[BRIEFINGS]
[00:00:04]
MS, CAN YOU PLEASE START US OFF WITH THE ROYAL CALL? GOOD MORNING COMMISSIONERS.
DISTRICT ONE, DISTRICT TWO, DISTRICT THREE, ABSENT.
DISTRICT FIVE USED FOR SIX HERE.
DISTRICT NINE IS DISTRICT 10 HERE.
DISTRICT 12, DISTRICT 13 PREA.
DISTRICT 14 AND PLACE 15 HERE IS SOMEPLACE MUCH COOLER.
UH, GOOD MORNING COMMISSION TODAY, THURSDAY, AUGUST 3RD, 9:05 AM WELCOME TO COMMISSION BRIEFING.
UH, COMMISSIONERS BEFORE WE GET STARTED, UH, SINCE VICE CHAIR RUBIN IS NOT IN THE ROOM, WE HAVE TO HAVE A VICE CHAIR.
GRACIOUSLY ACCEPTED THE SERVICE VICE CHAIR TODAY.
COMMISSIONER, YOUNG COMMISSIONER PLEASE SAY AYE.
AND WE'RE GONNA JUMP RIGHT INTO THE DOCKET AND GOOD MORNING.
ALL RIGHT, THIS IS CASE M 2 23 0.
IT'S A REQUEST FOR A MINOR AMENDMENT TO THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
IT'S LOCATED IN PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 10 88.
UM, THE AREA REQUEST IS 13.71 ACRES AND IT'S IN COUNCIL DISTRICT SEVEN.
UM, THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED WEST SIDE OF BUCK BUCKNER BOULEVARD, NORTH OF JOHN WEST ROAD.
AND SO THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING THE FOLLOWING THINGS TO BE AMENDED ON THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, LOCATION OF BUILDING AND DUSTERS OUT OF THE 15 FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK.
UM, TO SHOW THE SIX FOOT SIDEWALK WITH A FIVE FOOT BUFFER ALONG BUCKNER, THEY'RE GONNA ADD A PUMP HOUSE.
THEY'RE INCREASING THE FIRE LENGTH IN A FEW AREAS TO 26 FEET TO BE CODE.
UH, THEY'RE GONNA DIVIDE ONE OF THE BUILDINGS INTO TWO.
AND THEN THEY'RE SHOWING THE REQUIRED SIX FOOT WALKING TRAIL CORRECTLY.
I BELIEVE WHEN THEY WENT TO PERMIT, THEY ONLY HAD 24 AND THEY NEEDED 26, 2600, UH, LINEAR FEET.
AND THEN THEY'RE GONNA RECONFIGURE SOME OF THE PARKING, UH, BAYS AND ALSO THE PARKING GARAGES.
HERE IS AN AREA OF VIEW AND SURROUNDING ZONING DISTRICTS.
UH, NORTH WE HAVE A MF TWO ALONG THE WEST BOUNDARY.
WE HAVE A R SEVEN FIVE AND THEN SOUTH WE HAVE A TH THREE, A MF TWO.
AND THEN OVER TO THE ESOF, WE HAVE A L O THREE.
HERE IS THEIR EXISTING, UH, DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
HERE'S THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT PLAN EN LARGE.
HERE'S SOME AREAS OF REQUESTS THAT I HAVE CIRCLED HERE.
WE'LL GO OVER ON THE PROPOSED.
UH, THIS IS THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND HERE'S THE ENLARGE.
UH, YOU SEE THIS FIRST BUILDING HERE, THEY ACTUALLY HAD A L SHAPE THAT WAS CONNECTED.
THEY'RE GONNA DIVIDE INTO TWO BUILDINGS.
THIS PARKING BAY WAS ALONG THE NORTH BOUNDARY.
THEY'RE MOVING IT WITH ACTUALLY A PARKING GARAGE, EXCUSE ME, PRIVATE PARKING GARAGE.
UH, THESE BUILDINGS WERE IN THE 15 FOOT SETBACK.
THEY'RE MOVING THEM UP AND THEN THEY'RE GONNA ADD THIS PUMP HOUSE HERE.
AND ALSO THEY HAD A PARKING GARAGE LOCATED HERE, A PRIVATE ONE THAT THEY'RE REMOVING, UM, FOR THIS.
AND THEN ALSO THE WALKING TRAIL IS HATCHED.
SO IT'S SHOWING KIND OF DARK, BUT THEY ARE SHOWING THE, UH, WALKING TRAIL.
INSTEAD OF GOING 2,600 LINEAR FEET, THEY ACTUALLY INCREASED THE LID AND DOING 2,800 STAFF RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL.
AND THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.
QUESTIONS COMMISSIONER, WHAT IS THE PUMP HOUSE FOR? IS THAT CONNECTION WITH POOL OR IS THAT FIRE PROTECTION OR?
[00:05:01]
I'LL ASK THE APPLICANT.WHERE DID YOU SAY OKAY, WHEN THEY TOOK AWAY THE LHA BUILDING AND MADE IT TO YES MA'AM.
WHAT HAPPENED TO THE, I DIDN'T QUITE UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING THAT THEY'RE DOING NOW.
SO, UM, THE INDIVIDUAL PARKING, LEMME SHARE WHAT'S NAME THE INDIVIDUAL PARKING GARAGES.
UM, SO THE INDIVIDUAL PARKING GARAGES, SO THE INDIVIDUAL PARKING GARAGES, THEY HAD IT HERE ON THE NORTH BOUNDARY.
AND SO THEY'RE JUST ALIGNING IT HERE WITH THIS ONE THAT THEY ALREADY HAD EXISTS IN THE SIT BACK AND BACK.
SO THESE WOULD BE PARKING GARAGES FOR SO RENT.
SO LIKE SAY IF YOU HAVE APARTMENT MEANING, AND YOU WANT, UH, INSTEAD OF PARKING SPACE, YOU CAN ACTUALLY HAVE A INDIVIDUAL PARKING, PRIVATE PARKING GARAGE.
SO IT'S ENCLOSED STRUCTURE AND THEN THEY'VE DONE THE SAME THING DOWN HERE? YES, MA'AM.
UM, THEY JUST RE REMOVED THIS ONE RIGHT HERE.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMM? THANK YOU.
I APOLOGIZE ON THE LAST QUESTION.
IS THAT LOCATED OUT OF THE SETBACK? MY APOLOGIES.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? MR. UH, GOOD MORNING COMMISSIONER.
FIRST CASE I HAVE FOR YOU TODAY IS C3 NINE.
THE REQUEST IS AN AMENDMENT TO SPECIFIC USE PERMIT NUMBER 23 FOR THE SALE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE GENERAL MERCHANDISE FOOD STORE.
THREE FIVE SQUARE ON PROPERTIES ON 50 DISTRICT, DISTRICT NUMBER 5 35, THE CF ON SPECIAL CIRCUIT DISTRICT ACT THREE WITH A V1 UNDER CONTROL OVER WAY, UH, LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF CF ON FREEWAY IN SOUTH ST.
LOCATION MAP SHOWING THE PROPERTY IN THE STATE LIMITS AERIAL MAP, UH, WITH THE AREA OF REQUEST OUTLINE IN BLUE, THE ZONING MAP WITH SURROUNDING ZONING DISTRICTS AND LAND USES TO THE NORTH.
UH, ZONE N S A DISTRICT IS UNDEVELOPED LAND.
UH, THERE'S OTHER UNDEVELOPED LAND TO THE NORTHWEST ZONE.
MF TWO A, UH, TO THE EAST IS ANOTHER FUELING STATION WITH THE GENERAL MERCHANDISE USE AND THEN TO THE SOUTH ACROSS THE FREEWAY.
ALSO ANOTHER FUELING STATION, UH, AND A GENERAL MERCHANDISE TO USE SYSTEM AS A RESTAURANT.
THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ON SEVENTH DISTRICT TWO WITHIN PD 5 35 WITH A D ONE OVERLAY.
IT'S CURRENTLY DEVELOPED WITH A MOTOR VEHICLE FUELING STATION WITH A GENERAL MERCHANDISER CREW STORE 3,500 SQUARE FEET OR LESS.
UH, WITH THAT EXISTING S U P FOR ALCOHOL SALES, UH, THIS S U P WAS APPROVED ON AUGUST 12TH, 2020 FOR A TWO YEAR PERIOD.
SO IT EXPIRED ON AUGUST 12TH, 2022.
UM, AND THEY FILED FOR RENEWAL OF THE GUN ON AUGUST 11TH LAST YEAR.
WITH THIS REQUEST, THEY'RE ASKING FOR RENEWAL OF THE EXISTING S U P FOR ANOTHER THREE YEAR PERIOD, UH, TO CONTINUE THE SALE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES ON THE PROPERTY.
OTHER THAN THE TIME LIMIT, THEY DO NOT PROPOSE ANY CHANGES TO THE EXISTING CONDITIONS OR STITE PLAN OF 2390 STITE PHOTOS.
THIS IS ON THE SITE LOOKING NORTHWEST AND WE'RE JUST KIND GOING A CLOCKWISE FASHION.
LOOKING AT THE SITE, SEE USE OF THAT SITE HERE.
AND THEN SURROUNDING USES, UH, THIS IS ON SOUTHEAST ST.
AUGUSTINE DRIVE, UH, LOOKING NORTH EAST AND THEN LOOKING DO EAST AT THE OTHER ING STATION, OTHER SIDE OF THE STREET.
[00:10:01]
YOU CAN SEE SOME OTHER ON ACROSS THE FREEWAY.THIS IS THE EXISTING SITE PLAN CURRENTLY ON FILE FOR THIS F C P.
THERE ARE NO CHANGES PROPOSED TO THIS SITE PLAN AND WITH THAT STATUTE'S RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL FOR A THREE YEAR PERIOD SUBJECT TO REVISED CONDITIONS AND UNAVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS SIR? QUESTIONS COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONER? UH, YES.
SHE'S SAYING YOU'LL REPORT THAT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT HAS DETERMINED THAT THE REQUEST SITE MEETS THE STANDARDS IN CHAPTER 12 B.
DO THEY ACTUALLY HAVE THE 12 B CERTIFICATE? YES.
AND THOSE FOUR CALLS ALL DEALT ONE MAJOR ACCIDENT.
THAT'S GOTTA BE THE MOST IMPRESSIVE RECORD
ARE YOU AWARE, ARE YOU AWARE THAT DOZENS AND DOZENS OF DOING IS THAT I'VE NEVER SEEN CRIME STA ARE GONNA EFFECT THE, THE PATTERN IS THAT 1 75 USUALLY IS THE IS HOT AND THE FURTHER YOU GET AWAY FROM THOSE, USUALLY THE CRIME STAS GO DOWN.
IS THAT RIGHT? EXPERIENCE? VERY NICE ANOMALY.
UH, ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT COMMISSION? OKAY, WE'LL KEEP GOING.
CASE THREE AND FOUR, UH, WILL BOTH AUGUST 17TH, SO THEY'LL CONSENT.
SO THAT TAKES US TO CASE NUMBER FIVE.
BACK TO THE SEVEN MS. SO THIS CASE IS UH, Z 2 23 82.
THIS REQUEST APPLICATION FOR AN MF TO A MULTI-FAMILY SUBDISTRICT ON PROPERTY ZONE, UH, CC, COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL SUBDISTRICT WITH PLANNED DEVELOP DISTRICT NUMBER 5 9 5.
IT'S TEXAS SOUTH, UH, DALLAS BAR SPECIAL PARK DISTRICT.
IT'S LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST LINE OF BOURBON AVENUE BETWEEN J JACKSON DEER BOULEVARD AND ROBERT B COLUM BOULEVARD.
IT'S APPROXIMATELY 0.47 ACRES, AS I MENTIONED.
THIS IS IN THE SOUTH FAIR PARK, UH, AREA.
THIS IS AN AREA OF THE LOCATION OF THE REQUEST AND THEN A ZONING MAP.
UH, SO THERE IS, IT IS WITHIN THE C C A COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT AND THEN SURROUNDING AREAS.
THERE'S SINGLE FAMILY TO THE WEST, UM, UNDEVELOPED FAMILY ALSO TO THE WEST.
AND THERE IS A MULTI-FAMILY ON THE SOUTH OF THE LOCATION AND THEN WRITE ADJACENT TO THE EAST UNDEVELOPED.
AND THEN THERE'S SINGLE FAMILY AND MULTI-FAMILY CAUSE OF DALLAS DISTRICT.
AND THE AREA REQUEST IS CURRENTLY UNDEVELOPED UNDER THE ZONE, UH, CT COMMITTEE, COMMERCIAL SUB DISTRICT WITH THE PD UH, MEMBER 5 9 5.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO DEVELOP A PROPERTY WITH A MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT.
THE PROPOSED IS NOT PERMITTED UNDER THE CC SUBDISTRICT DOES.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING AN M MS TO A MULTI-FAMILY SUBDISTRICT TO ALLOW THE USE BY RIDE.
PREVIOUSLY THERE WAS A STRUCTURE ON SIDE AS A CHURCH, BUT IT WAS DEMOLISHED IN 2017.
AND THESE ARE, UH, SIDE OF THE AREA OF THE WEST.
SO, UH, ON THE SIDE LOOKING TO THE SOUTHEAST TO THE SOUTH, UH, AGAIN TO THE SOUTHEAST, UH, SOUTH SOUTHWEST AND THEN AROUND USE DEMENTIA.
THERE IS MULTIFAMILY ACROSS THE STREET OF J D JACKSON DREAM BOULEVARD AND THEN TO THE SOUTHWEST THERE'S ALSO SINGLE FAMILY AND UNDEVELOPED, UH, AREAS.
AND THEN ALSO SINGLE FAMILY TO THE WEST.
AND THEN, UH, TO THE NORTH THERE IS A PUBLIC, UH, PRIVATE SCHOOL AND THEN TO THE NORTHEAST, AGAIN, THAT'S THE PART OF THE POOL TO THE EAST.
SO RIGHT ADJACENT TO IT, IT IS UNDEVELOPED LINE AND
[00:15:01]
LOT STANDARDS.UH, YOU PUT WITH AN AMF TWO, UH, FRONT 15 OF THE SIDE BEER SUB BOX.
THE HIDE, UM, WOULD BE A MINIMUM OF UH, 30 36 FEET MAXIMUM.
AND THEN THE COVERAGE AS 60% RESIDENTIAL, 50% NON-RESIDENTIAL THERE IS APPROXIMATELY DISCLOSED.
AND THEN, UM, THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, UM, ALTHOUGH THE APPLICANT HAS NOT INDICATED AN INTENT TO PROVIDE AFFORDABLE UNITS AS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND M TO A SUBJECT DISTRICT WOULD BE ENTITLED TO DEVELOP BONUSES IF AFFORDABLE UNITS ARE PROVIDED.
AND THEN, UM, THERE IS, UH, AREA PLANS IN THIS, IN THIS, UH, AREA BESIDES COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL AREA CORRIDOR, WHICH IS PER RESUME MIX OFFICE, REGIONAL COMMERCIAL SERVICE.
THIS IS SERVING BOTH OF YOUR BEVERAGE VIRTUAL AREAS AS WELL AS THE BROADER COMMUNITY WITHIN THE SOUTH DALLAS FAIR PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, ALTHOUGH THE PLAN RECOMMENDS A COMMERCIAL
AND THEN IT'S ALSO WITHIN THE DALLAS TODD MAR, MARTIN LUTHER LUTHER KING JUNIOR STATION AREA.
BESIDES WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF LIFE, THE FAIR PARK IS ITSELF OF THE MLK BAR STATION AS PROPOSED OF LARGE FOOTPRINT RETAIL USE OF SINGLE M MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING.
ALTHOUGH THE PLAN COMMENDS SINGLE FAMILY USE FOR THE SIDE SURROUNDING AREA CURRENTLY CONSISTS OF PRIMARY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.
THE PROPOSED LINE WILL CREATE ADDITIONAL HOUSING OPTIONS WITHIN THE AREA AND IT'S ALSO WITHIN THE 360 PLAN.
THE 360 PLAN EMPHASIZES AMPLE OPPORTUNITY FOR CONTINUED INVESTMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT IN AREAS OF SOUTH DALLAS FAIR PARK THAT HAVE EXPERIENCED AREAS THAT NEGLECT APPROVED RETAILIZATION EFFORTS IN NUMEROUS VACANT PROCESS PROCESSES.
HERE PROPOSED WILL
QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS, PLEASE.
ARE YOU AWARE OF THE APPLICANT INTENDS TO OFFER THE RESTRICTIONS? YES.
SO, UM, AS OF THIS WEEK, THIS UH, I BELIEVE IT WAS TUESDAY, THE APPLICANT DID MENTION, UM, THAT THEY ARE, UH, PROPOSING TO DO THE RESTRICTIONS.
ONE OF THEM MEANING THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF THE INDIVIDUAL UNITS THAT MAY BE CONSTRUCTED ON THE PROPERTY.
ANY, ANY OTHERS BESIDES THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF DRAWING UNITS? THEY ALSO PROPOSED THE AIR CONDITIONING, LIVING SPACE ON UNION CONSTRUCTION PROPERTIES, A MINIMUM OF 1200 SQUARE FEET.
OKAY, I GUESS IS MR. WARREN ROOM, IT'S HARD FOR ME TO SEE WHO'S IN THERE.
YES, I DON'T CARE ABOUT CHAIR RUMAN.
AND CAN YOU SPEAK TO, FROM, FROM LEGAL'S PERSPECTIVE, UM, CLEAN IN WHETHER PROPOSING MINIMUMS FOR
AND OVER TIME IT BECOMES SUCH A LARGE MINIMUM THAT IT BORDERS ON HOUSING DISCRIMINATION BY REQUIRING SUCH A LARGE STRUCTURE.
BUT DOING 1200 HERE IS NOT TRIGGER CONCERN, WHICH IS A TOOL WE MAY NOT BE USED.
YEAH, I DON'T THINK THAT IT CROSSES THAT LINE HERE, BUT IT'S A SLIPPERY SLOPE.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ION? OKAY, WE'LL KEEP GOING.
THIS, THE NEXT CASE IS ZT 2 3 1 90.
HAVE A PAGE FOR A TH THREE, A COUNTLESS SUBDISTRICT WITH A RESTRICTIONS VOLUNTEERED BY THE APPLICANT ON PROPERTY ZONED IN R FIVE.
A SINGLE COMMON SUBDISTRICT WITHIN CLIENT DEVELOPMENT.
DISTRICT NUMBER 5 9 5 IS THE SOUTH
[00:20:01]
DALLAS FAIR SOCIAL PARK DISTRICT.IT'S LOCATED ON THE WEST CORNER OF HANCOCK STREET AND WELLINGTON STREET.
IT'S APPROXIMATELY 2016 METER.
SO THE ZONING MAP, UH, SURROUNDING ZONINGS AND USES AROUND THE, THE AREA BECAUSE OUR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.
AND THEN ON THE SOUTH THERE IS A CHURCH AND THE AREA REQUEST IS CURRENTLY UNDEVELOPED AND IS DOWN, UH, R FIVE SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT WITHIN PD 5 95.
THE CROSS IS A CORNER LOT AND HAS FRONTAGE ON HANCOCK STREET AND WALL STREET.
THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEVELOP A PROPERTY WITH A DUPLICATE DEVELOPMENT TO ACCOMPLISH A T THREE TOWNHOUSE DISTRICT.
THIS DISTRICT WILL ALLOW SINGLE FAMILY CONFLICTS, RESIDENTIAL USES.
THE APPLICANT HAS ALSO VOLUNTEERED, DID RESTRICTIONS THAT WOULD ONE LIMIT THE PROPERTY TO A MAXIMUM OF TWO DWELLING UNITS.
TWO REQUIRE ONE DWELLING UNIT TO FACE HANDCUFF STREET AND ONE BUILDING UNIT TO FACE ONTO THE STREET.
THREE LIMITED MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 30 FEET AND FOUR, A MINIMUM 20 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK ON HANCOCK STREET.
THESE ARE SITE PHOTOS OF THE SITE.
SO ON HANCOCK LOOKING NORTHWEST.
AND THEN SURROUNDING USES TO THE WEST TO THE NORTHWEST, UH, TO THE NORTH, TO THE NORTHEAST AND THE EAST.
AND THEN LOOKING SOUTHEAST AND THEN SOUTH.
AND AS MENTIONED THERE IS THE CHURCH NEARBY THE, ALL THE STANDARDS.
UH, SO DO THEY'RE PROPOSED NAME.
IT'S ACTUALLY NOT D A, IT'S TH THREE.
UM, SO THE ACTUAL THREAD IS ACTUALLY ZERO P AND THEN MENT, UH, THEY ARE PROPOSING, SO, UH, IF A BLOCK IS DIVIDED BY TWO OR MORE ZONING DISTRICT, THE FRONT YARD WHERE THE ENTIRE BLOCK IS GONNA COMPLY WITH THEIR REQUIREMENT DISTRICT WITH THE GREATEST FRONT YARD REQUIREMENT.
THEREFORE, BECAUSE THERE ARE ARE FIVE, UH, LOGS AROUND, SO THEY WILL COMPLY WITH, WITH THE 20 FOOT, UH, FRONT YARD.
THEN APPLICANT, AS I MENTIONED, HAS VOLUNTEERED DUTY RESTRICTIONS THAT WOULD REQUIRE MINIMUM 20 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK ON HANCOCK STREET.
AND THEN THEY HAVE ALSO VOLUNTEERED RESTRICTIONS THAT RESTRICT THE POWER TO MAXIMUM OF TWO GOING UNITS.
AND ALSO THEY HAVE ALSO LIMITED THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT TO 30 FEET.
AND THEN IT'S ALSO WITHIN THE SOUTH DALLAS FAIR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SITES, WITHINS COUNTY RESIDE AREA.
THE CONCEPT PLAN IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THIS SITE.
THEN ALSO, UM, THERE ARE WITHIN THE DALLAS TO HATCH STATION AREA, I'LL BUILD THE PLANNER FOR SINGLE FAMILY USE FOR THE SITE.
THE PROPOSED SIGN IS, WILL CREATE ADDITIONAL HOUSING OPTIONS WITHIN THE AREA AND THEN A STAFF WHO'S RECOMMENDING APPROVAL SUBJECT TO DUE RESTRICTIONS VOLUNTARY BY THE APPLICANT.
DO YOU HAVE QUESTIONS MR. YOUNG? UM, DOES THE TH THREE DISTRICT ALLOW DUPLEX? YES.
IS THAT SOMETHING PARTICULAR TO THE SOUTH DALLAS PD T STREET? I COULDN'T UNDERSTAND A CITYWIDE BASIS.
DID YOUR QUESTION GET ANSWERED? NO, NO.
I HAVE THE SIGN ARE, UH, YES WE ARE.
MR. MOORE, UH, TEACH RIGHT? WELL I I'VE GOT THE ZONING STANDARD SHEET THAT THEY GIVE OUT AT THE INTAKE DESK AND IT SHOWS ONLY SINGLE FAMILY.
OH NO, I HAVE LIKE THE ALREADY DRUG OPEN AND IT SHOWS THE RESIDENTIAL USE, DUPLEX, RETIREMENT, HOUSING, HANDICAPPED DWELLING UNIT AND SINGLE FAMILY IN T H THREE.
WHAT'S THE QUESTION? IF DUPLEX, DUPLEX ALLOWED IN TH THREE? YES, IT'S OKAY.
YOU MIGHT WANNA REVISE YOUR, UH, SHEET THAT YOU GIVE OUT THE FRONT DESK.
UM, I GUESS THAT MOVES THE REMAINDER OF MY QUESTIONS.
[00:25:01]
THIS COULD BE DEVELOPED WITHOUT REQUIRING A RELA, CORRECT? YEAH.SO ANY CONCERNS ABOUT WHETHER THIS WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR RELA UNDER 8 25 0 3 ARE MOVE TO THE PRESENT TIME? I MEAN, WE'RE TALKING MAINLY ABOUT ARTICLE FOUR TODAY.
I'M SORRY, WE'RE MAINLY TALKING ABOUT ARTICLE FOUR TODAY.
WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE SUBDIVISION.
MAYBE THIS IS A QUESTION FOR MR. MOORE.
IN THE PAST WHEN WE HAVE REZONED PROPERTY THAT PRETTY MUCH NECESSITATES A REPLANNING, THE ARGUMENT HAS BEEN MADE AT THE PLAT STAGE THAT THE COUNCIL HAS ALREADY DECIDED WHAT THE ZONING WILL BE AND WE HAVE TO APPROVE A PLAT IN, IN CONFORMITY WITH THE ZONING.
SO IT SEEMS TO ME WE EITHER HAVE TO CONSIDER 8.503 AT THE ZONING STAGE OR AT THE PLANNING STAGE, BUT WE CAN'T SAY IT'S OFF LIMITS AT THE ZONING STAGE AND THEN IT'S TOO LATE AT THE PLANNING STAGE.
I THINK THAT IS CORRECT THAT IF COUNSEL WANTS TO REZONE THIS TO ALLOW FOR SMALLER LOTS AND SOMEONE WANTS TO COME IN AND REPL, THEY'D BE ABLE TO AND THEY MEET THE MINIMUM LAW SIZE AND THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO REPLA.
AND AT THAT POINT, I DON'T THINK THE 8.503 WOULD APPLY BECAUSE COUNSEL UP THROUGH THE POLICY DIRECTIVE THAT DECIDED THAT THE UPCOMING WOULD BE APPROPRIATE.
WELL, HOW DOES THAT DIFFER FROM A SITUATION WHERE 10 YEARS AGO THE COUNCIL ZONED A PARCEL R SEVEN FIVE AND NOW A 15,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT IS BEING PROPOSED TO BE DIVIDED IN TWO AND IT DOESN'T MEET THE PATTERN? I THINK THAT'S MORE SQUARELY IN THE 8.503 BUCKET BECAUSE IT WAS 10 YEARS AGO INSTEAD OF LAST WEEK.
UH, NO, BECAUSE IT WOULD BE THE, I GUESS THE DISTINCTION IN MY MIND WOULD BE THE TOWNHOUSE AND THE, THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT THAT BECAUSE COUNCIL IS MOVING TO, IF, IF THIS WERE TO BE APPROVED, COUNSEL WOULD BE MOVING TO A TOWNHOUSE DISTRICT RATHER THAN A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.
SORRY, THE, THE, THE R SEVEN FIVE A, THE, THE, THE TYPICAL.
UM, I DON'T WANT TO BOG THIS DOWN MR. CHAIR.
I'VE STILL GOT A LOT OF QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT, BUT I THINK IF, IF THE PROPERTY CAN BE DEVELOPED WITHOUT RETTING, THEN FOR THE MOMENT TO MOVE.
UM, IS THERE ANY CONCERN ABOUT NOT ADDRESSING THE LOCK COVERAGE QUESTION? NO CONCERN ABOUT THE LOT COVERAGE AS OPPOSED DO I NEED TO RESTATE THE QUESTION? IT MIGHT BE HELPFUL, BASICALLY.
UM, THE FEE RESTRICTIONS DO NOT ADDRESS THE, THE, UH, HIGHER LOCK COVERAGE IN THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL MACHINE.
THE STAFF HAVE ANY CONCERN ABOUT THAT? I I CAN TAKE THAT ONE.
UH, COMMISSIONER HOUSE, RIGHT THERE IS NOT A DEEDED RESTRICTION BEING VOLUNTEERED BY THE APPLICANT TO, UH, REDUCE THE ALLOWED LOCK COVERAGE FROM 60% TO 45%, WHICH WOULD MAKE IT IN LINE WITH THE ADJACENT LOTS.
UM, HOWEVER, THE APPLICANT COULD STILL VOLUNTEER THAT ADDITIONAL CONDITION AT THE PODIUM THIS AFTERNOON.
UM, YOU KNOW, IF, IF WE ALL FELT THAT WAS WARRANT TO THANK YOU KEITH.
MR. MARK, NOW HOW IS THIS CONSIDERED NOT CONSIDERED TO BE SPOT ZONING, WHICH WE GENERALLY TRY TO AVOID.
AND I'M ESPECIALLY CONCERNED BASED ON THE ANSWER WE JUST TALKED FOR LEGAL SAY THAT IF THIS CASE GOT APPROVED, THIS ONE LOT CHANGED TO, UH, TRANSITION TO TH GOT APPROVED BY COUNSEL THAT WOULD BE SENDING A SIGNAL THAT THIS WHOLE AREA IS TRANSITIONING TO TOWNHOUSE.
HIS RECOMMENDATION HAS BEEN MADE TO DEAL WITH THE BLOCK BASED CONTINUITY PROBLEM, BUT SINCE THERE ARE MORE IMPLICATIONS HERE, SO HOW DOES THIS, WHERE A GENERAL POLICY NOT TO DO SPOT ZONING? WELL, AS YOU KNOW, COMMISSIONER SPOT ZONING IS A LEGAL TERM OF ART THAT HAS
[00:30:01]
A SPECIFIC DEFINITION AND A COURT CAN ONLY A COURT CAN DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT SOMETHING IS SPOT ZONING.SO I WOULD BE RELUCTANT TO USE THAT SPECIFIC LEGAL CHARACTERIZATION.
I WOULD ALSO ADD THE DUPLEX, I MEAN EVERYTHING FROM SINGLE FAMILY TO MULTIFAMILY TO RESIDENTIAL.
SO THE QUESTION IS NOT IF WE'RE ADDING NEW USES, THE QUESTION IS WE'RE ADDING MORE UNITS.
SO THE QUESTION FOR THE COMMISSION IS, DO I WANT A SINGLE FAMILY IN THIS BLOCK OR IN THIS AREA OR I'M OKAY WITH A LOT OF PLEX MULTIFAMILY.
KEEP IN MIND AGAIN, AND USE AND FOR INSTANCE, ANYTHING THAT'S A LITTLE BIT ABOUT ALLOWS A VARIETY OF HOUSES.
SO I THINK THAT'S THE QUESTION FROM THE COMMISSION.
AND A THIRD POINT TO, TO PILE ONTO THAT IS THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS PRECEDENT WITH ZONING.
THERE COULD BE A CASE RIGHT NEXT DOOR AND WE DON'T HAVE TO MAKE A MOTION IN THE SAME WAY JUST BECAUSE WE DID ON THIS CASE.
WAS THERE ANY CONCERN ABOUT THE WAY THIS PARTICULAR, UH, REZO COULD FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE THE BUILT CHARACTER OF THIS AREA? UH, WAS THERE ANY CONSIDERATION WHATSOEVER GIVEN TO ADDING THE RESTRICTIONS FOR A ROOFTOP, UH, SUCH AS HIDDEN GABLE OR TO PROHIBIT THE STANDARD OVERAGES OF 12 FEET THAT ARE CAUSING PROBLEMS IN OTHER RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS? EITHER NSOS, WHEN WE, WHEN THESE TOWN HOME STRUCTURES ARE BEING BUILT WITH GREATER LOT COVERAGE, MORE HEIGHT, MAYBE BIG BLOCKIES, BUT THAT ARE JUST COMPLETELY CHANGE THE CHARACTER AREA IS IS THAT A CONCERN, CONCERN AT ALL? YEAH, SO THE DEEDED RESTRICTIONS WOULD RESTRICT THIS LOT TO A MAXIMUM OF TWO DWELLING UNITS.
UM, BUT THEY COULD BE VERY TALL.
WELL THEY WOULD BE RESTRICTED TO A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 30 FEET.
AGAIN, THAT'S ANOTHER DEEP RESTRICTION.
BUT 30 FEET ISN'T NECESSARILY TIP TOP.
YOU KNOW, STRUCTURES CAN BE BUILT GIVEN THE WAY STANDARD HEIGHT IS MEASURED IN THE CITY, UM, WHERE YOU HAVE A FAIR AMOUNT OF THE STRUCTURE BEING TALLER THAN 30 BE AND RESULT IN A A, A BUILDING TYPE THAT'S JUST WILDLY IN COMPATIBLE IN THE AREA, UNLESS I'M MISTAKEN ABOUT HOW HEIGHT WOULD BE MEASURED IN THE ADJACENT R FIVE DISTRICTS.
UM, THAT HEIGHT WOULD BE THE SAME ON THE ADJACENT ONES TOO FEET.
WELL, MY QUESTION IS WHAT I GUESS KEEP GOING BACK TO, UH, YOU KNOW, IF YOU'RE MAKING A A, A CHANGE TO COUNTER, WHICH IS ENABLING GREATER DENSITY, GREATER HEIGHT, AND YOU COUPLE THAT WITH THE WAY THE HEIGHT, UM, RULES ARE WRITTEN, YOU'RE ENABLING STRUCTURES THAT ARE CHANGING THE CHARACT THROUGH THE AREA SUBSTANTIALLY.
UM, SO THAT THAT'S A CONVERSATION THAT CAME UP WITH A LOT ABOUT THE CASES LIKE THIS.
SO I THINK IT JUST SHOWS THAT WE HAVE A NEED FOR HOUSING AND OBVIOUSLY FOR DIFFERENT, A VARIETY OF HOUSES LOCATED APPROXIMATELY, UM, IT'S GONNA LOOK THE SAME LIKE ANYBODY WITH AN R FIVE CAN NOW BUILD THEN MAXIMIZE THE R FIVE.
AGAIN, THE QUESTION IS WE WANT WHAT UNIT FOR TWO UNITS BECAUSE YEAH, I THINK YEAH, WE CAN ADDRESS THE LOT POVERTY CHAIN.
SO PROBABLY A LITTLE BIT OF A BIGGER BUILDING GATE, BUT TWO UNITS COULD BE BUILT HERE THAT ARE MORE COMPATIBLE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD IF YOU DICTATE A RESPONSE.
BUT DO WE HAVE, I MEAN SURE IT'S UP TO THE COMMISSION.
IT'S UP TO THE APPLICANT TO VOLUNTEER MORE MORTGAGE RESTRICTIONS.
RIGHT? KEEP IN MIND TOO, LIKE THOSE ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE NEARBY.
SO IF TO THE ADJACENT, SO IF THE ADJACENT COMES AND THEY WANNA BUILD A BOX THAT MAXIMIZES THE R FIVE, THEY COULD.
SO THEN IT'S HARD WHEN WE SAY IT DEPENDS HOW THE, THE RESTRICTIONS ARE WORDED LIKE TO BE COMPATIBLE.
BUT HOW, BECAUSE WE DON'T, YOU SEE, WE DON'T BASICALLY PUT THE NOT RESTRICTIONS DESIGN STANDARDS ON THE ENTIRE STREET OR THE ENTIRE BLOCK.
SO IT'S HARD TO SAY WHAT THE CHARACTER IS.
IT NEEDS TO BE REALLY DEFINED IN SOME WAY.
BUT KEEP IN MIND AGAIN, THE R FIVE NEXT DOOR CAN COME AND FILL THE BOXY ONE 'CAUSE THAT'S WHAT THEY CAN DO.
COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONER STAN? UM, ALL OF MY SENTENCES WOULD NOT HAVE QUESTION MARKS AFTER THEM FOR ALL PASS.
UH, MS. GARZA, I WANNA ASK YOU A QUESTION UNDER PD ACT 5, 9 5, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE DID THAT WEST OAK CLIFF AREA PLAN, WE TALKED A LOT ABOUT IN BILL, PARTICULARLY ON THE CORNER LOTS, YOU KNOW, PUTTING MORE DUPLEXES IN THOSE AREAS.
DOES PD 5 95 SPEAK TO HOW THEY WANT TO ADDRESS PUTTING IN DUPLEXES AT ALL
[00:35:01]
IN THAT PD AS FAR AS PROVIDING HOUSING? AND I'LL NEED DOUBLE CHECK.PARDON? I CAN'T, I'LL I'LL NEED A DOUBLE CHECK.
I'LL NEED TO DOUBLE CHECK TOO.
'CAUSE I THINK, YOU KNOW, MY UNDERSTANDING WAS IN TRYING TO, UH, PROMOTE HOUSING BECAUSE WHEN I LOOK AT THE AERIAL OF THIS, YOU KNOW, ALL OF A SUDDEN THEY'LL HAVE SMALL, SMALL LOTS AND THEN THEY'LL HAVE A LARGER LOT.
AND THIS ONE IS PARTICULARLY ON THE CORNER THAT, THAT DOES IN MY THING SEEM MORE APPROPRIATE TO HAVING A TWO OR A DUPLEX OR THE TWO TOWNHOUSES, WHATEVER IT'S, THEY'RE, THEY'RE PROPOSING BECAUSE IT IS A CORNER LOT BECAUSE WE HAD DISCUSSED THAT BEFORE UNDER THAT IN BUILDING.
ARE YOU LOOKING IT UP? AND ALL OF THIS DISCUSSION MIGHT HAVE COME AFTER THAT PLAN WAS MADE, BUT I WAS JUST CURIOUS HOW IT DEALT WITH PLACEMENT OF DUPLEXES.
IS THERE A REVISION OF THAT PLAN COMING FORWARD? YES.
SO WE HAVE AN AUTHORIZED HEARING CODE 5, 9 5.
AND IT'S IN, I THINK IT'S IN THE WORKS.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE PRIORITY IS, BUT IT WAS AUTHORIZED BY COUNSEL.
I DON'T THINK IT ARE YOU AWARE,
BUT ON THE CAMP COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN COMMITTEE SCHEDULED, WE JUST RECEIVED, BUT IT'S, IT'S SCHEDULED TO COME TO THAT COMMITTEE WITHIN, WITHIN THE NEXT MONTH.
SO WE HAVE AN AREA PLAN FOR SODA, BUT WE ALSO HAVE AN AUTHORIZED MEETING FOR FRIDAY THAT'S ALREADY AUTHORIZED.
WELL THEN I GUESS MY QUESTION WAS JUST SAYING IF WE'RE PROMOTING INFILL IN AREAS WHERE THEY'RE NOT THESE EXACT REPLICA TIME BLOCKS AND THIS IS A CORNER LOCK WHERE HOUSING IS NEEDED, ISN'T THIS APPROPRIATE? AND OBVIOUSLY MS. GARZA THINKS IT IS TO THANK YOU
WELL, UM, THANK YOU MR. CHAIR.
UM, MS. GARZA, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER IS ONE OF MY QUESTIONS, WHICH WAS I THOUGHT THAT I RECALL THERE WAS AUTHORIZED HEARING ON THIS.
UM, WOULD THE STAFF CONSIDER WHETHER OR NOT THAT AREA PLAN AND THE, UM, AUTHORIZED HEARING PROCESS WOULD BE THE MORE APPROPRIATE VENUE FOR CONSIDERING THIS TYPE OF REQUEST? I BELIEVE THIS IS OUR FOURTH OR FIFTH NOW THE AREA, AND IT CERTAINLY SEEMS LIKE IF YOU HAVE ALL OF THOSE UNDERWAY, THAT WOULD BE A HOLISTIC REVIEW IN LIEU OF INDIVIDUAL ZONING CASES.
IS THAT A CONSIDERATION FOR STAFF? I WOULD, UH, SAY THAT YES, IT IS SUPPORTED.
THE LAST ONE THAT WE RECOMMENDED ALL TOOK PLACE BECAUSE THERE WAS MID BLOCK CAME BACK TO THE COMMISSION.
YOU WOULD COUNSEL DIRECTION TO RECONSIDER AS A TH SO I WOULD SAY, AND IT WAS A UNANIMOUS VOTING COUNCIL.
SO I WOULD SAY THAT YES, AS EVERYTHING, OF COURSE WE ARE TRYING TO MAKE THINGS THE RIGHT WAY, LIKE PLANNING AND THEN AUTHORIZED HEARINGS AND ALL OF THAT.
WE DON'T LIKE TO DO THINGS LITTLE BY LITTLE.
IT WOULD BE IDEAL TO HAVE AN AUTHORIZED HEARING TO ALLOW THESE TO HAPPEN.
BUT WE ALSO CANNOT STOP DEVELOPMENT.
SO WE, WE CANNOT LIKE CONSISTENTLY SAY, HEY, EVERYTHING IS GONNA BE DENIED MOVING FORWARD 'CAUSE WE HAVE THE AUTHORIZED HEARING COMING.
THIS IS WHAT THE MARKET MANIFESTS RIGHT NOW WHEN WE HAVE TO HAVE AN ANSWER.
SO FOR OUR ANALYSIS AT THIS POINT, THIS MAKES SENSE.
AND I GUESS THE FOLLOW UP THAT WOULD BE, I NOTICED IN APPLIED FORMS THAT WHILE IT WASN'T, UM, INCLUDING A TIME THERE WAS A LETTER OF OPPOSITION SAYING THAT THEY DID NOT SEE THIS AS AN APPROPRIATE FIT FOR THEIR COMMUNITY.
WHICH LED TO MY QUESTION, WAS THERE A COMMUNITY MEETING REGARDING THIS REQUEST? BE AWARE, YES.
AND THIS FOR THE APPLICANT? WELL, I'LL ASK AGAIN.
I THINK THE TWO FOR ME, DON SAYING HAND PREDICTABILITY FOR THE COMMUNITY AS WELL AS THE MARKET.
AND I'LL LOOK FORWARD TO THE PUBLIC UNITY.
MR. MAY I ASK HER TO BE HEARD INDIVIDUALLY THEN DO THAT? UH, THANK YOU.
I THINK COMMISSIONER STANDARD HAS MY QUESTION.
UM, AND, AND IF, IF THIS IS A SINGLE FAMILY BLOCK R FIVE AND IT'S ONLY, AND IT'S GOT A DEEDED RESTRICTION ON IT TO LIMIT THE NUMBER OF UNITS TO ONLY TWO, WHY WOULD THE
[00:40:01]
REQUEST AND APPROVE OF TH THREE, WHICH ALLOWS FOR 12 UNITS ON, UH, TH 30 IS THE MOST DENSE OF THE TOWNHOUSES, WHICH IS NO MORE THAN 12 WELL UNITS PER EACH ACRE.SO WHY WOULD WE DO A TH THREE ON A ON A R FIVE WHEN YOU'RE SAYING THIS IS JUST IN FIELD AND NOT SOMETHING MORE OBTRUSIVE TO THE ZONING STANDARD BECAUSE OF THE BLOCK BASED CONTINUITY FROM THE YARD IN DUPLEX FIGURE.
SO IF IT'S A DUPLEX, IT'S GONNA PUSH THE ENTIRE BLOCK TO A BIGGER YARD.
SO IT'S GONNA AFFECT THE DEVELOPMENT, UH, RE THE DEVELOPMENT, UH, STANDARDS FOR THE REST OF THE BLOCK.
TH IS THE ONE THAT COMES TO THE SAME AND IS NOT AFFECTING THE REST OF THE BLOCK.
THE DATE RESTRICTIONS WILL APPLY NO MORE THAN TWO UNITS.
IT'S NOT, WHY IS IT A DUPLEX OPPOSED TO A TH IT'S WHY IS IT TH THREE OPPOSED TO A TH AND THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING, IS THE FRONT YARD THE ONE THAT CANNOT, THAT THAT'S THE CONVERSATION WE HAD WITH ALL RYAN'S CASES.
SO THE TH THREE OF THE THREE TOWNHOUSE DISTRICTS, THE TOWNHOUSE DISTRICT IN GENERAL DOES NOT CREATE THE BLOCK BASED CONTINUITY ISSUE LIKE THE DUPLEX DISTRICT WOULD.
AND OF THE THREE TH DISTRICTS, TH THREE IS THE ONLY ONE THAT ALLOWS IN DENSITY THAT YOU COULD GET TWO UNITS ON THE LOT.
YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO DO THAT.
IT'S A LITTLE PART OF THE CODE COMMISSION OF THAT IS THE CODE THAT IS NOT BUILT TO ALLOW GENTLE DENSITY.
SO IT HAS ALL THIS CORE IN IT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S HARD.
ANY
SO WHEN YOU DEVELOP A BLOCK AND THE ENTIRE BLOCK IS D JUST DIFFERENT WHEN YOU WANNA JUST BASICALLY SNACKING A LITTLE BIT OF GENTLE STUFF.
SO, BUT YOU COULD THEN CONCEIVABLY REMOVE THE DEEDED RESTRICTION THAT LIMITS IT TO ONLY TWO AND THEN COME BACK AND HAVE 12 UNITS ON THIS ONE.
WELL, BASED ON ACRE AND YEAH, BASED ON THE SIZE OF THE LOT, YOU COULD, YOU COULD CONCEIVABLY HAVE MORE THAN THE TWO UNITS ON THIS PARTICULAR LOT.
IT WOULD JUST BE SMALLER UNITS.
SO ANY KIND OF CHANGE, THE RESTRICTIONS ARE ALSO SUBJECT TO COUNCIL APPROVAL.
SO THE CONVERSATION IS THIS AN APPROPRIATE USE OF LAND IS GONNA HAPPEN AT THAT POINT? LIKE DO WE WANT MORE UNITS HERE? IT'S GONNA BE THE SAME QUESTION.
SO IT'S NOT LIKE, OH, IT CAN HAPPEN WITHOUT COUNCIL APPROVAL IS STILL, I'M JUST, WE HAD CASES ZONING 1 0 1 THAT I MISSED.
YEAH, THIS, THIS IS NOW AND WE CAN SEE THE COMPUTER OR SOMETHING.
UM, WOULD IT NOT BE TO EXAMPLE OUR ZONING COORDINATE IN INFILL ZONING? I GUESS BY WAY BECAUSE WE'RE MORE AND MORE ZONING BUILT AROUND THE IDEA OF TO IN A MORE LOGICAL, CLEAR, PREDICTABLE APPLICANT HOW WE WOULD DO DETAIL AND WHAT SORT OF THE, THE RAILS ARE NERVE ON THAT.
UH, BECAUSE, UM, YOU KNOW, WE'RE, WE'RE, WE'RE HAVING A GOOD SAME CONVERSATION REGULARLY.
SO JUST RHETORIC QUESTION, UH, HE SIGNED, IF YOU WRITE THE LETTER SILENT, WE ALREADY, AND I DUNNO IF I TALKED OFFICIALLY, IT'S A BRIEFING.
I DON'T KNOW IF DANIEL CAN TELL ME IF HE WANTS TO.
UH, AS YOU ARE AWARE, LIKE, UH, AT COUNCIL, WE DID APPROVE, COUNCIL DID APPROVE A CONTRACT FOR A CONSULTANT TO HELP US DO THE CODE REPORT.
UH, WE'RE TEACHING THE CONTRACT LATER THIS YEAR.
UH, SO WE'RE WAITING, WE'RE TRYING TO HOLD OFF ONTO ALL OF THESE LIKE CODE 2 MILLION BECAUSE WE'RE TRYING TO GET THE CONSULTANT ON BOARD.
WE HAVE A TEAM WITH SARAH'S TEAM, SO WE'RE EMBARKING ON A CODE REPORT FOR REAL.
HOUSING IS GONNA BE OUR PRIORITY FOR SURE UNTIL HOUSING IS GONNA BE OUR PRIORITY.
[00:45:01]
YOU MR. ANDERSON.SO, UM, AREA PLANS AND UM, AND KIND THINKING ABOUT THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS AREA, WE AS BEGIN TO THINK ABOUT LIKE THE BLOCK BASED CONTINUITY IN THE SENSE OF KEEPING THE NEIGHBORHOODS, UM, GOING ALONG THE SAME PATH.
FOR INSTANCE, I KNOW THAT THERE ARE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AROUND THIS BLOCK AND WE DO HAVE A NEED FOR HOUSING.
HOWEVER, I DON'T THINK THAT JUST GENERALLY WE SHOULD FIND A LOT AND THEN PUT MULTIPLE UNITS ON IT.
I THINK THERE SHOULD BE SOME COMPREHENSIVE THOUGHT ABOUT WHERE THESE COMMUNITIES ARE GOING AND IF THAT IS, UM, AS OPPOSED TO BEING A ONE OFF.
I'M WONDERING DO WE THINK OF THESE THINGS THAT WOULD BE FORTHCOMING? BUT SINCE WE HAVE THIS IN FRONT OF THEM, WE'VE GOTTA MAKE THE DECISIONS AND I THINK THEY BE WILL, WE'RE PD.
UM, SO WONDERING HOW WE CONSIDER THE AREAS AROUND THESE LOTS WHERE ALL OF THEM ARE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND THEN NOW WE WANT PUT IN P THREE, UM, IN ORDER TO MEET THE DEMAND OF HOUSING.
BUT I THINK IT WOULD BE, UM, I DUNNO IF IT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL TO THAT COMMUNITY JUST BY ADDRESSING THIS
LIKE I THINK WE TALKED ABOUT THIS.
OUR STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS, UH, IS WHAT'S IN THE REPORT.
WE LOOKED AT WHAT THE INFLUENCES ON THE BLOCK FACE CONTINUITY, HENCE THE RECOMMENDATION FOR T H THREE.
WE ARE AWARE THAT AN AREA PLAN IS COMING PRETTY SOON.
WE'RE AWARE OF THE AUTHORIZED HEARING, WE ARE AWARE OF THE TRENDS IN THE, IN THE AREA.
WE'RE JUST TRYING TO RESPOND TO AN APPLICANT'S REQUEST.
SO OUR PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT IS WHAT IT IS.
ALSO, KEEP IN MIND THERE ARE A LOT OF AREAS OF THE CITY THAT ARE NOT COVERED BY AREA PLANS.
SO YEAH, THESE ARE THE TOUGH DECISIONS AND CONVERSATIONS WE MUST HAVE.
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER, UM, I'M GONNA GO BACK TO, TO SOMETHING THAT, UH, COMMISSIONER YOUNG SAID AND I KNOW BARKING OF THE TREE THAT STILL WANT TO CRAWL UP.
UM, OR CLIMB UP, CLIMB UP THE TREE THAT A CLIMB TREES.
SO IF WE ARE DOING A T H THREE, LIMITED IT TO TWO UNITS ON THIS LOT AND THIS AND THE BOTH OF THESE PROPERTIES ARE FOR SALE, THEN THOSE WOULD NOT EACH ONE OF THOSE, THOSE UNITS BE THE UM, UH, WITH A PLAID.
SO FOR THE OR OR WOULD THEY BE PLATTED AS ONE BIG PLAT? ALTHOUGH I'M PURCHASING ONLY HALF OF IT AND NOT ALL OF IT.
UM, IS A, IS A, IS A OWNER, ANDREA'S OWNER.
HE LITERALLY LIVES IN A DUPLEX.
THE PROUD OWNER OF THE DUPLEX
YOU BUY IT BY MEAT AND POUNDS.
THE PLAID IS THE ENTIRE PROPERTY.
SO I OWN BY MEET AND BOUNDS MY BUILDING AND THE LAND AROUND IT IN THE YARD.
SO JUST SO THAT THIS IS A, I GUESS NOW AN EDUCATIONAL FOR ME AND THAT I'M ASSUMING IT IS EDUCATIONAL FOR ME IS EDUCATIONAL FOR SOMEBODY ELSE ON HERE.
SO WHERE EVERY TIME WE HAVE A A, A DU A DUPLEX OR A TOWNHOUSE, THE THE PLAT IS THE PLA.
AM I? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? NO, NO.
SO THERE ARE A FEW THINGS IN HERE.
DUPLEX IS DUPLEXES, TWO UNITS PER LOT.
AND IF IT'S FOR OWNERSHIP, AND THAT'S, AGAIN, WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT OWNERSHIP, NON OWNERSHIP, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT LAND USES HERE.
UH, THE WAY I'M TELLING YOU, THE WAY IT WORKS, IF YOU WANNA OWN IT, YOU BUY IT.
FAMILY, IT'S, AND BACK TOWNHOUSE IS NOT A LAND USE.
SO IT'S, WE HAVE SINGLE FAMILY DUPLEX AND MULTIFAMILY.
SO MULTIFAMILY CAN BE FOR RENT OR
[00:50:01]
CAN BE FOR OWNERSHIP, WHICH IS YOUR CONDO.THE CONDOS YOU CAN OWN JUST THE THE UNIT.
OR IF THEY ARE, IF THEY ARE LIKE A JOINING ONE ANOTHER, YOU CAN ALSO OWN THEM LIKE IN A DUPLEX MANNER, LIKE MEDIUM BOUNDS.
THERE'S ALSO SHED ACCESS DEVELOPMENT WHERE YOU OWN UP TO THE MIDDLE OF THE STREET.
SO ALL OF THESE, AGAIN, HOW YOU OWN IT, OWNERSHIP, RENTAL, I DON'T THINK IT'S UP FOR THIS COMMISSION EVEN FOR STAFF TO DECIDE.
SINGLE FAMILY, ONE UNIT, TWO UNITS MORE THAN THREE.
AND THEN THE DISTRICT, R D T, H M F.
AND I THINK AS A FOLLOW UP TO COMMISSIONER BLAIR, WHEN I LOOK AT THESE PATTERNS, OKAY, OF THIS PARTICULAR LOT, THIS COULD BE TWO SEPARATE LOTS BASED ON THE PATTERN HERE.
IT COULD EASILY BE, 'CAUSE YOU CAN SEE ON THE AERIAL THAT THERE ARE MANY LOTS THAT IT COULD ALMOST BE THREE LOTS BASED ON A PATTERN HERE.
BUT WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT I THINK BASED ON THAT, THE FACT THAT IT COULD BE IN THIS LOT PATTERN TWO SEPARATE LOTS, THAT IT MAKES SENSE THAT YOU COULD HAVE TWO UNITS ON IT, EVEN THOUGH IT'S ONLY PLANTED AS ONE, AS A DUPLEX.
I MEAN IT SEEMS TO ACCOMMODATE THAT.
HOW COULD 5,000 SQUARE FEET BE CHANGED FOR TWO LOTS IN AN R FIVE DISTRICT? WELL LOOK AT THAT.
SEE, WELL A LOT OF 'EM ARE ALREADY SMALLER LOTS THAN THAT.
I MEAN, THEY HAVEN'T KEPT WITH THAT PATTERN IN THE AREA.
I MEAN THAT'S WHAT'S KIND OF INTERESTING THAT, I MEAN IF YOU LOOK TO, WOULD THAT BE THE KIND OF SOUTHWEST, SOUTHWEST, LOOK AT THE WAY THOSE LOCK PATTERNS ARE.
I, IT'S PROBABLY AN ARTIFACT OF THE OLD INDUSTRIAL ZONING IN THE AREA THAT DOESN'T HAVE ANY LOT PART, PROBABLY THE ONE THAT ARE SMALLER THAN THOUSAND ARE NOT FLATTED YET.
IT LOOKS LIKE THEY'RE PART OF A BLOCK.
SO, SO IT'S A LEGACY OR THEY MAY HAVE BEEN APPLIED INTO THE PRIOR MILL.
I DON'T, THAT'S PART OF THE BLOCK.
SO THEY WEREN'T NEVER PLOTTED OUT, WHICH IS AN INDUSTRIAL WAY TO THINGS.
AND I THINK I, I GUESS THAT, HERE'S ANOTHER QUESTION I WOULD ASK.
I MEAN, BECAUSE THIS GOES TO COMMISSIONER HOUSE, ROBERT'S COMMENT.
HOW ARE WE GOING TO DEAL IN THE FUTURE WITH THESE LONG NARROW LOTS? YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHAT KEEPS COMING BACK TO US IS HOW DO YOU UTILIZE THE PROPERTY WHEN YOU'VE GOT THESE LONG NARROW ONES WHERE IT WOULD MAKE SENSE TO PUT TWO HOUSING UNITS AS OPPOSED TO HAVING SOME SHOTGUN HOUSED GOING ALL THE WAY DOWN.
I THINK THAT'S A VERY GOOD CONVERSATION.
ONE FOR THE AREA PLAN, FOR THIS AREA, FOR THE AUTHORIZED HEARING FOR PD 5 95 AND THEN ALSO FOR COVID REPORT BECAUSE IT'S KIND OF LIKE, AND I THINK THAT'S THE BIG PROBLEM WITH THE CODE RIGHT NOW, THAT WE DON'T HAVE DESIGN STANDARDS.
SO AGAIN, GOING BACK LIKE OUR FIVES, WE CAN CONSIDER A LOT OF THINGS THAT ARE NOT COMPATIBLE BY LIFE.
SO I THINK WE KIND OF LIKE HAVE TO START ACCEPTING THE IDEA.
WE NEED TO START LOOKING INTO DESIGN STANDARDS MOVING FORWARD WITH THE ENTIRE PROGRAM.
UM, THINK THIS PROBABLY END A QUESTION FROM MR. GAR.
WE'VE HEARD A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT THE WORK CAME DOWN ON PD 5 95 AND THE SOUTH PARK AREA PLAN TO PROCESS THROUGH WHICH CALLER RESTRICTIONS DEVELOP AT THEY TAKEN THE BOX OR BE PRODUCT OF ENGAGEMENT THAT, THAT TRADITIONAL, DID YOU HEAR HIS QUESTION? NO.
HE ASKED WHETHER OR NOT THE, UH, DEEDED RESTRICTIONS CAME OUT FROM CONVERSATIONS WITH YOU OR IF THEY WERE A PRODUCT OF COMMUNITY MEETINGS WITH FORMER COMMISSIONER WHEELER.
THEY, THEY WERE BROUGHT, UM, I LET 'EM KNOW LIKE, LIKE MY COMMENTS AND THEN THEY SAID THEY WANTED LIKE TO APPLY FOR THOSE D RESTRICTIONS AND THEY DID SEE OTHER CASES AROUND THE, BUT THEY WERE ALSO VOLUNTEERING.
I'M SORRY, I COULDN'T HEAR YOU.
YOU MAY HAVE TO SPEAK RIGHT MICROPHONE.
[00:55:01]
LIKE I SENT COMMENTS AND THEN THEY ASKED LIKE DID THEY WANT, WHO VOLUNTEER DID RESTRICTIONS AND THEY ALSO, UM, SAW LIKE OTHER CASES SIMILAR TO THIS ONE.SO THEY, THEY WERE AWARE OF WHAT THOSE OTHER CASES AS WELL.
IN ADDITION TO THOSE OTHER SIMILAR CASES THAT WE'VE HAD, ARE YOU, ARE YOU AWARE WHETHER COMMISSIONER WHEELER HAD EXTENSIVE CONVERSATIONS WITH THESE APPLICANTS AND THE, THE COMMUNITY REGARDING THE, THE DEEP RESTRICTIONS WITH OTHER DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS? I'M NOT AWARE OF THIS, UH, APPLICANT HAVING THOSE CONVERSATIONS BUT IT FIRST HAPPENED.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER, WE MOVE ON.
LET'S GOING CASE NUMBER SEVEN IF YOU DON'T MIND.
CHECK THAT, UH, CASE WAS PREVIOUSLY BRIEFED.
WOULD YOU LIKE IT TO BE RE BRIEFED? UH, THIS WAS BRIEF BEFORE.
WERE THERE ANY CHANGES, ANY UPDATES? NO CHANGES.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS CASE? FOUR.
UM, COMMISSIONER, WHY, WHY DON'T WE TAKE THE, THIS SYSTEM GONNA BE AN EXTENSIVE BRIEF.
WHY DON'T WE TAKE A 10 MINUTE BREAK? UH, IT'S 10 O'CLOCK.
UH, LET'S TAKE A 10 MINUTE BREAK BACK TO 10:10 AM I HERE MOVING TO RECESS TO HAWAII? WE'RE SEVEN O'CLOCK.
1965 MADE POLICY DECISION NUMBER TWO WOULD JUST TAKE MY YOUNGEST SON PREVIOUSLY ZONE REZONED.
WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE? THE COUNCIL'S DECISION ON THAT 60 YEARS? THE WHOLE POINT OF 8.503 IS THAT THERE ARE INSTANCES YOUR SUBDIVISION IS INAPPROPRIATE EVEN THOUGH COMPLIANCE HAVING DUE REGARD FOR THE CHARACTER OF THE, I'M NOT ARGUING THAT
[01:00:01]
COUNSEL'S DECISION EITHER.IRRELEVANCE COMMISSIONER, WE DO HAVE BACK ON THE RECORD, 10:00 AM COMMISSIONERS.
WE'RE BACK ON THE RECORD GOING.
CASE NUMBER EIGHT IS HANDLING THE READY.
THIS REQUEST IS FOR A PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FOR M U THREE MIXED USE DISTRICT USES ON PROPERTIES AT AN RR REGIONAL RETAIL DISTRICT AND M U ONE MIXED USE DISTRICT AND PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 8 0 4.
UH, IT'S LOCATED ON THE NORTH LINE OF WALNUT HILL LANE BETWEEN NORTH CENTRAL EXPRESSWAY AND MANDER LANE.
LOCATION MAP SHOWING THE PROPERTY AND CITY LIMITS AERIAL MAP WITH THE
OUTLINING AND ZONING MAP WAS SURROUNDING ZONING DISTRICTS AND LAND USES.
UM, SO THIS IS A VERY, UH, CROWDED MAP.
I KNOW THERE'S A WIDE VARIETY OF, UH, ZONING IN THIS AREA.
VARIOUS BASE DISTRICTS, UH, PDS, ET CETERA, UH, TO THE NORTH ARE MEDICAL CLINIC AND OFFICE USES, UH, IMMEDIATELY TO THE EAST ACROSS MANVILLE LANE WITHIN PD FIVE 19 IS A, UH, DARK RAIL STATION TO THE SOUTH ON THE OTHER SIDE OF WALNUT HILL LANE.
FINANCIAL INSTITUTION, GENERAL MERCHANDISE, MEDICAL CLINIC OFFICE, UH, THE HARD CORNER OF 75 AND WALNUT BILL, WHICH IS NOT A PART OF THIS REQUEST, UH, CURRENTLY DEVELOPED WITHIN MEDICAL CLINIC AND THEN DUE WEST ACROSS 75 UNDEVELOPED PROPERTIES.
SURFACE PARKING RESTAURANT USES PERSONAL SERVICE.
THERE'S ALSO SOME MULTIFAMILY OVER THERE.
UM, LIKE I SAID, A LOT OF USES.
UH, SO THE BACKGROUND ON THIS IS CURRENTLY DEVELOPED WITH A VARIETY OF RETAIL, RESTAURANT, PERSONAL SERVICE AND OFFICE USES.
THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSOLIDATE DESIGN OF THE ENTIRE PROPERTY UNDER A NEW PD FOR M U THREE DISTRICT USES.
UM, FOR NOW THEY INTEND TO CONTINUE THE USE OF THE EXISTING SHOPPING CENTER WHILE ALLOWING FOR MIXED USES, INCLUDING MULTIFAMILY.
UM, THEY UH, ALSO PROPOSE A CONCEPTUAL PLAN, UM, WITH THE PROPERTY DIVIDED INTO, EXCUSE ME, MISSISSIPPI FIVE SOME AREAS IS, UH, SUBBURY IS A ONE A TWO, AND B COMPRISED THE EXISTING SHOPPING CENTER AND SERVICE PARKING.
UM, SUBBURY IS C IS CURRENTLY UNDEVELOPED, UM, BUT IT'S PROPOSED AS MULTIFAMILY WITH STRUCTURED PARKING AND GROUND LEVEL RETAIL.
AND THEN SUB AREA D UH, IS PROPOSED TO BE DEVELOPED IN A FUTURE PHASE.
I KNOW A TON ABOUT SUB AREA D RIGHT NOW OTHER THAN WHAT'S PE CONDITIONS.
UH, THESE CONDITIONS PROVIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR ALL SUB AREAS THAT WILL ALLOW FOR FUTURE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE ENTIRE PROPERTY, AGAIN WITH MIXED USES INCLUDING MULTIFAMILY.
UH, THE CONDITIONS ALSO INCLUDE STANDARDS FOR PARKING SIGNS, URBAN DESIGN, MIXED INCOME HOUSING, AND WITH THIS CASE THE PROPOSAL ALSO INCLUDES A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR SUB
[01:05:01]
C, WHICH WILL BE DEVELOPED WITH THE CURRENT PHASE.UM, IN ADDITION TO THAT, THEY'RE ALSO PROPOSING A TREE PRESERVATION PLAN THAT WILL APPLY TO THE ENTIRE PROPERTY AS WELL AS A PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENT PHASING PLAN.
UH, SHOWING STANDARDS FOR SIDEWALKS AND BUFFERS ALONG THE PERIMETER OF THE SITE AS WELL AS, UH, INTERIOR TO THE SITES.
UM, THE PROPOSAL ALSO INCLUDES, LIKE I SAID, INCENTIVES FOR MIXED INCOME HOUSING TIED GROWING UNIT DENSITY.
AND THIS IS JUST A QUICK BREAKDOWN OF THAT.
I'LL GO INTO MORE DETAIL IN A SECOND.
UM, BUT SO THE BASE DISTRICT PROPOSED MU THREE, UH, THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSING TO TIE THE BONUSES TO DWELLING UNIT DENSITY.
HOWEVER, IN THE BASE UNIT THREE DISTRICT, THERE IS NO MAXIMUM, UH, DWELLING UNIT DENSITY, UM, FOR THE PD AND SUB AREAS, A ONE, A TWO AND D UH, THEY'RE PROPOSING A MAXIMUM OF 50 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE IF NO MIXED INCOME HOUSING IS PROVIDED.
UM, BUT THEY WOULD HAVE AN ADDITIONAL 25 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE IN BONUS.
UH, IF THOSE AFFORDABLE UNITS ARE PROVIDED, UH, BURY C WOULD BE, UM, A MAXIMUM OF ABOUT 83 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE, UM, AT MARKET RATE.
AND THEN THEY WOULD, UH, BE GRANTED ADDITIONAL 33 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE IN BONUS FOR MIXED INCOME UNITS.
AND SO VARIOUS C UH, MAXIMUM OF 85 MILLIONS PER ACRE WITH ADDITIONAL 34 MILLION UNITS PER ACRE IN BONUS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
UM, WE TYPICALLY INCLUDE A DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS COMPARISON IN THESE PRESENTATIONS.
UM, THIS ONE'S PRETTY ELABORATE, UH, CONSIDERING THE NUMBER OF EXISTING DISTRICTS.
SO I'LL JUST UH, REFER YOU GUYS TO THE CASE REPORT IF YOU'D LIKE TO SEE MORE DETAIL THERE.
UM, AND THEN UPDATE SINCE THE LAST MEETING.
UM, SINCE THE LAST MEETING, THE APPLICANT HAS UPDATED THEIR CONDITIONS REGARDING PERMANENT USES, HEIGHT STORIES, GROWING DENSITY SIGNS, MIXED INCOME HOUSING AND URBAN DESIGN STANDARDS.
UH, ALL OF THE PROPOSED PLANS HAVE ALSO BEEN UPDATED TO REFLECT THOSE CHANGES IN THE CONDITIONS, UM, UH, WITH WHAT WAS PUBLISHED IN THE DOCKET.
UH, THE APPLICANT IS ALSO PROPOSING AN S U P S U P FOR MULTIFAMILY AND RETIREMENT HOUSING AND SUMMARY IS A ONE, A TWO, AND B.
UM, STAFF IS NOT ABLE TO SUPPORT THIS CHANGE.
UH, YOU CAN READ MY FULL RUNDOWN OF THAT, UH, IN THE NEW PERMANENT USES SECTION IN THE CASE REPORT.
UM, UH, BUT GENERALLY SPEAKING WE JUST FEEL IT WOULD NOT BE, UM, CONDUCIVE TO THE DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY.
UH, IT SAYS STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT IF ANY ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS ON MULTI-FAMILY OR RETIREMENT HOUSING OR DESIRE, THEY BE MADE IN THE PD CONDITIONS PROPOSED WITH THIS REQUEST AND NOT THROUGH A SEPARATE SET OF S U P CONDITIONS IN THE FUTURE.
UH, AND THEN ALSO, UH, ONE UPDATE SINCE THE, UH, PUBLICATION OF THE DOCKET.
THIS WAS JUST A TYPO, UM, BUT IN THE PERMITTED USES A FINANCIAL INSTITUTION WITH DRIVE-IN WINDOW IS PROPOSED SUBJECT TO AN S U P, NOT DEVELOPMENT FACTOR REVIEW.
IT'S JUST A AIR WE OVERLOOKED.
HAVING SAID ALL THAT LOOKS ME JUST LIKE PHOTOS.
UM, THIS IS ON NORTH CENTRAL EXPRESSWAY LOOKING EAST ALONG THE WESTERN PERIMETER OF THE SITE.
AND THEN WE'RE JUST GONNA BE GOING TOWARDS THE INTERSECTION AROUND THE BEND.
SO THIS IS MOVING SOUTH BA ACCESS ROAD SILICON EAST AND THEN THIS IS ON WALNUT HILL LANE LOOKING NORTHWEST.
YOU CAN SEE THAT RETAINING WALL, UH, WITH RETAIL BUILDINGS IN THE BACKGROUND.
UH, THIS IS THE SIGNALIZE INTERSECTION INTO THE PROPERTY IN WALNUT HILL LANE AND WE'RE JUST KIND OF MOVING, UH, EAST, JUST SOME DETAILED SHOTS OF THAT AREA.
AND YOU CAN SEE, UH, THIS IS MORE ONSITE, UH, SILICON NORTHWEST, SOME OF THE EXISTING RETAIL THERE.
AND THIS IS MOVING TO THE INTERIOR OF THE EXISTING SHOPPING CENTER AND THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF REDEVELOPMENT TO THIS SIDE OVER THE PAST 10 YEARS OR SO.
JUST SOME OF THAT REDEVELOPED AREA.
AND THIS IS BACK ON WALNUT HILL LANE.
UH, STILL LOOKING NORTHWEST, WE'RE KIND OF MOVING TO THE EAST NOW THAT STREET FRONTAGE, UH, THIS IS A PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY READING FROM LEADING FROM WALNUT HILL LANE TO THE SHOPPING CENTER.
UH, STILL MOVING FURTHER EAST.
THIS IS, UH, WHAT WOULD BE BURY A TO I BELIEVE AND ALSO CONSIDER B.
THE SIDE OF THE PROPERTY IS LESS DEVELOPED.
SO WHERE THERE ARE SOME RESTAURANT BUILDINGS DOWN HERE AT THE INTERSECTION OF WALNUT HILL AND VANDERVILLE, SOME MORE DETAILED SHOTS.
LOOKING AT UM, WHAT IS PROPOSED TO BE SUDBURY SEA.
UH, THIS IS A WALKWAY, UH, LEADING FROM THE SITE TO THE ALLEY, UH, NORTH OF THE SITE.
AND THIS IS ON VANDERVILLE, UH, LOOKING WEST AT THE EASTERN EDGE
[01:10:01]
OF THE PROPERTY.AND YOU CAN SEE THAT ALLEY, UM, ON THE REAR SITE SURROUNDING USES.
UH, HERE IN THE BACKGROUND YOU CAN SEE SOME OF THE OFFICE USES TO THE NORTH, NO, ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THIS PHOTO, YOU CAN SEE MORE OF THOSE OFFICE USES.
THIS IS A LITTLE FURTHER EAST, SOME MORE OFFICE USES.
IT'S A MEDICAL OFFICE, THE BACKGROUND.
AND THEN, UH, LOOKING TO THE EAST OF THE SITE, YOU CAN SEE THE DARK RAIL LINE AND THIS IS SOUTH OF THE SITE ALONG WALNUT, THAT HILL, YOU CAN SEE SOME OF THOSE OFFICE USES AND RETAIL STARE BACK AT THIS INTERSECTION.
THIS IS THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN, LIKE I SAID, IT WAS UPDATED, UM, BETWEEN THE LAST MEETING AND NOW.
UM, YOU CAN SEE THE OUTLINE OF THE DIFFERENT SUB AREAS.
SO SUB AREA A TWO HERE IS THE EXISTING SHOPPING CENTER AND OPEN SPACE WITHIN UH, S AREA.
A ONE IS WHERE THE SURFACE DEPARTMENT CENTER IS CURRENTLY, UM, SUB AREA B IS DOWN WHERE THOSE RESTAURANT USES WERE.
THIS IS PROPOSED TO BE DEVELOPED WITH, UH, MULTIFAMILY WITH GROUND FLOOR RETAIL.
THIS WILL BE DEVELOPED WITH THIS CURRENT PHASE.
AND S D IS BACK, UH, HERE, UM, ALONG THE ACCESS ROAD.
THIS IS THE TREE PRESERVATION PLAN.
UM, THE APPLICANT PROPOSES WITH THIS REQUEST.
YOU CAN SEE THERE'S A LOT OF EXISTING TREES AND THE SHOPPING CENTER AREA AS WELL AS, UH, THE DRIVEWAY LEADING OFF OF THE SIGNAL ENTRY.
THERE'S ALSO A LOT HERE ALONG WALNUT HILL.
UM, PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENT PLAN, UH, WAS SHOWING THE STANDARDS FOR, UH, SIDEWALKS AND, AND LANDSCAPE BUFFERS AND WHATNOT ALONG THE PERIMETER AS WELL AS THE INTERIOR TO THE SITE.
UH, THERE'S A LOT OF DETAIL ON THIS ONE.
SO I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO LOOK AT THE FULL-SIZED VERSION AVAILABLE ONLINE IF YOU HAVE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS.
AND THEN JUST A CLIP FROM THAT PLAN.
UH, THESE ARE THREE DIFFERENT TYPES OF ROADWAY, ROADWAY, CROSS SECTIONS THAT THE APPLICANT PROPOSES FOR THE INTERIOR OF THIS SITE.
UH, AND THEN LAST BUT NOT LEAST, THIS IS A DEVELOPMENT PLAN, UM, FOR THE PROPOSED SUB AREA C YOU CAN SEE SOME POCKETS OF OPEN SPACE HERE.
UM, THERE WOULD BE GROUND FLOOR RETAIL IN THIS SECTION, UH, STRUCTURED PARKING BACK HERE AND WE WOULD CONNECT TO THE REST OF THE SITE.
AND THEN, UH, BEFORE I STOP TALKING, UM, I DID WANT TO OUTLINE THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN STATS RECOMMENDATION AND THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST OF THE MIXED INCOME HOUSING.
UM, THE STATS RECOMMENDATION FOR SURVEYS A ONE, A TWO, AND B IS THAT, UH, 5% OF THE UNITS ARE AVAILABLE TO HOUSEHOLDS AT 51 60% A M F I.
UM, IF THE, UH, PROPERTY IS DEVELOPED WITH THE FULL AMOUNT OF UNITS AVAILABLE, UH, 5% OF THAT WOULD BE ABOUT 45 UNITS.
UM, AND THEN IN SUDBURY IS C AND D STAFF IS RECOMMENDING 5% AT EACH INCOME BANDS 51 TO 60, 61 80 AND 81 TO A HUNDRED.
UM, AGAIN, IF THOSE ARE DEVELOPED WITH THE FULL NUMBER OF UNITS, THAT COULD BE A MAX OF 42 UH, PER INCOME MAN FOR THOSE SUB AREAS.
UH, SO STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION WILL LEAD TO THE TOTAL NUMBER OF A QUARTER AS POSSIBLE ABOUT 171.
UH, AND THEN THIS IS JUST KIND OF BREAKING THAT DOWN A LITTLE FURTHER.
THAT WOULD BE 87 UNITS AT INCOME BAND THREE AND THEN 42 AT BOTH INCOME BANS.
UH, AND THEN THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST AS PUBLISHED IN THE DOCKET.
UM, SO GRADES A ONE, A TWO B AND C WOULD BE 5% 61 TO 85%, 81 TO A HUNDRED.
UM, THAT WOULD BE 67 UH, UNITS PER INCOME BAN.
UH, AND THEN IN SUDBURY D UH, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING 5% AT EACH INCOME BAN.
SO THAT'S 21 UNITS WITHIN THAT SUB AREA.
UM, THAT WOULD BE A TOTAL OF 197 UNITS IF THE SITE IS DEVELOPED WITH THE MAXIMUM NUMBER ALLOWABLE.
UM, AND AGAIN, 21 AND 51 TO 60 AND 88, 2 AND THREE.
UH, JUST SOME FURTHER CONSIDERATION WITH THAT.
UM, SO STAFF'S STANDARD RECOMMENDATION FOR PDS WITH MIXED INCOME HOUSING AND A C M B A AREA IS A MINIMUM OF 5% AT 51 TO 60% A M F I.
UM, THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST IS PUBLISHED ON THE DOCKET IS NOT IN LINE WITH THIS.
ONLY ABOUT 1.6% OF THE TOTAL ALLOWABLE UNITS WOULD BE AT THAT 5%, UH, AT 51 TO 16.
UM, I DO WANT TO KIND OF BREAK DOWN THE C M B A AREA A LITTLE BIT, WHAT THAT MEANS.
UM, SO A, B AND C M B A AREAS ARE THE MOST HIGH OPPORTUNITY, MOST AFFLUENT AREAS WITHIN THE CITY OF DALLAS.
UM, THESE AREAS HAVE GREAT ACCESS TO QUALITY SCHOOLS, GOOD JOBS, UH, TRANSIT, PUBLIC FACILITIES, GROCERY STORES, RETAIL, JUST A LOT OF, UM, ACCESS TO OPPORTUNITY IN THESE AREAS.
[01:15:01]
SO WE REALLY FEEL A STAFF THAT, UM, THESE AREAS NEED TO INCLUDE UNITS AFFORDABLE TO HOUSEHOLDS THAT CLASSIFIES AS VERY LOW INCOME OR 51 TO 60% OF, UH, THE MEDIAN INCOME IN THE DALLAS AREA.UM, IN ADDITION TO THAT STANDARD RECOMMENDATION OF 5% STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION GOES ABOVE AND BEYOND THIS STANDARD, UH, DUE TO THE IMMEDIATE ACCESS TO TRANSIT AND THE HIGH PROBABILITY FOR THIS AREA BECOMING VERY DENSE, WALKABLE MISUSE.
UM, ALTHOUGH THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST AS PUBLISHED IN THE DOCKET WOULD PROVIDE 26 MORE PORTABLE UNITS OVERALL STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION WOULD PROVIDE 66 MORE UNITS AT 51 TO 60% A AND THAT'S FINE.
UM, AND THEN I, I WANTED TO GIVE THAT BREAKDOWN 'CAUSE I KNOW IN THE PAST WHEN WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THESE CASES, YOU GUYS HAVE ASKED LIKE, OKAY, THAT'S 5% OF WHATEVER IT IS.
LIKE HOW MANY UNITS IS THAT ACTUALLY, YOU KNOW, KIND OF FLUSH THAT OUT A LITTLE BIT MORE.
I WANTED TO ADD THIS AS WELL TO KIND OF FILL OUT THAT PICTURE MORE.
UM, SO THESE ARE THE HUD INCOME LIMITS.
UH, THESE ARE CURRENT AS OF JUNE 15TH OF THIS YEAR.
UM, THIS SHOWS WHAT SOMEONE AT 50% OF AREA UNION INCOME MAKES WHAT SOMEONE AT A HUNDRED PERCENT OR 125% MAKES.
UM, THIS FIRST COLUMN WOULD BE AN INDIVIDUAL LIKE, UM, A HOUSEHOLD OF ONE, AND THEN THIS COLUMN HERE IS A HOUSEHOLD OF FOUR.
SO IT'S MORE OF A, YOU KNOW, FAMILY IF YOU WANT, IF YOU WANT TO CALL IT THAT.
SO, UM, AN INDIVIDUAL OF 50% OF A N F I, YOU, THAT'S INCOME BEING THREE MAKES ON AVERAGE $36,000 A YEAR.
UM, IF YOU SPLIT THAT OUT INTO MONTHLY INCOME AND THEN TAKE 30% OF THAT MONTHLY INCOME, UM, THEY CAN AFFORD ABOUT $900 A MONTH IN RENT.
UM, THIS IS KIND OF AN OLD STANDARD THAT HAD DEVELOPED IN 1981, BUT IT'S STILL KIND OF A GOOD WORKING DEFINITION.
IF YOU'RE PAYING MORE THAN 30% OF YOUR MONTHLY INCOME IN RENT, YOU ARE CONSIDERED HOUSING COST BURDEN.
IF YOU PAY 50% OR MORE OF YOUR MONTHLY INCOME IN RENT, YOU'RE CONSIDERED SEVERELY HOUSING COST PER, UM, THIS IS A PRETTY FLEXIBLE TERM.
IF YOU MAKE $500,000 A YEAR AND YOU'RE PAYING 40% A MONTH IN RENT, YOU'RE PROBABLY NOT ANY, IN ANY WAY COST BURDEN OF, OF ANYTHING.
UM, BUT IF YOU'RE A 50% A M I, UM, AND YOU'RE PAYING MORE THAN ABOUT 900 OR A THOUSAND DOLLARS IN RENT, YOU CAN'T AFFORD TO GET TO WORK.
YOU CAN'T AFFORD GROCERIES, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN'T AFFORD ANYTHING.
UM, UH, SO YEAH, UM, DON'T WANNA GO TOO MUCH INTO THAT.
UM, I DID ALSO WANT TO KIND OF GIVE A CITY OF DALLAS EMPLOYEE ANALOGY TO THIS.
UM, SO THIS 80% A M F I RIGHT HERE, UH, 57, UH, ABOUT 57 A YEAR, UM, FOR AN INDIVIDUAL, UH, WE JUST HIRED TWO PLANNER ONES THAT WILL BE JOINING DONNA MORMON'S TEAM.
UM, THOSE ARE PROFESSIONAL LEVEL JOBS.
UM, THEY REQUIRE A MASTER'S DEGREE.
UM, SOMEONE WHO WORKS AT A TACO DE THAT'S AT THE SHOPPING CENTER CURRENTLY, SOMEONE WHO WOULD WORK AT A RESTAURANT OR, UM, A DRY CLEANERS OR SOMETHING, UH, DOESN'T MAKE 80% A M I, THEY DON'T HAVE A NEXT DEGREE.
THAT'S ABOUT WHAT WE OFFER SENIOR PLANNERS.
UM, I'VE DONE SOME DIGGING RENTS FOR A 700 SQUARE FOOT, ONE BEDROOM APARTMENT IN THIS AREA.
GO FOR ABOUT TWO K A MONTH, 700 SQUARE FEET, ONE BEDROOM APARTMENT.
UM, I DON'T LIKE THE IDEA OF PAYING $2,000 A MONTH IN RENT FOR A HOME OWNER OF HER OWN, BUT I CAN'T AFFORD THAT.
SOMEONE WHO MAKES, UM, SIGNIFICANTLY LESS THAN I DO, CANNOT AFFORD THAT.
UM, SO I HOPE THAT KIND OF, UH, PAINTS A PICTURE.
UM, AND WITH THAT, UH, STATUTE'S RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO A CONCEPTUAL PLAN TO DEVELOP A PLAN, A TREE PRESERVATION PLAN, THE PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENT PLAN, AND WERE ADMITTED CONDITIONS AS THE BRIEF.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. WONKY.
YOU DID PAINT AN AMAZING PICTURE AND I SEE FOUR OVER THERE.
I MEAN AGREEMENT THE ENTIRE TIME.
SO WORRIES HERE IF WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS IN TERMS OF HOUSING COMMISSIONERS, WE'LL START OFF WITH COMMISSIONER SARAH.
UH, MY FIRST QUESTION, RYAN, AND I'VE NEVER AS ARTICLE AS COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, SHE PREPARES AND HAS HER QUESTIONS IN ADVANCE, BUT OKAY.
WOULD YOU NOT SAY THAT THIS SITE IS A PLANNER'S DREAM IN REGARD TO, I TRAINS IT MIXED USE, NO RESIDENTIAL AROUND IT TO AFFECT ANYTHING.
SO IT'S A LIVE WHERE YOU WERE DREAM, IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.
I ALSO MIGHT DEPOSIT THAT IT'S COMMISSIONER YOUNG'S SCREEN BECAUSE IT'S NOT ADJACENT TO ANY EXISTING.
[01:20:01]
AND BEFORE WE GET INTO WHAT WOULD BE AN OBVIOUS QUESTION, I WANNA SETTLE THAT RIGHT NOW.ARE YOU AWARE THAT THE MOTION I INTEND TO MAKE THIS AFTERNOON REMOVES THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE S U P AND THAT YOU WERE EQUALLY AWARE THAT THE REASON THAT THE APPLICANT AND I EVEN PROPOSED THAT WAS SINCE THIS PHASE IS NOT GOING TO BE DONE FROM 12 TO 15 YEARS, WE WERE TRYING TO MAKE A CONDITION WHERE THEY CAME BACK TO C B C, HOWEVER YOU INFORMED ME THAT S U THAT UNDER AN S U P IT'S MORE RESTRICTIVE, NOT MORE EXPANSIVE.
SO THEREFORE THAT CONDITION WILL BE REMOVED.
THE, I'M AWARE, MULTIFAMILY FOR THE RESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMILY HMM.
REMOVED THE SHOULD BE FOR THE MULTIFAMILY RETURN YES.
FOR THE MULTI-FAMILY, CORRECT.
NOT FOR THE ONES THAT REQUIRE SUVS.
IS THAT CORRECT, MR. I'M AWARE OF THAT IN SUMMATION.
NOW, UH, GOING TO ANOTHER THING AGAIN, SO IT, IT GIVES A UP-TO-DATE COMPARISON.
ARE YOU ALSO AWARE THAT MY MOTION LATER TODAY IS GOING TO INCLUDE A CHANGE IN THE M I H P REQUIREMENTS AND I AND DO YOU UNDERSTAND THEM TO BE THE FOLLOWING? OKAY, HERE I GO THAT IN THE INITIAL DEVELOPMENT, WHICH IS SUBAR C OKAY.
THE ONE THAT'S GOING TO BE DEVELOPED IN THE EXISTING CENTER, BECAUSE, AND I KNOW I'M NOT SUPPOSED TO DISCUSS THIS, DON'T STOP ME, DANIEL, BECAUSE THERE SEEMS TO BE A FAIRLY DECENT PRICE POINT.
THEIR BAND OF M I H D, IT'S GOING TO BE, AS IT'S STATED PRESENTLY, THE 61 TO 80 AND THE 81 TO A HUNDRED.
AND IT WOULD BE 5% OF THE 61 TO 85% OF THE 81 TO A HUNDRED.
SO THE, THE SLIDE ON THE SCREEN, THIS IS THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST IS BY MOTION.
HOWEVER, THEN MY MOTION IS GOING TO INCLUDE A CHANGE FOR SUB AREA A ONE, A TWO, AND B.
AND WHAT THAT IS GOING TO BE IS WHAT I HAVE PROPOSED FOR D, WHICH IS 5% AT THE 51 TO 65% AT THE 61 TO 80, AND 5% AT THE 81 TO A HUNDRED.
SO THAT WILL BE BOTH SUB AREA D AND SUB AREA A ONE A TWO B, AND THEN, AND THEN WE KEEP WHAT WE ALREADY PUT IN C.
SO WE HAVE INCREASED, MY MOTION WILL INCREASE CONSIDERABLY.
THE M I H, IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.
DO YOU ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT WE'VE ALSO HAVE, EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE NOT UNDER COMMISSIONER KINGSTON'S EXACT DEFINITION OF MICRO UNITS THAT WE HAVE GOTTEN THE APPLICANT TO AGREE.
AND MY MOTION AND PART OF THIS SAYS THE SAME THING, THAT 20 UNITS IN THE BUILDING AND SUB AREAS SEAT WILL BE AT 600 SQUARE FEET OR LESS 20 UNITS IN THE BUILDING IN SUB AREA D WILL BE AT 600 SQUARE FEET OR LESS AND 20 UNITS IN SUB AREA A ONE B A TWO B WILL BE, UH, AT 600 SQUARE FEET OR LESS.
THUS PROVIDING WHAT I HAVE STARTED TERMING A DALLAS MICROBE
AND IF I COULD JUST USE THAT QUESTION TO ATE A LITTLE BIT MORE.
SO I'M NOT GONNA SAY WHICH APARTMENT COMPLEX THIS IS SPECIFICALLY.
THERE'S A VERY COMPARABLE MULTI-FAMILY USE, UM, ACROSS 75, UM, WHICH JUST IMMEDIATELY ACROSS THE HIGHWAY, UM, THAT ALSO HAS SOME STUDIO UNITS THAT ARE LESS THAN 600 SQUARE FEET.
UM, I DID SOME DIGGING AND I GOT A QUOTE ON ONE OF THOSE UNITS.
UM, SO, UH, AT 528 SQUARE FEET FOR A 12 MONTH LEASE, THAT'S STILL 1400 A MONTH.
UM, AGAIN, THAT'S AN 80%, UM, A M I, SO LIKE ONE OF OUR POINTER ONES COULD POTENTIALLY AFFORD TO LIVE IN, IN A STUDIO THERE.
UM, AND THEN I'LL ALSO POINT OUT HERE WHERE MY CURSOR IS, THIS UNIT IS NOT AVAILABLE UNTIL NOVEMBER 7TH, WHICH LEADS ME TO BELIEVE THAT THOSE,
[01:25:01]
UH, STUDIOS, MICRO UNITS, WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL 'EM, ARE IN SHORT SUPPLY AND VERY HIGH DEMAND.UM, AND, AND STILL PRETTY, PRETTY COSTLY MM-HMM.
SO YOU HAVE THAT, AND THEN I WANNA BRING UP ANOTHER THING.
ARE YOU OKAY? DO YOU AGREE THAT IN THAT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT ALL OF US HAVE BEEN ABLE TO COME TO IS THE FACT THAT WITH THE, THE DART STATION THERE, MAKING SURE THAT THE, THIS SHOPPING CENTER IS MADE TO INTERACT WITH THE DART STATION, THAT WE'VE PUT IN A GREAT DEAL OF PEDESTRIAN AMENITIES, PARTICULARLY ON THAT ALLEY WHERE THE CROSSWALK FROM THE DARK STATION, YOU BASICALLY ARE GOING TO AN ALLEY THAT'S GOING TO BE TOTALLY IMPROVED WITH WALKABILITY.
SO INSTEAD OF PEOPLE GETTING OFF DARK CROSSING THE STREET AND HAVING TO WALK ALL THE WAY AROUND WALNUT A HILL, THEY WILL BE ABLE TO WALK ON BEAUTIFUL FOOT PAST WHEN WE PUT LIGHTS AND ALL OF THIS AND GO INTO THE BACK OF THE CENTER, WHICH WILL INTERACT WITH THE ALLEY, THAT THE ALLEY WOULD BE VERY PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY AND THE APPLICANT IS GOING TO REPAY THE ENTIRE ALLEY IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE COMPLETION OF THE FIRST ENTITY SUB AREA C.
WELL, THOSE ARE ALL THE QUESTIONS I HAVE.
I HAVE A QUESTION, COMMISSIONER.
ONE TEAM C WINGY QUESTION, BECAUSE I THINK I ALREADY KNOW THE ANSWER TO THE 20 UNITS THAT MUST CONTAIN 600 SQUARE FEET OR LESS OF FOUR AREAS.
AM I RIGHT THAT THE M I H PROVISIONS AGAINST, UM, DISPROPORTIONATELY PLACING M I H UNITS IN SMALL UNITS WILL APPLY? THAT'S CORRECT.
SO FOR AFFORDABLE UNITS, UM, YOU KNOW, THEY COULDN'T PUT ALL OF 'EM AS, AS AS STUDIOS.
THEY HAVE TO BE EVENLY DISPERSED AMONG THE VARIOUS TYPES OF UNITS AVAILABLE THAT WOULD BE AVAILABLE TO SOMEONE WHO'S LOOKING FOR A MARKET RATE DEPARTMENT.
SO IF THERE ARE, I DON'T KNOW WHAT, 1400 TOTAL UNITS, SOMETHING LIKE THAT, UM, THE WHOLE SITE WOULD BE LIKE 1740.
AND THEN, UH, THERE WOULD BE ATED.
SO IF THERE ARE, IF THERE ARE TWO, LET'S SAY UNDER COMMISSIONER STANDARDS MOTION 240 M I H UNITS ONLY, WHAT IS THAT? ABOUT 15% OF 'EM COULD BE, UM, MICRO UNITS, RIGHT? YEAH.
SOME OF THEM CAN BE, BUT THEN THE REST HAVE TO BE EASILY DISPERSED AMONG ONE BEDROOMS AND TWO BEDROOM.
YOU ADD THAT ACROSS THE ENTIRE BUILDING AS WELL.
SO THEY CAN'T BE CONCENTRATED ON THE FLOOR AND THEY CAN'T HAVE ANY LESS DESIGN STANDARDS.
THEY HAVE TO BE BUILT TO THE SAME STANDARD.
NO PORCELAIN, PORCELAIN LINOLEUM, RIGHT.
TILE AND EVERYBODY ELSE'S BRAND COMMISSIONER CARPENTER.
MY, MY QUESTION FOR MR. IRWIN, UH, IT'S ABOUT THE, I THINK THE APPARENT DESIRE TO PRESERVE THE EXISTING MATURE TREES ON WALL HILL, BECAUSE HERE IT'S SAYING YOU HAVE TO HAVE A MINIMUM EIGHT FOOT WIDE ON FOOT SIDEWALK AND A MINIMUM EIGHT FOOT WIDE BUFFER ZONE.
I GET OUT, YOU KNOW, MEASURE GETTING FLEXIBILITY HERE FOR REDUCING OR RELOCATING NECESSARY BUFFER ZONE.
IS THERE ROOM THERE FOR AN EIGHT FOOT SIDEWALK WITHOUT ANY DEVIATIONS TO KEEP THOSE TREES? YEAH, IT'S BEEN A WHILE.
I THOUGHT THERE WOULD BE WHEN I FIRST DID REVIEWED IT, BUT I HAD NOT LOOKED AT THAT.
WONDERING IF THAT MIGHT BE SOME FLEXIBILITY IN, WELL, IT COULD BE.
UH, I'LL LOOK AT THAT, UH, UNLESS THE EXISTING CONDITIONS, TREES, AND I'LL HAVE A DISCUSSION HERE AS WELL AS THE SIDEWALK.
AND I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION FOR MR. DEVARO, UM, ABOUT THE, UM, THE BLANKET REDUCTION FROM NON-RESIDENTIAL PARKING REQUIREMENTS OF ONE 500.
CAN YOU TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THAT? BECAUSE I, I'M MORE FAMILIAR WITH CASES WHERE PERHAPS AN OFFICE APPLICANT IS, IS ASKING TO CHANGE FROM ONE TO 3 33 TO ONE TO 3 75 OR ONE SOMETHING AND WE'RE ASKING FOR PARKING, YOU KNOW, JUSTIFICATION ANALYSIS.
AND THIS JUST SEEMS THIS IS A PRETTY SUBSTANTIVE REDUCTION FOR A LOT OF USES THAT ARE, YOU KNOW, ONE SHIRLEY.
I THINK THAT WE, WE HAVE TO UNDERSTAND WHERE WE ARE.
[01:30:01]
AND, AND IF ANYONE REMEMBERS THIS PLACE BEING BACK TO THE DAYS WHEN HE LOOKED SO UGLY BACK WHEN, BACK WHEN, UH, THEY, DAVID BUSTER WAS THERE IN DARK AND, UH, AND YET, BUT, UH, NOW IT'S AMAZING.MY, MY, MY KIDS GO SWIMMING CLASS THERE AND, UH, THE TREES INSIDE, IT'S TRULY A MIXED ABUSES THAT'S JUST LACKING THE, THE, THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE WHO COULD LIVE THERE.
UM, SO AS FAR AS PARKING, I BELIEVE A STRONGLY, STRONGLY ENCOURAGED THE COMMISSION TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE MIXED ABUSES USES, UH, THE FACT THAT PEOPLE WILL NOT BE ALL PARKING AT THE SAME TIME.
THAT'S JUST INHERENT WITH THE LANGUAGES.
NOT, NOT A MATTER OF I LIVE AND WORK THERE NECESSARILY, BUT JUST THE FACT THAT NOT, NOT EVERYONE'S GONNA BE THERE AT THE SAME TIME.
UH, THAT BY ITSELF IS A REDUCTION.
HOW MUCH WE, WE CAN TALK ALL DAY ABOUT HOW MUCH, BUT IT'S A REDUCTION.
THE FACT THAT THEY'RE IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO A TRAIN STATION ABSOLUTELY TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT.
IF YOU LIVE THERE AND YOU HAVE AS A RENTER AND OR WORK THERE AND YOU HAVE PARKING ISSUES, YOU WON'T BE SATISFIED.
IF YOU OWN A SHOP HERE AND YOU HAVE PARKING ISSUES, YOU WOULDN'T BE SATISFIED.
I THINK THAT, THAT, IN MY OPINION, THAT'S, THAT THOSE ARE STRONG JUSTIFICATIONS TO UNDERSTAND THAT, THAT PARKING WILL NOT BE STRAIGHT, UM, THROUGH A RATIO OF ONE PERSON UNDERSTAND THE EXACT NUMBER, THOUGH I WOULD DEFER TO THE AFTER PARKING ANALYSIS, YOU KNOW, DOWN IS A CONCERN AT ALL THAT, YOU KNOW, SINCE THIS ONE IS CONSIDERABLE DUCTION FOR A LOT OF USES, IS THERE A, UM, A POSSIBILITY OF GONNA PACK USES THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT WILL ATTRACT IN MAGNET FOR USES THAT REQUIRE REGULAR PARKING SOMEWHERE ELSE, BUT SOMEHOW HERE THEY COULD.
SO I, SO ACTUALLY, I ALSO AS A CONSULTANT DID A LOT OF STUDIES THAT DECIDE SPECIFICALLY TO BRING IN MORE, MORE RESTAURANT.
AND IN AN EFFORT TO DO THAT, WE WERE ABLE TO BRING IN A URGENT EXERCISING FACILITY.
IT WAS THIS HUGE, AND YOU WALK IN, IT'S SO WIDE OPEN AND IT'S JUST A PLACE WHERE, UM, PHYSICAL THERAPY IS, UM, UH, PROVIDED ENERGY.
THAT WAS THE ONLY WAY THAT THIS SIZE WAS ABLE TO BRING IN RESTAURANTS BY OPENING UP THIS HUGE FACE FOR THE LOWER RATIO.
IT'S THE MIX OF THAT CAN ACTUALLY MAKE IT WORK.
I HAVE SOME DETAILED QUESTIONS IN THE, UH, ORDINANCE ON PAGE DASH 45.
THERE IT IS, MENTIONED A 15 DISTRICT IDENTIFICATION SIGNS.
IF YOU UP TO 100 SQUARE FEET AREA, UH, ASK THAT QUESTION TO STAFF.
DOES THAT STRIKE YOU AS A LOT? DOES IT STRIKES ME AS A LOT, IF THEY JUST KEPT THEIR EXISTING ZONING IN THE SHOPPING CENTER, WOULD THEY BE ALLOWED TO DO THAT? IT'S IN GENERAL, YEAH.
UM, I DON'T DUNNO IF JASON POOL IS, UH, WITH US TODAY.
UM, HE DID HAVE SOME, SOME COMMENTARY ON THE SIGNS SECTION.
UM, I, I BELIEVE HE, UH, KIND OF RECOMMENDED JUST GOING WITH STANDARD CODE FOR THE SIGN REGULATIONS.
UM, I DON'T, HE DID NOT HAVE ANY, UM, OBJECTIONS TO, UH, THE LANGUAGE BEING PROPOSED.
UM, IT'S JUST THAT HE, HE THOUGHT THAT THE SIGN ORDINANCE SAYS IT'S IN CODE WOULD BE SUFFICIENT AS WELL.
MAY MAYBE WE ADDRESS THAT AT THE HEARING.
UM, I'VE BEEN ON THE COMMISSION FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS NOW, AND I'M FINALLY GONNA FLAG A QUESTION THAT I'VE HAD ON LOTS OF CASES.
AND THIS IS WHY WE ARE ASKING PEOPLE TO PUT A BIKE RACK AT THE PERIMETER OF THE SITE, UH, ON STREET FRONTAGE BIKE.
IF I'M RIDING A BIKE, WOULD I NOT ONE TO TAKE THAT BIKE UP TO MY DESTINATION RATHER THAN AT THE STREET? YEAH, THAT'S, THAT'S CERTAINLY WHAT I WOULD WANT DO.
UM, BUT YEAH, I, I BELIEVE THAT'S SOME KIND OF STANDARD LANGUAGE WE'VE DEVELOPED ABOUT, UM, YOU KNOW, STREET FURNITURE, BIKE RACKS, BENCHES, TRASH CANS, THINGS LIKE THAT.
UM, COMMISSIONER HOUSE THAT, THAT IS ALREADY IN ADJUSTMENT THAT, UH, COMMISSIONER MAKE MOTION.
AND THEN, UM, ON THE LIGHTING, UH, VERBIAGE, THERE'S TWO DIFFERENT PLACES THAT DESCRIBE OUTDOOR LIGHTING, PEDESTRIAN LIGHTING, AND THEY SEEM TO BE SOMEWHAT CONFLICT FRONT.
THE FIRST MENTION IS THE BOTTOM OF PAGE 8 48.
IT TALKS ABOUT SPACING AND DIRECTED DOWNWARD AND ITEM PULSE ONLY THROUGH 20 FEET, WHICH IS FINE.
BUT THEN WHEN I GO TO PAGE 8 33, I GET WHAT I THINK IS A MORE HELPFUL
[01:35:02]
REQUIRE.IT'S MORE OF A, A PERFORMANCE KIND OF CRITERIA ABOUT ONE AND A HALF FOOT CANDLES, UH, ET CETERA.
IT SEEMS LIKE YOU DON'T NEED BOTH.
AND I, I HAVE A STRONG PREFERENCE FOR, FOR ONE ON 8 33.
IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WE CAN CLEAN UP? YEAH, I THINK, I THINK THERE'S A POSSIBILITY THERE.
UM, THE LANGUAGE ON 8 33 IS MORE OR LESS LIFTED FROM, UM, THE MIXED INCOME HOUSING DESIGN STANDARDS.
IT'S, IT'S KIND OF INTENDED TO APPLY, UH, MORE TO LIKE A MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT.
IT COULD BE APPLIED TO SUDBURY C AS A SITE.
UM, HOWEVER IT COULD BE APPLIED TO THE ENTIRE SITE, UM, WHICH IS KIND OF THE INTENT OF THE, THE CONDITION THAT STARTS ON 8 28.
UM, THAT'S INTENDED MORE TO APPLY TO, UH, YOU KNOW, SIDEWALKS ALONG THE PERIMETER OR IN THE ALLEY.
UM, YOU KNOW, SO I, WHETHER THOSE, UH, TWO CONDITIONS ARE CONSOLIDATED OR YOU KNOW, ONE IS CLARIFIED TO APPLY TO THE PERIMETER, ONE IS CLARIFIED TO APPLY TO THE INTERIOR.
UM, YEAH, I THINK THERE'S DEFINITELY POSSIBILITY THERE.
COMMISSIONER RUB MR. PULL BACK UP YOUR SUPPLIES ON THE STAFF APPLICANT AND THE COMMISSIONER'S MOTION.
SO THAT WAS A TOTAL OF 1 71 AT THOSE VARIOUS VANS, RIGHT? YEAH, SO, SO STAFF'S TOTAL IS, UM, LESS THAN THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST IN COMMISSIONER'S MOTION IN TERMS OF TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS.
UM, HOWEVER WE HAVE A MOTION OF 51 TO 16 OKAY.
AND SEE APPLICANT REAL QUICK JUST TO REFRESH ME.
I CAN GO TO THE SUMMARY ONE SEVEN MM-HMM.
AND THEN THE COMMISSIONERS IS THE MOST AND UM, HAS MORE 51 TO 60 THAN THE APPLICANT.
SO I GUESS MY QUESTION, AND THIS MAY BE FOR, UM, THE GENTLEMAN FROM, UH, WHOSE NAME ERICKSON, MR. ERICKSON THANK YOU.
IS DOES THE FEE VARY BASED ON WHAT PERCENTAGES AT WHAT INCOME BANS REQUIRE? SO WE REQUIRE THAT, JUST SAY WE REQUIRE 10% IF AT 51 60 VERSUS 5% 51 60, 60 AND THE APPLICANT
HI, UM, LAURA ERICKSON, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF HOUSING.
UH, THE F M U IS NOT BASED ON PERCENT OF UNITS OR NUMBER OF UNITS.
THE F M U IS BASED ON RESIDENTIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE TIMES THE N B A CATEGORY, DEPENDING ON THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING PROVIDED.
SO IF IT'S UNDER SIX STORY SIX TO EIGHT OR NINE TO 12, THERE'S A DIFFERENT FEE ASSOCIATED WITH EACH M B A CATEGORY.
THE M B A CATEGORY FOUR CATEGORIES, A THROUGH F ARE HIGHER THAN G THROUGH I.
SO DEVELOPER WILL PAY A HIGHER AMOUNT PER SQUARE FOOT OF RESIDENTIAL PROVIDED.
AND THAT FORMULA ALLOWS THEM TO OPT OUT OF PROVIDING ONSITE UNITS.
A DEVELOPER WILL EITHER, UM, PROVIDE THE ONSITE UNITS THROUGH THE M I H D B TO GET THE BONUS OR THEY WILL PAY THE FEE.
AND SO THERE'S AN AMOUNT OF AFFORDABLE UNITS THAT WILL MAKE SENSE TO THE DEVELOPER TO CHOOSE THE ONSITE RECOMMENDATION.
IT'S TYPICALLY AROUND THAT 5%, WHICH ALLOWS US TO GET THOSE RESERVED UNITS AND DEVELOPMENTS, UH, SUCH AS THESE WHEN WE, UM, ASK FOR MORE, SOMETIMES THEY WILL OPT OUT AND JUST PAY A FEE AND WE GET NO ONSITE UNITS.
HOWEVER, WE GENERATE, UM, A LARGE CHECK THAT ALLOWS US TO INVEST IN MORE AFFORDABLE UNITS AND OTHER DEVELOPMENTS WHERE WE NEED IT.
AND SO THAT'S THE GENERAL WAY THAT THAT PROGRAM OPERATES.
I DON'T BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE FINAL NUMBERS FOR, FOR RESIDENTIAL, FOR DEVELOPMENT.
DO WE, I MEAN THE, THE ONLY ONE THAT'S THAT'S CONCRETE AT THIS POINT IS THE MULTIFAMILY PROPOSED FOR SUB AREA C UM, THE REMAINDER OF DEVELOPMENT, I BELIEVE THEIR TIMELINE IS LIKE 10 TO 15 YEARS BEFORE THEY START TO LOOK AT REDEVELOPING, UM,
[01:40:01]
THE REMAINDER OF THE SITE, ESPECIALLY THE EXISTING SHOPPING CENTER BECAUSE IT HASN'T BEEN SO SUCCESSFUL.AND I KNOW MR. ERICKSON JUST SAID THAT IT, YOU KNOW, IT'S EITHER ONE OR THE OTHER.
IF THERE ARE MULTIPLE SUB AREAS DEVELOPED AT DIFFERENT TIMES, CAN THEY GO WITH THE B LOOP OR ONE SUB AREA AREA AND ON SITE PROVISION FOR
SO BECAUSE IT'S GONNA BE CONSIDERED ONE SITE, IT FALLS INTO THAT ONE SITE.
IF THERE WERE MULTIPLE SITES, THERE WOULD BE DIFFERENT APPLICATIONS FOR THOSE DIFFERENT PARCELS.
BUT IS THE, THE WHOLE THING IS GONNA BE REZONED INTO ONE NEW SITE.
'CAUSE IT CONSIDERS THE PROJECT AS ONE PROJECT DEVELOPED OVER A PHASE OF YEARS IS REGARDLESS, IT'S STILL THE AMOUNT OF SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT WILL BE APPROVED AT THIS TIME OF APPLICATION, UM, FOR THE, FOR THE DENSITY BONUSES.
BUT WE ONLY HAVE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE ON ONE SUBDISTRICT FOR THE MOMENT.
SO HOW DO WE DETERMINE HOW MANY THE TABLE WE, HOW DO WE DETERMINE
THE WHOLE POINT OF MAKING SUB AREAS WAS TO SAY THIS IS GONNA BE DEVELOPED IN 15 YEARS AT 20 STORIES, 240 SQUARE FEET, I MEAN 240 FEET HIGH THAT WE ARE TRYING TO SAY SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE THERE MIGHT BE IN A SUB AREA, A TOTALLY DIFFERENT PARTNER IN THE DEVELOPMENT WHO HAS A DIFFERENT IDEA TO TOWARDS SPEED AND GLUTEN.
SO WE WERE LOOKING AT IT THE WHOLE TIME THAT THE SUB AREAS EACH HAD VERY SPECIFIC MIXED INCOME HOUSING BONUSES THAT APPLIED TO THE SUB AREA PLUS THE, UH, DENSITY PER ACRE UNITS PER ACRE, WHICH WOULD BE DEFINED.
SO BASICALLY IF YOU WERE WORKING THIS OUT, YOU WOULDN'T LOOK AT IT AS ONE AREA OF SQUARE FOOTAGE.
YOU WOULD LOOK AT THE SUB AREAS, WHICH IS HOW IT'S DEFINED IN THE PD.
I'LL HAVE TO GET BACK TO YOU ON THE, ON THE SUB AREA QUESTION THAT, BECAUSE IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT IT'S, IT'S THE ONE SITE THAT HAS BEEN LOOKED AT TRADITIONALLY THROUGH THE PROGRAM.
DO YOU HAVE OTHER ADVICE ON THAT, ANDREA? I DON'T KNOW.
THAT'S MY QUESTION BECAUSE I, I THINK MY IMPRESSION WAS, I DON'T KNOW, REGARDLESS OF FLOODING, LIKE WHAT DO YOU GIVE IT PER, I DON'T
'CAUSE YOU KNOW THE AMOUNT THAT OF THE, OF THE TOTAL RESIDENTIAL ALLOWED BY THE ZONING DISTRICT, YOU KNOW THE AMOUNT OF DENSITY BONUS YOU'RE GETTING.
SO YOU'RE CALCULATING A MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF RESIDENTIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED IN THOSE SUB-DISTRICTS.
NOW, REGARDLESS OF WHAT THEY END UP DOING, THEIR DESIGN WISE, YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT ALLOWED BY RIGHT? OR BY THAT THIS I DON'T, I DUNNO, THIS IS COMPLETELY, I MEAN I HAVE SAY IN THE PROCESS THIS IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THAN WHERE WE HAVE BEEN BECAUSE THIS IS GOING TO BE LIKE IF SOMETHING ISN'T BUILT FOR 15 YEARS AND MY UNDERSTANDING FOR INSTANCE ABOUT FEE AND LUDE IS THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING COULD AFFECT WHAT THE SQUARE FOOTAGE CALCULUS IS.
THAT IT'S A LOWER ONE FOR NON STEEL CONSTRUCTION AND HIGHER BASED ON THIS.
SO HOW IN THE WORLD COULD YOU PHASE IN SOMETHING? 'CAUSE THE WHOLE POINT OF THIS IS TO MAKE IT A MORE URBAN DESIGN 15 YEARS FROM NOW AND FOR INSTANCE IN THIS CASE THERE'S ONE PARTNER IN SUB AREA C THAT'S BUILDING WELL SUB AREA D.
IT'S NOT THAT THEY'RE SELLING IT OFF, BUT THEY MAY BE ABLE TO BRING IN A DIFFERENT DEVELOPER FOR THAT.
SO HOW DOES HE EXERCISE HIS OPTION FOR V AND L IF YOU ARE SAYING THIS IS ON THE WHOLE PROPERTY? YEAH, I'LL HAVE TO GET BACK TO YOU ON THE, ON THE SUBDISTRICT PHASE.
'CAUSE MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE PROGRAM RIGHT NOW IS IT'S BASED ON THE ONE SAME, WELL I WISH WE'D KNOWN THAT SOONER THAN FOR TWO YEARS
OH, EVEN THOUGH I, IT'S AN ONGOING CONVERSATION WITH AGENCIES.
'CAUSE THIS WAS THE INTEGRAL PART OF THE CONVERSATIONS AND THE NEGOTIATIONS FOR EVERYTHING WE GOT.
AND AS YOU JUST HEARD ME SAYING, IT'S 15% IN ONE AREA AND QUITE FRANKLY WE'RE PUT IN A POSITION.
THIS BRINGS UP A WHOLE ISSUE THAT COMMISSIONER RUBIN HAS BROUGHT UP IS WHEN I'M NEGOTIATING WITH AN APPLICANT AND HE CAN LOOK AT THIS AND I THINK WE ALL NEED TO LOOK AT THIS VERY CAREFULLY.
IF YOU AMORTIZE WHAT YOUR QUOTE TO THEIR SENSE THEIR LOSS SITS, I MEAN I'M LOOKING FROM THE APPLICANT'S STANDPOINT, I REALIZE THEY'RE GETTING A BONUS FOR DOING THIS INCOME.
SO YOU HAVE TO WEIGH IT WITH THAT BONUS.
[01:45:01]
BUT IF YOU JUST TOOK THE LOSS AND YOU SAID, WELL IN FOUR YEARS IN MY, OKAY, FOR INSTANCE ON THE SUBAR CITY, THE FEE IN LIEU WOULD END UP BEING ABOUT $2 MILLION.OKAY, WELL IF YOU CALCULATE $2 MILLION OVER A LOSS OF 15 YEARS OF EIGHT TO 10 MILLION, YOU PAY THE 2 MILLION.
SO IN OUR NEGOTIATIONS IT MAKES IT VERY DIFFICULT TO GET SOME OF THESE LOWER VANS BECAUSE THEY'RE GONNA SAY, IF YOU DO THAT TO ME, I'M GOING FEE IN LOOP.
I MEAN WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO I THINK, REVISIT FROM A HOUSING STANDPOINT HOW, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T WANT EVERY WHAT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT, WHAT DO YOU CALL THIS, THE C M V A AREA, IS THAT WHAT YOU CALL IT? CORRECT.
WE DON'T WANT EVERY DEVELOPER IN A C M V A AREA PAYING FEE IN LIEU AND NOT PUTTING IN A PERFECT AREA LIKE THIS IF ANY PLACE WANTS LIVED WHERE YOU WERE.
BUT I AM DEALING WITH PEOPLE TALKING ABOUT, WELL IT BEHOOVES ME TO PAY THE FEE IN LIVING.
YOU KNOW, IF YOU'RE WONDERING WHY IN SUB AREA C I DIDN'T PUT THE 51% BACK.
MR. ERICKSON, YOU'RE GONNA, YOU'RE GONNA CIRCLE BACK ON THIS I LATER AT THE HEARING.
UM, COMMISSIONER RUBIN, LET'S, LET'S GO BACK TO YOU.
I KNOW YOU HAVE SOME MORE QUESTIONS.
YEAH, I JUST, WE WANTED TO UH, CIRCLE BACK ON THESE TO READ PROPOSALS.
THERE'S SOME, THERE'S MOTION THAT INTENDS TO MAKE REQUEST APPLICANT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION APPLICANT'S REQUEST.
DO YOU HAVE A SENSE OF, OF WHICH, IF ANY WILL, WILL TRIGGER THE DEVELOPER TO SO THAT FEE AND MOVE BASED ON THE DIFFERENT, I, I KNOW IT'S NOT NECESSARILY ABLE TO SEE THE PERFORMANCE, BUT CAN WE DO ANY PROPER ALTERCATION? THERE IS THAT QUESTION FOR REMAIN BY MR. MR. I'M, I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT'S LIKELY TO HAPPEN HERE IN TERMS OF GETTING BASED ON THE THREE YEAH THAT'S RELEVANT TO THE CONVERSATION WE'VE BEEN HAVING HERE IN TERMS OF WILL THE ONE SITE BE CONSIDERED AS THE WHOLE RESIDENTIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE OR HOW CAN WE HANDLE THE SUBDISTRICT OVER A BASE PERIOD.
SO I'M TRYING TO GET CLARIFICATION ON THAT RIGHT NOW BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'VE SEEN A LOT OF CASES THAT LOOK 15 YEARS FROM NOW AND THE ZONING REQUESTS ARE GETTING DOWN TO DEVELOP 15 YEARS FROM NOW.
MOST OF OUR CASES HAVE BEEN ON ONSITE READY TO DEVELOP AND THEY'VE BEEN LOOKED AT FROM A SITE PERSPECTIVE.
I WAS SAYING THAT MOST OF THE REQUESTS FOR M I S D P SO FAR HAVE BEEN SITES THAT ARE BEING READY TO DEVELOP NOW THEY'RE SEEKING THEIR ZONING CHANGE, THEY'RE READY TO BREAK GROUND, THEY MOVE FORWARD.
THIS NOTION OF A SUBDISTRICT BEING DELAYED FOR 15 YEARS DUE TO PHASING.
I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER DIRECTLY 'CAUSE TO DATE THE REQUIREMENTS HAVE LOOKED AT THE ENTIRE SITE AND RESIDENTIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE FOOTAGE PER SITE.
BUT I'M HAVING A TEAM DIVE A LITTLE BIT DEEPER TO SEE IF WE CARVED OUT ANYTHING FOR SUB-DISTRICTS SPECIFICALLY THAT HAVE A, A LATER RAISING THAT UNDERSTANDING THAT.
BUT TO MY KNOWLEDGE RIGHT NOW, IT'S ALWAYS BEEN THE SITE THAT WE'RE LOOKED AT FOR THE NEW ZONING AND WHAT'S ALLOWED FOR THAT ZONING AND WHERE THE RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS ARE BEING PLANNED FOR THE THAT SITE.
OKAY, WELL, WELL WELL LET'S JUST TAKE OUT, OUT OF THE EQUATION FOR THE MOMENT THE, THE SUB DISTRICTS OR ONE WE THINK ABOUT DOWN THE ROAD AND JUST TALK ABOUT THE SUB DISTRICTS THAT ARE COMING UP.
YOU HAVE A SENSE OF THE WOULD GO M IH AND THE VARIOUS PROPOSALS.
UH, I DON'T HAVE A SENSE THAT, I MEAN ACCORDING TO THE PROPOSAL IT LOOKS LIKE THERE WAS ONSITE REVISIONS BEING SUGGESTED BY THE APPLICANT AS WELL AS STAFF.
WELL WE, WE HAVE THE APPLICANT'S OWN SUGGESTION AND I GUESS RATHER INTEND TO DO, YOU KNOW, THEIR OWN SUGGESTION IS A SEPARATE QUESTION.
BUT THERE'S ALSO A STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR MORE IH ON THE SIDE AND MOTION FOR MORE IH ON SITE.
DO YOU HAVE A SENSE OF WHETHER THOSE TWO WOULD LEAD TO THE BEING PAID ORITE? YOU'RE NOT ALL HERE.
YEAH, I MEAN UM, I CAN ANSWER THAT.
[01:50:01]
YEAH, I MEAN THE APPLICANT, I, I MEAN HERE'S WHAT THE THINKING IS.THE REASON WE PUT THE APPLICANT OBVIOUSLY WAS NOT GOING TO DO THE 51 TO 60% BUT SEE THE ONE THAT'S GONNA DO IT IMMEDIATELY.
SO I ALREADY KNEW THAT THAT WAS OUR NEGOTIATION AS OPPOSED TO BEING IN LOOP.
I'M BEING TOTALLY TRANSPARENT NOW TO THE OTHERS BECAUSE THOSE ARE NOT GOING TO BE DEVELOPED UNTIL THE D WILL NOT BE AVAILABLE FOR 12 YEARS.
THE OTHER A A ONE, YOU KNOW THIS SHOPPING CENTER'S GOT SOME LIFE INTO IT 'CAUSE A LOT OF MONEY'S BEEN PUT IN THAT WON'T BE DEVELOPED FOR 15 YEARS.
SO THIS IS THE PROBLEM IN A THING.
WE ARE FACING AN EXISTING SHOPPING CENTER AND WE'RE DOING THE ZONING NOW IN A PD BUT THE APPLICANT HAS AGREED BECAUSE MY FEELING IS IN THE FUTURE THERE WILL BE MORE NEED FOR THOSE 15% ASKING FOR MORE AND THE THREE BANS AND THEY'VE AGREED TO THAT.
NOW CAN WE SAY IN 15 YEARS WE DON'T KNOW THE FEE AND LOO MIGHT BE A LOT MORE THEN SO THEY WILL DO IT.
BUT WHAT WE'RE DOING NOW IS PUTTING THE REQUIREMENT IN SO THEY WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK HERE IF THEY WANTED TO LIFT THAT REQUIREMENT OR PAY THE FEE IN LIE.
'CAUSE THINGS COULD BE TOTALLY DIFFERENT IN ZONING IN 15 YEARS.
MS, EARLIER YOU HAD FOLLOW UP SIR? YEAH.
DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? I DUNNO IF IT DOES OR NOT.
JUST UH, SOMETHING TO ADD TO THE EARLIER POINT, UM, FROM THE ZONING PERSPECTIVE, UM, I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'VE HAD A LOT OF PDS WITH MIXED INCOME HOUSING THAT WORK FOR SINGLE SCIENCE.
YOU KNOW UM, I'M TRYING TO THINK BACK BUT I THINK THIS IS THE FIRST TIME HERE THAT IT'S THIS MULTI-PHASE ABSOLUTELY.
THING WHERE WE'RE SETTING UP ENTITLEMENTS FOR A NUMBER OF PHASES.
SO I THINK WE'VE BROKEN THE SYSTEM.
WELL, UH, I WOULD LIKE TO ADD THAT MR. MULKEY, WERE YOU AWARE THAT WHEN WE, WHEN WE WROTE THE MIXING INCOME HOUSING DEVELOPMENT BONUS, WHICH WAS CALLED UH, VOLUNTARY INCLUSIONARY ZONING BACK IN THE DAY, ZOE, WE, WE NEVER CONSIDERED THIS.
WE DIDN'T EXPAND OUR ABANDONMENT APART.
SO YEAH, WE WE'RE KIND OF LITTLE OF OUR SKIS HERE AND NEW TERRITORY.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER? YES COMMISSIONER, YOU'RE UM, WE'RE GONNA ASK THE SAME QUESTION EVERYBODY ELSE HAS ASKED BUT A DIFFERENT WAY.
I THINK THE PROBLEM IS WE DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN BY THE TERM SITE.
THAT'S NOT A TERM THAT WE USE ON OUR COMMISSION.
WE SPEAK OF A PD, WE SPEAK OF A LOT, WE SPEAK OF A BUILDING PERMIT.
IS THE SITE, IS EACH BUILDING PERMIT A SEPARATE SITE? IS EACH A LOT OF SEPARATE SITE? IS EACH ZONING DISTRICT A SEPARATE SITE? THAT WOULD BE WHAT'S WHAT I WOULD FIND HELPFUL TO KNOW.
UM, UNDERSTAND I ONLY GET CLARIFICATION ON THAT AS WELL.
UM, 'CAUSE TO DATE, UM, DOING THIS AS A PD AS A WHOLE IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE'VE NECESSARILY LOOKED AT.
IT'S BEEN THE INDIVIDUAL PARCEL THAT'S APPLYING FOR THEIR DENSITY BONUS TO BE ABLE TO BUILD, WHICH IS THE SAME CONCEPT AS THE SUB-DISTRICTS HERE.
BUT I NEED TO GET CLARIFICATION ON WHAT'S GOING ON.
IT SEEMS TO ME THAT PD IS NO DIFFERENT THAN A BIG CHUNK OF STRAIGHT MULTI-FAMILY ZONING.
AND IF I BUY FIVE ACRES OF THAT CHUNK, AM I A SEPARATE SITE OR IS THE WHOLE CHUNK A SITE? MM-HMM
WE'LL GET THE ANSWER IN PDD 15 IS THAT WAY THEY HAVE SUB AREAS IN PDD 15.
AND SO WHEN THOSE PEOPLE, LIKE IF HANOVER BUYS ONE SITE, THEY'RE DEALT WITH INDIVIDUALLY.
IF, UH, WHAT WAS THE OTHER ONE I DID? 'CAUSE I'VE ALREADY DONE TWO THERE.
BRAWLEY BROTHERS DOES THE SECOND ONE.
THEY'RE A DIFFERENT SITE AND THEY'RE PAYING, THEY'RE FEE AND LOOSE SEPARATE AND DEALING WITH THE M I H SEPARATELY IN PB 15.
I'LL GET CLARIFICATION FOR YOU.
WE'RE WE'RE CREATING SOMETHING NEW.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONERS? OH I HAVE ONE OTHER QUESTION PLEASE.
ARE YOU AWARE I'M DOING ONE OF MY, ARE YOU AWARES WHEN I'M MAKING A STATEMENT? OKAY.
AS FAR AS THE THING ABOUT THE SIDEWALKS, ONE OF THE THINGS ABOUT WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT IN THE SIDEWALKS IN THIS PD IS THAT AT FIRST IT SAID REMOVING ALL BUFFERS AND THAT WE CHANGED THAT TO SAY THERE MUST
[01:55:01]
BE SOME BUFFER BUT IN FACT THE CONVERSATION THAT CAME UP IS CORRECT.YOU COULD NOT PUT AN EIGHT FOOT AND HAVE AN EIGHT FOOT OR WHATEVER THE BUFFER REQUIREMENT IS THERE.
WE KNOW THAT BECAUSE THERE ARE HUGE LIVE OAKS THAT HAVE BEEN THERE FOR YEARS.
BUT YOU COULD, THERE ARE WAYS TO WIND IT AROUND AND EVEN MAKE IT A D A COMPLIANT OR GET A SMALLER BUFFER.
OBVIOUSLY YOU DON'T WANNA BE WALKING ON WALNUT HILL, CORRECT.
I MEAN THERE'S NO BUFFER RIGHT NOW AND I CAN TELL YOU IT'S NOT A GOOD THING.
BUT EVEN A TWO FOOT BUFFER TO SAY THE TREES IS BETTER THAN NO BUFFER.
BUT THIS WOULD ONLY BE IN VERY SMALL AREAS OF THE PROPERTY.
ARE YOU AWARE OF THAT? I'M AWARE OF THAT.
AND ARE YOU AWARE OF ONE OTHER THING, JUST WANNA MAKE SURE SO THAT WE CAN CLARIFY THIS.
THE PART OF THE THING ABOUT THE LIGHTING THAT WE WERE DEALING WITH IS THAT WE WERE SAYING PEDESTRIAN LIGHTING AND BECAUSE ONCE AGAIN THIS IS A DIFFERENT SITUATION.
WE'RE ADDING A LOT OF PEDESTRIAN LIGHTING WITH THE ALLEY, BUT AT THE SAME TIME THERE'S THAT INSTITUTIONAL PARKING LOT LIGHTING THAT EXISTS IN THIS OLD SUBURBAN STYLE PARKING LOT THAT WILL STAY THERE FOR SOME YEARS UNTIL THERE'S A COMPLETE RENOVATION.
SO WE'RE DEALING WITH BOTH ASPECTS OF THAT, CORRECT? YES.
UH, AND TO COMMISSIONER HOUSE RIGHT'S POINT, I THINK BETWEEN NOW AND THE HEARING WE CAN KIND OF CLARIFY OR CONSOLIDATE OR WHATEVER WE NEED TO DO.
TWO DIFFERENT LIGHTING CONDITIONS THAT ARE PRESENT.
AND THE LAST THING, ARE YOU AWARE THAT MY MOTION INCLUDES ONCE AGAIN, WE'RE GOING TO OUR SUB AREAS, MR. ERICKSON.
THAT MY, MY MOTION INCLUDES PUTTING BICYCLE RACKS 10 IN EACH SUB AREA OF WHICH THERE ARE FIVE.
I'M JUST SAYING THIS, SO THIS PART ISN'T THE QUESTION.
IT SAYS CLOSE TO THE BUILDINGS AS OPPOSED TO PERIMETERS.
SUBDISTRICTS ASIDE, FOLLOWING UP ON COMMISSIONER RIGGINS QUESTIONS, DOES STAFF EVER DO AN ANALYSIS IN MAKING ITS RECOMMENDATION FOR THE NUMBER AND PERCENTAGES OF AFFORDABLE UNITS ON WHERE THE BREAK POINT IS ON A PROJECT FOR THE
UH, I THINK THIS IS ANOTHER WAY WHERE WE'RE KIND OF, IT LOOKS LIKE WE NEED TO BREAK THE SYSTEM A LITTLE BIT OR SOMETHING BECAUSE FOR THE ZONING AND LAND USE ANALYSIS, WE CAN'T CONSIDER FINANCING, YOU KNOW, WHETHER THAT'S FINANCING FOR AFFORDABLE UNITS OR ANY OTHER KIND OF SOURCE OF FINANCING THAT'S KIND OF BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE ZONING AND LAND USE ANALYSIS.
HOWEVER, I DO KNOW IS THERE ARE PERHAPS OPPORTUNITIES TO, IN SOME WAY COORDINATE WITH HOUSING WHO IS DOING THAT FINANCING, UM, TO AT LEAST HAVE THAT INFORMATION AVAILABLE.
I'M, I'M LIKE WAITING FOR DANIEL TO JUMP IN IF I SAY THE WRONG THING.
BUT, UM, TO HAVE THAT INFORMATION AVAILABLE.
BUT AGAIN, FROM THE ZONING PERSPECTIVE, I THINK AT THE VERY, I DON'T KNOW, I THINK AT THE VERY MOST WE COULD PROVIDE IT AS SEVERAL INFORMATION THROUGH THE PERMISSION TO CONSIDER, BUT MAYBE ANDREA WANTS TO JUMP IN, BUT I, I DON'T THINK THAT CAN BE WHATEVER, WHATEVER PERCENTAGE WE RECOMMEND, I DON'T THINK THE BASIS OF THAT CAN BE A FINANCIAL DECISION.
BUT WE HAVE A DOLLAR AMOUNT ON THE FEE IN LIE HAVE WE COME UP WITH IT? WE THAT'S I KNOW, BUT IT'S NOT OURS.
AND, AND THE MIXED INCOME HOUSING DEVELOPMENT BONUS PROGRAM, IT DOES, IT TAKES HOUSING AND IT TAKES SONY AND IT KIND OF, YOU KNOW, PUTS THEM TOGETHER.
SO I THINK THE BOUNDARIES OF LIKE THE LEGAL FRAMERS AND EVERYTHING ARE UH, A LITTLE MUSHY.
KNOWING WHERE THE RUBBER MEETS THE ROAD IS IMPORTANT IF YOU ACTUALLY WANT UNITS ON THE RAMP.
SO NOT KNOWING WHERE THE BREAK POINT IS MM-HMM.
YEAH, AND THAT'S WHY I SAY I THINK THE QUESTION
[02:00:01]
IS AN IMPORTANT QUESTION.IT ALSO KIND OF BREAKS THE SYSTEM, BUT I'M NOT SUGGESTING THAT THE SYSTEM DOESN'T NEED TO BE BROKEN.
I KNOW WE HAD THIS CONVERSATION, IT'S VERY BROKEN ANYWAY.
WE, WE HAD THIS CONVERSATION A FEW YEARS BACK.
UM, I DON'T THINK WE CAN MAKE A REQUIREMENT OF THE APPLICANTS TO SHARE THEIR PERFORMANCE WITH US.
SO IT BECOMES A BECAUSE AND THEN WE DON'T, WE WOULD NOT HAVE EXPERTS WHO LIKE LOOK AT THOSE PERFORMERS AND KIND OF LIKE CERTIFY WHAT THEY'RE SAYING IS CORRECT.
SO THAT'S WHEN HOUSING COMES IN.
SO I, I DON'T KNOW, LIKE WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS A LOT, A LOT LIKE, BECAUSE THEY WILL ALWAYS SAY THAT THEIR PERFORM, BUT I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS AND I'M NOT AN EXPERT IN FINANCING DEVELOPMENT.
BUT YOU CAN DO A BALLPARK, RIGHT? I WOULD NOT BE ABLE, BUT YOU DO COMMON SENSE JUST ON THIS ONE THAT THAT IS RIGHT HERE.
YOU KNOW, I WOULD ASSUME HOUSING CAN DO IT OFF.
IF YOU, IF YOU'RE GOING TO LOSE 500,000 A YEAR AND IT'S GONNA COST YOU 2 MILLION ON THE FEE IN LIE, THEN IN FOUR YEARS I'LL PAY, I'VE PAID IT OFF.
WHEREAS 15 YEARS TIMES 500,000, WHATEVER THAT WOULD BE.
I MEAN THAT'S A WHOLE DIFFERENT BALLGAME.
SO I THINK YOU CAN BASICALLY GET A BALLPARK COMMON SENSE GIVES YOU SOMETHING.
I MEAN THERE'S SOME DISCONNECT AS COMMISSIONER KINGSTON SAYING BETWEEN GETTING NEGOTIATING WITH APPLICANTS AND THE LOW BALL OF THE FEE IN LIEU.
AND I THINK YOU LEARN THROUGH PRACTICE, IF IT'S NOT WORKING AND IT'S NOT GETTING THESE HIGHER END TO PUT IN SOME AFFORDABLE UNITS WHERE WE NEED 'EM MOST, THEN WE'VE GOT TO LOOK AT IT AGAIN AND RAISE THE FEE AND LOOP.
I MEAN I KNOW OUR APPLICANTS DON'T WANNA HEAR THAT, BUT I THINK THAT'S WHY WE CAME WITH THIS BEING BLUE BECAUSE IT WAS, AND I WILL ADD EVEN MORE TO THE TOO.
SO IT'S BECOMING, IT'S BECOMING A LITTLE CRAZIER.
THEY ALWAYS HAVE THE OPTION TO BUILD OTHER BONUS.
SO THERE'S ABSOLUTELY NO WAY FOR US TO VERIFY WHEN CAN YOU GUARANTEE THAT YOU NEED THE BONUS? LIKE THE BASIS, THE ONE THAT DICTATES, BUT THEY CAN ALWAYS BUILD UP THE BONUS AND SAY OKAY, I'M PROVIDING THIS.
SO IT'S A VERY LONG, HARD ARDUOUS LEARNED GAME BETWEEN US AND THEM, HOW WE NEGOTIATE LIKE AND THEN WHERE DO YOU ACTUALLY PUT THE BONUS? IS IT ON LOCK COVERAGE OR IS IT ON UNITS OR DOES IT MAKE SENSE TO MAKE SURE THAT ACTUALLY THEY MEET THE BONUS? SO, AND THAT'S WHY WE CANNOT HAVE LIKE A FORMULA 'CAUSE THEN IT BECOMES MANDATORY AND WE DON'T WANT TO DO THAT.
AND THEN ZONING AS A CONCEPT ANYWAY, IT'S NOT ABOUT SPECIFYING EXACTLY WHAT WILL BE BUILT BUT MORE THE PARAMETERS IN WHICH SOMETHING WILL BE BILL.
SO THERE'S STILL FLEXIBILITY WITHIN THAT.
WE DON'T WANNA BE TOO PRESCRIPTIVE.
MOVING ON, UH, WE'LL HOLD ALL THE REST OF THE QUESTIONS FOR THE HORSESHOE.
THAT TAKES US TO CASE NUMBER NINE.
IT'S GONNA BE NOVEMBER UNTIL SEPTEMBER 7TH.
HAS 10 BEEN BRIEF BEFORE? YES IT HAS.
UH, ARE THERE ANY CHANGES? NUMBER 10? YES, THIS ONE WAS AN APPLICATION THAT WAS SO THAT IS SHOULD CHANGE THEN.
WOULD YOU LIKE A COMMISSIONER? I THINK WE'VE HAD A PRETTY THOROUGH BRIEFING.
IT HASN'T SEEMED LIKE WE'VE HAD ANY CHANGES.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH COMMISSIONERS.
ANY QUESTIONS ON CASE NUMBER 10? ANY QUESTIONS? NO QUESTIONS.
HAS 11 BEEN BRIEFED BEFORE? NO.
I'M SORRY, I THOUGHT I BRIEFED BUT I GO AHEAD.
WE CAN'T, I CAN'T REMEMBER HONESTLY IT WAS BRIEF BECAUSE I KNEW I WAS GONNA HOLD IT.
[02:05:09]
IS IT UP? YES.SO THIS IS AN APPLICATION TO AMEND PD 3 36 FOR AN R 75 CASE, SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT AND PERSONAL CARE HOME FOR THE AGING.
USE A CASE ON ONE BLOCK THAT IS 0.6271 ACRES AND LOCATED ON SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SEA ROSALY DRIVE AND THE CIRCLE WOULD DRIVE.
THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING TO AMEND THE COMMITTED LAND USES SO THAT THEY CAN REMOVE THE AID REVISION FOR THE HOME, FOR PERSONAL CARE, AND NOW ACCOMMODATE CHILDREN, UM, TO HOUSE THEM AS PART OF THEIR UH, FACILITY OF A GROUP RESIDENTIAL FACILITY OR A HANDICAP GROUP RESIDENTIAL UNIT WITH THE SAME FLOOR AREA.
NO CHANGES TO THE LAYOUT OR STRUCTURES.
THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS THAT THE RESIDENTS ARE NOW THE YOUNGER AGE.
ADDITIONALLY THEY WOULD HAVE UP TO 19 RESIDENTS AND SIX CARETAKERS AND SHIPS WHO ARE NOT LIVING ON SITE.
IT IS ONE MONTH, WHICH IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE TYPICALLY PREFER, BUT UNFORTUNATELY AS A GROUP RESIDENTIAL FACILITY, THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICTS.
THIS IS A WELL-ESTABLISHED SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD.
SO AT THE TIME THEIR CREATIVE SOLUTION WAS TO CREATE PD IN ORDER TO ALLOW THE GROUP RESIDENTIAL FACILITY IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.
SO THAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF THE TIME.
THEY DID GO AHEAD AND LIMITED TO A HOME FOR THE AGING INSTEAD OF IT BEING, UM, A, A RESIDENTIAL IN GENERAL, WHICH IS WHAT THEY'RE NOW REQUESTING.
THEY'RE NOT ADDING LANGUAGE THAT SPECIFIES CHILDREN, ALTHOUGH THAT IS THE INTENT AND THAT'S BECAUSE WE WOULD LIKE TO AVOID ANY FUTURE OPINION AMENDMENT.
IF THE, IF THE THOSE WHO THEY SERVE DID CHANGE FOR SOME REASON OR IF CHILDREN WHO ARE AGING OUT OR TO MAINTAIN THEIR STATUS STAYING THERE AS PART OF THE ORGANIZATION UNTIL THEY WERE PROPERLY UM, PREPARED TO BE RELEASED.
AND ACCORDING TO DCAP RECORDS, THE EXISTING STRUCTURE HAS BEEN THERE SINCE 1974.
IT'S TWO STORIES AND HAS ABOUT 6,700 SQUARE FEET.
THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN SOUTHEAST DALLAS, WEST OF WEAVER.
AND HERE'S AN AREA MAP THAT SHOWS THAT DEVELOPED NATURE OF THE PROPERTY AND THEN ADDITIONALLY HE WOULD USE THE RIGHT HERE.
THIS IS THE CORNER, LOTS OF THE SAME ROAD WE DRIVE.
UM, FRONTAGE IS ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY AND THEN ON THE EAST IS THE THIRD, FOURTH DRIVE, FRONTAGE VERY LARGE LOT LARGE HOUSE.
AND THEN HERE'S THIS ZONING MAP SHOWING THAT AREA AND THEN THE SURROUNDING USES WE HAVE UNDEVELOPED TO WEST AND THEN SEEING FAMILY SURROUNDING THE SIDE KNOW WHAT DIRECTIONS.
AND NOW YOU LOOKING AT THE SIDE OF WEST FROM CIRCLE WOOD DRIVE HERE, THEY DO HAVE A CIRCLE DIRECTLY THERE THAT IS USED TO ACCESS THE SITE AND YOU WILL TURN THE CORNER ONTO ST.
ROSALIE WHERE THEY ALSO HAVE UM, A DRIVEWAY AND THEN THE FENCE IS TO LEAVE.
I'M SORRY, THE PROPERTY IS FENCED.
THE REAR OF THAT IS NOW THIS IS ADJACENT ST.
ROSALIE THAT ENDS INTO UM, THIS
IT SHOWS UM, THE STRUCTURE AND SHOWS THAT THERE WERE EXISTING TREES.
IT HAS THE SAME CONFIGURATION OF HAVING THIS DRIVE ON CIRCLE WOOD AND THEN THIS DRIVEWAY ON STATE ROSALY.
SOME OF THE TREES AREN'T THERE ANY LONGER, BUT FOR THE MOST PART THEY'VE BEEN ACCURATELY MAINTAINED ACCORDING TO OUR HARBORS.
THEY HAVE PROPOSED A NEW SITE PLAN TO UPDATE IT FOR DEVELOPMENT PLAN I SHOULD SAY.
AND IT DOES SHOW THE PARKING, UM,
THERE ARE NO CHANGES TO THE FLOOR AREA OVERALL.
THIS IS JUST A COMPARISON TO THAT STRUCTURE AND WORK AREA
[02:10:03]
SUBJECT TO THAT DEVICE DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS.QUESTIONS? ANY QUESTIONS? NO QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU MS. LL GOING CASE NUMBER 12 SIX.
CAN WE TAKE THE PRESENTATION? YES WE CAN.
SO THIS IS AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT SCHOOL DEFENDANT ON PROPERTY THAT'S DISTRICT AND IT'S ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF NORTH.
WE
I WOULD LIKE TO USE SOME CLARIFICATIONS.
UM, THE SCHOOL BUILDING, THEY ARE NOT PROPOSING ANY ADDITIONAL CLASSROOMS OR AT HOME.
THIS IS A THEATER AND THE MUSIC ROOMS WHICH ARE NOT CONSIDERED CLASSROOMS. THE EXISTING
THERE ARE 31 50 BATHROOM AT THE SITE.
SO THERE UM, ARE MOTIVATION IN CLASSROOMS AND THEY ARE CURRENTLY SERVING ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS AND WOULD MAINTAIN THAT 13 PRINCIPAL 18
SO THIS WOULD BE WHERE MARCH THEATER AND THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN WEST ALEX, NORTH NEWPORT AVENUE AND WORTH, AVENUE AND AVENUE.
HERE IS THE PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING
THAT SITE IS CURRENTLY UNDER UNDEVELOPED TWO FAMILY, UM, COMPLEX, WHICH THERE ARE SOME PHOTOS OF.
AND THEN SURROUNDING USES ALL OF OUR REST THE FAMILY, NORTH FAMILY CHURCH, AND THEN EAST.
HERE'S AN MAP SHOWING THE DEVELOP NATURE OF THE SITES.
AND NOW I WILL GO AHEAD WITH THE SITE FOR ANYTHING YOU READ AS YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE ACTUAL SITE ITSELF.
SO WE'RE STARTING EAST DOWN ALONG AVENUE AND CONTINUING LOOKING AT THE WEST VIEW.
THIS IS PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH ON WALL STREET INCLUDING, AND THIS IS DIRECTLY IN THE FRONT OF THE SCHOOL, WHICH IS RIGHT HERE.
THE SOUTH, UM, SIDE VIEW FROM SING AVENUE AND A PARKING LOT, WHICH IS THE FRONT AREA HERE ON EY.
AND THEN IT ACROSS THE STREET THERE'S A CHURCH AND INITIAL SCENE.
AND THEN WE CONTINUE ON TO THE NEXT, UM, PORTION OF THE
FLANDER STREET, WE'RE LOOKING AT A PLAYGROUND AREA AND AS WE TURN INTO THE PROPERTY HERE, THERE'S A DRIVEWAY RIGHT AT THE NORTH INTERSECTION OF AVENUE TURNING INTO
THAT'S ALSO WHERE THEY HAVE DUMPSTER AND ACROSS THE THREE OF THAT CORNERS AND YOU SEE, SORRY.
AND WHEN YOU LOOK NORTHBOUND ON WIND NEAR TO THE EAST OF THE SITE, YOU SEE AN ADDITIONAL DRIVEWAY AND THEN A PLAYGROUND TREES THAT WERE INSTALLED.
AND THEN HIS, THIS PORTION OF THE PROPERTY HERE RUNS ALONG, UM, THE PAGE SEVEN 14 PROPERTY ACROSS THE STREET THAT'S BEING DEVELOPED MULTIFAMILY.
[02:15:02]
AND NOW WE ARE TURNING ONTO NORTH MONTCLAIR, LOOKING INTO THE SITE WHERE OUR PORTABLES THAT WILL REMAIN EAST INTO THE SITE TO MINUTES SOUTH ON MONTCLAIR, SEE THE EXISTING CONDITION OF SIDEWALKS, UNDEVELOPED PROPERTY TO THE WEST, OTHER SMALL STRUCTURES AS ON SITE PLAN THAT WOULD REMAIN AND CASE IN SINGLE FAMILY USES ACROSS THE STREET ON THERE AS WE TURN BACK OVER TO MONTHLY.SO THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS COMPARISON, THIS IS AN S E P, SO IT'S NOT REALLY MODIFYING THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
HOWEVER, WE AREN'T JUST CLARIFYING HERE THE ITEMS THAT ARE PROVIDED, INCLUDING THAT THE PLAN SHOWS 34.2% BLOCK COVERAGE AND SAT THERE IS, UH, NO REAR YARD BECAUSE IT HAS TWO FRONT YARDS AND THEREFORE THE OTHER TWO REMAINING YARDS ARE CONSIDERED SIDE YARDS.
AS NOTED, THE COURT STRUCTURES WILL REMAIN IN MONTCLAIR ON THE NORTH MONTCLAIR AVENUE, UH, FRONTAGE AND EXISTING IN THE FRONT, EXCUSE ME, EXISTING PARKING FRONT YARD, NORTHEAST CORNER IN THAT PARKING LOT, A PORTION OF IT IS CONSIDERED TO BE IN THE FRONT COMPLIANCE.
THEY DO PLAN TO MAINTAIN THAT.
THIS PARKING HERE LOCATED IN THE FRONT YARD, THAT IS NOT TYPICALLY PERMITTED.
THEY PLAN TO MAINTAIN THAT CONDITION, THAT EXISTING CONDITION.
THESE STRUCTURES HERE THAT ARE LOCATED IN THE SIDE YARD, THEY PLAN TO MAINTAIN THOSE PORTABLES THERE.
AND THEN ADDITIONALLY THIS DUSTER THAT IS LOCATED HERE WHERE THE ENCLOSURE OPENS UP INTO THE SIDEWALK, THEY PLAN TO MAINTAIN THAT CONDITION.
HOWEVER, WITH THESE ISSUES, WHENEVER WE GET PERMIT, THERE COULD BE ISSUES WITH T PERMIT WILL BE ASKED TO RELOCATE AT THE VERY LEAST DUMPSTER.
AND AT THAT POINT, UM, STAFF IS MAKING THE RECOMMENDATION TO CONSIDER MAKING THAT CHANGE TODAY RATHER THAT WAITING TO ADDRESS THE PERMITTING ISSUE LATER.
SO THIS IS AN ENLARGED VIEW OF THE AREA THAT'S SEEING THE ADDITION BEING CUTTED.
IF YOU SAW IN THE PHOTOS THERE WAS A BLUE PLATE CORD THERE RIGHT NOW.
AND SO THEY WOULD BE BUILDING THIS THERE INSTEAD.
SO THEY'LL HAVE THE UM, 22,000 SQUARE FOOT CONDITION WITH PART OF IT BEING STORM SHELTER AND IT HAS 48, WHICH IS NOTHING THAT THEY HAVE LIKELY TO ADD THET CONDITIONS.
WE'LL GO OVER IN JUST A MOMENT.
I'D LIKE TO STICK FORWARD TO THOSE S CONDITIONS TO NOTE THAT THE
IN MY CASE REPORT, I NOTED THE CODE REQUIREMENT FOR PARKING AS IT DIFFERS FROM ELEMENTARY AND MIDDLE SCHOOLS.
AND IN THIS CASE SPECIFICALLY, THE PLAN SHOWS TWO SPACES HERE IT SHOWS TWO SPACES FOR EACH CLASSROOM HEIGHT, WHICH IS NOT THE PROPER, UM, BREAKDOWN.
ONE IS SOME SORT OF AN AVERAGE BETWEEN THE TWO.
OVERALL STAFF WOULD LIKE TO MAINTAIN THE EXISTING PARKING AND NOT CLAIM A LESS REQUIRED PARKING RATIO.
AND JUST STATE THAT THE 65 AND 60 SPACES WOULD BE REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN THOSE TOTAL 31 CLASSROOM FOR THE
SO WE WOULD STATE THAT HERE AND THAT IS THE STAFF IS COMMENDING TO BE ADDED TO THE S U CONDITIONS.
NOW THE DUSTER, WHICH SHOULD BE ADDRESSED IF THEY CHOOSE NOT TO ADDRESS IT, IT'S AN EXISTING CONDITION THAT WHEN THEY WOULD COME IN, THEY'LL HAVE TO ADDRESS AT THAT TIME.
STAFF DOES RECOMMEND YOU DUSTER TO ALLOW FOR LIVING ON SITE RATHER THAN ANY PART D
ADDITIONALLY, THE DUSTER SHOULD HAVE SCREENING AND MANNER THAT ACTUALLY PREVENT AND BE VISIBLE TO SURROUNDING UH, SINGLE FAMILY.
SO OVERALL STAFF CLARIFICATION.
WELL, I'D LIKE TO ADD CLARIFICATION AGAIN, THAT NO ADDED CLASSROOMS ARE BEING, UM, DONE AS PART OF THIS RENOVATION AND THE CONDITIONS BEING ADDED FOR THE HEIGHT MAX OF 40 FEET.
CLARIFICATION OF THE PARKING RATIO AS STATED, THE CONDITIONS AND THE DOCK SHOULD REMAIN AND PLAN TO BE UPDATED TO SHOW THAT'S REQUIRED PARKING AMOUNT AND THE RELOCATION OF THE DUMPSTER AT NO.
SO YOU WOULD STATE IF THAT NEEDS TO BE UPDATED ON A TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN, THEN ALL THREE SITE PLANS, TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT
[02:20:01]
PLAN AND CONDITIONS SHOULD BE AMENDED AS AGREEMENT.NOW, IF YOU'D LIKE TO RETURN TO THE PT, THIS PAGE SHOWING US, UM, HOW THEY PLAN TO QUEUE LARGELY ON STREET.
AGAIN, THIS IS A, A VERY URBAN SCHOOL, NOT A LOT OF SPACE.
THEY ARE IN A LARGE ADDITION AND THEREFORE THEY HAVE FOUND OTHER PRACTICES WHICH ARE REVIEWED BY OUR ENGINEER DIVISION TO DETERMINE THAT IF THEY SWITCH THESE TO ONE WAY OPERATION FOR QE, THAT WOULD BE SUFFICIENT.
THEY HAVE THE BUS QUEUE ALL ALONG WITH MONTCLAIR AND THEN THEY CAN QE GRAVITY AROUND FROM MOLEY DOWN ON CLEAR AND FELL, UM, ALL THE WAY AROUND TO THE, UH, WIND SET.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING THE CONDITIONS CHANGES FOR THE T THIS TIME? ANY QUESTIONS? NOT AT THIS TIME, I GUESS.
COMMISSIONERS CASE SERVICING AND 14 WILL BE HELD UNDER.
UH, COMMISSIONER, DO YOU HAVE A DATE ON THAT? UM, I THINK THE FIRST, UH, THE FIRST SEPTEMBER, UH, SEPTEMBER 1ST WOULD BE SEPTEMBER 7TH.
SEVENTH CASE NUMBER FIFTH WILL ALSO BE HELD.
LETTER ADVISED NOT TO DATE DETERMINE AT THE MOMENT THE DAY OF SHOOTING.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONERS? OKAY, IT IS THEN 11:32 AM GONNA BRIEF THE SIGN.
WE MR. POOL? YEAH, HE'S COMING.
UM, DEFINITELY SEE HOW, YES SIR.
CAN I HAVE JUST A INITIAL TAKE?
[02:25:42]
THIS IS IS ONE ONE CA IT'S, UH, LOCATION DOWNTOWN.THIS IS AN APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE APPROPRIATE FOOT 25 PACIFIC AVENUE ASSIGNED NORTHWEST.
UH, PROPOSED SIGN IS SET OF MOUNT ON TWO APPLIC STREET.
THE, UH, THE APPLICATION NEEDS ALL CODE.
UM, HERE'S THE PURPOSE STATEMENT FOR THE DOWNTOWN SPECIAL PROVISION SIGN DISTRICT, UM, TO REGULATE, ENHANCE, UH, TO REGULATE SCIENCE FOR, ENHANCE, PRESERVE, AND DEVELOP NEW CHARACTER OF DOWNTOWN WHILE ADDRESSING THE DIVERSITY OF BUSINESS AND ITS ECONOMY.
INCLUDE AESTHETIC CONSIDERATIONS TO ENSURE SIGNS ARE APPROPRIATE FOR THE ARCHITECTURE MOVEMENT AND NOT SIGNIFICANT FEATURES AND BLEND THEMSELVES TO DEVELOP RETAIL AND RESIDENTIAL USES AND THE AREA AND FIND INSPIRED, UH, BY MAXIMIZE, UH, SIGNS FOR THE HIGH LEVEL OF WALKING PUBLIC.
SO THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED, UH, THREE QUARTER OF A MILE NORTHEAST FROM CITY HALL, UH, NORTH OF I 30 AND EAST OF I 45.
HERE IS A, UH, LOCATION MAP SHOWING THE SDSD AND IT'S LOCATION IN RELATION TO THE SDDS IS IN THE DOWNTOWN PERIMETER.
THIS IS THE AREA ON ZONING MAPS.
HERE'S THE LOCATION MAP PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT.
IT'S PROPOSED TO BE ON THE, UH, NORTHWEST FACADE STATE PACIFIC.
AND HERE IS A, UH, LOCATION ELEVATION PHOTO.
UH, THE SIGN ITEMIZED LESS THAN 1% OF THIS PADE.
UH, THE FACADE HAS HAD MULTIPLE SIGNS ON IT AND IT HAS BEEN TAKEN ALL OF YOUR ACCOUNT.
ALL OF THOSE HAVE LESS THAN 2% OF THE AREA.
YOU CAN SEE THE PARKING SIGN THERE.
UM, THAT WAS APPROVED RECENTLY.
AND CURRENTLY THERE'S A SIGN, UM, ON THE, THE LOWER PORTION OF THE BUILDING THAT WILL BE MOVED, OR EXCUSE ME, REPLACED.
IT'S NOT BEING RELOCATED, BUT THAT SIGN WILL BE REMOVED IN THE NEW SIGN INSTALLED AT THE TOP OF THE BUILDING.
HERE'S A, A FURTHER ELEVATION DETAIL.
UM, IT GIVES I KNOW A LITTLE MORE, UH, DIMENSION ON THE ACTUAL ALIGNMENT ON THE BUILDING.
UM, WE'VE GOT THE, UH, TOP OF THE SIGN GRAY AND THE BOTTOM OF THE SIGN MEASURED CAN GRADE.
THIS SIGN IS THE EXACT SAME SIZE AS THE OTHER SIDE.
UM, ALL SPECS REMAIN THE SAME MIDDLE BACKLIGHT WITH WHITE L E D AND AGAIN IT'S 230.6 SQUARE FEET.
UH, HERE ARE THE ATTACHMENT DETAILS.
UM, THESE ARE, UH, FRAME ON THE BACKSIDE OF THE SIGN.
NOW IT'S WITH CLIPS TO THE EXISTING WINDOW.
HERE IS, UH, PHOTOS OF THE SUBJECT SITE.
THIS THE NORTH ADE WHERE THIS, UH, SIGN WOULD BE MOUNTED.
UM, YOU CAN SEE THAT PARK SIGN.
THIS IS LOOKING NORTHEAST AND SOUTHWEST ON PACIFIC AND SOUTHEAST AND NORTHWEST ON GOOD LATIN.
HERE ARE SOME OF THE SIGNS AROUND THE DISTRICT.
UM, THIS IS, UH, JUST FOLLOWS BUSINESS ZONING RULES.
SO WE'VE GOT KIND OF A MIX OF, OF ALL KINDS OF SIGNS, UM, BOTH STAFF AND AS P A C COMMEND APPROVAL.
MR. QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER AHEAD.
UM, MR. POOL, WOULD YOU CONFIRM THAT THE, UM, MOUNTING HEIGHT
[02:30:01]
FOR THE SIGN IS GONNA BE CLOSER TO 300 3333 FEET? I THINK IN OUR CASE REPORT IT HAD NOTED 249 I BELIEVE WAS THE NUMBER, BUT IT IS ACTUALLY AT THE TOP OF THE BUILDING, WHICH SHOWS THAT THE TOP OF THAT VOLUME IS 334 FEET.IS THAT CORRECT? UM, AND I BELIEVE THAT'S ACTUALLY ABOVE SEA LEVEL BECAUSE I THINK WE HAVE IT ABOUT FEET.
SO IT'S ACTUALLY NO LEVEL NOW FOUR TO FIVE, SIX.
UM, INTO THIS MAP A LITTLE BIT.
I JUST WANTED A CLARIFICATION.
WE HAD A CONVENTION IN THE CASE OF REPORT THAT SAID 249 AND THAT JUST DIDN'T SEEM TO MATCH THE DRAWING.
YEAH, YOU'VE ACTUALLY GOT IT RIGHT THERE.
YES, IT HAS, IT HAS A BASE ELEVATION ON THIS, THIS PARTICULAR PLAN ALONG THE FEET.
AND IF YOU COULD STAY ON THIS SHEET FOR ONE MOMENT.
UM, THE OTHER QUESTION, I THINK WE HAD A RENDERED VIEW THAT SHOWED THE SIGN CLOSER TO THE EDGE OF THE BUILDING, BUT THIS FIVE FEET THAT YOU'RE SHOWING IN THIS DIAGRAM, UM, THAT WAS CONFIRMED BY THE APPLICANT.
IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IT IS ACTUALLY IN TEST? YES.
IT'S NOT COVER THAT LAST NUMBER.
SO THE HEIGHT FIGURES ARE ABOVE GRAY, IS THAT RIGHT? OKAY.
WELL, WE CAN LOOK BACK, WE CAN REVISIT THAT AT THE HEARING IF WE NEED TO.
JUST, WOULD IT SURPRISE YOU TO KNOW THAT THE HEIGHT ABOVE SEA LEVEL IN DALLAS RANGES FROM FOUR 50 ISH TO FIVE 50 ISH? MY MISTAKE.
I WAS GOING WITH THE BASEMENT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY, SO NOW WE'RE WRAPPING IT UP.
UH, IT'S 10 43 AND THAT CONCLUDES THE BRIEFING.
WE'LL SEE YOU AT 1230, BUT YOU HAVE TO SHOW THEM TO US APPOINTMENTS FOR A NEW HIRE.
[CALL TO ORDER]
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.WE'RE GONNA GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED.
MS. SINA, CAN YOU PLEASE START US OFF WITH THE ROLL CALL? YES, SIR.
GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONERS.
DISTRICT TWO PRESENT DISTRICT THREE, ABSENT DISTRICT FOUR, PRESENT DISTRICT FIVE.
DISTRICT 11, ABSENT DISTRICT 12, PRESENT.
AND GOOD AFTERNOON LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
WELCOME TO THE DALLAS CITY PLANE COMMISSION.
TODAY IS THURSDAY, AUGUST 3RD, 1240 4:00 PM COUPLE OF QUICK ANNOUNCEMENTS BEFORE WE GET STARTED.
THERE'S A LITTLE YELLOW CARDS DOWN HERE AT THE TABLE, THE BOTTOM TO YOUR RIGHT, THEY'LL ALLOW US TO, UH, KEEP RECORD OF YOUR VISIT WITH US HERE TODAY.
I'LL ASK YOU TO PLEASE AT SOME POINT DURING YOUR VISIT TO COME DOWN AND FEEL ONE OF THESE OUT.
ALSO, THERE ARE COPIES OF THE AGENDA HERE ON THE TABLE IF YOU WOULD LIKE ONE.
UH, OUR SPEAKER GUIDELINES, EACH SPEAKER WILL RECEIVE THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK, UH, PER OUR RULES.
THE APPLICANT WILL RECEIVE A TWO MINUTE REBUTTAL IN CASES WHERE THERE IS OPPOSITION.
WE DO HAVE SOME SPEAKERS ONLINE, AND I WILL ASK ALL SPEAKERS
[02:35:01]
TO MAKE SURE TO BEGIN YOUR COMMENTS WITH YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.FOR THE RECORD, OUR SPEAKERS ONLINE.
UH, PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT YOUR CAMERA IS ON AND WORKING.
UH, WE HAVE TO SEE YOU IN ORDER TO HEAR FROM YOU.
[ACTIONS ITEMS (Part 1 of 2)]
WITH THAT, WE'RE GONNA GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED WITH CASE NUMBER ONE M 2 2 3 0 1 0.AND MS. BLUE, GOOD AFTERNOON, MINUTES.
ITEM NUMBER ONE M 2 23 DASH 0 1 0 APPLICATION FOR A MINOR AMENDMENT TO EXISTING DEVELOPMENT PLAN ON PROPERTY ZONE PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 10 88 ON THE WEST LINE OF BUCKNER BOULEVARD AND NORTH OF JOHN WEST ROAD.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION, APPROVAL.
UH, I'LL SEE THAT THE APPLICANT IS HERE.
UM, I'M GONNA SPARE Y'ALL NOT DOING MY FULL PRESENTATION, BUT, UM, I'LL TELL YOU ABOUT A PUMP ROOM.
SO IF YOU LOOK AT, UH, PAGE ONE DASH FIVE, RIGHT DOWN HERE IN THE BOTTOM BETWEEN THESE TWO BUILDINGS, THERE'S A LITTLE, UH, PUMP ROOM, UH, SPOKE WITH THE ENGINEERS.
WHAT THAT IS, THE WATER PRESSURE THAT COMES INTO THIS IS NOT ADEQUATE TO SERVE ALL THE BUILDINGS DUE TO TOPOGRAPHY AND DISTANCE.
SO THAT PUMP ROOM, UH, INCREASES THE PRESSURE OF THE WATERS THAT COMES INTO THE SITE.
UM, IF YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, I'M HAPPY TO, TO DETAIL, BUT BASICALLY WENT THROUGH PERMITTING AND FOUND SOME OOPSES ON THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AND THIS FIXES US.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. BALDWIN.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? THIS IS CASE NUMBER ONE.
THIS IS, AND I'M, I'M SORRY I'M A LITTLE HARD OF HEARING ON MY YEAH, THAT'S THE RIGHT ONE.
PAPERWORK, PAPERWORK SAYS 2 0 0 8 AND I THINK YOU CALLED A DIFFERENT NUMBER.
I JUST WANTED TO BE SURE I PUT THE, UH, THE RIGHT NUMBER DOWN.
OH, HE'S LOOKING, HE'S LOOKING UP THE, YEAH.
MY NAME'S BEN STEWART, MY WIFE JUDY AND I HAVE LIVED AT 9 2 17 SWEETWATER FOR OVER 25 YEARS.
I LIVE ON THE FENCE LINE, THE SECOND TOWN HOME FROM D***O.
BACKING UP TO THIS PROPOSED MONSTROSITY, HERE WE ARE AGAIN, SPECIFICALLY THE USE OF THE LDO FOR CONSTRUCTION AND EMERGENCY ONLY ENTRANCE POINT.
DURING OUR LAST MEETING TOGETHER, THE ZONING REZONING WAS APPROVED WHEN THE ZONING WAS APPROVED, BOARD MEMBER, MISS STANDED MADE A CALL TO THE FIRE DEPARTMENT AND WAS TOLD THAT AN ACCESS POINT TO D***O WAS NOT REQUIRED.
AFTER RELAYING THAT TO THE REST OF THE BOARD, SEVERAL VOLUNTEERED THAT THEY WOULD NOT VOTE FOR APPROVAL.
IF ACCESS TO D***O WAS ALLOWED, THE RESULTING TRAFFIC WOULD HAVE A HORRIBLE IMPACT ON THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD.
NO AVERSION, NO EMERGENCY OPTION ONLY WAS APPROVED.
GATES BREAK AND ARE OVERRIDDEN.
PLEASE EN ENFORCE THE AGREED RESTRICTIONS.
IT WAS ALSO STATED THAT A 10 FOOT FENCE WOULD SURROUND THE PROPERTY.
WHAT KIND WASN'T SPECIFIED? A REQUEST WAS MADE TO SHIELD THIS FENCE WITH MATURE SCRUBS, SHRUBS TALLER THAN 10, TALLER THAN THE FENCE TO ENSURE SECURITY AND DAMPEN THE NOISE LOAD OF THE EXISTING RESIDENCE.
THIS FENCING NEEDS TO BE A SOLID STRUCTURE.
HAVE PROVISIONS BEEN MADE TO COORDINATE WITH DALLAS ANIMAL SERVICES TO DEAL WITH THE WILDLIFE BEING FORCED OUT DURING CONSTRUCTIONS? THERE'S A COLONY OF COYOTES THAT I HEAR EVERY TIME AN AMBULANCE GOES DOWN.
FERGUSON RACCOONS, POSSUMS ARE ALSO PART OF THIS ESTABLISHED ECOSYSTEMS. HAS A LANDSCAPING PLAN BEEN SUBMITTED AND APPROVED, ESPECIALLY ON SWEETWATER RIPPLEWOOD INN? MANY OF THESE TREES ARE IN EXCESS OF 30 YEARS OLD.
THERE WAS AN OVERWHELMING NEIGHBORHOOD OPPOSITION TO CHANGING THIS ZONING FROM A SINGLE TO MULTIFAMILY OPENING AN OUTLET OF ANY KIND ON THE LIDO WILL INCREASE TRAFFIC AND IMPACT OUR QUALITY OF LIFE.
MR. BALDWIN, TWO MINUTE REBUTTAL.
UH, IF WE CAN GO BACK TO PAGE ONE DASH FIVE AGAIN.
THE, UM, ENTRY POINT THAT THE GENTLEMAN WAS SPEAKING TO ON GELATO IS, UH, JUST HERE, UH, ON THE RED.
IT'S CLEARLY LABELED AS THE EMERGENCY ENTRANCE AND EXIT ONLY.
SO NO CARS CAN GO THROUGH THERE EXCEPT FOR, UH, EMERGENCY VEHICLES.
ANOTHER THING TO BE POINTED OUT IS THAT ONE OF THE REASONS WE'RE DOING THIS IS TO PUSH THESE TWO BUILDINGS CLOSEST TO THE RESIDENTIAL BACK TO THEIR 15 FOOT SETBACK LINE.
AND YOU'LL ALSO NOTICE THAT THE END CAPS OF THESE TWO BUILDINGS ARE, UH, CROSS HATCH.
SO AS THAT'S PART OF THE REZONING, SO WE HAVE TAKEN THE, OUR NEIGHBORS INTO CONSIDERATION, LOWERED THE BUILDINGS, UH, WHERE WE'RE ADJACENT TO 'EM AND PUSHED THE BUILDINGS BACK.
COMMISSIONER'S QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? YES.
I'M GONNA ASK YOU, I'M GONNA ASK YOU THIS QUESTION, ALTHOUGH IT
[02:40:02]
REFERENCES WHAT THIS GENTLEMAN SPOKE TO, WHICH IS, ISN'T THAT SUPPOSED TO BE ON LIDO? JUST AN EXIT, AN EMERGENCY? YES, MA'AM.IT IT'S REFERENCED ON THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN HERE THAT IT'S MM-HMM.
SO I GUESS I'LL HAVE TO ASK HIM WHAT THE ISSUE IS.
I DIDN'T QUITE GET WHAT THAT ISSUE WAS.
BUT YEAH, WE, IT'S, WE'RE NOT DOING ANY, UH, PUBLIC ACCESS TO THERE.
WELL, WE'LL GET TO YOU IN A JUST A BRIEF MOMENT, SIR.
UH, MR. BALDWIN, WOULD YOU, UM, BE ABLE TO RESPOND TO THE QUESTION ABOUT THE LANDSCAPE PLAN? UM, THAT WAS, PART OF THAT WAS INCLUDING TREE PRESERVATION, AS I RECALL IN THE ORDINANCE.
HAS THAT BEEN SUBMITTED AS A PART OF YOUR PERMITTING PROCESS? UM, I DO NOT HAVE A COPY OF THE LANDSCAPE PLAN WITH ME TODAY.
UH, THE BUILDING PERMIT AND LANDSCAPE PLAN HAVE BEEN REVIEWED AND THE PERMIT IS READY TO BE ISSUED ONCE WE GET THE AMENDED DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
SO, UH, THE LANDSCAPE PLAN COMPLIES, UH, WITH ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE PD, AN ARTICLE 10.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? COMMISSIONERS QUESTIONS FOR OUR SPEAKER AND OPPOSITION? COMMISSIONER STANNER.
I'M SORRY I DIDN'T GET YOUR NAME THE FIRST TIME.
I WASN'T QUITE SURE WHAT YOUR ISSUE WAS ABOUT THE I HAVE NO FAITH IN THAT.
REMAINING AN EMERGENCY ONLY EXIT IN TIME.
GATES BREAK AND PEOPLE START OVERLOOKING THINGS AND IT WILL BECOME A POINT OF EXIT FOR THE COMMUNITY INTO, UH, DELTO AND ON SWEETWATER.
BUT YOU DO UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS A PD IN PLACE THAT SPECIFIES THAT IT MUST BE ONLY EMERGENCY EXIT? WELL, AGAIN, I DON'T HAVE A WHOLE LOT OF FAITH IN THAT FROM SEEING THINGS OVER TIME, MAYBE FOR THE FIRST SIX MONTHS.
BUT MY, MY PROBLEM IS ONCE IT GETS TO A POINT AND IT STARTED TO BE USED, OH, THIS IS AN EMERGENCY, THIS IS AN EMERGENCY.
WELL, I, I GUESS RESPECTFULLY, I WOULD SAY THAT THAT'S OUTSIDE OF OUR PURVIEW, THAT YOU WOULD GO TO CODE COMPLIANCE AND YOU WOULD HAVE A PD TO REFERENCE FOR THAT.
WELL, I HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT IT WASN'T RULES.
WELL, WELL, I HAVE A GATE THERE TO BEGIN WITH BECAUSE I THOUGHT THAT THAT'S WHAT YOU HAD FOUND OUT WHEN YOU CALLED SOMEONE WITH THE FIRE DEPARTMENT THAT AN EXIT THERE WAS NOT NECESSARY, UM, TO GAIN APPROVAL.
I'D HAVE TO GO BACK AND STUDY THAT.
BECAUSE YOU GOT ON THE I WAS, I WAS VERY IMPRESSED AND APPRECIATED YOU GETTING ON THE PHONE AND YOU CONTACTED SOMEBODY, UH, AND THEN MADE A STATEMENT WHILE WE WERE STILL DISCUSSING THAT IT WAS NOT NECESSARY TO HAVE THAT EXIT POINT THERE.
BUT I WOULD THINK IN A SPACE THIS LARGE, WHICH I DO NOW RECALL THIS, THAT IT IS PRUDENT TO HAVE SUCH A THING THERE BECAUSE THERE ARE SO MANY UNITS THERE THAN NOT TO HAVE JUST ONE EXIT.
BUT AT ANY RATE, THAT'S ANOTHER DISCUSSION.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER STANDARD COMMISSIONERS.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR OUR SPEAKER IN OPPOSITION? I'LL TAKE CARE OF TIME.
QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? OKAY.
SEEING NONE, COMMISSIONER RUBIN, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION, SIR? YES.
IN THE MATTER OF M 2 2 3 0 1 0, I MOVE THAT WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND FOLLOW STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER RUBIN FOR YOUR MOTION.
COMMISSIONER HAMPTON FOR YOUR SECOND TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND FALSE STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL.
ANY COMMENTS? COMMISSIONER YOUNG? UH, I JUST HAVE A COMMENT FROM MR. STEWART.
UH, THIS IS NOT WHAT YOU WERE, WERE WANTING FROM US, BUT I WANTED TO EXPLAIN THAT THE ZONING HAS ALREADY PASSED AND WE DO NOT HAVE THE POWER TODAY TO CHANGE THE ZONING.
THE ONLY QUESTION THAT WE'RE CONSIDERING TODAY IS WHETHER THE AMENDMENTS THAT, UH, THE APPLICANT HAS PROPOSED CHANGED THE BASIC RELATIONSHIP OF THE PROPERTY TO SURROUNDING PROPERTIES.
I'M CONVINCED THAT TO THE EXTENT THERE'S ANY CHANGE AT ALL, IT IS A BENEFICIAL CHANGE.
AND SO I'M GONNA BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION.
UH, BUT I DIDN'T WANT YOU TO THINK THAT WE WERE JUST BLOWING YOU OFF.
UM, OUR DECISION IS A NARROW ONE AND RELATES ONLY TO THE AMENDED, UH, SITE PLAN.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? SEEING NONE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.
[APPROVAL OF MINUTES]
GO BACK TO YOU.CAN I GET A MOTION FOR, UH, THE JULY
[02:45:01]
20 MINUTES, MR. CHAIR? YES, SIR.COMMISSIONER YOUNG, I MOVE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE JULY, 2023 MEETING AS SUBMITTED.
THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER YOUNG FOR YOUR MOTION.
COMMISSIONER BLAIR FOR YOUR SECOND.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.
[ACTIONS ITEMS (Part 2 of 2)]
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN AND COMMISSIONERS.WE'RE GONNA TAKE THE DOCKET A LITTLE BIT OUT OF ORDER HERE.
UM, FOR THOSE OF YOU KEEPING COUNT, ALL THE CASES ON THE CONSENT AGENDA DOCKET HAVE NOW COME OFF CONSENT AND WILL BE HEARD INDIVIDUALLY.
BUT WE'RE GONNA JUMP AHEAD A LITTLE BIT AND BEGIN OUR ZONING CASES WITH CASE NUMBER 11.
THAT'S Z 2 2 3 1 64, THAT'S NUMBER 11.
AND THEN WE WILL COME BACK IN ORDER TO CASE NUMBER TWO.
THIS ITEM IS AN APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 3 36 ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF ST.
ROSALIE DRIVE AND CIRCLE WOOD DRIVE.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO A REVISED DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CONDITIONS.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MS. MUNOZ.
I SEE THAT THE APPLICANT IS HERE.
I'M WITH EDEN'S PLACE AND WE ARE HERE TODAY ASKING FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE EXISTING PROPERTY.
THE AMENDMENT THAT WE'RE REQUESTING IS TO LIFT THE VERBIAGE THAT SAYS PERSONAL CARE FOR AGING.
WE ARE MAKING THIS REQUEST, UM, TO BE MADE BECAUSE RIGHT NOW, UH, IN THE CITY OF DALLAS, WE HAVE ABOUT 300 YOUNG WOMEN THAT ARE BEING MISPLACED AND PLACED IN COUNTIES SUCH AS TRAVIS COUNTY, UM, HOUSTON AND AMARILLO.
AND WE WOULD LOVE TO BRING THESE YOUNG WOMEN BACK HOME SO THAT WE CAN SERVICE 'EM PROPERLY BECAUSE THERE WAS NOT A BREAK IN THEIR SYSTEM IN THE COMMUNITY.
IT WAS A FAMILY STRUCTURAL BREAK.
REMOVING THIS WOULD ALLOW US TO SERVICE THESE YOUNG WOMEN.
SO WE ASK THAT YOU WOULD TAKE INTO CARE FOR CONSIDERATION.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR JOINING US.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? COMMISSIONER'S QUESTIONS FOR OUR APPLICANT.
SEEING NON COMMISSIONER BLAIR, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? I DO IN THE MATTER OF THE 2 2 3 1 64.
I MOVE THAT WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND FOLLOW STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL SUBJECT TO REVISED DEVELOPMENT PLANS AND CONDITIONS.
OKAY, UM, LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT COMMISSIONER HAWK HAS A CONFLICT ON THIS ITEM AND HAS LOGGED OFF.
12:58 PM NOT VOTING ON THIS ITEM.
UH, THANK YOU COMMISSIONER BLAIR FOR YOUR MOTION.
COMMISSIONER HAMPTON FOR YOUR SECOND.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.
WILL NOW GO BACK TO, UH, THE ORDER OF THE DOCKET.
WE'LL GO ONE AT A TIME, STARTING WITH CASE NUMBER TWO AND, UH, VICE-CHAIR STANDARD WILL CHAIR, THIS IS GOOD AFTERNOON COMMISSIONERS.
UH, ITEM TWO CASE CASE C 2 1 2 3 1 9.
UH, AN APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO SPECIFIC USE PERMIT NUMBER 2390 FOR THE SALE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES IN CONJUNCTION WITH A GENERAL MERCHANDISER FOOD STORE.
3,500 SQUARE FEET OR LESS ON PROPERTIES ON SUBDISTRICT TWO WITHIN PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 5 35, THE CF HAN SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICT NUMBER THREE WITH A D ONE LOOKER CONTROL OVERLAY ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF CW CF HAN FREEWAY AND SOUTH ST.
SAS RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL FOR A THREE-YEAR PERIOD SUBJECT TO REVISED CONDITIONS.
IS THE APPLICANT HERE FOR THIS CASE? I WILL PUSH THE BUTTON.
I'M WITH ALCHEMY DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS.
I'M JUST HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.
I'VE BEEN IN TOUCH WITH, UH, MR. ORION, UH, TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS.
STAFF HAS HELPED US THROUGH THIS, THROUGH THIS DIFFICULT, UH, SS U P PROCESS SINCE WE'VE BEEN WAITING FOR A WHILE.
BUT IF YOU GUYS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS, LET ME KNOW.
IF ANYONE HERE POSITION TO THIS CASE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK OR ONLINE.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS
[02:50:01]
FOR, UH, THE APPLICANT? ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? THANK YOU.WELL, IN THAT CASE WE'LL HAVE A MOTION.
IN THE MATTER OF Z TWO AND 2 3 19, I MOVE TO CLOSE TO PUBLIC HEARING.
FALSE STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL FOR A THREE YEAR PERIOD SUBJECT TO REVISED CONDITIONS.
OKAY, WE HAVE THE MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SHADI AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER HAMPTON.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COMMISSIONER STA.
WE'LL NOW MOVE TO CASE NUMBER THREE Z 221 3 54, EXCUSE ME.
ITEM THREE, CASE C 212 DASH 3 54.
AN APPLICATION FOR A T H THREE.
A TOWNHOUSE SUBDISTRICT WITH DEED DEEDED RESTRICTIONS VOLUNTEERED BY THE APPLICANT ON PROPERTY ZONED AN R FIVE, A SINGLE FAMILY SUBDISTRICT WITHIN PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 5 95.
THE SOUTH DALLAS FAIR PARK SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICT ON THE SOUTHEAST LINE OF SYDNEY STREET, NORTHEAST OF SECOND AVENUE.
STATUS'S RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO DEEDED RESTRICTIONS VOLUNTEERED BY THE APPLICANT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. MULI, THAT THE APPLICANT IS HERE.
I LIVE AT 32 0 8 COLE AVENUE, DALLAS, 7 5 2 0 4.
DO YOU HAVE A PRESENTATION? I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
DO YOU HAVE A PRESENTATION AT ALL? UM, I'VE GOT THE FLOOR PLANS AND THE, OH NO.
YEAH, I THOUGHT MAYBE YOU EMAILED SOMETHING TO MR. MULKEY OR IT WAS JUST, IT WAS JUST, UH, IT WAS JUST THE UM, WE CAN PULL IT UP IF YOU'D LIKE.
WE CAN PULL IT UP IF YOU'D LIKE.
I MEAN IT'S JUST FOR YOUR ON, YOU KNOW, JUST TO LOOK AT IT.
I DON'T HAVE ANY, YOU, IT'S OKAY.
SO THIS IS THE FRONT FACADE OF, CAN YOU TALK INTO THE MICROPHONE SO OUR FOLKS ON LINE CAN HERE? UM, JUST THIS IS THE FRONT FACADE OF THE STRUCTURE.
I PROPOSED TO BUILD IT, UH, ON SYDNEY STREET AND KIND OF THE, SOME OF THE, AND, UH, PARTICULAR ON IT.
SO, UH, NEXT SLIDE IS THE FLOOR PLAN.
DOES THAT CONCLUDE YOUR COMMENT, SIR? YES.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? COMMISSIONER'S QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? QUESTIONS FOR STAFF COMMISSIONER HAMPTON? JUST ONE CLARIFICATION.
THESE, UM, PLANS AND RENDERINGS ARE SHOWN FOR INFORMATION, IS THAT CORRECT? AS A GENERAL ZONING CHANGE, THERE'D BE NOTHING THAT WOULD REQUIRE THIS DEVELOPMENT? THAT'S CORRECT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? NO QUESTIONS.
COMMISSIONER RUBIN, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? YES, I DO.
IN A BRIEF COMMENT, IF I HAVE A SECOND IN THE MATTER OF Z TWO 12, A BRIEF FIVE FOUR, I MOVE THAT WE KEEP THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AND HOLD THIS MATTER UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL AUGUST 17TH, 2023.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER RUBIN FOR YOUR MOTION.
COMMISSIONER HAMPTON FOR YOUR SECOND COMMENTS.
COMMISSIONER RUBIN? YEAH, UM, COMMISSIONER WHEELER WHO SHOULD BE REJOINING US NEXT MEETING.
UH, REQUEST THAT I KEEP THIS ONE.
UM, HOLD THIS ONE UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL SHE'S BACK.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? COMMISSIONERS? SEEING NONE.
ANY OPPOSED? MOTION PASSES CASE NUMBER FOUR.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH MR. MALKEY.
[02:55:10]
THAT'S CORRECT.ITEM NUMBER FOUR IS KZ 2 23 1 78.
AN APPLICATION FOR A PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FOR MU THREE MIXED USE DISTRICT.
USES ANY VEHICLE DISPLAYED SOCIAL AND SERVICE USE ON PROPERTY ZONED IN U THREE MIXED USE DISTRICT ON THE NORTH LINE OF WEST NORTHWEST.
HOWIE IS THE SHADY TRAIL CONDITION IS APPROVED SUBJECT TO DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND CONDITIONS.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH MS. GARZA.
IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO BE HEARD ON THIS ITEM? UH, COMMISSIONER'S QUESTIONS FOR STAFF SEEING NON COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? YES.
THANK YOU MR. CHAIR IN THE MATTER OF CASE Z 2 23 DASH 1 78.
I MOVE THAT WE KEEP THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AND MOVE THIS, I PUT THIS CASE UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL AUGUST 17TH.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER CARPENTER FOR YOUR MOTION.
COMMISSIONER HAMPTON FOR YOUR SECOND.
ANY DISCUSSION? C N ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE SAY AYE.
ITEM NUMBER FIVE IS KZ 2 2 3 180 2.
AN APPLICATION FOR AN MF TWO MULTIFAMILY SUBDISTRICT ON PROPERTY ZONED A C C COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL SUBDISTRICT WITHIN PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 5 95.
THE SOUTH DALLAS FAIR SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICT ON THE SOUTHEAST LINE OF BIRMINGHAM AVENUE BETWEEN J B JACKSON JUNIOR BOULEVARD AND ROBERT B COLLUM BOULEVARD.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL.
UH, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? YES SIR.
UH, MY NAME IS JOHNNY SUDBURY.
UH, 10 23 BIRDS FORT ARLINGTON, TEXAS.
OH, AM I NOT CLOSE ENOUGH?
WE ARE OFFERING TO VOLUNTEER SOME DEEDED RESTRICTIONS FOR ONE THAT ALL, UH, ANY DWELLING UNIT ON CONSTRUCTED ON THE PROPERTY.
WE'LL HAVE A MINIMUM OF 1200 SQUARE FEET OF AIR CONDITIONED SPACE AND WE'RE SETTING A MAXIMUM NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS TO 15.
AND I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
YOU SAID MAX NUMBER OF UNITS, WHAT IS 15? 15.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE I'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. SUDBURY? QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SEEING NONE.
COMMISSIONER RUBIN, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION SIR? I DO.
AND BRIEF COMMENTS, FIVE A SECOND IN THE MATTER OF Z UH, 2 2 3 180 2.
WE CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING AND, UH, FOLLOWS STATUTE RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE DEEDED RESTRICTIONS VOLUNTEERED BY THE APPLICANT.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER RUBIN FOR YOUR MOTION.
COMMISSIONER HAMPTON FOR YOUR SECOND COMMENTS.
UM, I JUST WANNA SAY THANK YOU TO MR. SUDBURY.
I KNOW THAT, UH, COMMISSIONER WHEELER WHO WILL BE REJOINING US AT OUR NEXT MEETING WORKED, UH, REALLY HARD ON, UH, GETTING THIS ONE WORKED OUT IN TERMS OF GETTING INPUT FROM THE COMMUNITY AND FIGURING OUT, UM, THESE DEEDED RESTRICTIONS THAT I THINK, ALTHOUGH THEY WOULDN'T MAKE SENSE IN, IN OTHER CONTEXTS, THAT THEY DO FIT THE, THE BILL HERE.
SO HAPPY TO MAKE THE MOTION TO APPROVE AND SEND SOMETHING COUNCIL.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? COMMISSIONERS? SEEING NONE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.
HAVE IT KEEP MOVING ON TO CASE NUMBER SIX.
ITEM NUMBER SIX IS CASE Z 2 2 3 1 90.
AN APPLICATION FOR TH THREE A TOWNHOUSE SUBDISTRICT WITH DID RESTRICTIONS VOLUNTEER BY THE APPLICANT ON PROPERTY ZONE IN R FIVE.
A SINGLE FAMILY SUBDISTRICT WITHIN PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 5 95.
THE SOUTH DALLAS FAIR PARK SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICT ON THE WEST CORNER OF HANCOCK STREET AND WALLINGTON STREET.
RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO DUE RESTRICTIONS VOLUNTEERED BY THE APPLICANT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH MS. GARZA.
I'M HERE TO REPRESENT 36 25 HANCOCK STREET.
UM, I BELIEVE I'VE TALKED TO LILIANA ABOUT THIS.
AND, UH, COMMISSIONER WHEELER REAGAN.
SO THEY'VE SEEN THE PLANS, UM, FOR THAT CURRENTLY.
UM, I KNOW WE HAD SOME DEEDED, UH, RESTRICTIONS, SO I PUT ON A HEIGHT RESTRICTION AS WELL AS A MAXIMUM DWELLING UNITS OF TWO.
UM, I'M ALSO WILLING TO DO A MAXIMUM LOT
[03:00:01]
USAGE SIZE, CURRENT PLANS A LOT FOR 43%, SO IT'LL BE WELL UNDER THE 60%, UH, THAT'S REQUIRED.UH, I DON'T HAVE A PRESENTATION, BUT I'M HERE FOR ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS.
DID YOU WANNA SHOW YOUR PRESENTATION? EXCUSE ME? DID DID YOU WANNA SHOW THE PRESENTATION? UH, NO, I DON'T HAVE A PRESENTATION.
SEEN THE THOUGHT YOU SAID THAT YOU HAD.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? SUPPORT OR OPPOSITION COMMISSIONER'S QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? MR. YOUNG? UH, MR. DESAI? IT WASN'T, YES SIR.
I, I MISSED SOMETHING IN, IN WHAT YOU SAID.
ARE YOU OFFERING A DEEDED RESTRICTION ON LOT COVERAGE AND IF SO, TO WHAT PERCENTAGE? YES.
SO, UM, I BELIEVE THE NUMBER, UM, WAS 60% THAT WAS PROPOSED AND I WOULD BE COMFORTABLE WITH THAT.
CURRENT PLANS, PLANS ONLY COVER 43%, SO WE'LL HAVE ROOM FOR ANY CONTINGENCIES OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
SO IT'LL BE WELL UNDER THE RESTRICTION.
SO THE O WELL THE 60% IS WHAT THE ZONING WOULD LIMIT YOU TO ANYWAY? YES.
SO ARE YOU OFFERING A DEEDED RESTRICTION BEYOND THAT OR ARE YOU STICKING WITH THE 60%? WE CAN GO DOWN TO 55 OR 50% IF YOU'RE COMFORTABLE WITH THAT.
IF THAT WOULD WELL, THAT, THAT'LL BE HELPFUL FOR BE HELPFUL MAKE FOR THE MOTION.
BUT, BUT YOU'RE OFFERING 55 OR 50, UH, AS THE CASE MAY BE.
THANK YOU FOR BEING WITH US TODAY.
UM, A QUESTION I HAD ASKED IS IF THERE HAD BEEN A COMMUNITY MEETING REGARDING THIS REQUEST? THERE HASN'T BEEN A COMMUNITY MEETING, BUT I'VE PUT UP THE ZONING SIGNS AND, UH, WILL BE DOING, UH, COMMUNITY OUTREACH, UM, ONCE THIS HAS, UH, GONE THROUGH AND, UH, I, I BELIEVE IT'S IN LINE WITH EVERYTHING THE COMMUNITY NEEDS AT THE MOMENT.
SO YOU'VE, YOU'VE MET WITH THEM PRIOR TO TODAY'S PUBLIC HEARING? UH, YEAH.
UH, SO I'VE PUT UP THE SIGNS AND I'VE TRIED TO SPEAK WITH ALL THE NEIGHBORS THAT ARE, I HAD ADJACENT LOTS.
UM, BUT I'M WILLING TO DO A COMMUNITY MEETING IF THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL.
WELL, AND I ASK, WE, UM, RECEIVED A, UM, RESPONSE AND OPPOSITION TO THE REQUEST AND THAT'S WHY I WANTED TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT HAD BEEN ON, ON THE PROJECT.
YEAH, I DID TRY AND SPEAK WITH EVERYONE IN THE ADJOINING OKAY.
BUT IF WE WANT A BROADER MEETING, I CAN ABSOLUTELY DO THAT.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? COMMISSIONERS? QUESTIONS FOR STAFF COMMISSIONER STANNER? UH, YES.
MS. GARZA, UH, WE DISCUSSED IN THE BRIEFING DID YOU FIND OUT IF THERE'S ANYTHING IN PD 5 95 THAT SPEAKS TO PUTTING DUPLEX TYPE OR TOWNHOUSES IN THIS AREA AS INFILL? I COULDN'T FIND ANY, ANYTHING REGARDING THE, THE AREA PLAN.
SO THERE WAS NOTHING THAT SPOKE TO INFILL HOUSING, BUT WE DO KNOW IT'S COMING UP CORRECT SOON.
IS THAT CORRECT? YES, CORRECT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF COMMISSIONER HADDEN? THANK YOU MR. CHAIR.
MS. GARZA, WOULD YOU CONFIRM THAT THE, UM, EXISTING R SEVEN FIVE ZONING, THE MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE WOULD BE 45%? IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT.
FOR THE R FIVE, THE LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENT FOR RESIDENTIAL IS 45 PRESENT.
I'M SORRY, I SHOULD HAVE ASKED THIS EARLIER.
IN THIS AREA, 'CAUSE WE HAD THIS ROBUST DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS TODAY AT THE BRIEFING, ARE THERE ANY OTHER DUPLEXES IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD? YES, MA'AM.
UM, ON THE, UH, STREET TO THE EAST, UH, THERE ARE DUPLEXES ON THAT SIDE.
THERE ARE AND THEY'RE RELATIVELY CLOSE.
I'M NOT LOOKING AT THE YES MA'AM.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONERS? OKAY.
SEEING NONE, COMMISSIONER RUBEN, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? YES.
IN THE MATTER OF C 2 2 3 1 9 0.
I MOVE THAT WE KEEP THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AND, UH, HOLD THIS MATTER UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL OUR AUGUST 7TH MEETINGS AND I HAVE SOME BRIEF COMMENTS.
SO AUGUST 17TH MEETING AND I HAVE SOME BRIEF COMMENTS IF I HAVE A SECOND.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HAMPTON FOR YOUR SECOND COMMENTS.
I HAD A CHANCE TO SPEAK WITH THE APPLICANT BEFORE, UM, THIS CASE, UH, CAME UP TODAY BASED AFTER, UM, AFTER OUR MORNING BRIEFING.
AND I THINK THERE ARE A NUMBER OF OUTSTANDING QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW THIS UM, FITS AND, AND I THINK IT WOULD BE BEST IF COMMISSIONER WHEELER WERE, WE'RE ABLE TO BE HERE AND SPEAK TO IT.
SO THAT'S WHY I WOULD RECOMMEND HOLDING IT TO OUR NEXT MEETING.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER RUBIN, ANY FURTHER COMMENTS? COMMISSIONERS, I COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, PLEASE.
[03:05:01]
YEP.I JUST WANNA CLARIFY, WAS THE DATE UNDER AVIS AUGUST 17TH, THE VERY NEXT MEETING? YES, THAT'S CORRECT.
WELL TO MAKE THAT DATE, EVERYTHING WOULD HAVE TO BE REVISED AND END BY TOMORROW.
AND CAN I SPEAK TO PLEASE COMMISSIONER? COMMISSIONER RUBIN? I DON'T NECESSARILY SEE SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES BEING MADE BY THE APPLICANT FOR MAYBE TWEAKING ON THAT LOT COVERAGE, DE RESTRICTION, WHICH COULD BE EASILY VOLUNTEERED AT THE PODIUM.
THE MAIN REASON THAT I'M HOLDING THIS IS SO WE CAN HAVE COMMISSIONER REALER BACK WHO CAN SPEAK TO THE AREA MUCH BETTER THAN I CAN.
AND UH, AND, AND IT SOUNDS LIKE SHE WILL HAVE INPUT THAT I WOULD BE ABLE TO PROVIDE.
SO IT'S NOT A HOLD TO NECESSARILY A TWEAK, IT'S A HOLD FOR MORE INFORMATION FROM HER.
WAS THERE ALSO AN INTENTION TO HAVE A COMMUNITY MEETING? YES MA'AM.
WE CAN ALSO HAVE A COMMUNITY MEETING.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? COMMISSIONERS? SEEING NONE.
COMMISSIONERS WILL NOW MOVE TO OUR CASES UNDER ADVISEMENT TO BEGIN WITH.
CHAIR CASE NUMBER SEVEN IS Z 220 15 9.
APPLICATION FOR A DA DUPLEX DISTRICT ON A PROPERTY ZONED AN R SEVEN FIVE, A SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT ON THE WEST SIDE OF SOUTH PRAIRIE CREEK ROAD, NORTH OF FIRESIDE DRIVE.
AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH MS. MUNOZ.
IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? THIS IS NUMBER SEVEN Z 221 59, NO SPEAKERS, COMMISSIONERS.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF COMMISSIONERS? WE'RE, WE'RE GONNA TABLE THIS ITEM FOR THE MOMENT.
WE'LL COME BACK TO IT LATER IN THE HEARING ONCE THE APPLICANT IS, IS, UH, IN THE CHAMBER.
UH, SO WE WILL KEEP MOVING TO CASE NUMBER EIGHT AND MR. MULKEY.
ITEM EIGHT, KC TWO 12 DASH 3 0 7.
AN APPLICATION FOR A PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FOR MU THREE MIXED USE DISTRICT USES ON PROPERTY ZONED IN RR REGIONAL RETAIL DISTRICT AND M U ONE MIXED USE DISTRICT AND PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 8 0 4 ON THE NORTH LINE OF WALNUT HILL LANE BETWEEN NORTH CENTRAL EXPRESSWAY AND MANDER LANE STAFF'S.
RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO A CONCEPTUAL PLAN, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN, A TREE PRESERVATION PLAN, A PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENT PHASING PLAN, AND STAFF'S RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS AS BRIEFED.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. MO THAT THE APPLICANT IS HERE.
TOMMY MANN 500 WINSTEAD BUILDING REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT IN THIS REQUEST.
SO THIS SITE REALLY FOR US, BEGINS WITH SOME CORE PLANNING PER PRINCIPLES THAT I THINK THERE'S SUPPORT FROM EVERYONE IN THIS CHAMBER AND THE STAFF AND COMMUNITY FOR, UH, BUT THEY'RE IMPORTANT TO KEEP IN MIND AS YOU CONSIDER IT.
SO HERE AT THE CORNER OF A STATE HIGHWAY, A MAJOR THOROUGHFARE ACROSS THE STREET FROM A DART STATION NEXT TO A MAJOR HOSPITAL SYSTEM,
[03:10:01]
INCREASED DENSITY, A BETTER PEDESTRIAN INFRASTRUCTURE, BETTER CONNECTIVITY TO THAT DART STATION.A MIXTURE OF USES ARE THINGS THAT I THINK WE ALL AGREE ARE APPROPRIATE.
SO THE CHALLENGE HERE IS REALLY A TECHNICAL PLANNING ONE, WHEN YOU MELD THOSE PLANNING OBJECTIVES WITH THE EXISTING REALITIES AND CONSTRAINTS OF THE SITE THAT INCLUDE EXISTING RETAIL TENANTS, MANY OF WHOM ARE SUCCESSFUL AND HAVE LONG-TERM LEASES.
AND WE WANT TO CONTINUE TO BE SUCCESSFUL AND REMAIN ON THE SITE FOR MANY YEARS, THE PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT OR MORE APPROPRIATELY ANTI PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT THAT SURROUNDS THE SITE TODAY AND HOW WE NAVIGATE THAT.
AND SO THE RESULT IS A PD THAT IS COMPLICATED, BUT ATTEMPTS TO ALLOW FOR THIS TRANSFORMATION IN PHASES OVER TIME BY CREATING SUB AREAS OFFERING DETAIL WITH THE IMMINENT PHASE AND LESS DETAIL WITH PHASES THAT ARE FARTHER OFF.
A SERIES OF UNIQUE EXHIBITS THAT YOU DON'T SEE WITH EVERY PD THAT COMES THROUGH HERE, SUCH AS A TREE PRESERVATION PLAN, A PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENT PLAN TO HELP GUIDE HOW THAT PHASING OCCURS OVER TIME.
A CONCEPT OF IZING AN ALLEY, WHICH YOU DON'T SEE EVERY DAY, BUT IT JUST SO HAPPENS THAT THAT ALLEY PROVIDES THE BEST, SAFEST AND MOST DIRECT CONNECTION FROM THE SITE TO THE DART STATION.
AND THAT'S WHY YOU SEE THE FOCUS ON THAT AND THE IDEA OF IMPROVING THAT AT THE END OF ALL OF THOSE COMPLEXITIES IN A LENGTHY PLANNING PROCESS.
WE REALLY ONLY HAVE ONE DIFFERENCE AT THIS POINT WITH THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION, WHICH IS WELL DISCUSSED EVERY OTHER WEEK WITH YOU ALL ON M I H.
UH, WE HAVE PROPOSED A ROBUST M I H PROGRAM AND WE'RE HAPPY TO ANSWER SPECIFIC QUESTIONS ABOUT IT, UH, BUT CERTAINLY A SITE WHERE THAT IS APPROPRIATE.
UH, SO WE'RE MORE THAN HAPPY TO TALK ABOUT THAT.
UM, I THINK IT WAS NOTED IN THE BRIEFING, REMOVING THE SS U P FROM THE RESIDENTIAL IS SOMETHING THAT WE ARE CERTAINLY OKAY WITH.
AND THERE ARE SEVERAL ADDITIONAL KIND OF DESIGN STANDARDS THAT WE'VE DISCUSSED WITH COMMISSIONER STANDARD THAT WE THINK ARE APPROPRIATE AND WE ANTICIPATE BEING DISCUSSED AFTER WE CLOSE OUR REMARKS.
SO I'M GONNA LET WELSH LAUS FROM ASANA PARTNERS COME UP NEXT AS THE OWNER OF THE WHOLE SITE AND PROVIDE THEIR VISION.
THEN YOU'LL HEAR A LITTLE BIT FROM THE FOLKS MOST CLOSELY ASSOCIATED WITH THE FIRST PHASE OF DEVELOPMENT IN SUBAR C.
I'M WELCH LYLES WITH ASANA PARTNERS, UM, 1616 CAMDEN ROAD, CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA.
UM, FIRST OFF I'D LIKE TO THANK COMMISSIONER STANDARD, MR. MULKEY AND STAFF FOR, UH, THEIR COLLABORATION WITH US ON THIS UNIQUE ZONING, UH, PLAN OVER THE PAST YEAR OR SO.
UM, AS TOMMY MENTIONED, YOU KNOW, IT, IT'S, WE HAD A LOT OF CONSTRAINTS WORKING AROUND THE EXISTING SHOPPING CENTER AND WE REALLY WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAD A PLAN THAT WAS ABLE TO FULLY UTILIZE THAT.
UM, I FEEL THAT WHAT WE ARE PRESENTING TODAY IS A STRONG PLAN TO IMPROVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND ALLOWS US TO MEET THE GOAL OF CREATING AN INCLUSIVE 18 HOUR DESTINATION AND REALLY CONVERTING WHAT IS NOW A SUBURBAN SURFACE PARK SHOPPING CENTER INTO AN URBAN MIXED USE ENVIRONMENT.
UM, ASANA PARTNERS, FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO DON'T KNOW, IS REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT FIRM BASED OUTTA CHARLOTTE.
WE FOCUS PRIMARILY ON MANAGING AND CURATING TOP NEIGHBORHOOD RETAIL EXPERIENCES.
UM, AT THE HILL SPECIFICALLY, THE INTENTION IS TO MAINTAIN THE EXISTING RESTAURANTS AND RETAIL WHILE ADDING DENSITY OVER TIME THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR MORE DEPTH MERCHANDISING MIX AND CREATE A LIVE WORK ENVIRONMENT.
THE PD HAS BEEN BROKEN INTO MULTIPLE PHASES, AS YOU'VE SEEN, THAT WILL ALLOW US TO DO SO WHILE TO DO SO SUCCESSFULLY WHILE MAINTAINING THE OPERATING BUSINESSES AND ALLOWING THEM TO, TO THRIVE THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS.
UM, EACH PHASE FOCUSES ON DARK CONNECTIVITY, IMPROVED PEDESTRIAN ACCESS, AND CONTIGUOUS OPEN SPACES THAT WILL CREATE A DESTINATION FOR THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY.
IF YOU'VE BEEN TO SITE RECENTLY, YOU'VE SEEN A LOT OF THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN STARTED WITH THE REDESIGN AND REDEVELOPMENT OF THE EXISTING BUILDINGS.
WE HAVE GREAT PARKS THAT HAVE BEEN CREATED THAT HAVE, YOU KNOW, RESTAURANTS AND RETAIL OPENING UP TO THEM, NOT JUST ON THE EXTERIOR BUT ON THE INTERIOR.
AND WE'D LIKE TO CONTINUE THAT ACTIVATION FOR SOME OF WHAT IS NOW I WOULD CALL IT KIND OF DEAD ZONES ON THE PROPERTY AND REALLY CONNECT TO IT.
UM, YOU'LL SEE THAT THE DIFFERENT PHASES ALLOW FOR LOWER HEIGHT ON THE FRONT ALONG WALNUT STREET.
THAT REALLY FITS THE CURRENT MERCHANDISING MIX WITH THE M U THREE DENSITY ALONG THE BACK OF THE SITE.
UH, WE'RE ALSO HEAVILY FOCUSED ON THE, UH, PLACEMAKING AND ACTIVATION OF IT, DARK CONNECTIVITY THAT WE'VE TOUCHED ON.
[03:15:01]
ON DIRECTIONAL SIGNAGE THAT WILL ALLOW EVERYTHING TO INTEGRATE AND FEEL TIED TOGETHER AS ONE PLANNED CENTER.UM, ASANA INTENDS TO BE THE STEWARD OF THE OVERALL CENTER THROUGHOUT THIS PROCESS, AND WE'LL WORK WITH BEST IN CLASS PARTNERS SUCH AS MILL CREEK RESIDENTIAL ON EACH OF THE PHASES TO EXECUTE THEM WHEN ACTIONABLE OVER THE NEXT SEVEN TO 15 YEARS, REALLY DEPENDING ON LEASES AND CURRENT ENCUMBERS FOR, FOR THE EXISTING PROPERTY.
UM, AND WITH THAT I'LL NOW TURN OVER TO MICHAEL BLACKWELL WITH MILL CREEK, WHO WILL TOUCH BASE ON SUBAR C, WHICH IS THE FIRST PHASE OF THE PLANNED REDEVELOPMENT.
GOOD AFTERNOON, UH, PLANNING COMMISSION.
MICHAEL BLACKWELL, 59 10 NORTH CENTRAL EXPRESSWAY, MILL CREEK RESIDENTIAL.
UH, THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY.
THANK YOU ANDREA AND RYAN, UM, FOR A LITTLE BIT OF A JOURNEY ON, UH, ON THIS, WE'LL CALL IT SORT OF NON-CONTROVERSIAL, BUT COMPLEX, UH, CASE.
AND, UM, THANK YOU TO ASANA ON TWO LEVELS.
ONE, UH, GIVING US THE OPPORTUNITY, AT LEAST IN THIS FIRST ITERATION TO GO THROUGH AND HELP IMAGINE AND, AND, AND HOPEFULLY EXECUTE SOMETHING THAT SETS A PATTERN NOT JUST FOR THIS LOCATION, BUT OTHER PLACES IN DALLAS.
THANK YOU ALSO TO THEM FOR INVESTING IN OUR CITY.
UH, ASANA BOUGHT THE STUFF IN DEEP PELLUM.
THEY BOUGHT THE GROUND FLOOR, THE STUFF IN VICTORY PARK.
THEY ARE PRECISELY THE KIND OF PEOPLE THAT WE WANT COMING INTO OUR CITY AND INVESTING IN OUR CITY.
AND SO, UH, WE'RE THRILLED TO HAVE, UH, TO BE WORKING ALONGSIDE THEM.
UH, THREE P'S THAT I'M GONNA HIT REAL QUICKLY.
UH, PEDESTRIANS POSITIONING AND PARKING.
UM, THIS HAS ALWAYS BEEN ABOUT PEDESTRIANS FROM THE BEGINNING.
IF YOU HAVEN'T BEEN TO THE CENTER, IT WOULDN'T MAKE SENSE IF YOU'VE BEEN AND YOU'VE MADE YOUR WAY INTO THE COURTYARDS, SNUCK AROUND INTO THE BACK, EVERYBODY SAYS WOW WHEN THEY SEE IT FOR THE FIRST TIME.
UH, AND IT'S A REALLY, REALLY UNIQUE EXPERIENCE.
ECLECTIC MATERIALS THAT WERE USED TO REPOSITION IT.
AND IT'S JUST BEEN SCREAMING FOR COMPLIMENTARY MIXED USE, UH, AND, AND ONSITE HIGH DENSITY HOUSING CLOSE TO DART TO BE ABLE TO ACTIVATE THAT, UH, EVEN MORE.
AND SO FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, FROM THE BEGINNING, AND I THINK IT'S IN PAGES, UM, 12 THROUGH 19, YOU CAN SEE MOST OF WHAT WE WOULD CALL SORT OF THE PEDESTRIAN EXHIBITS, RIGHT? AND THE FOCUS OF THIS FROM THE BEGINNING WAS HOW DO WE FOCUS FIRST ON THE PEDESTRIAN AND WHAT DOES THAT ACTUALLY MEAN? AND SO WHAT THAT MEANS IS YOU TURN THE BACK OF A RETAIL BUILDING INTO A TOWN HOME MUSE TOWN HOME MUSE IS ON PAGE 18 AND 19, RIGHT? THAT'S A FORGOTTEN SPACE IN MOST CONVENTIONAL PLANNING.
THE OTHER THING YOU DO IS AROUND EVERY WALLED EDGE, YOU BLASTED THE GROUND FLOOR OF THE BUILDING TO CREATE PASSAGES, PEOS PORTALS LIGHTEN AIR INTO COURTYARDS.
SO THESE AREN'T YOUR CONVENTIONAL WALLED OFF MULTI-FAMILY COURTYARDS FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE.
AND PART OF THAT IDEA IS TO EXTEND THE EXPERIENCE THAT ALREADY EXISTS WITHIN THAT CENTER, WHICH IS THIS ONE OF DISCOVERY, THESE LITTLE MUSE AND PASSAGES.
AND WE WANTED AS MUCH AS WE COULD AROUND JUST ABOUT EVERY EDGE OF THE BUILDING OTHER THAN THAT WHICH FACES THE ALLEY AND EVEN THERE TO MAKE AN EFFORT TO ACTIVATE IT, TO TRY TO ACTIVATE, UH, WHEREVER WE COULD AND, AND PRIORITIZE PEDESTRIANS.
UM, PART OF THIS IS, UH, LED TO A COMMITMENT, A, A UNIQUE APPROACH TO OPEN SPACES.
SO OUR POOL COURTYARD NORMALLY BURIED IN A BUILDING OF THIS SCALE AND THE MIDDLE OF THE SITE IS INSTEAD LIFTED, UH, UP TO THE TOP OF THE GARAGE.
IT CREATES KIND OF A GREEN, GREEN ROOF EXPERIENCE AT THE GARAGE PLANE.
IT ALSO CONNECTS AND REESTABLISHES VISUALLY WITH THE TREE COURTYARD.
UH, WHICH WE, WE CONTINUE TO THINK IS ONE OF THE MORE SPECIAL, UH, PARTS OF THE PROJECT.
SO, UH, THE OPEN SPACES ARE ALL CONNECTED WITH A SERIES OF PASSAGES.
NOT ALL THOSE WILL BE ROUTINELY AND ALWAYS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC, BUT IT COMPLETELY RETHINKS THE WAY THAT A MID-RISE SCALE BUILDING A 7, 8, 9 STORY BUILDING WOULD ACTUALLY WORK.
UM, VERSUS BEING KIND OF A FULLY CONTAINED INTERNALIZED COURTYARD.
A LOT OF THESE HAVE WALKOUT UNITS THAT ARE HARDSCAPE PARIS TYPE, UH, LIVING EXPERIENCES.
SO WE TRIED TO THINK DIFFERENTLY ABOUT IT FROM THE BEGINNING, INSPIRED AND REQUIRED TO SOME DEGREE BY, UH, BY ASANA.
AND WE'RE EXCITED, UH, ABOUT THAT.
HAPPY TO TALK MORE ABOUT THAT POSITIONING I THINK IS IMPORTANT.
UH, AND MY REFERENCE THERE IS ON THE UNIT MIX, UH, WE HAVE AGREED THAT MEANS AMOUNT OF TIME.
UM, WE HAVE AGREED, UH, TO THE, THE PD REQUIREMENTS THAT YOU SEE, UH, US REQUESTING.
ON THE M I H SIDE, WE ALSO AGREED TO TAKE 20, UH, 20 UNITS AND, AND ENSURE THAT 20 UNITS ARE UNDER 600 SQUARE FEET.
WHAT I ALSO WANT YOU TO HEAR IS THAT IN OUR CURRENT PLANNING, WE'VE GOT MORE THAN 30% OF OUR TOTAL UNITS THAT ARE UNITS THAT ARE UNDER 725 SQUARE FEET AND UNDER $2,000 IN RENT.
SO AS A PRACTICAL MATTER, WE HAVE POSITIONED THIS PROJECT.
ALRIGHT, WILL DUNCAN FROM W D G O EXPLAIN THE ARCHITECTURE, WHICH IS COVERED IN THERE? THERE MAY BE QUESTIONS FOR YOU, SO DON'T GO TOO FAR.
WILL DUNCAN, W D G ARCHITECTURE 2001 BRYAN STREET.
UM, THIS IS AN EXCITING PROJECT FOR US, UM, AND IT JUST REFLECTS OUR DESIRE TO HELP CRAFT MORE URBAN DALLAS.
UM, BEING A DART RIDER MYSELF, I'M ESPECIALLY EXCITED TO WORK ON PROJECTS THAT ARE BRINGING RESIDENTIAL DENSITY WITHIN WALKING DISTANCE OF A, UH, OF A DART STATION WHILE THEY
[03:20:01]
PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY THAT ARE KIND OF A HIDDEN GEM.UH, WE WANTED TO TAKE THAT AND PULL SOME OF THOSE IDEAS AND THOUGHTS AND CONNECTIVITY INTO THE EXISTING MIXED USE MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT.
AND WE'RE DOING THAT VIA, UM, KIND OF PORTALS AND PASSAGES AND URBAN EDGES AS WELL.
UH, THIS CONNECTIVITY, UH, IT DOES EXTEND VIA A PEDESTRIAN PASSAGE TO THE DART STATION, HELPING TO BRIDGE TO HELP CREATE A NICE WALK AND, UH, EXPERIENCE BETWEEN THE TWO.
UM, GROUND FLOOR UNITS HAVE, UH, ADDITION, UH, GROUND FLOOR UNITS HAVE, UM, STOOPS AND, AND INCLUDING, WE HAVE SOME MULTI-STORE UNITS IN THE PROJECT THAT REALLY GIVE THAT TOWN HOME FEEL.
AS MICHAEL ALLUDED TO, UM, THE, WE, WE HAVE ACTIVATED THE EDGE THAT FACES TOWARDS WALNUT HILL, UH, ON OUR INTERNAL STREET, UH, WITH RETAIL USES AND, UM, THAT, THAT THIS WILL BRING ADDITIONAL SERVICES TO THOSE WHO LIVE AND WORK IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, THE PROJECT DOES BRING A NEW BUILDING TYPOLOGY TO THE, TO THE CENTER, UM, ARTICULATION IN THE PLAN AND A VARIETY OF OPEN SPACES THAT WE'VE PROVIDED AND MATERIAL, UM, MATERIAL VARIETY AS WELL, UH, HELP TO CONTROL SCALE AND CREATE INTEREST.
UH, THE, THE EXPRESSION AND THE ARCHITECTURAL EXPRESSION STRIVES TO BALANCE, UM, KINDA SOME OF THE ECLECTICNESS OF IN THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT WITH, UH, AN ELEVATED, MORE SOPHISTICATED, UH, MATURING KIND OF STATUS THAT THE DEVELOPMENT IS MOVING INTO.
UM, SO WE'VE COUPLED KIND OF SOME FUN ECLECTIC MOMENTS WITH LARGELY HIGHER SCALE, HIGHER QUALITY MATERIALS, LARGELY A, A FULL MASONRY FACADE.
UM, ALONG, ALONG THAT STREET FRONTAGE WE HAVE KIND OF CONTROL, WE CONTROLLED THAT PEDESTRIAN SCALE WITH CHANGES OF MATERIAL, UH, UM, RETAIL AND RESTAURANT PATIOS, UM, AS WELL AS STOOPS AND CANOPIES THAT WE'VE ALREADY MENTIONED.
UM, ONCE AGAIN, WE'RE EXCITED TO WORK ON THIS PROJECT.
UH, WE'RE EXCITED THAT THIS FOR THIS PROJECT AS A NEW, UH, ADDITION TO DALLAS AS URBAN VANITY.
AND I WANNA THANK ALL THE COMMISSIONERS AND CITY STAFF THAT HAVE INVESTED TIME AND EFFORT INTO HELPING TO ELEVATE AND MAKE THIS PROJECT SOMETHING SPECIAL FOR DALLAS.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS CASE? YES, SIR.
UH, BEFORE I BEGIN, I HAD A PRESENTATION I SHARED.
LET'S GET THAT, LET'S GET THAT UP.
I'M GONNA GIVE HIM A MOMENT TO GET THAT.
WHAT'S YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, SIR? YEAH, I'LL GO AHEAD AND DO THE NAMING.
I'M A, UH, CITY OF DALLAS RESIDENT.
MY ADDRESS IS 2 1 2 4 NORTH GARRETT AVENUE AND I LIVE SIX MILES SOUTH OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.
WELL, WHILE HE'S PULLING THAT UP, I'LL DO THE INTRODUCTIONS PORTION OF THIS.
SO, LIKE I SAID, MY NAME IS HEEL COLORADO.
I AM A DALLAS NATIVE AND A LIFELONG D F W RESIDENT.
UH, WHILE I AM CURRENTLY LIVING IN SIX MILES SOUTH OF THE CURRENT DEVELOPMENT, I HAVE PATRONIZE BUSINESS SEVERAL TIMES IN THE LAST, UH, YEAR.
AND I USED TO LIVE WITHIN ONE MILE OF THIS WALL HILL STATION.
SO IN 2018 I USED THIS STATION QUITE FREQUENTLY AS MY, UH, ONE OF MY MODES OF TRANSPORTATION.
AND THIS NEXT PORTION, I HAVE TO SAY, I NEED THESE SLIDES UP FOR.
SO, UH, THIS WITH ONLY THREE MINUTES TO SPARE.
UH, I'M NOT GONNA GO THROUGH ALL THE DETAILS, BUT IF YOU CAN SEE ON THE SCREEN THAT I LIKE TO SAY MY MAIN CREDENTIAL IS JUST THE SHEER AMOUNT OF WALKING AND TRANSIT USAGE I USE BECAUSE I HAVE NOT OWNED A CAR SINCE 2021 BY CHOICE.
IN SUMMARY, I'M IN FAVOR OF THE PROPOSAL.
UH, IT'S NOT VERY OFTEN THAT, AGAIN, WE GET A CHANCE TO TAKE SOMETHING THAT'S GOOD AND MAKE IT SOMETHING TRULY UNIQUE AND SPECIAL.
SO, AND WHILE I AM IN FAVOR, I HAVE THREE RECOMMENDATIONS, UH, ON THIS, UH, THIS THREE MINUTES WILL NOT GO OVER ALL OF THE DETAILS I WOULD LIKE TO GO OVER.
SO IF ANYONE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT OR FROM THE C P C WOULD LIKE TO TALK TO ME MORE, I PRESENT MYSELF AS THE ACID TEST WHEN WE SAY WE'RE GONNA MAKE SOMETHING PEDESTRIAN ORIENTED.
SO THE FIRST THING I, I WANT TO RECOMMEND, OR AT LEAST QUESTION 'CAUSE I'M NOT SAVVY TO ALL THE CON CONCERNS THAT GO INTO THIS KIND OF THING, IS I'D LIKE TO SEE THE HEIGHT AND DENSITY MAXIMIZED IN SUB AREA B AND C, BUT SPECIFICALLY B I'M SORRY THAT THINGS NOT ALIGNED CORRECTLY, SPECIFICALLY B UH, SO I NOTICED THAT IN THE PROPOSAL, UH, THE HEIGHT LIMITS ARE REDUCED FOR ALL OF THE SUB AREAS.
NOW I'M SURE THERE'S SPECIAL REASONING, AND I'M NOT GONNA CONCERN MYSELF WITH WHY IT HAD TO BE REDUCED, BUT
[03:25:01]
I REALLY WANTED TO FOCUS ON IF THINGS ARE GONNA BE REDUCED, LOOKING AT THE ORIENTATION OF THE DEVELOPMENT.AND SO YOU CAN SEE THAT THE HIGHEST, THE HEIGHT LIMIT AND HIGHEST STORY COUNT IS ON SUB AREA D, WHICH IS CLOSEST TO THE HIGHWAY RATHER THAN CLOSEST TO THE TRAIN, WHICH MEANS THAT THE CENTER OF GRAVITY, UH, STILL MOTIVATES CAR USAGE TO THIS DEVELOPMENT RATHER THAN REWARDING AND INCENTIVIZING TRANSIT USE.
SO I WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOMETHING MORE ORIENTED LIKE THIS WHERE THE HEAVIEST TRAFFIC OF GENERATOR OF TRAFFIC IS PUTTING THAT TRAFFIC THROUGH THE TRAINS AND THE BUSES RATHER THAN GENERATING THAT TRAFFIC ON THE HIGHWAY.
UH, THE SECOND THING THAT I CANNOT SPEAK FOR DART, WHETHER OR NOT THIS CAN BE DONE, BUT I KNOW THE IMPACT THAT SPARING 170 ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACES WOULD HAVE HERE ON THE MAP.
YOU CAN SEE IN RED WHERE THE EXISTING PARKING RIDE IS LOCATED IN RELATION TO THE DEVELOPMENT.
AND IF YOU COMBINE THIS WITH THE PREVIOUS FEEDBACK OF PUTTING THE HEAVIEST TRAFFIC GENERATION USE OF THE DEVELOPMENT CLOSE TO THE TRANSIT STATION.
AGAIN, I CAN'T SPEAK FOR DART ABOUT WHAT'S POSSIBLE, BUT I I WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOMETHING.
THIS F*****G CAN COUNT TOWARDS THAT AS WELL.
OH, WAS THAT, THAT WAS, IT, WAS THE SET UP TIME COUNTED AGAINST MY TIME? I'M SORRY, WAS THE POWERPOINT OPENING SET UP AGAINST MY TIME? GO ON.
WAS DID YOU GIVE HIM A LITTLE COUNT A LITTLE TIME FOR THE OH NO, LET'S GIVE HIM ANOTHER MINUTE PLEASE.
SO THIS IS LIKE HALFWAY THROUGH THIS.
SO, BUT YOU CAN SEE HERE THAT LIKE WE HAVE THIS PARK AND RIDE THAT WHILE WE LIKE SEEING NEW TODDS AROUND OUR PARKING LOTS AT STATIONS, IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO REDEVELOP.
SO IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THIS PARKING, A REALLY GOOD USE FOR IT IS TO COUNT IT TOWARDS THE DEVELOPMENTS NEAR THIS, YOU KNOW, SUNK COST.
AND I HAVE A MAP HERE TO SHOW YOU THAT WE HAVE A TOTAL OF 743 AT, UH, PARKING FREE PARKING SPACES WHEN YOU COUNT THE ADJACENT STATIONS AS WELL.
SO THE LAST POINT I WANTED TO MAKE IS I, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THIS DEVELOPMENT MORE TRANSIT ORIENTED AS OPPOSED TO SIMPLY TRANSIT ADJACENT.
UH, IF WE LOOK AT THE, THE PLAN THAT THEY PROVIDED, IF THE, IF YOU WERE TO LOOK AT WHERE THE FIRST FLOOR RETAIL IS LOCATED AND WHERE THE TRAINS AND UH, STATIONS ARE, UH, YOU STILL HAVE TO WALK QUITE A BIT OF A WAY AND YOU HAVE TO WALK PAST USES THAT ARE NOT MEANT FOR YOU AS A PEDESTRIAN.
AND I JUST, AGAIN, WITHOUT CHANGING THE ELEMENTS, JUST ROTATING THEM A BIT.
IF THE RETAIL AND THE THINGS THAT PEOPLE WOULD USE TRANSIT FOR ARE PRIORITIZED, THEN NOT ONLY WOULD IT BE MORE CONVENIENT FOR EXISTING TRANSIT USERS, IT WOULD ACTUALLY POSSIBLY SPUR ADDITIONAL ONES.
BECAUSE THE MAIN PRIMARY MODE IS FOOT AND TRANSIT, NOT CARS.
UH, SO IF YOU COMBINE ALL THIS TOGETHER, YOU KNOW, I WANTED TO LEAVE ON THIS POINT OF WHATEVER THE IMPLEMENTATION DETAIL OF THIS IS, SETTING THE CENTER OF GRAVITY TOWARDS THE, THE TRANSIT CENTER AS OPPOSED TO TOWARDS THE HIGHWAY.
BECAUSE IF YOU KEEP THE CURRENT ALIGNMENT WHERE ORIENTATION AROUND THE HIGHWAY, THEN YOU BOX YOURSELF IN.
AND THIS IS ACTUALLY A PROBLEM WITH ALL OF OUR EXISTING TODDS IN DALLAS VERSUS IF YOU SET THE CENTER OF GRAVITY AT THE STATION, YOU'RE REALLY SETTING A FOUNDATION FOR A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT COULD BE BUILT ON THROUGHOUT THE DISTRICT RATHER THAN NOW YOU'VE GOT YOUR OWN LITTLE SILO.
SO IN CONCLUSION, LIKE, YOU KNOW, WE SAW JUST NOW, UH, THERE'S NOT ENOUGH TIME TO GO ON A NUANCE OF THIS, SO I'M OPEN TO FURTHER CONVERSATION WITH THE C P C OR WITH ANY OF THE APPLICANTS.
UH, THIS VISIT PRESENTATION CAN BE REVISITED BY GOING TO THAT U R L, WHICH IS BIT THAT SLASH THE PORTION OF THE CASE NUMBER.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THE SIDE BEFORE WE GO TO OUR SPEAKERS ONLINE? UH, YES, THEY'RE ONLINE.
UH, OH, MY, MY SPEAKER'S LIST JUST DISAPPEARED.
HELLO? CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES, WE CAN.
UH, I'M AT 9 4 3 2 AMBERTON PARKWAY IN DALLAS, TEXAS.
UM, I LIVE, YEAH, JUST A COUPLE MILES UP THE ROAD, UH, FROM HERE.
UM, AND, UH, I TAKE THE WALNUT HILL, UH, DARK STATION AMOUNT.
UH, WELL, USUALLY I DRIVE, USUALLY I RIDE THROUGH IT.
UM, AND I'LL JUST NOTE THAT IT'S USUALLY ONE OF THE LOWER RIDER SHIFTS, UM, ON THE DART LINE.
UM, MOSTLY BECAUSE IT DOESN'T HAVE AS MUCH HOUSING, UH, FOR, UM, SO, YOU KNOW, I'M JUST, I'M VERY MUCH IN FAVOR.
UM, I DO JUST WANNA NOTE THAT, UH, ON THE INITIAL DATE JULY 20TH, WE HAD, UH, 18 PEOPLE ACTUALLY, UM, YOU KNOW, INDICATED SUPPORT FOR IT.
UM, THIS IS THE KIND OF THING THAT, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE REALLY WANT MORE OF IN DALLAS.
UM, THIS KIND OF DEVELOPMENT, UM, AROUND DART STATIONS, UM, THAT, THAT PEOPLE CAN USE.
UM, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S SMART TO HAVE MORE HOUSING, TO HAVE MORE BUSINESSES, UM, AROUND OUR, UH, RAIL DEVELOPMENT.
[03:30:01]
I'M HOPEFUL THAT WE CAN GET EVEN MORE, YOU KNOW, SORT OF SOME, YOU KNOW, TRAILS AND, AND OTHER THINGS, UM, YOU KNOW, INCLUDED THAT CAN BE INCORPORATED INTO A PLAN DOWN THE LINE.BUT I JUST WANNA SAY I'M EXCITED ABOUT, UH, THIS PROPOSAL AND I HOPE THAT C B C PASSES IT TODAY.
HI, UH, MY NAME'S MARK ISHMAEL.
MY ADDRESS IS, UH, 24 0 1 BENNETT AVENUE, APARTMENT 32 31 DALLAS RESIDENT.
UH, I'M HERE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THE REZONING, WHICH WILL TRANSITION WHAT'S NOW AN OVER PARKED COMMERCIAL AREA TO A MUCH MORE VIBRANT MIXED USE DEVELOP, UH, DEVELOPMENT, WHICH WILL BE ESPECIALLY BENEFICIAL AS, UH, AS THE, UH, APPLICANT SAID IT'S ACTIVATING LAND.
UH, NEXT UP WITH THE WALNUT HILL DART STATION THAT CURRENTLY ISN'T VERY PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY AND DOESN'T HAVE, UM, HOUSING.
SO THIS KIND OF TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT IS SOMETHING I'D LIKE TO SEE A LOT MORE OF IN DALLAS AS WE HAVE A REALLY ROBUST ROAD SYSTEM, BUT IT CONSTANTLY, SORRY, I MIGHT HAVE MUTED MYSELF, UH, BUT ADDING UP TO 1700 HOMES, UH, WHERE THERE CURRENTLY ARE NONE WILL HELP WITH HOUSING AFFORDABILITY IN DALLAS AND IT'LL PREVENT, UH, DISPLACEMENT THAT CAN SOMETIMES FALL A REDEVELOPMENT OF EXISTING HOUSING STOCK.
IT WILL HELP DALLAS ACHIEVE ENVIRONMENTAL AND MOBILITY GOALS BY INCREASING PUBLIC TRANSIT RIDERSHIP AND REDUCING SPRAWL.
AND IT'LL HELP US INCREASE OUR TAX REVENUE TO PAY FOR BETTER PUBLIC SERVICES OF ALL KIND.
SO I HOPE TO SEE C P C APPROVE THE REZONING AND THEN ALSO, UH, USE THIS, I KNOW THAT THEY'VE BEEN LOOKING AT DART UH, STATION PARKING, BUT JUST PROACTIVELY REZONING WHERE POSSIBLE AROUND OUR EXISTING TRANSIT INFRASTRUCTURE BECAUSE IT'S JUST A SMART INVESTMENT FOR OUR, UH, ALREADY EXISTING ASSETS.
BEFORE WE GO TO OUR NEXT SPEAKER, CAN EVERYONE MAKE SURE THAT YOUR MICROPHONES ARE OFF, ESPECIALLY OUR FOLKS ONLINE.
MAKE SURE IF YOU'RE NOT SPEAKING TO HAVE YOUR MICROPHONE ON, THERE'S SOME STATIC, UH, GOING THROUGH THE SYSTEM.
WE'LL GO WITH, UM, MR. TENNEY, IS JOHN TENNEY ONLINE? YES, SIR.
HELLO, MY NAME IS JOHN TENNEY.
I AM A NEW RESIDENT OF DALLAS, UH, MOVED HERE IN THE PAST MONTH.
UM, BUT I'M LOCATED AT 41 35 HERSCHEL AVENUE.
UM, I HAVE NOT, UH, HAD THE PLEASURE OF USING MUCH, UH, DALLAS TRANSPORT IN THE PAST.
UM, I'VE SPENT, UH, MOST OF MY ADULT LIFE IN OTHER PLACES, BUT MOVING BACK TO MY HOMETOWN, UM, UH, IS MAKING ME EXCITED ABOUT, UH, GETTING INVOLVED IN SOME OF THESE THINGS.
AND I WANTED TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THE REZONING, UM, UH, JUST BECAUSE I THINK THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT DALLAS NEEDS.
UM, YOU KNOW, MORE HOUSES, BETTER TRANSIT, AND, YOU KNOW, MOVING TOWARDS A MORE SUSTAINABLE, UM, PEOPLE FORWARD FUTURE.
UM, I ALSO WANTED TO AGREE WITH, UH, MR. COLORADO.
I THINK HE HAD A COUPLE OF GOOD POINTS.
YOU KNOW, I DON'T WANT IT TO DELAY ANY, UM, OF THE, UH, OF THE ADJUSTMENTS, BUT I THINK HE HAS, YOU KNOW, A GOOD STATEMENT IN TERMS OF TRANSIT ORIENTED, UM, REDEVELOPMENT INSTEAD OF JUST TRANSIT ADJACENT.
UH, I THINK HIS FINAL SLIDE SHOWING HOW, UM, EVERYTHING WAS, UM, UH, HOW WE CAN REALLY MAKE THE, THE, UM, TRANSIT ACTUALLY PART OF THE, THE CENTER OF A NEW, OF THE COMMUNITY IS SOMETHING, YOU KNOW, IMPORTANT AND, YOU KNOW, ADD AS MANY HOMES ON THERE AS WE POSSIBLY CAN.
YOU KNOW, I THINK IN TERMS OF INCREASING THE MAX HEIGHT, I WOULD LOVE TO SEE IT DONE TO ALL THREE OF THE, ALL THREE OF THE, UM, THE DIFFERENT SECTIONS.
SO, UH, YEAH, I THINK IT'S A REALLY GOOD THING.
I'M SUPER EXCITED ABOUT IT AND I WOULD LOVE TO SEE MORE AND MORE OF THIS, UM, UH, YOU KNOW, NOW AND IN THE FUTURE.
THANK YOU FOR JOINING US, MR. UH PATEL.
WELL ALL MY NAME IS ESAN PATEL.
I LIVE AT 6 4 0 1 MAPLE AVENUE AND I'M ALSO HERE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS REZONING.
LIKE I'M EXCITED TO SEE THIS PROPOSAL TO BUILD MIXED USE COMMUNITY, UM, IN THIS COMMERCIAL AREA, AND ESPECIALLY BECAUSE IT'S CLOSE TO THE WALNUT HILL DARTS STATION.
AND, UM, I THINK THAT THIS KIND OF TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT IS SOMETHING WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH OF IN DALLAS, AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT WE NEED.
UM, THE DALLAS FORT WORTH REGION WAS ONE OF THE FASTEST GROWING REGIONS IN THE COUNTRY, BUT DALLAS COUNTY LOST RESIDENTS IN RECENT YEARS.
AND I THINK BUILDING UP TO LIKE 1700 HOMES WHERE THERE ARE CURRENTLY NONE WILL HELP MAKE DALLAS MORE AFFORDABLE FOR EVERYONE.
UM, IMPROVE TRANSIT RIDERSHIP AND WALKABILITY, DECREASE DISPLACEMENT, AND, UH, CREATE INCREASED TAX REVENUE TO
[03:35:01]
PROVIDE BETTER PUBLIC SERVICES OVERALL.SO I HOPE THAT YOU NOT ONLY IMPROVE THE REZONING TODAY, BUT ALSO LOOK AT HOW THE CITY CAN PROACTIVELY REZONE OTHER AREAS AROUND DART STATIONS AND ELSEWHERE, UM, IN A TIMELY MANNER TO SPUR THIS KIND OF DEVELOPMENT.
US, UM, ALEXANDER DUNN, OUR LAST SPEAKER ONLINE.
UH, MY NAME IS ALEXANDER DUNN, UH, DALLAS RESIDENT, UH, AT, UH, 5 5 5 5 AMESBURY DRIVE.
UM, I LIVE JUST SOUTH, UH, JUST ABOUT TWO MILES SOUTH OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.
UM, AND I'M ALSO SPEAKING IN FAVOR OF, UH, THIS REZONING.
I'D LOVE TO, YOU KNOW, ECHO ALL OF THE PRIOR COMMENTS, UH, FROM ESAN.
UM, UH, MARK, YOU KNOW, EVERYBODY WHO'S SPOKEN.
UM, BUT I, I HAVE JUST TWO MAIN REASONS THAT I WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT IS THAT, UH, THIS ADDS, THIS DEVELOPMENT WILL ADD BADLY NEEDED HOUSING STOCK TO OUR CITY.
UM, YOU KNOW, AS A RENTER MYSELF, UH, I'M PAINFULLY AWARE OF THE PRICE THAT WE'RE CURRENTLY PAYING FOR OUR HOUSING SHORTAGE.
UM, AND THE MOST EFFECTIVE WAY TO FIGHT THAT IS TO BUILD ABUNDANT HOUSING SUCH AS THIS.
UM, AND WHEN WE BUILD IT IN A TRANSIT ORIENTED MANNER, UH, LIKE THIS, UM, IT WILL BE CRUCIAL FOR, FOR MEETING DALLAS'S, UH, ENVIRONMENTAL GOALS AS WELL AS ITS VISION ZERO GOALS.
UM, WHEN PEOPLE CAN LIVE, WORK AND PLAY WITHOUT NEEDING TO DRIVE, THEY POLLUTE LESS AND THEY'RE IN LESS DANGER OF BECOMING ONE OF THE THOUSANDS INJURED OR HUNDREDS KILLED ON DALLAS'S ROADS EVERY YEAR.
AND SO, IN SUMMARY, I JUST HOPE TO SEE THIS PROJECT NOT JUST APPROVED AND COMPLETED, BUT REPLICATED ACROSS THE CITY, AROUND OUR TRANSIT CENTERS AND OUR DART STATIONS.
UH, THAT CONCLUDES ALL OUR SPEAKERS COMMISSIONERS QUESTIONS FOR ANY OF OUR SPEAKERS? COMMISSIONER STANNER.
I GOTTA LOOK AND SEE WHO I'VE GOT THE CENTERS, THE ONES FOR.
I REALLY WASN'T GONNA ASK YOU MR. MANN
I WAS GONNA ASK, UH, MR. LYLE, AND THEN I HAVE A QUESTION FOR MR. BLACKWELL.
UH, GOOD AFTERNOON AND THANK YOU FOR FLYING IN FROM CHARLOTTE DURING YOUR VACATION.
I APPRECIATE IT, PARTICULARLY SINCE WE HELD IT OVER.
UH, HERE'S ONE OF MY QUESTIONS 'CAUSE I DO THINK IT'S INTERESTING WHAT MR. COLORADO BROUGHT UP ABOUT TRANSIENT ORIENTED AS OPPOSED TO JUST TRANSIT LOCALE BEING NEAR IT ADJACENT.
I THINK THAT'S A, A GREAT DISTINCTION.
BUT WOULD YOU SAY, DO YOU THINK THE FACT THAT YOU HAVE MADE THE, OR INTEND IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF SUBAR C THAT YOU'VE MADE A DIRECT PASSAGEWAY, YOU'RE TURNING THE ALLEY INTO A PEDESTRIAN WAY WITH BEAUTIFUL WALKWAYS.
WE'RE NOT JUST TALKING ABOUT CEMENT.
YOU'VE GOT THIS CHANGE IN MATERIALS AND STONE AND YOU'VE GOT LIGHTING AND THIS, THAT AND THE OTHER.
YOU DO NOT HAVE TO WALK AROUND CORRECT WALNUT HILL AND GO INTO THE MAIN TURN-IN OR MAIN DRIVE.
YOU WALK ACROSS MANDEVILLE AND YOU IMMEDIATELY ARE IN A PEDESTRIAN EXPERIENCE THAT TAKES YOU BACK TO THE CENTER OF THE SHOPPING CENTER AND THERE'S AN ENTRANCE THERE WITH A WELCOMING ENTRANCE BY MILL CREEK ALONG WITH IT THAT PUTS YOU ON A PASS THAT ALL OF A SUDDEN YOU'RE THERE WITH TOWNHOUSES AND YOU'RE WALKING ALONG.
IS THAT NOT BEEN YOUR INTENTION TO MAKE IT TRANSIENT ORIENTED BY DOING THAT? IT IS, YEAH.
AND I WOULD SAY THAT WE ARE TAKING ADVANTAGE OF EVERY INCH OF OUR PROPERTY THAT WE CAN.
THAT IS ADJACENT TO THE DART AND TRYING TO CONNECT TO IT.
SUB AREA B THAT WAS SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED FOR HIGHER DENSITY TODAY, UH, IS ENCUMBERED WITH LEASES IN PLACE.
I THINK YOU GUYS ARE FAMILIAR WITH HAT CREEK SAUCES, SOME OF THE OTHER RESTAURANTS THAT ARE THERE, WHICH IS WHY WE ARE FOCUSING ON SUB AREA SEA AND MAKING THAT ALLEY IMPROVEMENT THAT YOU MM-HMM.
UM, AND I THINK WE'RE ALSO TAKING A VERY UNIQUE APPROACH WITH THE ALLEY AND TURNING IT INTO THAT PEDESTRIAN EXPERIENCE FOR, AS YOU CAN SEE, I THINK WE'VE SHARED SOME, UH, PHOTOS OF THE CURRENT CONDITION TODAY, WHICH ARE TERRIBLE, BY THE WAY,
SO, UM, THAT, THAT'S DEFINITELY THE INTENTION.
UM, AND IT WILL TAKE WHAT IS REALLY
[03:40:01]
THE BACK DOOR AND, AND BACK FACING PART OF THE PROPERTY AND MAKE IT AN ADDITIONAL MAIN ENTRANCE WALK.IT MAKES IT THE SE SECONDARY ENTRANCE.
ALMOST MAIN ENTRANCE, A SECONDARY ENTRANCE.
AND AREN'T YOU ALSO, I'M JUST TO, TO TALK ABOUT TRANSIENT ORIENTED.
AREN'T YOU TAKING WHAT IS PRESENTLY IN SUB AREA B, WHICH IS A PATIO AREA, AND AREN'T YOU TAKING DOWN THE FENCE AND MAKING IT OPEN ORIENTED WITH WROUGHT IRON? SO IT INTERACTS WITH THE, WE ARE, IT, IT WILL OPEN ALL THE WAY UP.
UM, WE, WE ARE WORKING TO REPOSITION ACTUALLY WHAT IS NOW THESIST PATIO TO BE FACING TO WALNUT HILL AND THE INTERIOR OF THE SITE AND TO CREATE A TRUE PEDESTRIAN PATH.
PEOPLE, YOU KNOW, ARE FINDING THEIR WAY THROUGH ALREADY.
AND WE'RE GOING TO IMPROVE THAT AND MAKE IT A TRUE ENTRANCE.
PAGE EIGHT, SO WHAT IS NOW BACK OF HOUSE WITH A WALL GAS MANIFOLD AND SO THAT'S GOING TO BE OPENED UP AS AN OPEN INTERACTIVE PATIO.
AND THEN THE WHOLE, YOU'RE GOING TO BE PAVING THE WHOLE ALLEY AND YOU'LL HAVE A PEDESTRIAN WAY.
GOING TO ANOTHER THING, AND I WANNA DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION TO PAGE NINE AND PAGE 10.
I WANNA GO TO SOMETHING THAT CAME UP TODAY ABOUT SIGNAGE AND WHY IN THE WORLD DID WE PUT 15 SIGNS IN THE PD AND EVEN DISCUSS THAT.
IF YOU LOOK AT PAGE NINE AND PAGE 10, YOU SEE THIS WONDERFUL, UH, OPEN AREA THAT'S REALLY LIKE A PARK.
SO YOU CAN TAKE YOUR FAMILY TO DINNER AND YOU'VE GOT MORE TO DO, YOU CAN GO IN THE MIDDLE.
BUT HASN'T ONE OF THE PROBLEMS BEEN WITH THIS SHOPPING CENTER, EVEN WITH THE UPGRADES THAT PEOPLE DON'T EVEN REALIZE THAT THIS IS BACK THERE.
SO WITHOUT ALL OF THIS SIGNAGE THAT'S GOING TO BE DIRECTIONAL AND HAVE A THEME TO IT AND POINT YOU TO ALL THE THINGS THAT ARE GOING ON IN THE BACK OF THE SHOPPING CENTER, IS THAT YOUR PURPOSE WITH ALL THESE SIGNS? IT IS.
SO I MEAN, IT'S, THE, THE SITE TODAY IS 19 AND A HALF ACRES.
IT HAS SIX DIFFERENT ENTRANCES.
THE TREES, WHICH ARE LOVELY ALONG WALNUT HILL ARE FANTASTIC, BUT IT, IT HIDES A LITTLE BIT OF WHAT'S BACK THERE.
YOU, YOU CAN'T SEE PAST THE SURFACE PARKING AND THE TREES TO REALLY SEE JUST WHAT YOU MENTIONED, THE, THE GREAT PEOS AND OPEN SPACES THAT ARE ACTIVATED AT THE INTERIOR.
AND SO WE'VE ADDED THAT SIGNAGE TO HELP BRING SOME OF REALLY, TO KIND OF UNIFY EVERYTHING FOR THAT ENTIRE 19 ACRES ACROSS ALL OF THE DIFFERENT STREET SCAPES AND TO HELP BRING ATTENTION TO WHAT IS ACTUALLY THERE AND TO HELP WITH THE ACTIVATION OF THE SITE.
I WANNA GO TO ONE OTHER THING TO MAKE THIS TRANSIENT ORIENTED AND THE CENTER OF GRAVITY THAT WAS MR. COLORADO WAS TALKING ABOUT.
DO YOU KNOW OFFHAND? I'M SURE MR. UH DUNCAN DOES, IF NOT, SO HE CAN PROMPT YOU.
DO YOU KNOW THE DISTANCE FROM OF THE ALLEY, THE NORTHERN ALLEY? DO YOU KNOW THE BASIC DISTANCE? I WOULD CALL IT A 10TH OF A MILE MAYBE.
WHAT WOULD, DO YOU KNOW OFFHAND? I WOULD, I KNOW I'M SCALING IT IN MY HEAD.
SO BASICALLY, IF YOU WERE GETTING OFF, THANK YOU.
BUT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FROM MANDEVILLE WHEN YOU CROSS OVER AND YOU ENTER THE ALLEY, BUT WE'LL JUST CALL IT WHATEVER 0.25 FROM MANDEVILLE CROSSING OVER FROM THE DART STATION.
AND LET'S SAY YOU WERE WALKING, 'CAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE TO GO WALNUT HILL ANYMORE 'CAUSE YOU'RE OPENING UP THE ALLEY THAT IF YOU GOT OFF AT THE DART STATION AND YOU HAPPEN TO LIVE IN SUB AREA D LET'S SAY, WHERE THAT'S GONNA BE THE TALLEST BUILDING.
AND OBVIOUSLY I UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION, WELL, WHY DIDN'T YOU PUT IT ON THE MANDEVILLE SIDE? BUT LET'S FACE IT, MORE TALL BUILDINGS GO ON THE 75 SIDE, YOU KNOW, WE GO MORE THIS WAY THAN WE DO GOING THAT WAY, THEN SUDDENLY HAVING AN EMPIRE STATE BUILDING STICKING UP NEXT TO IT, I GET THAT THINKING.
BUT THAT WOULD BE A VERY SHORT WALK ACROSS THAT NORTH ALLEY TO GET TO D WHERE THE 20 STORY BUILDING IS.
SO I WOULD STILL, WOULD YOU STILL CALL THAT TRANSIENT ORIENT? 'CAUSE YOU'VE MADE THIS DIRECT PASSAGEWAY AND NOT HAVING TO CROSS THE SHOPPING CENTER OR GO AROUND WALNUT HILL? YEAH, I, I AGREE.
AND I, I THINK ONE OF THE REASONS THAT WE DID LOOK TO FOCUS ON THE HEIGHTENED DENSITY AT 75 IS LIKE YOU'VE MENTIONED, THERE IS
[03:45:01]
MORE NATURAL DENSITY ALONG THE INTERSTATE CURRENTLY TODAY.WE ALSO FELT THAT THE ENTIRE CENTER WAS MORE APPROACHABLE IF IT, THE SCALE WAS SMALLER AT THE FRONT OF THE CENTER.
AND THEN AGAIN, WE, WE ARE REALLY FOCUSING ON BUILDING AROUND WHAT IS, WE KINDA SEE AS, YOU KNOW, THE TOWN SQUARE THAT IS THE EXISTING RETAIL.
AND SO BEING ABLE TO FOCUS ON THAT AS THE CENTER WITH GREAT CONNECTIVITY TO THE DART LINE, UH, IS, IS KIND OF THE MAIN FOCUS HERE.
BUT MAKING SURE THAT, LIKE YOU SAID IT EVERY MM-HMM.
I'D LIKE TO ASK YOU ONE OTHER QUICK QUESTION BECAUSE I FOUND ONE THING VERY INTERESTING.
WOULD YOU SAY, I, I, I THINK THAT WHAT WAS INTERESTING TO ME WAS, WOULD YOU AGREE THAT THERE IS A VERY INTERESTING MIXED USE HERE? THAT IT ISN'T JUST THAT YOU'VE GOT ALL RESTAURANTS AND NOTHING ELSE, THAT YOU'VE GOT A MANY DIFFERENT ENTITIES THAT MIGHT BRING PEOPLE TO THIS CENTER, NOT JUST TO EAT IN A RESTAURANT OR GO TO THEIR APARTMENT? YEAH, WE, WE DO.
AND WE ACTUALLY HAVE A LOT OF CELL DATA THAT SHOWS, YOU KNOW, THE, THE DEMOGRAPHICS OF PEOPLE WHO ARE VISITING HERE.
I WOULD SAY MOSTLY IT'S A LOT OF FAMILIES.
I MEAN, A LOT OF ACTIVITY AT LUNCHTIME, BUT THERE'S USES SUCH AS MOVEMENT OR F 45 THAT ARE, YOU KNOW, FITNESS DRIVEN.
UM, WE HAVE ACTUALLY CREATIVE OFFICE SPACE CURRENTLY TODAY THAT BRINGS PEOPLE AT ALL HOURS.
UM, WE'VE HAD INTEREST FROM A SCHOOL AS YOU KNOW, THAT'S A NEW LIKE URBAN MONTESSORI SCHOOL.
UM, SO I THINK IT, IT REALLY BODES WELL FOR A WHOLE MIX OF USES.
AND BY ADDING THE ADDITIONAL RESIDENCES AND THE FUTURE OPPORTUNITY FOR RESIDENCES, IT WILL ONLY CONTINUE TO HELP WITH THAT MERCHANDISING MIX.
I NOW WANNA ASK MR. BLACKWELL A PARKING QUESTION, IF I MAY.
'CAUSE THAT CAME UP ALSO AT THE HEARING.
OBVIOUSLY BECAUSE OF THE MIXED INCOME HOUSING BONUSES, YOU KNOW, AND THE HIGH TRANSIT AREA, THOSE TWO ISSUES, YOU'RE ABLE TO HAVE THE 0.5 PARKING PER BEDROOM.
AND OF COURSE WHEN YOU HEAR THAT, EVEN THOUGH THAT'S OUR CODE, IT SOUNDS LIKE, OH MY GOSH, OH MY GOSH, THAT'S NOT ENOUGH PARKING.
I, I WAS ONE OF THE BIG PEOPLE SCREAMING THAT WHEN WE DID THE CODE, QUITE FRANKLY, HOWEVER, ISN'T IT TRUE, AND I WANNA ASK YOU THIS SPECIFICALLY, THAT THE DEVELOPER, THAT'S JUST THE MINIMUM YOU HAVE TO, THAT YOU ARE, ARE YOU ANTICIPATING OFFERING MORE PARKING THAN THAT? YES, MA'AM.
SO, UH, A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT I WAS GONNA MENTION ON, UH, ABOUT PARKING.
UH, ONE IS THAT THE PARKING GARAGE, UM, IN THIS, IN SUBAR C WAS, WAS DISTINCTLY DESIGNED TO ALIGN WITH THE ALLEY.
WE'RE, WE'RE, WE'RE SKINNING IT AND ACTIVATED AND DOING SOME THINGS, UH, BUT BUT ALSO POSITIONED SO THAT IT ALLOWS PEOPLE AT THE GROUND LEVEL RETAIL.
IT COULD BE CUSTOMERS, IT COULD BE, UH, IT COULD BE EMPLOYEES, BUT REALLY THE IDEA AT THIS POINT IS THE GROUND LEVEL PROBABLY IS ENTIRELY NOW, WE DIDN'T REQUIRE IT TO BE ENTIRELY.
WE SAID IT WOULD BE SHARED, BUT IT'S OUR EXPECTATION, FRANKLY, THAT SOMEWHERE ON THE RAMP ON THE WAY UP TO LEVEL TWO IS WHERE THE RESIDENTIAL GATE WOULD BE.
AND IT'S A FANTASTIC PLACE FOR HABITUAL SHOPPERS, WHICH WOULD INCLUDE MY FAMILY.
WE LIVE NEARBY AND FIND OURSELVES THERE EVERY OTHER DAY FOR ONE REASON OR ANOTHER.
PARKING THERE, YOU, IT, WE CREATED THIS LITTLE PORTAL, IT'S CALLED THE, THE THE COURTYARD.
UM, THERE THAT OFTENTIMES IS THE BACKSIDE OF THE BUILDING, BUT ON THE INSIDE OF THE BUILDING WE'RE CREATING UNIQUE AMENITY ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE BUILDING, JAMMING A PRETTY COOL COURTYARD INTO A TINY LITTLE SPACE.
'CAUSE THAT ACTUALLY IS WHERE THERE'S GONNA BE A LOT OF ENERGY AND ENGAGEMENT.
SO ONE, WE'VE GOT GROUND FLOOR PARKING, TWO, I THINK A DISCUSSION WAS ABOUT BIKE PARKING BEING CLOSER PROXIMITY TO THE BUILDING.
A HUNDRED PERCENT ON BOARD WITH THAT MAKES TOTAL SENSE.
UH, AND FROM A PARKING PERSPECTIVE, WE'RE NOT GONNA BE, UH, WE, WE WILL BE PROVIDING CONSIDERABLY MORE THAN 0.5.
UH, IT'LL LIKELY BE LESS THAN ONE PER BEDROOM.
UH, AND WE WE'RE TRYING TO BE VERY SMART ABOUT HOW WE THINK ABOUT BOTH MIXED USE SHARE OPPORTUNITIES AND THE TRANSIT SHARE OPPORTUNITIES.
SO, UH, TO BE DETERMINED ON FINAL, FINAL COUNT.
BUT IT ABSOLUTELY IS A MINIMUM AND WE ABSOLUTELY EXPECT TO PROVIDE MORE THAN THAT.
BUT, BUT TO BE THOUGHTFUL, UH, ABOUT PROVIDING LESS THAN I THINK WOULD BE COMMON.
AND I THINK THAT, AND I DO APPRECIATE THE FACT AND THAT YOU HAVE DONE THAT.
YOU'RE GIVING YOUR FIRST FLOOR THAT'S ALSO PUBLIC AND PRIVATE PARKING, NOT JUST FOR YOUR TENANTS, BUT YOU'RE ALLOWING THE PATRONS TO USE THAT AS WELL.
AND, AND NOT EVEN FRANKLY, AN ACCOMMODATION FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, THAT'S PART OF THE ENERGY THAT IS INTENDED TO GET CREATED IN THE FIRST PLACE.
AND I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE, ONE OTHER THING.
[03:50:01]
WHAT IS THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF OPEN SPACE YOU ARE PUTTING IN YOUR BUILDING? IN SUBAR C SUB AREA C IS 30,000.UM, YOU KNOW, WE, WE, AS, AS PLANNED, WE'VE GOT A HAIR OVER THAT.
AND SO, YOU KNOW, AS WE GO THROUGH THE FINAL DESIGN, THAT STUFF CAN, CAN GET SORT OF WORKED OUT.
BUT WE'VE GOT A TOTAL OF 30,000 SQUARE FEET AND YOU HAVE THREE OPEN AREAS IN YOUR THREE OPEN AREAS AROUND THE COURTYARD.
AND THEN BASICALLY IT, IT'S PROBABLY PAGE 11 IS PROBABLY WHERE, ALTHOUGH IT'S A CONCEPTUAL DOCUMENT WHERE IT SHOWS A, A BETTER SENSE THAT REALLY ON EVERY EDGE OF THE BUILDING, OTHER THAN THE ALLEY WHERE WE'VE PULLED THE BUILDINGS BACK AND TRIED TO ACTIVATE IT ONE WAY OR ANOTHER WITH HARDSCAPE OPEN SPACE LANDSCAPING AND IN, IN A LOT OF CASES, RETAIL OR DIRECT ACCESS, MULTI-FAMILY AMENITIES OR UNITS.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONER KINGSTON.
MR. BLACKWELL, BEFORE YOU GO ANYWHERE.
UH, YOU STARTED TO GIVE A DESCRIPTION OF THE UNIT MIX AND YOUR ANTICIPATED, UH, RENTS AS YOU OPEN ON SUB AREA C.
CAN YOU PLEASE FINISH THAT? SURE.
UM, AND, AND THE, THE, THE, THE FRAMING COMMENT THAT I ALSO DIDN'T, DIDN'T MENTION WAS THIS, UH, WHAT WE SOMETIMES CALL A BARBELL.
THIS IS A BARBELL SITE FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, IT'S UNIQUE OPPORTUNITIES SURROUNDED BY NEIGHBORHOODS THAT HAVE VARYING DEGREES, INCLUDING QUITE AFFLUENT, UH, FOLKS THAT HAVE HOUSING NEEDS WHO DON'T HAVE A WHOLE LOT OF PARTICULARLY GREAT OPPORTUNITIES IN SOME CASES.
UH, AND THEN THERE'S ALSO A UNIQUE OPPORTUNITY ASSOCIATED WITH THE LOCATIONAL WORKFORCE THAT'S THERE AND A WORKFORCE THAT WOULD BE ATTRACTED TO LIVING AT DART.
SO HOW DO YOU GO IN BOTH DIRECTIONS AT THE SAME TIME? OUR THEORY, UM, THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF NEW HOUSING THAT'S BEEN CREATED IN THAT POCKET, MIDTOWN, BROADLY SORT OF TO THE NORTH OF THIS.
THAT'LL MAKE, I MEAN, THERE'S BEEN SEVEN OR EIGHT PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN BUILT IN THERE.
THEY'RE, THEY'RE, THEY'RE PRETTY TYPICALLY THE SAME THING, ONE AFTER THE OTHER.
WE WANTED TO BE INTENTIONALLY QUITE DIFFERENT THAN THAT.
UH, MIXED USE, WALKABILITY, DART, ALL THAT STUFF, UH, ALIGNS WITH THAT.
BUT OUR SENSE IS THEY'RE, THEY'RE WIDELY POSITIONED FOR THAT CONVENTIONAL RENTER PROFILE THAT, UH, THAT THAT, BUT SOME, BUT OFTENTIMES BECAUSE OF UNIT SIZE AND SOME OTHER THINGS CAN END UP WITH PRICING THAT, THAT STILL MAKES IT LESS AND LESS ATTAINABLE.
AND SO OUR STRATEGY WAS, LET'S LET, LET'S TRY TO FOCUS ON BOTH ENDS AT THE SAME TIME.
AND THE WAY WE DO THAT GENERALLY IS WITH UNIT SIZE.
NOW IT STOPS SHORT OF, OF, UH, WHAT SOME PEOPLE WOULD CONSIDER MICROUNITS.
BUT ULTIMATELY WE'VE GOT, I THINK WHAT I, WHAT I HAD MENTIONED IS WE HAVE 32% IN OUR CURRENT UNIT MIX, AND THAT'S SUBJECT TO SOME DEGREE OF CHANGE.
BUT WE'RE, WE'RE GETTING MORE AND MORE LOCKED INTO THAT IS UNDER 725 SQUARE FEET AND UNDER 2000 SQUARE FEET IN MARKET RENT.
IRRESPECTIVE OF ANY, UH, ANY ADJUSTMENT TO, TO RENT OR RESERVATION OF MIXED INCOME, WE'VE AGREED THAT WE'VE GOT THAT WE'LL PUT, 20% OF THOSE 20%, EXCUSE ME, 20 OF THOSE UNITS WILL BE LESS THAN 600 SQUARE FEET FOR, FOR MORE PRECISE REFERENCE, WE'RE AT ABOUT FIVE SEVENTY FIVE ON, CALL IT 2324 UNITS, BUT THEN ALL THOSE OTHER THAT MAKE UP 32% OF THE TOTAL UNDER 2000 OR UNDER 725 SQUARE FEET.
SO WHAT WE'VE CHALLENGED THE DESIGN TEAM WITH AND BEEN FOCUSED ON IS WE DON'T WANT A LOT OF, WE, I WANT, AND, AND I THINK MORE THAN 50% OF OUR TWO BEDROOMS ARE UNDER 1,150 SQUARE FEET, WHICH IS USUALLY THE ATTACHMENT POINT WHERE A LOT OF TWO BEDROOMS START.
AND SO WHAT WE'VE SAID IS, LOOK, THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO THINK SLIGHTLY DIFFERENTLY ABOUT THIS.
WE DO A LOT OF UNITS THAT ARE SMALLER THAN DALLAS AND OTHER PARTS OF THE COUNTRY.
IT'S A PERFECT OPPORTUNITY TO, TO DO THAT.
BUT THEN WE'VE ALSO GOT QUITE A NUMBER OF UNITS ON THE ONE BEDROOM AND ONE BEDROOM DEN KINDA WORK FROM HOME UNITS AND TWO BEDROOMS THAT ARE ACTUALLY QUITE LARGE, WHICH IS, WHICH IS POINTED AT THAT OTHER GROUP OF FOLKS.
SO THAT, THAT'S THE, THE OVERALL POSITIONING STRATEGY.
THERE WAS, I THINK MENTIONED THIS MORNING IN THE BRIEFING ABOUT 2000 AS A, AS A, AS A RENT LEVEL.
UM, AND IT, WE JUST DID THE MATH REAL QUICKLY AND LOOKED AT THE MIX.
AND 30% OF OUR UNITS ARE UNDER THAT $2,000 LEVEL AS AS WE CURRENTLY ASSUME THEM.
AND HAVE YOU DECIDED WHETHER YOU INTEND TO PUT THE AFFORDABLE UNITS ON SITE OR TO PAY WITH FEE AND LIE? UH, NOT, NOT AT THIS POINT.
UM, YOU KNOW, THERE, THERE, IT, IT'S FAIR TO SAY THAT THE DISCREPANCY BETWEEN US AND STAFF IS AT SOME LEVEL ROOTED AROUND THAT MATH, RIGHT? UM, WE HAVE, WE HAVE LANDED AT A PLACE IN OUR CONVERSATIONS AND IN OUR MOST RECENT, UH, COMMUNICATION WHERE WE'VE ADDED, WE WERE AT 5% AT 80, UH, INITIALLY, AND WE'VE ADDED ANOTHER 5% AT A HUNDRED.
UM, YOU KNOW, THE MATH MOVES AWAY FROM US, UH, IN THAT DECISION.
BUT AT THIS STAGE, GIVEN WHAT'S HAPPENING IN IN THE MARKET AND THE TIME, UH, AND THE SPECIFICS, IT'S KIND OF HARD TO, IT'S HARD TO CALL THAT SHOT TODAY.
UH, THIS GIVES US A VERY GOOD AS, AS WE HAVE AGREED TO, UH, 5% AT 80 AND 5% AT A HUNDRED GIVES US ABSOLUTELY, UM, A, A A, A GOOD SHOT AT DOING THAT.
AND I DON'T MEAN TO BE, IT, IT, IT'S HARD TO BE, UM, TOO DIRECT ON IT ON THE ONE HAND.
ON THE OTHER HAND, ULTIMATELY WE'VE GOT INVESTORS AND OTHER THINGS THAT WILL TAKE SHAPE AND WE'LL HAVE TO HAVE THOSE CONVERSATIONS.
UM, WE GO DEEPER AT, IN THE A MAMI LEVELS AND WE GO HIGHER WITH THE PERCENTAGE LEVELS.
AND THE MATH JUST MOVES IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION, WHICH I THINK EVERYBODY'S DEALING WITH.
UH, SO IT'S HARD TO COMMIT, BUT WE ARE AT A LEVEL WHERE I THINK IT'S A VERY REAL POSSIBILITY THAT
[03:55:01]
WE WOULD PROVIDE 'EM ON SITE.AND I LIKE THAT IDEA PERSON PERSONALLY.
NOW, PART OF THE UNIT MIX STRATEGY, WHICH I KNOW IS A, A SOMETHING YOU'RE FOCUSED ON ALSO IS, IS TRYING TO KIND OF GO GET THAT RESIDENT ANYWAY.
UM, SO IF WE WERE TO, MY UNDERSTANDING IS YOU'VE HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH COMMISSIONER SPANNER AND SHE'S GOT A DIFFERENT, UH, PERCENTAGE MIX THAN STAFF RECOMMENDS.
AND YOU THINK BASED ON MARKETING CONDITIONS TODAY, PUTTING THE UNITS ON SITE AS ATTAINABLE BASED ON THOSE CONVERSATIONS? UM, WE, WE, WE THINK THAT IT IS.
WE THINK IT'S, WE THINK THAT'S, UH, QUITE POSSIBLE.
QUESTIONS FOR ANY OF OUR SPEAKERS? COMMISSIONER POCKET? UM, I HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS REGARDING, UM, THE HEIGHT.
UM, AS MR. COLORADO BROUGHT OUT AND WE'VE DISCUSSED A LITTLE BIT, IS THERE ANOTHER MICROPHONE THAT WE COULD TURN OFF THE ECHO'S REALLY BAD ONLINE? SHOULD I MUTE TOMMY? IT MIGHT BE THAT ONE RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU.
IF THERE'S A GREEN LIGHT ON YOU WANT ME TO TURN IT OFF? OKAY.
SO MY QUESTION IS REGARDING, UM, SUB AREAS, UH, THE HEIGHT MAXIMUMS IN THESE SUB AREAS.
I WAS NOTICING THAT FOR THE A'S AND B, THE MAXIMUM, THERE'S NO MAXIMUM HEIGHT, BUT IT LOOKS LIKE THE NUMBER OF STORIES MIGHT BE, UM, MORE REGULATED BY THE NUMBER OF UNITS THAT YOU'RE PLACING ON THE SITE IF YOU'RE PLACING RESIDENTIAL ON SITE.
UM, BUT FOR C IT'S LIMITED TO NINE STORIES AND D IT'S LIMITED TO 20 STORIES.
WHAT'S THE RATIONALE BEHIND THAT? WOULD IT, WOULD YOU BE INTERESTED IN ADDING MORE HEIGHTENED DENSITY NEAR RAIL? IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE THERE'S ANY SINGLE FAMILY OR ANYTHING NEARBY.
WHAT WOULD THE LOGIC BEHIND THAT? SO IT'S KIND OF DIFFERENT WITH RESPECT TO EACH SUB AREA.
LEMME START WITH THE, THE IMMINENT PHASE, THE MILK CREEK PHASE IN SUB AREA C, RIGHT? THAT, THAT PROJECT IS VERY FAR ALONG AND WE ANTICIPATE BEING IN FOR PERMIT HOPEFULLY PRETTY QUICKLY AFTER AN APPROVAL ON THIS.
WE ARE STICKING WITH WOOD FRAME CONSTRUCTION DUE BECAUSE THAT'S THE MARKET TO BUILD SOMETHING RIGHT NOW TODAY.
SO THAT'S THE A HUNDRED FEET YOU SEE THERE.
THAT PROJECT'S ROUGHLY SEVEN, EIGHT STORIES AND WE JUST, YOU KNOW, WE'RE OFFERING YOU A DEVELOPMENT PLAN ON THAT.
SO WE COULD PUMP THAT NUMBER UP AND SAY, GREAT, BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT'S GONNA GET BUILT IN THAT PHASE.
UM, OVER ON THE HIGHWAY, I MEAN, TWO 40 IS WHERE WE LANDED.
IF YOU ALL PUMPED IT UP TO THREE 40, WHATEVER, WE DON'T HAVE A BUILDING DESIGNED, BUT WE FIGURE THAT SPOT IS THE LEAST CONFUSING AND MOST UNDERSTANDABLE PLACE TO PLACE HEIGHT IN SUB AREAS B AND A.
WE HAVE 85 FEET IN THERE TODAY.
THAT'S REALLY A REFLECTION OF THE FACT THAT THAT'S AS TALL AS YOU CAN GO WITH WOOD FRAME CONSTRUCTION, WHICH IS WHAT ALL THAT RENTS IN THIS SUBMARKET CAN SUPPORT TODAY.
NOW, REALISTICALLY, THE HOUSING THAT GETS BUILT IN THOSE SUB AREAS IS PROBABLY 10 PLUS YEARS AWAY FROM TODAY.
AND I HOPE THAT MR. COLORADO IS CORRECT AND WE'RE BACK HERE ASKING TO AMEND THIS IN 11 YEARS TO INCREASE THAT FROM 85 TO 185 OR TO 300 OR WHATEVER IT IS.
IT'S JUST AN EXERCISE IN KIND OF, YOU KNOW, THE BEST WAY TO EAT AN ELEPHANT IS ONE BITE AT A TIME.
WE'RE GOING FROM ONE STORY TO EIGHT TO GET STARTED.
UH, AND WE HOPE TO CONTINUE THAT GENERAL TRAJECTORY, BUT IT'S ONE OF THE MANY THINGS WE MAY BE WRONG ABOUT 10 OR 15 YEARS FROM NOW THAT WE'LL BE BACK TO DISCUSS.
AND THEN THE OTHER LITTLE FACTOR IS WE WON'T WANT TO COMPLETELY OFFEND OUR EXISTING RETAIL TENANTS AND MAKE THEM THINK WE'RE ABOUT TO BUILD A BUNCH OF TOWERS RIGHT IN FRONT OF THEM.
WE HAVE TO WORK WITH OUR WRITTEN AGREEMENTS WITH THEM.
SO HOPEFULLY THAT'S AN ANSWER.
THANK YOU FOR THAT EXPLANATION.
AND IT, I THINK IT'S HELPFUL FOR OUR SPEAKERS, UM, AND, AND US TO UNDERSTAND KIND OF WHAT THESE MARKET FORCES ARE THAT CREATE WHAT WE SEE IN OUR CITY.
AND, YOU KNOW, IF THE RENTS AREN'T THERE TO SUPPORT A HIGHER, UM, TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION, UH, THAT'S SOMETHING TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION, UM, ESPECIALLY AS WE'RE WANTING TO SEE MORE DENSITY IN YOUR TRAIN STATIONS.
WOULD YOU MIND CLICKING OFF THE MIC REAL QUICK? THANK YOU.
UM, MY OTHER QUESTION RELATES TO THE WALKABILITY, AND THIS MIGHT BE A QUESTION FOR MR. BLACKWELL.
UM, AND I, I VISITED THIS DART STATION A LOT, UH, PRIMARILY BECAUSE WHEN
[04:00:01]
I'M LOOKING FOR A COFFEE SHOP TO MEET FOLKS AT, UH, WHETHER IT BE CLIENTS OR, UM, FOR PLAN COMMISSION MEETINGS THAT'S FURTHER NORTH THAN OAK CLIFF, THIS IS LIKE THE ONLY STATION THAT HAS A COFFEE SHOP OTHER THAN A MOCKINGBIRD.UM, AND SO I I, I REALLY LOVE WHAT YOU GUYS ARE DOING WITH THIS, UM, YOU KNOW, VERY SUBURBAN ORIENTED SHOPPING CENTER, TRYING TO MAKE IT A MORE WALKABLE PLACE.
UM, I REALLY ENJOY VISITING HERE, BUT IN TERMS OF WALKABILITY WITH THE DART STATION, I, I JUST, I, I WANNA, I, I HAVE A SUGGESTION FOR MAKING A LITTLE MORE WALKABLE, BUT ALSO I WANNA CRITIQUE THIS A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE IF WE REALLY WANTED TO MAKE THIS A BEAUTIFUL, WALKABLE ENVIRONMENT, I THINK, UM, WHAT MR. COLORADO SAID IS CORRECT THAT WE WOULD BE ORIENTING MORE OF THE RETAIL TOWARDS USERS THAT COULD BE COMING, YOU KNOW, ACCESSING THIS DEVELOPMENT FROM THE DART RAIL STATION.
SO RATHER THAN HAVING THEM WALK DOWN AN ALLEYWAY ACROSS A GARAGE PARKING ENTRANCE AND PAST, YOU KNOW, A COUPLE OF OTHER AMENITIES, UM, SOME PARKING SPACES TO FINALLY GET TO THE RETAIL, WE COULD REALLY ORIENT IT TOWARDS THE DART STATION.
UM, SO MAYBE IF THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY SOMEDAY TO REDEVELOP, UM, AREA B, I REALLY HOPE THAT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU GUYS TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION, PICK A REALLY GOOD ARCHITECT AND HAVE FUN WITH.
'CAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE THAT'S REALLY WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH.
AND THAT'S THE REAL OPPORTUNITY IS THAT GATEWAY WHERE THE ALLEYWAY, UM, HITS MANDEVILLE LANE.
IT, IT, IT COULD REALLY BE MADE SOMETHING SPECIAL AND BEAUTIFUL.
I KNOW IT'S DIFFICULT WITH AN EXISTING TENANT IN A BUILDING WHERE IT IS.
UM, BUT IF IT'S POSSIBLE TO GIVE THAT SOME MORE THOUGHT ABOUT HOW TO MAKE THAT MORE OF A, UH, AN ENTRANCE THAT DRAWS YOUR ATTENTION AND PULLS YOU AS A PEDESTRIAN TOWARDS THIS AMAZING PLACE, UM, I, I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT.
BUT IN TERMS OF CHANGES THAT WE COULD MAKE TODAY TO THE PD, WOULD YOU BE OPEN TO
I THINK THAT'S A PRETTY SIMPLE UPDATE.
I, ON YOUR PRESENTATION ON PAGE FOUR, IF YOU COULD JUST BRING THAT UP, YOU'LL SEE EXACTLY WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT ON PAGE FOUR.
ON THE EAST SIDE OF SUB AREA C, UM, RIGHT NEXT TO THE ALLEYWAY.
IF YOU CAN IMAGINE BEING A PEDESTRIAN COMING FROM THE DART STATION AND WALKING DOWN THE ALLEYWAY, AS YOU ENTER, YOU'RE EITHER ENTERING NEXT TO, UH, THE EXISTING, UM, RESTAURANT AND THEN CROSSING ACROSS THE PARKING LOT TO GET TO THE RETAIL.
OR YOU'RE CROSSING THE, UM, ENTRYWAY INTO THE GARAGE AND THEN ALL THE AMENITIES DOWN CON CONTINUOUSLY ON THAT SIDEWALK TOWARDS THE RETAIL.
AND THEN AGAIN, ON THE WEST SIDE OF THAT, UM, APARTMENT COMPLEX FROM THE ALLEYWAY, YOU'LL AGAIN BE CROSSING AN ENTRANCE INTO THE GARAGE TO ACCESS THE REST OF THE DEVELOPMENT.
UM, SO I THINK AT LEAST MAKING THOSE WALKWAYS, UM, LEVEL AND CONTINUOUS CONNECTING TO SIDEWALKS ON EITHER WAY ON EITHER SIDE OF THAT, UH, GARAGE INSURANCE WOULD HELP A LITTLE BIT.
AND ANY OTHER LANDSCAPING AND TREES YOU COULD ADD TO THAT ALLEYWAY WOULD REALLY BE A VAST IMPROVEMENT.
I, IT'S ABSOLUTELY AN IMPROVEMENT TO WHAT'S THERE NOW.
AND I'M SO THANKFUL YOU GUYS ARE ADDRESSING THAT, BUT I THINK IT'S A FAR CRY FROM, YOU KNOW, A BEAUTIFUL WALKABLE ENVIRONMENT.
SO I I, IF, IF YOU'RE OPEN TO GIVING THAT SOME MORE THOUGHT, I WOULD ENCOURAGE ALL THE LANDSCAPING AND, UM, ENTRYWAYS INTO GROUND FLOOR UNITS ALONG THAT ALLEYWAY THAT YOU CAN, UM, DESIGN INTO IT THAT WOULD, THAT WOULD GREATLY INCREASE THE WALKABILITY AND DESIRABILITY OF BEING A PEDESTRIAN ON THAT ALLEYWAY.
THAT'S THE CONCLUSION OF MY COMMENTS.
AND, AND TO RESPOND, I WOULD JUST ON PAGE 8 28 UNDER THE INTERNAL DRIVE SECTION ROMANT THREE, WHICH THAT IN AND OF ITSELF THAT I HAD TO EXPLAIN IT THAT WAY, IS HOW COMPLICATED THIS IS, UH, DOES STATE THE SIDEWALKS MUST BE CONTINUOUS AND GENERALLY LEVEL ACROSS DRIVEWAYS AND CURB CUTS AND BE CONSTRUCTED AT THE SAME GRADE AS THE EXISTING SIDEWALK.
AND THAT'S FOR THE INTERNAL DRIVES, WHICH COVERS A LOT OF WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
AND THEN THE, THE ALLEY IS ADDRESSED ON THAT PEDESTRIAN EXHIBIT WITH A SECTION AND DISCUSSION.
SO IT'S, I'M JUST POINTING THAT OUT.
BUT WE, WE APPRECIATE THE COMMENT AND IT IS SOMETHING THAT'S IN HERE TO A DEGREE AND SOMETHING WE'RE COMMITTED TO WORKING ON.
THANK YOU FOR POINTING THAT OUT.
AND ACROSS ALL THE OTHER DRIVEWAYS IS GONNA BE IMPORTANT TOO.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR ALL YOUR HARD WORK ON THIS AND I, I'M REALLY LOOKING FORWARD TO SEEING THIS WHOLE DEVELOPMENT BECOME A
[04:05:01]
MORE BEAUTIFUL, WALKABLE ENVIRONMENT.THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HANSEN.
JUST ONE POINT OF CLARIFICATION.
UM, I ALSO FOUND YOUR SECTION ON E ROMAN THREE, UM, SINCE THAT IS UNDER INTERNAL DRIVES AND THERE'S A SEPARATE SECTION FOR ALLEYS, WOULD IT BE, UM, A GOOD CLARIFICATION TO ENSURE THAT THAT PROVISION IS APPLICABLE TO THE ALLEY ENTRANCES AS WELL? YEAH, THAT MAY BE A, YOU GOT IT.
IT'S THIS LANGUAGE RIGHT HERE BEING APPLICABLE TO THE ALLEY.
I MEAN, MY INCLINATION IS YES.
WHAT WE'RE THE, THE, THE, IS THAT GOOD? WE'RE, WE'RE LOOKING AT OUR CIVIL ENGINEER WHO SAYS THAT'S GOOD.
PART OF, PART OF THE IDEA IS WITHIN THAT SECTION IN THE ALLEY, PART OF WHAT WE'RE ATTEMPTING TO DO RIGHT, RIGHT.
IS TO HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF A RAISED EDGE AND A DIFFERENT PAVING PATTERN.
SO THAT'S THE ONLY TRIP HAZARD.
CAN YOU, CAN YOU GET ON THE MICROPHONE PLEASE? YEAH, SORRY.
PART OF THE, PART OF THE THING I THINK WE'RE TRYING TO THINK THROUGH IS THAT WITHIN, WITHIN THIS KIND OF SHARED SPACE, FRANKLY, WE'RE TRYING TO INTENTIONALLY USE DIFFERENT PAVEMENT MARKING, DIFFERENT PAVEMENT MATERIALS, A LITTLE BIT OF A RAISED CONDITION TO CREATE SOME SEPARATION VISUALLY.
SO THAT PEDESTRIAN PLACE EXPERIENCE IS MORE OBVIOUS WITHOUT IT BEING CUT OFF AS NEEDED FOR FIRE LANE PURPOSES OCCASIONALLY.
SO THAT'S MY ONLY FEAR IS THAT THAT'S HAPPENING AT A RAISED CONDITION.
AND I DON'T WANT TO GET TO IT TOO STUCK, BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE FINE.
WE'RE, WE'RE CROSSING THE DRIVEWAYS AT THE DRIVEWAYS.
AND THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION.
I WILL SAY, I, I NOTICED SOME OF YOUR RENDERINGS HAD THAT AND THE PROVISIONS ON THE ALLEY, UM, INDICATE YOU'RE GOING TO, UM, I DON'T REMEMBER.
THERE, THERE'S NOT A DEFINITIVE WILL DO.
AND AGAIN, I THINK THAT SPEAKS TO YOUR TRYING TO WORK THROUGH ALL OF YOUR ENGINEERING COMPONENTS AS A PART OF THAT.
OTHER QUESTIONS FOR ANY OF OUR SPEAKERS? COMMISSIONERS? I HAVE ONE MR. STAN, I HAVE ONE LAST QUESTION.
WASN'T ONE OF THE REASON THIS IS FOR MR. MANN.
WASN'T ONE OF THE REASON THAT ON SUB AREA D THAT IT WAS CAPPED AT 20 STORIES AND THE EQUIVALENT OF 240 FEET, BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT M U THREE SAYS.
ANOTHER QUESTION HAD TO DO EARLIER WITH A LIGHTING QUESTION.
AND ISN'T IT TRUE THAT BECAUSE WE'RE DEALING WITH AN EXISTING CENTER, WHICH RIGHT NOW HAS THE OLD STYLE SUBURBAN PARKING LOT, SO IT'S GOT ONE STYLE OF LIGHTING IN IT.
AND THEN WE'RE ANTICIPATING IN THE FUTURE, YOU KNOW, PUTTING LOWER LIGHTING AT 20 FEET, HOODED, SHIELDED, L E D, YADA, YADA YADA.
SO THE, THERE WAS A QUESTION THAT CAME UP TODAY AND A GOOD ONE BY COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT, AND I'M GONNA TAKE CARE OF IT IN MY MOTION, BUT I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH DIFFERENT LIGHTING, PEDESTRIAN LIGHTING, PARKING, LOT LIGHTING, STREET LIGHTING ON THE MAJOR STREETS AND ALLEY LIGHTING.
COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT PLEASE.
UH, GUESS FOR ANYONE ON THE APPLICANT TEAM, UM, JUST COULD I GET A LITTLE MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE 15 DISTRICT IDENTIFICATION SIGNS THAT COULD BE AS LARGE AS A HUNDRED SQUARE FEET.
THEY, THEY WERE PORTRAYED IN THIS HEARING A MOMENT AGO AS REALLY WAYFINDING SIGNS.
SO COULD I GET A LITTLE MORE INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT THOSE ARE? AND DO THEY REALLY NEED TO BE 100 SQUARE FEET? YES, SIR.
15 IS THE NUMBER OF SIGNS THAT ASANA HAS IN THEIR SIGNAGE PLAN.
THE SIGN INSPECTOR HAS REVIEWED THE PLAN.
IT'S ARGUABLE THAT SEVERAL OF THEM WOULDN'T EVEN BE CONSIDERED SIGNS BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT GONNA BE VISIBLE FROM THE RIGHT OF WAY 'CAUSE THEY'RE DIRECTING PEOPLE INTERNALLY TO THAT COURTYARD AND OTHER PLACES.
BUT OUT OF AN ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION, WE WENT AHEAD AND LEFT IT IN THERE AFTER HIS REVIEW.
I DON'T THINK VERY MANY OF THEM WILL BE UP TO A HUNDRED SQUARE FEET.
THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO BE POLE SIGNS.
THEY ALL HAVE TO BE MONUMENT STYLE MOUNTED FROM THE GROUND.
SO YOU MIGHT HAVE A COUPLE THAT GET THAT LARGE FOR BRANDING PURPOSES OF THE, THE HILL RIGHT BACK IN THOSE AREAS.
BUT YEAH, THE WHOLE IDEA BEHIND THE SIGNAGE PACKAGE IS TO PROVIDE COHESIVE BRANDING INTERNALLY AND GET PEOPLE INTO THESE NOOKS AND CRANNIES THAT THEY DON'T KNOW EXIST AND THE NEW ONES THAT ARE BEING CREATED.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR OUR SPEAKERS? OKAY, QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.
[04:10:01]
GONNA START WITH YOU, SIR.IF WE CAN GO AHEAD AND GO BACK TO OUR DISCUSSION ON THE MIXED INCOME DEVELOPMENT HOUSING BONUS AND PHASING IN.
UH, EARLIER TODAY AT THE BRIEFING, THERE WERE QUESTIONS ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT WITHIN EACH SUB AREA SO THAT WE CAN GET THIS CLEARLY, CLEARLY CLARIFIED.
I DON'T THINK YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO SAY THAT THAT'S REDUNDANT, BUT AT ANY RATE, GET IT CLARIFIED THAT IT WAS, THE QUESTION TO EARLIER WAS SAYING THAT IT'S FOR THE WHOLE AREA AND OBVIOUSLY FOR THE PAST TWO YEARS WE'VE BEEN PLANNING THIS WITH THE SUB AREAS.
SO COULD YOU TELL US, NOW THAT YOU'VE GONE BACK AND REFERENCED THE CODE, THE MIXED INCOME HOUSING BONUS CODE, DOES IT ALLOW AND HOW DOES IT ALLOW IT TO BE DEALT WITH IN WHEN YOU HAVE FIVE SUB AREAS? UH, THANK YOU THOR ERICKSON, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF NEIGHBORHOOD, OR HOUSING AND NEIGHBORHOOD REVITALIZATION.
UH, SO AFTER REVIEW OF THE, UM, MIXED INCOME HOUSING DEVELOPMENT, WE DID FIND THE PROVISIONS FOR PHASING STRATEGIES.
UH, WHILE IT DOESN'T CLEARLY DE DE LING, UH, DISTINGUISH BETWEEN PD OR DEVELOPMENT SITE, THE LANGUAGE IS CLEAR THAT THE PD CAN HAVE ALL OF THE BONUSES AS PART OF THEM, AND EACH DEVELOPMENT SITE WITHIN THAT PD CAN APPLY INDIVIDUALLY FOR THE BONUSES AS LONG AS THOSE DEVELOPMENTS MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE PROGRAM.
SO AT THAT TIME, EACH DEVELOPMENT, WHEN IT'S READY TO GO INTO PERMITTING AND THEY'RE APPLYING FOR THE, UH, THEIR, THEIR PERMITS WITH THEIR FINAL APPLICATION, THEY'LL BE ABLE TO DISTINGUISH IF THEY'LL BE PRESENTING ONSITE UNITS OR A FEE AND LIE OPTION, UH, FOR EACH OF THOSE SUB-DISTRICTS, WHICH WOULD BE CONSIDERED EACH INDIVIDUAL DEVELOPMENT.
AND IN CONJUNCTION WITH THAT DETERMINATION, WOULD THAT MEAN, 'CAUSE FOR INSTANCE, WE'VE ALREADY ESTABLISHED THAT IN SUB AREA C, THE DEVELOPER HAPPENS TO BE THIS MILL CREEK ENTITY, SO THEY'RE BUILDING THEIR BUILDING NOW, IF WE HAVE ANOTHER DEVELOPER EIGHT YEARS FROM NOW IN SUB AREA B, JUST TO CLARIFY, AND WE'VE, YOU KNOW, PUT A MIXED INCOME HOUSING BONUS, WE'VE SAID YOU'VE GOT TO PUT IN THE 15% AT THESE THREE BANDS.
AND BECAUSE THE MIXED INCOME HOUSING CODE ALLOWS FOR THE OPTION FOR SOME OF THESE DEVELOPERS TO DO WHAT'S CALLED A FEE IN LIEU THAT GOES INTO A HOUSING FUND TO SUPPLEMENT HOUSING IN OTHER AREAS OF THE CITY, WOULD THAT DEVELOPER IN SUB AREA B HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO FEE IN LIEU IF THEY WANTED TO OPT TO THAT AS IT'S WRITTEN TODAY? YES.
I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT AT THIS POINT, SINCE WE'RE WRITING A PD THAT AFFECTS THINGS IN THE FUTURE, THAT THAT IS IN FACT THE CASE.
SO BASICALLY PER BUILDING, DEVELOPER BUILDING, AND MY UNDERSTANDING, AND I JUST WANNA BE CLEAR ON THIS, 'CAUSE I THINK YOU SAID THIS EARLIER, BUT I'D LIKE IT TO BE SAID AT THE HEARING.
SO IT'S NOT UNTIL THEY'VE LITERALLY DONE IT TO THE AMOUNT OF STORIES THAT YOU CALCULATE.
IS THAT CORRECT? YEAH, SO THE, THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.
THE FEE AND LIE WILL BE CALCULATED WHEN THE TOTAL RESIDENTIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE IS KNOWN AND THE M V A CATEGORY AT THAT TIME.
AND THEN BASED UPON THAT M V A CATEGORY AND HEIGHT A BUILDING, YOU DO THE CALCULATION TO UNDERSTAND WHAT A FEE AND LIE MIGHT BE.
UH, MEANWHILE, YOU'VE ALREADY ACCOUNTED FOR THE DEVELOPMENT COSTS AND YOUR OPERATIONAL COSTS OF THE ONSITE PROVISION.
SO YOU CAN WEIGH THE PROS AND CONS OF THAT TIME.
LINE, UH, COMMISSIONER POPKIN FOLLOWED BY COMMISSIONER CARPENTER.
UH, QUICK FOLLOW UP ON THAT, MR. ERICKSON.
I WAS CURIOUS WHETHER, HOW THE FEE IN LIEU PROGRAM WORKS.
IS IT AN ALL OR NOTHING OR IS THERE AN OPPORTUNITY TO PAY A PARTIAL FEE IN LIEU RIGHT NOW PER DEVELOPMENT SITE, IT'S, UH, ONE OR THE OTHER.
YOU EITHER CHOOSE THE ONSITE PROVISION OR YOU OPT FOR THE FEE AND LIE OUT.
FOLLOWING UP ON WHAT I ASKED EARLIER ABOUT THE, UH, RETENTION OF THE MATURE CANOPY TREES ON WALNUT HILL, UH, WITH THE CURRENT PD LANGUAGE THAT REQUIRES AN EIGHT FOOT SIDEWALK, AND THEN WITH GIVING SOME FLEXIBILITY FOR REDUCING OR RELOCATING AN EIGHT FOOT BUFFER.
UH, GOOD AFTERNOON COMMISSIONER, UH, THE EIGHT FOOT SIDEWALK, EIGHT FOOT BUFFER COULD, COULD ACTUALLY FUNCTION ALONG THE STREET FRONTAGE IF THE SIDEWALK
[04:15:01]
IS MOVED TO THE INWARD SIDE OF THE TREES.AND SO THE SIDEWALK WOULD NO LONGER BE ALONG THE CURB ON WALNUT HILL.
AND THEN SO IN, IN THAT FASHION, EIGHT FOOT SIDEWALK COULD ACTUALLY WORK.
IF WE TRY TO WIDEN THE FIVE FOOT SIDEWALK THERE CURRENTLY TO MAKE IT EIGHT FEET, THERE COULD BE SOME COMPROMISE TO SOME OF THE TREES.
DOES THE LANGUAGE AND THE PD NEED TO BE ADJUSTED TO REFLECT THAT THE SIDEWALK MAY NEED TO CHANGE ITS LOCATION? I DO NOT BELIEVE IT DOES, UH, BELIEVE THAT, THAT THE ARTICLE 10, UH, PROVISIONS WOULD, ARE SATISFACTORY TO BE ABLE TO ADDRESS THAT FRONTAGE.
BUT ISN'T IT TRUE THAT IN THE PD, AND CORRECT ME IF I'M NOT RIGHT, TOMMY, BUT I'M ASKING MR. IRWIN THAT IF YOU CAN REDUCE THE BUFFER.
'CAUSE IT DOES SAY, AT FIRST IT SAID ELIMINATE THE BUFFER AND WE CHANGED IT TO REDUCE 'CAUSE WE DON'T WANT WITHOUT ANY BUFFER.
BUT IF YOU CAN REDUCE THE BUFFER, YOU COULD POTENTIALLY HAVE THE EIGHT FOOT SIDEWALK.
WOULD THAT BE CORRECT? THAT COULD BE POSSIBLE.
UH, IT JUST DEPENDS ON THE YEAH, BECAUSE I'M LOOKING AT THE, BECAUSE THE D LANGUAGE DOES SAY YOU CAN REDUCE THE BUFFER.
I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT.
I HOPE YOU KNOW EVERY SINGLE ONE.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? MR. CHAIR? MAY I ASK A QUESTION OF STAFF? OF COURSE, PLEASE.
COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, YOU LOOK LIKE YOU HAVE A CONTRIBUTION TO THIS DISCUSSION,
WELL, I THINK I WAS JUST, UM, FOLLOWING UP ON THE QUESTION THAT WAS ASKED OF, UM, MR. MAN AND MR. BLACKWELL REGARDING HAVING THE, UM, SIDEWALKS LEVEL AND CONTINUOUS ACROSS DRIVEWAYS AND CURB CUTS.
IF THAT WAS APPLICABLE TO THE ALLEY, WOULD IT SIMPLY BE AS SIMPLE AS WITHIN, YOU KNOW, SECTION E ROMAN THREE ADDING THIS PROVISION APPLIES TO ALLEY, DRIVEWAY AND CURB CUTS? IS THAT A SIMPLE WAY TO, TO CAPTURE THAT DISCUSSION? YEAH, THE, THE WAY THE CONDITIONS ARE BROKEN OUT, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A SECTION FOR THE ALLEY, A SECTION FOR THE SERVICE ROAD INTERNAL DRIVES.
UM, I THINK YOU COULD JUST ADD THAT SAME CONDITION TO, UH, SECTION C REGARDING THE ALLEY.
AND THAT, AGAIN, THAT'S WHAT I WAS ASKING.
WHAT'S THE BEST WAY TO ACHIEVE THAT? SO IT WOULD JUST LITERALLY PUT ROMAN AT THREE AS ROMAN FOUR UNDER SEA? YES.
SO YOU COULD DO IT THAT WAY? YES, MA'AM.
EVEN IF YOU'RE NOT MAKING IT LEVEL WITH THE A WELL, 'CAUSE IT WOULD JUST BE CONTINUOUS AND GENERALLY LEVEL ACROSS THE DRIVEWAYS AND CURB CUTS, PLEASE LEVEL ACROSS THE DRIVEWAY, NOT LEVEL WITH THE HOUR.
UH, COMMISSIONER STANDARD, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? OH MY GOSH, WELL
[04:20:01]
TAKE YOUR TIME.I MIGHT BEAT COMMISSIONER POPKIN IN HAMPTON ON THE LONGEST MOTION IN HISTORY.
IN THE MATTER OF Z 2 1 2 3 0 7, I MOVE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL AS BRIEF SUBJECT TO A CONCEPTUAL PLAN, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN, A TREE PRESERVATION PLAN, A PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENT PHASING PLAN, AND THE APPLICANT'S RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGES.
NUMBER ONE, REMOVE THE INDUSTRIAL USES FROM THE MAIN USES PERMITTED.
AND THE SS U P REQUIREMENT FOR MULTIFAMILY AND RETIREMENT HOUSING USES TWO IN SUB AREAS, A, ONE, A TWO, AND B.
MIXED INCOME HOUSING BONUS PERCENTAGES ARE THE SAME AS FOR SUB AREA D IN SECTION 115, WHICH IS THE 15% OF THREE BANDS.
THREE IN SECTION IN EACH OF SUB AREAS, A, ONE, A TWO, AND B, ADD A STIPULATION THAT A MINIMUM OF 20 UNITS MUST BE 600 SQUARE FEET OR LESS IN SECTION 11 D FOUR ADD THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS TO SECTION 1 1 0 URBAN DESIGN STANDARDS.
AND I AM ATTRIBUTING THESE TO COMMISSIONER KINGSTON.
RECYCLING CONTAINERS SHALL BE AVAILABLE FOR RESIDENTS AND ONSITE WORKERS ON THE PROPERTY.
LIGHT COLORED ROOF MATERIALS THAT OPTIMALLY MINIMIZE COOLING LOADS SHALL BE UTILIZED.
A MINIMUM OF 10 BICYCLE PARKING SPACES SHALL BE IN EACH SUB AREA LOCATED NEAR THE BUILDING.
RETAIL AND RESTAURANT USES MAY NOT UTILIZE OUTDOOR AMPLIFIED SOUND SYSTEMS BETWEEN 10:00 PM AND 6:00 AM THE NEXT DAY.
AND OUTDOOR AMPLIFIED SOUND SYSTEMS MAY NOT EXCEED 63 DECIBELS HOURS OF OPERATION FOR RETAIL AND RESTAURANT USES ARE LIMITED TO 6:00 AM TO MIDNIGHT.
UH, NOW ALL SITE ORNAMENTAL PLANNING AREAS, AND I'M GOING INTO A DEFINITION, OKAY, SO THAT YOU KNOW WHY THIS IS GOING TO BE SO LONG, BECAUSE WE NEED TO INCLUDE IN THE PD A DISTINCT DEFINITION FOR WHAT HABITAT GARDEN STANDARDS ARE.
ALL SITE ORNAMENTAL PLANNING AREAS ADDED IN THE FUTURE OR MODIFIED MUST CONFORM TO THE HABITAT GARDEN STANDARDS, WHICH ARE DEFINED TO MEAN ORNAMENTAL PLANTING AREAS.
EXCLUDING TURF AREAS WILL BE NATIVE OR NATIVE ADAPTIVE SPECIES TO NORTH TEXAS WITH LOW WATER OR VERY LOW WATER CONSUMPTION CHARACTERISTICS WITH THE INTENTION OF ATTRACTING BEES, BIRDS, BUTTERFLIES, OR A COMBINATION THEREOF.
THE LANDSCAPING SHALL BE MAINTAINED WITH INDUSTRY BEST PRACTICES TO PROMOTE THE HEALTHY DEVELOPMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF POLLINATOR HABITATS.
THE USE OF PESTICIDES, HERBICIDES, AND FUNGICIDES ARE PROHIBITED TO ENSURE THE HEALTH OF SITE HABITANTS.
DO NOT SAY C P C IS NOT ENVIRONMENT ENVIRONMENTALLY CONSCIOUS.
WE ARE NUMBER FIVE, REMOVE THE PEDESTRIAN LIGHTING REQUIREMENTS IN SECTION 1 66 B ROMAN TWO AND SECTION 1 66 B 15 TO READ AS FOLLOWS, A SPECIAL LIGHTING REQUIREMENT.
EXTERIOR LIGHTING SOURCES IF USED MUST BE ORIENTED DOWN AND ONTO THE PROPERTY THEY LIKE AND GENERALLY AWAY FROM ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES.
B, PEDESTRIAN SCALE LIGHTING, PEDESTRIAN SCALE LIGHTING THAT PROVIDES A MINIMUM MAINTAIN AVERAGE ILLUMINATION LEVEL OF 1.5 FOOT CANDLES MUST BE PROVIDED ALONG PUBLIC SIDEWALKS AND ADJACENT TO PUBLIC STREETS, ALONG ALL PEDESTRIAN PATHS AND ALONG THE ALLEY, ALONG THE NORTHERN PERIMETER OF THE PROPERTY.
THE DESIGN AND PLACEMENT OF BOTH THE STANDARDS AND FIXTURES MUST BE APPROVED BY THE DIRECTOR OF TRANSPORTATION UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED THE PROPERTY OWNER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE COST OF INSTALLATION OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE LIGHTING.
C PEDESTRIAN LIGHTING HEIGHT, PEDESTRIAN LIGHTING MUST BE A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 20 FEET.
OKAY, AND OUR LAST ONE THAT WE HAVE JUST ADDED IN SECTION 1 1 6, 1 1 6
[04:25:03]
C ROMAN 10, ADD THE FOLLOWING SIDEWALKS MUST BE CONTINUOUS AND GENERALLY LEVEL ACROSS ALL DRIVEWAYS AND CURB CUTS AND MUST BE CONSTRUCTED TO BE AT THE SAME GRADE AS THE EXISTING SIDEWALK.UH, A WAIVER OF THIS REQUIREMENT IS AVAILABLE.
SO WE'RE NOT ADDING THAT PART.
AND, UM, THIS WOULD APPLY TO ALLEYS AS WELL AS ALL OTHER INTERNAL DRIVEWAYS.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR MOTION, COMMISSIONER AND I HAVE COMMENTS AFTERWARDS.
AND COMMISSIONER KINGSTON FOR YOUR SECOND, AND NOW WE'RE READY FOR COMMENTS.
COMMISSIONER STANDARD, PLEASE.
I DO HAVE TO USE ONE THING THAT COMMISSIONER KINGSTON SAID TO ME, WHICH IS SO TRUE.
SHE SAID, TEAMWORK MAKES THE DREAM WORK.
AND THIS IS REALLY TRUE BECAUSE THIS IS A DREAM COME TRUE PROJECT.
AND I HOPE THAT EVERYTHING WE'VE ENVISIONED DOES COME TRUE.
YOU KNOW, BECAUSE REALLY, I MEAN, I'VE HEARD THE PLANNERS HERE JUST TALK, TALK, TALK ABOUT A LIVE WHERE YOU WORK, HIGH TRANSIT, ALL THESE THEORETICAL CONCEPTS ABOUT HOUSING, MIXED INCOME, REDUCE PARKING, YOU KNOW, WALKABILITY, UH, ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY.
AND ALL OF A SUDDEN WE'VE GOT SOMETHING THAT IS REALLY GOING TO BE WHAT HAS BEEN ENVISIONED IN URBAN PLANNING.
AND A LOT OF TIMES WE HAVEN'T LOOKED AT DALLAS IN THIS WAY.
AND THE PHASING PROJECTING IN THE FUTURE, YOU KNOW, IT, IT'S PHENOMENAL.
I HAVE BEEN THERE AND ALREADY SEEN IT.
IT JUST DID MY HEART GOOD TO SEE FAMILIES OUT THERE PLAYING AND TUMBLING AND EATING OUTSIDE AND NOT LEAVING THE CENTER.
YOU KNOW, I MEAN, AND THIS THE, THE MIX OF USES.
YOU KNOW, THERE WERE INTERESTING BOOKSTORES.
THERE WAS A PLACE CALLED THE CAMP.
THERE WAS ALL THESE THINGS YOU COULD DO THERE THAT WERE SO DIFFERENT THAN ANYTHING I'VE SEEN.
AND YET THERE WERE EATING PLACES THAT WORK FOR THE WORKERS THAT LIVED THERE.
YOU KNOW, THEY'RE NOT THESE HIGH END WHERE THE WORKER CAN'T COME OVER THERE AND HAVE A NICE LUNCH AND A HEALTHY LUNCH.
AND THERE WERE LOTS OF OPTIONS.
SO I, I JUST FEEL PROUD TO HAVE BEEN A PART OF THIS AND I WANT TO COMPLIMENT THE APPLICANTS FOR THE, YOUR SPIRIT OF COMPROMISE.
I FEEL LIKE YOU, YOU KNOW, YOU WERE PATIENT THAT YOU TOOK THE TIME AND YOU WERE WILLING TO COMPROMISE ON THE MIXED INCOME HOUSING.
IN FACT, I CAN'T THINK OF ANY PART OF THIS THAT YOU WEREN'T WILLING TO COMPROMISE ON.
AND I REALLY APPLAUD YOU FOR THAT.
YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT YOU'VE JUST HAD A REALLY GOOD SPIRIT TOWARDS THE CITY AND I LIKE THE FACT THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE NOT LOOKING IN THE SHORT TERM, BUT YOU'RE LOOKING INTO THE FUTURE THAT YOU'RE A LONG-TERM HOLDER.
YOU REALIZE YOU DON'T WANNA DESTROY A GOOD THING THAT'S AT THE CENTER OF THIS, LIKE YOU CALLED IT, SORT OF THE CENTER COURTYARD OF IT ALL.
BUT YOU'RE GOING TO PHASE IN THINGS TO MAKE IT MORE, HAVE A MORE URBAN DESIGN IN THE FUTURE.
AND SO I LOVE THE FACT THAT THERE'S A PLAN.
AND WE OFTEN DON'T SEE THIS, I THINK IN DALLAS TOO OFTEN, EVERYTHING'S DISPOSABLE.
AND YOU HAVE SHOWN A GREAT DEAL OF VISION IN BEING ABLE TO RENOVATE A CENTER.
BUT PLAN 15 AND 20 YEARS IN THE FUTURE, I JUST HOPE THAT WE HAVE MORE PROJECTS THAT COME ALONG.
I WANNA THANK EVERYONE INVOLVED BECAUSE THIS HAS BEEN A DIFFICULT, VERY CONVOLUTED TYPE, UH, CASE.
I MEAN, THERE'S NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.
IT'S HARD TO JUST ON THE TOP OF IT, EXPLAIN THIS TO SOMEONE, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT ALL THESE SUB AREAS.
BUT I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE VIBRANT.
YOU KNOW, I LOVE THE FACT THAT YOU CAN EVEN WALK ACROSS 75 'CAUSE YOU ACTUALLY, THEY'RE GONNA PUT WALKABILITY THERE WHERE YOU CAN GO TO TRADER JOE'S, YOU CAN KNOW YOU CAN GET YOUR GROCERIES.
YOU DO NOT HAVE TO GET IN YOUR CAR.
AND WE'VE GOT TO START DOING THAT MORE IN THE CENTER OF DALLAS.
SO I AM PLEASED TO RECOMMEND THIS.
I THINK YOU'VE THOUGHT OF EVERYTHING AND I'M JUST PLEASED AND I THINK IT'S GONNA WORK.
AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR HARD WORK AND I LOOK FORWARD TO A FUTURE THERE.
[04:30:01]
COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT.UH, THIS IS A, A GREAT APPLICATION.
UM, I'M REALLY IMPRESSED WITH THE PLAN.
I'VE DONE SOME PLANNING ON THIS SITE IN RECENT YEARS, AND I, I THINK THIS IS A SMART PLAN.
UH, I LIKE IT THAT IT DEALS WITH THE LEAST ATTRACTIVE PART OF THE CENTER.
I THINK THAT IN, IN PLACES HOUSING NEAR THE, NEAR THE TRANSIT STATION, I REALLY LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING DEVELOPMENT IN SUB AREA A AND SUB AREA, EXCUSE ME, SUB AREA A ONE AND SUB AREA B AND, UH, MOVE BEYOND THE SURFACE PARKING LOTS.
BUT I UNDERSTAND WE'VE GOTTA, UH, EAT THE ELEPHANT ONE, BITE IT AT A TIME.
SO, UM, I THINK IT'S, UH, IT'S, UH, MUCH TO BE COMMENDED HERE.
UM, I WILL SAY THAT I SUPPORT PROBABLY THE VAST MAJORITY OF, UM, COMMISSIONER STANDARDS, UH, MOTION, BUT I DO NOT SUPPORT THE MOTION AND ITS ENTIRETY.
AND, UM, THOSE ITEMS HAVE TO DO WITH SOME OF THE, THE FINAL ADS THAT SHE MADE TO HER MOTION.
BUT, UM, I CAN'T SUPPORT, UH, A MOTION AT THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION THAT DEALS WITH THE COLOR OF A ROOF WHEN OUR BUILDING, UH, CODE WILL ALREADY, UH, DIRECT US IN THAT DIRECTION AS WELL AS BEST PRACTICES.
I JUST THINK IT'S BEYOND THE SCOPE OF OUR WORK ON THIS COMMISSION.
UM, MORE IMPORTANTLY, UM, THE, UH, HABITAT GARDENS SECTION I CANNOT SUPPORT.
I WOULD BE IN WHOLEHEARTED SUPPORT OF OPENING OUR LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE AND MAKING THIS A PART OF OUR LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE AND WHERE THAT WOULD BE AN APPROPRIATE PLACE TO DEAL WITH THIS.
BUT WHEN THE MOTION STARTS TO TALK ABOUT OPERATIONS AND PESTICIDES, ET CETERA, I THINK IT JUST CREATES CONFUSION AND IT, UH, AGAIN, GOES BEYOND, UH, OUR RESPONSIBILITIES ON THIS COMMISSION.
AND THEN LASTLY, UM, THE, UH, PEDESTRIAN LIGHTING, UH, REVISIONS WERE HELPFUL, UH, UNTIL WE GOT TO THE POINT ABOUT THE TRANSPORTATION DIRECTOR APPROVING THE, THE LIGHTING.
UH, I BELIEVE, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, THAT WOULD BE OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF HIS TRADITIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES AND JUST CREATE FURTHER CONFUSION AND THE PERMITTING AND APPROVALS OF THE PROJECT.
SO, UH, I JUST THINK WE NEED TO STAY IN OUR LANE, UM, ON CASES LIKE THIS.
AND, UM, I, I, I'M PREPARED TO, UH, SUPPORT THE CASE IN GENERAL, BUT I, I'VE GOT SOME ISSUES WITH THESE DETAILS.
ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER YOUNG? UH, YES.
I WANNA BEGIN BY, UH, COMMENDING COMMISSIONER STA FOR HER HARD AND CONSCIENTIOUS WORK ON THIS CASE.
I KNOW THAT WE EXPECTED OF HER, BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN WE AREN'T GRATEFUL EVERY TIME IT, UH, COMES FORWARD.
I WILL BE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION.
UH, I WANT TO MAKE SOME FURTHER COMMENTS THOUGH, BECAUSE I THINK IT ILLUSTRATES A COUPLE OF, UH, POLICY DEBATES WE'RE HAVING IN THE CITY.
AND THE FIRST RELATES TO RESIDENTIAL DENSITY.
IN THE EIGHT YEARS I'VE BEEN ON THE COMMISSION IN RECENT HISTORY, UM, EVERY MULTIFAMILY APPLICANT THAT I'VE TALKED TO HAS TOLD ME WE NEED GREATER RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN DALLAS.
AND MY RESPONSE HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE SAME.
YES, WE NEED GREATER RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN DALLAS WHERE IT IS APPROPRIATE, AND WE NEED TO NOT HAVE GREATER RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN DALLAS WHERE IT IS INAPPROPRIATE.
I THINK THIS SITE IS A POSTER CHILD FOR A SITE WHERE GREATER RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IS APPROPRIATE.
IT IS WELL SERVICED BY THE EXISTING STREET SYSTEM.
IT IS ADJACENT TO A DART STATION AND IT IS TRULY ADJACENT TO A DART STATION.
I'VE HEARD PEOPLE TELL ME, WELL, A DART STATION IS A MILE WALK AWAY.
AND MY RESPONSE HAS BEEN MAYBE IN APRIL AND OCTOBER, BUT NOT IN JANUARY AND JULY.
THIS BY MY CALCULATION, IS ANYWHERE FROM A COUPLE HUNDRED FEET TO AT MAXIMUM ABOUT 1300 FEET FROM THE DART STATION, AND IT IS ADJACENT IN EVERY, UH, WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM.
AN ADDITIONAL VERY POSITIVE FACTOR, AS HAS BEEN POINTED OUT, IS THAT THIS IS NOT ADJACENT TO AND THEREFORE NOT CAPABLE OF DISRUPTING ANY SURROUNDING LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS.
I HAVE TWO DART STATIONS IN MY DISTRICT.
ONE OF THEM IS HIGHLY SUITABLE FOR TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE IT'S IN THE MIDDLE OF A COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL AREA AND HAS NO RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY.
THE OTHER IS SMACK DAB IN THE MIDDLE OF A RESIDENTIAL AREA.
UH, WERE THE WALNUT HILL DART STATION, THE EQUIVALENT OF THAT DART STATION.
I'D HAVE VERY SERIOUS CONCERNS ABOUT THIS PROJECT, BUT IT IS NOT.
[04:35:01]
SO I THINK FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF INCREASING DENSITY IN DALLAS, THIS IS, UH, PRETTY MUCH A NO-BRAINER.THE OTHER ISSUE I WANNA MENTION IS PARKING.
I AM SKEPTICAL THAT ADEQUATE PARKING IS BEING REQUIRED, UH, UNDER THE PD CONDITIONS, BUT, UH, THERE'S AN ONGOING DEBATE ABOUT PARKING AND REQUIRED PARKING IN THE CITY OF DALLAS.
AND SOME PEOPLE SAY, WELL, WE OUGHT TO REPEAL ALL PARKING REQUIREMENTS AND LET DEVELOPERS IN THE MARKET FEND FOR THEMSELVES.
DEVELOPERS WILL NOT DEVELOP PROJECTS WITHOUT ADEQUATE PARKING.
THEY WOULD BE SHOOTING THEMSELVES IN THE FOOT.
MY RESPONSE TO THAT HAS CONSISTENTLY BEEN, YOU'D BE AMAZED AT HOW OFTEN DEVELOPERS SHOOT THEMSELVES IN THE FOOT, AND THEY USUALLY GET AWAY WITH IT BECAUSE THEY, THEY AIM AT THEIR OWN FOOT, BUT INSTEAD OF HITTING IT, IT, THEY HIT THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS.
LOWER GREENVILLE IS AN EXCELLENT EXAMPLE OF PLACES THAT ARE UNDER PARKED AND THAT FOIST THE BURDEN OF THEIR UNDER PARKING ON THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY.
HERE WE HAVE NO SURROUNDING COMMUNITY TO FOIST A BURDEN UPON.
UH, I SUSPECT KNOWING THE QUALITY OF THE DEVELOPERS IN THIS CASE, THEY WILL PROVIDE FOR ADEQUATE PARKING, BUT I AM GREATLY REASSURED THAT IF THEY DON'T, IT WILL BE THEIR PROBLEM AND NOT SOMEONE ELSE'S PROBLEM.
SO I THINK ON BOTH OF THOSE ISSUES, THIS IS A GOOD PROJECT.
IT HAS ALL THE SAFEGUARDS IT NEEDS, AND I'M SO HA SO I'M HAPPY TO SUPPORT IT.
UH, COMMISSIONER KINGSTON, I WON'T REPEAT WHAT EVERY ELSE HAS SAID.
I DO THINK COMMISSIONER SANDERS DID A GREAT JOB ON THIS, AND I DO APPRECIATE ALL OF THE WORK THAT THE DEVELOPERS AND THEIR TEAM HAVE PUT INTO THIS.
UM, AND I ALSO WILL BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION, OBVIOUSLY, BUT I DO WANNA ADDRESS SOMETHING THAT, UM, ONE OF THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS SAID, AND THAT IS WITH REGARD TO THE, SOME OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS, UM, ON THIS BODY, WE ARE CHARGED WITH WHERE WE CAN ENFORCING THE CITY'S POLICIES THAT CITY COUNCIL HAS PASSED.
AND ONE OF THOSE POLICIES IS OUR CCAP.
AND ONE OF THE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF OUR CCAP IS TO CREATE AND FOSTER, UM, THE USE OF LOW WATER CONSUMPTION, PLANTINGS, WATER PRESERVATION, UM, AND SPECIFICALLY, UM, URBAN POLLINATING, UH, GARDENS.
AND SO I APPRECIATE THE DEVELOPER'S WILLINGNESS TO INCORPORATE THAT INTO YOUR PROJECT.
I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT NOT ONLY FOR THE CITY OF DALLAS, BUT FOR THE REGION AND FOR FRANKLY, GLOBALLY.
UM, WE ARE IN A CLIMATE CRISIS.
ANYBODY WHO DOESN'T RECOGNIZE THAT SHOULD GO OUTSIDE
AND SO I THINK WE HAVE TO BE SMART ABOUT THE BUILDINGS WE'RE BUILDING IN THE FUTURE.
WE HAVE TO BE SMART ABOUT THE RESOURCES WE'RE USING.
AND, UM, I THINK AS SOPHISTICATED DEVELOPERS, YOU WOULD BE FOOLISH NOT TO THINK ABOUT THAT AS YOU'RE BUILDING TOMORROW'S PROJECTS TODAY.
BUT AS POLICY MAKERS AND, UM, THE STAFF THAT SUPPORTS POLICY MAKERS, WE HAVE REALLY LITTLE CHOICE BUT TO PAY ATTENTION TO THOSE ISSUES AS WE MOVE FORWARD AS A CITY AND AS A COMMUNITY.
UH, SO I WANNA THANK YOU GUYS FOR, UM, BEING ON BOARD WITH THAT.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? COMMISSIONERS, COMMISSIONER POPKIN, PLEASE? YES.
UM, I WANTED TO THANK COMMISSIONER STANDARD FOR DOING A GREAT JOB AND WORKING WITH, UH, A REALLY, UM, GREAT APPLICANT.
AND I, I APPLAUD THE APPLICANT FOR, UM, REALLY RAISING THE BAR FOR SHOPPING CENTER REDEVELOPMENT.
THERE'S ALWAYS ROOM FOR IMPROVEMENT, BUT I, I THINK THIS IS GONNA BE A REALLY GREAT PROJECT AND I REALLY HOPE A LOT OF OTHER DEVELOPERS IN THE CITY LOOK TO THIS PROJECT TO SAY, LOOK, WE CAN DO BETTER.
LOOK HOW AMAZING THINGS CAN BE.
LOOK HOW MUCH MORE MONEY WE CAN MAKE ON SITE.
LOOK HOW MUCH MORE WALKABLE AND BEAUTIFUL AND, YOU KNOW, ECO-FRIENDLY, WE CAN MAKE OUR PROJECTS.
UM, I ALSO WANTED TO THANK COMMISSIONER KINGSTON FOR, YOU KNOW, ASKING STAFF WHAT WE CAN DO TO ALIGN OUR POLICIES WITH C C A P.
AND, UM, ALTHOUGH SOME OF THESE, UM, ADDITIONS TO THIS PD MAY NOT BE ENFORCEABLE YET, UM, WITH A WILLING APPLICANT
[04:40:01]
WHO'S INTERESTED IN STEPPING UP AND FOLLOWING SOME OF THESE MORE CREATIVE ADDITIONS, UM, I THINK IT, IT, IT SAYS A LOT FOR HOW OUR CITY WANTS TO BE, UM, NAVIGATING THE CLIMATE CRISIS IN THE FUTURE.I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR US TO START TRYING TO FIND THE TEXT, THE WORDS, AND THE OPPORTUNITIES TO INCORPORATE MORE OF THESE, UM, MORE ECO-FRIENDLY DESIGNS AND POLICIES INTO THE PROJECTS THAT WE'RE SEEING COME BEFORE US.
UM, HOPEFULLY THESE POLICIES THAT WE'RE TRYING TO CREATIVELY INTRODUCE INTO THESE PROJECTS CAN BECOME MORE CODIFIED OVER THE FUTURE, AND OTHER DEVELOPERS WILL ALSO SEE THIS AS AN EXAMPLE AND VOLUNTARILY STEP UP.
WE'VE, WE'VE GOTTA START DEFINING THESE WAYS AND, YOU KNOW, SOMEHOW, AND I THINK THIS IS A GOOD WAY TO, YOU KNOW, JUST BEGIN THAT CONVERSATION AND, AND LET FOLKS KNOW THAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR OPPORTUNITIES, UM, TO, TO RAISE THE BAR AND BECOME A MORE ENVIRONMENTALLY RESPONSIBLE CITY.
UM, SO I WILL BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER STANDARD FOR ALL YOUR HARD WORK ON THIS.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? COMMISSIONERS? OKAY.
SEEING NONE THE MATTER OF Z 2 1 2 3 0 7, WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER STA.
SECOND BY COMMISSIONER KINGSTON TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, FALSE RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN, A TRUE PRESERVATION PLAN, A PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENT PHASING PLAN, AND, AND THE CONDITIONS AS READ INTO THE RECORD, UH, BY COMMISSIONER STANDARD.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.
HOW ARE YOU, GEORGE? ARE WE RECORDING? OH, I CALL HIM JORGE.
YOU CALLS HIM HIMSELF? YEAH, YOU CALL HIM GEORGE COMMISSIONERS.
IT IS 3 0 8 AND WE ARE BACK ON THE RECORD.
UH, COMMISSIONERS, WE'RE GONNA GO BACK AND PICK UP THE CASE THAT WE TABLED, UH, NUMBER SEVEN Z 2 1 2 1 5 9.
WOULD YOU LIKE FOR ME TO READ THAT ONE BACK INTO THE RECORD? WE, WE CAN HEAR YOU.
CASE NUMBER SEVEN IS Z 212 1 59, AN APPLICATION FOR A DA DUPLEX DISTRICT ON PROPERTIES OWNED IN R 75, A SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT ON THE WEST, WEST SIDE OF SOUTH PRAIRIE CREEK ROAD, NORTH OF FIRESIDE DRIVE.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH MS. MUNOZ.
IS ANY OR ANYONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? YES, SIR.
PLEASE BEGIN YOUR COMMENTS WITH YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
HELLO? HI, MY NAME IS BRIAN HANNEY.
I'M THE REPRESENTATIVE FOR THIS CASE AT 7 25 SOUTH PRAIRIE CREEK ROAD.
AND THE PURPOSE OF THIS REZONING IS TO GO FROM R 7.5 TO DUPLEX TO ALLOW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF DUPLEX UNITS ON THE PROPERTY.
DOES THAT CONCLUDE YOUR COMMENT, SIR? I HAVE A FEW NOTES, BUT, UH, I'M SURE MRS. MUN MUNOZ WILL GO OVER THOSE, BUT I CAN, OF COURSE.
DID YOU, DO YOU HAVE A PRESENTATION? UH, NO SIR.
SO THE, UH, AGAIN, THE PURPOSE OF THE REQUEST IS TO GO FROM 7.5 TO, UH, DUPLEX.
THIS REZONING WILL, UH, UH, ADD DIVERSE HOUSING AND CREATE OPPORTUNITIES FOR DALLAS RESIDENTS TO OWN HOMES.
UH, THIS WILL ALSO, WILL ALSO POTENTIALLY SPUR THE, THE FIRST FUTURE DEVELOPMENT IN THE AREA AS, UH, CURRENTLY THERE ARE SEVERAL, A FEW SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND PROPERTIES, BUT THERE IS ROOM FOR A LOT OF DEVELOPMENT IN THE AREA AND FOR FUTURE GROWTH, WE'RE WILLING TO ADHERE TO HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS, WHICH I WENT OVER WITH MRS. BLAIR.
[04:45:01]
THAT WE HAVE TO ADHERE BY.AND AS FAR AS OUR CONSTRUCTIONS, UH, BASED ON THE PROPERTIES THAT ARE AROUND IT, WE'RE BY ALL MEANS, WILLING TO MAKE ADJUSTMENTS TO OUR PLANS TO DO SO.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? COMMISSIONERS QUESTIONS FOR MR. RAHEEM.
UH, UH, AND I, I NEVER COULD SAY HIS LAST NAME.
MR. BRIAN, UM, UM, THANK YOU FOR, FOR YOUR PRESENTATION AND WHEN YOU'RE SAYING HEIGHT RESTRICTION, IS IT NOT THAT YOU HAD AGREED TO VOLUNTARILY, UM, LIMIT THE HEIGHT TO TWO STORIES FOR YOUR DUPLEXES? YOU CAN MAKE THEM BIGGER, BUT JUST TWO STORIES AND NOT THREE.
THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT FOR THE DUPLEX ZONING IS 36, BUT AGAIN, WE WILL, WE'RE WILLING TO ADHERE AND GUARANTEE TO ADHERE TO THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT BEING TWO STORIES.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONERS FOR THE APPLICANT? QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SEE NONE.
COMMISSIONER BLAIR, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? YES, IN THE MATTER OF Z 2 12 2 1 59.
I MOVE THAT WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOLLOW STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL, UH, SUBJECT TO THE DEED, THE VOLUNTEER DEEDED RESTRICTIONS OF TWO STORY LIMIT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COMMISSIONER BLAIR FOR YOUR MOTION.
COMMISSIONER HAMPTON FOR YOUR SECOND.
ANY COMMENTS? UM, THANK YOU FOR YOUR, YOUR ZONING REQUESTS.
THIS WILL PROVIDE OUR, THIS AREA WHICH IS RIGHT ON THE CORNER, RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET FROM A, A ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, THE OPPORTUNITY.
AND, BUT BECAUSE IT'S ON A CORNER, UM, IT, IT, THE, THE, THE, THE CHANGE FROM R SEVEN FIVE TO A DUPLEX IS APPROPRIATE AND IT'S WARRANTED.
UM, IT DOES PROVIDE THE, UH, AREA WITH NEW, UH, TYPE OF HOUSING IN THAT PARTICULAR AREA.
UM, AND IT'S THE FIRST THAT I THINK THAT WE'LL, WE WILL SEE AGAIN, ESPECIALLY SINCE THERE ARE SEVERAL EMPTY SPOTS, EMPTY LOTS THAT WILL GIVE US, UM, ADDITIONAL HOUSING, BUT ESPECIALLY SINCE THE LOTS ARE A LITTLE BIT LARGER.
I ASK THAT MY COMMISSIONERS TO FOLLOW WITH ME AND INVOKE FOR APPROVAL.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? COMMISSIONERS? YOU SEE NONE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.
ANY OPPOSED? THE AYES HAVE IT.
WE'LL GO BACK TO THE ORDER OF THE DOCKET.
ALRIGHT, THANK YOU COMMISSIONER OVERLAY.
THANK YOU EVERYONE FOR YOUR TIME.
UH, CASE NUMBER NINE, BACK TO YOU MS. MUNOZ HOUSE.
CHAIR CASE NUMBER NINE IS Z 212 3 46.
THIS IS AN APPLICATION FOR NUMBER ONE, AN AMENDMENT TO TRACK TWO C WITHIN PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 37 AND TWO AND AMENDMENT TWO AND RENEWAL OF SPECIFIC USE PERMIT NUMBER 2047 FOR A VEHICLE OPTION AND STORAGE USE ON PROPERTY ZONE PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 37 ON THE EAST CORNER OF LAKEFIELD BOULEVARD AND SHEILA LANE.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO TREK TWO C WITHIN PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 37, SUBJECT TO REVISED CONDITIONS AND APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO AND A RENEWAL OF SPECIFIC USE PERMIT NUMBER 2047 FOR A VEHICLE AUCTION AND STORAGE USE FOR A FIVE YEAR PERIOD WITH ELIGIBILITY FOR AUTOMATIC RENEWALS FOR ADDITIONAL FIVE YEAR PERIODS.
SUBJECT TO STAFF'S RECOMMENDED REVISED SITE PLAN AND REVISED CONDITIONS.
BALD 3 9 0 4 ELM STREET, SUITE B.
UM, AFTER OUR LAST MEETING, UH, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER WAS KIND ENOUGH TO HOST A NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING WHERE MY CLIENT GOT TOGETHER WITH THE OPPOSITION THAT WE SPOKE AT THE MEETING HERE LAST TIME.
I THINK WE'VE WORKED OUT A LOT OF THE ISSUES AND CONCERNS, BUT WE'RE NOT QUITE THERE YET.
UH, WE'RE GONNA ASK THAT IT BE HELD AGAIN, BUT I THINK BY THE TIME WE GET BACK TO YOU, UH, WE WILL BE AT A PLACE WHERE IT THIS'LL BE APPROVABLE.
ANYWAY, I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE I'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE? COMMISSIONER'S QUESTIONS FOR MR. BALDWIN.
QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SEE NONE.
COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, DO YOU HAVE MOTION? YES.
IN THE MATTER OF CASES B TWO 12 DASH 3 46, I MOVE THAT WE KEEP THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AND PUT THE
[04:50:01]
CASE UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL SEPTEMBER THE SEVENTH.THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR MOTION.
COMMISSIONER CARPENTER AND COMMISSIONER HAMPTON FOR YOUR SECOND TO KEEP THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AND HOLD THE MATTER UNDER ADVISEMENT TO SEPTEMBER 7TH.
ANY DISCUSSION? SEE? AND NONE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE SAY AYE.
WE'LL NOW GO TO CASE NUMBER 10.
CASE NUMBER 10 IS Z 2 2 3 1 19.
AN APPLICATION FOR AN MU ONE MIXED USE DISTRICT ON PROPERTY ZONE AND MF ONE, A MULTIFAMILY DISTRICT, N A C R COMMUNITY RETAIL DISTRICT ON THE NORTH SIDE OF WEST ILLINOIS AVENUE BETWEEN SOUTHWEST MORELAND ROAD AND SOUTH HAMPTON.
EXCUSE ME, HAMPTON ROAD STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH MS. MUNOZ.
I'M REC REPRESENTING THE, UH, THE OWNER AND I'M, UH, BASICALLY HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE ON THIS, UH, APPLICATION.
WHAT WAS YOUR LAST NAME, SIR? HOBBS, H O B B S.
THERE MAY BE QUESTIONS FOR YOU.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? COMMISSIONER'S.
QUESTIONS FOR MR. HOBBS? QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? YES.
UM, I KNOW THERE WAS SOME CONVERSATION AT THE LAST MEETING ABOUT THE SETBACKS FOR THIS.
UM, I GUESS CAN WE, CAN WE MUTE THE MIC PLEASE? YES.
IF THERE WERE, UM, MULTIFAMILY BUILT ADJACENT TO THE EXISTING MULTIFAMILY, UM, HOW DOES THE, UH, ARE, ARE THERE ANY, UM, R P S REQUIREMENTS FOR, UM, DEVELOPMENT ON THAT EASTERN SIDE OF THIS PROPERTY? OR IS IT BECAUSE IT'S MU NOW, ARE THERE FEWER R P S REQUIREMENTS FOR THE ADJACENT MF? IT WOULD STILL BE THAT THIS IS IN MIXED USE.
TECHNICALLY NOT NON-RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT ADJACENT TO A LOW DENSITY MULTIFAMILY DISTRICT.
SO THEY WOULD HAVE THE RRP S AT A ONE-TO-ONE RATIO.
SO IT'S STILL THE SAME THAT THEY HAVE MORE AREA TO BUILD ON NOW THAT THE SITE IS TOGETHER AND ALL MIXED USE.
SO AN MU IS CLASSIFIED AS NON-RESIDENTIAL EVEN THOUGH IT HAS THE ABILITY TO CONTAIN RESIDENTIAL WITHIN IT? YES.
SO IT'S JUST HELD TO A DIFFERENT STANDARD THAN THE MF ONE.
AND SO THIS WILL ALLOW THEM TO UTILIZE THEIR ENTIRE SPACE, UM, TO WORK WITHIN THE PARAMETERS THAT THEY HAVE FOR THIS, UH, ZONING CATEGORY AND STILL BE ABLE TO DO WHAT THEY ENVISIONED.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF COMMISSIONERS? SEAT NONE.
COMMISSIONER POPKIN, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? I DO IN THE MATTER OF Z 2 23 1 1 9.
UM, I MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE THE APPLICATION TO STAFF STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.
THANK YOU FOR MR. POPKIN FOR YOUR MOTION.
COMMISSIONER BLAIR FOR YOUR SECOND.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.
COMMISSIONERS, WE'LL KEEP GOING NOW TO THE ZONING CASES, INDIVIDUAL, BEGINNING WITH CASE NUMBER 12 AND BACK TO YOU MS. MUNOZ.
CASE NUMBER 12 IS Z TWO TWO DASH 2 3 9.
AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR A PUBLIC SCHOOL OTHER THAN AN OPEN ENROLLMENT CHARTER SCHOOL FROM PROPERTY ZONE IN OUR SEVEN FIVE, A SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF NORTH MONTCLAIR AVENUE AND LEY AVENUE STATE RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO A REVISED SITE PLAN, REVISED TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN AND CONDITIONS
[04:55:01]
AS BRIEFED.I SEE THAT THE APPLICANT IS HERE.
CARL CROWLEY, 2201 MAIN STREET, DALLAS, TEXAS, REPRESENTING THE D I S D IN THIS REQUEST.
AN S U P FOR AN EXISTING SCHOOL.
WHAT WE WANT TO DO AN ADDITION, THIS IS AN EXPRESSIVE ARTS VANGUARD SCHOOL, AN ACADEMY OF SORTS.
UM, THAT'S WHY IF YOU LOOKED AT THE T AND P, THERE WAS A A LONG LINE OF BUSES.
THIS IS A DISTRICT-WIDE TYPE SCENARIO.
THE, UH, ADDITION IS, UM, NOT CLASSROOMS IN THE TYPICAL SENSE.
UM, THERE ARE SPECIALTY CLASSROOMS, MUSIC, UM, THINGS OF THAT NATURE.
I BELIEVE THE, THE, THE, THE UPPER, THE TALL FUNCTION OF IT IS A BLACK BOX THEATER SCENARIO.
SO, UM, AND WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE STAFF AND, AND ACTUALLY, UH, COMMISSIONER YOUNG AND COMMISSIONER CARPENTER EMAILED ME, I GUESS SUNDAY, MAYBE SATURDAY ABOUT THAT.
AND, AND WE COMMUNICATED WE'RE OKAY WITH THE 40 FOOT MAXIMUM PDS, SUVS, THAT WHOLE, WE WON'T GO THERE.
UM, SO THE, THE ITEM OF OF THAT CAME UP, UH, LAST NIGHT AT 1109 WHEN I GOT AN EMAIL FROM THE, UH, STAFF MEMBER WAS THE, UH, THE, UM, DUMPSTER.
UM, AND I'M GONNA READ YOU A LETTER FROM JUNE 22ND, 2023 THAT WAS SENT TO THE STAFF.
THAT DAY IS FROM THE ARCHITECT IN QUESTION.
WE WERE ASKED TO EXPLORE THE POSSIBLE RELOCATION OF THE EXISTING DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE AT MORALES EXPRESSIVE ARTS ACADEMY.
THE EXISTING DUMPSTER IS IN PLACE FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS AND IS SITUATED WITH THE DOORS FACING SOMEWHAT DOWN FLANDERS AVENUE.
WHILE IT'S NOT THE OPTIMUM LOCATION FOR A DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE, THE ONLY REASONABLE ALTERNATE LOCATION WOULD CREATE ADDITIONAL HARDSHIPS FOR THE SCHOOL AS DESCRIBED BELOW.
CURRENTLY, THE GARBAGE TRUCK CAN COME DOWN FLANDERS AND DRIVE NEARLY STRAIGHT INTO THE ENCLOSURE.
TO ACCESS THE DUMPSTERS, IT CAN EASILY BACK OUT AND TURN DOWN WINDERMERE TO EXIT THE ALTERNATIVE LOCATION WOULD REQUIRE THE TRUCK TO ENTER THE NORTH SIDE OF THE EXISTING PARKING LOT AND MAKE SEVERAL TYPE RADI SEVERAL TIGHT RADIUS TURNS, THEN DRIVE TO THE SOUTH TO THE END OF THE PARKING LOT TO ACCESS THE DUMPSTERS, THEN REVERSE UP THE LOT AND MAKE AN ADDITIONAL TIGHT RADIUS TURNS TO GET BACK ONTO WINDERMERE.
THE CURRENT DUMPSTERS ARE VERY CLOSE TO THE EXISTING SCHOOL AND KITCHEN ABOUT 60 FEET.
THE ALTERNATE LOCATION WOULD BE OVER 300 FEET AWAY FROM THE EXISTING SCHOOL AND KITCHEN WOULD MAKE FOR A MUCH LONGER TREK TO DEPOSIT TRASH IN THE DUMPSTERS.
THE EXISTING LOCATION IS 200 FEET AWAY FROM ONE EXISTING PLAY YARD AND 300 FEET FROM THE OTHER.
IT IS OVER 300 FEET FROM THE NEW BALL COURT.
THE ALTERNATIVE LOCATION WOULD BE MERE YARDS FROM THE BALL COURT AND EXISTING SOUTH PLAYGROUND.
THE SMELL WOULD NO DOUBT BE AN ISSUE FOR TEACHERS AND STUDENTS IN THESE AR AREAS.
OUR RECOMMENDATION IS TO LEAVE THE DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE IN ITS CURRENT LOCATION THAT IS FROM THE DESIGN TEAM THAT DID THIS ADDITION THAT WAS SENT TO THE, UM, TO THE STAFF ON JUNE 22ND.
AND NO REACTION WAS HEARD TILL 1109 LAST NIGHT.
UM, OBVIOUSLY, UM, WE, UM, PROPOSED AND THERE WAS A, THERE WAS A SKETCH INCLUDED.
IT SHOWED EVERYTHING AND ALL THAT KINDA STUFF.
UH, WE ARE IN FAVOR OF LEAVING THE DUMPSTER AT ITS CURRENT LOCATION.
IT'S BEEN THERE FOR ALL GUESTS.
GUESS PROBABLY, UM, I JOKINGLY SAY THAT THE 2008 BOND PROGRAM WAS THE, UH, DUMPSTER SCREENING BOND PROGRAM.
EVERY SCHOOL THAT DIDN'T HAVE A DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE GOT ONE.
UH, THIS IS A, UH, MASONRY ENCLOSURE, UH, HAS LARGE DOORS ON IT.
UM, IT'S, IT'S, THANK YOU, SIR.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? COMMISSIONER'S QUESTIONS FOR OUR APPLICANT? MR. CROWLEY, YOU'D LIKE TO CONCLUDE YOUR COMMENTS,
UH, UH, STAFF NEVER BROUGHT UP ANY COMPLAINTS ABOUT, UH, NEIGHBORS OR ANYTHING ELSE.
WE THINK IT'S A, A GOOD LOCATION FOR IT, OBVIOUSLY.
UM, THE, UH, DUMPSTER IS THE ENCLOSURE PORTION OF IT IS IN THE SIDE YARD SETBACK.
IT'S A FENCE THAT'S A ALLOWED IN THE SIDE YARD SETBACK.
UH, SURPRISINGLY, UH, FROM MY MANY YEARS OF DOING THIS, A DUMPSTER IN DALLAS HAS PREVIOUSLY BEEN INTERPRETED AS A STRUCTURE.
I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW A DUMPSTER THAT IS MOVABLE IS A STRUCTURE, BUT YET THAT IS OUT OF THE SETBACK.
UM, AND PROBABLY IS ONE OF THE REASONS WHY IT'S PERMITTED TO BE PUT THERE A DECADE OR SO AGO.
QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT, MR. CRAWLEY? I ASSUME THERE WERE SOME COMMUNITY MEETINGS, UH, ON THIS CASE? YES, WE HAD.
OH,
WELL, I GUESS IT'S, YEAH, IT'S OCTOBER OR SO ISH OF LAST YEAR IN THOSE MEETINGS, WAS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT
[05:00:01]
THE TWO PORTABLES THAT REMAIN ON MONTCLAIR? UM, NO.UM, THAT'S REALLY NOT COME UP IN ANY DISCUSSIONS.
UH, WE'RE REMOVING, I THINK THREE.
UM, BUT THE TWO HAVE TO REMAIN IN PLACE FOR THE TIME BEING.
UH, THE HOPE IS EVENTUALLY THOSE GO AWAY, BUT THEY'RE, THEY HAVE TO REMAIN THERE FOR NOW.
OBVIOUS ANSWER TO MY QUESTION ABOUT MAKING THEM GO AWAY IS THAT IT'S A LARGER, MORE EXPENSIVE PROJECT.
THE DISTRICT'S NOT READY TO UNDERTAKE AT THIS TIME.
AND, AND, UH, WHAT I'VE FOUND AFTER DOING THIS FOR SO LONG, A, A LOT OF THOSE, UH, UM, PORTABLES, UM, AREN'T REALLY USED AS CLASSROOMS AS MUCH AS SPECIAL ACTIVITY LOCATIONS.
UH, THEY MAY HAVE SOME, UH, SOME, UH, THE CHESS CLUB AND OTHER CLUBS MAY MEET IN THERE AND THAT SORT OF STUFF VERSUS CLASSROOMS AND, AND THOSE SPACES THEY REALLY DON'T HAVE IN THE SCHOOL.
SO THAT'S WHY THEY SORT OF ARE OUT THERE UNTIL THEY CAN FIND THAT SPACE IN THE SCHOOL.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SEEING NONE, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? YES.
IN THE MATTER OF CASES Z TWO 12 DASH 2 39, I MOVE THAT WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND FOLLOW STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL SUBJECT TO A REVISED SITE PLAN.
CAN WE MUTE THE MICROPHONE PLEASE? SORRY.
UH, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, THAT WAS SUBJECT TO A REVISED SITE PLAN AND YES, I'M, I'M STILL GOING.
RE, A REVISED SITE PLAN, REVISED TO CORRECT THE SITE DATA FIGURES FOR PARKING AND BIKE PARKING TO MATCH THE SS U P CONDITIONS, A TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN AND REVISED CONDITIONS LIMITED TO ADDING A HEIGHT LIMITATION OF 40 FEET ON SITE AND REQUIREMENT 65 PARKING SPACES AND SIX BICYCLE PARKING SPACES FOR A PUBLIC SCHOOL OTHER THAN AN OPEN ENROLLMENT CHARTER SCHOOL WITH 31 CLASSROOMS. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER CARPENTER FOR YOUR MOTION.
AND COMMISSIONER HAMPTON FOR YOUR SECOND.
ANY COMMENTS ON THIS? OH, I DO.
TO ADDRESS, UH, COMMISSIONER HOUSE WRIGHT'S CONCERN, THIS SCHOOL AT ONE TIME HAD A TREMENDOUS NUMBER OF PORTABLE BUILDINGS, UM, TO THE SOUTH OF THE MAIN CAMPUS.
AND, UM, THE NEIGHBORS ARE EXTREMELY, UM, PLEASED THAT THOSE PORTABLES HAVE, YOU KNOW, DISAPPEARED GRADUALLY OVER TIME.
AND IT HAS NOT BEEN AN ISSUE THAT THOSE TWO REMAINING PORTABLES ARE THERE.
IT DID, WE DID, UH, I DID BRING IT UP WITH THE D I S D REPRESENTATIVES AND IT JUST SIMPLY ISN'T IN THEIR BUDGET AT THIS TIME AS IT HAS NOT BEEN A, A COMMU ANY KIND OF SOURCE OF COMMUNITY CONCERN.
UM, I'M OKAY WITH THOSE REMAINING AT THE PRESENT TIME AND, UH, WHILE I'LL BRING UP THE DUMPSTER DISCUSSION ALSO, THIS WAS NOT AN ISSUE THAT WAS BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION UNTIL LATE YESTERDAY EVENING.
THE, I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH THIS SITE.
I DON'T LIVE, I MEAN, I LIVE BEYOND THE NOTIFICATION AREA, BUT I LIVE VERY CLOSE TO, TO THIS SCHOOL.
I'VE LIVED THERE FOR 35 YEARS AND, UM, I, IT, IT'S A PRETTY TIGHT SITE FOR A D I SS D SCHOOL.
AND AS THIS DUMPSTER HAS, THE DUMPSTER AREA HAS BEEN THERE FOR QUITE A, A LONG WHILE AND THERE DOESN'T SEEM TO BE, UM, A FUNCTIONAL ALTERNATIVE AND IT IS SCREENED, I AM FINE WITH, I, I WOULD ADVOCATE LEAVING IT THE WAY IT IS.
SO I'M NOT ADDRESSING ANY SORT OF CHANGES TO THE DUMPSTER IN MY CONDITIONS.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER COFFER.
WHERE YOU SEE CSS DISTRICT WITH CONSIDERING MS. MUNOZ, YOU'RE, YOU'RE BREAKING UP A LITTLE BIT.
UH, WE'RE GONNA HAVE MR. MOORE READ IT INTO THE RECORD.
CASE NUMBER 13, ITEM Z ONE Z TWO 12 DASH 2 9 8.
AND APPLICATION FOR CSS COMMERCIAL SERVICE DISTRICT WITH CONSIDERATION OF AN M U ONE USE DISTRICT ON PROPERTY ZONED AS A AGRICULTURE DISTRICT ON THE NORTH LINE OF DOTTIE FERRY ROAD, NORTHEAST OF L B J FREEWAY I 20 STAFF.
RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL OF AN M U ONE DISTRICT IN LIEU OF CSS DISTRICT.
[05:05:01]
MOORE.IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? COMMISSIONERS QUESTIONS FOR STAFF COMMISSIONER YOUNG, PLEASE.
UM, MS. MUNOZ ON THE ZONING HISTORY, ITEM ONE, THE LAST SENTENCE SAYS, THE CASE WAS RECONSIDERED ON AUGUST 17TH, 2023 AS A CS DISTRICT WITH DEED RESTRICTIONS VOLUNTEERED BY THE APPLICANT.
AUGUST 17TH, 2023 IS TWO WEEKS FROM NOW.
SO MY QUESTION IS, UH, DOES THAT REQUIRE CORRECTION? I THINK THE CASE WILL BE RECONSIDERED ON AUGUST 17TH AND I'M HAPPY TO CORRECT THAT.
THAT WOULD REQUIRE A SUSPENSION OF OUR RULES IN ORDER TO DO THAT, BUT I GUESS WE'LL SEE WHAT HAPPENS IN TWO WEEKS.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF COMMISSIONERS? OKAY.
SENATOR COMMISSIONER BLAIR, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? UH, YES IN THE MATTER.
I HAVE TO, COULDN'T THINK OF THE WORD
I MOVED TO HOLD THIS MATTER UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL SEPTEMBER 7TH.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER BLAIR FOR YOUR MOTION.
AND COMMISSIONER HAMPTON FOR YOUR SEC.
SECOND TO KEEP THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN.
HELD THE MATTER UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL SEPTEMBER 7TH.
ANY COMMENTS? THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
AN APPLICATION FOR CSS COMMERCIAL SERVICE DISTRICT WITH CONSIDERATION OF AN MU ONE MIXED USE DISTRICT ON PROPERTY ZONED AGRICULTURE DISTRICT ON THE NORTH LINE OF DOTTY FERRY ROAD, NORTHEAST OF L B J FREEWAY I 20 STAFF.
RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL OF AN M U ONE DISTRICT IN LIEU OF CSS DISTRICT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH MR. MOORE.
IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? I THINK WE DO HAVE ONE REGISTERED SPEAKER HERE.
IS HE ON ONLINE? IT'S, HE'S NOT LINE.
IS THERE ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? QUESTIONS FOR STAFF COMMISSIONERS NOW.
COMMISSIONER BLAIR, DO YOU HAVE MOTION? I MOVE THAT WE HOLD THIS UNDER THIS, WE KEEP THE MATTER OPEN AND HOLD THIS UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL SEPTEMBER 7TH.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER BLAIR FOR YOUR MOTION.
COMMISSIONER HAMPTON FOR YOUR SECOND.
UH, NUMBER 15, ITEM 15 KC 2 23 DASH 13.
AN APPLICATION FOR A CSS COMMERCIAL SERVICE DISTRICT ON PROPERTIES OWNED AT N O A NEIGHBORHOOD OFFICE DISTRICT ON THE WEST LINE OF SOUTH SMITH STREET.
SOUTH OF WEST JEFFERSON BOULEVARD STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS DENIAL.
IS THERE ANYONE HERE WHO'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SEEING NONE.
COMMISSIONER STANNER, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? YES.
IN THE MATTER OF Z 2 2 3 DASH 1 1 3.
I MOVE TO KEEP THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AND HOLD THIS MATTER OVER UNTIL AUGUST 17TH.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER STANDARD FOR YOUR MOTION.
ANY DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
UH, THAT CONCLUDES OUR ZONING CASE
[SUBDIVISION DOCKET]
AGENDA.WE'RE NOW MOVING TO THE SUBDIVISION DOCKET CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS CONSISTING OF CASES 16 THROUGH 20.
IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON ANY OF THOSE CASES? 16 THROUGH 20? NO.
WHAT, WHAT CASE ARE YOU HERE FOR, SIR? ARE YOU, ARE YOU GENTLEMEN FOR ANY OF THE CASES? 16 THROUGH 22.
OKAY, WE'LL GET TO THAT ONE INDIVIDUALLY.
SO 16 THROUGH 20 WILL BE DISPOSED OF IN ONE MOTION UNLESS THERE'S SOMEONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON ANY OF THOSE FIVE
[05:10:01]
CASES.OKAY, LET'S GET THOSE RIGHT INTO THE RECORD.
AFTERNOON CHAIRS, COMMISSIONERS, ANDAL.
TODAY'S CONSENT ZENDA CONSISTS OF FIVE ITEMS. ITEM 16 S 2 2 3 DASH 2 0 5, ITEM 17 S 2 2 3 DASH 2 0 6.
ITEM 18 S 2 2 3 DASH TWO EIGHT ITEM 19 SS 2 23 DASH 2 0 9.
ITEM 20 SS 2 23 DASH TWO ZERO.
ITEM 19 S 2 23 DASH 2 29 HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN.
ALL CASES HAVE BEEN POSTED FOR A HEARING AT THIS TIME.
AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITION LISTED IN DOCKET AND OR AS AMENDED AT THE HEARING.
IS THERE ANYONE WHO'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON THESE ITEMS? COMMISSIONERS.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR HEMA? COMMISSIONER POPKIN, PLEASE.
UM, AM I CORRECT THAT NUMBER 19 WAS WITHDRAWN? YES, MA'AM.
I DID HAVE A SOMEWHAT RELATED QUESTION THOUGH.
IN THE EVENT THAT WE'RE GETTING A REPL, IS THERE ANY REQUIREMENT THAT THE ROADS MATCH WITH EXISTING THE EXISTING STREET GRID SURROUNDING THE PROPERTY? WAS THAT FOR ITEM 90? UM, IT JUST MADE ME THINK OF THAT QUESTION.
NOW THAT IT'S WITHDRAWN, IT'S NOT ENTIRELY RELEVANT, BUT I I'M CURIOUS BECAUSE WE OFTEN GET RELAS AND I'M CURIOUS WHETHER THEY'RE REQUIRED TO MATCH THE EXISTING STREET GRIDS SURROUNDING THE PROPERTY.
UH, ADDRESS THAT ONE? I CAN, I CAN CIRCLE UP WITH YOU OFFLINE ON THAT ONE.
YEAH, I CAN HELP YOU ON THAT ONE.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER PARKER.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? SEEING NONE.
UH, COMMISSIONER STANDARD, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? YES.
IN THE MATTER OF ITEM 16 THROUGH 20, I MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND FOLLOW STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER STANDARD FOR YOUR MOTION.
COMMISSIONER HAMPTON FOR YOUR SECOND TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FILE STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL WITH THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE DOCKET FOR ITEM 16 THROUGH 20 AND THE SUBDIVISION DOCKET CONSENT.
AGENDA ITEMS ARE THOSE MR. CHAIR? YES.
WHAT, UH, GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER STANDARD WAS YOUR, YOUR INTENT TO INCLUDE ITEM 19, WHICH HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN.
THAT WE NEED TO REMOVE IT? YES.
WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO MAKE MY MOTION AGAIN, PLEASE? WE'LL, WE'LL START OVER IN THE MATTER OF ITEM 16, 17, 18 AND 20.
UNDER THE SUBDIVISION DOCKET, I MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND FOLLOW STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL.
UM, ON CASE NUMBER 18 FOR THE RECORD, UH, I BELIEVE THERE IS AN ESTABLISHED LOT PATTERN IN THE AREA, BUT THAT THE PROPOSED PLATT REASONABLY CONFORMS TO IT.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? COMMISSIONER? HA.
YEAH, I SAW YOU THINKING ABOUT IT.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? COMMISSIONERS.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.
AN APPLICATION TO REPLAT A 3.6623 ACRE LOT FROM A TRACK OF LAND CONTAINING PARTS OF LOTS.
ONE TWO IN CITY BLOCK TWO OVER 1 7 2 7, ALL OF LA TWO A IN CITY BLOCK TWO OVER 1 7 2 7 OLIVE LOT 3 2 9 IN CITY BLOCK TWO OVER 1 7, 2 7 OLIVE CITY BLOCK.
OLIVE CITY BLOCK TWO OVER 1 7, 3 0, AND A PORTION OF AN ABANDONED STREET TO CREATE ONE LOT ON PROPERTY LOCATED BETWEEN ATLANTA STREET AND LADI STREET EAST OF ROMERO STREET.
1 106 NOTICES WERE SENT TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE PROPERTY OF JULY 11TH, 2023.
[05:15:02]
WE HAVE RECEIVED ONE REPLY IN FAVOR AND YOU'RE REPLYING POSITION TO THIS REQUEST.STAFF RECOMMENDED AND IS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN DOCKET AND OR AS AMENDED IN THE HEARING.
IS THERE ANYONE HERE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? 'CAUSE CASE NUMBER 21 SS 2 2 3 2 0 7 COMMISSIONER'S QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SEEING NONE.
COMMISSIONER RUBIN, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? YES.
IN THE MATTER OF S 2 2 3 2 0 7.
I MOVE THAT WE CLOSE WITHOUT THE HEARING AND FOLLOW STATUTE OF APPROVAL SUBMISSION COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE DOCKET.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER RUBIN FOR YOUR MOTION.
COMMISSIONER YOUNG FOR YOUR SECOND.
ANY DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.
JASON POOL DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR.
ITEM NUMBER 22 IS APPLICATION NUMBER 2 3 0 5 2 3 0 0 0 2 IS AN APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS BY JOSEPHINE GONZALEZ OF CHANDLER SIGNS INC.
FOR A 230.6 SQUARE FOOT ILLUMINATED ATTACHED SIGN AT 25 50 PACIFIC AVENUE ON THE NORTHWEST ELEVATION.
BOTH STAFF AND SS S D A C RECOMMEND APPROVAL.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH MR. POOLE.
IS THERE ANYONE WHO'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, COMMISSIONER'S.
QUESTIONS FOR STAFF COMMISSIONER HAMPTON? THANK YOU MR. CHAIR.
UM, MR. POOLE, IS IT CORRECT THAT THE APPROVAL WOULD BE AS BRIEF TO, UM, CAPTURE THE CLARIFICATION ON THE MOUNTING HEIGHT FOR THE SIGN? SO TO CLARIFY, THE APPLICATION OR THE, UH, BRIEF, THE, THE HEIGHT, UH, THE, TO THE TOP OF THE SIGN, IT'S 233 FEET FROM GRADE TO THE BOTTOM.
UM, THE BOTTOM OF THAT PLAN STARTED AT 100 FEET.
SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT THE, THAT GRADE LEVEL ONE FINISH FLOOR OF LEVEL ONE, AND AGAIN, GRADE MAY VARY SLIGHTLY, IS NOT 100.
I I FOLLOW PRECISELY WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? SEEING NONE, COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, I HAVE A MOTION.
IN THE MATTER OF, UM, APPROPRIATENESS FOR SIGNS CASE NUMBER 2 3 0 5 2 3 0 0 0 2, I MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE THE REQUEST FOR STAFF AND S S D A C RECOMMENDATION.
UH, JUST FOR THE RECORD COMMISSIONERS, THE, THE ONE REGISTERED SPEAKER ON THIS ITEM IS NOT ONLINE.
UH, WE HAVE DO HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER YOUNG, UH, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL.
ANY COMMENTS? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
UH, COMMISSIONERS, UH, LET'S TAKE A 10 MINUTE BREAK.
IT'S 3 44 BEFORE WE BEGIN WITH THE LANDMARK APPEAL.
[05:20:49]
WELL, WE WILL, WE WILL GET STARTED.COMMISSIONER, IT IS 3 58 AND, UH, WE ARE GETTING BACK ON THE RECORD MOVING TO OUR LANDMARK APPEAL AND MR. MOORE'S GONNA READ THAT IN THE RECORD.
ITEM NUMBER 23 CD 2 23 DASH ZERO EIGHT.
AN APPEAL OF THE LANDMARK COMMISSION'S DECISION OF DENIAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO DEMOLISH PRIMARY RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE USING STANDARD STRUCTURE POSES AN IMMINENT THREAT TO PUBLIC HEALTH OR SAFETY.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVED LANDMARK COMMISSION.
LANDMARK COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION IS DENIAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
COMMISSIONERS, THIS IS AN APPEAL OF AN APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF DEMOLITION, WHICH WAS DENIED BY THE LANDMARK COMMISSION AT ITS HEARING ON MAY 1ST, 2023.
THE DECISION OF LANDMARK COMMISSION IS REFLECTED IN ITS OFFICIAL MINUTES, WHICH ARE PART OF THE RECORD FOR THIS APPEAL.
THE APPELLANT IS REPRESENTED BY, I'M SORRY, COULD YOU STATE YOUR NAME? GREGORY PALMER.
YOU SPELL ME YOUR LAST NAME, SIR.
AND THE LANDMARK, UH, COMMISSION IS DOESN'T HAVE REPRESENTATION TODAY.
UH, AT THIS TIME WE WILL SWEAR IN THE SPEAKERS IF YOU COULD STAND AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
BOTH OF YOU GENTLEMEN, IF YOU INTEND TO SPEAK, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
DO YOU SWEAR AND AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE COMMISSION? I DO.
UH, ANY COMMUNICATIONS RECEIVED BY THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION MEMBERS PENDING THIS APPEAL HAVE BEEN COLLECTED BY THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION SECRETARY AND MADE AVAILABLE TO THE PARTIES FOR INSPECTION.
IF ANY PLAN COMMISSIONER HAS RECEIVED ANY COMMUNICATIONS AT THIS MATTER, COMMUNICATION AT THIS MATTER, PLEASE DISCLOSE IT FOR THE RECORD.
NOW, THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION HAS RECEIVED AND REVIEWED THE RECORD FOR THE LANDMARK COMMISSION AND EACH PARTY'S BRIEF ON THE APPEAL.
THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION MAY HEAR NEW TESTIMONY AND CONSIDER NEW EVIDENCE ONLY IF TO DETERMINE ONLY TO DETERMINE IF THE 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? NO.
COMMISSIONERS BOTH SIDES HAVE PREVIOUSLY RECEIVED A COPY OF THE PROCEDURES WE'LL FOLLOW TODAY.
THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION WILL NOW HEAR AND CONSIDER TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE CONCERNING THE PREVIOUS RECOMMENDATIONS AND ACTIONS OF THE CITY STAFF AND THE LANDMARK COMMISSION AND ITS TASK FORCE.
EACH SIDE WILL RECEIVE 20 MINUTES FOR ITS PRESENTATION AND THE APPELLANT WILL HAVE AN ADDITIONAL FIVE MINUTES FOR REBUTTAL PRESENTATIONS WILL BE MADE BY THE APPELLANT AND COUNSEL FOR THE LANDMARK COMMISSION.
ALTHOUGH NOT IN THIS CASE TODAY, THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION MAY ASK QUESTIONS AFTER THE PRESENTATION.
TIME TAKEN BY THE QUESTIONS, UH, WILL NOT BE DEDUCTED FROM THE TIME ALLOTTED.
EACH COMMISSIONER WILL RECEIVE FIVE MINUTES TO ASK QUESTIONS DURING THE FIRST ROUND.
BE AWARE THAT, UH, THOSE FIVE MINUTES INCLUDE THE ANSWERS THREE MINUTES WILL BE ALLOTTED FOR A SECOND ROUND IF NEEDED.
THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION SECRETARY WILL KEEP TRACK OF THE TIME.
IF A PARTY REQUIRES ADDITIONAL TIME TO PRESENT ITS CASE, THE PARTY SHALL REQUEST THE ADDITIONAL TIME, UH, BE GRANTED BY THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION.
IF THE COMMISSION GRANTS ONE PARTY ADDITIONAL TIME, THE OPPOSITION WILL ALSO BE GRANTED EQUAL.
DO THE PARTIES HAVE ANY PRELIMINARY MATTERS TO RAISE AT THIS MATTER AT THIS TIME? NO, SIR.
ARE THERE ANY DA, DA DA DA? OKAY, WE'RE READY FOR YOUR, UH, THE APPELLANT'S REPRESENTATIVES.
YOU JUST INTRODUCE WHY YOU'RE HERE AND WHO YOU'RE HERE FOR.
I'M JUST HERE FOR MY UNCLE ART
[05:25:01]
COOPER FOR 10 12.BETTERTON CIRCLE IS, YEAH, YOU MIGHT HAVE TO, IS ON.
MAYBE GET A LITTLE CLOSER WITH THE FOLKS I WON'T BE ABLE TO HEAR.
MY UNCLE FOR 10 12 BETTERTON CIRCLE.
JUST FOR COMPLETION FOR DEMOLITION.
DO YOU HAVE A PRESENTATION OR ANY ANY COMMENTS THAT WE'D LIKE TO SHARE WITH THE COMMISSION? UH, NOT REALLY.
I JUST, IF Y'ALL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, THEN I HAVE REPRESENTATION TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSION MEMBERS WITH A REMINDER THAT EACH COMMISSIONER RECEIVES, UH, QUESTIONS WITH THE ANSWERS ARE LIMITED TO FIVE MINUTES.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPELLANT? OKAY.
UM, SO IN REVIEWING DOCUMENTS, CAN YOU GUYS HEAR ME? I COULDN'T HEAR YOU.
COULD YOU REPEAT YOUR QUESTION? COMMISSIONER ANDERSON.
WELL, THE DOCUMENTS THAT YOU ARE SHOWING, WAS ANY OF IT AVAILABLE AT THE TIME YOU PRESENTED THE CASE TO THE COMMISSION? YOU MEAN THE, BY SHOWING THE PROBLEMS WITH THE INFRASTRUCTURE? YEAH, THE, THE INFRASTRUCTURE OR ANY OF THE REPORTS THAT, UM, THE INC CREDENCE TO IT BEING AN ENVIRONMENTAL, UM, ISSUE.
FROM WHEN THEY, MY UNCLE THEM CAME THE LAST TIME HE SAID THAT HE SHOWED ALL OF THOSE AND IT HAD DOCUMENTATION FROM THE ARCHITECT SAYING THAT IT WAS CONSIDERED UNSAFE WITH, FROM THE FOUNDATION.
WAS THERE ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT WASN'T PROVIDED TO THAT GROUP THAT YOU HAVE HERE AVAILABLE THAT WE COULD REVIEW? NO, I DON'T HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TODAY IS WHAT I'M SAYING.
UM, I HAVE NO OTHER QUESTIONS.
ALL THAT COMMISSIONER STANNER? UH, YES.
'CAUSE OBVIOUSLY THE LANDMARK COMMISSION IS RECOMMENDING DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
AND THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION BASED ON THIS IS APPROVAL.
WHAT WOULD YOU RE WHAT WOULD BE YOUR REBUTTAL TO WHY THE LANDMARK COMMISSION HAS SAID THEY'RE DENYING IT? WHAT IS, WHAT WOULD YOU SAY IN SUPPORT OF YOURSELF? THE LANDMARK COMMISSION IS ONLY SAYING THAT THEY ARE DENYING IT IS BECAUSE IT'S UNDER HISTORICAL.
THEY'RE CONSIDERING THE HOME TO BE HISTORICAL.
THEY'RE CONSIDERING THE HOME TO BE HISTORICAL.
SO THAT'S WHY THEY DON'T WANNA APPROVE THE DEMOLITION.
BUT I MEAN, THE HOME IS JUST NOT A AND YOU DO NOT CONSIDER IT HISTORICAL? NO, IT'S NOT CONTRIBUTING.
AND WHY WOULD YOU SAY IT'S NOT? UM, IF YOU LOOK UP FOR THE ZONING, IT SAYS IT'S NOT CONTRIBUTING TO THE HISTORICAL DISTRICT.
UM, MR. PALMER, IS IT CORRECT THAT IN THE, UM, THE TRANSCRIPT THAT WE HAVE BEFORE US, THAT THE, UM, LANDMARK COMMISSION, UM, THEIR, THEIR RECOMMENDATION FOR DENIAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE WAS BASED ON, UM, THE STANDARD THAT THERE WAS NO, THEY DID NOT FIND THAT THERE WAS NO REASONABLE WAY OTHER THAN DEMOLITION OR REMOVAL TO DELI TO ELIMINATE THE THREAT.
YOU, YOU'VE, UM, SUBMITTED THE DEMOLITION REQUEST UNDER THE STANDARD THAT IT'S AN IMMINENT THREAT TO PUBLIC SAFETY.
AND THEN LANDMARK COMMISSION, IF I, UM, IN THE RECORD STATED THAT THEY DID NOT FIND THAT YOU MET, UM, THE THIRD PRONG OF THAT STANDARD.
IS THAT CORRECT? AND WHAT WAS THE, THAT THERE IS NO REASONABLE WAY OTHER THAN DEMOLITION OR REMOVAL TO ELIMINATE THE THREAT IN A TIMELY MANNER.
THEY, THEY DID NOT FIND THAT AS A FINDING OF FACT.
LET ME STEP IN AND, AND TALK TO YOU ABOUT THIS ISSUE.
UM, I, I DID READ, UH, MOST OF THE TRANSCRIPTS AND, UH, ALL THE DOCUMENTS INVOLVED IN THIS BUILDING AND, UH, I'VE ONLY BEEN INVOLVED FOR A COUPLE OF DAYS OR SO, BUT, UH, I'M SHOWING UP IN APPROVAL.
SO CAN YOU JUST REPEAT THE QUESTION AND I'LL ANSWER IT FOR YOU? WELL, I THINK I WAS TRYING TO REFERENCE BACK TO THE STANDARD THAT IS BEFORE US, UM, BECAUSE WE HAVE A VERY NARROW LANE THAT WE CAN
[05:30:01]
CONSIDER.AND LANDMARK HAD RECOMMENDED DENIAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
AND THE RECORD INDICATES THAT THEIR FINDING OF FACT WAS THAT IT DID NOT MEET, THAT THERE WAS NO OTHER REASONABLE WAY TO MITIGATE THE, THE, THE CURRENT CONDITION OF THE, OF THE STRUCTURE.
AS YOU KNOW, WITH OUR OTHER PREVIOUS PROPERTY WHEN I WAS HERE, WE ALSO HAD THE DIFFERENT STANDARD.
AND THE RECOMMENDATION FROM THE LANDMARK WAS TO USE A DIFFERENT STANDARD.
AND, UH, MR. YOUNG MAY REMEMBER HIS COMMENTS, UH, LAST TIME WHERE HE SAID, WHY DID YOU USE THIS STANDARD AND NOT THE OTHER STANDARD? AND IN THIS CASE, MR. SWAN DID RECOMMEND THE FACT THAT YOU COULD USE THE OTHER STANDARD TO REPLACE WITH A MORE CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE, EVEN THOUGH THIS IS A NON-CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE AND HAS BEEN SINCE 1994.
AS YOU KNOW, THERE WAS ANOTHER SURVEY IN 19, UH, 1990.
IT WAS A SMITH SURAL SURVEY IN WHICH, UH, 52 HOMES THAT WERE CONTRIBUTING BECAME NON CONTRIBUTORS.
AT THAT POINT, THERE WERE MORE HOMES THAT WERE ALSO IN THAT SURVEY.
AND I'VE DONE A STUDY ON THAT SURVEY THAT HAD BECOME VACANT.
AND IN MOST CASES WHEN THESE HOMES BECOME VACANT, AND THERE ARE A LOT OF HOMES THAT ARE VACANT, UH, RIGHT NOW, PRESENTLY, THEY ARE A DANGER NO MATTER WHAT.
BUT THEY ALSO HAVE THEIR PROOF OF THE PROOF OF BURDEN IN THE TERMS THAT THEY HAVE THREE ENGINEER REPORTS THAT SAY THIS IS A DAMAGING, A DAMAGED BUILDING AND IT CANNOT BE IMPROVED IN ITS CURRENT STATE.
AND SO BASED ON THE, IF I MAY, MR. CHAIR FOLLOW UP, I THINK IT'S ALSO STATED WITHIN HERE, A NUMBER OF THE COMMISSIONERS OBSERVE THAT THE CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS OF THE AGE OF THIS HOME, WHICH AS I UNDERSTAND WHILE IT'S BEEN MODIFIED, WAS ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION TO THE HISTORIC DISTRICT, THAT THE CONSTRUCTION STANDARD VARIED AND THEY HAD QUESTIONED, UM, IN THEIR EXPERIENCE THAT THERE WERE DIFFERENT APPROACHES THAT MIGHT YIELD A DIFFERENT OUTCOME.
IS THAT CORRECT? NO, I I, I'M, I'M NOT SURE WHAT, IF THAT'S A QUESTION.
UM, BUT WELL, I'M ASKING DID YOU SEE THAT IN THE TRANSCRIPT? I CAN REFERENCE I, NO, I DON'T REMEMBER THAT.
BUT YOU CAN REPEAT IT IF YOU'D LIKE WHILE YOU LOOK FOR THAT.
COMMISSIONER, SIR, CAN YOU PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD? OH, RANDY SHEAR SS H E A R.
DO YOU NEED MY ADDRESS? YES, PLEASE.
7 0 2 7 GASTON PARKWAY, DALLAS, TEXAS.
IS IT OKAY, SO MR. CHAIR, ON PAGE 25 OF THE TRANSCRIPT, IT NOTES THAT, UM, OLDER HOUSES SOMETIMES HAVE A, DO NOT HAVE AS MUCH SUPPORT AS NEWER HOUSES.
AND THAT CAN ALWAYS BE REPAIRED BY ADDING THAT BY ADDING, WHICH I UNDERSTOOD TO MEAN ADDING ADDITIONAL SUPPORT, WHICH AGAIN, I THINK SPOKE TO, THEY WERE THE, THE LANDMARK COMMISSION WAS INDICATING THAT THERE COULD BE ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES, IS WHAT I UNDERSTOOD THAT TO MEAN.
SO THAT'S ON PAGE 25 OF THE RECORD.
WELL, IT WOULD HAVE TO DEFI THE ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES, I GUESS.
UM, RIGHT NOW, UH, THE BUILDING STRUCTURE, BE IT THE FOUNDATION, THE BASE OF THE HOUSE IS MOST DAMAGED AND IT'S BEEN DAMAGED.
SO AS WE KNOW FROM OUR OTHER PROJECT THAT WE WERE WORKING WITH, UH, IN THE AREA, AND IF I MAY, UM, MR. MOORE, IT'S CORRECT, WE CAN ONLY CONSIDER WHAT'S BEFORE US ON THIS CASE TODAY.
IS THAT CORRECT? YES, MA'AM, THAT IS CORRECT.
SO I, I APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS, BUT WE
[05:35:01]
ARE LIMITED TO THE RECORD THAT IS BEFORE US TODAY.AND, UH, IF THEY ARE, AND I, I, I CAN'T MAKE IT UP WHAT THEY'RE SUGGESTING, BUT IF THEY'RE SUGGESTING OF OTHER METHODS, IT'S NOT AVAILABLE TO THIS OWNER.
AND IF THEY'RE SUGGESTING THAT THEY DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAN TO REBUILD IT, UH, THEN ALSO THAT'S NOT AVAILABLE TO HIM.
SO, UH, AND I, I KNOW THAT I SPOKE ABOUT THAT ALTERNATIVE, UH, POSSIBLE EVEN ALTERNATIVE STANDARDS TO BE INTRODUCED.
UM, BUT THAT TAKES TIME AND IT'S NOT AVAILABLE TO THEM RIGHT NOW.
SO WE CAN ONLY GUESS AND WE CAN ONLY TRY TO, UH, ENCOURAGE THE OWNER TO GO DOWN A PATH TO REBUILD IT IN THE SAME STYLE AND THE SAME, UH, METHODS OF THE ORIGINAL BUILDING.
UH, YES, MR. SHE, UH, ARE YOU AWARE THERE ARE FOUR DIFFERENT STANDARDS FOR THE LANDMARK COMMISSION TO GRANT A CERTIFICATE OF DEMOLITION? WELL, YES.
AND YOU REFERENCED, UH, MY COMMENTS AT ANOTHER HEARING.
UM, AND ONE OF THEM IS TO REPLACE THE STRUCTURE WITH A NEW STRUCTURE THAT IS MORE APPROPRIATE AND COMPATIBLE WITH THE HISTORIC OVERLAY DISTRICT.
UH, THE APPLICANT DID NOT FOLLOW THAT PATH IN THIS CASE? NO, IT WASN'T UNDER MY RECOMMENDATION, BUT THEY DID NOT FOLLOW THAT PATH.
AND THE NEXT ONE IS NO ECONOMICALLY VIABLE USE OF THE PROPERTY EXISTS AND THE APPLICANT DID NOT FOLLOW THAT PATH EITHER, DID HE? THAT'S TRUE.
AND I'LL SKIP TO THE FOURTH ONE.
THE STRUCTURE IS NON-CONTRIBUTING TO THE HISTORIC OVERLAY DISTRICT BECAUSE IT IS NEWER THAN THE PERIOD OF HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE.
AND THE APPLICANT DID NOT FOLLOW THAT PATH EITHER.
THAT'S NOT WHAT THE APPLICANT CHOSE TO FOLLOW.
IS THE STRUCTURE POSES AN IMMINENT THREAT TO PUBLIC HEALTH OR SAFETY? THAT'S RIGHT.
AND FOR THAT STANDARD, THERE ARE THREE ELEMENTS, ONE OF WHICH IS THERE IS NO REASONABLE WAY OTHER THAN DEMOLITION OR REMOVAL TO ELIMINATE THE THREAT IN A TIMELY MANNER.
THERE IS NOT, WHAT IS THE BASIS OF YOUR STATEMENT THAT THERE IS NONE, NOT JUST REPEAT THAT ONE MORE TIME.
THE STANDARD IS THAT THE, THE LANDMARK COMMISSION MUST FIND THAT THERE IS NO REASONABLE WAY OTHER THAN DELI DEMOLITION OR REMOVAL TO ELIMINATE THE THREAT THAT IS THE DOCUMENTED MAJOR AND IMMINENT THREAT TO PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY IN A TIMELY MANNER.
WELL, FIRST OF ALL, IT IS A, ANY VACANT BUILDING IS A DANGER TO THE PUBLIC.
SO IS IT YOUR POSITION THAT ANY VACANT BUILDING IN THE 10TH STREET HISTORIC DISTRICT CAN BE DEMOLISHED? NO.
I SAID ANY VACANT BUILDING IS A DANGER TO THE PUBLIC.
AND IT HAS THE ABILITY TO COLLAPSE AND ENDANGERS ANYBODY WHO COMES NEAR IT LIVES IN IT OR BREAKS INTO IT OR IS TRYING TO CONSTRUCT IT SO, OR FIX IT.
SO, SO IS IT YOUR POSITION THAT BY, BY, BY THE MERE VIRTUE OF BEING VACANT, UM, A BUILDING SATISFIES THESE CRITERIA? WELL, THAT'S, FOR ME, IT'S ONE OF THEM.
BUT THERE ARE A MULTITUDE OF IDEAS THAT WILL COME TO THAT POINT.
I MEAN, YOU HAVE THE HOUSE NEXT DOOR, WHICH JUST RECENTLY BURNT DOWN, AND THEY HAVEN'T FIGURED OUT HOW IT BURNT DOWN AND IF IT WAS A PIPE LEAK OR, OR VAGRANT OR IF IT WAS A, A CAUSED FIRE OR PEOPLE LIVING IN THE BUILDING.
AND AT RIGHT NOW, I MEAN, I EVEN BEEN THERE TO PHOTOGRAPH THIS BUILDING AND SOMEBODY WAS SLEEPING.
I DIDN'T WANT TO WAKE THEM UP.
THEY WERE SLEEPING ON THE PORCH.
ISN'T THAT RIGHT? PEOPLE ARE, YEAH, THEY'RE, THEY'RE SLEEPING ON THE PORCH.
SO, UM, IT'S DEFINITELY NOT SAFE.
AND YOU'RE AWARE, I MEAN, YOU CAN START TO PUT UP FENCES, YOU CAN START TO BARRICADE IT, WHICH THEY'VE DONE, BUT, UH, PEOPLE WILL STILL GET AROUND IT.
IT'S JUST THE NATURE OF THAT AREA AND UNTIL THINGS START TO IMPROVE, IT'S STILL GONNA BE A LOT OF BUILDINGS THAT ARE GONNA BE IN DANGER.
AND ARE YOU AWARE THAT THE STANDARD WE HAVE TO LOOK AT IS WHETHER THERE WAS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE LANDMARK COMMISSION DECISION? ABSOLUTELY.
[05:40:01]
I, I BELIEVE YOU MEAN HOW MANY ENGINEER REPORTS DO YOU NEED? ALRIGHT.AND I'VE HEARD THAT THEY ACTUALLY WANTED THEM TO HAVE A FOURTH ENGINEER REPORT.
I MEAN, DID YOU READ THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE HEARING IN THIS CASE? YES, I DID, SIR.
ARE YOU AWARE OF THE TESTIMONY FROM LARRY JOHNSON, THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE 10TH STREET RESIDENTIAL ASSOCIATION, WHERE HE SAYS THAT THE ASSOCIATION DOES NOT BELIEVE THAT THE HOUSE POSES A MAJOR AND IMMINENT THREAT TO PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY? OH, YES, I AM.
YOU, YOU DON'T BELIEVE THAT'S SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE? UH, NO, I DON'T.
COMMISSIONER STADER, IN A QUICK WAY.
I'M JUST CURIOUS, WHAT, HOW DO YOUR ENGINEERING REPORTS, WELL, THEY'RE NOT MY ENGINEER REPORTS, BUT THEIR ENGINEERING REPORTS, THE ENGINEERING REPORTS THREE, DO THEY SUPPORT THE CONTENTION THAT THE, THIS IS AN OF IMMINENT DANGER? YES, ABSOLUTELY.
THE IN WHAT WAY DO THEY SAY IT'S STRUCTURALLY THE INTEGRITY IS NOT THERE? WELL, THE INTEGRITY IS NOT THERE.
THAT IS A GOOD ANSWER BECAUSE, UH, OBVIOUSLY IT'S, UH, UH, COULD BE, UH, UH, COULD COLLAPSE.
AND, UH, I ACTUALLY, UH, CALLED THE ENGINEER WHO DID THE REPORT BECAUSE THEY WERE GOING FOR, UH, FUNDING AND IN THAT REPORT THEY HAD AN ENGINEER SHOW UP TO LOOK AT THE BUILDING.
AND I CALLED HIM IN, UH, HOUSTON AND SPOKE WITH HIM DIRECTLY.
AND HE EXPLAINED TO ME THAT THE BUILDING CANNOT BE FIXED.
IT HAS TO BECOME, HAS TO COME DOWN, AND THE FOUNDATION NEEDS TO BE REDONE IN SO MANY WORDS.
I'M NOT AN ENGINEER, SO I CAN'T GIVE YOU WHAT THE EXACT ITEMS ARE IN THE REPORTS, BUT I'VE READ THE REPORTS AND THAT'S HIS PERSONAL OPINION.
AND DID THE OTHER TWO, YOU KNOW, FROM THE LAST MEETING, I AM ALL FOUR TRYING TO FIND A WAY TO FIX THESE BUILDINGS AND MM-HMM.
BUT WHAT WE HAVE TO GO ON IS THESE ENGINEER REPORTS AND THEY'RE QUITE SUBSTANTIALLY, UH, FOR THE FACT THAT THE BUILDING HAS TO.
AND DID THE OTHER TWO SAY THEY HAVE COME TO THE SAME CONCLUSION AS THE ONE YOU JUST CITED? YES, THEY DO.
COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT? YES, MR. SHEER, I APPRECIATE YOUR TESTIMONY.
UM, THE, ONE OF THOSE ENGINEERING LETTERS THAT WE ARE REFERENCING, I BELIEVE STATES THAT YOU SHOULD NOT EVEN BE INSIDE THAT STRUCTURE, THAT IT WAS TOO DANGEROUS TO BE INSIDE IT.
DID I READ THAT CORRECTLY? UH, I'M NOT SURE WHERE IT CAME FROM, BUT YES.
THAT YOU'RE NOT SURE WHERE THE QUESTION CAME FROM? IT'S, IT'S A, ONE OF OUR COMMISSIONERS IS VIRTUAL.
NO, NO, I KNOW WHERE THE COMMISSIONER IS.
I KNOW HE'S ON THE TELEVISION, BUT HE SAID THAT IT'S HARD FOR ME TO HEAR.
COMMISSIONER HARA, CAN YOU REPEAT YOUR QUESTION, SIR? THE, THE, THE LINE IS A LITTLE ROUGH IN THERE.
ONE OF THE ENGINEERING LETTERS STATED THAT YOU SHOULD NOT GO INTO THAT STRUCTURE.
IS THAT CORRECT? WELL, IF YOU'RE STATING IT, I'D SAY YES.
THEN COMMISSIONER TAYLOR IN THE TESTIMONY IN THE RECORD STATES THAT SINCE IT'S NOT GOING TO FALL DOWN, DOWN, IT'S NOT DA, IT'S NOT AN EMANATE THREAT.
WELL, I'LL, IS THERE, DO YOU SEE A CONFLICT IN THOSE TWO POINTS OF VIEW? WHENEVER THE COMMISSIONERS START ACTING LIKE ENGINEERS AND GIVE THEIR OPINION ON THE STRUCTURE? I DISCOUNT IT STRAIGHT OUT BECAUSE ANYBODY CAN SAY, OH, I MEAN, IT LOOKS PRETTY GOOD AND I'D SLEEP IN IT.
SO WHAT CAN I SAY? I'M NOT AN ENGINEER, BUT I READ THE REPORTS AND I BELIEVE WHAT THEY WRITE, AND I EVEN CALLED THEM TO ASK HIM,
I, I CAN'T SUGARCOAT THIS AS MUCH AS I WOULD LIKE TO.
MR. SHEER IN THE RECORD, DID YOU SEE THE CITY ESTIMATE
[05:45:01]
OF 225,000 TO CORRECT THE PROBLEMS? YES, IT'S, UM, I'VE ACTUALLY BEEN ANALYZING IT MYSELF, SO IT'S RIGHT HERE.SO THIS IS THAT ESTIMATE RIGHT HERE.
DO YOU FIND THOSE ESTIMATES WILDLY UNREALISTIC AS I DO? WELL, IN MY OPINION, I FIND THAT THERE'S FAULTS IN THIS, UH, THIS REPORT THAT THEY HAD ON THE ASSESSMENT OF WHAT THE REPAIRS WOULD BE.
SO I'VE BEEN NOW ANALYZING IT.
BUT TRUTHFULLY, WHAT I THINK SHOULD HAPPEN WITH THE PROGRAM THAT GIVES, UH, UM, FUNDS TO FIX THE BUILDING THAT WOULD BE TO RENOVATE THIS BUILDING WOULD BE PHASED SO THAT IF THERE WAS A PROBLEM WITH THE FOUNDATION, THE FUNDING SHOULD JUST CONCENTRATE ON ONE ITEM AND THEN THEY GO TO THE NEXT STAGE.
IF IT'S THE INTERIOR OR THE EXTERIOR BEING PAINTED, THEN THEY GO TO THE NEXT STAGE.
SO THEY KEEP GOING TO THE STAGES AND KEEP GETTING GRANT MONEY UNTIL THE BUILDING IS IMPROVED.
BUT TO JUMP AHEAD AND COME IN AND UNDERESTIMATE THE FOUNDATION TO BE FIXED, AS WE KNOW, WHEN WE'VE TALKED TO THE DIFFERENT FOUNDATION PEOPLE, INCLUDING THE BROWN FOUNDATION COMPANY, UH, THEY EXPLAINED TO ME THAT THE FOUNDATIONS OF A HOUSE THEY'VE BEEN LIFTING OF A THOUSAND SQUARE FEET COST $40,000.
THE ESTIMATE IN THIS PROGRAM IS 30,000.
SO RIGHT AWAY, THEY'RE OFF BY 10,000 IF THERE ARE ANY STOP ORDERS, IN FACT, THAT WHEN YOU'RE LIFTING THE BUILDING AND SOMETHING CRACKS OR SOMETHING BREAKS, THEN THEY HAVE TO HAVE A STOP ORDER.
AND THOSE STOP ORDERS, HE TOLD ME WERE $10,000.
SO ALREADY YOU'RE UP TO $50,000 AND IF THERE'S MULTIPLE STOP ORDERS, AND SOMETIMES THESE PROJECTS ARE IN BAD SHAPE, SO THERE ARE MULTIPLE STOP ORDERS, YOU GO UP, YOU JUST GO UP THE, THE LINE 20, 30, 60, 80, 90, AND THAT'S JUST TO FIX THE FOUNDATION.
DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? BECAUSE YES, THANK YOU.
MAY I ASK MR. PALMER A QUESTION? UH, YES.
MR. PALMER, I BELIEVE IT'S YOUR UNCLE YES.
THAT SIMPLY WANTS TO LIVE AT THIS PROPERTY? YES.
BUT HE WANTS TO, HE WANTS ANOTHER, A DIFFERENT PROPERTY.
HE DOESN'T WANT THAT PROPERTY BECAUSE OF THE STRUCTURE.
I MEAN, IT'S A HOLE IN THE ROOF HAS BEEN LEAKED IN AND EVERYTHING IS HE GONNA LIVE WITH IN THERE IF IT'S FINISHED? I BELIEVE
OH, YOU SAID, IS HE, WILL HE, IS HE GONNA MOVE IN THE HOME? YES.
I BELIEVE THE RECORD SAID HE WANTED A NEW STRUCTURE ON THAT PROPERTY, IS THAT CORRECT? YES.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS? AND UH, FOR, I NEVER THOUGHT I WOULD SAY IT'S TOO COLD IN HERE FOR YES, FOR OUR COMMISSIONERS ONLINE, MS. DUNN, THE, UH, THE PLANNER ON RECORD FOR THIS CASE IS HERE.
WAS THAT A QUESTION? CAN WE ASK QUESTIONS AGAIN? YES, BUT IT'S STEP 14, SO THERE ARE NO MORE QUESTIONS.
WE HAVE UHHUH, WE CAN'T GO BACK TO THEM.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPELLANT OR COMMISSIONERS, PLEASE? COMMISSIONER BLAIR? MR. PALMER, CAN I JUST GET A CLARIFICATION OF WHAT YOU JUST LAST SAID? YOU'RE SAYING THAT YOUR UNCLE, THIS, THIS PROPERTY BELONGS TO YOUR UNCLE AND HE WISHES TO LIVE ON THIS LAND WITH A NEW BUILD.
SO IF THIS PROPERTY, IF THIS PROPERTY, IF THE EXISTING BUILDING IS DEMOLISHED, HE WOULD BUILD SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE IN STANDARD OF, UH, OF THE HISTORIC, THE HISTORIC NATURE OF THIS COMMUNITY? YES.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONERS, COMMISSIONER, YOUNG? UH, YES.
LET ME GET TO THE RIGHT PAGE HERE.
UH, IS THE HOME THAT WOULD BE CONSTRUCTED ON THIS SITE IF THE EXISTING BUILDING WERE DEMOLISHED, WOULD IT BE YOUR INTENT THAT IT IS
[05:50:01]
MORE IN CONFORMITY WITH THE STANDARDS OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICT THEN THE EXISTING STRUCTURE? WELL, I HAVE TO SAY THAT IF IT WAS, IF I DO GET THIS COMMISSION TO DESIGN THE PROJECT, IT WILL BE LIKE THE OTHER PROJECT.IT WOULD NOT BE TOO DISSIMILAR TO THE STYLES AND THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE AREA.
AND BECAUSE IT'S CRAFTSMAN STYLE, WE'LL PROBABLY GO WITH DETAILS OF THAT CRAFTSMAN STYLE TO BUILD THE NEW BUILDING.
AND, UH, THAT'S, THAT'S, THAT'S MY INTENT.
IF THEY, IF THEY HIRE ME TO DESIGN THE BUILDING, THAT'S WHAT I WOULD DO.
WHY THEN DID THE APPLICANT NOT GO ON THE, UH, PRONG OF REPLACING THE STRUCTURE WITH A NEW STRUCTURE THAT IS MORE APPROPRIATE AND COMPATIBLE WITH THE HISTORIC OVERLAY DISTRICT? WELL, THEY, I MEAN, I CAN'T ANSWER FOR THE OWNER, BUT, UM, SQUARE FOOTAGE, WHAT, WHAT ABOUT THE SQUARE FOOTAGE? SOMETHING ABOUT SOMETHING ABOUT THE SQUARE FOOTAGE.
THE BIGGEST THING WAS THE SQUARE FOOTAGE BECAUSE ON, ON PART OF THAT, IT'S LIKE WHEN HE BOUGHT THE HOUSE ON THE, I GUESS THE BLUEPRINT ON THE BACKSIDE, IT'S SAYING THAT THAT WASN'T ON THE HOUSE WHEN HE ORIGINALLY DID IT.
SO IF HE WAS TO GO BACK THEN THE BACKSIDE THAT HE SAID WAS ALREADY THERE WHEN HE BOUGHT THE HOUSE, THEY WERE SAYING THAT HE COULDN'T DO THAT AND HE WAS, HE DIDN'T WANT TO LOSE ANY SQUARE FOOTAGE.
SO IF HE HAD TO GO BACK WITH ONE THAT'S COMPATIBLE WITH THE HISTORICAL DISTRICT, BUT THEY DIDN'T WANNA LET HIM HAVE HIS BACKSIDE OF THE HOUSE.
HE'S GOT A LARGE DILAPIDATED HOUSE AND A CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE WOULD BE A SMALLER HOUSE AND HE WANTS A LARGER NEW HOUSE.
NO, HE WANTS WHAT HE PAID FOR.
I THINK WHAT HE PAID FOR IS LIKE, IS IT LIKE 1800? WHAT HE PAID FOR IS ALLEGEDLY FALLING DOWN 14.
I KNOW, BUT I'M SAYING THE HISTORIC DISTRICT IS SAYING THAT HE'S SAYING WHAT I PAID FOR WAS THIS, THIS IS HOW IT WAS WHEN I FIRST BOUGHT THE HOUSE.
BUT YOU'RE SAYING THAT BECAUSE THEY THEY DON'T HAVE ANY RECORD OF IT PRETTY MUCH THAT THEY'RE NOT GONNA LET 'EM DO, GO BACK WITH THE SAME SQUARE FOOTAGE, THEY'RE GONNA CUT THE SQUARE FOOTAGE DOWN.
AND HE'S SAYING THAT HE'S, HE DOESN'T WANNA DO THAT.
THAT'S NOT WHAT HE, THE ORIGINAL HOUSE THAT HE BOUGHT HAD MORE SQUARE FOOTAGE AND HE DOESN'T WANT TO GO FROM THAT.
HE DOESN'T WANNA GO DOWN SMALLER WITH THE NEW STRUCTURE THAT HE'S GOING TO BUILD.
WELL, SO IF, IF, IF HYPOTHETICALLY WE WERE TO REVERSE THE LANDMARK COMMISSION AND GRANT THE CERTIFICATE OF DEMOLITION, HE STILL WOULD BE FACING THAT ISSUE WHEN HE WENT TO GET A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR THE NEW HOUSE.
SO THAT'S AN ISSUE REGARDLESS OF WHAT WE DO HERE TODAY.
THAT'S WHY THE, THE ONLY THING WE WERE TRYING TO DO IS GET THE DEMOLITION.
THEN ONCE WE GO PAST THE DEMOLITION, THEN WE COULD GO BACK AND FORTH WITH THE LANDMARK COMMISSION ON THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF WHAT WE'RE GONNA GO BACK WITH.
YOU'RE SAYING THE REASON YOU DIDN'T TRAVEL UNDER THIS PRONG IS THAT YOU COULDN'T GET IT BECAUSE YOU WANT, OR YOUR UNCLE WANTS TO BUILD TOO LARGE A HOUSE TO CONFORM? NO, HE JUST WANTS WHAT HE PAID FOR, NOT WHAT THEY'RE CONSIDERING.
WELL, TO BE THE STRUCTURE, I MEAN, WE ARE ALREADY HAVING TO GO BACK UNDER THE HISTORIC DISTRICT FOR A NON-CONTRIBUTING HOME.
BUT I GUESS WHAT I'M ASKING YOU IS IF HE WANTS A CERTAIN SQUARE FOOTAGE AND THE LANDMARK COMMISSION, HE BELIEVES, WON'T THINK THAT'S APPROPRIATE.
NO, THAT'S WHAT THEY TOLD HIM WHEN THEY WERE GOING FOR THE GRANT.
WELL THEN THEY TOLD HIM THAT IT, IT WASN'T APPROPRIATE.
HOW DOES GETTING THE CERTIFICATE OF DEMOLITION SOLVE THAT PROBLEM? HE WANTS THE CERTIFICATE OF DEMOLITION BECAUSE LIKE YOU SAID, IT'S A SAFETY HAZARD.
SO WHAT IF A HOMELESS PERSON IS STAYING IN THE HOUSE AND THE HOUSE FALLS ON TOP OF THE HOMELESS PERSON? IS THAT OUR FAULT? IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD HAVE TO PAY FOR? I MEAN, THERE'S PEOPLE LIVING THERE.
THERE'S PEOPLE LIVING ON THE PORCH.
IT'S NOT PEOPLE WORKING IN THE HOME.
IF, IF, IF THE LAND, IF THE DEMOLITION IS GRANTED AND HE COMES IN AND SAYS, I WANT THIS CERTAIN SQUARE FOOTAGE, AND THE LANDMARK COMMISSION SAYS NO, IS HE GONNA BUILD ANOTHER HOUSE THAT'S SMALLER? OH, NO, LET ME, LET ME ASK THIS BECAUSE, UM, OF COURSE THEY'RE GONNA COME IN WITH A BUILDING, A NEW BUILDING AND LIKE I SAID, IT WILL BE IN THE SIMILAR STYLE OR THE CRAFTSMAN STYLE.
AND MOST HOMES, UH, CAN'T REALLY FUNCTION UNDER 1400.
AND YOU KNOW THAT THERE'S A LOT OF HOMES DOWN THERE THAT ARE EVEN SMALLER THAN 1400.
BUT MOST MODERN HOMES, I MEAN, OR EVEN HISTORIC HOMES,
[05:55:01]
HAVE TO HAVE AN ADDITION LIKE WE HAD DONE DOWN THERE.UH, OF COURSE IT'S NOT GONNA BE A MCDONALD HOME, UH, YOU KNOW,
AND THAT WOULDN'T BE APPROVED, BUT IT WILL BE, UH, OBVIOUSLY IT WILL BE DESIGNED SO THAT IT ADDS SOME SQUARE FOOTAGE, BUT YOU WON'T EVEN NOTICE IT.
HOPEFULLY THAT COULD BE DONE IN THE DESIGN.
I, I ASKED WHY YOU DIDN'T TRAVEL UNDER THIS PRONG THAT SAYS A NEW STRUCTURE THAT IS MORE APPROPRIATE AND COMPATIBLE.
AND THE ANSWER I GOT WAS BECAUSE WHAT I WANT TO BUILD IS THEY THINK IT'S TOO BIG.
WELL, I HAVE TOO MUCH HISTORY ON THIS WHOLE THING ABOUT THE DIFFERENT ONE BECAUSE WE DID TWO DIFFERENT STANDARDS FOR OUR OTHER BUILDING AND I KNOW IT HAS NO RELATIONSHIP TO THIS PROJECT.
WELL, I'M NOT GONNA, THE OTHER CASE TO HOW LIKE MR. SWAN SUGGEST THE FIRST CATEGORY TO MORE APPROPRIATE IS KIND OF A RED HERRING.
BECAUSE EVEN WE COULDN'T GET THROUGH THAT PROCESS AND HAD TO GO TO A DIFFERENT STANDARD.
AND EVEN THEN WE WERE LIMITED IN THE SECOND STANDARD, EVEN AFTER WE CAME UP WITH A DESIGN THAT WAS APPROVED BY THE LANDMARK COMMISSION.
SO, I MEAN, MY RECOMMENDATION TO THESE GUYS WOULD STICK, STICK TO THE PLAN HERE, DON'T GO RUNNING OFF TO DO THE OTHER ONE BECAUSE ANOTHER COMMISSIONER, UH, IS GONNA TELL THEM WHY DIDN'T THEY GO FOR THE, LIKE THEY DID WITH US? THEY SAID, WHY DIDN'T YOU GO WITH THE OTHER STANDARD? SO IT'S JUST A PING PONG GAME OF BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN STANDARDS.
WELL, IT'S UP TO YOU TO CHOOSE A STANDARD YOU THINK YOU CAN PROVE IN THE EVIDENCE.
IS IT NOT? WELL, I THINK THEY HAVE PROVED IN THE EVIDENCE WITH THE STANDARD ALREADY, SO I DON'T THINK THERE'S A NEED.
I THINK IT'S A RED HERRING THAT MR. SWAN EVEN SUGGESTED IT, BUT I'M NOT SURPRISED HE DID SUGGEST IT.
BECAUSE THEIR ARGUMENT WILL BE THAT IT'S NOT COMPATIBLE OR IT IS COMPATIBLE AND NOT COMPATIBLE THE DESIGN.
THEY'RE GONNA QUESTION THE DESIGN TO BE AS COMPATIBLE AS POSSIBLE AND SAY THAT THE EXISTING BUILDING IS COMPATIBLE, THAT THEY CAN NEVER REPLACE THE, YOU GUYS EVEN SAID IT HERE IN THIS CON THIS LAST TIME I WAS HERE, OR NOT THE LAST TIME, BUT THE SECOND LAST TIME.
AND THIS PANEL HAD EXPLAINED THAT HOW CAN WE REPLACE A COMPATIBLE OR AN EVEN A NON-COMPATIBLE BUILDING WITH SOMETHING THAT IS MORE COMPATIBLE? SO IT'S AN IMPOSSIBLE THING TO SOLVE.
AND ALSO THE FACT THAT SOMEBODY COMES IN WITH A DESIGN AND THEY HAVE TO COME HERE TO DEFEND THE DEMOLITION AND NOT TOGETHER.
AND THAT LAST STANDARD SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE AS LIZ CASSO SAID IN THE MEETING, IT SHOULD BE DONE TOGETHER.
THE FIRST CATEGORY YOU STUDY THE DEMOLITION AND IF YOU DON'T GET THE DEMOLITION, THEN YOU NEVER EVEN TALK ABOUT THE REPLACEMENT OR THE, THE CON CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE DESIGN.
ONE LAST SET OF QUESTIONS AND THEN I'LL BE QUIET.
UM, WHY DID YOU NOT TRAVEL? YOU, YOU HAVE YOUR REPORT SHOWING WAS IT $235,000 FOR REPAIRS? YES, I BELIEVE IT WAS OVER 200,000 BUCKS.
AND IT'S YOUR POSITION THAT IS NOT ECONOMICALLY VIABLE.
UH,
AND YOUR POSITION IS THEY SHOULD REVISE THAT NUMBER UPWARD? NO.
YOU THINK, I THINK THAT, I THINK THEY SHOULD HAVE FOCUSED IN ON THE STRUCTURE AND THE FOUNDATION AND THE WALLS AND THE ROOF AND THAT'S IT.
BUT MY QUESTION, IT'S WHITTIER.
MY QUESTION IS, WHY DID YOU NOT APPLY UNDER THE NO ECONOMICALLY VIABLE USE OF THE PROPERTY EXISTS? STANDARD? WELL, THAT WOULD'VE BEEN THE NEXT THING THAT THEY COULD APPLY FOR BECAUSE OF COURSE, UH, THEY'RE LITERALLY IN THIS GETTING, IT'S, IT'S LIKE A GIVETH AND TAKE IT KIND OF SITUATION.
AND I DON'T LIKE THOSE SITUATIONS, TO BE HONEST WITH YOU.
WHEN SOMEBODY GIVES YOU SOMETHING, BUT THEN THEY SAY, OH, IT'S GONNA COST TWICE AS MUCH.
SO THERE'S SOME KIND OF GIMMICK THERE.
UM, THEY SHOULD BE STRAIGHTFORWARD AND THEY SHOULD, LIKE I SAID, THEY SHOULD DO IT IN PHASES WHERE THEY HAVE THE FIRST PHASE JUST TO GET THE BUILDING STABLE.
I'M, I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THE GRANT PROGRAM.
I'M TALKING ABOUT THE COST TO THIS GENTLEMAN OR HIS UNCLE OF BRINGING THE BUILDING UP TO SAFE, LIVABLE CONDITION.
IS IT YOUR POSITION THAT THAT IS NOT ECONOMICALLY VIABLE?
[06:00:14]
FROM MY UNDERSTANDING OF OTHER PROJECTS AND THE FOUNDATION THAT WE WERE PLANNING AT THE FIRST WE WERE, UH, IN RESTORING THE HOUSE IS NOT CHEAP AND IT'S MORE EXPENSIVE IN MY RESEARCH IN TERMS OF HOMES THAT HAVE BEEN RENOVATED.IT'S OBVIOUS THAT IT COSTS MORE MONEY AND MAY NOT BE AFFORDABLE.
BUT, UH, I BELIEVE THAT, UM, THAT IT, IT'S, AND SOMETIMES PEOPLE HAVE DONE THESE PROJECTS WHERE THEY'VE DONE EVEN THE CABIN, THERE'S A CABIN HERE THAT THEY RESTORED AND THE SMALL CABIN WAS LIKE 200 SQUARE FEET AND IT COST LIKE $700,000.
MY QUESTION FOR YOU, SIR, SO PARDON ME, IS IT REALISTIC, UH, ESTIMATE IT IS MORE COSTLY? ONE, ONE MOMENT.
IS IT MORE COSTLY TO GO FOR ANOTHER STANDARD THAT IT'S NOT REACHABLE? UH, I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT.
JUST THE POINT OF INFORMATION.
COMMISSIONER Y YOU, YOU'VE REACHED YOUR FIVE MINUTES, BUT YOU DO HAVE ANOTHER THREE MINUTES IF YOU'D LIKE TO KEEP THOSE NOW.
I'LL TAKE JUST ONE MORE MINUTE.
UH, SO DO, DO YOU HAVE A YES NO OR I DON'T KNOW, ANSWER TO MY QUESTION OF WHETHER IT'S YOUR POSITION THAT, UH, NO ECONOMICALLY VIABLE USE OF THE PROPERTY EXISTS IN ITS CURRENT CONDITION? UH, JUST TO REPEAT THAT QUESTION.
I, IS THAT THE QUESTION THAT, THAT YOU WERE ASKING BEFORE? YES.
DO I THINK IT'S, LET ME JUST GET THIS STRAIGHT 'CAUSE IT'S LIKE JUMBLED IN MY BRAIN RIGHT NOW.
IS IT YOUR POSITION THAT IN ITS CURRENT CONDITION NO ECONOMICALLY VIABLE USE OF THE PROPERTY EXISTS? THAT'S RIGHT, YES.
OKAY, COMMISSIONERS, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, PLEASE.
ALONG THE LINES OF COMMISSIONER JUNG
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONERS? OKAY.
IF ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY.
COMMISSIONERS, UH, THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION MAY CHOOSE TO DEBATE AND DECIDE THE MATTER TODAY OR MAY HEAR THE PRESENTATIONS AND DELAY THE DEBATE OR THE VOTE FOR, UH, ON THE MATTER.
IF ADDITIONAL TIME IS REQUIRED TO PROPERLY DECIDE THE CASE, A MOTION TO UPHOLD OR OVERTURN THE LANDMARK COMMISSION REQUIRES A MAJORITY VOTE.
WHEN THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION MAKES THIS DECISION ON THIS APPEAL, A RESOLUTION UPHOLDING OR OVERTURNING THE LANDMARK COMMISSION WILL BE ENTERED INTO THE MINUTES AS PART OF THE RECORD.
NOW THAT WE HAVE HEARD BOTH SIDES, WE MUST MAKE A DECISION.
THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION MAY REVERSE OR AFFIRM IN WHOLE OR IN PART, OR MODIFY THE DECISION OF THE LANDMARK COMMISSION OR THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION MAY REMAND A CASE TO THE LANDMARK COMMISSION FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.
THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION MUST GIVE DEFERENCE TO THE LANDMARK COMMISSION'S DECISION AND MAY NOT SUBSTITUTE ITS JUDGMENT FOR THE LANDMARK COMMISSION'S JUDGMENT.
THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION MUST AFFIRM THE LANDMARK COMMISSION DECISION UNLESS IT FINDS THAT IT VIOLATES A STATUTORY OR ORDINANCE PROVISION EXCEEDS THE LANDMARK COMMISSION'S AUTHORITY OR WAS NOT REASONABLY SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE CONSIDERING THE EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD.
NOW WE GET TO QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.
FIVE MINUTES AND THEN THREE MINUTES, NO THIRD ROUND.
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, PLEASE.
JUST NEED TO CLARIFY THAT THE REQUEST THAT IT BE DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE WOULD ALLOW THEM TO GO BACK AND APPLY FOR A DIFFERENT STANDARD UNDER A DIFFERENT STANDARD IF THE DENIAL WITHOUT PREJUDICES UPHELD YES, THEY COULD BACK.
THEY COULD COME BACK AND APPLY WITH A DIFFERENT STANDARD.
THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER RUBIN.
[06:05:01]
UM, I'M SORRY IT'S ECHOING IN MY EARS.THAT'S A LITTLE HARD TO THINK AND SPEAK AT THE SAME TIME.
SO IF MY QUESTIONS ARE A LITTLE JUMBLED, I APOLOGIZE.
UH, JUST TO BE CLEAR, THE THIS WAS ONLY SUBMITTED UNDER SUBSECTION C REGARDING IMMINENT THREAT TO PUBLIC HEALTH OR SAFETY.
AND THE ONLY FINDING OF FACT THAT LANDMARK COMMISSION MADE WAS THAT C ROMAN AT THREE ABOUT NO REASONABLE WAY OTHER THAN DEMOLITION OR REMOVAL TO ELIMINATE THE THREAT IN A TIMELY MANNER.
THAT WAS THE ONLY FINDING THAT THE LANDMARK COMMISSION MADE.
THEY DIDN'T MAKE FINDINGS ABOUT C ONE OR C TWO, RIGHT? THE THE MICROPHONE WAS NOT ON.
AND WERE YOU THERE AT THE HEARING? YES SIR, I WAS.
DID YOU HEAR ANY EVIDENCE ABOUT OTHER REASONABLE WAYS TO, UH, ELIMINATE THE THREAT BESIDES DEMOLITION? I KNOW THERE WAS A SUGGESTION ABOUT BUILDING A TOTALLY NEW STRUCTURE.
ANYTHING OTHER THAN THAT? NO, NO OTHER SUGGESTIONS WERE MADE.
AND THERE WEREN'T DETAILED PLANS FOR ANOTHER NEW STRUCTURE THAT WERE, WERE PRESENTED AT THE LANDMARK COMMISSION HEARING.
WERE THERE, WERE THERE OTHER PLANS PRESENTED? NO, THERE WERE NOT.
AND IT ALSO, THAT THAT CENTER ALSO SPEAKS, THERE'S NO REASONABLE WAY OTHER THAN DEMOLITION OR REMOVAL TO ELIMINATE THE THREAT IN A TIMELY MANNER.
THE, THE, THE, THE STANDARD USES THE WORD TIMELY.
WAS THERE ANY DISCUSSION AT THE, THE, THE LANDMARK COMMISSION ABOUT THE TIMING OF ELIMINATING THE THREAT THROUGH SOME OTHER METHOD BESIDES DEMOLITION? NO, THERE WAS NOT.
AND WE DON'T HAVE THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE HERE DEFENDING THE DECISION OF THE LANDMARK COMMISSION TODAY, DO WE? WE DO NOT.
ANY IDEA WHY? UM, WELL, DURING THE MEETING IT WAS EXPLAINED TO THE LANDMARK COMMISSION THAT, UH, THE STANDARD WAS THOSE THREE, ROMAN ONE, ROMAN TWO, ROMAN THREE.
AND IF INDEED THE APPLICANT HAD MET ALL THOSE THREE STANDARDS, THEN THE ONLY CHOICE WAS BASICALLY TO APPROVE.
DUNN, THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.
UM, IS IT CORRECT THAT WHEN THE LANDMARK COMMISSION CONSIDERS A CASE THAT THEY, THEY MUST ACT ON THE CASE AT THE MEETING? I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION.
IN OTHER WORDS, CAN THEY REVIEW IT LATER? IS THE QUESTION CORRECT? THEIR, THEIR CHOICES ARE TO APPROVE, TO DENY OR DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
THOSE ARE THE THREE OPTIONS BEFORE THE BODY APPROVE, APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS, CONDITIONS DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
AND IS IT CORRECT THAT A DENIAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE GENERALLY HAS THE EXPECTATION THAT IT WOULD ALLOW THE MATTER TO COME BACK BEFORE THE BODY? YES.
A DENIAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE BASICALLY MEANS YOU CAN RESUBMIT YOUR APPLICATION, HOPEFULLY TAKING IN THE SUGGESTIONS THAT WERE GIVEN DURING THE NEXT ROUND.
AND IS IT CORRECT THAT THE TASK FORCE, UM, THAT REVIEWED THE CASE, THEIR RECOMMENDATION INCLUDED CONDITIONS, UM, OF DOCUMENTATION OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE, BUT THAT THOSE WEREN'T ABLE TO BE INCLUDED OR CONSIDERED BY LANDMARK COMMISSION UNDER THE STANDARD IT WAS SUBMITTED.
IS THAT CORRECT? THE CONDITIONS THAT WAS GIVEN BY THE TASK FORCE WAS NOT SO MUCH, WELL, THE CONDITION WAS THAT THEY REPLACE IT WITH A SUITABLE STRUCTURE, BUT THAT WAS NOT ALLOWED.
IN OTHER WORDS, WE WEREN'T ALLOWED TO DO A PROOF WITH CONDITIONS.
IN THIS CASE, IT WAS APPROVED BECAUSE OF THE CHOICE, THE STANDARD UNDER WHICH IT WAS.
UM, RELATIVE TO EVIDENCE THAT WOULD'VE BEEN MADE AVAILABLE THAT PERHAPS WAS NOT MADE AVAILABLE TO, UM, THE PROPOSAL, WERE THERE MINIMAL OPTIONS THAT WERE OFFERED WHERE THE, UM, WHERE THEY COULD ACTUALLY REBUILD IN A MANNER THAT'S MORE ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE FOR THAT CO THAT THAT PARTICULAR PROPOSAL APPLICANT? WAIT, I'M NOT UNDER, I'M
[06:10:01]
NOT UNDERSTANDING THE QUESTION.COULD YOU REPEAT IT? WHAT OPTIONS WERE GIVEN OTHER THAN REBUILD THE ENTIRE STRUCTURE, WHAT OPTIONS WERE OFFERED TO THE APPLICANT THAT MAY HAVE BEEN WITHIN THEIR, THEIR MEANS? WELL, BASED UPON THE, WELL, BASED UPON THE QUOTE THAT THEY WERE GIVEN THROUGH THE GRANT PROGRAM, THE ONLY OPTION, BECAUSE OF COURSE THE QUOTE WAS 225,000, THE GRANT PROGRAM WOULD PUT UP 100,000.
SO THEY WOULD HAVE TO PAY THE ADDITIONAL 125,000.
AND IN SPEAKING TO THE OWNER'S BROTHER, UH, BASICALLY THEY SAID NO ONE WOULD GIVE THEM A LOAN ON THAT HOUSE FOR THAT AMOUNT.
SO I GUESS THE ONLY OPTION THEY WOULD HAVE WOULD BE TO, UH, REBUILD OR BUILD A NEW STRUCTURE.
SO WOULD IT BE SAFE TO SAY THAT, UM, IF THERE WAS, IN THEIR PROPOSAL, IF THEY HAD A LOWER NUMBER, FOR INSTANCE, WHERE THEY WERE REQUIRED TO REPLACE THE WINDOWS, DOORS, AND ROOF AND FOUNDATION AS OPPOSED TO THE ENTIRE STRUCTURE THAT PERHAPS WOULD'VE BEEN WITHIN THEIR MEANS, WAS THAT AN OPTION THAT WAS PRESENTED TO THE APPLICANT? UH, THAT I DO NOT KNOW BECAUSE THE NUMBERS DID NOT COME FROM MY DEPARTMENT.
THE NUMBERS CAME FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD REVITALIZATION.
SO THEY DID NOT PROVIDE ANY OTHER NUMBERS OTHER THAN FOR FULL RECONSTRUCTION.
UH, AS FAR AS I KNOW, LIKE I SAID, IT DID NOT COME FROM OUR DEPARTMENT.
SO WOULD THAT HAVE POTENTIALLY LIMITED THE APPLICANT'S ABILITY TO, UM, I GUESS REALIZE WHAT THE REQUEST WAS FROM, FROM THE HISTORICAL COMMISSION AND, AND DEMO DEMOLISHING THE STRUCTURE? WAS THE ESTIMATE GIVEN A LIMITATION? WELL, UM, WHAT, WHERE I'M GOING WITH THIS IS, UM, THE APPLICANT HAS, HAS VARIED VARIOUS MEANS IN ORDER TO GET BACK INTO THIS HOME OR BUILD ANOTHER HOME OR DEMOLISH THIS HOME.
AND IT SEEMS AS IF THEY'RE SAYING WE DON'T HAVE THE MEANS TO RENOVATE THE ENTIRE HOUSE.
UM, THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN THE HISTORIC COMMISSION REQUIRES THAT SINCE IT IS IN A HISTORIC DISTRICT, IT MEETS THESE STANDARDS THAT OFTEN CAUSE A BURDEN ON THE APPLICANT.
SO I'M ASKING IF THERE WERE OPTIONS THAT WOULD NOT CAUSE A BURDEN ON THE APPLICANT THAT WOULD REVIEW WHAT THE APPLICANT SO THAT THEY COULD POTENTIALLY SUCCEED IN THEIR ENDEAVOR? NO, THE ONLY OPTION THAT WAS CONSIDERED WAS THE STANDARD CHOSEN.
WOULD YOU AGREE THAT THERE ARE OTHER OPTIONS AVAILABLE AS I'VE DESCRIBED? IN OTHER WORDS, COULD THEY POSSIBLY GET A NEW ESTIMATE JUST ON THE WINDOWS, THE FOUNDATION AND THE WALLS, THINGS THAT MAKE RENOVATION WITHIN THEIR MEETINGS? I, I GUESS THAT COULD BE DONE.
WHAT IS THE BASIS IN YOUR OWN WORDS FOR YOUR APPROVAL? THE BASIS FOR MY APPROVAL WAS THE HISTORY OF THE HOUSE.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU READ THE STAFF REPORT, BUT IN 2015 THE HOUSE WAS PUT UP FOR DEMOLITION VIA COURT ORDER.
UH, THEY DIDN'T FOLLOW THROUGH OBVIOUSLY WITH THE DEMOLITION, BUT IT WAS, UM, APPROVED IN 2015.
AND THEN AFTER THAT, THERE WERE SOME EFFORTS BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY TO MAKE RENOVATIONS, BUT FOR SOME REASON BETWEEN 2015 AND NOW, HE DIDN'T MANAGE TO DO THAT.
AND THEN HE WENT THROUGH THE, UH, GRANT PROGRAM.
I BASICALLY, I DON'T ALWAYS, WELL, I WEIGH THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS REPORT FROM THE GRANT PROGRAM HEAVIER THAN THOSE THAT ARE HIRED BY THE ACTUAL CLIENT.
AND THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER WHO WORKS FOR THE CITY WITH THE GRANT PROGRAM SAID BASICALLY THAT THE HOUSE WAS NOT SALVAGEABLE.
SO THE HISTORY OF THE HOUSE, UH, THE OWNER'S EFFORTS, SEEMINGLY, LIKE I SAID, HE HAD TWO OTHER CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS THAT HE SUBMITTED BUT DIDN'T FOLLOW THROUGH ON.
SO CONSIDERING ALL THOSE AND THE OTHER
[06:15:01]
TWO STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS REPORTS, I SAID, YOU KNOW, AND ALSO TALKING TO THE BROTHER OF THE OWNER WHO EXPLAINED, THERE'S NO WAY I CAN GET $125,000 LOAN ON THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY.'CAUSE IT HAS TO BE COLLATERAL FOR THE LOAN.
SO CONSIDERING ALL OF THOSE THINGS, I SAID APPROVAL MM-HMM.
SO BOTTOM LINE IS IT WAS APPROVED FOR DEMOLITION IN 2015.
DIDN'T GO THROUGH, WASN'T DONE RIGHT.
SO IT COULD HAVE ONLY GONE DOWNHILL FROM THEN, SINCE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THERE WERE NO RENOVATIONS DONE.
COMMISSIONER HAN ONE FOLLOW UP.
DUNN, ON THE QUESTION OF THE COURT ORDERED DEMOLITION, IS IT CORRECT THAT THERE'S A CHANGE IN CITY POLICY THAT WAS, UM, REQUIRING DEMOLITION OF PROPERTIES LESS THAN 3000 SQUARE FEET? THAT BECAME A, UM, SIGNIFICANT ISSUE IN SOME OF OUR HISTORIC DISTRICTS, INCLUDING THE 10TH STREET HISTORIC DISTRICT? IT DID.
AND KATE AND I JUST DISCUSSED THAT, UH, AS KATE SAID OR INFORMED ME IN 2019, IS WHEN THAT CHANGE IN POLICY TOOK PLACE, BUT THAT COURT ORDER WAS ACTUALLY ISSUED IN 2015.
THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR, UH, DR.
AND JUST ONE CLARIFICATION FOR THE RECORD, UH, MR. MOORE, UH, I KNOW THAT WE DO HAVE SOME COMMISSIONERS ONLINE, AND I KNOW YOU DID RECEIVE SOME, SOME EMAILS FROM A COUPLE OF COMMISSIONERS IN REGARDS TO THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE NOT REPRESENTING THE LANDMARK COMMISSION ON THIS MATTER.
AND JUST FOR THE RECORD, I WANTED TO, UH, MAKE SURE THAT WE ALL KNOW THAT IT, IT'S NOT BECAUSE, UH, WE DON'T HAVE AN ATTORNEY AND THEY'RE ABSENT.
THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE IS NOT REPRESENTING THE LANDMARK IN THE LANDMARK COMMISSION IN THIS APPEAL.
HOWEVER, I DO NOT KNOW THE REASON WHY, BECAUSE OF THE SEPARATION BETWEEN THE GENERAL COUNSEL SIDE AND THE LITIGATION SIDE.
I WAS, UH, PURPOSEFULLY NOT TOLD THE RATIONALE FOR THAT DECISION.
UH, COMMISSIONERS, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? OKAY.
OKAY, WE ARE NOW READY FOR A MOTION.
DO WE HAVE A MOTION? COMMISSIONER ANDERSON.
ALTHOUGH I'M ON THE FENCE, UM, I MOVE IN THE MATTER OF CD 2 2 3 DASH 0 0 8, THE LANDMARK FIELD CASE.
I MOVE TO REMAND THE MATTER BACK TO THE COMMISSION.
UM, WELL, TO DISREGARD STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION AND RE REMAND THE CASE BACK TO HISTORIC COMMISSION, HAVE COMMENTS THAT I HAVE.
SECOND THANK YOU COMMISSIONER ANDERSON FOR YOUR MOTION.
AND COMMISSIONER HAMPTON FOR YOUR SECOND TO REMAND THE MATTER TO LANDMARK COMMISSION COMMENTS? YES.
UM, SO THIS ONE WAS, WAS, WAS HARD FOR ME.
I I WANTED TO ALIGN WITH THE COMMISSION INITIALLY, BUT THEN KIND OF HEARING THE TESTIMONY AND WANTING THE COMMISSION, THE HISTORIC COMMISSION TO EVALUATE BETTER FOR OPTIONS FOR THESE APPLICANTS BECAUSE IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT, YOU'LL COME UP WITH A WHOLE LOT MORE OF THIS AND THEY HAVE TO GIVE THEM MORE OPTIONS.
AND I DON'T THINK THAT THOSE OPTIONS THAT WERE AVAILABLE WERE NOT PRESENTED TO THE APPLICANT.
SO IF, UM, IF YOU GUYS ARE WITH ME, I HOPE THAT YOU WOULD SUPPORT THE MOTION.
COMMISSIONER HOUSER? UH, I BELIEVE COMMISSIONER RUBIN BEAT ME TO THE PUNCH A MINUTE AGO.
I'M HAPPY TO DEFER TO HIS COMMENTS.
COMMISSIONER HOUSER, WE DIDN'T QUITE HEAR YOU.
I'D STILL LIKE A TURN, BUT BRENT RAISED HIS HAND BEFORE I DID.
I I I THINK THIS ONE FOR ME IS, IS A LITTLE BIT, I'M TORN.
I I WANNA MAKE CLEAR THAT I DON'T THINK AFFIRMING THE LANDMARK COMMISSION WOULD BE AT ALL
[06:20:01]
CORRECT HERE.I, I THINK THE LANDMARK COMMISSION DID NOT HAVE ANY EVIDENCE TO MAKE, ITS FINDING UNDER THAT THIRD PRONG ABOUT THERE NOT BEING ANY OTHER REASONABLE WAY OTHER THAN DEMOLITION OR REMOVAL TO ELIMINATE THE THREAT IN A TIMELY MANNER.
IT SEEMED LIKE, BASED ON READING THE TRANSCRIPT, UM, THE LANDMARK COMMISSION INSTEAD WANTED THE APPLICANT TO, UM, COME BACK WITH PLANS TO REBUILD THE HOUSE AND, YOU KNOW, DEMOLISH AND LATER REBUILD THE HOUSE.
AND I DON'T THINK THAT ADDRESSES, UM, A REASONABLE WAY OTHER THAN DEMOLITION OR REMOVAL TO ELIMINATE THE THREAT IN A TIMELY MANNER.
YOU KNOW, IF THIS BUILDING IS A THREAT AND THE LANDMARK COMMISSION DIDN'T MAKE ANY FINDINGS TO THE CONTRARY, YOU KNOW, ELIMINATE, YOU KNOW, COMING, MAKING SOMEONE COME BACK AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE WITH, WITH PLANS ON HOW TO REBUILD THE PROPERTY, IS NOT A WAY TO ELIMINATE THE THREAT IN A TIMELY MANNER.
I, I GUESS THE REASON WHY I'M TORN IS ABOUT THE MOTION TO REMAND IS, IS I UNDERSTAND COMMISSIONER ANDERSON'S DESIRE TO GIVE THE LANDMARK COMMISSION AN OPPORTUNITY TO GET THIS ONE RIGHT AND, AND WORK WITH THE APPLICANT, BUT THE APPLICANT'S, YOU KNOW, THE LANDMARK COMMISSION AND APPLICANT'S ABILITY TO WORK AND FIND SOLUTIONS UNDER THE C STANDARD REGARDING, YOU KNOW, DANGEROUS PROPERTIES ARE IN FACT VERY, VERY LIMITED.
AND I UNDERSTAND THE PREFERENCE MIGHT BE FOR THE APPLICANT TO COME BACK UNDER SOME OTHER CIRCUM STANDARD, BUT I THINK ALL OF THE EVIDENCE SHOWED, UM, AT THE LANDMARK COMMISSION HEARING THAT THE C STANDARD REGARDING A DANGEROUS PROPERTY WAS MET.
SO I THINK GOING BACK TO THE LANDMARK COMMISSION MIGHT BE AN EXERCISE OF FUTILITY HERE.
AND BECAUSE THE LANDMARK COMMISSION, IN MY VIEW SO CLEARLY AIRED, I WOULD PREFER, UM, SIMPLY TO REVERSE THE DECISION.
UM, BUT I, YOU KNOW, I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE MAY BE SOME DIFFERENT OPINIONS ON THE BODY ABOUT WHETHER REVERSING OR AND GRANTING THE CERTIFICATE OR REMANDING, UM, MAY BE THE BEST SOLUTION.
UH, I WOULD PROBABLY LEAN ON THE SIDE OF SIMPLY REVERSING, BUT I'M OPEN TO FURTHER DISCUSSION.
COMMISSIONER HOUSE, RIGHT, PLEASE.
I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING COMMISSIONER RUBIN JUST SAID.
UM, I HAVE, UM, SOME REMARKS ABOUT THE, UH, HISTORIC DISTRICT ORDINANCE OVERALL.
I'LL SAVE THOSE FOR WHEN WE GET A MOTION.
COMMISSIONER SAND? PARDON? COMMISSIONER? OH, UM, ME.
WELL, I I'LL MAKE MINE BRIEF TOO.
I THINK WE ARE DELAYING THE INEVITABLE.
I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER RUBIN.
I MEAN, I THINK THAT GOING BACK TO THE LANDMARK COMMISSION IS JUST FUTILE.
UH, I THINK THAT WITH THE ENGINEER, THE INTERNAL ENGINEER UNDER THE STAFF AND WHAT THEY HAVE SAID, AND THAT THIS IS THE SECOND TIME AROUND, THEY'VE CALLED FOR DEMOLITION AND IT'S EIGHT YEARS LATER.
UH, I, I THINK WE'RE BEATING A DEAD HORSE TO DEATH.
I THINK WE NEED TO MAKE A DECISION TODAY.
THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER YOUNG.
I WILL BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION, BUT FOR DIFFERENT REASONS THAN THOSE EXPRESSED.
UH, FIRST, REGARDING COMMISSIONER RUBIN'S COMMENTS, THE COMMISSION DID NOT MAKE A FINDING ONE WAY OR THE OTHER ON THE FIRST TWO PRONGS OF THE STANDARD BEFORE THEM.
AND WHEN YOU SAY THE QUESTION IS, IS A, B AND C TRUE, UH, A MOTION THAT SAYS, I DON'T THINK C IS TRUE DISPOSES OF THE CASE WITHOUT REGARD TO WHETHER THE COMMISSION FINDS A OR B TO BE TRUE.
THE COMMISSION HAD BEFORE ITS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
THAT IS TO SAY THE PEOPLE WHO WOULD BE MOST LIKELY TO BE INJURED BY ANY IMMINENT THREAT SAYING THAT THEY DIDN'T THINK THAT THERE WAS A THREAT IN THE FIRST PLACE.
UH, THE STANDARD IS A DOCUMENTED MAJOR AND IMMINENT THREAT, NOT INEVITABLE, EVENTUAL THREAT.
AND, UH, SO I DON'T KNOW HOW THE COMMISSION WOULD'VE FOUND ON THAT FIRST STANDARD BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T MAKE A FINDING ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.
I SUPPORT A REMAND FOR THEM TO DO SO.
UH, I'M NOT SURE THAT COMMISSIONER ANDERSON STATED RATIONALE CAN BE ACCOMPLISHED ON REMAND.
LET ME ASK MR. MOORE, IF THE CASE IS REMANDED TO THE COMMISSION, WILL THEY BE ABLE TO CONSIDER ANY STANDARD OTHER THAN THE,
[06:25:02]
UM, IMMINENT THREAT TO PUBLIC SAFETY? PUBLIC HEALTH OR SAFETY STANDARD? AND COMMISSIONER YOUNG, I MIGHT'VE MISSED THE RATIONALE FOR COMMISSIONER ANDERSON'S RE REASON TO REMAND, BUT IF IT WERE REMANDED BACK TO LANDMARK, LANDMARK WOULD ONLY BE ABLE TO CONSIDER THE IMMINENT THREAT TO PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY AND THE MANNER FOR THEM TO CONSIDER OTHER STANDARDS WOULD BE FOR THE APPLICANT TO REAPPLY UNDER THOSE OTHER STANDARDS? YES, THAT IS CORRECT.AS FOR THE SUGGESTION THAT THIS SHOULD BE REVERSED AND THE CO SHOULD BE GRANTED, THE CD SHOULD BE GRANTED, UH, I COULD NOT POSSIBLY SUPPORT THAT IN LIGHT OF THE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, UH, THAT THERE IS IN FACT NO DOCUMENTED AND MAJOR IMMINENT THREAT.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HAMPTON.
I WILL SUPPORT THE REQUEST, BUT I SIMILAR TO COMMISSIONER YOUNG, DO QUESTION THAT IT WILL AFFORD THE APPLICANT.
WHAT I AM READING THE TRANSCRIPT UNDERSTOOD TO BE THE INTENT, WHICH WAS FOR THE REQUEST TO COME BACK TO LANDMARK COMMISSION TO ALLOW FOR THE TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION AND WHAT I UNDERSTAND TO BE THE APPLICANT'S ULTIMATE GOAL, WHICH IS TO BUILD A NEW STRUCTURE ON THIS LOT THAT IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE HISTORIC DISTRICT STANDARDS.
UM, I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH READING REPORTS REGARDING HISTORIC STRUCTURES.
I'M FAMILIAR WITH REPORTS THAT HAVE SAID THAT THE STRUCTURE IS NOT SALVAGEABLE, BUT HAVE IN FACT BEEN SALVAGED AND RESTORED AND ARE STILL PART OF OUR CITY'S HISTORIC FABRIC.
THE 10TH STREET HISTORIC DISTRICT IS ON OUR NATIONAL REGISTER OF MOST ENDANGERED SITES IN OUR COUNTRY.
IT IS BEEN SLOWLY ERADICATED THROUGH A VARIETY OF REASONS AND IT, AND I I THINK THAT IS REFLECTED IN WHAT WE SAW IN THE DISCUSSION AT LANDMARK COMMISSION.
AND THE TRANSCRIPT BEFORE US IS NOT FURTHER ERODING AND PUTTING AT RISK ONE OF OUR MOST FRAGILE HISTORIC DISTRICTS OF FREEDMAN'S TOWN IN OUR CITY.
OUR CHARGE HERE IS TO GIVE DEFERENCE TO THE LANDMARK COMMISSION IN THEIR DELIBERATIONS.
THEY ARE THE, THE BODY THAT DEALS WITH THIS ON A DAY-TO-DAY BASIS.
THERE ARE TWO COMMISSIONERS THAT LIVE IN THIS DISTRICT AS WELL AS THE TESTIMONY FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
I SUPPORT THE REQUEST AND I HOPE THE COMMISSION WILL AS WELL OR THE, UM, MOTION.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? COMMISSIONERS, COMMISSIONER, CARPENTER? I'M NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO SUPPORT THE MOTION BECAUSE I THINK THE, WE ARE, OUR CHARGE IS TO GIVE DEFERENCE TO THE DECISION OF THE LANDMARK COMMISSION.
AND THE WAY I UNDERSTAND THE MO, IF WE REMAND THIS BACK, IT GOES BACK UNDER THE SAME STANDARD AND I DON'T SEE HOW THE LANDMARK COMMISSION IS GOING TO COME TO A DIFFERENT DECISION.
UM, IF, IF THE DESIRE, I MEAN, TO ME, READING THE TRANSCRIPT SHOWED THAT THE LANDMARK COMMISSION WAS SIGNALING ONLY WE CONSIDER AN APPLICATION FOR DEMOLITION UNDER DIFFERENT STANDARDS.
TO ME, UPHOLDING THE DECISION TO DENY WITHOUT MEAN THE APPLICANT.
THE, THE, THE FASTEST I THINK THERE IS ONE IS TO COME BACK UNDER A DIFFERENT STANDARD.
IT SEEMS TO BE SETTING IT BACK UNDER THE SAME STANDARD IS JUST ADDING MORE DELIGHT.
I COMMISSIONER ANDERSON SECOND ROUND, UM, KING, IF I MAY, I'D LIKE TO YIELD TO SOME OF THE WISDOM OF THE HORSESHOE AND PERHAPS, UM, REVISE THE MOTION, IF THAT'S OKAY.
IS THAT OKAY WITH IT? IS OKAY WITH THE SECOND.
WHAT IS YOUR REVISE MOTION? WE HAVE TO VOTE.
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, IF YOU'RE GOING TO REVISE THE MOTION OR AMEND THE MOTION, IT WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO BE A CONTRARY AMENDMENT.
AND TRUTHFULLY, I STRUGGLED TO THINK OF AN AMENDMENT THAT WOULDN'T BE CONTRARY BASED ON THE MOTION YOU'VE MADE.
I THINK THE EASIEST THING MIGHT BE TO WITHDRAW THIS MOTION AND THEN OPEN IT UP FOR A NEW MAIN MOTION.
WELL, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, I'D LIKE TO WITHDRAW THE MOTION FORM.
AND THAT'S, UH, COMMISSIONER HAMPTON? UH, NO, HE'S WITHDRAWING THE MOTION.
AND COMMISSIONER HAMPTON IS IN AGREEMENT.
DOES ANYONE IN THE BODY HAVE AN ACCEPT? NO.
DO YOU HAVE A, ANY NEW MOTION? COMMISSIONER ANDERSON? YES.
IN THE MATTER OF CD 2 23 DASH EIGHT, I MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC PUBLIC RECORD AND ALL STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL OF DENIAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
[06:30:01]
IF I MAY, MR. CHAIR WAS THE INTENT TO AFFIRM THE LANDMARK COMMISSION RULING? YES.IT'S TO AFFIRM THE LANDMARKS COMMISSION.
COMMISSIONER AGAIN, JUST CONFIRMING, JUST SO TO MAKE SURE WE GET THE LANGUAGE RIGHT, THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS FOR APPROVAL.
THE LANDMARK, UH, RECOMMENDATION IS DENIAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
YOU GOING WITH THE LANDMARK COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION, IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT.
MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THE LANDMARK'S RECOMMENDATION IS WHAT THE STAFF WAS APPROVING? NO, SIR.
STAFF, STAFF RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THE DEMOLITION, UH, AND LANDMARK COMMISSION DENIED THE REQUEST WITHOUT PREJUDICE OF THIS.
WELL, I, I, MY MOTION IS TO AFFIRM THE LANDMARK COMMISSION'S, UM, POSITION.
UH, COMMISSIONERS, WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON TO, UH, FOLLOW THE LANDMARK RECOMMENDATION TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
AND WE HAVE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER HAMPTON COMMENTS.
COMMISSIONER CARPENTER? YES, I CAN SUPPORT THAT MOTION BECAUSE I THINK IT, IT PUTS THE CASE SQUARELY BACK IN THE HANDS OF THE, UH, LANDMARK COMMISSION WHO'S CHARGED WITH MAKING THESE DECISIONS.
AND I THINK BASED ON THE TRANSCRIPT, UM, THEY WERE OPEN TO CONSIDERING THIS DEMOLITION ORDER UNDER A DIFFERENT, UM, UM, STANDARD.
AND SO I THINK THAT'S THE APPROPRIATE AND MOST EXPEDITIOUS COURSE IN GETTING A, A RESOLUTION ON THIS ITEM.
COMMISSIONER KINGSTON, COMMISSIONER RUB, I, I, I'M NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO SUPPORT THE MOTION FOR SIMILAR REASONS TO, UM, UM, THOSE IN MY EARLIER COMMENTS ABOUT WHY I WOULD PROBABLY BE ABLE TO SUPPORT THE PREVIOUS MOTION OR SOMETHING SIMILAR.
YOU KNOW, IT'S VERY DISTURBING WHAT THE LANDMARK COMMISSION DID HERE IN TERMS OF, UM, COUCHING ITS CONCLUSION UNDER THAT C THREE PRONG ABOUT THERE BEING NO OTHER OPTIONS TO ESSENTIALLY TIMELY MITIGATE THE DANGER HERE.
UM, AND ESSENTIALLY SAYING IT WANTS THE APPLICANT TO COME BACK WITH, UH, PLANS FOR A NEW HOUSE THAT THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE FORTHCOMING AT ANY, YOU KNOW, POTENTIAL TIME IN THE FUTURE.
AND, YOU KNOW, THE FACT THAT, THAT THE APP THAT THE, THE LANDMARK COMMISSION DIDN'T MAKE ALTERNATIVE FINDINGS UNDER THE OTHER TWO PRONGS, I THINK IS PARTICULARLY TELLING HERE ABOUT WHAT WAS MOTIVATING THE LANDMARK COMMISSION.
IT WASN'T WHAT THE, UH, IT WASN'T THAT THE STANDARD UNDER C WASN'T MET, IT WAS THEIR DESIRE TO, TO SEE SOMETHING ELSE HAPPEN DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE C STANDARD HAD BEEN MET BY THE APPLICANT HERE.
I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE WAS TESTIMONY FROM SOMEONE WHO WASN'T AN ENGINEER WHO LIVED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, WHO, YOU KNOW, CLEARLY CLEARS DEEPLY ABOUT THE HISTORIC DISTRICT, UM, AND PRESERVING IT, THAT THEY DIDN'T FEEL THAT IT WAS A DANGER.
BUT I DON'T KNOW IF THAT TESTIMONY IS ENTITLED TO ANY WEIGHT IN, IN THIS ANALYSIS WHEN WE HAVE TESTIMONY ON THE OTHER SIDE FROM MULTIPLE ENGINEERS OR, OR REPORTS ON THE OTHER SIDE FROM MULTIPLE ENGINEERS.
SO I, I WOULD STRONGLY RECOMMEND THE BODY THAT, THAT WE, UM, REVERSE THE DECISION OF THE LANDMARK COMMISSION, UM, AND HOPE THAT OTHER FOLKS WILL VOTE AGAINST THE MOTION COMMISSIONER YOUNG, I WILL BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION.
UH, I AM NOT ON THE LANDMARK COMMISSION, BUT IF I WERE, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE APPLICANT CHOSE THE MOST DIFFICULT PATH TO A CERTIFICATE OF DEMOLITION THAT IT COULD HAVE CHOSEN.
AND, UH, IF I WERE, THE WOULD RECOMMENDED THE APPLICANT THAT IT COME BACK TO THE LANDMARK COMMISSION WITH A PLAN TO REPLACE THE STRUCTURE WITH A NEW STRUCTURE THAT IS MORE APPROPRIATE AND COMPATIBLE WITH THE HISTORIC OVER OVERLAY DISTRICT AND OR TO PROVE THAT NO ECONOMICALLY VIABLE USE OF THE PROPERTY EXISTS ABSENT DEMOLITION.
I THINK, UH, MR. SHEER CANDIDLY ADMITTED THAT THAT STANDARD WAS SATISFIED.
AND I THINK IF YOU HAVE AN, AN ENGINEER'S REPORT SAYING IT COSTS $235,000 TO PUT THE STRUCTURE BACK TOGETHER AND, AND WHO KNOWS, THAT MAY BE A LOW FIGURE, UM, AND ONLY A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS OF FUNDING IS AVAILABLE.
I THINK THAT GOES A VERY LONG WAY TOWARD MEETING THAT STANDARD.
WITH RESPECT TO COMMISSIONER RUBIN RUBIN'S SUGGESTION THAT THE
[06:35:01]
TESTIMONY FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS OUTWEIGHED BY THE TESTIMONY FROM THE ENGINEER OR THE EVIDENCE FROM THE ENGINEERS, UH, I THINK THAT IS PRECISELY THE KIND OF EVIDENTIARY WEIGHING THAT IS ENTRUSTED TO THE LANDMARK COMMISSION AND IS NOT AN APPROPRIATE SUBJECT FOR US UNDER THE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE STANDARD AS IT'S BEEN EXPLAINED TO US.COMMISSIONER KINGSTON, FOLLOWED BY COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT FOR THE REASONS THAT COMMISSIONER YOUNG JUST, UM, EXPLAINED, I WILL BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION AS WELL.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT.
I'M GONNA STRUGGLE TO SUPPORT THIS MOTION.
I WANT THE APPLICANT TO BE ABLE TO DEMOLISH THIS HOME AND REBUILD A HOME THAT IS COMPLIES WITH, UH, CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO MAKE FOR A MORE VIBRANT NEIGHBORHOOD.
UH, WE'VE GOT AN ORDINANCE OR A HISTORIC ORDINANCE THAT IS, UH, DOING A GREAT JOB OF CREATING A STASIS IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD AND NOT A VIBRANT COMMUNITY.
UM, WE WANT TO PRESERVE THE LEGACY AND THE HISTORY OF A FREEDMAN'S TOWN AND I COM COMPLETELY SUPPORT THAT.
BUT PRESERVING THAT LEGACY IS MORE THAN JUST PRESERVING THE STRUCTURES.
HAVING A VIBRANT NEIGHBORHOOD WITH OLD BUILDINGS AND NEW HOMES THAT THAT COM COMPLY WITH, THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS SEEMS TO ME THE GOAL, THIS ORDINANCE WAS PUT IN PLACE IN 1993, AND ANYONE CAN DRIVE THROUGH THAT DISTRICT AND THERE'S ALMOST 50% OF THE RESIDENTIAL LOTS VACANT WITH NO STRUCTURES ON THEM.
THAT TO ME, DOES NOT HONOR THE HISTORY OF THE FRIEDMANS TOWN.
AND ITS BYZANTINE SORTS OF REGULATIONS LIKE WE'VE GOT HERE THAT PROHIBIT PEOPLE FROM MOVING FORWARD.
SO, UM, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW THAT IT MATTERS WHICH WAY I VOTE ON THIS, THIS, UH, THIS, UH, MOTION TONIGHT.
'CAUSE I'M HOPING THAT THE APPLICANT WILL STILL BE ABLE TO, UH, DEMOLISH THIS HOUSE AND, UM, CREATE A BETTER FUTURE FOR THE 10TH STREET DISTRICT.
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON SECOND ROUND, SIR.
UH, THIS IS, I THINK THIS IS THIRD ROUND.
IT'LL BE REALLY QUICK, JUST KIND OF RELATIVE TO FREEDMAN'S TOWN AND THE 10TH STREET HISTORIC DISTRICT.
UM, YOU KNOW, YOU GO THROUGH THAT AREA BECAUSE, AND, AND IT'S LARGELY VACANT WITH LOTS, PRIMARILY BECAUSE, UM, THE BLACK ARCHITECTURE THAT USED TO BE THERE HAD BEEN DEMOLISHED.
AND IF WE ARE TO HAVE A, UM, AN HISTORIC DISTRICT THAT HAS SOME RELICS OF ARCHITECTURE FROM SOME POINT WHERE WE DO KNOW THAT AFRICAN AMERICAN CONTRIBUTE CONTRIBUTIONS TO ARCHITECTURE WAS THE VERANDA AND PORCH AND THE VARIOUS THINGS THAT YOU DO STILL SEE IN THE 10TH STREET DISTRICT.
SO WHILE I, I I, I DO UNDERSTAND THE, THE, UH, APPLICANT'S DESIRE TO DEMOLISH THE BUILDING.
AND I ALSO SIDE WITH MR. COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT ON BUILDING SOMETHING THAT'S MORE VIBRANT.
BUT I ALSO AM A BUILDER AND CONTRACTOR TOO, AND REGULARLY RESTORE THOSE SAME BUILDINGS THAT ARE IN EVEN WORSE CONDITIONS THAN THAT FROM THE BOTTOM TO THE TOP.
SO I KNOW ONE, OUR, UM, HISTORIC ARCHITECTURE WHERE WE MAY HAVE IT IS IMPORTANT TO KEEP AND TRY TO WORK FROM THAT, WHICH IS WHY I ALLUDED TO ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS, UM, THAT DON'T INCLUDE, UM, A WHOLE NEW BUILDING LIKE REPLACING WINDOWS AND DOORS AND THE VARIOUS COMPONENTS.
UM, SO IT'S, IT'S A LITTLE BIT MORE THAN JUST, YOU KNOW, GIVE IT BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION OR, OR ALLOW THEM TO DEMOLISH IT.
I THINK THAT THERE REALLY NEEDS TO BE MORE THOUGHT THAT GOES INTO IT.
AND I THINK THAT DENIAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE WOULD ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO GO BACK AND TO RETHINK THEIR STEPS AND ALSO OPTIONS.
THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER POPKIN.
UM, I JUST WANTED TO STATE THAT I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER HAMPTON THAT OFTEN I BUILDINGS CAN BE, UM, SEEN AS IMPOSSIBLE TO RESTORE AND YET BE RESTORED.
UM, GREAT LENGTHS AND, UH,
UM, YOU KNOW, JUST BECAUSE IT'S FINANCIALLY PROHIBITIVE FOR THIS OWNER DOESN'T MEAN THAT IT'S IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANYONE TO RESTORE, UM, THE BUILDING.
BUT I EVEN MORE THINK THAT THIS IS NOT OUR AREA OF EXPERTISE.
AND I WOULD RATHER ERR ON THE SIDE OF, UM, ALLOWING LANDMARK COMMISSION TO CONTINUE, UM, YOU KNOW, WORKING
[06:40:01]
IN THEIR REALM.AND, UH, IF WE SUPPORT THEIR FINDINGS ON THIS, UM, I DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO AGREE WITH THEIR LOGIC, BUT I FEEL LIKE THIS IS THEIR DOMAIN AND, UM, THEY, THEY'VE GOT MORE EXPERTISE ON THESE TYPES OF MATTERS THAN THIS BODY OR I DO.
COMMISSIONER RUBIN, CAN I JUST ASK A QUICK QUESTION OF, OF MR. MOORE, WE'RE, WE'RE UNDER SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE REVIEW HERE, RIGHT? YES, THAT IS CORRECT.
DOES A CONCLUSORY STATEMENT BY SOMEONE AT THE HEARING CONSTITUTE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OR ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL? VICE CHAIR RUBEN, UH, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE REQUIRES ONLY A MERE SCINTILLA OF EVIDENCE.
TO PROVE, UH, TO, YEAH, TO MAKE THE FINDING.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? COMMISSIONERS? OKAY.
OH, MS. PINA STEPPED OUT FOR THE MOMENT, SO I'LL, OH, THERE SHE IS.
LET'S, WE WILL RECAP THE MOTION COMMISSIONER'S A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON SAYING ABOUT COMMISSIONER HAMPTON WAS TO, UH, REMAND TO AFFIRM, EXCUSE ME.
PARDON? THAT'S THE, THAT'S THE OLD ONE IS TO AFFIRM THE LANDMARK COMMISSION, UH, FINDING TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
AND PLACE 15? NO, HE SAID, SORRY, I INTERRUPT.
UH, CAN I GET A MOTION TO ADJOURN? SO MOVE.
AND, UH, I WILL SECOND THE MOTION.
IT IS 5:20 PM I WANNA THANK STAFF AND THANK YOU COMMISSIONERS.
I HOPE YOU ENJOY YOUR EVENING.