Link

Social

Embed

Disable autoplay on embedded content?

Download

Download
Download Transcript


[00:00:04]

EVERYONE, WE'RE GONNA GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED.

IT IS SIX OH SEVEN AND I CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER.

ALRIGHT, FIRST WE'RE GOING TO TAKE ROLL CALL AND, UM, THERE'S SOME TECHNICAL THINGS STILL BEING WORKED OUT.

SO I'M GONNA HAVE TO SQUINT REALLY FAR IN ORDER TO SEE WHO IS ON SCREEN OR ELSE TURN AROUND.

UM, BUT LET'S GO ALPHABETICALLY, UM, AND JUST SAY HERE, OR RAISE YOUR HAND WHEN I CALL ON YOU.

UH, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON.

HE'S ABSENT TONIGHT.

COMMISSIONER OR VICE-CHAIR ZA.

HERE.

COMMISSIONER BARRERRA RAMIREZ.

HERE.

COMMISSIONER CONNOLLY? HERE.

COMMISSIONER COX? HERE.

COMMISSIONER HAYNES? HERE.

CHAIR HEMPEL.

I'M HERE.

COMMISSIONER HOWARD? HERE.

COMMISSIONER MAXWELL.

HERE.

COMMISSIONER MU STALER HERE.

COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS HERE.

AND COMMISSIONER WOODS IS ABSENT AND WE HAVE A VACANCY IN DISTRICT SEVEN SEAT.

ALL RIGHT.

UM, I ALSO WANT TO RECOGNIZE OUR EX-OFFICIO MEMBER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS, CHAIR COHEN.

AND IS TRUSTEE HUNTER ON.

OKAY.

UM, WELL THANK YOU ALL FOR BEING HERE TONIGHT.

SO, TONIGHT'S MEETING IS USUAL IS AS USUAL HYBRID.

UM, SO AS LONG AS WE HAVE A VIRTUAL QUORUM, UM, AS LONG AS I'M HERE IN CHAMBERS.

AND, UM, SIMILARLY, SPEAKERS CAN PRESENT FROM CHAMBERS OR PARTICIPATE VIRTUALLY.

SO IF YOU'RE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK, YOU'LL RECEIVE AN EMAIL PRIOR TO THE COMMISSION TAKING UP YOUR ITEM AND NEW, UM, AS OF A COUPLE MEETINGS AGO, SPEAKERS CAN DONATE TIME, BOTH THE SPEAKER DONATING TIME AND THE SPEAKER RECIPIENT MUST BE PRESENT IN PERSON WHEN THE ITEM IS CONSIDERED.

UH, MR. RIVERA'S GONNA HELP ME TONIGHT IN ANNOUNCING SPEAKERS DURING PUBLIC HEARINGS.

SO COMMISSIONERS, JUST AS A FRIENDLY REMINDER, SINCE WE ARE IN A NEW YEAR, UM, PLEASE HAVE YOUR GREEN, RED, AND YELLOW ITEMS FOR VOTING.

AND, UM, IF I DON'T HEAR YOU, UH, OR SEE YOUR HAND, ESPECIALLY TONIGHT, BECAUSE YOU GUYS ARE ABOUT AN INCH BY AN INCH TALL, UM, JUST, UH, COME OFF MUTE AND LET ME KNOW THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO SPEAK.

ALL RIGHT.

UM,

[PUBLIC COMMUNICATION]

MR. RIVERA, DO WE HAVE ANYONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON DURING PUBLIC COMMUNICATION CHAIR COMMISSION AND ANDREW RIVERA? YES, WE DO.

WE HAVE MR. STEWART HIRSCH, WHO WILL BE PROVIDING HIS REMARKS.

THANK YOU CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.

MY NAME IS STUART HARRY HIRSCH, OR STU FROM DISTRICT TWO.

UM, I FIRST REPORTED TO WORK HERE IN 1977, REPAIRING LOW INCOME OWNER OCCUPIED HOUSING.

SO MY CONTEXT FOR TONIGHT'S COMMENTS ARE DIFFERENT THAN MOST.

I WAS ALSO ONE OF THE CO-AUTHORS OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE IN THE EIGHTIES AND THE SIMPLIFIED LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE IN THE NINETIES.

UH, YOU'RE GONNA TAKE UP CODE AMENDMENTS THIS YEAR.

UH, NOTHING APPEARS ON THE AGENDA TONIGHT FOR ACTION.

UH, ONE OF THEM I'D LIKE FOR YOU TO CONSIDER IS SMART HOUSING.

SINCE APRIL 20TH, 2000 HAS HAD A ONE YEAR OF AFFORDABILITY PERIOD FOR HOME OWNERSHIP AND FIVE YEARS FOR RENTAL.

WHEREAS IN THE UNIVERSITY NEIGHBORHOOD OVERLAY AND IN VERTICAL MIXED USE, WE HAVE 40 YEARS OF AFFORDABILITY.

AND IT SEEMS STUPID IN A HOUSING CRISIS TO BE GETTING ONLY ONE IN FIVE YEARS JUST 'CAUSE WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN AROUND TO CODE CHANGES.

SO I'M ASKING YOU TO DO THAT AND I WANNA BORROW FROM A SCOTTISH TUNE, UH, TO REMIND YOU OF WHAT YOU'RE FACING IN THE COMING YEAR.

YOU'LL KEEP YOUR OLD CODE, WE'LL HAVE A NEW CODE, AND WE'LL BUILD MORE HOUSING BEFORE YE THE RULES WERE SIMPLER WAY BACK WHEN ON THE BONNY BONNEY BANKS OF LAKE AUSTIN ON THE BONNEY BONNEY BANKS OF LAKE AUSTIN ON THE BONNEY BONNEY BANKS OF LAKE AUSTIN.

SEE YOU AT NEXT CODE CHANGE.

I WAS HOPING YOU WERE GONNA SING.

I THOUGHT YOU MIGHT'VE SPOKEN IT, BUT WE MISSED YOU, SUE FROM DISTRICT TOO.

THANK YOU.

UM, MAD CHAIR, CAN I MAKE A MOTION THAT EVERYBODY HAS TO SING THEIR PRESENTATION? , WOULD YOU RECOGNIZE ME FOR A SECOND? I DON'T KNOW IF WE WANT EVERYONE DOING THAT.

.

[00:05:02]

OKAY.

UM, THE FIRST ITEM

[Consent Agenda]

ON THE CONSENT AGENDA IS THE APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM THE, UH, MEETING THAT WE HAD ON DECEMBER 19TH.

UM, DOES ANYBODY HAVE EDITS TO THOSE MINUTES? OKAY, HEARING NONE, THOSE MINUTES WILL BE ADDED TO THE CONSENT AGENDA AS THEY ARE IN OUR BACKUP.

UM, ALL RIGHT, SO MOVING ON TO PUBLIC HEARINGS.

OUR FIRST ACTIVITY TODAY IS TO VOTE ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.

ITEMS THAT ARE CONSENT APPROVAL, DISAPPROVAL, POSTPONEMENTS OF PUBLIC HEARINGS, OR NON-DISCUSSION ITEMS. COMMISSION CZAR IS GOING TO READ THE PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA AND IDENTIFY THOSE THAT ARE CONSENT POSTPONEMENT AND NON-DISCUSSION COMMISSIONERS.

YOU'LL ALSO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO REQUEST CONSENT ITEMS TO BE PULLED FOR DISCUSSION.

ALL RIGHT, COMMISSIONER ZA.

THANK YOU CHAIR.

I APPRECIATE THAT VERY MUCH.

UM, I'M GONNA GO OVER THE PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS FIRST AND READ THOSE OUT.

AND THEN, UH, I'LL ADD IN THE OTHER ITEMS FROM THE CONSENT AGENDAS.

FOR EXAMPLE, THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES, WHICH IS ITEM NUMBER ONE FOR PUBLIC HEARING ITEM, UM, ITEM NUMBER TWO, THIS IS PLAN AMENDMENT NPA 2023 DASH 0 0 2 8 0 1 1200 ANDERSON DISTRICT FOUR.

THIS ITEM HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN BY THE APPLICANT.

NUMBER THREE IS A PLAN AMENDMENT NPA DASH 2023 DASH 0 4 0 3, UH, 4 3 0 2 KNUCKLES CROSSING DISTRICT TWO.

THIS IS UP FOR APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT TO FEBRUARY 27TH.

I NUMBER FOUR IS ALSO A PLAN AMENDMENT NPA 2023 DASH 0 2 5 0.0 1 5 7 2 5 WEST US HIGHWAY TWO 90, EASTBOUND DISTRICT EIGHT.

THIS IS UP FOR STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO FEBRUARY 27TH.

ITEM NUMBER FIVE IS PLAN AMENDMENT NPA DASH 2023 DASH 2 3 0 3 6 3 0 4 MAINOR ROAD DISTRICT FOUR.

THIS ITEM IS UP FOR APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT TO FEBRUARY 27TH.

ITEM NUMBER SIX IS ALSO PLAN AMENDMENT NPA DASH 2023 DASH 0 5 0 3 6 6 0 5 ROAD DISTRICT ONE.

THIS ITEM IS UP FOR APPLICANT INDEFINITE POSTPONEMENT.

ITEM NUMBER SEVEN IS PLAN AMENDMENT AND PA DASH 2023 DASH 0 2 9 0 2 HUMANE SOCIETY IN AUSTIN AND TRAVIS COUNTY DISTRICT FOUR.

THIS ITEM IS UP FOR APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT TO FEBRUARY 27TH.

ITEM NUMBER EIGHT IS A REZONING C 14 DASH 2023 DASH 0 1 4 4 DOMAIN, NORTHSIDE PD AMENDMENT DISTRICT SEVEN.

THIS ITEM, I BELIEVE IS OF FOR CONSENT.

ITEM NUMBER NINE IS A REZONING C 14 20 23 DASH 0 0 9 6, BEN WHITE BOULEVARD MEDICAL OFFICE DISTRICT THREE.

THIS ITEM IS UP FOR A DISCUSSION TONIGHT.

I NUMBER, UH, I, ITEM NUMBER 10 IS A REZONING SEVEN 14 DASH 2023 DASH 1 0 4 NORTH BURN GATEWAY, CMU MIDWAY REZONING DISTRICT SEVEN.

UM, THIS ITEM IS UP FOR CONSENT.

IT WAS PREVIOUSLY RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

AND THIS IS A, UM, WE'RE REDOING THE ITEM BASED ON SOME NOTICE ISSUES.

I NUMBER 11 IS A CONDITIONAL USE SITE PLAN S PC DASH 2022 DASH 0 1 16 2 C DOHERTY ART CENTER REPLACEMENT DISTRICT NINE.

THIS ITEM IS UP FOR STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO FEBRUARY 27TH.

UM, ITEM NUMBER 12 IS AN LDC AMENDMENT C 20 DASH 2023 DASH 0 3 0.

UH, A ROLL WAYSIDE SPECIFIC SOS AMENDMENT.

UM, THIS ITEM IS UP FOR CONSENT.

ITEM NUMBER 13 IS ALSO AN LDC AMENDMENT.

THIS IS C 20 DASH 2023 DASH 0 3 9 MODIFIED MINIMUM BICYCLE PARKING REQUIREMENTS.

THIS ITEM IS UP FOR CONSENT.

THAT'S ALL OF OUR PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS, BUT IN ADDITION TO THAT, WE'RE ALSO ADDING IN TO THE CONSENT UNLESS WE HEAR OTHERWISE FROM OTHER FOLKS.

UM, I NUMBER 15, WHICH IS DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION, INITIATING A CODE AMENDMENT, UM, AMENDING TITLE 25 TO REMOVE BUILDING HEIGHT LIMITS FOR INNER WEST CAMPUS.

AND THE SPONSOR FOR THIS ITEM WHERE COMMISSIONER ANDERSON CONLEY AND HOWARD.

ALL RIGHT, MR. CHAIR, COMMISSIONER LEE ON.

SO JUST, UM, ONE, UM, CORRECTION TO ITEM NUMBER NINE.

THAT SHOULD BE A STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO JANUARY 23RD.

JANUARY 23RD, THIRD.

CORRECT.

OKAY.

SO THEN YES, WE'D BE LOOKING ITEM NUMBER NINE, REZONING C FOUR D DASH 2023 DASH NINE SIX, BEN WHITE BOULEVARD MEDICAL OFFICE DISTRICT THREE UP FOR STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO JANUARY 23RD.

THANK YOU, CHAIR.

THANK YOU.

OKAY.

UM, MR. RIVERA, DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK FOR ANY OF THE CONSENT ITEMS, CHAIR? WE DO NOT.

OKAY.

AND DO ANY COMMISSIONERS WANT TO, UM, PULL THOSE CONSENT ITEMS THAT WERE READ OUT FOR DISCUSSION OR OTHERWISE HAVE QUESTIONS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA? OKAY.

I DON'T SEE ANY, BUT AGAIN, YOU GUYS WERE VERY TIME CHAIR.

YES.

MR. HAYNES? YEAH.

UH, MADAM CHAIR, I'D ASK THAT AND JUST MAKING SURE.

'CAUSE I WILL ADMIT I WASN'T PAYING ATTENTION AS, AS I SHOULD HAVE, BUT THAT ITEMS 10 AND 13 ARE NO.

OKAY.

PERFECT.

THOSE ARE BOTH PULLED FOR DISCUSSION.

YEP.

THANK YOU.

OKAY,

[00:10:01]

CHAIR, UH, YEP.

AND CHAIR, JUST TO CLARIFY, I DID READ I NUMBER 10 AND 13 BOTH INTO THE CONSENT AGENDA.

SO WE'RE PULLING THOSE FOR DISCUSSION AT THIS, CORRECT? YES.

UM, ALL RIGHT.

IS THERE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AND APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM OUR LAST MEETING? I SEE, UH, UH, MOTION BE BY VICE CHAIR AZAR AND SAY GOODBYE, COMMISSIONER MAXWELL.

UM, ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR, SO TINY LITTLE.

OKAY.

THAT IS, UH, UNANIMOUS.

ALL RIGHT.

UM, THIS CONCLUDES THE CONSENT AGENDA.

DO YOU WANT MY LAPTOP WEBEX? UM, NO, THAT'S OKAY.

'CAUSE I'VE GOT A LOT OF STUFF HERE, BUT THANK YOU.

I'LL JUST ASK FOR HELP ON IF I'M MISSING ANYTHING.

OKAY.

[10. Rezoning: C14-2023-0104 - North Burnet/Gateway CMU-Midway Rezoning; District 7]

SO OUR FIRST DISCUSSION ITEM TONIGHT IS GOING TO BE ITEM 10, THE NORTH BURNETT GATEWAY, CMU MIDWAY REZONING.

DO WE HAVE, UM, THE, LET'S SEE, THAT WOULD BE MR. CELINE.

I THOUGHT I SAW HIM ONLINE.

YES.

MADAM CHAIR OF COMMISSIONERS.

GOOD EVENING.

JORGE LAN WITH URBAN DESIGN PLANNING DEPARTMENT.

I DO APOLOGIZE.

I AM NOT IN PERSON WITH YOU THIS EVENING.

I AM QUITE ILL AND DON'T WANT TO BE ANYWHERE NEAR PEOPLE.

MM-HMM.

SO I APPRECIATE YOUR PATIENCE.

IF I DO COUGH ON CAMERA, I WOULD ASK FOR YOUR INDULGENCE OF FORGIVENESS IF I DO THAT.

BUT, UH, THE REASON THIS REZONING IS BACK ON YOUR AGENDA WAS DUE TO A NOTICE ISSUE.

UH, DUE TO THE RECENT RULING OF THE KUIA CASE, WE ARE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE ON CODE AMENDMENTS AS WELL AS CITY INITIATED CASES.

AND THEREFORE, THIS CASE IS BACK ON YOUR AGENDA.

ON NOVEMBER 14TH OF LAST YEAR, THIS CASE WAS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND FORWARDED TO COUNCIL, AND HAS BEEN POSTPONED AT THE COUNCIL, UH, PENDING A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

THIS IS A REZONING TO A NEWLY CREATED SUBDISTRICT CMU MIDWAY THAT COULD POTENTIALLY INCREASE ENTITLEMENTS UP TO 350 FEET OF HEIGHT, AS WELL AS A 10 TO ONE MAXIMUM FAR WHEN USING A DEVELOPMENT BONUS.

ONE OF THE KEY TAKEAWAYS FOR UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THIS DOES NOT CHANGE THE BASE ENTITLEMENTS, UH, OF THE PROPERTIES.

UH, THOSE PROPERTIES WOULD ONLY BE ABLE TO ACHIEVE THOSE HIGHER HEIGHTS AND FA IF THEY PARTICIPATE IN THE DEVELOPMENT BONUSES, WHICH IS IN ARTICLE SIX OF THE REGULATING PLAN.

THE STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THIS, UH, REQUEST AS INITIATED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND PROCESSED THROUGH A CODE AMENDMENT TO CREATE WHAT WE OFTEN REFER TO AS THE PAPER DISTRICT, WHICH WOULD ENABLE US THEN TO COME IN WITH A REZONING, WHICH ACTUALLY CHANGES THE ZONING ON THE PROPERTIES FROM CURRENTLY NOW CMU COMMERCIAL MIX USE TO CMU MIDWAY.

PENDING YOUR QUESTIONS, MADAM CHAIR OF THE COMMISSION, I HAVE NOTHING FURTHER.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, MR. LIN.

MR. RIVERA, DO WE HAVE ANYBODY ELSE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK CHAIR? NO, WE DO NOT HAVE SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM, SO YOU CAN, UH, CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

OKAY.

UM, IS THERE SOMEONE, UH, MAKING A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING? OKAY.

UM, COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, SECONDED BY SECONDED VICE CHAIR AZAR.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? OKAY.

ALRIGHT.

THANK YOU SO MUCH.

WE ARE GOING TO GO INTO OUR ROUND ROBIN.

SO FIRST QUESTION, COMMISSIONER HAYNES, I'LL TAKE IT.

THANKS, MADAM CHAIR.

UH, AND, UM, UH, MS. ROSE ROSALYN, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR A, ANSWERING MY QUESTIONS.

UM, UH, IT IS, IT AMAZES ME WHEN STAFF WORKS PROFESSIONALLY, UM, OR I'M APPRECIATIVE OF WHEN STAFF WORKS PROFESSIONALLY, AND I CERTAINLY APPRECIATE YOU AND, AND YOUR ANSWERS WERE, UH, EXTREMELY DETAILED AND, UH, TO THE POINT.

AND I DIDN'T KNOW THAT I'D HIT A NERVE.

NOT, NOT.

THAT'S MY COMMENTS TO YOU.

AND I, I CERTAINLY APPRECIATE YOUR EFFORTS AND YOUR PROFESSIONALISM.

NOW, MY COMMENTS TO THE GENERAL SPHERE OUT THERE, UH, I DIDN'T KNOW I'D HIT A NERVE UNTIL MY PHONE BLEW UP THIS AFTERNOON, UH, FROM VARIOUS FOLKS.

AND, UM, SO I GUESS I HIT A NERVE.

AND SO, UH, DID NOT KNOW THAT THERE WAS A, A DEAL WORKED OUT ON THIS.

UM, AND, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, WE GOT, WE GOT REGULATIONS AND WE GOT, UH, POLITICS.

[00:15:01]

AND SO I UNDERSTAND THERE'S A, A DEAL WORKED OUT ON THIS.

UM, MY EFFORTS TO BRING THIS UP ARE NOT IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, FORM, OR FASHION TO, UM, IMPACT ANY PROPERTY OWNER OR ANYBODY WITH A, WITH A, WITH AN APPLICATION PENDING OR AN APPLICATION ABOUT TO BE PENDING OR AN APPLICATION ABOUT TO TURN DIRT.

MY APPLICATION AND, AND FOR, YOU KNOW, SINCE MOST OF Y'ALL ON THE COMMISSIONER ARE YOUNG, AND I'M THE OLD GUY ON THE COMMISSION, UH, YOU KNOW, I'M GONNA REMIND Y'ALL OF THE, THE OLD SESAME STREET THAT THIS LETTER, THIS TONIGHT, IS BROUGHT TO YOU BY THE LETTER C AND THAT MEANS CONSISTENCY.

UM, AND WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO THROUGHOUT THE NIGHT IS MAKE SURE THAT THIS COMMISSION IS CONSISTENT IN ITS APPLICATION OF PROCESSES ACROSS THE CITY.

WE WENT FOR HOURS AND HOURS AND HOURS AS A COMMISSION AND AS THE COUNCIL LISTENING TO HOW IMPORTANT IT IS VITALLY IMPORTANT, IT'S IN, IN FACT, IT IS DIRE TO THE SUCCESS OF AUSTIN THAT WE, UM, UP ZONE, THAT WE BUILD DENSITY AND THAT WE DO SO WITH THE UTMOST URGENCY.

AND WE DO SO EVEN OVER THE OBJECTIONS, FOUR TO ONE OF HOMEOWNERS IN THE CITY.

YET HERE WE HAVE A PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT IS THE CROWN JEWEL THAT SHOULD BE THE CROWN JEWEL OF DISTRICT SEVEN.

IT IS VIRTUALLY VACANT.

THERE ARE NO NEIGHBORS, THERE'S NOTHING AROUND THIS, AROUND THIS PROPERTY.

UM, ON THE HILL.

IT'S VERY SUCCESSFUL RETAIL DOWN BELOW, WE SHOULD PACK PEOPLE IN THERE LIKE THERE'S NO TOMORROW.

THIS SHOULD BE THE BASE ZONE FOR, THIS SHOULD BE TOD GATEWAY.

WE SHOULD GIVE 491 FEET, 12 TO ONE FAR, AND THAT SHOULD BE BY, RIGHT? BUT I UNDERSTAND THERE'S A DEAL TO DO MIDWAY ZONING, AND THAT WOULD, WHICH ELIMINATE, WHICH LIMITS IT TO THREE 50 AND 10 TO ONE.

AND SO IF IT, AND THERE'S, THERE'S ROOM TO PUT SIX OR EIGHT OR 10 BUILDINGS, THAT'S A HUNDRED STORIES, 100 STORIES OF APARTMENTS, TOWN HOMES, CONDOS THAT COULD GO INTO THIS AREA AND HOUSE THOUSANDS OF OTHER PEOPLE, IT WOULD HAVE MAGNIFICENT VIEWS OF DOWNTOWN AND, AND THE NEW APPLE CAMPUS AND THE DOMAIN AND EVERYWHERE.

YET, WE'RE NOT GONNA DO THAT BECAUSE EVEN THOUGH WE SAY HOME IS THE PERFECT THING, AND WE ALL ARGUED AND CUSSED AND DISCUSSED OVER IT BECAUSE WE'VE GOT A DEAL HERE, WE'RE NOT GONNA DO DENSITY ON THIS AREA.

IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO ME.

AND, AND SO I'M GONNA END RIGHT THERE, BUT I WILL HAVE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION AND WE'LL SEE WHERE THAT GOES.

THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER HAYNES.

UM, OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS, COMMISSIONER MAXWELL.

SO SORRY TO SORT OF ASK THIS, UM, WE'RE WORKING WITH SOME NEW TECHNOLOGY, SO IT WAS A LITTLE UNCLEAR TO ME IF YOU COULD SHARE AGAIN, WHAT WAS THE RESULT OF THE LAWSUIT AND HOW WE, WHY THIS IS BEING BROUGHT AGAIN TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

AND IF YOU COULD CLARIFY THAT AND PERHAPS ADD SOME DETAIL, IT WOULD BE APPRECIATED.

THANK YOU.

SURE.

THANK YOU.

IF I MAY, MADAM CHAIR, WE CAN'T APPEAR.

WHAT WAS THAT MR. LEY? PROCEED.

OH, IF I MAY PROCEED.

THANK YOU.

UH, I, I'M NOT PRIVY TO THE DETAILS OF THE RULING, BUT IT DOES REQUIRE THE CITY TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL DESCRIPTIVE LANGUAGE IN A NOTICE WHEN INITIATING CODE AMENDMENTS OR DOING CITY INITIATED APPLICATIONS, WHICH THIS IS ONE OF THEM.

SO NOTHING HAS CHANGED ON THE MERITS OF THE CASE.

IT'S ONLY THE NOTICE THAT WAS UPDATED TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE DIRECTION OF THE RULING OF THE LITIGATION OF RECENT LITIGATION.

THEREFORE, IT WAS RE NOTIFIED TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS AFFECTED AS, AS SPECIFIED BY CODE.

AND IT'S BACK ON YOUR AGENDA.

SO JUST TO CLARIFY THAT, WE BASICALLY ARE RE NOTICING EVERYBODY FOR THE SAME SET OF AMENDMENTS AND CHANGES.

AND THEN THIS IS GOING THROUGH THIS PROCESS AGAIN.

AND WE'LL ASIM, HOPEFULLY AGAIN, PASS COUNSEL AND THEN BE OFFICIALLY, UM, PERMITTED TO MOVE FORWARD GIVEN THE NEW CONSTRAINTS.

IS THAT CORRECT? NOT THE AMENDMENT PART.

COMMISSIONER.

UH, IT'S, THIS IS ONLY THE REASON ZONING, THE CODE AMENDMENT THAT CREATED THE CMU MIDWAY DISTRICT HAS ALREADY BEEN APPROVED BY COUNCIL THAT WAS APPROVED LAST OCTOBER WITH FULL SUPPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

THIS IS NOW COMING TO REZONE CHANGE THE ZONING FROM CMU TO CMU

[00:20:01]

MIDWAY.

SO WE CANNOT DO A ZONING CHANGE THROUGH A CODE AMENDMENT.

IT REQUIRES A LEGISLATIVE ACTION OF THE COUNCIL TO ACTUALLY REZONE PROPERTY.

AND THAT'S THE REASON THERE'S A SEPARATE REZONING CASE TO ACTUALLY APPLY THE NEW SUBDISTRICT OF C-M-U-C-M-U-M TO ALL THE PROPERTIES THAT ARE IN QUESTION.

SO IT'S ONLY THE REZONING THAT, UH, WE REIFY DUE TO THAT, THE, THE RECENT LITIGATION AND THE DIRECTION THAT CAME FROM, FROM THE OUTCOME OF THAT LITIGATION.

EXCELLENT.

I APPRECIATE THAT CLARIFICATION.

AND SORRY, JUST ONE MORE CASE.

WOULD WE EXPECT THAT WE'LL BE HAVING TO DO SOME OF THESE ADDITIONAL LOOPHOLES MOVING FORWARD, OR DO YOU HAVE A SENSE OF THAT? I OBVIOUSLY DON'T WANNA ASK YOU ABOUT THINGS YOU ARE OUTSIDE OF YOUR SCOPE , I, I, I'M, I'M NOT SURE HOW TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION, BUT WE DO HAVE, UH, AN UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT LANGUAGE WE NEED TO INCLUDE MOVING FORWARD WHEN WE TALK ABOUT CITY INITIATED CODE COMMITMENTS IN CITY INITIATED CASES.

SO THIS SHOULDN'T BE AN ISSUE IN THE FUTURE BECAUSE WE HAVE UPDATED OUR NOTICE REQUIREMENTS AND HAVE RENO.

EXCELLENT.

I APPRECIATE ALL THOSE CLARIFICATIONS.

THANKS SO MUCH.

ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU.

UM, OTHER COMMISSIONERS WITH QUESTIONS? SO I HAVE A QUESTION, PLEASE.

YES, COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS.

AND, UM, I CAN RAISE MY HAND, BUT IT'S NOT LETTING ME RAISE MY HAND.

SO ANYWAY, UM, ONE THING THAT I'M CONFUSED ABOUT, IF THIS HAS TO BE DONE BY COUNCIL ACTION, WHAT, WHY IS IT COMING TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION IF I MAY? MADAM CHAIR? YES, MS. RULY, AND PLEASE GO AHEAD.

OKAY, THANK YOU.

THIS IS COMING TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR A RECOMMENDATION BECAUSE IT'S A REZONING AND THE CODE REQUIRES A RECOMMENDATION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO THE CITY COUNCIL WHEN REZONING ANY PROPERTY WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION.

AND, AND WE DID THIS BEFORE, BACK IN NOVEMBER 14TH, UH, IT WAS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY ON CONSENT, AND AGAIN, DUE TO THE NOTICE ISSUE, WE'RE BACK.

SO IT DOES REQUIRE A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO ZONINGS, THE ONE THAT IT IS AND THE ONE THAT YOU WANT TO GO TO, WHAT'S THE DISTINCTION THERE? IS THAT WITH WHAT, UH, COMMISSIONER HOWARD? UM, I'M SORRY.

THE, UH, WAS TALKING ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THOSE TWO ZONINGS.

WELL, WELL, WELL, IF I, IF I MAY ADDRESS THAT THE, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO ZONINGS IS THAT CURRENTLY THE AREA BOUNDED BY CAPITAL TEXAS HIGHWAY US 180 3 AND MOPAC IS CURRENTLY ZONED CMU, WHICH WITH BASE ENTITLEMENTS HAS AN AVERAGE OF 48 TO 60 75 FEET OF HEIGHT.

THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT UNDER BASE ENTITLEMENTS IS 120 FEET.

WITH THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO CMUM MIDWAY, WHICH IS THE NEWLY CREATED ZONE, THOSE PROPERTIES COULD BE ENTITLED UP TO 350 FEET AND A 10 TO ONE FAR IF THEY CHOOSE AND ELECT TO PARTICIPATE IN THE DEVELOPMENT BONUS.

SO THERE IS NOT A MECHANISM IN THE REGULATING PLAN TO CHANGE BASE ENTITLEMENTS THAT WOULD REQUIRE A DIFFERENT CODE AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE CONSTRUCT OF HOW BASE ENTITLEMENTS ARE APPLIED IN THE REGULATING PLAN.

SO THIS REZONING DOESN'T UP ZONE THOSE PROPERTIES TO THREE 50 AND TEN ONE THREE FIFTY IN, IN HEIGHT AND TEN ONE, IT ALLOWS FOR UP TO THOSE MAXIMUMS WHEN PARTICIPATING IN THE DEVELOPMENT BONUS PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE SIX OF THE REGULATING PLAN.

COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS, DID THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? OKAY.

UM, OTHER QUESTIONS.

COMMISSIONER ZA.

UM, MR. ROSLIN, I'M HOPING THAT YOU CAN HELP CONFIRM THIS JUST SO THAT WE HAVE CLARITY HERE.

YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, OF COURSE, THE BASE ENTITLEMENTS AND THEN THE BONUS.

AND IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, THE BONUS HERE IS, UM, 60% MFI RESTRICTION FOR RENTAL HOUSING FOR 40 YEARS AND 80% MFI RESTRICTION FOR, UM, OWNERSHIP HOUSING FOR 99 YEARS.

I, I DO BELIEVE THAT IS CORRECT.

UH, COMMISSIONER, I, I DON'T HAVE THAT AVAILABLE WITH ME, BUT I DO BELIEVE THAT IS CORRECT AND, AND TO ALSO CLARIFY THAT THERE'S A REQUIREMENT FOR ONSITE AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS TO BE PROVIDED, AND THERE'S ALSO A MECHANISM TO PROVIDE A FEE IN LIEU IF IT'S APPROVED BY THE DIRECTOR OF HOUSING AS WELL.

I APPRECIATE THAT.

THANK YOU, MR. ROSA.

THANK YOU, CHAIR.

ALL RIGHT.

OTHER QUESTIONS? ARE WE? YES.

UH, MR. RUSS, IF I MAY ALSO CLARIFY, CHAIR AND I NEGLECTED

[00:25:01]

TO INFORM THE COMMISSION THAT THERE'S ALSO AN ADDITIONAL CODE AMENDMENT THAT IS HEADED YOUR WAY LATER THIS YEAR THAT WILL RETOOL THE DEVELOPMENT BONUS PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE SIX OF THE REGULATING PLAN COUNCIL UNDER THE SAME MANDATE OF THE CODE AMENDMENT REQUESTED THAT THOSE DEVELOPMENT BONUS PROVISIONS BE IN SYNC WITH THE WAY THAT THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM IS STRUCTURED.

THAT WOULD ALLOW APPLICANTS TO PETITION THE CITY COUNCIL BY ORDINANCE FOR ESSENTIALLY UNLIMITED HEIGHT AND FAR.

THERE WOULD BE RESTRICTIONS, OBVIOUSLY, BASED ON THE SQUARE FOOT AREA OF, UH, THE LOT IN QUESTION, BUT THAT'S A CODE AMENDMENT THAT'S IN THE WORKS AND WILL BE COMING TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR A RECOMMENDATION LATER THIS YEAR.

THAT WOULD THEN APPLY TO ALL DISTRICTS WITHIN THE REGULATING PLAN, INCLUDING, UH, THE CMU DISTRICT, UH, AND THE CMU MIDWAY DISTRICT AS WELL.

THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.

THANK YOU.

UM, COMMISSIONER COX.

HEY, THIS ISN'T REALLY A QUESTION, BUT I WANTED TO PUT IT OUT THERE BECAUSE IT WAS, IT WAS IN ALL THE LOCAL NEWS, BUT WE'VE GOT AN UPDATE, UM, ON, ON THE STRATEGIC HOUSING BLUEPRINT THAT WAS IN AUSTIN, MONARCH COMMUNITY IMPACT, AUSTIN CHRONICLE, ALL THAT FUN STUFF.

I CAN'T FIND IT NOW, BUT THERE WAS A REALLY GOOD PIE CHART OR SERIES OF PIE CHARTS THAT SHOWED WHERE WE WERE LAGGING BEHIND IN TERMS OF THE SPECIFIC MFI CATEGORY.

AND I KNOW A LOT OF OUR STUFF IS, IS BUILT AROUND THE 60 AND 80% MFI CATEGORIES AND, AND WE HAD SHOWN KIND OF A DEFICIENCY.

I THINK THE BIGGEST DEFICIENCY WAS AT THE VERY LOW END, BUT THEN ALSO A BIG DEFIC, UH, DEFICIENCY, I BELIEVE BETWEEN 40 AND 60.

AND SO IT'S TOO LATE FOR THIS.

UM, BUT I'M HOPING THAT MAYBE FUTURE DISCUSSIONS, WE CAN START TALKING ABOUT DEEPER AFFORDABILITY LEVELS TO TRY TO, TO TARGET THOSE PARTICULAR MFI RANGES THAT WE SEEM TO BE DRAGGING THE MOST IN.

UM, I THINK THE 80 TO ONE 20 WE WERE GETTING THE MOST, UH, OF THOSE UNITS SIMPLY BECAUSE WE'RE SO CONDITIONED TO THINK ABOUT THAT.

PLUS IT'S THE MOST ECONOMICALLY, UH, FEASIBLE.

BUT, BUT I JUST HOPE THAT WE CAN HAVE THOSE DISCUSSIONS RATHER THAN CONSTANTLY DEFAULTING TO 60 AND 80.

AND THEN I ALSO WANT TO THANK YOU FOR SHOWING UP WHILE YOU'RE SICK.

I'M ALSO SICK, SO WE'RE BROTHERS IN SICKNESS.

I APPRECIATE IT.

THANKS.

THANK YOU.

SORRY TO HEAR YOU'RE SICK.

COMMISSIONER COX.

UM, OTHER QUESTIONS? I'LL JUMP IN.

I HAVE A REALLY QUICK ONE.

MR. CELINE, DO YOU HAVE ANY MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE TIMING ON THE SE THE NEXT PART OF THIS CODE AMENDMENT? I, I, I DON'T HAVE A SPECIFIC TIMELINE, MADAM CHAIR, THAT THAT'S ONE OF THE, UH, AREAS WHERE WE'RE STRUGGLING TO CALIBRATE THE COMMUNITY BENEFITS AS WELL AS HOW WHAT WE CALL IN THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM, THE FORMULAS BY WHICH YOU WOULD ACHIEVE BONUS AREA THROUGH THE PROGRAM.

MANY OF THE, UH, POINTS THAT WERE JUST, UH, PREVIOUSLY MADE BY COMMISSIONER COX IS SOMETHING THAT WE'RE ALSO TRYING TO WORK WITH OUR CONSULTANT TO BE ABLE TO ADVISE US ON HOW TO RETOOL THE MFI AND PERCENTAGES.

SO IT, IT, IT'S A LONG WORK AND IT'S A WORK IN PROGRESS, BUT I, I ANTICIPATE A LATER PART OF THIS YEAR, PERHAPS THROUGH IN THE SUMMERTIME, BE ABLE TO COME BACK TO YOU WITH A CODE AMENDMENT THAT SPECIFICALLY RETOOLS ARTICLE SIX OF THE REGULATING PLAN.

ALRIGHT, THANK YOU.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR IS THERE A MOTION? CHERYL, VICE CHAIR ZA CHERYL, MAKE A MOTION, UH, TO MOVE AHEAD WITH STAFF, UH, STAFF RECOMMENDATION.

OKAY.

IS THERE, OH, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MAXWELL.

MR. HAYNES WISHES TO BE RECOGNIZED.

OKAY.

COMMISSIONER HAYNES, MADAM CHAIR.

UM, I'LL SEE WHERE THIS GOES AND SEE IF I'VE GOT ANY SUPPORT AMONG MY FELLOW DENSITY FOLKS WHO I KNOW JUST LOVE DENSITY IN AUSTIN.

AND THIS, UH, THE ALTERNATIVE, OR I'M NOT OFFERING AN ALTERNATIVE, I'M OFFERING A SUBSTITUTE.

UH, THE SUBSTITUTE IS BROUGHT TO YOU BY THE LETTER C CONSISTENCY.

UM, I WOULD LIKE TO AMEND STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION FROM, UH, CMUM TO, UH, TODG GATEWAY.

AND, UM, YOU WANT ME TO SPEAK IN FAVOR NOW? OR CHAIR COMMISSIONER LEE ON ANDREW RIVERA.

I APOLOGIZE FOR INTERRUPTING,

[00:30:01]

BUT, UH, THAT'S IMPROPER MOTION.

CAN, CAN I GET SOME EXPLANATION? YOU'RE NOTICED FOR THE, UH, AS NOTICE ON YOUR AGENDA AND T-O-D-N-P IS, UH, HIGHER THAN WHAT IS NOTICED FOR MADAM CHAIR? UM, I, I KNEW THIS WAS COMING.

UM, UM, MANY TIMES STAFF BRINGS, UM, WHEN, WHEN WE'RE DISCUSSING CASES, WHEN WE'RE DISCUSSING THINGS, STAFF BRINGS A RECOMMENDATION TO US, AND WE AS A COMMISSION HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ALTER, UM, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS.

THIS IS, I'M ALTER, I'M OFFERING AN ALTERNATIVE TO STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IN THIS INSTANCE.

RIGHT.

WHICH, UM, WE DO, IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT THIS WAY THOUGH, IT STAFF'S RECOMME OR THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST IS KIND OF THE TOP LINE WE CAN GO.

IN THIS CASE, IT'S THE CITY AS THE APPLICANT, AND WE CAN'T MAKE IT DENSER IN OUR MEETINGS.

WE CAN ONLY GO LESS CONDENSED WILL LESS.

SO, MADAM CHAIR, WHY WOULD THIS, WOULD THIS COMMISSION VOTE TO INCREASE DENSITY IN EVERY ZONE ACROSS THE CITY AS IT RELATES TO SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING, YET IN, IN THIS PRIME LOCATION, NOT VOTE TO INCREASE DENSITY BECAUSE OF, AND THAT'S A RHETORICAL QUESTION NOTIFIED FOR YEAH, MR. RIVERA CHAIR, COMMISSIONER LIKES ON ANDREW RIVERA.

SO, UM, YOU, UH, THE, UH, COMMISSIONER ALSO NEEDS A SECOND IF, UH, HE WISHES TO ENTERTAIN THIS, UH, MOTION, WHICH IS AGAIN, IMPROPER.

THANK YOU, MR. I'LL PUT IT OUT THERE AND SEE IF ANYONE WANTS TO SECOND MY MOTION TO, UH, BRING MUCH NEEDED DENSITY.

AND, AND THE DESCRIPTION IS BASICALLY SEE 'EM AS MR. ROSARO SAID IT, UH, MIDWAY TAKES IT THREE 50 AND 10 TO ONE TODG TAKES IT TO 4 91 AND 12 TO ONE.

I THINK THOSE NUMBERS ARE RIGHT.

SO YOU CREATE MORE HOUSING, CREATE MORE AFFORDABILITY IF YOU PARTICIPATE IN THOSE BONUSES.

UM, AND IT JUST, IT'S A, IT'S A BENEFIT TO THE CITY.

IT, THAT'S MY MOTION.

BEFORE WE CLOSE ON THAT, A CLARIFYING QUESTION.

YES, COMMISSIONER, I JUST, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THIS IS, THIS WAS THE PRESENTATION WE HAD PREVIOUSLY HEARD YES.

REGARDING THE SECTIONS BETWEEN, UM, 180 3, AND I'M TRYING TO REMEMBER THE HIGHWAY INTERSECTIONS.

IT'S THAT TRIANGULAR PIECE OF PROPERTY.

IS THAT, IS THAT ALL CORRECT? AM I THAT'S CORRECT.

THAT'S, YES, THAT'S CORRECT.

MM-HMM, THE CAPITAL OF TEXAS 180 3 IN MOPAC.

I'LL, I'LL PROVIDE THE SECOND FOR DISCUSSION.

OKAY.

DID YOU WANT TO SPEAK ANYMORE TO YOUR MOTION? SURE.

THANK YOU.

UH, COMMISSIONER.

UM, I WILL SPEAK TO MY MOTION AND, UM, UH, AND I'LL ANSWER YOUR QUESTION.

YES, COMMISSIONER, THIS IS BOUNDED BY, UH, MOPAC TO THE WEST, UM, 180 3 TO THE SOUTH GOING NORTHWEST AND 360 TO THE NORTH.

IT IS, UH, THERE ARE NO NEIGHBORS.

THE ONLY NEIGHBORS THAT ARE AROUND IS RETAIL.

AND RETAIL WOULD LOVE TO HAVE AN EXTRA, AGAIN, UM, 150 FEET PER BUILDING.

THAT'S, UH, COMMISSIONER ZA KNOWS WAY BETTER THAN ME, BUT THAT'S, THAT'S 10 STORIES.

THAT'S 12 STORIES PER BUILDING.

IF WE PUT 10 BUILDINGS THERE, THAT'S A, THAT'S A THOUSAND EXTRA.

I MEAN, THAT THE, THE I, THE IMMENSITY, THE, THE, IF THIS IS GOING TO BE OUR SECOND DOWNTOWN, AND IT IS GOING TO BE OUR SECOND DOWNTOWN, I KNOW THE DOWNTOWN AND ALLIANCE AND THE FOLKS HATE ME SAYING THAT, BUT THE DOMAIN IS, AND D SEVEN, Y'ALL MOVE TO D SEVEN.

IT'S A GREAT PLACE.

UM, IT, IT IS.

THIS IS WHERE PEOPLE ARE MOVING.

AND IF WE ARE GOING TO PLAN, WE DON'T NEED TO PLAN FOR 40 DAYS.

FOR 40 MONTHS.

WE NEED TO PLAN FOR 40 YEARS.

AND IF WE'RE GONNA PLAN FOR 40 YEARS AND PUT THE FOLKS THAT ARE MOVING TO THIS AREA SOMEWHERE, THIS IS THE PLACE TO PUT 'EM.

AND WE SHOULD ACKNOWLEDGE THAT AND PLAN ACCORDINGLY.

CHAIR, COMMISSIONER, LAVERA, UM, TO BE, UM, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT AND AS NOTICE OF THIS ITEM.

THIS, UH, AGAIN, UM, WE'RE NOT, YOU'RE NOT NOTICED TO, UM,

[00:35:01]

UH, ENTERTAIN, UH, TEDI AND MADAM CHAIR BECAUSE I KNOW THERE ARE LEGAL CONCERNS.

I WILL PULL MY SUBSTITUTE, BUT, UM, I, I, I GUESS I JUST WANNA, I WANNA SEND THE MESSAGE TO, UM, ANYBODY.

HOW ABOUT THAT? ANYBODY THAT WORKS ON PLANNING.

UM, YOU, YOU KNOW, I, I, I UNDERSTAND THE PECKING ORDER IN, IN THIS BUILDING, IN THIS, IN THIS TOWN.

AND, AND I AM, I AM APPOINTED BY, BY A PERSON.

AND THERE'S 11 FOLKS THAT MAKE THE ULTIMATE DECISIONS, BUT IT'S GOTTA COME THROUGH HERE FIRST.

AND SO INVOLVE THIS PLANNING COMMISSION WHEN WE'RE DOING DEALS.

UM, AND WE WON'T HAVE THIS TROUBLE, BUT I WILL PULL MY MOTION.

HAVE CLARIFICATION.

OH, COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS IS SPEAKING AS WELL.

COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS CAN'T HEAR YOU.

CAN YOU SPEAK UP A LITTLE BIT? YEAH, I CAN'T SPEAK TOO LOUDLY BECAUSE I HAVE A, I HAD A DENTAL PROCEDURE EARLIER, SO IT SEEMS LIKE THERE'S SOMETHING WRONG WITH A LOT OF US TONIGHT.

.

UM, AND I'M STILL ON THOSE MEDS, BUT HEARING WHAT COMMISSIONER HAYNES IS SPEAKING ABOUT, UH, AND ALSO WHAT ANDREW RIVERA IS SAYING IS AN IMPROPER MOTION.

WHAT WOULD BE A PROPER MOTION? WOULD A PROPER MOTION BE TO, TO DELAY THIS AND, AND, AND THEN REPOST IT? I MEAN, HOW COULD YOU ACCOMMODATE THE DISCUSSION THAT COMMISSIONER HAYNES IS HAVING ABOUT CONSISTENCY AND INCONSISTENCIES, PARTICULARLY IN LIGHT, IN CONTEXT OF THE HOME CONVERSATION? THAT STRIKES ME AS BEING SOMEWHAT, UM, I DON'T KNOW, UM, HYPOCRITICAL, IF YOU WILL.

IF, IF WE ARE SAYING, AS HE SAID, ON THE ONE HAND, WE'RE ASKING EVERYBODY TO, TO SHARE IN THIS SACRIFICE, AND YET WE HAVE THIS EXCEPTION, I GUESS IN DISTRICT SEVEN.

AND I LIVE IN DISTRICT SEVEN, BY THE WAY.

AND JUST TO POINT OUT ANOTHER IRONY, THE, THE, THE, I GUESS THE ARCHITECT OF HOME IS THE COUNCIL MEMBER FOR DISTRICT SEVEN.

SO I, I, I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND HOW THIS DOESN'T LOOK AND SMELL.

I DON'T KNOW.

BAD CHAIR.

COMMISSIONER LAZARO.

SO WITH COMMISSIONER HAYNES, UM, WITHDRAWING HIS MOTION, YOU CURRENTLY HAVE A MOTION ON THE TABLE AND SHOULD ENTERTAIN THAT MOTION RIGHT NOW THAT YOU HAVE A SECOND, WE NEED TO VOTE.

COMMISSIONER COX, I'M TRYING TO MAKE THIS LEGAL.

UM, AND SO WHAT I WAS GONNA OFFER WAS TO AMEND, UH, COMMISSIONER HAYNES'S MOTION TO, TO ULTIMATELY APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION WITH WHAT HE SAID AS AN ADVISORY COMMENT TO STAFF TO LOOK INTO AND POSSIBLY COME BACK TO US WITH THOSE, THOSE IMPROVEMENTS.

UM, BUT STILL MOVING THIS FORWARD IN ITS CURRENT ITERATION TO THE EXTENT THAT WE CAN, BASED ON THE POSTING.

I'LL SECOND THAT.

AND IF I MAY CHAIR, UH, YES, MR. CELINE.

THANK YOU.

AND JUST TO CLARIFY, THEN, THAT MOTION WOULD BE TO RECOMMEND STAFF RECOMMENDATION, CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.

THANK YOU.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION WITH, WITH, UH, COMMISSIONER HAYNES'S COMMENTS AND AN ORIGINAL SUBSTITUTE MOTION AS, AS ADVISORY TO STAFF FOR CONSIDERATION TO COME BACK TO US.

AND COMM, COMMISSIONER.

COMMISSIONER, PLEASE GO AHEAD.

CHAIR, COMMISSIONER, LAY ON INVER.

SO JUST REMEMBER UNDER 2 2 5 2 82 C.

UH, THAT'S THE PARAMETERS THAT YOU'RE REVIEWING THIS MATTER.

SO YOU CAN, UM, APPROVE THE APPLICATION APPRO A MORE RESTRICTIVE RE ZONING CLASSIFICATION, APPROVE A, THE PROPOSED CLASSIFICATION, OR MORE RESTRICTED CLA CLASSIFICATION SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS OR DENY THE OBLIGATION.

THOSE ARE YOUR OPTIONS, MADAM CHAIR.

I HAVE ANOTHER SUBSTITUTE.

I WILL, NOW WE'RE GETTING TOO DEEP DOWN THE RABBIT HOLE.

WITH ALL THESE, I WILL RECOMMEND STAFF'S, UM, UH, PROPOSAL WITH THE COMMENTS THAT, UM, THIS, UH, THE CMUM ZONE AS IS APPLIED, AND I DON'T KNOW HOW WE WANNA DEFINE IT, BUT THIS AREA, UH, NEEDS TO BE,

[00:40:01]

UH, REEVALUATED WITH ALL DELIBERATE SPEED TO COME BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT TOD GATEWAY IS MORE BENEFICIAL TO AUSTIN'S DENSITY GOALS.

THAT'S MY MOTION.

OKAY.

I'M, BUT SIMILAR TO COMMISSIONER COX'S AMENDMENT, BUT THE ONLY, THE ONLY THING THAT I HEARD WAS COMMISSIONER COX WAS AMENDING MY MOTION.

IT HAS TO BE STAFF'S MOTION AS I UNDERSTAND THE PROBLEM.

THAT'S WHAT COMMISSIONER COX SAID.

OH, I THOUGHT HE WAS TRYING TO AMEND MY MOTION.

YEAH, IT WAS AMENDING YOUR SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO A APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION.

BUT TAKE YOUR, TAKE THE CONTENT OF YOUR SUBSTITUTE AND MAKE AN ADVISORY.

WHY DON'T WE GO AHEAD AND VOTE ON VICE.

SORRY.

I WAS JUST GONNA SAY, SO PROCEDURALLY, JUST, I THINK WE'VE GONE A LITTLE LOST HERE, UM, SINCE, YEP.

SINCE, UH, COMMISSIONER HAYNES HAD RESCINDED HIS SUBSTITUTE.

SO WE NOW HAVE A SUBSTITUTE FROM COMMISSIONER COX, AND IT HAS BEEN SECONDED BY THE CHAIR.

OH, OKAY.

SO WE CAN EITHER WORD ON THAT RIGHT NOW, AND I THINK WE'RE BEING TOLD THAT THAT'S NOT A PROPER MOTION EITHER.

SO THEN IT IS UP TO THE MOTION MAKER IF YOU WISH TO RESCIND YOUR MOTION AND RECRAFT IT IN SOME WAY.

COMMISSIONER COX, THAT'S UP TO YOU.

I THINK IF I UNDERSTAND THE ISSUE WITH MY MOTION WAS THE ADVISORY COMPONENT, AND IF THAT'S THE ISSUE, THEN ALL THE MOTIONS THAT WE'RE MAKING, EXCEPT FOR THE VERY ORIGINAL ONE ARE, ARE NO GOOD.

SO, UM, I THINK, I THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE FOR THIS COMMISSION TO MAKE ADVISORY STATE STATEMENTS, UH, THAT ACCOMPANY RECOMMENDATIONS, UM, EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE NOT ACTUAL RECOMMENDATIONS THAT, THAT GO TO COUNSEL.

UM, SO I DON'T PARTICULARLY HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THE MOTION I MADE SINCE IT ULTIMATELY RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR, FOR THIS, FOR THIS CASE.

BUT I'LL LET THE LAWYERS AND STAFF FIGURE OUT WHAT TO DO WITH MY MOTION.

.

CAN, CAN WE THROW THAT BACK TO LIAISON, MR. RIVERA? CHAIR COMMISSIONER, LIAISON.

ANDREW RIVERA.

SO YOU BE NOTED AS STAFF RECOMMENDATION? YES.

AND THEN WE JUST WANTING TO SEND COMMENTS TO COUNSEL ALONG WITH THAT, UH, IF THIS IS APPROVED, ONCE IT GOES THROUGH, VOTE, IF THIS IS APPROVED THROUGH VOTE FOR THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION THAT WE'RE SENDING SOME COMMENTS ALONG WITH IT.

THAT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING.

SO ARE WE VOTING ON, AND I BELIEVE WE'VE DONE THAT IN THE PAST, BEEN ABLE TO APPROVE THINGS AND SEND COMMENTARY.

AND JUST TO CLARIFY, MADAM CHAIR MAY YES, GO AHEAD.

THANK YOU.

IF THOSE WOULD NOT BE CONDITIONS OF THE RECOMMENDATION, THAT'S CORRECT.

TO CLARIFY, IT WOULD BE STAFF RECOMMENDATION WITH COMMENTARY ESSENTIALLY, OR ADVICE FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BUT NOT AS A CONDITION OF THE APPROVAL.

THAT'S CORRECT.

PURELY ADVISORY VICE CHAIR, CHAIR.

I, I, I HAVE A, UM, A CLARIFYING QUESTION, MR. ROSLYN.

CAN YOU HELP US UNDERSTAND THERE'S A LARGER EFFORT GOING AROUND THE NORTH BURN GATEWAY REGULATING PLAN AS WELL.

THERE WERE SOME REVISIONS THAT SUPPOSED TO BE MADE.

IS THERE OTHER WORK PROCEEDING ON THIS AT THIS MOMENT? UH, THERE, THERE ARE MULTIPLE FRONTS OF THAT THAT ARE HAPPENING IN NORTH BE GATEWAY DUE TO AN ENABLING, UH, COUNCIL RESOLUTION THAT HAD 11 POINTS, 11 ASKS, MOST OF THOSE WERE ALREADY DISPENSED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE COUNCIL LAST YEAR.

THE THREE PENDING OF THAT, OR ORIGINAL ENABLING, UH, RESOLUTION ARE THE DENSITY BONUS CALIBRATIONS AND THE PARKING, UM, ALIGNING THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS WITH CITYWIDE EFFORTS.

SINCE COUNCIL HAS RECENTLY MADE CHANGES, WE'RE WORKING TO UPDATE THAT CITYWIDE THAT WOULD HAVE AN EFFECT ON THIS.

COUNCIL ALSO INITIATED, UH, A CODE AMENDMENT TO CREATE A NEW SUBDISTRICT FOR, UH, PROPERTIES THAT ARE CURRENTLY, UH, THE PICKLE PROPERTIES.

IF YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH THOSE, THOSE THAT ARE JUST ADJACENT TO NORTH AND EAST OF THE SUBJECT REZONING AREA, THAT'S A DIFFERENT, UH, CODE AMENDMENT AND REZONING THAT WILL COME TO YOU IN THE FUTURE.

BUT THOSE ARE THE ELEMENTS THAT ARE MOVING FORWARD RELATED TO NORTH BOROUGH GATEWAY.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, CHAIR.

OKAY, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THIS.

THIS WAS, UM, A MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER COX AND SECONDED BY MYSELF, CHAIR HEMPEL.

THIS IS

[00:45:01]

FOR STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION WITH THE DISCUSSION THAT WE'VE HAD ABOUT TODG GATEWAY, UH, TOTG.

YEAH.

YES.

UM, INCLUDED AS, UH, UH, NOTIFICATION TO COUNSEL ABOUT THE DISCUSSION THAT WE'VE HAD TONIGHT.

CLEAR.

ALL RIGHT.

I THINK WE CAN FRAME IT AS, I THINK WE CAN FRAME IT AS, AS, UM, ADVISING STAFF TO, TO, TO CONSIDER TODG IN THE FUTURE, UM, FOR, FOR THIS PARTICULAR AREA.

OKAY.

THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION.

SO LET'S TAKE A VOTE.

ALL OF THOSE ON FAVOR ON THE DIOCESE.

THREE, FOUR, AND THOSE LINE 1, 2, 3, 4, 4, 5.

OKAY.

THOSE AGAINST AND ABSTAINING.

COMMISSIONER CONNOLLY, DID YOU VOTE NO? AH, YES.

OKAY.

HE'S JUST SLOW.

OKAY.

SO THAT IS VOTED UNANIMOUS.

OKAY.

THANK YOU FOR THAT DISCUSSION.

THANK, THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR, COMMISSIONERS.

HAVE A GOOD EVENING.

GERALD, JUST THANK YOU THAT YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY PROFESSIONAL.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, CHAIR.

I WAS JUST GONNA QUICKLY SAY, WHILE MR. ROSALIND IS ON HERE, I, I THINK WHEN WE GET TO FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS, I'LL BE REQUESTING A, UM, UPDATE ON THE NORTH POINT GATEWAY PLAN.

MR. ROSLIN, I THINK THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF MOVING PARTS.

I THINK IT MIGHT HELP THE COMMISSIONERS TO MAYBE SEE IT ALL IN ONE PLACE, UM, AND SEE IF THERE'S OTHER THINGS FOLKS WOULD LIKE TO RECOMMEND.

I WOULD SECOND THAT.

HAPPY TO DO SO.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

ALRIGHT,

[13. LDC Amendment: C20-2023-039 - Modify Minimum Bicycle Parking Requirements]

LET'S MOVE ON TO NUMBER 13.

THIS IS THE LDC AMENDMENT TO MODIFY MINIMUM BICYCLE PARKING REQUIREMENTS.

SO, UM, LET'S SEE TONIGHT, UH, DAN HENNESSY IS AT A CONFERENCE, SO HE WILL NOT BE HERE.

WE'VE GOT, UM, MR. KITTEN, I THINK ONLINE, AND THEN, UH, SPENCER, WHO WILL BE SPEAKING, UM, TO IT AS WELL.

BUT, UH, MR. KITTEN, WOULD YOU LIKE TO GO AHEAD? CHAIR, COMMISSIONER, LADIES ON ANDOVER.

UM, IF I COULD JUST CONFIRM WITH, UH, MR. KITTEN, UH, DO YOU WISH TO HAVE THE PRESENTATION? UH, I DON'T, NO, BUT I DID WANNA OPEN UP A DISCUSSION.

UH, FIRST OF ALL, COLE KITTEN, UH, UH, DIVISION MANAGER IN OUR TRANSPORTATION PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, OVERSEEING OUR SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT DIVISION, UM, WHICH IS OUR LONG RANGE PLANNING AND PROJECT DEVELOPMENT.

UM, YES, I'M, I'M STANDING IN FOR DAN TONIGHT.

AND, UM, FIRST I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYONE WAS AWARE THAT AN UPDATED, UH, DRAFT OF THE ORDINANCE WAS PROVIDED.

UM, DURING THE MEETING, UH, LEGAL IS AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THOSE CHANGES, BUT, UM, THERE WERE, UM, SOME CORRECTIONS THAT NEEDED TO BE MADE, UM, BASED ON HOW WE WANTED TO STRUCTURE, UM, WHERE THE BICYCLE PARKING REQUIREMENTS WERE BEING REFERENCED.

SO, UM, I CAN, I CAN CERTAINLY SPEAK TOWARDS THE PRESENTATION, UM, AND STAFF REPORT THAT WAS PROVIDED IN THE BACKUP.

UM, BUT IF WE WOULD, UM, UH, PREFER, UM, UH, GOING OVER THOSE CHANGES JUST SO IT'S CLEAR ON WHAT WAS CHANGED, UM, AND THAT'S WHAT, UH, THE PLANNING COMMISSION WOULD BE, UH, RECOMMENDING TONIGHT.

I'M HAVING A, A LITTLE BIT OF TROUBLE HEARING THE, THE SOUND HERE.

TONIGHT'S NOT GREAT.

UM, LOOK, PICTURE LITTLE SCREEN.

THERE'S, ON THE LEFT SIDE, THERE'S A SLIDER FOR VOLUME.

HE'S GOT IT UP.

IT'S, IT'S NOT VERY LOUD.

IT'S ALL THE WAY UP.

YEAH, IT'S JUST A LITTLE MUFFLED.

SO, UM, I THINK MR. KITTEN, I'M HEARING YOU'RE ASKING IF YOU WANT US TO HAVE THE PRESENTATION.

UM, WHAT I, JUST TO CLARIFY, UH, WE PROVIDED AN UPDATED ORDINANCE, UM, DURING THE MEETING.

SO WHAT I WAS SUGGESTING IS THAT I COULD PULL UP THE, UM, THE ORDINANCE TO, TO WALK THROUGH WHAT THOSE CHANGES WERE.

YES.

WHILE, UM, THE PRESENTATION PROVIDED IN THE BACKUP, UM, MORE, MORE CONCISELY, UM, SUMMARIZES WHERE THE CHANGES WERE MADE IN, UM, TITLE 25, UM, OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

UM, BUT IT MAY BE MORE, UH, IMPORTANT JUST TO, TO BE ON THE SAME PAGE ABOUT WHAT THESE, THESE LAST MINUTE CHANGES WERE.

SO, UM, IF I MAY, I WILL SHARE MY SCREEN YES.

AND WALK THROUGH THOSE CHANGES.

YES, PLEASE.

THANK YOU.

CHAIR.

YES.

YES.

I MEAN IT, UM, JUST, JUST TO, I GUESS A PROCESS

[00:50:01]

QUESTION.

UM, IS IT, UH, COMMONPLACE FOR THE COMMISSION TO VOTE ON ITEMS THAT WE JUST GOT SEVEN MINUTES AGO? IT'S NOT BEST PRACTICE, BUT IT HAPPENS, BUT WE HAVE THE BACKUP AND, AND THERE ARE CHANGES TO THAT.

OKAY.

SO HE'S GOING TO WALK US THROUGH WHERE THE CHANGES ARE AND WE CAN DECIDE IF IT'S ENOUGH TIME.

RIGHT.

SO TO SUMMARIZE, ALL RIGHT, WHEN YOU'RE READY, MR. KIN.

OKAY.

I'M SHARING A, A WORD DOCUMENT, UM, FOR SUMMARY PURPOSES.

UM, BUT, UH, THE NEW LANGUAGE THAT WAS INCLUDED IN TABLE B SUBSECTION 2.31 SHOULD HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN A NEW SUBSECTION H OF 25 DASH SIX DASH 4 77, WHICH SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSES BICYCLE PARKING INSTEAD.

TABLE B SHOULD INCLUDE ONLY REFERENCE TO THE NEW SUB SUBSECTION H OF 25 DASH SIX DASH 4 77.

UH, THE PRIMARY REASON FOR THIS CHANGE IS TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL PARKING RELATED REQUIREMENTS, UM, ARE INCLUDED IN 25 DASH SIX INSTEAD OF, UM, TABLE B OF SUBSECTION 2.3.

SO THE UPDATED DRAFT ORDINANCE, UM, I'VE HIGHLIGHTED WHAT THOSE CHANGES ARE, AND, AND WE'LL SHOW THOSE.

NOW, ALL ELSE IN THIS ORDINANCE, UM, IS THE SAME.

SO TABLE B OF SUBSECTION, UH, 2.3 0.1 UNDER CONNECTIVITY BETWEEN SITES, I'VE HIGHLIGHTED UNDER, UM, UNDER THIS, UH, COLUMN OF THE DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS FOR THE OPTION TO ENHANCE PHYSICAL FITNESS OPPORTUNITIES AND MULTIMODAL CONNECTIVITY BY PROVIDING SHOWER AND LOCKER FACILITIES FOR EMPLOYEES AND INCREASED REQUIRED BICYCLE PARKING BY 10%.

THE DESCRIPTION READ TO COMPLY WITH THIS OPTION, THE SITE MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING SHOWER REQUIREMENTS, AND THE REQUIREMENTS WERE INCLUDED WITHIN THAT TEXT, BUT THEY'RE NOW, UM, CHANGED TO BE INCLUDED IN A NEW SUBSECTION OF 25 DASH SIX DASH 4 77 OF SUBSECTION H.

SO SCROLLING THROUGH 25 DASH SIX IN THE TRANSPORTATION CHAPTER, WE HAVE OUR BICYCLE PARKING SECTION AND A NEW SUBSECTION H, WHICH INCLUDES THAT INFORMATION IN THIS SECTION INSTEAD OF IN TABLE B.

AND SO THOSE ARE THE ONLY CHANGES THAT HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE, UH, THE ORDINANCE, UM, PROVIDED FOR PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION.

ARE WE ABLE TO, SO, UM, ARE WE ABLE TO ASK QUESTIONS? SORRY.

OR WE WILL, WILL WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO CLARIFY THAT? YES.

WE'LL CHAIR, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

SORRY TO INTERRUPT.

SORRY.

OKAY.

MM-HMM.

, MR. KITTEN, WAS THAT THE END OF YOUR PRESENTATION OR DID YOU HAVE MORE TO COVER? YES.

THE, THE PRIMARY, THE PRIMARY, UM, PART OF THE PRESENTATION THAT, UH, I WAS GONNA HIGHLIGHT FOR EVERYONE IS THAT, UM, THESE CHANGES ARE INTENDED TO SIMPLIFY HOW WE CALCULATE OUR BICYCLE PARKING REQUIREMENTS.

UM, PREVIOUSLY, UM, IT'S BEEN DESCRIBED AS A PRETTY CONVOLUTED PROCESS TO COME UP WITH THAT NUMBER.

UM, BUT NOW THE RECOMMENDATION, UM, IN, IN, IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE IS TO MAKE IT, UM, BASED ON THE AMOUNT OF PARKING THAT'S BEING PROVIDED, UH, FOR VEHICLES AND, UM, INSTEAD OF BASED ON, UH, MULTIPLE, UH, VARIABLES THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY PRESENTED, AND THE, THE, THE RATIOS OF, OF THE BICYCLE PARKING REQUIREMENTS, UM, WERE RECOMMENDED BY THE URBAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION.

AND THAT'S WHAT WAS BEEN, UH, HAS BEEN INCORPORATED INTO THE ORDINANCE.

AND THAT'S, THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY.

OKAY.

THANK YOU MR. RIVERA.

DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS? CHAIR, COMMISSIONER LARA? YES, UH, WE DO.

UM, WE HAVE, UH, COMMISSIONER SPENCER SCHUMACHER PRESENT.

AWESOME.

GOOD EVENING.

UH, CHAIR AND PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS.

MY NAME IS SPENCER SCHUMACHER.

UM, I'M THE URBAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEMBER WHO USUALLY EMAILS YOU TO BUG YOU ABOUT BIKING.

UH, TODAY OUR MEETING WAS CANCELED, SO I THOUGHT I'D COME OVER

[00:55:01]

HERE AND BUG YOU IN PERSON, GIVE YOU GUYS A LITTLE BIT OF THOUGHT PROCESS AS TO WHAT WE'RE THINKING.

UH, JUST TO BE CLEAR, I AM SPEAKING AS AN INDIVIDUAL HERE.

UM, SO FIRST, WHEN WE ELIMINATED MOTOR VEHICLE PARKING REQUIREMENTS, WE DIDN'T ELIMINATE EVERYTHING, RIGHT? WE KEPT ACCESSIBLE PARKING, WE KEPT LOADING REQUIREMENTS, AND WE KEPT BICYCLE REQUIREMENTS.

I THINK THE REASON WE DID THAT IS 'CAUSE THOSE PROVIDE MORE BENEFITS THAN THEY DO HARMS. AND I THINK THAT'S ABSOLUTELY TRUE WITH BICYCLE PARKING.

SO FIRST, BICYCLE PARKING IS NOT AN ONEROUS REQUIREMENT, RIGHT? THE AVERAGE COST OF A PARKING SPACE, ACCORDING TO STAFF REPORT, IS ANYWHERE FROM 10,000 TO $60,000.

UH, A U RACK, WHICH IS TWO BICYCLE SPACES, COSTS 50 BUCKS, RIGHT? SO INCREASING BICYCLE PARKING IS NOT GONNA BE THE REASON YOUR RENT GOES UP, AND IT'S NOT GONNA LEAD TO LESS UNITS, RIGHT? THE OTHER THING IS THAT, UH, OUR BIKE PARKING REQUIREMENTS ARE EXTRAORDINARILY CONFUSING RIGHT NOW, IF YOU WANT TO FIGURE IT OUT, UH, YOU NEED TO GO TO SIX DIFFERENT SECTIONS OF CODE.

IT'S ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE, WHICH AS A RESULT, A LOT OF PEOPLE JUST DON'T FOLLOW THROUGH WITH IT.

UH, THIS WOULD TAKE IT DOWN TO TWO.

AND OUR THOUGHT PROCESS WAS WE WANTED TO PUT THE RATIO IN THE A SMP.

SO IF WE WANT 50% OF PEOPLE DRIVING IN 2020 OR 2039 AND 5% OF PEOPLE BIKING, THEN THE RATIO OF PARKING SHOULD BE 50 TO FIVE OR 10%.

SO THAT WAS OUR THOUGHT PROCESS HERE.

COMMERCIAL GARAGES IN THE CITY HAVE ALREADY HAD TO COMPLY WITH THAT 10% RATIO FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS NOW.

SO IT'S NOT NEW EITHER.

UH, THIRD BIKE PARKING IS AFTER AN AFTERTHOUGHT.

IF YOU BIKE PLACES, I'M SURE YOU'VE GONE TO A NEW RESTAURANT, YOU'VE ASKED THEM, UH, WHERE'S YOUR BICYCLE PARKING? AND THEY SAY, OH, WE NEVER PUT IT IN.

EVEN THE BLANTON MUSEUM FORGOT FOR A LITTLE WHILE.

UH, SO MAKING IT SIMPLIFIED MAKES IT SO THAT PEOPLE ACTUALLY THINK ABOUT BIKE PARKING AND THINK MORE HOLISTICALLY ABOUT THE TYPES OF PARKING THEY WANT.

AND THEN FINALLY, MY LETTER OF THE DAY IS A, FOR ACTUALLY ACHIEVING OUR A SMP GOALS.

WE TALK A LOT ABOUT THE COMMISSION.

WHAT ARE THE POLICIES WE NEED TO HIT THOSE 2039 GOALS? AND I THINK THE MINIMUM WE NEED TO DO IS PREPARE OUR INFRASTRUCTURE.

IF 5% OF PEOPLE ARE BIKING IN 2039, WHICH I THINK WE WILL ACHIEVE, WE NEED THERE TO BE BIKE PARKING SPACES.

SO THIS IS INCENTIVIZING DEVELOPERS TO THINK LONG TERM AND PLAN AHEAD FOR 40 YEARS IN THE FUTURE SO THAT THEY'RE PLANNING FOR THE FUTURE GROWTH OF BICYCLING, WHICH I BELIEVE WILL COME.

I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS, UH, IF YOU HAVE 'EM.

ALRIGHT, THANK YOU.

STICK AROUND FOR QUESTIONS FOR SURE.

CHAIR, THAT CONCLUDES THE SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM.

OKAY.

IS THERE A MOTION TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING? MADAM CHAIR? I'D ASK FOR A LITTLE BIT OF LEEWAY SINCE WE'RE GET, WE'VE GOT A RESOLUTION THAT WE LITERALLY GOT NOW NINE MINUTES AGO.

CAN WE KEEP THE PUBLIC HEARING SO WE CAN ASK STAFF A FEW QUESTIONS RATHER THAN TAKING, SO WE'LL CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING, AND THEN WE'LL DO OUR REGULAR Q AND A, SO PEOPLE WILL HAVE UP TO FIVE MINUTES EACH.

I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT I'VE GOT, GIVEN WE'VE GOT BRAND NEW TEXT HERE.

UM, WELL, I MEAN, IF THAT'S THE WILL OF, OF THE COMMAND, OKAY.

I WOULD ASK, I WOULD ASK, WE KEEP IT OPEN AND LET US ASK STAFF ABOUT SOME OF THE NEW LANGUAGE, BUT OKAY.

OKAY.

UM, CLOSING PUBLIC HEARING.

IS THERE A MOTION? COMMISSIONER MAXWELL? SECONDED.

COMMISSIONER COX.

COMMISSIONER COX.

OKAY.

ANYONE OPPOSED? COMM, MR. HAYNES? OKAY.

UM, THAT IS, IT STILL PASSES AND ABSTAIN.

DO YOU WANNA ASK IF ANYONE ABSTAINS? UM, SURE.

ANYBODY ABSTAINING ON THAT PASSES? NINE ONE.

OKAY.

WELL, I DON'T KNOW IF WE HAVE, DO WE HAVE 10 NOW, COMMISSIONER? I BELIEVE WE DO, YES.

YEAH.

OKAY.

YEP.

WE'RE NINE ONE.

UM, OKAY.

OPEN IT UP FOR QUESTIONS.

COMMISSIONER, UH, COX AND THEN COMMISSIONER MO.

YEAH, I'M, I'M A LITTLE, I THOUGHT THIS WAS ABOUT BIKE PARKING, BUT I'M TRYING TO READ THROUGH ALL OF THIS TABLE B WHERE WE'RE NOW REQUIRING ADDITIONAL MEASURES AND THEN ALSO READING THROUGH THE REQUIREMENT TO ADD A SHOWER.

SO, SO THIS SECTION H 25 6 4 7 7 H THAT'S BEEN ADDED.

WHAT, WHAT IS, WHO IS SUBJECTED TO THAT? MR. KITTEN? I BELIEVE THAT WAS THE QUESTION FOR YOU OR STAFF.

YEAH.

AND I MAY ASK FOR LEGAL COUNSEL TO CHIME IN, UM, IF POSSIBLE, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THIS ACTUALLY ISN'T NEW TEXT.

IT'S JUST BEING MOVED.

SO RIGHT NOW WE REQUIRE ALL DEVELOPMENTS TO HAVE SHOWER AND CHANGING FACILITIES.

IT LOOKS LIKE COMMISSIONER BARRA, RAMEZ KNOWS THE ANSWER TO THIS.

YEAH,

[01:00:01]

I'M SORRY, .

SO IF YOU LOOK AT NUMBER TWO, IT SAYS, IT TALKS ABOUT FOR SURFACE PARKING THAT AMOUNTS TO MORE THAN A HUNDRED PERCENT OF THE PARK, 125% OF THE PARKING REQUIRED IN APPENDIX A.

IF YOU HAVE MORE THAN 125% OF THE PARKING REQUIRED, THEN YOU MUST PICK AT LEAST THREE OF THE OPTIONS PROVIDED IN TABLE B.

SO, AND I APOLOGIZE, IT'S VERY CONFUSING, AND I DON'T KNOW, I, I WROTE PART OF THIS CODE A LONG TIME AGO, SO I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH IT.

BUT, UM, SO YEAH, SO THREE OF THREE OF THE BELOW, SO, SO NO, COMMISSIONER, I, I APPRECIATE THAT.

BUT THE THING IS, IS THAT THIS IS, THIS IS IN ADDITION TO TABLE B BECAUSE IT BASICALLY SAYS THAT, THAT ANY, ANY DEVELOPMENT SUBJECT TO SUBSECTION 2, 3, 1 HAS TO HAVE THOSE SHOWER FACILITIES.

AND 2, 3, 1 IS THIS WHOLE THING, WHICH I THOUGHT WAS APPLIED TO EVERY DEVELOPMENT, NOW THAT IT'S BEING PERMITTED, NOW I'M CONFUSED.

AND MR. KITTEN, CAN YOU HELP CLARIFY? I, I, UM, I WOULD DISAGREE WITH THAT INTERPRETATION.

UM, TABLE B IS APPLICABLE TO, AS COMMISSIONER RERA POINTED OUT, UM, TO THOSE THAT NEED TO SELECT THREE OF THOSE OPTIONS.

UM, SO AS IT READS IN SUBSECTION H, IT REFERENCES BACK TO THAT ARTICLE.

YEAH.

SO IF THAT'S, IF THAT'S THE CASE, THEN WE DEFINITELY NEED TO HAVE CLARIFYING LANGUAGE.

I, I, MM-HMM.

, I READ ORDINANCES FOR A LIVING , AND, AND I'M READING THIS VERY FAST AND TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IT SINCE WE JUST GOT IT A FEW MINUTES AGO.

BUT IT DOESN'T SAY THAT IF A DEVELOPMENT OPS TO CONSTRUCT SHOWERS AND CHANGING FACILITIES TO SATISFY THE TABLE B REQUIREMENTS, THEN THIS IS THE REQUIREMENT.

IT BASICALLY JUST SAYS, IT JUST SAYS ANY DEVELOPMENT SUBJECT TO 2.3 0.1 MUST PROVIDE SHOWER AND LOCKER FACILITIES AS FOLLOWS.

AND THEN IT HAS A CUTOFF AT 20, A CUTOFF AT A HUNDRED THOUSAND SQUARE FEET, AND THEN OVER A HUNDRED THOUSAND SQUARE FEET.

UNLESS, UNLESS THERE'S A PROVISION IN HERE THAT RESTRICTS THE APPLICABILITY OF, OF SUBSECTION 2, 3, 1.

THIS APPLIES TO EVERY DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY, AND I'M NOT SEEING A RESTRICTION.

YEAH, I SHOULD CLARIFY.

IF THE ENHANCEMENT OF PHYSICAL FITNESS OPPORTUNITIES, MULTIMODAL CONNECTIVITY IS CHOSEN AS THE OPTION, THEN YEAH.

SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

YEAH, NO, I, I AGREE WITH THAT.

OKAY.

OKAY.

THAT I, I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THIS.

SO I APPRECIATE Y'ALL, Y'ALL WORKING THROUGH THIS WITH ME.

YEAH, I'M, I'M JUST GONNA JUMP IN.

WE ACTUALLY HEARD THIS PRESENTATION FROM DAN HENNESSY, WHO'S BEEN THE STAFF MEMBER WORKING ON THIS AT CO, CO AND JOINT ORDINANCES.

AND THAT WAS NOT INDICATED TO US AS PART OF THIS, BECAUSE WE OBVIOUSLY WOULD'VE QUESTIONED THAT REQUIREMENT VERY CLOSELY.

SO I, I'M NOT SURE HOW YOU'RE INTERPRETING IT, COMMISSIONER COX, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT THAT IS THE INTENT, AND IT WAS CERTAINLY NOT THE WAY IT WAS PRESENTED TO US IN THAT BODY, BECAUSE WE WOULD'VE OBVIOUSLY MADE SURE THAT IT WAS NOT APPLICABLE IN EVERY SINGLE SITUATION, BEING THAT THAT'S A HUGE DEVELOPMENT BURDEN AND PROBABLY INAPPROPRIATE IN A LOT OF CASES.

SO I, I, I DON'T KNOW IF THE LANGUAGE HAS CHANGED OR WHERE THE CLARIFICATION NEEDS TO BE, BUT THAT WAS DEFINITELY NOT HOW IT WAS PRESENTED AT CJOC.

WELL, AND, AND, AND I NO, I APPRECIATE THAT.

AND I JUST, FOR EVERYONE'S, FOR EVERYONE'S USE, PAGE FIVE OF 14 OF THE WORD DOCUMENT, WE WERE EMAILED, UH, ABOUT 11 MINUTES AGO OR WHATEVER, UM, THE, THE NEW BLUE H AND IT, AND IT BASICALLY SAYS, UH, A SITE OR DEVELOPMENT SUBJECT TO SUBSECTION 2.3, 0.1 OF ARTICLE TWO SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OF SUB CHAPTER E OF, OF CITY CODE CHAPTER 25 2, WHICH IS EVERYTHING MUST PROVIDE, SHOWER AND LOCKER FACILITIES AS FOLLOWS, BUILDINGS UP TO 19,000 SQUARE FEET, BUILDINGS, 20 TO 99, AND THEN OVER A HUNDRED.

SO THERE, SO THAT, TO ME, I'M READING THAT AS EVERY DEVELOPMENT IS, IS MUST PROVIDE SHOWER AND LOCKER FACILITIES.

UM, SO I THINK WHAT COMMISSIONER, UM, BARRA RAMIREZ SAID, TRYING TO ADD LANGUAGE IN THERE, REFERENCING BACK TO THE TABLE B OPTIONS WOULD BE HUGELY CLARIFYING.

BECAUSE IF, IF SOMEONE HIRED ME TO HERMIT THEIR DEVELOPMENT, I WOULD BE LIKE, WELL, FROM FROM THIS YOU NEED A SHOWER

[01:05:02]

OR TWO OR THREE .

GOOD QUESTION.

UM, COMMISSIONER MUSER, I ACTUALLY, I'M LOOKING AT THE SAME.

THAT'S WHAT I'M SEEING ALSO.

I DON'T, I, I DON'T THINK IS LAID OUT IN THE ORDINANCE.

IT'S REFLECTING THE INTENT.

I'M, I'M ACTUALLY ALSO CONCERNED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE LANGUAGE, UM, UM, BECAUSE THE LANGUAGE SPECIFICALLY SAYS AVAILABLE TO BOTH GENDERS AND AVAILABLE TO EACH GENDER, AND I'M NOT SURE THAT'S OUR BEST LANGUAGE CHOICES, UM, FOR, UM, UM, I'M STRUGGLING FOR MY WORDS.

I, I THINK WE HAVE BETTER LANGUAGE, UH, TO ENCOMPASS ALL OF OUR CITIZENS.

I, UH, MR. KITTEN.

AND DO YOU HAVE A RESPONSE? UH, I'VE BEEN TOLD THAT THIS IS NOT NEW TEXT.

IT'S JUST BEING MOVED.

IT'S NOT NEW TEXT.

IT'S JUST BEING MOVED.

OKAY.

IT'S TEXT.

THAT'S NOT A CHANGE.

YEAH.

UNFORTUNATELY, WHEN IT COMES TO CODE, IT'S, IT'S, YOU TOUCH IT, YOU BREAK IT, OR YOU BREAK IT, YOU OWN IT.

SO SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE DIGGING INTO THIS.

OKAY.

SO UNDERSTANDABLY THINGS HAVE BEEN MOVED AROUND, BUT THAT MAY INFLUENCE WHAT WE NEED TO DO TONIGHT WITH IT.

THAT'S CORRECT.

YEAH.

SO YOU MIGHT THINK ABOUT POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS TO THAT LANGUAGE.

OKAY.

OTHER QUESTIONS? I, I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS.

UM, UH, MR. KITTEN, I LOOKED OVER THE ORIGINAL, UM, BACKUP AND I DON'T FIND ANY INFORMATION RELATED TO THE, THE SHOWER.

I, I'M NOT AN ATTORNEY, SO IT'S HARD FOR