Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download
Download Transcript

[00:00:04]

MR. RIVERA, WE READY? OKAY.

UM, ALL RIGHT.

UH,

[ Determination of Quorum / Meeting Called to Order]

WE HAVE A QUORUM PRESENT HERE, UM, ON JANUARY 11TH, 2022 AT 6 0 4.

UH, SO I'M BRINGING THE MEETING, UH, PLANNING COMMISSION TO ORDER.

UH, WE'LL START WITH A ROLL CALL AND I'LL JUST GO, UM, STARTING WITH, UH, JUST, UH, RAISE YOUR HAND, SAY HERE.

UH, UH, OVER HERE, I STARTED ON THIS END WITH, UH, COMMISSIONER CONLEY HERE, UH, COMMISSIONER SHEA HERE.

SURE.

FLORES.

AND I'M YOUR CHAIR? UH, SHAW.

UM, AND MOVING THIS WAY.

COMMISSIONER HUIZAR HERE, MR. THOMPSON HERE, COMMISSIONER SCHNEIDER HERE, ME SHIFT OVER, UH, LOOKING AT MY SCREEN HERE.

UH, AND YES, WE HAVE A COMMISSIONER, UH, YONIS PALITO HERE, UH, VICE CHAIR HEMPEL AND, UH, COMMISSIONER COX HERE AND, UH, COMMISSIONER PRAXIS.

AND THAT'S ALL I'M SEEING RIGHT NOW.

SO, UM, AND I DON'T SEE ANY EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS HERE TODAY.

UM, SO, UH, I LIKE THIS WE'RE VERY SPREAD OUT IS EVERYBODY KNOWS WE'RE IN STAGE FIVE AND WE'RE GONNA BE DISCUSSING ABOUT SOME OF THE CHALLENGES THAT PRESENTS US HERE WITH THE COMMISSION HERE SHORTLY.

UH, BUT JUST WANT TO ADVOCATE THAT, UH, I'M NOT SURE HOW MANY DISCUSSION CASES WE WILL HAVE, BUT PLEASE, UH, KEEP MASK AND KEEP SPREAD OUT.

UM, IF WE HAVE MORE THAN ONE DISCUSSION CASE, UH, PLEASE, UH, WAIT UNTIL YOUR, UH, DISCUSSION IN CASE IT COMES UP AND, UH, YOU'LL RECEIVE AN EMAIL.

AND I THINK, UH, AGAIN, IF WE HAVE MORE THAN ONE, UH, MR. RIVERA WILL GO TO THE ATRIUM AND LET YOU KNOW THE NEXT CASE IS COMING FORWARD.

UH, BUT LET'S JUST TRY TO STAY SPREAD OUT AND SAFE.

AND, UM, LET'S GO AHEAD AND MOVE INTO THE FIRST ITEM.

UH, DO WE HAVE ANY, UM, UH, CITIZENS, UH, COMMUNICATION? NONE.

OKAY.

UH, LOOK QUICKLY.

WE HAVE MINUTES FROM THE DECEMBER 22ND MEETING OF 2021.

UM, IF THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK AT THOSE, DO WE HAVE ANY CHANGES TO THOSE MINUTES? ALL RIGHT, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND APPROVE THOSE WHEN YOU GO, UH, WITH THE CONSENT AGENDA.

[Reading of Agenda]

NOW, TURN IT OVER TO COMMISSIONER FLORES, KIND OF DO THE FIRST READING OF THE CONSENT AGENDA.

ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU.

YOU CHERISH.

AWE.

UM, WE HAVE A ONE APPROVE THE MINUTES OF DECEMBER 22ND, 2021 B ONE PLAN AMENDMENT NPA 20 21 0 0 1 5 0.01 AUSTIN SPORTS FACILITY THAT IS UP FOR NEIGHBORHOOD POSTPONEMENT TO FEBRUARY 8TH, B TO REZONING C 14 20 21 0 1 2 5 AUSTIN SPORTS FACILITY.

ALSO UP FOR NEIGHBORHOOD POSTPONEMENT TO FEBRUARY 8TH, B3 PLAN AMENDMENT NPA 20 21 0 0 0 5 0.02 MONTOPOLIS MULTI-FAMILY FOR APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT TO FEBRUARY 8TH, BEFORE PLAN AMENDMENT NPA 20 21 0 0 0 2 0.01 1400 EAST FOURTH STREET UP FOR NEIGHBORHOOD POSTPONEMENT TO FEBRUARY 8TH, B FIVE, REZONING C 14 20 21 0 1 3 8 1400 EAST EAST FOURTH STREET UP FOR NEIGHBORHOOD POSTPONEMENT TO FEBRUARY 8TH B6 PLAN AMENDMENT NPA 20 21 0 0 0 9 0.01 1612 EAST SEVENTH STREET, UH, FOR NEIGHBORHOOD POSTPONEMENT TO FEBRUARY 8TH, B SEVEN, REZONING C 14 20 21 0 1 3 TO 16, 12 EAST SEVENTH STREET UP FOR NEIGHBORHOOD POSTPONEMENT, TWO FEBRUARY 8TH, B EIGHT, PLAN AMENDMENT NPA 20 21 0 0 1 6 0.0 3 35 35 EAST SEVENTH STREET.

THIS ITEM IS UP FOR CONSENT.

BENIGN REZONING.

SEE 14 20 21 0 1 2 4 35 35 EAST SEVENTH STREET ITEM UP FOR CONSENT, B 10 REZONING C 14 20 21 0 1 7 7 44 0 1.

[00:05:01]

GILLIS ITEM IS UP FOR CONSENT.

B 11 RESTRICTIVE COVENANT TERMINATION, C 1480 TO 180 5 RCT 44 0 1 GILLIS ITEM UP FOR CONSENT.

B12 REZONING C 14 20 21 0 1 66 SOUTH CONGRESS AVENUE.

RESIDENCES ITEM IS UP FOR CONSENT B 13 REZONING C 14 20 21 0 1 7 4 8 15 WEST 11TH STREET.

AND THIS ITEM IS UP FOR DISCUSSION B 14, REZONING C 14 H 20 21 0 1 8 1 NALLEY SHEAR BREMAN WAREHOUSE.

THIS ITEM IS UP FOR DISCUSSION B 15 FINAL PLATFORM APPROVED PRELIMINARY PLAN C H J 20 18 0 0 9 1 0.3 A TURNER'S CROSSING SOUTH PHASE ONE.

UH, THIS ITEM IS UP FOR CONSENT APPROVAL, B 16 PRELIMINARY PLAN C 8 20 21 0 1 8 0 POINT S H.

GOODNIGHT RANCH TOWN CENTER WEST PHASE ONE.

THIS ITEM IS UP FOR CONSENT APPROVAL.

THAT'S IT.

OKAY.

THANK YOU.

AND I, I THINK ON ITEM D 12, UH, DID WE HAVE A SPEAKER HERE TODAY? SIGNED UP TRICK MR. GOD, THIS REGISTER JUST BEACON WORLD.

UM, LIKE TO PRESENT.

YEAH, SO THAT ONE COMMISSIONERS, UM, I'D LIKE TO HAVE MR. KEN TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION AND, AND AFTER THAT, IF WE WANT TO PULL THAT FOR DISCUSSION, UM, AND THEN WE, AFTER WE APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA, WE'RE GOING TO DISCUSS OUR DISCUSSION CASES TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT WE'RE GOING TO HEAR THOSE THIS EVENING OR POSTPONE THEM FOR KIND OF THE HEALTH AND SAFETY CONCERNS.

SO, UH, MR. CANTU, WOULD YOU COME AND SPEAK AND, UH, SO THAT COMMISSIONERS CAN KNOW YOUR CONCERNS AND THEN WE'LL DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT TO KEEP IT ON CONSENT OR TO PULL IT FOR DISCUSSION.

GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS MORE YOU CAN'T TOO WITH THE SOUTH CONGRESS NEIGHBORHOOD CONTACT TEAM.

UM, AT THE LAST, UH, PC MEETING HERE, UH, THERE WAS BASICALLY A PROMISE THAT WE WOULD, UH, HAVE A DISCUSSION, UH, BUT DUE TO UNDERLYING CIRCUMSTANCES OF TODAY WITH COVID-19 AND THE HEALTH AND SAFETY, ET CETERA, AND PLUS ALL THE OTHERS, UH, THAT ARE GOING TO BE DISCUSSING FEBRUARY 8TH.

WE WOULD LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND HAVE A DISCUSSION ON FEBRUARY 8TH REGARDING THIS CASE.

OKAY.

AND, UM, CAN YOU, I GUESS, UH, WHAT ARE THE POINTS OF, UM, I'M JUST TRYING TO GET, WHAT ARE THE ISSUES THAT YOU'RE, THAT YOU HAVE? I JUST BRIEFLY, UH, WELL, 1, 1, 1 IS THE, UH, YOU KNOW, COVID-19, YOU KNOW, WE'RE ALL BEING VERY CAUTIOUS AND EVERYTHING.

NUMBER TWO, UH, THAT WOULD BUY US SOME MORE TIME TO, TO GET WITH THE COMMUNITY AS WELL.

OKAY.

ALRIGHT.

UM, SO I AM NOT, UH, WE HEAR A LOT OF CASES I'M TRYING TO REFLECT ON THIS ONE.

AND, UM, WHEN DID WE, MR. RIVERA, DO YOU RECALL WHEN WE FIRST HEARD THIS AND DID WE POSTPONE IT BECAUSE WE HAD A HEAVY CASELOAD SURE.

COMMISSIONER LIAISON AND VERA, I BELIEVE, UM, THE POSTPONEMENT, UM, WAS DUE ON DECEMBER 14TH, WHICH WAS A CONSENT ONLY AGENDA.

UM, BUT I'LL BE LIKE, LET ME GO CONFER WITH THE CASE MANAGER, RECALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES CHAIR, IF I CAN SPEAK ON THAT, PLEASE DO.

THANK YOU, MR. PRESTON.

YES.

SO, UM, I BELIEVE THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAD BROUGHT UP CONCERNS THAT THEY HADN'T HAD ENOUGH COMMUNICATION WITH THE APPLICANT.

UM, AND THEY DIDN'T KNOW EVEN THE BASICS ABOUT WHAT THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WOULD ENTAIL.

THEY DIDN'T KNOW HOW MANY UNITS WERE EVEN PROPOSED.

UM, AND SO THEY HAD ACTUALLY ASKED FOR A POSTPONEMENT TO AN EVEN LATER DATE.

UM, BUT WE HAD DECIDED TO GRANT THEM A POSTPONEMENT TO THIS DATE, WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE POSSIBLY COULD BE ANOTHER POSTPONEMENT.

GRANTED, THAT IS MY RECOLLECTION.

OKAY.

UM, LET ME JUST, UH,

[00:10:01]

A POINT OF ORDER HERE.

SO MR. RIVERA, DO WE NEED TO GO, SHOULD WE GO AHEAD AND TAKE THIS UP FOR DISCUSSION POSTPONEMENT? OR SHOULD WE ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO SPEAK AT THIS TIME? THEY'RE INDICATING THEY WANT TO HAVE TIME AT THE MICROPHONE.

SURE.

THIS IS A MORE OF A MATTER OF A POSTPONEMENT VERSUS THE MERITS.

UH, YOU PROBABLY MOVE IT OFF THE CONSENT AGENDA TO DISCUSS THE POSTPONEMENT.

OKAY.

UH, ALL RIGHT, LET'S GO AHEAD AND MOVE THAT OFF THE CONSENT AGENDA.

I THINK THAT'S A, IT SOUNDS LIKE GIVEN THE BACKGROUND THAT I JUST HEARD, I THINK THAT'S THE SMARTEST THING TO DO.

OKAY.

SO WE'RE GOING TO MOVE THAT OFF THE CONSENT AGENDA.

UM, OKAY.

SO THE OTHER ITEMS, OH, LET ME GO THROUGH, DO WE HAVE ANY COMMISSIONERS, UH, RECUSING THEMSELVES TODAY OR STAINING FROM ANY OF THE CASES, UH, BY SHEER I'M ABSTAINING ON, UH, ART? SORRY, NOT, UM, YES.

ABSTAINING ON, UH, BEFORE AND B FIVE, THE RED LINE PARKWAY INITIATIVE BOARD, AND THEN THERE'S SOME MATERIAL OR THERE'S A LETTER FROM THEM IN THE BACKUP.

OKAY.

ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS? ALRIGHT.

[Consent Agenda]

OKAY.

UH, ANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS WISH TO PULL ANY OF THE OTHER ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION OR ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA BEFORE I READ IT ONE MORE TIME.

ALL RIGHT.

SURE.

COMMISSIONER LIAISON FOR, UM, SO ONE THING TO CONSIDER, UH, ON AN ITEM THAT'S CURRENTLY ON YOUR, UH, PROPOSED, UH, CONSENT IS, UM, A DISCUSSION CASE IS B 13, THE INDIVIDUAL WHO REGISTERED SPEAK IS NOT PRESENT.

SO, UH, THAT'S A POSSIBILITY THAT YOU CAN MOVE THAT TO THE CONSENT AGENDA.

ANY COMMISSIONERS WANT TO SPEAK ON THAT? I GUESS WE DON'T HAVE ANYBODY HERE TO SPEAK.

SO IT, UH, EITHER IF WE PULL IT, IT'S GOING TO GET PUSHED OUT TO FEBRUARY 8TH.

I'M NOT SURE IF, WHY THEY'RE NOT HERE.

IF IT'S CONCERNS ABOUT STAGE FIVE, ANY, ANY RECOMMENDATIONS THERE? THE QUESTION IT DID, COULD WE HEAR THE OTHER ITEM FIRST? AND THEN IF NO ONE SHOWS UP, THEN AT THAT POINT, IF NO ONE WANTS TO PULL IT, WE JUST PUT IT ON THE CONSENT AND MOVE IT FORWARD OR NOT, NOT NECESSARILY HEAR FROM ANYBODY.

UM, OKAY.

LET ME SEE IF I UNDERSTAND.

SO HERE THE FIRST DISCUSSION CASE, RIGHT? TO GIVE SOMEONE AN OPPORTUNITY IF THEY'RE LATE AND NOT ABLE TO GET HERE, BUT IF AT, AT WHATEVER TIME WE'RE READY TO HEAR THAT CASE, THEY'RE STILL NOT HERE.

WE JUST VOTE ON CONSENT FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION.

PRETTY MUCH JUST LEAVE IT ON DISCUSSION FOR NOW.

AND IF NOBODY SHOWS UP, THEN WE'LL JUST LET IT GO AND CONSENT WHEN IT WE'LL JUST VOTE FOR IT TO BE AN ADDED TO CONSENT, RIGHT? YEAH.

AT THE END.

YEAH.

WHEN THE, YES, I'LL MAKE IT EASY FOR EVERYONE I'D LIKE TO DISCUSS, UH, BASED ON MY READING OF THE BACKUP, I'D LIKE TO DISCUSS THIS ITEM, SO, OKAY.

OKAY.

WE'RE GOING TO PULL IT AND THEN IT'LL, WELL, WE'LL TALK ABOUT OUR DISCUSSION CASES THAT WE PASS THE CONSENT AGENDA.

OKAY.

THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT.

SO WE'RE GOING TO PULL THAT ONE.

ALL RIGHT.

SO LET ME GO THROUGH THE CONSENT AGENDA QUICKLY, AND MY APOLOGIES FOR INTERRUPTING.

UM, BUT IN REGARDS TO THAT, UH, VERY ITEM, THE APPLICANT WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST A POSTPONEMENT TO, UH, FEBRUARY 8TH.

OH, OKAY.

ON B 13, CORRECT.

OKAY.

ALL RIGHT.

SO LET'S MOVE THROUGH THE, I SUPPOSE THE SENSE AGENDA HERE.

I'M GONNA READ IT, UH, ONE MORE TIME.

SO WE HAVE ON THE CONSENT AGENDA APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM DECEMBER 22ND, WE HAVE, UM, ITEMS B ONE IS NEIGHBORHOOD, A POSTPONEMENT TO FEBRUARY 8TH, B TWO IS NEIGHBORHOOD POSTPONEMENT, FEBRUARY 8TH, B3 PLAN AMENDMENT, UH, IS, UH, POSTPONE APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT, FEBRUARY 8TH.

UM, BEFORE PLAN AMENDMENT, NEIGHBORHOOD POSTPONEMENT, FEBRUARY 8TH, THE FIVE REZONING NEIGHBORHOOD POSTPONEMENT, FEBRUARY 8TH, THESE SIX IT'S PLANNED AMENDMENT NEIGHBORHOOD POSTPONEMENT TO FEBRUARY 8TH, B SEVEN REZONING NEIGHBORHOODS POSTPONEMENT, FEBRUARY EIGHT.

WE'VE

[00:15:01]

GOT A, B AID IS ON OUR CONSENT AGENDA.

UH, B NINE IS ON CONSENT.

THE 10 REZONING IS ON CONSENT.

WE'VE GOT B 11, THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT TERMINATION IS ON CONSENT.

B 12, UH, IS BEING PULLED, UH, UH, PULLED FOR DISCUSSION.

BUT, UH, I THINK DID, OR DID WE GO AHEAD AND VOTE TO POSTPONE THAT FEBRUARY 8TH? I THINK, NO, WE DIDN'T JUST PULL IN IT FOR DISCUSSION.

OKAY.

UH, IS, UH, POSTPONE TILL FEBRUARY 8TH AND THAT'S THE APPLICANT.

OKAY.

UH, B 14 IS A DISCUSSION ITEM.

B 15 IS CONSENT APPROVAL.

THESE 16 IS A PRELIMINARY PLAN IS ON CONSENT APPROVAL.

AND, UH, DO I HAVE A MOTION TO, UH, CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA? COMMISSIONER CZARS SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CONLEY.

UH, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE HERE ON THE DIAS FIRST.

THAT WAS IN FAVOR.

ALL RIGHT.

THAT WAS ON VIRTUAL COMMISSION TO BE HONEST PLEAD.

UH, OKAY.

UH THAT'S LET'S SEE.

YOU'RE JUST CHECKING HERE.

WE'VE GOT 7, 8, 9, 10, 10.

OH, ALRIGHT.

WE GOT 11.

THANK YOU.

11 ZERO.

OKAY.

ALL RIGHT.

SO THAT TAKES CARE OF OUR CONSENT AGENDA.

UH, BEFORE WE MOVE INTO THE DISCUSSION ITEMS, UM, WANT TO DISCUSS THE NEXT MONTH, UH, WE HAVE TWO MEETINGS, UH, WHERE WE ARE GOING TO BE OPERATING UNDER KIND OF NORMAL, UH, WELL, OUR NORMAL PROCEDURES, UH, BUT WE ARE IN STAGE FIVE.

UM, SO WE HAVE H I'VE HAD DISCUSSIONS WITH SOME OF YOU.

THERE WAS A SURVEY ABOUT ONLY TAKING UP CONSENT ITEMS AND PUSHING EVERY, ALL THE DISCUSSION CASES INTO THE MONTH OF FEBRUARY WHEN WE WILL HAVE THE PUBLIC WILL HAVE THE OPTION TO PARTICIPATE VIRTUALLY AT THAT POINT.

UM, THE OTHER THING THAT WE'RE ALSO TRYING TO DO IS COUNCIL IS CURRENTLY, UM, DOING, IS THE VIRTUAL QUORUM WHERE WE WOULD, UH, ADD THE OPTION TO, UH, YOU KNOW, COMMISSIONERS WOULD BE ABLE TO PARTICIPATE VIRTUALLY, AND WE WOULD STILL BE ABLE TO MEET QUORUM THAT WAY, SO THAT, UM, STILL SOME DEBATE THERE ABOUT HOW WE GET THAT DONE, BUT THAT WOULD PROBABLY BE AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE, UM, IS MY CURRENT THINKING.

UH, ANYWAY, WE'LL HAVE MORE OPTIONS TO MAKE IT SAFER AND STARTING IN FEBRUARY.

SO, UH, WE HAD WENT ON, I WANT TO VOTE ON HERE IS WHETHER OR NOT WE WANT TO TAKE UP THESE DISCUSSION CASES NOW OR MOVE THEM TO FEBRUARY.

SO, UM, SHARON GOT A QUESTION.

YES, COMMISSIONER CLASS, DO WE KNOW WHAT COUNCIL'S DOING AT THIS POINT? UH, IF THEY ARE WORKING, THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO MEET KORUM VIRTUALLY.

I'M NOT SURE HOW MANY COUNCIL MEMBERS ARE ACTUALLY SHOWING UP PHYSICALLY VERSUS THOSE THAT ARE, UM, PARTICIPATING VIRTUALLY, BUT THEY DO HAVE THAT FLEXIBILITY.

AND I THINK ARE EXERCISING THAT CURRENTLY.

SO WE, THEY HAVE HAS AN ORANGE THAT WOULD ALLOW US TO DO THAT.

I THINK FEBRUARY 28TH IS THE START OF THAT TIME PERIOD.

UM, WE WERE TRYING TO GET SOME, UH, SUPPORT FOR, FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO MOVE THAT DATA TO FEBRUARY 1ST.

SO, UH, SO THE ZAP AND PLANNING COMMISSION COULD ALSO, UH, HAVE THE VIRTUAL CORUM OPTION.

SO I THAT'S MORE THAN YOU PROBABLY WANTED TO HEAR, BUT THAT'S, UH, I BELIEVE COUNCIL CURRENTLY IS DOING THE VIRTUAL QUORUM.

YEAH, NO, I, I APPRECIATE THAT INFORMATION AND I FULLY SUPPORT TRYING TO MOVE THAT UP, UM, YOU KNOW, UH, FOR, FOR ALL THE REASONS WE'VE, WE'VE DISCUSSED.

UM, SO YEAH, THAT'S MY OPINION.

SO THE, THE, UM, SO THIS WOULD BE FOR THIS MEETING AND THE JANUARY 25TH MEETING.

UH, THE ONE BIGGEST CONCERN I HAVE IS THAT THE STATESMAN PUD, UH, THAT IS PROBABLY GOING TO BE A, UH, I WOULD SAY WE PROBABLY WILL HAVE QUITE A NUMBER OF SPEAKERS.

AND I THINK FOR US, UH, WE HAVE WORKING TOWARD HAVING AMENDMENTS THAT WE WILL HAVE QUITE A BIT OF DISCUSSION Q AND A WITH STAFF AND THE APPLICANT.

I, I HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THAT.

UM, AND I, I GUESS I, I WOULD LIKE, UM, WE HAVE THE APPLICANT, UH, REPRESENTATIVE HERE TODAY.

[00:20:01]

I JUST WANT TO ASK, GIVEN THE HEALTH CONCERNS FOR STAGE FIVE, WE ARE GOING TO BE ABLE TO DO THIS IN A SAFER MANNER.

STARTING IN FEBRUARY, BEGINNING OF FEBRUARY.

IS, WOULD THAT, ARE YOU GUYS, UH, MENIAL TO, UM, HAVING US HEAR THE CASE AT THAT TIME? UM, I'M RICHARD SUTTLE, I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT, THE STATEMENT, UM, I GUESS THE PART OF THE NEW INFORMATION I JUST GOT AS YOU'RE ANTICIPATING A BUNCH OF SPEAKERS, DID YOU MENTION, CAUSE WE'VE ALREADY KIND OF TEED UP THE CASE AND DIDN'T HAVE ANY, IT'S MORE ABOUT US HAVING A LOT OF QUESTIONS OF YOU AND STAFF AND WE'LL HAVE THE STAFFOLD, UM, YOU KNOW, THERE'LL BE ABLE TO BE VIRTUAL IF THERE'S ANY, YOU'LL ALSO HAVE THAT FLEXIBILITY TO BE, UM, YOU KNOW, UH, PARTICIPATING VIRTUALLY AS WELL.

SO IT SAYS, UM, WE HAVE NOT DISCUSSED THIS AS A COMMISSION, SO I'M KIND OF OPENING UP FOR DISCUSSION NOW, WOULD IT BE ANOTHER TWO WEEKS THEN? DO YOU THINK IT WOULD BE FEBRUARY 8TH IS WHEN WE WOULD, UH, HEAR IT, UH, UNDER THE NEW PROCEDURES WHERE WE HAVE THE PUBLIC KIND OF HAVING A VIRTUAL OPTION, AS WELL AS THE APPLICANT.

AND PROBABLY THIS IS A QUESTION FOR ANDREW, WOULD IT HAVE THE SAME? REMEMBER THIS IS THE ONE THAT WE KIND OF HAVE PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT ON BECAUSE OF THE, WHERE TO HAVE PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT ON THE, ON THE AGENDA.

B FIRST, IN OTHER WORDS, I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THIS COMMISSION WOULD, UH, VOTE ON AND I DON'T SEE WHY WE WOULDN'T DO THAT.

IT SEEMS FAIR TO ME, BUT WE WOULD VOTE TO MOVE IT UP.

I MEAN, I, I DON'T WANT TO PUT ANYBODY IN ANY DANGER.

IT'S NOT ZONING CASES, NOT WORTH A HEALTH RISK, AND WE CAN ALL DIFFER ON WHAT THAT SAFETY LOOKS LIKE.

BUT IF YOU GUYS DON'T FEEL SAFE, I DON'T WANT YOU VOTING ON MY CASE, IF YOU DON'T FEEL SAFE.

SO I'M GOING TO LEAVE IT UP TO YOU GUYS.

HOW'S THAT? YEAH, I JUST, YOU WERE HERE AND I THOUGHT I'D TAKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO, UH, LET YOU MAKE A STATEMENT, RIGHT.

JUST TO BE HEARD.

WE DON'T WANT TO MAKE ANYBODY MAD AND WE DON'T WANT TO PUT ANYBODY IN AN UNSAFE POSITION.

OKAY.

THANK YOU, MR. SUN.

UH, OKAY.

SO, UM, JUST WANT TO POINT OUT ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.

WE, WE DIDN'T, UM, WE DID, UH, VICE-CHAIR DID, WAS ABSTAINING FROM, UH, FOREIGN FIVE.

OKAY.

THERE WERE A COUPLE OF HANDS RAISED VIRTUALLY.

OH, I APOLOGIZE.

OKAY.

COMMISSION, UH, CAN YOU RAISE YOUR HAND ONE MORE TIME? SORRY.

OKAY.

COMMISSIONER COX.

THANK YOU.

I, YEAH, I WAS JUST GONNA, I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY, UM, YOU KNOW, WE'RE, WE'RE HAVING THE SAME ISSUES AS WELL WITH THE WORKING GROUP WHERE, UH, OBVIOUSLY WE HAVE MORE FLEXIBILITY, BUT WE'VE GONE COMPLETELY VIRTUAL BECAUSE OF COVID ISSUES AND THE STAGE FIVE, UM, THAT MAKES SOME THINGS EASIER.

IT MAKES COLLABORATION MAYBE A LITTLE BIT MORE OF A CHALLENGE, ESPECIALLY POSSIBLY WITH STAFF AND THE APPLICANT.

UM, BUT DELAYING THAT TOO.

UM, WHENEVER WE, WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO RECEIVE PUBLIC INPUT VIRTUALLY MAY ALSO HAVE THE BENEFIT OF HAVING THE WORKING GROUP BE ABLE TO FLESH OUT A BIT MORE OF THEIR AMENDMENTS, UH, BE A BIT MORE DETAILED IN WHAT WE DO, WHICH MAY HELP, UH, IMPROVE THE TIME THAT IT TAKES TO, TO COVER THIS IN THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.

OKAY.

UH, COMMISSIONER YANAS PALITO.

DO YOU HAVE YOUR HAND UP TOO? DID, BUT I THINK MY QUESTION GOT ANSWERED DURING THE DISCUSSION.

I APPRECIATE THAT.

AND I WOULD JUST ECHO SOME OF THE PREVIOUS COMMENTS.

I WOULD WELCOME MORE TIME TO TREAT THIS WITH CARE AND THE WORKING GROUP AND HAVE NO PROBLEM GIVING IT PREFERENTIAL STATUS ON THE AGENDA FOR THE FEBRUARY.

[B.12. Rezoning: C14-2021-0166 - South Congress Avenue Residences; District 2]

OKAY.

UH, SO CIRCLING BACK.

SO FOR THIS MEETING SPECIFICALLY, UH, B12 AND THE HISTORIC LANDMARK CASE B 11, UH, DO WE SHOW THAT WOULD BE B 14.

OH, SORRY.

APOLOGIES.

14 B12.

AND, UH, YEAH.

AND B 14, UH, THOSE TWO ITEMS, UH, CAN WE WANT TO HEAR THOSE THIS EVENING OR POSTPONE THEM? SO IT WAS, IT WAS THE SPEAKER THAT SPOKE EARLY ON, WAS THAT ON B12, RIGHT? THAT, THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD WANTED A POSTPONEMENT.

OKAY.

SO I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION HERE AND WE CAN, SO I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO POSTPONE AND ITEMS, BOTH ITEMS TO, UH, WHAT DATE.

[00:25:01]

SO I WOULD PUT IT IN FEBRUARY 8TH.

OKAY.

JUST CAUSE IT'S, UM, I MEAN THAT W WE'RE SUPPOSED TO GO HERE AND THEY'RE HERE TO, TO BE HEARD TODAY, BUT, UM, SO AGAIN, IT'S ONE OF THOSE THINGS TO GIVE THEM PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT, UH, BECAUSE THEY'RE READY TO GO TODAY AND IF WE'RE GOING TO MOVE THEM, WE SHOULD GIVE THEM THAT PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT.

IT'S KIND OF THINKING, UH, DO I HAVE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER SCHNEIDER? UH, CAN I ASK ONE QUICK QUESTION? YES.

UM, I'M NOT OPPOSED TO ANY OF THIS.

I, MY, MY QUESTION IS W IN THE CASE WHERE THE NEIGHBORHOOD SPECIFICALLY REQUESTED A POSTPONEMENT, I'M IN SUPPORT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S REQUEST, BUT ON THE ITEM B 14, MY ONLY QUESTION IS WHAT WILL SIGNIFICANTLY CHANGE ABOUT THE CASE? ARE THERE FOLKS WHO NEED TO TESTIFY ON THIS, OR IS THERE SOMETHING DIFFERENT ABOUT THE CASE THAT, THAT MAKES IT, THAT WE CAN'T HEAR IT TODAY BECAUSE WE'RE JUST SETTING OURSELVES UP FOR A VERY LONG MEETING AND WE'RE GOING TO GIVE PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT.

I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY CASES.

YEAH.

THAT'S, THAT'S TRUE.

UH, THE HISTORIC LAND, UM, LANDMARK CASE.

SO WHAT WE DO IS THE APPLICANT IS, UH, THE HLC.

UH, SO THE OWNER IS, WOULD BE SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION.

SO THAT IS THE ONLY SPEAKER, UH, OR THEY PRESENT.

SO WE HAVE THE OWNER PRESENT IF WE WANT TO, WELL, WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE TABLE.

WE HAVE A SECOND.

UH, BUT TO YOUR, UH, YOU ASKED THE QUESTION, WE'VE ANSWERED IT.

SO, UH, DO WE, UM, I, I, ALL I WAS TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IS IN THE CASE WHERE THE NEIGHBORHOOD REQUESTS, THE POSTPONEMENT, I'M TOTALLY IN FAVOR OF IT BECAUSE ANYONE, UM, ON ITEM B 14, A POSTPONEMENT, BECAUSE IF THE SPEAKERS ARE HERE, THEY'VE GONE OUT OF THEIR WAY TO COME HERE AND WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A VERY BRUTAL MEETING IN FEBRUARY.

SHOULD WE JUST TAKE ONE CASE? OKAY.

YEAH, WE'RE HERE.

SO CAN I RESEND IT AS TO SPLIT? UH, I MEAN, I KNOW IT, HE PUT IT OUT THAT WE GOT A SECOND, BUT I MEAN, THE REALITY IS, I MEAN, WE, WE SHOULD JUST SPLIT IT AND THEN THAT WOULD, WE COULD DISPOSE OF ONE AND THEN LET'S DEAL WITH IT.

SO LET'S SPLIT IT.

OKAY.

SO MY, UH, RESEND AND, UH, I'M GOING TO SPLIT IT AND I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION TO POSTPONE V12 TO FEBRUARY 8TH.

OKAY.

OKAY.

UM, AND THEN, AND THEN WE'LL TAKE CARE OF THAT AND WE'LL TAKE HER OF THE NEXT.

OKAY.

SO, UM, SO DO I NEED A SECOND ON THAT? YEAH.

UH, COMMISSIONER ZAR.

SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE.

LET ME SEE THE HANDS ON THE DIAS FOR, UM, B 12, UH, POST FINDING THE FEBRUARY.

ALL RIGHT.

THAT'S EVERYONE HERE, EVERYBODY ON THE SCREEN.

SO THAT'S UNANIMOUS.

AND NOW THE SECOND PART OF THAT IS, UM, THE 14.

AND LET'S GO AHEAD AND VOTE ON WHETHER THEY HEAR THAT TONIGHT.

UH, WELL, SO WE NEEDED ANOTHER MOTION, RIGHT? CAUSE RIGHT, BECAUSE THE OTHER ONE GETS SPLIT.

IS IT POSSIBLE FOR ME TO ASK A QUESTION OF THE APPLICANT OR ACTUALLY WHILE THE RESPONDED, WHERE WAS MY UNDERSTANDING? THE APPLICANT IS STAFF.

SO IT'S THE CITY.

UM, MR. SUTTLE, COULD YOU SPEAK TO, IS THERE A CONCERN FOR HAVING IT ESSENTIALLY DISCUSSED TODAY? MY NAME IS RICHARD SUTTLE.

I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT.

THERE'S, THERE'S REALLY, THERE'S ONE REALLY GOOD REASON.

IF YOU HEAR THIS CASE TONIGHT, YOU DON'T HAVE TO LISTEN TO ME SO MUCH ON THE EIGHTH.

AND THAT IS A GREAT REASON.

BUT OTHER THAN THAT, THIS CASE WAS FILED IN, IN OCTOBER.

IT IS NOW JANUARY AND THE OWNER IS IN LIMBO UNTIL SOMETHING HAPPENS.

AND, AND I THINK IT'S JUST THE TWO OF US.

IT'S THE APPLICANT AND US, AND Y'ALL WILL HAVE TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT YOU THINK IT'S, IT MEETS THE CRITERIA OF LANDMARK COMMISSION.

WE'D LIKE TO BE HEARD TONIGHT IF WE COULD.

I APPRECIATE THAT.

AND MR. RIVERA, COULD WE, WAS THERE ANY COMMUNITY MEMBERS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? SURE.

COMMISSIONER LAYS ON EVER, EVER.

THE ONLY SPEAKER IS THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE.

THANK YOU.

I APPRECIATE THAT.

EXCUSE ME.

THE OWNER'S REPRESENTED.

ALRIGHT.

WE'VE GOT A MOTION MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SHEA, IF YOU WANT.

UH, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO HEAR IT TONIGHT.

OKAY.

SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CONLEY.

AND LET'S GO.

AND, UH, I'M GONNA, LET'S GO AND VOTE.

UM, ALRIGHT BUDDY, HERE ON THE DIOCESE AND WE HAVE, UH, THREE, UH, COMMISSIONER PRAXIS.

I CAN'T TELL IF YOU'RE HAVING TECHNICAL OR ALL RIGHT.

SO WE HAVE A THREE ON THE VIRTUAL AND, UH, COMMISSIONER PRACTICES IS NOT PRESENT AT THIS MOMENT.

OKAY.

CHAIR 10, ZERO CHAIR, COMMISSIONER SCHNEIDER.

YEAH, I, UH, I, I WONDER IF, UH, WE WILL HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT THE SECOND MEETING

[00:30:01]

IN JANUARY, THE JANUARY 25TH MEETING.

DO WE NEED TO HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT NOW? OR DO WE NEED TO JUST LET STAFF WORK ON POSTPONING? UH, I BELIEVE IT WOULD BE PRUDENT TO DIS UM, WELL WE CAN WORK.

UM, WE NEED A QUORUM TO MEET GENDER 25TH.

WE COULD HAVE THE SAME DISCUSSION ON WHAT CASES ARE BEFORE US THEN, OR WE COULD VOTE TO GO AHEAD AND DECIDE EVERY ONLY TAKE IT AS, UH, TREATED AS A CONSENT, UH, MEETING IF WE WISH.

SO, YES, WE COULD TAKE ACTION NOW TO GO AHEAD AND MAKE A DECISION ON JANUARY 25TH, OR ARE THERE CASES THAT, UM, HAVE SOME TIME LIMIT THAT WE'LL MOVE FORWARD IF WE DON'T ACT, I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE CASES ARE PROPOSED FOR JANUARY 25TH.

ARE THERE ANY THAT HAVE TIME SENSITIVE THAT, YOU KNOW, MR. RIVERA? SURE.

COMMISSIONER LIAISON AND VARIOUS SAY WE DO HAVE THE VMU CODE AMENDMENTS, UM, SCHEDULED FOR THE 25TH.

AND, UH, THAT WAS, UH, TIMELINE SET BY COUNCIL.

UM, BUT WE DO HAVE THE VMU WORKING GROUP WHO HAS TO PROPOSE AMENDMENTS AND DEPENDED ON HOW FAR OR HOW MUCH WORK THE WORKING GROUP DOES.

UM, WE COULD STRIVE FOR IT BEING A CONSENT ITEM.

UM, LET ME, IF I'M GOING TO GET QUESTION AND SO WE CAN MAKE A DECISION HERE IS A COMMISSIONER, IS OUR, I THINK YOU HAVE SOME AS THE CHAIR OF THE WORKING GROUP, YOU HAVE SOME INFORMATION.

YES.

MY UNDERSTANDING FROM STAFF IS THAT THAT ITEM IS LIKELY TO BE DELAYED, UH, FAST THE 25TH.

UM, JUST BECAUSE I KNOW IT'S A VERY COMPLEX ITEM AND OUR STAFF HAS BEEN WORKING VERY HARD ON IT.

AND WITH THE CHRISTMAS AND HOLIDAY BREAK IN THE MIDDLE, I DON'T THINK WE'RE GOING TO MAKE THAT ITEM.

SO FROM MY UNDERSTANDING CURRENTLY, WE WILL NOT BE DISCUSSING IT BEFORE FEBRUARY AT THE EARLIEST.

SO I THINK THAT WE'LL JUST MOVE FORWARD WITH, UM, BUT THAT INFORMATION, UH, WE COULD W THE CRITICAL ITEMS THAT WE KNOW OF, UM, YOU KNOW, IT SEEMS LIKE WE COULD MAKE IT A CONSENT ONLY AGENDA COMMISSIONER.

SURE.

SO, UM, MY THOUGHTS IS IF WE APPROACHED IT AS WE DID TODAY, FOR INSTANCE, IF WE HAD A CASE, IF WE HAD TO SIT DOWN FOR A CONSENT ONLY, AND WE HAD A CASE THAT WAS JUST THAT, UM, FOR INSTANCE, TONIGHT, IT WAS JUST THE APPLICANT AND STAFF AND THE APPLICANT WAS HERE AND IT'S VERY LIMITED AND THERE'S NO PUBLIC.

MAYBE WE GIVE CONSIDERATION TO THOSE.

SO THE SAME THING WE COULD DO THIS TIME WOULD BE THAT IF ANYBODY HAS SOME RESERVATIONS ABOUT COMING, UM, FOR INSTANCE, THE COMMUNITY, THEN THAT THEY COULD GO ON POSTPONEMENT ON THAT.

BUT IF THERE'S LIKE A CASE JUST LIKE TONIGHT THAT MAYBE WE COULD TAKE IT UP, OUR COMMISSIONERS, I'VE HEARD VARIOUS CONCERNS FROM COMMISSIONERS.

SO I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, UH, FOR THOSE HERE TODAY, ARE WE COMFORTABLE TRADING THE NEXT MEETING? LIKE WE DID, UM, THE, THE MEETING TODAY, CHAIR, COMMISSIONER SNYDER.

SO I, I'M FINE WITH ME PERSONALLY COMING DOWN HERE AND BEING PRESENT FOR, TO MAKE A QUORUM OR TO DISCUSS A CASE, I GUESS.

AND I HEAR THAT WE'RE WILLING TO POSTPONE FOR, UM, FOR A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WHO HAS SOME CONCERNS.

AND I THINK THAT'S GREAT.

I THINK WE NEED TO ALSO CONSIDER THAT BY BRINGING A CASE UP, WE'RE REQUIRING AT LEAST UNTIL THE RULES CHANGE, MAYBE AT THE BEGINNING OF FEBRUARY, WE'RE REQUIRING STAFF TO COME DOWN HERE.

AND WE REALLY DON'T KNOW, UM, WHETHER, YOU KNOW, WHETHER A MEMBER OF THE STAFF LIST WITH SOMEBODY WHO IS, UM, VULNERABLE, UM, YOU KNOW, WE, WE SORT OF DON'T KNOW THE DETAILS ABOUT THAT.

IT'S PROBABLY FINE.

UM, BUT I THINK WE SHOULD JUST CONSIDER WHETHER IT'S MORE APPROPRIATE TO HAVE A CONSENT ONLY CASE.

I MEAN, EVEN IN THAT CASE, WE'RE REQUIRING MR. RIVERA THAT'S COME DOWN AND OTHER MEMBERS OF THE STAFF.

UM, SO I I'M, I'M UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THIS.

I'M WILLING TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE WILL OF THE COMMISSION, BUT I JUST WANTED TO, TO RAISE THAT FOR THE COMMISSION'S CONSIDERATION.

SO MR. RIVERA, WE'VE HAD STAFF THAT'S, UH, PARTICIPATING VIRTUALLY, UM, IS THAT OPTION AVAILABLE FOR ALL STAFF? SURE.

COMMISSION LAYS ON ANDROID.

YES, IT IS.

OKAY.

SO, UM, IS, I GUESS THE CLARIFICATION OF WHAT YOU JUST SPOKE TO IS STAFF CURRENTLY DOES HAVE THE OPTION TO SAY VIRTUALLY IF FOR ANY REASON THEY FEEL UNSAFE OR, YOU KNOW, UM, THEY CAN DO THAT.

WE, ON THE OTHER HAND, UH, WE HAVE TO HAVE QUORUM UNTIL, UNTIL THAT CHANGES UNTIL WE'RE GIVEN THE SAME PROXY.

THAT IS THE COUNCIL

[00:35:01]

THAT GIVES ME SOME COMFORT.

THANK YOU, VICE CHAIR.

YEAH.

UM, SORRY.

UM, SO IN THINKING ABOUT THE MEETING LATER THIS MONTH, UM, THE CIRCUMSTANCES CAN CHANGE SO QUICKLY.

LIKE IF YOU WOULD ASK ME ON SUNDAY, IF I WAS COMING TO THIS MEETING IN PERSON, THE ANSWER WOULD'VE BEEN YES.

BUT THEN MY HUSBAND GOT COVID AND SO THE ANSWER'S NO.

AND SO WE'RE SETTING UP CASES, DISCUSSION CASES, AND I THINK THAT'S TRUE OF A LOT OF BOOKS HERE, UM, ON A SCREEN, UM, JUST, IT CAN CHANGE SO QUICKLY.

AND SO WE'RE SAYING THAT, YES, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THIS MEETING AND THIS IS GOING TO BE A DISCUSSION CASE, BUT THEN WE ARE STRUGGLING TO MEET QUORUM FOR THE COMMISSIONERS.

SO IT, I GET, I WAS EVEN THINKING WE ONLY COULD DO ONE DISCUSSION CASE, UM, UNTIL WE HAVE THIS BETTER OPTION FOR HYBRID, BUT, UH, I JUST WORRY THAT WE'RE GOING TO STRUGGLE TO MAKE FORUM, UH, FOR DISCUSSION CASES.

I, I HEAR YOUR, AND SO CHECK MY UNDERSTANDING ON THIS, BUT, UM, IS WE WILL NEED A QUORUM HERE IN PERSON ON, AT THE NEXT MEETING.

UM, WELL, WE SHOULD TRY IF WE CAN ACHIEVE THAT JUST TO PASS OUR CONSENT AGENDA.

RIGHT.

IS THAT YEAH, EITHER WAY WE, WE HAVE TO HAVE CORE THEIR WAY.

WE'RE GOING TO BE HERE IN PERSON.

UH, AND, UM, UM, CHAIR COHEN.

DID YOU, I SEE YOUR HAND UP, YOU WANT TO GO AHEAD AND ADD TO THE CONVERSATION BRIEFLY MENTIONED THAT CTM STAFF AND EACH XML STILL HAVE TO COME IN AS WELL, UH, WITH STAFF CTM, THE PERSON RUNNING THE YES.

RIGHT.

WE DO HAVE, YEAH.

THERE'S, THERE WILL BE SOME FOLKS THAT HAVE TO BE HERE.

YOU ARE CORRECT SHARE.

ARE YOU LOOKING FOR A MOTION JUST TO KIND OF MOVE THIS ALONG A MOTION TO, TO MAKE THE NEXT MEETING CONSENT ONLY IS THAT CONDITION AND SEE IF THE COMMISSIONER WANTS TO, YES.

TO ANSWER A QUESTION.

IF A COMMISSIONER WANTS TO PUT THAT UP FOR A VOTE TO MAKE IT A CONSENT ONLY WE CAN VOTE ON IT AND AT LEAST WE CAN SEE HOW COMMISSIONERS FEEL ABOUT THAT.

I'LL MAKE THAT MOTION, THAT, THAT THE NEXT MEETING, UH, SORRY, WHAT IS THE DATE ON THE 25TH IS A CONSENT ONLY A AGENDA MEETING.

OKAY.

DO WE HAVE A SECOND? UH, UH, COMMISSIONER IS OUR SECOND SET.

UM, WE SHOULD HAVE PROBABLY STARTED THIS.

WE'VE ALREADY HAD QUITE A BIT OF DISCUSSION.

DOES, DO YOU WISH TO SPEAK TO YOUR EMOTION OR SHOULD WE GO AND TAKE IT UP FOR ABOUT, I'LL JUST ECHO WHAT VICE-CHAIR SAID.

UH, HAD A PRETTY SIGNIFICANT COVID EXPOSURE YESTERDAY, BUT I HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO TEST.

IT'S VERY LIKELY I COULD HAVE BE POSITIVE FOR COVID IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF DAYS.

AND IF WE'RE ALL HAVING EXPOSURE ISSUES, THAT MEANS WE COULD POTENTIALLY STILL BE SICK BY THE NEXT MEETING.

UM, AND SO YOU'VE ALREADY GOT QUITE A FEW COMMISSIONERS DOWN, PLUS ALL THE COMMISSIONERS ON THE, ON THE DAYAS RIGHT NOW, IT'S JUST VERY UNCERTAIN.

AND I THINK WE CAN ADD A LITTLE BIT OF CERTAINTY TO THE MIX INTO THE SCHEDULE AND FOR STAFF, IF WE JUST GO WITH THE CONSENT AGENDA.

OKAY.

UM, SO, UH, SPEAKING, LET'S GO AHEAD AND SEE IF THERE'S ANY OTHER DISCUSSION, UH, COMMISSIONER YANNIS PLEADED SHE WANTED TO SPEAK AGAINST, OR, OR FORWARD JUST DISCUSSIONS NOT REQUIRED.

WE CAN GO AND TAKE A VOTE AND LET'S YOU WANT TO, UH, YOUR HAND WAS UP.

I'M JUST RECOGNIZING THANK YOU.

NO, I'M, I'M, I'M FAIRLY NEUTRAL.

I MEAN, I'M MOSTLY ALIGNED WITH YOU ALL.

UM, AND I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT I'M, COVID POSITIVE RIGHT NOW.

I WILL NOT BE GOING ANYWHERE FOR A WHILE AND DON'T HAVE ANY INTENTION TO MEET IN PERSON UNTIL WE'RE OUT OF STAGE FIVE.

UM, AND I CAN TELL YOU THAT THIS ONE IS REALLY HARD TO TRACE BECAUSE OMICRON IS GIVING PEOPLE UP TO THREE DAYS, ASYMPTOMATIC AND CONTAGIOUS.

SO ESPECIALLY WITH THE SHORTNESS OF RAPID TEST, IF I HADN'T HAD ACCESS TO A RAPID TEST, I WOULD HAVE THOUGHT I HAD CEDAR FEVER.

SO ALSO GRATEFUL FOR THE VACCINATIONS AND BOOSTERS BECAUSE THEY ARE KEEPING THE INFECTIONS MILD FOR A LOT OF US.

BUT I THINK WE NEED TO CHALLENGE OUR STATE AS MUCH AS HUMANLY POSSIBLE.

WE NEED TO BUCK THIS AND KEEP PEOPLE SAFE, INCLUDING THE CITY STAFF.

OKAY.

YEAH.

UNLESS I HAVE IT HERE IN THE OPPOSITION, CAN WE GO AND TAKE A VOTE ON THIS? ALL RIGHT.

LET'S SEE THOSE ON THE DYESS VOTING.

AND THIS IS THE MOTION, UM, TO POST UP FOR JANUARY 25TH TO BE A CONSENT ONLY AGENDA.

SURE.

I SAY ONE MORE THING.

I'M SO SORRY.

ONE MORE THING.

JUST WANT TO CAUTION THAT WHILE I AM IN SUPPORT OF THE CONSENT AGENDA, WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL APPLICANTS AND NEIGHBORHOOD REPS ARE NOTIFIED

[00:40:01]

BECAUSE WE'RE SEEING THIS WHERE, WHEN THINGS GET CHANGED AROUND, SOMETIMES PEOPLE'S CASES END UP ON THE CONSENT AGENDA AND THEY ARE NOT AWARE UNLESS SOMEBODY TELLS THEM OR THEY HAPPEN TO LOOK.

SO I JUST WANT TO UNDERLINE THAT STAFF ABSOLUTELY NEEDS TO MAKE SURE, UH, EVERY ALL PARTIES ARE NOTIFIED IF SOMETHING IS MOVING TO A CONSENT AGENDA.

UH, I NOTED THAT'S GOOD ADVICE.

THANK YOU.

OKAY.

LET'S GO AHEAD AND SEE A HANDS ON THE DIETS FOR THOSE, UH, IN FAVOR OF MAKING JANUARY 25TH CONSENT ONLY AGENDA, UH, THIS UNANIMOUS ON THE DAYAS THOSE VIRTUALLY, UM, I'VE GOT, UH, THREE, SO THAT'S A 10.

OH, THAT, UH, HE'S MANDAMUS.

SO, UM, ALL RIGHT.

SO THE NEXT WILL, I WILL TRY TO MEET HORAM WITH THOSE THAT ARE, UH, THAT ARE AVAILABLE AND CAN, UM, MEET SAFELY, UH, AT THE NEXT MEETING.

WE'LL, THERE'LL BE A CONSENT ON IT.

[B.14. Rezoning: C14H-2021-0181 - Nalley-Shear-Bremond Warehouse; District 9]

SO WITH THAT, WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND HERE, I THINK WE'RE READY TO HEAR THE FIRST, OUR CASE, UH, D 14 GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS.

I'M ELIZABETH BRAHMA WITH THE CITY OF BOSTON HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE.

I AM HERE FOR CASE B 14, UH, CASE NUMBER C 14 H 2021 DASH 0 1 8 1.

THIS IS A NALLEY SHEAR VERMONT WAREHOUSE, UH, AT, I DIDN'T WRITE THE ADDRESS DOWN, BUT YOU HAVE IT ON YOUR AGENDA.

UH, THIRD AND SAN JACINTO.

UH, SO THIS IS A CASE THAT THE HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION INITIATED AND RECOMMENDED HISTORIC ZONING WITH A SUPER MAJORITY OF, UM, NINE COMMISSIONERS.

SO THIS CASE WILL REACH TO THE COUNCIL FOR AN ULTIMATE DETERMINATION.

UH, THIS IS AN INSTANCE WHERE WE HAVE AN APPLICATION FROM A LANDOWNER WHO IS SEEKING TO DEMOLISH AND BUILD SOMETHING NEW ON THE SITE.

UH, STAFF IN THE HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION RECOMMEND THAT, UM, THE CHANGE FOR HISTORIC ZONING TO PRESERVE THIS PROPERTY.

UH, SO IT WOULD BE FROM CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT TO CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT, HISTORIC LANDMARK, COMBINING DISTRICT ZONING.

UH, WE RECOMMEND THAT THIS PROPERTY MEETS THOSE REQUIREMENTS ON THE BASIS OF ITS ARCHITECTURE, ITS HISTORICAL ASSOCIATIONS AND COMMUNITY VALUE.

I KNOW THERE'VE BEEN SOME QUESTIONS OF, FROM COMMISSIONERS ABOUT THE PROCESS BY WHICH, UH, POTENTIAL LANDMARKS ARE IDENTIFIED AND MOVED FORWARD.

UH, SO I WILL PROVIDE SOME CONTEXT FOR THAT, UH, RELATIVE TO THIS CASE, IN TERMS OF TAX BENEFITS, UM, HISTORIC LANDMARKS RECEIVE A PARTIAL TAX EXEMPTION ACROSS MULTIPLE TAXING ENTITIES.

IT IS, UH, 25% OF THE VALUE OF THE LAND.

AND 50% OF THE VALUE OF THE IMPROVEMENTS IS EXEMPT FROM TAXATION BY THE CITY OF AUSTIN, TRAVIS COUNTY, AND TRAVIS COUNTY HEALTHCARE DISTRICT, HALF OF THAT, OR 12 AND A HALF PERCENT OF THE VALUE OF THE LAND AND 25% OF THE VALUE OF THE IMPROVEMENTS AS EXEMPTED BY AISD AND AUSTIN COMMUNITY COLLEGE DOES NOT OFFER AN EXEMPTION HOMESTEADS RECEIVE A HIGHER PERCENTAGE, BUT IT'S CAPPED AT 25,000 OR $2,500 BY THE CITY OF AUSTIN OR $8,500 IN EXEMPTION.

OVERALL, UH, THIS TAX INCENTIVE IS INTENDED TO OFFSET THE POTENTIALLY HIGHER COST OF MAINTAINING A HISTORIC PROPERTY AND PROPERTIES MES PASSED A PERIODIC INSPECTION OF THEIR CONDITION IN ORDER TO RECEIVE THE EXEMPTION.

IT ALSO OFFSETS THE DEVELOPMENT RESTRICTIONS THAT MAY BE IMPOSED BY LANDMARK FASCINATION AS COMPARED WITH WHAT THAT PROPERTY, HOW THAT PROPERTY COULD OTHERWISE BE DEVELOPED.

SO FOR THIS PROPERTY, IT WOULD RECEIVE AN OVERALL EXEMPTION OF $67,000 ANNUALLY WITH 23,000 OF THAT BEING FROM CITY OF AUSTIN TAXES.

UM, I UNDERSTAND THE COMMISSION IS INTERESTED IN UNDERSTANDING THE OVERALL TAX IMPACT ACROSS TAXING JURISDICTION SIZE THAT'S INFORMATION.

WE WILL HAVE TO GET FROM THE TRAVIS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT.

AND I WILL FOLLOW UP WHEN I HAVE THAT INFORMATION, UH, IN TERMS OF THE PROCESS, UM, MOST OF THE PROPERTIES HAVE BECOME HISTORIC LANDMARKS ARE APPLICATIONS WE RECEIVE FROM PROPERTY OWNERS WHO UNDERSTAND THAT THEY MAY HAVE SOMETHING SPECIAL.

THEY SEEK FEEDBACK FROM STAFF AND, UH, EVALUATION OF WHETHER THEIR PROPERTY MEETS THE CRITERIA FOR LANDMARK DESIGNATION.

AND THEN GO THROUGH THAT ZONING CHANGE PROCESS STAFF ALSO, UM, REVIEWS,

[00:45:01]

DEMOLITION, AND BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATIONS TO DETERMINE IF A POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT PROPERTY COULD BE LOST, UM, THROUGH THAT, THAT A REQUEST FOR DEMOLITION OR MAJOR MODIFICATION.

UM, SO THAT IS HOW THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY HAS COME FORWARD.

UM, WE ALSO RELY, UM, SUFFER LIES IN TERMS OF MAKING OUR RECOMMENDATION TO THE COMMISSION.

UH, WE RELY ON HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEYS.

UH, WE DON'T HAVE THOSE COMPREHENSIVELY FOR THE ENTIRE CITY OF AUSTIN, BUT WHERE WE DO HAVE THOSE, UM, A PROFESSIONAL HAS EVALUATED WHETHER OR NOT A PROPERTY MEETS THE CRITERIA FOR DESIGNATION, UH, IN ORDER TO, UM, BECOME A HISTORIC LANDMARK, A PROPERTY MUST MEET CERTAIN CRITERIA.

IT MUST BE AT LEAST 50 YEARS OF AGE OR MUST BE EXCEPTIONALLY SIGNIFICANT.

IF IT'S LESS THAN 50 YEARS OF AGE, IT MUST HAVE A HIGH DEGREE OF HISTORIC INTEGRITY.

IN OTHER WORDS, IT HAS TO BE RECOGNIZABLE TO THAT HISTORIC PERIOD.

AND IT MUST DEMONSTRATE SIGNIFICANCE IN AT LEAST TWO OUT OF FIVE CATEGORIES, WHICH ARE ARCHITECTURE, HISTORIC ASSOCIATIONS, ARCHEOLOGY, COMMUNITY VALUE, AND LANDSCAPE FEATURE.

SO THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY MEETS THREE OF THOSE CRITERIA IN TERMS OF ITS ARCHITECTURE.

IT'S NOT SIMPLY HIGH STYLE BUILDINGS THAT CAN BEAT THE CRITERIA.

AND FOR ARCHITECTURE, A CODE INDICATES A FINE EXAMPLE OF A VERNACULAR BUILDING IS ALSO ELIGIBLE.

THIS BUILDING IS A GOOD EXAMPLE OF A LARGE WAREHOUSE BUILDING THAT TIPIS TYPIFIES RAIL SIDE WAREHOUSES FOR WHOLESALE DISTRIBUTION TO PROVISION SOME COMMODITIES DURING THE TIME THE VAST MAJORITY OF THOSE OPERATIONS WERE CONDUCTED ALONG RAIL LINES.

THIS BUILDING QUALIFIES FOR LANDMARK DESIGNATION UNDER THE ARCHITECTURAL CRITERIA AS A GOOD EXAMPLE OF A UTILITARIAN STRUCTURE WITH FEW ALTERATIONS, IT IS A ONE-STORY RECTANGULAR PLAN, FLAT ROOF BRICK WAREHOUSE BUILDING WHOSE DISTINCTIVE FEATURES INCLUDE DECORATIVE BRICK WORK.

UM, THAT INCLUDES SEGMENTAL ARCHED, WINDOWS AND TRANSOMS WITH BRICK LENTILS AND A CORVEL CRICK BRICK BELT COURSE AT THE THERAPIST.

THIS BRICK WORK SHOWS A SENSE OF AESTHETIC DETAIL AT A TIME WHEN SUCH ATTENTION WAS STILL PAID TO UTILITARIAN BUILDINGS.

AND, UM, THOSE ARCHED WINDOW, UH, LENTILS ALSO SPEAK TO THE LOAD-BEARING BASE AND ROOT TRADITIONAL CONSTRUCTION THAT WAS USED DURING THIS ERA.

IT ALSO HAS A RAISED LANDING THAT, UH, CLEARLY INDICATES ITS USE AS A WAREHOUSE BUILDING IN TERMS OF HISTORIC INTEGRITY OF THE BUILDING HAS SOME ALTERATIONS, UM, MOST NOTABLY REPLACEMENT OF ITS ORIGINAL WINDOWS, BUT AGAIN, THE OVERALL FENESTRATION PATTERNS STILL READ AND THE PROPERTIES CAN STILL CONVEY ITS HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE IN TERMS OF HISTORIC ASSOCIATIONS.

UM, THIS WAREHOUSE WAS CONSTRUCTED AROUND 1912 FOR THE NALLEY GROCERY COMPANY OPERATED BY AAM NALLY AND LATER BY, UH, J GORDON WILCOX, A PROMINENT WHOLESALE GROCER AROUND 1917.

THE SHEAR COMPANY OWNED BY MRS H H YEAR OF WACO.

TEXAS APPEARS AS THE OWNERS AND CITY DIRECTORIES THESE EARLY WHOLESALE GROCERY DISTRIBUTION WAREHOUSES ALSO SO PRODUCE AND WERE COFFEE ROASTERS AROUND 1923.

THE BUILDING WAS SOLD TO THE JOHN VERMONT'S COMPANY, WHICH WAS A GROCERY WHOLESALER AND ROASTER OF HIGH-GRADE COFFEE.

SO THROUGHOUT TEXAS, UH, THE JOHN VERMONT'S COMPANY WAS ONE OF, IF NOT THE MOST PROMINENT WHOLESALE GROCERY BUSINESSES IN AUSTIN FOR MANY YEARS, UH, TO PLAY GROCERY STORES AND RESTAURANTS THROUGHOUT THE CITY.

THE COMPANY WAS ESTABLISHED IN 1847 WITH A GROCERY STORE OPENED BY JOHN VERMONT'S, SENIOR JOHN VERMONT, THE SECOND, AND ULTIMATELY JOHN VERMONT, THE THIRD CONTINUED TO OPERATE THE BUSINESS AND THEY EXPANDED, UH, THE SALES TERRITORY AND TO THE WHOLE COUNTRY.

UH, THIS BUSINESS WAS A AND WAREHOUSE UNTIL THE COMPANY CLOSED IN 1957, FOOD AND GROCERY DISTRIBUTION CONTINUED OUT OF THIS BUILDING WHEN WHITE SWAN, A WHOLESALE INSTITUTIONAL GROCERY COMPANY TOOK OVER THE SPACE IN THE LATE 1970S, THE BUILDING BECAME A WHOLESALE AUTO PART WAREHOUSE AND IN THE EARLY TWO THOUSANDS, IT WAS USED BY MTV'S REAL WORLD PROGRAM.

MOST RECENTLY IT'S CURRENTLY A RESTAURANT.

UM, BUT TO GO BACK TO THE HISTORIC PERIOD AND THEY REMIND NAME IS VERY MUCH A PART OF THE HISTORY OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF OUR CITY, JOHN VERMONT AND HIS FAMILY WERE A MAJOR FORCE IN AUSTIN, COMMERCE BANKING AND CIVIC LIFE.

PAUL VERMONT WAS INSTRUMENTAL IN BRINGING THE RAILROAD TO AUSTIN.

THERE IS A STATE HISTORICAL MARKER AT THE SIDE OF THE VERMONT

[00:50:01]

FIRST NON-EXISTENT STORE ON SIXTH STREET.

WELL, THE GROCERY BUSINESS PREDATES THIS BUILDING.

THIS IS THE OLDEST REMAINING STRUCTURE THAT IS ASSOCIATED WITH THAT BUSINESS.

WHOLESALE GROCERY OPERATIONS WERE ESSENTIAL TO THE LIVELIHOOD OF THE CITY AND THE LATE 19TH AND EARLY 20TH CENTURIES IMPORTING FOODS INTO AUSTIN THAT CAN NOT BE OBTAINED FROM LOCAL FARMERS AND RANCHERS.

THE RAILROAD'S ARRIVAL IN AUSTIN AND THE LATE 19TH WAS A GAME CHANGER FOR THE CITY ALLOWING FOR THE IMPORTATION OF A HUGE NUMBER OF MANUFACTURED AND CULTIVATED ITEMS. THE RAILROAD TRANSFORMED AUSTIN FROM A SETTLEMENT TO A STUDY, AND IT WAS FIRMS LIKE NALLEY SCHEER AND JOHN VERMONT THAT BROUGHT THESE URBANIZING INFLUENCES TO OUR BURGEONING CITY.

SO THIS BUILDING REPRESENTS A SIGNIFICANT CHAPTER AND THE HISTORY OF DEVELOPMENTAL LOSTON FINALLY IN TERMS OF COMMUNITY VALUE, A HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSIONER, KEVIN COOK PERFORMED SOME ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS BASED ON RESEARCH BY HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER, STEVE SEDOWSKY.

AND, UM, HE PUT FORWARD AN ARGUMENT THAT STAFF AGREES WITH THE BUILDING MEETS THE CRITERIA FOR COMMUNITY VALUE.

THIS PROPERTY HAS A UNIQUE LOCATION AND CONTRIBUTES TO THE CHARACTER AND IMAGE OF THE CITY.

WE THINK OF THE WAREHOUSE DISTRICT AS BEING IN WEST DOWNTOWN, BUT IT REALLY WAS ALL ALONG THE RAIL CORRIDOR.

UM, SO THIS BUILDING, UM, HELPS US BRIDGE A CONNECTION WE HAVE, UM, IN TERMS OF OTHER LANDMARKS, THE NELSON DAVIS WAREHOUSE, MORE COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE SPAGHETTI WAREHOUSE IS A HISTORIC LANDMARK AS HE ONLY LANDMARKED A WAREHOUSE THAT WE HAVE PRESENTLY.

SO THIS WAREHOUSE IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO KIND OF MARK THE OTHER END OF THAT, THAT WAREHOUSE DISTRICT WITHIN DOWNTOWN.

AND SO, SORRY, DO I NEED TO WRAP UP AND WRAPPED UP AND WE HAVE, WE'LL HAVE QUESTIONS, SO WE'LL GET MORE INFORMATION IF WE NEED IT.

YOU, YEAH.

SO, UM, SO THEY, THE ANALYSIS THAT OUR, UH, COMMISSIONER DID WAS LOOKING AT ALL OF THE REMAINING STOCK OF, UM, WAREHOUSES.

AND, UH, THIS IS, THIS IS THE OLDEST AND MOST INTACT EXAMPLE OF A WAREHOUSE APART FROM THE NELSON DAVIS WAREHOUSE THAT REMAINS TO BE PRESERVED.

AND IT PRESENTS AN OPPORTUNITY TO ROUND OUT AN ARRAY OF LANDMARKS AROUND THE CONVENTION CENTER, UH, THAT THAT REALLY WOULD, YOU KNOW, WELCOME PEOPLE TO THE HISTORY OF THE CITY AT THAT LOCATION.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

TURN OUT HERE FROM THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE, MR. RICHARD SUTTLE AND THE HEN WITH MR. AMANDA SERMON PRESENT MR. SELLER, YOU'LL HAVE EIGHT MINUTES CHAIR MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.

MY NAME IS RICHARD SETTLE OUT.

I REPRESENT THE FAMILY THAT OWNS THIS PROPERTY, AND THEY'RE ACTUALLY AIRS OF THE VERMONT FAMILY.

THE ONES THAT YOU READ ABOUT IN YOUR REPORT, AND I'M GOING TO START BY READING A WHEEL.

HOUSTON IS A DESCENDANT OF MR. BERMAN.

HE COULDN'T BE HERE TONIGHT BECAUSE HE'S SITTING AT HOME WITH COVID, BUT HE ASKED ME TO READ THIS EMAIL, DEAR PLANNING COMMISSION, JOHN BERMAN, HIS PARTNER, ALFRED ROBINSON, BY THE WAY, THAT'S PART OF THE ROBINSON RANCH FAMILY.

WE'RE TRUE ENTREPRENEUR ENTREPRENEURS.

AND THEY STARTED WHAT NATURALLY BECAME THE FIRST BANK.

WHEN THEY BEGAN TAKING CREDIT.

THEY BOTH WENT ON TO ENDEAVOR TO CONTINUE ON THIS TRAIL, BUT ON DIFFERENT PATHS WHEN WE WERE IN NEGOTIATING A LONG-TERM LAND LEASE WITH JOHN WATSON, HIS PARTNER ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SIXTH.

AND BRAZZES WE WANTED SOME TERMS WHICH WERE HOLDING, WHICH WERE HOLDING THE DEAL UP.

MAYOR ROY BUTLER EVEN TOOK MY FATHER TO LUNCH TO TALK HIM OUT OF HIS POSITION.

WE ENDED UP MAKING THE LEASE WITH JOHN, BUT THERE WAS NEVER EVER A HINT OF THE HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THESE LOTS.

EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE HEAVILY REFERENCED IN THE CITY STAFF REPORT, WE OWN THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THIRD NATURES, WHICH WAS THE LOCATION OF THE GUGGENHEIM GOLDSMITH WAREHOUSE, WHICH WAS AN EXAMPLE OF A VERY STURDY OLD BUILDING.

WHEN THE CITY WANTED TO EXPAND THE CONVENTION CENTER TO THE NORTH A DECADE OR SO LATER AFTER SIX NEBRASKA'S, IT WAS THE SAME ATTITUDE AS PER THE HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE.

IN OTHER WORDS, NONE IN ORDER TO CONTINUE WITH JOHN VERMONT'S ENTREPRENEURIAL SPIRIT, HE BOUGHT THE BUILDING.

WE ARE HERE TO DISCUSS TONIGHT, WHICH IS AT THIRD AND SAN JACINTO.

DURING THE LAST TWO, THREE YEARS.

MY SON DAVID HAS BEEN WORKING WITH MANY, MANY PEOPLE INVOLVED IN PUTTING TOGETHER A VERY LARGE DEVELOPMENT, WHICH ENTAILS A HALF BLOCK TO OUR NORTH, THE TWO HALF BLOCKS TO OUR SOUTH DURING THESE LENGTHY DISCUSSIONS, WHICH EVERYONE WHO PAYS ATTENTION TO WHAT WAS GOING ON, WHO HAS BEEN INFORMED OF NOTHING WAS SAID ABOUT THE HISTORIC VALUE OF OURS OR OTHER STRUCTURES INVOLVED IN THESE FOUR HALF BLOCKS.

IN ADDITION, WHAT THE CITY OF AUSTIN STANDS TO LOSE HERE SHOULD BE OBVIOUS IN A VERY ELEMENTARY WAY.

SO PLEASE LET US CONTINUE WITH THE ENTREPRENEURIAL SPIRIT AND WAYS OUR FOREFATHERS

[00:55:01]

AND THE WAYS OF OUR FOREFATHERS AND DENY PUTTING A HISTORICAL MARKER ON OUR BUILDING.

ONE MORE THING BETWEEN CHRISTMAS AND NEW YEAR'S.

I RECEIVED NOTICE FROM BRIAN THOMAS, THE THOMAS REAPER GRAPHICS, THEY ARE, THEY OCCUPY ABOUT 9,000 SQUARE FEET OF THIS BUILDING WILL BE EXERCISING ITS OPS IT'S OPTION TO MOVE OUT DUE TO THE UNDESIRABLE ATMOSPHERE IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA.

THIS COMPANY HAS BEEN A TENANT OF OURS FOR MORE THAN 10 YEARS.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.

I'M GOING TO TIE UP SOME OF THE LOOSE ENDS OF THAT, OF WHAT HE WAS SAYING, BUT BASICALLY THAT'S A DIRECT DESCENDANT OF THE VERMONT FAMILY.

THIS IS THE SAME FARM FAMILY THAT WE'VE HONORED WITH THE VERMONT BLOCK AND TRYING, TRYING TO HONOR A WAREHOUSE THAT WE ACTUALLY HAVE A WAREHOUSE ALREADY LANDMARKED IN DOWNTOWN AUSTIN.

THIS IS ALL TAKEN IN THE CONTEXT.

WHEN HE WAS SAYING THERE WERE PEOPLE TRYING TO DO A BIG DEVELOPMENT.

WHEN THE CITY OF AUSTIN WANTED TO EXPAND THE CONVENTION CENTER, IT WAS COMING ON THIS BLOCK AND THERE WAS NEVER A MENTION OF THIS BLOCK BEING HISTORIC.

NOW THE CONVENTION CENTER EXPANSION HAS GONE AND ALL OF A SUDDEN THIS FAMILY IS LEFT AFTER NEGOTIATING TWO YEARS WITH THE CITY AND THEY WANT TO REDEVELOP AND THEY'RE BEING TOLD, OH, AND BY THE WAY, YOU'RE, YOU DON'T GET TO REDEVELOP BECAUSE YOU MAY BE SEWN HISTORIC.

NOW LET ME GET AWAY FROM MR. WILL HOUSTON'S COMMENTS AND TELL YOU THAT THE ELEMENTS OF, OF LANDMARKING THAT'S A HIGH BAR.

IT OUGHT TO BE A HIGH BAR.

I THINK WE'VE LOST SOME THINGS THAT WE SHOULDN'T HAVE LOST.

I THINK THAT SOMETIMES WE LANDMARK THINGS THAT SHOULD BE LANDMARK.

AND THIS IS ONE OF THEM.

WHEN YOU SAY THAT IT HAS TO MEET THE ARCHITECTURE, IT'S A, IT'S A WAREHOUSE, IT'S AN, IT'S A WAREHOUSE THAT HAS BEEN ADDED ONTO IT HAS HAD ALTERATIONS AND THE CITY NEVER THOUGHT THAT IT NEEDED A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO ADD THOSE ON BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T THINK IT WAS, UH, OR ELIGIBLE FOR THE HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.

WITH THE VERMONT FAMILY.

YOU'VE HEARD FROM WILL HOUSTON, THE DIRECT DESCENDANT OF JOHN VERMONT.

AND WE'VE ALREADY HONORED THE VERMONT FAMILY WITH THE VERMONT BLOCK AND SEVERAL OTHER OF THOSE STRUCTURES AND THEN COMMUNITY VALUE.

WHERE'S THE COMMUNITY VALUE TONIGHT.

YOU WOULD THINK THAT IF THIS WERE A SOMETHING THAT EVERYBODY WANTED TO SAY, WE WOULD HAVE A LOT OF PEOPLE EITHER SIGNING IN ON THE TV OR COMING DOWN HERE.

AND WE JUST DON'T THERE THERE'S NO COMMUNITY VALUE TO THIS, THIS WAREHOUSE FROM A PLANNING STANDPOINT, IF THIS WERE TO BE, UH, A LANDMARK, IT PRECLUDES ALL OF THE THINGS THAT WE'VE ALL BEEN WORKING FOR DOWNTOWN.

YOU CAN'T DO THE WIDE SIDEWALKS AND THE STREETSCAPES AND ALL THE PEDESTRIAN AMENITIES HERE, BECAUSE THIS WAS BUILT WITH, WITH DOCKS THAT ARE FOUR FEET ABOVE THE SIDEWALK.

AND YOU CAN'T TEAR THOSE OUT BECAUSE IT'S PART OF THE HISTORIC NATURE OF THIS WAREHOUSE.

SO WE WOULDN'T, WE WOULDN'T GET THE PEDESTRIAN WALK AROUND FOUR MINUTES, A FOUR MINUTE WALK FROM A DOWNTOWN TRAIN STATION.

IT ALSO PRECLUDES THE DENSITY THAT WE'RE TRYING TO ENCOURAGE DOWNTOWN BECAUSE YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO REDEVELOP AND GO UP WITH A DENSER PROJECT.

SO FROM A PLANNING STANDPOINT, IT REALLY DOESN'T MAKE A LOT OF SENSE.

FROM A FAIRNESS, FAIRNESS STANDPOINT, THE CITY OF AUSTIN ITSELF OWNED MANY WAREHOUSES IN AND AROUND THE CONVENTION CENTER UP AND DOWN SECOND STREET.

AND WHEN THE CITY OF AUSTIN WANTED TO DO THEIR PROJECTS, THERE WAS NO MENTION OF THE WAREHOUSE DISTRICT BEING A HISTORIC DISTRICT OR FEATURES.

AND THEY DIDN'T, THEY COULD HAVE LANDMARKED ANY NUMBER OF WAREHOUSES THAT THEY OWN, BUT THEY'VE, THEY'VE CHOSEN NOT TO IN THE LAST MAN STANDING WHO WAS TRYING TO WORK WITH THEM ON THE CONVENTION CENTER IS NOW STUCK IN THIS POSITION OF HAVING HIS, HIS PROPERTY ZONE.

HISTORIC, THE TAX BREAKS ARE INTERESTING BECAUSE MY, MY CLIENT AND THE OWNERS, THEY DON'T WANT THE TAX BREAKS.

AND, AND IN FACT, IF IT ZONE HISTORIC, THE VALUE THAT'S ON THE ROLLS NOW WILL GO DOWN.

THE CITY WILL LOSE THE TAX, THE APPRAISED VALUE FROM THAT, PLUS THE MISSED OPPORTUNITY OF A REDEVELOPMENT AND GIVING TAX BREAKS TO A DOWNTOWN LANDOWNER.

IF IT'S A COOL BUILDING OR A HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT BUILDING OR SOMETHING THAT IS UNIQUE, THEN THAT IS THE PURPOSE FOR A LANDMARK NOT TO SAVE AND HAVE A WAREHOUSE ZOO.

SO IF SOMEBODY CAN, IF SOMEBODY CAN SAY, WOW, THERE USED TO BE WAREHOUSES DOWNTOWN BECAUSE THIS WAREHOUSE THERE IS NOTHING SPECIAL ABOUT IT.

UM, SO IN CLOSING, WE'VE, WE'VE HONORED THE WAREHOUSE DISTRICT BY ZONING, THE SPAGHETTI WAREHOUSE WAREHOUSE, UH, AS HISTORIC, IT, IT TELLS THE STORY OF DOWNTOWN USED TO BE A WAREHOUSE DISTRICT.

NOW IT'S A THRIVING METROPOLITAN BIG CITY.

THE VERMONT FAMILY HAS BEEN HONORED AND, AND THE HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION WITH THE VERMONT FAMILY IS WELL-KNOWN AND IT'S, IT'S BEEN HONORED WITH AN ENTIRE BLOCK OF STRUCTURES AND IN

[01:00:01]

THE VERMONT FAMILY DOESN'T WANT THE HONOR ON THIS ONE, THERE'S NOTHING SPECIAL.

ARCHITECTUALLY ABOUT THIS.

AND THE BOTTOM LINE IS THE OWNER REALLY DOESN'T WANT THIS AND OBJECTS TO THE, UH, THE LANDMARK STATUS AND DOESN'T WANT THE TAX BREAK.

I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE.

THANK YOU.

UM, YOU HAVE THE MOTION TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING.

MR. SHEA, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SNYDER, THEN TAKE THE VOTE.

ALL RIGHT.

EVERYBODY ON THE DIOCESE AND OKAY.

THAT'S UNANIMOUS.

GOT 10 ZERO.

OKAY.

UM, ONCE THE FIRST QUESTION, NO ONE, UH, COMMISSIONER ARE THANK YOU, CHAIR.

UM, I HAD SOME QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.

UM, SO IF I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY, THE SPAGHETTI WAREHOUSE IS THE ONLY WAREHOUSE WITHIN THE SORT OF WAREHOUSE DISTRICT, THE FOURTH STREET WAREHOUSE DISTRICT THAT IS CURRENTLY HISTORICALLY LANDMARKED.

YES, THAT'S CORRECT.

WHY ARE NONE OF THE OTHER PROPERTIES LANDMARKED? UH, THAT'S AN, THAT'S AN EXCELLENT QUESTION.

UM, I WILL SAY AT THIS JUNCTURE WITH, WITH CURRENT STAFF'S CAPACITY, UH, THERE HAS BEEN HAVE A LIMITED ABILITY TO DO PROACTIVE OUTREACH AND TO ENCOURAGE NEW LANDMARKS TO COME FORWARD.

MOST OF THE CASES THAT THE LANDMARK COMMISSION HEARS ARE EITHER OWNER INITIATED OR THEY'RE COMING TO US THROUGH THIS TYPE OF A PROCESS OF, UM, PERMIT REVIEW.

UM, IT CERTAINLY WOULD BE WORTHWHILE.

I DO KNOW THAT, UM, IN TERMS OF THE RESEARCH I MENTIONED EARLIER, UM, THAT MR. DID, UM, HE HE'S DONE EXTENSIVE BACKGROUND RESEARCH ON OTHER WAREHOUSES AND IDENTIFIED WHICH ONES, YOU KNOW, COULD, COULD RECEIVE DESIGNATION.

AND IF MY UNDERSTANDING IS CORRECT, THERE WAS ACTUALLY A BLAND FOR SORT OF A DISTRICT PLAN FOR THE WAREHOUSE DISTRICT AND WHAT IT WOULD MEAN AS SORT OF HISTORICALLY PRESERVING THOSE VARIOUS STRUCTURES, LIKE THE HALCYON STRUCTURE, THE RAINS STRUCTURE.

I KNOW IT'S STILL HAS ITS RAFTERS AND THE ROOF THAT ORIGINAL.

AND THERE WAS SORT OF LIKE A PLAN FOR DOING THAT.

IS, AM I CORRECT? THERE WAS SORT OF LIKE REGIONAL UNDERSTANDING OF HAVING A DISTRICT THAT WAS THE WAREHOUSE DISTRICT.

UM, I MEAN, I, THERE WAS A WAREHOUSE DISTRICT KIND OF LOOSELY AND THE SENSE THAT THAT'S, THAT THE IDENTITY OF THAT SECTION OF DOWNTOWN, UH, IN TERMS OF HISTORIC DISTRICT STATUS, THAT IS SOMETHING THAT, UH, VERY MUCH IS INITIATED BY PROPERTY OWNERS.

AND THERE HAS NOT BEEN A MOVEMENT TO DESIGNATE A HISTORIC DISTRICT, UH, WITH THE, AND IS THERE ANY SIMILAR UNDERSTANDING OF A MORE, LIKE, ESSENTIALLY UNDERSTANDING THERE'S A, I DON'T WANT TO USE THE WORD DISTRICT CAUSE YOU'RE POINTED SORT OF SPECIFIC, BUT IT'S SAYING THERE IS MULTIPLE PROPERTIES IN AN AREA FOR THIS PART.

IT SEEMS LIKE THERE'S ONLY JUST THIS ONE PROPERTY NEXT TO THIS GIANT CONVENTION CENTER AND HOTELS.

AND IT'S JUST KIND OF, IS THIS JUST LIKE A ONE-OFF OR IS THERE SOMETHING ELSE HERE THAT WILL FORM PART OF THAT FABRIC OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION? OR IS IT JUST GOING TO BE THIS ONE LOT? YEAH.

OH, W AND, AND COMMISSIONER COOK'S COMMENTS, HE REFERENCED A NUMBER OF OTHER LANDMARKS ARE ALREADY IN EXISTENCE IN THE AREA.

UH, THERE'S ALSO NATIONAL REGISTER, LISTED PROPERTIES, UM, PARTICULARLY BRUSHED SQUARE.

UM, THERE'S THE OLD FIRE STATION, UH, THE OLD HENRY HOUSE, THE SUSANNA DICKINSON HOUSE, UH, THE PALM SCHOOL IS WITHIN THIS AREA.

SO, UM, IT'S, IT'S, THERE IS A POTENTIAL FOR IT TO BE PART OF A COLLECTION OF LANDMARKS THAT CONVEY VARIOUS ASPECTS OF AUSTIN'S HISTORY, UH, WITHIN THIS FACILITY.

BUT IF MY UNDERSTANDING IS CORRECT THOSE SORT OF ALL ON PUBLIC LAND AT THE MOMENT AND WOULD HAVE SOME KIND OF RESTRICTION ON THEM ALREADY BECAUSE OUT OF THOSE EXAMPLES, YES.

OKAY.

AND THEN I DID, I GUESS MY OTHER QUESTION IS, CAN YOU RESPOND TO THIS FACTOR OFF ESSENTIALLY THE CITY WANTING TO, OR MIGHT HAVE RUN OUT OF TIME? NOPE.

UM, CAN YOU RESPOND TO THIS SORT OF QUESTION OF THE CITY WANTING TO EXPAND THE CONVENTION CENTER, WHICH WE KNOW WAS A PLAN IN THE MAKING AND HAS SINCE BEEN DROPPED OFF THAT ESSENTIALLY SWALLOWING UP AND HOW COME THIS WAS NOT CONSIDERED AT THAT TIME? THAT UNFORTUNATELY WAS PRIOR TO MY TIME WITH THE CITY.

SO I, I REALLY CAN'T SPEAK TO THAT FROM, FROM ANY SUBSTANTIAL KNOWLEDGE.

OKAY.

I APPRECIATE THAT.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

UM, NEITHER.

THANK YOU, CHAIR.

UM, UH, THIS IS ALSO FOR MS. BURNETT.

UM, UH, CAN YOU TELL ME ABOUT THE PROCEDURE? UH, I THINK I HEARD YOU BACK, UH, COULD YOU CLARIFY, REGARDLESS OF THE DECISION THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAKES THIS WILL GO BEFORE COUNCIL? YES, THAT IS CORRECT.

SO THERE IS A, UM, UH, THERE'S A REQUIREMENT IN STATE LAW THAT WAS AMENDED