* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting. [CALL TO ORDER ] [00:00:03] EVERYONE HAVING A QUORUM PRESENT WITHIN COUNCIL CHAMBERS. I NOW CALL THIS MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO ORDER AT 6:01 PM OUR VIRTUAL COMMISSIONERS COULD COME ONLINE. THAT WOULD BE GREAT. LET'S TAKE ROLL FIRST. PLEASE LET US KNOW YOU'RE HERE WHEN I CALL YOUR NAME, CHAIR WOODS. I AM HERE. VICE CHAIR HANEY IS NOT HERE THIS EVENING. COMMISSIONER MAXWELL. HERE. COMMISSIONER AHMED. HERE. COMMISSIONER LAWN HERE. TRYING TO TURN ON THE CAMERA. . THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER BARRERA RAMIREZ IS NOT WITH US THIS EVENING. COMMISSIONER TROJAN? HERE. COMMISSIONER POWELL. HERE. COMMISSIONER BRETTON. HERE. COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE. HERE. COMMISSIONER HILLER. HERE. COMMISSIONER GANNON HERE. THANK YOU. AS USUAL, TONIGHT'S MEETING WILL BE HYBRID, ALLOWING FOR A VIRTUAL QUORUM AS LONG AS THE COMMISSIONER SERVING AS CHAIR IS PRESENT IN CHAMBERS. THEREFORE, WE HAVE COMMISSIONERS HERE AT CITY HALL AND IN ATTENDANCE, VIRTUALLY SIMILARLY, SPEAKERS CAN PRESENT HERE FROM COUNCIL CHAMBERS OR PARTICIPATE VIRTUALLY VIRTUAL COMMISSIONERS. PLEASE REMEMBER TO SEND YOUR SIGN IN SHEET TO THE STAFF LIAISON PER THE CLERK'S GUIDELINES. AND PLEASE HAVE YOUR GREEN, RED, AND YELLOW ITEMS FOR VOTING. PLEASE REMAIN MUTED WHEN YOU'RE NOT SPEAKING, AND RAISE YOUR HAND TO BE RECOGNIZED. IF I DON'T SEE YOU, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO UNMUTE AND LET ME KNOW VERBALLY. IF YOU'RE A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC SIGNED UP TO SPEAK, YOU SHOULD RECEIVE AN EMAIL BEFORE WE TAKE UP YOUR ITEM AND WE WILL HAVE ASSISTANCE FROM MS. BROWN IN ANNOUNCING THE SPEAKERS DURING OUR PUBLIC HEARINGS. BEFORE WE TAKE UP PUBLIC COMMUNICATION THIS EVENING, I DO WANNA WELCOME OUR NEWEST COMMISSIONER REPRESENTING DISTRICT ONE, CHRIS GANNON. COMMISSIONER GANNON, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SAY A FEW WORDS? SURE. THANK YOU. UM, UH, I'M HONORED TO BE HERE. I'VE LIVED IN D ONE FOR THE MAJORITY OF MY ADULT LIFE, AND IT'S A COMMUNITY THAT I LOVE DEEPLY. UM, I WANNA THANK COUNCIL MEMBER, UH, HARPER MADISON, AND THE WHOLE D ONE OFFICE FOR, UM, FOR APPOINTING ME. UM, AND OF COURSE I WANT TO THANK COMMISSIONER HOWARD WHO SERVED BEFORE ME. HE'S LEFT SOME, UH, ENORMOUS SHOES TO FILL. I'M GONNA DO MY BEST. UM, I'D LIKE TO BRING A LOT OF PASSION TO THE WORK THEY DO, AND I THINK THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL BE NO DIFFERENT. UH, THANK YOU. THANK YOU SO MUCH, COMMISSIONER GANNON, WE'RE SO HAPPY TO HAVE YOU, MS. BROWN. DO WE HAVE [PUBLIC COMMUNICATION: GENERAL ] ANYONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK DURING PUBLIC COMMUNICATION? YES. CHAIR. WE HAVE PHILLIP WILEY. PHILLIP, YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES. A AS ALWAYS. UH, AGAIN, MY NAME IS PHILIP WILEY. I I LIVE DOWNTOWN AND HAVE FOR OVER 33 YEARS. AND AS ALWAYS, I'D LIKE TO, UH, START OUT BY THANKING YOU ALL FOR YOUR SERVICE AND THE CHANCE FOR THE PUBLIC TO GIVE COMMUNICATION HERE. MUCH APPRECIATED. UM, I, I DO HAVE ONE CHART AND IT'S GOT A LOT OF WORDS ON IT, SO IT MIGHT BE HARD TO READ, BUT IT'S ALL ON ONE CHART. UM, I WANTED TO COME TO, FIRST OF ALL, IN 2009, I CHANGED, UM, MY LINKEDIN ID TO SAY SUSTAINABILITY ADVOCATE. UM, MOST PEOPLE DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THAT WAS, BUT APPARENTLY THE PEOPLE THAT DEVELOPED THE IMAGINE AUSTIN PLAN, WHICH STARTED IN 2009, DID KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS. UM, THE IMAGINE AUSTIN IS THE TOP OF THE STACK ON ON PLANNING. THAT'S, THERE ARE REGULATORY REASONS FOR THAT. UM, IT'S A SERIOUS PLAN AND, AND I KNOW WE ALL TAKE IT VERY SERIOUSLY. AT THE TOP OF THE IMAGINE AUSTIN HIERARCHY IS THE VISION AND ITS SUSTAINABILITY IS THE BASIS FOR IMAGINE AUSTIN VISION STATEMENT. BELOW THAT, THERE ARE SIX CORE PRINCIPLES. THE FIRST THREE ARE GROW AS A COMPACT CONNECTED CITY, INTEGRATE NATURE INTO THE CITY, AND PROVIDE PATHS TO PROSPERITY FOR ALL. I I THINK WE WOULD ALL AGREE THOSE ARE ALL RELEVANT AND, AND IMPORTANT, UM, PRINCIPLES TO THIS DAY. UM, BELOW THAT, IMAGINE AUSTIN, WHEN WE THINK OF COMPACT AND, AND CONNECTED, IT, IT'S SORT OF THE MANTRA FOR THIS EXERCISE. AND, AND SO IN THE COURSE OF HAVING SOME SPIRITED DEBATES OVER IMAGINE AUSTIN IN THE DIRECTION WE WANNA TAKE THE CITY, UM, I, I WENT TO THIS DOCUMENT AND I FOUND SOMETHING THAT WAS LIKE, IT WAS SUCH A REVELATION THAT I, I HAD TO COME IN AND SHARE IT WITH YOU. AND THAT IS THE DEFINITION. WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF A COMPACT COMMUNITY? IT IS ONE IN WHICH HOUSING SERVICES, RETAIL JOBS, ENTERTAINMENT, HEALTHCARE, SCHOOLS, PARKS, AND OTHER DAILY NEEDS ARE WITHIN A CONVENIENT WALK OR BICYCLE RIDE OF ONE ANOTHER. THAT'S WHAT A COMPACT CITY IS. UNDERNEATH THAT, IN A SUPPORTING ROLE, A COMPACT COMMUNITY IS SUPPORTED BY A COMPLETE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM, [00:05:01] ENCOURAGES HEALTHIER LIFESTYLES AND COMMUNITY INTERACTION AND ALLOWS MORE EFFICIENT DELIVERY OF PUBLIC SERVICES. SO IF YOU LOOK AT, AT THIS HIERARCHY AND HOW ALL THESE THINGS FLOW TOGETHER AND REALLY REFLECT ON IT, AND I WOULD HIGHLY ENCOURAGE YOU TO DO THAT. I THINK IT WILL BE VERY EDUCATIONAL AND ENLIGHTENING, UH, IN YOUR ROLES AND FOR THE PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING WHY WE'RE DOING WHAT, WHAT WE HAVE TO DO. UM, I I'VE SENT A COPY AROUND TO, TO, TO YOU ALL IF YOU WANNA TAKE A LOOK AT THIS. I, I DID WANNA GO DOWN A LITTLE BIT AND, AND GIVE A VIEW THAT, UM, MO MOBILITY ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT AND EEO WHERE THEY OVERLAP, THAT IS THE HIGHEST PRIORITY FOR DENSITY IN THE CITY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. CHAIR. THAT CONCLUDES SPEAKERS ON FOR PUBLIC COMMUNICATION. THANK YOU MS. BROWN. THANK YOU MR. WILEY. THE FIRST ITEM ON THE CONSENT AGENDA [Consent Agenda] IS THE APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM THE JANUARY 13TH MEETING. DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY EDITS TO THOSE MINUTES? OKAY, SEEING NONE, THOSE MINUTES WILL BE ADDED TO THE CONSENT AGENDA. OUR FIRST ACTIVITY TONIGHT IS TO VOTE ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. ITEMS THAT ARE CONSENT APPROVAL, DISAPPROVAL, POSTPONEMENTS OF PUBLIC HEARINGS OR NON-DISCUSSION ITEMS. COMMISSIONER MAXWELL WILL READ THE PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA AND SPECIFY THOSE THAT ARE CONSENT POSTPONEMENT AND NON-DISCUSSION. AFTER THIS COMMISSIONERS, YOU'LL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO REQUEST ANY CONSENT ITEMS BE PULLED FOR DISCUSSION. COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, WOULD YOU MIND READING THE CONSENT AGENDA? HAPPY TO HELP CHAIR. THANK YOU. UH, ITEM NUMBER TWO THIS EVENING IS A PLAN AMENDMENT NPA 20 24 0 0 1 8 0 1 7 7 0 3 7 7 0 5 7 7 0 7 GUADALUPE STREET, REZO DISTRICT FOUR, THAT'S STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO FEBRUARY 10TH. ITEM NUMBER THREE IS A REZONING C 14 20 24 0 0 3 6 7 0 0 3 7 0 0 5 7 0 0 0 7 GUADALUPE STREET, REZONE DISTRICT FOUR. SO THAT'S A STAFF POSTPONEMENT TILL FEBRUARY 10TH. ITEM NUMBER FOUR IS A PLAN AMENDMENT NPA 20 23 0 0 1 4 0 4 43 0 2. KNUCKLES CROSSING DISTRICT TWO. THAT IT, THAT'S A STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO MARCH 24TH. ITEM NUMBER FIVE IS A FIVE IS A REZONING C 14 20 25 0 6 5 4 3 0 2. KNUCKLES CROSSING DISTRICT TWO. THAT'S STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO MARCH 24TH. ITEM NUMBER SIX IS A PLAN AMENDMENT NPA 20 24 0 0 1 6 0.05 SHADY LANE DISTRICT THREE, THAT'S AN APPLICANT INDEFINITE POSTPONEMENT. ITEM NUMBER SEVEN IS A REZONING C 14 20 25 0 0 0 5 SHADY LANE DISTRICT THREE, THAT'S APPLICANT INDEFINITE POSTPONEMENT. ITEM NUMBER EIGHT IS A PLAN AMENDMENT NPA 20 25 0 0 1 2 0.0 1, 21 0 8, AND 2110 EAST 22ND STREET DISTRICT ONE. THAT ITEM'S UP FOR DISCUSSION. ITEM NUMBER NINE IS REZONING C 14 20 25 0 0 9 2 2 1 0 8 AND 2 1 1 1 0 EAST 22ND STREET, DISTRICT ONE. THAT'S ITEM ITEM UP FOR DISCUSSION. ITEM NUMBER 10 IS A PLANNED AMENDMENT NP 20 25 0 0 2 5 2 SOUTH TOWN DISTRICT EIGHT THAT'S OFFERED ON CONSENT. ITEM NUMBER 11 IS A REZONING C 14 20 25 0 7 9 SOUTH TOWN REZONING DISTRICT EIGHT. THAT'S ITEMS OFTEN NON-CONSENT. NOW ITEM NUMBER 12 IS C 14 20 25 0 0 5 1 WOODWARD MIX USE FLATS DISTRICT THREE. THAT ITEM IS POSTPONED BY STAFF TO MARCH 10TH. ITEM 13 IS A REZONING C 14 20 25 9 WEST MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR BOULEVARD, OASIS STREET DISTRICT NINE. THAT'S A DISCUSSION POSTPONEMENT. ITEM NUMBER 14 IS A REZONING C 14 20 25 0 0 9 3 WEST 18TH IN OASIS STREET, DISTRICT NINE. THAT, UH, UH, IS ALSO A DISCUSSION POSTPONEMENT. ITEM NUMBER 15 IS C 14 0 0 2 4 0 1 4 7 14 0 5 EAST RIVERSIDE DRIVE, DISTRICT NINE, THAT'S APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT TO FEBRUARY 24TH. ITEM NUMBER 16 IS RESTRICTIVE COVENANT TERMINATION C 14 0 6 0 1 7, UH, RCT 1713 AND 1405 EAST RIVERSIDE DRIVE, DISTRICT NINE, THAT'S APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT TO FEBRUARY 24TH. ITEM NUMBER 17 IS A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT TERMINATION C 14 7 2 2 99 R CT SEVEN 13 AND 1405 EAST RIVERSIDE DRIVE, DISTRICT NINE, THAT'S AN APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT TO FEBRUARY 24TH. AND, UH, ITEM NUMBER 18 IS A CODE AMENDMENT C 20 20 25 0 8 SIGN CODE CHANGES FOR RELOCATING BILLBOARDS AND THAT ITEM IS UP FOR DISCUSSION. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, DO ANY COMMISSIONERS NEED TO RECUSE [00:10:01] OR ABSTAIN FROM ITEMS ON THE AGENDA? SEEING NONE? YES. UH, JONATHAN TOMKO, THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT ON ITEM NUMBER 11, SOUTHTOWN, UM, STAFF AND THE APPLICANT ARE IN AGREEMENT TO, UM, ADD TO THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY PROHIBITING AL ADULT ORIENTED BUSINESSES. THAT WOULD BE ALL TYPES OF A OB. THANK YOU MR. TOMKO. WE WILL ADD THAT INTO THE CONSENT AGENDA ON ITEM 11. UM, OKAY. SEEING NO RECUSALS OR ABSTENTIONS, MS. BROWN, DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON ANY OF THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS? YES. CHAIR. WE DO FOR ITEMS 10 AND 11, WE HAVE THE APPLICANT RICHARD SUTTLE. RICHARD, YOU'LL HAVE FIVE MINUTES. MR. SU'S WAVING HIS TIME. OKAY. SO OUR NEXT SPEAKER IN OPPOSITION IS LEE ZIEGLER. LEE ZIEGLER IS, WILL HAVE A TOTAL OF NINE MINUTES. UM, RECEIVING DONATED TIME FROM, IS JEFFREY BOWEN HERE AND MEGAN MEISENBACH? OKAY. YOU'LL HAVE NINE MINUTES, MS. ZIEGLER, FEEL FREE TO COME ON UP. AND JUST TO NOTE COMMISSIONERS, AFTER WE HEAR FROM THESE SPEAKERS, YOU CAN EITHER LEAVE THE ITEM ON CONSENT OR PULL IT FOR DISCUSSION. LEE ZIEGLER, CHAIR OF THE OAK HILL NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING CONTACT TEAM. GOOD EVENING CHAIR WOODS AND COMMISSIONERS. IT'S NOT WORKING. ADDING VMU TO EXISTING COMMERCIAL LAND USE SEEMS SIMPLE ENOUGH, BUT AT WHAT COST TO THE COMMUNITY? ADDITIONAL ENTITLEMENTS AT THIS LOCATION WOULD POSE CHALLENGES FOR TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT, WATER QUALITY AND INFRASTRUCTURE CAPACITY, POTENTIALLY UNDERMINING COUNCIL OBJECTIVES, WHICH AIM TO ENHANCE COMMUNITY TRAFFIC FLOW PUBLIC HEALTH, AND TO ADD WALKABILITY IN AN AUTOCENTRIC OAK HILL, ALLOWING SUCH INTENSE DEVELOPMENT. OVER SEVEN ACRES OF THE SOUTHTOWN CORNER WILL DEADLOCK PEAK HOUR TRANSPORTATION ADDING TO THE WATER DEFICIT AND WATER POLLUTION JEOPARDIZING THE GREEN ECOSYSTEM OF GAINES CREEK CREEK AT THIS PROPERTY. FURTHERMORE, THE LOCAL COMMUNITY NEEDS CONTINUED ACCESS TO MUCH APPRECIATED RESTAURANTS AND RETAIL BUSINESSES HERE. CONCERN FOR TRAFFIC, HEALTH AND SAFETY HAVE LED THE CONTACT TEAM TO SUPPORT A REQUEST FOR A MORE RELEVANT TRAFFIC EVALUATION LIMIT DEVELOPMENT TO NO MORE THAN 650 UNITS AND COMMIT TO REDUCED IMPERVIOUS COVER. IF NOT, FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION, IMPERVIOUS COVER WOULD BE 25% BY SOS STANDARD, UH, UH, STANDARDS. BUT CURRENTLY IT ENCOMPASSES 95% OF ACREAGE. PLEASE INCLUDE THIS LIST OF, OF PROHIBITED USES AGREED TO BY THE OWNER FOR AN AMENDED CONDITIONAL OVERLAY. SEEMS I ONLY, I DON'T KNOW IF THEY'RE SPEAKING, BUT THEY DID AGREE TO IT. YOU MIGHT ASK THEM ABOUT THAT. UH, REQUIRING A TIA ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ZONING CHANGE WOULD MORE ACCURATELY DETERMINE PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC GENERATION ON SITE RATHER THAN BASING TRAFFIC IMPACT UPON ITE 24 HOUR CALCULATIONS USING INTENSE NATIONAL PRESUMPTION. A MAJOR FLAW IN THIS CASE, WHICH PRESUMES ONLY 180 ADDED TRIPS WITH 1000 UNITS IN REDEVELOPMENT. MUCH OF THE AREA IS PARKING LOT AT THIS TIME AS SHOWN ON THIS MAP WITH PARTICULAR CONCERN FOR SOUTHWEST PARKWAY. TRAFFIC APPROACHING HIGHWAY TWO 90 AND NORTH MOPAC FUNNELS QUICKLY INTO A SINGLE NORTHBOUND ON RAMP ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY LINE. FIVE LANES COMPRESSED TO ONE RIGHT HERE, THE MOPAC EXPANSION WILL NOT ADDRESS THIS EXISTING CHOKE POINT. PROPERTY INGRESS AND EGRESS ARE PROBLEMATIC. RESIDENTIAL INTENSITY ON SITE WILL FEED MORE CARS INTO THE SAME TRAFFIC BOTTLENECK DURING PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC MAGNIFYING BACKUP NOTABLY ON SOUTHWEST PARKWAY. THIS IS CLEARLY NOT A 24 HOUR PROBLEM IS ASSUMED IN THE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS, WHICH MASKED PEAK FAILURES BY NOT COMPARING RESIDENTIAL TRAFFIC IMPACT WITHOUT OF RETAIL GENERATED TRAFFIC. HERE THE REAL DELAYS OCCUR DURING MORNING AND EVENING HOURS WHEN MOST BUSINESSES ARE CLOSED. ADDITIONALLY, ACCESS BY EMS AND THE FIRE DEPARTMENT SERVICES WILL LIKELY RESULT IN INCREASED DELAYS TO NAVIGATE AROUND THIS INTERSECTION THROUGH MULTIPLE SIGNALS AND CONGESTION [00:15:01] ALONG SOUTHWEST PARKWAY. HOW WILL TRAFFIC FROM THE SITE BE ABLE TO MERGE INTO THE SINGLE NORTH MOPAC LANE? THE ADJACENT LANE TO THE PROPERTY BECOMES THE TURNAROUND OVERPASS JUST AFTER THE GAINES CREEK BRIDGE. THEN THERE IS THE RENTAL HOUSING SATURATION. THERE ARE OVER 7,400 APPROVED RENTAL UNITS WITHIN THREE AND A HALF MILES AND OVER 13,000 RENTAL UNITS ACROSS OAK HILL, APPROXIMATELY FIVE MILES FROM THE INTERSECTION. PHASE TWO OF THE AT-HOME SITE WAS RECENTLY APPROVED FOR A THOUSAND MULTI-FAMILY UNITS ACROSS THIS INTERSECTION. THERE ARE MANY MULTI-FAMILY UNITS IN OAK HILL, OFTEN ON BETTER SUITED SITES, MOSTLY ZONED WITH UNIT CAPACITY TO GO FROM ONE TO THREE STORIES UP TO 60 FEET. HOLDEN HILLS ON SOUTHWEST PARKWAY WILL ADD DENSITY AND MORE CARS. IT IS A 495 ACRE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT LESS THAN TWO MILES AWAY IN THE ETJ AND CANNOT BE IGNORED. LET'S REVIEW ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS. THE SITE DIRECTLY BORDERS GAIN CR GAINES CREEK. IT'S RIPARIAN BANKS ARE SHOWN HERE NEXT TO THE PROPERTY. GAINES CREEK FLOWS INTO BARTON CREEK TO BARTON SPRINGS IN THE BARTON SPRINGS DRINKING WATER PROTECTION ZONE. THIS IS THE POINT AT WHICH MULTIPLE BRANCHES OF GAINES CREEK AND SYCAMORE CREEK CONVERGE. THE PROPERTY DIRECTLY BORDERS AN EROSION PRONE LIMESTONE BANK WITH NO MARGIN FOR ERROR. ADDING HEIGHT AND RESIDENTIAL MASS INCREASES RUNOFF IN POLLUTANTS LOADING DIRECTLY INTO GAINES CREEK. INCREASED POLLUTION AT GAINES CREEK IS WORRISOME AND AN EROSION PREVENTION PLAN WOULD BE HELPFUL. CURRENT WATER TREATMENT METHODS LIKE THE SOS STANDARD POND WILL NOT BRING ADEQUATE POLLUTION. WATER QUALITY CONTROL. PROTECTING DOWNSTREAM WATER FLOW IS CRUCIAL AND THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT CANNOT SUFFICIENTLY MITIGATE ITS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT WITHOUT UNIT AND IMPERVIOUS COVER REDUCTION. CURRENT ZONING ALREADY ALLOWS REDEVELOPMENT WITH HOUSING UP TO 378 UNITS AND IS MORE APPROPRIATELY SIZED TO THE SITE UNDER THE REDEVELOPMENT EXCEPTION, AS MANY AS 604 UNITS DO SEEM MATHEMATICALLY POSSIBLE OVER THE ENTIRE SUBDIVIDED SITE. IN CONCLUSION, HOUSING DEMAND IS ALREADY MET AND COMMERCIAL OCCUPANCY IN AUSTIN WAS 97%. BY THE END OF TWO OF 2025, IT WOULD BE MOST RESPONSIBLE TO RECOGNIZE THE EXISTING VALUE OF THIS SITE FOR THE OAK HILL COMMUNITY. ADDITIONAL SAFEGUARDS ARE NEEDED TO ADDRESS TRAFFIC CONGESTION, HOUSING SATURATION ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL FRAGILITY, AND INFRASTRUCTURE STRAIN. AN OVERLAY IS INAPPROPRIATE WITHOUT MODIFICATION AND RESTRAINT. FOR THESE REASONS, THE CONTACT TEAM URGES THE COMMISSION TO DENY RECOMMENDATION OF THE LAND USE OVERLAY UNLESS INCORPORATING SAFEGUARDS, INCLUDING RECOMMENDATION FOR REDUCTION IN IMPERVIOUS COVER WITH REDUCED UNITS, AND A REQUEST FOR A BASELINE PEAK TIME TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR THE SOUTHWEST PARKWAY SITE ENTRY, AS WELL AS AN AMENDMENT TO THE LIST OF PROHIBITED USES IN THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY ALONG WITH AN EROSION REDUCTION PLAN TO PROTECT GAINES CREEK. THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION AND TIME. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS FOR ITEM 12, WE HAVE THE APPLICANT VICTORIA HASSE. VICTORIA, YOU'LL HAVE FIVE MINUTES. MS. HASSE IS WAVING HER TIME. OKAY, OUR NEXT ITEM IS ITEM 15, LEO BOJO. UM, YOU'LL HAVE FIVE MINUTES TO SPEAK. MS. BOJO IS WAIVING HER TIME. EXCUSE ME. OKAY, THAT CONCLUDES THE SPEAKERS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. THANK YOU MS. BROWN. DO ANY COMMISSIONERS WANT TO PULL ANY OF THE CONSENT ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION OR OTHERWISE HAVE QUESTIONS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA? [00:20:01] OKAY. SEEING NONE, 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? A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER POWELL. WITHOUT OBJECTION, THAT ITEM PASSES AND THIS CONCLUDES THE CONSENT AGENDA. SO LET'S MOVE INTO OUR DISCUSSION [Items 13 & 14 (Part 1 of 2)] POSTPONEMENT CASES. WE HAVE TWO THIS EVENING, WHICH ARE 13 AND 14, BUT THEY ARE RELATED, SO WE'RE GONNA TAKE THEM UP TOGETHER. UM, BOTH OF THESE ITEMS HAVE A NEIGHBORHOOD POSTPONEMENT REQUEST TO FEBRUARY 24TH AND THE APPLICANT IS OPPOSED. JUST A REMINDER THAT THIS IS NOT A PUBLIC HEARING, SO WE ARE NOT GONNA DELVE INTO THE MERITS OF THE CASE IN OUR DISCUSSION ABOUT THE POSTPONEMENT. AND WE WILL START BY HEARING FROM THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE POSTPONEMENT. OKAY, WE WILL GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED. WE HAVE THE APPLICANT LEAH BOJO. LEAH, YOU HAVE 10 MINUTES. I THINK WE'LL START WITH THOSE WHO ARE OPPOSED TO THE CASE IN FAVOR OF THE POSTPONEMENT IF POSSIBLE. OKAY. WE HAVE MEGAN MEISENBACH. MEGAN, YOU'LL HAVE FIVE MINUTES. GREETINGS, CHAIR OF WOODS AND PLANNING COMMISSIONERS. I'M MEGAN MEISENBACH, COUNCIL DISTRICT NINE JUDGES HILL NEIGHBORHOOD. WE ARE REQUESTING POSTPONEMENT OF ITEM 13 AND 14 FROM TODAY'S AGENDA TO FEBRUARY 24TH IS A MATTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY. THE WORK WE WOULD UNDERTAKE DURING THE POSTPONEMENT TIME WOULD BE TO FIND AND CONTACT THE BEST PERSON AT TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY TCEQ. ADVOCATE WITH TCEQ ON A WHOLE BLOCK STUDY OF REMEDIATION OF JACK BROWN. THAT'S THE DRY CLEANERS COORDINATE WITH AUSTIN'S BROWNFIELD DEPARTMENT PRESENT TO THE AUSTIN ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION AND INVESTIGATE PROGRAMS AT THE EPA AND POSSIBLE OTHER AGENCIES. THE ENTIRE BLOCK OF THESE TWO ZONING CHANGE REQUESTS SHOULD BE STUDIED TO FIND THE LIMITS OF CONTAMINATION AND MIGRATION, LIMITS OF BENZENE AND VINYL CHLORIDE AND OTHER CANCER RELATED CHEMICALS WHICH COULD ENDANGER WORKERS AT THE SITE DEMO WORKERS AS WELL AS THOSE WHO HAD BUILD STUDENTS AND RESIDENTS THROUGH VAPOR INTRUSION, WHICH CAN GO THROUGH CONCRETE. PUBLIC SAFETY IS A SHARED PRIORITY. PROACTIVE STEPS NOW CAN PREVENT MORE SERIOUS ISSUES DOWN THE LINE AND IT IS BETTER TO BE PRUDENT ABOUT THE SAFETY OF THE PUBLIC AT THIS STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT THAN TO WAIT AND HOPE FOR A STUDY OF THE SITE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS MARIELLA MADDOX. MARIELLA, YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES, IF YOU DON'T MIND JUST TURNING YOUR MICROPHONE ON. THANK YOU SO MUCH. UM, I'M MARIELLA MADDOX, ALSO RESIDENT OF JUDGES HILL NEIGHBORHOOD. I'M ALSO HERE TO REQUEST A POSTPONEMENT OF THIS REZONING REQUEST BECAUSE IT CONCERNS A SITE WITH A LONG HISTORY AS A DRY CLEANER AND A REMEDIATION PROCESS THAT IS OUTDATED AND INCOMPLETE FOR THE TYPE OF RESIDENTIAL AND MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT NOW PROPOSED. WHILE THE PROPERTY DID RECEIVE A CATE CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION FROM TCEQ IN 2021, UM, THAT DID NOT EV EVALUATE FOR VAPOR INTRUSION AS MS. MID ZIBA HAS POINTED OUT, THAT'S A VERY IMPORTANT LEVEL OF EVALUATION FOR RESIDENTIAL USAGE. THIS FACT WAS CONFIRMED BY THE DEVELOPER'S AGENT THIS MORNING IN A 2,147 PAGE REPORT SHARED WITH OUR NEIGHBORHOOD FOR THE VERY FIRST TIME, THE REMEDIATION OF THE PROPERTY WAS BASED ON PRIOR REGULATORY THRESHOLDS FOR THE CARCINOGENIC SOLVENTS USED IN DRY CLEANERS. THIS DRY CLEANERS EXISTED THERE FOR 50 YEARS. SINCE THAT REMEDIATION EPA GUIDANCE FOR THESE CHEMICALS HAS BECOME EVEN MORE STRINGENT. AND AS YOU CAN GUESS, THE SITE HAS NOT BEEN REASSESSED UNDER THOSE MORE STRINGENT STANDARDS. THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND ANYONE CHARGED WITH PROTECTING THE PUBLIC SAFETY AND HEALTH NEEDS THIS TYPE OF EVALUATION TO ASSESS RESIDENTIAL SAFETY, YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ALLOW FOR MORE TIME FOR THE APPLICANT TO ADDRESS OUR ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS BY APPROVING A REQUEST FOR POSTPONEMENT. IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT WE HAVE ATTEMPTED TO NEGOTIATE WITH THE DEVELOPER AND THEIR AGENT SINCE NOVEMBER OF 2024 WHEN THE NEIGHBORHOOD INITIALLY MADE OUR CONCERNS KNOWN. THEY HAVE CLEVERLY SKIRTED EVERY OPPORTUNITY TO BE TRANSPARENT AND COLLABORATIVE. WE MET WITH THE DEVELOPER'S AGENT IN DECEMBER 17, AT WHICH TIME THEY SAID THEY WOULD SHARE NEW DESIGN RENDERINGS [00:25:01] AND OTHER RELEVANT DOCUMENTS. THAT COMMITMENT WAS NEVER ACTUALIZED UNTIL THIS MORNING WHEN WE RECEIVED THAT LARGE DOCUMENT. UM, NOT MUCH TO WORK WITH. SO, UM, THOUGH HAD IT BEEN SHARED WHEN IT WAS COMPLETED IN DECEMBER, EARLY DECEMBER, TWO WEEKS PRIOR TO OUR DECEMBER MEETING, WE COULD HAVE REVIEWED IT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR CAREFUL CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS JOE SUE HOWARD. JOE, YOU HAVE FOUR MINUTES. OKAY, WE'RE GOING TO THOSE WHO ARE AGAINST POSTPONEMENT, WE HAVE THE APPLICANT, LEAH BOJO. LEAH, YOU HAVE SIX MINUTES. HELLO COMMISSIONERS. I'M LEAH BOJO, UM, WITH RENER GROUP HERE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT. UM, I JUST WANNA MAKE A FEW QUICK POINTS. UM, I'M HAPPY TO GO INTO THE DETAILS OF THE TCEQ PHASE TWO, BUT I I WANNA MAKE THE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THAT'S NOT A ZONING ISSUE, THAT'S A SITE PLANNING CONSTRUCTION ISSUE. UM, WE DO BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE COMPLETED THE PROPER DOCUMENTATION, BUT UM, THAT IS SOMETHING THAT COMES MUCH LATER IN THIS PROCESS. UM, SO AGAIN, HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT, BUT I DON'T THINK, UM, AT THIS STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT THAT THAT IS, UM, THAT THAT IS A PLANNING AND ZONING ISSUE. UM, AND THEN THE OTHER IMPORTANT POINT I WANNA MAKE IS THAT WE ARE ON AN, AN EXTREMELY TIGHT SCHEDULE. UM, WE ARE HERE BEFORE YOU, UH, TONIGHT OBVIOUSLY. UM, AND THAT WOULD MEAN THAT OUR ZONING CASE WOULD GO TO CITY COUNCIL HOPEFULLY A MONTH FROM NOW, EXCUSE ME. UM, BECAUSE THAT'S ABOUT HOW LONG IT TAKES TO GET. THAT'S THE, ABOUT THE, AS FAST AS YOU CAN GET ON A CITY COUNCIL AGENDA. UM, WE WILL THEN, UPON APPROVAL HOPEFULLY OF THE ZONING, WE WILL THEN BE ABLE TO NOTICE THE CASE FOR THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS. UM, WHICH NOW WITH THE RECENT CHANGES THAT HAVE HAPPENED TO THE DENSITY BONUS HAS TO GO TO COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL AS WELL SO THAT THE IMMEDIATE NEXT TIME THAT WE CAN DO THAT WOULD BE BACK BEFORE YOU WITH ON MARCH 10TH WITH THAT PACKAGE. SO YOU WOULD GET TO SEE THE FULL PROJECT. IT'S KIND OF A, UM, THE NEXT STEP. UM, AND THEN WE WERE HOPING, WE ARE HOPING TO GET TO COUNCIL AS SOON AS POSSIBLE AFTER THAT. IDEALLY MARCH 26TH. AGAIN, VERY TIGHT, TIGHTER THAN USUAL BECAUSE WE HAVE A CONTRACT DEADLINE OF MARCH 31ST. AND IF WE ARE NOT ABLE TO GET THESE APPROVALS HANDLED BEFORE MARCH 31ST, UM, WE NO LONGER HAVE A PROJECT. SO, UM, IF WE HAD THE TIME, WE WOULD, YOU KNOW, JUST IN GOOD FAITH WE WOULD GIVE IT, BUT WE JUST DON'T HAVE THAT TIME. THANK YOU. OKAY, OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS PHILIP WILEY. PHILIP, YOU HAVE FOUR MINUTES. I'VE CHANGED HATS, UH, THIS TIME. MY NAME IS PHIL WILEY AND I'M REPRESENTING THE DOWNTOWN AUSTIN NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. AS FAR AS I CAN TELL, I'M THE ONLY ONE HERE WHO'S SPEAKING ABOUT A PROPERTY THAT ACTUALLY LIES WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. WE ARE ENTHUSIASTICALLY SUPPORTING THE ZONING OF THE PROJECT AND WE ARE NOT COMMENTING ON THE ISSUE THAT WAS RAISED EARLIER BECAUSE IT IS NOT A ZONING ISSUE. AT SOME POINT, THERE NEEDS TO BE ROOM IN THIS PROCESS FOR PEOPLE TO SAY YES, YES, WE DO WANNA MOVE FORWARD. AND I HOPE THAT'S NOW. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS, CHAIR. THAT CONCLUDES THE SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM. THANK YOU, MS. BROWN. SO BECAUSE THIS IS NOT A PUBLIC HEARING ITEM, WE WILL JUST MOVE DIRECTLY INTO OUR REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION ROUND ROBIN. SO I HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR EIGHT COMMISSIONERS TO ASK QUESTIONS FOR FIVE MINUTES EACH. WOULD ANYONE, AND YOU MAY ASK QUESTIONS OF ANY OF THE SPEAKERS OR THE STAFF ON THIS CASE, BUT AGAIN, WE'RE SPEAKING SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THE POSTPONEMENT RATHER THAN THE MERITS OF THE CASE ITSELF. WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO START US OFF WITH QUESTIONS? YES, COMMISSIONER, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT. OKAY. SO YOU MENTIONED, UH, IN YOUR TESTIMONY THAT, UH, Y'ALL WILL BE SEEKING THE DOWNTOWN DE DENSITY BONUS, SO I UNDERSTAND THAT FROM THE BACKUP AND THE STAFF REPORT. YES. UM, DO, IS THAT JUST A FULL COMMITMENT? CAN YOU SAY THAT TIMELINE AGAIN FOR SEEKING THAT? SURE. SO THE TIMELINE IS, UM, TONIGHT HERE FOR THE ZONING RECOMMENDATION, UH, COUNCIL FOR THE ZONING APPROVAL, HOPEFULLY IN FEBRUARY 26TH, AND THEN BACK BEFORE YOU ON MARCH 11TH, UH, THE FIRST MEETING IN MARCH FOR DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS RECOMMENDATION, AND THEN HOPEFULLY TO COUNCIL ON MARCH 26TH FOR DENSITY BONUS APPROVAL. AND THEN CONTRACT IS UP ON MARCH 31ST. . THANK YOU. AND THEN, YOU KNOW, HEARING SOME OF THE INPUT FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UM, WOULD YOU FEEL COMFORTABLE, I, IT SOUNDS LIKE Y'ALL HAVE HAD SOME CONVERSATIONS, MAYBE THERE'S BEEN SOME BREAKDOWNS IN COMMUNICATION, BUT, UM, IF THIS WEREN'T TO BE POSTPONED AND MOVE FORWARD AND THEN CAME BACK FOR THE DENSITY BONUS MM-HMM . UH, WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO ENGAGE IN GOOD CONVERSATION WITH THE NEIGHBORS AND KEEP THAT, THAT BALL ROLLING? WE ARE HAPPY TO CONTINUE THAT [00:30:01] CONVERSATION. ABSOLUTELY. YES. GOT IT. OKAY. THOSE ARE MY QUESTIONS. THANKS COMMISSIONER POWELL. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS WITH QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER ROEN? I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UM, FOR, UH, SPECIFICALLY THE MEMBERS OF, UH, JUDGES HILL THAT SPOKE EARLIER. SO IN RESPECT TO THE HEARING BEFORE US TONIGHT, AND WE HAVE SPOKEN ABOUT THIS, THIS WEEK ABOUT THIS, UH, SPECIFIC CASE, UM, AND THE FACT THAT THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS OF THIS CASE UNFORTUNATELY ARE NOT NECESSARILY WITHIN OUR PURVIEW, THAT WE ARE HERE TO TALK ABOUT ZONING. DID Y'ALL HAVE ANY COMMENTS ABOUT THE ZONING ASPECT OF THIS CASE? ARE WE NOT ALLOWED TO SPEAK TO THAT? OKAY. UM, IS YOUR SOLE REASON FOR THE POSTPONEMENT IS THE SATISFACTION OF THE, UH, ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES THAT YOU'RE CONCERNED ABOUT? FOR ME? YES. WOULD YOU ALLOW THOSE TO BE SATISFIED AS, AS MENTIONED BY THE APPLICANT? THOSE WILL HAVE TO BE REMEDIATED AND FULLY PROVEN OUT BY THE TIME OF THE APPROVAL OF THE SITE PLAN. ARE YOU WILLING TO ALLOW THAT PROCESS TO MOVE FORWARD? IT'S YOUR HOPES TO REQUIRE, UH, MORE CLEANUP, UM, AND, UH, MORE PERHAPS STRICTER REQUIREMENTS THAN THE STATE OR THE CITY WOULD REQUIRE? YES. UM, BECAUSE OF THE MIGRATION OF THE CHEMICALS IT'S BEEN MENTIONED BEFORE. I THINK IT THE CLEANUP HAS TO BE NOT JUST WHERE THE DRY CLEANER WAS, BUT DOWN IN ONE IN THE OTHER PROPERTIES WHERE THEIR WELLS. YES. AND THE HOPE IS THAT YOU'RE GONNA BE ABLE TO SPEAK TO THE APPLICANT, UM, AND REQUEST THEM TO DO ADDITIONAL WORK EVEN IF THAT INCLUDES ABOVE AND BEYOND THE STATE REQUIREMENT? YES. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THAT'S IT. THAT'S ALL YOUR QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONER, THAT'S ALL MY QUESTIONS. OTHER COMMISSIONERS WITH QUESTIONS? OKAY, SEEING NONE, I'LL LOOK FOR A MOTION. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER MAXWELL . UM, I I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO GO AHEAD AND HEAR THE CASE. NEED TO, TO DENY THE POSTPONEMENT MOTION. TO DENY THE POSTPONEMENT REQUEST. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GANNON, WE'LL MOVE INTO DEBATE. COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK TO YOUR MOTION? UH, SURE. I UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS A COMPLEX SITE AND THAT THERE'S A LOT OF CONCERNS, BUT I DO THINK WE SHOULD BE FOCUSED ON THE ZONING AND GIVEN THE TIGHT TIMELINE THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT, THERE IS STILL A MONTH BETWEEN NOW AND WHEN THIS GOES TO COUNCIL FOR ADDITIONAL REVIEW BETWEEN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE APPLICANT AND THAT WE WOULD BE ABLE TO MOVE THE PROCESS FORWARD, GIVE THEM THAT TIME TO REVIEW THAT AND THAT COUNCIL WOULD THEN BE ABLE TO ADDITIONALLY ADD IN ANY REQUIREMENTS AS NEEDED PER THE CONVERSATIONS THAT ARE HAD AFTER THIS EVENING'S DISCUSSION. ANYONE SPEAKING AGAINST THE MOTION? ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK FOR? YES, COMMISSIONER POWELL? YEAH, I THINK, UM, YOU KNOW, ECHOING WHAT COMMISSIONER MAXWELL'S SHARING, I ALSO THINK IT'S, IT'S USUAL TO GRANT A NEIGHBORHOOD POSTPONE HERE. UH, I THINK GIVEN THAT THIS IS GOING TO BE COMING BACK FOR THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS REVIEW, KNOWING THERE'S ANOTHER STEP THAT'S GONNA BE HITTING HERE, UM, AS WELL AS YOU KNOW THAT HAVING TIME TO CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS ARE REAL, BUT I ALSO WANT TO, YOU KNOW, AS MENTIONED BEFORE, THAT'S SOMEWHAT OUT OF THE SCOPE OF, UH, YOU KNOW, THE PURE ZONING DETERMINATION. SO I'M IN FAVOR OF HEARING THE CASE TONIGHT AND ENCOURAGE GREAT CONVERSATIONS BETWEEN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE APPLICANT MOVING FORWARD. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS SPEAKING FOR AGAINST THE MOTION? OKAY, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE. THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE DENIAL OF POSTPONEMENT REQUEST. I. OKAY, THAT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. SO WE WILL HEAR THIS TONIGHT. WE WILL COME BACK TO THIS CASE. SO IF YOU ARE HERE TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE, YOU CAN FEEL FREE TO SPEAK ON IT AS A ZONING CASE MOVING FORWARD. UM, WE'RE GONNA TAKE UP EIGHT AND NINE AND THEN CIRCLE BACK TO IT. SO WE WILL MOVE [Items 8 & 9] INTO OUR REGULAR PUBLIC HEARING CASES, STARTING WITH EIGHT AND NINE, WHICH WE'LL TAKE UP TOGETHER AND WE'LL HEAR FROM STAFF FIRST ON THIS ONE. MARIE MEREDITH, PLANNING DEPARTMENT, ADAM. ITEM NUMBER EIGHT IS PLAN AMENDMENT MPA 20 25 0 1 2, 0 1, 21 0 8, AND 2110 EAST 22ND STREET WITHIN [00:35:01] DISTRICT ONE, IT IS IN THE UPPER BOGGY CREEK NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING AREA. THE REQUEST IS TO CHANGE THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP FROM SINGLE FAMILY TO NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL LAND USE AND IT IS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF JONATHAN TOMKO WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. ITEM NUMBER NINE IS C 14 DASH 2025 DASH 0 9 2, 21 0 8, AND 2110 EAST 22ND STREET. IT IS A REZONING REQUEST, UH, FROM SF THREE NP TO L-R-C-O-N-P. AND STAFF RECOMMENDS GRANTING THE REQUEST FOR L-R-C-O-N-P. THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY WOULD PROHIBIT THE 17 USES DETAILED IN THE STAFFER REPORT BEFORE YOU AND CONDITIONALLY ALLOW THE FIVE USES DETAILED IN THE REPORT. THE SUBJECT TRACT IS CURRENTLY A COMMUNITY GARDEN AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF EAST 22ND STREET AND COLLETTO STREET. IT IS HALF A BLOCK SOUTH FROM MAYNARD ROAD. THE TRACT IS CURRENTLY THE ESTEE COMMUNITY GARDEN AND THE SITE IS ENCUMBERED BY CAPITAL VIEW CORRIDOR. THE SITE IS ALSO APPROXIMATELY A QUARTER MILE FROM THE MLK STATION, UH, IMAGINE AUSTIN ACTIVITY CENTER AND LESS THAN A HALF MILE FROM THE DOWNTOWN IMAGINE AUSTIN ACTIVITY CENTER. THERE IS ALSO A HIGH FREQUENCY METRO RAPID STOP. THE CAP METRO ROUTE 8 37 WITHIN 500 FEET OF THE SUBJECT TRACT TO THE NORTH IS APPROXIMATELY A 20 FOOT WIDE PAVED ALLEY THAT STOPS MID-BLOCK AND THE ESTEE RESTAURANT AND BAR TOTI, WHICH IS WHICH FRONT MAINOR ROAD TO THE NORTH TO THE EAST ACROSS COLLETTO STREET. THERE ARE THREE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES TO THE SOUTH ACROSS EAST 22ND STREET. THERE ARE THREE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND TO THE WEST IS AN APPROXIMATELY 30 FOOT WIDE UNPAVED DRIVEWAY THAT CONNECTS TO THE PAVED ALLEY THAT I MENTIONED TO THE NORTH AND ONE SINGLE FAMILY HOME. I'M AVAILABLE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. OKAY, SO WE HAVE OUR SPEAKERS ARE GONNA BE SPEAKING ON ITEMS EIGHT AND NINE. WE HAVE THE APPLICANT, DREW RAPHAEL, DREW, YOU'LL HAVE FIVE MINUTES. GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS DREW ELL WITH JOIN GROUP. I AM HERE ON BEHALF OF THE PROPERTY OWNER AT 2108 AND 2110 EAST 22ND STREET. SORRY. AND NEXT SLIDE. I'M GONNA FLIP THROUGH A COUPLE OF THESE. UM, I DUNNO WHAT'S GOING ON. I'M GONNA FLIP THROUGH A COUPLE OF THESE BECAUSE I THINK JONATHAN HIT ON A COUPLE OF POINTS. UM, SO THE PROPERTY TODAY IS UTILIZED AS A GARDEN, UM, AS WELL AS SOME INFORMAL PARKING, UH, FOR THE GARDEN AND FOR THE RESTAURANT TO THE NORTH. UH, FOR MANY DECADES THIS PROPERTY HAS BEEN ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH ALONG MANNAR ROAD. OUR UM, REZONING REQUEST IS FROM SF THREE NP TO LRCO, NP NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL WITH A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY AS PART OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN ALONG WITH THE, UH, FUTURE LAND USE AMENDMENT TO, UH, THE LAND USE MAP FROM SINGLE FAMILY TO NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL. THE PURPOSE FOR OUR REZONING IS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A SMALL RESTAURANT SPACE, PRIMARILY FOCUSED ON BREAKFAST AND LUNCH SERVICE, UM, SURROUNDING THE GARDEN WITH SOME ASSOCIATED OFFICE SPACE. UM, THE GARDEN HAS BEEN SORT OF A KEY ELEMENT AND FEATURE TO THE DESIGN OF THIS PROPOSED PROJECT AND WE KNOW THAT IT'S BEEN A PART OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR MANY, MANY YEARS. AND SO, UM, AS PART OF THAT HONOR, WE DECIDED TO RETAIN IT AS PART OF THIS DEVELOPMENT AND INCORPORATE IT. UM, THAT WOULD BE ABOUT 4,000 SQUARE FOOT OF, OF GARDEN WITH SOME SPACE SUPPORTING IT FOR STORAGE. UM, WASH AND PACK OUT ON THE GROUND FLOOR, ABOUT 1700 AND SOME, UM, SECOND STORY OFFICE SPACE AROUND 3,500 SQUARE FEET. UM, THIS IS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS NEIGHBORHOOD AND SCALE, APPROXIMATELY TWO STORIES ABOUT 30 FEET. AND, UM, WE'VE HAD SOME QUESTIONS AS WE'VE GONE THROUGH THIS PROCESS AS TO WHAT OUR OPERATIONS LOOK LIKE, UM, WHAT THE HOURS WOULD BE AT THIS TIME. WE'RE ESTIMATING BEING OPEN BETWEEN 7:00 AM AND 3:00 PM AND HAVING OUR PARKING MANAGED ON SITE. I DO WANNA HIT, I WON'T GO THROUGH ALL OF THESE, BUT I DO WANNA HIT ON THE FACT THAT THE CITY'S CODE DOES HAVE SOME, UM, REQUIREMENTS AND CONDITIONS AROUND THIS TYPE OF USE IN NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL. UH, MOST MORE SPECIFICALLY, THE MAXIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE SIDE, 4,000 SQUARE FEET WE'RE PROPOSING, UH, 2,800 SQUARE FOOT INTERIOR WITH A 500 SQUARE FOOT PATIO FOR A TOTAL OF 3,200. SO WE'RE UNDER THAT. UM, WE'VE ALSO WORKED TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE CONCERNS AROUND THE INTENSITY OF THE COMMERCIAL, UM, BY REALLY PAIRING DOWN, UM, THE USES THAT WE'RE NOT UTILIZING IN NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL THAT ARE HIGHER TRAFFIC GENERATORS OR MORE INTENSIVE TO REALLY JUST THE REMAINING ONES, WHICH ARE CREATIVE OFFICE SPACE, UH, OR CREATIVE USE OF OFFICE SPACE AND THE RESTAURANT USE. UM, WE'VE ALSO PUT SOME SIZE CAPS ON A FEW OF THE USES IN THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY. [00:40:01] AND THEN WE'VE REACHED OUT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD FROM THE VERY BEGINNING BEFORE WE SUBMITTED OUR APPLICATIONS. AND WE'VE ADDRESSED IN THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY SOME OF THE USES. WE'VE ALSO COMMITTED IN A PRIVATE AGREEMENT WITH THEM THAT WE WOULD RETAIN, UM, THE GARDEN AS A PART OF THIS PROPOSED PROJECT. UM, WE'VE ALSO BEEN ASKED TO RESTRICT THE HOURS TO THE BREAKFAST AND LUNCH SERVICE, WHICH WE'VE COMMITTED TO THE HOURS OF SEVEN TO 4:00 PM EVEN THOUGH WE INTEND TO KIND OF OPERATE BETWEEN SEVEN AND THREE, WE DON'T HAVE, WE WANTED TO LEAVE OURSELVES SOME FLEXIBILITY AND WE'VE ALSO WORKED ON WHAT A COMMUNITY BENEFIT MIGHT LOOK LIKE AS A PART OF THIS REZONING, EVEN THOUGH YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT REQUIRED WITH REZONING, WE HAVE, UH, WORKED WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE BLACK LAND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION TO PUT FORWARD A, UM, A BENEFIT THAT WOULD, UM, WOULD BE IN THE FORM OF $10,000 OF ONSITE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE GARDEN THAT'S ON THE CORNER OF CHICON AND EAST 22ND, ABOUT TWO BLOCKS WEST OF THE SITE. UM, THERE'S ALSO SOME UNIQUE OVERLAY HERE WHERE WE HAVE A GARDENER ON STAFF, UH, FULL-TIME. AND SO WE WOULD ALSO KIND OF PLANT THAT SEED, PUN INTENDED, AND WATER IT, UM, TO PROVIDE ONE YEAR OF, OF SUPPORT TO THEIR GARDEN AND ALLOW THEM TO UTILIZE THAT, UM, ASSISTANCE IN THE FORM OF, UH, JUST MAINTENANCE OR ENGAGING WITH THE COMMUNITY. AND WE'VE ALSO TALKED ABOUT HOW WE CAN COLLABORATE THROUGH SORT OF, UH, UTILIZING A QR CODE FOR, UM, HELPING BCDC UH, RAISE FUNDS FOR THEIR, THEIR MISSION AS WELL AS SUPPORTING COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT THROUGH, UM, INCLUDING, UH, INCLUDING THIS IN, I'M SORRY, INCLUDING SOME OUTREACH IN THEIR NEWSLETTER, THE, THE RESTAURANT NEWSLETTER AS WELL AS, UM, YOU KNOW, THE CHECK BILL FOLDS, UM, WITHIN THE RESTAURANT. I ALSO WANTED TO, UM, HIGHLIGHT THAT WE HAVE CITY STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION FOR THIS REQUEST AND WE'VE ALSO CONDUCTED OUTREACH WITH SOME OF THE NEIGHBORS NEARBY AND DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY AND RECEIVED LETTERS OF REPORT SUPPORT FROM THEM AS WELL. AND SO, UM, WITH THAT I WILL, UM, BE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS. OKAY, NOW WE'RE GOING TO OUR SPEAKERS IN OPPOSITION. OUR PRIMARY SPEAKER AND OPPOSITION IS MS. ORA HOUSTON. MS. ORA, YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES. EXCUSE ME, CAN THE PRESIDENT GO FIRST? THE PRESIDENT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION? WE, WE ORDER SO WE DON'T, I WAS LIKE, WE WOULD START MS. ORA HOUSTON, UM, TO GET THE FIVE MINUTES. UM, BUT OVERTON IS OUR PRESIDENT. OKAY. WE CAN, SHE CAN COME UP AND SPEAK. YES, SHE CAN. SPEAKER I DID SIGN UP ON AND I UH, IS JOHNNY OVERTON WITH YOU? YES, I'M HERE. OKAY, MS. MARVA, WE'LL HAVE FOUR MINUTES. FOUR? YES MA'AM. WHY DID SHE ONLY HAVE FOUR AND SHE'S THE PRIMARY SPEAKER. IT SHOULD BE SEVEN. MS. ORA HOUSTON SIGNED UP AS THE PRIMARY BEFORE YOU. NO, NO I DIDN'T. NO SHE DIDN'T. I DIDN'T. I HELPED HER SIGN UP. SHE DIDN'T SIGN UP AS A PRIMARY SPEAKER. IT'S FINE FROM MY PERSPECTIVE IF Y'ALL WANNA SWAP THAT. WELL I HAVEN'T MS. MARBA, WE'LL GET THE FIVE MINUTES. GOOD EVENING. UH, SEE I HAD, I HAD A SLIDE. YEAH. OKAY. YES. OKAY. GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. UH, MY NAME IS MARVA OVER TO, I AM THE PRESIDENT OF THE BLACKLAND NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND I'M HERE TO, UH, EXPRESS THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S, UH, VOTE ON BEING OPPOSED TO THE ZONING REQUEST FOR THESE TWO CASES. THERE ARE SEVERAL REASONS THAT WE'VE OUTLINED AS BEING, UH, REASONS FOR OPPOSITION. FIRST IS THE ENCROACHMENT OF COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS INTO THE RESIDENTIAL PORTION OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN DOES SUPPORT, UH, DEVELOPMENT ALONG THE MAIN ROAD, ROAD CORRIDOR. HOWEVER, THIS DEVELOPMENT WOULD SEEP INTO THE INTERIOR OF THE STREETS AND THIS ACTION COULD POTENTIALLY, UH, SET A PRECEDENT FOR SIMILAR TYPES OF REQUESTS IN THE CITY. THE, UH, PLANNER STATED, UH, IN THEIR REPORT THAT THE REQUEST RESULTED IN EQUAL TREATMENT OF SIMILAR SITUATED PROPERTIES. HOWEVER, THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE MULTI-FAMILY DWELLINGS AND THE SERVICE ORIENTED BUSINESSES THAT THEY REFERENCE VERSUS THE, UH, TRAFFIC THAT WOULD BE CAUSED BY THE ADDITIONAL RESTAURANT THAT WANTS TO BE ADDED. PARKING AND TRAFFIC. HUGE ISSUE ALREADY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. UH, WE ARE INUNDATED WITH PARKING ISSUES AND UH, WITH THE EVENING AND ADDING, BUILD A BUILDING TO SERVE BREAKFAST AND LUNCH AND AN OFFICE WILL COMPOUND THAT PARKING PROBLEM. THE APPLICANT STATES THAT THEY WILL BE HAVING ONSITE PARKING [00:45:01] BUT TO THEIR CURRENT, UH, PARKING, THEY WILL ONLY BE ADDING EIGHT ADDITIONAL SPACES. AND AGAIN, ALREADY WE HAVE PROBLEMS WITH STREET PARKING, UH, FROM THE CURRENT RESTAURANT THAT'S THERE. SAFETY IS ALSO AN ISSUE THAT WE'RE CONCERNED WITH, UH, REGARDING UH, INCREASED CAR TRAFFIC. AND ALSO, UH, THE NEIGHBORHOOD DOES NOT HAVE A LOT OF SIDEWALKS. WE HAVE A LOT OF PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC FROM, UH, FAMILIES PUSHING STROLLERS WITH THE BABIES AND DOG WALKERS. WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF SIDEWALKS AND YOU'RE ADDING ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC, WHICH WOULD BE A PROBLEM. THERE'S SEVERAL, A LOT OF INFORMATION WE ASKED FROM THE APPLICANT THAT WE DIDN'T GET ANSWERS TO. UH, ONE BEING THE, UH, ESTIMATE, ESTIMATE OF THE CUSTOMER COUNT. UH, WE ASKED WHAT THE EXPECT NUMBER OF CUSTOMERS WOULD BE AND WE WERE TOLD THAT THAT COULD NOT BE PREDICTED AT THIS TIME. WE ALSO ASKED ABOUT THE ESTIMATE FOR STAFF OCCUPANCY OF THE OFFICES. SO IT'S NOT CLEAR IS THIS JUST ESTEE AND THE NEW RESTAURANT'S, UH, OFFICE SPACE OR WOULD THAT BE UTILIZED BY OTHERS? WE HAVE A BIG CONCERN REGARDING THE HOURS. SO THE REPRESENTATIVE REP MENTIONED THE HOURS BEING FROM SEVEN TO FOUR, HOWEVER THEY WANT AN EXCEPTION TO THAT WHICH THEY HAVE STATED FOR PRIVATE DINING. THAT MEANS THAT IF THAT'S ALLOWED, THAT THAT NEW BREAKFAST LUNCH PLACE COULD ACTUALLY BE OPEN PAST THREE OR 4:00 PM THE ESTEE RESTAURANT ALREADY OPENS AT FIVE, SO WE'RE TALKING HAVING TRAFFIC IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE DAY FROM 7:00 AM OR EARLIER FROM STAFF ALL THE WAY UNTIL AFTER THAT RESTAURANT ESTEE CLOSES. SO THAT'S A BIG ISSUE. UH, ALSO, UH, WE TALKED ABOUT COMMUNITY BENEFITS. THEY DID OFFER AS THE APPLICANT SAID, A COMMUNITY BENEFIT TOWARDS THE BLACK LED DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION. HOWEVER, IN OUR VIEW, WHAT THEY WERE OFFERING WAS NOT SUBSTANTIAL ENOUGH TO OFFSET THE ONGOING ISSUES THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE. SO IN MY VIEW, WE ARE BEING ASKED TO SIGN A BLANK CHECK BASICALLY SAYING THIS IS WHAT WE HOPE TO DO AND WE HOPE THAT THIS WORKS OUT FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE IT'S CLEAR THAT THAT MIGHT NOT BE THE CASE. I UNDERSTAND THAT THE OWNER, UH, IS DOING WHAT HE FEELS IS NECESSARY FROM A BUSINESS PERSPECTIVE, BUT I DO FEEL LIKE THAT HE HAS SOMEWHAT OF A BLIND SPOT REGARDING HOW CERTAIN ACTIONS OR INACTIONS HAVE, UH, BEEN PERCEIVED BY THE NEIGHBORHOOD. SO WE, HE TALKED ABOUT THEM COMING TO US. THEY CAME TO US ONE WEEK BEFORE THEY SUBMITTED THIS CASE TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. WE HAD NO TIME FOR DISCUSSION. IT JUST HAPPENED THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION WAS GOING TO HAVE A MEETING THE FOLLOWING WEEK, WHICH THEY WERE ABLE TO CAME, COME TO PRESENT. SO WE FEEL LIKE THAT THEY DID NOT GIVE US ADEQUATE TIME TO REALLY DIGEST THIS BEFORE THEY PUT THE BALL IN MOTION. UH, I ALSO WANNA TALK ABOUT THE GARDEN. SO THE GARDEN IS THE ONE THING FROM THE BEGINNING THAT THEY HAVE BEEN SAYING IS A COMMUNITY BENEFIT. OUR POSITION IS THAT GARDEN IS NICE TO LOOK AT, BUT IT HAS NOT BENEFIT THIS BLACK LAND IN ANY SUBSTANTIAL WAY. UH, IT WAS STATED, WELL THERE THERE ARE NO SIGNS THAT SAY YOU CAN'T COME IN TO THE TO THE GARDEN. AND THAT'S TRUE. BUT I SAID, WELL THERE ARE ALSO NO SIGNS THAT SAYS THAT EVERYBODY'S WELCOME. SO I DON'T DOUBT THAT PEOPLE HAVE GONE TO THE GARDEN, ENJOYED IT, BUT IT HAS NOT PROVIDED ANYTHING SUBSTANTIAL FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THERE HAS NEVER BEEN ANY COMMUNICATION TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD AROUND THE UTILIZATION OF THAT GARDEN ANYWAY. AND THEN THE LAST THING I WOULD SAY IS THAT WHEN UH, UH, THE OWNER WAS GETTING READY TO, UH, OPEN ESTEE CAME TO US TO TALK, UH, AND HE NEVER FOLLOWED UP TO SAY, OKAY, HOW DID IT GO WITH THE PARK AND ARE YOU ALL HAVING ANY ISSUES? SO WE JUST FEEL LIKE, YOU KNOW, THAT WAS KIND OF A LACK OF FOLLOW THROUGH ON HIS PART. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS MS. ORA HOUSTON. MS. OR YOU HAVE FOUR MINUTES? YES. AND IS CATHERINE ICK HERE? OKAY. UM, SO MS. EZ, TOTAL OF FOUR MINUTES, UM, 'CAUSE YOU'RE RECEIVING SOME DONATED TIME. THANK YOU SO MUCH. GOOD EVENING COUNCIL COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS ORA HOUSTON AND I LIVE AT 2207 EAST 22ND STREET. HAVE LIVED THERE SINCE IN THE 1950S WHEN MY PARENTS BUILT THAT HOUSE. UH, I AM OPPOSED TO REZONING 2108 AND 2110 EAST 22ND STREET IN BLACKLAND. AND SOMETIMES PEOPLE CONFUSE IT WITH CHERRY WOOD, BUT THEY'RE TWO SEPARATE NEIGHBORHOODS. THIS IS IN BLACKLAND. FIRST OF ALL, REZONING THOSE PROPERTIES FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO COMMERCIAL, UH, MAKES THIS BODY GUILTY OF BREAKING ITS OWN MISSION STATEMENT. YOUR MISSION IS TO FOLLOW THE CITY'S NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS, INCLUDING IN BLACK LAND. THE PLAN TELLS YOU TO ENSURE EQUITABLE DEVELOPMENT, WHICH IS PROTECTIVE OF AUSTIN'S CULTURAL AND ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE. ENSURE [00:50:01] ALL LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS ALIGN WITH EQUITY GOALS AND LIMIT COMMERCIAL ENCROACHMENT INTO RESIDENTIAL AREAS. PRESERVE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, PROTECT AGAINST UT EXPANSION AND MAINTAIN THE AREAS OF HISTORIC AND DIVERSE CHARACTER. BREAKING YOUR MISSION LIKELY MAKES THIS ZONE RE REZONING ILLEGAL. NUMBER TWO, REZONING WOULD PUBLICLY AND LOUDLY SHOW THAT THE CITY FIGHTS FOR AUSTIN'S MONEY CLASS EXEMPLIFIED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER, HIS DEVELOPERS IN THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS. HE WILL ALSO SHOW THAT THE CITY FIGHTS AGAINST NEIGHBORHOODS AND VOTERS. THIRD REZONING WILL ALSO SHOW THE CITY IS STARTING A NEW 2026 MASTER PLAN. RESURRECTING AUSTIN'S HORRIFIC 1928 MASTER PLAN. OUR NEIGHBORHOOD IS CALLED BLACK LAND. IT WAS CREATED IN 1928 BY POWERFUL SEGREGATIONIST WHITE AUSTINITES. YOUR MISSION STATEMENT PROVI PROVES THAT LATER GENERATIONS OF AUSTINITES TRIED TO PROTECT BLACK LAND AND THE AFRICAN AMERICAN CULTURAL HERITAGE DISTRICT. ALL AUSTINITES SHOULD BE TERRIFIED BECAUSE IF YOU THINK YOU CAN DESTROY A PROTECTED SPACE LIKE BLACK LAND, THEN YOU CAN DESTROY ALL AUSTIN RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS. FOURTH REZONING 2108 AND 2110 EAST 10TH STREET WILL SHOW THAT YOU HAVE NO SHAME, NO SHAME BECAUSE THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT A NEIGHBORHOOD IS SUPPOSED TO LOOK LIKE WITH A COMMERCIAL ENTITY THAT DIRECTLY FRONTS A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE WE HAVE CHILDREN AND ELDERLY PEOPLE GOING TO THE PLAYGROUND. IT'S JUST NOT YOU. YOU JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW CROWDED THAT STREET IS ALREADY WITH THE ESTES. SO I ASK YOU TO PLEASE THINK ABOUT SAYING NO TO THIS ADDITIONAL PROPOSAL. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR SERVICE. OKAY, THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS KATHERINE ICK. KATHERINE, YOU'LL HAVE FOUR MINUTES. OSCAR DANIELS AND WHO IS THE SPEAKER AFTER MS. ? YES. SORRY, I THOUGHT YOU WERE SAYING I DONATED TO AURA AND I WAS REALLY CONFUSED. I APOLOGIZE. MY HUSBAND HAS SOME PAPERWORK THAT WE HAD. MY HUSBAND HAS SOME PAPERWORK THAT WE HAD BROUGHT FOR YOU ALL. THANK YOU. SORRY, I WAS LOOKING FOR THE DESK THAT THEY USED TO HAVE OVER THERE LIKE CITY COUNCIL, BUT I GUESS THEY'VE CHANGED THE SETUP. SO WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO WAIT TILL IT'S BEEN HANDED OUT? NO, YOU CAN GO AHEAD. ALRIGHT, SO COMMISSIONERS, THANK YOU FOR HEARING US. AS MARVA STATED, WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT TRAFFIC, ET CETERA. THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAS ALWAYS SUPPORTED BUSINESSES ON THE CORRIDORS. THERE ARE LOTS OF QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT WILL HAPPEN THERE AND WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF ANSWERS. IN ADDITION TO A NEW RESTAURANT BEING ASKED FOR, IT'S THE INCURSION INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD WITH THE OFFICES. AND I WENT AHEAD AND JUST LOOKED ON OUR STREET BECAUSE ONE OF THE THINGS THAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT IS A RESTAURANT AND BOTTOM LINE WITHIN SEVEN TENTHS OF A MILE OF ESTEE AND BAR TOTI, WE HAVE ON EAST MLK BLACKLAND, SOUTH BOUNDARY, EIGHT MORE COFFEE SHOPS, RESTAURANTS AND OR BARS ON MAINOR ROAD, OUR NORTH BOUNDARY, WE HAVE 22 OTHER RESTAURANTS AND BARS AND SEVEN TENTHS OF A MILE, NOT INCLUDING SAM'S NEW RESTAURANTS, SAM HELMAN MOSS'S NEW RESTAURANT. HE'S PURCHASED THE ACE MOTEL. HE SAYS IN THE AUSTIN BUSINESS JOURNAL THAT HE PLANS TO PUT A RESTAURANT IN THERE THAT IS ALREADY'S OWN COMMERCIAL. AND ONE OF OUR QUESTIONS IS, WHY CAN'T THE OFFICES AND THE RESTAURANT GO THERE? WHY AN INCURSION INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD? I LIVE ACROSS THE STREET AND ON THE MAP YOU'LL SEE I LIVE ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE GARDEN. I'VE WALKED IN THE GARDEN. MY DOG USED TO LIKE TO WALK THERE, BUT IN ALL I AGREE THAT THIS DOES NOT SOMEHOW MAKE A BENEFIT. THE FIRST TIME SAM CAME TO ONE OF OUR MEETINGS, SOMEONE SAID, I'LL FIGHT TILL THE DEATH FOR THAT GARDEN NOT TO GO. SOMEONE WE'D NEVER SEEN BEFORE. AND HIS COMMENT WAS, DO YOU WANT A PARKING GARAGE INSTEAD? THIS TIME WHEN HE CAME AND WE SAID, WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD FROM THIS? SAM'S FIRST COMMENT WAS, WELL, IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE GARDEN, I CAN BUILD A PARKING GARAGE. SO IN OTHER WORDS, THIS IS NOT WORKING WITH US. NOW THE RENER GROUP HAS WORKED WITH US IN TERMS OF HERE ARE THE THINGS, BUT THEY ALSO SAID WE CANNOT HAVE THAT RESTRICTIVE COVENANT IF WE DON'T VOTE IN FAVOR AND WE VOTED AGAINST IT. YOU ALREADY HAVE A RECORD WITH BLACKLAND NEIGHBORHOOD VOTING AGAINST IT, AND THEY HAVE NOT OFFERED TO GO AHEAD AND PURSUE MAKING THOSE SAME THINGS HAPPEN. BUT YOU ALL CAN MAKE THOSE THINGS HAPPEN. YOU CAN MAKE SURE, MAKE SURE THAT IF, IF YOU DO VOTE FOR THIS, THAT THAT RESTAURANT ENDS UP [00:55:01] NOT GOING PAST THREE. THAT THERE'S THERE'S NOT IN, THEY CAN'T USE IT IN THE EVENINGS TOO. THEY, IT WOULD BE ABSOLUTELY CRAZY. AND SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WE'VE SEEN IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, I, I'VE ONLY BEEN THERE 30 YEARS, BUT I KNOW FOR A FACT THAT WHEN UT MOVED FORWARD ON THE OTHER SIDE THAT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WAS THE AGREED IS NO MORE NO FURTHER THAN LEONA. WE WORKED WITH THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS FOR GRAD STUDENT HOUSING. WE ARE WILLING TO WORK WITH SOMEONE THAT'S NOT AN INCURSION INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. SO THAT'S STOPPED THERE. THIS IS DIFFERENT. THIS IS A, I WALK OUT MY DRIVEWAY AND THAT'S WHAT I'LL SEE IF IT'S NOT A GARDEN. I'M FINE WITH FAMILY HOUSING, I'M FINE WITH MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING. THAT'S WHAT IT ZONED. HE KNEW IT WHEN HE BOUGHT IT AND I'M ASKING YOU TO GO AHEAD AND LET IT BE OKAY FOR US TO HAVE 20TH EAST, 20TH EAST 21ST AND EAST 22ND AS NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL. THAT'S WHAT IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE. AND I DON'T THINK IT'S BECAUSE I'VE LIVED THERE 30 YEARS. I THINK IT'S BECAUSE IT'S THE RIGHT THING AND I'M ASKING YOU ALL TO PLEASE TAKE A LOOK. THIS IS A PRECEDENT AND YOUR PEOPLE HAVE ALREADY TOLD US THAT STAFFORD APARTMENTS THAT ARE WAY DOWN THE STREET, THAT'S THE PRECEDENT FOR THIS DENSER PORTION. THEY ALSO SAID THAT BCDC, BLACKLINE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CENTER, THAT THEIR HOUSE AT THE STEWART CONSERVATORY BECAUSE THEY'RE PUTTING IN AFFORDABLE MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING ON THE BACK PART IS ANOTHER REASON THAT THIS DENSITY SHOULD BE ALLOWED. I AGREE WITH AURA HOUSTON, I AGREE WITH MARVA OVERTON, I AGREE WITH EVERYONE THAT VOTED AGAINST THIS. IT SHOULDN'T BE THIS WAY AND YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO STOP IT. SO MAYBE THAT WE COULD ACTUALLY HAVE PEOPLE OVER SOMETIME AT OUR HOMES SINCE THERE'S REALLY NOWHERE TO PARK AS IT IS, SO THAT IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, WE'D BE GLAD TO ANSWER THEM. BUT PLEASE CONSIDER THAT THE THING THAT THEY'RE NOT, DIDN'T MENTION TO YOU IS THAT THEY SAID THEY RESERVE THE RIGHT FOR SPECIAL EVENTS IN THE EVENING TOO. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS MS. GINA HOUSTON. GINA, YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES. GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS GINA HOUSTON. I'M AN AUSTIN NATIVE. I GREW UP AT 2207 EAST 22ND STREET. I SPEND MORE THAN 30% OF MY TIME AT THAT RESIDENCE WITH MY MOTHER AND IN THE FAR, FAR FUTURE, I WILL INHERIT THAT PROPERTY FROM HER. WHAT I WANT TO UNDERSTAND IS HOW STAFF CAME TO APPROVE THE RECOMMENDATION FOR THIS REZONING WHEN IT FLIES IN THE FACE OF THE CITY PLAN THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED IN 2002. THE UPPER BODY CREEK PLANNING TEAM IS DEFUNCT, SO THEY HAVEN'T VOTED, BUT THE THE BLACKLAND NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION HAS VOTED AND SAID NO. SO HOW IS STAFF RECOMMENDING THIS CHANGE? WHO RECEIVES A POSITIVE OUTCOME FROM THIS REZONING? OTHER THAN THE DEVELOPING PETITIONER AT THE CITY LEVEL COMMUNITY MUST HAVE PRIORITY OVER PRIVATE PERSONAL GAIN. IF WE REDEVELOP THIS INTO A RESTAURANT LOCATION, THE RESIDENTS ON EAST 22ND TOLEDO AND EAST 21ST HAVE TO DEAL WITH MORE TRAFFIC AND LESS AVAILABLE STREET PARKING FOR VISITORS, FAMILY AND FRIENDS. THERE ARE ALREADY THREE BREAKFAST ESTABLISHMENTS WITHIN WALKING DISTANCE OF THIS PROPERTY. TWO WITHIN THE NEXT BLOCK EAST OF THIS PROPERTY, THE PETITIONER OWNS COMMERCIAL PROPERTY FARTHER EAST ON MAYER ROAD, WHICH IS THE COMMERCIAL ZONING HE CAN DEVELOP THERE AND STAY IN LINE WITH THE UPPER BOGGY CREEK NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN. WE CAN'T BELIEVE ANYTHING THAT THEY PUT IN WHAT THEY MIGHT DO BECAUSE THEY DON'T KEEP THEIR PROMISES. THEY TOLD US THAT THEY WOULD HAVE OFFSITE PARKING FOR ESTEE AND THAT HAS NEVER MATERIALIZED. THEY PARK IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THERE'S NO OFFSITE OFF STREET PARKING FOR THAT, UH, RESTAURANT. PUTTING COMMERCIAL ZONING INTO FACING INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD WILL SET A PRECEDENT FOR COMMERCIAL ZONING IN THE INTERIOR OF BLACKLAND. IN 1985, THE RAINY STREET NEIGHBORHOOD WENT ON THE NATIONAL REGISTRY OF HISTORIC PLACES IN EARLY 2000. COMMERCIAL REZONING STARTED BY 2019, THE LAST RESIDENTIAL HOMEOWNER IN RAINY STREET SOLD. PLEASE DON'T DO THE BLACK LAND, WHICH YOU DID TO RAINY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS CHAIR. THAT CONCLUDES SPEAKERS ON THESE ITEMS. THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE AN APPLICANT REBUTTAL ON THIS ITEM? LOOKS LIKE HE'S COMING UP. UM, I JUST QUICKLY LIKE TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE, UH, COMMENTS THAT WERE MADE. UM, AS FAR AS ENCROACHMENT, UM, FOR THIS REQUEST INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THIS BLOCK IS A PART OF THE BLOCK THAT FRONTS ON IS A PART OF MANNAR ROAD. UM, AND THIS IS MANNAR ROAD. THIS IS A NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL LR, IT'S A TRANSITION TYPE ZONING THAT IS MADE TO, UM, BUFFER IN HIGHER INTENSITY COMMERCIAL, UM, FROM SINGLE FAMILY. AND SO WE BELIEVE THAT THAT REQUEST IS VERY [01:00:01] MUCH IN LINE, UH, WITH, WITH THE AREA. UM, WITH REDEVELOPMENT OF THIS SITE, THE CITY HAS COME IN AND PUT SIDEWALKS EXTENSIONS ALONG COLLETO STREET TO THE CORNER. AND WITH THIS THREE DEVELOPMENT, WE WOULD ALSO PUT IN SIDEWALKS, UM, OF AN EAST 22ND STREET TO KIND OF IMPROVE THAT PEDESTRIAN EXPERIENCE THERE AT THE CORNER TO CREATE ADDITIONAL SAFETY. UM, WE'VE ALSO, YOU KNOW, HEARD OF SAFETY CONCERNS RELATED TO, YOU KNOW, THESE DRIVEWAYS OVER HERE AND WE'VE ALREADY REACHED OUT TO STREET ENTERPRISE TO SPEAK WITH THEM ABOUT HOW WE CAN MANAGE THOSE, UM, SITE LINES AND, AND IMPROVE THAT SAFETY FOR, UM, PEDESTRIANS AND CARS IN THE AREA. UM, AS FAR AS THE HOURS GO, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE, WE ARE PRIMARILY FOCUSED ON BREAKFAST AND LUNCH SERVICE. THAT IS THE, THE GOAL AND THE VISION HERE FOR THIS PROJECT. AND IN DOING SO, WE'VE MADE, UH, MADE IT CLEAR THAT WE WOULD PUT THAT INTO A COVENANT. AND WE DID SAY THAT THERE WOULD BE EXCEPTION TO HAVING, UM, PRIVATE EVENTS AND I THINK THAT'S A VERY COMMON THING WITH RESTAURANTS AND IT'S IMPORTANT TO HAVE, UH, THAT CAPABILITY IN ORDER TO BE A VIABLE, UH, THRIVING BUSINESS. UM, AND I'D ALSO, UH, POINT OUT THAT OUR FIRST MEETING, UH, WAS AUGUST 29TH WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND WE'VE BEEN IN CONSTANT COMMUNICATION WITH THEM SINCE THEN. AND AS FAR AS THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT GOES, WE'RE STILL OPEN TO, UH, MEMORIALIZING THAT WE HAVE NOT TAKEN THAT OFF OF THE TABLE. UM, SO I, WE UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S A, A MIX OF FEELINGS WITH THIS REQUEST, BUT WE REMAIN, UM, YOU KNOW, COMMITTED TO OUR, OUR COMMITMENTS AND OUR RESTRICTIVE COVENANT, UM, AS WELL AS THIS GARDEN AND THE GARDEN ON BCDC. SO WITH THAT, UM, I'LL MAKE MYSELF AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS MOTION BY COMMISSIONER POWELL, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAXWELL. WITHOUT OBJECTION, THAT PASSES. SO WE'LL MOVE INTO OUR ROUND ROBIN. SO AGAIN, WE'LL HAVE SPACE FOR EIGHT COMMISSIONERS TO ASK QUESTIONS OF ANYONE FOR FIVE MINUTES. WHO WOULD LIKE TO START US OFF? YES, COMMISSIONER GANNON. OKAY, THANK YOU. UH, THIS IS MY FIRST OFFICIAL QUESTION AS COMMISSIONER, SO BEAR WITH ME IF I'M STUMBLING AROUND HERE A LITTLE BIT. UM, I APPRECIATE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE, UH, OR I GUESS THIS IS A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT. UM, I APPRECIATE YOU TALKING ABOUT SIDEWALKS AND, UM, I AM ALSO, UH, VERY SENSITIVE ABOUT SIDEWALKS. I I LIVE NOT FAR FROM THIS PROPERTY. UM, AND WE RECENTLY, I GOT SIDEWALKS ON MY STREET AND IT'S, IT'S HAS ABSOLUTELY TURNED THE NEIGHBORHOOD AROUND, UH, FOR SAFETY. SO I APPRECIATE YOU BRINGING THAT UP. UM, WHEN DOING RESIDENTIAL REDEVELOPMENTS, WE ALWAYS INCLUDE SIDEWALKS IN THAT THERE'S A FEE IN LIEU AND I WOULD UM, I WAS GONNA REQUEST THAT YOU LOOK AT INCLUDING THE SIDEWALKS, BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE IT'S SOMETHING YOU'RE ALREADY DOING. UM, I ALSO WANNA ADDRESS THE COMMENT THAT, UM, FOLKS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD WERE NOT, UH, DID NOT FEEL WELCOME COMING INTO THE GARDEN. UH, NOW, I GUESS PREVIOUS TO THE DEVELOPMENT, UM, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT COULD BE ADDRESSED WITHIN THE NEW DEVELOPMENT? IF IT WAS TO GO THROUGH, UH, WOULD THE GARDEN STILL BE OPEN TO THE COMMUNITY OR WOULD THIS BE SOMETHING THAT, UM, AFTER DEVELOPMENT IT BECOMES MORE OF A PRIVATE AREA? SO THE GARDEN TODAY IS, UM, ON PRIVATE PROPERTY. SO IT IS A PRIVATE GARDEN. UM, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T HAVE A PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT OVER THE GARDEN AND THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE'RE CONTEMPLATING WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT, BUT WE'RE ALSO NOT BUILDING A WALL AROUND THE GARDEN. UM, JUST AS IT EXISTS TODAY. YOU KNOW, WE'VE MADE THE, THE OWNER HAS MADE COMMENTS THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE MAY BE PEOPLE THAT HAVE PICKED A SPRIG OF TIME, YOU KNOW, TO TAKE IT HOME, UM, TO UTILIZE IN, IN THEIR COOKING. AND, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT BEEN AN ISSUE. UH, IF SOMEONE NEEDS SOMETHING, YOU KNOW, ALL THEY HAVE TO DO IS KINDA REACH OUT AND ASK. UM, WE'VE BEEN OPEN WITH THAT, BUT WE'RE NOT PROPOSING TO PUT A PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT OVER IT. IT WOULD, WE'RE ALSO NOT PUTTING A WALL AROUND IT. SO IT WOULD REMAIN SORT OF HOW IT IS TODAY. UM, VIEWABLE ACCESSIBLE. AND IF, YOU KNOW THEY NEED SOMETHING, THEY CAN, YOU KNOW, JUST ASK FOR IT. OKAY. UM, AND WITH THE PARKING I HAVE, I HAVE ONE MORE, UH, MAYBE QUESTION, COMMENT, OR CONSIDERATION SURROUNDING, UH, VEHICULAR ACCESS TO THE SITE. UM, IS MENTIONED IN THE STAFF REPORT THAT THERE'S A HALF ALLEY THERE. UM, IS THERE ANYTHING, WOULD, WOULD IT HELP CIRCULATION IN THE SITE IF THAT ALLEY WAS COMPLETED? UM, I KNOW IT GOES TO ALAMO AND RIGHT NOW THE ALAMO PORTION, UH, IS FAIRLY OVERGROWN. UM, WOULD THAT HELP WITH CONCERNS OF CONGESTION IN THE SITE? I'M SEEING, I'M SEEING HEADS SHAKING. NO. IF IT WAS TO GO FROM A ONE-WAY ALLEY, I MEAN FROM A TWO-WAY, UH, ACCESS POINT TO A ONE-WAY ALLEY, THOUGH, WOULD THAT HELP IN TERMS OF FREEING UP MORE SQUARE FOOTAGE? UM, [01:05:01] YOU KNOW, BEING AT ZONING, IT'S, IT'S KIND OF, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'LL BE LOOKED AT DURING, UM, SITE PLAN. IT WAS LOOKED AT. IT WILL BE LOOKED AT, AT, IT WILL BE, YEAH. OKAY. OKAY. THAT IS NOT VIEWED AS PART OF ZONING. OKAY. UM, WHENEVER WE FINALIZE, YOU KNOW, THE, THE SITE DESIGN AND ACCESS POINTS, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE REVIEWED WITH, UM, THE TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT. OKAY. 'CAUSE IT, IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE'S, UM, UH, COMPLIMENTARY TIMES AND A NET GAIN OF, WAS IT EIGHT PARKING SPACES? CORRECT. SO, YOU KNOW, AS THE PARKING EXISTS TODAY, IT'S JUST PACKED GRAVEL. IT'S INFORMAL, IT'S NOT STRIPED. UM, WE LOOKED AT DOING, YOU KNOW, 45 DEGREE PARKING OR 90 DEGREE, YOU KNOW, PULL IN PARKING. AND, UM, THE, THE CURRENT PROPOSAL IS TO DO A 90 DEGREE PULL IN WITH A TWO-WAY, UM, DRIVE. AND SO THAT WOULD, UM, IMPROVE THE PARKING AREA TO PICK UP ABOUT EIGHT MORE SPACES THAN THAT ARE THERE TODAY. SO RIGHT NOW THERE'S ABOUT 20 SPACES. UM, THEY CAN FIT PROBABLY 28 IN THE FUTURE WITH THIS. OKAY. OKAY. SO MY UNDERSTANDING IS, UH, IN THE EVENINGS WHEN THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS NOT OPEN AND ESTEE IS OPEN, THERE WOULD BE A NET EIGHT PARKING SPOT GAIN, ESSENTIALLY. AND THEN IN THE, IN THE MORNINGS, UH, THE PROJECT THAT, THAT YOU'RE DISCUSSING WOULD STILL HAVE ACCESS TO THE PARKING LOT THAT'S CURRENTLY AT ESTEE? THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. UM, AND FOR THE SPECIAL EVENTS, DO WE HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT FREQUENCY THEY WOULD BE? WE DO NOT. OKAY. AND WE DON'T HAVE A SET OF INTENTION, UM, FOR ACHIEVING A CERTAIN NUMBER. OKAY. BUT THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD WANT TO RETAIN. OKAY. UM, THOSE ARE MY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER GANNON. GREAT JOB ON YOUR FIRST QUESTION. ROUND . ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS WITH QUESTIONS? YES. COMMISSIONER POWELL. UH, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD, THE PRIMARY SPEAKER, AND, AND I DO APOLOGIZE TO YOU WITH THIS, CAN YOU PLEASE SAY YOUR NAME AGAIN WITH THE PRIMARY SHIFT THERE? MARVA. OVERTON. OVERTON. THAT'S RIGHT. THANK YOU SO MUCH. SO, UM, YOU KNOW, IN IN THE TESTIMONY FROM YOURSELF AND FROM OTHERS, IT SOUNDED LIKE THE STEWART GARDEN KIND OF COMMUNITY ACCESSIBILITY WAS SOMETHING THAT CAME UP. I WAS A LITTLE CONFUSED ON THAT. COULD YOU ELABORATE ON, UH, YOU KNOW, THE POTENTIAL COMMUNITY BENEFIT WITH THE STUDENT, UH, STEWART GARDEN? SO THE BLACK LAND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION HAS A PROPERTY THAT, UH, HAS GARDEN CURRENTLY. THEY HAVE RAISED BEDS. THAT DISCUSSION WAS TO PROVIDE, UH, THE $10,000 IN BASICALLY IN KIND, UH, UH, BENEFIT IN TERMS OF HAVING A PERSON, UH, TO PROVIDE LABOR AND TO PROVIDE, UH, LIKE SEEDS AND, UH, OTHER MATERIALS. YEAH. SO, SO THE PHYSICAL INVESTMENT THERE, RIGHT? CORRECT. AND, AND SO THE, THE FEELING THOUGH, UH, AND, AND, AND ALSO THOUGH THAT'S FOR ONE YEAR, UH, AND WITH THE PART THAT HE MENTIONED ABOUT THE, UH, ALLOWING THE, I GUESS, THE PATRONS TO SUPPORT PATRONS OF THE RESTAURANT ESTATE TO, TO SUPPORT THAT WOULD BE ONE, ONE WEEK IN A PERIOD IN, IN, IN THE ONE YEAR. SO IT'S A ONE YEAR AGREEMENT. IT'S WHAT THEY PROPOSED IN THE DRAFT OF THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT C. COULD YOU TELL ME A BIT MORE ABOUT THAT ACCESS PIECE? AND I'M TRYING TO REMEMBER, I THINK IT WAS YOUR TESTIMONY, A COUPLE OTHERS MENTIONED THERE WAS SOME CONCERNS ABOUT WHETHER THAT GARDEN WAS OR WASN'T TRULY ACCESSIBLE TO THE COMMUNITY. SO IN TERMS OF ACCESS, ACCESSIBILITY, THE POINT IS THAT YEAH, THE GARDEN IS THERE AND IT YEAH. DOES NOT HAVE, YOU KNOW, A SIGN THAT SAYS STAY OUT. RIGHT. BUT THAT GARDEN FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD, IT'S NEVER BEEN SOMETHING THAT OTHER THAN SEEING, YOU KNOW, THE FOOD GROW, YOU KNOW, IT IS NICE TO LOOK AT, BUT THERE'S NEVER BEEN ANY REACH OUT TO THE COMMUNITY AROUND LIKE THE COMING TO THE GARDEN, UH, BEING ABLE TO HARVEST FROM THE GARDEN. SO IT REALLY IS NOT A TRUE BENEFIT OTHER THAN YEAH, IT'S A GARDEN. AND THE OTHER THING THAT, THAT YOU SHOULD KNOW IS IN THE, UH, DRAFT OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANT, IT DOES NOT, IT STATES THAT THAT DOES NOT HAVE TO BE MAINTAINED AS A SOURCE OF FOOD PRODUCTION. SO IT, THE GARDEN, AS EVERYBODY KNOWS IT NOW, DOES NOT HAVE TO REMAIN. IT COULD SIMPLY BE LANDSCAPING. GOTCHA. GOTCHA. CAN I ADD A A POINT OF CLARIFICATION? SURE. THERE'S TWO GARDENS. YES. YES. OKAY. SO I'M SPEAKING SPECIFICALLY ON THE COMMUNITY BENEFIT GARDEN. UM, [01:10:01] CORRECT. THE ACCESS ISSUES ARE FOR THE GARDEN NET, ESTEE, WELL THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT THE LINE OF QUESTIONS ABOUT . 'CAUSE I HAD A, A CONFUSION, BUT I'M, I'M HEARING AGAIN, SO IT'S THE YOU AND YOU'RE SPEAKING SPECIFICALLY ON THE STEWART GARDEN. CORRECT. THE QUESTION YOU ASKED ME WAS ABOUT THE STEWARD GUARD. CORRECT. IN TERMS OF, OF COMMUNITY BENEFIT. SO THAT'S WHAT I WAS ADDRESSING IS THE SAME, WHAT THE, WHAT THAT ARRANGEMENT WAS. SO COMMISSIONER ROJAN, I THINK THE, THE CLARIFYING POINT THERE IS THAT, UM, DIGGING IN SPECIFICALLY ON THE PROPOSED COMMUNITY BENEFIT GARDEN, THE STEWART GARDEN. CORRECT. BUT THE ACCESS ISSUES THAT THEY SPOKE TO EARLIER ARE THE FACT THAT ESTEE HAS A, HAS A LARGE GARDEN. THEY'RE PLANNING TO KEEP OFFERED TO KEEP PORTION OF THAT GARDEN. BUT YOU'VE SAID THAT YOU DON'T REALLY HAVE ACCESS TO IT. YEAH, I THINK, WELL, AGAIN, I JUST, WELL, IT'S NOT A, IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT A KNOWN AS HE STATED LIKE PUBLIC ACCESS GARDEN, IT'S PRIVATE PROPERTY AND, AND OKAY. YEAH. THEY DON'T RUN PEOPLE OUT IF THEY COME BY THERE. BUT IT'S, IT IS NEVER BEEN EXPRESSED AS A PUBLIC PLACE FOR JUST ANYBODY TO COME WALK AROUND, YOU KNOW? AND I'M NOT SAYING THAT IF SOMEONE CAME THAT THEY WOULDN'T, THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT THEY WOULD BE PUT OUT. BUT IT IS JUST NEVER BEEN PUT FORTH IN THAT WAY. AND IT'S BEING USED, I THINK IN THIS CASE AS THIS BIG THING THAT HAS BEEN A BENEFIT AND THAT THEY'RE, YOU KNOW, GIVING US THIS BENEFIT OF MAINTAINING 4,000, UH, SQUARE FEET OF GARDEN SPACE. AND AGAIN, IT WON'T NECESSARILY BE, SEE THAT THE, THE PROBLEM IS THAT IT IS SO MANY UNKNOWNS WITH THIS CASE. THERE'S SO MANY THINGS THAT THEY'RE ASKING US TO, SO, AND I, I HATE TO CUT YOU OFF. I GOT, I'M HITTING MY TIME LIMITS HERE. OKAY. ESPECIALLY WITH THE CLARIFICATION HERE. UM, SO I, I AM SPEAKING SPECIFICALLY ON THE STEWART GARDEN 'CAUSE WE UNDERSTAND AS WELL THE, THE PRIVATE NATURE OF THE S STATE GARDEN. AND I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT. OKAY. AND LEMME JUST MAKE SURE THAT YOU'RE CLEAR, REAL QUICK. BCDC IS THE BLACKLAND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION. CORRECT. IT IS NOT THE BLACKLAND NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. CORRECT. YEP. SEPARATE ENTITY, BLACKLAND NEIGHBORHOOD, AND THEN THAT'S RIGHT. YES. YEP. UNDERSTOOD. DO I NEED TO STAY HERE OR CAN I OH, NO, NO. YOU'RE ALL GOOD. THAT WAS MY LAST QUESTION FOR YOU. THE QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT, MAY I HAVE AN EXTENSION? YOU CAN ASK YOUR QUESTION. YES. PERFECT QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT THEN, IS, UM, KNOWING THAT THE, UH, RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS IS STILL, YOU KNOW, PROPOSED KIND OF ON THE TABLE AS YOU SHARED, COULD THERE BE CONVERSATION WITH THE BLACKLAND NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION WITH BLACKLAND, UH, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ON POTENTIALLY SHIFTING OR REEXAMINING THAT COMMUNITY BENEFIT HEARING THAT THERE ARE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT ACCESSIBILITY TO THE STEWART GARDEN? SO, SO THE STEWART, FOR CLARIFICATION, THE STEWART GARDEN IS ON BC'S PROPERTY. MM-HMM . AND I'M NOT, I DON'T WANNA SPEAK TO THE ACCESS OF THAT BECAUSE THAT'S KIND OF OUTSIDE OF MY LANE. UM, BUT I, I DO BELIEVE IT IS SOMEWHAT ACCESSIBLE. UM, THE GARDEN THAT IS ON THE ESTEE PROPERTY, , THE GARDEN THAT'S ON THE ESTEE PROPERTY. UM, SO THEY, ESEE DOES HAVE A COMMUNITY, YOU KNOW, BUILT AROUND THAT. UM, AND WHAT WE'VE LEARNED FROM THIS PROCESS IS THAT WHAT CAN DO A BETTER JOB OF, OF, OF PARTNERING WITH A BNA BLACKLINE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, UM, AS FAR AS YOU KNOW, WHAT THOSE EVENTS ARE AND, AND MAKING THAT OUTREACH KNOWN TO THEM, UM, SO THAT THEY CAN ALSO SPREAD THAT INFORMATION AS WELL. UH, THE COMMUNITY BENEFIT WAS CENTERED ON, YOU KNOW, SUPPORTING AND INVESTING AND DRAWING ATTENTION TO THE STEWARD GARDEN THAT'S RIGHT. ON THE CDC TO KIND OF AID THEM IN BUILDING AN ASSET, UM, THAT SUPPORTS THEIR MISSION. YEAH. SO THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING, TO BE CLEAR TO COMMISSIONERS. UM, TOTALLY MY UNDERSTANDING WAS ASKING SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THE STEWART GARDEN, NOT THE ESTEE GARDEN, AND PERCEIVING THAT I WAS HEARING FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT THERE WERE ACCESS CONCERNS THERE. DO WE HAVE ANOTHER COMMISSIONER WITH QUESTIONS? YES. COMMISSIONER AHMED. THANK YOU, CHAIR. UH, I HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS FOR THE PRESIDENT, AGAIN, OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION OF BLACKLINE. SORRY TO MAKE YOU, UH, KEEP COMING UP THERE. OKAY. SO WHAT I HEARD FROM YOU IS THAT THERE'S A COUPLE PROBLEMS HERE FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE. ONE, UH, THERE'S THE TRAFFIC, THE PARKING, AND THEN THE PRECEDENT THAT'S BEING SET OF HAVING, UH, COMMERCIAL KIND OF ENCROACH UPON, UH, A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. AND SO, UH, YOU HAD SAID THAT WHAT THE APPLICANT HAD OFFERED, UH, WAS KIND OF NOT ENOUGH TO, UH, COMPENSATE FOR THE, THE NEGATIVE TO THE COMMUNITY. UM, ARE THERE, IS THERE MORE THAT COULD BE DONE TO MAKE IT WORTHWHILE, UH, RELATED TO, UH, THE STEWARD GAR GARDEN, THE SEPARATE GARDEN OR THE CONTRIBUTION TO THAT, UH, NONPROFIT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT, OR I DON'T KNOW, PUTTING UP A SIGN THAT SAID PEOPLE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD ARE WELCOME TO COME BY AND SEE THE ESTEE GARDEN OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. SINCE YOU HAD MENTIONED IT WASN'T CLEAR THAT PEOPLE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD COULD ENJOY IT, ARE THERE THINGS THAT YOU'VE BROUGHT FORWARD TO HIM THAT WOULD BE ENOUGH TO JUSTIFY AND HAVE YOU ACCEPT AND, YOU KNOW, UH, AND, UH, BE ACCEPTING OF THIS DEVELOPMENT? [01:15:01] NO. UH, THE ISSUE IS OF THE GARDEN IS, IS, I ACCEPT THAT THAT'S GETTING PUT FORTH AS LIKE THE THING, THE, THE ISSUE IS WHAT THEY WANT TO DEVELOP IN A RESIDENTIAL AREA IS COMMERCIAL, WANTING AN OFFICE, WANTING AN ADDITIONAL RESTAURANT. AND YOU HEARD THE NUMBERS ON THE RESTAURANTS THAT ARE ALREADY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THE PARKING IS RIDICULOUS. IF, IF YOU CAME OVER THERE AT ANY TIME IN THE EVENING, AND THERE WAS A RESTAURANT THERE BEFORE, IF THOSE OF YOU WHO'VE BEEN AROUND AUSTIN KNOW THAT THERE WAS EAST SIDE, EAST SIDE, CAFE, CAFE, I LOVE THAT PLACE. ONE WONDERFUL RESTAURANT. THERE WAS A MARKET DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHEN THAT RESTAURANT WAS THERE AND WHEN ESTEE OPENED. MM-HMM . DIFFERENT, DIFFERENT TYPE OF RESTAURANT. AND THAT'S ANOTHER THING JUST, JUST TO POINT OUT, AND WE HAVE NOTHING AGAINST ESTEE. IT'S A, IT'S A, IT IS A HIGH END RESTAURANT. MM-HMM . OKAY. WE, IF YOU'VE BEEN THERE, YOU KNOW, THAT, AND THAT ON ITS FACE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH, EXCEPT THAT IF YOU LOOK AT WHAT IT SAYS THAT, UH, THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, COMMERCIAL, LIMITED RETAIL SHOULD BRING TO A NEIGHBORHOOD, IT'S, IT'S SOMETHING THAT IS BENEFICIAL TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. RIGHT. SO I THINK YOU HAVE TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION ONE, THE PARKING IS THE, IS A BIG ISSUE IN THE TRAFFIC. THERE, THERE HAS NOTHING PUT FORTH, UH, FROM THE APPLICANT TO EVEN ADDRESS THAT. THE, THE COMMUNITY, UH, BENEFIT OF THE GARDEN, I THINK BECAUSE SAM IS PASSIONATE ABOUT FOOD AND, YOU KNOW, GROWING FOOD. SO THEY KIND OF JUMPED ON THAT. AND, AND IF, AND WE HAD, I WAS IN THE MEETINGS WITH THEM ON THAT, BUT NOTHING EVER WAS PUT FORTH TO SAY, HOW CAN WE WORK TOGETHER TO ADDRESS THIS PARKING ISSUE THAT YOU ALL ALREADY HAVE? AND THAT WILL BE WORSE WHEN WE OPEN ANOTHER RESTAURANT. SO, SO THAT'S, THAT'S THE ISSUE. I, I APPRECIATE THAT. AND ONE OTHER QUESTION. SO YOU, YOU EXPRESS CONCERN ABOUT HAVING THIS ENCROACH INTO RESIDENTIAL, AND I, I ASSUME WHAT YOU MEAN BY THAT IS HAVING A, A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY THAT MAKES IT UP TO 22ND STREET, RIGHT? UH, UH, YEAH. COMES ALL THE WAY, 22ND STREET, BUT JUST DOWN THE STREET ON MAYNARD, YOU'VE GOT THE VORTEX THEATER IN PATRICE'S THAT ALSO, UH, GO ALL THE WAY DEEP INTO, UH, 22ND STREET. SO HOW, I MEAN, IS THAT PRECEDENT ALREADY SET WITH THOSE BUSINESSES? IT, IT IS NOT BECAUSE THOSE BUSINESSES, ALTHOUGH THEY HAVE PARK, THERE'S NO ACCESS ON TO THOSE BUSINESSES. YOU WOULDN'T EVEN KNOW THAT THAT WAS A BUSINESS FROM 22ND STREET. IT'S A, IT'S, IT'S A, IT'S A FENCE THERE AND THERE'S NOTHING ON THAT SIDE. SO IT, IT IS NOT THE SAME IN OUR OPINION, AND IT'S NOT BLACKMAN. OKAY. UM, UH, I APPRECIATE THAT. UH, AND I'VE GOT ONE QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT AS WELL. THANK YOU SO MUCH. MY QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT, I APOLOGIZE IF YOU ALREADY MENTIONED THIS, BUT, UH, I JUST WANT TO CONFIRM, UH, ARE THERE ANY RESIDENTS THAT WOULD BE, UH, DISPLACED, ANY RENTERS OR HOMEOWNERS THAT WOULD BE, UH, DISPLACED, UH, WITH THIS, UH, UH, DEVELOPMENT THAT'S PROPOSED? NO, SIR. OKAY. THANK YOU. THAT'S IT FOR ME. CAN I JUST CLARIFY WHICH ONE? COMMISSIONER AHMED, I'LL, I'LL LEAVE IT UP. YES, PLEASE. THANK YOU. I WAS INCORRECT ON STATING THAT THAT WAS ACTUALLY IN BLACK LAND. IT'S, IT'S ACROSS CHESTNUT, SO IT IS ON 22ND STREET, BUT IT'S NOT ACTUALLY IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. MY POINT WAS IT'S JUST A FEW BLOCKS FROM, IT'S JUST A FEW BLOCKS. THAT'S CORRECT, YES. OKAY. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS WITH QUESTIONS? YES, COMMISSIONER REEN. I'LL START WITH THE APPLICANT PLEASE. UH, A COUPLE JUST QUICK QUESTIONS. UM, ARE YOU AWARE CURRENTLY IF THE VALET SERVICE FOR ESTEE OR BAR TOTI USES ANY OF THE STREET PARKING SPACES FOR VALET? NO, I'M NOT AWARE OF THAT. UM, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT THAT YOU COULD FIND OUT? I'LL DEFINITELY, I'LL LOOK INTO THAT. OKAY. UM, AND THEN SECONDARILY, YOU TALKED ABOUT THE VARIANCE OR THE EXCEPTION TO ALLOW PRIVATE EVENTS, UH, OFF HOURS. ARE YOU WILLING TO RESTRICT THE NUMBER OF THOSE VARIANCES DURING THE COURSE OF A YEAR ON THIS PROPERTY? THAT'S NOT SOMETHING I CAN COMMIT TO TONIGHT, BUT I CAN DEFINITELY TALK TO THE PROPERTY OWNER ABOUT, UH, CONSIDERING THAT. OKAY. UH, THAT'S THE ONLY QUESTIONS I HAVE FOR YOU. I'M GONNA MOVE TO STAFF NOW, IF THAT'S OKAY. SORRY, Y'ALL, WE HAVE A LONG NIGHT AND I'M TRYING TO GET THROUGH THIS QUICK. UM, UH, I COULD NOT RE GET [01:20:01] THIS OUT OF, UH, THE BACKUP REAL QUICK. ARE THERE ANY SIFTS GENERATED FROM THIS PROPERTY IF IT MOVES FORWARD WITH THE CURRENT ZONING, WITH THE ZONING THAT THEY'RE REQUESTING? UM, ACCORDING TO THE TPW, UH, JONATHAN TOMKO WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, THE TPW REVIEWER INDICATED THAT THERE'S NOT A TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS, UM, THAT'S TRIGGERED AT THIS TIME AT ZONING. UM, HOWEVER, IT MAY BE REQUIRED AT THE TIME OF SITE PLAN IF IT'S TRIGGERED WHEN LAND USES AND INTENSITIES ARE KNOWN. UM, SO AT THAT TIME, THAT WOULD BE DETERMINED IF THERE WAS A SIF ASSOCIATED WITH IT. OKAY. ASSOCIATED WITH THE TIA AND, UH, ASSOCIATED WITH THAT QUESTION, UH, YOU MAY NOT KNOW THE ANSWER TO THIS, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD PARK PARKING MANAGEMENT AGREEMENTS, UM, I KNOW HAVE HAPPENED THROUGHOUT THE CITY. THERE ARE SEVERAL ON SOUTH FIRST IN THE SOUTH CONGRESS AREA THAT PERMIT RESIDENTS TO PARK, BUT, BUT CHARGE, UH, VISITORS TO PARK THERE. UH, AND I KNOW THAT GENERATES FUNDS FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD AS WELL. DO, ARE YOU AWARE, IS THAT AVAILABLE IN THIS AREA? IS THAT SOMETHING THAT COULD APPLY FOR, I, I DON'T WANNA SPEAK TO THAT TOO MUCH. I MEAN, I KNOW THERE'S THE RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMIT PROGRAM, WHICH IS CURRENTLY UNDER OVERHAUL RIGHT NOW. UM, AND THEN THERE'S DISTRICT PARKING MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS, WHICH WOULD, YOU KNOW, INVOLVE A STUDY AND FUNDING ASSOCIATED WITH THAT. AND, UM, I, HAVING HAD ZONING CASES IN THIS PARTICULAR AREA, TRANSPORTATION, PARKING ISSUES HAVE COME UP FREQUENTLY, BOTH NORTH AND SOUTH OF MAINOR ROAD. OKAY, THANK YOU. SO I DON'T KNOW IF IT RISES TO THE PRIORITIZATION LEVEL TO, TO GET SOMETHING LIKE THAT, IT WOULD JUST HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE DEPARTMENT THAT MANAGES THOSE TYPES OF, OF PROGRAMS. I APPRECIATE THAT. THANK YOU. UH, AND THEN MY FINAL QUESTIONS, UM, MS. OVERTON, I'M SORRY YOU'VE BEEN WALKING BACK AND FORTH, I'M MAKING SURE YOU'RE GETTING YOUR STEPS HERE TODAY. SO YOU AND I SPOKE EARLIER THIS WEEK ABOUT THIS CASE. UM, AND I, I, I THINK I NEED TO REPRESENT SOME OF THE SENTIMENTS FROM THE REST OF THE COMMISSIONERS. THIS, THIS IS A PROJECT WE WANT SO BADLY TO APPROVE. UM, AND I, AND I SAY THAT NOT BECAUSE I WANT TO RAM THIS DOWN THE NEIGHBOR'S THROATS. RIGHT. IT'S THAT RIGHT NOW THE, THE TYPES OF PROJECTS THAT WE'RE GETTING PLACED INTO SMALL NEIGHBORHOODS LIKE THIS ARE NOT NEARLY, UH, AS SENSITIVE TO WHAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD STRUCTURE IS LIKE, NOR ARE THEY IN KIND SCALE WITH WHAT THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD IS. UM, AND WE EXPECT A PROJECT LIKE THIS TO BE PRETTY WELL RECEIVED, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU HAVE AN OWNER THAT IS WILLING TO WORK WITH YOU TO THE DEGREE THEY ARE. AND I KNOW THAT THERE ARE A LOT OF THINGS THAT YOU FEEL LIKE THEY'VE MADE PROMISES AND NOT DELIVERED ON. JUST TO REITERATE THE QUESTION THAT I BELIEVE COMMISSIONER AHMED ASKED YOU IN, IN A DIFFERENT WAY, ARE THERE ANY NEGOTIATIONS THAT YOU FEEL THAT COULD HAPPEN BETWEEN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO SOME OF THE QUESTIONS I RAISED REGARDING WHERE VALET PARKING IS TAKING PLACE AND THE POSSIBILITY OF, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD PERMIT PARKING THAT MIGHT ALLEVIATE SOME OF THE PARKING ISSUES. ARE THERE ANY OTHER NEGOTIATIONS YOU FEEL LIKE THAT COULD HELP MOVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO A PLACE WHERE YOU WOULD REEVALUATE THIS PROJECT? THE MEETING THAT WE HAD AND THE VOTE WAS TAKEN, IT WAS A LONG MEETING AND THAT QUESTION WAS, WAS PUT FORTH AND THE VOTE WAS UNANIMOUS AGAINST THIS. SO I CAN'T SPEAK, YOU KNOW, AT THIS TIME FOR THE WHOLE NEIGHBORHOOD WITHOUT, BUT I CAN, I, BASED UPON THE DISCUSSIONS THAT HAVE TAKEN PLACE, I WOULD SAY NO. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THAT'S MY LAST QUESTION. THANK YOU SO MUCH. I'M GONNA SEND IT TO COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE FOR THE NEXT QUESTION. THANK YOU. UM, I HAD A QUESTION, WELL, ACTUALLY I JUST, I HAD A QUESTION FOR STAFF ABOUT RESIDENTIAL PARKING PROGRAM. I THINK YOU KIND OF ADDRESSED IT, BUT OF, I GUESS MY SPECIFIC QUESTION IS WHEN I LOOK AT THE CURRENT RPP AREAS, THERE'S PARKING PERMITS ON 22ND STREET, JUST EAST OF CHESTNUT AVENUE ALREADY, AND THEN ALSO ON 22ND STREET AROUND SALINA STREET OF, AS PART OF THIS CASE. WAS ANY ANYTHING DONE TO LOOK TO EXTEND THE PARKING PERMIT AREA OR CONNECT THEM? JONATHAN TOMKO WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, UH, THE TRANSPORTATION PUBLIC WORKS, UH, DEPARTMENT REVIEWER REVIEWS THE CASE BASED ON, YOU KNOW, WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED AND CONDITIONS OF ZONING. UM, I CAN'T SPEAK TO WHETHER THEY CONSIDERED THAT AS A PART OF THEIR REVIEW AND WHETHER THERE'S ANY LIMITATIONS OF, YOU KNOW, A CERTAIN PRO UH, CERTAIN NEIGHBORHOOD BEING ELIGIBLE OR ARE NOT ELIGIBLE ON A PARTICULAR BLOCK. UM, BUT, BUT WITH THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL, THEY ARE PROPOSING ONSITE PARKING, UM, TO A, A PRETTY [01:25:01] HIGH DEGREE, WHICH WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS CONSIDERED AS A PART OF THE REQUEST. OKAY. THANK YOU. UH, QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? UM, I KNOW WE'RE, UH, OOPS, SORRY, I CAN'T SEE WHEN YOU'RE AT THE MIC UNTIL I ZOOM OUT. , HE'S, HE'S UP THERE. ARE YOU THERE? YOU READY FOR ME? OKAY, THANK YOU. UH, I GUESS I KNOW WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ZONING HERE AND NOT REALLY A SITE PLAN, BUT I'M, I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE PROJECT A BIT BETTER, ESPECIALLY GIVEN THE FACT THAT THE SENSITIVITY OF, UH, ENCROACHMENT INTO, UH, THE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL AREA OF A COMMERCIAL USE IN THE FORM OF THIS RESTAURANT. SO, UH, ABOUT APPROXIMATELY HOW BIG IS THE EXISTING GARDEN ON THE CORNER TODAY? UM, THE EXISTING GARDEN, I BELIEVE IS JUST OVER 6,500 SQUARE FEET. OKAY. 6,500 SQUARE FEET OF, AND THE PROJECT DETAILS FROM YOUR SLIDE 22 SAYS APPROXIMATELY 4,000 SQUARE FEET. SO THE, THE PLAN IS TO MODIFY THIS GARDEN, UH, PLUS OR MINUS ELIMINATE A THIRD OF THE GARDEN OR, UH, THE PROPOSED PROJECT Y YEAH, THE GARDEN WOULD BE RECONFIGURED WITH THE PROPOSED PROJECT. SO I MEAN, IT, IT LOOKS MUCH LARGER TODAY 'CAUSE THERE ARE SOME SORT OF SITTING AREAS AND, AND WALKING PATHS THROUGH IT. UM, BUT WE WOULD ESSENTIALLY, UM, PUT THE DENSITY OF THE PROJECT, UM, ALONG THE ALLEYWAY AND THROUGH THE, THE CENTER, UH, OF THE TWO LOTS SO THAT YOU'D HAVE PARKING SORT OF BUFFERING ON THE WEST SIDE AND THEN YOU'D HAVE THE GARDEN AT THE HARD CORNER, SORT OF LIKE IT IS TODAY, TO KEEP THOSE CHARACTERISTICS KIND OF LIKE THEY ARE NOW AND JUST NESTLING THE BUILDING, UM, BETWEEN THE TWO. OKAY. SO I GUESS THAT'S MY NEXT QUESTION THEN, IS THAT THIS NEW BUILDING WILL TAKE ACCESS FROM WHICH STREET? LIKE IF SOMEBODY'S GOING TO THIS RESTAURANT FOR BREAKFAST OR LUNCH, HOW WILL THEY GET THERE? UM, SO THE BILL, THE PROPERTY CURRENTLY HAS A DRIVEWAY, UM, ON EAST 22ND STREET, AND THERE'S ALSO ACCESS THROUGH THE PAVED ALLEYWAY. SO BOTH OF THOSE POINTS, UM, THAT'S WHERE WE'RE PROPOSING TO TAKE ACCESS AT THIS TIME. I MEAN, AGAIN, THIS IS VERY EARLY IN IN IN SITE CONCEPT LAYOUT, BUT THOSE WOULD BE WHERE WE WOULD TAKE THE ACCESS IS WHERE THEY ARE TODAY. SO YOU COULD ACCESS EITHER COMING FROM MAINOR, UM, OFF OF COLLETTO OR YOU COULD ACCESS OFF OF EAST 22ND STREET. OKAY. SO THEN ACCESS BEING SOMEBODY DRIVING INTO THE PARKING LOT OR TO A VALET DROP OFF OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT? THAT'S CORRECT. WHAT HAPPENED FROM 22ND STREET? SO, UM, IT'S A, I WANT TO, UH, DIFFERENTIATE. SO ESTEE PROVIDES VALET, UM, FOR THEIR, THEIR DINING SERVICE. UM, IT'S NOT ANTICIPATED AT THIS TIME THAT THE BREAKFAST LUNCH WOULD DO THE SAME, BUT THE PARKING WOULD BE OPEN, UM, ACCESS PARKING FOR SELF PARK ON EITHER LOT. UM, PRIOR TO ESTEE OPENING, ONCE ESTEE OPENS, THEY WOULD TAKE OVER AND START MANAGING PARKING. AND THEN I KNOW YOU'VE PROBABLY SEEN A VALET LOT THEY CAN TYPICALLY CONFIGURE OR SQUEEZE CARS IN TO, UM, TO PICK UP MORE, UM, YOU KNOW, STORAGE, PARKING STORAGE THAN, UM, YOU KNOW, THE DELINEATED SPACES. HAVE YOU ALL HAD ANY CONVERSATIONS WITH THE CITY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT ABOUT HELP EXPANDING THE RPP ON 22ND STREET? WE HAVE NOT HAD ANY CONVERSATIONS AT THIS TIME. OKAY. HOW MANY PARKING SPACES ARE YOU TALKING, UH, PROPOSING ONSITE? UM, APPROXIMATELY ABOUT 28. OKAY. I I, I ALSO REALIZE THIS IS NOT AN ENTITLEMENT QUESTION OF, BUT WE DON'T HAVE A SITE PLAN, RIGHT? SO I'M TRYING TO DRAW THIS PICTURE IN MY HEAD, BUT IT SEEMS TO ME LIKE WE'LL HAVE A NET INCREASE OF AN IMPERVIOUS COVER BY THE ADDITION OF THIS PARKING AND NEW STRUCTURE AND THE REDUCTION OF THE GARDEN. DO YOU HAVE A SENSE ABOUT WHAT THAT CHANGE IS? UM, I DON'T HAVE AN EXACT NUMBER, BUT THERE WOULD, WE WOULD BE PAVING THE CURRENT GRAVEL LOT TODAY AND, UM, THERE WOULD BE A BUILDING FOOTPRINT ON IT, SO IT WOULD INCREASE. OKAY. THANK YOU. I DON'T HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS. THANKS COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE, OTHER COMMISSIONERS WITH QUESTIONS? I, YES. COMMISSIONER BRETTON. I HAVE ONE SIMPLE QUESTION FOR, UH, THE APPLICANT. I ALSO CANNOT SEE IF THEY HAVE COME UP TO THE MICROPHONE. YES, SIR. HE IS, HE IS READY. WONDERFUL. UM, I HAVE A QUESTION AS TO WHETHER, UH, YOU AND THE OWNER MAY BE INTERESTED IN WORKING WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT TO REQUIRE, UH, PRIVATE EVENTS THAT MAY BE AT THIS LOCATION TO UTILIZE THAT VALET PARKING SERVICE, UH, TO HELP MANAGE PARKING [01:30:01] DURING THOSE EVENTS. I THINK THAT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE CAN DEFINITELY CONSIDER AND DISCUSS WITH THEM. YES. GREAT. THOSE ARE ALL MY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A COUPLE MORE QUESTION SLOTS. IF ANYONE NEEDS A SECOND ROUND COMMISSIONERS ONLINE, I'M MAKING SURE THAT I'M NOT MISSING QUESTIONS FROM YOU. OTHERWISE, WE ARE LOOKING FOR A MOTION. COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, UM, I'D LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND MOVE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSN. ALL RIGHT, LET'S MOVE INTO DEBATE. COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, WOULD YOU LIKE TO START BY SPEAKING TO YOUR MOTION? YEAH, UM, I THINK IT'S A DIFFICULT SITUATION BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY THERE IS A CHANGE OF USE HERE, BUT I THINK THERE IS ALSO A NET BENEFIT IN TERMS OF CONTINUING TO ALLOW OUR CORRIDORS TO BE VIBRANT. UM, AND I REALLY DO WANNA APPRECIATE THE WORK THAT BOTH HAS BEEN, THE STAFF HAS DONE AS WELL AS THE APPLICANT AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO TRY TO COME TO SOME UNDERSTANDING ABOUT THIS SITUATION. BUT I THINK THERE IS A NET POSITIVE HERE, BOTH FOR OUR CITY IN TERMS OF, UM, THE VIBRANCY OF THIS AREA. AND I THINK IT IS A, UM, VERY TRYING TO BE A VERY INTENTIONAL CHANGE TO THIS PARTICULAR LAND USE. AND I DO HOPE THAT THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CONTINUED DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN ALL THE PARTIES. ANYONE, ANYONE SPEAKING AGAINST THE MOTION? ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR? YES, COMMISSIONER POWELL. SO I'M SPEAKING IN SUPPORT OF THIS FROM A ZONING PERSPECTIVE, BUT EMPHASIZING THE IMPORTANCE OF GOING THROUGH THE VARIOUS DIFFICULTIES ELUCIDATED HERE. SO, YOU KNOW, FOR INSTANCE, THE REASON THAT I ZONED IN ON THE STEWART GARDEN WAS PRECISELY BECAUSE OF THE DIFFERENCE IN ENTITIES OF BCDC AND BLACKLAND NEIGHBORHOOD AND FEELING FROM THE TESTIMONY, JUST A FEELING, RIGHT? IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE'S A LOT MORE DISCUSSION TO KEEP GOING ON THERE, THAT THERE'S OPPORTUNITY FOR CLOSER ALIGNMENT, CLOSER, UH, COOPERATION IN TERMS OF COMMUNITY BENEFIT, KNOWING THAT THAT RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS OFFER IS STILL ON THE TABLE, UM, TO THE APPLICANT, I WOULD STRONGLY, STRONGLY RECOMMEND TO KEEP THAT RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS OFFER ON THE TABLE, WORK WITH BOTH THOSE PARTIES, GET EVERYONE AT THE TABLE AND FIND A BETTER PLACE OF COMPROMISE TO INVEST IN THIS COMMUNITY. UM, AND THEN ON THE STAFF PERSPECTIVE, AND THIS GETS INTO, YOU KNOW, WHAT I VIEW OUR LOCUS OF CONTROL AS AS A PLANNING COMMISSION, UM, IS THAT THE SITE PLANNING PROCESS IN PARTICULAR, WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TIFF AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TRAFFIC ANALYSIS, THAT IS CLEARLY THE BIG COMPONENT HERE. SO WHILE I AGREE WITH THE ZONING, I THINK THOSE CONCERNS ARE EXTREMELY REAL AND, UH, JUST ENCOURAGE ALL PARTIES INVOLVED THAT THROUGH THE SITE PLANNING PROCESS, IT'S CONDUCTED AS RIGOROUSLY AS POSSIBLE WITH SENSITIVITY TO THAT NEIGHBORHOOD. BUT ECHOING SOMETHING THAT COMMISSIONER ROJAN SAID EARLIER, UM, I APPROVE THIS BECAUSE THIS IS FRANKLY AN EXAMPLE OF HOW THERE COULD BE NEIGHBORHOOD SCALE BUSINESSES. ALSO NOTING THAT THOUGH THIS IS RESIDENTIAL ZONED, THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A UNPAVED PARKING LOT IN A COMMUNITY GARDEN, UH, NOT TEARING DOWN HOUSES OR ANYTHING OF THE LIKE, SO I SUPPORT THIS, BUT AGAIN, WHAT MY LINE OF QUESTIONING WAS FOCUSED ON EARLIER WITH THE STEWART GARDEN WAS TRYING TO DISENTANGLE AND FIND INCREASED AREAS OF ALIGNMENT THAT I TRULY HOPE TO SEE AS THIS ADVANCES THROUGH THE PROCESS. THANKS, COMMISSIONER POWELL. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST THE MOTION? YES, COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE. UH, I AM REALLY STRUGGLING WITH THIS CASE, BUT I'M ACTUALLY, I'M GOING TO SPEAK AGAINST IT. UH, UH, AND I THINK, SO WE HAVE A VERY SIMILAR SITUATION IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD IN CLARKSVILLE, QUITE HONESTLY, WHERE WE HAD A RESTAURANT THAT EXTENDED TO BUILD AN ACCESSORY HOUSE FOR BREAKFAST AND LUNCH. IT'S LITERALLY THE EXACT SAME CONDITION AS A RESTAURANT DOWN THE STREET, WATERTON AND WESTLAND AND I, I KNOW FROM LIVING HERE THAT OF THE FOLKS THAT COME TO THAT RESTAURANT, OTHER THAN INCREASING OUR TAX BASE IN THE CITY, REALLY AREN'T PROVIDING COMMUNITY BENEFIT. SO I AM REALLY QUICK TO APPROVE NEW HOUSING IN OUR CITY, ESPECIALLY NEAR OUR CORRIDORS. BUT OF, I, I LOOK AT THIS PROJECT AND SAY, REALLY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ANOTHER RESTAURANT, UH, THAT I'M SURE WILL BE LOVELY OF AND WELL UTILIZED, BUT I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT PROVIDES THE COMMUNITY. I I, I DON'T, AND I I I KNOW WE'RE NEAR THE CORRIDOR, BUT I'M NOT CERTAIN THAT EITHER COLLETTO OR 22ND STREET ARE ON THE CORRIDOR. I MEAN, WE HAVE THE ALLEY SEPARATING 'EM. SO THERE'S A SEMANTIC [01:35:01] QUESTION HERE AND ALL OF THAT TOGETHER JUST LEAVES ME DEEPLY UNEASY ABOUT MOVING FORWARD WITH, OF COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENT IE THIS RESTAURANT OF ON A BLOCK THAT IS OTHERWISE HOUSING. I'M NOT SUGGESTING THAT IT SHOULD ONLY BE SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING, BUT, UH, I THINK WE ARE CHANGING THE USE HERE, UH, AND UH, FOR THOSE REASONS, I, I I CAN'T SUPPORT IT TONIGHT. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE, OTHER COMMISSIONERS SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST THE MOTION? UM, I, I SAW COMMISSIONER ROJAN FIRST. SORRY, COMMISSIONER AHMED. I HAVE TO ADMIT I'M STRUGGLING WITH THIS CASE AS WELL. UM, I'VE SPOKEN WITH YOUR COMMUNITY AND I'VE SPOKEN WITH SOME OF THE FOLKS AT THE PLAN CONTACT TEAM AS WELL. THE GOAL HERE IS TO SLOW DOWN DEVELOPMENT IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD. YOU MENTIONED RAINY AS AN EXAMPLE OF A PLACE THAT RADICALLY SAW AN EXPLOSION IN DEVELOPMENT. I HAVE TO SAY THAT I SEE THIS CASE AS A WAY TO SLOW DOWN DEVELOPMENT. I THINK IT'S ALSO A WAY TO ESTABLISH A PRECEDENT OF SCALE OF HOW YOU CREATE A BUFFER TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THIS SITE DOES NOT HAVE HOUSING ON IT. I THINK FOR ALL OF US, IT WOULD BE AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT PROPOSITION IF IT CURRENTLY HAD SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING ON IT THAT WE WERE REMOVING. I THINK THAT THERE IS AN ASPECT OF THIS CASE THAT STILL HAS WORK TO BE DONE, AND I WOULD SPEAK BOTH TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND TO THE APPLICANT EMPHATICALLY THAT WORK NEEDS TO BE DONE. I WOULD BE DISAPPOINTED IF THIS CAME TO COUNCIL WITHOUT NEIGHBORHOOD APPROVAL AND SUPPORT BECAUSE I REALLY THINK THAT AT THE END OF THE DAY, IT DESERVES THE SUPPORT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO GIVE THEM AN OPPORTUNITY TO SLOW DOWN DEVELOPMENT. WE'RE ABOUT TO HEAR A PRO, WE'RE ABOUT TO HEAR A CASE BEFORE US HERE IN MOMENTS WHERE THEY'RE GONNA BUILD TO 400 FEET RIGHT NEXT TO SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES IN ANOTHER PART OF THE CITY. THIS IS A WAY TO SLOW THAT DEVELOPMENT DOWN AND TO MAINTAIN THE SCALE OF YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD. YOU HAVE AN APPLICANT WHO IS TRYING TO RUN AN, AN OPERATION. I UNDERSTAND IT'S A HIGH END RESTAURANT. WE TALKED ABOUT THAT AND I UNDERSTAND THE DIFFICULTIES OF THAT BECOMING A NEIGHBORHOOD BENEFIT, BUT I DO THINK THAT THIS IS A SENSITIVE PROJECT AND IT'S WORTH SUPPORTING. THANK YOU. WE HAVE A COUPLE MORE SPOTS AGAINST COMMISSIONER AHED, ARE YOU SPEAKING AGAINST? FOUR. OKAY. WE ARE OUT OF OUR SPEAKER SLOTS FOR FOUR. IF ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS WISH TO SPEAK AGAINST, WE HAVE AVAILABILITY. OKAY. SEEING NONE, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE. SO THE MOTION IS FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR AND AGAINST. OKAY. SO THAT MOTION PASSES NINE TO ONE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH TO ALL OF OUR SPEAKERS THAT WERE HERE AND TO STAFF AND THE APPLICANT FOR TALKING THROUGH THIS WITH US. LET'S GO [Items 13 & 14 (Part 2 of 2)] AHEAD AND MOVE INTO 13 AND 14, WHICH WE'LL TAKE UP TOGETHER. AND THEN WE WILL TAKE A BRIEF RECESS AFTER THAT, UNLESS THERE'S ANY REQUEST FOR A BREAK AT THE MOMENT. LET'S GET THROUGH ONE MORE CASE POSSIBLE. GOOD EVENING COMMISSION, CYNTHIA HORI, UM, AUSTIN PLANNING. THESE ARE ITEMS 13 AND 14 ON YOUR AGENDA CASES C 14 20 25 0 9 WEST MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR BOULEVARD, OASIS STREET AND CASE NUMBER C 14 20 25 0 0 9 3 WEST 18TH OASIS STREET. UM, THE ADDRESSES ASSOCIATED WITH THESE CASES ARE 6 0 1, 6 0 7 6 11, 6 15 6 19 WEST MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR BOULEVARD, 1809 RIO GRANDE STREET, 1806 NOS STREET. UM, THOSE ARE FOR 0 0 9 0 AND THEN FOR 0 0 9 3 18 0 1 RIO GRANDE STREET, 6 0 4 AND 6 0 2 WEST 18TH STREET, EIGHTEEN HUNDRED AND EIGHTEEN OH TWO NOS STREET. BOTH PROPERTIES IN QUESTION ARE APPROXIMATELY 0.95 ACRES EACH. THEY'RE DEVELOPED WITH A LAUNDRY SERVICE, UM, KNOWN AS JACK BROWN CLEANERS, A FAST FOOD. JIMMY JOHN'S, A BAKERY TIPPED TREATS, MULTIFAMILY PENTHOUSE APARTMENTS, WHICH HAS 48 UNITS AND AN OFFICE BUILDING. THE EXISTING ZONINGS FOR THE PROPERTY ARE CS, GO AND CS MU. THERE IS ACCESS TO WEST MARTIN LUTHER KING JR BOULEVARD, A LEVEL THREE STREET, UH, NO STREET LEVEL ONE RIO GRANDE STREET LEVEL ONE WEST 18TH STREET, WHICH IS A LEVEL ONE. AND THEN THE ALLEY, WHICH IS IN BETWEEN THEM, WHICH IS SET TO REMAIN. THE SITE IS IN THE NORTHWEST DISTRICT OF THE DOWNTOWN AREA PLAN AND IS CHARACTERIZED AS MIXED USE. THIS SURROUNDING AREA HAS SEVERAL OFFICE AND COMMERCIAL USES AROUND IT, ALONG WITH VARIOUS RESIDENTIAL TYPES SUCH AS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. THE SITE IS IN THE DOWNTOWN REGIONAL CENTER WITH A METRO, A METRO RAPID BUS STOP ALONG GUADALUPE, WHICH IS 0.23 MILES AWAY. [01:40:01] THE UT CAMPUS AND A CC RIO GRANDE CAMPUS ARE BOTH WITHIN 0.5 MILES OF THE PROPERTY. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING D-M-U-C-O ON BOTH CASES FOR UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT THAT WILL CONSIST OF APPROXIMATELY 435 DWELLING UNITS. RETAIL AND A HOTEL STAFF IS RECOMMENDING D-M-U-C-O HERE WITH A LIST OF PROHIBITED USES AND WITH THE KNOWLEDGE THAT THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT ALLOWED IN THE DMU DISTRICT IS FOR 120 FEET, HALF OF THE PROPERTY IS ELIGIBLE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM, WHICH WOULD GRANT GREATER HEIGHTS FOR THE EASTERN PORTION OF THE REZONING AREAS. THE APPLICANT HAS SUBMITTED A SEPARATE APPLICATION TO PARTICIPATE IN THE DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM. HOWEVER, THIS REZONING IS FOR A MAXIMUM OF 120 FEET IN HEIGHT. I'M HERE FOR ANY QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE THEM. UM, AND I WOULD LIKE TO NOTE THAT THE SPEAKERS THAT WERE HERE IN CHAMBERS ARE NO LONGER HERE FOR THIS CASE. UM, BUT STILL HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU GUYS HAVE. WELL, SINCE WE'RE COMBINING THE ITEMS, WE'RE ALSO COMBINING THE TIME. UM, SO FOR ITEMS 1314, WE HAVE APPLICANT LEAH, BOJO. LEAH, YOU HAVE 10 MINUTES. I'M GONNA TALK VERY SLOWLY. NO, I, UH, I'M LEAH BOJO HERE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT AND I'M HAPPY TO GO THROUGH MY PRESENTATION. I'LL GO THROUGH IT REAL QUICK AND YOU CAN ASK ME QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE ANY. AND I'LL SEE YOU IN MARCH, HOPEFULLY . UM, SO THIS IS A PROJECT SITE. YOU CAN SEE US MADE UP OF A BUNCH OF DIFFERENT SMALL PARCELS. UM, THIS IS SORT OF A BREAKDOWN OF THE SIZE OF THE PARCELS. EACH ONE JUST UNDER EACH HALF OF THE BLOCK, JUST UNDER AN ACRE. AGAIN, IT IS A FULL BLOCK, UM, WHICH IS EXCITING. UM, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A LOT OF REALLY GREAT STUFF. I THINK THIS IS AN EXCELLENT LOCATION FOR BOTH THE, THE COMMERCIAL USES. I MEAN, AND THIS IS LIKE, EVEN, THIS IS LIKE AUSTIN, YOU KNOW, LIKE LOOK WHERE, LOOK AT ALL THESE THINGS THAT ARE NEARBY. UM, WALKABLE, BIKEABLE, TRANSIT ABLE. UM, SO HERE AGAIN, YOU CAN SEE THE TWO DIFFERENT ZONING APPLICATIONS. WE ARE OF COURSE MAINTAINING THAT ALLEY. UM, WE ARE PROHIBITING THE CO PROHIBITS THE KIND OF USES YOU WOULD EXPECT TO BE PROHIBITED ON A SITE LIKE THIS DOWNTOWN. UM, THIS IS THE THREE SORT OF PROCESSES THAT WE'RE GOING THROUGH. AS YOU KNOW, WE'RE HERE IN THE MIDDLE AT ZONING. UM, WE ARE GETTING RID OF THAT BILLBOARD. UM, THAT'S THE SITE TODAY. I KNOW. UM, IT'S LIKE MAYBE THE MOST EXCITING PART ABOUT IT. UM, AND SO WE'RE HERE TO REQUEST YOUR, YOUR SUPPORT FOR THE ZONING. AND LIKE I SAID, I, I HOPE TO BE BACK BEFORE YOU ON MARCH 10TH TO TALK ABOUT THE REST OF THE PROJECT, WHICH IS VERY EXCITING. THANK YOU. OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS PHILLIP WILEY. PHILLIP, YOU'LL HAVE FOUR MINUTES. MR. WILEY'S WAIVING HIS TIME. OKAY. I KNOW THAT WE MENTIONED, UM, SOME OF THE SPEAKERS HAVE LEFT, BUT WE'RE JUST GONNA SAY HER NAME FOR THE RECORD. UM, MEGAN MEISENBACH. ELLA MADDOX. JOSEPH HOWARD. THAT CONCLUDES SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM. THANK YOU. WE WILL GO AHEAD AND SO WE WON'T HAVE AN APPLICANT REBUTTAL. UM, HAVING NO OPPOSITION SPEAKERS PRESENT, WE'LL TAKE A VOTE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING MOTION BY COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSN. WITHOUT OBJECTION. THAT PASSES. WE'LL MOVE INTO OUR ROUND ROBIN EIGHT COMMISSIONERS AT FIVE MINUTES EACH. ANY COMMISSIONERS WITH QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, GO AHEAD. UM, SO SORRY MISS, UH, CAN I HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? IF WE COULD BRING BACK UP HER SLIDE PRESENTATION? YES, MA'AM. UM, AND I THINK ACTUALLY JUST I WANTED CLARIFICATION SINCE YOU HOPE POTENTIALLY WILL BE COMING BACK TO US MM-HMM . ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE, UM, REQUEST FOR 120 FEET VERSUS THE PART OF THE PARTIAL THAT'S ABLE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS. IF WE CAN GO TO THAT SLIDE THAT SH YEAH, I THINK IT'S THAT ONE RIGHT THERE. OH, THIS ONE YOUR, YES. WHICHEVER ONE SHOWS IT BEST. YEAH, THAT WORKS. AND IF YOU COULD JUST WORK, WALK THROUGH THAT SINCE WE WILL BE OBVIOUSLY, POTENTIALLY DISCUSSING THAT AT THE NEXT TIME WE SEE YOU. ABSOLUTELY. SO I'M GONNA USE, ACTUALLY I'M GONNA USE THIS ONE, UH, IF THAT'S OKAY. SO, UM, SO AND I, THE REASON IS JUST BECAUSE IT GIVES A BIGGER, A BIGGER CONTEXT THERE. SO THE DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM CUTS RIGHT THROUGH THE CENTER OF THE SITE. SO IT'S ALMOST LIKE THERE'S FOUR QUADRANTS. SO THE, THE SIDE ON THE WESTERN, THE WESTERN TWO HALVES WILL REMAIN AT ONE 20. EVEN WITH THE DENSITY BONUS, THOSE SIDES ARE NOT, UM, ABLE TO ASK FOR ADDITIONAL HEIGHT ON THE EASTERN TWO SIDES. WE WILL BE ASKING FOR THE ADDITIONAL HEIGHT ABOUT 400 FEET. UM, ONE WILL BE A LITTLE OVER ONE BUILDING IS A LITTLE HIGHER THAN THAT ONE. BUILDING'S A LITTLE LOWER THAN THAT. UM, IT'LL BE A HOTEL ON THE TOP AND, UM, RESIDENTIAL ON THE, ON THE SOUTHERN PART. UM, AND SO THAT IS A COUNCIL APPROVAL TO EXCEED THE HEIGHT OF ONE 20. AND THAT OBVIOUSLY GIVES US THE FAR THAT COMES WITH THE DENSITY BONUS AND ALL THE COMMUNITY BENEFITS AS WELL. AND JUST A FOLLOW UP QUESTION AS TO, WAS THERE A POTENTIAL FOR PUTTING THE WHOLE SITE ONTO, I GUESS I'M JUST CURIOUS AS PART OF THE REQUEST WHY WE DIDN'T TRY TO GET DMU OR THE ADDITIONAL ENTITLEMENTS FOR THE ENTIRE SITE? SO THERE WAS A TIME EARLY IN THIS PROJECT WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT DOING THAT ACROSS THE WHOLE SITE. UM, IN WORKING [01:45:01] WITH THE JUDGES HILL NEIGHBORS, WE MADE A FEW DIFFERENT CONCESSIONS AND THAT WAS ONE OF THEM. WE, WE PUSHED ALL THE DENSITY OVER TO THE, TO THE EASTERN SIDE SO THAT IT DOES STAIR STEP DOWN. UM, WE ALSO TURNED OUR ENTRANCES, WHICH I'LL TALK MORE ABOUT NEXT MONTH. WE DID, WE DID DO A HANDFUL OF THINGS AND WE'RE OF COURSE OPEN TO DOING MORE THINGS BEFORE WE COME BACK BEFORE YOU. UM, OKAY, GREAT. AND THEN JUST AS A CURIOSITY, THERE IS SOME TOD, UH, OR WE HAVE THIS WONDERFUL PROGRAM CALLED ETOD DOES THAT, THAT DOES NOT ACTUALLY ENCOURAGE MORE HEIGHTS. SO THE 120 WOULD BE THE MAX ANYWAY, THAT RIGHT IN GIVEN E 2D? YES. OKAY, GREAT. AND THEN I GUESS ONE FINAL QUESTION, JUST SO WE'RE CLEAR ON THIS. PART OF THE REASON YOU HAVE TO COME BACK AND SPEAK TO US ABOUT THE NTA IS BECAUSE OF THE RULES THAT HAVE RECENTLY CHANGED. YES. THIS WOULD BE A ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL UNDER OTHER, OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES. I MEAN, IT'S, IT'S SLIGHTLY MORE COMPLICATED THAN THAT BECAUSE OUR PROGRAMS ARE ALL IN FLUX RIGHT NOW. BUT THAT'S THE SHORT ANSWER. THE IDEA IS THAT THE DENSITY BONUS WAS USED TO BE ADMINIST ADMINISTRATIVE, SORRY, , UH, AND NOW, UM, WITH THE HEIGHT LIMITS IN CBD AND THINGS LIKE THAT NOW IT'S PRETTY MUCH ALWAYS GONNA BE A, A COUNCIL APPROVAL. SO YOU'LL SEE MORE OF THESE, I'M SURE. GREAT. AND THEN I DO HAVE ONE FINAL QUESTION, AND I SWEAR WE'LL WRAP THIS UP. UM, JUST REGARDING THE FACT THAT THIS IS USUALLY AN AREA WE THINK OF USING UNO OR THE UNIVERSITY NEIGHBORHOOD OVERLAY, BUT THIS IS ACTUALLY JUST ON THE WRONG SIDE OF UNO. IS THAT CORRECT? AND CAN YOU SPEAK TO THAT? THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT. SO UNO, THIS IS WHY, ONE OF THE REASONS I PICKED THIS SLIDE. SO THE YELLOW IS THE UNO AREA. THE BURNT ORANGE OF COURSE IS UT CAMPUS. WE ARE, THIS IS PART OF DOWNTOWN OFFICIALLY DENSITY BONUS, AGAIN, ALL THE WAY FROM THE MIDDLE OF OUR PROPERTY TO THE EAST. UM, SO WE ARE ACROSS THE STREET FROM, FROM SIGNIFICANT HEIGHTS RIGHT ACROSS MLK. UM, AND SO I THINK THIS, THIS IS GONNA GIVE A GOOD, UM, CORRIDOR FEELING, YOU KNOW, WITH SORT OF MATCHING HEIGHTS ON BOTH SIDES. GREAT. THANK YOU. THOSE ARE ALL MY QUESTIONS. THANKS COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, OTHER COMMISSIONERS WITH QUESTIONS? I CAN'T SEE THE ONLINE COMMISSIONER, SO IF YOU DON'T MIND, UH, VOCALIZING IF YOU HAVE A QUESTION. YES. COMMISSIONER ROJAN TRYING TO MAKE ROOM FOR SOME OTHER PEOPLE HERE. . UM, UH, THANK YOU F MS. BOJO FOR THE PRESENTATION. THANKS FOR REACHING OUT THIS WEEK ABOUT THIS CASE. UM, THE, IT SOUNDS LIKE CONCESSIONS HAVE ALREADY BEEN MADE TO JUDGES HILL ALREADY IN TERMS OF THE SCALE OF THE BUILDING IS STEPPING DOWN AS YOU'VE ALREADY MENTIONED. YES. UM, CAN YOU SPEAK A LITTLE BIT MORE TO THEIR CONCERNS ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT AND WHAT THE STATUS IS TODAY? ABSOLUTELY. UM, SO, UH, WE HAVE DONE A PHASE ONE. I'M GONNA, I'M GONNA DO MY BEST ON THIS. I'M, THIS IS NOT MY AREA OF EXPERTISE. WE HAVE DONE A PHASE ONE ON MOST OF THAT NORTHERN HALF OF THE BLOCK, NOT THE FAR, UH, EASTERN PORTION, BUT ALL THOSE OTHER PARCELS, JACK BROWN AND THE ADJACENT PARCELS. AND WHEN YOU DO A PHASE ONE, IN ADDITION TO LOOKING AT THE WHAT'S IN THE MIDDLE OF THE SITE OR LIKE WHAT THE SITE IS, YOU ALSO LOOK AT THE, THE BOUNDARIES TO OTHER SITES. AND SO THAT PHASE, WE DID A PHASE ONE MANY YEARS, OR, YOU KNOW, THE OWNER DID A PHASE ONE SEVERAL YEARS AGO. UM, IT CAME BACK, NOT SURPRISINGLY THAT IT HAD CONTAMINANTS ON IT. UM, SO THEY DID THE PHASE TWO, THEY FIGURED OUT WHAT THE CONTAMINANTS ARE. THEY DID THE CLEANUP LAST YEAR, AND THEN YOU GO BACK AND DO A NEW PHASE ONE AND HOPE IT'S CLEAN. AND IT WAS, AND WE GOT, I BELIEVE WE GOT THAT NEW PHASE ONE IN DECEMBER. IS, IS THE CLEANER STILL SITTING THERE BUILDING? THE BUILDING IS SITTING THERE, BUT THE DIRT HAS BEEN REMOVED AND REPLACED AROUND IT, CORRECT? YES. NOT BELOW IT, I GUESS IS THE QUESTION. I DON'T KNOW HONESTLY. I I I'M HAPPY TO SHARE THE REPORT WITH YOU IF YOU'D LIKE. I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THESE REPORTS, SO I'M, I'M A LITTLE NERVOUS TO ANSWER WRONG. THAT'S, THAT'S OKAY. THIS IS ALSO NOT MY AREA OF EXPERTISE EITHER. I DID, I REALLY DON'T KNOW. I DID NOTICE THAT THE CONTAMINANTS DID APPEAR TO BE COMING FROM LEAKING TANKS. THEY SAID WERE STORED IN THE BASEMENT. OKAY. WHAT I WILL SAY IS THAT I AM NOT SURE THAT AUSTINITES IN GENERAL WOULD SAY THAT THEY'RE VERY TRUSTWORTHY OF THE STATE IN HANDLING ALL THINGS ENVIRONMENTAL FOR REASONS YOU MAY BE ABLE TO ASCERTAIN MM-HMM . IN WHICH CASE THE TCEQ MAY NOT BE ASKING FOR THE LEVEL OF, OF SCRUTINY THAT THIS SITE DESERVES. MM-HMM . AND I WOULD ENCOURAGE THE APPLICANT TO CONSIDER THE CONCERNS OF THE ADJACENT NEIGHBORS AND PERHAPS CONSIDER GOING A LITTLE BIT FURTHER IN THEIR INVESTIGATIONS ONCE DEMO IS IS APPROVED. ABSOLUTELY. TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DO NOT ACTUALLY HAVE A FOR SURE A, AN ONGOING PROBLEM ON THIS SITE. UM, I DO THINK THAT, THAT THE CONCERNS THEY HAVE ARE VALID MM-HMM . TO BE SURE. I THINK THAT WHAT I'VE SPOKEN TO THEM ABOUT IS THEY'RE GONNA PROBLEMATICALLY BUMP INTO THE FACT THAT YOU'RE GONNA HAVE SATISFIED THE STATE, UM, AND THERE'S STILL GONNA BE POSSIBLY BE MORE THEY WANT YOU TO DO. UM, AND SO I THINK NEGOTIATING ON THAT RELATIONSHIP AND MAKING SURE THAT WE ARE NOT, I WOULD ENCOURAGE THE APPLICANT TO GO ABOVE AND BEYOND THIS SIMPLE STATE REQUIREMENTS IN THIS CASE BECAUSE OF THE EXTREME TOXICITY OF THOSE CHEMICALS. I THINK OUR NEXT STEP, IF, IF I MAY, IS FOR OUR, UH, ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER WHO DID ALL OF THAT WORK TO GET IN TOUCH WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER THAT THE NEIGHBORS HAD REACHED OUT TO AND HAVE A CONVERSATION. I HAVE SOME OF THE BACK AND FORTH ABOUT IT, OR I HAVE OUR ENGINEER'S RESPONSE TO SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WERE RAISED, BUT AGAIN, IT'S NOT REALLY MEANINGFUL TO ME. SO I THINK OUR NEXT STEP AND IS FOR THOSE TWO TO TALK AND I'M [01:50:01] HAPPY TO REPORT BACK TO Y'ALL, UM, HOW THAT GOES. I APPRECIATE THAT AND IF WE COULD MAKE SURE THAT WE DO TALK ABOUT IT AGAIN THE NEXT TIME YOU'RE BEFORE US, SO I THINK THAT WOULD BE A GOOD TIME TO DO THAT. YES, SIR. UM, OUTSIDE OF THAT, I THINK FROM WHAT I HAVE SEEN OF THIS PROJECT, THIS SEEMS LIKE A PRETTY INTERESTING AND, UH, POSITIVE DEVELOPMENT FOR THIS PART OF OUR CITY. SO THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU. THANKS. COMMISSIONER ROEN? YES, COMMISSIONER GANNON. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. UM, I HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS. YES. UM, MOSTLY, UM, THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE SITE HAS AN EXISTING APARTMENT COMPLEX ON IT, RIGHT? YES. UM, I UNDERSTAND IT'S OLDER. UM, IT'S PROBABLY NOT IN THE BEST CONDITION. UH, AND I APPRECIATE YOU SHARING WITH ME THE TENANT RELOCATION INFO. UM, I JUST WANTED TO EXPLORE THAT A LITTLE BIT MORE AND JUST UNDERSTAND IT. AGAIN, THIS IS MY FIRST UH, COMMISSION. SO, UM, CAN YOU YEAH. UH, SORT OF TALK THROUGH THE TIMELINE AND HOW THE TENANTS OF THE EXISTING APARTMENT BUILDING WOULD BE? YES. SO HOW THAT WOULD WORK, MY UNDERSTANDING IS AT THE TIME OF, AT THE TIME WHEN WE PULLED THE DEMOLITION PERMIT, UM, WE, OR WELL, 120 DAYS BEFORE WE PULLED THE DEMOLITION PERMIT, I THINK IT MIGHT, OR IT MIGHT BE 90, BUT THERE'S, I'M SORRY I CAN'T QUOTE IT, BUT I I KNOW WHAT I, WHATEVER I SENT YOU, WE WOULD COMPLY WITH. WE HAVE TO NOTICE THE TENANTS, IF THERE ARE IN THERE ARE INCOME QUALIFICATIONS FOR THE FOLKS THAT LIVE THERE AT THAT TIME. UM, IT DOESN'T DO A LOT OF GOOD TO REACH OUT. LIKE WE'RE, WE'RE YEARS AWAY FROM THAT AT THIS POINT. UM, AND THIS HAS GENERALLY BEEN STUDENT HOUSING WITH FAIRLY HIGH TURNOVER. UM, RIGHT NOW IT'S ABOUT, UM, 80% OCCUPIED. SO AT THE TIME THAT WE PULL THAT DEMOLITION PERMIT, YOU KNOW, WE WILL HAVE TO BACK OUT, GET IN TOUCH WITH THOSE TENANTS, SEE WHO QUALIFIES FOR WHAT. UM, THERE'S ONE SET OF TENANT RELOCATION RULES IN 25, I THINK ONE, UM, WHICH IS WHAT I'VE JUST TALKED ABOUT. THERE'S ALSO A SET OF TENANT PROTECTIONS IN FOUR 18, WHICH IS NOT CURRENTLY APPLICABLE TO THE DENSITY BONUS, BUT I EXPECT IT TO BE APPLICABLE. THEY'RE, THEY'RE, THEY'RE MAKING THAT APPLICABLE TO EACH DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM AS THEY REWRITE IT. AND AS YOU KNOW, THEY'RE REWRITING THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS RIGHT NOW. SO THAT PROVIDES EVEN ADDITIONAL PROTECTIONS TO THOSE FOLKS. OKAY. SO, SO IT'S, IT'S IT'S SEVERAL YEARS AWAY BEFORE THE TENANTS WOULD HAVE TO EVEN BE THAT'S RIGHT. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. OTHER COMMISSIONERS WITH QUESTIONS? GREAT. SEEING NONE. I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION ON THIS ITEM. GO FOR IT. COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, I'LL GET THREE FOR THREE. UM, I'D LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND MAKE, UH, MOVE, UH, STAFF RECOMMENDATION. I WILL SECOND, UH, COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, WOULD YOU LIKE TO START BY SPEAKING TO YOUR MOTION? UH, YEAH, I MEAN, I JUST HAVE TO SAY I'M THRILLED TO SEE THIS REDEVELOPMENT. UM, WE'VE REALLY BEEN, IT'S BEEN CLEAR IF YOU DRIVE THROUGH, THROUGH AND AROUND UT WHERE THE UNO BOUNDARIES REALLY END. AND THIS IS NICE TO SEE THE FIRST MOVE TO SORT OF ACTUALLY GET SOME ADDITIONAL HOUSING AND BETTER LAND USE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF, UM, MLK AND REALLY DELIGHTED THAT THIS IS GONNA BE A FULL BLOCK AND A REALLY THOUGHTFUL DEVELOPMENT AND EXCITED THAT THE APPLICANT IS TRYING TO WORK AS BEST THEY CAN GIVEN THE SORT OF DIFFICULTY OF ZONING THERE, THAT WE DON'T HAVE THIS, UH, UNIVERSAL OVERLAY LIKE WE DO ON THE UNO SIDE AND MORE GENERALLY THAT WE'RE GOING TO SEE SOMETHING LIKE BILLBOARDS AND DRY CLEANERS TURN INTO STUDENT HOUSING AND HOTELS. SO OVERALL, I REALLY A NET POSITIVE AND APPRECIATE ALL THE WORK THAT THE APPLICANT HAS DONE AND WOULD OF COURSE ENCOURAGE Y'ALL TO CONTINUE TO TALK TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UM, AND SEE IF WE CAN HAVE THEM COME INTO ALIGNMENT. ANYONE SPEAKING AGAINST THE MOTION SPEAKING FOR COMMISSIONER AHMED, DID YOU WANNA SPEAK FOR, UM, I WASN'T PLANNING NO PRESSURE. I THOUGHT I SAW YOUR HAND LAST TIME. UM, I'M GONNA GO TO COMMISSIONER BRETTON AND THEN I'LL COME TO YOU. COMMISSIONER POWELL, I AM ECSTATIC TO SPEAK FOR, UH, THIS CASE. I USED TO LIVE FOR THREE LONG, HECTIC YEARS AT THE HALSTEAD CO-OP, WHICH OCCUPIES THE TWO TOP FLOORS OF 1905 NEW AIS. AND I SPENT MANY, MANY, MANY, MANY, MANY EVENINGS, UH, LOOKING OUT OF THE BREEZEWAY ON THE FIFTH FLOOR OUT TO THAT EXCUSE MY LANGUAGE, DAMNED BILLBOARD, UH, AND DARK PARKING LOT. IT WAS, I I WOULD SEE CARS PULL UP THEIR LIGHTS ON AND THEN OFF AND I WONDERED IF ANYTHING WAS GOING ON THERE, BUT IT WAS SO ABSOLUTELY DEAD, UH, THAT I JUST EXPECTED NOT REALLY. UM, IF YOU LOOK IN THE BREEZEWAY, THERE ARE HANGING LIGHTS. I PUT THOSE UP WITH SOME HELP OF OTHER OF MY CO-OP FRIENDS. UM, I AM JUST SO EXCITED TO SEE SOME VITALITY, SOME ADDITIONAL, UH, COMMUNITY BENEFIT WITH THOSE SIDEWALKS. UH, THEY ARE NOT GREAT RIGHT NOW. UH, AND THE GREAT STREETS REQUIREMENTS THAT WILL COME ALONG WITH THAT DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS IF IT IS APPROVED THE NEXT TIME WE SEE THIS CASE. SO I WILL [01:55:01] LEAVE IT THERE. THANKS COMMISSIONER BRETTON, ANYONE SPEAKING AGAINST? OKAY. COMMISSIONER POWELL, YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK FOR, UM, APART FROM ECHOING, UH, I MEAN JUST COMMISSIONER MAXWELL SUMMED IT UP PERFECTLY. BILLBOARDS DRY CLEANERS TO HOUSING FOR STUDENTS. IT'S AMAZING . UM, I DO WANT TO, UH, EMPHASIZE SOMETHING, UH, THAT ONE OF MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS TALKED ABOUT WAS THE TENANT RELOCATION PIECE, RIGHT? SO WE KNOW THIS IS YEARS IN THE FUTURE. WE KNOW THAT THIS IS, YOU KNOW, DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS, WHICH WILL HAVE IMPLICATIONS ON THIS. I JUST WANT TO EMPHASIZE AND COMMEND NOT JUST THE, THE PLANNED COMPLIANCE, OF COURSE WITH IT, BUT ALSO MY, MY HOPE THAT ANY TENANT RELOCATION TROUBLES ARE GONE ABOVE AND BEYOND TO TAKE CARE OF THOSE FOLKS. I AGREE THE VAST MAJORITY OF THOSE FOLKS ARE STUDENTS, UH, IS VERY MUCH LIKE A ONE OR TWO YEAR LEASE SITUATION. BUT IF THERE ARE FOLKS WHO DON'T FIT THAT DESCRIPTION THE WAY THAT, UH, THIS DEVELOPER AND THAT THIS DEVELOPMENT TAKES CARE OF THOSE FOLKS IS GONNA SPEAK VOLUMES TO THE COMMUNITY. I'M EXCITED TO SEE IT 'CAUSE IT'S A GREAT DEVELOPMENT. ALL RIGHT. NOT SEEING ANYONE WANTING SPEAK AGAINST THIS, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE. SO THE MOTION IS BY COMMISSIONER MAXWELL FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION, AND THIS INCLUDES ITEMS 13 AND 14, WHICH WE'RE TAKING UP TOGETHER. THOSE IN FAVOR. ALL RIGHT, THAT'S UNANIMOUS. THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU TO THE APPLICANT STAFF AND ALL OF OUR SPEAKERS ON THIS CASE. UM, WITHOUT OBJECTION, I THINK LET'S TAKE A 10 MINUTE RECESS BEFORE WE JUMP INTO ITEM 18. UM, LET'S COME BACK AT EIGHT 10. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, I WILL CALL US BACK AND [18. Code Amendment: C20-2025-008 - Sign Code Changes for Relocating Billboards] WE WILL GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED ON ITEM 18. SO I THINK WE'LL HEAR A LITTLE BIT FROM MS. LINK BEFORE WE JUMP INTO OUR QUESTIONS ON THIS. DOES THAT WORK FOR YOU? YES. UH, PATRICIA LINK WITH THE LAW DEPARTMENT. UM, I WANNA SET SOME CONTEXT FOR THIS CONVERSATION AND I KNOW LAST TIME WE TALKED ABOUT IT, WE HAD KIND OF TWO ISSUES GOING ON. COUNCIL PASSED A RESOLUTION IN 2024, UM, ESSENTIALLY TALKING ABOUT HOW CITY CODE RESTRICTS PLACEMENT AND RELOCATION OF BILLBOARDS NEAR RESIDENTIAL AND COMMUNITY SPACES. AND THE REDEVELOPMENT, UM, THAT WE'RE EXPERIENCING IN OUR CITY, INCLUDING TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS, UM, IS MAY REQUIRE RELOCATION OF ADDITIONAL NON-CONFORMING SIGNS THAN MAYBE WE HAD. WE HAD PREVIOUSLY, UH, CONS EXPERIENCED. UM, BUT I DO WANNA MAKE A COUPLE OF POINTS. UM, ONE IS THAT WE ALLOW RELOCATION TODAY AND THERE ARE PARAMETERS AROUND IT. WE ALSO ALLOW RELOCATION ON A SITE IF A BILLBOARD, IF A PART, A SLIVER OF A TRACK IS TAKEN BECAUSE OF A PROJECT, OR ACTUALLY WE'VE HAD THIS COME UP WITH AE TRANSMISSION LINES WHERE THEY HAVE TO MOVE THE BILLBOARD. UM, IN THOSE INSTANCES THEY ARE ALLOWED TO RELOCATE THAT SIGN. AND SO WE WILL CONTINUE KIND OF, REGARDLESS OF HOW, HOW COUNCIL ENDS UP DECIDING THIS ISSUE, THERE WILL STILL BE RELOCATION PROVISIONS IN THE CODE. SO I DO WANNA MAKE THAT THAT IS MAKE THAT CLEAR AND THE ASK FROM THE COUNCIL WAS TO MAKE IT MORE FLEXIBLE. AND SO THE WAY THAT WE ARE PROPOSING TO ACCOMPLISH THAT, BASED ON WHAT COUNCIL HAS ASKED FOR, IS TO KIND OF REDUCE THE NUMBER OF BARRIERS TO RELOCATING A SIGN. SO TODAY YOU HAVE MULTIPLE HERE, IT'S GONNA BE SOMETHING THAT HAS TO BE, UM, ESSENTIALLY RELOCATED BECAUSE OF THE TRANSPORTATION PROJECT. SO WE'RE GONNA TAKE THE LAND OR WE'RE THREATENING TO TAKE THE LAND. UM, AND IT COULD BE US, IT COULD BE TXDOT, UM, IT COULD BE ANOTHER JURISDICTION, UM, BECAUSE WE ACTUALLY REGULATE BILLBOARDS WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS AND ALSO IN THE ETJ. SO THIS PROVISION, WHAT WE HAVE PROPOSED AT THIS POINT IS TO SAY NO ON SCENIC HIGHWAY SCENIC ROADWAYS, WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH CURRENT REGULATIONS. UM, AND NO ACTUAL PLACEMENT ON A TRACT THAT HAS A RESIDENTIAL BASE ZONE. SO WHERE YOU MAY SEE SOMEWHERE, UM, SO YOU COULD POTENTIALLY HAVE IT ON A COMMERCIAL TRACT. UM, BUT REALLY WE'RE KEEPING IT, UM, OFF OF THE TRACKS THAT HAVE RESIDENTIAL. AND TODAY'S CURRENT CODE DOES REQUIRE 500 FEET. UM, I KNOW THERE HAS BEEN A QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT, UM, THIS 500 BUFFER KIND OF APPLIES IN REVERSE. SO IF THERE IS A BILLBOARD THERE, CAN SOMEBODY DEVELOP WITHIN 500 FEET? AND THE QUESTION, THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION IS YES, THAT BUFFER IF YOU BUILD, SO WE HAVE THE EXAMPLE ACTUALLY FROM EARLIER TODAY. IF YOU HAVE A SIGN THAT'S THERE AND THEY WANTED TO KEEP THAT SIGN THERE 'CAUSE THAT'S THE AGREEMENT THEY MAKE WITH A SIGN OWNER. 'CAUSE ALSO MANY TIMES SIGNS ARE OWNED BY SOMEONE OTHER THAN THE PROPERTY OWNER. SO THEY MAY HAVE REACHED AN AGREEMENT WITH THAT SIGN OWNER AND SAID, YEAH, WE'LL LET YOU KEEP IT. AND THEY WILL BE BRINGING ESSENTIALLY THE HOUSING TO THE SIGN. AND WE'VE ACTUALLY HAD [02:00:01] THAT EXPERIENCE, UM, ON UM, SOUTH LAMAR FOR MANY YEARS. UM, AND SO THEY CAN STILL BUILD, UM, RESIDENTIAL NEAR IT. IT'S THEIR CHOICE TO MOVE CLOSE TO THE SIGN. IT JUST, IT'S NOT THE OPPOSITE IS WHAT IS REGULATED AS MOVING THE SIGN CLOSER TO RESIDENTIAL. SO WITH THAT, UM, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU SO MUCH MS. LI. I'M SURE WE WILL HAVE QUESTIONS FOR YOU HERE IN A MOMENT. UM, I KNOW WE HAVE SOME SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM. I JUST WANNA NOTE BEFOREHAND THAT AT OUR LAST MEETING WE UNCOUPLED THE DIGITAL SIGNS IN THE RIGHT OF WAY FROM THE BILLBOARD RELOCATION. AND SO WE MOVED THE DIGITAL SIGNS FORWARD TO COUNCIL WITHOUT A RECOMMENDATION. SO TONIGHT WE'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT THE BILLBOARD RELOCATION. I JUST WANNA NOTE THAT, UM, WITH THAT MS. BROWN, DO WE HAVE, WE HAVE SPEAK SOME SPEAKERS ON THIS YES. CHAIR. UM, THE PRIMARY SPEAKER FOR THIS, FOR ITEM 18 IS BEN HENRY. BEN, YOU'LL HAVE FIVE MINUTES. LOOKS LIKE MR. HENRY IS WAIVING HIS TIME. OKAY. WE'RE SWITCHING OVER TO OUR SPEAKERS IN OPPOSITION. WE HAVE MARIO RUSS WHO'S JOINING US VIRTUALLY. MARI, YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. MY NAME IS MARI RU, UM, AS A RESIDENT AT 1111 EAST 31ST STREET. I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 25 10 REGARDING THE RELOCATION OF NON-CONFORMING OFF-PREMISE SIGNS DISPLACED BY TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS AS CURRENTLY DRAFTED. THE SECTION GOVERNING NON PERFORMANCE LONGSTANDING RESIDENTIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR BILLBOARDS DISPLAY BY TRANSPORTATION CONDEMNATIONS. IN PRACTICAL TERMS, THIS CHANGE WOULD ALLOW A BILLBOARD TO BE REINTRODUCED DIRECTLY BEHIND THE VESTING HOME TO THE BY RIGHT CONDITION. SUCH OUTCOME WOULD HAVE NEGATIVE IMPACT ON NEIGHBORHOOD MOVABILITY, NEIGHBORHOOD SCALE, AND PROPERTIES. ALWAYS AS MY FAIRLY CRUDE TOUCH ROTATION IMAGES SHOW THE PROPERTIES RIGHT BEHIND MY HOME HAD ONCE BEFORE ATTEMPTED TO REZONE WITH THE SPECIFIC INTENT ON RELOCATING THE CONTEMPT AND DAMAGED BILLBOARDS FROM I 35. DAMAGES ARE ROUGH DEPICTIONS OF WHAT COULD LOOK LIKE IN OUR RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD ALREADY REIGNED BY THE ABSTENTION PROJECT. OUR HOUSE ON EAST 31ST IS JUST 35 FEET WIDE. A TYPICAL BILLBOARD IS AROUND 48 FEET WIDE. YOU CAN SEE THESE THAT SOME OF THESE IMAGES ONLY BEGAN TO TELL THE STORY OF HOW THIS WOULD LOOM OVER OUR HOME AND OUR YARD AND OTHERS LIKE IT, BUT REALIZE IT WOULD LIKELY BE MUCH BIGGER ADDING VISUAL POLLUTION TO THE TREE LINE STREET WHEN A SIMILAR BILL WAS HEARD THAT THE STATE LEGISLATURE LAST SPRING, I WAS THERE TO TESTIFY. UM, I AM HERE AGAIN TONIGHT TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU UNDERSTAND ALL OF THE STAKEHOLDERS INVOLVED, NOT JUST THE LOUDEST ONE DEEP LOBBY AND DEEP POCKETS. AND I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS LEE ZIEGLER. LEE, YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES. OKAY. OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS JEFFREY WOLF. JEFFREY IS JOINING US VIRTUALLY. JEFFREY, I HAVE TWO MINUTES. HELLO, MY NAME IS JEFFREY WOLF. MY HOME IS LOCATED AT 1111 EAST 31ST STREET, AND THE PROPERTY'S DIRECTLY BEHIND MY BACKYARD AT 1106 AND 1110 EAST 30TH STREET ARE OWNED BY THE SAME PARTY WHOSE BILLBOARD WAS RECENTLY REMOVED DUE TO HIGHWAY CONDEMNATION IN 2024, THAT OWNER SOUGHT REZONING OF THOSE PROPERTIES FOR THE EXPRESS PURPOSE OF RELOCATING THE BILLBOARD AND ONLY PAUSED, UH, AND PAUSED ONLY WHEN A STATE LOCATION BILL THAT WOULD'VE SUPERSEDED CITY CODE FAILED TO PASS COMMITTEE. I AM NOT OPPOSED TO REZONING THESE LOTS TO ENABLE INCREASED DENSITY. I WOULD WELCOME HOUSING THERE. WHAT I AM OPPOSED TO IS INTRODUCING A BILLBOARD DIRECTLY BEHIND MY MY HOME OR ANY, OR ANY HOME FOR THAT MATTER AS DRAFTED. SECTION TWENTY FIVE TEN ONE FIFTY TWO REGARDING NONCONFORMING SIGNS REMOVES THE RESIDENTIAL SEPARATION FOR BILLBOARDS DISPLACED BY TRANSPORTATION CONDEMNATIONS, AND WOULD VERY LIKELY ENABLE A BILLBOARD TO BE PLACED DIRECTLY BEHIND MY HOUSE AS A BUY RIGHT CONSEQUENCE. THIS WOULD NEGATIVELY AFFECT BOTH MY PROPERTY VALUE AND QUALITY OF LIFE. BOSTON BILLBOARD RULES WERE DESIGNED WITH A CLEAR BALANCE IN MIND WHEN OFF-PREMISE ADVERTISING WAS BANNED DECADES AGO, EXISTING BILLBOARDS WERE ALLOWED TO REMAIN AND WHEN THEY WERE DISPLACED BY PUBLIC PROJECTS, RELOCATION WAS PERMITTED, BUT ONLY UNDER STRICT LIMITS MUST NOTABLY A PROHIBITION ON RELOCATING WITHIN 500 FEET OF HOMES OR ONTO SCENIC ROADWAYS. THAT WAS THE TRADE OFF FLEXIBILITY FOR THE CITY WITHOUT PUSHING NEW BILLBOARD IMPACTS ONTO NEIGHBORHOODS. I UNDERSTAND THE CITY IS ANTICIPATING MAJOR TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS AND LIMITED RELOCATION OPTIONS, AND I APPRECIATE THE FISCAL REALITIES INVOLVED. BUT THIS CHANGE WOULD SHIFT THE COST OF THOSE PROJECTS FROM PUBLIC BALANCE SHEET DIRECTLY ONTO NEARBY RESIDENTS BY ALLOWING NEW BILLBOARDS CLOSER TO HOME THAN AUSTIN [02:05:01] HAS HISTORICALLY PERMITTED. TO RE REITERATE, I AM OPPOSED TO INTRODUCING BILLBOARDS INTO RESIDENTIAL BACKYARD AT THE BUYRIGHT LC OF CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION PROJECT LIKE PROJECT CONNECT DRIVE I OR THE I 35 EXPANSION. THANK YOU. YOUR, I RESPECT IS OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS ROBERT SCHMIDT. ROBERT, YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES. UM, UNFORTUNATELY NO, IT'S IN THE ORDER OF SIGN UP. I DO HAVE A A, YOUR HONOR, DO, WOULD YOU MIND JUST TURNING YOUR MICROPHONE ON PLEASE? YES, I DO HAVE A POWERPOINT. UM, IF YOU COULD PUT THAT UP, I'D APPRECIATE IT. THERE WE GO. SO I ALSO LIVE BY THIS BILLBOARD ON 31ST STREET, UM, JUST RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET FROM IT. AND IF YOU COULD GO, THE NEW ORDINANCE IS GONNA ALLOW THESE BILLBOARDS TO BE MOVED DIRECT. THE PEOPLE WHO JUST SPOKE ARE MY NEIGHBORS, MARI AND JEFF, AND IT IS GONNA BE ALLOWED TO MOVE RIGHT BEHIND THEIR HOUSE AND JUST ACROSS THE STREET FROM MY HOUSE. CAN YOU MOVE TO THE NEXT SLIDE? SO THE NEW PROPOSED CHANGE IS NOT GONNA HAVE ANY LIMITATIONS ON HOW CLOSE THE BILLBOARDS COULD BE MOVED TO HOMES. RIGHT NOW, THERE IS THIS 500 FEET, UH, DISTANCE AND THAT IS GONNA IMPACT, YOU KNOW, IT'S CERTAINLY IMPACTING US. IT'S POTENTIALLY COULD IMPACT YOU ALL. IF YOU LIVE NEAR A, A HIGHWAY OR A MAJOR ROAD, IT'S GONNA IMPACT CONSTITUENTS ALL AROUND AUSTIN. UM, AND SO THIS IS A REAL THING THAT WE ARE DEALING WITH. AND IF YOU CAN MOVE TO THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. SO THIS IS THE KIND OF WHAT THEY WERE SHOWING YOU BEFORE, BUT RIGHT THERE IS A, A ILLUSTRATION AND YOU'LL SEE THERE WAS AN OLD BILLBOARD THERE. IT WAS HUGE. IT WAS 48 FEET WIDE. IT WAS REALLY TALL. UM, AND THEN THEY CAME IN AND NOW IF YOU GO TO THE, AND, AND YOU CAN SEE AT THAT POINT IT WAS FAIRLY CLOSE TO THE HOMES. IT WAS 115 FEET FROM, UH, A HOME THAT'S RIGHT THERE. IT WAS 230 FEET FROM MARI AND JEFF'S HOME THAT JUST SPOKE 150 FEET FROM THERE. NOW THEY'VE COME IN AND THEY'VE TORN DOWN ALL OF THAT PART FOR I 30 FIVE'S WIDENING. AND THEY WANT TO MOVE THE BILLBOARD TO A TRACK THAT'S OWNED BY THE SAME PEOPLE. THEY'RE GONNA DEMOLISH THE HOMES IS WHAT THEY PLAN ON DOING AND MOVING IT TO WHERE IT COULD LIT. THIS IS LIKE A MEDIUM CASE SCENARIO WHERE IT COULD BE 67 FEET FROM THE HOME OF OUR OTHER NEIGHBOR. UH, ABOUT A HUNDRED FEET FROM MARI AND JEFF'S AND I AND I LIVE ACROSS THE STREET, SO IT COULD BE A COUPLE HUNDRED FEET. CAN YOU GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE? THIS IS LITERALLY WHAT MARI AND JEFF WILL SEE FROM THEIR BACKYARD. UM, AND THAT'S THE BILLBOARD THAT WAS UP ON GOOGLE EARTH WHEN, WHEN I GOT THIS SLIDE OFF OF IT. UM, AND THAT'S WHAT THEY WILL SEE AND IT'S NOT AN EXAGGERATION. THAT IS WHAT THEY WILL SEE. IT'S A LIT BILLBOARD AT NIGHTTIME. CAN I KEEP GOING FOR A FEW MINUTES? YOU CAN TAKE A MOMENT TO FINISH UP. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. THAT'S WHAT I WILL SEE ON OUR FRONT YARD. UM, AND THAT'S WHAT THE NEIGHBORS ARE GONNA SEE. UM, AND CAN YOU GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE PLEASE? BILLBOARDS ARE CRAZY OUT THERE AND IT'S GOING TO IMPACT KIDS WHO ARE PLAYING IN THE YARDS. IT'S GONNA IMPACT MY PROPERTY VALUE. IF YOU CAN GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE. OH, THERE'S, THERE'S LITERALLY HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF BILLBOARDS IN AUSTIN THAT ARE OWNED BY REAGAN BILLBOARD COMPANY AND THERE'S OTHER BILLBOARD COMPANIES. YOU CAN GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. UM, IT'S GONNA MOVE IT RIGHT TO OUR HOUSES. MY, I'M 60 YEARS OLD AND I'M THINKING ABOUT RETIRING. I'VE OWNED THAT HOUSE FOR 15 YEARS AND IT'S GONNA MAKE OUR PROPERTY VALUE GO DOWN DRAMATICALLY. AND YOU ALL WILL BE IN THAT SAME SPOT. AT SOME POINT, YOUR FRIENDS AND NEIGHBORS WILL BE IN THAT SAME SPOT. IT'S GONNA REDUCE MY EQUITY, IT'S GONNA INCREASE, UH, LIGHT POLLUTION, IT'S GONNA INCREASE, LOSE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERS AND IT DOESN'T BENEFIT ANYBODY. THE MAIN POINT I ALSO WANNA MAKE REAL QUICK AND THANK YOU FOR INDULGING ME. CAN I MAKE ONE MORE POINT PLEASE? FINAL, FINAL THOUGHTS ON THE HIGHWAY ON I 35 WHERE THEY TORE EVERYTHING DOWN. THERE WAS THIS GREAT MEXICAN FOOD RESTAURANT. THERE WAS ALSO A PLACE CALLED CHICAS BONITAS. IT WAS A, IT WAS A STRIP CLUB, UM, AN ADULT ENTERTAINMENT CLUB AND THERE WAS ALSO A STORE CALLED DREAMERS, THE STORE FOR LOVERS. AND THEY ALL GOT TORN DOWN. ARE THEY GOING TO BE ALLOWED TO MOVE, TEAR DOWN A HOUSE IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND MOVE OVER THERE AND BE EXEMPT FROM THE ZONING REQUIREMENTS? WHAT MAKES BILLBOARDS SPECIAL THAT THEY CAN LITERALLY ASK FOR AN EXEMPTION? THIS DOESN'T HELP ANYBODY, ANY CITIZENS OF AUSTIN. IT ONLY HELPS THE BILLBOARD COMPANIES AND IT CAN HURT REAL PEOPLE LIKE US. SO THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR LISTENING TO US AND THANK YOU FOR THE INDULGENCE OF LET ME TALK A LITTLE LONGER. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. IT'S, I'M PASSIONATE ABOUT IT. MS. BROWN, DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM? CHECKING. [02:10:01] NO CHAIR. THAT CONCLUDES THE SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM. OKAY. SO I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING MOTION BY COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER AHMED. WITHOUT OBJECTION, THAT ITEM PASSES. WE'LL MOVE INTO OUR ROUND ROBIN SO WE CAN TAKE EIGHT COMMISSIONERS AT FIVE MINUTES EACH. WHO WOULD LIKE TO START? COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE. THANK YOU. UM, I GUESS MY QUESTION IS FOR CITY STAFF AND UH, MS. LINK IS, IS READY. SHE'S READ IT. OKAY, GREAT. I, UM, I, I GUESS, OKAY, SO SEVERAL NEIGHBORS HAVE SPOKEN WITH THESE PROJECT EXAMPLES AS TO HOW BILLBOARDS COULD BE RELOCATED BY ELIMINATING THE 500 FOOT SETBACK, UH, THAT CURRENTLY EXIST IN OUR CODE OF IS, DOES THE CITY HAVE A DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION OF THE PROPOSED CHANGES? I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION, COMMISSIONER. YES. THE QUESTION IS, ARE THEY RIGHT COULD THOSE BILLBOARDS BE RELOCATED IN THE LOCATIONS? THEY SHOWED LESS THAN 500 FEET FROM THEIR PROPERTIES, WHERE UNDER CURRENT CODE THEY'RE PROHIBITED. SO UNDER CURRENT CODE, THEY CANNOT BE LOCATED WITHIN 500 FEET OF A RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE. AND THEN, UM, THIS PROPOSED CHANGE WOULD REMOVE THAT 500 FOOT LIMITATION. IT JUST WOULD NOT ALLOW THE BILLBOARD TO BE LOCATED ON A SITE THAT HAS A RESIDENTIAL BASIN. OKAY. SO IF THEY WERE LOCATED ON A, A, A COMMERCIALLY ZONED PROPERTY THAT WAS ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL, THEN THE BILLBOARD COULD BE INSTRUCTED THERE. CORRECT. IS THAT CORRECT? OKAY. OF LAST TIME WE DISCUSSED THIS ITEM, I HAD ASKED STAFF TO PROVIDE US FURTHER CONTEXT ON ESSENTIALLY A COST BENEFIT OR A FISCAL NOTE. WAS ONE PREPARED AS TO OF THE ADDITIONAL COST NECESSARY TO COMPLY WITH THE CURRENT ORDINANCE VERSUS WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED? UH, THERE IS NOT, UM, THERE IS NOT DATA THAT IS SUFFICIENT TO ALLOW US TO CALCULATE THAT. DO WE KNOW APPROXIMATELY HOW MANY BILLBOARDS ARE POTENTIALLY BEING RELOCATED WITH THE I 35 PROJECT? I 35 CENTRAL? JUST LEMME GET TO THE CORE. WE'VE ASKED, UH, TECH DOT FOR THAT INFORMATION, BUT WE DON'T HAVE IT RIGHT NOW BECAUSE THE I 35 EXPANSION IS A TECH STOP PROJECT. SO THEY WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR, UM, HAVING THE BILLBOARDS RE LIKE REQUIRING THE BILLBOARDS TO BE MOVED. DO WE HAVE AN ESTIMATE OF HOW MANY BILLBOARDS WOULD BE RELOCATED FOR PROJECT CONNECT PHASE ONE OF THE LIGHT RAIL? WE HAVE ASKED FOR THAT AS WELL AND WE DO NOT HAVE AN ANSWER FOR THAT RIGHT NOW. SO IN THE CITY THERE IS THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF SIGNS, I BELIEVE IS AROUND 580 TOTAL BILLBOARDS IN THE CITY BECAUSE IN 1983, IF IT WAS STANDING IN THE CITY LIMITS, IT COULD CONTINUE. UM, AND AS WE KIND OF, YOU KNOW, BROAD LAND INTO THE CITY ANNEXED, IF THEY ALREADY HAD A BILLBOARD, THEY WERE ALLOWED TO KEEP IT. UM, THAT SAME GOES FOR OUR ETJ, BUT WE HAVE NOT ALLOWED NEW BILLBOARD. SO WE ARE IN THE RANGE. MY MEMORY SAYS 5 83, BUT IT'S, YOU KNOW, IT'S FOR SURE LESS THAN 700. UM, BUT I JUST DON'T HAVE THE EXACT NUMBER RIGHT NOW. AND I DON'T KNOW KNOW, WE DON'T KNOW THE EXTENT OF THE PROJECTS BECAUSE THE OTHER PIECE OF THIS IS, AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, SOME OF THOSE SIGNS MAY BE ABLE TO MOVE JUST, UM, MOVE ON THE LOT AS OPPOSED TO HAVING TO COMPLETE DO A COMPLETE SITE RELOCATION. WAS CONSIDERATION GIVEN TO A DIFFERENT SETBACK? THE, UM, IT'S PROBABLY 500. I GUESS I'M CURIOUS AS TO WHY WE'VE REDUCED IT TO ZERO BECAUSE THE COUNCIL RESOLUTION ASKED TO MAKE IT MORE FLEXIBLE AND TO REDUCE THE BARRIERS. HOWEVER, THE COMMISSION CAN PROPOSE OR RECOMMEND TO THE COUNCIL THAT THEY PUT A, A SPACING, UM, BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL AND SCIENCE IN, ARE ADJACENT PROPERTIES ABLE TO CLAIM DAMAGES BY A RELOCATION OF A BILLBOARD? NO. SO THE ONLY THING PROTECTING THEM IS OUR CITY CODE AT THE MOMENT. CORRECT. OKAY. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS. THANKS COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE. OTHER COMMISSIONERS WITH QUESTIONS? YES, COMMISSIONER AHMED. THANK YOU CHAIR. UM, SO I KNOW IT'S HARD, UH, TO ASK YOU TO ASK YOU ABOUT THE RATIONALE THAT, UH, COUNCIL MAY HAVE HAD WHEN THEY PASSED THIS, BUT, UH, MY QUESTION HERE IS WE'VE GOT 583 BILLBOARDS IN THE PAST. THE RELOCATIONS HAVE WORKED [02:15:01] OUT JUST FINE WITH THE CODE AS IS, UH, WHICH HAS MORE ONEROUS RESTRICTIONS ON WHERE THESE BILLBOARDS CAN BE RE UH, RELOCATED TO. AND SO IF WE DON'T KNOW HOW MANY BILLBOARDS ARE GONNA NEED TO BE RELOCATED BY PROJECT CONNECT OR I 35, WHY ARE WE PROACTIVELY TRYING TO MAKE IT MORE, UH, EASIER FOR THEM TO BE RELOCATED? ARE ARE WE TRYING TO FIX A PROBLEM BEFORE SOMETHING'S ACTUALLY BROKEN? POTENTIALLY, UH, COUNSEL HAS ASKED THE MANAGER TO LOOK INTO IT AND TO PROPOSE CHANGES TO ALLOW FOR MORE FLEXIBILITY. UM, YOU KNOW, THE, THE COMMISSION AS WELL COULD VOTE NOT TO RECOMMEND THESE CHANGES. YEAH, THAT IS WITHIN THE COMMISSION'S PURVIEW AS WELL. YEP. UH, AND THEN, UH, ANOTHER QUESTION IN THE PAST TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE WHEN ANY, UH, RELOCATIONS HAVE BEEN TRI HAVE OR ANY BILLBOARDS HAVE TRIGGERED THIS PART OF THE CODE TO BE POTENTIALLY RELOCATED, HAVE THEY HAVE MOST OF THOSE BILLBOARDS BEEN SUCCESS SUCCESSFULLY RELOCATED? MEANING EVEN WITH THOSE MORE ONEROUS REQUIREMENTS, HAVE WE BEEN ABLE TO FIND A PLACE FOR THOSE BILLBOARDS OR HAVE WE NOT BEEN ABLE TO AND HAS THE CITY OR THE STATE HAD TO COMPENSATE THE BILLBOARD OWNER? IN A LOT OF CASES, UM, AS FAR AS I'M AWARE, WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO APPROVE EVERY RELOCATION APPLICATION THAT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED THAT MET THE CRITERIA AND THE CODE. UM, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE FROM TIME TO TIME, THEY'VE SUBMITTED APPLICATIONS THAT DON'T ACTUALLY MEET THE STANDARDS IN THE CODE, AND THOSE HAVE BEEN REJECTED AND THEN THEY HAVE FOUND A DIFFERENT LOCATION. UM, SO AS FAR AS I KNOW, THOSE HAVE ALL BEEN ABLE TO HAPPEN AND I DO KNOW THEY HAVE HAPPENED, UM, AS TO HOW MUCH TECH STOP MAY HAVE HAD TO DO, I, I DON'T KNOW THAT. OKAY. BUT TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, IT SOUNDS LIKE THE CURRENT CODE HAS WORKED IN TERMS OF RELOCATION AND IT SEEMS LIKE, YOU KNOW, THERE'S BEEN PROVISIONS TO PROTECT RESIDENTS, OBVIOUSLY. UM, MY NEXT QUESTION IS, HAS THERE BEEN ANY ANALYSIS DONE ON, UH, SO I KNOW COUNCIL'S DIRECTION WAS TO MAKE THOSE REQUIREMENTS, UH, LOOSER FOR THOSE RELOCATIONS. HAS THERE BEEN ANY ANALYSIS DONE ON, IF YOU DON'T MAKE THOSE CHANGES OR IF YOU, UH, REDUCE THE SETBACK FROM 500 TO 250, WILL THAT BE ENOUGH TO ABSORB ALL OF THE, UH, ALL OF THE EXPECTED RELOCATIONS OVER THE NEXT FEW YEARS? NO. UM, I THINK THE CHALLENGE FOR US AGAIN, IS I DON'T KNOW THE SCOPE OF THE NUMBER OF SIGNS THAT WOULD NEED TO BE RELOCATED. AND THEN, UH, FINALLY, IS IT POSSIBLE TO MAYBE REVISIT THIS AGAIN AFTER WE HAVE SOME OF THIS INFORMATION ON HOW MANY NEED TO BE RELOCATED AND HAVE A BETTER SENSE FOR HOW MANY OF THOSE CAN BE ABSORBED WITH THE CURRENT, UH, REGULATIONS AND WITH MAYBE, UH, WHAT YOU ARE PROPO WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING, AND MAYBE ALSO WITH A 250 FOOT FOOT SETBACK FROM, UH, RESIDENTIAL, BUT ALSO LIMITING THE LARGE BILLBOARDS TO JUST THE, WHAT'S IT CALLED? THE, UH, UH, THE MAJOR, UH, UH, MAJOR HIGHWAYS ESSENTIALLY, WHICH IS WHAT THE CURRENT CODE EXPRESSWAY, THE EXPRESSWAY CORRIDORS. SO AT THIS POINT, UM, THE, WE ARE ON TRACK TO GO TO COUNCIL. MY EXPECTATION IS WE WILL BE AT COUNCIL ON THE SECOND MEETING OF FEBRUARY. UM, AND ONCE THEY MAKE THAT, UM, DECISION, THE CODE WILL BE AMENDED, UM, ASSUMING THEY APPROVE IT OR IF THEY CHANGE IT AS WELL OR THEY DECIDE NOT TO CHANGE IT. UM, BUT THE COMMISSION CAN, UM, THE COMMISSION IS AUTHORIZED UNDER CITY CODE TO INITIATE AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. UM, SO THAT WOULD BE A POSSIBILITY. UM, MY SUGGESTION IS IF THE COMMISSION WOULD LIKE TO RECOMMEND A COUNCIL FOR A BUFFER BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL AND THE SIGNS, I I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO TAKE THAT OPPORTUNITY NOW SO THAT COUNCIL WILL HAVE THAT WHEN WE TAKE THAT TO THEM IN FEBRUARY. I APPRECIATE THAT. IT'S JUST, IT'S DIFFICULT FOR US WITHOUT HAVING ANY INFORMATION ON, YOU KNOW, HOW MANY, UH, RELOCATIONS WE'RE POSSIBLY TALKING ABOUT. BUT THAT'S WHY I WAS ASKING THOSE QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER AHMED, YOU FINISHED? I'M FINISHED. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER POWELL. UM, IN THE SECTION, THE FIRST SECTION THAT CLARIFIES THE, ON A TRACK THAT IS PARTIALLY OR FULLY TAKEN OR CONVEYED UNDER THE THREAT OF CONDEMNATION FOR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS PIECE MM-HMM . WOULD THERE BE TENABLE LANGUAGE TO DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN PROJECTS THERE? ERGO SOMETHING THAT CLARIFIED PROJECT CONNECT, WHICH AUSTIN VOTERS VOTED FOR AND APPROVED VERSUS I 35 EXPANSION, WHICH WAS A, [02:20:01] LET'S SAY TEXT INITIATED PROJECT, UM, THE COMMISSION COULD MAKE THAT RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL. UM, MY SUGGESTION WOULD BE IF THAT'S KIND OF WHERE YOU ARE LANDING ON IT, UM, TO PROBABLY MAKE YOUR MOTION IN THAT FORMAT AND THEN WE WILL FIGURE OUT WHAT THE CORRECT LANGUAGE ACTUALLY WOULD BE FOR THE ORDINANCE FOR COUNCIL AS A GENERAL RECOMMENDATION. YES. YEP. GOTCHA. GOTCHA. UM, YEAH, 'CAUSE THAT'S THE, THAT'S THE CRITICAL PART HERE. I, UM, IS IT, I HAVEN'T DONE THIS BEFORE, ACTUALLY. I KNOW WE USUALLY DO PRIMARY APPLICANT. IS IT KOSHER FOR ME TO ASK THE SPEAKER? COME? YOU CAN ASK ANYONE. SO THE INDIVIDUAL HERE, I'M SORRY, I FORGOT YOUR NAME, SIR. THAT'S ALL RIGHT. I'M, I'M BOB SCHMIDT. BOB SCHMIDT. GOTCHA. SO, UM, MR. SCHMIDT, UH, DID YOU AT ANY POINT VOTE FOR I 35 EXPANSION AS AN AUSTIN VOTER? ABSOLUTELY NOT. ? ABSOLUTELY NOT. UM, I DID VOTE FOR PROJECT THAT, BY THE WAY. VERY GOOD. SO, UM, YOU KNOW WHAT, YEAH, THAT'S IT FOR MY QUESTIONS. . IF ANYBODY ELSE HAS ANY, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER, BUT THANK YOU. YOU GUYS ARE ASKING VERY GOOD QUESTIONS. APPRECIATE IT. OTHER COMMISSIONERS WITH QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER ROEN. SO READING THROUGH READING THROUGH THE CODE, THERE IS A PROVISION, UH, FOR RELOCATED SIGNS HAVE A SUNSET CLAUSE OF 25 YEARS APPLIED TO THEM. UH, AND I ASSUME THESE RELOCATED SIGNS WOULD FALL UNDER THE SAME CATEGORY, IS THAT CORRECT? SO, SO THEY WOULD BE PART OF THAT SAME SECTION. HOWEVER, IF THE COUNCIL REQUIRES SIGNS TO BE REMOVED, WE WILL BE REQUIRED TO PAY FOR THEM. SORRY, THE SUN SETTING OF THE SIGNS HAPPENS AFTER A 25 YEAR TERM WITH THE RELOCATED SIGN. UNDERSTOOD. BUT THE STATE LAW SAYS THAT WE HAVE TO PAY FOR THE SIGN IF IT HAS TO COME DOWN. SO THAT CLAUSE ONLY APPLIES TO A SIGN THAT'S VOLUNTARILY MOVED BY THE OWNER. SO THAT CLAUSE, UM, YOU KNOW, I DON'T, WE HAVE NOT HAD THE PROVISION IN EFFECT FOR 25 YEARS BECAUSE THE RELOCATION PROVISIONS, IF I HAVE THE DATES CORRECT, CAME INTO EFFECT IN, UM, ABOUT 2008. UM, SO WE HAVE NOT HAD TO REQUIRE ANY OF THOSE SIGNS TO COME DOWN. HOWEVER, AT THIS POINT, IT WOULD COST THE CITY MONEY TO REQUIRE THEM TO TAKE THE SIGN DOWN. SO THE, THE CODE CLEARLY STATES THAT IF YOU MOVE A SIGN IT HAS A SUNSET PERIOD OF 25 YEARS. WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS IT DOESN'T MATTER. THE CITY STILL OWES STATE LAW OVERRIDE CITY CODE IN THAT WAY. THAT IS AN INTERESTING STATEMENT THAT REALLY CHANGES THE ENTIRE NATURE OF THIS CASE FOR ME. UH, I APPRECIATE THAT AND GLAD I ASKED THAT QUESTION. SO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS, FIRST AND FOREMOST, WE'VE NOT, WE'VE NOT ENCOUNTERED A SIGN THAT REACHED ITS SUNSET TERM TERM, PERIOD. NOT THAT I'M AWARE OF, BECAUSE IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, THE RELOCATION PROVISIONS CAME INTO EFFECT IN AROUND 2008. SO IF YOU APPLY 25 YEARS TO THAT, WE'RE STILL A FEW YEARS AWAY. COOL. UM, AND THE COST, DO YOU KNOW HOW, HOW IS THE COST TO, UH, VACATE A SIGN? HOW IS IT ASSESSED? IS THAT A NEGOTIATION? IS IT A FIXED COST? SO STATE LAW EVER SO CONVENIENTLY HAS A FORMULA FOR US , AND ESSENTIALLY WE LOOK BACK TO THE AVERAGE GROSS REVENUE FOR THE PROCEEDING TWO YEARS. AND WE MULTIPLY THAT BY THREE. SO DEPENDING ON WHERE THAT SIGN IS LOCATED TODAY, DEPENDING HOW PROFITABLE IT IS, THAT INCREASES THE COST TO, UH, RELOCATE THE SIGN UNDER STATE LAW. SO THERE'S NO ENCOURAGEMENT FOR THE CITY TO ACTUALLY APPROVE RELOCATION IF THEY'RE PLANNING TO SUNSET IT, BECAUSE THE COST TO VACATE THE SIGN IS THE SAME TODAY AS THEORETICALLY IT WOULD BE 25 YEARS FROM NOW PLUS INFLATION. I'M NOT SURE I FOLLOW THE QUESTION. WHAT IS THE INCENTIVE FOR THE CITY TO ALLOW THE RELOCATION IF THE PLAN IS TO SUNSET THAT SIGN IN 25 YEARS ANYWAY, THE BENEFIT TO THE CITY AND RELOCATION COUNSEL DECIDED THAT THAT WAS AN APPROPRIATE WAY TO HANDLE SIGNS. PART OF WHAT IT DOES IS THERE ARE SIGNS LOCATED ON SCENIC ROADWAYS, OR THERE HAVE BEEN HISTORICALLY, AND PART OF OUR CODE SAYS IF YOU ARE ON A SCENIC ROADWAY, WE WOULD LIKE YOU TO NO LONGER TO BE ON SAID SCENIC ROADWAY. BUT THAT'S A VOLUNTARY, THEY, THEY DON'T HAVE TO VACATE THAT PROPERTY UNLESS THERE'S SOME STA THERE'S SOME TRANSIT PROJECT POTENTIALLY THAT WOULD TAKE THAT LAND OR SOME OTHER CONDEMNATION PROJECT. CORRECT. [02:25:03] OH, OKAY. UM, SO A COUPLE OF QUICK OTHER THINGS, 'CAUSE I'M GONNA RUN OUTTA TIME HERE. UM, THE CLARIFYING THE BACKWARDS APPLICABILITY, WE UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE SOME CASES THAT HAVE BEEN SUGGESTED THAT THEY WERE INTERPRETED UNDER THAT 500 FOOT AREA AS BEING APPLICABLE TO PREVENT DEVELOPMENT ADJACENT TO A SIGN. UM, I AM NOT AWARE OF THAT, AND I'M NOT SURE HOW THAT WOULD WORK WHEN THIS PROVISION APPLIES TO THE DEVELOP TO THE RELOCATION OF A SIGN, NOT IN 25 2, OUR ZONING RES OR ANY OTHER, UH, PROVISIONS. SO THERE'S NO, THIS CHAPTER IN AND OF ITSELF ONLY REGULATES SIGNS HEARD ON THAT. NOW, IF I'M A, IF I'M A REVIEWER ON THE CITY STAFF AND I'M LOOKING FOR HOW CLOSE A BUILDING CAN BE TO A BILLBOARD, WHERE WOULD I FIND THAT IN THE, IN THE CODE ? UM, YOU KNOW, ACTUALLY PROBABLY YOUR BIGGER ISSUE, TO BE HONEST, IS GOING TO BE, UH, AE ELECTRICAL LINES. UM, BUT THEY STILL HAVE TO FOLLOW THE GENERAL SETBACKS OF THE PROPERTY. SO IF THE ZONING SAYS THEY HAVE A 25 FOOT SETBACK, THEN THEY HAVE A 25 FOOT SETBACK. OKAY, MY TIME IS UP. THANKS, COMMISSIONER REN. OTHER COMMISSIONERS WITH QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER MAXWELL? UH, WELL FIRST OF ALL, I REALLY WANNA APPRECIATE , UM, UH, OUR SPEAKER TONIGHT FOR COMING BACK AND VISITING WITH US AGAIN ON THIS ISSUE AND ANSWERING THESE QUESTIONS. UM, A COUPLE OF DETAILED ITEMS, UM, WITHIN THE SITE OF A, AN EXISTING, SO FOR THE TECH STOP PO SITUATION SPECIFICALLY, WE'VE SEEN THAT IN CERTAIN SITUATIONS THE LAND THAT'S CONDEMNED IS ONLY PART OF A PARTIAL PARCEL. IS IT, UM, POSSIBLE UNDER THE CURRENT REGULATIONS OR UNDER THE NEW ONES TO MOVE A BILLBOARD WITHIN THE SAME PLAT WITHOUT HAVING TO HAVE ANY SORT OF CHANGE OR, YOU KNOW, JUST BASICALLY TO MOVE IT, SAY 10 FEET TO SORT OF A, COME INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDEMNATION THAT MIGHT BE SUGGESTED BY TDOT. SO IF A S IF A TRACT, IF A PAR A SLIVER OF A TRACT OR A PORTION OF A TRACT IS CONDEMNED AND THE SIGN HAPPENS TO BE THERE, IT CAN BE RELOCATED ON THE SITE. SO THAT WOULD NOT NEED A CHANGE. THE, THE CHANGES THAT YOU ALL ARE PROPOSING DO NOT NEED TO ADDRESS THAT PARTICULAR CASE ALREADY? CORRECT. THIS IS, THIS IS FOR, ESSENTIALLY THE BILLBOARD CANNOT STAY ON THE PROPERTY ON THE, SO IF IT, IF IT CAN MOVE WITHIN ITS OWN PROPERTY BECAUSE OF THE WAY THE CONDEMNATION IS DONE BY TDO OR WHOMEVER, THEY CAN'T ACTUALLY RELOCATE WITHIN THEIR OWN PLAT. CORRECT. PROVIDE AS MEETS THE, YEAH, PROVIDE. AND IT'S, AND THEN, SO THEN A SECOND QUESTION WAS, UM, IN TERMS OF GOING FORWARD AND HAVING MORE OF THESE SORT OF BILLBOARD RELOCATIONS, WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE TO ADD THIS AS A, AND I'M GONNA ASK A QUESTION HERE, A POTENTIAL USE, UH, TO BE PUT INTO OUR USE TABLE SO THAT YOU COULD SAY THAT IN A FUTURE ZONING CASE YOU DID NOT WANT A RELOCATED BILLBOARD IN YOUR NEW DEVELOPMENT, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT THAT MIGHT GIVE THE NEIGHBORHOODS SOME ADDITIONAL WAY OF CONTROLLING BILLBOARD LOCATIONS COMING TO NEW ZONING INCS, I WOULD NOT RECOMMEND THAT. UM, IT'S, UM, I'M NOT SURE HOW THAT, UM, WOULD ULTIMATELY PLAY OUT IN A CASE. UM, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT HAPPENS IS THE PROPERTY OWNER OWNS THE PROPERTY AND THEN SOMEBODY ELSE OWNS THE SIGN. AND SO THE PROPERTY OWNER AND THE SIGN OWNER HAVE TO COME TO AN AGREEMENT. UM, BUT I ALSO, UM, AT THIS STAGE IN OUR, YOU KNOW, CHANGING TO THE LDC, YOU DON'T RECOMMEND ADDING THINGS TO THE ZONING CODE THAT DON'T ACTUALLY, UM, I FULLY UNDERSTAND. IT WAS JUST A CURIOSITY AS TO HOW WE COULD POTENTIALLY PREVENT RELOCATED SIGNS ENDING UP IN SPECIFIC PLACES NOW THAT WE ARE GIVING ADDITIONAL FLEXIBILITY TO WHERE THEY CAN GO. SO THAT WAS A KIND OF GENERAL QUESTION OF, UM, IN ADDITION TO THINKING SOMETHING LIKE WHAT THE 500 FEET MIGHT LOOK AT TWO 50 OR SETBACKS OR WHATEVER ELSE, WHAT OTHER TOOLS WE COULD USE IN OUR ZONING CODE TO POTENTIALLY PROTECT AGAINST ADDITIONAL SIGN RELOCATIONS WHERE THEY MAY NOT BE APPROPRIATE. UM, AND THEN I THINK IN ADDITIONAL QUESTION THAT WE HAD JUST GENERALLY SPEAKING, WAS IN TERMS OF THE SUN SETTING, JUST TO CLARIFY THAT DATE, FROM WHERE THE SUN SETTING STARTS, IS THAT USUALLY WHEN THE NEW BILLBOARD GETS RELOCATED AND PUTS UP OR THE 25 YEAR CLOCK? OR IS IT AT SOME POINT WHEN THE APPLICATION IS MADE? HOW DOES IT WORK GENERALLY NOW? SO IN ORDER FOR SOMEONE TO RELOCATE A BILLBOARD TODAY, YOUR, ALL OF YOUR BILLBOARDS HAVE TO BE REGISTERED WITH THE CITY, AND THEN YOU SUBMIT AN APPLICATION AND, UH, STAFF WILL REVIEW THE APPLICATION FOR, UM, MAKING SURE IT FITS ALL OF THE PARAMETERS. AND THEN ONCE IT'S APPROVED, THEN THEY HAVE TO PULL DOWN THE, THE EXISTING SIGN AND THEN RELOCATE THE NEW SIGN WITHIN A A TIMEFRAME. I THINK [02:30:01] THE CODE SAYS 90 DAYS, THERE'S, THERE'S A 90 DAY WINDOW IN THERE. UM, AND AT THAT POINT WHEN IT IS RELOCATED IS WHEN THE 25 CLOCK, 25 YEAR CLOCK WOULD START TO RUN. SO JUST TO CONFIRM, THE 25 YEAR CLOCK STARTS WHEN THE ACTUAL NEW BILLBOARD GOES UP OFFICIALLY. CORRECT. BUT WE DON'T LIKE A LAG BETWEEN THE OLD BILLBOARD. OKAY. LIKE WE, YEAH. ONE OF THE CONCERNS WE'VE ALWAYS HAD TO KIND OF, UH, GUARD AGAINST IS THE OLD BILLBOARD NOT CALMING DOWN. YES. SO, OKAY. GREAT. UM, THOSE ARE MY QUESTIONS FOR NOW. THANKS. THANKS, COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, OTHER COMMISSIONERS WITH QUESTIONS? OKAY. UH, CHAIR. YES. SORRY, I RAISED IT SLOWLY AND, AND QUIETLY. UM, THANKS FOR LETTING ME KNOW. GO AHEAD. OF COURSE. UH, I JUST, I THINK REALLY HAVE ONE QUESTION, AND THEN I CERTAINLY WILL HAVE SOME THOUGHTS DURING, UH, POTENTIAL DEBATE ON A, UH, AMENDMENT. UH, PLEASE APOLOGIZE OR I APOLOGIZE FOR MAYBE MY LESSER KNOWLEDGE THAN THE COMMISSION MEMBERS AS I WAS NOT A PART OF THIS ITEM DURING OUR LAST MEETING. UM, WHY, UH, WOULD T DOT OR A TP OR ANOTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY OR PSEUDO-GOVERNMENT AGENCY, UH, WHEN THEY CONDEMN A PIECE OF LAND THAT HAS THAT BILLBOARD ON IT, UH, WHY WOULD THEY NOT PAY FOR WHAT IS ESSENTIALLY A TAKING UNDER A PROJECT THAT THEY ARE UNDERGOING? UH, WHY WOULD THAT FINANCIAL BURDEN FALL ONTO THE CITY? I UNDERSTAND THERE'S, THERE ARE SOME REGULATIONS AT PLAY HERE THAT MAY MAKE THIS COMPLICATED. SO IN AN INSTANCE WHERE TDOT, UH, IS CONDEMNING LAND, IF THERE IS A BILLBOARD ON IT, THEY WILL HAVE THEIR OBLIGATION AS THE CONDEMNING AUTHORITY. AND IF WE DON'T, UM, IF, IF IT COMES DOWN FROM TXDOT BECAUSE OF A TDOT PROJECT, WE PROVIDE A RELOCATION OPPORTUNITY FOR THEM IN THE CODE IF IT MEETS ALL THE CRITERIA. AND SO IN THAT INSTANCE, THERE MAY STILL BE COST ON TXDOT. THE SAME WOULD BE FOR US. UM, THERE MAY BE SOME COSTS THAT WE HAVE TO, UH, COVER, BUT IT IS LESS EXPENSIVE TO, UM, PAY FOR SOME OF THOSE COSTS THAN IT IS TO PAY FOR THE ACTUAL COMPLETE PULL DOWN OF THE SIGN AND NOT BEING ABLE TO RELOCATE IT. SO WHEN TDOT, FOR EXAMPLE, MOVES FORWARD WITH THE I 35 PROJECT, UH, EVEN JUST MAYBE IN THE CENTRAL PART OF, OR I 35 CENTRAL, UM, WE WOULD SHARE COSTS EVEN IF A BILLBOARD WAS RELOCATED IN THAT INSTANCE, THE EXPENSES ARE NOT ON THE CITY, THEY ARE ON TDOT. IF TXDOT IS MAKING THEM TAKE IT DOWN, PULL THIS, UM, BUT WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO RELOCATE AND THEY WILL WANT TO EXERCISE THAT ABILITY TO RELOCATE. AND WE PROVIDE FOR THAT IN THE CODE TODAY. AND IF WE SAY TO A SIGN OWNER, UM, YOU CAN'T HAVE THAT SIGN ANYMORE, AND NOT BECAUSE OF IT, BECAUSE OUR REGULATIONS DON'T ALLOW FOR NEW BILLBOARDS WITH THE EXCEPTION OF RELOCATION AND IN RELOCATION, YOU PULL DOWN A SIGN AND YOU OUT, YOU REPLACE THAT SIGN. UM, WE WOULD POTENTIALLY HAVE SOME, SOME LIABILITY, UM, AS THE REGULATING AGENCY OVER SIGNS. SO IT'S, IT'S A LITTLE MUSHY. UM, I, I THINK, UM, US HAVING A RELOCATION PROVISION HAS PROBABLY SAVED THE CITY ULTIMATELY OVER THE YEARS, PROBABLY SOME, SOME MONEY. THANK YOU FOR EXPLAINING THAT. AND THAT'S ALL MY QUESTIONS. THANKS COMMISSIONER BRETTON LAST CALL FOR QUESTIONS. WE'LL HAVE MORE OPPORTUNITY FOR DISCUSSION. OKAY. SO LET'S LOOK FOR A BASE MOTION, WHICH TYPICALLY WOULD BE STAFF RECOMMENDATION, AND THEN WE, WE CAN GO FROM THERE AND AMENDING IT. UM, IF A BASE MOTION BY COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, I'LL SECOND SO THAT WE CAN HAVE THAT DISCUSSION. UM, SO THAT'S BASE MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION. OKAY. SO THE WAY THAT WE WILL KIND OF WORK THROUGH OUR AMENDMENTS IS WE WILL START BY TAKING UP ANY AMENDMENTS THAT WERE SHARED WITH STAFF AHEAD OF TIME. WE DIDN'T HAVE A WORKING GROUP ON THIS, SO WE DON'T HAVE WORKING GROUP AMENDMENTS. AND THEN WE'LL MOVE INTO DAY OF AMENDMENTS. SO I'LL KIND OF JUST GO THROUGH, UH, THE, THE LIST AS SHOWN ON MY AGENDA AND WE CAN PROPOSE AMENDMENTS FROM THERE. SO I BELIEVE WE HAD SOME AMENDMENTS SHARED AHEAD OF TIME, IS THAT CORRECT, MS. BROWN? MS. GARCIA? YES. CAN WE PULL THOSE UP ON THE SCREEN IF [02:35:01] POSSIBLE? COMMISSIONER REEN, I THINK YOU SHARED SOME AMENDMENTS AHEAD OF TIME. I DID. OKAY, SO WE'LL TAKE THOSE. I THINK YOU, YOU WERE THE ONLY COMMISSIONER THAT SHARED AMENDMENTS AHEAD OF TIME, SO WE CAN GO THROUGH ALL OF THOSE AND THEN WE'LL MOVE INTO DAY OF AMENDMENTS. SO IF YOU WANNA SPEAK TO THOSE KIND OF BROADLY AT FIRST TO WHAT YOUR GOAL WAS, AND THEN WE'LL GO ONE BY ONE. UM, AND COMMISSIONERS CAN ASK QUESTIONS OF THE AMENDMENT MAKER THROUGH THIS PROCESS, UH, BEFORE AND AFTER. WE HAVE A SECOND. WE'LL BE A LITTLE BIT MORE CASUAL WITH IT TODAY. OKAY. SO I CAN, I CAN SPEAK ON ALL OF THEM. YEP. I CAN SPEAK ON ALL OF THEM AT THE SAME TIME. YOU CAN SPEAK, YOU CAN SPEAK KIND OF BROADLY ON THEM AND THEN WE'LL, WE'LL TAKE THEM ONE BY ONE. SO THE GOAL OF THESE AMENDMENTS, I THINK WAS IN LINE WITH RELEASE. WE WERE TRYING TO BE IN LINE WITH THE, THE ORIGINAL COUNCIL RESOLUTION HERE, WHICH IS TO PROVIDE SOME FLEXIBILITY TO THE RELOCATION OF SIGNS, ESPECIALLY AS IT IMPACTS, UH, TRANSIT PROJECTS IN OUR CITY. UH, THERE'S ALSO A GOAL TO REDUCE THE BURDEN ON TAXPAYERS FOR THE RELOCATION OF THE SIGNS TO THE DEGREE THAT WE CAN AVOID PAYING A LOT OF MONEY TO THE SIGN OWNERS IN EXCHANGE FOR OUR TRANSIT PROJECTS. NOW, UM, I WILL SAY THAT THESE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS WERE DRAFTED UNDER A DIFFERENT ASSUMPTION OF THE MEANING OF THE SUNSET CLAUSE. UH, AND THIS IS AN INTERESTING DEVELOPMENT HERE, BUT I'LL GO AHEAD AND DISCUSS THE MERITS OF THEM, UH, AS IT STANDS. SO, UH, THERE'S A PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT TO 25 10, 1 52 SUBSECTIONS, B FIVE, AND K, WHICH GETS US DOWN TO THE REDLINED, UH, CODE, WHICH, UH, APPLIES TO THESE SIGNS THAT ARE RELOCATED FOR TRANSIT-ORIENTED PROJECTS. UM, AND WE ARE, UH, MOST OF THESE AMENDMENTS ARE ADDRESSING THE IDEA OF THERE'S FACT THAT THERE'S NO SETBACK NOW RELATED TO THESE SIGNS. SO, UH, THERE'S A COUPLE AMENDMENT OPPORTUNITIES HERE. ONE IS TO, UH, LIMIT THE SIGN LOCATION TO THE SETBACKS AND RESIDENTIAL COMPATIBILITY THAT IMPACT THE BASE ZONING OF THE SITE THAT THESE LAND ON. UM, SO WHAT THAT WOULD DO IS LIMIT THE SIGN LOCATION TO THE SAME PROVISIONS WE WOULD HOLD A BUILDING TO IN THOSE CASES. SO THE SIGN COULD NOT BE ANY CLOSER TO THE PROPERTY LINE NOR ANY TALLER TO THE PROPERTY LINE THAN A BUILDING COULD IN THAT INSTANCE. UM, THE SECOND AMENDMENT, UH, ITEM TWO B, UH, IS THE SAME OR IT SETS A 25 FOOT SETBACK AS, UM, EITHER THE GREATER OF THE BASE ZONING REQUIREMENTS OR 25 FEET. UH, AND THEN ITEM C TWO C WOULD BASICALLY TAKE THE PROVISIONS IN B FIVE C, WHICH APPLY TO ALL OTHER RELOCATED SIGNS AND APPLY THOSE IN KIND TO THIS ITEM, BUT TO REDUCE THE SETBACK FROM 500 FEET TO 250 FEET OR SOME OTHER, UH, DISTANCE. UH, AND THAT IS WHERE WE MIGHT REQUEST THAT STAFF PROVIDES SOME GUIDANCE ON WHAT A RANGE OF DISTANCES MIGHT BE APPROPRIATE THAT ENSURE THAT WE'RE PROTECTING THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORS THAT WE HAVE IN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS LIKE MR. SCHMIDT, UM, WHILE ALSO TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE PROVIDING THE FLEXIBILITY THAT THAT COUNCIL IS LOOKING FOR HERE. UM, THERE'S A, A, A FOURTH AMENDMENT PROPOSED IN HERE AS WELL. UH, AND I WOULD LOVE STAFF'S INPUT ON THIS ITEM, WHICH WOULD, UH, STOP THE 500 FOOT BUFFER AT THE ROADWAY SO THAT IF THERE IS A 500 FOOT FOOT BUFFER TO A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY THAT DOES NOT EXTEND ACROSS A ROADWAY, IT ONLY AFFECTS ADJACENT PROPERTIES THAT IT SHARES CONTIGUOUS LAND WITH. UM, AND THOSE ARE, THOSE ARE THE CURRENT AMENDMENTS BEING PUT FORTH. AND JUST TO CLARIFY, ARE YOU STILL WANTING TO INCLUDE AMENDMENT ONE RELATED TO CREATING A NEW USE BASED ON YOUR QUESTIONS? I THINK THAT THAT WAS A GENERAL RECOMMENDATION THAT WE MIGHT MAKE LATER. OKAY. CORRECT. OKAY. SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE THESE UP ONE BY ONE, STARTING WITH TWO MM-HMM . OKAY. AND WE'LL TAKE THAT ONE UP ALTOGETHER AND WE CAN MAKE CHANGES TO IT AS WE NEED TO. AND CAN I JUST GIVE CONTEXT TO TWO AND JUST SAY SURE. BASICALLY THIS IS TWO IS MEANT TO MODIFY THE DISTANCE RIGHT? TO EITHER SAY THAT WE ARE GOING TO ESTABLISH A NEW DISTANCE AND SOLELY A NEW DISTANCE AND LEAVE THE REST OF CODE AS IT IS, OR THAT WE ARE GOING TO TRY TO APPLY ALL OF SUBSECTION C TO THE TRANSIT RELOCATED SIGNS, BUT MODIFY THE DISTANCE AS A MEANS OF MEETING COUNCIL'S REQUEST FOR FLEXIBILITY. OKAY. SO BEFORE WE MAKE A MOTION AND A SECOND ON THIS, I THINK IT WOULD [02:40:01] BE HELPFUL TO JUST HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE COMMISSION TO ASK QUESTIONS OF YOU, THE, THE AMENDMENT MAKER, ESPECIALLY QUESTIONS LIKE, WOULD YOU CONSIDER CHANGING THE DISTANCE TO SOMETHING LIKE THIS SO THAT WHEN WE MAKE OUR MOTION A SECOND, WE'RE KIND OF LOCKED IN ON THAT LANGUAGE. SO DO ANY COMMISSIONERS HAVE QUESTIONS? YES, COMMISSIONER MAXWELL. UM, JUST TO CLARIFY, BECAUSE I THINK THIS MIGHT BE HELPFUL FOR THE FELLOW COMMISSIONERS, UM, THE DISTANCES BETWEEN A, B AND C, DO YOU WANNA SPEAK TO THOSE? SO LIKE A, YOU MIGHT GET X NUMBER B, YOU MIGHT GET Y NUMBER, AND C WE'RE REALLY SAYING SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 500 AND 250 SEAT FEET. THE DISTANCES ARE ON A ARE REALLY FLEXIBLE BECAUSE IT DEPENDS ON THE NATURE OF THE ZONING OF THE PROPERTY THAT'S ADJACENT TO THE RESIDENTIAL, UH, PLOT THAT'S THERE. UM, TAKING A AND B IN CON IN CONCERT, I THINK WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS GUARANTEE 25 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. AND I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY THE BETTER OF THE TWO OPTIONS IS TO COMBINE THOSE TWO. UM, THE GOAL HERE THOUGH, AS STATED IS REALLY TO SAY THAT SIGN CODE SHOULD NOT BE MORE PERMISSIBLE THAN OUR BUILDING CODE. WE SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO PUT SIGNS IN PLACES, WE CAN'T PUT BUILDINGS, WE CAN'T, SHOULDN'T BE ABLE TO BUILD SIGNS THAT ARE TALLER THAN THE BUILDINGS THAT WE CAN BUILD ADJACENT TO THEM. I THINK THAT THAT FEELS, TO ME AT LEAST AS A STANCE, I DON'T THINK IT REALLY DOES ALL THE WORK THAT IT COULD IN TERMS OF THAT STILL SOMEWHAT PROXIMATE. UM, MR. SCHMIDT WOULD AGREE WITH THAT , UM, BUT I THINK THAT AT LEAST IT ESTABLISHES AT LEAST SOME GUIDELINES THERE. UM, YEAH. SORRY. YES. COMMISSIONER GANNON. UM, I'VE GOT A QUESTION. UH, JUST A, A CLARIFICATION I GUESS. UM, IN THIS, I'M ASSUMING THAT THIS INCLUDES HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS, SO YOU CAN'T BUILD A SIGN HIGHER. SO SAY THAT YOU'RE IN A, AN SF THREE, THEN YOU WOULD GO THREE, FIVE FEET. UM, AND IF YOU ARE IN A, UH, A COMMERCIAL ZONE THAT'S LOCATED ADJACENT TO A RESIDENTIAL ZONE, WOULD UH, COMPATIBILITY STILL BE IN PLAY? SPECIFICALLY? COMPATIBILITY IS WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT, RIGHT? SO IT CAN'T, A SET WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO GO IN SF THREE LOT BECAUSE IT WOULD BE A RESIDENTIAL ZONING. A RESIDENTIAL ZONING IS ALREADY OBVIATED. RIGHT. OKAY. BUT IT WOULD BE FOR A COMMERCIALLY ZONED PROPERTY TO ADHERE TO BOTH THE SETBACKS OF THAT BASE ZONING, BUT ALSO THE RESIDENTIAL COMPATIBILITY THAT EXTEND TO CONTROL BOTH HEIGHT AND DISTANCE. GOTCHA. I THINK WE'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT A, B, C RIGHT NOW, RIGHT? MM-HMM . THAT'S CORRECT. UM, ARE WE JUST TALKING ABOUT A AND B OR A, B AND C? WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A, B, AND C. OKAY. SO C IS TO ADD IN, UH, ADD BACK IN SOME BUFFER ZONE. YEAH, SOME NUMBER. OKAY, GREAT. AWESOME. OTHER COMMISSIONER, I'VE GOT, I'VE GOT A QUESTION. GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER HILLER. OKAY, COOL. UH, COMMISSIONER IAN, WHEN, WHEN YOU GUYS WERE CONTEMPLATING OR KIND OF TALKING ABOUT THIS, IS THE AREA OF CONCERN REALLY THE ONES THAT ARE ADJACENT TO THE CURRENT, UM, WORK THAT'S GOING ON I 35? OR ARE THERE OTHER AREAS WHERE YOU'RE KIND OF GOING, HEY, THIS, THERE'S A REALLY GOOD LIKELIHOOD THAT THIS IS GONNA IMPACT, UH, YOU KNOW, CITY RESIDENCE? YEAH, IT'S DEFINITELY, DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? YEAH, OF COURSE. IT'S, IT'S DEFINITELY BOTH. I THINK THE, ONE OF THE THINGS WE DISCUSSED, IT WOULD BE IDEAL TO KEEP THE BILLBOARDS THAT ARE ON I 35, UM, NOT SPECIFICALLY SPEAKING TO YOUR BILLBOARD, SIR, BUT LIKE GENERALLY SPEAKING, IF WE CAN KEEP THEM ON COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES AND ADJACENT TO THE HIGHWAY, IT SEEMS LIKE WE'D PREFER TO AT LEAST KEEP THOSE OUT OF OUR SECONDARY ROADWAYS IF POSSIBLE. SO THAT FLEXIBILITY COMES INTO PLAY THERE. BUT MY OFFICE IS ON BURNETT, AND WHEN I WALK OUT THE DOOR AND LOOK UP AND DOWN BURNETT, IT IS REPLETE WITH BILLBOARDS UP AND DOWN THE ENTIRE CORRIDOR. AND I'M CONSCIOUS OF THE FACT THAT IF A, IF A FUTURE TRANSIT PROJECT WERE TO HAPPEN THERE, IT WOULD IMPACT MANY, MANY BILLBOARDS ALONG THAT ROUTE. UM, AND THERE IS SOME CONCESSION FOR HOW, HOW DO WE MOVE THESE? SO HAVING NO REGULATION ABOUT ADJACENCY TO RESIDENTIAL IS CONCERNING, I THINK FOR ANY NEIGHBOR ALONG THIS PATH THAT, THAT SUDDENLY COULD BE ON THE PROPERTY LINE. SO WE'RE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THAT MAGIC SPOT IS WHERE THERE'S RESTRICTIONS, BUT WE'RE PROVIDING THE FLEXIBILITY THAT THAT COUNSEL IS REQUESTING BECAUSE THE FLIP SIDE OF THIS IS, AND I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY AND STAFF MAY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE SOME ELUCIDATION HERE, I'M ASSUMING IF THE, IF A PIECE OF LAND IS TAKEN BY FOR A TRANSIT PROJECT, CAN THE SIGN OWNER REQUEST THAT THEY [02:45:01] BE BOUGHT OUT? WHO MAKES THAT DETERMINATION? DO YOU KNOW THAT MY SUSPICION IT WOULD BE THE SIGN OWNER WHO WOULD MAKE THAT DECISION. SO THEY WOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO SAY, I'M GONNA MOVE MY SIGN OR NO CITY, I'M IT'S STAY OR YOU GOTTA TAKE IT FROM ME. BASICALLY THEY COULD. OKAY. BUT I JUST, TO BE QUITE FRANK, THE LIKELIHOOD OF THEM DOING THAT IS VERY LOW BECAUSE THAT WIPES OUT AN ENTIRE INCOME STREAM FOR THEM. CORRECT. I THINK THE, THE QUESTION THOUGH BEFORE US IS HOW MANY PROPERTIES AS WE MOVE FORWARD, IF WE HAD TO MOVE SAY 50 SIGNS ALL AT ONCE, WOULD REAGAN OUTDOOR BE ABLE TO FIND 50 SITES TO MOVE THESE SIGNS ON IN THAT TIME PERIOD QUICKLY? UM, AND THEN THE CONCERN ON THE FLIP SIDE THERE IS DOES THIS BECOME A BURDEN TO SET TRANSIT PROJECT? OH, SORRY, I'M NOT ASKING THAT AS A QUESTION. , I'M I'M, I'M PURELY TALKING TO COMMISSIONER HELLER AT THIS POINT. SORRY, COMMISSIONER, CAN I, CAN I GET ONE MORE POINT OF CLARIFICATION? YES, YES, GO AHEAD. UM, AND, AND THAT'S JUST SO I UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE DISCUSSING HERE IN TERMS OF THE AMENDMENT, ARE WE, ARE WE TALKING ABOUT TAKING A SIGN OF A CERTAIN SIZE THAT'S CURRENTLY, UM, IN USE FOR ADVERTISING AND FORCING IT TO BE SMALLER OR OTHERWISE INFERIOR TO COMPLY WITH THE SIZE LIMITATIONS? IS THAT, IS THAT WHAT'S ON THE TABLE HERE? I DON'T THINK THAT THE, THIS WOULD NOT ADJUST THE SIZE. UM, THERE ARE PROVISIONS IN THE SECTIONS THAT DON'T APPLY TO THESE RELOCATIONS, I BELIEVE THAT DO PERMIT A DROP IN SIZE TO GAIN ACCESS TO A COMMERCIAL SITE AREA OR THE COMMERCIAL SIGN AREA AS OPPOSED TO SOLELY AN EXPRESSWAY SIGN AREA. BUT CURRENTLY UNDER THE CURRENT RED LINES THAT DOES NOT APPLY TO THESE SPECIFIC RELOCATIONS. WHAT IT COULD DO IS DROP THEIR HEIGHT, BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, SORRY. YEAH, BUT, BUT HEIGHT HEIGHT'S A A QUALITY THAT THE, UH, THE ADVERTISEMENT WOULD THINK IS IMPORTANT, RIGHT? CORRECT. BUT WHAT IT DOES IS IT PUSHES THOSE SIGNS TO THE STREET AND KEEPS THEM FROM THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY. LIKE, IT, IT ENCOURAGES DISTANCE FROM RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES. I'M, I'M JUST THINKING THAT IN ENFORCEMENT OF THIS, THERE'S A MATERIAL LOSS OF VALUE TO THE, THE OWNER OF THE BILLBOARD. AND IF, IF THAT'S THE CASE, THEN YOU'RE KIND OF RIGHT BACK WHERE YOU STARTED WHERE THERE'S SOME TYPE OF CASH PAYMENT BEING MADE TO THE OWNER TO, TO ACCEPT THIS INFERIOR ADVERTISEMENT PLACEMENT. I MIGHT COUNTER THAT STATEMENT WITH THE FACT THAT THEY CURRENTLY HAVE A 500 FOOT SETBACK , WHICH MEANS THAT MOST OF THESE PROPERTIES THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ARE NOT EVEN AVAILABLE TO THEM. RIGHT. SO WE'RE OFFERING THEM MANY OTHER PROPERTIES AND THEY COULD STILL BUILD A SIGN PRETTY MUCH AS TALL AS THEY'RE ASKING FOR TODAY. IT WOULD JUST BE MUCH MORE DISTANT FROM A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY THAN MR. SCHMIDT IS WORRIED ABOUT IT BEING NEXT TO HIS HOUSE BECAUSE IT WOULD, IT WOULD BE, UH, UH, UH, COMPATIBILITY TENT THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO STAY OUTSIDE OF. GOT IT. OKAY. COOL. THANK YOU. I'M GONNA PICK UP ON THAT LINE OF QUESTIONING ACTUALLY. UM, AND JUST CLARIFY FOR MYSELF, WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ITEM TWO, IT LOOKS LIKE MY UNDERSTANDING OF THIS IS THAT WE'RE CONSIDERING EITHER A AND B OR C. IS THAT CORRECT? YEAH. OKAY. SO I GUESS I'M A QUESTION TO THE, TO THE MOTION MAKER, WOULD YOU CONSIDER THINKING ABOUT IT SOLELY IN TERMS OF C FOR THE REASONS THAT COMMISSIONER HILLER IS BRINGING UP THAT THE LIMITATIONS OF HEIGHT? I REALLY APPRECIATE THE WORK THAT Y'ALL PUT INTO THIS AND THINKING ABOUT HOW, OBVIOUSLY WE SHOULDN'T HAVE A SIGN HIGHER OR CLOSER THAN WE WOULD ALLOW A BUILDING, BUT I DO THINK THAT IT CREATES ADDITIONAL COMPLICATION AND I THINK THE POTENTIAL FOR OUR, OUR COMPATIBILITY WITHIN OUR CODE TO CHANGE CREATES ADDITIONAL COMPLICATION, WHEREAS CREATING A NEW BUFFER THAT MIGHT BE SLIGHTLY MORE FLEXIBLE THAN THE EXISTING BUFFER FEELS LIKE THE SIMPLEST SOLUTION. ARE YOU OPEN TO JUST GOING WITH C? ABSOLUTELY. I THINK WHAT WE NEED TO CONSIDER THOUGH IS C IS SLIGHTLY STRUCTURED SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT BECAUSE C CLAWS BACK ALL OF THE OTHER PROVISIONS OF SECTION C. NOT TO CONFUSE THE TWO OF THEM , BUT SECTION C INCLUDES A WHOLE BUNCH OF OTHER PROVISIONS ABOUT WHERE SIGNS CAN BE LOCATED. UM, AND WE CAN MODIFY THAT AS WELL AND, AND ONLY APPLY THE BUFFER TO THE FIRST TWO POINTS. YEAH, I WONDER ABOUT INCLUDING ALL OF THE PROVISIONS IN SECTION C WITH A SLIGHTLY REDUCED BUFFER AND THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT C IS. YEAH. OKAY. THAT'S WHAT, THAT'S WHAT ITEM C, NOT SECTION C IS. [02:50:01] YES, YES, YES. SO, AND, AND I THINK THAT MAKES SENSE BECAUSE I THINK WE DO WANNA INCLUDE THOSE ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS. AND I GUESS MY NEXT QUESTION WOULD BE, WOULD YOU CONSIDER A BUFFER OF 400 FEET, GIVEN THAT WE UNFORTUNATELY DON'T HAVE ANY DATA TO SHOW HOW DIFFICULT THE RELOCATION OF THESE EXISTING SIGNS IS. I WANNA MAKE IT EASIER, BUT WE DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH EASIER WE NEED TO MAKE IT. AND I DON'T WANNA OVER, I DON'T WANNA GET TOO CLOSE BECAUSE WE, WE WE KINDA SWUNG FOR THE FENCES ON THIS WHEN WE DON'T REALLY KNOW WHETHER WE NEED TO RELOCATE THESE THAT MUCH CLOSER TO HOMES OR, OR IS THERE A NUMBER ABOVE 250 THAT YOU, THE MOTION MAKER COULD BE COMFORTABLE WITH? COULD I ASK A QUESTION OF STAFF? YES. , IS IT POSSIBLE FOR US TO REQUEST THAT YOU STUDY THE DISTANCE AND PRESENT TO US WHAT YOU THINK IS A RANGE THAT WOULD BE, UH, REPRESENT TO COUNCIL? THAT WOULD BE A, UH, THAT WOULD MEET THE INTENT OF INCREASED FLEXIBILITY? 'CAUSE MY CONCERN IS IF WE DO 400 FEET OR EVEN 250 FEET, THAT'S LARGER THAN MOST OF THE BOUNDARY DISTANCES OF ANY COMMERCIAL PROPERTY, WHICH STILL PUTS IT, IT STILL MAKES A LOT OF PROPERTIES NO LONGER APPLICABLE. SO THAT THE QUESTION THEN BECOMES, IS IT A HUNDRED FEET? IS IT 125 FEET? IS IT 150 FEET? I DON'T KNOW WHERE WE GET TO THAT MAGIC POINT. WE'RE SUDDENLY WE'VE UNLOCKED THE ADDITIONAL PROPERTIES WE NEED TO UNLOCK LOCK. GO AHEAD. SO THE QUESTION IS FOR YOU IS, IS THAT SOMETHING THE CITY CAN STUDY? TO BE HONEST, I DON'T THINK SO. . OKAY. UM, BECAUSE OF ALL OF THE FACTORS THAT ARE GONNA COME INTO PLAY, AND I MEAN THAT'S, I I RECOGNIZE THIS IS, UM, A LITTLE BIT OF A CHICKEN AND EGG SITUATION THAT THE COMMISSION'S IN. AND I, I APPRECIATE THAT. I THINK COUNCIL'S TRYING TO BE PROACTIVE SO THAT WE DON'T KIND OF END UP IN A SPACE WHERE WE'RE TOTAL, WE'RE COMPLETELY REACTING TO THE PROBLEM. UM, BUT YOU KNOW, IF THE COMMISSION BELIEVES THERE SHOULD BE A SPACING, IF THERE SHOULD BE A DISTANCE BETWEEN THE SIGN AND RESIDENTIAL, THAT IS A RECOMMENDATION THAT YOU SHOULD MAKE TO THE COUNCIL IF THAT'S WHAT YOU AS A BODY BELIEVE. SO JUST TO FINISH OUT MY, MY QUESTION SLOT , UH, I GUESS I WOULD ASK YOU THE MOTION MAKER IF YOU WOULD CONSIDER CHOOSING A NUMBER THAT FEELS RIGHT TO YOU, HAVING SPENT A LOT OF TIME AND DOING A LOT OF RESEARCH ON THIS FOR ITEM C AND, YOU KNOW, IT'S POSSIBLE THAT SOMEONE MIGHT MAKE SUBSTITUTE MOTION, BUT , WE, WE WILL START WITH SOMETHING. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS WITH QUESTIONS? YES, COMMISSIONER AHMED, GO AHEAD. THANK YOU. I, I APPRECIATE IT. UM, I FEEL LIKE THIS IS A CASE OF IF IT AIN'T BROKE, DON'T FIX IT. UH, 'CAUSE UH, WE'VE HAD CERTAIN REGULATIONS IN PLACE FOR A WHILE AND WE HAVEN'T HAD TROUBLE RELOCATING THOSE SIGNS AND WE'RE ANTICIPATING OR WORRIED THAT THERE'S GONNA BE A BIG FLOOD OF THEM. BUT THE PROBLEM IS WE HAVE NO INFORMATION TO REALLY DO THE ANALYSIS TO DETERMINE HOW WE MAKE THIS CHANGE. WE DON'T KNOW HOW MANY LOCATIONS ARE GONNA COME. WE DON'T KNOW HOW MANY CAN BE ABSORBED WITH, UH, YOU KNOW, A 75 FOOT, UH, SETBACK VERSUS A 500 FOOT SETBACK OR ANYTHING. AND I THINK THOSE INITIAL, UM, REQUIREMENTS THAT WE HAD ON RELOCATING WERE PROBABLY THOUGHTFULLY DONE TO MAKE SURE THAT RESIDENTS LIKE YOURSELF ARE PROTECTED. AND SO I WOULD LIKE TO KEEP IT AS SIMILAR TO THE CURRENT CODE AS POSSIBLE WHILE TRYING TO ENTERTAIN, UH, OR, OR TRYING TO, YOU KNOW, HELP COUNSEL WITH, UH, I GUESS THEIR, UH, THEIR GOAL TO MAKE IT MORE FLEXIBLE. SO I WOULD STRONGLY BACK, UH, WHAT THE CHAIR HAD SUGGESTED, AND THAT IS TWO C, SO KEEP ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS THERE IN FIVE B FIVE, UH, UH, B FIVE C AND IMPORTANTLY, ONE, THE BIGGEST REQUIREMENTS OUTSIDE OF THAT SETBACK FROM RESIDENTIAL IS THE FACT THAT LARGER BILLBOARDS GREATER THAN 300 SQUARE FEET HAVE TO GO INTO A CORRIDOR SIGN DISTRICT, I BELIEVE, WHICH MEANS A MAJOR HIGHWAY. AND I THINK THEY BELONG THERE, NOT IN AN URBAN LOCATION. SO I WANT TO BE ABLE TO KEEP ALL OF THOSE RESTRICTIONS. AND THEN I WOULD ONLY WANNA SLIGHTLY REDUCE, UH, THE, THE SETBACK AMOUNT, THE RESIDENTIAL SETBACK AMOUNT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MORE INFORMATION. SO I THINK THE 400 FOOT IS ACTUALLY A GOOD, UH, OPTION FOR THAT. THANKS, COMMISSIONER RAMAD. AND I WANNA, UM, NOTE THAT I RECOGNIZE THAT I SENT US ON THIS PATH, BUT WE'RE, I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE JUST ASKING QUESTIONS OF THE MOTION MAKER RIGHT NOW AND WE'LL MOVE INTO DEBATE MOMENTARILY. I THINK I SAW THAT COMMISSIONER BRETTON HAS A QUESTION. YES. UM, AS RELATED TO OUR CONVERSATION, UH, REGARDING HEIGHT OF BILLBOARDS, COMPATIBILITY, [02:55:01] SETBACK AND SO FORTH, I, I MIGHT, UH, OFFER TO THE MOTION MAKER THAT HEIGHT CAN BE A VERY VARIABLE THING, UH, BOTH IN TERMS OF IMPACT TO I THINK THE NEIGHBORS, UH, A TALLER SIGN MAY BE MORE, UH, AMENABLE THAN A MEDIUM-SIZED SIGN AND A SHORT SIGN MAY BE MORE AMENABLE THAN BOTH SO THAT IT DOES NOT BLOCK SIGHTLINE, UH, AND MAYBE VICE VERSA, UH, FOR, UH, COMPANY THAT MAY NEED RELOCATIONS. UH, SIMILARLY IN THE CONVERSATION THAT WE HAVE BEEN HAVING, UH, RELATED TO UNSURETY OF, UH, THE CHANGES THAT WE MAY BE MAKING TONIGHT OR RECOMMENDING TO COUNCIL RATHER TONIGHT, UH, THAT COMMISSIONER TROJAN'S POINT ABOUT BURNETT, UH, WE CURRENTLY DO NOT HAVE DATA ON HOW MANY, UH, BILLBOARDS MAY NEED TO BE RELOCATED EITHER FROM PROJECT CONNECT OR, UH, I 35. AND IT WOULD BE MY EXPECTATION, I MAY BE INTERESTED IF STAFF HAS, UH, AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE VOLUME OF RELOCATIONS THAT HAVE HAPPENED SINCE 2008, UH, SO THAT WE COULD UNDERSTAND BETTER WHAT MIGHT NEED TO BE ABSORBED WHEN WE DO HAVE NUMBERS FROM TDOT FROM A TP, MAYBE LESS QUESTIONS MORE JUST OFFERING SOME THOUGHTS. IS THAT A QUESTION FOR STAFF OR JUST A, IT'S JUST A RHETORIC QUESTION. I, IF I CAN ASK A QUESTION FOR STAFF FROM, IF I CAN ASK FOR STAFF TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION? YES. I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IF WE HAVE AN IDEA OF VOLUME, UH, RELOCATIONS PER YEAR, MAYBE AS A METRIC. UM, I, THE TOTAL RELOCATION DO NOT HAVE THE NUMBERS. UM, I KNOW I BELIEVE SINCE OCTOBER WE HAVE NOT HAD AN APPLICATION COME IN FOR RELOCATION THAT I'M AWARE OF. UM, WE GET, I'M TRYING TO THINK, I THINK LAST YEAR THERE MAY HAVE BEEN, UM, MAYBE A HANDFUL, BUT THIS IS REALLY JUST KIND OF BASED ON ANECDOTAL INFORMATION THAT I HAVE FROM STAFF ABOUT QUESTIONS THAT THEY, UM, HAVE ABOUT APPLICATIONS. AND IF, IF I MAY CHAIR, UH, RE UH, REFRESHING MYSELF ON SOME OF THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE AND TIMELINES FOR APPLICATIONS AND, UM, RELOCATIONS THAT MAY BE SOMETHING WE WANT TO LOOK AT. IF, UH, WE EXPECT A LARGE VOLUME OF RELOCATIONS, UM, IT TAKES WORK FOR EVERYONE TO LOOK AT AND APPROVE, UH, AND AGREE TO WHERE THOSE RELOCATIONS MAY HAPPEN TO HAPPEN TO. I'M, I'M FINISHED. THANK YOU. THANKS COMMISSIONER BRATTON. OKAY. UNLESS THERE ARE ANY URGENT QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS, I THINK WE SHOULD GO AHEAD AND TAKE IT UP AS AN AMENDMENT. UM, COMMISSIONER BEREN, WOULD YOU LIKE TO STATE THE FINAL LANGUAGE? AM I ALLOWED TO, AM I PERMITTED TO ADJUST THE LANGUAGE? OF COURSE. OKAY. SO I WOULD LIKE TO PUT FORTH, UM, AN AMENDMENT THAT LIMITS THE RELOCATION OF A NON-CONFORMING SIGN AS DESCRIBED UNDER FIVE A V IN, UH, THE CODE WE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING TO THE BASE ZONING SETBACKS OR RESIDENTIAL COMPATIBILITY REQUIREMENTS OF THE BASE ZONING TO A TRIGGERING ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY OR 150 FEET, WHICHEVER IS THE GREATER, AND THAT WOULD APPLY TO BOTH THE HEIGHT AND THE DISTANCE IN TERMS OF THE COMPATIBILITY. GREAT. CAN, LOOKING FOR A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MAXWELL. THANK YOU. STAFF HAD STAFF HAS SOMETHING TO SAY. , GO AHEAD. SO TO MAKE SURE THAT I UNDERSTAND THE MOTION, UM, THE DISTANCE BETWEEN SIGNS AND RESIDENTIAL IS GOING TO BE THE GREATER OF THE BASE ZONING SETBACK OR THE COMPATIBILITY SETBACK OR 150 FEET, 150 FEET. UM, AND THAT IS FOR DISTANCE AND IT'D BE THE GREATER OF THOSE AND THE HEIGHT WOULD BE LIMITED TO THE BASE. SONY DISTRICT OR COMPATIBILITY, WHICHEVER IS THE MORE LIMITING. OKAY. UM, I GUESS THAT WOULD JUST FALL TO BASE ZONING 'CAUSE COMPATIBILITY TOPS OUT. RIGHT. UM, [03:00:02] OKAY. JUST SO THAT THE COMMISSION IS AWARE, CITY CODE RIGHT NOW SAYS FOR RELOCATED SIGN NOT THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT IS 42 FEET ABOVE GRADE LEVEL STREET PAVEMENT THAT IS IN CODE? CORRECT. OKAY. THEN I MAY TAKE THE HEIGHT RESTRICTION OUT OF THERE. . OKAY. SO I HAVE, UH, AN AMENDMENT THAT LIMITS RELOCATION OF A NON-CONFORMING SIGN TO THE BASE ZONING SETBACKS OR RESIDENTIAL COMPATIBILITY REQUIREMENTS OR 150 FEET, WHICHEVER IS GREATER. DOES THAT CAPTURE YES, YOUR AMENDMENT. WOULD WE NEED COMPATIBILITY AT THAT POINT THOUGH? IF, IF IT'S THE GREATER OF 150 OR NO, I GUESS 100 WOULD, THIS REALLY JUST SETS IT AT 150 FEET. IT'S 150, YEAH. , YES. BASE ZONING AND COMPATIBILITY. I MEAN, WOULD THERE BE ANY CASE WHERE BASE ZONING WOULD, UH, COME INTO PLAY? NO, I WAS NOT AWARE OF A HEIGHT RESTRICTION, SO I WAS TRYING TO MAKE SURE ONCE AGAIN THAT THE, THIS, THIS, THE INTENT HERE IS THAT WE CAN NEVER BUILD A SIGN CLOSER OR TALLER THAN A BUILDING. WELL, UH, SORRY, CAN I ASK QUESTIONS RIGHT NOW? NOT REALLY . DAMN. DID I CAPTURE THE AMENDMENT AS YOU WOULD LIKE IT? YOU MAY, YOU CAN CHANGE IT AT THIS POINT IF YOUR SECOND AGREES. THE LANGUAGE DOESN'T MAKE SENSE AS IT STANDS, IT SHOULD BE AT 150 FEET. OKAY, SO LEMME GO AHEAD. SORRY. CAN I ADD ONE? SURE. I THINK IT DOES MAKE SENSE BECAUSE THERE COULD BE A CASE WHERE THE, UH, THE LOT THAT THE BILLBOARD IS BEING RELOCATED TO IS NOT ADJACENT TO THE RESIDENTIAL. THERE MAY BE DIRECTLY ADJACENT. YEAH. THERE MAY BE A SECONDARY BUFFER LAW I, WHERE WE WANT TO KEEP IT. UM, AGREED. AGREED. I WOULD SAY KEEP THE, THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE. OKAY, THEN I'LL STAND WITH THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE. OKAY. AS YOU READ IT, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR THE LANGUAGE AS READ. UM, WE WILL MOVE INTO DEBATE FOR THIS AMENDMENT. UH, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK FOR COMMISSIONER TROJAN? SO THE, THE REASON FOR THIS AMENDMENT IS ALREADY STATED IS TO PROVIDE THE FLEXIBILITY THAT COUNCIL HAS REQUESTED. UM, THE GOAL HERE IS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DON'T HAVE SIGNS IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES. IT ALSO IS INTENDED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THE IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT PROPERTY MAY NOT BE RESIDENTIAL, BUT THE AFFECTED PROPERTIES COULD BE ANOTHER SET ANOTHER LOT IN, AND THE COMPATIBILITY DOES SEEK TO PROVIDE SOME PROTECTION TO THOSE, UH, TO THOSE CONDITIONS AS WELL. UM, WE ARE DEVIATING FROM THE ORIGINAL 500 FEET TO PROVIDE THAT FLEXIBILITY THOUGH. AND THIS WOULD NOT INCLUDE THE OTHER PROVISIONS OF SUBSECTION C. UH, THIS WOULD ONLY MODIFY THE, OR I GUESS ADD A NEW SECTION UNDER K THAT WOULD ADDRESS THE DISTANCE FROM RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES. ANYONE SPEAKING AGAINST COMMISSIONER AHMED? UH, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION . SURE, GO AHEAD. HERE WE GO. UH, AND THAT'S KIND OF IN LINE WITH WHAT I WAS SAYING BEFORE. UH, I'D LIKE TO SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO BE IN LINE WITH TWO C. UH, WHERE, UH, FOR THOSE, UH, RELOCATED SIGNS DUE TO, UH, DUE TO TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS, UH, THE REQUIREMENTS ARE EXACTLY THE SAME AS THEY ARE FOR ANY OTHER BILLBOARD, UH, RELOCATIONS, UH, THAT ARE ALL CAPTURED IN UH, B FIVE C. THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS THE, UM, SETBACK FROM RESIDENTIAL IS REDUCED FROM 500 TO 400, UH, TO, UH, TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION, UH, COUNCIL'S, UH, DIRECTION TO TRY TO MAKE, UH, THOSE RELOCATIONS MORE FLEXIBLE. OKAY. SO I, I'LL SECOND THAT. UH, I HAVE A SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT TO MATCH THE LIMITATIONS FOR ALL RELOCATED SIGNS AS CAPTURED IN B FIVE C WITH A MODIFICATION TO ITEM THREE TO REDUCE SETBACK FROM 500 FEET TO 400 FEET TO RES FOR RESIDENTIAL UNITS. FROM RESIDENTIAL UNITS, I THINK IS WHAT THAT SAID. THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. YEAH, WE'LL MOVE INTO DEBATE FOR THAT SUBSTITUTE MOTION. COMMISSIONER AHMED, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK FURTHER TO IT? YEAH, AND THE MAIN REASON IS IF WE HAD, LIKE I SAID BEFORE, IF WE HAD MORE DATA AROUND WHAT IS ACTUALLY NEEDED, THEN I FEEL LIKE WE COULD MAKE A SMART DECISION ON THE BEST WAY TO REDUCE THOSE RESTRICTIONS. I DON'T THINK WE HAVE THAT DATA. AND SO I FEEL LIKE WE'RE JUST KIND OF, YOU KNOW, GUESSING AS TO HOW TO MAKE THOSE RESTRICTIONS, UH, LOOSER. AND THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THEY WERE THERE FOR A REASON. THEY'RE THERE TO PROTECT RESIDENTS. SO I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD REMOVE THEM AT LEAST, UH, [03:05:01] SUBSTANTIALLY UNLESS WE KNOW EXACTLY, YOU KNOW, WHAT PROBLEM WE'RE TRYING TO FIX. WE KNOW THAT, UH, THEY NEED TO BE REDUCED BY A CERTAIN AMOUNT TO SAY, ABSORB A CERTAIN NUMBER OF RELOCATIONS AND AVOID PAYING FOR THEM OR SOMETHING ELSE, RIGHT? OR AT LEAST KNOW THE NUMBER OF RELOCATIONS. SO UNTIL THEN, I WOULD WANT TO BE MUCH MORE MEASURED WITH HOW WE END UP, UH, UH, MAKING THAT CLAUSE MORE FLEXIBLE. ANYONE SPEAKING AGAINST THE SUBSTITUTE? YEAH, I'M ABSOLUTELY SPEAKING AGAINST THE SUBSTITUTE BECAUSE THIS IS NOT THE INTENT OF WHY WE'RE HERE TONIGHT. UM, WE CANNOT ACTUALLY SORT OF MICROMANAGE THIS DOWN TO JUST BARELY ALLOWING A FEW NEW RELOCATIONS. THIS IS A FULL SCALE ISSUE THAT THE CITY HAS TO FACE. WE'VE MADE IT EXTREMELY DIFFICULT TO RELOCATE. WE HAVE TWO MAJOR TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS HAPPENING, PROJECT CONNECT AND I 35, WHERE THESE BILLBOARDS ARE ALREADY COMING DOWN. SO THIS IS NOT A THEORETICAL THING. WE'RE TRYING TO BE VERY PROACTIVE AND BY EXTRAORDINARILY LIMITING THROUGH THE ADDITION OF ALL OF THESE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS AND THEN SAYING A BUFFER OF 400 FEET, WE'RE ESSENTIALLY DOING NOTHING. AND THAT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. ANYONE SPEAKING FOR, I'M SORRY. THE COMMISSIONER IS ONLINE. YOU'RE VERY SMALL ON MY SCREEN, SO YOU MIGHT HAVE TO MAKE YOURSELF KNOWN VERBALLY. ANYONE ELSE SPEAKING AGAINST? OKAY, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE OH YEAH, GO AHEAD. COMMISSIONER HILLER. UH, I, I, I JUST WAS GONNA ECHO COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, I THINK A 400 FOOT SETBACK IS TOO LIMITING AND ON, ON THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE OF TRYING TO MAKE THIS INCREASE FLEXIBILITY, WE, WE SHOULD BE VOTING AGAINST THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION. ANYONE ELSE SPEAKING FOR AGAINST? OKAY, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION CHAIR. YES, I WAS HOPING TO SPEAK AGAINST, GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER BRETT. I'M SORRY. IT'S OKAY. I WILL BE RELATIVELY QUICK. I THINK EARLIER, COMMISSIONER AHMED, I HEARD YOU MENTION SOMETHING ABOUT, UH, FIXING A PROBLEM THAT WE DON'T SEE YET. AND I THINK I, I WOULD ECHO COMMISSIONER MAXWELL'S POINT HERE. UM, I THINK, UH, ALSO IN THE SENSE OF, UH, I HEARD FROM STAFF, UH, BEING PROACTIVE IN ADDRESSING SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT WE SEE, UH, DELIVERING THESE PROJECTS THAT ARE ESSENTIAL TO REALLY, UH, SUPPORTING OUR NEEDS AS A CITY IN TERMS OF TRANSPORTATION IS IMPORTANT. AND I WOULD LIKE TO AVOID GETTING INTO A SITUATION WITH, UH, A LARGE NUMBER OF BILLBOARD RELOCATIONS POTENTIALLY, UH, THAT PUT US IN A SPOT WHERE WE WOULD BE UNABLE AS A CITY TO EFFECTIVELY ADDRESS, UH, HOW THAT IS WORKING. THANKS, COMMISSIONER BRATTON. OKAY. SEEING NO OTHER SPEAKERS, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE FOR THE SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT, UH, TO MATCH THE LIMITATIONS FOR ALL RELOCATED SIGNS AS CAPTURED IN B FIVE C WITH A MODIFICATION TO ITEM THREE TO REDUCE SETBACK FROM 500 FEET TO 400 FEET FOR RESIDENTIAL UNITS. THOSE IN FAVOR, THOSE AGAINST. OKAY, SO THAT ITEM FAILS THREE SIX. SO WE'LL GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL AMENDMENT, WHICH IS TO LIMIT THE RELOCATION OF NONCONFORMING SIGN TO THE BASE ZONING SETBACKS OR RESIDENTIAL COMPATIBILITY REQUIREMENTS, OR 150 FEET, WHICHEVER IS GREATER. SO WE HAD ONE SPEAKER IN SUPPORT OF THIS. WE CAN TAKE, UH, ANY SPEAKERS AGAINST OR IN SUPPORT STARTING WITH AGAINST. SORRY, WE JUST, JUST COMMISSIONERS. OH, UH, ANY, ANYONE WANTING YOU? GO AHEAD. COMMISSIONER AHMED SPEAKING AGAINST. YEAH, I'LL SPEAK AGAINST, UH, AGAIN, FOR THE REASONS I MENTIONED BEFORE. I THINK, UH, FIRST OF ALL, WE'RE MAKING A HUGE CHANGE HERE, GOING FROM, UH, 500 TO, I THINK IT'S, UH, 150. WE'RE ALSO, UH, ALLOWING LARGE BILLBOARDS, UH, BILLBOARDS THAT ARE MEANT FOR MAJOR HIGHWAYS TO NOW GO ONTO, UH, MORE URBAN STREETS BECAUSE WE GOT RID OF THAT REQUIREMENT AS WELL. UH, THESE WERE THOUGHTFUL REQUIREMENTS THAT WERE IN THERE BEFORE, AND WE'RE GETTING RID OF THEM WITHOUT ANY IDEA OF HOW MUCH IT IMPACTS ABSORPTION OR ANYTHING. UH, SO I'M VERY CONCERNED, UH, ABOUT GOING THIS FAR, UM, WITH, UH, WITH ESSENTIALLY JUST MAKING IT EASIER FOR THE BILLBOARD COMPANIES HERE, UH, IN AUSTIN. I'LL SPEAK FOR BRIEFLY. I OBVIOUSLY THINK A, A GREATER SETBACK IS PREFERABLE, BUT I REALLY WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE, WE ARE CHANGING THIS IN SOME WAY, AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO SEND THE MESSAGE THAT WE DON'T THINK THAT ZERO FEET IS ENOUGH. AND HAVING 150 FEET IS, IS AN IMPORTANT CHANGE. I THINK IT'S VERY LIKELY THAT COUNCIL IS GOING TO [03:10:01] MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS IN SOME WAY. SO I WOULD LOVE TO SEE US MAKE SOME AMENDMENTS THAT WE FEEL GOOD ABOUT AND SEND THIS FORWARD TONIGHT. SO THIS IS SOMETHING THAT, WHILE, YOU KNOW, NOT THE FULL EXTENT OF WHAT I HOPED FOR, I THINK IS VERY REASONABLE. AND I THINK THAT THE COMMISSIONERS WHO WORKED ON THIS, UM, PUT A LOT OF THOUGHT INTO IT. SO I I'LL BE SUPPORTING THIS. ANYONE SPEAKING AGAINST ANYONE ELSE? SPEAKING FOR COMMISSIONER GANNON? GO AHEAD. YEAH, I WANNA SPEAK FOR IT. UM, AND, UM, I THINK 150 FEET, UH, GETS THE JOB DONE, UH, UH, TO AVOID WHETHER OUR, OUR NEIGHBORS HERE ARE, ARE CONCERNED ABOUT. UM, BECAUSE IF YOU THINK ABOUT A TYPICAL RESIDENTIAL LOT, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE, UH, TYPICALLY YOU'RE AROUND 50 BY ONE 50, AND SO IF THIS PUSHES YOU AT LEAST THREE LOTS AWAY, UM, I DON'T KNOW. I FEEL LIKE THAT'S, THAT'S A, IT'S A GOOD COMPROMISE AND IT, IT GETS 'EM OUT FROM THE RESIDENT, YOU KNOW, RIGHT NEXT TO THE RESIDENTIAL. SO I FEEL LIKE 150 WILL GET THE JOB DONE. UM, UH, THESE BILLBOARDS ARE, UH, PERNICIOUS. IS THAT THE WORD ? DO WE, UM, AND I FEEL LIKE THEY ARE SORT OF A TOXIC ENTITY IN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS. I DON'T THINK ANYONE IS PRO BILLBOARD. UM, I MEAN, I GUESS THERE ARE A FEW PEOPLE WHO MAKE THEIR MONEY ON BILLBOARDS WHO ARE PRO BILLBOARDS , BUT, UM, GENERALLY SPEAKING, I THINK THAT IT'S, IT'S, IT'S SORT OF A BLIGHT ON OUR COMMUNITY. WHAT DO WE DO ABOUT THE, THE 580 THAT ARE HERE, UM, SO THAT THEY DON'T, I I THINK THAT, UM, YEAH. ANYWAYS, I'M SUPPORTING IT. CHAIR WOODS, BEFORE YOU TAKE YOUR VOTE, I WANNA GET A CLARIFICATION ON THE MOTION. SURE. UM, YOU HAD REFERENCED THE BAY ZONE HEIGHT AS BEING THE MAX. I THINK THAT WAS REMOVED. I THINK THAT ANY REFERENCE IF WE'RE ON CF ZONING THAT IS FAR BEYOND 42 B . YES. THANK YOU. HEIGHT IS AS CURRENTLY RESTRICTED WITH TWO MORE SPOTS AGAINST, IF ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK AGAINST. OKAY. SEEING NONE, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT TO LIMIT RELOCATION OF NON-CONFORMING SIGNS TO THE BASE ZONING SETBACKS OR RESIDENTIAL COMPATIBILITY REQUIREMENTS, OR 150 FEET, WHICHEVER IS GREATER. THOSE IN FAVOR AGAINST. ALL RIGHT. THAT MOTION PASSES EIGHT ONE. SO LET'S MOVE ON TO OUR NEXT AMENDMENT FROM COMMISSIONER ROSN, WHICH IS ITEM THREE ON OUR LIST. COMMISSIONER ROSN, CAN YOU SPEAK BRIEFLY? CAN YOU TELL US A BIT MORE ABOUT THAT? YES, AND I ENCOURAGE, UH, DEBATE ABOUT THIS ONE. SO THIS ONE WOULD MODIFY THE 500 FOOT BUFFER, SO THE BUFFER DOES NOT EXTEND ACROSS ROADWAYS. UM, SO THIS WOULD APPLY ONLY TO THE CURRENTLY PERMITTED RELOCATIONS. THIS IS NOT A PART OF THE AMENDED, UM, RELOCATIONS STAFF IS, UH, SIGNALING, SHE HAS SOMETHING TO SAY . SO WE ARE NOTICED TO TALK ABOUT RELOCATION AS IT RELATES TO TRANSIT OR TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS. I RELINQUISH THIS AMENDMENT . THANK YOU. AND THEN NUMBER FOUR, I THINK ALSO THERE IS AN AMENDMENT IN THERE, OR NO, NO, WE CLARIFIED THAT. OKAY. SO NO FURTHER AMENDMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN SHARED AHEAD OF TIME? NO, THAT'S ONE. OKAY. UM, COMMES, IF WE WANTED TO DISCUSS ONE AND YES, AND I THINK THAT THIS IS ACTUALLY MORE OF A GENERAL RECOMMENDATION IF EVERYONE IS OPEN TO THAT. UM, JUST TO FURTHER EXPLORE HOW WE CAN MANAGE, AND I, THIS IS ACTUALLY A STAFF QUESTION THAT CAME, I WAS CONSIDERING THIS. UM, WE CURRENTLY TRACK THESE RE RELOCATIONS AND HAVE A REPORTING TOOL FOR THAT. IS THAT CORRECT? THERE IS A SPECIFIC APPLICATION FOR RELOCATION APPLICATIONS. SO STAFF RECEIVES THOSE APPLICATIONS? CORRECT. AND WOULD IT, WOULD IT BE HELPFUL, I THINK GIVEN THAT WE MIGHT BE EXPECTING A NUMBER OF RELOCATIONS GIVEN WHAT'S HAPPENING WITH THESE TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS THAT WE ACTUALLY MAKE THAT AN OFFICIAL REPORT OR SOME SORT OF DATA THAT'S AVAILABLE SO WE CAN THEN HAVE FURTHER SORT OF MODIFICATIONS PER THE CONCERNS THAT WE'VE HEARD TONIGHT THAT WE ARE THE RELOCATIONS ARE A PROCEEDING IN A SORT OF ORDERLY FASHION, SHALL WE SAY? UM, I CAN CERTAINLY TALK TO STAFF ABOUT MAKING THAT AVAILABLE. YEAH, SO I THINK I, I THINK THAT WOULD BE MY GENERAL RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE SOMETHING ALONG THE LINES OF, YOU KNOW, UM, MONITOR AND REVIEW, UH, RELOCATIONS GIVEN, UH, ONCE THE NEW ORDINANCE IS IN EFFECT AND REPORT TO COUNSEL, UM, WITH CONCERNS OR, UH, UH, YOU KNOW, RECOMMENDATIONS TO ADDRESS ANY ADDITIONAL CONCERNS. GO AHEAD AND SECOND THAT, UM, ANY, WELL, SORRY, BEFORE I SECOND QUESTIONS FOR THE MOTION MAKER. OKAY. I WILL SECOND WE'LL MOVE INTO DEBATE. [03:15:01] WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK FURTHER? UH, YEAH, I THINK I JUST, UM, SORT OF WHAT I WAS ADDRESSING HERE WITH MY PARTICULAR IDEA, WHICH WAS MAKING SIGN RELOCATION A USE, WHICH MAY NOT BE THE BEST ANSWER, BUT MORE GENERALLY SPEAKING, UNDERSTANDING HOW MANY OF THESE SIGN RELOCATIONS WE START TO SEE AS THESE PROJECTS MOVE FORWARD, THE OUTCOMES OF WHERE THEY'RE GOING TO AND THE IMPACT THAT IT'S HAVING ON OUR RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS. AND THEN ADJUSTING OUR, THESE REGULATIONS OR OTHER ZONING TOOLS, UM, AS NEEDED AS THESE NUMBER OF RELOCATIONS POTENTIALLY CONTINUES TO INCREASE. ANYONE SPEAKING AGAINST ANYONE ELSE FOR YES, GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER POWELL. UH, GIVEN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THIS SOUNDS REALLY REASONABLE. , ANYONE ELSE FOR OR AGAINST? YES, GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER AHMAD. YEAH, I THINK THAT'S GREAT. I MEAN, AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE NEED, WE NEED DATA HERE, AND THAT WAS WHY I WAS AGAINST THIS, UH, CHANGE IN THE FIRST PLACE. BUT IF WE'RE ABLE TO GET THAT DATA THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, THEN WE CAN MODIFY THIS TO WHAT'S ACTUALLY, YOU KNOW, SOLVES THE NEEDS OF THE COUNCIL AND, UH, THE, THE NEEDS OF RESIDENTS. SO I'D LOVE TO GET THIS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE SO WE'RE NOT JUST GUESSING ON A NUMBER HERE. SO I HAVE A GENERAL RECOMMENDATION TO STAFF TO MONITOR AND REVIEW RELOCATIONS ONCE THE NEW ORDINANCE IS IN EFFECT AND REPORT TO COUNSEL ON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE ORDINANCE, INCLUDING IMPACTS ON NEIGHBORHOODS WITH THE INTENT TO MODIFY IF NEEDED. MOTION AMENDMENT MADE BY COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, SECONDED BY CHAIR WOODS. THOSE IN FAVOR? AND THE SCREEN COMMISSIONER? BRETTON, I THINK YOU'RE, YOU'RE HOLDING UP GREEN. OKAY. ANY AGAINST THAT AMENDMENT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THAT COMMISSIONER MAXWELL. SO HAVING NO FURTHER AMENDMENTS THAT WERE SHARED AHEAD OF TIME, WE'LL MOVE INTO OUR DAY OF AMENDMENTS AND I'M GONNA JUST GO DOWN THE LIST ON MY AGENDA. I HAVE NO DAY OF AMENDMENTS, COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, ANY ADDITIONAL AMENDMENTS? UM, JUST ONE OTHER CLARIFICATION I WANTED TO ASK STAFF ABOUT A POTENTIAL AMENDMENT. SURE. UM, GIVEN THAT WE'RE RELOCATING SOME OF THESE SIGNS AND THERE HAS BEEN CONCERNS ABOUT LIGHT POLLUTION AND SORT OF, UM, HOW THAT WOULD BE HANDLED, IS THERE ANY PROVISION FOR ADJUSTING THE LIGHTING OF THESE SIGNS GIVEN, UH, LOCATION INTO SORT OF A DIFFERENT AREA? UM, OR IS THAT A POTENTIAL THING THAT WE COULD RECOMMEND? SO UNDER CODE TODAY, IT SAYS FOR EACH NON-CONFORMING OFF-PREMISE LINE RELOCATED UNDER THE SUCTION, THEY ARE REQUIRED TO, WHEN THEY HAVE LIGHTING TO INSTALL IT, THAT IS ENERGY EFFICIENT, UM, AND A MEETS OR EXCEED INTERNATIONAL DARK SKY STANDARDS FOR POLLUTION REDUCTION. SO I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT TO GO BEYOND THAT. YEAH, I THINK THAT WAS THE QUESTION. OKAY. BECAUSE GIVEN THAT I, I GUESS THE, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT SOME OF THESE SIGNS ARE QUITE BRIGHT , SO I GUESS THAT IS MY, THEY WOULD STILL MEET THE CURRENT CODE AND THERE IS NOT ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS GIVEN THAT THEY MIGHT BE NOW, UH, IN AREAS CLOSER TO NEIGHBORS. IS THAT CORRECT? AM I UNDERSTANDING THE CODE CORRECT. YEAH. YES. UM, SO MAYBE THIS IS AGAIN, JUST A GENERAL RECOMMENDATION THAT STAFF COULD EXAMINE THE I, UM, ADDITIONAL REGULATIONS AROUND THE LIGHTING OF SIGNS, RELOCATED SIGNS, UM, AS PER AS NEEDED, UM, OR RECOMMENDED BY MAKING INDIVIDUALS . DO WE WANNA MAKE THIS A GENERAL RECOMMENDATION OR SPECIFICALLY FOR THOSE SIGNS THAT ARE ADJACENT TO AND FACE NA UH, RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES? YEAH, I THINK THAT'S ACTUALLY AN EXCELLENT, I WOULD, UH, APPRECIATE INCORPORATING THAT INTO MY AMENDMENT OR TO MY GENERAL RECOMMENDATION. SO JUST INCLUDING THE ADJACENCY AND OR FACING TOWARDS RE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE MOTION MAKER? OKAY, I'M GONNA RESTATE, AND YOU CAN LET ME KNOW IF I GOT IT RIGHT. SO WE HAVE A GENERAL RECOMMENDATION FOR STAFF TO EXAMINE ADDITIONAL REGULATIONS AROUND THE LIGHTING OF RELOCATED SIGNS ADJACENT TO OR FACING TOWARD RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES AS NEEDED. THAT'S PERFECT. THANK YOU. GREAT. LOOKING FOR SECOND. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSN. UH, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK TO YOUR MOTION? UH, YEAH, I THINK THIS IS JUST ENSURING THAT AS THOSE SIGNS GET RELOCATED, THAT WE'RE REALLY THOUGHTFUL ABOUT THE ADDITIONAL LIGHT POLLUTION OR LIGHT IMPACT ON NEIGHBORHOODS AS THEY ARE MOVED POTENTIALLY CLOSER TO SOME OF THESE RESIDENCES. ANYONE SPEAKING AGAINST ANYONE ELSE? FOUR. OKAY, GREAT. LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THIS GENERAL RECOMMENDATION. THOSE IN FAVOR, THAT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. THANKS, COMMISSIONER MAXWELL. KIMBERLY DONE THAT. COMMISSIONER AHMED, ANY ANY AMENDMENTS? NOT AT THIS TIME. OKAY. COMMISSIONER ROJAN? NO. WHAT'S THAT? NONE AT THIS TIME. COMMISSIONER POWELL? YES, GO AHEAD. LIKE TO MAKE A, LEMME GET THIS SECTION RIGHT HERE. [03:20:02] A GENERAL RECOMMENDATION FOR COUNSEL TO EXPLORE UPDATING SECTION B FIVE A 0.5, ROMAN NUMERAL FIVE. UM, TO DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN VOTER APPROVED TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS AND, UM, AND NOT TO BE MORE SPECIFIC, I'D SAY, UH, TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS APPROVED BY A BALLOT TO THE RESIDENTS OF AUSTIN. HOW, HOWEVER, IT'S BEST TO PHRASE THAT. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE MOTION MAKER? WOULD THOSE PROPERTIES OR THOSE PROJECTS THAT ARE NOT VOTER SUPPORTED OR VOTER UH, APPROVED, WOULD THOSE DEFAULT TO THE ORIGINAL STATUTE? SEE IN MY BOOK, YES, AND, AND I RECOGNIZE THE MULTITUDE OF ISSUES WITH THIS, IT'S JUST, I'LL GO ON A FULL RANT ABOUT IT LATER, DON'T WORRY. BUT THE, THE BIG THING THAT IS FRUSTRATING ME HERE IS THAT, YOU KNOW, AUSTIN VOTERS APPROVED PROJECT CONNECT, NOT ALL OF THEM, BUT THIS IS HOW A DEMOCRACY WORKS. AUSTIN VOTERS SAID, YES, WE'RE GONNA BUILD A TRAIN, WE'RE GONNA TAKE EVERYTHING THAT COMES WITH IT THAT HAS SOME NEGATIVE EXTERNALITIES THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS. AND THAT'S JUST, THAT'S JUST PART OF THE PROCESS. UM, NO VOTERS APPROVED THIS I 35 EXPANSION OR WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WHAT'S HAPPENING WITH MOPAC AND IT JUST FEELS HORRIFICALLY UNFAIR FOR THAT TO BE PUSHED ONTO THE RESIDENTS. I RECOGNIZE THAT THIS GENERAL RECOMMENDATION IS SOMEWHAT PUSHING IT ON TO STAFF TO DEAL WITH AND CITY COUNCIL TO DEAL WITH, AND THAT'S NOT FAIR EITHER, BUT I WOULD JUST LEAN TOWARDS THE RESIDENTS HERE WHO NEVER REALLY HAD A, A DEMOCRATIC VOICE IN THE PROCESS. SO IT'S A GENERAL RECOMMENDATION. IF THERE'S A WAY TO DIFFERENTIATE IT, UM, I'M, I THINK THE NEGATIVE EXTERNALITIES ON THE POLICY SIDE FOR COUNCIL AND FOR STAFF ARE WORTH DEALING WITH COMPARED TO PUSHING THOSE ONTO RESIDENTS. MS. LINK ARE WE NOTICED FOR THIS? UM, SO IT WOULD BE A FURTHER LIMITATION ON TRANSIT, UH, OR TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS. UM, SO YEAH, YOU COULD DO THAT FOR THIS PARTICULAR SET OF, UH, RELOCATIONS. UM, AND EASIER TO IMPLEMENT MIGHT BE CITY PROJECTS VERSUS LOVE IT, A TRANSPORTATION PROJECT INITIATED BY SOMEONE OTHER THAN THE CITY OF AUSTIN OR ITS, UH, LOCAL GOVERNMENT CORPORATIONS, THAT KIND OF THING. I LIKE THAT. YEP. THAT, THAT'S, THAT'S DEFINITELY THE SPIRIT OF THIS. UM, AND AGAIN, IT MAKES SENSE THAT IT WOULD PASS NOTICE AS THIS IS CARVING A SUBSECTION OUT OF THE GREATER HOLE THAT WAS NOTICED. UM, NOT EVEN TO BE CLEAR, NOT EVEN ACTUALLY CARVING A SUBSECTION OUT, BUT RECOMMENDING THAT COUNCIL CONSIDER DOING. SO. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE AMENDMENT MAKER? OKAY, SO I HAVE A, A, AN AMENDMENT FOR A GENERAL RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL TO EXPLORE UPDATING B FIVE, A 0.5 TO DIFFERENTIATE SIGN RELOCATION FOR CITY OF AUSTIN INITIATED TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS AND OTHER TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS NOT INITIATED BY THE CITY OF AUSTIN. DOES THAT CAPTURE WHERE YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY, UM, LOOK FOR SECOND. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GANNON, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK FURTHER TOWARD YOUR YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. AGAIN, IT'S, IT'S A GENERAL RECOMMENDATION. IT'S SOMETHING I'D LIKE TO SEE THE CITY TACKLE. UM, I'LL GO INTO MORE DETAIL ABOUT THIS WHEN WE RETURN TO THE MAIN MOTION, BUT THE, IT, IT JUST FEELS EXTREMELY UNFAIR, RIGHT? IT'S UNFAIR TO EVERYONE INVOLVED, BUT ESPECIALLY FOR RESIDENTS WHO DIDN'T ASK FOR THIS, THEY DIDN'T HAVE A BALLOT ON THIS, THEY DIDN'T HAVE ANY SORT OF FEEDBACK TO SAY, YES, WE WANT THIS I 35 EXPANSION OR MOPAC OR ANY OTHER TXDOT INITIATED PIECES. SO, UM, I'D RATHER PUT THE, UH, BURDEN ON COUNCIL AND STAFF THAN ON RESIDENTS. ANYONE SPEAKING AGAINST ANYONE ELSE SPEAKING FOR. OKAY, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE. THOSE IN FAVOR, THOSE AGAINST. OKAY. THAT ITEM PASSES EIGHT TO ONE. COMMISSIONER BRETTON, DO YOU HAVE ANY AMENDMENTS? I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING. I AM, I HAVE TWO CONCERNS, BUT I AM NOT SURE IF WE ARE APPROPRIATELY NOTICED, UH, TO COVER THESE IN A WAY THAT WOULD FULLY ALLEVIATE MY CONCERNS, BUT TO MAYBE ADDRESS THEM FOR TRANSIT RELATED, UH, TRANSPORTATION, PROJECT RELATED RELOCATIONS MAY HELP. SO I'LL JUST STATE THEM OUT LOUD AND SEE IF ANYONE IS WILLING TO SUPPORT ME IN THIS EFFORT. UH, FIRST IS THE TIME, UH, AS RELATED TO, UH, THE ALLOWABLE TIME FROM WHEN THAT, UH, NOTICE [03:25:01] THE NOTICE COMES TO THE BILLBOARD OWNER THAT THE LAND OR PART OF THE LAND, THE PIECE THAT THE BILLBOARD SITS ON WOULD BE, UH, CONDEMNED AND THE AMOUNT OF TIME THAT, UH, THE OWNER HAS TO FULLY, UH, MOVE THAT BILLBOARD, TAKE IT DOWN AND PUT UP A NEW ONE. UH, I JUST CAN FORESEE A POSSIBLE PROBLEM WITH VOLUME. UH, IF WE HAVE NOT HAD THE CAPACITY OR EXPECTED THE CAPACITY, UH, OR THE CODE IS WRITTEN WITH AN EXPECTED VOLUME, THAT WOULD BE FAR MAGNIFIED WHEN WE DO A LARGE PROJECT. UH, BUT AGAIN, NOTICING REQUIREMENTS HERE MAY PROVE TO BE MY DOWNFALL. I'LL LOOK TO MS. LINK TO LET US KNOW IF THAT FALLS WITHIN OUR, I THINK WHAT I THINK WHAT YOU HAVE DESCRIBED IS ESSENTIALLY IF A, UM, BASICALLY THE BILLBOARD OWNER REACTS TIMELY TO THEIR CONDEMNATION NOTICE, UM, THEN THEY SHOULD GET THE BENEFIT OF THIS. BUT IF THEY DON'T, YOU WOULD NOT WANT THEM TO GET THE BENEFIT OF IT. NO. RATHER, UH, IF A BILLBOARD OWNER HAS A NUMBER OF SIGNS THAT THEY MUST FIND LOCATIONS FOR TO RELOCATE, UH, AND WE GIVE THEM ONLY A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME TO DO SO, AND OUR STAFF ONLY ER A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME TO APPROVE THAT, UH, THAT WE MAY NOT BE EXPECTING THE VOLUME AND BE ABLE TO REACT ACCORDINGLY. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? I MAY BE MISUNDERSTANDING A PIECE AND I, UH, APPRECIATE STAFF OR COMMISSIONERS SPEAKING UP MAYBE. SO GENERALLY SPEAKING, THE TIMEFRAMES THAT WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT ARE THE TIMES FROM WHICH THEY APPLY FOR A RELOCATION PERMIT. MM-HMM. THE TIME THAT THEY CONSTRUCT THE NEW SIGN AND REMOVE THE EXISTING SIGN, THE SIGN THAT HAS BEEN RELOCATED. BECAUSE IN FAIRNESS, THEY TYPICALLY DON'T PICK UP THE LITERAL SIGN AND PICK IT UP AND MOVE IT. THEY HAVE TO TAKE IT APART AND IT'S METAL AND THEN, YOU KNOW, MAYBE IT'S USED FOR SCRAPS. I'M, I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE, BUT THEY ACTUALLY HAVE TO GO BUILD A NEW SIGN AT THE NEW LOCATION. SO WE WANT A SHORT WINDOW OF TIME FOR THE, JUST THE APPLICATION ESSENTIALLY WHEN YOU GET THE OKAY TO DO IT AND WHEN YOU ACTUALLY TAKE THOSE STEPS. I SEE. OKAY. THEN I WILL ABANDON THIS LINE OF QUESTIONING, UH, FOR THE MOMENT. THE OTHER CONCERN THAT I HAVE IS RELATED TO THE SUNSET CLAUSE. UM, IT DOES SEEM THAT CURRENTLY WE HAVE NOT, UH, LOOKED, OR SORRY, WE HAVE NOT ENCOUNTERED, UH, A SIGN GOING THROUGH TO THE FINAL 25 YEAR MARK AND THEREFORE BEING, QUOTE UNQUOTE REQUIRED TO TAKE DOWN, IF I CAN BE LOOSE WITH MY LANGUAGE. UH, AND I WOULD BE CONCERNED POSSIBLY THAT WE MIGHT ENCOUNTER AN ISSUE AT THE END OF THOSE 25 YEARS IF WE HAVE CODE THAT SAYS THAT SUCH A THING, UH, MIGHT OR SHOULD HAPPEN AND HAVE NOT PLANNED FOR, UH, THAT ACCORDINGLY. SO I WOULD SAY AT THIS POINT, UM, THAT'S MORE OF A GENERAL RELOCATION QUESTION. SO WE WOULDN'T, WE'RE NOT NOTICED FOR KIND OF OVERALL RELOCATIONS, JUST THESE SPECIFIC ONES. UM, AND ANY SIGNS THAT WOULD BE RELOCATED UNDER THIS NEW CODE, WE WOULD BE LOOKING 25 YEARS FROM NOW AND 25 YEARS FROM NOW THEN? YES. OKAY. WELL THEN THAT ANSWERS MY CONCERNS, OR AT LEAST HOW WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO ADDRESS THEM FOR THIS TIME. SO I WILL, THAT IS ALL THAT I HAVE. THANK YOU CHAIR. THANKS, COMMISSIONER BRETTON. COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE. ANY AMENDMENTS? COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONER HILLER? I'M GOOD. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER GANNON? NONE HERE. OKAY. UH, DO WE NEED A SECOND ROUND ? OKAY. SO WE'LL MOVE BACK TO THE BASE MOTION, WHICH IS STAFF RECOMMENDATION AS AMENDED. THAT WAS A MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER MAXWELL AND SECONDED BY MYSELF. LET'S MOVE INTO DEBATE FOR OUR BASE MOTION. I'LL START WITH ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR COMMISSIONER MAXWELL. UM, I, AGAIN, JUST WANNA THANK STAFF AND THE WORK INFORMAL WORKING GROUP THAT HAS BEEN TRYING TO FIGURE OUT THE RIGHT, UM, BALANCE HERE. AND I APPRECIATE [03:30:01] THAT THIS IS A DIFFICULT SITUATION BECAUSE WE OBVIOUSLY ARE TRYING TO ADDRESS A COMPLICATE COMPLEX ISSUE THAT HAS HAD A LONG HISTORY IN AUSTIN IN TERMS OF HOW WE FEEL ABOUT BILLBOARDS AND SIGNAGE GENERALLY. UM, I REALIZE THAT THERE IS NO PERFECT OUTCOME HERE AND THAT WE'RE SORT OF DEALING WITH, UM, SOME DIFFICULT EXTERNALITIES AS NOTED BY OTHER COMMISSIONERS. BUT I DO BELIEVE THAT WE'VE COME TO A GOOD PLACE IN TERMS OF BOTH THE BASE MOTION AND THE AMENDMENTS WE'VE SUGGESTED AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WE'VE MADE. AND I AM PLEASED TO SEND THIS TO COUNSEL FOR THEIR FURTHER CONSIDERATION. ANYONE SPEAKING AGAINST YES, COMMISSIONER AHMED. SO WHILE I AM HAPPY THAT WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO ADD AN OFFSET FOR RESIDENTIAL, AND I THINK THAT IS QUITE IMPORTANT, UM, AGAIN, I I I WOULD'VE LIKED TO SEE THAT HIGHER. UM, BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, AS I WAS DOING JUST SOME RESEARCH THERE, UM, ACTUALLY, UH, COMMISSIONER, UH, TROJAN AND I WERE TALKING ABOUT THE STANDARD BILLBOARD SIGN. AND SO THE STANDARD BILLBOARD SIGN IS 672 SQUARE FEET. AND SO THAT GENERALLY IS WHAT YOU'LL SEE ON HIGHWAYS AND WHAT YOU GENERALLY SEE IN, UH, URBAN AREAS ARE SIGNIFICANTLY SMALLER, UH, SIGNS. AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT, THAT CLAUSE, I THINK IT WAS FIVE AC WAS DOING, WAS LIMITING THOSE LARGER BILLBOARDS FROM OUR URBAN STREETS AND JUST LIMITING THOSE TO THE MAJOR HIGHWAYS LIKE I 35, I THINK 71, UH, TWO 90 AND 180 3. SO, UH, I I I, IT'S CONCERNING TO ME TO HAVE SIGNS THAT ARE APPROPRIATE FOR HIGHWAYS, POTENTIALLY GET RELOCATED TO OUR URBAN STREETS IN ADDITION TO THAT SETBACK AMOUNT. AND SO THAT'S WHY I'LL BE, UH, VOTING AGAINST THIS COMM. THANKS, COMMISSIONER AHMED. ANYONE ELSE SPEAKING FOR GO AHEAD. I HAVE A, A GENERAL, UH, COMMISSION OR A QUESTION, UH, FOR WHAT THE COMMISSIONER JUST SAID. CAN I ASK IT NOW? OR UNFORTUNATELY WE'RE, WE'RE PAST QUESTIONS. PAST QUESTIONS, OKAY. UH, JUST OKAY. NOW IN OUR DEBATE OVER THE BASE MOTION. ANYONE SPEAKING FOR? YES, COMMISSIONER ROEN. UM, I JUST WANT TO SAY, UH, PUBLICLY TO THOSE THAT ARE IN ATTENDANCE TONIGHT AND THOSE THAT HAVE COME OUT TO SPEAK AND THOSE THAT HAVE SPOKE AND REMOTELY AND THOSE THAT MAY BE WATCHING THIS ON VIDEO TOMORROW, WHICH I'M SURE THERE'LL BE MANY. UM, I HATE BILLBOARDS . I MEAN, I REALLY HATE 'EM. I MEAN, I THINK THAT EVERYBODY ON THIS DAIS FEELS THE SAME WAY. I DON'T THINK, AS MENTIONED EARLIER, THERE'S PROBABLY A HANDFUL OF PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY THAT LOVE BILLBOARDS. UM, I LOVE PUBLIC TRANSIT MORE THAN I HATE BILLBOARDS. AND I THINK THAT IT IS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY FOR US TO NOT LET ONE PRECLUDE THE OTHER. AND I THINK THAT THE REASON COUNCIL PUT US HERE TODAY AND, AND HAD US WEIGH IN ON THIS IS BECAUSE THEY FEEL THE SAME WAY THAT PUBLIC TRANSIT AND OUR PUBLIC TRANSIT PROJECTS NEED TO MOVE FORWARD. THEY NEED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH AS FEW BARRIERS AS WE CAN POSSIBLY GIVE THEM. AND SO I WISH FOR THOSE THAT WANT MY SCALP TOMORROW, UM, TO JUST CONSIDER THE FACT THAT THAT IS WHERE THESE VOTES, AT LEAST FOR MYSELF, ARE COMING FROM. AND I THINK FOR MOST OF THE COMMISSIONERS ON THE DAIS RIGHT NOW IS FEELING A SIMILAR WAY ABOUT THE FACT THAT WE ARE TRYING TO MAKE OUR CITY BETTER AND THAT BILLBOARDS ARE TERRIBLE, BUT PUBLIC TRANSIT IS AWESOME AND WE GOTTA DO EVERYTHING WE CAN TO SUPPORT THAT. SPEAKING AGAINST COMMISSIONER POWELL, GO AHEAD. SO THIS IS THE, UH, AFOREMENTIONED RANT , UM, FIRST OFF, SO I, I AM, AM GONNA BE VOTING NO ON THIS, UH, WHICH FEELS UNUSUAL FOR A COUPLE REASONS. ONE IS THAT, UH, OBVIOUSLY I SUBMITTED AN AMENDMENT THAT I'M GRATEFUL TO HAVE GOTTEN APPROVED BY THIS BODY AND THAT I DO STAND BY. AND ALSO BECAUSE I I, FOR THE REASONS COMMISSIONER ROJAN JUST STATED, I MEAN, REALLY I DON'T BLAME ANYONE FOR VOTING YES ON THIS. BUT WHEN I LOOK AT THIS AND IN LINE WITH THE RECOMMENDATION THAT I SUBMITTED, UM, THERE'S JUST A REALLY, REALLY BIG RED LINE IN THE SAND BETWEEN WHAT OUR COMMUNITY ASKED FOR AND WHAT IS BEING FORCED UPON OUR COMMUNITY, UH, IN A WAY THAT I THINK IS EXTREMELY UNCOMFORTABLE AND IT'S UNFAIR TO EVERY SINGLE ENTITY IN THIS DECISION MAKING PROCESS. SO I, AND I MEAN THAT, SO LITERALLY, LET'S LOOK AT STAFF FOR INSTANCE, RIGHT? STAFF IS HAVING TO DEAL WITH THE SITUATION, LEGAL INTERPRETATIONS OF BILLBOARDS THAT THEY DON'T WANT TO BE INCENTIVIZED TO BE RELOCATED IN THE FIRST PLACE. THEY DIDN'T ASK FOR THIS I 35 OR WHAT HAVE YOU, PROJECTS. UH, THE STATE PUSHED THAT DOWN ONTO THEM AND IS MAKING US PAY FOR IT. AND THE STAFF HAS TO FACILITATE THAT. I DO NOT PITY THE WORK THAT Y'ALL HAVE TO DO. AND AS Y'ALL, UM, AS WE'VE ELUCIDATED THROUGH THIS CONVERSATION, THERE'S BEEN SO MUCH DATA AND SO MANY UNKNOWNS THAT YOU'LL HAVE TO SORT THROUGH. SO IT'S JUST A COMMENDATION TO THE CITY OF AUSTIN STAFF AND LEGAL TEAM WHO'S HAVING TO SORT THROUGH THIS MESS IN A WAY THAT THEY DIDN'T DESERVE OR THAT THEY DIDN'T ASK FOR. IT'S ALSO UNFAIR TO COUNSEL. IT'S UNFAIR FOR THEM IN A TIME WHEN BUDGETS ARE SO CRUNCHED, [03:35:01] WHEN THERE'S NEVER BEEN MORE CONVERSATION ABOUT THE NATURE OF SPENDING OUR TAXPAYER MONIES FOR THEM TO HAVE TO FIND A WAY TO BE EFFICIENT THERE AGAIN, WITH A PROJECT THAT THEY DIDN'T ASK FOR AND TRIGGER AN I 35 EXPANSION OR OTHER PROJECTS LIKE IT, IT'S UNFAIR FOR US. 'CAUSE LEGITIMATELY, I THOUGH I'M GONNA BE VOTING NO, I FEEL A TON OF PRESSURE TO VOTE YES FOR EVERYTHING THAT'S BEEN SAID ALREADY, RIGHT? IT'S BETTER TO SEND FORTH SOME RECOMMENDATIONS THAT COULD MAKE LEMON INTO LEMONADE THEN TO SUBMIT NO RECOMMENDATION AT ALL. SO AGAIN, FOR THAT REASON, IF THIS PASSES, I, I REALLY DON'T BEGRUDGE ANY OF MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS FOR VOTING YES ON THIS. IT'S ALSO UNFAIR TO THE BILLBOARD COMPANIES. I MEAN REALLY LIKE REAGAN AND LAMAR AND LIKE I KNOW REAGAN'S A FAMILY OWNED BUSINESS. I MEAN, THEY'RE BIG BUSINESS, BUT THEY'RE FAMILY OWNED. THEY DIDN'T ASK FOR, TO HAVE TO RELOCATE ALL THESE BILLBOARDS AND DO ALL OF THIS. THEY SHOULD BE COMPENSATED IN A WAY WHERE, YOU KNOW, WE LOOK AT THE BUSINESSES AND HOMES DESTROYED AND WHAT THE STATE HAD TO GIVE THEM, AND YET THE BILLBOARD PIECE IS FALLING ONTO OUR CITY. THAT'S RIDICULOUS. AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, I'M GOING BACK TO THE EXAMPLE OF OUR SPEAKER, MR. SCHMIDT, THE RESIDENTS ALONG I 35 OR ALONG MOPAC SURE AS HELL DIDN'T ASK FOR THIS. IT'S UNBELIEVABLE. IT'S RIDICULOUS. THIS WAS SOMETHING UNLIKE PROJECT CONNECT, WHICH I SHOULD BE VERY CLEAR. PROJECT CONNECT VOTERS ASK FOR THIS. THERE ARE NEGATIVE EXTERNALITIES THAT COME WITH THAT. THAT'S OKAY BECAUSE I LIKE COMMISSIONER ROJAN LOVE PUBLIC TRANSIT AND THAT'S WORTH IT. I 35 AND PROJECTS LIKE IT WERE FORCED ONTO US AND WE HAVE TO SHOVEL EVERYTHING THAT COMES AFTER THAT FROM THE STATE'S INTERVENTION ON TOP OF US. THAT'S NOT FAIR TO US. SO I'M VOTING NO BECAUSE OF ALL THOSE GROUPS THAT I JUST MENTIONED, ALL OF WHICH HAVE BEEN HARMED BY WHAT'S BEING FORCED ONTO US IN THE FORM OF THESE PROJECTS WE DID NOT ASK FOR. OF ALL THOSE GROUPS, I'M GONNA GO WITH THE RESIDENTS IN THIS SITUATION, BUT AGAIN, I DON'T BEGRUDGE MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS. I DON'T BEGRUDGE COUNSEL FOR DOING WHAT THEY HAVE TO DO TO MAKE THIS AN EFFICIENT USE OF TAXPAYER FUNDS TO MAKE PROJECTS COME TO FRUITION IN THE BEST WAY POSSIBLE. I JUST CAN'T LEAVE THIS DIOCESE TODAY WITHOUT POINTING OUT HOW ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS THIS ALL IS. ANYONE SPEAKING? FOUR, I'LL SPEAK FOUR. I'M GONNA JUST TAKE A VERY LUKEWARM POSITIVE VOTE ON THIS , UH, FROM SORT OF A REDUCTION OF HARM STANDPOINT BECAUSE 150 FEET IS BETTER THAN NOTHING. BUT I HOPE COUNSEL WILL THINK ABOUT EXPANDING THAT A LITTLE BIT. UM, I THINK IT'S REALLY UNFORTUNATE TO HAVE TO DISCUSS MOVING BILLBOARDS ANY CLOSER TO ANYONE'S HOME. I THINK COMMISSIONER REEN SAID IT SO WELL. NONE OF US LIKE BILLBOARDS, NONE OF US LIKE HAVING THIS DEBATE. UM, BUT WE REALLY WANNA PRIORITIZE MAKING OUR PUBLIC TRANSIT POSSIBLE AND IN A CASE WHERE WE'RE REPLACING EXISTING ADVERTISING RATHER THAN ADDING NEW ADVERTISING. I'M GONNA SUPPORT THIS BECAUSE I WOULD LIKE COUNSEL TO SEE THE WORK THAT WE DID IN THE RESOLUTIONS THAT WE PASSED BECAUSE I THINK THEY'RE REALLY IMPORTANT IN RE REDUCING THE HARM OF THIS. AND I WOULD ENCOURAGE MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS TO DO THE SAME BECAUSE I FEEL THAT COUNCIL IS GOING TO PASS THIS AND I WOULD LIKE TO AT LEAST HAVE HAD SOME HAND IN MAKING THAT DISTANCE A LITTLE BIT GREATER FROM, FROM RESIDENTIAL AREAS. ANYONE ELSE SPEAKING AGAINST? ALL RIGHT, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THE BASE MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON ITEM 18 AS AMENDED. THOSE IN FAVOR THOSE AGAINST. ALL RIGHT, THAT ITEM PASSES SEVEN TO TWO. THANK YOU SO MUCH TO MS. LINK FOR ALL OF YOUR WORK IN ANSWERING OUR QUESTIONS ON THIS. THANK YOU SO MUCH TO OUR SPEAKERS WHO ARE HERE THIS EVENING AND TO ALL THE STAFF WHO HAVE WORKED ON THIS AND TO THE COMMISSIONERS THAT SPENT A LOT OF TIME WORKING ON THESE AMENDMENTS, VERY MUCH APPRECIATED. COMMISSIONER ROSN AND COMMISSIONER MAXWELL. [PERMANENT COMMITTEE UPDATES ] ALL RIGHT, LET'S MOVE INTO OUR COMMITTEE UPDATES. 19 IS OUR CODES AND ORDINANCES. JOINT COMMITTEE. COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, DO YOU HAVE AN UPDATE ON THAT COMMITTEE? UM, N NO, WE HAVE NOT MET SINCE OUR PREVIOUS MEETING. OKAY. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN JOINT COMMITTEE. COMMISSIONER AHMED, DO YOU HAVE AN UPDATE ON WE HAVEN'T MET SINCE OUR LAST MEETING. OKAY, THANKS. COMMISSIONER POWELL, JOINT SUSTAINABILITY COMMITTEE. COMMISSIONER HILLER. WE MEET TOMORROW. I I WILL SOON KNOW A LOT, LOT ABOUT MYTH A GREAT SMALL AREA PLANNING JOINT COMMITTEE. COMMISSIONER SKIDMORE. WE HAVE NOT MET SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT ADVISORY BOARD COMMISSIONER BRETTON. WE WERE UNABLE TO MEET JUST SO CLOSE. UH, HOPEFULLY ABLE TO REMEET SOMETIME SOON. OKAY, [FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS ] WE'LL MOVE INTO FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS. I HAVE A COUPLE. ONE OF THEM IS TO APPOINT A COMMISSIONER TO [03:40:01] SERVE ON THE CODES AND ORDINANCES JOINT COMMITTEE AND TO SERVE ON THE SMALL AREA PLANNING JOINT COMMITTEE. CAN I GET A SECOND FOR THAT? SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER POWELL. THANK YOU. THE OTHER FUTURE AGENDA ITEM IS TO FORM A BUDGET WORKING GROUP. SO WE WILL BE MAKING BUDGET RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL AS THEY RELATE TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. UM, WE'LL HAVE TO HAVE THOSE READY BY OUR SECOND MEETING IN FEBRUARY. SO WE'LL FORM A WORKING GROUP AT OUR NEXT MEETING AND APPOINT SEVERAL COMMISSIONERS TO THAT. AND THEN THOSE COMMISSIONERS WILL HAVE A COUPLE OF WEEKS TO TURN AROUND SOME BUDGET RECOMMENDATIONS FOR US TO CONSIDER AT OUR SECOND MEETING IN FEBRUARY. SO PLEASE BE THINKING ABOUT WHETHER THAT IS A WORKING GROUP THAT YOU'D LIKE TO JOIN. CAN I GET A SECOND FOR THAT? SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MAXWELL. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS FROM THE COMMISSION? COMMISSIONER MAXWELL? UM, I THINK I HIGHLIGHTED THIS AT THE LAST COMMISSION MEETING, BUT JUST TO GIVE EVERYBODY A HEADS UP THAT WE ARE EXPECTING THE ITEM RESOLUTION REGARDING A MESSAGE BOARD FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO COME TO OUR NEXT COUNCIL, UH, NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. THANKS, COMMISSIONER MAXWELL, IS IT, IS THAT AN UPDATE OR DO WE NEED TO PUT SOMETHING ON THE AGENDA? WE SHOULD PUT SOMETHING ON THE AGENDA. OKAY. IT WAS, IT WAS REQUESTED PREVIOUSLY, BUT IT'LL BE OFFICIALLY ON THE AGENDA NEXT TIME. I WILL SECOND THAT. THANKS FOR WORKING ON THAT OTHER FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS FROM THE COMMISSION. COMMISSIONER POWELL? I HAD A SCHEDULING QUESTION. I KNOW, UH, WE GOT THE EMAIL ABOUT THE 19TH JOINT MEETING GETTING CANCELED. IS THERE ANOTHER DATE THAT WAS SCHEDULED FOR THAT OR JUST NOT YET? THAT ONE'S CANCELED. OKAY, GOT IT. THANK YOU. BUT THANKS FOR REMINDING US THAT THE JOINT MEETING WITH CITY COUNCIL THAT WAS SCHEDULED FOR FEBRUARY 19TH HAS BEEN CANCELED. SO YOU CAN TAKE THAT OFF YOUR CALENDARS. ANY OTHER FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS? OKAY, I WILL ADJOURN THIS MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT 9:56 PM THANK YOU ALL SO MUCH. * 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.