[City Planning Commission]
[00:00:03]
MS. PASINA, WHEN YOU'RE READY, CAN YOU PLEASE START US OFF WITH THE ROLL CALL? OKAY.
DISTRICT 14 HERE AND PLACE 15 I HERE? YEAH.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MS. PASINA.
GOOD AFTERNOON LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
TODAY IS THURSDAY, MARCH 23RD, 2023.
IT IS 12:46 PM AND WELCOME TO THE HEARING OF THE DALLAS CITY PLAIN COMMISSION.
COUPLE OF QUICK ANNOUNCEMENTS BEFORE WE GET STARTED.
UH, AS ALWAYS, WE'LL START OUT WITH OUR SPEAKER, UH, RULES.
EACH SPEAKER WILL RECEIVE THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK.
UH, THIS IS A HYBRID MEETING, SO WE'LL RECEIVE SOME SPEAKERS, UH, THAT WILL BE ONLINE.
SO I'LL ASK OUR FOLKS ONLINE TO PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT YOUR CAMERA IS ON WHEN YOU SPEAK.
STATE LAW REQUIRES US THAT WE MUST BE ABLE TO SEE YOU IN ORDER TO HEAR FROM YOU.
UM, ALSO PER OUR RULES, IN CASES WHERE THERE IS OPPOSITION, UH, THE APPLICANT WILL GET A TWO MINUTE REBUTTAL FOR, UH, ALL YOU FOLKS THAT ARE HERE WITH US TODAY.
UH, WE HAVE THESE LITTLE YELLOW FORMS DOWN HERE AT THIS TABLE TO THE BOTTOM RIGHT.
PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT YOU FILL ONE OF THESE OUT AT SOME POINT.
WE'D REALLY LIKE TO HAVE A RECORD OF YOUR VISIT WITH US HERE TODAY.
AND WITH THAT COMMISSIONERS, WE'RE GONNA GET STARTED INTO THE DOCKET.
UH, BUT WE HAVE A COUPLE OF VERY QUICK ANNOUNCEMENTS.
UH, GOOD AFTERNOON COMMISSIONERS.
RYAN MULKEY, PLANNING MANAGER OVER THE ZONING TEAM AND PLANNING AND URBAN DESIGN.
UM, I JUST WANNA ANNOUNCE THAT WE HAVE RECENTLY HIRED SOME NEW STAFF.
UM, MY TEAM, THE ZONING TEAM, UM, HAD A, A NEW SENIOR PLANNER JOIN US IN THE PAST FEW WEEKS.
UM, SHE'S COMING TO US FROM MCALLEN, TEXAS.
UH, WE'RE VERY EXCITED TO HAVE HER AND WE'RE VERY CONFIDENT SHE'LL BE A GREAT ADDITION TO THE TEAM.
UM, AND THEN WE ALSO HAVE A NEW SENIOR PLANNER JOINING THE SPECIAL ZONING PROJECTS TEAM, WHICH IS, UH, HEADED BY DONNA MORMAN, UH, TC BLUE.
UH, SHE'S COMING TO US FROM THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT HERE AT THE CITY OF DALLAS.
UH, VERY EXCITED TO HAVE HER AS WELL.
AND WE'RE, UH, LOOKING FORWARD TO CONTINUING TO HIRE, UM, NEW STAFF.
SO, UH, YOU KNOW, PLEASE MAKE SURE THEY, THEY FEEL WELCOME AND, AND THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH MR. MALKEY, AND WELCOME TO, UH, MS. GARCIA AND MS. TOIA BLUE.
UH, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE'RE GONNA GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED RIGHT INTO THE DOCKET.
UH, THE FIRST ITEMS THAT WE WILL DISPOSE OF ARE THE ZONING CASES ON THE CONSENT AGENDA DOCKET.
UH, THEY CONSIST OF CASES THREE THROUGH NINE.
UH, AT THIS POINT, CASES 5, 7, 8, AND NINE HAVE COME OFF THE CONSENT AGENDA.
SO THOSE, THOSE WILL BE DISPOSED OF AND VOTED ON INDIVIDUALLY.
THAT LEAVES CASES THREE, FOUR, AND SIX THAT WILL BE DISPOSED OF IN ONE MOTION, UNLESS THERE IS SOMEONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON, ON THOSE CASES, ANY OF THOSE CASES, THEN WE WILL PULL IT OFF THE CONSENT AND VOTE ON IT INDIVIDUALLY.
IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO BE HEARD ON CASE NUMBER THREE, FOUR OR SIX? IT'S ON PAGE ONE AND TWO OF THE AGENDA, AND THERE'S AGENDAS DOWN HERE ON THE TABLE IF, IF YOU NEED 1, 3, 4, AND SIX.
WE'LL BEGIN WITH THE BRIEFING OF CASE NUMBER THREE, PLEASE.
IT'S AN APPLICATION FOR A CR COMMUNITY RETAIL DISTRICT WITH DEED RESTRICTIONS VOLUNTEERED BY THE APPLICANT ON PROPERTY ZONED A TH THREE TOWNHOUSE DISTRICT WITH EACH 118 ZION HILL MISSIONARY BAPTIST CHURCH HISTORIC OVERLAY, AND AN OUR FIVE SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT, NORTHWEST AND NORTH ON THE NORTH, NORTHWEST AND NORTHEAST CORNERS OF MORRELL AVENUE IN FERNWOOD AVENUE.
THE PURPOSE OF THE REQUEST IS TO ALLOW COMMERCIAL USES WITHIN THE EXISTING BUILDING.
IT'S LOCATED HERE SOUTH OF TRINITY RIVER.
IT'S THE AREA OF REQUEST, AERIAL MAP.
YOU CAN SEE THE EXISTING BUILDING ON
[00:05:01]
THE WESTERN PART OF THE REQUEST.EXISTING SERVICE PARKING ON THE EASTERN PART.
UM, SO THE NORTHEAST, GENERALLY SINGLE FAMILY, UH, TO THE EAST, THERE'S GENERALLY SINGLE FAMILY.
THERE'S SOME TO THE SOUTHEAST AS WELL.
UM, THEN THERE'S DUPLEXES AND MIXED RESIDENTIAL TO THE SOUTH AND THERE'S MULTI-FAMILY TO THE WEST.
AND THE AREA OF REQUEST IS CURRENTLY TH THREE AND R FIVE ZONING.
IT'S CURRENTLY BUILT OUT AS A CHURCH AND THERE IT'S ASSOCIATED SURFACE PARKING.
THEY'RE PROPOSING TO UTILIZE THAT EXISTING STRUCTURE WITH THEATER AND OFFICE USES.
THE APPLICANT PLANS TO IMPROVE THE EXISTING PARKING LOT EAST OF FERNWOOD FOR CONTINUED USES PARKING.
THE EXISTING STRUCTURE AT 9 0 9 MOR MORALE, THE PRIMARY BUILDING OF THE EXISTING CHURCH IS DESIGNATED WITH THE H ONE 18 ZION HILL MISSIONARY BAPTIST CHURCH HISTORIC OVERLAY.
THE APPLICANT HAS VOLUNTEER DE RESTRICTIONS WHICH PROHIBIT USES, WHICH MAY BE CONSIDERED INCOMPATIBLE WITH NEARBY RESIDENTIAL.
THE REMAINING USES WOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR NEIGHBORHOOD SCALE COMMERCIAL, THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, SITE LIMITATIONS AND DECONSTRUCTIONS ALL FUNCTION TO LIMIT THE SITE TO ONLY ALLOWING RETAIL AND SERVICE USES THAT ARE COMPLIMENTARY TO THE SURROUNDING AREA AND INTENSITY AND SCALE
HERE'S THE PRIMARY BUILDING OF THE EXISTING, UH, FACILITY.
THIS IS AT THE CORNER OF MORRE AND FERNWOOD AND THIS IS GOING UP FERNWOOD, LOOKING AT SOME MORE OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE, UH, EXISTING ALLEY BEHIND THE EXISTING STRUCTURE.
THEN TURN IT AROUND, UM, LOOKING AT THE EXISTING PARKING FACILITY FOR THE EXISTING CHURCH.
AND THEN THIS IS BACK IN FRONT OF THE, UH, CHURCH BUILDING LOOKING EAST ONAL, LOOKING BACK AT SOME MORE OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE.
AND THEN THAT'S THE WESTERN HALF OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE.
MORALE SURROUNDING HOMES ACROSS THE STREET.
UM, IT'S ANOTHER FRONTAGE OF THE PROPERTY.
IT'S A BIG HILL, UM, BUT WE'RE DOWN ON HARLANDALE STREET AND LOOKING UP AT THE HILL AT THE PROPERTY ITSELF.
AND THEN THERE'S THE OTHER SIDE OF THE ALLEY ON THE HARLANDALE SIDE.
THEN LOOKING UP HARLANDALE NORTH, UM, TOWARDS THE OTHER RESIDENTIAL BLOCKS TO THE NORTH WITH THE MULTI-FAMILY ON OUR WEST OR LEFT.
AND THAT'S THE MULTI-FAMILY TO THE WEST OF THE EXISTING SITE.
THEN THIS IS ON FERNDALE LOOKING NORTH FROM, UM, FROM THE EXISTING FACILITY INTO THE RESIDENTIAL TO THE, TO THE NORTH ACROSS THE ALLEY.
THIS IS JUST ANOTHER QUARTER BLOCK UP INTO THE RESIDENTIAL AREA.
AND THEN THIS IS SOUTH, UM, WITH THE PARKING FACILITY ON OUR LEFT, THE EXISTING CHURCH ON OUR RIGHT.
UM, SOME OF THE RESIDENTIALS ARE THE SOUTH.
THAT'S ANOTHER VIEW OF THE RESIDENTIAL TO THE SOUTH WITH MORAL, UH, WE INCLUDED DE RESTRICTIONS VOLUNTEERED BY THE APPLICANT AND GENERALLY AT THE END OF THE DAY, THEY ARE RESTRICTING OUT, UH, MANY OF THE ADDITIONAL USES THAT ARE ALLOWED IN A CR COMMUNITY RETAIL, UM, TO MAKE IT MORE NEIGHBORHOOD, UM, APPROPRIATE, UM, WHILE LEAVING IN A COUPLE THAT THE APPLICANT, UM, WOULD LIKE THE ABILITY TO OCCUPY IN THE EXISTING BUILDING.
SO STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO DEED RESTRICTIONS VOLUNTEERED BY THE APPLICANT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. PIPPI.
QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS? YES, COMMISSIONER TREADWAY.
UM, COUPLE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE DEED RESTRICTIONS.
IF I READ IT CORRECTLY, IT LOOKS LIKE THEY ARE NOT RESTRICTING OUT HOTEL OR MOTEL ANIMAL SHELTER WITH RUNS AND COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLE PARKING.
LET ME CLARIFY AS I CAN ONE AT A TIME.
UM, FIRST ONE'S HOTEL OR MOTEL.
YEAH, SO THAT ONE WILL REMAIN.
UM, THEY SPECIFICALLY SAID THEY'D LIKE THE POSSIBILITY FOR THAT IN THE FUTURE WHERE THEY COULD OCCUPY, UM, A SMALL PORTION OF THE BUILDING.
THEY CAN SPEAK TO WHETHER THAT WOULD BE, BUT IT WOULD BE LIMITED IN NATURE DUE TO THE SIZE, UM, OF THE SITE AND THE FACT THAT THEY HAVE TO MAINTAIN THE, UH, EXISTING BUILDING.
SO THAT'S ONE, UM, ONE USE THAT THEY, THEY LEFT IN INTENTIONALLY.
AND THE NEXT ONE WAS ANIMAL SHELTER WITH RUNS.
THEY EXCLUDED ANIMAL SHELTER WITHOUT RUNS.
ARE YOU LOOKING AT THE USE TABLE? MM-HMM.
AND I JUST THOUGHT IT WAS INTERESTING THAT ONE WAS EXCLUDED, BUT THE ONE THAT WOULD'VE BEEN NOISIER
[00:10:01]
WAS NOT EXCLUDED.IT'S NOT ALLOWED IN CR OH, IT'S NOT.
SO YOU'LL SEE YEAH, THE, YOU GOT IT.
SO ANIMAL SHELTER WITH OUTSIDE RUNS IS, IS BLANK ON THE TABLE CUZ IT'S COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLE PARKING AS WELL.
IT'S, IT'S NOT, THEN THAT ANSWERS MY QUESTION.
SO HOTEL OR MOTEL WAS INTENTIONALLY LEFT IN? THAT'S, THAT'S CORRECT.
AND I THINK YOU, YOU SPOKE TO COMMERCIAL MOTOR COMMISSIONER CARPENTER JUST TOLD ME IT'S NOT PERMITTED THERE ANYWAY, WHICH IS WHY IT DOESN'T NEED TO BE RESTRICTED OUT.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER YOUNG, PLEASE.
UH, THIS IS, AS I SEE IT SURROUNDED ON THREE SIDES BY SINGLE FAMILY AND ON THE FOURTH SIDE BY MULTI-FAMILY AND IS THE ONLY COMMERCIAL FOR SOME DISTANCE AROUND, UH, THE DEED RESTRICTIONS, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, DO NOT PROHIBIT A PUBLIC OR PRIVATE SCHOOL THAT IS CORRECT.
SO THAT IS, THAT IS STILL A USE, UM, ALLOWED IN, IN THEIR, BUT SUBJECT TO ALL OF THE OTHER THINGS THAT APPLY TO A A BY RIGHT SCHOOL THAT WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING TODAY.
BUT, BUT THE CITY WOULD NOT HAVE THE POWER TO DENY A PUBLIC SCHOOL OR PRIVATE SCHOOL AT THAT LOCATION.
AND LIKEWISE SUCH USES AS FURNITURE STORE, NURSERY, GARDEN SHOP OR PLANT SALES, UM, PERSONAL SERVICE USES, WHICH AS WE KNOW IS A VERY BROAD CATEGORY.
THOSE, THOSE WOULD BE ALLOWED, UM, YOU KNOW, SUBJECT TO ALL THE OTHER RESTRICTIONS OF THE ZONING ITSELF.
BUT THOSE RESTRICT, WELL, OKAY, PARKING MIGHT BE A RESTRICTION, BUT, BUT APART FROM PARKING, THERE WOULD BE NOTHING TO PREVENT THE ENTIRE BUILDING FROM BEING USED FOR ANY ONE OR A COMBINATION OF THOSE, UH, AS LONG AS THEY GET THEIR CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY.
UH, TO FOLLOW UP ON COMMISSIONER TREAD WAY'S, QUESTION ON THE HOTEL.
WAS THERE ANY DISCUSSION OF BED AND BREAKFAST VERSUS A HOTEL, WHICH SEEMS MORE APPROPRIATE WITH THE SCALE HERE? THERE WAS, THERE WAS NOT ANY DISCUSSION OF THAT.
AND SECOND QUESTION, I NOTICED THAT PART OF THIS REZONING REQUEST INCLUDES A HISTORIC OVERLAY.
HAS THIS BEEN REVIEWED WITH LANDMARK COMMISSION? IT, SO IT DOES HAVE HISTORIC OVERLAY THAT APPLIES TO THE EXISTING CHURCH BUILDING.
UM, ANY EXTERIOR, ANY EXTERIOR MODIFICATIONS ARE GOING TO REQUIRE A CERTIFICATE APPROPRIATENESS AT LANDMARK COMMISSION.
UM, APPLICANT CAN CLARIFY IF THEY, IF THAT IS, YOU KNOW, GOING TO OCCUR, BUT TO MAKE CHANGES TO THE OUTSIDE, THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO TO LANDMARK COMMISSION, BUT WE HAVE, WE HAVE HAD IT REVIEWED BY OUR OHP STAFF AND THEY'RE ON THE SAME PAGE AS US.
AND SO RELATED TO THAT, UM, WHAT IS THE BASE ZONING CURRENTLY FOR THE HISTORIC DISTRICT? BECAUSE THIS WOULD CHANGE THAT BASE ZONING DESIGNATION, CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.
BASE ZONING OF, SO THE, THAT'S ON THE CHURCH PROPERTY, WHICH IS ON THE WESTERN PARCEL.
WESTERN PARCEL IS ZONED T H THREE RIGHT NOW.
AND THEN YOU CAN SEE THAT THERE IS THAT LITTLE, UM, ESPECIALLY AROUND THE OLDEST PART OF THE CHURCH BUILDING THE, UH, HISTORIC OVERLAY DESIGNATION.
SO THAT'S THE PART, UM, MOST SPECIFICALLY THAT IT'S PROTECTED BY, UM, THE HISTORIC ORDINANCE.
I JUST, I WASN'T ABLE TO DETERMINE FROM THE MAP AND I TRIED TO PULL IT UP IF TH TH THREE COVERED THE WHOLE PARCEL OR IF IT WAS ONLY TO THE WEST OF WHERE THE OVERLAY WAS TH THREE.
AND I THINK THAT KIND OF WENT INTO OUR ASSESSMENT THAT UNDER TH THREE, THERE'S NOT MANY WAYS TO REUTILIZE A BUILDING SUCH AS THAT, BUT THEY DO NEED TO, UM, THEY DO NEED TO MAINTAIN THE BUILDING PER THE ORDINANCE.
SO, UM, A COMMERCIAL IS, IS ONE WAY TO REUTILIZE A BUILDING LIKE THAT RATHER THAN TH THREE.
AND SO AS THIS WAS EVALUATED, WAS THERE ANY CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS THAT WOULD ENSURE COMPATIBILITY OF FUTURE DEVELOPMENT WITH THE HISTORIC OVERLAY? THEY, I MEAN, THEY STILL HAVE TO MEET THE HISTORIC OVERLAYS.
I NOT, I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT SPECIFIC TO THE, UM, HISTORIC CHURCH BUILDING ITSELF, BUT TO THE NEW DEVELOPMENT THAT WILL BE ANTICIPATED ON THE OTHER LOTS.
THEY, I MEAN, THEY, THEY CAN BUILD ANYTHING ELSE UNDER THE TYPICAL BASE ZONING, UM, WHICH IS CR OR MODIFIED CR.
[00:15:01]
SO WE, WE DIDN'T LOOK AT, UM, BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF THE SITE, UM, AND IN THE NATURE OF HOW DIFFICULT IT WOULD BE TO HAVE TO WRITE INDIVIDUAL CONDITIONS FOR, FOR ONE SITE THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE UNDER A, A PD OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.SO WE, WE DIDN'T GO THAT ROUTE.
UM, AND, AND STUCK WITH A BASE ON, WITH THE USES REMOVED.
I NOTICED THAT, UM, CR IS RECOMMENDED.
WAS THERE ANY CONSIDERATION OF NS WHICH ALSO SEEMS MORE COMPATIBLE IN TERMS OF SCALE WITH THE SURROUNDING RESIDENTIAL? YES.
SO ACTUALLY NS WAS IN SORT OF THE ORIGINAL CONSIDERATION, WE SAW IT WITH STAFF, UM, BUT THE APPLICANT, ONE OF THE APPLICANTS, UH, PRIMARY PROPOSED USES IS THEATER, UH, THEATER BEING A C R U.
SO THEY NEEDED TO, TO HAVE CR TO DO THAT, AND STAFF TOOK A LOOK AT IT AND SAID, OKAY, THEATER ISN'T ALLOWABLE USE IN CR AND IT CAN BE NEIGHBORHOOD APPROPRIATE IN A SMALL SCALE GIVEN SITE LIMITATIONS.
UH, BUT MANY OF THE OTHER CR USES ARE NOT.
THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE WITH, WITH CR WITH D RESTRICTIONS RATHER THAN AN AN NS.
IF IT WAS ONLY OFFICE OR, UM, SMALL RETAIL USES, THEN AN NS WOULD, YOU KNOW, ALLOW THEM TO DO THAT.
BUT ONE OF THE, ONE OF THEIR PROPOSED USES AND ONE OF THE ONES THAT THEY HAD WORKED WITH THE COMMUNITY ON TO BRING TO THIS SIDE IS THEATER.
AND THAT'S THEATER WITHIN THE HISTORIC BUILDING, CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.
UM, ONE, SORRY, AS WE WENT THROUGH THIS THEN I SORT OF CAUGHT UP WITH, UM, A POTENTIAL ADDITIONAL QUESTION.
IS THERE ANYTHING THAT WOULD PROHIBIT A, A FUTURE SHORT-TERM RENTAL WITH THE CA IF IT'S BASE CR ZONING? WAS THAT ANYTHING THAT WAS DISCUSSED? UM, WE DIDN'T DISCUSS THAT, BUT BECAUSE HOTEL WOULD BE ALLOWED BY RIGHT? CORRECT.
UM, BUT OTHER DWELLING UNITS ARE NOT ALLOWED.
OTHER KINDS OF DWELLING OR OTHER TYPICAL DWELLING UNITS ARE NOT BUILT INTO THE CR.
UH, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONERS, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, PLEASE.
UM, THANK YOU MR. PEPPE FOR YOUR WORK AND, AND FOR YOUR COMMENTS AND, AND MESSAGES.
AND, AND DID YOU, UM, TALK TO THE APPLICANT ABOUT GENERAL MERCHANDISE AND FOOD STORE? I NOTICED THAT THOSE ARE RESTRICTED AND IS THERE ANY OPPORTUNITY THINKING IN, IN TERMS OF COMMUNITY RESILIENCY, UM, AND THEN IN THE FUTURE POTENTIALLY HAVING SOME KIND OF FOOD SOURCE THERE? DO, DO YOU THINK THAT THEY WOULD HAVE ANY KIND OF, UM, RESERVATION AGAINST THAT? YEAH, SO GENERAL MERCHANDISER FOOD STORE, UM, LESS THAN 3,500 SQUARE FEET IS STILL ALLOWED UNDER THIS ZONING.
SO THEY CAN DO A, A SMALLER SCALE FOOD, ANY KIND OF RETAIL STORE, UM, BASED ON THAT.
UM, THEY PROHIBITED THE LARGER, UH, RETAIL ESTABLISHMENTS SORT OF IN THE SPIRIT OF BEING MORE SIMILAR TO N MS AS WE, AS WE JUST DISCUSSED.
BUT THE, A SMALL, SMALL RETAIL ESTABLISHMENTS UP TO 3,500 SQUARE FEET ARE TOTALLY, UH, PERMITTED.
AND WHAT WAS THE REASON, UM, THAT WE ARE LEAVING COMMUNITY SERVICE CENTER BY S U P WITH IT BEING A CHURCH AND THE SERVICES THAT THEY ALREADY, UM, OFFER OR WAS THAT SOMETHING THAT, THAT WAS, UH, BY THE CODE? ONE, ONE MOMENT.
BECAUSE MOST OF THE THINGS THAT ARE NO LONGER BY S U P, UH, THAT WERE ESSENTIALLY BY S U P ARE NO LONGER BY S U P.
AND THE ONE THAT KIND OF STUCK OUT WAS THE COMMUNITY SERVICE IS STILL LISTED AS BY S U P.
UM, MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT IS TO MATCH, UM, THE NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICE, UH, OR EXCUSE ME, NOT THE NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICE, BUT THE, THE COMMUNITY RETAIL.
UM, IF I COULD JUMP IN REAL QUICK, COMMISSIONER WHEELER.
UM, SO WITH DEED RESTRICTIONS, WE CAN GO MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN WHAT BASE CODE PERMITS.
SO IF THE BASE CR DISTRICT, A COMMUNITY SERVICE CENTER REQUIRES AN U, WE COULD GO MORE RESTRICTIVE, MEANING WE COULD PROHIBIT THE USE ALTOGETHER, BUT WE CAN'T REMOVE THE REQUIREMENT FOR AN U IN THE DISTRICT BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE LESS RESTRICTIVE THAN WHAT BASE CODE ALLOWS.
SO EVEN THOUGH THAT THE, SO ON THE OTHER ONES, THEY ARE IN THE BASE CODE, THEY'RE ALLOWED CUZ ON, ON THE ONE THEY ARE CURRENTLY, MOST OF THE ONES IN THE FIRST COLUMN IN EXISTING ARE
[00:20:01]
BY, UH, U P AND THEN THE ONE, THAT'S THE ONLY ONE THAT KIND OF STICKS OUT THAT IS NOW NO LONGER.ANY ANY OF THE, THE USES IN THE CR WITH DR COLUMN OF, OF MR. PEPE'S TABLE THAT SAY PROHIBITED BY DR.
UM, THOSE WOULD BE PERMITTED IN A BASE CR DISTRICT IN SOME WAY, EITHER BY RIDE OR BY S U OR RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY REVIEW, ET CETERA.
UM, COMMUNITY SERVICE CENTER, UM, IS NOT PROPOSED TO BE PROHIBITED, BUT IT WOULD STILL REQUIRE AN U BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THE BASE DISTRICT ACQUIRES.
COMMISSIONER RUBEN, JUST A QUICK FOLLOW UP.
IF, IF THE CHURCH CONTINUES TO OPERATE, CAN THE CHURCH RUN COMMUNITY SERVICE TYPE CENTER TYPE USES WITHOUT AN ST AS AN ACCESSORY USE? THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.
I AM NOT POSITIVE, UM, WHERE THAT LINE IS DRAWN ON, ON, YOU KNOW, SMALL, UH, DISTRIBUTION OR NOT.
BUT TYPICALLY COMMUNITY SERVICE CENTERS ARE, ARE WHAT WE HAVE FOR FOOD AND AND CLOTHING DISTRIBUTION IN A FULL SCALE.
AND THAT'S THE SINGLE PURPOSE OF IT.
BUT I'M, UM, IN, IN THE CONTEXT OF A CHURCH, I'M NOT SURE OF IT.
ANY, UH, COMMISSIONER YOUNG, PLEASE? UH, YES.
AM I RIGHT THAT HOTEL OR MOTEL IN CR WOULD REQUIRE A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT? I NEED TO, TO CONFIRM THAT.
WELL WE'VE, WE'VE LOOKED AT THE CODE DOWN HERE AND IT'S A SPEC, IT'S A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT.
FOR CR I I, I'M NOW RECALLING THAT WE LEFT IT OUT OF THE DEED RESTRICTIONS.
UM, WE, WE DID LOOK AT IT AND WE SAID, UM, LET'S, WE CAN LEAVE THE POSSIBILITY OF IT ONLY THROUGH A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT.
MY APOLOGIES CUZ I, I DIDN'T MARK, UM, ON THE TABLE AS I ASKED, BUT THE, THE THOUGHT WAS PUBLIC HEARING WOULD BE REQUIRED TO, TO OUT THAT ONE.
SO I THINK THAT, UH, COMMISSIONER, UM, RUBEN COUNTY CLARIFIED WHY I WAS ASKING THAT QUESTION ABOUT CONS, UH, COM COMMUNITY SERVICE CENTER.
IS THERE A WAY THAT WE CAN FIND OUT AND MAYBE IS IT BECAUSE WHAT IS OFFERED UP UNDER THE CHURCH IS NOT NECESSARY JUST CLASSIFIED SEPARATELY AS A COMMUNITY SERVICE CENTER OR, BECAUSE THAT WAS THE REASON KIND MY NOT SEPARATE, UM, BUT ACCESSORY TOO.
HOW DO WE, HOW CAN WE FIND THAT OUT? YEAH, I'LL HAVE TO CHECK WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TO WHAT DEGREE THEY ALLOW AN, AN ACCESSORY AMOUNT OF, UH, COMMUNITY SERVICE, UH, FUNCTION TO BE CARRIED OUT AT CHURCH.
THEY ARE COMMUNITY SERVICE CENTER AND CHURCH OF DIFFERENT USES IN THE CODE.
UM, BUT I'LL, I'LL HAVE TO CLARIFY WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, IF THERE'S A DEGREE OF THAT DISTRIBUTION THAT'S ALLOWED UNDER CHURCHES, AND SO WILL THE CHURCH KNOW THAT THAT'S NOT, IF, IF IT IS ALLOWED, WILL, WILL THEY BE INFORMED THAT THOSE TYPE OF, THOSE TYPE OF COMMUNITY SERVICE SERVICES THAT THEY'RE OFFERED ARE ALLOWED IS JUST NOT STANDALONE? IF IT, IF THAT'S THE KIND OF THE ACCESSORY LIGHT, I'LL, I'LL GET SOME CLARIFICATION ON MONDAY.
COMMISSIONER HERBERT FIRST ROUND FOR YOU, SIR.
UM, JUST LOOKING AT THE, UH, AREA AND THE MAP, I'M KIND OF FAMILIAR WITH THE AREA AS WELL.
UM, THERE'S A KIND OF A MANMADE ALLEY BEHIND THE CHURCH IN THE PARKING LOT OR HAS, HAS, IS THAT A PART OF THEIR PLAN TO DEVELOP? I EVEN SEE A FENCE THAT SEEMED TO BE BUILT BY THEM AT, NOT THEM, BUT THE PREVIOUS OWNER AT SOME POINT WILL.
IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE A CITY OWNED ALLEY, IF THAT MAKES SENSE.
IT, IT, IT IS NOT, IT'S NOT PART OF THE, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
IT, THERE IS AN ALLEY BEHIND THERE, SO THERE IS A PLATTED ALLEY OR UM, AN ALLEY ON THERE.
I I DON'T KNOW IF THEY PLAN TO IMPROVE IT OR NOT.
SOMETIMES IF THEY WANT TO HAVE ACCESS TO IT, THEY HAVE TO IMPROVE IT.
UM, ACCESSING A COMMERCIAL, EXCUSE ME, ACCESSING AN ALLEY, UM, THAT IS USED BY RESIDENTIAL FOR COMMERCIAL IS USUALLY, UM, NOT ALLOWED.
BUT IN THIS, IN THIS CASE, THE ALLEY IS THERE ON, ON THE PLATS AND WE, UM, YOU KNOW, WE EVALUATE IT AS THAT'S ADDITIONAL DISTANCE AND BUFFERING BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL AND, AND, UH, COMMERCIAL SITES.
SO THAT, THAT ALLEY IS, IS THERE, WHETHER IT'S, WHETHER IT'S BUILT OUT AS LOOKING LIKE AN ALLEY, BUT IT LEGALLY AS IN TERMS OF BUILDING LINES AND AND BUILDING SCIENCE, IT'S THERE, UM, NORTH OF THE CHURCH BUILDING PARCELS AND THE PARKING LOT PARCELS.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONERS? OKAY, MR. PE, CAN YOU PLEASE READ THE RECORD? WE'LL GO AHEAD AND HEAR IT NOW.
Z 2 12 206 IS AN APPLICATION FOR A CR COMMUNITY RETAIL DISTRICT WITH DEED RESTRICTIONS VOLUNTEERED BY
[00:25:01]
THE APPLICANT ON PROPERTY ZONED AT T THREE TOWNHOUSE DISTRICT WITH H 118 ZION HILL MISSIONARY BAPTIST CHURCH HISTORIC OVERLAY, AND AN R FIVE, A SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT STAFF RECOMMENDATION LO LOCATED AT NORTHWEST AND NORTHEAST CORNERS OF MOR AVENUE IN FERNWOOD AVENUE.STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO DEED RESTRICTIONS VOLUNTEERED BY THE APPLICANT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH MR. PEPPI.
IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO BE HEARD ON THIS ITEM? I'LL SEE THAT THE APPLICANT IS HERE AGAIN FOR ALL OUR SPEAKERS.
UM, WE'LL GO THREE MINUTES PER SPEAKER.
MS. PASINA, WE'LL KEEP TIME AND SHE WILL LET YOU KNOW YOUR TIME IS UP.
PLEASE BEGIN WITH YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
I'M JUST PULLING UP HIS PRESENTATION.
PAUL CARD 82 35 DOUGLAS AVENUE, SUITE SEVEN 20 DALLAS.
UM, SO JUST TO GO OVER THIS CASE A LITTLE BIT.
UM, SO FOR THIS CASE, THIS IS, UM, A HISTORIC CHURCH DESIGN HILL, UH, MISSIONARY BAPTIST CHURCH, AND WE'RE TRYING TO TRANSFORM INTO SOMETHING CALLED THE OAK CLIFF ASSEMBLY.
THE APPLICANT, UH, WANTS TO TAKE THIS APPROXIMATELY 15,000 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING AND PUT IN OFFICES AND THEATER SPACE.
AND THE HISTORY OF THIS SPACE IS, IS PRETTY NEAT.
SO IT WAS REALLY BUILT, UH, WITH A 1200 SEA CAPACITY SANCTUARY.
UM, QUITE A LOT CONSIDERING THE SIZE OF THE BUILDING.
UM, AND IT HAS SERVED AN HISTORIC ANCHOR FOR THE BRENTWOOD COMMUNITY AND BRENTWOOD COM COMMUNITY AND WE INTEND TO SEE THAT, UH, CONTINUE IN THE FUTURE, UH, AND HELP WITH REMAIN AN ANCHOR FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS.
SO SITE LOCATION DOWN HERE TOWARDS THE SOUTH IN BLUE IS OAK CLIFF.
EM IS THE OAK CLIFF ASSEMBLY, THE, THE SITE LOCATION IN BLUE.
UM, PEOPLE HAVE BEEN CONTACTED AND ARE SHOWN THEIR SUPPORT ARE IN ALL IN ORANGE.
THERE ARE TWO TRANSIT STATIONS WITHIN WALKING RANGE.
THE DALLAS, THE DART DALLAS, UH, ZOO STATION THAT IS ABOUT SEVEN MINUTE WALK AWAY, AND THEN THE STATION DIRECTLY DOWN THE ROAD ABOUT EIGHT MINUTE WALK AWAY.
SO PLENTY OF TRANSIT ACCESS COMBINED WITH ITS PARKING.
UM, AGAIN, PRIMARY LIEUTENANT USES ARE THE URBAN ARTS THEATER.
THEY'LL BE RELOCATING TO THIS SPACE, UH, CONTINUED ON ZONING, UH, TO PROVIDE A COMMUNITY EVENTS AND TRAINING AND PODCASTS AND JUST AGAIN, A GATHERING SPACE, UH, CONTINUING TO HAVE THAT ROLE AS A FOCAL POINT FOR THE COMMUNITY JUST IN A DIFFERENT, UH, FORM.
SO WITH, UH, ALSO LOOKING AT ADDING A SMALL COFFEE SHOP, POTENTIALLY A SMALL RESTAURANT OFFICE SPACE, OFFICE SPACES.
AND FOR THE PARKING LOT, IT'S REALLY IS PROVIDING OPPORTUNITY FOR FUTURE SMALL SCALE RETAIL.
THIS IS A PARTICULAR REASON WHY WE RESTRICTED THE GENERAL MERCHANDISE BELOW 3,500 SQUARE FEET TO ENSURE THAT, AGAIN, THAT IS AS TOWARD A SMALLER SCALE.
UM, AND THIS KINDA GIVES YOU A CONCEPTUAL OVERVIEW, JUST KIND OF SOME OF THE ARTISTIC DRAWINGS.
UM, AGAIN, STUFF LIKE BARBERS, OFFICE SUITES, THE COURTYARD, COFFING CAFE, THESE ARE AMENITIES THAT, UM, RESIDENTS, UH, INCLUDING MYSELF ACTUALLY, UM, HAVE NOT HAD IN THIS AREA FOR YEARS, DECADES EVEN.
UM, SO TO THE RESIDENTS OF BRENTWOOD, THAT DOES MEAN QUITE A BIT TO JUST HAVE THAT LOCAL AMENITY THAT FOR MANY OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS WITHIN THE CITY, THEY MAY CONSIDER FOR GRANTED.
UM, AGAIN, MORE VIDEOS OF, YOU KNOW, PUT US A COURTYARD COFFEE, UM, KIND OF GETTING MORE INTERIOR SHOTS OF KIND OF WHAT THE CONS CONCEPT IS SUPPOSED TO LOOK LIKE.
WE DID HOST A COMMUNITY MEETING, UM, LAST WEEK, AND THIS IS THE APPLICANT THEMSELVES PRESENTING, UM, COMMUNITY MEMBERS AND ATTENDANCE, INCLUDING THE, UH, BRENTWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD PRESIDENT RI AUSTIN.
UM, HERE'S SOME OF THE COMMENT CARDS FROM THOSE MEETINGS.
SO, UH, WE HAVE MORE COMMENTS, POSITIVE, UM, PEOPLE ARE REALLY EXCITED.
THEY'RE REALLY, REALLY LOOKING FORWARD TO SEEING THIS PROJECT.
UM, AND HOW COOL IS IT TO REALLY BE ABLE TO DO THAT WITHIN, IN HISTORIC CONTEXT.
UM, AND THEN AGAIN, THE CURRENT PARKING LOT.
SO APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO IMPROVE THE PARKING LOT, UM, UH, AND OF COURSE MAKE SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENTS TO THE COURTYARD IN THE INTERIOR OF THE HISTORIC BUILDING.
HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS, UH, IF ANY.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO BE HEARD ON THIS ITEM? YES, SIR.
I AM THE PRODUCING EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR THE URBAN ARTS CENTER.
UM, URBAN ARTS CENTER IS A, UH, 14 YEAR OLD COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION WHERE WE PROVIDE THEATER, DANCE, MUSIC, UM, PHOTOGRAPHY, AS WELL AS, UH, VIDEOGRAPHY LESSONS, UM, AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE COMMUNITY.
FOR THE LAST THREE, THREE PLUS YEARS, WE HAVE BEEN IN THE BRENTWOOD AREA, UM, OPERATING AND, UM, WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO FIND OUT ABOUT THE OAK CLIFF ASSEMBLY AND REALLY BE ABLE TO, UH, EXCITED ABOUT EXPANDING OUR REACH IN THE COMMUNITY.
[00:30:01]
THEATER CLASSES FOR BOTH ADULTS AND FOR THO AND FOR CHILDREN AS WELL.UM, AND WE REALLY NEED THAT, UM, THE ACCESS TO THAT THEATER SPACE, TO INCLU AND TO, UM, CONTINUE TO, UM, PROVIDE THOSE CLASSES AND THOSE OPPORTUNITIES FOR, TO OUR KNOWLEDGE.
WE ARE THE ONLY ART CENTER IN THE DISTRICT AND, UM, THAT'S BEEN ONE OF THE BIG, THE BIG PLUSES FOR US FROM THE OFFICE OF ARTS AND CULTURE SIDE, WHO WE HAVE A GREAT PARTNERSHIP WITH, UM, IS THAT WE'RE PROVIDING THAT ART TO THAT COMMUNITY.
THAT'S A, THAT'S REALLY A CULTURAL DESERT.
UH, SO, SO, UM, WE ARE HERE TO SAY THAT BY, UM, URBAN ARTS POTENTIALLY MOVING INTO THAT SPACE, WE COULD REALLY INCREASE OUR FOOTPRINT, NOT ONLY IN THE BUILDING, BUT IN THE COMMUNITY AND CONTINUE TO DO THE WORK THAT WE HAVE BEEN DOING.
UM, I'M WITH PROXY PROPERTY AND ONE OF THE OWNERS OF THE OAK CLIFF ASSEMBLY CHURCH.
UM, WHEN WE FOUND THIS PROPERTY, IT WAS, IT'S A REALLY SPECIAL PROPERTY.
IT'S VERY, THE SANCTUARY IS HISTOR LANDMARK, UH, IT'S OPEN SPACE.
UM, AND IT WAS CURRENTLY OWN TOWNHOMES.
SO TO TURN IT INTO TOWNHOMES, WE WOULD'VE HAD TO COME AND CHOP THIS ENTIRE SANCTUARY INTO LITTLE TINY SPACES, WHICH WE DIDN'T WANT TO DO.
UM, WHEN I MET GILES, WHO WAS ALREADY WORKING IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD DOING THE ART IRV ARTS CENTER, HE EXPRESSED INTEREST IN IT BEING A THEATER, WHICH IS WHAT PROMPTED US TO SWITCH FROM NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES TO COMMUNITY RETAIL.
UM, AND THAT'S WHERE WE ARE TODAY AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE.
ANY QUESTIONS? THANK YOU FOR JOINING US.
CAN YOU PLEASE STATE YOUR LAST NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD? ANDREW OR AJ RAMMER, 1923 NORTH EDGEFIELD DALLAS.
OKAY, COMMISSIONERS QUESTIONS FOR OUR SPEAKERS.
COMMISSIONER YOUNG, UH, YES FOR MR. CARDEN.
MR. CARD AS YES, AS YOU HEARD ME SAY DURING THE BRIEFING.
UH, THIS SITE IS SURROUNDED ON THREE SIDES BY A SINGLE FAMILY AND ON THE FOURTH BY MULTI-FAMILY MM-HMM.
UH, WITHIN THAT, I THINK YOUR DEED RESTRICTIONS GO A LONG WAY TOWARD IN ENSURING COMPATIBILITY, BUT I WANT TO ASK YOU ABOUT SOME OF THE USES THAT YOU'VE CHOSEN NOT TO DERESTRICT.
UM, PRIVATE SCHOOL COULD BE PERCEIVED AS, UH, FOR EXAMPLE, UM, GUITAR LESSONS OR PODCAST LESSONS.
WE DIDN'T WANT TO BE PINNED IN THE SENSE OF IF THEY'RE WE'RE TEACHING THEM, YOU KNOW, CHILDREN, OKAY.
HOW TO DO PODCASTS OR ARTS OR MEDIA OR SOMETHING.
WE'RE NOT, IT'S NOT REMOTELY IN THE SCALE OF A FULL-BLOWN SCHOOL.
SO COULD THAT BE SOLVED BY SOME SORT OF, UH, RESTRICTION ON THE SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT WOULD BE, UH, UTILIZED FOR THAT PURPOSE? UH, I THINK SO.
WOULD THAT BE OKAY? IS THAT OKAY? YEAH, WE THINK SO, YES.
FURNITURE STORE? UM, WELL THIS IS GEARED TOWARDS THE LOCAL COMMUNITY AT THE LOCAL COMMUNITY IS PRODUCING, YOU KNOW, SMALL SCALE FURNITURE, BOUTIQUE FURNITURE.
THIS IS INTENDED TO BE COMMUNITY SERVING, SO WE WANT TO ENSURE THAT USE IS ALLOWED.
UH, COMMERCIAL PARKING LOT OR GARAGE, UM, COMMERCIAL PARKING LOT, BECAUSE THIS IS A VERY INFILL DEVELOPMENT AND BEING THAT IT'S A COMMERCIAL PARKING LOT FOR STARTERS, WE CAN'T REALLY DO A GARAGE BECAUSE RPS SURROUNDS US ON THREE SIDES.
SO PRACTICALLY THAT'S NOT POSSIBLE AS FOR A COMMERCIAL PARKING LOT, BECAUSE THERE IS, THERE IS ACTUALLY A LITTLE BIT OF RETAIL THAT IS ABOUT 700 FEET TO THE EAST AT MORRELL AND DENLEY.
WE UNDERSTAND THAT MAYBE IT MAKES SENSE TO SHARE PARKING BETWEEN DIFFERENT, UH, RETAIL NODES WITH ALONG THAT MORALE CORRIDOR.
AND CONSIDERING WITH TWO TRANSIT STATIONS, WE WANTED TO ENSURE THAT WE HAVE THE BEST USE OF THE LIMITED PARKING WE DO HAVE.
UH, NURSERY AND GARDEN SHOP, SAME REASON FOR THE FURNITURE STORE.
UM, AGAIN, IF WE HAVE LOCAL GARDENERS WITHIN OUR COMMUNITY, UM, WE DO WANT TO ENSURE THEY'RE ABLE TO PARTICIPATE OR HAVE SMALL, AGAIN, SMALL SCALE SHOPS AND HISTORIC BUILDING EFFECTIVELY LIMITS THE SIZE OF ANYTHING WE COULD PRODUCE.
WOULD YOU CONTEMPLATE AN OUTSIDE COMPONENT TO THOSE? NO, THERE ISN'T REALLY AN OUTSIDE COMPONENT TO THE, TO THE EXISTING BUILDING, UH, LIQUIFIED NATURAL GAS FUELING STATION THAT WE, WE HAVE NO ISSUE WITH.
WE'RE, WE'RE NOT FUELING ANYTHING HERE.
I THINK THAT COMPLETES MY QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HAMPTON.
MR. CARDNER, THIS MAY BE FOR MR. RAMBLER.
I THINK YOU MAY HAVE HEARD MY QUESTION.
DURING THE BRIEFING, IF THERE WAS ANY CONSIDERATION OF, UM, INCLUDING WHAT ALL DEFINED AS DEV DESIGN STANDARDS THAT WOULD ESSENTIALLY MAKE THE NEW DEVELOPMENT COMPATIBLE, UM, WITH
[00:35:01]
THE HISTORIC STRUCTURE, THERE WAS SOME CONSIDERATION OF IT, BUT WHEN YOU, WHEN WE START GETTING INTO DESIGN STANDARD AND KIND OF WITH THIS SMALL SCALE DEVELOPMENT, UM, OUR, THE PRIMARY GOAL OF THE APPLICANT IS FIRST AND FOREMOST TO ENSURE THAT THE HISTORIC CHURCH PERFORMS WELL.UM, WE UNDERSTOOD THE COMMUNITY DOES HAVE A DESIRE TO SEE FUTURE RETAIL AND FUTURE AMENITIES, AND WE KNOW THE CHURCH HAS LIMITED SPACE.
SO OUR PRIMARY REASON FOR ADDING A NET CR WITH ALL THE DEED RESTRICTIONS WAS TO AT LEAST GIVE THE COMMUNITY AN OPPORTUNITY TO SAY, HEY, IF WE DO NEED MORE SPACE, WE COULD THEORETICALLY EXPAND AS NEEDED.
UM, THIS HAS BEEN, AGAIN, A VERY LOCAL EFFORT, UH, JUST SMALL SCALE, SMALL SEAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPERS HISTORICALLY FOCUSED, UM, AND IT'S REALLY JUST GOING IN RESPONSE TO THE COMMUNITY NEEDS.
AND HAVE YOU GUYS BEEN TO LANDMARK COMMISSION YET ON THIS REQUEST? UM, NOT ON, SO FOR THIS ONE, I DON'T, I HAVEN'T PARTICIPATED IN THE LANDMARK COMMISSION REQUEST.
AJ I, I THINK MR. RAMBLER MAY BE ABLE TO SPEAK TO THAT.
WE, AND WHEN WE PURCHASED A PROPERTY, HAVE DONE SOME REPAIRS TO STOP THE CONTINUAL DAMAGE OF THE PROPERTY, AND WE HAVE HAD TO GO WITH, GET CAS FOR ALL THOSE IMPROVEMENTS.
FIRST OF ALL, MY COLLEAGUE POINTS OUT THE LIQUIFIED NATURAL GAS FUELING STATION IS NOT, NOT ALLOWED IN CR THERE'S A, A GLITCH IN THE MATRIX IF YOU PARDON THAT EXPRESSION.
UM, SO FOLLOWING UP ON OUR DISCUSSION, DO YOU HAVE A SUGGESTED NUMBER OF SQUARE FEET FOR PUBLIC OR PRIVATE SCHOOL USE? UM, I THINK, I THINK LIMITING TO THE SAME 3,500 SQUARE FEET, WE'VE LIMITED GENERAL MERCHANDISE SHOULD BE SUFFICIENT.
UH, SO ARE YOU VOLUNTEERING DEED RESTRICTIONS TO, UH, PUBLIC OR PRIVATE SCHOOL GREATER THAN 3,500 SQUARE FEET AND, UH, LIMITING ANY NURSERY OR GARDEN SHOP TO AN INSIDE USE ONLY? UM, YES, WE'LL VOLUNTEER FOR THE 3,500 SQUARE FEET RESTRICTION ON PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SCHOOLS.
JUST TO CLARIFY, ON THE INSIDE, USE ONLY, UM, WHERE WE SIGN, LIKE IF, IF SOMEONE IS HANGING OUT THERE FLOWERS OR SOMETHING, YOU KNOW, IT'S A SATURDAY BEAUTIFUL DAY, THEY WANT PEOPLE TO SEE THEIR FLOWERS.
THEY'RE NOT GROWING THEM THERE, THEY'RE JUST, THERE MAY BE A STAFF QUESTIONS OF WHAT'S CONSIDERED OUTSIDE USE.
WELL, IF, IF, I GUESS IF THE SALES WOULD NOT TAKE PLACE OUTSIDE, THEN THE USE OF NURSERY OR GARDEN SHOP WOULD BE INSIDE, BUT I'D WELCOME A STAFF CLARIFICATION ON THAT, IF I RECALL.
SO, OUTDOOR, EXCUSE ME, OUT, LET ME SEE.
I WAS TRYING TO CLARIFY IF, IF OUTDOOR SALES WAS, UM, CONSIDERED SEPARATELY, UM, THAN THE INDIVIDUAL USE IN SOME DISTRICTS IT IS.
UH, I TELL, I TELL YOU WHAT, YOU KNOW WHAT, UH, GIVEN THAT THIS, ANY OUTSIDE COMPONENT WOULD OCCUPY PARKING, THAT'S PROBABLY GONNA BE REQUIRED FOR SOME OTHER USE.
QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS OR SPEAKERS? COMMISSIONER ANDERSON.
MR. CARDEN, UM, FOLLOWING UP ON COMMISSIONER YOUNG'S QUESTION ABOUT PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SCHOOL RESTRICTED TO 3,500 SQUARE FEET, UM, WOULD YOU HAVE ANY RESERVATION TO HAVING A, A MINIMUM? UM, WELL, ACTUALLY A MAXIMUM OF 5,000 SQUARE FEET.
UM, AND, AND NOT TO SAY THAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO USE 5,000 SQUARE FEET, BUT JUST IN CASE, IN ORDER TO ENSURE PROPER ALIGNMENT WITH OTHER EDUCATIONAL SYSTEMS THAT MIGHT WANT A PARTNER OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
AND, UM, I DON'T WANNA RE RESTRICT THE AMOUNT OF SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT THEY MAY NEED OR THAT YOU MAY NEED IN ORDER TO REALLY KIND OF RESPECT A POTENTIAL PARTNERSHIP.
AND I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S IN, IN, IN THE WORKS, BUT WOULD YOU HAVE A, UM, ANY RESERVATION FOR A MAXIMUM OF 5,000 SQUARE FEET? WE WOULDN'T.
WE'RE RESPON WE'RE STAYING RESPONSIVE TO THE COMMUNITY NEEDS.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS, FOR ANY OF OUR SPEAKERS? COMMISSIONER HERBERT, PLEASE.
FIRST, AGAIN, SO WE ALREADY SPOKE ABOUT
[00:40:01]
WHAT SURROUNDS YOUR PROPERTY.UM, CAN YOU SPEAK ON ANY PARTNERSHIPS OR ENGAGEMENT WITH THAT COMMUNITY ABOUT IMPROVING THOSE AREAS? UM, THE PARKING LOT ITSELF, THE FENCE AROUND THE PARKING LOT, THOSE TYPES OF THINGS.
UM, YEAH, SO AS MENTIONED IN KIND OF THE POWERPOINT, WE DID HAVE, OF COURSE, A COMMUNITY MEETING.
WE'VE HAD OTHER EVENTS BEFORE.
UM, AND EVERY TIME THE COMMUNITY COMES OUT, THEY'RE EXCITED, THEY'RE HAPPY TO SEE IT.
AND REALLY, WITH, WITH THIS PROJECT AND SOME OF THE OTHER ZONING CASES THAT ARE COME UP IN THIS AREA, IT'S ALWAYS, IT'S BEEN KIND OF A COMMUNITY RESPONSIVE CASE.
SO SAYING, HEY, WHAT DOES A COMMUNITY WANT TO SEE? WHAT DO THEY THINK IT SHOULD BE? UM, EVEN THE IDEA OF ADDING IN ARTS, IF I RECALL CORRECTLY, WAS PARTIALLY IN RESPONSE TO SEEING THE SH THE DEMAND WITHIN THE COMMUNITY FOR, YOU KNOW, ART SPACE AND, AND THAT.
SO, UM, I THINK THIS ALONG, YOU KNOW, WILL BE KIND OF A COLLABORATIVE APPROACH WITH, WITH COMMUNITY.
WE'VE STAYED IN CONSTANT CONTACT WITH THE NEIGHBOR PRESIDENT, WITH PEOPLE, WE'VE GIVEN OUT OUR DIRECT NUMBERS.
UM, THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT IS GONNA BE A SHORT TERM THING.
THIS BUILDING HAS BEEN AROUND FOR, YOU KNOW, APPROACHING A, GETTING CLOSER TO A CENTURY NOW, AND WE EXPECT TO BE HERE FOR QUITE SOME TIME AS WELL.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR OUR SPEAKERS? COMMISSIONERS, QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? NO QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.
UH, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION, SIR? YES, I DO.
UM, IN THE MATTER OF Z TWO 12 DASH 2 0 6, I MOVE TO APPROVE THE MATTER WITH CONDITIONS AS LISTED IN THE DOCKET AND THE RESTRICTIONS VOLUNTEERED BY THE CL BY THE APPLICANT TO INCLUDE, UM, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SCHOOL RESTRICTED TO NO GREATER THAN 5,000 SQUARE FEET.
THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, YOU DO HAVE A SECOND, SECOND BY, UH, COMMISSIONER RUBEN COMMENTS? YES.
UM, THANK YOU AGAIN, MR. CHAIR.
OUR COMMUNITY OFTEN REACHES OUT FOR ALTERNATIVE SPACES IN TERMS OF MEETING, UM, EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES AND ART OPPORTUNITIES, AND I THANK THE APPLICANTS SENIOR REPRESENTATIVES FOR BRINGING, UM, THIS PROJECT TO OUR COMMUNITY.
I THINK IT'LL BE A COMPATIBLE USE AND, UM, I LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING THE SUCCESSES THAT ARE MADE AVAILABLE TO OUR COMMUNITY THROUGH THE USE OF THIS FACILITY.
THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? COMMISSIONERS? COMMISSIONER HERBERT, PLEASE? YES.
SO JUST TO BACK UP, UM, MY, MY COUNTERPART, UM, I WANT TO THANK YOU GUYS FOR THIS SERVICE.
UH, THESE ARE DEFINITELY EXCELLENT, UM, OPPORTUNITIES FOR THAT COMMUNITY.
UM, THE ARTS ARE, IT'S A DESERT, LIKE YOU SAID.
UM, I JUST WANT TO ASK YOU TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU'RE BRINGING ALL THE RESOURCES INTO THAT PROJECT, THE ZOO, OTHER COMMUNITY ENTITIES, UM, JUST FULLY ENGAGED WITH THAT COMMUNITY.
BUT THANK YOU, THANK YOU FOR WHAT YOU'RE DOING.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? COMMISSIONERS? OKAY, WE, WE DO HAVE A MOTION.
LET ME READ IT AND MAKE SURE THAT WE GET IT RIGHT.
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, WE HAVE A MOTION TO CLOSE UP PUBLIC HEARING AND ALL STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL SUBJECT TO DEED RESTRICTIONS VOLUNTEERED BY THE APPLICANT, INCLUDING A RESTRICTION ON PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SCHOOLS TO 5,000 SQUARE FEET, CORRECT? YES.
ALL, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE SAY AYE.
UH, OKAY LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE WILL GO NOW, UH, BACK TO THE TWO CASES THAT ARE ON THE CONSENT AGENDA, WHICH ARE FOUR AND SIX.
WE'LL BRIEF THOSE TWO AND UNLESS THERE'S SOMEONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON, ON ANY OF THOSE TWO, WE'LL DISPOSE OF THEM IN ONE MOTION.
THIS IS AN APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TWO AND AN EXPANSION OF PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 5 97 ON PROPERTY ZONED IN NC NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL SUBDISTRICT AND AN MF TWO MULTI-FAMILY SUBDISTRICT WITH DEED RESTRICTIONS Z OH SEVEN 8,207 WITHIN PLAIN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 5 95, THE SOUTH DALLAS FAIR PARK SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICT ON THE SOUTH CORNER PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE IN HOME STREET.
PURPOSE OF THIS REQUEST IS TO ALLOW COMMUNITY SERVICE CENTER AND FOOD AND BEVERAGE STORE USES IN THE EXISTING BUILDING.
THE AREA OF REQUEST IS 0.7736 ACRES,
[00:45:01]
AND HERE'S THE SITE.IT'S LOCATED, UH, ON PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE.
HERE'S THE SITE AGAIN WITH THE EXISTING STRUCTURE, WHICH THEY PLAN TO MAINTAIN.
AND TO THE NORTHEAST, THERE IS THE EXISTING COMMUNITY CENTER, SERVICE CENTER, FOOD AND BEVERAGE STORE AND PRIVATE SCHOOL.
UH, THERE'S MIXED RESIDENTIAL TO THE SOUTHEAST AND SOUTH, AND THEN THERE'S UNDEVELOPED, UH, SPACE, RETAIL SPACE TO THE NORTHWEST.
THE SITE IS CURRENTLY LOCATED IN THE NC AND MF TWO, UH, SUB-DISTRICTS IN PD 5 95.
THIS IS SOUTH DALLAS FAIR PARK SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICT.
CURRENT USE OF THE SITE IS A 4,500 SQUARE FOOT CHURCH BUILDING CONSTRUCTION 2005.
APPLICANT INTENDS TO REUSE THIS EXISTING BUILDING AND TO, TO DO SO.
THEY'RE REQUESTING TO EXPAND THE ADJACENT PD 5 97 IN ORDER TO PROMOTE PERMIT.
THE FOOD AND BEVERAGE STORE USE AND THE COMMUNITY SERVICE CENTER USE THE PROPOSED TRACT WITHIN THE PD WOULD ACCOMMODATE THE REUSE OF THE EXISTING BUILDING WITH THE PROPOSED USES.
THE PORTION OF THE PROPERTIES WITH THE MF TWO SUBDISTRICT, UM, CURRENTLY HAS DR 0 7 8 2 0 7.
THESE RESTRICTIONS WERE PUT IN PLACE WITH THE APPROVAL OF THAT MF TWO SUBDISTRICT IN 2004, AND THEY CURRENTLY RESTRICT THIS PORTION OF THE PROPERTY.
SHOULD KNOW MORE THAN THREE RESIDENTIAL UNITS IF DEVELOPED AS RESIDENTIAL.
THE RESTRICTIONS ARE PLANNED TO BE LEFT IN PLACE AS THE APPLICANT DOES NOT PROPOSE TO DEVELOP THIS PORTION OF THE SITE.
SO AS FOR THE SITE HERE IS, WE'RE IN THE BACKGROUND, IS THE AREA OF REQUEST, THE EXISTING BUILDING, IT'S A LITTLE BIT CLOSER.
WE'RE ON PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE HERE.
WE'RE LOOKING SOUTH AT THE EXISTING STRUCTURE BEHIND, OR YOU COULD SAY SOUTHWEST OF THE SITE.
THERE'S AN EXISTING ALLEY AND NOW WE'RE ACTUALLY BEHIND THE EXISTING BUILDING.
THIS IS THE, THIS IS SORT OF THE ENTRANCE OR ONE OF THE ENTRANCES FOR THE EXISTING CHURCH IN, IN, IN THE MIDDLE OF THEIR PARKING LOT.
THIS IS THE UNDEVELOPED, UH, PORTION THAT IS PLANNED TO BE LEFT AS IS IN THEIR, UH, DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
AND THAT'S ACTUALLY THE PORTION THAT ZONED MF TWO A CURRENTLY WITH DE RESTRICTION.
AND THEN THIS IS ACTUALLY LOOKING SOUTHWEST ON PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE.
UM, SOME AREA HOMES AND THE AREA ON THE RIGHT IS ZONED A WMU.
AND THEN ACROSS HOMES, UM, IS PART OF THE ST.
PHILLIPS KIND OF CAMPUS AND THERE'S AN EXISTING COMMUNITY SERVICE CENTER THERE AND THERE'S RETAIL IN THE BACKGROUND OF THIS PHOTO.
UH, JUST A QUICK COMPARISON OF THE DIFFERENCES IN DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
THERE ARE TWO DISTRICTS ON THE SITE RIGHT NOW.
UM, THE TRACK THREE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ARE WRITTEN PRIMARILY TO ACCOMMODATE THIS EXISTING BUILDING, ENCOURAGE, REUSE, UH, CON OF THIS EXISTING BUILDING.
AND THEY'RE A SLIGHT MODIFICATION OF THE PD 5 97 USES, EXCUSE ME, STANDARDS.
AND THIS IS THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AS THEY PROPOSE IT, IT DOES GENERALLY MATCH THE EXISTING STRUCTURE WITH A BUILDING THAT'S CLOSE TO PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, CLOSE TO HOMES, AND THEN PARKING LOCATED BEHIND THAT RELATIVE TO PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE.
THERE'S OUR PARKING LOT IN A LITTLE MORE DETAIL.
AND OUR DEVELOPMENT SITE, UH, THEY DO NEED TO REVISE THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN, UM, IF ONLY TO ADD THIS TRACT INTO THE OVERALL PD 5 97 ST.
UM, AND SO THEY HAVEN'T ALTERED THIS IN ANY WAY THAT THEY DO HAVE TO DEPICT WHERE TRACT THREE IS AND IT'S OVER ON THIS SITE OF HOMES.
SO STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS, UH, APPROVAL SUBJECT TO A REVISED CONCEPTUAL PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND CONDITIONS.
THANK YOU MR. PEP QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM? FIRST ROUND? COMMISSIONER HAMPTON.
I'LL JUST ASK ONE, UM, QUESTION ON THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
THE FRONT YARD THAT'S CALLED OUT, IT APPEARS TO VARY FROM THE EXISTING CONDITION.
WAS THAT ANYTHING THAT WAS REVIEWED WITH THE APPLICANT TEAM OR IS THERE A REASON WHY THAT IS PROPOSED? WHERE WERE YOU SAYING, UH, THERE IS THE FRONT YARD SETBACK, FRONT YARD SETBACK WHERE IT SAYS 15 FOOT SETBACK? YES, SO THERE IS, THAT'S ACTUALLY PRETTY MUCH HOW IT IS IN REALITY RIGHT NOW.
SO THERE'S A COUPLE PATIOS THAT EXTEND TOWARDS THE PROPERTY LINE.
[00:50:01]
UM, THOSE, THOSE ARE COUNTING AS STRUCTURES AND THIS IS ACTUALLY KIND OF SIMILAR TO HOW PD 5 95, THE, THE EXISTING ZONING WORKS.UM, BUT THAT 15 WHERE IT SAYS 15 FRONT FOOT SETBACKS, THAT'S REFERRING TO THAT PORTION WHERE THE BUILDING DIPS BACK AND THEY DON'T HAVE A STRUCTURAL, THEY DON'T HAVE A STRUCTURED PATIO NEAR THE, UM, PROPERTY LINE.
THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HAMPTON.
OKAY, LET'S GO ON TO THE NEXT CASE PLEASE.
UM, I'M NOT AS SPRY AS MICHAEL, SO I'M JUST GONNA PRESENT FROM HERE TODAY,
OKAY, THIS IS CASE NUMBER SIX.
OKAY, FIRST CASE I HAVE FOR YOU TODAY IS C 212 DASH THREE 50.
THE REQUEST IS FOR A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR A MOTOR VEHICLE FUELING STATION ON PROPERTY ZONE SUBDISTRICT SIX A WITHIN PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER EIGHT 30, THE DAVIS STREET SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICT LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF NORTHAMPTON ROAD IN WEST JEFFERSON BOULEVARD.
IT'S ABOUT HALF AN ACRE, UH, LOCATION MAP SHOWING THE PROPERTY WITHIN CITY LIMITS AERIAL MAP WITH THE AREA OF REQUEST OUTLINED IN BLUE AND THE UH, ZONING MAP WITH SURROUNDING ZONING DISTRICTS AND LAND USES.
UM, SO TO THE NORTH AS AN AUTO SERVICE CENTER.
UM, BEHIND THE PROPERTY TO THE EAST IS A SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, MORE SINGLE FAMILY TO THE SOUTH ACROSS WEST JEFFERSON BOULEVARD AND THEN TO THE WEST ACROSS NORTHAMPTON ROAD, UM, IS A GENERAL MERCHANDISE USE THAT ALSO HAS AN U FOR ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE SALES.
THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED SUB-DISTRICT SIX A WITHIN PD EIGHT 30.
IT'S CURRENTLY DEVELOPED WITH A GENERAL MERCHANDISE OR FOOD STORE, 3,500 SQUARE FEET OR LESS, AND A MOTOR VEHICLE FULL FUELING STATION.
UM, UNDER THE CURRENT ZONING, THE GENERAL MERCHANDISE OR FOOD STORE USE IS PERMITTED BY RIGHT, IF IT'S LESS THAN 50,000 SQUARE FEET OR EXCUSE ME, 50,000 SQUARE FEET OR LESS.
UH, THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THIS USE IS ABOUT 2,400 SQUARE FEET, SO THAT USE IS PERMITTED BY RIGHT.
UM, HOWEVER, THE FUELING STATION USE IS PERMITTED BY S U P ONLY.
SO THAT'S WHAT THE REQUEST TODAY IS FOR.
ON AUGUST 8TH, 2012, UH, CITY OF COUNCIL APPROVED THIS SUBDISTRICT SIX A WITHIN P EIGHT 30.
UM, BEFORE THAT SUBDISTRICT WAS CREATED, A FUELING STATION, UM, WAS PROHIBITED ON THE PROPERTY.
HOWEVER, THIS ZONING CHANGE ALLOWED THE USE SUBJECT TO AN S U P.
UH, ALSO AT THIS TIME, CITY COUNCIL APPROVED U NUMBERS 1971 FOR A FUELING STATION FOR A 10 YEAR PERIOD WITH ELIGIBILITY FOR AUTOMATIC RENEWAL FOR ADDITIONAL 10-YEAR PERIODS.
UM, THIS U EXPIRED ON AUGUST 8TH, 2022.
UM, THE APPLICANT DID NOT FILE FOR THEIR AUTO-RENEWAL, WHICH WOULD'VE BEEN DUE BETWEEN FEBRUARY 9TH AND APRIL 10TH OF LAST YEAR.
UM, THEY ALSO DID NOT FILE FOR A REGULAR RENEWAL OF THE U BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE IN AUGUST.
UH, THEREFORE THE APPLICANT IS REQUIRED TO REQUEST A NEW U TO CONTINUE THE USE OF THE PROPERTY AS A FUELING STATION.
UH, WITH THIS REQUEST FOR NEW U, THE APPLICANT PROPOSES THE SAME CONDITIONS AND THE SAME SITE PLAN AS THE ORIGINAL U 1971.
UH, THIS INCLUDES THE, UH, ORIGINAL TIME LIMIT OF 10 YEARS WITH ELIGIBILITY FOR AUTO RENEWAL FOR ADDITIONAL 10 YEAR PERIODS AND SOME SITE PHOTOS.
THIS IS ON NORTHAMPTON ROAD LOOKING EAST AT THAT FRONTAGE OF THE PROPERTY.
UM, THIS IS SORT OF CLOSER INTO THE SITE ALONG NORTHAMPTON ROAD LOOKING AT THAT FRONTAGE OF THE PROPERTY.
THIS IS UH, STREET VIEW IMAGE OF THE MIDDLE OF THE INTERSECTION.
YOU CAN SEE THE CORNER OF THE PROPERTY.
AND THEN FROM WEST JEFFERSON BOULEVARD, LOOKING NORTH AT THAT FRONT EDGE SURROUNDING USES, THIS IS THE AUTO SERVICE CENTER TO THE NORTH.
AND THEN WE'RE JUST KIND OF GOING ON, UH, COUNTERCLOCKWISE AT THAT POINT.
AND YOU CAN SEE THE GENERAL MERCHANDISER FOOD STORE ACROSS THE STREET.
SOME MORE VIEWS OF THIS INTERSECTION.
IT'S A PRETTY LARGE INTERSECTION.
AND THEN LOOKING SOUTH IN THE BACKGROUND, YOU CAN SEE SOME OF THOSE SINGLE FAMILY USES MORE VIEWS OF THAT SINGLE FAMILY TO THE SOUTH.
AND THEN THIS IS TO THE EAST OF
[00:55:01]
THE AREA REQUEST, UM, SOME MORE SINGLE FAMILY BACK THERE.THIS IS THE SITE LANDSCAPE PLAN, UM, PROPOSED BY THE APPLICANT FOR THIS REQUEST.
AND STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL FOR A 10 YEAR PERIOD WITH ELIGIBILITY FOR AUTO RENEWAL FOR ADDITIONAL 10 YEAR PERIOD SUBJECT TO A SITE LANDSCAPE PLAN AND CONDITIONS.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH MR. MULKEY.
QUESTIONS COMMISSIONERS? HI COMMISSIONER HAMPTON.
UM, IS THE SITE COM UM, COMPLIANT WITH ITS SITE PLAN? CURRENTLY? IT IS, YEAH.
WE ACTUALLY HAD A, A BIT OF A, A KERFUFFLE, UM, IN THE REVIEW PROCESS BECAUSE THERE HAD BEEN, UM, A MINOR AMENDMENT FOLLOWING INITIAL APPROVAL OF THE U SITE PLAN TO CORRECT.
UM, I THINK A LITTLE BIT OF THE LANDSCAPING AND THE LOCATION OF THEIR MONUMENT SIGN.
UM, HOWEVER THAT'S ALL BEEN UPDATED WITH, WITH THIS VERSION OF THE SITE LANDSCAPE PLAN.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM? OKAY, MR. MILKEY, CAN YOU READ CASES FOUR SIX UNDER THE RECORD SO THEY CAN DEVO IT ALL PLEASE SIR? SURE THING.
UH, ITEM FOUR KC 212 DASH 3 0 6, AN APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO AND AN EXPANSION OF PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 5 97 ON PROPERTY ZONED IN NC NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL SUBDISTRICT AND AN MF TWO, A MULTI-FAMILY SUBDISTRICT WITH DEED RESTRICTIONS.
UH, KC 0 78 DASH 2 0 7 WITHIN PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 5 95, THE SOUTH DALLAS FAIR PARK SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICT ON THE SOUTH CORNER OF PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE AND HOME STREET SASS.
RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO A REVISED CONCEPTUAL PLAN, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND CONDITIONS.
AND ITEM SIX KC TWO 12 DASH THREE 50.
AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR A MOTOR VEHICLE FUELING STATION ON PROPERTY ZONE SUBDISTRICT SIX A WITHIN PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER EIGHT 30, THE DAVIS STREET SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICT AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF NORTHAMPTON ROAD AND WEST JEFFERSON BOULEVARD.
SAS RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL FOR A 10 YEAR PERIOD WITH ELIGIBILITY FOR AUTOMATIC RENEWAL FOR ADDITIONAL 10 YEAR PERIOD SUBJECT TO A SITE LANDSCAPE PLAN AND CONDITIONS.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH MR. MULKEY.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO BE HEARD ON EITHER OF THOSE TWO CASES, NUMBER FOUR OR SIX? ANY LAST QUESTIONS FOR STAFF COMMISSIONERS? COMMISSIONER HERBERT? JUST A A CHANCE, DID YOU KNOW I PUT THAT IN THE QUESTION FORM THAT DIA DIAGONAL TO THAT LOCATION IS UM, A SMALL GRAVEYARD WITH SOME OF THE PIONEERS OF THE CITY IN IT.
COMMISSIONER WHEELER, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? I HAVE A MOTION.
I MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, UM, IN CASE NUMBER Z 212 3 0 6 AND FOLLOW STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL SUBJECT TO A REVISED CONCEPTIONAL PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN OF CONDITIONS.
I ALSO MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING IN CASE NUMBER Z 2 12 350 AND FOLLOW STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS OF APPROVAL FOR A 10 YEAR PERIOD WITH ELIGIBILITY FOR AUTOMATIC RENEWAL FOR ADDITIONAL 10 YEAR PERIOD SUBJECT TO SITE AND LANDSCAPE PLANNING CONDITIONS.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER WHEELER FOR YOUR MOTION.
COMMISSIONER BLAIR FOR YOUR SECOND.
ANY, ANY OPPOSED? MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.
COMMISSIONERS WILL GO BACK TO CASE NUMBER FIVE Z 2 1 2 30 35.
I'LL BE SHARING MY PRESENTATION AS SOON AS I HAVE THE CHANCE.
CAN EVERYONE SEE MY PRESENTATION? GREAT.
THIS IS Z 2 12 335, AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR A COMMERCIAL BUS STATION AND TERMINAL USE.
THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED AS CS DISTRICT WITH A PORTION OF THE SITE CONTAINING AD DRIED OVERLAY.
IT'S JUST UNDER ONE AND A HALF ACRES LOCATED IN OLD EAST DALLAS ON THE WEST SIDE OF I 30
[01:00:01]
AT THE WEST CORNER OF TERRY STREET AND SOUTH PEAK STREET.HERE'S AN AERIAL MAP SHOWING THE SUBJECT SITE RIGHT HERE IN RED AND THOSE ARE THE TWO STREETS, TERRY AND SOUTH PEAK STREET AND I 30 RIGHT HERE.
THIS IS A ZONING MAP SHOWING YOU THE PROPERTY AND ALL OF THESE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES ARE ALSO ZONED A CS DISTRICT, THE SANTA FE TRAIL, HOWEVER, UM, WE HAVE SANTA FES, THE ROAD IS RIGHT HERE ADJACENT TO THE SITE AND THEN THE SANTA FE TRAILS ELEVATED ABOVE THAT.
AND HERE'S THE SURROUNDING LAND USES.
AS I MENTIONED, THE TRAIL IS THERE TO THE NORTHWEST.
WE DO HAVE SEVERAL AUTOMOTIVE RELATED USES THAT SURROUND THE PROPERTY, INCLUDING LOTS OF VEHICLE OR ENGINE REPAIR OR MAINTENANCE USES OR VEHICLE DISPLAY SALES AND SERVICE.
THERE'S ADDITIONALLY OFFICE SHOWROOM AND WAREHOUSE USES TO THE NORTHWEST AND TO THE NORTHEAST.
SOME DEVELOPED LAND ADJACENT TO THE SITE WITHIN THE SAME SORT OF TRACT ON THE CORNER OF PEAK AND SANTA FE, UM, ON NORTHEAST CORNER.
AND THEN ACROSS THE STREET ON SOUTH PEAK.
THAT WHOLE SECTION THERE IS UNDEVELOPED AS WELL SINCE IT FRONTS THE EXPRESSWAY.
THE EXPRESSWAY IS A MAJOR PART OF WHAT YOU SEE ON THE SOUTHEAST SIDE OF THIS PROPERTY.
AND THEN TO THE SOUTHWEST NEAR THE SITE THERE'S ALSO A PHOTOGRAPHY STUDIO FARTHER TO THE SOUTHWEST AND A MINI WAREHOUSE STORAGE USE THAT'S LOCATED IN A PD, UM, TO THE SOUTHWEST AS WELL.
AND HERE ARE PHOTOS OF THE PROPERTY.
WE ARE LOOKING NORTHWEST FROM TERRY STREET ONTO THE SITE AND FROM PEAK IS BACKING IT UP A BIT TOWARDS I 30 IN THE INTERSECTION THERE.
AND WE ARE ON TERRY STREET LOOKING FROM THE UM, SOUTHEAST NOW WE'RE LOOKING AT THE CORNER OF THE PROPERTY COMING FROM FROM PEAK STREET AND THIS IS THE REAR OF THE SITE WITH THE SANTA FE FRONTAGE THAT'S AT THE NORTHWEST END.
AND THE SURROUNDING LAND USES AS MENTIONED SINCE IT FRAN SAN TERRY, TERRY STREET, IS THE ACCESS ROAD TO I 30.
AND THAT'S THE MINI STORAGE WAREHOUSE THAT'S LOCATED FARTHER TO THE SOUTHWEST.
THIS IS AN AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR SHOP THAT'S LOCATED DIRECTLY NEXT DOOR TO THE SUBJECT SITE AND THEN THE UNDEVELOPED PROPERTIES THAT YOU SEE TO THE EAST ACROSS PEAK STREET.
SO ALL THE CURRENT CONDITIONS AND YOU CAN KIND OF SEE THE PROPERTY THERE ON THE RIGHT OF THIS PHOTO.
AND YOU SEE THE ELEVATED TRAIL AND THEN THERE'S AN OFFICE STRUCTURE THAT'S LOCATED TO THE NORTHEAST OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THEN TO THE NORTHWEST.
KIND OF SIMILAR SMALL OFFICE STRUCTURE.
AND AGAIN, ALL THIS AREA IS CS DISTRICT AND WHAT YOU SEE HERE, IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S SEVERAL VEHICLE UM, AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR AND VEHICLE DISPLAY SALES AND SERVICE USES THERE.
THAT SMALL CORNER ON THE NORTHEAST OF THE PROPERTY IS UNDEVELOPED.
AND THEN HERE'S THE SANTA FE ROAD THAT GOES RIGHT ADJACENT TO THE TRAIL AND ALIGNS ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY.
AND THIS IS WHERE THAT PHOTOGRAPHY STUDIO IS LOCATED.
UM, I PUT THIS PICTURE IN HERE SO THAT YOU DO UNDERSTAND THAT WHILE THIS IS A CS DISTRICT, WE ARE AWARE THAT THERE ARE SEVERAL RESIDENTIAL USES THAT ARE TUCKED IN BETWEEN ALL OF THESE AUTOMOTIVE USES.
HOWEVER, THE DISTRICT DOESN'T TECHNICALLY ALLOW THEM ANY LONGER AND BUT THEY STILL EXIST.
AND THE REQUEST FOR A COMMERCIAL BUS STATION AND TERMINAL USE REQUIRES AN S U P IN THE CS DISTRICT ONLY BECAUSE THE FACILITY IS OPERATING WITH A BUS.
THE RIGHT HERE I'VE HIGHLIGHTED THE PROVISION HERE THAT IT'S PERMITTED BY RIGHT IN A CS DISTRICT.
HOWEVER, UNLESS IT OPERATES WITH A BUS OR THE FACILITY OPERATES WITH A SHUTTLE WITHIN 500 FEET OF A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, THERE'S NO ACTUAL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT WITHIN 500 FEET.
BUT HOWEVER, THEY HAVE IDENTIFIED THAT THEY WILL BE OPERATING WITH A MAXIMUM OF TWO BUSES ON THE SITE AT A TIME.
OVERALL, THERE ARE SOME ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS THAT ARE REQUIRED INCLUDING A LOBBYING OR WAITING ROOM AREA WITH A FLOOR AREA OF
[01:05:01]
NOT LESS THAN 200 SQUARE FEET.AND THEN WHATEVER SIZE OF LOBBY OR WAITING AREA THEY PROVIDE, THEY MUST HAVE A MINIMUM OF ONE SEAT PROVIDED FOR EVERY 25 SQUARE FEET OF FLOOR AREA IN THAT LOBBY OR WAITING ROOM.
THEY ARE NOT PERMITTED TO HAVE OUTDOOR SALE OF GENERAL MERCHANDISE OR FOOD AND THERE IS NO LOADING OR UNLOADING OF PASSENGERS, UM, PERMITTED IN THE RIGHT OF WAY, SORRY.
AND THEN HERE IS THE PROPOSED SITE LANDSCAPE PLAN.
AND ACCORDING TO THE LAND USE STATEMENT AND WHAT THEY PROPOSE TO DO WITH THE EXISTING STRUCTURES, ONLY THE BUS STATION OFFICE WOULD OPERATE IN THE NORTHEASTERN SECTION OF THE STRUCTURE AND THE CANOPY AREA FOR LOADING AND UNLOADING OF BUS PASSENGERS.
AND THEY WILL USE AN EXISTING PARKING LOT THAT'S LOCATED ON THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTHWEST.
THEY DON'T BELIEVE THAT THEY WILL BE PAVING ANYTHING, THEREFORE LANDSCAPING IS NOT TRIGGERED.
HOWEVER, THEY ARE STILL PROVIDING LANDSCAPING TO HELP IMPROVE THE OVERALL AREA, THE SITE.
UM, AND THIS, THIS INTERSECTION HERE AT SOUTH PEAK BEAR LINING IT WITH SEVERAL TREES ALONG THE TRAIL.
AND THEN ADDITIONALLY SOME PARKING LOTS, SMALL TREES WHICH ARE CRATE MYRTLES AND THEN SOME POTS ALONG SOUTH PEAK STREET OR PLANTERS I SHOULD SAY THAT WOULD BE FILLED WITH ORNAMENTAL PLANTS AS WELL.
AND THEN ALONG SOUTH PEAK STREET THERE'S AN ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENT.
THEY'RE NOT REQUIRED TO, UM, ADD SIDEWALK OR AMEND THAT, BUT THEY ARE ALIGNING IT WITH EXISTING SIX FOOT SIDEWALK ON SOUTH PEAK STREET AND EXPANDING THE SIDEWALK ALONG THAT SECTION TO, TO MEET ALONG WITH THAT EXISTING SECTION.
THE REMAINDER OF THE STRUCTURE ON THIS BUILD SITE IS NOT GOING TO BE USED.
IT IS BROKEN INTO SEVERAL SUITES THAT, FROM WHAT I COULD FIND IN MY RESEARCH, HAVE HAD A MULTITUDE OF DIFFERENT COS RELATED TO EVERYTHING FROM A WAREHOUSE USED FOR PRODUCE TO AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR OVER TIME.
HOWEVER, AT THIS TIME, THE APPLICANT STATES THAT OUT OF THE THREE OTHER SUITES THAT EXIST, HE BELIEVES ONLY ONE IS CURRENTLY OCCUPIED AND THAT THEY ARE MEETING THEIR PARKING SEPARATELY ON THE SITE, WHICH THERE IS ADDITIONAL PARKING TO THE REAR OF THE SITE THAT SHOWS THERE, UM, TO THE WEST OF THE PARKING ON THE NORTH CORNER OF THIS PLAN.
SO HERE I'VE SHOW, I'M SHOWING YOU THE PROPOSED S U P CONDITIONS.
WE DID INCLUDE THE, THE USE, THE TIME PERIOD, AND THEN THE FACT THAT THEY ARE ADDING THIS LANDSCAPING, WHICH ISN'T REQUIRED.
SO THIS IS A SITE LANDSCAPE PLAN THAT WOULD BE APPROVED WITH THIS REQUEST.
AND THEN THE FACT THAT THE LOADING UN UNLOADING CANNOT BE DONE IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, ALTHOUGH IT SAYS IT IN THE CODE.
WE WENT AHEAD AND ADDED IT HERE TO MAKE IT CLEAR SINCE THE S U CONDITIONS WILL BE POSTED AT THE SITE.
AND ADDITIONALLY IT SHOWS THE MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA AS PROPOSED ON THE SITE PLAN, THE ADDITIONAL SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS AS SHOWN ON THE PLAN.
AND OVERALL, THERE ARE OTHER PROVISIONS THAT, AS I NOTED, ARE IN THE ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS FOR THE LAND USE OR ARE BEING PROPOSED AS PART OF THE OPERATION, INCLUDING SPECIFIC HOURS OF OPERATION.
STAFF DID NOT INCLUDE THOSE HERE.
HOWEVER, IT WOULD BE UP TO THE COMMISSION IF YOU DID DECIDE YOU WANTED TO ADD ANYTHING ELSE THAT IS EITHER IN THE ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS OF THE CODE OR FOR ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATION.
OVERALL, THOSE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL AS I'VE PRESENTED TODAY FOR A FIVE-YEAR PERIOD WITH ELIGIBILITY FOR AUTOMATIC RENEWALS FOR ADDITIONAL FIVE-YEAR PERIODS SUBJECT TO A SITE LANDSCAPE PLANNING CONDITIONS.
QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONER YOUNG? UH, YES.
IS THIS SITE SERVED BY ONE OR MORE DART BUS LINES? I'M NOT AWARE.
AND THEN MY NEXT QUESTION IS, WOULD THE NEAREST DART RAIL STATION BE FAIR PARK QUESTION MARK? UM, BAYLOR'S CLOSER THAN FAIR PARK.
BECAUSE FAIR PARK IT SEEMS TO ME IS ABOUT A SIX BLOCK WALK AND IT'S A RATHER PEDESTRIAN UNFRIENDLY WALK.
YOU HAVE TO GO UNDERNEATH THE FREEWAY AND THEN ACROSS, UH, THE HASKELL PEAK INTERSECTION, WHICH HAS A RAIL LINE RUNNING THROUGH THE MIDDLE OF IT.
[01:10:02]
OKAY.AND THAT IS SOMETHING THAT I CAN, I CAN CHECK FOR YOU, COMMISSIONER YOUNG, BUT I AM NOT, I'M NOT AWARE RIGHT NOW.
I'D HAVE TO PULL UP THE DART INFORMATION.
BECAUSE I'M, I'M CONCERNED ABOUT HOW PEOPLE GET TO AND FROM THIS, THIS LOCATION.
THEN WOULD YOU GO BACK TO YOUR SLIDE ABOUT ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS PLEASE? THERE WE GO.
UH, ARE THOSE ITEMS THAT ARE ALREADY IN THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION OR ARE THEY THINGS THAT YOU INVITE US TO CONSIDER THAT ARE NOT CURRENTLY IN THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION? SO THESE ARE THINGS THAT EITHER WERE ADDRESSED OR IT DEPENDS ON WHICH SECTION YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
SO THE OTHER PROVISIONS IN CODE FOR THIS USE ARE ITEMS THAT WE ENSURED WERE ADDRESSED EXCEPT FOR THE SOUND, NO SOUND PROVISIONS.
THAT'S JUST IDENTIFYING THAT THERE ARE NO SPEAKER REGULATIONS FOR THIS LAND USE.
IT'S NOT SOMETHING WE TYPICALLY CONSIDER.
AND SINCE IT'S ALL A CS DISTRICT IN THE VICINITY, IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE REGULATED WITH THESE S U CONDITIONS.
BUT THE MINIMUM 200 SQUARE FOOT LOBBY, THEY'VE MET THAT THE SEAT COUNT FOR THE LOBBY AREA, THEY'VE MET THAT.
AND THE REQUIRED PARKING BEING BASED ON THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF BUSES AND THE SEATS PROVIDED ON THOSE BUSES ALONG WITH THE FLOOR AREA OVERALL HAS ALL BEEN MET.
AND THAT INFORMATION IS ON THE SITE PLAN AND FOR THE ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATION, THOSE ARE THE EXTRA ITEMS THAT THEY'RE DOING EVEN THOUGH THEY DON'T HAVE TO.
AND SOME OF THOSE ARE NOTED ON THE SITE PLAN.
WELL, ALL OF THEM ARE ACTUALLY, CUZ THE SIDEWALKS ARE LARGER AND THEY'RE IN ALIGNED WITH THE EXISTING, THE PAVING.
THE LANDSCAPING IS SHOWN ON CLAN, THE SITE LANDSCAPE PLAN AND THE FENCING HAS BEEN UPDATED AS NOTATED ON THE PLAN TO, UM, AS YOU SAW IN THE PHOTOS, SOME OF THEM HAVE GRAFFITI OR THEY'RE IN DISREPAIR AND THEY ARE FIXING THAT AND IT'S NOTED ON THE PLAN.
SO THESE ARE JUST ITEMS THAT I'M MENTIONING.
SO YOU'RE AWARE THAT THEY'VE BEEN ADDRESSED OR CONSIDERED? THE ONLY ONE THAT I THINK IS NOT SPECIFICALLY CONSIDERED IS THE TOWN PROVISION.
WHAT DOES NO PAVING EQUALS NO LANDSCAPING YET IMPROVEMENTS ARE MADE MEAN THEY'RE NOT REQUIRED TO LANDSCAPE FOR THIS S U HOWEVER, THEY HAVE, UM, THEY HAVE AGREED TO IMPROVE THE SITE ALONG WITH THE S U P JUST BECAUSE THAT WAS A REQUEST THAT WAS MADE OF THEM.
SO THE THE POINT BEING THAT THE LANDSCAPING ITEMS THAT WE SEE ON THE SITE PLAN ARE, ARE VOLUNTARY OFFERS BY THE APPLICANT? THAT'S CORRECT.
AND IT DOESN'T COMPLY WITH ARTICLE 10.
AND THERE ARE SOME OTHER ISSUES WITH POTENTIAL COMPLIANCE.
THEY WOULDN'T ACTUALLY BE ABLE TO COMPLY WITH ARTICLE 10 AFTER SPEAKING TO THE CHIEF ARBORIST.
BUT THEY HAVE PROVIDED A SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENT TO THE SITE THAT IS NOT TECHNICALLY REQUIRED BY CODE.
AND ARTICLE 10 COMPLIANCE IS NOT REQUIRED AT THIS POINT BECAUSE INSUFFICIENT ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION, IF YOU WILL, IS TAKING PLACE.
THEY'RE NOT PAVING AN AREA AND THEY'RE NOT, UM, REQUESTING A BUILDING PERMIT.
THEY'RE USING THE EXISTING STRUCTURE.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HAMPTON.
UH, I'D LIKE TO FIRST ACKNOWLEDGE THAT AS USUAL, COMMISSIONER YOUNG WAS CORRECT, THE FAIR PARK DART STOP IS IN FACT CLOSER THAN THE BAYLOR DART STOP BOTH ACCESSIBLE BY THE SANTA FE TRAIL.
UM, MS. MUNOS, UH, THANK YOU FOR YOUR WORK ON THIS.
IN YOUR, UM, PRESENTATION, I THINK YOU MENTIONED THIS, THE ADJACENT, UM, PART OF THE STRUCTURE HAS A SEPARATE CO NOT PART OF THIS REQUEST, BUT COULD BE THERE'S, THEY WOULD ADDRESS THEIR PARKING AT THAT TIME IF THE USE WAS IN OPERATION.
IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.
AND COULD YOU SPEAK TO HOW STAFF EVALUATED, UM, THE ROUTING OF THE BUSES TO AND FROM THE SITE? CERTAINLY AND WHILE, UM, WHILE I CAN SPEAK TO THE CONVERSATIONS THAT WE HAD AND WHAT THEY SHOWN ON THE SITE PLAN, WE ALSO DO HAVE DAVID NIVAS HERE WHO REVIEWED IT TECHNICALLY.
AND ULTIMATELY THEY'RE SHOWING A CIRCULATION.
AND IF YOU READ THEIR LAND USE STATEMENT FROM THE APPLICATION MATERIALS, THEY FULLY INTEND TO HAVE THE BUSES ENTER THROUGH PEAK STREET LOAD AND UNLOAD UNDER THE CANOPY AND THEN EXIT BACK OUT ONTO TERRY TO GET BACK TO THE FREEWAY TO I 30 AND THEN CONTINUE TO TRAVEL.
THAT IS THE EXPECTED CIRCULATION OF THE BUSES.
HOWEVER, THERE'S NOTHING IN THE PLAN OR CONDITIONS THAT'S REQUIRING THEM TO OPERATE IN THAT MANNER.
OBVIOUSLY THERE'S PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY
[01:15:01]
AT THEIR DISPOSAL AND THEY WILL USE THAT ACCORDINGLY.AND, UM, ARE YOU AWARE THAT THERE'S, UM, DISCUSSIONS UNDERWAY, AND THIS COULD BE A QUESTION FOR MR. NAVARRES, UM, TO CONSIDER, UM, THE PEAK HASKELL COUPLET FOR A TWO-WAY CONVERSION? YES, THAT'S CORRECT.
BUT IN SPEAKING TO MR. NEVAREZ, I'M NOT CERTAIN EXACTLY WHAT THOSE PLANS ARE OR WHEN THEY WOULD BE COMPLETED.
AND I, AND THAT GOES TO THAT QUESTION OF CIRCULATION, IS THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, BOTH CURRENTLY YOU COULD POTENTIALLY ESSENTIALLY HAVE THE, THE INVERSE OF THE ROUTING AND THAT YOU COULD COME IN OFF OF TERRY AND EXIT AND, AND GO NORTHBOUND ON PEAK STREET AND THEN IF THERE WAS A POTENTIAL CONVERSION, ANYTHING TRYING TO GO NORTHBOUND ON PEAK STREET TURNING INTO THE SITE WOULD HAVE TO HAVE CROSS TRAFFIC.
IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.
AND THEN ON THE SITE PLAN, UM, I THINK YOU MENTIONED THIS, THAT THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF BUSES IS, IS INTENDED TO BE, UM, I THINK IT'S THREE ONSITE MAXIMUM, UM, SIX PER DAY.
UM, BUT THAT, THAT'S NOT INCLUDED IN OUR CURRENT U CONDITIONS.
THE MAXIMUM BUSE IS ALLOWED ON THE PROPERTY AT ONE TIMES TWO, AND I THINK IT'S SIX PER DAY EXCEPT FOR DURING HOLIDAY SEASONS WHEN THEY ANTICIPATE TO HAVE A FEW MORE BUS ROUTES ADDED.
AND NO, IT'S NOT INCLUDED IN THE CONDITIONS, BUT IT IS USED TO CALCULATE THE OVERALL, UH, PARKING REQUIREMENT AND IT IS STATED ON THE, UH, SITE.
THANK YOU FOR THAT, UM, CLARIFICATION.
AND YOU ARE, I'M SORRY, I MISSPOKE.
UM, AND THEN FINAL QUESTION, I THINK THERE WAS ALSO DISCUSSION OF THE HOURS OF OPERATIONS.
UM, WAS THAT ANYTHING THAT STAFF EVALUATED AS A, UM, CONDITION TO INCLUDE WITHIN THE S U P? WE DID NOT.
SINCE THE PROPERTY IS COMPLETELY, UH, SURROUNDED BY CS DISTRICT, WE DID NOT THINK THAT IT WAS NECESSARY TO INCLUDE HOURS OF OPERATION.
SOME BUS SERVICES DO OFFER VERY EARLY OR VERY LATE BUSES.
I'M NOT CERTAIN IF THEY PLAN TO HERE.
HOWEVER, THEY DID PROVIDE HOURS OF OPERATION.
IT WAS JUST NOT SOMETHING WE FELT WAS NECESSARY AT THIS SITE.
AND THEN I THINK YOU MENTIONED THE, THE EXISTING ZONING IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY, UM, IS CS, I THINK ON YOUR MAP YOU NOTED THAT THERE'S SOME OTHER, UM, DISTRICTS IN THE AREA, UM, PD, UM, 102.
IS THAT A WALKABLE, UM, MIXED USE DISTRICT WITH RESIDENTIAL COMPONENTS? I WOULD'VE TO PULL THAT UP.
UM, I'M HAPPY TO READ THAT, BUT I I'LL LET YOU LOOK AT THAT AS WELL.
UM, ALSO WANTED TO ASK IF YOU'RE AWARE THAT THERE'S BEEN A RECENT ZONING CASE IN SOME OF THE, UM, COMMUNITY DISCUSSION ON LONG-TERM VISION ABOUT THINKING ABOUT MIXED USE AND SPECIFICALLY ADDING RESIDENTIAL, UM, COMPONENTS IN THIS AREA.
I THINK WE'VE HAD ONE RECENT CASE AND ANOTHER ONE THAT'S MAYBE UNDER REVIEW BY STAFF, IS THAT CORRECT? YES.
I HAVE CAUSE OF, UM, OF CONCERN, UM, WITH THIS TERMINAL BEING THERE BECAUSE OF THE HIGH TR HIGH TRAFFIC AREA, UM, AND THE POSSIBLE CAUSE FOR ACCIDENTS AND THE LOADING AND UNLOADING.
I KNOW THAT TERRY STREET IS LISTED AS A STREET, BUT IT'S ALSO A SERVICE ROAD FOR I 30.
UM, IS THERE, WAS THERE NO, WERE THERE OR NO OTHER WAYS INTO THE PROPERTY BESIDES ON PEAK STREET? THERE ARE DRIVEWAYS BOTH ON PEAK AND TERRY.
UM, WAS THERE NO WAY FOR THEM TO ENTER ON THE SANTA FE SIDE? NO, THERE'S, THERE'S NO ACCESS THERE YET.
IS, UM, SO I DON'T THINK I'M, I DON'T THINK WE, WE NEED TO ASK FOR A TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT OR, OR DO WE, BECAUSE IT SITS RIGHT AT THE CORNER OF A, A MAJOR INTERSECTION THAT IS BOTH ONE WAY.
AND SO FOR THEM TO BE LEAVING OUT, IT'S GOING TO BE LEAVING OUT, GOING ON ONE WAY.
AND THEN EVEN IF THEY GO DOWN TERRY, WHICH TERRY IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT BECAUSE IT'S HIS SERVICE ROLE FOR L THORNTON, BUT THE PEAK SIDE CAUSED ME, CAUSED SOME WEARY FOR ME BECAUSE OF THE, OF THAT NOT ONLY BEING A THROUGHWAY, IT IS A ONE-WAY STREET.
AND SO I, THE, THE AUTOMATIC RENEWAL, UM, DID WE EVEN CONSIDER DOING NOT AN AUTOMATIC RENEWAL THIS FIRST, THIS FIRST TIME AND THEN AFTER THE FIVE YEARS COMING BACK DOING AN AUTOMATIC RENEWAL TO SEE WHERE, UH, WE WERE AS FAR AS, ESPECIALLY WITH WHAT THE, UH,
[01:20:01]
SOME OF THE, WHAT THE COMMUNITY IS GOING TO WAR AS SOME TYPE OF WALKABLE NEIGHBORHOOD.I WOULD LEAVE THAT TO CPCS DISCRETION.
FROM WHAT I SAW FROM THE EXISTING CONDITIONS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED IS AN IMPROVEMENT AS FAR AS WHAT'S REQUIRED OF THEM TO OPERATE AT THE SITE.
THE FACT THAT THEY HAVE A FIVE YEAR AND A FIVE YEAR AUTOMATIC RENEWAL DOES NOT MEAN THAT THEY WOULD OPERATE THEIR PRINT PERPETUITY.
IT, IT WILL ALWAYS BE SUBJECT TO THE AUTOMATIC RENEWAL REGULATIONS, WHICH MEANS IF THEY ARE A BAD, YOU KNOW, ACTOR IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD OR IF THERE WAS CONCERN OVER THE CHANGE, THE CHANGES OCCURRING IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THIS USE NO LONGER MEANING THE CHARACTER, UH, THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS WOULD BE WELCOME TO SUBMIT THEIR CONCERNS TO THE CITY.
AND AT THAT TIME IT WOULD BE BROUGHT BACK TO CPC DEPENDING ON HOW MANY REPLIES BE RECEIVED FROM THE NOTIFICATION AREA.
SO THERE'S STILL AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THAT USE TO BE BROUGHT BACK TO CCPC.
IT JUST ISN'T AUTOMATICALLY DONE BECAUSE UNTIL THERE'S A NEED FOR THAT, WE FIND IT TO BE SUITABLE AT THIS TIME.
SO I THINK MAYBE THE REASON, MAYBE I NEED, I I DO NEED TO ASK ABOUT THE TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT BECAUSE WE'RE DEALING WITH BUSES AND WE'VE OFTEN ASKED THE SD TO DO SUCH A THING.
SO WOULD WE ASK FOR A TRAFFIC MANAGER OR, OR, OR WOULD THAT EVEN COME UP FOR A TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN BECAUSE IT, IT JUST SEEMED THAT THEM OR BECAUSE IT SEEMS THAT THEM ENTERING AND EXITING ON, ON, ON A PEAK STREET, IT JUST SEEMS KIND OF DANGEROUS FOR THE COMMUNITY.
I WOULD LET DAVID SPEAK TO WHETHER OR NOT IT'S MORE OR LESS DANGEROUS BECAUSE OF IT BEING A ONE WAY STREET.
HOWEVER, WHEN WE DISCUSSED IT IN, AS COMMISSIONER HAMPTON NOTED, IF IT BECOMES A TWO-WAY CONVERSION, THEN IT WOULD BE CROSSING TRAFFIC IN ORDER TO ENTER THE SITE, WHICH SEEMS TO BE MORE DANGEROUS IN MY OPINION, ESPECIALLY IF IT BACKS UP TRAFFIC ONTO THE TERRY SIDE.
UM, SO RIGHT NOW IN ITS CURRENT CONDITION, IT SEEMS LIKE IT WOULD BE AN IDEAL SITUATION FOR THEM TO ENTER THROUGH PEAK AND EXIT THROUGH TERRY.
THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THEM NOT TO FOLLOW THAT BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY THEY CAN UTILIZE THE PUBLIC RIGHT AWAY AND HOWEVER THEY SEE FIT, THEY HAVE TIES ON BOTH ACCESSES, THEREFORE THEY COULD USE THOSE.
I THINK THAT THAT THEIR CONCERN IS JUST PRETTY MUCH OF THE LOCATION OF IT WAS A LITTLE FARTHER DOWN.
BUT BY BEING THAT, THAT MAJOR INTERSECTION AND THAT A, HE A HEAVILY TRAVEL THROUGHWAY, UM, DURING PEAK HOURS, REALLY MOST OF THE DAY THEY'RE JUST CAUSING A CONCERN OF HOW CLOSE IT IS TO THAT INTERSECTION.
UH, I THINK IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT TO CONSIDER THE SCALE OF THE OPERATION.
SIX BUSES IN A 24 HOUR PERIOD IS NOT SOMETHING SIGNIFICANT IN MY OPINION.
HOWEVER, AGAIN, I AM NOT AN ENGINEER.
SO IF WE NEED DAVID TO SPEAK TO THAT, HE IS AVAILABLE.
IS DAVID AVAILABLE? MR. NARVAEZ, ARE YOU HERE, SIR? HAVE RIGHT? HE'S NOT HERE YET.
WELL, WE'RE WAITING FOR MR. NEVAREZ.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER? SECOND ROUND FOR COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, PLEASE.
WELL, AND I'M HAPPY TO DEFER TO COMMISSIONER TREADWAY.
IT LOOKS LIKE SHE HAS A QUESTION AS WELL.
COMMISSIONER TRENDWAY, PLEASE.
I HAD A QUESTION ABOUT WHAT DOES IT MEAN BY NO OFF-PREMISES OR OUTSIDE BEVERAGES, FOOD AND BEVERAGES SOLD? DOES THAT MEAN THAT THIS SERVICE COULD SELL FOOD AND BEVERAGE IN THIS BUILDING? THEY JUST COULDN'T HAVE A THIRD PARTY SELL.
IS THAT FROM THE ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS? YEAH, THAT'S JUST A QUESTION LIKE WOULD FOOD WOULD, WOULD IN THIS BUS TERMINAL, WOULD THIS COMPANY BE PERMITTED TO, TO ITSELF SELL FOOD OR BEVERAGE? UM, I JUST SAW THAT THERE WAS A RESTRICTION ABOUT OUTSIDE FOOD AND BEVERAGE.
AND ONE OF MY QUESTIONS ALSO IS THAT IT, THE, OUR NOTES SAY THAT THIS IS IN A DELI CONTROL OVERLAY.
AND SO MY QUESTION HAS, COULD THEY SELL ALCOHOL AT THIS BUS TERMINAL BECAUSE IT'S CURRENTLY SITTING IN THE OVERLAY? AND IF SO, YEAH, THE, THE OVERLAY IS IN THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE PROPERTY AND THERE'S NO STRUCTURE THERE.
UM, HOWEVER, THE STRUCTURE THAT EXISTS,
[01:25:01]
THEY COULD OPERATE ANY EITHER ACCESSORY OR SEPARATE MAIN USE DEPENDING ON HOW THEY DECIDED TO DO SO.SO THE BUS, I THINK THE BUS STATION COULD PROBABLY SELL GENERAL MERCHANDISE OR FOOD TO UP TO THE ACCESSORY REGULATIONS SO FAR AS IT'S PERMITTED.
AND DOES, DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT THE BEST TERMINAL COULD SELL FOOD AND BEVERAGE AS AN ACCESSORY USE.
ARE YOU ACCESS SAYING THAT IT'S NOT BUT THE BUILDING ITSELF IS NOT IN THE LIQUOR CONTROL OVERLAY PORTION OF THE PROPERTY? THAT'S CORRECT.
SO THEY COULD NOT, THEY WOULD HAVE TO SEPARATELY APPLY TO SELL LIQUOR? YES.
I DIDN'T KNOW IF THEY GOT GRANDFATHERED.
SECOND YOUNG, UH, ROUND, UH, COMMISSIONER YOUNG PLEASE, SIR? UH, YES.
AM I RIGHT THAT OUTSIDE FOOD SALES REFERS TO OUTSIDE THE BUILDING? THAT'S CORRECT.
BECAUSE TO DIFFERENTIATE INSIDE FOOD SALES ACCORDING TO WHO THE PROPRIETOR WAS OR WASN'T, UH, WOULD NOT HAVE A LAND USE RATIONALE.
FIRST ROUND FOR CO COMMISSIONER CARPENTER.
I WANNA GO BACK TO THE QUESTION ABOUT AUTO-RENEWAL CUZ I, I'M STILL CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT THE RATIONALE IS FOR RECOMMENDING AUTO RENEWALS FOR A USE THAT'S POTENTIALLY AS INTRUSIVE AS A COMMERCIAL BUS STATION.
UM, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T HAVE LIMITATIONS ON, UM, THE OPERATING HOURS, THE NUMBER OF BUSES THAT CAN COME AND GO IN A DAY.
I MEAN, THERE'S NOTHING, I MEAN, THERE'RE, IT'S NOT IN THE S U P CONDITIONS, IT'S IN THE, UH, STAFF REPORT THAT THEY'RE INTENDING TO HAVE NO MORE THAN TWO BUSES ON SITE AT ANY PARTICULAR TIME.
AND I KNOW THAT DICTATES THE PARKING, BUT THERE'S NOTHING TO PROHIBIT BUSES FROM LINING UP, YOU KNOW, PEAK STREET AND, AND BEING A NUISANCE WELL BEYOND AT ALL HOURS OF THE DAY.
AND I, I THINK THERE IS A, I THINK WE MAY BE OVERSTATING, UM, THE LACK OF POSSIBILITY THAT, UH, UH, AUTO-RENEWAL CANNOT BE A, A TICKET PERPETUITY, BECAUSE AS LONG AS THEY GET THEIR RENEWAL APPLICATION PAPERWORK IN ON TIME AND THEIR SITE PLAN, THEY'RE IN, UH, COMPLIANCE WITH THEIR SITE PLAN, UM, IT PRETTY MUCH IS A TICKET TO PERPETUITY BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, TO TRIGGER COMING BACK TO CPC, UM, IT'S A NOTIFICATION AREA OF 300 FEET HERE, THE OWNERS OF 20% OF THAT LAND MASS WITHIN THAT 300 FEET TERRITORY WOULD HAVE TO, UM, LODGE BALLOTS IN OPPOSITION.
AND IF THE, YOU KNOW, COMMERCIAL BUS STATION HAS A, A CONSIDERABLE POTENTIAL FOR BEING A NUISANCE WELL BEYOND THAT 300 FEET AND IN AN AREA THAT IS SEEMINGLY TRENDING TOWARD MIXED USE AND RESIDENTIAL, UM, I, I, I GUESS I WOULD LIKE A LITTLE MORE ELABORATION AS TO WHAT THE RATIONALE IS FOR THE AUTO RENEWALS.
SO COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, THANK YOU FOR YOUR, FOR YOUR QUESTIONS.
UH, REGARDING THE AUTOMATIC RENEWAL SPECIFICALLY IS WHAT YOU'RE ASKING ABOUT? YES, YES.
AGAIN, I, I UNDERSTAND THAT THE AREA OUTSIDE OF THIS IMMEDIATE VICINITY IS TRANSITIONING, BUT THIS SPECIFIC AREA IS NOT THERE YET.
AND I, I DID NOT THINK THAT THIS USE WOULD BE A DETRIMENT TO THIS AREA.
AND BECAUSE THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO SUBMIT THEIR, THEIR COMPLAINTS OR THEIR POSITION DURING THE AUTO RENEWAL PROCESS, I FIGURED THAT IT WOULD BE TAKEN CARE OF AT THAT POINT.
AND THEN IF YOU, IF YOU NOTATE THE NUMBER OF SUS THAT WE RECEIVED THAT RETURN TO SU THAT RETURN TO CCPC, EXCUSE ME, AFTER BEING GRANTED AUTOMATIC RENEWALS, IT'S NOT A HUNDRED PERCENT CERTAIN THAT THEY WILL MAKE DEADLINES.
AND SOMETIMES IT'S ALMOST A CURSE INSTEAD OF A BLESSING BECAUSE IF THEY GET A LONGER PERIOD AND THEN ARE GRANTED AUTOMATIC RENEWALS AND THEY DON'T CHECK THEIR MAIL AND THEY DON'T FOLLOW THROUGH, SOMETIMES IT DOESN'T ACTUALLY LEAD TO THAT.
SO THERE'S A LOT OF, THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS THAT COULD STOP THEM FROM CONTINUING TO OPERATE EITHER THE WILL OF THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS OR THEIR INABILITY TO MANAGE AN AUTOMATIC RENEWAL PROCESS.
SO WITH ALL THE VARIABLES IN THE FACT THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD RIGHT NOW IT'S SUPPORTED AND IT IS LIMITED TO TWO BUSES MAXIMUM PER
[01:30:01]
DAY, WHICH WOULD BE RELIANT ON THE COMPLIANCE CALLS AND THEN OF COURSE FOLLOW THROUGH, THEN I DON'T SEE HOW IT COULD BE DETRIMENTAL AT THIS TIME.THERE'S NO RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, AND I DID LOOK UP PD ONE, UM, 10 0 2 AS COMMISSIONER HAMPTON MENTIONED, AND IT IS POISED FOR MIXED DEVELOPMENT IN PEDESTRIAN ACCESSIBILITY.
AND I THINK THAT WE TRIED TO INTEGRATE SOME OF THOSE PRINCIPLES INTO THIS SITE DESPITE THEM NOT BEING REQUIRED.
SO WE TOOK INTO CONSIDERATION THE ADJACENT TAIL, UH, TRAIL, EXCUSE ME, WE TOOK INTO CONSIDERATION THE CHANGING FORM OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
HOWEVER, THAT SHOULDN'T STOP THIS SITE FROM BEING ABLE TO OPERATE THIS LAND USE, ESPECIALLY AT THIS SCALE.
I GUESS I'M LOOKING AT IT FROM A DIFFERENT POINT OF VIEW, HAVING A NUMBER OF COMMERCIAL BUS STATIONS IN MY DISTRICT THAT, UM, EVEN INDUSTRIAL AREAS HAVE A TENDENCY TO MORPH INTO, UH, MORE INTENSIVE AND INTRUSIVE USES.
I ALSO JUST WANTED TO MENTION THAT THERE, THEY SPECIFICALLY, HOWEVER, THE ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS DO STATE THAT NO LOADING OR UNLOADING THE PASSENGERS IS PERMITTED IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.
SO AGAIN, THEM BLOCKING ON CARRIER PEAK IS WHAT WAS MENTIONED AS WELL.
THEY, WE HAD THEM GO AS FAR AS TO ADD THE INTERNAL LOADING AND UNLOADING PASSENGER AREA ON THE SITE PLAN AS WELL, EVEN THOUGH IT'S NOT REQUIRED FOR THEM TO HAVE ANY KIND OF LOADING OR UNLOADING OPERATIONS SHOWN.
SO THAT IS SUPPOSED TO ALSO HELP IDENTIFY WHAT THEY SHOULD BE DOING, THEIR PROCESSES AND PROCEDURES AND HOW THEY'RE OPERATING TO HOPEFULLY MINIMIZE ANY POTENTIAL IMPACT AND HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE TO CODE COMPLIANCE AND THE REGULATIONS AND THE CODE.
I I, I, I STILL HAVE CONCERN WITH, WITH, WITH THE AUTOMATIC, BECAUSE WHAT I'M HEARING YOU SAY IS THAT NOT RIGHT NOW, BUT HOW MUCH COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT WAS EVEN SURROUNDED THIS, BECAUSE EVEN THOUGH IT'S IN A MO MOSTLY COMMERCIAL AREA, IT STILL HAD ROOMS FOR CONCERN ON IT BEING IN A MAIN, UM, A MAIN THROUGHWAY AND IT'S BEING BUSES AND NOT THE LIMITS.
AND THE IDEAL THAT, THAT THERE IS SOME DEVELOPMENT GOING ON AS A WALKABLE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT IS ALREADY KNOWN TO COME IN THE FUTURE, THAT A AUTOMATIC RENEWAL, WE WOULDN'T EVEN DO THAT FOR THE I S D.
WE WOULD, SO THIS IS, THESE ARE BUSES, SO IF IT WAS MAYBE SOME OTHER TYPE OF BUSINESS, BUT THESE ARE BUSES AND IT DOESN'T TAKE, IT ONLY TAKES ONE BUS
SO IT'S REALLY ROOM FOR CONCERN ON A AUTOMATIC, UM, UM, RENEWAL AND THE SAFETY, UM, THE SAFETY, UH, CONCERNS OF IT.
AND IS DAVID, DAVID, HE'S HERE.
DAVID NAVARRES ENGINEERING, HOW CAN I HELP YOU? SO IN, IN THIS, IN THIS MATTER, THIS SITS AT, UM, THIS PARTICULAR CASE, UM, PARCEL SITS RIGHT AT THE CORNER OF A MAIN THROWAWAY, WHICH A, WHICH IS TERRY STREET AND PEAK TERRY IS, IS IS THE, UM, SERVICE ROAD.
AND THEN THERE'S BEEN, IN, IN, IN THIS SETTING, THERE'S BEEN A CONVERSATION THAT THERE'S TALK OF TURNING PEAK INTO A TWO-WAY, UM, AND THE AUTOMATIC RENEWAL.
SO WHAT KIND OF TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN HAS BEEN PUT IN PLACE OR HAS BEEN REQUESTED, UM, BECAUSE IT JUST SEEMS DANGEROUS, WHETHER IT'S TWO BUSES OR 10 BUSES COMING OUT.
THAT IS A MAIN THREE-WAY AND IT'S A ONE-WAY, AND IT'S HEAVILY TRAVELED, VERY HEAVILY TRAVELED.
ARE ARE YOU SPEAKING OF PEAK OR THE SERVICE ROAD REALLY? BOTH.
SO EITHER WAY OF COMING OUT IS DANGEROUS, BUT DEFINITELY THE PEAK, UM, IS NOT A WIDE ROAD MM-HMM.
UM, WELL MA'AM, WE, WE DID NOT REQUEST A TRAFFIC STUDY OF ANY KIND FOR THE APPLICATION IN AS MUCH AS, UH, WE UNDERSTOOD THE LAND USE, UM, WAS AN EXISTING OPERATION TO A CERTAIN EXTENT.
UM, AS WELL AS IT WAS OUR REVIEW SHOWED, UH, THERE WERE NO SERVICE REQUESTS, NO, UM, INDICATION OF BUSES QUEUING OR OPERATING IN PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY.
AND WE ALSO NOTICED THERE WAS NO ACCIDENTS THAT WOULD BE RELATED TO THE DRIVEWAYS AT THE EXISTING LOCATIONS.
WE POINTED OUT THAT THE DRIVEWAYS ON THE SERVICE ROAD DO NOT COMPLY WITH TECH DOTS, UM, STANDARDS, AND THEREFORE WE RECOMMENDED
[01:35:01]
THEM TO APPROACH TECH DOT IMMEDIATELY TO REQUEST A VARIANCE.HOWEVER, WE WOULD NOT HAVE TO GO THROUGH ANY OF THE REVIEW AT PERMITTING BECAUSE THE LAND USE IS NOT BEING RE THERE, THERE'S NO CONSTRUCTION PROPOSED.
THIS WILL BE THE LAST TIME THAT ENGINEERING WILL REVIEW THIS PROJECT UNTIL PERHAPS BECOMES A NUISANCE TO THE COMMUNITY.
UM, BUT OTHERWISE WE SAW NO REASON TO REQUEST A TRAFFIC STUDY FOR THIS PROPOSED 10, UH, APPLICATION.
SO THE ENTRY IS NOT THAT FAR FROM THE, FROM THE RIGHT OF WAY.
I MEAN TECHNICALLY SOON AS ANOTHER, I MEAN THE LIGHT TURNS GREEN, THEY'LL PULL OUT.
IT'S NOT THAT FAR FROM THE RIGHT OF WAY AND NOT TO HAVE A TRAFFIC MANAGED PLAN SEEMS THAT, THAT THERE'S AN ACCIDENT WAITING TO HAPPEN.
A MAJOR THIS WAS A BUS TERMINAL.
UM, I, MAYBE I, I'LL REPHRASE MY ANSWER.
THERE WAS NOTHING THAT WE BELIEVE WOULD, THERE WAS NO INFORMATION WE, WE THOUGHT WOULD, WOULD BE OBTAINED FROM A TRAFFIC STUDY.
UM, IN RETROSPECT, MAYBE A TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN WOULD'VE BEEN VERY, VERY BENEFICIAL FOR THE COMMISSION TO UNDERSTAND TO VISUALIZE HOW TRUCKS, EXCUSE ME, BUSES WOULD BE COMING IN AND OUT OF THE SITE.
UM, WE DID NOT MAKE THAT REQUEST, UH, AS PART OF OUR REVIEW.
CAN THAT REQUEST BE MADE? UM, THAT'S A QUESTION FOR, UM, MS. MUNOS AND THE COMMISSION.
AND I TRULY WOULD LIKE TO KNOW MS. MUNO, HOW MUCH COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT, JUST BECAUSE IT SITS JUST A COUPLE OF, A FEW BUSINESSES SIT IN THAT CORRIDOR, THERE IS ALSO RESIDENTIAL AND THERE.
SO HOW MUCH COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT WAS EVEN REQUESTED OR DID THE APPLICANT EVEN CONSIDER? SO COMMISSIONER WHEELER, THOSE ARE GREAT QUESTIONS FOR, UM, THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE BECAUSE AS FAR AS STAFF GOES, WE FOLLOW THE LEGAL PROCEDURE.
WE DO OUR BEST TO NOTIFY THE PUBLIC AND ALL REGISTERED PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN THE REQUIRED NOTIFICATION AREA.
WE PUBLISH OUR ADS IN THE PAPER, WE POST OUR DOCKETS ACCORDING TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE STATE LAW, AND WE POST THEM ON OUR WEBPAGE.
WE SHARE THEM WITH THE COMMUNITY MEMBERS AS REQUESTED.
THERE'S SIGNS ON THE PROPERTY AS REQUIRED.
AGAIN, WE ARE THE, THE LEGAL REQUIRED NOTIFICATION AREA, AND THE APPLICANT HAS THE RESPONSIBILITY TO FURTHER PERFORM OUTREACH BEYOND THOSE BOUNDARIES OR WITHIN AND BEYOND THOSE BOUNDARIES.
WE HIGHLY RECOMMEND TO EVERY SINGLE APPLICANT TO REACH OUT TO C P C MEMBERS AS WELL AS ALL COMMUNITY MEMBERS AND NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS.
THAT IS IN OUR COMMENT LETTERS TO THEM ON AFTER EVERY STAFF REVIEW MEETING.
SO I, MR. ADA WAS MADE AWARE OF THAT.
ANY OUTREACH DONE HE WOULD HAVE TO EXPLAIN TO YOU.
I GOT MY MAIN CONCERN WAS THAT TRAFFIC, IS IT MANAGEMENT OR WHAT MAN SOMETHING? WELL, IT, IT'S A TRAFFIC STUDY.
WE COULD CALL IT TRAFFIC STUDY, SOME TYPE OF TRAFFIC STUDY.
IT COULD HAVE BEEN A LITTLE BIT FARTHER DOWN THE STREET.
IT PROBABLY WOULDN'T BE AS ALARMING AS BEING RIGHT THERE AT THAT, AT THAT STOP SIGN.
ONE LAST COMMENT TO JUSTIFY THE REASON WHY STAFF DIDN'T REQUEST A A TRAFFIC STUDY, WE DO THAT ALL THE TIME WHENEVER WE'RE, WE FEEL LIKE WE'RE UNABLE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS IN FRONT OF THE, UH, COMMISSION, UM, AT THIS POINT, WE DON'T WANNA COME IN FRONT OF YOUR COMMISSION AND SAY WE DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER.
WE PREFER TO HAVE THAT PREPARED WELL IN ADVANCE IN THIS CASE, THE REASON WHY WE DIDN'T ASK FOR A TRAFFIC STUDY WAS SIMPLY BECAUSE GIVEN THE SIZE OF THE, OF, OF, OF THE SITE AND ITS IMMEDIATE PROXIMITY TO A SERVICE ROAD, UM, IN RETROSPECT, UH, AN AN ILLUSTRATION SHOWING HOW MANY BUSES ARE COMING IN AND COMING OUT AND TIMES OF DAY.
AND PERHAPS THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THE APPLICANT CAN ANSWER AT DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING PORTION OF THE CASE.
WELL, IN RESPONSE TO THAT AS WELL, DAVID, THE SITE PLAN THAT WAS PROVIDED DOES SHOW THE LITTLE IMAGES OF THE BUSES.
AND SINCE IT'S A MAXIMUM TWO BUSES, IT KIND OF SHOWS THE FLOW ON THE PROPERTY AND THE CIRCULATION, WHICH IS DESCRIBED IN THE LAND USE STATEMENT, AS I NOTED EARLIER IN MY PRESENTATION.
I THINK THEY DID THEIR BEST TO IDENTIFY THE CIRCULATION AND THE FLOW OF THE BUSES WITH THE SURROUNDING TRAFFIC.
BUT P NEITHER IS AN ENGINEER, SO THERE WAS NO STUDY PROVIDED.
AND ONE LAST COMMENT SURE DID.
THE, WE DID POINT OUT THIS, THIS SIDE DISTANCE AS BEING A FACTOR THAT WE WANTED TO, IN AS MUCH AS WE WON'T SEE IT AT PERMITTING, ENGINEER WON'T HA GET A CHANCE TO SEE THAT PERMITTING VOUCHERS REQUEST A CEO THAT DOESN'T GO THROUGH OUR OFFICE, WE DIDN'T LET THEM KNOW THAT SITE DISTANCE WAS AN ISSUE IN WHICH THEY'RE AWARE THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO ADDRESS EITHER BY, UM, REMOVING THE FENCE OR, UM, WITHIN THE VI VISIBILITY TRIANGLES OR PROCEEDING WITH THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CASE, WHICH WE WOULD NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL FOR UNLESS THEY COMPLY WITH.
[01:40:01]
WHO, WHO SAID THAT THAT'S POSSIBLY PEAK IS GONNA POSSIBLY TURN INTO A TWO-WAY? NO.OR WAS IT, SO MS, UM, I MAYBE I'M WRONG.
MS. MUNEZ WHO PER PERHAPS THE IN IN THE BRIEFING YES.
ALL I KNOW IS THAT THERE WAS A HALF BEEN MEETINGS PLAN AND, AND WE WERE ASKED ABOUT THE PROCESS TO CONVERT A PEAK INTO A TWO WAY.
UH, THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HAS ADDED IT TO, UM, THE LIST OF BOND PROJECTS THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO EXPLORE AND ONCE FUNDED, IT WILL PROCEED TO AN EVALUATION TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THE ROAD SHOULD BE CONVERTED INTO A TWO-WAY ROAD.
IT'S HAPPENING THROUGHOUT THE CITY AND I WOULD SEE REASON WHY, WHY THE CITY WOULDN'T WANT IT TURNED INTO TWO WAYS, BUT WE'RE LONG WAYS FROM THAT.
SO PRETTY MUCH WE MAYBE THE, THIS CAN BE HANDLED AT NOT AUTOMATIC RENEWAL THE FIRST TIME, SO.
COMMISSIONER HUBBER, DID YOU HAVE YOUR HAND UP, SIR, FIRST ROUND FOR YOU? UM, YES.
SO, UH, IN SPEAKING TO COMMISSIONER WHEELER'S POINT, THE ON-RAMP TO 30 BEING SO CLOSE TO THAT DRIVE-IN ENTRY IS A ISSUE THAT I, I GUESS YOU GUYS HAVE LOOKED AT, BUT STILL CONCERNS ME.
AND ALSO TURNING IN FROM PEAK TO THE DRIVEWAY, IT ALMOST SEEMS LIKE A U-TURN FROM A LEFT LANE.
UM, NOT SURE IF THAT'S BEEN THOUGHT OUT, BUT I, THIS IS WHY I SUPPORT HER'S.
UM, COMMISSIONER WHEELER'S COMMENT ABOUT HAVING A TRAFFIC STUDY OR PLAN.
UM, MY THIRD QUESTION IS, WAS THE BUS BARN THAT DART MAINTAINS THAT'S ABOUT THREE BLOCK FROM THIS LOCATION, WAS IT CONSIDERED AT ALL? OR IF SO, OR IF NOT, WHY? THANK YOU.
SO I, THE FIRST TWO QUESTIONS, FOUR MORE STATEMENTS, SO I HAVE NO COMMENT ON THOSE.
I AGREE THAT A, AN OPERATIONAL PLAN WITH SHELL WAS WHETHER OR NOT BUSES ARE ABLE TO COME IN AND OUT OF THE SITE.
UM, AND, AND CERTAINLY THE PROXIMITY TO THE EXIT ENTRANCE RAMP ONTO I 20.
AND BY THE WAY, THIS WHOLE FREEWAY IS GONNA LOOK VERY DIFFERENT IN UPCOMING YEARS.
UH, BUT THE RAMP WILL REMAIN AT THE, AT ITS EXISTING LOCATION, THE HIGHWAY, WE WILL BE DEPRESSED AT THAT POINT.
UM, CERTAINLY THE LOCATION OF THOSE RAMPS, OF THOSE DRIVEWAYS RELATIVE TO THE RAMP IS A CONCERN THAT WE VOICED AND TOLD THEM THAT WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO, UM, UH, SUPPORT A VARIANCE.
BUT THAT'S A, THAT THAT IS A STATE JURISDICTION.
WE, WE DON'T EVEN GET TO COMMENT.
WE WE DO, BUT, AND WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO SUPPORT THAT.
BUT IT'S A MATTER THAT THE, THE TECH DOC WOULD HAVE TO, UH, UM, APPROVE, EVALUATE AND APPROVE.
WE, AND TO ANSWER YOUR THIRD QUESTION, WE, WE DID NOT CONS, I DID NOT CONSIDER THE OUR OR OUR REVIEW.
WE DID NOT CONSIDER THE, THE, UH, ADJACENT DARTS.
UM, EXCUSE ME, CAN YOU FOR, FOR OUR RECORD, WAS IT DARK BUS BARN? IT LOOKS LIKE WHERE THE HOUSED THAT BUS IS ARE ON, ON PEAK? UH, IT'S FURTHER UP.
SO IT'S ABOUT, UH, YEAH, PEAK.
THREE BLOCKS UP, PEAK AND MAIN.
AND, AND I WOULD LIKE TO FOLLOW UP ON THAT AND OKAY.
AND MAKE SURE WE, WE SEE IF THERE'S ANY CONFLICT.
YEAH, MR. NAVARRO IS ABOUT HOW MANY PEOPLE, THEY SAID THERE WERE ABOUT SIX BUSES A DAY.
HOW MANY PEOPLE DOES, IF THIS IS A STANDARD COMMERCIAL BUS, HOW MANY PEOPLE WOULD THOSE SEAT? SIR, THAT'S A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.
EVERY BUS OPERATION, BUS LINE OPERATES DIFFERENTLY.
UH, IT'S BEEN ROUGHLY SEVERAL YEARS SINCE I RODE ONE OF THOSE TO WEST TEXAS.
UH, BUT, UH, AND I WOULD DO IT RE CURRENTLY, SO I'M FAMILIAR WITH THE AMOUNT.
40 IS THE NUMBER THAT I BELIEVE IS THE CORRECT ANSWER.
BUT, UM, I WOULD RATHER YOU ASK THE APPLICANT.
BECAUSE EVERY BUS IS DESIGNED DIFFERENTLY WITH, YOU KNOW, UH, THE ABILITY TO ACCOMMODATE THE, A SECOND BUS DRIVER TO SLEEP.
BUT THEN OTHERS, 40 IS NOT AN UNREASONABLE NUMBER FOR A BUS.
IT, IT DESIGNED A, A STANDARD, A STANDARDIZED BUS, UH, WOULD ACCOMMODATE 40.
UH, PASSENGERS, I WOULD RATHER YOU ASK THE APP AND, AND ACTUALLY I, I I, JENNIFER, I DON'T NEED AN EXACT NUMBER.
THAT'S NOT CRITICAL TO, TO MY LINE OF QUESTIONING.
I THINK JENNIFER HAS A BETTER ANSWER.
PERHAPS I DO HAVE THE ANSWER THOUGH.
IT IS ON THE SITE PLAN, IT'S 42.
BECAUSE IT WAS USED TO DETERMINE THE NUMBER OF PARKING CASES.
SO HOW MANY SINGLE OCCUPANT VEHICLE TRIPS COULD ONE OF THESE COMMERCIAL BUSES TAKE OFF THE ROAD? SIR, THAT'S, THAT'S ALSO A PART OF A STUDY THAT WOULD HAVE, I WOULD RELY ON OBSERVATIONS RATHER THAN, UM, ANY PUBLISHED MATERIALS BECAUSE EVERY DEMOGRAPHICS LOCATION TAKES, UH, IT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO KNOW WHETHER THEY'RE BEING DROPPED OFF BY A LOVED ONE OR A NU OR PERHAPS EVEN TRANSIT.
SO, UM, I I CAN GIVE YOU SOME ANECDOTAL, UH, FROM, FROM ON JEFFERSON, THEY'RE TYPICALLY, UM, LESS THAN ONE VEHICLE PER PASSENGERS ABSOLUTELY OBSERVED.
AND JUST, YOU KNOW, I MEAN THE PASSENGERS THAT ARE GOING A LONG WAY, THEY COULD EITHER TAKE A SINGLE OCCUPANCY VEHICLE OR THEY COULD GO ON THE BUS.
[01:45:02]
SAY THAT AGAIN PLEASE.THE, THE PASSENGERS THAT ARE GOING A LONG WAY COULD EITHER TAKE A SINGLE OCCUPANCY VEHICLE TO WEST TEXAS.
AS YOU SAID, YOU'VE RIDDEN THOSE DOWN THE ROAD.
THEY COULD TAKE THIS BUS, RIGHT? UH, AS MEANING THEY LEAVE THEIR VEHICLE ONSITE? NO, I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT LEAVING THE VEHICLE.
UH, ONE OF, ONE OF OUR GOALS IN CCAP AND AND OTHER CITY POLICIES IS TO REDUCE SINGLE OCCUPANT VEHICLE TRIPS.
AND DID THESE COMMERCIAL BUS TERMINALS HELP FACILITATE THE REDUCTION IN SINGLE OCCUPANTS VEHICLE TRIPS? SO ACTUALLY WE'RE GETTING INTO THE MACROSCOPIC, UH, A LITTLE BIT MORE MACRO YES.
BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, AT, AT THIS POINT WE'RE NOT, UM, A VEHICLE TRIP AT THIS POINT IS NOT COMPARED TO A PASSENGER CAR, BUT RATHER TO OTHER MODES OF TRANS LONG-TERM TRANSPORTATION.
SO, UH, A PASSENGER ON A BUS IS ACTUALLY REDUCING THE NUMBER OF PASSENGERS ON A FLIGHT INSTEAD OF A PASSENGER.
BUT, BUT A ABSOLUTELY PASSENGER CARS IS AT WOULD, WOULD BE REDUCED.
UM, NOT BY A SIGNIFICANT PERCENT, BUT IT'S DEFINITELY REDUCED BY HAVING SOMEONE TAKE THE BUS INSTEAD OF A, A PASSENGER CAR.
THE CROSSING OF THE SANTA FE HERE GRADE TRAIL HERE IS, OR MM-HMM.
THERE'S NO CONCERN ABOUT TRAIL USERS AND THESE BUSES AND HAVING ANY CONFLICTS? NOT, NOT IN MY OPINIONS.
NOT, NOT NOT AT THIS LOCATION.
SECOND AROUND FOR COMMISSIONER HAMPTON.
MR. NAVARRES, I THINK YOU MENTIONED I 30 AND HOW IT'S GOING TO LOOK DRAMATICALLY DIFFERENT IN THE FUTURE IS THE CURRENT PLANNING BY TEXT DOT THAT PEAK WILL BECOME AN AT GRADE, UM, CONNECTION ACROSS, UM, I'LL REF, I'LL I'LL SAY YES, BUT I'LL REPHRASE.
WE'LL REMAIN UPGRADE, UH, CROSSING.
CORRECT BECAUSE I 30 IS GOING TO BE DEPRESSED.
AND SO INSTEAD OF BEING THE ELEVATED I 30 THAT YOU CROSS UNDER THE ROADWAY WILL GO OVER RECONNECTING OUR STREET.
AND RECONNECTING, UM, WHAT WAS HISTORIC OLD EAST DALLAS? CORRECT.
SO WE WILL BE CONNECTED TO JUBILEE PARK, TO DOLPHIN HEIGHTS AND TO THEN, UM, DEEP ELUM PEAKS EDITION IN OUR, IN THE NEIGHBORHOODS THAT ARE CURRENTLY ON THE NORTH SIDE OF I 30.
IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT.
AND THE PURPOSE OF THE NOTIFICATIONS BY TEXT.
AND, UM, IF I'M MAY ASK A FOLLOW UP OF MS. MUNOS AS WELL.
MS. MUNOS, IS IT CORRECT THAT WE RECEIVED SOME, UM, BALLOTS AND OPPOSITION TO THIS REQUEST AND A COMMUNITY LETTER AS WELL? YES, THAT'S CORRECT.
AND, UM, I WILL ALSO ASK THIS QUESTION OF THE APPLICANT, BUT UM, IN RESPONSE TO ONE OF THE COMMISSIONER'S QUESTIONS, ARE YOU AWARE IF THE APPLICANT WAS PROVIDED INFORMATION TO CONTACT, UM, THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS, INCLUDING JUBILEE PARK PEAKS EDITION AND THE MOUNT AUBURN NEIGHBORHOOD, AS WELL AS SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS, THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH WHAT STAFF HAD ALSO, UM, REQUESTED? THEY DO.
IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.
WHAT AWAY? SO IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS PART OF THE INTERSTATE'S GONNA LOOK DIFFERENT A FEW YEARS, WHICH IS ANOTHER REASON WHY I DON'T SUPPORT AUTOMATIC RENEWAL FOR THIS PROJECT.
I THINK SOME OF THE QUESTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED, THIS APPEARS TO BE AN AREA THAT IS CHANGING THE HIGHWAY IS GOING TO CHANGE.
I THINK ALL OF THOSE TO ME WEIGH IN FAVOR OF IT NOT BEING AN AUTOMATIC RENEWAL.
UM, BUT I HAVE A QUESTION I DIDN'T REALIZE UNTIL THE MAP THAT YOU PUT UP, UM, MS. MUNOS, THAT THIS IS NOT THE FULL PROPERTY.
WHAT, WHAT IS IT THE CORNER WHO OWNS THAT PIECE OF THE CORNER THAT'S CARVED OUT OF THE SITE PLAN IT, THE UNDEVELOPED PROPERTY AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER? YEAH.
IS IT A DIFFERENT OWNER OR WHY IS IT CARVED BACK ON THE LANDSCAPE PLAN? YOU CAN CHECK REAL QUICK BECAUSE I THOUGHT THAT THEY HAD THIS FULL CORNER, BUT THEN THAT PLAN APPEARS TO CARVE IT BACK.
AND THE SECOND QUESTION IS, WITH THE ELEVATED SANTA FE TRAIL, HOW EASY IS IT FOR SOMEONE, AND WE KIND OF TALKED ABOUT THIS WITH, YOU KNOW, GETTING TO THIS TERMINAL.
COULD YOU WALK FROM THE SANTA FE TRAIL? ARE THERE STAIRS HERE? LIKE HOW WOULD YOU GET FROM THE ELEVATED TRAIL DOWN TO THE TERMINAL? OR IS THAT NOT POSSIBLE AT ALL? I JUST DON'T KNOW THE, HOW THE TRAIL BEING ELEVATED HERE WORKS.
HOW YOU GET, IF IF IT AT IT'S AT ALL POSSIBLE TO GET ON AND OFF OF THE TRAIL CLOSE TO THIS TERMINAL.
JENNIFER, IF I MAY, YOU CAN, I WAS TRYING TO SEE IF I HAD THE PHOTO OF IT.
[01:50:01]
UM, AT THE END OF THE BLOCK THERE BY THE MINI WAREHOUSE.IS THAT WHAT YOU ALSO KNOW, DAVID? YEAH, IT SEEMS TO BE NOTCHED IN.
SO JENNIFER, I'M LOOKING AT AN AERIAL ON MY PHONE.
AND SO THAT'S SIMPLY MY ANSWER.
BASED ON A VERY CURSORY EVALUATION OF THE SIDE NORTH OF, OR, OR THE AREA NORTH OF THE SITE, THERE IS NO DIRECT ACCESS TO PEAK.
UM, HOWEVER, IT, IT STARTS COMING DOWN AT GRADE.
SO HASKELL WOULD PROBABLY BE AN ACCESS POINT AND THEN IT'S JUST A BLOCK AWAY.
THIS SIDE IS LOCATED WITHIN WALKING DISTANCE FROM THE TRAIL.
I WOULD, I I'M JUST TRYING TO ENVISION, SO ARE YOU WALKING DOWNSTAIRS WITH LUGGAGE? WHEN, WHEN I PHOTOGRAPHED THE SITE, IT WAS RIGHT HERE.
AS I SAID, THE SANTA FE TRAIL CAME DOWN ONTO HASKELL.
MY MY, MY COLLEAGUES ARE SHOWING ME A, A A A RAMP AS WELL.
UH, THEY'RE SHOWING ME THERE'S A RAMP CONNECTING.
SO IN THIS PICTURE, WHAT'S CARVED OUT? SEE THE RED, THAT'S THE CORNER, THE TOP CORNER.
WHAT IS THAT PIECE AND WHY IS THAT NOT INCLUDED IN, IN WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT? IS THAT DIFFERENT? IT, IT'S DEFINITELY NOT A PART OF THAT SITE.
AND THAT'S WHAT I WAS TRYING TO PULL UP RIGHT NOW TO SEE WHO THE PROPERTY OWNER IS.
SO IT WOULD BE THE NORTHERN MOST RIGHT NOW CORNER? YEAH, IT'S THE CORNER OF PEAK AND SANTA FE IT LOOKS LIKE.
THE UNDEVELOPED PROPERTY THAT I SHOWED.
UM, IS IT, IT SEEMS TO BE A PRIVATE PROPERTY, UH, JUST BETWEEN THE SANTA FE TRAIL AND THE, IN THIS SUBJECT SITE, IS THERE A HOUSE THERE? I MEAN, I, I WAS UNDER THE ASSUMPTION THIS WAS THE FULL PROPERTY UNTIL I FOCUSED IN ON THIS.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM? YES, SIR.
UM, SO, UM, THESE COMMENTS ARE KIND OF STRUCTURED TOWARDS IF IT'S A COMPATIBLE LAND USE, UM, CONSIDERING THERE'S A MAXIMUM OF TWO BUSES THAT'LL BE ON SITE.
WE HAVE SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THE MANEUVERABILITY AND WALKABILITY OF THAT SITE.
UM, SHOULD IT NOT BE LOCATED CLOSER TO TRANSIT, UM, OR, OR SOME OTHER KIND OF TRANSIT MEANS, UM, IN ORDER TO HELP PEOPLE GET THERE.
UM, AND THEN, SO, AND THERE ARE TWO OTHER QUESTIONS AND THEN I'M GONNA LEAVE IT ALONE.
UM, KNOWING THAT THIS IS A TRANSIT STOP, OFTENTIMES THERE ARE THE, THE, THE RIDERS WILL CONGREGATE OUTSIDE BECAUSE OF COURSE NOT EVERYONE WANTS TO BE IN THE BUILDING AT ONCE OR THEY'RE WAITING FOR THE BUS.
ARE THERE APPROPRIATIONS FOR, UM, SHADE STRUCTURES AND ALSO POTENTIAL EV CHARGING STATIONS THAT HELP PEOPLE WITH MULTIMODAL, UM, WAYS TO GET AROUND TO BE ABLE TO CHARGE THEIR STATIONS OR TO HAVE SOME KIND OF COMFORT WHILE THEY'RE WAITING FOR THIS TRANSPORTATION? OR WOULD THAT BE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT? IT, I COULD TELL YOU NOW THAT IT'S NOT A REQUIREMENT OF THIS USE.
IT WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE S U P CONDITIONS AS FAR AS ACTUALLY PROVIDING THAT IT WOULD BE FOR THE APPLICANT TO RESPOND TO YOU AND THEN OFFER THAT OR INTEGRATE IT INTO THE REQUEST IN SOME MANNER.
AND THEN AS FAR AS CONGREGATING OUTSIDE, THEY, THERE IS A NICE CANOPY THERE.
THEY WOULD HAVE AN AREA THAT THEY COULD CONGREGATE IN.
I WOULD ASSUME WITH OUR TEXAS HEAT THAT THEY WOULD PROBABLY APPRECIATE THE SIZABLE LOBBY AND ALL THE SEATS THAT WERE PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANTS WITHIN THE 2000 SQUARE FEET, UM, IN THE OFFICE AREA.
OTHER THAN THAT, IT'S UP TO THEM.
OBVIOUSLY THEY COULD CONGREGATE OUTSIDE.
DO DOES ANY OF THE NEIGHBORS HAVE ANY RESERVATIONS AGAINST, UM, CONGREGATING OUTSIDE? AND THEN, UM, IS THERE, ARE THERE ANY FENCING REQUIREMENTS? I I NOTICED THAT THERE IS A FENCE AROUND THERE.
ARE THERE ANY SCREENING REQUIREMENTS? DO THE NEIGHBORS WANT SCREENING REQUIREMENTS? UM, WHAT, WHAT'S YOUR FEEL RELATED TO THE OUTDOOR PRESENCE THAT THIS WOULD BRING TO THE COMMUNITY? SO MY, MY FEEL IS, AS I NOTED IN THE WORK THAT WAS DONE WITH THIS CASE AND THE ADDITIONAL PRO, THE, THE ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATION GIVEN THE ADDITIONAL, UM, UPKEEP IN GENERAL MAINTENANCE PROVIDED BY
[01:55:01]
THIS S U P, I THINK IS A SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTION TO THIS NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE SANTA FE TRAIL, THE WORK THAT THEY ARE PROPOSING HERE BEYOND THE LAND USE, JUST FOR THE SUBJECT SITE GENERAL MAINTENANCE, AS I MENTIONED, THE SITE'S CURRENTLY IN DISREPAIR, AS YOU SAW IN THE PHOTOS, SHEET METAL FENCING, WHICH IS A PROHIBITED, UH, MATERIAL.NOW IN OUR CODE, WHICH WASN'T PREVIOUSLY PROHIBITED AND NOW IT SHOWS IT'S IN DISREPAIR, IT HAS BEEN TO GRAFFITI, IT'S RIGHT ADJACENT TO THE TRAIL.
THE FIRST THING THAT I SAW WHEN I GOT THERE WAS HOW HORRIBLE THAT LOOKS FOR THE TRAIL AND THE TRAIL USERS BECAUSE I SAW THE TRAIL USERS COMING OFF THE TRAIL AT THE RAMP ONTO HASKELL INTO THOSE MORE MIXED USE AREAS THAT ARE BEING CONVERTED WITHIN A FEW BLOCKS OF THIS SITE.
SO AS I MENTIONED IN THE SURROUNDING LAND USES ALL BEING AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR WITH SOME SPECKLED RESIDENTIAL HERE AND THERE WITHIN THIS CS DISTRICT, WHICH DOES NOT ALLOW IT.
THEREFORE, THERE WOULD BE NO SCREENING REQUIREMENTS REQUIRED BECAUSE IT'S CS DISTRICT TO CS DISTRICT USES.
THEREFORE, THE REPAIR OF THIS FENCE IS THE UPKEEP, THE PAINTING, THE NEW FENCE INSTALLATION THAT'S GOING TO BE OF A DIFFERENT MATERIAL, THE LANDSCAPING THAT'S NOT REQUIRED AND BEING PROVIDED, WHICH WILL IMPROVE THE LOOK AND THE FEEL FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE RIGHT OF WAY USERS AND THE SIDEWALK USERS, WHICH IS ALSO BEING EXPANDED AND NOT REQUIRED AND ALIGNED TO THE EXISTING SIDEWALK.
ALL OF THESE IMPROVEMENTS ARE SIGNIFICANT FOR THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND WHILE THIS MAY BE A TEMPORARY USE, I DO BELIEVE THAT AT THIS SCALE AND WITH THE IMPROVEMENTS THAT THEY'RE PROVIDING, IT'S A VERY GOOD OPPORTUNITY FOR THIS CORNER TO MAKE IMPROVEMENTS FOR TODAY FOR THIS NEIGHBORHOOD THAT'S CHANGING DESPITE THOSE CHANGES.
MAYBE NOT COMING LIKE THE CONVERSION THAT'S JUST BEING SPOKEN OF AND NOT NECESSARILY PLANNED OR THE POSSIBILITY OF A DECK PARK ONE DAY OR THE CHANGES TO I 30.
THESE ARE ALL THINGS THAT ARE FAR IN THE FUTURE.
AND WHILE I'M A PLANNER AND I BELIEVE IN THE FUTURE, I ALSO BELIEVE IN PEOPLE BEING ABLE TO USE PROPERTIES NOW AND THE IMPACT THAT THAT CAN CREATE FOR THE COMMUNITY NOW.
AND I THINK THAT THIS IS GOOD FOR THE SITE.
THAT WAS A GREAT AND THOROUGH RESPONSE.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONERS? OKAY, MS. MUNOS, CAN YOU PLEASE READ THE CASE CENTER THE RECORD? CERTAINLY THE, THIS REQUEST IS AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR A COMMERCIAL, EXCUSE ME, COMMERCIAL BUS STATION AND TERMINAL ON PROPERTY ZONED ACS COMMERCIAL SERVICE DISTRICT, PARTIALLY WITHIN A DLI CONTROL OVERLAY ON THE WEST CORNER OF TERRY STREET AND SOUTH PEAK STREET.
RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL FOR A FIVE-YEAR PERIOD WITH ELIGIBILITY FOR AUTOMATIC RENEWAL FOR ADDITIONAL FIVE YEAR PERIODS SUBJECT TO A SITE LANDSCAPE PLAN IN CONDITIONS.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH MS. MUNOS.
IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO BE HEARD ON THIS ITEM? SEE THAT THE APPLICANT IS HERE.
RAMONA MIRANDA, 29 46 OF SUNK CIRCLE FARMERS RANCH, TEXAS 75,234.
I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO RECOGNIZE, UH, COMMISSIONER HAMPTON FOR HER COMMUNICATION WITH US.
IT HELP US TO, UH, COMMUNICATE WITH, UH, JULIE PARK, UH, ALSO WITH UH, UH, THE UM, PIGS EDITION AS WELL AS THE ANYWAY, UH, PEAKS EDITION.
PAT PATRICIA AND ALSO JIM ANDERSON.
UH, LAST WEEK THEY SAID, UH, THEY HAD NO POSITION, NO, NO COMMENTS ON THIS REQUEST SINCE WE WERE SO CLOSE TO THE, TO THE SITE AND THE LOCATION SEEMS LIKE IDEAL FOR THIS TYPE OF USE.
AND UM, ALSO JUST WANTED TO EMPHASIZE THAT THIS USE IS CURRENTLY PERMITTED BY RIGHT IF WE NOT, IF WE DO NOT EXCEED 15 PASSENGERS PER PER VEHICLE.
SO IN REALITY WHAT WE ARE REQUESTING IS TO EXPAND THE CAPACITY THAT IS PERMITTED.
UM, AT THE SAME TIME WE ARE, UM, PROPOSING, UH, SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENT IN, UH, ONE OF THEM, WHICH, UH, SOMEBODY MIGHT HAVE MENTIONED BUT I DIDN'T NOT HEAR IS LIGHTING.
LIGHTING IN THIS, IN THIS CORNER, ESPECIALLY, UH, CLOSER TO SANTA FE AVENUE.
CUZ THEY'RE SANTA FE AVENUE AND SANTA FE TRAIL AND SOME PEOPLE, YOU KNOW, THEY MIX UP ONE.
THEY ARE TWO SANTA FE TRAIL IN SANTA FE AVENUE.
SO LIGHTING CONDITION IN IN THAT AREA, THEY ARE BAD.
[02:00:01]
ARE PROPOSING TO IMPROVE IT BY INSTALLING THREE ADDITIONAL LIGHTS THAT ARE GONNA SIGNIFICANTLY IMPROVE THE SAFETY IN THE AREA.UM, A RESPONSE TO COMMISSIONER JOHN.
UH, THERE IS, UM, THERE IS, UH, THERE ARE TWO BUSES TO BOTH ROUTES AT THE CORNER OF EAST CORNER OF TERRY STREET AND PICK STREET.
THE ROUTES ARE NUMBER 16 AND 2 24.
SO THERE'S, THERE'S A BUS STOP, DART BUS STOP AT THAT LOCATION AND THERE ARE ADA, A D A RAMPS THAT CONNECTS THAT STOP BUS STOP TO OUR LOCATION.
SO WE HAVE PRESENCE OF DART UH, STOPS.
NOW AS FAR AS THE SPECIFIC, UH, USE PERMIT, WE HAVE A COPY WHICH WAS FORWARDED TO COMMISSIONER HAMPTON IN WHICH WE ARE RE UM, ASKING FOR A FIVE YEAR TERM DURATION OF THESE H U P PERIOD.
THE OUTSIDE OPERATIONS FROM 8:00 AM TO 10:00 PM ALSO OVER HERE IN THE COMMUNITY, THE, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION THEY HAVE A COPY OF.
AND UH, ALSO WE ARE PROHIBITING, UH, WELL, WE ARE ACTUALLY DIRECTING LIGHTS AWAY FROM, UH, YOU KNOW, PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.
AND, UH, NO OUTSIDE SPEAKERS ON, ON SILENT.
THERE WILL BE QUESTIONS FOR YOU SIR.
IS THERE, THERE ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM IN SUPPORT? MAY ANYONE HERE LIKE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS FOR MR. ANANDA? COMMISSIONER? MR. CHAIR? I BELIEVE WE HAVE A SPEAKER ONLINE.
UM, SHE MAY HAVE HAD TO DROP OFF.
I KNOW SHE WAS ONLINE EARLIER.
IS SHE REGISTERED? OKAY, MR. ROBERTS? SHE'S NOT LINE.
UH, QUESTIONS FOR MR. ADA? YES, COMMISSIONER WHEELER.
SO WERE THERE ANY COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT MEETINGS? UM, AND ALSO DID YOU SAY THAT YOU ALSO SPOKE WITH, UH, SOMEONE WITHIN THE, UH, PEAK EDITION HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION? YES, FOR THE PEAKS EDITION WE SPOKE WITH JIM ANDERSON, WHICH IS THE VICE PRESIDENT IN CHARGE OF ZONING AND LAND USE, UH, MATTERS IN, UH, WE SPOKE WITH HIM LAST WEEK, I BELIEVE LAST THURSDAY OR WEDNESDAY.
AND, UH, HE EXPRESSED THAT THEY DIDN'T HAVE, OR HE DIDN'T HAVE ANY, ANY CONCERN BECAUSE OF THE LOCATION OF THIS, UH, OF THIS UH, SITE.
UH, WE EMAIL, UH, ALSO, UH, THE, UH, MONTH
SO THERE WASN'T, THERE WAS SOME COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT, BUT, BUT WE DIDN'T GO TO THE AREA AND MET WITH THE ADJOINING NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
IT WAS EVERYTHING, UH, BY EMAIL OR BY PHONE CONVERSATION.
SO THERE WAS NO CONCERN THAT THIS, BECAUSE OF THE CHANGES THAT ARE COMING TO THE COMMUNITY, SOME OF THE CHANGES THAT ARE ALREADY COMING TO THE COMMUNITY, NO ONE VOICED THE CONCERN THAT THEY WERE NOT IN TOTAL, UM, AGREEMENT WITH THAT, WITH THAT COMING FROM EATING ANY NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION THAT THEY ALSO DID NOT TELL YOU THAT THEY, THEY NECESSARILY, THEY WOULD, THEY WERE NOT FOR A SUCH A LONG, UM, U NEITHER FOR AUTOMATIC RENEWAL.
WELL, I DID NOT RECEIVE ANY EMAIL OR PHONE FROM ANY OF THESE, UH, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, THESE THREE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
I DID NOT RECEIVE ANY, ANY, ANY EMAIL OR PHONE ACTUALLY, I CALLED THEM AND, AND, AND, UH, YOU KNOW, EXPLAINED THE, THE PROJECT AND THE ONE THAT RESPONDED WHILE MR. JIM ANDERSON WITH THE PICKS EDITION.
AND HIS WORDS WERE, HE WAS NOT IN OPPOSITION.
HE DIDN'T SAY HE WAS IN FAVOR, BUT HE SAID HE WAS NOT IN OPPOSITION.
SO MAYBE WE, WE GOT INFORMATION A LITTLE, MAYBE OUR INFORMATION WAS DIFFERENT FROM YOURS.
[02:05:01]
CONVERSATION THEY WASN'T IN TROUBLE SUPPORT.THAT CONVERSATION TOOK PLACE LAST WEEK.
SO THERE HAS NOT BEEN A COMMUNITY MEETING OF SUCH.
IT'S JUST SOME PHONE CALLS BETWEEN YOU AND SOME AND SOME INDIVIDUALS.
WELL, THEY MIGHT HAVE MET ON THEIR OWN, YOU KNOW, CALENDARS AND PLACES.
I WAS NOT INFORMED OF THEIR REUNIONS OR MEETINGS.
UM, JUST TO FOLLOW UP ON THAT, UM, I I BELIEVE THAT IT WAS CIRCULATED TO THE COMMISSION EARLIER TODAY THAT WE DID, UM, RECEIVE A LETTER IN OPPOSITION, UM, FROM DR.
SIMON I THINK IN FOLLOW UP, UM, TO YOUR CONVERSATION WITH HER.
UM, BUT I DO APPRECIATE YOU REACHING OUT TO BOTH OF THOSE FOLKS, UM, TO SHARE INFORMATION ON THE REQUEST.
UM, I ALSO WANTED TO ASK, IT SOUNDED LIKE YOU MAY HAVE HAD A FEW OTHER COMMENTS THAT YOU WANTED TO SHARE WITH THE COMMISSION ON THIS.
DID YOU FINISH YOUR, YOUR REMARKS ON THE, ON, ON THE MEETINGS? YEAH.
WELL, NO ON, ON THE INFORMATION THAT YOU HAD WANTED TO SHARE WITH US.
IT DIDN'T SOUND LIKE YOU GOT TO FINISH IT.
WELL, YEAH, WELL I WAS, I WAS JUST TRYING TO, TO, UH, CONVEY THE MESSAGE THAT WE ARE OPEN TO IMPROVEMENTS WHETHER THEY ARE HOUSE OF OPERATIONS.
I AM TELLING THAT IN THIS PARTICULAR LOCATION, UH, WE'RE GONNA HAVE TWO BOSSES IN THE MORNING AND TWO BOSSES IN THE AFTERNOON.
THAT MEANS EIGHT BOSSES TOTAL.
NOW, WHAT IS THE CAPACITY OF THE BUSES? THE CAPACITY IS 42 PASSENGERS.
DOES THAT MEAN THE BUS IS GONNA, IS GONNA GO EVERY TIME FULL THAT CAPACITY? NO, BY A BUSINESS MODEL THAT WE HAVE ONLY 70 TO 80% IN A NORMAL, UH, I'M GONNA SAY, UH, PERIOD OF THE YEAR, WHICH IS LIKE FROM, UH, MID-JANUARY TO MAY.
THAT'S WHEN, WELL, WHEN WE ARE GONNA BE HAVING ONLY FOUR TOTAL FOUR BUSES IN A 16 HOUR PERIOD OF TIME.
OKAY? NOW DURING HOLIDAYS WE MIGHT HAVE AN ADDITIONAL, UH, BUS, WHICH IS GONNA BE FROM DECEMBER 16 TO JANUARY THE THIRD, SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
SO THAT MEANS ONLY SIX FOR TWO WEEKS.
WE'RE NOT GONNA HAVE SIX BUSES TOTAL ON SITE.
NOW, REGARDING TRAFFIC, DOES THAT IMPACT THE TRAFFIC SYSTEM? WE THINK, UH, WE THINK NOT BECAUSE NORMALLY THE, THOSE 32 34 PASSENGER PER PER BUSES REAL PASSENGERS, UH, ONLY ABOUT, UH, 14 TO 16 CARS ARRIVE ON OUR SIDE.
NORMALLY THEY ARRIVE LIKE ONE HOUR BEFORE THE, THE, THE DEPARTURE OR ARRIVAL AND THEN THEY TAKE OFF IN ABOUT 10 MAXIMUM 10, 15 MINUTES.
NOW ONE MORE, ONE MORE REMARK.
SOMEBODY WAS ASKING IF WE WERE GONNA BE SE SELLING BEARS BEER OR FOOD? WELL, OUR BUSINESS IS TRANSPORTATION.
WE DON'T SELL FOOD OR, OR BEER OR ANYTHING.
AND WE ARE NOT INTERESTED IN THAT BUSINESS.
I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT, UM, YOU'D BEEN ABLE TO COMPLETE YOUR REMARKS.
I GUESS IN THINKING ABOUT THAT AND THINKING ABOUT, UM, THIS USE IN THIS LOCATION, I THINK YOU AND I HAD DISCUSSED THAT THERE ARE FUTURE PLANS FOR I 30 AND ITS REDESIGN.
ARE YOU AWARE THAT THOSE ARE, UM, INTENDED TO BEGIN PROBABLY IN THE NEXT THREE TO FIVE YEARS? WELL, I'M, I'M GONNA RESPOND WITH MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE.
I LIVE NEXT TO 6 35 JUST NORTH OF IT.
AND THOSE PLANS WERE LIKE ABOUT 15, 8, 18 YEARS AGO.
THEY ARE JUST TAKING PLACE AND I JUST LIVE TWO BLOCKS AWAY NORTH OF 6 35.
SO, UH, THAT, THAT TELLS YOU AN IDEA OF ANY PLAN CAN BE CONFIGURED, PLAN AND WHATEVER, BUT IT DOESN'T TAKE RE YOU KNOW, UH, IT DOESN'T BECOME REALITY UNTIL PROBABLY BETWEEN 10 TO 12 YEARS IN MY EXPERIENCE.
AND IT'S CURRENTLY IN DESIGN BY TEXT DOT.
ARE YOU AWARE OF THAT? AND, AND WE INFORMED TEXT DOT, UH, AND YOU GOT COPY OF THAT AND THAT WE, THEY, I'M SORRY, DAVID, UH, MR. IT'S GOT COPY OF, OF THE EMAIL THAT WE SENT THE TEXT DOT.
SO THEY, THEIR WORDS WARS WHERE THEY HAVE NO PROBLEMS WITH OUR CURRENT APPROACH.
UM, OKAY, I THINK THOSE ARE MY QUESTIONS RIGHT NOW.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER'S QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? OKAY, OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?
[02:10:02]
SCENE NONE.COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? I DO.
AND IF I HAVE A SECOND, I HAVE, UM, BRIEF COMMENTS IN THE MATTER OF Z 212 DASH 3 35.
I MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND NOT FOLLOW STAFF RECOMMENDATION, BUT TO DENY THE REQUEST WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HAMPTON FOR YOUR MOTION.
COMMISSIONER CARPENTER FOR YOUR SECOND COMMENTS.
I'D LIKE TO FIRST START BY, UM, THANKING MS. MUNOS FOR HER CARE AND HER DILIGENCE IN THE REVIEW OF THIS REQUEST.
THE SITE PLAN THAT WE SEE IS PROBABLY THE BEST SITE PLAN FOR A COMMERCIAL BUS STATION THAT COULD HAVE COME OUT OF THIS SITE.
AND IT IS, UH, UH, HER DILIGENT REVIEW OF THIS THAT GOT THAT THERE.
I ALSO WANNA ACKNOWLEDGE MR. ARANDA BECAUSE HE AGREED AND HE WORKED WITH STAFF ON PUTTING THAT TOGETHER.
UM, I WAS ABLE TO SPEAK TO HIM, UM, MULTIPLE TIMES ON THIS REQUEST.
UM, SHARED WITH HIM MANY OF THE THINGS THAT WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT TODAY.
HOW WILL THE BUS TRAFFIC HAPPEN? WHAT IS THE IMPACT ON THE COMMUNITY? WHILE THERE IS NOT RESIDENTIAL USES CURRENTLY WITHIN 500 FEET OF THIS REQUEST, THIS BODY RECENTLY APPROVED A MULTI-FAMILY REQUEST THAT IS IN THE VERY NEAR PROXIMITY ON WILLOW STREET.
WE HAVE ANOTHER CASE THAT IS COMING BEFORE THIS BODY THAT WILL LIKELY BE WITHIN THAT 500 FOOT RADIUS.
I ATTENDED A COMMUNITY MEETING ON MONDAY ABOUT OUR COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN THAT FOCUSED ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY ON WALKABILITY, ADDING RESIDENTIAL AND LOOKING FORWARD TO MIXED USE IN WHAT WE SEE IN THE ADJACENT PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT.
I RECOGNIZE THAT IF YOU LOOK AT THIS, IT IS ON A SERVICE ROAD FOR I 30, I 30 AS WE SEE IT TODAY, WILL NOT BE I 30 IN THE NEXT, WHETHER IT'S THREE, FIVE, OR 10 YEARS.
AND IT GIVES ME VERY GREAT PAUSE TO CONSIDER AN U IN A LOCATION THAT WE KNOW IS IN TRANSITION AND THAT IS ACTIVELY TRYING TO ENCOURAGE RESIDENTIAL USES AND REDEVELOPMENT.
AND IT'S REFLECTED IN THE CASES THAT ARE COMING BEFORE THIS BODY RIGHT NOW.
I, UM, YOU KNOW, I I, AT THE END OF THE DAY, AFTER HEARING FROM THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES, FROM HEARING FROM PROPERTY OWNERS, WE DID RECEIVE, UM, NUMEROUS BALLOTS AND OPPOSITION TO THIS REQUEST.
UM, AND I REGRET THAT, YOU KNOW, OUR SPEAKER THAT WAS ONLINE, UM, UNFORTUNATELY WE COULDN'T HEAR FROM HER AS WELL.
UM, BUT I JUST, I COULD NOT, UM, LAND ON SUPPORTING THIS REQUEST.
I HAVE A WHOLE LIST OF COMMENTS I WAS GONNA MAKE, BUT THAT'S REALLY THE, THE SUMMARY OF THAT.
SO I HOPE MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS WILL SUPPORT THE MOTION.
THIS IS A VERY DIFFICULT ONE FOR ME BECAUSE I DO THINK THAT THESE COMMERCIAL BUS TERMINALS ARE GOOD IN A LOT OF WAYS IN ENCOURAGING PEOPLE TO TAKE LONG DISTANCE TRIP TRIPS BY BUS AS OPPOSED TO BY SINGLE OCCUPANCY VEHICLES.
AND, AND, YOU KNOW, I DO THINK THAT THESE CAN BE WOVEN INTO SOME AREAS IN OF TOWN, POTENTIALLY FOR THE GOOD AND TO HELP US ACHIEVE A LOT OF GOALS UNDER, UNDER OTHER CITY POLICIES THAT ARE IMPORTANT TO US.
BUT I AM GOING TO DEFER TO COMMISSIONER HAMPTON ON THIS ONE BECAUSE FOR, UM, FAMILIARITY WITH THE AREA.
I, I SAW I ALSO CONCUR AND NOT, AND NOT ONLY THAT, IT'S NOT, UM, THERE ARE MULTIPLE OF THESE ON THAT PARTICULAR 30 ROUTE WITHIN A SHORT DISTANCE.
THERE IS ONE AT DOLPHIN AND 30, UM, ONE AT CLOSE TO, UM, THE WALMART.
SO IT'S NOT LIKE, THERE IS NOT ANY OF THOSE, THOSE TYPE OF BUS TERMINALS IN, IN THE AREA OR CLOSE PROXIMITY.
SO TO HAVE IT HERE IN A AREA, AND WE'RE GETTING INTO WALKABILITY, A TRAIL BEING RIGHT, THE TRAIL IS NOT THAT FAR.
THE TRAIL JUST SO HAPPENED GOES ACROSS SPEAK, BUT PEOPLE ARE COMING OFF THE TRAIL AND GOING ACROSS AND CONNECTING COMMUNITIES AGAIN, I JUST DON'T SEE THAT A BUS TERMINAL AT A MA MAIN CORRIDOR WILL DO THE COMMUNITY ANY JUSTICE.
AND I WILL HAVE TO, UM, CONCUR WITH, UH, COMMISSIONER HAMPTON ON THE DENIAL.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? COMMISSIONERS? SEEING NONE OF THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
UH, COMMISSIONERS, BEFORE WE TAKE A BREAK, UM, JUST A QUICK NOTE FOR THOSE OF YOU HERE THAT ARE VISITING WITH US TODAY.
UH, CASE NUMBER 11, IF YOU'RE HERE TO SPEAK ON THAT, IS GONNA BE HELD UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL APRIL 20TH.
IF YOU'RE HERE AND YOU WOULD LIKE TO BE HEARD, WE'RE HAPPY TO HEAR
[02:15:01]
FROM YOU.UH, BUT JUST LETTING YOU KNOW, IN CASE YOU, YOU DIDN'T KNOW AND YOU WOULD LIKE TO HEAD HOME, YOU'RE FREE TO DO SO.
IN CASE NUMBER 12, THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED, UH, THE ITEM BE DENIED.
UH, AND AGAIN, ALL OF YOU THAT ARE HERE, IF YOU'D LIKE TO BE HEARD, THESE, THOSE ARE GONNA BE HEARD.
UH, SO WE'RE HAPPY TO HEAR FROM YOU.
COMMISSIONERS COMING BACK FROM THE BREAK, WE'LL START WITH THE CODE AMENDMENT AND THEN HEAD BACK INTO THE ZONING CASES AT EXACTLY 3:00 PM WE'LL TAKE A 15 MINUTE BREAK.
LET'S DO THE CODE AMENDMENT COMMISSIONERS.
APOLOGIES FOR RUNNING A LITTLE BIT LATE.
WE'RE GETTING BACK ON THE RECORD.
WE'LL BEGIN WITH THE DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT.
ARE WE, ARE WE RECORDING? WE'RE RECORDING.
THIS IS, UH, CASE NUMBER D C A 2223 DASH 0 0 4.
IT IS CONSIDERATION OF AMENDING CHAPTERS 51 AND 51 A OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTIONS 51 DASH 4.217 B 20 AND 51 A DASH 4.217 B 11.1, TEMPORARY INCLEMENT WEATHER, SHELTER, AND RELATED SECTIONS WITH CONSIDERATION BEING GIVEN TO APPROPRIATE SPACING REQUIREMENTS BETWEEN TEMPORARY INCLEMENT WEATHER SHELTERS AND THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT.
THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL.
UH, ZO ZAC RECOMMENDATION WAS APPROVAL AS WELL.
OKAY, SO, UH, THIS IS GONNA BE SHORT AND SWEET, HOPEFULLY.
UH, SO A LITTLE BACKGROUND ON THIS.
UH, TEMPORARY INCLEMENT WEATHER SHELTERS ARE NOT, JUST, NOT, NOT YOUR TEMPORARY, ARE NOT YOUR ORDINARY SHELTERS.
UH, THEY'RE ONLY USED BETWEEN WHEN IT'S BELOW 36 DEGREES, UH, OR BELOW 32 DEGREES FOR THREE HOURS, UH, OR ABOVE 90 DEGREES, UH, FROM 10:00 PM TO 8:00 AM AT NIGHT.
UH, WHAT'S NOT IN THE SCOPE? THESE ARE NOT DISASTER SHELTERS.
UH, THESE ARE NOT GENERAL PURPOSE OVERNIGHT SHELTERS.
UH, THEY'RE USED IN CASE OF, UH, UH, EXTREME WEATHER, HOT AND COLD.
UH, THE TIMELINE ON THIS IS BACK IN, UH, 2020.
UH, CITY STAFF WORKED WITH HOUSING THE HOMELESS COMMITTEE, THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, AND THE CITY COUNCIL, AND THE CREATION OF CHAPTER 45 AND A DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT TO ADD NEW SPECIFIC TEMPORARY INCLEMENT WEATHER SHELTER USE TO THE CITY CODE.
IN JANUARY OF 2023, THE OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AND THE OFFICE OF HOMELESSNESS SOLUTIONS REQUEST AN AMENDMENT TO TEMPORARY INCLEMENT WEATHER SHELTER ZONING REGULATIONS TO ALLOW A FACILITY THAT IS LEASED BY THE CITY IN ADDITION TO CITY OWNED FACILITIES WITHIN A HALF MILE OF THE CBD.
UH, AT FEBRUARY 28TH, 2023, UH, ZEAK MET AND UH, FORWARD THE, THE RECOMMENDATIONS ONTO CCPC.
TEMPORARY INCLEMENT WEATHER SHELTERS ARE ALLOWED CITYWIDE.
UH, HOWEVER, WITHIN THEM HALF MILE OF CBD, UH, CITY COUNCIL RESTRICTED THEM TO THE CONVENTION CENTER AND CITY OWNED FACILITIES.
UH, THE PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS IS TO ALLOW TEMPORARY INCLEMENT WEATHER SHELTERS TO ALSO BE LOCATED IN CITY LEASED FACILITIES WITHIN A HALF MILE OF C UH, THIS IS A TWO WORD ADDITION TO THE CODE, UH, OR TO EACH CHAPTER OF THE CODE RESPECTIVELY, UH, WHERE IT'S GONNA SAY, ACCEPT AT THE K BAILEY HUTCHSON CONVENTION CENTER AND OTHER CITY OWNED OR LEASED FACILITIES, THE ACCESSORY USE MAY NOT OPERATE WITHIN HALF MILE OF THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT.
AND, UH, WE HAVE THE DIRECTORS FROM OEM AND O H S HERE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THEM.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. DEAN.
QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS, AND THANK YOU FOR JOINING US TODAY.
ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM? I OH, PLEASE, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, I APOLOGIES I DIDN'T SEE YOU.
UM, WOULD THIS ALLOW FOR TEMPORARY INCLEMENT, WHETHER LOCATIONS TO BE INCLUDED WITH AREAS LIKE THE COLLEGES AT DALLAS COLLEGE, THE VARIOUS CAMPUSES, OR ANY COUNTY FACILITIES SO THAT THERE MAY BE, UM, FURTHER COORDINATION? THANK YOU FOR QUESTION.
UH, ROCKY WAZ, DIRECTOR OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, NO.
THIS CHANGE WOULD NOT ALLOW FOR INCLEMENT WEATHER SHELTERING OR TEMPORARY INCLEMENT WEATHER SHELTERING AT ANY OTHER FACILITIES OTHER THAN CITY OWNED OR CITY LEASED WITHIN THE HALF MILE OF THE DOWNTOWN.
HOW MIGHT WE REVIEW, UM, THAT POSSIBILITY? THAT IS SOMETHING THAT THE, THE COUNCIL WILL HAVE TO LOOK AT, UH, THE ORDINANCE TO
[02:20:01]
CHANGE IT, TO ALLOW OTHER ENTITIES TO BE ABLE TO DO, IMPLEMENT WEATHER SHELTERING WITHIN THE HALF MILE, UH, DOWNTOWN.NOW, OUTSIDE OF THAT, IT IS ALLOWED UNDER CHAPTER 45.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM? COMMISSIONERS? OKAY.
COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, DO YOU HAVE MOTION? I DO.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR, IN THE MATTER OF DC 2 23 DASH 0 0 4, I MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE THE REQUEST PER STAFF AND ZEAK RECOMMENDATION.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HAMPTON FOR YOUR MOTION.
COMMISSIONER CARPENTER FOR YOUR SECOND.
ANY DISCUSSION? SO YOU NONE ON THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.
THANK YOU FOR STAYING WITH US.
MY SLIDES, THAT'S A PERSONAL BEST FOR ME.
UH, COMMISSIONERS WILL GO BACK TO OUR ZONING CASES.
WE WILL, UH, GO TO CASE NUMBER SEVEN.
UM, AS I UNDERSTAND THIS CASE WILL NOT NEED TO BE BRIEFED TODAY, SO I'LL JUST BE READING IT INTO THE RECORD.
UH, ITEM SEVEN, KC 2 23 1 0 3.
AN APPLICATION FOR AN M U TWO MIXED USE DISTRICT ON PROPERTY ZONED IN IR INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH DISTRICT ON THE SOUTHEAST LINE OF EMPIRE CENTRAL DRIVE, NORTHEAST OF HARRY HINES BOULEVARD.
STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL.
I SEE THAT THE APPLICANT IS HERE.
ROB BALDON 39 0 4 ELM STREET, SUITE B IN DALLAS.
I'D LIKE TO ASK THAT THIS CASE BE HELD UNTIL APRIL 20TH AND BE RE NOTIFIED TO FOR A FORM DISTRICT IN WMU FIVE RATHER THAN, UH, UH, AND U TWO DISTRICT.
AND I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT'D LIKE TO BE HEARD ON THIS ITEM? COMMISSIONERS.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. BALDWIN? QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SEE NONE.
COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR IN THE MATTER OF Z 2 23 DASH 1 0 3, I MOVE TO LEAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN, HOLDING THIS MATTER UNDER ADVISEMENT AND DIRECT STAFF TO RE ADVERTISE FOR A W M U FIVE DISTRICT THANK YOU COMMISSION UNTIL APRIL THE 21ST.
PARDON ME? I FORGOT TO INCLUDE THE DATE.
COMMISSIONER HAMPTON FOR YOUR MOTION.
COMMISSIONER, BE BLAIR FOR YOUR SECOND.
NUMBER EIGHT, PLEASE, MR. MULKEY.
OKAY, NEXT CASE IS C 2 23 DASH ONE 15.
THE REQUEST IS FOR AN MF TWO, A MULTI-FAMILY DISTRICT ON PROPERTY OWNED IN IR INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH DISTRICT, LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST LINE OF EMPIRE CENTRAL DRIVE, NORTHEAST OF HARRY HINES BOULEVARD.
IT'S ABOUT FIVE FOUR ACRE, UH, LOCATION MAP SHOWING THE PROPERTY WITHIN CITY LIMITS.
AERIAL MAP WITH THE AREA OF REQUEST OUTLINED IN BLUE.
SONY MAP WAS SURROUNDING DISTRICTS AND LAND USES, UH, NORTHEAST IMMEDIATELY OF THE AREA.
REQUEST IS A VEHICLE SALES USE, UM, TO THE SOUTHEAST ACROSS EMPIRE.
CENTRAL DRIVE IS AN OFFICE USE AS WELL AS A COMMERCIAL PARKING LOT.
UM, IMMEDIATELY SOUTHWEST IS A HOTEL OR MOTEL USE, UH, KIND OF DIRECTLY DUE WEST, UM, IS A GENERAL MERCHANDISE USE.
UH, TO THE NORTHWEST IS A SURFACE PARKING LOT, AND THEN DIRECTLY NORTH AND AN MF TWO A DISTRICT ARE SINGLE FAMILY USES.
PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED IN IR DISTRICT AND IT IS UNDEVELOPED.
THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REDEVELOP THE PROPERTY WITH MULTI-FAMILY AND TO ACCOMPLISH THIS, THEY ARE REQUESTING AN MF TWO A DISTRICT, SOME SITE PHOTOS.
THIS IS ON EMPIRE CENTRAL DRIVE, LOOKING NORTHWEST AT THE FRONT EDGE OF THE PROPERTY AND THEN MOVING IN A CLOCKWISE DIRECTION AROUND THAT POINT.
UM, THIS IS THE VEHICLE SALES USE IMMEDIATELY TO THE NORTHEAST ALONG EMPIRE CENTRAL.
UH, LOOKING A LITTLE FURTHER NORTH AT SOME OF THE OTHER USES, UM, ALONG EMPIRE CENTRAL.
UH, THIS IS A VIEW OF THE OFFICE USE, UH, TO THE SORT OF EAST SOUTHEAST ACROSS THE STREET.
UM, MORE VIEWS OF THAT OFFICE USE.
THAT IS THE COMMERCIAL PARKING LOT.
LOOKING DOWN EMPIRE CENTRAL TO THE SOUTHWEST, YOU CAN SEE THAT MOTEL USE ADJACENT TO THE SITE.
AND THESE ARE THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OF THE EXISTING IR DISTRICT AS WELL AS THE PROPOSED MF TWO A DISTRICT.
UM, THE APPLICANT DID NOT INDICATE AN INTENT IN THEIR LAND USE STATEMENT THAT THEY WILL
[02:25:01]
BE PROVIDING, UM, AFFORDABLE UNITS AS PART OF THIS DEVELOPMENT.HOWEVER, WITH A STRAIGHT MF TWO A DISTRICT, THEY WILL BE ENTITLED TO CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT BONUSES AND CODE.
UM, IF THEY PROVIDE AFFORDABLE UNITS.
SO TO RECEIVE THOSE BONUSES, THEY WOULD HAVE TO PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF 5% OF THE UNITS AT 81 TO A HUNDRED PERCENT AM MFI.
UM, THAT WOULD, WOULD GIVE THEM BONUSES TO DENSITY, UH, AND THAT IT WOULD REMOVE THE REQUIREMENT FOR A MINIMUM LOT AREA PER DWELLING UNIT.
UM, INCREASE THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT FROM 36 FEET TO 85 FEET, ALTHOUGH, UM, RESIDENTIAL PROXIMITY SLOPE WOULD STILL APPLY.
UH, INCREASE THE BASE LOT COVERAGE FROM 60% TO 85%.
UM, AND THEN FOR ANY PORTION OF THE BUILDING ABOVE 45 FEET, UH, AN URBAN FORM SETBACK WOULD APPLY.
HAVING SAID THAT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL AND I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.
COMMISSIONER'S QUESTIONS FOR MR. MULKEY? OKAY, MR. MULKEY, CAN YOU PLEASE READ INTO THE RECORD ONE MORE TIME? SORRY.
ITEM EIGHT KC 2 23 DASH ONE 15.
AN APPLICATION FOR AN MF TWO, A MULTI-FAMILY DISTRICT ON PROPERTY ZONED AN IR INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH DISTRICT ON THE NORTHWEST LINE OF EMPIRE CENTRAL DRIVE, NORTHEAST OF HARRY HINES BOULEVARD.
STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL.
I SEE THAT THE APPLICANT IS HERE.
ROB BALDWIN, 39 0 4 ELM STREET, SWEEPY IN DALLAS.
UH, THIS THIS CASE, UH, WHAT YOU DIDN'T GET FROM THE THE PHOTOGRAPHS IS THIS PART OF EMPIRE CENTRAL'S REALLY TRENDING TOWARDS RESIDENTIAL.
AND IN FACT, UH, THE CASE THAT WE JUST, I JUST ASKED TO BE HELD IS ABOUT 300 FEET FROM HERE AND WE'RE ASKING 'EM TO DO RESIDENTIAL.
SO I THINK IN, IN, GIVEN THE TWO CASES I'M DOING TODAY AND DISCUSSIONS WITH OTHER CLIENTS OF MINE ARE LOOKING IN THIS AREA WITHIN THE NEXT FIVE YEARS, YOU'LL SEE ALL THIS IR ZONING ON THIS SECTION OF EMPIRE CENTRAL GO AWAY AND BE REPLACED BY RESIDENTIAL.
AND THAT, WITH THAT BEING SAID, I WOULD LIKE TO READ SOME PROPOSED DEED RESTRICTIONS THAT WE'RE OFFERING INTO THE RECORD.
THIS IS BASED ON MY CONVERSATIONS WITH THE WEST LOVED NEIGHBORS ASSOCIATION AND COMMISSIONER HAMPTON.
SO IF YOU WOULD INDULGE ME THAT IT'S NOT A LONG ONE, UH, WE'D LIKE TO IMPOSE DEED RESTRICTIONS ON THIS PROPERTY.
IT, UH, SAY THAT THE BUILDINGS FACING EMPIRE CENTRAL MUST BE ORIENTED TOWARDS EMPIRE CENTRAL AND MUST HAVE AN INDIVIDUAL ENTRANCE FACING EMPIRE CENTRAL AND A WALKWAY LEADING TO THE SIDEWALK THAT WILL BE RE BUILT ALONG EMPIRE CENTRAL A SECOND, I MEAN, A SIX FOOT WIDE SIDEWALK WITH A SIX FOOT WIDE PLANTING STRIP IS REQUIRED BETWEEN THE SIDEWALK AND THE BACK OF CURB.
AND A DESIGNATED LOCATION FOR TRASH PICKUP IS REQUIRED TO BE LOCATED BEHIND THE FRONT YARD SETBACK AND OUT OF THE ACCESS DRIVE OR IN A DUMPSTER.
UH, SO, UH, I HOPE THAT YOU CAN SUPPORT THIS REQUEST.
I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.
UH, IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? COMMISSIONERS QUESTIONS FOR MR. BALDWIN.
COMMISSIONER YOUNG, PLEASE? UH, YES.
MR. BALDWIN, WHAT ARE THE ROUGH DIMENSIONS OF THIS PROPERTY? OH, IT'S ABOUT 50 BY 100 OR ABOUT 50 BY 200.
WHAT'S CONFUSING ME IS UNDER MF TWO, YOU'VE GOT A 15 FOOT FRONT SIDE AND REAR YARD SETBACK.
SO THAT MEANS IF IT'S 50 FEET WIDE, YOU ONLY HAVE 20 BUILDABLE FEET LEFT TO RIGHT.
UH, I'M SORRY, I THOUGHT THAT SIDE YARD SETBACKS AND MF TWO IS FIVE FEET.
YOU HAVE A 15 FOOT FRONT AND 15 FOOT REAR.
WELL, I'M, I'M GOING BY, UH, MR. MULE'S, UH, MATRIX.
IS THAT ANOTHER GLITCH IN THE MATRIX?
UM, NO, IT'S A FIVE FOOT SIDE, SIDE YARD SETBACK.
COULD WE, DID SOMEONE HAVE A CAP COPY OF 51 A? I KNOW IT'S NOT TIME FOR STAFF QUESTIONS, BUT, UM, IN, IN MF TWO, WELL, I'M ON THE WRONG DISTRICT.
IN AN MF TWO, A DISTRICT, UH, NO SIDE AND REAR YARD FOR SINGLE FAMILY STRUCTURES.
SIDE YARD FOR DUPLEX STRUCTURES IS SIDE FEET, FIVE FEET SIDE YARD FOR OTHER PERMITTED STRUCTURES IS 10 FEET, UH, REAR YARD FOR DUPLEX STRUCTURES AND 10 FEET IN.
AND, UH, REAR YARD FOR OTHER PERMITTED STRUCTURES IS 15 FEET.
UM, SO AN MF TO A, UM, THERE WOULD BE A 10 FOOT SIDE AND REAR YARD.
OKAY, SO THAT LEAVES YOU 30? NO.
SO IT'S, UH, ANOTHER PERMITTED STRUCTURE WOULD BE LIKE A CHURCH OR SOMETHING THAT'S NOT A RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE.
IF WE DO A MULTI-FAMILY STRUCTURE, THERE'S NO SIDE YARD SETBACK EXCEPT FOR WHAT BUILDING CODE WOULD REQUIRE.
[02:30:03]
I WAS TRYING TO FOLLOW MR. MULKEY, BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT I THOUGHT I HEARD HIM SAY.BECAUSE AT MF TWO YOU CAN PUT HOUSES TOGETHER, YOU KNOW, IF WE CAN PUT, WE CAN BUILD TOWN HOMES IN AN MF TWO, AND THOSE ARE SINGLE FAMILY PUT TOGETHER, BUT YOU CAN DO MULTI-FAMILY, WHICH I'M TALKING ABOUT SETBACKS FROM THE LOT LINES, NOT SETBACKS FROM BUILDING TO BUILDING.
SO, UM, CODE STIPULATES SETBACKS FOR SINGLE FAMILY STRUCTURES AND DUPLEX STRUCTURES.
LET'S, AND THEN EVERYTHING ELSE IS OTHER PERMITTED STRUCTURES.
UM, AND CODE STIPULATES THAT THE SIDE YARD FOR OTHER PERMITTED STRUCTURES IS 10 FEET.
SO THAT WOULD LEAVE YOU 30 BUILDABLE FEET.
SO THEN YOU HAVE, BUT I, I HAVE TO CLARIFY IN MY OWN MIND WHAT THE, THE REAL SETBACKS ARE BECAUSE WE USUALLY BUILD WITH FIVE FOOT SETBACKS IN, IN MF TWO DISTRICTS.
WELL, I, BUT THAT DOESN'T MATTER HERE, BUT I THINK WE PURSUED, WE STILL DO AN MF TWO DISTRICT AS FAR AS WE NEED TO FOR RIGHT NOW.
HOW MANY UNITS ARE YOU CONTEMPLATING? IT HASN'T BEEN DESIGNED YET.
UH, BRUCE, IF YOU'RE DOING TOWN HOMES, IT'D BE 12.
AND IF YOU DO MULTI-FAMILY, IT'D PROBABLY BE 25 OR LESS.
SIR, SIR, COULD YOU PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD? COULD YOU JUST STATE YOUR NAME, ADDRESS? BRUCE KAMINSKI.
63 0 4 PIPER STREET, PLANO, TEXAS 75,093.
UM, MR. BALDWIN, IN YOUR CONVERSATIONS WITH THE COMMUNITY, UM, ON THIS REQUEST, UM, ARE YOU AWARE THAT THERE HAVE BEEN ONGOING, UM, CONCERNS AND I GUESS, UM, WITH THE DEVELOPMENTAL ON EMPIRE CENTRAL THAT THERE'S BEEN, UM, PARKING ISSUES AND, AND OTHER RELATED, UM, CONSIDERATIONS? YES, MA'AM.
AND AS THE SITE HAS DEVELOPED TO UNDERSTAND, YOU GUYS DON'T HAVE A PLAN, UM, YET, BUT THAT IS SOMETHING THAT IS TYPICAL FOR HOW, UM, OTHER, UM, PROJECTS THAT THIS APPLICANT HAS DEVELOPED IN THE AREA.
I'VE WORKED WITH MR. KAMINSKI ON AT LEAST FIVE OTHER PROJECTS IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY AND WORKED WITH THE WEST LOVE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, AND WE'VE ALWAYS KNOWN THAT TRAFFIC IS A CONCERN.
SO HE'LL DEFINITELY MEET CODE, UH, AND IN FACT EXCEED CODE FOR GUEST PARKING.
HE TENDS TO HAVE, UH, TWO DAYS OF PARK IN BETWEEN EACH BUILDING, SO THERE'S PLENTY OF PARKING, UH, ONSITE.
UM, SO YOU STATED THAT MR. COMISKEY HAS BUILT OTHER, UM, OTHER, UM, STRUCTURES, MULTI-FAMILY AND TOWN HOMES IN THE AREA.
WOULD, WOULD THAT BE, WILL THESE BE SIMILAR TO THAT OR, OR WE DON'T KNOW YET IF THEY, IF HE'S DOING TOWN HOMES, YES.
YOU KNOW, HE'S BUILT ON LOVEDALE, ON SHAY AND ON MAYO STREET.
AND HAVE THOSE BEEN HELD, HAVE THOSE, THE PARKING ISSUE BEEN IN ANY ISSUE OF THOSE? THERE'S NOT, NOT NO PARKING ISSUES THAT, THAT WE'RE AWARE OF.
COMMISSIONERS, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SEE NONE.
COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? I DO.
MR. CHAIR IN THE MATTER OF Z 2 23 DASH 115, I MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE THE REQUEST WITH THE DEED RESTRICTIONS, UM, AS VOLUNTEERED BY THE APPLICANT AND WRITTEN TO THE RECORD.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HAMPTON FOR YOUR MOTION AND THANK YOU COMMISSIONER CARPENTER FOR YOUR SECOND DISCUSSION.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.
UTA RECORD, PLEASE LET ME GET TO IT.
ITEM NUMBER NINE, AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR A DRIVE-THROUGH RESTAURANT ON PROPERTIES ON THE GR GENERAL RETAIL SUBDISTRICT WITH PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 1 93, UH, THE OAK LAWN SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICT AT THE WEST CORNER OF LEMON AVENUE AND HERSCHELL AVENUE.
RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL FOR A FIVE YEAR PERIOD SUBJECT TO DISCIPLING AND CONDITIONS, AND I WILL, UM, SHARE MY SCREEN TO DO A QUICK BRIEFING.
[02:35:12]
ITEM Z 2 23 131, UM, IS A NEW SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR AN APPLICATION FOR A NEW SPECIFIC PER USE PERMIT FOR A DRIVE-THROUGH RESTAURANT.AS I WAS SAYING, ON A PROPERTY THAT ZONE GR WITHIN PD 1 93, THE OAKLAND SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICT IS LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LEMON AVENUE AND HERSCHELL AVENUE AND IS APPROXIMATELY POINT 44 ACRES IN AREA.
IT IS LOCATED IN UPTOWN, UM, ON LEMON AVENUE.
I HAVE A SERIES OF AERIALS IN ZONING MAPS.
I WAS TRYING TO TAKE A HARD LOOK AT THE AREA AND HOW IT IS DEVELOPED RIGHT NOW, AND WHAT IS THE ZONING AROUND IT.
UM, SO THE SITE IS AT THE CORNER.
UM, I HAVE A FEW THINGS TO POINT OUT.
UM, IT IS IN A, ON A RETAIL, HEAVILY RETAIL CORRIDOR THAT HAS RESTAURANT A LOT OF USES WITH DRIVE THROUGHS, UH, RETAIL, RETAIL COMBINATION PERSONAL SERVICES IN THE BACK.
IT BOARD BORDERS A SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD AND HERSCHELL AVENUE ACTUALLY DEAD ENDS BECAUSE THAT PORTION OF HERSCHELL AVENUE THAT GOES INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS ACTUALLY A PRIVATE STREET ON A LARGER AREA.
AS I WAS SAYING, YOU CAN SEE THE LEMON AVENUE CORRIDOR AND I DID A LITTLE BIT OF, UM, UH, HIGHLIGHT ON SIMILAR TYPE OF USES.
SO WHAT YOU SEE IN THE EMPTY YELLOW ONES, THERE ARE RESTAURANTS WITH DRIVE-THROUGH THAT ARE ALREADY EXISTING.
THE ONE WITH FULL YELLOW ARE EXISTING RESTAURANTS.
AND THEN WE HAVE BANKS WITH DRIVE-THROUGHS, UH, IN BLUE.
I ALSO NOTED PRESCOTT AVENUE AND HERSCHEL AVENUE AS THE TWO STREETS THAT ARE DEAD ENDING BECAUSE THOSE PORTIONS THAT GO INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD ARE PRIVATE STREETS.
UM, THIS IS THE ZONING MAP, UM, PD 1 93 JAR, UH, JAR RETAIL IN THE BACK, THE SINGLE FAMILY ZONES, CONSERVATION DISTRICTS 13 ACROSS, UM, BEHIND LEMON AVENUE ACROSS.
IT'S AN, UH, IT'S A PD 1 93 THAT DEFAULTS TO AN MF TWO.
UM, I LOOKED A LITTLE BIT AT THE RESTAURANTS WITH THE DRIVE-THROUGH AND THE OTHER SUVS THAT ARE ON LEMON AVENUE.
UM, MOST OF THE SUVS OR THERE ARE SUVS FOR RESTAURANTS WITH A DRIVE-THROUGH THERE HAVE BEEN APPROVED IN 19 89, 90, 93 FOR A PERIOD PERMANENT PERIOD OF TIME.
UM, THERE IS ALSO ANOTHER RESTAURANT WITH A DRIVE-THROUGH ACROSS THAT'S, UM, LEGAL NONCONFORMING.
UM, THERE ARE SUVS FOR THE PRIVATE STREETS.
THE DRIVE-THROUGH BANKS ALSO HAVE SUVS.
A BACKGROUND, UM, THE AREA OF REQUEST IS, UM, A LOT THAT HAS A BUILDING ON IT.
UM, THAT'S OVER 2000 SQUARE FEET AREA THAT WAS BUILT IN 2009 AND WAS AN OFFICE USE.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO REMOVE EVERYTHING AND RE FULLY REDEVELOP THE SITE WITH AN 820 SQUARE FOOT DRIVE-THROUGH RESTAURANT, WHICH WILL BE SERVED BY A DUAL DUAL DRIVE-THROUGH LANE DESIGN.
UM, THERE WILL BE NO INSIDE SITTING AREAS, BUT, UM, PER DISCIPLE AND DISCUSSIONS WITH THE APPLICANT, THEY ARE LOOKING INTO A WALK-UP WINDOW.
UM, ALSO THE APPLICANT WENT TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IN JANUARY OF THIS YEAR TO GET A PARKING VARIANCE.
UM, THE REQUIREMENT FOR PARKING FOR THIS SITE DUE TO BEING A RESTAURANT IS EIGHT SPACES, AND THEY COULD FIND SPACE ONLY FOR FOUR, AND THEY GOT THE VARIANCE REQUIREMENT, UH, THE VARIANCE APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SIDE PHOTOS.
THIS IS THE SITE, UM, ON LEMON AVENUE, LOOKING FROM ACROSS FROM HERSCHELL.
YOU CAN SEE HERSCHELL AVENUE DEAD ENDING.
UM, THIS IS FROM HERSCHELL AVENUE.
UM, SAME FURTHERMORE, UH, ONTO HERSCHELL AVENUE.
SIDEWALK ON HERSCHELL AVENUE WITH AN EXISTING CURB CUT BY THE ALLEY IN THE BACK.
THERE IS AN ALLEY IN THE BACK.
THIS IS THE EXISTING CURB CUT.
UM, THIS IS ACROSS THE STREET.
SIMILAR TYPE OF USE YOU CAN SEE THERE, UH, DRIVE-THROUGH WINDOW.
AND AS I WAS SAYING, THERE IS A RESIDENTIAL ALLEY IN THE BACK THAT THEY CANNOT ACCESS RESIDENTIAL ALLEY IN THE BACK ACROSS, UM, THE SIDEWALK THAT'S GOING ON HERSCHEL TOWARDS, UH, LEMON, THE SIDEWALK ON LEMON WITH AN EXISTING CURB CUT.
UM, THE BUS STATION I WANTED TO BRING TO OUR STATION THERE IS, THIS IS ACTUALLY, THIS LITTLE POLE IN HERE IS A BUS STATION ON LEMON AVENUE, UM, SIDEWALK AND THE STATE OF THE SIDEWALK ON LEMON AVENUE.
UM, AND WHAT'S BORDERING THE SITE TO THE NORTH SURROUNDING USES, I WAS SAYING, UH, ON THE SAME SIDE ON THE NORTHWEST IS A RETAIL STRIP WITH THE RESTAURANT AND DR.
A FEW RESTAURANTS, SIDEWALK TO THE NORTH IS IMPROVED
[02:40:01]
BUT IS AGAINST THE CURB BECAUSE IT NEEDED TO MEET THE LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS FOR ARTICLE.UH, 1 93 ACROSS THE STREET, TACO BELL, UH, RESTAURANT TO THE DRIVE-THROUGH.
AS YOU CAN SEE, THEY ARE COMPLYING WITH, UH, LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS FOR OUR CALL FOR PD ONE NINETY THREE ACROSS THE STREET.
DIAGONAL IS A RESTAURANT ACROSS THE STREET, DI UH, THE SAME SITE AS A PERSONAL SERVICE USE.
WE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED AND, UM, FOUND AN AGREEMENT WITH THE APPLICANT.
I WILL HIGHLIGHT THE PORTIONS WHERE STAFF, UM, HAD COMMENTS AND THE IMPROVEMENTS THAT WE CAME.
UH, STAFF HAD, UM, A COMMENT AND INSISTED ON HAVING A SMALLER ACCESS FROM LEBANON AVENUE AND HAVE, UH, BASICALLY JUST A IN FROM LEMON AND MAKE SURE THAT MOST OF THEIR, UM, IF ANYTHING HAPPENS, IT'S BASICALLY MOST ON HERSCHEL AVENUE BECAUSE THAT'S BASICALLY A STREET THAT SERVES ONLY THESE TWO, TWO USES THERE ACROSS FROM ONE ANOTHER.
SO, UM, WE, UH, GOT A NARROW DRIVE DRIVEWAY APPROACH FROM LEBANON AVENUE AVENUE TO, IN AN EFFORT TO ENCOURAGE AND KEEP A MORE CONTINUOUS SIDEWALK.
UM, WE MANAGED TO PUSH A LITTLE BIT INSIDE TO ALLOW, UM, THE STREET BUFFER FOR LANDSCAPING PER 1 93.
UH, I WOULD ALSO POINT ON THE FACT THAT WE ALSO ASK THE APPLICANT TO LEAVE ROOM FOR A BUS SHELTER.
AND THEY HAVE BEEN IN CONVERSATIONS WITH DART, INSTEAD OF HAVING A POLE TO BE A BUS STOP, TO ACTUALLY LEAVE ROOM FOR A BUS SHELTER ON THEIR PROPERTY.
UM, THE SAME, THEY, UM, MADE SURE THAT THEY CAN COMPLY WITH THE SIX FOOT SIDEWALKS, SO THEY WILL IMPROVE SIDEWALKS, THEY WILL IPL IMPROVE.
UM, THEY WILL LANDSCAPE IT, LANDSCAPE IT PER, UH, THE REGULATIONS.
WE ALSO WERE CAREFUL TO TRY TO LIMIT SOMEHOW THE WAY THE CIRCULATION ON THE SIDE, SO IT'S IN FROM LEMON AND THEN OUT ON HERSCHEL, WHICH LEAVES THIS AREA IN FRONT TO BE MORE ACCESSIBLE FROM THE SIDEWALK TOWARDS A WALK-UP WINDOW.
WE WERE TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS USE OR THIS, UM, DEVELOPMENT IS GONNA SERVE THE PEOPLE WHO ARE DRIVING ON CARS.
SO THE TRANSIT, UH, TRANSIENT POPULATION IS COMING FOR WORK IN THE CITY OF DALLAS, BUT ALSO SERVE THE COMMUNITY.
SO THAT'S WHY WE WERE VERY ADAMANT ONTO HAVING A GOOD SIDEWALK ON LEMON AVENUE, A WALK-UP WINDOW TOWARDS LEMON AVENUE, A BETTER BUS, BUS SHELTER, AND ALL OF THIS.
UM, AS I WAS SAYING, THE CASE WAS AT BDA EARLIER THIS YEAR TO GET A PARKING VARIANCE AND IT'S A DRIVE-THROUGH SITE.
UH, THE RATIONALE AND THE HARDSHIP THAT THEY PROVED, THEY HAD TO PROVE THAT BDA WAS BASED ON THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE LOT AND THEY COMPARED THEIR SQUARE FOOT, THEIR LOT SQUARE FOOTAGE TO SIMILAR USES WITHIN THE AREA.
AS I WAS EXPLAINING THE, THIS MORNING, THE VARIANCE, UH, RATIONALE FOR BDA HAS TO BE BASED ON A HARDSHIP AND IT WAS APPROVED.
UH, OTHER APPLICABLE REGULATIONS IN PD 1 93.
PD 1 93 HAS LANDSCAPE REGULATIONS.
UM, WE ENSURE THAT DISCIPL PLAN CAN COMPLY.
SO IT'S A, IT'S AN IMPROVEMENT.
UH, PD 1 93 ALSO HAS A BIG CHAPTER OR A BIG PORTION FOR LOUDSPEAKER REGULATIONS.
UM, NICE REGULATIONS FOR ARTICLE SIX AND CHAPTER 30 WILL BE APPLICABLE.
OBVIOUSLY, AS YOU WILL SEE ON THE DISCIPLE, THEY ALSO, UH, ARE SHOWING A FENCE TO SCREEN FROM BACK OF THE ALLEY IN AN EFFORT TO BE MORE RESPECTFUL TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN THE BACK.
I THINK THEY EV WE EVEN ASKED THEM TO, TO PUT THE, THE SPEAKERS AS MORE INTO THE SITE AS POSSIBLE.
ALSO, THE GARBAGE DUMPSTER, WE'VE ORIENTED IN A, IN A WAY THAT AGAIN, HAS MADE ACCESS FROM HERSCHEL, DOESN'T INTERFERE WITH ANYTHING THAT'S RESIDENTIAL IN THE BACK.
THIS BEING SAID, THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL FOR A FIVE YEAR PERIOD SUBJECT TO SITE PLANNING CONDITIONS.
QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS, COMMISSIONER? YEAH.
I'M CONFUSED ABOUT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION.
WAS THAT A VARIANCE OR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION? OKAY.
I'M COMMISSIONER YOUNG IS A VARIANCE.
SO IT WAS GOVERNED BY THE PROPERTY HARDSHIP STANDARD? YES, THAT'S CORRECT.
I, I GUESS I DON'T NEED TO WORRY ABOUT HOW A RECTANGULAR FLAT LOT QUALIFIED FOR A PROPERTY HARDSHIP, BUT I GUESS IN THEIR INFINITE WISDOM IT DID.
MR. HAMPTON, UM, AND THIS IS JUST A FOLLOW UP ON THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, THE
[02:45:01]
STAFF REPORT NOTES THAT, UH, THE RESTAURANT REQUIRED EIGHT SPACES, BUT AS NOTED ON THE SITE PLAN DISTRIBUTED, IT SAID THERE WERE NINE REQUIRED SPACES.DO WE KNOW WHAT THE REQUIRED NUMBER OF SPACES WAS? IT'S 820 DIVIDED BY, UM, A HUNDRED.
IT'S 8.2, SO IT WOULD BE EIGHT.
SO THE SITE PLAN IS INCORRECTLY DESIGNATED? YEAH.
UM, IF I MAY, MR. CHAIR, PLEASE.
UM, MR. DRE, IN THE CASE REPORT, IT NOTES THAT THE, UM, THE PROJECT IS FRONTING ALONG LEMON.
AND I THINK I HEARD YOU TALK ABOUT HOW THEY'VE INCLUDED THE WINDOW TO TRY TO ENCOURAGE FOLKS TO BE ABLE TO WALK, BUT THIS IS PRIMARILY A, AN AUTO ORIENTED USE, IS THAT CORRECT? YES, IT IS.
FOR CARS AND, AND THERE'S NO, UM, TABLES OR OTHER SEATINGS.
SO IF WHEN SOMEONE DID WALK UP, THEY WOULD BE TAKING IT BACK TO THEIR RESIDENCE OR TAKE AWAY.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, PLEASE.
I BELIEVE A REVISED SITE PLAN ARRIVED YESTERDAY.
I DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO IT RIGHT NOW, BUT I THINK THE PLAN LOST A PARKING SPACE.
WHAT HAPPENED TO THAT? SO YOU YES, COMMISSIONER KINGSTON DID SEND, UH, A SITE PLAN.
THE SITE PLAN THAT IS IN THE DOCKET IS THE SITE PLAN THAT THE APPLICANT IS MAINTAINING AND PUTTING FORWARD.
I THINK THE ITERATION THAT WAS SENT TO YOU YESTERDAY IS AN OLDER VERSION.
APOLOGIES, MR. MY PLEASE WANNA FOLLOW UP MR. ANDREA.
UM, IN LOOKING AT THE TRAFFIC FOR THIS, UM, I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH THIS AREA OF LEMON AND I KNOW THERE'S SUBSTANTIAL BACKUP THAT REGULARLY OCCURS AT A NUMBER OF THESE, UM, RESTAURANTS ALONG THE AREA.
AND YOU TALKED ABOUT ALL OF THE SEPS THAT ARE THERE.
CAN YOU SPEAK TO HOW THAT WAS EVALUATED FOR FUNCTION OF THE OVERALL CORRIDOR? AGAIN, I THINK THIS SITE IS A LITTLE BIT MORE SPECIFIC THAN OTHERS BECAUSE THEY DO HAVE ACCESS TO HERSCHELL.
SO THE FACT THAT THE NEIGHBORS, WHICH IS NOT FOR US TO DISCUSS RIGHT NOW, THEY CLOSED HERSCHELL AND NOW THE SITE BASICALLY HAS A FULL PUBLIC STREET WOULD BUILD TO FULL STANDARDS.
THAT'S ALL THE TRAFFIC ON THAT STREET IS JUST SHARED BETWEEN THIS AND THE SIMILAR RESTAURANT ACROSS THE STREET.
I THINK IT GOES TO THEIR BENEFIT TO ENSURE THAT IT'S NOT, YOU DON'T GET IN AND GET OUT ON LEMON.
UM, YES, LEMON IS A NOT A WALKABLE CORRIDOR RIGHT NOW.
UM, I AM NOT FAMILIAR, I'M NOT AWARE OF COMPLETE STREETS OR ANY OTHER INITIATIVES.
BUT THE REALITY OF IT, IT IS A MAJOR THOROUGHFARE THAT COMES RIGHT OFF TALL WAY RIDING TO DOWNTOWN AND UPTOWN.
SO IT IS A MAJOR, MAJOR ACCESS POINT THAT CAPTURES TRAVELERS FROM, UH, FROM THE TALL WAY COMING INTO THE CITY.
AND SO I GUESS IN THAT REGARD, THERE WASN'T, UM, ANY, AND I KNOW TRAFFIC STATES IN HERE THAT THEY THINK THAT IT'S ADEQUATE FOR THE CAPACITY, BUT I JUST, I'VE, I'VE BEEN CAUGHT BEHIND SOME OF THOSE STACKING LINES THAT END UP ON THE STREET AND I'VE NOTICED THAT THERE'S A PROVISION FOR CONES IF NEEDED TO HELP MANAGE THAT FROM THE TRAFFIC.
AND SO THAT WOULD JUST BE SOMETHING THAT STAFF WOULD EVALUATE? YES.
AND THEY DID HAVE, THEY HAVE DUAL LANES FOR THAT? UH, I THINK THERE'S ENOUGH.
THAT'S WHY THEY HAD TO SACRIFICE THE PARKING SPACES BECAUSE AGAIN, THE PARKING BASICALLY IS MOST, MOSTLY FOR EMPLOYEES TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY DON'T STACK ONTO LEMON.
BUT I THINK WE TAKE INTO A CONSIDERATION THE FACT THAT IT, OKAY.
THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER YOUNG.
HOW DOES THE CONE SYSTEM WORK? IF THE MANAGER OBSERVES STACKING OCCURRING ON DEL LEMON AVENUE, THEN HE OR SHE IS TO PUT UP THE CONES.
I WOULD DEFER TO THE APPLICANT.
FROM OUR POINT OF VIEW, WE DIDN'T SEE ANY ISSUE.
AGAIN, WE, WE THOUGHT IT'S SUFFICIENT.
WE DON'T SEE LIKE, OH, IT'S GONNA HAPPEN.
I THINK THAT'S A BACKUP PLAN FOR THEM TO SHOW THEIR COMMITMENT THAT THEY WON'T BACK INTO LEMON.
I'M, I ALSO WANT, WANNA QUESTION LIKE YES, I KNOW THIS AREA WAY, WAY TOO WELL.
I DON'T THINK THAT, I'VE NEVER SEEN ANY OF THE DRIVE-THROUGHS ON LEMON IN, IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD GOING, GOING ONTO STACKING INTO LEMON AVENUE.
WELL, YOU'RE TALKING TO SOMEBODY WHO DRIVES DOWN GASTON AVENUE PAST THE STARBUCKS AT WASHINGTON.
UM,
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONERS? OKAY.
[02:50:04]
I WILL READ IT INTO THE RECORD, UM, OFFICIALLY SO WE CAN, UM, SO ITEM NUMBER NINE, AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR A DRIVE-THROUGH RESTAURANT ON PROPERTIES ON THE GR GENERAL RETAIL SUBDISTRICT WITH PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 1 93, THE OAK LAWN SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICT AT THE WEST CORNER OF LEMON AVENUE IN HERSCHEL AVENUE.STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL FOR A FIVE-YEAR PERIOD SUBJECT TO A SITE PLAN AND CONDITIONS.
UH, IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO BE HEARD ON THIS ITEM IN SUPPORT? GOOD AFTERNOON.
DO YOU HAVE A PRESENTATION? UM, DO YOU HAVE IT TO WEBEX? I THINK MIKE IS TRYING TO HELP.
HE'S LOGGED INTO WEBEX NUMBER NINE.
SHOULD I JUST START WHILE WE GET THIS FIGURED OUT? NO.
LET'S, LET'S GET IT UP AND RUNNING SO WE DON'T SPEND YOUR TIME.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MEMBERS OF, UH, THE COMMISSION.
MY NAME IS DAVID GREATS AND I AM ON THE REAL ESTATE TEAM FOR SAGO.
MY ADDRESS IS 2215 CEDAR SPRINGS IN DALLAS, 75,201.
UM, I WANTED TO SPECIFICALLY TOUCH ON THE COMMUNITY OUTREACH AND PRESENTATIONS THAT WE'VE DONE IN THE PAST AND THEN ALSO ADDRESS SOME OF THE QUESTIONS THAT WERE JUST ASKED.
UM, THE MINIMUM CUING LENGTH HERE IS 250 FEET.
[02:55:02]
UM, IF IT WERE TO EVER BECOME AN ISSUE THAT TRAFFIC SPILLS OUT INTO LEMON, WE WOULD HAVE A STORE MANAGER GO OUT AND CONE OFF THAT AREA.SO ON MY PRESENTATION HERE, UH, JANUARY 18TH, WE WENT TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND WE WERE APPROVED AFTER THAT.
I DID MEET WITH THE PERRY HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD VIRTUALLY ON THE 4TH OF FEBRUARY.
UH, SINCE THAT I DID RECEIVE EMAILS IN SUPPORT FROM RESIDENTS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, FOLLOWING THAT WE WENT TO THE OAK LAWN COMMITTEE FEBRUARY 7TH AND RECEIVED CONDITIONAL SUPPORT.
WE WERE WELCOMED BACK TO A SECOND TIME WHERE WE ADDRESSED ALL OF THE CONCERNS AND RECEIVED FULL SUPPORT.
UH, ORIGINALLY WHEN WE WERE WORKING ON THIS PROJECT A YEAR AGO, IT WAS MISTAKENLY TOLD THAT WE WERE ZONED BY, RIGHT.
SO WE DID NOT INITIALLY THINK THAT WE HAD TO GO TO THE OAK LAWN COMMITTEE OR SEEK AN U.
UM, BUT WE DID STILL MEET WITH THE OAK LAWN COMMITTEE, TECHNICALLY A THIRD TIME AHEAD OF ALL OF THIS.
UH, THEY JUST INFORMED US THAT, UH, WE DIDN'T HAVE TO PRESENT.
THIS IS A MAP SHOWING IN ORANGE WHERE THE SITE IS.
UH, AHEAD OF THIS MEETING, I DELIVERED PHYSICAL LETTERS TO ALL OF THE RESIDENTS WITHIN THE BLACK BORDER.
UM, I DID SPEAK WITH ONE OF THE RESIDENTS WHO WAS IN SUPPORT AND I RECEIVED TWO EMAILS, UM, FROM OTHERS.
ONE CAME YESTERDAY EVENING FROM THE RESIDENT THAT'S DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO THE SITE THAT LIVES RIGHT BEHIND OUR SITE, AND ALL OF THEM HAVE BEEN IN SUPPORT.
THIS IS OUR DEVELOPMENT PLAN, CIRCULATION PLAN FROM LEMON.
SINCE WE MADE LEMON, UH, THE ACCESS POINT INGRESS ONLY, AND TO ANSWER THE QUESTION, IT ALLOWED US TO ADD AN EXTRA PARKING STALL, NOT REDUCE.
THIS IS OUR LANDSCAPE PLAN THAT ABIDES BY PD 1 93 SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASING THE LANDSCAPE HERE AROUND ALL THE PARKING, THE BUILDING, THE CURBS, AND THE DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE.
THESE ARE OUR PROTOTYPICAL ELEVATIONS.
THIS IS A STUCCO BUILDING, THOUGH WE'VE MADE CONCESSIONS IN THE PAST FOR DIFFERENT MUNICIPALITIES DOING FULL BRICK STONE.
AND YEAH, THESE ARE JUST THE FINISHES.
HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU GUYS HAVE.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT'D LIKE TO BE HEARD ON THIS ITEM? OH, I CAN I ADD, OF COURSE.
UM, I HAVE THE LETTERS FROM THE OAKLAND COMMITTEE AND THEN ALSO EMAILS FROM RESIDENTS.
I CAN PASS ALONG TO EVERYONE IF YOU'D LIKE FOR THE RECORD.
JUST KNOW THAT IT BECOMES PART OF THE RECORD.
PLEASE JUST GIVE THEM TO MR. MULKEY THERE TO YOUR LEFT.
COMMISSIONER'S QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT.
COMMISSIONER YOUNG, UH, YES, SIR.
EXPLAIN TO ME HOW THAT WOULD WORK.
UH, I'M THE STORE MANAGER AND I SEE THAT THERE ARE CARS STARTING TO BACK UP ON LEMON.
SO I GO OUT AND PUT UP THE COMBS AND AFTER THEY MAKE ALL THEIR RUDE GESTURES AT ME, THEY DRIVE OFF AND I GUESS ENTER FROM, UH, HERSCHEL? YES, SIR.
WE WOULD DIVERT THE TRAFFIC TO FLOWING FROM HERSCHEL.
AND, AND WHAT DO I DO AS THE STORE MANAGER? DO I GO BACK INTO THE STORE AND START DOING MY OTHER DUTIES AFTER YOU'VE CONED OFF? YEAH.
YOU WOULD CONSIDER TO CONTINUE TO MONITOR THAT AREA? YES, SIR.
SO IS THERE A RISK OF PEOPLE QUEUING UP ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE CONES, WAITING FOR THE CONES TO BE REMOVED WITH THE AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC ON LEMON? I, I DON'T BELIEVE SO.
THEY WOULD, THEY WOULD BE HONKED OUT, I THINK.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONERS? ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? OKAY.
SEEING NONE, COMMISSIONER KINGSTON, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? THANK YOU.
IN THE MATTER OF Z 2 23 DASH 1 31 A MOVE THAT WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND DISREGARD STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION OF A APPROVAL AND DENY THE APPLICATION.
AND IF I HAVE A SECOND, I HAVE COMMENTS.
YOU DO HAVE A SECOND, UH, COMMISSIONER, UH, HAMPTON SECONDED YOUR MOTION? IS THAT IT? STRAIGHT DENIAL.
[03:00:01]
THAT PREJUDICE, I MEAN, I'D ENTERTAIN A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT, BUT I WAS GONNA DO A STRAIGHT DENIAL.I'LL MAKE THAT FRIENDLY AMENDMENT
UM, YOU KNOW, ON ITS FACE, THIS PROPOSAL SEEMS FAIRLY INNOCUOUS, UM, PARTICULARLY SINCE THE EXISTING BUILDING IS VACANT AND IT DOES HAVE SOME COMMUNITY SUPPORT, THE APPLICANT NOTED THAT IT HAD A COUPLE OF THE RESIDENTS, UM, WERE SUPPORTIVE.
AND YOU MAY HAVE SEEN ONE OF THE LETTERS THAT SAID THEY CONDITIONALLY SUPPORTED IT AND THE OAK LAWN COMMITTEE SUPPORTS IT.
AND I DO NOTE THAT THE APPLICANT IS OFFERING TO DO SOME SITE IMPROVEMENTS.
HOWEVER, THE FACTORS AGAINST IT, I THINK FAR OUTWEIGH THE FACTORS FOR IT, UM, OF THE PEOPLE IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA THAT CONTACTED ME ALL, BUT, BUT ONE OF 'EM WERE ADAMANTLY OPPOSED TO IT.
UM, FRANKLY, FOR THE SAME REASONS I AM.
AND I WAS CONTACTED BY SEVEN RESIDENTS, INCLUDING THE PRESIDENT OF THE HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION OF PERRY HEIGHTS.
UM, SOME OF 'EM SENT ME EMAILS, WHICH I SENT TO YOU ALL, SOME OF 'EM CALLED ME.
UM, AND THEY OPPOSE IT BECAUSE ONE, IT IS COMPLETELY AUTO CENTRIC WITH TWO DRIVE-THROUGH LANES AND, YOU KNOW, ALL OF THE NOISE AND SMELLS AND CAR EXHAUST AND, UH, LOUD SPEAKER AND DUMPSTERS THAT COME WITH THAT.
UM, I SENT YOU GUYS THIS ORIGINAL SITE PLAN THAT WAS SENT TO ME WITH THE MANAGER MANAGED CONE TRAFFIC SYSTEM.
THAT INDICATES TO ME THAT THEY KNOW THAT THIS IS GOING TO QUEUE ONTO LEMON.
AND I THINK THE LAST THING WE NEED IS ONE MORE FAST FOOD AUTOCENTRIC, UH, SYSTEM THAT CUES ONTO LEMON.
UM, I'VE DRIVEN BY THEIR SITE ON ROSS AVENUE SEVERAL TIMES AND IT CUES ONTO ROSS PRETTY RE PRETTY REGULARLY DURING PEAK TIMES.
SO I'M PRETTY SURE THAT THEY KNOW THAT THIS IS GONNA CUE ON THE LEMON.
AND, UM, SO THE, THE, THE USE IN THIS LOCATION IS NOT A GREAT USE.
AND THEN WHEN YOU LOOK AT WHAT WE ARE SEEING COMING ONTO LEMON, I'VE GOT TWO DIFFERENT APARTMENT COMPLEXES THAT ARE IN THE PLANNING STAGES FOR BEING RIGHT ON LEMON.
AND THEY'RE, THEY'RE DEVELOPING THE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT THAT WE SAY WE WANT ON LEMON, YOU KNOW, GROUND FLOOR ACTIVATION WITH RESTAURANTS IN RETAIL, WITH PEOPLE WHO ARE LIVING ON SITE.
THESE SORT OF LIVE WORK AREAS WITH LANDSCAPING THAT ACTUALLY MEETS THE OAK LAWN PLAN.
AND WHEN YOU CONSIDER THE OAK LAWN PLAN, THIS CONCEPT REALLY DOESN'T MEET IT.
UM, AND I DON'T KNOW WHY LEMON HAS BEEN GIVEN THE SHORT END OF THE STICK SINCE THE OAK LAWN PLAN'S INCEPTION, BUT IT HAS, AND OAK LAWN, I MEAN, I'M SORRY, LEMON AVENUE IS NEVER GOING TO ACHIEVE THE URBAN WALKABLE TYPE OF ENVIRONMENT THAT WE ALWAYS SAY WE WANT IT TO BE.
UREA SAID, UM, THAT IT'S NOT THE WALKABLE CORRIDOR THAT SHE'D LIKE IT TO BE RIGHT NOW.
WELL, IT WON'T BE UNLESS WE START MAKING THE DECISIONS THAT EVERY USE LIKE THIS THAT MAY BE INCREMENTALLY BETTER THAN THE USE BEFORE IT, BUT STILL DOESN'T MEET THE PLAN THAT WE'VE SET IN PLACE.
UNLESS WE START SAYING, NO, WE CAN DO BETTER AND WE SHOULD DO BETTER.
IT'LL NEVER BE WHAT WE PLAN FOR.
AND WE ALL SAT AROUND FOR TWO HOURS THIS MORNING TALKING ABOUT LONG-RANGE PLANNING AND WHAT WE ENVISION FOR OUR CITY AND HOW WE ARE GONNA GET THERE.
WHY BOTHER IF WE TAKE THOSE PLANS AND THEN STICK 'EM ON A SHELF AND THE FIRST TIME SOMEBODY COMES BEFORE US WITH WHAT THEY WANNA DO ON A SITE, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TAKES A SQUARE PIECE OF LAND AND SAY, WELL, I SEE A HARDSHIP SO I'M NOT GONNA REQUIRE YOU TO HAVE HALF THE PARKING YOU NEED TO HAVE.
AND WE GO AND SAY, WELL, WE KNOW THAT YOU'RE NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO OPERATE YOUR OPERATIONS ON THIS PIECE OF LAND BECAUSE YOU'VE TOLD US YOU CAN'T OPERATE YOUR OPERATIONS ON THIS PIECE OF LAND WITH YOUR SITE PLAN.
BUT WE'RE GONNA PASS IT ANYWAY CUZ WE THINK WE CAN'T DO BETTER.
WELL, I THINK WE CAN DO BETTER.
AND I THINK THIS DES THIS NEIGHBORHOOD DESERVES BETTER.
AND SO FOR THOSE REASONS, I, I'D LIKE TO GIVE THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY A CHANCE AND I ASK YOU GUYS TO JOIN ME IN DENYING THE APPLICATION.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER BLAIR, I'M GOING TO JOIN IN ON, UM,
[03:05:01]
COMMISSIONER, UM, KINGSTON'S, UH, DENIAL.AND I HAVE PERFECT EXAMPLE WITHIN MY DISTRICT OF WHAT THE CONE PROCESS LOOKS LIKE,
AND, BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, WHAT IT DOES NOT DO, UM, ON RAINY DAYS.
RAINY DAYS AND CONES DON'T WORK CUZ THE MANAGER AND THE PEOPLE WHO NEED TO GO OUTSIDE AND MINISTER TO 'EM, THEY DON'T GO OUTSIDE CUZ IT'S RAINY.
SO, UM, I I, AND I'VE SAID OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN THAT WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR ROADWAYS REMAIN CLEAR FOR TRAFFIC AND NOT FOR PARKING OF CARS AS PEOPLE TRY TO DRIVE THROUGH TO PICK UP ITEMS. WHEN I SEE A PLAN THAT CONS THAT TAKES TRAFFIC AND HOLDS IT COMPLETELY ON THE PROPERTY, I'M GOING TO SAY THAT'S A GOOD DAY FOR DRIVE-THROUGH.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? COMMISSIONERS? SEEING NONE OF THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.
UH, IT WAS, UH, OPPOSITION WERE YES.
MUNOZ, CAN EVERYONE SEE THE PRESENTATION? NOT YET.
SO Z 2 12 2 80 IS AN APPLICATION FOR AN MF ONE, A MULTI-FAMILY DISTRICT ON PROPERTY THAT'S CURRENTLY ZONED IN R 75.
A SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF NORTH JIM MILLER ROAD AND ELAM ROAD.
AND THE APPLICANT IS CURRENTLY PROPOSING A MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT ON ABOUT A THIRD OF AN ACRE.
THIS PROPERTY IS IN, IS SOUTH OF PIEDMONT EDITION ON THE SOUTHWEST SIDE OF CF HAN FREEWAY, NORTH OF THE SOUTH GREAT TRINITY FOREST WAY.
AND HERE'S AN AERIAL VIEW SHOWING THAT UNDEVELOPED PARCEL AND ITS CORNERED LOCATION AND THE SURROUNDING ZONING.
AS YOU CAN SEE, IT'S R 75 LOCATED TO THE SOUTH, TO THE WEST AND TO THE NORTH AND THEN TO THE SOUTHEAST ACROSS NORTH JAMILLA ROAD THERE IS MF TWO A WITH MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT THERE IN THE R 75 A AREAS.
WE HAVE A PUBLIC SCHOOL LOCATED TO THE NORTHWEST AND WE HAVE UNDEVELOPED PARCEL ALONG WITH TWO CHURCHES LOCATED TO THE NORTHEAST ACROSS ELAM ROAD AND THEN ADJACENT TO THE SITE WE DO HAVE SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT LOCATED TO THE SOUTH AND THEN THE PARCELS TO THE WEST ARE UNDEVELOPED AND FURTHER TO THE SOUTH AS WELL.
THIS INITIAL CH ZONING CHANGE REQUEST WAS FOR A CR DISTRICT.
THE APPLICANT IS TRYING TO FIND A WAY TO USE THIS SITE.
HOWEVER, BASED ON THE DEVELOPMENT GOALS AND WHAT WOULD APPLY TO THE SITE IF THEY TRIED TO DO RETAIL, UM, SOME SORT OF NEIGHBORHOOD SERVING COMMERCIAL THE SIZE OF THE LOT AND THE RIGHT OF WAY THAT'S REQUIRED TO BE DEDICATED ON THESE TWO STREETS WOULD RESTRICTED IN A MANNER THAT THEY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO ACTUALLY DEVELOP THE SITE.
SO THEY AMENDED THE APPLICATION AND MADE IT TO A MULTI-FAMILY ONE DISTRICT.
SO THEY COULD, UM, PROVIDE MAYBE SOME TOWNHOUSE STRUCTURES OR SOME SORT OF DEVELOPMENT THAT'S MORE CONSISTENT WITH THEIR RESIDENTIAL NATURE.
HOWEVER, GIVES AN OPPORTUNITY FOR A NEW HOUSING ELEMENT WITHIN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.
SO THAT'S THE CURRENT REQUEST.
IT WOULD BE REQUIRED FOR THEM TO COMPLY WITH THE LEGAL BUILD SITE REQUIREMENTS OR EXEMPTIONS AS STATED IN OUR CODE.
AND SO FOR THAT REASON, THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED TO LIKELY DEDICATE RIGHT OF WAY AND
[03:10:01]
A CORNER CLIP ON THE SITE, WHICH IS VERY LIMITING TO THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY.AND THEN ADDITIONALLY, THEY DO HAVE TO MAINTAIN BLOCK CONTINUITY.
IT'S A CORNERED LOT, BUT THEY DO HAVE RESIDENCES THAT ARE FRONTING OR LOTS ORIENTED ON BOTH OF THOSE STREETS.
SO THEY DO HAVE TWO FRONT YARDS AS FAR AS YOU KNOW, HARDSHIP GOES FOR THIS SITE.
UM, AS I MENTIONED, THEY'LL HAVE TO DEDICATE RIGHT OF WAY.
AND WHILE THIS BLOCK IS LARGELY COMPOSED OF SINGLE FAMILY ZONING OR UNDEVELOPED LOTS, UM, THE ADJACENT BLOCK TO THE EAST, AS I NOTED, IS A MULTI-FAMILY DISTRICT WHICH IS DEVELOPED.
THERE IS A NEED FOR INFILL AND THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR GENTLE DENSITY AND AT THE FRINGE OF THIS RESIDENTIAL BLOCK.
AND THEN WITH THE MIX OF ADDITIONAL DENSITY ACROSS THE STREET, THIS IS AGAIN JUST ANOTHER UM, HOUSING TYPE THAT COULD BE OFFERED IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND HERE WE ARE LOOKING AT THE SITE FROM NORTH JIM MILLER ROAD ONTO THE CORNER OF THE PROPERTY.
YOU CAN SEE HERE IT'S UNDEVELOPED AND STRAIGHT ON FROM NORTH, UM, FROM NORTH JIM MILLER ROAD LOOKING WEST ONTO THE SITE AND A CLOSEUP VIEW OF THAT.
AND NOW WE'RE LOOKING SOUTH ONTO THE SITE FROM NORTH ROAD AND THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, THIS IS NORTHEAST, THOSE TWO CHURCHES IN AN UNDEVELOPED TRACT ALL ZONED R 75 A.
AND THIS IS THE MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT THAT'S LOCATED TO THE EAST AND THE PUBLIC SCHOOL TO THE NORTHWEST ADJACENT SINGLE FAMILY PROPERTY AND THEN MORE UNDEVELOPED LAND.
ANOTHER VIEW OF THAT MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT AND OF THE PUBLIC SCHOOL FROM NORTH ELAM, WE'RE LOOKING JUST DOWN THE STREET THAT, UH, PROPERTY FOR THE PUBLIC SCHOOL IS QUITE LARGE.
SO ALTHOUGH A GENERAL ZONE CHANGE DOESN'T GET GUARANTEE ANY PARTICULAR USE, THE CHANGE FROM THE R 75 A TO THE MF ONE IS, UM, VERY LIMITED IN THE TOTAL USES THAT WOULD BE PERMITTED NOW THAT HAVE CHANGED INCLUDING, INCLUDING THESE FIVE NEW RESIDENTIAL USES ESSENTIALLY.
AND THEN THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS THAT WOULD CHANGE IS WHILE THE SETBACK WOULD BE REDUCED TO 15 FEET BLOCK CONTINUITY STILL APPLIES AND IT'S R 75 ON BOTH SIDES.
SO THEY WOULD HAVE TO STILL PROVIDE A 25 FOOT FRONT YARD ON BOTH SIDES OF THEIR STREET FRONTAGE.
AND THEN ADDITIONALLY THE HEIGHT, WHILE IT INCREASES TO 36 FEET, THEY WOULD STILL HAVE TO CONTEND WITH UM, R P S.
SO ESSENTIALLY THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE GETTING VERY MUCH OF ANYTHING, UH, BUT THEY DO, THEY WOULD BE PERMITTED UP TO 60% LOCK COVERAGE, SO AN INCREASE OF ABOUT 15%.
SO, UH, THIS IS JUST SORT OF INFORMATION WHERE I CLARIFIED THE R P S SECTION OF MY REPORT, UM, BASED ON THE SITE OF ORIGINATION BEING, UH, AND TO COMPLY WITH THE R P S REMAINING FOR THE R DISTRICTS THAT SURROUND THE SITE.
AND CONSIDERING THAT ADJACENCY, THERE REALLY WON'T BE ANYTHING HIGHER THAN 26 FEET, HOWEVER, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST.
QUESTIONS COMMISSIONER BLAIR? UH, UH, MS. MUNO, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR, UM, ALL OF YOUR TIME YOU SPENT ON THIS CASE WITH ME.
I REALLY DO APPRECIATE YOUR SERVICE.
UM, I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS FOR YOU THOUGH.
CAN YOU PLEASE HELP ME, UH, UNDERSTAND HOW, IF WE'RE LOOKING TO DO TOWNHOUSES AND WE HAVE A TOWNHOUSE DESIGNATION, WHY ARE WE USING, UM, MULTI-FAMILY AS THE LAND ZONING USE? WHILE THIS MAY IN FACT END UP BEING A TOWNHOUSE STYLE DEVELOPMENT, ULTIMATELY A TOWNHOUSE IS STILL A SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT WHICH WOULD REQUIRE PLATTING OF THE SITE AND THEN WE WOULD HAVE THE ISSUE OF COURSE OF WHETHER THAT'S LOT PATTERN MEETS THE STANDARDS FOR REPLAT IN THIS RESIDENTIAL AREA.
AND SO TO, TO STEER CLEAR OF THAT BECAUSE IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE IT WOULD MEET THOSE, THAT CRITERIA THE APPLICANT CHOSE TO INSTEAD REQUEST AN MF ONE AND LIKELY DO A TOWNHOUSE STYLE MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT.
SO ARE, SO HELP ME UNDERSTAND, WHEN YOU ARE SAYING TOWNHOUSE STYLE, IS THAT JUST A WAY OF SAYING THAT IT'S STILL MULTI-FAMILY JUST STYLED IN THE, IN THE FORM OF A TOWNHOUSE? THAT'S RIGHT.
IT WOULD LOOK LIKE A TOWNHOUSE, BUT IT WOULD BE FOR RENT
[03:15:01]
NOT GOING TO.UM, CAN YOU ALSO TELL ME IF, IF YOU ARE LOOKING AT, UM, LESS THAN A HALF OF AN ACRE CONCEIVABLE, AND, AND IF WE ARE HAVING TO USE A, HAVING TO KEEP RPS, THEN WOULD WE NOT BE LOOKING AT A DEVELOPMENT THAT IS BECAUSE THERE ARE SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES, UH, UH, NEXT TO IT? WOULD WE NOT BE LOOKING AT A DEVELOPMENT THAT'S NO MORE THAN TWO STORIES? YES.
THEY WILL NOT BE ABLE TO GO ABOVE 26 FEET IN HEIGHT.
SO, AND IF IT, AND WITH IT BEING A CORNER, WOULD THAT MEAN YOU WOULD HAVE TWO FRONT FACES, ONE ON ELAM AND ONE ON JIM MILLER? THAT'S CORRECT.
AND BASED ON THE SIZE AND IF WE WERE USING A TH ONE ONE, HOW MANY ACTUAL UNITS WOULD WE BE ABLE TO GET ON THIS PARTICULAR LOT IF WE WAS A TOWNHOUSE? OH, COMMISSIONER BLAIR.
I DID THIS MATH A VERY LONG TIME AGO WITH MR. HAMED, I'M SORRY, RECENTLY.
SO HE'S, HE, SO YOU DON'T DO MATH ON THE FLY
UM, ULTIMATELY WE DID DECIDE THOUGH THAT IT WOULD BE TOO DIFFICULT AND LIMITING IF HE TRIED TO DO A T DISTRICT.
THERE'S A LOT OF DIFFERENT STANDARDS IN THERE THAT JUST WOULDN'T APPLY TO THIS LOT.
COMMISSIONER BLAIR, IF I MAY, UH, ON 0.31 ACRES, IT'S SIX PER ACRE THAT COMES OUT ABOUT TWO.
SO IT WOULD BE ONLY TWO TOWNHOUSES THAT THAT WOULD BE ABLE TO, TO UNDER TH ONE.
IF YOU WENT UP FROM THERE, YOU COULD GET MORE.
SO IF I DID A TH IF THE, IF A TH TWO WAS DONE IT COULD PROBABLY BE THREE OR 4.31 TIMES NINE, SO MAYBE THREE.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER WHEELER.
UM, MY CALL SELF CONCERN IS I DO KNOW THAT THERE ARE MULTI-FAMILY ACROSS THE STREET.
THOSE HAVE BEEN TRADITIONALLY MULTI-FAMILY WITH NO HOMES.
UM, AND THIS SIDE HAS BEEN TRADITIONALLY, UM, SINGLE FAMILY HOMES THAT IT HAS SINGLE FAMILY HOME BEHIND IT AND, AND ONE, UM, SOUTH OF IT.
UM, AND WHY WERE WE, WHY, WHY WERE WE APPROVING THIS? IS IT BECAUSE IT WE AND THAT IT'S, IT IS HEAVILY TRAFFICKED.
UM, THAT SCHOOL IS A VERY BUSY SCHOOL.
UM, UM, IT JUST DOESN'T SEEM IDEAL EVEN THOUGH IT IS IN PROXIMITY TO OTHER MULTI-FAMILY.
UM, LOCA, I MEAN APARTMENT COMPLEXES.
THIS SIDE HAS TRADITIONALLY BEEN SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.
THE SCHOOL, THE TRAFFIC IS A VERY, TRAFFIC HERE IS PRETTY BUSY.
UM, THIS IS THE MAIN THROUGHWAY AT THAT CORNER.
JUST WERE BEING, I DON'T, I DON'T THINK WHAT WAS THE IDEA FOR APPROVAL? AND THEN WE COMPLAIN ABOUT, AND I UNDERSTAND WE NEED MORE MULTI-FAMILY.
UM, I MEAN WE NEED NOT NECESSARILY MULTI-FAMILY, BUT DEFINITELY WE NEED MORE DWELLING UNITS IN THE CITY OF DALLAS AND HOUSING OPTIONS FOR THE RESIDENTS IN NEIGHBORHOODS LIKE THIS WHERE THERE ARE LARGE AMOUNTS OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF HOUSING, I'D LIKE TO CONTINUE TO ADD TO THAT STOCK AND WENT ACROSS SOME SORT OF GENTLE DENSITY TO INTRODUCE TO THESE SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS.
THE FOUND IT COULD BE APPROPRIATE, ESPECIALLY WITH THE NUMBER 60, THESE PEOPLE ARE GONNA GO SOMEWHERE.
SO I THINK MAYBE THE QUESTION IS GONNA BE FOR THE APPLICANT AND ABOUT COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT.
SO I HEAR SOME CONCERN ABOUT TRADITIONAL MULTI-FAMILY BEING BUILT ON THIS SITE WHEN THE APPLICANT STATED INTENT IS TO DO MORE OF A TOWN HOME TYPE, UH, DEVELOPMENT.
IS THERE ANY WAY THAT THE APPLICANT MIGHT BE ABLE TO VOLUNTARILY, UM, DO THIS IN A WAY? OH, THERE, THERE ARE.
I, I OWN THE A THE APPLICANT IS HERE, BUT THE APPLICANT HAS VOLUNTEERED,
[03:20:02]
UM, HEIGHT BEING TWO STORIES, BUT IT JUST, HE'S NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO GO MORE THAN THAT ANYWAY.AND THAT IT WOULD ONLY BE TOWNHOUSES, NOT MULTI-FAMILY.
UH, I HAVE ONE QUICK FOLLOW UP, UM, UH, MS. MUNO.
SO, AND AGAIN WE, WE, WE HAVE DIFFERENT COMMISSIONERS.
SOME, SOME ARE NEWER THAN OTHERS.
SO JUST A LITTLE POINT OF EDUCATION HERE.
SO I, UH, I KNOW MR. MULKEY OVER THERE HAD A CASE SIMILAR TO THIS.
WHERE IS IT, IS IT NOT TRUE? MR. MULKEY HAS A SIMILAR CASE ON THE DOCKET TODAY AS WELL?
UH, OR JUST OUR, OUR CODE IS JUST PROBABLY MAYBE A LITTLE BIT ANTIQUATED IN THIS KIND OF INFIELD DEVELOPMENT WHERE MAYBE THE DEVELOPER HAS A, A PARTICULAR STYLE OF PRODUCT THAT HE WANTS TO PUT ON THE MARKET THAT PROBABLY FITS PERFECTLY WITHIN THE AREA MAYBE, BUT OUR CODE JUST DOESN'T QUITE ALLOW IT AND THOUGH IT HAS FORCED THE APPLICANT TO, YOU KNOW, PUT A MULTI-FAMILY STAMP ON THIS WHEN IN FACT MAYBE THAT'S NOT, AND WE'LL WE'LL HEAR FROM HIM LATER HERE IN A MINUTE.
MAYBE THAT'S NOT REALLY THE GOAL HERE.
THAT WAS A QUESTION FOR MS. MOONY.
I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE, UM, WHAT THE QUESTION IS, BUT I DO AGREE EXACTLY WITH WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THAT IT'S AN ISSUE WITH OUR CODE AND WE'RE TRYING TO DEVELOP A MINOR AMOUNT OF DENSITY AT THIS CORNER AND IT LEADS THEM TO HAVE TO DO AN MF ONE DUE TO SOME OF THE RESTRICTIONS OF OUR TOWNHOUSE DISTRICTS AND WHEN COMBINED WITH OUR PLANNING REGULATIONS.
BEFORE WE GO TO THE SECOND ROUND, ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO BE HEARD FOR FIRST ROUND? COMMISSIONER HERBERT, PLEASE.
SO I KNOW WE TALKED ABOUT THE PROXIMITY OF THE OTHER MULTI-FAMILY IN THE AREA.
UM, DO WE CONSIDER THE SIZE OF THAT MULTI-FAMILY THAT, I MEAN IT'S LIKE THREE BLOCKS OF THE MULTI-FAMILY ACROSS THE STREET AND ALONG THAT WHOLE CORRIDOR OF THOSE MULTI-FAMILY ACROSS JIM MILLER ARE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.
UH, DO WE CONSIDER THE AMOUNT OF DENSITY THAT'S ALREADY EXISTING IN THAT, UM, TOWNHOMES ACROSS THE STREET OR IN THE AREAS NEXT DOOR VERSUS A SMALLER APARTMENT OR A SMALLER TOWNHOME FACILITY? THIS LOOKS LIKE A PRETTY LARGE, UM, FACILITY WITH ANOTHER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ON THE OTHER SIDE OF IT.
SO I JUST WANT TO KNOW, DO WE CONSIDER THE DENSITY OF THE CURRENT PROPERTY SURROUNDING? NO, NOT NECESSARILY.
IT'S MORE ABOUT THIS SITE AND WHAT CAN BE DEVELOPED ON THIS PROPERTY AND WHETHER THAT'S, UM, APPROPRIATE FOR THE SITE.
SECOND ROUND COMMISSIONER WHEELER.
UM, SO AND ARE WE MAKING SURE THAT IF IT IS APPROVED, UM, THIS IS, EVEN THOUGH IT'S NOT A SUCH A WALKABLE NEIGHBORHOOD, THIS IS A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT DOES A LOT OF WALKING AND THEY USE BOTH JIM MILLER AND ELAM.
UM, THE SIDEWALKS ARE, ARE REQUESTING SIX FOOT SIDEWALK, SIX FOOT SIDEWALKS, BECAUSE THIS IS, EVEN THOUGH IT'S NOT A TRADITIONAL WALKABLE NEIGHBORHOOD, THIS COMMUNITY WALKS QUITE A BIT, UM, WHETHER GOING TO GYMS OR TO THE STORES, MOST OF 'EM ARE VERY MUCH WALKING.
AND I WOULD LOVE TO SEE WIDER SIDEWALKS THROUGHOUT OUR CITY, BUT THE MINIMUM PROVISIONS ARE FOUR FEET, FOUR FOOT WIDE SIDEWALKS.
AND SO IF REQUIRED AT THE TIME OF PERMITTING, THEY WOULD HAVE TO INSTALL FOUR FOOT WIDE SIDEWALKS.
THIS IS A GENERAL ZONE CHANGE.
WE DON'T HAVE NO CONTROL OVER THE PROVISIONS THAT ARE ALREADY, UM, CONTROLLED IN THE REMAINDER OF OUR CODE.
WELL, COULD WE ASK, BECAUSE FOR ONE, AGAIN, IT'S, AND IT'S KIDS ACROSS FROM A SCHOOL AND THOSE KIDS WALK, WHETHER THEY'RE WALKING TO THE APARTMENTS OR HOME THAT'S DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM A SCHOOL.
UM, IF, IF WE COULD REQUEST YES.
COMMISSIONER, I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
AND IF THE ONLY WAY THAT THE COMMISSION COULD SEE THAT KIND OF AN AMENDMENT TO A GENERAL ZONE CHANGE IS IF DEED RESTRICTIONS WERE VOLUNTEERED BY THE APPLICANT BECAUSE A SIX FOOT SIDEWALK WOULD BE MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN THE CODE REQUIRED FOUR FOOT SECOND ROUND.
WHAT ARE WE LOOKING AT SIDEWALK WI WALK WISE RIGHT NOW? THAT WAS A TONGUE TWISTER.
ARE WE LOOKING AT MOSTLY SIX FOOT OR FOUR FEET OR SOME COMBINATION? YOU CAN PULL UP THE AREA REAL QUICK AND TRY TO SEE, I, I SEE SOMEONE SIGNALING FOUR O ONLINE.
[03:25:01]
I'M NOT, I DID NOT MEASURE IT.SO IF DEED RESTRICTIONS REQUIRED SIX FEET OF SIDEWALK ON THIS ONE, IT WOULD JUST BE A BRIEF STRETCH OF SIX FOOT SIDEWALK CONNECTING TO FOUR FOOT SIDEWALK MOST OF THE WAY, RIGHT? THAT'S CORRECT.
AND, AND YOU SHARED THIS AERIAL AGAIN IF YOU'D LIKE, BECAUSE IT IS ALREADY DEVELOPED A SET.
COMMISSIONER BLAIR? YEAH, I'M, YOU'RE GOOD.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONERS? OKAY.
UH, CAN MUNOZ, CAN YOU PLEASE READ THE ITEM INTO THE RECORD? YES, SIR.
THIS IS AN APPLICATION FOR AN MF ONE, A MULTI-FAMILY DISTRICT ON PROPERTY ZONED IN R 75, A SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF NORTH JIM MILLER ROAD AND ELAM ROAD STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS FOR APPROVAL.
IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? ANYONE HERE WOULD LIKE TO BE HEARD EITHER IN SUPPORT OR IN OPPOSITION COMMISSIONERS.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SEEING NONE, COMMISSIONER BLAIR, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? UM, I HAVE, AND IN THE MATTER OF Z 2 1 2 280, I MOVE THAT WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND NOT FOLLOW STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, BUT DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
AND IF I HAVE A SECOND, I HAVE COMMENTS.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER WHEELER FOR YOUR SECOND COMMENTS.
WE HELD THIS FOR A COMMUNITY MEETING.
IT WAS A VERY POORLY, UM, ATTENDED COMMUNITY MEETING IN WHICH THERE WAS A COUPLE OF RES, UH, RESIDENTS THAT SAID, OKAY, FOR TOWNHOUSE, TOWNHOUSE ONLY.
THERE WAS ANOTHER COMMUNITY MEETING YESTERDAY THAT WAS VERY WELL ATTENDED WITH, I I WANNA SAY ABOUT 50 RESIDENTS.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I, I HEARD LOUD AND CLEAR YESTERDAY FROM THE COMMUNITY IN THIS PARTICULAR AREA IS THAT THEY DON'T WANT THE DENSITY.
THEY WERE VERY ADAMANT, THEY WERE VERY VOCAL, THEY WERE VERY LOUD AND THEY REPEATED FOR TWO HOURS THAT THEY DON'T WANT THE DENSITY, THEY WANT THE COMMUNITY PLAN THAT TAKES CARE OF, EVEN THOUGH IT'S OLD, THE ACTUAL RIGHT, THE ACTUAL CO-CHAIR WAS THERE.
AND THE ACTUAL, UH, A COUPLE OF THE MEMBERS THAT WAS ACTUALLY ON THE ORIGINAL COMMUNITY PLAN FOR THE EAST AND WEST CLEAVER, UM, COMMUNITY LAND PLAN USE PLAN WAS THERE.
AND THEY WERE ADAMANT THAT THEY HAVE SEEN THE MULTI-FAMILY BE DEVELOPED.
THEY HAVE SEEN THE MIXED USE BE DEVELOPED.
THEY HAVE SEEN THE DENSITY THAT HAS ALREADY GONE IN.
AND I HEARD LOUD AND CLEAR AND, AND I'M STILL HEARING THAT IT RINGING LOUDLY IN MY EARS.
UM, THEY UNDERSTAND THE CITY HAS NEEDS, BUT THEY ALSO SAY, BUT WE HAVE LIVESTOCK.
THIS IS THE ONLY PLACE IN THE CITY THAT WE HAVE LIVESTOCK.
THIS IS THE ONLY PLACE IN THE CITY WHERE THEY MEET LAND, WHERE THEIR COWS, THEIR HORSES, THEIR GOATS AND THEIR SHEEP CAN GRAZE.
THEY DON'T WANT WALKING TRAILS.
THEY WANT HORSES TO BE ABLE TO GO UP THE TRINITY RIVER CORRIDOR.
THEY WANT SINGLE FAMILY HOMES FOR SALE, NOT FOR RENT.
THAT DOESN'T HAVE A AFFORDABILITY COMPONENT ADDED TO IT.
THEY'RE, WHAT THEY HAVE SAID WAS THEY'RE TIRED OF THE AFFORDABILITY BEING, AS THEY SAID, QUOTE UNQUOTE SHOVE DOWN THEIR THROATS.
THEY ARE TIRED OF THE CITY BECAUSE THEY SAID, BECAUSE WE'RE THE ONLY PLACE THAT HAS LAND.
[03:30:01]
LOTS BEING CUT.THEY'RE TIRED OF THEY'RE, THAT THEY'RE GETTING SMALLER, LOTS SMALLER HOUSES, MORE AFFORDABLE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT.
THEY SAID, AND WHAT THEY SAID, LOUD AND CLEAR, WE CANNOT HOLD OUR OWN AND CHANGE OUR MVA IF YOU'RE NOT GIVING US THE TOOLS AND THE HOUSING STOCK THAT WILL SUPPORT IT.
WE HAVE OUR TENS, WE HAVE HALF ACRES, WE HAVE ACRES, WE WANT THEM.
SO I RELUCTANTLY COME BEFORE YOU AND ASK YOU TO DENY THIS.
BUT IT'S NOT ME ASKING YOU TO DENY IT.
WELL, FOR THE LAST TWO MEETINGS, TWO MEETINGS IN A ROW TUESDAY NIGHT AND WEDNESDAY, AND I GOT CHEWED OUT.
I DON'T LIKE BEING CHEWED OUT.
SO I'M HEARING THEM AND I'M GOING TO SUPPORT THIS COMMUNITY AND LETTING THEM KNOW, NOT ONLY DID I HEAR THEM, MY BEHAVIOR HAS CHANGED.
I ASK THAT YOU SUPPORT THEIR DECISION TO LEAVE THEIR LAND THE WAY IT IS.
WE'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF A HOUSING CRISIS.
WE ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF A HOUSING CRISIS IN THIS CITY.
THIS IS A 13,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT AND SOMEONE WANTS TO PUT TWO HOMES ON IT, NOT MULTI-FAMILY.
IT SOUNDS LIKE THE APPLICANT WAS WILLING TO OFFER UP DEED RESTRICTIONS TO PUT TWO TOWN HOMES, STYLE HOMES IN THIS AREA WHERE THERE'S MULTI-FAMILY ACROSS THE STREET.
THERE'S A SCHOOL ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STREET.
BUT, BUT THE MOTION ON THE TABLE IS TO NOT DO THAT.
I I AM REALLY, REALLY STRUGGLING WITH THAT, THAT WE CAN'T EVEN, THAT WE, THAT WE'RE STRUGGLING TO ADD GENTLE DENSITY TO A NEIGHBORHOOD TWO HOMES ON APPROXIMATELY WITH, WITH APPROXIMATELY 6,500 SQUARE FEET EACH.
WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO MAKE SOME DIFFICULT DECISIONS AT THIS HORSESHOE.
SOMETIMES SOME OF THE DECISIONS THAT WE WILL MAKE MIGHT UPSET SOME MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY WHO ALREADY LIVE THERE, WHO ALREADY HAVE HOMES IN THE AREA.
BUT WE ALSO NEED TO THINK ABOUT THE PEOPLE WHO AREN'T ABLE TO AFFORD HOMES UNDER CURRENT CONDITIONS WHO MAY NOT BE ABLE TO AFFORD TO BUILD A HOME ON THIS 13,000 SOME ODD SQUARE FOOT LOT.
THIS IS A GENTLE ADDITION OF DENSITY.
THIS WOULD BE THE ADDITION OF MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING INTO THE AREA TWO TOWN HOME, TWO TOWN HOME STYLE RESIDENCES.
IT SAYS IT'S NOT WITH DEED RESTRICTIONS TO TOWN HOME STYLE RESIDENCES.
IF WE ARE SERIOUS ABOUT TACKLING THE HOUSING AVAILABILITY AND AFFORDABILITY CRISIS THAT WE FACE IN THIS CITY TODAY, IT IS, WE CAN JUST NOT REJECT APPLICATIONS TO ADD TWO TOWN HOMES ON A 13,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT.
SO I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION SHOW THAT EVEN THOUGH THAT WE DO NEED MIDDLE HOUSING AND WE DO NEED THAT THIS COULD, THE MULTIFAMILY, UH, THAT IS CLOSE IN PROXIMITY TO THAT IS LOW INCOME.
EVERY SINGLE APARTMENT COMPLEX IN THAT AREA IS LOW INCOME.
AND EVERY TIME THERE IS A BUILDING THAT AREA, IT IS LOW INCOME.
IT IS FOR WHATEVER REASON, SOMEONE DUBBED THAT, WHETHER IT BE CITY OR DEVELOPMENT, THAT EVERYONE THAT NEEDS SOME TYPE OF ADDITIONAL HOUSING SHOULD BE BUILT IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND IT HAS BEEN LIKE THAT FOR MANY YEARS.
WELL OVER 30 YEARS THAT THOSE APARTMENTS HAVE BEEN THERE.
SO THEREFORE I CAN UNDERSTAND THE COMMUNITY SAYING, HEY, IT'S, UH, WE DO NOT WANT THAT BECAUSE EVERY TIME IT'S BUILT, NO MATTER HOW NICE IT IS, NO MATTER WHAT THEY SAID IT'S GOING TO BE, IT ENDS UP BEING SOMETHING NEGATIVE IN THAT AREA.
AND SO THEM SAYING THAT, IT'S NOT THAT WE, WE DO NEED IT, BUT WE ALSO NEED TO FIND OTHER PLACES TO PLACE IT BECAUSE
[03:35:01]
THOSE THAT HAVE BEEN BUILT THERE HAVE NOT BEEN GREAT FOR THE COMMUNITY.AND WHEN THAT ARISES IS WE NEED TO NOT JUST BECAUSE WE NEED IT, DUMP IT ALL IN ONE AREA.
AND TRADITIONALLY THE COMMUNITY HAS SAID THAT AND, AND IT'S NOT BECAUSE THEY ARE JUST NOT WANTING THAT TYPE OF HOUSING, IT'S BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN NEGATIVE AND HAS BEEN A NEGATIVE, NEGATIVE LIGHT ON THAT COMMUNITY.
AND I UNDERSTAND WHY WE SHOULD AND I'M GOOD ON A, UH, I'M USUALLY SAYING IF IT'S ON A CORNER LOT, YES.
BUT I ALSO KNOW YES, BECAUSE THOSE APARTMENTS ACROSS THE STREET, THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT WE NEED SOME MORE OF THAT IN THAT AREA.
THEY'RE, THEY HEAR SHOOTING, THEY HEAR, THEY HEAR CRIME.
THEY, THAT'S WHAT THEY'VE BEEN GOING THROUGH.
EVERY HOMEOWNER IN THAT AREA HAS BEEN DISENFRANCHISED.
AND SO THIS ISN'T THE PLACE TO DUMP SOME MORE ME, UM, ANY ME ANY MORE MULTI-FAMILY INTO THAT AREA THEY ARE OVERSATURATED WITH.
AND WITH THAT, I WILL BE SUPPORTING COMMISSIONER BLAIR.
UH, COMMISSIONER HERBERT, FOLLOW BY COMMISSIONER YOUNG.
UM, I'LL, I'LL JUST START BY SAYING THE SOUTHERN SECTOR IS AT CAPACITY, UM, NOT THIS SPECIFIC CORNER HAS AT LEAST 20 BLOCKS, 10 AT A MINIMUM OF CONCRETE JUNGLE DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM IT.
WHEN WE TALK ABOUT EQUITY AND PLANNING, THIS IS WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
WE HADN'T CONSIDERED EQUITY WHEN WE PUT ALL THESE PLACES BACK HERE AND THEN MADE THEM NON UP.
WELL, I'M SORRY, LITECH OR AFFORDABLE PROJECTS.
WE KNOW THE MISTAKES WE'VE MADE IN THE PAST.
WE CAN SEE THE MISTAKES WE'VE MADE IN THE PAST.
WE CAN'T CONTINUE PUTTING MORE PEOPLE IN POOR PREDICAMENTS.
AT THE END OF THE DAY, NO MATTER WHAT WE PUT ON THIS CORNER, THE ENVIRONMENT THAT'S ACROSS THE STREET WILL DETERMINE ITS FUTURE.
SO I SUPPORT COMMISSIONERS BLAIR, UM, VOTE TO DENY THIS PRO THIS PROGRESS.
AND I ASK EVERYONE ELSE TO CONSIDER THE SOUTHERN SEC SEC, THE SOUTHERN SECTOR AND WHAT EQUITY IN BUILDING AND PLANNING AND ZONING LOOKS LIKE.
WE HAVE TWO SIDES OF THE STREET.
ONE BEAUTIFUL, LARGE LOTS, THE OTHER SIDE CONCRETE JUNGLE, LITERALLY NOT JUST APARTMENTS.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT LOW INCOME, HIGH CRIME RATE, POVERTY STRICKEN AREA.
THAT SHOULDN'T BE THAT WAY, BUT IT IS, RIGHT? SO WE HAVE TO CONSIDER THAT WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT EQUITY AND PLANNING.
MIDDLE MARKET HOUSING IS MISSING BUT LOW.
WE ARE AT CAPACITY ON LOW INCOME AND WE CAN'T AFFORD TO BRING IN A QUOTE UNQUOTE MIDDLE MARKET HOUSING THAT WE'RE NOT EVEN SURE IS GONNA BE MIDDLE MARKET ONCE THEY BUILD.
SO THAT'S, THAT'S MY THOUGHTS.
I'LL BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION FOR THE REASONS STATED BY COMMISSIONERS BLAIR WHEELER AND HERBERT.
I JUST WANT TO ADD THIS, THE APPLICANT IS NOT PRESENT AND SO WE HAVE NO DEED RESTRICTIONS BEFORE US.
IT MAY BE THAT HE PREDICTED WHAT THE OUTCOME WOULD BE AND CHOSE NOT TO BE HERE.
BUT IN ANY EVENT, WE HAVE NO DEED RESTRICTIONS THAT WE COULD APPROVE TODAY.
SO WE HAVE TO TREAT THIS AS A STRAIGHT MF ONE, A APPLICATION WITH ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING THAT COULD BE BUILT UNDER THAT ZONING.
I WILL ALSO BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION.
COMMISSIONER BLAIR HAS DONE OUR HOMEWORK AND I THINK WE, I ALWAYS LISTEN TO THE COMMUNITY.
I AGREE WITH VICE CHAIR RUBEN.
WE ARE IN A HOUSING CRISIS, BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT EVERY REQUEST THAT COMES BEFORE US THAT WILL ADD HOUSING IS THE RIGHT REQUEST.
AND ON THIS CASE, I, YOU KNOW, THE, THESE EDGES OF OUR DISTRICTS ARE ALWAYS THE MOST CHALLENGING AND WE EVALUATE THEM ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS.
AND IN THIS CASE, I AM NOT PERSUADED THAT MF ONE IS THE RIGHT SOLUTION.
AND THERE MAY BE AN ALTERNATE ONE THAT MAY, UM, I NOTICED THAT COMMISSIONER BLAIR MADE THE REQUEST WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THERE COULD BE A DIFFERENT SOLUTION THAT WITH COMMUNITY REVIEW AND BUY-IN, MAYBE IT DOES WORK.
BUT THE APPLICATION BEFORE US TODAY, UM, I, I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER BLAIR'S ASSESSMENT.
UM, I ALSO WILL SUPPORT, UH, COMMISSIONER BE BLAIR'S MOTION.
I TOO, LIKE COMMISSIONER JOHN, I'M SURPRISED THAT THE APPLICANT IS NOT HERE, ESPECIALLY GIVEN THAT THIS WAS DELAYED LAST TIME FOR THE COMMUNITY MEETING THAT WAS HELD LAST NIGHT.
[03:40:01]
GLAD THAT WE HELD IT TO GET THE COMMUNITY INPUT.AND I HOPE THAT WITH FURTHER TIME THE APPLICANT CAN WORK WITH THE COMMUNITY TO DEVELOP THE KITMAN HOUSING THAT WORKS FOR BOTH THE COMMUNITY AND WHAT THE CITY NEEDS.
I, WE'LL COME BACK TO YOU COMMISSIONER FOR A SECOND ROUND.
ANDERSON, I'LL FOLLOW YOU, SIR.
UM, I'LL HAPPILY FORWARD COMMISSION OF BLAIR'S COMMUNITY AND THE MOTION THAT THEY PUT FORTH.
UM, I, I UNDERSTAND THAT WE ARE IN A HOUSING CRISIS OF SORTS.
UM, HOWEVER, TWO HOUSES OR THREE HOUSES DOES NOT CHANGE THE PRICE OF TEA IN CHINA.
AND I DON'T FEEL LIKE, UM, THE HOUSING CRISIS WILL BE SOLVED BY, UM, AFFORDABLE HOUSING OR, UM, DENSITY IN AREAS THAT SEEM TO BE REQUESTING TO STAY LESS DENSE BUT ALSO ENJOY A MORE SUSTAINABLE APPROACH TO COMMUNITY IN THE ENVIRONMENT.
AND WE'D LIKE TO PROTECT THAT.
SO I'D HAPPILY SUPPORT THE MOTION AND I APPRECIATE THE WORK THAT COMMISSIONER BLAIR HAS DONE IN REPRESENTING HER COMMUNITY.
COMMISSIONER CARPENTER? YES, I WILL BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION.
UM, I THINK A VERY IMPORTANT KEY ASPECT OF EQUITY THAT WE GIVE LIP SERVICE TO ENTAILS RESPECTING SINGLE FAMILY ZONING IN THE SOUTHERN SECTOR, EXACTLY THE SAME WAY WE RESPECT IT IN OTHER PARTS OF THE CITY.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? FIRST ROUND? OKAY.
UM, BEFORE WE GO SECOND ROUND, COMMISSIONER BLA THINK VICE CHAIR RUBEN.
I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION.
UM, BUT I TRULY RESPECT COMMISSIONER BLAIR AND I, I HAVE BEEN AT THOSE MEETINGS WHERE I HAVE BEEN YELLED AT AND SCREAMED AT AND, UH, PRACTICALLY CHASED OUT OF THE ROOM, FRANKLY A COUPLE OF TIMES.
UH, BUT YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHY THEY PAY US THE BIG BUCKS, RIGHT?
SO THIS IS JUST RIGHT OUTSIDE DISTRICT FIVE.
UH, IN FACT, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER AND I HAD TO PROBABLY PULL OUT THE MAPS AND MAKE SURE THAT IT WASN'T IN DISTRICT FIVE.
AND I WILL TELL YOU, I I HAD A VERY, VERY SIMILAR CASE TO THIS ONE IN DISTRICT FIVE NOT TOO LONG AGO.
AND IT, IT PASSED AND IT PASSED, UH, VERY EASILY, IN FACT, WITH SOME DEED RESTRICTIONS, IT WAS LITERALLY THE EXACT SAME CASE.
UH, THESE ARE GONNA BE MARKET RATE UNITS.
I, I SEE ZERO CORRELATION BETWEEN ADDING NEW CONSTRUCTION TO THE SITE AND CRIME.
UM, I DON'T, UH, HOW THIS AFFORDABILITY AND DISCU, I, I DON'T, I, MAYBE I MISSED THAT IN THE DOCKET, BUT I, I JUST DON'T SEE IT.
THIS IS GONNA BE BRAND NEW CONSTRUCTION.
UH, THAT BRINGS EQUITY INTO A NEIGHBORHOOD.
IT BRINGS ALL KINDS OF PEOPLE TO ADD A DIFFERENT MIX.
UM, I DON'T SEE THIS AS A DESTABILIZING FACTOR TO THIS AREA.
I WOULD, I WOULD APPROVE A SIMILAR PROJECT LIKE THIS ONE WITHIN THE RIGHT CONDITIONS IN ANY DISTRICT, EVEN NORTH OF 30.
UM, SO I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION WITH RESPECT TO COMMISSIONER BLAIR.
COMMISSIONER BLAIR, LET ME JUST ADD, WHEN YOU HA YOU KNOW, WE'VE HEARD, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT AREA PLANS, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT PLAN USE PLANS, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT, UM, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT ALL OF THAT.
THIS COMMUNITY HAS A COMMUNITY PLAN.
I SEE NOWHERE WHERE IT'S REFERRED TO.
WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE COMMUNITY, WHEN IT LOOKS OUT THE RECOMMENDATION, IF YOU LOOK AT THE, THE, THE COMMUNITY PLAN THAT GOVERNS THIS AREA, IT SAYS IT, THE COMMUNITY WANTS TO BE RURAL.
THEY DON'T WANT, WE, LAST TIME WE, I WAS HERE WITH A CASE.
I STRIPPED OUT EVERYTHING THAT SAID URBAN BECAUSE IN THIS PARTICULAR AREA THAT IS AN EXTREMELY OFFENSIVE TERM, IT'S AN EXTREMELY ION OF TO THEM AS TO WHAT THEIR, UM, THEIR AREA, THEIR LAND USE PLAN SAYS THAT THEY, THAT WE, WE, THAT RECALL OUT WHAT WE ARE SUPPOSED TO DO WITH THEIR LAND.
I HAD A LONG CONVERSATION WITH THE ACTUAL CO-CHAIR OF THE, UH, KLEBER, THE EAST CLE EAST AND WEST KLEBERG RILEY, UM, LAND USE
[03:45:01]
PLAN.THEY'RE STILL, THEY'RE STILL LIVING IN THEIR HOUSES.
THEY'RE, THEIR HOUSES ARE NOT BRAND NEW DEVELOPMENTS, BUT THEY'RE STILL OUT THERE AND THEY'RE STILL SAYING THE SAME THINGS THAT THIS, THAT YOU GUYS, AND THEY SAID, YOU GUYS, AND THEY MET ALL OF US, EVERY ONE OF US THAT SIT AT THE HORSESHOE, EVERY ONE OF THE, OF US THAT TOUCH THEIR LAND, THAT WE ARE NOT RESPECTING THEM.
AND YES, THERE IS A, A CRISIS THAT WE, A HOUSING CRISIS, BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT ONE COMMUNITY HAS TO FIX THE ALL THAT ILLS, THE WHOLE ENTIRE CITY.
IT, IT, WE, WE, YES, I WE HAVE AN AREA IN DISTRICT EIGHT THAT WILL, WILL PROVIDE YOU WITH URBAN DEVELOPMENT, URBAN STYLE, HIGH DENSITY.
WE HAVE AREAS IN IN DISTRICT EIGHT THAT WILL, THAT WILL DO, UM, THE TRUCKING AND, AND WAREHOUSE.
BUT WHEN IT COMES DOWN TO LAND USE, THE RESIDENTS WHO LIVE THERE SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO SAY WHAT IT IS THEY WANT, HOW THEY WANT THEIR COMMUNITIES DEVELOPED.
AND, AND, AND IF WE SIT AT THIS HORSESHOE, WE, WE WALKED IN HERE KNOWING THAT WE HAD TO LISTEN TO THE COMMUNITY.
I'M LISTENING TO THE COMMUNITY, I'M CHOOSING TO HEAR THEM AND I APPRECIATE THAT YOU ALL HEAR MY COMMUNITY, JUST AS YOU WOULD ASK.
JUST, UH, A FEW POINTS IN FOLLOW UP.
ONE, I JUST WANNA BE CLEAR, I MAY HAVE NOT CHOSEN MY WORDS PERFECTLY THE FIRST TIME AROUND, BUT WHEN I REFER TO THIS HOUSING BEING MORE AFFORDABLE THAN JUST PUTTING A SINGLE HOME ON THE PROPERTY, I'M NOT REFERRING TO PUTTING LITECH THERE OR TRADITIONAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
I'M JUST TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO BE LESS EXPENSIVE THAN PUTTING ONE SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON THE LOT.
UM, SECOND, I HEARD ONE OF MY COLLEAGUES SAY THAT, THAT ADDING TWO UNITS INSTEAD OF ONE HERE ISN'T GOING TO SOLVE OUR HOUSING CRISIS.
AND I AGREE WITH THAT 100%, BUT WE NEED TO CHIP AWAY AT THE HOUSING CRISIS WHERE WE CAN AND WHEN WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITIES AND ALSO WHERE WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITIES.
AND THAT BRINGS ME TO MY NEXT POINT, WHICH IS, THIS IS NOT JUST SOMETHING THAT I WOULD WANNA PUSH FOR IN THE SOUTHERN SECTOR.
I THINK I'M CONSISTENT WHEN I, YOU KNOW, MAKE MY VOTES AND MY STATEMENTS AT THIS HORSESHOE THAT, YOU KNOW, WE NEED TO ADDRESS THE HOUSING CRISIS BY ADDING DENSITY THROUGHOUT THE CITY OF DALLAS, NOT JUST IN THE SOUTHERN SECTOR BY ANY MEANS.
AND, YOU KNOW, I WOULD ENCOURAGE, YOU KNOW, ALL THE FOLKS OUT THERE WHO ARE DEVELOPING TO, YOU KNOW, PLEASE BRING US ADDITIONAL HOUSING THROUGHOUT THE CITY AND NOT JUST IN THE SOUTHERN SECTOR.
AND THE LAST THING THAT I HEARD IS FROM THAT I WANT TO ADDRESS IS I HEARD COMMISSIONER BLAIR SAY CLEARLY THAT WE SHOULD RESPECT THE PEOPLE IN HER COMMUNITY.
AND COMMISSIONER BLAIR, I ADMIRE HOW MUCH YOU ADVOCATE AND FIGHT FOR THE FOLKS WHO LIVE IN DISTRICT EIGHT.
I I'M THE PLACE 15, YOU KNOW, REPRESENTATIVE.
SO I DON'T HAVE MY OWN DISTRICT.
SO MAYBE MY PERSPECTIVE ON SOME OF THESE ISSUES IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT.
BUT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT WHEN WE CONSIDER THESE CASES THAT WE'RE NOT JUST MAKING DECISIONS FOR THE PEOPLE ON THE GROUND WHO LIVE IN THE AREA RIGHT NOW, WHOSE VOICES CERTAINLY DESERVE TO BE HEARD AND ARE IMPORTANT.
BUT WE ALSO NEED TO THINK ABOUT THE PEOPLE WHO ARE IN THIS CITY WHO NEED HOUSING AND ARE HAVING TROUBLE FINDING HOUSING WITHIN THE CITY.
I CAN THINK OF EXAMPLES OF PEOPLE WHO ARE ON CITY STAFF IN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT WHO CAN'T AFFORD TO LIVE IN THE CITY OF DALLAS, WHO HAVE TO LIVE IN SOME OF OUR SURROUNDING SUBURBS.
SO I WOULD JUST ENCOURAGE EVERYONE ON THIS BODY WHILE
[03:50:01]
AFFORDING FULL RESPECT TO THE MEMBERS, UH, OF THE COMMUNITY, TO SURROUND IN THE SURROUNDING AREA FROM WHENEVER WE HAVE A ZONING CASE TO ALSO CONSIDER PARTICULARLY WHEN HOUSING IS AN ISSUE, WHAT ARE WE DOING FOR THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF DALLAS AS A WHOLE? THANK YOU.ANY OTHER CO COMMISSIONER WHEELER, PLEASE TO COME AROUND.
WHEREAS I, I AGREE ON, ON MOST PARTS ABOUT US FINDING HOUSING, KNOWING THIS NEIGHBORHOOD CUZ IT'S REALLY NEIGHBORHOOD BY NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND AS SHE SAID, THERE IS, THERE IS, THERE IS MIDDLE HOUSING IN ONE PART OF DISTRICT SEVEN THAT I WOULD SAY YES IN ONE PART I WOULD SAY NO THE SAME AS SHE'S SAYING.
I THINK WHAT IS VERY IMPORTANT THAT IT COULD HAVE POSSIBLY HAD MORE, UH, A BETTER OUTCOME IF THE APPLICANT WAS HERE BECAUSE WE COULD HAVE ASKED THE APPLICANT TO HELP US GET TO THAT, BUT THE APPLICANT WAS NOT HERE.
UM, AND KNOWING THE PASSION FOR THAT AREA AND UNDERSTANDING WHY THE COMMUNITY IS REALLY TRYING TO TAKE BACK THEIR POWER BECAUSE THEIR POWER HAS BEEN LOST FOR 30 TO 40 YEARS.
AND WHEN THE COMMUNITY STARTS TO TAKE BACK THEIR POWER, WE WANNA KIND OF LISTEN TO THEM.
BECAUSE WE HAVE BEEN IN THIS, WE, WE'VE SEEN THAT THROUGHOUT DALLAS, THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES IN THESE AREAS THAT HAS BEEN DISENFRANCHISED.
THEY DIDN'T THINK THEY HAD POWER.
AND TO FORM YOUR COMMUNITY, BECAUSE WE DO NEED SOME SINGLE FAMILY.
AND THE CONCERN FOR ME IS KNOWING THAT THEY HAVE DELIBERATELY SEPARATED MULTI-FAMILY AND SINGLE FAMILY IN THAT AREA AND TO MAINTAIN THAT.
AND EVERY TIME THAT THERE'S ANY PIECE OF LEEWAY IN THAT, IN THAT PARTICULAR COMMUNITY TO GET IN ANY TYPE OF MULTI-FAMILY, SOMEONE SQUEEZES IT IN.
AND SO WE HAVE OTHER PLACE, DISTRICT EIGHT IS PRETTY BIG.
THEY HAVE A LOT OF PLACES, EVEN THAT AREA A LITTLE FURTHER IN HAS ROOM FOR THAT.
BUT IT REALLY TO ASK THE COMU, WE, I DEFINITELY BELIEVE IN MIDDLE HOUSING WHERE WE CAN GET DUPLEXES, WHERE WE CAN GET TOWN HOMES, WHERE WE CAN GET SMALLER APARTMENT COMPLEXES.
I BELIEVE IN THEM, BUT KNOWING MAYBE IF IT WAS ACROSS THE STREET, THEY HAVE A DIFFERENT VIEW, BUT IN THAT COMMUNITY WE HAVE TO VERY MUCH SUPPORTING IT.
AND I DON'T THINK IT'S SO MUCH FOR ME FOR THE, JUST THE TOTAL SOUTHERN SECTOR, IT IS JUST KNOWING THAT THAT COMMUNITY HAS BEEN VERY DISENFRANCHISING GETTING THEIR POWER BACK AND THE CRIME AND THAT THEY HAVE BEEN PLAGUED WITH AND THEM FEELING LIKE THAT SOMEONE IS LISTENING TO THEM.
UM, BUT WE COULD HAVE PROBABLY SOLVED THIS.
WE PROBABLY COULD HAVE PASSED THIS, BUT THE APPLICANT CHOSE NOT TO BE HERE TO GET SOME DEED RESTRICTIONS THAT COULD HAVE HELPED US GET HIM OVER THE HILL AND IT WAS HELD OVER.
AND IF THERE WAS A COMMUNITY MEETING, SOMETIME THE APPLICANT HAS TO BE HERE TO FIGHT FOR THEMSELVES.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? COMMISSIONERS COMMISSION ANDERSON, PLEASE.
UM, MY CONCERN IS REALLY JUST BASED IN, I THOUGHT THAT I HEARD, I THINK IT WAS, UM, MS. MUNOS SAY THAT IF THIS WAS A BOARDED OR UH, APPROVED, IT WOULD'VE TO BE REPLANTED AND THEN THAT WOULD CAUSE A, THE SITES BOTH TO BE UNDER 7,500 SQUARE FEET, WHICH WOULD NOT BE CONFORMING TO THE ADJACENT AREAS.
UM, SO I THINK IT MAY CAUSE MORE OF A PROBLEM AND I'D LIKE TO SUPPORT THE AREA AND THE LARGE LOCKS THAT THEY HAVE AND TRY MY BEST NOT TO DIMINISH THE SIZE OF THE LOCKS.
AT LEAST NOT FURTHER THAN 7,500 SQUARE FEET, BUT I WILL SUPPORT THE MOTION.
I THINK THIS CASE STARKLY PRESENTS TWO DIFFERENT APPROACHES TO THE DENSIFICATION OF DALLAS.
I HEARD VICE CHAIR RUBEN SAY WE NEED ADDITIONAL DENSITY THROUGHOUT THE CITY OF DALLAS.
AND I, I AGREE WITH THAT IN PART AND VIOLENTLY DISAGREE WITH IT IN PART TO THE EXTENT THAT IT MEANS THAT WE NEED DENSITY IN APPROPRIATE LOCATIONS ALL AROUND THE CITY OF DALLAS.
I FULLY AGREE WITH THAT AND YOU'LL RECALL MY EXCHANGE THIS MORNING WITH MS. GILLIS ABOUT THE PROTECTION OF STABLE SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS AND THE NEED TO CONSIDER EQUITY, UH, NOT ONLY RACIAL EQUITY, BUT GEOGRAPHICAL EQUITY IN THE, UM, LOCATION OF HOUSING.
TO THE EXTENT THAT WHAT IS MEANT IS THAT WE NEED ADDITIONAL DENSITY IN TARGETS OF OPPORTUNITY, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THEY MAY DESTABILIZE AN EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD.
I RATHER STREN DISAGREE, DALLAS NEEDS DENSITY, BUT IT NEEDS IT IN THE RIGHT PLACES.
NOW THE DEVIL IS IN THE DETAILS AND WHETHER THIS IS A RIGHT PLACE FOR THIS PROPOSED
[03:55:01]
DENSITY OR NOT IS A QUESTION WE CAN DEBATE ON THAT.I BELIEVE THAT DEFERENCE IN ORDER TO THE COMMISSIONER FROM THE DISTRICT, UH, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PRINCIPLE THAT DENSITY IS NOT FOR EVERY SINGLE PLACE AND MAY BE GOOD IN SOME PLACES AND BAD IN OTHERS.
AND I TRUST COMMISSIONER BLAIR TO HELP GUIDE US AS TO WHICH IS WHICH IN HER DISTRICT.
UM, I THINK WE'VE ALL HAD TWO ROUNDS.
ANYBODY NOT SECOND ROUND? GREAT.
WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BLAIR TO, UH, CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND DENY THE APPLICATION WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND IT WAS SECONDED BY, UM, WHEELER, COMMISSIONER WHEELER.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE SAY AYE.
AND HAWK IN OPPOSITION CASE NUMBER 11, PLEASE.
CASE NUMBER 11 IS AN APPLICATION FOR AN F W M U FIVE BLOCKABLE URBAN MIX USE FORM SUBDISTRICT ON PROPERTY ZONED AN R FIVE, A SINGLE FAMILY SUBDISTRICT AND AN N C E NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL ENHANCED SUBDISTRICT WITHIN PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 5 95, THE SOUTH DALLAS CARE SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICT ON THE SOUTHWEST LINE OF SECOND STREET BETWEEN GARDEN LANE AND BANTON DRIVE.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH MR. MUNOS.
AND LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT COMMISSIONER HAMPTON HAS A CONFLICT ON THIS ITEM AND HAS STEPPED OUT OF THE CHAMBER.
UH, COMMISSIONERS, WE ARE HOLDING THIS MATTER UNDER ADVISEMENT, THEREFORE WE'RE NOT GONNA BRIEF IT TODAY, BUT IT IS A PUBLIC HEARING IF THERE'S ANYONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO BE HEARD ON THIS ITEM.
MR. KING IS, ARE ANY OTHER, ARE SEVEN REGISTERED SPEAKERS ONLINE? NO.
IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO BE HEARD ON THIS ITEM? COMMISSIONERS QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SEEING NONE.
COMMISSIONER WHEELER, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? I HAVE A MOTION TO CLOSE THIS.
I HAVE A MOTION TO CLOSE THIS, UH, THIS HEARING TO KEEP, KEEP THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN, HUH? TO KEEP THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN.
I HAVE A MOTION TO KEEP THIS, UH, THIS, UH, HEARING OPEN ON CASE NUMBER SEVEN, I MEAN Z TWO 12 DASH 2 99 AND HOLD IT, UH, HOLD IT UNTIL APRIL 20TH, 2023.
COMMISSIONER WHEELER FOR YOUR MOTION.
COMMISSIONER BLA FOR YOUR SECOND TO HOLD THE MATTER UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL APRIL 20TH.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.
UH, LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT COMMISSIONER HAMPTON IS STEPPING BACK INTO THE CHAMBER.
COMMISSIONERS WILL TAKE ONE MORE BEFORE WE TAKE A BREAK.
YOU WANT ME TO READ IT OR GO? PLEASE? YEAH, JUST READ IT TO THE RECORD PLEASE.
IT'S AN APPLICATION FOR AN R 7.5, A SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT ON PROPERTY ZONED IN R 10, A SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF RANCH ARROW LANE BETWEEN MONA LANE AND DUNCANVILLE ROAD STAFF.
IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO BE HURT? YES, SIR.
DARL BAKER 63 0 6 ELDER GROVE DRIVE, DALLAS, TEXAS.
UH, THANK YOU FOR HEARING US AND THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR SERVICE TO THE CITY OF DALLAS.
WE'RE ASKING THAT THIS CASE BE DENIED AND NOT ONLY DENIED, BUT DENIED WITH PREJUDICE.
WE'VE SEEN, AND YOU'VE SEEN TOO MANY TIMES REALLY BAD ZONING REQUESTS COME COMING BEFORE YOU OUT OF DISTRICT THREE.
TOO MANY DEVELOPERS THINK THAT THEY CAN JUST CHANGE OUR ESTABLISHED DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS WITH MORE DENSE, LESSER QUALITY DEVELOPMENTS.
SOME THINKS IT'S OKAY TO DUMP USES IN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS THAT WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED IN THEIRS.
A DENIAL WITH PREJUDICE SENDS THE MESSAGE THAT OUR SOUTHWEST DALLAS
[04:00:01]
LAND USE PLAN STILL EXISTS AND IS STILL VALID AND IT'S STILL ENFORCED.THIS CASE LACKED PROCESS TRANSPARENCY.
UH, AND THERE WERE ATTEMPTS BY THE DEVELOPER, UH, TO, UH, NOT DEAL WITH US IN A TIMELY MANNER.
AND, UH, WE WERE ASSIGNED A, AN INTERIM CITY PLAN COMMISSIONER, BUT WE WERE NOT AWARE OF IT AT ALL.
SO THAT WAS, THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT'S GIVING US QUITE A BIT OF HEARTBURN.
WE RECENTLY BECAME AWARE THAT THERE WAS EVEN AN INTERIM CITY OF PLAN COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES WE'RE VERY GRATEFUL TO COMMISSIONER BLAIR, WHO LOOKED OUT FOR OUR BEST INTEREST IN AN INTERIM, UH, WHEN WE DID NOT HAVE A COMMISSIONER.
AND WE WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT SHE DID AN OUTSTANDING JOB FOR US.
OUR NEW COMMISSIONER, MR. HERBERT, HAS JUMPED IN AND DONE A REMARKABLE JOB IN A VERY SHORT TIME.
WE'RE GRATEFUL TO YOU AS WELL, SIR.
WE WANT DEVELOPMENT IN OUR DISTRICT.
WE WANT HIGH QUALITY DEVELOPMENTS THAT ADD VALUE AND EXPAND OUR TAX BASE TOO.
DISTRICT THREE HAS MOST OF THE BEST LAND LEFT IN THIS CITY FOR DEVELOPMENT, AND WE DON'T WANT IT SQUANDERED ON LOW VALUE DEVELOPMENTS.
WE'VE ALREADY DONE MORE THAN OUR FAIR SHARE AS FAR AS DENSITY AND AFFORDABILITY GOES.
UH, WE WANT GOOD DEVELOPERS AND WE WANT GOOD CORPORATE CITIZENS COMING INTO OUR DISTRICT.
THEY ARE ABSOLUTELY WELCOME HERE.
OUR NEIGHBORHOODS ARE NESTLED IN BETWEEN ROLLING HEELS, EXPANSES OF WOODED AND GREEN AREAS AND IT'S, AND NATURAL AREAS.
AND WE THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S VERY UNIQUE AND WE WANT TO NOT ONLY, WELL, WE WANNA PROTECT THAT AND WE WANT TO KEEP IT SOME OF THE ONE SIZE FIT.
ALL APPRO APPROACHES OF DENSITY FLIES COMPLETELY IN THE FACE OF THAT.
WE'RE GRATEFUL TO THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION FOR THE TIMES.
AND SADLY, THERE HAVE BEEN MANY THAT YOU ALL HAVE SAVED US FROM REALLY BAD DEVELOPERS.
UH, WE DON'T THINK THAT YOU SHOULD BE PUT IN THIS POSITION ON A REGULAR BASIS.
AND THAT'S WHY IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, IT'S IT'S TEXTBOOK FOR A DENIAL WITH PREJUDICE.
A DENIAL WITH PREJUDICE WILL HELP SEND THE RIGHT AND NECESSARY MESSAGE TO DEVELOPERS AND GIVE STAFF A MUCH NEEDED TOOL TO USE IN ENSURING THAT THE RULES THAT APPLY TO OUR AREA ARE RECOGNIZED, THAT THEY'RE FOLLOWED AND THAT THEY'RE RESPECTED.
AND SO WITH THAT, I SAY THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
I LIVE AT 52 32 MOO LANE, DIRECTLY ACROSS RANCHERO FROM THE SOLE ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY UP TO CONSIDERATION.
UM, FIRST OF ALL, I WANNA GIVE MY THANKS TO ALL OF YOU COMMISSIONERS, INCLUDING THOSE COMMISSIONERS UP ON THE CLOUD.
UM, I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR BRINGING TO BEAR YOUR EXPERIENCE AND YOUR HEALTHY SKEPTICISM AND THE CASES THAT COME UP BEFORE YOU.
UH, FOLKS, I GOT A GOOD EXAMPLE TODAY HERE OF HOW YOU'RE MAKING DEMOCRACY WORK HERE, AND I'M GRATEFUL FOR IT.
UM, I WANT TO URGE YOU TO, UH, OPPOSE THIS CASE AND I URGE YOU TO DENY IT WITH PREJUDICE FOR MANY OF THE SAME REASONS THAT DARRELL CITED.
UM, WE DO HAVE AN EXISTING LAND USE PLAN, THE SOUTHWEST DALLAS LAND USE PLAN THAT DOES LIMIT THE DIS DENSITY IN THIS PARTICULAR PART.
UM, HE'S ASKING TO BASICALLY INCREASE THE DENSITY AND THAT'S GONNA CAUSE SOME PROBLEMS. UM, I ALSO HAVE A LOT OF HEARTACHE WITH THE WAY THAT THIS PARTICULAR DEVELOPER WENT AROUND IT.
WHAT ABOUT IT? HE, IT'S LIKE HE WENT OUT OF HIS WAY TO AVOID HIS CONTACT WITH THE COMMUNITY AND IT LEFT A VERY SOUR TASTE IN EVERYBODY'S MOUTH.
UM, THAT OCCURRED LARGELY BECAUSE WE DIDN'T REALLY HAVE A COMMISSIONER IN PLACE TO, TO REPRESENT US FOR MUCH OF THE TIME FROM WHEN IT WAS FIRST FILED IN SEPTEMBER UNTIL WHEN WE FIRST HEARD ABOUT IT IN FEBRUARY.
UM, I'M GRATEFUL THAT, UH, YOU STEPPED IN COMMISSIONER RUBEN AND TRIED TO, TO ESTABLISH
[04:05:01]
SOME KIND OF CONVERSATION BETWEEN THE RESIDENTS AND THE DEVELOPER.AND, AND UNFORTUNATELY THAT DIDN'T REALLY PAN OUT FOR SEVERAL REASONS, BUT, UH, YOU GOT SOME THINGS ROLLING ON THE THING AND ONE OF OUR RESIDENTS WAS ABLE TO PAY A REFILING FEE AND GET IT MOVED BACK A MONTH TO GET THINGS GOING.
AT THAT PROCESS, THOUGH, WE STILL RAN SOME DELAYS, ARRANGING IT WITH THE DEVELOPER, AND THINGS DIDN'T REALLY START HAPPENING UNTIL COMMISSIONER DARRELL HERBERT STEPPED IN AND GOT THE BALL ROLLING.
SO COMMISSIONER HERBERT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
SO WE DID HAVE A MEETING IN OUR AREA AND IT WAS WELL ATTENDED BY THE RESIDENTS IN THE AREA.
AND SADLY, THE PEOPLE WHO APPEARED THERE, THEY WERE THE APPLICANT, BUT THE APPLICANT WAS NOT THE DEVELOPER.
HE WAS THE ENGINEER WHO WAS CONTRACTING WITH THE DEVELOPER.
AND, UM, SADLY, HE DIDN'T REALLY ANSWER ENOUGH OF THE QUESTIONS.
UM, I'LL MYSELF, MY QUESTIONS WEREN'T ANSWERED.
MY, MY NEIGHBORS ALONG RANCHERO MOST OF US WENT AWAY WITH UNANSWERED QUESTIONS AND WE HAD THE DISTINCT FEELING THAT THEY WERE NEVER GONNA BE ANSWERED.
UM, AT THE TIME WHEN WE MOST NEEDED INFORMATION TO MAKE A DECISION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS A, A GOOD PLAN, HOW IT WAS GONNA AFFECT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, WE WEREN'T GETTING THAT INFORMATION.
AND FRANKLY, THAT WAS A FAILURE.
IF WE'RE NOT GETTING THE INFORMATION, WE CAN'T MAKE A DECISION AND WE'RE, WE'RE, IT'S INTENSELY FRUSTRATING.
I'M, I'M SURE Y'ALL ARE AWARE OF THAT SITUATION.
SO I WANT TO URGE YOU, I WANT TO URGE YOU TO DENY THIS AND TO DENY THIS WITH PREJUDICE BECAUSE WE NEED A CREDIBLE DETERRENT TO DEVELOPERS KIND OF BLISSFULLY WALK INTO THIS SITUATION AND JUST KIND OF AMBLING THROUGH THIS WHOLE PROCESS AND AN INFORMAL WAY AND, AND REALLY NOT LIVING UP TO THEIR OBLIGATIONS.
IF WE, IF YOU AND THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TELL THESE PEOPLE THAT YOU EXPECT THEM TO MEET WITH THE RESIDENTS, THEY REALLY SHOULD MEET WITH THE RESIDENTS AND THEY SHOULD TAKE THAT SERIOUSLY.
AND SO, UM, PLEASE DENY THIS, DENY IT WITH PREJUDICE AND LET THOSE PEOPLE KNOW THEY'VE GOT AN OBLIGATION TO DO SO.
FRANK BRACKEN 57 17 KIWANIS ROAD.
CHAIRMAN SHAAD EXPLAINED DENIAL WITH PREJUDICE APPLIED TO SERIOUS APPLICANT MISCONDUCT.
THIS CASE CAN BE DESCRIBED IN ONE WORD.
I PUSH THE BUTTON ON THE MICROPHONE.
HE'S JUST NOT SPEAKING INTO IT DIRECTLY.
IS THAT BETTER? YOU HAVE TO LEAN IN A LITTLE.
START OVER, PLEASE START OVER.
OKAY, LET'S START THE TIME OVER PLEASE.
FRANK BRACKEN 57 17 KWANS ROAD, DALLAS, JUNE, 2022.
CHAIRMAN, SHE DID EXPLAIN DENIAL WITH PREJUDICE APPLIED TO SERIOUS AP APPLICANT MISCONDUCT.
THIS CASE CAN BE DESCRIBED IN ONE WORD, HOODWINKED BASED ON MISREPRESENTATIONS AND DECEPTIONS, BEGINNING WITH THE APPLICATION THAT NEVER REVEALED CASA CASABELLA HOLMES AS A DEVELOPER AND THE BENEFICIARY OF THE REQUESTED ZONING, CCM ENGINEERING IN COLLABORATION WITH CASABELLA AND THE SELLER ENGAGED IN DECEPTION, ABSOLUTE AVOIDANCE OF THE RESIDENCE BEYOND THE ORIGINAL FEBRUARY HEARING DATE TO UNRAVEL THE DEVELOPER IDEN, UH, IDENTITY ALONG WITH THE ROLES THAT CCM AND THE SELLER PLAYED IN THE DECEPTIONS.
RESIDENTS HAD TO FILE FOR A TIME EXTENSION AND PAY A FEE UNNECESSARILY TO GAIN THE TIME NEEDED TO EXPOSE THE TRUE FACTS.
THIS CASE BOILED DOWN TO WEATHER.
TWO ACCESSES BASED ON DALLAS FIRE CODE EXISTED AS PURPORTED BY CCM AND THE CELLAR CC M'S.
DECEPTION BROUGHT US HERE TODAY WITH OUR HOODWINKING MISLEADING PLANNING STAFF THEN COMMISSIONER RUBEN WHO STEPPED IN AT THE LAST MINUTE TRYING TO RUSH RESIDENTS TO AN IMPROMPTU MEETING WITHOUT TIME TO ADEQUATELY NOTIFY RESIDENTS.
FIVE DAYS BEFORE THE FEBRUARY HEARING AND AFTER VOTING NOTIFICATIONS WERE MAILED, THE HOOD WIND
[04:10:01]
CONTINUED WITH MEETING DELAY AFTER DELAY UNTIL COMMISSIONER HERBERT FORTUNATELY ENTERED THE PICTURE WITH ONLY ONE ACCESS.PROVEN DEVELOPMENT WAS LIMITED TO 30 LOTS.
WELL WITHIN THE R 10 EXISTING ZONING NEGATING THE PURPOSE OF THIS CASE AND IN THE END, TODAY'S BASIS FOR THE DENIAL REQUEST BY THE DEVELOPER FACING RESIDENCE.
RECENTLY, FOR THE ONLY TIME JEFF CRA STATED THAT THIS REPRE THAT HIS REPRESENTATION WAS NO DIFFERENT THAN HE HAD DONE.
IN OTHER CASES, IF THIS BACKGROUND DOESN'T JUSTIFY DENIAL WITH PREJUDICE, PREJUDICED WHAT WILL OTHERWISE, THIS TYPE OF ACTIVITY WILL CONTINUE AS MR. CRAN ATTEST TO DENIAL ONLY WOULD BE PERCEIVED AS NOTHING MORE THAN A CEREMONIAL WRIST SLAP.
CONSEQUENTLY, WITH THE INTEGRITY OF THIS COMMISSION IN MIND, WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST DENIAL WITH PREJUDICE BE APPLIED TO THIS CASE'S REQUEST.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO BE HEARD ON THIS ITEM? COMMISSIONERS QUESTIONS FOR OUR THREE SPEAKERS? QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SEEING NONE.
COMMISSIONER HERBERT, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION, SIR? I DO.
UM, I MAY NEED SOME HELP WITH VERBIAGE, BUT IN THE CASE IN THE MATTER OF CASE TWO Z 2 12 3 44 3 44, I MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING IN THIS MATTER AND, UM, WOULD LIKE TO BRING BOARD A VOTE OF DENIAL WITH PREJUDICE.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER CARPENTER FOR YOUR SECOND.
ANY DISCUSSION? YES, COMMISSIONER.
YOU, SO, UM, I'M SURE YOU GUYS GOT A LOT OF THE LETTERS FROM THE NEIGHBORS.
UM, VERY, VERY WELL ORGANIZED COMMUNITY THAT I WOULD LOVE TO SEE.
UM, BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR.
UM, COPIED ACROSS THE CITY, UH, THE, THE CITIZENS REALLY STOOD UP AND, AND, AND STOOD OUT.
UM, FORMER COUNCIL MEMBER AND FRIEND OF OUR FAMILY HERE.
UM, MR. KINGSTON SAID ON COUNCIL A FEW YEARS BACK THAT WE NEEDED A LIST OF BAD ACTORS.
UM, I WAS LIED TO MYSELF IN FRONT OF THE, THE CROWD.
I WAS, UM, TOLD THINGS THAT WERE JUST FALSE AND, AND SO WAS THE COMMUNITY NOT ONLY BY THE BUILDER, THE SELLER, AND THE ENGINEER.
UM, IT WAS ACROSS THE BOARD EMBARRASSING, UM, FOR MYSELF AND US AS A COMMISSION.
SO THAT'S WHY I LED THIS VOTE WITH PREJUDICE AND ACTS THAT MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS DO THE SAME.
VICE CHAIR RUBEN? YEAH, I, I SHARE COMMISSIONER HERBERT'S CONCERN WITH THE APPLICANT IS THE ONE WHO, WHO HANDLED THIS AND THE INTERIM UNTIL HE WAS APPOINTED.
DESPITE MY INSISTENCE ON HOLDING A SECOND COMMUNITY MEETING, WE, WE HAD PLANNED AN INITIAL ONE AND I BELIEVE THAT, THAT HE MAILED OUT, YOU KNOW, NOTIFICATIONS.
BUT IT TURNED OUT THAT THERE WERE FOLKS FROM A BROADER AREA WHO WERE INTERESTED IN THE CASE LIKE MR. HERBERT, WHO ISN'T WITHIN THE 400 FOOT NOTIFICATION ZONE, BUT I THINK IS IS MAYBE FURTHER AWAY THAN THAT, OR I'M NOT, I'M NOT MR. MR. HERBERT.
SO I, I WORKED WITH THIS APPLICANT TO TRY TO GET A SECOND COMMUNITY MEETING ON THE BOOKS IN MID-FEBRUARY, LATE FEBRUARY, AND IT JUST NEVER MATERIALIZED TO MY GREAT FRUSTRATION.
UM, WITH THAT SAID, I I, I'M STRUGGLING A LITTLE BIT HERE ON DENIAL WITH PREJUDICE BECAUSE I THINK IN, IN MY VIEW, THE BAD ACTOR HERE, THAT'S, I DON'T, I WAS STRUGGLING WITH THAT.
THE, THE NON-RESPONSIVE ACTOR WHO I WAS DEALING WITH, THE, THE ENGINEER, YOU KNOW, IS NOT THE OWNER OF THIS PROPERTY AND I ASSUME WILL NOT BE TRYING TO DEVELOP THIS PROPERTY ANYTIME INTO THE FUTURE.
THERE'S SOMEONE ELSE WHO OWNS THE PROPERTY AND THAT'S WHO THE DENIAL WITH PREJUDICE
[04:15:01]
WOULD ACT AND WORK AGAINST.SO THAT IS, I I HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF TREPIDATION ABOUT DENIAL WITH PREJUDICE BECAUSE I THINK IT, IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEET OUT THE PREJUDICE AGAINST THE RIGHT PERSON HERE.
COMMISSIONER BLAIR, I AM GOING TO FOLLOW THE COMMISSIONER OF DISTRICT THREE'S REQUEST.
AND LET ME TELL YOU WHY THIS LAND LOOKING AT THE LAND, IT ONLY HAS ONE ENTRY POINT.
TUESDAY NIGHT, I GOT A PHONE CALL FROM THE CITY OF DUNCANVILLE IN REGARDS TO THIS PARTICULAR CASE.
AND THE CITY OF DUNCANVILLE WAS VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT AND THE LACK OF CO COLLABORATION THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN NEEDED TO GET WHAT WAS SAID WAS GOING TO HAPPEN, MEANING THAT THE SECOND ENTRY POINT AND WOULD COME IN THROUGH THEIR, THE DUNCANVILLE SIDE.
DUNCANVILLE HAS, HAS IN THEIR CITY COUNCILS MADE A REFERENDUM THAT SAYS IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN.
AND BECAUSE THE CITY OF DUNCANVILLE HAS MADE THE REFERENDUM THAT THE ONLY WAY THAT THIS LAND CAN BE USED TO PUT IN MORE THAN THE WHAT THE WHAT IT IS ZONED TO HAVE WOULD BE A SECOND EGRESS INGRESS THAT WOULD ONLY BE ABLE TO COME OUT IN THE, IN DUNCANVILLE.
THEY HAVE BEC THEY HAVE SAID THAT IT'S NOT GONNA HAPPEN.
SO THE ONLY WAY, SO WHETHER IT'S DENIED WITH OR WITHOUT PREJUDICE, IT DOESN'T MATTER BECAUSE THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN DEVELOP THIS LAND WITH ONLY ONE EGRESS IS BASED ON THE ZONING THAT'S ON THE LAND AND THE WAY THAT IT, IT THE PLAID IS ACTUALLY DEVELOPED, CAN BE DEVELOPED.
SO WHETHER, YOU KNOW, SO WHETHER OR NOT THE APPLICANT, THE, THE, THE ENGINEER, WHOEVER WAS A BAD ACTOR IS WHAT CAN BE DO WITH THE LAND.
AND IF WE CANNOT COME BACK WITH A DIFFERENT PLAN TO DEVELOP THE LAND OTHER THAN WHAT IT IS CURRENTLY ZONED, IT DOESN'T SERVE ANY PURPOSES.
AND, AND, AND FRANKLY SPEAKING, UH, UH, DENIAL WITH PREJUDICE DOESN'T MEAN THE LAND CAN'T BE DEVELOPED, IT JUST CAN'T BE CHANGED.
IS THAT, WAIT, WITH, WITHOUT A WAIVER, IT CAN'T BE, YOU CANNOT COME BACK UNLESS YOU HAVE A WAIVER, YOU CAN DEVELOP IT IF IT'S ZONED R 75 AND IT CAN BE DEVELOPED AS R 75 TODAY.
AND IF YOU WANT TO COME BACK WITH A WAIVER, YOU AND YOU DO SOMETHING SMALLER THAN A R 10, YOU WOULD HAVE TO HAVE A SECOND ENTRY POINT, WHICH WOULD BE ON THE D DUNCANVILLE SIDE.
AND THEY'VE ALREADY HAVE A REFERENDUM IN THEIR CITY THAT WILL NOT ALLOW THE CITY OF DALLAS TO HAVE AN ENTRY POINT INTO THEIR CITY.
SO WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE? THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER WHEELER.
I, I ALSO WILL BE SUPPORTING, UM, COMMISSIONER HERBERT'S, UH, THE REQUEST FOR DENIAL WITH PREJUDICE, BUT I ALSO HAVE LEAD TO CONCERN THAT IF THE DEVELOPER OR THE APPLICANT WAS NOT BEING, WAS NOT BEING, UM, UM, IF THEY WERE AVOIDING CONVERSATIONS WITH THE NEIGHBORS, WITH THE COMMUNITY, THEM HAVING TO PAY TO HAVE THIS OFFSET IS VERY DISHEARTENING FOR THEM TO HAVE TO PAY ANYTHING TO GE TO HAVE THIS TAKEN OFF THE AGENDA TO BE SEEN AT A LATER DATE, THAT IS DISHEARTENING BECAUSE IT WAS NOT THEIR FAULT THAT THEY WERE NOT BEING SERVICED OR THAT THEY WERE NOT HAVING ENGAGEMENTS THAT THEY WERE REQUESTING IN A TIMELY MANNER.
AND WHETHER THAT BE BY CODE OR, UM, OR FAILURES ON OUR PART, IT IS TRULY DISHEARTENING FOR THEM TO HAVE TO PAY ANYTHING OUT OF POCKET TO GET WHAT THEY HAVE ALREADY WENT IN AND MADE A, MADE A, UM, AREA PLANNED FOR JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE WAS DECEIVING THEM.
UM, SO HOWEVER, I KNOW THERE MIGHT BE TIMES THAT THAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN, BUT IN THIS CASE, I JUST DON'T SEE
[04:20:01]
WHY THAT HAD TO HAPPEN TO THEM, THAT IT WAS REALLY A INSULT TO THEM BECAUSE SOMEONE FAILED TO SPEAK WITH THEM, COME INTO THEIR COMMUNITY, CHANGE THE THINGS THAT THEY HAD PUT IN PLACE, AND FOR THEM TO BE ABLE TO GET WHAT THEY WANT, THEY HAD TO PAY WHEN IT'S NOT THEM ASKING FOR THE CHANGES.I TOO WILL BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION OF A DENIAL WITH CHRIST PROPERTY OWNERS HAVE SOME RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE PEOPLE THEY CHOOSE TO DEAL WITH, AND IT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE THERE WAS ANY SECRET THAT THE DEVELOPER WAS A PROBLEM.
AND IF THE PROPERTY OWNER HAS TO SIT ON THIS FOR A WHILE, THEN HE HAS TO, IT, IT'S NOT FAIR TO PUT THE COMMUNITY THROUGH MULTIPLE ITERATIONS OF APPLICATIONS, ESPECIALLY TO THE TUNE OF HAVING TO PAY FOR, UM, DELAY.
AND THE PROPERTY OWNER HIMSELF DOESN'T HAVE ANY KIND OF CONSEQUENCES FOR BAD ACTORS.
I WILL BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION OF DENIAL WITH PREJUDICE, BUT IT REALLY ISN'T PREDICATED ON THE FACT THAT THERE WAS MISCONDUCT OR EXTREME MISCONDUCT.
UM, I I FULLY BELIEVE THAT THAT EXISTED, BUT, UM, FROM MY POINT OF VIEW, YOU KNOW, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DENIAL WITH PREJUDICE AND DENIAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE HAS TO DO WITH, YOU KNOW, WHEN, UH, ANOTHER APPLICATION CAN BE FILED, UM, TO REZONE THIS PROPERTY.
AND DENIAL WITH PREJUDICE TO ME IS THE CORRECT, UM, MOTION HERE BECAUSE I FIRMLY BELIEVE THAT THE UNDERLYING ZONING HERE, THAT THE ZONING THAT EXISTS IS THE CORRECT ZONING.
UM, NOT ONLY IS IT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE, THE EXISTING PLAN FOR THE AREA, BUT BECAUSE OF THE, YOU KNOW, THE INGRESS, THE NUMBER OF INGRESS, YOU KNOW, ISSUE IT, IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKELY THAT ANYTHING DENSER IS GOING TO BE, UM, YOU KNOW, POSSIBLE.
BUT DENIAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE MEANS THAT THIS APPLICANT OR ANOTHER APPLICANT COULD COME IN TOMORROW AND FILE ANOTHER ZONING CASE AND WE, THE NEIGHBORS WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH ALL THIS.
AGAIN, DENIAL WITH PREJUDICE MEANS THAT ANYONE WANTING TO CHANGE THE CURRENT ZONING WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH A WAIVER PROCESS WITHIN THAT TWO P TWO YEAR PERIOD.
AND THAT MEANS THEY'D HAVE TO COME BACK TO THIS BODY WHO HAS, HAS HEARD ALL OF THIS AND CONVINCE US THAT YOU KNOW, IT'S WORTHWHILE TO DO THIS AGAIN AND THAT THERE'S SOME, YOU KNOW, REALISTIC PLAN.
SO I, I FIRMLY BELIEVE THAT DENIAL WITH PREJUDICE IS THE CORRECT MOTION, BUT IT ISN'T BECAUSE I DISLIKE THIS APPLICANT A WHOLE LOT OR I DISLIKE WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING A WHOLE LOT.
SO I, I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT, COMMISSIONER.
YEAH, I'LL BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION, BUT FOR REASONS A LITTLE DIFFERENT THAN COMMISSIONER CARPENTER.
THE REASON WE HAVE THE CONCEPT OF DENIAL WITH OR DENIAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE, WE TALKED ABOUT THIS A FEW WEEKS AGO ON THE WAIVER ORDINANCE, IS TO PREVENT APPLICANTS FROM ABUSING THE, UH, SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS.
I THINK, UH, A CONVINCING CASE HAS BEEN MADE THAT THIS APPLICANT HAS ABUSED THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS.
I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER KINGSTON, WHETHER IT'S THE OWNER OR NOT IS NOT REALLY RELEVANT.
THE OWNER CHOSE TO PUT A PARTICULAR INDIVIDUAL IN CHARGE OF HIS ZONING APPLICATION AND IF THAT PERSON, UH, UH, DIDN'T DO RIGHT THEN, THEN IT'S ON THE OWNER JUST AS WELL AS IT'S ON THE PERSON WHO DID IT.
UM, THIS CASE, UH, THIS SITE WILL NOT PERMIT MORE THAN 30 DWELLING UNITS ABSENT A SECOND ENTRANCE UNDER THE FIRE CODE.
AND WE HAVE VERY CLEAR INDICATIONS THAT THERE IS NO PROSPECT AT THE PRESENT TIME FOR THAT SECOND ENTRANCE.
IT'S NOT GONNA COME FROM DUNCANVILLE.
UH, IT MIGHT CONCEIVABLY HAVE COME FROM THE PROPERTY TO THE EAST, BUT I NOTE THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER TO THE EAST IS ONE OF THE, HAS SUBMITTED A, A BALLOT IN OPPOSITION.
IT MIGHT CONCEIVABLY COME FROM THE NORTHWEST, BUT I NOTE THAT THAT PROPERTY OWNER TOO HAS SUBMITTED A BALLOT IN OPPOSITION.
SO THERE IS NO PLAUSIBLE MEANS OF INCREASING THIS BEYOND 30 UNITS.
AS THINGS NOW STAND, UH, THE CURRENT ZONING WOULD ALLOW UP TO ABOUT 38 OR SO UNITS.
SO IF THE APPLICANT WANTS TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTY WITH 30 UNITS, HE CAN DO SO AS A MATTER OF RIGHT, IF A MIRACLE HAPPENS WITHIN THE NEXT TWO YEARS AND THERE IS SOME MEANS BY WHICH, UH, HE CAN DEVELOP, UH, A SECOND ENTRANCE, THEN UNDER OUR NEWLY ADOPTED OPEN-ENDED GOOD CAUSE WAIVER STANDARD, UH, I ANTICIPATE WE WOULD HAVE NO PROBLEM SAYING, WELL, UH, THAT'S DIFFERENT.
SO WITH THAT, I'LL BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION.
[04:25:01]
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? COMMISSIONERS? OKAY.I HAVE THAT TATTOOED IN MY BRAIN.
3 44 WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HERBERT, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CARPENT TO CLOSEUP PUBLIC HEARING AND NOT FALSE STAFF RECOMMENDATION, BUT RATHER A STRAIGHT DENIAL.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.
LAST CASE TODAY, UH, IS Z 2 23 DASH 117.
IT'S A REQUEST FOR AN MF TWO, A MULTI-FAMILY DISTRICT WITH DEED RESTRICTIONS VOLUNTEERED BY THE APPLICANT ON PROPERTY ZONED AN N O A NEIGHBORHOOD OFFICE DISTRICT, AND A PA PARKING DISTRICT.
IT'S LOCATED ON THE SOUTH LINE OF GLEN.
PARDON ME, MR. MULKEY, THIS, THIS STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO HOLD UNDER ADVISEMENT.
OH YEAH, I'M ON AUTOPILOT, SO
JUST PLEASE JUST READ IT IN THE RECORD AND WE'LL, WE'LL GET A MOTION.
UH, ITEM 13, UM, AN APPLICATION FOR AN MF TWO, A MULTI-FAMILY DISTRICT WITH DEED RESTRICTIONS VOLUNTEERED BY THE APPLICANT ON PROPERTY ZONED AT N O A NEIGHBORHOOD OFFICE DISTRICT, AND A PA PARKING DISTRICT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF GLENFIELD AVENUE, WEST OF SOUTHAMPTON ROAD.
STAS RECOMMENDATION IS TO HOLD UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL APRIL 20TH, 2023.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. MULKEY.
IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO BE HEARD ON THIS ITEM? COMMISSIONERS QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SCENE NONE.
COMMISSIONER HERBERT, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION, SIR? YES.
I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO KEEP, TO KEEP OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING IN CASE NUMBER 2 23 1 17 22 3 1 17.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HERBERT FOR YOUR MOTION.
AND THANK YOU COMMISSIONER BLA FOR YOUR SECOND TO KEEP HOLD THE MATTER UNDER ADVISEMENT.
ANY DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.
UH, IT IS 4:33 PM LET'S TAKE A, EXCUSE ME.
I'M SEE I SMELT THE PIZZA AND I'M ALL IN A HURRY TO GET BACK THERE.
LET'S TAKE A 30 MINUTE DINNER BREAK.
WE'RE WE'RE, UH, 6:07 PM WE'RE BACK ON THE RECORD.
UH, WE HAVE ONE, UH, SPECIAL PROVISION SIGNED DISTRICT CASE S P C S D 2 12 0 1.
MR. POOL, I SEE THAT YOU'RE ONLINE.
CAN YOU HEAR ME OKAY? I THINK SO.
CAN YOU MIGHT, YOU MIGHT WANT TO JUST TRY A LITTLE BIT HERE.
ITEM NUMBER 14 S SP S D 212 0 0 1.
IT'S AN APPLICATION TO EXPAND AND CREATE A NEW SUBDISTRICT WITHIN THE MCKINNEY AVENUE SIGN DISTRICT ON PROPERTY WITHIN THE MCKINNEY AVENUE SIGN DISTRICT AND THE UPTOWN SIGN DISTRICT ZONE PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 1 93 SUBDISTRICT ONE 60.
UH, THE ZONING WAS RECENTLY AMENDED IN 2021 TO ALLOW FOR A 29 STORY OFFICE USE WITH RETAIL AND RESTAURANT USES ON THE GROUND FLOOR.
[04:30:01]
REQUEST SIDE IS APPROXIMATELY TWO ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF FAIRMONT STREET AND MCKINNEY AVENUE BOUND BY PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER NINE ON THE NORTHWEST FAIRMOUNT STREET ON THE NORTHEAST MCKINNEY AVENUE ON THE SOUTHEAST AND MAPLE AVENUE ON THE SOUTHWEST.THE SITE IS CURRENTLY CONTAINS, UH, SINGLE STORY USES FOR A RESTAURANT AND WHAT WAS FORMALLY A GYM.
THE SUBJECT SITE IS CURRENTLY, AGAIN, OVERLAID BY TWO SPECIAL PROVISION SIGN DISTRICTS.
THE UPTOWN SIGN DISTRICT, AS YOU CAN SEE, IS ON THE SOUTHWEST PORTION AND THE MCKINNEY AVENUE DISTRICT, UH, THE SPINE SUBDISTRICT SPECIFICALLY IS ON THE NORTHEAST PORTION.
THE UPTOWN SIGN DISTRICT WAS CREATED IN AUGUST, UH, 26TH, 1987, AND WAS LAST ADMITTED IN APRIL, 1991.
THE PURPOSE OF THIS DISTRICT IS TO ENHANCE, PRESERVE, AND DEVELOP THE CHARACTER OF THIS DISTRICT.
ENSURE SIGNS ARE APPROPRIATE TO THE ARCHITECTURE, DO NOT OBSCURE ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES, AND LEND THE DEVELOPING CARE OR LEND TO THE DEVELOPING CHARACTER OF THE AREA.
THESE REMAIN CONSISTENT WITH THOSE IN 51, A 7.101.
THE MCKINNEY AVENUE SIGN DISTRICT WAS CREATED SEVERAL YEARS LATER ON DECEMBER 11TH, 1991.
IT WAS LAST A AMEND IN APRIL OF 2019.
THE PURPOSE OF THIS DISTRICT IS TO PROTECT THE HISTORICAL AND ARCHITECTURAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT FROM INAPPROPRIATE SIGNS IN TERMS OF NUMBER OR CLUTTER STYLE, COLOR, AND MATERIALS TO ENSURE SIGNIFICANT ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES ARE NOT OBSCURED.
TO ENCOURAGE SIGNS COMPLIMENTARY TO ARCHITECTURAL STYLES AND HISTORICAL NATURE OF THE BUILDINGS AND THE TROLLEY IN THIS DISTRICT TO ENSURE SIZE AND ORIENTATION OF SIGNS ARE TOWARD THE HIGH NUMBER OF PEDESTRIANS IN THIS DISTRICT TO ATTRACT PUB THE PUBLIC TO GOODS AND SERVICES IN THE DISTRICT BY ENHANCING THE AESTHETIC QUALITY OF SIGNS IN THE DISTRICT TO ENCOURAGE ARTISTIC, CREATIVE AND INNOVATIVE SIGNS THAT REFLECT THE THEMES OF THE AREA AND ALSO TO REMAIN CONSISTENT WITH THOSE IN 51, A 7.101, WHICH IS THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE SIGN ORDINANCE.
UH, THE MCKINNEY AVENUE SIGN DISTRICT IS DIVIDED INTO THREE SUB-DISTRICTS.
UH, THE PERIPHERAL, THE QUADRANGLE AND SPINE SUB-DISTRICTS IN GENERAL, BOTH OF THE UPTOWN AND MCKINNEY AVENUE.
SPECIAL PROVISION ASSIGNED DISTRICTS, INCLUDING THE SUBDISTRICTS, HAVE MORE LIMITATIONS ON SIZE, MATERIALS, COLOR, AND LOCATION OF SIGNS IN COMPARISON TO BASE ZONING.
THE PURPOSE OF THIS REQUEST IS AGAIN, TO CREATE A NEW SUBDISTRICT WITHIN THE MCKINNEY AVENUE SIGN DISTRICT, KNOWN AS THE MAPLE SUBDISTRICT.
UH, WITH THESE OBJECTIVES TO CONSOLIDATE SIGN PROVISIONS FOR THE SUBJECT SITE, ALLOW AN ADDITIONAL USE FOR PLASTIC FACES, ALLOW ADDITIONAL PROJECTION AND LOCATIONS FOR FLAT ATTACHED SIGNS, DEFINE AND PROVIDE FOR THE USE OF BLADE SIGNS, ALLOW LARGER MONUMENT SIGNS WITH CONDITIONS, AND DEFINE AND PROVIDE FOR WINDOW ART DISPLAYS.
HERE'S THE LOCATION OF THE TWO S SPDS IN RELATION TO THE REST OF THE SPDS WITHIN THE CITY AND THE LOCATION WITHIN THE TWO SUB-DISTRICTS.
AGAIN, UH, THE SUBJECT SITE IS SURROUNDED ENTIRELY BY SPDS.
UH, THIS MAP SHOWS THE BASE ZONING FOR SIGNS SURROUNDING THE SITE AND LOCATIONS OF OTHER SPDS IN PROXIMITY.
YOU CAN SEE THESE ARE SURROUNDED BY THE GREEN AND ORANGE GREEN REPRESENTING, OR THE LIGHTER GREEN REPRESENTING, UH, BUSINESS ZONING DISTRICTS AND ORANGE REPRESENTING NON-BUSINESS ZONING DISTRICTS.
AND YOU CAN SEE THE ARTS AND ARTS EXTENSION TO THE, UH, SOUTHEAST, THE VICTORY TO THE SOUTHWEST AND WEST VILLAGE TO THE, UH, NORTHEAST.
HERE ARE THE AERIAL AND ZONING MAPS AND SOME OF THE SURROUNDING USES, UH, PRIMARILY TO THE SOUTH ARE MIXED USE, UH, CONSISTING OF OFFICES, HOTELS, UH, RESTAURANT, UM, IMMEDIATELY TO THE, UH, NORTHWEST WOULD BE A RESTAURANT.
UM, PD NINE IS TO THE NORTH, WHICH PRIMARILY CONSISTS OF, UH, LODGING AND OFFICE USES, UH, SOME RESTAURANT AND RETAIL.
AND TO THE, JUST TO THE EAST OF THAT, TO THE NORTH IS AN OFFICE USE.
AND TO THE WEST, UH, EXCUSE ME, SOUTH, UH, TO THE NORTHEAST IS THE, UH, THE MULTI-FAMILY AND PRIMARILY TO THE SOUTHEAST IS, IS MORE MIXED USE IN OFFICES.
UH, THIS MAP SHOWS THE BUILDINGS WITHIN EACH S P S D WITH MORE THAN SIX STORIES.
UH, WHEN COMPLETED, THE HIGH RISE ON THE SUBJECT SITE WILL
[04:35:01]
BE THE TALLEST, IT'LL BE 417 FEET AND 29 STORIES.UH, HERE IS A COMPARISON CHART FOR THE CONDITIONS.
UM, IT COMPARES BASE ZONING, THE UPTOWN S SP S D, THE EXISTING MCKINNEY AVENUE SPINE, WHICH IS WHAT THEY KIND OF WANNA PATTERN AFTER AND THEN THE NEW CONDITIONS, UH, THE MCKINNEY AVENUE S SPS D THE MAPLE DISTRICT, AND I'LL GO INTO DETAIL ON EACH ONE OF THESE.
UM, THIS IS THE, UH, THE SECTION PRINT LIST, THE CONDITIONS FOR ALL SIGNS.
UM, IN SUMMARY, UH, THEY ALLOW FOR AN ADDITIONAL USE OF PLASTIC WHEN APPLIED TO INDIVIDUAL CHANNEL LETTERS PROVIDED TRIM CAP IS NOT USED, UM, AND IT REMOVES THE TYPE OF LIGHTING SOURCE RESTRICTION FROM THIS SUBDISTRICT.
UM, ONE OF THE RESTRICTIONS ON LIGHTING THAT, UH, UM, ALL, UH, ALL LIGHTING BE FLUORESCENT OR, OR EXCUSE ME, NEON OR, UH, INCANDESCENT.
UH, THE INTENT IS TO ALLOW EFFECTIVE LIGHTING FOR SIGNS MOUNTED ON GLASS FACADES, UH, TO PROVIDE FOR ADVANCES IN LIGHTING TECHNOLOGY, IN THIS CASE L E D, AND TO ALLOW FOR THE UTILIZATION OF MODERN, YET STILL APPROPRIATE HIGH-END SIGN MAKING TECHNIQUES.
UM, HERE, THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS, UM, CAN SEE THAT THE USE OF PLASTIC WAS ADDED AS AN EXTERIOR FACE OF INDIVIDUAL CHANNEL LETTERS IN THE MAPLE SUBDISTRICT, WHERE CHANNEL LETTERS ARE EITHER TRIM CAPUS OR USE METAL FABRICATED RETAINERS.
UM, TRIM CAP PLASTIC FACES ARE PROHIBITED.
AND THE LIGHTING, UH, IT, IT WOULD ALLOWS FOR OTHER TYPES OF LIGHTING, EXCEPT IN THE MAPLE SUBDISTRICT WHERE THIS DOES NOT OPEN.
UH, THESE ARE SOME, UH, GENERAL SIGNS ON THE LEFT THAT WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT.
UM, ON THE RIGHT, THAT'S, THAT'S A METAL FACE, PLASTIC, UH, EXCUSE ME, A RED, A METAL FACE WITH ROUTED LIGHTERS THAT ARE BACKED BY PLASTIC, WHICH THE ORDINANCE IS, IS CALLED FOR.
UM, HERE ARE SOME, UH, TRIM CAP CHANNEL LETTERS, WHICH, UH, I, UH, THE APPLICANT DID NOT FEEL WAS APPROPRIATE TO THIS DISTRICT.
UM, STAFF, STAFF AGREES WITH THAT.
UM, YOU CAN SEE THE, THE TRIM CAP ON THE EDGES OF THE LETTERS, AND THAT'S ACTUALLY WHAT HOLDS THE FACE TO THE METAL CAN INSIDE THE BOARD, THAT, THAT HOLDS THE LIGHTING WITH THE LETTER.
UH, THESE ARE EXAMPLES OF CHANNEL LETTERS THAT, UH, THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED.
UM, THE FIRST ONE THERE ON THE LEFT IS A, UH, PUSH THROUGH ACRYLIC THAT SIMULATES AN NEON.
UM, THE, THE NEXT ONE IN THE CENTER ON TOP, UH, THOSE WOULD BE METAL RETAINERS, AND BELOW THAT WOULD BE A HALO LIT LETTER.
AND THEN IN THE TOP RIGHT IS INCANDESCENT BOLTS, AND THOSE ARE ACTUALLY L E B AND BELOW THAT FOR THE FLOOR LOFT, THAT WOULD BE A TRIM CAPLESS CHANNEL LETTER THAT'S, UH, BOTH, UH, LIGHTING ON THE FACE AND, UH, BEHIND THE LETTER, ALL OF THESE WOULD BE CONSIDERED BACK LIT.
UH, HERE ARE THE CONDITIONS AMENDING THE ATTACHED SIGNS.
UH, THE SUMMARY WOULD BE TO ALLOW FOR FLAT ATTACHED SIGNS TO BE PLACED ON ANY UPPER LEVEL FACADE.
UM, IT, IT WOULD LIMIT THE NUMBER OF SIGNS LOCATED ON AN UPPER, UPPER FACADE BELOW 14 STORIES.
UH, THE INTENT OF THOSE PROVISIONS IS TO PROVIDE FOR SIGNS AND INTENDED TO BE VIEWED FROM A DISTANCE, UH, AND TO, UH, PROVIDE AN ACCOMMODATION TO THE MULTI-FAMILY HIGH RISES IN PROXIMITY TO THE SUBJECT SITE, UH, SPECIFICALLY THE CELINE AND, UH, THE GABLES.
THERE'S AN ADDED CONDITION, EXCEPT THAT FLAT ATTACHED SIGNS MAY BE LOCATED ON ANY UPPER FACADE WITHIN THE MAPLE SUBDISTRICT.
CURRENTLY, THEY'RE ONLY ALLOWED ON SIGNS ADJACENT TO A PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.
UM, AND THEN IN THE MAPLE SUBDISTRICT FLAT ATTACHED SIGNS ON THE FACADES LOCATED BELOW THE 14TH FLOOR ARE LIMITED TO TWO PER FACADE.
UH, THIS IS A GRAPHIC PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT WHERE WE MARKED, UH, THE APPROXIMATE 13TH FLOOR.
AND YOU CAN ALSO SEE BELOW THAT, UH, 36 FOOT ABOVE GRADE, WHICH WILL BE THE LOWER FACADE IN THIS, THIS PROPOSED DISTRICT.
UM, ANY ATTACHED SIGN LOCATED ON ANY FACADE WITHIN THAT AREA.
UH, THERE, THERE COULD ONLY BE TWO.
[04:40:04]
UM, HERE ARE THE, UH, THE GABLES AND THE CELINE.UM, ACTUALLY I SCREEN CAPTURED THAT WITH GRAPHIC FEBRUARY, BUT THE CELINE IS, IS TO THE, UH, THE NORTHWEST AND IT'S 375 FEET FROM THIS SITE.
AND THE, UH, THE GABLES MCKINNEY IS 150 FEET, AND BOTH OF THOSE BUILDINGS ARE APPROXIMATELY, UH, 14 STORES.
WELL, EXCUSE ME, THE SALINA IS 14 STORAGE.
THE CONDITIONS FOR FLAT ATTACH SIGNS, SPECIFICALLY, UH, THE SUMMARIES ALLOW FOR SIGNS TO PROJECT UP TO 18 INCHES FROM THE BUILDING.
CURRENTLY, THEY'RE ONLY ALLOWED TO PROJECT EIGHT.
UH, THE INTENT IS, UH, TO, UH, PROVIDE FOR OBSOLETE CONSTRUCT, OR EXCUSE ME, TO, UH, TO UPDATE OBSOLETE, OBSOLETE CONSTRUCTION METHODS.
UH, SIGNS THAT ARE TO, UH, PROVIDE FOR SIGNS THAT TEND TO BE VIEWED FROM A DISTANCE ON GLASS FACADES.
HERE ARE THE CONDITIONS, UH, NO FLAT ATTACHED SIGN MAY PROTECT MORE THAN EIGHT INCHES FROM A BUILDING, EXCEPT IN THE MAPLE SUBDISTRICT FLAT ATTACHED SIGNS MAY PROTECT UP TO 18 INCHES FROM A BUILDING.
UM, HERE ARE SOME FLAT ATTACHED SIGNS.
UM, BOTH BEES ARE IN THE UPTOWN, UH, SIGN DISTRICT.
ONE OF THE IDEAS BEHIND THIS REQUIREMENT IS THAT, UH, SIGNS MOUNTED ON, UH, EXCUSE ME, ON, ON GLASS, WOULD REQUIRE SOME SORT OF FRAMING, WHICH, UH, WOULD ALLOW FOR THE, THE, THE LARGER PROJECTION.
UM, HERE ARE THE CONDITIONS FOR THE PROJECTING SIGNS.
UH, THE SUMMARY WOULD BE TO RESTRICT THE USE OF PROJECTING SIGNS WHEN BLADE SIGNS ARE LOCATED ON THE SAME FACADE.
UH, JUST CURRENTLY, UH, PROJECTING SIGNS ARE, ARE NOT, UH, ARE DEFINED AS ANY SIGN OF THE, THAT PROJECTS MORE THAN 18 INCHES FROM THE BUILDING.
IT DOESN'T SPECIFY WHICH WAY THEY PROJECT.
SO THIS, UH, THE INTENT OF THIS REQUIREMENT IS TO DISTINGUISH PROJECTING SIGNS FROM BLADE SIGNS.
IN THIS CASE, BLADE SIGNS WILL BE SIGNS THAT, UH, PROJECT OUT FROM THE BUILDING PERPENDICULAR AND HAVE MULTIPLE FACES.
UM, ALSO THE INTENT WOULD BE TO LIMIT THE USE OF PROJECTING SIGNS ON THE SAME FACADE AS AS BLADE SIGNS.
UH, HERE ARE THE CONDITIONS, UM, IN THE MAPLE SUBDISTRICT PROJECTING ATTACHED SIGNS ARE PROHIBITED ON A FACADE MAINTAINING WATER OR MORE BLADE SIGNS.
UM, BASED ON THE COMPARISON CHART, THESE SIGNS ARE LIMITED.
UM, AND THE WAY THE BUILDING IS CONSTRUCTED, UH, THESE SIGNS WOULD, WOULD BE LIMITED TO THE, UH, FAIRMOUNT
HERE ARE, UH, SOME PROJECTING SIGNS UNDER THE CURRENT CONDITIONS.
UH, WE CAN SEE THE FOX LOGO THERE, THAT IS CURRENTLY IN THE MCKINNEY AVENUE, S SPS D.
AND THEN UNDER CURRENT CONDITIONS, THE, THE SYLVAN 30 SIGN THERE, THE RIGHT WOULD ALSO BE CONSIDERED A PROJECTING SIGN.
UM, UNDER, UNDER THESE PROVISIONS, THE, UH, FOX LOGO WOULD BE CONSIDERED A BLADE SIGN, AND THEN THE SYLVAN 30 WOULD JUST BE A PROJECTING SIGN THAT THOSE LETTERS PROJECT APPROXIMATELY 24 INCHES.
AND HERE'S, UH, THE CONDITION SPECIFIC TO BLADE SIGNS.
UM, IN SUMMARY, THEY DEFINE AND PROVIDE FOR BLADE SIGNS.
BLADE SIGNS ARE LIGHT PROJECTION SIGNS IN THIS DISTRICT, BUT MUST HAVE MULTIPLE FACES AND MESSAGES ON PER, BUT MESSAGES THAT ARE PERPENDICULAR TO THAT WILL STOP.
UH, THE INTENT AGAIN, IS TO FURTHER DISTINGUISH PROTECTING SIGNS OF BLADE SIGNS, UH, TO ALLOW FOR LARGER PROTECTING SIGNS ON THE FAIRMOUNT FACADE.
THAT WOULD MORE ACCURATELY BE CONSIDERED BLADE TYPE SIGNS AND PROVIDE VISIBILITY FOR TENANTS IN AREAS OF INCREASED DENSITY.
AND HERE ARE THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS.
THESE ARE SOME EXAMPLES OF ACTUAL BLADE SIGNS.
UH, THE POT BELLY ON THE RIGHT COMES FROM THE UPTOWN SIGN DISTRICT AND THE, UH, TWISTED ROOT BURGERS AND BEER.
IT COMES FROM THE BELL SIGN DISTRICT.
HERE ARE THE CONDITIONS FOR DETACHED SIGNS.
UH, THE SUMMARY SUMMARY WOULD BE TO PROVIDE FOR DETACHED SIGNS THAT ARE MORE CONSISTENT WITH BASE ZONING, UH, BUT THAT RESTRICT, UH, THESE SIGN TYPES TO MONUMENTS NOT OVER SIX FEET IN HEIGHT AND REDUCE SEPARATION BETWEEN THE
[04:45:01]
SIGNS BY 25 FEET.UH, CURRENTLY, SIGNS UNDER BASE ZONING ARE REQUIRED TO BE SEPARATED BY 200 PEOPLE.
UM, SS D A C RECOMMENDED ADDED CONDITIONS, LENDING THE SUBJECT SITE TO 1 125 SQUARE FOOT MULTITENANT SIGNED TWO 50 SQUARE FOOT SINGLE TENANT AGREEMENT SIGNS, UH, BOTH THE APPLICANT AND STAFF ARE IN SUPPORT OF THIS INDUSTRY, AND THE INTENT IS TO ALLOW, UH, LARGER DETACH SIGNS MORE CONSISTENT WITH BASE DONING IN THE QUADRANGLE SUBDISTRICT, WHICH IS SLIGHTLY TO THE NORTH, AND PROVIDE AN ALLOWANCE FOR AREAS OF INCREASED DENSITY.
UH, HERE ARE THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS AND SOME EXAMPLES OF MONUMENT SIGNS.
THE, UH, 31 31 MCKINNEY, UH, COMES FROM THE MCKINNEY AVENUE SIGN DISTRICT.
KENNY A IN THE RIGHT IS FROM THE DOWNTOWN PERIMETER, S SP S D A LITTLE FURTHER TO THE SOUTHWEST.
AND FINALLY, THE CONDITIONS FOR WINDOW R DISPLAYS.
UH, IN SUMMARY, THEY DEFINE AND PROVIDE FOR WINDOW R DISPLAYS.
UM, THE IDEA WOULD BE TO LIMIT THE GROUND FLOOR OR LIMIT THESE TO THE GROUND FLOOR.
THE F FAIRMOUNT STREET FACADE, UH, ALL DISPLAYS MUST BE INTERIOR TO THE WINDOW.
UH, THE INTENT IS TO PROVIDE FOR A USE LIKE THAT OF THE DOWNTOWN S SPS D UH, JUST AS A NOTE, BASED ON THE PROPOSED ELEVATION, THESE DISPLAYS ARE LIMITED IN, UH, TO THREE, THE THREE WINDOWS THAT BEEN WEST HAND, FAIRMOUNT STREET, MS, UH, FOR THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS.
AND HERE'S SOME EXAMPLES THAT WE KNOW ARE DISPLAYS.
THESE COME FROM THE DOWNTOWN SBS D.
HERE IS THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FROM, UH, PD SUBDISTRICT, NUMBER 60.
LET'S SEE, WE HAVE LAID OUT AND THE LANDSCAPE PLAN.
HERE'S SOME OF THE SITE PHOTOS.
I'M JUST KIND OF GONNA GO AROUND THE, UH, DISTRICT SOUTHEAST, SOUTHWEST MCKINNEY STRIKE.
THIS IS, UH, NORTHWESTERN MAPLE, NORTHWESTERN MCK COUNTY EAST ON MAY.
AND FURTHER BACK TO THE SITE, UH, IT'S NOT MAPLE ACROSS THE, UH, THIS IS, UH, LOOKING NORTHWEST ON MAPLE AT THE SAME.
AND THEN SOUTHWEST ON FAIRMONT 89.
THIS IS SOUTHEAST ON FAIR, AGAIN, NORTHEAST ON MCKINNEY.
LOOKING AT THE GATES
AND THESE ARE SOME OF THE SIGNS FROM AROUND THE DISTRICT.
UM, SEE, THEY ALL HAVE METAL FACES.
THERE'S SOME PEN APPLIED SIGNS.
FIRST
AND THIS IS D A C RECOMMENDED APPROVAL, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS.
MR. POOL QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM? IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO BE HEARD ON THIS ITEM? YES, MA'AM.
THERE'S A LITTLE BUTTON RIGHT THERE AT THE, RIGHT THERE.
I'M THE MANAGING PRINCIPLE OF FOCUS, E G D A COMPANY HERE IN THE DALLAS AREA THAT DESIGNS SIGNS AND SIGNS FOR BUILDINGS AND ALL KINDS OF, UH, PROJECTS.
SO I'M REPRESENTING THE CLIENT, MY CLIENT TONIGHT.
AND I'D JUST LIKE TO SAY A COUPLE OF COMMENTS.
EVERYTHING THAT MR. POOLE JUST TOLD YOU ABOUT IS REALLY TO SIMPLIFY THE PROCESS BY WHICH WE GET SIGNS PASSED THROUGH THE SS D A C AND TO, UH, MAKE IT EASIER FOR OUR CLIENT TO ACTUALLY, UH, LEASE SPACE IN HIS BUILDING.
[04:50:01]
UH, BECAUSE RIGHT NOW IN THE TWO SS DACS THAT THIS IS IN, WE'D HAVE TO GO TWICE FOR EVERYTHING WE WANTED TO DO.SO THIS, UH, IS DESIGNED TO REALLY BRING IT INTO ONE SSD, YOU SEE, THAT IS MCKINNEY AVENUE.
AND THEN TO ALSO ADDRESS THE IDEA THAT MCKINNEY AVENUE, SINCE THE SSD WAS S SDS, S P S D WAS WRITTEN BACK IN 91 AND 87.
THE WHOLE NATURE OF MCKINNEY AVENUE HAS CHANGED, AS WE ALL WELL KNOW.
SO WE'RE NOW BUILDING 29 STORY BUILDINGS THAT WERE NOT ADDRESSED IN THE ORIGINAL WRITING OF THAT PARTICULAR DOCUMENT.
SO WE ARE LOOKING TO CREATE OUR OWN SI SPECIAL SUB-DISTRICT WITHIN THAT DISTRICT IN ORDER TO CREATE, UH, SIGN RULES THAT WOULD ALLOW US TO DO SIGNS THAT ARE COMMENSURATE WITH OTHER BUILDINGS THAT ARE IN THE SAME GENERAL LOCATION.
SIGNS LIKE THE PWC SIGN ON THE TOP OF THE NEW PARK DISTRICT BUILDING IS NOT ALLOWED RIGHT NOW, BUT THESE NEW RULES WOULD ALLOW US TO DO THAT SORT OF THING.
AND THEN THERE ARE A NUMBER OF OTHER RULES THAT WE'VE, UH, PUT IN THERE.
SO THE AN THE LANGUAGE IS REALLY INTENDED TO MAKE THIS AN QUA EQUITABLE SITUATION FOR THE OWNER THAT WANTS TO DEVELOP THIS BUILDING.
WITH THAT, I WILL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT'D LIKE TO BE HEARD ON THIS ITEM? COMMISSIONERS QUESTIONS FOR OUR SPEAKER.
MS. BOWER, THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE TODAY.
I WANNA MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND THE INTENT OF THE NEW DEFINITION.
UM, I REMEMBER WHEN THE SONY CASE CAME THROUGH AND WE HAD LONG CONVERSATIONS ABOUT VITRINES, UM, ON THE WINDOW.
IS THAT IN FACT MEANT TO CAPTURE THE IDEA OF DISPLAY WINDOWS OR BOXES THAT GIVE ACTIVITY, UM, ON THE GROUND FLOOR OF FAIRMONT STREET? ABSOLUTELY.
WE WANNA ACTIVATE THE AREA AS MUCH AS WE CAN WITH THE, BOTH THE SIGNAGE AND THESE, THESE DISPLAY WINDOWS.
UH, THE INTENT IS TO PUT ALL, YOU KNOW, THINGS LIKE WHAT HAS BEEN HAPPENING IN THE DOWNTOWN, DOWNTOWN SPECIAL DISTRICT WITH, UH, UH, ACTIVITIES, EVENTS, UH, UH, JUST GENERAL DISPLAYS AND ARTIFACTS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
BECAUSE WE FEEL, AND HAVING AN OFFICE DOWN IN THAT AREA, WE DO SEE A LOT MORE ACTIVITY WITH CLYDE WARREN PARK AND OTHER AREA, PARTS OF THAT AREA THAT ARE VERY, BECOMING VERY ACTIVE.
AND WE JUST WOULD LIKE TO, TO BE, DO OUR PART TO MAKE IT ACTIVE.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONERS QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SEEING NONE.
COMMISSIONER KINGSTON, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? YES.
IN THE MATTER OF S P S D 212 DASH 0 0 1? I'D LIKE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND MOVED FOR APPROVAL SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER KINGSTON FOR YOUR MOTION.
COMMISSIONER CARPENTER FOR YOUR SECOND.
ANY DISCUSSION? SEE NONE OF THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.
COMMISSIONERS WILL NOW MOVE ON TO OUR SUBDIVISION DOCKET CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS CONSISTS OF CASES 16 THROUGH 34.
IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO BE HEARD ON ANY OF THESE ITEMS? 16.
BEGINNING ON PAGE SIX 16 THROUGH 34.
THOSE CASES WILL BE DISPOSED OF IN ONE MOTION, UNLESS THERE'S SOMEONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON ANY OF THOSE CASES.
OKAY, MR. BBAR? GOOD EVENING, SIR.
THE CONSENT AGENDA CONSISTS OF 19 ITEM ITEM 16 S 2 23 DASH 0 79, ITEM 17 S 2 23 DASH 0 8 0.
ITEM 18 S 2 23 DASH 0 81, ITEM 19 S 2 23 DASH 0 8 2, ITEM 20 S 2 23 DASH 0 83, ITEM 21 S 2, 23 DASH 0 84, ITEM 22 S 2 23 DASH 85, ITEM 23 S 2 23 DASH 0 87, ITEM 24 S 2 23 DASH EIGHT EIGHT, ITEM 25 S 2 23 DASH 0 89, ITEM 26
[04:55:01]
S 2 23 DASH 0 9 0.ITEM 27 S 2 23 DASH 0 9 1 ITEM 28 S 2 23 DASH 92.
ITEM THREE ZERO S 2 23 DASH 0 9 6.
ITEM 32 S 2 23 DASH 0 9 8, ITEM 33 S 2 23 DASH 0 9 9.
AND ITEM 34 IS S 2 23 DASH 1 0 1 S 2 23 DASH 92.
CONDITIONS NUMBER 1720 AND 21 WAS REMOVED BY PAVING AND DRAINAGE.
ALL THE ABOVE CASES HAVE BEEN POSTED FOR HEARING AT THIS TIME.
AND A STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITION LISTED IN THE DOCKET AND THE CONDITION THAT WAS AMENDED AT THE HEARING.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. BOARD, BOARD QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS, COMMISSIONER HAMPTON? THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
UM, THIS IS EITHER FOR MR. BOARD, WAR FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY ON ITEM NINE OR 29.
FIRST, MR. BBAR, WOULD YOU CONFIRM OUR DOCKET NOTES INDIAN STREET, WAS THAT MEANT TO BE INDIANA? YES, MA'AM.
UM, SO IN REVIEW OF THAT PLAT, UM, THE CONSIDERATIONS, IS IT CORRECT THAT IT'S COMPLIANT WITH THE ZONING CONDITIONS? YES, MA'AM.
AND IS THE SECOND, UM, REVIEW BY STAFF'S PERSPECTIVE THAT IT'S COMPLIANT WITH ALL PLAT REGULATIONS? UH, YES MA'AM.
AND, AND ARE THERE ANY OTHER CONSIDERATIONS FOR THIS BODY? UH, I'M NOT, I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING THAT QUESTION.
WELL, I GUESS AS I'M LOOKING AT THE, UM, THE, THE PATTERN OF THE AREA, THIS PLAT IS SIGNIFICANTLY LARGER.
WHILE IT IS A VARIED, UM, DEVELOPMENT PATTERN IN THE AREA, THIS ONE IS JUST PROBABLY ONE OF THE LARGER ONES, UM, THAT I HAVE SEEN.
AND I WAS WANTING TO CONFIRM THAT WE HAD NO OTHER, UM, CRITERIA AGAINST WHICH TO EVALUATE THE PLAT SUBMITTAL.
UH, THERE IS NO OTHER CRITERIA.
THIS IS A PD 2 69 TRACK A, THERE IS NO MINIMUM OR MAXIMUM LOT AREA.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONERS? SCENE NONE.
COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
IN THE MATTER OF THE SUBDIVISION, UH, CONSENT DOCKET ITEM 16 THROUGH 34, I MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE THE REQUEST, UH, SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE DOCKET OR IS READ INTO THE RECORD.
COMMISSIONER HAMPTON AND COMMISSIONER CARPENTER FOR YOUR SECOND COMMISSIONERS, WE HAVE A MOTION TO SECOND FOR APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEM 16 THROUGH 34.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.
ITEM 35 S 2 23 DASH ZERO SEVEN IS AN APPLICATION TO REPLA A 0.344 ACRE TRACK OF LAND CONTAINING OLIVE OF LOTS 11 AND 12 IN CITY BLOCK NINE OVER 41 0 8 TO CREATE ONE LOT ON PROPERTY, LOCATED ON SEABIRDS AVENUE AT MCQUAY AVENUE NORTHEAST CORNER.
28 NOTICES WERE SENT TO THE PROPERTY OWNER WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE PROPERTY ON FEBRUARY 15, 15TH, 2023.
WE HAVE RECEIVED ZERO, UH, ZERO REPLIES IN FAVOR AND ZERO REPLIES IN OPPOSITION TO THIS REQUEST.
A STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITION LISTED IN THE DOCKET OR AS AMENDED AT THE HEARING.
IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO BE HEARD ON THIS ITEM? THIS IS CASE NUMBER 35 COMMISSIONER'S.
QUESTIONS FOR MR. BACH? SCENE NONE.
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? YES, I DO.
[05:00:03]
I MOVE TO CLOSE THE PER PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE THE MATTER SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE, UM, WITH THE CONDITIONS AS LISTED IN THE DOCKET.COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, YOUR MOTION COMMISSIONER BLUFF FOR YOUR SECOND.
ANY COMMENTS? SEE NONE OF THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
ITEM 36 S 2 23 DASH 0 7 8 IS AN APPLICATION TO REPEL A 0.324 ACRE TRACK OF LAND CONTAINING ALL OF LA 13 IN CITY BLOCK 2 71 58 TO CREATE ONE 5,842 SQUARE FEET LOT AND ONE 8,267 SQUARE FEET LOT ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON HAMMERLY DRIVE SOUTH OF MORRIS STREET.
NOTICES WERE SENT TO THE PROPERTY OWNER BETWEEN 200 FEET OF THE PROPERTY ON MARCH 3RD, 2023.
WE HAVE RECEIVED ZERO REPLIES IN FAVOR AND ZERO REPLIES IN OPPOSITION TO THIS REQUEST.
A STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITION LISTED IN THE DOCKET OR AS AMENDED AT THE HEARING.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. BOARD BARR QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SEEING NONE, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? YES, SIR.
HELPS HAVE I TURN ON THE MICROPHONE? UH, YES.
THANK YOU MR. CHAIR IN THE MATTER OF CASE S 2 23 DASH 0 78, I MOVE THAT WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND FOLLOW STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE DOCKET.
AND I HAVE BRIEF COMMENTS IF WE, I SECOND YOU DO HAVE A SECOND.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HAMPTON FOR YOUR SECOND COMMENTS.
COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, THIS IS AN UNUSUAL PLAT IN THAT, UM, THE, YOU KNOW, CASE REPORT ADMITS THERE IS A, UH, THERE'S A PATTERN TO THE AREA, BUT BECAUSE OF THE, UM, THE RAILROAD THAT IS ADJACENT, THERE REALLY ISN'T A WAY TO MAKE THESE, UM, LOTS OR EITHER A LOT OR MULTIPLE LOTS CONFORM.
IF YOU, IF YOU MAKE THE AREA CONFORM, YOU LOSE THE STREET, THE, THE FRONTAGE, THE, THE WIDTH.
AND IF YOU MAKE THE, NO MATTER WHAT YOU DO, YOU CAN'T
IF YOU TRY TO NORMALIZE THE STREET FRONTAGES, YOU END UP WITH A LOT ON THE NORTH THAT IS BASICALLY UNDEVELOPABLE.
SO ALL THAT SAID, I THINK THIS IS A RE VERY REASONABLE, UM, REQUEST FOR A A PLA.
SO I'M ASKING THAT, UM, EVERYONE AGREED TO THE MOTION? THANK YOU.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER CARPENTER.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE OF THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
37 37 S 2 23 DASH 0 8 6 IS AN APPLICATION TO REPLAT, A 0.617 ACRE TRACK OF LAND CONTAINING ALL OF LOTS 79 A IN CITY BLOCK 2251 TO CREATE FOUR LOTS LANDING IN SIZE FROM 6,002 SQUARE FEET TO TWO TO 8,831 SQUARE FEET ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON COLONIAL AVENUE SOUTHEAST OF FAY STREET.
20 NOTICES WERE SENT TO THE PROPERTY OWNER, WHICH IN 200 FEET OF THE PROPERTY ON MARCH 3RD, 2023.
WE HAVE RECEIVED ZERO REPLIES IN FAVOR AND ZERO REPLIES IN OPPOSITION TO THIS REQUEST.
A STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITION LISTED IN THE DOCKET OR AS AMENDED AND THE HEARING.
IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? IT'S NUMBER 37.
QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SEEING NONE.
COMMISSIONER WHEELER, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION IN THE CASE NUMBER S 2 23 DASH 86? I MOVE TO APPROVAL? UH, APPROVE THIS ITEM SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE DOCKET.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR MOTION.
COMMISSIONER WHEELER IN YOUR SECOND COMMISSIONER HERBERT.
ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE OF THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.
ITEM 38 S 2 23 DASH 0 9 4 IS AN APPLICATION TO REPRINT ZERO POINT 26 26 ACRE, WHICH IS EQUIVALENT OF 11,437 SQUARE FEET.
TRACK OF LAND CONTAINING ALL OF LOT ONE IN CITY BLOCK.
POUR OVER 51 70 AND AN ABANDONED PORTION OF ALLEY IN THE CITY.
BLOCK FOUR OVER 5, 1 70 TO CREATE ONE LOT ON PROPERTY LOCATED
[05:05:01]
ON PRESTON PARK DRIVE AT PER PURDUE AVENUE NORTHWEST CORNER.25 NOTICES WERE SENT TO THE PROPERTY OWNER WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE PROPERTY ON MARCH 3RD, 2023.
WE HAVE RECEIVED FIVE RE FIVE REPLIES IN FAVOR AND ZERO REPLIES IN OPPOSITION TO THIS REQUEST.
A STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITION LISTED IN THE DOCKET OR AS AMENDED AT THE HEARING.
IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT I'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS TIME? YES SIR.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
MY NAME'S PATRICK FLECK AND I'M THE RESIDENT AND PROPERTY OWNER AT 54 27 PURDUE AVENUE.
UM, THIS IS, UH, AN ALLEY THAT WAS NEVER PAVED, UM, OR MAINTAINED IN ANY SUCH WAY.
AND WHEN WE WERE SOLD THE PROPERTY, IT LOOKED LIKE IT WAS A PART OF OUR YARD.
SO WE'RE BASICALLY JUST TRYING TO ASSUME THIS, UH, PIECE OF PROPERTY INTO OUR YARD FOR OUR FAMILY TO BE ABLE TO ENCLOSE IT IN ALONGSIDE THE PROPERTY OF OUR, OF OUR NEIGHBORS AT ABUT IT.
AND WE'VE RECEIVED, UH, WRITTEN LETTERS OF, UH, IN FAVOR, UH, AND CONSENT FROM OUR PROPERTY OWNERS AND NEIGHBORS THAT ABUT IT.
UM, AND NO ONE HAS OPPOSED IT.
THERE MAY BE QUESTIONS FOR YOU.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO BE HEARD ON THIS ITEM? COMMISSIONERS.
QUESTIONS FOR OUR SPEAKER? QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? COMMISSIONER BLAIR, PLEASE.
THE REQUEST THIS REQUEST, THE, THE, UM, APPLICANT IS SAYING THAT IT'S, LOOKS, IT, IT USED TO BE AN ALLEY.
WAS IT EVER A, A, A PIECE OF LAND THAT WAS INCORPORATED AS AN ALLEY OR IS IT, WAS IT JUST ALLEY THAT WAS MADE UP? NO, IT WAS AN ALLEY AND, UH, BUT IT WAS NEVER IMPROVED AND IT WAS NEVER PAVED.
SO, MR. BBAR, IF IT WAS NEVER, IT WAS A ALLEY THAT WAS NEVER PAVED, NEVER IMPROVED, DOES IT, DOES THE APPLICANT HAVE A RIGHT JUST TO ASSUME THE LAND OR DOES HE
SO, SO THEY, THEY SUBMIT A PLA AND ON THEIR PLA THEY ENSURE THAT THE ALLEY IS THERE AND THEN THEY, UH, REQUEST THAT THE ALLEY B ABANDONED.
AND, UH, THEY GO THROUGH THE REAL ESTATE AND THEY GO THROUGH THE PROCESS OF ABANDONMENT OF THE ALI.
AND BY THE TIME THE PLA, WHICH PLANT MAY TAKE NINE MONTHS TO A YEAR OR SO, THEIR ABANDONMENT IS HOPEFULLY APPROVED BY THE REAL ESTATE.
IT GOES TO THE CITY ATTORNEY OFFICE, THEY REVIEW IT, AND THEN IT GOES, UH, AND GET RECORDED AT THE COUNTY.
SO THEY'RE FLAT NOT GONNA BE FINAL AND RECORDED TILL THE ALLEY IS ACTUALLY ABANDONED IN, IN A SIMPLE TERM, THEY PURCHASED THE ALLEY FROM THE, FROM THE CITY.
SO THAT'S, THAT'S WHY IT HAPPENS.
SO RIGHT NOW, THERE SHOULD BE A NOTE ON THE CONDITIONS THAT SAYS, UH, FOR ALI ABANDONMENT, PLEASE CONTACT REAL ESTATE AND GO THROUGH THE PROCESS.
AND THEN, UH, THERE SHOULD BE A CONDITION THAT STATES ON YOUR FINAL PLA YOU NEED TO SAY THAT WE ABANDONED THIS ALLEY AND THE VOLUME AND PAGE THAT IT WAS RECORDED AT THE COUNTY AND SO FORTH AND SO ON.
SO IT'S, IT'S NOT THAT THEY CAN JUST FENCE IT AND SAY IT'S MINE.
THEY HAVE TO GO THROUGH SOME PROCESS WITH THE CITY.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THIS IS MY FIRST TIME, SO I MIGHT NOT HAVE EXPLAINED EVERYTHING APPROPRIATELY.
COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, YOU HAVE A MOTION? YES.
IN THE MATTER OF CASE S 2 23 DASH 0 94, I MOVE THAT WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND FOLLOW STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE DOCKET COMMISSIONERS, WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER HAMPTON TO CLOSE UP PUBLIC HEARING AND FOLLOW STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL TO, WITH THE COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE DOCKET.
ANY DISCUSSION? COMMISSIONER YOUNG, PLEASE.
AS I'VE SAID WITH OTHER CASES, UH, I BELIEVE THERE IS A PATTERN OF LOTS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND I BELIEVE THIS PLAT CONFORMS TO IT.
[05:10:01]
COMMISSIONER CARPENTER? NO, YOUR MIC'S ON.ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.
ITEM 39 S 2 23 DASH 95 IS AN APPLICATION TO REPLA A 2.059 ACRE TRACK OF LAND CONTAINING OLIVE LOT ONE IN CITY BLOCK A OVER 3 9 58 AND A TRACK OF LAND IN CITY BLOCK.
A OVER 39 58 TO CREATE NINE LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 8,339 SQUARE FEET TO 12,276 SQUARE FEET ON PROPERTY LOCATED BETWEEN MONTCLAIR AVENUE AT NEOLA STREET NORTH OF BRADLEY STREET.
35 NOTICES WERE SENT TO THE PROPERTY OWNER 200 FEET OF THE PROPERTY ON MARCH 3RD, 2023.
WE HAVE RECEIVED ZERO REPLIES IN FAVOR AND ZERO REPLIES IN OPPOSITION TO THIS REQUEST.
A STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITION LISTED IN THE DOCKET OR AS AMENDED HEARING.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. WAWA.
I SEE THAT THE APPLICANT IS HERE.
I NOTICED YOU'RE VERY PATIENTLY WAITING.
1414 BELLEVUE STREET, SUITE ONE 50, DALLAS, TEXAS.
UM, THIS IS A PROPERTY THAT I'M ACTUALLY REALLY FAMILIAR WITH.
UM, WE TRIED TO CONSIDER A REZONING APPLICATION ABOUT, HMM, TWO, THREE YEARS AGO.
AND THE RESPONSE TO THAT WAS NOT ONLY NO, BUT NO WITH, UH, EMPHASIS.
SO, UH, WE ABANDONED THE IDEA OF TRYING TO, UH, REZONE THIS.
SO I WENT BACK AND TOLD THE PROPERTY OWNER THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO DEVELOP IT AS IS.
UM, I SAW THE LAST ATTEMPT AT THEIR PLAT THAT CAME BEFORE YOU, UH, ABOUT SIX WEEKS AGO.
THEY, UH, HAVE SINCE RESUBMITTED AND CALLED ME AND SAID, WOULD YOU PLEASE GO REPRESENT THIS? SO HERE I AM.
UH, IT LOOKS LIKE THIS IS ABOUT AS CLOSE TO A PATTERN CONFORMITY AS WE CAN GET WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA.
UH, WE DID LOOK AT MONTCLAIR AND IF WE HAD TRIED TO HAVE GONE TO THE EXACT SIZE OF THOSE LOTS, WE'D HAVE HAD A REMNANT LOT OF 35 FEET, WHICH WAS NO GOOD.
SO THIS IS AS CLOSE AS WE CAN GET AND, UH, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'M AVAILABLE.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? COMMISSIONERS.
QUESTIONS FOR OUR SPEAKER? QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SCENE NONE.
COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? YES.
IN THE MATTER OF CASE S 2 23 DASH 95, I MOVE THAT WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND FOLLOW STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE DOCKET.
AND I HAVE A FEW COMMENTS IF I GIVE A SECOND, HAVE A SECOND COMMENTS.
CARPENTER? YES, I DID TURN DOWN THE, THE LAST, UH, FLAT FOR THIS, UM, PARTICULAR PIECE OF PROPERTY AND I LOOKED, I, I, WHEN I SAW THIS ONE COME BACK, I, I WASN'T REAL EAGER TO UNFOLD IT.
I DID GO DOWN TO SUBDIVISION AND PICKED IT UP, BUT, YOU KNOW, I'M EXTRAORDINARILY FAMILIAR WITH THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY BECAUSE IT'S, YOU KNOW, MAYBE A THOUSAND FEET FROM MY HOME.
AND I'VE LIVED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR OVER 30 YEARS AND I HAVE COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THIS IS A VERY REASONABLE APPROACH TO PLANNING.
THERE ARE A COUPLE OF ELABORATION, BUT I DON'T THINK YOU CAN GET ANY CLOSER TO THE PATTERN.
SO I DO APPRECIATE THE RESUBMISSION.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? OKAY, WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER HAMPTON TO CLOSE UP OF A HEARING AND FALSE RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL.
SERVE THE COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE DOCKET.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.
NUMBER 40, ITEM 40 S 2 23 DASH 1 0 0.
THIS REQUEST HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN.
THANK YOU MR. WARD BRYANT, ITEM 41.
ITEM 41 S 2 23 DASH 1 0 2 IS AN APPLICATION TO REPLA, A 0.21 ACRE, WHICH IS EQUIVALENT OF 9,290 SQUARE FEET.
TRACK OF PLANT CONTAINING ALL OF LOTS.
1 24 IN CITY BLOCK FOUR OVER 2 5 41 TO CREATE ONE LOT ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON HODGE STREET SOUTH OF CF HUNTS FREEWAY.
INTERESTED HIGHWAY 1 75 30 NOTICES WERE
[05:15:01]
SENT TO THE PROPERTY OWNER WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE PROPERTY ON FE ON, UH, MARCH 3RD, 2023.WE HAVE RECEIVED ZERO REPLIES IN FAVOR AND ZERO REPLIES IN OPPOSITION TO THIS REQUEST.
A STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITION LISTED IN THE DOCKET OR AS AMENDED AT THE HEARING.
IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? COMMISSIONERS QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SEEING NO QUESTIONS.
COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, ONE MORE FOR YOU, PLEASE.
DON'T YOU HAVE ALL THE PLATS,
IN CASE NUMBER S 2 23 DASH 1 0 2, I MOVED TO APPROVE THIS ITEM SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE DOCKET.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER WHEELER FOR YOUR MOTION.
COMMISSIONER BLA FOR YOUR SECOND.
ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE OF THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. BOARD BARR.
WE'RE GONNA KEEP MOVING RIGHT ALONG TO THE LANDMARK COMMISSION APPEAL.
COMMISSIONERS, THIS IS AN APPEAL OF AN APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE OF DEMOLITION, WHICH WAS DENIED BY THE LANDMARK COMMISSION AT THE RECORD.
ITEM NUMBER 42 CD 2 23 DASH 0 0 3.
AN APPEAL OF THE LANDMARK COMMISSION'S DECISION OF A DENIAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO DEMOLISH PRIMARY RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE USING STANDARD STRUCTURE POSSESSES AN IMMINENT THREAT TO PUBLIC HEALTH OR SAFETY.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION, DENIAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
LANDMARK COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION.
COMMISSIONERS, THIS IS AN APPEAL OF AN APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE OF DEMOLITION, WHICH WAS DENIED BY THE LANDMARK COMMISSION AT ITS HEARING ON JANUARY 9TH, 2023.
THE DECISION OF THE LANDMARK COMMISSION IS REFLECTED IN ITS OFFICIAL MINUTES, WHICH ARE PART OF THE RECORD FOR THIS APPEAL.
THE APPELLANT IS REPRESENTED BY BRANDY SHEARER.
OKAY, MR. SHEARER? SHE'S GOOD.
WHAT'S THE LAST NAME? PARDON? B OH BRISTON.
UH, AND THE LAMORE COMMISSION IS REPRESENTED BY ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHLEEN.
PHONES AT THIS TIME WE WILL, SIR, THE SPEAKERS, IF YOU WOULD PLEASE VOS, IF YOU COULD JUST PLEASE STAND AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND FOLKS, IF YOU COULD.
YEAH, JUST STAND AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND IF YOU INTEND TO TESTIFY, MAN, PLEASE, YES.
UH, DO YOU SWEAR AND AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE COMMISSION? PLEASE ANSWER.
ANY COMMUNICATIONS RECEIVED BY THE CITY PLAIN COMMISSION MEMBERS PENDING THIS APPEAL HAVE BEEN COLLECTED BY THE CITY PLAIN COMMISSION SECRETARY AND MADE AVAILABLE TO THE PARTIES FOR INSPECTION.
IF ANY PLAIN COMMISSIONER HAS RECEIVED ANY COMMUNICATION ON THIS MATTER, PLEASE DISCLOSE IT NOW.
THE CITY PLAIN COMMISSION HAS RECEIVED AND REVIEWED THE RECORD FOR THIS LANDMARK COM.
LANDMARK COMMISSION OF THE LANDMARK COMMISSION.
IN EACH PARTY'S BRIEF ON THE APPEAL, THE CITY PLAIN COMMISSION WILL HEAR NEW TESTIMONY AND CONSIDER NEW EVIDENCE ONLY TO DETERMINE IF THAT TESTIMONY OR EVIDENCE WAS NOT AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING BEFORE THE LANDMARK COMMISSION.
DOES EITHER PARTY HAVE ANY NEW EVIDENCE OR TESTIMONY TO SUBMIT TO THE COMMISSION TODAY? CAN I SPEAK OKAY? YES, MA'AM.
DO YOU HAVE ANY NEW TESTIMONY? I MAY, MAY I SPEAK
UH, THE FIRST THING IS, UH, THE, THE TITLE, THE LANDMARK COMMISSION APPEAL, THE WRITING IT SHOULD HAVE READ, UH, DENIAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO DEMOLISH PRIMARY COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE.
IT'S NOT MR. CHAIR BY IT'S NOT A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY.
COMMISSIONER MR. CHAIR, POINT OF ORDER, THE QUESTION BEFORE US RIGHT NOW IS WHETHER THE APPLICANT OR THE OPPONENT HAS ANY NEW EVIDENCE TO PRESENT? THAT'S CORRECT.
AND I WOULD LIKE TO READ, UH, WE HAD TWO REPORTS DONE FOR, UH, FOR FOUNDATION.
[05:20:01]
ONE THAT I HAD DONE WAS TURNED INTO THE LANDMARK TO, OR EVER ALL THE STEPS.MA'AM, I I JUST, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU, YOU UNDERSTAND WHERE WE ARE IN THE PROCESS AT THIS MOMENT.
WE HAVE TO DETERMINE IF YOU HAVE ANY NEW EVIDENCE THAT THAT WASN'T AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF YOUR HEARING WITH THE LANDMARK.
REALLY A TIME FOR YOUR FULL TESTIMONY.
IT'S JUST DO YOU HAVE ANY NEW INFORMATION THAT WAS NOT AVAILABLE FOR THE HEARING? IT WOULD JUST BE A REPEAT SOMETHING REPEAT, BECAUSE WE GOT THE REPORT FROM THE SECOND, UH, FOUNDATION, UH, REPORT.
AND IT CAME FROM THE, THE PEOPLE THAT DO THE GRANTS.
AND WHEN THEY DENIED IT, DENIED IT BECAUSE WE WERE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY AND, AND YEAH.
SO, AND LEMME JUST SAY SOMETHING, UH, JUST, HMM, LET ME JUST SAY SOMETHING.
DO YOU WANT TO READ IT? JUST NO, NO.
I'LL SAY SOMETHING JUST MR. SHEER, UM, THAT REPORT WAS PART OF THE, UH, OWNER'S, UH, THING.
SO IT WAS AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF THE LANDMARK.
NEW EVIDENCE IS ACTUALLY IN THE OWNER'S, UH, IN THE BRIEF, RIGHT? MM-HMM.
NOW, I, I HAD JUST, UH, WELL I, LAST TIME I WAS HERE, UH, EVERYBODY ASKED ME ABOUT DID YOU SAY, SIR, THAT YOU DO HAVE SOMETHING NEW THAT WASN'T AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF NO, THIS IS NOT NEW.
WELL, I'M ACTUALLY NOT SURE, SO WE'RE JUST GONNA HAVE TO GO WITH IT.
I MEAN, UNTIL, THAT'S NOT THE WAY IT WORKS THERE,
I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU GUYS WANT TO SEE IT, AND I DON'T KNOW IF IT SHOULD BE, UH, SUBMITTED OR NOT, BUT THIS IS THE, THE CA THAT WAS APPROVED.
WAS THAT PART OF THE RECORD? WAS THAT NO, THAT WAS NOT PART OF THE RECORD BECAUSE THIS WAS A DIFFERENT, UH, UH, CATEGORY.
THE HOUSE IS A ONE-STORY WOOD SIDING STRUCTURE CONVERTED INTO RESIDENCE WITH PARAMETER.
MR. CHAIR PIERCE, PLEASE, PLEASE.
MAY, MAY I READ IT? MR. CHAIR? PAUSE ONE SECOND, MA'AM.
WE'RE STILL TRYING TO ASCERTAIN IF THERE'S ANY EVIDENCE.
WE'RE WE'RE STILL TRYING TO DETERMINE IF THIS IS NEW EVIDENCE OR I THOUGHT IT WAS SUBMITTED WITH A BRIEF NO, THIS IS JUST A TECHNICAL POINT HERE.
THEY'RE ASKING IF THERE'S ANY NEW EVIDENCE.
OH, IS THERE ANY NEW EVIDENCE THEN? I'M SORRY.
WHAT, YOU HAVE A POINT OF ORDER, COMMISSIONER TREADWAY THE REPORT THAT YOU'RE REFERENCING, THAT YOU'RE HOLDING IN YOUR HAND.
I UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S PART OF WHAT YOU FILED WITH US WHEN YOU WENT IN FRONT OF THE LANDMARK COMMISSION, DID YOU HAVE THAT REPORT AT THE TIME OF THAT HEARING? NO.
THAT'S WHAT YOU SAID BEFORE, RIGHT? MR. SHEER THAT WHAT YOU HAVE IN YOUR HAND WAS NOT PRESENTED AT THE LANDMARK, OR, OR WAS IT? NO, IT WAS PRESENTED IN SEPARATELY AND UNFORTUNATELY THEY HAD SEPARATED THE, UH, CA FROM THE CD.
SO THEN WE WERE ONLY HERE TO SEE THE, TO TALK ABOUT THE CD, BUT UNFORTUNATELY EVERYONE ASKED WHAT THE CA WAS.
AND SO WE DID NOT HAVE THAT EVIDENCE AT THE TIME.
BUT NOW I KNOW THAT WE HAVE THIS EVIDENCE.
SO I BROUGHT IT IN AND I DON'T KNOW IF YOU GUYS WANT TO SEE IT OR NOT SEE IT.
AND I HOPE THERE'S NO MORE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE CA BECAUSE THAT WAS APPROVED IN JUNE OF 22.
UH, YOU, YOU JUST SAID SOMETHING VERY INTERESTING AND I THINK COMMISSIONER YOUNG IS ABOUT TO ASK ABOUT THAT, PLEASE.
WHAT WAS THE DATE OF THAT? CA? THE CA IS DATED, UH, JUNE 6TH OF WHAT? YEAR? 22.
SO THAT WAS BEFORE YOUR CURRENT LANDMARK COMMISSION HEARING? IT WAS BEFORE THE CD MEETING.
AND IT WAS SEPARATE FROM THE CD MEETING, BUT UNFORTUNATELY THEY SHOULD HAVE KEPT IT AND THEY SHOULD HAVE BUNDLED IT TOGETHER AND WELL, UNFORTUNATELY, THE PROCESS OR THE, UH, WHAT YOU WOULD CALL THE, UM, UM, THE, IT WASN'T FOLLOWED.
SO IN OTHER WORDS, THEY, THEY BROKE POT PROTOCOL IN KEEPING THOSE TOGETHER.
WAS THERE ANY REASON YOU COULD NOT HAVE SUBMITTED IT AT THE CD HEARING, UH, OR PRIOR TO THE CD HEARING? WELL, NO, BECAUSE THE CD MEETING WAS JUST A, UH, ABOUT THE CD THAT WAS ALL.
SO, SO IT WAS ALREADY APPROVED.
SO WHY EVEN BRING IT UP? WELL, THE QUESTION IS, COULD YOU HAVE HAVE INTRODUCED IT INTO EVIDENCE AT THE CD HEARING? I'M ASSUMING WE COULD HAVE, BUT WE DIDN'T KEEP IT AS PART OF THE PACKAGE BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT, UH, MR. MILLER THE, UH, THANK YOU DIRECTOR HAD DONE MR. CHAIR.
I JUST DIDN'T WANNA COME IN HERE ANOTHER TIME AND HAVE EVERYBODY ASK ME WHAT THE CA LOOKS LIKE, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE WERE REPLACING FOR THE PROJECT, MR. CHAIR.
I MOVED THAT WE DECLINED TO CONSIDER AGREE THE CA ON THE GROUND, THAT
[05:25:01]
IT WAS INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO THE APPLICANT AT THE TIME OF THE LANDMARK COMMISSION HEARING.THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER YOUNG.
UH, SO WE WILL KEEP MOVING TO, BUT THE STANDARD WAS NOT FOLLOWED.
WAS THE STANDARD FOLLOWED? PLEASE STAND BY, SIR.
WE'RE WE'RE GONNA COME RIGHT TO YOU, MS. WANZ.
MY, SO MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE NEW EVIDENCE IS THAT THERE WAS, THEY HAD APPLIED FOR A GRANT TO FIX THE FOUNDATION AND AFTER THIS WAS CONSIDERED BY LANDMARK, THAT GRANT WAS DENIED.
AFTER IT HAD BEEN CONSIDERED BY LANDMARK, THAT GRANT WAS DENIED ALSO AS PART OF THAT APPLICATION AFTER LANDMARK CONSIDERED, THERE WAS A SECOND, THE APPLICATION SENT AN ENGINEER OUT AND THEY DID A SECOND, UH, CONSIDERATION OF THE STATE OF THE FOUNDATION.
AND SO NONE OF THAT WAS CONSIDERED BY LANDMARK.
UM, AND, UH, SO THAT IS, THAT IS THE ARGUMENT AS TO WHAT THE NEW EVIDENCE IS.
THE STANDARD HERE, UM, DOES CONSIDER WHETHER THERE ARE, IS THERE ANY OTHER REASONABLE WAY OTHER THAN DEMOLITION TO REMOVE OR ELIMINATE THE THREAT.
AND SO THAT WOULD BE THE ARGUMENT THAT THIS NEW EVIDENCE IS RELEVANT, WHETHER THEY WERE ABLE TO GET THE GRANT TO FIX THE FOUNDATION, WHETHER THEY WERE ABLE TO, WHETHER THEY HAVE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE THAT THE FOUNDATION HAS DAMAGED BEYOND REPAIR.
TELL THEM WHY IT WAS DENIED POINT OF ORDER.
IT WAS DENIED BECAUSE IT WAS COMMERCIAL.
UH, CAN WE HAVE THE, THE PARTIES BEFORE US DIRECT THEIR COMMENTS TO US AND NOT TO EACH OTHER? I'M SORRY.
WHAT IS THE DATE OF THE SECOND FOUNDATION REPORT? UM, THEY WOULD HAVE THAT, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT IT IS WAS JUST AFTER THE LANDMARK HEARING IN JANUARY OF 2023.
SO TO CONFIRM, THE SECOND FOUNDATION REPORT YOU DID NOT HAVE AT THE TIME OF THE LANDMARK COMMISSION HEARING? THAT IS CORRECT.
BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT, UH, MR. SHEER WAS SUBMITTING.
THAT IS, UH, THAT IS WHAT WAS IN THE BRIEF.
AND WHAT I HAD UNDERSTOOD COMING IN WAS GOING TO BE SUBMITTED.
UM, AND, UH, THE OTHER INFORMATION, I'M, I DO THE CA AND ALL THAT I AGREE WAS WELL BEFORE THE LANDMARK HEARING.
IT WAS ACTUALLY RELEVANT TO A PREVIOUS, THEY HAD TRIED TO DEMOLISH UNDER A PREVIOUS STANDARD, WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN APPEALED TO CPC.
AND THE CA WAS RELEVANT TO THAT AND NOT TO THIS STANDARD.
UM, AND I APOLOGIZE, IT WAS ACTUALLY, IT WAS FEBRUARY, 2023 IS WHEN, WHEN THE REPORT WAS RECEIVED.
COMMISSIONER, YES, MR. CHAIR, MAY I INQUIRE OF MR. SCHERER ABOUT THE NEW FOUNDATION REPORT? PLEASE DO YOU, MR. SCHER, IS THERE ANY REASON YOUR CLIENT COULD NOT HAVE COMMISSIONED THE SECOND FOUNDATION REPORT IN TIME TO PRESENT IT AT THE CD HEARING? SHE ALREADY HAD THE FIRST CD REPORT, WHICH WAS DONE AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS PROCESS.
WELL, WHY DID YOU DO THE, THE SECOND REPORT THAT'S PART OF THE, UH, GRANT PROPOSAL? UH, WELL, THEY DO IT BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO DETERMINE HOW MUCH MONEY TO ALLOCATE FOR THE GRANT.
SO FOR EXAMPLE, IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS THAT WOULD'VE BEEN GIVEN TO ANNE-MARIE TO BASICALLY GO TOWARDS FIXING SOMETHING OF THIS PROPERTY.
AND, UH, WAS CONSIDERED THAT MOST OF IT WOULD PROBABLY GO INTO THE FOUNDATION, CONSIDERING IT'S PROBABLY NOT FIXABLE.
AND WHEN YOU SAY THEY COMMISSIONED IT, WHO IS THEY? WELL, THEY, UH, GRANT PEOPLE COMMISSIONED IT.
SO THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THEY DO.
UH, COMMISSIONED A, UH, AN ENGINEER REPORT AND A CODE OFFICIAL CAME BY ALSO TO THE HOME, TO THE, THE, THE, THE BUILDING TO SEE IT.
BUT, BUT SO THIS, THIS WAS PREPARED BY AN ENGINEER AT SOMEONE ELSE'S REQUEST OTHER THAN YOUR CLIENT? WELL, THE PEOPLE WHO DOING THE GRANT PROPOSAL.
AND SO WE ASKED FOR THE REPORT AFTER IT WAS DONE AND THEY GAVE IT TO US.
BUT YOU HAD NO CONTROL OVER THE TIMING OF THE REPORT?
[05:30:01]
ABSOLUTELY NOT.BUT THIS IS THE REPORT HERE, AND IT WAS DONE, UH, JANUARY 19TH, 2023.
THE FIRST ENGINEER REPORT WAS DONE IN OCTOBER 1ST, 2021.
COMMISSIONERS, WE ARE, UM, BUT LIKE I SAID, THIS REPORT IS PART OF OUR BRIEF, INCLUDING WITH THE OTHER REPORT YES.
SO, SO MR. SH, JUST SO YOU, WE, WE, THE FIRST PART OF THIS HEARING HERE WITH YOU IS JUST TO DETERMINE IF THIS IS NEW EVIDENCE THAT, UH, WAS NOT AVAILABLE.
AND SO WE, WE HAVE TO JUST JUMP THROUGH THAT HOOP FIRST AND THEN WE GET TO THE ACTUAL HEARING AND HEARING FROM YOU AND YOUR CLIENT.
UH, SO I'M LOOKING FOR SOME, SOME GUIDANCE HERE FROM THE BODY, UH, BECAUSE I GUESS MY CONCERN IS THAT IF YOU COMMISSIONED THIS REPORT AFTER YOUR LANDMARK CASE OR YOU RECEIVED IT AFTERWARDS, I'M NOT SURE THAT THAT WAS NOT, IT WAS NOT AVAILABLE BECAUSE IT JUST ARRIVED LATER OR MAYBE YOU COMMISSIONED IT AFTER THE DAY.
WAS THAT NOT THE CASE? DID WENT, WE DIDN'T COMMISSION ANYTHING.
THE, SO THE REPORT JUST CAME IN ON ITS OWN.
HOW, HOW WAS IT INITIATED, SIR? THROUGH THE GRANT PROPOSAL, THE GRANT PEOPLE COME AROUND TO LOOK AT ALL DIFFERENT PROPERTIES THAT HAVE APPLIED FOR GRANT MONEY, AND THEN THEY LOOK AT ALL THE PROPERTIES AND THEY COME UP WITH REPORTS FOR H PROPERTY AND ALLOCATE A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF FUNDING FOR THAT PROJECT.
SO IT WAS MENTIONED AT THE LANDMARK MEETING.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE NOTES, IT WAS TALKED ABOUT.
IN FACT, MR. SWAN SAID AS WE WERE LEAVING, UM, I HOPE YOU GET THAT GRANT MONEY.
IT'S ALL BASED ON THE FACT THAT THEIR OPINION AT THE LANDMARK WAS BASED ON THE GRANT MONEY EITHER BEING GIVEN OR NOT BEING GIVEN.
BUT, SO I THINK IT'S ACTUALLY IMPORTANT BECAUSE I THINK THAT IT CONCLUDES THE FACT THAT THE, THE CONDITION OF THE PROPERTY WITHOUT US SAYING THAT IT'S NOT REPAIRABLE.
MR. SHEER, I'M, I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED.
YES, MR. YOU SAID THE REPORT WAS REFERENCED AT THE LANDMARK COMMISSION HEARING? IT WAS REFERENCED, YES.
SO THE REPORT EXISTED BEFORE THE LANDMARK COMMISSION HEARING, RIGHT? NO, NOT THE RESULTS GRANT.
COMMISSIONER TREADWAY, PLEASE.
SO AT THE TIME OF THE LANDMARK COMMISSION HEARING, THE GRANT APPLICATION WAS PENDING, IS THAT CORRECT? YES, IT WAS PENDING.
AND YOU'VE GOTTEN THE DECISION FROM THAT GRANT COMMISSION SINCE THE HEARING YOU NOW, DO YOU HAVE A DECISION NOW IN HAND A DECISION ABOUT GETTING THE GRANT MONEY, CORRECT? YES, OF COURSE.
AND THAT DECISION WAS, IT WAS DENIED.
SO THAT IS ALSO INFORMATION THAT WAS NOT AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF THE LANDMARK HEARING COMMISSION.
THAT IS TRUE BECAUSE I, I READ THE TRANSCRIPT AS WELL AND THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT HOPEFULLY YOU WILL GET THIS GRANT AND THEN YOU WOULDN'T NEED TO DEMOLISH THE BUILDING.
SO THERE'S A NEW FACT POST-HEARING THAT THEY, NO, THEY NEVER USED THE WORD DEMOLISH.
UM, ANYWAY, POST THE HEARING, YOU NOW KNOW THE DECISION FROM THE GRANT COMMISSION, UH, IN DECEMBER.
THEY WERE ACTUALLY HAVING US IN A HOLDING PATTERN.
AND WHEN DID YOU RECEIVE THE DECISION FROM THE GRANT COMMISSION? UH, UM,
SO I WOULD SAY IN AND AROUND THE BEGINNING OF JANUARY THAT THEY TOLD US THAT WE DID NOT GET THE GRANT MONEY.
MR. CHAIR, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION, SIR? I'M GONNA MOVE TO MAKE A FINDING THAT THE REPORT REFERENCED, UM, SATISFIES THE STANDARD TO ALLOW US TO CONSIDER IT.
CAN I GET A SECOND? THANK YOU COMMISSIONER TREADWAY DISCUSSION COMMISSIONERS THAT IN FACT, UH, WE HAVE A MOTION IN A SECOND THAT IT DOES MEET THE, THE HURDLE OF NEW EVIDENCE THAT WAS NOT AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF THE LANDMARK COMMISSION HEARING DISCUSSION.
ANY DISCUSSION? DO I HAVE COMMISSION TREADAWAY OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT? I'M SORRY.
DO I HAND THIS IN OR SOMETHING? YOU WILL HERE IN A MINUTE.
COMMISSIONER TREADWAY, YOU HAVE A, EXCUSE ME.
UH, MR. MR. SHEER, I THINK IT'S ALREADY IN OUR PACKET AS IT IS AN APPENDIX TO YOUR BRIEF.
YEAH, SAY THE DISCUSSION IS NOT, THE DISCUSSION IS
[05:35:01]
AFTER WE TO DISCUSS NO, WE'RE, WE'RE NOW DEBATING WHETHER WE, WHETHER THIS BODY IS DECIDING THAT THIS IS IN FACT EVIDENCE THAT WAS NOT AVAILABLE AT THE LANDMARK COMMISSION HEARING.AND THAT'S, SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE, WE'RE DEBATING HERE.
WE, WE HAVE A MOTION IN A SECOND.
ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE THE PARTIES WISH TO PROVIDE TODAY SHALL BE AVAILABLE TO THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION'S SECRETARY, IF ANY, A MOTION, IF A MOTION TO REMAIN MR. CHAIR, YOU'RE, YOU'RE RIGHT.
WHILE WE DO THAT, WE HAVE A THIRD PIECE OF PROFFERED NEW EVIDENCE, WHICH IS THE DECISION OF THE GRANTING AGENCY.
AND I MOVE THAT WE FIND THAT THAT MEETS THE STANDARD FOR NEW EVIDENCE.
THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER YOUNG AND THANK YOU COMMISSIONER BLAIR FOR YOUR SECOND.
ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT ITEM? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
MR. CHAIR, I MOVE THAT WE REMAND THIS MATTER TO THE LANDMARK COMMISSION FOR RECONSIDERATION IN LIGHT OF THE NEW EVIDENCE.
THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER YOUNG FOR YOUR MOTION TO REMAND THE ITEM BACK TO THE LANDMARK COMMISSIONER, DO WE HAVE A SECOND? THANK YOU COMMISSIONER TREADWAY FOR YOUR SECOND DISCUSSION.
I'M SORRY, CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO THE OWNER WHAT'S JUST HAPPENED? YOU'RE HEADING BACK TO THE LANDMARK COMMISSION, SIR.
THIS, THIS BODY DETERMINED THAT IN FACT THAT IS NEW EVIDENCE.
WE CAN'T CONSIDER THE NEW EVIDENCE.
THAT'S A, THAT'S A MATTER FOR THE LANDMARK.
THE LANDMARK COMMISSION TO, TO TAKE.
SO YOU AND YOUR CLIENT WILL NOW HEAD BACK TO THE LANDMARK COMMISSION AND YOU WILL PRESENT THIS NEW EVIDENCE TO THEM.
WE DON'T HAVE THE CAPACITY TO, TO DECIDE THE MATTER.
I GOTTA GO BACK TO THE LANDMARK.
I UNDERSTAND, BUT IT WILL BE ANNIVERSARY TWO YEARS THEN.
WELL, YOU'RE THE ONES THAT WANTED THE NEW EVIDENCE CONSIDERED.
ONLY THE LANDMARK COMMISSION CAN CONSIDER IT.
AND SO IT GOES BACK UNDER WHAT STANDARD THEN TWO LAWYER PHONES, PLEASE.
AH, TELL US WHAT THE NEW STANDARD IS.
TWO, HE'S ASKING YOU A QUESTION.
CAN YOU REPEAT YOUR QUESTION PLEASE? WHAT'S THE NEW STANDARD THAT WE'RE GOING TO? THE LANDMARK ON THE STANDARD IS YOU GO BACK TO LANDMARK WITH THE STANDARD THAT IS, UH, THE, THE DEMOLITION NEGLECT STANDARD.
IT'S NOT, THERE IS NOT A SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE STANDARD LIKE THERE IS BEFORE THIS BODY.
IT IS THE STANDARD THAT WAS CONSIDERED, UH, DURING THE JANUARY 9TH MEETING BEFORE LANDMARK.
NOW THIS PROJECT ITSELF, AS YOU KNOW, HAS BEEN MISALIGNED.
I MEAN, RIGHT NOW THIS IS LIKE MR. SHEER, MY APOLOGIES SIR.
THIS, THIS MATTER HAS BEEN DISPOSED OF.
YOU KNOW, MY RECOMMENDATION IS TO MAYBE GET ON, GET ON A SIDEBAR THERE, MAYBE WITH SOMEONE WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE THAT CAN ADVISE YOU.
BUT THIS IS AS FAR AS THIS BODY GOES WITH THIS ITEM TONIGHT.
COMMISSIONERS WILL MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER 43.
ITEM NUMBER 43, UH, 23 DASH 8 85.
UM, AUTHORIZATION OF A HEARING.
SO ITEM NUMBER ONE UNDER THIS, UM, IS SUSPENSION OF CPC, RULES OF PROCEDURE SECTION C FOUR C TWO TO ALLOW RECONSIDERATION OF AUTHORIZATION OF A HEARING, CONSIDERATION OF AUTHORIZING A PUBLIC HEARING TO DETERMINE PROPER ZONING ON PROPERTY.
A SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT, OH, I'M SORRY.
IT'S AN R 7.5 SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT WITHIN PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 1 93, THE OAK LAWN SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICT, GENERALLY EAST OF TURTLE CREEK GREEN BELT, SOUTH OF UM, AVONDALE AVENUE, SOUTH OF FITZ HUE AVENUE, WEST OF KATY TRAIL IN NORTH OF BLACKBURN STREET.
AND BEING APPROXIMATELY 23.31 ACRES WITH CONSIDERATION BEING GIVEN TO APPROPRIATE ZONING FOR THE AREA TO INCLUDE, BUT NOT LIMITED TO USE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND OTHER APPROPRIATE REGULATIONS.
AND THIS ITEM IS UNDER ADVISEMENT FROM FEBRUARY 16TH, 2023.
[05:40:01]
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.UH, QUESTIONS COMMISSIONERS? OKAY.
COMMISSIONER KINGSTON, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? UH, YEAH, I MOVED THAT WE SUSPEND THE CPC RULES.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER KINGSTON FOR YOUR MOTION.
CAN I GET A SECOND? THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HERBERT FOR YOUR SECOND.
ANY DISCUSSION SECOND HERBERT? SECOND IT.
NUMBER TWO, RECONSIDERATION OF ACTION TAKEN ON SEPTEMBER 6TH, 2018, WHICH WAS TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF AUTHORIZING A PUBLIC HEARING TO DETERMINE PROPER ZONING ON PROPERTY ZONED IN R 7.5.
SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT WITHIN PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 1 93, THE OAK OAKLAND SPECIAL DISTRICT, GENERALLY EAST OF TURTLE CREEK GREEN BELT, SOUTH OF AVONDALE AVENUE, SOUTH OF FITZ HUE AVENUE, WEST OF KATY TRAIL IN NORTH OF BLACKBURN STREET.
AND BEING APPROXIMATELY 23.31 ACRES WITH THE AREA MENDED TO INCLUDE THE AREA BOUND BY TURTLE CREEK GREEN BELT TO THE WEST AVON, AVONDALE AVENUE AND NORTH FITSU AVENUE TO THE NORTH KATY TRAIL TO THE EAST.
AND INCLUDING THE SOUTHERNMOST LOT ON STONE BRIDGE DRIVE ON THE SOUTH WITH CONSIDERATION BEING GIVEN TO APPROPRIATE ZONING FOR THE AREA TO INCLUDE, BUT NOT LIMITED TO USE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND OTHER APPROPRIATE REGULATIONS.
THIS IS A HEARING TO CONSIDER THE REQUEST TO AUTHORIZE THE HEARING AND NOT THE REZONING OF PROPERTY AT THIS TIME.
THIS ITEM IS ALSO UNDER ADVISEMENT FROM FEBRUARY 16TH, 2023.
COMMISSIONER KINGSTON, DO YOU HAVE A SECOND MOTION? MOVE THE WAY YOU RECONSIDER.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER KINGSTON FOR YOUR MOTION.
ANY COMMENTS? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
UH, COMMISSIONER BLAIR SECOND NUMBER THREE, PLEASE.
NUMBER THREE IS CONSIDERATION OF AUTHORIZING A PUBLIC HEARING TO DETERMINE PROPER ZONING ON PROPERTY ZONED AND R 7.5 SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT WITHIN PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 1 93, THE OAK JUAN SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICT, GENERALLY EAST OF TURTLE CREEK GREEN BELT, SOUTH OF AVONDALE AVENUE, SOUTH OF FITZ HU AVENUE, WEST OF KATY TRAIL IN NORTH OF BLACKBURN STREET.
AND BEING APPROXIMATELY 23.31 ACRES WITH CONSIDERATION BEING GIVEN TO APPROPRIATE ZONING FOR THE AREA TO INCLUDE, BUT NOT LIMITED TO DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND OTHER APPROPRIATE REGULATIONS.
THIS IS A HEARING TO CONSIDER THE REQUEST, AUTHORIZE THE HEARING AND NOT THE REZONING OF THE PROPERTY AT THIS TIME.
ANY QUESTIONS ON ITEM NUMBER THREE? COMMISSIONERS SEEING NON-COM.
COMMISSIONER KINGSTON, DO YOU HAVE A THIRD MOTION I MOVE THAT WE CONSIDER? THANK YOU COMMISSIONER KINGSTON FOR YOUR MOTION.
AND I WILL SECOND THAT ITEM MYSELF.
ANY DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.
UH, COMMISSIONERS TO AUTHORIZE THE HEARING? THAT'S CORRECT.
JUST ONE ITEM, UH, ON UH, CONSIDERATION OF APPOINTMENTS.
UH, COMMISSIONER TREADWAY, WE'RE GONNA GO BACK TO THE MINUTES AT THE VERY END.
COMMISSIONER TREADWAY, UH, HAS GRACIOUSLY ACCEPTED TO BE THE VICE CHAIR OF SUBDIVISION REVIEW COMMITTEE.
COMMISSIONER WHEELER WILL SERVE ON THE ARTS DISTRICT SENATE ADVISOR COMMITTEE.
COMMISSIONER HERBERT WILL BE ON THE THOROUGHFARE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE AND TREAD COMMISSIONER TREADWAY ON THE RULES COMMITTEE.
UM, WE HAVE THE MINUTES OUTSTANDING.
CAN I GET A MOTION, MR. CHAIR? YES, SIR.
I MOVE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE MARCH 2ND, 2023 MEETING AS REVISED.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COMMISSIONER YOUNG FOR YOUR MOTION.
UM, MS. PASINA, IT APPEARED THERE MAY HAVE BEEN A TYPO IN THE LAST, UM, SENTENCE.
WAS THAT CORRECTED? THANK YOU, MA'AM.
SO, UH, WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER YOUNG SECOND, MY COMMISSIONER HAMPTON FOR THE MINUTES, REVISED MINUTES.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.
WE HAVE A CAN WE WAIT FOR A SECOND PLEASE? DON'T CLOSE THE MEETING FOR A SECOND.
WE'RE GONNA CLARIFY ONE QUICK MOTION BEFORE WE ADJOURN.
[05:45:20]
DID YOU CATCH THAT? COMMISSIONER KINGSTON? I I AND THEN IT'S INTERESTING BECAUSE I READ IT QUICKLY AND I I HAVE ONE OF THESE POTENTIALLY IN DISTRICT FIVE, AND I READ THAT LAST SENTENCE AND I THOUGHT IT SOUNDED A LITTLE STRANGE, BUT I'M WE'RE JUST, I'M, I'M MOVING TOO FAST BECAUSE I THINK THE INTENT HERE IS TO, TO DE AUTHORIZE IT.BUT I ASKED THAT QUESTION THE LAST TIME AND THAT'S HOW I WAS EXPLAINED.
IT'S NOT HOW READS IN THE KING ENGLISH, BUT THIS IS A HEARING TO CONSIDER THE REQUEST.
YEAH, TO DE AUTHORIZE, TO DE AUTHORIZE THE, OKAY, SO WHAT, WHAT DO WE CLEAN THAT UP? DO WE NEED TO RECONSIDER NUMBER THREE OR JUST CLEAN IT UP WITH A, UH, RECONSIDER NUMBER THREE.
MOVE TO RECONSIDER NUMBER THREE.
LET'S NOT GO SO FAST CAUSE OKAY,
AND THAT HAS BEEN DONE BY COMMISSIONER YOUNG.
HAS MADE A MOTION TO RECONSIDER NUMBER THREE ON ITEM NUMBER 43 AND WAS SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER RUBEN.
ANY DISCUSSION ON THE RECONSIDERATION OF NUMBER 43? ITEM THREE? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.
CAN I GET ANOTHER MOTION? COMMISSIONER KINGSTON, UH, WITH THE CORRECTED LANGUAGE TO DE AUTHORIZE THE HEARING AND NOT THE REZONING OF THE PROPERTY AT THIS TIME.
TO BE CLEAR, WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO IS DE AUTHORIZE THE REQUEST FOR AN AUTHORIZED HEARING, CORRECT? YES.
IT'S A HEARING TO RECONSIDER THE REQUEST TO DE AUTHORIZE THE HEARING AND NOT THE REZONING OF THE PROPERTY THIS TIME.
SO IT'S GONNA BE A HEARING TO DE AUTHORIZE, IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT.
IT'S, IT'S A MOTION TO DE AUTHORIZE THE PRIOR AUTHORIZATION OF AN AUTHOR OF A HEARING TO REZONE THE PROPERTY.
DE AUTHORIZE PRIOR AUTHORIZATION.
WAIT, DID, DID SHE MAKE THE MOTION? SHE MADE THE, DID YOU MAKE THE MOTION? COMMISSIONER KINGSTON? I DID.
ANY DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER BLAIR FOR YOUR MOTION.
COMMISSIONER ROOM FOR YOUR SECOND WHO? SECOND RUBEN.
THE MINUTES WERE PASSED BY COMMISSIONER YOUNG.
SECOND BY COMMISSIONER HAMPTON.
IT IS 7:27 PM OUR MEETING IS ADJOURNED.
COMMISSIONER TREADWAY BEFORE SEVEN 30.