[BRIEFINGS (Part 1 of 2)]
[00:00:09]
DISTRICT SEVEN, DISTRICT EIGHT, DISTRICT NINE.
PRESS DISTRICT 14 AND PLACE 15.
TODAY IS THURSDAY, OFFICE 17TH, NINE 8:00 AM THIS IS THE OW PLAN COMMISSION.
THIS IS THE TIME TO ASK QUESTIONS OF STAFF.
WE'LL BE ALL IN COMMENTS FOR COURT.
UH, I'M GONNA JUMP RIGHT INTO THE AGENDA, WHICH I DON'T HAVE HAS A QUICK ANNOUNCEMENT FOR US.
I WANTED TO INTRODUCE TWO NEW PLAYERS IN MY TEAM.
WE'VE AND
SO LOOKING FORWARD TO WELCOME, WELCOME ON BOARD.
WE ALL LOOK TO WORKING WITH YOU.
THE FIRST TIME YOU PRESENT FOR US, IT HELPS TELL THE COMMISSION THAT YOUR MOTHER'S ONLINE WATCHING
I ACTUALLY HAVE TO ANNOUNCE AS WELL.
UM, THE ZONING TEAM IS GONNA HAVE A FEW NEW SENIOR PLANNERS JOINING US, UM, OVER THE NEXT MONTH OR SO.
UM, OUR FIRST ONE STARTED, UH, WITH THIS LAST WEDNESDAY.
IT'S GIANNA BRIDGES, UM, GIANNAS JOINING US FROM DEVELOPMENT SERVICES SHE WAS PREVIOUSLY REPORTING TO.
I'LL START OFF WITH FIRST CASE.
IT'S A REQUEST OBTAIN FROM THE STREET, STREET CASING FURNISH REQUIREMENTS PER SECTION 51 20 IT THREE 17 SUB, SORRY, SUB AREA THREE, WHICH IS THE CEDAR AREA SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICT AND SUB AREA THREE IS CALLED OUT AS THE THREE RATE ORIENTED HIGH DENSITY, UH, AREA REQUEST 6.7577 ACRES.
AND IT'S IN COUNCIL DISTRICT TWO.
IT'S LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF COR AND
HERE IS, UH, SECTION ONE 20 IN DETAIL.
UM, SO CITY COUNCIL, CITY PLAN COMMISSION, I'M SORRY, LEMME SLOW DOWN.
CITY PLAN COMMISSION MAY APPROVE A SITE PLAN AT A PUBLIC HEARING THAT DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS REQUIRED STREET FRONTAGE REGULATIONS IN THIS SECTION.
UM, IN THIS CHART, I HAVE THE CODE AND I ALSO HAVE THE APPLICANT'S RESPONSE.
AND SO NUMBER ONE STATES THAT, UH, STREET COMPLIANCE WITH STREET REQUIREMENTS ARE IMPRACTICAL DUE TO SITE CONSTRAINTS AND WOULD RESULT IN A SUB SUBSTANTIAL HARDSHIP.
UH, THE, THAT, UH, RELIEF OF THE STREET FURNITURE REQUIREMENTS ALONG CORNELL DOES NOT CREATE A HARDSHIP, UH, VARIATION EXCEPTION OF THE STREET FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS WILL ADVERSELY AFFECT SURROUNDING PROPERTY.
THE APPLICANT'S RESPONSE IS THAT THE EXCEPTION OF THE STREET BRANCH REQUIREMENTS WILL NOT AFFECT THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY SINCE THERE'S ONLY A EXISTING ROAD.
AND NUMBER THREE STATES THAT THE SITE PLAN MUST OTHERS FURTHER STATE PURPOSE OF THE DISTRICT.
UM, THE APPLICANT'S RESPONSE IS THAT THEIR APPLICATION DOES STATE DOES STATE THIS.
AND SO THE PURPOSE OF THE DISTRICT IS TO ENCOURAGE HIGH
[00:05:01]
DENSITY OFFICE LOING RETAIL RESIDENTIAL USES ALONG THE INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 30 FRONT, AND TO ENCOURAGE DEVELOPMENTS THAT TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE REGIONAL FREEWAY ACCESS AND THE EXCELLENT DOWNTOWN VIEW, PRESERVING THESE VIEWS FOR OTHER SUBDISTRICTS IN THE CEDAR AREA.SPECIAL PURPOSES HERE IS THE REQUEST IN DETAIL OF THE PURPOSE OF THIS REQUEST IS TO OBTAIN CITY PLAN CONDITION APPROVAL FOR RELIEF ON STREET FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE FULL 70%.
THEREFORE 0% OF THE REQUIRED 70 UH, PERCENT OF THE STREET FACING FACADE WOULD BE REQUIRED TO BE WITHIN THE FIVE TO EIGHT FEET MEN MAX FRONT YARD ALONG CORNELL STREET.
HERE'S SOME ADDITIONAL SUPPORTING ITEMS, UM, FOR THE REQUEST.
CORNELL STREET IS ADJACENT TO A BUSY DARK RAIL.
UM, THERE'S NO INGRESS OR EGRESS PROPOSED ALONG PARNELL STREET.
IN 1992, PARNELL STREET, EAST OF PARKER STREET WAS CLOSED, CREATING A DEAD END AT PARKER STREET.
AND CURRENTLY THERE ARE SIGNAGE, NO LEFT TURN THAT DOES NOT ALLOW ACCESS TO PARNELL STREET FROM PARKER.
AND THEN PARKER IS ALSO LIKE A REMNANTS OF THE STREET BECAUSE IT'S, IT ONLY RUNS, UH, 402 FEET.
AND IF YOU GET SOME CHANGE, THIS IS LOOKING AT THE NUMBERS, UH, FOR THE LENGTH OF THE STREET.
SO FURNITURE LAWN PARNELL STREET RUNS 412 FEET.
UM, THE SEVEN FEET REQUIREMENT, UM, IF IT WAS MET, WOULD HAVE TO BE AT 2 88 FEET.
RIGHT NOW, THE UH, PROPOSED DESIGN IS MEETING ZERO AND ZERO OF THE MEN MAX, AND THEN OUTSIDE, OUTSIDE OF THE MEN MAX OF THE 7% IT NEEDS TO BE 123 FEET.
RIGHT NOW, THE PROPERTY IS MEETING AT A HUNDRED PERCENT, 412 FEET OUTSIDE OF THE MINMAX.
AND SO THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING THE FULL 70% RELIEF.
HERE'S THE AREA VIEW SHOWING THE DARK RAIL AND YELLOW, AND THEN ALSO THE PROPERTY HIGHLIGHTED RED.
HERE IS THEIR SITE PLAN SHOWING THE AREA OF REQUEST.
UM, THE BUILDING ALONG POINT STREET HAD TO BE CUT OFF.
THEY DID HAVE SOME PERCENTAGE BECAUSE OF THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE.
THE BUILDING HAD TO BE ON THE BUILDING VISIBILITY TRAIL.
SO, UH, RIGHT NOW THEY'RE AT 0% LEADING THE AX.
THIS FIRST PICTURE IS AT THE CORNER OF CORINTH AND PARNELL, KIND OF LOOKING EAST.
THIS OTHER PICTURE AT THE BOTTOM IS AT THE CORNER OF CORNELL AND PARKER LOOKING WEST.
UM, HERE'S SOME PICTURES OF THE DART TRAIN PASSING BY ALONG CORNELL STREET.
UM, AND THEN THIS OTHER PICTURE AT THE REAR OF THE CORNER AT PARKER AND CORNELL WHERE THE STREET DEAD ENDS.
UM, HERE'S SOME ADDITIONAL PICTURES.
UM, I WANTED TO PUT THESE IN HERE TO LET YOU KNOW THAT THE EAST SIDE OF PARNELL HAS ALREADY BEEN CLOSED AND SO THIS IS HOW IT LOOK ACTUALLY ON SITE.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION WILL BE APPROVAL, BUT SUBJECT TO SITE PLANS.
AND THANK YOU MS. LUKE FOR THE GREAT CASE REPORT.
IT WAS REALLY HELPFUL, UM, TO CONFIRM THEY'RE MEETING THE FULL REQUIREMENTS ALONG BOTH, BOTH JOBS AND IN COURT, WHICH ARE THE, UM, I GUESS THE, THE PRIMARY PEDESTRIAN ACCESS STREET TO THE SITE.
AND THEN THERE'S A LEAVE OUT ON THE BACK CORNER OF THIS SITE.
IT'S NOT PART OF THIS PROPERTY.
IS THAT THE DARK MAINTENANCE FACILITY? UM, AT THE EAST CORNER? YES, MA'AM.
UH, I'M NOT FOR SURE IF IT'S IT'S DART'S PROPERTY OR NOT.
AND THE, UM, IS, I HOPE THE SECOND I'M LOOKING AT THOSE ARE GARAGE ACCESS POINTS FOR THE NEW DEVELOPMENT.
SO THERE'S NO, UH,
AND THERE REQUIRED BE ARTICLE 10, IS THAT CORRECT? YES, MA'AM.
MR. UH, COULD YOU GO BACK TO THE SLIDE RIGHT BEFORE THE SITE MAP? IT'S AN AREA THAT SHOWS THE STREET SYSTEM.
[00:10:01]
UP ON THE SCREEN, COULD YOU SHOW US WHERE THE CURRENTLY OPEN PART OF PARNELL IS AND WHERE THE CLOSED PART IS? SO RIGHT NOW, PART, NOW ALONE WHERE? OH, LA OH, I'M SORRY.WE CAN'T, OKAY, LET ME GO BACK.
THE QUESTION WAS ABOUT THE OPEN AND CLOSED PARTS DEPARTMENT.
BUT CAN Y'ALL SEE MY MOUSE? IT? OKAY.
SO RIGHT HERE ALONG THE PROPERTY THAT'S HIGHLIGHTED ALL THE WAY TO, UH, PARKER STREET, THIS PARKER STREET THAT RUNS PERPENDICULAR.
AND SO THIS PORTION IS OPEN AND THEN ONCE YOU GET TO THE EAST SOUTHEAST OF, UH, PARNELL THEN IS CLOSED AT THIS BUILDING DOWN.
SO THAT LAST, UH, LITTLE BIT WITH THE ARROW ON THE END OF IT IS THE CLOSE PART? YES, SIR.
SAY PLEASE AND USING THIS, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND SOMETHING.
SO THE DRIVE THROUGH, I ASSUME THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE A DRIVE THROUGH, RIGHT? YES, MA'AM.
TO GET TO THE, THE REAR PARKING GARAGE, THE PARKING, THE PRIVATE GARAGES GO THE SITE, WELL, THE, THE DRIVE THROUGH OF, SO DOES THE DRIVE THROUGH GO PARALLEL TO PARNELL? YES.
AND THERE'S NO WAY TO GET IN AND OFF THE PROPERTY ALONG FROM ALONG FARM? YEAH.
SO THEY COME IN AT BOTTOM AND THEN BUMP G AND THEN GO AROUND.
ACTUALLY THERE'S A DRIVER PATROLS AT PARKER.
AND THEN COME AROUND TO THEIR UNITS AND COME BACK AROUND.
AND WHERE DID THEY GO IN BACK OUT AT PARKER? THEY GO OUT THE SAME WAY.
THAT WAS WHAT I COULDN'T QUITE UNDERSTAND.
A DARK STATION MAY BE A QUARTER MILE AWAY.
BUT PARNELL DOES NOT GO ALL THE WAY TO THE DART STATION, RIGHT? UH, I, I DO NOT BELIEVE SO.
SO TO GET TO THE DART STATION FROM THIS DEVELOPMENT MEETING, YOU GET CALL FROM JOHN, WALK UP AND THEN GO CUT BACK TO THE DART STATION, RIGHT? YES.
JUST ONE MORE GENERAL QUESTION.
COMING FROM SOMEONE WHO'S NOT A DESIGN PROFESSIONAL, ARE THERE BEST PRACTICES FOR DESIGNING WHEN YOU'RE ADJACENT TO, UM, A RAIL LINE LIKE THIS IN TERMS OF PROXIMITY, WHETHER IT'S CLOSE SETBACK CONSIDERED FURTHER OR CLOSER? I THINK THE PD REGULATES THE SETBACKS FOR THE PROPERTY, BUT AS FAR AS DESIGN STANDARDS, I THINK THE BEST THING TO DO IS MAKE THE ATTENDANCE COMFORTABLE.
SO FIND SOME KIND OF WAY TO DESIGN TO, YOU KNOW, ALLEVIATE THE NOISE FROM THE TRAIN, COME IN, IN AND OUT.
SO MAYBE SOME KIND OF SCREENING OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONS? OKAY, THANK YOU.
WITH THE RECORD, UH, KIN AND KING, JOIN US AT 9:15 AM MORNING TODAY.
SO CASE NUMBER TWO IS, THIS IS REQUESTED FOR A MINOR AMENDMENT TO EXISTING DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
IT'S IN COUNCIL DISTRICT 13, AND IT IS LOCATED IN PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 8 85.
IT'S IN SUB AREA A AND PARTIALLY SUB AREA B.
IT'S LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF MIDWAY ROAD, SOUTH OF
THE PURPOSE OF THE REQUEST IS TO AMEND THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO ALLOW FOR THE EXPANSION OF A HEALTH CENTER AND THE RECONFIGURATION OF THE PARKING.
UM, SO THE REQUEST, THE APPLICANT
[00:15:01]
IS REQUESTING TO CONSTRUCT A HEALTH CENTER THAT'S ABOUT 5,500 SQUARE FEET.AND WITH THIS INCREASE, IT WILL INCREASE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE EXISTING GENERAL MERCHANDISE STORE.
UM, EXISTING RIGHT NOW THEY AT 190,000 AND SO IT'S GONNA BRING IT TO 190,500.
AND THEN ALSO THEY'RE GONNA RECONFIGURE SOME OF THE PARKING TO ACTUALLY GET THE HEALTH CENTER, UH, ON THE SITE.
AND SO THEY'RE GONNA GO FROM, UM, 692 SPACES TO 672 SPACES.
I CRUNCHED THE NUMBER AND IT DOES MEAN COMPLIANCE FOR THE, UH, RETAIL SPACE AT 652 SPACES REQUIRED AT 672 SPACES PROVIDED ON THIS ITEM.
HERE'S AN AREA VIEW OF THE PROPERTY SHOWING SUB AREA A AND AS I STATED EARLIER, SUB AREA B, HALF OF THE STRUCTURE, UH, OF THE RETAIL STORE, THE WALMART STORE ACTION SUB AREA B AS WELL.
AND THEN WE HAVE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, PROPERTIES TO THE WEST.
WE HAVE PH TWO SOUTH, WE HAVE A R 10 RESIDENTIAL.
UM, EAST WE HAVE A CR AND THEN A D A, WHICH IS A DUPLEX.
HERE IS THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
HERE'S THE LARS DEVELOPMENT PLAN WITH THE AREA OF REQUEST HIGHLIGHTED HERE.
HERE IS THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND HERE IS THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
UM, WITH THE AREA OF REQUEST SHOWN HERE, STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL.
AND THAT CONCLUDES OUR PRESENTATION.
THANK YOU SO MUCH QUESTIONS MR. STAN? UM, YES, UH, I HAVE A QUESTION, BUT I ALSO HAVE, I THINK THERE MIGHT NEED TO BE A CORRECTION ON THIS.
ON PAGE TWO IN THE PARAGRAPH AFTER REVIEWING, I THINK IT WAS MEANT TO SAY POSSIBLY SIGNIFICANTLY NOT SUFFICIENTLY.
DID YOU SEE THAT WORD? YOU CAN DO THAT LATER.
I'M JUST CURIOUS ABOUT SOMETHING SINCE IT'S IN MY AREA AND I SEE THAT WE HAVE ANOTHER CASE.
UH, IS THIS GONNA BE A WALMART SPONSOR HEALTH CLINIC? DO YOU KNOW? WELL, WHEN I ASKED THE ADVOCATE, HE'S SHAKING HIS HEAD, SO HE SHAKING HIS HEAD.
SO I DID ASK WAS IT A HEALTH CENTER AS FAR AS RETAIL HEALTH CENTER TO SELL ITEMS OR IS THERE GOING TO BE ACTUALLY A MEDICAL CLINIC GOING INTO THE SPACE? AND SO I WAS INFORMED THAT THERE WAS A MEDICAL CLINIC GOING IN AND THERE WILL HAVE, THEY WILL HAVE DOCUMENTS THAT, YEAH, I JUST WAS WONDERING IF IT WAS, I WAS JUST CURIOUS IF IT WAS A SEPARATE, LIKE WE HAVE THOSE MINUTE CLINICS OR YOU KNOW, THERE WERE SEPARATE ENTITIES OR IF IT WAS A WALMART STORE OF SPONSOR.
THAT'S WHAT I WAS CURIOUS ABOUT, YOU KNOW, IF WALMART WAS GETTING ANY BUSINESS OF, 'CAUSE I SAW THERE WAS ANOTHER ONE OF HAVING SPONSORING HEALTH CLINICS.
SO ANYWAY, THANK YOU FOR YOUR WORK QUESTIONS.
MS. FLU, I APOLOGIZE, BUT I DON'T THINK I HEARD YOU SAY THIS.
THERE'S EXISTING, UM, STREET, UM,
IS THE PLAN STILL COMPLIANT WITH ARTICLE 10? UM, YES MA'AM.
I HAD THE ARBORIST LOOK AT IT.
AND IS STILL IN COMPLIANCE WITH ARTICLE 10? YES, IT'S OKAY.
SO THEY'RE NOT REQUIRED, THEY'RE NOT REQUIRED TO PUT THOSE TWO TREES BACK TO WITH THIS NEW EXPANSION PROHIBITION? NO, MA'AM.
AS LONG AS THEY MEET ARTICLE 10 STANDARDS FOR PERMITTING, THEY SHOULD BE FINE.
CASE NUMBER THREE M 2 2 3 DASH 0 2 2 IS A REQUEST FOR A MINOR, A MINOR AMENDMENT TO THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
THE AREA REQUEST IS IN COUNCIL DISTRICT FLOOR AND IT'S LOCATED AT PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 8 63.
IT IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SHARP BOULEVARD AND R RL LEARNING SERVICE ROAD.
THE PURPOSE OF THIS REQUEST IS TO AMEN THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO ALLOW FOR A HEALTH CENTER, UH, RETAIL EXPANSION, AND THEN ALSO THE RECONFIGURATION OF PARKING.
SOME REQUEST WITH A COUPLE SQUARE FOOTAGE.
[00:20:01]
UM, SO THERE'S GONNA BE A ART OF PICKUP EXPANSION THAT'S GONNA GO AROUND 6,300 SQUARE FEET TO HAVE CENTER EXPANSION'S GONNA BE 5,500 SQUARE FEET.UM, SO THIS ALSO WOULD INCREASE THE FLOOR AREA FOR THE WALMART.
RIGHT NOW WE'RE LOOKING AT 191,882 AND IT'S GONNA BRING IT TO 2 0 3 AND SOME CHANGE.
UM, THE RECONFIGURATION OF PARKING IS GONNA GO FROM 8 54 SPACES TO 7 99.
THIS ALSO MEET THE REQUIREMENT AT 679 SPACES REQUIRED AND 7 99 SPACES ONSITE.
HERE IS THE AREA VIEW OF THE PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING, UH, ZONING DISTRICT.
ALONG THE WEST BOUNDARY WE HAVE CSS AND MC ONE, AND THEN NORTH WE HAVE MC ONE AS WELL.
AND THEN ALONG THE EAST BOUNDARY WE HAVE THE HIGHWAY RUNNING.
HERE'S THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
HERE'S THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT PLAN SHOWING THE AREA OF REQUESTS.
HERE'S THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND THEN ALSO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PLAN SHOWING THE AREA OF REQUEST WITH THE HELP CENTER ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE BUILDING.
AND THEN THE WEST SIDE, THEY'RE GONNA HAVE THE ON PICKUP.
AND THEN ALSO WE COULD FIGURE SOME OF THE PARKING TO HAVE THE, THE DRIVE IN, UH, PARKING TO PICK UP ORDERS AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
IF THIS IS APPROVAL, WHAT, CAN YOU GO BACK TO MY PAGE PLEASE? OKAY, YOU MAKE IT LITTLE FOR YES, I'M, UH, SO IS IT PAGE 11? NO, THAT'S 10 0 11 IS SOMETHING I HAD THAT'S 12, 11 IS FOR THE FINAL PAGE.
SO WAS IT ONE OF THE I NO, THE OTHER ONE THAT MAKE IT SEVEN SAYS SEVEN NOW SEVEN.
OKAY, LET, OKAY, LET ME ENLARGE NOW.
IT'S NOT, OKAY, SO, OH, SO THE, THE HEALTH CENTER IS ON THE NORTHEAST SIDE OF THE BUILDING AND ON THE WEST SIDE, WHAT, WHAT ARE YOU ARE DOING ON THAT WEST SIDE? SO IT'S FOR ART PICK UP.
SO IF YOU ORDER SOMETHING WITHIN THE STORY, YOU CAN, I KNOW THIS ONE, THIS, THIS STORY INTIMATELY.
UM, SO YOU HAVE, SO BOG YOU HAVE TWO AREAS OF, OF IMPACT, RIGHT? YES, MA'AM.
SO ON THE, AND I MISSED, I DIDN'T QUITE APPRECIATE AND, AND I APOLOGIZE.
ON THE AREA OF THE, THE SECTION THAT THE ORDER PICKUP, ARE YOU INCREASING IT WITH? WHAT CHANGES ARE YOU? IT'S INCREASING TO, UM, 63 6.
SO ORDER PICKUP EXPANSIONS IS GOING TO 6,300 SQUARE FEET.
DOES IT INCREASE THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACE IN THAT AREA FOR PEOPLE TO, TO DRIVE IN AND PICK UP? AND SO I, WHAT I DID THE CALCULATIONS FOR THE PARKING, THE WAY THE CODE READS IT OUT IS PER THE TOTAL AREA OF THE, OF THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE WALMART.
SO I JUST DID THAT AND DIVIDED, I THINK IT WAS ABOUT 200 OR WHATEVER THE NUMBER WAS, THINK I PUT IN THE CASE REPORT.
AND SO THAT'S HOW I CAME UP WITH THE NUMBER.
SO FROM WHAT THE APPLICANT HAD, WELL, I GUESS I CAN ASK AT THE, AT THE, UM, AT THE HEARING WHETHER THEY'RE INCREASING THE NUMBER OF, OF PARKING SPACES AT THE AREA OF PICKUP MM-HMM.
AND, AND I KNOW THAT IT, THE, AND SO ALTHOUGH YOU'RE SAYING THAT THE NUMBER OF SPACES ALLOW IS STILL APPROPRIATE MM-HMM.
SO, SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT THEY'RE ONLY REQUIREMENTS HAVE 679 SPACES IN THAT WHOLE PARKING LOT? MM-HMM.
DID ANY OTHER QUESTIONS MR. STAN, PLEASE? COMMISSIONER STAN.
I DIDN'T NEED TO TALK AMONGST
JUST FOLLOWING UP, JUST AGAIN OUTTA CURIOSITY 'CAUSE I'M A VERY PERSON ABOUT FUNCTIONALITY.
CAN WE GO BACK TO THAT PICTURE? SHE HAD, I GUESS PAGE NINE.
[00:25:01]
WELL, IT'S HARD TO TELL WHAT IT'S OKAY.SO I'M JUST CURIOUS ON THE PICKUP.
IS IT JUST DRIVE THROUGH AND THE PERSON RUNS OUT WITH WHAT YOU PICKED UP? I THINK THEY'RE ACTUALLY, YEAH, YOU PARK, THEY'RE SIGN AND YOU PICK A NUMBER WHEN YOU PARK AND THEN THEY COME AND BRING OUT, BRING OUT.
SO THOSE ARE THE PARKING SPACES NEXT TO, SO THEY HAVE PUT PARKING SPACES NEXT TO THE PICKUP AREA? YES, MA'AM.
SO THEY'VE JUST MOVED SOME THERE.
I THINK THEY WERE EXISTING, THEY GONNA RETRIP AND PUT SIGN UP SO THAT WAY WE CAN COME AND PICK UP.
I WAS JUST CURIOUS OF HOW THAT WORKED WHEN YOU AT FIRST SAID THERE ARE NO ADDITIONAL ONES, BUT THEY ARE PROVIDING THEM AT THAT LOCATION.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM? COMMISSIONERS? OKAY, WE'LL KEEP MOVING.
DECEMBER FOUR WILL BE HELD UNDER ADVISOR.
OKAY, I KNOW THAT NUMBER FOUR IS BEING HELD OVER.
I SUPPOSE THIS IS FOR, UH, DR HOW DO YOU DEFINE CLUSTER HOUSING? OH, IT'S FOR CODE.
WELL, I COULDN'T SEE, I HAVE A PAGE THAT SAID CLUSTER, BUT THERE WASN'T MUCH THAT WHAT QUALIFIES AS CLOSER, DO YOU KNOW? NO, I DON'T.
BUT I, I SEE THEY, I'M PULLING UP THE BIG AND DON'T, IT DOESN'T REALLY HAVE ANY FORM REGULATIONS.
IT'S JUST A CERTAIN DENSITY OF MIXED SINGLE AND MULTIFAMILY.
YEAH, IT SAID 18 IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY.
AND I GUESS THE REASON I'M BRINGING IT UP WHEN THIS IS DEALT WITH, WHAT, UH, HELD OVER WAS, IS THERE A POSSIBILITY THAT THIS COULD QUALIFY FOR CLUSTERED HOUSING? AND I WANTED ZONING DISTRICT.
I THINK IT HAS SQUARE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT.
I REMEMBER REQUIREMENT FOR OPEN.
DO YOU HAVE THAT? DOES IT SAY WHAT IT REQUIRES? YEAH, I GOT IT RIGHT HERE FOR OPEN.
WELL, NO, FOR WHAT IS, BECAUSE THE DEFINITION AND THE REQUIREMENTS OF CLUSTER GAS, THE PURPOSE IS TO PROVIDE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND PROTECTION AREAS OF MODERATE DENSITY STATE HOUSING WITH FLEXIBILITY TO ALLOW COMMON HOUSING SPACE.
SO IF IT ALLOWS FOR BIG OPEN LAND TO BE CONSERVED AND ALL THE HOUSES TOGETHER AND PRESERVE SOME THEIR LAND, THEY'LL CONSIDER CLOSE.
SO YOU CAN'T CLUSTER THE HOUSES AND HAVING THE LAND AROUND IT.
YOU CAN'T, CAN'T IS A, WHY COULDN'T YOU SAY THAT? NINE CLUSTER TONES AND THEN THE AREA AROUND IT IS THE OPEN SPACE.
WELL, DID SAY IT DIDN'T SAY THAT MUCH.
SO THAT'S A MINIMUM SIZE FOR DISTRICT.
OKAY, WE'LL GO TO CASE NUMBER FIVE.
UH, THE REQUEST IS FOR A TH THREE, A TOWNHOUSE SUBDISTRICT ON PROPERTIES OWNED R FIVE, A SINGLE FAMILY SUBDISTRICT WITH PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 5 9 5 SOUTH DALLAS FAIR PARK SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICT.
UH, IT'S LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST LINE OF SYDNEY STREET, NORTHEAST OF SECOND AVENUE IS ABOUT 7,100 SQUARE FEET.
LOCATION MAP SHOWING THE PROPERTY AND THE CITY LIMITS AERIAL MAP WITH THE REQUEST AREA OUTLINED IN BLUE SONY MAP WITH SURROUNDING DISTRICTS AND LAND USES.
UH, SO TO THE NORTHEAST, UH, ARE SOME SINGLE FAMILY USES AS WELL AS SOME UNDEVELOPED LOTS.
UH, SOUTHEAST, MORE SINGLE FAMILY.
AND THE LITTLE FURTHER OUT ON EITHER SIDE OF HANCOCK STREET IS IN CHURCH, UH, THE SOUTHWEST, OUR SINGLE FAMILY
[00:30:01]
USES MORE SINGLE FAMILY TO THE NORTHWEST, UH, AS WELL AS SEVERAL UNDEVELOPED LOTS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF SYDNEY STREET.AND THEN FURTHER OUT TOWARD L C FAS, UH, UNDEVELOPED LOTS.
UM, AND THEN AS WE MOVE A LITTLE FURTHER SOUTHWEST, UH, DOWN TO THE SECOND AVENUE, UM, ZONE, THE COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT WITHIN PD 5 95, WE HAVE SOME TYPICAL RETAIL USES, UH, GENERAL MERCHANDISE AS WELL AS AN ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE ESTABLISHMENT.
SO SOME BACKGROUND, UH, THIS IS CURRENTLY ZONED IN R FIVE A SUBDISTRICT WITHIN PD 5 95.
THE APPLICANT DEVELOPED, UH, EXCUSE ME, PROPOSES TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTY WITH RESIDENTIAL USES AND TO ALLOW FOR THOSE TO REQUESTING A TH THREE MADE SUBDISTRICT, WHICH WOULD ALLOW BOTH SINGLE FAMILY AND DUPLEX USES.
IN ADDITION TO THIS REQUEST, THE APPLICANT HAS ALSO VOLUNTEERED DEED RESTRICTIONS THAT WOULD LIMIT THE PROPERTY TO A MAXIMUM OF TWO DWELLING UNITS.
UH, RESTRICT THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT TO 30 FEET, RESTRICT MAXIMUM MOD COVERAGE TO 45% AND REQUIRE A 20 FOOT FRONT YARD ON SYDNEY STREET.
THIS IS BEING VOLUNTEERED, UH, IN AN EFFORT TO, UH, ENSURE THE, UH, PROPOSED USE COMPLIES WITH THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OF THE ADJACENT R FIVE A LOTS.
UM, SO SITE PHOTOS, THIS IS ON SYDNEY STREET LOOKING SOUTHEAST AT THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY.
AND THEN WE'RE KIND OF GOING IN A, UH, COUNTERCLOCKWISE DIRECTION ALONG SYDNEY STREET.
UH, LOOKING FURTHER DOWN, SYDNEY, UH, YOU CAN SEE SOME OF THESE VACANT R FIVE A LOGS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STREETS.
AND THEN, UH, FURTHER DOWN TOWARDS SECOND AVENUE, YOU CAN SEE SOME, SOME, UH, SINGLE FAMILY HOMES UNDER CONSTRUCTION ON THE OTHER SIDE OF SYDNEY STREET, FURTHER DOWN TOWARDS SECOND.
AND THESE ARE THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OF THE EXISTING R FIVE A SUBDISTRICT AS RESULT AS THE PROPOSED TH THREE A SUBDISTRICT.
AND I ALSO INCLUDED A, A ROW FOR, UM, HOW THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WOULD BE RESTRICTED WITH THOSE VOLUNTEER DEEDED RESTRICTIONS.
UM, SO TYPICALLY IN A TH THREE A DISTRICT, THERE WOULD NOT BE ANY FRONT YARD SETBACK.
UM, HOWEVER, DUE TO BLOCK BASED CONTINUITY, UM, THE MORE RESTRICTIVE FRONT SETBACK OF ALL THE ZONING DISTRICTS ON THE
UM, SO THE 20 FOOT FRONT YARD OF THE ADJACENT R FIVE A LOTS WOULD APPLY TO THIS PH THREE A LOT.
UH, AND THEN AGAIN, THE, UM, DEEDED RESTRICTIONS ARE JUST REINFORCING, UM, THAT 20 FOOT FRONT YARD.
UM, ANOTHER THING, DEEDED RESTRICTIONS ARE DOING LIMITING THE MAXIMUM DWELLING UNITS DOWN TO A MAXIMUM TWO.
UM, THE HEIGHT AND THE BASE PH THREE A DISTRICT WOULD BE 36 FEET, HOWEVER, THEY ARE RESTRICTING THAT TO 30 FEET TO COMPLY WITH THE R FIVE A LOTS.
UM, ALSO DOING SOMETHING SIMILAR WITH THE BLOCK COVERAGE, IT WOULD USUALLY BE 60%, BUT THEY'RE RESTRICTING IT DOWN TO 45% WITH THAT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO FEE RESTRICTIONS VOLUNTEERED BY THE APPLICANT.
AND I'M AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS.
AND THERE ARE QUESTIONS MR. YOUNG, UH, DO YOU KNOW IF THIS IS CURRENTLY ONE LOT OR TWO? I BELIEVE IT'S ONE LOT.
BECAUSE I LOOK AT THE VICINITY MAP AND I SEE A LINE HORIZONTALLY THROUGH THE MIDDLE OF THE PROPERTY, BUT THEN I LOOK AT THE AERIAL MAP AND IT'S A SINGLE TAX PARCEL.
YOU MEAN THIS PARCEL LINE RIGHT HERE? THE YELLOW LINE? UH, YES, THAT'S A SINGLE PARCEL, BUT IF YOU, IF YOU HAVE THE VICINITY MAP SLIDES NOT UM, WELL IN ANY EVENT, UM, AS FAR AS YOU KNOW, THE APPLICANT CONTEMPLATES A SINGLE LOCK, CORRECT? THEY DID NOT.
WASN'T THIS ITEM PREVIOUSLY, UH, DENIED FOR, FOR A DUPLEX? UH, THAT'S CORRECT.
THIS REQUEST WAS PREVIOUSLY BEFORE THE COMMISSION AS A DUPLEX DISTRICT.
UH, IT WAS RECOMMENDED FOR DENIAL BY THE COMMISSION AND THEN APPEALED BY THE APPLICANT.
UH, AND THEN WE MANDATED TO CITY PLANNING COMMISSION BY CITY COUNCIL.
UM, AND SINCE THEN, UM, THE REQUEST HAS BEEN REVISED TO THAT TH THREE A SUBDISTRICT
BUT THIS IS PRETTY MUCH THE SAME APPLICATION, JUST A DIFFERENT, THE APPLICANT IS REALLY IS STILL WANTING THE SAME THING, JUST COULDN'T BE RESTRICTIONS.
BUT WAS IT ALSO, UM, UM, HOW ABOUT THE, THE WIDTH OF THE, THAT
[00:35:01]
THAT PARTICULAR STRIP IS, IS, IS IT NARROW? PRETTY NARROW? THE, WE GO TO THE STREET 56 FEET IN FRONT OF THE HIGHWAY.UM, AND I CAN GO BACK TO THE SITE PHOTOS.
UM, IT IS A FAIRLY NARROW STREET THAT KIND OF IS A GOOD PHOTO OF THE WIDTH OF THE STREET.
UM, AND THEN WE ALSO, UM, ONE OF THE REASONS FOR DENIAL LAST TIME WAS BECAUSE IT'S SPOT ZONE, IT SOMEWHAT SPOT ZONE COMMISSIONER NOT SPOT ZONING.
WHAT WAS COMMISSIONER? COMMISSIONER SPOT ZONING IS A LEGAL TERM OF ART THAT HAS A SPECIFIC MEANING.
AND I WOULD TRY TO AVOID THAT BECAUSE ONLY A COURT CAN DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT SOMETHING IS
SO IS IT A MIDBLOCK UH,
SO THEREFORE THE HOUSES AND THE, THE, THE REST OF THE LOTS WILL KIND OF LIKE LOSE SOME OF THEIR DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS.
AND I THINK IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT, THERE'S ALREADY A HOUSE THAT'S BUILT A LITTLE BIT OF CLOSER, CLOSER FOR THEIR FRONT YARD.
SO THAT'S WHY WHEN IT'S DUPLEX MID BLOCK, YOU NEED TO BE VERY, WE NEED TO BE VERY CAREFUL BECAUSE OF THE BLOCK CASE CONTINUITY.
SO I, I RECALL THAT IT WAS MULTIPLE REASONS FOR, FOR THAT DENIAL, BUT IT WAS, IT WASN'T JUST THAT IT WAS MULTIPLE REASONS, IT WAS A DENIAL.
UM, I RECOMMENDED DENIAL A RIDE ALONG.
YEAH, AND TO KIND OF PIGGYBACK UP ON ANDREA'S COMMENTS, UM, THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS THE REVISED REQUEST IS FOR A T THREE A SUBDISTRICT, THE BASE TH THREE A DISTRICT DOES NOT HAVE A FRONT YARD, HAS A ZERO FOOT FRONT YARD.
SO IT WOULD NOT IMPOSE AN ADDITIONAL FIVE FEET, UM, THAT THE DUPLEX DISTRICT WOULD ON THOSE ADJACENT R FIVE A LOTS RATHER.
WITH THIS REVISED REQUEST, THE R FIVE A LOTS ARE IMPOSING THEIR 20 FOOT FRONT YARD ON THE TH THREE A LOT.
UM, THAT WOULD BE IN CODE UNDER THE BLOCK BASED CONTINUITY CONDITION.
AND THEN IN ADDITION TO THAT, JUST TO ENSURE A LITTLE BIT MORE COMFORTABILITY, UM, THE APPLICANT HAS VOLUNTEERED A RESTRICTION, UM, THAT YOU KNOW, SPECIFICALLY IMPOSES A 20 FOOT FRONT YARD ON THIS LOT JUST TO ABSOLUTELY ENSURE THROUGH BLOCK BASED CONTINUITY AND THE DEEDED RESTRICTIONS, UM, THAT THAT FRONT YARD IS MAINTAINED.
FOLLOWING UP ON THAT, I'M JUST CURIOUS 'CAUSE I REMEMBER ANDREA EXPLAINING THIS BEFORE, BUT BASICALLY WHY WOULD YOU NOT USE TH ONE OR TH TWO? WHY HAVE YOU ENDED UP THAT IT'S TH THREE AND THEN YOU DO ALL THE D RESTRICTIONS? IS THERE SOMETHING DIFFERENT ABOUT A SETBACK ON TH THREE? VERY GOOD QUESTION.
UM, WE HAVE TH ONE, TWO, AND THREE AND, UM, BETWEEN ALL THREE T HT TH DISTRICTS, UM, THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IN TERMS OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IS DENSITY.
EVERYTHING ELSE IS EXACTLY THE SAME MINIMUM LOT SIZE, UH, ZERO FOOT, FRONT YARD SETBACK, ALL THAT KIND OF STUFF.
UM, IN A TH THREE A DISTRICT, YOU'RE ALLOWED A MAXIMUM OF 12 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE.
AND YOU CAN SEE ON MY TABLE, I'M HAPPY TO ZOOM IN ON THERE.
UM, SO WHY DID WE DO T H THREE? UH, THE LOT IS ABOUT 7,100 SQUARE FEET AND WITH A DWELLING UNIT DENSITY OF 12 JUNE DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE, UH, YOU NEED ABOUT AN AVERAGE OF 3,600 SQUARE FEET PER DWELLING UNIT TO MEET THAT DENSITY REQUIREMENT.
UM, AND BEING THAT THE LOT IS 7,100 SQUARE FEET, UH, TH ONE OR TH TWO WOULD NOT ALLOW FOR TWO DWELLING UNITS AND A TH ONE.
UM, IT'S A MAXIMUM OF SIX PER ACRE AND THEN TWO, IT IS A MAXIMUM OF NINE 12 METER SQUARE AC.
SO THE AVERAGE SQUARE FOOTAGE YOU WOULD NEED PER DWELLING UNIT IN THOSE DISTRICTS WOULD BE TOO MUCH IN ORDER TO PUT TWO DWELLING UNITS ON THE LOT.
WHEN WE ONLY NEED 3,600 SQUARE FEET AVERAGE, YOU CAN DO TWO UNITS.
SO YOU DID IT, YOU GET A SMALLER REQUIREMENT FOR SIZE.
AND THAT KIND MAKES SENSE BECAUSE I DID NOT GET THAT BEFORE.
AND THEN AGAIN, TO SORT OF COMPLIMENT THAT, JUST LIKE WITH THE FRONT YARD STEP BACK, YOU CAN SEE HERE ON THE TABLE WITH THE DEEDED RESTRICTIONS, UM, UNDER BASE CODE, IT'S VERY LIKELY THAT THEY COULD ONLY GET A MAXIMUM OF TWO DWELLING UNITS ON THE SITE 'CAUSE OF THAT BASE, UH, DWELLING UNIT DENSITY.
[00:40:01]
BUT AGAIN, TO ENSURE A LITTLE BIT MORE COMFORTABILITY, UM, THEY ARE LIMITING THE PROPERTY TO A MAXIMUM OF TWO DWELLING UNITS.TWO, THEY PROBABLY HAPPEN ANYWAY, BUT THE DE RESTRICTIONS JUST WE'RE VERY SPECIFIC.
TWO OTHER QUESTIONS THAT REALLY HELPED.
'CAUSE THEN IN THE FUTURE WE CAN UNDERSTAND THAT TWO OTHER WITH ACTUALLY THREE OTHER QUESTIONS.
JUST QUICKLY, IS GENTLE DENSITY NOW A CODE TERM OR IS THAT A PLANNER'S TERM? I'M JUST CURIOUS, MISSING MIDDLE.
SO WE'RE TALKING SORT OF INFILL KIND OF THING, RIGHT? THE, THE KIND OF LIKE, THERE'S NOT A CODE TERM FOR ANY OF THOSE.
IT'S NOT TYPICALLY SOMETHING YOU WOULD FIND IN A DEVELOPMENT CODE.
THE SORT OF LIKE INDUSTRY STANDARD TERM, IF YOU GO TO A PLANNING CONFERENCE AND YOU HEAR PEOPLE THROWING AROUND BUZZWORDS IS MISSING MIDDLE.
UM, GENTLE DENSITY WAS A PHRASE THAT I'VE BEEN HERE BEFORE I CAME HERE, BUT I DO LIKE, IT'S KIND OF, I KNOW IF I HEARD MISSING MIDDLE WITH LOW CAP ONE MORE TIME.
SO NO NERDING ON PLANNING THE MISSING METAL CAN MEAN ANYTHING, WHICH CAN ALSO MEAN A HIGHER DENSITY WORK.
AND GENTLE DENSITY JUST TO LIKE EXPLAIN THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS.
NOT SOMETHING SUDDENLY A HUGE APARTMENT ABSOLUTE OF, AND THEN ANOTHER TERMINAL HERE IS CONTEXT SENSITIVITY.
SO I FEEL LIKE GENTLE DENSITY KIND OF LIKE ENCAPSULATES.
I WAS JUST CURIOUS ABOUT THAT.
I HAVE TWO OTHER QUESTIONS WHICH ARE IN THERE QUICK, WHICH IS, IS THIS, HAVE YOU, HAVE YOU ASKED THE NEIGHBORS ABOUT THIS AND WHAT HAS BEEN THE RESPONSE? AND IS HOW IS THIS IN THE MIDDLE OF THE BLOCK, NOT THE CORNER? WE HAD ANOTHER CASE LIKE THIS THAT WAS THE CORNER.
IS THIS THE ONE THAT HAS SINGLE FAMILY ON THE CENTER? SORRY, I CAN'T ANSWER YOUR SECOND QUESTION.
CAN'T ANSWER YOUR FIRST ONE, BUT THE APPLICANT WILL BE HERE THIS AFTERNOON TO TALK ABOUT THE COMMUNITY ATION.
THERE WAS NOT THE COMMUNITY, THERE WAS NOT COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT.
HE TALKED TO ONE PERSON AND HE DID NOT TALK TO THE NEIGHBORS.
THE SAME THING WE RECOMMENDED DID LAST NIGHT FOR HIM TO TALK TO THE NEIGHBORS.
JUST A, A QUICK FOLLOW UP QUESTION ON COMMISSIONER WHEELER'S QUESTION TO DR.
WHEN YOU WERE REFERRING TO FEW REASON FOR DENIAL LAST TIME, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT STASS RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDING YES.
AND THE SOLE REASON WAS THE YES.
THE COMMISSION MAY HAD OTHER REASONS FOR RECOMMENDING YES, BUT STAFFS ONE CALL WHAT THIS WAS THE BLOCK BASED CO ISSUE.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? UM, JUST ONE QUICK FOLLOW UP TO COMMISSIONER STANFORD QUESTION WITH YOU MR. MUL.
UH, WHEN AN APPLICANT COMES IN AND WE'RE, WE'RE ESSENTIALLY HAVING TO DO THIS KIND OF JEDI MIND TRIP WITH THE CODE TO ALLOW TO EVEN CONSIDER, YOU KNOW, WHAT WE'RE CONSIDERING HERE.
IS THAT MAYBE A REFLECTION OF THE AGE OF OUR CODE OR CODE THAT DOESN'T PART INTO ACCOUNT THIS KIND OF, YOU KNOW, UH, DENSITY FROM, YOU KNOW, THE EIGHTIES, LATE EIGHTIES? UM, YEAH, I, I WOULD SAY YES.
UM, I ALWAYS HAVE TO SAY THIS, IT'S JUST A FUNNY LITTLE QUIP.
OUR CODE IS ONE YEAR OLDER THAN I AM.
UM, UH, YEAH, I I DON'T THINK, UM, IN 1987, LIKE I SAID, IT WASN'T ALIVE THEN, BUT I DON'T THINK, UM, WE WERE HAVING SOME OF THESE DISCUSSIONS ABOUT, YOU KNOW, BEING IN A HOUSING CRISIS AND REALLY NEEDING, UH, A LOT MORE HOUSING UNITS THAN WHAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE AND YOU KNOW, HOW WE'RE GOING TO COME UP WITH SOLUTIONS TO ADDRESS THAT ISSUE.
UM, I AM GONNA TAKE A SHOT IN THE DARK AND SAY THAT IN 1987, YOU KNOW, WE WERE STILL VERY MUCH IN THE MINDSET OF DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AS SORT OF THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE IN QUOTES.
UM, AS FAR AS RESIDENTIAL IS CONCERNED.
UM, YEAH, THAT'S KIND OF WHAT I CAN, IT'S NOT A BOMBER MATERIAL.
DOESN'T THIS CASE BOIL DOWN TO A POLICY DECISION OF DO WE WANT DUPLEX IN THE MIDDLE OF A SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD OR NOT? SURE.
UM, I WOULD ALSO KIND OF ADD TO THAT, THAT, UM, WITH A CASE LIKE THIS AS WELL AS THE OTHER SORT OF POTENTIAL DENSITY CASES THAT WE'VE HAD RECENTLY, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO KIND OF CONSIDER WHAT VALUES OR GOALS OR OBJECTIVES ARE UNDERPINNING OUR DIALOGUE ABOUT THIS, OUR DECISION MAKING.
UM, ONE OF THE VALUES AT PLAY COULD BE THAT, YOU KNOW, SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS NEED TO BE PRESERVED AS THEY ARE.
UM, I'M NOT MAKING VALUE JUDGEMENTS ABOUT THAT.
THAT'S MY JOB AS CITY STAFF IS TO REMAIN NEUTRAL.
BUT THAT COULD BE A VALUE THAT'S INFLUENCING DECISION MAKING.
UH, ANOTHER VALUE COULD BE, LIKE I SAID, WE, WE ARE HAVING,
[00:45:01]
UH, THESE SORT OF HOUSING CRISES WHERE WE NEED TO FIND WAYS TO ADD MORE HOUSING UNITS TO THE CITY.UM, THAT'S ANOTHER VALUE THAT COULD BE, UM, UNDERPINNING OUR DECISION MAKING.
UM, I WOULD ALSO, UH, JUST SUGGEST THAT THOSE TWO VALUES MAY NOT BE IN CONFLICT WITH EACH OTHER.
THERE MAY BE, UM, OPPORTUNITIES FOR, UM, MIDDLE GROUND AND CONSENSUS AND WHATNOT.
UM, BETWEEN THOSE TWO VALUES OR REALLY ANY OTHER KIND OF VALUES THAT WOULD INFLUENCE DECISION MAKING HERE.
WELL, I HAVE A LOT OF OTHER THINGS TO SAY, BUT I THINK WE ALL HAVE THAT.
SO PIGGY COMMISSIONER JOHN WOULDN'T, ARE WE, WE KNOW WE'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF A HOUSING CRISIS AND THAT WE, UM, BUT WE ALSO WANNA PROTECT A SINGLE FAMILY HOME.
BUT ARE WE ALSO LOOKING, WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT THESE PLACES AND YOU'RE LOOKING AT OTHER ALTERNATE, UM, UM, ARE WE GOING, IS THIS BECAUSE IT'S BECOME, IT SEEMS LIKE EVEN THOUGH YOU, I KNOW WHAT YOU'RE GONNA SAY WHEN I SAY THIS, UM, CASE BY CASE INSTEAD OF WE JUST NEED TO PUT THE, UM, AS WE KNOW, I MEAN IF YOU DON'T KNOW THIS, APPLICANT HAS TWO ON THE AGENDA TODAY AND, AND THEY'RE NOT, THEY FURTHER CLOSE TO EACH OTHER.
ONE IS APPROVAL AND I MEAN BOTH OF 'EM ARE SET FOR APPROVAL.
ONE OF 'EM FITS THAT APPROVAL BETTER BECAUSE OF WHERE IT SIT.
SO WHAT YOU BELIEVE MEAN, HOW DO YOU, UM, EVALUATE THAT BOTH OF THEM WAS FOR APPROVAL WHEN ONE ACTUALLY CAN FIT? WE CAN SEE WHY.
BUT THIS ONE, WE DENIED IT FOR A REASON LAST TIME.
AND THE REASON IS BECAUSE OF IT WAS, UH, BECAUSE OF WHERE, WHERE IT SAT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE BLOCK.
UH, PART OF IT WAS WE DID LOOK AT LAST TIME THE STREET, THE WEEK OF THE STREET.
SO, 'CAUSE I I I THINK WHERE YOU ARE MORE LAST TIME FOR SOME OF THOSE ITEMS. SO THE QUESTION IS, HOW DID STAFF EVALUATE THIS CASE WHEN IT WAS, WHEN THE REQUEST ITSELF WAS REVISED? I DON'T THINK I, BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW IF I CAN INCLUDE BOTH OF 'EM.
CAN I SPEAK ABOUT BOTH OF 'EM AT THE SAME TIME? NO.
IS THE SITE APPLICANT NOT, IT IS JUST THIS ONE, THE 2 1, 2, 3, 5 4 AT THIS POINT.
UM, I, SO I CAN, I CAN SAY HOW STAFF EVALUATED THIS, UM, DIFFERENTLY THAN THE REQUEST AS IT ORIGINALLY WAS PROPOSED.
UM, LIKE ANDREA SAID, UH, ONE OF OUR, ONE OF STAFFS PRIMARY REASONS FOR RECOMMENDING DENIAL LAST TIME WAS BECAUSE OF THAT BLOCK FIXED CONTINUITY ISSUE, DUPLEX DISTRICT WOULD POSE THAT PROBLEM, UM, WITHIN THIS AREA.
UM, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION ON THIS REVISED REQUEST IS DIFFERENT.
WE'RE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL NOW WITH THOSE FEED RESTRICTIONS, UM, BECAUSE YOU KNOW THAT THAT ISSUE HAS GONE AWAY.
UM, YOU KNOW, I I THINK, UM, SINCE THE COMMISSION ORIGINALLY DISCUSSED THIS CASE VERSUS NOW WE'RE DISCUSSING IT TODAY, I THINK, UM, WE'VE HAD A LOT OF DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THIS AND DEVELOPED SOME POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS.
YOU KNOW, I HAVE A CASE, UM, I THINK IT'S GOING TO COUNCIL NEXT WEEK THAT THE COMMISSION DID RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF, UM, IT WAS SIMILAR TO THIS.
IT HAD SOME OF THOSE FEE RESTRICTIONS.
I THINK THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF LEARNING AND GROWTH THROUGHOUT THAT, THAT TIMELINE.
UM, AND WE CAN SEE THAT REFLECTED IN THE REQUEST.
I THINK THE APPLICANT HAS, UM, DONE WHAT THEY NEED TO DO TO ENSURE GREATER COMPATIBILITY WITH THIS PROPOSAL WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA.
UM, SO THAT'S KIND OF WHAT STAFF EVALUATED HERE.
SO I MAYBE NEED TO, SO, 'CAUSE I'M ALMOST FOR SURE AT WHEN WE GET BEFORE THE, THE, UM, WHEN WE GO BEFORE WHEN WE START THE HEARING, THE APPLICANT IS GONNA REFER TO ONE OF THOSE CASES YOU'RE TALKING TO AND, AND THIS PARTICULAR CASE, THE NEXT CASE SAYS YES.
IF, IF, IF, UM, SO WE, UM, WE'LL CONSIDER 'EM SEPARATELY.
SO DO WE TAKE THIS STUFF, CONSENT? THIS OF THE NOT, WE ACTUALLY DON'T HAVE IT.
I'M TRYING TO MAKE SURE MY BRAIN, BUT TO YOUR POINT, COMMISSIONER WHEELER, IF THE APPLICANT TRIES TO MENTION BOTH CASES WHILE WE'RE CONSIDERING ONE OF THE CASES, DANIEL WILL SAY THE SAME THING TO HIM.
BUT COMMISSIONER
UM, IN AN ABSTRACT WAY PERHAPS, UM, IN A MORE, YOU KNOW, PRAGMATIC WAY.
[00:50:01]
I I, THIS IS JUST KIND OF ME, MY PROFESSIONAL OPINION, I DON'T SEE ANY REAL SUBSTANTIVE DIFFERENCE.UM, I UNDERSTAND THAT A LOT AT THE END OF THE BLOCK OR AT THE CORNER, UM, UH, MIGHT BE A LITTLE BIT EASIER TO SELL, YOU KNOW, UM, BUT YOU KNOW, AS YOU CAN SEE ON THESE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, WHETHER IT'S MID-BLOCK OR CORNER OR END OF A BLOCK OR WHATEVER, I MEAN THE SAME KIND OF, UM, COMPATIBILITY CAN STILL BE GUARANTEED, YOU KNOW, THROUGH THE CREATIVE ZONING SOLUTIONS AND DE RESTRICTIONS AND AND WHATNOT.
SO ON A MORE HOLISTIC LEVEL, THIS MAYBE SOMETHING FOR FUTURE RECONCILIATION.
IF WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO TRY TO MAKE OUR EXISTING CODE FIT INFILL HOUSING, SHOULD THERE BE CONSIDERATION OF A RESIDENTIAL INFILL HOUSING HISTORY? I THINK THAT'S A GREAT POINT TO MAKE ON THE RECORD FOR FUTURE DISCUSSIONS.
YEAH, I'LL, I'LL EXPOUND ON THAT A LITTLE BIT.
SO I'M USING EVERY QUESTION IS AN EXCUSE TO EXPOUND, BUT
UM, WE ARE SORT OF BY DEFINITION ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS, YOU KNOW, IT IS INCREMENTAL IN NATURE.
UM, HOWEVER, I WOULDN'T BE THE MANAGER OF THIS SECTION IF I DIDN'T THINK INCREMENTAL CHANGE WAS IMPORTANT AND THAT IT LED TO BIGGER CHANGE OVER TIME.
COMMISSIONER? YEAH, MY, UH, QUESTION I WAS GONNA ASK THE SAME THING THE COMMISSIONER HAMPTON DID AND THEN I WAS GONNA GO ONE STEP FURTHER, NOT ONLY THE MIDDLE OF THE BLOCK IF THAT'S A CONSIDERATION, BUT, AND YOU SORT OF SPOKE TO THIS, YOUR PERSONAL OPINION, BUT DO YOU LOOK AT SOMETHING THAT'S A DUPLEX OTHER THAN THE FACT THAT THE BLOCK FACE AND SAY, OH NO, THIS IS SINGLE FAMILY, THIS CAN'T GO HERE.
PROFESSIONAL OPINION, NOT PERSONAL OPINION.
UM, YEAH, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S REALLY, IT'S REALLY NOT WHAT, WHAT STAFF'S ANALYSIS INVOLVES.
UM, WE MAY START WITH GENERAL IMPRESSIONS, YOU KNOW, GENERAL COMPRESSIONS WOULD BE, OH, YOU'RE PROPOSING A DUPLEX ON A SINGLE ONLY BLACK PLACE.
I DUNNO HOW I FEEL ABOUT THAT.
AND, AND, AND WE HOPE THAT THE COMMISSION DOES NOT STOP WITH THAT GENERAL IMPRESSION EITHER.
YOU KNOW, WE DIG INTO DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, WE DIG INTO THE POSSIBILITY OF D RESTRICTIONS OR OTHER TOOLS THAT WE HAVE IN OUR TOOL BELT, UM, TO HOPEFULLY ARRIVE AT SOME SORT OF SOLUTION.
AND I DO THINK, UH, YOU KNOW, IT'S HARD TO PUT THIS AS A QUESTION.
I DO THINK GOING TO WHAT COMMISSIONER HAMPTON SAID, IF WE CAN'T USE THESE DISCUSSIONS WHEN THESE CASES COME UP AND WE KEEP GETTING, WE GET THE SAME DISCUSSION TO LEAD US TO CHANGING CODE AND MODIFYING IT TO FIT TODAY'S TIME AND TODAY'S NEEDS, THEN IT'S A WASTE OF TIME FOR US TO HAVE DISCUSSIONS.
I THINK IT SHOULD LEAD, YOU KNOW, TO THOSE THINGS THAT, YOU KNOW, WHY ARE WE CONSIDERING DUPLEX AS A DIRTY WORD IN THE MIDDLE OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING? I'VE GOT 'EM A BLOCK FROM ME IN PRESTON HOLLOW AND I THINK THEY'RE WONDERFUL, BUT THAT'S A COMMENT ANYWAY.
DON'T YOU AGREE
I REALLY DO TRULY THINK THESE DISCUSSIONS, ALTHOUGH ON A BASIC LEVEL THEY ARE INCREMENTAL, THEY ARE CASE BY CASE.
UM, THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY WITH THE COMMISSIONERS, WITH STAFF, WITH, I MEAN WE, WE HAD YOUR, YOUR CASE AT, AT AUGUST 3RD WHERE WE HAD A SPEAKER TO SOMEONE IN THE COMMUNITY, UM, COME OUT AND OFFER ALL THESE WONDERFUL SOLUTIONS ABOUT TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT.
YOU KNOW, I THINK AT THE END OF THE DAY, THIS IS CASE BY CASE.
WE HAVE TO STICK TO THESE PROPERTIES, BUT THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THOUGHT LEADERSHIP.
THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR INFLUENCING, I HATE THAT WORD SO MUCH IF IT'S SO OVERUSED.
UM, BUT HERE ARE OPPORTUNITIES.
UH, YES, MR. MUL ON YOUR REPORT, PAGE FIVE 11, THERE'S THE GREAT SATELLITE PHOTO OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT.
AND I WAS WONDERING IF YOU HAD NOTICED THAT OF THE R FIVE LOTS DEPICTED IN THAT SATELLITE PHOTO, THAT HALF OF THEM ARE VACANT WITH NO STRUCTURES ON THEM.
AND I WAS CURIOUS WHAT CONCLUSION YOU MIGHT DRAW FROM THAT.
[00:55:01]
AND THEN, BUT, AND THE SECOND PART OF, BEFORE YOU ANSWER, HAVE YOU LOOKED AT GOOGLE EARTH AND CLICKED ON DATE TIME THAT THE DATES CROSSED THE BOTTOM AND NOTICED THAT IN GOOGLE EARTH, THAT IT HAS BEEN, AS I DESCRIBED, FOR AT LEAST 25 YEARS? YEAH, I DIDN'T DO LIKE A TIME LAPSE THING ON THIS ONE.UM, I HAD A CASE IN DISTRICT FIVE AT THE END OF LAST YEAR THAT WAS ALSO KIND OF A CREATIVE TOWNHOUSE DISTRICT SOLUTION.
UH, I DID DO TIME LAPSE ON STREET VIEW ON THAT ONE AND IT HAD BEEN VACANT FOR LIKE 10 OR 15 YEARS, YOU KNOW, WHICH CAN GIVE US AN INDICATION OF, OF, UM, DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS IN THE AREA.
UM, YEAH, YOU KNOW, AND, AND WOULD ONE DRAW CONCLUSIONS ABOUT THE, THE MOMENTUM OF SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT? FROM THOSE OBSERVATIONS? ONE COULD POSSIBLY DRAW THOSE CONCLUSIONS.
MR. WOULD YOU ALSO SAY THAT WHEN IN THAT AREA THAT DEVELOPMENT IS WRAPPING AND THE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, THERE ARE HOUSES BEING BUILT, UM, IN THAT AREA ALMOST EVERY DAY WITH YOUR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.
YOU COULD ALSO SEE ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF CITY, THEY WRAP UP THE BUILDING, SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, THEY'RE WRAP BUILDING SINGLE FAMILY HOMES IN THAT AREA AND WELL, MOST OF THE AREA SURROUNDING IT, RIGHT? YEAH, IT'S SORT OF, BOTH OF THESE POINTS ARE, ARE VALID.
UM, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN SEE FURTHER DOWN THE BLOCK IN THESE STREET VIEW IMAGES.
SO THIS, THIS IMAGE ON THE SCREEN RIGHT NOW IS DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM, UH, THE PROPERTY YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
UM, YOU CAN SEE KIND OF TO THE NORTHEAST.
THOSE ARE, THOSE ARE VACANT LAWS.
ALTHOUGH AGAIN, YOU CAN SEE THERE WERE HOMES ON ONE DAY.
THEY HAVE THESE, UM, LITTLE, YOU KNOW, STAIRWAYS TOO, WHATEVER YOU WANNA CALL THEM.
UM, UH, LET'S GO BACK TO THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STREET.
SO THIS IS ONE THAT, AND THIS, I, THESE PHOTOS ARE ABOUT SIX MONTHS OLD.
UM, 'CAUSE THIS CASE HAS BEEN AROUND FOR A MINUTE, BUT, UM, YEAH, THESE WERE HOMES THAT WERE UNDER CONSTRUCTION WHEN I, NO, I'M TALKING THAT BECAUSE EVEN THOUGH THEY, THERE ARE VACANT LOTS IN THE AREA FOR ABOUT 25 YEARS THAT THEY'RE RIGHT INTO TO DATE, THAT THEY'RE RAPIDLY BUILDING IN AN AREA.
AND THE MAJORITY IS SINGLE FAMILY AS WELL.
I IS RIGHT NOW THAT THEY'RE BUILDING.
AND DID YOU TAKE, UM, TO, TO KIND OF ANSWER THIS VERSION, WOULD YOU CONSIDER THAT A THE MAJORITY OF THOSE ARE OWNED BY THE CITY OF DALLAS IN THE LAND, RIGHT? I'M, I'M NOT AWARE OF THE OWNERSHIP.
UM, I WILL SAY THOUGH, UM, ANY KIND OF BUY RIGHT DEVELOPMENT, UM, I'M LESS AWARE OF BECAUSE IF SOMETHING, IF SOMEONE WANTS TO BUILD SOMETHING ON A PROPERTY THAT'S ALLOWED BY RIGHT? THEY DON'T COME TO ZONING BECAUSE THEY DON'T NEED TO.
UM, WHAT WE SEE, AND YOU KNOW, I, WE UNFORTUNATELY HAVE A BACKLOG OF ABOUT 70 CASES RIGHT NOW.
YOU KNOW, I'M ASSIGNING ALL THESE CASES TO FOLKS I HAVE SEEN SINCE I BECAME PLANNING MANAGER LAST OF NOVEMBER.
I HAVE SEEN IN OUR BACKLOG PROBABLY 15 REQUESTS FOR DUPLEX, TOWNHOUSE, MULTI, WELL, I WOULD SAY PROBABLY INCLUDING TOWNHOUSE AND MULTIFAMILY, PROBABLY MORE LIKE 25 OR 30.
UM, DUPLEX, TOWNHOUSE OR MULTIFAMILY, KIND OF THIS MISSING MIDDLE, GENTLE DENSITY KIND OF REQUESTS WOULD BE FILED AT OUR OFFICE.
SO I'M NOT TALKING, I'M TALKING ABOUT IN THAT AREA BECAUSE YOU DROVE THE AREA.
AM I CORRECT? I DROVE JUST THE AREA SURROUNDING THIS PROPERTY.
AND THE DEVELOPMENT, I THINK YOU SHOWED DEVELOPMENT ON THE OTHER SIDE.
SO CITY, CITY IS KIND OF SPLIT BECAUSE OF A CURVE OR SOMETHING, HOW IT SPLITS.
YOU SHOWED THE PICTURE WHERE IT'S, UM, YEAH, IT'S, IT'S KIND OF A WEIRD PLANNING SITUATION EXCEPT THE STREET A WHILE BACK.
UH, YEAH, THE, THE LOTS IN THE STREETS HERE ARE, UH, SYDNEY STREET.
I DON'T CONNECT CONNECTED THROUGH HERE.
SO THE CURVE, YOU KNOW, KIND OF CURVE AROUND, BUT COULD YOU SEE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES BEING KILLED ON THE OTHER SIDE? WHEN I DID MY SITE VISIT, I DID NOT.
YOU SHOWED ONE DIDN, ANY OF THESE LAWS.
YOU SHOWED ONE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF SYDNEY IN THE PICTURES, RIGHT? THOSE, THOSE WERE DOWN HERE CLOSER TO SECOND STREET.
UM, NO, I THOUGHT YOU, WELL MAYBE I'M NOT, I THOUGHT I SAW ONE ON THE CONSTRUCTION, BUT YEAH, I GUESS I ANSWERED THAT.
COMMISSIONER RUBIN, JUST GOING BACK TO THE LARGER POLICY DISCUSSION, THE CITY'S RETAINED A CONSULTANT TO LOOK AT OUR ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT CODE AND POTENTIALLY SUGGESTS CODE CHANGES.
HOW WOULD WE MAKE SURE THAT THESE ISSUES RELATING TO MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING, GENERAL DENSITY, WHATEVER YOU WANNA CALL IT, GET ON INCLUDED IN THAT DISCUSSION SO IT CAN AT LEAST BE CONSIDERED WHEN WE LOOK AT THAT PROCESS? MAKING EXCELLENT POINTS ON THE RECORD WHEN WE'RE DISCUSSING ZONING CASES IS ONE WAY TO DO IT.
UH, UM, WE ARE GONNA WORK CLOSE, CLOSE WITH 'EM.
THE FIRST, UH, TASK, UM, THAT WE HAD FOR THE CONSULTANT WAS TO HELP US EVALUATE THE CURRENT CODE AND DO A DIAGNOSIS AND SEE WHAT IS ACTUALLY BEING FILLED,
[01:00:01]
WHAT IS THE CODE SAYING, WHY DO WE HAVE SOME EXOTIC CASES? WHY DO WE HAVE SO MANY PDSS? WHY DO WE HAVE SO MANY BID RESTRICTIONS AND WHERE IS THE CODE LACKING? SO IT'S, AND AS I SAID, AND I'LL SAY THAT EVERY C C MEETING HOUSING IS GONNA BE AT THE FOREFRONT OF THEDO WE HAVE A TIMELINE WHERE WE EXPECT TO SEE THAT FIRST COURT PRODUCT FROM THE CONSULTANT? NOT YET.
WE HAD OUR FIRST MEETING WITH 'EM, WE'RE GONNA HAVE ANOTHER ONE NEXT WEEK.
UM, WE'RE GONNA DRAW A TIMELINE TOGETHER WITH 'EM, BUT THE CONTRACT IS FOR TWO YEARS, SO WE GONNA IT'S FAST.
THANK, THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HENDERSON.
UM, MR. MULKEY, THANKS FOR THE VERY WORD IN GREAT COMMENTS.
UM, CAN YOU SPEAK TOWARDS HOW THE CODE RENOVATIONS AND I SAY RENOVATIONS OF THE CODE, UM, WORK VERSUS THE AREA PLAN? UM, AND BECAUSE I'M TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT, OR, OR SEE IF, IF THERE'S AN ATTEMPT AT HAVING A COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH TO THESE AREAS AS OPPOSED TO SAYING, YOU KNOW, THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF PERMITS THAT HAVE BEEN ISSUED FOR REQUESTS FOR DUPLEXES, THOSE SINGLE FAMILY SINCE THERE'S A LOT OF THEM, WE SHOULD PUT THEM HERE.
UM, I'M, I'M WONDERING ARE WE COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH TO LOOKING AT THESE COMMUNITIES AND, AND HOW THEY SHOULD BE, UM, VERSUS JUST RESPONDING TO, YOU KNOW, WHAT THE MARKET, UH, I I'LL TAKE THIS.
YES, THAT'S WHY WE CAREFUL, WE WERE CAREFUL INTO LAUNCHING THIS TO STAGGER RIGHT ON THE FOUR DALLAS.
SO I THINK, UM, WE'RE KIND OF LIKE GETTING CLOSE WITH FOUR DALLAS AND THE FUTURE ES MAP.
AND THEN BASED ON THAT, UH, WHATEVER AREA PLANS OR AUTHORIZED HEARINGS WE'LL NEED TO STEM.
AND THEN WE ALSO HAVE THE COVID FORM.
SO WE'RE TRYING TO HAVE TO SET UP THE FUTURE OF THE CITY TOGETHER WITH YOU.
SO WILL, WILL THOSE TWO EFFORTS COMMUNICATE WITH EACH OTHER, UM, AND WORK IN PARALLEL OR WILL IT BE A HANDOFF? WELL, UH, ZONING IS A IMPLEMENTATION ZONING AND CODE DEVELOPMENT CODES ARE IMPLEMENTATION TOOLS FOR PLANS.
SO THAT'S WHAT WE ARE GONNA FOLLOW.
SO IF WE ARE GONNA AGREE, AND IT'S AN IMPLEMENTATION TOOL FOR, UH, A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, BUT ALSO FOR OTHER PLANS THAT ARE VOTING IN THE CITY.
VOTING IN THE CITY, LIKE C A, THE PLAN, ACTION PLAN LIKE THE HOUSING PLAN, UH, CON DALLAS, UH, OUR, UH, MOBILITY PLANS.
SO AGAIN, THE DEVELOPMENT CODE AND ZONING IS ONE OF THE IMPLEMENTATION TOOLS FOR ALL THESE PLANS.
SO THEY WILL HAVE, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE, WE'RE, UH, AIMING TOWARDS THIS CODE REFORM.
'CAUSE FOR, FOR INSTANCE, WHEN WE DID FOR DALLAS UPDATE LAST TIME AND THEN AFTER WE VOTED, UH, THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND HOUSING PLAN, WE NEED TO FOLLOW WITH THE CODE REFORM IN SUMMARY TO IMPLEMENT, TO START CONNECTING THOSE PLANS ON THE LANDR SIDE.
WELL, I UNDERSTAND, UM, I JUST THOUGHT THAT I, I HAD HEARD THAT UM, THE CONVERSATIONS FOR CODE REFORM WILL KIND OF BEGIN TO LOOK AT THESE HOUSING TYPE POLICIES BASED ON, YOU KNOW, PERMIT APPLICATIONS AND ALL THAT KIND OF STUFF AND JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE REFORM WOULD BE A RESULT OF FOR THE EXECUTION OF THE AREA PLANS AND THE OTHER PLANS THAT WE'RE WORKING WITH.
AND I'LL THINK I WILL HAVE THAT ALL VIA THE NEW HALL COMMUNITY MEETINGS AND COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND COMMUNITY.
LET'S KEEP MOVING ON CASE NUMBER SIX.
I BELIEVE THIS ONE NOT AGREED.
OKAY, NEXT IS ITEM SIX, KC 2 23 DASH THREE.
THE REQUEST IS FOR A CSS COMMERCIAL SERVICE DISTRICT ON PROPERTIES ON THE N O A NEIGHBORHOOD OFFICE DISTRICT.
IT'S LOCATED ON THE WEST LINE OF SOUTH SMITH
[01:05:01]
STREET, SOUTH OF WEST JEFFERSON BOULEVARD.IT'S ABOUT HALF AN ACRE, OR I'M SORRY, ONE HALF AN ACRE, UH, LOCATION MAP SHOWING THE PROPERTY WITHIN CITY LIMITS AERIAL MAP WITH THE AREA OF REQUEST OUTLINED IN BLUE.
IT'S THESE TWO YELLOW PARCELS HERE.
AND BECAUSE WE ZONE TO THE CENTER LINE OF RIGHT OF WAY, IT KIND OF EXTENDS BACK TO THE MIDDLE OF THE HIGHWAY.
ZONING MAPS SURROUNDING DISTRICTS AND LAND USES, UH, IMMEDIATELY TO THE NORTH, UM, ARE UNDEVELOPED PLOTS.
UH, FURTHER NORTH ARE SINGLE FAMILY USES, UH, OTHER SINGLE FAMILY USES TO THE NORTHEAST.
AND THEN IMMEDIATELY EAST IS A PUBLIC PARK ZONE.
R 75 A, UH, TO THE SOUTHEAST, UM, IS A CHURCH USE AND THEN TO THE SOUTH, UM, R SEVEN DEVELOPED LOTS.
UM, FURTHER SOUTH OF THAT IS AN EXISTING MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT.
AND THEN TO THE WEST, ACROSS THE HIGHWAY, THERE'S UNDEVELOPED PROPERTY.
IT'S CURRENTLY OWNED IN OA DISTRICT AND IT IS UNDEVELOPED.
THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEVELOP A PROPERTY WITH VEHICLE DISPLAY AND SALES AND SERVICE.
UH, TO ACCOMPLISH THIS, TO REQUEST A NEW CSS DISTRICT, BELIEVE THAT'S THE FIRST NON-RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT THAT WE HAVE WHERE THAT VIEWS IS PERMITTED BY BRIGHT, UH, SINCE I PHOTOS, THIS IS ON SOUTH SMITH STREET, LOOKING NORTHWEST AT THE FRONTAGE OF THE PROPERTY.
AND THEN JUST KIND OF GOING FURTHER DOWN THAT STREET, SOME MORE DETAILED VIEWS OF THAT FRONTAGE.
AND THEN SURROUNDING USES, UM, THIS IS TO THE SOUTH, BUT THE REAR OF THIS LOT IS AN EXISTING CHURCH USE.
AND YOU CAN SEE IN THE BACKGROUND, UM, SOME MULTIFAMILY STRUCTURES.
AND THIS IS LOOKING NORTHEAST, UM, AT THAT PARK.
UM, THIS IS SORT OF THE BACKSIDE OF THE PARK, BUT AS YOU MOVE FURTHER EAST, THERE'S A LOT OF RECREATIONAL BUILDINGS AND IT'S A PRETTY BIG PARK.
AND THIS IS, UH, NORTH OF THE SITE AT SMITH AND ARCADIA, UH, WHERE WE NEED TO SEE SOME OF THOSE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.
AND THIS IS, UH, WEST ALONG SMITH STREET.
YOU CAN SEE SOME OF THOSE UNDEVELOPED LOTS, UH, IN OUR BUILDING.
UH, THESE ARE THE EXISTING AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
UM, UH, KIND OF THE MAJOR THING TO NOTE HERE, THERE WOULD BE, UH, INCREASE IN HEIGHT, UH, AS WELL AS A PRETTY SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN LOCK COVERAGE.
UM, THE BIG THING HERE IS THAT THE CSS DISTRICT ALLOWS GREATLY MORE INTENSE USES THAN THE CURRENT N O A DISTRICT.
UH, THE NEIGHBORHOOD OFFICE DISTRICT ESSENTIALLY ALLOWS VERY SMALL SCALE OFFICES.
IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE NEXT TO RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, WHEREAS CS ALLOWS, UM, COMMERCIAL BUSINESS SERVICES PRETTY HEAVY COMMERCIAL USES AS WELL AS VEHICLE DISPLAY AND SERVICE, UH, WITH THAT RECOMMENDATION.
QUESTIONS, QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONER, COULD YOU HELP ME WITH WHAT I'LL CALL THE ACCESS GEOMETRY TO THIS SITE? CLEARLY THE WALTON WALKER OFF RAMP IS NORTHBOUND HOME, BUT IT IS WHAT'S LABELED THE WALTON WALKER SERVICE ROAD.
IS THAT TWO WAYS? UM, YEAH, I DON'T, I DON'T BELIEVE IT'S TWO WAYS.
UM, WHEN I CAME TO THE SIDE OF CERTAIN NORTH, UM, AND I CAME DOWN STREET, DO YOU KNOW IF THE SERVICE ROAD IS ACCESS RESTRICTED? I KNOW THAT NONE OF THE LOTS THAT, UH, ARE IN THAT STRIP HAVE ACCESS RIGHT NOW I, I DON'T KNOW IF DAVID WOULD KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION.
IF THE SERVICE ROAD HERE IS ACCESS RESTRICTED FOR THESE LOTS SMITH, WE, WE WOULD NOT KNOW UNLESS THERE'S, THEY'RE SHOWING WHAT THEIR SURVEY SHOWS.
TYPICALLY THERE'S A CONTROL OF ACCESS AND TEXT CAN EASE THEM WITH THAT.
SO WOULD IT BE FAIR TO SAY THE PROBABILITY THIS SITE WILL HAVE TO BE ACCESSED OFF OF SMITH STREET? THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING.
UM, AND THERE'S A NOT INSIGNIFICANT, UH, GRADE CHANGE, I BELIEVE AT THE REAR OF THESE LOTS.
UM, THAT WOULD PROBABLY CREATE SOME ACCESS ISSUES.
NOW, IF I'M LOOKING AT THE MAP CORRECTLY, SMITH STREET DOES NOT EXTEND ALL THE WAY TO JEFFERSON.
IT JOINS WAL WALKER SERVICE ROAD I BELIEVE.
[01:10:01]
WHICH YOU MAY NOT KNOW THE ANSWER TO, IS, IS THAT PART OF THE SERVICE ROAD? TWO WAYS.HOW, HOW WOULD I GET FROM JEFFERSON BOULEVARD TO THIS SITE? YEAH, LEMME, YEAH, THAT'S, SO BASICALLY YOU FRONTING FROM THE PARK, YOU, YOU FRONTING ON SMITH.
THEN THAT STILL LEAVES THE QUESTION, HOW DO I GET THERE? YEAH, WE WOULD HAVE TO COME TO TAKE SMITH FROM WALTER.
THE ONLY WAY WOULD BE TO GO UP AND THEN TURN RIGHT ON SMITH AND GO DOWN.
THAT'S A CONVOLUTED WAY TO GET, THERE'S A A V F W CENTER THERE AS WELL.
YOU HAVE, WHICH, WHICH IS WHAT AGAIN? THERE'S A V FW CENTER.
YEAH, BUT HOW, HOW DO THEY GET ROGERS OUTBOUND SMITH? I MAKE THAT, UH, TURN RIGHT ON SMITH.
YEAH, SO, UM, I'LL JUST KIND OF SPEAK ANECDOTALLY.
THE WAY I GOT TO THIS SITE WAS, UM, COMING DOWN FROM THE NORTH, LIKE WHERE LUKE 12 AND I 30 INTERSECT, UM, WAS ON JEFFERSON COMING FROM THE WEST.
UM, IF GOOGLES TO BE BELIEVED, THE ACCESS ROAD HERE IS ONLY ONE WAY HEADED TO THE NORTH.
UM, IF I RECALL CORRECTLY FROM MY SITE VISIT, I HAD TO GO OVER THIS INTERSECTION HERE, RIGHT? AND THEN TURN RIGHT ONTO THE, OKAY, BUT I'M ALLOWED TO TURN RIGHT AND GO SOUTH ON THAT PORTION OF THE, UH, SERVER ROAD.
YOU'D HAVE TO GO ONTO IRA THERE, WHICH IS A RESIDENTIAL STREET AND THEN TAKE IRA TO ARCADIA TO SMITH STREET.
SO YOU, YOU'D REALLY HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UM, TO GET TO THE SITES.
AND THEN OF COURSE WHEN YOU'RE GOING OUT, YOU CAN GO NORTH ON SMITH
DO WE KNOW WHAT WAS, IS REALLY PROPOSED? THIS IS A GENERAL ZONING CHANGE THAT THEY'RE PROPOSING.
VEHICLE DISPLAY SERVICES SERVICE, IS THAT MEAN A CAR DEALERSHIP, CAR SALES? UM, WHAT WAS THE REASON FOR STAFF DENIED? UH, WE FEEL THAT THE CURRENT ZONING DISTRICT, IF THERE'S ANY NON-RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, UM, THAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE IN THIS AREA, IT WOULD BE NEIGHBORHOOD OFFICE OR NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES, WHICH IS SORT OF THE RETAIL EQUIVALENT OF THAT.
UM, WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT A CSS DISTRICT IS APPROPRIATE FOR THIS SITE.
WE THINK IT'S WAY TOO INTENSE.
UM, WE ALSO THINK THE PROPOSED USE, ALTHOUGH THAT'S, YOU KNOW, IT'S A GENERAL ZONING CHANGE, BUT THE PROPOSED USE IS, IS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR THIS AREA AS WELL.
ARE YOU AWARE OF THAT? UM, THAT IN THAT AREA THERE'S A, UM, ESPECIALLY ON THAT END, THERE'S MOSTLY CAR LOTS THAT YOU DROVE.
THERE'S THE MAJORITY OF THAT IS, IS KIND OF CENTRAL, UM, TO MOSTLY CAR LOTS.
I I I'M AWARE THAT THE NORTH SIDE OF JEFFERSON, LIKE IN THIS AREA, YOU CAN SEE, YOU KNOW, ON GOOGLE HERE THERE ARE SOME SEVERAL AUTO USES.
UM, IF I RECALL CORRECTLY, THIS IS ALL ZONED THE CSS DISTRICT, UM, ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE FREEWAY.
UM, THIS IS ALSO ZONED THE CSS DISTRICT FOR THE MOST PART UNTIL YOU GET INTO THE RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND THERE'S SEVERAL AUTO USES OVER THERE AS WELL.
SO YOU WOULD THINK THAT THIS WOULD BE MORE OF A N A, UH, NOT IN, IN UM, NC THE CURRENT ZONING, YEAH, WE FELT WAS APPROPRIATE.
AND YOU CAN SEE HERE MOST OF THIS IS, IS RESIDENTIAL.
AND THE COMMUNITY WAS ANY INVOLVEMENT FROM THE COMMUNITY OR NO, I HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY EMAILS OR PHONE CALLS FROM SURROUNDING RESIDENTS, UM, AS THE CASE PLANNER.
UM, AND I'M NOT AWARE IF THE APPLICANT DID ANY COMMUNITY OUTREACH ACCIDENT.
IS THERE ANY AREA PLANS OR ANY UH, UM, ANY AREA PLANS IN THAT AREA OR, I DON'T BELIEVE SO.
LET ME CHECK MY REPORT REAL QUICK THERE NO ZONING RESPONSE.
YEAH, I DON'T BELIEVE, UM, DON'T BELIEVE THIS IS AN AREA OF DISTRICT THREE THAT HAS AN ADOPTED AREA PLAN.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM? COMMISSION? 10 21, 10
[01:18:39]
SOMETHING[01:20:47]
BUT I THREE MINUTES EACH I THINK.UH, THIS CASE IS UH, CASE NUMBER SEVEN, WHICH IS Z 2 2 3 1 78.
THIS IS AN APPLICATION FOR A NEW PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, UH, FOR M U THREE MIXED USE DISTRICT USES AND A VEHICLE DISPLAY SALES AND SERVICE USING PROPERTY ZONED AND M U THREE MIXED USE DISTRICT.
IT IS LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF WEST NORTHWEST HIGHWAY IS THE SHADY TRAIL.
IT'S APPROXIMATELY 1.6485 ACRES, AS I MENTIONED, IS ON THE WEST SIDE OF DALLAS NORTHWEST.
[01:25:01]
A TWO LOT TWO PARCEL REQUEST THEN ADJACENT, UH, USES AROUND THE AREA.THERE IS A POST OFFICE ON THE, ON THE WEST, A PERSONAL SERVICE USED ON THE EAST MEDICAL CLINIC OR UP TO SURGICAL CENTER AND OFFICE ON THE NORTH AS WELL.
IN THE NORTH THERE'S ALSO OFFICE SHOWROOM WAREHOUSE ON THE SOUTH OF CROSS NORTHWEST HIGHWAY.
THERE'S A COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT INSIDE.
THERE'S HOTELS AND THERE IS A VACANT PARCEL RIGHT ON THE WEST OF THE POST OFFICE.
THERE IS A PD 7 76, WHICH THE USES OUR OFFICE FINANCIAL INSTITUTION WITH DRIVE-IN WINDOW AND VEHICLE DISPLAY AND CIVIL SERVICE.
DEREK IS CURRENTLY UNDEVELOPED AND IS ZONED M U THREE MIXED USE DISTRICT.
THE APPLICANT IS SUPPOSED TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTY WITH THE VEHICLE DISPLAY SALES AND SERVICE.
HE IS THE PROPOSED IS NOT FAMILIAR UNDER THE MU THREE, THUS THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A
THERE IS ALSO A 50 FOOT WASTEWATER EAST MAIN CAN BURY THE FRONT LAND AT AREAS FOR THE STREET BUFFER ZONE ALONG WEST NORTHWEST HIGHWAY WITH
UM, THE DELAY TIME SUBMITTED ON DECEMBER 21 MAY NOT COMPLY WITH ARTICLE FIVE.
THEREFORE THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REDESIGN THE LAYOUT TO REMOVE THOSE PARKING STALLS ALONG WEST NORTHWEST HIGHWAY FOR LAST LIVING PURPOSES.
TOOK PLACE THE REQUIRED CHIEF THAT THE NORTH END OF THE LANDSCAPER ISLANDS AND THEN THE APPLICANT INTENDS TO SAVE AN EXISTING TREE ON PROPERTY AND IS PROPOSING A PROVISION A TO TREE PRESERVATION ON THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT
SO ALL THE CHANGES MADE TO THE REPORTS SINCE THE LAST PERIOD ARE HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW.
AND THESE ARE TWO, UM, ITEMS. SO MRS ODDS PHOTOS OF THE SIDE LOOKING TO THE EAST TO THE SOUTHWEST, TO THE SOUTHEAST, I MEAN TO THE SOUTH WEST, NORTH ON THE ON WEST, NORTHWEST HIGHWAY, LOOKING NORTH TOWARD THE SITE AND THEN SURROUNDING USES.
SO AS I MENTIONED, ON SERVICE DRIVE OF LOOKING EAST ON SIDE, LOOKING SOUTH ON SITE, LOOKING SOUTHEAST TOWARD THE DRIVE, UH, LOOKING WEST, UH, TOWARD THE POST OFFICE AND ON NORTHWEST HIGHWAY LOOKING NORTH TOWARD THE SIDE.
AND THEN ON SIDE LOOKING NORTHWEST.
AND THEN ON THE SERVICE DRIVE LOOKING NORTH, UH, THE PROPOSED ADDITION USED AS PER THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT IS JUST THE ADDITION TO THE FOLLOWING.
ADDITIONAL MAIN USES IT'S MADE BY, WHICH IS THE REGIONAL PERSONAL SERVICES VEHICLE DISPLAY CELLS AND SERVICE.
THERE ARE ALSO, AS A MENTION FOR THE LANDSCAPING, THEY ARE PROPOSING THE APPLICANT REQUESTS EXISTING TREES ALONG THE NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE.
MAY NOT BE REMOVED ON AS DECEASED OR DUE TO NATURAL DEATH AS CONFIRMED BY THE DIRECTOR AT THE TIME OF TREE REMOVAL PERMIT.
HOWEVER, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING, UH, INSTEAD, TREES ON THE PROPERTY MAY NOT BE REMOVED EXCEPT BY DEFENSE TO PROSECUTION OR UNTIL AN APPROVED TREE REMOVAL APPLICATION OR AN ISSUE.
GUILTY PERMIT AUTHORIZES OF THE REMOVAL.
SO THAT'S, UH, DYLAN STANDARDS, THEY'RE ALL GOING TO BE THE SAME AS THE EXISTING AMRY.
AND THIS IS A DEVELOPMENT PLAN, UM, THAT THEY, UM, UPDATED SINCE THE LAST HEARING AND IT'S JUST, UH, DESIGNING THE LAST MEETING ITEMS. AND THEN THERE IS AN AREA PLAN, WHICH IS THE BENCHMARK LAKE WEST NORTHWEST HIGHWAY MEETS.
THERE WAS THIS WITHIN THE INTERSTATE 35 EAST DISTRICT FOR COMMERCIAL LINE USE IS RELY ON DISABILITY AND CONVENIENT ACCESS FROM INTERSTATE 35 EAST LINE USES ADJACENT TO THIS DISTRICT ARE LIE IN JUST WAREHOUSING WITHOUT RESIDENTIAL USES.
THEREFORE THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH THE URBAN DESIGN RECOMMENDATION.
AND THERE'S ALSO THE TRINITY RIVER CORRIDOR COMPREHENSIVE LATIN USE STUDY.
AND UM, THE APPLICANT PRESENT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GOALS AND POLICIES OF THE TRINITY RIVER CORRIDOR COMPREHENSIVE LATIN STUDY.
AND THEN, UH, STATUS REVIEW, APPROVAL, SUBJECT TO DEVELOP PLAN AND STATUS RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS, QUESTIONS SAID YES.
I'M CURIOUS ABOUT YOUR REPORT SAID THAT THERE ARE ONLY, UH, WHAT IS THE BOOK? HAVING ONE EXISTING TREE SAVING IT.
WHEN I LOOK AT THE PICTURES, I SEE SOME CLUSTERS OF ON THE EDGES OF WHAT LOOKS LIKE SOME BIG LAB OAK TREES.
WHY AREN'T THOSE BEING RETURNED? THOSE ARE ACTUALLY ON THE PROPERTY NORTH.
[01:30:01]
TREE ON THEIR PROPERTY, CORRECT? UH, THERE ARE THIS, THIS FILLER ONE, UH, THERE ARE A NUMBER OF TREES THAT ARE ON THE PROPERTY.THOSE TREES, SOME OF THE TREES ARE GOING TO BE REMOVED TO ALLOW FOR THE DEVELOPMENT.
THERE'S ONE TREE ON I IDENTIFIED ON THE PROPERTY THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PRESERVING ON THE PROPERTY.
THERE ARE OTHER TREES ADJACENT TO THIS LOT, WHICH IS NOT BEING SUBJECT TO THIS ORDINANCE, BUT YOU ARE OKAY WITH THE ONES BEING REMOVED, OBVIOUSLY YOU SAID THERE'S SORRY, FOR CAR DEVELOPMENT.
IT'S, THAT WOULD BE STANDARD THEN.
THEN THE IDEA IS THAT WE PRESERVE ONE TREE ON, ON THE, ON THE SITE.
THE TREES ON ADJACENT PROPERTY SHOULD NOT BE.
SO THERE'S ONLY ONE YOU FELT THAT COULD BE PRESERVED.
THAT'S THE ONE THAT ONE OF THAT'S BEEN PROPOSED WOULD BE PRESERVED.
YOU GO BACK TO THE BOX CONDITION REAL QUICK AND CAN YOU JUST, I'M NOT SURE IF I FOLLOWED THE DIFFERENCE.
CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO ME A SIMPLE TERMS POSSIBLY WHAT THE DIFFERENCE IS HERE? I'LL TRY ESSENTIALLY ONE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS ESSENTIALLY, UH, FOLLOWING ALONG WITH OUR LIEUTENANT STANDARD.
THERE'S NOT MUCH DIFFERENCE THERE AT ALL.
FROM WHAT? CODE? CODE REQUIRING YOU TO HAVE A PERMIT OR ORIGINAL PERMIT OR BUILDING PERMIT TO BE ABLE TO REMOVE A TREE ON THE PROPERTY.
ESSENTIALLY IT IS REPEATING ORDINANCE.
THE SECOND ONE IS AN ATTEMPT TO TRY TO DISCUSS PRESERVING A NUMBER OF TREES ON THE NORTH PERIMETER, BUT THERE'S NO SUB PRE SURVEY IDENTIFICATION TO IDENTIFY SPECIFICALLY WHAT TREES ARE WOULD BE PRESERVED.
SO IT IS, IT IS DIFFICULT TO TRY TO ENFORCE THAT.
SHOULD THE TREE THAT IT IS INTENDED TO BE PRESERVED BE INDICATED ON THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN OR SHOULD THE
IT'S NOT TYPICAL TO HAVE THEM ON THERE, BUT IF, IF, IF THE TREE IS INSTRUMENTAL TO THE DESIGN OF OF THE SITE, IT SHOULD BE APPLIED.
THERE, THERE IS NO LANDSCAPING PLAN TO PROPOSED.
SO, UH, IF IT WANTS TO, TO PRESERVE THE TREE, THEY CAN DO IT BY A PLAN OR THEY CAN DO IT BY A SEPARATE TEXT TO SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFY THE TREE IN QUESTION.
UH, CONTINUING ON THIS, UH, TREE ISSUE AS I READ IT ON THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION, IF I WANT TO TAKE DOWN A HEALTHY TREE ON THE NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE, I CAN APPLY FOR A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT AND MITIGATE.
BUT UNDER THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, UNLESS IT'S DISEASED, I CAN'T, UH, IS CORRECT.
HOWEVER, IT DOES NOT IDENTIFY WHICH TREE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
UH, AS FAR AS THE TREES ALONG THE NORTH PERIMETER, IT'S FROM, FROM MY OBSERVATIONS, THERE'S ONE TREE THAT WOULD BE, UH, INDICATED THAT'S ON, ON THE PROPERTY THAT WE ARE REFERRING TO THE OTHER TREES THAT WERE REFERENCED, CORRECT? ON THE ADJACENT PROPERTY, WHICH WOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO THIS ORDINANCE, BUT IT'S ON A SEPARATE PROPERTY.
ALRIGHT, SO YOU'RE SAYING THE EXISTING TREES ALONG THE NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE PROBABLY MEANS ONLY ONE TREE IN THIS CASE? I BELIEVE IT'S ONE TREE BECAUSE THERE ARE TREES THAT ARE ACTUALLY TREES ADJACENT TO THE SOUTH OF THIS ONE TREE THAT I'M REFERRING TO THAT WILL BE REMOVED FOR DEVELOPMENT.
BUT I COULD NOT BE CLEAR THAT THIS LANGUAGE IS INDICATING THOSE TREES ARE NOT.
OKAY, KEEP GOING MS. YOU NOT HERE? OKAY.
ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM? ARE WE NOW, OH, ARE WE STILL AT SEVEN OR WE'RE ON NUMBER EIGHT? IT HAS BEEN BRIEFED BEFORE AND COMMISSIONER ER IS OKAY WITH NOTES, ANOTHER BRIEFING, BUT IF WE HAVE QUESTIONS ON IT, HAPPY TO TAKE QUESTIONS ON NUMBER EIGHT GOING.
AND THIS IS THE ONE THAT'S THE CORNER ROCK, CORRECT? THIS IS, YES.
[01:35:46]
HELLO ALL.UH, YOU HAVE SEEN THE BRIEFING BEFORE THIS WOULD BE CONSIDERATION.
DO SO, UH, JUST REMIND THIS IS AN APPLICATION FOR A CS SERVICE DISTRICT APPLICANT.
UH, THE RESTRICTIONS ARE THE NEW PART SINCE ITS LAST CONSIDER, AND THIS IS CURRENTLY ON 10 BREEZE THROUGH THE, UH, THIS IS THE LOCATION, BUT I BREEZE ON THROUGH TO THE, THE
SO AGAIN, MAY HAVE THE CSS BASE DISTRICT, UM, AND THAT IS THE SAME AS THE PREVIOUS, UH, ITERATION OF THIS, BUT THEY HAVE ADDED HEAT RESTRICTIONS THAT TAKE OUT, UM, SOME OF THE MORE
AND I CAN ANSWER A SPECIFIC QUESTION ABOUT THE ITEM CERTAIN, RIGHT? IF YOU WOULD LIKE, UM, THAT THAT IS DONE.
UM, AND THAT IS THE ONLY CHANGE ON THE APPLICATION.
AND THAT RECOMMENDATION IS DENIAL, UH, BASED ON THE, UH, STUDY FOR THE AREA AND THE RECOMMENDATION THERE.
UM, IS IT NOT JUST TO, JUST TO KEEP US, UM, UPDATED OR REFRESHED, UH, IS THIS NOT, UM, ONLY GOING TO, UH, BE DEVELOPING SEVEN ACRES OPPOSED TO THE WHOLE ENTIRE AREA? IS THAT NOT CORRECT? THIS, THE REQUEST, THE AREA REQUEST IS SEVEN ACRES.
AND IS IT NOT STILL THE 26 ACRES WILL BE THE APPLICANT HAS TESTS DONATED 26 OF ACRES AS A PRESERVATION AREA.
A CONSERVATION AREA FOR THAT WILL REMAIN A GREEN MILK.
THEY HAVE STATED THAT, BUT IT'S NOT TIED TO ZONING.
SO THERE'S NOT A GUARANTEE THAT THAT, UH, WILL FOLLOW THROUGH IF THIS CASE IS APPROVED.
SO NOT, THEY'RE NOT LINKED IN IN ANY WAY THAT IS HANDLED LAYER OF THE PROCESS.
SO PLEASE HELP ME UNDERSTAND IF IT'S, IT WOULD NOT BE APPROPRIATE THEN TO ADD IT AS A DEED RESTRICTION.
ARE YOU SAYING THAT SOMEWHERE LATER IN THE PROCESS THEY WOULD, THEY CAN VOLUNTEER THESE, THESE A, THIS ACREAGE, UM, AS A CONSERVATION AREA? WELL, I MEAN A COUPLE THINGS.
UM, CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, SHOULDN'T I PUT THAT IN EITHER, BUT THOSE QUESTIONS FOR ONLY THE SEVEN ACRES, WE CAN'T ADD AN ISSUE.
I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
UM, SO, UM, I I'M GONNA KEEP GOING.
UM, IF THE APPLICANT IS, IF THE APPLICANT IS, IS, UM, RESTRICTING OUT A VOLUNTARILY RESTRICTING OUT ALL OF THE INTENSIVE CSS USES, WHY IS THIS NOT MORE APPROPRIATELY A CR OPPOSED TO A CSS? THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.
UM, YOU'RE RIGHT THAT THE DE RESTRICTIONS TOOK THEM CLOSER TO A CR DISTRICT OR AN S DISTRICT.
THEY DIDN'T ON THIS GO ROUND, THEY DIDN'T PROPOSE A, A SPECIFIC USE.
SO WE DIDN'T KNOW WHAT TARGET WERE SHOOTING FOR POTENTIALLY.
UM, OR THAT'S JUST A PROPOSED USE.
BUT IT DOES, UH, LET US KNOW MAYBE WHAT DISTRICT WOULD HELP.
BUT WHAT THEY'VE DONE WITH THE DEAN RESTRICTIONS, YOU'RE, YOU'RE RIGHT, TAKES IT CLOSER TO THE ACTING AS A CL DISTRICT.
HOWEVER, IF THE INTENT, UH, OF THIS COMMISSION IS TO, IS TO APPROVE, BUT DISTRICT OR, YOU KNOW, UH, LESS
[01:40:01]
INTENSE DISTRICT USING RESTRICTIONS, CR MAY BE A MORE A WAY TO DO IT.AND THAT'S MAY BE A MORE ELEGANT WAY TO DO IT WITHOUT THESE RESTRICTIONS.
SO MOVING ALONG THAT, THAT LINE OF CON OF CONSIDERATION, IF WE WERE LOOKING AT THIS SEVEN ACRES AS A CR DISTRICT OPPOSED TO A CS DISTRICT MM-HMM.
AND AND I'LL BE, I'LL BE, I'LL BE
UM, I WOULD, I WOULD'VE IN THE REPORT HAD CR IN THE TABLE THERE, BUT I GOT THESE RESTRICTIONS, THE 11TH HOUR, UH, FOR POSTING.
BUT I DID, I DID WANT YOU TO HAVE THESE DUE RESTRICTIONS IN Y'ALL'S HEADS AND EYES.
UM, BUT I DID NOT AT THAT TIME HAVE TIME TO, UH, INCLUDE CR UH, COMPARISON.
UH, BUT I WILL, I CAN GET YOU A, A ONE FOR ONE FIVE.
I OKAY, SO, SO BECAUSE WHAT I THINK IT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL FOR IF, IF, IF, IF I MAY BE WRONG.
SO IF I AM INCORRECT, CAN YOU PLEASE, I STILL WAITING MY QUESTION IN.
UM, PLEASE LET ME KNOW THAT THAT COMPARISON C US TO TR WHAT WOULD MAKE IT EASIER FOR THE REST OF THE COMMISSIONERS TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IS ACTUALLY, WHAT OPPORTUNITIES FOR DEVELOPMENT IS ACTUALLY HAPPENING HERE OPPOSED TO LOOKING AT A CSS AND LOOKING AT ALL OF THE RED THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN PROPOSED TO BE RESTRICTED OUT.
YES, I'M, I'M HAPPY TO, UM, TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN.
UM, IS THERE ANY PARTICULAR REASON THAT, THAT, THAT YOU RESTRICTED RESIDENT USERS? WHAT AND WHAT IS SURROUND, WHAT IS THE USE THE
THEY DID NOT DERESTRICT RESIDENTIAL USES, YES THEY DID.
THEY PUT THAT IN, BUT THERE'S REALLY NOT MAKE RESIDENTIAL USES THAT ARE ALLOWED IN CSS.
I THINK IT'S GONNA BE YOUR, UM, YEAH, IT'S COLLEGE DORMITORY
UM, SO THAT'S NOT GONNA BE, BUT THERE'S REALLY NOT MANY RESIDENTIAL USES IN CSS OR CR TO START WITH.
'CAUSE IT IS A, IT'S A EXCLUSIONARY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT.
SO WHY DID THEY, THEY PUT THAT IN THERE.
IT ACTUALLY DOESN'T HAVE MUCH OF, OF MAJOR EFFECTS BECAUSE IT'S A CR CS DISTRICT AND IT DOESN'T HAVE MANY RESIDENTIAL USES.
UM, I DUNNO WHY THEY ALSO, UM, IS THERE ANY WAY THAT YOU, CAN YOU SHOW WHAT, WHAT, WHAT THOSE GO BACK TO THE MAP.
OKAY, SO WHAT IS THAT? ACROSS THE STREET? IT LOOK LIKE IT'S SOME HOUSE.
WHAT IS THAT? THAT ACROSS THE STREET FROM YEAH.
UM, ACROSS THEY'RE SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES.
I JUST SEE IF I COULD FIND AN IMAGE, BUT IT'S PRETTY WOODY.
THERE THERE IS, THERE'S A, THERE'S ONE OF THE HOMES ACROSS DOWN FERRY, UH, FROM THERE, UH, SO YOU CAN SEE WOOD.
THERE'S RESIDENTIAL FROM TRASH CAN, BUT, UM, SHE'S, SHE'S CORRECT.
AND THAT'S COMING BACK OUT BETWEEN, OKAY.
SO WHAT WAS THAT? DID YOU ASK AFTER WHAT WOULD PROBABLY BE A PROPOSED USE? THEY, IN THIS ROUND THEY SAY RETAIL, WHICH SHOULD BE A VARIETY OF THINGS, BUT GENERAL ARCHITECT STORES FOR GENERAL RETAIL, BUT THIS IS A, THIS IS A GENERAL CHANGE.
DID YOU, DID YOU RECOMMEND OR EVEN ASK THEM ABOUT THE CR THEY, IT WAS, I THINK IT WAS BROUGHT BEFORE 'EM, UM, STAFF WOULDN'T, I MEAN STAFF'S NOT LOOKING AT A CR STAFF WOULD RECOMMENDED ORIGINALLY, ACTUALLY THIS IS A, A LONG AGO FIRST
[01:45:01]
CONSIDERATION CASE, UH, RECOMMENDED THEM LOOK AT IT IN S A DISTRICT.UM, BUT THEN WE HAVE DOCUMENTATION THAT, THAT TO DO WAREHOUSING EVER SINCE THE FIRST CONSIDERATION.
AND THEN I BELIEVE THAT'S ACTUALLY THE REASON THAT I'M ASKING YOU IS THAT BECAUSE OF THE PROXIMITY, THAT'S TO 20 AND TO THE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND SEEING, OKAY.
JUST TO, JUST FOR HISTORY PURPOSES, IT STARTED OUT TWO YEARS AGO AS A WAREHOUSE REQUEST.
AND WHEN THEY REALIZED THAT A WAREHOUSE TRUCK STOP OR ANYTHING OF THAT NATURE WAS NOT SOMETHING THAT WAS GOING TO BE OBTAINABLE, THIS IS HOW WE GOT TO THIS POINT.
THAT'S JUST A, A BRIEF SYNOPSIS OF THE, OF THE, THE HISTORY OF WHERE WE ARE.
THEY CONTINUED CONTINUE IN PREVIOUS CONSIDERATION WITH THE CITY ACTS, WHICH IS THE LEAST INTENSE WAY THEY CAN DO A WAREHOUSE.
UM, THAT THEN I HAD, THEY PROVIDED WITH DIFFERENT INFORMATION AND A AFTER THAT POINT.
AND THEN WE HEARD CONSIDERING IT, UM, AS A CSS WITH D RESTRICTION.
AND THE CSS WITH D RESTRICTIONS IS NOT, IS IT NOT CORRECT.
IT'S MORE APPROPRIATELY OF LOOKING TO BE A CR NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES, BUT THEY STILL HAVE THE BASE ZONE.
SO IF THEY EVER WANTED TO DO OR COME BACK AS ANYTHING MORE INDUSTRIALLY INTENSE, IT WOULD ONLY BE A, A RECONSIDERATION OF THESE RESTRICTIONS OPPOSED TO A FULL BLOWN ZONING.
SO IF IT'S APPROVED AS CSS WITH DR, UH, IT STILL NEEDS A FULL ZONING CASE AND THE FULL ZONING PROCESS, THE TERMINATION OR AMENDMENT OF THESE RESTRICTIONS ARE STILL A, A FULL ZONING CASE AS, AS WE'RE WORKING ON RIGHT NOW.
UM, SO I DON'T SEE IT AS MAKING MUCH OF A DIFFERENCE IN TERMS OF THE PROCESS LATER.
COMMISSIONER HERE I HAVE A NUMBER OF PROCEDURAL QUESTIONS.
UH, YOU MENTIONED RECONSIDERATION.
HAVE WE VOTED ON THIS PARTICULAR ZONING APPLICATION BEFORE? IT WAS RECOMMENDED DENIAL ON JULY 6TH.
AND IT HASN'T GONE TO COUNCIL YET? IT HAS NOT.
SO WE REQUIRE, FIRST OF ALL, A SUSPENSION OF OUR RULES.
SECONDLY, A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION.
AND THIRDLY, IF THOSE TWO THINGS PASSED AND A NEW VOTING, THE ZONING CASE THAT IS FROM MORE, WE'RE NOT POSTED FOR EITHER A MOTION TO SUSPEND THE RULES OR A MOTION TO RECONSIDER.
CAN WE TAKE THOSE UP UNDER THE EXISTING POST? THE ZONING CASE WAS, I KNOW THIS, THIS IS A LONG, UH, A LONG LINE OF COMMISSIONER, BUT THE ZONING CASE WAS ADVERTISE THE
SO TO ADVERTISE FOR THAT, A C P C MAY CONSIDER THE ZONING CASE TODAY.
YOUR QUESTION IS ABOUT THE AGENDA AND THE, UM, RULE FOUR, SECTION C TWO AND C SIX CAN BE SUSPENDED, WHICH WOULD ALLOW THIS BODY TO CONSIDER IT THE RECONSIDERATION AND MERITS IN THE CASE, ASSUMING THE RULE ARE SUSPENDED, THE BODY MOVES TO RECONSIDER.
YOU COULD DO THAT TODAY BASED ON NEED MISSING POSTED UNDER THE OPEN MEETINGS.
AND SO ON OCCASIONS IN THE PAST WHERE WE HAVE POSTED ON THE AGENDA SUSPENSION OF RULES AND RECONSIDERATION, THAT WAS JUST OUT OF AN ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION.
THAT IS NOT LEGALLY REQUIRED, THAT IS REQUIRED UNDER RULE FOUR, SCENE SIX, WHICH CAN BE SUSPENDED.
SO WOULD WE HAVE TO DO TWO MOTIONS TO SUSPEND THE RULES? I THINK IT COULD BE TAKEN UP IN A SINGLE MOTION.
THIS IS, AS LONG AS IT IS CLEAR THAT WE ARE, THAT THE BODY IS MOVING TO SUSPEND AND RULE FOUR, SCENE TWO AND C SIX, BUT THEN THAT QUESTION CAN BE DIVIDED IN THE BODY.
BUT IF I'M A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC, I DON'T KNOW THAT THOSE THINGS ARE GOING TO HAPPEN TODAY FROM READING THE AGENDA UNLESS I STUDY OUR RULES AND DISCERN THAT THAT'S THE ONLY WAY IT CAN HAPPEN.
MY NEXT QUESTION IS, UH, IF I'M
[01:50:01]
RECALLING CORRECTLY, AND IT'S, I'VE SLEPT SINCE WE DID 51 A, UM, CSS HAS A HEIGHT LIMIT OF 45 FEET AND CR HAS A HEIGHT LIMIT OF 54 FEET.THAT'S, I'LL PICK THE WORD FOR IT.
THEN MY NEXT QUESTION IS, CAN WE CONSIDER CR ON A POSTING AND ADVERTISING FOR CX SINCE IT IS MORE INTENSE AS TO HEIGHT? IF IT THE HEIGHT, SORRY, I WAS GONE.
BUT, UM, IF THE HEIGHT IN THE DISTRICT THAT HAS NOT BEEN NOTICED IS GREATER THAN THE HEIGHT OF THE DISTRICT THAT WHAT'S NOTICED, THEN YES.
THEN IF MY MEMORY SERVES, IT WAS NOTICED FOR A DISTRICT THAT ALLOWS 45 FEET AND PERHAPS A MOTION WILL BE MADE TO CONSIDER CR, WHICH IS THE DISTRICT THAT ALLOWS 54 FEET.
AND THAT COULD NOT BE DONE UNDER THE CURRENT CODE.
WE CONSIDER MS, WHICH IS A LOWER RATE.
UM, AND MY THIRD SET OF QUESTIONS RELATES TO THE DEEP RESTRICTION ON ALLOWABLE USES THAT WOULD SAY, WELL YES THEY'RE ALLOWABLE, BUT ONLY BY S U P.
CAN WE DO THAT? SO AS YOU KNOW, AN APPLICANT CAN VOLUNTEER ANY DEEP RESTRICTIONS THEY WANT, BUT CPCS ABILITY TO COMMEND APPROVAL OF AN S U P DERIVES FROM CHAPTER 51 A.
AND BECAUSE THAT S U P UM, DOES NOT, THAT S UT REQUIREMENT DOESN'T COME FROM CHAPTER 51, A CCC COULD NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THAT OF S UT BASED ON THOSE TWO RESTRICTIONS.
SO IF WE APPROVE THE CASE SUBJECT TO THE DEEDED RESTRICTIONS, BUT I I I GUESS ARE YOU SAYING THAT WE COULD NOT DO THAT IN THAT INSTANCE? CORRECT.
THE, THE, THE S U THE JEEP RESTRICTIONS IS IN THE DOCKETS SAY THAT THE FOLLOWING USES ARE ALLOWED BY S U P, GENERAL MERCHANDISE RECRUITS SCORE LESS THAN 10,000 MOTOR.
IF, IF, IF SOMEBODY MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CASE SUBJECT TO THAT, YOU WOULD SAY THAT JUST A MOMENT, COMMISSIONER, WE'VE GOT A PROBLEM.
JUST TO MAKE SURE, COMMISSIONER, SO THE DEEP RESTRICTION CANNOT BE ENFORCEFUL OF HIS BODY WHEN IT SAYS THE, THE DEEP RESTRICTIONS THAT ARE ALLOWING SPECIFIC USES BY S U P CANNOT BE FORCED.
TWO USES IN, IN, IN WHAT THEY VOLUNTEERED, THEY INCLUDED TWO USES.
AND NOT ONLY CANNOT BE ENFORCED, BUT YOUR ADVICE WOULD BE, CANNOT BE ACCEPTED BY MS. BOB.
I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY SOMETHING 'CAUSE I'M LOOKING AT THE COMPARISON OF CR AND CS.
NOW, UNDER CR, THEY COULD NOT HAVE WAREHOUSES 'CAUSE IT SAYS RETAIL AND PERSONAL SERVICES, CORRECT? YEAH.
SO UNDER CS THEY CAN HAVE WAREHOUSES, WHICH IS HOW THEY APPLY IN THE FIRST PLACE BASICALLY.
SO OBVIOUSLY, AND ONE OF THE DIFFERENCES IS THERE'S 60% LOT COVERAGE ON CR, THERE'S 80% LOT COVERAGE ON CSS.
AND THEN COMMISSIONER YOUNG DID GO TO 54 45 HEIGHT DIFFERENCES.
RIGHT? THEY COULDN'T DO IT EITHER AT THE WAREHOUSE.
SO, AND I JUST WANNA CLARIFY ONE OTHER THING.
THE DEEDED RESTRICTIONS IN NO WAY RESTRICTED THEM OUT OF WAREHOUSE USE.
THE DEEDED RESTRICTIONS DID RESTRICT TOTALLY.
IS THAT THE ONE THAT SAID THEY COULD DO IT BY? NO, NO.
THEY, THEY, UM, THEY REMOVED WAREHOUSING USED THESE JUST FOR EVERYONE'S KNOWLEDGE.
THE USES THAT THEY REMOVED OR THEY WANTED TO PUT SUBJECT TO S UT WERE GENERAL MERCHANDISE FOODS OR GREATER THAN, VERY GREATER THAN 10,000 SQUARE FEET AND MOTOR VEHICLE FUELING STATE.
THOSE ARE THE ONES THAT THEY WANTED TO FACTOR AN S E P.
SO RIGHT NOW THEY COULDN'T HAVE WAREHOUSES.
NO, I'M TALKING ABOUT IF WE GAVE THEM THE CSS, THE CURRENT PROPOSED OR VOLUNTEER RESTRICTIONS ARE WAREHOUSING.
WELL THEN THERE'S SUCH A LIST OF WHAT'S BEING BARRED, WHAT CAN THEY HAVE THERE?
UM, AND GENERALLY THAT DOES LOOK MORE SIMILAR TO THE C UM, AND THAT TABLES IN THE REPORT.
[01:55:01]
TO NAME SOME HIGHLIGHTS, CHILDCARE FACILITY, UM, RESTAURANT REMAIN BANK, OFFICE CLINIC, UM, GENERAL MERCHANDISING, FOOD STORE, GENERAL MERCHANDISING, FOOD SOURCE, DRY CLEANING.IT'S IN THE, I DON'T WANNA READ.
I I I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, IT'S DIFFICULT HERE WHEN WE'VE GOT THIS, UH, PRAIRIE CREEK AREA.
WE'VE GOT A LAND USE PLAN AND YET WE DON'T HAVE ANY IDEA NOW THAT THEY'VE OPTED OUT OF WAREHOUSE WHAT THEY'RE INTENDING THERE TO BE ABLE TO JUDGE IF IT'S IN ANY WAY APPROPRIATE.
SO I GET MORE OR LESS WHY YOU WIN FOR THE DENIAL.
ANYTIME WE HAVE A GENERAL ZONING CHANGE, WE DON'T REALLY KNOW WHAT USE WE HAVE, BUT, UM, IT IS POSSIBLE IF WE HAVE PROPOSED USE, WE COULD, UH, TAKE A MORE APPROPRIATE CATEGORY TO, TO TAKE THE LEAST INTENSE DISTRICT THAT WOULD STILL ACCOMMO THE PROPOSAL.
BUT THEY DIDN'T PUT ONE SPECIFIC.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER FEBRUARY.
SO I JUST, PROCEDURALLY, WE DENIED THIS APPLICATION ON JULY 6TH, OR WE DENIED A SEPARATE APPLICATION BY THIS APPLICANT.
IT WAS THIS APPLICATION ON JULY 6TH.
SO HOW IS IT BEFORE US DID THEY APPEAL? SO UNDER THE RULES, UH, THIS IS RULE FIVE B ONE, BULLET 0.2.
ANY MEMBER CAN ASK THAT, ANY MEMBER CAN MAKE A MOVE ASK THAT AN ITEM CAN RECONSIDER.
SO ONE OF YOUR COLLEAGUES HAS ASKED THIS ITEM TO BE RECONSIDERED.
I IT'S ON THE PREVAILING SIDE OF IT.
OH, MEMBER CAN I, CAN I, THE PREVAILING SIDE WOULD BE FOR THE MOTION ITSELF.
CAN I, CAN I JUST HELP THEM UNDERSTAND CHAIR WHY IT'S BACK HERE TODAY IS, UH, CAN I I THINK IT'LL, THIS COMMISSIONER TREAD, IT'LL ANSWER EVERYBODY'S QUESTION, I THINK.
BUT WHEN WE HEARD IT ON THE SIXTH, THE APPLICANT WAS NOT PRESENT TO ANSWER ANY OF OUR QUESTIONS.
SO WE, SO THERE WAS NOT, THERE I WAS LEFT WITH NO CHOICE BECAUSE THE APPLICANT COULD NOT ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AND DID NOT HAVE ANY DEEDED RESTRICTIONS OFFERED THAT.
AND BECAUSE WAREHOUSING WAS NOT SOMETHING THAT, THAT WAS DEEMED APPROPRIATE FOR THIS SITE, THAT I DENIED IT WITHOUT PREJUDICE BECAUSE THERE WAS NO, THERE WAS NOTHING ELSE I COULD DO.
THE APPLICANT CAME IN AFTER THE CASE WAS HEARD AND DENIED AND AFTER C P C THEY ASKED ME IF TO RECONSIDER THE CASE AND ALLOW IT TO COME BACK SO THAT THEIR VOICE COULD BE HEARD.
THEN AFTER THAT THEY OFFERED ALL THE DEEDED RESTRICTIONS THAT YOU SEE TO MAKE IT MORE PALATABLE FOR THAT PARTICULAR SITE.
BUT IT STILL IS LEAVING A LOT OF QUESTIONS FOR THE COMMISSION AND THE RESIDENTS.
ISN'T THAT RIGHT? ISN'T THAT RIGHT? OKAY.
I GUESS FROM OUR PROCEDURAL THAT I HAVE, COULD IT NOT JUST HAVE BEEN HELD, DID IT HAVE TO BE DENIED EARLIER? THE, THE BODY COULD HAVE HELD IT.
THEY, BUT THERE WAS, OKAY, THERE WAS SOMEONE WHO SPOKE AGAINST IT, SO, OKAY.
AND THAT, THAT, THAT WAS MY CONFUSION.
AND MR. CHAIR, DO I RECALL CORRECTLY THAT WE MOVED, WE MOVED IT LATER IN THE AGENDA WHEN THE APPLICANT WAS NOT HERE.
BUT NOW THERE WERE, THERE WERE TWO ITEMS WHERE THE APPLICANT WAS A NO SHOW.
THAT HEARING THE FIRST ONE, WE, THEY CONTACTED US AND SAID, HEY, I'M HAVING AN ISSUE WITH THE PARKING OR, OR GATE, I'M ON MY WAY.
THIS ONE WE ALL REACHED OUT TO THE APPLICANT AND UH, WE NEVER HEARD ANYTHING AND WE EMAILED, TEXTED PAUL AND THEN HE SHOWED UP WITH THIS CLIENT, I THINK THREE HOURS AFTER WE VOTED ON HIM.
IS THAT NEAR THE END OF THE HEARING? HE SHOWED UP.
I'M GONNA FOLLOW UP ON COMMISSIONER YOUNG AND COMMISSIONER TREADWAY IS WANTING QUESTIONING ABOUT
[02:00:01]
THE RECONSIDERATION.I THINK COMMISSIONER YOUNG JUMPED INTO THE WEED PRETTY QUICKLY, WHICH IS GREAT, BUT I WANTED TO TALK AT A LITTLE BIT OF HIGHER LEVEL HOW WE REDUCE THEIR ITEMS. SO RULE FOUR C IS THE ONLY WAY THAT AN ITEM CAN BE BROUGHT BEFORE US FOR RECONSIDERATION, RIGHT? YES.
AND THE MOTION FOR RE RECONSIDERATION AUTHORIZED BY RULE OF FORCE HAS TO BE MADE BY THE NEXT MEETING, RIGHT? YES.
OKAY, SO THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE MADE BY OUR JULY 20TH MEETING, RIGHT? YES.
AND POSTED ON THE AGENDA FOR THAT JULY 20TH MEETING? YES.
AND THAT WAS THAT MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION MADE BEFORE OR AT OUR JULY 20TH? NO, SHE WAS NOT MADE, IT WASN'T POSTED.
SO IF YOU'RE SOMEONE WHO'S CONCERNED ABOUT A ZONING, A ZONING CASE AND YOU'RE HAPPY WITH THE RESULT AND YOU'RE WORRIED IT MIGHT BE RECONSIDERED, YOU'RE GENERALLY LOOKING ONE MEETING FORWARD TO SEE IF IT WOULD BE RECONSIDERED.
THAT SOUNDS LIKE A FAIR, FAIR CONDITION.
SO A DENIAL WOULD BE APPEALED TO COUNSEL, RIGHT? CORRECT.
AND A DENIAL WAS TO BE APPEALED TO COUNSEL WITHIN 15 DAYS, I BELIEVE, CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT.
SO, AND WE'RE WELL PAST THAT 15 DAYS FOR THE APPEAL TO DENIAL, RIGHT? YES.
AND THE APPLICANT NEVER, UM, DID, DID NOT FILE AN APPEAL TO THIS CASE, RIGHT? I AM NOT AWARE OF AN APPEAL.
SO ESSENTIALLY WE'RE HAVING TO, IF WE WANT TO CONTINUE TODAY, HAVING TO SUSPEND A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT RULES RELATING TO A MOTION TO RECONSIDERATION WHEN IT COULD BE BROUGHT HAPPEN BROUGHT, YES.
SO I, ONE PROBLEM, I'M SURE IT'S A QUESTION I'LL JUST ASK THE FOLLOWING.
SO, SO THAT, THAT DAY THEN, HOW FAR DOES, DOES THIS BODY KIND OF LEEWAY DO WE HAVE ESSENTIALLY WE CAN RECONSIDER ANY ITEM BEFORE IT GETS TO COUNCIL, BUT THEY, SO WE'RE SAYING THERE IS A PROVISION IN THE CODE THAT SAYS THAT BETWEEN CT C AND COUNCIL IT BE NO MORE THAN SIX MONTHS.
UM, SO WE DON'T HAVE, THERE IS NO PROVISION IN THE CODE THAT SAYS, OH, IF YOU VOTE ON THIS C P C, YOU AUTOMATICALLY GO TO THIS COUNCIL.
THEY HAVE, WE HAVE SIX MONTHS TO SCHEDULE IT.
THE ONLY PROVISION IN THE THOUGH THAT TIES THE APPLICANT TO SOMETHING NEEDS, IF C P C RECOMMENDED DENIAL, THEN IT KIND OF LIKE STAYS THERE UNLESS THE APPLICANT DOES SOMETHING.
NO, WELL I WAS JUST GONNA SAY WE'RE THAT BECAUSE OUR, OUR RULES REQUIRE THAT WINDOW THAT IT HAS TO BE AT THE NEXT MEETING, BUT THEN WE CAN SUSPEND THAT RULE.
THAT MEANS THAT IN THEORY WE CAN PUT IT ON ANY ITEM.
WE CONSIDER IT UP UNTIL IT GETS NOTICED FOR COUNSEL OR BEFORE GETS HEARD BY COUNSEL.
AND ONCE IT IS NOTICED BY COUNSEL THAT MAKES, OR I, UNTIL THOSE SIX MONTHS BACK, I, I WOULD THINK AT A CERTAIN, THE ITEM BECOMES COUNSELS AND COUNSELS EXCLUSIVELY, UNLESS IT REMANDS BACK TO CT C.
AND I WOULD THINK THAT POINT IS ONCE IT'S NOTICED FOR COUNSEL, COMMISSIONER YOUNG, UM, I HAVE MR. PEP, HOW IS IT THAT THIS GOT ON THE AGENDA FOR TODAY? WE WERE DIRECTED, UH, THE COMMISSIONER TO RECONSIDER.
AND SO WE DID NOTICE WITH THE THOUGHT THAT WE, WE SENT NOTICE WITH THE FILE IF YOU WERE KEEPING UP WITH THE CASE AND THOUGHT IT WAS DENIED IN THE PREVIOUS HEARING AND WERE WITHIN 200 OR HOWEVER MANY HUNDRED AND WERE WITHIN THE NOTICE DISTANCE.
BUT IT WAS, IT WAS RECOGNIZED FOR THE SAME NOTICE AND PROCEDURES OF THE ORIGINAL CASE.
WELL, BUT I I, I DON'T WANT TO BE ACCUSATORY BY THIS, BUT OUR RULES REQUIRE THAT THE MOTION TO RECONSIDER MUST BE ON AN AGENDA AGENDA THAT IS PUBLICLY POSTED.
YOU POSTED THE ITEM BUT YOU DID NOT POST THE RECONSIDERATION.
AND I UNDERSTAND THAT THAT'S WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT IT.
IF, IF THAT IS SAFE OR IS AN ERROR IN THE POSTING OR NOT, BUT UH, FOR ATTORNEY DIRECTION FURTHER RULES AGAINST WELL, WELL, ALRIGHT, THE ATTORNEY'S ADVICE WAS IT DOESN'T VIOLATE THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT.
I TAKE THAT ADVICE, BUT IT DOES VIOLATE OUR RULES UNLESS WE GO AN EXTRA STEP AND SUSPEND THE RULE THAT IT VIOLATES.
IF I AM A PERSON INTERESTED IN THE CASE, NOT WITHIN THE NOTIFICATION AREA AND IS VICE CHAIR RUBIN HAS MENTIONED, I LISTEN TO THE HEARING, I HEAR IT DENIED.
I LOOK AT THE AGENDA TWO WEEKS LATER I'M RELIEVED BECAUSE THERE'S NOTHING TO RECONSIDER IT.
UH, I CHECK TO SEE IF IT'S BEEN APPEALED TO COUNSEL AND IT HASN'T BEEN.
AND I THINK, WELL I CHECK THAT ONE OFF MY LIST.
HOW DO I KNOW ABOUT THE ACTION WE ARE BEING ASKED TO
[02:05:01]
TAKE TODAY? WE, AGAIN, WE COMPLIED WITH THE NOTIFICATION NOTICE IN THE PAPER, BUT I SAID SOMEBODY OUTSIDE THE NOTIFICATION THERE.SO I HAVE TO BE READING THE PAPER DAILY OR WELL EVERY SATURDAY.
I GUESS IT'S SATURDAY, UH, SINCE TO KNOW THAT WHAT I THOUGHT WAS A RESOLVED CASE, NOT A RESOLVED CASE.
UM, CAN, CAN, IS IT NOT TRUE THAT THE REQUEST TO RECONSIDER WAS ASKED WAS ACTUALLY ASKED THE DAY OF THE YEAR VERBALLY? YES.
AND THEN, UH, WE ADVISED YOU TO SEND AN EMAIL AND WE HAVE AN EMAIL SO WE HAVE IT IN WRITING.
SO IF THAT IS THE CASE AND THE RULES SAY THAT IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN IN WRITING.
NO, IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ON THE, THE AGENDA THE NEXT HEARING.
HOW COME IT WAS NOT? SO, UH, I THINK YOU ALSO SAID LET'S WORK ON THE DATE RESTRICTION.
SO WE KIND OF LIKE DECIDED NOT TO BE ON THE NEXT ONE.
AND I ALSO, I WOULD LIKE DANIELLE TO VERIFY ME ON THIS IF IT'S ON THE NEXT ONE.
THERE'S NO REQUIREMENT FOR NOTIFICATION, RIGHT? SO WE COULD HAVE PUT IT THE NEXT ONE WITHOUT GREEN ON TIME.
BUT WE SAID OKAY, BECAUSE UH, THE APPLICANT MANIFESTED THE INTENT TO HAVE ANOTHER COMMITTEE MEETING AND DO THE RESTRICTIONS.
MAKE SURE THAT WE, SO I DIDN'T HAVE NOTICE TO RECONSIDER IN WRITING UNTIL AFTER THE AGENDA WAS POSTED.
THIS IS WITH THE FOLLOWING AGENDA.
OKAY, SO, SO JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT I'M CORRECT, THERE WAS VERBAL REQUEST TO READ TO RECONSIDER THE, THEN THE WRITTEN REQUEST WAS SENT AFTER YOUR, AFTER IT WAS SENT WAS IT WAS NOTICED FOR THE AGENDA.
IS THAT CORRECT? AND THEN THE APPLICANT, THE APPLICANT SENT IN A PLETHORA OF THE RESTRICTIONS RESISTING APP USES THAT REQUIRED UM, A THOROUGH RECONSIDERATION OF WHAT WAS BEING ASKED AND NOT ASKED OF AS UNDER CS.
IS THAT NOT CORRECT? THEY, THEY SUBMITTED THESE, THESE RESTRICTIONS WHICH ARE IN FORMAT THAT CAN BE USED BY STAFF.
UM, I CAN TELL YOU THE DATE ON AUGUST 8TH IN PREPARATION FOR THE MISS HEARING.
I DIDN'T HAVE THE RESTRICTIONS UNTIL AUGUST 18TH.
OH, I HAVE A QUESTION AND I'M IN NO WAY QUESTIONING COMMISSIONER BLAIR'S JUDGMENT, I MEAN THE DEVIL'S ADVOCATE ON THIS JUSTICE.
I'M NOT, BUT THIS IS WHAT I'D LIKE TO KNOW.
SHOULD WE BE CONCERNED THAT THIS IS GOING TO SET SORT OF THE PRECEDENT QUESTION FOR UH, SOMEONE GETTING A SECOND BITE AT THE APPLE BECAUSE THE APPLICANT DOESN'T SHOW UP THE FIRST TIME AND CAN USE THAT AS AN EXCUSE TO GO THE COMMISSIONER AND SAY, WELL I WASN'T THERE TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS.
I MEAN, SHOULD WE BE CONCERNED? MY ANSWER TO THAT IS THAT IS THE COMMISSIONER WHO INITIATED THE RECONSIDERATION.
SO IF THAT DECISION LIES BE WITH ONE.
'CAUSE I JUST DON'T WANT TO SEE OBVIOUSLY EVERY TIME THERE'S A DENIAL, SOMEONE GOING AND LOBBYING A COMMISSIONER, YOU KNOW, OVER AND OVER TRYING TO GET IT
YEAH, WE'RE SORT OF RHETORICAL, BUT I WAS WONDERING WHAT YOU THOUGHT ABOUT THAT.
I THAT'S IN I THINK YOUR QUESTIONS IN RELATION TO RULES, UM, BOOK.
SO JUST AS A PROCEDURAL QUESTION, WHEN WE DENY UM, AN ITEM, DOES IT AUTOMATICALLY GO TO COUNSEL OR DOES
[02:10:01]
IT HAVE TO BE APPEALED? IT HAS TO BE APPEAL.I HEARD TWO DIFFERENT THINGS BECAUSE THAT ONE QUICK QUESTION FOR ME.
COMMISSIONER RUBIN, AND WE'RE ALL LOOKING AT THESE RESTRICTIONS.
FEVER, TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHERE THE WAREHOUSE IS.
WE THOUGHT IT WAS UNDER INDUSTRIAL USES BUT IT IS NOT.
THERE'S A, I DIDN'T WAREHOUSE IT.
NOT SO WAREHOUSE W FALL UNDER THE WHOLESALE PROHIBITION OF WHOLESALE DISTRIBUTION AND STORAGE ON THE SECOND PAGE OF THESE RESTRICTIONS THAT DID NOT SHOW UP ON THEM.
IT YOU'RE NOT SEEING WAREHOUSE BECAUSE YES, IT FALLS UNDER THEY SUBMITTED NEEDS RESTRICTIONS THAT JUST SAID WHOLESALE AND STORAGE USES THAT.
WHY SO MUCH? IT SAYS WHOLESALE WHAT IT SAYS WHOLESALE DISTRIBUTION AND STORAGE USES, WHICH IS THE CATEGORY WASN'T ON THE SLIDE.
JUST ONE FOLLOW UP QUESTION FOR MR. MORON.
THERE IS A LOT OF DISCUSSION WHERE IT APPEARS THAT THE BODY WANTS TO DEBATE OR WANTS TO DEBATE WHETHER TO SUSPEND THE RULES TO ACTUALLY TAKE UP THIS ITEM OF RECONSIDERATION.
IS THE MOTION TO SUSPEND THE RULES ITSELF DEBATABLE.
THE MOTION TO SUSPEND THE RULES IS NOT DEBATABLE.
AND A MOTION TO SORT OF, UM, SUSPEND THAT RULE OR AMEND THE RULE TO ALLOW IT TO BE DEBATABLE IS NOT IN ORDER BECAUSE IT WOULD BE A, UH, SUBSIDIARY MOTION TO THE MOTION TO SO SO THE IS DON'T DISAPPEAR.
OKAY, MR. YOUNG, I, UH, VERY SIMPLE QUESTION.
LAST TIME WE DENIED THIS WAS A WIDGET WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
WAS IT WITH OR YES, IT WAS, IT WAS A STRAIGHT DENIAL.
SO THEY NEED TO WAIT TWO YEARS TO COME BACK.
OR APPEAL FOR A WAIVER UNDER THE NEW, IT FEELS LIKE WAIVE STANDARD.
SO JUST TO FOLLOW MR BOARD, IF WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE SUSPENSION OF RULE THEY NEED TO BE ASKED NOW AS OPPOSED TO AT THE PUBLIC HEARING WHEN THAT MOTION CASE MADE, YOU CAN ASK, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN DO, YOU KNOW, CARRYING INQUIRY ASK THAT NOW OR DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING.
BUT TO DEBATE THE MOTION WOULD BE OUT OF ORDER.
COMMISSIONER, I'M CONFUSED ABOUT MY QUESTION.
SORRY, I'M CONFUSED ABOUT MY QUESTION AT COURT.
OKAY, YOU COMMISSIONER, THE MOTION TO SUSPEND THE RULES FAILS ONCE WE HAVE FORWARD THE BODY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO TAKE IT UP TODAY.
I SUPPOSE THAT AT A LATER DATE, UH, ONE OF YOUR, YOU OR ONE OF YOUR COLLEAGUES COULD, THAT'S GONNA BE RECONSIDERED AND WE COULD TRY AGAIN BUT, UM, BE DEAD TO THE DENIAL OF PREJUDICE THAT WAS MADE.
COULD THEY THEN GO TO CITY COUNCIL I THAT TIME? OKAY.
WOULD THEY, WHAT COULD THEY REFILE WITH THE CR IN TWO YEARS? ONLY IN TWO YEARS? THAT'S WHAT WE'RE SAYING.
OR IF A WAIVER THEY, THEY HAVE AN EXTRA TO APPLY FOR A WAIVER.
IF THE COMMISSION REST THEM A WAIVER, THEY CAN TALK.
SO IF THE, IF WE REQUEST A MOTION, WHAT WAS, WHAT WAS IT SAID TO SUSPEND THE RULES? IF WE VOTE AGAIN, IF WE VOTE TO SUSPEND THE RULE RULES, BUT WE CAN SEND THEM BACK TO FOR CR WE CAN, WE CAN UM, ONLY THE, THOSE MOTIONS PASS AND THEN YOU CAN RECONSIDER THE ACTUAL ITEM.
SO IT WOULD BE A MOTION TO SUSPEND THE RULES AND A MOTION TO RECONSIDER.
AND THEN ON THAT FINAL MOTION YOU COULD
[02:15:01]
BECOMES A MOTION.IF THE FIRST MOTION PASSES, YOU GO TO THE SECOND ONE.
IF THE SECOND ONE PASSES, THEN YOU RECONSIDER THAT.
THAT'S, THAT'S THE, MY HEAD IS STARTING TO HURT.
STATE LAW SAYS WE HAVE TO ENTERTAIN PUBLIC SPEAKERS ON ANY AGENDA ITEM.
SINCE THE MOTION TO SUSPEND THE RULES AND THE MOTION TO RECONSIDER ARE NOT ON THE AGENDA, ARE PUBLIC SPEAKERS IN ORDER ON THOSE TWO MOTIONS? GIMME ONE SECOND.
LOOK THE LANGUAGE, IT TAKES AN ATTORNEY TO FIGURE THAT SOMETHING ASK ON QUESTION LIKE THAT.
CAN WE SIT YOU OUTSIDE ON THE WINDOW LIST IN A FEW WEEKS? YOU WON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT IT.
BUT THEN HOW WE GONNA BE, I'LL SIT IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE OPEN MEETING ACT SAYS THAT A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WOULD DESIRE TO ADDRESS THE BAR TO ADDRESS THE BODY REGARDING THE ITEM ON THE AGENDA.
SO I THINK THE ITEM WOULD BE, UM, THIS BE 2 1, 2, 2, 9 7.
SO SPEAKERS WOULD NOT BE IN ORDER UNTIL WE GOT TO THE THIRD MOTION.
SO IF FOR EXAMPLE, I WANTED TO ASK THE APPLICANT REPRESENTATIVE WHY WERE YOU NOT THERE BEFORE? I NEED TO DO THAT INFORMALLY OUTSIDE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AND I CAN'T DEBATE THE MOTION AND TELL MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS WHAT I HEARD.
YOU CANNOT DEBATE THE MOTION TO SUSPEND THE RULES.
RIGHT? SO COULD HE SHARE THE COMMISSIONERS ONE? THE COMMISSIONER ONE ONE HEARD BEFORE, NOT A, THAT'S WHAT I FOR.
WAS HE IN THE HOSPITAL OR DID HE JUST NOT WELL HE, HE JUST, HE DID SHOWS.
HE SHOWED FIVE HOURS IN THE HEARING.
THEN, UH, COMMISSIONERS, LET'S, LET'S KEEP GOING.
ITEM NUMBER 10 GONNA BE, THERE'S A NOTIFICATION THERE.
WE'RE NOT GONNA BE BRIEFING AND, AND 2020 FIRST, NEXT HEARING SEVENTH.
YOU DON'T HAVE AN OPTION TO CALL YOU OR ANYTHING.
SO WHEN IS THIS ONE GONNA BE HELD? IT'S NOT HELD.
WE HAD A ERROR IN THE NOTIFICATION AND WE'LL NOT APPLY CORRECTLY FOR THE NEXT ONE.
OKAY, SO NUMBER 11, LET'S, UH, LET'S GO TO 13 AND THEN WE'LL COME BACK TO NUMBER 11, 13 AND THEN BACK ON.
[02:20:22]
YOUR BOSS TO COME.I KNOW HE'S COMMISSIONER YOUNG.
I SAID TOMORROW DON'T OVER PROMISE TOMORROW AFTER COFFEE.
COMMISSIONER YOUNG IS ROBERT'S RULES.
I THOUGHT I HAVE A FEW MORE MINUTES ON DECK.
UM, ALRIGHT, SO, UH, THIS, I'M, AND THIS IS MY FIRST TIME SHARING IN A WHILE.
I'M A VETERAN, BUT IT'S BEEN SEVERAL YEARS SO I'M SURE YOU GUYS WILL BE IN THE ARMY.
THIS IS AN AUTHORIZED HERE TO DETERMINE PROPER ZONING ON AN AREA THAT IS PREDOMINANTLY ZONED IR.
UM, THERE ARE SOME POCKETS OF M U ONE, WHICH HAPPENS THROUGH RECENT REZONINGS.
UM, AND THERE IS A, A PD P 10 81, WHICH WAS ALSO RECENTLY REZONED THROUGH PRIVATE APPLICATION.
UM, AFTER THIS AREA WAS AUTHORIZED, THEY WENT FORWARD.
UM, THE AREA IS GENERALLY BOUNDED BY SINGLETON TO THE NORTH BORDER, STRAIGHT TO THE EAST.
UM, IT INCLUDES THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SINGLETON BOULEVARD AND BORDER STREET IS SOUTHEAST SIDE OF DULUTH STREET ON, ON THE SOUTH.
AND THEN ON PINE LINE, NORTH SOUTH INTERSECTION AT THE
IT'S APPROXIMATELY NINE ACRES.
UM, TO SHOW YOU, UM, IT IS WEST DALLAS AND THIS IS THE AREA IN QUESTION.
SO ALONG SINGLETON THERE ARE NON-RESIDENTIAL USES, UM, PREDOMINANTLY AUTO RELATED ONES.
THERE IS A D I S D MAINTENANCE FACILITY THAT'S THAT LARGEST, UM, UH, PIECE OF PROPERTY.
BUT ABOVE SINGLETON ON THE, ON THE WEST, UM, THERE'S A SCATTERING OF SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND THEN ANY UNDEVELOPED LOTS THAT ARE WERE PREVIOUS SINGLE FAMILY OR NEVER DEVELOPED, UM, ON SMALL, SMALL FLATTED LOTS.
SO, UM, TO THE, TO THE NORTH, THEY'RE SINGLE FAMILY.
UM, TO THE EAST OF THE PROPERTY THERE IS NEW DEVELOPMENT, UM, WHICH IS MULTI-FAMILY.
UM, THERE ARE ALSO SOME BIG USES THAT STREET LEVEL, UM, AS YOU GO A LITTLE FARTHER TO THE EAST, UM, TO THE SOUTH.
THERE'S ALSO A RECENTLY DEVELOPED, UH, SMALL BLACK SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT.
UM, AND THEN TO THE WEST THERE IS FUTURE MULTIFAMILY.
SO THIS AREA HAS BEEN WHERE DEVELOPING WITH A LOT, UH, MULTIFAMILY.
SO, UM, OKAY, SO THIS, UH, IS A CITY INITIATED ZONING CHANGE OR AUTHORIZED HEARING.
IT WAS AUTHORIZED BY C P C IN APRIL OF 2019.
UM, THERE WERE MEETINGS HELD WITH THE COMMUNITY IN JULY 21ST AND THEN AGAIN ON AUGUST 22ND TOWARDS THE END OF THE PROCESS.
UM, IN BETWEEN THOSE MEETINGS, THERE WERE, UM, STEERING COMMITTEE MEETINGS HELD IN FEBRUARY AND MAY OF 2022.
UM, AS I SAID, CURRENTLY ZONED TO IR, UM, WITH A FEW IN, IN ONE LOTS.
AND THEN THE PD TO THE, ON THE EAST PORTION OF THE AUTHORIZED AREA.
UM, SO PD 10 81 WAS APPROVED IN 2022.
STAFF IS NOT RECOMMENDING ANY CHANGES TO THAT.
UM, AND THEN AGAIN, WE CAN TALK ABOUT THE CURRENT DEVELOPMENT ON THE SITE.
ALL RIGHT, SO CURRENT ZONING, UM, TO THE NORTH OF THE SITE, IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT, ADJACENT IS CR UM, AND THEN NORTH OF THAT ARE FIVE.
AND THEN THE SITE IS SURROUNDED ON THE EAST AND WEST AND ALSO THE SOUTH WITH, UM, MORE RECENT PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS.
SO LOOKING AT THE SITE, UM, A BUDDYING SINGLETON, THIS IS, UH, ONE OF THE AUTO RELATED USES.
THIS IS THE D I S D MAINTENANCE
[02:25:01]
FACILITY.UM, THIS IS THE SITE LOOKING TO THE EAST AUTO RELATED USES AND SOMEBODY THAT AT ONE POINT HAD A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANTS FOR PRIVATE CLUB, THE DOG HOUSE.
UM, TO THE WEST YOU'LL SEE SOME OF THE EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.
UM, HERE'S, UH, SOME NEW CONSTRUCTION, A NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOME AND THEN ONE THAT'S IN THE PROCESS OF BEING DEMOLISHED OR IT WAS WHEN I VISITED.
UM, SO, AND I'LL JUST, I GUESS TAKE A MOMENT TO EXPLAIN, UM, RIGHT HERE WITH THE, WITH THIS NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON THIS LOT.
SO AS I MENTIONED, UH, THE, THE MAJORITY OF THE SITE IS OWNED IR, WHICH ALLOWS FOR SOME SOMEWHAT INTENSE INDUSTRIAL USES AND IS NOT ALLOWED FOR SINGLE FAMILY.
SO THE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES THAT EXIST ARE CONSIDERED NON-CONFORMING.
UM, NEW DEVELOPMENT OF SINGLE FAMILY OR NEW CONSTRUCTIONS ISN'T ALLOWED UNDER THE CURRENT ZONING.
SO TO ALLOW THIS SINGLE FAMILY PROPERTY TO BE DEVELOPED, UH, THEY DID SEE THE ZONING CHANGE AND THEY DID IT BY THE APPLICANT, UM, REQUESTED AN M ONE DISTRICT AND THEN THE NEED RESTRICTED IT DOWN TO ONLY SINGLE FAMILY USES, RIGHT? IT SEEMS LIKE A VERY
SO ONE REASON THEY, WELL PROBABLY THE MAIN REASON THEY CHOSE THE M U ONE IS BECAUSE IT ALLOWS SINGLE FAMILY WITH NO MINIMUM BLOCK SIZE.
SO AS I MENTIONED, THE AREA OF REQUEST IS PLATTED.
THE LOTS ARE ALL UM, OF A SIZE.
THEY'RE SMALLER THAN ANY OF OUR, OUR BASE ART DISTRICTS.
SO WE CURRENTLY DON'T HAVE A ZONING DISTRICT THAT WOULD BID THE, THE EXISTING LOT PATTERN.
SO THE SIDE LOOKING, THIS IS WHEN YOU'RE ON CHICAGO AND LOOKING UH, WEST, A MIX OF THE NON-RESIDENTIAL AND SINGLE FAMILY USES MORE ESTABLISHING FAMILY AND THEN LOOKING TO THE EAST, THIS IS THE UH, AREA THAT'S CURRENTLY UNDEVELOPED AND IS UH, THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AT 81.
SO LOOKING IN IN THE AREA, KIND OF MORE OF THE SAME SURROUNDING THE SIDE.
CAN YOU TALK ABOUT THAT? UM, SO LOOKING MORE OF A SINGLE FAMILY TO THE EAST, THIS IS THE NEW DEVELOPMENT ALONG SINGLETON.
THIS IS KIND OF THE NEWLY AND NOW PREDOMINANT DEVELOPMENT PATTERN.
UH, JUST SAY TO THE SOUTH, THIS IS A SINGLE FAMILY UM, PROJECT AND THEN TO THE WEST, UM, MORE SINGLE FAMILY, NEW CONSTRUCTION INTO AN EXISTING UM, NON-RESIDENTIAL USES.
SO THIS ZONING CHANGE, UM, IT SEEKS TO ADDRESS LAND USE AND COMPATIBILITY SUCH AS THE INDUSTRIAL, UM, THAT WOULD BE PERMITTED UNDER THE CURRENT ZONING AND THE EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.
UH, THIS ZONING RECOMMENDATION SEEKS TO RETAIN AND MODIFY THE EXISTING LOT SIZES.
THAT WAS THE, THE PREFERENCE OF THE COMMUNITY TO KIND OF UM, UH, FORMALIZE WHAT'S THERE ALLOW FOR REDEVELOPMENT OR DEVELOPMENT WITH NEW SINGLE FAMILY WITHOUT HAVING TO BE FLAT.
BUT THEN ALSO THIS KIND OF HELPS TO OBTAIN THE EXISTING LOT PATTERNS SO WE DON'T GET A LOT OF CONSOLIDATION OF LOSS AND BIG OUT OF SCALE SINGLE FAMILY.
SO THIS WOULD ALLOW FOR INFILL DEVELOPMENT AS SOME OF THE COMMISSIONS THAT ARE DIMENSIONS IN NEED FOR.
UM, BUT IT IS STILL, WE WE'VE PROPOSED SOME SIMPLE DESIGN STANDARDS TO KIND OF HELP WITH THE COMPATIBILITY OF NEW SINGLE FAMILY.
UM, SO HOPEFULLY THIS WILL ENSURE COMPATIBLE SCALE AND THEN ALSO PROMOTE SOME REDEVELOPMENT ALONG SINGLES AND BULLET BOX BOULEVARD.
UM, SOME THE COMMUNITY DID EXPRESS THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO HAVE SOME COMMUNITY SERVING, UH, YOU KNOW, RETAIL AND NON-RESIDENTIAL USES BETTER, YOU KNOW, AT A SCALE AND INTENSITY THAT'S COMPATIBLE WITH A SINGLE FAMILY.
SO WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING, IT IS A LITTLE MORE COMPLICATED THAN UM, I PERSONALLY WOULD LIKE FOR IT TO BE IS SIMPLE YET USING ZONING TOOLS WE CURRENTLY HAVE AVAILABLE, WE HAD TO GO THE PDD ROUTE WITH SEVERAL SUB AREAS, SO I DON'T LOVE THAT BUT IT DOES ACCOMPLISH WHAT THE COMMUNITY HAD HELPED US BE.
SO WE'VE THOUGHT THAT SUB AREA ONE WHICH IS BASED ON CR SO IT WOULD ALLOW SOME, YOU KNOW, RESTAURANTS AND
[02:30:01]
COMMUNITY SERVING RETAIL.BUT UM, WE ARE PROPOSING SOME CONDITIONS TO KIND OF MIRROR THE CLAIM DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT CONDITIONS ON EITHER SIDE OF IT.
SO SEVEN FOOT SIDEWALKS WITH THE PLANTING STRIP.
UM, SOME CHANGES IN CONCRETE WHERE THE DRIVEWAYS INTERSECT THE SIDEWALKS.
SO LOOKING OUT FOR OUR PEDESTRIANS, THE PEDESTRIAN AND GA LIGHTING.
AND THEN THE REST OF THE SUBDISTRICTS UM, WILL ALLOW FOR SINGLE FAMILY AND THOSE USES THAT ARE ALLOWED IN R ARCHIVE.
SO YOU KNOW, CHILDCARE BY S U P SCHOOLS, BY S U P.
SO THESE ARE THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
IT'S PROBABLY KIND OF HARD TO SEE HERE, BUT JUST IN CASE YOU NEED TO REFER BACK TO THAT SLIDE.
UM, SO TO ENSURE COMPATIBILITY, UM, NEW CONSTRUCTION, SINGLE FAMILY WITH EXISTING, UH, WE DID, WE ARE RECOMMENDING A, THAT ROOFS MUST BE HIP AND CABLE WITH A MINIMUM OF FOUR 12 HIT.
THIS WILL PREVENT THOSE UM, LARGE BULKY FLAT ROOF STRUCTURES THAT WE'RE SEEING SO MUCH OF
SO THAT WOULD, THAT WOULD FIT WITH UM, YOU KNOW, THE ROOF ROOF FISH THAT IS, THAT IS IN NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND THEN KIND OF TAKING INTO ACCOUNT IMPERVIOUS SERVICES SINCE WE'RE WORKING ON THAT.
UM, AMENDMENT KIND OF SIMULTANEOUSLY.
UM, ALSO TO HELP WITH SCALE AND, AND NOT PROMOTING UH, A WHOLE LOT OF EXTRA IMPERVIOUS SERVICES.
YOU KNOW, WITH THE GIANT DRIVEWAYS IN FRONT OF THE HOUSES.
THESE ARE RECOMMENDATIONS NOT REQUIRED, BUT WE WOULD RECOMMEND RIBBON STYLE DRIVEWAYS, CO-LOCATED DRIVEWAYS WERE POSSIBLE.
UM, WE ARE PROPOSING OR RECOMMENDING MAXIMUM DRIVEWAY WIDTHS, UM, THAT'S ALL DETAILED IN THE CONDITIONS.
AND THEN ONE DRIVEWAY CURB CUT FOR LOT SO WE'RE NOT SEEING THOSE CIRCULAR DRIVES AND WITH THE TWO CURB CUTS AND THE WHOLE FRONT YARD IS WAVED.
AND THEN I GOT AHEAD OF MYSELF A LITTLE BIT, I WAS SO EXCITED ABOUT THESE DESIGN STANDARDS FOR SINGLETON.
SO WE TOUCHED ON THOSE STREET TREES, UM, SIDEWALKS AND MARKED PEDESTRIAN CROSSING.
UM, OKAY SO FEEL LIKE THAT'S IT.
UM, AS I SAID THAT IN WHILE BUT UM, SO STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THIS UM, PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, UH, FOR COMMUNITY RETAIL DISTRICT USES AND R FIVE A SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT USES SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS, UM, THAT ARE INCLUDED IN THE REPORT.
AND THEN WE ARE RECOMMENDING NO CHANGE TO PD.
OBVIOUSLY THIS IS VERY DIFFERENT FROM WOKE CAP IN A LOT OF WAYS, BUT ONE AREA I SEE THAT THERE ARE VOICES AT THE TABLE THAT IN BOTH OF THESE, THESE ITEMS ARE INTERESTED IN PRESERVING SINGLE FAMILY ZONING, RIGHT? AND WE WILL HAVE, I THINK WHAT WE HEARD WAS SINGLE FAMILY PLUS A D D BY RIGHT? IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION OF ALLOWING A D D BY RIGHT AND ANY OF THESE? SO TO BE HONEST, I'M COMING IN AT THE TAIL END OF THIS.
I WASN'T AT THE COMMUNITY MEETINGS, BUT COMMISSIONER MIGHT BE ABLE TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION THERE.
I HEARD THE QUESTION, THERE WAS NOT ANY DISCUSSION OF THAT.
YOU SAID THAT IT DIDN'T QUALIFY THE WHOLE WHOLE THING QUALIFY FOR A RESIDENTIAL OVERLAY KIND OF DETERMINATION.
WHAT ARE THE SIZE OF THE BOX? YES.
SO YEAH, THIS, NONE OF OUR EXISTING R DISTRICTS.
NOW R FIVE, WHICH IS 5,000 SQUARE FEET ARE SEVEN FIVE IS 7,500 SQUARE FEET.
UM, YOU KNOW, A TOWNHOME DISTRICT MAY HAVE GOTTEN THERE, BUT WHAT THE, I AM SORRY I'M LEADING UP TO THE ANSWER, BUT YEAH, THE LOT SIZES ACTUALLY AREN'T QUITE SMALL.
SO, UM, THE CONDITIONS THAT WE'RE PROPOSING KIND OF TAKE INTO ACCOUNT FOR EACH TRACK, EACH SUB AREA, KIND OF THE SMALLEST LOT AND THEN THE LARGEST END OF IT AND PUTTING A CAP, UM, A MAXIMUM LOT
[02:35:01]
SIZE, WHICH IS KIND OF UNUSUAL, BUT WE'RE HOPING TO HELP RETAIN EXISTING LOT MATTER.SO AS I MENTIONED, WE DON'T GET 10,000 SQUARE FOOT LOTS, SO THE P D D WILL MAKE IT 'CAUSE I THINK THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE DON'T END UP WITH AN ILL THICKENED SITUATION.
THE PD WILL MAKE IT TO WHERE YOU COULDN'T GO TO CLADDING AND TAKE TWO OF THESE LOTS.
AND MAKE A LARGE ONE AND PUT A BIG HOUSE ON IT.
SO JUST FOR EXAMPLE, SUB AREA TWO, UM, THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE IS 2,600 SQUARE FEET.
AND THEN THE MAX PROPOSED OR RECOMMENDED AS 37 30.
SO IT'S 3,730 THAT KIND OF, YOU KNOW, CAPTURE THE LARGEST LOT IN THE TRACK.
SO NOW THAT'S INTERESTING TO ME BECAUSE THAT SUB AREA TWO KIND OF JUTS IN TO THE CS AREA.
HOW ARE YOU ENVISIONING NOW? YES.
SO DO YOU SEE WHAT I'M SAYING? YEAH.
AND I'M TRYING TO THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION THAT'S EXISTING.
AND I'M NOT SAYING THAT YOU CAN'T HAVE, 'CAUSE WE JUST HAVE A THING WE CAN HAVE TOWNHOUSES IS MIDDLE OF A RETAIL AREA, BUT I WAS JUST CURIOUS HOW YOU ENVISIONING YES.
SO IT IS, UM, AND I DON'T KNOW IF THE COMMISSIONER WOULD LIKE, SHE MAYBE WANTED TO SAY.
UM, SO I'LL TAKE A STAB AT IT.
AND SHE WAS LIKE TO ADD ANYTHING OR ASK A QUESTION AND FOLLOW UP.
UM, SO THE, THE, OUR BASE DISTRICTS DO ALLOW FOR PROTECTIONS WHEN IT COMES TO RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY.
SO YOU KNOW, IF SUB AREA ONE REDEVELOPS, UM, THERE WILL BE BUFFERS REQUIRED AND THINGS TO HELP, UH, THAT ARE ALREADY IN THE CODE THAT PROTECT
MY LAST QUESTION IS, IS THIS, I NOTICED THAT, AND I'M ASSUMING YOU COULD, I'LL PUT IT AS A QUESTION.
IS IT BECAUSE THEY'RE ALREADY EXISTING INDUSTRIAL LAYER? I NOTICED THERE'S STILL A SUB-DISTRICT.
IT'S I WHY IS, IS THAT, UM, YEAH, THAT'S ACTUALLY, OH, OKAY.
SO THAT'S JUST, THAT'S NOT WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED.
UM, THIS, IT LOOKS LIKE THIS PROPOSED CHANGE MAP IS, WAS PLACED ON TOP OF THE UNDERLYING ZONING.
SO IF THIS IS APPROVED TODAY, THERE WILL BE NO LONGER IR ZONING.
SEE WHAT I'M SAYING? IT LOOKS LIKE I DO.
R SO IS THAT A MISTAKE? WELL, YEAH, LIKE I SAID, IT, IT'S JUST, IT THIS IS, HAS BEEN OVERLAID ON THE EXISTING ZONING.
SO THE EXISTING ZONING, UH, DISTRICTS ARE SHOWING THROUGH.
BUT THAT IS THE, THE BAG OF BLUE IS NOT MEANT TO BE THE, TO INDICATE OUR CORRECT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER? YES, COMMISSIONER HER? YES.
SO I KNOW THERE'S ONE OF THE NEWER ADDITIONS ON CHICAGO.
IT'S PRETTY TALL COMPARED TO THE HOUSES NEXT TO IT AND IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE
UM, OR THEY GONNA BE HIGH COMPLIANCE ONCE WE, UM, APPROVE THIS, IF WE COULD APPROVE THIS OR, AND ARE THE OTHER NEIGHBORS GONNA BE PROTECTED BY THIS GLOBAL PROXIMITY? YES.
SO, UM, TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION, UM, EVERYTHING ON THE GROUND THAT WAS BUILT LEGALLY PRIOR TO THE ZONING, IF IT'S APPROVED, BECOMES NONCONFORMING.
OH YEAH, THAT I THINK THAT'S, YEAH.
UM, WELL I COULD SAY SOMETHING.
I TROUBLE STICK TO THE QUESTION.
YEAH, IT BECOME NONCONFORMING.
UM, AND THEN REGARDING RESIDENTIAL PROXIMITY SLOPE.
SO, UM, R P S ISN'T APPLICABLE WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT.
SO IT DOESN'T PROTECT RESIDENTIAL HOW COMES FROM EACH OTHER.
BUT WE ARE, WE ARE PROPOSING, UM, TRY TO FIND IT HERE TO HELP WITH ITY.
UM, WHAT IS YOUR HEIGHT LIMIT? YEAH, IT'S, SO THE HEIGHT LIMIT IS THE BAY ZONING.
AND YEAH, SO, SO THE 30 30 FOOT OF THE UNDER OF THE R FIVE DISTRICT WOULD BE APPLICABLE AND THEN WITH THIS MINOR PITCH IN THE ROAD, HOPEFULLY THAT'LL MAKE A LITTLE BIT OF DIFFERENCE.
[02:40:01]
NOT MAKING ANY CHANGES TO PD 10 81.DOES EVERYTHING ELSE GIVE A NEW PD NUMBER OR WILL THE WHOLE THING GET A BRAND NEW INCLUDING 10 81? RIGHT.
WE'RE NOT PROPOSING CHANGES TO 10 81.
SO SINCE IT WAS ALREADY INCLUDED WITHIN THE BOUNDARY PRIOR TO ITS CHANGING.
IT'LL STAY 10 81 AND THE EVERYTHING ELSE IN THE AUTHORIZED HEARING AREA WILL
SO ARE YOU SAYING THAT THE CURRENT RESIDE RESIDENTIAL USES IN THAT AREA WILL BECOME NO, THEY'LL ACTUALLY BE MADE LEGAL.
THEY USED TO BE MADE LEGAL, BUT SINCE WE DO HAVE A DESIGN STANDARD THAT WASN'T THERE AT THE TIME, IT WAS DEVELOPED, THE EXISTING HOUSE, WELL THE ONES SPECIFICALLY THAT WE WERE LOOKING AT WITH A MORE FLAT ROOF WOULD BE MADE NON PERFORMING JUST AS TO A ROOF PITCH THAT'S NOW OUT WIRED.
AND SO WE CAN'T PROTECT, THERE'S NO, NO OPTIONS TO PROTECT THOSE, THOSE APARTMENTS SO LONG AS THEY'RE RIGHT.
BUT YOU SAY THEY WERE TO TEAR DOWN.
SO, SO THEY'RE LEGALLY NON THE FARMER AND WE CAN'T BE PROTECT, UM, WHAT, WHAT WOULD WE BE PROTECTING THEM FROM, I GUESS, JUST SO I CAN UNDERSTAND BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT THE FARMER.
SO YEAH, AND, AND THEY CAN EXIST FOR ALL ETERNITY, BUT THEY JUST, AND IF IF DESTROYED BY AN UNINTENTIONAL ACT, THEY COULD REBUILD WHAT'S THERE.
JUST IF SOMEBODY WERE TO CRANK A LOT AND REBUILD, THEY WOULDN'T EVEN COMPLY WITH A NEW, THE NEW RY IRON, WHICH INCLUDES THAT.
I WOKE UP WHEN YOU MENTIONED RESIDENTIAL PROXIMITY.
I GUESS THIS IS EITHER FORER MR. MOORE.
AM I RIGHT? SAY ON PAGE 1312 FOR SUB AREA ONE THE GUARD LOT SPACE REGULATIONS FOR THE CR COMMUNITY RETAIL DISTRICT APPLY, THAT INCLUDES A PROXIMITY SLOPE.
SO MY QUESTION I GUESS IS, WILL SUB AREAS TWO THROUGH FIVE BE SUBJECT TO A PROXIMITY SLOPE GENERATED BY SUBAR ONE? OR DOES THE RULE THAT LEMME STOP THERE, THAT MUST BE EXPLICITLY STATED? WELL IT DOESN'T SAY EXPLICITLY STATED ANYTHING.
AND DOES IT, WHAT DOES IT SAY AT THE BEGINNING OF THE PD, IT'S CONSIDERED TO BE NON RESIDENTIAL OR MISUSE OR SOMETHING? YES.
SO IT, THE FIRST THEY SUB SUB IS DIFFERENT.
AREA ONE IS NON RESIDENTIAL SUB RESIDE, AND THEN THEY DEFAULT DISTRICT PRETTY CLEAR TO ME THAT SUBAR ONE, I WON'T EVEN SAY THAT.
SO, UM, MR. MOORE, ON PAGE 1310 OF OUR CASE REPORT, IT SAYS SUB AREA ONE IS CONSIDERED TO BE NONRESIDENTIAL ZONE DISTRICT SUB AREA TWO THREE CONSIDERED TO BE RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT.
SO SUB AREA ONE BEING BE ORIGINATION FOR RPS 4, 2, 3 WOULD BE, BUT THE QUESTION IS, ARE SUB AREAS TWO THROUGH FIVE DISTRICTS OF APPLICATIONS, IF YOU WILL, BY VIRTUE THE R WOULD'VE SUB AREA ONE WOULD BE GENERATED BY SUB AREA ONE.
SO, SO SUB AREAS TWO THROUGH FIVE, THROW OFF IN PROXIMITY FLOW AFFECTING SUB AREA ONE.
ANY LAST QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS? IS IT THE WHOLE I'M TRYING NOT NEED TO ADDRESS.
UM, IS IT A HOME AT 28 14? UH, CHICAGO? THAT WOULDN'T BE ON FOR ME OR WE TALKING ABOUT DIFFERENT, YEAH, RIGHT.
AND OKAY, I, NO, I I SHOULDN'T STIR THE POT HERE, BUT I JUST CANNOT KEEP THIS TO MYSELF AT THIS POINT.
SO ACTUALLY I WAS DOING RESEARCH AND I DID NOTICE THAT THE, THAT THAT PERMIT WAS NEVER FINAL.
SO THERE ARE PEOPLE LIVING THERE, BUT,
[02:45:01]
SO ANYWAY, I'M NOT CODE COMPLIANT, BUT I IS THE ANSWER TO MY QUESTION, THIS IS THE ONE THAT WOULD, IF IF IT WERE YES, A LITTLE BIT OF A PITCH, WHETHER THAT'S, IT'S PROBABLY NOT, BUT THERE'S A POSSIBILITY THAT COULD BECOME FOUR 12 SHED.DOES THE BODY BELIEVE IT'S POSSIBLE TO HURT THE FEELINGS OF AN ARCHITECT
SO THE QUESTION IS JUST KIND OF, SINCE WE DID MENTION A HEIGHT RELATED THING, IS THAT IN ANY WAY NEGATE R P S? SO IT WAS THE INTENT FOR R P S TO APPLY STORIES ARE A DIFFERENT THING FROM MINE.
YOU HAVE A FOLLOW UP, BUT THERE'S TWO STORIES.
HOW'D YOU GET COMMISSIONER? LAST QUESTION.
UM, SO I WAS CONCERNED, UM, DIFFERENTLY BECAUSE I WAS THINKING OF THE OTHER HOUSES, BUT, SO THOSE ARE KIND, SO WHAT, WHAT DO WE DO? BECAUSE THAT'S A NORMAL BILL, SOME OF THE NORMAL BILLS FOR THE NYST THAT THE WAY THOSE FOR FUTURE.
SO WE, RIGHT, SO THIS, UM, AS A COMMISSION, YOU GUYS RECOMMEND THAT WE DON'T INCLUDE THE ROOF PITCH THAT WAS JUST A RECOMME PAY BY STAFF.
AND I'M ASKING THAT BECAUSE THOSE ARE ONE OF THE DESIGNS THAT ARE PROMINENT IN THAT.
IT IS, AND I'LL MENTION IN THE 10TH STREET AREA, THE PITCH OF THE ROOF IS RESTORED TO THE PROPERTIES IN THE AREA.
A LOT OF THE HOMES HERE HAVE A PITCH ROOF AND IT LOOKS, I THINK THE, THE PURPOSE HERE SO THAT IT CAN LOOK SIMILAR TO THOSE HOMES.
SO THIS AREA HAS A LOT OF PITCH ROOF THAT EXIST.
UM, SO I WOULD UNDERSTAND WHY IT WOULD BE IN THE CONDITION.
SO, BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT THAT, RIGHT, WHEN YOU GO INTO THE WHOLE AREA, THEY HAVE THAT QUITE, QUITE QUIET.
YEAH, BUT IT HAS SIMILAR THROUGHOUT THE DISTRICT THAT DOESN'T HAVE THAT PITCH.
SO IN THIS AREA OF SELECTION, THERE ISN'T ONE.
UM, BUT I DO SEE THIS BUILD OUT ACROSS DISTRICT FOUR.
IN DISTRICT SEVEN DISTRICT KIND OF DROVE.
I HAD SOMETHING TO DO WITH THAT WEEKEND AND THE PITCHES WASN'T THERE.
IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE COMMUNITY WANTED TO RETAIN THE FISH ROOF COMMISSIONER, GO AND TAKE HER LUNCH BREAK NOW.
11, WE'LL COME AND UP LAST 20 MINUTE BREAK GRAD STEPS.
SO SHE GOES, THE CUSTOMER IS GONNA BE COOL.
YEAH, THAT PART, ESPECIALLY WITH WIFI COVER AND THEY JUST ADDING A APART.
SO, AND WE ARE RECORDING COMMISSIONERS.
WE GO BACK AND PICK UP THE LAST TWO ZONING CASES.
CASE NUMBER 11, MS. WHILE WE'RE WAITING FOR MS. GARON, JUST SEND
WE, OUR FIRST REGISTERED SPEAKER MAY, MAY BE A FUNNY ONE.
SO MAYBE JUST, UH, CONSIDER NOT ENGAGING.
[02:50:03]
WHAT, WHAT, REPEAT THAT COMPLETELY LOOK AT, LOOK AT THE LIST OF SPEAKERS.SO SHE DOESN'T HAVE Y I, UH, SO I, NUMBER 11 IS KZ.
THERE ARE PLACES AN AMENDING TO SPECIFIC USE.
GOOD TO ME FOR THE SALE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES IN CONJUNCTION WITH A GENERAL MERCHANDISE OR IF IT'S STORED 3000 TIMES SQUARE FEET OR LESS ON PROPERTY.
ZONED IN R D ONE VIRGINIA RETAIL DISTRICT WITH A D ONE LIQUOR CONTROL OVERLAY.
THE PURPOSE OF THE POST IS TO CONTINUE TO SELL ALCOHOL FOR OFF-PREMISES CONSUMPTION IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE EXISTING CONVENIENCE STORE RACEWAY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF NORTH JIM MILLER ROAD AND EAST RL THORNTON S THE LOCATION IS ON THE EAST OF DALLAS.
IT'S IN THE CORNER OF B R L UH THORNTON.
SO, UH, USES AROUND THE AREA THERE.
IT'S CONSISTING A RESTAURANT, THE DRIVE THROUGH SERVICE ALONG, UH, THE NORTH ACROSS, UH, THORNTON FREEWAY AND THEN AS WELL AS, UM, ADJACENT TO THE WEST AND TO THE SOUTH.
AND THEN, UM, THERE'S GENERAL MISSION DESK STORE
THE EXISTING 2004 SQUARE FOOT CONVENIENCE STORE WILSON SERVING IN 2005.
ACCORDING TO THE DALLAS, UH, CENTRAL PRISON DISTRICT, EXISTING GAS COUNTY B WAS OUR HUMAN CONCERN.
IN 1985 ON NOVEMBER, 2016, CITY COUNCIL APPROVED S E P NUMBER 2215 PLUS CELL OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES ION WITH THE GENERAL MERCHANDISE FOR FOOD STORE.
3000 SQUARE FEET LAST FOR A TWO YEAR PERIOD.
AND THEN ON APRIL OF 2019, CITY COUNCIL APPROVED THE RENEWAL OF THE S P FOR A ONE YEAR PERIOD.
AND THEN, UM, ON MAY, 2020, CITY COUNCIL APPROVED THE RENEWAL OF THE S P 40 A THREE YEAR PERIOD.
THE S P EXPIRED MAY 27TH, 2023.
ON JUNE 15 OF THIS YEAR, THIS DOOR PASSED INSPECTION CENTERS IN COMPLIANCE WITH CHAPTER 12 FEET OF THE DALLAS CITY CONVENIENCE STORES.
THAT'S SITE PHOTOS OF THE AREA ON THE SIDE LOCATED, UH, NORTH INSIDE LOOKING EAST, LOOKING EAST, LOOKING SOUTH, LOOKING WEST, AND THEN LOOKING NORTHWEST.
AND THEN SURROUNDING USES, UH, LOOKING TOWARDS THE NORTH, TOWARDS THE EAST ONTO MILLER ROAD LOOKING SOUTHEAST AND THEN LOOKING SOUTH AND THEN, UH, SOUTHWEST AND THEN TOWARDS THE WEST, AND THEN NORTHWEST AS WELL.
AND THEN THE EXISTING SIDE PLAN.
AND THERE'S NO CHANGE BEING PROPOSED.
AND THEN, UH, THE CONDITIONS ARE, UM, THE USE SET UPON TIME LIMITS, CONFIRM, EXPIRES FOR THREE YEARS FROM DEPOSIT OF THIS ORDINANCE.
AND THEN STATUS ZONING APPROVAL, UH, FOR A THREE YEAR PER IS SUBJECT TO REVISED CONDITIONS.
SO SINCE THE CURRENT ONE HAS EXPIRED, DO THEY CONTINUE OPERATING UNDER IT BECAUSE THEY HAD ALREADY STARTED THE PROCESS? THAT'S CORRECT.
THEY NEED TO FILE FOR RENEWAL OF THE S U P BEFORE THE ORIGINAL ONE EXPIRES.
UH, BUT IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO ACTUALLY BE RENEWED BY COUNCIL BEFORE THE ORIGINAL S U P EXPIRES.
SO IS THERE A REASON WHY THIS ISN'T ON AUTO RENEW? UM, I'M NOT SURE RIGHT NOW.
UH, IT'S BEEN RENEWED SEVERAL TIMES IN THE PAST, AND I THINK MOST OF THOSE RENEWALS WERE WITHOUT AUTO RENEWAL.
UM, I THINK WITH STAFF WE, UH, MADE OUR RECOMMENDATION FOLLOWING THE PATTERN.
UM, OF COURSE THE COMMISSION ONE VOTE TO ADD, DON'T WE HAVE OTHER ALCOHOL S THAT ARE FATHER ORANGE? YES, WE DO HAVE SOME THAT ARE.
AND IF I HAD TO GUESS, LOOKING AT THE DESIGN OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, KNOWING THE AREA ABOUT A MILE UP IS A LIQUOR CORRIDOR, SEVERAL LIQUOR STORE.
UM, THIS IS THE ONLY ONE THERE.
IT IS NEXT DOOR TO THE ALCOHOL ANONYMOUS.
SO, BUT THE REASON B IS BECAUSE THAT AT ONE TIME THAT WAS IN A DRY AREA AND THAT'S
[02:55:01]
THE REASON WHY.THAT'S PART OF THE REASON WHY.
AND THAT WAS, AND ALSO BECAUSE THE COMMUNITY, THE COMMUNITY USUALLY WANTS TO BE ABLE TO BE INVOLVED AND DON'T NECESSARILY WANT AUTO RENEWAL, RIGHT? SO IT'S IN THAT D ONE LIQUOR CONTROL OVERLAY, WHICH, UH, REQUIRES ALCOHOL SALES BY CCP.
IF IT WAS IN D LIQUOR CONTROL OVERLAY, IT WAS JUST BROKEN SALES.
UM, BUT THE D AND D ON OVERLAYS WERE ADDED TO, UH, VARIOUS, SORRY, IT WAS A LITTLE FLAY, UH, VARIOUS, UM, CORRIDORS THROUGHOUT THE CITY.
I DON'T REMEMBER ONE, UM, TO KIND OF CONTROL THE SALE.
SO CORRIDOR FOUR IS IN A DIFFERENT AREA THAT HE KNOWS ABOUTS A DIFFERENT AREA.
MR. UH, ARE YOU AWARE THAT IN 2016 WHEN I STEPPED IN TO HANDLE THIS CASE, ORIGINALLY FOR D SEVEN, UH, THERE WAS AN ISSUE WITH ILLEGAL EIGHT LINERS ON THE PREMISES AND THAT THAT MAY HAVE HAD SOMETHING TO DO WITH THE INITIAL PERIOD NOT HAVING AUTO RENEWALS ILLEGAL ONE, THE INITIAL PERIOD NOT HAVING EIGHT LINERS.
WHAT WERE EIGHT MONTHS GAMBLING DEVICES STILL THERE? I'LL CUT THAT QUESTION TO THE CASE BETTER.
THE ONLY CASE I I DID SEE FROM THE PREVIOUS OF CASES WAS THAT, UM, STAFF WOULD RECOMMEND, UM, OUR RENEWAL, BUT WHEN EVERYBODY C C C C WOULD RECOMMEND JUST LIKE A TWO YEAR, THREE YEAR, AND YES, COMMISSIONER, UM, IS THERE ANY, DO WE HAVE ANY CONTROL OF, OF VIDEO POKER MACHINES BEING ON SITE, WEAPONS GAS STATION? THAT'S NOT REALLY UNDER CONSIDERATION WITH THIS CASE.
UM, THE ONLY THING THAT'S UNDER CONSIDERATION WITH SUVS FOR ALCOHOL SALES IS IF IT'S APPROPRIATE FOR THE A TO SELL ALCOHOL AT THE LOCATION.
ANYTHING TO DO WITH GAMBLING MACHINES AND ALL THAT KIND OF STUFF, UM, WOULD NOT BE WITHIN THE SCOPE OF STAFFS ANALYSIS.
SO DON LOOK AT CRIME STATISTICS.
SO STAFF DOES NOT CONSIDER AREA CRIME AND THEIR ANALYSIS.
AGAIN, OUR ANALYSIS IS ALWAYS ZONING AND LAND USE.
HOWEVER, IN OUR REPORT, ON A VERY INTENTIONAL SEPARATE PAGE, UM, WE DO INCLUDE CRIME STATS FROM THE POLICE DEPARTMENT USUALLY FOR THE TIME PERIOD SINCE THE LAST S U P WAS APPROVED.
UM, WE DON'T COMMENT ON IT, IT'S NOT PART OF OUR ANALYSIS, BUT WE DO PROVIDE IT FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF THE COMMISSIONS.
ARE YOU AWARE THAT THERE ARE A COUPLE OF DISTRICTS WHERE COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVE EXPRESSED, UH, THEIR DISDAIN FOR EIGHT LINERS AND IN FACT THE MARKET HAS RESPONDED BY NOT APPLYING FOR AN SS U P AND, UH, WHERE THOSE EIGHT LINERS ARE PRESENT ON SITE? I I'M GONNA KICK IT TO DANIEL.
MAY I ASK YOU IF YOU HAVE ONE CRIMINAL ACTIVITY THAT YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO HAND AND YET YOU'RE FINE TO DO SOMETHING LEGALLY, THAT'S OKAY.
DO YOU HAVE ONE CRIMINAL? WELL, LET'S JUST SAY YOU HAVE SOMETHING THAT YOU'RE NOT PERMITTED FOR HAVING POKER MACHINES? YEAH, YEAH.
AGAIN, ALL OF THIS IS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THIS CASE AND STAFF'S ANALYSIS.
THE ONLY THING WE'RE CONSIDERING IS THAT THE SALE OF ALCOHOL AT THIS LOCATION IS FOR JUST, JUST COMMISSIONER STANDARD SECOND POINT.
COMMISSIONER STADER, JUST TO BE CLEAR TO YOUR, TO YOUR QUESTION, I MAY BE ABLE TO ANSWER IT.
IS IT TRUE THAT ALTHOUGH THAT'S NOT
SO CASE MR. WE, SO THEY TRUE THAT THEY HAVE, THERE, THERE IS TWO NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS ARE SUPPORT, NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS ARE, UH, ARE, ARE DEFINITELY MONITORED THAT AREA.
WELL THOSE, DID YOU, WAS THERE ANY SUPPORT NEIGHBORHOOD? THOSE TWO NEIGHBORHOOD? OKAY.
I MEAN THAT, THAT WOULD BE MORE OF THE PURVIEW OF THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER, UM, TO BE THE REPRESENTATIVE FOR THEIR COMMUNITY.
UM, I CAN KICK IT TO THE CASE PLANNER TO SEE IF SHE'S RECEIVED ANY
WERE THERE, UH, SUPPORT FROM TWO OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS? ONE BEING BOGARI AND THE OTHER ONE F Y I WAS IN
I'LL NEED TO CONFIRM OF THE CASE BECAUSE I DID RECEIVE LETTERS ABOUT, UH, WE CONFIRM THEY
[03:00:01]
WORK, THEY WORK FROM THE F Y I, WHICH IS A COALITION LIKE ASSOCIATION AREA AND WHAT MATERIAL, WHO ORIGINALLY CALLED THIS APPLICATION.ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER STA? UH, YES, I HAVE A TECHNICAL QUESTION SINCE WE DON'T HAVE A DEFINITION UNDER THE CODE, WHY DO THEY CALL POKER MACHINES? STATE OWNERS? DOES ANYONE KNOW? AND SO, I DON'T KNOW.
THAT'S NOT JUST WANTED CLARIFY.
COMMISSIONERS WE'RE ONE LAST CASE NUMBER 12.
UM, MS. WALKER, THIS IS LIKE A Z 2 2 3 DASH 2 9 3.
AND IT S A WHAT? IT'S AN APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO PLAN HELD WITH DISTRICT NUMBER 9 9 4.
AND IT'S PROBABLY APPROXIMATELY 7.6 ACRES AND IT IS, UH, SOUTH LESS, JUST A LITTLE BIT OF DOWNTOWN IN DISTRICT FOUR.
AND IT IS, UH, IT'S PROBABLY BOUND BY
ON THE NORTH IS THE WEST IS STANLEY AND SOUTH IS AM IT'S SURROUNDED BY, UM, EAST, EAST SIDE OF LANCASTER IS CR BUILDING WITH LOT OF COMMUNITY RETAIL AND PERSONAL SERVICE.
UH, THERE'S
AND SO FAR SOUTHERN FIVE, WHICH AGAIN HAS, UH, PERSONAL SERVICE, UH, UNRELATED USE, UH, RETAIL
THAT SHOULD BE FOR A CHILDCARE FACILITY, WHICH YOU CAN SEE JUST AT THE SOUTHWEST.
AND THEN SOUTH OF THE BAR ALONG IS ANN ARBOR.
WE'VE GOT R SEVEN FIVE AND CR ZONING WITH, UH, AGAIN CHURCH, SOME VACANT PROPERTIES.
THIS RETAIL, SO THERE'S TOBACCO
AND IT ALLOWS FOR OUR SEVEN FIVE USES EXCEPT FOR A, OUR SEVEN FIVE USES, EXCEPT OTHER RULE OTHER THAN AN OPEN NORMAL CHARTER RULE IS ALLOWED BY RIGHT THEN.
AND SO THAT IS ON THE SITE IS THE EXISTING HOLLAND ELEMENTARY, UH, HOLLAND ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, D I AND D, WHICH HAS BEEN IN, IN OPERATION ON
UM, THE, THE CURRENT REQUEST, SO THE, THE CURRENT REQUEST SEEKS TO CORRECT PREVIOUS ZONING CASE THAT WAS APPROVED IN MAY OF MAY 12TH, 2021, IN WHICH THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN WAS IN CONFLICT WITH THE ARTICLE THAT TEXTED ON.
[03:05:01]
THIS CAME TO LIGHT WHEN, UM, THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED FOR A MINOR AMENDMENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT THEY WERE AT PERMITTING AND THESO RECENTLY WE TOOK IT IN AS A MINOR AND STARTED LOOKING AT IT AND REALIZED THAT, UM, THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN DID NOT MEET THE TEXT OF THE ART.
SO THEY HAD TO THEN SEE IT AND, UM, FOR A FULL ZONING AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN ITSELF.
SO THE UPDATES TO THE TEXT ARE INTENDED TO BRING THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND THE TEXT IN CONCERT.
UM, AND THOSE UPDATES ARE SPECIFIED.
FRONT YARD
THEN THE ASPECTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN ARE AMENDED TO SHOW THE CORRECT SETBACKS AND, UM, TO BE IN CONCERT WITH THE TECH OF THE, THE LANDSCAPE PLAN IS BEING AMENDED IN ORDER TO BE IN CONCERT WITH THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
AND THEN THE T N P, UH, WHICH IS AN EXHIBIT AS WELL, IS, UM, IS BEING AMENDED TO REFLECT THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND, UM, THEN OPEN THIS FOR SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS.
SO WE'RE GONNA TAKE A TOUR, OTHER SIDE CLOCKWISE.
SO THIS IS, UM, STANDING ACROSS LANCASTER, LOOKING TOWARDS THE PALM ELEMENTARY TOWARDS, TOWARDS THE CORNER OF DUKA AND
THIS IS A STRAIGHT ACROSS LANCASTER TO THE STOOL.
AND AS YOU'LL SEE, THERE'S QUITE A BIT OF CONSTRUCTION ALREADY GOING ON.
UM, AND HERE WE ARE LOOKING AT THE SOUTH EAST PILLAR, EAST PILLAR OF THE SCHOOL.
AND THEN THIS IS THE LONG AND UH, THIS IS THE SIDE BELONG, TURN ON DEADLY, THAT SUSTAIN DEAD.
AND THE STOOL IS TO THE RIGHT.
SO YOU CAN SEE THERE'S, THERE'S LOT OF SPOTS.
THIS IS THE BACK OF THE STOOL.
THE
[03:10:07]
SO THIS IS THE ORDER OF FOSTERLANCASTER, WHICH
YOU ARE RELATED USES DIRECTLY, UH, LOOKING, STANDING ON LANCASTER, LOOKING TOWARDS THE DORM OF THE SCHOOL, HEADED WEST ON PADUCAH.
THIS IS THE SIMPLE FAMILY THAT IS TO AND CHURCH NOW WE HAVE MOVED TO DEADLY AND WE SAT ON DEADLY.
AND TO WEST IS THE CHURCH IN
WE COME TO THE OFFICE AND RETAIL AND THERE'S VACANT PROPERTIES.
AND THIS IS THE, UH, INVOLVE AND GET TO THE EXISTING, EXISTING, I MEAN, AS FAR AS YES.
HOW MANY MORE SLOT DID WE HAVE? I'M SORRY? HOW MANY MORE SLOTS DID WE HAVE? SO, UM, REALLY FAST.
YEAH, WE NEED THE, NO, IF YOU WANT, IF THERE'S MORE, WE CAN JUST CONTINUE WITH THE HORSESHOE.
SO LET'S JUST GO ON TABLE THE ITEM FOR THE MOMENT, COMMISSIONER, WE'LL BEGIN AS THE COURT SHOOT ON THIS ITEM.
AND THAT CONCLUDES THE BRIEFING OF THE DALLAS STATE COUNTY COMMISSION.
COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONERS, PLEASE TAKE YOUR SEAT.
OH, THIS SEEMS LOUD, RIGHT? USUALLY LOUDER.
[CALL TO ORDER]
PINA, CAN YOU PLEASE START US OFF WITH THE ROLL CALL THERE? IT'S GOOD.GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONERS.
COMMISSIONER CARPENTER IS ONLINE? MM-HMM.
GOOD AFTERNOON LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
WELCOME TO THE DALLAS CITY PLAN COMMISSION.
TODAY IS THURSDAY, AUGUST 17TH.
IT IS 12:54 PM JUST A COUPLE, COUPLE OF QUICK ANNOUNCEMENTS BEFORE WE GET STARTED.
WE MAY HAVE SOME SPEAKERS ONLINE.
I'LL PLEASE ASK ALL SPEAKERS TO BEGIN YOUR COMMENTS WITH YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND FOR OUR FOLKS ONLINE STATE LAW REQUIRES THAT WE MUST BE ABLE TO SEE YOU IN ORDER TO HEAR FROM YOU.
SO MAKE SURE THAT YOUR CAMERA IS ON, UH, I'LL A ALLOW, UH, THE SPEAKER TIME PER CASE.
UH, MS. SINA WILL KEEP TIME AND WE'LL LET YOU KNOW WHEN YOUR TIME IS UP.
UM, AND BEFORE WE GET STARTED, I'D JUST LIKE TO WELCOME BACK, COMMISSIONER POPKIN BACK TO THE HORSESHOE.
UH, SHE'S VERY BUSY CHANGING HER LIFE, SO WE'RE GLAD TO HAVE YOU BACK.
GLAD YOU CAUGHT, YOU CAUGHT THE PLANE BACK, ALTHOUGH WITH THE 125 DEGREE WEATHER, YOU MAY BE REGRETTING IT.
[BRIEFINGS (Part 2 of 2)]
WE'RE GONNA COME BACK, UH, TO THE D FOUR CASE THAT WHERE, UH, MS. MORMAN WAS BRIEFING.AND THEN WE'LL START WITH THE HEARING.
SO WE'VE GOTTEN TO, WE'VE GOTTEN TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
[03:15:02]
AND, UH, THE CHANGES TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN ARE THE REFLECTING, THE REFLECTING THE FRONT YARD SETBACKS.AND THERE IS A 20 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK ON PADUCAH.
THERE IS, WHICH IS ALONG THE, UM, TO THE RIGHT ON THIS, UH, A 25 ALONG DENLEY DRIVE, WHICH IS AT THE TOP OF THIS PLAN, UM, 25 ALONG THE ANN ARBOR AND 25 ALONG, UH, LANCASTER.
THERE IS THIS ACCOUNTS FOR THE RECONFIGURATION AND EXPANSION OF THE CLASSROOM EDITION IN ORDER TO LOCATE THE CURRENTLY EXISTING PORTABLE CLASSROOMS TO BASICALLY TO TAKE THAT SQUARE FOOTAGE AND RELOCATE IT INTO THE PERMANENT STRUCTURE, WHICH IS THE CLASSROOM ADDITION.
THERE IS A REDUCTION IN, UM, SQUARE FOOTAGE AND A REDUCTION IN CLASSROOMS. THERE IS A REDUCTION IN PARKING, HOWEVER, IT IS STILL MEETING THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS.
UM, AND THEN THE OTHER ASPECT OF THIS IS TO, UH, REFLECT THE EXISTING PARKING LOT THAT IS THERE AND TO ALLOW THE PARKING ALONG PADUCAH AND ANN ARBOR TO BE IN THE FRONT YARD ALONG WITH THE, UM, EXISTING FENCES AND VEHICULAR, UH, VEHICULAR SECURITY GATES THAT ARE EXISTING TO REMAIN.
I'M SORRY, MY, I'M NOT RESPOND.
SO THE, THIS IS THE EXISTING LANDSCAPE PLAN, BUT WHAT I WILL DO IS GO TO THE PROPOSED TO SHOW YOU WHAT, UM, THE, THE PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PLAN IS IN FRONT OF YOU IN ORDER TO BRING IT INTO CONCERT WITH THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, THE PROPOSED, UH, AMENDMENTS TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AND THEN THE TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN.
THIS IS THE EXISTING, YOU'LL SEE IN, UM, WE'LL GO TO THE PROPOSED AND THE GREEN AREA IS CURRENTLY WHERE BUSES ARE, UH, LOADING AND UNLOADING.
AND THEN YOU'LL SEE THE, THE RED AREA IS WHERE THE CHANGES WILL OCCUR FOR THE PROPOSED, UM, PLAN.
SO AGAIN, UM, ON THE EXISTING, THE AREA IN GREEN IS WHERE THE BUS LOADING AND UNLOADING WAS OCCURRING.
NOW IT IS MOVING TO, UH, THE PARKING AREA ALONG, UM, OFF OF LANCASTER, AND YOU'LL SEE THAT CIRCLED.
AND THEN, UM, IT IS ALSO, UH, REFLECTING THE, UH, SITE CONDITIONS, UH, PER THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN WITH THE EXISTING PARKING LOT.
SO THE AMENDMENTS TO THE CONDITIONS ARE, UM, AS SUCH AS WE TALKED ABOUT ON THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, THAT THE FRONT YARDS ARE NOW SPECIFICALLY CALLED OUT.
AND THE FRONT YARD SETBACK ALONG PADUCAH IS PROPOSED 20 FOOT LANCASTER AVENUE 25 ANN ARBOR DRIVE 25 AND DENLEY DRIVE 25.
THE, UH, AMENDMENT TO THE TEXT IS TO, UH, ALLOW THE EXISTING, UM, PARKING ALONG ANN ARBOR TO BE IN THE FRONT YARD AND TO ALLOW THE VEHICULAR SECURITY GATES THAT ARE CURRENTLY EXISTING TO BE ALLOWED TO REMAIN IN THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE.
AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS SUBJECT TO AN AMENDED DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AN AMENDED LANDSCAPE PLAN, AMENDED CONDITIONS, AND AN AMENDED TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN AS BRIEFED.
MS. S MORMAN QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONER
[03:20:01]
YOUNG? UH, YES.THIS IS A NEIGHBORHOOD SCHOOL, IS THAT RIGHT? YES.
SO I NOTE THAT THERE'S A DART STOP ABOUT A BLOCK AND A HALF SOUTH OF THE SITE, BUT THE T M P DOESN'T SHOW ANYBODY USING THAT.
THAT'S PROBABLY, I GUESS, AN ARTIFACT OF THE FACT THAT IT IS A NEIGHBORHOOD SCHOOL.
AND SO YOU WOULDN'T TAKE DART FROM YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD TO GET TO THE SCHOOL DART RAIL.
SO I, YES, I WOULD, BUT I WOULD, UH, DEFER THAT TO THE APPLICANT.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HAMPTON.
MS. MORMAN, JUST ONE QUESTION ON FRONT YARD SETBACKS ON PADUCAH, IT'S SHOWN TO REDUCE FROM 25 FEET TO 20 FEET, IT APPEARS IT'S TO JUST PICK UP A SMALL EXTENSION.
WAS THERE ANY CONSIDERATION OF LIMITING THE, UM, EXTENT OF THAT VARIANCE? AND IT JUST APPEARS THAT THERE'S A VERY SMALL AREA OF THE BUILDING THAT WOULD BE ENCROACHING THAT REQUIRED THE 20 FOOT ADJUSTMENT.
WE DISCUSSED THAT BECAUSE THIS WAS, OKAY, NOW CAN YOU HEAR ME? SO THAT WE DID DISCUSS THAT, BUT BECAUSE THERE WERE OTHER AMENDMENTS NECESSARY TO BRING THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND THE, UM, ARTICLE OF THE TEXT TO INTO CONCERT, UH, THEY ELECTED TO GO THIS DIRECTION.
COMMISSIONER STANNER? UH, YES, I JUST WANT TO UNDERSTAND SOMETHING BECAUSE I, I HEARD YOU SAY THAT IN 2021 THERE WAS A PD AMENDMENT ON THIS SCHOOL.
AND NOW YOU'RE SAYING, I GUESS WHAT, I'M CONFUSED ABOUT SOMETHING.
'CAUSE NORMALLY YOU WOULD TAKE THE PD LANGUAGE AND THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN MUST CONFORM WITH WHAT IT IS REQUIRING.
SO IS WHAT YOU ARE SAYING THAT IT DID NOT, WHY DID IT NOT? I MEAN, I DON'T, I I DON'T KNOW.
AND WE ONLY DISCOVERED THIS OR REALIZED IT WHEN, UM, THIS WAS FIRST SUBMITTED AS A MINOR AMENDMENT AND WE BEGAN LOOKING AT IT AND REALIZED THAT IT, IT, WE COULDN'T GO THROUGH THE APPROVAL PROCESS BECAUSE IT DID NOT MEET THE TEXT OF THE ARTICLE AT, AT THE, EVEN THE, THE ORIGINALLY, UH, THE ONE THAT WAS APPROVED IN 21.
WELL, YEAH, 'CAUSE I WAS JUST CURIOUS 'CAUSE THAT SEEMED RATHER UNUSUAL TO EVEN SUBMIT A DEVELOPMENT PLAN THAT DIDN'T MATCH THE PD.
WHICH BRINGS ME TO ANOTHER THING FOR MY LEARNING CURVE.
WHAT IS THE CRITERIA FROM THAT DIVIDES WHEN SOMETHING IS A MINOR AMENDMENT AND IT IS A ZONING AMENDMENT, WHAT IS THE BASIS FOR THAT? SO THERE'S A NUMBER OF STANDARDS THAT HAVE TO BE MET.
AND, UM, I DON'T HAVE THEM RIGHT IN FRONT OF ME, BUT, UH, FOR IT TO BE A MINOR AMENDMENT, IT, UM, CANNOT AMEND THE, I'M SORRY, I'LL HAVE TO BRING IT BACK TO I, I CAN FIND IT AND PULL IT UP, BUT RIGHT OFF HAND, I, I DON'T REMEMBER THE SPECIFICS, BUT IN THIS CASE, SPECIFICALLY, WHEN WE DID START LOOKING AT IT, IT, IT, IT, IF IT HAD MET THE CONDITION, IF THE, IF THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN HAD BEEN ABLE TO, UM, MEET THE CONDITIONS, THE TEXT OF THE ARTICLE, THE TEXT OF THE PD, THEN THE AMENDMENT COULD HAVE BEEN A MINOR AMENDMENT BECAUSE IT WAS FOR AN AREA IN THE, UH, AN ADDITIONAL, A RECONFIGURATION OF THE, UH, EXP OF THE EXPANSION AREA.
AND WITH IT BEING ON THAT, THAT THAT WOULD'VE BEEN FINE, BUT THE REST OF IT DIDN'T EVEN MEET THE TEXT OF THE ARTICLE.
SO IT MIGHT BE THAT THERE WERE NUMBER THAT'S ON US TO IT, NUMBER VARIABLES THAT WERE ADDED TO IT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONERS? COMMISSIONER ANDERSON? THANK YOU MR. CHAZ.
UM, CAN YOU GUYS SPEAK TO WHY THEY ARE REQUESTING PARKING IN THE FRONT YARD? COMMISSIONER
[03:25:01]
ANDERSON, CAN YOU REPEAT YOUR QUESTION PLEASE? CAN YOU GUYS SPEAK TO WHY THEY ARE REQUESTING PARKING ALONG THE FRONT YARD? CAN YOU GUYS HEAR ME? WAS THERE NO PARKING IN THE FRONT YARD? OH, THE, THE, THE BASE, UH, THIS REFERS TO ARSON FIVE ZONING DISTRICT, AND IN AN AN R FIVE ZONING DISTRICT, YOU CANNOT HAVE REQUIRED PARKING IN YOUR, IN THE FRONT YARD.AND THIS WAS ALRE, IT'S AN ALREADY EXISTING PARKING THAT WAS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT ALONG PADUCAH AVENUE IN THE, UH, IN THE ZONING THAT OCCURRED IN 2021.
HOWEVER, THERE'S AN EXISTING PARKING LOT, UM, ON ANN ARBOR THAT, UH, HAS PARKING IN THE FRONT YARD, AND THAT'S THE REASON FOR THE TEXT CHANGE REQUEST THIS TIME BASED, BASED ON THE EXISTING PARKING LOT THAT'S THERE.
UM, MY SECOND QUESTION AND AND LAST QUESTION IS, UM, CONSIDERING THIS IS A A NEIGHBORHOOD SCHOOL, UM, WAS THERE ANY REFLECTION TOWARDS, UM, PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY ATTRACTING STUDENTS OR ENSURING THEIR SAFE TRAVEL, UM, THROUGH SIDEWALKS AND AMENITIES, UM, AS OPPOSED TO FOCUSING ON JUST THE VEHICULAR? SO IN THE T M P, DID IT ADDRESS, UM, PEDESTRIANS, UH, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON? WE'RE, WE'RE HAVING A LITTLE BIT OF DIFFICULTY UNDERSTANDING THE QUESTIONS BECAUSE OF THE SPEAKER SYSTEM.
CAN YOU, CAN YOU CALL ME SO I CAN PUT YOU ON, ON SPEAKER? I CAN PLEASE.
I BELIEVE HIS QUESTION WAS AROUND PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY AND HAS IT BEEN CONSIDERED IN THE T M P PLAN THAT WE HAVE A LOT OF WALKERS TO THE SCHOOL? SO I WILL SAY AS FAR AS THE T M P IS CONCERNED, UM, IT THAT THAT'S NOT CHANGING.
HOWEVER, UM, LET ME GET TO THE DEVELOPMENT.
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, YOU'RE ON SPEAKER, SIR.
UM, SO THEY DID EXPRESS MY INTENT CORRECTLY IS, WAS THERE ANY, ANY, UM, FOCUS ON THE PEDESTRIANS CONSIDERING THIS IS A NEIGHBORHOOD ORIENTED SCHOOL, ACTUALLY MAYBE CONSIDERING THIS IS A PEDESTRIAN ORIENTED SCHOOL, DID THE T M P ADDRESS PEDESTRIANS AS IT DID VEHICULAR ACCESS IN THAT REGARD? I DID NOT.
I'M GONNA LET THE APPLICANT ADDRESS THAT BECAUSE WHAT THE MAIN THINGS THAT, UM, WE WERE LOOKING AT IN THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AS WELL AS THE ADJUSTMENTS TO THE T M P WERE, UM, IN PARTICULAR ON THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, THERE'S, UM, THERE WILL BE SIDEWALKS, UH, NEW SIDEWALKS ON ANN ARBOR, ALONG DENLEY DRIVE AND ALONG PADUCAH.
UM, AND THEN AS FAR AS THE T M P, IT'S, IT, IT IS ADDRESSING THE VEHICULAR ASPECT OF IT AND I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT CAN, MAY, MAY BE ABLE TO ADDRESS THAT FURTHER.
ANY QUESTIONS THAT, THAT I HAD AFTER, UM, I SPOKE WHAT THE APPLICANT SAID.
THANK YOU FOR THE RESPONSES AND THANK YOU MR. CHAIR.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONERS ON THIS CASE? COMMISSIONER HERBERT, PLEASE? YES.
ALONG AND ALL BRAD NOTICED THE STREET, THE SIDEWALK IS VERY NARROW.
UM, WHEN HAVE WE CONSIDERED ADDING A, UM, PARKWAY BETWEEN THE STREET AND THE SIDEWALK? 'CAUSE CURRENTLY THERE'S NOT.
IT'S JUST STREET AND STRAIGHT SIDEWALK.
CONSIDER ADDING, UM, THE, THE FIVE FOOT A, A LARGER SIDEWALK, FIRST OF ALL, AND THEN A SEPARATION FROM THE STREET TO THE SIDEWALK.
I, I I WILL HAVE TO AGAIN, THE APPLICANT WILL NEED TO ADDRESS THAT.
[03:30:01]
IN TALKING WITH THE, OUR TRAFFIC ENGINEER AND THEIR REVIEW OF THE, UH, PROPOSED PLAN AND MANAGEMENT'S TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN AS WELL.COMMISSIONER WHEELER ALSO COUNTER TO THAT, UM, DID WE TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION, IS THERE ANY SIGNAGE THAT DOESN'T ALLOW, UM, PARKING OR ONE WAY DURING THAT PERIOD? WELL, YEAH, WELL, PARKING, YEAH, FOR NO PARKING ON THE SIDE OF THE SCHOOL DURING THOSE LET OUT PERIODS BECAUSE OF HOW NARROW IT IS.
IN OTHER WORDS, WORDS, NO PARKING ON THE STREETS, THE, UH, NO PARKING IS THAT, OR, OR, OR, UM, WHERE SOME STREETS HAVE ONE WAY DURING SCHOOL HOURS.
PADUCAH DOES HAVE PADUCAH, UM, A A ONE WAY DURING SCHOOL HOURS.
AND SO THE PARKING IS ON PADUCAH AND ON, UM, LANCASTER, THE ENTRIES, THE PARKING THAT WE'RE SPEAKING TO IS THE PARKING LOT OR THE PARKING AREA, THE REQUIRED PARKING ON SITE THAT YOU COME OFF OF PADUCAH AND GO THROUGH.
SO THAT'S, THAT STREET HAS ONE AND IT, IT IS A ONE-WAY DRIVE THROUGH THERE.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONERS? OKAY.
UH, SEEING NONE, WE'LL GO BACK TO THE DOCKET.
UH, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE'LL BEGIN WITH OUR MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS, MINOR AMENDMENTS, BEGINNING ON PAGE ONE.
[APPROVAL OF MINUTES]
UH, AND BUT BEFORE WE DO THAT, WE'RE GONNA DO THE MINUTES, THE, UH, AUGUST 3RD MINUTES AND I ENTERTAIN A MOTION COMMISSIONER YOUNG, MR. CHAIR, I MOVE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 3RD, 2023 CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, UH, AS REVISED.THANK YOU COMMISSIONER YOUNG FOR YOUR MOTION.
COMMISSIONER STANDARD FOR YOUR SECOND TO APPROVE THE REVISED AUGUST 3RD MINUTES.
ANY DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.
[ACTION ITEMS]
MINOR AMENDMENTS, BEGINNING WITH CASE NUMBER ONE AND MS. BLUE.THESE THREE CASES, UH, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN ARE ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.
UH, SO THAT MEANS THAT THERE WILL BE DISPOSED OF IN ONE MOTION, THAT IS CASES ONE, TWO, AND THREE, PAGE ONE AND TOP OF PAGE TWO.
UM, ON THE AGENDA ITSELF, IT DOESN'T SAY CONSENT, BUT ON THE VERY, VERY FIRST PAGE, IF YOU LOOK, I CAN SEE THE CONFUSION IN MR. BALDWIN'S FACE THAT YEAH, THAT IT, THEY ARE UNDER A CONSENT AGENDA.
UNLESS THERE'S SOMEONE HERE THAT WANTS TO SPEAK ON ONE OF THE FIRST THREE CASES, THEN WE'LL PULL IT OFF, CONSENT AND DISPOSE OF IT INDIVIDUALLY.
IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON CASES ONE, TWO, AND THREE THAT WOULD LIKE TO BE HEARD? OKAY, SO YOU, YOU'RE THE RECORD PLEASE.
CASE NUMBER ONE M 2 23 DASH ZERO 12.
A APPLICATION REQUEST AND RELEASE FROM THE STREET.
FRONTAGE, FRONTAGE FACING, SORRY, LEMME START OVER.
ITEM NUMBER ONE M 2 23 DASH 0 1 2.
APPLICATION REQUEST AND RELIEF FROM THE STREET FACING FRONTAGE REQUIREMENT ALONG PARNELL STREET PER THE SITE PLAN ON A PROPERTY ZONE SUB AREA.
THREE WITHIN PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 3 1 7, THE CEDARS AREA SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICT, GENERALLY AT THE SOUTHWEST EAST CORNER, I'M SORRY, SOUTHEAST CORNER AT CORINTH STREET AND PARNELL.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN ITEM NUMBER TWO M 2 23 DASH 0 21.
A APPLICATION FOR A MINOR AMENDMENT TO EXIST IN DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A GENERAL MERCHANDISE OR FOOD STORE, A HUNDRED THOUSAND SQUARE FEET OR GREATER ON PROPERTY ZONE SUB AREA A AND PARTIALLY SUB AREA B WITHIN PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 8, 5 8 8 5.
SOUTH OF LYNDON B JOHNSON FREEWAY, WEST SIDE OF MIDWAY ROAD.
ARE YOU DONE? I'M SORRY, WHAT ITEM NUMBER THREE M 2 23 DASH TWO.
A APPLICATION FOR A MINOR AMENDMENT TO EXISTING DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A GENERAL MERCHANDISE OR FOOD STORE, A HUNDRED THOUSAND SQUARE FEET OR, OR MORE ON PROPERTY ZONE PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 8 6 3 AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SHORT BOULEVARD AND R L TH SERVICE ROAD STAFF RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL.
UM, I'VE CONFIRMED THAT THAT NONE OF THE SPEAKERS SIGNED UP FOR THESE THREE ITEMS.
[03:35:01]
ARE ARE ONLINE.IS THERE ANYONE HERE IN THE AUDIENCE, IN PERSON WHO WANTS TO SPEAK ON ITEMS ONE, TWO, OR THREE? ALRIGHT, SEEING NONE.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? YOUR MICROPHONE'S ON? DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION? OKAY.
UM, COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? UM, THANK YOU.
IN THE MATTER OF THE MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET CONSENT ITEMS, UM, ONE, TWO, AND THREE, I MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE PER STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND? THANK YOU COMMISSIONER BLAIR.
ALRIGHT, WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BLAIR TO APPROVE THE THREE ITEMS ON OUR MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS CONSENT AGENDA.
ANY DISCUSSION? UH, COMMISSIONER? PERFECT.
JUST A QUICK COMMENT ON, UM, ITEM NUMBER THREE.
I'M FULL SUPPORT OF THE CONSENT AGENDA.
I JUST WANT TO MENTION THAT OUR NURSERIES IN THE SOUTHERN SECTOR ARE BEING SHORTENED AND I NOTICED THAT THIS PLAN CALLED FOR A CUT INTO THE WALMART'S GARDEN CENTER.
SO I'M JUST TALKING TO OUR DEVELOPERS OUT THERE.
KEEP THAT IN MIND WHEN WE'RE MOVING FORWARD WITH OTHER PLANS.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALRIGHT, SEEING NONE, WE HAVE A MOTION TO, UH, APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA BY COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BLAIR.
ANY OPPOSED? NAY? THE MOTION CARRIES.
UM, MS. IS IT MS. MR. MULKEY? GOOD AFTERNOON COMMISSIONERS.
ITEM FOUR KC TWO 12 DASH 3 48.
AN APPLICATION FOR AN MF TWO, A MULTIFAMILY DISTRICT ON PROPERTY ZONED IN R SEVEN 50, A SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT ON THE EAST SIDE OF SOUTH POLK STREET BETWEEN CASCADE AVENUE AND ELMHURST PLACE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS DENIAL.
IS THERE ANYONE HERE IN PERSON TO SPEAK ON ITEM FOUR Z 2 23 48? I SEE WE HAVE ONE SPEAKER ONLINE.
PETER, IS THAT PERSON ONLINE? OKAY.
ALRIGHT, SO THERE'S NO ONE HERE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF MR. POPKIN? UH, YES.
UH, MR. MULKEY, I KNOW, UM, MS. MUNOZ HAS BEEN HANDLING THIS CASE, UM, BUT ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY, UM, FINAL, UH, DECISIONS FROM THE APPLICANT TO CHANGE THEIR REQUEST OR ANYTHING? UM, I'M NOT AWARE OF ANYTHING.
UM, JUST READING IT INTO THE RECORD.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SEEING NONE, UH, COMMISSIONER POPKIN, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? I DO.
UM, IN THE MATTER OF Z 2 12 3 4 8, UM, I'D LIKE TO HOLD THE MATTER UNDER CONSIDERATION TO THE SEPTEMBER 21ST MEETING AND I HAVE COMMENTS IF I HAVE A SECOND.
COMMISSIONER POPKIN, YOU DO HAVE A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER HAMPTON.
WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THE APPLICANT.
I THINK WE'VE FINALLY FOUND A ZONING CATEGORY THAT CAN WORK WITH, UM, THE EXISTING LAYOUT MORE OR LESS OF WHAT, UH, EXISTS THERE.
AND WE'RE CONTINUING THE CONVERSATION WITH THE COMMUNITY.
SO HOPEFULLY NOW THAT WE'VE WORKED THROUGH THE, THE ZONING BUGS AND HAVE FIGURED OUT ALL THE INS AND OUTS OF ALL THE OPTIONS, UM, WE'RE, WE'RE READY TO CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION WITH THE COMMUNITY TO, TO SEE WHERE WE LAND ON THIS.
SO I'LL LOOK FORWARD TO COMING BACK WITH MORE INFORMATION THEN.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? SEPTEMBER 21ST? CORRECT.
UM, WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER POP POPKIN, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HAMPTON TO KEEP THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AND HOLD THIS MATTER UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL SEPTEMBER 21ST.
ANY OPPOSED? NAYYY, THE MOTION CARRIES.
ITEM FIVE, ITEM FIVE, CASE C TWO 12 DASH 3 54.
AN APPLICATION FOR A TH THREE, A TOWNHOUSE SUBDISTRICT WITH DEEDED RESTRICTIONS VOLUNTEERED BY THE APPLICANT ON PROPERTIES OWNED IN 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.
SAS RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO DEED RESTRICTIONS VOLUNTEERED BY THE APPLICANT.
I SEE WE HAVE THE APPLICANT, MR. THAKKAR AT THE, UH, PODIUM.
CAN YOU TURN YOUR MICROPHONE ON THE MICROPHONE IF YOU HIT THAT LITTLE BUTTON ON THE FRONT BUTTON ON FRONT PAGE.
UH, MS. THAKKAR, UM, UM, HERE WE'RE REQUESTING A T ZONING FOR THIS, UH, ON SYDNEY STREET.
UM, IF YOU CAN SEE, UH, THE RENDERINGS, I HAVE A COUPLE OF, UH, UH, RENDERINGS THAT I WANTED TO, THAT I'M GONNA SEE IF I
[03:40:01]
CAN PUT ON THE, I'M PROPOSING FOR THE LOT.UM, IT'S A, A SINGLE STORY, UH, AND A DOUBLE.
UH, I'M ALSO CONSIDERING A TWO STORY BASED UPON SOME, UH, COMMENTS THAT WERE GIVEN BY COMMISSIONER REGAN ON THE FIRST TIME.
I PUT, UH, BROUGHT THIS IN FRONT OF US ALSO.
I'M, UM, GONNA PUT EXTRA PARKING IN THE BACK TO ALLEVIATE SOME OF THE PARKING ISSUES, THE STREET PARKING ISSUES ON THAT STREET FOR GUEST PARKING.
UM, OTHER THAN THAT, UH, I ALSO, UH, AS UH, RYAN SAID, I OFFERED DEEDED RESTRICTIONS, UH, TO HELP HELP WITH THIS CASE.
UM, OTHER THAN THAT, ANY QUESTIONS? DO WE HAVE ANYONE ELSE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK ON? UM, ITEM NUMBER FIVE Z 2 23 54.
ALRIGHT, QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? OH, SORRY.
WAS THERE ANY COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT? YES, I SPOKE WITH KEN SMITH FROM, FROM, UH, REVITAL LAKE SOUTH DALLAS.
I ALSO, UH, KNOCKED ON THE FOUR, THE EXISTING HOUSES ON THE STREET.
UM, THERE WASN'T ANYBODY HOME EXCEPT FOR ONE, AND I LEFT THE FLYER AND SPOKE ABOUT THE PROJECT, UM, WITH THAT PERSON.
WHEN WAS THAT COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT STARTED? WHEN WAS IT? YES.
UH, AFTER MY LAST MEETING HERE.
WERE YOU AWARE THAT I SPOKE WITH THOSE NEIGHBORS AND WERE ABLE TO GET THEM AT AROUND SIX O'CLOCK IN THE EVENING? NO, I WAS NOT AWARE OF THAT.
UM, IS MR. KEN SMITH A A NEIGHBOR OF THOSE OF THAT? HE SAID HE DOES NOT LIVE FAR FROM THAT, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD AND HE'S A COMMUNITY LEADER.
ARE YOU AWARE THAT THERE'S COMMUNITY, UM, MEETINGS EVERY MONTH AT, UH, CLOSE BY AT, AT THE WATERMARK? UM, COMM C D C I WAS NOT.
MEMBERS, ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? ALRIGHT, WITH NO QUESTIONS FOR STAFF COMMISSIONER WHEELER, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? I DO IN THE MATTER OF, UM, Z 212, 3 54, I MOVE TO CLOSE THIS HEARING AND, AND GO AGAINST STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL AND MOVE FOR DENIAL.
UM, CAN I MAKE COMMENTS? CAN I GET A SECOND? AND WE HAVE, UH, YOU HAVE A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER HAMPTON.
UH, COMMISSIONER WHEELER, YOUR COMMENTS? UM, SO WE DID VISIT THIS, THIS PARTICULAR MATTER AGAIN, UM, IN THE PAST, AND THE DENIAL WAS FOR SEVERAL REASONS.
UM, ON THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT, UM, I KNOW THAT WE ARE LOOKING FOR, UM, UM, HOUSING, UM, MIDDLE HOUSING OR ALTERNATE HOUSING, UM, BESIDES JUST SINGLE FAMILY.
BUT IN THIS PARTICULAR LOCATION, I, I, I DO NOT BELIEVE IN, IN COMMUNITY, OTHER COMMUNITY MEMBERS DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THIS PARTICULAR PLOT OF LAND WOULD ACTUALLY, UM, WOULD BE IN THE BEST INTEREST TO HAVE A DUPLEX TOWN HOME.
THREE, BASED OFF OF SEVERAL FACTORS, UM, NOT HAVING ANY IN THE PROXIMITY, ALSO BECAUSE OF THE WIDTH OF THE STREET.
AND, UM, AND BASED OFF OF SOME OF THE AREA PLANS THAT ARE GOING FOR THAT HAS BEEN SET FOR, UM, A HEARING DATE.
AND SO AGAIN, I WILL BE NOT IN THIS PROJECT AGAIN, BUT THIS TIME WITH PREJUDICE MEMBERS.
OTHER COMMENTS? COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT AND I, I UNDERSTAND THE REASONS FOR DENIAL, BUT I UNFORTUNATELY I WON'T BE ABLE TO SUPPORT THE MOTION.
UM, AS WE DISCUSSED IN THE HEARING, UH, IN THE, PARDON ME, IN THE, UH, BRIEFING, UM, FULLY 50% OF THE LOTS IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD ARE VACANT AND HAVE BEEN FOR OVER 25 YEARS.
AND, UM, THIS SEEMS LIKE A, A, A VERY APPROPRIATE DENSITY.
THERE'S PLENTY OF EXAMPLES IN THE CITY OF DALLAS WHERE A SINGLE FAMILY AND DUPLEX, UH, SITS SIDE BY SIDE VERY SUCCESSFULLY.
UM, I'M, I'M NOT AWARE OF, OF ANY OPPOSITION.
THERE'S NO ONE HERE TO OPPOSE IT.
SO, UM, UH, I THINK THIS IS, THIS IS THE KIND OF THING THAT, THAT, UH, WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT AS A CITY TO SOLVE HOUSING.
UM, THIS IS NOT A FOURPLEX, IT'S NOT AN EIGHT PLEX, IT'S A DUPLEX.
SO, UM, UM, I LOOK FORWARD TO, UM, BEING ABLE TO APPROVE A CASE LIKE THIS.
[03:45:01]
UH, COMMISSIONER HAMPTON? THANK YOU.I DO THINK THAT WE ALL ARE AWARE OF THE HOUSING CRISIS THAT OUR CITY IS IN.
UM, BUT AS WE CONTEMPLATE WHERE WE'RE GOING TO ALLOW INCREMENTAL DENSITY TO OCCUR, IT SEEMS THAT, YOU KNOW, LOCATING IT IN AREAS THAT, UM, HAVE A CONSISTENT EXPRESSION.
WE HAVE TALKED AROUND THIS HORSESHOE IN THE PAST, HOW, UM, END OF BLOCKS CORNER LOTS MIGHT BE MORE APPROPRIATE.
THERE MAY BE PLACES WHERE A MID-BLOCK LOCATION WORKS, THERE IS AN ONGOING AREA PLAN DISCUSSION IN THIS COMMUNITY, THE COMMUNITY, UM, I SEE TWO BALLOTS THAT WERE, OR EXCUSE ME, TWO RESPONSES THAT WERE RETURNED, UM, IN OPPOSITION TO THIS REQUEST.
I THINK THE COMMUNITY HAS SHOWN A WILLINGNESS, UM, TO SUPPORT THIS TYPE OF INCREMENTAL DENSITY IN THIS LOCATION.
THEY HAVE NOT, AND I THINK WE SHOULD GET DEFERENCE TO HOW THE COMMUNITY WANTS TO BEGIN TO SEE THIS, THIS INCREMENTAL DENSITY COME INTO THEIR COMMUNITY.
UM, I THINK THEY ARE UNDERWAY ON DOING THAT AND ARE TRYING TO BE THOUGHTFUL ABOUT HOW, HOW THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE THAT MOVE FORWARD.
SO I HOPE FELLOW COMMISSIONERS WILL SUPPORT THE MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WHEELER.
COMMISSIONER STANDARD? YES, I, I NEED A CLARIFICATION OF SOMETHING THAT COMMISSIONER WHEELER SAID, WHICH IS CAN I, CAN WE GET HER TO CLARIFY SOMETHING SHE, IN HER COMMENTS? YOU CAN CERTAINLY POSE A QUESTION.
THE WIDTH OF WHEN YOU DISCUSSED THE WIDTH OF THE STREET AS AN ELEMENT, WHAT DID YOU MEAN BY THAT? SO IN THE AREA PLAN WE'VE WORKED, UM, THERE'S AN AREA, SOUTH DALLAS AREA TASK FORCE AREA PLAN THAT IS, UM, THAT ALSO LOOKED AT DIFFERENT STREETS WHERE DUPLEXES, UM, DUPLEXES, FOUR PLEXES, OTHER ALTERNATIVES BESIDES JUST SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND THOSE STREETS, THE, THE, THIS PARTICULAR STREET ALREADY CAN'T SUPPORT TWO PARKING ON BOTH SIDES OF THE STREET.
IT'S SUCH A SMALL, THE STREET IS, UM, COMPARED TO OTHER STREETS IN THAT AREA, THE STREET, UH, WIDTH, IF YOU'RE PARKING ON ONE SIDE OF THE STREET, YOU ALMOST CAN'T GET DOWN THE OTHER SIDE.
AND SO IF YOU HAVE PARKING ON BOTH SIDES OF THE STREET, IT'S DEFINITELY, UM, UH, A CAUSE FOR ISSUE BECAUSE OF IT'S SUCH A NARROW STREET.
AND ALSO, UM, UM, WELL THAT'S PRETTY MUCH ON THAT, BUT THERE'S OTHER STREETS IN THAT AREA THAT HAS A, A, A LARGER WIDTH THAT WE COULD, THAT COULD BE LOOKED AT AND SAID YEAH, POSSIBLY.
BUT THERE IS A AREA PLAN IN THAT AREA NOW THAT'S GOING FORWARD.
AND THERE'S, THERE'S ACTUALLY, UM, ALSO LOOKING AT THE, UM, HATCHER STREET PLAN, HATCHER STATION PLAN AND THE SOUTH DALLAS AREA PLAN.
SO IT'S NOT A COMPLETE NO IN THAT AREA, IT'S JUST THIS STREET IS A NO, I GOT YOU.
SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT THIS STREET IS PROBABLY NO WIDER THAN 26 FEET OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT? I THINK IT WAS 50 56.
HOW, HOW BIG WAS IT? THE RIGHT OF WAY WOULD BE 50 56 FEET.
SO IT'S, IT'S, IT'S A NARROW STREET, SO IT'S NOT A, IT'S A, IT IS A NO ON THIS STREET.
AND, AND IT'S THE SAME THING I STATED THE LAST TIME.
AND ALSO, UM, CAN I SPEAK TO, UM, EVEN THOUGH THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT A MAP AND IT'S SAYING THERE HASN'T BEEN, THERE'S LOTS FOR 25 YEARS AS I JUST, AS I, AS I TOLD, UH, SAID IN THE BRIEFING, THERE IS DEVELOPMENT CONSTANTLY GOING ON.
SO JUST BECAUSE YOU SEE 25 YEARS, THERE'S EVERY STREET HAS CONSTRUCTION GOING ON BACK TO BACK TO BACK IN THAT PARTICULAR AREA.
AND SO, AND AGAIN, THE CITY OF DALLAS HOLDS THE MAJORITY OF THOSE LOTS IN THE LAND BANK AND THEY'RE DISTRIBUTING THEM OUT AS WE SPEAK.
SO THEY'RE DO THERE BUILDINGS GOING ON LEFT AND RIGHT IN THE AREA.
THE MAJORITY THERE IS ONLY, ONLY THING THAT I'VE SEEN BUILT IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD IS SINGLE FAMILY HOMES COMMISSIONER STANDARD, YOU CAN CONTINUE YOUR COMMENTS.
YEAH, I HAVE ONE FOLLOW UP BECAUSE I'M NOT AWARE IT'S IN YOUR DISTRICT AND NOT MINE.
SO ON THE HATCHER STATION AREA PLAN THAT'S IN EXISTENCE NOW, I KNOW THAT YOU'RE ABOUT TO WORK ON A NEW ONE, BUT THE ONE THAT'S IN EXISTENCE, OTHER THAN SAYING WHAT STREETS ARE APPROPRIATE, WHAT DOES IT SAY ABOUT DUPLEXES IN SINGLE FAMILY? SO THEY ARE LOOKING AT ALTERNA.
SO IT'S, IT'S MOSTLY, IT'S NOT JUST THE, IT IS JUST NOT THE HYDRO STATION PLAN IS STILL, IT STILL IS APPLIES, BUT THE NEW AREA PLAN IS WE WENT THROUGH STREETS, WE WENT THROUGH EVERY STREETS FOR THREE YEARS, LOOKED TO SEEING WHERE, WHERE CERTAIN THINGS WOULD FIT AT, WHERE UM, CERTAIN TYPE OF HOUSING MIXED USE WOULD FIT AND BEING, OH, AT
[03:50:01]
ONE POINT BEING ON THAT TASK FORCE, KNOWING THAT THIS PARTICULAR STREET, NOT THE AREA, THIS PARTICULAR STREET DOES NOT FIT THAT MODEL.THERE ARE STREETS THAT ARE IN PROXIMITY TO THIS THAT WILL, WITHOUT SAYING TOO MUCH KIND OF THE QUESTION I ASKED IN THE BRIEFING, WE CAN'T COMPARE.
BUT THERE IS STREETS CLOSE BY THAT CAN, THAT CAN WILL APPLY.
UM, QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.
SO YOU MENTIONED THAT PARKING YEAH, COMMISSIONER TREADWAY WE'RE, WE'RE PAST THE TIME.
CAN, CAN WE NOT ASK A FOLLOW UP ABOUT PARKING SINCE HE DISCUSSED PARKING IN HIS PRESENTATION AND THAT'S BEEN RAISED AS AN ISSUE ON THE STREET, MR. MOORE.
IS, IS, IS THAT OKAY? WE WE'RE ON THE MOTION NOW.
COMMISSIONER TREADWAY, THERE'S DIALOGUE BETWEEN THE COMMISSIONERS BUT NO LONGER BETWEEN THE COMMISSION AND THE APPLICANT.
IT JUST WASN'T IN, IT WASN'T SOMETHING TO ASK ABOUT WHEN HE GAVE HIS PRESENTATION.
WE DIDN'T KNOW THAT THERE WAS A NARROW STREET THAT COULDN'T ACCEPT PARKING, BUT, OKAY.
UH, SO QUESTION THEN FOR COMMISSIONER WHEELER.
SO YOU SAID YOU DID SPEAK WITH SOME OF THE NEIGHBORS DIRECTLY AROUND THIS LOCATION? NOT ONLY DID I SPEAK WITH THE NEIGHBORS, I SPOKE AT A COMMUNITY, AT A COMMUNITY MEETING, EVERY ZONING CASE IN DISTRICT SEVEN, I MAKE SURE THAT COMMUNITY IS IN, IS INVOLVED OR KNOW ABOUT IT.
AND I ALSO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO EVERY APPLICANT, NO MATTER HOW SMALL TO SPEAK WITH THOSE, THOSE COMMUNITY LEAD TO THOSE EITHER THE, THE COMMUNITY LEADERS, COMMUNITY MEETINGS, AND ALSO THE NEIGHBORS.
SO THIS WAS A CASE THAT WAS ALREADY, UH, DENIED BEFORE ON A DIFFERENT ZONING.
AND SO THERE IS NO, THOSE, THERE ARE NEIGHBORS THAT ARE AT HOME AT, AT THEY WORKING IN THE DAYTIME.
I PURPOSELY WENT AFTER IT WAS SAID THAT, THAT THEY, THERE WERE, THAT HE COULD NOT GET IN TOUCH WITH THEM.
THE APPLICANT COULDN'T GET IN TOUCH WITH THOSE NEIGHBORS.
I PURPOSELY WENT AT SIX O'CLOCK TO SEE IF THERE WERE ANY NEIGHBORS AT HOME AND SPOKE WITH THEM.
AND CAN YOU SHARE THOSE DISCUSSIONS WITH IT WAS THE SAME, IT WAS THE, IT, THE, IT, IT REALLY BOILS DOWN TO ALL THE TYPE OF HOUSING AND THE STREET.
IT'S NARROW TO HAVE MULTIPLE HOUSING UNITS ON AND THEY USE THE STREET QUITE A BIT.
IF YOU GO DOWN SECOND AVENUE, EVEN FROM THE PICTURES THAT, UM, THAT, UM, MR. MULKEY MULKEY, UH, SHOWED, YOU CAN SEE THAT THEY USED THE STREET QUITE A BIT.
THAT THEY USED THE STREET AT STREET PARKING ALSO.
SO JUST SO YOU HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH THE NEIGHBORS SINCE THE LAST TIME THIS CAME UP BEFORE US? YES.
I, I HAD, I HAD CONVERSATIONS SINCE THEN AND I HAD A CONVERSATION WITH THEM AFTER I RECEIVED A, A, A EMAIL FROM THE APPLICANT SAYING THAT HE COULD NOT GET IN TOUCH WITH ANY OF THE APP, ANY OF THE NEIGHBORS.
IT'S ONLY THREE OR FOUR NEIGHBORS ON THE STREET.
AND EVEN THOUGH THERE'S ONLY THREE OR FOUR NEIGHBORS ON THE STREET, THERE'S STILL NOT SUFFICIENT SPACE ON THE STREET FOR PARKING.
THERE'S OTHER LOTS ON THE STREET ALSO.
NO, THE STREET IS A NARROW STREET.
AND AGAIN, THIS IS NOT FOR THE WHOLE NEIGHBORHOOD, THIS PARTICULAR STREET.
THIS PARTICULAR STREET, AND THIS IS THE SAME THING THAT I TOLD HIM, TOLD THE APPLICANT IN THE, IN THE PAST THERE IS, THIS IS NOT A, A ONE SIZE FOR THE AREA, THIS PARTICULAR STREET.
I CAN'T SUPPORT A, A DUPLEX ON THIS PARTICULAR STREET KNOWING THAT THEY'RE GOING TO USE, KNOWING WITH THE NEIGHBORS, THE COMMUNITY, THE AREA PLAN, TASK FORCE, THE HAZARD STATION PLAN, AND KNOWING THAT THEY'RE GOING TO USE THE STREET AS PARKING.
I MEAN, I'M ALSO STRUGGLING LIKE, UH, COMMISSIONER HOUSE, RIGHT? WITH, YOU KNOW, I KNOW THAT WE NEED HOUSING.
UM, I THINK THERE'S BEEN, YOU KNOW, SOME WILLINGNESS TO RESPOND TO, YOU KNOW, THE, THE NEEDS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, WHETHER IT'S A TWO STORY DUPLEX OR A ONE STORY DUPLEX.
I'M UNCLEAR AS TO WHETHER THIS PROPOSAL
SO MAYBE I NEED TO ASK, ACTUALLY PARK BEHIND IT OR WHETHER THEY EVEN NEED FRONT STREET PARKING.
BUT IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING WE CAN'T GET THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION.
SO MAYBE I NEED TO MAYBE ASK, UH, MR. MOORE ATTORNEY BECAUSE THE, NOT MORE, BECAUSE THE, BECAUSE THE ISSUE IS I CAN'T REFER TO ANOTHER CASE IN THIS CASE.
ONLY THING THAT I CAN SAY IS THIS IS NOT A ONE SIZE FIT ALL.
IT'S THIS PARTICULAR STREET, EVEN THOUGH THAT YOU ALL SEE THAT THERE'S A BUNCH OF VACANT LOTS.
I'M TELLING YOU, THERE'S A BUNCH OF DEVELOPMENT IN SOUTH DALLAS THAT IS GOING ON EVERY SINGLE DAY.
SOME OF THE LOTS THAT YOU SEE THAT'S VACANT, THEY'RE ONLY VACANT BECAUSE THE LAND BANK OWNS THEM AND THEY'RE DISTRIBUTING TO THEM, TO DEVELOPERS.
AND THOSE LOTS ACROSS THE STREET FROM THIS PARTICULAR DEVELOP, IT'S OWNED BY THE CITY OF DALLAS, MOST MOSTLY ARE IN
[03:55:01]
THE AREA.THE CITY OF DALLAS IS DISTRIBUTING TO LAND BANKS, TO FROM THE LAND BANK AND TO TO DEVELOPER.
THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY ONLY IS THE ON BECAUSE OF THE STREET.
IT'S NOT THE WHOLE NEIGHBORHOOD, THIS PARTICULAR STREET.
AND I'M JUST SAYING IT WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR ME IN MY DECISION MAKING PROCESS TO UNDERSTAND IF THERE IS ENOUGH PARKING PLANNED IN THIS SITE, OR THERE WILL NOT HAVE TO BE ANY STREET PARKING.
SO THERE DOESN'T HAVE TO BE STREET PARKING, BUT THERE WILL BE STREET PARKING.
YOU CAN LOOK AT THE STREET NOW.
SO I I I, IF THERE WAS A WAY FOR ME TO EXPLAIN IN ANY OTHER WAY, NOT THE WHOLE AREA, JUST THE STREET, THIS PARTICULAR STREET, THERE IS OTHER DEVELOPMENT CLOSER BY THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR THIS AND WILL ALLOW FOR THIS LATER IN THIS HEARING.
AND, AND I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
I, I GUESS MY QUESTION THAT I, I AM UNABLE TO GET AN ANSWER TO IS HOW MANY PARKING SPACES ON THE LOT ARE BEING PROVIDED BY THIS PARTICULAR, SO THERE'S ONE DRIVEWAY DESIGN, THERE'S ONLY ONE DRIVEWAY, BUT HE SAID THAT HE WAS GONNA PROVIDE GUEST PARKING SPACES ON THE LOT.
AND SO IF, IF HE CAN PROVIDE TWO OR THREE OR FOUR, THEN IT SEEMS LIKE THAT DESIGN IS AMELIORATING THE CONCERN ABOUT STREET PARKING.
'CAUSE I HEAR YOU, I HEAR YOU.
BUT IF THE DESIGN OF THIS PROPOSAL TAKES INTO CONSIDERATION THAT CONCERN THAT I GUESS SO THE DESIGN WILL, I JUST DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT.
THE DESIGN WILL ALLOW FOR, IS GONNA ALLOW FOR ADDITIONAL PARKING RIGHT ON THE LOT.
SO IT WILL TAKE IT OFF OF THE STREET, WHICH IS THE CONCERN.
BUT, BUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD KNOWS THAT THAT PARKING WILL BE ALSO ON THE STREET.
IT IT'S PROVEN, THE PICTURES THAT HE SHOWED PROVES THAT THAT'S GONNA HAPPEN.
AND AGAIN, IT'S ONLY THIS STREET.
I MEAN, I CAN'T, WELL, THAT'S WHY I ASKED MR. UM, I THINK THAT'S WHY I ASKED MR. MOORE IN THE MEETING, WOULD WE BE ABLE TO REFER, HE SAID WE CANNOT, I THINK MR. MOKEY HAS SOME INFORMATION ABOUT THE REQUIRED PARKING.
IS THAT RIGHT? THERE'S NO STREET PARKING.
CAN I ANSWER THAT QUESTION? WE'RE PAST THE POINT.
AND I'M GONNA, SORRY, I HAVE TO ABSTAIN FROM ANSWERING THAT, BUT, UH, IT CAN BE PART OF THE DISCUSSION.
IT'S JUST NOT ME THAT CAN SAY IT
SO STREET PARKING, STREET, THE STREETS BELONGS TO THE CITY.
RIGHT? ANYBODY CAN PARK ON THE STREET.
RIGHT? AGAIN, I, I CAN'T, I DON'T KNOW ANY OTHER WAY TO EXPLAIN THAT OTHER THAN SAYING THAT REALLY SOON WE'RE GONNA BE ABLE TO GO TO SOMETHING THAT WILL FIT IN THAT SAME NEIGHBORHOOD.
THIS STREET IS THE ISSUE, NOT THE WHOLE NEIGHBORHOOD.
SO JUST BECAUSE WE DIDN'T, I'M MOVING TO DENY ONE.
DOESN'T MEAN I'M GONNA DENY ALL IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD.
COMMISSIONER TREADWAY, ANY FURTHER COMMENTS? ALRIGHT, UM, WE'RE STILL ON OUR FIRST ROUND.
DOES ANYONE ELSE HAVE COMMISSIONER BLAIR? AND THEN I SEE, OH, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON
SO COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, SHOULD I YIELD TO COMMISSIONER BLAIR? YOU, YOU'RE, YOU'RE, SHE WAS POINTING TO YOU THAT YOU HAD YOUR HAND UP.
WELL, UM, I'M HAPPY TO SUPPORT THE MOTION, UH, IN TERMS OF SOUND, URBAN DESIGN AND SUSTAINABLE PLANNING.
UM, HOUSING TYPOLOGY, LOCK BLOCK, FACE CONTINUITY.
I THINK ALL OF THOSE THINGS APPLY.
UM, WE DO KNOW THAT THERE, THERE IS A NEED FOR DIFFERENT HOUSING TYPES, HOWEVER THEY SHOULD OCCUR, UH, IN A SENSIBLE MANNER.
AND NOT TO SAY WHEREVER IT JUST MIGHT HAPPEN, UM, SPORADICALLY.
SO I'M HAPPY TO SUPPORT THE MOTION AND LOOKING FORWARD TO A MORE ROBUST CONVERSATION ABOUT WHERE THIS HOUSING TYPOLOGY SHOULD OCCUR IN THESE DISTRICTS, MORE RELATIVE TO WHAT COMMISSIONER WHEELER SAID ABOUT TRANSPORTATION CONNECTIVITY, UM, AND THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF THOSE COMMUNITIES.
SO I'M HAPPY TO SUPPORT THE MOTION CHAIR.
UH, I, I UNDERSTAND HERE THAT THIS IS A, THIS IS A DIFFICULT ONE.
UH, I THINK FOR, FOR SOME OF US HERE ON THE HORSESHOE, WE'RE LOOKING TO FIND OPPORTUNITIES TO ADD, YOU KNOW, WHAT WE'RE REFERRING TO NOW, THIS GENERAL DENSITY.
AND, YOU KNOW, I, I DROVE THIS AREA WHEN WE HEARD IT THE FIRST TIME, AND I, I DID SEE SOME DEVELOPMENT AND I ALSO SAW A LOTS OF EMPTY LOTS.
UH, SO WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THIS AREA WANTS TO BE, UH, YET.
AND, UM, SO THEN WE, WE LOOK AT THE FUTURE AND, AND WHAT IS IT THAT WE SEE COMING? AND I THINK COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT, UH, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT A COINCIDENCE THAT HE AND I ARE SERVING ON THE, THE BOND TASK FORCE AND WE'RE HANDLING THE HOUSING
[04:00:02]
AND WE SURE ARE HEARING A LOT OF, UH, UH, SCARY DATA AND INFORMATION ABOUT THE WAVE THAT THAT'S NOT ONLY COMING, BUT THAT WE'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF.AND SO, UM, I LOOK AT THIS ONE AND, UM, I'M CONVINCED THAT, YOU KNOW, THE, THE APPLICANT WILL BE REQUIRED TO HAVE FOUR OFF STREET PARKING AND, UM, IT JUST CROSSES THE LINE FOR ME TO BE, UH, FEASIBLE IN THE AREA.
SO I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION.
I HAVE A BRIEF COMMENT BEFORE WE GO ON TO THE SECOND ROUND.
I, I APPRECIATE COMMISSIONER WHEELER'S WILLINGNESS TO CONSIDER GEN DENSITY AND, UM, MISSING MIDDLE IN THIS AREA.
BUT, UM, I GUESS I SEE THINGS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENTLY THAN COMMISSIONER WHEELER ON THIS ONE.
I THINK I'M AT THE POINT WHERE IN MOST CASES, A A DUPLEX CAN PEACEABLY EXIST, UM, DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO, UM, SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING.
AND PARTICULARLY WHEN THIS WILL BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE FOUR ONSITE, UM, PARKING SPOTS, OFF STREET PARKING SPOTS.
UM, I'M NOT ESPECIALLY CONCERNED ABOUT, UM, THE NARROWNESS OF THE STREET HERE.
AGAIN, I REALLY APPRECIATE, UM, COMMISSIONER WHEELER'S WILLINGNESS TO, TO TAKE A HARD LOOK AT THIS ISSUE THAT IT SEEMS TO BE COMING UP MORE AND MORE IN DISTRICT DISTRICT SEVEN.
I THINK I JUST SEE IT A LITTLE DIFFERENTLY THAN HERS, SO I WON'T BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION.
I WILL BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION.
UM, I WANNA REITERATE SOME OF COMMISSIONER HAMPTON'S COMMENTS THAT ECHO MY LOGIC AS WELL.
THAT THERE'S AN AREA PLAN BEING DEVELOPED HERE.
A LOT OF THOUGHT IS BEING GIVEN TO WHAT SHOULD DEVELOP IN THIS AREA THAT'S UNDER A LOT OF DEVELOPMENT PRESSURE WITH A LOT OF CHEAP LAND THAT HASN'T BEEN DEVELOPED IN A LONG TIME.
AND I WOULD DEFER TO COMMISSIONER WHEELER'S, YOU KNOW, THE INTIMATE KNOWLEDGE OF HER, UM, DISTRICT ON THIS ONE.
I CAN TELL FROM THE AERIALS, I DID NOT VISIT THE SITE PERSONALLY, BUT IT LOOKS LIKE, UH, ALTHOUGH THE STREET WIDTH, UM, IS WIDER IN NUMBER, THE ACTUAL WIDTH OF THE STREET, UM, YOU KNOW, NOT JUST THE RIGHT OF WAY, BUT THE ACTUAL STREET WITHIN THAT RIGHT OF WAY IS MUCH SMALLER, UM, THAN THAT 50 FOOT.
SO I, I CAN SEE HOW, YOU KNOW, THE, THE STREET TURNS, IT, IT'S NOT, UM, IT DOESN'T PUNCH THROUGH ALL THE WAY TO THE END OF THE BLOCK.
IT, I DON'T KNOW, THERE'S SOME FUNNY THINGS GOING ON WITH THIS BLOCK SO I CAN UNDERSTAND THAT.
IT, IT MAY JUST BE A UNIQUE SCENARIO WHERE, UM, A COUPLE MORE PEOPLE LIVING ON THIS ONE LOT WHERE OTHER LOTS WILL SOON BE DEVELOPED MAY JUST KIND OF TIP THE SCALE ON THIS ONE.
UM, IN MY DISTRICT AS WELL, WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS IDEA OF GENTLE DENSITY IN THE RIGHT PLACES AND I WANNA BE SENSITIVE TO, UM, FINDING THE PLACES WHERE WE WANT IT AND PUTTING IT THERE AND NOT FORCING NEIGHBORHOODS THAT DON'T WANT GENTLE DENSITY TO ACCEPT IT.
UM, 'CAUSE I THINK THERE IS A LOT OF SUPPORT FOR THIS AND I THINK IN THE RIGHT PLACES THAT IT'S A APPROPRIATE IT.
COMMISSIONER BLAIR, I TRIED TO SHUT UP
UM, YES, I AM ON THE BOND TASK FORCE FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.
YES, I APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT WE NEED ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ALL OVER THE CITY AND THAT MEANS EQUITABLY ALL OVER THE CITY AND NOT CONCENTRATED AND ANY ONE SPECIFIC AREA.
YES, I UNDERSTAND THE, THE LOOK AND FEEL OF A DUPLEX NEXT TO A SINGLE FAMILY, ESPECIALLY IF THEY HAVE THE SAME HEIGHT, THE SAME, AND YOU CAN MAKE A DUPLEX LOOK LIKE A SINGLE HOUSE.
YOU CAN DO A WHOLE LOT OF THINGS IN DESIGN.
WE HAVE SOME GREAT ARCHITECTS SITTING HERE BEFORE US.
I, I, I KNOW THREE OF THEM SPECIFICALLY YOU WANT ME TO CALL THEIR NAMES, BUT I KNOW THREE AWESOME ARCHITECTS THAT I GREATLY RESPECT.
UM, BUT SITTING ON THE, ON ON THAT, THAT SIDE WITH, WITH, UH, COMMISSIONER WHEELER, I KNOW WHAT IT LOOKS AND FEELS TO HAVE A COMMUNITY THAT SAY WE NEED TO, THEY NEED, WE NEED TO, WE SAY THAT THAT COMMUNITY NEEDS TO GIVE SOMETHING AND THE COMMUNITY SAYS, BUT NOT RIGHT HERE.
I I I GET, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT 'CAUSE I TOO LIVE IN A COMMUNITY THAT YOU GUYS KEEP TELLING MY COMMUNITY, I GOT LAND.
BUT THEY DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO NECESSARILY
[04:05:01]
ACCEPT WHAT, WHAT A DEVELOPER SAYS.THEY HAVE TO, THEY WANT TO DEVELOP AT THAT ONE PARTICULAR SPACE AT THAT SPOT IN TIME.
I SAY ALL THAT TO SAY, UM, UH, COMMISSIONER WHEELER, UM, AS YOU'RE, YOU'RE WELCOME BACK TO THE COMMISSION.
I WILL BE SUPPORTING YOU TODAY.
UM, I I, I CAN'T PROMISE YOU I'LL SUPPORT YOU TOMORROW ON EVERYTHING BUT TODAY, BUT TODAY YOU GET IT.
ALRIGHT, ANYONE ELSE IN THE FIRST ROUND? ALRIGHT, MOVING ON TO THE SECOND ROUND.
UH, COMMISSIONER HERBERT, DID YOU ALREADY SPEAK? I CAN'T REMEMBER.
UM,
UH, I KNOW THAT'S A CODE COMPLIANCE ISSUE.
IT'S NOT A ZONING ISSUE, BUT IF EVERYONE PARKED COMPLIANTLY ON THIS BLOCK, I DON'T THINK THIS WOULD BE AN ISSUE.
SO ONCE AGAIN, I DON'T HAVE, UM, I HAVEN'T MADE A DECISION YET, BUT IT, YEAH, IT'S WHERE I'M AT.
UM, SO I WANT, I WANT TO SAY I, I GET MORE THAN ANYONE ABOUT THE, THE NEED FOR HOUSING IN SOUTH DALLAS.
I, I PUSH IT IN, IN AREAS THAT IT NEEDS TO BE IN AREAS THAT WE CAN GET SMALLER APARTMENT COMPLEXES AND AREAS THAT WE CAN GET LARGER VERY STRATEGICALLY SO THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD DOES NOT FEEL LIKE THAT SOMEONE IS JUST TELLING THEM.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I'M HEARING FROM MY COMMUNITY, EVEN IN TIMES THAT I MAKE A DECISION, UM, WITHOUT NECESSARILY ALWAYS ASKING BECAUSE I THINK I KNOW I GET PHONE CALLS AND THEY TELL ME, I DON'T KNOW.
THEY ARE VERY MUCH WANNA BE INVOLVED IN THE RESIDENTIAL, WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE, HOW THAT LOOKS, UM, UM, WHAT TYPE OF HOUSING? I, I JUST DID IT A A A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO AND THOUGHT I KNEW AND I GOT A PHONE CALL AND I COULDN'T DO NOTHING BUT SAY, I'M SORRY.
AND I SAID I'M SORRY BECAUSE I SAID THAT I WOULD ALWAYS BE A COMMISSIONER THAT HERE.
AND HE, AND THERE'S TIMES THAT I AM GOING TO HAVE TO GO AGAINST.
BUT THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT, I AM NOT TOTALLY AGAINST ALL DUPLEXES.
AGAIN, IT'S THIS STREET AT, UM, I TALKED TO THE APPLICANT, I ROLL WITH THE APPLICANTS.
THERE ARE SOME THAT, YES, THERE'S GONNA BE SOME THAT'S, NO, IT DEPENDS ON WHERE, HOW IT FITS.
UM, THE ONES THAT'S NO, I MEAN THE ONES THAT'S YES, I'M LIKE WHOLEHEARTEDLY FOR IT.
UM, UM, AND, AND, AND GET INVOLVED AND, AND LET THEM KNOW.
BUT WHEN IT'S, WHEN IT'S, I WILL NEVER SAY NO UNLESS THE COMMUNITY HAS SAID IT AND I KNOW THAT IT DOES NOT FIT.
I WILL NEVER JUST DO IT BECAUSE I THINK IT'S OKAY.
I WILL DO IT BECAUSE THE COMMUNITY, AND IT WILL ALWAYS BE THE, THIS, TO ME, THIS IS THE SMALLER OF OUR CASES.
I STILL CONFER WITH OUR COMMUNITY AND THE COMMUNITY WAS A NO ON THIS.
UM, THIS STREET, AGAIN, THIS IS NOT HOUSING IN SOUTH DALLAS.
AND JUST BECAUSE YOU SEE ON A MAP EMPTY LOTS DOES NOT MEAN DEVELOPMENT.
THIS IS THE LAST AREA TO BE DEVELOPED EVERYWHERE IN SOUTH DALLAS.
WE HAD HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS OF EMPTY LOTS.
UM, AND THIS STREET IS JUST, IT DOESN'T FIT IT.
AND THE APPLICANT KNOWS THAT I GOT SOME YESES COMING, BUT THIS ONE IS A NO.
ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS? ALRIGHT, SING NONE.
WHO IS ONLINE? COMMISSIONER ANDERSON.
WELL, I SAW COMMISSIONER KINGSTON HAVE HER HAND UP, SO I'D LIKE TO YIELD TO HER IF SHE STILL WANTS TO GO.
WHY DON'T YOU GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, THEN I'LL GO TO COMMISSIONER KINGSTON NEXT.
UM, I WANTED TO JUST ADD THAT WHEN WE MAKE THESE DECISIONS ON EITHER ADDING OR DENYING A DUPLEX OR ANOTHER HOUSING TYPE, UM, AND WE SAY THAT THERE, WE CAN'T LOOK AT PRECEDENTS.
UM, THE FIRST THING THAT WE DO IS ASK, ARE THERE ANY OTHER DUPLEXES IN THE AREA? AND WE MAKE REAL CONSIDERATIONS ON THAT.
AND I THINK THAT, UM, WE ALSO SHOULD TAKE IN CONSIDERATION, OR AT LEAST STAFF SHOULD, UM, WHAT DOES A DUPLEX DO FOR PROPERTY VALUES? UM, AND, AND LIKEWISE, UM, MULTIFAMILY AND, AND THE OTHERS SO THAT WE MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION.
BUT I WANTED TO ADD THAT PIECE TO KNOW THAT, UM, OUR DECISIONS DO REFLECT OUR FUTURE DECISIONS IN THAT WE ASK FOR PRECEDENCE IN THE AREA.
BUT I WILL SUPPORT THE MOTION.
[04:10:01]
KINGSTON? I THINK YOU'RE MUTED.COMMISSIONER KINGSTON, IS THAT BETTER? YOU'RE GOOD.
I, I AM GONNA SUPPORT THE MOTION.
UM, BUT ONLY BECAUSE THIS AREA IS UNDERGOING, UH, AN ANALYSIS OF WHAT IT WANTS TO BE.
UM, GENERALLY SPEAKING, I THINK THAT WE NEED TO BE APPROVING MORE DENSITY IN A VARIETY OF PLACES AND I THINK THAT'S GONNA BE A GROWING PAIN FOR THIS CITY.
BUT IF WE DON'T GET SERIOUS ABOUT IT, WE ARE JUST NEVER GONNA MEET THE HOUSING NEEDS THAT THE, THE CITY NEEDS.
AND THAT WILL LONG-TERM NOT BE GOOD FOR THE CITY OF DALLAS AT ALL.
IT MAY BENEFIT SUBURBS, BUT IT WON'T BE GOOD FOR OUR CITY.
UM, BUT I DON'T, I HAVE SOME DISCOMFORT WITH JUST CHERRY PICKING LOTS HERE AND THERE TO DO THAT DENSITY.
I THINK THAT WE NEED TO HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT WHERE IT GOES, WHY IT GOES THERE, AND HAVE A, A CONCERTED PLAN AT A MUNICIPAL LEVEL BEFORE WE WHOLESALE, JUST START APPROVING DUPLEXES HERE, THERE, AND EVERYWHERE.
UM, THAT SAID, I DON'T SEE ANY REASON WHY DUPLEX COULDN'T THRIVE IN A COMMUNITY LIKE THIS IN A VARIETY OF OTHER COMMUNITIES.
AND WE OUGHT TO BE LOOKING AT WHERE TO PUT MORE DENSITY, UM, IN A MORE SYSTEMIC WAY.
AND I'M HOPEFUL THAT THE CODE AMENDMENTS AND THAT PROCESS IS GONNA BRING THAT.
THANKS COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT.
UM, I, I WILL JUST REMIND THE COMMISSION THAT THERE ARE ARE OFTENTIMES WE, WE, WE INVOKE THE, UH, MERITS OF NEW URBANISM AND THE, AND THE PLANNING, UH, CONCEPTS IN NEW URBANISM.
AND I'LL REMIND THE COMMISSION THOSE OFTEN, UH, INCLUDE THE, UM, PROMOTION OF MORE NARROW, NARROW STREETS.
SO, UH, JUST A, A RESPONSE TO THE, TO THE STREET CONVERSATION.
UM, THERE WAS A, A, A, A MENTION EARLIER, I THINK, UH, I'M NOT GONNA GET THE WORDING RIGHT ABOUT PREVAILING CHARACTER OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
I, IF WE HOLD THAT LENS AGA UP AGAINST OUR NEIGHBORHOODS AS THE CRITERIA BY WHICH WE'RE GONNA MOVE FORWARD OR NOT, WE'LL NEVER DO ANYTHING.
WE WILL, THAT WE WILL, WE WILL TALK OURSELVES INTO DOING ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
IF WE LOOK AT PREVAILING CHARACTER OF A NEIGHBORHOOD, WE PASS CASES EVERY MEETING THAT MAKE DRAMATIC CHANGES TO THE PREVAILING CHARACTER OF, OF OTHER AREAS OF OUR CITY.
AND WHY IT WOULD BE OFF THE TABLE TO TALK ABOUT THE CHARACTER OF OUR NEIGHBORHOODS IS BEYOND ME.
UM, IF WE DO ANALYSIS AND AREA PLANS BLOCK BY BLOCK, STREET BY STREET, NEIGHBORHOOD BY NEIGHBORHOOD, WE WILL NEVER GET THERE.
AND THE CITIES THAT SURROUND US WILL PASS US BY IN TERMS OF DIVERSE, AFFORDABLE, UM, VIBRANT HOUSING.
AND WE WILL BE LEFT WITH NEIGHBORHOODS THAT HAVE 50% OF THEIR LOTS UNDEVELOPED.
UM, LASTLY I'LL JUST SAY WHEN I LOOK AT THIS, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE.
WE'RE NOT REALLY TALKING ABOUT BUILDINGS, WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT STRUCTURES, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE.
DO WE WANT MORE PEOPLE IN A NEIGHBORHOOD? I LIKE NEIGHBORS.
I THINK HAVING NEIGHBORS IS GOOD.
AND SO BY DENYING CASES LIKE THIS WE'RE SAYING THAT NEIGHBORHOOD SHOULD NOT HAVE MORE NEIGHBORS.
ANYONE ELSE ON THE SECOND ROUND? ALRIGHT, WE HAVE A MOTION BY, DID I ANYONE ONLINE? I DON'T THINK I SAW ANYONE.
WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WHEELER, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HAMPTON FOR, UM, TO NOT FOLLOW STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL, BUT INSTEAD STRAIGHT DENIAL.
CAN WE DO A ROLL CALL? VOTE MS. SINA.
[04:15:03]
MOTION PASSES.UH, I'LL SEND IT BACK TO YOU CHAIR.
AN APPLICATION FOR A CSS COMMERCIAL SERVICE DISTRICT ON PROPERTIES OWNED IN N OA 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 THAT WOULD LIKE TO BE HEARD ON THIS ITEM? THIS IS CASE NUMBER SIX, TOP OF PAGE THREE Z 2 2 3 1 13.
UH, MY NAME IS VICTOR CASTRO WITH B T R CONSTRUCTION GROUP LOCATED AT 1 3 4, 1 WEST MOIN LANE, DALLAS, TEXAS.
AND I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO BE HEARD ON THIS ITEM? COMMISSIONERS QUESTIONS FOR MR. CASTRO.
MR. CASTRO, HOW DO YOU PROPOSE, UH, FOR CUSTOMERS AND EMPLOYEES TO COME INTO AND OUT OF YOUR SITE? WOULD THAT BE STRICTLY ON SMITH STREET OR DO YOU PROPOSE ACCESS FROM WALTON WALKER? WE LIKE TO EXPLORE BOTH.
THE BEST WILL BE TO, UH, GO THROUGH TEXO AND TRY TO GET AN ACCESS THROUGH THE SERVICE ROAD.
AND THE SERVICE ROAD IS ONE WAY NORTHBOUND AT THAT POINT, IS THAT CORRECT? YES.
SO COMING TO YOUR SITE FROM THE NORTH, UH, TO USE THE SERVICE ROAD ENTRANCE, YOU'D HAVE TO GO SOUTH TO THE NEXT, UH, CROSSOVER AND THEN COME BACK NORTH ON THE SERVICE ROAD, IS THAT RIGHT? CORRECT.
TECHNICALLY WE LIKE TO HAVE BOTH, UH, ACCESS ON BOTH SIDES.
OR YOU COULD WIND YOUR WAY THROUGH THE NEIGHBORHOOD OFF OF, UM, I'M NOT SURE I'VE GOT THE NAME OF THE STREET HERE.
SMITH, NO, UH, IRA AVENUE, THEN CONNECTING TO SMITH STREET, UH, LIKE I SAID, IDEAL, WE'D BE THROUGH THE SERVICE ROAD.
UH, WE HAVEN'T, I MEAN, OF COURSE WE HAVE TO, IF WE GET APPROVED, WE'LL GO THROUGH THE, UH, ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, SEE WHAT IF WE CAN GET ACCESS DIRECTLY.
THAT WAY WE DON'T BOTHER THE, THE, UH, UM, THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
WELL, UM, MR. NAVAREZ TELLS ME THAT IF IT HAS NON-RESIDENTIAL ZONING ON IT AND YOU REQUEST ACCESS FROM TXDOT THAT THEIR POLICY WOULD BE TO GRANT THAT.
UH, SO WE'LL, I MEAN, IF IF IT'S IF THEY WILL, UH, APPROVE IT, THEN WE'LL WE'LL GET THE ACCESS THROUGH THE, UH, THROUGH THE SERVICE ROAD AND, AND NOT FROM SMITH STREET THEN.
YEAH, I JUST WANNA FOLLOW UP ON THAT VERY SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE BEFORE WHEN COMMISSIONER YOUNG AT FIRST ASKED YOU, YOU'D SAID, WE WANNA HAVE ACCESS BOTH SIDES MM-HMM.
AND THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE A VEHICLE SALES PLACE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT? CORRECT.
SO ARE YOU ANTICIPATING THAT TRUCKS BRINGING THE CARS ARE GOING DOWN SMITH AS WELL? I MEAN, BOTH SIDES.
UH, I, I GUESS THAT, TO BE HONEST, WE, WE HAVEN'T GO THAT FAR ON THE, ON THE, UH, ON THE PROJECT SINCE, YOU KNOW, WE'RE AT THE BEGINNING OF THE STAGE.
WE HAVEN'T RESOLVED ALL OF THOSE ISSUES THAT, WHICH I CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND THAT AND APPRECIATE THAT.
ON THE OTHER HAND, YOU, YOU KNOW, LOOKING AT THIS THOUGH AND ITS LOCATION AND NEAR PARKS AND THIS, THAT, AND THE OTHER, THAT THAT IS AN IMPACTFUL THING OF IF YOU WERE GOING TO BE UTILIZING BOTH, YOU KNOW, SIDE SMITH AND THE SERVICE ROAD.
SO I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE WERE CLARIFYING THAT.
AND I WISH THAT THE OWNER WAS HERE.
UH, THAT'S A DECISION THAT I, THAT I CANNOT MAKE, BUT IDEALLY WE'LL BE COMING THROUGH THE SERVICE ROAD.
SO, BUT I CANNOT ANSWER YES FOR A HUNDRED PERCENT SURE, WHICH, WHICH ONE WILL BE.
ALSO BY DOING IT ON, THERE IS A WATER STREAM THAT GOES ALONG IN FRONT, UH, BETWEEN THE PROPERTY AND THE SERVICE ROAD, THERE IS A WATER, UH, UH, STORM STREAM THAT GOES THROUGH.
SO DEVELOPING THE ACCESS TO THAT IS GONNA CAUSE MORE.
SO I, I DON'T KNOW IF, UH, IF THE OWNER WOULD LIKE TO DO THAT, MAKE THAT INVESTMENT AND THANK COOKIE, UH, MODIFY THAT AREA, WHICH I THINK THAT'LL BE A LITTLE MORE COMPLICATED THAN
[04:20:01]
JUST HAVING ACCESS THROUGH, UH, THROUGHUM, YOU ARE AWARE THAT THERE'S A, A PRETTY HEAVY PERIMETER ALONG THAT SERVICE ROAD THAT LOOKS LIKE TXDOT HAS ALREADY INSTALLED, RIGHT? A WHAT? I'M SORRY.
THERE'S A LARGE FENCING OR BARRIER ALONG THAT ENTIRE, IT DOESN'T, IT, IT DOESN'T GO GO TO OUR, TO OUR LOT, LIKE IN FRONT OF OUR LOT IF I MM-HMM.
I I THINK THE TREES MAY BE COVERING IT, BUT OH YES.
IT, IT STARTS RIGHT AT THE TIP OF YOUR, YOUR LOT.
MY NEXT QUESTION IS, DID YOU HAVE ANY COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT ABOUT THIS LOCATION? NOT YET.
THERE, SO BEFORE YOU CAME, SO THE MOSTLY BEHIND THAT IS RE IS RESIDENTIAL, AM I CORRECT? ACTUALLY, UH, UH, NORTH OF OUR LOT WE HAVE A, UH, CS SONY AND THEN ACROSS THE STREET, UH, IT'S, UH, I DIDN'T KNOW THAT.
SO WE HAVE CSS AND ON SMITH STREET, I MEAN IN FRONT OF US THERE IS, I GUESS IT'S A PARK.
SO WHAT ABOUT ON SMITH STREET? BUT THERE IS LIKE AROUND OUR LOT, I DON'T, WE DON'T, THERE IS NO RESIDENTIAL ZONING ON SMITH STREET EITHER.
WELL, UH, THE BEGINNING OF THE STREET, LIKE, UH, FARTHER NORTH, BUT LIKE ON WHERE OUR LOT IS, THERE IS A CHURCH NEARBY AND IN FRONT OF IT THERE IS A A, A PARK.
SO DID YOU, DID I HEAR YOU RIGHT? YOU SAID THERE WAS A STREAM THAT'S ON FACING THE, UH, THE, THE HIGHWAY, BUT IT RUNS, IT RUNS THROUGH YOUR LOT IN FRONT OF IT.
LIKE, UM, I WISH I CAN SHOW YOU, BUT YOU CAN'T SEE IT.
BUT BASICALLY IN BETWEEN THE SERVICE ROAD AND OUR LOT THERE IS A WATER STREAM.
SO I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THAT'S, DO WE, WILL THAT BE OF ENVIR? WELL, DID WE DO ANY TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL CHECK? THIS IS WHAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT, KIND OF A SWAY.
SO, SO DO, DO, I DON'T KNOW IF I NEED, DO I ASK THAT ANY TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL, UM, PROTECTION OR WE, WE CAN ASK FOR STAFF ONCE WE GET TO STAFF.
SO JUST MR. KUSTER, JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE, YOU ARE SAYING THERE'S A STREAM YES.
ON THE SERVICE ROAD SIDE BETWEEN YOUR PROPERTY AND THE SERVICE ROAD? THAT IS CORRECT.
AND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THAT TO, TO CONNECT YOUR PROPERTY TO THE SERVICE ROAD MAY BE COSTLY.
AND THEREFORE YOU WOULD LOOK TO HAVE AN ENTRANCE FROM ON THE SMITH STREET ON THE SMITH SIDE.
UM, OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS, MR. CASTRO, ANY QUESTIONS FROM OUR FOLKS ONLINE? OKAY.
QUESTIONS FOR STAFF COMMISSIONER WHEELER.
MR. MULKEY, UM, WOULD THERE, WOULD THERE BE ANY ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS SINCE THERE IS A STREAM THAT WE WEREN'T PREVIOUSLY PIVOTED TO RUNNING, UM, IN THE, IN FRONT OF THE PROPERTY, UM, THAT WOULD CAUSE CONCERN WITH NOT BEING ABLE TO HAVE AN ENTRY, UM, IN FROM THE PREFERRED SIDE, WHICH WOULD BE WALTER WALKER.
WERE YOU AWARE THAT THERE WAS A STREAM THERE? UH, YEAH.
WELL, LIKE I SAID IN THE BRIEFING, THERE IS A PRETTY STEEP GRADE GRADE CHANGE, UM, ON THE WESTERN PERIMETER OF THE SITE.
UM, WE DON'T, WE DON'T HAVE STAFF FROM THE OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY HERE TODAY TO SPEAK TO THIS.
UM, SO INSTEAD I'M SHOWING THIS, UH, UH, THIS IS FROM OUR G I S MAP THAT INCLUDES THE FLOODPLAIN LAYER.
UM, THE AREA OF REQUEST IS ONE 30 AND ONE 20 SOUTH SMITH STREET RIGHT HERE.
UH, AND AS YOU CAN SEE, THE, THE BLUE I THINK IS FLOODPLAIN, UH, FLOODPLAIN ITSELF RATHER THAN FLOODWAY.
UM, SO YES, THAT WOULD INDICATE THAT THERE IS SOME FLOOD PLAIN, UH, ALONG THE, THE REAR OF THE SITE FROM SMITH STREET.
SO, UH, MY CONCERN IS BECAUSE OF THE, THE WHAT IS ASKING TO BE PLACED THERE, WHICH IS VEHICLE, UM, VEHICLE CELLS POSSIBLY REPAIRS, HAVING A, ANY TYPE OF LEEWAY TO OIL, ANYTHING CAUSING ANY ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE.
[04:25:01]
SINCE SMITH STREET DOESN'T HAVE HOUSES, UH, WHAT, WHY WOULD IT, WHY WOULD IT BE ANY CONCERN WITH HAVING, UM, VEHICLES BEING DELIVERED OR BOUGHT FROM THAT SIDE? YEAH, AS WE DISCUSSED HERE, I'LL TURN THIS FLOOD PLAIN LAYER OFF REAL QUICK.AS WE DISCUSSED EARLIER TODAY, UM, THE SERVICE ROAD HERE ONLY RUNS TO THE NORTH.
UM, UP HERE, THE ONLY WAY TO GET TO THIS SITE IS TO GO THROUGH THESE RESIDENTIAL STREETS, HANG A RIGHT HERE, AND THEN HANG A LEFT ONTO SMITH STREET, UM, TO GET DOWN TO HERE.
COMMISSIONER STANDUP AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE THIS IN FRONT OF YOU, BUT WE'RE LOOKING AT GOOGLE MAPS, GOOGLE EARTH, AND ALTHOUGH YOU SAID, I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S CSS WAY NORTH AT THE INTERSECTION.
WELL, DIRECTLY, THEY'VE GOT HOUSES THERE ON GOOGLE EARTH, RIGHT? NOT, NOT.
SO ARE YOU SAYING IT'S ZONE CSS AND THIS IS NON-CONFORMING BECAUSE THERE ARE THREE HOUSES WE CAN SEE? I, YEAH, THERE'S A, UH, DIRECTLY NORTH OF YOU IN THE SAME AREA, JUST RIGHT OF THE SERVICE ROAD.
I GUESS THEY LOOK LIKE THEIR HOUSES, THEY'RE ON, ON A C YEAH, WE HAVE PICTURES OF 'EM.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF COMMISSIONERS? YES.
FOR STAFF, UM, WITH A STRAIGHT ZONING CHANGE, UM, IT WOULD NOT LIMIT THE USE OF THIS SITE TO ONE THE USE THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING.
IS THAT CORRECT? COULD YOU HEAR MY QUESTION? UH, I GOT IT.
UM, NO, A GENERAL ZONING CHANGE TO A CSS DISTRICT WOULD ALLOW ALL OF THE USES, UH, PERMITTED UNDER THE CSS DISTRICT.
UM, I'LL ADD TO THAT, UM, LIKE I SAID, THIS MORNING STAFF'S, UM, RECOMMENDATION OF DENIAL FOR THIS CASE IS NOT ONLY TO THE DISTRICT, UM, BUT THE USE THAT'S BEING PROPOSED BY THE APPLICANT, UH, WE ALSO DON'T THINK IS APPROPRIATE FOR THIS AREA.
SO EVEN IF DEEDED RESTRICTIONS WERE VOLUNTEERED BY THE APPLICANT RESTRICTING IT, YOU KNOW, JUST TO THE ONE USE THEY'RE PROPOSING OR A FEW OTHERS, UM, THAT STILL WOULD NOT GARNER STAFF SUPPORT.
BUT THE STRAIGHT ZONING CHANGE TO CS WOULD ALLOW SOME VERY HEAVY COMMERCIAL USES SUCH AS MACHINERY, HEAVY EQUIPMENT OR TRUCK SALES AND SERVICE, OR COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLE PARKING LOT, CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT, YES.
AND THERE'S ALSO NO WAY THROUGH A STRAIGHT ZONING CHANGE TO STIPULATE HOW, UM, TRAFFIC CAN INTERACTS AT THIS PROPERTY, IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT.
THAT WOULD NEED TO BE DONE THROUGH DEED RESTRICTIONS OR, YOU KNOW, SOME OTHER KIND OF TOOL.
AND GIVEN THE, WOULD IT NOT SEEM LOGICAL THAT GIVEN THE, UH, EXISTENCE OF THE STREAM AND THE TERRAIN CHANGE THAT UH, THE UM, CHEAPEST, UM, FORM OF ACCESS TO THIS LOT WOULD BE THROUGH SMITH STREET THAT YES, THAT APPEARS TO BE THE CASE.
AND GIVEN THAT, UM, CSS STRAIGHT ZONING ALLOWS A LOT OF HEAVY, UM, COMMERCIAL USES THAT INVOLVE TRUCKING AND THE A THE, THE MOST LOGICAL WAY TO ACCESS THIS SITE IS ON SMITH STREET THAT WOULD INVOLVE HEAVY TRUCK TRAFFIC PASSING THIS, THESE RESIDENTIAL HOMES TO THE NORTH ON SMITH.
IS THAT RIGHT? THAT WOULD DEFINITELY BE A POTENTIAL OUTCOME.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, PLEASE? THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
UM, IS IT SAFE TO CONSIDER THE LAND THAT IS IN THE FLOODPLAIN? THAT'S UNDEVELOPABLE CONSIDERING, UM, YOU CAN'T PUT A BUILT STRUCTURE IN THAT LAND.
UH, THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT I COULD SPEAK TO AS THE ZONING PLANNER.
UM, WE WOULD NEED TO GET SOMEONE FROM ENGINEERING TO CONFIRM THAT.
UM, BUT I CAN SPEAK GENERALLY, UM, HAVING FLOODPLAIN ON A PROPERTY, UM, COULD POTENTIALLY LIMIT DEVELOPMENT, UH, WHERE THAT FLOODPLAIN EXISTS.
UM, SO I'M THINKING TOWARDS THE LINE OF, UM, IN THAT LIGHT, WOULD THERE BE ANY OTHER COMPATIBLE USES OTHER THAN, UM, AN AUTOCENTRIC USE THAT DID NOT INCLUDE A, A BUILDING ON THAT PORTION? UM, IS THERE, ARE THERE ANY OTHER DEVELOPABLE, UM, AIMS THAT, THAT PROPERTY COULD HELP ACHIEVE? COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, YOU MIGHT WANT TO TRY ONE MORE TIME.
COULD IT BE DE COULD THAT LAND BE DEVELOPED AS SOMETHING ELSE
[04:30:01]
CONSIDERING IT'S IN THE FLOODPLAIN? OR IS THAT ONLY THE ONE OF THE HIGHEST AND BEST USES CONSIDERING IT'S IN THE FLOODPLAIN? YEAH, I, I MEAN THE, THE PROPERTY COULD BE DEVELOPED OUTSIDE OF THAT FLOODPLAIN.UM, I'M NOT AN ENGINEER, BUT I, I, I KNOW THERE ARE MID MITIGATION MEASURES THAT CAN BE TAKEN WHERE A FLOODPLAIN EXISTS.
UM, BUT YEAH, I MEAN, I, I WOULD SAY THAT AT LEAST THE MAJORITY OF THE PROPERTY IS DEVELOPABLE.
YEAH, I'M JUST INTERESTED IN MAKING SURE IT GETS DEVELOPED, UM, AS OPPOSED TO TO REMAINING BEING A VACANT LOT SO THAT WE COULD, UM, AFFECT THAT COMMUNITY.
BUT THAT'S THE END OF MY QUESTIONS.
MR. MULKEY, AND THANK YOU MR. CHAIR.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER ANDERSON.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF COMMISSIONERS? OKAY, SEE NONE.
COMMISSIONER HERBERT, DO YOU HAVE MOTION, SIR? I DO.
I MOVE TO, UH, CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION OF DENIAL.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HERBERT FOR YOUR MOTION.
AND COMMISSIONER BLAIR FOR YOUR SECOND TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
FALSE FOR RECOMMENDATION FOR DENIAL COMMENTS? ANY COMMENTS? COMMISSIONERS? I'LL MAKE THE COMMENT, ESPECIALLY SINCE I MADE THE PROPOSAL, BUT, UM, LITERALLY THE LOCATION AND THE ABILITY TO GET TO THE LOCATION IS THE PROBLEM.
UM, HAVING TO TAKE TRUCKS THROUGH THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO GET TO THE LOCATION IS SOMETHING THAT I COULDN'T SUPPORT.
UM, AND I THINK THE PROPER ZONING IS ALREADY ON GROUND.
IT'S AN INTRODUCTION TO A RESIDENTIAL AREA TO BE HONEST WITH YOU, AND IT SHOULD, SHOULD REMAIN THAT WAY AS A NEIGHBORHOOD.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HERBERT, ANY OTHER COMMENTS? I, I WILL BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION FOR ALL THE VERY SAME REASONS.
I THINK, UH, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER AS USUAL THROUGH HER QUESTIONS HAS, HAS CRYSTALLIZED EXACTLY, UH, WHAT THIS CASE IS ABOUT.
UM, AND IN TERMS OF THE FLOODPLAIN, ALTHOUGH A BIG A PORTION OF THIS PROPERTY IS IN THE FLOODPLAIN, APPARENTLY, ALTHOUGH, YOU KNOW, I HAVE FOUND THAT THOSE MAPS ARE FREQUENTLY WRONG.
YOU CAN TAKE A PROPERTY OUT OF THE FLOOD PLAIN.
IT'S VERY, VERY EXPENSIVE, BUT IT CAN BE DONE.
I THINK THIS PARTICULAR CASE THOUGH, IS ABOUT CIRCULATION, ABOUT TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT AND ABOUT WHAT THE, UH, GENERAL ZONING CHANGE AS COMMISSIONER CARPENTER POINTED OUT, UNLOCKS.
UH, AND THEREFORE WE'LL BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.
ITEM NUMBER SEVEN IS Z 2 2 378.
AN APPLICATION FOR A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FOR MU THREE MIXED USE DISTRICT USES AND A VEHICLE DISPLAYS SALT AND SERVICE USE ON PROPERTY ZONE AND MU THREE MIXED USE DISTRICT ON THE NORTH LINE OF WEST NORTHWEST HIGHWAY EAST OF SHADY TRAIL STAFF.
RECOMMENDATION, APPROVAL SUBJECT TO A DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND STATUS RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS.
IS THERE ANYONE HERE? LET'S SEE THAT THE APPLICANT IS HERE.
TOMMY MANN 500 WINSTEAD BUILDING, REPRESENTING THE AVALON DEALERSHIPS IN THIS REQUEST.
THEY'RE THE OWNERS OF THE ROLLS ROYCE AND MCLAREN AND MASERATI.
THAT'S JUST A COUPLE PROPERTIES OVER.
THIS IS JUST GONNA BE AN EXTENSION OF THAT.
AND SO IT'S OBVIOUSLY A BOUTIQUE TYPE USE AND WE'RE JUST LAYERING IT ON WITH THE PD TO THE EXISTING ZONING PER THE DISCUSSION ON THE TREES, WHICH IS WHY WE, UH, POSTPONED TWO WEEKS FOR TWO REASONS, A UTILITY CONFLICT ALONG NORTHWEST HIGHWAY.
SO WE ELIMINATED SEVERAL SPACES THERE AND INTRODUCED ISLANDS FOR THE STREET TREES TO GO IN THERE.
AND THEN ALONG THE NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE, THERE ARE FOUR NICE MATURE TREES.
ONE OF THEM ACTUALLY HAS ITS TRUNK ON OUR PROPERTY.
THE OTHER THREE'S TRUNKS ARE ON THE ADJACENT PROPERTY, BUT THEIR CANOPIES GO SIGNIFICANTLY INTO OUR PROPERTY.
SO WE ELIMINATED A COUPLE SPACES THERE AND CREATED AN ISLAND FOR THE ONE WHOSE TRUNK IS ON OUR PROPERTY TO REMAIN, WHICH YOU SEE ON THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
AND SORRY, WE ELIMINATED SOME PARKING SPACES AND CREATED AN ISLAND FOR THE ONE MATURE TREE ON THE NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE WHOSE TRUNK IS ON OUR PROPERTY.
THAT'S IN THE REVISED DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
THE OTHER THREE TECHNICALLY ARE NOT ON OUR PROPERTY, BUT THE CANOPIES ARE, THE LANGUAGE WE INTRODUCED WAS AN INTENT TO SAY WE'RE NOT GOING TO REMOVE THAT ONE FOR WHICH WE CREATED THE ISLAND.
UM, IF THERE'S A MORE SPECIFIC WAY TO SAY THAT, OR IF YOU WANTED TO PLACE A CONDITION
[04:35:01]
THAT WE KNOW IT ON THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN IN THAT ISLAND, THAT'S NOT A PROBLEM.UH, THE STAFF LANGUAGE AS WRITTEN TO ME.
I MEAN, WE WOULDN'T OBJECT, BUT I I THINK IT'S ACTUALLY NOT TO ADVOCATE AGAINST MYSELF WOULD ALLOW US TO REMOVE THAT TREE THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN POTENTIALLY.
AND THAT'S NOT OUR INTENTION AND NOT THE REVISIONS THAT WE'VE MADE WITH COMMISSIONER CARPENTER OVER THE LAST COUPLE WEEKS.
SO OTHERWISE, WE'RE GOOD AND HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? COMMISSIONER'S QUESTIONS FROM MR. MANN? I'M SURE WE HAVE.
DID YOU SAY THAT THIS IS GOING TO BE KIND OF AN EXTENSION OF THE MASERATI OR THIS IS GONNA BE A MIXED USE WITH, WITH, UH, HOUSING AND NO, IT'S JUST THE, FOR THE DEALERSHIP.
SO THE, THE DEALERSHIP NOW THEY SELL MASERATI, ROLLS ROYCE, MCLAREN, A COUPLE OTHER THINGS I CAN'T AFFORD.
AND SO THIS WILL WILL DISPLAY MORE OF THOSE VEHICLES AND THEN HAVE SPACE FOR THE EMPLOYEES IN A LITTLE MAKE READY FACILITY.
SO IT'S, WE'RE ADDING THAT IS A VEHICLE DISPLAY SALES AND SERVICE USE.
SO WE'RE ADDING THAT USE WITH THIS PD.
THE SITE IS ZONED IN U THREE, SO LOTS OF OTHER USES ARE ALLOWED, BUT THAT'S ALL WE'RE CHANGING IS ADDING THAT.
YEAH, I, I THINK, YEAH, I THOUGHT THAT WE WERE PUTTING LIKE SOME HOUSING THERE.
COMMISSIONER BLAIR, UM, I HAVE A QUESTION IN REGARDS TO THE TREES.
UM, YOU'RE SAYING THAT THERE'S ONE TREE THAT YOU'RE GONNA MAKE A ISLAND OUT OF TO PRESERVE IT, THAT IS ACTUALLY ON YOUR PROPERTY, CORRECT? CORRECT.
WE ELIMINATED A COUPLE OF PARKING SPACES ALONG OUR NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE AND INTRODUCED WHAT WILL BE A LANDSCAPE ISLAND WHERE THAT TREE WILL REMAIN.
THEN THE OTHER TREES, THEIR CANOPY AND PART OF THE TRUNK ARE YOU SAYING IS ON YOUR PROPERTY, BUT IT BELONGS TO THE NEXT PROPERTY? YEAH, NONE OF THE TRUNK.
WE'RE NOT GONNA TOUCH ANY OF 'EM, BUT WE TECHNICALLY COULDN'T ANYWAY.
WE COULDN'T REMOVE THEM BECAUSE WE NOT TRUE.
WE TRIM THE BRANCHES, I GUESS, BUT WE'RE NOT GOING TO, IT'S JUST PARKING SPACES UNDER THEIR CANOPIES.
SO IF THEY'RE, SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT THEY, THEY HAVE LARGE CANOPIES THAT ARE OV THAT ARE FLOWING OVER TO YOUR PROPERTY.
YOU'RE NOT GONNA TOUCH THEM, YOU'RE JUST PUTTING PARKING SPACES UNDERNEATH THEM IN ORDER TO, BUT YOU'RE, BUT YOU'RE ADDRESSING THEIR, WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS WHAT THE WAY YOU'RE, YOU'RE WRITING IS TO ADDRESS THE FACT YOU KNOW THEY'RE THERE AND YOU'RE NOT GOING TO TOUCH THEM, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO TOUCH ANY PART ABOUT 'EM.
YOU'RE JUST GOING TO UTIL DIFFERENTLY, UTILIZE WHAT'S UNDERNEATH THEM FOR THEIR PROTECTION.
IS THAT CORRECT? YEAH, I THINK SO.
I MEAN, WE CAN'T ZONE SOMEONE ELSE'S PROPERTY, OBVIOUSLY, SO WE'RE JUST SAYING WE WON'T REMOVE ANY TREE THAT WE COULD ON OUR PROPERTY.
THAT'S WHAT WAS INTENDED BY OUR LANGUAGE.
SO JUST TO SUMMARIZE, MR. R, YOU'RE, YOU'RE ACCOMMODATING YOUR SITE BLANK TO YOUR NEIGHBOR'S TREES, RIGHT? YOU'RE, YOU'RE ARRANGING YOUR, YOUR PARKING IN A WAY TO ACCOMMODATE FOR A COUPLE OF TREES THAT DON'T BELONG TO YOUR CLIENT.
THOSE FOUR MATURE TREES, ONLY ONE OF WHICH HAS ITS TRUNK ON OUR PROPERTY AREN'T GOING ANYWHERE.
IT'S AN OFFICE BUILDING RIGHT BEHIND US.
IT WOULD MAKE NO SENSE TO REMOVE THEM IF THAT MAKES ANYONE FEEL BETTER.
BUT THE ONE WE CAN LEGISLATE, IF YOU WILL, WE'VE TRIED TO DO THAT.
SO ARE YOU ONLY PRESERVING ONE TREE OR JUST ONE LARGE TREE? SO THERE ARE TREES IN THE MIDDLE OF THE SITE THAT WE'LL HAVE TO MITIGATE
TWO OTHERS THAT WE WILL HAVE TO MITIGATE.
OUR LANGUAGE WAS INTENDED TO FOCUS ON THE ONES ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE THAT WE, AND ONE OF WHICH IS ENTIRELY ON OUR PROPERTY, THAT WE WILL SAVE THE OTHER THREE HANGOVER ONTO OUR PROPERTY.
SO THERE ARE NO OTHER TREES AROUND THE PERIMETER OF YOUR PROPERTY OTHER THAN THOSE BASICALLY THE THREE CANOPIES AND THE ONE THAT'S LITERALLY ON YOUR PROPERTY? I THINK THAT'S RIGHT.
THERE'S SOME TINY DEAD LITTLE ORNAMENTALS ALONG THE DRIVEWAY THAT I THINK ARE, YEAH, NOT SURE.
THEY'RE, IT'S A LARGE PROPERTY AND I WAS THINKING THERE, THERE MIGHT BE.
IT'S, IT'S MOSTLY GRASS MORE THAN THAT.
AND IT'S, THERE'S A CIRCUS THING NEXT TO IT AND A POST OFFICE.
YEAH, IT'S AN INTERESTING SPOT.
YOU KNOW HOW WE'RE TREE HUGGERS? WE WANNA PRESERVE THOSE TREES.
[04:40:01]
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONERS QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? NO QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.
COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? YES.
IN THE MATTER OF CASE Z 2 23 DASH 1 78, I MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND FOLLOW STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL SUBJECT TO A DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVISED TO IDENTIFY THE PROTECTED TREE IN THE ISLAND ON THE NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE.
UM, AND, UH, APPLICANT'S RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS WITH THE CORRECTION.
LET'S SEE THAT, UM, THE WORD TREES AND PLURAL NEEDS TO CHANGE TO TREE.
EXISTING TREE ALONG THE NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE MAY NOT BE REMOVED UNLESS DISEASED OR DUE TO NATURAL DEATH AS CONFIRMED BY THE DIRECTOR AT TIME OF TREE REMOVAL PERMIT.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER CARPENTER FOR YOUR MOTION.
COMMISSIONER RUBIN FOR YOUR SECOND COMMENTS.
ANY COMMENTS? COMMISSIONER CARPENTER? OKAY, IN THE MATTER OF UH, Z 2 2 3 1 78, WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER CARPENTER.
SECOND BY COMMISSIONER RUBIN TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, FALSE STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL SUBJECT TO A REVISED DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND THE APPLICANT'S RECOMMENDED, UH, CONDITIONS ALONG WITH THE CORRECTION TO, UH, THE OR TREE IN THE CONTEXT AS RENDER THE RECORD BY COMMISSIONER CARPENTER.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE SAY AYE.
MOTION CARRIES CASE NUMBER EIGHT.
ITEM NUMBER EIGHT IS ZZ Z 2 2 3 90.
AN APPLICATION FOR A TH THREE.
A TOWNHOUSE SUB SUBDISTRICT WITH DID RESTRICTIONS VOLUNTEERED BY THE APPLICANT ON PROPERTY ZONED AND 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 WELLINGTON STREET.
RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO DEED RESTRICTIONS VOLUNTEERED BY THE APPLICANT.
I SEE THAT THE APPLICANT IS HERE.
DID YOU HAVE A PRESENTATION, SIR? GOOD AFTERNOON.
YES, I DO A SMALL PRESENTATION.
ME, DID THEY GET THAT TEED UP? WE'RE GONNA GET THAT ON THE SCREEN HERE.
YOU PLEASE BEGIN YOUR PROMISE WITH YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
UM, AND I'M HERE TO REPRESENT THE ZONING APP.
I'M HERE FOR ZONING APPLICATION Z 2 2 3 1 90 AT 36 25 HANCOCK STREET.
UM, I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
THIS IS, UH, JUST A COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT FLYER I HAD MADE UP THAT I'D PASSED OUT AROUND THE COMMUNITY.
UM, AND THEN IF YOU GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, UH, YOU'LL SEE THE FLOOR PLAN FOR THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE THERE.
UM, IT'LL BE A DUPLEX AND I'M HAPPY TO FIELD ANY QUESTIONS.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? COMMISSIONER'S QUESTIONS FOR OUR APPLICANT.
COMMISSIONER HERBERT, JUST LOOKING AT THE SITE PLAN, IS IT CORRECT THAT THE ONLY WALLS THAT ARE TOUCHING ARE THE GARAGE? YES, SIR.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? YES.
UM, WHAT AREA IS THIS? UH, WHAT, WHAT'S THE, WHAT'S THE NEAREST MAIN STREET? UM, THE NEAREST, IT'S ON WELLINGTON AND HANCOCK.
IS IT CLOSE TO THE, UH, THE CITY STREET? IT'S CLOSE TO.
UM, COULD YOU GO BACK TO YOUR FLYER THAT YOU SENT OUT? YES.
UM, CAN I, DID IT HAVE A CONTACT INFORMATION FOR FOLKS TO REACH CHAT TO YOU? YES, MA'AM.
I PUT MY EMAIL AND UH, PHONE NUMBER ON.
WHAT WAS THE NATURE OF ANY RES DID YOU RECEIVE ANY RESPONSES FROM THE COMMUNITY AT ALL? NO EMAILS, NO CALLS.
I, I, I DID SPEAK TO ALL THE NEIGHBORS, SO I HEARD IN-PERSON RESPONSES.
EVERYONE SEEMED INTERESTED ENOUGH, BUT NOTHING FROM THE NO COMPLAINTS OR ANYTHING.
WHAT WAS THE NATURE OF THE FEEDBACK YOU RECEIVED IN PERSON? UM, PRICE POINTS.
UH, WHEN, WHEN WE'RE STARTING KIND OF, UH, CAN YOU CONTACT ME WITH INFORMATION FOR SALE? DO YOU TAKE F H A? THAT KIND OF THING.
SO PRACTICAL QUESTIONS MOSTLY.
UH, WOULD YOU GO BACK TO YOUR SITE PLAN PLEASE? YES, SIR.
AND SCROLL OVER A, A, A LITTLE BIT THE OTHER DIRECTION THAT, UH, A LITTLE FURTHER.
UM, YOUR DEEDED RESTRICTIONS SHOW ONE DWELLING UNIT FACING HANCOCK AND ONE FACING WELLINGTON.
[04:45:01]
DO I SEE ABOUT HALFWAY THROUGH THE RIGHT HAND UNIT DOWN AT THE BOTTOM.IS THAT THE FRONT DOORWAY? YES, SIR.
THAT'S THE ONE, UH, FACING THE STREET.
AND THAT FACES WHICH STREET? UH, THAT FACES, UH, THE WELLINGTON.
AND THE ONE FACING HANCOCK, MAYBE 60% OF THE WAY DOWN ON THE LEFT SIDE.
IS THAT THE FRONT DOOR? YES, SIR.
AND THAT'S, THAT FACES HANCOCK? YES, SIR.
I, I THINK YOU HAD, YOU HAD SPOKEN ABOUT YOU WANTED THAT LOOK IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
NO, IT WAS MORE BECAUSE THE DOOR, THE SIDE, THERE'S A, IS THERE A SIDE DOOR ON WELLINGTON FOR THE FRONT UNIT? I'M SORRY, CAN YOU REPEAT THAT THERE, IS THERE A SIDE, THERE'S A SIDE DOOR FOR THE FRONT UNIT ON WELLINGTON THAT IS IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE FRONT DOOR.
THAT'S ON THAT FIRST UNIT, CORRECT? YES.
THERE, THERE IS A, A SECOND ENTRYWAY THERE.
AND THERE WAS A CONCERN BECAUSE OF HOW FAR, HOW CLOSE TOGETHER THEY WERE AND POSSIBLY.
AND WHAT WAS, WAS THERE SOMETHING THE CITY SAID? NO.
NO, YOU COULDN'T, THIS IS IN LINE WITH EVERYTHING THE CITY WANTS.
SO IT WAS ABOUT THE AWNING OR SOMETHING OVER THE BOARD.
THE CITY SAID YOU COULDN'T HAVE IT.
SO YOU WOULD ASKED IF WE CAN ADD AN AWNING, BUT THAT VIOLATES THE, UH, THE SITE LINE VISIBILITY SO IT WOULDN'T BE UP TO CODE TO BILL.
SO COULD YOU SHOW, COULD YOU SHOW THE ACTUAL, UM, THE ACTUAL, UM, THE RENDERINGS, THE OTHER SURE.
THAT'S ON THE FLYER IF YOU NO, IT WAS, YOU ALL SENT ME OVER RENDERINGS OF THIS.
DO YOU HAVE THOSE WITH YOU? SO WE, THAT'S THE EXACT PICTURE THAT WE SENT OVER.
NO, IT WAS ACTUALLY SHOWING HOW IT LOOKS, THE ACTUAL RENDERINGS OF HOW IT WASN'T.
SO YEAH, YOU, THAT PICTURE, THAT'S THE PICTURE YOU ASKED ME.
YOU HAD THAT PICTURE BLEW UP, BUT IT WAS, IT WASN'T LIKE THIS.
WHERE'S THE PICTURE? WHERE NO, THAT'S THE ONLY PICTURE I WOULD'VE SENT YOU.
YEAH, BUT WHERE'S THE, YOU DIDN'T SEND ME THIS FLYER? I'VE NEVER SENT THIS FLYER, BUT I DID SEE THE RENDERING, THAT RENDERING.
UM, YOU DIDN'T, I HAVEN'T, RIGHT.
UM, IS THERE ANY WAY WE, WELL, I GUESS ANISH, SO, SO WHAT I, ANISH SENT IT TO ME.
SO I DID SEND YOU THE FULL BLUEPRINT SO YOU CAN LOOK AT THEM AND THEY INCLUDED THIS IMAGE.
SO WHERE IS THAT IMAGE? CAN YOU SHOW THAT IMAGE? NOT ON THE FLYER SO THAT THEY CAN ACTUALLY, SO THE, SO THE COMMISSION CAN SEE IT, IS THERE? NO, NO MA'AM.
I THINK THERE'S SOME CONFUSION.
THIS IS THE ONLY IMAGE I SHOWED YOU FOR THIS PROPERTY.
WHERE IS THE IMAGE BY ITSELF WITHOUT THE FLYER? I CAN HAVE THAT SENT TO YOU, BUT I KNOW SO YOU DON'T HAVE IT TODAY? WELL, THIS IS RIGHT.
IF WE ZOOM IN, THAT'S ESSENTIALLY WHAT IS ON THE SHEET.
I CAN SHOW YOU THE FULL BLUEPRINT.
OBVIOUSLY I DO HAVE THEM ON PAPER.
DO YOU HAVE THAT PICTURE WITH YOU, SIR? UH, THIS IS THE PICTURE PULLED DIRECTLY FROM THAT.
SO IS IT THE, IS IT BECAUSE OF WHERE THE DOOR IS AT THAT THE CITY SAID THAT? OR AND AND YOU COULDN'T MOVE TO THE MIDDLE? NO, THE, THE CITY SAID THAT BECAUSE THERE'S A 45 DEGREE SIGHT LINE VISIBILITY FROM, IF YOU'RE LOOKING FROM WELLINGTON TO HANCOCK AND HAVING THAT AWNING WOULD BLOCK THAT VISIBILITY.
SO YOU COULDN'T MOVE THE DOOR FURTHER, FURTHER TO THE CENTER? UNLIKELY.
NO, UM, BECAUSE ANY SIZE AWNING WOULD, WOULD CUT THAT VISIBILITY UNLESS WE PUT THE FRONT DOOR COMPLETELY TO THE LEFT, WHICH THEN WOULDN'T LOOK RIGHT AS A, AS A FACADE OF A HOUSE.
SO IS THAT THE SIDE DOOR IS BOTH DOORS FRONT, UH, IS BOTH FRONT DOORS FACING WELLINGTON? NO.
SO THE FRONT DOOR FOR THIS FIRST UNIT ON THE CORNER, UM, IS GONNA BE THIS HANCOCK STREET ENTRANCE.
AND THEN THE FRONT DOOR FOR THIS WELLINGTON STREET UNIT WILL BE THAT DOOR.
SO IT JUST HAS THE APPEARANCE WITH THE KIND OF LIKE A, KIND OF, KIND OF WITH THE AWNING.
'CAUSE THERE'S A AWNING, A LOOK LIKE A SMALL AWNING ON THE SMALL ARCH.
OH, SO, SO IT APPEARS THAT BOTH AWNINGS ARE ON WELLINGTON.
AND, AND YOU KNOW, WHEN WE COME TO CONSTRUCTION, IF YOU'D LIKE THAT FIRST AWNING TO BE FLAT, THE SECOND TO HAVE THE ARCH, JUST TO HAVE A VISUAL DISTINCTION.
THAT'S, ARE THERE ANY OTHER, ARE THERE ANY OTHER HOUSES FACING WELLINGTON? YES, THERE IS ONE OTHER.
AND IT'S DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET ON THE CORNER.
UH, MR. DESAI LOOKING AT THAT, UH, ELEVATION, IT SURE SEEMS TO ME LIKE BOTH UNITS ARE FACING WELLINGTON.
CAN YOU CHANGE MY MIND? YES, I WOULD.
UM, SO THE, THE STREET FACING HANCOCK HAS THE, UH, DESIGNED FACADE ON IT TO INDICATE THAT IT'S THE FRONT.
UM, AND THEN THE UNIT ON WELLINGTON HAS THE FRONT DOOR AND THE FRONT, AND THEN A SIDE DOOR ON
[04:50:01]
THE SIDE.WHAT MAKES, WHAT MAKES THE DOOR ON HANCOCK? THE FRONT DOOR? JUST YOU, YOU SAY IT IS THE FACADE ESSENTIALLY IT THE VISUAL INDICATOR.
THAT LOOKS LIKE A SIDE FACADE TO ME.
UM, WHAT WOULD PREVENT THE OCCUPANTS OF BOTH UNITS FROM PRIMARILY ACCESSING THEIR UNITS FROM WELLINGTON? WELL, BESIDES THE GR SO THE GARAGE ENTRANCE RIGHT THERE WOULD COME IN THROUGH THERE, BUT IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, UM, A PAVED WALKWAY, THAT WOULD BE TO THE FRONT DOOR.
SO THAT WOULD BE THE WHAT WOULD STOP THAT.
SO THERE WOULD BE NO PAVED WALKWAY FROM THE SOUTHERNMOST UNIT, UH, SIDEWALK TO THE DOOR ON WELLINGTON.
UH, ON THE CORNER UNIT, CORRECT, SIR.
OKAY, SO QUESTION FOR YOU, SIR.
MR. HERBERT, UH, UH, COMMISSIONER HERBERT, IF I, IF YOU DON'T MIND? YES SIR.
SO I'LL ASK THE, THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM, WHY, WHY THE TWO DOORS? WHY, WHY NOT JUST ELIMINATE ONE AND HAVE, YOU KNOW, THE, THE ROOF ENGAGED WITH THE, THE REAL FRONT DOOR AND NOT HAVE A, A NICE BIG, BEAUTIFUL WINDOW THERE ON THE SIDE THAT, YEAH, THAT'S FAIR.
UM, SO THE BIG CONCERN WAS, UH, EGRESSES.
SO WE COULDN'T HAVE A, A BACK DOOR BECAUSE THEN, UH, IT WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH A BEDROOM TO, TO MAKE AN EXIT.
SO THE REASON WE HAVE THAT SECOND DOOR IS SAFETY, SAFETY, FIRE SAFETY ESSENTIALLY.
UM, AND YEAH, OTHERWISE WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO HAVE A HALLWAY THAT GOES STRAIGHT OUT TO A DOOR ON THIS FIRST UNIT.
SO YOU, YOU FEEL THAT THERE'S SOME KIND OF CODE REQUIREMENT THAT IS FORCING YOU TO PUT THAT SIDE DOOR IN? I, I DO BELIEVE THAT.
I, I THINK THIS IS CORRECT THAT A FIRE EXIT HAS TO, THAT MAKES SENSE.
NOT GO THROUGH A BEDROOM AND I, AND THE WAY IT'S SET UP, IT WOULD HAVE TO OKAY.
BUT, BUT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING THOUGH IS THAT THROUGH ARTICULATION ON THE GROUND AND ON THE BUILDING, YOU CAN HIGHLIGHT THAT THAT IS IN FACT THE FRONT DOOR AND MAYBE YOU CAN ADD SOME, YOU KNOW, UH, SOME ARTICULATION TO THE FRONT, TO THE ROOF LINE THERE ON THE SIDE.
AND, UH, IN LANDSCAPING AS WELL, WE CAN DO SOMETHING.
SO THE CONCERN, SO WHY WAS THE DESIGN EVEN DONE? LIKE, SO THERE ARE DUPLEXES, THE DOOR BEING SO FAR, THE REASON IS THE REASON THAT YOU'RE HAVING THE PROBLEM WITH, WITH THE, THE, THE CODE IS BECAUSE IT'S SO FAR TO THE LEFT? OR IS THAT TO THE RIGHT? I CAN'T TELL FACING IT IS TO THE RIGHT.
IS IT, IS THAT THE REASON BECAUSE OF WHERE YOU PLACED THE DOOR? SO, UM, I BELIEVE WHAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS, SO BECAUSE OF THE SETBACK, RIGHT? WE HAD TO MOVE BACK ON THIS LOT.
SO, UH, SO MY CONCERN WAS THE SAME CONCERN THAT I HAD.
THE, THE OVERALL PROJECT IS, IS GREAT.
THE RECOMMENDATION TO, TO, TO CONNECT THROUGH THE GARAGES.
UM, YOU ALL COULD NOT IN NO WAY MOVE THE DOOR FURTHER THE OPPOSITE WAY SO THAT YOU COULD PUT ON, PUT SOME TYPE OF AWNING OVER IT.
SO WE POSSIBLY COULD, BUT WHAT WOULD HAPPEN THEN IS IT WOULD BREAK THE VISUAL OF THE FRONT OF THE FIRST HOUSE.
SO IT SHOULD, BECAUSE IT LOOKS, WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE RIGHT NOW IS THAT BOTH HOUSES FACE THE, THE, THE IDEAL AND, AND, AND THE REASON THAT IT WAS EASY FOR ME TO APPROVE IS BECAUSE ONE HOUSE WOULD FACE, ONE HOUSE WOULD FACE HANCOCK, ONE HOUSE WOULD FACE WELLINGTON AND IT WOULD BE SEPARATED BY THE GARAGE, GIVING IT ALMOST TWO SEPARATE HOUSES.
BUT THE WAY THAT THE DESIGNER, THE WAY WHOEVER THE ARCHITECT MADE IT WAS THAT THE AWNINGS ARE BOTH ON THE AWNINGS ARE BOTH ON, UM, ON WELLINGTON AND NONE ON HANCOCK.
SO IT WOULD APPEAR THAT HANCOCK IS THE, IT HAD IS THE SIDE DOOR IS ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE HOUSE ON WELLINGTON.
DOES IT HAVE THE SAME TYPE OF DOOR? UM, A SIDE DOOR? YES.
SO HERE, SO, SO ESSENTIALLY THIS HAS BEEN DESIGNED TO HAVE BOTH ON WELLINGTON, THE, THE, SO THE DESIGN MADE IT LIKE THIS, UH, RIGHT, BUT THE, BUT THIS DOOR IS CONSIDERED THE FRONT DOOR.
I GET WHAT YOU'RE, I GET WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, RIGHT? MM-HMM.
SO DO YOU UNDERSTAND KIND OF THE CONCERN FROM, UM, COMMISSIONER YOUNG AND THE OTHER COMMISSIONER? I SEE.
YEAH, I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERN.
SO WHAT THE ARCHITECT DID WAS DESIGNED TWO EXEC HOUSES AND PLACED THEM ON OPPOSITE SIDES OF IT.
AND YOU RAN INTO A PROBLEM BECAUSE NOW THAT THE FRONT DOOR LOOKS LIKE A HANCOCK AND, AND,
[04:55:01]
AND IF I'M COMING FROM THE GARAGE, I PROBABLY WOULD BE GOING THROUGH ON THE HANCOCK SIDE, I PROBABLY WOULD BE GOING THROUGH THE FRONT.BUT IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE STREET, IT LOOKS, IT DOESN'T HAVE THE APPEARANCE OF ONE, ONE HOUSE FACING THE BOTH HOUSES ARE FACING A WELLINGTON INSTEAD OF HAVING THE OPPOSITE EFFECT.
WHICH WAS THE REASON THAT, THE CONCERN THAT THAT WAS, THAT WAS THE REASON THAT WE WERE, I WAS SO OKAY WITH THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY BECAUSE OF THE LENGTH OF IT AND THAT WE COULD, IT COULD LOOK LIKE TWO DIFFERENT HOMES TO THE COMMUNITY.
WELL, IT LOOKED LIKE ONE HOME ON ONE SIDE OF THE STREET AND ONE ON THE OTHER SIDE, RIGHT? RIGHT.
SO I MEAN, LISTEN, IF WE CAN, IF WE CAN APPROVE THAT CODE TO HAVE AN AWNING ON THAT FRONT DOOR, THAT WOULD, COULD WE MOVE, CAN, CAN THEY RE BE RE CONFIGURED OR REDESIGNED? BECAUSE AGAIN, WHAT THE ARCHITECT DID WAS JUST PUT TWO DIFFERENT, THE SAME HOUSES AND FLIP THEM, FLIP THEM AROUND TO LOOK, BECAUSE IF THEY'RE NOT, IF THAT SIDE DOOR LOOKS EXACTLY THE SAME AS THE SIDE DOOR ON THE WELLINGTON SIDE, THEN IT'S EXACTLY WHAT HE'S DONE.
AND PRETTY MUCH WHAT YOU HAVE IS TWO FRONT DOORS ON WELLINGTON.
COULD, COULD YOU SCROLL DOWN TO THE, TO THE FLOOR PLAN SO WE CAN LOOK AT IT, RIGHT? SO YEAH, SO SO YOU UNDERSTAND THE CONCERN THAT IS, I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERN.
IT, IT VERY MUCH LOOKS EVEN THOUGH THAT YOU'RE, THAT YOU'RE PUTTING I THINK A, A, A FENCE AROUND WHEN YOU PUT THE F YOU ALL ARE PUTTING A FENCE AROUND THE, THE, THE SIDE YARD.
FOR WHAT? FOR THE HANCOCK SIDE.
AM I CORRECT? I BELIEVE THAT'S WHAT I UH, YOU ALL ON THE, ON THE HANCOCK SIDE, THE HOUSE THAT'S ON THE HANCOCK, THE, ON THE, ON THE SIDE OF WHERE THAT SIDE DOOR IS, YOU'RE PUTTING A FENCE THERE.
SO IT'S GOING TO LOOK LIKE BOTH HOUSES FACE, WELLINGTON.
AND AND I THINK VISUALLY WE CAN CHANGE THAT.
LET'S, THAT'S I, 'CAUSE I'M FOR WITH, FOR IT, IT'S THE VISUAL.
IT IS WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE AND THE INITIAL CONVERSATION, I'M A PART OF THIS PROJECT.
SAY SOMETHING WE CAN RECESS THE DOOR AND MAKE IT LIKE A PORCH.
WE CAN RECESS THAT DOOR AND THEN MAKE IT LIKE A NICE PORCH.
'CAUSE WHOEVER DESIGNED IT, THAT WILL SOLVE THE, THAT WILL SOLVE THE, UH, VISIBILITY TRIANGLE.
NOT ONLY THE VISIBILITY BECAUSE WHEN, BECAUSE OF THE DESIGN AND THAT WAS MY CONCERN AND I KNEW IT WAS GONNA BE A CONCERN.
WE CAN RECESS, WE CAN RECESS THE DOOR AND MAKE IT A PORCH.
YOU NEED NEED TO, SPEAKING OF THE MICROPHONE, SIR.
YOU NEED TO SPEAK OF AN, YOU SHOULD HAVE CAME DOWN FIRST 'CAUSE I'VE NEVER TALKED TO YOU.
WE CAN RECESS THAT DOOR AND MAKE IT A NICE PORCH.
THAT WILL SOLVE THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE FROM THERE.
AND WE'LL, WE'LL, WE'LL PUT A SLAB OUT.
BECAUSE OF YEAH, WE CAN, YEAH.
'CAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE A SIDE OF A HOUSE.
THAT'S, I'VE, I'VE TALKED TO, I WAS HOPING HE CAME TO, 'CAUSE THAT'S WHO I TALKED TO ORIGINALLY A LOT, THE FIRST ONE.
WELL, ANISHA WHO I TALKED TO AND THIS FITS WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR.
SO I GUESS I PUT THAT IN THERE.
YEAH, THIS IS A JOURNAL ZONING CHANGE, BUT YOU KNOW, IT'S, WE'RE CIRCLING AROUND YOUR DESIGN AND SO IT'S NOW TIME TO HEAR FROM THE ARCHITECTS HERE.
YOU KNOW, I THOUGHT, I, I, I THOUGHT I COULDN'T RESIST A MOMENT AGO, BUT I'M, I'M ACTUALLY GONNA RESIST.
MIGHT I SAY FOR THE RECORD THAT I'M A DRAFTER? TO BE FAIR, I, I DO HAVE A DEGREE IN ARCHITECTURE, SO I'M A FRUSTRATED ARCHITECT, NOT OFFICIAL ARCHITECT ON MY COLLEAGUES DOWN THERE.
WELL, PARTICULARLY I'M A DRAFTER.
I JUST DON'T HAVE THE, I DON'T HAVE THE STAMPS.
SO DRAFTERS ARE ARCHITECTS IN A SENSE.
THAT'S WHY I CAN
I WANTED TO SUPPORT COMMISSIONER WHEELER'S, UM, COMMENT THAT BASED ON THE ELEVATIONS THAT WE'RE SEEING, THAT IT IS NOT CLEAR, UM, THAT THE ENTRY AND THE INTENT OF HAVING THAT FRONT DOOR FACING ONTO HANCOCK STREET, UM, AS NOTED BY ONE OF OUR OTHER COMMISSIONERS, THIS IS A GENERAL ZONING CHANGE.
SO AS MUCH AS WE ARE REVIEWING THIS PLAN, IT ISN'T PART OF OUR, UM, MOTION THAT WE'LL BE MAKING ON THIS CASE.
QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT IS WITHIN YOUR, UM, PROPOSED DEEDED RESTRICTIONS, YOU'VE NOTED THAT ONE IN, UM, THE TWO DWELLING UNITS, ONE TO FACE HANCOCK, ONE TO FACE WELLINGTON STREET.
WOULD YOU CONSIDER AMENDING THAT, THAT HANCOCK WOULD HAVE A PORCH, A GA, HIP ROOF, OR SOME OTHER ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE THAT ESSENTIALLY ENHANCED THE IDEA THAT THAT ENTRY FACING ON THE HANCOCK IS NOT SIMPLY A DOOR? SURE.
SO LOOKING AT THE FLOOR PLAN, DO, IS THAT A DOOR BY NEAR THE GARAGE? UM, UM, THAT'S THE DOOR.
[05:00:01]
RIGHT INTO, INTO THE HOME? CORRECT.ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT COMMISSIONER? SO WE GO TO STAFF COMMISSIONER HERBERT, DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION? IS THERE ANY, OH, UH, PLEASE.
COMMISSIONER WHEELER, THEN COMMISSIONER HERBERT.
WE, WE NEED YOU TO BE ABLE TO SAY THAT, THAT, THAT YOU WOULD INCLUDE A HIP ROOF AND A PORCH IN THE DE RESTRICTION ON THE HAND CAKE C**K SIDE.
CAN YOU SAY THAT ONE MORE TIME? CAN YOU VOLUNTEER? COULD YOU VOL WE NEED YOU TO BE, IF YOU'RE GONNA VOLUNTEER IT, YOU HAVE TO SAY IT RIGHT.
I'M SORRY, COULD YOU REPEAT WHAT EXACTLY ONE AND I CAN, WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO VOLUNTEER A DE RESTRICTION WITH, FOR A HIP ROOF AND A PORCH ON THE HANCOCK'S, UH, THE HOUSE FACING HANCOCK, RIGHT? YEAH.
I WOULD VOLUNTEER THE PORCH ON HANCOCK AND THE, AND THE ROOF.
QUESTIONS FOR STAFF COMMISSIONERS, COMMISSIONER HOUSE, RIGHT.
MR. MOORE, WHY ARE WE GOING TO ACCEPT THE DEEDED RESTRICTION ABOUT ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN ON A PLANNING AND ZONING CASE? WE SPOKE ABOUT THIS EARLIER, COMMISSIONER, HE, THE APPLICANT CAN VOLUNTEER ANY DEEDED RESTRICTIONS THEY DESIRE.
IT'S UP TO THIS BODY TO ACCEPT THEM IN COUNSEL.
I DON'T SEE WHY WE HAVE TO ACCEPT SOMETHING THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH PLANNING AND ZONING THAT IS THE PREROGATIVE OF THIS BODY TO ACCEPT HIM.
MY PREROGATIVE WILL BE TO VOTE AGAINST IT.
QUESTIONS FOR STAFF COMMISSIONER PUMPKIN FEES.
UM, I'M CURIOUS IF, SO IS IS THE REAL PROBLEM THAT, UM, BOTH HOMES ARE NOT ALLOWED TO FACE WELLINGTON AND HAVE THEIR DRIVEWAYS ONTO WELLINGTON? SO THAT IS A, A VOLUNTEER REGISTRATION THAT THE, THE APPLICANT, UH, STATED.
AND UM, BECAUSE IT IS A CO LAW, UH, STAFF RECOMMENDED FOR THEM TO HAVE, UH, ONE DELAY UNIT FACING ONE 10 AND THE OTHER ONE HANCOCK.
SO OTHER THAN THE, THE RECOMMENDATION, I, I'M JUST CURIOUS IF ON A CORNER LOT THERE ARE REAL REASONS WHY A HOME IS OR IS NOT ABLE TO FACE CERTAIN STREETS, MAYBE HAVING TO DO WITH THE CATEGORY OF THE STREET IN THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT? NO, IT WAS, UH, JUST, UH, THE AREA AROUND THAT WAY YOU COULD SEE THAT IT, IT WAS TWO, TWO HOUSES.
SO WOULD IT ALSO BE, UM, DID, DID, WHEN DID YOU GO TO THE LOC YOU WENT TO THE LOCATION, AM I CORRECT? YES.
AND SO IS THERE ALSO ONE OF THE REASONS COULD BE IS BECAUSE ON WELLINGTON THERE IS ACTUALLY HOUSES, UH, WELL, A HOUSE THAT FACES WITH FACE THAT HOUSE ALSO ON WELLINGTON.
SO I DID SEE SOME THAT, UM, THEIR EARNINGS ARE ALONG WELLINGTON.
UM, BUT THERE HOUSE, THAT HOUSE WAS FACING WELLINGTON AND HANCOCK.
SO IT COUNTED OKAY, THIS, WHERE THERE WERE TIMES THAT A SIDE STREET HAS HOUSES THAT FACE THAT FACES THE SIDE STREET AND SOME THAT FACES THE FRONT STREET.
SO WHAT IT DOES IS IT GIVE IT A BLOCK FRONT CONTINUITY IN A SENSE, IN A SENSE IT GIVES HANCOCK A THE SAME KIND OF APPEAL AND IT ALSO GIVES WELLINGTON THE SAME.
I'M SURE
WHAT, WHAT IS THE ZONING FOR THAT PIECE OF LAND AND ONCE IT GETS TO BUILDING INSPECTION AND THROUGH THE PROCESS, THE DESIGN OF AN ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN OF THIS PARTICULAR, UH, PROPERTY CAN AND POSSIBLY WILL CHANGE NUMEROUS OF TIMES.
SO BY THE TIME IT'S ACTUALLY BUILT UP, IT MAY BE REFLECTIVE OF SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE NOT EVEN SEEN.
UM, SO IT WILL HAVE TO GO TO BUILDING INSPECTORS.
[05:05:01]
I'M IN SERVICE COMMISSIONER STANNER.YEAH, I, I, ONCE AGAIN, I, YOU KNOW, I LOVE TO CLARIFY THINGS, BUT NUMBER ONE
BUT I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT.
I THINK WE'RE GETTING INTO PURVIEW THAT ARE OUTSIDE WHEN WE START GETTING INTO CERTAIN DEGREES OF DESIGN.
AND ALTHOUGH I UNDERSTAND IT WAS STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION THAT HAVE TWO DIFFERENT ENTRANCES FACING THE TWO DIFFERENT STREETS, THAT THAT WOULD BE THEIR DRUTHERS SO TO SPEAK, THAT THERE IS NO CODE REQUIREMENT THAT PREVENTS THEM FROM HAVING BOTH FRONT DOORS FACING WELLINGTON.
SO BASICALLY THEY WERE ADHERING TO WHAT STAFF RECOMMENDED, BUT ON THE OTHER HAND, IT IS NOT AN ABSOLUTE MANDATE.
EVEN THOUGH IT'S IN THE PLAN, I UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S IN THE DEEDED RESTRICTIONS.
AND SO THEY DID THAT AS THE DEEDED RESTRICTIONS? YES.
BUT IT WOULD BE UP TO GOING TO WHAT COMMISSIONER BLAIR SAID THAT PERMITTING TO SEE IF THEY IN FACT COMPLIED WITH THOSE DEEDED RESTRICTIONS.
I JUST, I JUST HAVE A HUGE, HUGE ISSUE WITH A DEEDED RESTRICTION HERE.
WHEN, WHEN WE TAKE, I'M GONNA GO TO SPECIAL SIGN DISTRICT CASES AND WE APPROVE SIGNS ALL DAY LONG THAT ARE UGLY.
AND I SIT HERE THINKING I DON'T LIKE THAT SIGN, BUT IT MEETS THE CRITERIA AND I VOTE FOR IT.
AND I CAN THINK OF NUMEROUS SIGNS LIKE THAT.
THIS DESIGN COULD BE A WHOLE LOT BETTER.
THIS DESIGN SHOULD ADDRESS THE TWO DIFFERENT STREETS.
THAT'S NOT OUR JOB AND I DON'T WANT IT TO BE OUR JOB AND I'M NOT GONNA START MAKING IT OUR JOB.
SO, QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? NO, I'M, I'M GONNA WAIT FOR THE COMMENTS THAT THIS IS FOR.
COMMISSIONER WHEELER, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? I I MOTION TO, UM, FOLLOW STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL? UM, CONTINUE, UH, CONTINGENT UPON THE DE RESTRICTIONS, UM, VOLUNTEERED WHILE BY APPLICANTS.
WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WHEELER, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER RUBIN TO CLOSE UP PUBLIC HEARING AND FILE STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE DEEDED RESTRICTIONS VOLUNTEERED BY THE APPLICANT.
COMMENTS COMMISSIONER? UH, SORRY, I JUMP IN REAL QUICK.
WAS THAT SUBJECT TO DEEDED RESTRICTIONS VOLUNTEERED BY THE APPLICANT OR SUBJECT TO DEEDED RESTRICTIONS VOLUNTEERED BY THE APPLICANT AT THE HEARING? I THINK I HEARD THERE WAS AN ADDITIONAL ONE VOLUNTEERED TODAY DEEDED AT THE HEARING? IS IT AT THE HEARING AT THE, BY THE APPLICANT? BY BOTH THE WHAT? THE DE RESTRICTIONS AND THE ONES THAT WERE TODAY.
IS THAT OKAY WITH YOU FOR THE SECOND? YEAH.
SO I UNDERSTAND THAT WE ARE, THAT WE SHOULD NOT THE WHAT WE, WE SHOULD NOT BE DOING.
AND I UNDERSTAND OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS HAVE REASONING WHY IN SOUTH DALLAS FAIR PARK AREA, THINGS HAVE BEEN DONE WITHOUT QUESTION, HOUSES HAVE BEEN BUILT WITHOUT ASKING THE COMMUNITY, THE COMMUNITY IS HEAVILY INVOLVED.
I GET THE, THE MOST IMPORTANT PART THAT THEY'RE INVOLVED IN IS WHAT OUR HOUSES ARE GOING TO LOOK LIKE.
WE DO NOT WANNA BECOME SUBJECT OF WHAT IS IN OTHER AREAS.
UM, THE REASON THAT I, WHEN I KEPT IN, UH, CONFIRMING THAT, SAYING THAT IT'S NOT EVERY STREET, THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY IS ONLY TWO STREETS OVER FROM SYDNEY, THAT'S A PREVIOUS CASE.
AND THIS SHOWS THAT WE ARE LOOKING IN DIFFERENT AREAS AND DIFFERENT STREETS GET DIFFERENT, DIFFERENT MIGHT APPLY TO SOMETHING DIFFERENT JUST BECAUSE SYDNEY DID NOT APPROVE.
IT'S BE, THIS DOES NOT, THIS IS TWO STREETS OVER, BUT ALSO ON THE OTHER END OF THE STREET IS, IS DUPLEXES.
AND SO WE TOOK THAT INTO CONSIDERATION AND MOST DEFINITELY TALKING TO THE APPLICANT.
UM, I HAVEN'T SPOKE WITH THIS YOUNG MAN BUT HIS BUSINESS PARTNER, I WAS VERY HAPPY ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR STREET IN SOUTH DALLAS.
WE DO HAVE LOTS THAT ARE EXTREMELY LONG.
THIS IS AN EXTREMELY LONG LOT.
IF YOU LOOK AT THIS DUPLEX THAT IS, THOSE ARE PRETTY LARGE DUPLEXES TO BE ABLE TO PLACE AND TO BE ABLE TO SEE THIS PARTICULAR END LOT, THIS CORNER LOT WITH TWO THAT, THAT WHEN A HOUSE CAN FACE ONE WAY
[05:10:01]
AND A HOUSE CAN FACE ANOTHER AND SEEING THAT CAN FAMILIES CAN STILL GET THAT SINGLE FAMILY FIELD CONNECTED BY A GARAGE.IT WAS VERY IMPORTANT TO NOT ONLY BE INVOLVED IN, IN LOOKING AT THE DESIGN, TALKING TO THE COMMUNITY ABOUT THE DESIGN AND SEEING THAT THEY WERE HAPPY ABOUT SOMETHING.
SO JUST BECAUSE WE BELIEVE THAT THERE SHOULD BE DUPLEXES AND MIDDLE HOUSING ALL OVER THE CITY, WE'RE SHORT ON HOUSING, THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT EVERY PARTICULAR STREET IS CAN HAVE THAT.
UM, Y'ALL ARE A LITTLE NERVOUS.
'CAUSE THIS PROJECT IS VERY DUR IN SAYING THAT WE CAN HAVE THOSE MIXED IN WITH DIFFERENT NEIGHBORHOODS, THIS FITS SO WELL.
UM, THE COMMUNITY, ME MAKING SURE THAT IT IS SOMETHING THAT LOOKS GOOD IN OUR COMMUNITY AND NOT JUST THREW TOGETHER.
I UNDERSTAND WHAT WE SHOULD AND WHAT WE SHOULDN'T DO, BUT THE URBAN AREAS OF DALLAS IS JUST GETTING WHATEVER THE DEVELOPERS WANT TO PUT UP WITHOUT ANY REGARD TO WHAT THE COMMUNITY WANT.
AND IN THESE PROJECTS WHERE THE COMMUNITY CAN SPEAK, I WILL SPEAK, I WILL BE THE VOICE FOR THE COMMUNITY.
I WILL SAY I WILL IN WHEN THERE'S, WHEN I'M ABLE TO, TO HELP OR REQUEST A DESIGN THAT MEETS OUR COMMUNITY.
WE DON'T WANT JUST ANYTHING JUST BECAUSE A DUPLEX.
SO AT FIRST WE WANNA PUT DUPLEXES ON EVERY STREET, THEN WE CAN'T HAVE AN IDEA.
THE COMMUNITY CAN'T SAY WHY WE HAVE TO STOP TAKING THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT.
UM, WE HAVE TO STOP MAKING THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT FEEL LIKE YOU GET WHAT YOU GET.
AND THAT'S WHAT IT OFTEN FEELS.
NO, WE GET WHAT WE, WHAT WE ASK FOR AND WHAT LOOKS GOOD IN OUR COMMUNITY SO THAT WE CAN BE PROUD OF OUR COMMUNITY.
SO THANK YOU FOR TO THE APPLICANT FOR HEARING, FOR DEFINITELY BEING INVOLVED AND SAYING, YES, I'M WILLING TO DO THIS.
'CAUSE I DON'T THINK THEY HAD BUILT ONE WITH THE GARAGE ONLY, UM, ATTACHED.
THAT MAKES A BIG DIFFERENCE TO A FAMILY MOVING IN WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE TO HEAR THE NEIGHBOR'S NOISE BECAUSE YOU GET TO FEEL LIKE YOU HAVE A SINGLE FAMILY HOME.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER CHAD WHITE.
SO THIS CASE HAS EITHER THE BENEFIT OR THE DETRIMENT BEING IN BETWEEN A COUPLE OF OTHER CASES THAT HAVE SOME, UH, ISSUES.
I I, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT AN ARCHITECT SO I'M NOT GOING TO OPINE ON WHAT THE DESIGN IS, BUT I DO HAVE CONCERNS WITH ADDING DEED RESTRICTIONS TO SPECIFICALLY ADDRESS ONE LOT.
WE HAVE A SEPARATE CASE IN FRONT OF US LATER TODAY THAT'S A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT CASE WHERE WE DO HAVE DESIGNS DISTRICT, WE HAVE DESIGNS IN PLACE FOR A LARGER AREA.
THAT TO ME FEELS LIKE THE PROPER USE OF DESIGN STANDARDS THEY'RE THOUGHT THROUGH FOR A WHOLE NEIGHBORHOOD.
BUT I ALSO HEAR COMMISSIONER WHEELER THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU DO NOT, YOU KNOW, THE NEIGHBORHOOD CARESS ABOUT WHAT THIS DEVELOPMENT LOOKS LIKE WHEN IT GETS PLUNKED DOWN.
AND WE'RE ALREADY MAKING A DECISION WHETHER OR NOT TO EXPAND SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING TO A DUPLEX IN A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING DISTRICT, ZONING DISTRICT.
AND SO ON TOP OF THAT, YOU KNOW, IS IT REALLY OUR PLACE TO LOOK AT DESIGN STANDARDS FOR THIS ONE HOUSE? I AM OF TWO MINDS ON THIS ONE.
I I THINK AT THE END OF THE DAY THOUGH, IT IS A DANGEROUS SLIPPERY SLOPE TO GO DOWN AND SOLVE BY DEEDED RESTRICTION.
SOMETHING THAT IS REALLY NOT THE ROLE OF THE C P C.
SO I WOULD LIKE TO OFFER A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO COMMISSIONER WHEELER IF SHE WILL TAKE IT TO JUST GO BACK TO THE DEEDED RESTRICTIONS THAT WERE ORIGINALLY PROPOSED IN OUR DOCKET.
I'M GONNA SAY THAT I UNDERSTAND AND I UNDERSTAND OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS HAVE THAT, BUT IN SOUTH DALLAS PROPER, THEY ARE REQUESTING FROM THE FAIR PARK DESIGNS TO HOUSING DESIGNS THEY WANT TO BE A PART OF, NOT JUST ANY AND GIVEN THING.
WE HAVE PROPERTIES IN SOUTH DALLAS THAT HAVE DE THAT THAT WOULD HAPPEN.
AND IT'S EYESORE BRAND NEW HOUSES.
THE COMMUNITY WAS NOT ALLOWED INVOLVEMENT BECAUSE THEY COULD DO IT BY, RIGHT.
AND SO IN THESE INCIDENTS WHERE THE COMMUNITY GETS TO HAVE A SAY, THEY GET TO HAVE A SAY, WE REQUEST IT, HE COULD DENY IT, HE COULD SAY HE DOESN'T WANNA DO IT, IT'S FINE WITH IT'S, IT'S FINE IF THAT'S WHAT HE CHOOSES TO DO.
BUT THAT IS THE CONSIDERATION.
THAT CONSIDERATION WOULD ALSO BE HAVE THE COMMUNITY WILL LOOK AT THAT DEVELOPER DIFFERENT, WE WANT DEVELOPERS THAT LISTEN TO OUR COMMUNITY.
THEY, WE WANNA, I UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, BUT IN SOUTH DALLAS, IN URBAN AREAS OF DALLAS, THE MOST OF THE TIME THERE IS NOT ENOUGH HOME OWNERSHIP TO MAKE THOSE DECISIONS.
THERE'S NO HOAS OR NAS, THERE'S NOBODY CAN EVER SAY YOU, WE WANT SOMETHING DIFFERENT.
[05:15:01]
THE LINE THAT THAT'S THE WAY THAT I'M TAKING IT.IT'S NOT ME SAYING, IT'S NOT ME SAYING, UM, I DON'T AGREE WITH YOU IN SOME PART, BUT I'M HEARING A COMMUNITY SAY WE WANNA BE A PART EVERY TIME WE'RE LANDLOCKED.
SO WE DON'T GET THAT MANY DECISIONS, RIGHT? WE GET VERY FEW DECISIONS.
PEOPLE BUILD HOUSES EVERY DAY IN SOUTH DALLAS AND THERE'S NOT A DECISION.
WE HAVE HOUSES THAT'S TWO AND THREE STORIES NEXT TO HOUSES THAT ARE 800 SQUARE FEET.
THEY DIDN'T GET TO MAKE A DECISION OR BE A PART OF THAT.
I JUST THINK THAT THIS IS NOT THE PROPER TOOL TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE.
I THINK THE DEVELOPER IS BEING GREAT AND IS CLEARLY LISTENING TO THE COMMUNITY.
AND I HAVE ALL THE FAITH THAT, YOU KNOW, HE WILL BUILD SOMETHING THAT MAKES SENSE BECAUSE HE DOESN'T WANT THIS TO BE A ONE AND DONE.
I MEAN, THERE'S A LONGER, THERE'S A LONGER TERM PLAN HERE.
I JUST HAVE A, I HAVE A FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM WITH USING OUR ROLE AS, AS COMMISSIONERS TO PUT DESIGN STANDARDS ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS.
AND I DON'T THINK IT PARTICULARLY RELATES TO A PARTICULAR DISTRICT.
I THINK IT IS DANGEROUS FOR ANY DISTRICT IN WHICH THIS CASE COULD COME UP.
AND AS A COMMISSIONER, I THINK WE'RE ALSO SUPPOSED TO BE LOOKING AT THINGS ON BEHALF OF THE CITY AS A WHOLE.
AND SO THAT'S WHY I WOULD LOVE TO DO THIS FRIENDLY AMENDMENT BECAUSE I DO NOT WANT TO CREATE A PRECEDENT THAT WE WILL HAVE TO FACE AFTER TODAY.
SO IT, IT SOUNDS LIKE YOUR FRIENDLY AMENDMENT WAS NOT ACCEPTED.
ARE YOU MAKING AN AMENDMENT? AM I ABLE TO DO THAT? YOU ARE.
DO I HAVE A SECOND? I HAVE A SECOND.
SO, AND AGAIN, MY AMENDMENT IS JUST TO GO BACK TO WHAT WE STARTED WITH.
SO NOT THE HIP GABLE ROOF, WHATEVER THAT IS.
'CAUSE I'M NOT AN ARCHITECT OR THE FRONT PORCH.
I WANNA JUST LET THE DESIGN BE DICTATED BY WHATEVER THEY'RE GONNA FIND AS THEY GO THROUGH THE PERMITTING PROCESS.
OKAY? WE WANNA MAKE SURE THEY'VE GOT THE FLEXIBILITY THEY NEED.
SO NOW WE HAVE A, A FRIENDLY, AN AMENDMENT, NOT A FRIENDLY AN AMENDMENT MADE BY COMMISSIONER TREADAWAY, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER HOUSE, RIGHT TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FALSE RECOMMENDATIONS SUBJECT TO THE DEEDED RESTRICTIONS VOLUNTEERED BY THE APPLICANT PREVIOUSLY NOT INCLUDING THE, UH, RECENT, UH, DESIGN NEED RESTRICTION.
NOW WE DISCUSSED THAT, UH, WE HAVE, I HAVE A LIST HERE.
COMMISSIONER BLAIR, WERE YOU FOR THE FIRST MOTION OR FOR THE AMENDMENT? OKAY, BECAUSE YOU'RE, YOU'RE FIRST ON THE LIST FOLLOWED BY COMMISSIONER YOUNG STANDARD RUBEN, WHERE I UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHAT, WHAT COMMISSIONER WHEELER IS TRYING TO, WHERE I UNDERSTAND AND, AND, AND RESPECT EXACTLY WHAT COMMISSIONER WHEELER IS SAYING AND ASKING OF, UM, I ALSO UNDERSTAND AND ACCEPT AND ACCEPT WHAT, UH, COMMISSIONER TREADWAY AND HOUSE RIGHT IS SAYING AND ASKING OF THIS IS A, UM, REASON WHY OUR CODE NEEDS TO BE REWRITTEN.
AND IF I COULD GIVE A PLUG FOR THAT.
THIS IS, THIS IS, IN MY OPINION, AN EXAMPLE WHY GENERAL ZONING IS TOO LOOSE AND IT'S NO, AND IT NO LONGER IS REFLECTIVE OF WHAT THE WHAT, WHAT OUR WHAT OUR COMMUNITIES WANT TO SEE AND DO.
AND, AND, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT PDS ARE TOO NUMEROUS AND YOU AND I HAVE HAD TO WORK WITH PDSS THAT ARE FOR A SINGLE LOCATION THAT SEEMS LIKE IT'S MORE ARDUOUS TO DO A ZONING.
AND WE, AND WE JUST SAW IT, UM, WAS IT LAST TIME WITH EATON'S PLACE IT WAS A PD FOR ONE ADDRESS.
AND THAT TOO IS INAPPROPRIATE AND, AND, AND A WA IN, IN MY OPINION, A WASTE.
BUT, OKAY, SO BECAUSE WE ARE IN A PLACE WHERE WE CAN'T MAKE ANYBODY HAPPY, UM, I I'M GOING TO DO WHAT I'VE GOT MY CERTIFICATION TO DO IN THIS AND, AND, AND DO THE LITTLE MEDIATION.
I'M GONNA MAKE SURE EVERYBODY HURTS A LITTLE BIT.
SO IN ORDER TO DO THAT, I UNDERSTAND WHAT, WHAT, WHAT WITH, WITH, UH, COMMISSIONER TREADWAY AND HOUSEWARE ARE SAYING, BUT IS THIS SUCH A BIG A, A BIG, UM, A PLACE THAT TO HAD THAT HANGS SUCH A BIG HAT TO HOLD UP
[05:20:01]
A CA A A CASE THAT HERE IS THE REALITY.THE REALITY IS WHERE WE DID NOT SEE THE DUPLEX IN THE MIDDLE OF A STREET THAT WE DID NOT LIKE, WHERE WE HAVE, UH, FOUR UNITS, TWO DUPLEX, UH, SO, UH, ATTACHED BY A GARAGE, WHICH IS A INGENUOUS, IN MY OPINION, DESIGN ARCHITECTURAL DESIGNS, UM, STANDARD THAT GETS US, UM, EXTRA DENSITY ON A LOT THAT NORMALLY WOULD ONLY HAVE ONE HOUSE.
WE'RE HAVING THREE ADDITIONAL HOUSING.
SO ARE WE, ARE WE, ARE WE SO CONFINED TO SAYING THAT WE, WE, WE WANNA PUSH ONE, ONE BUTTON WHERE WE'RE MISSING THE POINT? THE POINT IS WE'RE GETTING SOME DENSITY AND A PLACE THAT WE DON'T HAVE, WE, WE WOULD NOT HAVE.
AND IF THEY, IF THEY BUILT BY RIGHT, WE WOULD ONLY GET ONE HOUSE.
SO I I I WOULD JUST ASK THAT WE GET OUT THE WEEDS, GET AND, AND, AND MOVE TO THE HIGHER PLANE.
I WILL NOT SUPPORT THE MOTION TO AMEND.
AND IF THE MOTION TO AMEND PASSES, I WILL NOT SUPPORT THE MAIN MOTION.
UM, I THINK THAT WE ARE ALL LOOKING FOR PLACES IN THIS CITY WHERE DUPLEX CAN BE IMPOSED IN A SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD WITHOUT ADVERSE EFFECTS AND ACHIEVE THE GENTLE DENSITY INCREASE THAT, UH, THAT HAS BEEN MUCH DISCUSSED.
WHEN I SAW THIS CASE AND THE DEEDED RESTRICTIONS, I THOUGHT, GEE, THIS IS A HIGHLY SUITABLE CANDIDATE.
IT IS A CORNER LOT AND BY REASON OF DEEDED RESTRICTION NUMBER TWO, UH, WHICH IS THE ONE THAT SAYS ONE UNIT MUST FACE HANCOCK AND ONE MUST FACE WELLINGTON.
I THOUGHT THAT WAS INGENIOUS BECAUSE FROM THE HANCOCK STREET PERSPECTIVE, IT LOOKS LIKE, UH, JUST ANOTHER SINGLE FAMILY HOME.
AND FROM THE WELLINGTON STREET PERSPECTIVE, IT LOOKS LIKE A SINGLE FAMILY HOME WITH A HOME SIDING ONTO WELLINGTON, BUT FRONTING ON HANCOCK.
SO I WAS FULLY PREPARED GOING INTO THIS HEARING TO, UH, VOTE IN FAVOR OF A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WHEELER, UH, TO ACCEPT THE DEEDED RESTRICTIONS.
THEN I SAW THE RENDERING AND THE FLOOR PLAN AND WAS SORELY DISAPPOINTED BECAUSE I THINK THIS LOOKS LIKE A DUPLEX FACING ON WELLINGTON.
AND I THINK THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE DOOR ON HANCOCK AND THE DOOR ON WELLINGTON, WHICH, UH, MIRRORS THE DOOR ON THE NORTHERN UNIT ON WELLINGTON, IS AN ARTIFICIAL DISTINCTION THAT WOULD NOT TRANSLATE INTO THE LOOK AND FEEL OF A SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD IN AN EFFORT TO SALVAGE THAT LOOK AND FEEL.
UH, THE APPLICANT VOLUNTEERED SOME ARCHITECTURAL RESTRICTIONS, UH, THAT WOULD HELP MAKE THE HANCOCK FRONTAGE LOOK LIKE A FRONT YARD FRONTAGE AND HELP DIMINISH THE LOOK OF THE WELLINGTON FRONTAGE AS A FRONT YARD FRONTAGE.
IF THIS WERE JUST A CASE OF THE COMMISSION SAYING, WELL, WE LIKE HIP ROOFS AND PORCHES AND WE'RE GOING TO IMPOSE OUR ARCHITECTURAL PREFERENCES, UH, ON THE APPLICANT, I WOULD BE IN FULL SUPPORT OF THE MOTION TO AMEND.
BUT I THINK IT'S VERY MUCH OUR BUSINESS TO ENSURE THAT IF WE'RE INJECTING DUPLEXES INTO A SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD, WE MINIMIZE THE IMPACT EVERY WAY WE CAN.
AND AN IMPORTANT WAY IS THIS, UH, DWELLING UNIT FACING ISSUE.
AND I VIEW THE, UH, PROFFERED, DEEDED RESTRICTIONS ON ARCHITECTURAL DETAIL AS AN INTEGRAL PART OF MAKING THE UNITS FACE, IF YOU WILL, THE RESPECTIVE STREETS.
UH, I THINK THAT IS VERY MUCH IN OUR PURVIEW AND SEEMINGLY THE MAKERS OF THE MOTION TO AMEND AGREE BECAUSE THEY HAVE NOT PROPOSED TO DELETE, UH, UH, DE RESTRICTION NUMBER TWO.
SO IF, IF FACING STREETS IS OUR BUSINESS AND THESE TWO ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS VOLUNTEER BY THE APPLICANT, HELP THE HOUSES FACE THE STREETS THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO FACE,
[05:25:01]
THEN I THINK IT'S VERY MUCH IN A PART OF OUR BUSINESS.AND SO I CANNOT SUPPORT THE MOTION TO AMEND COMMISSIONER STANNER.
UH, WELL, I'M OF THE OTHER CAMP AND I'LL TELL YOU WHY I DO SUPPORT THE MOTION.
FIRST OF ALL, IF THIS WERE A DUPLEX BEING BUILT IN A CORNER AREA THAT WAS AVAILABLE FOR, FOR DUPLEXES, WE WOULDN'T EVEN BE DISCUSSING THIS.
AND I DON'T SEE THIS AS A SOUTH DALLAS PROBLEM.
ANYBODY THAT BUYS A HOUSE, I LIVE IN PRESTON HOLLOW, THEY'RE MULTIMILLION DOLLAR HOUSES.
BUT LET ME TELL YOU, THE PERSON THAT BOUGHT THE LOT GETS TO BUILD WHAT THEY WANT, WHETHER THE NEIGHBORHOOD LIKES IT, WHETHER THEY WANT IT, THEY'RE MONSTROSITIES.
SOME OF 'EM ARE PRETTY, SOME OF 'EM ARE THE MOST HIDEOUS THINGS I'VE EVER SEEN.
AND I DO THINK WE'VE GOTTEN INTO DESIGN STANDARDS THAT ARE OUTSIDE OF OUR PURVIEW.
I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER TREADWAY.
IF WE WERE TALKING ABOUT AN AREA LIKE THE NINE ACRES THAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT EARLIER TODAY, WHERE WE WERE SETTING STANDARDS OR ELM THICKET OR WOKE CAP, BUT EVEN IF WOKE CAP, WHICH ALLOWED DUPLEXES ON CORNER LOTS AND SOMEONE WENT TO PUT ONE UP THERE, WE WOULD NOT BE SITTING HERE HAVING THESE LENGTHY DISCUSSIONS ABOUT WHAT THE DESIGN COULD OR COULDN'T BE.
IT WOULD BE IF IT'S GONNA BE ALLOWED.
AND I'D HATE TO SEE US WHEN WE'RE DOING A ZONING CHANGE FOR ONE ENTITY AND THIS SENSE THAT IF SOMEONE IS LOOKING AT TWO DOORS, SOMEHOW THAT'S JUST ANTITHETICAL TO ANY KIND OF NEIGHBORHOOD LIVING.
I MEAN, I JUST DON'T SEE THAT.
AND I HAVE DUPLEXES NEAR ME IN PRESTON HOLLOW, AND ALTHOUGH THE OPTIMUM MIGHT BE, AND IT'S ALREADY BEEN SET UP TO PUT AN ENTRANCE, LIKE WE SAID, WHEN THEY GO TO PERMITTING, IF THAT'S A DEEDED RESTRICTION, THEY CAN DEAL WITH WHATEVER IS NEEDED TO COMPLY WITH THAT.
BUT AGAIN, YOU KNOW, IF WE'RE GONNA SPEND THIS TIME, EVERY TIME WE HAVE AN INDIVIDUAL ZONING CASE AND DECIDING THAT YOU, YOU KNOW, WHAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD LIKE, I'VE NEVER GOTTEN A CHOICE OF WHAT'S BEING BUILT NEXT TO ME IN ANY NEIGHBORHOOD.
WHAT'S BUILT IS THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTIES, UH, THEIR PREROGATIVE.
SO ANY RATE, I AM SUPPORTING THIS MOTION AND I I CAN'T SUPPORT IT OTHERWISE WITHOUT THESE THINGS GOING BACK TO WHAT WE STARTED OUT WITH IN THE DOCKET.
I THINK I'M MAYBE ONE OF THE PEOPLE ON THIS BODY WHO MOST FREQUENTLY, UM, EXPRESSES CONCERN ABOUT A PARTICULAR CASE WHEN I THINK THE BODY GOES FROM LAND USE DECISIONS INTO MAKING, UM, DESIGN DECISIONS THAT ARE WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE APPLICANT.
BUT I'M NOT CONCERNED ABOUT THESE DEEDED RESTRICTIONS THAT WERE ADDED HERE AT THE PODIUM TODAY.
ALTHOUGH THEY ARE DESIGN RELATED, THEY ARE VERY MINIMAL IN MY VIEW, AND I WOULDN'T SUPPORT GOING MUCH FURTHER THAN THESE.
BUT I DO THINK IT'S, WITH DUPLEXES, IT'S INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT TO ADDRESS HOW DUPLEXES IN OUR CITY, UM, INTERACT WITH THE PUBLIC REALM.
'CAUSE THERE ARE A, A LOT OF DUPLEXES, I CAN THINK OF MANY IN, IN EAST DALLAS THAT ARE KIND OF THOUGHTLESS WHEN IT COMES TO HOW THEY APPROACH THE PUBLIC REALM.
THAT'S, SOME OF THAT MAY BE, YOU KNOW, SOME OF OUR OTHER ZONING REQUIREMENTS, BUT THEY'RE FULL OF DRIVEWAYS IN FRONT.
THEY DON'T HAVE ENTRANCES THAT ACTUALLY FACE THE STREET.
THEY'RE TUCKED OFF TO THE SIDE.
SO WITH DUPLEX, I, I AM IN FULL, YOU KNOW, SUPPORT OF THE CITY, TAKING A LONG, HARD LOOK AT HOW DUPLEXES INTERACT WITH THE STREET AND THE PUBLIC REALM.
AND I THINK IT'S OKAY TO MAKE SOME VERY MINOR DESIGN REQUIREMENTS HERE THROUGH THESE DEEDED RESTRICTIONS TO ADDRESS HOW THIS PARTICULAR DUPLEX FITS INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD HERE.
SO I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION TO AMEND COMMISSIONER HEMPTON.
SIMILAR TO COMMISSIONER RUBIN, I'M FAMILIAR WITH MANY OF OUR, YOU KNOW, CASES WHERE WE LOOK AT THIS.
I EACH CASE IS INDIVIDUAL AND WE THINK WE ALL RECOGNIZE WE HAVE IMPERFECT TOOLS.
THE CASE THAT IS BEFORE US TODAY IS MOVING A LOT THAT IS IN A PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, WHICH IS UNDER EVALUATION.
AND HOPEFULLY WE'LL THINK ABOUT SOME OF THESE CONSIDERATIONS WE'RE TALKING TODAY.
WE REGULARLY USE OUR PLAN DEVELOPMENTS, UM, FORM-BASED CODE.
[05:30:01]
THAT WE DO HAVE DO SPEAK TO ARCHITECTURAL REQUIREMENTS.WHAT IS BEING SUGGESTED IS ONE OPTION.
IT MAY NOT BE THE BEST OPTION.
THERE MAY BE SOMETHING ELSE THAT WOULD COME OUT AS THE APPLICANT ACTUALLY MOVES FORWARD WITH DESIGN AND PLANNING.
UM, BUT I AM TEND TO SUPPORT COMMISSIONER REAGAN, SHE'S BEEN INVOLVED WITH THE COMMUNITY.
SHE UNDERSTANDS WHAT THE INTENT OF HAVING THE TWO STREET FACING FACADES AND VIEWS THIS AS A WAY TO HELP ENSURE THAT THAT MOVES FORWARD CONSISTENT WITH WHAT THE APPLICANT HAS, YOU KNOW, COMMITTED TO DO.
AND IN THAT REGARD, I WILL NOT BE ABLE TO SUPPORT THE MOTION.
I DO HOPE AS COMMISSIONER RUBIN SAYS THAT WE DO EVALUATE THIS MORE, THAT AS WE'RE LOOKING AT CODE AMENDMENTS, THAT WE DO THINK ABOUT HOW, HOW WE STRENGTHEN THE TOOLS SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE THIS DISCUSSION EVERY TIME ONE OF THESE CASES COMES.
UH, ANY OTHER COMMENTS? FIRST ROUND, UH, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON FIRST ROUND.
UM, WELL, SO I JUST WANT TO SOME CLARIFICATION TO MAKE SURE THAT, UM, THAT I'M VOTING THE RIGHT WAY, UM, BECAUSE I'M NOT FOR THE CHANGE FOR IT TO BECOME A DUPLEX TO BEGIN WITH.
SO THE MOTIONS, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT I'M GONNA BE INVOLVED IN THE RIGHT MOTIONS AND, UM, THAT IT'S CLEAR SO THAT I KNOW WHAT I'M VOTING ON, IF THAT MAKES SENSE.
UH, COMMISSIONER HERBERT? YES.
SO I JUST WANTED TO MENTION, UM, THIS IS A, NOT A STATEWIDE HISTORICAL NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD ITSELF IS HISTORICAL.
UM, AND IF YOU WALK AROUND AND DRIVE AROUND IT, YOU'LL SEE BEAUTIFUL GAMBLES AND PORCHES AND IRON FENCES IN DUPLEXES WITH SIDE ENTRANCES THAT ARE NOTICEABLY SIDE ENTRANCES ON CORNER LOTS.
UM, MY SUGGESTION TO DEVELOPERS AS YOU COME FORWARD AND MOVE FORWARD IS TO THINK ABOUT THAT IN THESE TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOODS WHERE THEY'RE TRADITIONAL LIVING.
AND I, IT'S BEEN DONE BEFORE BY THIS, THIS GROUP, SO I KNOW YOU GUYS ARE CAPABLE OF IT, BUT THERE ARE HOMES ON THESE BLOCK, THIS VERY BLOCK, A BLOCK OVER ACTUALLY, THAT HAS GREAT DESIGNS FOR SIDE ENTRANCES, TRY TO IMPROVE IN THAT WAY.
UM, SO THAT BEING SAID, BECAUSE THIS IS THE SOUTH SOUTHERN DALLAS HISTORICAL AREA, UM, THAT HAS BEEN HISTORICALLY NOT LISTENED TO, WE HAVE TO TAKE AN EQUITABLE LENS AND GIVE THEM EVERY TOOL WE HAVE IN OUR ABILITY, UM, WHEN CASES COME BEFORE US.
AND IN MY OPINION, UM, THE FACADE DOESN'T NEED TO, IT DOES NEED TO BE ON THE FRONT SIDE, BUT THE FRONT FACADE ALSO NEEDS TO BE ON WELLINGTON, UM, ON THAT HOUSE, RIGHT? SO, WE'LL, I GET HOW THIS CAN GO DOWN THIS ROAD, RIGHT? BUT IF YOU'RE GONNA BE HAVING TWO FRONT HOMES, THEY SHOULD BOTH HAVE FRONT FACADE.
THINKING Q ANYONE ELSE? F FIRST ROUND BEFORE WE GO SECOND ROUND.
I JUST WANNA NOTE ON THE RECORD THAT I THOROUGHLY AGREE WITH THE POINTS MADE BY COMMISSIONER YOUNG AND, UM, COMMISSIONER RUBIN AND I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR.
ANYONE ELSE? FIRST ROUND? UH, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER? YES, I, I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THE, UM, AMENDMENT BECAUSE TO GET TO GENTLE DENSITY IN A LOCATION THAT THE COMMUNITY REPRESENTS, I CAN LIVE WITH GENTLE DE RESTRICTIONS THAT ARE IN THE REALM OF DESIGN.
SO BE BEFORE EVEN COMING TO, TO THIS AND THE APPLICANT, UM, AGAIN, I HAVEN'T TALKED TO THIS PARTIC THE, THE THE REPRESENTATIVE, BUT I DID TALK WITH MR. N THAT WAS A CAUSE OF CONCERN BECAUSE OF THE DOOR.
IT WAS A CAUSE OF CONCERN BECAUSE IT WAS THE, BECAUSE OF THE WAY IT LOOKED.
UM, IT IS, WE, WE SIT BEFORE HERE AND WE SAY, WELL, WE, WE WANT THIS AND WE WANT THAT.
AND IT SHOULD BE A GENERAL DALLAS.
WELL, LET'S BE HONEST, THE GENERAL OF DALLAS IS NOT UNDERREPRESENTED ALL THE TIME.
OTHER AREAS OF DALLAS, MORE AFFLUENT AREAS OF DALLAS HAVE REPRESENTATION THAT COMES AND SIT IN THIS BODY A LOT OF TIME.
WE DON'T HAVE OUR REPRESENTATION WHO CAN AFFORD TO COME IN THE DAYTIME AND SAY WHAT THEY WANT IN PERSON.
UM, THERE IS, THERE IS PEOPLE WHO COME AND, AND THEY WANNA GO FROM R THE APPLICANT WANNA GO FROM R SEVEN FIVE TO R 10, I MEAN FROM R 10 TO R SEVEN FIVE.
AND THEY HAVE REPRESENTATION AND WE HEAR THEM AND WE KNOW THAT WHAT'S BEST
[05:35:01]
FOR DALLAS IS MORE HOUSING, RIGHT? AND WE VOTE AGAINST BECAUSE THE REPRESENTATIVES CAME AND SAT IN HERE AND SAID WHAT THEY WANT.SOUTH DALLAS NEEDS A LOT AND, AND I GET, BUT THIS ONE SIZE FIT ALL IDEA DOES NOT WORK IN SOUTH DALLAS.
IT DOESN'T WORK IN OAK CLIFF, IT DOESN'T WORK IN ANY OTHER SOUTHERN SECTORS.
YES, YOU BUY A PROPERTY, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO WHAT YOU WANT.
I WANNA BUY A PROPERTY AND I WANNA PUT A BAR RIGHT NEXT TO MY BUILDING, BUT I CAN'T, THERE'S A FRONT PARK ISSUE FOR PARK AND SELL ALCOHOL.
I CANNOT THE, I WANNA DO A LOT OF THINGS ON MY PROPERTY.
HEY, I CAN'T, I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE A HOUSE AND A BUSINESS AND THREE EVERYTHING ON MY PROPERTY.
RIGHT? UM, I CAN GO GET A ZONING CHANGE AND I CAN TELL THE COMMUNITY THIS IS MY PROPERTY, BUT ARE YOU REALLY BEING A GOOD NEIGHBOR? IF, ARE WE REPRESENTING AND SAYING THAT THE DEVELOPER GETS MORE SAY IN A COMMUNITY THAN A DEVELOP THAT'S NINE OUT 10 IS NOT GONNA LIVE IN THAT COMMUNITY THAN THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE THERE.
WE GOTTA, WE HAVE TO UNDERSTAND WE HAVE A HOUSING CRISIS, BUT THE HOUSING CRISIS DON'T JUST GET TO GO IN THE SOUTHERN SECTOR AND THEN THE SOUTHERN SECTOR DON'T JUST GET WHAT THEY WANT.
'CAUSE IF THIS WAS IN OTHER AREAS OF DALLAS, THIS WILL BE A NO-GO.
WE'LL BE MAKING, WE'LL MAKE SURE, 'CAUSE THERE'LL BE A REPRESENTATION OF SOMEONE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO CAN AFFORD TO TAKE OFF FROM WORK AND COME IN HERE AND SAY WHAT THEY WANT.
IN SOUTHERN SECTOR, THEY CANNOT, THEY CAN'T AFFORD TO LIVE IN THE AREA.
THEY CAN'T AFFORD WHAT THE DEVELOPERS ARE CHARGING.
SO THEY AT LEAST CAN GET A SAY ON WHAT IT LOOKS THE AGREEMENT WAS.
THIS IS A GOOD IDEA BECAUSE WE GET A CHANCE FOR A LOT THAT'S OVERSIZED IT.
I WOULD SEE THAT WE COULD HAVE PUT A SINGLE FAMILY HOME THERE AND THEY COULD HAVE HAD A HUGE BACKYARD.
BUT WE GET TO DO EXACTLY WHAT YOU ALL ASKED ON SYDNEY, ON HANCOCK, THEY GET A NICE HOUSE, NICE SIDE YARD FOR THE CHILDREN TO PLAY ON.
PEOPLE DON'T GET TO HANG IN THEIR SLOT ANYMORE.
EVERYBODY HANGS AND DRINKS AND HANG OUT IN THIS LOT ON A REGULAR BASIS.
I'M SO READY FOR IT TO BE REDEVELOPED.
BUT WE WANT THE NEIGHBOR ON HANCOCK TO SAY, MAN, I GET A HOUSE, A NEIGHBOR THAT GETS TO WALK OUT THE FRONT DOOR AND I MAYBE CAN TALK TO, BECAUSE IF THAT NEIGHBOR ONLY GOES OUT ON WELLINGTON, HE MIGHT NOT NEVER SAY NOTHING TO HIS NEIGHBOR.
NEIGHBORHOODS ARE MADE BY PEOPLE TALKING ME, SEEING MY NEW NEIGHBOR AND ME SPEAKING TO THAT NEW NEIGHBOR, ME GETTING TO KNOW THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THESE ARE JUST SOME SIMPLE DESIGN FACTORS THAT REALLY I ASKED THE APPLICANT TO DO PRIOR TO COMING.
THEY SAID THEY COULDN'T TODAY THEY CAN, BUT I ACTUALLY ASKED THEM TO MAKE THESE CHANGES PRIOR TO COMING OR CONSIDER THESE CHANGES IN, IN THE DESIGN.
SO WE'RE BEFORE A BODY TODAY, THEN I'M ASKING THAT AND ALL OF A SUDDEN THEY CAN DO IT.
AND IT WAS FOR THE SAME REASONS WE ASKED THAT ONE HOUSE FACED HANCOCK, ONE HOUSE FACES WELLINGTON, AND TODAY THEY COULD DO IT.
THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO COME BEFORE THE BODY TO DO THIS.
THEY COULD'VE DONE THIS PRIOR TO GETTING HERE.
OKAY, COMMISSIONER SECOND ROUND.
ANY SECOND ROUND BEFORE WE TAKE A MOTION? YES.
COMMISSIONER YOUNG, MR. CHAIR, I WANNA USE MY SECOND ROUND TO ADDRESS COMMISSIONER ANDERSON'S QUESTION.
UH, WE ARE NOT VOTING UP OR DOWN ON THE TH THREE ZONING REQUEST IN THIS MOTION.
THIS MOTION IS TO ADDRESS ONLY WHETHER THE MAIN MOTION WILL BE WITH OR WITHOUT THE ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS ON THE, UH, HIP ROOF AND, UH, PORCH.
UH, THE, THE MOTION TO AMEND IS TO DELETE THAT DEEDED RESTRICTION.
UM, SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON NOW.
ANY OTHER QUEST? UH, ANY OTHER COMMENTS? ARE, WE'RE READY FOR A RECORD VOTE AGAIN.
THIS IS ONLY ON THE AMENDMENT TO, UH, DELETE THE DESIGN DEEDED RESTRICTION VOLUNTEER BY THE APPLICANT AT THE HORSESHOE.
DISTRICT SEVEN, DISTRICT EIGHT? NO.
MOTION AMENDMENT FAILS AND WE GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER WHEELER, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER RUBIN TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FILE STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL SUBJECT TO DEEDED RESTRICTIONS VOLUNTEERED
[05:40:01]
BY THE APPLICANT, INCLUDING THE LAST DEEDED RESTRICTION AT THE HORSESHOE IN REGARDS TO DESIGN.ANY DISCUSSIONS ON THAT? COMMISSIONER YOUNG OLIVER WENDELL HOLMES HAD A FAMOUS SAYING THAT A NUISANCE IS SOMETIMES MERELY THE RIGHT THING IN THE WRONG PLACE, LIKE A PIG IN THE PARLOR INSTEAD OF IN THE BARNYARD.
GENTLE DENSITY IS THE RIGHT THING, BUT GENTLE DENSITY CAN BE PLACED IN THE RIGHT PLACE OR IT CAN BE PLACED IN THE WRONG PLACE.
I THINK THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF GENTLE DENSITY IN THE RIGHT PLACE, AND THAT'S WHY I'M VERY PLEASED TO SUPPORT THE MOTION.
I'LL ALSO BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION AND, UH, WANT TO CONGRATULATE COMMISSIONER WHEELER.
THERE'S, UH, I DON'T REMEMBER A COMMISSIONER EVER BEING APPOINTED TO THIS BODY AND HAVING EVERY SINGLE ANOTHER CASES WHEN THEY'RE APPOINTED.
YOU HAVE NOT HAD A CHANCE TO EVEN RAMP UP THE LEARNING CURVE, UH, FROM THE FIRST TIME YOU WERE APPOINTED TO THIS ONE.
YOU HAVE NOT GOTTEN OFF THE HOT SEAT.
SO I, UH, YOU KNOW, KUDOS TO YOU.
THESE ARE VERY DIFFICULT CASES AND, YOU KNOW, AS THE, THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC CAN SEE, WE, WE'VE SPENT OVER AN HOUR ON A CASE WHERE WE WILL PASS ONE, UH, YOU KNOW, MULTIMILLION DOLLAR CASE IN 30 SECONDS.
SO THESE ARE, THESE ARE CASES THAT ARE IMPORTANT TO US.
WE, WE CAN SEE THE RAMIFICATIONS OF WHAT WE'RE DOING, AND SO WE TAKE OUR TIME WITH THEM.
UH, I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER YOUNG.
THIS IS AN APPROPRIATE SITE, SITE FOR THIS.
UM, AND, UH, I'M HAPPY TO SUPPORT THE MOTION WITH THE ADDED LANGUAGE.
ANY COMMISSIONER BLAIR, I TOO AM GONNA SUPPORT IT BECAUSE, AND LIKE I SAID BEFORE, WE GET, WE GET FOUR UNITS IN GENERAL DENSITY AND ONE, AND, UM, UH, AND WHAT WOULD HAVE BEEN TWO UNITS, I'M SORRY.
WE GET, WE GET THE GENERAL DENSITY ON THE CORNER.
IT'S MUCH LIKE THE TOWNHOUSE, UH, THAT I DID ON MY, ON THE CORNER RIGHT ACROSS FROM THE SCHOOL ON ELM AND WHATEVER.
UM, ELAM AND, AND, AND IT'S, YEAH, IT'S WHERE WE WANT.
IT'S, IT'S A GOOD PLACE TO PUT MULTIPLE UNITS WHERE HISTORICALLY WE WOULD ONLY HAVE ONE.
IF I COULD TAKE AS MANY OF MY, ESPECIALLY IN MY RURAL AREAS AND DO THE SAME THING I COULD, I COULD HELP WITH GIVEN THE DENSITY, ESPECIALLY SINCE THOSE LOTS ARE EXTREMELY LARGE.
THEY, THEY, WE, WE ACTUALLY GOT FOUR TOWNHOUSES WHERE WE WOULD HAVE GOTTEN A R ON A R SEVEN FIVE BECAUSE A LOT WAS SO LARGE WHERE WE WOULDN'T HAVE, WHERE WE, IF BY RIGHT? WE WOULD'VE ONLY GOTTEN ONE UNIT.
I COULD DO THAT ALL OVER THE PLACE IN, ON THE CORNERS IN MY DISTRICT.
SO I APPRECIATE THAT THIS IS A, THIS IS THE RIGHT WAY AND AT THIS PARTICULAR TIME IN ORDER TO DO IT.
AND, AND I WILL SUPPORT IT AND I WILL SUPPORT THOSE KIND OF DENSITY, UM, GENERAL DENSITY INCLUSIONS ANYWHERE THAT I CAN.
THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER BLAIR.
I'M GONNA SUPPORT THE MOTION BECAUSE I SUPPORT HOUSING.
I DON'T SUPPORT, I DON'T SUPPORT THE DEED RESTRICTIONS AS MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY.
UM, I'M GONNA CONTINUE TO SPEAK REGULARLY, I GUESS AT THIS MEETING ABOUT, UH, DEEDED RESTRICTIONS AND, UH, REQUIREMENTS WRITTEN INTO PDS THAT, UM, ARE, ARE JUST OFF THE POINT AND NOT WHAT WE NEED TO BE DEALING WITH.
AND I'VE, I'VE ASKED THE ATTORNEY, CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO, UH, HELP US WITH THAT AND ENCOURAGE US WITH THAT.
UM, BUT AS I DID AT LAST MEETING AND AS I'VE DONE TODAY, I WILL CONTINUE TO SPEAK AGAINST, UH, THIS SORT OF DRIFT INTO, UH, TOPICS AND SUBJECT MATTER THAT, UH, UH, REALLY WORKS AGAINST A HEALTHY CITY.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER TREADRIGHT.
I WILL ALSO SUPPORT THE MOTION.
I DO SUPPORT, UM, THIS HOUSING AND I SUPPORT COMMISSIONER WHEELER'S EFFORTS TO WORK WITH THE DEVELOPER TO MAKE SURE IT IS APPROPRIATE FOR THE COMMUNITY.
UM, I HAVE THE SAME POINT AS COMMISSIONER HOUSE, RIGHT? I, I THINK WE NEED TO MAKE SURE WE LEAVE ENOUGH FLEXIBILITY THAT THE DEVELOPMENT CAN GO WHERE IT NEEDS TO AS IT GETS THROUGH PROCESSES THAT ARE BEYOND OUR COMMISSION.
UM, I FEEL THE SAME WAY AS YOU KNOW, AS
[05:45:01]
COMMISSIONER TREADWAY AND COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT.BUT I WILL SAY THIS, I DO HOPE BECAUSE I DO BELIEVE IN IMPOSING DESIGN STANDARDS ON LARGE AREAS.
I JUST DON'T LIKE THE IDEA OF GETTING LEGISLATING, YOU KNOW, FOR INDIVIDUAL LOTS DESIGN STANDARDS.
I UNDERSTAND THE REASONS WHY, BUT I DO HOPE IN REDOING THE AREA PLAN THAT YOU DO DEAL WITH WHAT YOU WANT TO IMPOSE ON THE LARGE AREAS AND WHERE THINGS SHOULD BE.
AND THAT, THAT'S MORE OF THE DIRECTION WE GO INTO INSTEAD OF SORT OF EVERY TIME A ONE LOT CASE COMES THROUGH THAT WE HAVE TO DEBATE DESIGN STANDARDS TO THIS DEGREE.
BUT I WILL BE SUPPORTING 'CAUSE I THINK IT'S A BASICALLY GOOD DESIGN AND A GOOD USE OF THE PROPERTY.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? COMMERCIALS.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.
ANDERSON ONLY ANDERSON IN OPPOSITION.
COMMISSIONERS, UH, WE'RE GONNA GET BACK ON THE RECORD.
IT IS, UM, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8.
MOVING TO, UH, THE INDIVIDUAL CASES, BEGINNING WITH CASE NUMBER NINE ON PAGE FOUR OF THE AGENDA.
AND, UH, MR. PEPE, MR. MOORE, WE DON'T READ THE CASE INTO THE RECORD, CORRECT? HE SAID EARLIER WE NEED TO GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS.
UH, COMMISSIONER BLAIR, UM, I MOVE TO SUSPEND C P C RULES OF PROCEDURE SECTION FOUR C TWO AND C SIX TO ALLOW RECONSIDERATION OF Z 2 12 2 97, UH, COMMISSIONERS.
WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BLAIR TO SUSPEND THE RULES, UH, PER PROCEDURE SECTION FOUR C TWO AND C SIX TO ALLOW RECONSIDERATION OF Z 1 2 12 2 97.
DO I HAVE A SECOND? THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HAMPTON FOR YOUR SECOND, UH, COMMISSIONERS.
THIS IS, UH, NO DEBATE ON THIS MOTION.
UH, CAN WE TAKE A RECORD? VOTE MS. SINA, AGAIN, THIS IS JUST FOR THE SUSPENSION OF THE RULES.
DISTRICT ONE, UH, TWO SIDE OF THE ROOM HERE.
HE'S, WHAT WAS THAT? COMMISSIONER? YES.
DISTRICT SEVEN, DISTRICT EIGHT?
[05:50:01]
YES.COMMISSIONER AT 13 DIDN'T VOTE.
NO, THE, THE MOTION IS TO SUSPEND THE RULES.
THE C P C RULES OF PROCEDURE SECTION FOUR C TWO AND C SIX TO ALLOW RECONSIDERATION OF Z 2 12 2 97 AND IT'S NON DEBATABLE.
IT NEEDED A TWO THIRD, UH, TWO THIRDS VOTE.
SO WE'LL KEEP MOVING TO CASE NUMBER 10.
CASE NUMBER 10 HAD A NOTIFICATION ERROR AND WE WILL BE, UH, BACK ON OUR DOCKET AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
MR. CHAIR, LET ME REFLECT THE MINUTES.
REFLECT THE PARDON? I WAS ABSENT WHEN THE ROOM WHEN YOU SAID THAT.
COMMISSIONER YOUNG, JUST FOR THE RECORD.
COMMISSIONER YOUNG DOES IN FACT HAVE A CONFLICT AND IS STEPPING OUT OF THE CHAMBER.
AND AGAIN, JUST FOR THE RECORD, THIS CASE DID HAVE A NOTIFICATION ERROR.
WE'LL MAKE IT BACK ON THE DOCKET ASAP.
AND NOW COMMISSIONER YOUNG, WE'LL STEP BACK INTO THE CHAMBER.
WE WILL MOVE ON TO CASE NUMBER 11.
ITEM NUMBER 11 IS Z 2 2 3 1 51.
AN APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO SPECIFIC USE PERMIT NUMBER 2215 FOR THE SALE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES IN CONJUNCTION WITH A GENERAL MERCHANDISE OR A FOOD STORE, 3,500 SQUARE FEET OR LESS ON PROPERTY ZONE IN R R D ONE REGIONAL RETAIL DISTRICT WITH A D ONE LIQUOR CONTROL OVERLAY ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF NORTH JIM MILLER ROAD AND THE EAST RL SURGEON FREEWAY STATE RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL FOR A THREE YEAR PERIOD SUBJECT TO REVISED CONDITIONS.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MS. GARZA.
I SEE THAT THE APPLICANT IS HERE.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION FOR THE RECORD.
MY NAME IS DANIEL BOX AND I'M A ZONING ATTORNEY WITH WINSTED PC AND OFFICES LOCATED AT 27 28 NORTH HARWOOD STREET.
IT'S GOOD TO BE HERE IN FRONT OF THIS HONORABLE COMMISSION ONCE AGAIN THIS MONTH.
UH, I JUST WANNA LET YOU KNOW THAT WE ARE HERE AS WELL AS TOGETHER.
UH, I'M HERE TOGETHER WITH MANY MEMBERS OF THE APPLICANT'S TEAM TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE.
BRIEFLY THOUGH, BEFORE I TURN IT OVER TO YOU, I DID JUST WANNA GIVE YOU SOME QUICK BACKGROUND ON THIS CASE.
UH, OF COURSE, WE FIRST RECEIVED THIS S U P GOING BACK INTO TO 2018, AND WE'RE NOW REQUESTING FOR A RENEWAL OF THAT APPLICATION.
UM, I WILL SAY THAT I THINK THAT OUR REPUTATION AND OUR STANDING OF THE COMMUNITY, I'M HAPPY TO REPORT HAS DONE NOTHING BUT IMPROVED IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS.
AND THAT IS DUE LARGELY IN PART, UH, TO THE EFFORTS OF OUR FRANCHISEE.
MR. TONY MAHMUD, WHO'S HERE TODAY, UH, WITH ME, UH, HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
I WILL SAY THAT MR. MAHMUD, UH, HAS TAKEN GREAT EFFORTS TO DO, UH, TO IMPROVE THE STORE, UH, IN THE PAST FIVE YEARS.
UH, HE TOOK OVER IN 2018 WHEN WE FIRST APPLIED FOR THIS SS U P APPLICATION.
AND SINCE THAT TIME, HE HAS INSTALLED, UH, LIGHTING SECURITY SYSTEM, UH, IN ORDER TO DETER CRIME.
HE'S ALSO INSTALLED, UH, HE'S ALSO INSTITUTED A TRESPASS AFFIDAVIT SYSTEM, UH, FOR THE SAME REASON, UH, SINCE THEN.
HE'S ALSO UPDATED THE SIGNAGE.
YOU MIGHT, IF YOU'VE BEEN BEEN BY THE SITE.
IT USED TO HAVE A KIND OF A, A TALL METAL BILLBOARD SIGN THAT HAS NOW BEEN REPLACED WITH, UH, I THINK A VERY HANDSOME MASONRY, UH, MONUMENT SIGN WITH L E D LIGHTING.
AND HE'S ALSO, UH, PUT FRESH FOOD ITEMS INTO THE SHELVES THERE AT THE STORE.
NOW, MOST IMPORTANT, AND I I DO WANNA MENTION THIS BECAUSE I THINK I HEARD SOME DISCUSSION ON THIS DURING BRIEFING, MR. MAHMUD HAS REMOVED ALL OF THE GAMBLING MACHINES THAT USED TO EXIST AT THE SITE.
THERE HAVE BEEN ZERO GAMBLING MACHINES AT THIS SITE FOR THE PAST FIVE YEARS, AND THAT HAS BEEN, UH, CODIFIED OR, UH, MEMORIALIZED, I SHOULD SAY, IN OUR GOOD NEIGHBOR AGREEMENT.
AND, UH, MR. MAMUD HAS HONORED THAT PROVISION FOR THE PAST FIVE YEARS.
AND SO IN THAT VEIN, I THINK I, I CAN SAY MR. MAHMUD HAS NOT ONLY BEEN A GOOD NEIGHBOR.
I THINK HE'S TRUTHFULLY BEEN A GREAT NEIGHBOR, AND THERE'S, THERE'S A LOT TO TESTIFY TO THAT HE'S JOINED, UH, THE FERGUSON ROAD INITIATIVE.
UH, HE ATTENDS ALL THEIR MEETINGS.
HE DONATES WATER TO LOCAL COMMUNITY, UH, GATHERINGS.
AND, UH, HE'S ALSO DONATED REVENUE FROM THE STORE TO LOCAL SCHOOLS.
AND SO, WITHOUT WANTING TO PUT WORDS IN ANYBODY'S MOUTH, I THINK HAD Y'ALL BEEN IN ATTENDANCE
[05:55:01]
AT OUR COMMUNITY MEETING WITH BUCKNER TERRACE, UH, YOU WOULD'VE HEARD DANIEL WOOD.UH, AND, UH, AND IN SUBSEQUENT MEETINGS, UH, MS. VICKI, UH, MARTIN WAX RATHER LYRICAL ABOUT, UH, MR. MAHMUD AND HIS INVOLVEMENT IN THE COMMUNITY AND EVERYTHING THAT HE HAS BROUGHT, UH, TO THAT COMMUNITY.
SO, LIKE I SAID, I, WE HAVE ENTERED INTO A GOOD NEIGHBOR AGREEMENT THAT'S STILL ON THE BOOKS, UH, BACK IN 2018.
AND I THINK TONY'S REPUTATION IN THE COMMUNITY, UH, SPEAKS TO WHY TWO LETTERS OF SUPPORT HAVE BEEN ISSUED, UH, FOR THIS REQUEST.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO BE HEARD ON THIS ITEM? COMMISSIONER'S QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? COMMISSIONER YOUNG, UH, NOT SO MUCH A QUESTION, BUT A COMMENT.
MR. BOX, I WANT TO THANK YOU AND YOUR CLIENT FOR ONE THING THAT DIDN'T GO UNNOTICED.
YOU APPLIED FOR RENEWAL ALMOST SIX MONTHS BEFORE THE SS U P EXPIRED.
WE'RE USED TO SEEING ON ALCOHOL RENEWALS APPLICATIONS FILED THE DAY BEFORE OR SOMETIMES THE DAY AFTER THE S U P EXPIRED SO THAT SOMEBODY CAN BUY AN EXTRA SIX TO 12 MONTHS OF OPERATION WHILE THE UH, COMMISSION IS CONSIDERING THEIR CASE.
YOU DID IT THE RIGHT WAY AND I WISH, UH, MORE PEOPLE DID.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HERBERT.
SO A LOT OF OUR DECISION HAS TO GO ON WHAT'S ON THE GROUND, WHAT'S, WHAT'S THE LAND SPEAKING OF, ARE YOU AWARE THAT THERE'S AN ALCOHOL ANONYMOUS LOCATED DIRECTLY NEXT TO YOUR LOCATION? UH, I, I PERSONALLY WAS NOT AWARE.
I'M NOT SURE IF MEMBERS OF OUR TEAM ARE AWARE.
UM, ALSO IS, DO YOU KNOW IF THERE'S ANY, UM, ANY PERMITTING PROCESS THAT HAS TO GO THROUGH THE CITY FOR, UM, GAMBLING MACHINES ON THE SITE? UH, I BELIEVE THAT YES, THERE WOULD BE A PERMITTING PROCESS IN ORDER TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN, BUT LIKE I SAID, THAT IS PART OF OUR GOOD NEIGHBOR AGREEMENT AND WE'VE NOW HONORED THAT FOR MORE THAN FIVE YEARS.
THERE'S ABSOLUTELY NO DESIGN WHATSOEVER TO REINSTALL THOSE OR TO EVER BRING THOSE BACK.
THERE, THERE'S ABSOLUTELY NO INTENTION TO EVER BRING THOSE BACK TO THE STORE.
OKAY, SO THEY'RE NOT THERE AT THE STORE? NO, THEY'RE, THEY'RE NOT THERE.
THEY HAVE NOT BEEN THERE FOR FIVE YEARS AND THAT HAS BEEN MEMORIALIZED IN OUR GOOD NEIGHBOR AGREEMENT.
UM, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? COMMISSIONERS? YES, COMMISSIONER, WE, UM, ARE YOU, UH, UM, WHAT ARE YOU ALL DOING TO COME BACK THE, UM, HANGING OUT IN FRONT OF THE STORE? I'M, I'M SORRY, COMMISSIONER.
I DON'T THINK I, WHAT ARE YOU ALL, WHAT IS THAT? WHAT IS THE OWNER DOING TO, UM, RECTIFY THE HANGING OUT IN, UH, CLOSE TO THE STORE IN THE PARKING LOT? UH, I'M NOT SURE.
WOULD I BE THE ONE TO SPEAK ON THAT OR DO Y'ALL YEAH, I'LL HAVE A MEMBER OF OUR TEAM GET YOU A GOOD ANSWER, COMMISSIONER.
HELLO, MY NAME'S MARK STAMPER.
SO, UM, AT THE STORE WE HAVE A TRESPASS AFFIDAVIT ON FILE.
ARE YOU, WE HAVE A TRESPASS AFFIDAVIT ON FILE AND WE USE THE UTILIZE THE SOURCE STAFF TO, YOU MIGHT WANT TO RAISE THAT MICROPHONE A LITTLE MORE AND TELL US WHO YOU SO I CAN HEAR YOU.
MY NAME IS MARK STAMPER AND I WORK, I'M WITH RACEWAY.
UM, WE UTILIZE THE STAFF MEMBERS AT THE STORE TO DETER.
UM, WE HAVE CAMERA SYSTEM IN PLACE AND WE HAVE A TRESPASS AFFIDAVIT, UM, ON FILE.
WE DO EVERYTHING WE CAN TO PREVENT THE LOITERING.
IT IS A GAS STATION WE DO HAVE COMING AND GOING FREQUENTLY.
UM, BUT WE HAVE, WE'VE MADE GREAT STRIDES AT THAT STORE WITH REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF PEOPLE THAT WE HANG OUT THE STORE.
UM, PREVIOUS TO MR. MAHMUD RUNNING THE STORE, IT WAS VERY TOLERATED BY OUR PREVIOUS FRANCHISEE.
IT'S PART OF WHY WE MADE THE CHANGE AND BROUGHT MR. MAHMUD INTO THE STORE WAS TO HELP TO CLEAN THE STORE UP AND CHANGE THE WAY THE STORE WAS BEING OPERATED.
AND THAT TOOK PLACE IN 2018 AND WE'VE MADE GREAT STRIDES SINCE THEN.
AND WE'VE HAD A FAR, UM, A MUCH GREATER, UH, IMPROVEMENT IN THE STORE AND THE WAY THE OPERATION AND THE, UH, SOME THINGS HANGING OUT.
WE HAVE HAD SECURITY AT THE STORE AS WELL, AND WE'RE EXPLORING AND LOOKING AT DOING THAT AGAIN.
UM, WE'RE CURRENTLY EVALUATING A, A SECURITY COMPANY TO PARTNER WITH, UM, AND FIGURE OUT WHAT'S GONNA BE THE BEST FIT FOR THE STORE TO, TO HELP WITH THAT.
SO ARE, ARE YOU AWARE THAT PROBABLY THE INCREASES BECAUSE OF, UH, HOMELESS MOVING TO THE AREA OR MIGRATING TO THAT AREA? IN, IN MY EXPERIENCE THERE'S ALWAYS BEEN A POPULATION OF, OF HOMELESS KIND OF PEOPLE IN THE AREA.
UM, IT'S, IT'S, AT TIMES IT SEEMS TO INCREASE AND IT SEEMS TO DECREASE AT DIFFERENT TIMES.
UM, IT'S A SUMMER RIGHT NOW, SO THERE SEEMS TO BE A LITTLE BIT MORE OF IT.
UM, BUT WE, WE, I MEAN, WE TRY DO EVERYTHING WE CAN TO, TO PREVENT IT, KEEP PEOPLE MOVING AND NOT ALLOW 'EM TO HANG OUT AT THE STORE.
WE HAVE THE NO LOITERING SIGNS POSTED.
[06:00:01]
A CASE BY CASE DAY BY DAY MM-HMM.ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? COMMISSIONERS? QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SEEING NONE, COMMISSIONER WHEELER, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? I'M, AM I MOTION TO CLOSE THIS HEARING, UH, PUBLIC HEARING? UM, WAIT A MINUTE.
IN THE CASE OF 7 2 2 3 1 5 1, I MOVE TO CLOSE THIS PUBLIC HEARING AND FOLLOW A STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL.
AND I HAVE COMMENT IS IT FOR A THREE YEAR PERIOD SUBJECT TO REVISED CONDITIONS FOR YES.
UM, FOR A THREE YEAR PERIOD SUBJECT TO THE REVISED, UH, CONDITIONS.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COMMISSIONER WHEELER FOR YOUR MOTION.
COMMENTS, COMMISSIONER WHEELER.
SO I WANT TO COMMEND, UM, RACE RACEWAY, THE ORGANIZATION AND THE REPRESENTATIVES WHEN I CONTACTED THEM.
UM, PRETTY MUCH WHAT I ASKED OF EVERYONE IS HAVE YOU TALKED TO THE COMMUNITY? UM, SOME PEOPLE GET ANNOYED, THEY DID NOT.
UM, I, THEY F Y I AND BUCK TERRACE ARE NOT PUSHOVERS.
UM, THE DANIEL WOODS CAME IN PERSON BECAUSE HE DIDN'T SEND A LETTER.
HE CAME IN PERSON TO SAY THAT HE WAS APPROVING IT.
SO I KNOW FOR A FACT AFTER I STARTED CALLING ME RIGHT AWAY SAYING, YES, WE APPROVE IT.
THERE, THERE HAD BEEN A GOOD NEIGHBOR, DANIEL WOODS DID THE SAME.
SO TO KNOW THAT OUR ORGANIZATION, A CORPORATION, DID EXACTLY WHAT I ASKED OF THEM, UH, OFTENTIMES I GET RESISTANCE.
PEOPLE FEEL LIKE THEY DON'T HAVE TO, BUT FOR ME, AGAIN, I SAID A PRESIDENT, EVERY ZONING CASE IS IMPORTANT AND EVERY ZONING CASE CONTACT THE COMMUNITY AROUND YOU.
SO THANK YOU AND PROMISE YOU THOSE TWO, THOSE TWO NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS ARE NOT KNOCK, KNOCK ONS.
THEY, THEY'RE COME OUT AND THEY SAY WHAT THEY WANT.
UM, ANY OTHER COMMENTS? COMMISSIONERS? SEEING NONE? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.
ANY THE OPPOSED MOTION PASSES? I NUMBER 12.
ITEM NUMBER 12 IS Z 2 23 DASH 2 93.
AN APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 9 9 4 ON PROPERTY BOUNDED BY LANCASTER ROAD, ANN ARBOR AVENUE, DENLEY DRIVE, AND PADUCAH AVENUE.
RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO AN AMENDED DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AN AMENDED LANDSCAPE PLAN, AMENDED CONDITIONS, AND AN AMENDED TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN AS BRIEFED.
SEE THAT THE APPLICANT IS HERE.
CARL CROWLEY, 2201 MAIN STREET.
I'M GONNA TALK REAL FAST, UM, AND MAY NEED MORE TIME.
I WANTED TO GIVE YOU SOME HISTORY THAT DONNA PROBABLY DIDN'T KNOW AND SORRY, I'VE KNOWN DONNA FOR 40 YEARS, I THINK, OR 30 PLUS YEARS IN A PREVIOUS JOB LIFE.
UM, I WORKED ON THIS IN 20 17, 20 18 WHEN WE DID THE FIRST PD AND PRIOR TO THE PROPERTY WAS ON CR AND PART, IT WAS ON R 75.
AND AS A PD BACK THEN, WE WOULD JUST SAY, UH, SETBACKS PER THE PLAN.
SO WE JUST, WHATEVER THE DISTANCE TO THE SCHOOL WAS, IT WAS THAT HAPPENED THEN IN 2021, UH, STARTED DURING THE PANDEMIC.
UH, WE DID IT AGAIN, UH, TO ADD WHAT'S ON THERE, MOST OF WHAT'S ON THERE.
AND WE CHANGED IT TO PER R SEVEN FIVE, NOT REALIZING THAT WE KIND OF, KIND OF MESSED WITH OURSELVES.
UM, AND THEN AS DONNA MENTIONED, WE CAME IN FOR A MINOR AMENDMENT TO JUST SHIFT SOME LITTLE AREA AROUND AND WE WENT, OOPS.
AND IT'S NOW A MAJOR AMENDMENT.
SO WE ACTUALLY GOT AN APPROVED MINOR AMENDMENT TO TAKE OFF THE STUFF THAT VIOLATED THE, UM, THE, UH, DEVELOPMENT PLAN OR THE PD CONDITIONS.
SO WE COULD GO AHEAD AND START WORK ON THAT.
AND THEN NOW WE'RE HERE FOR THIS MAJOR AMENDMENT.
UM, AND ONE THING ALSO, UM, I WANT TO THANK DONNA AND THE STAFF FOR WORKING THIS THROUGH.
'CAUSE LITERALLY WE'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF A PERMIT AND REALIZE, OOPS, UH, THIS ISN'T RIGHT.
SO THEY RUSHED THIS THROUGH AND WE'RE THANKFUL OF THAT.
SO THE CONTRACTOR CAN CONTINUE CONSTRUCTION THAT HE'S ALREADY STARTED ON WHAT WAS ALLOWED.
UM, ONE THING THOUGH THAT DONNA AND I MISSED UNTIL TODAY WAS, UM, IF YOU LOOK AT YOUR DEVELOPMENT PLAN, THERE ARE AMENITY AREAS AND Y'ALL ARE USED TO WHAT WE DO ON SCHOOLS.
SO I'M GONNA, UH, PROPOSE THAT WE WILL SAY WE'RE GONNA BUILD THOSE AMENITY AREAS AND PUT 'EM IN THE CONDITIONS AS SHOWN ON THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
'CAUSE THERE'S THREE AREAS THAT WE WORKED
[06:05:01]
WITH THE STAFF.AND YOU CAN SEE THE LITTLE CIRCLE AREAS AND THEY'LL HAVE BENCHES AND YOU KNOW, WHAT WE, WE OFFER IN THOSE.
AND ONE OTHER THING THAT WE PROPOSE, UH, TWO OTHER THINGS, I'M SORRY.
THEY'LL BE, UH, SIX FOOT SIDEWALKS ALONG DENLEY, UM, IN A FIVE FOOT BUFFER STRIP, A SIX FOOT SIDEWALK ALONG PADUCAH WITH A BUFFER STRIP.
UH, THE SIDEWALK ALONG PADUCAH IS A, IS A MESS RIGHT NOW ON, UM, ANN ARBOR.
THEY'LL BE THE SAME SIX FOOT AND FIVE FOOT.
HOWEVER, IF YOU GET TOWARDS THE, TOWARDS DENLEY ON ANN ARBOR, THERE'S A COUPLE BIG TREES IN A RETAINING WALL.
SO WE'LL SNAKE DOWN TO SAVE THE TREES.
IT'S NOT WORTH LOSING A COUPLE BIG TREES FOR A WIDER SIDEWALK THROUGH THERE.
AND THERE'S SOME STORM DRAINS, SO WE'LL HAVE A PROVISION FOR THAT.
BUT OTHERWISE IT'LL BE SIX AND FIVE EXCEPT FOR THAT.
NOW ON LANCASTER ROAD, IT'S A RAIL LINE, IT'S EVERYTHING ELSE UP THERE.
IT'S ALL CROWDED, THERE'S LOTS OF UTILITIES.
THAT SIDEWALK IS BACK A CURB AND IT'S ALREADY FIVE FEET.
SO WE SUGGESTED JUST LEAVE THAT THERE BECAUSE WE ARE NOT DOING, THERE'S NO PARKING.
WE DON'T, WE DON'T WANT OUR, WE DON'T WANT PEOPLE WALKING OUR KIDS FOR SURE WALKING UP AND DOWN THAT.
AND THERE'S PLENTY OF ROOM FOR PEDESTRIANS ON LANCASTER.
SO THOSE WILL BE PUT IN THE CONDITIONS ALSO.
AND I GUESS THE FINAL THING IS WE OFFERED, UM, STREET TREES, AS I CALL THEM, STILL
I THINK PHIL KNOWS WHAT STREET TREES ARE, UM, AT 40 FOOT ON CENTER ALONG DENLEY.
UM, AGAIN, UH, THAT IS NOT ON THE LANDSCAPE PLAN, THAT'S IN YOUR, UH, PART OF THE DOCKET
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT'D LIKE TO BE HEARD ON THIS ITEM? QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS? MR. CROWLEY, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE? NO, NO.
I'M, I'M, I'M, I'M PRETTY SURE I TALKED AS FAST AS I COULD AND GOT IT ALL IN THERE.
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, PLEASE.
UM, MR. CROWLEY, WOULD YOU GUYS CONSIDER IN THE LANDSCAPE PLAN ADDING TREES TO THE SOUTHERN SIDE OF THE PLAYGROUND AREA IN ORDER TO SHADE THE PLAYGROUND AREA FROM, FROM THE HEAT? UM, I, I'LL HAVE TO LOOK, BUT I THINK THAT PLAYGROUND AREA HAS, WELL ACTUALLY WE'RE WORKING WITH COOL SCHOOLS AND WE CAN SEE IF THAT CAN HAPPEN, BUT I ALSO THINK THAT PLAYGROUND AREA HAS A SHADE STRUCTURE WITH IT.
WELL, UM, HOW FREQUENT THAT AREA AND THE ENTIRE AREA IS, IS IN THE HEAT AND IT MAY HAVE A SHADE STRUCTURE OVER A CERTAIN PORTION OF IT, BUT WE'RE INTERESTED IN, IN SHADE IN THE AREA IN A PASSIVE WAY.
UH, AS I MENTIONED, I DON'T HAVE THE COOL SCHOOLS THEY'RE WORKING ON WITH THE SCHOOL, BUT WE WILL, UM, WE'LL DO OUR BEST TO, UH, PERSUADE THEM AS WE CAN PERSUADE COOL SCHOOLS, SCHOOL SCHOOLS IS A 50 50 SORT OF MATCH WITH THE DISTRICT AND THEM.
SO WE HAVE SOME CONTROL OVER WHERE THEY PLANT THE TREES, BUT WE'LL WORK TOWARDS THAT.
THERE'S ALSO SOME UTILITIES IN THE BACK PART OF THAT SITE.
IF YOU CAN SEE ON YOUR PLAN, THERE'S A BIG PIECE OF STORM PIPE AND THERE'S ALSO SOME, UH, SANITARY SEWERS THERE THAT LIMIT WHERE WE CAN PLANT THOSE TREES ALSO.
BUT WE, BUT WE UNDERSTAND AND, AND WE'LL WORK TOWARDS THAT.
UM, WE REALLY NEED THAT TO BE INCLUDED, UM, AS OPPOSED TO TO TRY.
SO WE, WE REALLY WANT YOU TO, TO, TO REALLY PUSH THOSE CONSULTANTS TO ADD THOSE TREES AND NOT JUST TRY TO ADD THOSE TREES THAT DO NOT NECESSARILY BE WITH COOL SCHOOLS, BUT FOR D I SS D TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT.
THANK YOU MR. CROWLEY AND MR. CHAIR.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? YES.
COMMISSIONER HERBERT? YES, MR. CROWLEY, WE, WE KEEP MEETING LIKE THIS ABOUT FENCES.
SO I SEE AT THE BACK OF, UH, AT DENLEY DRIVE, WE HAVE SOMETHING THAT'S NOTATED AS A SIX FOOT DECORATIVE FENCE.
UM, AND THEN THE OTHER FENCES AREN'T LABELED AS DECORATIVE.
UH, CAN YOU EXPLAIN THAT? UM, WELL THEY'RE, THEY'LL ALL, THEY'LL ALL BE, UM, UM, OLD SCHOOL WROUGHT IRON FENCE, BUT THEY'RE ALL, ALL THE DISTRICT IS TRYING TO GET AWAY FROM, FROM CHAIN LINK AND THEY GO TO THOSE DECORATIVE FENCES.
SO WE'LL MAKE SURE THAT, THAT, THAT LABEL'S ADDED ON THERE.
UM, AND THE AMENITY NUMBER ONE PEDESTRIAN GATE, UM, THAT AREA IS, UH, IT'S A CROSSWALK FROM ANN ARBOR TO THE SCHOOL LARGE APARTMENT COMPLEX ACROSS THERE.
A LOT OF THE STUDENTS COME ACROSS, I TRAVEL THIS WAY A LOT.
IF YOU DON'T KNOW, UM, HAVE WE TOOK, TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION ALL OF THE EFFORTS FOR OUR CROSSWALK PERSON, EVERYBODY FOR THAT AMENITY AREA? WELL, THE, THE CROSSWALK YOU MEAN? UH, WELL, IT'S GOT A CROSSWALK THERE, OBVIOUSLY.
WHICH IS, WHICH IS UNUSUAL TO, FOR, TO HAVE A MIDBLOCK CROSSWALK, BELIEVE ME.
AND THAT WAS TAKEN IN INTO ACCOUNT IN THE TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN TO MAKE SURE WE COULD KEEP THAT THERE.
AND THAT'S SORT OF THE, WE WE'RE TRYING TO, SOME OF THE EARLIER SCHOOLS, THE AMENITIES WERE EVERY 200 FEET AND THAT GETS KIND OF LIKE, OKAY, WHAT DOES THAT ACCOMPLISH? UH, WE'D RATHER PUT THE AMENITIES WHERE PEOPLE GATHER, LIKE, UH,
[06:10:01]
PICK UP AND DROP OFF AREAS SO PEOPLE GATHER THERE WHILE THEY'RE WAITING FOR THEIR KIDS OR BY PLAYGROUNDS, BECAUSE THEN THE TEACHERS COULD ALSO USE 'EM AT THE PLAYGROUNDS TOO, AND PEOPLE AFTERWARDS.SO THAT'S PART OF THAT WHOLE IDEA.
THERE'S A PLAYGROUND IN THAT SORT OF AREA AND PEOPLE CROSSING THE STREET.
AND, AND THEN I ALWAYS SAY MOMS JUST, SORRY, BUT MOM, DAD, WHOEVER, CAREGIVER, IF THEY'RE WALKING, THEY'RE GONNA COME KICK THEIR CHILD.
THEY CAN SIT AND HAVE A PLACE TO SAY, WE USUALLY TRY TO, AND, AND THAT'S MAYBE WHAT WE OFFER ON THAT IS WE PUT A COUPLE OF TREES IN THOSE TO LOCATIONS.
IF THERE'S NOT TREES ALREADY IN THE PICKUP AND DROP OFF AREAS OF MOST OF THESE OLDER SCHOOLS, THERE'S ALREADY TREES THERE.
AND, AND YOU'RE RIGHT IN THIS AREA AND, AND COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, THIS AREA OF, OF THAT END OF THE SCHOOL IS KIND OF, THERE ARE SOME TREES DOWN ON ANN ARBOR, UH, BUT, AND THEN THERE'LL BE TREES ALONG DENLEY, BUT THERE'S NO TREES IN THAT AREA, SO, UM, WHY DON'T, DONNA, WE'LL, WE'LL ADD A COUPLE OF TREES IN THAT AREA JUST TO GUARANTEE WE GET SOME TREES BY THAT AMENITY AREA.
THE LAST QUESTION IS ABOUT, IT LOOKS LIKE THE PORTABLES HAVE BEEN REMOVED IN THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING.
THEY MAY STILL BE THERE AS A SWING SPACE WHILE WE'RE RENOVATE, BUT YEAH, AT THE END OF THE DAY I DON'T SEE 'EM ON THE DESIGN.
THAT'S SORT OF NOW IN THE NEW EDITION.
IT WILL STAY THERE UNTIL THAT'S DONE, BUT YEAH.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONERS QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SEEING NONE, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? I DO.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR, IN THE MATTER OF Z 2 23 DASH 2 93, I MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE THIS ITEM AS BRIEF SUBJECT TO AN AMENDED DEVELOPMENT PLAN, A REVISED AMENDED LANDSCAPE PLAN THAT INCLUDES THOSE TREATIES BY EACH OF THE PLAY AREAS AND REVISED TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN AND AMENDED CONDITIONS.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER ANDERSON FOR YOUR MOTION.
AND COMMISSIONER HOUSER FOR YOUR SECOND.
SEE AND L UH, SEE NO COMMENTS.
WE'LL MOVE ON TO OUR LAST ZONING CASE.
UH, UH, HOUSE RIGHT? HOUSE, RIGHT.
AND THE LAST ZONING ITEM OF THE DAY.
UM, NUMBER 13, 2 3 DASH 2 0 9 5.
THIS IS A CITY PLAN COMMISSION AUTHORIZED HEARING TO DETERMINE, DETERMINE PROPER ZONING FOR THE AREA TO INCLUDE, BUT NOT LIMITED TO DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND OTHER APPROPRIATE REGULATIONS IN AN AREA.
GENERALLY BOUNDED BY SINGLETON BOULEVARD TO THE NORTH BOER STREET TO THE EAST, INCLUDING THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SINGLETON BOULEVARD AND BORER STREET, THE SOUTH SIDE OF DULUTH STREET ON THE SOUTH, AND A LINE RUNNING NORTH SOUTH INTERSECTING THE TERMINUS OF BEDFORD STREET AND DULUTH STREET ON THE WEST.
RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL OF A PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FOR CR COMMUNITY RETAIL DISTRICT, AND R FIVE, A SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT REGULATIONS SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS AND NO CHANGE TO PLAN DEVELOPMENT.
IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? COMMISSIONER'S QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SEEING NONE.
COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? YES.
THANK YOU MR. CHAIR IN THE MATTER OF Z 180 9 DASH 2 41, I MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE THIS ITEM.
SUBJECT TO STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGES IN THE YARD LOT AND SPACE REGULATIONS IN SUB AREA ONE UNLESS FURTHER RESTRICTED BY THE RESIDENTIAL PROXIMITY SLOPE.
MAX SLOPE STRUCTURE HEIGHT IS 54 FEET.
AND IN THE LANDSCAPE REGULATIONS IN SECTION 1 1 3 A TWO, INSERT BUFFER BETWEEN STREET AND TREE AND STRIKE LANDSCAPE MEDIAN.
AND IN SECTION ONE 13, A THREE CHANGE FIVE FOOT PLAN ZONE TO A SIX FOOT PLANNING ZONE.
COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, CAN YOU LEAD, READ THE LAST CONDITION NUMBER THREE, CHANGE FIVE TO SIX IN IN REGARDS TO, UH, CHANGE FIVE FOOT PLANTING ZONE TO A SIX FOOT PLANTING ZONE.
AND THE, THE, THE PUPPIES HAVE SECONDED YOUR MOTION AGAIN? YEAH, WOKE UP.
OKAY, I THINK THERE WAS, UH, OPPOSITION.
COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, THANK YOU FOR YOUR MOTION AND COMMISSIONER
[06:15:01]
RUBIN FOR YOUR SECOND TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FILE STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL.UH, WE STAFF RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS AND ALSO THE CONDITIONS IS READ INTO THE RECORD BY COMMISSIONER CARPENTER.
ANY COMMENTS? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
[SUBDIVISION OF DOCKETS]
TO OUR SUBDIVISION DOCKET CONSENT.AGENDA ITEMS, CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS 14, 14 THROUGH 21.
GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR AND GOOD AFTERNOON COMMISSIONERS.
THE CONSENT AGENDA CONSISTS OF EIGHT ITEMS. ITEM 14 S 2 2 3 DASH 2 1 1, ITEM 15 S 2 2 3 DASH 2 1 2.
ITEM 19 S 2 2 3 DASH TWO 16, ITEM 20 S 2 2 3 DASH 2 1 7.
AND ITEM 21 S 2 2 3 DASH TWO 18.
ALL THE CASES HAVE BEEN POSTED FOR A HEARING AT THIS TIME.
AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE DOCKET AND OR AS AMENDED AT THE HEARING.
IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THESE ITEMS? 14 THROUGH 21.
COMMISSIONER'S QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SEEING NONE, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? YES, IN THE MATTER OF THE SUBDIVISION CONSENT DOCKET ITEMS 14 THROUGH 21, I MOVE THAT WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND FOLLOW STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE DOCKET.
EXCUSE ME, THIS IS, UH, THOMAS WHITE.
I'M, I'M REPRESENTING ONE OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS ON NUMBER 20.
DID YOU, DID YOU WANNA SPEAK ON THAT ONE SIR? WOULD YOU LIKE US TO PULL IT OFF THE CONSENT? I HAVE JUST ONE QUESTION OR REQUEST REGARDING THIS ONE ABOUT THE CONDITIONS.
UM, OKAY, LET, LET US UM, PULL IT ASIDE.
SO COMMISSIONERS WILL CONSIDER 4 3 14 THROUGH 19 AND NUMBER 21.
SO COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, CAN YOU AMEND YOUR MOTION FOR 14 THROUGH 19 AND THEN 21 WE'LL PULL 20 OFF IN THE MATTER OF THE SUBDIVISION CONSENT DOCKET ITEMS 14 THROUGH 19 AND 21.
I MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND FOLLOW STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE DOCUMENT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER FOR YOUR MOTION AND COMMISSIONER YOUNG FOR YOUR SECOND.
ANY DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
WE GO TO CASE NUMBER 20 PLEASE.
IT IS AN APPLICATION TOLAT A 1.2 7 82 ACRE TRACK OF LAND CONTAINING PART OF LOT TWO A IN CITY BLOCK F OVER 7, 2 0 2 TO CREATE ONE LOT ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 30 EAST OF COCHRANE HILL ROAD.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE DOCKET OR AS AMENDED AT THE HEARING.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. WHITE? YES SIR.
I REPRESENT THE PROPERTY OWNER, UH, CALLED SIVA.
THERE'S ACTUALLY, UH, SIVA OWNS A HOTEL.
IT'S CALLED A COMFORT SUITES HOTEL THERE AT UH, COCKRELL HILL AND, AND INTERSTATE 30.
THERE'S ALSO A BILLBOARD TRACKED ON THERE AS WELL.
SO THERE'S, THERE'S TWO PROPERTY OWNERS.
THIS IS, UH, BASICALLY A FEW YEARS AGO THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NOTIFIED OUR OWNER THAT THE PARKING LOT UH, WAS UM, BASICALLY GOING INTO CITY OF DALLAS, OWNED RIGHT OF WAY, UM, LA AND SO THIS, UH, LAST YEAR THE CITY OF DALLAS APPROVED A QUICK CLAIM DEEDED TO UH, BASICALLY DEEDED THAT IT'S REALLY ABOUT 500 SQUARE FEET OF LAND TO THE OWNER TO SIVA.
AND THAT PART OF THE CONDITION OF THAT QUICK CLAIM AND THAT ORDINANCE LAST YEAR WAS THAT THE WHOLE LOT BE REPLANTED.
UH, SO THERE'S NO CHANGES TO THE ON THE GROUND, ANYTHING IS NOTHING'S CHANGING.
IT'S REALLY JUST ADJUSTING THE PROPERTY LINE ON THE SOUTHERN SIDE OF THIS LOT TO NOW ENCOMPASS THE AREA THAT'S BEEN QUICK CLAIMED AND TO CORRECT THE UH, THE PART OF THE PROPERTY LINE THAT WAS, UH, ENCROACHING INTO THE CITY OF DALLAS RIGHT OF WAY.
SO MY ONLY QUESTIONS ARE ON THE CONDITIONS.
THERE'S CONDITIONS NUMBER 12 AND 20.
[06:20:01]
12 SAYS PAVING AND DRAINING CONDITIONS SUBMIT A FULL SET OF CIVIL ENGINEERING PLANS.UM, UH, IT HAS FURTHER ABOUT DRAINAGE PAVING, STREET SIGNAGE, MARKING AND LIGHTING AND NUMBER 20 ADDITIONAL DESIGN INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR ASSESSMENT, UH, REGARDING UH, WASTE WATER.
UM, BASICALLY BOTH OF THOSE REQUIRE SUBMITTING ENGINEERING PLANS.
NOTHING IS CHANGING ON THE GROUND.
THIS IS REALLY JUST CHANGING WHAT THE PROPERTY LINE IS, UH, WHERE IT MEETS WITH THE RIGHT OF WAY RIGHT THERE BY, THERE'S AN ACCESS ROAD BY I 30.
AND SO OUR ONLY REQUEST IS THAT THOSE NUMBERS 12 AND 20 BE REMOVED FROM THE CONDITIONS.
MR. ARISTA, DID YOU WANNA COMMENT ON THAT? YES SIR.
SO THOSE ARE THE PAVING AND DRAINAGE, UH, CONDITIONS, BUT UH, ONCE THE PLAT GETS APPROVED, THIS PLAT CAN BE DURING THE PLANNING PHASE, DURING THE PLAN REVIEW PHASE.
THOSE CONDITIONS CAN BE DISCUSSED WITH THE ENGINEERS WITH OUR PAVING AND DRAINAGE DEPARTMENT AND WILL BE EITHER BE APPLIED OR CAN BE REMOVED AT THAT POINT OF TIME.
IT'S GONNA BE DURING THE PLAN REVIEW PROCESS.
I THINK THAT ADDRESSES IT THEN SIR.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. WHITE? QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SEEING NONE, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? YES.
THANK YOU MR. CHAIR IN THE MATTER OF CASE SS 2 23 DASH TWO 17, I MOVE THAT WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND FOLLOW STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE DOCKET.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER CARPENTER FOR YOUR MOTION.
COMMISSIONER HAMPTON FOR YOUR SECOND.
ANY DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
NUMBER 22, ITEM NUMBER 22 S 2 23 DASH TWO 19.
IT IS AN APPLICATION TO REPLAT A 0.935 ACRE TRACK OF LAND CONTAINING ALL OF LOT FOUR IN CITY BLOCK EIGHT OVER 7 6 14 TO CREATE ONE 0.446 ACRE.
THAT IS 19427.7 0.76 SQUARE FOOT LOT AND ONE 0.4 89 ACRE.
THAT IS 21,300 POINT 84 SQUARE FOOT LOT ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON SAN JOSE AVENUE AT PALO PALO ALTO DRIVE NORTH CORNER.
UH, 11 NOTICES WERE SENT TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE PROPERTY ON JULY 28TH, 2023 AND WE HAVE RECEIVED, UH, ZERO REPLY IN OPPOSITION AND ZERO REPLY IN FAVOR TO THIS REQUEST.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE DOCKET AND OR AS AMENDED AT THE HEARING.
IS THERE ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO BE HEARD ON THIS ITEM? COMMISSIONER'S QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? I SEE NONE.
COMMISSIONER BLAIR, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? YES.
AND UM, I HAVE COMMENTS IF I HAVE A SECOND IN THE MATTER OF SS 2, 2, 3, 2 1 9 AND WE'LL BE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING POLICY STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION FOR COMPLIANCE TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE DOCKET.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER, BUT FOR YOUR MOTION, COMMISSIONER HAMPTON FOR YOUR SECOND COMMENTS.
USUALLY YOU GUYS WOULD HEAR ME SAY SOMETHING DIFFERENT BUT THIS ONE I DON'T SEE ANY REASON WHY I SHOULD.
THERE IS NO ON THIS ONE BLOCK I HAVE A LOT FIVE THAT'S LARGE, A LOT.
11 IS COULD BE A FIELD, I DON'T KNOW.
UM, I'M NOT QUITE THAT FAMILIAR SO I DON'T, I DON'T SEE WHERE, UM, THERE IS ANY REASON FOR ME TO DENY IT.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? COMMISSIONER? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE SAY AYE.
SO MAYOR, THANK YOU COMMISSIONER RUBIN FOR YOUR MOTION TO ADJOURN.
SECOND BY COMMISSIONER HERBERT.
UH, I WANT TO THANK ALL OF YOU COMMERS FOR THIS VERY LONG DAY.
I HOPE YOU ENJOY YOUR EVENING AND A GET WELL SOON TO COMMISSIONER KINGSTON, I THINK I SAW A PICTURE FLYING AROUND SOMEWHERE WITH A CAST AND I, I'M, I'M GONNA MAKE UP THE STORY THAT YOU WERE GOING DOWN THE ALPS, SWISS ALPS ON A SNOWBOARDER AND YOU TRIED TO DO A BACK FLIP AND SOMEHOW ENDED, LANDED WRONG IN YOUR ANKLE.
AM I CLOSE? IT'S MORE APPROPRIATE TO SAY YOU SHOULD SEE THE OTHER GUY
[06:25:02]
TOUCHE,WE'LL LOOK FOR PHILIP AROUND HERE SO WE'LL, AND WITH THAT COMMISSIONERS, IT IS 4 25 AND OUR MEETING IS ADJOURNED.