMENTS ABOUT THE DIMINISHING RETURNS AND CON AND POSSIBLY, UH, EVEN NEGATIVE IMPACTS OF DETENTION IS REALLY WELL TAKEN.

AND THAT WAS, YOU KNOW, PART OF WHAT WE TALKED TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION ABOUT LAST WEEK, MAINTENANCE CONCERNS, INSPECTION CONCERNS, AND EVEN WHETHER THAT THEY WORK AT ALL AT THAT LEVEL, THEY WORK REALLY GREAT WHEN THEY'RE BIGGER.

THANK YOU SO MUCH, COMMISSIONERS' AT THEIR END OF OUR QUESTIONS.

UM, I AM LOOKING FOR A MOTION.

YES, VICE CHAIR.

TODAY, SO HOPEFULLY WE CAN CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION.

I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO, UM, POSTPONE THIS ITEM TO OCTOBER 8TH.

SEE YOU SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MAXWELL.

UM, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK TO THAT MOTION? SURE.

I, I REALLY DO WANNA APPRECIATE THE WORK THAT STAFF HAS DONE ON THIS AND I THINK I REALLY WANNA APPRECIATE THE WORK THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE, YOU KNOW, PUT INTO SORT OF COMING UP WITH QUESTIONS AND EVERYTHING.

I ALSO WANNA SAY I, I DO FEEL LIKE THERE'S A FEW OTHER THINGS THAT I THINK THIS COMMISSION NEEDS TO CONSIDER.

LOOK AT SOME OF THE THINGS.

AND I THINK THIS TIME GIVES Y'ALL THE ABILITY TO, I THINK, ENGAGE A LITTLE MORE WITH THE COMMUNITY.

I KNOW WE HAVE STAKEHOLDERS WHO ARE STILL LOOKING AT THINGS.

WE HAD SOME FOLKS COME AND TESTIFY

[04:25:01]

AND THIS GIVES, HONESTLY, AT LEAST I NEED MORE SP TIME AND SPACE TO JUST SORT OF ABSORB AND CONSIDER THIS MORE PROPERLY.

AND I HOPE THAT GIVES TIME TO STAFF TO CONTINUE SOME OF THOSE CONVERSATIONS AS WELL.

ANYBODY SPEAKING AGAINST THE POSTPONEMENT OR WISH TO SPEAK FOR YES, COMMISSIONER KIND A NEUTRAL COMMENT ON THIS, BUT IN LINE WITH WHAT WE HEARD FROM WATERSHED AND SOME OF THE POINTS FROM MY FELLOW COMMISSIONS, BY THE WAY, GREAT, GREAT DISCUSSION TONIGHT.

I ACTUALLY REALLY ENJOYED THAT.

UM, I THAT WAS ACTUALLY PRODUCTIVE .

UM, BUT, UH, PART OF WHAT I FEEL LIKE WE HEARD IS THESE LITTLE MICRO CHANGES ARE, YOU KNOW, THIS ISN'T SOLVING OUR FLOODING PROBLEM.

WE HAVE FLOODING PROBLEMS, WE'RE IN A FLOODING AREA, WE HAVE CLIMATE CHANGE, WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH THAT.

AND SO ON THE LARGER PICTURE, I JUST WANT PEOPLE TO THINK ABOUT THAT AS WE'RE EXPANDING AND GROWING OUR CITY AND DOING THAT, WE NEED TO BE LOOKING AT THE LARGER VIEW OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE.

AND I DON'T MEAN NECESSARILY CITYWIDE, BUT AT LEAST I'M GONNA MAKE MY PLUG AGAIN FOR THESE AREA PLANNINGS.

WE HEARD FROM WATERSHED THAT EACH OF OUR WATERSHEDS IN DIFFERENT AREAS OF THE CITY HAVE THEIR OWN UNIQUE ISSUES GOING ON IN THE WAY THEY GO, AND THEY NEED TO BE ABLE TO STUDY AND LOOK AT THAT SO THAT WE CAN COME BACK AND DO ZONING CASES APPROPRIATELY.

THERE.

I'LL GET OFF MY SOAPBOX.

GREAT DISCUSSION AND THANK YOU AGAIN, THE STAFF.

THAT WAS VERY GOOD.

UH, COMMISSIONER COX, ARE YOU SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST? UH, I'LL SPEAK FOR, UM, I JUST, I JUST WANNA KIND OF RAISE A, A FLAG OF CAUTION HERE ABOUT THE DISCUSSION ON, ON DETENTION.

UM, A AS, AS COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE AND, AND THE, THE AUSTIN WATER STAFF UNDERSTAND IT SOMETIMES, UH, DETENTION BECAUSE OF WHERE DEVELOPMENT'S LOCATED WITHIN, UH, THE THE DRAINAGE AREA BASIN, IT, IT DOESN'T, OR THE WATERSHED, UM, IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO DO DETENTION.

THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT WE DID WITH THE GROVE.

WE DID WATER QUALITY, BUT THEY'RE ACTUALLY NOT DETAINING BECAUSE IT MADE MORE SENSE FOR THEM TO, TO GET THEIR WATER INTO SHOAL CREEK AS FAST AS POSSIBLE, TO CLEAR IT OUT, TO GET IT FURTHER SOUTH TOWARDS, UH, UH, LADY BIRD LAKE, UM, BEFORE ALL OF THE OTHER WATER GETS IN THE WATERSHED.

BUT THE REASON WE UNDERSTOOD THAT WAS BECAUSE THE STUDY WAS DONE, THE ANALYSIS WAS DONE.

AND I UNDERSTAND, I DEFINITELY UNDERSTAND THAT YOU CANNOT DO THAT SORT OF FINITE ANALYSIS ON A WATERSHED WIDE BASIS.

THAT WOULD BE RIDICULOUS.

BUT THAT IS THE BENEFIT OF DOING DEVELOPMENT SPECIFIC DRAINAGE ANALYSIS.

UM, HOWEVER, THERE'S, TO ME, I I VIEW THIS IN TWO SEPARATE THINGS.

THERE'S LOCALIZED FLOODING AND THEN THERE'S LIKE LARGE REGIONAL FLOODING AND ANY SINGLE DETENTION POND IS NOT GONNA FIX OUR REGIONAL ISSUES.

AND SO I'M, I'M, I'M GETTING, UH, MORE COMFORTABLE WITH THESE PROPOSALS BECAUSE WHAT I REALLY AM HOPING TO UNDERSTAND IN THE TIME THAT WE ARE POSTPONING THIS IS HOW THIS COULD POTENTIALLY BENEFIT MORE OF THE LOCAL FLOODING ISSUES THAT I THINK ARE OFTEN THE THINGS THAT WE GET COMMENTS ON THE MOST, PARTICULARLY DURING ZONING CASES.

WHEREAS THE LARGER REGIONAL FLOODING ISSUES, THOSE ARE GONNA HAVE TO REQUIRE WAY MORE EFFORT AND MONEY ANYWAYS.

SO I'M HOPING THAT, UH, UH, PEOPLE WILL HAVE A CHANCE, INCLUDING ME TO EXPLORE THAT DURING THIS POSTPONEMENT PERIOD AND HOPEFULLY THIS COMMISSION WILL THINK ABOUT THAT ASPECT AS WELL.

UNLESS THEY HAVE COMMISSIONERS WANTING TO SPEAK AGAINST THE POSTPONEMENT, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE.

ALRIGHT, THIS IS POSTPONING THIS ITEM UNTIL OCTOBER 8TH.

ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR? ALL RIGHT, THAT'S UNANIMOUS.

THANK YOU SO MUCH TO ALL OF OUR SPEAKERS, THOSE THAT ARE STILL LEFT AND THOSE THAT, UH, ARE STAFF THAT STAYED UNTIL ALMOST 11.

SO THANK YOU SO MUCH, CHAIR.

WOULD YOU MIND RESTATING THE SECOND ON THAT MOTION? THE SECOND WAS COMMISSIONER MAXWELL.

UM, WE ARE DISCUSSING ONLY NO ACTION TONIGHT.

OKAY, WE ARE DONE WITH OUR PUBLIC HEARINGS TONIGHT.

UM, I AM GOING TO, DON'T KILL ME, MAKE A MOTION TO EXTEND TILL 1115 SO WE CAN GET THROUGH THE SECOND BY, UH, VICE CHAIR UNLESS THERE'S OPPOSITION.

UM, WE WILL TRY TO GET THROUGH TO 1115.

MOVING ON TO NUMBER 13,

[13. Discussion relating to Interim Planning Commission Rules and Procedures. Sponsors: Chair Hempel and Vice Chair Azhar.]

THE, UM, UH, PLANNING COMMISSION RULES AND PROCEDURES THAT, UM, ARE PROVIDED IN THE BACKUP.

AND THESE ARE WHAT WE'RE CALLING INTERIM AND VICE CHAIR.

I THOUGHT YOU HAD A REALLY GOOD EXPLANATION OF WHY ARE WE SEEING THIS ON THE AGENDA TONIGHT.

SURE, I APPRECIATE THAT.

SO, UM, YOU KNOW, THIS HAS BEEN BROUGHT UP MULTIPLE TIMES.

THERE IS CONFUSION, RIGHTFULLY SO ABOUT OUR RULES AND PROCEDURES.

PARTIALLY WHAT'S HAPPENED HAPPENED IS WE'VE HAD THREE

[04:30:01]

SEPARATE DOCUMENTS AND THREE DIFFERENT ITERATIONS AND WE'VE SORT OF BUILT ON IT.

SOME OF THEM ARE INCONGRUENT WITH EACH OTHER TO BE HONEST.

AND WE'VE HISTORICALLY AT THIS POINT JUST RELIED ON WHAT OUR CURRENT PRACTICE HAS BEEN.

UM, AND OUR PREVIOUS STAFF WAS GUIDING US THROUGH IT.

BUT I THINK PARTICULARLY LOOKING AT SOME OF THE STAFFING CHANGES AND LOOKING AT COMMISSIONER CHANGES, IT MADE SENSE TO CONSOLIDATE THEM AND PUT THEM ALL IN ONE PLACE AND BASE IT OFF OF CURRENT PRACTICE.

SO WHAT WAS SHARED WAS, YOU'LL SEE IT'S ESSENTIALLY BASED ON OUR EXISTING RULES.

PARTIALLY, PARTIALLY THINGS THAT WE ALREADY DO AND THE WAY WE DO IT, THERE'S A FEW MINOR THINGS THAT I MARKED A HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW THAT YOU'LL BE ABLE TO SEE.

THOSE ARE THINGS THAT HONESTLY WE HAVE GONE EITHER WHICH WAY.

SO WE, I COULD NOT IDENTIFY A CLEAR PRACTICE THAT WE ARE CURRENTLY USING ON THOSE.

UM, AND THEN YOU'LL SEE THAT THERE'S NO CHANGE ESSENTIALLY TO THE REQUIREMENTS THAT WE HAVE AROUND, UM, LOOKING AT THINGS SUCH AS, UM, YOU KNOW, THE RULES AROUND HOW PEOPLE SIGN UP, ET CETERA.

BECAUSE THAT IS STAFF DRIVEN AND THE CLERK'S OFFICE ESSENTIALLY IS MAKING THOSE DETERMINATIONS, PARTICULARLY AS WE WERE COMING OUT OF LOOKING AT THE VIRTUAL OPTIONS AS WELL.

SO HOPEFULLY THIS GIVES US ALL AN ABILITY TO COME TOGETHER.

THE IDEA WOULD BE WE ARE BRINGING IT RIGHT NOW, IT IS POSTED SO FOLKS CAN THINK IT OVER.

WE WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO ADOPT IT NEXT TIME.

THESE WOULD REPLACE ESSENTIALLY EVERYTHING THAT'S EXISTING.

SO WE WOULD JUST SORT OF START FROM A BLANK SLATE AND SAY, THIS IS WHAT WE'RE ADOPTING SO THAT EVERYBODY HAS ONE PLACE TO GO AND LOOK.

AND THIS IS WHAT WOULD GO UP ON OUR, ON OUR WEBSITE.

UM, AND IN ADDITION, WHAT I WOULD SAY IS THAT WE WOULD HAVE THE ABILITY STILL, WE'RE STILL GONNA HAVE A WORKING GROUP, STILL DO LONG-TERM WORK AND CONTINUE THAT PIECE, BUT FOR NOW THESE WOULD SORT OF FILL THAT GAP.

'CAUSE WE REALLY RIGHTFULLY DO SEE SOME CONFUSION.

THANK YOU, CHAIR.

YEAH, SO, UM, I JUST WANTED TO OPEN IT UP FOR DISCUSSION ON WHAT WAS POSTED AND WE UNDERSTAND THAT WAS POSTED I THINK JUST YESTERDAY OR EARLIER TODAY.

SO NOT A LOT OF TIME TO REVIEW IT.

UM, BUT THE IDEA BEING THAT THE, THE WORKING GROUP, WHICH IS, UM, NUMBER 14, WHEN WE GET TO THAT, THIS WOULD GIVE A REALLY GOOD BASELINE FOR THOSE FOLKS TO WORK FROM AND AND TWEAK TO WHERE WE NEED TO BE, UM, MOVING FORWARD.

SO REALLY THIS IS THE FIRST TIME SINCE I'VE BEEN SERVING THAT THESE HAVE ALL BEEN IN ONE PLACE.

YES, CHAIR COHEN.

I, UH, WANTED TO JUST BRIEFLY ASK ABOUT THE INTENT.

IS THERE ANY DESIRE TO ALTER, UH, 2.302, WHICH WOULD ALLOW THE CHAIR THE PRIVILEGE OF EQUITABLY EXTENDING OR DECREASING TIME? ARE YOU SAYING JUST BASED ON THE CHAIR ALONE? SO IT WOULD NOT REQUIRE A VOTE FROM THE BODY? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE ASKING? THE WHICH IS ALLOWED RIGHT NOW IN THE RULES OF PROCEDURE? NO, I MEAN I DON'T, I WE'VE NEVER FOLLOWED THAT.

WE REALLY DO AT THIS POINT FOLLOW EITHER NO OBJECTION OR IF WE HAVE TO CHANGE RULES, WE GO TO ROBERT'S RULES WHERE IT SAYS YOU NEED A SUPER MAJORITY TO CHANGE RULES IN THE MOMENT.

BUT NO, NO, IT'S A UNANIMOUS REQUIREMENTS IF THE CHAIR WANTS TO UNANIMOUS CONSENT.

OH.

SO THE CHAIR WOULD STILL BE ABLE TO DO THAT.

AND ACTUALLY PEOPLE COULD STILL BRING A MOTION TO CHANGE THE RULES AND TAKE A VOTE ON IT AS WELL.

SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

SO YOU STILL, THOSE ARE WITHIN ROBERT'S RULES, SO WE WOULD MAINTAIN THAT.

AND THAT'S CURRENT PRACTICE.

OTHER COMMENTS? COMMISSIONER HAYNES? YEAH, UH, MADAM CHAIR, WE HAVE, UH, UH, IF, IF, SO IF THE PLAN IS TO THEN BRING BACK THE INTERIM RULES NEXT MEETING, VOTE ON THEM.

IF WE HAVE PROPOSALS TO CHANGE 'EM, WE, WE JUST SUBMIT THOSE JUST LIKE A, A NORMAL AMENDMENT.

THAT'S CORRECT.

THERE'S ONE, WE'LL, PARTICULAR ONE THAT I'M INTERESTED IN.

YEAH, WE'LL TAKE UP EACH AMENDMENT INDIVIDUALLY AND VOTE ON IT AND THEN WHATEVER'S, UH, AND DO THAT NEXT MEETING.

WE'LL DO THAT AT THE NEXT MEETING.

BEYOND THESE AND LOOKING AT THESE AS WELL.

I I WOULD ASK ONE THING, I'LL JUST BE HONEST, THE CHAIR AND I HAD THIS CONVERSATION, WE WOULD LOVE TO NOT OPEN UP AND COME UP WITH NEW IDEAS.

'CAUSE REALLY ONCE YOU OPEN THAT, I'M SURE EVERYBODY HAS IDEAS, THEN WE REALLY ARE GETTING INTO THE WORK THAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO THROUGH A WORKING GROUP.

SO WE WANNA HAVE SOME DEGREE OF, ESSENTIALLY THIS IS WHAT WE'RE DOING.

WE'RE SOLIDIFYING THAT AS INTERIM.

OF COURSE, IF I THINK THERE'S SOMETHING THAT YOU STILL THINK VERY STRONGLY ABOUT, WE CAN HAVE THAT CONSIDERATION.

BUT I, I GUESS I CAUTION EVERYBODY BY SAYING WE DON'T WANNA SEE ANOTHER 2030 AMENDMENTS POUR INTO STAFFS INBOX AND FORWARD IT TO US TO THEN START CONSIDERING, 'CAUSE THEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ANOTHER LONG DISCUSSION THAT HONESTLY, I THINK IF THIS BECOMES CONTENTIOUS, THERE'S LONG DISCUSSION, WE'RE JUST GONNA WITHDRAW THE ITEM.

OTHER, UH, COMMISSIONER COX, THIS IS CALLED INTERIM BECAUSE, BECAUSE OF WHY, BECAUSE OUR WORKING GROUP WILL LOOK AT SORT OF LARGER THINGS, WELL

[04:35:01]

SO THEY MIGHT HAVE OTHER CONSIDERATIONS OR THINGS THAT WANNA BRING FORTH THAT WE'VE NOT BEEN DOING PREVIOUSLY.

SO WE'RE STILL OPENING IT.

THIS IS REALLY JUST TO KEEP US AFLOAT AND HAVE ALL THE RULES THAT WE'RE CURRENTLY FOLLOWING IN ONE PLACE.

SO, SO THIS IS NOT AN ACTION ITEM, CORRECT? THIS IS NOT AN ACTION ITEM TONIGHT? NO, IT'S JUST FOR DISCUSSION.

UM, IF YOU LOOK AT NUMBER 14, UM, IN OUR AGENDA, UM, NOT TO MOVE ON TO THAT YET, BUT IT'S THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A WORKING GROUP TO USE NUMBER 13 OR WHATEVER IS ADOPTED EVENTUALLY AS THE BASELINE TO THEN TWEAK.

AND THOSE BECOME THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S RULES AND PROCEDURES.

AND THAT'S WHY IT'S CALLED INTERIM.

THIS IS NOT MEANT TO BE THE END ALL OF OUR RULES AND PROCEDURES, BUT JUST TO CLEAR UP CONFUSION AND MAKE SURE WE'RE ALL OPERATING FROM THE SAME SET OF RULES UNTIL THE WORKING GROUP COMES BACK.

WE'RE GOING TO, AT OUR NEXT MEETING, APPROVE SOME VERSION OF THESE AND THEN REVISIT THE SUBJECT ONCE THE WORKING GROUP HAS DONE THEIR BUSINESS.

THAT'S CORRECT.

OTHER COMMENTS, QUESTIONS? OKAY.

UM, IF NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, WE'LL MOVE ON TO NUMBER

[14. Discussion and action to establish a working group for governance to update the Rules and Procedures. Sponsors: Chair Hempel and Commissioner Johnson. ]

SO WE TOUCHED ON THIS, BROUGHT IT TO THE COMMISSION LAST WEEK, SO NOW WE ARE ABLE TO ESTABLISH A GROUP OF UP TO FIVE MEMBERS, SIX IF THE CHAIR IS INCLUDED.

UM, AND DESCRIBE THE WORK THAT THE WORKING GROUP WILL BE DOING.

SO, UM, WELL I GUESS I'LL, I'LL OPEN IT UP AND SEE WHO IS INTERESTED IN WORKING ON THIS, THIS WORKING GROUP CHAIR COHEN, WE'LL NOT COUNT AGAINST QUORUM VICE CHAIR, UH, COMMISSIONER MARRE RAMIREZ, UH, COMMISSIONER HAYNES AND CHAIR, IF I MIGHT ASK YES, PLEASE.

YOU SERVE ON IT BECAUSE THEN WE RUN INTO THAT PROBLEM OF THE FIVE VERSUS SIX FOLKS.

I'LL, I'LL SERVE ON IT.

SO WE HAVE SPOT FOR ONE MORE AND WE CAN ALSO JUST LEAVE IT OPEN OR I WILL, THERE'S TWO MINUTES.

I WILL, I WILL GO AHEAD AND ADD MY NAME TO THIS LIST, BUT I AM ALSO GOING TO CHECK IN WITH COMMISSIONER WOODS BECAUSE I KNOW THAT NOW THAT SHE HAS SOME ADDITIONAL TIME, SHE MAY ALSO PREFER SO TENTATIVELY.

ONE GO, UM, AS OPPOSED TO RUSH IT.

COMMISSIONER MAXWELL.

UM, OKAY, SO THAT IS OUR GROUP.

UH, CHAIR COHEN, UH, VICE CHAIR COMMISSIONER BARRERA, RAMIREZ HAYNES, MYSELF AND COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, POTENTIALLY COMMISSIONER WOODS.

UM, BUT WE'LL KEEP THIS AS AN OPEN ITEM JUST AS WE HAVE FOR NUMBER 15, UM, TO SEE IF WE NEED TO ADD ANY FINAL COMMISSIONERS.

UM, SO NOW LET'S DESCRIBE WHAT THAT WORKING GROUP WILL BE DOING, UM, AND TENTATIVELY A TIMELINE FOR THIS.

UM, ANY THOUGHTS THERE BY? SURE.

UM, I, I THINK IN TERMS OF THE FUNCTION, THE IDEA REALLY IS TO LOOK AT, UM, AT LEAST START WITH INTERNAL RULES AND PROCEDURES TO THINGS THAT SORT OF, UM, WORK WITHIN US COMING OUT OF THAT GROUP.

I THINK, UH, IF THERE ARE THINGS THAT ESSENTIALLY COME UP TO THE LEVEL OF BYLAW AMENDMENTS, THEN I THINK THOSE CAN BE RECOMMENDED TO THE BODY AND THE BODY CAN CONSIDER THOSE AS WELL.

UM, I WOULD ALSO SAY I THINK THERE ARE WAYS IN WORK THAT STAFF DOES AS PART OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION SORT OF, YOU KNOW, PURVIEW.

AND THAT'S SOMETHING FOR I THINK THE WORKING GROUP TO SORT OF THINK ABOUT AND CONSIDER.

BUT HOPEFULLY WE CAN REALLY CONSULT WITH STAFF ON SOME OF THOSE THINGS.

SO FOR EXAMPLE, I SAID, YOU KNOW, LIKE FOR EXAMPLE, I DID NOT IN THE CURRENT RULES CHANGE ANYTHING RELATED TO HOW PEOPLE SIGN UP TO SPEAK BECAUSE THAT'S REALLY DEFINED BY OUR CLERK'S OFFICE, APPROVED BY THE LAW OFFICE, APPROVED BY RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE AGS OFFICE AND SO ON AND SO FORTH.

WE DON'T WANNA SORT OF SINGLE-HANDEDLY CHANGE THOSE.

SO MY HOPE WOULD BE THE FOCUS REMAINS INTERNAL PROCEDURES TO THE BODY ITSELF.

BUT UM, CERTAINLY I THINK THE BODY CAN, THE WORKING GROUP CAN MAKE DIFFERENT RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE BODY TO CONSIDER AS WELL.

AND CHAIR WILL SAY IN TERMS OF TIMELINE, I WOULD RATHER WE ARE COMING ON TO THE END OF THE YEAR.

UM, I WOULD ALSO SAY I THINK WE ARE RUNNING INTO AN ISSUE WHERE WE DO HAVE A NUMBER OF THINGS THAT ARE COMING UP THAT ARE GONNA BE REALLY HEFTY AND WE HAVE SOME WORKING GROUPS.

SO I WOULD ASK POTENTIALLY PEOPLE TRY TO GET SOMETHING DONE BY THE END OF THE YEAR, BUT I WOULDN'T WANNA HOLD IT TO IT.

I'D RATHER WE GET IT DONE RIGHT IN

[04:40:01]

BUT THE HOPE WOULD BE TO HAVE SOMETHING AT LEAST TO BRING BACK A REPORT TO THIS BODY.

ER YEAH, JUST ON THE TIMING, I JUST DO WANNA SAY THAT I THINK IT'S, WE'VE HAD SOME NEW COMMISSIONERS JOIN US AND WE KNOW THAT WE'LL HAVE SOME ADDITIONAL NEW COMMISSIONERS THEORETICALLY COMING ON AFTER THE ELECTIONS IN THE SPRING.

SO IT FEELS LIKE IT WOULD BE AN APPROPRIATE TIME TO REALLY HAVE THESE NEW RULES AND PROCEDURES IN PLACE SO THAT AS WE HAVE THOSE NEW FACES JOINING US, THAT THEY UNDERSTAND SORT OF HOW WE OPERATE AND THE EXPECTATIONS.

SO I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO ENCOURAGE THAT SAME SORT OF TIMELINE OF END OF THIS YEAR, BUT HOPEFULLY REALLY BY THE BEGINNING OF THE SPRING JUST SO WE HAVE THIS IN PLACE AND READY TO GO.

ANY OTHER THOUGHTS, COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, DISCUSSION ON THIS? I WAS JUST GONNA ADD, IF YOU WANNA PUT A, A TIMELINE ON IT, THE, TECHNICALLY OUR TERMS EXPIRE IN FEBRUARY, END OF FEBRUARY, SO, OKAY.

YEAH, IF YOU WANNA FEBRUARY, FEBRUARY 20, 25, 30 FIRST OR? YEAH.

UM, LET'S VOTE ON THIS.

SO, UM, THIS IS TO ESTABLISH THE WORKING GROUP, UH, WITH THE MEMBERS OF CHAIR COHEN, VICE-CHAIR AZAR, COMMISSIONER BARRERA, RAMIREZ, HAYNES, UM, CHAIR HEMPEL, COMMISSIONERS MAXWELL, AND UM, AS DESCRIBED THE, THE WORK OF THE WORKING GROUP TO BE DONE BY FEBRUARY OF 2025.

UM, IS THERE A SECOND VICE CHAIR? ALL RIGHT.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR MS. SORRY.

UM, THIS IS, WE'LL HOPEFULLY GO QUICKLY.

THAT IS, YOU CO IS BOTHERING ME.

THAT IS UNANIMOUS.

AND MS. GARCIA, IF WE COULD UM, KEEP AN IT AS AN OPEN ITEM JUST LIKE WE HAVE ON NUMBER 16 SO THAT WE CAN POTENTIALLY ADD THE FINAL NUMBER.

UM, OKAY.

THANK YOU FOR THAT QUICK DISCUSSION.

UH, NUMBER 15,

[15. Discussion and action to select a meeting date for a special called meeting of the Planning Commission. Sponsors: Chair Hempel and Vice Chair Azhar.]

THIS IS TO SELECT A MEETING DATE FOR THE SPECIAL CALLED MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

UM, THERE WERE A FEW DATES THAT WERE THROWN OUT FOR UM, OCTOBER.

YES, OCTOBER PLEASE IF YOU WANNA STEP IN.

UM, CHAIR, I CAN TALK ABOUT THESE AND WE DID HAVE SOME INDICATION FROM STAFF ON SOME FOLKS, BUT MAYBE WE CAN TALK ABOUT, SO WE ARE LOOKING AT THE 17TH, THE 21ST AND 29TH OF THE FOLKS HERE.

I WOULD JUST LOVE TO HEAR, UM, THREE FOLKS I DON'T HAVE THE NOTES FROM.

SO IF I CAN HEAR THAT, THAT WOULD BE GREAT.

COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE, COULD YOU SHARE IF YOU'RE AVAILABLE ON THE EVENING OF, WE'RE LOOKING AT OCTOBER 17TH, 21ST AND 29TH AND I WILL BE ASKING THE SAME QUESTION OF COMMISSIONER BAR RAMIREZ AND COMMISSIONER COX.

UH, I, I'M SORRY, I THOUGHT I HAD REPLIED TO THE UM, IT MIGHT BE THAT YOU RECEIVED IT TO STAFF, SO I'M SORRY IF I DO NOT HAVE IT.

SO YEAH, NOT TO CALL FOLKS UP, BUT IF YOU ALL CAN REPLIED TO STAFF.

UM, YES.

17TH 20, I FORGOT WHAT I SAID.

UM, 29TH.

UM, I THINK MY PREFERENCE WOULD BE THE 21ST OR THE 29TH, BUT I COULD BE AVAILABLE ON THE 17TH IF NECESSARY.

I ALSO REPLIED TO STAFF, BUT I'M GOING TO THE TEXAS A PA CONFERENCE ON THE 17TH.

SO OTHER THAN THAT I'LL BE AVAILABLE.

SO THE 20, WHATEVER THE OTHER DATES I'M AVAILABLE.

AND COMMISSIONER COX? UH, I DON'T SEE ANYTHING THAT FAR OUT, BUT I WOULD PREFER NOT THURSDAYS, 'CAUSE THAT'S TENDS TO BE MY CLIENT, UH, COUNCIL MEETING DAYS.

AND CAN YOU TELL ME, I'M SORRY, WHICH ONE OF THESE DAYS IS A THURSDAY? 1717.

UM, NO, NO, NO.

OH YES, YES, THAT'S RIGHT.

COMMISSIONER COHEN, CHAIR COHEN.

I, I THINK WE CAN ON, WE JUST NEED TO HAVE THIS CONVERSATION SO WE CAN HAVE AN A ROUGH IDEA ON WHERE FOLKS ARE.

I'LL BE HONEST, LOOKING AT IT RIGHT NOW, I THINK THE 21ST AND THE 29TH UM, SEEM TO BE DATES THAT WE CAN AT LEAST HAVE QUORUM.

SO WE CAN START FROM THERE.

THESE ARE DATES OF COURSE WHEN THE ROOM IS AVAILABLE, WE'LL HAVE TO ENSURE THAT WE ARE LOOKING AT STAFF AVAILABILITY.

UM, AND THEN LASTLY, WE WILL SORT OF HAVE TO SORT OF STACKING AND FIGURE OUT IN TERMS OF DIFFERENT THINGS.

BUT THANK YOU, THIS HELPS.

I THINK WE HAVE ALMOST RESPONSES FROM EVERYBODY AT THIS POINT.

AND THEN I DID WANNA SAY SOMETHING ELSE AS WELL.

GO AHEAD.

I, I JUST WANTED TO THROW IN ONE LITTLE THING THAT MIGHT HELP FOLKS MAKE UP THEIR DECISION.

UH, 'CAUSE BOA MEETS ON MONDAY AND YOU GET YOUR BACKUP, YOU KNOW, PRETTY LATE ON FRIDAY.

IT'S A REAL TIGHT TURNAROUND.

SO IF I WAS JUST GONNA SUGGEST IF YOU CAN GET THE TUESDAY, IT'LL GIVE YOU A LITTLE MORE TIME.

I, I UNDERSTAND THAT AND I DO WANNA SAY, I THINK SOME FOLKS, AT LEAST IN THEY HAD EMAILED STAFF, THEY HAD ESSENTIALLY EXPLAINED THAT YES THEY WOULD PREFER NOT TO DO THE 21ST.

'CAUSE THEN WE ALSO HAVE A REGULARLY CALLED MEETING ON THE

[04:45:01]

22ND.

SO IT'S BACK TO BACK DAYS.

UM, BUT YEAH, WE JUST WANNA MAKE SURE WE'RE QUORUM IS AVAILABLE AND THEN WE'LL FIGURE IT OUT.

SO JUST SO FOLKS UNDERSTAND RIGHT NOW, ROUGHLY WHAT WE'RE THINKING OF IN TERMS OF THIS AGENDA IS WE HAVE TWO PLANNING ITEMS THAT STAFF HAS REQUESTED.

SO WE'LL PUT THEM ON THERE.

ONE IS, OH, I'M GONNA FORGET OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, BUT IT'S THE AUSTIN CORE TRANSPORTATION PLAN AND THEN THE EQUITY BASED PRESERVATION PLAN.

BOTH OF THOSE HAVE TO BE APPROVED HOPEFULLY BY OCTOBER SO WE CAN MOVE THEM FORWARD TO COUNCIL BY NOVEMBER.

AND THEN THERE'S A NUMBER OF BRIEFING ITEMS, UM, THAT FOLKS HAD REQUESTED.

WE, WE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO GET TO ALL OF THEM, I'LL JUST BE VERY HONEST.

WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO DO A LITTLE BIT OF UNDERSTANDING OF HOW WE DO THOSE.

I AND I CAN BRING THOSE UP AND MAYBE HAVE A VERY BRIEF CONVERSATION ON WHERE WE THINK WE SHOULD GO WITH THAT.

BUT I WILL SAY THERE'S AT LEAST FOUR ITEMS THAT FOLKS HAVE NOT INDICATED WHETHER THEY'RE FINE WITH SOME OF THEM GOING TO NEXT YEAR OR NOT.

SO THAT'S THE CONVERSATION EDITOR CHAIR IF YOU WANTED TO ADD SOMETHING.

UM, NO, JUST THAT THIS, I MEAN THE WAY TO THINK ABOUT THIS EXTRA MEETING IS UM, WE'LL HAVE THREE MEETINGS REALLY TO GET US TO THE END OF THE YEAR.

THIS HELPS ALLEVIATE THAT SESSION, THAT SITUATION OF ALL THESE CODE AMENDMENTS COMING THROUGH AND BRIEFINGS SOMEWHAT.

BUT IT'S STILL GONNA BE A LOT OF WORK THROUGH THE END OF THE YEAR.

AND, AND JUST TO BE CLEAR, SO WE HAVE FOUR BRIEFINGS AND IF SOMEBODY MADE THESE, I KNOW TWO OF THEM ARE FROM COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS WHO'S PRESENT, BUT THERE'S A BRIEFING ON SMALL AREA PLANNING AND FUNDING FOR SMALL AREA PLANNING A DISCUSSION ON AN OVERVIEW OF THE STRATEGIC HOUSING BLUEPRINT, A BRIEFING ON DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS AND POPULATION GROWTH AND THEN BRIEFING ON THE RESULTS OF THE DENSITY BONUS 90 CASES THAT HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL.

SO THOSE ARE FOUR THAT WE STILL CURRENTLY, WE HAVE NOT GETTING GOTTEN AN INDICATION WHETHER SOMEBODY IS OPEN TO PUSHING SOME OF THESE TO NEXT YEAR OR NOT.

SO IF YOU'RE ONE OF THE PEOPLE WHO REQUESTED THIS IN OUR FLEXIBLE, PLEASE LET US KNOW.

'CAUSE AGAIN, WE'RE GONNA BE MAKING A DECISION ON TWO OF THOSE ITEMS COMING ON THAT MEETING.

SO NO MORE THAN FOUR ITEMS ON THAT ONE MEETING.

COMMISSIONER MAXWELL? I JUST, YEAH, I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT REGARDING THE DB 90 REQUESTS SPECIFICALLY THAT IT MIGHT BE GOOD TO WAIT, UM, TO JUST TO GIVE IT A LITTLE BIT MORE TIME BECAUSE A LOT OF THOSE CASES HAVE NOT ACTUALLY COME BEFORE COUNCIL DUE TO THEIR SUMMER BREAK AND BUDGET WORK.

SO IF WE DID DO THAT BRIEF BRIEFING IN IN OCTOBER, WE ALSO MIGHT NOT HAVE AS MUCH DATA AS WOULD BE HELPFUL.

SO THAT MIGHT BE ONE JUST TO BE TECHNICALLY ACCURATE.

WE MIGHT WANT TO POSTPONE.

APPRECIATE THAT.

UH, SO I GUESS JUST TO LET OF FOLKS KNOW AGAIN, WE'LL SORT OF SCHEDULE A MEETING.

STAFF WILL SEND OUT A NOTICE.

PLEASE DO.

I'M JUST GONNA SAY IT RIGHT NOW.

FOLKS, PLEASE IF HOLD THOSE THREE DATES, IF YOU ARE AVAILABLE, PLEASE HOLD THEM EVENING OF THE 17TH, 21ST AND 29TH, HOLD THEM.

WE'LL SEND OUT FUTURE DETAILS AND FOR THEN FOR THE BRIEFINGS, WE MIGHT JUST GO WITH, UM, STAFF AVAILABILITY FOR THOSE DIFFERENT BRIEFINGS ON THAT DATE AND THE MEETING DATES FOR, OR THE, SORRY, THE MEETING START TIME FOR THOSE, THE DATE WOULD BE FIVE.

WE WERE CONSIDERING 5:00 PM AND IT LOOKS LIKE MOST FOLKS HAD INDICATED THAT THEY'RE GOOD WITH STARTING AT FIVE.

ACTUALLY THAT'S A GOOD REMINDER.

IS THERE ANYONE WHO HAS AN ISSUE WITH STARTING AT 5:00 PM COMMISSIONER COX, I SEE YOUR HAND.

I DO NOT HAVE AN ISSUE STARTING AT FIVE.

WHAT, WHAT I WAS, WHAT I WAS GONNA MENTION REAL QUICK IS THAT I THINK OUT OF ALL THE TOPICS THAT YOU LISTED, MY OPINION IS THAT THE DB 90 BRIEFING IS PROBABLY THE MOST URGENT BECAUSE THAT IS, THAT HAS A PRACTICAL IMPACT ON ESSENTIALLY EVERY SINGLE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA.

SO I, I WOULD BETTER OFFER A COUNTER TO, UH, COMMISSIONER MAXWELL AND FEEL LIKE WE SHOULD, WE SHOULD HEAR ABOUT DB 90 IF WE CAN.

THAT SOUNDS GOOD.

COMMISSIONER COX, THE CHAIR I DO WANNA POINT OUT WE HAVE FIVE MINUTES LEFT.

I THINK WE CAN DO IT.

YES, .

MOVING ON TO

[16. Select a primary and alternate representative to serve on the Joint Sustainability Committee. Sponsors: Chair Hempel, Vice Chair Azhar, and Commissioner Woods.]

NUMBER 16.

UM, DO WE HAVE ANY VOLUNTEERS FOR THE REPRESENTATIVE TO SERVE ON THE JOINT SUSTAINABILITY COMMITTEE? OKAY, FOR THE RECORD, I VOLUNTEERED AND WAS TOLD NO.

WORKING GROUP COMMITTEE UPDATES, UM, CODES AND ORDINANCES.

, THANKS FOR THE UPDATE.

OKAY, WE'LL GO INTO OUR

[WORKING GROUP/COMMITTEE UPDATES]

NO UPDATE FROM THE LAST MEETING.

WE STILL HAVEN'T MET.

WE WILL MEET, UH, NEXT MONTH.

UM, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN JOINT COMMITTEE.

SAME ON 18.

OKAY, NEXT MONTH.

AND JOINT SUSTAINABILITY COMMITTEE.

WE ARE BOTH ABSENT SMALL AREA OF PLANNING JOINT COMMITTEE.

WE HEARD ABOUT THE REDEVELOPMENT ON RIVERSIDE AT, I CAN'T THINK OF THE NAME OF THE CROSS STREET BUT WHERE THE, WHERE THE CHOO'S GOING.

SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT ADVISORY BOARD.

VERY INTERESTING.

I'M SURE EVERYBODY WILL HEAR ABOUT IT.

UM, YES, WE REVIEWED A PUD AND ALSO THE CHANGES TO THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT UM, REGULATING PLAN AND WE ACTUALLY HAVE A SPECIAL CALL MEETING ON THE 5TH OF SEPTEMBER TO REC TO MAKE SOME RECOMMENDATIONS

[04:50:01]

AND WE SHOULD SEE UM, THAT PLAN AND SOME OF THOSE PUDS START TO MOVE FORWARD TO COUNCIL LATER IN SEPTEMBER.

UH, AUSTIN BUILDINGS WORKING GROUP, UM, CHAIR BERG IS ON BONDS OUTREACH AND PROCEDURES WORKING GROUP, NO UPDATE AND THE TECHNICAL AND BUILDING CODE UPDATES WORKING.

UM, WE HAVE HAD SOME EXCELLENT CONVERSATIONS WITH THE DSD SO THAT IS MOVING FORWARD AND WE ARE, IT DID GET REMOVED FROM THE AGENDA TONIGHT DUE TO A POSTING SITUATION, BUT WE ARE EXPECTING TO HAVE AN UPDATE, UM, FOR THE NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION.

COMMISSIONER KEL, CAN YOU INCLUDE ME ON THAT SORT? YES, SORRY.

THE CONVERSATION IS MOSTLY I WILL BE SAYING UM, BUT THE A I A AND DSD, SO THAT'S, UM, BUT I WILL GIVE YOU THE UPDATES AS THEY ARE NOW MOVING FORWARD.

THEY HAD MEETINGS LAST WEEK ESSENTIALLY AFTER OUR BRIEFING.

AND COMMISSIONER MAXWELL WAS THAT WE WORKING GROUP PREPARING A MEMO FOR DISTRIBUTION? YES, THAT'S EXACTLY, SO THE, THE REASON WE HAD PUT THE MEMO ON HOLD WAS BECAUSE THEY'RE MAKING ADDITIONAL CHANGES.

OKAY, GREAT.

ALRIGHT, ANY

[FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS]

FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS? JUST A REMINDER, APPEAL, INTERPRETATION, APPEAL SEPTEMBER 11TH.

TWO OF THEM IF YOU'VE NEVER WATCHED ONE AND YOU'RE REALLY BORED AND WANNA BE WONKY, .

UM, WITH THAT I WILL ADJOURN OUR MEETING AT 11:13 PM THANK YOU SO MUCH.

GOOD NIGHT EVERYBODY.