* 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. [CALL TO ORDER] [00:00:06] COMMISSION TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 15TH AT CITY AUSTIN CITY HALL. IT IS 6:02 PM I CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER. UM, AND I WILL TAKE ATTENDANCE FIRST. UH, CHAIR SMITH IS ABSENT. I AM BETSY GREENBERG AND I AM PRESENT. COMMISSIONER ZUKI PRESENT. COMMISSIONER FLORES PRESENT. COMMISSIONER OLUGO? NO, YOU HAVE TO SAY IT PRESENT. GOOD JOB. COMMISSIONER BOONE. PRESENT. COMMISSIONER FOUTS. PRESENT. COMMISSIONER STERN HERE. COMMISSIONER CORTEZ PRESENT. COMMISSIONER CHOPE. MAYBE HE'LL COME A LITTLE BIT LATER. AND COMMISSIONER MAJOR HERE. OKAY, SO WE'LL START WITH PUBLIC COMMUNICATION. IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMUNICATION? NO. CHAIR. OKAY, THANK YOU. UM, AND THEN I'LL GO OVER THE [Consent Agenda] CONSENT AGENDA. NUMBER ONE IS TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE ZONING AND PLATTING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER ONE. WERE THERE ANY COMMENTS ABOUT THOSE MEETING MINUTES? OKAY, NUMBER TWO [PUBLIC HEARINGS ] IS C 14 20 26 0 4 6 HOWARD PLAZA, DISTRICT ONE. UM, THE LOCATION IS 31 27 EAST HOWARD LANE AND THE REQUEST IS WLO TO GR AND I BELIEVE THAT IS A DISCUSSION. ITEM NUMBER THREE IS REZONING C 14 20 26 0 0 2 2 1 2 9 0 0 NORTH US 180 3. THE REQUEST IS GR TO C-S-V-C-O AND THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED AN INDEFINITE POSTPONEMENT. NUMBER FOUR IS SPC 20 24 0 3 9 3 C. UM, THE GOOD SHEPHERD ANGLICAN CHURCH OF AUSTIN. AND THE REQUEST IS FOR, UH, SITE PLAN WITH A HEIGHT OVER 25 FEET IN THE WLO ZONE. SO THERE'S THAT. AND THEN THE PHASE SITE PLAN DURATION OF MORE THAN THREE YEARS. THIS IS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. AND THEN THE FINAL CASE IS SP 20 21 0 2 1 2 C EXTENSION TWO, RIDDLE HOMESTEAD NORTH DISTRICT FIVE. THEY'RE ASKING FOR A THREE YEAR SITE PLAN EXTENSION. SO THE CONSENT AGENDA IS THE MINUTES ITEM THREE, FOUR, AND FIVE, WHERE ITEM TWO WILL BE A DISCUSSION CASE. IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA CHAIR BEFORE WE PROCEED? WE DO HAVE A COUPLE SPEAKERS FOR THAT ARE SIGNED UP ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. OH, THANK YOU. BEGINNING WITH ITEM FOUR, THIS ITEM IS BEING OFFERED FOR CONSENT. WE'LL BE HEARING FROM THE APPLICANT JEN HENDERSON. JEN WILL BE JOINING US VIRTUALLY. JEN, YOU'LL HAVE SIX MINUTES. GOOD EVENING, UM, COMMISSIONERS, MY NAME IS JEN HENDERSON. I'M THE APPLICANT ON THIS, UM, ITEM. I JUST WANTED TO LET YOU GUYS KNOW THAT I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE AND, UM, TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE TWO ITEMS THAT WE'D LIKE TO REQUEST. UM, THE SITE PLAN FOR THE HEIGHT, UM, I I JUST WANT YOU TO BE AWARE THAT FERGUSON LANE SITS ABOUT FIVE FEET ABOVE THE, WHERE THE FOUNDATION WOULD BE ON THE SITE. AND SO NO MATTER WHAT, A DRIVER IS GONNA BE LOOKING DOWN. AND SO WE FEEL LIKE GETTING THE HEIGHT, UM, APPROVED WOULD HELP DRIVERS KNOW THAT THAT'S WHERE THE CHURCH IS. UM, SO THAT'S, THAT'S ONE THING. AND THEN WE WERE ACTUALLY ASKING FOR SEVEN YEARS IN ADDITION TO THE THREE YEARS. SO FOR A TOTAL OF 10 YEARS. UM, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT CLARIFICATION TO MAKE SURE WE WERE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE ABOUT WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR. UM, HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU GUYS MAY HAVE ON THAT. THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE SPEAKER? I, I THINK MORE CLARIFICATION. I DON'T THINK WE'RE APPROVING SEVEN YEARS. I THINK WE CAN ONLY APPROVE THE THREE YEARS, I BELIEVE, OR IS A, WAS A REQUEST FOR SEVEN YEARS. [00:05:02] WELL, NOT THE REQUEST, BUT LIKE ARE WE ABLE TO APPROVE FOR SEVEN YEARS EXTENSION? WELL, THEY JUST WANT A TOTAL OF 10 YEARS INSTEAD OF THE NORMAL THREE YEARS. SO IS THAT A LEGAL THING FOR US TO DO? IS RANDALL AROUND? UM, SO HE AND I HAVE TALKED ABOUT THIS TODAY. HE SAID HE WAS SUPPORTIVE OF THE SEVEN YEARS. HE MISSED IT IN HIS REPORT AND THAT, UM, IF WE COULD ASK FOR THAT SEVEN YEARS. YES, WE HAVE RANDALL ONLINE. THANK YOU. SO IS THERE ANY LIMIT TO HOW MANY YEARS WE'RE ALLOWED TO I DON'T THINK THERE'S A LIMIT. I THINK THAT THERE, UM, THAT IT NEEDS TO BE SPECIFIED IN THE SITE PLAN, UH, WHEN EACH PHASE WILL BEGIN AND END. BUT I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THERE'S A LIMIT EACH PHASE. SO IS THAT IN THE SITE PLAN, THE NUMBER OF YEARS FOR EACH PHASE? MY APOLOGIES ALL. UM, YES. IT TOOK ME A MOMENT TO UN UNMUTE. THIS IS RANDALL RUDA WITH SITE PLAN REVIEW AND THE CASE MANAGER FOR THIS PROJECT. UH, YES, AS A PHASE SITE PLAN, THIS ONE IS AVAILABLE FOR AN EXTENSION OF, OF TIME AT THE, UH, AT THE OPTION OF THE, OF THE, THE APPROPRIATE LAND USE COMMISSION. UM, THEY'RE PROPOSING A TWO PHASE PLAN. PHASE ONE WOULD BE ESSENTIALLY THE FLAT WORK AND THE END UTILITIES, WHICH THEY'RE PROPOSING TO COMPLETE IN THE FIRST THREE YEARS. AND MY APOLOGIES FOR THE MISUNDERSTANDING. THAT WAS, THAT WAS MY, MY ERROR IN PREPARING THE, THE STAFF REPORT. SO THEY WERE ASKING FOR A TO FOR SEVEN YEARS TO COMPLETE PHASE TWO, WHICH IS THE VERTICAL CONSTRUCTION TO A TOTAL OF 10 YEARS FOR THE TWO PHASE PROJECT. AND THAT IS WITH WITHIN YOUR, YOUR ABILITY TO GRANT THAT THIS EVENING IF YOU CHOOSE. AND THAT WAY THEY WON'T HAVE TO COME BACK IN THREE YEARS AND ASK FOR ANOTHER EXTENSION OR A FIRST EXTENSION. ALSO CORRECT THOUGH THOSE ADMINISTRATIVE AND UM, FURTHER EXTENSIONS ARE AVAILABLE TO THEM AT THE END OF THEIR 10 YEARS IF THEY, IF IF NEEDED, JUST, UM, FOR CLARIFICATION, ARE THESE CONSECUTIVE 10 YEARS OR IS IT THREE YEARS AND THE SEVEN YEARS STARTING AT THE SAME TIME? SO IS IT A A SEVEN YEAR SPAN TOTAL OR A 10 YEAR SPAN TOTAL? AND THAT WAS MY ERROR FOR NOT GETTING THIS CLEAR IN THE STAFF REPORT. IT IS A 10 YEAR TOTAL. THREE YEARS THEN SEVEN. OKAY. THANK YOU. AND WE JUST HEARD FROM LAW, THEY JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT THE POSTING FOR THIS ITEM IS FOR A THREE YEAR EXTENSION. SO WE WOULD NEED TO AMEND IT OR WE COULD GIVE YOU THREE YEARS PLUS A THREE YEAR EXTENSION AND THEN YOU CAN COME BACK AND SEE US IN SIX YEARS. , CAN WE JUST UPDATE IT TO, I DON'T THINK WE CAN DO MORE THAN WHAT'S POSTED. CORRECT. THE LAW DEPARTMENT IS, IS SUGGESTING THAT WE POSTPONE THIS ITEM AND REVISE THE POSTING LANGUAGE. OKAY. SO WOULD YOU PREFER WE APPROVE IT FOR SIX YEARS OR POSTPONE? WHERE'S OUR APPLICANT? MAN? UM, I'M, GIVE ME JUST A MOMENT. I'M THINKING ABOUT THAT. UM, YOU KNOW, MY, MY PREFERENCE IS TO GET SOMETHING APPROVED TONIGHT. AND SO IF IT'S, IF IT'S THREE YEARS FOR A TOTAL OF SIX, THEN THEN WE COULD COME BACK IN SIX YEARS. UM, THE BIGGER ISSUE HERE IS THE HEIGHT. SO WE, WE REALLY NEED TO GET THROUGH THAT. AND SO I, I THINK IF YOU APPROVED THREE YEARS, UM, FOR A TOTALISTIC, THEN WE COULD COME BACK IN SIX YEARS IF, IF THE MONEY ISN'T COLLECTED. SO THE REASON FOR ASKING FOR THAT LONG IS SO THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN PASS AROUND THE PLATE AS IF THE, UM, CHURCH SERVICE AND GATHER THE MONEY TO DO THE VERTICAL CONSTRUCTION. SO HOW LONG WILL THAT TAKE? REALLY DEPENDS ON HOW MANY PARISHIONERS THEY HAVE, WHICH IS A HUGE UNKNOWN. AND SO, YOU KNOW, MAYBE HAVING THAT SIX YEARS WOULD BE GOOD. AND THEN THAT'LL GIVE THEM A DEADLINE AND WE CAN ALWAYS COME BACK IN SIX YEARS AND ASK FOR THREE OR FOUR MORE. AND THE FIRST EXTENSION IS ADMINISTRATIVE ANYWAY. OH, THAT, THAT'S GOOD TO KNOW. IS THAT TRUE? AM I CORRECT ON THAT OR IS THIS ONE THAT'S CORRECT. YEAH, ONE BUT IT BUT IT'S NOT A THREE YEAR EXTENSION. IT'S JUST A ONE YEAR ADMINISTRATIVE EXTENSION. WELL MAYBE FUNDRAISING WILL GO WELL. UM, AND WHEN IT SAYS SITE PLAN WITH HEIGHT OVER 25 FEET, IS THAT SPECIFIED TO UP TO A CERTAIN HEIGHT? IT, THE PROPOSED WAS 29. [00:10:01] GO AHEAD. SORRY. THE, THE PROPOSAL IS IN IS AS DESCRIBED IN THE SITE PLAN, WHICH JUST 29 FEET IN ONE INCH GIVEN THE WAY WE MEASURE, UM, HEIGHT, WHICH IS A LITTLE ARCANE, BUT 29 FEET ONE INCH. OKAY. AND THAT'S AN AVERAGE, RIGHT? BECAUSE SOMETIMES THEY'RE NOT EVEN, OKAY, SO THAT'S THE SITE NUMBER FOUR. AND IS THERE, ARE THERE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS? YES, WE HAVE ONE SPEAKER ON ITEM FIVE. AARON TRIVIO. THIS ITEM IS BEING OFFERED FOR CONSENT. AARON, YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES. THE SPEAKER HAS WAIVED HIS RIGHT TO SPEAK AND SO THAT CONCLUDES THE SPEAKER'S ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. OKAY, THANK YOU. SO TO CLARIFY, THE, THE CONSENT AGENDA ON NUMBER FOUR IS A, THE NORMAL THREE YEARS PLUS THREE ADDITIONAL YEARS. UM, FOR THAT, UH, PHASE SITE PLAN DURATION, IT SAYS MORE THAN THREE YEARS, BUT JUST THREE YEARS PLUS THREE ADDITIONAL YEARS TO CLARIFY. OKAY. NOW SHOULD WE ASK, I'LL ASK IF THERE'S A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. UH, I MOVE TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS AMENDED. SO COMMISSIONER ZUKI, WAS THERE A COMMENT FROM STAFF SECOND. MS. SUEDES SECOND. OH, WHO DID SECOND FLORES? ME. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER FLORES. SECONDS THIS ANY DISCUSSION? OKAY, ALL IN FAVOR OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. THAT LOOKS UNANIMOUS, BUT WHO IS? OH, RANDALL. OKAY. ALL RIGHT, SO THAT'S UNANIMOUS. AND NOW WE ARE READY FOR ITEM NUMBER TWO. GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. SHERRY TIS WITH THE AUSTIN PLANNING DEPARTMENT. THIS IS CASE C 14 20 26 46, WHICH IS HOWARD PLAZA LOCATED AT 3 1 2 7 EAST HOWARD LANE. THE REQUEST IS FROM WLO TO GR. THIS STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS FOR GRCO, WHICH IS COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL CONDITIONAL OVERLAY. COMBINING DISTRICT ZONING, THE PROPOSED CONDITIONAL OVERLAY WILL PROHIBIT THE FOLLOWING USES ON THE PROPERTY. AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR SERVICES, AUTOMOTIVE SALES, AUTOMOTIVE WASHING BAIL BOND SERVICES, CLUB OR LODGE, COMMERCIAL OFF STREET PARKING DROP OFFER, CYCLING COLLECTION FACILITY, EXTERMINATING SERVICES, FUNERAL SERVICES, HOTEL AND MOTEL, OFFSITE ACCESSORY PARKING, OUTDOOR ENTERTAINMENT, OUTDOOR SPORTS AND RECREATION PAWN SHOP SERVICES AND SERVICE STATION. SO THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION IS AN 8.37 ACRE TRACK THAT RUNS ONTO EAST HOWARD LANE. THIS LOT WAS ANNEXED BY THE CITY OF AUSTIN IS DECEMBER 31ST, 2007 AND RECEIVED WLO ZONING IN 2 20 17 THROUGH KC 14 2016 0 1 1 9. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A REZONING AT THIS TIME TO GR TO ALLOW FOR OFFICE RELIGIOUS ASSEMBLY, INDOOR ENTERTAINMENT, AND INDOOR SPORTS AND RECREATION USES ON THE PROPERTY. THE STAFF IS RECOMMENDING GRCO COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL COMBINING DISTRICT ZONING FOR THE SITE. THE PROPOSED GRCO ZONING WILL ALLOW FOR OFFICE, CIVIC AND COMMERCIAL USES ON ATTRACTIVE LAND THAT FRONTS ONTO AN ARTERIO ROADWAY, WHICH IS EAST HOWARD LANE. THE PROPOSED ZONING WILL PROVIDE A TRANSITION ACROSS HOWARD LANE TO THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USES TO THE NORTH IN THE CAN RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD AND TO THE EAST IN THE MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL AREA, WHICH IS KNOWN AS EAST VILLAGE IN THE PIONEER CROSSING PUD. THE PROPOSED GR ZONING, CO ZONING WOULD ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO DEVELOP A MIXTURE OF USES THAT WILL PROVIDE SERVICES TO THE ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS AND THE COMMUNITY AT LARGE. AND I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE. I THE APPLICANT HERE TO SPEAK NOT SEEING THE APPLICANT. WE'RE GONNA MOVE FORWARD TO OUR SPEAKER IN OPPOSITION. NICHOLAS GRAHAM. NICHOLAS, YOU'LL HAVE SIX MINUTES. [00:15:07] ALL RIGHT, GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS NICK GRAHAM AND I LIVE ON DRIVE THAT'S, UH, THE EAST VILLAGE, UM, PUD DIRECTLY TO THE EAST. AND MY PROPERTY LINE ADJOINS THE TRACK THAT IS IN FRONT OF YOU TONIGHT FOR REZONING. SO TONIGHT I'M ACTUALLY GONNA ASK YOU TO CONSIDER ONE OF THREE ACTIONS ON THIS REZONING. THE FIRST IS TO SIMPLY MAINTAIN WHERE HOUSE LIGHT OFFICE IS THE APPROPRIATE INTENSITY ZONING FOR THIS TRACK AS THE COMMISSION DID IN 2017. THE SECOND WOULD BE IF YOU DO GO WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION AND APPROVE GRCO REZONING DO SO AFTER UPDATING THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY TO ADD THREE ADDITIONAL PROHIBITED USE CASES, WHICH I'LL DISCUSS HERE SHORTLY. UH, AND THAT WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH, UM, THE LOGIC THAT STAFF IS ALREADY RECOMMENDING. AND THEN THE THIRD WOULD BE IF IT'S NOT POSSIBLE TO UPDATE THE CO TONIGHT DELAY BY ANOTHER 30 DAYS SO THAT THE OPTIONS THAT I'LL OUTLINE IN NUMBER TWO CAN BE APPROPRIATELY CONSIDERED. ALL RIGHT, SO IF YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THE PICTURE HERE, THE TRACK THAT YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU TODAY IS ONE THAT THE CITY'S OWN DOCUMENTS DESCRIBED IN PRIOR REZONING AND SITE PLAN EVALUATIONS AS QUOTE UNUSUALLY NARROW AND SHARES ITS WHOLE REAR BOUNDARY WITH OCCUPIED HOMES END QUOTE AND WAS APPROVED SPECIFICALLY AS A LOWER INTENSITY BUFFER FOR THOSE HOMES. AND THE QUESTION IS, SHOULD IT GET AN ENTITLING CLASS BUILT FOR RETAIL VISIBILITY, COMMUNITY SCALE TRAFFIC HEAVY USE ON NIGHTS AND WEEKENDS AND MAJOR ROAD ACCESS? SO IF YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THE SHAPE OF IT, IT'S A LONG NARROW TRACK. WHOSE ENTIRE EASTERN EDGE IS A WALL OF HOMES? HALS STAT DRIVE, JADE OASIS, AND THEN THE CURRENTLY UNDER DEVELOPMENT ARTISAN COVE AND A FUTURE APARTMENT, UH, COMPLEX COMING ON LOT TWO, THE CITY ALREADY SET THE INTENSITY HERE. IN 2017, THE APPLICANT ASKED FOR INDUSTRIAL AND STAFF AND THE COMMISSION SET WAREHOUSE, LIGHT OFFICE AS THE APPROPRIATE CEILING, SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE OF THESE HOMES. SINCE THEN, THE SITE PLAN HAS CREPT UP GRADUALLY TO WAREHOUSES, THEN A REC CENTER, THEN A THIRD WAREHOUSE, AND AN OUTDOOR PAVILION. SO THE GR REZONING BEFORE YOU TODAY IS A DIFFERENT ANIMAL WAREHOUSE. LIGHT OFFICE IS PRIMARILY DAYTIME TRAFFIC, GRADUAL AND WITHOUT ANY AMPLIFIED SOUND OR NOISE. GR PERMITS USES WHOSE PEAK IS NIGHTS AND WEEKENDS, THE EXACT HOURS THAT RESIDENTS ARE HOME. AND THERE'S NO TRAFFIC ANALYSIS IN THIS RECORD FOR GR SCALE INTENSITY. ALL RIGHT, SO IF YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THIS IMAGE, IT SHOWS BUILDING FOUR. AND THIS IS ACTUALLY THE BUILDING THAT CONCERNS ME MOST. UH, IT'S THE ONE CLOSEST TO MY HOME ABOUT 160 FEET FROM MY PROPERTY LINE. AND IT HAS AN ADJOINING OUTDOOR PAVILION THAT'S NOT VISIBLE IN THIS IMAGE HERE ON THE LATEST SITE PLAN. UNDER WLO ZONING, THIS BUILDING WAS APPROVED SPECIFICALLY AS A LOW INTENSITY BUFFER FOR THE HOMES TO THE EAST. IT WAS TO BE A DAYCARE CENTER AND PRIVATE RECREATION CENTER. ACCORDING TO THE APPLICANT, IT'S NOW IN PLAY FOR THE HIGHEST INTENSITY, USE A WEDDING EVENT VENUE. THE STAFF RECOMMENDED CONDITIONAL OVERLAY RECOMMENDS PROHIBITING 15 USES INCLUDING OUTDOOR ENTERTAINMENT AND CLUB AND LODGE BECAUSE THESE ARE ASSEMBLY STYLE USES THAT INVOLVE ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION AND GENERATE SUBSTANTIAL CONCENTRATED NOISE AND TRAFFIC ON NIGHTS AND WEEKENDS. EXACTLY THE TYPE OF NUISANCE TO THE ADJACENT HOMEOWNERS. THE WAREHOUSE LIGHT OFF IS SONY WAS DESIGNED TO PREVENT AND NOTICE WHAT THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY REACHES AND WHAT IT DOESN'T. IT PROHIBITS OUTDOOR ENTERTAINMENT, BUT IT'S SILENT ON INDOOR ASSEMBLY USES WHOSE AMPLIFIED SOUND ARRIVALS, DEPARTURES AND PARKING LOT ACTIVITY LAND AT THE PROPERTY LINE, WHETHER OR NOT THE EVENT IS INDOORS OR NOT. SO THE SITE PLAN WAS EVEN APPROVED NOTING, UH, SPECIFICALLY NO PROVISION FOR OUT OUTDOOR AMPLIFIED SOUND. AND THE PAVILION SITS RIGHT BEHIND BUILDING FOUR. SO AGAIN, HERE'S THE THREE ASKS THAT I HAVE TONIGHT. UM, THE QUESTION ISN'T ONLY WHAT THE APPLICANT PLANS, IT'S WHAT GRCO AS RECOMMENDED STILL ALLOWS FOR HIM AND FOR EVERY OWNER AFTER HIM. SO AGAIN, I'M ASKING YOU TO CONSIDER ONE OF THREE PATHS, ALL OF WHICH WOULD I THINK APPROPRIATELY HOLD THE CEILING ON INTENSITY FOR THIS LOT. THE FIRST WOULD BE TO SIMPLY MAINTAIN WAREHOUSE LIGHT OFFICE JUST LIKE THE CITY DID IN 2017. THE SECOND AND MY PRIMARY ASK WOULD BE TO APPROVE GR BUT TO STRENGTHEN THE OVERLAY IN LINE WITH STAFF'S LOGIC IN PROHIBITING CLUB LODGE AND OUTDOOR ENTERTAINMENT. ALSO PROHIBIT THEATER, INDOOR ENTERTAINMENT AND RESTAURANT GENERAL AS SIMILAR, UH, USE CASES AND THEN ALSO HOLD THE WAREHOUSE LIGHT OFF AS HEIGHT STANDOFF AND IMPERVIOUS COVER STANDARDS. AND IN MY CORRESPONDENCE WITH STAFF, THEY ASK THAT I, UH, REQUEST THIS SPECIFICALLY TONIGHT. AND THEN THIRD, IF IT'S NOT POSSIBLE TO RESOLVE THIS TONIGHT, THEN SIMPLY POSTPONE BY 30 DAYS. SO, UH, IT CAN BE RESOLVED. SO [00:20:01] I'M GONNA CLOSE ACTUALLY BY CITING THE APPLICANT'S OWN LETTER SENT TO THE CITY LAST THURSDAY ON SEPTEMBER 10TH. IN THAT LETTER, HE CONFIRMS THAT BUILDING FOUR, THE BUILDING ORIGINALLY MEANT TO BE THE BUFFER, IS ACTUALLY ON THE TABLE FOR A WEDDING AND EVENT VENUE, WHICH IS THE MOST INTENSE USE ON THE SITE AND WHERE THE SITE PLAN WAS APPROVED WITH NO OUTDOOR AMPLIFIED SOUND. HIS LETTER NOW EXPRESSLY PUTS OUTDOOR AMPLIFIED SOUND ON THE TABLE. SO IF THIS REZONING PROCEEDS WITHOUT AN APPROPRIATE CO E, THIS IS LIKELY TO TURN INTO A PREDICTABLE, FRUSTRATING, ONGOING NUISANCE BATTLE BETWEEN RES RESIDENTS AND HOWARD PLAZA. WHILE THE APPLICANT IS OFFERED SOME CONCESSIONS, WHICH I APPRECIATE, NONE OF THOSE ARE CODIFIED IN A LEGALLY BINDING DOCUMENT YET THAT SHOULD BE FINALIZED BEFORE REZONING IS APPROVED, NOT AFTER. SO THE APPLICANT'S OWN WORDS, IN FACT HIGHLIGHT WHY IT'S IMPORTANT TO SET THE TERMS CLEARLY NOW WHILE IT'S STILL A ZONING DECISION. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS CHAIR. THAT CONCLUDES THE SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM. OKAY. DID THE APPLICANT APPEAR? NO, WE DID NOT RECEIVE A SIGNUP FROM THE APPLICANT AND IT DOES NOT LOOK LIKE THEY'RE ONLINE. WELL THAT'S INTERESTING. OKAY. UM, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS OF THE STAFF OR THE SPEAKER? NO QUESTIONS. I MEAN I GUESS I WOULD HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT, BUT SINCE THEY'RE NOT HERE I'M MORE HESITANT TO ASK THE QUESTIONS EITHER, AT LEAST POSTPONE. UM, BUT YEAH, THAT'S ME. UM, I THINK I WOULD ASK THE SPEAKER, TELL ME YOUR NAME AGAIN. UH, MY NAME IS NICK. NICK GRAHAM. OH YEAH, NICK GRAHAM. UM, IS THE OUTDOOR, UM, PAVILION BUILT? UH, YES. IT'S ALREADY ALREADY CONSTRUCTED. AND WHAT IS IT CURRENTLY BEING USED FOR? UH, IT'S CURRENTLY NOT IN USE FOR ANYTHING. UH, THE CONSTRUCTION WAS COMPLETED PROBABLY EARLIER THIS YEAR. UM, THERE'S STILL A LOT OF THE SHELLS OF THE THREE WAREHOUSES AND BUILDING FOUR, WHICH WAS ORIGINALLY GONNA BE THE RECREATION CENTER ARE COMPLETED. BUT IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S STILL A LOT OF KIND OF INDOOR WORK TO BE DONE BEFORE THEY'RE USABLE. SO THERE WAS APPROVAL FOR A DAYCARE. WAS IS THERE A DAYCARE ON THE SITE? UH, THERE'S CURRENTLY NO, UH, COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY ON THE SITE. LIKE I SAID, I THINK CONSTRUCTION IS STILL, UH, FOR THE INTERNAL PART OF THE BUILDING STILL, STILL ONGOING. OKAY. I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF. SO THERE WAS A, UM, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE DAYCARE, WHICH ALSO INCLUDED UM, ADJUSTED SETBACK OR ALLOWING THEM TO HAVE A DRIVEWAY IN THE SETBACK. IF THERE'S NO DAYCARE, DO THEY STILL GET THAT ADJUSTED SETBACK? NO, THAT WOULD BE A CONDITION OF THE CONDITIONAL USE. OKAY, SO THAT'S, SO IF THEY'RE NOT UTILIZING THAT USE THEN YES, NO, THAT WOULD SO THAT THAT UM, ADJUSTMENT ISN'T HAPPENING. UM, YEAH, I WISH WE COULD GET AN ANSWER TO WHAT IS THAT OUTDOOR PAVILION FOR, BUT WITHOUT THE APPLICANT HERE. YES, I'M VERY CONCERNED THAT THE OUTDOOR PAVILION IS THE WEDDING SPACE. YEAH, THAT, THAT'S MY CONCERN IS THAT BUILDING FOUR, UH, THE APPLICANT HAS SAID THAT THAT IS IN CONSIDERATION FOR THE WEDDING EVENT VENUE. HE NEVER EXPRESSLY SAID THAT IS THE BUILDING FOR IT, BUT IT HAS THE ADJOINING OUTDOOR PAVILION WHICH WOULD, YOU KNOW, LIKELY BE AN ACCESSORY TO THAT. AND IF INDOOR ENTER ENTERTAINMENT IS APPROVED AS A USE, AS I UNDERSTAND OUTDOOR AMPLIFIED SOUND COULD BE APPROVED AS AN ACCESSORY USE TO THAT UH, TO THAT USE CASE. YEAH, AND LET ME STATE THAT OUTDOOR AMPLIFIED SOUND IS NOT A USE IN THE CODE THAT IS CONTROLLED BY CHAPTER, NOT CHAPTER NINE. RIGHT. WHICH IS SOUND OF THE CODE. UM, AND SO THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT OBVIOUSLY WOULD BE LOOKED AT AT THE TIME OF SITE PLAN, BUT IT'S NOT A USE THAT WE CAN PERMIT OR MAKE CONDITIONAL OR PROHIBIT BECAUSE IT'S NOT A USE . SO IT'S, YOU KNOW, A WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU HAVE A USE ON THE PROPERTY SUCH AS OUTDOOR ENTERTAINMENT, WHICH OUTDOOR ENTERTAINMENT OBVIOUSLY THE STAFF IS RECOMMENDING PROHIBITING THAT USE THAT WOULD BE CONDITIONAL IN GR ANYWAY SO RIGHT. BUT IF WE PROHIBITED IT'S PROHIBITED. YES. IF IT'S PROHIBITED, THEN YES IT'S PROHIBITED. BUT I THINK THE QUESTION NOW IS THEN ABOUT INDOOR ENTERTAINMENT, WHICH IS WHAT THE PRIMARY USE OF ONE OF THE REASONS HE'S SEEKING THE CHANGE TO GR UM, SO IT WOULD BE, IF WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE INDOOR ENTERTAINMENT USE, ANOTHER OPTION MIGHT BE TO MAKE IT A CONDITIONAL USE WHERE THAT SITE PLAN HAS TO COME BACK BEFORE YOU, BUT THEN AGAIN [00:25:01] THERE'S NO GUARANTEE THAT IT WON'T SPILL OUT, YOU KNOW, INTO THE PAVILION AND THERE'S NO WAY TO CONTROL THAT UNLESS THE NEIGHBORS THEN REPORT IT TO 3 1 1 IF THERE ARE ISSUES IN THE FUTURE AND CODE LOOKS AT IT AND MY EXPERIENCE IS THE CODE DOESN'T DO ANYTHING UNLESS IT'S AN OUTDOOR MUSIC VENUE. AND THE POLICE HAVE TOLD, AT LEAST IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD, THAT SOUND COMPLAINTS ARE THEIR ABSOLUTE LOWEST PRIORITY. YES. SO, UM, SOUND IS IS OBVIOUSLY A CONCERN. IT WAS UNCLEAR TO ME WHETHER IT WAS THE PAVILION WAS 6,000 SQUARE FEET OR 7,200 SQUARE FEET. SO ACCORDING TO THE SITE PLAN IT WAS 6,000, BUT THEN ACCORDING TO THE ZONING APPLICATION IT WAS 7,200. SO THAT'S WHY I STATED THAT. RIGHT. SO IT IT'S SOMETHING UM, AND LIKE I LOOKED UP, IF YOU WANNA TRUST AI , RIGHT? A 7,200 SQUARE FOOT PAVILION CONCEIT 480 TO 600 PEOPLE AT BANQUET TABLES, EVEN IF THERE'S NO AMPLIFIED SOUND, 480 PEOPLE HAVING DINNER IS NOT A QUIET ACTIVITY TO LIVE NEXT DOOR TO. AND IF IT'S IN A THEATER ROW SORT OF SET UP LIKE IT MIGHT BE, IF IT IS THE WEDDING VENUE, UM, IT COULD BE EVEN A THOUSAND PEOPLE IN THAT SORT OF CONFIGURATION. SO THE ONE THING THAT YOU NICK, UM, DID NOT MENTION, BUT I WONDER THIS IS ALSO AN EX G GOING UP TO GR IS AN EXTENSIVE INCREASE IN ALLOWABLE HEIGHT. YES, HE DID. YOU MENTIONED IT. YEAH. DID YOU MENTION THAT? YES MAAM. THAT HE WOULD PREFER WLO SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, LOS SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. MM-HMM . YES MA'AM. BUT I WILL STATE THAT THE HOMES THAT ARE IN TRACK ARE PARCEL RA 15, WHICH IS WHERE YOU ALL LIVE IN PIONEER CROSSING. THE HEIGHT LIMIT FOR THOSE IS 35 FEET. I CHECKED PIONEER CROSSING PUD EARLIER TODAY. I SEE. WOULD, WOULD THE APPLICANT HAVE TO COME BACK FOR A SITE PLAN OR WOULD THAT SINCE IT'S ALREADY CONSTRUCTED OR WOULD THAT JUST BE PART OF LIKE A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY? SO IF YOU WERE TO MAKE SAY INDOOR ENTERTAINMENT A CONDITIONAL USE, THEY WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO GET THEIR CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY TO UTILIZE THE EXISTING STRUCTURE FOR THAT USE. AND THAT WOULD COME BACK BEFORE YOU AS THE COMMISSION AND WOULD BE A PUBLIC HEARING AS WELL. AND THE ONE THING ABOUT CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS IS THEY CAN HAVE OUR OPERATION LIMITS ON 'EM. THEY CAN HAVE OTHER IN INCREASED REQUIREMENTS THAT CAN BE PLACED ON THEM THROUGH THE PERMIT PROCESS, WHICH IS PART OF THE SITE PLAN. BUT YES, TO GET A COO, DON'T THINK SINCE THE APPLICANT IS NOT HERE, I WOULD, I WOULD NOT. AND BECAUSE THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THAT WE SEE THIS SPECIFIC CASE, I WOULD NOT FEEL COMFORTABLE JUST REJECTING IT JUST BECAUSE I KNOW HOW MUCH IT COSTS TO GET TO THIS STAGE OF A SITE PLAN. UM, THIS IS A ZONING CASE, NOT A SITE PLAN. YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. THIS IS NOT A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. NOT NOW. YEAH. I MEAN, BUT WE COULD POSTPONE GIVE HIM A CHANCE TO IS THAT A MOTION? YEAH, I'LL MAKE IT A MOTION TO POSTPONE THIS CASE FOR TILL YOU ASKED FOR 30 DAYS. 30 DAYS. IS IT, DO YOU WANNA DO 30 DAYS OR TWO WEEKS? HOW DO WE WANNA DO THIS? TWO MEETINGS. SO THE FIRST, WHAT IS THIS THE SECOND MEETING IN OCTOBER? YES. IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING, COMMISSIONER FLORES? YEAH, SECOND. OKAY. IS THERE A SECOND FOR POSTPONEMENT TO MR. MAJOR? YES, MAJOR SECONDED. OKAY. IS THERE ANY, AND JUST JUST TO CONFIRM FOR THE RECORD, THAT WILL BE OCTOBER 20TH. OCTOBER 20TH. MM-HMM . SO THIS IS YOUR THIRD CHOICE, BUT , UM, IT'S OKAY. I THINK WE CAN, IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT POSTPONING TO OCTOBER 20TH? UH, I'M, UM, I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE URGENCY FOR POSTPONEMENT IS. IT'S BEEN VERY UNCLEAR TO ME WHY WE WOULDN'T PROCEED AS IS. WHAT WAS THE REASON FOR THE INITIAL POSTPONEMENT? COMMISSIONER CORTEZ, CAN YOU PLEASE TURN YOUR CAMERA ON? [00:30:03] I SAID, UH, WHAT WAS THE, UM, REASON FOR THE INITIAL POSTPONEMENT ON FROM AUGUST 4TH? THE INITIAL POSTPONEMENT WAS REQUEST BY THE NEIGHBOR, MR. GRAHAM. YEAH, IT WAS A REQUEST FROM, FROM ME. AND YOU WERE SPEAKING WITH THE APPLICANT? CORRECT. AND IN, IN, IN THE MEANTIME I MET WITH THE APPLICANT IN PERSON AND HAD A CONVERSATION FOLLOWED OVER, BUT NOTHING IN WRITING FOLLOWED OVER EMAIL. BUT THE FIRST RESPONSE I RECEIVED FROM HIM WAS THIS PAST THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 10TH, UH, THE LETTER THAT I THINK IS NOW ENTERED IN THE RECORD FOR THIS CASE. OKAY. AND SO I I DON'T WANNA SPEAK FOR YOU COMMISSIONER FLORES, BUT I THINK YOU'RE JUST UNCOMFORTABLE GOING FORWARD WHEN WE HAVEN'T HEARD FROM THE APPLICANT. IS THAT JUST NOT LIKE IF WE GIVE NEIGHBORS A CHANCE TO SPEAK? I THINK THE APPLICANT ALSO, I DON'T KNOW. I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW WHY HE'S NOT HERE, BUT LIFE HAPPENS. , I THINK I WOULD BE COMFORTABLE GIVING HIM A CHANCE AND POSTPONING TO 30 DAYS. UM, AND THAT'S KIND OF ONE OF THE OPTIONS THE APPLICANT WAS COMFORTABLE WITH AS WELL? NO, THE NEIGHBOR, I AGREE WITH THAT AS WELL. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO POTENTIALLY FIND A COMPROMISE, SOMETHING THAT WORKS FOR BOTH PARTIES AND TO HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT BEFORE WE MOVE FORWARD. OKAY. I I JUST, UM, THE REASON I'M BRINGING THIS UP IS 'CAUSE A LOT OF THE CONCERNS ARE ALREADY PROHIBITED IN THE CODE. YOU KNOW, LIKE THIS IS NOT GOING TO BE AN OUTDOOR ENTERTAINMENT VENUE UNLESS THERE IS LIKE ANOTHER HEARING HERE. UM, I I I JUST, UH, I'M NOT SURE ABOUT THE PRECEDENT HERE WHERE LIKE SOMEBODY COMES TO BLOCK SOMETHING AND SO THEN WE'RE, WE'RE GONNA BLOCK IT. SO WE'RE RE REWARDING THAT BEHAVIOR AND UM, AND WE DON'T ACTUALLY HAVE ANYTHING IN ANY OF THE CORRESPONDENCE OR ANYTHING IN THE PACKET THAT SUGGESTS THAT THIS IS GOING TO BE AN OUTDOOR ENTERTAINMENT VENUE. I WOULD DISAGREE. I WOULD SAY BUILDING A PAVILION, AN OUTDOOR PAVILION IS INDICATIVE OF OUTDOOR ENTERTAINMENT. WHETHER OUTDOOR ENTERTAINMENT IS LEGALLY PROHIBITED IN THE ZONING, I'VE SEEN PLENTY OF NEIGHBORS, YOU KNOW, VIOLATE THE USES THAT THEY'RE ALLOWED AND, AND, AND I THINK, UH, OUTDOOR ENTERTAINMENT IS A SPECIFIC CLASS OF USE WHERE IT'S, YOU KNOW, LIKE, UH, MUSIC OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. SO AN ASSEMBLY OF 500 OR A THOUSAND PEOPLE OUTDOORS DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN IT'S OUTDOOR ENTERTAINMENT. IT COULD BE I THINK CONSIDERED AN, AN ACCESSORY TO THE INDOOR WEDDING VENUE AND THEY JUST HAPPEN TO HAVE SEATING OUTDOORS IS SORT OF A, YOU KNOW, AN OPTION TO IT, BUT IT HAS POTENTIALLY ON THE NEIGHBORS THE SAME EFFECT. UM, SO WHAT IS OUTDOOR ENTERTAINMENT? DOES IT HAVE TO BE MUSIC? DOES IT HAVE TO BE NO, IT CAN BE A GATHERING. USUALLY WE CONSIDER IT. YEAH. SOMETHING, YOU KNOW, IT'S OUTDOORS. IT CAN HAVE MUSIC, IT CAN HAVE UM, IT'S BASICALLY JUST AN OUTDOOR GATHERING IS BASICALLY WHAT IT IS. SO YOU HAVE A WEDDING WITH 75 PEOPLE OUTDOORS. THIS IS WHY OUTDOOR ENTERTAINMENT, THE STAFF RECOMMENDED PROHIBITING THAT USE AMONGST OUR PROHIBITED USE LIST. YES. I DON'T MIND THIS COMMISSION THAT THAT, UM, A WE, AN OUTDOOR WEDDING IS ALREADY ALLOWED AT ANY OF THE BACKYARDS OF ANY OF THE HOMES IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. OH, I'M NOT SURE ABOUT THAT. I MEAN, I HAD A PRIVATE EVENT AT THE SILK OR CLUBHOUSE AND WE HAD TO GET A SOUND PERMIT. UM, I ANYBODY CAN HAVE AN EVENT IN THEIR BACKYARD SO LONG AS THEY MAKE SURE TO UM, WELL ONE, IT'S NOT LIKE A PUBLIC FACING TICKETED EVENT AND EVEN THEN THERE'S GRAY ZONE AND SO LONG AS THEY'RE NOT, UM, UH, YOU KNOW, MESSING WITH THE, THE NOISE ORDINANCE. YEAH. SO AS LONG AS IT'S NOT GOING PAST NINE O'CLOCK AT NIGHT, YOU CAN HAVE A PARTY IN YOUR BACKYARD ALREADY. SO EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THESE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES IS POTENTIALLY AN OUTDOOR VENUE FOR WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. RIGHT, RIGHT NOW. BUT IF IT MAKES EVERYONE HAPPIER TO POSTPONE, YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND POSTPONE. I'M JUST TELLING YOU THAT ON OCTOBER 20TH, I WILL FEEL NO DIFFERENT THAN I FEEL TODAY. YEAH, I PROBABLY WON'T EITHER, BUT I'M NOT SURE THAT MY FEELINGS ARE THE SAME AS YOURS . BUT UM, IF THERE'S SIX PEOPLE WHO WANNA VOTE FOR A POSTPONEMENT, WE CAN, CAN WE CALL THE QUESTION AND JUST SEE? YEAH, LET'S CALL THE QUESTION ALL IN FAVOR OF POSTPONING TO OCTOBER 20TH. I THINK IT IS A COURTESY TO ALLOW THE [00:35:01] UM, APPLICANT A SECOND CHANCE TO SHOW UP. TWO, THREE. SO I SEE TWO ON THE DIET. OKAY. 1, 2, 3, 4. I THINK IT'S UNANIMOUS. WELL EXCEPT FOR COMMISSIONER STERN. COMMISSIONER STERN. OKAY. SO COMMISSIONER STERN IS AGAINST YES. A POSTPONEMENT AND EVERYBODY ELSE IS IN FAVOR. AND THAT IS THE END OF THAT CASE FOR TONIGHT. OKAY. SO WE WILL RESUME THIS ON OCTOBER THE 20TH. THANK YOU. YEAH, MAYBE AFTER THE MEETING I'D LIKE TO TALK TO YOU . UM, SO THAT'S OUR CASES. WHAT ELSE IS HAPPENING? THE PERMANENT [PERMANENT COMMITTEE UPDATES ] COMMITTEE UPDATES, CODES AND ORDINANCES. JOINT COMMITTEE HAS A MEETING TOMORROW TO CONSIDER A SAVE OUR SPRINGS AMENDMENT. THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN JOINT COMMITTEE I BELIEVE HAS A MEETING, I'M NOT SURE THE DATE, BUT OCTOBER DOES ANYBODY ON THAT COMMISSION COMMITTEE THAT KNOWS THE DATE. OKAY. SO THAT'S THAT. AND SMALL AREA PLAN JOINT COMMITTEE. WE MET LAST WEEK, UM, WE HAD A DISCUSSION WITH STAFF ABOUT HOW WE WOULD LIKE TO BE INFORMED ABOUT SMALL AREA PLANS IN THE FUTURE, GIVEN THAT THERE ARE SOME THAT ARE ACTUALLY IN THE WORKS FOR THE FIRST TIME SINCE I'VE BEEN ON THE COMMISSION OR THE COMMITTEE. UM, AND WE ALSO AMONGST OURSELVES HAD A CONVERSATION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THE SMALL AREA PLAN JOINT COMMITTEE SHOULD CONTINUE TO EXIST GOING FORWARD AS WELL. SO WE PUT THAT IN OUR AGENDA FOR NOVEMBER AND WE'LL UH, MIGHT HAVE SOMETHING TO, TO BRING FORTH TO BOTH THE ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION, UH, AFTER THAT. IS THAT CONSIDERING THE IMAGINE AUSTIN UPDATE IS GONNA UPDATE? YEAH, PRETTY MUCH ALL THE PLANS. THE DISTRICT PLAN STUFF? YEAH. ALL THE PLANS. YEAH. RIGHT. UM, SO THAT'S WHAT'S HAPPENING WITH THE SMALL AREA PLANNING JOINT COMMITTEE, FUTURE AGENDA [FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS ] ITEM. WE'RE STILL WANTING TO TALK ABOUT, UM, WHAT IS IT, THE TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS. YES. AND I HAVE A BRIEF UPDATE TO SHARE WITH EVERYBODY. WE SPOKE WITH OUR STAFF MEMBERS IN TRANSPORTATION AND RIGHT NOW WE'RE CURRENTLY LOOKING AT OCTOBER 20TH AS A DATE FOR THE BRIEFING TO COME FORWARD. BUT WE'LL MAKE SURE TO REACH OUT TO EVERYONE ONCE WE'VE RECEIVED A CONFIRMED DATE FROM THEM. OKAY. AND WE'LL HAVE A DRAFT, UM, RESOLUTION THAT I WILL GET BACK TO YOU WITH AN ANSWER ON THAT. NO, WE WILL HAVE A DRAFT RESOLUTION, . OH, YOU'LL HAVE A DRAFT. A DRAFT RECOMMENDATION. OKAY. RECOMMENDATION, YES. RIGHT. ANY OTHER FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS THAT PEOPLE WOULD LIKE TO ADD TO OUR FUTURE AGENDAS? IF NOT, WE CAN ADJOURN AT 6 39. THANK YOU. * 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.