* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.
          [00:00:04]
          THE TIME IS 
          [CALL TO ORDER]
5:43 PM ON MONDAY, MARCH 9TH, 2026. 
          I HEREBY CALL THIS MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO ORDER. 
          WE HAVE A QUORUM. 
          GO AHEAD AND CALL THE ROLE. 
          THIS IS OUT. 
          ACE ABDULLAH. 
          HERE. 
          TA. 
          OH, TOMMY'S OUT. 
          SAMIR BARING HERE. 
          JEFFREY BOWEN. 
          HERE. 
          YOUNG J KIM. 
          HERE. 
          BIANCA MEDINA. 
          AL HERE. 
          BRIAN POTIS. 
          HERE. 
          MAGGIE TON? HERE. 
          MICHAEL VON OLAN HERE. 
          AND COREY MCCLELLAN HERE. 
          AND I AM YOUR CHAIR. 
          JESSICA COHEN. 
          I AM HERE. 
          OKAY. 
          HAS EVERYBODY SIGNED THE SIGN IN SHEET? OKAY, GREAT. 
          SO FOR THE FOLKS IN THE AUDIENCE TONIGHT, UH, PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CELL PHONES OR PUT THEM ON VIBRATE AFTER YOUR CASE IS OVER. 
          IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, PLEASE SAVE THEM FOR TOMORROW. 
          HEAD OUT TO THE LOBBY FOR DISCUSSION. 
          YOU CAN EMAIL A ELAINE, THE BOARD LIAISON OR GIVE HER A CALL TOMORROW. 
          UM, IF YOU'RE GOING TO BE GIVING TESTIMONY TONIGHT, WHEN YOU ARE SPEAKING TO THE BOARD, PLEASE SPEAK DIRECTLY TO THE BOARD. 
          IF THERE IS OPPOSITION, DO NOT CROSSTALK TO EACH OTHER. 
          UH, THE BOARD USUALLY TAKES A BREAK ABOUT 8:00 PM FOR 10 MINUTES. 
          I THINK WE MAY NEED THAT TONIGHT. 
          SO LET ME MAKE Y'ALL AWARE. 
          PARKING VALIDATION WHEN YOU WALKED IN, THERE ARE SOME SMALL QR CODES ON TINY SLIPS OF PAPER OVER HERE, UH, BY THE FRONT DOOR. 
          YOU WERE GIVEN A QR CODE WHEN YOU LOGGED, OR SORRY, WHEN YOU DROVE INTO THE PARKING GARAGE. 
          YOU SCAN THAT ONE AND THEN YOU SCAN THAT ONE AND IT WILL VALIDATE YOUR PARKING. 
          OKAY. 
          FOR THOSE WHO ARE GONNA BE GIVING TESTIMONY TONIGHT, I NEED YOU TO PLEASE STAND AND I'M GOING TO HAVE YOU TAKE YOUR OATH FOR TESTIMONY. 
          SO IF YOU'RE GOING TO BE SPEAKING TO THE BOARD TONIGHT, PLEASE STAND BECAUSE YOU ARE BEING SWORN IN. 
          DO YOU SOLEMNLY SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU WILL GIVE TONIGHT WILL BE TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE? THANK YOU MUCH. 
          HAVE A SEAT. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          [APPROVAL OF MINUTES]
WE'RE GONNA START WITH ITEM ONE, APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM DECEMBER 8TH, 2025. 
          ANY COMMENT OR DISCUSSION? DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? MOTION TO APPROVE MADE BY BOARD MEMBER BOWEN? SECOND. 
          SAME HERE. 
          SEE, SAME? YES, SIR. 
          SEE, THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU GO AWAY FOR TWO MONTHS. 
          FORGET ANYBODY'S NAME. 
          I WAS LOOKING AT HIM. 
          SEE TWO. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          JESSICA COHEN. 
          THAT'S A YES. 
          HAS ABDULLAH? YES. 
          SAMIR BARING. 
          YES. 
          JEFFREY BOWEN. 
          YES. 
          YOUNG. 
          DREW KIM? YES. 
          BIANCA MEDINA. 
          LEAL? YES. 
          YES. 
          BRIAN . 
          YES. 
          MAGGIE TON? YES. 
          MICHAEL VAN NOLAN? YES. 
          CORY ARCHER. 
          YES. 
          OKAY, THAT PASSES. 
          [Items 2 & 3]
MOVING ON TO ITEM TWO. 
          THIS WILL BE C 15. 
          NO, SORRY, POSTPONEMENTS. 
          WE HAVE A POSTPONEMENT REQUEST, DON'T WE? YES, WE DO. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          WE DO HAVE A POSTPONEMENT REQUEST FOR C 15 20 25 0 0 2, 6, AND C 15 20 25 0 2 7 17 50 CHANNEL ROAD AND 1752 CHANNEL ROAD. 
          I, UH, BELIEVE ELAINE SENT EMAILS TO EVERYBODY WITH THE NUMBER OF POSTPONEMENTS THIS CASE HAS HAD ALREADY. 
          AND I WOULD LIKE TO REMIND EVERYONE THAT WE DID POSTPONE THIS FOR TWO MONTHS IN DECEMBER ALREADY, AND THEN WE HAD THE CANCELLATION FOR FEBRUARY. 
          SO IT'S BEEN THREE MONTHS. 
          IF SOMEONE WANTS TO MAKE A MOTION, I'M ABSOLUTELY WILLING TO ENTERTAIN IT. 
          MADAM CHAIR? YES, 
          [00:05:01]
THERE IS SOMEBODY HERE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION OF THE POSTPONEMENT REQUEST. 
          OH, OKAY. 
          UH, IF YOU'RE HERE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE POSTPONEMENT, YOU CAN ONLY SPEAK FOR THE POSTPONEMENT. 
          YOU CAN'T SPEAK ON THE MERITS OF THE CASE. 
          COME UP, UH, PICK A MICROPHONE. 
          YOU'LL PUSH THE LITTLE BUTTON SO IT TURNS GREEN. 
          STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD AND YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES. 
          HELLO, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. 
          MY NAME IS NHU FIRE SLADEN. 
          I GO BY NELLY SLADEN. 
          AND WE OPPOSE THE POSTPONEMENT OF THIS MATTER OF BOTH MATTERS, BOTH THE OH OH TWO FIVE AND THE OH OH TWO SIX CASES, OR IS IT OH OH TWO SIX AND OH OH TWO SEVEN? IT'S TWO SIX AND TWO SEVEN. 
          YES. 
          WE OPPOSE BOTH OF THOSE CASES. 
          WE, WE OPPOSE BOTH POSTPONEMENT OF BOTH OF THOSE TWO CASES. 
          OH, I HAVE FIVE MINUTES. 
          OKAY. 
          THREE. 
          YEAH, YOU STILL TIME TELL US WHY. 
          THE REASON IS BECAUSE FIRST AND FOREMOST, THEY'VE HAD PLENTY OF TIME TO, UM, ADDRESS THE ISSUES THAT WERE RAISED IN THE LETTER THAT I MADE TO THIS BOARD, UH, REGARDING THEIR, UM, INADEQUATE AND, UM, UN UNRELIABLE, UH, CALCULATIONS. 
          THE VARIANCE THAT THEY'RE REQUESTING IS BASED ON, UM, THE DREDGE VOLUME, UH, EXCEEDING 25 CUBIC YARDS OR SO. 
          THEY ALLEGE THEY HAVE HAD AMPLE OPPORTUNITIES SINCE AUGUST TO ADDRESS THE ISSUES THAT WERE RAISED, UM, FIR IN OUR FIRST MEETINGS AND IN SUBSEQUENT MEETINGS. 
          AND WHAT HAPPENED DURING THE LAST MEETING IS THAT, UM, THE APPLICANTS ADMITTED THAT THEIR PE THAT THE PE WAS INVOLVED IN THE ENTIRETY OF THEIR WORK, PARTICULARLY WITH THE DR CALCULATIONS. 
          I WAS SURPRISED BY THAT BECAUSE THE DREDGE CALCULATIONS DID NOT REFLECT ENGINEERING PRACTICES, STANDARD ENGINEERING PRACTICES, AND ALSO DID NOT CONFORM TO WHAT THE TESTIMONY WAS BEFORE YOU, WHEN THE WATERSHED EXPERT WAS BEFORE YOU AT THAT TIME, I DID REQUEST, UM, I DID OBJECT TO THE, THAT ISSUE AND UNFORTUNATELY WAS DROPPED FROM THE CALL. 
          MANY OF THE THINGS THAT I HAVE STATED IN MY LETTER TO THIS BOARD ARE CONSISTENT, HAVE BEEN REITERATED BY THE WATERSHED, UH, EXPERT THAT YOU CALLED BEFORE. 
          YOU WHAT? WHY WE ARE OPPOSING THIS IS BECAUSE THE, UM, APPLICANT'S AGENTS NAMELY, UM, AQUA PERMITS AND THEIR PE MR. HAM, MR. HAM HAS YET TO TESTIFY OR PRESENT HIS FINDINGS OR EVEN, UM, CONFIRM OR DENY THE ACCURACY OF THE CALCULATIONS. 
          MR. HAWKINS HAS CHANGED HIS TESTIMONY OR CHANGED HIS ADMISSIONS WITH ME MULTIPLE TIMES INITIALLY IN THE VERY FIRST MEETING. 
          SO AGAIN, JUST KEEP IT ON THE POSTPONEMENT, NOT THE MERITS OF THE CASE. 
          WHY IT SHOULD BE POSTPONED. 
          THIS CASE SHOULD NOT BE POSTPONED BECAUSE, AND THIS GOES TO THE MERITS. 
          THIS IS OVERLAP IN THE VERY FIRST MEETING. 
          UM, MR. VICTOR SAID THAT, LET ME QUOTE, BECAUSE I CAN SEE IN THE RECORD. 
          GO AHEAD AND GET YOUR QUOTE OFF AND WE'LL END IT THERE. 
          OKAY. 
          PARDON ME? GO AHEAD AND GIVE US YOUR QUOTE AND WE'LL END IT THERE. 
          THE QUOTE WAS THAT THE, THE, I WILL BE REFERRING TO THE GIS AND THE, UH, OFFICIAL ELEVATIONS THROUGHOUT THIS PRESENTATION. 
          THAT'S NOT WHAT HAPPENED. 
          AND SINCE THEN, IT'S NOT WHAT HAPPENED. 
          ALRIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          IS THERE ANYONE ELSE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION OR SOMEONE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR? COME ON UP. 
          PRESS THE BUTTON SO IT TURNS GREEN. 
          STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD AND YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES. 
          GOOD EVENING BOARD. 
          MICHELLE LYNCH WITH METCALF FULL STEWART AND WILLIAMS. I'M HERE TONIGHT ON BEHALF OF THE BOTH CASES. 
          UM, I AM HERE ASKING FOR A POSTPONEMENT BECAUSE WE, HOPEFULLY THIS IS OUR LAST POSTPONEMENT. 
          WE MET LAST MONTH, UM, AFTER DOING A BATHYMETRY STUDY, UM, THAT THE BOARD MEMBER ASKED US TO COME BACK ORIGINALLY, I GUESS IT WAS DECEMBER, WITH, UH, SIGNED AND SEALED ENGINEERING FACTS. 
          AND SO WE HAD BEEN WORKING ON THAT. 
          WE GOT DELAYED DUE IN JANUARY DUE TO THE FREEZE FEBRUARY. 
          WE DID HAVE THOSE RESULTS DONE, AND WE DID MEET WITH, UH, MS. SLADEN AND HER HUSBAND. 
          AND WE ARE EVALUATING THOSE NOW. 
          WE WEREN'T ABLE TO MAKE THE DEADLINE TO GET HERE TODAY WITH THAT, THE RESULTS WE WERE PROMISED TO COME BACK WITH. 
          AND I'M HOPING THAT THIS IS THE LAST POSTPONEMENT. 
          FRANKLY, I DID NOT KNOW, AND I LET MS. SLATON KNOW THAT WE WERE POSTPONING TONIGHT THAT SHE WAS GONNA HAVE CONCERNS. 
          I KNOW SHE WAS CONCERNED THAT A STAFF MEMBER CAME HERE 
          [00:10:01]
AND SPOKE. 
          I BELIEVE IT WAS IN JANUARY, UM, DECEMBER WHEN WE, OR WAS IT DECEMBER WHEN WE DID ASK FOR A POSTPONEMENT, WHICH I QUITE FRANKLY WAS SURPRISED AS WELL AND WASN'T PREPARED TO HAVE A DISCUSSION THEN EITHER. 
          SO I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR ONE LAST POSTPONEMENT SO THAT WE CAN CONTINUE TO FINALIZE THIS. 
          AND I'M HOPEFUL THAT WE'RE GOING TO END IN A GOOD RESULT. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          IS THERE ANYONE ELSE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THE POSTPONEMENT OR AGAINST THE POSTPONEMENT? ALL RIGHT, LET'S CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR DISCUSSION THEN AND OPEN IT UP TO THE BOARD. 
          I'M GONNA MAKE A MOTION TO HEAR THE CASE. 
          I DON'T KNOW HOW TO MAKE THAT MOTION, BUT I FEEL LIKE IT'S BEEN POSTPONED MANY, MANY TIMES AND THEY'VE HAD . 
          SO THAT WOULD BE A MOTION TO DENY THE POSTPONEMENT. 
          MOTION TO DENY THE POSTPONEMENT. 
          OKAY. 
          MADAM CHAIR? YES. 
          BOARD MEMBER, UH, LIN. 
          I WAS GONNA MAKE A MOTION TO DENY THE CASE ONLY BECAUSE IF WE HEAR IT AND THEY'RE NOT PREPARED, WE'RE GONNA BE GOING, WE'RE GONNA, WE HAVE A LOT OF OTHER PE FOLKS HERE TAKING TIME OUT OF THERE TO COME FORWARD BOARD MEMBER SHARE COUNTY WE TO IT. 
          SHE BEAT ME TO IT. 
          YEAH, I UNDERSTAND. 
          SO WE CAN'T WORK SOMETHING OUT. 
          SHE DOESN'T HAVE A SECOND YET. 
          UH, BOARD MEMBER. 
          SHE DOES NOW. 
           BOARD MEMBER BOWEN SECOND IT. 
          OKAY. 
          THE, I'M JUST GONNA MAKE THIS COMMENT. 
          THE REASON THAT I MADE THE MOTION TO DENY IS BECAUSE FROM THE VERY BEGINNING, IT, AND IT WAS EVEN STATED ON THE RECORD FROM THE TESTIMONY THAT WAS GIVEN THAT THIS IS A MAINTENANCE ISSUE. 
          AND SO I UNDERSTAND THE DESIRE TO HEAR IT, AND I UNDERSTAND, UH, WANTING TO GET THE, THE CALCULATIONS CORRECT IN MATHEMATICS, BUT IT WAS STATED THAT IT'S A, A MAINTENANCE ISSUE AND A MAINTENANCE ISSUE IS NOT A BONAFIDE HARDSHIP. 
          AND THAT'S ALL I'M GONNA SAY. 
          OKAY. 
          BOARD MEMBER CHAIR STONE. 
          DO YOU WANNA SPEAK TO THE MOTION OR, UH, YOU MEAN SPEAK FURTHER ON THE MOTION IF YOU WANT? NO, THAT'S, I SAID WHAT I NEED TO SAY. 
          I THINK SPEAK, I HAD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THE FACT OF, UH, MAYBE PULLING MY SECOND BASED UPON THE FACT THAT WE'VE GONE THROUGH THIS ROUND AND ROUND AND I, I REALLY LIKE JUST DENYING THE WHOLE THING AND FOLLOWING, UH, COMMISSIONER BONO AND ON THAT, OH, NO, THAT, THAT IS THE MOTION THAT BOARD MEMBERS SHARE TELLING ME IT WAS THE MOTION TO DENY THE POSTPONEMENT HERE TONIGHT. 
          YEAH, BUT I KINDA LIKE HIS, I COULD MAKE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO DENY. 
          OH, DO YOU WANNA MAKE A SUBSTITUTE? YES, MA'AM. 
          DON'T WE HAVE TO HEAR A SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO DENY THE, THE, UH, SO RIGHT NOW THE MOTION BELONGS TO THE BODY BECAUSE YOU SECOND SECONDED. 
          THAT'S FINE. 
          WE'LL FIGURE IT OUT. 
          SO WE EITHER CAN DO A VOTE OF ACCLIMATION TO PULL IT IF NO ONE OBJECTS. 
          SO YOU CAN DO YOUR SUBSTITUTE OR WE HAVE TO VOTE ON IT. 
          WHATEVER THE BODY WISHES. 
          I'M GOOD. 
          I'LL WITHDRAW MY MOTION. 
          CAN'T WITHDRAW BELONGS TO THE BODY. 
          BUT DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY OBJECTION WITH US? ARE TO THIS, UH, BEING ALLOWED TO BE SUBSTITUTED? WAIT, I, I GOT A QUESTION, BUT, BUT I WANT TO HEAR WHAT, ERIC, HANG A SEC. 
          CAN I, I MOTION TO ACCLIMATION, RIGHT? NO. 
          SO YOU GUYS, THE MOTION, THE ACTION BEFORE IS THE POST POSTPONEMENT. 
          YOU ONLY HAD COMMENTS ON THE MERITS OF THE POSTPONEMENT. 
          YOU NEED TO ACTUALLY OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, OR SORRY, ON THE MERITS OF THE CASE, HAVE THE APPLICANT PRESENT THEIR CASE AND THEN VOTE ON THE MERITS? WELL, RIGHT NOW WE'RE VOTING ON THE POSTPONEMENT. 
          YES. 
          BUT I UNDERSTOOD, UM, THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO BE A MOTION ON THE MERITS. 
          IF I MISUNDERSTOOD COMMISSIONER VAN LAN. 
          YEAH, YOU BUT WE, WE HAVEN'T, YOU HAVEN'T OPENED UP THE PUBLIC HEARING. 
          YEAH, WE HAVEN'T DECIDED WHETHER WE WANNA HEAR IT TONIGHT OR POSTPONE IT TO NEXT MEETING YET. 
          OH, THAT WAS, SO BASICALLY WHAT'S GONNA HAVE TO HAPPEN IS FOLLOWING YOUR, YOUR LOGIC IS SHE CALLED FOR US TO HEAR THE MEETING, HEAR THE, THE CASES WHEN THE CASES ARE OPEN. 
          THEN AT THAT POINT THEN I WOULD HAVE TO MAKE MY MOTION. 
          YES, CORRECT. 
          OKAY. 
          I SEE. 
          SO YOU'RE MAKING A MOTION, YOU'RE NOT, OKAY, SO WE HAVE TO VOTE ON THE POSTPONEMENT FIRST. 
          CORRECT. 
          SO WE'RE STILL GOOD WITH THAT. 
          SO RIGHT NOW THERE'S A MOTION BACK ON TRACK. 
          UH OH, I JUST HAD A QUESTION. 
          WERE WE TALKING, WOULD IT BE POSTPONED TO APRIL 13TH? IS THAT THE DATE YOU'RE ASKING FOR? OKAY. 
          THAT SOUND? YEAH, THAT SOUNDS RIGHT. 
          OKAY. 
          I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT. 
          IT'LL BE 30 DAYS. 
          OKAY. 
          SO WE HAVE TO VOTE ON THE MOTION TO POSTPONE, OR SORRY TO DENY THE POSTPONEMENT FIRST. 
          THAT WAS MADE BY BOARD MEMBER SHERRY STEINY, SECONDED. 
          BOARD MEMBER BOWEN. 
          OKAY. 
          SO LET'S, LET'S TAKE THAT VOTE FIRST. 
          [00:15:01]
YAY. 
          YES. 
          CAN I ASK A QUESTION IF ABSOLUTELY, UH, IF I'M ALONG THE LINES WITH, UM, BOARD MEMBER VAN NOLAN, UM, TO DENY THE CASE, THEN WHAT IS THE BEST COURSE OF THIS VOTE? LIKE WHAT SHOULD I NOT BE IN FAVOR OF? WHAT, WHAT'S ON THE TABLE OR, OKAY. 
          SO HERE, HERE, HERE'S THE BREAKDOWN BECAUSE I CAN'T ACTUALLY ADVISE YOU ON THAT. 
          WHAT IT CAN TELL YOU WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON RIGHT NOW. 
          THE MOTION TO DENY THE POSTPONEMENT MEANS THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO HEAR THE CASE TONIGHT. 
          IF WE DO END UP POSTPONING IT, THEN THE CASE WOULD BE HEARD PROBABLY 30 DAYS FROM NOW IN OUR NEXT MEETING. 
          SO MICHAEL, OR SORRY, BOARD MEMBER V OLAND WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO MAKE HIS MOTION BECAUSE IT WOULD BE POSTPONED. 
          SO YOU CAN EITHER VOTE TO HEAR THE CASE TONIGHT, WHICH IS A YES, YES. 
          IS A DENY. 
          SO WE HEAR THE CASE TONIGHT, OR YOU CAN VOTE NO AND THAT MEANS POSTPONE THE CASE TO NEXT MONTH. 
          OKAY. 
          SO IT'S ONE OR THE OTHER AT THIS POINT. 
          OKAY? OKAY. 
          YEAH. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UH, BEARING, UH, SO THE YES IS DENY THE POSTPONEMENT, NO? YES. 
          YES. 
          DID I SAY TO DENY THE POSTPONEMENT? I'LL SAY NO. 
          OKAY. 
          JEFFREY BOWEN? YES. 
          YOUNG JEW. 
          KIM? YES. 
          BIANCA MEDINA. 
          AL? YES. 
          BRIAN POIT? NO. 
          NO. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, MAGGIE STAN? YES. 
          MICHAEL VON OLEN? YES. 
          CORY ARCHER? YES. 
          AND JESSICA COHEN? NO. 
          1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. 
          SO THAT IS SEVEN. 
          THAT MOTION PASSES BECAUSE IT IS A SIMPLE MAJORITY VOTE FOR A POSTPONEMENT. 
          WE'RE GOING TO HEAR THE CASE TONIGHT. 
          CASES. 
          UM, SO I GUESS LET'S GO AHEAD AND MOVE INTO C 15 20 25 0 0 2 6 C 15, 20 25 0 2 7 17 50 CHANNEL ROAD 1752 CHANNEL ROAD. 
          UM, WE'RE GOING TO START WITH YOU MS. LYNCH. 
          UH, ALEXIS, GET A CHAIR. 
          WE CAN ONLY HEAR ONE AT A TIME, I BELIEVE. 
          OH, THAT'S RIGHT. 
          OKAY. 
          SO WE'LL START WITH 26 ON 1750. 
          UH, LET'S GET YOUR PRESENTATION PULLED UP. 
          IS YOUR PRESENTATION GOING TO ADDRESS BOTH OR DO YOU HAVE A PRESENTATION? I HAVE NO PRESENTATION, MADAM. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, DO YOU WANT YOUR FIVE MINUTES TO SPEAK? SURE. 
          I WOULD TAKE FIVE MINUTES OR LESS. 
          OKAY. 
          LET'S GO AHEAD AND PUT IT ON THE CLOCK AND STATE YOUR NAME AGAIN FOR THE RECORD AND YOU'LL HAVE FIVE. 
          GREAT. 
          MICHELLE LYNCH, METCALF WOLF, STRU WILLIAMS HERE AGAIN. 
          UM, ON BEHALF OF THE FIRST ITEM, ITEM TWO TONIGHT. 
          UM, AGAIN, SINCE WE LAST ACTUALLY SPOKE, WE WERE REQUESTED TO COME BACK WITH A SIGNED LETTER DEMONSTRATING, UH, THE FINDINGS, UH, FROM AN ENGINEER. 
          AND SO WE HAD BEEN WORKING ON THAT AND WE HAD ACTUALLY SPENT EXTRA MONEY TO HAVE DIFFERENT CONSULTANTS COME OUT AND SURVEY THE LAKE LEVELS. 
          AND WE DID THAT, I BELIEVE IT WAS THE END OF, UH, JANUARY, BEGINNING OF FEBRUARY. 
          AND SO WE'RE HAVING OUR ENGINEER LOOK AT THOSE FINDINGS, AND WE'RE HOPING TO COME BACK AND MEET WITH THE SLATONS AGAIN, WHICH WE DID MEET WITH THEM ON SITE LAST MONTH. 
          UM, AND HAD GOOD DIALOGUE ABOUT SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WE COULD DO TO POTENTIALLY LESSEN, UH, THE REQUEST OR DO, UH, LESS DREDGING OR POTENTIALLY EVEN A DIFFERENT TYPE OF HYDRAULICS FOR THE BOAT LIFTS. 
          SO I THOUGHT IT WAS A GOOD CONVERSATION. 
          UM, THE, THE, UH, DEADLINES THAT YOU HAVE, UNFORTUNATELY FOR GETTING MATERIALS TO YOU IN ADVANCE IS PRETTY ONEROUS. 
          WE WEREN'T ABLE TO MAKE THAT DEADLINE THIS THIS TIME, UNFORTUNATELY. 
          SO I REACHED OUT TO MS. SLADEN AND ASKED HER IF WE COULD DO A, A POSTPONEMENT AGAIN UNTIL WE COULD HAVE THOSE FINDINGS FOR HER, BECAUSE I WANTED TO GIVE HER THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE THEM FIRST BEFORE COMING BACK HERE OR SUBMITTING THEM TO YOU. 
          UM, SO THAT IS WHY I DO NOT HAVE THAT INFORMATION TONIGHT, AND I APOLOGIZE. 
          I DID LET MY CLIENT KNOW THAT IT WAS, UH, GOING ON A LITTLE BIT TOO LONG AND THAT WE NEEDED TO WRAP UP. 
          AND THAT WAS WHY WE'RE HERE TONIGHT ASKING FOR THE LAST, WHAT I HOPE WOULD BE THE LAST POSTPONEMENT. 
          AND I DID LET MS. LEIGHTON KNOW THAT. 
          SO I APOLOGIZE AGAIN THAT I DON'T HAVE ANY UPDATE FOR YOU. 
          UM, BUT I WAS HOPING FOR A GOOD OUTCOME AND I HAD LET MS. LEIGHTON KNOW THAT TONIGHT WHEN I SAW HER FOR THE FIRST TIME. 
          'CAUSE I HAVE NOT HEARD FROM HER. 
          ALRIGHTY. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          AND, AND MS. LEYTON, WE HAVE 
          [00:20:01]
YOU AND BRUCE SLATEN SIGNED UP TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION. 
          UM, YOU HAVE A TOTAL OF FIVE MINUTES, SO YOU CAN SPLIT IT HOWEVER YOU WANT BETWEEN THE TWO OF YOU. 
          I'M GONNA BE SPEAKING. 
          OKAY, THEN JUST STATE YOUR NAME AGAIN FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE. 
          YOU'LL HAVE FIVE MINUTES. 
          MY NAME IS SLADEN AND I'M OPPOSING THIS CASE. 
          I, UM, WOULD LIKE TO BRING TO YOUR ATTENTION THE LOCATION OF THESE TWO PROPERTIES, OR 1752 CHANNEL, WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE SPEAKING ABOUT TONIGHT. 
          IT IS IN THE MOST CONGESTED AND POSSIBLY THE MOST DEADLY AREA OF LAKE AUSTIN. 
          IT IS ALSO ONE OF THE MOST EXPENSIVE AND PRIZED LOCATIONS. 
          APPLICANTS AND THEIR AGENTS INTEND TO CAPTURE PRICE LAKE SURFACE AREA FROM THE STATE'S PUBLIC NAVIGABLE WATERWAYS FOR FREE. 
          GRANTING THIS VARIANCE WOULD UNFAIRLY ENRICH THE APPLICANTS, ELIMINATE THEIR MAINTENANCE AND INUNDATE THE BOARD POSSIBLY WITH HUNDREDS OF SIMILARLY SITUATED PROPERTIES REQUESTING THE SAME VARIANCES. 
          THE APPLICANTS HAVE TO SHOW HARDSHIP BECAUSE THEY'RE TRYING TO EXTEND THEIR DOCK OVER SEVEN FEET AND 16 FEET FROM THE 30 FOOT LIMIT SET BY THE COATS. 
          THE HARDSHIP IS A SHALLOW LAKE BED REQUIRING MORE THAN 25 CUBIC YARDS OF DREDGE OF ANNUAL OR SEMI-ANNUAL DREDGE. 
          ACCORDING TO YOUR WATERSHED EXPERT, WE AGREE THAT THE LAKE BED IS SHALLOW HERE, BUT APPLICANT'S AGENTS HAVE INCLUDED, INCLUDING THEIR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER, HAVE INFLATED THE HARDSHIP AND THE DREDGE TO SEIZE MORE LENGTH THAN THEY REALLY NEED AND GAIN MUCH MORE PRECIOUS LAKE SURFACE AREA. 
          THE REWARD FOR THEM IS AN EXCLUSIVE PERPETUAL RIGHT TO USE AND ENJOY A VALUABLE LAKE SURFACE AREA FOR FREE AT THE PUBLIC'S EXPENSE, INCREASING THE APPLICANT'S EQUITY AND REDUCING OR EVEN ELIMINATING MAINTENANCE. 
          THIS IS AN IMPROPER REQUEST IN THAT IT WILL IMPEDE THE PUBLIC AND WATERCRAFT SAFETY AND A HIGHLY CONGESTED TEXAS PROTECTED NAVIGABLE WATERWAY. 
          WHAT I'M INTENDING TO SHOW HERE IS THAT SOME OF THESE CONTOUR LINES THAT ARE IN BLUE ARE THE CONTOUR LINES. 
          YOU CAN SEE, YOU CAN FOLLOW THESE CONTOUR LINES AROUND THE LAKE AND YOU WILL SEE THAT EVERY PROPERTY ON BULL CREEK, WHICH IS SHOWN AT THE, THAT THAT'S THE TRIBUTARY, EVERY PROPERTY ON BULL CREEK WILL BE IMPACTED BY THIS. 
          IF EVERYBODY, IF, IF ONE PROPERTY IS ALLOWED TO EXTEND WITHOUT MAINTENANCE, THEN EVERY PROPERTY, UH, COULD POTENTIALLY REQUEST THE SAME, UM, SAME, UH, VARIANCES. 
          NEXT SLIDE. 
          THIS I HAVE OVERLAID THE EXISTING, UH, VERSUS THE PROPOSED. 
          AND YOU, AND, AND IN THE VERY FIRST MEETING, THE APPLICANT HAD STATED THAT THEY WERE STAYING WITHIN THEIR FOOTPRINT. 
          YET THAT IS NOT THE TRUTH. 
          YOU LOOK AT WHAT THEY HAD IN THE VERY FIRST MEETING AND YOU OVERLAY, YOU WILL SEE THAT THEY'RE NOT STAYING WITHIN THE SAME FOOTPRINT. 
          THEY'RE ACTUALLY EXPANDING ON THAT FOOTPRINT. 
          SURE, THEY'RE GOING A LITTLE SHORTER ON THE LENGTH, BUT THEY'RE MAKING IT MUCH WIDER. 
          NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. 
          THIS IS THE GIS IMAGERY THAT SHOWS THE PE STAMP SITE PLAN BY AQUA PERMITS STAMPED BY MR. HAM. 
          MR. HAM, WHEN HE, UM, WHEN HE SET THIS UP, WHEN HE STAMPED THIS, HE KNEW THAT A VARIANCE WAS GONNA BE REQUIRED BECAUSE HE WAS OVER 30 FEET AND HE KNEW THAT HE WAS EXTENDING OVER THAT LIMIT AND HE KNEW THAT THERE WOULD BE A VARIANCE REQUIRED AND A SET A, ACCORDING TO MR. HAWKINS WHILE HE WORKED WITH THEM. 
          HERE'S THE GIS IMAGERY SHOWING THE OFFICIAL GIS ELEVATIONS. 
          THERE'S THE PE STAMPED DRAWING, YET THAT IS NOT WHAT THEY USED IN ANY OF THEIR LATE BED CALCULATIONS. 
          NONE OF IT. 
          NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. 
          I CAN GO ON AND ON ABOUT ALL THE MISTAKES, ALL THE ISSUES. 
          I MEAN, MOST IMPORTANTLY, IT'S AN UNSUPPORTED AND EXCESSIVE FOREFOOT DEATH REQUIRED FOR THE ENTIRE SLIP. 
          WHAT EVERYBODY KNOWS WHO'S GOT A BOAT, A BOAT DRAFT AND HAUL SHAVES REQUIRE MUCH LESS DEPTH AT THE SLIP NOSE AND IT IGNORES REASONABLE MITIGATING OPTIONS SUCH AS CANTILEVER LIFTS, COFFER DAM SLIPS, AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, SOME MAINTENANCE IS REQUIRED, SOME MAINTENANCE IS REQUIRED, AND UNDER 25 
          [00:25:01]
CUBIC YARDS IS NOT A HARDSHIP. 
          THEREFORE, THEY HAD TO FORCE THE NUMBERS TO EXCEED 25 CUBIC YARDS IN THE NEXT TWO SLIDES. 
          CAN YOU SWITCH PLEASE? I HAVE ACTUALLY MAPPED AND SHOW HERE THE GIS ACCORDING TO THE PLANS THAT WERE STAMPED BY THE PE AND ACCORDING TO THE GIS AND THEY DO NOT MATCH. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          UH, MS. LYNCH, YOU'LL HAVE TWO MINUTE REBUTTAL. 
          THANK YOU. 
          I DON'T INTEND TO TAKE MORE THAN THAT TIME. 
          UM, I COMMEND MS. SLATON FOR HER GRAPHICS AND WE'VE MET WITH HER AND TALKED WITH HER AND I THINK SHE'S DONE A GOOD JOB OF HELPING US GET TO THE RIGHT PLACE. 
          UM, UNFORTUNATELY WE JUST AREN'T THERE AT THE TIME. 
          UM, AND THAT WAS, WAS WHAT I WAS HOPING TO DO BEFORE APRIL 13TH. 
          UM, I THINK A LOT OF THOSE GRAPHICS, AGAIN, IF YOU RECALL, I, EXCEPT IN THIS CASE LATE, I WAS NOT HERE IN THE BEGINNING. 
          UM, MIGHT NEED TO BE REFRESHED. 
          AND THAT'S WHAT WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON NOW, NOW THAT WE HAVE SPENT MORE MONEY DOING A BATHYMETRY STUDY AND HAD PEOPLE COME OUT AND SURVEY THE ACTUAL LAKE SO THAT WE DIDN'T JUST HAVE TO RELY UPON THE GIS THAT WE HAVE ACTUAL MEASUREMENTS. 
          SO, I'M SORRY THAT I DON'T HAVE THAT REPORT FOR YOU TONIGHT. 
          I WILL HAVE IT ON APRIL 13TH. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          LET'S GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 
          MADAM CHAIR, IS THERE A MOTION I'M GONNA MOVE TO DENY AND I, I JUST WANNA SAY THIS, I'M NOT DENYING JUST TO BE A JERK, BUT I DID SPEND MY FREE TIME AND WERE NOT PAID EMPLOYEES TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT ALL THE VIDEOS. 
          AND IN THE VIDEO, THE GENTLEMAN SAT THERE IN FRONT OF US AND HE, MR. BOWMAN ACTUALLY ASKED, ASKED HIM TO QUALIFY HIS STATEMENT. 
          HE SAID IT WAS A MAINTENANCE ISSUE. 
          I LOOKED AT THE HARDSHIP THAT'S EVEN HERE CURRENTLY RIGHT NOW, AND IT STATES THE HARDSHIP FOR WHICH VARIANCE IS REQUESTED IS UNIQUE TO THE PROPERTY IN THAT THE BATH TREE OF LAKE AUSTIN IN THIS AREA IS UNIQUELY SHALLOW DUE TO ANNUAL SEDIMENTARY DEPOSITS CAUSED BY NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. 
          RUNOFF. 
          I OWNED A BOAT FOR SEVERAL YEARS, USED TO CRUISE UP AND DOWN THAT, THAT PART OF THE LAKE ANYHOW, 'CAUSE I LIVE RIGHT OFF 2222. 
          AND IT'S NOT UNCOMMON FOR THAT TO HAPPEN. 
          AND IT'S GONNA FLUCTUATE YEAR TO YEAR WATER FLOW TO WATER FLOW. 
          BUT MAINTENANCE, UH, THE EX THE, THE, UH, EXCAVATION AND DREDGING FOR, UH, BOAT DOCKS IS A VERY COMMON THING ON THE LAKE. 
          I THINK THIS THE, THE, THIS LADY HERE BEFORE US, MA'AM, I DIDN'T MEAN THAT IN ANY SLIGHT, BUT PRESENTED A VERY SOLID CASE TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT AND GOING BACK AND HAVING HIM ON, ON THE RECORD STATING IT'S A MAINTENANCE ISSUE, I CANNOT SUPPORT HIM. 
          THAT'S NOT A HARDSHIP. 
          SO I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO DENY BOARD MEMBER CHAIR COUNTY. 
          I'LL SECOND. 
          OKAY. 
          AND I JUST WANNA ADD, UM, I DON'T THINK SO. 
          AGAIN, I THINK I I MOSTLY AGREE WITH BOARD MEMBER AND OLIN THAT THERE'S JUST NOT A HARDSHIP HERE. 
          I THINK Y'ALL HAVE DONE A LOT OF GOOD WORK TO, TO SHOW THAT YOU'RE, YOU KNOW, TRYING TO MAKE IT WORK WITH YOUR NEIGHBORS. 
          AND ULTIMATELY, I DON'T, I DON'T REALLY HAVE A PROBLEM WITH Y'ALL WANTING A LONGER DOCK. 
          LIKE, I DON'T, I DON'T THINK ANYBODY'S DOING ANYTHING SHADY, LIKE ANYTHING LIKE THAT. 
          I JUST DON'T THINK THAT THERE'S A TRUE HARDSHIP HERE. 
          I DON'T THINK IT'S UNIQUE TO THE PROPERTY TO HAVE A SHALLOW, UH, SHORELINE. 
          I THINK IT'S JUST A, A FEATURE OF THE AREA. 
          UM, AND I DON'T THAT THAT MEANS THERE'S NO HARDSHIP. 
          SO UNFORTUNATELY I HAVE TO SECOND, UM, UH, BOARD MEMBER BON, IS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION OR QUESTIONS? OKAY, SO WE DO HAVE A MOTION. 
          I, I'M SORRY. 
          BOARD MEMBER BON. 
          THAT'S FINE. 
          GO AHEAD. 
          I, UM, I, I FOUND THIS TO BE VERY INTERESTING, UH, IN THE FACT THAT I WAS ABLE TO UNDER GET MORE INFORMATION THROUGHOUT THIS ENTIRE LONG DRAWN OUT PROCESS ON ACTUALLY HOW SOME OF THE DREDGING AND STUFF IS DONE. 
          SO HOPEFULLY IT WAS AN EDUCATION, IT WAS EDUCATIONAL FOR ME. 
          UM, ALSO FOR THOSE OF US THAT HAVE BEEN AROUND THE WATER FOR A LONG TIME, BEING RAISED ON LAKE HOUSTON AND HAD A, HAD A PLACE ON CROSS LAKE, UH, I DO UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS MAINTENANCE THAT NEEDS TO BE ACCOMPLISHED PERIODICALLY AND OVER TIME TO TIME. 
          AND THE LAST PRESENTATION WE HAD ON THAT BASICALLY SAID THAT THERE, THERE ARE METHODS AND I FOUND IT TO BE, UH, EDUCATIONAL AND EFFECT OF FINDING OUT THAT THIS IS HOW WE DO DREDGING OPERATIONS AND WHERE THE, THE WATER GOES AND HOW THEY SIPPED OUT THE, ALL THE MUD AND EVERYTHING ELSE. 
          THUS I'M BACKED THAT THIS WAS REALLY A MAINTENANCE ISSUE AND WAS HAVING A HARD TIME EVEN WHEN I DID MY CALCULATIONS AND LOOKING AT THE 
          [00:30:01]
QUANTITIES. 
          THAT'S SO, UH, I HAVE TO TOTALLY SUPPORT THE DENIAL AND GO FROM THERE. 
          SO THAT, THANK YOU. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          SO IT LOOKS LIKE EVERYONE, SO AGAIN, THIS IS A MOTION TO DENY MADE BY MICHAEL V OLAN, SECONDED BY MAGGIE ANI LET'S APPLICANT. 
          YES. 
          UH, SO THERE'S, THERE ARE TWO DOCS THERE RIGHT NOW, RIGHT? THAT ARE CURRENTLY THERE. 
          UH, YES SIR. 
          UH, ONE, I DON'T REMEMBER WHICH CASE WRONG ACTUALLY, ONE DOC, UM, HAS MORE OF A SUPPORT STRUCTURE ABOVE IT, A ROOF, IF YOU WILL. 
          AND ONE IS JUST A PLANT DOCK THAT IS NOT COVERED AT ALL. 
          IT'S NOT LIKE 1752 IS THE UNCOVERED. 
          1750 IS THE COVERED, HOW FAR OUT ARE THOSE RIGHT NOW? BECAUSE, BECAUSE I SAW IN THE NOTES, UH, THAT IT SAID THEY WERE NONCONFORMING, CORRECT? ONE I BELIEVE IS AL TWO. 
          IS IT? UH, 30? SORRY, I DON'T HAVE IT IN FRONT OF ME. 
          37 FEET. 
          UM, AND THE OTHER ONE IS I BELIEVE 46. 
          I THINK 46 IS THE, UH, 1750 I BELIEVE. 
          SO THEY'VE BEEN THERE FOR QUITE SOME TIME. 
          SO IF THE VARIANCE WAS GRANTED ON 1750, THE NEW DOCK WOULD BE THE SAME LENGTH OUT INTO THE LAKE THAT THE EXISTING DOCK IS? NO, SIR. 
          BOTH, BOTH REQUESTS WERE TO REDUCE THE DISTANCES. 
          OH. 
          OH, OKAY. 
          SO THE NEW DOCKS, IF THE VARIANCE WAS TO BE GRANTED, WOULD THE NEW DOCKS WOULD ACTUALLY EXTEND LESS FAR INTO THE LAKE THAN THE EXISTING ONES? CORRECT. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          SO AGAIN, THIS IS A MOTION TO DENY MADE BY MICHAEL VON OLIN, SECONDED BY MAGGIE STAN, LET'S CALL THE VOTE. 
          HASI ABDULLAH. 
          YES. 
          SAMIR BARING? NO. 
          JEFFREY BOWEN. 
          YES. 
          YOUNG J KIM? YES. 
          OKAY. 
          BIANCA MEDINA. 
          AL? YES. 
          BRIAN PETITE? NO. 
          MAGGIE? SHE, YES. 
          MICHAEL VON OLIN? YES. 
          CORY ARCHER. 
          YES. 
          I DON'T TYPICALLY LIKE TO DENY CASES, BUT I FEEL THIS ONE HAS HAD ENOUGH TIME SINCE IT'S BEEN ON OUR RADAR SINCE AUGUST. 
          AND WITH THE ADDITIONAL MONTH AFTER THE CANCELLATION, I THINK WE NEED TO FREE UP OUR AGENDA FOR SOMETHING NEW. 
          SO I'M GOING TO HAVE TO DENY IT. 
          MY VOTE IS YES, THAT'S 2, 4, 5. 
          OKAY. 
          THAT PUTS US AT NINE. 
          I'M SORRY, YOUR VARIANCE HAS BEEN DENIED. 
          MADAME CHURCH. 
          EIGHT, EIGHT TO TWO. 
          I'M SORRY. 
          THE VOTE IS EIGHT TO TWO. 
          EIGHT TO TWO 9:00 AM I DOWNLOAD. 
          1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. 
          OH OH, HOLD ON. 
          UH, QUESTION FOR LEGAL. 
          WHAT ARE OUR NUMBERS AT TONIGHT? BECAUSE WE'RE MISSING ONE THAT PUTS US AT 10 OR IS IT 11? ERICA LOPEZ, I ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY. 
          UH, THE VOTE IS A MOTION TO DENY, WHICH IS THREE AFFIRMATIVE VOTES. 
          THREE AFFIRMATIVE VOTES. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          SO I WAS RIGHT, THE VARIANCE IS DENIED. 
          I'M SORRY. 
          OKAY, LET'S MOVE ON. 
          THANK YOU GUYS SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME. 
          THE NEXT CASE WILL BE A SIGNED CASE. 
          I THINK YOU HAVE TO DO THE OH, WE HAVE THE NEXT ONE. 
          WE HAVE TO HEAR THE NEXT ONE. 
          YEAH, WE HAVE TO 1752. 
          OKAY. 
          SORRY. 
          UM, WHY WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO HEAR THESE BOTH THE SAME TIME. 
          SORRY. 
          NEXT CASE, 1752 CHANNEL ROAD, WHICH WILL BE 0 0 2 7, SORRY, C 15 20 26 0 0 2 7. 
          UM, DO YOU WANT TO GO THROUGH I DON'T AGAIN, MICHELLE LYNCH, METCALF, WOLF STREET AND WILLIAMS. UM, I THINK WE JUST TALKED ABOUT THE SAME SUBJECT OF THESE. 
          I DON'T SEE ANYTHING GOING DIFFERENTLY. 
          AGAIN, I APOLOGIZE THAT I DO NOT HAVE MORE MATERIALS TONIGHT OR THE THINGS THAT BOARD MEMBER BOWEN REQUESTED. 
          UM, AGAIN, I WAS GOING TO HAVE THOSE NEXT MONTH AND HOPEFULLY SETTLE 
          [00:35:01]
ALL OF THIS, BUT I DO NOT MOTION TO DENY THE POSTPONEMENT. 
          WE HAVE TO HANG UP. 
          DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ADDITIONAL YOU WANT TO ADD OR? YES, I WOULD LIKE TO RESPOND TO THE BOARD AND A MEMBER THAT, UH, ASKED THE, THAT, THAT YOU CAN'T, THAT CASE IS CLOSED. 
          THIS IS TECHNICALLY A WHOLE NEW HEARING REGARDING THIS CASE. 
          WE REALIZE THAT THE APPLICANTS ARE REQUESTING THE DEMOLISH THEIR EXISTING DOCK, WHICH IS MORE THAN 46 FEET OUT INTO THE PUBLIC, UH, NAVIGABLE WATERWAY. 
          WE DO NOT REQUEST THAT THEY DEMON, UH, DEMOLISH THIS. 
          THEY ARE CHOOSING TO DEMOLISH IT. 
          THEY COULD REFURBISH IT ACCORDING TO, UH, 11, UH, CODE 9 6 3 OR THEY, AND THAT IS WHAT THEIR NEIGHBORS HAVE DONE. 
          SO WE ARE NOT TRYING TO DEPRIVE OUR NEIGHBORS FROM THE ACCESS THAT THEY HAVE ENJOYED FOR A LONG, LONG TIME. 
          WHAT WE ARE SAYING IS THAT IF THEY DECIDE TO DEMOLISH, THEN THEY NEED TO COMPLY WITH THE CODE. 
          AND AS FAR AS THE MAINTENANCE ISSUES CONCERNED, I WOULD LIKE TO ADD TWO MORE THINGS. 
          THE APPLICANTS HAVE ADMITTED ON THE RECORD THAT THEY HAVE NOT PERFORMED ANY MAINTENANCE DREDGING. 
          AS A RESULT, ANY DREDGE VOLUMES THAT THEY REFERENCE IN THE FUTURE WILL LIKELY REFLECT DECADES OF ACCUMULATED SEDIMENT, NOT THE ANNUAL MAINTENANCE DREDGING CONTEMPLATED BY THE ORDINANCE. 
          SECOND, THEY HAVE RECENTLY GOT BATHYMETRY SURVEYS. 
          THESE ARE REPORT THEY SUPPOSED TO MEASURE FROM THE LAKE SURFACE TO THE LAKE BED, BUT THEY CHOSE THE REASON. 
          ONE OF THE REASONS I'M ASSUMING, I CANNOT TELL YOU FOR SURE, BUT IT JUST SO HAPPENED THE LAKE WAS AT THE VERY LOWEST LEVEL ON THE DAY THAT THEY DID THEIR BETH IMAGERY SURVEY. 
          AND THE REASON I KNOW THAT IS BECAUSE MY NEIGHBOR TOLD ME THEY'RE DOING THE SURVEY. 
          I WENT TO OUR DOCK AND I COULD SEE WHERE THE LAKE LEVEL WAS AND IT WAS ONE TO TWO FEET BELOW WHAT IS NORMALLY THERE. 
          SO BECAUSE OF THAT, THEIR JUDGING CALCULATIONS MAY ALSO BE, UM, NOT NECESSARILY REFLECTIVE OF THE NORM. 
          FOR THESE REASONS, WE ARE REQUESTING THAT THIS CASE BE DENIED. 
          WE HAVE SPENT SO MUCH TIME COMING HERE AND, UH, WE SO APPRECIATE EVERYBODY'S EFFORTS. 
          WE DO APPRECIATE THEIR EFFORTS. 
          AGAIN, WE'RE NOT TRYING TO DEPRIVE OUR NEIGHBOR. 
          WHAT WE ARE ASKING IS THAT OUR NEIGHBOR COMPLY WITH THE CODE JUST LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE SHOULD. 
          AND WE BELIEVE THAT GRANTING THIS VARIANCE, PARTICULARLY ON 1752, WHICH IS ASKING FOR 16 FEET OVER THE 30 FOOT LIMIT, THAT'S 154% SETS A NEW, UH, UH, UH, CAN OPEN UP A PANDORA'S BOX BECAUSE EVERYBODY ON BULL CREEK IS GONNA HAVE CONCERNS. 
          AND YOU KNOW, THIS IS, UH, THIS IS WHY THERE'S THESE CODES. 
          SO FOR THOSE REASONS, I WOULD LIKE TO URGE THE BOARD TO PLEASE DENY THIS CASE AND SEND THE APPLICANTS BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD SO THEY CAN DO A MORE, UM, REALISTIC ANALYSIS. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND ATTENTION. 
          THANK YOU. 
          REBUTTAL. 
          ARE WE, I'M CONFUSED. 
          ARE WE HEARING THE CASE OR ARE WE ON THE POSTPONEMENT? THE CASE? JUST BE THE POSTPONE. 
          WE'RE HEARING THE CASE TECHNICALLY THE, THE POSTPONEMENT HAS BEEN DECIDED. 
          THIS IS THE 1752. 
          WE HAD TO HEAR THEM SEPARATELY. 
          RIGHT? SO DIDN'T WE HAVE TO HEAR THE POSTPONEMENT FIRST? WE HAD TO ON TWO TO VOTE. 
          YEAH, WE HAVE TO VOTE ON THE POSTPONEMENTS. 
          WE HAVE TO VOTE ON THE NO, NO, WE, WE ALREADY DID. 
          WE HEARD BOTH POSTPONEMENTS AT ONCE. 
          WEIRD. 
          OKAY. 
          JUST THE HEARING OF THE, I DON'T CARE. 
          JUST WANNA MAKE SURE I'M SAYING THE RIGHT THING. 
          YES, . 
          UM, SO, UH, JUST TO SPEAK TO, TO MS. S LADEN'S COMMENTS SPECIFICALLY, UM, YES, WE DID HAVE THE BETH IMAGERY SURVEY. 
          PEOPLE COME OUT AGAIN TO, UM, HOPEFULLY GIVE BETTER DATA THAN THE GI S DID. 
          THAT'S VERY OUTDATED. 
          UM, I DON'T AGREE WITH MS. SLADEN, UM, BECAUSE ACTUALLY THE FINDINGS WERE A LITTLE SHOCKING TO US THAT THEY WERE A LITTLE HIGHER. 
          SO I'M NOT SURE WHERE WE'RE GETTING THE NUMBERS FROM. 
          UM, BUT THERE WAS NOTHING NEFARIOUS INTENDED, UM, THAT PEOPLE CAME OUT WHEN THEY COULD COME OUT. 
          SO PLEASE LET THAT BE KNOWN. 
          UM, AS FAR AS DOCK LENGTH, UM, THAT ONE BOARD MEMBER BRING ASKED ABOUT, UM, I BELIEVE OUR, UH, NEIGHBOR TO THE WEST ACTUALLY AS A LONGER DOCK. 
          SO, UH, WE ARE NOT, UH, CAUSING A SAFETY ISSUE IN ANY WAY. 
          THESE DOCKS HAVE BEEN HERE FOR A VERY LONG TIME. 
          MY CLIENTS HAVE OWNED THIS PROPERTY SINCE THE SIXTIES. 
          SO, UH, JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT'S CLEAR. 
          UH, AGAIN, WE'VE BEEN DOING EVERYTHING WE CAN POSSIBLY TO NEGATE ANY ISSUES AND PROVE UP HARDSHIP. 
          I THINK I SAID WHEN I CAME HERE, UM, AT THE END OF LAST YEAR, THAT, YOU KNOW, WHEN I COME HERE IT IS WITH FACTUAL DATA AND THAT'S WHAT I HAVE BEEN WORKING TOWARDS. 
          I DON'T COME HERE AND ASK FOR UNNECESSARY VARIANCES. 
          [00:40:01]
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          LET'S CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, MADAM CHAIR. 
          A COUPLE OF THINGS. 
          NUMBER ONE, I DO KNOW THAT WHEN YOU COME, YOU COME WITH VERY GOOD FACTS AND IT, IT'S HARD FOR ME TO DENY THIS 'CAUSE I KNOW YOU DO YOUR HOMEWORK. 
          YOU ARE VERY GOOD. 
          YOU'VE DONE A LOT OF VERY GOOD HOMEWORK AND, UH, YOUR, YOUR STATS ARE GREAT. 
          I ALSO WANTED TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE ABOUT THE LENGTH OF THE DOCS AND THE FACT THAT THE OLDER DOCS ARE LONGER WHEN IT COMES TO A HOME THAT WE ARE GRANTING A VARIANCE TO IF A HOME IS NONCOMPLIANT EXISTING STRUCTURE, IF THEY WISH TO, UH, KEEP THAT STRUCTURE AND THEY DON'T NEED TO COME IN FRONT OF US FOR A VARIANCE. 
          IT IS PERFECTLY LEGAL TO HAVE A NON-COMPLIANCE STRUCTURE IN EXISTING PLACE. 
          BUT AS SOON AS SOMEBODY GOES TO REMODEL A HOME AND IN THIS CASE REMODEL A DOCK, THEN THEY FALL UNDER THE ORDINANCE AND THEY'RE REQUIRED TO BUILD BY ZONE, BY CODE. 
          AND THEN IF THEY'RE GONNA GO BEYOND CODE, THEY'RE GONNA COME AND COME AND, UH, COME TO US AND ASK FOR A VARIANCE. 
          SO THE FACT, AND I DID LIKE THAT, THAT WAS WHAT KEPT ME HANGING ON, WAS THE FACT THAT IT WAS GONNA BE LESS YOU MAKING IT, UH, UH, NOT AS LONG AS THE EXISTING DOCKS, BUT THOSE EXISTING DOCKS OUT THERE RIGHT NOW, EVEN THE WAY THEY ARE, ONCE YOU START REMODELING, RENOVATING, CHANGING THE, THE DESIGN OF THEM OR DOING ANYTHING ON THEM OTHER THAN MAINTENANCE AND CONSTRUCTION, YOU ARE REQUIRED TO BUILD TO CODE. 
          AND THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS ON THE HOMES. 
          AND THAT'S WHERE WE'RE AT IN THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION. 
          IT GOT A LITTLE BIT MORE CONVOLUTED BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT WE DID HAVE SOME NUMBERS THAT WEREN'T JIV. 
          AND WE ALSO HAD, UH, HAD THE ISSUE OF, OF IT THE, UH, MAINTENANCE ISSUE. 
          AND REALLY WHEN YOU GET DOWN TO IT, IT'S THE HARDSHIP, THE FACT THAT THE HARDSHIP STATES THE BARE IN THE, I'M NOW I'M READING OFF OF THIS CASE, WHICH IS IDENTICAL TO THE LAST CASE. 
          THE, THE ARY OF THE LAKE AUSTIN IN THIS AREA IS UNIQUELY SHALLOW DUE TO ANNUAL SEDIMENTARY DEPOSITS CAUSED BY NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. 
          RUNOFFS IS NOT A, A BONAFIDE HARDSHIP BECAUSE IT IS NOT JUST THIS, THIS IS NOT UNIQUELY SHALLOW HERE. 
          WE'VE HEARD, AND AND I I HOPE THIS GETS OUT GENERALLY SINCE WE STARTED TAKING ON THESE LAKE AUSTIN PROJECTS. 
          NOW, IT USED TO BE THEY DIDN'T COME TO US, BUT, UH, NOW THAT ALL YOU KNOW, FOLKS ARE HERE, CONGRATULATIONS. 
          YOU'RE, YOU GOT THROWN INTO THIS AS WELL. 
          BUT, UM, THE, THE LAKE AUSTIN ISSUES ARE, THEY'RE GONNA CONTINUE TO BE LIKE THIS. 
          AND WE'VE HAD OTHER AREAS OF LAKE AUSTIN WHERE THEY'VE GONE INTO TRIBUTARIES AND WHERE IT WAS VERY, VERY SHALLOW AND THEY COULDN'T DO THE MAINTENANCE. 
          AND WE'VE HAD THIS COME UP ON NUMEROUS TIMES. 
          SO, SO THE FACT THAT THIS AREA IS SHALLOW ISN'T UNIQUE TO THIS AND IT'S NOT A HARDSHIP BECAUSE AGAIN, HAD THE GENTLEMAN PROBABLY NOT STATED ON RECORD THAT IT WAS A MAINTENANCE, PRIMARILY A MAINTENANCE ISSUE, I WOULD PROBABLY HAVE NOT PUSHED AS MUCH TO DENY THIS, THIS CASE. 
          BUT I DO FIRMLY FEEL THAT WE HAVE TO GO BY THE MERITS OF THE CASE. 
          WE'RE A SOVEREIGN BOARD AND THEREFORE IF THEY STATE ON THE RECORD IT'S A MAINTENANCE ISSUE, A MAINTENANCE ISSUE IS NOT A HARDSHIP. 
          THAT'S WHERE I STAND ON. 
          THAT'S HOW I CAME TO THE CONCLUSION OF THAT. 
          IT NEEDS TO BE DENIED. 
          AND I WAS GONNA MAKE, AND I AM, WELL, I'M ON. 
          I MIGHT AS WELL DO IT NOW. 
          I WAS GONNA MAKE THE SUGGESTION FOR THEM TO COME BACK, REVISIT THEIR HARDSHIP AND REVISIT WHAT THEY WANNA DO BECAUSE THEY MAY BE ABLE TO GET THERE, BUT THIS ISN'T THE VEHICLE THAT'S GONNA GET 'EM THERE. 
          THAT'S IT. 
          MADAM CHAIR. 
          I MAKE A MOTION TO DENY. 
          OKAY, I'M OFF MY SOAPBOX. 
          I'LL SECOND. 
          OKAY. 
          SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER. 
          I HAVE A QUESTION. 
          FIRE AWAY. 
          UM, IF THIS IS DENIED TODAY, UH, WHAT'S THE TIME PERIOD IN WHICH THEY CAN RETURN TO REQUEST THE SAME VARIANCE ONE YEAR. 
          YEAR. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          YEAH, AND THEY, IT'S JUST TO COME TO BOARD IN THE MEANTIME, THEY'RE STILL ABLE TO UTILIZE THEIR, CAN'T DO OTHER STUFF, THEIR DOC AS LIKE THEY CAN STILL, UNLESS IT'S TOTALLY DILAPIDATED, JUST THEY COULD CREATIVELY COME BACK FOR OTHER VARIANCE. 
          THAT'S JUST NOT THIS. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          SO AGAIN, THIS IS A MOTION TO DENY MADE BY MICHAEL VAUGHN. 
          OWEN SECONDED BY MAGGIE SHARES. 
          LET'S GO AHEAD AND CALL THE VOTE ABDULLAH. 
          [00:45:02]
YES. 
          YES. 
          OKAY. 
          SAM BARING? NO. 
          JEFFREY BOWEN. 
          YES. 
          YOUNG J KIM. 
          YES. 
          BIANCA MEDINA. 
          LEAL. 
          YES. 
          BRIAN PETITE. 
          NO. 
          MAGGIE TON? YES. 
          MICHAEL V OLIN? YES. 
          CORY ARCHER. 
          YES. 
          AND JESSICA COHEN? YES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU AGAIN EVERYONE THAT MOTION IS, OR SORRY THAT, UH, VARIANCE IS DENIED. 
          APPRECIATE ALL YOUR HARD WORK. 
          THANK YOU. 
          HAVE A GREAT EVENING. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          NOW WE MOVE ON TO THE NEW SIGN CASE. 
          THIS 
          [4. C16-2026-0002 Richard T Suttle, Jr. for RHP Block 21, LLC 310, 306, 310 ½, 314 & 320 W 2ND Street; 301, 311, & 317 W 3RD Street;  and 200, 210, & 212 Lavaca Street]
IS GOING TO BE C 16 20 26 0 0 0 2. 
          RICHARD T SETTLE FOR RHP BLOCK, 21 LLC THREE TEN THREE OH SIX THREE TEN AND A HALF, THREE 14 AND THREE 20 WEST SECOND STREET, 3 0 1 3 11 AND THREE 17 WEST THIRD STREET AND 202 10 AND TWO 12 LAVACCA STREET. 
          PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD. 
          YOU'LL HAVE FIVE MINUTES. 
          MY NAME'S RICHARD SETTLE. 
          DON'T THINK THE MICROPHONE'S ON. 
          HI, MY NAME'S RICHARD SETTLE. 
          I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT TONIGHT. 
          I WAS OUTSIDE WHEN Y'ALL SWORE EVERYBODY IN. 
          SHOULD I SWEAR IN REAL QUICK? DID WE EVER DECIDE HOW TO HANDLE THAT LEGAL? DO I HAVE, DO WE NEED TO DO THAT OR, YEAH. 
          YES, YOU BETTER GET ME ON THE OATH. 
          , DO YOU SOLEMNLY SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU WILL GIVE TONIGHT WILL BE TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE? YES, I DO. 
          OKAY, THANK YOU. 
          STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD AGAIN AND FIVE MINUTES. 
          MY NAME IS RICHARD SETTLE. 
          I'M HERE TONIGHT ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT, THE ZONING CASE. 
          I'M GLAD FOR AT LEAST TWO THINGS. 
          ONE, I'M GLAD I'M NOT DOING A, A BOW DOCK THING AND I'M GLAD I'M NOT AFTER NUMBER SEVEN, UM, , I, I REPRESENT THE OWNER OF BLOCK 21, WHICH IS THE HOME OF THE ACL LIVE MOODY THEATER AND THE W HOTEL PREMIUM VENUE FOR LIVE MUSIC AND UH, ALSO FOR TAPINGS SUCH AS PBS OWNERSHIP OF BLOCK 21 ROLLS UP TO A COMPANY CALLED RYMAN HOSPITALITY PROPERTIES, WHICH IF, IF YOU KEEP UP WITH THESE THINGS, WHICH I OFTEN DON'T, BUT I ACTUALLY KNEW THIS ONE, THEY OWN THE GRAND OLE OPRY AND OTHER, UH, I, UH, GREAT MUSIC VENUES AROUND THE COUNTRY. 
          I, I TELL YOU THAT IT'S NOT PART OF THE VARIANCE, BUT I TELL YOU THAT BECAUSE THESE PEOPLE KNOW KIND OF WHAT THEY'RE DOING ON, ON MUSIC VENUES, UM, THERE ARE PROS. 
          WE'RE ASKING FOR A SIGN VARIANCE TONIGHT BECAUSE WE HAVE TWO OPTIONS TO DO A A SIGN TO DRAW ATTENTION TO UPCOMING EVENTS. 
          WE'VE GOT THE OPTION TO PUT A SIGN ON A WALL WHERE WE HAVE THE OPTION TO DO A FREE STANDING SIGN. 
          UM, CURRENTLY IF WE DO A SIGN ON THE WALL OF THE BUILDING, WE CAN GO UP TO 846 SQUARE FEET OF SIGNAGE. 
          AND THERE'S REALLY NO HEIGHT LIMIT. 
          YOU CAN DO WHATEVER SIZE, SHAPE, WHATEVER YOU WANT TO. 
          UM, IF YOU, OR WHAT WE COULD DO IS A FREE STANDING SIGN ON THE CURRENT RULES. 
          BUT WE COULDN'T BE OVER SIX FEET TALL AND WE'D BE LIMITED TO 139 SQUARE FEET. 
          WE ACTUALLY, AT ONE POINT HAD PERMITTED A WALL SIGN IT'S 765 SQUARE FEET ON THE WALL, BUT IT JUST DIDN'T LOOK RIGHT FOR THIS LOCATION ON THE WALL. 
          IT DIDN'T ADDRESS THE STREET AND THE PEDESTRIANS THE WAY WE WANTED IT TO. 
          SO WE STOOD, STARTED LOOKING AT OTHER OPTIONS AND BECAUSE OF THE UNIQUE OPPORTUNITY OF OWNING THE WHOLE BLOCK AND OWNING THE CORNER, WE CAME UP WITH WHAT WE THINK IS A PRETTY COOL AND WE HOPE THAT THAT YOU'LL AGREE. 
          WE PROPOSE A FREESTANDING SIGN THAT DOESN'T QUITE MEET THE SIGN REGULATIONS. 
          THE ONE WE PROPOSE IS A CURVED DESIGN ALONG THE CORNER. 
          AND I'M GONNA SHOW YOU A PICTURE IN A MINUTE THAT WITH THE PODIUM THAT IT STANDS ON, WHICH STAND 30 FEET TALL AND WOULD BE ABOUT 250 SQUARE FEET, IT'S ARCHITECTURALLY PLEASING AND IT'S, AND IT'S ACTUALLY SUPPORTED BY OUR NEIGHBORS, BOTH TO THE EAST AND TO THE SOUTH. 
          AND, AND I THINK THERE SHOULD BE LETTERS IN YOUR, IN YOUR PACKAGE SHOWING THAT THE, WE HAVE THE SUPPORT OF THOSE FOLKS. 
          UM, HOW DO I MAKE THIS GO? LET'S SEE. 
          SO THERE'S THE LOCATION. 
          YOU GUYS KNOW WHERE THE W IS? THAT'S ABOUT HOW THIS SIGN WILL LOOK. 
          WE'RE WILLIE NELSON'S STANDING THERE. 
          THAT'S THE CURVED DESIGN. 
          IT WILL STAND THERE AT THE CORNER AND THAT'S WHAT IT IS. 
          THESE 
          [00:50:01]
ARE JUST RENDERINGS. 
          WE, WE NEED TWO VARIANCES TO DO THIS. 
          WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO HAVE MORE THAN 139 SQUARE FEET AND WE NEED TO BE TALLER THAN SIX FEET TALL. 
          AND THE FINDINGS, I'LL REST ON THE FINDINGS THAT WE MADE, THE ELABORATE FINDINGS IN YOUR PACKET, WHICH ARE LONGER THAN THESE, BUT IT, IT WON'T HAVE A SUBSTANTIALLY ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES BECAUSE THIS SIGN WILL ACTUALLY BE POINTING AT THE INTERSECTION AND IS ACTUALLY THE BEST PROOF OF THIS IS THAT WE, WHEN WE PRESENTED TO OUR ADJOINING LANDOWNERS, THEY LOVED IT. 
          SO WITH THE LETTERS OF SUPPORT, WE THOUGHT, WELL, WE WON'T HAVE AN ADVERSE IMPACT UPON NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. 
          IT WON'T CON CONFLICT WITH THE STATED PURPOSE OF THE, OF THE ORDINANCE BECAUSE WE COULD ACTUALLY, AND I ALWAYS HATE TO MAKE THE BAD COMPARISON, BUT WE COULD DO MORE BUT LESS COOL ON THE BUILDING OR WE COULD DO SOMETHING ICONIC AND STAY OUTTA THE WAY OF THE PEDESTRIANS AND ACTUALLY, UH, FULFILL THE PURPOSE OF THE SIGN AND MEET ESSENTIALLY THE PURPOSES OF THE, UH, THE SIGN ORDINANCE. 
          BECAUSE WE'D BE DOING ACTUALLY LESS SIGNAGE THAN WHAT WE COULD DO ON THE WALL. 
          IT WON'T GRANT US A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE, UM, IN SIMILAR SITUATED PROPERTIES BECAUSE THIS IS A UNIQUE ENTERTAINMENT VENUE, MUCH LIKE Q2 STADIUM MOODY, UM, IN OTHER VENUES AROUND TOWN WHERE YOU'RE ACTUALLY TRYING TO DRAW ATTENTION TO UPCOMING EVENTS. 
          UH, THE PURPOSE OF THIS SIGN IS TO RAISE AWARENESS OF UPCOMING EVENTS. 
          IT'S AN IMPORTANT DOWNTOWN ASSET, ESPECIALLY WHILE OUR CONVENTION CENTER IS DOWN. 
          IT DRAWS VISITORS TO THE RESTAURANTS, THE HOTELS, THE STORES DOWNTOWN AND IT, AND AGAIN, ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT WHILE THE CONVENTION CENTER IS DOWN. 
          AND WITH THAT, I'LL CLOSE AND BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. 
          HOPE, HOPE, RESPECTFULLY, HOPE THAT YOU'LL LOOK FAVORABLY ON THIS VARIANCE REQUEST. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OKAY. 
          IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION? SEEING NONE. 
          LET'S GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND OPEN IT UP TO QUESTIONS. 
          BOARD MEMBER SHERIFF STAI. 
          UM, I JUST HAD A QUESTION. 
          HAVE THERE BEEN ANY, UM, I GUESS I HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF A CONCERN ABOUT LIKE THE TRAFFIC AND LIKE THE DISTRACTION TO PEOPLE DRIVING RIGHT AT THAT INTERSECTION. 
          'CAUSE I KNOW THAT INTERSECTION IS A LITTLE BIT CONFUSING TO BEGIN WITH AND THEN YOU HAVE THIS LIKE, HUGE SIGN KIND OF DISTRACTING YOU WHILE YOU'RE TRYING TO LIKE, FIGURE OUT WHETHER YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO BE IN LIKE THE LEFT LANE OR THE RIGHT LANE. 
          YOU KNOW, LIKE, I'M JUST CURIOUS, HAS THERE BEEN ANY WORK DONE TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S GONNA BE A SAFE INTERSECTION WITH SUCH A LARGE SIGN THERE? WE ADDRESSED IT BY NOT HAVING IT POINT AT YOU, AT YOU WHILE YOU'RE DRIVING. 
          IT'S, IT'S KIND OF, IT'S SET AT A DIAGONAL AND IT'S CURVED SO THAT YOU CAN ACTUALLY, YOUR EYE WILL DRAW AROUND IT AS YOU'RE GOING LEFT OR RIGHT OR GOING, COMING THROUGH THE INTERSECTION AS OPPOSED TO WHAT WE THOUGHT ABOUT SOMETHING UP WHERE YOU HAVE TO LOOK UP ON THE WALL, YOUR EYES ARE NOW OFF THE ROAD DOWN HERE, YOU'RE LOOKING AND YOU'RE ABLE TO LOOK AROUND THE SIGN AND SEE IT. 
          RIGHT. 
          AND THE, AND THE WALL WOULD ACTUALLY BE ALLOWED UNDER CODE. 
          YOU WOULDN'T BE LOOKING FOR A VARIANCE. 
          THAT'S CORRECT. 
          RIGHT. 
          WE ACTUALLY HAD A PERMIT TO DO ONE ON THE WALL AND IT JUST, IT JUST WASN'T RIGHT. 
          BOARD MEMBER BOWEN, UM, I GOT A COUPLE QUESTIONS. 
          UH, ONE ON YOUR, UH, PRESENTATION. 
          I, I I SEE, I SEE THAT IT'S CURVED, BUT THE DIMENSION THAT YOU HAVE FOR 10 FEET ON THERE, IS THAT THE, IS THAT THE 10 FEET IN THE CURVE AND FARM OR IS THAT ACROSS THE BACKSIDE BECAUSE IT WOULD CHANGE YOUR SQUARE FOOTAGE BASED UPON THE ACTUAL MEASUREMENT? YOU KNOW, I CAN MAKE SOMETHING UP, BUT I'M GONNA ASK MY FINE GUY. 
          IS IT THE CURVE THAT'S 10 FEET AS YOU MEASURE AROUND THE CURVE? THE WHOLE CURVE? SO IT'S, SO THE 10 FEET IS THE CURVE ITSELF? YES, IT IS. 
          OKAY. 
          CAN YOU SAY THAT FOR THE RECORD PLEASE? YES. 
          THE 10 FEET IS MEASURED FROM END TO END AROUND THE CURVE. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, WHAT IS THE SIZE OF THE SIGN THAT YOU HAVE A PERMIT FOR AND WHAT WALLS WOULD THAT CURRENTLY BE PUT ON? THE SIGN THAT WE HAD PERMITTED WAS FOR 765 SQUARE FEET. 
          765 SQUARE FEET. 
          AND THAT, THAT RELATES TO HOW BIG WIDTH AND HEIGHT? UM, I DON'T REMEMBER THE DIMENSIONS BECAUSE IT'S BEEN, WE HAD THE PERMIT AND WE LET IT GO SO LONG AGO. 
          I DON'T REMEMBER IT, BUT IT'S, IF YOU DID A SQUARE, WHAT WOULD THAT BE? UM, I CAN'T DO MATH. 
          WELL, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT, IF YOUR SAME SIGN GUY IS THE SAME GUY THAT DID THAT. 
          NO, HE DIDN'T DO THAT ONE. 
          OH, HE DIDN'T DO THAT 
          [00:55:01]
ONE? NO, WE UPGRADED. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, YEAH. 
          AND I DON'T HAVE MY CALCULATOR RIGHT HERE WITH ME. 
          SO, UM, THEN, UH, WHICH WALL WAS THAT GOING ON? WAS IT GOING ON THE WALL? I, IT WAS THE FACING EAST. 
          IT WAS GONNA FACE EAST ON LAVACCA 28 FEET IF IT WAS HIS SQUARE. 
          OKAY, SO IT'S 28 BY 28. 
          PRETTY BIG SIGN ISH. 
          YEAH, EXACTLY. 
          ISH. 
          ISH. 
          BUT IT'S WAY UP THERE. 
          BASIC. 
          YEAH, THAT'S, AND THAT WAS THE, THAT'S THE QUESTION IS IT WAS 35 BY 21. 
          35 BY 21. 
          OKAY, GREAT. 
          UM, AND SO IT WAS GONNA BE IN THE EAST SIDE, UH, THAT'S CLOSER TO THE STEPS GOING IN, IS THAT CORRECT? YES. 
          AND HOW HIGH UP WAS THAT GONNA BE? WELL, THAT BUILDING I BELIEVE IS WHAT, 90 FEET? SO LET'S SAY BETWEEN 60 RIGHT OFF THE STAIRS. 
          NEVERMIND, JUST RIGHT OFF STAIRS. 
          IT WAS RIGHT OFF THE STAIRS. 
          SO LET'S SAY 30 FEET. 
          YEAH, ROUGHLY 30 FEET. 
          'CAUSE THEM STEPS PRETTY HIGH, SO. 
          RIGHT. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, JUST TO, UH, CLARIFY, THE, THE, UM, MATERIALS SAY THAT THE OLD PERMIT WAS FOR A SIGN ON THE SOUTHERN FACADE OH. 
          OF BUILDING THE SOUTHERN. 
          OKAY. 
          SO IT'D BE THE ONE FACING THIS WAY. 
          YEAH. 
          OKAY. 
          SO VERSUS THE EAST. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, YEAH, I WAS JUST CURIOUS 'CAUSE TRYING TO FIND OUT EXACTLY WHAT WAS THE COMPARISON, WHAT WAS THE SQUARE FOOTAGE GIVING UP IS ONE THING, BUT I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHERE THE LOCATION WAS, THOSE TYPE OF ISSUES. 
          BECAUSE I ALSO HAVE A SAFETY CONCERN BECAUSE AS I WAS COMING IN TODAY, I WAS JUST SITTING THERE WATCHING THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE BASED UPON BASICALLY WHETHER THE SIGN WAS GOING TO BE AND THOSE WALKING AROUND NOT PAYING ATTENTION EVEN AT FIVE O'CLOCK, SO ON AND SO FORTH. 
          SURE. 
          SO THAT, I IMAGINE THIS ONE WILL BE LOWER AND MORE. 
          WE CAN GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE PICTURE, BUT YEAH, IT'S, IT WON'T BE SO MUCH IN YOUR FACE. 
          THAT'S KIND OF WHAT THAT HOW WE GOT AWAY FROM THE WALL SIGN. 
          IT WAS KIND OF IN YOUR FACE. 
          WELL, AND IF IT'S JUST ON THE SOUTH SIDE, YOU'RE ONLY GETTING WHATEVER ATTENTION YOU'RE GETTING THAT'S GOING EAST, WEST. 
          THAT'S, THAT'S CORRECT. 
          UH, SO, OKAY. 
          UM, AND, AND I DO HAVE ONE OTHER QUESTION BASED UPON THE WAY I READ, THE WAY I READ THE CODE. 
          UH, YOU'RE USING YOUR LINEAR, YOUR, YOUR LINEAR FOOTAGE ALL THE WAY AROUND THE PROPERTY, CORRECT? YEAH. 
          CORRECT. 
          TO COME UP WITH, UM, YOUR, YOUR DIMENSIONS. 
          BUT, UM, AND, AND YOU NOTED IT, UH, BASED UPON YOUR INFORMATION, IT SAYS, UH, ITEM TWO ON HERE, UNDER THE SIDE DOWNTOWN SIDE REGULATION SAYS FOR A FREESTANDING SIGN, THE SIGN MAY NOT EXCEED THE LESSER OF 0.5 SQUARE FEET PER EACH LINEAR FOOT OF STREET FRONTAGE OR 200 SQUARE FEET. 
          BUT YOUR APPLICATION SAYS 250 SQUARE FEET. 
          CAN YOU EXPLAIN THAT PLEASE? SURE. 
          WE THINK THAT BY THE CALCULATIONS WE COULD GET 139 FEET SQUARE FEET. 
          BUT IF YOU DID THE CALCULATIONS, EVEN IF IT WAS THE 200 FEET, WE, THIS, THIS SIGN WANTS TO BE 250 SQUARE FEET. 
          OKAY. 
          SO YOU WANT TO EXCEED THE TWO. 
          THE SIGN WANTS TO BE . 
          YEAH, THE SIGN, THE SIGN ROAD DOESN'T WANNA BE, SORRY, I THOUGHT THAT THE, THE SIGN IS BEGGING YOU. 
          THE SIGN IS BEGGING YOU . 
          YEAH. 
          SO YOU'RE REALLY TRYING TO GO 50, 50 SQUARE FEET OVER WHAT THEY, WHAT THEY'RE ALLOW WHAT IT SAYS THE LESSER OF IS HERE. 
          YES. 
          THE LESSER WOULD BE THE 1 38 UP TO 200. 
          BUT WE'RE ASKING FOR TWO 50. 
          RIGHT. 
          OKAY. 
          SO THE 200 WOULD NOT MEET YOUR, WOULD NOT MEET YOUR REQUIREMENTS? NO, IT WOULD NOT. 
          OKAY. 
          IT'S JUST FIVE FEET KNOCKING OFF THE TOP BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE I WAS GOING. 
          YEAH. 
          MR. TUTTLE, I WAS THINKING IF YOU GUYS, YOU'VE GOT FIVE FEET AT THE BOTTOM FOR THE BASE, INSTEAD OF GOING 25 FEET, IF YOU WENT 20 FEET AND EITHER MAKE YOUR BASE LOWER SO THAT THE LIGHT CAN COME DOWN INTO THAT BASE. 
          I KNOW YOU WANT TO BE OVER PEOPLE'S HEADS DRIVING. 
          I DON'T, I DIDN'T MEAN TO JUMP IN JEFF, BUT THAT'S WHERE I WAS GOING BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE I WAS GOING TOO. 
          UH, TRYING TO, TRYING TO FIND A COMPROMISE. 
          UM, MY, MYSELF PERSONALLY, I HATE LED SIGNS WHILE DRIVING AND I'M NOT QUITE THERE WHERE I NEED CATARACT SURGERY OR ANYTHING YET. 
          BUT, YOU KNOW, STILL WEARING GLASSES AND, AND I'VE COME AROUND THAT CORNER SEVERAL TIMES WHEN THERE'S UH, UH, A CONCERT GOING ON AND PEOPLE ARE DOWN AND THEY'RE LOOKING AND THEY'RE NOT LOOKING AT YOU. 
          AND DEPENDING ON WHICH VEHICLE YOU'RE DRIVING, IF THEY GET RIGHT IN THAT BLIND SPOT AND THERE'S A GLARE ON THE WIND WINDSHIELD, YOU WON'T SEE 'EM. 
          AND SO THAT, THAT WAS MY ONLY CONCERN, UH, YOU DID HAVE IN YOUR PACKAGE. 
          AND I WAS GONNA ASK YOU TO ELABORATE ON THE 
          [01:00:01]
LED CONTROLLING SO THAT IT HAS A DIMMING, UH, CAPABILITY AND YOU MIGHT WANT HIM TO COME TO THE STANCE, OR SINCE YOU'RE THE SIGNED GUY, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE UH, QUE UH, FOR THE RECORD. 
          AND I HAVE HAD A COUPLE QUESTIONS PERTAINING 'CAUSE BECAUSE I KNOW THE SCIENCE ON SCIENCE HAS PROGRESSED QUITE SUBSTANTIALLY. 
          BUT YOU DON'T WANT ME MAKING IT UP TONIGHT ANYMORE. 
          NO, YOU'RE GONNA BRING THE PRO. 
          NO, THANK YOU. 
          MY SON'S A PILOT WHEN HE FLIES IN, HE SEES SOME OF THOSE LED SIGNS THAT, THAT REFLECT OFF THE DELTA WINDSHIELDS. 
          AND HE, HE'S GOT A BIG BEEF ON HIM TOO, BUT ME, IT'S JUST FROM DRIVING A CAR. 
          ALRIGHT, SO, UH, BOB STOCKHAM YES. 
          WIRE DESIGN BUILD. 
          UM, YEAH, SO YOU'RE, YOU'RE, YOU'RE, YOU'RE DID A GREAT JOB. 
          SO, BUT THE, IT IS FULLY DIMMABLE AND IT'S DIMMABLE WITH THE LIGHT AS THE LIGHT CHANGES AND YOU CAN ADJUST AND SET THOSE TO WHATEVER YOU WANT 'EM TO BE. 
          AND THE INTENTION HERE IS NOT TO DO THE FLASHING TO THE INTERSECTION. 
          AND THIS IS MORE OF AN ART PIECE WHERE LIKE WHEN THE A MESSAGES COME ON, THEY COME FROM THE GROUND UP. 
          SO THE REASON WHY THEY'RE TRYING TO, THE DESIGN WAS TO DO AT THAT PLANTER LEVEL. 
          SO IT KIND OF LOOKS LIKE THE SIGN IS PART OF THE GROUND. 
          SO WHEN EVERYTHING COMES, WHEN THE DESIGN COMES IN, IT COMES UP AND THEN IT SITS THERE AND IT RUNS THE MESSAGE AND THEN IT GOES OUT AGAIN. 
          UM, AS OPPOSED TO A FLASHING YEAH. 
          LIKE MARK KEY SIGN. 
          YES. 
          YES. 
          THAT, THAT I WOULD BE DEFINITELY OPPOSED AGAINST. 
          BECAUSE ONE OF THE THINGS IS WITH THE, WITH TECHNOLOGY TODAY, THE MAJORITY OF INFORMATION THAT PEOPLE GET FOR THE MOODY CENTER FOR ACTIVITIES AND OF COMING ATTRACTIONS AND EVERYTHING IS USUALLY ONLINE. 
          AND ACL'S GOT, THEY'RE ON INSTAGRAM, THEY'RE ON FACEBOOK, THEY'RE ON EVERYTHING. 
          THEY, FOR UPCOMING ATTRACTIONS. 
          SO THIS, UH, SIGN REALLY ISN'T GONNA BE HITTING THE MAJOR MARKET THAT, THAT THE MOODY CENTER ALREADY GETS JUST THROUGH SOCIAL MEDIA AND THROUGH, THROUGH THE INTERNET AND THROUGH THOSE TYPE OF ADVERTISING ACTIVITIES. 
          SO MY CONCERN WAS IF, OR, OR MY, MY THOUGHT WAS IF WE COULD COMPROMISE SOMEWHERE TO BRING THAT DOWN TO ABOUT 20 FEET INSTEAD OF THE BIG 25 FEET. 
          AND THEN IN THE PACKAGE, IT ALSO SAID THAT, THAT THE, THE, THE LEDS THAT YOU HAVE THAT ARE, THAT ARE BEING UTILIZED IN THIS SIGN AREN'T, UH, THEY'RE, I FORGOT THE WORD DIRECTIONAL. 
          THERE YOU GO. 
          DIRECTIONAL. 
          BUT SEE, THIS IS ON A CURVE. 
          SO BASICALLY IT'LL FOLLOW YOU AS YOU GO FROM ONE SIDE TO THE OTHER. 
          UM, IF YOU'RE AMENABLE, AND I'M, I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY ELSE HAS ANY INPUT, BUT IF YOU'RE AMENABLE TO GETTING THAT 20 FOOT, YOU SAID THE SIGN WANTS 25, TELL ME WHY THAT SIGN SAYS HE NEEDS 25. 
          YOU KNOW, WELL, I'LL THE, THE 25 PLUS THE, THE PODIUM THAT IT SITS ON, BECAUSE THESE, THESE WILL SCROLL UPWARDS. 
          YEAH. 
          'CAUSE I'M LOOKING AT 20 WITH THE, THEN YOU KEEP YOUR PODIUM. 
          IF FIVE 20, YOU'VE GOT A STICKER ON A BIG, UH, A STICKER THAT'S GONNA GO ON THERE, THAT'S GONNA BE LAMINATED OVER THE TOP OF THAT, WHICH COULD POSSIBLY MAY MADE A LITTLE BIT SMALLER TO GIVE YOU ANOTHER FOOT OR TWO. 
          BUT, UM, I DON'T SEE, GETTING TO THE 25 IS, I GUESS, WHERE I'M AT. 
          AND ALSO PUTTING A, A, UH, AN A AMEN FRIENDLY AMENDMENT, OR NOT A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT, BUT PUTTING A REQUIREMENT ON IT THAT THEY DO, THEY DO DIM IN THE EVENING DURING THE DAYTIME. 
          I FULLY UNDERSTAND, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE THAT'S THAT CORNER RIGHT THERE, BECAUSE OF ALL OUR GREAT ARCHITECTURE HERE IN AUSTIN CAN BE SHADOW OVERSHADOWED. 
          MM-HMM . 
          BUT A TIMER ON THERE TO BRING, BRING, UH, THE, THE LIGHT DOWN A LITTLE BIT. 
          WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE A STAR FRIENDLY CITY, WHICH YEAH, RIGHT. 
          IT, UH, UH, WE DON'T SEE 'EM AT AT NIGHT ANYMORE HERE IN AUSTIN. 
          BUT, UH, SOMETHING THAT COULD DIM IT AT DUSK. 
          MOST ACCIDENTS HAPPEN AT DUSK WHEN THERE'S A TRANSITION. 
          USUALLY WHEN IT'S ALL, ALL DARK, IT'S DARK. 
          BUT ANOTHER THING ALSO IS OLDER FOLKS, AND I'LL THROW MYSELF IN THERE. 
          I'M 66 NOW, BUT OUR EYES DON'T, WHEN THEY DILATE, THEY DON'T, AT NIGHT WHEN WE'RE HIT WITH BRIGHT LIGHTS, THEY DON'T COME BACK AS FAST AS YOUNG FOLKS DO. 
          AND THAT'S MY, MY BIG HEARTBURN ON L-E-D-L-E-D, UH, SITES. 
          SO THAT IT DOES, AND TO ANSWER THE QUESTION, IT, IT IS A PHOTO CELL AND IT IS SET TOO, AND IT WILL ADJUST AS THE LIGHT GOES. 
          SO AS IT GETS TO DUST, THEY WILL, IT WILL ADJUST DOWN. 
          AND IT COULD BE DOWN AS LOW PERCENTAGE AS 15 TO 10, 10% OF THE BRIGHTNESS AT THAT TIME. 
          AND EVEN AT DAYTIME, IT'S NOT RUNNING AT A HUNDRED PERCENT BRIGHTNESS. 
          YEAH. 
          DAYTIME'S NOT A BIG DEAL. 
          IT'S AT NIGHT WHEN YOU'RE DRIVING AND IT'S DARK, AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN YOU'RE HIT WITH THESE, THESE LEDS AND THEN YOUR EYES DILATE AND THEN THEY GOTTA COME BACK AND ADJUST AGAIN. 
          UM, IF I MAY, BOARD MEMBER YES. 
          RUN. 
          I THINK WE ALL HERE KNOW HOW ADAMANT I AM ABOUT DARK SKY COMPLIANCE. 
          YES. 
          [01:05:01]
BEING A STARLING, I, AND I DID LOOK AT THIS ONE. 
          UM, I WANTED, BEFORE YOU STARTED GETTING TOWARDS A MOTION, WHICH IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU MAY BE DOING, I WANTED TO MAYBE PROPOSE AN ALTERNATIVE SUGGESTION. 
          I KNOW YOU'RE SAYING THEY COULD GO DOWN INTO THAT BASE, UH, A LITTLE BIT. 
          BUT WHAT I STARTED THINKING OF IS THAT THAT DEVILISH MOODY CENTER SIGN ON 35, THAT LIGHTS UP EVERYTHING FOR 150 YARDS AROUND IT. 
          AND THAT I JUST HATE, UM, YOU, YOU TAKE THAT KIND OF LOOK ALONG WITH LIKE, UH, THE NEW DIGITAL KIOSKS THE CITY WILL MOST LIKELY BE PUTTING IN EVENTUALLY. 
          AND WE'RE, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A LOT OF AMBIENT LIGHTS THAT'S GONNA BE JUST AT OR ABOVE EYE LEVEL FOR A CAR THAT'S COMING IN THIS WAY ON, UH,  LA LAVACCA. 
          OH, LAVACCA. 
          YES. 
          TOOK ME A MINUTE. 
          SECOND IN LAVACCA. 
          YES. 
          YEAH. 
          SO I WOULD PREFER PERSONALLY TO SEE THAT BASE STAY THERE AND I'M, THE EXTRA HEIGHT DOESN'T BOTHER ME THAT MUCH, SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY'RE DOING KIND OF THE SAME THING AS THE KIOSK WITH THE BUILT IN MOTION SENSING LIGHT, AMBIENT LIGHT SENSING SENSOR. 
          UH, 'CAUSE MY FIRST CONCERN WHEN I SAW THIS WAS LIKE, I KNOW THE BACK COLONIES DOWN A BIT, BUT THEY FLY THROUGH HERE WHEN THEY'RE MIGRATING, AND A LOT OF BIRDS TOO. 
          SO IT'S SOMETHING WE SHOULD BE THINKING ABOUT. 
          AND, YOU KNOW, YOU GO STAND ON THE BRIDGE, YOU LIFT THE SKY, IT'S BEAUTIFUL. 
          YOU WANNA BE ABLE TO SEE IT WITHOUT ALL THAT EXTRA LIGHT. 
          BUT IF THAT'S GONNA BE THERE, THEN I DON'T SEE ANY REASON NOT TO JUST PUT IT UP A LITTLE HIGHER. 
          WELL, THE FIVE FOOT, THE FIVE FOOT, UH, BASE, MADAM CHAIR, I'M ALL IN FOR, BECAUSE IF YOU LEAVE THE FIVE FOOT AND, AND YOU BASICALLY, YOU'RE MAKING THE SIGN ITSELF 20 FOOT, BUT ALSO ON THAT SIGN, THEY HAVE A PLASTIC LAMINATE UP HERE THAT SAYS AUSTIN CITY LIMITS. 
          THAT'S TAKEN UP. 
          LEMME SEE. 
          VERY TOP PART. 
          YEAH. 
          YEAH. 
          I THINK I HAD IT HERE. 
          OH, SO WHEN THAT LIGHTS UP, THAT AUSTIN CITY LIMITS IS GONE, THAT'S ALL ON THE SCREEN. 
          YES. 
          THAT'S ALL PROGRAMMED. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          I'M TRACKING WITH YOU BOARD. 
          REMEMBER, I DON'T KNOW IF THIS HELPS OR NOT, BUT WE, WE ACTUALLY STUDIED ARCHITECTURALLY HOW THIS WOULD FIT IN WITH THE FACADE OF THE BUILDING. 
          MM-HMM . 
          AND, AND, AND THE VARIOUS, I MEAN, IT'S VERY TECHNICAL HOW THEY LOOK AT THE FLOOR PLATES. 
          AND ARCHITECTURALLY, THAT'S HOW WE LANDED ON, ON THIS SIZE. 
          I REMEMBER WHEN THE WINDOWS WERE FALLING, BALCONIES WERE FALLING OFF THAT ONE, BUT WE WON'T GO THERE. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, GIMME A SECOND. 
          I DO SOME OTHER STUFF. 
          WELL, I'LL LEAVE IT, I'LL LEAVE IT TO THE BODY. 
          I, YEAH, YEAH, GO AHEAD. 
          UH, I GOT A QUESTION. 
          WELL, ONE, THIS, THIS IS THE FIRST ONE I'VE HAD THAT'S ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE BUILDING WE'RE IN. 
          THAT'S INTERESTING . 
          BUT, UM, YOU KNOW, THERE'S, THERE'S ONE THING I WAS THINKING ABOUT BECAUSE THE ONE THAT WAS PERMITTED BEFORE WAS IN THE SOUTHERN FACADE FACING CITY HALL. 
          WELL, THIS ONE IS AT THE CORNER, SO IT'S FACING BOTH CITY HALL AND THE AMWAY APARTMENTS ACROSS THE STREET AND SILICON LABS. 
          YEAH. 
          I MEAN, HOW BRIGHT WOULD THIS BE FOR ALL THE PEOPLE WHOSE WINDOWS ARE RIGHT THERE, YOU KNOW, AT NIGHTTIME WHEN THEY'RE TRYING TO GO TO SLEEP? THAT, THAT'S, THAT TO ME IS THE BIGGEST IMPACT OF ONE THAT FACES A LITTLE BIT EAST AND SOUTH COMPARED TO THE PRIOR PERMITTED SIGN THAT JUST FACES SOUTH. 
          I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANNA ADDRESS IT. 
          WE, WE ACTUALLY MET WITH AMIE AND SHOWED THEM THE DESIGN AND, AND, AND THE SPECS. 
          AND IT WON'T, THESE LIGHTS WON'T BE SHINING INTO THEIR WINDOWS. 
          NOW, IF YOU OPEN YOUR CURTAINS OR IF YOU LOOKED OUT, YOU'LL BE ABLE TO SEE IT, BUT IT WON'T BE LIGHTING UP YOUR LIVING ROOM. 
          AND THAT'S FUNCTION OF THE LEDS. 
          RIGHT. 
          SO WHEN IT GETS DOWN INTO THE, THE, THE LOWER PERCENTAGE RATES, THE FOOT CANDLES LITERALLY ARE WITHIN FEET FROM THE SIGN AT THOSE LATE AT NIGHT. 
          AND THAT'S ON BY DESIGN, SO THAT IT ISN'T DOING THAT. 
          WHAT'S HAPPENING OVER THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN OVER THERE. 
          SO WHEN WE SET THE PARAMETERS TO THAT LOWER PERCENTAGE AT NIGHT, THERE'S NO INTENTION. 
          AND IT'S THE RYMAN GROUP AND EVERYBODY INVOLVED. 
          THAT WAS ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS THEY BROUGHT UP IN THE FIRST MEETINGS THAT WE HAD, IS THAT, UM, WE, THIS NEEDS TO WORK FOR EVERYBODY AROUND HERE. 
          SO IT WAS DESIGNED WITH THAT INTENT WHERE IT STARTS AT THOSE LOWER PERCENTAGES. 
          SO WHEN IT GETS TO NIGHTTIME, THE GOAL IS, IT'S, IT'S READABLE, BUT IT IS NOT PUTTING OFF BIG AMBIENT LIGHT PAST THE, UH, FOOTPRINT OF THE SIGN. 
          IT'LL BE WITHIN FEET IN FRONT OF THE SIGN WHERE IF YOU'RE STANDING THERE WITH LIGHT SOMETHING UP, AND AS YOU GET FARTHER AWAY, IT DOESN'T TRAVEL TO THE END. 
          AND THAT'S HOW FOOT CANDLES WORK ON THAT. 
          SO THAT PERCENTAGE COULD BE, WILL BE TONED DOWN AT NIGHT TO WHATEVER, WHEREVER IT IS. 
          AND THEN FROM THERE ON, AT A CERTAIN TIME AT NIGHT, IT COULD BE DOWN TO A COUPLE PERCENT, A TWO OR 3% IF, IF NEEDED TO BE. 
          SO THE REALITY OF THE SIGN DOESN'T TURN OFF, IT GOES TO LIKE ALMOST 0%. 
          AND, UM, YOU JUST DON'T SEE IT. 
          AND JUST SO WE HAVE THE, THE CORRECT INFORMATION, AMANDA, TOMORROW MY OFFICE JUST 
          [01:10:01]
SHOWED ME WE WERE CORRECT THE FIRST TIME WE LOOKED AT IT, THE SIGN ACTUALLY WAS FACING EAST. 
          IT WASN'T ON THE SOUTHERN FACADE. 
          IT'S FACING EAST. 
          SO THIS ACTUALLY, OH, THE PRIOR PERMITTED ONE WAS ENTIRELY FACING THE EMILY APARTMENTS THEN? YES. 
          OH, INTERESTING. 
          SO THIS IS THIS, SO THIS IS BETTER. 
          THIS IS ACTUALLY AN IMPROVEMENT. 
          THAT'S WHY I WAS SAYING WHEN WE LOOKED AT THAT ONE, IT JUST DIDN'T FEEL RIGHT. 
          AND THIS ONE LOOKED BETTER AND FELT BETTER. 
          OKAY. 
          AND THAT ONE WAS ON THE WALL ITSELF. 
          WELL, THIS IS FREE STANDING A LITTLE BIT OUT. 
          THAT'S CORRECT. 
          OKAY. 
          INTERESTING. 
          SO I HAVE A QUESTION. 
          SO WHO IS THE SIGNAGE DIRECTED TO? IS IT FOR THE PEDESTRIANS TO HAVE, UM, SIGNAGE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IS EVENTS ARE HAPPENING? OR IS IT FOR, UH, THE DRIVE, LIKE TO BE SEEN FROM A DISTANCE OR PEDESTRIANS ALONG THE SIDEWALK? IT'S PREDOMINANTLY FOR THE PEDESTRIANS ALONG THE SIDEWALK OF UPCOMING EVENTS, UH, TAPINGS, PBS, TAPINGS, THOSE KINDS OF THINGS. 
          AS PEOPLE ARE MILLING AROUND, WHEN YOU'VE GOT VISITORS IN TOWN, THEY MIGHT KNOW THAT A CONCERT IS COMING UP WHILE THEY'RE THERE AND THEY MIGHT VISIT, UH, OR THEY MIGHT BE ABLE TO PLAN FOR THE FUTURE. 
          IT'S NOT TO BE SEEN FROM A DISTANCE. 
          THAT'S WHY IT'S ONLY 30 FEET TALL AND YOU CAN'T SEE IT BEYOND THE, THE GENERAL VICINITY HERE. 
          THE REASON I ASK IS BECAUSE IT'S NOT IN THE PRESENTATION PACKET, BUT IN THE ADVANCED PACKET, WHICH WE CAN'T SHARE, UM, UH, POST IT RIGHT NOW AND THE, THE, AND THE, BUT, UM, THE SLIDE 12 HAS A PEDESTRIAN WALKING ALONG NEXT TO THE SIDE, UH, TO THE PROPOSED SIGNAGE. 
          AND THAT COMPARISON, THE PEDESTRIAN IS JUST, I KNOW IT'S AT A, IT'S RIGHT, UH, , JUST, UM, TO A LITTLE BIT, FEW STEPS AWAY FROM THE STEPS THAT LEAD TO THAT PODIUM THAT'S BEING PROPOSED, BUT THEIR HEIGHT JUST REACHES THE LOWER PART OF THE PODIUM. 
          AND SO I'M WONDERING, ASSIGN THAT TALL. 
          I WONDER HOW EFFECTIVE IT IS FOR THE PASSERSBY, IF THAT'S WHAT THE SIGN, IF THAT THAT'S FOR WELL, THE SIGNAGE, IT, WHAT IT'S INTENDED FOR, FOR THE WALK, IF YOU'RE RIGHT UP AGAINST THE SIGN, I THINK YOU'RE RIGHT. 
          IT WOULD, YOU'D HAVE TO STAND BACK AND, AND LOOK UP. 
          BUT IF YOU GET TO THE CURB AND BEYOND, THAT'S WHERE YOUR EYE WILL BE DRAWN. 
          BUT THE PEDESTRIAN ON THE PHOTO IS NOT RIGHT AT THE PODIUM. 
          IT IS AT ALMOST AT THE INTERSECTION, UM, OF THE CROSSWALK, UM, YOU KNOW, PRETTY CLOSE TO THE CROSSWALK. 
          AND I'M, I'M GUESSING THAT'S KIND OF THE DISTANCE THAT YOU'RE ANTICIPATING, UM, FOR THE PASSENGER BIAS TO VIEW THE SIGNAGE. 
          AND IT FEELS LIKE THERE'S A QUITE A BIT OF DIS UM, UM, HEIGHT, UM, DISTANCE FROM THE PEDESTRIAN THAT'S PHOTOGRAPHED THERE. 
          AND THAT IF YOU LOOK AT THE SCALE IS PROBABLY NOT EXACTLY RIGHT. 
          'CAUSE IF I'M LOOKING AT THE RIGHT ONE, IT ALSO SHOWS THAT THE, UH, TRANSFORMER IS TALLER THAN THE PERSON. 
          AND WE KNOW THAT ISN'T THE CASE OVER THERE. 
          I THINK THE SCALE OF THAT PHOTOGRAPH IS PROBABLY OFF A LITTLE BIT. 
          AND THEN, OKAY. 
          AND THEN THE OTHER QUESTION I HAD WAS, I KNOW WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE CONCERNED ABOUT THE, THE BRIGHTNESS OF THE LIGHT AND SO FORTH. 
          THE IMAGE BEING PORTRAYED FEELS MORE LIKE A PHOTOGRAPH AND NOT LIKE THE REAL RENDERING OF WHAT MAYBE A LID SIGNAGE MIGHT BE LIKE. 
          AND I'M WONDERING IF THAT ONCE THE ACTUAL IMAGE IS PORTRAYED ON THE SIGNAGE, IT'LL BE A MUCH MORE BRIGHTER AND SATURATED. 
          AND, UM, SO I'M WONDERING LIKE IF WHAT'S PORTRAYED IN THE PRESENTATION IS NOT GIVING US ACCURATE UNDERSTANDING OF, UH, THE BRIGHTNESS THAT MIGHT BE PORTRAYED IN THAT SIGNAGE. 
          SO IS THAT, IS THAT A PHOTOGRAPH THAT'S ON THERE OR IS IT LIKE, WHAT REALLY WOULD BE THE BRIGHTNESS OF, UM, WHAT'S POTENTIAL SIGNAGE WOULD BE THERE? IT'S A RENDERING. 
          SO IT, IT'S, IT'S NOT SHOWING WHAT THEY, IT'S VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT IT'S GONNA LOOK LIKE. 
          AND IT COULD BE MADE TO LOOK LIKE TRULY ANYTHING. 
          UM, BUT THAT IS JUST A RENDERING WHAT IT'D BE LIKE. 
          AND THEN THROUGH, THROUGH A DIFFERENT AD, IF IT WAS NOT WILLIE NELSON WITH A LOT OF BLACK IN THE BACKGROUND WITH A CONTRAST THAT YOU SEE THERE, IT COULD LOOK DIFFERENT FOR SURE. 
          I MEAN, IT'S, IT'S BASICALLY A BLAKE CANVAS ACTUALLY, IF I MAY, MS. KIM, IF YOU TAKE A LOOK WHERE THEY, THEY, THEY'RE HOLDING A A, UM, TO THE LEFT. 
          HE'S HOLDING A GUITAR THERE. 
          THERE'S A, A PIECE OF ART, THOSE CONCRETE, WHICH GOT THE TWO HOLES IN IT, THOSE ARE FOUR BY EIGHT. 
          DOES THAT LOOK LIKE THAT TO YOU, JEFF? FOUR BY EIGHT CONCRETE PANELS. 
          SO YOU'RE EIGHT HAVE 8 60 20. 
          THE, THE PICTURE OF WILLIE NELSON IS REALLY BLOWN UP. 
          PROBABLY. 
          IT'S NOT DOING Y'ALL VERY GOOD. 
          [01:15:01]
'CAUSE THAT'S WHAT CAUGHT MY ATTENTION TOO, IS HE, LOOK, THAT LOOKS ALMOST LIKE IT'S, YOU KNOW, 30, 40 FEET HIGH. 
          PLUS YOU'VE GOT THE THREE STEPS THAT GOES UP BEFORE YOU GET TO THE PLANTER. 
          SO I DON'T THINK YOUR, UH, RENDERING THAT YOU HAVE HERE IS REALLY ACCURATE. 
          IF YOU TAKE A LOOK, WHEN, WHEN EVERY WE POUR CONCRETE AND YOU HAVE THE FORMS AND YOU GOT THE TWO, THE ANCHORS ON, SO YOU LOOK WHERE THE YOUNG LADY'S WALKING, YOU SEE THOSE ANCHORS, THEN YOU'VE GOT ABOUT 5, 10, 15, 20. 
          HE'S ONLY, IT'S GONNA COME RIGHT ACROSS. 
          IT'S GONNA CUT OFF THE NECK OF HIS GUITAR. 
          YOUR PICTURE  DIDN'T SERVE YOU WELL. 
          SO, SO, SO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, SO IT'S GONNA BE LOOKING, WE BLEW IT ON OUR RENDERING. 
          YEAH. 
          IT'S GONNA LOOK SHORTER BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT CAUGHT MY ATTENTION. 
          I SAID, MAN, THAT'S MASSIVE. 
          WILLIE AIN'T THAT BIG. 
          SO, BUT, UM, WHEN YOU TAKE A LOOK AT IT AND YOU START PUTTING INTO PERSPECTIVE THERE, THE 20 FEET IS PROBABLY ABOUT WHERE THAT, THAT TOP, THE TOP, UH, LINE IS THAT FOR THAT LITTLE PERGOLA THING THAT THEY HAVE FOR THE SHADE THAT GOES ACROSS THE TOP, THAT'S ACTUALLY ABOUT 20. 
          ABOUT AT THE TOP NUT OF HIS GUITAR IS 20 FEET. 
          SO THAT WOULD BE THE 20 FEET IN ADDITION. 
          SO THAT HEIGHT WOULD BE 20 FEET IN ADDITION TO THE, THE PLATFORM. 
          WELL, THE, NO, UH, YES, BUT INCLUDING THE PLATFORM IS WHAT I MEANT. 
          YEAH. 
          YEAH. 
          SO YOU HAD ANOTHER FIVE FOOT ON THERE. 
          IT PROBABLY COMES RIGHT BELOW THAT FIRST LITTLE LINE YOU SEE BY WILLIE'S GUITAR THERE. 
          IF YOU LOOK AT WILLIE STANDING THERE, THERE'S, THERE'S TWO LINES BEHIND HIM WHERE HE IS STANDING IN FRONT OF THE CONCRETE WALL, THE THIRD ONE DOWN, IT'S ABOUT RIGHT ABOUT THE TOP NUT OF HIS GUITAR, THE TOP BAR BARB'S GUITAR. 
          SO YEAH, YOUR, YOUR PICTURE MADE IT LOOK A HECK OF A LOT BIGGER THAN WHAT IT IS THERE, MR. SULE. 
          THAT'S WHAT CAUGHT ME ATTENTION. 
          I'D RATHER OVER PROMISE . 
          OKAY, THAT'S THAT, THAT, THAT FEELS A LITTLE DIFFERENT. 
          THAT'S THAT WITH THAT EXPLANATION. 
          OKAY. 
          BOARD MEMBER . 
          LET'S JUST SAY IF SHE'S, SO I DO WANNA SAY, I THINK THE DESIGN IS REALLY LOVELY. 
          LIKE, I ACTUALLY LIKE THE CURVE AND EVERYTHING. 
          I THINK IF IT WEREN'T LIT UP, THIS WOULD BE LIKE OPEN AND SHUT. 
          RIGHT? WE WOULD BE LIKE, OH, IT'S BEAUTIFUL. 
          YEAH. 
          BUILD IT. 
          ABSOLUTELY. 
          I THINK WE'RE ALL, A LOT OF US AT LEAST ARE GETTING STUCK ON THE FACT THAT IT IS BRIGHT. 
          UM, I ALSO DON'T LOVE LED, UM, EVER SINCE I READ SOMEWHERE THAT EVER SINCE THE ADOPTION OF LED LIGHTING, THE ARTIFICIAL GLOW ABOVE CITIES HAS GONE UP 2% ANNUALLY. 
          SO LIKE, THE AMOUNT OF LIGHT POLLUTION THAT WE'RE PUTTING OUT, UM, JUST KEEPS GOING UP. 
          UM, THE ONLY THING THAT REALLY MAKES ME TOO INCLINED, INCLINED TO APPROVE HERE IS THAT THERE'S SORT OF AN ABSURD REALITY THAT IF WE DENY THIS, WE'RE CREATING AN INCENTIVE TO PUT LIKE A HUGE LIT UP SIGN ON THE WALL OF THE BUILDING, WHICH IS ALSO NOT GREAT. 
          UM, AND THEN THE ONLY THING JUST, YOU KNOW, JUST AS A DISCUSSION WITH THE BOARD, THE THING THAT I KEEP GETTING STUCK ON IS THE, THE POTENTIAL TRAFFIC PROBLEMS. LIKE I, I KEEP JUST ASKING MYSELF IS, IS THE POTENTIAL RISK OF ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS AT THIS CORNER THAT'S ALREADY VERY CONFUSING, WORTH THE SIGNAGE TO PROMOTE, YOU KNOW, ACL LIVE, WHICH WE ALL LOVE. 
          SO IF I MAY, YEAH. 
          AS SOMEONE WHO IS PERPETUALLY TWO MINUTES LATE, THE POINT WHERE MY OWN MOTHER AS SHE WAS DYING, TOLD ME NOT TO BE LATE TO HER FUNERAL, IS A JOKE. 
          THIS SIGN ISN'T GONNA MAKE A DIFFERENCE. 
          THAT IS THE WORST SINGLE CORNER IN DOWNTOWN WHERE YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH SIX CYCLES OF THE LIGHT, ESPECIALLY ON A MONDAY WHEN ACL IS MEETING. 
          THIS IS JUST A PERSONAL OPINION. 
          IS IT GONNA MAKE, I AGREE. 
          IT'S ALREADY TERRIBLE. 
          SO I'M JUST LIKE, DO WE WANNA ADD MORE NOISE? THAT THAT'S WHAT I'M GETTING STUCK ON. 
          YOU KNOW, I'M, I'M ACTUALLY INCLINED TO APPROVE IT, I THINK. 
          BUT THAT IS LIKE THE PART WHERE I'M JUST LIKE, I THINK I'M MORE CONCERNED ABOUT IS THAT PEDESTRIANS WHO AREN'T PAYING ATTENTION TO THE CROSSWALK SIGN YEAH. 
          AS OPPOSED TO, OR CARS THAT JUST THINK THEY CAN DROP THERE LIKE UBER WHO JUST STOP MAKE CROSSWALK IN THE MIDDLE OF IT. 
          YEAH. 
          IT'S LIKE 10 FEET WIDE. 
          THE, THE, THE ONLY THING I WILL ADD IN TRYING TO CONVINCE YOU IS IT'S ONLY 10 FEET WIDE BOARD MEMBER ABDI. 
          UM, I DID HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE GENTLEMAN. 
          I'M SORRY, I DON'T KNOW YOUR NAME. 
          THE, IT'S BOB, MR. EASY ON YOU, MR. BOB. 
          UM, LIKE LIKEWISE, UM, THIS IS THIS SIGN THIS, UH, IN THE URBAN ENVIRONMENT. 
          UM, HAS IT BEEN DONE BEFORE AND HOW MANY TIMES AND WHAT ISSUES HAVE COME UP EITHER THROUGH STUDIES OR YOUR EXPERIENCE? UM, SO THEY HAVE BEEN DONE, UM, IN, IN CERTAIN JURISDICTIONS. 
          UM, AND ANYTIME THAT WE'VE HAD PUSHBACK IN AREAS THAT REALLY AREN'T PRO DOING, AN LED SIGN IS WORKING WITH STAFF, WHOEVER TO COME UP WITH, UM, A 
          [01:20:01]
CRITERIA THAT WORKS FOR EVERYBODY. 
          RIGHT. 
          AND IN THIS SCENARIO IS IT SOUNDS LIKE THE CONCERN IS THE FLASH AND WHAT'S GOING ON AND, AND INTO THAT INTERSECTION, AND THEN BRIGHTNESS A LITTLE BIT AT, AT THE NIGHT, AT THE NIGHTTIME. 
          AND THE COMPROMISE FOR THAT IS VERY SIMPLE AS FAR AS SET THE PARAMETERS OF WHAT THE BRIGHTNESS CAN BE AND KEEP THAT AT NIGHT. 
          AND THEN I DON'T FEEL ANYBODY HERE HAS A PROBLEM IF THE BOARD AT A CERTAIN TIME AT NIGHT, WHETHER IT'S ONE IN THE MORNING OR WHATEVER IT IS, GOES OFF AND, AND THEN IT COMES BACK ON IN THE MORNING OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THAT IS WHAT'S BEEN DONE. 
          THE OTHER THING IS, IS WHEN IT'S PROGRAMMED AND IT'S DONE RIGHT, IT'S NOT THE BIG FLASHY AND I, THESE PEOPLE AREN'T LIKE THAT. 
          I'M JUST TELLING YOU, I'VE BEEN IN MEETINGS WITH A LOT OF PEOPLE, THEY JUST WANT, OH, MORE AND MORE AND MORE. 
          THEY'RE NOT THAT AT ALL. 
          MORE ARTSY. 
          UH, AND IT, AND IT'S A BLANK CANVAS TO DESIGN. 
          SO IF IT WAS JUST ONE STATIC SIGN, PEOPLE ARE CHANGING THAT FACE OUT EVERY FEW DAYS FOR THE NEXT SHOW COMING IN, AND THEY HAVE A LOT OF SHOWS GOING THROUGH THERE. 
          THIS IS, IT'S, IT'S MAKES MORE OF AN IMPACT AND IT'S, AND IT'S MORE FEASIBLE TO ACTUALLY GET THE NEXT ACT UP THERE. 
          UH, AND IF THEY DO IT IN THE RIGHT WAY AND THE PARAMETERS ARE SET AND EVERYBODY'S HAPPY WITH IT, IT, IT'S GONNA BE A NICE LIKE, FOCAL POINT FOR PEOPLE TO KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON. 
          WHETHER IT'S THE PBS SHOW OR IF IT'S ACTUAL A SHOW, WILLIE NELSON OR ANYBODY ELSE COMING ON TO EDUCATE EVERYBODY COMING THROUGH THAT AREA. 
          AS OPPOSED, IT IS NOT, THE INTENTIONS NEVER HAS BEEN TO DO WHAT'S AT THE OTHER MOODY AT THE, THE ARENA, NOT AT ALL. 
          AND WAS ACTUALLY STARTED. 
          WE DON'T WANT THAT. 
          SO THAT'S WHY WE CAME UP WITH THE DESIGN THAT YOU HAVE THERE. 
          RIGHT. 
          SURE. 
          BOARD MEMBER BOWEN. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, I WANTED TO GET MY LAST QUESTION OUT. 
          AND AGAIN, THANK YOU FOR BRINGING UP THE, THE PORTION ABOUT HOW TALL IT IS IN THIS PICTURE VERSUS THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS I WAS KIND OF LOOKING AT THE SIZE OF THIS. 
          WHO ACTUALLY CONTROLS THE PROGRAMMING AND HOW IS THAT EVALUATED AND HOW DO THEY RECEIVE INPUT AS TO OTHER ISSUES THAT MAY COME UP? BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S, THAT MAY BE PART OF THE CONCERN IS, WELL, FOR ME IS THAT IF THEY'RE, IF WE'RE NOTICING SOMETHING, UM, AND THE LIGHT IS TOO BRIGHT OR WHATEVER THE CASE IS, HOWEVER THAT'S DONE, HOW IS THAT WHOLE PROCESS AND AND WHO HAS INPUT ON THAT? I CAN ADDRESS THAT BECAUSE WE STARTED WITH OUR NEIGHBORS WHAT THEY WOULD WANT TO SEE. 
          UM, RYMAN HOSPITALITY, THEIR, THEIR NAME IS HOSPITALITY. 
          THEY, THEY WANT TO GET ALONG WITH BOTH THEIR JURISDICTIONAL FRIENDS AND THEIR NEIGHBORS. 
          IF THERE BECOMES A PROBLEM ON THIS SIGN, I CAN, I JUST, IN DEALING WITH THESE GUYS, I, I KNOW THAT THEY WILL SOLVE IT. 
          IT THE PROGRAMMING WILL BE CONTROLLED BY RYMAN SUBJECT TO PUBLIC OPINION AND, AND BEING A GOOD NEIGHBOR. 
          AND THAT'S WHY WE STARTED WITH OUR NEIGHBORS. 
          SO ARE YOU SAYING THAT CONTROL OF THE SIGN WOULD COME WITH INPUT FROM THE NEIGHBORS TO CORRECT ANY OF COURSE. 
          UH, BOARD MEMBER VAN OLAND. 
          I'M GONNA MAKE A MOTION. 
          UH, THERE'S A COMMENT THAT HE JUST MADE THAT BASICALLY IT'S A BLACK, IT'S, IT'S A BLACK STATUS DESIGN. 
          OKAY. 
          SO I'M GONNA MAKE A MOTION AND I'M BACK TO WHERE I WAS. 
          I SCALED IT BASED ON THE PICTURE OF WILLIE STANDING THERE AND DID AN OLD SCHOOL MAP SCALE, MILITARY STYLE. 
          AND, UH, THE WAY IT LOOKS LIKE TO ME IS I'M GONNA MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE A SIGN THAT IS IN 20, THAT IS, UH, 25 FEET TOTAL HEIGHT THAT INCLUDES THE BASE AND THE SIGN. 
          SO YOU GOT FIVE, FIVE FEET FOR THE BASE AND 20 FEET FOR THE SIGN. 
          UH, I'M ALSO GOING TO REQUEST THAT, UM, THAT IT, IT GOES OFF AT MIDNIGHT. 
          THAT'LL BE PART OF MY, MY MOTION AND, UH, THAT THE, AND THE, AND THAT THE, UH, LEDS DO DIM ACCORDINGLY WITH AS WE GO FROM DUSK TO DAWN. 
          AND OF COURSE YOU HAVE TO ADJUST IT FOR TIME. 
          UH, IF I COULD, BEFORE WE GET A SECOND ON THAT, ONLY BECAUSE I'M CONCERNED, ARE THERE ANY, DO YOU GUYS KNOW IF THERE ARE ANY SHOWS THAT GO PAST MIDNIGHT? BECAUSE I WOULD SAY PUT IT AT THE END OF THE SHOW, MAYBE. 
          OH, END OF THE SHOW'S FINE. 
          I'M GOOD WITH THAT. 
          YEAH. 
          IF YOU'RE OKAY WITH LIKE A SUBSTITUTE YEAH, THAT'S FINE. 
          IT IS AN ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICT. 
          YES IT IS. 
          YES IT IS. 
          NO, THAT'S REASONABLE. 
          THAT'S REASONABLE. 
          BUT I DO THINK IT'S 30 MINUTES AFTER THE END OF THE SHOW. 
          SO THE PEOPLE COMING OUT CAN OR AN HOURS. 
          YES. 
          THEY CAN SEE WHAT NEXT. 
          THEY CAN SEE WHAT'S, WHAT'S UP IN COMMON. 
          THAT'S, TO ME, THAT'S REASONABLE. 
          YEAH. 
          WHEN, WHEN, WHEN DOWNTOWN SHUTS DOWN, LIKE 
          [01:25:01]
AT 2:00 AM THAT WOULD BE, THAT WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE. 
          YEAH. 
          BUT IF YOU WANNA PUT A NUMBER ON I'M OKAY WITH TWO. 
          I'M GOOD WITH IT. 
          I'M EASY TRYING TO COMPROMISE HERE. 
          NOT THROUGHOUT THE BABY WITH THE BATH WATER, YOU KNOW, WHEN, WHEN CAN THEY TURN IT BACK ON? IS IT 30 THAT'S WIDE? I MEAN, NORMALLY IT COMES BACK ON WITH THE SUNRISE, RIGHT? YEAH, YEAH, YEAH. 
          THAT'S COOL. 
          YEAH, SUNRISE. 
          COOL. 
          OKAY. 
          I'M JUST SAYING WE NEED TO CLARIFY. 
          OTHERWISE YOU TURN IT OFF AT 2:00 AM AND HAS TO STAY ON UNTIL, WELL, THE, THE REASON I THINK SUNRISE IS APPROPRIATE IS BECAUSE WE JUST WENT THROUGH OUR TIME CHANGE, YOU KNOW, AND IF WE LOCK IN A TIME, THEN WHEN WE GO INTO DAYLIGHT SAVINGS TIME VERSUS REGULARS TIME, IT'S GONNA MESS 'EM ALL UP. 
          UH, I WOULD JUST SAY IT'S SUNRISE, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, BECAUSE YOU, YOU MENTIONED IT HAD AUTOMATIC PHOTO SENSOR, SO WHEN THE SUN COMES UP, JUST LIKE A STREET LIGHTS. 
          EXACTLY. 
          I THINK IT WAS EXACT. 
          I MEAN, I'M NOT OPPOSED TO STAYING ON IF IT'S NOT A PROMOTIONAL LIFE, BUT A SAFETY THING. 
          LIKE MAYBE SOMETHING A LOW LIGHT THAT IS MORE ARTISTIC, LIKE WHAT THE APPLICANT IS SUGGESTING. 
          IF IT'S MORE ARTISTIC AND SUBDUED AND IT CREATES SAFETY BY PRODUCING SOME SUPPLEMENTAL LIGHTS, I'M NOT OPPOSED TO STAYING ON. 
          I THINK IT'S JUST, IT BRINGS STAYING SO BRIGHT AND PROMOTIONAL. 
          I THINK THAT'S WHERE I'M HAVING SOME RE RESERVATIONS, BUT, AND COMMISSIONER KIM, I'M COOL WITH THAT TOO. 
          SO IF YOU WANNA MAKE THAT AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT, I'M, I, I WANT, I WANT TO GET YOU YOUR SIGN, BUT I ALSO WANT TO COMPROMISE AND HAVE, MAKE SURE THAT WE TAKE CARE OF EVERYBODY'S CONCERNS AT THE SAME TIME. 
          THE SIGN WANTS YOU TO GIVE THEM THE SIGN. 
          . 
          I KNOW THAT I WAS WAITING TO HEAR HIM CALL OUT, BUT I HADN'T HEARD IT YET. 
          SO, OKAY, SO JUST SORRY, ONE SEC. 
          UH, JUST TO BE CLEAR, WHAT WE'VE GOT SO FAR IS 25 FEET FROM THE BASE WITH A 2:00 AM CUTOFF. 
          WELL, IT'S 20, 25 FEET. 
          INCLUDING THE BASE. 
          INCLUDING THE BASE. 
          YES. 
          NO. 
          OH, 25, INCLUDING YES. 
          YES SIR. 
          25 INCLUDING THE BASE AND THEN WHATEVER FRIENDLY AMENDMENT WANTS TO BE MADE ON THE CUTOFF TIMES AND TURNING ON AND DIMMING. 
          I'M OPEN TO ACCEPTING, UH, BOARD MEMBER BARON. 
          OH, I JUST WANTED TO ASK THE APPLICANTS, IF, IF YOU DIDN'T GET THIS, UH, VARIANCE, WOULD YOU JUST BUILD SOMETHING LIKE THE OLD PREVIOUSLY PERMITTED SIGN, WHICH IS ON THE WALL ON LIKE FULLY ON THE EAST SIDE AND LED LIT UP? YOU'D HAVE TO APPLY FOR ANOTHER NEW PERMIT 'CAUSE IT EXPIRED PERMIT. 
          OH, OKAY. 
          BUT THAT WOULD BE, YES, WE COULD, AND IT, IT WOULD, WE WOULDN'T HAVE TO COME BOTHER Y'ALL BECAUSE IT'S SKY. 
          RIGHT? RIGHT. 
          THAT WOULDN'T, THAT WOULD NOT REQUIRE A VARIANCE THEN. 
          OKAY. 
          WE THOUGHT THIS WAS A, A NICE COMPROMISE. 
          YEAH. 
          OKAY. 
          NO, THAT, THAT ANSWERS MY QUESTION. 
          OKAY. 
          DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? SO AGAIN, JUST WE DO HAVE THE MOTION TO APPROVE MADE BY BOARD MEMBER VAUGHN OLIN, UH, WITH THE CONDITIONS OF 25 FOOT, INCLUDING THE BASE AND A 2:00 AM CUTOFF, IS THERE, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO OKAY. 
          PROPOSE THAT IT COULD STAY ON WITH, WITH, UH, WITH TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THE FACT THAT IT CAN BE A FORM OF A, UM, LIGHT, A SAFETY, UM, LIGHT IN THE NIGHT. 
          AS LONG AS IT'S NOT BRIGHT AND IT'S, UM, MORE DIMMED LIGHT THAT COULD PROVIDE SOME SAFETY AROUND THE AREA. 
          'CAUSE IT DOES GET PRETTY, UM, UH, VACANT AT NIGHTTIME. 
          SO HOW WOULD I MAKE AN AMENDMENT LIKE THAT? JUST LIKE THAT? YOU JUST DID, YOU JUST DID  GREAT. 
          ACCEPTED, UH, BOARD MEMBER BY AND BOARD MEMBER BOWEN. 
          IS IS THAT ALL RIGHT WITH Y'ALL? DOES THAT SIT OKAY? YES, MA'AM. 
          THAT OKAY. 
          IF, IF I AND THE WOMEN LEVELS ARE THE CANDLE, UH, LEVELS WOULD BE CONTROLLED THROUGH THAT SENSOR, CORRECT? YEAH. 
          AND THEN SET FOR LATE AT NIGHT. 
          SO WHAT, SO AFTER YOUR LASH SHIFT SOMEWHERE, I JUST SORT OF START DIMMING DOWN TO LIKE, MAKE IT NOT BLOOD. 
          YEP. 
          I'M GOOD WITH THAT TOO. 
          IS THAT WORKABLE FOR THE APPLICANTS? LIKE CAN YOU DO THAT AT, HAVE IT SET ON A SCHEDULE LIKE THAT AT 2:00 AM YES. 
          OKAY, THEN GO. 
          YES. 
          BOARD MEMBER ATE. 
          I FEEL LIKE WE NEED TO BE MORE SPECIFIC WITH THE AMENDMENT BECAUSE WHAT, WHAT, WHAT WAS THE TERMINOLOGY? LIKE NOT TOO BRIGHT. 
          THAT'S NOT GONNA BE LIKE, IS THERE A LUMEN? SO WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST IS, IS 10% OR UNDER, I WOULD PROBABLY SAY UNDER 10% BRIGHTNESS OF WHAT THE SETTING WOULD BE. 
          UM, I THINK THAT'S A GOOD WAY TO DO IT. 
          AND AGAIN, EVERYBODY'S INTENTION HERE IS TO MAKE IT LOOK RIGHT IN THE AREA. 
          SO, OKAY, YES, THAT COULD END UP BEING 5%, BUT WE SET IT TO WHERE THAT'S THE BRIGHTEST THAT IT WOULD BE AFTER TWO, TWO IN THE MORNING 
          [01:30:01]
AND IT CAN ADJUST ITSELF DOWN FROM THERE, BUT IT WON'T GO ABOVE THAT. 
          THAT'S FINE WITH ME. 
          I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT IN FIVE YEARS WHEN SOMEBODY'S LOOKING AT THIS VARIANCE, THEY'RE SAYING IT, OH, IT HAS TO BE NOT TOO BRIGHT. 
          HOW? RIGHT. 
          NO, THAT'S A GOOD POINT. 
          CONVINCING. 
          THAT'S GONNA BE YOUR FRIENDLY AMENDMENT THEN. 
          'CAUSE YOU, YOU'D BE MORE SPECIFIC ABOUT IT. 
          SURE. 
          YES. 
          GOT IT. 
          ACCEPTED. 
          25 FEET, INCLUDING THE BASE 2:00 AM 10% MAX OR LESS OR WHATEVER. 
          YEAH. 
          OR LESS IS FINE. 
          MM-HMM . 
          YES. 
          PERFECT WORK CRAB UNTIL SUNRISE. 
          MM-HMM . 
          UNTIL SUNRISE. 
          JUST TO DAWN. 
          OKAY. 
          IS THERE A SECOND? I SECOND SECONDED. 
          OH. 
          OH, ACTUALLY I'M GONNA GIVE THAT ONE TO BOARD MEMBER. 
          OKAY. 
          SO AGAIN, THIS IS MOTION TO APPROVE MADE BY BOARD MEMBER VAN NOLAN WITH THE CONDITIONS OF 25 FEET, INCLUDING THE BASE FOR MAX HEIGHT. 
          2:00 AM 10% BRIGHTNESS MAX OR LESS UNTIL SUNRISE. 
          SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER. 
          ANY QUESTIONS? ARE WE OKAY TO VOTE? ALL RIGHT, LET'S VOTE. 
          HAS ABDI. 
          THERE YOU GO. 
          NOT SURE WE'LL COME BACK TO HIM. 
          UH, FINDING FINDINGS. 
          YOU, YOU IN THE MOTION. 
          OKAY. 
          I HAVE HIM HERE SUPPOSED TO REMIND ME. 
          YEAH, THAT'S RIGHT. 
          OKAY, HERE WE GO. 
          THE VARIANCE IS NECESSARY BECAUSE THE STRICT ENFORCEMENT OF THE ARTICLE PROHIBITS ANY REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE SIGN ON THE SITE CONSIDERING THE UNIQUE FEATURES OF THE SITE, SUCH AS THE DIMENSIONS, LANDSCAPING OR TOPOGRAPHY. 
          AND, UH, I'M GONNA GO WITH, UH, ACTUALLY LET ME READ THE VERY BEGINNING. 
          THE BOARD MUST DETERMINE THE EXISTENCE OF SUFFICIENCY OF AND THE WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE FINDING DESCRIBED BELOW. 
          IN ORDER TO GRANT YOUR REQUEST FOR THE VARIANCE, THE BOARD MUST MAKE ONE OR MORE OF THE FINDINGS UNDER DESCRIBED UNDER ONE, TWO, AND THREE BELOW. 
          THE BOARD MUST THEN MAKE FINDING DESCRIBED IN ITEM FOUR BELOW. 
          IF THE BOARD CANNOT MAKE THE REQUIRED FINDINGS, IT CANNOT APPROVE A SIGN VARIANCE. 
          AND I'M GONNA START WITH NUMBER TWO. 
          THE SIGN WILL BE LOCATED, THE GRANTING OF THIS VARIANCE WILL NOT HAVE A SUBSTANTIALLY ADVERSE IMPACT UPON NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES BECAUSE THE SIGN WILL BE LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE PROPERTY AND OR ORIENTED TOWARDS WEST SECOND STREET IN LAVACCA NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES, INCLUDING CITY HALL BUILD BUILDING TO THE SOUTH SILICON LABS BUILDING TO THE SOUTHEAST AND AMIE DOWNTOWN MULTI-FAMILY BUILDING TO THE EAST. 
          THE CITY HALL AND SILICONE LABS BUILDINGS ARE COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS PRIMARILY OCCUPIED DURING DAYTIME HOURS AND THEREFORE WOULD BE MINIMAL MINIMALLY IMPACTED BY THE PRO PROPOSED SIGN. 
          THE GRANTING OF THIS VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY CONFLICT WITH THE STATED PURPOSES OF THE SIGN OVER. 
          AND IT'S BECAUSE THE DESIGN OF THE PROPOSED SIGN DOES NOT CONFLICT WITH THE STATED PURPOSES OF THE SIGN. 
          ORDINANCE AS A SIGN WILL MODERNIZE THE NEIGHBORHOOD, ENHANCE THE AESTHETIC VALUE OF THE CITY, AND IS CONSISTENT WITH THE URBAN CHARACTER OF DOWNTOWN SECOND STREET. 
          AND NUMBER FOUR, GRANTING A VARIANCE WOULD NOT PROVIDE THE APPLICANT WITH SPECIAL PRIVILEGE NOT ENJOYED BY OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED OR POTENTIALLY SIMILARLY SITUATED. 
          BECAUSE THE AUSTIN CITY LIMITS LIVE AT MOODY THEATER IS AN ENTERTAINMENT VENUE THAT FEATURES DIFFERENT ARTISTS ON A YEAR-ROUND BASIS. 
          THE PROPOSED LED SIGN WILL BE, WILL PROMOTE UPCOMING ACL LIVE EVENTS SIMILAR TO THE ELECTRONIC SIGNS IN OTHER STATE OF THE ENTERTAINMENT ART VENUES. 
          I'LL STOP THERE, MADAM CHAIR. 
          OKAY. 
          SO ONE MORE TIME FOR ELAINE AND DIANA. 
          MOTION TO APPROVE, UH, MADE BY BOARD MEMBER V OLIN 25 FOOT MAX HEIGHT, INCLUDING THE BASE 2:00 AM 10% MAXIMUM LUMINOSITY UNTIL SUNRISE. 
          SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER KIM, IT'S CALLED THE VOTE BOARD MEMBER ABDULLAH? YES. 
          BOARD MEMBER BING. 
          YES. 
          BOARD MEMBER BOWEN? YES. 
          BOARD MEMBER KIM? YES. 
          BOARD MEMBER MEDINA LAYAL? YES. 
          BOARD MEMBER PETIT? YES. 
          BOARD MEMBER ANI? NO. 
          BOARD MEMBER VAN O? YES. 
          BOARD MEMBER ARCHER? YES. 
          AND BOARD MEMBER ARCH CHAIR CO. 
          YES. 
          SO, CONGRATULATIONS. 
          YOUR VARIANCE IS GRANTED. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK Y'ALL SO MUCH. 
          HAVE A GOOD EVENING. 
          [01:35:02]
OKAY. 
          SEVEN 20. 
          I THINK WE CAN GET THIS ONE. 
          [5. C15-2026-0003 Luke Caraway for Yair Cohen Hoshen 8506 & 8507 Walhill Cove]
LET'S GO AHEAD AND MOVE ON TO ITEM FIVE C 15 20 26 0 0 0 3. 
          LUKE CARAWAY FOR KO AND HOEN. 
          8 5 0 6 AND 8 5 0 7 WALHILL COVE. 
          MADAM CHAIR, HE SHOULD BE ON VIRTUALLY. 
          VIRTUALLY. 
          YES, YOU'RE HERE. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, COME ON UP TO THE MICROPHONE. 
          PRESS THE BUTTON SO THE LIGHT TURN SCREEN. 
          STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD AND YOU WILL HAVE FIVE MINUTES. 
          MY NAME IS LUKE CARAWAY. 
          I'M, UH, WITH VIEWPOINT ENGINEERING. 
          UM, GRACE, SEE ALL YOU YOU FOLKS HERE TODAY. 
          UM, I, THIS IS MY FIRST BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS MEETING, SO I WANTED TO, YOU KNOW, I, I DIDN'T REALIZE I WAS SIGNED UP VIRTUALLY. 
          I WAS LOOKING FORWARD TO COMING IN, COMING AND EXPERIENCING IT LIVE. 
          MM-HMM . 
          I HOPE YOU'RE ENJOYING IT SO FAR. 
          EXCITED TO DO THAT. 
          YEAH, IT'S VERY INTERESTING. 
          WE'RE WAITING IT LIVE TOO. 
          UM, SO I'LL KIND OF TAKE YOU GUYS THROUGH, UM, OUR, OUR PROJECT. 
          UH, BASICALLY I HAVE A, A DEVELOPER CLIENT WHO PURCHASED LOT, BOTH LOTS AT 85 0 6 AND 85 0 7. 
          WALL HILL COVE IN, UH, IN NORTHWEST AUSTIN. 
          UH, EXISTING ZONING IS SF THREE. 
          UH, WHEN HE BOUGHT THE TRACT, THE, THERE WAS A HOUSE AND AN EXISTING HOUSE THAT IS STILL THERE TODAY ON 85 0 6 WALL HILL COVE. 
          AND THEN THERE WAS A GARAGE ON 85 0 7 WALL HILL COVE. 
          THERE WAS ONE OWNER FOR BOTH OF THESE LOTS. 
          AND THAT'S, THAT'S IMPORTANT AND I'LL, I'LL COME BACK TO THAT AS, AS I WALK YOU ALL THROUGH, UH, THE PROJECT. 
          EXCUSE ME. 
          SO THE VARIANCE THAT WE'RE REQUESTING TODAY IS, UM, ESSENTIALLY A, A VARIANCE FROM THE SIDE YARD SETBACK, UH, FOR THE PROPOSED GARAGE. 
          SO WHAT MY CLIENT IS TRYING TO DO SINCE THE EXISTING HOUSE ON 85 0 6 IS DEPENDENT ON THAT GARAGE. 
          AND I'LL, I'LL, I'LL ELABORATE ON THAT TOO AS WE, AS WE GO THROUGH THIS. 
          BUT, UM, HE WOULD LIKE TO, UH, REDRAW THAT LOT BOUNDARY, UM, THAT YOU SAW PREVIOUSLY ON THE LAST SLIDE. 
          SO BASICALLY TAKE, TAKE THAT STRAIGHT LOT BOUNDARY THAT SEPARATES THE TWO LOTS AND GO AROUND THE PROPOSED GARAGE SO THAT THE BUYER FOR THE EXISTING HOUSE ALSO IS PURCHASING THE PROPOSED GARAGE. 
          MADAM CHAIR, I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS A POINT OF ORDER. 
          EXCUSE ME SIR. 
          YEAH, I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS A POINT OF ORDER OR NOT, BUT BASED ON THAT DRAWING RIGHT THERE, WE DO NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO MOVE LOT LINES. 
          HE WOULD NEED TO GO TO ZONING AND PLATTING FIRST, GET THAT MOVED AND THEN COME BACK TO US. 
          I'M JUST TRYING TO SAVE YOU SOME TIME, SIR. 
          YEAH, BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO MOVE PROPERTY LINES OR TO REDIRECT PROPERTY LINES THE WAY IT'S GOT IT DRAWN UP THERE, THAT'S NOT, I THINK WE STILL HAVE NOT UNDER OUR PURVIEW, STILL HAVE TO GET THROUGH THE, UH, PUBLIC HEARING PORTION. 
          YEAH. 
          SO THAT THEY CAN PRESENT THEIR TESTIMONY BEFORE WE CAN ADDRESS THE, UH, WHETHER OR NOT WE HAVE LEGAL STANDING TO OKAY. 
          BE ABLE TO MAKE THIS DECISION, THIS DECISION. 
          IS THAT, WOULD THAT BE ACCURATE? OH YEAH. 
          BASED ON MY EXPERIENCE, WE DON'T HAVE TO 20 YEARS OF SITTING UP HERE, BUT I WAS JUST GONNA SAVE EVERYBODY SOME TIME, BUT THAT'S OKAY. 
          I'M GOOD. 
          SORRY, , I PAUSED YOUR TIME. 
          GO AHEAD AND, OKAY, THANK YOU. 
          AND SO, SO BASICALLY WHAT, YOU KNOW, THE INTENTION OF THIS, WHEN HE FIRST BOUGHT THIS PROPERTY AND HE PURCHASED BOTH OF THESE LOTS, WAS TO KEEP THE EXISTING HOUSE ON 85 0 6 AND TO CONSTRUCT A NEW HOUSE ON 85 0 7. 
          UM, HE, HE MOVED FORWARD WITH THAT AND BASICALLY DEMOLISHED THE GARAGE ON 85 0 7 AND BUILT A NEW GARAGE ON, ON 85 0 7 THAT THAT'S, THAT SLID OVER. 
          UM, AND THAT, THAT'S WHAT YOU SEE HERE TODAY. 
          UM, SO, YOU KNOW, FULL DISCLOSURE, THESE STRUCTURES ARE CONSTRUCTED. 
          THEY ARE ON SITE. 
          THEY'RE, I I BELIEVE THE, THE PROPOSED HOUSE IS, I, I THINK IT'S FRAMED OUT AND I THINK IT HAS SHEATHING ON IT AND TYVEK, BUT I DON'T THINK IT'S BEEN COMPLETED. 
          BUT IT, BOTH, ALL OF THESE STRUCTURES ARE CURRENTLY STANDING. 
          UM, AND SO, YOU KNOW, THE CONSTRAINTS, YOU KNOW, THE CONSTRAINTS ON THIS PROJECT AND KIND OF WHAT'S DRIVING THE 85 0 6 HOMES DEPENDENCY ON THE GARAGE IS A HUNDRED PERCENT TOPOGRAPHY. 
          [01:40:01]
SO THIS IS THE, THE BACK OF THE HOUSE, UM, IT DROPS INCREDIBLY STEEPLY INTO A CREEK AT A SLOPE THAT, THAT PROBABLY IS, IS ROUGHLY PROBABLY 40 TO 50%. 
          UM, THE CREEK ITSELF IS, IS ABOUT 30 TO 40 FEET DEEP, UH, YOU KNOW, DOWN FROM THE HOUSE. 
          UM, AND YOU CAN, YOU CAN REALLY SEE IT WELL ON THE PHOTO, UM, ON MY LEFT, UM, THAT, THAT SHOWS 85 0 6 ON ONE SIDE AND 85 0 7 ON THE OTHER SIDE. 
          SO YOU COULD, THIS IS, THIS IS ACTUALLY THE WAY THAT MY CLIENT BOUGHT THE PROPERTY. 
          UM, YOU CAN SEE THAT THE HOUSE ON 85 0 6 IS DEEPLY RECESSED BELOW ALMOST TO WHERE THE ROOF LINE IS BELOW THE ROADWAY. 
          AND THE GARAGE, THE PREVIOUS GARAGE THAT WAS SITTING ON THAT 85 0 7 LOT, UM, YOU CAN ALSO KIND OF SEE IN THE DISTANCE. 
          SO WHAT HE DID WAS HE DEMOED THAT GARAGE, HE REPLACED IT WITH A HOUSE AND HE SLID THE GARAGE OVER SO THAT THIS HOUSE WOULD STILL HAVE, WOULD STILL HAVE ACCESS TO SAID GARAGE ESSENTIALLY. 
          UM, AND SO, YOU KNOW, I THINK AT THE END OF THE DAY, UM, YOU KNOW THAT THIS, THIS 85 0 6 HOUSE REALLY HAS NO ACCESS WITHOUT SOME SORT OF A GARAGE ON THAT OTHER LOT. 
          UM, THERE'S JUST NO, THERE'S NO VIABLE WAY FOR ANY SORT OF VEHICULAR ACCESS INTO THAT 85 0 6 LOT. 
          UM, AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE ADDITIONAL ISSUES THAT ARE CREATED BY THAT. 
          UM, IS THAT MY TIME? YES. 
          OH, SO WRAP IT UP IN LIKE ONE SENTENCE PLEASE. 
          OKAY. 
          ADDITIONAL ISSUES ARE CREATED BY THAT ARE, ARE STREET PARKING NUISANCES. 
          THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE ANY A A DA ACCESSIBILITY BECAUSE THERE'S ONLY STAIRWAYS GOING DOWN, UH, TO THE, TO THE HOUSE. 
          UM, SO I I I THINK WHAT, YOU KNOW, IT REALLY CREATES A HARDSHIP FOR THAT 85 0 6 TRACT. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION? SEEING NONE. 
          LET'S GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 
          ADAM CHAIR, BOARD MEMBER VLAN WHO HAD A COMMENT OR A QUESTION FOR LEGAL MAYBE. 
          YES. 
          YES. 
          AND, AND A WHAT I'M GONNA DO IS I'M GONNA MAKE A MOTION TO POSTPONE BECAUSE I DON'T WANT YOU TO GET, YOU KNOW, I WANT YOU TO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO WORK THROUGH THIS, BUT IN, IN HIS BACKUP INFORMATION WHERE IT ALWAYS SAYS SEE ATTACH, IF YOU TAKE A LOOK AT ITEM FIVE OF SIX, IT CLEARLY STATES ACCORDINGLY WE ARE REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE EXISTING PROPERTY LINE TO INCORPORATE THE DETACHED GARAGE. 
          WE DON'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DO THAT. 
          THAT'S ZONING AND PLATING. 
          AND SO THEREFORE I WANT TO GIVE THEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO GO TO ZONING AND PLATING AND HAVE THEM ADDRESS IT BECAUSE IT'S ALSO STATES IN THE, IN HIS HARDSHIP, ADJUSTING THE PROPERTY LINE BETWEEN THE TWO LOTS PROVIDES THE MOST PRACTICAL SOLUTION TO ENSURE BOTH PROPERTIES ARE FUNCTIONAL. 
          SO WE CAN'T USE THAT AS A HARDSHIP EITHER. 
          IT'S HIS FIRST TIME IN FRONT OF US. 
          I DON'T WANT HIM, I WANT HIM TO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO WORK THROUGH THIS. 
          SO I'M GONNA MAKE A MOTION TO POSTPONE. 
          IT'LL GIVE YOU AN OPPORTUNITY, UM, GET WITH STAFF TOMORROW. 
          THEY CAN GUIDE YOU. 
          PLAN GO. 
          YOU, YOU NEED TO GO TO PLANNING, ZONING, AND PLANNING. 
          THEY'RE THE ONES THAT DO THE PROPERTY LINES. 
          YEAH. 
          AND WHICH BY THE WAY, WHEN YOU DO GO TO THEM, YOU CAN ASK THEM TO PLOT THAT PROPERTY LINE POSSIBLY IN A WAY THAT YOU DON'T NEED A VARIANCE. 
          SO KEEP THAT IN MIND. 
          I CAN'T GIVE YOU GUIDANCE ON IT. 
          I'M JUST THROWING THAT OUT THERE. 
          FOOD FOR THOUGHT. 
          BUT I'M GONNA MAKE A MOTION TO POST. 
          DO YOU WANNA DO THAT TO, UH, APRIL 13TH OR MAY 11TH, WHATEVER THE, THE APPLICANT MIGHT THINK. 
          HE MIGHT, HE MIGHT NEED SOME EXTRA TIME. 
          SO, UH, THAT'S KIND OF WHAT I WAS THINKING AND I THINK JUST A, JUST A POINT OF CLARITY. 
          I BELIEVE WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR IS A VARIANCE TO THE SETBACK SO THAT, THAT WE CAN GET PERMISSION TO REDRAW THE LOT LINE. 
          SO THAT DOESN'T THAT MY THOUGHT WOULD BE WE WOULD HAVE TO GET THE VARIANCE FIRST OR THE CITY COULDN'T REDRAW THE LOT LINE. 
          NO, I MIGHT BE MISTAKEN. 
          NO, IT'S THE OTHER WAY AROUND BECAUSE WE HAVE TO KNOW 'CAUSE SETBACK WOULD CHANGE WITH THE LOT LINE. 
          YEAH. 
          IT WOULD CHANGE THAT SETBACK. 
          SO WE, WE, YOU HAVE TO DO THAT ONE FIRST AND THEN COME TO US IF YOU NEED A VARIANCE. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          NOW YOU MAY BE ABLE TO HAVE THEM, LIKE I SAID, YOU MAY BE ABLE TO DRAW THAT LOT LINE, TALK TO YOUR ARCHITECT OR YOUR SURVEYOR, WHATEVER, IN A MANNER THAT GETS YOU THE FIVE FEET THAT YOU DON'T NEED TO EVEN COME HERE, SAVE YOU SOME MONEY. 
          THE PROBLEM THAT WE HAVE IS THAT, THAT THE, THE BUILDING, THE HOUSE HE JUST BUILT IN THE GARAGE WERE ALREADY CONSTRUCTED. 
          I UNDERSTAND SIR. 
          BUT IT, THE WAY YOU STAND RIGHT NOW, IT'S A LOT EASIER FOR YOU TO GO TO, TO ZONING AND PLATING AND GET THIS REDRAWN THAN TO GET A DENIAL. 
          YEAH. 
          AND THEN BECAUSE YOU CAN'T GOT A BIGGER PROBLEM ON THERE, CAN WE DENY IT? OKAY. 
          BECAUSE RIGHT NOW YOU DON'T HAVE, YOU DON'T, TWO THINGS. 
          NUMBER ONE, YOUR HARDSHIP WOULD BE DENIED JUST BASED ON, ON FACE VALUE HERE. 
          OKAY. 
          BUT, UH, THE SECOND IS THAT WE DON'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DO THAT LOT LINE. 
          AND ONCE THEY, ONCE THEY ESTABLISH THAT LINE, THEN YOU CAN COME BACK 
          [01:45:01]
TO US IF YOU DO NEED TO HAVE A VARIANCE. 
          OKAY. 
          AND IF YOU DON'T NEED TO HAVE A SURVEILLANCE, YOU SAVE SOME MONEY. 
           DON'T COME BACK. 
          I OTHER COMMENT OR QUESTIONS? DO I HAVE A SECOND MA MADAM CHAIR. 
          I, I WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK, UM, IF Y'ALL ARE GONNA POSTPONE IT DUE TO ZONING THEM HAVING TO GO TO ZONING AND PLANNING OR TALK TO THE CITY, I HIGHLY RECOMMEND Y'ALL POST IT AS FAR OUT AS Y'ALL CAN BECAUSE HE'S GONNA KEEP COMING BACK AND REQUESTING POSTPONEMENTS. 
          YEAH. 
          I DON'T KNOW HOW LONG IT TAKES FOR HIM TO GET TO ZONING AND PLATING AND REGARDLESS IF Y'ALL POSTPONE IT OUT FOR 60 DAYS, HE'S GONNA HAVE TO PAY A REIFICATION FEE. 
          SO I'D RATHER Y'ALL POSTPONE IT AS LONG AS Y'ALL CAN, UM, HELP SAVE HIM SOME MONEY. 
          HE SAVES HIM MONEY THAT WAY IF HE DOES NEED TO PAY THE REIFICATION PICK FEE, HE PAYS IT AT A LATER TIME AND NOT IN APRIL. 
          AND THEN HE KEEPS HAVING TO PRESS MORE POSTPONEMENTS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          I I'M TOTALLY IN LINE WITH THAT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          AUGUST, AUGUST, SEPTEMBER. 
          YEAH, I WAS THINKING AUGUST JULY OR AUGUST. 
          I'M THINKING AUGUST. 
          PROBABLY AUGUST. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, SO THAT WOULD BE AUGUST 10TH. 
          AUGUST 10TH OR SEPTEMBER 14TH. 
          THAT'S CORRECT. 
          Y'ALL NEED A SECOND TO CHAT? I COULD RECESS. 
          BRENT LLOYD DSD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER. 
          UNLESS HE NEEDS A VARIANCE OF SOME KIND. 
          I DON'T BELIEVE THAT GOING TO ZONING AND PLATTING WILL BE REQUIRED. 
          WE'VE MADE, IN RESPONSE TO STATE LEGISLATION, WE'VE MADE MORE AND MORE OF THE, UH, PLATTING PROCESS ADMINISTRATIVE. 
          AND SO I THINK IF IT'S JUST A MATTER OF MOVING A LOT LINE, THAT WOULD BE THROUGH AN AMENDED PLAT. 
          SO IT'S NOT JUST NOT, I DON'T HAVE FAMILIARITY WITH THIS SPECIFIC CASE, BUT UNLESS THERE'S LIKE AN ENVIRONMENTAL VARIANCE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, IT COULD BE DONE ADMINISTRATIVELY AND NOT REQUIRE GOING TO COMMISSION. 
          SO I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT. 
          WELL, THANK YOU BRETT. 
          AND WE DID CONSULT WITH THE CITY'S PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND BECAUSE THE STRUCTURES ARE EXISTING, THAT'S WHY WE WERE, WE WERE PUSHED TOWARDS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS BECAUSE TO AMEND TO THAT PLAT, THE SITE SETBACK ISN'T GOING TO MEET THE ZONING DISTRICT. 
          AND SO TO AMEND THAT PLAT WE WOULD NEED APPROVAL FROM THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS TO MEET THAT REQUIREMENT. 
          DOES THAT MAKE SENSE TO MEET THAT SITE SETBACK? IT DOES. 
          AND I KNOW THAT UM, OUR LAW DEPARTMENT, UM, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY LOPEZ HAS SPOKEN WITH UH, COMM BOARD MEMBER LIN. 
          BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE POTENTIALLY, EVEN THOUGH IT DOESN'T SHOW THAT AN AMENDED PLOT APPLICATION HAS BEEN SUBMITTED, IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU WERE TOLD TO GET THE VARIANCE BEFORE THEY CAN APPROVE THE LOT LINE MOVING AROUND. 
          YEAH. 
          SO THIS MAY BE, THIS MAY BE THE RIGHT ORDER TO GO IN. 
          SO THIS IS THE CHICKEN BE BE BEFORE THE EGG, BEFORE THE CHICKEN BECAUSE THE, UH, WE DON'T WHAT HE'LL GO IF WE GIVE HIM A VARIANCE AND THEN HE GOES OVER THERE AND THEY CHANGE THAT LOT LINE OR THEY, THEY'LL AMEND IT PLAT. 
          OKAY. 
          AND THEY AMEND IT. 
          WHAT'S TO SAY THEY DON'T AMEND IT IN A SITUATION THAT HE DOESN'T NEED A VARIANCE OR IS THERE ENOUGH ROOM ON THE SIDE OF THAT? I MEAN, IT'S A CHICKEN AND EGG CAME FIRST. 
          I DON'T, I DON'T UNDERSTAND. 
          SOUNDS LIKE PLEASE ENLIGHTENED. 
          I THINK HE'S REQUESTED TO MOVE THE LOT LINE IN A MANNER THAT WOULD IMPLICATE THE NEED FOR A VARIANCE BY VIRTUE OF THE FACT THAT HE HAS EXISTING STRUCTURES. 
          AND SO I THINK THAT'S WHY THEY'RE COMING HERE FIRST FOR A VARIANCE BEFORE THEY CAN GET THEIR AMENDED PLA APPROVED. 
          WOW. 
          ALSO THEY HAVE TO STOP BUILDING. 
          YEAH, NO, I, I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT I, IT'S SOMETHING MY LOGIC YEAH, THE LOGIC ISN'T, IT'S WEIRD. 
          I IT SEEMS LIKE THE FACT THAT IT'S EXISTING BUILDINGS AND WE'RE TRYING TO PLOT AROUND EXISTING BUILDINGS IS REALLY WHAT'S CREATING THE CONFUSION. 
          I COULD BE INCORRECT, BUT YEAH, BECAUSE I, IT, IT JUST DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO ME THAT WE'RE GONNA GRANT A VARIANCE ON A LOT LINE. 
          ARE THEY MAYBE NOT WANTING TO RE CORRECT OR AMEND THE PLAT BECAUSE NOW THERE'S SOMETHING THAT'S OUT OF COMPLIANCE. 
          CORRECT? THAT WAS, THAT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING. 
          IS IT, IT'S NOT OUT OF COMPLIANCE CURRENTLY, BUT THE WAY WE WOULD WANT TO AMEND THE LOT LINE WITH THE TWO EXISTING STRUCTURES, BASICALLY THERE'S, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE REQUIRED FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACKS PROCEED ZONING CODE. 
          CORRECT. 
          ANOTHER QUE ANOTHER QUESTION. 
          ONE SECOND TO ME WOULD BE THAT YOU CAN DRAW, YOU CAN REQUEST YOUR AMENDED LOT LINE TO INCLUDE FIVE FEET THAT YOU WON'T NEED A VARIANCE. 
          SO THAT'S WHY I'M, I'M, I'M IN THE QUANDARY HERE. 
          UH, YOU KNOW, I SEE THAT. 
          LUKE, I HAVE A QUESTION. 
          YOU, DID YOU HAVE A PAID CONSULTATION OR A GENERAL CONSULTATION? BECAUSE I DON'T SEE ANYTHING IN THE SYSTEM WHERE YOU SUBMITTED PLANS THAT SHOW ANYTHING. 
          NO, IT WAS DEFINITELY A GENERAL CONSULTATION. 
          OKAY. 
          I DON'T BELIEVE IT WAS. 
          SO THAT'S WHY WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING IN WRITING. 
          OKAY. 
          AND WE WERE POINT THAT WE WERE PUSHED TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND THAT'S WHEN WE SUBMITTED. 
          [01:50:01]
YEAH. 
          AND I THINK I TALKED IT'S EMMA 'CAUSE SHE TOLD ME THE SAME THING THAT YOU'RE SAYING AND I WAS LIKE, 'CAUSE I'M THE ONE THAT TOLD HER LIKE, I DON'T THINK YOU CAN GO TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FIRST, BUT OKAY. 
          SHE SAID THAT Y'ALL HAD TALKED TO ZONING AND THAT'S WHAT THEY PUSHED Y'ALL TO COME THIS WAY. 
          YEAH. 
          OKAY. 
          SO REAL QUICK, I QUICK. 
          SO THERE'S NOTHING IN WRITING. 
          SO SO WHAT, THERE'S NOTHING IN WRITING FROM ZONING SAYING THAT THEY PUSHED THEM THIS WAY BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T SUBMIT ANY PLANS. 
          THEY JUST HAD A GENERAL CONSULTATION WITH THE ZONING TEAM, CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. 
          SO SO WAS THE GARAGE PERMITTED, UH, BY ITSELF? YES. 
          THE NEW GARAGE? YES, BECAUSE IT'S IT'S IN A LEGAL LOT RIGHT NOW. 
          OKAY. 
          SO IT WAS, IT WAS PERMITTED ALL ON ITS OWN. 
          YES. 
          AND THEN THE SECOND PIECE WAS PERMITTED AFTER, WELL HERE'S, HERE'S, SO, SO THIS IS HOW IT WENT DOWN, FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND FROM EMMA IS IT WAS THEY COMBINED THIS TWO LOTS TOGETHER AS ONE AND MADE IT AND DID A UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT TO TIE THOSE TWO LOTS TOGETHER. 
          NOW THE OWNER, THE CURRENT OWNER WANTS TO SEPARATE THOSE LOTS TO SELL 'EM SEPARATELY, CORRECT? OR I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE'S A, A ACTUAL UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. 
          IT WAS, IT WAS THE SAME OWNER OF THE TWO LOTS THAT WAS USING THE HOUSE AND WAS USING THE GARAGE. 
          I DON'T THINK THEY ACTUALLY, YEAH, I DON'T THINK YOU COULD DO ANY PERMITS WITHOUT UNIFYING THOUGH. 
          SO THERE HAS TO BE A UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT TO HAVE A HAVE A HOUSE WITH A GARAGE SEPARATE ON A DIFFERENT LOT. 
          THIS WAS, IT'S PROBABLY DONE IN LIKE THE SEVENTIES AND EIGHTIES TOO. 
          SO I, I DON'T KNOW THAT THEY, BUT MADAM CHAIR WHERE I'M AT IS I'M STILL GONNA MAKE A MOTION TO POSTPONE 'CAUSE BECAUSE THIS NEEDS TO BE CLARIFIED. 
          SURE. 
          AND AND ANOTHER THING IS IF THERE'S NOTHING OFFICIAL IN THERE SAYING THAT HE'S BEEN OVER THERE, THAT WOULD THEN HE DOESN'T NEED SUCH A LONG POSTPONEMENT, JUST GET SOMETHING THAT OFFICIALLY STATES THAT THEY, SO HOW ABOUT WE DO IT FOR 30 AND THEN IF HE NEEDS MORE, I MEAN, I'D BE OPEN TO YOU CONTACTING A LADY SAYING, HEY, I'M GONNA NEED FIVE MONTHS BECAUSE WE HAVE TO GO TO ZAP. 
          YEAH. 
          YES. 
          AND AT LEAST WHEN WE COME BACK WE'LL HAVE THE, WE'LL HAVE INFORMATION ABOUT WHICH DIRECTION WE'RE GONNA YEAH, I THINK THAT'LL WORK FOR EVERYBODY. 
          LET'S DO THAT THEN MAKES IT'S PRETTY CONFUSING RIGHT NOW. 
          APOLOGIES FOR IF I WASTED YOUR TIME. 
          NO, NO, NO, NO. 
          EASY. 
          THIS IS AN INTERESTING CASE. 
          THANK YOUR FIRST BARBECUE AND YOU DID PRETTY GOOD. 
          SO , EVERY TIME WE WE GET THESE IT'S A NEW ADVENTURE FOR US TOO. 
          SO YEAH. 
          SO THAT'S GONNA BE APRIL 13TH, THEN FOUR 15TH. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          ANY OTHER QUESTIONS BEFORE OR, UH, SECOND. 
          YOU SECONDED THAT, RIGHT? YES. 
          UH, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS BEFORE WE VOTE? OKAY. 
          SO AGAIN, THIS IS GOING TO BE A MOTION TO POSTPONE TILL APRIL 13TH MADE BY BOARD MEMBER V OLAN. 
          SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER ARCHER. 
          OKAY, LET'S CALL THE VOTE. 
          ABDULLAH. 
          YES. 
          BEARING. 
          YES. 
          JEFFREY BOWEN. 
          YES. 
          YOUNG J KIM. 
          YES. 
          BIANCA MEDINA. 
          LEAL. 
          YES. 
          BRIAN POTE. 
          YES. 
          MAGGIE ANI. 
          YES. 
          MICHAEL VON OLIN. 
          YES. 
          CORY MC. 
          CORY ARCHER. 
          YES. 
          HAVE I FORGOTTEN? I'VE BEEN GONE. 
          IT'S ARCHER, RIGHT? THAT'S MCCLEAN. 
          I'LL GO BY MCCLELLAN. 
          MCCLELLAN? YEAH. 
          MCCLELLAN. 
          SORRY. 
          THAT'S OKAY. 
          WE TOOK TWO MONTHS OFF AND EVERYTHING'S YEAH. 
          ALL GOOD. 
          AND JESSICA COHEN? YES. 
          OKAY. 
          SO THAT'S GONNA BE POSTPONED UNTIL APRIL 13TH. 
          NEXT MEETING. 
          TOUCH BASE WITH A ELAINE TOMORROW AND SHE'LL GET YOU OUT. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          OKAY, WHAT'S NEXT? SIX TIME. 
          OKAY. 
          ARE Y'ALL OKAY 
          [6. C15-2026-0006 Cole Stewart 4301 Manzanillo Drive]
PUSHING ON THROUGH SIX? YES. 
          AND THEN TAKING THE RECESS BEFORE SEVEN. 
          OKAY. 
          LIKE A WINNER. 
          ITEM SIX C 15 20 26 0 0 0 6. 
          COLE STEWART FOR 40 43 0 1 MANZANIA DRIVE. 
          UH, DO WE HAVE A PRESENTATION? LET'S GET THAT PULLED UP. 
          I, LET'S SAY I'M ONLINE, BUT, OKAY. 
          UH, JUST YOU'LL PUSH THE BUTTON ON THE MICROPHONE TO TURN IT GREEN. 
          STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD AND YOU'LL HAVE FIVE MINUTES. 
          ALL RIGHTY. 
          READY FOR LAP FIRST BARBECUE. 
          IT'S PRETTY FUN. 
          . 
          UM, SO MY NAME IS COLE STEWART. 
          I AM REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW AN EXISTING FENCE TO REMAIN BETWEEN 91 AND 95 INCHES IN HEIGHT ALONG LIMITED PORTIONS OF THE SIDE AND REAR YARD AT 4 3 0 1 MANZANIA DRIVE. 
          I, I'M THE OWNER OF THIS PROPERTY. 
          UM, CAN WE GO TO SLIDE TWO? 
          [01:55:01]
THANK YOU. 
          SO THE PROPERTY IS A CORNER LOT WITH FRONTAGE ON MANZANIA DRIVE AND SQ DRIVE. 
          THIS CREATES DUAL STREET EXPOSURE THAT IS NOT TYPICAL TO OTHER INTERIOR, LOTS OF THE AREA. 
          UH, GO TO SLIDE THREE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          AND THIS IS WHERE THE PRIMARY HARDSHIP IS STATED. 
          MOSTLY TO THE, UH, THE DROP OF THE GRAY ALONG ALONG THE FENCE LINE. 
          SO WE HAVE ABOUT 20, ALMOST, ALMOST TWO FEET ALONG THE SIDE YARD, AND THEN ANOTHER SEVEN AND A QUARTER INCHES DOWN TO THE, DOWN THE REAR YARD. 
          SO WE HAVE ABOUT 31 INCHES OF CUMULATIVE GRADE ALONG THE SIDE AND REAR YARD OF THE FENCE. 
          NOT PICTURED HERE. 
          THERE'S ALSO A DRAINAGE EASEMENT. 
          THIS IS ALL IN THE ADVANCED PACKET, SO THERE'S A LOT MORE PICTURES IN THERE. 
          IF YOU WANNA TAKE A LOOK. 
          THERE'S A DRAINAGE EASEMENT BEHIND THE REAR YARD AND THERE IS A CITY OWNED UTILITY POLE, UH, ON THE REAR CORNER NEAR THE REAR CORNER OF THE, UH, SIDE YARD. 
          UH, DUE TO THE GRAY CHANGE IN CORNER CONFIGURATION, A SIX OR SEVEN FOOT FENCE WOULD FUNCTION AS SUBSTANTIALLY LESS THAN THAT HEIGHT WHEN VIEWED FROM THE PUBLIC WAY. 
          UM, CAN WE GO TO NEXT SLIDE PLEASE? THANK YOU. 
          UM, SO THE OVER HEIGHT PORTION IS LIMITED TO JUST THE SIDE AND REAR YARD. 
          IT DOES NOT EXTEND INTO THE FRONT BUILDING LINE. 
          YOU CAN SEE IN THE PICTURE IT SHIFTS DOWN TO FOUR FEET, UH, IN FRONT OF, UH, THE HOUSE. 
          THE FENCE IS ENTIRELY ON PRIVATE PROPERTY. 
          IT DOES NOT OBSTRUCT VISIBILITY AT THE INTERSECTION. 
          UM, MY ADJACENT NEV MY ADJACENT NEIGHBOR HAS SUBMITTED. 
          I DON'T THINK THEY ACTUALLY SUBMITTED THEM. 
          THEY GAVE THEM TO ME, WHICH IS NOT NECESSARILY WHAT THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO DO. 
          BUT, UM, I DO HAVE LETTERS FROM MULTIPLE NEIGHBORS. 
          ONE OF THEM IS AN ARCHITECT. 
          UH, HE'S THE GREENHOUSE ACTUALLY PICTURED SORT OF BEHIND THE STOP SIGN, UH, WHO IS IN LARGE FAVOR OF THE FENCE. 
          A LOT OF NICE NOTES. 
          I HAVE TALKED TO EVERY NEIGHBOR AND THEY'VE ALL BEEN IN LARGE SUPPORT OF THE FENCE. 
          MY CONNECTED NEIGHBOR, THE ONE ALONG THE SIDE YARD, UH, THAT'S ACTUALLY SIX FEET. 
          AND HE ALSO HAS A LONG, UH, A LONG NOTE OF WHY HE IS IN SUPPORT OF THE FENCE. 
          SO I, I DON'T HAVE ANY IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORS THAT HAVE BEEN IN OBJECTION AS FAR AS I'M AWARE OF, UNLESS SOMEONE ELSE HAS SPOKEN UP OR WILL THAT I, I'M NOT AWARE OF. 
          BUT, UH, UH, UH, YEAH. 
          SO FOR THESE REASONS I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE. 
          YEAH, I THINK THAT'S, THAT'S GOOD. 
          I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING. 
          ALL RIGHTY. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION? SEEING NONE. 
          I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND I'M GONNA START REAL QUICK 'CAUSE YOU SAID SOMETHING THERE THAT CAUGHT MY ATTENTION. 
          DID YOU SAY YOU HAVE THE O KEY FROM THE ADJOINING LOT NEIGHBOR THAT THE FENCE HAS SHARED WITH? UH, YES. 
          WE ALL, WE'VE KIND OF BOTH HELPED. 
          I PAID FOR IT, BUT WE BOTH HELPED DESIGN IT AND CHOSE THE COLOR AND THINGS LIKE THAT. 
          OKAY. 
          WELL I DON'T THINK THAT WAS SUBMITTED TO YOU. 
          I JUST HAVE IT. 
          I JUST HAVE IT HERE. 
          THEY GAVE ME THESE THINGS TODAY. 
          ELAINE. 
          UH, ISN'T THAT ALLOWED? IF THEY HAVE A LETTER, OH, I APOLOGIZE IF THAT'S NOT ALL. 
          OH, IT'S ON THE ROADSIDE OR WAIT, WAIT. 
          OKAY, NEVERMIND. 
          QUESTIONS. 
          I, I DIDN'T FOLLOW THAT EXCHANGE. 
          WHAT'S NOT ALLOWED? IT IS ALLOWED OR IT'S, IT'S NOT ALLOWED BECAUSE IT'S ROADSIDE. 
          BUT IF, IF YOU HAVE A FENCE THAT'S SHARED WITH A NEIGHBOR AND BOTH SIDES AGREE THAT YOU WANNA BUILD IT TO EIGHT FEET AND YOU HAVE A LETTER FOR THAT, THAT'S ALL YOU NEED. 
          I SEE. 
          THEN HE WOULDN'T NEED A VARIANCE, BUT BECAUSE IT'S ROADSIDE GOT IT. 
          BUT IT'S BECAUSE IT'S THE ROADSIDE FENCE, IT'S DIFFERENT. 
          YEAH. 
          I WAS LIKE, WHY IS THIS HERE? YES SIR. 
          BOARD MEMBER BUN IN, I DUNNO ACTUALLY YOU TALKING ABOUT THE ADVANCED, THE ADVANCED BACKUP. 
          OH, THEY CHANCE PUT IT ON THE SCREEN. 
          IT'S NOT A PRESENTATION. 
          OKAY. 
          [02:00:01]
THAT'S WHERE HAVING A HARD TIME, 11, I DON'T SEE THAT REQUIRES IT CHEAPER, BUT NEIGHBORS EIGHT EVENTS AND LEVEL ALL ACROSS AND ALL MEANING, AND THE OTHER CONCERN THAT I HAVE IS ON, IN SIX OF 11 GOES THE EVENTS ALSO SIX OF 11 SHOWS THE FENCE. 
          NO GO SEVERE THERE TO WARRANT IT MATTER EASEMENT. 
          AND RIGHT THERE AT THE CORNER TOP SIGN, UH, YOU CAN SEE THE FENCING HOUSE THAT TEASED INTO THAT FENCING WAY EXCEEDS ON THE FENCING. 
          UM, C CAN I MAKE A COMMENT ON THAT? NO. 
          OH, OKAY. 
          IT WASN'T A QUESTION. 
          SORRY. 
          OH, I, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT. 
          FIRE. 
          WHAT, UM, SO ONE THING THAT I, I, I WAS WONDERING, YOU SAID THAT FENCE HAS ALREADY BEEN BUILT. 
          WHEN WAS IT BUILT? IT WAS BUILT LAST, UM, JULY. 
          I HAVE A HAD A NEWBORN BABY AT THAT TIME. 
          SO THE TIME IS, I THINK, I BELIEVE IT WAS LAST JULY. 
          OH, CONGRATULATIONS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          BUT, UM, OKAY. 
          SO THAT, THAT WAS, THAT WAS INTERESTING THAT THE FENCE HAS ALREADY BEEN BUILT, BUT OKAY. 
          YEAH, I I THINK YOU'RE RIGHT. 
          THAT FALLS INTO THE 50 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY OBSTRUCTION ZONE. 
          CORRECT. 
          BOARD MEMBER BOWEN. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, I'M FAMILIAR WITH THIS, UH, SINCE I LIVE IN THE AREA, I'M GONNA LET THAT BE KNOWN RIGHT NOW. 
          UM, MY QUESTION IS, HOW DID YOU DETERMINE THE ELEVATION THAT YOU HAD THAT TWO FOOTER DROP ACROSS THERE? BECAUSE, UM, YEAH, I, I JUST NEED TO KNOW HOW, HOW DID YOU DETERMINE THAT? OH, UM, I USED BASICALLY A MEASURING TAPE TO MAKE SURE THAT THE, BECAUSE IT'S A HORIZONTAL FENCE, I MADE SURE THAT THEY WERE ALL LEVEL. 
          I USED A MEASURING TAPE ACROSS, MAKING SURE THAT THE PLANKS AND THE FENCE WAS ACTUALLY LEVEL. 
          SO I, I MEASURED FROM THE HORIZONTAL POINT ALSO WITH THE LA ALSO WITH THE LASER GOING, UM, UH, FROM THAT POINT AT THE REAR CORNER OF THE FENCE TO THE GROUND. 
          IT DOESN'T, I WILL SAY I WAS SLIGHTLY SURPRISED WHEN THE, WHEN THE ZONING, UH, WHAT IS IT? THE ZONING INSPECTOR, INSPECTOR CAME OUT AND HE SAID IT LOOKS TO BE ABOUT TWO FEET. 
          UH, BUT IT'S NOT QUITE IT. 
          UM, ANYWAY, THAT'S, SO YEAH. 
          SORRY, WHAT WAS SOMEONE THAT CAME OUT WHAT LOOKED TO BE ABOUT TWO FEET? THE, THE SLOPE? UH, THE, THE, THE GRADE GOT IT. 
          YEAH, THE SLOPE OR, OR LET ME BE SPECIFIC. 
          I BELIEVE HE SAID IT WAS ABOUT 20 INCHES WHEN THE ZONING INSPECTOR CAME OUT. 
          SO, SO HE SAID I WAS SHY OF THE TWO FEET. 
          OKAY. 
          SO IT'S, IT'S NOT OBVIOUS FROM THE PICTURE YOU HAVE TO ACTUALLY GO AND MEASURE IT. 
          YEAH, IT'S, IT'S, IT'S FAIRLY FLAT. 
          IT'S GOT SOME SLOPE 'CAUSE GO, RUNS DOWN TO THE DRAINAGE ON THAT, ON THAT. 
          UM, SO THE OTHER QUESTION I HAVE IS, UM, SO YOU DID HAVE SOMEBODY FROM CODE COME OUT AND DIRECT YOU TO US? YES. 
          AND THEN I SHOWED UP TO THE, THE, THE, THE ZONING OFFICES WHERE, WHERE IT'S UP NORTH WHERE THE, AND I TALKED TO THE, I TALKED TO THE RIGHT, I SPENT ALL DAY, I TALKED TO THE RIGHT OF WAY PEOPLE. 
          I TALKED TO THE HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT WHO SENDS OUT THE ZONING INSPECTORS AND THEY TOLD ME, UH, TO SHOW UP HERE . 
          OKAY. 
          SO YOU, YOU DIDN'T GET A PERMIT? NO, THAT WAS MY INTENTION. 
          UH, 
          [02:05:01]
BUT I WAS A LITTLE BIT MISLED IN THAT DEPARTMENT. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, AND, AND THE REASON I'M, I, BECAUSE SOME OF YOUR MEASUREMENTS, I'VE ACTUALLY MEASURED THE FENCE. 
          OH, OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          BECAUSE, UM, IT DIDN'T IT AS SOMEBODY THAT BUILDS IT. 
          IT DIDN'T LOOK LIKE IT WAS BETWEEN THE MEASUREMENTS THAT YOU PROVIDED, SO, OH, OKAY. 
          UM, AND, UH, SO WHEN YOU PUT THE FENCE IN, WAS THAT TO HIDE THE, UM, YOUR, UH, CONEX BOX IN THE BACK? UH, NO, NOT PARTICULARLY. 
          WE WERE JUST PUTTING IN A, WE WERE REPLACING THE FENCE. 
          WE DID HAVE TO TAKE OUT PART OF THE FENCE TO MOVE THAT INTO PLACE. 
          UH, BUT AT THE TIME, WE WERE JUST THINKING WE'RE GONNA BUILD A NICER FENCE THAT FITS WITH THE LAYOUT OF THE TOPOGRAPHY OF THE HOME BETTER. 
          OKAY. 
          BECAUSE I, LOOK, I, I KNOW THERE'S SEVEN FOOT FENCES IN THE AREA. 
          THERE'S EIGHT FOOT FENCES IN THE AREA. 
          I JUST, UM, I JUST HAVE A, AN ISSUE WITH, WE GET INFORMATION THAT DOESN'T LINE UP WITH THE REALITY. 
          OH, THAT, YES, SIR. 
          AND SO WHEN IT COMES DOWN TO THIS, BECAUSE EVEN IN THE FENCE PERMITTING PORTION, UH, IT SAYS THAT IF YOU HAVE, UM, IF A FENCE IS SIX FEET, MORE THAN SIX FEET ON A RESIDENTIAL ALONG THE CITY OF AUSTIN, PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, OTHER THAN A PUBLIC ALLEY, YOU WILL ALSO NEED A CITY OF AUSTIN LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION AND A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS. 
          VARIANCE IS REQUIRED TO GET A LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION. 
          SO I'M, I'M TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO KEEP YOU FROM GETTING HUNG OUT TOO MUCH HERE, BUT WHAT'S THERE VERSUS WHAT THE REALITY OF IT IS BECAUSE YOU ACTUALLY, UH, EVEN BASED UPON THE SURVEY, YOUR PLAT THAT YOU PROVIDED, YOU'RE ACTUALLY ENCROACHING. 
          AND I DON'T WANT SOMEBODY FROM THE CITY TO COME BACK AND SAY, YOU'RE ENCROACHING ON CITY PROPERTY, WHICH YOU ARE. 
          OKAY. 
          YEAH. 
          WE JUST, WE'VE, IT, IT WENT EXACTLY WHERE THE OLD FENCE WAS. 
          SO IF THERE'S A PROBLEM THERE, THEN YOU KNOW, WE'LL, WELL, I JUST DON'T WANT THEM TO, TO COME OUT BECAUSE THE PLAT SAYS YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO BE, UH, 33 INCHES OR 2.8 FEET FROM THERE, AND YOU ACTUALLY ARE ENCROACHING INTO THE CITY PROPERTY. 
          OKAY. 
          WHICH COULD LEAD YOU TO AN ISSUE DOWN THE ROAD. 
          I UNDERSTAND. 
          UM, BUT THERE'S ALSO, I HAVE A SAFETY CONCERN WITH THE FACT THAT BECAUSE YOU'RE ON TWO CURVES, THAT YOUR FRONT FENCE IS ALSO BLOCKING, BECAUSE I KNOW THEY TRAVEL PRETTY FAST DOWN ESCUE. 
          UM, AND THERE'S, I HAVE A SAFETY ISSUE WITH THAT, WITH, WITH THE FOREFOOT SECTION. 
          WELL, WHEN YOU LOOK, WHEN YOU PARK AT THE STOP SIGN AND YOU LOOK BACK TO THE LEFT AND BACK TO THE RIGHT MM-HMM . 
          YOU ACTUALLY, IT DOES HAVE A TENDENCY TO BLOCK SOME OF THE VIEW OF THE TRAFFIC COMING. 
          OH, OKAY. 
          YEAH. 
          I SPOKE WITH, I KNOW YOU LIVE IN THE AREA, SO YOU'RE  YOU KNOW, AS WELL, I DID SPEAK WITH ALL THE NEIGHBORS AND I DID SPEAK WITH THE RIGHT OF WAY PEOPLE, UH, AT, AT THEIR OFFICE, AND, UH, NO ONE HAD ANY OBJECTION TO IT, BUT, WELL, I, I'M, I'M JUST SAYING I WOULD NEED SOMETHING MORE. 
          YEAH, I UNDERSTAND. 
          YEAH. 
          I'M JUST SAYING THAT THERE'S A, THAT THERE'S A TRAFFIC ISSUE. 
          UM, AND YOU MAY END UP WITH, YOU MAY END UP WITH A SAFETY ISSUE JUST BASED UPON THE FACT OF YOU'VE GOT THE DOUBLE CURVE FROM IF YOU LEAVE YOUR PLACE AND YOU'RE HEADING BACK EAST, YOU HAVE ONE CURVE AND THEN ANOTHER CURVE. 
          AND IF YOU GO BACK TO THE WEST, YOU'VE GOT ONE CURVE. 
          I'LL SAY I HAVEN'T NOTICED ANY, BECAUSE I TAKE THAT TURN EVERY MULTIPLE TIMES THAT I HAVEN'T NOTICED ANY DIFFERENCE. 
          AND THE NEIGHBORS ACROSS THE STREET, I MEAN, YEAH, I HAVEN'T, AND MAYBE THERE'S SOMETHING MORE SUBCONSCIOUS THAT HAPPENS, WE DON'T REALIZE RIGHT. 
          WHEN THERE'S A DANGER I COULD, I COULD UNDERSTAND. 
          YEAH. 
          UH, THAT, BUT I HAVEN'T, UH, NOTICED ANYTHING LIKE THAT MYSELF. 
          I'D LIKE TO THINK I'M A LITTLE MORE CONSCIOUS OF SAFETY NOW WITH A NEWBORN CHILD. 
          NO, NO, I GET THAT. 
          I, I'M JUST, BUT I, I, I HAD MORE QUESTIONS AFTER REVIEWING THIS TO LOOK AT IT GOING, DID YOU HAVE A PERMIT? NO. 
          DID YOU GET THE OTHER STUFF? BECAUSE FENCES ARE ONE OF THOSE THINGS WE DEAL WITH QUITE A BIT. 
          AND IN THE, I UNDERSTAND IN THE REALM OF BEING CONSISTENT. 
          AND, AND THAT'S MAINLY WHAT I'M LOOKING AT IS THE CONSISTENCY, BECAUSE WE DO GET PEOPLE COMING BACK TO US GOING, WELL, BUT YOU ALLOWED THE VARIANCE HERE. 
          YOU'RE ALLOWED TO BEAR. 
          AND EACH ONE HAS TO STAND ON ITS OWN MERITS AS, UH, BOARD MEMBER BON SAID. 
          SO I'M, I, UH, THOSE ARE SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT I HAVE AND WAS HAVING QUESTIONS WITH OVER THE WHOLE 
          [02:10:01]
PROCESS, SO. 
          OKAY. 
          YEAH. 
          I UNDERSTAND. 
          ARE QUESTIONS MADAM? CHAIR, BOARD MEMBER? CHAIR? Y'ALL CLOSE. 
          HAVE Y'ALL CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING? BECAUSE WE HAVE TWO PEOPLE TO SPEAK AND SUPPORT. 
          THEY'RE ON VIRTUALLY. 
          UH, I DON'T REMEMBER. 
          IT WAS LIKE SEVEN MINUTES AGO. 
          I MEAN, I DIDN'T HEAR, BUT I WAS A LITTLE BUSY, SO I DON'T KNOW IF Y'ALL DID. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, THEY SAY STATISTICALLY THE MONDAY AFTER, AFTER THE CHANGE IS USUALLY, I'M PRETTY SURE WE DIDN'T, I THINK WE JUST JUMPED RIGHT INTO DISCUSSION. 
          SO LET'S CLOSE IT. 
          OKAY. 
          SO BEFORE WE GO ANY FURTHER, IS THERE ANY OBJECTION, JUST FOR THE RECORD THAT WE REOPEN AND HEAR THIS? OKAY, GOOD. 
          LET'S GO AHEAD HEAD AND HEAR FROM OUR TWO VIRTUAL PEOPLE. 
          YEAH, WE HAVE TWO VIRTUAL, WE HAVE A VERONICA, UH, CANTU AND ALLISON RICHARD. 
          SO WHY DON'T WE START WITH VERONICA CAN TWO NEVERMIND TO WHAT, I GUESS THEY'RE NOT ON. 
          NOPE, THEY'RE NOT THERE. 
          OKAY. 
          WELL, LET'S JUST MAKE NOTE THAT THERE WERE TWO PEOPLE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR. 
          OKAY. 
          AND CONTINUE ON WITH QUESTIONS. 
          BOARD MEMBER TON. 
          I BELIEVE YOU HAD A HAND UP. 
          YEAH, I, YOU KNOW, I, I'VE BEEN LOOKING AT THE PICTURES AND JUST, UM, I JUST WANTED TO SAY I DON'T, I DON'T THINK, BASED ON WHAT I'M SEEING, AND I DON'T LIVE IN THE AREA, SO I, I MEAN, I LIVE FARTHER WEST, BUT I DON'T REALLY SEE THIS CAUSING A SAFETY ISSUE. 
          I MEAN, IT SEEMS LIKE THERE ARE ALREADY TREES THERE. 
          THE FENCE IS JUST ABUTTING THE TREES. 
          UM, I ALSO SEE THAT THERE ARE OTHER TALL FENCES IN THE AREA. 
          UM, I AM, I'M FEELING LIKE THIS RESIDENT IS TRYING TO DO THE BEST HE CAN TO NAVIGATE A DIFFICULT BUREAUCRATIC SYSTEM. 
          UM, AND I DON'T REALLY HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE FENCE AS IS. 
          SO TAKE FROM THAT WHAT YOU WILL, BUT I'M, I LIKE THE IDEA OF MAYBE A POSTPONEMENT, UM, TO MAYBE REVISIT A LITTLE, BECAUSE I, I, YEAH. 
          I JUST HESITATE TO DENY THIS, UM, GIVEN THAT HE IS PUTTING A LOT OF EFFORT INTO IT, AND I DON'T SEE THAT MADAM THERE ANYTHING WRONG EXCEPT THE PROCEDURE. 
          MADAM, I'LL, I'LL JUST, JUST FOR CLARITY, I THINK THAT THE SAFETY ISSUE THAT HE WAS REFERRING TO IS NOT REALLY THE EIGHT FOOT PART OF THE FENCE, BUT THE FOUR FOOT PART THAT EXTENDS OUT TO THE STOP SIGN. 
          UM, YEAH, BUT EVEN THAT, I MEAN, THERE'S NOT A CAR THAT'S GONNA BE SHORTER THAN FOUR FEET. 
          LIKE I, IT'S NOT OBSTRUCTING ANYTHING. 
          I DON'T MAKE THE RULES, I PROMISE THERE, THERE'S LIKE A 50 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY RULE AT AN INTERSECTION. 
          UH, IT'S, BUT WE'RE NOT, BUT I MEAN, THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE BEING ASKED TO CONSIDER, BUT I THINK HE WAS JUST MENTIONING THAT. 
          YEAH, BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT, NOW THAT HE'S IN THE SYSTEM, THEY'RE GONNA BE LOOKING FOR IT BECAUSE CODE ENFORCEMENT'S GONNA GO OUT. 
          YEAH, BUT LET'S, LET'S, I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW. 
          YEAH, NO, I CUT, CUT THE GUY FROM  WAS, THAT'S WHERE I FEEL ABOUT IT. 
          LIKE WHO WAS THERE ALREADY AND NOBODY HAD A PROBLEM WITH IT. 
          I'M WILLING TO, UH, WITHDRAW MY MOTION AND IF MAGGIE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO POSTPONE, I'LL SECOND YOUR MOTION. 
          YEAH, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO POSTPONE TWO NEXT MONTH. 
          OR WHAT DO YOU WANT? A MONTH, TWO MONTHS. 
          UH, SO JUST KEEP IN MIND, MAYBE TWO MONTHS WOULD BE HELPFUL. 
          JUST KEEP IN MIND IF Y'ALL POSTPONE TWO MONTHS, THERE IS GONNA BE A REIFICATION REATION NOTIFICATION THAT'S EXPENSIVE. 
          HOW MUCH IS IT? DON'T DO THAT. 
          LET'S DO LESS EXPENSIVE. 
          YEAH, YEAH. 
          YEAH. 
          UM, WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE WITH, I MEAN, MAYBE HAVING A PROFESSIONAL SURVEYOR COME OUT AND DO IT? NO. 
          YEAH. 
          A TOPO TOPOGRAPHICAL, BECAUSE WHAT YOU'RE BASING YOUR HARDSHIP ON WAS ON ELEVATION CHANGE. 
          SO IF YOU COULD, YEAH. 
          MAYBE HAVE SOMEBODY COME ON SURVEY, GIVE US A TOPOGRAPHICAL, UH, SURVEY ON IT, AND THAT WOULD HELP ME A LOT. 
          DID YOU, OTHER PEOPLE DID, HE SAID YOU ALSO SPOKE WITH SOMEONE AT RIGHT OF WAY AND THEY WERE FINE WITH IT. 
          I DID. 
          I TALKED TO MULTIPLE PEOPLE THERE AND THEY LOOKED AT IT ALL AND SAID THERE'S NO PROBLEM WITH IT. 
          I'LL ALSO ADD THAT, THAT THERE WAS ALWAYS A FOREFOOT SECTION THERE. 
          YEAH. 
          SINCE THE EIGHTIES, SINCE THE HOUSE WAS BORN. 
          YEAH. 
          SO GET THE LETTERS THAT PEOPLE WROTE IN SUPPORT, GET THAT UPLOADED TO THE RECORD. 
          MM-HMM . 
          OKAY. 
          AND THEN GET, UM, GET THAT IN WRITING. 
          THAT RIGHT OF WAY WAS COOL WITH IT. 
          AND THEN, UM, IF YOU CAN GET SOME KIND OF, I DON'T, I DON'T REALLY KNOW THE, THE TERMINOLOGY LIN IS BETTER FOR THAT. 
          I UNDERSTAND. 
          YEAH. 
          TOPOGRAPHICAL SURVEY. 
          AND THAT'S THE ISSUE, IS TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT IF YOU'RE DEALING WITH THESE GUYS, MAKE SURE THEY PUT IT IN WRITING, SAYING, NO, WE WE'RE FINE WITH IT, SO THAT THEY'RE NOT COMING BACK AT YOU ON THE FENCE CODE SAYING YOU HAVE TO HAVE THESE LETTERS OF AUTHORIZATION. 
          THAT'S THE POINT I'M TRYING TO MAKE, IS THAT YOU'VE GOT, 'CAUSE I'VE SEEN ENOUGH FENCES IN OUR AREA OVER THERE THAT HAVE BEEN, THEY'VE BEEN JAMMED UP BECAUSE SOMEBODY WALKED BY AND SAID, WELL, THAT FENCE IS TOO HIGH. 
          [02:15:02]
'CAUSE THERE'S ONE RIGHT AROUND THE CORNER FROM YOU THAT THEY HAD ONE AT EIGHT AND THE NEIGHBOR ACROSS THE STREET COMPLAINED ABOUT IT AND HAD TO BRING IT DOWN, EVEN THOUGH IT WAS, HAD BEEN ACCEPTED AT EIGHT WITH THE NEIGHBOR. 
          SO, AND THAT'S, THAT'S WHY I'M INCLINED TO POSTPONE. 
          'CAUSE HE'S WORKED WITH ALL OF HIS NEIGHBORS, YOU KNOW, HE'S LIKE, HE'S DOING EVERYTHING RIGHT. 
          SO TRYING. 
          WELL, BUT WITH IT BEING ON THE ACTUAL ROAD, THE NEIGHBORS REALLY DON'T MATTER WHAT THE NEIGHBORS REALLY SAY, IT'S GONNA BE THAT TECHNICALLY THE CITY IS THE NEIGHBOR. 
          THAT'S, THAT'S THE, THAT'S WHY IT'S WHY HE'S STUCK HERE. 
          SO, I MEAN, BEING ONE AT OVER EIGHT'S NOT THE ISSUE. 
          IT'S THE FACT THAT WE HAVE SOME, I'VE SEEN IT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD ALREADY WHERE CODE HAS COME OUT AND MADE THEM TAKE DOWN A FENCE THAT DIDN'T HAVE NEAR THE OBSTRUCTIONS. 
          THIS ONE DOES. 
          WHO, WHO WOULD IT BE? LIKE, WHICH CODE ENFORCEMENT? IT'D BE CODE ENFORCEMENT. 
          CODE ENFORCEMENT. 
          RIGHT. 
          SO I'M JUST TRYING TO BE THE GUY THAT SAYS, YOU NEED TO PAY ATTENTION TO THESE GUYS. 
          THEY'RE NOT. 
          YEAH. 
          YEAH. 
          COULD, COULD, COULD MS UH, RAMIREZ OR CITY STAFF HELP MR. STEWART IN THIS NAVIGATION? I, I THINK THE DSD, UH, HAS A PROGRAM WHERE HE COULD GO GET ASSISTANCE THERE, BUT NOT SPECIFICALLY THE DIRECTOR OR, UH, OUR LIAISON. 
          AND WAS THAT A SECOND, UH, BOARD MEMBER BY NOLAN. 
          OKAY. 
          ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? CAN WE DECIDE ON A MONTH, AGAIN, THIS IS A, I'M SORRY. 
          DO WE DECIDE ON A MONTH POSTPONEMENT? 4 13 1 MONTH. 
          YEAH. 
          OKAY. 
          SO HE DOESN'T HAVE TO RE NOTIFY. 
          YEAH. 
          UH, AND YOU COULD CALL ELAINE TOMORROW. 
          UH, SHE CAN GET YOU POINTED IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION TO GET A LITTLE MORE HELP. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          I APPRECIATE IT. 
          SURE. 
          SO THIS IS A MOTION TO POSTPONE TO APRIL 13TH, MADE BY BOARD MEMBER STAN SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER VON OLIN. 
          LET'S VOTE. 
          HAS ABDULLAH? YES. 
          YES. 
          OKAY. 
          SAM BARING? YES. 
          JEFFREY BOWEN. 
          YES. 
          YOUNG. 
          DREW KIM? YES. 
          BIANCA MEDINA. 
          AL? YES. 
          BRIAN PETITE. 
          YES. 
          MAGGIE ANI. 
          YES. 
          MICHAEL VON OLEN? YES. 
          COREY MCCLELLAN. 
          YES. 
          JESSICA COEN? YES. 
          OKAY. 
          THAT'S POSTPONED UNTIL APRIL 13TH. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          THE TIME IS 8:01 PM WE ARE GOING TO TAKE A 15 MINUTE RECESS. 
          WE'LL BE BACK HERE AT EIGHT 16. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          TAKE TWO. 
          THE TIME IS 8:22 PM I CALL THIS MEETING BACK TO ORDER THIS MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. 
          BACK TO ORDER. 
          WE'RE GOING TO PICK IT UP WITH ITEM 
          [7. C15-2026-0005 Peter Journeay-Kaler – Appellant  JBD CR Holding, LLC (Leonid Murashkovskiy - Owner 205 E 34th Street)]
SEVEN. 
          THIS IS GOING TO BE AN INTERPRETATION CASE, C 15 20 26 0 0 0 5. 
          PETER JANA KELLER, WHO'S THE APPELLANT? J-B-D-C-R HOLDING, LLC. 
          LEON MUR KKI. 
          I HOPE I SAID THAT RIGHT. 
          WHO'S THE OWNER? 2 0 5 EAST 34TH STREET. 
          I'M GOING TO REMIND EVERYONE, BECAUSE THERE'S A LARGE NUMBER OF PEOPLE TONIGHT, PLEASE ADDRESS THE BOARD ONLY. 
          DO NOT TALK TO EACH OTHER. 
          OKAY. 
          IF I COULD GET Y'ALL TO COME ON DOWN, UH, PRESS THE GREEN BUTTON ON YOUR MICROPHONE. 
          WE'RE GOING TO START WITH MADAM CHAIR. 
          GET TO MY APPEALS. 
          MADAM CHAIR, I AM ABSTAINING FROM THIS CASE. 
          I'M GONNA STEP OUT AND YES, ABSOLUTELY. 
          OKAY. 
          WE'RE, EXCUSE ME. 
          THANK YOU. 
          LET'S MARK. 
          BOARD MEMBER MCCLELLAN AS ABSTAINING. 
          THANK YOU. 
          AND THEN WE WILL START WITH THE REPORT FROM CITY STAFF AND, UH, 10 OR 15 MINUTES. 
          HOW MUCH DO YOU THINK? BUT OKAY. 
          HAVE ABOUT BOARD MEMBERS. 
          UH, BRENT LLOYD, DEVELOPMENT OFFICER WITH AUSTIN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. 
          AND, UM, I WILL BE BRIEF. 
          UM, WE, THE, UH, MY DEPARTMENT SUBMITTED A STAFF REPORT, AND YOU HAVE THAT, AND YOU ALSO, UM, HAVE PARTIES WHO ARE WELL REPRESENTED AND HAVE THOROUGH PRESENTATIONS TO PROVIDE. 
          SO I WANNA LEAVE MOST OF THE TIME FOR THEM TO PRESENT THEIR CASES TO YOU. 
          UM, THIS IS A CHALLENGE TO, UH, PERMITTING OF A THREE UNIT USE AT 
          [02:20:01]
2 0 5 EAST 34TH STREET IN THE, UH, NORTH UNIVERSITY NCCD. 
          UM, THE MAIN ISSUE IN FRONT OF YOU, THE, THE ZONING QUESTION THAT'S IN FRONT OF YOU PERTAINS TO THE FLOOR AREA RATIO LIMITS THAT ARE APPLICABLE TO THE PROJECT IN THIS CASE PRESENTS THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE NCCD FAR LIMITS FOR TWO UNIT USES OR POTENTIALLY MULTIFAMILY USES SHOULD BE APPLIED TO THE THREE UNIT USE, OR WHETHER THE 0.65 FAR LIMIT THAT APPLIES UNDER THE HOME ORDINANCE IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE IS APPLICABLE. 
          IT'S OUR POSITION AS OUTLINED IN OUR REPORT THAT THIS PROJECT IS SUBJECT TO THE 0.65 FAR LIMIT. 
          UM, THE APPLICANTS HAVE ALSO, OR THE, UH, APPELLANTS HAVE ALSO RAISED QUESTIONS CONCERNING, UH, THE TECHNICAL CODE REVIEW, SPECIFICALLY THE INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE AND THE FIRE CODE. 
          UM, AND IT IS OUR POSITION, UH, THAT THOSE ARE NOT ISSUES THAT ARE PROPERLY, UH, BEFORE THE BOARD. 
          HOWEVER, WE HAVE STAFF AVAILABLE. 
          SHOULD YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, I CAN MAYBE ANSWER THEM AS WELL. 
          BUT WE ALSO HAVE STAFF AVAILABLE, AND THAT GOES FOR ZONING AS WELL. 
          WE HAVE SEVERAL FOLKS HERE, SHOULD THE BOARD HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE CODE REQUIREMENTS. 
          UM, SO WITH THAT, UM, I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND TURN IT OVER TO THE PARTIES TO GIVE THEIR PRESENTATIONS. 
          UM, BUT WE ARE AVAILABLE, UM, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS AS YOU BEGIN YOUR DELIBERATIONS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          AND THANK YOU STAFF WHO ARE HERE TONIGHT TO SUPPORT THIS. 
          WE REALLY APPRECIATE YOU. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          WE WILL START WITH A PRESENTATION BY THE APPEALING PARTY OR THEIR REPRESENTATIVE. 
          THE TIME WILL BE LIMITED TO 10 MINUTES WITH NO DONATION OF TIME. 
          PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD. 
          THANK YOU, CHAIR AND BOARD MEMBERS. 
          MY NAME IS BOBBY LEVINSKY. 
          I AM AN ATTORNEY HERE REPRESENTING THE APPELLANT IN THIS APPEAL. 
          UM, LARGELY THIS APPEAL, UH, BUILDS UPON THE PRIOR DETERMINATION FOR THIS SITE, WHICH YOU MAY REMEMBER WELL FROM A FEW MONTHS AGO, WHICH CENTERED ON SEVERAL VIOLATIONS OF CHAPTER 25 2, AS WELL AS THE NUNA NCCD, WHICH IS A ZONING ORDINANCE. 
          UH, WE ARE BACK BECAUSE THE APPELLANT, UH, SORRY, THE APPLICANT HAS CONTINUED TO PUSH THE BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY'S ZONING REGULATIONS. 
          THE APPLICANT IS ONCE AGAIN ATTEMPTING TO TRICK THE EYE BY MAKING SUPERFICIAL CHANGES, RELABELING ROOMS, AND REMOVING NON LOAD BEARING WALLS AND DOORS THAT CAN EASILY BE REVERSED AND CONVERTED BACK AFTER INSPECTION. 
          THIS MANEUVER IS CLEARLY DESIGNED TO CIRCUMVENT THE SPIRIT AND THE LETTER OF THE ZONING CODE, ALLOWING THEM TO BUILD A STRUCTURE OF FAR GREATER SCALE THAN WHAT WOULD THE REGULATIONS WOULD PERMIT AND WHAT WOULD BE ENVISIONED BY THE NUNA NCCD. 
          AS YOU MAY RECALL, IN THE PRIOR CASE, THIS BOARD IDENTIFIED THAT A PROPOSED STRUCTURE LABELED AS A THREE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE WAS IN FACT A FOURPLEX. 
          YOU RECOGNIZED THIS MISINTERPRETATION AND ACTED ACCORDINGLY TO ENFORCE THE ZONING CODE. 
          WE ARE FACING A SIMILAR SITUATION AGAIN TODAY, AND WE ASK YOU TO DO THE SAME AGAIN. 
          THERE ARE TWO BUILDINGS. 
          THEY ARE VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT YOU SAW BEFORE. 
          THE FRONT BUILDING IS A DUPLEX WITH FIVE BEDROOMS ON EACH SIDE. 
          AND THE BACK UNIT, THOUGH IT WAS SUBMITTED AS A ONE UNIT BUILT BUILDING WITH 12 BEDROOMS. SO THAT BRINGS THE TOTAL SITE UP TO 22 BEDROOMS. THE STRUCTURE OF THAT BACK UNIT IS EFFECTIVELY THE SAME SCALE AS WHAT YOU REVIEWED BEFORE AND REJECTED AS A FOAL DUPLEX. 
          WHEN THESE PLANS WERE REJECTED BY STAFF, UPON INITIAL REVIEW FOR EXCEEDING THE NUMBER OF BEDROOMS THAT WOULD'VE BEEN ALLOWED UNDER RESIDENTIAL REVIEW, THE APPLICANT ALTERED THEIR DRAWING BY RELABELING ROOMS AND MAKING SUPERFICIAL CHANGES, SUCH AS REMOVING NON LOAD BEARING WALLS AND DOORS SO THAT YOU WOULD BRING IT DOWN TO FIVE BEDROOMS. THE GOAL WAS TO CREATE A FACADE THAT SOMEHOW THOSE 12 BEDROOMS BECAME FIVE. 
          I WANNA WALK THROUGH THOSE PLANS SO YOU CAN SEE WHAT I'M SAYING HERE. 
          THE, THIS IS, THE SLIDE SHOWS THE, THE GROUND FLOOR OF THAT BACK UNIT. 
          ON THE LEFT IS THE, UM, THE INITIAL SUBMITTAL, AND THEN ON THE RIGHT IS THE PERMIT THAT'S BEING APPEALED. 
          WHAT YOU'LL SEE IS THAT ON THE LEFT, YOU'LL HAVE FOUR BEDROOMS ON THE 
          [02:25:01]
GROUND FLOOR, ON THE, ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE UNIT. 
          IF YOU LOOK AT THIS, UM, I DON'T HAVE A LASER POINTER, BUT IF YOU LOOK NEXT TO THE KITCHEN AND DINING ROOM, THAT FIRST BEDROOM RIGHT HERE ON THE BOTTOM, UH, LEFT OF THE, OF THE RIGHT HALF OF THE PROPERTY, IT WAS RELABELED AS A PANTRY. 
          IT WAS A 80 SQUARE FOOT BEDROOM RELABELED AS A 98 SQUARE FOOT PANTRY WITH A WINDOW, A WINDOW THAT WOULD MAKE A PANTRY, PANTRY VERY DYSFUNCTIONAL BECAUSE WINDOWS WOULD LEAD TO FOOD SPOILATION. 
          THE MORE LOGICAL CONCLUSION IS THAT IT IS ACTUALLY STILL A BEDROOM LABELED AS A PANTRY. 
          AND IF YOU GET ANY ONE OF THESE BEDROOMS THAT I'M SHOWING YOU, IF IT GETS COUNTED AS A BEDROOM, IT KICKS IT UP TO THAT SIX BEDROOM, UH, LIMIT ON RESIDENTIAL REVIEW AND CALLS INTO QUESTION THE ZONING USE AS PART OF A THREE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNIT. 
          SO, UM, THIS ANOTHER BEDROOM RIGHT NEXT TO THE PANTRY, IT WAS A 77 SQUARE FOOT BEDROOM, RELABELED AS 113 SQUARE FEET OFFICE. 
          AND THEN IF YOU GO UP TO THE TOP RIGHT, YOU'LL SEE THAT THE, UH, PARTITION WALL WAS REMOVED BETWEEN TWO BEDROOMS, MAKING IT A MASTER BEDROOM. 
          AND I THINK YOU'LL SEE HOW THE PARTITION WALLS IS A LITTLE BIT MORE EXTREME ON THE, ON THE SECOND FLOOR, WHERE YOU HAVE WHAT WAS AS INITIALLY SUBMITTED, EIGHT BEDROOMS THAT THEN BECAME FOUR BEDROOMS BY REMOVING PARTITION WALLS, CHANGING THE CLOSETS TO REALLY LARGE CHASES, UM, AND REMOVING DOORS SO THAT YOU, IT'S DISGUISES WHAT ARE THE CLOSETS IN SOME OF THESE BEDROOMS? WHAT YOU HAVE HERE IS LIKE AN AVERAGE OF ALMOST 250 SQUARE FOOT BEDROOMS UP ON THIS TOP FLOOR THAT ARE ACTUALLY LARGER THAN THE PRIMARY OR MASTER BEDROOM DOWNSTAIRS. 
          THESE ALTERATIONS DEMONSTRATE A DELIBERATE ATTEMPT TO CIRCUMVENT ZONING REGULATIONS AND IT MASK THE TRUE SCALE AND THE INTENT OF THE STRUCTURES. 
          I RAISE THIS BECAUSE THE CRUX OF THIS APPEAL, IT ULTIMATELY GOES BACK TO THE APPLICANT'S DISREGARD FOR THE NUNA NCC D ZONING REQUIREMENTS, PARTICULARLY THE 0.4 FLORIDA AREA RATIO FOR SF THREE PROPERTIES. 
          AS YOU MAY, MAY REMEMBER FROM THIS PRIOR CASE, THE NUN GA, UH, THOSE NEW NCCD APPLIES A 0.4 LIMIT FOR RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY ZONED SF THREE. 
          THERE IS NO DISPUTE WHETHER 0.4 WOULD APPLY TO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, TO TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO DUPLEXES, AND THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT FOUR PLEXES, FIVE PLEXES, AND EVEN 100 UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEXES WITHIN THE NCCD WOULD BE LIMITED TO A, TO A 0.5 FAR FOR MULTIFAMILY OWNED PROPERTIES. 
          WHAT WE'RE LED TO BELIEVE IS THAT THE ONLY THING THAT'S REALLY IN DISPUTE HERE IS THAT WHETHER TRIPLEXES WOULD BE ALLOWED TO GO TO 0.6 FAR 0.65 FAR, IF THEY'RE ZONED SF THREE. 
          BUT IF THEY'RE ZONED MF ONE, IF THEY'RE ZONED AT MF TWO, THEY WOULD BE LIMITED TO 0.5 FAR. 
          THAT JUST DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE. 
          THE NCCD IS A COUNCIL APPROVED ORDINANCE THAT IS INTENDED TO REGULATE DEVELOPMENT IN A VERY SMALL AREA OF THE NORTH OF THE NORTH UNIVERSITY NEIGHBORHOOD, AN AREA VULNERABLE TO DEMOLITION OF EXISTING AFFORDABLE HOUSING STOCK, AND AN AREA THAT IT WAS INTENDED TO PRESERVE THAT AFFORDABLE HOUSING STOCK FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS. 
          'CAUSE IT IS SO HARD TO BUILD IT BACK. 
          THE PURPOSE OF CCDS IS TO PRESERVE NEIGHBORHOODS AND, UM, THAT WERE BUILT AT LEAST 30 YEARS PRIOR TO, UH, THE NCCD BEING FILED AS A WAY TO PRESERVE THE, UH, NATURAL DEVELOPMENT PATTERN OF THAT AREA. 
          SPECIFICALLY, UH, THE NCCD STATES THAT NEW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SHOULD RESPECT TRADITIONAL DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS INCLUDING BUILDING, ORIENTATION, SCALE, HEIGHT, SETBACKS, AND PARKING LOCATION. 
          THAT COMES FROM PART SEVEN, AND I ACTUALLY WANT TO GO AHEAD AND READ THE, THE FULL PART OF THAT. 
          THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT IS INTENDED TO PROTECT THE ORIGINAL BUILDINGS AND DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT WERE ESTABLISHED FOR RESIDENTIAL USE, SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND SOME OTHER OLDER MULTI-FAMILY STRUCTURES WERE BUILT IN THE CONTEXT OF THE TRADITIONAL DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS. 
          NEW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SHOULD RESPECT 
          [02:30:01]
THOSE TRADITIONAL DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS, INCLUDING SCALE. 
          WE HAVE TWO EXAMPLES OF HOW THE NCCD UM, WAS AMENDED OVER TIME THAT I THINK PROVIDE SOME ADDITIONAL CONTEXT. 
          IN 2011, THERE WAS AN AMENDMENT TO SPECIFICALLY ALLOW, PROACTIVELY ALLOW TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS WITHIN THE NCCD. 
          AND WHAT YOU SEE IS THAT WHEN THEY, WHEN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AMENDED IT, AND WHEN IT WAS PASSED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE COUNCIL, THERE WAS A SPECIFIC INTENT TO REFLECT THE TRADITIONAL DEVELOPMENT PATTERN TO ADD THAT 0.4 FAR FOR TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE. 
          IN 2012, THERE WAS ANOTHER AMENDMENT, WHICH AGAIN, A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT, WHICH WAS PROPERLY NOTIFIED AND EVERYONE HAD AN ABILITY TO, UM, YOU KNOW, UH, COMMENT ON IT. 
          THEY, THEY, THERE WAS A A THREE RESIDENTIAL UNIT PROPERTY. 
          IT WAS A NON COMPLYING PROPERTY, SO THERE'S THREE UNITS ON IT. 
          IT HAD A SPECIFIC AMENDMENT, A SITE, SPECIFIC AMENDMENT TO THE NCCD WITH, UH, THE, UH, LOWER LOT SIZE AND AS LONG AS IT COMPLIED WITH THE MAXIMUM FLORIDA AREA RATIO OF A 0.4 FAR. 
          SO THAT'S A THREE UNIT PROPERTY WITH A 0.4 FAR. 
          THIS IS THAT PROPERTY. 
          HERE YOU CAN SEE HOW, UM, THESE THREE UNITS WORK ON THIS LOT AND IT REMAINS WITH A FAR OF 0.36 AGAIN THAT, THAT, THAT AMENDMENT WAS SO THAT THEY COULD ALLOW SOME SMALL LOT SUBDIVISION. 
          THE NCCD 0.4 FAR, UM, IS, IT ONLY APPLIES TO AN AREA THAT IS APPROXIMATELY 0.1% OF THE CITY. 
          UM, HERE IS A, A DRAWING THAT SHOWS HOW THE SCALE WORKS WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          MANY OF THE SITES ACROSS THE NEIGHBORHOOD, I'M RATHER ABOUT RUN OUTTA TIME, SO I WANNA SHOW THESE SITES HERE. 
          WHAT YOU'LL SEE AT THE END OF THESE SLIDES, THE ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD IS CONSISTENTLY BUILT AT 0.4 OR LESS. 
          FAR MR. LEBINSKI, HOW MUCH TIME DO YOU NEED TO WRAP IT UP? BECAUSE I CAN GIVE YOU AN ADDITIONAL MINUTE OR TWO, BUT I'M ALSO GOING TO GIVE HIM AN ADDITIONAL MINUTE OR TWO IF I COULD HAVE AN ADDITIONAL MINUTE AND GET TO ONE OTHER ZONING VIOLATION THAT I REALLY WANT TO COVER, AND HAPPY TO CONCEDE ADDITIONAL MINUTE TO HIM. 
          OKAY. 
          I'LL ADD ONE MORE MINUTE THEN. 
          OKAY, GO AHEAD. 
          I'M GONNA GO TO THIS SLIDE HERE. 
          SO AGAIN, THERE'S, THERE'S, THERE'S THREE ZONING VIOLATIONS. 
          THERE'S THE PART SEVEN THAT I JUST READ FROM. 
          THERE'S THE, THE, THE TABLE WITH THE 0.4 FAR, BUT THEN THERE'S A NO, UM, LIMIT THAT HAS NOT BEEN ADDRESSED YET. 
          AND THAT IS PART SIX OF THE NCCD THAT SAYS THAT THE BUILDINGS MUST FRONT THE SHORT SIDE OF THE LOT AND THE STREET FRONTAGE, THAT'S AGAIN, IT'S A, IT'S A-N-C-C-D REGULATIONS, A ZONING VIOLATION TO HAVE THE UNIT FRONT THE BACK ALLEY OF THE LOT. 
          AND THAT'S, THAT CREATES ALL SORTS OF OTHER ISSUES THAT WE'RE SEEING HERE WITH THE ACCESSIBILITY REQUIREMENTS AND STUFF LIKE THAT. 
          THOSE ARE JUST REALLY MAINLY TO ADD ADDITIONAL CONTEXT SO YOU CAN SEE WHY IT'S, UH, IT'S CREATING SOME BAD SITUATIONS. 
          THAT BACK ALLEY IS A REALLY SUBPAR ALLEY. 
          IT HAS, UM, POOR ACCESSIBILITY AND VISIBILITY REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE ADDRESSED BY SOME OF OUR OTHER ISSUES. 
          BUT AGAIN, PART SIX OF THE NCCD IS A ZONING VIOLATION THAT HAS NOT BEEN ADDRESSED BY EITHER STAFF OR THE APPLICANT. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          OKAY, WE ARE GOING TO MOVE ON TO COMMENTS FROM THOSE SUPPORTING THE APPEAL. 
          YOU WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES EACH WITH DONATION OF TIME ALLOWED NOW, BECAUSE THERE'S SO MANY OF YOU. 
          I'M GOING TO HAVE ELAINE CALL YOU BY NAME SO THAT WE CAN VERIFY THAT THE PERSON WHO IS DONATING TIME IS IN THE ROOM WITH US, WHICH IS A REQUIREMENT. 
          SO ELAINE, IF YOU WOULD PLEASE CALL THE FIRST SPEAKER. 
          OKAY. 
          THE FIRST AND WHO'S DONATING YOUR TIME? THE FIRST SPEAKER IN SUPPORT OF THE APPEAL IS PAM BELL. 
          AND IS SOMEONE DONATING TIME TO THEM? THEM? NO, I DON'T NEED ANY DONATED TIME. 
          THIS IS WEIRD. 
          YES, NO. 
          IS SOMEONE DONATING TIME? I SEE A BROWN FACE FROM LEGAL COME ON UP. 
          WHAT'S HAPPENING HERE? UH, ERICA LOPEZ, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY. 
          UM, THERE 
          [02:35:01]
WAS A QUESTION ABOUT THE ORDER OF THE SPEAKERS. 
          JUST TO CLARIFY. 
          THE GENERAL FORMAT THEN REQUIRES THE, IF THE PERMIT HOLDER TO TALK, BUT YOU'RE, YOU'VE CHANGED THE FORMAT. 
          JUST A, JUST A SLIGHT TWEAK TO HAVE THE COMMENTS IN SUPPORT AND THEN YOU'LL HAVE THE, THE PERMIT HOLDER TALK AFTERWARDS OR YEAH, HE SHOULD GO FOR IT. 
          I'M GOING OFF OF BI LITTLE BI OF THE RULES AND PROCEDURES. 
          I'M SORRY, LITTLE. 
          I'M REFERRING TO TWO TO TWO LITTLE BI OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT RULES OF PROCEDURES FOR THE FORMAT FOR THE APPEAL HEARING. 
          MM-HMM . 
          MM-HMM  DID I MISS SOMETHING? MY BOOK OUT OF DATE, SORRY. 
          MAY I SUGGEST THAT THE PERMIT HOLDER SPEAK AND THEN YOU COULD HAVE ALL OF THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC SPEAK? SORRY, ONE SEC. 
          YEAH, I GOT IT. 
          IT'S RIGHT HERE. 
          NO, I GOT IT. 
          OKAY. 
          BUT SEE, KNOW THAT'S WHAT I HAVE HERE. 
          THAT'S WHAT APPELLANT AND THEN THE PERMIT HOLDER AND THEN THE SUPPORT OPPOSITION APPEAL. 
          THERE'S THE SCRIPT, I DUNNO, THIS IS JUST, WE'LL GO WITH THAT THEN. 
          NO, IT'S FINE. 
          DOES DOES NOT MAKE THAT MUCH OF A DIFFERENCE TO ME. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, INSTEAD, SORRY, LEMME GET BACK TO THIS PAGE. 
          WE'LL FOLLOW THIS INSTEAD OF MY SCRIPT. 
          OKAY. 
          SO WE WILL HEAR FROM THE OPPOSING PARTY AND WE WILL LIMIT IT TO 11 MINUTES. 
          SO PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD AND YOU WILL HAVE 11 MINUTES. 
          MY NAME IS LEONARD MURKOWSKI, I'M THE ATTORNEY FOR THE APPLICANT AND ALSO THE OWNER OF THE APPLICANT. 
          LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE BOARD. 
          UH, BEFORE I BEGIN, I'D LIKE TO STATE MY SUPPORT FOR THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY STAFF AS AN ATTORNEY. 
          IT IS MY CONCLUSION THAT THE CITY STAFF IS CORRECT IN THEIR DETERMINATION THAT THIS BOARD UNFORTUNATELY DOESN'T HAVE THE LEGAL AUTHORITY TO HEAR FOUR OUT OF THE FIVE PRESENTED QUESTIONS. 
          UM, I'M STILL GONNA GO OVER THEM BECAUSE OF THE, YOU KNOW, CLARITY AND WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE. 
          SO IF YOU ALLOW ME, I'LL START READING. 
          ALRIGHT, SO THIS APPEAL IS FROM A THREEPLEX THAT WE'RE TRYING TO BUILD IN THE AREA. 
          FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, THE FACTUAL BACKGROUND TO BBR AS FOLLOW UPS. 
          THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 2 0 5 EAST 34TH STREET, AUSTIN, TEXAS. 
          IT IS ZONED SF THREE WE FILED FOR AND GOT OBTAINED A PERMIT NUMBER 25 DASH 4 0 2 1 PR TO CONSTRUCT TWO RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES CONTAIN TOTAL OF THREE DWELLING UNITS CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY HOME ORDINANCE AND UNDERLYING ZONING. 
          THE PERMIT REVIEW HISTORY IS ON THE BOARD RIGHT HERE. 
          IT'S PART OF MY PRESENTATION. 
          IT'S EXHIBIT A, EXHIBIT B, EXHIBIT C, D, E, F, G, H, AND B. 
          AND THEY'RE HERE FOR YOU TO VIEW AS YOU REQUIRE. 
          HOWEVER, BEFORE WE GO INTO IT, I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE ALL AGAIN ON THE SAME PAGE, IT IS MY SINCERE HOPE THAT THIS BOARD WILL SEE THAT ALL OF WHAT'S IN FRONT OF YOU. 
          IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT CAN BE HEARD BY THE BOARD. 
          IT IS SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSED IN THE INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE AND INTERNATIONAL FIRE CODE. 
          SO I'M GONNA GO ONE BY ONE, THE BEDROOM COUNT IN ACCURACY. 
          ALRIGHT? MY OPPOSING SIDE BASICALLY STATES THAT I DIDN'T DO ENOUGH IN CHANGING THE BEDROOM COUNTS THAT SOMETIME IN THE FUTURE I MIGHT CHANGE THEM TO ORIGINAL DESIGN OR DO SOMETHING ELSE. 
          [02:40:01]
THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE TO THIS BOARD, TO EVEN HERE, BASICALLY MY OPPOSING SIDE SAYING THAT THEY THINK THAT I MIGHT DO SOMETHING IN THE FUTURE, THEREFORE YOU MUST DENY MY REQUEST. 
          NOW, BY ITSELF IT'S INAPPROPRIATE. 
          UM, THIS IS A PERSONAL ADVICE AS A MORE LEGAL SENSE. 
          I DON'T BELIEVE THE BOARD HAS JURISDICTION TO EVEN HEAR IT IN THE BEGINNING, BUT THAT'S A DIFFERENT STORY. 
          THE BEDROOM COUNTS WHETHER THIS IS A BEDROOM OR NOT BEDROOM, THE NUMBER OF SQUARE FOOTAGE, IT'S FOR THE INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS, UH, INTERNATIONAL, UH, BUILDING CODE. 
          AND IT IS MY, AND IT'S MY POSITION THAT THE CITY APPLIED IT CORRECTLY. 
          ON A PERSONAL NOTE, THIS BOARD HEARD THIS BEFORE AND WE DID MAKE THE CHANGES. 
          THE CHANGES WERE SPECIFICALLY MADE TO ADDRESS THE CITY'S PROBLEMS AND ISSUES AND WERE APPROVED BY THE CITY AS IS RIGHT NOW. 
          WE MADE THOSE CHANGES AND NOW CLAIMING, WELL, YOU CAN CHANGE THEM IN THE FUTURE, THAT'S SIMPLY UNACCEPTABLE. 
          THOSE CHANGES WERE MADE BE BASED ON THEIR OWN RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE, AT THE PRIOR HEARINGS. 
          SO JUST, UH, GROUND TO FLOOR AREA RATIO. 
          THE OPPOSING SITE WANTS THIS BOARD TO READ INTO NOT FROM THE CODE. 
          THE CODE IS SIMPLY SILENT. 
          THE HOME ORDINANCE IS SILENT ON WHETHER NCC APPLIES. 
          IT IS, AGAIN, MY POSITION THAT THE CITY STAFF IS CORRECT IN APPLYING THE HOME RULE AND BUILDINGS IS, IS ARE ACCEPTED AS SHOULD BE THAT A IR IS CORRECT. 
          AND A PERSONAL NOTE, AGAIN, MY OPPOSING SIDE WANTS YOU TO READ INTO WHAT SHOULD HAVE, COULD HAVE OR WOULD'VE BEEN IN, IN THE CO IN THE ZONING, BUT IT SIMPLY IS NOT THERE. 
          MY OPPOSING SIDE SPECIFICALLY SAID IT WAS THE INTENT OF THE COMMISSION WHEN THEY WERE DOING THE NCCD AND HOME RULE, BUT IT SIMPLY IS NOT WRITTEN. 
          MY OPPOSING SITE WANTS THIS BODY TO INTERPRET THE LAW, WHICH IT IS MY POSITION. 
          I DON'T BELIEVE THIS BODY CAN DO THAT. 
          AGAIN, WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR A VARIANCE WHEN NOT ASKING FOR, FOR THIS BODY TO MAKE ANY KIND OF A DECISION. 
          IT IS SIMPLY OUR POSITION THAT MY OPPOSING SIDE ASKED THIS BODY TO READ INTO WHAT COULD HAVE POSSIBLY IS THEIR INTERPRETATION OF WHAT THEY THINK SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED. 
          AND I DON'T BELIEVE THAT'S APPROPRIATE. 
          GROUND THREE VISIBILITY AND EXTERIOR ROUTES. 
          IT IS MY POSITION THAT THIS IS A TECHNICAL BUILDING CODE. 
          IT'S ALREADY BEEN VIEWED FOR THE STAFF DECIDED AND AGREED AND THERE IS NOTHING THAT NEEDS TO BE TO BE CHANGED AND NOTHING NEEDS TO BE DECIDED. 
          THE, AND THE BIGGEST ISSUE I HAVE IS THE GROUND FLOOR FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS. 
          MY OPPOSING SITE SAID SOMETHING ABOUT WELL IN THEIR PLEADINGS THAT THIS BUILDING DOESN'T MEET THE 150 FEET, YOU KNOW, FIRE HYDRANT REQUIREMENT. 
          BUT THEY TOTALLY FORGOT TO MENTION THAT THERE IS A MITIGATING FACTOR. 
          THE BUILDING NUMBER TWO, WHICH DOESN'T EXACTLY HAVE THE 150 FEET HAS A SPRINKLER SYSTEM INSTALLED TO MITIGATE THAT ISSUE. 
          SO THERE IS NO ISSUE WHATSOEVER OF, UH, WATER NOT GETTING TO A BUILDING. 
          GOD FORBID THERE IS A FIRE. 
          AND AGAIN, THIS WAS DONE BY A PROFESSIONAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BY THE CITY AS APPLIED BY THE INTERNATIONAL FIRE CODE AND AGREED BY THE STAFF. 
          MY OPPOSING SITE QUIETLY FORGOT TO MENTION THAT. 
          AND AGAIN, IT IS ALSO OUR POSITION THAT THIS BOARD DOESN'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ACT UPON IT. 
          BUT IT IS IN THE FULL DISCLOSURE SPIRIT THAT NOT ONLY THAT WE COMPLIED WITH ALL OF IT, WE MADE NUMEROUS MITIGATIONS TO ADDRESS ALL REQUIRED MONTHS. 
          UM, GROUND FIVE STAIR STAIR THREATS. 
          AGAIN, THIS IS A TECHNICAL ISSUE FOR INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS CODE. 
          IT IS MY POSITION THAT WE'VE COMPLIED WITH INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS CODE. 
          AS AGREED, THE CITY POSITIVELY LOOKED AT THE DOCUMENTS, MADE THE RECOMMENDATION AND ISSUED A PERMIT. 
          AND IF FOR WHATEVER REASON DURING CONSTRUCTION, ONE OF THE, UM, INSPECTORS FE FEELS THAT THIS, YOU KNOW, STAIRCASE IS NOT STEEP ENOUGH OR STEEP ENOUGH, THIS IS SOMETHING THEY 
          [02:45:01]
DEAL AT THE CONSTRUCTION LEVEL, NOT AT THE APPEAL IN THIS BY THIS BODY. 
          SO THIS IS ALSO AN INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL BUILDING CODE AND SOMETHING THAT CAN BE DONE BY THE STAFF OF THE CITY, LIKE CERTAINLY NOT AT THIS STAGE. 
          SOMETHING ELSE WAS BOTHERING ME. 
          UH, ONE OF THE POINTS OF APPEAL WAS INCOMPLETE APPLICATION. 
          UM, THE OPPOSING SIDE SAID SOMETHING ABOUT THE IMMATERIAL EMISSION OR CONSTRUCTION OF ME, THE METHODS, I WASN'T EVEN SURE WHAT THEY MEAN. 
          FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, THEIR POSITION IS THAT BECAUSE SOME OF THE, UM, PLACES IN THE APPLICATION HAD NA ON IT, THEY FEEL THAT YOU SHOULD DENY MY RIGHT TO BUILD A BUILDING. 
          AND THEY ACTUALLY MADE THIS AS A PART OF THEIR APPLICATION TO THIS BODY, WHICH SHOULD ALSO TELL YOU THE NATURE OF THEIR APPLICATION. 
          THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ME BUILDING A BUILDING ACCORDING TO THE PLANS. 
          IT IS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH ME NOT BUILDING UP A BUILDING PERIOD. 
          I ALSO WANNA MENTION SOMETHING ABOUT THE VALLEY. 
          UH, THERE WAS A, SOME KIND OF A BACK AND FORTH IN THE P PAST ABOUT 12 FEET, 20 FEET. 
          AGAIN, I WANNA MENTION THIS TO THIS, UH, TO THE BODY IS WE HAVE A SURVEY. 
          THIS SURVEY IS CLEARLY STATES 20 FEET. 
          AND THE FACT THAT THEY ARE ACTUALLY MAKING THIS AS AN ISSUE BEFORE THIS BOARD AGAIN STATES THAT THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MY BUILDING. 
          IT HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH THEM NOT WANTING MY BUILDING. 
          UM, IN CONCLUSION, I HOPE I TRY TO MAKE MY PRESENTATION AS PLAIN AND AS, AS NOT AS ILLEGALLY AS POSSIBLE. 
          BUT WE'VE MADE EVERY SINGLE EFFORT TO ADDRESS ANY AND ALL ISSUES THE CITY HAD. 
          WE WORKED WITH THE CITY, AS YOU CAN SEE, WE HAVE CORRESPONDENCE, WE HAVE FIRE CODE MITIGATION. 
          EVERYTHING IN THIS APPLICATION IS TRUE FINE, CORRECT. 
          AND ACCORDING TO LAW, MY OPPOSING SIDES WANT THIS BODY TO LOOK AT ME. 
          MY PROJECT AS WELL, NOT COMPLIANT. 
          IT CANNOT, I'M COMPLIANT WITH EVERY SINGLE RULE, REGULATION AND LAW AS IT'S WRITTEN. 
          MY ESTEEM OPPOSITE COLLEAGUE WANTS THIS BODY TO READ INTO SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T EXIST. 
          THERE IS NO LAW SPECIFICALLY TELLING ME THAT MY BUILDING UNDER HOME REGULATION MUST BE 0.04 FRR. 
          IT IS SIMPLY A WISHFUL THINKING OF MY OPPOSING SIDE AND SHOWING THIS BODY THAT OTHER BUILDINGS HAVE DIFFERENT FRR HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING OTHER THAN THE FACT, JUST TO SHOW ME THAT I'M TRYING TO BE DIFFERENT. 
          WELL, THOSE BUILDINGS WERE BUILT MANY YEARS AGO. 
          AND AT THIS POINT, AT THIS TIME, THE LAW IS VERY CLEAR. 
          I CAN BUILD THE CITIES AND CONCURRENCE. 
          AND ALL I HAVE IS THE, MY ESTEEMED OPPOSITE SIDE TELLING ME THAT, WELL, NO, KINDA, LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT THIS. 
          THIS IS THE INTENT. 
          WELL, MULTIFAMILY SHOULD BE THIS OR SINGLE FAMILY SHOULD BE THIS. 
          THEREFORE YOUR TRIPLETS SHOULD BE THIS. 
          I FEEL THIS IS HOW IT MEANT TO BE. 
          I'M SORRY TO SAY THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          OKAY, SO NOW WE WILL MOVE INTO COMMENTS BY THE APPEALING PARTY AND I'LL HAND IT OVER TO ELAINE TO CALL THE NAME AND VERIFY THAT DON TIME DONORS ARE IN THE ROOM WITH US. 
          OKAY, SO FOR THE APPEALING PARTY, I HAVE A LIST OF PEOPLE, UM, HERE TO SPEAK OR ONLINE TO SPEAK. 
          UM, OUR FIRST ONE IS PAM BELL. 
          SHE'S THE PRESIDENT OF THE NUNA NORTH UNIVERSITY NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. 
          AND DOES SHE HAVE SOMEONE DONATING TIME? UH, NO. 
          NO. 
          OKAY. 
          STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD PLEASE. 
          YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES. 
          GOOD EVENING CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. 
          UH, COULD YOU VERIFY YOUR MICROPHONE IS ON PLEASE? GREEN LIGHT . 
          MY NAME IS PAM BELL AND I'M THE PRESIDENT OF THE NORTH UNIVERSITY NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AT OUR GEN GENERAL MEMBERSHIP MEETING ON FEBRUARY 2ND. 
          THE NORTH UNIVERSITY NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION VOTED TO FORMALLY SUPPORT THIS APPEAL REFLECTING STRONG CONCERN AMONG NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTS. 
          [02:50:01]
THE NORTH UNIVERSITY NCCD IS A CITY ORDINANCE ADOPTED AFTER AN EXTENSIVE PUBLIC PLANNING PROCESS LED BY NEIGHBORHOOD IN COLLABORATION WITH CITY STAFF. 
          THE PROCESS EXAMINED EXISTING DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS, CREATED SUB-DISTRICTS REFLECTING THOSE PATTERNS AND ESTABLISHED SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TO GUIDE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SUCH AS THE 0.4 FAR ARE NOT ARBITRARY NUMBERS. 
          THEY WERE CAREFULLY CHOSEN TO BALANCE SEVERAL GOALS AT THE SAME TIME PRESERVING THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S ESTABLISHED DEVELOPMENT PATTERN, ALLOWING NEW AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND ACCOMMODATING ADDITIONAL DENSITY IN APPROPRIATE WAYS. 
          THESE STANDARDS HAVE GUIDED DEVELOPMENT IN NORTH UNIVERSITY FOR NEARLY TWO DECADES. 
          AND WHEN CHANGES HAVE BEEN NEEDED, THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE CITY HAVE WORKED TOGETHER THROUGH THE ORDINANCE PROCESS TO UPDATE THEM. 
          OUR NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION HAS WORKED WITH MANY DEVELOPERS AND WITH CITY STAFF OVER THE YEARS. 
          IN MANY CASES, EARLY COMMUNICATION LEADS TO BETTER PROJECTS AND AVOIDS CONFLICTS. 
          UNFORTUNATELY NOW CITY STAFF DOES NOT ALLOW PUBLIC INPUT DURING EXPEDITED REVIEW, THUS PREVENTING ANY OPPORTUNITIES FOR COMMUNICATION OR COLLABORATION DURING THE REVIEW PROCESS. 
          WE ARE INCREASINGLY SEEING PROJECTS WHERE NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS ARE NOT ADDRESSING WHEN COMPLIANCE WITH THE NCCD IS NOT PROPERLY ENFORCED. 
          WHEN THAT HAPPENS, THE ONLY REMAINING PATH FOR RESIDENCE IS AN APPEAL TO THIS BOARD. 
          THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY IS NOW APPEARED BEFORE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MULTIPLE TIMES, WHICH IS NOT SOMETHING ANYONE WANTS. 
          SUSTAINING THIS APPEAL WOULD RESOLVE THIS CASE AND ITS MERITS AND HELP REAFFIRM THAT THE STANDARDS IN THE NORTH UNIVERSITY NCCD NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN MUST BE ENFORCED. 
          FOR THOSE REASONS, THE NORTH UNIVERSITY NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION RESPECTFULLY ASKED THE BOARD TO GRANT THE APPEAL. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND I DONATE ANY REMAINING TIME TO PETER JNE. 
          TAYLOR, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          UH, WHO'S NEXT ON THE LIST? ELAINE? OKAY. 
          WE HAVE BART WAITLEY AND RICK IVERSON IS DONATING TIME TO HIM. 
          MR. IVERSSON, CAN YOU RAISE YOUR HAND PLEASE? YOU HE'S HERE . 
          OKAY, THANK YOU. 
          OKAY, YOU'LL HAVE SIX MINUTES. 
          STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD PLEASE. 
          OH, SORRY. 
          GOOD EVENING BOARD. 
          MY NAME IS BART WATLEY. 
          I AM A CO-CHAIR OF THE CENTRAL AUSTIN NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE. 
          UM, CAMPAK IS A CITY RECOGNIZED CAMPEX ABBREVIATION, UM, IS A CITY RECOGNIZED NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN CONTACT TEAM FOR THE AREA THAT INCLUDES THIS LOT. 
          AND CAMPAK HAS A ROLE IN ADVISING THE INTERPRETATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF ADOPTED NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS AND ASSOCIATED NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION COMBINING DISTRICTS. 
          THIS APPEAL RAISES ISSUES RELATED TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE NORTH UNIVERSITY NCCD, WHICH IS PART OF BOTH THE ADOPTED NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AND CITY CODE. 
          ON MARCH 5TH, 2026, CAMPAK MET AND VOTED TO SUPPORT THE APPEAL IN THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CASE HERE BEFORE US TONIGHT CONCERNING THIS PERMIT AT 2 0 5 EAST 34TH STREET WITHIN THE NORTH UNIVERSITY NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, THE, UH, CENTRAL AUSTIN NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE, KPAC NOTED THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FEES SHOULD BE ADJUSTED OR REFUNDED WHEN AN APPELLANT GETS A FINDING FROM THE BOARD THAT STAFF ISSUED A PERMIT IN ERROR. 
          AND ALSO THAT THE INTENT OF THE NORTH UNIVERSITY NCCD IS TO LIMIT IT ON THE LOT, IS TO LIMIT STRUCTURES TO 0.4 TO ONE FAR. 
          I'LL NOTE THAT THE NCCD REFERENCES THE 0.4 TO ONE FAR WITH RESPECT TO SINGLE FAMILY ZONE LOTS. 
          SF THREE, IT'S NOT PARTICULARLY TO SINGLE FAMILY AND DUPLEX ONLY. 
          AND NOW THAT A TRIPLEX IS ALLOWED ON A SF THREE LOT, IT WOULD BE LOGICAL THAT THE, UH, IT WOULD BE LIMITED TO 0.4 TO ONE FAR SINCE THAT'S ASSOCIATED WITH THE ZONING, WHICH HAS NOT CHANGED ON THE SLOT. 
          SO, UM, WITH, AFTER WITH THAT NOTE, PAC, UH, RESPECTFULLY REQUESTS THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REVERSE THE ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION AND DENY ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT AND FURTHER REQUESTS THAT THE BOARD APPLY THE NORTH UNIVERSITY 
          [02:55:01]
CCDS 0.4 FAR RATIO LIMIT AS A CONTROLLING STANDARD FOR SFS OWN LOTS WITHIN THE NORTH UNIVERSITY NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION COMBINING DISTRICT. 
          UM, AND THEN A COUPLE NOTES THAT I'LL ADD JUST MYSELF PERSONALLY. 
          UH, I'M AN ARCHITECT. 
          I'VE DEALT WITH CITY BOSTON PLAN REVIEW, HAVE EXPERIENCE WITH IT, AND THERE'S A COUPLE THINGS THAT STAND OUT ON THIS, UH, ITEM. 
          UH, IN THE PAST WHEN PARKING WAS REQUIRED BY CITY CODE, UM, I'VE DEALT WITH PROJECTS WHERE WE TRIED TO DESIGN A STRUCTURE TO BRING A REQUIRED PARKING OFF A REAR ALLEY AND THE CITY MADE US DEMONSTRATE THAT THE ALLEY WAS IN GOOD ENOUGH SHAPE, UH, FOR A VEHICLE TO DRIVE DOWN. 
          AND IF IT WASN'T, IT WAS UP TO THE DEVELOPER OR THE HOMEOWNER TO IMPROVE THE ALLEY. 
          SO, IN OTHER WORDS, THE ALLEYS ARE NOT MAINTAINED BY THE CITY OF AUSTIN. 
          SO IT SEEMS ODD THAT, UH, UH, A VISIBLE ROUTE AND ACCESSIBILITY WOULD BE ALLOWED ON AN ALLEY WHICH IS NOT MAINTAINED BY THE CITY. 
          UM, AND THEN THE LAST ITEM IS LOOKING AT SOME OF THE PLAN DIMENSIONS ON THE PLAN. 
          I TOOK BUILDING TWO FIRST FLOOR AND I READ THE DIMENSIONS THAT ARE ON THOSE PLANS AND I SKETCHED OUT THAT IN THE COMPUTER AND TOOK AN AREA, UM, OF THAT. 
          AND, UM, I GET AN ENCLOSED AREA OF 1353 SQUARE FEET FOR THE FIR FOR THE FIRST FLOOR. 
          THE PERMIT APPLICATION REPORTS AREA TO BE 13, 26 0.5 SQUARE FEET. 
          UM, SO DID NOTICE SOME DISCREPANCIES AND I THINK THAT, UH, UH, STAFF, IF THEY HAVEN'T ACTUALLY MEASURED THE DRAWINGS WITH PDF MARKUP SOFTWARE THAT THEY SHOULD, UM, 'CAUSE THERE COULD BE SOME VARIATIONS THERE. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OKAY, NEXT WE HAVE, UM, BETSY GREENBERG. 
          SHE'S THE TREASURER OF HERITAGE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION WITH PAUL SMITH. 
          UM, DONATING TIME TO HER. 
          MR. SMITH, RAISE YOUR HAND PLEASE. 
          ARE YOU MR. SMITH? HE'S SO, HANG ON. 
          SO, 'CAUSE I DON'T MAKE THE RULES, I PROMISE, BUT THE PERSON WHO'S DONATING TIME HAS TO BE IN THE ROOM. 
          IT CAN BE A DIFFERENT PERSON. 
          WE JUST NEED TO CLARIFY. 
          WHO IS CINDY? CINDY, WHAT'S YOUR LAST NAME? CINDY. 
          CINDY WIL. 
          CINDY WILKINSON? YES, MA'AM. 
          DONATING YOUR TIME. 
          YES. 
          OKAY. 
          DID YOU CATCH THAT, ELAINE? YES. 
          OKAY. 
          STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD. 
          YOU'LL HAVE SIX MINUTES CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. 
          MY NAME IS BETSY GREENBERG AND I LIVE IN THE HERITAGE NEIGHBORHOOD, WHICH IS ACROSS GUADALUPE FROM THE NORTH UNIVERSITY NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          I AM NOT THE TREASURER, BUT I AM A MEMBER OF THIS, UM, HERITAGE NEIGHBORHOOD STEERING COMMITTEE AND SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF THE COMMITTEE ON MONDAY, FEBRUARY 16TH, THE COMMITTEE MET AND VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO SUPPORT THIS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPEAL. 
          THE HERITAGE NEIGHBORHOOD STEERING COMMITTEE HAS THE FOLLOWING CONCERNS. 
          FIRST, THE PROPOSED PERMIT WAS APPROVED FOR A FLOOR AREA RATIO OF APPROXIMATELY 0.65, DESPITE THE NCC D'S 0.4 FAR LIMITATION APPLICABLE TO SINGLE FAMILY ZONE PROPERTIES. 
          THE NORTH UNIVERSITY NCCD WAS ADOPTED IN 2004 AT A TIME WHEN THREE UNIT RESIDENTIAL USE ON SF ZONING DID NOT EXIST AND COULD NOT HAVE BEEN ANTICIPATED. 
          THE ABSENCE OF AN EXPLICIT FAR ENTRY IN THE NCCD FOR THAT USE DOES NOT INDICATE AN INTENT TO PERMIT GREATER BUILDING SCALE. 
          THE HERITAGE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION SUPPORTS THE INTERPRETATION THAT THE NCCD 0.4 FAR LIMITATION CONTINUES TO APPLY TO ALL SF ZONE LOTS, INCLUDING THOSE NOW PERMITTED TO CONTAIN THREE RESIDENTIAL UNITS. 
          THIS IS A NARROW DISTRICT SPECIFIC FINDING THAT WE'RE ASKING YOU TO MAKE THAT WOULD NOT HAVE BROADER CITYWIDE LI UM, IMPLICATIONS. 
          SECOND, THE PROPOSED PERMIT REFLECTS A DESIGN THAT WAS MODIFIED FROM A PREVIOUSLY REJECTED PLAN BY REMOVING WALLS AND RENAMING ROOMS WITHOUT MATERIALLY CHANGING THE LIVING SPACE, THOSE WALLS COULD READILY BE RESTORED AFTER ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY AND THEREFORE WARRANT EVALUATION UNDER AN R THREE CONGREGATE LIVING CLASSIFICATION. 
          APPROPRIATE CLASSIFICATION AND REVIEW ARE ESSENTIAL TO ENSURING SAFE LIVING CONDITIONS FOR GROUP LIVING ARRANGEMENTS, WHICH ARE COMMON IN NEIGHBORHOODS NEAR THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS, INCLUDING BOTH NORTH UNIVERSITY AND HERITAGE NEIGHBORHOODS. 
          FINALLY, THE 
          [03:00:01]
APPEAL IDENTIFIES SEVERAL ADDITIONAL COMPLIANCE ISSUES, INCLUDING DEFICIENCIES IN APPLICATION MATERIALS, STAIR SAFETY, FIRE ACCESS, AND REQUIRED BUILDING ORIENTATION AND VISIBLE ROOT STANDARDS. 
          THESE CONCERNS SUPPORT THE CONCLUSION THAT THE APPROVED PLANS FAILED TO COMPLY WITH CITY CODE AND NCCD REQUIREMENTS. 
          THEREFORE, WE MEANING THE HERITAGE STEERING COMMITTEE REQUEST THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REVERSE THE ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION AND DENY ISSUANCE OF PERMIT NUMBER 20 25 1 4 0 2 0 1, AND FURTHER REQUESTS THAT THE BOARD APPLY THE NORTH UNIVERSITY NCCD 0.4 FLOOR AREA RATIO LIMIT AS THE CONTROLLING STANDARD FOR SF ZONE LOTS WITHIN THE NORTH UNIVERSITY NCCD. 
          THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT UNLESS YOU WANNA KEEP HEARING CASES ON THIS OVER AND OVER AND OVER. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR SERVICE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OKAY, NEXT WE HAVE PAUL SMITH. 
          ANY DONATION OF TIME? NO. 
          OKAY. 
          STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE. 
          YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES. 
          UH, GOOD EVENING CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. 
          UH, MY NAME IS PAUL SMITH. 
          I'M THE PRESIDENT, CO-PRESIDENT OF THE HYDE PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AT OUR SECOND MARCH 2ND GENERAL MEMBERSHIP MEETING. 
          HYDE PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION VOTED TO SUPPORT THIS APPEAL. 
          ALTHOUGH THE PROPERTY IN THIS CASE IS LOCATED IN THE NORTH UNIVERSITY NEIGHBORHOOD AND OUTSIDE OF HYDE PARK, THE ISSUES RAISED HERE ARE IMPORTANT TO HYDE PARK AND TO OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS THAT RELY ON NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION COMBINING DISTRICTS. 
          HYDE PARK CONTAINS TWO CCDS AND HAS A LONG HISTORY OF COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT IN CREATION AND STEWARDSHIP OF THESE CONSERVATION DISTRICTS. 
          IN AUSTIN. 
          RESIDENTS WORK EXTENSIVELY WITH THE CITY TO DEVELOP AND ADOPT HYDE PARK'S. 
          CCDS AND HYDE PARK RESIDENTS ALSO PLAYED AN IMPORTANT ROLE IN ESTABLISHING THE BROADER NCCD FRAMEWORK IN AUSTIN. 
          THESE CONSERVATION OVERLAYS REPRESENT SUBSTANTIAL INVESTMENTS OF TIME AND EFFORT BY RESIDENTS WORKING WITH THE CITY TO CREATE, DEVELOP DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS THAT RESPECT ESTABLISHED NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS WHILE STILL ACCOMMODATING NEW DEVELOPMENT FROM HYDE PARK'S PERSPECTIVE, THIS APPEAL RAISES CONCERNS ABOUT THE ENFORCEMENT OF THOSE ADOPTIVE STANDARDS. 
          ALTHOUGH THE IS, ALTHOUGH THE CASE RELATES SPECIFICALLY TO THE NORTH UNIVERSITY, NCCD HYDE PARK RESIDENTS HAVE A STRONG INTEREST IN ENSURING THAT NCC DS ACROSS THE CITY ARE RESPECTED AND ENFORCED FOR THESE REASONS. 
          HYDE PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION RESPECTFULLY, RESPECTFULLY ASKED THE BOARD TO SUSTAIN THE APPEAL. 
          DOING SO WOULD REPRESENT A NARROW RULING SPECIFIC TO THE, UH, NORTH UNIVERSITY NCCD, WHILE REINFORCING THE IMPORTANCE OF RESPECTING NCCS MORE BROADLY. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND I DONATE ANY, UH, REMAINING TIME TO PETER. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          OKAY, NEXT WE HAVE CHARLES DHAR COURT. 
          HE'S THE PRESIDENT OF THE HANCOCK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. 
          PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD. 
          YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES. 
          HI COMMISSIONERS, MY NAME IS CHARLES ARDT. 
          UH, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. 
          I KNOW YOU'RE ALL VOLUNTEERS AND, UH, I APPRECIATE YOUR THOUGHTFUL AND VERY IMPORTANT CONTRIBUTION TO THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS HERE. 
          UM, I'M THE PRESIDENT OF THE HAWK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. 
          WE'RE JUST EAST OF THE PROPERTY BETWEEN UT AND 45TH STREET. 
          BETWEEN DUVAL AND I 35, WE HAVE ABOUT 5,000 RESIDENTS, ABOUT 10% OF THEM, A LITTLE BIT LESS ARE ON OUR MAILING LIST. 
          AND WE VOTED AT OUR GENERAL MEETING TO, UH, SUPPORT THIS APPEAL AND, UH, OPPOSE THE BUILDING PERMIT TO. 
          UM, THE REASON FOR THAT IS LIKE THE OTHER SPEAKERS, WE DON'T HAVE AN NCCD IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT WE CRITICALLY DEPEND ON THE, THE ZONING RULES BEING RESPECTED. 
          WE PARTICIPATE IN THE, THE PROCESS OF DEVELOPING ZONING RULES. 
          WE'RE AS ACTIVE AS WE CAN BE, UH, BUT IF THOSE RULES ARE THEN IGNORED OR WORKED AROUND AS THEY WERE IN THIS CASE, IN MY OPINION, UM, THEN THERE'S NOTHING WE CAN DO. 
          WE SEE THIS AT OTHER LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT WHERE IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT MAKING THE LAWS, IT'S ALSO ABOUT WHETHER THE LAWS ARE IMPLEMENTED. 
          YOU, YOU ARE THE LAST LINE OF DEFENSE FOR IMPLEMENTING THOSE LAWS. 
          IN THIS CASE, THE RULES ARE PRETTY, PRETTY, UH, PRETTY UNDERSTANDABLE, PRETTY CLEAR, AND THE OWNER COULD DEFINITELY HAVE FOLLOWED THE RULES BY APPLYING FOR THE RIGHT REZONING IF THEY WANT DIFFERENT TYPE OF PROPERTY. 
          CLEARLY THEY WANTED A FOUR UNIT PROPERTY. 
          THAT'S WHAT THEY ASKED FOR INITIALLY. 
          THEY HAVE CHANGED ALMOST NOTHING SINCE THAT TIME. 
          AND, UH, THE, THE RIGHT WAY TO DO THAT WOULD BE TO, TO, UM, TO ASK FOR WHAT THEY WANT. 
          BUT SOMEHOW THEY FEEL THAT THE RULES DON'T 
          [03:05:01]
APPLY TO THEM AND, UH, THAT THEY CAN BASICALLY FIND WAYS TO GET WHAT THEY WANT, EVEN THOUGH SPECIFICALLY THAT'S NOT WHAT THE, THE ZONING CODE SAYS. 
          ZONING CODE SAYS THREE UNITS. 
          THE ZONING CODE IN THIS CASE SAYS THE FAR IS FOUR, IS UH, 0.4 FOR THIS NCCD. 
          SO I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME AND, UH, PLEASE, UH, CONSIDER OUR, OUR NEIGHBOR'S, UH, SUPPORT FOR THIS APPLICATION. 
          FOR THIS, UH, UH, SORRY, APPEAL. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          NEXT WE HAVE CHRIS ALLEN, UM, WITH TIME DONATED FROM CAROL RNA. 
          UH, MS. RNA, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. 
          ARE YOU HERE? OKAY, THANK YOU. 
          PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD. 
          YOU'LL HAVE SIX MINUTES. 
          EVENING MAD CHAIR MEMBER SUPPORT ADJUSTMENT. 
          MY NAME IS CHRIS ALLEN. 
          LET'S GET THAT. 
          IS THE MICROPHONE ON? ALRIGHT, THERE WE GO. 
          UH, MY NAME IS CHRIS ALLEN. 
          I'M AN ARCHITECT AND LONGTIME LAND USE ADVOCATE FOR ROSEDALE AND WITH DECADES OF HANDS-ON WORK IN AUSTIN'S DEVELOPMENT CODE EVOLUTION. 
          LET'S BE HONEST ABOUT WHAT, WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT HERE TONIGHT. 
          WE KNOW THAT MOMENTS AFTER A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY IS ISSUED FOR THE PROJECT, MODIFICATIONS CAN BE MADE TO THE BUILDING TO CREATE THE 22 BEDROOMS SHOWN ON THE ORIGINAL PLANS. 
          THAT WORK COULD BE DONE ON A WEEKEND. 
          STAFF TELLS US IF THAT HAPPENS, CODE ENFORCEMENT CAN TAKE CARE OF IT, AND THAT SOUNDS GOOD, BUT WE KNOW THAT WHEN CODE ENFORCEMENT KNOCKS ON THE DOOR TO INVESTIGATE ANY BOOTLEG MODIFICATIONS, THEY CAN BE DENIED ENTRY TO THE PROPERTY AND WILL BE UNABLE TO ENFORCE THE CODE. 
          THIS HAPPENS EVERY DAY IN AUSTIN. 
          LET'S NOT KID OURSELVES HERE. 
          WE ALL KNOW THIS ENDS UP WITH PEOPLE SLEEPING IN THAT PANTRY. 
          AND EVEN THAT CHANGE KICKS THIS BUILDING. 
          JUST THAT ONE ADDITIONAL BEDROOM KICKS THIS BUILDING TO COMMERCIAL REVIEW. 
          AS AN IBCR THREE CONGREGATE LIVING FACILITY, THAT'S AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT ANIMAL FOR REVIEW. 
          I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND THAT STAFF HAS TO BE CIRCUMSPECT AND HAS TO MAINTAIN A LEVEL OF TRUST IN DESIGN PROFESSIONALS THAT MAY NOT BE MERITED IN ALL CASES, BUT YOU AND I AREN'T BOUND BY THESE CONSTRAINTS. 
          SO LOOK AT THIS. 
          LET'S LOOK AT THIS THING FOR WHAT IT REALLY IS. 
          THE CITY'S BEEN PLAYING WHACK-A-MOLE WITH THESE TOXIC LAND USES FOR DECADES. 
          STARTING IN 2004 WITH ADOPTION OF THE UNIVERSITY AREA AND CCDS THE CAN PACK PLAN, THE UNO, UH, OVERLAY DISTRICT, THE MCMANSION ORDINANCE, AND LATER UPDATES AND AMENDMENTS TO A DU RULES AND NCC DS NOW OF THESE PROCESSES WAS PERFECT, BUT THEY WERE ALL ADOPTED AFTER AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF PROFESSIONAL VETTING AND PUBLIC INPUT. 
          THE RESULT WAS THAT FROM 2006 TO 2025, THIS SORT OF TOXIC DEVELOPMENT MOSTLY STOPPED HAPPENING IN THE WAKE OF THE FAILURE OF CODE. 
          NEXT, OUR CITY LEADERS WENT THROUGH A FAR LESS RIGOROUS PROCESS TO ADOPT THE HOME AMENDMENTS. 
          I AND MANY OTHERS CAUTIONED THAT THE HASTILY WRITTEN CODE WOULD CREATE UNFORESEEN LO LOOPHOLES AND CONFLICTS WITH EXISTING CODE. 
          BUT NO ONE WAS LISTENING AT CITY HALL HOME HAD NO CODE CONSULTANTS OR EXPERTS WORKING ON THE ORDINANCE. 
          AUSTIN BASICALLY RELIED ON POLITICIANS TO CRAFT DEVELOPMENT CODE FROM THE DAIS. 
          AND HERE WE ARE TONIGHT DEALING WITH AN UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE OF THAT APPROACH. 
          NO ONE WORKING TO ADOPT THE HOME ORDINANCE ENVISIONED THIS PROJECT AS A BENEFIT OR GOAL OF THEIR ORDINANCE. 
          THIS THING ISN'T A FEATURE OF HOME, IT'S A BUG. 
          WE KNOW THAT HOME WAS NOT INTENDED TO REPLACE OR INVALIDATE EXISTING NCC DS, BUT HERE, BUT WE'RE HERE NOW FOR THE THIRD TIME TRYING TO SORT OUT SOME DEFECTS IN HOW HOME INTERACTS WITH THE NORTH UNIVERSITY. 
          NCCD STAFF NEEDS CLEAR GUIDANCE FROM THIS BOARD TO HELP THEM SUPPORT THE INTENT OF BOTH HOME AND THE NCC DS. 
          I HOPE THAT YOU'LL HAVE A FRANK DISCUSSION TONIGHT ABOUT HOW MANY BEDROOMS THIS PROJECT REALLY HAS AND WHETHER THE POINT SIX FIVE FAR ALLOWED FOR THIS PROJECT MAKES SENSE WHEN MF TWO THROUGH MF SIX DEVELOPMENT IN THE NCCD IS RESTRICTED TO A 0.5 FAR. 
          FINALLY, I'LL NOTE THAT THIS PROJECT WOULD BE BUILT NEXT DOOR TO SOMEONE WHO'S BEEN A MENTOR TO ME SINCE THE 1980S. 
          AS YOU DELIBERATE, I ASK THAT YOU THINK ABOUT HOW YOU WOULD FEEL IF A SIMILAR INTERPRETATION ALLOWED A PROJECT LIKE THIS TO SHOW UP NEXT DOOR TO SOMEONE YOU CARE ABOUT. 
          I HOPE YOU'LL TAKE THE OPPORTUNITY TONIGHT TO CLARIFY HOW HOME AND THE NORTH UNIVERSITY NCCD SHOULD WORK TOGETHER SO THAT STAFF CAN ADMINISTER BOTH AS THEY WERE INTENDED. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE TO AUSTIN AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          THANK YOU. 
          NEXT WE HAVE MS. MICHELLE MACE WITH NO DONATION OF TIME. 
          STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD. 
          YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES. 
          THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR AND BOARD. 
          UM, I REALLY APPRECIATE YOU, UH, HEARING THIS AGAIN TONIGHT. 
          I KNOW I SPOKE WITH YOU PREVIOUSLY AND I THINK THE CASE HAS BEEN WELL MADE, UM, BY MANY PEOPLE FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND OUR SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, I JUST WOULD REMIND YOU THAT, UH, WHEN I SPOKE LAST TIME, I SHARED THAT I WORK IN REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT, UH, AND HAVE FOR OVER 30 YEARS. 
          UH, IT IS FILLED WITH PEOPLE LIKE THE GENTLEMAN YOU JUST HEARD, CHRIS, UM, WHO'S AN ARCHITECT. 
          [03:10:01]
UM, ARCHITECTS, ENGINEERS, YOU KNOW, GATHER IN A VERY PROFESSIONAL FORUM TO DETERMINE AND DISCUSS WHAT'S APPROPRIATE LAND USE. 
          AND I WOULD SAY THAT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT'S BEEN REALLY MISSING, UM, FROM THIS PROCESS IS IT, IT BY THE APPLICANT IS THE PROFESSIONALISM. 
          AND THE OTHER IS, I JUST CAN'T HELP BUT REMIND YOU WHAT YOU SAW EARLIER TONIGHT AND APPROVED ON THE SIGNAGE SITUATION WITH, UM, RYMAN HOSPITALITY. 
          THEY SAID THEY STARTED WITH THEIR NEIGHBORS. 
          I THOUGHT THAT WAS REALLY COMPELLING AND I WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT THIS PROCESS NEVER STARTED. 
          THE APPLICANT NEVER STARTED WITH THE NEIGHBORS AND HASN'T BEEN ENGAGED WITH THE NEIGHBORS IN A WAY AT, AT ALL, LIKE THE PROFESSIONALISM OF RYMAN HOSPITALITY. 
          UM, SO, YOU KNOW, I I THINK WHAT REALLY I'M ASKING YOU TO HEAR TONIGHT IS CODE NCCD OVERLAY. 
          RYMAN HOSPITALITY REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT IS A SOCIAL SCIENCE AND THIS IS SOCIETY COMING TO THE TABLE AND ASKING YOU TO TAKE A STAND, UM, AND AND, AND GET AND, AND CREATE A PROPER DEVELOPMENT. 
          WE ARE FOR DEVELOPMENT, WE ARE A PRO DEVELOPMENT AREA, UM, BUT WE'RE PRO RESPONSIBLE DEVELOPMENT USING RESPONSIBLE PROFESSIONALS AND UM, ENGAGING WITH THE PUBLIC. 
          SO THANK YOU. 
          AND ANY TIME I HAVE LEFT, I'M WILLING TO DONATE TO PETER. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          NEXT WE HAVE FREDERICK ALAMA. 
          HE'S ONLINE. 
          HELLO. 
          HI. 
          PLEASE, WE COULD HEAR YOU. 
          PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD. 
          OH, AND YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES. 
          OKAY, GREAT. 
          UM, FREDERICK LUIS ALAMA. 
          I AM A PROFESSOR AT UT AUSTIN AND ALSO THE OWNER OF THE DIRECTLY ADJACENT NEIGHBOR THERE AT 2 0 3 EAST 34TH STREET. 
          I WILL BE VERY PLAIN. 
          THIS DEVELOPMENT WILL IMMEDIATELY AND PERSONALLY AFFECT OUR LIGHT PRIVACY LIVABILITY. 
          IT WILL OVERLOAD A DRAINAGE SYSTEM THAT'S ALREADY AT CAPACITY THAT HAS NOT BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR SEWAGE AS WELL AS PARKING. 
          WE'RE NOT SAYING THAT THE APPLICANTS CAN'T BUILD, WE'RE JUST SAYING BUILD WITHIN THE COMPLIANCE GUIDES. 
          THE 0.4 FAR LIMITATION IS THERE FOR A REASON. 
          AS MY COLLEAGUES HAVE SO CLEARLY PRESENTED. 
          AND LET ME JUST SAY THE FACTS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES. 
          WHILE EARLIER I HEARD SOMEONE TRYING TO TALK AWAY THE FACTS. 
          THE FACTS REMAIN BUILDING ORIENTATION ACCESSIBLE VISIT TO BILL, ROUTE REQUIREMENTS, FIRE APPARATUS, ACCESS, BEAR WINDERS, INCOMPLETE AND INTERNALLY AND INCONSISTENT APPLICATION MATERIALS. 
          THESE ARE NOT WITHIN COMPLIANCE. 
          I URGE THE BOARD TO REVERSE THE APPROVAL GIVEN THAT THE FACT BE SPEAKS FOR THEMSELVES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          NEXT WE HAVE MICHAEL RILEY, HE HAS NO DONATION OF TIME. 
          OKAY, PLEASE MAKE SURE THE GREEN LIGHT ON THE MICROPHONE IS LIT. 
          STICK YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD. 
          YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES. 
          GOOD EVENING. 
          MY NAME IS MICHAEL RILEY. 
          MY WIFE AND I OWN THE PROPERTY THAT IS TWO DOORS AWAY. 
          THAT IS 2 0 9 EAST 34TH STREET. 
          SO THE HOUSE IS TWO DOORS AWAY. 
          WE BOUGHT THAT HOME IN 2004. 
          WE RAISED OUR TWO CHILDREN THERE, AND WE CONTINUE TO LIVE THERE AT HOPE TO CONTINUE LIVING THERE. 
          PAST THAT, MY WIFE AND I ARE BOTH, BOTH BORN AND RAISED IN AUSTIN. 
          SHE LIVING IN THE HERITAGE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, WHO, YOU KNOW, YOU'VE HEARD FROM EARLIER. 
          MY DAD IS A PROFESSOR AT UT FOR BETTER THAN 50 YEARS. 
          SO I GREW UP EFFECTIVELY AT UT. 
          THIS FABRIC OF THE UT AREA IS WHAT WE'RE USED TO, WHAT WE LOVED, AND WHAT WE WANT TO CONTINUE TO LOVE. 
          AS I LOOK AT THE PROJECT AS IT HAS BEEN SCOPED THROUGH THE VARIOUS INCARNATIONS OF ITS FOURPLEX, THREEPLEX, WHATEVER, UM, WHATEVER GUYS WE WANT TO ACCEPT THIS IS OUT OF SCALE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD, OUT OF SCALE, WITH THE SPIRIT OF THE NCCD THAT WE'VE WORKED SO HARD TO GET APPROVED. 
          AND THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WILL, PER THE PRIOR SPEAKER, SERIOUSLY NEGATIVELY IMPACT THAT STREET, BOTH FROM A DRAINAGE, AN ACCESS, AND A SAFETY 
          [03:15:01]
PERSPECTIVE. 
          IF I CONSIDER THE ALLEY AND BACK, WHICH I WAS WALKING THIS AFTERNOON, I DONATE ANY REMAINING TIME TO PETER AS WELL. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          UH, NEXT WE HAVE MADELINE BRUGER. 
          SHE HAS NO DONATION OF TIME. 
          OKAY. 
          PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD. 
          YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES. 
          YEAH. 
          HELLO, MY NAME IS MADELINE BRUGER AND I AM A RESIDENT WHO LIVES WITHIN 500 FEET OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT. 
          AND I AM HERE TODAY TO SUPPORT THE APPEAL AS A PHD STUDENT AND RENTER. 
          FOR THE PAST 10 YEARS, I FEEL VERY LUCKY TO HAVE BEEN WELCOMED INTO SUCH A HOSPITABLE AND KIND NEIGHBORHOOD AS A STUDENT AT THE UNIVERSITY. 
          NORTH UNIVERSITY IS A DIVERSE NEIGHBORHOOD RANGING FROM STUDENTS TO RENTERS TO NEIGHBORS WHO GREW UP IN THE HOUSE THEY CURRENTLY LIVE IN, AND THOSE PEOPLE ARE EVEN IN OUR AUDIENCE TODAY. 
          OUR NEIGHBORHOOD ALSO OFFERS DIVERSE HOUSING OPTIONS FROM DUPLEXES TO APARTMENTS TO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES LIKE THE HOME I CURRENTLY RENT AND RESIDE IN. 
          WHAT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD NEEDS IS AFFORDABLE AND DIVERSE HOUSING OPTIONS FOR RESIDENTS AND STUDENTS. 
          HOWEVER, THE CURRENT PROPOSED PROJECT HAS NOT MET THOSE NEEDS THROUGH A RESPONSIBLE COLLABORATIVE DISCUSSION WITH THE COMMUNITY. 
          AS A RESIDENT, I AM CONCERNED THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL CREATE MORE PARKING DENSITY AS THE PROJECT BOAST OF 20 PL 20 PLUS BEDROOM. 
          PLAN. 
          34TH STREET IS ALREADY DENSELY POPULATED WITH CARS, NOT TO MENTION THE INTERSECTION BETWEEN GROOMS AND 34TH STREET DOES NOT HAVE A FOUR-WAY STOP SIGN. 
          SEVERAL CARS PASS THROUGH OUR NEIGHBORHOOD FROM SPEEDWAY AND DUVALL, AND THE ADDITION OF MORE PARKED CARS COULD POTENTIALLY BLOCK DRIVER'S SITE AND ABILITY TO SEE PEDESTRIANS CROSSING THE STREET. 
          PEDESTRIANS WHO ARE MOST LIKELY MY NEIGHBOR, MY PARTNER, MY DOG, EVIE, ALL OF THESE PEOPLE WHO I MAY LOVE VERY MUCH. 
          I CHOSE TO LIVE IN NORTH UNIVERSITY BECAUSE I LOVE THE DIVERSITY OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD FULL OF NOT JUST STUDENTS, BUT RESIDENTS WHOSE FAMILIES HAVE LIVED HERE FOR CENTURIES. 
          I BELIEVE RESPONSIBLE DEVELOPMENT RESPECTS AND LISTENS TO THE PERSPECTIVES OF THE COMMUNITIES WHO KNOW THEIR NEIGHBORHOODS BEST. 
          I HOPE THAT THE BOARD WILL ALSO LISTEN TO OUR NEIGHBORS, AND I HOPE ALL OF THE PEOPLE WHO SHOWED UP TODAY SPEAKS VOLUMES THAT THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD KNOW OUR NEIGHBORHOOD BEST. 
          UM, WE, THE PEOPLE KNOW WHERE WE LIVE AND I HOPE THAT YOU ALL LISTENING TO US TODAY. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          THANK YOU. 
          AND I'M NOT SURE IF THERE'S ANYBODY ELSE TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT THAT'S HERE. 
          UM, BUT WE ALSO HAVE PETER JNE TAYLOR WITH A DONATION OF TIME FROM ROBERT KALER. 
          APOLOGIES. 
          I'M SURE WE HAVE. 
          SORRY, UH, ONE SEC. 
          'CAUSE YOU CAN'T ADDRESS ME DIRECTLY WITHOUT STATING YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD. 
          IS IT, IT'S, IS IT TOO LATE TO HAVE SIGNUPS, SIR? NO, JUST COME UP AND SPEAK NOW. 
          YEAH, HE, HE JUST GAVE US THIS LIST TO HELP MAKE IT EASIER OKAY. 
          FOR THE PEOPLE. 
          YEAH. 
          SO, YES. 
          UH, FIRST OF ALL, DO YOU HAVE ANY DONATION OF TIME OR IS IT ONLY GOING TO BE YOU SPEAKING? EXCUSE ME? ARE YOU GOING TO HAVE ANY DONATION OF TIME OR IS IT ONLY GOING TO BE YOU SPEAKING? IT'S ONLY ME. 
          OKAY. 
          STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE. 
          YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES. 
          GOOD EVENING. 
          THIS IS, I'M CAROLINE REYNOLDS, AND I'VE BEEN A REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER FOR 40 OVER 40 YEARS NOW. 
          AND I LIVE IN ALLENDALE ON 49TH STREET IN DISTRICT SEVEN. 
          BUT I AM SHOCKED AND APPALLED TO READ THE CITY DE PREP DEVELOPMENT STAFF HAVE APPROVED A BUILDING PERMIT AND A PR THAT FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE INTERNATIONAL FIRE CODE REQUIREMENTS REGARDING MY MINIMUM ACCESS FOR THE FIRE APPARATUS, THE CITY CODE REGARDING COMPLETENESS REQUIREMENTS FOR DEVELOPMENT AND THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE RELATED TO BEDROOM COUNT, OCCUPANCY, CLASSIFICATION, VISIBILITY, AND STAIR TREAD DEPTH. 
          AND, AND THAT'S NOT TO MENTION EVEN THE ISSUES OF PARKING AND INFRASTRUCTURE IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          EACH OF THESE REVIEW DEFICIENCIES NEGATIVELY AFFECTS THE PUBLIC'S SAFETY, HEALTH, WELFARE, AND OR PROPERTY SOUNDNESS AND VALUATION. 
          MR. JOY, DEEP SWAMY PE IS THE ACTING ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT AND IT'S RESPONSIBLE FOR LEADING AND HE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR LEADING MANAGING TRAINING THE DEPARTMENT STAFF AS A TEXAS LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER. 
          HE HAS A DUTY TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC'S HEALTH, SAFETY, WELFARE AND PROPERTY AND TO WARN OF DANGERS TO THE PUBLIC'S HEALTH, SAFETY, WELFARE AND PROPERTY. 
          THE BUILDING PERMIT 
          [03:20:01]
FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND APPROVED TWICE BY THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT, AND YET THE STAT STILL DOES NOT RECOGNIZE AND NODE EGREGIOUS DEFICIENCIES. 
          NOT ONLY HAS MR. GOSWAMY NOT MET HIS ETHICAL DUTIES FILLED OUT IN THE RULES OF THE TEXAS BOARD, BUT PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS. 
          BUT HE HAS CREATED A CARELESS, UNETHICAL ENVIRONMENT FOR THE TRAINING OF EITS ENGINEERS IN TRAINING. 
          THE AUSTIN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT IS NOT A SUITABLE ENVIRONMENT FOR THE TRAINING OF EITS WHO WILL BECOME FUTURE PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS. 
          NOT ONLY I, I HAVE A DUTY TO REPORT THIS DANGER TO THE ENGINEERING BOARD, BUT ANY AFFECTED PARTIES CAN ALSO FILE A COMPLAINT WITH THE ENGINEERING BOARD ON THIS MATTER. 
          THIS LACK OF IN LEADERSHIP AND TRAINING BY THE MANAGEMENT HAS WASTED THE EFFECTIVENESS OF OUR CITY STAFF AND WASTED THE TIME OF THE RESIDENTS OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OH, PERFECT. 
          GOT 15 SECONDS LEFT. 
          WHO'S NEXT? SO YOU STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD. 
          YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES. 
          UH, GOOD EVENING. 
          MY NAME IS JULIA DRAPER AND I MOVED TO AUSTIN FOUR YEARS AGO TO ATTEND SCHOOL HERE. 
          I LIVED IN HANCOCK FOR SEVERAL YEARS, AND NOW I LIVE IN NORTH UNIVERSITY, UH, WITHIN 50 FEET OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. 
          WHILE I'M NO LONGER IN SCHOOL, I HOPE THAT MY PERSPECTIVE AS A STUDENT TRANSPLANT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS HELPFUL. 
          I CHOSE TO LIVE IN NORTH UNIVERSITY AND IN HANCOCK PRIOR TO THAT AS OPPOSED TO LIVING IN WEST CAMPUS BECAUSE I DIDN'T WANNA LIVE IN A DORM OR A LARGE DORM LIKE DEVELOPMENT. 
          AND I'M GLAD I HAD THE OPPORTUNITY AS A RELATIVELY LOW INCOME STUDENT TO LIVE IN A NEIGHBORHOOD LIKE NORTH UNIVERSITY. 
          FIRST, IT WAS AN AFFORDABLE OPTION, WHICH WASN'T A GIVEN IN AUSTIN, BUT IT WAS ALSO A NEIGHBORHOOD WITH A LOT OF HISTORY AND COMMUNITY. 
          I HAVE NEIGHBORS WHO HAVE LIVED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR THEIR WHOLE LIVES. 
          I'VE ATTENDED NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION MEETINGS AND LEARNED ABOUT THE RISK RICH HISTORY OF THE AREA. 
          AND THESE ARE THINGS WORTH PRESERVING, ALLOWING THESE KINDS OF DEVELOPMENTS OR DEVELOPMENTS LIKE THE ONE THAT IS PROPOSED ON 34TH STREET BEATS AWAY AT THAT COMMUNITY. 
          IT WILL AFFECT THE INTEGRITY OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL INTEGRITY OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          IT WILL IMPACT PARKING. 
          IT WILL MAKE THE LIVES OF ALL OF THE NEIGHBORS WHO LIVE AROUND IT MORE DIFFICULT. 
          I ALSO WANNA NOTE THAT NOT LONG AGO WHEN I WAS A STUDENT LOOKING FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN THE AREA, I LOOKED AT SOME OF THESE SO-CALLED STEALTH DORMS AND QUICK DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE MARKETED TO STUDENTS AND THEY DON'T REPRESENT AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING OPTION FOR STUDENTS. 
          USUALLY THEY'RE SIGNIFICANTLY MORE EXPENSIVE THAN OTHER HOUSING OPTIONS. 
          LIKE PRE-EXISTING HOUSINGS HAVE PRE-EXISTING HOUSES AND APARTMENT COMPLEXES. 
          STEALTH DORMS AREN'T AFFORDABLE HOUSING. 
          THEY'RE CASH COWS AND THEY SERVE NO ONE BUT THE DEVELOPERS WHO BUILD THEM. 
          I DON'T WANNA OPEN THE DOOR TO MORE DEVELOPMENTS LIKE THIS IN THE FUTURE BECAUSE THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAS PLENTY TO OFFER TO STUDENTS WITHOUT THEM. 
          AND FOR THAT REASON, I SUPPORT THE APPEAL AND I'LL SEE, UH, THE REST OF MY TIME TO PETER OR DONATE IT. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          WHO'S NEXT? PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD. 
          YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES. 
          GOOD EVENING. 
          MY NAME IS STEPHANIE STANFORD. 
          I'M A REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER. 
          I GREW UP FROM 1978 UNTIL I LEFT FOR COLLEGE AT UT AT 2 0 7 EAST 34TH STREET. 
          MY PARENTS STILL LIVE THERE. 
          MY BROTHER IS THE APPELLANT AND IS STILL THERE. 
          MY OTHER BROTHER LIVES IN CALIFORNIA AND STILL HAS A ROOM THERE. 
          UM, I GREW UP ACROSS THE STREET FROM MY GREAT-GRANDMOTHER. 
          SHE'S THE ONE THAT FOUND THIS HOUSE FOR US. 
          I COULD TELL YOU STORIES FOR HOURS, BUT I WON'T BECAUSE AS A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER, I'M ON 
          [03:25:01]
LINKEDIN AND A I A POST ABOUT URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND I'M A MEMBER OF THE URBAN, UH, LAND INSTITUTE. 
          AND THIS IS A POST THAT I CIRCLED BECAUSE IT WAS, I DON'T REMEMBER EXACTLY THE DATE, AUGUST 18TH, 2025. 
          GETTING DENSITY RIGHT REALLY MATTERS TO CREATE A PLACE THAT FEELS LIKE HOME CAN SUPPORT THE WALKABLE RETAIL SERVICES, PARKS, TRANSIT, DIVERSITY, AND OTHER QUALITIES THAT MAKE PLACE A COMPLETE COMMUNITY. 
          GETTING DENSITY RIGHT IS A SOCIAL ART AND A FOLLOW UP COMMENT. 
          DENSITY ISN'T ABOUT HOW MANY PEOPLE CAN FIT IN AN AREA. 
          IT'S ABOUT HOW MANY PEOPLE CAN FIND A PLACE THAT FEELS LIKE HOME. 
          IF SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ALLOW A DIFFERENT FAR WITHOUT LETTING ANY OF THE NEIGHBORS KNOW, THEN WHAT'S THE POINT OF A ZONING CASE? LET'S JUST BE HOUSTON. 
          I THINK THAT WHAT WE ARE HERE FOR TONIGHT IS ABOUT BEING THE COMMUNITY. 
          WE THINK AUSTIN HAS ALWAYS BEEN AND ALWAYS SHOULD BE. 
          AND I CHALLENGE ANYONE COMING TO THIS NEIGHBORHOOD TO THINK ABOUT THAT BEFORE THEY PUT PLANTS IN FRONT OF US THAT DON'T RESPECT THAT. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          NEXT, PLEASE STAY HERE FOR THE RECORD. 
          YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES. 
          GOOD EVENING, MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. 
          MY NAME IS PETER JNE KALER. 
          YOU HAVE DONATION OF TIME. 
          YES. 
          SO OBJECTION. 
          THE RULES ARE MAX TWO PEOPLE CAN DONATE. 
          YES. 
          OR MAX OF THREE MINUTES. 
          THE TWO LONGEST TIMES I SAW WHEN PEOPLE SAID THEY WERE DONATING, ONE WAS A MINUTE AND A HALF, THE OTHER WAS 50 50 SECONDS. 
          SO TWO AND A HALF MINUTES. 
          SO YOU'LL GET UM, I HAVE A DONATION FROM MY FATHER. 
          IS HE HERE IN THE AUDIENCE? OKAY. 
          SO THEN WE'LL DO THE DONATION OF THREE MINUTES THERE AND THEN THE OTHER MINUTE AND A HALF. 
          SO WE'LL SAY FIVE MINUTE, FIVE ADDITIONAL MINUTES, EIGHT MINUTES AND UP ABSOLUTELY STICK TO STICK TO THE RULES. 
          ROBERT KALER IN THE AUDIENCE. 
          DON, NEED TIME TO ME? THANK YOU. 
          OBJECTION MADAM CHAIR. 
          MR. PETER IS THE, SORRY, THAT'S NOT HOW THIS WORKS. 
          YOU HAVE TO GIVE HIM HIS TURN. 
          I DON'T THINK WE HAVE TO. 
          YES, YOU DO. 
          HE'S THE, HE HE FILED THE APPEAL. 
          HE CANNOT SPEAK AT THE PUBLIC. 
          I UNDERSTAND THAT. 
          WE'VE ALREADY BEEN THROUGH THIS. 
          UM, WITH OUR LEGAL DEPARTMENT, WE HAVE TO GIVE EVERYBODY WHO WANTS TO SPEAK ON AN AGENDA ITEM THE ABILITY TO SPEAK. 
          THAT'S FROM TEXAS LAW. 
          IT'S OMA, WE DON'T HAVE A CHOICE. 
          INTERESTING. 
          GO AHEAD PLEASE. 
          THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR. 
          MEMBER BOARD. 
          UM, I WOULD LIKE TO RAISE, UH, SEVERAL ISSUES RELATED TO THIS CASE AND THE NCCD. 
          UH, FIRST THERE IS HISTORY OMITTED FROM THE STAFF REPORT THAT IS RELEVANT. 
          IT HAS BEEN BROUGHT UP, BUT I WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT IT. 
          STAFF DOES REFERENCE THE 2011 NCCD AMENDMENT, BUT I BELIEVE THAT THEY MISREPRESENT WHAT IT WAS DONE FOR. 
          IT ALLOWED TWO FAMILY USE ON SMALLER LOTS AND WAS DONE IN COLLABORATION WITH THE CITY TO ALLOW FOR ADDITIONAL DENSITY TO BE ADDED OUTSIDE OF THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT SO THAT MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING COULD BE BUILT THROUGHOUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          WHEN THIS WAS DONE, COUNSEL SPECIFICALLY NOTED THAT THAT DEVELOPMENT MUST FOLLOW THE STANDARDS OF THE NCCD AND THOSE LINES ARE WRITTEN IN THE AMENDMENT TEXT, INCLUDING THE OH 0.4 FAR STANDARD. 
          HOWEVER, THE STAFF REPORT DOES NOT DISCUSS A 2012 AMENDMENT THAT I BELIEVE IS PARTICULARLY RELEVANT TO THIS CASE. 
          IN 2012, COUNSEL ADOPTED IN 2012, COUNSEL APPLIED THE NCCD OH 0.45 STANDARD TO A LOT ZONED SF THREE NCCD NP, THE 
          [03:30:01]
CONTAINED THREE DWELLING UNITS. 
          THAT IS THE SAME ZONING DESIGNATION AS 2 0 5 EAST 34TH STREET, WHERE THE PROJECT AIMS TO PUT THREE UNITS. 
          BOTH OF THESE PROPERTIES ARE WITHIN PART SEVEN OF THE NCCD, WHICH CONTROLS SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND SETS THE OH 0.4 FAR LIMIT. 
          AND THIS DEMONSTRATES THAT COUNCIL REGULATED A LOT WITH THREE UNIT DWELLINGS UNDER THE ZONING AND IT APPLIED THE OH 0.4 FAR STANDARD LISTED IN THE SITE DEVELOPMENT TABLE ON A SECOND ISSUE. 
          THE BUILDING ORIENTATION REQUIREMENT IS ALSO NOT ADDRESSED IN THE STAFF REPORT AS NOTED BY BOBBY EARLIER. 
          UH, THIS, THIS REQUIREMENT IS FAIRLY STRAIGHTFORWARD AND THE LANGUAGE IS SLIGHTLY COMPLICATED, BUT IT DEFINES THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING, WHICH IS THE MAIN ENTRANCE. 
          AND IT SAYS THAT THAT MAIN ENTRANCE MUST FACE THE STREET FACING SIDE OF THE LOT AND THE PLANS APPROVED HAVE THE FRONT DOOR FACING THE ALLEY. 
          SO THAT IS A PRETTY CLEAR VIOLATION OF THE NCCD. 
          BEYOND THAT, IT RAISES ADDITIONAL VISITABILITY ISSUES BECAUSE THIS IS NOT SIMPLY A MATTER OF TAKING THE DOOR AND PLACING IT ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE BUILDING AND IT MAGICALLY FACES THE FRONT. 
          THE FRONT ACCESS IS BLOCKED BY BUILDING ONE. 
          IT'S BLOCKED BY FENCES THAT GO ACROSS THE PROPERTY. 
          AND SO THIS IS NOT A SIMPLE PROPOSAL TO DO THIS. 
          IT WOULD REQUIRE REDESIGN AND THEREFORE THE PLANS DO NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE NOT ONLY WITH THE NCCD BUT IN MULTIPLE WAYS FOR THIS TO COMPLY WITH THE CITY'S VISIBILITY REQUIREMENTS. 
          THERE'S AN INCORRECT RELIANCE ON THE STAFF REPORT ON PART FIVE OF THE NCCD STAFF. 
          REPORTS START SITE. 
          THE STAFF REPORTS SITES PART FIVE TO CONCLUDE THE THREE UNIT RESIDENTIAL SHOULD BE REGULATED UNDER THE LAND USE DEVELOPMENT CODE. 
          BUT PART FIVE OF THE NCCD IS THE PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES PART OF THE NCCD. 
          IT SIMPLY SAYS WHAT IS ALLOWED TO SIT ON THE ZONING DISTRICTS. 
          AND I WOULD POINT OUT HERE THAT THE NCCD WAS DESIGNED TO BE FLEXIBLE AND FUTURE LOOKING AND ACCEPT THE BASE CODE USES. 
          SO WE HAVE NO ARGUMENT AGAINST THREE UNIT USE ON THIS LOT. 
          UM, AND WE SEE NO CONFLICT WITH HOME IN THIS AREA. 
          THE ISSUE IS THAT PART SEVEN CONTROL SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, NOT PART FIVE AND PART SEVEN SETS AN OH 0.4 FAR FOR THIS ZONING. 
          DISTRICT HOME DID NOT MODIFY THE NCCD. 
          THE APPEAL, AS I SAID, DOES NOT IN CHALLENGE THE INCLUSION OF THREE UNITS. 
          HOME MODIFIED BASE DISTRICTS, THE NCCD ACCEPTS THAT WHEN COUNCIL ADOPTED A HOME ORDINANCE, THEY HAD BROAD AUTHORITY TO MODIFY CITY CODE AND THEY DID. 
          THERE ARE LINES AND LINES OF CODE ACROSS EVERY SUBCHAPTER THAT WERE MODIFIED. 
          WHAT WAS NOT MODIFIED WAS ANY NCCD AND SPECIFICALLY THE SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN PART SEVEN OF THE NORTH UNIVERSITY. 
          NCCD WERE NOT MODIFIED BY HOME AND SHOULD THEREFORE BE THE CONTROLLING FACTOR AS THE CITY IS LONG ESTABLISHED WHEN A MORE RESTRICTIVE USE IS THERE, THAT IS THE CONTROLLING USE. 
          SO WE ALSO FEEL THAT THIS IS NOT A CONTROVERSIAL INTERPRETATION IN THIS WAY BECAUSE WE WANT TO SPECIFICALLY NOTE THAT THIS IS A NARROW RULING. 
          THIS IS NOT ABOUT CHALLENGING HOME. 
          AS I'VE NOTICED. 
          UH, AS A NOTE, I THINK THAT THE NCCD AND HOME ACTUALLY WORK QUITE WELL TOGETHER. 
          WE ARE HAPPY TO SEE THE INCLUSION OF THREE UNITS, BUT PRESERVING THE FAR STANDARD, WHICH WE HAVE TRIED TO INDICATE IN VARIOUS WAYS, IS ESSENTIAL FOR PART SEVEN OF THE NCCD WOULD AFFECT ONLY AROUND 400 LOTS IN THE ENTIRE CITY. 
          THAT'S OH 0.1% OF THE LOTS IN AUSTIN. 
          THE ENTIRETY OF NUNA WHERE THIS NCD APPLIES IS ABOUT 240 ACRES. 
          THAT'S OH 0.2% OF THE LAND AREA OF AUSTIN. 
          THIS IS NOT AN EARTHQUAKE OF A DECISION THAT AFFECTS AND RIPPLES OUT ACROSS THE CITY. 
          THIS IS SIMPLY A NEIGHBORHOOD ORDINANCE PASSED BY THE CITY THAT WE'RE ASKING TO BE RESPECTED. 
          IF COUNCIL FEELS THAT THERE IS A NEED FOR ADJUSTING THIS, THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS DEMONSTRATED AND OPENNESS AND WILLINGNESS IN THE PAST TO WORK WITH COUNCIL THROUGH THE NOTIFICATION PROCESS, THROUGH 
          [03:35:01]
PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW, AND ALL THE WAY UP TO COUNCIL VOTES TO MODIFY THIS NCCD TO ENSURE THAT IT REMAINS RELEVANT. 
          BUT THIS HAS NOT HAPPENED. 
          HOME DID NOT MODIFY IT, AND THERE'S BEEN NO INITIATION OR CONTACT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF ANY INTEREST IN MODIFYING THE NCCD BECAUSE IT ALLOWS CURRENTLY FOUR AFFORDABLE DENSITY AND NOTABLE INFILL AND EXPANSION. 
          AN ANALYSIS OF THE ONE BLOCK WHERE THIS PROJECT SITS, SHOWS THAT ALL PROPERTIES ARE UNDERNEATH OH 0.44, SOME OF THEM SUBSTANTIALLY. 
          AND THAT ADDITIONAL INFILL AND REMODELING WOULD ALLOW FOR UP TO 14,000 SQUARE FEET OF NEW DEVELOPMENT ON THAT ONE BLOCK WHERE THE PROPERTY IS WHILE MAINTAINING THE NCCD SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. 
          THE STANDARD IS NOT A FRICTION AGAINST DENSITY, IT IS NOT IN CONTRAST WITH HOME. 
          IT IS ABOUT THE EFFORT MADE STRONGLY BY THE CITY AND THE NEIGHBORHOODS TO COME UP WITH COHERENT DISTRICTS AND ADOPT AN ORDINANCE SO THAT THIS NEIGHBORHOOD CAN CONTINUE TO BE THE PLACE THAT SO MANY PEOPLE WANT TO MOVE TO. 
          AND IMPORTANTLY THAT PROVIDES AFFORDABLE HOUSING. 
          SO I THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME AND I KINDLY ASK THAT YOU SUSTAIN THE APPEAL. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          NEXT. 
          SO I THINK WE'RE DONE WITH THE SUPPORT. 
          WE HAVE TWO PEOPLE THAT CAME TO SIGN UP FOR OPPOSITION. 
          OPPOSITION THAT OKAY. 
          ARE WE DONE WITH THE FOUR SIDE OF THE APPEAL? OKAY. 
          SO WE WILL MOVE ON TO COMMENTS BY CITIZENS IN OPPOSITION TO THE APPEAL. 
          THREE MINUTES EACH DONATION OF TIME ALLOWED. 
          SO WE HAVE DAVID WHITWORTH, I'M NOT SURE IF THERE'S ANYBODY HERE TO DONATE TIME TO HIM, BUT HE'S AVAILABLE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION OF THE APPEAL. 
          OKAY. 
          IF YOU COME UP TO THE FRONT, TO THE MICROPHONE, TWO MINUTES, THREE MINUTES, THREE MINUTES. 
          STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD, YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES. 
          GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. 
          MY NAME IS DAVID WHITWORTH. 
          I'M HERE REPRESENTING THE AUSTIN INFILL COALITION. 
          WE HAVE OVER 300, UH, ACTIVE MEMBERS, UH, BUILDERS, REALTORS, ARCHITECTS, ENGINEERS, UH, REAL ESTATE LENDERS, EVERYBODY IT TAKES TO DEVELOP AND PROVIDE INFILL HOUSING TO AUSTIN. 
          AND WE'RE EXTREMELY EXCITED ABOUT THE HOME ORDINANCE AND I'M HERE TO SPEAK NARROWLY ON THE 0.65. 
          FAR AND TRIPLEX QUESTION. 
          UM, THE, WE SUPPORT STAFF'S POSITION THAT THE NCCD IS SILENT ON TRIPLEXES AND THEREFORE DEFAULTS TO THE BASE CODE, WHICH IS HOME FOR THREE UNITS. 
          UM, CITING THE 2012, UH, NCCD AMENDMENT, UH, ON A LOT WE DON'T KNOW THE SIZE BUILT IN AN ERA, A DIFFERENT ECONOMIC ERA. 
          AND IN 2012, FAR WAS MEASURED DIFFERENTLY. 
          UH, TODAY, TRIPLEXES, YOU DON'T GET GARAGE EXEMPTIONS, YOU DON'T GET ATTIC EXEMPTIONS. 
          SO I WOULD NOT PLACE ANY DECISION ON THE, THAT WAS A EXISTING NONCONFORMING TRIPLEX COUNSEL HAD THE TOOLS THEY HAD AT THE TIME. 
          IT WAS A DIFFERENT COUNSEL AND, UH, LEGALIZED IT SO THEY COULD GET PERMITS. 
          BUT, UM, THIS IS AN AMAZING ORGANIZATIONAL EFFORT BY THE APPELLANT. 
          AND I REALLY, UM, I I SUGGEST THAT THEY TAKE THIS EFFORT TO COUNSEL, WHICH IS THE POLICY DECIDING BODY. 
          THEY'RE AT THE WRONG BODY FOR POLICY CREATION, WHICH IS WHAT REGULATING TRIPLEXES IN THE NCCD WOULD BE THE, UM, YOU KNOW, THE NCCD, IF YOU LOOK AT PART SEVEN, CLOSE ENOUGH, IT ONLY REGULATES DUPLEXES AT 0.4 FAR. 
          IT DOESN'T REGULATE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AT 0.4 FAR. 
          THERE WAS NO FAR UNTIL 2008. 
          IT WAS WRITTEN IN 2004. 
          UM, THE, AND IT DOESN'T REGULATE, UH, PRIMARY, SECONDARY TWO FAMILY. 
          IT'S ONLY DUPLEXES. 
          SO TO TRY TO GO BACK TO THE COUNCIL OF 20 YEARS AGO AND INFER AND EXTRAPOLATE AND ASSUME AND CREATE POLICY HERE FOR A COUNCIL THAT IS NO LONGER SEATED, I THINK IS VERY RISKY WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THE ACTION OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. 
          AND, UM, YOU KNOW, WE'RE REALLY EXCITED ABOUT HOME. 
          UH, MEMBERS OF OUR ADVOCACY GROUP WORKED VERY HARD ON AT SETTING 0.65 FAR WITH COUNCIL AIDES AND COUNCIL MEMBERS AS THE 
          [03:40:01]
FEASIBLE FAR UNDER THE NEW FAR, UM, DEFINITION AND MEASUREMENTS TO BE FEASIBLE TO, TO GO BACK TO 0.4 FAR, UH, OR TO GO TO 0.4 FAR WOULD BE EFFECTIVELY ENDING TRIPLEXES, WHICH WE'RE VERY EXCITED ABOUT GETTING NATIONAL PRESS STILL ABOUT. 
          UM, THE, UH, YOU KNOW, THE, AGAIN, STAY WITHIN THE BOUNDS, THE APP APPELLANT NEGOTIATED FOR 0.5 FAR AT THE LA AT THE FIRST MEETING, AND THAT'S POLICY MAKING. 
          STAY AWAY FROM THAT. 
          AND, UH, WE SUPPORT STAFF. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR SERVICE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, UH, DID YOU SAY THERE WAS ONE OTHER YES. 
          SIGNED UP IN OPPOSITION. 
          I'M NOT SURE IF THERE'S ANYBODY ELSE, BUT WE DO HAVE ONE OTHER PERSON, KELSEY TRU HART. 
          HE'S HERE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION OF THE APPEAL. 
          STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD. 
          YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES. 
          YES. 
          GOOD EVENING CHAIRMAN, MADAM AND AND BOARD. 
          UM, I AM KEL HORT. 
          UH, I'M AN ENGINEER. 
          I'M NOT A LICENSED ENGINEER, BUT I HAVE, UH, AN ENGINEERING COMPANY THAT OPERATES IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN UNDER ONE OF MY PARTNERS WHO'S A LICENSED ENGINEER. 
          I'VE BEEN IN THIS INDUSTRY FOR 20 YEARS NOW. 
          I'M A NATIVE TEXAN. 
          GREW UP IN GEORGETOWN. 
          I'VE LIVED IN AUSTIN FOR 25 YEARS AT THIS POINT. 
          I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH WHAT GOES ON IN THE CITY. 
          I'VE ENGINEERED AND DESIGNED A LOT OF HOUSES AND STRUCTURES IN AND AROUND THE AREA, HOUSTON, DALLAS, SAN ANTONIO, AND ALL OVER CENTRAL TEXAS. 
          THE CITY OF AUSTIN HAS HAD A HOUSING ISSUE FOR DECADES, RELYING ON THE NC CD THAT WAS DESIGNED TO PRESERVE THAT VERY SHORTCOMING IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN. 
          HOUSING MARKET IN THIS INSTANCE IS THE ANTITHESIS OF HOME. 
          THIS IS WHAT HOME IS MEANT TO ADDRESS. 
          IT'S MEANT TO ADDRESS THE PEOPLE HOLDING ON TO AREAS OF THE CITY IN DIRECT CONFLICT WITH THE STATED GOALS OF THE CURRENT COUNCIL AND THE OBJECTIVE OF CREATING MORE HOUSING. 
          WE HAVE GOT TO HAVE THE ABILITY TO BUILD IN AREAS OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN THAT ARE STILL PRECIOUS TO PEOPLE. 
          I UNDERSTAND THAT THAT'S HOW THIS HAS GONE IS I, I CAME HERE FOR A VERY NARROW, UH, ACTUALLY SCOPE ITEM JUST TO TALK ABOUT THE, THE GFA APPLICABILITY OF OF UNINHABITABLE ATTICS ACTUALLY. 
          BUT HEARING ALL OF THE EMOTION THAT'S GONE INTO THIS FROM THE ENTS, I MEAN, I THINK THAT, UH, I UNDERSTAND IT, I UNDERSTAND WHERE THE PASSION'S COMING FROM, BUT THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS A THREE BUILDING, UH, A THREE HOME LOT IS A NEW USE CASE. 
          IT WAS NOT CONSIDERED IN THE NCCD. 
          IT WAS CONSIDERED IN HOME EXPLICITLY FOR THIS PURPOSE TO GENERATE MORE HOUSING IN THE CITY TO CREATE DENSITY. 
          THAT IS HOW MANY PEOPLE WE CAN PUT IN HOUSES IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN, NOT SIMPLY THE BEST USE OF THE CITY'S LAND RESOURCES NECESSARILY. 
          WE NEED HOUSING, WE NEED OCCUPIABLE SPACE, WE NEED AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN, AND THERE'S NO WAY TO DO IT IF PIECEMEAL PIECEMEAL NEIGHBORHOOD BY NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          WE CONTINUE TO ENFORCE RESTRICTIONS AGAINST DEVELOPMENT. 
          AND THAT'S WHAT THIS APPEAL PROCESS ENTAILS. 
          SO I'M HERE TO ASK YOU, PLEASE CONSIDER THAT THE CITY OF AUSTIN AND THE LAND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENTS KNOW WHAT THEY'RE DOING. 
          THEY KNOW HOW TO INTERPRET THE CODE THAT THEY WROTE, AND I THINK THAT IT HAS MORE APPLICABILITY THAT THEY KNOW WHAT THEY'RE DOING THAN MAYBE THE RESIDENTS. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH ANYMORE. 
          NOT THAT'S IT FOR THE OPPOSITION. 
          YES. 
          THAT I'M AWARE OF. 
          I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY ELSE. 
          OKAY. 
          WE WILL NOW HAVE A REBUTTAL BY THE APPEALING PARTY FOR THREE MINUTES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          BOARD MEMBERS. 
          BOBBY LEVINSKY, AGAIN DOING THE, UH, REBUTTAL. 
          UM, I FIRST WANNA ADDRESS, UM, THE, THE REASON WHY WE'RE HERE. 
          WE ARE ASKING THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO INTERPRET THE ZONING CODE AND THAT IS THE, THE PURVIEW OF THIS BODY. 
          UM, I'M NOT ASKING FOR YOU TO INTERPRET MY INTENT. 
          I'M ASKING YOU TO INTERPRET THE INTENT OF THE NC N THE NUNA NCCD ORDINANCE. 
          AND YOU CAN SEE THAT INTENT CLEARLY WITHIN PART SEVEN WHERE IT SAYS THAT THE INTENT IS 
          [03:45:01]
TO PROTECT THE ORIGINAL, THE BUILDINGS AND DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS. 
          AND IT ACKNOWLEDGES THAT SOME OF THE OLDER MULTIFAMILY STRUCTURES WERE BUILT WITHIN THOSE, THOSE TRADITIONAL DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS AND THAT NEW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SHOULD RESPECT THE TRADITIONAL DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS OF THE SCALE OF THE, UM, OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          COULD I GET THE, UM, PRESENTATION THAT WE GAVE UP JUST WHILE I CONTINUE TO SPEAK? UM, SO I WANT TO GET TO, UM, SHOW YOU A FEW OF THE EXAMPLES. 
          UH, SORRY, A FEW OF THE EXAMPLES OF WHERE THE THREE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL IS ALL OVER THE NCCD. 
          THE ONLY THING THAT'S DIFFERENT HERE IS THAT IT'S RESPECTING THE 0.4 FAR. 
          SO YOU HAVE A, A TABLE AT THE BACK HERE THAT SHOWS, UM, ALL OF THE DIFFERENT STRUCTURES WITHIN THIS NCCD, ALL OF WHICH ARE UNDER 0.4 FAR. 
          THERE'S EXAMPLES OF THREE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS HERE IN YOUR SLIDESHOW AS WELL THAT ARE ALL UNDER 0.4 FAR TWO. 
          THESE ARE COMPATIBLE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          THEY PRESERVE THE EXISTING AFFORDABILITY FROM THOSE UNITS. 
          SOME OF THESE UNITS WERE MARKETED AT $2,600 A MONTH FROM, FROM, FROM WHAT WAS ON THIS, UH, APPLICATION. 
          THESE UNITS ARE MUCH MORE AFFORDABLE BECAUSE THEIR EXISTING AFFORDABLE HOUSING STOCK. 
          AND THAT'S WHAT THE INTENT OF THIS ORDINANCE WAS TO DO, WAS TO PRESERVE SOME OF THE EXISTING AFFORDABLE HOUSING NEAR CAMPUS. 
          UM, THIS APPEAL IS NOT AN ATTEMPT TO PREVENT THREE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE. 
          WE'RE SAYING THREE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE IS ALLOWED IN THE NCCD. 
          WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE IS THAT IT NEEDS TO BE UNDER 0.4 FAR. 
          UM, WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR YOU TO, UM, INTERPRET WHETHER THE COUNCIL AMENDED THE NCCS WITH HOME. 
          THEY DIDN'T, COUNCIL HAD THE CHOICE TO AMEND THE NCCS WITH HOME. 
          THEY CHOSE NOT TO. 
          THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE HERE TO DEBATE. 
          THE ONLY THING WE'RE HERE TO DEBATE IS WHETHER THESE, THESE PROVISIONS WITHIN PART SEVEN APPLY HERE FOR THIS PARTICULAR USE. 
          UM, THERE'S A LOT THAT'S SAID ABOUT HOW THIS GOOD WOULD UNDO THE ENTIRE HOME ORDINANCE. 
          IT WOULDN'T. 
          99.9% OF THE CITY WOULD NOT BE AFFECTED BY THE DECISION YOU'RE MAKING HERE. 
          99.8% OF THE LOTS WITHIN THE CITY WOULD NOT BE AFFECTED BY THE DECISION YOU'RE MAKING HERE. 
          THIS IS A VERY NARROW INTERPRETATION FOR A VERY SMALL AREA OF TOWN, AND IT'S AN AREA THAT HAD THE PROTECTIONS OF THE NCCD. 
          IF THERE'S A POLICY DEBATE ON WHETHER THE NCCD IS VALUABLE, THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE AT THE COUNCIL. 
          IT'S NOT TO ERODE THE NCCD WITHOUT PROPER NOTICE. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          OKAY. 
          SO JUST AS A REMINDER FOR THE BOARD MEMBERS, REVERSING STAFF ON AN APPEAL OR MODIFYING STAFF ON AN APPEAL REQUIRES A SUPER MAJORITY VOTE. 
          UH, WE ARE DOWN ONE MEMBER BECAUSE OF THE ABSTENTION AND DOWN ONE DUE TO AN ABSENCE WITHOUT AN ALTERNATE. 
          SO IT IS NINE OF US. 
          THAT MEANS ALL OF US HAVE TO AGREE. 
          SO WITH THAT, I WILL OPEN IT UP. 
          MADAM BOARD MEMBER BUN AND THAT THAT MEANS MADAM CHAIR. 
          SORRY. 
          YOU KNEW I WAS GONNA JUMP IN HERE. 
          MADAM CHAIR, BEFORE Y'ALL MOVE FORWARD, DO Y'ALL WANNA, WANNA VOTE TO EXTEND THE TIME? I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO EXTEND. 
          SORRY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UH, MAKE A MOTION. 
          YOU EXTEND, I BEG YOUR PARDON. 
          11. 
          YEAH, WE NEED TO EXTEND AGAIN. 
          WE VOTE. 
          WE CAN AT THAT POINT. 
          YES. 
          I'LL SECOND. 
          SO THAT'S A MOTION TO EXTEND THE MEETING TIME TO 11 AND I SECOND IT. 
          ANY OBJECTIONS? OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          FIRST OF ALL, WHAT I'D LIKE TO STAY SAY, START OUT WITH IS THIS CASE WHEN IT CAME BEFORE US BEFORE WAS VERY CHALLENGING. 
          AND MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS WERE HERE AND DID AN OUTSTANDING JOB WITH WHAT THEY HAD TO DO IN THE TIME THAT THEY SPENT HERE WITH IT. 
          WHEN I CAME BACK AND IT WAS COMING UP FOR RECONSIDERATION, I CAUTIONED MY BOARD MEMBERS THAT IF WE OPEN THIS THING UP FOR RECONSIDERATION, WE'RE GONNA OPEN IT UP COMPLETELY AND EVERYTHING BECOMES FAIR GAME. 
          I, I NOTICED WHEN I REVIEWED THE COMING UP FOR THE RECONSIDERATION THAT THE FAR SITUATION WAS NOT ADDRESSED. 
          I KNEW IT WAS AN OPEN-ENDED. 
          THAT WAS ONE, ONLY ONE OF MANY ISSUES THAT I SAW THAT IF THEY OPENED IT UP, I WAS GONNA GO FOR. 
          AND THE RE WHEN I SAY THAT, I'M SAYING THAT BECAUSE I'M HAVING GROWN HERE IN AUSTIN, BEEN HERE AND HAVE CHILDREN BORN HERE, HAVE GROWN UP HERE. 
          THE QUALITY OF LIFE SITUATION IN AUSTIN IS VERY IMPORTANT 
          [03:50:01]
TO ME. 
          I DON'T NEED TO BE UP HERE. 
          I CAN LIVE A VERY NICE LIFE AT HOME AND THEY DON'T PAY ME TO BE UP HERE. 
          AND I'VE BEEN UP HERE FOR OVER 20 YEARS. 
          BUT I FEEL THAT THE DECISIONS THAT WE MAKE UP HERE IMPACT OUR, THE QUALITY OF LIFE, NOT JUST FOR ME AND MY CHILDREN, BUT FOR EVERYBODY ACROSS. 
          AND THAT'S WHAT MAKES AUSTIN SO DESIRABLE. 
          EVERYBODY WANTS TO COME HERE. 
          HAVING SAID THAT, ONE OF THE THINGS I KEEP MY EYE ON IS THE FACT THAT IF WE ALLOW THIS, THE DEVELOPMENT AND THE GROWTH OF AUSTIN TO GO UNABATED, WE'RE GONNA KILL THE GOOSE THAT LAID THE GOLD AND EGG, OKAY? AS IT IS. 
          WE ALSO DEAL WITH SIGNAGE UP HERE AND WE DEAL WITH, UH, WITH THE SCENIC ROADWAYS. 
          I CHALLENGE ANYBODY TO GIVE ME A SCENIC ROADWAY. 
          ROADWAY LEFT IN AUSTIN. 
          360 IS ABOUT THE CLOSEST YOU'RE GONNA GET AND TDOT'S TEARING IT UP TODAY. 
          SO THIS IS HOW EASY THINGS CAN GET AWAY FROM US. 
          AND THIS BOARD UP HERE HAS A BIG RESPONSIBILITY IN TRYING TO BALANCE THE QUALITY OF LIFE THAT WE HAVE HERE ALONG WITH AFFORDABILITY AND WITH, WITH PROVIDING HOUSING. 
          THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING TERM TO ME IS A BUNCH OF BS. 
          AUSTIN. 
          AUSTIN IS MY SON WHO MAKES A VERY GOOD MONEY AND WANTS TO MOVE BACK TO AUSTIN, CANNOT AFFORD TO LIVE HERE. 
          SO FOR ME, SITUATIONS LIKE THIS ARE CRITICAL. 
          I SAID IT AT THE BEGINNING, I'M GONNA SAY IT AGAIN. 
          THIS IS A STEALTH STORM. 
          I'VE SEEN ENOUGH OF THEM. 
          OKAY? IT'S A STEALTH DORM AND IT'S A MONEY MAKER. 
          OKAY? THIS IS JUST MY OPINION, MY PERSONAL OPINION. 
          AND WE'VE DEALT WITH THEM NOT JUST IN THE NNC, IN IN NORTHWEST. 
          WE'VE DEALT WITH THEM ALL OVER AUSTIN. 
          WE'VE ALSO DEALT WITH THE MCMANSION ORDINANCE. 
          AND ONE OF THE CONCERNS THAT I HAVE, IF WE, WE START INCREASING THE FAR ON SMALL PROPERTIES AND I'M ALL FOR IT. 
          NOW, I WAS A CONTRACTOR AND I WAS A BUILDER AND I EVEN DEVELOPED MY OWN PROPERTY, BUT I DID IT ALL WITHIN ZONING. 
          AND I COULD'VE COME AND ASKED FOR A VARIANCE AND PROBABLY DOUBLED MY MONEY. 
          BUT THAT WASN'T THE POINT. 
          THE POINT IS THAT, THAT THE, THE ZONING ORDINANCES ARE THERE FOR A REASON. 
          WE'VE SEEN STEAL NORMS ALL OVER. 
          THIS ONE FITS THE BILL. 
          IF IT WALKS LIKE A DUCK AND CRACKS LIKE A DUCK, IT'S A DUCK. 
          WE'VE ALSO DEALT WITH SITUATIONS WHERE WE'VE HAD PEOPLE COME BEFORE US AND SAY THEY'RE GONNA DO SOMETHING AND THEN GO DO SOMETHING ELSE. 
          AND, AND I'M NOT EVEN GONNA GET INTO ALL OF THAT WHERE I'M AT ON THIS IS THE NCCD HAS BEEN IN PLACE FOR WELL OVER 20 YEARS, 21 IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN. 
          AND SIMPLY BECAUSE HOME DOESN'T SPECIFICALLY COVER EVERY SINGLE ASPECT OF BUILDING AND DEVELOPING HERE IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN, DOESN'T MEAN THAT IT'S A, IT'S OPEN GAME. 
          UH, THE THE CODE, THE FACT THAT THE CODE, AND SIR YOU MENTIONED THIS, UH, I I I QUOTED YOU, THE CODE IS SIMPLY SILENT. 
          AND, UH, AND IT'S ALSO SILENT IN A HOME ORDINANCE. 
          AND IT'S SIMPLY NOT WRITTEN. 
          DOESN'T MAKE IT OPEN SEASON. 
          MY FEELING IS MY PERSONAL FEELING IS HOME. 
          AND YES, WE'VE HAD MANY COUNCILS COME AND GO, UH, SHOOT, I THINK SINCE I'VE BEEN UP HERE, SEVEN SINCE I'VE BEEN SITTING UP HERE, THREE YEARS OF POP. 
          BUT I FEEL LIKE THE NCCD TOOK THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE THERE WHOSE QUALITY OF LIFE IS GONNA BE IMPACTED. 
          AND THEY SPENT TIME AND ENERGY DEVELOPING THESE, NOT JUST THIS ONE HERE WE HAVE, WE HAVE OTHERS THROUGHOUT THE CITY. 
          AND THE HOME ORDINANCE CAME UP IN ONE COUNCIL THIS, THIS RECENTLY. 
          AND I'VE WARNED MY COUNCIL MEMBER AND IT THAT WE'RE GONNA END UP HAVING TO WRITE SOME OF THESE THINGS BASED ON INTERPRETATION. 
          WHEN CODE NEXT WAS COMING UP. 
          THAT WAS MY BIGGEST FEAR. 
          I SPOKE WITH THE MAYOR, I SPOKE WITH MY COUNCIL MEMBER AND OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS WHO ALSO HAPPEN TO BE PERSONAL FRIENDS. 
          AND I SAID, YOU KNOW THIS, WE'RE MOVING REALLY FAST HERE AND WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN IS WE'RE GONNA BE WRITING CODE BY INTERPRETATION. 
          AND THIS IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE. 
          THE FACT THAT IT'S NOT WRITTEN IN HOME AND IT'S NOT CLARIFIED IN HOME. 
          AND, AND I DO KNOW IT'S CLARIFIED IN THE NCCD, UH, WE NOW HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION ON 
          [03:55:01]
THAT WE CANNOT TAKE UP, AND THIS IS FOR, FOR EVERYBODY THAT'S OVER THERE. 
          ANYTHING HAVING TO DO WITH INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE, INTERNATIONAL FIRE CODE OR THE APPLICATION COMPLETENESS. 
          THOSE ARE NOT REQUIREMENT ZONING REQUIREMENTS. 
          SO WE, THIS GENTLEMAN IS CORRECT, FOUR FOUR OR THOSE THREE OUT OF THE FOUR. 
          WE CANNOT TAKE THOSE OFF. 
          THAT'S STAFF'S PURVIEW AND I RESPECT THAT. 
          BUT THE FAR ISSUE IS OUR UNDER OUR PURVIEW. 
          AND I FEEL THAT THE 0.4 FAR IS SOMETHING THAT, THAT PERSONALLY MYSELF, I THINK, I FEEL THAT IF IF HOME DOESN'T ADDRESS THE SITUATION, THEN AND THE NCCD SHOULD TAKE PRECEDENCE REGARDLESS OF WHETHER IT'S THIS NEIGHBORHOOD OR ANOTHER NEIGHBORHOOD, BECAUSE THOSE ARE THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE THERE WHO HAVE WORKED ON IT. 
          THAT'S LEGALLY WRONG. 
          NO SIR, THIS IS NOT, THIS IS NOT, AND DON'T GET INTO ME ABOUT THE LEGAL 'CAUSE I GOT LEGAL STAFF SITTING RIGHT HERE AND BELIEVE ME, THEY HAVE NO QUALMS ABOUT PUTTING ME IN CHECK IF I GET OUT ON LINE. 
          SO THE FACT THAT THE, UH, UH, WE'VE BEEN THROUGH YEARS DEALING WITH MANS MCMANSION ISSUE AND ALLOWING HOME ORDINANCE TO INCREASE THE FAR ON LOTS, IN MY OPINION, IS ALLOWING THE CAMEL'S NOSE UNDER THE ATTEN THE TENT AGAIN, BECAUSE WE'RE GONNA START GETTING THESE BIGGER BUILDINGS CRAMMED ON SMALLER LOTS. 
          AND SO I, I, 99% OF THE TIME, I I I SUPPORT STAFF AND I SUPPORT STAFF ON ALL OF THE, UH, THE NON ZONING ISSUES. 
          BUT PER, IN THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE, I FEEL THAT THE 0.4 FAR IS A REASONABLE AMOUNT FOR TRIPLEXES DUPLEXES AND THE 0.5 FOR COMMERCIAL BUSINESSES. 
          AND I'LL, I'LL YIELD THE FLOOR TO ANYBODY ELSE ON THE, ON THE D MATTER. 
          SURE. 
          I DID WANT TO, UH, CLARIFY A FEW THINGS REAL QUICK JUST TO CLEAR SOME THINGS UP THAT HAVE BEEN MENTIONED DURING THIS DISCUSSION. 
          UH, SIMILAR TO WHAT BOARD MEMBER OF 1 0 1 SAID, WE, WE CAN INTERPRET POTENTIAL FUTURE USE BECAUSE WE HAVE ENOUGH OF A HISTORY SEEING CASES TO WHERE LIKE BOARD MEMBER VAN NOLAN SAID, WE HAVE BEEN TOLD ONE THING AND THEN SOMETHING ELSE HAS BEEN DONE. 
          AND ONCE THE DOORS ARE SHUT AND THE WALLS ARE SEALED, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT BECOMES MUCH HARDER TO DETERMINE WHAT'S HAPPENING INSIDE. 
          SO I'M NOT SAYING THAT'S WHAT'S HAPPENING HERE. 
          I'M NOT SAYING ANYTHING NEFARIOUS IS BEING DONE. 
          I AM SIMPLY SAYING THAT THERE IS PRECEDENT FOR US TO USE THAT AS A POINT OF INFORMATION TOWARDS THE END GOAL OF MAKING A DECISION ON THE APPEAL. 
          UM, I ALSO FEEL THAT IT SHOULD BE MADE CLEAR THAT WHEN THE CODE IS SILENT ON SOMETHING, THAT IS LITERALLY WHAT WE'RE HERE FOR. 
          WE ARE HERE TO, TO FILL THAT SPOT. 
          AND THAT WE NEED TO BE VERY CAREFUL ABOUT THIS BECAUSE AS WE FOUND OUT LAST TIME, THERE CAN BE AN UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES. 
          UM, PERSONALLY, I AM NOT A CITY COUNCIL PERSON. 
          I'M NOT READY TO DECIDE FOR THIS COUNCIL WHETHER OR NOT THEY WANT CCDS TO SUPERSEDE HOME OR VICE VERSA. 
          UM, SO IF, IF WE DO TAKE THIS UP, I THINK WE NEED TO BE INCREDIBLY MORE CAREFUL THAN WE WERE LAST TIME WITH SUCH A NARROW DEFINITION THAT IT CANNOT BE MISCONSTRUED FOR ANYTHING ELSE. 
          AND THAT'S JUST MADAM CHAIR MORNING, SO THAT WE CAN THINK ABOUT THIS VERY CAREFULLY. 
          I DID HAVE A QUESTION FOR LEGAL BECAUSE IF WE MAKE A, AN INTERPRETATION TONIGHT HERE, BECAUSE MY, THE VERBIAGE THAT I HAD HERE WAS WHERE HOME IS DEFICIENT IN QUALIFYING OR, OR CLARIFYING WHAT IS TO TRANSPIRE IN A CERTAIN NEIGHBORHOOD, THEN THE NCCD SHOULD TAKE PRECEDENCE. 
          IS THAT GONNA HAVE, WILL THAT BE A CITYWIDE IMPACT OR ARE WE BACK TO A VARIANCE SITUATION WHERE WE'RE JUST DEALING WITH JUST THIS INDIVIDUAL NEIGHBORHOOD? ERICA LOPEZ, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY? UM, SO I THINK THE ISSUE BEFORE THE BOARD TODAY IS HOW DO THE REGULATIONS IN 25 2 7 73, UM, WHICH WERE ADOPTED IN 2023, INTERACT WITH A ADOPTED, UM, NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT. 
          [04:00:02]
AND FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE DECISION TODAY, I WOULD RECOMMEND CRAFTING YOUR RECOMMENDATION TO JUST THIS NCCD BECAUSE OTHER CCDS WILL PROBABLY HAVE DIFFERENT LANGUAGE. 
          UM, THEY MAY HAVE OMITTED CERTAIN USES, PROHIBITED CERTAIN USES, HAD DIFFERENT USES AS CONDITIONAL PERMITS. 
          SO I WOULD RECOMMEND CRAFTING YOUR RECOMMENDATION BASED ON THE LANGUAGE THAT IS IN THIS, UM, OR, UH, NCCD ORDINANCE AND THE AMENDMENTS OF THIS ORDINANCE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          IF I COULD GET SOME CLARIFICATION WHILE YOU'RE SITTING THERE. 
          SO LET ME LIKE SPECIFICALLY SAYING SPECIFIC, THIS ONLY APPLIES TO THE NUNO AND CCD. 
          YES, YOU, IT, I WOULD RECOMMEND, UM, CRAFTING YOUR ACTION SPECIFICALLY TO HOW THE HOME ORDINANCE AND THIS AND CCD IN INTERACT WITH EACH OTHER, IF THAT'S STILL ENOUGH. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, BOARD MEMBER, STAN, YOU DID HAVE YOUR HAND UP AND THEN I'LL GET NEXT. 
          AS A PROCEDURAL MATTER, ARE WE FIRST VOTING ON WHETHER TO TAKE IT UP OR IS, OR CAN YOU LIKE MAKE A MOTION TO UPHOLD STAFF RECOMMENDATION RIGHT NOW? DID, YEAH, NO, WE'RE HEARING IT. 
          THIS, THIS IS TAKEN. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, SO I'M, I'M GONNA MAKE A MOTION, WHICH SEEMS LIKE IT'LL BE UNPOPULAR AMONG ALL OF Y'ALL TO UPHOLD THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. 
          AND I THINK, I THINK THE REASON THAT HOME DOES NOT EXPLICITLY ADDRESS WHETHER IT OVERRIDES CCDS IS BECAUSE AS EVERYONE HERE IN THE ROOM KNOWS, THIS IS A VERY DIFFICULT CONVERSATION TO HAVE. 
          I THINK THE FIGHT OVER CCDS IS AT THE HEART OF OUR CITY'S CONFUSION AND AMBIVALENCE ABOUT DEVELOPMENT GENERALLY. 
          UM, IS IT BETTER TO PRESERVE A SINGLE FAMILY HOME THAT'S A 10 MINUTE DRIVE FROM DOWNTOWN WITH A PRETTY NEIGHBORHOOD? OR IS IT BETTER TO THROW A MULTIFAMILY UNIT IN THERE AND DEVELOP OUR INFRASTRUCTURE TO MATCH, UM, SO THAT WE CAN BE MORE AFFORDABLE AND DIVERSE? UM, IT'S A DIFFICULT CONVERSATION. 
          UM, BUT THE ISSUE HERE IS NOT THAT HOME IS SILENT, IT'S THE BASE ZONING LAYER. 
          THE ISSUE HERE IS THAT THE NCCD IS SILENT. 
          SO, UH, LET'S GO TO THE NCCD. 
          THERE HAVE BEEN A LOT OF COMMENTS TODAY BY THOSE IN SUPPORT OF THE APPEAL ABOUT THE PERMIT HOLDER'S, LACK OF COLLABORATION, LACK OF PROFESSIONALISM. 
          THE WORD TOXIC WAS THROWN AROUND. 
          IT'S CLEAR THAT THE COMMUNITY, THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAS BEEN OFFENDED BY THE WAY THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER HAS APPROACHED THIS. 
          UM, IT'S CLEAR THAT THE PROPERTY HOLDER HAS NOT ENGAGED IN A SAVVY WAY WITH THE COMMUNITY YET THEY'RE NOT RYMAN HOSPITALITY. 
          NO. 
          LET'S PUT ASIDE, I WOULD ASK THAT THE BOARD PUT ASIDE THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S DISLIKE FOR THIS PROPERTY HO HOLDER'S ATTITUDE. 
          UM, BECAUSE I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE BASIS FOR THIS KIND, A PROPER BASIS FOR THIS KIND OF DECISION. 
          I THINK ONCE YOU PUT THAT ASIDE, UM, THIS IS REALLY ABOUT DENSITY. 
          THEY'VE SAID THEIR SUPPORT DENSITY, BUT EVERY SINGLE LETTER OF SUPPORT OF THIS APPEAL IS ABOUT AVOIDING DENSITY. 
          THEY SAY THIS IS TOO MUCH DENSITY. 
          WE DON'T WANT THE UNITS, IT'S TOO MUCH DENSITY. 
          THE TEXT OF THE NCCD SAYS EXPLICITLY THAT IF A USE IS NOT ADDRESSED BY THE NCCD, THE BASE CODE APPLIES. 
          IT DOES NOT SAY THAT IF A USE IS NOT ADDRESSED BY THE NCCD, THEN THE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MUST INTUIT WHAT THE COMMUNITY WHO HOLDS THE NCCD WOULD WANT THEIR NCCD TO SAY ABOUT THAT USE. 
          IT DOESN'T STATE THAT THREE UNIT BUILDINGS SHOULD GET A 0.4 OR 0.5 FAR. 
          IT DOESN'T EVEN ADDRESS THREE UNIT BUILDINGS. 
          AND WHY SHOULD IT? IT WAS WRITTEN A LONG TIME AGO. 
          THE HOME ORDINANCE IS DESIGNED TO MODERNIZE AUSTIN. 
          IT'S DESIGNED TO ADD DENSITY, INCREASE MIXED USE, MODERNIZE THE CITY, AND DIVERSIFY A CITY THAT HAS A TERRIBLE HISTORY OF REDLINING AND A HISTORICAL TENDENCY TO RESIST DEVELOPMENT. 
          WHATEVER MIGHT BE SAID THIS EVENING. 
          N CCDS ARE NOT MAKING THE CITY MORE AFFORDABLE. 
          THEY'RE COMPLICATED ENTIRELY SEPARATE CODES FOR SPECIFIC AREAS. 
          THEY'RE LOCATED IN AREAS WHERE PEOPLE HAVE HISTORICALLY HAD THE RESOURCES AND TIME TO CREATE COMPLEX SETS OF RULES, NEGOTIATE WITH COUNSEL TO GET ORDINANCES PASSED. 
          CCDS ALREADY HAVE THE PRIVILEGE OF GETTING DIFFERENT SPECIAL ZONING THAT EXEMPTS THEM FROM THE CITYWIDE GOAL OF INCREASING DENSITY AND, AND IMPROVING AFFORDABILITY WHERE THE NC. 
          OKAY. 
          BUT WE CAN HAVE THE ARGUMENT AT A POLICY LEVEL WHERE THE NCCD SPECIFIES A PARTICULAR ZONING AND APPLIES AFAR. 
          WE CAN ARGUE WHETHER THE HOME ORDINANCE SHOULD OVERRIDE, BUT IF THE ZONING TYPE IS NOT EVEN ADDRESSED, HOW THEN SHOULD WE GIVE THIS NEIGHBORHOOD AN ADDITIONAL PRIVILEGE? HOW CAN IT OVERRIDE AN ORDINANCE THAT EXPLICITLY ADDRESSES THE THREE UNIT USE? WHAT APPELLANTS ARE ASKING US TO DO IS SAY THAT MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY WITH THE NCCD SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO BLOCK THE DENSER DEVELOPMENT ENCOURAGED 
          [04:05:01]
BY THE HOME ORDINANCE EVEN WHEN THEY HAVE NO LAW TO THAT EFFECT ON THE BOOKS. 
          SO LIKE ONE OF THE SPEAKERS IN OPPOSITION, I SUGGEST THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD GO TALK TO THE POLICYMAKERS, TRY TO GET THAT NCC AMENDED THE WAY THEY DID BEFORE. 
          BUT, UM, I PROPOSE THAT WE, UH, UPHOLD THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION TO APPLY THE 0.65 FAR. 
          I'LL SECOND THAT ADAM CHAIR BEFORE WE TAKE A SECOND WHILE WE'RE IN DISCUSSION. 
          IT'S, I ALREADY GOT A SECOND. 
          SO YOU COULD EITHER MAKE THE SUBSTITUTE OR DISCUSSION. 
          WELL, COULD I MAKE A COMMENT? MY INTENT HERE, UM, MAGGIE IS TO THAT, CURRENTLY RIGHT NOW HOME DOESN'T CALL OUT 0.65. 
          THE NCCD DOES CALL OUT 0.4 FROM YEARS AND YEARS AGO. 
          HISTORICALLY ON THIS BODY, WHENEVER WE HAVE PEOPLE COME IN WITH NEW DEVELOPMENTS, WE USUALLY GIVE THEM THEIR DEVELOPMENT, WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE DOING WITH THIS GENTLEMAN, BUT WE HOLD THEM TO A PORN FOR FAR AND THAT, AND THAT'S, UH, THAT'S SORT OF WHERE I WAS COMING FROM IS NOT TO REWRITE HOME OR TO GIVE THE NCCD THE ENTIRE, YOU KNOW, THAT IT HAS PRECEDENCE OVER HOME ORDINANCE, BUT THAT WHERE WE HAVE LAPSES IN THE HOME ORDINANCE AND, AND THAT THE NNC DS, NCC DS FOR THOSE SPECIFIC NEIGHBORHOODS, BECAUSE IF THIS COMES UP AGAIN, I WOULD, I WOULD FEEL THE SAME WAY ABOUT IT, THAT THE CCD FILLED THOSE LAPSES. 
          SO THEREFORE, EVEN IN, IN MY DOCUMENTS IT IT THAT I, WE GOT ALSO FROM CITY STAFF, IT STATED THAT THE, THE NCCD, I MEAN THAT HOME DOESN'T, UM, SPECIFICALLY CALL OUT THE FAR REQUIREMENTS. 
          THE NCCD DOES SIX FIVE. 
          AND SO THEREFORE WHERE THERE'S A, THERE'S A LAPSE, I WOULD THINK THAT IT WOULD BE REASONABLE TO HAVE THOSE SPECIFIC NCC DS IN THOSE NEIGHBORHOODS FILL THOSE, THOSE THOSE GAPS OR WHERE IT'S NOT SPECIFICALLY CALLED ON 0.65 IS SPECIFICALLY CALLED OUT ON PAGE TWO. 
          I'M SORRY, GO AHEAD, YOUR HONOR. 
          SORRY, I THOUGHT YOU WERE DONE. 
          KEEP GOING. 
          I I THOUGHT YOU WERE DONE. 
          KEEP GOING. 
          OH, OKAY. 
          I WAS JUST LOOKING AT THE, OUR PAGE THAT WAS GIVEN TO US FROM THE CITY, FROM FROM CITY STAFF. 
          UH, IT SAYS, UH, UNDER THE NUNA CCC, UH, PAGE TWO, AND THIS IS FROM CITY STAFF. 
          SO THIS, THIS IS STAFF TALKING, NOT, NOT THE NCCD. 
          IT SAID IN THE TWO YEARS PLUS SINCE HOME WAS ADOPTED, IT IS NOT AMENDED NCCD TO ESTABLISH FIRE LIMITS FOR THREE UNIT USES. 
          SO THERE'S NO BASIS CONCLUDED. 
          THREE UNIT USES ARE SUBJECT TO ANY FAR LIMITS ESTABLISHED ON THE NCCD. 
          THE ISSUE OF WHAT FAR LIMIT APPLIES TO A DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PROPERTY WAS PREVIOUSLY BEFORE THE BOARD. 
          I GUESS IT'S IN THIS CASE, WHICH WAS DECIDED ON OCTOBER 13TH, 2025. 
          THE BOARD SPECIFICALLY OVERRULE STAFF TO EXCLUDE LEMME FIVE PAGE YOU, BECAUSE I'VE BEEN WRITING ON THE BACK OF ALL OF THESE. 
          MICHAEL, BEG YOUR PARDON. 
          DON'T YOU PULL THE MICROPHONE A LITTLE. 
          YOU KNOW WHAT, I'VE GOT TWO MICS ON IN FRONT OF ME. 
          , I'M JUST STRUGGLING TO HEAR A LITTLE BIT. 
          AND I, AND I WENT TO, I WENT TO THE BACK AND EVEN THE MEDIA GUY SAID, YOU JUST HAD A WHOLE SPEECH OUT THERE. 
          AND I DIDN'T HEAR A WORD YOU SAID . 
          SO WHEN HE RECUSED HIMSELF, I PULLED HIS MIC OVER . 
          SO Y'ALL DON'T LIKE ME OVER HERE IN THE CORNER NO MORE. 
          THERE YOU GO. 
          TEST. 
          THERE YOU GO. 
          TEST WE THERE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          LOOK AT THAT ALL. 
          I'M NOT GONNA REPEAT MYSELF, MAN. 
          THAT'S TOO MUCH. 
          ANYHOW, WHERE I WAS GOING IS WHERE I, WHAT I FEEL IS THAT WHEREVER HOME AS WE GO FORWARD, IF IT HAS AN AREA IN THE HOME ORDINANCE, BECAUSE IT, IT IS A LIVING DOCUMENT THAT'S STILL BEING DEVELOPED AS WE GO. 
          AND IT'S GONNA BE CLARIFIED THROUGH INTERPRETATIONS AND CHALLENGES OF THAT NATURE THAT WITHIN THAT SPECIFIC NEIGHBORHOOD, WHETHER IT BE HERE, HANCOCK OR WHICHEVER ONE, NOT JUST THESE GUYS, BUT ANYBODY, EVEN THOUGH I DO KNOW LEGAL, WE'RE ONLY ADDRESSING THIS ONE. 
          UM, THAT THEN THOSE NCCD ORDINANCES THAT THESE PEOPLE WORKED ON WHO LIVED THERE FOR 20 YEARS OR WHATEVER SHOULD FILL THOSE GAPS. 
          THAT'S ALL. 
          THAT'S ALL I WAS SAYING. 
          YEAH. 
          BOARD MEMBER, BOARD MEMBER SHERIFF, BOARD MEMBER PETIT. 
          DID YOU, YOU THOUGHT YOU WERE GONNA SPEAK TO THAT? PROBABLY THE SAME THING THAT YOU WERE GONNA SAY, BUT I'M JUST READING THE, THE HOME ORDINANCE AS PASSED A COUPLE YEARS AGO AND IT SAYS THE FAR IS 0.65 FOR THREE 
          [04:10:01]
YEAR USE. 
          SO I WAS GOING BASED ON WHAT THIS GENTLEMAN SAID THAT IT DID. 
          HE, I WROTE DOWN HIS EXACT QUOTES WHERE HE SAID ALSO THAT, UH, AND THEN I THINK IT PROBABLY BOILS BACK DOWN. 
          I'M NOT TRYING TO CODE IS SAY THAT'S WRONG, BUT CODE IT IS SIMPLY SILENT IN HOME ORDINANCE. 
          IT'S SIMPLY NOT WRITTEN. 
          YOU SAID THAT. 
          YES, IT DID. 
          I MEANT THE TRIPLEX. 
          IT'S SILENT ABOUT TRIPLEXES NOT A OR R. 
          OKAY. 
          I THINK WHAT WE'RE PROBABLY GONNA END UP IF THIS DOESN'T PASS DOING IS LOOKING AT WHETHER OR NOT THIS BUILDING QUALIFIES AS THE TRIPLEX BECAUSE THAT IS THAT BEFORE US TODAY AS AN ISSUE. 
          WELL, IT IS NOT. 
          I MEAN WE REALLY ONLY TALKED ABOUT THAT LAST TIME. 
          'CAUSE WE WERE TRYING TO AVOID THIS CONVERSATION , BUT AS CHAIR, PART OF MY JOB IS READING THE BOARD AND THERE'S NOT NINE, NOT EVEN CLOSE TO NINE FOR EITHER OF THESE. 
          I THINK WE ONLY NEED SIX FOR THIS TO UPHOLD STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO UPHOLD. 
          YES. 
          RIGHT. 
          ISN'T IT A HIGHER NUMBER TO GRANT THE APPEAL? YES, IT IS A SUPER MAJORITY TO MODIFY OR REVERSE. 
          OH. 
          OH, OKAY. 
          SO WE WOULD NEED NINE DO THAT THEN. 
          YES. 
          ALL NINE WOULD HAVE TO DO THAT. 
          SO HOW FOR, AND I DON'T SEE THAT HAPPENING TONIGHT FOR BOARD MEMBER CHAR'S MOTION, HOW MANY PEOPLE WOULD NEED TO VOTE FAVOR? SIX. 
          OKAY. 
          SIX. 
          OKAY. 
          BOARD MEMBER BOWEN AT SOME POINT I NEVER THOUGHT THAT I WOULD END UP BEING ON THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF, OF HOME. 
          UM, BUT WHEN IN REVIEWING THIS, AND EVEN IN THE PAST, UM, THIS HAS BEEN A, A, A REALLY SERIOUS INS, UH, INCIDENT FOR ME OR JUST BE ABLE TO, TO LOOK AT THIS BECAUSE GOING BACK AND JUST LOOKING AT THE ACTUAL ORDINANCE AND ONLY THE ONE THAT PERTAINS TO THIS NCCD AND IT IS VERY CLEAR BASED UPON THE WAY THE ORDINANCE IS WRITTEN AND THE ORDINANCE IS STILL IN EFFECT. 
          IT HAS NOT BEEN PULLED. 
          IT HAS BEEN, IT IS STILL, THEY'VE HAD SOME MODIFICATIONS TO IT, BUT YET PART SEVEN, WHICH THIS PARTICULAR ADDRESS FALLS UNDER ACCORDING TO THE CHARTS, ACCORDING TO THE MAPS. 
          IT SPECIFICALLY SAYS THAT SF THREE, WHICH THIS BUILDING OR WHICH THIS LOT IS ZONED FOR, THAT THE, THE MAX FAR IS 0.4. 
          THAT IS PER THE ACTUAL ORDINANCE IN WHAT IT'S WRITTEN AS. 
          SO WHETHER OR NOT, AND AND THE ONE OF THE THINGS THAT, UM, WE'VE HEARD TIME AND TIME AGAIN AND FOR THOSE OF US THAT HAVE ACTUALLY UM, HAD CONVERSATIONS REGARDING THIS IS MAKING SURE THAT OLDER NEIGHBORHOODS THAT WHEN STUFF WAS GOING IN THAT THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO, UH, KIND OF HELP COINCIDE WITH THAT. 
          AND IN FACT, IT EVEN SAYS IN THE ORDINANCE UNDER PART SEVEN, NEW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SHOULD RESPECT TRADITIONAL PATTERNS INCLUDING BUILDING ORIENTATIONS, SCALE, HEIGHT, SETBACK, AND PARKING LOCATIONS. 
          NOW WE ALL KNOW THE PARKING IS BASICALLY A MUTE POINT, BUT THAT'S WHY THEY ESTABLISHED THESE TABLES. 
          NOW, NO MATTER WHAT OUR PERSONAL FEELINGS ARE, THE ORDINANCE IS STILL STANDING IN EFFECT THAT THIS POINT IN TIME. 
          DO WE NOT AGREE ON THAT? SO THE POINT OF IT IS, IS THAT, UM, I HAVE TO AT LEAST GO WITH WHAT IS CURRENTLY OUT THERE AND SAY THE DECISION BEING MADE IS GOING TO BE MADE ON MY PART BASED UPON WHAT THE CURRENT ORDINANCE SAYS. 
          WHETHER HOME HOME HAD ITS OWN LITTLE ISSUE. 
          IT DOES. 
          BUT THE CCDS AS FAR AS IN IN IN MY WORLD, THEY ARE NOT OVERRIDDEN BY SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN IN PLACE FOR A LONG TIME. 
          UNLESS IT IS ACTUALLY THAT COUNCIL HAS SAID WE'RE NOW DOING AWAY WITH THAT. 
          IT'S BEEN AROUND SINCE 2001. 
          IT'S HAD IT HAD A LOT OF INPUT FROM PEOPLE. 
          IT WAS, IT WAS A PROCESS THAT TOOK SEVERAL YEARS TO BE DONE. 
          THAT IS SOMETHING NOT TO BE TAKEN LIKELY AND I DO NOT TAKE IT LIKELY. 
          SO, UM, YOU CAN JUDGE BY WHAT YOU WANT TO, BY MY TONE AND MY, MY COMMENTS THAT THIS, THIS NCCD HAS ITS OWN LITTLE MAP THAT SHOWS WHAT THE DIFFERENT AREAS WERE SUPPOSED TO DO. 
          AND EACH AREA WAS CALLED OUT AS TO HOW THAT ORDINANCE IS TAKEN 
          [04:15:01]
CARE OF FOR THOSE PARTICULAR AREAS. 
          SO THIS ONE HAPPENS TO FALL IN AREA ONE AND THERE'S TWO DIFFERENT AREAS THAT ARE LABELED AS AREA ONE IN THE ORDINANCE. 
          SO I'M, UH, I'M STICKING TO WHAT THE ORDINANCE BASICALLY SAYS. 
          UH, I AM CONCERNED OVER THE FACT THAT LOOKING AT THE DRAWINGS THAT WERE PRESENTED IN PART OF THIS, UM, THE, THE ISSUE WAS THAT THERE WOULD, THERE WAS FIRE PROTECTION IN THERE, BUT I'M NOT SEEING A RISER ROOM IN ANY OF THESE ON ANY OF THESE DRAWINGS. 
          SO WHETHER OR NOT THEY'RE ON ANOTHER DRAWING OR NOT, BUT THEY'RE NOT LISTED ON THESE. 
          AND I HAVE MY CONCERNS OVER THE FIRE, THE FIRE ISSUE REGARDING THAT. 
          I HAVE, I HAND UP FOR A WHILE. 
          UM, A QUESTION MADE FOR LEGAL OR MAYBE FOR CHAIR, UH, ARE WE ALLOWED GOING INTO CLOSED SESSION? I THINK UNDER THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT WE CAN GO INTO CLOSED SESSION. 
          UM, WE HAVE TO GIVE NOTICE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY THAT WE INTEND TO GO INTO CLOSED SESSION. 
          AND WHAT WE'RE GOING TO GO INTO CLOSED SESSION OVER, UH, WE WOULD HAVE TO POSTPONE AND EITHER DO A SPECIAL CALLED MEETING OR WHERE, WHERE ARE WE AT ON THE DAYS? COULD WE, UM, THE ONLY DATE WE HAD AVAILABLE WAS MARCH 26TH, WHICH IS A THURSDAY. 
          SO THERE, THAT'S WHERE WE'RE AT IS THAT, AND YOU'LL HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION BY THE 29TH, WHICH IS ACTUALLY A SUNDAY, IS THAT LEGAL'S INTERPRETATION OF THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT. 
          YOU HAVE TO GO TO THE CITY ATTORNEY. 
          UH, YOU CAN'T GO INTO TRUST CLOSE. 
          WE'D HAVE TO POST IT ON THE AGENDA THROUGH THIS, OVER AND OVER WITH THEM. 
          IT'S NOT POSTED ON THE AGENDA. 
          THEY WON'T LET US POST IT ON THE AGENDA ANYMORE UNLESS WE'RE GOING TO ACTUALLY DO IT. 
          THAT'S A FIGHT I LOST. 
          TRUST ME, ERICA LOPEZ, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY. 
          WE DON'T HAVE THE SPECIFIC POSTING FOR THE, UM, EXECUTIVE SESSION ON THE BOA AGENDA. 
          PLUS THERE'S ALSO THE PRACTICAL CONCERNS OF HAVING TO SET UP ALL THE, UM, THE ROOM AND EVERYTHING. 
          AND SO THAT'S WHY WE NEED SPECIAL ADVANCE NOTICE OF AN EXECUTIVE SESSION. 
          UM, BUT IF THERE'S A QUESTION THAT YOU HAVE AND IF YOU WANT TO SEND IT OVER TO ELAINE TO GET IT ANSWERED OR IF, IF IT CAN'T BE ANSWERED TODAY. 
          UM, SO JUST SO I UNDERSTAND MS. LOPEZ, IT'S, IT'S MORE OF A PRACTICAL PHYSICAL RESTRAINT OF GETTING THE CLOSE SECTION. 
          THERE'S NOT A LEGAL RESTRAINT. 
          IT'S UH, THE CITY ATTORNEY SAYS, OKAY, I GOTTA OPEN, OPEN UP IN A ROOM. 
          THAT'S WHY I CAN'T LET YOU GET INTO CLOSE. 
          'CAUSE OPEN MEETINGS, THAT'S NOT AN ISSUE. 
          THERE'S BOTH, WE DON'T HAVE THE SPECIFIC LANGUAGE ON THE BO OA AGENDA. 
          AND THERE'S ALSO THE PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS AS WELL. 
          IN THE FUTURE CHAIR, I WOULD STRONGLY, STRONGLY RECOMMEND EVEN, UH, YOU CAN PUT CLOSED INTO THE AGENDA AND WE DON'T HAVE TO USE IT. 
          SO UNFORTUNATELY IT USED TO BE ON THE AGENDA. 
          I LOST THAT BATTLE TOO. 
          'CAUSE THEY, WE USED TO HAVE THAT EVERY SINGLE AGENDA USED TO SAY THE BOARD RESERVES THE RIGHT TO CALL ITSELF INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION. 
          BUT WE WERE TOLD AFTER THE LAWSUIT IN 22 THAT THAT HAD TO COME OFF BECAUSE WE HAVE TO BE VERY SPECIFIC ABOUT WHAT WE'LL BE GOING INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR. 
          SO WE'D HAVE TO SPECIFY, BE LIKE FOUR ITEM SEVEN TO DISCUSS THE CRAFTING OF LANGUAGE. 
          SURE. 
          FOR BLAH OH SEVEN ONE, WE CAN DO A BUNCH OF DIFFERENT, I MEAN, OKAY, WE CAN TALK ABOUT IT. 
          YOU, I'M GOING TO THE EXACT SESSION LIKE JOB OF A HAT, WHICH IS ALL RIGHT GUYS, WE'RE GO BACK. 
          THAT GUY RIGHT THERE KNOWS. 
          WELL LISTENING IT, IT IS NOT THAT WE CAN TALK ABOUT OFFLINE, BUT THAT ANSWERS MY QUESTION FOR RIGHT NOW. 
          THANK YOU. 
          BOARD MEMBER CHAIR. 
          SORRY. 
          UM, WHERE DO I BEGIN? I THINK OBVIOUSLY THERE ARE EMOTIONS INVOLVED IN THIS, BUT HONESTLY THE MOST DISPASSIONATE VIEW IS THAT THE HOME ORDINANCE APPLIES BECAUSE THE NCCD SPECIFICALLY SAYS THAT THEY DON'T SPECIFICALLY APPLY A FAR TO A PARTICULAR ZONING. 
          THE BASE CODE APPLIES. 
          SO THIS IS AN UNFORTUNATE GAP IN THE NCCD, BUT THE GAP IS IN THE NCCD, NOT IN THE HOME ORDINANCE. 
          SO HONESTLY, THE MO LIKE YOU WANNA FOLLOW THE NCCD. 
          THE NCCD ISN'T WRITTEN TO COVER A THREE UNIT USE. 
          SO YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE TO HAVE THE BIGGER ARGUMENT OF WHETHER HOME OVER, LIKE NOBODY HERE IS SAYING THAT THE HOME ORDINANCE OVERRIDES THE NCC D'S, UH, DESIGNATION FOR SINGLE FAMILY, RIGHT? NO ONE IS ARGUING THAT NO ONE, BUT IF YOU'RE SILENT ON IT, THEN YEAH, THE BASE ZONING APPLIES. 
          BUT LIKE, BUT THAT'S, THAT'S KIND OF THE THING BECAUSE THERE WAS NO OPTION WHEN THE NCCD WAS WRITTEN THAT LIKE IT WAS PROHIBITED HAVING A THIRD, YOU KNOW, IT WAS PROHIBITED. 
          IT WAS 
          [04:20:01]
PROHIBITED FOR THAT ZONING. 
          WELL, THEY, THEY'VE AMENDED. 
          I MEAN, IF, IF, IF THE NCCD FUNCTIONED IN SUCH A WAY THAT YOU COULD JUST READ IN NEW USES BASED ON THE INFERRED INTENT OF THE COMMUNITY, WHY EVER AMEND IT, RIGHT? THEY WENT THROUGH ALL THESE PROCESSES TO AMEND THE NCCD IN THE PAST. 
          THAT IS WHAT HAS TO HAPPEN. 
          NOW, I, I'M NOT GONNA READ INTO I, I, I THINK THAT'S JUST THE REALITY THAT HAS TO BE DEALT WITH HERE. 
          IT, IT, I WOULD AGREE IT'S IT'S DEFINITELY SOMETHING I WISH HAD BEEN COVERED DURING HOME WHEN THE ORDINANCE WAS BEING PASSED OR WHEN THE ORDINANCES WERE BEING PASSED. 
          UH, AND UNFORTUNATELY IT'S FALLEN TO US TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO MAKE IT WORK UNTIL COUNSEL, UH, EITHER DECIDES TO AMEND THE NCCD OR AMEND THE HOME ORDINANCES TO HAVE THEM SUPERSEDE NCC DS. 
          EITHER WAY, WE'RE IN THIS PURGATORY, UH, THAT WE'RE I THE THING WE HAVE TO FIGURE OUT SOMETHING. 
          THE THING IS, IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT REALLY A PURGATORY OF NO OPTION. 
          LIKE IF YOU HAVE TWO LAWS THAT APPLY AND ONE IS MORE SPECIFIC, THAT LAW APPLIES. 
          LIKE, THAT IS HOW THE LAW WORKS. 
          SO, LIKE, WE ARE ACTUALLY, WE'RE IN AN UNHAPPY SITUATION BECAUSE THE NCCD HAS NOT BEEN AMENDED, BUT WE'RE NOT IN A PURGATORY WHERE NO LAW EXISTS AND WE HAVE TO WRITE ONE. 
          WE'RE IN A POSITION WHERE THE LAW EXISTS AND WE DON'T WANNA RECOGNIZE IT. 
          I, I DISAGREE. 
          I THINK BY SAYING HOME SUPERSEDES THAT THAT WOULD ESSENTIALLY BE WHAT YOU'RE DOING. 
          'CAUSE IT IF, IF THE, AND THIS ISN'T ABOUT ORIGINAL INTENT, IT'S THAT THERE WAS NO PATH FOR MORE THAN TWO HOMES WHEN THE NCCD WAS CRAFTED, BUT NOW THERE IS. 
          SO SOMETHING CHANGED. 
          THE NCCD SHOULD HAVE BEEN CHANGED WITH IT TO ADDRESS IT, OR HOMES SHOULD HAVE BEEN CHANGED OR HAD THE, THE LANGUAGE IN IT TO ADDRESS IT, BUT IT WASN'T. 
          AND IT, I'M MORE CONCERNED THAT THERE ARE GOING TO BE OTHER CCDS THAT WE'RE GONNA RUN INTO THE SAME PROBLEM WITH. 
          UH, THIS ONE JUST HAPPENS TO BE THE FIRST. 
          WELL, I THINK THERE'S PROBABLY GONNA BE A RUSH TO GO TALK TO THEIR COUNCIL MEMBERS TO GET CCDS AMENDED. 
          I THINK THAT'S WHAT'S GOING. 
          I THINK I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT. 
          MADAM CHAIR? YES. 
          CAN WE CALL THE QUESTION? YES. 
          UH, ARE YOU MAKING THAT AN OFFICIAL CALL? THE QUESTIONS? OKAY. 
          SO WE HAVE A MOTION TO CALL THE QUESTION. 
          I'LL SECOND. 
          THIS IS GONNA BE A VOTE TO CALL THE QUESTION. 
          THAT MEANS IT'S A VOTE TO TAKE THE VOTE. 
          SO  VOTE OFF A VOTE TO THE MOTION. 
          YES. 
          OKAY. 
          SO THIS IS A VOTE TO END DISCUSSION IS WHAT IT IS. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT? ALL RIGHT. 
          WE'RE VOTING TO END DISCUSSION. 
          UH, I SEE ABDULLAH. 
          YES. 
          SAMIR BEARING? YES. 
          JEFFREY BOWEN? YES. 
          YOUNG JEW. 
          KIM? YES. 
          BIANCA MEDINA. 
          AL? YES. 
          OKAY. 
          BRIAN PETIT. 
          YES. 
          MAGGIE? SHE, YES. 
          MICHAEL V OLAN? YES. 
          OKAY. 
          CORY ARCHER. 
          OH, HE'S OFF. 
          SORRY. 
          SORRY, SORRY. 
          ERASE, ERASE. 
          JESSICA COHEN. 
          YES. 
          BOARD MEMBER BOWEN? YES. 
          OKAY. 
          SO LET'S CALL THE QUESTION. 
          THIS WAS A MOTION TO UPHOLD STAFF'S DECISION. 
          WHERE IS IT MADE BY BOARD MEMBER STAN. 
          SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER POTE. 
          MADAM CHAIR. 
          QUESTION. 
          I KNOW IT MIGHT BE, YEAH, WE HAVE NO, WE HAVE TO CALL THE QUESTION. 
          NO, NO, I UNDERSTAND. 
          BUT THIS IS YOUR MOTION IS FOR THE WHOLE THING BECAUSE WE CAN'T TAKE UP, THINGS ARE NOT WITHIN ZONING AND THREE OF THE FOUR WERE NOT, WE HAVE NO AUTHORITY OVER. 
          WE'RE JUST UPHOLDING THE RECOMMENDATION. 
          THANK YOU. 
          SO, UH, HAS ABDULLAH CHAIR, I MEAN, I'M GOING ABSTAIN. 
          I JUST DON'T HAVE THE TOOLS. 
          I NEED THE TOOLS THAT I THINK THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT. 
          ALLOWSS, I'M GONNA ABSTAIN TO FOR THIS VOTE. 
          I, I, I, I'M ASKING LEGAL COUNSEL. 
          I HAVE NEVER SEEN A, A, A BODY UNDER THE OPEN P UH, TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS LAW. 
          EITHER BE CITY, STATE, LOCAL, NOT ALLOW TO GO TO POST SESSION OR POST AND STUFF. 
          [04:25:01]
IF I CAN WORK WITH LEGAL AND STAFF AND YOU, BUT I JUST DON'T HAVE THE, UH, TOOLS TO VOTE YAY OR NAY. 
          SO I ABSTAIN. 
          OKAY. 
          SAMIR BARING. 
          YES. 
          JEFFREY BOWEN. 
          NO. 
          YOUNG J KIM? NO. 
          BIANCA MEDINA. 
          LEAL? NO. 
          BRIAN PETIT. 
          YES. 
          MAGGIE ANI. 
          YES. 
          MICHAEL VAN OLAN? NO. 
          TWO. 
          IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT I SAY. 
          THERE'S NOT ENOUGH. 
          IT, 'CAUSE IT HAS TO BE TWO THIRDS. 
          IT HAS, UH, RIGHT. 
          ERICA? IT'S TWO THIRDS TO, OR IT SAYS SIX, RIGHT? 6, 2, 3. 
          IT DOESN'T MATTER. 
          HI, ERICA LOPEZ, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY. 
          SO THIS IS GONNA BE A LITTLE CONFUSING, SO I WILL TRY MY BEST. 
          UM, IT TAKES A 75% VOTE TO APPROVE, UM, THE APPEAL, WHICH IN THIS CASE WOULD BE OVERTURNING STAFF'S DECISION, RIGHT? IF A MOTION TO UPHOLD STAFF'S DECISION FAILS, IT WOULD STILL TAKE 75% TO OVERTURN STAFF'S DECISION. 
          SO EVEN IF THIS MOTION WERE TO FAIL, THEN THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE A MOTION TO OVERTURN STAFF'S DECISION GRANTING THE APPEAL THAT WOULD REQUIRE 75% VOTE. 
          SO MOTION TO DENY APPEAL IS SIX, RIGHT? YES, TECHNICALLY. 
          BUT IF THEY DON'T GET ENOUGH VOTES TO UPHOLD, TO OVERTURN STAFF'S DECISION, THEN THAT WOULD BE ALSO WITH, UH, ALSO UPHOLDING STAFF'S INTERPRETATION. 
          OH, BUT SAY, YEAH, BECAUSE IF WE CHOOSE NOTHING THAT IT'S UPHELD BY DEFAULT. 
          RIGHT? IF A VOTE IN FAVOR OF THE APPEAL, WHICH IS OVERTURNING STAFF'S DECISION, FAILS TO GET THE REQUIRED VOTE, IT'S THE SAME AS SO, SO IF SOMEBODY HAD A MOTION TO, TO DO THAT, UH, MS. LOPEZ, UM, TO OVERTURN THE APPEAL, AND THEN IT DIDN'T GET THE SUFFICIENT NUMBER OF VOTES, WOULD, WOULD WE CONTINUE ON IT OR, YES. 
          I'M, I'M JUST GONNA SAY NO, THAT'S THAT. 
          I GUESS THAT'S MY QUESTION, BUT WE CAN CONTINUE DISCUSSION WITH THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION, RIGHT? WORK TOWARDS THE NINE. 
          IF THERE IS A MOTION THAT FAILS, THE, THE MOTION. 
          IF THERE'S A MOTION THAT FAILS TO GET TO OVERTURN STAFF'S GRANT, THE APPEAL AND OVERTURN STAFF'S DECISION FAILS TO GET 75%, WHICH IS NINE VOTES TONIGHT, THEN STAFF'S DECISION WILL BE UPHELD. 
          SO THE OPTION AFTER THIS IS A MOTION TO REVERSE OR MODIFY IS IT'S THE ONLY OTHER THING WE CAN MAKE. 
          AND I DON'T SEE NINE HERE DOING THAT. 
          MADAM CHAIR. 
          WE'LL FLY IT UP THE FLAGPOLE. 
          I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO REVERSE AND MODIFY STAFF'S DECISION. 
          OKAY? SO IT'S A MOTION TO RECONSIDER, RIGHT? WHAT WOULD THE, DO, DO WE HAVE TO SAY WHAT THE MODIFICATIONS ARE? SURE. 
          FOR THE MOTION. 
          OKAY. 
          YEAH, AND I HAVE THAT, UH, THE, AND THAT WOULD BE ON ITEM. 
          AND I'M GONNA GO DOWN HERE BECAUSE I'M GONNA BE A STICKLER. 
          I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THIS IS CORRECT ON, I ON, GOT ONE NOW. 
          OKAY. 
          ON ITEM SECOND FOR, ON THE ITEM PERTAINING TO INTERNATIONAL RESIDENT. 
          SEE, THIS IS WHAT MAKES IT DIFFICULT. 
          THE ITEM PERTAINING TO INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE, AN INTERNATIONAL FIRE CODE AND APPLICATION COMPLETE IS, SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED UNDER THIS MOTION. 
          THAT'S IBC THAT'S OUT OF OUR PROGRAM. 
          IT'S NOT A ZONING, IT IS NOT RELATED TO ZONING. 
          HOWEVER, THE NORTH UNIVERSITY NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, CONSERVATION COMBINING DISTRICT IS STILL AN ACT OF ORDINANCE. 
          AND THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LISTED WITHIN THE N-C-C-D-N-C-C-D APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL. 
          AUGUST 26TH, 2004 AFTER THREE READINGS, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. 
          SO HANG ON A SECOND. 
          BOARD MEMBER. 
          ARE YOU READING FINDINGS? YEAH, BECAUSE A MOTION TO RECONSIDER HAS TO BE VOTED ON FIRST. 
          WELL, I SORT OF WANT, SO I CAN'T LET THEM KNOW WHAT THEY'RE VOTING ON. 
          OKAY. 
          BECAUSE WE CAN'T, I I'M CHECKING. 
          VOTE ON THE SAME. 
          I'M CHECKING THING. 
          YES. 
          WE'VE ALREADY 
          [04:30:01]
SAID NO. 
          OKAY, LISTEN. 
          YEAH. 
          TO THE MOTION TO UPHOLD STAFF'S, I'M TRACK DECISION AND WE DID AND DENY THE APPEAL. 
          SO IN ORDER TO DO THAT, WE HAVE TO VOTE TO RECONSIDER THAT VOTE. 
          I KNOW IT'S, IT'S, IT'S AWKWARD AND WEIRD, BUT THAT'S ROBERT'S RULES. 
          UH, ERICA, COME, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG. 
          WE'VE ALREADY SAID NO. 
          SO WE HAVE TO VOTE TO RECONSIDER. 
          CORRECT. 
          OKAY, GOTCHA. 
          HI AGAIN. 
          SO WE NEVER FINISHED VOTING ON THE MOTION. 
          I SAID YES TO, TO THE MOTION TO DENY THE APPEAL AND GRANT THE VARIANCE. 
          AND SO IF THAT MOTION WERE TO GET THREE AFFIRMATIVE VOTES, IT SHALL BE A VOTE TO DENY. 
          SO WE COULD STILL VOTE, THE BOARD COULD STILL VOTE ON THE ORIGINAL MOTION, WHICH WAS THE DENIAL OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL. 
          AND THAT WOULD JUST NEED THREE YES VOTES. 
          AND THAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED A DENIAL. 
          SO YOU COULD STILL, YOU COULD EITHER FINISH THAT VOTE. 
          YES, WE, WE HAD THAT. 
          DIDN'T THAT JUST HAPPEN THOUGH? YEAH, WE HAD THAT. 
          WE IT WAS FOUR. 
          YOU HAD THAT, BUT I THOUGHT WE NEEDED THERE WAS THREE. 
          THREE YES. 
          VOTES. 
          HOW MANY? YEAH. 
          YEAH. 
          THERE WAS FOUR YES VOTES. 
          THERE WERE THREE. 
          THERE WERE THREE I THINK. 
          I THINK IT WAS ME. 
          SO ABSTAIN. 
          NO, NO. 
          FOUR NOS AND THREE YESES. 
          THEN IT, IT'S A VOTE TO DENY. 
          SO IT, IT, THE, THE APPEAL WAS DENIED. 
          THE CASE IS DONE. 
          MADAM CHAIR, I GOT FIVE THREE ON THAT VOTE. 
          OKAY. 
          IT  IT IS WHAT IT IS BECAUSE, UH, BOARD MEMBER ABDULLAH ABSTAINED. 
          SO THAT TAKES US DOWN TO EIGHT. 
          SO CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, I HAVE BIANCA MEDINA LIAL AS A NO FOR THE MOTION TO UPHOLD STAFF'S APPROVAL. 
          NO. 
          FOR JESSICA COHEN? NO. 
          FOR YOUNG JEW. 
          KIM? YES. 
          FOR SAMIR, YES. 
          FOR MAGGIE? YES. 
          FOR BRIAN? NO, FOR MICHAEL. 
          AND NO FOR JEFFREY. 
          CORRECT. 
          WHICH GIVES US THREE YESES, RIGHT? THREE YESES AND FIVE NO'S. 
          SO THE MOTION IS, WAS TO DENY THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL. 
          IT WAS TO GRANT STAFF'S, UPHOLD STAFFS, UPHOLD STAFF, UPHOLD STAFFS, RECOMMENDATION TO RECOMMENDATION, DENY THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL, AND IT RECEIVED AT LEAST THREE AFFIRMATIVE VOTES. 
          IT SHALL BE REGARDED AS A VOTE TO DENY. 
          OKAY, SO THERE, ITS, THAT'S IT. 
          THAT'S IT. 
          THAT'S IT. 
          SO, UH, SORRY, YOUR APPEAL IS DENIED. 
          CONGRATULATIONS. 
          APPEAL WAS DENIED. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THAT SIMPLIFIED. 
          THANK YOU EVERYBODY. 
          THANK YOU EVERYONE FOR COMING OUT TONIGHT. 
          OKAY. 
          ITEM 
          [8. Discussion of the December 8, 2025, Board of Adjustment activity report ]
EIGHT, DISCUSSION OF THE DECEMBER 8TH, 2025 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTIVITY REPORT. 
          ANY COMMENTS? GUYS, IF I COULD GET Y'ALL TO PLEASE TAKE YOUR DISCUSSION OUTSIDE. 
          WE STILL HAVE TO FINISH OUR MEETING. 
          IF I COULD GET YOU TO TAKE YOUR DISCUSSION OUTSIDE, PLEASE. 
          SO ABOUT THAT, UH, DECEMBER 8TH, MONTHLY REPORT. 
          AMAZING JOB STAFF. 
          THANK YOU SO, SO MUCH. 
          WE LOVE YOU. 
          GONNA MAKE SOMEBODY'S JOB A LOT EASIER NEXT JULY, THAT'S FOR SURE. 
          ANY DISCUSSION, COMMENTS, QUESTIONS? NOPE. 
          IT'S ALL GOOD? NOPE. 
          OKAY. 
          THAT WAS FUTURE 
          [FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS]
ITEMS HERE. 
          YOU CAN HAVE YOUR MIC BACK. 
          , UH, I AM GOING TO BE BRINGING A PROPOSAL NEXT MEETING TO CHANGE THE RULES OF PROCEDURE. 
          JUST, JUST AS A KIND OF HOUSEKEEPING ITEM, BECAUSE WE DON'T, WE'RE ONE OF THE ONLY BOARDS THAT DOESN'T HAVE A SPECIFICATION FOR LIKE, HOW LONG PEOPLE CAN TALK FOR STUFF. 
          UM, AND BECAUSE, UH, LEGAL HAS SAID WE HAVE TO ALLOW EVERYBODY TO SPEAK ON AN AGENDA ITEM, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT THEY FILED THE APPEAL. 
          UH, I WAS GOING TO SUGGEST LIMITING IT TO SIX SPEAKERS AT THREE MINUTES WITH DONATION OF TIME ALLOWED. 
          AND THEN IF THERE ARE MORE THAN SIX SPEAKERS FOR A SIDE, TWO MINUTES, JUST IN THE INTEREST OF TIME, I, I FEEL LIKE IT'S A FAIR NUMBER. 
          IT'S, UH, A LITTLE HIGHER THAN WHAT COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION GIVE. 
          SO IT WOULD ALLOW FOLKS TO GIVE THEIR TESTIMONY, BUT I'M GONNA BE BRINGING THAT NEXT. 
          SO I JUST WANTED TO PUT THAT ON Y'ALL'S RADARS. 
          IF YOU WOULD LIKE DIFFERENT NUMBERS, FEEL FREE TO BRING THEM. 
          LIKE IF YOU THINK SOMETHING 
          [04:35:01]
WOULD BE FAIR, WE'LL JUST DISCUSS NEXT TIME. 
          CAN YOU, CAN YOU STATE THE NUMBERS AGAIN REAL QUICK? SORRY. 
          I WAS, UH, JUST GONNA SUGGEST SIX SPEAKERS AT THREE MINUTES A PIECE AND THEN ALL AFTER THAT AT TWO MINUTES. 
          IS THAT SIX SPEAKERS? UH, FOR EACH SIDE? YES. 
          OF, OF ANY SINGLE AGENDA ITEM? YES. 
          OKAY. 
          IT COULD BE ANY ITEM. 
          SO, BUT WE JUST DON'T HAVE ANY GUARDRAILS RIGHT NOW. 
          SO WE COULD BE HERE ALL NIGHT WITH, YOU KNOW, A HUNDRED SPEAKERS AT THREE MINUTES EACH AND COULDN'T PUT ANY LIMIT ON IT. 
          BUT HAS THAT EVER HAPPENED BEFORE? GOD? I HOPE NOT. 
          NO. 
          BUT HAS HAPPENED IN THE PAST? NO, I MEAN, I, I WOULD BE INCLINED TO HAVE IT EQUAL FOR EVERYBODY. 
          THAT'S, THAT'S MY OPINION, BUT I I'M ONLY ONE OF 11. 
          YEAH, WE'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT IT AS A FUTURE AGENDA ITEM. 
          YEAH. 
          AS A FUTURE AGENDA ITEM FOR NEXT MEETING. 
          UM, ANY OTHER FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS? WHAT IF WE CAN SEE IF HOW, WHAT PROCESS TO GET INTO CLOSED SESSION, WHAT WE HAVE TO PUT ON OUR AGENDAS? YOU KNOW, I KNOW YOU SAID YOU'VE, YOU HAD TO FIGHT SOME FIGHT WITH THEM, BUT I THINK, UM, I MEAN I COULD DO SOME LEGAL, I'M NOT, YOU KNOW, IF WE CAN'T OVERRULE THE CITY ATTORNEY, THAT'S ONE THING, BUT IT, IT, IT WOULD, I THINK BEING ABLE TO GO INTO CLOSE EVEN FOR A SHORT AMOUNT OF TIME. 
          NO, I'M, I, I WOULD HAVE TO BE ON I TRYING TO AGREE PARTICULAR ITEM. 
          MS. LOPEZ, COULD YOU PLEASE EMAIL ALL THAT STUFF THAT YOU GOT FROM ME FROM LIKE ON TOOMA AND THE ETHICS, UH, ATTORNEY ABOUT WHY WE CAN'T GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION WITHOUT THE POSTING AND HAVING THE SPECIFIC, SO MAYBE HAVE A DISCUSSION WITH BOARD MEMBER ABDULLAH. 
          WOULD THAT, IS THAT OKAY? AGAIN, I JUST THINK IT'S EXTREMELY IMPORTANT FOR ALL OF US TO BE ABLE TO DO IT. 
          IF IT'S JUST TO PUT MORE, UM, I DON'T KNOW. 
          IF WE HAVE A DISCUSSION WE'RE GONNA, BUT WE, WE HAVE A CHANCE TO DISCUSS. 
          BUT TO PUT THAT ON THE, UH, IT MAY REQUIRE US TO MAYBE, OR STAFF TO GO INTO, OKAY, THESE ARE THE FOUR MOST TOP THINGS THAT ARE GOING INTO AND WE HAVE TO LIST THEM TO GET APPROVAL. 
          I THINK THAT'S WELL WORTH IT. 
          YEAH. 
          ON THE, AND THEN AGAIN, ALSO THE HARD PART IS BECAUSE LIKE FOR OUR VIRTUAL BOARD MEMBERS, WE HAVE TO HAVE A ROOM THAT'S RESERVED, THAT'S GOT, UH, A TXN CAPABILITIES AND HAS WEBEX CAPABILITIES, UH, TIED INTO IT. 
          SO THAT, THAT'S KIND OF WHY THEY SAY THEY DON'T WANT US DOING IT LESS THAN ANYMORE WAS BECAUSE OF THE, UH, ALLOWANCE OF HYBRID RULES IS REALLY WHAT CHANGED THINGS. 
          I FOUGHT IT. 
          I, I PROMISE YOU. 
          LIKE I'M JUST SAYING THIS, THIS BUILDING BODY. 
          I'VE EVER SEEN THIS. 
          I'VE, I'VE NOT, I'VE, I'VE KNOWN MAYBE HALF A DOZEN, UM, OPEN MEETING OF DIFFERENT, I THINK MICHAEL, DIDN'T WE HAVE LIKE DISCUSSION, LIKE WE PUT IT AS AN AGENDA ITEM AND HAD TO TALK ABOUT IT, RIGHT? YEAH. 
          SO YOU, THERE USED TO BE, IT WAS POSTED ON EVERY SINGLE AGENDA THAT THE, THE BOARD RESERVES THE RIGHT TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION WITH LEGAL TO DISCUSS ITEMS PERTAINING TO ANY CASE THAT IS POSTED ON THE AGENDA. 
          I THINK WHERE IT GOT, WHERE IT GOT, UH, WHERE IT GOT, UH, COMPLICATED IS THE FACT THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO HAVE SOMEBODY TAKE THEIR LAPTOP IN THERE AND HAVE FOR, LET'S JUST USE TINNITUS AN EXAMPLE AND HAVE KIM COME IN ON THE ZOOM ON THE LAPTOP SO THAT THEY CAN PARTICIPATE IN THAT EXECUTIVE SESSION. 
          SO WHAT HAPPENED NOW, SINCE WE'RE GOING INTO A HYBRID TYPE OF MEETING, IF THOSE FOLKS CAN'T ATTEND THE EXECUTIVE SESSION, YOU KNOW, YOU TECHNICALLY IT'S, YOU CAN'T REALLY DO IT. 
          SO I THINK THAT'S WHERE THE CHANGE CAME IN. 
          BUT PREVIOUSLY WHEN WE ALL USED, USED TO COME IN PERSON, DISCUSS, IF YOU HAD TO GO IN EXECUTIVE SESSION, THE CHAIR WOULD CALL IT, WE WOULD GO. 
          IT'S NOT A MATTER OF A ROOM OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT AS A SPACE AS MUCH AS A ROOM THAT HAS THE TECHNOLOGY TO INCLUDE THOSE THAT ARE ON LINE. 
          YEAH. 
          I MEAN TO, THERE'S THERE'S BREAKOUT, THERE'S VIRTUAL BREAKOUT ROOMS TOO. 
          THAT'S MANY. 
          ITS ACTUALLY DO EXACTLY THAT ISSUE. 
          SO I MEAN, YEAH, IT IT'S BEEN OVERCOME SINCE, SINCE I'M, I'M JUST SAYING. 
          YEAH. 
          YEAH. 
          I, I SUPPORT YOU. 
          I AGREE. 
          NO ONE'S ANTI CLOSES HERE. 
          I'M ALL FOR LIKE MAKING PARLIAMENTARY AND HE'S GOT IT DOWN. 
          LET'S GO. 
          YOU KNOW, LET'S STEP 43. 
          I'M GONNA INTERRUPT THERE. 
          UH, SO WE DON'T GO OVER. 
          THAT WILL BE A FUTURE AGENDA ITEM FOR APRIL. 
          EXECUTIVE SESSION. 
          UH, BOARD MEMBER STAN, WE HAD SELECTED A GROUP TO TALK ABOUT THE ATTIC ISSUE THAT WE HAD INTERPRETED AND WE NEED TO PUT ON THE AGENDA TO TALK ABOUT THAT. 
          'CAUSE WE, THE WORK GROUP MET. 
          SO WE DID. 
          PERFECT. 
          AWESOME. 
          THAT WILL BE ON FOR THE NEXT, WE DID THE WORK GROUP. 
          THREE OF US DID. 
          NO, THAT'S GOOD. 
          BUT WE DIDN'T ACCOMPLISH MUCH. 
          SO IF THAT'S ANY CONSOLATION, IF THAT'S IT. 
          START TO START MA'AM. 
          INFORMATION ON, UH, SO YEAH, LANE, YOU CAUGHT THAT RIGHT. 
          FUTURE AGENDA. 
          MINE GET THE WORKING GROUP ON THE AGENDA. 
          WE CAN MEET AGAIN. 
          AGENDA FOR NEXT TIME. 
          OKAY. 
          SUPER. 
          ANY OTHER FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS? OKAY, ANNOUNCEMENTS. 
          [ANNOUNCEMENTS]
AM I THE ONLY ONE? OKAY. 
          I HAVE AN ANNOUNCEMENT. 
          I WILL BE STEPPING DOWN AS CHAIR OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AFTER THE APRIL MEETING, UH, TO TAKE OVER MY POSITION AS THE NEW TRAVIS COUNTY DEMOCRATIC 
          [04:40:01]
PARTY CHAIR. 
          UM, UNFORTUNATELY CONGRATULATIONS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          I LOVE THIS SO MUCH. 
          WELL, WE MUCH, AND I DON'T WANNA STOP, BUT I JUST, I DON'T HAVE THE BANDWIDTH FOR IT. 
          I HAVE TO FOCUS ON THE NEW JOB, BUT I PLAN ON TRYING TO STAY ON THE BOARD IF POSSIBLE SO THAT MY COUNCILMAN DOESN'T HAVE AN EMPTY SEAT FOR THE NEXT SIX MONTHS TRYING TO FIND SOMEONE ELSE. 
          UH, MADAM CHAIR, WILL YOU BE POSTING A ELECTION FOR THEIR NOMINATION OR ELECTIONS FOR THE UH, SO YES. 
          AND, AND THAT, THAT'S WHY I WANTED TO PUT IT ON Y'ALL. 
          IT'S RADAR. 
          UH, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE, OR WHAT DID, DID WE EVER FIND OUT WHEN THE, IS IT APRIL? WHAT IS OUR ELECTIONS? I CAN'T SEE. 
          I WANNA SAY IT'S APRIL, RIGHT? IS IT MARCH OR APRIL? IS IT MARCH? AND WE ALWAYS MISS IT AND END UP DOING IT IN APRIL. 
          IT VERY WELL MAY BE APRIL, MARCH. 
          ROLL, ROLL, ROLL. 
          I DON'T WANT RULES. 
          I WANT BYLAWS. 
          UH, THERE WE GO. 
          BYLAWS, BYLAWS. 
          BYLAWS. 
          AH, UH, YEP. 
          IT WOULD BE MARCH. 
          UM, AND I'VE MISSED IT FOUR YEARS NOW AND WE'VE ALWAYS DONE IT IN APRIL AND IT WAS BECAUSE THE CHAIR I REPLACED LEFT IN APRIL BECAUSE HE RETIRED EARLY. 
          I AM SO SORRY. 
          THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ON THIS AGENDA. 
          UH, YEAH, WE'LL BE VOTING ON THAT NEXT MONTH. 
          SO THAT IS GOING TO BE FUTURE AGENDA ITEM. 
          I'LL GET WITH THAT. 
          ELAINE. 
          SO WE'VE GOT THE WORKING GROUP AT WORKING GROUP EXECUTIVE SESSION, UH, OFFICER VOTE AND THIS WILL APPLY TO ALL OFFICERS, JUST FYI, VICE CHAIR TWO, AND THEN THE CHANGE THE RULES OF PROCEDURE. 
          OKAY. 
          THAT IS IT. 
          THE TIME IS 10:46 PM THANK YOU EVERYBODY. 
          GREAT JOB. 
          HAVE A WONDERFUL EVENING. 
          THANK YOU YOUNG JUKE.
* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.