[CALL TO ORDER]
[00:00:04]
FOR THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSION TO DO IT.
TODAY IS TUESDAY, JANUARY 20TH AT 6:00 PM WE ARE IN AUSTIN CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS ROOM 1001.
WE WILL START WITH A ROLL CALL CHAIR.
I AM PRESENT VICE CHAIR BETSY GREENBERG.
CHRISTIAN CHEPE PRESENT, BUT HAVING VIDEO ISSUES.
WE WILL MARK YOU PRESENT, BUT SORT OF PRESENT, SORT OF NOT 'CAUSE YOU'RE NOT ON VIDEO AND CAN'T VOTE
NO NEED TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION.
UH, ANY PUBLIC COMMUNICATION? NO CHAIR.
ANYBODY IN THE ROOM FOR PUBLIC COMMUNICATION GENERAL? OKAY.
[Consent Agenda]
WITH THE CONSENT AGENDA.WE HAVE ITEM ONE, APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSION, REGULAR MEETING ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 6TH.
ITEM TWO IS A REZONING CASE, C 14 20 25 DASH 1 0 7 AT 2301 NORTH LOOP IN DISTRICT SEVEN.
IT IS A REZONING CASE FROM GR TO CS ONE.
IT IS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF AND ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.
AND WE'RE GONNA HAVE A SPEAKER IN A SECOND TO GIVE SOME UH, COMMENTS.
ITEM THREE IS A SUBDIVISION ENVIRONMENTAL VARIANCE.
IT IS C 8 20 25 DASH OH 8 5 0 A ARBOR VIEW SUBDIVISION AT 43 16 FAR WEST BOULEVARD.
IT IS A REQUEST TO VARY FROM LDC 25 8 3 0 1 AND LDC 25 8 3 0 2 TO ALLOW DRIVEWAY CONSTRUCTION ON SLOPES OVER 15% AND TO ALLOW BUILDING CONSTRUCTION ON SLOPES OVER 15% RESPECTIVELY.
AND IT'S A REQUEST TO VARY FROM LDC 25 8 423 TO EXCEED WATERSHED IMPERVIOUS COVER LIMITS TO ALLOW 3,900 SQUARE FEET OF IMPERVIOUS COVER.
STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND THESE VARIANCES HAVING DETERMINED THAT THE FINDINGS OF FACT HAVE NOT BEEN MET.
UH, THAT IS A DISCUSSION ITEM AND THAT IS THE CONSENT AGENDA.
[2. Rezoning: C14-2025-0107 - 2301 North Loop; District 7]
A SPEAKER ON ITEM TWO.REAL QUICKLY, IF YOU'LL STATE YOUR NAME.
I LIVE ON 49TH STREET AND I'M ON THE ALLENDALE ZONING COMMITTEE.
I'M HERE TONIGHT BECAUSE ALLENDALE LABOR'S ON WOODVIEW CURRENTLY HAVE EXTENSIVE VALET PARKING FROM RESTAURANTS.
THEY'RE CONCERNED ABOUT MORE PARKING FROM THE WINE BAR.
THEIR CURRENT LOAD IS FROM FONDA SAN MIGUEL, WHICH WILL SOON OPEN ANOTHER PLACE WITH DAYTIME HOURS NOT OVERLAPPING THE TRADITIONAL ONE.
AND THERE WILL BE NEW PARKING.
THE COMBINED PARKING HOPEFULLY ELIMINATES THEIR WOODVIEW CARS.
MICHELLE, THE AGENT FOR THE WINE BAR, AND I HAVE DISCUSSED THEIR PARKING FROM HER DESCRIPTION.
THE SHOP OWNERS MAKING ARRANGEMENTS FOR ADEQUATE ONSITE PARKING.
IF THE PLAN WORKS, THEY WON'T HAVE VALET PARKING NEIGHBORS FAVOR THIS BAR, BUT STILL HAVE CONCERNS, PLANS OR PLANS.
BUT ACTUALITY MAY BE DIFFERENT AND THEY ASK ME TO REGISTER THEIR CONCERNS.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS, CHAIR.
THAT CONCLUDES THE SPEAKERS ON THE CONSENTS AGENDA.
UM, DO I HEAR A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA? IT'LL BE ITEMS, THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES AND APPROVAL OF ITEM TWO, THE REZONING CASE.
I MOVE TO APPROVE THE CONSENT'S AGENDA.
COMMISSIONER CHEE MAKES THE MOTION AND COMMISSIONER CORTEZ AS THE SECOND.
UH, THAT WAS OFF LUGO, NOT SHEY.
SORRY, NOT IT'S FIXED IN POST ANYWAYS.
I'M NOT JUST SEEING HIM SITTING HERE NEXT TO ME, BUT SHEY IS, I'M BACK.
SO HE HAS ACTUALLY DID A, DID A VOTE.
[3. Subdivision Environmental Variances: C8-2025-0085.0A - Arbor View Subdivision; District 10]
ITEM THREE, SUBDIVISION ENVIRONMENTAL VARIANCE, C 8 20 25 DASH OH EIGHT FIVE DASH ZERO A.DO WE HAVE A PRESENTATION FROM STAFF? GOOD EVENING.
UH, MY NAME IS MIKE MCDOUGALL AUSTIN, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY PROGRAM MANAGER.
AND THE PROJECT IS ARBOR VIEW SUBDIVISION, LOCATED AT 43 43 16 FAR WEST BOULEVARD.
THE CASE NUMBER IS C 8 20 25 0 85 A AND WE'LL COVER NINE TOPICS IN THIS PRESENTATION.
[00:05:01]
MAP, SECOND PROPERTY DATA, THIRD SYNOPSIS, SITE CONSTRAINTS, VARIANCE REQUESTS, THE VARIANCE RECOMMENDATION, ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS, VARIOUS CONDITIONS, AND THE EV COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION.SO THE PROJECT IS LOCATED NORTH OF THE RIVER AND IT'S BETWEEN 360 AND MOPAC.
IT'S IN THE BULL CREEK WATERSHED, WHICH IS CLASSIFIED AS A WATER SUPPLY SUBURBAN WATERSHED.
IT'S IN THE DRINKING WATER PROTECTION ZONE, AND IT'S LOCATED OVER THE EDWARDS AQUIFER RECHARGE ZONE.
THERE IS STEEP TOPOGRAPHY ON THE SITE, PREDOMINANTLY SLOPES OVER 25%.
UH, IT'S CURRENTLY UNDEVELOPED AND THIS IS JUST A SITE PHOTO TAKEN BY ONE OF THE CITY HYDRO GEOLOGISTS, UH, JUST SHOWING HOW STEEP THE PROPERTY IS.
THE PROPERTY SLOPES AWAY FROM THE RIGHT OF WAY.
IT IS A PROPOSED, UH, 0.56 ACRES SUBDIVISION LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 0.4 MILES WEST OF FAR WEST BOULEVARD AND MESA DRIVE.
AND THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY UN PLATTED.
AND THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO PLAT A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION.
ONE LOT WILL BE A CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURE LOT AND WILL NOT BE DEVELOPED, AND THE OTHER LOT WILL BE A SINGLE FAMILY LOT.
SO THE LOT ON THE WEST SIDE WOULD BE THE CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURE.
LOT, LOT TWO AND LOT ONE WOULD BE THE SINGLE FAMILY LOT.
SO THERE ARE SITE CONSTRAINTS ON THE PROPERTY.
THE PROPERTY SLOPES TO THE NORTH AWAY FROM THE RIGHT OF WAY, AND THE MAJORITY OF THE SLOPES ARE GREATER THAN 25%.
UM, SO THE YELLOW IS SLOPE ZERO TO 15.
THE GREENISH COLOR IS SLOPES, SLOPES 15 TO 25% AND WHITE ARE SLOPES OVER 25%.
AND IN FACT, THE MAJORITY OF THE SITE IS 50 TO 80% SLOPES.
UM, LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 25 8 3 0 1 LIMITS THE CONSTRUCTION OF DRIVEWAYS ON SLOPES OVER 15%.
AND THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A DRIVEWAY ON SLOPES OVER 15%.
SO A VARIANCE WOULD BE NECESSARY TO 25 A 3 0 1 TO PLOT THE PROPERTY LAND BILLMAN CODE 25 8 3 0 2 LIMITS THE CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDINGS ON SLOPES OVER 15%.
AND THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT BUILDINGS ON SLOPES OVER 15%, OR RATHER A BUILDING ON SLOPES OVER 15%.
AND SO LAND USE COMMISSION VARIANCE TO 25 8 3 0 2 WOULD BE NECESSARY TO PLOT THE PROPERTY.
AND THIRD LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 25 8 4 23 LIMITS WATERSHED IMPERVIOUS COVER TO 30% OF NET SIDE AREA.
IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT NET SIDE AREA BACKS OUT SLOPES OVER 15%.
SO THE NET SET AREA, ONCE THE SLOPES ARE BACKED OUT, IS ACTUALLY 7 775 SQUARE FEET.
AND THE IMPERVIOUS COVER LIMIT, THE WATERSHED IMPERVIOUS COVER LIMIT IS 30%.
SO THE WATERSHED IMPERVIOUS COVER AMOUNT, ALLOWABLE AMOUNT WOULD BE ABOUT 232 SQUARE FEET.
SO THAT IS TO SAY THAT THAT, THAT NEXT TO LAST LINE ITEM, THE WATERSHED IMPERVIOUS COVER LIMIT IS 232 SQUARE FEET.
THE APPLICANT PROPOSES 3,900 SQUARE FEET OF IMPERVIOUS COVER.
SO A VARIANCE TO LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 25 8 4 23 WOULD BE NECESSARY TO PLOT THE PROPERTY.
SO THE VARIANCE REQUESTS ARE AS FOLLOWS.
AS I MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED VARY FROM 25 8 3 0 1 TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF DR OF A DRIVEWAY ON SLOPES.
OVER 15% REQUEST TO VARY FROM LDC 25 8 3 0 2 TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDINGS ON SLOPES OVER OF 15%.
AND REQUEST TO VARY FROM LDC 25 8 4 2 83 TO EXCEED THE 30% NET SET AREA WATERSHED IMPERVIOUS COVERED LIMIT TO, TO ALLOW 3,900 SQUARE FEET OF IMPERVIOUS COVER.
THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS THAT STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND THE REQUESTED VARIANCES.
HAVING DETERMINED THAT THE FINDINGS OF FACT HAVE NOT BEEN MET SPECIFICALLY IN RESPONSE TO FINDINGS OF FACT LDC 25 8 41 A TWO C, THAT VARIANCE WILL CREATE A SIGNIFICANT PROBABILITY OF HARMFUL ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES BASED ON THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION ON STEEP SLOPES, INCLUDING, UH, CONSTRUCTION ON STEEP SLOPES, GENERATES AND TRANSPORTS GREATER AMOUNTS OF SEDIMENT DURING CONSTRUCTION THAN SHALLOWER SLOPES.
AND THIS IS EXPECTED TO NEGATIVELY IMPACT WATER QUALITY.
NUMBER TWO, IMPERVIOUS COVER PREVENTS WATER INFILTRATION INTO THE SOIL.
INSTEAD, WATER RUNS ACROSS THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE, PICKS UP POLLUTANTS AND SEDIMENT AND POLLUTES AND SEDIMENTS DRAIN TO WATERWAYS AND DEGRADE WATER QUALITY AND DRAINAGE OCCURS MORE RAPIDLY ON STEEPER SLOPES.
AND NUMBER THREE, SITE STABILIZATION AND REVEGETATION AFTER CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES HAVE BEEN COMPLETED ARE LESS FEASIBLE IN STEEPER SLOPES.
THAT IS, IT'S HARD TO REESTABLISH VEGETATION ON STEEPER SLOPES ONCE THE CONSTRUCTION IS DONE.
AND SO ONGOING EROSION IS MORE LIKELY IN STEEPER SLOPES.
AND SO ITS STAFF'S OPINION THAT DEVELOPMENT ON THE SITE WOULD CREATE A SIGNIFICANT PROBABILITY OF HARMFUL ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES BASED ON, UH, THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA MANUAL.
ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO BUILD, UH, THE DEVELOPMENT THAT IS THE HOUSE AND GARAGE ON PIERS TO MINIMIZE SITE DISTURBANCE DURING CONSTRUCTION.
AND TO REDUCE THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT, PIERS WOULD BE INSTALLED UP TO 35 FEET ABOVE GRADE TO SUPPORT A HORIZONTAL BUILDING FOUNDATION ON STEEP SLOPES.
SO RATHER THAN A TYPICAL SLAB ON GRADE BUILT ON THE GROUND, THIS WOULD BE A HOUSE ON ON PIERS.
UH, ANOTHER CONSIDERATION IS THAT PROPERTY LOCATED IMMEDIATELY TO THE WEST,
[00:10:01]
NORTH AND EAST WAS PLOTTED MANY YEARS AGO.AND WITHOUT THE REQUESTED VARIANCES, THAT PROPOSED SUBDIVISION IS REASONABLY BEYOND BUILDABLE.
SO IF THE VARIANCES ARE NOT APPROVED, THE PROPERTY COULD NOT BE PLATTED AND WOULD NOT BE BILLABLE.
THERE ARE VARIANCE CONDITIONS IN THE EVENT THAT, UH, THE ZONING PLANNING COMMISSION CHOOSES TO, UH, TO APPROVE THE VARIANCES.
AND, AND SO THIS SLIDE IS, IS BASED ON, ON MY REPORT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION.
IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION WERE TO VOTE TO RECOMMEND THE VARIANCES CITY STAFF OFFERS THE FOLLOWING FIVE VARIANCES.
NUMBER ONE, PREVIOUS COVERAGE SHALL BE LIMITED TO 3,900 SQUARE FEET FOR LOT ONE AND ZERO SQUARE FEET FOR LOT TWO.
AND LOT TWO IS THE CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURE LOT THAT WOULD'VE NO CONSTRUCTION.
NUMBER TWO, PRIOR TO ISSUE OF A COA BUILDING PERMIT, THE APPLICANT MUST HAVE AN APPROVED COA SITE PLAN EXEMPTION TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF DETENTION OF 3,900 SQUARE FEET OF IMPERVIOUS COVER AND AN EASEMENT THAT IS, UH, CAPTURING THE, THE RUNOFF, THE, THE SURFACE WATER RUNOFF WOULD BE THE, THE I THE GOAL OF NUMBER TWO.
NUMBER THREE, THE DETENTION WILL BE MAINTAINED IN THE ACCORDS WITH CITY OF AUSTIN REQUIREMENTS.
UH, NUMBER FOUR, SLAP ON GRADE CONSTRUCTION IS NOT ALLOWED.
THE FOUNDATION AND DRIVEWAY MUST BE CONSTRUCTED USING PIERS.
INTEGRATING, EXCEEDING FOUR FEET OF DEPTH OR CONSTRUCTION ON SLOPES EXCEEDING 15% WOULD REQUIRE LAND USE COMMISSION VARIANCES IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.
SO THE IDEA IS THE A IF THE APPLICANT, YOU KNOW, WERE TO WANT TO COME IN AND MAYBE BUILD A A SECOND UNIT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THIS WOULD'VE TO COME BACK, UH, TO BE HEARD AGAIN.
AND NUMBER FIVE, THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF STRUCTURES ON THE LOT MUST BE BASED ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM A SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS PERFORMED BY A LICENSED GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER AS VERIFIED BY THE CITY.
NOW, UH, THE EV COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION, UH, WAS TO DENY THE REQUESTED VARIANCES.
THEY DID INCLUDE THE STAFF CONDITIONS, UH, IN THEIR DENIAL.
IF THESE VARIANCES ARE GRANTED BY ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSION, THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION RECOMMENDS THAT THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS BE ADOPTED.
AND THOSE ITEMS ONE THROUGH FIVE BELOW THE PURPLE BOX ARE JUST, WELL, WHAT I JUST READ.
AND THEN THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION HAD ADDED THEIR OWN, UM, VARIANCE CONDITIONS AS WELL.
IF THE VARIANCES ARE GRANTED BY THE ZONING PLANNING COMMISSION, THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION RECOMMENDS THAT THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS BE ADOPTED, UH, THE STAFF CONDITIONS AS WELL AS, UH, THEY ALSO RECOMMEND NO ADDITIONAL FILL OR LEVELING IN THE FUTURE ON THE PROPERTY.
NO FUTURE ADDITIONAL GRADING ON THE PROPERTY, UNLESS FOR THE USE OF EMERGENCY MAINTENANCE TO THE STRUCTURE THAT IS NO ADDITIONAL BUILDINGS, UH, COULD BE PUT ON THE PROPERTY, NO FILL ON THE PROPERTY, UH, TO MAKE A LEVEL BACKYARD.
THE ONLY FILL THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED IS IN THE EVENT THAT WERE, UH, EMERGENCY REPAIRS NEC, UH, REQUIRED IN THE BUILDING.
THE IDEA WAS THAT, UH, THE FUTURE HOMEOWNER WOULDN'T HAVE TO COME BACK FOR LAND USE MISSION VARIANCE TO FIX THEIR HOUSE IF THERE WERE STABILITY ISSUES.
NUMBER THREE, CURRENT AND ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION CANNOT HARM THE GROUNDWATER SEEPS.
UH, NUMBER FOUR, ANY ADDITIONAL FUTURE CHANGES TO THE STRUCTURE AND LAND USE SHALL COME BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION.
AND NUMBER FIVE, ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING ON THE PROPERTY WILL BE PROHIBITED.
AND ON DECEMBER 3RD LAST YEAR, THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION VOTED 10 TO ZERO TO, UH, DENY THE VARIANCE OR REQUEST.
AND WITH THAT, UH, I HAVE, UH, I WOULD INVITE THE APPLICANT TO, UH, GIVE A PRESENTATION AS WELL.
UM, I'M REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT, UH, UH, HOLLY TABE, OWNER OF THIS LOT FOR THE LAST, I GUESS EIGHT, EIGHT OR NINE YEARS.
UM, AND WITH ME IS, UH, MEZA BAY WITH PROFESSIONAL STRU CIVIL ENGINEERS.
HE IS BOTH THE, UH, CIVIL ENGINEER AND THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER ON THIS PROJECT.
GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND.
UM, THIS PROPERTY WAS PART OF A 285 ACRE PARENT TRACK, UH, THAT WENT TO THE CITY COUNCIL IN 1977 AND GOT A, UM, A RESOLUTION CALLED THE FAR WEST CONCEPTUAL PLAN, UH, TO ADDRESS HOW ALL THE PROPERTY WITHIN THAT PARENT TRACK WOULD BE DEVELOPED ON THE STEEP SLOPES.
BACK THEN, THE CITY DIDN'T HAVE A FIRM POLICY OF REQUIRING, UH, ALL PARCELS IN THE PARENT TRACK TO BE PART OF THE UN AN ORIGINAL PRELIMINARY PLAT.
SO PLATS CAME IN, YOU KNOW, IN SEQUENCE IN THE LATE SEVENTIES, EARLY
[00:15:01]
EIGHTIES.UH, EVERYTHING GOT PLATTED BEFORE 1986 EXCEPT THIS TRACK.
AND BY THAT TIME PLANNING COMMISSION, HEAD OR ZCO HAD APPROVED PLATS COMPLETELY SURROUNDING THIS TRACK.
UM, FORTUNATELY, UM, ALL OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE NECESSARY TO SERVE THIS TRACK WAS BUILT IN THE SEVENTIES, THE STREETS, THE STORM SEWERS, THE, UH, UNDERGROUND UTILITIES.
SO THERE, MOST OF THE CONCERNS I THINK THAT, THAT MIKE MENTIONED, UH, A MINUTE AGO, UH, COMES DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PHASE OF A SUBDIVISION.
WE'RE NOT GONNA HAVE ANY SUBDIVISION INFRASTRUCTURE CONSTRUCTION ON SITE.
SO THE ONLY CONSTRUCTION AND THE ONLY SITE DISTURBANCE WILL BE FOR BUILDING THE PIERS THAT WILL SUPPORT THE, THE BUILDING PLATFORM.
AS MIKE SAID, THE PROPERTY IS ABOUT A HALF ACRE, UH, WHICH IS 25,000 SQUARE FEET.
AND, UM, UNDER THE NET SIDE AREA CALCULATIONS, IT'S ONLY ENTITLED TO 232 SQUARE FEET, WHICH BASICALLY MEANS IT'S UNDEVELOPABLE, UH, AND IT, IT AMOUNTS TO A REGULATORY TAKING.
UM, I DON'T THINK THE CITY WANTS TO BUY THIS PROPERTY IN CONDEMNATION.
UM, WE CERTAINLY DON'T WANT TO GO THAT ROUTE AND THINK WE'VE COME UP WITH AN EXPENSIVE BUT, UH, REASONABLE WAY TO DEVELOP THIS PROPERTY.
ON, ON PIERS, UH, THE PLAN IS THERE WILL BE EIGHT PIERS.
UH, THERE'LL BE, UH, UH, DUG WITH, UH, HAND EQUIPMENT ONLY, UH, ON PADS, WHAT FOUR OR FIVE SQUARE FEET? FOUR BY FOUR, FOUR BY FOUR, UH, SQUARE FEET.
AND THAT WILL BE THE ONLY SITE DISTURBANCE ON THE PROPERTY.
PIERS WILL COME UP, THERE'LL BE, UH, UH, FILLED WITH, UH, UH, CONCRETE FROM A PUMPER TRUCK THAT PARKED AT THE STREET.
UH, ALL OF THE, UH, SUPPORTING, UH, STEEL BEAMS WILL BE, UH, DROPPED INTO PLACE FROM A CRANE, UH, FROM THE STREET TO MINIMIZE, UH, SITE IMPACT.
THE STAFF OBJECTIONS ARE, ARE BASICALLY WHAT APPEARS HERE.
UM, ON, UH, ON SHEET NUMBER ONE.
I'M GONNA HAVE, UH, UH, ZA KIND OF GO THROUGH THE SPECIFIC DETAILS.
BUT I WANT TO POINT OUT THAT, UM, THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION WAS MADE IN MID-NOVEMBER, UH, BEFORE WE HAD COMPLETED THE ENGINEERING REVIEW, UH, THROUGH THE SUBDIVISION PROCESS.
WE GOT FINAL CLEARANCE ON ALL OUR ENGINEERING COMMENTS ON DECEMBER 3RD.
SO THEY DID NOT HAVE THE BENEFIT OF KNOWING THAT ENGINEERING WAS SIGNING OFF, THAT THEIR, UH, THE RATE OF DISCHARGE, UH, WOULD, WOULD BE VERY LOW.
UM, ABOUT ONE EIGHTH OF WHAT THE, UH, ECM STANDARD IS FOR, UH, NON ARRA, NON EROSIVE, UH, UH, VELOCITY OF DISCHARGE.
UH, WE ARE GOING TO HAVE, AND MES WILL GO INTO THIS, UH, DETENTION ONSITE DETENTION THAT WILL CAPTURE ALL 390, UH, 3,900 SQUARE FEET, UH, IN THE DRIVEWAY, WHICH WILL ACT AS THE DETENTION POND.
UM, THE, THE OTHER THING THAT, UH, STAFF WAS NOT AWARE OF AT THE TIME THAT THE RECOMMENDATION WAS MADE IS THAT WE HAD AGREED, UH, THAT WE WOULD NOT UTILIZE ANY TRACKED OR, OR WIELD EQUIPMENT, UH, TO, UH, ERECT THE, THE PI.
EVERYTHING WILL BE DONE BY, BY HAND.
WE DO AGREE WITH, UH, THE STAFF'S CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL, SHOULD YOU APPROVE, UH, THESE VARIANCES.
UH, WE CAN LIVE WITH WITH ALL OF THOSE CONDITIONS.
AND WITH THAT, I WILL, UH, TURN IT OVER TO MEA.
I, I'M THAT RIGHT? CAN I KEEP GOING OR YES, GO AHEAD.
YEAH, I THINK THE ENVIRONMENTAL RECOMMENDATION COMES BEFORE WE CLEAR THE DRAINAGE COMMENTS.
[00:20:01]
ON THAT, WE PROVIDED THE ONSITE DETENTION POND TO CONTROL THE RUNOFF.AND ON ITEM NUMBER TWO, FAST TRANSPORTATION POLLUTION.
BASICALLY WE CLEAR THAT COMMENT WITH THE DRAINAGE REVIEWER.
USUALLY THE CITY ALLOWS FOUR CFS FOR THE EROSION CONTROL, AND WE HAVE ONLY 0.45.
SO BASED ON THAT, WE CLEAR THAT ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN THAT THERE'S A LOT OF RUNOFF GOING ON, AND IT'LL ERO THE PROPERTY.
THIRD CONCERN THEY HAVE IS A POST-CONSTRUCTION SIDE STABILITY.
AND WE HAVE A PROFESSIONAL GEOTECH ENGINEER WHO PROVIDED A MAMMO.
ACCORDING TO THE MAMMO, THE GLOBAL STABILITY IS NOT A CONCERN IN THIS GEOLOGICAL OR ON THIS DEVELOPMENT.
AND AS A STRUCTURAL ENGINEER, ONCE WE PUT THOSE CONCRETE PIERS INTO GROUND AND CONNECTED EACH OTHER, THEY PROVIDE MORE SHE STABILITY.
SO THE GLOBAL STABILITY THAT THE SOIL IS GOING TO SLIDE IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.
AND WE DID RECENT SIMILAR TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION.
I THINK IT'S ON THE LAST PAGE.
WHICH ONE ON THE LAST, YEAH, THERE'S THE NO MORE.
ONE MORE, MORE ON THE LAST ONE MORE.
THIS ONE? NO, ON THE LAST MORE.
I THINK THERE'S A ONE PICTURE WE HAVE, WE SHOW THAT THE, THE CRANE IS SITTING IN THE RIGHT OF, ON THE STREET.
AND THIS IS THE STRUCTURE WE BUILD ON A STEEP SLOPE ALSO.
AND ALL THE STEEL BEAMS IS ERECTED FROM THE RIGHT OF WAY, SO THERE IS NO DISTURBANCE ON THE GROUND.
AND ON THIS ONE, YOU CAN ALSO SEE THERE'S A CONCRETE RIP WRAP, WHICH CONTROLS THE EROSION, AND WE PUT ROCKS ON IT.
THIS ONE OF THE CONCERN THE STAFF HAS, AFTER THE HOUSE IS BUILT, THERE'S GOING TO BE STABILITY ISSUES.
SO I THINK IF YOU SEE ON THIS ONE IS SIMILAR TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION, WE CAN CREATE SIMILAR TYPE OF ROCK BERMS AND ALL THOSE TO CONTROL THE EROSION.
AND WE ALREADY MEETING ALL THE CITY REQUIREMENT REGARDING THE DETENTION AND THE WATER QUALITY.
SO I THINK THAT THING IS ALREADY TAKEN CARE BEFORE THE STAFF GIVE THEIR RECOMMENDATION ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL.
I THINK IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'M READY TO ANSWER.
YEAH, YOU WANNA TALK ABOUT THE STABILITY OF THE, IS THERE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS? NO CHAIR.
THAT CONCLUDES THE SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM.
DO WE WANT TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING THEN ASK QUESTIONS? DO WE WANNA ASK QUESTIONS? WE CLOSE, LET'S CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND THEN ASK QUESTIONS.
I MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC PORTION OF A PART OF THE HEARING.
DO I HEAR A SECOND MOTION TO SECOND TO CLOSE A PUBLIC HEARING? ALL THOSE PAPERS SAY AYE.
PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSE QUESTIONS.
UH, I WAS WONDERING IF JUST STAFF COULD ADDRESS, UM, THE GENTLEMAN'S COMMENTS JUST ABOUT THE, THE TIMING OF THE, UM, NEW INFORMATION AND HOW THAT WOULD CHANGE THEIR, OR MIGHT HAVE CHANGED, UM, THEIR INITIAL RECOMMENDATION, PLEASE, MIKE MCDOUGALL DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
UM, I, I, I DON'T FORESEE ANY CHANGES TO THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION BASED ON THIS ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.
UM, IN FACT, UM, THE EROSION POST-CONSTRUCTION IS STILL A CONCERN.
UH, THE RUNOFF FROM THE STEEP SLOPES IS STILL A CONCERN.
SO, UM, NO, I I, THE NEW INFORMATION DOES NOT CHANGE THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR THE VARIANCES.
OTHER QUESTION? YES, THANKS CARRIE.
I WAS WONDERING IF STAFF COULD SPEAK TO, UM, THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS THAT ARE JUST NORTH AND WEST OF THIS PROPERTY.
AND LIKE, I'M FAMILIAR WITH THIS PART OF TOWN AND CAT MOUNTAIN AND NORTH CAT MOUNTAIN, AND I AM, I'M UNCLEAR WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO THE PROPERTY BEHIND THIS LOT AND IF IT WILL SET A PRECEDENT FOR OTHER CHALLENGING LOTS IN THIS AREA.
MIKE MCDOUGAL DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
UH, SO OTHER PROPERTY I WOULD EXPECT TO HAVE SIMILARLY SITUATED ENVIRONMENTAL SITU, UH, CONCERNS.
UM, OTHER, OTHER LOTS ARE LIKELY TO HAVE CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES SINCE IT'S OVER THE RECHARGE ZONE.
[00:25:01]
I'M NOT A GEOLOGIST, A PROFESSIONAL GEOLOGIST, BUT SINCE IT'S OVER THE RECHARGE ZONE, I WOULD EXPECT THERE TO BE SPRINGS AND SEEPS AND RECHARGE FEATURES, UH, ON OTHER LOTS.THE, THERE WOULD, THERE'S UNLIKELY TO HAVE BEEN REGULATIONS ABOUT, UH, DEVELOPMENT ON THOSE LOTS BACK IN THE SEVENTIES OR, OR EARLIER THAN THAT.
SO, UM, I, THE TOPOGRAPHY ON THIS, ON THIS PROPERTY IS PROBABLY STEEPER THAN ON, ON OTHER PROPERTIES.
I DIDN'T LOOK INTO GREAT DETAIL.
I CAN, I CAN CHECK THAT HERE IN, IN A SECOND IF NECESSARY, BUT I DIDN'T LOOK INTO GREAT DEAL ON, UH, INTO THE, UH, SLOPES AND OTHER LOTS.
THE FACT THAT THIS PROPERTY WAS NOT PLAID AND THE OTHER LOTS WERE INDICATED, IT'S PROBABLY STEEPER THAN OTHER LOTS AND, AND PROBABLY A LITTLE HARDER TO DEVELOP AND WAS PROBABLY NOT COST EFFECTIVE TO DEVELOP BACK, UH, 50 YEARS AGO.
UM, AND THEN, UM, THERE WAS ONE OTHER QUESTION.
CAN, CAN, YEAH, I, I SUPPOSE THE QUESTION IS REALLY ALONG THE LINES OF, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE SEVERAL PRESERVES IN THIS AREA STILL HOUSE AND BARROW AND THE BULL CREEK, AND THIS AREA ISN'T A PRESERVE, ALTHOUGH I DO SEE A GREEN BELT.
AND SO I'M JUST WONDERING ABOUT ALL OF THAT UNDEVELOPED SPACE THAT'S BEHIND THIS PROPERTY.
IS, IS THAT NOW PRESERVE, OR DOES THAT MEAN IT'S NOW DEVELOPABLE? UH, IT, IT'S UNCLEAR HOW THE CITY IS MANAGING THE GREEN SPACE IN THIS AREA, IF IT'S POTENTIALLY PARKLAND OR POTENTIALLY ALL PAVED OVER IF WE SAY THIS VARIANCE GOES THROUGH.
WELL, I, I, I THINK JOHN CLEMENT CAN SPEAK TO THAT.
THIS IS JOHN CLEMENT WITH WATERSHED PROTECTION.
THE LOT BEHIND THIS IS IN A CONSERVATION EASEMENT.
IT'S, UH, STILL OWNED BY THE, UM, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT, UH, PROPERTY OWNER ASSOCIATIONS.
UH, SO IT'S MANAGED BY THEM AND IS GENERALLY UNIMPACTED BY ANY KIND OF DEVELOPMENT CURRENTLY, AND NO DEVELOPMENTS ALLOWED THERE.
UM, IS THERE ANY WAY THAT THE APPLICANT COULD POSSIBLY REMEDIATE THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS UNDER OUR CODE? OR IS THIS LOT JUST UN BUILDABLE? UM, UH, JOHN CLE WATERSHED PROTECTION? WE'RE NOT REALLY IN A POSITION TO SAY WHETHER IT'S BUILDABLE OR NOT.
IT, IT'S, IT'S NOT COMPLIANT WITH CODE.
UM, WHICH IS THE PURPOSE FOR THE VARIANCE IN TERMS OF, UH, MITIGATING THE ENVIRONMENTAL RISK? UH, NO, BECAUSE AS, AS MIKE WAS SAYING, UM, THERE'S STILL CONCENTRATED STORM WATER DUE TO THE NATURE OF THE GEOLOGY, CONCENTRATED STORM WATER WILL HAVE EFFECT ON THE UNDERLYING ROCK LAYERS AND CAN POTENTIALLY LEAD TO INSTABILITY OVER TIME.
SO IF THAT'S THE CASE, THEN DOES THE APPLICANT'S, UM, CONCERN THAT THIS REPRESENTS A TAKING, UM, EXPOSE THE CITY TO LEGAL ACTION? UH, THAT WOULD BE A QUESTION FOR CITY LEGAL OR, OR LIZ
SO I WOULD SAY, YOU KNOW, THERE HAS BEEN A LAWSUIT RELATED TO THIS PROPERTY PREVIOUSLY.
WE ARE, YOU KNOW, COORDINATING WITH OUR COLLEAGUES IN THE LAW DEPARTMENT.
THAT IS A SEPARATE QUESTION THAN WHAT WE HAVE HERE TODAY.
THE QUESTION HERE TODAY IS REALLY FOCUSED ON DOES IT MEET THE FINDINGS OF FACT? UM, IS THE VARIANCE, UH, ALLOWABLE OR NOT? IF IT IS NOT, THEN THAT'S A SEPARATE QUESTION THAT WILL DETERMINE WITH OUR LAW DEPARTMENT STAFF.
I, I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT MIKE MCDOUGAL DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, I DID LOOK AT, UH, THE CITY OF AUSTIN PROPERTY PROFILE.
OTHER LOTS DO HAVE STEEP SLOPES IN THIS AREA, BUT THE IN GENERAL TO TO, TO BROADLY CHARACTERIZE THE SINGLE FAMILY LOTS, UH, IN THE PAST LOOK TO BE, HAVE LARGELY DEVELOPED AROUND THE STEEPER SLOPES.
UM, AND NOW THE STEEPER SLOPES ARE BASED ON MODERN LIDAR.
SO THAT COULD BE THE RESULT OF PRIOR GRADING OVER, YOU KNOW, 50 YEARS AGO.
BUT THE, UH, THE SINGLE FAMILY LOT GENERALLY LOOKED TO HAVE BEEN CONFIGURED AROUND THE STEEPER SLOPES.
THIS STEEPER SLOPE, UM, EXTENDS ACROSS THE PROPERTY UP TO THE RIGHT OF WAY, WHEREAS OTHER AREAS, IT DOESN'T SEEM TO BE THE CASE.
THE STEEPER SLOPES STOP AT THE, PERHAPS THE REAR LOT LINE OR SOMETHING, SINGLE FAMILY LOTS.
AND THERE WAS ONE OTHER QUESTION I DIDN'T TOUCH ON, WHICH WAS THE QUESTION ABOUT PRECEDENT.
IT'S HARD TO SPEAK TO WHAT PRECEDENT MIGHT BE SINCE EACH, EACH LOT IS UNIQUE AND EACH, EACH SET OF VARIANCES ARE UNIQUE.
BUT I HAVE SEEN, UH, YEARS AGO, UH, ONE PERSON SOUGHT A, A VARIANCE TO EXCEED WATERSHED AND PREVIOUS COVER LIMIT ON A PIECE OF PROPERTY.
AND THEN, YOU KNOW, WITHIN SIX MONTHS, SOMEONE DOWN THE STREET ASKED FOR THE SAME VARIANCE.
THE FIRST TIME IT WAS GRANTED, THE SECOND TIME IT WAS DENIED.
SO I BELIEVE THAT, UH, THERE IS A POSSIBILITY FOR PRECEDENT FOR VARIANCES BEING GRANTED.
THE APPLICANT TALKED ABOUT A CASE THAT WAS APPROVED BACK IN THE SEVENTIES, A GENERAL AGREEMENT THAT ALLOWED DEVELOPMENT OF ALL OF THESE TRACKS.
HOW MANY TRACKS ARE LEFT THAT ARE PART OF THAT ORIGINAL AGREEMENT? NONE.
[00:30:01]
THIS IS EVERY, EVERYTHING GOT DEVELOPED, UH, BY 1986, WHICH IS WHEN, OKAY, COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED ORDINANCE CAME IN AND THIS PROPERTY THAT, UH, THEY DIDN'T, THEY DIDN'T GET A, A PERMIT BEFORE.UM, IT, IT CAME INTO EFFECT AND THEY COULDN'T DO IT AFTERWARDS.
SO NOBODY ELSE HAS THE ARGUMENT TO MAKE THAT WE WERE PART OF AN AGREEMENT PREVIOUSLY.
I MEAN, UM, YOU KNOW, THE, SO THERE WAS A SORT OF STATEMENT MADE THAT WE ARE NOT, THE CITY STAFF IS NOT MAKING A CLAIM ABOUT WHAT IST IS AN UNBUILDABLE, BUT THE, THE REPORT DOES LITERALLY SAY THAT IF WITHOUT THE VARIANCE, IT'S UNBIDDABLE.
AND MY BIGGER CONCERN IS THAT, SO I USED TO LIVE IN, IN THE SORT OF THE, THE HILLS AREA WHERE YOU SEE HOUSES LIKE THIS BUILT IN HILLS LIKE THIS ALL OF THE TIME.
AND IT JUST SEEMS WEIRD TO ME THAT WE'RE GOING TO SAY BECAUSE OF AN ARBITRARY SORT OF ORDERING OF FACT THAT A SINGLE FAMILY HOME BUILT WITH, YOU KNOW, SOME PRETTY STRICT ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS IS NOT GONNA BE BUILT BECAUSE OF, LIKE, WE DON'T TRUST THIS GEOLOGIST ANALYSIS OF A PEER SYSTEM, SO WE'RE GONNA JUST TAKE SOMEONE'S PROPERTY.
LIKE, IS THAT, I DON'T UNDERSTAND.
I GUESS I, I WOULD EITHER NEED TO BE CONVINCED THAT THERE IS SOMETHING DE DEEPLY WRONG WITH THE SOLUTION SET HERE THAT WARRANTS, UH, AN EFFECTIVE TAKING OF, YOU KNOW, PROPERTY AND REDUCING THE SUPPLY OF HOUSING IN THE CITY WHEN WE ARE, YOU KNOW, BOTH IN A CRISIS OF PROPERTY REVENUES AND A CRISIS OF HOUSING AFFORDABILITY,
SO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, UH, SPECIFICALLY LIMITS CONSTRUCTION ON STEEP SLOPES, AND IT ALSO LIMITS THE AMOUNT OF GRADING A LOT ON PROPERTY.
AND THE, UM, THE, THAT, THAT'S BEEN THE CASE SINCE, UH, THE LATE SEVENTIES AND IN SOME WATERSHEDS AND THROUGHOUT THE CITY, UH, EXCEPT THE URBAN WATERSHED CLASSIFICATION SINCE 1986.
AND THE REASON FOR THAT IS THAT THE, WHEN CONSTRUCTION OCCURS ON STEEPER SLOPES, IT'S MUCH MORE LIKELY AND WHEN GRADING IS, IS, IS, IS GREATER, IT'S MUCH MORE LIKELY TO AFFECT WATER QUALITY DURING CONSTRUCTION.
SO IF YOU, IF YOU'VE NOTICED AROUND TOWN, THERE'S THAT 18 INCH TALL BLACK FABRIC AROUND CONSTRUCTION THAT'S SILT FENCE.
AND THE IDEA IS TO KEEP SOIL ON SITE DURING CONSTRUCTION.
SO WHEN CONSTRUCTION OCCURS, VEGETATION IS REMOVED A LOT OF VEGETATION, WHEN THAT HAPPENS, WHEN IT RAINS, THE SOIL JUST WASHES OFF.
AND OF COURSE, THAT TURNS THE CREEKS INTO CHOCOLATE MILK.
AND THE, THE CRITTERS CAN'T LIVE IN THAT.
THAT ALSO, UH, FLOODS, UH, DOWN SLOPE, UH, VEGETATION WITH SEDIMENT KILLS THAT SET, KILLS THAT VEGETATION.
SO IT'S, IT'S SOMETHING OF A DOMINO EFFECT AND IT HAS A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON WATER QUALITY.
AND THE, THE, THE INDUSTRY, UM, STANDARD OR PREFERENCE OR BEST PRACTICE IS TO AVOID CONSTRUCTION ON STEEPER SLOPES AND TO AVOID A, A LARGE AMOUNT OF GRADING.
AND SO THAT'S THE OVERALL CONCERN, ESPECIALLY DURING CONSTRUCTION AND POST CONSTRUCTION, REVEGETATION IS MUCH MORE DIFFICULT.
AND THIS SITE, I THINK WOULD PROBABLY ESPECIALLY DIFFICULT TO REVEGETATE BECAUSE THERE ISN'T MUCH SOIL ON SITE TO REVEGETATE WITH.
I UNDERSTAND THAT THE CITY SETS REGULATIONS, UH, IN ORDER TO SORT OF PRAGMATICALLY AND LEGIBLY SET A CERTAIN OUTCOME, RIGHT? WE WANT THE CITY TO BE SAFE ON THESE METRICS AND THE CITY CANNOT INDIVIDUALLY ANALYZE EVERY SINGLE POSSIBLE CASE.
AND SO WE TRY TO MAKE BROADLY LEGIBLE RULES TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT SORT OF WHAT WOULD WORK FOR THE MEDIAN AVERAGE CASE FOR THIS INDIVIDUAL CASE.
I UNDERSTAND THAT ON AVERAGE, YOU KNOW, WE, WE SET THESE RULES AROUND SLOPES FOR THIS INDIVIDUAL CASE.
CAN YOU SPECIFICALLY OUTLINE WHY THE SOLUTION PROPOSED HERE WITH THE CONDITIONS GIVEN BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION ARE NOT SATISFACTORY NOT TO MEET THE ORIGINAL LEGIBLE REGULATIONS, BUT TO MEET THE GOAL OF WHAT WE WANT, MIKE MCDOUGAL DEVELOPMENT SERVICES? UH, CERTAINLY.
SO, UM, WHEN SOMEBODY BUILDS A, AN APARTMENT COMPLEX AND WE REQUIRE WATER QUALITY DETENTION PONDS, THE CITY HAS THE, THE OFTEN THOSE PONDS ARE PRIVATELY OWNED, BUT THE CITY HAS THE AUTHORITY TO GO AND MAKE SURE THOSE PONDS ARE FUNCTIONING PROPERLY AND BEING MAINTAINED PROPERLY.
UM, ONE OF THE SOLUTIONS IS TO HAVE DETENTION ON SITE TO CONTAIN THE SURFACE WATER RUNOFF, TO SLOW THE, THE RATE OF RUNOFF.
BUT MOST PEOPLE ARE NOT GONNA ACCEPT A CITY INSPECTOR WALKING ON THEIR SINGLE FAMILY LAW TO CHECK THEIR DETENTION SYSTEM TO MAKE SURE IT FUNCTIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY REQUIREMENTS.
SO THE, UH, THE GENERAL SOCIETAL EXPECTATION THAT THE CITY CAN MAKE SURE THE PONDS ARE FUNCTIONING CORRECTLY AT A MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT OR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT EXIST.
CON IN CONTRAST, THERE IS AN EXPECTATION THAT THE CITY WILL NOT COME TO SOMEONE'S HOUSE AND CHECK THEIR, THEIR DETENTION POND WHERE THEY LIVE AT THEIR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE.
SO, SO THERE'S, THERE'S THE LONG-TERM CONCERN OF IS THE DETENTION POND GOING TO FUNCTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY STANDARDS? WELL, WE CAN'T HAVE INSPECTORS GO OUT THERE TO CONFIRM THAT.
SO THAT LEAVES ONLY THE RESPONSE WHEN SOMETHING GOES WRONG.
SO IF THERE'S TOO MUCH DISCHARGE FROM THIS SITE BECAUSE THE DETENTION POND ISN'T FUNCTIONING PROPERLY, IT'S REALLY A SITUATION OF OIL, WE SEE A LOT OF SEDIMENT DOWNHILL, WHERE'S THAT COMING FROM? WE HAVE TO TRACK THAT BACK UP UPHILL TO SEE WHAT'S HAPPENING.
SO, SO ENFORCEMENT AND INSPECTION ARE, ARE PROBLEMATIC FOR
[00:35:01]
SINGLE FAMILY LOTS LIKE THIS.NOW, WHEN A LARGE SINGLE FAMILY SUBDIVISION IS BUILT, THE, THE, THE PRACTICE IS TO BUILD PONDS ON A POND LOT.
AND YOU MIGHT SEE THOSE IN MODERN SUBDIVISIONS WHERE THERE'S A LOT, THERE'S NO HOUSE, THERE'S JUST A BIG POND.
BUT THE EXPECTATION WITH THAT IS, AGAIN, THE CITY INSPECTORS CAN GO TAKE A LOOK AT THAT AND MAKE SURE IT'S FUNCTIONING PROPERLY, BUT NOBODY LIVES AT THAT LOT.
SO, SO I I'M NOT SURE THAT THE, THE SOLUTION IS NECESSARILY FEASIBLE, UH, LONG TERM FOR THE, SO IS THE SOLUTION NOT FEASIBLE BECAUSE OF ENFORCEMENT CONCERNS AROUND WHOEVER IS THE FINAL SINGLE FAMILY OWNER? NOT BECAUSE OF THE TECHNICAL DETAILS ITSELF, BUT BECAUSE OF THE ENFORCEMENT IN PART? OH, YEAH.
OH, UH, JOHN CLEMENT WATERSHED PROTECTION.
AND I THINK I CAN, UM, MAKE SOME GENERAL COMMENTS ABOUT THE GEOLOGY IN RESPONSE TO YOUR CONCERNS ABOUT, UH, WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S A HEALTH AND SAFETY ISSUE.
AND ALSO OUR STAFF GEOLOGIST IS HERE AND CAN PROVIDE, PROVIDE MORE TECHNICAL BACKGROUND ON IT.
UM, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE GEOTECHNICAL MEMO PROVIDED WAS BASED ON A SURFACE INSPECTION OF THE SITE AND NO BORINGS HAVE BEEN DONE.
UM, SO WE'RE NOT CLEAR ON WHAT'S HAPPENING BELOW THE SURFACE OTHER THAN THE INFORMATION WE HAVE, UH, FROM GEOLOGICAL MAPPING THAT'S BEEN DONE IN THE AREA.
UM, BE COMPARING IT TO OTHER AREAS, UH, WHERE, UH, THESE CONSTRUCTION METHODS ARE MORE COMMON.
UM, THERE'S VARYING GEOLOGY, YOU KNOW, THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY.
UH, AND IT COULD BE THAT THERE'S PLACES WHERE IT'S MUCH SAFER.
DEVELOPMENTS LIKE THAT HAPPENING EVEN WITHIN TRAVIS COUNTY.
WE HAVE VERY, UH, HIGH RISK SLOPES, FOR EXAMPLE, ALONG SHO CREEK.
WE'VE HAD SIGNIFICANT FAILURES RECENTLY.
UH, THIS SITE, UM, THERE'S A, UH, EDWARDS LIMESTONE, WHICH IS, UH, HARD BUT ALSO KIND OF BRITTLE AND PRONE TO CRACKING.
AND IT OVERLAYS GLEN ROSE, WHICH IS INTER LANE WITH, UH, CLAYS THAT ARE SUSCEPTIBLE TO EROSION WHEN GROUNDWATER OR SURFACE WATER THROUGH CRACKS IN THE EDWARDS PASS THROUGH IT.
UH, AND THOSE CONDITIONS CAN LEAD TO SLOW FAILURES.
UH, IT'S NOT CLEAR WHAT'S SPECIFICALLY GOING ON IN SITE UNTIL THERE'S, UH, BORING INFORMATION AVAILABLE.
LET ME, THIS IS AN INTERESTING ONE BECAUSE OF THE PREVIOUS AGREEMENT IN MY MIND, UM, WHERE THE CITY TOLD THEM THAT YOU CAN DEVELOP THESE PROPERTIES WITHIN THIS DEFINED AREA, AND THEN THE CITY CHANGED THEIR MIND.
SO I'D REALLY LIKE TO FIND A WAY TO MAKE THIS ONE WORK.
UM, PART OF WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THAT YOU'RE WORRIED ABOUT FUTURE EROSION CONDITION FROM RUNOFF IN THE SOIL, BUT YOU'RE ACTUALLY GONNA HAVE A STRUCTURE ABOVE THE EMBANKMENT THAT'S GONNA BE EXPOSED TO RUNOFF.
SO YOU'RE NOT GONNA HAVE ANY RAINFALL GETTING ONTO THAT EMBANKMENT ONCE THE HOUSE IS BUILT.
YOU'RE GONNA HAVE PI UNDERNEATH AND THE HOUSE ABOVE IT, SO YOU'RE NOT GONNA HAVE A RUNOFF GOING OVER THAT PART OF THE SLOPE.
IF IT'S AN INSPECTION ISSUE ON A PRIVATE LOT, WE NEED TO ADDRESS THAT SEPARATELY BECAUSE AUSTIN'S GONNA SEE A WHOLE LOT MORE INFILL PROJECTS AND HOME TWO PROJECTS AND PROJECTS JUST LIKE THIS, THAT NOT ON A SLOPE, BUT THEY'RE GONNA HAVE A POND IN SOMEBODY'S BACKYARD.
THEY'RE GONNA BE ALL OVER AUSTIN.
AND I, I DON'T SEE US COMING IN AND BEING ABLE TO SAY, WELL, WE'RE NOT GONNA APPROVE ANYTHING UNDER HOME TWO, BECAUSE YOU HAD TO HAVE A POND IN YOUR BACKYARD AND WE CAN'T INSPECT IT, SO YOU CAN'T DO IT.
SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED TOTALLY SEPARATELY FROM THIS ISSUE.
AND AGAIN, IF THIS WASN'T THE AGREEMENT THAT THE CITY ENTERED INTO SAYING, YOU GUYS CAN DEVELOP ALL OF THESE LOTS AND THEN COMING BACK LATER SAYING, OR WE'RE GONNA CHANGE THE RULES AFTER WE HAVE THE AGREEMENT UNTIL YOU CAN'T DEVELOP THIS ONE, TO ME, THAT'S SETTING UP THE CITY TO BE IN SOME LITIGATION DOWN THE ROAD, BUT I'M NOT AN ATTORNEY
UM, BUT I WOULD, IF WE CAN FIND A WAY THE ENVIRONMENTAL RECOMMENDATIONS, THE TAF RECOMMENDATIONS, IF THEY'RE ADHERED TO.
DO YOU SEE THE SAME PROBLEMS UNDER THE SCENARIO I'M DESCRIBING WHERE YOU'RE GONNA HAVE A BUILDING ABOVE THE EMBANKMENT? UH, THIS IS JOHN CLEMENT WITH WATERSHED PROTECTION.
UH, SO THE BUILDING WILL COVER A SMALL PORTION OF THE LOT.
THE REST OF THE LOT IS COVERED CORRECT BY EDWARDS, WHICH WILL STILL RECEIVE INFILTRATION, UH, WATER RUNNING DOWN THE SLOPE UNDER THE BUILDING, UH, ENTERING CRACKS.
AND THE EDWARDS WILL, UH, BE SUBJECT TO INFILTRATION.
UH, SO ALL OF THIS WATER HAS A POTENTIAL, UH, IF THERE'S LEAKING WATER, WASTEWATER LINES, ALL THOSE HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO ERODE AWAY AT THE, UH, UNDERLYING GLEN ROADS.
RIGHT? I MEAN, I, I'M ASSUMING WHEN THEY BUILD IT, THERE'S NOT GONNA BE ANY WATER LEAVING THE STREET THE RIGHT OF WAY OR THE FRONT OF THE YARD GOING IN UNDER THE BUILDING.
THAT'LL BE, THERE IS A STORMWATER, UH, OUTFALL JUST TO THE WEST, THE WEST EDGE OF THIS, UH, LOT HAS A STORMWATER OUTFALL FROM FAR WEST BOULEVARD.
HOW FAR AWAY IS THAT, DO YOU KNOW? UH, IT'S, IT'S, IT'S, UH, LITERALLY ON THE PROPERTY LINE.
AND THAT DISCHARGES OR DOWN THE SLOPE, DOWN THE SLOPE AND HAS FOR SINCE THE LATE SEVENTIES, EARLY EIGHTIES.
DO YOU HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION? I, I WAS THINKING OKAY, I THOUGHT YOU HAD A QUESTION,
[00:40:03]
REBUTTAL? YES,CAN, CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE I AM, I'M SHOWING YOU THIS PHOTOGRAPH.
THIS IS ANOTHER HOUSE THAT MR. RISI BUILT IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN GOT IT PERMITTED.
UM, AND YOU'LL NOTICE THE, THE BI UH, ON THE SIDES WHERE THE PIERS ARE TO, YOU KNOW, DIVERT, UH, STORM WATER RUNOFF, THAT'S NATURALLY OCCURRING ON THE, ON THE LAND RIGHT NOW FROM GOING UNDERNEATH THE BUILDING.
SO WE DON'T THINK THERE'S GOING TO BE ANY EROSIVE EFFECT, UH, UNDER, WITH STORMWATER MIGRATING, UH, UNDER THE BUILDING.
UH, ALSO I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT THE, UM, THIS IS, UH, IT'S EITHER 24 OR 30 INCH, UH, STORM WATER PIPE, WHICH IS RIGHT AT THE WESTERN PROPERTY LINE.
AND AS THE WATER SHOOTS OUT OF THAT, IT, IT, IT CURVES BACK TO THE EAST A LITTLE BIT, SO IT DRAINS FULLY OVER, UH, THIS PROPERTY.
IF YOU GO OUT THERE AND, AND LOOK AT THE SITE, YOU'RE GONNA SEE THAT IT'S, IT'S A LOT OF REALLY LARGE, UH, LIMESTONE BOULDERS.
THERE'S NOT ANY EROSION OCCURRING, AND I GUARANTEE YOU THERE'S A WHOLE LOT MORE STORM WATER COMING DOWN, UH, ON THE PROPERTY FROM THE CITY'S, UM, STORM WATER EASEMENT.
WELL, ACTUALLY THEY DON'T EVEN HAVE AN EASEMENT.
UM, BUT IT'S GONNA BE A LOT MORE THAN WHAT'S GOING TO BE RELEASED, UM, OFF OF THE DRIVEWAY ON FROM 3,900 SQUARE FEET OF IMPERVIOUS COVER.
UM, SO THE, THE SOILS ARE, ARE, ARE THIN.
THEY'RE, IT'S PRIMARILY LARGE LIMESTONE ROCK.
BEFORE WE PULL A BUILDING PERMIT, WE WILL HAVE THE GEOTECH ENGINEER GO OUT.
HE'LL, HE'LL DO POTHOLES AND HE'LL, HE'LL HAVE INSTRUCTIONS EXACTLY AS TO HOW, UH, THE CONSTRUCTION NEEDS TO PROCEED.
AND WE, WE WILL, IT'LL BE A SEALED DOCUMENT, WE'LL, WE'LL BE REQUIRED TO FOLLOW IT.
UH, ALSO THERE, THE DETENTION POND IN THE DRIVEWAY, UH, WILL BE A DEDICATED DRAINAGE EASEMENT WITH REQUIRED MAINTENANCE SO THE CITY CAN COME OUT AND LOOK AT IT ANY TIME IT'S GONNA BE IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE PROPERTY OWNER TO MAKE SURE THAT THE APERTURE, UH, THAT DRAINS THAT WATER DOWN THROUGH A PIPE INTO THE WEST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, IS MAINTAINED IN A CLEAR AND OPERABLE CONDITION BECAUSE HE DIDN'T WANT ANY FLOODING TO COME INTO HIS HOUSE.
UH, SO I DON'T THINK THAT'S GOING TO BE, UH, A CONCERN EITHER.
WE APPRECIATE THE CITY'S CONCERNS ON A STEEP SLOPE, BUT THIS IS NOT A CONVENTIONAL CONSTRUCTION.
AND WE DON'T HAVE ANY SUBDIVISION INFRASTRUCTURE TO BUILD.
ANDREW, HAS THE CONCEPT PLAN THAT YOU REFERENCED FROM THE 1970S BEEN PROVIDED TO THE STAFF? IT MAYBE INDICATES THAT THIS PROPERTY WAS SUITABLE FOR DEVELOPMENT UNDER, YOU KNOW, THE CITY'S CODE AT THE TIME.
UM, I HAVE SEEN, UH, THAT REPORT, I ASSUME THE CITY'S, UH, SEEN THAT REPORT ALSO.
IT WASN'T A REPORT, IT WAS A RESOLUTION.
AND UNDER THAT RESOLUTION, THE CONCEPT WAS BUILD CLOSE TO THE STREET AND DEDICATE YOUR STEEPER SLOPES, UH, IN THE BACKYARD AS A CONSERVATION AND NATURAL, UM, EASEMENT.
UH, SO A NO BUILD EASEMENT THAT, THAT WAS THE CONCEPT BACK THEN.
BUT ALL THE HOMES IN EITHER SIDE OF THIS WERE BUILT IN A CONVENTIONAL WAY.
AND WOULD YOU WITH, WITH GRADING AND SLAB ON GRADE.
BUT WE'RE, WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE DOING ANY GRADING.
WE'RE NOT GONNA BE DOING ANY FILLING.
WOULD YOU QUALIFY THE SLOPES ON THE PROPERTY TO BE CONSISTENT WITH AREAS THAT SHOULD BE DEVELOPED OR AREAS THAT SHOULD BE DEDICATED TOWARDS CONSERVATION? CAN YOU SAY
[00:45:01]
THAT AGAIN? I DIDN'T QUITE HEAR.WOULD YOU QUALIFY THE SLOPES THAT EXIST ON THIS SPECIFIC PIECE OF PROPERTY TO BE MORE SUITABLE FOR DEVELOPMENT OR MORE SUITABLE FOR CONSERVATION BASED OFF OF THAT RESOLUTION THAT WAS PASSED IN THE SEVENTIES? WELL, IF IT WAS BUILT UNDER THAT, MY, MY GUESS IS THE, THE LAST LOT OR TWO MAY HAVE BEEN CONFIGURED A LITTLE DIFFERENTLY MM-HMM
SO THERE WAS A LITTLE MORE SITE AREA IN THE 40 TO 50% SLOPE INSTEAD OF THE 55 TO 70% SLOPE.
UM, YOU KNOW, YOU'D ALWAYS WANNA STEER TOWARDS THE, THE LESS STEEP SLOPES, BUT AFTER YOU, I MEAN, IF, IF YOU GOT A 40, 50% SLOPE OR A 70% SLOPE, IT REALLY DOESN'T MATTER IF YOU'RE BUILDING ON PIERS WITH, ON A, ON A PLATFORM.
I MEAN, I'M, I AM CONFIDENT IN, YOU KNOW, THE APPLICANT'S ABILITY TO ENGINEER AROUND THE ISSUES THAT EXIST ON THIS SITE.
BUT I THINK THE UNDERLYING ISSUE IS THAT, YOU KNOW, LIKE IS, IS THE CODE VARIANCES AND THAT THAT'S WHAT WE'RE HERE TO TALK ABOUT TONIGHT.
UM, YOU KNOW, THESE VARIANCES AREN'T SPECIFIC TO THIS SITE.
THIS, THESE, THESE CODES OR THESE, YOU KNOW, CODES ARE NOT SPECIFIC TO THIS SITE.
IT APPLIES ACROSS THE ENTIRE CITY.
AND SO, YOU KNOW, DOES, YOU KNOW, GRANTING THIS VARIANCE FOR THIS SPECIFIC SITE THEN TRANSLATE TO, OKAY, WELL WHAT OTHER PROPERTIES, YOU KNOW, ACROSS THE CITY COULD POTENTIALLY BE UNBLOCKED BY, YOU KNOW, REQUESTING OF VARIANCES AND SAYING, YOU KNOW, WE'LL ENGINEER A SOLUTION AROUND THE CONCERNS THAT, YOU KNOW, THE CITY HAS AROUND THESE SPECIFIC CODE MODIFICATIONS.
BUT THAT, THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.
I WOULD SAY IN THIS RATHER AFFLUENT NEIGHBORHOOD, THERE AREN'T ANY UN HARDLY ANY UNDEVELOPED LOTS LEFT.
I, I DON'T KNOW OF ONE, I THINK THIS IS THE ONLY ONE ON FAR WEST.
I'M NOT SURE IF THERE ARE ANY LEFT ON CAT MOUNTAIN.
I THINK THERE ARE A COUPLE UNDEVELOPED LOTS, BUT THERE ARE ALREADY PLATTED, UM, IN OTHER PARTS OF THE CITY.
UM, I, YOU KNOW, IT, IT MAY BE TOO, UH, DEPENDING UPON THE, THE, THE, YOU KNOW, THE, THE COST OF THE LAND, YOU, YOU MAY NOT BE ABLE TO GO TO THESE CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES, WHICH ARE EXPENSIVE.
SO I THINK THAT'S GONNA BE A GOVERNING FACTOR ALSO, BUT IT'S NOT GONNA HAVE ANY OTHER IMPACT ON, ON THIS PART OF TOWN.
THAT'S ALL THE QUESTIONS I HAD.
SO, UM, YOU DESCRIBED EIGHT PIERS THAT ARE FOUR FEET BY FOUR FEET.
HOW DEEP WILL THESE PIERS BE? HOW, HOW DO WE WHAT DEEP, DEEP, HOW DEEP, HOW, HOW, HOW DEEP WILL THEY YEAH, YEAH.
UM, YEAH, BASICALLY WE ARE TRYING TO MINIMIZE THE DISTURBANCE ON THE GROUND.
SO WE DECIDED TO PUT EIGHT CONCRETE PIERS, WHICH GOING TO BE APPROXIMATELY 30 INCHES DIAMETER.
AND THE FOUNDATION ON THAT ONE IS GOING TO BE FOUR BY FOUR, AT LEAST THREE FEET INTO THE GROUND TO STABILIZE THE SOIL.
SO BASICALLY THE DISTURBANCE ON THE GROUND IS LIKE FOUR BY FOUR AND THREE FEET DEEP, AND WE ARE GOING TO MAKE IT ON EIGHT LOCATIONS.
AND AFTER THAT, WHEN THE PEERS GOES ABOVE, THERE IS NOT MUCH DISTURBANCE ON THE GROUND.
AND LET ME EXPLAIN A LITTLE BIT MORE.
ONE OF THE STAFF CONCERN IS ABOUT THE DETENTION POND.
HE BUILDING THE DETENTION POND IN THE DRIVEWAY, WHICH ALREADY ADDRESSED THE COMMENT FROM THE CITY STAFF.
AND REGARDING THE WATER QUALITY, WE ALREADY MEETING THE CITY REQUIREMENT AND WE ALREADY CLEARED THAT COMMENT DURING THE SUBDIVISION.
AND REGARDING THE EROSION Q HUNDRED IS 0.72 CFS, AND THE VELOCITY ON THIS ONE IS 0.45, WHICH IS NOTHING.
AND WE CAN ADDRESS THOSE COMMENT DURING THE DRAINAGE AND THE WATER QUALITY.
SO ALL THOSE COMMENTS ARE ALREADY ADDRESSED, SO WE ARE NOT REQUESTING ANY VARIANCE.
AND REGARDING THE CONCENTRATED SHEET FLOW, THE VELOCITY IS 0.45.
SO WE ARE RESUMING THAT THERE'S A CONCENTRATED SHEET FLOW, AND WE ARE ALSO PROVIDING A BERM, WHICH IS SIX FEET WIDE.
AND REGARDING THE EXISTING 24 INCHES STRONG PIPE, THAT ONE IS RIGHT ON THE EDGE OF OUR PROPERTY AND BASICALLY IS DISCHARGES ON SOMEBODY ELSE AND ENTERS IN.
YEAH, BASICALLY I'M EXPLAINING REALLY BEFORE THIS PRETTY
[00:50:01]
MUCH.SO BACK TO THE PIERS THAT THREE FEET INTO THE GROUND DOESN'T SOUND LIKE MUCH, BUT THEY'RE LIKE YOU SAID, FOUR FEET BY FOUR FEET AND THERE'S EIGHT OF THEM.
AND YOU DESCRIBED THIS AS DIGGING THEM BY HAND.
WHAT DOES THAT MEAN BY HAND
NO, USUALLY THEY USE THOSE MANUAL TOOLS TO DIG THE FOOTING AND THE PICTURES WE SHOWED ON THE OTHER, THE HOUSE WE BUILT, THAT HOUSE IS ALSO STEEP.
SO WE DIG MANUAL DIGGING AND ALL OF THE MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT IT SITS IN THE STREET AND THERE IS NO EQUIPMENT INSIDE THE PROPERTY.
AND THERE WAS NO NEED AFTER THAT FOR PEOPLE TO BE STANDING ON THE GROUND TO BUILD THE PLATFORM OR TO BUILD.
WELL, THE MAIN THING IS JUST ONCE YOU POUR THE FOUNDATION AND YOU PUT THE PIERS ON THE GROUND, WHICH IS LIKE 20, 30 FEET TALL, EVERYTHING IS SUSPENDED IN THE AIR AND THAT'S HOW THEY'RE GOING TO WORK FROM OUTSIDE WITH THE CRANE, PUT THE STEEL BEAM AND PUT THE DECK ON IT.
SO ONCE THAT THING IS DONE, THERE IS NO DISTURBANCE ON THE GROUND AND THE BEAMS ARE TIED TOGETHER TO KEEP THEM FROM MOVING.
ONCE THAT'S DONE, YEAH, THERE'S NO MORE.
ONCE THE FOOTING IS DONE, WORK ON THE GROUND AND THE BE GOES UP AND THE STEEL BEAM IS GOING TIE FROM THE CRANE AND EVERYBODY'S WORKING ON THE, IN THE AREA.
AND THEN THAT OTHER HOUSE THAT WE WERE SHOWN THAT WAS INSIDE THE CITY OF AUSTIN, DID IT REQUIRE A VARI? THIS IS A QUESTION FOR STAFF.
WELL, I CAN ANSWER THAT ONE BECAUSE THAT KNOT IS ALREADY PLATTED, SO WE DON'T NEED TO ASK FOR ANY VARIANCE ON THE STEEP SLOPE.
WHY NOT? SO I'D REALLY RATHER HEAR FROM STAFF MIKE MCDOUGALL DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT.
UH, SO WHEN A UH, SUBDIVISION APPLICATION COMES INTO THE CITY, UH, MY TEAM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW WILL LOOK AT THE LOT TO SEE IF IT COMPLIES WITH ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS.
AND SO SINCE THIS LOT HAS ALMOST NO, UM, SLOPES BELOW 15%, IT WOULD NEED A VARIANCE TO, FOR THE LOT TO BE FLATTED, THAT IS THE LOT TO BE CREATED BECAUSE WE KNOW THERE WILL BE CONSTRUCTION ON STEEP SLOPES.
ON THE OTHER HAND, IF THIS HAD BEEN FLATTED, SAY THAT THAT OTHER LOT HAD IT, IF IT HAD BEEN FLATTED, SAY 1950 FOR EXAMPLE, IT WOULD'VE COME IN BEFORE THE STEEP SLOPES REGULATIONS EXISTED.
THEN WHEN THE HOME IS BUILT, IT IS NOT RE-REVIEWED FOR CONSTRUCTION AND SLOPES COMPLIANCE.
IT'S ONLY REVIEWED FOR THESE ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE SLOPES REQUIREMENTS DURING THE PLATTING STAGE.
SO IF SOMETHING'S ALREADY PLATTED, IT NEVER WOULD COME ACROSS MY TEAM'S DESK AND IT WOULD NOT BE REVIEWED FOR THE SLOPES CONCEPT.
SO, SO IT'S REALLY, UH, IT MATTERS WHEN THIS IS PLATTED HAD THIS PROPERTY THEN PLATTED WITH ALL THE OTHER PROPERTIES, UH, MY TEAM WOULD NEVER HAVE SEEN IT BECAUSE WE WOULD JUST GO TO RESIDENTIAL REVIEW AND THEY APPLY THE ZONING REQUIREMENTS, BUT NOT ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS BECAUSE THOSE ARE CONSIDERED TO BE DONE DURING THE PLATTING STAGE.
SHOULD EVEN THEN, ISN'T THERE A REASON THIS PARTICULAR LOT DIDN'T GET PLATTED? WE DON'T KNOW.
I MEAN, IT SEEMS LIKE IT, IF YOU GO AND LOOK AT IT, THERE'S NOTHING IN THE RECORD THAT WOULD INDICATE WHY IT WASN'T PLA I'VE ASKED THE SAME QUESTION THAT THERE'S NO REC NO INDICATION AS TO WHY, BUT I MEAN, IT'S CURIOUS.
THE BEST, THE MOST THAT WE KNOW IS THAT WAS PLANNED TO BE DEVELOPED, RIGHT? BUT THEY NEVER GOT AROUND TO PLANNING IT, PLATTING IT BEFORE THE NEW REGULATIONS TOOK PLACE.
BACK THEN THEY WERE PLATING 'EM ON A LOT BY LOT BASIS.
IT COULD BE THAT THIS WAS TOO EXPENSIVE TO PLA BACK IN THE SEVENTIES AND BUILD ON, BUT NOW IT'S NOT, I MEAN IT'S, IT'S CURIOUS TO THINK ABOUT IT FROM A PERSPECTIVE OF IF THIS HAD BEEN PLATTED IN THE SEVENTIES AND BUILT, IT WOULD'VE BEEN BUILT SLAB ON GRADE AND THEY WOULD'VE JUST COME IN AND BULLDOZED THIS EMBANKMENT DOWN AND WE'D HAVE THE SAME THING YOU HAVE UP AND DOWN THIS STREET.
NOW WE'RE DOING SUPERIOR DEVELOPMENT, SO WE'RE DOING, GETTING A MUCH BETTER IN SOLUTION, A MUCH BETTER CONSTRUCTABILITY BECAUSE OF HAVING TO GO THROUGH THE VARIANCE PROCESS, UM, THAN WHAT WOULD'VE DONE IF THEY'D HAVE SIMPLY PLATTED IT BACK IN THE SEVENTIES.
BUT THOSE OTHER LOTS HAVE SOME FLAT PARTS CLOSE TO THE STREET IN THIS ONE.
THEY MADE SOME FLAT PARTS YEAH.
BUT I, I JUST, YOU KNOW, LIKE, UH, I GREW UP IN KATY, TEXAS AND I SAW THEM JUST, THEY WOULD, THEY WOULD JUST COME IN, IT WAS UNINCORPORATED TERRITORY.
THEY WOULD WIPE EVERYTHING OUT AND THEY WOULD BUILD WHATEVER THEY WANTED THERE.
THAT'S JUST, THAT'S JUST THE WAY THEY DID IT BOTH BACK THEN AND UNINCORPORATED PLACES.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE TOPO TODAY THAT THEY, THEY APPEARED TO BE ALL ON FLAT SURFACE.
THE QUESTION IS, WAS IT, OR FLATTER, I MEAN, WAS IT FLATTER IN 70 WHEN THEY BUILT THE HOMES OR WAS IT JUST LIKE THIS AND THEY SIMPLY ADDED FILL TO, TO MAKE IT FLAT TO BUILD ON AND NOBODY, IT'S COVERED A LOT OF FILL TO IMAGINE ON THIS LOT.
OH, THERE'S A LOT OF FILL BEING PUT ON A LOT.
I MEAN, THAT'S NOT UNUSUAL AND THAT'D BE ANOTHER VARIANCE.
SO IT, I MEAN THIS IS UNUSUAL TO ME BECAUSE THERE WAS A PREVIOUS CITY OF AUSTIN AGREEMENT THAT SAYS YOU CAN DO THIS, AND IT SIMPLY NEVER GOT PLATTED.
UM, DON'T KNOW WHY, BUT IT NEVER GOT PLATTED.
AND THE RULES HAVE CHANGED SINCE THAT ORIGINAL AGREEMENT.
UM, AND TO ME THAT WARRANTS THIS BEING TREATED A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENTLY.
[00:55:02]
GO AHEAD.UM, ONE QUESTION FOR GENTLEMEN, UH, FROM FAIR, SORRY, I FORGOT YOUR NAME.
I IF YOU'RE VERY GOOD, YOU'RE VERY GOOD ABOUT REPEATING YOUR NAME LIKE THAT, THAT MAKES SURE IT GETS STUCK RIGHT HERE EVERY TIME THEY HAVE TO
UH, I LIKE TO THINK THAT THEY JUST LIKE TO DO IT, YOU KNOW, IT JUST FOR THE BENEFIT OF US INSTEAD OF LEGALLY REQUIRED.
SO IN PUBLIC POLICY, YOU'RE SORT OF CONSTANTLY HAVE TO THINK ABOUT, THAT'S SOMETHING I THINK IT'S WORTHWHILE FOR US TO ALL ACCEPT IS THAT, UH, YOU HAVE TO EMBRACE THE TRADE OFFS, RIGHT? THERE'S NO EASY DECISIONS.
UM, YOU CAN THINK, I THINK I THINK ABOUT LOT, A LOT ABOUT THIS IN TERMS OF COVID, RIGHT? UH, CHINA HAD A VERY AGGRESSIVE ZERO COVID POLICY TO TRY TO GET THE DISEASE UNDER CONTROL.
AND THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, YOU HAD SAW A LOT OF FAMILIES, THERE'S A LOT OF OTHER ISSUES.
DIFFERENT STATES IN AMERICA HAD DIFFERENT POLICIES THAT, YOU KNOW, HAD DIFFERENT TRADEOFFS THERE.
SO YOU MENTIONED THAT, UH, FOR, IF WE GO EVEN WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION, UH, RECOMMENDATIONS OR REQUIREMENTS, AND WITH THE DESIGN, THERE IS A POTENTIAL FOR RUNOFF AS A POTENTIAL FOR THIS.
HOW CAN YOU QUANTIFY OR, OR KIND OF ADD A LITTLE BIT MORE GRANULARITY ON WHAT EXACTLY IS THE POTENTIAL THERE? IS THIS A HIGH RISK THING? IS THIS A LOW RISK THING? LIKE, BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, THEORETICALLY IT WOULD BE SAFEST OR MOST ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY IF WE NEVER BUILT ANYTHING, EVER, RIGHT? THAT WOULD BE THE MOST, THE MOST ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY THING IS, YOU KNOW, YOU WIPE OUT ALL OF HUMANITY.
YOU NEVER DEVELOP ANYTHING AND THEN VERY CLEAN WATER IN THAT SCENARIO.
BUT WE, I I'M VERY AGAINST THE MURDER OF HUMANS.
I LIKE WHEN PEOPLE HAVE HOUSES.
I HAVE A VERY CONTROVERSIAL TAKES ON THESE MATTERS.
AND SO WHAT I WANT TO KNOW IS WHAT IS THE TRADE OFF HERE AND WHAT ARE THE SACRIFICES AND RISKS WE'RE TAKING? WHAT ARE THE, WHAT, WHAT'S WORTH TAKING? WHAT ISN'T WORTH TAKING? UH, JOHN CLEMENT WATERSHED PROTECTION,
AND, UM, SO I THINK, UH, AGAIN, AS MAC WAS SAYING EARLIER, YOU KNOW, WE GO BY CODE AND WE INTERPRET CODE AND IF IT DOESN'T MEET CODE, WE HAVE THE VARIANCE PROCESS.
AND SOME OF THOSE BROADER QUESTIONS THEN ARE BROUGHT TO A PUBLIC FORUM LIKE YOURSELVES TO, UH, WORK OUT THOSE GRAY AREAS.
AND I THINK LIZ HAS SOMETHING TO SAY AS WELL.
HI, LIZ JOHNSTON, ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER.
THAT'S A REALLY GOOD QUESTION.
WE DO, UH, YOU KNOW, WORK WITH, WITH FOLKS, IT'S VERY RARE THAT YOU WILL SEE AN ENVIRONMENTAL VARIANCE COME BEFORE YOU THAT DOES NOT HAVE STAFF SUPPORT.
UM, ORIGINALLY WE, YOU KNOW, WHEN, UH, MR. ARIAN CAME TO TALK TO US, YOU KNOW, I WAS VERY INTERESTED IN, YOU KNOW, SEEING WHAT HE WOULD PROPOSE IN ORDER TO MITIGATE SOME OF THE IMPACTS.
UM, WE DO BASE OUR RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND, YOU KNOW, WE DO IN OUR ESTIMATION, LOOK AT THOSE AS, UH, DISPASSIONATELY AS WE CAN, BUT ALSO WITH AS MUCH FAIRNESS AS WE CAN.
AND WE DO THINK THAT SOME OF THOSE FINDINGS YOU CAN SAY YES TO, THE ONE THAT WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT IS THE SIGNIFICANT LIKELIHOOD OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCE.
SO I ALSO VISITED THE SITE, YOU KNOW, IF THIS WERE A 40, 30, 40, 50% SLOPE, I THINK IT WOULD'VE BEEN A LITTLE DIFFERENT WHEN I VISITED THE SITE.
THE LAND JUST DROPS BENEATH YOUR FEET.
YOU CAN'T EVEN SEE, YOU KNOW, WHERE THE PIERS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE.
IT WAS TOO, YOU KNOW, UH, DANGEROUS FOR ME TO WALK DOWN THE SLOPE.
UM, SO AT A CERTAIN POINT YOU THINK, YOU KNOW, WHAT ARE, WHAT IS THE REASON FOR THE CODE? THE CODE IS THERE TO PROTECT SLOPES.
IT'S TO PROTECT NATURAL CHARACTER.
IT'S TO PROTECT, UH, SLOPE FAILURE.
IT'S SUPPOSED TO, YOU KNOW, UM, PRESERVE SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL, UM, FEATURES.
THIS IS A SLOPE THAT I THINK THAT THE CODE IT'S INTENDED TO PROTECT.
UM, SO YOU KNOW, THAT THAT IS KIND OF THE, THE LARGER CONTEXT.
UM, YOU KNOW, WE WOULDN'T SAY THIS WITH EVERY SITE.
THIS PARTICULAR SITE IS JUST REALLY, REALLY STEEP.
CAN YOU CLARIFY SOMETHING AND CORRECT MY IGNORANCE POTENTIALLY IS, 'CAUSE I'VE HEARD A COUPLE DIFFERENT THINGS.
IS THE, IS THE, WHAT IS THE CODE MEANT FOR? LIKE, I THOUGHT THE CODE WAS MEANT FOR HEALTH AND HUMAN SAFETY.
IT IS ESSENTIALLY THE, THE CODE IS IN THE, UH, THE WATER QUALITY SECTION OF THE CODE.
SO IT'S REALLY, IT IS EROSION, IT'S WATER QUALITY, IT'S PRESERVING, UM, OUR NATURAL FEATURES.
BUT WHAT YOU, WELL, THOSE, THOSE ARE NOT THE SAME THING, RIGHT? SO LIKE NATURAL QUALITY AND SLOPE PRESERVATION IS NOT THE SAME THING AS LIKE HEALTH AND HUMAN SAFETY.
NOW THEY MAY BE RELATED, BUT LIKE IF I TAKE A COUPLE GRAINS OF, OF POUNDS OF THE GROUND THERE, YOU DON'T NECESSARILY ONE TO ONE SEE THAT WITH, AT THESE, LIKE, YOU, YOU, HOW MUCH OF THE CONCERN HERE IS ABOUT THE SORT OF THE NATURAL CHARACTER AND HOW MUCH OF THE CONCERN HERE IS ABOUT THINGS THAT ARE SORT OF DIRECTLY IMPACTING HEALTH AND HUMAN SAFETY? WELL, I GUESS IT DEPENDS ON WHETHER YOU THINK WATER QUALITY IS HEALTH AND HUMAN SAFETY.
SO IT IS IN THE WATER QUALITY SECTION WHERE, UH, UM, YOU KNOW, IT IS INTENDED TO PRESERVE THE WATER QUALITY
[01:00:01]
BY WAY OF PRESERVING THE SLOPE AND KEEPING IT INTACT AND KEEPING IT FROM ERODING AWAY.LET ME AGAIN, I'M GONNA TRY TO, I'M TRYING TO FIND A WAY TO, TO WORK THIS BECAUSE OF THE, THE PREVIOUS AGREEMENT.
IF
UM, IF THE LEGISLATURE CAME IN AND TOOK AWAY THE CITY'S ABILITY TO ENFORCE CERTAIN ASPECTS, UM, AND THEY WERE ABLE TO COME OUT THERE AND BUILD THIS THE SAME WAY EVERY OTHER NEIGHBOR, EVERY OTHER HOME IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD WAS BUILT, WOULD THAT BE A BIGGER IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT THAN THE WAY THESE GUYS ARE PLANNING TO DEVELOP? CERTAINLY.
I, I'M NOT SAYING ANYBODY'S GONNA COME DOWN AND DO THAT, BUT IF THERE IS A LAWSUIT AND THE CITY SAID YES, YOU CAN BUILD THIS HOME, AND THEN YEARS LATER SAID, HEY, WE CHANGED OUR MIND.
WE'RE NOT GONNA LET YOU DO IT.
SOMEBODY BOUGHT THE LAND, THEY INVESTED IN IT KNOWING THAT THIS WAS A, AN AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY THAT SAYS YOU COULD DO THIS THERE'S A LOT OF WORSE WAYS TO BUILD THIS THAN THE WAY THESE GUYS ARE PLANNING TO DO IT.
AND IF IT'S GONNA BE BUILT ON, I'D RATHER SEE THESE GUYS BUILD IT THIS WAY THAN SOMEBODY COME IN WITHOUT THE REGULATIONS AND JUST GO OUT AND TEAR THE SLOPE UP AND BUILD IT.
IF IT HAS TO BE DONE, THESE GUYS ARE DOING IT THE RIGHT WAY.
THE QUESTION IS, DOES IT HAVE TO BE DONE? UM, AND I, I'D RATHER HAVE IT DONE THIS WAY THAN HAVE A COURT DECIDE, GO AHEAD AND BUILD IT HOW YOU WANT TO
UH, WHICH WOULD BE A LOT WORSE.
UM, I'M NOT SAYING THAT WOULD OR COULD HAPPEN, BUT, UM, THAT'S, I MEAN, OR WHAT I'M TRYING TO WEIGH ARE THOSE TWO, TWO ENDS OF THE, OR THIS DEVELOPER, ANOTHER DEVELOPER GOES TO THE STATE, LEDGE GOES CITY OF AUSTIN.
IT'S TAKING PEOPLE'S PROPERTY, IT'S DOING ALL OF THIS.
AND THEN WE GO BACK TO THE AIRBNB CASE WHERE WE TRY TO BE TOO AGGRESSIVE WITH ONE GUY.
OH, NOW WE CAN'T REGULATE AIRBNBS AT ALL, BASICALLY.
YOU KNOW, THAT, THAT IS THE OTHER CONSIDERATION'S.
A TEMPTATION FOR A SLIPPERY SLOPE PUNT HERE THAT I JUST CAN'T RESIST.
THE IMPLICATION'S MORE FUN THAN THE ACTUAL WORDING.
UM, I THINK EVERYBODY'S MADE A LOT OF GOOD POINTS HERE.
UM, I APPRECIATE THE QUESTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN ASKED.
I'M, I'M CURIOUS IF YOU CAN MOVE THIS TOWARDS A MOTION.
YEAH, I, I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANY MORE FACTS TO DISCOVER.
I WAS GONNA ASK THE SAME QUESTION.
DOES ANYBODY HAVE A MOTION I MOVE TO PROVE, UH, THAT ZONING VARIANCE WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION'S, UH, UH, RECOMMENDATIONS OR REQUIREMENTS, UH, CONDITIONING ON THE APPROVAL OF THE ZONING AND PLATTING COMMISSION? SO IT'S THE FIVE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS AND THE FIVE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS? PRECISELY.
UM, SEEMS LIKE THERE WAS SOMETHING ELSE THAT CAME UP DURING OUR DISCUSSION ABOUT ANOTHER POSSIBLE THING WE WANTED TO ADD IN, BUT I'M DRAWING A BLANK ON WHAT THAT WAS.
IF WE, THE ONLY THING THAT CAME TO MIND WOULD BE POTENTIALLY DOING A BORING UROLOGICAL STUDY, BUT I DON'T, I'M NOT A GEOLOGIST.
I MEAN, I'LL TAKE A FEW NOTES.
I, I, OH, THIS IS YOUR MOMENT.
I'M THE STAFF SCIENTIST UNDER JOHN AND LIZ, I'M A HYDROGEOLOGIST FOR WATERSHED.
THE PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL REPORT THAT THEY PROVIDED IS BASED ON SURFACE LEVEL OBSERVATIONS.
UM, TO GET INTO THE ACTUAL CONSTRUCTABILITY AND PERMITTING OF ALL OF THIS, THEY ARE GONNA HAVE TO DO BORINGS, THE BORINGS, THE, UM, IF IT'S STABLE ROCK, WHICH IT MAY NOT BE, AND THEY MAY HAVE TO GO EVEN DEEPER BECAUSE OF THE JUST GEOLOGY OF THIS PARTICULAR SITE IN, UH, ADDITION TO, YOU KNOW, THE, THE OVERALL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ROCK ARE, IT, IT COULD BE VERY DIFFERENT.
UM, BUT I THINK THAT WHAT THEY ARE PROPOSING TO DO IS THE BEST POSSIBLE WAY TO DO IT.
BUT WE DON'T KNOW EXACTLY THE EXTENT OF HOW IMPACTFUL ANY OF THIS STUFF IS GOING TO BE BECAUSE WE JUST HAVE A PRELIMINARY REPORT.
I ALSO THINK THAT IT'S KIND OF GOING, UM, LOOKING AT IT WITH ROSE COLORED GLASSES, THINKING THAT THE INSULATION OF THIS BURN THAT'S GONNA BE DOWN SLOPE, UM, THAT THE, UM, EXCAVATION FOR THESE PIERS IN THIS ROCK IS GOING TO BE DONE BY HAND.
I THINK THAT THAT IN AND OF ITSELF IS GOING TO BE VERY DISTURBING TO THE SLOPE, UH, WHICH COULD CAUSE ADDITIONAL
[01:05:01]
SLOPE INSTABILITY DOWN THE LINE.I MEAN, I, I THINK IN GEOLOGIC TIME, SO IT, IT IS, UH, SOMETIMES SKEWED, BUT WE, IT IS A VERY, VERY STEEP SLOPE.
I'VE BEEN OUT THERE, I'VE WALKED UP AND DOWN.
IT, IT IS GOING TO BE EXCEPTIONALLY CHALLENGING TO DO.
UM, BUT IF THEY ARE GOING TO DO IT, I THINK ALL OF THESE CONDITIONS ARE APPLICABLE AND, AND ARE THE BEST POSSIBLE SOLUTION.
I WOULD, I I AGREE AND I APPRECIATE YOU, YOU, YOU CHIMING IN WITH THAT.
UM, I THINK WHEN THEY DO THEIR GEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT, THEY'RE GONNA FIND OUT MORE INFORMATION WHEN THEY START DIGGING TEST BITS AND, AND THEY'RE GONNA, AND THEY CAN'T, ONE THING THEY CAN'T CHANGE IS THE CONDITIONS ABOUT THESE HAVE TO BE HAND UP.
AND IF THEY COME THROUGH AND DIG A TEST BIT AND IT SUDDENLY SAYS THAT THE P'S GOTTA BE 40 FEET DEEP, I'M FEELING ARE GONNA COME BACK AND SAY, NEVERMIND
UH, BUT THEY'RE NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO COME THERE AND SAY, WELL, WE, WE DID A TEST PIT, WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO GO 40 FEET DEEP NOW.
WE'RE GONNA BRING IN A DRILL RIG AND BRING ON THE LOP AND WE'RE GONNA, NO, YOU CAN'T.
YOU, YOU HAVE THE CONDITIONS IN THERE THAT YOU HAVE TO LIVE BY.
SO THE REPORT MAY SUPPORT WHAT THEY'RE DOING OR IT MAY SHUT THE PROJECT DOWN COMPLETELY, BUT I DON'T THINK IT'S GONNA CHANGE HOW THEY BUILD IT, HOW THEY BUILD IT.
WE, I, I THINK THE REASON THAT THIS IS THE LAST LOT TO BE PLOTTED IS FOR THE IMMENSE CHALLENGES THAT ARE GONNA COME WITH THE BUILDING.
SO, AND THEY WOULDN'T HAVE PUT THE MONEY INTO IT IN THE SEVENTIES THAT THEY'RE GONNA PUT INTO IT TODAY TO BUILD THIS
BUT HOME VALUES ARE, ARE THERE? OKAY.
I AM VERY UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THIS.
I HAVE SEEN THE SLOPE FAILURES ALONG SHOAL CREEK.
SURELY THEY DID SOME GEO WHATEVER, WHATEVER KIND OF TESTING TO ASSURE THAT THEY WERE BUILDING THIS PROPER, THOSE STRUCTURES PROPERLY.
AND STILL THOSE SLOPE FAILURES HAPPEN AND THEY'RE HAPPENING IN A, A AREA THAT'S NOT AS STEEP AS THIS.
SO I HAVE A LOT OF CONCERNS WITH THIS.
THE STAFF HAS BEEN CLEAR THAT THEY DON'T RECOMMEND THIS, AND I DON'T RECALL EVER SEEING A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION THAT WAS UNANIMOUSLY OPPOSED TO AN ENVIRONMENTAL VARIANCE.
SO I THINK WE SHOULD RESPECT OUR STAFF.
WE SHOULD RESPECT OUR ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION.
WE SHOULD RESPECT OUR CURRENT LAWS AND, UM, NOT, NOT APPROVE THIS.
ANYTHING ELSE? WE, WE CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING.
I JUST SAY I PREFER TO ABSTAIN FROM THIS ONE.
THERE'S NO ONE WAY TO GO, ONE RIGHT WAY TO GO ON HERE.
AND FOR THAT REASON I'M ABSTAINING.
I HEAR BOTH SIDES VERY CLEARLY, BUT I CAN'T QUITE, UH, GET BEHIND IT.
ANYTHING ELSE? IF NOT, WE'LL PUT IT TO A VOTE.
YEAH, I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT, UM, REGULATIONS CHANGE OVER 40 YEARS TIME.
I DON'T THINK THAT'S, YOU KNOW, UNUSUAL.
UM, I'M PRETTY SURE THERE ARE THINGS THAT WE CONSIDER A STANDARD NOW THAT IN 1986 WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN.
AND IF WE WENT BACK TO THE CODE OF 1946, THEY MAY NOT HAVE ALLOWED THE TENANTS WHO ARE PLANNING TO BUY THIS PROPERTY TO MOVE IN THERE.
SO, UM, I THINK THAT'S A RED HERRING.
UM, I DO THINK THAT THIS IS A LOT OF DISCUSSION FOR ONE SINGLE FAMILY HOME.
AND IF WE'RE IN A HOUSING CRISIS, WE SHOULD BE SPENDING OUR TIME ON MULTIFAMILY.
UH, AND FURTHER THE PURPOSE OF BUILDING MORE DENSELY IN THE CITY IS SO WE DON'T HAVE TO DO PROJECTS LIKE THIS ONE.
SO JUST GONNA PUT IT UP THERE.
AND I THINK WE'RE GONNA SEE MORE AND MORE PROJECTS LIKE THIS.
'CAUSE THERE IS NO MASTER PLAN COMMUNITIES COMING INTO THE CITY OF AUSTIN ANYMORE.
UH, I THINK THOSE, THE DAYS OF SEEING A 2000 ACRE TRACT LAND COME IN FOR DEVELOPMENT ARE GONE.
UM, SO YOU'RE GONNA SEE MORE AND MORE PROJECTS AND THE EASY ONES HAVE ALL BEEN DONE.
UM, WHAT YOU'RE LEFT WITH IS THE ONES THAT ARE DIFFICULT AND HARD AND WE GOTTA FIND A GOOD WAY TO DO THAT.
I THINK WE'VE DONE A LOT OF WORK.
MAKE SURE WE HAVE A GOOD WAY OF DOING THIS ONE IF, DEPENDING ON HOW THE VOTE GOES.
ANYTHING ELSE? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY, AYE.
ALL THOSE OPPOSED, 1, 2, 3, 4 OPPOSED AND ABSTAINS.
NO, IT, NO, YOU HAVE TO HAVE A, YOU HAVE TO, IT FAILS.
[01:10:01]
THAT APOLOGIZE, DEADLOCK IS THAT TECHNICAL TERM.YEAH, WELL DEADLOCK MEANS SOMETHING DIFFERENT.
IS THERE ANY OTHER MOTIONS? I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE POSTPONE AND JUST GIVE A LITTLE BIT MORE TIME.
IF THE APPLICANT CAN COME UP WITH SOMETHING THAT, UH, STAFF ARE HAPPY WITH.
I THINK I'D BE WILLING TO ENTERTAIN THAT.
YOU CAN POSTPONE AFTER YOU'VE, WELL YOU, THE MOTION FAILED.
YOU CAN POSTPONE INDEFINITELY.
I'M GONNA SEE IF THERE'S AN, THERE'S NOT AN ATTORNEY HERE, UM, BESIDES THE APPLICANT.
OH, YOU DON'T MAKE IT COUNCIL AT THIS POINT IN TIME, IF THEY CHOOSE, IT SHOULD JUST MOVE FORWARD WITHOUT RECOMMENDATION.
UH, LIZ JOHNSON, ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICE FOR WATERSHED, THERE IS ACTUALLY NOT AN ESTABLISHED APPEAL PROCESS FOR, UH, ENVIRONMENTAL VARIANCES.
SO THE ZONING OR PLANNING OR PLANNING COMMISSION MAKES THE FINAL DECISION.
THEY COULD COME BACK AFTER A YEAR, UH, TO REPEAT THE REQUEST.
SO IF SO WE COULD, LET ME ASK THE QUESTION BECAUSE I'M MY ROBERTS RULES OF ORDERS, COULD WE MAKE A MOTION TO POSTPONE THIS FOR A MONTH AND HAVE THEM WORK WITH STAFF TO SEE IF THEY COULDN'T COME TO COME CONCLUSION ON SOMETHING? I MEAN AS FAR AS ROBERT'S RULES GO, I THINK YOU COULD.
I'M NOT SURE WHAT MORE, WE'VE HAD MANY MONTHS OF DISCUSSION.
UM, BUT YOU KNOW, WE COULD KEEP TALKING.
THAT WAS KIND OF, I THINK WHAT YOU WERE GETTING AT YOUR MOTION IS POSTPONE THIS FOR A PERIOD OF TIME TO SEE IF THEY CAN WORK SOMETHING OUT WITH STAFF.
AND IF STAFF TO BRING IT BACK WITH A CONSENT ITEM, THEN WE WOULD CERTAINLY ENTERTAIN THAT.
BUT, OR SHE SAID THIS CAN COME BACK IN A YEAR, WHICH GIVES THEM PLENTY OF TIME TO DO, SHALL WE SAY, DEEPER GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS.
IS THERE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT YOU THINK, BASED OFF OF THE DISCUSSION THAT YOU'VE HEARD TO TONIGHT THAT YOU COULD BRING TO US THAT WOULD POTENTIALLY CHANGE? YOU KNOW, OUR OPINIONS WHEN WE DO THE GEOTECH, UM, YOU KNOW, INVESTIGATION WITH THE POTHOLES, THAT WILL BE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT WILL DETERMINE HOW STABLE THE ROCK IS, WHICH WE THINK IS PRETTY STABLE AND HOW DEEP IT WOULD HAVE TO GO.
SO WOULD IT BE YOUR PREFERENCE TO SEE THIS CASE BE POSTPONED OR MOVE FORWARD WITHOUT, WITHOUT A RECOMMENDATION TO COUNSEL? IT DOESN'T REALLY GO, IT WASN'T GO ANYMORE.
SO YEAH, GIVEN THOSE TWO CHOICES, WE WOULD TAKE POSTPONEMENT.
UM, IT'S GONNA TAKE YOU SOME TIME TO DO A GEOLOGICAL TEST.
WOULD 30 DAYS BE ENOUGH FOR 60 DAYS? AND THIS
AND I WAS A STRUCTURAL ENGINEER ON THAT ONE TOO.
AND I WAS CONTEMPLATING THE SAME CONCEPT ON THIS ONE.
AND REGARDING THE CONCERN THE STAFF HAS REGARDING THE STABILITY, THE GEOTECH GUY ALREADY GIVE RECOMMENDATION.
GLOBAL STABILITY IS NOT A CONCERN.
AND AS A STRUCTURAL ENGINEER, I CAN SHOW YOU, ONCE YOU PUT THE PIER DOWN INTO GROUND, IT'LL PROVIDE MORE SHEER RESISTANCE AND BETTER GLOBAL STABILITY.
SO I'M NOT WORRIED ABOUT THE GLOBAL STABILITY AND THAT'S WHAT WE ARE GOING WITH.
BECAUSE EFFECTIVELY ALL THE PEERS WILL BE TIED TOGETHER.
ALL THE DRILL HOLES WILL BE TIED TOGETHER.
WE ARE TIED TOGETHER SO NOTHING MOVES.
WHAT I DON'T WANNA DO IS GET IN A POSITION WHERE THE CITY OF AUSTIN'S TRYING TO APPROVE A GEOLOGICAL, A DESIGN OF THE FOUNDATION.
I WANT TO KIND OF PUT THAT ON THE SIDE.
IF THEY CAME BACK WITH A GEOLOGICAL REPORT THAT HAD ACTUAL IN THE GROUND TESTING, WOULD THAT CHANGE? COULD THAT CHANGE ANYTHING IN THE CITY'S MIND? I THINK IT WOULD ANSWER SOME QUESTIONS.
I THINK WE WOULD STILL BE CONCERNED ABOUT THE DESTABILIZATION OF THE SLOPE IN GENERAL.
BUT IF THEY'VE DONE AN ANALYSIS OF THE OVERALL SLIP STABILITY, BECAUSE THAT'S SOMETHING YOU CAN DO, YOU CAN MODEL THAT.
IF THEY ANSWERED THOSE TWO QUESTIONS, WOULD THAT HELP? I IT WOULD, IT WOULD HELP.
I'M NOT GONNA PUT YOU SAYING, YOU KNOW, THIS IS WHAT YOU WOULD DECIDE,
[01:15:01]
BUT THAT, THAT WOULD BE SOME MORE INFORMATION THAT WOULD HELP.BETSY, I ASSUME THEY WOULDN'T WANNA DO THIS, BUT GIVEN THEY'RE ALLOWED 232 SQUARE FEET OF IMPERVIOUS COVER, COULD THEY BUILD THE PIERS? JUST THE, I MEAN THE PILLARS OR WHATEVER THEY'RE CALLED WITH JUST THAT AMOUNT OF IMPERVIOUS COVER? I DON'T THINK SO.
THAT'S A, THAT'S A VERY SMALL AMOUNT.
60 AT LEAST 60 TO ONE 20 DAYS.
SO THERE WAS A MOTION TO POSTPONE IT FOR 120 DAYS.
I'LL MAKE THE MOTION TO POSTPONE IT FOR 120 DAYS.
UH, THE PUBLIC HEARING'S BEEN CLOSED AND I DON'T WANT TO COME BACK AND DISCUSS, REALLY HAVE ANOTHER PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS THING.
SO WE'VE KIND OF HASHED MOST OF IT OUT.
SO IT'S REALLY GONNA BE DOWN TO KIND OF WHAT DO THEY FIND FROM THE STRUCTURAL STANDPOINT AND THE OVERALL STABILITY AND THE ABILITY TO DESIGN THIS WITH THREE FOOT DEEP PIERCE BY HAND.
IT'S SIX MONTHS, YOU'RE SAYING 120 DAYS.
HOW QUICKLY I CAN DO, YOU DON'T WANNA HAVE TO DISCUSSION.
FOUR MONTHS LET GO WITH 60 OR 90 DAYS.
UH, I MEAN WE CAN HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING ON ANYTHING, BUT I'M SAYING WE'VE ALREADY KIND OF HASHED OUT.
WE'RE DOWN TO REALLY THIS LAST PART OF THE, OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST.
WE PRETTY MUCH HAVE TO ALLOW FOR DISCUSSION AND THE PUBLIC TO SPEAK AND THE STAFF TO SPEAK.
WHAT IS THE 120, UH, 90 DAY POSTPONEMENT? DO WE EVEN HAVE A SECOND FOR THAT MOTION? I THOUGHT YOU SAID I ALREADY SECONDED.
SO THAT DOES CARRY WITH THIS SIX THREE VOTE.
SO THE POSTPONEMENT FOR 90 DAYS.
[4. Discussion and action to appoint a member to serve on the Land Use Commissions Roles and Responsibilities Working Group.]
ACTION ITEMS. ITEM FOUR, DISCUSSION ACTION.TO APPOINT A MEMBER TO SERVE ON THE LAND USE COMMISSION ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES WORKING GROUP.
THIS IS ONE WHERE SOMEONE WAS STEPPING DOWN AND SOMEONE ELSE NEEDED TO STEP UP, I BELIEVE.
SO I, I'M STEPPING DOWN FOR, UH, FOR HEALTH REASONS.
SO IS THERE SOMEONE WHO WANTS TO BE APPOINTED TO THE LAND USE COMMISSION ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITY WORKING GROUP RIGHT NOW? THAT IS, UM, FOUTS MAJOR AND OLUGO OLUGO STEPPING DOWN.
SO IT'LL BE FOUTS MAJOR AND A PERSON YET TO BE DETERMINED.
SHOULD WE, I'M READING OFF OF HERE.
DON'T USE COMMISSION ROLES AND RESPONSIBLE WORKING GROUP P MAJOR OLUGO.
OH NO, YOU SAID THAT I WAS STEPPING DOWN.
SO WE HAVE FOUR ON THAT ONE, NOT JUST THREE HAD, YEAH, I I THOUGHT WE HAD THREE.
SO IS THERE ANOTHER PERSON THAT WANTS TO STEP INTO THAT OR DO WE MOVE FORWARD WITH JUST THREE? NOBODY'S RAISING THEIR HAND.
HOW MANY, HOW MANY MEMBERS DOES THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAVE? IS THIS THAT SAME? DOES ANYBODY KNOW HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE ON THERE FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION? I THOUGHT YOU SAID THEY DIDN'T WANNA LOOK AT THIS RIGHT NOW.
I WAS GONNA PROVIDE AN UPDATE ON THAT DURING, UH, I GUESS DO I PROVIDE AN UPDATE ON THAT HOUR LATER? YEAH, GO AHEAD.
SO, UM, SO WE HAVE A PRELIM PRELIMINARY DOCUMENT OUTLINING WHAT SORT OF REASONABLE SPLIT OR RESPONSIBILITIES WOULD BE.
AND I THINK WE CAN PUT TOGETHER A RESOLUTION THAT WE COULD, UH, REVIEW AND, AND POTENTIALLY VOTE ON FOR THE, THE FEBRUARY MEETING PLANNING COMMISSION.
UH, I THINK, I MEAN COULD REVIEW THAT DOCUMENT.
I THINK WHAT PLANNING COMMISSION WANTS TO DO ON ITS OWN, IT SAYS THEY WANT, UM, CREATE RECOMMENDATION OF ITS OF ITS OWN.
I THINK IT'S MUCH MORE, IT WANTS TO JUST KIND OF WAIT, YOU KNOW, AS OTHER THINGS ON ITS PLAY AND IT WANTS TO WAIT TO SEE WHAT THE CLERK'S OFFICE BRINGS BACK.
UM, JUST SEE BEFORE THEY SORT OF MAKE COMMENTS, I WOULD PERSONALLY WANT TO DO SOMETHING MORE PROACTIVE JUST TO START THE CONVERSATION EARLIER, JUST TO GET THINGS KICKED OFF, UM, AT THE RELEASE FIRST REVIEW AND TALK ABOUT IT.
BUT THE PLANNING COMMISSION, UM, THEY WOULD POTENTIALLY REACT TO WHAT WE WOULD RECOMMEND, BUT OTHERWISE THEY'RE PLANNING ON WAITING UNTIL
[01:20:01]
EVERYONE HAS GETS POSTED.WHATEVER IT IS THEY'RE GOING TO POST ABOUT IT.
SO DO WE NEED A FOURTH PERSON? NOBODY'S RAISING THEIR HANDS.
SO I'M ASSUMING WE HAVE TO GO FORWARD WITH THREE
I MEAN IT'S, WE WERE THEORETICAL.
WE'LL BE WRAPPED UP BY FEBRUARY, SO, OKAY, THAT'S FINE.
[5. Discussion and action to appoint a member to serve on the Comprehensive Plan Joint Committee.]
TO APPOINT A MEMBER TO SERVE ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN JOINT COMMITTEE.COMMISSIONER FOUTS, IF WE REAPPOINT YOU, WILL YOU GET YOUR PAPERWORK DONE? YES.
THIS THERE MISUNDERSTANDING ON MY PART.
I'M GONNA MAKE A MOTION TO REAPPOINT COMMISSIONER FOUTS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN JOINT COMMITTEE.
IF YOU DON'T VOTE FOR IT, YOU'RE GONNA BE PUT ON THE COMMITTEE.
[COMMITTEE UPDATES]
CODES IN ORDINANCE TO JOINT COMMITTEE.WE DID HAVE A MEETING LAST WEEK.
UM, DIDN'T HAVE ANY REALLY SUBSTANCE TO THE MEETING? NO.
YOU'RE THINKING OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COM.
CODES IN ORDINANCE TO JOINT COMMITTEE.
UM, THE LAST TIME WAS ABOUT THE CHANGE TO THE SIGN ORDINANCES THAT ARE COMING TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO UM, ALLOW 86 INCH DIAMETER, NOT DIAMETER DIAGONAL SIGNS WITH ADVERTISING DIGITAL.
UM, AND THAT IS ON THE COUNCIL AGENDA FOR THURSDAY.
AND THE MEETING THAT WOULD BE TOMORROW WAS CANCELED DUE TO LACK OF AGENDA ITEMS. OKAY.
CON PLAN JOINT COMMITTEE, WE DID HAVE A MEETING LAST WEEK AND THERE WAS REALLY NOTHING OF SUBSTANCE.
WE AGREED ON OUR FUTURE MEETINGS TO COME.
THERE WAS GOING TO BE A PRESENTATION ABOUT KIND OF WHERE THEY'RE AT WITH EVERYTHING, BUT THAT'S BEEN KIND OF CHANGED BECAUSE OF THE BUDGET ISSUES.
UM, SO WITH THE CHANGE IN THE BUDGET ISSUES, THEY'RE RELOOKING AT THE SCHEDULE AND THE CONFERENCING PLAN OVERALL AND DIDN'T WANT TO PRESENT THAT TO US UNTIL THAT'S MORE FINALIZED.
SO I THINK THAT'LL BE AT OUR NEXT MEETING.
UM, SMALL PLANNING JOINT COMMITTEE.
[FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS]
AGENDA ITEMS, ANYTHING.IF NOT, I THINK, UH, FOR THE TWO NEXT MONTH'S AGENDA WE'LL MEET AN ITEM FOR THE, UH, TO REVIEW THE ZONING AND PLAING OR I GUESS REVIEW THE LAND USE COMMISSION RULES AND RESPONSIBILITIES WORKING GROUP FINAL RECOMMENDATION.
ON THE SORT OF A STANDING ITEM, IT'S KIND OF A STANDING ITEM, SO IT'S GONNA BE ON THERE.
I DIDN'T KNOW IF WE NEED A SEPARATE ITEM FOR TWO BEFORE I HAVE SOMEBODY TO VOTE ON OR WHATEVER.
WITH THAT, IT IS 7 23 AND WE ARE ADJOURNED.