[00:00:04]
[CALL TO ORDER]
IS TUESDAY, OCTOBER 6TH, 2026 AT 6:00 PM I'M GONNA CALL TO ORDER THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSION.WE ARE IN AUSTIN CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS ROOM 1001.
WE WILL START WITH A ROLL CALL CHAIR.
THAT GIVES US A TOTAL OF NINE, UH, PEOPLE, THREE IN PERSON AND THE OTHER SIX REMOTE.
UH, BEFORE WE GET STARTED, I WANTED TO WISH EVERYBODY A HAPPY NATIONAL NIGHT OUT HERE IN TEXAS AND FLORIDA.
THE REST OF 'EM CELEBRATED ON THE FIRST TUESDAY IN AUGUST, BUT DUE TO THE WEATHER, WE DO IT IN OCTOBER.
BUT TODAY IS NATIONAL NIGHT OUT IN TEXAS AND IN FLORIDA.
UM, WE DO PUBLIC COMMUNICATION.
WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC SPEAKERS? NO.
[Consent Agenda]
FROM THE ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 15TH.IS THERE ANY COMMENTS ON THE MINUTES? OKAY, I'LL READ THE REST OF THE CONSENT AGENDA.
ITEM TWO IS A REZONING CASE, C 14 20 26 DASH 0 0 1 9.
DALTON AIRPORT OVERLAY REZONING DISTRICT.
IT IS AT 1019 DALTON LANE IN STAFF.
YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO OFFER THE CHAIN LAST MINUTE CHANGE ON THIS ONE, CORRECT? YES.
STAFF WOULD LIKE TO REMOVE CUSTOM MANUFACTURING AND LIGHT MANUFACTURING FROM THE PROHIBITED USES IN THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
WAS THERE A USE WE WERE GONNA ADD OR JUST REMOVING SOME? JUST REMOVING.
UH, THAT IS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.
ITEM THREE IS A REZONING CASE, C 14 20 26 DASH 0 0 5 6 7 AT 36 0 1 DAVIS LANE.
IT IS NOT RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
THE REQUEST IS FROM GRCO TO CSCO.
ITEM FOUR IS A SITE PLAN EXTENSION S SP 2024 DASH 0 2 7 9 C HARRIS BRANCH E 35 A CONDOMINIUMS. IT IS AT 1-814-CAMERON ROAD.
IT IS FOR A THREE YEAR SITE PLAN EXTENSION.
SO THE CONSENT AGENDA WILL BE THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM SEPTEMBER 15TH.
[PUBLIC HEARINGS]
REZONING KC 14, 20 26, 9.AND ITEM FOUR, SITE PLAN EXTENSION S SP 2 24 0 2 7 90 C.
ITEM THREE WILL BE DISCUSSION.
SO DO I HEAR A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA? SO MOVED.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND MOTION AND A SECOND? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
I'M A NO ON ITEM FOUR, PLEASE.
IT'S STILL, WE HAVE ENOUGH TO MAKE THAT ALL THE ADAMS PASS.
UM, ITEM THREE, REZONING CASE C 14 20 26 DASH 0 5 7 36 0 1 DAVIS LANE.
CYNTHIA HADR AGAIN WITH AUSTIN PLANNING.
THIS IS ITEM THREE ON YOUR AGENDA CASE.
C 14 2 26 0 5 7 36 0 1 DAVIS LANE.
THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON 36 0 1 DAVIS LANE.
IT'S APPROXIMATELY 2.89 ACRES AND IS UNDEVELOPED.
THE PROPERTY HAS ACCESS TO DAVIS LANE AND A SNP LEVEL THREE AND DEER LANE AND A SMP LEVEL ONE.
THE SITE IS CURRENTLY ZONED GRCO AND THE SURROUNDING AREAS CHARACTERIZES MIXED USE WITH COMMERCIAL SERVICES AND MULTIFAMILY IN THE AREA.
FIRE STATION 29 IS TO THE WEST AND TO THE SOUTH IS THE, UM, WILLIAM H. RUSSELL CARST PRESERVE.
THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN EDWARDS AQUIFER RECHARGE ZONE, AN ENVIRONMENTAL ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREA, AND IT IS IN THE DRINKING WATER PROTECTION ZONE.
THERE IS A CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURE, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE CEF ON THE PROPERTY ALONG WITH A 60 FOOT PIPELINE EASEMENT.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING CSCO TO DEVELOP A MINI WAREHOUSE WITH CONVENIENT STORAGE USE.
THE EXISTING CO FOR THE PROPERTY IS FOR THE FOLLOWING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 40 FEET OR THREE STORIES, A FLORIDA AREA RATIO OF 0.5 TO ONE AND A BUILDING COVERAGE OF 50%.
THE REQUEST INCLUDES THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN THE CO, A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 50 FEET, A FLORIDA AREA RATIO OF ONE-TO-ONE, AND NO CHANGE IN BUILDING COVERAGE.
[00:05:01]
CSCO AS IT IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING ZONING DISTRICTS AND WOULD NOT ALIGN WITH STAFF'S PLANNING PRINCIPLES.THIS PROPERTY WAS RECENTLY REZONED IN THE LATE, IN LATE 2023 WITH GRCO AND STAFF BELIEVE THAT THIS IS THE, THAT THIS IS STILL THE APPROPRIATE ZONING FOR THE PROPERTY.
GR ZONING PERMITS A RANGE OF COMMERCIAL USES THAT ARE APPROPRIATE FOR THIS SITE'S SURROUNDINGS.
THERE HAVE NOT BEEN SIGNIFICANT CHANGES IN THE AREA THAT WOULD MERIT AN INCREASE IN INTENSITY AT THIS LOCATION.
GRANTING THIS REZONING WOULD NOT BE CONSISTENT WITH RECENT NEARBY REZONINGS OF PARCELS TO THE SOUTH AND EAST.
THE PROPERTY IS NOT LOCATED AT A MAJOR INTERSECTION.
A REZONING TO THE CS BASED DISTRICT ZONING ON THIS PROPERTY WOULD CONCENTRATE INTENSE COMMERCIAL USES AWAY FROM THE INTERSECTION.
STAFF NOTED THE ABSENCE OF CS ZONING IN THIS SURROUNDING LAND USE PATTERN, INCLUDING AT THE HIGHER TRAFFIC INTERSECTIONS OF BRODY LANE AT WEST WILLIAM CANNON DRIVE AND WEST LAUGHTER LANE, WHICH ARE BOTH IMAGINE AUSTIN ACTIVITY CORRIDORS AND A SMP LEVEL FOUR ROADWAYS.
THE GR DISTRICT IS INTENDED FOR OFFICE AND COMMERCIAL USES, SERVING NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITY NEEDS, INCLUDING BOTH UNIFIED SHOPPING CENTERS AND INDIVIDUALLY DEVELOPED COMMERCIAL SITES AND TYPICALLY REQUIRING LOCATIONS ACCESSIBLE FROM MAJOR TRAFFIC WAYS.
IN 2023, STAFF RECOMMENDED GR RCO AS THE REQUEST MET THE INTENT OF THE GR DISTRICT AND WAS COMPATIBLE WITH THE ADJACENT AND NEARBY USES.
AS SUCH, THERE IS NOT A BASIS FOR A CHANGE IN STAFF'S PREVIOUS RECOMMENDATION OR REZONING THE PROPERTY.
I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.
OKAY, NOW WE HAVE THE APPLICANT TO SPEAK.
UM, APRIL, ARE YOU HERE? OKAY, WE HAVE MICHAEL WHALEN.
MICHAEL, YOU WILL HAVE NINE MINUTES.
MICHAEL WHALEN, UH, ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT.
UH, THIS REQUEST IS, UH, BEFORE YOU TONIGHT TO REZONE THE PROPERTY FROM GRCO TO CSCO IN ORDER TO OBTAIN CONVENIENCE STORAGE AS A PERMITTED USE.
CS IS THE LEAST INTENSE ZONING CATEGORY IN WHICH SELF STORAGE IS PERMITTED.
I WOULD NOTE SELF STORAGE IS PART, IN PART A COMMUNITY SERVICE FOR THOSE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND ELSEWHERE WHO NEED TO USE IT.
SO OUR REQUEST IS ESSENTIALLY TO HAVE THE MOST GR CS ZONING POSSIBLE.
TO THAT END, WE HAVE MORE THAN DOUBLED THE PROHIBITED USES AND ENSURED THAT THE SITE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS MEET OR ARE BELOW WHAT IS ALLOWED IN BASE GR ZONING.
WE'LL GO INTO MORE DETAIL AS WE MOVE THROUGH THE SLIDES, BUT ON THE SCREEN YOU'LL SEE A QUICK OVERVIEW OF THE RATIONALE SUPPORTING THIS REZONING.
SO HERE'S A LOCATION MAP AS NOTED, UH, BY MS. ANDRE.
THE SITE IS LOCATED IN DISTRICT EIGHT EAST OF MOPAC AND JUST WEST OF BRODY.
AND HERE'S A CLOSER, UH, AERIAL VIEW OF THE PROPERTY.
AS YOU CAN SEE, THE SITE IS LOCATED THREE LOTS DEEP FROM THE INTERSECTION OF BRODY AND DAVIS.
THIS IS ALL PART OF THE SAME BLOCK, BUT THIS LOT'S LOCATION HAS MADE IT DIFFICULT TO ATTRACT COMMERCIAL USERS.
IN FACT, THERE HAS BEEN AN APPROVED SITE PLAN HERE SINCE 2017 FOR RETAIL AND RESTAURANT SPACE, VERY SIMILAR TO THE BUILDINGS IN LOTS IN BLOCK IN THE LOTS ONE AND TWO THAT YOU SEE ON THE UH, SCREEN.
BUT THERE'S BEEN ABSOLUTELY NO INTEREST IN THE SITE, INCLUDING NO INTEREST DURING THE PRE PANDEMIC COMMERCIAL BOOM WE EXPERIENCED IN AUSTIN.
THE PROPERTY OWNER HAS ALREADY TRIED TO PIVOT ONCE, REZONING THE SITE JUST A FEW YEARS AGO FROM LR TO GR IN ORDER TO PERMIT A SMALL MEDICAL OFFICE.
AND IN FACT, IN THE MOST RECENT REVISION TO THE SITE PLAN, THEY ADDED MEDICAL OFFICE TO TRY AND DEMONSTRATE TO POTENTIAL BUYERS THAT IT WAS AVAILABLE AND STILL RECEIVED ZERO INTEREST FROM USERS CITING THE LACK OF VISIBILITY TO BRODY LANE.
THE REALITY IS THAT THE PROPERTY SET THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY THREE, SET MULTIPLE LOTS BACK FROM THE MAIN CORRIDOR.
IN THIS CASE, BRODY AREN'T APPEALING TO CUSTOMER FOCUSED BUSINESSES AND ARE BETTER SUITED FOR A LOW FREQUENCY, LESS INTENSIVE SERVICE USE LIKE SELF STORAGE.
I WANT TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE SITE CONSTRAINTS.
ANOTHER ASPECT THAT MAKES THIS SITE DIFFICULT TO THE MARKET IS THE CUMULATIVE IMPACT OF THE HAZARDOUS PIPELINE.
YOU CAN SEE HERE, AND THIS INCLUDES NOT JUST THE PIPELINE, BUT ALSO THE SETBACK FROM THE PIPELINE.
THE RED LINES THERE, UH, IT'S 60 FOOT WIDE EASEMENT AND THEN THERE'S 30 FEET ON EITHER, WHICH IS 30 FEET ON EITHER SIDE.
AND THEN THERE'S AN ADDITIONAL 25 FOOT BUILDING SETBACK ON EITHER SIDE OF THAT.
AND YOU ALL ARE WELL AWARE OF THE RESTRICTIONS ON RESIDENTIAL USE
[00:10:01]
OR ANY, UH, OTHER USES THAT REQUIRE EVACUATION.UH, IN ADDITION, THERE'S AN ARTIFICIALLY CONSTRUCTED CONSTRUCTED DRAINAGE AND WATER QUALITY, UH, AREA, WHICH HAS NOW BEEN DESIGNATED AS A CEF.
UH, IT'S SHOWN IN THE PINK HATCH AND IT MEASURES OVER 35,000 SQUARE FEET AND TAKES UP OVER A QUARTER OF THE SITE.
SO IN ADDITION TO THE SETBACKS THAT COVER THE SITE, THE FIRE DEPARTMENT ALSO AS I MENTIONED, RESTRICTS CERTAIN USES LIKE RESIDENTIAL NEAR PIPELINES AND IMPOSES BUILD THESE BUILDING SAFETY REQUIREMENTS THAT DETER MANY USERS FROM USING THE SITE.
UH, ADDING THE LIST OF THE SITE'S UNIQUE QUALITIES IS THE, UH, IS ITS INCLUSION IN A 1998 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT THAT ENCOMPASSES OVER 77 ACRES OF RATHER LARGE AREA.
THE FULL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IS SHOWN ON THE SCREEN IN 36 0 1 DAVIS LANE IS NEAR THE SOUTHEASTERN CORNER IN THE LIGHT BLUE WHERE IT SAYS SITE.
AS PART OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, TWO RETAIL TRACKS WHICH ARE OUTLINED IN GREEN WERE DESIGNATED FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND CLUSTERED IN THE SOUTHEAST CORNER.
DEVELOPMENT ENTITLEMENTS FOR THOSE RETAIL TRACKS WERE TIED TO THE DEDICATION OF MITIGATION TRACKS, UH, WHICH YOU CAN SEE HERE IN PURPLE.
A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT RECORDED AT THE TIME OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT PERMANENTLY PROHIBITS DEVELOPMENT ON THE PURPLE MITIGATION TRACK.
YEARS AFTER THE RETAIL AND MITIGATION TRACKS WERE ESTABLISHED, THE PROPERTY OWNER SOLD ONE OF THE RETAIL TRACKS, WHICH IS SHOWN IN RED.
YOU CAN SEE THERE, UH, TO THE CITY TO HELP WITH DRAINAGE FLOWING FLOW RESULTING FROM THE WESTWARD EXPANSION OF DAVIS LANE.
SO THE SITE WAS ALWAYS MEANT TO BE SEEN AS PART OF A LARGER, UH, PART PROPERTY, 75 ACRES THAT PERMITTED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ON THIS CORNER IN EXCHANGE FOR RESTRICTED MITIGATION LAND THAT YOU CAN SEE THERE IN PURPLE.
I ALSO WANTED TO NOTE, UH, 'CAUSE I KNOW SOMEBODY'S GONNA ASK THE QUESTION, WHAT'S THE OVERALL IMPERVIOUS COVER? 'CAUSE THE IMPERVIOUS COVER WAS CONCENTRATED ON THE CORNER.
THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IS VERY CLEAR THAT, UH, IT, AND IT STATES, THE PARTIES ACKNOWLEDGE THAT NOTHING CONTAINED IN YOUR HEREIN SHALL BE DEEMED TO PERMIT THE AGGREGATE IMPERVIOUS COVER ON THE PROPERTY, THE ENTIRE PROPERTY, AND THE MITIGATION TRACKS OF COMBINING EVERYTHING TO EXCEED 15% OF THE AGGREGATE NET SITE AREA OF THE PROPERTY AND THE MITIGATION TRACKS.
I JUST WANTED FOLKS TO HAVE SOME COMFORT IN KNOWING THAT.
UH, THE LAST POINT I WANTED TO RAISE IS THAT INDOOR STORAGE IS A LOWER IMPACT USE THAN MOST OTHER COMMERCIAL USES.
WE'RE ASKING FOR CS BASE ZONING SOLELY BECAUSE IT IS THE LOWEST ZONING CATEGORY THAT ALLOWS CONVENIENCE STORAGE, CATEGORIZING SELF STORAGE IN THE MORE INTENSE ZONING DISTRICTS MADE SENSE WHEN THE CODE WAS WRITTEN 40 YEARS AGO BECAUSE STORAGE FACILITIES, IF YOU RECALL, I CAN RECALL, USED TO BE SPRAWLING CONCRETE LOTS WITH ROWS OF SINGLE STORY BUILDINGS.
NOW THESE DEVELOPMENTS ARE COMPACT INDOOR OPERATIONS THAT GENERATE VERY LITTLE TRAFFIC AND HAVE MUCH SMALLER FOOTPRINTS.
I WOULD NOTE I HEARD THE WORD MINI WAREHOUSE.
THE ONLY REASON THAT TERM SHOWS UP ANYWHERE IS THAT'S THE TIA, UH, UH, WORKSHEET DETERMINATION, UH, OR TIA DETERMINATION WORKSHEET, WHICH USES THE MINI WAREHOUSE LABEL.
UH, IT'S A LIMITED DEFINED USE IN THE ITE, WHICH IS THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSPORTATION, UH, BOOK.
ANYWAY, ONCE CONSTRUCTED, UH, NOW, NOW AS I SAID, THESE GENERATE VERY LITTLE TRAFFIC, HAVE A MUCH SMALLER FOOTPRINT.
ONCE CONSTRUCTED, THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS EXPECTED TO HAVE A NEGLIGIBLE IMPACT ON TRAFFIC, FEWER THAN 150 DAILY TRIPS BECAUSE PEOPLE ONLY VISIT THEIR STORAGE UNITS A FEW TIMES A YEAR.
INFREQUENT CUSTOMER VISITS AND MINIMAL ONSITE OPERATION MEANS THIS BUILDING WILL HAVE A MUCH SMALLER PULL ON UTILITIES LIKE WATER AND WASTEWATER.
AND LOW SITE ACTIVITY MEANS FEWER CARS DRIVING IDLING AND PARKING ONSITE, WHICH MINIMIZES RUNOFF IN THIS SENSITIVE AREA.
AS I CLOSE, I NEED TO MENTION THAT THIS PROJECT, IT HAS RECEIVED SEVERAL LETTERS OR LETTERS OF SUPPORT FROM NEARBY HOMEOWNERS AND ADJACENT BUSINESSES, WHICH ARE INCLUDED IN THE BACKUP AND ATTACHED IN THE STAFF REPORT.
IN TRULY, IN SUMMARY, WE ARE SEEKING REZONING FOR A LOW IMPACT USE ON A MEANINGFULLY CONSTRAINED SITE THAT HAS LONG BEEN DESIGNATED FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT BUT HAS STRUGGLED TO ATTRACT USERS.
WE'VE MODIFIED THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY TO DOUBLE THE PROHIBITED USES WHILE ALSO KEEPING THE SITE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS BELOW WHAT IS ALLOWED IN BASE GR ZONING.
THANK YOU FOR CONSIDERATION AND OBVIOUSLY I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS THAT CONCLUDES ON THIS ITEM.
UM, DOES ANYBODY ELSE IN THE ROOM WANNA SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? DO I HEAR A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING
[00:15:02]
MOTION? MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING? DO I HEAR A SECOND? HAVE A MOTION A SECOND TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, RAISE YOUR HAND, SAY, AYE.
AND IT APPEARS TO BE UNANIMOUS.
QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT OR STAFF? I THINK THIS IS ONE OF THOSE ONES THAT IF IT HADN'T BEEN SITTING SO LONG WITH AN APPROVED SITE PLAN AND NOTHING TO GO ON THE SITE, I WOULDN'T BE INCLINED TO ENTERTAIN AN APPLICANT'S RECOMMENDATION.
BUT THIS IS THE DISTRICT I LIVE IN.
I DRIVE BY THE SITE ALL THE TIME.
UM, AND IT'S BEEN A VACANT LOT FOR A VERY LONG TIME.
UH, THIS IS PART OF AN OVERALL SITE PLAN, SO I'M A LITTLE MORE COMFORTABLE GOING UP AGAINST WHAT STAFF HAS RECOMMENDATION BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT THERE SIMPLY HAS BEEN NOTHING BUILT THERE IN SO LONG AND THE REST OF THE AREA HAS BEEN FULLY DEVELOPED FOR YEARS.
THERE'S A GREAT RESTAURANT THERE IN FRONT, IN FACT.
YEAH, I, UM, I MEAN I THINK THE MARKET ECONOMICS ARE IMPORTANT.
UM, I'M MORE, I THINK I'M IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICANT'S, UM, REQUEST HERE.
I THINK THE INTENSITY ISSUE IS MORE A FACTOR OF HOW THIS HAS BEEN CLASSIFIED IN OUR CODE RATHER THAN THE PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS OF OPERATING ONE OF THESE THINGS.
AND IT SOUNDS LIKE IT WILL BE A FAIRLY NON-INTENSIVE USE COMPARED TO MAYBE OTHER THINGS THAT ARE IN THE CS, UM, CATEGORY.
SO, UM, WANNA BE SENSITIVE STAFF RARELY BRINGS THOSE THINGS THEY DON'T RECOMMEND.
SO I APPRECIATE THE, UM, PRESENTATION AND ALL THAT AND, BUT, UM, I WOULD YEAH.
YEAH, I WOULD ALSO NOT, I DO AGREE WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.
I THINK CS IS ODD HERE, BUT ALSO THIS USE SPECIFICALLY, IF IT CAN'T BE APPROVED IN ANY OTHER ZONING, THEN I THINK THIS MAKES SENSE.
THE REQUEST, I, I'M INCLINED TO SUPPORT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.
I I REALLY, THE PRINCIPLE OF USING CONDITIONAL OVERLAYS TO EXCLUDE ALL, BUT A SINGLE USE, UH, FROM A ZONING CODE KIND OF RUBS ME THE WRONG WAY.
COMMISSIONER GREENBERG, UM, SO THIS LIST ONE AND TWO, THAT'S NOT THE EXISTING CONDITIONS OF THE ZONING.
I, I'M SORT OF CONFUSED WITH WE DIDN'T RECOMMEND DENY WITH THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY THAT DOES THIS.
SO IS THAT, WHAT IS STAFF SAYING? I DON'T KNOW WHAT STAFF IS SAYING.
IT'S KIND OF CLEAR, UNCLEAR TO ME.
YOU'RE SAYING DENY I THINK INSTEAD OF WOOD IS I HAVE THE STAFF RESPOND.
HI, COMMISSIONER GREENBERG, CYNTHIA HAD, UM, AWESOME PLANNING.
SO WE DO LIST WHAT WE ARE RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF, AND THAT'S THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, WHICH IS LISTED BELOW THE ONE TO ONE AND 50% BUILDING COVERAGE.
AND 50 FEET TALL IS THE APPLICANT REQUEST.
AND UM, DO YOU WANNA GO OVER YOUR REASONS FOR DENIAL? WE'RE NOT SAYING IF THE, IF YOU GUYS MAKE A MOTION, TYPICALLY IT WOULD BE FOR THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, WHICH IS THE LISTED PORTION.
WE'RE NOT SAYING THAT WE DON'T AGREE WITH WHAT'S LISTED, WE'RE JUST SAYING THIS IS WHAT THEIR REQUEST IS.
SO WHEN YOU SAY YOU APPROVE THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST OR YOU'RE RECOMMENDING IT, GOT IT.
YEAH, IT WOULD BE FOR ALL OF THESE THINGS THEN IT WOULD BE THIS, CORRECT.
IT WOULD BE EVERYTHING THAT'S LISTED THERE.
AND THEN FOR THE, UM, APPLICANT, WHEN YOU SAY YOU'RE DOUBLING THE PROHIBITED USES, YOU'RE SAYING THAT THIS LIST ON NUMBER TWO, MR. WHALEN IS MORE THAN WHAT WAS IS CURRENTLY PROHIBITED.
THIS IS WHAT I'VE GOT IN HIS BACKUP ORDER.
SO THIS MATCHES, YEAH, ADDING THESE INTO THE PROHIBIT USES, BUT THERE'S MORE CS USES THAT PROBABLY DOESN'T WANT EITHER.
UH, COMMISSIONERS, UH, GREENBERG, UH, THE USES THAT WE ARE ADDING NEWLY ADDED ONES FROM THE ZONING FROM 2023 ARE AUTOMOTIVE.
AND I WOULD THINK OF THEM AS SUBTRACTING.
RIGHT, BECAUSE YOU'RE SAYING NEWLY PROHIBITING.
SO WE'RE ADDING TO THE PROHIBITED USE LIST.
THAT WILL BE IN THE CONDITION OVERLAY.
AND THESE ARE, DO YOU WANNA PUT A LITTLE CHECK MARK? I'M GONNA DO THE SAME SO I DON'T MESS THIS UP.
[00:20:01]
WAS NOT ON THE LIST ORIGINALLY.CUSTOM MANUFACTURING, OH, OOPS.
CONSTRUCTION, SALES AND SERVICES.
I SAID CUSTOM MANUFACTURING, UH, CONSTRUCTION, SALES AND SERVICES DROP OFF RECYCLING IN COLLECTIONS FACILITY, ELECTRONIC PROTOTYPE ASSEMBLY, ELECTRONIC TESTING, LIMITED WAREHOUSING AND DISTRIBUTION.
AND THOSE ARE, THOSE ARE THE ONES.
PAWN SHOP SERVICES AND VEHICLE.
PAWN SHOP SERVICES AND VEHICLE STORAGE.
YOU'RE NOT TRYING TO SNEAK THOSE IN? YEAH, NO, I WASN'T TRYING TO SNEAK THOSE IN.
THEY'RE ON THE LIST, BUT YES, THOSE TWO.
SO THAT, THAT WAS 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ADDITIONAL PROHIBITED USES TO THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY.
SO THE TWO WAYS I SEE IT GOING IS ONE, WE APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION, WHICH JUST STATUS QUO.
UM, THE EXISTING LIMITATIONS STILL STAY ON THERE.
THE RESTRICTIONS STILL STAY ON THERE.
THE ORIGINAL ZONING ORDINANCE STAYS IN PLACE OR WE GO WITH THE APPLICANT'S RECOMMENDATION AND WE ADD ALL THESE ADDITIONAL PROHIBITED USES.
EVERYTHING ELSE STAYS THE SAME.
IT'S NOT REALLY, EVERYTHING ELSE STAYS THE SAME BECAUSE THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT IS CURRENTLY 40 FEET.
I'M SORRY, THE FAR IS CURRENTLY 0.5 TO ONE.
AND THE MAXIMUM BUILDING COVERAGE, IT, IT'S 50% ON THE, UH, 2023.
SO WE WE'RE STILL THAT'S, WE'RE STILL BELOW GR SITE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.
SITE GR IS ONE TO ONE 60 FEET AND WILL BE AT 50 FEET.
SO IT'S STILL, YEAH, BUT IT'S AND ABOVE IT'S INCREASINGLY ENTITLEMENT TO WHAT THE STAFF RECOMMENDED IN 2023.
UM, AND ALSO THE FAR THAT'S PROBABLY, THAT'S RIGHT.
THE MOST SIGNIFICANT GOING FROM 0.5 TO TO ONE TO ONE.
TO, BECAUSE OF THOSE SITE CONSTRAINTS SEVERELY LIMITED.
AND THERE'S A COUPLE, WELL I DID WONDER, BUT YOU CAN'T REALLY DO 50% BUILDING COVERAGE ON THAT SITE FROM, IF YOU COULD GO BACK TO YOUR MY PRESENTATION YEAH.
SO THE CEF IS 35,000 SQUARE FEET ON A, ON THE TWO POINT THAT LOOKS LIKE IT'S HALF THE SITE ALREADY.
SO YOU COULDN'T DO 50% BUILDING COVERAGE.
UH, I'M NOT BETWEEN, I'M NOT AN BETWEEN PIPELINE AND THE CEF.
IT'S LIKE VISUALLY I DON'T THINK YOU CAN.
AND THEN THERE WERE A COUPLE OF PROHIBITED OR ALLOWED CS USES THAT MAYBE YOU DON'T WANT ANYWAY.
LIKE AGRICULTURAL SALES AND SERVICES, BUILDING MAINTENANCE SERVICES, EQUIPMENT REPAIR SERVICES OR ANY OF THESE SOUNDING LIKE SOMETHING YOU WANNA DO? UH, NO.
THE GOAL IS TO DO CONVENIENCE WAREHOUSE.
FOOD PREP, NOT CONVENIENCE STORAGE IS HOW IT'S LISTED IN THE, UM, YEAH.
FOOD PREPARATION, KENNELS, LAUNDRY SERVICE, SO MANY CS USES.
UM, MONUMENT RETAIL SALES PLANT, NURSERY, VETERINARY SERVICES.
WE ARE THINKING ABOUT INDOOR CROP PRODUCTION.
ONCE MARIJUANA BECOMES LEGAL AGAIN,
VETERINARY SERVICES, MAINTENANCE AND SERVICE FACILITIES.
SO ALL OF THOSE ARE ALLOWED IN CS, BUT NOT ON YOUR LIST.
APRIL BROWN IS COMING TO THE RESCUE.
BECAUSE THAT WAS, OR IN OUR DISCUSSIONS WITH CITY STAFF INITIALLY, THAT WAS KIND OF WHAT WAS AN INDICATION TO US AND WE IMMEDIATELY TOOK, GOT RID OF THE INDUSTRIAL USES.
'CAUSE THAT WAS NOT THE INTENT.
THESE ARE ADDITIONAL USES THAT WE DIDN'T THINK WERE VERY, UM, LIKELY INTENSIVE.
SO HAVEN, I I HAVE NOT SEEN MONUMENT RETAIL SALES BLOW THE TOP OFF OF, UH, TRAFFIC, UH, STUDIES YET.
BUT I, I, I STAND READY TO LOOK AT THAT STUDY.
BUT BUILDING MAINTENANCE SERVICES, I DON'T
[00:25:01]
KNOW.I MEAN, THERE'S A REASON THEY'RE IN CS AND NOT IN GR UM, I DIDN'T WRITE THE CODE.
I HEAR IT WAS WRITTEN LIKE DECADES AGO.
I THINK THAT WAS ONE REASON WHY, I DON'T KNOW WHY.
I THINK CONVENIENCE STORAGE HAS BECOME A LESS INTENSE USE, UH, THAN IT USED TO BE.
IT'S PROBABLY IN THE WRONG CATEGORY, BUT THAT'S GONNA TAKE A CODE CHANGE.
AND HERE WE ARE, UM, SENSITIVE TO CODE CHANGES.
WELL, I MEAN IT'S NOT, IT'S A VERY NON INTENSE USE.
THAT'S WHY YOU CAN GET NEIGHBORS TO SAY THEY WANT IT BECAUSE IT HAS LIKE NO TRAFFIC AND NO NOISE.
UM, IT'S NOT, AND IT, IT'S VERY QUIET AT NIGHT.
IT'S NOT EXACTLY MY FAVORITE USE.
I FEEL LIKE IT'S A WASTE OF LAND.
UM, WELL THAT, I MEAN THAT'S WHY, AGAIN, LOOKING AT THE SITE AREA, IT'S JUST THE ONE THAT, IT'S THREE BLOCKS BEHIND, UH, BRODY LANE, WHICH I THINK IS PART OF THE CHALLENGE THIS SITE HAS.
AND IT SIT UP AGAINST THE FIRE STATION AND THE PRESERVE AND I MEAN, IT'S GOT SO MANY RESTRICTIONS ON THERE'S NOT MUCH YOU CAN DO THERE.
BUT SO THE MAIN INCREASE IS, THE POINT IS THE FAR VERSUS 0.5 FAR.
YEAH, THE HEIGHT, UM, AND HEIGHT.
UM, I'D SORT OF GO FOR SPLITTING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND WHAT'S ASKED FOR.
IF WE CAN REDUCE THE, OR KEEP THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS THAT ARE ON IN PLACE, NAMELY 0.5 FAR AND 40 FEET, UM, HEIGHT.
GIVEN I, I I, I WOULD JUST, IF I MAY RESPOND, MAY I, OF COURSE I I WOULD JUST, UH, SAY THEN CHAIR SMITH WILL CONTINUE TO PASS AN EMPTY LOT.
WE'VE, WE'VE HAD AN ARCHITECT LOOK AT IT AND DETERMINE WHAT THE MINIMUM AMOUNT WOULD BE NEEDED TO KIND OF CREATE THIS CONDENSED, UH, STRUCTURE.
AND WITHOUT THE 10 FEET IN THE ONE-TO-ONE, UH, WILL CONTINUE TO HAVE A VACANT LOT NOT PAYING PROPERTY TAXES WITH AN IMPROVEMENT ON IT.
THE BUILDING HEIGHT DOESN'T BOTHER ME BECAUSE THERE'S NOTHING OUT HERE TO, YOU'RE NOT BACKING THIS UP AGAINST ANY COMPATIBILITY OR RESIDENTIAL OR, AND 50 FEET'S NOT THAT HIGH.
THE FARI UNDERSTAND BECAUSE THERE'S SO MANY CONSTRAINTS ON THE PROPERTY.
IF IT WERE A WIDE OPEN PIECE OF PROPERTY WHERE YOU HAD THE, THE AREA, IT'S A MUCH BIGGER AREA THAN IT WOULD, THE FAR WOULDN'T MATTER AS MUCH, BUT THE, THE SITE SO CONSTRAINED.
I, I WOULD, I WOULD, I WOULD OFFER A COMMISSIONER, UH, GREENBERG AS ANOTHER FORM OF A COMPROMISE IS TO LOOK AT THE LIST THAT YOU WERE READING OFF OF ITEMS AND IF THERE'S ADDITIONAL ITEMS THAT YOU THINK WOULD MAKE SENSE TO PROHIBIT, UH, I THINK THAT MIGHT BE ANOTHER WAY TO, UH, UH, APPROACH THIS IF YOU WOULD.
WELL, I DID READ YOU AN ADDITIONAL LIST, ALL OF WHICH YOU SAID YOU WEREN'T THINKING OF USING.
SO I THINK THOSE ADDITIONAL USES THAT AREN'T ALREADY ON THE LIST, UM, PERHAPS COULD BE ADDITIONAL PROHIBITIONS.
I MEAN, IT'S SORT OF LIKE KEEP EVERYTHING THE WAY IT IS, BUT ALLOW THEM TO HAVE CONVENIENCE STORAGE USE, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, DATING BACK TO THE KIND OF CODE WE HAVE WHERE THE USE, IT'S A USE BASED CODE AND SO YOU HAVE TO HAVE CS TO GET THE USE.
BUT EVERYTHING ELSE YOU HAVE NOW SEEMS LIKE THAT'S WHAT STAFF IS SAYING IS THE APPROPRIATE INTENSITY FOR THE SITE.
WHAT WAS APPROVED IN, IN, IT'S A 1983 CODE, I BELIEVE.
I KNOW COMMISSIONER STERN HAS A COMMENT, SO I'LL STOP.
DO YOU WANNA CALL ON COMMISSIONER STERN? COMMISSIONER STERN? GO AHEAD.
UM, I'M SURE I'LL SHOCK A BUNCH OF YOU BY SAYING THAT I'M, I'M NOT OPPOSED TO, UM, CONVENIENCE STORAGE.
I'M JUST OPPOSED TO CONVENIENCE STORAGE WHEN IT'S ON A HIGH FREQUENCY TRANSIT LINE WHERE PEOPLE ARE SUPPOSED TO LIVE AND WORK.
BUT IN THIS CASE, THIS IS AN UNDERUSED LOT IN A SUBURBAN AREA.
IT'S PROBABLY A REASONABLE USE.
I ALSO APPRECIATE WHAT, UM, WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, COMMISSIONER GREENBERG ABOUT THE FAR AND THE HEIGHT.
HOWEVER, BECAUSE IT'S A CONSTRAINED LOSS, THEY, THEY, IT'S A REASONABLE REQUEST.
BUT ALSO YOU GOTTA THINK, IF IT DOESN'T GO UP, THEN IT'S GONNA JUST GO OUT SO THEY CAN EVEN, I DON'T KNOW THAT A WIDER STORAGE FACILITIES BETTER
[00:30:01]
THAN A TALL ONE.I WOULD AGREE WITH YOU THOUGH, THAT IF THERE ARE PROHIBITED USES, YOU WANT THAT THIS IS THE MOMENT TO STICK IT ON TO THE CEO.
AND IN FACT, UM, I WOULD LIKE TO ADD ONE ITEM TO THE CEO, WHICH I THINK THE APPLICANT WILL AGREE TO.
UM, WHICH IS, UM, ABOUT DRIVE-THROUGH SERVICES.
SO I WOULD WANT TO PROHIBIT DRIVE-THROUGH SERVICES AS AN ACCESSORY USE TO COMMERCIAL USES OVER HERE.
UM, JUST BECAUSE RIGHT NOW WE DON'T HAVE A TRAFFIC ISSUE AND WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT A DRIVE-THROUGH.
BUT IN THE FUTURE, THIS COULD BECOME A TRAFFIC SNARL.
AND I SAY THIS BECAUSE, UM, I'VE BEEN CAUGHT IN SEVERAL, ESPECIALLY BEING AT ACL THIS WEEKEND WORKING AND SEEING THAT STARBUCKS THAT, THAT EVERYBODY LOVES AT LAMAR AND RIVERSIDE BACK UP, LIKE TO THE POINT WHERE IT BLOCKS BUSES.
SO, UM, THAT'S MY ONLY REQUEST IS I'D BE OPEN TO WHATEVER ADDITIONAL PROHIBITED USES YOU MIGHT RECOMMEND, UM, COMMISSIONER GREENBERG.
AND AS FOR ME, I, I WOULD, I WOULD APPROVE THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, BUT ASK THAT WE ADD ONE ADDITIONAL CO SAYING DRIVE-THROUGH SERVICE USE IS PROHIBITED AS AN ACCESSORY USE TO COMMERCIAL USES.
IS IT ALLOWED IN THE FIRST PLACE? IT DOESN'T SPECIFICALLY ALLOW OR PROHIBIT DRIVE THROUGH IS ONE OF THOSE SNEAKY THINGS.
YEAH, I, UH, I GOT STAFF GONNA, ALTHOUGH I WILL, I WILL SAY ONE THING AS AN ASIDE, PERHAPS FOR NEW BUSINESS, THIS BODY SHOULD CONSIDER THE PLACE FOR CONVENIENCE STORAGE AND LR AND GR ZONING SINCE THAT MIGHT HAVE RESOLVED SOME OF THIS ISSUE.
COMMISSIONER STERN IS CORRECT FOR THE DRIVE-THRU.
SO IT YES, DON'T BUT PROHIBITING IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE.
WE DON'T PROHIBITING IT IS APPROPRIATE.
DON'T WANT, DO YOU HAVE A PROBLEM IF WE PROHIBITED? UH, NO.
I DIDN'T, THE REASON I DIDN'T MENTION IT'S NOT A PERMITTED USE.
IT'S NOT DEFINED PERMITTED USE.
IT IS AS I THINK COMMISSIONER STERN NOTED AN AUDIT THAT'S YEAH, IT'S AN APPENDAGE OR AN ACCESSORY TO THE CODE A LITTLE.
WELL, WE CAN SAY, BUT YOU CAN PROHIBIT PROHIBITED DRIVE THROUGH AS AN ACCESSORY USE TO ANY COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL.
IT'S WRITTEN IN THE ORDINANCE.
IT'S IN THERE ALREADY? NO, WHEN IT GETS WRITTEN INTO ORDINANCE, WHEN DO IT, IF THAT'S WHAT WE NOT, NOT YET.
IT SEEMS TO BE HEADING THAT WAY.
SO DO I HEAR A MOTION OR ANY MORE DISCUSSION? WELL, I THINK WE MAY AS WELL EXCLUDE THE REST OF THOSE CS USES.
SO THEY'RE THE ONES ON THERE WITH AN ARROW.
SO THE PROHIBITED USES WOULD BE EVERYTHING THAT'S IN THE BACKUP ALREADY ADDING IN NO DRIVE-THROUGHS, AGRICULTURAL SALES AND SERVICES, BUILDING MAINTENANCE SERVICES, EQUIPMENT REPAIR SERVICES, FOOD PREPARATION C AND GRS.
GR WELL, WE CAN MAKE THAT CONDITION.
IS IT, IF IT'S CURRENTLY CONDITIONAL, WE CAN LEAVE IT AS CONDITIONAL.
LAUNDRY SERVICE MONUMENT, RETAIL SERVICES, PLANT NURSERY.
UH, VETERINARY SERVICES AND MAINTENANCE AND SERVICE FACILITIES.
THIS IS ALREADY OUT, RIGHT? YES.
SO, AND THE LAST ONE WOULD BE MAINTENANCE AND SERVICE FACILITIES.
SO WE'RE ELIMINATING ALL OF THOSE IN ADDITION TO WHAT'S IN THE BACKUP.
AND I, I THINK IT'S DRIVE THROUGH AS AN ACCESSORY USE.
'CAUSE I DON'T WANT DRIVE THROUGH AS ACCESSORY USE.
IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT A PERMITTED OR PER OR USE.
IT'S A ODD SO DRIVE THROUGH AS ACCESSORY.
USE AN, YEAH, I, I SENT SOME LANGUAGE TO COMMISSIONER GREENBERG SINCE THERE'S NO WAY TO LIKE PUT IT IN A CHAT HERE.
OH, YOU MEAN I HAVE TO READ MY EMAIL?
I I CAN SEND IT TO ANOTHER COMMISSIONER WHO'S THERE.
DRIVE THROUGH SERVICE USE IS PROHIBITED AS AN ACCESSORY USE TO COMMERCIAL USES.
PLUS THE ONES I READ IN PLUS THE ONES.
BUT IS IT STILL, YOU HAVE A SITE PLAN FOR RESTAURANT MM-HMM
SO MAYBE FOOD PREPARATION ISN'T ONE THAT WE WANNA PROHIBIT.
I MEAN, IT JUST, IT'S JUST IN CASE.
JUST IN CASE SOME, SOMEONE FINALLY DECIDES THEY WOULD LIKE TO LEASE THIS SPACE FOR A RESTAURANT, RIGHT.
WE HAVE RESTAURANT GENERAL RETAIL IN A MEDICAL OFFICE SMALLER THAN 5,000 SQUARE FEET THAT'S ALREADY ON THE SITE PLAN AND
[00:35:01]
PLANT NURSERY.IS THAT CURRENTLY CONDITIONAL? BECAUSE IT'S GR IS CONDITIONAL.
IT'S JUST MAKE IT CONDITIONAL.
SO IN ADDITION TO WHAT WE HAVE, WE HAVE THE LANGUAGE THAT WE READ INTO THE, ABOUT THE DRIVE-THROUGHS, AGRICULTURAL SALES AND SERVICES, BUILDING MAINTENANCE SERVICES, EQUIPMENT REPAIR SERVICES, KENNELS, LAUNDRY SERVICES, MONUMENT RETAIL SALES, VETERINARY SERVICES AND MAINTENANCE AND SERVICE FACILITIES.
AND COMMISSIONER, I HAVE A REQUEST TO, UH, TO KEEP VETERINARY SERVICES IN, UH, IN THE PERMITTED USES.
I, I PERSONALLY FEEL LIKE WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH VETS IN THE CITY.
AND IF THIS WOULD UH, ALLOW, UH, I, I DON'T THINK IT'S A VERY INTENSIVE USE.
AND IF THIS WOULD MAKE IT ANY EASIER TO DEVELOP THE SITE, I WOULD LIKE TO UH, KEEP IT AS A
WELL YOU MAY BE THINKING OF PET SERVICES WHEN YOU THINK OF VETERINARY SERVICES, BUT VETERINARY SERVICES I THINK IS LIKE HORSES AND COWS.
I THINK, I THINK THE VETERINARY IS LARGE ANIMALS AS FARM ANIMALS AS OPPOSED TO PETS.
'CAUSE THERE'S PET, ISN'T THAT CORRECT? THERE'S SEPARATE.
SO THERE USED TO BE A HORSE FARM ON BRODY LANE.
YEAH, WE HAVE AGAIN, HARVEST PROPERTY EXPECTATION OF THAT FROM STAFF, MAYBE WHO THEY ARE.
UH, COMMISSIONER GREENBERG IS CORRECT.
IT'S FOR LARGER ANIMALS, VETERINARY SERVICES, LARGE ANIMALS.
DO YOU STILL, WELL THEN STRIKE THAT.
I DO SEE ON THE DEFINITION THOUGH THAT IT SAYS LIKE ON THE CODE USE IS A USE OF A SITE PROVISION OF VETERINARY SERVICES AND HOSPITAL FOR ANIMALS.
THIS INCLUDES PET CLINICS, DOG AND CAT HOSPITALS AND VETERINARY HOSPITALS FOR LIVESTOCK AND LARGE ANIMALS.
BUT YOU DON'T NEED VETERINARY SERVICES TO HAVE A VET FOR YOUR PETS.
IT JUST REALLY IS UP TO STAFF ON HOW STAFF DETERMINES THE ZONING MANAGER GETS TO DECIDE.
ULTIMATELY, I THINK THE ONE THING THAT YOU DON'T SEE VERY MUCH OF ARE THE SURGICAL, THE EMERGENCY SURGICAL CENTERS.
AND I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THAT'S GONNA BE CONSIDERED VETERINARY SERVICES OR PET SERVICES.
A REGULAR VET WOULD BE PET SERVICES BUT YOU DON'T SEE MANY OF THE EMERGENCY SERVICES SURGERY.
I DO THINK, UM, WHAT COMMISSIONER FLORES SAID IS CORRECT.
'CAUSE TECHNICALLY, I MEAN THERE'S LIVESTOCK THERE SO IT COULD BE, BUT ALSO IT IS WHAT YOU THINK OF AS A VET.
THE OTHER ONE IS MORE LIKE GROOMING SERVICES.
SO THERE IS A CASE TO KEEP IT.
IF WE COULD KEEP IT, IT WOULD MAKE ME HAPPY.
I WAS JUST GONNA READ THE DEFINITION FOR PET SERVICES FOR YOU GUYS.
UM, IT'S THE, IT'S FOR RETAIL SALE OF SMALL ANIMALS.
CUSTOMARILY USED AS FOR HOUSEHOLD PETS OR THE PROVISION OF VETERINARY GROOMING OR BOARDING SERVICES TOTALLY WITHIN THE BUILDING.
THIS USE INCLUDES PET STORES, SMALL ANIMAL CLINICS AND PET GROOMING SHOPS.
BUT EXCLUDES USES FOR LIVESTOCK AND LARGE ANIMALS.
STILL CAN WE LEAVE IT ON THERE? NOT IN MY HOUSE.
ARE WE GOOD WITH THAT? I GUESS.
I MEAN PET SERVICES ARE ALREADY ALLOWED.
RIGHT? AND FOR VETERINARY SERVICES, I MEAN I'M LOOKING AT THE ZONING OUT.
I CAN READ IT IF IT'S AN ISSUE, BUT I THINK IT'S GONNA BE OKAY.
I THINK IF WE LEAVE IT ON THERE, I THINK EVERYBODY'S IN AGREEMENT.
SO WAS THAT A MOTION YOU MADE? DID I MAKE A MOTION TO THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING.
YOU WANT ME TO SUMMARIZE YOUR MOTION? THE REQUEST WITH DRIVE THROUGH SERVICES USED PROHIBITED AS AN ACCESSORY USE TO COMMERCIAL USES.
AND THAT ADDITIONAL LIST THAT WE'VE JUST TALKED ABOUT.
AND IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS I CAN GET WITH YOU AFTER THE MEETING AND SHOW YOU THE EXACT ITEMS WE'RE REMOVING.
I'M HAPPY TO SECOND, DO I HEAR A SECOND? WAS THAT A SECOND LONNIE? YEAH.
ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? I THINK THIS PROVES THE WISDOM OF COMMISSIONER BOONE'S POINT OF NOT DOING ZONING THROUGH COMMISSIONER OR CONDITION OF THE OVERLAY.
BUT I WOULD AND I WOULD SUPPORT COMMISSIONER STERN'S RECOMMENDATION TO PERHAPS TAKE UP UH, DEALING WITH THE UNDERLYING PROBLEM HERE, WHICH IS THE LACK OF CONVENIENCE STORAGE IN THE GR CATEGORY.
AND TAYLOR MAJOR MAJOR HAD A, UM, COMMISSIONER MAJOR.
DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION? NO SIR.
I THOUGHT WE WERE GONNA PROCEED TO VOTE AFTER COMMISSIONER STERN SECOND
SO I RETRACTED ONCE I REALIZED WE WERE STILL TALKING.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR
[00:40:01]
COMMENTS? IF NOT, I'LL CALL FOR THE VOTE.ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION NAS PRESENTED, RAISE YOUR HAND.
ONE OPPOSED? SO 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8.
UM, BACK ON OUR AGENDA, PERMANENT COMMITTEES, CODES
[PERMANENT COMMITTEE UPDATES ]
AND ORDINANCES, JOINT COMMITTEE, ANY UPDATE? I FEEL LIKE WE MET A COUPLE WEEKS AGO ON A SAVE OUR SPRINGS UM, EXCEPTION OR WHATEVER THOSE ARE CALLED.IT WOULD'VE BEEN COMMISSIONER STERN FLORES OR GREENBERG.
ANYBODY REMEMBER? YEAH, WE HAD A MEETING, IT WAS ON THE SAVE OUR SPRING.
YEAH, IT WAS ABOUT, UM, IT WAS ABOUT AN EXCEPTION FOR SAVE OUR SPRINGS ON SOUTHWEST PARKWAY.
UM, IN PARTICULAR RIGHT NEXT TO UM, RIGHT NEXT TO, I FORGET THE NAME OF THAT PRIVATE SCHOOL, BUT THEY WERE UM, TALKING ABOUT HAVING A DAYCARE FACILITY THAT WAS THERE AND THERE WERE SOME IMPERVIOUS COVER ISSUES THAT WE WERE TRYING TO WORK OUT.
SO ULTIMATELY WE UM, WE MADE RECOMMENDATIONS ABOUT REDUCING, UM, PARKING FOR STAFF BY ENCOURAGING MORE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION.
AND UM, WE MADE A COUPLE OTHER SMALL COMPROMISES LIKE, UM, USING COMPACT CAR PARKING SPOTS TO REDUCE THE FOOTPRINT A LITTLE BIT FURTHER.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN JOINT COMMITTEE.
WE HAVE A MEETING TOMORROW, SO WE'LL HAVE AN UPDATE THE NEXT MEETING.
SMALL AREA PLANNING JOINT COMMITTEE.
[FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS ]
WE GAVE STAFF ONE TODAY.ANY OTHER FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS? WELL, THE ONE WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT, WHICH WAS THE, UM, WHEN SHOULD THEY HAVE A, WHAT DO YOU CALL IT FOR THE TI TRANSPORTATION? YEAH, CAN WE, WE TALKED ABOUT HAVING IT AT THE NEXT MEETING, BUT COMMISSIONER STERN ISN'T GONNA BE HERE AND HE AND I ARE WORKING ON A, UM, RECOMMENDATION.
SO IT MIGHT BE BETTER IF THAT COULD WAIT TILL THE FIRST MEETING IN NOVEMBER.
AND IS IT TRUE THAT THE FIRST MEETING IN NOVEMBER IS NOT THE FIRST ELECTION DAY? IT WON'T BE THE FIRST TUESDAY.
OH, IS THAT CORRECT? THAT WE HAVE A SPECIALLY CALLED MEETING ON NOVEMBER 1ST OR SECOND NOVEMBER 2ND.
NOVEMBER 2ND, WHICH IS SOMETHING FOR ALL OF US TO KNOW ANYWAY.
WE STILL HAVE THE NOVEMBER 2ND MEETING, WHICH IS A MONDAY.
YEAH, BECAUSE NOVEMBER, NOVEMBER 3RD IS ELECTION DAY AND IT CAN'T MEET ON ELECTION DAY.
SO WE WOULD HAVE TO BE ON NOVEMBER 2ND.
SO WE'D LIKE TO WORK ON THAT RECOMMENDATION FOR NOVEMBER 2ND, FOR NOVEMBER 2ND.
AND WE'LL GET WITH STAFF TO CONFIRM THAT.
UH, ANY OTHER FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS? IF NOT, IT IS 6 43.
WE HAVE A HOST OF YOUNG ADULTS IN THE BACK.
WHERE ARE Y'ALL FROM? SAY WHY THEY'RE HERE.
AND SO COME ON, COME UP AT THE FRONT AND TELL US WHY Y'ALL ARE ALL HERE.
YOU GET EXTRA CREDIT FOR COMING HERE.
DO YOU HAVE TO DO A WRITEUP? YEAH,
UH, IT IS 6 44 AND WE ARE ADJOURNED.