[00:00:03]
THE ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSION.
TONIGHT IS TUESDAY, DECEMBER 17TH.
WE ARE IN AUSTIN CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS, ROOM 1001.
I WILL START BY CALLING THE BOARD MEMBERS AND IT LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE ALL 11 HERE TODAY.
SO IT'S A, A LARGE BOARD CHAIR.
AND WE HAVE NO GENERAL PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS, SO GO STRAIGHT TO THE AGENDA.
[Consent Agenda]
UM, APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES.I HAD A FEW CHANGES TO THE MINUTES.
UM, BUT THEY EMAILED OUT AN UPDATE LIKE 10 MINUTES AGO.
WE REFERENCED AN OCTOBER MEETING DATE INSTEAD OF THE NOVEMBER MEETING DATE.
SO THEY WERE GRAMMATICAL STUFF.
UM, SO DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON THE MINUTES? OTHER THAN THAT? OKAY, SO THEY'LL STAY ON THE AGENDA.
ITEM ONE, APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSION.
REGULAR MEETING ON DECEMBER 3RD.
PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEM TWO, REZONING C 14 20 24 18 SH AT 83 0 1 RIVERSTONE.
IT IS A REZONING REQUEST FROM MF TWO TO SF THREE.
THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED A POSTPONEMENT TO JANUARY 21ST AND STAFF IS IN AGREEMENT WITH THAT.
UH, ITEM THREE IS A REZONING CASE.
ALL RED RIDDLE WEST SLAUGHTER LANE IS AT 22 0 5, 22 0 7, AND 2200 RIDDLE ROAD.
2222 0 2, 22 1 0 4, 21 0 6, 21 0 8, 22 0 6.
ALL RED DRIVE AND 21 0 5 21 0 7.
AND THE STAFF HAS REQUESTED AN INDEFINITE POST MOMENT.
OKAY, ITEM FOUR SPC 20 23 0 3 5 7 C NORTH TRAILS OFFICE PARK.
ITEM FIVE, SITE PLAN S, PC 2024 DASH 0 2 8 7.
A PANDA EXPRESS IS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMITT AT 7,200 SPRINGFIELD.
THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED A POSTPONEMENT TO JANUARY 21ST UNLESS SOMEONE HAS AN ISSUE WITH THAT, THAT WILL BE THE CONSENT REQUEST.
SP 2024 DASH 0 1 4 7 C SH AT LOYOLA FLAT, 6,700 DECKER LANE.
ELM CREEK WATERSHED IS A VARIANCE FROM THE LDC 25 8 DASH 2 61 G TO ALLOW FLOODPLAIN MODIFICATIONS IN THE CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE.
AND THAT IS THE DISCUSSION ITEM AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT.
SO THE CONSENT AGENDA IS APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES.
ITEM ONE, POSTPONE OF ITEM TWO TO 1 21 POSTPONEMENT OF ITEM THREE INDEFINITELY.
DISCUSSION FOR ITEM FOUR, POSTPONEMENT OF ITEM FIVE TO JANUARY 21ST, 2025.
DO I HEAR A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA? COMMISSIONER FLORES? DO I SEE A SECOND? SECOND.
[4. Site Plan - Hill Country Roadway: SPC-2023-0357C - North Trail Office Park; District 10]
SO WE GO TO ITEM FOUR.HILL COUNTRY ROADWAY, SPC 2023 DASH 0 3 5 7 C NORTH TRAIL OFFICE PARK.
IT IS AT 66 0 1 NORTH CAPITAL TEXAS HIGHWAY.
IT IS TO APPROVE A PLAN IN A HILL COUNTRY ROADWAY OVERLAY ZONE FOR A PROFESSIONAL OFFICE BUILDING AND ASSOCIATED DEVELOPMENT.
UM, JUST LIKE LAST TIME, WE'RE NOT GONNA HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING, BUT ANYBODY WHO WANTS TO SPEAK WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK, BUT THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED AT THE MEETING, TWO MEETINGS BACK.
SO DOES APPLICANT HAVE A PRESENT OR DOES THE STAFF HAVE A PRESENTATION? GOOD AFTERNOON COMMISSIONERS.
UH, NO ADDITIONAL PRESENTATION, BUT UH, I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT, UM, WE HAVE SEVERAL PEOPLE ON CAMERA, UH, WHO ARE AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT, UH, AUSTIN WATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL AND DRAINAGE AND WATER QUALITY ISSUES THAT MAY COME UP.
SO CHAIR, WE WILL NOW HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT FOR SIX MINUTES.
UH, I THINK IT'S GONNA BE MORE OF A QUICK UPDATE ON, UH, UH, LET ME, UH, START MICHAEL WAYLON ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT PRESENTING THE NORTH TRAIL OFFICE SITE PLAN.
AT THIS POINT, THE COMMISSION IS ALREADY FAMILIAR WITH THE GENERAL PROPOSAL FOR THE, UH, NORTH RAIL OFFICE.
SO I'M GONNA GIVE A QUICK RECAP OF THE PROJECT BEFORE JUMPING INTO THE MAIN FOCUS OF MY COMMENTS TODAY,
[00:05:01]
WHICH ARE THE CRITERIA FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL AND THE APPLICANT'S COMPROMISE PROPOSAL.HERE YOU CAN SEE THE PROPERTY, IT'S ABOUT 10 ACRES LONG LOOP 360, THE STAR MARKS THE GENERAL LOCATION OF WHERE THE BUILDING THE PROJECT WILL BE AND WHERE THE LOW PROFILE, LOW DENSITY OFFICE USE WILL END UP.
AND WHEN WE SAY LOW PROFILE, LOW DENSITY OFFICE USE, HERE'S WHAT WE MEAN.
LESS THAN 16% IMPERVIOUS COVER LESS THAN 9%.
BUILDING COVERAGE FAR OF ONLY 0.26 TO ONE A HEIGHT OF ONLY 28 FEET SHORTER THAN A SINGLE FAMILY HOME AND GREATER WATER QUALITY AND DETENTION OUTCOMES THAN REQUIRED.
IN OTHER WORDS, OUR PROJECT IS LESS INTENSE THAN OTHERWISE ALLOWED AND PROVIDES BETTER OUTCOMES THAN OTHERWISE REQUIRED.
SO THIS ALL SOUNDS GREAT, BUT HOW DID WE, YOU KNOW, START TO THINK THROUGH WHETHER THIS PROJECT MEETS THE THRESHOLD FOR APPROVAL? SECTION 25 5 1 47 OF THE CODE LAYS OUT ONE MAIN CRITERIA FOR APPROVING A HILL COUNTRY ROADWAY SITE PLAN, WHICH YOU CAN SEE ON THIS SLIDE QUOTE, THE LAND USE COMMISSION SHALL APPROVE A SITE PLAN FOR DEVELOPMENT IN HILL COUNTRY ROADWAY CORRIDOR.
IF THE LAND USE COMMISSION DETERMINES THAT THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT COMPLIES WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS TITLE, THE CRITERIA IS VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD IN OTHER APPROVAL PROCESSES SUCH AS REZONING APPLICATIONS AND CONDITIONAL USE SITE PLANS, THE CODE, THE CODE GRANTS, THE ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSION, THE AUTHORITY TO APPLY CONDITIONS OR MAKE DISCRETIONARY DECISIONS IN FAVOR OR AGAINST THE REQUEST FOR HILL COUNTRY ROADWAY SITE PLANS.
HOWEVER, THE CODE CHARGES ZAP WITH A SINGLE NARROWER GOAL TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE SITE PLAN COMPLIES WITH CODE.
AND IN THIS CASE, YOUR PROFESSIONAL STAFF HAVE DETERMINED THAT IT DOES COMPLY WITH CODE SLIDE.
WE BELIEVE WE BELIEVE THE CODE DIRECT ZAP TO APPROVE THIS CASE UNDER THE CRITERIA THAT I JUST COVERED.
WE ALSO RECOGNIZE, UM, 'CAUSE I HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF EQ THAT, UH, THERE ARE CONCERNS ABOUT THE SEPTIC SYSTEM INCLUDED IN THIS PLAN SET AND I WANT TO BE A GOOD FAITH PARTNER WITH THE CITY AND WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
TO THAT END, WE HAVE PROPOSED A COMPROMISE AGREEMENT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD THROUGH THEIR ATTORNEY, MR. BILL ALS SHIRE, AS OUTLINED ON THE SIDE.
FIRST, WE WOULD ASK THAT ZAP PROCEED WITH THE CURRENT SITE PLAN APPROVAL BEFORE YOU TODAY.
THEN THE APPLICANT WILL SEEK TO OBTAIN A WASTEWATER EASEMENT FROM THEIR NEIGHBORS, MR. AND MRS. ROBINSON.
AND WITHIN 60 DAYS OF OBTAINING SUCH AN EASEMENT IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY, THE APPLICANT WOULD FILE FOR COMPLETENESS CHECK FOR A REVISED SITE PLAN SHOWING A CONNECTION TO THE CITY'S WASTEWATER SYSTEM THROUGH THE ROBINSON'S PROPERTY, ELIMINATING THE SEPTIC SYSTEM.
I'M GONNA MAKE A MODIFICATION THERE.
I HAVE BEEN AUTHORIZED TO STAY ON THE RECORD STATE ON THE RECORD THAT WE WILL FILE THAT REVISED SITE PLAN BY THE END OF FEBRUARY, 2025.
SO WITHIN 60 DAYS AFTER CLEARING COMPLETENESS, THEY WOULD SUBMIT THE REVISION AND THEREAFTER PURSUE APPROVAL OF THE REVISION AND KEEP THE LAKEWOOD STAKEHOLDERS UPDATED ON THEIR PROGRESS.
IF THE CITY DENIES THEIR REQUEST TO CONNECT TO THE CITY WASTEWATER SYSTEM, THE APPLICANT WILL NOTIFY LAKEWOOD STAKEHOLDERS OF THAT NUT DENIAL.
AND THE APPLICANT WILL NOT INSTALL A SEPTIC SYSTEM WITHOUT GIVING THE LAKEWOOD STAKEHOLDERS AT LEAST 180 DAYS NOTICE OF PROCEEDING WITH THE INSTALLATION OF THE SEPTIC SYSTEM.
SO THEY'RE PRESERVING THEIR RIGHT UNDER A PRIVATE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT.
I THINK THEY'RE WRONG, BUT THAT'S NOT FOR US TO DECIDE TODAY.
I'M PRESERVING THEIR RIGHT TO SUE IN A COURT IF THAT'S WHAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO DO.
IT INCENSES US TO TRY AND GET THE REVISION DONE AND HAVING THIS SITE PLAN APPROVED TONIGHT WITH THE SEPTIC AND SENT THE NEIGHBORS TO HELP US WORK TOWARDS GETTING THAT REVISION DONE WITH THE WASTEWATER SYSTEM, WE COMMUNICATED THIS PROPOSAL TO THE LAKEWOOD STAKEHOLDERS THROUGH THEIR LAWYER.
AND TO DATE IT HAS NOT BEEN ACCEPTED.
HOWEVER, WE WILL STAND BY THIS PROPOSAL, AS I'VE JUST STATED ON THE RECORD.
TO DEMONSTRATE THAT WE STAND BY THIS PROPOSAL, I WANTED TO NOTE THAT WE HAVE ALREADY SURVEYED THE AREA THAT WOULD BE NEEDED FOR A WASTEWATER EASEMENT FROM OUR NEIGHBORS.
IT'S ONE THAT WAS ALREADY DONE SEVERAL YEARS AGO, AND THIS IS, YOU CAN SEE IT HERE, AND I'VE ALREADY SENT THE WASTEWATER EASEMENT ON THE CITY FORM TO MR. ROBINSON FOR HIM TO SHARE WITH HIS WIFE AND FOR THEM TO CONSIDER AND SEE IF WE CAN'T REACH AGREEMENT ON THAT.
TO RECAP, WE COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE RULES AND REGULATIONS AS CONFIRMED BY CITY STAFF, JUST ABOUT ALL OF WHICH ARE ONLINE, UH, WHICH MEANS THAT WE MEET THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODES THRESHOLD FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL.
CONCERNS REGARDING PRIVATE RESTRICTIONS ARE OUTSIDE THE CITY'S SCOPE AND WILL ULTIMATELY NEED TO BE RESOLVED BY THE PARTIES INVOLVED, NOT BY THE CITY EVEN.
SO WE ARE READY TO BE PART OF THE SOLUTION AND HAVING PROPOSED A COMPROMISE CONTINUE, WE WILL CONTINUE TO STUDY A WASTEWATER CONNECTION AND WE'LL SEEK THE EASEMENT AND APPROVALS NEEDED TO PURSUE THIS OUTCOME.
AND, UH, OBVIOUSLY I'LL RESERVE FOR AN ANNUAL REBUTTAL.
ANY QUESTIONS? LET'S HEAR EVERYTHING.
[00:10:02]
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IN FAVOR IS JEFF JEFFREY DOIN.JEFFREY, YOU WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES.
GOOD EVENING CHAIR, VICE CHAIR, COMMISSIONERS, AND YES, MY NAME IS JEFFREY DOHAN.
I'M ONE OF THE OWNERS OF THIS PROJECT AND ASKING FOR YOUR SUPPORT THIS EVENING FOR THE NORTH TRAIL PRO NORTH TRAIL SITE PLAN.
AS YOU KNOW, THERE IS ONE MAJOR CRITERIA FOR WHETHER THE CITY APPROVES THE SITE PLAN, AND THAT IS WHETHER OR NOT THE SITE PLAN COMPLIES WITH CITY CODE.
AND OUR SITE PLAN DOES COMPLY AS STAFF CAN CONFIRM, BUT SINCE THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF QUESTIONS RAISED REGARDING THIS PROPOSED SEPTIC SYSTEM, I'D LIKE TO TAKE A MOMENT TO ADDRESS THOSE ISSUES.
FIRST, I'D LIKE TO NOTE THAT STAFF HAS SIGNED OFF ON THIS SYSTEM, ON THIS PLAN.
SO FROM A SITE PLAN PERSPECTIVE, THOSE QUESTIONS HAVE ALL BEEN SATISFACTORILY ANSWERED.
I'D ALSO LIKE TO NOTE THAT WE DID NOT START OFF WITH A SEPTIC PROPOSAL, BUT AFTER STUDYING IT, WE ULTIMATELY DETERMINED THAT THIS WAS THE BEST OPTION FOR OUR TIME.
THERE'S A NUMBER OF REASONS FOR THAT, BUT THE CLIFFSNOTES VERSION IS THAT THE ALTERNATIVE TO SEPTIC WOULD BE A WASTEWATER LINE RUNNING THROUGH A NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY, WHICH WOULD REQUIRE AN AGREEMENT CONCERNING AN EASEMENT.
IN ADDITION TO THAT, THERE WERE, UH, YOU KNOW, ENOUGH ENVIRONMENTAL, UH, CONCERNS TO MAKE US FEEL THAT SEPTIC WAS REALLY THE BEST SOLUTION.
AS A RESULT, WE WENT WITH THE SEPTIC SYSTEM AND I'VE BEEN TOLD BY OUR ENGINEER THAT THE DRAIN FIELD IS TWICE THE SIZE OF WHAT IS REQUIRED FOR A DRAIN FIELD, UH, FOR THIS SIZE BUILDING.
WE'VE ALSO, UH, DESIGNED AND BUILT IN OTHER MONITORING SYSTEMS AND, UH, YOU KNOW, INTO THE PROPOSED SYSTEM.
AND IN ADDITION TO THAT, ANOTHER SAFEGUARD IS THE POSITIONING OF THE WATER QUALITY POND BELOW THE SEPTIC DRAIN FIELD.
AS YOU KNOW, OUR SEPTIC SYSTEM HAS BEEN ANALYZED BY NUMEROUS EXPERTS, INCLUDING MEMBERS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
WE HAVE OBTAINED CITY OF AUSTIN APPROVAL FOR THE SEPTIC SYSTEM THAT WE ARE PROPOSING.
THE ONLY REASON THIS ITEM IS BEING RAISED RIGHT NOW IS DUE TO A DISAGREEMENT OVER HOW TO INTERPRET A PRIVATE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT.
WE'RE CONFIDENT THAT OUR INTERPRETATION IS THE RIGHT ONE, BUT REGARDLESS, YOUR STAFF CAN CONFIRM THAT THE CITY HAS A LONGSTANDING POLICY OF NOT INVOLVED IN ITSELF IN PRIVATE RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS BECAUSE THE CITY IS NOT A PARTY TO THEM.
AND BECAUSE IT WOULD JUST BE AN ENDLESS RABBIT HOLE IF THE CITY STARTED GETTING DRAGGED INTO PRIVATE ARGUMENTS SUCH AS THIS.
HAVING SAID ALL THAT, WE ARE SOLUTIONS ORIENTED, AND SO WE HAVE PUT FORWARD A COMPROMISE PROPOSAL IN WHICH WE WOULD FURTHER PURSUE THE IDEA OF BUILDING OUT THE WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE AS MICHAEL WHEELAN HAS DESCRIBED.
SO WE MET THE CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL OF THE SITE PLAN AND WE'RE READY TO PURSUE WASTEWATER WITH CITY STAFF APPROVAL AS A SIGN OF GOOD FAITH.
AND WITH THAT, I RESPECTFULLY ASKED FOR YOUR SUPPORT OF THE NORTH TRAIL PROJECT.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION, AND I'M AVAILABLE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS STEVE PER YEAR.
STEVE, YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES.
HELLO, CHAIRMAN, VICE CHAIRMAN AND OTHER COMMISSIONERS.
MY NAME'S C ER, I'M THE MAJORITY OWNER ON THIS LAND.
I'M HERE THIS EVENING TO ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT OF APPROVING THIS SITE PLAN FOR THIS NORTH TRAIL OFFICE PROJECT.
CRITICAL POINT TO MAKE HERE IS THAT WE MEET ALL THE CRITERIA.
I KNOW THIS BODY SEES VARIOUS DISCRETIONARY THINGS LIKE REZONING, CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS, BUT THIS IS DIFFERENT.
THIS IS SIMPLY A SHALL VOTE IF WE MEET ALL THE CODE REQUIREMENTS AND YOUR STAFF HAS DEMONSTRATED THAT WE DO OVER AND OVER.
WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON THIS FOR OVER THREE YEARS WITH THEM, WITH LEGAL, OUR TEAM, THEIR TEAM, MAKING SURE EVERYTHING EXCEEDS OR MEETS OR EXCEEDS THE REQUIREMENTS.
[00:15:06]
OUR SITE PLAN COMPLIES WITH CODE AND ACTUALLY IT EXCEEDS IT LESS THAN 16% OF IMPERVIOUS COVER.HOW OFTEN DOES THAT HAPPEN? LESS THAN 9% BUILDING COVERAGE AND FAR OF 0.26.
IT'S TUCKED BEHIND THE HILLSIDE AND YOU CAN'T HARDLY SEE IT FROM THE HIGHWAY 360.
GREATER WATER QUALITY AND ATTENTION THAN REQUIRED, IN OTHER WORDS, WE'RE LESS INTENSE AND OTHERWISE ALLOWED.
WE'VE WORKED CLOSELY WITH YOUR STAFF TO BRING THIS SITE PLAN FOR APPROVAL.
WE UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S A RESTRICTED COVENANT, BUT THAT'S FOR, UH, TO BE, UH, HANDLED PRIVATELY.
I'VE, UH, HAD TO LEAVE MY CAREER DUE TO LOSS OF EYESIGHT, UH, PREVIOUS YEARS.
AND THE DELAYS ON THIS PROJECT CAUSED BY SOME OFTEN FALSE AND MISREPRESENTATION OF THE CODE BASED ON OUR SITE PLAN IS AN ATTEMPT TO DELAY OR DERAIL THIS PROJECT.
ALL OF THESE DELAYS ARE MAKING IT MORE DIFFICULT FOR ME TO PROVIDE FOR MY FAMILY.
I ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS BILLY MULLINS.
BILLY, YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES.
GOOD EVENING, UM, COMMISSIONERS.
I'M HERE SPEAKING IN FAVOR OF THE PLAN.
UH, JUST TO BE CLEAR, I AM HERE MY PERSONAL CAPACITY.
I'M NOT PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT TEAM.
I DO KNOW, UH, STEVE VERY WELL, AND I KNOW, UH, THE PEOPLE INVOLVED WITH THE DEVELOPMENT.
UM, BUT I'M NOT HERE REPRESENTING THEM OR, OR IN ANY SORT OF CAPACITY LIKE THAT.
UM, I AM HERE BECAUSE I KNOW THEM WELL AND I KNOW WHAT THEY PLAN TO DO OR WHAT THEY'VE ASKED PERMISSION FROM THE, THE CITY TO DO WITH THE PROJECT.
AND, UM, I I I, I KNOW THAT THEY DO GOOD WORK AND THAT THEY PUT A LOT OF THOUGHT INTO IT.
THESE GUYS ARE LOCALS WHO WANT TO DO RIGHT BY THIS TOWN AND, AND BY THE PRO THE PROPERTY THAT THEY HAVE TO DEVELOP, DEVELOP IT, UM, PROPERLY AND RESPECTFULLY.
AND THE PLAN THAT THEY'VE PRESENTED HAS THIS EXCEEDINGLY LIGHT FOOTPRINT.
UM, THEY'RE NOT ASKING FOR MORE THAN THAN THAT THEY COULD, THEY'RE NOT ASKING FOR VARIANCES SO THEY CAN DO MORE WITH THE PROPERTY.
THEY ACTUALLY WANT THE, THE, TO MEET THE CODE.
THEY WENT TO THE CITY, SAID, HEY, WE'VE GOT THE PROPERTY.
WE WANT TO DO SOMETHING WITH IT, BUT WE DON'T WANT TO GO BEYOND.
WE WANT TO MAKE IT AS WHITE AND FIT WITHIN THE BOX AS EASILY AS POSSIBLE.
UM, AND SO THAT WAS THE WHOLE PLAN ALL ALONG.
UM, ANYWAYS, UM, AND THE IMPORTANT PART OF THAT, I GUESS I WAS TRYING TO SAY WAS THAT, THAT THEY CAME TO THE CITY AND AND SAID, TELL US WHAT WE CAN DO.
THE CITY SAID YOU CAN DO THIS.
UM, AND FROM EVERYTHING I'VE HEARD, EVERYTHING I'VE BEEN TOLD, EVERYTHING I'VE SEEN THAT IT MEETS THE CODE.
AND I KNOW EVERYBODY ELSE HAS SAID THAT FROM THE PROPONENT SIDE.
UH, BUT I ALSO WANTED TO SAY THAT, UM, UM, SO ANYWAYS, THAT'S WHERE WE ARE.
UM, THERE'S BEEN SOME ARGUMENTS AND SOME COMMENTS, UH, NOT ARGUMENTS.
THERE HAVE BEEN COMMENTS ABOUT, UH, THIS PRIVATE RESTRICTION AND PRIVATE AGREEMENTS AND ALL THAT.
I WILL AGAIN SAY, AS PREVIOUS SPEAKER SAID, IT DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THIS FORM.
UM, SO THE IDEA IS TO STICK TO, TO THE CRITERIA, TO STICK TO THE CODE, FOLLOW THE CODE, AND I THINK THE APPLICANT HAS DONE THAT.
AND SO NOW IT'S UP TO THIS BODY TO DO THAT AS WELL.
UM, SO I JUST ASK THAT YOU REVIEW THE SITE PLAN OR THE APPLICATION THAT'S BEFORE YOU TODAY BASED ON THE CRITERIA.
AND THEN WHEN YOU DO, I THINK YOU'LL SEE THAT IT'S READY TO BE APPROVED.
AND I THINK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND YOUR SERVICE.
[00:20:02]
THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS CHAIR.WE WILL NOW BE HEARING FROM THOSE SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION.
OUR PRIMARY SPEAKER IN OPPOSITION IS BOBBY LEVINSKY.
BOBBY WILL BE RECEIVING THREE MINUTES OF DONATED TIME FROM LUIS GALLUP.
LUIS, ARE YOU PRESENT? BOBBY, YOU'LL HAVE NINE MINUTES.
I'M, UH, HERE WITH THE SAFER SPRINGS ALLIANCE.
I'M ALSO SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF THE LAKE AUSTIN COLLECTIVE, BULL CREEK FOUNDATION AND THE LAKEWOOD CLUB, THEIR RESTRICTIVE MEMBERS AND THEIR OFFICERS.
UM, I SUBMITTED A LETTER TO YOU, WHICH I HAVE PAPER COPIES OF.
I'LL, I'LL GO AHEAD AND GO THROUGH AND I'LL, I'LL DISTRIBUTE IT AFTER.
UM, WE WENT THROUGH THE CODE AND, AND WE WERE, UH, TRYING TO BE, UM, RESPECTFUL OF, UH, COMMISSIONER SMITH'S, UM, COMMENTS THAT WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS IS COMPLIANT WITH CURRENT CODE.
AND I AM REFERENCING SPECIFIC CITATIONS OF THE CURRENT OF THE CODE THAT, UH, WHERE THIS SITE PLAN IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE.
I DO WANNA SPEAK TO THE GRANDFATHERING ISSUE BECAUSE IT IS RELEVANT, BUT I'LL SPEAK FIRST ON THE LAKE AUSTIN ORDINANCE.
UM, AS YOU KNOW, THE APPLICANT IS, UH, SUBMITTING THE SITE PLAN UNDER, UH, A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, AN ATTEMPT TO ATTACH ITSELF TO 30-YEAR-OLD CODE.
UM, THE LAKE AUSTIN ORDINANCE IS WHAT GOVERNS, UM, PART OF THE, UH, ENTITLEMENTS FOR THIS PROPERTY.
AND I THINK WHAT WE'VE SHOWN TO YOU IS THAT IT DOESN'T EVEN COMPLY WITH THE CODE THAT THEY'RE SAYING THEY'RE GOING UNDER.
UM, I THINK THE MOST OBVIOUS EXAMPLE OF THIS, UM, IS ON SHEET 29 OF THE SITE PLAN.
AND I'M NOT SURE ANY OF YOU HAVE BEEN DISTRIBUTED TO SHEETS FOR THE SITE PLAN, UM, WHICH I THINK IS ALSO A PROBLEM.
BUT, UH, THE SITE PLAN CLEARLY SAYS THAT A 1,184 SQUARE FEET OF BUILDING IS BEING PLACED ON SLOPES GREATER THAN 35% GRADE.
THAT IS NOT ALLOWED UNDER THE LAKE AUSTIN ORDINANCE.
THAT WOULD BE A VIOLATION OF SECTION NINE TEN THREE NINE FOUR SUBSECTION B.
THE SITE PLAN ALSO FAILS TO MAINTAIN THE OVERLAND SHEET FLOWS.
SO THE, THE LAKE AUSTIN ORDINANCE IS DESIGNED WHERE THE OVERLAND FLOWS ARE MAINTAINED AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE.
THEY ARE BEING IMMEDIATELY PUT INTO A DRAIN SYSTEM THAT IS NOT ALLOWED UNDER THE LAKE AUSTIN ORDINANCE.
THAT IS A VIOLATION OF SECTION NINE TEN THREE NINE TWO.
UM, THERE ARE ALSO CUT AND FILL LIMITATIONS IN THE LAKE AUSTIN ORDINANCE, WHICH THIS SITE PLAN IS NOT COMPLIANT WITH IN THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE PROPERTY.
SO WHERE THEY'RE TAKING THEIR ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY WITH A NEW DRIVEWAY, UM, THERE ARE, UH, THERE'S CUT AND FILL IN EXCESS OF FOUR FEET.
UM, THAT IS BOTH INSIDE AND OUTSIDE OF THE RIGHT OF WAY THAT IS BEING DEDICATED.
THIS IS NOT PERMITTED UNDER THE ORDINANCE AND WOULD REQUIRE A VARIANCE INCLUDING A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION, WHICH HAS NOT OCCURRED.
ADDITIONALLY, A LAND STATUS DETERMINATION IS BEING PURSUED FOR THIS PROPERTY, WHICH MAKES ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE.
SO THIS IS A SUBDIVIDED SUBDIVIDED PROPERTY.
A LAND STATUS DETERMINATION IS AN EXCEPTION TO SUBDIVISION.
THE ONLY REASON THAT THEY'RE DOING A LAND STATUS DETERMINATION IS TO FICTITIOUSLY CREATE TWO LOTS ON THIS.
ON THIS ONE LOT, IT IS A LEGAL LOT.
YOU CAN'T USE LAND STATUS DETERMINATIONS TO DEDICATE RIGHT OF WAY.
THAT'S A VIOLATION OF STATE LAW.
SO THIS, THIS COMMISSION WOULD NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY UNDER STATE LAW TO APPROVE THE SITE PLAN.
SO I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT'S ON RECORD.
UM, THE HILL COUNTRY ROADWAY IS THE REASON WHY IT'S HERE.
AND THIS IS ALSO FRUSTRATING BECAUSE THERE'S NOT A SINGLE SHEET IN THE SITE PLAN THAT DISCUSSES THE HILL COUNTRY ROADWAY.
USUALLY YOU HAVE A HILL COUNTRY ROADWAY EXHIBIT THAT'S NOT INDICATED ON THE SITE PLAN.
SO HOW ARE YOU AS A COMMISSION EVALUATING THIS FOR HILL COUNTRY ROADWAY IF THE WAIVERS TO THE HILL COUNTRY ROADWAY ARE NOT IDENTIFIED ON THE SITE PLAN? THIS IS A, THERE IS A COMMENT FROM CITY STAFF IN, IN THEIR COMMENTS THAT SAID, WE WANNA SEE A CUT AND FILL EXHIBIT ON THIS SITE PLAN.
THEY SAID THEY WOULD NOT COMPLY WITH THAT COMMENT BECAUSE THEY SAY THAT THEY'RE NOT EXCEEDING FOUR FOOT, UH, CUT AND FILL.
THEY NEED TO SHOW THAT YOU CAN'T JUST TAKE THEIR WORD FOR IT.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE SITE PLAN, IT'S OBVIOUS THAT THEY'RE DOING MORE THAN FOUR FOOT CUT AND FILL IN AT LEAST TWO LOCATIONS.
THAT INCLUDES THE RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION THAT I, THAT I TALKED ABOUT WITH THE DRIVEWAY.
AND IT INCLUDES THE WATER QUALITY POND.
WHILE THAT WATER, YOU'LL HEAR THAT THE WATER, THAT WATER QUALITY POND IS IDENTIFIED IN THE, IN THE CHAMPION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AS SOMETHING THAT THEY COULD DO.
THEY STILL HAVE TO REQUEST THE PROCEDURAL WAIVER FOR IT.
THEY DON'T GET AROUND THE PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS JUST BECAUSE THERE'S A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, UM, ON THE HILL COUNTRY ROADWAY.
UM, I BELIEVE THAT THERE'S ALSO A, NEEDS TO BE A CONVERSATION AROUND THE TWO ACCESS POINTS, UH, TO A HILL COUNTRY ROADWAY ON A SINGLE SITE.
UM, THAT WOULD BE A VIOLATION OF 25 6 4 15.
UH, SUBSECTION A THE SITE ALREADY HAS TWO CURB CUTS ON 360 AND ONE ONTO 2 22 22.
UM, THERE'S ALSO A VIOLATION UNDER 25 6 4 1 16 B FOUR.
THE SITE PLAN PROPOSES ACCESS TO A PORTION OF THE ROADWAY WITH A GRADE OF 8% OR MORE, WHICH IS PROHIBITED UNDER THE HILL COUNTRY ROADWAY ORDINANCE.
[00:25:01]
ALSO NOT IDENTIFIED ON THE SITE PLAN.THE AREA, UH, THAT'S THE AREA THAT HAS, UM, ACCESS TO PROPERTY WITH, UH, 25 TO 35% SLOPES.
THE SITE PLAN DOES NOT IDENTIFY WAIVERS ON THE HILL COUNTRY ROADWAY IN VIOLATION OF 25 2 11 0 5 ALREADY DISCUSSED THAT IT'S COMPLETELY MISSING.
UM, AND I THINK, I WANNA MAKE SURE I NOTE THIS BECAUSE IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT.
IF THEY'RE NOT SUBJECT TO THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, THEY WOULD HAVE TO THEN COMPLY WITH A HUNDRED FOOT SETBACK, WHICH IS PART OF THE HILL COUNTRY ROADWAY ORDINANCE.
SO THE GRANDFATHERING IS REALLY IMPORTANT HERE BECAUSE YOU NEED TO KNOW WHAT CODE YOU'RE EVEN, UM, UH, COMPLYING WITH HERE.
WELL, WHAT ARE YOU APPROVING THIS SITE PLAN UNDER ALL, EVERYTHING THAT I JUST MENTIONED IS APPLICABLE, WHETHER OR NOT THE VESTED RIGHTS DETERMINATION'S APPROPRIATE OR NOT, THAT IS, THAT IS THE CODE THAT THEY MUST COMPLY WITH AND THEY ARE NOT CURRENTLY COMPLYING WITH.
I WANNA GET BACK TO THAT VESTED RIGHTS.
UM, THE VESTED RIGHTS DETERMINATION, BECAUSE IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT HERE.
THEY HAD A TIMELINE UNDER THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT TO SUBMIT A SUBDIVISION TO LOCK IN THEIR, A PROJECT THAT THEY'D HAVE TO PURSUE TO COMPLETION THAT SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND VISION X EXPIRATION DATES.
SO IN ORDER FOR THEM TO COMPLETE THAT PROJECT, THEY HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE SUBDIVISION THAT WAS SUBMITTED.
THAT INCLUDES A PUBLICLY RECORDED PLATE NOTE PLATE NOTE NUMBER TWO, THAT REQUIRES CONNECTIONS TO THE CITY'S WASTEWATER, UM, SERVICES THAT APPLIES TO THE ENTIRE PROPERTY.
YOU DON'T GET TO CHERRY PICK ON ONE PART OF THE PROPERTY.
AGAIN, THIS IS ONE SINGLE SITE PLAN.
UH, ONE SINGLE SUBDIVISION, ONE LOT, ONE LEGAL LOT.
SO WITH THE, UM, WITH THAT VEST OF RIGHTS DETERMINATION, IT'S IMPORTANT BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO PURSUE THAT PARTICULAR PROJECT, THAT SUBDIVISION, THEY'RE NOW SUBMITTING THIS LAND STATUS DETERMINATION, FICTITIOUSLY TO IGNORE THE SUBDIVISION.
THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN GET RID OF A PLAT NOTE IS THROUGH A VACATION AND A RE SUBDIVISION.
YOU CAN'T USE A LAND STATUS DETERMINATION TO GET AROUND A PLA NOTE.
'CAUSE THE CITY HAS AN OBLIGATION TO ENFORCE THOSE PLA NOTES.
YOU, AS THE APPROVING AUTHORITY HERE, HAS AN OB HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO APPROVE, TO REVIEW FOR THIS PLAT NOTES AS WELL.
THAT IS A RIDICULOUS RESPONSIBILITY TO PUT ON A BOARD AND COMMISSION.
BUT THAT'S THE SITUATION THAT WE'RE IN AND I'M ALL I'M ASKING YOU TO YOU TO DO IS TO ENFORCE THE CITY'S REQUIREMENTS.
I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU'RE HEARING SOMETHING DIFFERENT FROM CITY STAFF.
I DON'T KNOW WHY WE'RE IN THE SITUATION WITH THEM.
TO ME, THESE ARE OBVIOUS VIOLATIONS OF THE CODE.
I'VE, UH, CONSULTED WITH EXPERTS ON THIS.
I BROUGHT IN A FORMER VESTED RIGHTS DETERMINATOR, UH, AN ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWER FOR THE CITY TO LOOK AT THIS TO MAKE SURE I WASN'T CRAZY WHEN I'M LOOKING AT THE SITE PLAN.
I FEEL LIKE WE'VE DONE OUR DUE DILIGENCE HERE AND WE'VE GIVEN YOU SOME PRETTY GOOD OBVIOUS EXAMPLES OF HOW THIS SITE PLAN IS NOT COMPLIANT WITH THE CURRENT CODE, WHICH IS TITLE 25.
UM, BECAUSE I HAVE MORE TIME, I'M GONNA KEEP GOING ON
SO, UM, UH, THE WASTEWATER SERVICES.
SO I REALLY WANTED TO LEAD WITH THIS ONE, BUT I I, I WAS AFRAID THAT, UM, I GET CUT OFF FOR TALKING ABOUT VESTED RIGHTS.
SO, UM, UNDER THE WASTEWATER SERVICES, I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT WHY THAT PLATE NOTE GOT IN THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE.
SO THE PLATE NOTE GOT IN THERE BECAUSE, UH, SECTION 25 4 1 92 A REQUIRES THAT A SUBDIVISION WITH A HUNDRED FEET OF A PUBLIC WASTEWATER SYSTEM MUST BE CONNECTED TO THE PUBLIC WASTEWATER SYSTEM.
ENTER PLA NOTE THE, THAT VIOLATES, UH, SECTION, UH, 25 4 1 92 B BECAUSE IT'S VERY CLEAR IN THE CODE THAT THE WATER LINES MUST SERVE EACH LOT OF WHICH PART OF THAT SUBDIVISION.
IT NEEDS TO SERVE THE ENTIRE PROPERTY.
THAT'S WHAT THAT INTENT OF THAT CODE IS.
VERY OBVIOUSLY SPEAKING TO, YOU HAVE TO BE CONNECTED TO THE CITY'S WASTEWATER SERVICES.
THAT SITE PLAN VIOLATES PLATE NOTE NUMBER TWO, WHICH REINFORCES 25 4 1 92, AND PROVIDES A PUBLICLY ENFORCEABLE RESTRICTION ON THE PROJECT BY REQUIRING THAT THE PROPERTY CONNECT TO THE CITY'S WASTEWATER SYSTEMS. THE SITE PLAN ALSO VIOLATES 25 13, WHICH CLEARLY ESTABLISHES THAT REQUIREMENTS OF TITLE 25 ARE CUMULATIVE IN NATURE.
AND SO YOU HAVE TO APPROVE THE SITE PLAN, NOT ONLY WITH TITLE 25, BUT ALSO THE RECORDED PLAT.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS MARCUS SCHAFFEL.
MARCUS, YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES.
I LIVE ON BROWNWOOD COURT IN DISTRICT 10.
I SHARE THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS AS A MEMBER OF THE LAKEWOOD CLUB, A CITIZEN OF AUSTIN, A PROTECTOR OF AUSTIN'S NATURAL RESOURCES, AND NOW A BUDDING STUDENT OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN'S LAND DEVELOPMENT CODES AND ORDINANCES.
[00:30:01]
YOU FOR PROMPTING MY EDUCATION.THE LAKEWOOD CLUB MET WITH THE DEVELOPERS REPRESENTATIVES ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 26TH AT MY HOME.
WE REQUESTED THEY PROVIDE THE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE SEPTIC SYSTEMS. THEY CONSIDERED, THEIR RESPONSE WAS NONE WERE CONSIDERED, BUT, UH, WE'LL DO SO THOUGH THEY DIDN'T PROVIDE TIMELINES, WE REQUESTED, THEY PROVIDE THEIR ANALYSIS OF GROUNDWATER IMPACTS, BULL CREEK IMPACTS AND THE STRUCTURAL STABILITY OF THE BLUFF.
THEIR RESPONSE, NONE WERE PERFORMED AS THEY'RE NOT REQUIRED BY CODE.
IT'S CLEAR WE DON'T HAVE PARTNER CITIZENS ON THE DEVELOPER TEAM.
THEY'RE OUT TO MAKE A BUCK AND POLLUTE BULL CREEK WATERSHED WHILE THE PURSUIT OF THE DOLLAR IS THEIR RIGHT.
IT'S GROSS, AND THEY LEAN ON THE FACT THAT IT'S ONLY 28 FEET IN HEIGHT, BUT THEY'RE ONLY LOOKING AT IT FROM 360 WALK AROUND A BULL CREEK PARK.
AND IT'S A WHOLE LOT TALLER FROM THAT, BUT THEY'RE NOT BRINGING IT UP HERE.
IT STANDS ABOUT 50 FEET TALL FROM THE BACKSIDE OF THE LOT BECAUSE IT'S SLOPING DOWN SINCE THEY'RE LEANING ON CODE.
AND YOUR DIRECTION WAS FOR US TO LEAN ON CODE AND NOT RESTRICTED COVENANTS OR ANYTHING ELSE, WHICH YOU'VE NOTICED WE ARE NOT BRINGING UP HERE TONIGHT AT ALL.
IT'D BE UNFORTUNATE IF ZAP APPROVED THIS PROJECT IN THE FACE OF THE CODE VIOLATIONS, MISSING VARIANCES AND NON-COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE ORDINANCES, AND THAT THE NEIGHBORS AND THEIR RESPECTIVE ORGANIZATIONS WOULD BE FORCED TO PURSUE FURTHER LEGAL ACTION.
THOSE ISSUES INCLUDE WASTEWATER SERVICE REQUIREMENTS.
CHAPTER 24 5 4 1 92 25 3, AND TITLE 25, MISUSE OF A LAND STATUS DETERMINATION, CHAPTER 25 4 2, AND THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE 2 1 2 0 0 4, THE HILL COUNTRY ROADWAY ORDINANCE AS IT RELATES TO ACCESS POINTS GRADING AT ACCESS POINTS, HEIGHT CALCULATIONS, AND REQUIREMENTS FOR REVEGETATION AND RESTORATION OF NATURAL AREAS.
25 6 4 1 6 25 2 1 1 5 25 2 1 1 2 4, AND SECTIONS 2.75 AND 3.54 OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA MANUAL RESPECTIVELY, LAKE AUSTIN ORANGE'S MAX SLOPE LIMITS OVERLAND SHEET FLOW AND CUT AND FILL SECTIONS NINE TEN THREE NINETY TWO, THREE NINETY FOUR AND 4 0 9.
ANY ONE OF THESE CONCERNS SHOULD BE GROUNDS FOR ILLEGAL CHALLENGE AGAINST THE CITY OF AUSTIN.
AND THIS BOARD SIMPLY PUT, THE SITE PLAN REACHED Y'ALL IN ERROR.
BUT SINCE IT'S HERE, BASED ON THE CODE, THE SITE PLAN SHOULD SIMPLY BE DENIED.
BEAR IN MIND THAT THE CITY HAS STRUGGLED TO MAKE SOUND RULINGS ON A NUMBER OF ITEMS OVER THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS, AND CITIZENS HAVE SUCCESSFULLY BROUGHT SUITS FOR THESE MATTERS.
EVERYTHING FROM THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT, CENTRAL HEALTH, WHICH IS CURRENTLY ON APPEAL LAND USE ISSUES LIKE THE STATESMAN'S P AND TAX INCREMENT, REFINANCE ZONE, AND MOST RECENTLY CHARTER AMENDMENTS.
WE MARCUS, WE ARE AT TIME REAL QUICK.
WE DON'T WANT TO ADD TO THAT LIST AND I DON'T THINK WE HAVE TO.
THE PROPOSED PLAN DOESN'T MEET THE CODE, DON'T RUBBER STAMP IT.
DENY THE SITE PLAN BASED ON THE FACTS WE PRESENTED OR EXPOSE THE CITY TO LEGAL CHALLENGE.
YOU ASKED FOR THE DEVELOPMENT CODE-BASED DATA.
WE IMPLORE YOU TO DISCHARGE YOUR DUTIES ACCORDINGLY.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS BRENT DEVERE.
BRENT, YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES.
UM, I'M A MEMBER OF THE LAKEWOOD CLUB BOARD.
I'M ALSO HOMEOWNER IN THE, IN THE VICINITY.
UM, JUST TO BE EXTREMELY TERSE, I'D LIKE TO REITERATE THAT I, I I BELIEVE THAT MR. LELINSKI AND MREL HAVE FOCUSED ON THE KEY STATUTORY, UH, CONCERNS.
THE, UH, PROVISION REQUIRING UNDER 25 4 1 9 2 OF THE, UH, REGARDING WASTEWATER LINES, THAT BECAUSE THE SUBDIVISION IS WITHIN A HUNDRED FEET OF CITY SEWAGE, WE BELIEVE THAT, THAT THAT PROVISION REQUIRES THEM OR PRECLUDES THE, UH, THE USE OF SEPTIC TANKS THAT THEY'RE REQUIRED TO BE ON, ON, UH, CITY SEWAGE.
AND THEN THE ORIGINAL PLAT, I BELIEVE IT'S THE SECOND POINT ON THE ORIGINAL PLAT THAT WAS ALSO DISCUSSED BY MR. LEWINSKY, REQUIRES SEWAGE TO, TO BE CONNECTED.
SO WE, I WOULD CERTAINLY WELCOME, UM, AN OPPORTUNITY IF THE CI CITY ATTORNEY OR STAFF MEMBERS WOULD EXPLAIN WHY THOSE SUPERVISIONS HAVE BEEN COMPLIED WITH.
BUT WE HAVE VERY SERIOUS CONCERNS THAT THEY HAVE NOT BEEN, AND MAINLY 'CAUSE OF THE SEPTIC FOR THE, BECAUSE THIS PLAN INVOLVES SEPTIC USE THAT, UH, IT SHOULD BE DENIED JUST FOR THAT REASON.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS ROBIN ABBOTT.
ROBIN, YOU WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES.
I DUNNO IF I CAN STAND THAT TO SOMEONE ELSE SPEAKING.
[00:35:02]
WE HAD ROBIN AS OUR FINAL SPEAKER ON THIS ITEM.GIVEN SHE IS FORFEITING HER TIME, THAT CONCLUDES THE SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM.
UH, MICHAEL WHALE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT.
UM, THE, UH, STAFF THAT REVIEWED THIS ARE AVAILABLE.
AND, UH, WE COMPLY WITH 25 4 1 92 A MB.
THE SEPTIC SYSTEM IS THE WASTEWATER SYSTEM THAT'S SERVING OF THE LOT IN QUESTION.
THE, UH, THE, THE ONE PIECE THAT CAUGHT MY EYE, AND I APPRECIATE, UH, MR. LEBINSKI POINTING IT OUT, THERE IS NOTHING ON THE SITE PLAN THAT HAS A BUILDING AT A SLOPE OF 35% OR GREATER.
HE'S CORRECT THAT IT WAS SHOWN ON A TABLE UNDER NUMBER THREE ON SHEET 29.
HOWEVER, IF YOU LOOK AT THE Q TABLE, THE THE TABLE, UH, ON THERE, IT SHOWS ZERO IMPERVIOUS COVER ON THE GREATER THAN 35%.
SO, AND THE SITE PLAN ITSELF SHOWS NOTHING ON THE GREATER THAN 35%.
SO I DO APPRECIATE THAT, UM, CRITICAL EYE, UH, AND KNOW THAT THE SITE PLAN IS FULLY COMPLIANT.
THERE IS NO BUILDING ON 35% OR GREATER SLOPE.
THAT'S SHOWN IN TABLE TWO IN THE Q UH, THE Q TABLE.
THE, UH, THE OTHER QUESTION, THERE IS NO, UH, THERE WAS NO VARIANCE SOUGHT.
THERE IS NO WAIVER BEING SOUGHT.
THAT'S WHY THERE ISN'T ANYTHING EXCEEDING THE FOREFOOT.
THE OTHER, UH, PIECE HERE THAT I WANTED TO, UH, NOTE WAS THE NUMBER OF DRIVEWAYS.
UH, THERE WAS A POINT ABOUT 25 6 415.
IT SAYS YOU CAN'T HAVE MORE THAN TWO DRIVEWAYS TO A HILL COUNTRY ROADWAY.
THIS PROPERTY, A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY IS ON 2222 WHERE THERE'S ONE.
UH, AND THERE, UH, THAT'S WHERE THE, UH, WATERLOO ICE HOUSE IN CNR.
THERE'S ONE ON 2222 AND ONE ON 360.
AND THIS LOT WILL HAVE ONE ON LOOP 360.
SO, UH, WE ARE COMPLIANT, UH, WITH THAT AS WELL.
THE, UH, THE OTHER PIECE WE, WE'VE GONE BACK AND FORTH ON IS THE, UH, THERE'S A CRITICISM ABOUT NOT COMPLYING WITH 25 6 4 16 B FOUR THAT PROHIBITS, UH, HAVING ACCESS TO A PORTION OF THE HILL COUNTRY ROADWAY.
IF THE ROADWAY IS GREATER THAN 8% HERE, IT'S FLAT, IT'S LOOP 360.
THE, UH, UH, HEIGHT CALCULATIONS, UH, WHICH WAS A CRITICISM ARE REFLECTED ON SHEET 12.
UM, THERE WERE NO WAIVERS SOUGHT, SO THERE ARE NO WAIVERS LISTED.
AND THE 56% NATURAL AREA NATURAL AREA HAS BEEN CALLED OUT.
UH, STAFF MADE A NOTE OF THAT.
UH, IT, IT, IT DOES REFLECT THAT THERE'S 56% OF NATURAL AREA AND WE DO IN FACT COMPLY WITH, UH, SECTION FIVE APPENDIX SAY OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA MANUAL, MANUAL AND SECTION 3.5 0.4 OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA MANUAL.
IT'S DEPICTED IN THE PLANS THAT WE ARE IN COMPLIANCE.
THAT'S ANOTHER WAY, WAY TO DEPICT THAT YOU'RE IN COMPLIANCE.
UH, FINALLY THERE WAS A, A COMPLAINT ABOUT THE OVERLAND, UH, RUNOFF.
THE LANGUAGE OF, UH, THE ORDINANCE SAYS, TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE, AND I KNOW THERE WERE A LOT OF BACK AND FORTH ABOUT HOW BEST TO DESIGN THAT, AND I KNOW THAT CITY STAFF, UH, THAT MADE THAT CALL IS HERE.
WE, WE COULD HAVE DONE THE OVERLAND.
THIS WAS THE RUNOFF THAT WAS REQUESTED.
SINCE THE CODE SAYS, TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE, THIS IS WHAT CITY STAFF, UH, ASKED THAT WE PUT IN THE PLAN.
SO, UM, I SAW THE TABLE THAT SHOWS THE 1,184 SQUARE FEET OF BUILDING THAT'S PLACED ON SLOPES GREATER THAN 35%.
AND I WONDER IF THE STAFF COULD LOOK AT THE, AND I COULD NOT FIND THAT IN OUR BACKUP.
SO IT'S HARD FOR US TO EVALUATE WHEN WE DON'T RECEIVE ALL THE SHEETS.
UM, THAT MAY SHOW US SOMETHING.
AND IF THE STAFF COULD LOOK AT, I DO SEE WHERE IT SAYS 0% IMPERVIOUS COVER.
BUT WHY DOES IT SAY THAT WHEN IT SAYS THERE'S A BUILDING
[00:40:02]
AT GREATER THAN 35% SLOPE? IS THERE A STAFF THAT CAN ANSWER THAT? HELLO? UH, THIS IS PAMELA AB.UM, I, UH, IF I NEED TO TURN MY CAMERA ON, I'M DRIVING, BUT I CAN, IF I NEED TO LOOK AT MY CHEST, DO THIS.
DOES, DOES SHE NEED TO HAVE THE CAMERA ON IN ORDER TO BE PART OF THE PUBLIC HEARING THIS PRE I THINK YOU HAVE TO HAVE YOUR CAMERA ON PAMELA.
SORRY, I DON'T, AND I DON'T WANT YOU TO TURN IT ON WHILE YOU'RE DRIVING.
WELL, I MEAN THE APPLICANT, THEY CAN DESCRIBE THE CHART.
I MEAN, THEY CAN TALK ABOUT, ALREADY SAID WHAT THEY SAID QUICKLY.
UM, MAYBE YOU SHOULD BRING IT UP TO THE, AND SHOW EACH PERSON ON THE PODIUM NOTE OVERHEAD.
I BELIEVE COMMISSIONERS IN YOUR BACKUP, IF YOU REFERENCE PAGE 17, PAGE 57, THAT IS SHEET 29 OF THE PLAN SET, WHICH IS THE SLOPE MAP, WHICH HAS THE, THE Q TABLES RIGHT IN THERE.
AND THE, UH, CATEGORIES AND ACREAGES MAP PART 1, 2, 3, OR FOUR.
IT WAS IN THE CONSTRUCTION PLANS, WHICH WERE IN THE ATTACHMENTS.
SO IT WAS IN, IT IS BEEN IN THE BACKUP SINCE THE BEGINNING.
JUST TELL ME IF IT'S PART 1, 2, 3, OR FOUR.
I, I READ THROUGH ALL OF THEM, BUT WHAT IT'S PAGE 17, OVERALL PART XI ALSO DON'T SEE THAT THIS IS A BUILDING.
I DON'T SEE THIS HATCH RIGHT THERE.
BUT WHY DOES IT HAVE THIS? IT WAS AN ERROR.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE Q2 TABLE, WHICH IS THE GOVERNING TABLE, IT'S, IT SHOWS ZERO IN THE Q2 TABLE, WHICH IS WHAT GOVERNS IS THE, THE Q2 IMPERVIOUS COVER CHART.
BUT THEY DON'T HAVE TO FIX THIS OR YEAH, THEY'LL HAVE TO FIX IT.
BUT, BUT THIS IS WHAT'S GENERATING THE SLOPES ALSO.
IF, IF IT WERE IN THERE, IT WOULD BE SHOWN, BUT THERE'S NOTHING SHOWN IN THAT SLOPE CATEGORY.
THEY PUT A NUMBER IN HERE, THEY PUT ZERO IN HERE.
AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE BUILDING, NONE OF IT IS IN, IN THAT SLOPE CATEGORY UNDER THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT.
IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING FROM STAFF.
YOU SEE IF YOU, THE BUILDING IS ON THAT DIAGRAM AND YOU CAN SEE ON THE CORNER IT ACTUALLY IS 1100 SQUARE FEET OF BUILDING ON THAT SLOPE.
RIGHT, BUT NOT OVER, NOT OVER THE 35.
LEMME MY, MY UNDERSTANDING OF THAT, UH, OF THE MAP, OF THE FLOAT MAP IS THAT THERE ISN'T ACTUALLY ANY PAMELA, YOUR CAMERA WILL NEED TO BE ON.
YEAH, SORRY PAMELA, IF YOU ARE SPEAKING DURING THIS MEETING,
NO, NO, WE DO NOT SEE YOUR CAMERA.
I I THOUGHT I HAD IT TURNED ON.
SO, UH, MY UNDERSTANDING FROM LOOKING AT THAT IS THAT THERE ISN'T ACTUALLY ANY AREA ACCORDING TO THAT MAP, THAT IS OVER 35% ON THE SITE.
AND SO, AND, AND THAT THERE IS INDEED, I GUESS SAY ACCORDING, LIKE EVERYONE HAS SAID, ACCORDING TO THE Q TABLE, NO, UH, NO DEVELOPMENT ON THE 35%.
THERE IS AN ERROR IN ONE TABLE THAT NEEDS TO BE CORRECTED, THAT SHOWS A CERTAIN AMOUNT THAT'S IN THAT ZONE.
WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE ACTUAL DRAWING, NOTHING IS IN THAT SLOW CATEGORY.
THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING FROM THE STAFF.
THAT'S 25 TO 35 WOULD BE THE NEXT CATEGORY.
OH, UH, CHAIR, I FEEL ILL-EQUIPPED TO, UM, MANAGE ALL OF THESE SORT OF, UM, FINDINGS OF FACT.
I DON'T KNOW THAT, UH, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE HERE FOR.
NO, I DON'T, I WE'RE NOT HERE FOR THIS LEVEL OF INTERPRETATION OF CODE.
NOT WITH THE, NOT WITH NO BACKGROUND ON ALL OF THAT.
THE BACKUP WAS IN THE, THE EVERYTHING WAS POSTED IN THE BACKUP.
NO, THE FULL SET OF PLANS WERE IN THE BACKUP.
NOT IF YOU'RE READING THROUGH THESE COMMENTS, UM, SUPPLIED BY THE OPPOSITION.
I'VE READ THROUGH ALL OF THEM AND LOOKED AT EVERY ONE OF THEM.
WHAT ARE YOU SAYING? WHAT I LOOKED AT? EVERY COMMENT THEY HAD IN THE BACKUP, EVERYTHING WAS POSTED AND EVERYTHING IS IN THE BACKUP.
EVERYTHING, EVERY COMMENT THEY HAD, I, I CAN SHOW YOU WHERE IN THE BACKUP EVERYTHING CAME FROM.
EVERY COMMENT IN, IN THE, UH, ABOUT THE PLAT AND SUBDIVISION AND ALL OF THAT.
[00:45:01]
FROM THE LAW DEPARTMENT.UM, UNDER SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, VESTED RIGHTS AND PLAT NOTES, CITY PROCESSES AND PRIOR DECISIONS OF COUNSEL RELATED TO THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.
VESTED RIGHTS AND PLATE NOTE ARE NOT BEFORE ZAP THIS EVENING, ITEM FOUR TO APPROVE OR DENY THE SITE PLAN BASED ON THE COMMISSION'S DETERMINATION THAT THE SITE PLAN DOES OR DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH IS APPLICABLE TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
SO LAW IS DIRECTING US NOT TO LOOK AT SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, VESTED RIGHTS OR PLAT NOTES.
THAT'S FROM THE LAW DEPARTMENT SO THEY CAN TALK ABOUT IT.
AND THEY'RE PERFECTLY GOOD TO MAKE THEIR THEIR CASE ON THAT.
IF THEY WANNA APPEAL THAT UP, THEY CAN DO THAT.
BUT IT'S NOT BEFORE OUR PURVIEW TO LOOK AT THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, THE VESTED RIGHTS OR THE PLAT NOTE.
HOW ARE WE NOT TO CONSIDER THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE APPLICABILITY TO THE SITE WE DO.
PLATE NOTE VESTED RIGHTS AGREEMENT.
WELL, I GUESS I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT.
I MEAN, THAT AFFECTS WHETHER OR NOT IT COMPLIES WITH THE CLOTHES.
NO, THOSE ARE DIFFERENT ISSUES.
WELL, THAT SEEMS, I MEAN, THAT'S YOUR OPINION, RIGHT? YES.
AND, AND SO THAT'S, THAT'S, THAT'S LET'S BE LESS DEFINITIVE.
I MEAN THAT IS WELL YOU'RE BEING DEFINITIVE.
I'M ASKING QUESTIONS AND SAYING I CAN'T BE DEFINITIVE.
IT'S QUITE THE OPPOSITE ACTUALLY.
I'M ASKING A QUESTION HOW I'M SUPPOSED TO NAVIGATE ALL OF THIS WITH, UH, AND THAT'S WHAT OUR CHARGE IS, IS TO NAVIGATE ALL THIS.
WELL, BUT OUR CHARGE IS NOT TO JUST IGNORE AND, AND RUBBER STAMP.
IF, IF THE INTENTION OF THIS ORDINANCE WAS FOR THE CITY STAFF TO GO UNQUESTION, THEN WE, THERE WOULD BE NO POINT OF THIS WHOLE EXERCISE.
I'M READING FROM THE LAW DEPARTMENT TELLING THE LAW.
THE LAW DEPARTMENT IS TELLING US WHAT WE, WHAT OUR PURVIEW IS.
I DON'T NEED YOU TO READ IT TO, TO ME.
THEY'VE READ THE PURVIEW OF WHAT WE CAN AND CANNOT CONSIDER WHEN WE'RE DETERMINING WHETHER THEY COMPLY WITH THE PLAT, WITH THE, WITH THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT.
WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
SO ARE YOU SUGGESTING WE HAVE NO DISCUSSION? NO.
IS A DISCUSSION RE REGARDING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT VESTED RIGHTS AND PLATINUM.
WE CAN DISCUSS WHATEVER WE WANNA DISCUSS, BUT WE CANNOT MAKE OUR MOTION BASED ON THOSE DECISIONS.
IT, I I MEAN, AMONG OTHER THINGS THOUGH, I HEARD QUESTIONS ABOUT THE APPLICABILITY OF THE DRIVEWAYS MM-HMM
UNDER THE HILL COUNTRY ORDINANCE, DEPENDING ON THE SUBDIVISION OF THE LOT.
THAT'S ALL WHAT WE HAVE HERE TO TALK ABOUT.
AND I'M SAYING HOW AM I SUPPOSED TO NAVIGATE THAT? WHAT'S YOUR QUESTION? AND I CAN TRY TO GET AN ANSWER.
THE QUESTION IS, I DON'T KNOW.
I DON'T HAVE THE BACKGROUND ON THAT TO SAY WHETHER THAT'S ACCURATE OR NOT, IS WHAT I'M SAYING.
WE HAVE ONE SIDE SAYING IT'S NOT AND ONE SIDE SAYING IT IS.
WHAT IS YOUR SPECIFIC QUESTION? I'M TRYING TO GET TO A POSITION WHERE I CAN ANSWER YOUR QUESTION OR GET SOMEONE TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION.
I'M NOT ASKING YOU A QUESTION.
I'M, I'M POINTING OUT THE DIFFICULTY OF THIS, OF THIS CHARGE.
BUT THAT'S WHAT OUR CHARGE IS, UNFORTUNATELY.
AND ULTIMATELY WE HAVE TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION.
AND I'M SAYING, I GUESS IN SHORT, I'M UNABLE TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION BASED ON THE INFORMATION WE'RE PROVIDED.
I DO, I'M TRYING TO GET, IF YOU HAVE A SPECIFIC QUESTION, I'M TRYING TO GET SOMEONE TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION FOR YOU, IS WHERE I'M TRYING TO GET, GET TO.
BUT IF YOU DON'T HAVE A SPECIFIC QUESTION, I CAN'T GIVE YOU A SPECIFIC ANSWER.
I'M NOT ASKING YOU A SPECIFIC QUESTION.
I DON'T BELIEVE WE HAVE WHAT WE NEED.
YOU DON'T HAVE WHAT YOU NEED TO I FINDING A FACT.
RIGHT? YOU DON'T HAVE WHAT YOU NEED.
WE YOU'RE NOT SPEAKING FOR THE COMMISSION BECAUSE I'M ONE OF US.
YES, BUT ARE YOU SPEAKING FOR ALL OF US WHEN YOU SAY WE OR ARE YOU SPEAKING FOR YOURSELF? I'M SPEAKING FOR MYSELF AS A MEMBER OF THIS BODY.
'CAUSE I BELIEVE WE ALL HAVE EVERYTHING WE NEED.
WELL, PERHAPS WE COULD GET CITY LEGAL TO EXPLAIN WHY WE'RE NOT ALLOWED TO CONSIDER.
THESE OTHER FACTORS THAT DO AFFECT WHICH CODE WE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT.
GOOD EVENING CHAIR, VICE CHAIR, UH, COMMISSIONER STEVE MAX WITH THE LAW DEPARTMENT.
SO I THINK WHAT WE'RE AT, UH, THIS EVENING, UH, COMMISSIONERS IS THAT STAFF IS BRINGING YOU THIS, UH, THE SITE PLAN AND THEY'RE BASICALLY HAVE EVALUATED BASED ON THE CODE THAT THEY FIND BASED ON THE OTHER AGREEMENTS THAT THE CHAIR WAS MENTIONING.
UM, SO IF YOU HAVE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS ABOUT THE CODE, UM, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR THE COMMISSION TO REVIEW THIS EVENING.
SO IF THERE'S A PROVISION OF CODE AS IT APPLIES TO THE SITE PLAN SPECIFIC QUESTIONS, OR YOU FIND THAT IT DOESN'T MEET THAT CODE, THEN THAT WOULD BE THE CRITERIA MOVING FORWARD.
BUT AS FOR THE, AS THE CHAIR MENTIONED, AS FOR THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, VESTED RIGHTS, UM, THOSE DETERMINATIONS HAVE ALREADY BEEN, BEEN MADE BY STAFF OR BY COUNSEL.
AND SO BASICALLY NOW BEFORE YOU, IS THE, IS THE
[00:50:01]
CULMINATION OF THAT CODE AND STAFF HAS BROUGHT THAT BEFORE YOU.AND SO WE'RE ASKING IF YOU FIND THAT THERE'S, IT DOESN'T MEET THOSE PARTICULAR CRITERIA OF CODE OR YOU HAVE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT CODE STAFF IS HERE.
UM, IF, IF YOU FIND THAT IT DOESN'T MEET THAT CODE, THEN THAT WOULD BE THE BASIS FOR MOTION TO DENY.
UM, IF YOU DO FIND THAT IT MEETS CODE, THEN, THEN WHAT THE CODE REQUIRES IS THAT THE COMMISSION TO PROOF THE SITE PLAN.
AND I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY OTHER QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.
DOES THAT HELP? WELL, WAS THERE A LAND USE DETERMINATION FOR THIS PARTICULAR SITE PLAN OR WAS IT FOR AN EARLIER ONE? TO MY UNDERSTANDING, THIS WAS MADE FOR, FOR THIS SITE PLAN.
IT WAS WITHDRAWN AND IT WAS RESUBMITTED.
SO THAT SAME DETERMINATION APPLIES TO THIS SITE PLAN, BUT STAFF CAN, STAFF CAN FURTHER SPEAK TO THAT.
UH, MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE A QUESTION.
UM, WELL, I THOUGHT STAFF WAS GONNA SPEAK TO THAT.
YOU SAID STAFF COULD SPEAK TO THAT, TO THE LAND STAFF'S DETERMINATION.
WHO FROM STAFF CAN TALK ABOUT THE LAND STATUS DETERMINATION? UM, I CAN SPEAK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE LAND STATUS DETERMINATION.
WE ALSO HAVE, UH, CHRIS YANES HERE WHO'S THE MANAGER OF THE SUBDIVISION GROUP, AND, UH, KNOWS FAR MORE ABOUT LAND STATUS DETERMINATIONS THAN I DO.
UM, I CAN SAY THAT WE'VE LOOKED AT THE LAND STATUS DETERMINATION AND AS FAR AS OUR REVIEWS GO, IT, IT WOULD NOT MAKE A, A DIFFERENCE WITH REGARD TO DRAINAGE AND WATER QUALITY OR ENVIRONMENTAL OR SUBCHAPTER E OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
BUT, UH, I'LL HAND IT OVER TO CHRIS FOR THE SPECIFICS.
MY NAME IS CHRIS YEZ, PROGRAM MANAGER WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES OVER SUBDIVISION.
UM, I'M NOT CERTAIN I UNDERSTAND WHAT THE QUESTION WAS, SO IF SOMEBODY COULD REPEAT IT, I MIGHT BE ABLE TO ANSWER PLEASE.
BEY, WHAT'S YOUR QUESTION? WELL, IS IT OKAY IF I YEAH.
UM, WELL, SO THE OPPOSITION IS SUGGESTING THAT, UM, THE SITE PLAN VIOLATES, UM, TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE BY MISAPPLYING PROVISIONS RELATED TO THE EXCEPTIONS FOR SUBDIVISION ON A LOT THAT'S ALREADY BEEN SUBDIVIDED.
AND THEN THEY ALSO ARE SUGGESTING THAT IT VIOLATES TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE BY APPLYING A LAND STATUS DETERMINATION TO A PROPERTY THAT NECESSITATES RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION TO TDOT.
AND SO WE'RE WANTING TO KNOW IF CITY LEGAL'S ALREADY REVIEWED THIS ISSUE.
I'M NOT CERTAIN IF CITY LEGAL HAS REVIEWED THAT ISSUE IN GENERAL OR SPECIFICALLY TO THIS CASE.
UM, AND I APOLOGIZE, I AM NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE SPECIFICS OF THIS CASE, BUT WHAT I CAN SAY ABOUT THE LAND STATUS DETERMINATIONS THAT WERE ISSUED FOR THIS CASE, UH, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THOSE ARE, THERE ARE MANY DIFFERENT TYPES OF LAND STATUS DETERMINATIONS.
THIS ONE IS KNOWN AS THE FIVE ACRE EXCEPTION.
AND THOSE ARE GOVERNED BY STATE LAW AND THEY HAVE VERY, UM, THEY JUST HAVE A VERY, A FEW CRITERIA BE MET.
AND SO WHILE I CAN'T SPEAK TO THE DETERMINATIONS BEING THE, THE ONES THAT WERE ISSUED FOR THIS CASE, 'CAUSE AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW THE SPECIFICS OF THAT.
UM, IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THEY MET THOSE CRITERIA WHICH WERE, WHICH ARE JUST THAT THE LAND BE FIVE ACRES OR GREATER, THAT IT HAS ACCESS TO OR FRONTAGE ALONG PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY OR PUBLIC ROADWAY.
UM, AND THAT, THAT, UH, THE OTHER CRITERIA WAS THAT NOTHING WAS DEDICATED TO THE PUBLIC AS PART OF THAT LAND STATUS DETERMINATION.
SO AS LONG AS THOSE CRITERIA ARE MET, IT, IT, IS, IT, IT THERE IS NO PROHIBITION THAT FORMERLY PLATTED PROPERTY CANNOT RECEIVE LAND STATUS DETERMINATIONS.
THAT'S NOT PART OF THE, OF THE FUNCTION OF STATE LAW OR THE CODE.
UM, SO AS LONG AS THOSE THREE CRITERIA ARE MET, ANY TRACT OF LAND THAT MEETS THOSE CRITERIA CAN RECEIVE THE FIVE ACRE EXCEPTION.
IS THERE ANYTHING IN THE LAND STATUS DETERMINATION THAT CHANGES THE CODE REQUIREMENTS THEY HAVE TO COMPLY WITH? UH, THAT'S AN EXCELLENT QUESTION.
AND AS MY UNDERSTAND IT, NO, THAT, THAT AN EXCEPTION TO SUBDIVISION IS ONLY THAT, THAT YOU, YOU DO NOT HAVE TO SUBDIVIDE IN ORDER TO CREATE THAT TRACT OF LAND TO RECEIVE UTILITIES, UM, ADDRESSES.
BUT, BUT UM, IN ORDER TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTY, YOU MUST STILL COMPLY WITH APPLICABLE CODE AND CRITERIA.
SO I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF DISCUSSION ON THIS, BUT I DON'T THINK AT THE END OF THE DAY THE LAND STATUS DETERMINATION HAS EFFECT REALLY ON ANYTHING IN TERMS OF THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT.
IT DOES ON OTHER MATTERS, MAYBE NOT UNDER OUR PURVIEW, BUT IN TERMS OF THE SITE DEVELOPMENT COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, IT REALLY HAS NO BEARING.
[00:55:03]
YES, SIR.THAT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING AS WELL.
DOES THAT HELP ANY UM, WHY IS THE LAND STATUS DETERMINATION NEEDED ON A SUBDIVIDED LOT? I COULDN'T ANSWER THAT QUESTION.
THAT REALLY IS A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.
UM, IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, YOU KNOW, I WOULD JUST BE GUESSING, BUT YOU HAVE A LEGALLY SUBDIVIDED LOT OF 20 ACRES AND THEY ONLY WANT TO, THEY SOLD OFF A PORTION PERHAPS, UM, WHICH IS LEGAL.
UM, BUT NOW YOU HAVE TWO DIFFERENT OWNERS OF TWO DIFFERENT PIECES OF PROPERTY OF OF THE SAME LOT.
SO PERHAPS THAT PLAYED INTO IT.
AND I, I DO WANNA GO BACK TO THE, UM, BUILDING ON 35% SLOPES.
THE TABLE DOES SHOW, UM, 1,184 SQUARE FEET.
AND THEN THERE'S ANOTHER TABLE THAT SHOWS PERCENTAGES, BUT THE PERCENTAGE IS FROM A MUCH LARGER LOT.
1,184, I THINK 1184 IS A SMALL NUMBER RELATIVE TO THE SIZE OF THE LOT.
IS THE 0% A ROUNDED VALUE? THAT WOULD BE A QUESTION OF THE APPLICANT.
CAN WE GET THE APPLICANT TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION? THEIR ENGINEER IS HERE AND THE APPLICANT IS HERE AS WELL.
NOT GONNA HAVE THEM ANSWER IT.
I MEAN, DOES IT REALLY REFLECT A ZERO? YEAH, ZERO MEANS ZERO'S A GOOD QUESTION.
IT'S A GOOD QUESTION, MICHAEL.
MY NAME IS RICK THOMPSON, I'M WITH THOMPSON LAND ENGINEERING.
UH, THE 1100, UH, WHATEVER IT IS THAT IT'S OUR MISTAKE, UM, I DIDN'T, I DIDN'T SEE THAT ONE.
IF YOU LOOK, I, I COULDN'T TELL YOU ROUNDING WILL COME INTO PLAY 'CAUSE THERE'S A NUMBER OF DECIMAL PLACES.
SO I CAN'T TELL YOU ABOUT THE PERCENTAGE.
BUT WHAT I CAN TELL YOU IN THOSE TWO TABLES, ONE OF THEM, UM, THE ROUNDING ON THE ACREAGE IS 0.03, THE ONE THAT'S IN ERROR.
BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THE Q2 TABLE, THE CORRECT ONE IS 0.00.
SO JUST PREPARING THE TWO ACRES THERE.
YEAH, THERE'S THAT OH THREE IS WRONG.
SO THERE'S NO BUILDING OVER THAT SLOPE THERE, THERE'S NO BUILDING OVER THAT SLOPE.
AND IN FACT, IF PAM IS STILL ON THE PHONE, IF DON'T WANT TO MIND HER TURNING ON HER PHONE, UH, HER CAMERA, UM, PAM AND I WALKED THAT AREA SPECIFICALLY ALSO JUST TO MAKE SURE.
UM, AND YEAH, WE WALKED IT AND SHE AGREED THAT, YEAH, WE'RE GOOD.
DOES THAT HELP? THAT'S CLOSED.
IT'S, IT'S NOT A ROUNDING AREA.
IT WAS JUST A MA A IT'S JUST A HOW DO YOU HAVE A BUILDING WITH NO IMPERVIOUS COVER? THE BUILDING HAS IMPERVIOUS COVER, BUT NONE OVER THAT SLOPE CATEGORY.
ALL OF THE BUILDING IS IN THE FLATTER SLOPE CATEGORIES.
SO THEY MADE A MISTAKE ON THEIR, ON THE DRAWING AND PUT A NUMBER IN THERE WHEN THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ZERO.
AND WHEN THEY LOOKED AT THE Q2 TABLE, THEY PUT THE ZERO BUT DIDN'T GO BACK IN AND CORRECT IT ON THE OTHER TABLE.
OTHER QUESTIONS? TAYLOR, YOU HAD A QUESTION? I DID, BUT I, I'D RATHER YOU READ THE STATEMENT FROM, FROM, FROM THE, UH, CITY LAWYERS.
HOW ARE YOU GONNA MAKE ME FIND IT? UH, THAT'S NOT THERE.
THIS IS FROM HIGHLIGHTED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, VESTED RIGHTS AND PLATE NOTE, CITY PROCESSES AND PRIOR DECISIONS OF COUNSEL RELATED TO THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.
VESTED RIGHTS AND PLATE NOTE ARE NOT BEFORE ZAPPED THIS EVENING ITEM.
THIS WAS THREE 'CAUSE IT WAS LAST TIME.
BUT ITEM FOUR IS TO APPROVE OR DENY THE SITE PLAN BASED ON THE COMMISSION'S DETERMINATION THAT THE SITE PLAN DOES NOT, DOES OR DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH IS APPLICABLE TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
IT GOES ON TO SAY, IF THAT DETERMINES TO DENY THE SITE PLAN, PLEASE STATE FOR THE RECORD THE PROVISIONS OF THE APPLICABLE CODE TO WHICH THE SITE PLAN FAILS TO COMPLY AS EITHER THE APPLICANT OR ANY INTERESTED PARTY MAY APPEAL ZAPS DECISION TO COUNSEL.
SO IF SOMEONE MAKES A MOTION TO APPROVE OR DENY TO DENY FOR A REASON, THEY NEED TO SAY, THIS IS THE CODE, THIS IS HOW THEY DON'T COMPLY.
AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE RECOMMENDING A DENIAL.
UH, CAN I TRANSITION TO A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT, IF THAT'S OKAY? SURE.
UH, MR. WHELAND, UH, I IMAGINE YOU PROBABLY WANNA PARTICIPATE IN THIS HERE, SIR, OR PERHAPS ALSO THE ENGINEER.
UM, AND I'M GONNA STATE SOMETHING FOR THE RECORD BECAUSE IT APPEARS CERTAIN PARTIES ARE PREPARING FOR LITIGATION.
UH, SO I WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE 25 DASH 5 1 47 THAT SAYS WE NEED TO VOTE ON THIS BASED ON WHAT'S IN THE CODE.
[01:00:01]
MY FIRST QUESTION, UM, EXCUSE ME.THE SAVE OUR, SAVE OUR SPRINGS FOLKS CITED, UH, CODE ABOUT WASTEWATER SERVICE, UH, AND QUOTING THE DOCUMENT FROM SAVE OUR SPRINGS AND NOT THE CODE, IT ESSENTIALLY SAYS, QUOTE, A SUBDIVISION WITHIN 100 FEET OF A PUBLIC WASTEWATER SYSTEM MUST BE CONNECTED TO THE PUBLIC WASTEWATER SYSTEM.
DOES THE CURRENT SITE PLAN SATISFY THAT RICK THOMPSON, THOMPSON LANE ENGINEERING? UM, BY MY MEASUREMENT WE'RE, UH, A LITTLE OVER 200 FEET, I BELIEVE FROM THE, FROM THE PUBLIC WASTEWATER LINE.
SO SO THAT WOULD BE A YES BECAUSE IT IT'S SATISFIED 'CAUSE IT'S NOT APPLICABLE, CORRECT? IT'S, UH, YES.
SO OTHER WAY, IN OTHER WORDS, YOU'RE, YOU'RE NOT, YOU'RE NOT VIOLATING THIS PROVISION OF THE CODE? NOT THAT I'M AWARE OF.
UM, I'LL, I'LL KIND OF JUST PICK ONE MORE, UH, MR. WHEELAND DISCUSS THE HILL COUNTRY ROADWAY CONNECTION.
UH, VESTED RIGHTS, THE ATTORNEY, WE JUST, JUST HAD A READING FROM THE ATTORNEY.
UH, LAND STATUS DETERMINATION, PERSONALLY FOR ME, THAT THAT'S PRETTY CLEAR.
FIVE ACRE EXEMPTION, UH, WHICH DOES NOT, WHICH DOES NOT, UH, IMPACT, UH, OUR ABILITY TO DETERMINE IF THE COLD IS MET.
UM, AND GUYS, I THINK, I'M SORRY.
I THINK I'VE JUST PRETTY MUCH RAN THROUGH, OH, HERE, LOOK, I'LL PICK ONE FROM THE LAKE AUSTIN ORDINANCE.
THAT'S, THAT'S REALLY THE ONLY AREA THAT I HAVEN'T JUST, JUST ADDRESSED.
I, I, I THINK I HEARD EARLIER THAT YOU GUYS ARE NOT EXCEEDING MORE THAN FOUR FEET CUT AND FILL, WHICH IS WHY THERE IS NO VARIANCE.
IS, IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.
AS FAR AS WHAT I SEE IN, OH, I'M SORRY.
RICK THOMPSON, THOMPSON LAND ENGINEERING.
UM, AS FAR AS I, I KNOW, UM, THERE'S NO PLACE FOR EXCEEDING IT, UH, ON THE INSIDE THE DEVELOPMENT.
UM, IF THERE IS A PLACE, IF SOMEBODY CAN CIRCLE IT, I'D BE HAPPY TO LOOK AT IT.
UM, BUT AS FAR AS I KNOW THERE ARE NONE.
THIS ONE'S PRETTY INTERESTING, AND AGAIN, I'M QUOTING FROM THE SAVER SPRINGS DOCUMENT, NOT, NOT CODE, UH, UNDER THE SECTION TITLED LAKE AUSTIN ORDINANCE.
UM, ACCORDING TO SBAR SPRINGS, UH, THE LAKE AUSTIN ORDINANCE REQUIRES OVERLAND SHEET FLOW TO BE MAINTAINED WHEREVER POSSIBLE.
UH, THE DRAINAGE SYSTEM PLACES THE RUNOFF INTO PIPES RATHER THAN RELYING ON OVERLAND END QUOTE RICK THOMPSON.
UM, FIRST PIECE OF THAT IS IT SAYS IF POSSIBLE MM-HMM
UM, SO IN WORKING WITH MY DRAINAGE REVIEWER, UM, WE DID HAVE, UH, SOME COMING INTO THE POND INITIALLY AS SHE FLOW.
UH, MY DRAINAGE REVIEWER REALLY DIDN'T WANT THAT.
HE REALLY WANTED IT TO COME TO ONE PARTICULAR LOCATION.
AND SO THE, UH, IN TALKING IT OVER THE BEST WAY TO DO THAT WITHOUT SOMETHING ELSE IN LAKE AUSTIN, IT TALKS ABOUT, UH, UH, DOING WHAT YOU CAN TO PREVENT EROSION.
SO RATHER THAN STICKING IN DITCHES OR SOMETHING, WHICH STILL WOULDN'T EXACTLY BEEN OVERLAND TO GET ALL OF THIS ONE SPOT, WE PICKED PIPES TO GET TO THIS ONE SPOT ON AS OUR DRAINAGE REVIEWER REQUESTED.
SO WHO WAS YOUR, WHO WAS YOUR DRAINAGE REVIEWER? JAY BAKER.
JAY, YOU WANT TO, CAN YOU CONFIRM
CAN YOU TURN YOUR CAMERA ON? YEAH, THIS IS, YEAH.
UH, CERTAINLY WE WENT THROUGH A LOT OF EFFORT, UH, THERE TO MINIMIZE THE EROSION AND THE IMPACT ON THE BLUFFS.
AND SO ALL OF THAT WAS TO TAKE IT INTO THE WATER QUALITY POND, AND THEN A LOT OF EFFORT TO SPREAD IT OUT, UH, WITH A LOT OF GRASSES AND STUFF LIKE THAT.
SO WE, UH, THERE WERE SOME PERIMETER ORIGINALLY, AND RICK, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, THERE WERE ORIGINALLY SOME PERIMETER RETAINING WALLS TO TRY TO DIRECT IT TO THE POND AND AWAY FROM THE BLUFF, BUT WE, WE DETERMINED THAT THAT WOULDN'T WORK.
SO ONE ON ONE SIDE, IF I WANT, UM, THERE WAS ONE, UH, ON ONE SIDE, JAY, BUT IF YOU REMEMBER ON THE OTHER SIDE, ON THE NORTH SIDE, WE HAD ALL THAT SHEET FLOW COMING DOWN, AND IT WAS GOING INTO, IT WAS GOING STRAIGHT INTO THE BIOFILTRATION POND.
SO TO MOVE IT ALL OVER TO THE FLOW SPLITTER, THAT'S HOW, WHY WE COLLECTED IT.
BUT JUST TO RECAP, THE, THE, THE CODE USES THE PHRASE, IF POSSIBLE, WHENEVER POSSIBLE, IF POSSIBLE, RIGHT.
SOMETHING SIMILAR, WHICH TO ME IMPLIES THERE IS SOME DISCRETION AND, AND SOME REASONABLES INVOLVED TO DETERMINE WHAT IS AND WHAT IS NOT POSSIBLE.
YEAH, YEAH, THAT'S AGREED TOO.
AND JAY BAKER IS THE DRAINAGE REVIEWER FOR THE CITY OF AUSTIN.
JAY, CAN I, COULD I HAVE THE APPLICANT STAY UP AT THE FRONT? WOULD Y'ALL MIND? THANKS.
AND COULD WE BRING THE, UM, SAVE OUR SPRINGS DOCUMENT UP SINCE WE'RE JUST GOING LINE BY LINE? IT MIGHT BE HELPFUL.
UM, THERE YOU GO TO JUST, UH, WALK US THROUGH THE HILL COUNTRY ROADWAY ORDINANCE SECTION.
IF YOU COULD JUST RESPOND TO THESE,
[01:05:01]
THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL.SO THE FIRST ONE IS SITE PLAN VIOLATES WHICH LIMITS, UM, THE NUMBER OF ACCESS POINTS ON THE ROADWAY FROM SITE TO TWO.
MR. WAYLAN, MICHAEL WHALE, MICHAEL WAYLAN ON BEHALF BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT.
THE CODE PROVISION SAYS, UH, IT DOES LIMIT IT TO TWO ACCESS POINTS TO A HILL COUNTRY ROADWAY.
THERE'S TWO HILL COUNTRY ROADWAYS HERE THAT, AS I MENTIONED, UH, HALF OF THIS.
SUBDIVISION HAS, I, I ALREADY MENTIONED IT.
SO THAT, SO THERE ARE TWO, BUT THEY'RE ON DIFFERENT ROADWAYS.
AND THEN, BUT THERE, THERE'S NOT, THERE'S, UH, LIKE THIS SITE PLAN HAS ONE ACCESSING 360.
WHERE THE SIENNA AND THE WATERLOO ARE, THEY ACCESS 360 AND 2222.
THEY'RE MAXED OUT WITH THEIR TWO.
BUT HILL 2222 IS A HILL COUNTRY ROADWAY.
AND LOOP 360 IS A HILL COUNTRY ROADWAY.
SO THERE'S TWO DIFFERENT HILL COUNTRY ROADWAYS.
SO YOU WOULD BE ALLOWED THEORETICALLY FOUR FOR THIS, FOR THE TWO LOTS.
BUT HERE WE'VE GOT, UH, ONE ON THIS ONE, ONE ON THIS ONE.
BUT, AND WAS THE ARGUMENT THAT IT WAS SOME PERCEIVE IT AS ONE LOT.
AND CAN YOU SPEAK TO THAT? IT SAYS A HILL COUNTRY ROADWAY 2222 IS A HILL COUNTRY ROADWAY AND LOOP 360 IS HILL COUNTRY.
NO, I, I REGISTERED THAT ROGER THAT I'M ASKING ABOUT THE LOT.
UH, ISN'T IT ONE LOT? IS IT ONE LOT OR TWO LOTS? THAT CONVERSATION 360, WHICH MEANS CONSENT.
I'M JUST TRYING, I'M TRYING TO HAVE, UH, YOUR CONVERSATION MATCH UP TO THE OTHER CONVERSATION.
AND JUST SO I CAN FOLLOW, SO I WAS ASKING, UM, I THINK, AND WE COULD HAVE SAVE OUR SPRING SPEAK TO THIS I GUESS, BUT, UH, I BELIEVE, I REMEMBER FROM THE PRESENTATION THEY WERE SAYING THAT SOME MIGHT CONSIDER THIS A PART OF A LARGER LOT AND ACTUALLY ONE LOT THAT WAS NOT SUBDIVIDED AND, AND, BUT YOU'RE CONSIDERING IT A SEPARATE LOT AND THAT MAKES THE MATH ON THIS A LITTLE DIFFERENT.
IS THAT RIGHT? I, I THINK WE MADE IT EITHER WAY QUITE HONESTLY.
BUT, UM, BECAUSE, BECAUSE AS MICHAEL SAID, UM, IF YOU'VE PUT 'EM TOGETHER, THERE'S, THERE ARE TWO BUT ONTO 360.
AND THEN YOU HAVE THE ONE ON THE TO 2222.
BUT EVEN IF, BUT IN ACTUALITY, THE PROPERTY WAS RE SUBDIVIDED.
AND JUST TO SAY REAL QUICK ON THE LAND STATUS DETERMINATION, SINCE THAT IS A PROCESS THAT DOESN'T REALLY GO THROUGH THE CITY WHEN YOU DO IT BY, UH, DO THAT STATE, UM, ACREAGE EXCEPTION, WE TOOK, THE ONLY REASON WE TURNED IN THE LAND STATUS DETERMINATION WAS TO GET SOME CITY STAFF ON RECORD THAT THEY AGREED IT'S ALL GOOD, SO THAT WE TURN IN THE SITE PLAN TO THE OTHER CITY STAFF.
THEY HAD SEA STAFF TELLING THEM ALL WAS GOOD.
BUT BOTTOM LINE, THERE'S TWO ACCESSES TO 360 AND ONE ACCESS AT 2222.
IF YOU LOOK AT IT AS ONE BIG SITE PLAN, IF YOU LOOK AT IT ONE BIG ONE, AND THAT COMPLIES WITH, SO EITHER WAY, EITHER WAY IT WORKS.
AND THEN NUMBER NINE WAS ABOUT A GRADE OF 8% OR MORE.
AND YOU'VE SAID THERE ISN'T ANYTHING AT THAT GRADE, IS THAT RIGHT? IT'S REFERRING TO THE HILL COUNTRY ROADWAY.
THE HILL COUNTRY ROADWAY IS NOT AT 8% BECAUSE THAT'S THE 360.
I'M JUST TRYING TO TRACK EVERYTHING.
I'M NOT A PROFESSIONAL LAND USE DEVELOPER, SO YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO BE PATIENT WITH ME.
I'VE GOT ALL, I'VE GOT ALL I'VE GOT ALL NIGHT.
10 IS NOT IDENTIFYING WAIVERS TO THE ORDINANCE.
IF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT DOES NOT APPLY, THEN THE 100 FOOT SETBACK SHOULD BE RESTORED.
CAN YOU SPEAK TO THAT? YEAH, THERE WERE, SO THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WE'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO TALK ABOUT WAS RIGHT.
THE COUNCIL MADE THAT INCORPORATED A DIFFERENT SETBACK, WE'RE COMPLIANT WITH THAT.
IT'S AN ORDINANCE, IT'S AN, I MEAN IT'S AN ACTUAL ORDINANCE.
THE, THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ENDED UP AS AN ORDINANCE.
AND, UH, THE, SO WE ARE NOT SEEKING ANY WAIVERS FROM THE APPLICABLE CODE PROVISIONS THAT APPLY TO THIS SITE PLAN REVIEW.
AND IT, THEY'RE SAYING THAT THE HIGH CALCULATIONS WERE NOT INCLUDED.
I'VE HEARD YOU SPEAK ABOUT THOSE THOUGH.
ARE YOU SAYING THEY ARE I'M TRYING SHEET SHEET 12.
AND THEN SITE PLAN DOES NOT REFLECT 40% NATURAL AREA REQUIREMENTS? IT, IT DOES.
I BELIEVE THAT'S IN THE STAFF BACKUP.
UH, THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION POINTS OUT IT'S AT 56%.
IT'S DEPICTED ON THE SITE PLAN ITSELF.
SO IT'S THE STAFF COMMENT ON THE SITE, NOT IN THE ACTUAL SITE PLAN, BUT IT WAS IN THE BACKUP.
UH, MICHAEL WHALE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT, FORGOT
YOU GOT IT? IT DOES, YES, IT DOES.
[01:10:01]
DEPICTED AS BEING GREATER THAN 40%.AND THAT'S, UH, IT'S DEPICTED IN THE DRAWING.
AND THEN WHERE ARE WE DOES NOT REFLECT REVEGETATION CRITERIA FOR THE HILL COUNTRY ROADWAY SITE PURSUANT TO SECTION FIVE.
SO, UH, MICHAEL WHALE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT, THE DE THE DETERMINATION, THE ANSWER IS GONNA BE THE SAME AS IT WAS FOR NUMBER 12 FOR 13 AND 14.
IT IS NOT STATED SPECIFICALLY, IT IS REFLECTED.
IT WAS A COMMENT ACTUALLY IN THE UPDATE.
I THINK THAT WAS NOTED BY SOMEBODY JUST A FEW MINUTES AGO.
UH, AND IT WAS RESPONDED TO IN THE LANDSCAPE PLAN SO THAT IT WOULD BE, IT WOULD MEET THE REQUIREMENT SET FORTH IN THE SECTION FIVE APPENDIX A AND ALSO IN, SORRY, SECTION 3.5 0.4 OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA MANUAL.
THEY WERE ACTUALLY, I'M GLAD YOU MENTIONED THAT ACTUALLY, COMMISSIONER, THOSE WERE COMMENTS.
I BELIEVE THEY WERE COMMENTS IN THE, UH, BY THE, IN THE STAFF WERE, UH, COMMENTS AND, AND WE RESPONDED AND MADE SURE THAT, UH, IT REFLECTED THAT.
I APPRECIATE YOU WALKING ME THROUGH.
THAT WAS WHAT I WAS TRYING TO GET TO EARLIER WAS SPECIFIC COMMENTS ABOUT CODES.
COULD WE ALSO HEAR FROM MR. LEVINSKY ON THOSE SAME ITEMS? THANK YOU.
I DO WANNA JUST MAKE SURE IT'S IN THE RECORD AND I, I AGREE THAT, YOU KNOW, WE ARE TRYING TO MAKE SURE THINGS ARE ON THE RECORD JUST SO THAT MY CLIENTS HAVE AN ABILITY TO RAISE OBJECTIONS IF THEY HAVE SOMETHING IN THE FUTURE.
UM, WITH REGARD TO THE, UM, SITE, THE SITE PLAN, UM, WITH THE SUBDIVISION, IT IS ONE LOT.
I MEAN, THIS LAB SUBDIVISION DOES ONLY ESTABLISH ONE LOT.
THAT'S WHY THAT LAND STATUS DETERMINATION IS REALLY IMPORTANT.
THERE ARE ACTUALLY TWO CURB CUTS UNDER 360.
WHETHER OR NOT YOU COUNT THAT AS AN ACCESS POINT OR NOT, I THINK IT'S SUBJECT TO INTERPRETATION, BUT IT DOES CREATE THREE ACCESS POINTS ONTO HILL COUNTRY ROADWAYS, WHICH I DO THINK WOULD BE A VIOLATION OF THAT SECTION OF THE CODE 'CAUSE IT IS ONE LOT.
UM, AND THEN WITH REGARD TO, UM, THE HILL COUNTRY ROADWAY, I MEAN, THOSE ARE THINGS THAT ARE TYPICALLY ARE REFLECTED ON THE SITE PLAN.
USUALLY THERE'S A HILL COUNTRY ROADWAY SHEET, AND THAT'S WHY THAT I'M MAKING THAT POINT.
IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO REVIEW THE SITE PLAN AND LOOK AT THOSE COMMENTS THAT GET CLEARED WITHOUT IT BEING ON THAT SITE PLAN.
IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT FOR THESE, THESE, THE SITE PLAN TO ACTUALLY SHOW THAT HILL COUNTRY ANALYSIS, AND THAT'S INCLUDING THE HILL COUNTRY HEIGHT REQUIREMENT.
SO YES, THERE'S A HEIGHT EXHIBIT, IT'S NOT THE HILL COUNTRY ROADWAY HEIGHT EXHIBIT THAT'S TYPICALLY INCLUDED IN A HILL COUNTRY ROADWAY SITE PLAN.
THAT'S AN ALSO AN IMPORTANT DISTINCTION THERE.
UM, AND THEN WITH REGARD TO, UM, OH, THAT THE, THE ROADWAY DEDICATION, I MEAN, I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT.
SO IF YOU NOTICE THAT THE CUT AND FILL POINT THAT'S BEING MADE RAISED, THEY SAY, OH, MAYBE NOT FOR THAT AREA THAT'S DEDICATED TO THE TXDOT, THAT'S ALSO NOT RECORDED IN THAT SUBDIVISION.
SO IT'S ACTUALLY PART OF THE SUBDIVISION STILL AND HAS TO COMPLY WITH THE LAKE AUSTIN ORDINANCE.
SO IF THEY OR HAVE FOREIGN FOOT CUT AND FILL IN THAT AREA, IT IS NOT COMPLIANT WITH THE LAKE AUSTIN ORDINANCE.
SO MAYBE STAFF CAN TELL US WHY DIDN'T WE GET THE HILL COUNTRY ROADWAY SUMMARY AND SITE PLAN THAT OH, THEY DON'T HAVE TO.
THAT WOULD MAKE IT TOO EASY FOR US.
I'VE DONE IT MAYBE A HANDFUL OF TIMES ONLY, BUT I HAVEN'T HAD TO.
THERE WERE OTHER ITEMS SUCH AS THE HEIGHT.
I COULDN'T FIND THE HEIGHT CALCULATIONS, BUT I DID SEE THE AVERAGE FINISHED FLOOR AND THE TOP OF THE ROOF ELEVATION.
SO YOU DO THE, THE CALCULATION.
UM, AND THEN SAME THING WITH THE Q2, THE 8%, UM, GRADE WAS ALSO LIKE ON THE CODE.
IT'S LIKE THIS, THIS, OR THIS.
SO IT WAS COMPLYING WITH THE OTHER ITEMS. UM, SO I JUST COULDN'T FIND, THERE WAS LIKE THE LAND STATUS I HAD QUESTIONS ABOUT, BUT I THINK OUR LAW DEPARTMENT HAS BEEN PRETTY CLEAR ABOUT IT.
UM, BUT THE OTHERS, I'M NOT SURE THAT I AGREE WITH THE STATEMENTS TOO MUCH.
UH, IF I MAY, UH, VICE CHAIRWOMAN, UH, AFTER OUR MEETING IN NOVEMBER, UH, I THINK WE WERE ON THE DI I REQUESTED THE SIDE PLAN AND, AND EVERY SINGLE COMMON STAFF ISSUED FOR THE SIDE PLAN AND, AND THEY SENT IT OVER.
SO I, I WOULD JUST, YOU KNOW, IT, IT, IT'S OUT THERE AND THEY SENT IT TO ME.
THEY RESPONDED PRETTY QUICKLY THE NEXT DAY, I THINK.
SO WE DO HAVE ACCESS TO THE SIDE PLAN AND EVERY SINGLE COMMENT THAT, THAT WAS, I REQUESTED AND I GOT IT LIKE WITHIN THE NEXT DAY.
SO IT, IT, IT'S OUT THERE AND IT IS AVAILABLE TO US.
[01:15:03]
DO I HEAR A MOTION? I, I MOVE TO APPROVE THE SITE PLAN? I'LL SECOND ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION.I'M COUNTING SIX YESES COUNTING THE ONE ON THE TV.
COULD WE RECOUNT THE ABSTENTIONS AGAIN? ABSTENTIONS, RAISE YOUR HAND.
YOU'RE LOOKING THROUGH ME TO THE SCREEN.
SO SIX YESES, FOUR ABSTENTIONS, ONE.
SO BASED ON THAT, THE MOTION PASSES.
CAN I MAKE ONE MORE COMMENT? SURE.
I'D JUST LIKE TO THANK THE APPLICANT FOR REOPENING THE CONVERSATION ABOUT THE WASTEWATER OPTION AND TALKING WITH THE COMMUNITY.
I REALLY DO APPRECIATE, UM, THOSE EFFORTS.
[6. EV Variance Request: SP-2024-0147C.SH - Loyola Flats; District 1]
OKAY.AN EV VARIANCE, SP 2024 DASH OH 1 4 7 C SH LOYOLA FLATS AT 6,700 DECKER LANE IS A VARIANCE FROM THE LDC 25 8 2 61 G TO ALLOW FLOODPLAIN MODIFICATIONS IN THE CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE.
UM, THIS DID GO BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION.
IT WAS APPROVED AND THERE WERE CONDITIONS TAGGED ONTO IT FROM BOTH STAFF AND FROM THE ENVIRONMENTAL COM COMMISSION THAT WERE IN OUR BACKUP.
DO WE HAVE A PRESENTATION FROM STAFF? NO PRESENTATION FROM STAFF.
DO WE HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT? HELLO? UM, DWAYNE CHOPPA WITH KIMBERLY HORN ON HERE ON BEHALF OF THE, THE APPLICANT.
UM, SO, UH, I GUESS THE, THE REASON FOR US, UM, BEING HERE TODAY, UM, IS TO TALK ABOUT THE, THE VARIANCE REQUEST TO LDC 25 8, UH, 2 61 G FOR THE FLOODPLAIN MODIFICATION, THE CRITICAL WATER QUALITY ZONE.
UM, WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH STAFF FOR SEVERAL MONTHS TO, UM, TO, TO COME TO A RESOLUTION, UM, FOR THIS PROJECT.
UM, THIS PROJECT IS A SMART HOUSING PROJECT.
UM, UH, IT IS AT, UH, 21% OF THE UNITS, UM, AT OR BELOW 50%.
MFI, UM, 58% ARE AT OR BELOW 60%.
MFI AND 21% ARE AT OR BELOW 70%.
MFI, UM, OVERALL UNITS ARE 208 UNITS.
UM, AND SO WORKING WITH STAFF FOR THIS PROJECT, THERE WERE SIX CONDITIONS THAT WERE PUT ON THE, UM, ON, ON THE PROJECT, UM, THROUGH, THROUGH OUR EFFORTS WITH STAFF.
UM, AND WE'RE, YOU KNOW, THOSE HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED IN OUR SITE PLAN COMPLYING WITH THAT.
UM, BUT WHY WE, WHY WE WERE PULLED TODAY WAS TO ASK FOR, UM, TO, TO NOT INCLUDE THE CONDITIONS THAT WERE ADDED BY, UM, ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION.
UM, AND OUR REASONING IS BECAUSE THIS IS A SMART HOUSING PROJECT, UM, AND, AND THE, THE, THE CONDITIONS THAT WE NEGOTIATE WITH STAFF, UM, OBVIOUSLY THERE'S SOME SIGNIFICANT COSTS WITH THAT, THAT ARE, UM, BEING OCCURRED IN THE PROJECT AND WE UNDERSTAND THAT.
UM, BUT JUST TRYING TO LIMIT THOSE ADDITIONAL COSTS BY THE, UM, THE CONDITIONS THAT WERE, UM, ADDED AT ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION.
UM, I DO HAVE A, A, A SLIGHT STATEMENT, A STATEMENT FROM THE CLIENT, UM, WHO COULDN'T BE HERE TODAY.
UM, JUST A LITTLE BIT ABOUT TON CAPITAL.
UM, WHO'S THE, THE DEVELOPER ON THIS PROJECT? UM, UM, TON CAPITAL, I GUESS IT READS AT ELLINGTON, WE BELIEVE HOUSING IS MORE THAN BUILDINGS.
UM, IT'S ABOUT CREATING SPACES THAT EMPOWER INDIVIDUALS AND STRENGTHEN COMMUNITIES AS A NATIONAL RECOGNIZED LEADER IN AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND WORKFORCE HOUSING.
OUR WORK IN CITY OF AUSTIN AND TRAVIS COUNTY EXEMPLIFIES OUR MISSION, UM, WITH NEARLY 1800 UNITS DEVELOPED IN CITY OF AUSTIN AND TRAVIS COUNTY UNDER THE LOW INCOME HOUSE TAX CREDIT, UM, PROGRAM, UM, AND SMART HOUSING PROGRAM, WE'RE ADDRESSING CRITICAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING NEEDS WHILE ENHANCING THE NEIGHBORHOODS WE SERVE.
OUR EXPERTISE SPANS A WIDE RANGE OF FINANCING, UM, AND DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES.
UM, OUR DEEP PARTNERSHIPS WITH NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS AND A FOCUS ON INNOVATIVE COMMUNITY ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT ENSURES WE'RE DELIVERING HOUSING SOLUTIONS THAT ARE AS IMPACTFUL, UM, AS THEY ARE SUSTAINABLE FROM DEVELOPMENT AND REPOSITIONING TO EFFECTIVE OPERATIONS AND CREATIVE CAPITALIZATION, ELLINGTON CREATES BETTER HOUSING THAT TRANSFORM LIVES AND ADDS LASTING VALUE.
UM, AND WITH THAT ALSO, UM, I DO HAVE, UM,
[01:20:01]
TWO LETTERS OF SUPPORT FOR THE PROJECT, UM, FROM EATX, UM, AND ALSO FROM THE COLONY PARK NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, ASSOCIATION, WHICH IS, UM, ADJACENT TO THIS PROPERTY WHO THIS DEVELOPER'S BEEN WORKING WITH, UM, UM, IN, IN LOOKING TO PUR TO PURSUE THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS TRACK.AND I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS IF ANYBODY HAS ANY.
COULD YOU, UH, GIVE, GIMME THOSE NUMBERS AGAIN? THE AFFORDABLE UNIT NUMBERS? SURE.
THEY WERE, UM, 21% AT OR BELOW 50% MFI, UM, 58% AT, AT OR BELOW 60% AND 21% AT OR BELOW 70%.
AND THAT EQUATES OUT TO, UM, I PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE LISTED A NUMBER OF UNITS.
UH, IT'S 43 UNITS AT OR BELOW 50% MFI 122 UNITS, UM, AT OR BELOW 60% MFI AND ALSO 43 UNITS AT OR BELOW 70%.
IS THAT ALL THE UNITS? UH, THERE'S 208 TOTAL UNITS, UM, THAT DOES EQUAL 208.
QUESTIONS, MR. CHAIRMAN? I, I HAVE A LIST OF QUESTIONS, BUT I I SUSPECT MANY OF MY COLLEAGUES WILL GET TO THEM.
SO I JUST WANNA START WITH ONE QUESTION.
SO I REVIEWED THE 112 PAGES OF INFORMATION.
UH, SOMETHING JUMPED OUT TO ME THAT MIGHT BE A LITTLE CONCERNING.
UH, THERE WAS A REPORT WITH, WITH PHOTOS AND, AND, AND, AND INFORMATION, A SCORE SHEET ABOUT THE QUALITY OF THE FLOOD PLAIN.
AND THE ADDRESS ATTACHED TO THAT REPORT IS NOT THE SAME ADDRESS FOR THE APPLICATION.
SPECIFICALLY MY UNDERSTANDING, THE APPLICATION IS FOR 6,700 DECKER, THAT REPORT WAS FOR 2 0 4 ROOMBERG LANE.
SO I, I HAVE SOME CONCERNS THAT WE WERE NOT GIVEN THE CORRECT INFORMATION.
UH, I'M NOT AWARE OF THAT DISCREPANCY IN THE REPORT.
I'M, UH, I'D HAVE TO GO BACK AND LOOK.
I'M ASSUMING THAT'S A TYPO OR A DISCREPANCY.
WHAT WAS THE ADDRESS YOU SAID THAT WAS LISTED? TWO.
OH, SO MY NOTES SAY 2 0 4, ROOM, BOAT, BUT I'LL JUST PULL IT UP AND, AND JUST CONFIRM IT IF YOU GIMME ONE SECOND HERE.
AND CAN I JUST CONFIRM WE'RE NOT GETTING A STAFF PRESENTATION OF THIS REQUEST? AND, AND WHY IS THAT? THE COMMISSIONERS, UM, I APOLOGIZE.
CHRISTINE BARN, HOLMES, UM, MANAGER OF SITE PLAN REVIEW TEAM.
UH, I'M NOT ENTIRELY SURE WHY, BUT THE STAFF MEMBER WHO, UM, PUT THE PROJECT OR THIS PRESENTATION TOGETHER IS NOT IN ATTENDANCE.
BUT, UH, I WILL BE HERE TO TRY AND ANSWER ANY PROCESS QUESTIONS OR ANY OTHER QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.
AND, AND, AND THE APPLICANT COULD ALSO ANSWER THIS, UM, WHILE, WHILE COMMISSIONER'S LOOKING FOR HIS REFERENCE, UM, I'M JUST, I, I GOT A LITTLE LOST.
SO THE REQUEST IS FOR THE VARIANCE AS APPROVED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION.
ARE YOU SAYING YOU WANT TO VARY FROM THAT, THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS? THE, THE RE THE REQUEST, DWAYNE CHAPO WITH KIMLEY HORN.
UM, THE REQUEST IS TO VARY FROM, UM, THE RECOMMENDATION FROM THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION.
THEY HAD PUT TWO ADDITIONAL, UM, CONDITIONS ON THE VARIANCE.
UM, ONE WAS TO, I GUESS, UH, PLANT PECAN TREES.
AND THEN THE OTHER WAS FOR, TO ADD A COMMUNITY GARDEN.
UM, AND SO OUR POSITION WAS JUST WITH ALL THE OTHER CON CONCESSIONS AND UM, UH, CONDITIONS THAT WE WERE MEETING THROUGHOUT THE, THE WORKING WITH STAFF ON THE PROJECT, UM, WE WERE, UM, REQUESTING TO NOT INCLUDE THOSE ADDITIONAL, UM, ADDITIONAL REQUEST TO, AGAIN, SINCE THIS IS AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT, TRYING TO KEEP THE COST OF THE, OF THE PROJECT DOWN.
STEPH SEEMS TO BE HERE, SO I THINK WE CAN GIVE HIM A CHANCE TO SPEAK.
I'M THE CASE MANAGER FOR THIS AND PUT THIS TOGETHER.
UM, THE VARIANCE WAS APPROVED, BUT THE CONDITIONS OR RECOMMENDATIONS BY THE, UH, EV COMMISSION ARE THE THINGS THAT THE APPLICANT IS WANTING TO DISCUSS.
WERE ON CONSENT TECHNICALLY, BUT JUST THOSE CONDITIONS THEY WANT TO SPEAK ABOUT.
AND JUST AS AN FYI STAFF ALREADY HAD THEIR OWN SET OF CONDITIONS, RIGHT, LONGER AND THE SIX EXPENSIVE THAN
I'M SORRY, IT'S NINE OF 10 OF THE BACKUP HAS THE SIX CONDITIONS THAT WERE RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION APPROVED IT WITH AN ADDED THREE ADDITIONAL, ONE BEING RECOMMENDED FINDING OF A SPACE FOR A COMMUNITY GARDEN, PROVIDE EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMMING AND SIGNAGE TO COMMUNITY MEMBERS.
TWO, PARTNER WITH LOCAL NONPROFITS ON COMMUNITY GARDENING.
THREE, RECOMMEND PLANTING NATIVE PALM TREES.
THOSE WERE THE THREE CONDITIONS ADDED BY ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION, WHICH THEY'RE ASKING A WAIVER TO NOT DO THOSE THREE FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION, BUT YES, ON THE SIXTH, I'M SORRY, I, I THOUGHT I HAD CLARITY, SO
[01:25:01]
SOUNDS LIKE I DO NOT, UM,SO THE VARIANCE HAS BEEN GRANTED ALREADY.
SO, SO THIS BODY IS NOT VOTING ON THE VARIANCE.
I WOULD, THAT DOES NOT COMPORT WITH MY READING OF THE CODE.
I I WOULD GENERALLY, WHEN WE GET A RECOMMENDATION FROM ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION, IT'S A RECOMMENDATION TO THIS COMMISSION AND THEN WE MAKE THE FINAL DECISION, NOT THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION.
SO WE STILL NEED TO VOTE ON THE VARIANCE FINAL.
THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO CLARIFY.
WE ARE STILL VARIANCE ADDED THREE CONDITIONS.
IT COMES BEFORE US FOR FINAL APPROVAL, BUT, BUT THIS BODY STILL NEEDS TO OPINE ON THE VARIANCE THAT, THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO CLARIFY.
'CAUSE BASED ON MY READING OF THE CODE, THE, THE DECISION TO GRANT THE VARIANCE RESTS WITH, WITH THIS BODY, NOT THE ENVIRONMENTAL BODY.
WELL, HANG ON, BECAUSE IF, IF THEY, IF THE APPLICANT HAD NOT COME UP AND ASKED TO REMOVE THESE, WE WOULD NOT SEE THIS.
IT WOULD'VE BEEN ON CONSENT, BUT WE WOULD'VE, BUT WE WOULD'VE SEEN IT, IT WOULD'VE BEEN UP FRONT.
SO YES, I WOULD AGREE THAT, BUT WE STILL WOULD'VE HAD TO VOTE ON US TO APPROVE.
UM, THAT, THAT'S, IT WOULD'VE BEEN A CONSENT ITEM COULD HAVE BEEN PULLED BY ANYBODY FOR ANY REASON.
SO, SO, SO FULL DISCLOSURE, I I, I DO HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE, THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS FOR MEETING THE VARIANCE.
WE CAN GET TO THAT LATER, BUT I JUST WANNA FOLLOW UP ON, ON THE ISSUE I RAISED EARLIER.
SO, UM, STARTING ON PAGE 71 OF THE REPORT, UH, IT REFERENCES THE COVER LETTER SAYS 2 0 4 EAST ROOMBERG LANE.
AND IF YOU GO THROUGH THE REPORT, UH, YOU SEE THAT ADDRESS SEVERAL TIMES.
AND ALSO THE REPORT, UH, INCLUDES A CALL OUT OF THE PARCEL, WHICH IS A VERY NICE RECTANGULAR, RECTANGULAR SHAPE, WHICH DOES NOT ALIGN WITH THE, THE MORE TRIANGULAR SHAPE, UH, FOR THE, FOR THE PARCEL IN QUESTION.
SO AGAIN, I I I'M TERRIBLY CONCERNED THAT WE DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT INFORMATION, AND I'LL JUST BE HONEST WITH YOU, UH, IF WE DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT INFORMATION.
THE REPORT SAYS FOR 2 0 4 EAST ROOMBERG, IT SAYS THE CONDITIONS OF THE FLOODPLAIN, UH, ARE GOOD.
THEY SAY GOOD WHERE STAFF, WHEN THEY TALK ABOUT THE ADDRESS IN QUESTION, THEY SAY THE CONDITION OF THE FLOODPLAIN ARE FAIR.
SO THERE ARE SOME DISCREPANCIES AND, AND I DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH ADVANCING THIS, UH, UNTIL THIS BODY HAS THE RIGHT INFORMATION, ESPECIALLY WHEN CONFLICTS SEEM TO BE PRESENT.
HI, I AM MIRANDA REINHARD WITH THE CITY OF AUSTIN WATERSHED PROTECTION DEPARTMENT.
I'M THE WETLAND BIOLOGIST, REVIEWER AND FLOODPLAIN MODIFICATION REVIEWER FOR THIS CASE.
AND I DID JUST LOOK AT THE BACKUP, AND I APOLOGIZE THAT FOR SOME REASON WE DID HAVE, UM, A MISS UP, UM, MISTAKE IN PUTTING THE WRONG FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT OF FLOODPLAIN HEALTH IN THAT DOCUMENTATION ALL COMBINED AND COMPILED.
UM, THE CORRECT ONE IS FOR THIS SITE PLAN, AND IT DOES ACCURATELY SHOW THAT IT IS IN FAIR CONDITION, NOT IN GOOD CONDITION.
SO THE TERRACON REPORT ON HERE IS CORRECT.
IT'S JUST FOUR DIFFERENT SITES.
THE ONE FOR THIS SITE IS NOT INCLUDED IN OUR BACKUP.
AND I, I THINK IT'S PROBLEMATIC, WHICH IS WHY I'M RAISING IT.
I I, I TEND TO AGREE, UM, LAW SCHOOL TEACHES YOU HOW TO READ WITH A KNIFE FOR DETAILS.
AT THIS POINT, SHOULD WE POSTPONE, LET ME ASK THE APPLICANT, IF WE POSTPONE THIS TO OUR NEXT MEETING, WHICH WILL BE JANUARY 2ND SEVEN, WHAT DOES THAT DO TO YOU AS THE APPLICANT? UM, SORRY, UH, DWAYNE SHOP WITH KIMLEY HORN.
I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY WE'RE HOPING TO GET THIS BUTTON UP BY THE END OF THE YEAR, BUT OUR SITE PLAN EXPIRATION IS NOT COMING UP.
UM, AND, UM, I KNOW OUR, UH, UH, I DON'T, TO MY KNOWLEDGE, THAT WILL NOT AFFECT OUR FUNDING AND OUR CREDITS AT THIS POINT.
WAS THE OTHER TERRACON REPORT INCLUDED IN THE BACKUP? THERE'S A SECOND ONE.
AND WHICH IS IT IN THE PART TWO? I JUST DID DOUBLE CHECK THE PART ONE AS Y'ALL WERE TALKING.
PART TWO IS JUST STAFF COMMENTS.
IT'S, IT'S ALSO AVAILABLE IN, IN OUR AMANDA, UM, ACCESS TOO.
SO IT'S, AND, AND I HAVE THE CAPABILITIES TO BE ABLE TO EMAIL IT, WHATEVER, BUT I DON'T KNOW WHAT ARE THE OPTIONS AT THIS POINT.
YEAH, WHEN YOU GO, UM, THE FIRST PART HAS ALL THE PHOTOS FOR LOYOLA.
IT SAYS WHEN YOU GET TO THE, THE FUNCTIONAL HEALTH REPORT, THAT'S WHERE IT SWITCHES TO BERG.
AND THEN STARTING ON PAGE 71, YOU GET THE TERRACON REPORT FOR THE RUMOR.
YEAH, THE ERI TERRACON REPORT IS CORRECT, BUT THE FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT,
[01:30:02]
THE INCORRECT ONE WAS INCLUDED.SO WE, AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC DIDN'T HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE TERRACON REPORT THAT WENT WITH THIS TRACK, WHICH TO ME, I DON'T KNOW IF IT WOULD MAKE MUCH OF A DIFFERENCE ON OUR JUDGMENT OR ON OUR, UM, VOTE TO THIS JUST BECAUSE WE ALREADY HAVE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION STAFF HAS APPROVED IT.
I THINK IT'S MORE ON LIKE, 'CAUSE WE WOULDN'T, WELL TYPICALLY WE DON'T ADD FURTHER RECOMMENDATIONS ON ENVIRONMENTAL VARIANCES.
WE COULD, I, I GUESS, BUT IN THIS CASE, LIKE IN MY HEAD, THERE ALREADY BEEN THREE, ALMOST $400,000 TO THE RIPARIAN ZONE MITIGATION FUND.
AMONG ALL OTHER THINGS, I KNOW HOW THE BACK AND FORTH GOES WITH WORKING ON FLOOD PLAIN RESTORATION, MITIGATION, ALL OF THOSE KINDS OF STUFF.
SO PERSONALLY IT WOULDN'T CHANGE MY VOTE TOWARDS THIS, BUT I'M NOT SURE HOW Y'ALL FEEL ABOUT IT.
THAT MATERIAL WOULD NOT CHANGE MY VOTE.
I DO, I DO FEEL LIKE PROCESS IS REALLY IMPORTANT THOUGH.
EVEN THOUGH THIS IS A VERY INACCESSIBLE PROCESS TO LAY PEOPLE, I STILL THINK, UM, WE OWE THE COMMUNITY THE PROPER DOCUMENTS.
SO JUST AS A PROCESS POINT, I WOULD SAY WE SHOULD POSTPONE.
I WOULD LIKE, IF WE CAN HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF DISCUSSION ON WHAT THEY'RE ASKING, FORGET THE FLOODPLAIN ISSUES, THAT'S A, THAT, THAT MAY BE A GOOD REASON TO POSTPONE IT.
WHAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR IS TO NOT COMPLY WITH THE THREE CONDITIONS FROM THE ENVIRONMENTAL.
DO WE HAVE CONCERNS WITH THAT REQUEST? YES, 100%.
THAT'S KIND OF WHAT I WOULD RATHER FOCUS ON THE OTHER ONE.
MAYBE BE A GOOD REASON TO POSTPONE, BUT SO GIVE THE APPLICANT SOME, SOME FEEDBACK SAYING, HEY, WE'VE GOT CONCERNS ABOUT THIS.
SO, SO, SO WHAT I WAS GONNA DO IS IF WE POSTPONED, I WAS JUST AS A COURTESY, LIKE I HAVE MY QUESTIONS, I WOULD'VE JUST GAVE TO THE KIMBERLY HORN GUY AND SAY LIKE, THIS IS LIKE, HAVE YOUR CLIENT TAKE A SECOND LOOK AT THIS AND, AND JUST KIND OF BE PREPARED AND, 'CAUSE I DON'T WANNA FEEL LIKE I'M BOMBARDING ANYBODY, RIGHT.
I DON'T WANNA COME BACK AGAIN JANUARY WITH A WHOLE LIST OF SAYING, WELL GREAT, WE'VE GOT THE RIGHT REPORT.
WE DON'T LIKE THIS ASPECT OF IT.
I WANNA GIVE ALL THE FEEDBACK BACK TO THE GUY SO THAT THEY CAN SAY WHEN THEY COME BACK.
SO GENERALLY WE DO ACCEPT THE YES, RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION.
AND THESE ARE, IN MY VIEW, KIND OF VAGUE.
I MEAN, IT DOESN'T SAY, IT SAYS RECOMMEND FINDING A SPACE FOR A COMMUNITY GARDEN.
I MEAN, IT COULD BE A HUNDRED BY A HUNDRED.
IT DOESN'T SAY HOW LARGE A SPACE IT IS.
IT'S LIKE NO SPACE AT ALL IS ACCEPTABLE TO YOU, IF, IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? ZERO BY ZERO.
UH, DWAYNE SHOP, KIMBERLY HORN, UM, A AGAIN, WE GOING THROUGH THAT AND I THINK EVERYBODY'S SEEING THE OTHER, UM, UH, CONDITIONS THAT WERE PUT ON THIS BY STAFF, WHICH ARE PRETTY NO, I UNDERSTAND.
UNDERSTAND THAT THESE CONDITIONS DON'T SAY THIS MANY ACRES OR EVEN THIS MANY PECAN TREES, PECAN TREES COULD BE TWO TREES.
I MEAN, AND SO YOU'RE SAYING THIS IS JUST A RECOMMENDATION, IT'S NOT REALLY A STRAIGHT OUT REQUIREMENT, AND I WOULD LIKE TO SUPPORT THE WORK OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION BY APPROVING THIS WITH THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS.
AND I'M JUST KIND OF WONDERING WHY WITH SO LITTLE DETAIL, DO THEY NEED TO BE REMOVED? I THINK I'LL, I'LL HAVE TO AGREE WITH THAT.
AND TO PIGGYBACK ON IT, I THINK LIKE ITEM ONE AND THREE SEEM LIKE LOW HANGING FRUITS, UNLESS Y'ALL HAVE MORE INFORMATION.
ITEM TWO, THE PARTNER WITH LOCAL NONPROFITS AND COMMUNITY GARDENING.
THAT ONE, I FEEL LIKE SMART HOUSING, AFFORDABLE HOUSING, THESE ALREADY HAVE A BUNCH OF COMPONENTS TO BE ADDING ANOTHER LOCAL PARTNER.
UM, ALSO HARD TO REVIEW AS PART OF THE SITE PLAN, BUT ITEMS ONE AND THREE I THINK SEEM LIKE LOW HANGING FRUITS.
SO MAYBE THIS IS SOMETHING THAT I JUST DON'T QUITE GET, BUT IT DOESN'T EVEN SAY IF IT'S RECOMMENDING THESE THINGS WITHIN THE SITE PLAN.
LIKE DOES IT MEAN JUST PLANT SOME BEACON TREES SOMEWHERE? LIKE WHAT DOES THAT, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? UM, I I WOULD JUST CAUTION IT, IT SOUNDS LIKE THE DISCUSSION IS TO, TO GRANT THE VARIANCE AND THEN HAVE CONVERSATIONS ABOUT WHAT CONDITIONS ARE IMPOSED.
UH, I, I THINK THE FIRST STEP IS TO MAKE SURE THIS APPLICANT MEETS THE STATUTORY, THE CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR A VARIANCE AGREE.
AND, AND I THINK THAT WARRANTS SOME, SOME DECENTLY SERIOUS CONVERSATION.
JUST TO ADD IN THOUGH, AT THE CHAIR'S REQUEST, UM, I FEEL THE SAME WAY.
THESE ARE REALLY ACTUALLY NOT VERY EXPENSIVE THINGS.
AND I MEAN, I'M NOT HERE TO JUDGE YOUR BUDGET AT ALL, BUT IT, PLANTING NATIVE
[01:35:01]
PECAN TREES IS NOT A PROHIBITIVE ACTIVITY.AND I THINK IF, IF YOU DID END UP COMING BACK AND YOU JUST WERE, UM, NOT ABLE TO DO THE PARTNERSHIP, I COULD SEE HOW THAT COULD BE CHALLENGING AS THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT'S AN ONGOING RELATIONSHIP.
IT WOULD BE GREAT TO HEAR SOMETHING IN THE, IN THAT SPIRIT THAT MEETS THE SPIRIT OF THAT RECOMMENDATION.
UM, THESE DO SEEM, UM, LIKE LOW HANGING FRUIT, FRUIT AND NUTS
UH, I, I WAS WONDERING HOW THE, UM, THE SURFACE PARKING WAS IMPACTING THE WATER QUALITY CONTROLS ON THE PROPERTY.
I UNDERSTAND THAT THE SURFACE PARKING IS PROBABLY A COST CONTROL ISSUE.
UM, LET ME ADDRESS THE FIRST QUESTION FIRST.
UM, UM, ABOUT, I AGREE THAT THE TREES WEREN'T A BIG, THAT'S NOT A BIG CONCESSION, BUT IT'S THE UNKNOWN AND THE, YOU KNOW, THE, UH, THE REQUIREMENT OF CONTRACTING WITH LOCAL, YOU KNOW, WHAT IS THAT COST GONNA BE LIKE, THAT'S A LITTLE, THAT'S KIND OF THE UNKNOWN OF, UM, THAT ADDITIONAL COST ADDED TO, NOT NECESSARILY THE DEVELOPMENT, BUT THE ONGOING MAINTENANCE AND THAT ONGOING CONTRACT WITH, UM, WITH SOMEBODY TO, TO MAINTAIN AND KEEP THIS GARDEN GOING.
SO THAT, THAT IS THE CURRENT, THAT'S THE CONCERN ON THE CLIENT'S BEHALF.
UM, AS IT RELATES TO THE SURFACE PARKING LOT, UM, WE DO HAVE, UM, AGAIN, THE SITE IS CODE COMPLIANT.
WE DO HAVE, UM, WATER QUALITY POND, UM, A WATER QUALITY POND ON THE SITE, OR ACTUALLY TWO WATER QUALITY PONDS ON THE SITE, UM, TO TREAT SURFACE RUNOFF FROM, UM, FROM THE PARKING LOTS BEFORE IT GOES INTO THE, THE FLOODPLAIN.
UM, JUST TO FOLLOW UP ON THAT, IT LOOKS LIKE ON THE NORTH END YOU HAVE, YOU HAVE SEVERAL PARKING SPOTS WITHIN THE SETBACK FOR THE, FOR THE CEF.
UM, IS THAT, CAN YOU CLEAR UP ON, ON WHETHER YOU CAN ACTUALLY BUILD IN THAT AREA WITHIN THE SETBACK? UH, AGAIN, DWAYNE SHOP WITH C*****G HORN? YES.
THAT AREA, UM, EVERYTHING IS CODE COMPLIANT.
UM, THERE'S NO VARIANCE BEING REQUESTED TO ANY OF THOSE AREAS.
THAT'S ALL MEET, THAT, ALL MEET CITY CODE.
AND SO ANYTHING THAT WE DID IN THAT AREA, WE, WE AVERAGED IT OUT BASED ON CITY CODE WITH BUFFER AVERAGING, UM, FOR, THERE'S SOME ENCROACHMENTS IN SOME AREAS.
UM, I SAY THAT'S NOT BUFFER AVERAGING OVER THERE, THAT'S JUST, UH, UM, WORKING WITH STAFF TO, UM, TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL SETBACKS IN OTHER AREAS, UM, TO COMPLY WITH SOME ENCROACHMENT IN, IN THAT AREA OVER THERE IN THAT ZONE WITH THE PARKING.
OTHER QUESTIONS, MR. CHAIRMAN? IF, IF WE'RE GONNA HAVE A CONVERSATION ABOUT THE MERIT'S, UH, OF, OF THE VARIANCE.
I DOESN'T SOUND LIKE MY, MY COMMISSIONERS WANNA POSTPONE, WHICH IS FINE.
SO I WANT TO TRANSITION TO, TO DISCUSSING.
NO, I, I THINK THE POSTPONEMENT IS DEFINITELY THE RIGHT.
WELL THEN DWAYNE, MR. MR. SHIPLEY SHOPPER, IF YOU DON'T MIND HANGING BACK JUST AFTER WE ADJOURN HERE.
UH, JUST AS A COURTESY, I'LL GIVE YOU GUYS MY NOTES.
UH, THANK YOU GUYS ARE STANDUP ENGINEERS.
UH, SO I'LL GIVE YOU MY NOTES THEN JUST SO EVERYBODY CAN BE A LITTLE MORE PREPARED COMING THROUGH NEXT TIME.
THAT WAS KIND OF WHAT I WAS HOPING SOMEONE MADE A MOTION TO POSTPONE TILL THE FIRST WEEK IN JANUARY AND THEN MAKE SURE THAT YOU TWO GET TOGETHER.
OH YEAH, I MEAN, I, I, I HAVE A CALL WITH LEY TOMORROW DIFFERENT, BUT, SO I KNOW YOU GUYS PRETTY WELL AND I'LL, I'LL TREAT YOU FAIR.
MOTION BEEN MADE AND POSTPONED.
DO I HEAR A SECOND? I'LL SECOND.
AND THEN YOU GUYS GET TOGETHER
I'VE KNOWN DWAYNE FOR A WHILE.
[WORKING GROUP/COMMITTEE UPDATES]
UM, MOVING ON, WORKING GROUPS, PLAN CODES AND ORDINANCES, JOINT COMMITTEE, ANYTHING ON THAT? YEAH, WE HAVE A MEETING TOMORROW AND WE WILL BE LOOKING AT THE TWO RECOMMENDATIONS THAT CAME FROM THIS COMMISSION.CONFERENCE DAY PLAN JOINT COMMITTEE IN JANUARY.
OH NO, FEBRUARY, FEBRUARY 26TH, OUR NEXT MEETING.
SMALLER PLANNING JOINT COMMITTEE.
UH, WE ELECTED COMMISSIONER FLOYD AS OUR CHAIRMAN, SO CONGRATULATIONS.
[FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS]
ITEMS? I DON'T HAVE ONE, BUT I UNDERSTAND THAT.UM, CITY COUNCIL AS A, A DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED FOR CITY COUNCIL ABOUT ALL OF THE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS THAT ARE IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN AND IT MADE SOME RECOMMENDATIONS TO CONSOLIDATE AND TRY TO LOOK AT AND EVALUATE ALL THE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS.
AND THERE WAS SOME ACTION LAST THURSDAY TO REDO KIND OF WHAT THIS COMMISSION IS GONNA BE SEEING.
AND SO I THINK OUR CHARGE MAY BE CHANGING, UM, AT SOME POINT IN TIME, THE NOT TOO DISTANT FUTURE.
SO I'LL BE KEEPING UP WITH THAT AND MEETING WITH STAFF AND COUNCIL TO SEE KIND OF WHAT DIRECTION THAT GOES.
AND THEN KIND EVERYBODY INFORMED AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THEY MAY WANT US TO SEE ALL ZONING ITEMS,
[01:40:02]
UM, AND THEN THE PLANNING COMMISSION WOULD SEE LAND SITE PLANS AND OTHER STUFF.BUT BASICALLY ALL ZONING PLANS, ZONING CHANGES WOULD COME TO US, EVERYTHING ELSE WOULD GO TO THE PLAN.
I THINK I'VE GOTTA GO BACK AND LOOK AT THAT AND FIND OUT MORE DETAILS.
IT JUST CAME OUT THURSDAY WITH SOME DIRECTION, BUT NOTHING IS FINAL YET.
BUT I DO KNOW SOME CHANGES ARE BEING RECOMMENDED.
SO, AND THE OTHER THING THAT I THINK WE NEED TO HAVE AS A FUTURE AGENDA ITEM IS AGAIN, UM, OUR RULES, RIGHT? THAT WE'VE BEEN INFORMED THAT OUR RULES BOTH OLD AND NEW YES.
VIOLATE OPEN MEETINGS, UM, REQUIREMENTS.
AND SO WE WILL NEED TO, SHALL WE SAY, REVISE AND RESUBMIT, RIGHT? SO LEGAL IS REDLINING.
SO IT'D BE GREAT IF THAT COULD BE ON OUR AGENDA FOR THE FIRST WEEK IN JANUARY AND HOPEFULLY WE CAN HAVE A SET OF RULES THAT DON'T VIOLATE THE LAW AGREED.
AND, AND FOR POTENTIAL ACTION.
ALSO, MY UNDERSTANDING IS LEGAL IS GONNA REDLINE STUFF FOR US TO LOOK AT.
IF, IF WE DO RECEIVE IT BY THE FIRST MEETING, IT'LL FOR SURE BE ON THERE.
BUT BY THE TIME IT IS AVAILABLE, IT'LL BE ON THE MOST UPCOMING MEETING.
ANYTHING ELSE? ALRIGHT, WE STAND ADJOURNED.
YOU THERE WHEN I SEE YOU? NO ONE ELSE.