Link

Social

Embed

Disable autoplay on embedded content?

Download

Download
Download Transcript


[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 FOUR HERE.

DISTRICT FIVE USED FOR SIX HERE.

DISTRICT SEVEN, VACANT.

DISTRICT EIGHT.

I'M HERE DISTRICT NINE.

DISTRICT NINE IS DISTRICT 10 HERE.

I WISH I WAS THERE.

DISTRICT 11.

WE WISH YOU WERE HERE TOO.

THANK YOU.

SORRY, WE MISSED.

UH, 11 IS ABSENT TODAY.

OKAY.

DISTRICT 12, DISTRICT 13 PREA.

DISTRICT 14 AND PLACE 15 HERE IS SOMEPLACE MUCH COOLER.

SO I WELL, WE MISS YOU ALSO.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

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.

SO, UH, COMMISSIONER STAND.

GRACIOUSLY ACCEPTED THE SERVICE VICE CHAIR TODAY.

CAN I GET A MOTION? SO MOVED.

COMMISSIONER, YOUNG COMMISSIONER PLEASE SAY AYE.

AYE.

OPPOSED? NICE HABIT.

AND WE'RE GONNA JUMP RIGHT INTO THE DOCKET AND GOOD MORNING.

GOOD MORNING, COMMISSIONER.

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.

I'LL SHOW YOU THAT LATER.

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.

NOW.

THIS PARKING BAY WAS ALONG THE NORTH BOUNDARY.

THEY'RE MOVING IT WITH ACTUALLY A PARKING GARAGE, EXCUSE ME, PRIVATE PARKING GARAGE.

THEY'RE GONNA MOVE IT.

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.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

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.

OKAY.

THANK YOU MR. STANLEY? YES.

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.

A PARKING GARAGE.

OH, PRIVATE PARKING GARAGES.

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.

MM-HMM.

.

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.

OKAY.

YES MA'AM.

SO IT'S ENCLOSED STRUCTURE AND THEN THEY'VE DONE THE SAME THING DOWN HERE? YES, MA'AM.

SO THOSE WERE EXISTING.

UM, THEY JUST RE REMOVED THIS ONE RIGHT HERE.

OKAY.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMM? THANK YOU.

GOOD MORNING, MR. CHAIR.

I APOLOGIZE ON THE LAST QUESTION.

IS THAT LOCATED OUT OF THE SETBACK? MY APOLOGIES.

I CAN'T TELL.

YES MA'AM.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU CHAIR.

THANK YOU.

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.

AUGUSTINE DRIVE 1.29 ACRES.

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.

AND THEN VIEWS TO THE SOUTH.

[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.

THEY THANK YOU.

AND THOSE FOUR CALLS ALL DEALT ONE MAJOR ACCIDENT.

THAT'S GOTTA BE THE MOST IMPRESSIVE RECORD NOMINATED.

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.

THIS IS AN ANOMALY.

IS THAT RIGHT? EXPERIENCE? VERY NICE ANOMALY.

UH, ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT COMMISSION? OKAY, WE'LL KEEP GOING.

CASE NUMBER THREE AND FOUR.

CASE THREE AND FOUR, UH, WILL BOTH AUGUST 17TH, SO THEY'LL CONSENT.

WE'LL READ THEN.

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.

TO THE NORTHEAST.

TO THE NORTHWEST, SORRY.

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 , THE SUBJECT SIDE, THE PROPOSED MF TO MULTI-FAMILY IS CONSISTENT WITH THE ZONING POWDER IN THE SURROUNDING AREA.

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 , HE SURROUNDING C WITH ADDITIONAL HOUSING OPTIONS AND THAT THAT RECOMMENDS APPROVAL.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

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.

IT IS, UH, 15 UNITS.

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.

OKAY.

CORRECT.

AND CAN YOU SPEAK TO, FROM, FROM LEGAL'S PERSPECTIVE, UM, CLEAN IN WHETHER PROPOSING MINIMUMS FOR RESTRICTIONS, YOU KNOW, WORKS AND WHEN IT COMES PROBLEM THOUGHTS? CERTAINLY, UH, THE MINIMUM STRUCTURE SIZE IS A TOOL THAT HAS BEEN RELUCTANT TO USE UNDER THE IDEA THAT IT COULD CREATE A SLIPPERY SLOPE FOR THAT 1200 SQUARE FOOT MINIMUM IN THIS CASE BECOMES 1500 2000, 2,500.

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.

UM, OKAY, UNDERSTOOD.

GREAT.

THANK YOU MR. MOORE.

THANK YOU.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ION? OKAY, WE'LL KEEP GOING.

CASE NUMBER SIX.

THIS, THE NEXT CASE IS ZT 2 3 1 90.

DISTRICT SET.

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 THEN, UM, ON SOUTHWEST.

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.

OKAY.

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 T IN ALL THE THS.

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.

SO

[00:25:01]

THIS COULD BE DEVELOPED WITHOUT REQUIRING A RELA, CORRECT? YEAH.

OKAY.

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.

WELL, HERE'S MY CONCERN.

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.

TOWNHOUSE IS A RESIDENCE.

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.

COMMISSIONER MUTED.

YOU'RE COMMISSIONER.

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.

OKAY.

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.

UM, YEAH, YOU ARE CORRECT.

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.

WE APPROVE THIS CASE TODAY.

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.

YEAH.

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.

WE HAVE A STREAM OF THESE.

YES, EXACTLY.

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.

SURE.

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.

OKAY.

MR. STAN? UH, YES.

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.

OH.

OH, WE NEED TO CHECK.

OKAY.

YEAH.

'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.

THAT'S ON.

YEAH, SHE'S LOOKING IT UP.

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.

OH.

SO THAT'S THE AREA PLAN.

OH, SO THAT'S SOON.

SO WE HAVE AN AREA PLAN FOR SODA, BUT WE ALSO HAVE AN AUTHORIZED MEETING FOR FRIDAY THAT'S ALREADY AUTHORIZED.

YES.

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 .

CHECK, COMMISSION APPROVAL.

COMMISSIONER .

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.

THERE'S NO SUCH THING.

SO WE, WE CANNOT LIKE CONSISTENTLY SAY, HEY, EVERYTHING IS GONNA BE DENIED MOVING FORWARD 'CAUSE WE HAVE THE AUTHORIZED HEARING COMING.

WE'RE AWARE OF THAT.

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.

THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN.

MR. MAY I ASK HER TO BE HEARD INDIVIDUALLY THEN DO THAT? UH, THANK YOU.

OKAY.

UH, COMMISSIONER KINGSON.

I THINK COMMISSIONER STANDARD HAS MY QUESTION.

THANK YOU.

OKAY, COMMISSIONER BELAY.

I HAVE A 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.

NO, NO, NO.

YOU'RE MISSING MY QUESTION.

MY QUESTION.

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.

YEAH.

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.

TH ONE AND TH TWO.

YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO DO THAT.

INTERESTING.

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 HOUSING, IF HOUSING IS A LITTLE BIT OF A DIFFERENT TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT AS OPPOSED TO LIKE YOUR NORMAL GENERAL DENSITY.

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.

THIS IS, THIS IS NOT ZONING 1 0 1.

THIS IS GRADUATE LEVEL.

YEAH, THIS, THIS IS NOW AND WE CAN SEE THE COMPUTER OR SOMETHING.

COMMISSIONER.

COMMISSIONER.

SORRY.

COMMISSIONER ANDERSON.

OKAY, THANK YOU.

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.

SO THANK YOU FOR THAT.

FOR SURE.

HOUSING IS GONNA BE OUR PRIORITY FOR SURE UNTIL HOUSING IS GONNA BE OUR PRIORITY.

THANK

[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 .

UH, I DON'T KNOW.

LIKE I THINK WE TALKED ABOUT THIS.

YES, WE DO.

WE DID LOOK AT IT.

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.

WE UNDERSTAND.

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 , DID YOU HAVE A FOLLOW UP ON ? THANK YOU SIR.

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.

EXACTLY.

THE PROUD OWNER OF THE DUPLEX IN, UP AND DOWN.

I WILL TELL YOU HOW IT WORKS.

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.

IT IS A MEETS AND BOUNDS.

IT'S A DIFFERENT PROBLEM.

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.

EXACTLY.

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.

WE JUST LOOK AT IT.

SINGLE FAMILY, ONE UNIT, TWO UNITS MORE THAN THREE.

AND THEN THE DISTRICT, R D T, H M F.

OKAY.

COMMISSIONER.

AND THAT'S, YEAH.

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.

LOOK AT THESE.

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.

MM-HMM.

.

MM-HMM.

.

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.

A VERY NARROW UP.

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.

OKAY.

RIGHT.

OKAY.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU MR. CHAIR.

YES, I'M SURE.

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.

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.

OH, OKAY.

THAT THE APPLICANT,

[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.

OKAY.

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.

THANK YOU.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER, WE MOVE ON.

LET'S GOING CASE NUMBER SEVEN IF YOU DON'T MIND.

SHE'S GOOD MORNING.

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.

NO UPDATES.

IT'S OKAY.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

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.

OH THAT WOULD BE WONDERFUL.

IN, NO, I'M IN HAWAII.

INSERT IT.

AND LOTS OF TREES.

LOTS OF TREES.

50 ACRES.

1965 MADE POLICY DECISION NUMBER TWO WOULD JUST TAKE MY YOUNGEST SON PREVIOUSLY ZONE REZONED.

COUNT 23, THAT'S YOU READ.

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.

OKAY, EVERYONE.

NEXT CASE IS C TWO 12.

3 0 7.

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.

IT'S ABOUT 19.23 ACRES.

LOCATION MAP SHOWING THE PROPERTY AND CITY LIMITS AERIAL MAP WITH THE AREA.

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.

UH, AGAIN A VARIETY OF USES.

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.

AND THIS IS BACK ON SITE.

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.

UM, SUB AREA C IS UP HERE.

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.

UM, ALL THAT GOOD STUFF.

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, TWO AND ONE.

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.

UM,

[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