[00:00:03]
DISTRICT ONE, HE'S IN THE BACK.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MS. SINA.
GOOD MORNING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
TODAY IS THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 16TH, 2020 3, 9 30 5:00 AM WE APPRECIATE YOUR PATIENCE.
UH, WE HAD A BRIEF COMMITTEE MEETING THIS MORNING.
[BRIEFINGS]
JUMP INTO THE, THE DOCKET COMMISSIONERS, UH, ITEMS NUMBER ONE AND TWO, WE'LL BE BRIEFED ON REQUEST.THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS ON THOSE TWO ITEMS? WE WILL BRIEF THEM.
ANY QUESTIONS ON ITEMS? ONE OR TWO? TWO MINOR AMENDMENTS.
ANY QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER HOUSER, PLEASE.
UM, A QUESTION AND OBSERVATION.
UH, THE AREA OF REQUEST IS NOTED AS 17 SQUARE FEET, AND I ASSUME THAT'S 17 ACRES.
WELL, I KNOW MS. BLUE AND MR. BALDWIN ARE VERY, UH, DEDICATED, UH, UH, PROFESSIONALS HERE.
BUT, UH, THAT WAS, THAT WAS, THAT WAS GREAT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONERS? YES.
ON, ON, UH, IS THIS ON, ON ITEM TWO? UH, THERE'S A, A CREEK THAT FLOWS THROUGH THAT PROPERTY AND I, I ASSUME THAT'S BEEN TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT.
UH, IT WON'T IMPACT ANY OF THE, UH, NEW DEVELOPMENT THAT'S BEEN REQUESTED.
IS SHE ON, UM, WEBEX? CHRISTMAS.
UH, MY QUESTION WAS, THERE'S A, THERE'S A CREEK THAT FLOWS THROUGH THE MIDDLE OF THAT PROPERTY.
I'M, I'M ASSUMING THAT'S, UH, ANY POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACT OR SOMETHING HAS BEEN TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT, UH, REGARDING THE NEW DEVELOPMENT? UH, THE ONLY NEW DEVELOPMENT IS THE, THE ONLY NEW DEVELOPMENT.
UH, THEY, THEY WERE ADDING A SOFTBALL FIELD AND A, UH, THEATER ADDITION.
NONE OF THAT WILL IMPACT THE, THE CREEK THAT RUNS THROUGH THE PROPERTY.
IF IT, IF THERE IS ANY THAT'S DETERMINED AT PERMITTING, THEY WILL TAKE CARE OF THAT AT THAT TIME.
BUT NONE OF THIS SHOULD IMPACT THAT.
AND I'M, I'M GUESS I'M ASSUMING THERE'S NO FLOODPLAIN ISSUE OR ANYTHING RELATED TO THE PRESENCE OF THAT CREEK.
UM, THERE IS NOT, I BELIEVE ACTUALLY THE SOFTBALL FIELD HAS ALREADY BEEN CONSTRUCTED OUT THERE, AND THIS IS CORRECTING, UH, AN EXISTING CONDITION.
I BELIEVE THAT THEY CONSTRUCTED THE SOFTBALL FIELD, SO IT DOESN'T ACTUALLY ENCROACH INTO THAT FLOODPLAIN AREA.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON ITEMS? ONE OR TWO? OKAY.
WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER THREE.
AND MS. MORMON, WE DO NEED TO BREATHE THIS ITEM.
[00:06:13]
OKAY.UH, THIS IS MINOR AMENDMENT M 2 23 DASH 0 3 4 MAYBE.
I'M SO SORRY, I'M NOT MOVING ON.
WHAT AM I DOING? SHARE SCREEN.
AND THEN HOW DO I GET RID OF THAT? I'M SORRY.
THE NEXT, THIS ITEM IS M 2 23 DASH 0 3 4, WHICH IS A REQUEST FOR MINOR AMENDMENT TO AN EXISTING DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR PROPERTY ZONED PD 68.
IT'S THE COOPER AEROBICS CENTER AND IT ENCOMPASSES 24.4 ACRES, AND IT'S IN COUNCIL DISTRICT 11 LOCATED IN THE NORTH PART OF DALLAS.
UH, IT IS ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF PRESTON ROAD AND WILLOW LANE SURROUNDING LAND USES ARE RESIDENTIAL AND HERE'S AN AERIAL, UH, OF THE, OF THE ENTIRE, UH, COOPER CENTER.
THE, UM, THE, BASICALLY THE SUMMARY OF THE AMENDMENT IS TO, UM, IN ADDITION TO ADD, UH, AN ADDITION TO THE TENNIS COURTS AREA TO PROVIDE PICKLEBALL COURTS, UH, IT ALSO INVOLVES THE RECONFIGURATION OF THE PARKING AREA WITH A NET GAIN OF FIVE PARKING SPACES.
UM, YOU CAN SEE THE, THE, AT THE TOP, THE RED CIRCLE IS WHERE THE ADDITIONAL, UM, THE COURT AREA IS GOING TO BE ADDED.
AND THEN TO THE LEFT OF BUILDING NUMBER FIVE IS THE RELOCATION OF THE PARKING A LITTLE BIT CLOSER.
AND HERE'S AN AERIAL WITH THE AREAS ACTUALLY, UH, HIGHLIGHTED THAT ARE BEING ADDED OR RECONFIGURED.
SO YOU'LL SEE, UM, TO THE PLAN NORTH OF THE TENNIS COURTS, UH, YOU'VE GOT THIS AREA THAT'S SHADED IN BLUE WITH AN OUTSIDE GREEN RIM.
THAT'S THE ADDITIONAL, UH, COURT AREA.
AND THEN THE HIGHLIGHTED YELLOW IS THE RELOCATION OF THE PARKING.
THIS IS THE EXISTING, UM, DEVELOPMENT PLAN THAT SHOWS WHERE THE AREA OF AMENDMENT WILL BE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL.
[00:10:01]
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.MS. S MORMAN QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, MS. MORMAN, UM, A SOUND DEADENING FENCE IS BEING PROPOSED FOR THE EAST SIDE OF THESE COURTS.
IS THAT BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE THE CLOSEST RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY IS WITHOUT ADDITIONAL BUFFERING BY EITHER OTHER BUILDINGS OR BY EXTRA DISTANCE? YES.
SO I BELIEVE THE, UM, THE APPLICANT INTENDS TO BUFFER WITH A SOUND WALL.
UM, ON THE PLAN NORTH, LET ME GO BACK.
IN, I BELIEVE IT WAS TO BE ON THE EAST SIDE, THIS AREA.
AND THIS IS, UM, APPROXIMATELY 140 FEET FROM, UH, THE PROPERTY LINE OF THE SINGLE FAMILY THAT'S TO THE EAST, WHICH IS ACTUALLY LOOKING PLAN NORTH OR LOOKING AT THE AERIAL, IT'S TO THE TOP.
AND SO FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD TO THE SOUTH, THERE'S UH, PLENTY OF DISTANCE IN THERE, INTERVENING BUILDINGS THAT WILL PROVIDE ADEQUATE BUFFERING.
SO THIS AREA IS SOUTH AND A A NEIGHBORHOOD IN TO THE SOUTH.
THIS IS THE AREA THE, TO THE EAST, THAT IS THE NEIGHBORHOOD CLOSEST TO THE, UH, ADDITIONAL SUPPORT COURT.
UM, SO YOU AND I HAVE HAD A COUPLE CHATS ABOUT THIS ONE.
UM, ARE YOU AWARE THAT THE CITY OF DALLAS ERRONEOUSLY GAVE THEM A PERMIT TO START CONSTRUCTING THE PICKLEBALL COURTS? YOU SAID THAT, ARE I AWARE THAT THE CITY OF DALLAS WHAT GAVE THEM A PERMIT TO START THE CONSTRUCTING THE PICKLEBALL COURTS A COUPLE MONTHS AGO? YES, I DID HEAR THAT.
AND ARE YOU AWARE THAT THAT PERMIT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ISSUED BECAUSE THEY HAD NOT COME BACK BEFORE CPCI? I MEAN THAT'S, THAT'S HANDLED AT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
AND, AND AGAIN, YOU AND I HAVE HAD DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THIS AND COOPER CLINIC WAS IN FRONT OF THIS BODY IN DECEMBER FOR, UH, AN AMENDMENT TO THE PD THAT DID NOT RELATE TO THIS.
CORRECT? THAT WHAT, THAT DID NOT RELATE TO THIS CURRENT REQUEST? CORRECT.
AND SO THE CURRENT REQUEST, UM, IS NOT TO CHANGE ANY OF THE PERMITTED USES UNDER THE PD, IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT.
SO THE REASON THAT IT IS A MINOR AMENDMENT UNDER THE PD RULES IS BECAUSE THEY ARE ESSENTIALLY RECONFIGURING THE PARKING? YES.
BECAUSE PICKLE BALLS COURTS ARE ALREADY INCLUDED UNDER THE GAME COURT USE, WHICH IS ALREADY A PERMITTED USE.
ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY DISCUSSIONS WITH THE COMMUNITY ON THIS? UM, I HAVE HAD, AS I, I BELIEVE YOU DID, UM, SOMETHING FROM THE COMMUNITY TO THE EAST, UM, AND REGARDING THIS, UH, AND I BELIEVE THAT THERE HAVE BEEN, UH, SEVERAL THAT THE REPRESENTATIVE AND THE APPLICANTS HAVE BEEN, UM, IN COMMUNICATION WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
HAVE YOU BEEN PART OF ANY OF THOSE CONVERSATIONS? NO.
OKAY, THEN I'LL SAVE THOSE QUESTIONS FOR, UM, THE APPLICANT WHEN THEY SPEAK.
UM, JUST A FEW ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS.
UH, IN YOUR VIEW, WHY DOES THIS ONE QUALIFY FOR A MINOR MEASUREMENT IN LIGHT OF THE ADDITION OR CHANGE TO PICKLEBALL PORTS IN THE RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY? SO THESE ARE THE CONDITIONS THAT WOULD, THAT WOULD REQUIRE, UH, A, THAT WOULD ALLOW A DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO BE CONSIDERED FOR A MINOR AMENDMENT AS OPPOSED TO HAVING TO GO THROUGH THE ZONING, FULL ZONING PROCESS.
AND, UM, THAT THEREFORE WHEN LOOKING AT THE PLAN, WE DETERMINED THAT IT DOES QUALIFY FOR A MINOR AMENDMENT.
UM, ONE OF THOSE IS THAT, UH, THAT IF THE PLAN DOES NOT ALTER THE BASIC RELATIONSHIP OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTY, ANOTHER IS IT'S CONSIDERED
[00:15:01]
A MINOR IF IT DOES NOT INCREASE A HEIGHT SHOWN ON THE ORIGINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN.MS. MORMAN, IF YOU DON'T MIND, I'LL JUST STOP YOU THERE.
I DON'T AND IF YOU COULD FOCUS ON H ONE A, WHY IN YOUR VIEW DOES IT NOT ALTER THE BASIC RELATIONSHIP OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTS? 'CAUSE IT'S THE EXTENSION OF, UM, OF COURTS THAT ARE ALREADY THERE AND EXISTING AND ALLOWED, AND IT'S JUST RECONFIGURATION OF A COURT AREA.
IN ADDITION OF THAT COURT PLAYING AREA, AND IF THEY HAD WANTED TO PUT PICKLEBALL ON THE EXISTING TENNIS COURTS WITHOUT RECONFIGURING THEM, WOULD THAT HAVE REQUIRED ANY CHANGE? THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN OR, OR ANY ZONING CHANGE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT? IF THEY WERE NOT ADDING THAT COURT SPACE JUST RES STRIPING THE TENNIS COURTS FOR PICKLEBALL, IT WOULD NOT HAVE TRIGGERED A DEVELOPMENT, A MINOR AMENDMENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
SO PICKLEBALL WAS, I KNOW WE DON'T GET THAT DISCREET AND PERMITTED USES, BUT PICKLEBALL WAS A, IT'S, IT'S PERMITTED USE YES.
IT, IT WOULD NOT HAVE TRIGGERED ANYTHING.
WHAT TRIGGERS IT IS THE ADDITION OF THE COURT PLAYING AREA.
WELL, THANK YOU COMMISSIONER, WE THERE COMMISSIONER HAMPTON FOLLOWED BY COMMISSIONER
UM, MS. MORMAN, JUST ONE QUESTION ON THE SOUND WALL.
I SEE IT CALLED OUT, BUT THERE'S NO DEFINITION, THERE'S NO HEIGHTS, THERE'S NO DESCRIPTION OF THAT.
IS THERE ANY ADDITIONAL CONTEXT RELATED TO HOW THAT IS MEANT TO BE INTEGRATED WITHIN THE SITE? I'M GONNA LEAVE THAT TO THE REPRESENTATIVE TO ANSWER.
UM, IT IS NOT A REQUIREMENT IN THE PD, THEREFORE, UM, IT'S NOT REQUIRED TO BE SHOWN ON THERE AND IT IS A FENCE.
THEY CAN PUT FENCES UP JUST AS THE TENNIS COURTS ALREADY HAVE A FENCE.
SO FOLLOWING UP ON, UM, COMMISSIONER RUBIN'S QUESTIONS, UH, 'CAUSE YOU AND I HAVE GONE BACK AND FORTH ABOUT THIS A COUPLE TIMES, UM, AND WE ALSO WORKED THROUGH WHAT ARE THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A MINOR AMENDMENT AND, UM, I'VE PULLED THE PD AND LOOKED AT IT.
AND WHEN YOU LOOK AT A, WHICH IS ALTER THE BASIC RELATIONSHIP OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTY, I MEAN, I WENT BACK TO THE PURPOSE THAT WAS OUTLINED IN THE PD AT, I ASSUME YOU DID THE SAME THING.
AND IT'S, THE PURPOSE IS DESIGNED AS A FACILITY PROVIDING MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, MEDICAL RESEARCH AND EDUCATION AND AEROBICS, AND AN AEROBICS ACTIVITY CENTER.
AND THEN THE SPECIFIC PERMITTED USES, UM, INCLUDE A GAME COURT CENTER.
AND SO THIS IS THE PIECE THAT PERMITS THE PICKLEBALL USE IN ADDITION TO THE TENNIS COURT USE, CORRECT? YES.
AND SO BECAUSE THIS ENTIRE PROPERTY IS THE COOPER CLINIC OR CENTER, THIS IS IN STAFF'S VIEW, WAS THAT MOVING OR ADDING A PICKLEBALL COURT DIDN'T ALTER THE BASIC RELATIONSHIP OF THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTY? CORRECT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS ON THIS ITEM? OKAY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
MS. MORMAN, MOVE TO NUMBER FOUR AND MS. BLUE, GOOD MORNING.
FOR SOME REASON MY LAPTOP FROZE UP, SO I MIGHT HAVE TO REBOOT.
ITS SO CAN I REQUEST TO GO AFTER ITEM FIVE SO I CAN HAVE TIME TO REBOOT? CAN YOU RE REPEAT PLEASE, MS. BLUE? I SAID MY, HOLD ON.
I THINK IT GOT IT WORKING DOWN.
I DON'T KNOW HOW TO MINIMIZE THIS.
[00:20:05]
MOVE IT DOWN HERE.THIS IS ITEM, THIS IS CASE D 2 23 DASH 0 0 2.
A REQUEST FOR A NEW DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
ALSO A PD, UH, P 51 P DASH 6 5 5 0.12 F FIVE.
ALSO REQUESTED THAT A MASTER TREE REPLACEMENT PLAN BE UPDATED AND SUBMITTED.
IT WAS UPDATED, SUBMITTED, AND REVIEWED BY STAFF.
UM, THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 6, 5 5.
IT'S IN SUB AREA FIVE, WHICH IS THE URBAN CENTER.
IT'S ALL ALSO CONSIDERED A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.
IT'S ON 15.05 ACRES IS IN COUNCIL DISTRICT THREE, IT'S LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER, UH, CAPELLA PARK AND GILLI GIL TON'S WAY.
SO THE APPLICANT IS ACTUALLY REQUESTING FOR A NEW DEVELOPMENT, MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT.
UM, THE PROPOSED ON THE SITE WILL BE EIGHT MULTI-FAMILY BUILDINGS, 47 DWELLING UNITS, AND ALSO A OPEN SPACE.
HERE'S A AREA VIEW OF THE PROPERTY.
UM, AS YOU SEE, EVERYTHING AROUND THE PROPERTY IS ACTUALLY WITHIN THE PD.
UM, LOOKING EAST TO THE SITE, THERE'S ALREADY EXISTING RE RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION THAT'S ALREADY DEVELOPED.
UM, LOOKING NORTHWEST, THERE'S TWO LOTS THAT'S VACANT, UNDEVELOPED LAND.
AND THEN TO THE SOUTH, THERE'S A SCHOOL THAT'S ALREADY EXISTING.
HERE'S ALSO A ZONING MAP OF THE PROPERTY.
HERE'S THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PLAN SHOWING THE LAYOUT OF THE BUILDINGS.
UM, IN THE MIDDLE YOU CAN SEE THERE'S A OPEN SPACE, RIGHT? HERE'S THE OPEN SPACE AND THEN ALSO THERE'S SOME GUEST PARKING HERE.
I DID ACT THE, I ASKED THE APPLICANT ABOUT PARKING FOR THE RESIDENCE.
THAT'S GONNA LIVE IN THE MULTIFAMILY AND THEY'RE GONNA DO, UH, PRIVATE GARAGES FOR THOSE PARKING SPACES.
STAFF, RECOMMENDATION, APPROVAL, CONCLUDE.
QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONERS, COMMISSIONER, CARPENTER? YES, I HAD A QUESTION ABOUT THE DRIVEWAY WITH IN FRONT OF BUILDINGS ONE, TWO, AND THREE.
MOST OF THE DEVELOPMENT, IT'S SHOWING 26 FEET DRIVES AND THERE IT'S SHOWING 20 FEET.
AND I KNOW I'VE HAD DEVELOPMENT PLANS COME BACK AFTER THEY GOT SO FAR INTO PERMITTING.
YOU KNOW, WHEN THEY, YOU KNOW, THE FIRE DEPARTMENT CAME IN AND SAID, YOU KNOW THAT THEY ALL NEED TO BE 26 FEET BECAUSE OF THE HEIGHTS OF THE BUILDING.
DO YOU KNOW IF THIS IS ALREADY PAST MUSTER THO THOSE WIDTHS OF THOSE DRIVEWAYS? YES MA'AM.
I ACTUALLY SENT THE PLAN, THE PROPOSED THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO RICKY BUTLER.
HE DID LOOK AT IT AND WITH THE DIFFERENT HEIGHT OF THE BUILDINGS, UM, CERTAIN BUILDINGS, I THINK UNDER 36 HE COULD HAVE 20 FEET.
ANYTHING HIGHER THAN THAT, YOU NEED THE ADDITIONAL 26.
ALRIGHT, THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HAMPTON.
UM, I, I SAW IN THE CASE REPORT THAT ENGINEERING HAD REVIEWED THIS RELATIVE TO TRAFFIC.
UM, HAS IT HAD ITS PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REVIEW? I THINK I WILL LET, UH, OUR TRAFFIC ENGINEER ANSWER THAT.
WELL, AND MY, MY QUESTION IS THERE'S JUST A SUBSTANTIAL GRADE DIFFERENTIAL ON THE SITE AND IT'S NOT CLEAR HOW THAT'S BEING ACCOMMODATED.
AND JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS WAS A, SOMETHING THAT HAS ALREADY PASSED PRELIMINARY REVIEW.
I CAN SAVE IT FOR THE HEARING IF ENGINEERING'S NOT HERE.
COMMISSIONER DAVID NEVAREZ, TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ON BEHALF OF ENGINEERING.
I CAN ADDRESS YOUR, YOUR QUESTION AND IT, IT WAS JUST SIMPLY ASKING, THERE'S A SUBSTANTIAL GRADE DIFFERENTIAL AND IF IT HAD HAD A PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REVIEW AND IF THERE WAS ANY CONSIDERATIONS ON THE LAYOUT AS IT'S PROPOSED.
THERE, THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT, ACTUALLY THE, THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN THAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT RIGHT NOW SHOWS CONTOUR LINES, UH, DENOTING THE CHANGES IN ELEVATION.
UM, THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE.
UH, BUT, BUT, BUT I, UH, YES, WE HAVE GONE THROUGH ONE ROUND OF ENGINEERING REVIEWS AND PROVIDED COMMENTS TO THE ENGINEER OF RECORD.
I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE, WAS IT ANYTHING WE NEEDED TO BE MINDFUL OF.
TECHNICALLY WE WOULD PREFER FOR THEM TO GO THROUGH YOU FIRST
[00:25:01]
BEFORE WE BEGIN OUR REVIEW, BUT WE CAN'T TURN, UM, ENGINEER RECORDS APPLICATIONS AWAY.WE ONLY WARN THEM, WE'RE REVIEWING THEM AT, AT, AT THEIR OWN RISK OF THEM NOT BEING APPROVED HERE.
SO, BUT, BUT IN THIS CASE, I CONFIRMED WE HAVE GONE THROUGH ONE REVIEW.
COMMISSIONER CARPENTER FOR MR. NAVARRES.
UM, I UNDERSTOOD, UM, THE PREVIOUS ANSWER ABOUT MY QUESTION ABOUT, UM, DRIVEWAY WIDTHS TO BE, UH, THAT IT HAD BEEN OKAYED BY FIRE BECAUSE THESE PARTICULAR BUILDINGS THAT HAVE A 20 FOOT DRIVE IN FRONT OF THEM, WERE GONNA BE 36 FEET IN HEIGHT, NO MORE.
BUT THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN DOESN'T SAY THAT ANYWHERE.
IT GIVES THE, YOU KNOW, THE HEIGHT FOR THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT IS BEING FOUR STORIES AND I THINK 55 FEET.
SO IS THAT SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE SPELLED OUT ON THIS PLAN OR AM I MISSING SOMETHING? I DO RECALL THAT BEING A COMMENT AND THE PLANTS ACTUALLY HAVE CHANGED SINCE WE REVIEWED THEM IN ENGINEERING.
UH, GENERALLY IF A BUILDING STRUCTURE EXCEEDS 30 FEET IN HEIGHT, THE MINIMUM WIDTH MUST BE 26 IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE, UH, EMERGENCY VEHICLES.
I BELIEVE THAT THE 26 DRIVEWAY WIDTH ON THIS PLANT IS A RESULT OF THEIR CONVERSATIONS WITH FIRE AND RESIDE.
BUT I'M SAYING ON BUILDING ONE, TWO, AND THREE 20 FEET, AM I NOT LOOKING AT THAT CORRECTLY OR, UM, OR IS IT CHANGED? THANK YOU.
IF I MAY ADDRESS THAT THERE IS A, A ROAD, A DRIVEWAY THAT CIRCULATES INTERNALLY ON THE ROAD AND THEN THERE'S A SECONDARY ACCESS DRIVEWAY IN THE PERIMETER OF THE STREET, EXCUSE ME, OF THE DEVELOPMENTS.
UM, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT DALLAS FIRE AND RESCUE DEPARTMENT HAS APPROVED THEIR DE DESIGN SHOWING ACCESS FOR EMERGENCY VEHICLES ON ONE SIDE OF THE BUIL BUILDING.
I ALSO WOULD LIKE TO ADD THAT WE USUALLY, LIKE ON THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, IF THEY PUT THE STANDARD MINIMUM OR THE MAXIMUM.
'CAUSE WHAT WE DID FIND WHEN I WAS WORKING OVER DEVELOPMENT SERVICE THAT SOMETIMES AAV WE MEASURE FROM AVERAGE GRADE.
SO WE DO NOT LIKE TO PUT THE FIX HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING ON EACH BUILDING.
'CAUSE IT HAPPENS THAT IT'S NOT REALLY A LINE AND THEN YOU HAVE TO COME BACK FOR A MINOR AMENDMENT.
COMMISSIONER HERBERT, FELLOW BY COMMISSIONER HALT.
UM, I HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS ON, THE FIRST ONE IS I THINK THE SETBACK ON THESE ARE 10 FEET FROM THE STREET.
UM, WILL THAT BE, WAS THAT TAKEN IN CONSIDERATION IN RESIDENTIAL SLOPE AND THE HOUSES THAT ARE CROSSED THE STREET FROM THEM? YES, WE DID LOOK AT RPS AND THEN ALSO, UM, THERE'S REALLY NO MINIMUM SETBACK FOR THE PD, BUT WE DID TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION.
ALSO, ON THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, THERE'S A DRIVEWAY, UM, THERE'S TWO DRIVEWAYS, ONE FACING AN ALLEY, AND THE OTHER, UM, FACING HOMES.
WAS IT TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION THAT LIGHTS COMING OUT OF THE, UM, EGRESS WOULD BE FACING THESE HOMES? I THINK ON THE PLANNING SIDE, I DID NOT LOOK INTO THAT, BUT, UM, I'M QUITE SURE IT WAS CONSIDERED AT SOME POINT, UH, FOR ENGINEERING TO APPROVE THE LOCATION OF THE DRIVE APPROACHES.
AND, UM, CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO ME WHY THE SEVEN, UM, GUEST PARKING SPOTS ARE ENOUGH FOR THIS TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT? YES, SIR.
SO WHEN THE PD WAS CREATED, IT TOOK OUT THE GUEST PARKING REQUIREMENTS.
USUALLY WHEN WE LOOK AT THE PD, IF THEY CALL OUT A PACIFIC REQUIREMENT FOR, UH, MULTI-FAMILY AND DON'T ADD THE GUEST PARKING, THE PD CONTROLS.
SO, UH, THERE'S REALLY NO GUEST PARKING THAT'S REQUIRED FOR THIS, UH, DEVELOPMENT.
SO THE APPLICANT DID GO IN AND DECIDE TO ADD A FEW GUEST PARKINGS TO ACCOMMODATE ANY OVERFLOW TRAFFIC OR PARKING.
SO ALTHOUGH THE PD DIDN'T CALL FOR IT, UM, AND THE, THE, THE CITY'S PARKING RULES DON'T TAKE, UH, DON'T ADHERE HERE.
WELL, FROM MY EXPERIENCE DOING CODE REVIEW, UM, OVER AT DEVELOPMENT SERVICE, USUALLY IF IT'S WRITTEN IN THE PD AND IF THE PD CHANGED THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR PER BEDROOM, THEN THAT CONTROLS AND WE DON'T LOOK AT GUEST PARKING.
COMMISSIONER HALL, UH, YOU, YOU SAID THAT THE BUILDER PLANS THAT PEOPLE ARE GONNA, THE, THE RESIDENTS ARE GOING TO PARK IN THEIR ROGERS? YES, SIR.
SO I GUESS ON THE GROUND LEVEL, I DID NOT SEE A FLOOR PLAN, BUT I DID ASK THE APPLICANT, WHERE ARE YOU GOING TO, UH, SUPPLY THE PARKING FOR THE GAS? AND THEY SAY THEY'RE GONNA DO PRIVATE GARAGES FOR EACH TOWNHOUSE.
IS THERE A MULTIFAMILY, WOULD THE OWNERS, THE RESIDENTS BE ALLOWED TO PARK ANYWHERE ON THE STREETS? UM, I DO NOT HAVE THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION.
UH, YOU KNOW, MY EXPERIENCE IS THEY'RE GONNA FILL THEIR
[00:30:01]
GARAGES UP WITH STUFF AND PARK ON THE STREET, BUT, UM, I'M JUST CURIOUS IF, UH, IS 26 FEET SUFFICIENT IF THEY TRIED TO PARK ON THE STREETS? I MEAN, COULD EMERGENCY VEHICLES GET BY IF PEOPLE WERE PARKED OUT THERE? SO YOU CANNOT ENCROACH INTO THE FIRE LANE AT ALL? SO THAT ANSWER WILL BE NO, AND THAT WILL BE SOMETHING THAT HOA WILL HAVE TO HANDLE, UM, DURING THE LIFE OF THE PROJECT.UM, I DID, LOOKING AT THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND, UH, TALKING WITH NEIGHBORS, THE, SOMETHING CAME UP, UH, VERY INTERESTING, THE DUMPSTERS OR, UH, THE WAY TRASH PICKUP WILL HAPPEN FOR THESE LOCATIONS.
HAS THAT BEEN CONSIDERED AT ALL? AS FAR AS DUMPSTER? WE DO NOT CONSIDER DUMPSTER.
I THINK THEY'RE GONNA DO EITHER VALET OR SOME KIND OF PRIVATE SERVICE.
SO DUMPSTERS ARE NOT SHOWN ON THE, ON THE PROPERTY.
I DO NOT KNOW HOW THEY'RE GONNA DISPOSE OF TRASH.
UM, ANOTHER THING FOR STAFF, UH, DO YOU KNOW HOW CLOSE THE NEAREST WAREHOUSE IS TO THIS LOCATION? NO, SIR.
I DON'T, SORRY, IT'S FAIRLY CLOSE.
UM, FOR FULL DISCLOSURE, MY HOME, UM, IS AT THE CORNER OF THIS DEVELOPMENT AND MY HOME WILL BE ABUTTING THIS DEVELOPMENT.
AND CURRENTLY I CAN HEAR THE CONSTRUCTION, NOT CONSTRUCTION, I'M SORRY, THE LABOR AND, AND, UM, TRUCKS FROM THE WAREHOUSES CURRENTLY.
UM, I CAN HEAR THE YOUNG LADY ONLY WALKING, TALKING, TALKING TO THE TRUCKS.
UM, I CAN SEE THE LIGHTS FROM AS FAR AS WHERE THE WAREHOUSES ARE NOW.
SO I HOPE THE OTHER THING FOR THIS LOCATION, ARE YOU AWARE THAT THERE'S A GUN RANGE, MAYBE 500 FEET AWAY? YES, SIR.
SO FOLKS, IF I COULD JUST JUMP IN REAL QUICK.
THIS IS A DEVELOPMENT PLAN CASE.
UM, PRETTY MUCH ALL THAT'S UNDER CONSIDERATION WITH A DEVELOPMENT PLAN CASE IS, DOES THE PLAN, UH, MEET OR DOES IT NOT MEET CODE? UM, APPROVALS OF DEVELOPMENT PLAN CASES ARE PRIMARILY MINISTERIAL IN NATURE, MEANING THERE'S A LOT LESS DISCRETION ON WHAT STAFF CAN, UH, REVIEW AND SUGGEST AS WELL AS WHAT THE COMMISSIONERS CAN REVIEW AND SUGGEST.
SO ANY, ANY KIND OF COMMENTS ABOUT, UH, SURROUNDING LAND USES IN THE AREA, STUFF LIKE THAT, THAT WE WOULD USUALLY TALK ABOUT WITH THE FULL ZONING CASE DOESN'T REALLY COME INTO PLAY, UH, WITH THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONERS, COMMISSIONER BLAIR? UM, JUST ON, ON WHAT MR. MULKEY SAID, CAN I ADDRESS HIM, MR. MULKEY? BECAUSE THIS IS A DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND ADMINISTRATIVE MINISTERIAL PROCESS, THAT MEANS THAT BASICALLY JUST BECAUSE WE HAVE NEW COMMISSIONERS WHO MAY NOT UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS, UM, THAT MEANS THAT BASICALLY WE ONLY HAVE LIMITED RIGHTS TO REJECT.
WE MUST, IS THAT ALSO CORRECT THAT WE MUST APPROVE THEM AS AN ADMINISTERIAL PROCESS UNLESS THEY, THEY FALL INTO CERTAIN CRITERIA THAT GIVE US THE RIGHT TO REJECT THEM OR BE BETTER YET THE MOST THAT WE CAN DO IS HOLD THEM, LOOK AT THEM AGAIN, BEHIND THE SCENES AND BRING THEM BACK AND GO THROUGH THE, THE ADMINISTERIAL PROCESS TO GET THEM TO BE DEVELOPED.
IS THAT NOT CORRECT? THANK YOU FOR TURNING THIS INTO A TEACHABLE MOMENT.
UH, COMMISSIONER BLAIR, I APPRECIATE THAT AND I WILL KICK IT TO MR. MOORE TO KIND OF CLARIFY THAT FURTHER.
UH, YES, COMMISSIONER BLAIR, YOU ARE CORRECT.
IF THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN CONFORMS WITH THE TEXT OF THE PD, IT IS MINISTERIAL AND THE BODY MUST APPROVE IT.
SO JUST SO THAT THEY UNDERSTAND, WE DON'T GET THE RIGHT TO REJECT CORRECT THAT YOU, IF IT, IF THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN CONFORMS WITH THE TEXT OF THE PD, THEN YOU MUST APPROVE IT.
SO THAT, THAT'S THE DETERMINATION YOU MUST MAKE.
YEAH, AND JUST TO CLARIFY, THIS WASN'T, UM, HEADING TOWARDS A MOTION OF REJECTION.
I'M TRYING TO PROTECT THE PEOPLE THAT ARE GONNA BE LIVING HERE.
UM, AT THE END OF THE DAY, SAFETY AND SECURITY IS WHAT MY GOAL IS HERE.
THANK YOU FOR THE EDUCATION THOUGH.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM, COMMISSIONER? OKAY.
WE'LL GET TO OUR ZONING CASES, UH, COMMISSIONERS, UH, THE ZONING CASES, CONSENT AGENDA OF FIVE THROUGH NINE, SEVEN AND NINE HAVE COME OFF CONSENT.
UH, VICE RUBEN HAS A CONFLICT ON THOSE TWO.
SO WE WILL, UH, DISPOSE OF THOSE INDIVIDUALLY.
[00:35:01]
WHO WE WILL TABLE FOR THE MOMENT TILL, UH, COMMISSIONER SLEEPER IS GONNA BE A LITTLE BIT LATE THIS MORNING.AND, UH, WE'LL GO TO SIX AND THEN WE WILL TABLE MAYBE SEVEN OR EIGHT AND NINE UNTIL, UH, COMMISSIONER WHEELER COMES IN, I'M SORRY.
AND THEN, UH, WE'LL COME BACK TO THOSE ONCE WE HAVE OUR COMMISSIONERS HERE.
SO WE'LL GO TO CASE NUMBER SIX, MS. GARZA.
ITEM NUMBER SIX IS KZ 2 2 3 206.
THE REQUEST IS AN APPLICATION FOR A NEW SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR A BAIL BONDS OFFICE LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SOUTH RIVERFRONT BOULEVARD AND RAYMOND BOULEVARD, APPROXIMATELY 0.7 2 31 ACRES.
THIS IS THE AERIAL OF THE LOCATION.
UH, SURROUNDING USES TO THE NORTH IS AN OFFICE BUILDING COMMERCIAL PARKING LOT OR GARAGE, UH, ACROSS THE STREET ON SOUTH, UH, RIVERFRONT BOULEVARD TO THE WEST.
IT'S A UTILITY OR GOVERNMENT INSTALLATION, OFFICE BUILDING.
AND THEN TO THE SOUTH, IT'S AN OFFICE BUILDING.
AND THEN WITHIN THE, THE SIDE THERE IS A LIQUOR STORE AND WHERE THEY'RE PROPOSING, UM, THE BAIL BONDS OFFICE.
CURRENTLY, IT IS A VACANT OFFICE.
THE AREA REQUEST IS CURRENTLY DEVELOPED WITH A BUILDING AND IS WITHIN THE MIXED MASTER RIVER FRIEND SUBARU OF PLANT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 7 84, THE TRINITY RIVER CORRIDOR SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICT.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO OPERATE A BAIL BONDS OFFICE WITHIN THE EXISTING BUILDING.
PD NUMBER 7 84 REQUIRES A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR A BAIL BONDS OFFICE.
USES MORE THAN 500 FEET AWAY FROM A DETENTION FACILITY.
THESE ARE SOME OF THE SIDE PHOTOS ON THE SIDE LOOKING EAST ON THE SIDE, LOOKING NORTH ON SIDE, LOOKING NORTHWEST, LOOKING WEST, LOOKING SOUTHWEST, LOOKING SOUTH, SURROUNDING USES ON SITE, LOOKING EAST, LOOKING NORTHWEST, LOOKING NORTH, LOOKING NORTHWEST, LOOKING WEST, LOOKING SOUTHWEST, LOOKING SOUTH, AND LOOKING EAST.
SO THESE ARE THE PROPOSED, UM, CONDITIONS THAT THEY'RE PROPOSING.
THIS SPECIFIC USE PERMIT, UH, EXPIRES ON THREE YEARS FROM THE PASSAGE OF THIS ORDINANCE.
UH, THIS IS A SITE PLAN AND THEN, UM, IT IS WITHIN THE 360 PLAN BASED ON THE CURRENT USES IN THE EXISTING CONDITIONS ON THE SURROUNDING ERRORS FROM THE AREA OF REQUEST.
THE PROPOSED BAIL BONDS OFFICE DOES NOT CONFLICT WITH THE GOAL SET IN THE AREA PLAN FOR THE RIVERFRONT DISTRICT.
IT'S ALSO WITHIN THE TRINITY RIVER CORRIDOR COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE STUDY.
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GOALS AND POLICIES OF THE TRINITY RIVER CORRIDOR COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE STUDY.
UH, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL FOR A THREE YEAR PERIOD SUBJECT TO A SIDE PLAN AND CONDITIONS.
QUESTIONS? COMMISSION? NO QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH MS. GARZA.
COMMISSIONERS, WE'LL SKIP SEVEN, EIGHT, AND NINE FOR THE MOMENT.
HAS THIS BEEN BRIEFED BEFORE? I BELIEVE SO.
IT WAS BRIEFED AT THE SEPTEMBER MEETING, BUT NOT THE OCTOBER MEETING.
SO THEN LET'S, UM, LET'S HAVE UPDATES.
SHE STEPPED OUT FOR THE MOMENT.
OKAY, THEN LET'S GO TO NUMBER 12.
VERY IMPORTANT PERSON HERE IN THE BACK OR GO TO NUMBER.
SO WE HAVE, WE HAVE A CONFLICT ON 12.
COULD WE GET A CLARIFICATION ON 10? ARE WE SKIPPING IT OR ARE WE JUST NOT DISCUSSING IT BECAUSE THERE'S NO UPDATES? YES, WE'RE, WE'RE JUST SKIPPING IT FOR THE MOMENT, BUT, OKAY.
SO WE'LL GO BACK TO 10, PLEASE.
[00:40:01]
I, WE BRIEFED IT BEFORE AND I HAVE NO UPDATES.DO WE HAVE QUESTIONS ON NUMBER 10, COMMISSIONER HERBERT? NO, WE, I HAD A CONVERSATION WITH THE OWNER, UM, PART OF THE FREIGHT BA AGENCY IN THE AREA WAS THE, UM, ABANDONED HOTEL.
UM, AND THAT'S BEEN, UH, DEMOLISHED.
UM, HE'S A NEW OWNER TO THE SITE.
HE'S HOPING TO CLEAN UP THE SITE A LITTLE BETTER.
UM, AND I'M GONNA HOLD THEM TO THAT, TO A ONE YEAR SUP.
SORRY, I DIDN'T HAVE THIS CONVERSATION WITH YOU, ANDREA, BUT THAT, THAT'S IT.
I NEED TO READ IT IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON HERE.
ANY QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS? NO QUESTIONS.
SO THEN WE GO TO NUMBER 11, MS. ALGA HERE.
OKAY, CASE, UH, Z 2 23 DASH 3 48 IS AN APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 1 0 5 0 ON PROPERTY BOUNDED BY TAF STREET, NORTH MONTCLAIR AVENUE, RAINIER STREET, AND MARY CLIFF ROAD, APPROXIMATELY, OR JUST UNDER FIVE AND A HALF ACRES LOCATED IN DISTRICT ONE AERIAL AND ZONING AND LAND USE MAPS YOU CAN SEE TO THE NORTHEAST AND SOUTH OF THE PROPERTY, UM, IS SINGLE FAMILY, UH, USES IN CONSERVATION DISTRICT NUMBER ONE, THE KINGS HIGHWAY CONSERVATION DISTRICT TO THE WEST OF THE SITE ACROSS MARY CLIFF ROAD.
THERE ARE THREE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS, UH, PUBLIC SCHOOL AND PD SIX 90, SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT IN PD 7 96 AND CHURCH AND PRIVATE SCHOOL AND PD EIGHT 30.
UM, THE PD WAS ESTABLISHED ON PROPERTY THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY R SEVEN FIVE, A SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT ZONING, UM, IN AUGUST, 2021.
PRIMARY PURPOSE WAS TO ALLOW THE EXPANSION OF THE EXISTING PUBLIC SCHOOL, UM, WITH MODIFIED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
FOR EXAMPLE, THEY REDUCED SETBACKS, UH, FROM 25 FEET TO 15 FEET.
UM, ALTHOUGH THE PD WAS ESTABLISHED IN 2021, THE SCHOOL HAS BEEN IN OPERATION ON THE SITE, UM, FOR A NUMBER OF DECADES.
UM, PHASE ONE IS WHAT WAS APPROVED IN 2021 WHEN THE PD WAS ESTABLISHED.
UM, AND CONSTRUCTION IS IN PROGRESS ON THE SITE, UM, ON THE PHASE ONE IMPROVEMENTS AT THIS TIME.
UH, THE CURRENT REQUEST IS FOR PHASE TWO ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENTS, WHICH INCLUDE CLASSROOM ADDITION THAT IS INTERNAL TO THE SITE.
UM, TAKING YOU AROUND THE SITE, STARTING AT TAF STREET AND NORTH MONTCLAIR.
WE'RE LOOKING WEST ALONG TAF STREET.
YOU CAN SEE SINGLE FAMILY TO THE RIGHT AND THE SCHOOL SITE TO THE LEFT ON THE SCREEN SIDEWALK, UH, ON NORTH MONTCLAIR IS GOING TO BE UPGRADED TO SIX FEET, SIX FOOT WIDE WITH AT LEAST A FIVE FOOT WIDE BUFFER.
UH, WE'VE GOT SINGLE FAMILY ACROSS NORTH MONTCLAIR.
THIS IS THE EXISTING SCHOOL FROM NORTH MONTCLAIR AVENUE.
THIS PORTION OF THE BUILDING IS BEING, UM, MAINTAINED.
AND THEN WE'RE LOOKING NORTH ALONG NORTH MONTCLAIR FROM RAINIER STREET.
YOU CAN START TO SEE THE PHASE ONE CONSTRUCTION ON THE SITE CORNER OF NORTH MONTCLAIR AND RAINIER.
THIS IS PHASE ONE CONSTRUCTION IN PROGRESS.
UM, UH, WE'LL TALK ABOUT THIS A LITTLE BIT MORE WHEN WE GET INTO THE CONDITION LANGUAGE.
UM, BUT HERE WE ARE LOOKING EAST ALONG RAINIER STREET, UM, STAFF AND THE APPLICANT HAS HAD DISCUSSION SINCE THE DOCKET WAS POSTED, AND WE'VE AMENDED THE LANGUAGE A BIT TO ALLOW THIS SIDEWALK TO REMAIN IN ITS CURRENT LOCATION.
UM, HOWEVER, WHEN IT IS REPLACED, IT WILL NEED TO BE UPGRADED TO THE SIX FOOT WITH A FIVE FOOT BUFFER.
UM, THERE'S A WATER LINE THAT'S PRETTY CLOSE TO THE, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AT THIS LOCATION AND IT WOULD, UM, CREATE SOME ISSUES WITH THEM DOING, UH, PLANTING TREES IN THAT BUFFER.
THERE'S NOT REALLY GONNA BE ENOUGH SPACE FOR THAT TO BE DONE AT THIS TIME.
UM, THIS IS SINGLE FAMILY ON ROSEMONT THAT TERMINATES AT RAINIER STREET ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY.
[00:45:01]
AND THEN LOOKING EAST ALONG RAINIER FROM MARY CLIFF ROAD.THIS IS THE PRIVATE SCHOOL IN PD EIGHT 30 ACROSS FROM MARY CLIFF ROAD.
UM, AND THEN PHASE ONE CONSTRUCTION AT THE CORNER.
AND THEN LOOKING NORTH ALONG MARY CLIFF ROAD, YOU SEE THE SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT IN PD 7 96 AND THIS PUBLIC SCHOOL IN PD SIX 90 ACROSS MARY CLIFF ROAD.
AND THEN, UH, LOOKING EAST ALONG TAF STREET FROM MARY CLIFF ROAD, WE SEE A MORE SINGLE FAMILY EXISTING PORTABLES AT THAT CORNER AND EXISTING PORTION OF THE SCHOOL BUILDING THAT WILL REMAIN ON TA STREET AND THEN LOOKING EAST ALONG TA STREET TOWARDS NORTH MONTCLAIR AVENUE.
UM, AND THEN A, A QUICK WORD ABOUT THE DUMPSTER AND THE DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE.
THERE'S SOME DISCUSSION IN THE CASE REPORT ABOUT, UM, UH, THE LOCATION, THE CURRENT LOCATION, AND THE PROPOSED LOCATION THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING, UM, TO RETAIN THE CURRENT LOCATION, WHICH IS CURRENTLY LEGALLY ENCROACHING INTO THE 15 FOOT SETBACK.
IT ALSO WOULD LIKE TO RETAIN THE CURRENT ORIENTATION.
UM, AND THEN THEY ARE ASKING TO ADD CONDITION LANGUAGE, ALLOWING THE ENCROACHMENT INTO THE 15 FOOT STEP BACK.
SO JUST GONNA GIVE YOU SOME MORE VIEWS OF THIS AND THEN TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT STAFF RECOMMENDATION ACROSS FROM THE DUMPSTERS.
THIS IS WHERE YOU SEE SINGLE FAMILY AND THEN, UH, SINGLE FAMILY.
THIS IS ACTUALLY THE WAY THAT DUMPSTERS ORIENT.
CURRENTLY THE GREEN SORT OF STORAGE BUILDING IN THE SIDE THERE IS GONNA BE GONE WITH PHASE TWO CONSTRUCTION, WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE WHEN THE DOORS ARE CLOSED, BUT, UM, UNFORTUNATELY SOMETIMES THEY'RE NOT.
UM, STAFF IS, IS WAS EXPECTING OR ANTICIPATING BASED ON SOME ONGOING DISCUSSIONS WE'VE HAD WITH VARIOUS ISC PROJECTS THAT HAVE COME THROUGH WITH THE BOND PROGRAM.
WE WERE ANTICIPATING A PROPOSAL TO RELOCATE OR REORIENT, UM, AND WE REQUESTED THAT OF THE APPLICANT.
UM, I THINK THAT, UH, COMMISSIONERS, YOU SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED A COUPLE OF LETTERS FROM THE APPLICANT, UM, OUTLINING WHY THEY WOULD LIKE TO, UH, KEEP THE DUMPSTER IN ITS CURRENT LOCATION.
UM, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING REQUESTING THAT, THAT IT BE REORIENTED SO THAT IT IS OUT OF THE SETBACK AND NOT DIRECTLY FACING UPON THE SINGLE FAMILY ACROSS, UH, TAF STREET.
HOWEVER, IF THE COMMISSION DOES DECIDE THAT IT CAN REMAIN IN ITS CURRENT LOCATION, STAFF WOULD RECOMMEND NOT ADDING LANGUAGE TO LEGALIZE, UM, THE ENCROACHMENT THAT IS ALREADY LEGAL DUE TO THE NON-CONFORMING, UH, NATURE OF THE ENCLOSURE.
PROPOSED AMENDED DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
UM, SOME OF THESE ITEMS, UM, WE'VE HAD SOME MORE DISCUSSIONS WITH THE APPLICANT AND THE APPLICANT HAS AGREED, FOR EXAMPLE, TO, UM, REMOVE THE DETAIL.
UM, FOR THE PEDESTRIAN AMENITIES.
UH, APPLICANT HAS ALSO AGREED TO STAFFS RECOMMENDED CONDITION LANGUAGE FOR, UM, PEDESTRIAN AMENITIES, UM, PLACED EVERY 200 FEET ALONG THE STREET FRONTAGES, EXCEPT, UM, OF COURSE AT MARY CLIFF ROAD THERE'S NOT REALLY, UH, THERE'S SPACE CONSTRAINTS THAT WON'T ALLOW THOSE THINGS TO BE PLACED THERE.
SO IT'S WRITTEN INTO THE CONDITION LANGUAGE AS WELL.
UM, OTHER THAN THAT, IT'S, UH, MOSTLY SITE PLAN CLEANUP.
UM, AND AGAIN, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING REORIENTATION OF THE DUMPSTER.
UH, THE PROPOSED AMENDED LANDSCAPE PLAN, THE SECTION THAT'S OUTLINED HERE IS THE ONLY SECTION THAT'S BEING MODIFIED JUST TO ADD SOME ADDITIONAL CLASSROOMS. UM, AND OTHERWISE THIS IS ESSENTIALLY THE SAME AS THE EXISTING LANDSCAPE PLAN.
UM, THE ONLY ISSUE THAT THE CITY ARBOR HAS HAD WITH THE LANDSCAPE PLAN WAS THAT THEY WOULD RECOMMEND REMOVING PAGE TWO, WHICH, UM, HAS GOES INTO SOME DISCUSSION OF TREE MITIGATION AND PROTECTION THAT, OR REALLY BETTER LEFT FOR TIME OF PERMITTING.
UM, OTHERWISE IF THERE ARE ANY CHANGES THAT NEED TO BE MADE TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, UM, WE WOULD NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE UPDATES, UM, HAPPEN TO THE LANDSCAPE PLAN AS WELL.
SO THE TWO PLANS, UM, COORDINATE, UM, TRAFFIC OPERATIONS.
THE, THE SCHOOL IS NOT CURRENTLY, I DON'T BELIEVE THE SCHOOL IS CURRENTLY IN OPERATION.
I BELIEVE THEY'RE OPERATING AT AN ALTERNATE SITE RIGHT NOW.
THE APPLICANT CAN, UH, MAYBE CORRECT THAT DURING THE HEARING IF NEEDED.
UM, BUT THERE'S, UH, NO CHANGE TO PROPOSED TRAFFIC OPERATIONS FROM, UM, WHAT WE ALREADY SEE HERE.
UM, AND THERE IS AN APPENDIX IN THE DOCKET THAT HAS EXISTING OPERATIONS, BUT LIKE I SAID, I BELIEVE THAT'S FOR THE ALTERNATE SITE.
UM, DUE TO THE CONSTRAINTS OF THE SITE, UM, THERE'S REALLY NOT ROOM TO HAVE ALL QUEUING HAPPEN ON PRIVATE PROPERTY.
[00:50:01]
IS PROPOSED TO OCCUR ON, UH, A COUPLE OF THE STREETS, SOME PROPOSED SIGNAGE.UM, AND THEN WE GET TO THE CONDITIONS, UM, THE OPEN FENCE DEFINITION IS BEING ADDED.
THIS IS THE, THIS IS, UM, STAFF AND APPLICANT ARE BOTH IN AGREEMENT ON THIS.
UM, THIS IS THE PROPOSED, UH, YARD LOT AND SPACE CHANGE WHERE THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO ADD, UM, DUMPSTERS INTO ITEMS THAT CAN ENCROACH INTO SETBACKS.
UM, STAFF IS RE IS RECOMMENDING THAT THE LANGUAGE REMAIN AS IT WAS APPROVED IN 2021, GIVEN THAT THAT DUMPSTER SITUATION IS ALREADY A NON-CONFORMING AND LEGAL SITUATION.
THERE'S NO REASON TO LEGALIZE IT.
UM, I'M WAITING TO HEAR FROM THE ARBORIST ON THIS.
I BELIEVE THAT, UH, WE, WE CAN REMOVE THIS LANGUAGE AS PER APPLICANT'S REQUEST, BUT HE NEEDED TO DOUBLE CHECK SOME THINGS ON THE LANDSCAPE PLAN TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL OF THESE ITEMS THAT WOULD SCREEN PARKING ARE SHOWN ON THE LANDSCAPE PLAN.
AND I'LL GET WITH HIM BETWEEN NOW AND THE HEARING.
UM, IF THOSE ITEMS ARE SHOWN, THEN WE'LL BE ABLE TO GO WITH APPLICANT'S REQUEST TO REMOVE THIS LANGUAGE WITHOUT SCREENING FOR PARKING.
UM, AND THEN WE'VE ADDED THE FENCE SECTION, UM, WHERE FENCES CAN, CAN BE LOCATED WITHIN A SETBACK ALONG THE STREET FRONTAGE, UM, GIVEN CERTAIN CONDITIONS AND UPDATED TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT LANGUAGE.
UM, AND THEN ON THE DESIGN STANDARDS, THIS IS A CHANGE FROM THE DOCKET.
UM, AS I MENTIONED WHEN WE WERE LOOKING AT THE PHOTOGRAPHS, UH, ON RAINIER STREET, UM, STAFF AND APPLICANT HAVE DISCUSSED THAT RAINIER STREET SIDEWALK, UM, CAN REMAIN IN ITS CURRENT LOCATION, BUT IF IT IS, UH, CHANGED, IT NEEDS TO BE SIX FEET WITH A MINIMUM FIVE FOOT WIDE BUFFER.
HOWEVER, THE BUFFER WIDTH CAN BE REDUCED TO SAVE EXISTING TREES.
THERE'S PROPOSED TO BE SEVERAL TREES PLANTED ALONG THAT AND, AND WE'RE TRYING TO AVOID ISSUES WITH AN EXISTING WATER LINE THERE.
UH, PEDESTRIAN AMENITIES IN THE STAFF REPORT.
UM, THESE ARE SHOWN AS A BOXED ITEM.
HOWEVER, SINCE THE DOCKET WAS POSTED, APPLICANT HAS AGREED TO STAFF, UM, RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS FOR PEDESTRIAN AMENITIES THAT YOU SEE HERE.
AND THEN STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO A REVISED AMENDED DEVELOPMENT PLAN, A REVISED AMENDED LANDSCAPE PLAN, AND AMENDED TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN AND STAFF RECOMMENDED REVISED AMENDED CONDITIONS AS BRIEF THAT.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? WE READY FOR QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONER? SHE, I HAVE A QUESTION.
UH, I HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PEDESTRIAN AMENITIES ON TAFT.
THE LANGUAGE SAYS EVERY 200 FEET, BUT THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN SHOWED ONE, UM, JUST ONE BENCH, UH, TRASH RECEPTACLE AND BIKE RACK KIND OF CLOSE RIGHT TO THE INTERSECTION OR TO THE CORNER.
IS IT EVERY 1,000 FEET OR IS IT WHAT, SO THE QUESTION IS, IS IT, IS IT JUST ONE ON THAT STRETCH OR MORE THE INITIAL PROPOSAL IS WHAT YOU SEE ON THE PLAN? I'M SORRY, CAN WE MUTE IN THE CHAMBERS, UM, COM COMMISSIONER? THE INITIAL PROPOSAL FROM THE APPLICANT WAS THE THREE LOCATIONS OF THE PEDESTRIAN AMENITIES THAT YOU SEE ON THE PLAN.
UM, STAFF, UH, REQUESTED ADDITIONAL LOCATIONS AND THE APPLICANT HAS AGREED TO A CONDITION LANGUAGE WHICH WOULD REQUIRE EVERY 200 FEET EXCEPT ALONG MARY CLIFF.
SO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN IS THE OUTDATED VERSION.
UM, AND IT WOULD, THEY DON'T NECESSARILY NEED TO SHOW THE PEDESTRIAN AMENITIES BECAUSE THE CONDITION LANGUAGE WILL OVERRIDE, UM, THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
UH, SO THE APPLICANT IS, UM, AGREED TO RAINIER AS WELL BECAUSE THERE'S SOME SITE CONSTRAINTS THERE.
WE HAVE A FIVE FOOT SIDEWALK, THEN WE HAVE A SMALL PLANTING BUFFER.
THERE'S DOESN'T APPEAR TO BE SPACE FOR BENCHES AND BIKE RACKS.
UM, IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY NEED TO BE RIGHT ADJACENT TO THE SIDEWALK.
UM, IT JUST NEEDS TO BE ACCESSIBLE FROM THE PUBLIC WALK.
AND YES, THEY HAVE AGREED TO THOSE TO PLACE THOSE ITEMS, UM, ON ALL STREETS EXCEPT FOR, UH, MARY CLAIRE.
UH, AND ONE, ONE LAST QUESTION WITH REGARDS TO THE DUMPSTER.
IF THAT WERE NOT THE CASE, IF IT WERE JUST SHIFTED, IS THERE ANYTHING THAT WOULD MANDATE THAT THEY CHANGE THE ANGLE? UM, THERE'S NOTHING THAT WOULD ACTUALLY MANDATE
[00:55:01]
THAT THEY TAKE IT OUT OF THE SETBACK AT THIS POINT.UM, IT'S LEGALLY IN ITS CURRENT LOCATION, IT'S AN EXISTING CONDITION.
UM, THEY WERE ABLE TO OBTAIN PERMITS ON CONSTRUCTION PHASE ONE WITH IT IN THE LOCATION.
SO IT'S NOT ACTUALLY AN ISSUE OF IT BEING IN THE SETBACK.
UM, STAFF'S ISSUE IS THAT, THAT IT'S ORIENTED TO FAITH SINGLE FAMILY AND WE'VE, WE'VE ASKED THEM TO, UM, TO CONSIDER OTHER OPTIONS ROLL OUT DUMPSTERS, WHATEVER TO REORIENT IT.
IF THAT'S NOT POSSIBLE, UM, STAFF WOULD RECOMMEND JUST LEAVING THE LANGUAGE UNTOUCHED AND ALLOW THE EXISTING NON-CONFORMING CONDITION TO REMAIN, UM, WITHOUT ADDING LANGUAGE RELATED TO IT.
AND, AND I, I DON'T WANT TO, IF OTHER PEOPLE HAVE QUESTIONS, I DO HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION.
UM, WOULD THE AREA, THE LANDSCAPING AREA AROUND THE DUMPSTER, IT'S, IT'S, UH, IS THERE ANYTHING THAT CAN BE ADDED TO CREATE A BETTER CHANCE OF SUCCESS WITH GETTING THE PLANT THINGS THAT ARE REQUIRED TO NOT DIE? I MEAN, IF YOU LOOK AT THAT CURRENT AREA, IT'S ALL DIRT.
SO EVEN THE GRASS IS NOT GROWING THERE.
AND I HAVE CONCERNS THAT ALTHOUGH THEY CAN COME INTO COMPLIANCE AT THE TIME OF FINAL INSPECTION, HAVING TO PLANT THINGS THERE, BUT WHAT HAPPENS TWO YEARS FROM THEN WHEN THEY DON'T THRIVE AND, AND DO WHAT THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO AND, AND COVER THE DUMPSTER SIGHT LINES.
UM, I WOULD, I WOULD LOVE IT IF, UH, OUR ARBORIST COULD ADDRESS THAT QUESTION.
FOUR YEARS STILL HERE WITH US.
GOOD MORNING, PHIL IRWIN, CHIEF HARS.
UH, THE ISSUE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS LONG-TERM MAINTENANCE.
UH, THERE ARE ALTERNATIVES TO PUTTING SOME KIND OF AL UM, ALTERNATIVE GROUND COVER IN THAT AREA THAT COULD TOLERATE THE SHADE, UH, CONDITIONS.
THAT'S BASICALLY WHY IT'S PRETTY MUCH LEFT BARREN NOW IS BECAUSE GRASS CANNOT SUSTAIN ITSELF THERE.
AND ALSO THERE'S PROBABLY A LOT OF COMPACTION AND WALK WALKING ACROSS THAT AREA.
UH, IF THEY COULD PROVIDE THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT COULD PROVIDE SOME ALTERNATIVE GROUND COVER THAT MIGHT WORK IN THAT CONDITION, UH, THAT THAT MIGHT WORK.
SO, SO MY QUESTION WAS MORE, UM, ENFORCEMENT ONGOING.
SO SAY FIVE YEARS FROM NOW THE NEIGHBORS AND EVERYBODY'S KIND OF TIRED OF LOOKING AT THE DUMPSTER AND WE'RE ORIGINALLY PROMISED TO HAVE SOME KIND OF SCREENING.
IS THERE ANY LANGUAGE ZONING LANGUAGE THAT CAN BE WORKED INTO THE PD THAT SAYS THAT THERE, THERE'S AN ENFORCEMENT OF ONGOING MAINTENANCE? WE COULD APPLY, I WOULD THINK A SPECIFIC ENFORCEMENT ON THE MAINTENANCE OF THE LANDSCAPING FOR THE CAMPUS.
UH, GENERALLY THE, THE LANDSCAPING IS PER PLAN IN THIS SITUATION, NOT SPECIFICALLY ARTICLE 10.
SO IF WE WANTED A, TO PROVIDE A SPECIFIC LANGUAGE TO, FOR AN ENFOR EN EN EN ENHANCED ENFORCEMENT OF THE, OF THE LANDSCAPING, I THINK THAT COULD BE APPLIED TO, TO THE ORDINANCE.
UH, I WOULD, I WOULD BE, I NEED TO TALK TO JENNIFER ON THAT ONE.
COMMISSIONER BLAIR, UH, MR. OR IRWIN, WHILE YOU'RE THERE, UM, CAN I ASK YOU A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS? I THINK I, I REMEMBER READING, UM, THAT THERE WAS A CONCERN IF THEY REMOVED THE TRASH, UH, FROM THE AREA, IT IT WOULD, IN RELOCATED IT WOULD DAMAGE THE HISTORICAL, THE TREES THAT ARE THERE.
IS THAT A TRUE STATEMENT? ANY TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION OR DEMOLITION OF THE AREA COULD POTENTIALLY DAMAGE THE TREES IN THAT LOCATION.
IT REALLY COMES DOWN TO HOW THE PROCESS IS DONE.
UM, YOU KNOW, HOW, WHAT TYPE OF CARE'S PUT IN AND BASICALLY, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW WHERE THE ROOT SYSTEMS ARE IN RELATION TO THE FOUNDATION ON TOP OF IT.
SO IT, YOU KNOW, WHAT TYPE OF DAMAGE MIGHT OCCUR TO IT.
IT'S HARD TO SAY UNTIL WE ACTUALLY GOT INTO THE PROCESS, BUT THERE WILL BE SOME DAMAGE TO THE TREES.
IT'S JUST TRYING TO MINIMIZE IT.
SO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THAT IN, IN THE EVENT THAT THIS BODY MAKES A DETERMINATION THAT THE TRASH CAN, THE TRASH, WHATEVER NEEDS TO BE, UM, MOVED, THEN THE, THE PROCESS IN WHICH WE WOULD, THAT WOULD BE DONE, NOT WE, BUT THE PROCESS IN WHICH THAT WOULD BE DONE WOULD PO WOULD HAVE SOME TYPE OF DAMAGE TO THE TREES THAT ARE, ARE THERE, YOU CAN'T SAY HOW MUCH, BUT THERE WOULD BE SOME TYPE OF DAMAGE TO THOSE EXISTING TREES THAT WOULD DEPEND ON THE LEVEL OF DEMOLITION.
IF THEY WERE TO ONLY REMOVE THE WALLS BUT
[01:00:01]
NOT THE FOUNDATION ITSELF, THEN PERHAPS THE ROOT SYSTEMS WOULD NOT BE HEAVILY DAMAGED BY THE ACTIVITY.SO IT'S A MATTER OF RELOCATING THE CON, THE CONTAINMENT OF THAT DUMPSTER.
BUT IF THEY LEFT THE, THE FOUNDATION OF THAT SPACE AND TOOK DOWN THE WALLS, THAT WOULD, THAT WOULD NOT CAUSE SEVERE DAMAGE TO THOSE DRAINS.
UM, CAN I ASK MS UM, AGUILAR GYER A QUESTION PLEASE? UM, MS. GYER, COULD YOU PLEASE HELP? I KNOW I'M, I'M, I KNOW I'M BUTCHERING IT TODAY.
UM, COULD YOU PLEASE HELP US APPRECIATE, UM, WHY IT IS, WHY THERE IS BEEN A, A DISCUSSION AND A PRESENTATION OR COMMUNICATION TO THIS BODY AS TO WHERE THE PLACEMENT OF THE, THE DUMPSTER AND WHAT IT MEANS TO THE CONVERSATION THAT, UM, MR. IRWIN IS HAVING WITH US RIGHT NOW? UM, AS FAR AS WHAT IT, WHAT IT MEANS TO THE CONVERSATION WITH MR. IRWIN.
UM, WE, WE HAD A CONVERSATION ABOUT THIS YESTERDAY AFTERNOON, UM, SIMILAR TO WHAT, UH, YOU JUST HEARD IT, THE POSSIBILITY OF, OF POSSIBLY REORIENTING ROTATING, UM, THE DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE WITHOUT ACTUALLY DEMO DEMOING ANYTHING.
UM, THERE WE'VE SIMPLY ASKED FOR THEM TO EXPLORE, UM, ANY WAY TO REORIENT SO THAT SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, NOT JUST SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, BUT ANY RESIDENCES, UM, SURROUNDING THE PROPERTY, UM, AREN'T STARING AT A DUMPSTER IN THEIR FRONT YARD.
THIS IS A SIMILAR REQUEST THAT WE'VE HAD AT ALL OF THESE, UH, SCHOOL BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE COME THROUGH.
UM, IT'S BEEN A, IT'S BEEN SOMETHING THAT WE'VE DISCUSSED IN EVERY ONE OF THEM.
AND SO, UM, I UNDERSTAND IT WAS A POINT OF DISCUSSION WHEN THE PD WAS APPROVED IN 2021.
UM, ULTIMATELY IT WAS DECIDED THAT IT COULD REMAIN IN PLACE.
UM, HOWEVER, WE'RE BACK HERE AGAIN FOR AN ADDITIONAL ASK FOR ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENT AND WE'VE HAD THESE ONGOING DISCUSSIONS.
SO LIKE I SAID, WE ANTICIPATED THAT THERE WOULD'VE BEEN MORE THOUGHT GIVEN TO HOW TO CORRECT A SITUATION THAT WE TRY TO CORRECT AT EVERY CAMPUS THAT HAS COME THROUGH ON THE CURRENT BOND PACKAGE.
UM, IF THERE'S A WAY TO DO IT, UH, WITHOUT CAUSING, YOU KNOW, DAMAGE TO THE TREES SIMPLY BY LIKE, LIKE MR. IRWIN SAID TO REMOVE WALLS AND REORIENT, UM, STAFF UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE CONSTRAINTS TO THIS SITE.
THERE'S STUFFING A LOT OF STUFF THERE, SO I UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, IT NEEDS TO BE, UM, RETAINED IN THE GENERAL AREA NEAR THE EXISTING KITCHEN, WHICH IS NOT GONNA BE RELOCATED.
UM, WE'RE SIMPLY ASKING FOR, UM, UH, KIND OF A COMPROMISE HERE TO WHERE OKAY, IF IF IT CAN'T BE MOVED, IF IT NEEDS TO STAY WHERE IT IS, CAN WE AT LEAST ROTATE IT SO THAT THAT FOLKS DON'T HAVE TO STARE AT IT FROM THEIR FRONT YARD? THAT'S ESSENTIALLY WHERE WE ARE.
AND MR. IRWIN COULD DO YOU, IN YOUR LEARNED EX UH, EXPERIENCE, DO YOU, CAN YOU TELL US IN YOUR OPINION, IS THAT A OPPORTUNITY THAT EXISTS OR DOES IT NOT EXIST WITHOUT DAMAGING THE TREES? I BELIEVE, BUT DEPENDING, AGAIN, DEPENDING UPON THE, THE, THE, THE DEMOLITION, BUT IS, IS OR REACH OR CHANGING THE ORIENTATION, WOULD THAT NOT MEAN YOU HAVE TO CHANGE THE FOUNDATION? AND I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S FOR YOU OR IF THAT'S FOR, FOR MS. JENNIFER.
I'M GONNA SAY MS. JENNIFER 'CAUSE I'M BUTCHERING THE LAST NAME TODAY.
I I THINK WE'D PROBABLY HAVE TO TALK WITH THEIR ARCHITECTS AS TO HOW THE ORIENTATION AND THE SPACING WORKS.
GENERALLY, I BELIEVE THAT THERE'S ANY, ANY NUMBER OF TYPES OF ORIENTATION CAN BE DONE IN FRONT OF THE STR THE MAIN BUILDING THAT COULD ORIENT THAT IT, BUT IT MAY AFFECT THEIR LOADING SPACE.
UM, I THINK THAT BASICALLY THEY COULD RETAIN THE FOUNDATION WHERE IT IS AND TAKE DOWN THE WALL FOR THAT LOCATION AND REORIENT, REORIENT THE, UH, ALIGNMENT OF THE DUMPSTERS WITHOUT AFFECTING THE TREES THEMSELVES.
BUT I DON'T, I WOULD HAVE TO TALK WITH THE IDS TEAM TO BE ABLE TO DETERMINE WHAT THE SPACE IS AVAILABLE ONCE THEY ALSO HAVE TO ACCOUNT FOR THEIR LOADING SPACE.
IF I, IF, IF, IF I CAN JUST ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF THE LOADING SPACE.
THERE'S, THERE'S ONE SMALL LOADING SPACE
[01:05:01]
THAT'S REQUIRED FOR THIS PROPERTY PER THE CONDITIONS, THE EXISTING CONDITIONS OF THE PD.UM, AND THEY'RE NOT IMPACTED BY, THEY WOULD NOT BE IMPACTED BY THE ROTATION OF THE DUMPSTER.
COMMISSIONER TREADRIGHT? YEAH, COMMISSIONER BLAIR ASKED MOST OF MY QUESTIONS.
MY ONLY QUESTION FOR YOU MS. ALGIRE, IS HAVE THERE BEEN ANY COMPLAINTS FROM THE NEIGHBORS OR IS THIS PURELY BEING INITIATED BY CITY STAFF? I, I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY OF WHAT DISCUSSIONS MAY HAVE HAPPENED WITH NEIGHBORS AND AS FAR AS THEIR, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS OR ANYTHING AT THIS PARTICULAR LOCATION.
THIS IS, UH, THIS IS SIMPLY SOMETHING THAT, UM, WE ADDRESS AT ALL OF THE SCHOOL CAMPUSES AS THEY COME THROUGH.
IF THERE'S AN ISSUE WITH DUMPSTER ORIENTATION, IF THERE'S AN ISSUE WITH PROXIMITY TO RESIDENCES SURROUNDING, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE JUST REGULARLY DISCUSS AS, UH, A NEED TO CLEAN UP WITH, UH, DISTRICT STAFF.
UH, FOLLOWING UP A LITTLE BIT ON COMMISSIONER TREADWAY, UM, QUESTION, UM, MS. AGAR, I DON'T BELIEVE YOU WERE, UM, INVOLVED IN THIS CASE THE LAST TIME IT CAME THROUGH AS A ZONING CASE.
UH, DO YOU REC, ARE YOU AWARE, I'LL ASK, UM, THAT THERE WAS CONSIDERABLE DISCUSSION AT THAT TIME ABOUT THE PROBLEMS THAT, THAT DUMPSTER WAS PRESENTING TO ADJOINING PROPERTIES? LARGELY BECAUSE THE DOORS WERE NEVER CLOSED.
AND AT THAT TIME, I BELIEVE IT WAS THE PRINCIPAL, ALTHOUGH I WON'T SWEAR THAT IT WAS, IT WAS SOMEONE ASSOCIATED WITH THE SCHOOL SWORE THAT THEY WOULD BE VERY DILIGENT GOING FORWARD ABOUT KEEPING THOSE DUMPSTER DOORS CLOSED.
BUT IN THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS, YOU KNOW, I HAVE EXPERIENCE OF DRIVING PAST THAT LOCATION MULTIPLE TIMES A WEEK.
IT'S ONLY BEEN IN THE LAST FEW WEEKS NOW THAT THIS, UM, ZONING CASE IS PENDING THAT THEY HAVE BEEN SHUT AT ALL.
SO IT HAS BEEN A PROBLEM, UM, IN THE AREA.
UM, SO ARE YOU AWARE, YOU'RE, YOU'RE, YOU'RE, YEAH, YOU'RE, YOU'RE CORRECT.
I WAS NOT THE PLANNER ON THAT CASE.
UM, HOWEVER, DID LOOK AT THAT CASE REPORT AND I UNDERSTAND, UM, THAT IT WAS QUITE A POINT OF CONTENTION AT THAT TIME.
UM, I I WASN'T NECESSARILY AWARE THAT IT CAME UP, UM, FROM NEIGHBORHOOD COMPLAINTS ABOUT THE SITUATION.
I JUST KNOW THAT IT WAS A, A LARGE PART OF THE DISCUSSION AND IT, IT TOOK UP SOME SPACE IN THAT STAFF REPORT.
SO AS I SAID, NOW THAT WE'RE BACK A COUPLE OF YEARS LATER, I WOULD ANTICIPATE, OR I, I DID ANTICIPATE THAT WE WOULD HAVE A PROPOSAL TO, TO RECTIFY THE SITUATION.
PLEASE, MR. CARPENTER, UH, MS. ALGAR, I APOLOGIZE IF YOU EXPLAIN THIS THOROUGHLY, BUT THE SOUND HERE IS A LITTLE MUFFLED AND A LITTLE ECHOY.
SO, UH, I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU'RE SAYING THAT, UH, THE APPLICANT, UH, THAT BASICALLY WE HAVE COLLAPSED THE BOXES ON PEDESTRIAN AMENITIES.
THE, THE APPLICANT IS NOW AGREEING WITH THE STAFF, IS THAT CORRECT? YES, MA'AM.
BUT I DO HAVE A QUESTION JUST GENERALLY ABOUT THE DIRECTION THAT THESE PEDESTRIAN AMENITY LANGUAGES HAVE BEEN GOING IN.
THE LAST COUPLE OF OF CASES THAT WE'VE SEEN IS THAT WE SEEM TO BE MOVING AWAY FROM, UM, SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS PER, UH, FOOT, UH, NUMBER OF FEET STREET FRONTAGES AND GOING TO A ZONED APPROACH OR AREA APPROACH.
AND WE SEEM TO BE GOING THE OPPOSITE WAY HERE.
CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHAT, WHAT THE RATIONALE IS HERE? IS IT A SITE SPECIFIC ISSUE? UM, THIS, THIS WAS, UM, WE ASKED FOR A SIMILAR PROPOSAL FROM THE APPLICANT FOR THIS CAMPUS, U