Jan 06, 2026 City Planning Commission Meetings

[00:00:03]

STUDY.

UH, I'D LIKE TO WELCOME YOU TO THE, UH, RICHARDSON CITY PLAN COMMISSION.

UH, IT'S JANUARY 6TH, 2026.

THE TIME IS 7 0 6, UH, PM.

UH, WE HAVE, UH, ALL SEVEN REGULAR MEMBERS AND, UH, TWO ALTERNATES OF THE COMMISSION PRESENT, SO WE HAVE A QUORUM.

UM, AND, UH, JUST LIKE TO, UH, SAY THAT, UH, THE PLAN COMMISSION CONSISTS OF RIS RICHARDSON RESIDENTS APPOINTED BY THE, UH, CITY COUNCIL.

UH, THERE'S, UH, AS I'M JUST MENTIONED, SEVEN REGULAR MEMBERS, TWO ALTERNATES.

UM, UH, SINCE WE HAVE ALL THE REGULAR MEMBERS, UH, THEY WILL BE THE ONES THAT ARE MAKING MOTIONS AND, AND VOTING, UH, BUT THE ALTERNATES CAN OBVIOUSLY PARTICIPATE IN THE DISCUSSIONS AND DELIBERATIONS.

UM, THIS, A BUSINESS MEETING WILL BE CONDUCTED AS SUCH IN THAT REGARD.

UM, REQUEST THAT ALL DEVICES THAT EMIT SOUND BE TURNED OFF OR JUSTICE.

SO NOT TO INTER AS TO INTERRUPT THE MEETING, OUR PROCEEDINGS ARE RECORDED.

SO PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD WHEN ADDRESSING THE COMMISSION.

UH, WE'VE GOT A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE AGENDA TONIGHT.

SO EACH PUBLIC HEARING IS PROCEEDED BY A STAFF INTRODUCTION OF THE REQUEST.

THE APPLICANT IS THEN PERMITTED 15 MINUTES TO MAKE THEIR PRESENTATION TO THE COMMISSION, AND THEY MAY RESERVE ANY PORTION OF THIS TIME FOR A FINAL REBUTTAL.

TIME SPENT IN ANSWERING, UH, QUESTIONS ASKED BY THE COMMISSION IS NOT COUNTED AGAINST THE APPLICANT.

SO ALL SPEAKERS ARE REQUESTED TO COMPLETE A PUBLIC COMMENT CARD, WHICH YOU CAN FIND ON, AT THE TABLE, AT THE, AT THE FRONT ENTRY.

UM, AND PLEASE GIVE THAT TO THE SECRETARY, UM, AND THEN WE'LL CALL ON YOU.

UM, DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING, UM, EVERYBODY WILL BE GIVEN, UM, OTHER THAN THE APPLICANT.

THOSE WISHES SPEAK IN FAVOR.

OPPOSITION WILL, UH, BE GIVEN THREE MINUTES EACH TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION.

UH, WHEN YOU HEAR THE, THE, THE TIMER BEEP, UH, JUST TRY TO WRAP UP YOUR COMMENTS AS QUICKLY AS YOU CAN.

UM, THE SPEAKERS MAY NOT APPROACH THE, UM, THE MEMBERS OF THE, THE COMMISSION OR THE STAFF SHOULD REMAIN AT THE LECTERN DURING THEIR COMMENTS.

UH, AND, UH, IF YOU HAVE HANDOUTS, UH, YOU MUST PROVIDE THOSE TO THE, THE SECRETARY FOR, UH, DISTRIBUTION.

IF THERE ARE ORGANIZED GROUPS IN ATTENDANCE, WE SUGGEST YOU SELECT, UH, REPRESENTATIVES TO PRESENT YOUR ARGUMENTS.

THE COMMISSION IS INTERESTED IN GATHERING NEW AND RELEVANT INFORMATION, NOT INTERESTED IN HEARING REPETITION.

PLEASE ADDRESS ALL COMMENTS TO THE COMMISSION, NOT TO MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE.

AFTER A BRIEF REBUTTAL BY THE APPLICANT, THE PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE CLOSED.

NO FURTHER TESTIMONY WILL BE PERMITTED.

ALL RIGHT.

THOSE ARE THE RULES.

AND UH, FIRST IS, UM, WE HAVE, UM, A, UH, A PUBLIC COMMENTS ON AGENDA ITEMS. SO, UH, THIS IS A TIME WHEN ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO COME FORWARD, UH, TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION REGARDING MINING AN ITEM THAT IS NOT A PUBLIC HEARING.

THE ONLY ITEM, WE HAVE TWO ITEMS THAT ARE NOT A PUBLIC HEARING.

ONE IS THE MINUTES FROM DECEMBER 16TH, 2025.

THE OTHER IS A, UM, CONSIDERATION FOR PRO PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION BYLAWS.

IS THERE ANYBODY IN ATTENDANCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON EITHER OF THOSE TWO UH, MATTERS? OKAY.

SEEING NONE.

[MINUTES ]

UH, I'D LIKE TO MAKE NOTE THAT THERE'S A, YOU SAID TYPO ON THE LAST BULLET, UH, HEARING ITEMS AND THAT FURTHER DOWN, UH, JUST ABOVE YOUR SIGNATURE AND THE BULLET LIST.

I THINK IT SHOULD BE COMMISSIONER ROBERTS RATHER THAN MR. ROBERTS.

I WAS GONNA MENTION THAT, YEAH.

DISTINGUISH HIM FROM AN APPLICANT.

OKAY.

SO JUST TO REPEAT THAT, UH, THE LAST BULLET ON THE BRIEF UNDER THE BRIEFING SESSION WAS THAT IT SECOND, UH, SECOND BULLET UNDER BRIEFING SESSION.

IT SHOULD BE PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS. AND THEN, UH, IT SHOULD BE COMMISSIONER ROBERTS, NOT MR. ROBERTS.

UH, AND THAT'S ABOUT, ABOUT A HALF PAGE UP ABOVE WHERE YOU WOULD WOULD SIGN.

DO YOU SEE THOSE? ANY OTHER CORRECTIONS COMMISSIONER COURT? NOPE.

NOPE.

DON'T NEED TO SPEAK.

ALL RIGHT.

CAN I GET A MOTION THEN TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS AMENDED? I'D MOVE.

WE APPROVE THE, UH, MINUTES AS AMENDED AND A SECOND,

[00:05:02]

SECOND IT.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, RAISE YOUR HAND PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

OKAY.

UM,

[2. Zoning File 25-23 – Richland Park Apartments: Consider and act on a request to rezone a 3.1-acre lot located at 951 Abrams Road, on the east side of Abrams Road, on the south side of Buckingham Road from R Retail to PD Planned Development for the R-950-M Apartment District with modified development standards to accommodate the addition of up to 5 units in an existing multi-family development and other related site improvements. Owner: RPAPT, LLC. Staff: Derica Peters ]

THIS IS ZONING FILE, 25 DASH 23, THE RICHLAND PARK APARTMENTS, AND MS. PETERS WILL TAKE US THROUGH THAT.

THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN.

THE SUBJECT'S SITE FOR ZONING CASE 25 23 23 IS AT 9 5 1 ABRAMS ROAD.

THE SITE IS AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF ABRAMS AND BUCKINGHAM AND IS ALSO, UM, BORDERED BY PARK BEND DRIVE TO THE SOUTH.

THE SITE'S CURRENTLY ZONED ARE RETAIL AND IS LOCATED IN THE FORMER TOWN OF BUCKINGHAM AREA AND IS GOVERNED BY THE BUCKINGHAM ZONING ORDINANCE.

THIS SITE WAS DEVELOPED IN 2015.

AT THAT TIME, THE TOWN OF BUCKINGHAM ALLOWED MULTIFAMILY IN ALL AREAS OF THAT DISTRICT.

HOWEVER, IN 2018, THE TOWN OF BUCKINGHAM ZONING ORDINANCE WAS AMENDED.

AS PART OF THOSE AMENDMENTS, WE REMOVED MULTIFAMILY AS AN ALLOWED USE BY WRIGHT.

THE PURPOSE OF THIS REQUEST IS TO ADOPT A PLAN DEVELOPMENT TO ADD FIVE UNITS TO THIS EXISTING MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT.

THOSE FIVE UNITS WILL BE LOCATED IN THE INTERIOR OF AN EXISTING BUILDING THAT WILL BE RETROFITTED TO ACCOMMODATE THOSE RESIDENTIAL UNITS.

HERE ARE PHOTOS OF THE SITE.

ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE IS A SOUTH ELEVATION OF ONE OF THEIR STANDARD APARTMENT BUILDINGS.

THE PHOTO ON THE LEFT, THEIR COMMUNITY BUILDING WHERE THEY HAVE A LEASING OFFICE, INDOOR GYM, AS WELL AS INDOOR RECREATIONAL AMENITIES AND A MAINTENANCE AND STORAGE ROOM.

IN THE THIRD AND FOURTH FLOOR AREAS.

HERE'S AN OUTLINE OF THE SECOND, THIRD, AND FOURTH FLOOR AREAS WHERE THOSE NEW UNITS WILL BE LOCATED.

THE PHOTO ON THE LEFT IS THAT MAINTENANCE STORAGE AREA ON THE THIRD FLOOR THAT IS CURRENTLY UNUTILIZED.

AND ON THE RIGHT IS AN INDOOR SPORTS COURT, WHICH IS TECHNICALLY A YOGA STUDIO, WHICH IS NOT UTILIZED BY THE RESIDENCE EITHER.

THESE TWO AREAS ARE GOING TO BE REMOVED AND RETROFITTED FOR THE NEW APARTMENT UNITS.

HERE'S THE PROPOSED CONCEPT PLAN.

SO THE BUILD, SO THE SITE WAS CONSTRUCTED WITH FIVE DIFFERENT BUILDINGS.

FOUR OF THOSE CONTAIN THE MULTI-FAMILY UNITS, AND ONE OF THOSE IS THE COMMUNITY BUILDING.

IT WAS ALSO CONSTRUCTED WITH ONSITE RECREATIONAL AMENITIES, INCLUDING A POOL, A PLAYGROUND, AND TWO OPEN SPACE AREAS.

IN ADDITION TO THE AMENITIES WITHIN THE COMMUNITY BUILDING, THE SITE IS THREE ACRES.

IT CURRENTLY HAS 82 DWELLING UNITS.

WITH THE ADDITIONAL FIVE, IT WILL HAVE 87 UNITS ON SITE.

ALSO, AS PART OF THIS PROJECT, THEY WILL BE ADDING ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACES FOR THE ADDITIONAL RESIDENCE.

THEY WILL BE, UH, INCLUDING 174 PARKING SPACES TO BE PROVIDED ON SITE AS PROPOSED.

THAT 174 CAN CORRESPONDS WITH OUR BASE ZONING DISTRICT, MINIMUM STANDARD THAT REQUIRES TWO PARKING SPACES PER APARTMENT UNIT ON SITE.

HERE'S A BREAKDOWN OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT IS PROPOSED, WHAT IS EXISTING TODAY, AND HOW THAT DIFFERS FROM THE A NINE 50 M BASE ZONING DISTRICT.

SO TODAY THEY ARE IN OUR RETAIL, WHICH IS A SUB-DISTRICT OF THE TOWN OF BUCKINGHAM LEGACY ZONING DISTRICT AREA.

SO THEY'RE PROPOSING A PD WITH A BASE ZONING DISTRICT OF A NINE 50 M.

CURRENTLY, THE BUILDINGS ARE CONSTRUCTED AT 46 FEET TALL.

THE A NINE 50 M BASE ZONING DISTRICT IN OUR COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE LIMITS BUILDINGS TO TWO STORIES OR 25 FEET.

IF WITHIN 150 FEET OF A RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT.

THERE ARE NO PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE EXTERIOR OF THE BUILDINGS.

SO THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING IS PROPOSED TO REMAIN.

THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING AN EXCEPTION TO THE MINIMUM DWELLING UNIT UNIT SIZE, WHICH IS LIMITED TO 700 SQUARE FEET MINIMUM.

THEY HAVE PROPOSED AN ADDITIONAL FIVE UNITS, FOUR OF WHICH WILL BE UNDER THAT 700 SQUARE FEET, TWO WILL BE 486 SQUARE FEET, AND TWO UNITS WILL BE 640 SQUARE FEET.

THE MINIMUM, I'M SORRY, THE MAXIMUM DENSITY FOR DWELLING UNITS IN THE BASE ZONING DISTRICT IS 18 UNITS PER ACRE.

THIS SITE WAS DEVELOPED WITH 26.6 UNITS PER ACRE, AND WITH THE ADDITIONAL UNITS, THEY WILL BE AT 28 UNITS PER ACRE.

AND FINALLY, PARKING IS NOT ALLOWED IN THE FRONT SETBACK AND OUR ZONING ORDINANCE, UH, HOWEVER, THERE'S ALREADY PARKING ALONG THE FRONT SETBACK ALONG ABRAMS ROAD.

THERE'S, THERE'S CURRENTLY 15 SPACES IN THAT AREA.

AND IN THIS AREA, THEY ADD, THEY PLAN TO ADD IN ANOTHER THREE SPACES TO TOTAL 18 SPACES IN THAT FRONT AREA.

BEFORE YOU MOVE ON FROM THAT SLIDE, UH, IN OUR PACKET, IT SAYS THAT THERE ARE TWO, TWO DWELLING UNITS, UM, AT, UH, 486 SQUARE FEET, ONE AT SIX 40,

[00:10:01]

I'M SORRY.

THAT'S CORRECT.

SO ONE UNIT AT SIX 40 AND ONE AT 6 93.

OKAY.

THAT IS CORRECT.

THANK YOU.

RECREATIONAL AMENITIES ARE REQUIRED FOR MULTIFAMILY APARTMENT DEVELOPMENTS PER THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE.

SO ALTHOUGH THIS SITE DID NOT FALL INTO THE AUTHORITY OF THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE WHEN IT WAS DEVELOPED IN 2015, IT DID PROVIDE RECREATIONAL SITE AMENITIES.

OUR COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIRES THOSE AMENITIES TO MEET A MINIMUM POINT VALUE OF 70 POINTS, AND THAT'S DERIVED FROM A, AN ITEMIZED LIST IN THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE THAT LISTS POSSIBLE AMENITIES.

SO THEY DID PROVIDE AN A TOTAL OF 70 POINTS BASED ON THE AMENITIES THEY'VE PROVIDED TODAY.

HOWEVER, GIVEN THEY WILL BE ADDING ADDITIONAL UNITS WHERE SOME OF THOSE AMENITIES ARE LOCATED, AND THEY'LL BE REMOVING ONE OF THOSE AMENITIES ENTIRELY THE IN INDOOR SPORTS COURT, IN ORDER TO MAKE UP FOR THOSE 10 POINTS, THEY'LL BE ADDING A CHILDREN'S PLAYGROUND TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL AMENITIES FOR THEIR RESIDENTS.

THE ENVISION RICHARDSON FUTURE LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATES THIS AREA AS COMP, AS COMPACT RESIDENTIAL PLACE TYPE, AND THE EXISTING MULTIFAMILY USE IS CONSISTENT WITH THAT.

AND FINALLY, SHOULD THE CPC ACCEPT THE REQUEST AS PRESENTED? THE MOTION WOULD INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING SPECIAL CONDITIONS.

THE SITE SHALL BE ZONED PD PLAN DEVELOPMENT WITH THE BASE ZONING DISTRICT OF 8 9 50 M AND SHALL BE DEVELOPED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONCEPT PLAN AND THE PD DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.

AND AS OF THE STATE, NO PUBLIC COMMENTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO THE PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION.

AND THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.

ANY QUESTIONS? OKAY.

UH, SEEING NONE THEN, UH, I'D LIKE, WE'D LIKE THE APPLICANT TO PLEASE COME FORWARD.

I THINK THAT'S WHERE WE GOT OUR QUESTIONS.

GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS.

UH, MY NAME IS EDDIE CERVANTES.

UM, I LIVE AT, UH, MY ADDRESS IS 9 0 1 WEST FIRST STREET, FORT WORTH, TEXAS.

UM, I AM WITH SCHWARTZ HANSON ARCHITECTS IN FORT WORTH.

I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF OUR CLIENT, RICHLAND PARK APARTMENTS, UM, APPLYING FOR THIS, UH, PLAN DEVELOPMENT REZONING.

UM, I DON'T REALLY HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS TO ADD OTHER THAN WHAT DEREK HAS ALREADY MENTIONED.

SO IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I CAN ANSWER THOSE RIGHT NOW.

DO YOU HAVE THE BEDROOM COUNT BY ANY CHANCE? UH, YES.

THERE ARE 123 EXISTING BEDROOMS. THERE ARE 45 1 BEDROOMS, 33 2 BEDROOMS, AND FOUR THREE BEDROOMS. AND SO WITH THE ADDITION, YOU'LL BE INCREASING THAT TO, UM, LET ME SEE.

I BELIEVE THEY ARE ALL ONE BEDROOMS, SO ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE, EIGHT, EIGHT, A HUNDRED TWENTY EIGHT, FIVE, FIVE, FIVE ADDITIONAL BEDROOMS. SO IT'D BE 128 TOTAL.

DID STAFF HAVE THAT INFORMATION ANYWHERE, BOB? WE DID NOT.

SO, OKAY.

SO, UM, I JUST WANNA GO BACK TO THE, UM, PARKING.

WHAT'S YOUR THOUGHT ON THE PARKING? UH, ARE, ARE THESE EXTRA SPACES NEEDED FROM A, UM, I DON'T BELIEVE SO.

MARKET WE STANDPOINT? YEAH, WE WERE JUST TRYING TO MEET THE, THE CITY STANDARDS.

UM, CURRENTLY THE OCCUPANCY RATE IS AT 90, 98%.

UM, SO, AND, AND THAT INCREASED THE PAST TWO MONTHS.

THEY, THEY GOT IT UP TO 98% WITHIN THE LAST TWO MONTHS.

SO, UH, IF YOU VISITED THE, THE SITE WITHIN THE PAST TWO MONTHS, YOU'VE SEEN, UM, THERE IS A LOT OF ADDITIONAL PARKING OUT THERE.

UM, A LOT OF, I'VE SEEN A LOT OF THE, UM, FAMILIES THAT LIVE OUT THERE SEEMS TO BE, UH, SINGLE PARENTS.

THERE ARE QUITE A FEW OF, UH, FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN, WHICH IS WHY WE PROPOSED ADDING THE ADDITIONAL, UH, PLAYGROUND.

UM, WE DO NOT INTEND TO THE, UH, TO REDUCE OR TO REMOVE THE OUTDOOR SPACE NEXT TO THE POOL.

WE ARE ONLY REDUCING IT.

SO THERE STILL WILL BE GRILLS AND, AND PARK BENCHES, YOU KNOW, BENCHES OUT THERE.

UM, WE'VE JUST ADDING A, AN ADDITIONAL PLAYGROUND OUT THERE.

SO YOU LIKE THE IDEA OF THE ADDITIONAL PLAYGROUND? YEAH.

UH, EVERY, I'VE BEEN OUT THERE ON THE SITE THREE TIMES SINCE JULY.

AND EVERY TIME I'VE BEEN OUT THERE, I'VE SEEN A LOT OF KIDS, ESPECIALLY OUT IN THE POOL AREA.

UM, I NOTICED THAT, UH, THERE ARE A LOT OF, UH, I GUESS, GRANDPARENTS THAT ARE TAKING CARE OF THE KIDS DURING

[00:15:01]

UM, SO THEY DID, YOU KNOW, TRY TO WRANGLE THE KIDS AND KEEP THEM ONLY AT THE POOL.

UM, I THINK HAVING A PLAYGROUND NEXT TO THE POOL WOULD, WOULD HELP OUT, UM, ESPECIALLY FOR THE, UH, THE BUILDING THAT'S NORTH, BUILDING FOUR, THAT'S NORTH AND IN THE, UH, CENTRAL BUILDING, BUILDING THREE.

RIGHT.

OKAY.

AND, AND AGAIN, UM, FROM, FROM A PARKING STANDPOINT, UM, DO YOU FEEL LIKE BECAUSE THESE UNITS ARE GOING IN THE, UH, AMENITY CENTER, THAT THERE'S NOT ENOUGH PARKING RIGHT IN FRONT OF IT OR NEAR CLOSE TO IT THAT YOU NEED? DO YOU NEED MORE PARKING? YOU KNOW, NO.

THERE'S A PROPOSED PARKING AT THE FRONT, NEAR THE COMMUNITY BUILDING, UH, AND SURROUNDING IT, AND I BELIEVE THERE WAS A QUESTION REGARDING THE TREE REMOVAL, THE EXISTING TREE THAT'S THERE ALONG ABRAMS, WE WILL NOT BE TOUCHING THAT TREE.

THAT IS, THAT IS GOING TO REMAIN.

UM, THERE'S ACTUALLY, UH, WHERE WE SHOW THE, THE PARKING, THERE'S ACTUALLY AN EXISTING SIDEWALK AS WELL THAT LEADS OUT TO THE ABRAMS, UH, UH, STREET.

UM, WE WON'T BE TOUCHING THAT EITHER.

THAT'LL, THAT'LL REMAIN.

UM, THE ONLY TREE WE WOULD, UH, PROPOSE, UM, MOVING, RELOCATING WOULD BE THE ADDITIONAL PARKING AT THE SOUTH END.

YES.

RIGHT IN THERE, THERE IS AN EXISTING SMALL TREE THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO RELOCATE.

WE LIKELY RELOCATE IT WITHIN THE, UM, THE GREEN SPACE FOR THE SECOND OUTDOOR SEATING AREA.

UH, WHAT IS YOUR, IS YOUR PREFERENCE TO KEEP THE GREEN SPACE OR THE ADD MORE PARKING? WE WOULD LIKE TO KEEP THE GREEN SPACE, I FEEL, I FEEL LIKE IT, IT'D BE MORE UTILIZED THAN, THAN THE PARKING WOULD.

DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE A QUESTION? COMMISSIONER SHACK? NO, I WOULD JUST SAY I'M IN CONCURRENCE WITH CHAIRMAN MARSH.

I THINK IF WE ARE CURRENTLY AT 98% OCCUPANCY, THERE SEEMS TO BE AMPLE PARKING.

IF WE CAN KEEP THE GREEN SPACE, ELIMINATE THE NEED TO MOVE OR REPLACE A TREE, UM, AND ESPECIALLY KEEP THAT FRONTAGE GREEN SPACE ALONG ABRAMS WHERE THAT LITTLE POT OF THREE GOES IN, I THINK IT MAKES A MEANINGFUL VISUAL DIFFERENCE.

MR. VICE CHAIRMAN, ON THAT PARKING FRONT, UH, DO YOU, DO YOU, DO YOU OPERATE WITH RESERVED PARKING TODAY? DO YOU KNOW IF IT'S BY FEE OR BY THAT THE RESIDENTS HAVE A RESERVED SPOT THAT THEY PAY FOR? THE REASON I'M ASKING IS 'CAUSE THAT TENDS TO SHOW THE DEMAND OR LACK THEREOF ON THE PARKING FRONT.

AND THAT'S, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE KEY THINGS THAT WE'RE SORT OF FOCUSING ON IS WHETHER OR NOT WE SHOULD REQUIRE YOU TO HAVE MORE PARKING TO TRY TO COMPLY.

AND SO THAT'S WHY THAT DATA POINT MIGHT BE HELPFUL.

I DON'T KNOW IF YOU KNOW IT OR NOT.

I, I DO NOT KNOW THAT I WOULD'VE TO, UH, CONFER WITH, WITH RICHMOND PARK DEPARTMENTS TO SEE HOW MANY ACTUAL, UH, UH, PARKING SPACES ARE ALLOTTED PER, PER UNIT.

WELL, IT'S REALLY THE RESERVE CONCEPT.

SO ARE YOU, ARE YOU OPERATING THIS WITH LIKE NUMBERS? AND SO NOW I HAVE TO PAY 25 BUCKS FOR MY SPOT.

AND IF THAT'S THE CASE, THEN THERE'S USUALLY, UM, AND THERE'S A HIGH DEMAND FOR RESERVE PARKING.

THAT USUALLY MEANS THAT THERE'S A PARKING ISSUE, UM, ON A PROPERTY.

THEREFORE THERE'S HIGH DEMAND FOR RESERVE PARKING.

I'M JUST TRYING TO GET AT A DATA POINT THAT WOULD TELL US WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S A PARKING ISSUE ALREADY OR NOT.

SINCE THAT SEEMS TO BE ONE OF THE KEY THINGS WE'RE FOCUSED ON FOR ADDING FIVE BEDROOMS, WHETHER OR NOT ADDING FIVE.

ARE WE, ARE WE CREATING MORE OF A PROBLEM IF THERE IS A PARKING PROBLEM? YOU'RE INDICATING THAT THERE'S NOT, I'M SIMPLY ASKING IF THERE'S RESERVED PARKING TODAY ACROSS THE, THE WHOLE PLAT, THEN THAT'LL TELL US WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S A PARKING PROBLEM OR NOT.

I DON'T BELIEVE THERE'S ANY RESERVE PARKING OTHER THAN THE, UH, COVERED PARKING THAT'S AT THE REAR OKAY.

OF THE FACILITY.

YEAH, WHICH MAKES SENSE.

OKAY.

THAT'S, THAT'S ALL I HAVE.

OKAY.

YEAH.

SO, BUT MY CALCULATIONS, UH, IF YOU'VE GOT 170 EXISTING PARKING SPACES ON SITE AND YOU'VE GOT 123 BEDROOMS TODAY, YOU ADD FIVE MORE BEDROOMS, YOU'RE AT 128.

SO THAT'S A RATIO OF 1.33 SPACES PER BEDROOM.

AND, UH, OBVIOUSLY IN, UH, THE TRANSIT ORIENTED DISTRICTS, THE HIGHER DENSITY, YOU KNOW, WE'VE GONE TO MORE LIKE ONE SPACE PER BEDROOM.

SO, I MEAN, I, THAT WAS THE ONLY THING I I, I'M, I'M LIKE YOU, I'M IN FAVOR OF MORE GREEN SPACE.

I THINK THAT'S AN AMENITY THAT MAKES IT MORE ATTRACTIVE.

AND, AND I THINK THE RESIDENTS APPRECIATE THAT.

SO I DON'T WANT TO FORCE MORE PAVEMENT MM-HMM .

UH, YOU KNOW, ON, ON YOU IF IT'S, ESPECIALLY IF IT'S NOT BEING

[00:20:01]

AND I, I DID, I WAS THERE TODAY AND I DIDN'T SEE, I SAW A LOT OF VACANCY ON THE PARKING LOTS.

UM, BUT IF YOU'RE OKAY WITH THE, THE PLAYGROUND, THEN THAT'S GREAT.

YOU KNOW, I, I WAS GONNA GET, TRY TO SEE ABOUT GIVING YOU SOME RELIEF ON THAT TOO, BUT IF YOU THINK THAT'S IN A MINUTE.

YEAH.

UM, OUR CLIENT, UM, ANITA ACTUALLY RECOMMENDED THAT IF WE COULD MOVE AWAY FROM THE PARKING, UH, THE PLAYGROUND, WE COULD ALSO DO SOME OUTDOOR WORKOUT AREAS.

I KNOW LIKE THE PARKS REC DEPARTMENT WILL KIND OF DICTATE HOW MANY POINTS YOU GET PER, PER, UM, PIECE OF EQUIPMENT.

UH, BUT THEY RECOMMENDED SOME PULL UP BARS AND OTHER THINGS FOR, FOR, UH, MORE TOWARDS THE ADULTS THAT WANNA WORK OUT OUTDOORS RATHER THAN AN, AN ADDITIONAL PLAYGROUND FOR THE CHILDREN.

CHILDREN.

WHAT'S STAFF'S POSITION ON THAT? I MEAN, I DON'T THINK WE HAVE IT AS FAR AS AMENITY POINTS ARE CONCERNED.

ARE THERE, IS IT DIFFERENT FOR, UM, A PLAYGROUND VERSUS A WORKOUT AREA? I DON'T THINK THAT THERE IS A OUTDOOR WORKOUT.

WE DO HAVE AN OUTDOOR MULTI-USE SPORT COURT, UM, BUT WE DO NOT HAVE AN OUTDOOR WORKOUT AREA THAT'S MENTIONED IN THE, THE ZONING ORDINANCE.

SO I BELIEVE IT JUST MENTIONS, UH, EQUIPMENT, PIECES OF EQUIPMENT AND THEN, UH, IT WOULD, THE NUMBER OF POINTS FOR EACH EQUIPMENT WOULD BE DICTATED BY THE PARKS AND REC DEPARTMENT.

UM, I DON'T REMEMBER THE SPECIFIC CODE, THE ORDINANCE THOUGH.

YEAH, IT SAID OTHER RECREATIONAL AMENITIES IS APPROVED BY THE CITY'S DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATION, ONE THROUGH 10 POINTS TO BE DETERMINED BY THE DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATION.

SO I DON'T KNOW, UM, WHAT THE DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND REC, WHAT THEY WOULD, HOW MANY POINT POINTS THAT THEY WOULD AWARD FOR OUTDOOR, UH, WORKOUT EQUIPMENT AREAS.

I THINK IT MIGHT DEPEND ON THE, THE SIZE OF THAT SPACE AND HOW MANY WORKOUT AREAS THERE WERE.

SO ONE WAY POTENTIALLY TO HANDLE THAT MAY BE TO, UM, UH, BASICALLY HAVE A, A VARIANCE FROM THE BASE ZONING DISTRICT, UM, ON THE RECREATION AMENITY POINTS, UH, BEING SOMETHING LESS THAN 70.

YOU READ MY MIND AND, UH, YOU KNOW, UH, THE, YOU KNOW, YOU COULD ELIMINATE THAT, UH, PLAYGROUND WORKOUT AREA AND, AND COMPLETELY AND, YOU KNOW, YOU WOULD BE AT 60 POINTS.

SO, YOU KNOW, WE COULD PICK A NUMBER IN BETWEEN 60 AND 70 IF WE WANTED TO, BUT I'M NOT SURE WE'D GET THERE OR SATISFY.

WELL, I WAS GONNA SAY, I MEAN, IF THE COMMISSION WAS FINE WITH THE REMAINING AMENITIES BEING PROVIDED ON SITE IS AT LEAST AS SATISFYING THE MINIMUM AS PART OF THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT.

WE COULD INCLUDE IN THERE THAT THE MINIMUM NUMBER OF AMENITY POINTS BEING ACHIEVED SHALL BE 60 POINTS.

AND THEN THAT STILL GIVES THE APPLICANT SOME FLEXIBILITY IN THE FUTURE.

THEY CAN ALWAYS ADD MORE AMENITIES, UM, THAT THEY CAN ACCOMMODATE ON THE SITE.

THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT, BUT IF YOU'RE WANTING TO TRY TO GIVE THEM SOME RELIEF, THEN WE COULD JUST, UM, YOU COULD INCLUDE THAT IF, IF YOU'RE, IF YOU'RE, UM, ACCEPTABLE WITH THE REST OF THE PROPOSAL AND YOU OFFER A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL, THEN I WOULD INCLUDE IN YOUR MOTION IN, AND THAT THE AMENDED TO YOU POINTS BE ESTABLISHED AT 60 INSTEAD OF 70.

YEP.

COMMISSIONER SACK, JUST A POINT OF CLARIFICATION THAT WAS BROUGHT UP DURING THE BRIEFING SESSION.

UM, TINA, YOU HAD MENTIONED THAT THE AMENITY POINTS ARE UP TO A BUILDING SIZE OF 250.

SO TECHNICALLY THEM HAVING 70 AMENITY POINTS FOR A SMALLER UNIT, SMALLER SIZE DEPARTMENT COMPLEX ALREADY PUTS THEM SORT OF ABOVE THE THRESHOLD OF AMENITY LEVEL.

SO IF WE WENT TO 60 INSTEAD OF 70, THEY WOULD TECHNICALLY ALREADY BE AT KIND OF A GOOD BASELINE FOR WHAT'S BEING OFFERED FOR AN 82 OR 87 UNIT BUILDING.

MY THOUGHTS EXACTLY.

I WAS GONNA SAY, I, I COULD GET BEHIND THAT.

OKAY.

I THINK IT'S REASONABLE.

'CAUSE YOU'RE RIGHT, IT IS A SMALLER MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, SO REQUIRING AMENITY OF POINTS, THAT IS, UM, MORE COMM MEASURE WITH THE SIZE AND SCALE OF THE DEVELOPMENT, I THINK IS APPROPRIATE IF THE COMMISSION WANTS TO DO THAT.

THANK YOU.

OKAY.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? ALL RIGHT.

WE MAY CALL YOU BACK UP HERE AFTER THE REST OF THE PUBLIC HEARING.

OH, I'M SORRY.

I CAN'T SEE YOU LIE.

IT'S JUST KIND OF AN ODD ANGLE.

, ARE THERE ANY AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMPONENTS OR WORKPLACE HOUSING STYLE, LIKE CONCESSIONS FOR THIS PRODUCT OR FOR THIS PROPOSAL? I'M UNSURE, UM, WHAT THOSE ARE.

I DO KNOW THAT WE ARE ADDING THE UNITS THAT WE'RE ADDING OUR STUDIO AND EFFICIENCY UNITS, UM, AND WITH THE NUMBER OF ONE BEDROOM UNITS THAT THEY HAVE, I BELIEVE THEY DO HAVE SOME THAT ARE GEARED TOWARDS,

[00:25:01]

BUT I, I HONESTLY DO NOT KNOW.

THAT MIGHT BE A QUESTION FOR RICHLAND PARK.

THANK YOU.

YOU'RE WELCOME.

OKAY.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR NOW? ALL RIGHT, UH, THANK YOU.

OKAY, THANK YOU.

UH, SO THIS IS OUR, UH, PUBLIC HEARING ITEM, UH, THERE, DO YOU HAVE ANY CARDS OR ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO COME FORWARD AND SPEAK IN FAVOR OR AGAINST THE REQUEST? CHAIRMAN, I HAVE NO CARDS.

OKAY.

ALL RIGHT.

UM, ANY DISCUSSION OR ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? DO YOU EVER BRING IT BACK UP HERE? WELL, I THINK, UM, AS OBVIOUSLY WE'RE, WE'RE, I THINK THE DISCUSSION HAS BEEN THAT, UH, I WANNA MAKE AN AMENDMENT TO EXHIBIT C.

SO I MAKE A MOTION, I'LL, I'LL TRY TO DO THIS, UH, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF AGENDA ITEM TWO AS PRESENTED, EXCEPT THAT EXHIBIT C WOULD BE MODIFIED, UH, TO ADD, UM, I GUESS, UH, ITEM E UH, THE RECREATION AMEN.

AMENITIES, UH, SHOW A TOTAL OF 60 POINTS.

AND, UH, ITEM F WOULD BE THAT, UH, 170 PARKING SPACES, WHICH ARE THE EXISTING SPACES, UH, ARE, IS, ARE REQUIRED.

IS THAT FROM A STAFF STANDPOINT, DO YOU THINK THAT WOULD ACCOMPLISH, UH, WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR OR NEED? YES, FOR DIRECTION ONE DIRECTION, THERE'S CURRENTLY 167 EXISTING PARKING SPACES.

I'M SORRY, THAT'S NOT WHAT I READ.

IN THE STAFF REPORT ON, UH, PAGE THREE, IT SAYS THERE ARE A TOTAL OF 170 EXISTING PARKING SPACES ON SITE.

THIRD PARAGRAPH.

YEAH.

'CAUSE THE SITE PLAN IS SHOWING 166 EXISTING PARKING SPACES PLUS EIGHT NEW.

YEAH, YOU CAN COME, COME BACK UP AND ANSWER THAT FOR US.

THERE ARE 167 EXISTING SPACES.

WE WILL BE REMOVING ONE BECAUSE THE LENDER REQUESTED THAT WE PROVIDED AT, UH, 80 ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACE AT THE COVERED PARKING.

UM, SO THERE IS A, A LOADING ZONE THAT WE REMOVED ONE SPACE IN ORDER TO PROVIDE THAT.

SO CURRENTLY THERE ARE A HUNDRED SIXTY SIX SIXTY SEVEN, UM, BUT THERE WILL BE 166 ONCE WE CREATE THAT.

A DA PARKING SPACE, THE COVERED PARKING SPACE.

OKAY.

UH, WELL, I DON'T THINK THAT'S GONNA CHANGE THE RATIO PER BEDROOM SIGNIFICANTLY.

UH, SO, UH, I WOULD THEN SAY, UH, ITEM F OF UNDER EXHIBIT C IS THAT, UH, 166 PARKING SPACES ARE REQUIRED.

THAT SOUNDS GOOD.

THAT'S MY MOTION.

COMMISSIONER SHACK.

I WILL GIVE YOU A SECOND ON THAT.

ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU.

WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR? RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

ALRIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

ALL RIGHT, NOW WE'LL GO ON TO ITEM THREE, WHICH IS, UH, UH, CONSIDERATE AND TAKE ACTION REGARDING PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION BYLAWS.

I DO HAVE A QUESTION.

OH YEAH.

COMMISSIONER BEACH, COULD YOU TURN ON YOUR MIC SO WE HAVE YOUR RECORDING IT, IT WAS A PUBLIC HEARING.

SO DID WE NOT NEED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING? 'CAUSE NOBODY SPOKE OR DID WE NEED TO CLOSE IT IN SPITE OF THE FACT NOBODY SPOKE OR I, I'M, I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE RULES.

I I'M SORRY I MISSED THAT PART.

YEAH, I SKIPPED OVER THAT.

OKAY.

I, I WAS JUST CURIOUS.

SO I, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING , MR. CHAIRMAN, I MOVE THAT WE HEARING MR. ROBERTS SECOND.

THANKS FOR ME, HONEST.

ALL IN FAVOR OF CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING SO IT'S NOT LEFT OPEN INDEFINITELY PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

THANK YOU.

FEEL FREE TO JUMP IN EARLIER IF I MISS STUFF LIKE THAT.

WELL, MY APOLOGIES.

USUALLY I TRY TO LISTEN FOR THAT, BUT I WAS MULTITASKING ON, ON THE BYLAWS, UM, TO MAYBE COME UP WITH A SOLUTION.

SO,

[3. Consider and take action regarding proposed amendments to the City Plan Commission Bylaws. ]

[00:30:01]

WE'VE HAD A NUMBER OF CHANGES FROM STAFF AND THE CITY ATTORNEY.

UH, WE'VE GONE THROUGH THIS IN THE BRIEFING SESSION.

UM, YOU GAVE US A FAIRLY LENGTHY PRESENTATION ON ALL THE CHANGES WHICH WE'RE, AND I THINK WE'RE GOOD WITH, WITH AS FAR AS THE PRESENTATION IS CONCERNED.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS YOU WANNA MAKE THAT OUT OF THE BRIEFING SESSION OR JUST GO STRAIGHT INTO DISCUSSION OF IT? I BELIEVE WE CAN GO STRAIGHT INTO DISCUSSION UNLESS THERE WERE ANY, UM, QUESTIONS REGARDING THE PRESENTATION I HAD GIVEN EARLIER.

OKAY.

TO ME IT SEEMED LIKE WHERE WE HAVE THE ONE ITEM THAT WE'RE STILL TRYING TO WORK THROUGH WAS IN THE EVENT OF THE TIE VOTES.

AND, AND, UM, I WAS, UH, UM, SEEING IF I COULD GET IN TOUCH WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY TO SEE IF THERE MIGHT BE SOME SUGGESTIONS.

BUT I KNOW THE COMMISSION WAS, UM, STARTING TO CONSIDER SOME IDEAS, UM, ON, ON THE TIE VOTES SITUATION.

LEMME ADVANCE TO THAT SLIDE.

SO WE HAVE THAT IF WE MAY.

OOPS, MR. MARSH, COMMISSIONER MARSH OR CHAIRMAN MARSH? YEAH, I, I JUST, I'M JUST, GIMME ONE SECOND HERE.

UM, IT'S ON THE CLEAN VERSION OF YOUR BYLAWS.

IT IS ADDRESSED AT THE TOP OF PAGE SEVEN UNDER VOTING, IF THE COMMISSION IS WANTING TO LOOK FOR THAT, AND I CAN PULL UP THE DOCUMENT IF WE NEED IT.

I HAVE IT LOADED ON MACHINE.

YEAH.

SO JUST FOR THE RECORD AND FOR THE PUBLIC, UM, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, UM, SECTION FIVE OF THE BYLAWS IS PROPOSED.

UM, THIS IS UNDER THE REGULAR MEETING AGENDA SECTION, UH, ITEM ONE, UH, SUBSECTION TWO, UH OH, I'M SORRY.

IT'S UNDER F VOTING.

YES.

AND, UH, PREVIOUSLY THE BIBLE LAW IS READ IN THE EVENT OF A TIE VOTE, THE MOTION IS CONSIDERED TO HAVE FAILED.

AND NOW WHAT HAS BEEN PROPOSED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY, WHICH IS SOMETHING NEW, IS THAT IN THE EVENT OF A TIE VOTE, THE MOTION IS CONSIDERED TO HAVE FAILED IN SUBSEQUENT MOTIONS AND VOTES SHALL BE REQUIRED, RESULTING A MA IN A, IT SAYS A MAJORITY DECISION FOR THE ITEM TO BE RESOLVED.

SO I THINK IT'S ACTUALLY MISSING A WORD THERE, BUT, UM, UH, I RAISED THIS POINT ABOUT, UM, YOU KNOW, UM, I'VE BEEN IN THIS SITUATION WHEN WE ONLY HAVE, UH, AN EQUAL NUMBER OF, OF COMMISSIONERS PRESENT.

AND, UH, AND THE VOTE HAS ENDED IN A TIE.

AND, UM, AND IN THAT PARTICULAR CASE, 'CAUSE I WAS AGAINST IT AND THAT MEANT IT WITH DENIAL, I WAS, I WAS HAPPY WITH THAT OUTCOME.

AND, UH, WE, WE ATTEMPTED TO, UM, BOTH SIDES, UM, BOTH FOR AND AGAINST, ATTEMPTED TO PERSUADE THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS TO, TO CHANGE THEIR MIND AND DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT.

AND WE NEVER GOT THERE.

AND, UH, I THINK ULTIMATELY IN THAT CASE, IF MY MEMORY SERVES RIGHT, WE ENDED UP CONTINUING THE PUBLIC HEARING, UM, UNTIL WE HAD AN ODD NUMBER OF COMMISSIONERS PRESENT AT THE NEXT, AT THE NEXT MEETING AND THEN TOOK THE VOTE, WHICH I THINK WE, WE THEN DENIED IT, YOU KNOW, WITH THE MAJORITY.

SO WE EVENTUALLY GOT THERE, BUT WE WERE UNABLE TO DO IT ON THE, ON THE NIGHT IN QUESTION.

AND, UH, AND I THINK THAT'S THE, THE ISSUE HERE IS THAT IF YOU GOT AN EVEN NUMBER, UM, YOU, YOU MAY NOT BE ABLE TO, TO, YOU KNOW, DO ANYTHING TO REALLY COME TO A MAJORITY, UH, WITHOUT SOME MAJOR REDESIGN OF THE PROJECT OR OTHER, OTHER CONCESSIONS AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE.

SO, UM, AND, AND YOU KNOW, IN TERMS OF CONTINUING THE PUBLIC HEARING, I THINK IT WAS, IM IMPORTANT, YOU KNOW, FOR, UH, AT THE NEXT MEETING FOR THE COMMISSIONER WHO WASN'T PRESENT TO HEAR, HEAR THE PRESENTATION, HEAR, HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT, HEAR FROM THE PUBLIC, YOU KNOW, HAVE ALL OF THE SAME SORT OF INFORMATION, UH, RATHER THAN GOING INTO A SESSION WHERE YOU WOULDN'T HAVE ALL THAT ABILITY TO HEAR, HEAR ALL THAT AND, AND MAKE A DECISION.

SO I, I THINK THAT'S HOW WE ENDED UP.

I, I MEAN, UM, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S THE RIGHT ANSWER FOR RESOLVING THIS OR IF ANYBODY'S GOT ANY OTHER SUGGESTIONS.

SO OTHER LIGHTS WERE ON.

COMMISSIONER SHAHE? YEAH, I WAS GONNA SAY TO SOME EXTENT, I THINK THE AMBIGUITY OF THE WAY THAT THIS IS WRITTEN MAY WORK IN OUR FAVOR BECAUSE THE PART OF THE REASON WHY I ASKED THE SAME QUESTION YOU DID IS WHEN IS THAT RESOLUTION TAKING PLACE? IT DOESN'T SPECIFICALLY SAY THAT IT HAS TO BE RESOLVED THAT NIGHT.

SO MAYBE IF THERE'S SOME TYPE OF AN ASTERISK IN THERE THAT SAYS THE SAME DAY OR UPON CONTINUATION TO FURTHER MEETING, UM, I THINK THE SUGGESTION COMMISSIONER ROBERTS MADE IN BRIEFING MAKES A LOT OF SENSE THAT THERE'S

[00:35:01]

SO WE'RE NOT THERE TILL 11:00 PM AND THEN WE REAP THE BENEFIT OF HAVING A FIFTH PERSON OR A SEVENTH PERSON, WHATEVER THAT LOOKS LIKE AT THE NEXT MEETING.

WELL, AND AGAIN, ON THAT PARTICULAR NIGHT IN QUESTION, I MEAN, YOU KNOW, IT WASN'T ONE WE HAD TO GO THROUGH ONE OR TWO.

I MEAN, CERTAINLY WE MADE ONE SIDE, MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THAT DIDN'T, THAT WAS DIDN'T PASS ANOTHER SIDE, MAKE A MOTION TO DENY THAT DIDN'T PASS.

WE TALKED AMONGST OURSELVES, IS THERE ANYTHING WE CAN DO? WOULD YOU GIVE ON, WOULD I GIVE ON NO.

AND YOU KNOW, WE ENDED UP CALLING THE CITY ATTORNEY ASKING, WHAT, WHAT DO WE DO NOW, ? AND UH, SO, UM, THAT'S WHEN WE DECIDED TO CONTINUE IT.

BUT, UM, I DON'T THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE A SPECIFIC NUMBER OF ATTEMPTS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

UM, I MEAN, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT WHERE I'VE GOT A BIT OF AN ISSUE IS IT SAYS SHALL REQUIRE, YOU KNOW, UH, UM, A MAJORITY VOTE.

BUT I THINK AT SOME POINT THAT SHALL REQUIRE IS THAT WHATEVER CASE IT IS HAS TO HAVE A VOTE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.

THAT DOESN'T RESULT IN A TIE, IS HOW I WOULD INTERPRET THAT.

IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT IT HAS TO BE DONE THAT EVENING, THAT WOULD, BUT AT SOME POINT WE HAVE TO GET TO A MAJORITY ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, WHETHER IT'S THAT NIGHT OR IT'S THE NEXT MEETING OR WHATEVER THAT LOOKS LIKE.

WELL, I THINK, I THINK ALSO IF IT'S A TIE, IT'S JUST, IT IS SORT OF CONSIDERED LIKE NO ACTION WAS TAKEN.

I, I THINK IS THE INTERPRETATION.

YEAH, WE, UM, RIGHT NOW, THE WAY YOUR BYLAWS SAY THAT, UM, I BELIEVE IT'S CONSIDERED IT'S FAILED.

UM, I, I PULLED COUNCIL'S RULES OF PROCEDURES TO, TO SEE IF UM, THERE WAS ANY GUIDANCE THERE WITH CITY COUNCIL.

UM, THEY HAVE A TIE VOTE RESULTS IN NO ACTION IN SUCH INSTANT, IN SUCH AN INSTANCE, ANY MEMBER OF THE CITY COUNCIL MAY OFFER ANOTHER MOTION FOR CONSIDERATION ACTION.

SO IT KIND OF GETS TO YOUR POINT, CHAIRMAN MARSH, UM, IT'S UH, 'CAUSE THE LANGUAGES MAY OFFER, IT DOESN'T, IT'S NOT A SHALL I AGREE WITH THAT.

UM, AND THEN, UM, BUT IT CONTINUES ON.

IT SAYS IF THERE IS NOT AN AFFIRMATIVE VOTE OR THE REQUIRED VOTE FOR PASSAGE OF SUCH MOTION, THE RESULT IS NO ACTION.

I THINK, UM, YOU KNOW, IF THE COMMISSION LIKE WHAT WAS IN THE COUNCIL'S RULES OF PROCEDURE, WE COULD EDIT IT.

THIS AS SUCH, I THINK WE STILL NEED TO TRY TO ADDRESS THE, INSTEAD OF SAYING NO ACTION, I THINK FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE COMMISSION, IT NEEDS TO ACKNOWLEDGE IT'S EITHER A A THEN CONSIDERED TO HAVE FAILED AND WILL BE FORWARDED TO COUNSEL, UM, THUS TRIGGERING THE SUPER MAJORITY VOTE.

UM, OR IF, UM, IN THE RESULT OF A TIE, IT'S CONSIDERED NO DECISION, BUT WHERE THE, WHERE THE CONSEQUENCE COMES IN.

AND, AND, AND MY APOLOGIES I'D, I'D LIKE TO CONSULT WITH ME WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY A LITTLE FURTHER ON THIS, AND I WAS TEXTING HIM DURING THE PREVIOUS ITEM TO SEE IF I MIGHT BE ABLE TO CATCH HIM, IS TO SEE WHAT HAPPENS IN THAT SITUATION.

UM, BECAUSE THAT'S, TO ME THAT THAT'S IMPORTANT.

UM, LOOKS LIKE OUR COMPUTER MAY HAVE GONE TO SLEEP, DE MIGHT BE ABLE TO GET YOUR HELP HERE IN JUST A MOMENT.

UM, BUT THAT, THAT'S MY CONCERN IS, IS IF THE COMMISSION DOES NOT COME TO SOME SORT OF CONCLUSION ON THE ITEM OR DISPOSITION OF THE ITEM, THEN HOW DOES THAT AFFECT THE ITEM GOING TO CITY COUNCIL? AND DOES THAT SUPER MAJORITY VOTE GET TRIGGERED BECAUSE THAT IS A MUCH HIGHER THRESHOLD LEVEL.

UM, YOU KNOW, IF IT WAS A CLEAR MOTION FOR DENIAL ON THAT PASS, THEN WE KNOW IT'S CLEAR THAT IT'S GOING TO TRIGGER THAT SUPER MAJORITY VOTE.

BUT IT'S WHAT'S HAPPENING IF WE STILL CAN'T GET RESOLUTION WHERE WE'RE STILL AT A TIE VOTE SITUATION.

THANK YOU FOR THAT COMMISSIONER POINTER.

OKAY.

IT'S CALLED A DEFAULT VOTE AND YOU DON'T HAVE A MAJORITY, SO IT'S NOT THE SAME.

YOU DON'T HAVE A MAJORITY.

SO IT'S UH, NOT THE SAME AS A THREE TWO IF IT'S A TWO TWO.

SO YOU WOULD ASK YOUR CITY ATTORNEY FOR ADVICE ON A DEFAULT VOTE AND IT CAN BE REINTRODUCED.

THERE'S USUALLY TYPICALLY NOTHING THAT SAYS YOU HAVE TO ARGUE ABOUT IT ALL NIGHT BECAUSE IT'S, IT'S NOT GONNA WORK OUT.

AND YOU COULD ARGUE BECAUSE IT'S NOT A MAJORITY DECISION, IT COULD BE ARGUED THAT SINCE IT'S NOT A MAJORITY DECISION, SO IF YOU'LL ASK YOUR CITY ATTORNEY ABOUT THE WORDS REINTRODUCED PERHAPS AT THE NEXT MEETING OR THE WORD IS DEFAULT VOTE WITH NO CLEAR, THERE IS NO MAJORITY SINCE IT'S A TIE.

THE SECOND THING IS A DIFFERENT SECTION.

UH, THERE'S AN AREA WHERE HE, IF THERE'S A CONFLICT OF INTEREST, HE ASKS THE PARTY OR THE PERSON TO LEAVE THE ROOM.

THE LANGUAGE USUALLY IS, AND THAT'S BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE ATTORNEY, IT'S EITHER GONNA BE TO RECUSE OR WITHDRAW.

IT'S NOT TYPICALLY GONNA BE LEAVE THE ROOM.

SO THAT'S JUST A MORE PROFESSIONAL WAY TO, UH, REPRESENT A COMMISSION.

SO I

[00:40:01]

UM, YEAH, I'M JUST GONNA COMMENT ON THE RELIEVING THE ROOM.

NO, NO, NO.

RECUSE OR WITHDRAW.

I, I UNDERSTAND.

YEAH.

BUT YOU, WHAT YOU'RE UH, SUGGESTING I THINK IS THAT IT, YOU COULD RECUSE YOURSELF BUT STAY IN THE ROOM.

NO, YOU HAVE TO, YOU HAVE TO WITH THAT WOULD BE WITHDRAW, THEN YOU CAN WITHDRAW.

THAT SAID, YOU HAVE TO PHYSICALLY GO.

SO IF, IF I COULD OFFER, WE, WE PURPOSELY HAVE THAT IN THERE THAT YOU HAVE TO LEAVE THE ROOM JUST TO MAKE SURE IT'S MORE CLEAR.

I, I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE GETTING AT IN TERMS OF THE MORE FORMAL LANGUAGE, BUT FOR LAYPERSON SERVING ON THE BOARD, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE LEAVING THE ROOM BECAUSE UM, IF A COMMISSIONER DID NOT LEAVE THE ROOM, THE, THE NONVERBAL BODY CUES, RIGHT.

THAT COULD POSSIBLY BE, UM, ONE MIGHT BE ACCUSED OF MINISTER.

YEAH.

NOT SUGGESTING THEY DON'T LEAVE THE ROOM, BUT THAT USUALLY SIGN, THAT'S USUALLY THE WAY THAT YOU WOULD SAY IT.

YOU WITHDRAW.

SO, AND I UNDERSTAND, BUT I WAS JUST SAYING PART OF THE REASON WHY WE STAFF WOULD SU UM, RESPECT THE COMMISSION CONSIDER KEEPING THE LANGUAGE FOR LEAVING THE ROOM IS A AGAIN, SO IT'S MORE SPECIFIC AND UM, MORE ACCEPTABLE TO A LAY PERSON TO UNDERSTAND THAT SERVING ON THE BOARD THAT THEY NEED TO LEAVE THE ROOM.

I I, I HEAR YOU.

THE MORE FORMAL LANGUAGE, BUT YEAH, NO PROBLEM.

BUT THAT'S, SO THAT'S, AND I'M BACK TO THE FIRST ONE.

THAT'S WHAT I WOULD DO ASK ABOUT REINTRODUCTION.

NO, IT'S NOT TYPICAL TO SAY THAT YOU'RE GONNA SORT OF FIGHT IT OUT THAT NIGHT.

THAT'S JUST TO, TO CHAIRMAN MARSH'S POINT.

THAT'S JUST NOT, IT'S NOT A FOOTBALL GAME THAT GOES ON AND ON FOREVER.

SO COMMISSIONER, QUIRK.

YEAH, I, I MEAN I, I DON'T LIKE THE UH, UH, TIE EQUALS MOTION FAILS.

I THINK THAT'S A LITTLE UNFAIR, BUT, UH, I I I THINK THE WAY YOU HANDLED IT LAST TIME WHERE YOU CONTINUED IT TO THE NEXT MEETING IS YEAH, IS IS ONE WAY TO GO, IS A FIRST LEVEL ANYWAY.

UH, BUT I THINK IT'S REASONABLE TO SAY AT THAT MEETING THAT NIGHT THAT YOU TRY TO FIND SOME WAY TO, TO WORK IT OUT, YOU KNOW, AS A FIRST ATTEMPT.

BUT IF YOU CAN'T GET THERE, THEN YOU JUST MAKE A MOTION TO CONTINUE.

OR WE HAVE TO PUT SOMETHING IN THERE AS, UH, DIRECTOR FERGUS WAS SUGGESTING THAT WE SOMEHOW CAN PASS THIS ON AS A NO DECISION TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITHOUT ACTIVATING THE, UH, SUPER MAJORITY VOTE.

I DON'T KNOW HOW WE DO THAT.

WELL THAT'S FROM OUR BYLAWS, BUT THAT'S WHERE IT COULD BE ARGUED THAT IT'S NOT A MAJORITY VOTE SINCE IT'S TWO TWO.

WELL, THAT, YOU KNOW, I THINK THE, THE, UM, THE ISSUE IS, YOU KNOW, IF IF IF A, UM, IF A MATTER IS DENIED, THAT'S WHEN IT REQUIRES THE SUPER MAJORITY CORRECT.

THAT'S CITY COUNCIL.

CORRECT.

CORRECT.

CORRECT.

THAT, THAT'S CLEAR IN OUR ORDINANCE.

RIGHT, RIGHT.

SO AGAIN, I'M, I'M USING THE EXAMPLE, MY SITUATION, UM, WHERE IT, IT A TIED VOTE AND IT WOULD'VE BEEN, IT WOULD'VE BEEN CONSIDERED A DENIAL.

THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I WANTED TO HAPPEN.

IS IT TO REQUIRE A SUPER MAJORITY FOR THE COUNCIL TO, TO APPROVE IT.

RIGHT.

SO, AND LOOK, I WAS THERE TO, YOU KNOW, SO IT WAS UNFORTUNATE THAT, YOU KNOW, WE DIDN'T HAVE, YOU KNOW, AN ODD NUMBER BUT, UM, ULTIMATELY THE OUTCOME, SO I, IN OTHER WORDS, I FEEL LIKE YOU'RE GRANTING LENIENCY TO THE APPLICANT, UH, ON A DENIAL THAT, YOU KNOW, HE WOULDN'T O OTHERWISE GET IN ANY, ANY OTHER DENIAL SITUATION, RIGHT? SO AS, AS, AS ONE WHO WAS OPPOSED TO IT, I, I WAS HAPPY WITH THE TY VOTE 'CAUSE I'VE BEEN IN DENIAL THAT MEANT A SUPER MAJORITY.

SO NOW WE ENDED UP AT, YOU KNOW, I THINK CONTINUING IT JUST TO TRY, TRY TO GET TO A VOTE.

BUT, UM, SOMETIMES IT MAY, I'M JUST SAYING, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE COMMISSIONERS MAY BE GLAD THAT IT'S DENIED.

IT'S A TIE.

COMMISSIONER SHAHE, I THINK, I THINK THAT'S THE BENEFIT OF HAVING NINE DIFFERENT PEOPLE WITH NINE DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES AND BACKGROUNDS ON THE COMMISSION, THAT WE ALL LOOK AT THINGS FROM A DIFFERENT LENS.

AND SO IF WE ARE STUCK AT FOUR OR SIX, I THINK LEVERAGING KIND OF THE BANDWIDTH

[00:45:01]

I THINK THAT MAKES SENSE.

I ALSO AGREE WITH WHERE YOU STARTED THAT WE WOULDN'T WANNA DO IT AT THE EXPENSE OF WHATEVER WE'RE LOOKING AT SO THAT WE'RE MAKING SO MANY CONCESSIONS JUST TO GET TO A YAY OR A NA.

SO IF IT DOESN'T FEEL REASONABLE AND WE ARE AT A ROADBLOCK, I THINK IT MAKES SENSE TO WAIT UNTIL WE'VE GOT THAT NEXT MEETING WHERE HOPEFULLY WE'VE GOT THAT TIEBREAKER MR. VICE-CHAIRMAN.

UH, SO MY POINT OF VIEW IS THERE'S A REASON WHY WE HAVE SEVEN, UM, AND SOMETIMES THERE'S FOUR AND SOMETIMES THERE'S SIX.

UM, BUT THERE'S A REASON WHY WE HAVE SEVEN AND THERE CAN JUST AS EASILY BE FIVE.

SO IN THOSE SCENARIOS, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE REMOTE OF FOUR AND SIX AND I FEEL LIKE THAT IF THERE'S A TIE, UM, IN THE FOUR SIX SCENARIO, UM, PROCEDURALLY, UH, I THINK EVEN THOUGH WHAT WE JUST SAW WOULD COUNTER THIS, THE, THE PUBLIC HEARING GETS CLOSED AND THEN WE VOTE, RIGHT? AND SO IF WE WERE GOING TO, IN A TIE SCENARIO, UM, WE WOULD NEED TO CONTINUE IF WE'RE IN A TY SCENARIO AND TO THE NEXT MEETING, BUT THEN, AND THINK HE COULD REOPEN IT WOULD GET REOPENED.

I THINK IT WOULD NEED BE AND THEN CONTINUE AND CONTINUED OR, OR, OR IS THAT WHAT WOULD HAPPEN? IT WOULD HAVE TO BE REOPENED AND CONTINUED OR DOES IT GET OPENED IN THE NEXT MEETING? 'CAUSE WE WOULD POTENTIALLY HAVE AT THAT POINT A COMMISSIONER THAT DIDN'T HEAR THE TESTIMONY FROM THE MEETING THAT HE MISSED.

HE OR SHE MISSED.

SO JUST, I'M JUST THINKING THROUGH THE LOGIC PATH OF RIGHT.

I I, IDEALLY WE WOULD CONTINUE, UM, IF THE PUBLIC HEARING HAD GOTTEN CLOSED, WE WOULD REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND GO AHEAD AND CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO, UM, THE NEXT MEETING.

AND UM, SO THAT WAY IT WOULD ALLOW FOR ADDITIONAL PUBLIC TESTIMONY IF, UM, ANY NEEDED TO BE HEARD.

UM, SO USUALLY IT, I THINK WE'VE, WE'VE KIND OF HAD THAT PRACTICE IN, IN THE OFF CHANCE THAT WE DID NOT REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

THE COMMISSION CAN STILL CONTINUE THE ITEM TO THE NEXT MEETING.

UM, AND THEN THEY WOULD NOT TAKE PUBLIC TESTIMONY.

I WOULD, I WOULD PROBABLY CAUTION THE COMMISSION ON THAT JUST BECAUSE OF THE, UM, I BELIEVE IT'S CALLED THE WHAT THE, THE RIGHT TO SPEAK ACT.

UM, THAT WAS PASSED I THINK TWO LEGISLATIVE SESSIONS AGO, MAYBE, UH, ACTUALLY A LITTLE BIT FAR FURTHER OUT THAN THAT WHERE AN AN ITEM ON THE AGENDA, YOU KNOW, PERSONS ARE ALLOWED TO SPEAK OBVIOUSLY AT, AT THE DISCRETION OF THE CHAIR.

BUT ON PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS, IT'S, IT'S ALWAYS BENEFICIAL TO ACKNOWLEDGE IF WE WANNA RECEIVE ANY ADDITIONAL PUBLIC TESTIMONY.