* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.
          [00:00:04]
          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 
          [01:05:01]
DURING THIS MOST RECENT LEGISLATIVE SESSION THAT, UM, IMPOSES A SUPERMAJORITY FOR THESE UNDER PROPOSED, UH, HISTORIC ZONING CASES, UM, CASES THAT, UM, IN ORDER TO ADVANCE AT THIS POINT, A CASE MUST RECEIVE A SUPER MAJORITY AT THE HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION UNDER THE PRIOR STATE LAW. 
          IT WAS EITHER THE HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION OR A LAND USE COMMISSION COULD ADVANCE A CASE TO COUNSEL. 
          SO CASES THAT DIDN'T RECEIVE A SUPER MAJORITY OF THE LANDMARK COMMISSION WOULD STILL COME FORWARD, MOST LIKELY WOULD NOT RECEIVE A SUPERMAJORITY ADS THAT THE LAND USE COMMISSION, AND THAT WOULD NOT MOVE FORWARD FROM THERE. 
          UM, SO THIS IS ONE OF, UM, MULTIPLE CASES. 
          THERE'S ANOTHER ONE ON THE, UM, UH, JANUARY 25TH AGENDA THAT I UNDERSTAND WILL NOT BE HEARD IN FEBRUARY. 
          UH, THAT'S ALSO AN OWNER OPPOSED CASE, UH, THESE HAVE RECEIVED THE SUPER MAJORITY AT THE HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION, SO THEY WILL PANTS TO COUNSEL FOR, AND ULTIMATELY, OKAY. 
          SO THE STATE LAW CHANGED THAT, UH, REGARDLESS OF THE DECISION THAT THE LAND USE COMMISSIONS MAKE, AS LONG AS THERE'S A SUPER MAJORITY AT A HISTORIC LAND COMMISSION, IT WILL GO TO COUNCIL. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          AND THEIR VOTE, WAS IT UNANIMOUS FROM THE HISTORIC LAND LANDMARK COMMISSION ON THIS CASE? I BELIEVE IT WAS UNANIMOUS IN TERMS OF THE ATTENDEES AT THE MEETING. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, THANK YOU. 
          UM, CAN YOU TALK A LITTLE ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS IF THIS IS DESIGNATED HISTORIC? DOES THAT MEAN THAT NOTHING CAN CHANGE ON THE BUILDING OR CAN THERE BE CHANGES THAT PERHAPS PRESERVE A PORTION OR A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF THE BUILDING AND THERE'S STILL DEVELOPMENT ON OTHER PARTS, OR CAN YOU TALK ABOUT THAT PROCESS AND WHETHER THAT'S, YES, THAT'S AN EXCELLENT QUESTION. 
          SO, UM, ANY CHANGES TO THE BUILDING WOULD REQUIRE EITHER STAFF APPROVAL FOR MINOR CHANGES OR MORE MAJOR PROJECTS WOULD NEED TO GO TO THE HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS. 
          UH, THE COMMISSION HAS APPROVED HIGH RISE ADDITIONS TO OTHER DOWNTOWN BUILDINGS. 
          THAT'S NOT TO SAY THAT THAT, YOU KNOW, I, I CAN'T FORECAST WHAT THEY NECESSARILY WOULD APPROVE IN THIS CASE. 
          UH, BUT THERE IS PRECEDENT FOR THAT. 
          AND IN FACT, THERE ARE, UM, PARAMETERS FOR HOW ONE COULD GO ABOUT DESIGNING, SOMETHING LIKE THAT WITH CERTAIN HEIGHT, OFFSETS AND SETBACKS, TO TRY TO MAKE A NEW CONSTRUCTION RECEDE INTO THE BACKGROUND, UM, THAT IS INCLUDED IN CITY-WIDE HISTORIC DESIGN STANDARDS THAT ARE AVAILABLE FOR PROPERTY OWNERS TO REFERENCE SOME PLANNING THEIR PROJECTS, IF, UH, IF THAT WERE TO HAPPEN. 
          UM, IF, IF THAT, IF COUNCIL APPROVES THE HISTORIC DESIGNATION AND THE OWNER WERE TO WORK TO REDEVELOP IT AND GET APPROVAL, UM, DOES THE TAX ABATEMENT STILL APPLY OR HOW DOES THAT WORK AT THAT POINT? THAT'S AN EXCELLENT QUESTION ALSO. 
          UM, SO IF THERE, LET ME, LET ME USE A DIFFERENT EXAMPLE. 
          UM, IF WE HAVE SAY A PROPERTY THAT HAS LANDED, THAT CAN BE DEVELOPED AND SOMEONE WERE TO WANT TO, YOU KNOW, CONSTRUCT A NEW BUILDING WITHIN THAT SITE, THAT NEW BUILDING WOULD NOT RECEIVE THE TAX INCENTIVES. 
          I AM NOT CERTAIN HOW T CAD WOULD HANDLE SOMETHING THAT WAS PHYSICALLY TIED TO THE HISTORIC BUILDING. 
          THAT'S SOMETHING I INTEND TO FOLLOW UP ON A LITTLE IN THE WEEDS. 
          UM, IS THERE AN EXAMPLE DOWNTOWN, OR EVEN IF NOT DOWNTOWN SOMEPLACE ELSE WHERE THERE'S BEEN A BUILDING DESIGNATED AS HISTORIC AND THERE HAS BEEN DEVELOPMENT THERE, THERE HAVE BEEN APPROVALS. 
          UM, I DON'T THINK ANY OF THEM HAVE BEEN CONSTRUCTED. 
          UH, THERE WAS THE CASE THAT YOU ALL PREVIOUSLY HEARD 4, 9 0 7 AND 909 CONGRESS. 
          UM, THERE'S A SIMILAR PROPOSAL ACROSS THE STREET AT NINE 16 CONGRESS, AND THEN THE MASONIC TEMPLE ALSO HAS A SIMILAR PROPOSAL APPROVED. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          UH, I'VE GOT A QUESTION FOR MR. SUTTLE OR SOME QUESTIONS. 
          SO OFTENTIMES, I MEAN, THE, THE, THE IDEA OF THE WHOLE HISTORIC ZONING, A LOT OF IT IS TO BE A COMMUNITY BENEFIT, RIGHT? SO WE, AS A PUBLIC CAN SEE, AND WE LOOK AT IT, WE COULD ENJOY THE HISTORY OF IT AND IT'S MEANINGFUL TO US. 
          RIGHT. 
          AND WHAT I'M TRYING TO BALANCE HERE IS, YOU KNOW, YOU SAID THAT THERE WAS CONCEPT, THERE WAS A PLAN FOR THE AREA AND FOR THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY AND COLLECTION WITH SOME OTHERS AND THAT IN OF ITSELF, I SEE IT CAN ALSO BECOME A COMMUNITY BENEFIT AS WELL. 
          YOU TALKED ABOUT WHAT THE STREETSCAPE IS, DIFFERENT, THINGS LIKE THAT, BUT THAT WAS ALL KIND OF CONCEPTUAL. 
          I'M TRYING TO PUT IN AN IDEA OF, SO 
          [01:10:01]
AS A COMMUNITY MEMBER, HOW DOES A PUBLIC BENEFIT FROM WHAT, UH, IS BEING PROPOSED BY YOUR, UH, YOUR CLIENT? UM, AND THEN I'M TRYING TO SEE THE BENEFITS FROM THE OTHER SIDE. 
          AND THEN, SO THAT'S ONE QUESTION THEN THE OTHER THING IS, IS THERE A WAY TO TIE IN SOME OF THE HISTORY OF WHAT THIS IS, WHETHER THE BRICK, MAYBE YOU SAVE A WALL OR SOMETHING, CAUSE I'VE STROLLED THROUGH LIKE A TOUR OF DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES. 
          AND EVEN THOUGH I'M WALKING BETWEEN HIGH RISES, THERE WAS LIKE SOME, YOU KNOW, LIKE THINGS THAT WERE SET UP AND I WAS ABLE TO FOLLOW ONE OF THE FIRST AFRICAN-AMERICAN LANDOWNERS IN LOS ANGELES. 
          AND I WALKED THROUGH THE WHOLE HISTORY ALONG IT AND WAS AMONGST, YOU KNOW, THE HIGH RISES. 
          IT DIDN'T HAVE TO SAVE THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY, BUT I FELT IT AND I SAW ALL THAT HAPPEN. 
          SO THOSE ARE KIND OF THE TWO PARTS OF QUESTIONS I HAVE. 
          SO, SO ON THE FIRST ONE, THE WAY THE LANDMARK SYSTEM IS SET UP, YOU'RE RIGHT. 
          IT'S, IT'S, IT'S A STRUCTURE WITH COMMUNITY VALUE. 
          THAT'S COOL. 
          THAT TELLS A STORY THAT HAS ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE AND THAT CAN'T BE REPLICATED. 
          I WOULD ARGUE THAT THIS IS A WAREHOUSE. 
          THAT'S ALL IT IS. 
          IT REPRESENTS SOMETHING THAT USED TO BE DOWNTOWN. 
          I AGREE WITH YOU TO YOUR NEXT QUESTION. 
          WHAT OUGHT TO HAPPEN IS MAYBE A PLAQUE OR A HISTORICAL MARKER ON THE CORNER. 
          IT SAID, THIS USED TO BE PART OF THE WAREHOUSE DISTRICT. 
          AND ON THIS SITE WAS A WAREHOUSE. 
          I'LL BET IT WASN'T A VERY SPECIAL ONE, BUT IT WAS A WAREHOUSE, BUT THAT I'VE STRUGGLED, TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO DO THAT. 
          I'VE ALSO STRUGGLED WITH HOW DO YOU, YOU INCORPORATE THIS WAREHOUSE INTO A NEW DEVELOPMENT, MUCH ROBERT, TO YOUR QUESTION, THE PROBLEM IS, IS THE LANDMARK COMMISSION SAYS THAT PART OF THE COOL PART OF THIS IS IT'S GOT LOADING DOCKS THAT STICK FOUR FEET UP ALONG THE LAWN, THE STREETS. 
          AND IN ORDER TO MAKE THIS SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO WALK BY AND HAVE PART OF THE DOWNTOWN FABRIC, YOU GOT TO WALK OUT AROUND ON THE CURB, OR YOU GOT TO GO UPSTAIRS AND GET UP ON THE LOADING DOCK AND YOU CAN'T HAVE THE SIDEWALKS. 
          SO WHILE I AGREE, I AGREE WITH YOU ON WHOLEHEARTEDLY LANDMARK PROCESS IS TO SET UP, TO SAVE SOMETHING SPECIAL. 
          THERE'S NOTHING SPECIAL ABOUT THIS. 
          NOW THE AREA WAS SPECIALLY WHAT USED TO BE A WAREHOUSE DISTRICT. 
          AND MAYBE WE COMMEMORATE THAT WITH A PLAQUE OR A NOD TO THAT. 
          BUT EVEN THE FAMILY THAT PUT THIS TOGETHER IS SAYING, THIS IS NOT, THIS IS NOT, NOT, IT DOESN'T RISE TO THE LEVEL THAT WE SHOULD PUT ON THE BAR TO MEET, TO BE HISTORICALLY, SORRY. 
          SO I'M TALKING ABOUT TO THE FIRST QUESTION. 
          SO I'M TRYING TO GET AN IDEA OF WHAT, YOU KNOW, CAUSE YOU MENTIONED THAT THIS WAS GOING TO BE DEVELOPED WITH A COUPLE OTHER PIECES OF PROPERTY THAT WE'RE PUTTING TOGETHER A BIG PLAN. 
          I MEAN, I'M TRYING TO GET AN IDEA OF WHAT, WHAT THAT WAS, YOU KNOW, IT'S THE CITY'S PLAN. 
          THAT WAS THE CITY'S PLAN FOR A CONVENTION CENTER EXPANSION AND THE CITY WAS PREPARED TO EXPAND THEIR CONVENTION CENTER. 
          THERE WAS NO MENTION OF ANY HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE TO THIS WAREHOUSE. 
          NOW THAT THAT PLAN HAS FALLEN APART AND THIS FAMILY WANTS TO RECOGNIZE AND JUST DEVELOP THEIR OWN HALF BLOCK. 
          ALL OF A SUDDEN IT MAY BE HISTORIC. 
          MY, MY, MY PEOPLE I REPRESENT THEIR, THEIR GOAL IS TO DO A HALF. 
          I HAVE BLOCK OF SOMETHING COMMENCEMENT WITH DOWNTOWN, WHETHER IT'S A MIXED USE OR RESIDENTIAL OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. 
          I THINK THE CONVENTION CENTER EXPANSION THIS DIRECTION IS, IS NOW FALLEN OFF, BUT IT WAS AMAZING TO ME THAT THEY TORE DOWN ALL THE WAREHOUSES TO BUILD A CONVENTION CENTER WITHOUT REGARD. 
          AND THEY WERE PREPARED TO TAKE THIS DOWN FOR THE EXPANSION WITHOUT REGARD. 
          BUT NOW THAT THERE'S NO PLANET AND THERE'S NO CONVENTION CENTER EXPANSION, IT'S HISTORIC. 
          SO A COUPLE SECONDS LEFT, MAYBE 30, BUT I MEAN, I TRY TO THINK OF DIFFERENT IDEAS, LIKE AN ACTIVATED, UM, FIRST LEVEL THAT HAS A NOD TO THE HISTORY OF IT. 
          YOU KNOW, SOMETHING YOU COULD USE ELEMENTS OF THE BRICK. 
          I MEAN, NOT NECESSARILY TO GIVE IT HIS HISTORIC ZONING, BUT TO USE PIECES OF IT AND TO, TO TELL THE STORY A LITTLE BIT MORE AND MORE SO THAN A PLAQUE AND UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, THIS IS DESIGN, BUT, UM, IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT, YOU KNOW, YOUR CLIENT COULD BE CONSIDERING, YOU KNOW, IN ALL OF IT, BECAUSE IT GIVES A LITTLE BIT MORE THAN JUST WALKING INTO ANOTHER BUILDING, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE, ONE OF THE CONGRESS BUILDINGS YOU WALK IN AND THERE'S A, THE BONES OF SOME DINOSAURS, RIGHT. 
          STUFF LIKE THAT. 
          SO THAT'S TRUE. 
          THIS, THIS ONE, THE, THE FINISHED FLOOR LEVEL, SO HIGH UP, BUT I AGREE WITH YOU WHEN WE COME THROUGH THE DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM, I THINK THAT'LL BE A COMPONENT OF IT. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, COMMISSIONER CONLEY. 
          UM, I HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS FOR STAFF. 
          IF WE GRANT THIS PROPERTY, THE HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION, YOU MENTIONED THAT THEN FROM NOW ON THE OWNER WOULD HAVE TO GO BEFORE THE HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION FOR EVEN MINOR CHANGES. 
          COULD YOU SPEAK TO THAT? IS THERE 
          [01:15:01]
ANY KIND OF CHANGE TO THE STRUCTURE BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, AS HAS BEEN NOTED BY THE APPLICANT, I, AND I'VE ACTUALLY WORKED AT PARTICIPATING IN EVENTS IN THIS SPACE, I'M PRETTY FAMILIAR WITH THE INTERIOR AND IT'S BEEN CHANGED ALREADY, RIGHT? IT'S A VERY DIFFERENT STRUCTURE. 
          SO WHAT KINDS OF CHANGES WOULD THEY HAVE TO GO TO THE COMMISSION FOR? RIGHT. 
          SO THAT THERE IS, THERE'S A LATITUDE FOR STAFF TO REVIEW AND APPROVE, UM, MORE MINOR PROJECTS. 
          UM, I SHOULD, UM, IT JUST ESTABLISHED FROM THE OUTSET THAT OUR, UH, PURVIEW IS EXTERIOR ONLY. 
          SO EVEN STAFF IS NOT REVIEWING INTERIOR MODIFICATIONS. 
          UM, LET'S TAKE THE WINDOWS. 
          FOR EXAMPLE, THE WINDOWS HAVE BEEN PREVIOUSLY REPLACED. 
          IF THERE WAS AN EFFORT TO REPLACE THOSE WINDOWS AGAIN, SAY FOR ENERGY EFFICIENCY PURPOSES, WITH NEW WINDOWS, IT MORE CLOSELY RESEMBLED. 
          WHAT WAS THERE HISTORICALLY, UM, THAT KIND OF A RESTORATION OF A MISSING ELEMENT IS SOMETHING THAT STAFF CAN REVIEW AND APPROVE ADMINISTRATIVELY. 
          BUT SINCE THE CURRENT WINDOWS ARE NOT HISTORIC, IF THEY WERE REPLACED WITH NEW WINDOWS THAT WERE NOT HISTORIC, THAT WOULD NOT HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE COMMISSION, OR IF IT WAS REPLACED WITH WINDOWS THAT REALLY WERE NOT IN KEEPING WITH, UM, W WHAT'S APPROPRIATE FOR THIS, THE STYLE AND ERA OF HISTORIC BUILDING, WE MIGHT SEND THAT TO THE COMMISSION. 
          UM, WE WOULD, WE WOULD WORK WITH THEM AT THE STAFF LEVEL FIRST TO TRY TO GET AN OUTCOME THAT COULD BE ADMINISTRATIVELY APPROVED, BECAUSE IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THERE'S A COMPONENT TO THIS. 
          THEN IT GOES BEYOND JUST PRESERVING THE STRUCTURE AND IT REALLY GOES INTO ALMOST SORT OF RECREATING SOMETHING THAT'S NOT REALLY THERE ANYMORE. 
          UM, IS THAT, IS, AM I CORRECT IN UNDERSTANDING PERHAPS THAT WAS A POOR EXAMPLE TO LEAD OFF WITH, THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT TO RESTORE ELEMENTS ARE MISSING. 
          A RESTORATION IS SOMETHING THAT WE CAN DO ADMINISTRATIVELY, BUT THERE'S NOT A REQUIREMENT TO RESTORE SOMETHING THAT IS NOT THERE. 
          OKAY. 
          MORE REQUIREMENT TO PRESERVE. 
          AND COULD YOU SPEAK TO THE LOADING DOCKS AND ALL OF THAT, LIKE FOR INSTANCE, YOU KNOW, TO BUILD ON COMMISSIONER SHAY'S QUESTIONS, YOU KNOW, IN A WORLD WHERE, YOU KNOW, SOME PIECE OF THE EXTERIOR OF THIS BUILDING WAS PRESERVED IN ORDER TO TELL THE STORY OF IT WITHOUT PRESERVING THE ENTIRE STRUCTURE, WHICH HAS ALREADY UNDERGONE SIGNIFICANT CHANGE, YOU KNOW, HOW MUCH OF THAT THE LOADING DOCKS AND THE ELEVATED STRUCTURE IS AS IMPORTANT TO THAT STORY. 
          I MEAN, HOW MUCH OF THAT NEEDS TO BE, UM, SORT OF, YOU KNOW, MAINTAINED IN PLACE? I, THE LOADING DOCKS ARE AN IMPORTANT PART OF CONVEYING THAT HISTORIC USE AS A WAREHOUSE. 
          UM, I WOULD SAY THE IDEAL SCENARIO FROM A PRESERVATION PERSPECTIVE WOULD BE TO PRESERVE THOSE LOADING DOCKS. 
          UM, WE COULD CAREFULLY CONSIDER, UM, A PROPOSAL, YOU KNOW, IF WE NEEDED TO, TO TRUNCATE THEM OR TO OTHERWISE MODIFY THEM. 
          UM, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WOULD REQUIRE CAREFUL EVALUATION AND WOULD REQUIRE A COMMISSION REVIEW BECAUSE AS THEY CURRENTLY ARE, THEY ACTUALLY MAKE IT VERY DIFFICULT FOR PEDESTRIANS, CYCLISTS, WHEELCHAIRS TO GET BY IN THE AREA. 
          SO THEY ACTUALLY POSE HARM TO MOBILITY. 
          SO FROM A MOBILITY PERSPECTIVE, IT SEEMS LIKE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO REVISIT THOSE LOADING DOCKS. 
          ANYWAY, EVEN IF WE GRANT THE BUILDING HISTORIC STATUS, IT SEEMS LIKE THAT WOULD HAVE TO CHANGE REGARDLESS. 
          AND I FEEL LIKE FOLKS, FOR INSTANCE, TRYING TO GET BY ON A WHEELCHAIR WOULD APPRECIATE LEARNING THAT HISTORY WITHOUT HAVING TO EXPERIENCE THE OBSTACLE IN THEIR PATH. 
          SO, YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN, IS THERE, I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT, LIKE I, SORRY, THIS I'M GOING TO MAKE THIS INTO A QUESTION. 
          MY LAST QUESTION IS, UM, IS THERE IS IF THESE CHANGES TAKE PLACE, I MEAN, THEY HAVE TO GO BEFORE THE HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION, THEY GO BEFORE ANYONE ELSE WOULD DO THEY COME BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION? DOES ANYONE ELSE GET TO WEIGH IN ON THIS OR JUST SOLELY BECOME THE PURVIEW OF THE HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION? UM, I, FOR ONE ACCESSIBILITY IS INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT AND THAT IS SOMETHING WE WOULD WANT TO LOOK AT AND TO WORK CLOSELY WITH THE OWNER ON, UM, IN TERMS OF PROCESS, UH, IT IS WITHIN THE HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION'S PURVIEW TO GRANT A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR MODIFICATIONS. 
          UM, THE ONLY INSTANCE WHERE IT WOULD COME TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION WOULD BE AN APPEAL PROCESS, LIKE THE ONE THAT YOU HEARD PREVIOUSLY. 
          OKAY. 
          SO MOVING FORWARD THEN IF WE GRANT HISTORIC STATUS, IT, IT BECOMES, WE, WE NOR ANY OTHER CITY COMMISSIONS WEIGH IN ON THIS, UM, NOT EVEN CITY COUNCIL, DOES THAT, IS THERE STILL AN OPTION, UH, AND APPEAL IF, UM, THE APPEAL PROCESS COULD GO TO COUNCIL? OKAY, THANK YOU. 
          THAT WAS VERY HELPFUL. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, AND I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT, WHICH IS REALLY JUST KIND OF A CONTINUATION OF COMMISSIONER SHAY'S QUESTIONS. 
          YOU KNOW, YOU MENTIONED A PLAQUE AND A PLAQUE MIGHT BE NOT ENOUGH, UM, FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF SOMEONE TRYING TO PRESERVE HISTORY, BUT THE ENTIRE STRUCTURE MIGHT BE TOO MUCH. 
          IS THERE SOME ROOM FOR A LITTLE BIT MORE OF THAT MIDDLE GROUND, YOU KNOW, CHASE TIME? OH, SORRY. 
          I'M SURE. 
          IN THE DESIGN PROCESS, WE COULD COME UP WITH SOMETHING, BUT IT NOT HAVE ITS OWN HISTORIC. 
          [01:20:01]
OKAY. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          UM, LET'S SEE, RECOGNIZING COMMISSIONER CUCS AND I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF, UM, I'M A BIG FAN OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION, UH, LIKE, LIKE MR. SUTTLE SAID, I THINK WE'VE PROBABLY LOST BUILDINGS THAT WE SHOULDN'T HAVE, BUT I'M STRUGGLING A LITTLE WITH THIS CASE, UM, PRIMARILY BECAUSE OF ITS ENVIRONMENT. 
          AND I'M CURIOUS, YOU KNOW, I'M NO EXPERT IN HISTORIC PRESERVATION. 
          SO I'M CURIOUS WHAT THE THINKING IS FROM SOMEONE WHO IS AN EXPERT IN HISTORIC PRESERVATION ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF THE SURROUNDINGS TO THIS HISTORIC NATURE AND VALUE OF A BUILDING. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, THIS BLOCK IS RIGHT NEXT TO THE MASSIVE CONVENTION CENTER, WHICH PROBABLY HAS VERY LITTLE ARCHITECTURAL MERIT TO IT. 
          UM, AND THEN, YOU KNOW, THE SURROUNDING BUILDINGS HAVE LARGELY BEEN UPDATED TO MODERN, YOU KNOW, DOWNTOWN STYLE BUILDINGS, SOMETHING WE WOULD EXPECT TO SEE IN DOWNTOWN AUSTIN. 
          SO I'M CURIOUS WHAT THE THINKING IS. 
          UM, SINCE IT KIND OF SEEMS TO BE JUST ALONE ISLAND OF AN INTERESTING LOOKING WAREHOUSE THAT HAS HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE, BUT THE REST OF THAT AREA SEEMS TO HAVE LOST IT QUITE A BIT. 
          CERTAINLY. 
          UM, SO HISTORIC DISTRICTS ARE REALLY THE BEST WAY TO PRESERVE A BUILDING WITHIN ITS CONTEXT TO PRESERVE COLLECTIONS OF BUILDINGS, TO TAKE A BLOCK OR LARGER AREA, AND TO KEEP THAT INTACT TO, UM, A CERTAIN HISTORIC PERIOD, UM, THAT, YOU KNOW, CLEARLY IT'S NOT THE SITUATION WE'RE DEALING WITH HERE, UH, FOR HISTORIC LANDMARKS. 
          UH, WE DO CONSIDER, UH, THE SETTING OF A HISTORIC BUILDING AND EVALUATING WHETHER OR NOT IT RETAINS HISTORIC INTEGRITY. 
          UM, THAT'S, THAT'S REALLY A CHALLENGE FOR ANY DOWNTOWN BUILDING BECAUSE THERE IS SO MUCH DEVELOPMENT AND, UM, WELL, LOSS OF CONTEXT DOESN'T NECESSARILY NEGATE THE, UH, THE MERITS OF PRESERVING AN INDIVIDUAL STRUCTURE. 
          OKAY. 
          AND IS THERE ANY OPTIONS THAT WE SEEM TO BE STUCK WITH AN ALL OR NOTHING OPTION HERE? KIND OF LIKE SOME OF THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE MENTIONED, I'M LOOKING AT THE STREET VIEW AT SAN JAC AND, UM, WHAT IS IT, SAN JAC AND WHATEVER THE NUMBER STREET IS LOOKING AT THE CORNER OF THE VINCE YOUNG STEAKHOUSE, WHICH IS, WHICH IS OCCUPYING THIS BUILDING, OR AT LEAST WAS WHEN THE STREET VIEW WAS TAKEN. 
          UM, AND I ACTUALLY THINK IT IS AN INTERESTING LOOKING BUILDING. 
          I THINK SOME PEOPLE HAVE INDICATED THAT IT'S A VERY, UH, NOT SPECIAL BUILDING, BUT IT DOES LOOK INTERESTING TO ME. 
          BUT TO ME IT'S MOST INTERESTING FROM THIS PARTICULAR PERSPECTIVE THAT I'M LOOKING AT FROM THE INTERSECTION, WHEN YOU START TO STREET VIEW AROUND IT, IT BECOMES A LOT LESS INTERESTING AND MORE JUST LOOKS LIKE, UH, ANY, ANY BUILDING THAT YOU COULD SEE IN A SLIGHTLY INDUSTRIAL AREA. 
          UM, IT IS, IT IS, THIS IS A CASE OF ALL OR NOTHING, OR COULD WE TRY TO SPECIFY CERTAIN FACADES OR CERTAIN AREAS THAT HAVE MORE HISTORIC VALUE THAN THE REST OF THIS OWNER'S PROPERTY? UM, EH, THE CASE BEFORE YOU TONIGHT IS, IS, UM, BLAME ART COMMISSION INITIATED AND RECOMMENDED HISTORIC ZONING ON THE ENTIRE PROPERTY. 
          AGAIN, THAT WOULD BE THE EXTERIOR ONLY WITH THE POTENTIAL TO DO SOME FORM OF AN ADDITION. 
          UM, SO I, IN TERMS OF THE HISTORIC ZONING CASE, I THINK THAT WOULD BE THE COMPROMISE SOLUTION IS LOOKING AT WHAT ARE WAYS IN WHICH THIS BUILDING CAN BE ENLARGED TO ALLOW SOME ADDITIONAL, UM, MODERN USE AND ADAPTIVE USE OF THE BUILDING. 
          UM, I GUESS WITHOUT HISTORIC ZONING, I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THE, UH, THE OWNER'S AGENT WOULD BE BETTER ABLE TO ADDRESS, UM, IN TERMS OF, OF WHAT POSSIBILITIES MIGHT EXIST. 
          THAT WOULD BE LESS THAN I CAN QUOTE, WOULD BE REQUIRED UNDER THE HISTORIC ZONING. 
          OKAY. 
          AND LAST QUESTION FOR YOU, THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF TALK ABOUT THE, THE, THE RAIL DOCS, CARGO, DOCKS, WHATEVER. 
          UM, I'M LOOKING AT THIS, AND HONESTLY, THE SIDEWALK LOOKS TO BE AS WIDE AS MANY OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES THAT SPECIFICALLY TO THIS PROPERTY. 
          ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY, UH, ACCESSIBILITY CONCERNS RELATED TO, UM, THE SIDEWALKS WITHIN CITY RIGHT AWAY? UH, THAT'S NOT AN ASSESSMENT THAT, THAT I HAVE DONE SPECIFICALLY. 
          UM, IT'S, IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT HAD BEEN RAISED MY CONCERN BEFORE TONIGHT. 
          UM, THERE, THERE IS INHERENTLY AN ACCESSIBILITY CHALLENGE WITH THOSE LOADING DOCKS. 
          UM, BUT THERE ARE, THERE ALSO ARE POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS TO LOOK AT. 
          WELL, IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S BEING USED AS A RESTAURANT PATIO, WHICH, WHICH TO ME SEEMS LIKE A GOOD USE FOR IT. 
          UM, AND IF I'VE GOT TIME FOR THE APPLICANT, MR. SUTTLE, I'M JUST CURIOUS, UM, IF, IF THIS DOES GET HISTORIC ZONING 
          [01:25:01]
PUT ON IT, DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT THE OWNERS NEXT STEPS ARE? I CAN'T EVEN IMAGINE. 
          I MEAN, I, I SUSPECT IT WON'T END THERE. 
          IT IT'LL TAKE A THREE-QUARTER VOTE AT COUNCIL TO ZONE IT OVER LAND LANDOWNERS. 
          OKAY. 
          THINKING, RIGHT. 
          SO THAT WAS 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. 
          WE HAVE THREE SPOTS LEFT. 
          UM, ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS HAVE QUESTIONS? I HAVE A FEW I'LL GO AHEAD AND TAKE A SPOT THEN, UM, FOR STAFF. 
          SO, UM, IN TELL ME IF THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED, WOULD THE APPLICANT BE ABLE TO KEEP THE FACADE AND BUILD, UH, YOU KNOW, UH, SEVERAL STORY BUILDING, UH, AND MAINTAIN THE FACADE? IS THAT SOMETHING THAT IS TYPICALLY APPROVED AND THESE THAT'S SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES WAS APPROVED FOR MULTIPLE OTHER EXAMPLES AND DOWNTOWN. 
          SO I THINK THAT WOULD BE A POSSIBILITY HERE. 
          OKAY. 
          YEAH. 
          AND DO YOU, UM, I THINK WHAT I'VE HEARD IS THIS ISSUE OF FAIRNESS, YOU KNOW, AREN'T, WE ARE, WE, IS THIS LIKE ONE OF THE FEW PROPERTIES STANDING AND ARE WE, IF WE ARE, WE TREATING THEM FAIRLY, WHEN YOU LOOK AT ALL, YOU KNOW, THE CHANGE DRAMATIC CHANGE DOWNTOWN, UM, I, YOU KNOW, IS THIS, I KNOW THIS IS JUST ONE PROPERTY, BUT, UH, I, IT, MAYBE IT'S JUST AN OPINION, BUT I'M ASKING, DO YOU FEEL LIKE THIS IS, YOU KNOW, ARE WE, THIS, IS THIS APPLICANT BEING TREATED FAIRLY WHEN YOU LOOK AT ALL THE PROPERTIES THAT HAVE BEEN OVERLOOKED, I GUESS THAT'S THE WAY I'D FRAME. 
          YEAH. 
          MULTIPLE OTHER WAREHOUSE DEMOLITIONS HAVE GONE BEFORE THE HISTORICAL LANDMARK COMMISSION IN RECENT YEARS. 
          AND THOSE CASES DID NOT ADVANCE. 
          THEY, UM, EITHER WERE SEEN AS NOT MEETING THE, UH, THE LANDMARK CRITERIA. 
          MAYBE THEY DIDN'T GET THAT, UM, REQUIRED TO VOTE IN ORDER TO GO FORWARD. 
          UM, IN TERMS OF THE ANALYSIS OF THAT, UH, LANDMARK COMMISSIONER, UH, KEVIN COOK DID, UM, HE WAS LOOKING AT, UH, AN ASSESSMENT FROM A NUMBER OF YEARS BACK WHEN MORE OF THESE WAREHOUSES WERE INTACT. 
          AND, UH, HIS, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, HIS, HIS, UM, RESOLUTION TO THAT WAS THAT THIS IS THE BEST REMAINING EXAMPLE. 
          THIS IS THE CLEAREST CASE FOR LANDMARKING AND ADDITION TO THE NELSON DAVIS WILL HOUSE. 
          OKAY. 
          AND, UM, I GUESS FOR THE CONVENTION CENTER, THE COMMENT FROM THE APPLICANT, YOU SAID THERE'S TWO TRIGGERS WHEN THERE'S A PERMIT, UH, THAT COMES BEFORE STAFF OR AT THE OWNER, UH, INITIATED. 
          SO SURELY THOSE, THE CONVENTION CENTER THAT THERE HAD TO BE A PERMIT FOR THAT. 
          SO I GUESS, DID THAT NOT TRIGGER ANY D DID THAT TRIGGER REVIEW? YOU MENTIONED THERE WERE OTHER CASES, DID THAT TRIGGER ANY LANDMARK CASE REVIEW IN, IN BUILDING OF THE CONVENTION CENTER? I'M NOT AWARE OF THIS CASE GOING BEFORE THE LANDMARK COMMISSION PREVIOUSLY, AND IT'S OUR PRACTICE NOT TO SEND THE SAME PROPERTY MORE THAN ONE. 
          WELL, NOT THIS ONE. 
          I MEAN, OTHERS THAT WERE ON THE CURRENT CONVENTION CENTER SITE OR ON THE PROPOSED SITE THAT I THINK WE'VE HEARD HAVE BEEN DEMOLISHED, OR, YEAH, I WISH I HAD A BETTER ANSWER FOR THAT. 
          UM, IF SOMETHING THAT IS PURELY A PLANNING PROCESS IS NOT NECESSARILY GOING TO TRIGGER THE PERMITS. 
          SO I GUESS DIGGING INTO LITTLE ABOUT THAT. 
          SO WHEN THERE'S A PERMIT, HOW DOES THAT, HOW DOES THAT RECOGNIZE? IS THAT ALL IT ALWAYS GOES TO THE HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION AND HAS TO BE SIGNED OFF RIGHT. 
          IN SOME WAY, UH, WHEN THERE'S A PERMIT STAFF. 
          OKAY. 
          AND THE VAST MAJORITY STAFF DETERMINES DON'T MEET THE CRITERIA FOR LANDMARK DESIGNATION. 
          WE, WE RELEASED THOSE ADMINISTRATIVELY. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, THOSE WERE ALL MY QUESTIONS. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          SO THAT'S, UH, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSIONERS OR DO WE HAVE A, UH, MOTION, UH, COMMISSIONERS ARE CHAIR. 
          I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION TO DENY THE REQUEST. 
          UH, LET'S SPEAK. 
          THIS IS DENY THE REQUEST, THE REQUEST OF STAFF TO, UH, GIVE THIS THE HISTORIC DESIGNATION. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I SEE A PERSON I THINK WAS COMMISSIONER SHEA, UH, WANTING TO SPEAK TO YOUR MOTION. 
          SURE. 
          I THINK A NUMBER OF GOOD CONVERSATIONS WERE HAD TODAY ABOUT FAIRNESS, WHETHER THIS IS AN APPROPRIATE SITE OR NOT, UM, WHETHER IT MAKES SENSE. 
          AND I THINK FOR ME, THE BIGGEST THING REALLY IS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A STRUCTURE THAT IS DWARFED BY A CONVENTION CENTER THAT I'M NOT GOING TO DESCRIBE ON THIS DAYS, BECAUSE 
          [01:30:01]
I DON'T THINK IT'S WORTHY OF BEING DESCRIBED FRANKLY, UM, AND HOTELS AROUND IT THAT ARE WHAT THEY ARE. 
          SO DO YOU SAY THAT THIS IS THE PLACE THAT WE'RE GOING TO DO? THIS KIND OF PRESERVATION TO ME MAKES REGULAR SENSE, EVEN THOUGH I MIGHT AGREE WITH SOME OF THE ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE, THERE'S NO CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE HERE OR ASSOCIATION WITH THE HISTORIC PERSON AGE, WHERE WE WOULD SAY THIS IS CRITICAL TO THE PRESERVATION AND MEMORIZATION OF WHAT WE HAVE IN OUR CITY. 
          THE OTHER THING I WOULD SAY IS WHEN I WAS SERVING ON THE LGBTQ QUALITY OF LIFE COMMISSION IN 2016, PRESENTATION WAS MADE IN FRONT OF US TO REALLY PRESERVE THE WAREHOUSE DISTRICT ON FORD STREET AND DO TALK ABOUT ITS LGBTQ SIGNIFICANCE AND ALSO ITS HISTORIC PRESERVATION SIGNIFICANCE. 
          AND I WANT TO SAY, WE'VE PASSED THAT POINT AND IT IS SURPRISING TO ME THAT I'M SITTING HERE FIVE YEARS LATER AND THERE'S BEEN NO MOTION MADE ON THAT, WHERE WE HAVE A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF STRUCTURES. 
          SO IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE DOGS, THE DOGS ARE STILL INTACT ON THE HULSEY ONSITE. 
          THEY'RE STILL INTACT ON THE DULOC SITE, THE BEAMS AND THE RAFTERS THAT ARE RUNNING THROUGH THE ROOF OF RAIN ARE STILL INTACT. 
          THOSE ARE STRUCTURES THAT WE COULD BE PRESERVING. 
          AND HERE WE'RE GOING TO MOVE TOWARDS THE STRUCTURE WHERE WE HAVE HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH AN OWNER ON WHAT THEY WERE GOING TO DO WITH THEIR PROPERTY. 
          AND WE'RE TRYING TO MITIGATE THAT OR CONTROL THAT IN SOME WAY WHILE NOT PROVIDING, IN MY OPINION, A GOOD REASON FOR WHY THIS STRUCTURE IN THIS PART OF DOWNTOWN IS NECESSARY OFF PRESERVATION. 
          WHEREAS SOME OF THOSE OTHER ONES THAT ARE CRITICAL AND STILL CAN BE PRESERVED, WE SHOULD NOT BE MOVING AHEAD WITH, SO THAT IS WHY I THINK I'M MAKING THIS MOTION BECAUSE I DO NOT THINK IT IS APPROPRIATE TO DESIGNATE THIS HISTORIC. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ALRIGHT, COMMISSIONER SPEAKING AGAINST THE MOTION, I'M SURE. 
          OH, COMMISSIONER SCHNEIDER. 
          THANK YOU. 
          I MAY BE THE LONE OPPOSITION ON THIS AND UH, UH, UNFORTUNATELY WE SORT OF HAVE A BINARY CHOICE. 
          UM, I THINK THERE ARE OPTIONS IN BETWEEN AND UH, I WISH THAT THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT WE COULD DISCUSS, UNFORTUNATELY, UH, THAT'S NOT ON THE TABLE. 
          SO, UM, UH, YOU KNOW, I FEEL OKAY THAT THIS IS GOING TO GO TO COUNCIL FOR REVIEW. 
          I THINK THAT'S APPROPRIATE. 
          UH, MY, UH, OPPOSITION TO THIS MOTION IS, IS FOR TWO REASONS. 
          FIRST I HAVE A LOT OF RESPECT FOR THE LANDMARK LANDMARK, UH, HISTORIC COMMISSION. 
          UH, I BELIEVE THEY ARE VERY THOROUGH. 
          THEY'RE VERY SMART. 
          I'VE LISTENED TO THEIR DISCUSSIONS, NOT ON THIS CASE IN PARTICULAR THOUGH, I, I DID REVIEW THE FILE. 
          UM, THEY'RE VERY THOUGHTFUL ABOUT THE DECISIONS THAT THEY MAKE. 
          AND UNFORTUNATELY, UM, THERE ARE CASES LIKE THIS THAT JUST SORT OF COME ALONG, SEEMINGLY RANDOMLY, NEVERTHELESS, THEY DID REVIEW THIS. 
          THEY UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDED HISTORIC DESIGNATION. 
          THE SECOND REASON IS WE'RE AT A UNIQUE TIME AND IT'S NOT TO SAY THINGS ARE GOING TO GET MORE UNIQUE IN THE FUTURE, BUT, UM, WE'RE AT A FRENETIC BREATHTAKING PACE OF DEVELOPMENT, ESPECIALLY DOWNTOWN. 
          IF THIS DOES NOT GET APPROVED, IT HAS GONE FOREVER. 
          IT'S NOT LIKE WE CAN BUILD SOME MORE. 
          SO IT IS, I THINK IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD BE CAREFUL WITH AND I DON'T THINK THAT WE'VE EXPLORED SUFFICIENTLY WHAT OTHER OPTIONS MIGHT BE. 
          SO I'M GOING TO VOTE AGAINST, UH, THIS, UH, PROPOSAL. 
          THANKS. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          ANY COMMISSIONERS THINKING IN FAVOR, COMMISSIONER CONLEY? UM, YEAH, I MEAN, IT'S INTERESTING. 
          I WANT TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF IT FOR SOME OF THE REASONS THAT COMMISSIONER SCHEINER BROUGHT UP AND ONE OF THEM IS, IS THAT IT'S PRECISELY THAT THERE SHOULD BE SOME MIDDLE OPTIONS AND SOME MORE ALTERNATIVES AND THERE AREN'T, BUT IF WE GRANT THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, THEN THIS BECOMES, THEN WE GRANT, UM, HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION SORT OF SOLE PURVIEW, UM, UNLESS THEY APPEAL TO THE COUNCIL TO SORT OF MICROMANAGE THE FUTURE OF THIS BUILDING. 
          AND IT'S A BUILDING THAT HAS ALREADY UNDERGONE SIGNIFICANT ALTERATIONS, ESPECIALLY IF YOU GO INSIDE THE INTERIOR OF THE BUILDING IS VERY, VERY DIFFERENT. 
          AND SO IT JUST SEEMS UNREASONABLE TO ME THAT THE APPLICANT SHOULD BE STUCK IN THAT SITUATION. 
          WHEREAS I THINK THERE COULD BE MORE ROOM FOR NEGOTIATION IF THE PROCESS HAPPENED OUTSIDE OF THAT, UM, SORT OF VERY NARROW STRICTURE, WHICH IS THE MAIN REASON WHY I VOTE, I WOULD VOTE TO DENY THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST. 
          UM, AND THE OTHER IS THERE ARE ACTUALLY CONCERNS WITH MOBILITY FEATURES ON THE SIDEWALK. 
          AND THERE ARE QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW THOSE FEATURES, HOW SOME OF THESE KEY ASPECTS LIKE THE LOADING DOCKS WOULD EVEN BE PRESERVED AT ALL. 
          IF YOU, UH, WALK IN THAT AREA AND SEE THE SIDEWALK GETS PRETTY NARROW AND, YOU KNOW, DEPENDING ON WHAT HAPPENS IN THE FUTURE OF THAT AREA, IN THAT SPACE, THOSE MOBILITY CONCERNS WOULD ALSO BE A MAJOR ISSUE ANYWAY. 
          SO FOR THESE REASONS AND A FEW OTHERS, I, UM, VOTE TO DENY 
          [01:35:01]
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST TODAY. 
          OKAY. 
          THOSE SPEAKING AGAINST THE MOTION, UH, COMMISSIONER COX, I SEE YOUR HAND. 
          OKAY. 
          YEAH. 
          UM, I THINK I'M GOING TO VOTE AGAINST THE MOTION AS WELL. 
          UM, JUST TO EXPAND UPON WHAT, UH, COMMISSIONER SCHNEIDER SAYS. 
          UM, I THINK THAT, TO ME, I'M LOOKING AT IT FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF WHAT, WHAT ARE THE POSSIBILITIES IN THE FUTURE, UH, DEPENDING ON WHETHER THE X GETS HISTORIC ZONING OR NOT, IF IT HAS HISTORIC ZONING, WE COULD VERY MUCH SEE OURSELVES VOTING ON A CASE ABOUT, YOU KNOW, MAYBE AGREEING OR NOT AGREEING WITH WHAT THE HISTORIC COMMISSION THINKS IS MOST APPROPRIATE IN TERMS OF PRESERVING THE HISTORIC NATURE OF THIS BUILDING. 
          UH, BUT ALSO DEVELOPING IT. 
          UM, AND IF WE, IF THIS PROPERTY DOES NOT HAVE THIS STORAGE ZONING BAN, ESSENTIALLY THE BUILDING'S GONE, I, I, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE OWNER'S PLANS ARE, BUT I WOULD IMAGINE BASED ON WHAT WE'VE HEARD, THE OWNER'S PLANS IS TO TAKE DOWN A STRUCTURE AND BUILD SOMETHING POSSIBLY VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT WE SEE IN THE OTHER BLOCKS. 
          UM, I'M ALSO REALLY RELUCTANT TO SECOND GUESS, ESPECIALLY A, A UNANIMOUS DECISION OF THE COMMISSION WHO HAS PROBABLY A LOT MORE KNOWLEDGE ON THIS SUBJECT THAN WE DO. 
          UM, AND THE FACT THAT COMMISSIONERS DID DO RESEARCH AND THE FACT THAT THEY'RE TELLING US THAT THIS IS ONE OF THE LAST EXAMPLES OF THIS THAT EXISTS, UM, IN, IN AUSTIN. 
          UH, SO I JUST FEEL LIKE THERE'S MORE POSSIBILITIES IF IT ACTUALLY DOES HAVE HISTORIC ZONING. 
          AND IF IT DOESN'T IN TERMS OF HOW THIS PARTICULAR BLOCK, UH, GETS DEVELOPED. 
          SO THAT'S WHY I'M NOT COMFORTABLE, UM, VOTING FOR THE MOTION. 
          YEAH, I THINK I FINISHED, YEAH. 
          I THOUGHT I SAW YOUR HAND COMMISSIONER SHAY. 
          SO GO AHEAD PLEASE. 
          SO, I MEAN, I VALUE GREATLY WHAT OUR HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION HAS, UM, ANALYZED THIS AND LOOKED AT THIS AND, YOU KNOW, AND I RESPECT THEIR DECISION COMPLETELY. 
          IT'S, YOU KNOW, WE'RE, WE'RE WHERE I SIT. 
          AND WHEN I FEEL THAT WE SIT IS THAT WE HAVE TO TAKE IN ANOTHER CONSIDERATION THAN JUST THIS ASPECT OF THAT ONE BUILDING. 
          AND WE HAVE TO LOOK AT IT AS YOU KNOW, FROM THE, YOU KNOW, IN TERMS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, YOU KNOW, AND I LOOK AT IT AND I LOOK AT THE AREA AND I SEE HOW, HOW CAN, HOW DOES THIS FIT THAT AREA NEXT TO THE CONVENTION CENTER WITH THE HOTELS, WITH ALL THE MOVEMENT THAT'S GOING ON WITH THE MOBILITY ISSUES WE HAVE, WHAT, YOU KNOW, W WHAT IS GOOD FOR THAT AREA? ESPECIALLY WE HAVE A RAIL STATION, RIGHT, WALKING DISTANCE RIGHT OVER THERE. 
          AND I LOOK AT THE OPPORTUNITIES, YOU KNOW, AND THE BENEFITS FOR THE COMMUNITY, IF IT WAS REDEVELOPED IN SOMETHING THAT SUITS THE AREA AND THE MOVEMENT THERE, VERSUS KEEPING THAT AS THE WAREHOUSE. 
          AND THEN, UM, AS ONE OF THE OTHERS COMMISSIONERS POINTED OUT, WE HAVE AN AREA WE CONSIDER MORE AS A WAREHOUSE DISTRICT, AND I AGREE WE SHOULD BE LOOKING INTO REALLY LETTING THAT BE THAT SPECIAL GEM. 
          AND, YOU KNOW, IF WE START HAVING OTHER WAREHOUSES HERE, THERE, WHAT HAPPENS TO THAT, YOU KNOW, AND THEN WE, WE START POSSIBLY LOSING, UM, THE, THE MOVEMENT TOWARD HAVING THAT, THAT SPECIAL PLACE. 
          SO IT'S, FOR ME, IT, UH, YOU KNOW, IT, THERE'S DIFFICULTIES WITH THIS BUILDING, UH, ESPECIALLY WITH THE, YOU KNOW, WITH THE GROUND FLOOR HEIGHTS AND HOW IT FITS THE AREA. 
          AND IN RELATION TO THE PLANNING AREA OF THAT AREA, I'VE, YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHY I, I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD HINDER THIS PROPERTY WITH THAT HISTORIC DESIGNATION. 
          THAT'S MY TAKE. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, ANY COMMISSIONER SPEAKING AGAINST THE MOTION? UH, I WILL GO AHEAD AND SPEAK AGAINST IT. 
          UM, I THINK THERE'S VERY GOOD ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST. 
          THIS IS NOT AN EASY DECISION, BUT I DO FEEL LIKE, UH, YOU KNOW, WE HAD A SUPER MAJORITY FROM THE, UH, HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION, YOU KNOW, THEIR, THEIR RESEARCH. 
          UM, I THINK I, I THINK IT WAS THOROUGH AND THAT'S THEIR JOB. 
          AND SO I WANT TO RESPECT THAT. 
          UM, I DO WANT TO HONOR WHAT A COMMISSIONER IS. 
          ZAHRA MENTIONED ABOUT THE, UM, OTHER DISTRICTS THAT ARE PROBABLY BEING IGNORED. 
          I THINK THAT'S SO WORTHY COMMENT, AND I HOPE STAFF CAN LOOK AT THAT BECAUSE THERE'S CULTURAL SIGNIFICANT TO THAT AREA THAT HE MENTIONED THAT I THINK SHOULD BE INVESTIGATED. 
          UH, BUT I JUST THINK A COUNCIL WOULD MAKE THIS DECISION. 
          UM, BUT MY I'M LEANING. 
          YEAH. 
          I'M GOING TO VOTE AGAINST THE MOTION. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND 
          [01:40:01]
LET'S, UH, TAKE IT UP FOR A VOTE. 
          THIS IS THE, UH, THE MOTION BY COMMISSIONER. 
          AZHAR SECOND. 
          IF I COME INTO THE SHADE TO, UH, DENY THE APPLICANTS, UH, REQUESTS, I'M SORRY. 
          DENIED IT'S, IT'S A LITTLE CONFUSING AS STAFF, UH, REQUESTS FOR HISTORIC DESIGNATION. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, LET'S SEE. 
          THAT WAS ON THE DIOCESE. 
          GO AND VOTE, UH, THOSE IN FAVOR. 
          OKAY. 
          AND, UH, THOSE IN FAVOR, UH, VIRTUALLY PAPER, THE MOTION. 
          OKAY. 
          AND THAT'S ON THE DIOCESE OR AGAINST THE MOTION YOU HAVE TO, AND THOSE VIRTUALLY THAT ARE AGAINST THE MOTION. 
          THAT'S THREE. 
          SO THAT MOTION PASSES SEVEN, THREE. 
          OH, I AM SORRY. 
          I COUNTED G OKAY. 
          SO WE HAVE 7, 3, 1 6. 
          SO WE DID, IT DID NOT TEST. 
          I'M SORRY. 
          I MISSED, I DON'T KNOW HOW I COUNTED YOU. 
          YEAH. 
          SO IT'S, IT'S SIX, THREE TO ONE. 
          OH, I DID AN EARLIER CANADA TOTAL AND I APOLOGIZE. 
          IT IS 7 3, 2 1. 
          THANK YOU. 
          WE HAVE 11. 
          THANK YOU FOR KEEPING MICS RIGHT THERE. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          IT'S NOT THE HIGHEST RATE ARMY PRACTICES OUT. 
          JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU, YES, NO, IT WAS, UH, WE, WE HAVE MORE HERE THAN WE STARTED WITH, WHICH I, OH, I SHOULD SAY YAY, BUT I DIDN'T COUNT PROPERLY. 
          OKAY. 
          SO AT 7 31, THAT MOTION PASSES. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          UH, SO WITH, I THINK WE'RE DONE WITH OUR DISCUSSION CASES AND WE CAN MOVE INTO THE REST OF THE AGENDA QUICKLY, UM, ITEMS FROM THE COMMISSION. 
          UH, THERE'S NONE ON THE AGENDA. 
          UM, WE HAVE FUTURE AGENDA 
          [D. FUTURE AGENDA ITEM]
ITEMS. DO ANY COMMISSIONERS HAVE THINGS THEY WISH TO PUT ON THE FUTURE AGENDAS? UM, I HAVE ONE THAT I WILL MENTION THAT I'VE, UH, I'VE TALKED ABOUT PREVIOUSLY. 
          UM, SO THIS WOULD BE JUST A FORM OF WORKING GROUP THAT WOULD BE, UM, AND IF I CAN GET SOMEBODY TO SUPPORT IT, UH, WE'LL BRING IT UP NEXT TIME. 
          UH, BUT ALL IT IS IS A WORKING GROUP AND IT'S A GROUP TO GO, UH, TOUR AT THE, UH, UH, PERMITTING AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER, UM, THAT I BELIEVE IT'S GOING TO COME UP TO COUNCIL ON JANUARY 27TH, UH, FOR CONSIDERATION, UH, TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT WE MEET HERE OR THERE. 
          UH, BUT I JUST WANT TO SET THE STAGE, UH, FOR A NUMBER OF US TO GO TOUR THE FACILITY AND GIVE FEEDBACK TO THE REST OF THE, UM, UH, COMMISSION. 
          SO WE'LL, WE'LL DISCUSS THAT. 
          AND I GUESS IF I COULD GET JUST A SECOND COMMISSIONER, THAT'S OUR, SO WE'LL, UH, WE'LL HAVE A DISCUSSION ON THAT AT THE NEXT MEETING. 
          WELL, UH, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS, HOPEFULLY IT'LL JUST BE ON CONSENT IF WE NEED TO DISCUSS IT, WE'LL TAKE CARE OF THAT IN FEBRUARY. 
          UM, ALL RIGHT. 
          ANY OTHER ITEMS FOR THE FUTURE? UH, COMMISSIONER COX? I, I LIKE YOU, I'M, I'M KIND OF INTERESTED IN WHAT COMMISSIONERS ARE SPEAKING TO DURING OUR LAST DISCUSSION CASE. 
          AND I'M CURIOUS IF COMMISSIONERS ARE THINKS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION CAN TAKE ANY INITIATIVE ON THAT PARTICULAR SUBJECT WITHIN OUR PURVIEW TO MAYBE TO MAYBE GET THE BALL ROLLING OR, OR, OR CREATE SOME SORT OF SPARK IN THAT REGARD. 
          UM, UH, CAN YOU, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE CASE. 
          WE JUST HEARD THE FOURTH STREET, A WAREHOUSE DISTRICT AND HOW THAT, THAT, THAT SEEMS TO NOT HAVE GONE ANYWHERE BASED ON OTHER COMMISSIONS WORK. 
          AND SO I'M JUST CURIOUS IF COMMISSIONERS ARE THINKS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION COULD BE A VEHICLE TO POTENTIALLY DO SOMETHING ABOUT THAT. 
          I, I GUESS I WOULD RESPOND IN SAYING A HUNDRED PERCENT. 
          YES. 
          IF MY UNDERSTANDING IS GREG, WE CAN INITIATE A ZONING CHANGE AT ANY DIME. 
          SO IF WE WANT TO DO INITIATE A HISTORIC LANDMARK ZONING CHANGE FOR A CERTAIN BUILDINGS IN THAT AREA, WE COULD DO THAT FOR SURE. 
          WE WOULD DEFINITELY NEED, I THINK, STAFFS UNDERSTAND, HELP AND UNDERSTANDING WHAT IS OR IS NOT POSSIBLE. 
          I THINK ONE COMMENT I HEARD TODAY IS THAT DISTRICTS CAN ONLY BE INITIATED BY PROPERTY OWNERS. 
          SO ANYWAYS, I THINK THIS IS WORTHY OF FURTHER BREASTFEEDING AS A DISCUSSION, BECAUSE I THINK FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, THERE ARE STILL STRUCTURES THERE THAT CAN BE PRESERVED AND I THINK WOULD BE PART OF A OVERALL DISTRICT. 
          CAN WE, UH, CAN WE PERHAPS COMMISSIONER COX START THIS 
          [01:45:01]
AS SOME DIALOGUE WITH STAFF, UH, TO MAYBE GET SOME QUESTIONS ANSWERED AND SEE HOW WE MIGHT APPROACH THIS AND THEN BRING IT BACK UP TO SEE IF WE WANT TO GET A PRESENTATION AT A LATER DATE? YEAH, I THINK THAT'S A VERY GOOD IDEA. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, ANY OTHER ITEMS FOR THE FUTURE? OKAY. 
          UH, LET'S GO AND QUICKLY MOVE THROUGH, UM, GENDER IDENTITY. 
          OH, YES. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, CHAIR COHEN, PLEASE APOLOGIZE. 
          SORRY, JUST REAL QUICK. 
          AND I DON'T KNOW, MAYBE YOU COULD ANSWER THIS RIGHT AWAY OR IT'S A DISCUSSION WE HAVE, BUT SINCE YOU BROUGHT IT UP, UH, REGARDING THE PVC MOVE, IS THERE, IS THERE A REASON WHY ALL EXIT PHYSIOS AREN'T LISTED AS MEMBERS ON OUR AGENDA? IS THAT SOMETHING WE COULD MAYBE TALK ABOUT AND TRY TO REUSE AND, UH, HELPING US MAKE, UH, OUR GIFTS TO THE COUNCIL TO MAKE A DETERMINATION WITH THE PROPOSED BBC? UM, UM, I'M SORRY, I, I'M NOT FOLLOWING YOU KID. 
          YOU SAY THAT AGAIN. 
          IT WAS SOMEWHAT WITH THE VOLUME AND JUST ME NOT, I KNOW OUR AGENDA IS ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA. 
          EVERY EXTRA PHYSIO IS LISTED, BUT ONE WHEN I WAS JUST CURIOUS WHY THAT ENDS CONSIDERING THE ONE PERSON WHO COULD PROBABLY HELP US THE MOST WITH THE PVC MEAN NEXT TO SYDNEY COUNCIL, ISN'T ON IT. 
          UH, HELP ME, UH, UNDER COMMISSIONER LAYS ON ANDROID. 
          SO I MET HER THAT I CAN CONFER WITH THE COURT'S OFFICE AND WE CAN, UH, UM, REMEDY A BIT. 
          SO THE EX OFFICIO THAT'S NOT LISTED. 
          AM I OKAY? ALL RIGHT. 
          I UNDERSTAND NOW. 
          THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION. 
          OKAY. 
          COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER IS OUR JEFF WAS GOING TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION AND AS WE'RE SETTING UP THE WORKING GROUP TO GO LOOK AT THE NEW CENTER, GOOD. 
          WE ALSO ENSURE THAT THE SAME OFFERS MADE TO OUR EX OFFICIALS DO JOIN AS WELL FOR THAT WORKING GROUP, UH, BECAUSE THERE WOULD NOT IMPACT THEM AND GOOD ESSENTIALLY JOIN AND VISIT THE CENTER AND HAVE DISCUSSION WITH STAFF. 
          OKAY. 
          WE CAN DEFINITELY INCLUDE THAT IN. 
          UM, APPRECIATE IT. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, LET'S DO QUICK UPDATES. 
          UM, LOOKING AROUND, I KEEP FORGETTING TO LOOK AT MY SCREEN. 
          OKAY. 
          I'M THINKING WE'RE 
          [E. BOARDS, COMMITTEES & WORKING GROUPS UPDATES]
GOOD. 
          LET'S GO AHEAD AND, UH, MOVE TO AGENDA ITEM E UH, ANYTHING FROM CODES AND ORDINANCES DRAWING FROM EDDIE. 
          UH, WE, WE CANCELED OUR LAST MEETING, SO I THINK WE'RE NOTHING THERE. 
          UH, CON COMPREHENSIVE PLAN JOINT COMMITTEE. 
          WE HAVE A MEETING SCHEDULED FOR THURSDAY, HOWEVER, UM, OUR STAFF LIAISON HAS EMAILED EVERYONE TO SEE IF WE'RE, WE'LL BE ABLE TO GET QUORUM. 
          UM, SO IF YOU ARE A PART OF THE COMP PLAN COMMITTEE, IF YOU COULD RESPOND TO D D THAT'D BE GREAT. 
          WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IF WE ARE GOING TO MEET IN PERSON THAT WE, UM, HAVE, OKAY. 
          UH, ANYTHING JOINT SUSTAINABILITY. 
          WE DON'T HAVE A COMMISSIONER PRAXIS HERE RIGHT NOW, SO WE'LL GO AHEAD AND MOVE FORWARD. 
          UH, LET'S SAY SMALL AREA PLANNING, JOINT COMMITTEE. 
          UH, NO, WE DIDN'T MEET. 
          OKAY. 
          SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT ADVISORY BOARD, ANYTHING, UH, WE MET, WE WENT OVER OUR FINANCIAL TOOLKIT AND SORT OF TALKED ABOUT, UH, DIFFERENT OPTIONS THERE IN THE FUTURE. 
          OKAY. 
          AND NOW MOVING INTO OUR WORKING GROUPS, UH, 3 0 5 SOUTH CONGRESS PD WORKING GROUP, ANYTHING COMMISSIONER COX, UM, OUR FIRST MAYBE ONLY, MAYBE NOT ONLY, BUT OUR FIRST MEETING IS SCHEDULED FOR TOMORROW AT SIX O'CLOCK. 
          HOPEFULLY ALL OF THE WORKING GROUP MEMBERS GOT THE EMAIL WITH THE LOGIN. 
          IT WILL BE COMPLETELY VIRTUALLY OR VIRTUAL. 
          UM, BUT TOMORROW AT 6:00 PM. 
          OKAY. 
          QUICK QUESTION FOR MR. RIVERA, IF WE HAVE, UH, ANY INFORMATION OR THAT WE'D LIKE TO SHARE AS FAR AS AMENDMENTS THAT WE HAD THOUGHT OF, CAN WE SEND THIS TO YOU TO SHARE WITH THE WORKING GROUP, CHECK THIS ALWAYS ON ANDOVER? ABSOLUTELY. 
          UH, YOU KNOW, UH, FORWARD ME THOSE, AND THEN I'LL DISSEMINATE THOSE TO THE WORKDAY GROUP. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, OKAY. 
          LET'S GO AND MOVE TO THE MOBILITY AND TRANSPORTATION WORKING GROUP, NOTHING. 
          UH, VMU CODE AMENDMENTS, UH, WORKING GROUP. 
          WE HEARD A LITTLE BIT EARLIER. 
          ANY OTHER UPDATES? UM, NOTHING EXCEPT JERRY TO SAY THAT IT WILL BE DELAYED AND, UH, WE HAVE NOT SET UP ANY MEETINGS YET BECAUSE WE'RE WAITING TO GET A DRAFT OF WHAT STAFF IS PROPOSING. 
          UH, AS SOON AS WE GET THAT, WE MIGHT JUST DO A GO AHEAD AND SCHEDULE A MEETING, OR I MIGHT BE SENDING OUT A BOWL SOON TO THE MEMBERS. 
          SO JUST KEEP AN EYE OUT. 
          WE MIGHT JUST SCHEDULE MEETINGS, UM, AND THEN CANCEL THEM IF WE DO NOT HAVE THE RESOURCES. 
          OKAY. 
          AND I WOULD, UH, MY, MY REQUEST IS WHEN WE DO RECEIVE THAT INFORMATION FROM STAFF, IF WE CAN SHARE IT WITH THE, 
          [01:50:01]
GET, UH, GET TO MR. RIVERA AND LET HIM SHARE IT WITH OTHER COMMISSIONERS, UH, I'VE HAD QUESTIONS FROM, UH, THOSE OUTSIDE OUR, OUR COMMISSION ON WHAT'S GOING ON. 
          AND I, I REALLY DON'T KNOW HOW TO ANSWER AT THIS POINT. 
          UM, OKAY. 
          SO, UH, THAT'S ALL OUR WORK GROUPS AND BOARDS OF COMMISSIONS. 
          UM, ANY OPPOSITION TO ATTORNEY IN THIS MEETING, UH, HERE HEARING NONE. 
          UM, THIS MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, IS IT ADJOURNED AT 7 54? 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.