[00:00:02]
[Board of Adjustments: Panel B on January 17, 2024.]
UM, I'M SHERRY GABO AND I'M HONORED TO SERVE AS THE VICE CHAIR OF THE FULL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND PRESIDING OFFICER FOR PANEL B.TODAY IS WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 17TH, 2024, AND THE TIME IS 1 0 1.
I'M HEREBY CALLING THIS MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PANEL B TO ORDER FOR OUR PUBLIC HEARING, BOTH IN PERSON AND ON HYBRID VIDEO CONFERENCE.
A QUORUM OF OUR PANEL MEMBERS IS PRESENT AND THEREFORE WE CAN PROCEED WITH THE MEETING TODAY.
WE HAVE MYSELF, SHERRY GABO, SARAH LAMB, MICHAEL KOWSKI, DR.
EMMANUEL GLOVER AND JOE CANNON.
OUR STAFF PRESIDENT INCLUDE MATT MATTHEW SAPP, OUR BOARD ATTORNEY AND ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY, DR.
CAMIKA MILLER HOSKINS, OUR INTERIM BOARD ADMINISTRATOR AND CHIEF PLANNER, DIANA BARUM, OUR DEVELOPMENT CODE SPECIALIST AND PROJECT COORDINATOR CAMBRIA JORDAN, OUR SENIOR PLANNER, NORA CASTANA, OUR SENIOR PLANS EXAMINER.
BRIAN THOMPSON, OUR SENIOR PLANNER, JASON POOLE, OUR DEVELOPMENT SERVICE ADMINISTRATOR, MEL MARY WILLIAMS, OUR BOARD SECRETARY MEETING MODERATOR BILL IRWIN, OUR ARBORIST.
AND I BELIEVE THAT'S IT TODAY.
UM, BEFORE WE BEGIN, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A FEW GENERAL COMMENTS ABOUT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND THE WAY IN WHICH THIS HEARING WILL BE CONDUCTED.
MEMBERS OF THE BOARD ARE APPOINTED BY CITY COUNCIL.
WE GIVE OUR TIME FREELY AND DO NOT RECEIVE ANY FINANCIAL COMPENSATION FOR THAT TIME.
WE OPERATE UNDER THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVED RULES OF PROCEDURE, WHICH ARE POSTED ON OUR WEBSITE.
NO ACTION OR DECISION ON A CASE SETS A PRECEDENT.
EACH CASE IS DECIDED UPON ITS OWN MERITS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED EACH USE IS PRESUMED TO BE A LEGAL USE.
WE HAVE BEEN FULLY BRA BRIEFED BY STAFF PRIOR TO THIS HEARING AND HAVE ALSO REVIEWED A DETAILED DOC PUBLIC DOCKET, WHICH EXPLAINS THE CASE AND WAS POSTED SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE HEARING.
ANY EVIDENCE YOU WISH TO SUBMIT TO THE BOARD FOR CONSIDERATION ON ANY CASE THAT WE'LL HEAR TODAY SHOULD BE SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD SECRETARY WHEN YOUR CASE IS CALLED.
THIS EVIDENCE WILL BE KEPT IN THE BOARD'S OFFICE AS PART OF PUBLIC RECORD, APPROVALS OF A VARIANCE, SPECIAL EXCEPTION OR REVERSAL OF A BUILDING ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL REQUIRES 75% OR FOUR AFFIRMATIVE VOTES OF THE FIVE MEMBER PANEL.
ALL OF THE MOTIONS REQUIRE A SIMPLE MAJORITY LETTERS OF THE BOARD'S ACTIONS WILL BE MAILED TODAY AND WILL BECOME PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR EACH CASE.
AND ANYONE DESIRING TO SPEAK TODAY MUST REGISTER IN ADVANCE OF OUR BOARD SECRETARY.
EACH REGISTERED SPEAKER, UM, WILL BE ABLE TO SPEAK DURING PUBLIC TESTIMONY FOR A MAXIMUM OF THREE MINUTES OR WHAT A SPECIFIC CASE IS CALLED FOR ITS PUBLIC HEARING FOR A MAXIMUM OF FIVE MINUTES.
ALL REGISTERED ONLINE SPEAKERS MUST BE PRESENT ON VIDEO TO ADDRESS THE BOARD.
THERE IS NO TELECONFERENCING VIA ALLOWED VIA WEBEX AND ALL COMMENTS ARE DIRECTED TO THE PRESIDING OFFICER WHO MAY MODIFY SPEAKING TIMES AS NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN ORDER.
UM, SO OUR AGENDA TODAY, UM, WHAT? YEAH, SO WE, WE'LL MOVE ON TO OUR PUBLIC TESTIMONY, OUR PUBLIC TESTIMONY, BUT I JUST WANTED TO MAKE EVERYBODY AWARE.
YEAH, WE'LL DO THAT AFTER THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY.
UM, BEFORE WE GET STARTED, UM, WE HAVE, UH, TWO CASES THAT WILL BE ON THE CONSENT AGENDA AND WE HAVE ONE CASE THAT THE APPLICANT HAS ASKED TO HOLD OVER, WHICH IS BDA 2 3 4 0 1 8 72 17 BROOKSHIRE DRIVE.
AND WE WILL, UM, GO THROUGH THE MOTIONS OF HOLDING OVER THAT CASE FIRST.
THEN WE'LL GO ON TO OUR UNCONTESTED CASES AND THEN WE'LL GO ON TO OUR REGULAR CASES AND WE'LL GO IN THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA.
OTHER THAN THAT, UM, AND SO NOW WE'LL MOVE ON TO PUBLIC TESTIMONY.
MS. LIANNE LEBAR AND MS. UH, AND JOE, UM, JAGODA, UM, YOU CAN COME UP TO THE FRONT.
UM, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR COMING TODAY.
UM, IF YOU'LL PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND THEN YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK.
UM, DO YOU SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? OKAY.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS BEFORE PROCEEDING IN IN THE MICROPHONE, PLEASE.
SEVENTY ONE TWENTY ONE BROOKSHIRE CIRCLE, DALLAS, TEXAS 7 5 2 3 0.
[00:05:07]
I'M JOE JAGODA AND MY ADDRESS IS 71 39AND I'VE LIVED THERE FOR 59 YEARS.
WOULD YOU MIND JUST MOVING THE MICROPHONE CLOSE TO YOUR MOUTH? I'VE LIVED THERE FOR 59 YEARS.
OH, DO YOU WANT MY STATEMENT ABOUT, OKAY.
I ASSUME THAT WHEN THE CITY CREATES ORDINANCES AND RULES THAT PEOPLE WHO COME TO PURCHASE A PROPERTY WILL RESPECT THOSE ORDERS AND RULES.
BUT THIS HAS NOT BEEN THE CASE WITH MRS. LAVAR LAVA'S NEIGHBORS.
THEY HAVE NOT RESPECTED THE RULES, INCLUDING A RECENT DISCOVERY THAT THEIR WHOLE HOUSE IS OUTSIDE THE BOUNDS OF WHERE IT SHOULD BE.
AND I JUST WONDER IF WE'RE GOING TO CREATE RULES AND THEN JUST LET PEOPLE FLOUT THEM.
MEMBERS OF THE HONORABLE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE CITY OF DALLAS, THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TO YOU ON THIS IMPORTANT DAY.
MY NAME IS LEANNE LEBAR AND MY HUSBAND AND I ARE NATIVE DALLAS SITES.
WE ARE HERE OUT OF FAIRNESS TO ENSURE THAT OUR BEAUTIFUL OLD DALLAS NEIGHBORHOODS LONG ESTABLISHED CODE REQUIREMENTS ARE HONORED.
I'M SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF MY FAMILY AS WELL AS OUR NEIGHBORS WHO ARE VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED TO WHAT HAS BEEN GOING ON AT 71 27 BROOKSHIRE.
WE BELIEVE IN RULES AND WE RESPECT ONE ANOTHER'S PROPERTIES.
TO BE CLEAR, WE ARE OPPOSED TO EVERY OPTION SUGGESTED IN THE AGENDA.
NOT BECAUSE WE ARE UNREASONABLE, BUT BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T PLAY PLAY BY THE RULES AND BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT DOING SO IS AFFECTING OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND OUR PROPERTY VALUES IN A DETRIMENTAL WAY.
LEMME REMIND THE BOARD OF THE LAST TIME WE WERE HERE.
EVERY SURROUNDING HOMEOWNER ON THE CIRCLE WAS PRESENT OR EXPRESSED DISAGREEMENT WITH THE PROPERTY OWNERS REQUEST TO BUILD A FENCE THAT BROKE CITY CODE.
AFTER LISTENING TO EVERYONE'S CONCERNS, THIS HONORABLE BOARD RIGHTFULLY REJECTED THEIR PROPOSAL.
HERE WE ARE AGAIN BECAUSE THEY'RE UNWILLING TO ACCEPT THE CODE'S MANDATE MANDATED BY THIS CITY.
I DON'T WANNA TAKE UP THE BOARD'S TIME DWELLING ON HOW THEY SNUCK THROUGH THE CITY PERMIT SYSTEM DURING COVID TO, UH, OBTAIN THE INITIAL APPROVAL ON ANY OF THESE PROJECTS.
VERY IMPORTANTLY, THE CITY FOUND THAT THE PERMITS WERE ISSUED IN ERROR.
THE BOTTOM LINE IS THEIR POOL IS TOO CLOSE TO THE STREET AND VIOLATES SETBACK REGULATIONS.
THE CITY ACKNOWLEDGED THIS IN NOVEMBER, THAT ANY AND ALL PER, I'M SORRY, THE CITY ACKNOWLEDGED IN NOVEMBER THAT ANY AND ALL PERMITS THAT GOT US HERE WERE ISSUED IN ERRORS.
THE VERY FIRST THING IN THE LETTER, IF 72 17 IS ALLOWED TO BEND THE RULES AND SUCCEED, WHAT IS TO STOP ANY FURTHER DEVELOPMENTS TO FOLLOW SUIT AS WE SPEAK TODAY? THE OWNERS OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY DEVELOPED BY THE, THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY THAT ARE PRESENTING YOU THIS CASE TODAY ARE WAITING FOR TODAY'S RESULTS TO DETERMINE THEIR POOL PLACEMENT, WHICH WILL FOLLOW, FOLLOW WHAT IS RULED TODAY.
WE HAVE ALL SPENT TOO MUCH OF OUR PERSONAL TIME, PERSONAL AND PROFESSIONAL TIME AND MONEY DEFENDING THE NEIGHBORHOOD WE LOVE.
WE'VE EVEN FELT THE NEED TO SUSTAIN AN ATTORNEY, TAKE AN ATTORNEY ON TO DEAL WITH THIS.
SO WE CAN'T HAVE THEIR MARCH ACROSS OUR STREET GO TO HAVE IT BE LEGAL AND HAVE IT HAPPEN.
I HAVE READ THE CITY CODE AND THERE'S NOTHING THAT WOULD JUSTIFY A VARIANCE UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES.
THIS IS NOT A FINANCIAL ISSUE.
THESE PEOPLE BUILT A CUSTOM HOUSE WITH THE INTENTION OF NOT ABIDING BY CITY OF DALLAS CODES.
I WILL QUOTE THE CITY OF DALLAS CODE DECISION MAKING AND ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES DOCUMENT YOUR TIME IS UP.
I THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER,
BUT BASICALLY THE VARIANCE IS NOT GRANTED TO RELIEVE A SELF-CREATED OR PERSONAL HARDSHIP, NOR FOR
[00:10:01]
FINANCIAL REASONS ONLY, EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN SUB CRAFT SUBPARAGRAPH B, NOR TO PERMIT ANY PERSON A PRIVILEGE IN DEVELOPING A PARCEL OF LAND.NOT PERMITTED BY THIS CHAPTER TO OTHER PARCELS OF LAND, BUT THE SAME ZONING.
IT IS TIME FOR THE CITY OF DALLAS TO STAND WITH THOSE WHO PLAY BY THE RULES AND WORK HARD TO KEEP OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AS IT WAS DESIGNED TO BE.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND IN, AND YOUR CONSIDERATION ON THESE IMPORTANT ISSUES.
DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER PUBLIC TESTIMONY TODAY? NO, THOSE SPEAKERS REGISTER.
UM, CAN I GET A, UM, MOTION, A MOTION, UM, TO, FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES? UM, UM, I'LL MAKE A MOTION.
I MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM THE DECEMBER WHAT, 17 13TH 2023 HEARING.
UM, ANY SESSION, ANY ISSUES? MAY WE, UH, ALL IN FAVOR? AYE AYE.
OCEAN APPROVED AND WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE DOCKET.
SO LET'S START WITH, UM, OUR FIRST CASE, UH, WHICH IS EDA 2 3 4 DASH 0 1 8 7 72 17 BROOKSHIRE DRIVE.
UM, OUR UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE APPLICANT AND THE CITY, UM, AGREED THIS CASE SHOULD BE HELD OVER.
AND SO I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANYBODY THAT WANTS TO SPEAK ON THAT OR IF YOU JUST WANT US TO MAKE A MOTION.
IF THERE'S ANYBODY THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THAT CASE, PLEASE COME FORWARD.
I BEFORE YOU BEGIN, JUSTIN, I WAS JUST CURIOUS IF THE APPLICANT'S, UH, IS, IS THE APPLICANT OR THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE PRESENT? THE APPLICANT'S ATTORNEY UNDERSTOOD THAT SHE WOULD APPEAR BY, UM, REMOTELY.
AND SHE, SHE SIGNED UP TO BE A SPEAKER.
OH, I, I DON'T SEE HER ONLINE.
THE APPLICANT HERE, I MEAN, IS THERE SOMEBODY, IT'S, IS IT UNDER SOMEBODY ELSE'S NAME? IT WOULD BE MELISSA.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO WAIT AND WE CAN GO ONTO THE CONTEST, THE UNCONTESTED DOCKET? YES.
MAY I HAVE A MOTION ON OUR UNCONTESTED DOCKET? YES.
I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS A GRANT, THE FOLLOWING APPLICATIONS LISTED ON THE UNCONTESTED DOCKET BECAUSE IT APPEARS FROM OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND ALL RELEVANT EVIDENCE THAT THE APPLICATION SATISFY ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE AND ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE CODE AS APPLICABLE TO WITT BDA 2 3 4 DASH 0 0 1 APPLICATION OF ADRIAN WILLIAMS FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK REGULATIONS IN THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE IS GRANTED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION.
COMPLIANCE FOR THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF ALL SUBMITTED SITE PLANS ARE REQUIRED.
BDA 2 3 4 DASH ZERO TWO APPLICATION OF BALDWIN ASSOCIATES FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE LANDSCAPING REGULATIONS IN THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE IS GRANTED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION.
COMPLIANCE TO THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF ALL SUBMITTED SITE PLANS ARE REQUIRED.
UM, I MOVED TO APPROVE BOTH OF THESE, UM, BECAUSE BOTH APPLICANTS MADE THEIR CASE AND I BELIEVE THAT BOTH OF THESE SUBJECT PROPERTIES, UM, THEY WERE LIMITED WITHOUT THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION.
UM, ONE COULD NOT DEVELOP BASED ON THE, THE, THE FRONT YARD SETBACK AND THE OTHER HAD, UM, SIGNIFICANT EASEMENTS THAT, UM, INHIBITED THEM THEIR ABILITY TO ACTUALLY, UM, BE ABLE TO, UM, TO BE ABLE TO, TO MEET THE STANDARDS AND LANDSCAPE REGULATIONS.
SO I FELT THAT, UH, BOTH OF THESE CASES NEEDED TO BE, UH, UH, GRANTED IN ORDER FOR THEM TO DEVELOP THEIR PROPERTIES ACCORDINGLY.
MOTION PASSES FIVE TO ZERO AND WE WILL, UM,
[00:15:01]
CONTINUE TO MOVE DOWN, UM, OUR CASES 'CAUSE IT DOES NOT LOOK LIKE, UH, THE PEOPLE ARE READY FOR THAT CASE YET.SO WE'LL START WITH, UH, BDA 2 3 4 DASH 0 0 4 19 30 HIGHLINE DRIVE, APPLICATION OF JAKE SWIG, REPRESENTED BY TOMMY MANN FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE PARKING REGULATIONS.
UM, IF WE HAVE PEOPLE TO SPEAK ON THIS, PLEASE STEP FORWARD.
AND WE'LL SWEAR YOU IN AND THEN YOU CAN STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
DO YOU SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? I DO.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS BEFORE PROCEEDING.
TOMMY MANN 500 WINSTEAD BUILDING IN DALLAS.
UH, I'M HERE REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT IN THIS MATTER.
UH, HAD A CHANCE TO LISTEN TO YOUR BRIEFING EARLIER.
I'M GONNA DO MY BEST TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE QUESTIONS.
NOTE THAT THE FIRST PART OF MY PRESENTATION HERE IS SUMMARIZING THE FINDINGS IN OUR ENGINEERING TRAFFIC AND PARKING STUDY THAT WAS SUBMITTED WITH THE APPLICATION IN YOUR DOCKET.
I WANT TO DRAW ATTENTION TO THAT FIRST.
UH, LIKE MANY OF THESE STUDIES THAT YOU'VE SEEN, IT CONDUCTS AN ANALYSIS OF COMPARABLE PROPERTIES THAT SUPPORTS THE RATIO WE'RE PROPOSING, BUT UNLIKE MANY OF THOSE ANALYSES, IT'S EVEN BETTER IN THIS INSTANCE BECAUSE THE FIRST PHASE OF THIS PROJECT IS ALREADY CONSTRUCTED.
SO THEY WERE ABLE TO GO OUT AND CONDUCT OBSERVED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL UTILIZATION OF EXISTING TENANTS AT THE PROPERTY AND EXTRAPOLATE THAT OVER THE FUTURE PHASES.
AND YOU SEE THAT ANALYSIS IN THE STUDY.
SO WE HAD ROUGHLY 95 UNITS LEASED WHEN THEY CAME OUT TO DO THEIR ACCOUNTS AT TWO DIFFERENT TIMES AND OBSERVED UTILIZATION OF 80 PARKING SPACES FROM THE EXISTING TENANTS IN THE PROJECT.
YOU EXTRAPOLATE THAT OVER THE ANTICIPATED 911 UNITS IN THREE PHASES AND THAT'S HOW YOU ARRIVE AT OUR PROPOSED PARKING RATIO, WHICH IS ALSO SUPPORTED BY THE COMPARABLE, UH, PROPERTIES STUDIED IN THE PROJECT.
UH, THAT LEAVES ABOUT 145 SPACES THAT ARE OPEN TO THE RETAIL AND RESTAURANT SPACES AT THE GROUND LEVEL OF THE PROJECT, WHICH EXCEEDS THE AMOUNT REQUIRED FOR THEM BY CODE.
THEREFORE, WE DIDN'T EVEN REQUEST A REDUCTION ON THOSE USES.
UM, SOME OTHER THINGS THAT I THINK ARE IMPORTANT TO CONSIDER THIS PROPERTY IS IN THE DESIGN DISTRICT PD, PD 6 21 WHEN IT WAS ADOPTED, ITS REQUIRED PARKING RATIO OF 1.5 SPACES PER UNIT FOR MULTI-FAMILY PROJECTS WAS ACTUALLY A BREAK COMPARED TO STANDARD CITY CODE.
BUT STANDARD CITY CODE HAS SINCE BEEN UPDATED TO REQUIRE LESS THAN THAT.
IF STANDARD CITY CODE WERE APPLIED TO US, IT WOULD ONLY REQUIRE 267 LESS SPACES THAN OUR EXISTING ZONING DOES, WHICH IS KIND OF BACKWARD WHEN YOU CONSIDER THAT THIS IS AN URBAN LOCATION WHERE A LESSER PARKING DEMAND WOULD PROBABLY MAKE MORE SENSE.
AND PROBABLY THE MOST IMPORTANT THING TO CONSIDER IN LIGHT OF THESE TECHNICAL AND EMPIRICAL CONSIDERATIONS IS THE NATURE OF THIS PROJECT.
THE IBI PROJECT ITSELF CONSISTS, IT WILL CONSIST OF ABOUT 80% STUDIO AND ONE BEDROOM UNITS.
THE STUDIOS AS SMALL AS ABOUT 500 SQUARE FEET.
PEOPLE WITH THREE CARS DON'T LIVE IN THOSE TYPES OF UNITS, RIGHT? THE DEMAND FOR THOSE SMALLER TYPES OF UNITS ARE PEOPLE WITH FEWER VEHICLES.
IT ALLOWS THEM TO DELIVER LUXURY HIGH-RISE UNITS IN THE URBAN CORE FOR LESS THAN $2,000 A MONTH, WHICH IS BASICALLY A UNICORN IN THE CITY OF DALLAS AT THIS POINT.
SO I THINK IT'S A VERY EXCITING PROJECT FOR THE CITY TO CONTINUE FROM AN ATTAINABILITY OF HOUSING PERSPECTIVE, IT'S AN URBAN LOCATION.
IT'S WELL CONNECTED TO TWO OF THE LARGEST EMPLOYMENT CENTERS IN THE CITY, IN THE MEDICAL DISTRICT, AND UPTOWN DOWNTOWN VIA THE TRAIL SYSTEM VIA DAR, VIA WALKABILITY, VIA BIKEABILITY, JUST BY NATURE OF BEING RIGHT OUTSIDE DOWNTOWN.
AND WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT PARKING DEMAND WITHIN A MULTI-FAMILY PROJECT AS COMPARED TO A RESTAURANT OR A BAR, THERE IS A LARGELY SELF-REGULATING ELEMENT TO THIS CONSIDERATION.
BUT WHAT DO I MEAN? WHEN SOMEONE SHOWS UP TO FILL OUT A LEASE APPLICATION FOR ONE OF OUR UNITS, THEY DISCLOSE TO US HOW MANY VEHICLES THEY HAVE.
IF THEY HAVE THREE VEHICLES, WE'RE NOT GOING TO LEASE THEM.
UNIT PROBABLY WON'T MATTER BECAUSE THIS ISN'T THE RIGHT BUILDING FOR THEM ANYWAY.
AND THEY'RE NOT GOING TO TRY TO MOVE IN HERE.
THEY HAVE LOTS OF OTHER OPTIONS IN THE CITY OF DALLAS.
IF THEY HAVE MULTIPLE CARS WITH LOTS OF PARKING, THIS IS AN URBAN LOCATION.
THIS IS EFFICIENT URBAN LIVING.
IT'S WELL AMENITIZED, BUT IT'S INTENDED.
BUT THAT TYPE OF RESIDENT WHO WANTS AN URBAN LIFESTYLE, HE DOESN'T NEED A CAR TO FUNCTION EVERY SINGLE DAY.
YOU HAVE TIME THAT I GOT FIVE MINUTES.
UH, SO, AND I'M ALMOST DONE ANYWAY.
THE, THE LAST THING I WANNA POINT OUT WITH RESPECT TO THE RESTAURANTS AT RETAIL, AT THE BASE OF THESE TOWERS, UH, I'VE BEEN IN THERE.
YOU CAN GO IN THERE AND HAVE LUNCH THROUGH THE FRONT DOOR, BUT THEY'RE ALSO INTEGRATED AND CONNECTED INTO THE LOBBY AND MAIN AREA OF THE RESIDENTIAL BUILDING.
AND RESIDENTS INTENTIONALLY VIEW THESE AREAS AS AN AMENITY.
THEY CAN COME STRAIGHT DOWN FROM THEIR UNIT, GO
[00:20:01]
IN, THEY CAN ACTUALLY BUY A BOTTLE OF WINE.THEY CAN BUY BREAKFAST, THEY CAN BUY COFFEE.
THE POINT OF ME TELLING YOU THAT IT'S AN EXTENSION OF THE HUMANIZATION OF THE PROJECT FOR THE RESIDENTS, THEY OBVIOUSLY DON'T NEED TO DRIVE FROM THEIR HOME TO THE RESTAURANT TO PATRONIZE IT.
AND SO THAT'S A NATURAL REGULATING EFFECT ON THE ACTUAL PARKING DEMAND OF THE RETAIL, WHICH AS I EXPLAINED EARLIER, WE'RE NOT EVEN REALLY REQUESTING THE REDUCTION OF NOW ALL THAT SAID, THIS PHASE THREE IS WHERE THIS MATTERS.
PHASE TWO IS ALREADY CONSTRUCTION.
PEOPLE PROBABLY WON'T BE MOVING INTO PHASE THREE UNTIL THREE OR FOUR YEARS FROM WHERE WE STAND RIGHT NOW.
THE TREND OF PARKING DEMAND IN URBAN LOCATIONS IS ALREADY HEADED THIS WAY.
IT'S PROVEN, THIS PROJECT HAS PROVEN IT EMPIRICALLY AS IT EXISTS.
AND WE THINK ALL OF THOSE THINGS CLEARLY MEET THE STANDARD FOR PARKING SPECIAL EXCEPTION IN THIS INSTANCE.
AND WE'VE GOT THE WHOLE DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT TEAM HERE AS WELL, IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS.
SO YOU SAID 95 UNITS ARE LEASED OUT OF HOW MANY WERE AVAILABLE RIGHT NOW? SO THAT'S WHEN, IF YOU LOOK ON PAGE 88 OF YOUR DOCKET IS PAGE FIVE OF THE PARKING STUDY WHEN THEY CONDUCTED THEIR OBSERVATIONS ON TWO DIFFERENT DAYS AT FIVE O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING.
SO THEY GO AT A TIME WHEN EVERYBODY'S HOME.
AT THE TIME THEY DID THAT, WE PROVIDED THEM WITH THE LEASE UP INFORMATION AT THAT, THAT WAS BACK IN THE FALL.
THERE'S PROBABLY MORE THAN 95 UNITS LEASED NOW.
BUT THEY OBSERVED THE PARKING DEMAND THEN AT 80 CARS FOR THE 95 UNITS THAT WERE LEASED AT THE TIME THEY DID THE OBSERVATIONS.
I THINK IT WAS IN LIKE OCTOBER OR NOVEMBER OF LAST YEAR THAT THEY DID THOSE OBSERVATIONS.
DID THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? WELL,
YEAH, IT'S, IT'S, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU LOOK AT PAGE OF YOUR DOCKET OR PAGE OF THE STUDY, I THINK IT'S 88 OF YOUR DOCKET.
IT'S PAGE FIVE OF THE PARKING STUDY FROM ZO.
BUT THAT DISCUSSION OCCURS UNDER PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS.
SO THEN THAT TABLE THREE, THE SHARED PARKING TABLE FOR PD 6 21 IN THE EVENING WHERE IT SAYS THAT YOU NEED 1,465 SPACES THAT'S BASED ON OBSERVATIONAL DATA.
NO, THAT'S BASED ON WHAT THE CODE WOULD REQUIRE.
AND THEN AS YOU KEEP GOING, IT'S WHAT DOES OBSERVATIONAL DATA ACTUALLY SUPPORT IS THE MEETING, WHERE ARE WE SEEING THAT? SO THAT DISCUSSION STARTS BELOW THAT AND THE SECTION ENTITLED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS.
THEN YOU CONTINUE THE NEXT PAGE, THERE'S ANALYSIS OF COMPARABLE PROPERTIES.
THEN YOU HAVE, UH, THAT DISCUSSION CONTINUES AND YOU HAVE, I READ IT, OUR TABLE WITH WHAT WE'RE RECOMMENDING ENDS ON PAGE EIGHT OF THE STUDY.
PAGE NINE, ONE OF YOUR DOCKET, HOW LONG HAS THE EAST TOWER BEEN OPEN? THAT PAGE ONE OPEN FOR SEEN? IT'S BEEN, IT'S BEEN OVER A YEAR.
AND SO YOU'RE ONLY 25% OCCUPIED.
UH, NO NOW THIS OBSERVATION WAS DONE ON, UH, APRIL OF 2023.
SO THAT'S MORE UNITS HAVE LEASED UP SINCE THEN.
SO DO WE HAVE, DO WE HAVE, SO DO WE HAVE ANYTHING TODAY THAT GIVES A LITTLE BIT MORE INSIGHT? 'CAUSE HERE WHEN THIS WAS DONE, DOESN'T, IT'S NOT REALLY A GOOD REPRESENTATION OF, OF OCCUPANCY AND DEMAND AND IMPACT THAT WE'RE, THAT YOU'RE REQUESTING TODAY? ACTUALLY, I THINK IT'S, THAT'S, IT'S THE BEST POSSIBLE EMPIRICAL DATA YOU CAN HAVE TO ANALYZE IT.
YOU JUST, THAT'S THE PARKING DEMAND GENERATED BY RESIDENTS OF THIS PROJECT.
THEN THEY EXTRAPOLATE THAT RATIO AND ASSUME A 98% OCCUPANCY AT 911 UNITS AND THEY GET TO A PROJECTED PARKING DEMAND OF 766 SPACES.
BUT, SO BASICALLY 80 OR 95 UNITS IS THE SAME AS 766 SPACES.
AND SO HOW MANY PARKING SPACES DO YOU HAVE? JUST FOR THE EAST TOWER? IT'S ALL, IT WILL ALL BE ONE SHARED GARAGE.
SO TODAY THE EAST TOWER AND THE SECOND PHASE ARE OVER PARKED.
HOW ARE ALL 900 RUN 50 GARDENS BUILT OR IF THEY'RE IN UNDER CONSTRUCTION, BUT THERE'S WAY OVER CODE FOR PHASE ONE BECAUSE YOU, YOU HAVE THREE TOWERS SHARING A STRUCTURE.
AND SO PHASE ONE IS BUILT AND CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY PHASE TWO IS PERMITTED.
THOSE TWO DON'T EVEN NEED THE REDUCTION.
THE REDUCTION WILL BE NEEDED WITH BASE THREE.
IT'S CLOSE TO THE FULL 911 SPACE.
HOW MUCH TURNOVER HAVE YOU HAD SINCE IT'S BEEN OPEN FOR A YEAR? UH, WHAT'S YOUR AVERAGE? WELL, THERE'S BEEN MINIMAL TURNOVER.
THE AVERAGE, UH, I MEAN PEOPLE ARE, MOST PEOPLE ARE STILL ON THEIR FIRST LEASE AND THE, THE LEASES
[00:25:01]
ARE TYPICALLY 12 MONTHS.SO THAT, THAT'S A CHALLENGE THAT I HAVE HERE BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, IF, IF AND WHEN ALL, ALL THREE PHASES ARE COMPLETE, YOU HAVE A TOTAL OF 911 UNITS AND YOU'RE COMING IN AND REQUESTING A REDUCTION, UH, PROVIDES ONLY 915 SPACES.
AND THAT DOESN'T INCLUDE THE RESTAURANT.
AND CONSIDERING THAT THIS IS A PROJECT THAT DOESN'T, IT'S IT'S MULTI-FAMILY.
SO IT HAS INHERENTLY TURNOVER BECAUSE IT'S NOT TO BE A LONG-TERM LIVING SOLUTION.
SO WE DON'T REALLY KNOW OR WON'T KNOW THE IMPLICATIONS OF A PARKING REDUCTION OF THIS SIZE BECAUSE I MEAN, THE STAKEHOLDERS ARE CONSTANTLY LEAVING.
UM, BUT I, I GUESS MY QUESTION IS WHY, WHY NOT COME IN AND GIVE A LITTLE BIT MORE OF A BUFFER? YOU'VE GIVEN YOURSELF A BUFFER OF FOUR SPACES, BUT THEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT IMPLEMENTING OVER A 10,000 SQUARE FOOT RESTAURANT, WHICH BY CODE WOULD REQUIRE 108 PARKING SPACES AND YOU'VE ONLY GIVEN YOURSELF, UM, A, A BUFFER FOR PARKING SPACES FOR THIS REQUEST.
SO WHAT THIS STUDY DETERMINES IS THAT THE PEAK DEMAND FOR THE DWELLING UNITS IN THE PROJECT AT FULL CONSTRUCTION WILL BE 766 SPACES THAT LEAVES 145 SPACES FOR THE RETAIL AND RESTAURANT SPACE ACCORDING TO THE STUDY.
YOU SAID 7 66 IS THE DEMAND? YES.
IS THE PROJECTED PEAK DEMAND FOR THE DWELLING UNITS.
SO THIS STUDY DOESN'T EVEN RECOMMEND OR ANALYZE A REDUCTION ON THE NON-RESIDENTIAL USES BECAUSE THE PROJECTED DEMAND FOR THE RESIDENTIAL IS TAKES IT TO A POINT WHERE WE HAVE MORE PARKING THAN WE NEED FOR THE RESTAURANT AND RETAIL SPACE.
UM, CAN YOU BREAK DOWN WITH YOUR SHARED PARKING TABLE, UM, WHAT YOUR DEFINITION OF MORNING, NOON, AFTERNOON LATE AND EVENING IS AND WHAT THE PRESUMED HOURS OF OPERATION OF THE RESTAURANT WILL BE SPECIFICALLY? I, I THINK I'VE, I'M MORE CONCERNED WITH AFTERNOON, LATE AND EVENING THE IMPACT YEAH.
ON THE RESTAURANT WITH THE PARKING.
SO IF YOU, AND THIS IS A CODE THAT COMES FROM, I MEAN, SORRY, A TABLE THAT COMES FROM THE CODE IN PD 21.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE PERCENTAGES THAT ARE THE NEXT TO THE LAST ROW FROM THE BOTTOM, WHAT THAT'S TELLING YOU IS, UH, HOW MUCH OF THE CODE REQUIRED PARKING IS REQUIRED FOR THAT USE AT THAT TIME OF DAY.
AND WHEN YOU CONSIDER RESTAURANT AND RESIDENTIAL, THEY BOTH REQUIRE A HUNDRED PERCENT OF THEIR PARKING IN THE EVENING.
SO YOU GET NO BREAK FOR SHARING THE PARKING BETWEEN THE TWO.
SO THIS, THIS CALCULATION IS JUST SIMPLY TELLING YOU THAT EVEN THE SHARED PARKING CODE AS IT EXISTS DOESN'T HELP.
AND THE TOTAL REQUIRED PARKING IS 1,465 WITHOUT A REDUCTION.
BUT THE STUDY IS PROJECTING A DEMAND FAR, FAR LESS.
SO WHAT, WHAT ARE YOUR PEAK DEMANDS WITH THE RESTAURANT? WHAT ARE THE HOURS GONNA BE? WHAT TYPE OF RESTAURANT DO WE HAVE ANY CLARITY THERE? SO ONE OF 'EM ALREADY OPEN RIGHT IN, IN THE FIRST PHASE.
AND IT'S LIKE A, UH, DINER STYLE RESTAURANT.
IT OPENS 7:00 AM IT OPENS AROUND SEVEN.
THE PRIMARY PEOPLE VISITING AT THAT POINT ARE THE RESIDENCE BUILDING, GRABBING COFFEE AND BREAKFAST.
WHAT RESTAURANT IS THAT? WHAT'S THE NAME YOU GOTTA GO? THE METEOR.
IT'S ACTUALLY OWNED AND OPERATED BY IBY WHO OWNS AND OPERATES THE APARTMENTS AS WELL.
IT'S NOT A SEPARATELY LEASED OR SOLD SPACE.
AND THEN FOR THE, THE PROJECTED 10,000 SQUARE FOOT, APPROXIMATE 10,000 SQUARE FOOT RESTAURANT, WHAT TYPE OF RESTAURANT? I I'M SURE YOU DON'T HAVE A LEASE, BUT I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT WHAT YOU'RE WELL, YEAH, THESE, IT, THEY'RE NOT EVEN LEASE.
SO THAT THE MEDIA, IT'S ABOUT FIVE.
SO THERE'LL BE ANOTHER ONE THAT'S SIMILAR SIZE THAT'S CONSTRUCTED WITH THE FUTURE FACE.
BECAUSE THERE'S ONE THING WHEN YOU HAVE A RESTAURANT LIKE THE METEOR, IT'S ANOTHER THING IF YOU HAVE A RESTAURANT LIKE CARBON AND THE IMPACT ON PARKING.
SO THIS IS WHAT I'M TRYING TO RECONCILE HERE.
'CAUSE Y'ALL HAVE NOT REALLY GIVEN YOURSELF ENOUGH GRACE.
I MEAN, IF YOU TRULY HAVE 911 UNITS AND YOU'RE COMING IN FOR, YOU KNOW, TO GET 915, YOU KNOW, A REDUCTION TO 915 SPOTS, IF YOU END UP GETTING A CONCEPT SIMILAR TO CARBON, I MEAN YOU'RE, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE MORE THAN WE'LL HAVE A HUNDRED.
AND SO WHAT THIS STUDY IS TELLING YOU IS THERE'LL BE 145 SPACES AVAILABLE FOR 10,000 SQUARE FEET OF RESTAURANT BASED ON OUR PROJECTED DEMAND FOR THE, BECAUSE THEY ALL SHARE THE SAME PARKING, RIGHT? IT'S ALL ON ONE LOT.
THE APARTMENTS AND THE RESTAURANTS FROM THE SAME LOT.
EVERYBODY HAS ACCESS TO THE SAME SPACES.
THE PEAK DEMAND ON THAT PARKING BY THE RESIDENCE IS 766.
ALL OF THE REMAINING PARKINGS PROJECTED TO BE AVAILABLE FOR THE RESTAURANTS.
SO YOU DON'T ANTICIPATE AT ANY POINT IN TIME THAT YOU'LL BE A HUNDRED PERCENT OCCUPIED.
WE ARE, WE ARE PROJECTING 98% OCCUPANCY, WHICH FOR A, THAT IS CONSIDERED STABILIZED AND DIFFICULT.
TO YOUR POINT, THERE ARE ALWAYS SOME PEOPLE MOVING IN AND OUT.
BUT A 98% ASSUMPTION IS A, A VALUE.
[00:30:01]
WHAT HAPPENS IN THE EVENT THAT YOU ARE A HUNDRED PERCENT OCCUPIED AND YOU HAVE A RESTAURANT LIKE CARBONE THAT HAS HIGH DEMAND AND A LARGE FOOTPRINT, HOW DO YOU ACCOMMODATE THE PARKING IN THAT SITUATION WHEN YOU, YOU HAVE A TOTAL OF 911 UNITS AND THEN YOU ONLY HAVE TECHNICALLY 915 OFF STREET OFF STREET PARKING SPACES.HOW DO YOU, HOW DO YOU THEN ADJUST FOR A HUNDRED PERCENT OCCUPANCY AND A HIGH DEMAND RESTAURANT? I DON'T THINK THAT SCENARIO IS VERY LIKELY FOR A LOT OF REASONS THAT I'M LIKELY TO, I'M HAPPY TO DISCUSS WITH YOU.
BUT IF IT DID HAPPEN, AND A THERE'S NOTHING ABOUT THIS THAT PROHIBITS A HIGH DEMAND RESTAURANT FROM LEASING SPACES FROM THE HOTEL GARAGE ACROSS THE STREET FOR ITS VALET OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
LIKE OCCURS ALL OVER THE URBAN CORE, RIGHT? YEAH.
WELL WE HAVE TO THINK OF WORST CASE SCENARIO BECAUSE WE'RE APPROVING IT.
WE, WE, YOU KNOW, BASED ON A REDUCTION, RIGHT? WELL, WE'RE NOT ASKING, AND IF YOU WANNA MAKE CLEAR IN YOUR MOTION, WE GET NO REDUCTION ON THE RETAIL PORTION OF THE PROJECT.
WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR ONE, WE'RE ONLY ASKING FOR A REDUCTION ON THE REQUIRED PARKING FOR THE MULTIFAMILY PORTION OF THE PROJECT.
OH, AND I APPRECIATE THAT AND I UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU'RE COMING FROM THERE, BUT WE HAVE TO TAKE IN CONSIDERATION THE RETAIL COMPONENT WITH, WITH THE OVERALL APPLICATION.
UM, I BELIEVE, RIGHT? I MEAN THAT'S, THEY'RE NOT COMING IN FOR REDUCTION ON THE RESTAURANT, JUST THE, I GUESS THE WHOLE PROJECT.
SO WHAT DOES THAT, WHAT WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE IF WE, IF YOU, IF WE DON'T GIVE A REDUCTION TO THE RESTAURANT? IT'S THE RESTAURANT PIECE THAT I YEAH, BECAUSE THERE'S IN MY, WE HAVE TO ACCOUNT FOR WORST CASE SCENARIO.
AND I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOUR ASKING IS.
WELL, LET ME EXPLAIN THE, THE RATIONALE OF THE STUDY AND HOW THEY GOT THERE.
AND THEN YOU CAN EXTRAPOLATE FROM THAT.
IF WE NEED TO ANALYZE THE PARKING OF THE EXISTING RESTAURANT, WE COULD, BUT WHAT, SO THEY WENT IN AT FIVE O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING ON TWO DIFFERENT TIMES.
OBVIOUSLY THE RESTAURANT IS CLOSE, RIGHT? AND THEY JUST OBSERVE THE PEAK DEMAND.
PRESUMABLY EVERYBODY WHO LIVES THERE IS HOME AT FIVE O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING AND THEY GO ON TWO SEPARATE OCCASIONS.
SO THEY ACCOUNT FOR PEOPLE YOU KNOW, THAT ARE OUTTA TOWN AT DISNEY OR WHATEVER ELSE.
AND SO BASED ON THAT, THEN THEY PROJECT A PEAK DEMAND FOR THE RESIDENTIAL THAT WILL LEAVE 145 SPACES OPEN EVEN AT PEAK DEMAND FOR THE RESTAURANTS.
SO ONCE THE ENGINEERS MAKE THAT DETERMINATION, ENGINEERS ARE GONNA ENGINEER AND THEY SAY, I DON'T NEED TO JUSTIFY OR STUDY ANY REDUCTION FROM CODE ON THE RETAIL BECAUSE I'VE JUST EMPIRICALLY DEMONSTRATED THAT I'VE GOT MORE THAN CODE REQUIRES FROM MY RETAIL NOW.
SO I CAN'T TELL YOU WHAT THEY STUDIED, BUT IT'S NOT 'CAUSE THEY NEGLECTED IT OR BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T THINK OF IT OR IT DOESN'T EXIST.
IT'S BECAUSE IT WASN'T NECESSARY TO MEET THE STANDARD FOR A REDUCTION.
MY BIGGEST CONCERN IS JUST THAT EVENING COMPONENT WHEN THE RESIDENTS ARE HOME.
AND IF YOU DO END UP LEASING THIS RESTAURANT TO A HIGH VOLUME RESTAURANT THAT'S BUSY SEVEN DAYS A WEEK DURING THAT SAME TIME, I'LL LET OTHER PEOPLE ASK QUESTIONS.
I GUESS CAN YOU SHED SOME LIGHT ON WHAT IS, WHAT'S THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE RESTAURANT? IT'S ONE, IT'S A LITTLE DIFFERENT HERE.
SO FOR THE 10,000 IT COMES OUT TO LIKE 90, I FORGET 98 SPACES INSTEAD OF THE TYPICAL 102 THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED AND THE REST OF THE CODE.
BUT SO IT'S SIMILAR, IT'S BASICALLY 10 PER THOUSAND.
THE REST OF CODE IS 10,000 HERE, IT'S ONE PER 105, WHICH IS A LITTLE BIT LESS.
SO YOU'VE PROVIDED ABOUT 50 MORE, ALMOST 50% MORE THAN THAT IS WHAT THE STUDY IS TELLING ME.
THE STUDY SHOWS THAT IF YOU'RE, IF YOUR EXTRA EXTRAPOLATIONS ARE CORRECT ON RESIDENTIAL, YOU'RE OVER PARKED FOR YOUR, UH, RESTAURANTS BY 50%.
AND I, AND I UNDERSTAND IT'S THE COROLLARY TO THAT WHICH IS DIFFICULT FOR, FOR YOU TO REGULATE.
BUT THESE ARE, LIKE I SAID IN MY OPENING REMARKS, THESE ARE NOT STANDALONE RESTAURANTS.
THEY'RE PHYSICALLY CONNECTED THROUGH CORRIDORS TO THE RESIDENTIAL UNITS.
THEY'RE INTENDED TO BE AMENITIES FOR THE RESIDENTS IN ADDITION TO BEING OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AND THEY'RE OWNED AND OPERATED BY THE SAME OWNER AND OPERATOR AS THE APARTMENTS THEMSELVES.
SO THE LIKELIHOOD OF BRINGING IN A MICHELIN STAR CHEF TO GO WILD AND OPEN AN AWESOME RESTAURANT LIKE CARBON IN A LOCATION LIKE THIS, EVEN THOUGH IT'S IN THE SAME NEIGHBORHOOD, IS SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER.
THAT'S NOT THE TYPE OF RESTAURANT THAT WOULD GO INTO THIS PROJECT.
AND YOU MENTIONED IN YOUR PRESENTATION THAT THIS IS 1.5 PARKING STALLS PER RESIDENTIAL UNIT OR PER BEDROOM.
SO WHAT PD 6 21 THE DESIGN DISTRICT PD REQUIRES IS 1.5 SPACES PER WHAT THE REST OF THE CITY NOW REQUIRES IS ONE SPACE PER BED.
[00:35:01]
APPLY THE ONE SPACE PER BEDROOM TO THIS, IT WOULD REDUCE OUR PARKING BY 267 SPACES, JUST LIKE A MAGIC TRICK BASED ON NOTHING ELSE.AND THAT'S JUST BECAUSE THE CODE WAS UPDATED TO REFLECT TRENDS MORE RECENTLY THAN PD 6 21.
BUT IMPORTANT DOCUMENTARY STUDY AND THE ACTUAL OBSERVED DEMAND OF THIS PROJECT IS PDS ASKING YOU TO PROVIDE MORE PARKING THAN AND TRADITION THAN A THEY SELLING MUL MULTIFAMILY WOULD REQUIRE OF THIS PROJECT.
AND YOU'RE ASKING PART OF YOUR REDUCTION IS JUST TO KIND OF GET IN LINE WITH THE REGULAR MULTIFAMILY? YEAH, THE REST, IF, IF YOU BUILT THIS PROJECT AT POINT AND FRANKFORT AT NORTHERN EDGE OF DALLAS, IT WOULD REQUIRE 267 LESS SPACES THAN PD 6 21 REQUIRES A TAP RIGHT NEXT TO SCOTT.
IT'S JUST, IT'S JUST THE ANTIQUATED, THIS IS AN AREA THAT I WOULD ASSUME, I GUESS WOULD REQUIRE WOULD LESS PARKING THAN THAT'S REQUIREMENT.
SO WHAT IS THE REQUIREMENT OF LIKE AT KUWAIT? SAY THAT AGAIN.
IF YOU WERE IN A TYPICAL CHAPTER 51, A STRAIGHT MULTIFAMILY ZONING DISTRICT ANYWHERE IN THE CITY, IT'S ONE PER BEDROOM AND BUT Y'ALL ARE NOT GONNA PROVIDE THAT? NO, WE'RE WE'RE SLIGHTLY UNDER THAT BASED ON THE STUDY.
BUT MY POINT IS EVEN, AND I THINK THAT'S MS. LAMB'S POINT IS, I MEAN I THINK IT'S REASONABLE TO ASSUME ONE PER BEDROOM PLUS YOUR OVERFLOW PARKING FOR THE RESTAURANT.
AND SO, I MEAN I THINK I, I DON'T THINK THAT THE REQUEST FOR A PARKING REDUCTION IS OUT OF THE QUESTION, BUT I THINK YOU DON'T HAVE A LOT OF ROOM FOR ERROR.
AND I MEAN, IN THREE OR FOUR YEARS WHEN THAT'S BUILT, YOU JUST DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN.
SO I'M, WELL, I'M STRUGGLING TO, I, I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU THINK IT'S LESS THAN ONE CAR PER UNIT, BUT I THINK IT'S REASONABLE TO ASSUME IT WOULD BE ONE CAR PER UNIT.
SO I ACTUALLY UNDERSTOOD HER CONCERN DIFFERENTLY RELATED TO THE RETAIL.
SO WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST, IF YOU'RE STRUGGLING WITH IT, WHAT OUR STUDY DOESN'T DO, AND IF YOU WANTED TO POSTPONE US A MONTH OR STUDY COULD DO IN THE INTERIM IS CONDUCT AN ANALYSIS OF THE PARKING DEMAND OF THE EXISTING 5,000 SQUARE FOOT RESTAURANT AS WELL.
AND THEN YOU WOULD HAVE BOTH AN ANALYSIS OF THAT AS IT EXISTS ON THIS PROPERTY AND THE RESIDENTIAL AS IT EXISTS ON THIS PROPERTY.
AND YOU COULD SEE IT, RIGHT, EXACTLY WHAT THE DEMAND OF AN EXISTING OPERATING RESTAURANT IN THIS BUILDING IS.
I I I, I GUESS MY QUESTION WOULD BE, I MEAN IS THERE A BENEFIT TO YOU AS A, I GUESS TO THE DEVELOPER AND OPERATOR TO INTENTIONALLY UNDER PARK? YES, YOU'RE GONNA SAVE MONEY ON THE CONSTRUCTION, BUT I FEEL LIKE IF YOU, WHAT THIS IS A THEORY, IF I CONSTRUCT I UNDERS CONSTRUCTION IS EXPENSIVE, BUT IF YOU ARE NOT BUILDING PARKING TO SAVE MONEY AND THEN PEOPLE DON'T WANT TO RENT YOUR UNITS BECAUSE THERE'S NO PARKING, THEN YOU ARE IN THE END, YOU ARE SHOOTING YOURSELF IN THE FOOT.
SO I I IMAGINE THAT THIS IS NOT A DECISION Y'ALL ARE MAKING LIGHTLY.
IS THAT CORRECT? I MEAN, A HUNDRED PERCENT.
AND THAT WAS THE LAST POINT OF MY OPENING REMARKS.
SINCE CHARACTERIZING THIS AS A SELF-REGULATED ISSUE, WE WE'RE GONNA, PEOPLE ARE GONNA APPLY TO RENT A UNIT AND WE'RE GONNA ASK 'EM HOW MANY CARS THEY HAVE.
THEY HAVE THREE, WE'RE NOT GONNA RENT 'EM AGAIN.
AND THIS PROJECT IS DESIGNED AND CATERS TO PEOPLE WHO DO NOT HAVE AS MANY PEOPLE THIS.
AND IF WE CAN'T MEET THE DEMAND OF THE MARKET, WE HAVE EMPTY UNITS.
IF WE HAVE EMPTY UNITS, WE HAVE LIKE A WAY BIGGER PROBLEM THAN YOU ALL BEING SKEPTICAL OF OUR PARKING ANALYSIS.
SO I'M SURE YOU, UH, THE PROJECT GOES BANKRUPT.
WE ARE CONFIDENT THAT WE WILL LEASE THE UNITS BECAUSE WE ARE LEASING THE UNITS AND THIS IS THE DEMAND.
BUT WE CAN'T BUILD THE THIRD PHASE IF WE DON'T GET THIS.
ALRIGHT, SO JUST, JUST SO I GET SOME FURTHER CLARIFICATION ON THIS RESTAURANT COMPONENT, THE EXISTING RESTAURANT THAT'S THERE IS 5,561 SQUARE FEET, CORRECT? THAT SOUNDS RIGHT.
THEY WERE RED MAYBE 5,000 IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT DATA, IT SOUNDS CORRECT.
SO, AND TOWER WEST WILL HAVE A 4,692 SQUARE FOOT RESTAURANT, CORRECT? IT'S TED, YES.
WILL THERE BE A RESTAURANT OR IS THAT THE, IS THAT THAT THAT'S IN THE BACK.
I DON'T THINK WE HAVE A RE THERE'S NO RESTAURANT AT THE BOTTOM.
SO, SO THE, TO THE, WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT INCLUDING AN ADDITIONAL 10,000 SQUARE FOOT RESTAURANT.
IT'S TOTAL COMBINED, THAT'S EXCLUSIVE OF PHASE THREE.
THERE WILL NOT BE A RESTAURANT THAT'S 10,000 INCLUDES WHAT IT EXISTS AND WHAT IS ALREADY PERMITTED.
THERE IS NO NEW BEING ADDED ON TOP OF THAT IN PHASE THREE.
SO WHAT IS YOUR PROJECTION OF, OF YOU HAVE AN A PROJECTED 911 UNITS.
WHAT YOU HAVE A MIX, 60% IS ONE BEDROOM.
THAT COULD MEAN ONE PERSON, THAT COULD MEAN TWO.
UM, YOU HAVE UH, 18% FOR STUDIOS, WHICH IS SAFE TO SAY IT'S PROBABLY LIKELY A ONE PERSON.
AND THEN YOU HAVE A TOTAL OF 20%, WHICH ARE TWO BEDROOM.
REALISTICALLY, HOW MANY CARS DO YOU THINK WITH A TOTAL OF 911 UNITS ARE YOU GOING TO HAVE 766?
[00:40:02]
SO HOW DO YOU, SO THAT'S LESS THAN ONE CAR PER UNIT.AND THAT IS THE ACTUAL, ACTUAL OBSERVED DEMAND OF LEASED UNITS AT THE PROJECT TODAY.
DO WE HAVE ANY, DO WE HAVE ANY CONSIDERATION FOR MAYBE COUPLES RENTING OR LEASING ONE BEDROOM OR HOW MANY CARS COME IN THAT 20%? 189 UNITS FOR TWO BEDROOM? SO WHEN THEY CONDUCT THESE STUDIES, IT'S COMPLETELY AGNOSTIC, RIGHT? THEY JUST WALK IN THE GARAGE AND THEY COUNT THE NUMBER OF CARS THAT ARE THERE.
THE NUMBER OF CARS THAT ARE THERE INCLUDE VISITING SPOUSES, VISITING SIGNIFICANT OTHERS, WHOMEVER THEY'RE PARKED THERE AND THEY GET PICKED UP IN THE COUNT AND THEN THEY DRIVE.
IT SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE SAYING EVERY PERSON'S GONNA DRIVE 75% OF A CAR, WHICH MAKES NO SENSE, RIGHT? THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE SAYING.
WE'RE JUST SAYING AS MEASURED OBJECTIVELY AT PEAK, THE DEMAND IS THIS, THAT DEMAND INCLUDES VISITORS, IT INCLUDES BECAUSE SEVERAL OF THE RESIDENTS DON'T HAVE CARS AT ALL.
UM, SO YOU, AND BUT IT LOOKS LIKE YOU DID THE STUDY ON A FRIDAY AND SATURDAY, WHICH I WOULD ARGUE LOTS OF PEOPLE GO OUT OF TOWN ON A FRIDAY AND A SATURDAY.
I MEAN, WHAT HAPPENS IN THE MIDDLE OF THE WEEK ON A TUESDAY AND WEDNESDAY WHEN EVERYBODY'S IN TOWN, ACTUALLY THEY DO IT BASED ON THE TIMES THAT THEY'VE OBSERVED.
THEY'VE DONE THOUSANDS OF THESE STUDIES THAT THEY SEE THE DEMANDS ARE THE HIGHEST, BUT THEY ALSO BACK CHECK IT AGAINST COMPARABLE PROJECTS.
AND YOU HAVE, YOU SEE IN THEIR COMPARABLE PROJECTS, IF YOU LOOK AT A PROJECT OUT IN GARLAND, THE DEMAND IS HIGHER.
A LOT MORE PEOPLE ARE DRIVING, THEY'RE PROBABLY COMMUTING INTO TOWN FOR THAT.
BUT FOR PROJECTS IN URBAN AREAS, THEY'RE CONSISTENT WITH THE DEMAND THAT WE OBSERVE.
UM, HAD YOU CONSIDERED, UH, COMPARING OR VERIFYING THE FINDINGS OF THIS PARKING STUDY BASED ON THE LEASES YOU HAVE SIGNED? SO WE KNOW HOW MANY CARS AND HOW MANY RESIDENTS ARE CURRENTLY RESIDING THERE AS A TRUE REFLECTION? YEAH.
SO THERE'S A DELAY BETWEEN WHEN WE FILE THESE THINGS AND WHEN THEY GET SCHEDULED FOR YOU, RIGHT? AND THEN THERE'S A FURTHER DELAY BETWEEN WHEN OUR ENGINEER CAN DEPLOY THEIR PERSONNEL AND THEN DROP THE STUDY AND PREPARE THE STUDY.
SO IT, YOU KNOW, IT HAPPENED LAST YEAR.
I MEAN THEY JUST GOTTA GO OUT AND DO IT AGAIN.
WE COULD DO THAT AND WE COULD ASK THEM TO GO AT 7:00 PM AND MAKE SURE THAT THEY PICK UP THE RESTAURANT PARKING AS WELL AND PRESENT YOU WITH THOSE NUMBERS.
WE'RE CONFIDENT THAT IT'LL SUPPORT IT.
I KNOW I GOTTA GET FOUR VOTES.
SO IF THAT'S THE DATA YOU NEED TO BE ABLE TO SUPPORT THIS, I WOULD RATHER TAKE A MONTH AND GET YOU THAT DATA, THEN GET DENIED AND STOP.
WHAT IS, IF WE ALL JUST BACK AWAY FROM IT FOR A SECOND, A REALLY GOOD PROJECT FOR THE CITY THAT'S PROVIDING AFFORDABLE UNITS IN THE URBAN CORE FOR LESS THAN $2,000 A MONTH AT A HIGH LEVEL OF QUALITY, WHICH JUST DOESN'T EXIST.
AND I DON'T THINK PERSONALLY, I I DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THE PROJECT.
MY CONCERN IS THE LACK OF BUFFER HERE.
UM, I WOULD FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE EVEN IF THERE WAS MAYBE, UH, YOU KNOW, Y'ALL WERE COMING IN MAYBE ASKING FOR 30% INSTEAD OF 38% BECAUSE YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE 911 PROPOSED UNITS.
IF YOU DO ACTUALLY LOOK AT A 90% OCCUPANCY, THAT THAT GETS YOU TO AROUND 8 92, 8 93 IF YOU ROUND UP, YOU KNOW, AND, AND I KNOW YOU'RE SAYING THAT NOT EVERYBODY HAS A VEHICLE, BUT DALLAS IS NOT REALLY PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY AND IT'S NOT VERY WALKABLE.
SO THERE'S NOT REALLY A LARGE BUFFER WHEN, YOU KNOW, YOU POTENTIALLY GET 90% OCCUPANCY, WHICH IS WHAT YOU THINK IS A FAIR ASSESSMENT.
YOU HAVE 98%, 98 UNITS AND YOU'RE, YOU'RE ASKING FOR REDUCTION TO NINE 15.
THAT'S, AND THEN YOU HAVE A RESTAURANT COMPONENT.
SO THERE'S NOT A BIG BUFFER THERE.
A ROOM FOR AIR WITH AN EX, LIKE A, AN EXPLOSIVE MARKET LIKE DALLAS TO TO HA TO HAVE A BUFFER OF OFF STREET PARKING IF, IF WE DON'T GET THIS RIGHT.
UM, THAT'S JUST KIND OF WHERE I I I APPRECIATE THIS PROJECT.
I JUST WISH THAT THERE WAS JUST A LITTLE BIT MORE ROOM.
UM, I THINK YOU'RE JUST REALLY EDGING ON IT AND, AND, AND IT'S, IT'S KIND OF AN ALL OR NOTHING HERE.
I MEAN I, I GUESS WE CAN LOOK AT TENACITY STAFF, WHAT THIS LOOKS LIKE IF WE REMOVE THE REDUCTION FROM THE 4,600, UM, YOU KNOW, UH, RESTAURANT PROPOSAL.
BUT, AND THAT MIGHT GIVE US A BUFFER, BUT THEN I THINK YOU STILL HAVE TO COME UP WITH THAT PARKING.
SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE.
THAT'S JUST KIND OF FOOD FOR THOUGHT OVER HERE.
I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, YOU, YOU'VE PROVIDED US DATA ON MOCKINGBIRD STATION AND THE MARQUI MAR ON GASTON, THAT SHOW 0.79 PER BED FOR MARK MOCKINGBIRD STATION AND OR 0.79 PARKING SPOTS AND IN POINTS PER BED AT MOCKINGBIRD STATION AND 0.69 AT THE BARISA GAS STATION.
AND WE'RE AT 0.71, WHICH SEEMS COMPARABLE TO THOSE, ARE THESE OBSERVED AND THOSE WERE NOT, THOSE NUMBERS ARE NOT EXTRAPOLATED AT MOCKINGBIRD STATION ARE ACTUAL, THOSE ARE OTHER STUDIES.
THE SAME ENGINEERING FIRM HAS PERFORMED ON THOSE PROJECTS AND THEY USE THIS COMPARISONS.
AND NORMALLY THAT'S ALL YOU GET BECAUSE THESE PROJECTS HAVEN'T BEEN BUILT YET.
SO ALL WE CAN DO IS GO OUT AND SAY WE'RE LIKE THIS PROJECT AND LOOK IT WORKS FOR THEM.
I THIS ONE'S EVEN BETTER 'CAUSE WE'VE ALREADY BUILT A PHASE OF IT AND WE OBSERVED OURSELVES AND WE GAVE, AND YOUR OCCUPANCY
[00:45:01]
IT SEEMS IS IN LINE WITH WHAT THOSE OTHERS ARE SHOWING OR THE, UH, PARKING REQUIREMENT.AND MY OTHER QUESTION IS, YOU'RE ASSUMING 98% OCCUPANCY, BUT IT LOOKS LIKE THOSE TWO OTHER, UM, THE COMPARABLES ARE LESS THAN THAT 84% AND 95%.
WHAT IS MORE, WHAT'S A, I I DON'T KNOW MUCH ABOUT OCCUPANCY LEVELS ON IN NET MULTIFAMILY, WHAT'S A REASONABLE IN MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT WORLD? 94% IS CONSIDERED A STABILIZED PROJECT.
AND SO 98 98 IS AN EXTREMELY SUCCESSFUL PROJECT.
YOU'VE GOT A BUNCH OF PEOPLE WHO DECIDED NOT TO MOVE.
THAT'S THE HIGHEST END YOU WOULD EXPECT IT TO BE.
IT'S, IT'S NEVER, I MEAN YOU'D EXPECT IT TO BE YEAH, REASONABLY PROBABLY LESS THAN 98% OR IT PROBABLY WE'D BE THRILLED.
I THINK THAT BE AT 94% RIGHT NOW.
IT'S THE PROBLEM WITH BUILDING TOWERS, WHICH IS NOT YOUR PROBLEM WITH YOU BUILD, YOU CAN PHASE A MULTI-BUILDING PROJECT.
YOU BUILD A TOWER, YOU GOTTA BUILD A TOWER.
SO YOU BRING 383 UNITS TO THE MARKET AT ONE TIME AND YOU'VE GOTTA LEASE 'EM ALL UP AND IT JUST TAKES LONGER TO LEASE UP THE POWER THAN IT DOES, YOU KNOW, A FIVE STORY BUILDING.
SO THIS IS, UM, REGARDING, SO ACTUALLY TWO POINTS HERE.
YOU MENTIONED THAT THE PHASE THREE WON'T COME ONLINE UNTIL THREE, FOUR YEARS FROM NOW.
AND THE DATA, WHICH I RESPECT THE URBAN LAND INSTITUTE, THE SOURCES THAT WERE CITED, BUT AS FAR AS IF WE'RE LOOKING OUT TO WHEN THIS PROJECT COMES ONLINE, WOULD THE DEVELOPER OPERATOR BE PREPARED TO IN THIS IS TO YOUR POINT ABOUT LIKE THIS IS A SELF-CORRECTING, UM, MATTER SEEING THAT THESE LEASES AT A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE DO TURNOVER.
BUT AS FAR AS LIKE ENFORCING, UM, I KNOW LIKE SOME, NOT IN DALLAS 'CAUSE WE ALL LOVE OUR CARS, BUT, AND OTHER MUNICIPALITIES AROUND THE COUNTRY THAT THEY DO IMPOSE PARKING CHARGES FOR THOSE TENANTS, WHICH BRINGS IN ANOTHER LEVEL OF CONTROL.
IS THAT SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN CONSIDERED LOOKING OUT AS FAR AS, OKAY CAR DEMAND OVERALL IS GOING DOWN, BUT THEN FOR THIS PROJECT SPECIFICALLY, IF THIS, UH, VARIANCE WERE TO BE ACCEPTED THAT OKAY, IT'S UNDER PARKING FOR THE, UM, THE CODE, BUT AS FAR JUST ANOTHER LEVEL OF CONTROL, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED? HAS IT BEEN ANALYZED? JUST GET A LITTLE LIGHT ON THAT'S IT'S ALREADY HAPPENING WITH LEASE APPLICATIONS TODAY TENANTS TO DISCLOSE HOW MANY VEHICLES THEY HAVE.
AND SOME WILL HAVE SO MANY THAT THEY WON'T WANNA LIVE HERE AND WILL TELL 'EM IT'S NOT A GOOD IDEA.
BUT THERE IS A CHARGE ASSOCIATED WITH, IT'S PART OF, OF THE LEASE DISCUSSION AT THE VERY BEGINNING FOR A PROJECT LIKE THIS.
AND IT ALREADY IS AND IT WILL BE 'CAUSE TO SOME OF THE QUESTION, YOUR QUESTION THAT, THAT I APPRECIATE WE GOT LEASED THESE UNITS MM-HMM.
AND SO IF WE LEASE TO SIX CAR COLLECTORS WHO TAKE UP A LEVEL OF THE GARAGE AND THE NAME OF LEAVING 40 UNITS OPEN.
I MEAN IT'S AN EXTREME EXAMPLE, BUT THAT'S TERRIBLE FOR US.
BUT WE HAVE TO MANAGE THAT IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER THE CITY MANAGES IT BECAUSE WE'VE GOTTA GET TO 94% FOR THE INVESTMENT AND DEVELOPMENT MARKET TO CONSIDER US STABILIZED.
I MEAN I I APPRECIATE ALL THE DUE DILIGENCE HERE.
AND, AND I I MEAN I UNDERSTAND WHY YOU, Y'ALL REACHED TO MOCKINGBIRD STATION, ALTHOUGH I THINK IT'S SAFE TO SAY THAT THE RETAIL AND THE MULTIFAMILY HAS KIND OF STRUGGLED A BIT REGARDLESS OF THEIR, THEIR PARKING SITUATION.
UM, YOU HAD MENTIONED EARLIER THAT, UM, I REALLY DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION REGARDING THE KIND OF THE MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL PIECE.
IT'S JUST KIND OF THAT RESTAURANT PIECE.
WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE FOR Y'ALL? IF WE DON'T, IF WE ONLY APPROVE THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION ON, ON THE, IT MIGHT ACTUALLY BE EASIER FOR Y'ALL.
'CAUSE THEN IF THE, IF THE RESTAURANT GOES AWAY OR IS DISCONTINUED, THEN I THINK YOU HAVE TO COME BACK.
AM I WRONG? SO THE WAY THESE ARE GRANTED IS A NUMBER OF SPACES REQUIRED, RIGHT? THAT'S RIGHT.
SO WHAT WE ARE ASKING FOR IS ONLY THE JUSTIFICATION IN THAT NUMBER ONLY THE REDUCTION IN THAT NUMBER THAT IS JUSTIFIED BY A REDUCTION IN THE CODE REQUIREMENT OF THE RESIDENTIAL PIECE.
THAT'S ALL THIS STUDY TELLS YOU.
WE'RE NOT, WE'RE SAYING WE DON'T NEED TO JUSTIFY A REDUCTION IN THE RESTAURANT BECAUSE WE HAVE ALREADY JUSTIFIED SUCH A SUBSTANTIAL REDUCTION IN RESIDENTIAL.
AND SO IF YOU GRANTED IT, YOU'RE DOING THAT ALREADY.
SO MY QUESTION IS, IF WE WERE TO HOLD IT OVER, I WOULD BE MORE COMFORTABLE IF YOU, YOU WERE DOING A REDUCTION THAT WAS MAYBE, UH, THAT WHERE YOU STILL HAD TO PROVIDE LIKE AROUND 9 75 TO A THOUSAND OFF STREET PARKING SPACES.
I THINK THAT WOULD, THAT WOULD BRIDGE THE GAP WITH THE RESTAURANT AND GIVE A BUFFER ON THE MULTI-FAMILY WOULD IS THAT SOMETHING Y'ALL WOULD YEAH, IF YOU HELD IT OVER, I WOULD PREFER THAT WE UPDATE THE DATA FOR YOU AND INCLUDE A COUNT WHEN THE RESTAURANT IS OPEN AND THAT WE NOT GUESS 'CAUSE THAT WAS THE INTENT OF THIS WAS NOT TO GUESS YEAH.
TO PERFORM A STUDY WITH A LICENSED ENGINEER FOLLOWING BEST PRACTICES AND WE WOULD UPDATE THOSE BEST PRACTICES FOR YOU AND COME BACK.
'CAUSE YEAH, WE'VE GOTTA RELY ON THAT TOO.
WE DON'T WANNA DELIVER ON MS. LAMB.
[00:50:01]
IF I CAN CLARIFY.SO THE WAY THE MOTION IS DRAFTED CURRENTLY, IT'S GIVING THEM THE REDUCTION THAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR, WHICH IS THE 550 SPACES WITH THE SITE PLAN, CONNECTED WITH THE SITE PLAN AND THE, THE PARTICULARLY THE USE WHICH IS THE, UH, THE RESTAURANT RESIDENTIAL USE AND THEN THE RESTAURANT WITHOUT A DRIVE THROUGH THE ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE THERE.
I AM JUST, I I WISH YOU JUST CAME UP WITH A, JUST A, A LITTLE, LITTLE BIT MORE OF A BUFFER.
LIKE EVEN IF IT WAS JUST 50 SPOTS.
I MEAN I I I JUST, I FEEL LIKE WE'RE JUST CUTTING IT CLOSE.
I KNOW THAT YOUR NUMBERS AND EVERYTHING, I I, YOU KNOW, I I LOVE WHAT Y'ALL ARE DOING THE PROJECT AND CREATING SMALLER SPACES.
IF YOU WANTED TO REDUCE OUR, OUR REQUESTED REDUCTION BY 30 SPACES WE AND APPROVE IT, YOU COULD DO THAT.
'CAUSE IT'S TIED TO SUBMITTED PLANS.
WELL YOU CAN, YOU CAN REQUIRE US TO UPDATE THE PLAN, RIGHT.
AND WE CAN FIGURE OUT HOW TO GET 30 MORE SPACES IN THERE.
I, OR LIKE I SAID, NOBODY'S MOVING IN FOR THREE YEARS.
SO IF THIS NEEDS 30 MORE DAYS AND MORE EMPIRICAL DATA FOR US TO BRING BACK SO THAT FOUR OF THE FIVE OF YOU ARE COMFORTABLE WITH IT, WE'D RATHER DO THAT.
WHAT I I WOULD FEEL COMFORTABLE DOING IT.
I I, THERE'S NO EMOTION ON THE TABLE, BUT I'M JUST KIND OF THINKING OUT LOUD IS IF, YOU KNOW, IF I WOULD BE MORE COMFORTABLE WITH THIS IS IF IF WE WERE TO HOLD IT OVER AND Y'ALL WERE TO COME TO US WITH JUST A SLIGHT BUFFER WHERE WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR THAT 38%, MAYBE WE GET TO, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE, YOU'RE PROVIDING MAYBE 9 75 OFF STREET PARK NEAR SOMEWHERE CLOSE TO THAT, UM, WITH A SITE PLAN.
WHERE WE HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE OF A BUFFER, JUST A SMALL AMOUNT TO KIND OF, YOU KNOW, TAKE IN CONSIDERATION, YOU KNOW, PEAK DEMAND, BUT ALSO, YOU KNOW, OCCUPANCY AS IF IT WAS TO HIT THAT 98%, BUT ALSO TAKING ACCOUNT FOR THE, THE RESTAURANT.
I UNDERSTAND WHY YOU'RE COMING IN FOR FOR THAT.
BUT I WOULD FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE WITH THAT BECAUSE WE'RE LIKE, DW DFW IS 200,000 ROOFTOP SHY OF DEMAND AND THAT'S JUST GOING CONTINUE TO GROW WITH HOW MUCH GROWTH IS COMING INTO DFW WE, WE HAVE TO LOOK AT TODAY.
BUT WHATEVER WE APPROVE WILL HAVE AN IMPACT, YOU KNOW, FOUR YEARS FROM NOW WHEN Y'ALL, WHEN Y'ALL DE UM, DELIVER.
SO I WOULD JUST FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE IF THERE WAS A LITTLE BIT MORE OF A BUFFER, EVEN IF IT WAS JUST MAYBE 50 SPOTS OR SO GIVE OR TAKE, UM, TO ACCOUNT FOR, YOU KNOW, FOR FUTURE GROWTH AND, AND RESTAURANT.
UM, THAT, THAT'S CLEAR DIRECTION.
AND IF OUR CHOICES ARE TO GET DENIED TODAY OR TO SPEND 30 DAYS GOING BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD WITH OUR ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS AND COME BACK TO YOU, WE ARE HAPPY TO DO THAT.
LIKE I SAID, IT'S A BIG PROJECT.
IT'S HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS.
IT SEEMS KIND OF CRAZY THAT WE'RE HERE THREE YEARS BEFORE PEOPLE WILL MOVE IN, BUT WE CERTAINLY HAVE 30 DAYS SURE.
FIGURE IT OUT AND TO GET US MOVING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.
SO, UM, I I KNOW THERE'S, THERE'S STILL ROOM FOR OTHER PEOPLE TO TALK AND ALL THIS.
UM, BUT WE, WE WERE INITIALLY LISTENING TO GONNA BE POTENTIALLY HOLDING OVER AND MAKING A MOTION TO HOLD OVER.
WE DON'T HAVE A CASE FOR FEBRUARY.
THIS, IF WE WERE GONNA MAKE THAT MOTION, I THINK THERE WAS, YOU KNOW, BRINGING A CA BRINGING, WELL WHAT HAPPENS IF WE HOLD IT THIS? GRANTED I KNOW THAT THERE'S STILL PEOPLE WHO CAN SPEAK WHAT HAPPENS IF WE HOLD THIS CASE OVER TO FEBRUARY, BUT THEY WANNA BE HEARD TODAY.
WE STILL CALL A SPECIAL HEARING FOR THEM.
I KNOW THERE'S OTHER PEOPLE THAT, YEAH.
SO, AND AGAIN, LOOKING INTO THE FUTURE AS FAR AS AND NEEDLING IN ON THIS RESTAURANT COMPONENT DOES, UM, AND I KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ENGINEERING STUDIES, BUT I MEAN AS FAR AS ACCOUNTING FOR RIDE SHARES, 'CAUSE I KNOW LIKE CARBON HAD BEEN MENTIONED, UM, AS AN EXAMPLE ONE OF THE RESTAURANTS IN THIS AREA.
BUT THINKING MORE OF WHAT ARE THE TRENDS? IS THAT SOMETHING THAT THIS STUDY, IF WE WERE TO HOLD THIS CASE OVER, IS THAT SOME DATA THAT WOULD BE INCLUDING THAT STUDY AS FAR AS WHAT TRENDS ARE TO THIS, THIS NEIGHBORHOOD? WHAT KIND OF PEOPLE, PATRONS WOULD BE VISITING IT? BECAUSE I THINK I WOULD WANT THAT TO BE A PART OF THE CONVERSATION AND DECISION AS WELL.
BECAUSE FOUR YEARS FROM NOW I IMAGINE THAT'S GONNA BE A MUCH DIFFERENT WAY OF HOW PEOPLE ARE TRAVELING TO RESTAURANTS AND THAT TREND HAS ALREADY BEEN ESTABLISHED BY CIRCLE DATA.
SO JUST QUESTION AS FAR AS ABSOLUTELY.
AND THAT THAT DATA IS, IT'S BAKED INTO THE, THE OBSERVED NUMBERS.
RIGHT? BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT OUR ENGINEERS CAN'T DO A BETTER JOB OF GIVING YOU HOW IT'S BAKED IN.
WHAT ARE THE OBSERVATIONS THAT ALLOWED THAT TO BE VICTIM? 'CAUSE THAT DATA DOES EXIST AND WE CAN ABSOLUTELY SUPPLEMENT IT WITH SOME OF THAT INFORMATION.
'CAUSE I MEAN THEY MENTION UBER AND LYFT AND STUFF IN HERE, BUT THEY DON'T GIVE YOU NUMBERS.
AND IT'S DEFINITELY HAVING AN IMPACT AND WE CAN HAVE THEM TEASE THAT OUT.
UM, I, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE WAY THAT THIS IS GONNA GO, BUT, UM, IF FOR ANY REASON THAT THIS BOARD DOES, UM, DECIDE TO HOLD THIS OVER SINCE THE APPLICANT MAY COME BACK WITH A, A REQUEST THAT IS LESS THAN WHAT THEY APPLIED FOR, THEY WON'T HAVE TO REAPPLY.
RIGHT? IT'S ONLY IF THEY, IF THEY COME IN FROM WORK, CORRECT.
THEY WON'T BE REAPPLYING, THEY'LL JUST BE INVESTING THEIR OKAY.
REQUEST AND, AND WE HOLD UP, BUT THEY MAY, THEY MAY BRING SUPPORTING
[00:55:01]
EVIDENCE THAT MEANS THAT THEY DON'T ACTUALLY WANT TO ADJUST FOR LESS.I'M JUST, I'M JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT IF IF WE DO HOLD THIS OVER YEAH.
IF WE HOLD IT OVER, UH, THEY, THEY HAVE ROOM THEY CAN ALWAYS ADJUST FOR LESS.
SOUNDS LIKE MR. MANN'S GONNA GO BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD AND COME UP WITH MORE STATISTICS OR, AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE TO, UH, YOU MAY COME BACK WITH THE SAME REQUEST WITH DIFFERENT NUMBERS AFTER WORKING OR, OR CORRECT.
I'M GONNA LET THE ENGINEERS DO IT, BUT WE'RE GONNA SHARE YOUR VALUABLE FEEDBACK AND OKAY.
I WANT IT TO BE SUPPORTED BY A PROFESSIONAL WHO DOES THIS AND I JUST COMMUNICATE IT.
WELL, OUR DUTY IS NOT TO RECOMMEND HIM WHAT TO DO.
HE HAS TO BE ABLE TO LET US KNOW WHAT HE WANTS TO DO AS A PLAN SO IT DOESN'T FALL ON US.
NOW, UM, LOOKING IN THE FUTURE AND LOOKING AT THE PACE OF WORK, UH, YOU REALIZE THAT NOW A LOT OF PEOPLE WORK WITH HIM SO THERE'S NO NEED OR VERY LITTLE REASON FOR PEOPLE TO MOVE OUT THE HOME.
SO THIS WOULD AFFECT THE PARKING SITUATION.
THEY HAVEN'T ALSO CONTACT FOR RIDE SHARE AS HE SAID AT VISITORS RESTAURANT TRAFFIC AND ALL OF THAT.
SO, UM, IF HE HAS ANY INFORMATION OR DATA THAT HE WANTS TO SHARE, THAT COVERS WHAT I'M ASKING YOU AND THEN HE CAN SHOW IT US THAT WE TAKE IT FROM THERE.
WE WILL ENDEAVOR TO DO OUR BEST TO BREAK DOWN THIS DATA PART FOR YOU.
SEE IF WE CAN UPDATE SOME OBSERVATIONS AND TAKE INTO YOUR CONSIDERATION, YOUR SUGGESTION THAT WE NOT CUT IT AS CLOSE TO THE LINE AS WE POSSIBLE CAN, BUT MAYBE LEAVE A LITTLE FLOW.
I MEAN THAT'S WHAT I'VE HEARD AND IT'S, THAT'S WHAT WE WILL ENDEAVOR TO APPROVE.
I PERSONAL SUPPORT THIS PROJECT.
I JUST NEED TO A LITTLE BIT MORE COMFORT.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS FOR THIS CASE? MR. DANIEL BOX? UH, DANIEL BOX 27 28 NORTH HARWOOD STREET.
UH, YEAH, I'M NOT GONNA SAY ANYTHING.
I WAS JUST GONNA LET YOU KNOW THAT I'M ALSO HERE OKAY.
WITH THE APPLICANT TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
ALRIGHT, ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? UH, YEAH.
ANY, ANYBODY ELSE THAT'S GONNA SPEAK ON THIS PROJECT? NO.
DO I HAVE A MOTION? SECOND, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 3 4 DASH ZERO FOUR HOLD THIS MATTER UNDER ADVISEMENT.
DO I HAVE THAT ONE RIGHT? AM I ON THE RIGHT CASE? YEAH.
HOLD THIS MATTER UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL FEBRUARY 21ST, 2024.
YEAH, IT'S, IT'S A THIRD, RIGHT? YEP.
UM, I WANTED TO MAKE THIS MOTION.
UM, MR. MANN, YOU PROVIDED A REALLY GOOD ANALYSIS WITH PARKING.
I, UM, I FELT YOU'RE VERY RESPONSIVE AND RECEPTIVE TO KIND OF OUR CONCERNS.
I JUST WOULD FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE BECAUSE IT RUNS THE LAND, UM, HAVING JUST A LITTLE BIT MORE OF A BUFFER, UM, OR JUST BREAKING DOWN A LITTLE BIT MORE WITH MORE RECENT DATA IN TERMS OF THE PARKING, UM, ANALYSIS.
SO FOR THAT REASON, I, I, I WOULD LIKE TO, UM, SEE YOU BACK HERE IN FEBRUARY, UM, WITH A LITTLE BIT MORE CLARITY BEFORE WE CAN MOVE FORWARD.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? I MEAN, I TRUST THE, I TRUST THAT THE DEVELOPER HAS DONE THEIR DUE DILIGENCE AND I TRUST THAT THEIR ENGINEERS ARE, UH, UPHOLDING THEIR CODE AND, UH, PROFESSIONAL CODE AND NOT LYING TO US.
I BELIEVE THAT THEY WOULDN'T DEVELOP A PROJECT THAT DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH PARKING TO MAKE THEM THE MONEY THEY NEED TO MAKE.
SO I'M, I'M HAPPY TO APPROVE IT AS IT IS, BUT OBVIOUSLY IF THE REST OF THE, UM, BOARD DOES NOT, THEN WE WILL HOLD IT OVER.
AND THEN JUST MY COMMENT, I WILL SUPPORT THIS MOTION.
HOWEVER, WITH MR. KOWSKI, I ALSO WOULD'VE BEEN FINE WITH THE INFORMATION, UH, TO APPROVE, BUT DO UNDERSTAND THAT, UM, THIS IS A MAJOR PROJECT FOR THE DESIGN DISTRICT.
SO, UM, EVERY BIT OF DATA THAT IS BEING REQUESTED, I SUPPORT THAT REQUEST AND LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING THAT INFORMATION.
UM, IT WOULD SAY MARCH, FEBRUARY, FEBRUARY, WE HAVE A ROLL CALL.
MOTION PASSES TO HOLD IT OVER TO FEBRUARY 21ST, 2024.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY TODAY, AND THANK YOU FOR COMING BACK NEXT MONTH.
WE ARE READY TO MOVE BACK TO, UM, BD 2 3 4 DASH 0 8 72 17 BERKSHIRE DRIVE.
UM, THE APPLICATION OF PETER KFO REPRESENTED BY MELISSA MILES TO APPEAL THE DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL IN THE DIAL
[01:00:01]
OF THE BUILDING PERMIT THAT WAS ISSUED INCORRECTLY BY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT.IF THE PARTIES THAT WISH TO SPEAK COULD COME FORWARD, AND I BELIEVE WE HAVE SOMEBODY ONLINE AS WELL, WE'LL SWEAR YOU GUYS IN.
RIGHT? DO YOU SWEAR, UH, TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, PLEASE ANSWER.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS BEFORE PROCEEDING.
ARE YOU, ARE YOU WAITING ON ME? YES, MS. MILES, IF YOU'LL NAME, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.
YEAH, MY NAME IS MELISSA MILES.
MY ADDRESS IS, UH, 1 7 3 0 4 PRESTON ROAD, SUITE 300, DALLAS, TEXAS.
AND I AM NOT SURE WHAT THE ZIP CODE IS.
UM, IT'S OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT YOU WISH TO HOLD THE CASE OVER.
DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING YOU'D LIKE TO SAY ON THAT? ONLY, UH, PROBABLY NOTHING FUR FURTHER REALLY THAN IN MY EMAIL, BUT I'LL, I, BUT I'M HAPPY TO KIND OF REITERATE THAT.
UM, I JUST HAD, UH, THERE ARE NUMEROUS DOCUMENTS REALLY THAT, THAT I NEED TO GO OVER AND HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO.
UM, I'D LIKE TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS, UH, HAVE A FULL, UH, DISCUSSION WITH, UM, YOU KNOW, WITH THE RELEVANT PARTIES AT THE CITY, UM, AND PERSISTENT UNEXPECTED HEALTH ISSUES WITH ME.
UH, IN FACT, I'M SPEAKING TO YOU NOW, LITERALLY FROM AN EXAM ROOM AT MY, UH, AT MY DOCTOR'S OFFICE.
UM, AND GIMME AN OPPORTUNITY TO, YOU KNOW, FULLY ADDRESS, UH, YOU KNOW, THE CASE, PREPARE THE CASE, AND, AND GIVE ME AN OPPORTUNITY TO FULLY DISCUSS THE CASE WITH THE, WITH THE RELEVANT FOLKS AT THE CITY, WHICH I THINK IS, UM, YOU KNOW, APPROPRIATE.
UM, AND, AND, AND SHOULD HAPPEN BEFORE, UH, BEFORE A HEARING, BEFORE WE'RE ASKING ANYBODY OR THE BOARD FOR ANY SORT OF FINAL DECISION.
SO WE'RE JUST ASKING TO HOLD THE CASE OVER AND, UM, YOU KNOW, GIVE THE PARTIES AN OPPORTUNITY TO KIND OF GO THROUGH HOW WE GOT TO THIS SORT OF PERPLEXING PLACE.
UM, AND THEN IF, IF WE DON'T FIND A WAY TO TRY TO WORK THAT OUT, THEN WE'RE HAPPY TO SEE THE BOARD IN IN FEBRUARY.
UM, MATT, MY NAME'S MATTHEW SAVI.
I JUST WANTED TO CONFIRM WITH YOU THAT, UM, FOR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL APPEALS, THEY GENERALLY NEED TO COME BEFORE THE BOARD WITHIN 60 DAYS.
AND BY DELAYING IT, YOU WOULD BE CONFIRMING AND ACKNOWLEDGING THAT YOU'RE, UH, YOU'RE OKAY WITH THAT, UH, NOT MAKING THAT REQUIREMENT.
AND I PUT IN WRITING MY CLIENTS THE COEDS AGREE TO WAIVE THEIR RIGHT TO HAVE THEIR APPEAL HEARD WITHIN 60 DAYS UNDER THE, UM, I BELIEVE IT'S TWO 11, MR. ROY, CORRECT ME IF I GET THIS WRONG.
TWO 11, UH, 0.010 DBB PERHAPS PUT IT IN, BUT I DID PUT IT IN WRITING.
WE DO WAIVE THE RIGHT TO HAVE THE APPEAL DECIDED WITHIN 60 DAYS IF THE RESET, YOU KNOW, WOULD PUSH IT PAST THAT WE ABSOLUTELY WA UH, WAIVER RIGHT UNDER THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE TO HAVE IT DECIDED.
WE JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE YOU WERE, UH, CONFIRMING THAT.
I, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT THE STATE LEGISLATURE HAS SET STATE LEGISLATURE, UM, IN RELATIVELY RECENT AMENDMENTS TO THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, HAS SORT OF RAMPED UP THE, UH, DIAL, UH, TIGHTENED UP THE TIMEFRAMES FOR EVERYONE, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES A GOOD THING, NOT ALWAYS A GOOD THING, BUT IN THIS CASE IT'S, IT WAS, UM, IT'S ACTUALLY A LITTLE BIT TIGHT TO, YOU KNOW, AND WE WANT JUSTICE TO BE DONE.
UH, AND PART OF JUSTICE IS SEEING IF THERE'S ANOTHER WAY OF RESOLVING SOMETHING WITHOUT, YOU KNOW, INVOLVING, UH, A JUDICIAL OR QUASI-JUDICIAL, UM, YOU KNOW, PROCESS.
APPRECIATE EVERYONE, UH, ALL OF THE COMMISSIONER'S TIME, UH, SERVING ON THE BOARD BY THE WAY.
UM, APPRECIATE YOU, UM, AND YOUR TESTIMONY TODAY.
IF THE BOARD DOES DECIDE TO HOLD OVER THIS CASE, I WOULD ASK THAT.
[01:05:01]
AND I KNOW THAT I CAN'T REQUIRE TO OF YOU, BUT I WOULD ASK THAT YOU APPEAR IN PERSON.UM, YOU KNOW, THERE'S MANY MEMBERS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT ARE HERE, AND, UM, THIS PROCESS WITH, UM, WITH AN APPEALS CASE IS VERY MUCH AS IF YOU WERE IN A COURTROOM.
UM, AND I, I THINK IT'S A MUCH BETTER PROCESS WHEN ALL PARTIES ARE IN PERSON.
UM, SO THAT'S MY RECOMMENDATION OR REQUEST OF YOU IF THIS CASE IS HELD OVER.
UH, COMMISSIONER, I'M HERE JUST AT THE TAIL END OF RECOVERING FROM A BROKEN LEG.
HOPEFULLY I'LL BE, I THINK I'LL BE FULLY BACK, HOPEFULLY OFF CRUTCHES BY MAYBE A WEEK OR SO.
I'M AT THE TAIL END OF THAT SAGA, UM, BUT I ABSOLUTELY WILL APPEAR IN PERSON.
UM, MR. ROY, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING YOU'D LIKE TO ADD? UM, THIS COACH, UH, VICE CHAIR, OH, I GUESS WE NEED TO SWEAR YOU IN.
DO YOU SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? YES, I DO.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.
UM, MY NAME IS JUSTIN ROY, AND MY WORK ADDRESS IS 1400 MARIELA, UM, 70, AND DALLAS, TEXAS 7 5 2 0 1.
AND I, MS. MILES APPROACHED ME LATE LAST WEEK, UM, AND ASKED FOR THE COURTESY TO, IN MY SUPPORT, UM, TO CARRY THIS OVER FOR A MONTH.
AND I, UM, I, I, OF COURSE, WOULD OFFER THAT TO HER.
UM, AND I ASK THE BOARD THAT YOU DO THAT AS A COURTESY FOR HER SO SHE CAN REVIEW THE CASE AND WE CAN DISCUSS THE CASE WITH HER.
UM, MY, THERE, THERE'S SEVERAL NEIGHBORS THAT HAVE SHOWED UP TO SPEAK, UM, IN OPPOSITION OF, OF THIS APPEALS.
UM, I, YOU KNOW, I THINK THE PUBLIC IS DESERVING OF A, OF DUE PROCESS IN A PUBLIC HEARING.
I KNOW THAT THERE'S CONVERSATIONS REGARDING MAYBE WORKING OUT SOMETHING WITH THE CITY.
I DO HOPE THAT WE ALLOW THE PUBLIC FORUM TO CONTINUE AND HAVE THIS PLAY OUT IN, IN, IN, IN THIS, IN THIS ROOM IF POSSIBLE.
UM, I, THERE'S PEOPLE THAT HAD SHOW UP AND SPOKE, UM, AND IT DIRECTLY IMPACTS THEM.
SO THAT'S, I, I CAN'T, I DON'T, THAT'S NOT REALLY MY PARAMETERS, BUT THAT'S JUST MY, MY HOPE FOR THIS PARTICULAR CASE.
AND I'LL CONSIDER THOSE FOLKS AND COLLECT THEIR NAMES AND NUMBERS AFTER THIS HEARING.
DO I HAVE, IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE THAT NEEDS TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE? NO, THE SPEAKERS.
UM, DO HAVE A MOTION I MOVE TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 3 4 DASH ZERO 18 HOLD THIS MATTER UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL FEBRUARY 21ST, 2024.
UM, I, I THINK BOTH PARTIES, UM, CAME TO AN AGREEMENT AND ASKED THE BOARD IF WE CAN HOLD IT OVER.
I DO APPRECIATE THOSE NEIGHBORS THAT SHOWED UP TO, TO SPEAK.
I, YOU HAVE HEARD THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE THAT WILL REACH OUT TO YOU AND TAKE YOUR INFORMATION.
UM, YOU KNOW, WE WANNA MAKE SURE THAT EVERYBODY HAS KINDA A FAIR SHOTS PUT TOGETHER THEIR, UM, THEIR CASE.
WE WANT EVERYBODY TO HAVE THEIR TIME.
AND, UM, WE RESPECT YOUR TIME AND APPRECIATION COMING DOWN HERE.
SO, UM, YOU KNOW, PLEASE KNOW THAT EVEN IF YOU'RE NOT HERE NEXT MONTH, UM, WE HAVE HEARD YOUR TESTIMONY AND IT WILL BE TAKING CONSIDERATION.
MS. LAMB, I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO ADD, JUST SO, UM, ANYBODY IN OPPOSITION IS AWARE, A AS YOU GUYS NOTICED TODAY, YOU GUYS MADE YOUR STATEMENTS AT THE BEGINNING IN THE OPEN TESTIMONY SECTION OF THE HEARING, NOT DURING THE ACTUAL CASE, BECAUSE THIS PARTICULAR CASE ISN'T FOR A VARIANCE OR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION PER SE, BUT RATHER IT IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL APPEAL OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL'S DECISION WHERE PUBLIC TESTIMONY ISN'T ALLOWED DURING THE ACTUAL HEARING PER SE, BUT DURING THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY SECTION.
SO YOU, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO COME BACK INTO THE NEXT MONTH AND MAKE TESTIMONY AGAIN DURING THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY, YOU'RE CERTAINLY WELCOME TO DO SO.
UH, BUT YOU WOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO SPEAK DURING THE ACTUAL ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING.
I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT CLEAR.
WOULD WOULD, UM, THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE BE ABLE TO CALL THEM AS WITNESSES? OKAY.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR COMING AND, UM, WE'LL SEE YOU NEXT MONTH.
UH, THANK YOU BOARD DDA JUAN NEED A CALL.
OH, WE HAVEN'T TAKEN THE VOTE YET, HAVE WE ROLL CALL, VOTE NO, MS. LAMB.
[01:10:01]
FEBRUARY 21ST, 2024, FIVE TO ZERO MOTION PASS.AND WE ARE MOVING ON TO BDA 2 3 4 DASH 0 7 1 0 9 4 0 SPANGLER ROAD, THE APPLICATION OF THOMAS TON REPRESENTED BY PAUL ROUSE TO ENLARGE A NON-CONFORMING USE.
I'M REPRESENTING THIS CASE, YOU'RE HONOR.
ALL, WHICH CASE WE ARE ON CASE BDA 0 0 7.
YOU KNOW WHAT, PLEASE, ONE 18.
SO DO WE NEED A SWEAR IN AGAIN, CASE I'M HAPPY TO BE SWORN IN AGAIN.
DO YOU SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH IN THE, IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? I DO.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS BEFORE PROCEEDING.
TOMMY MANN 500 WINSTEAD BUILDING, UH, REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT HERE, AND AGAIN, HAD THE BENEFIT OF LISTENING TO THE BRIEFING, THE QUESTIONS.
SO I, I THINK, UH, RECOUNTING OF HOW WE GOT TO WHERE WE ARE MIGHT BE USEFUL FOR YOU ALL TO UNDERSTAND.
SO MY ACTUAL CLIENT IS BURNCO.
THEY CAME TO BE IN CONTROL OF THIS PROPERTY THROUGH A CORPORATE LEVEL ACQUISITION THAT OCCURRED AROUND 2015.
SO THEY DIDN'T JUST GO BUY THIS PROPERTY, RIGHT? THEY BOUGHT THE COMPANY THAT OPERATED IT.
AND WHEN THEY TOOK OVER IT, THEN IT WAS OBVIOUSLY AN OPERATING BATCH PLAN, BUT IT WAS, IT DIDN'T HAVE THE APPROPRIATE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY.
THERE WERE OUTSTANDING PERMITS, THERE WERE ISSUES THAT THEY FLAGGED THEMSELVES THAT NOT NECESSARILY THE CITY FLAGGED.
SO THEY TOOK UNDER A NUMBER OF YEARS THAT GOT SLOWED DOWN.
BUT, UH, PANDEMIC PERMITTING ISSUES AS WELL ON THEMSELVES TO GO PROCESS THE APPROPRIATE PAVING AND GRADING PLANS AND ENGINEERING DRAWINGS TO PAVE THE DRIVEWAYS ADDRESS, STORM WATER, ADDRESS FUEL STORAGE, MEET FIRE CODE, DO ALL OF THE THINGS NECESSARY TO ACTUALLY BRING THE OPERATION IN CODE COMPLIANCE, NOT EVEN ZONING COMPLIANCE.
AND THEN THEY APPROACHED THE CITY'S ZONING STAFF AND WERE TOLD THEY NEEDED TO OBTAIN A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR THE USE.
THAT'S AROUND THE TIME THAT I ORIGINALLY HELPED ADVISE THEM.
AND IT WAS ACTUALLY DETERMINED BY THE THEN ASSISTANT DIRECTOR THAT THAT WAS INCORRECT.
THE INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURING DISTRICT AT THAT TIME ACTUALLY ALLOWED THE BATCH PLANT USE BY RIGHT.
AND SO THEN THEY WERE TOLD TO WITHDRAW THE SUP APPLICATION, WHICH THEY DID.
THEY THEN FINISHED OUT THE PROCESSING OF THE NECESSARY PERMITS.
LONG STORY SHORT, THEY WERE ISSUED A FINAL CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY IN OCTOBER OF 2020 FOR THE BATCH PLAN USE AND BECAME A LEGALLY CONFORMING USE AS OF THEN.
AND THEN IN ON MAY 11TH, 2022, THE CITY AMENDED THE ZONING REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO BATCH PLANS TO NO LONGER ALLOW THEM BY RIGHT IN THE INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURING DISTRICT.
SO AT THAT POINT, JUST ABOUT 18 MONTHS AGO, THE USE BECAME LEGALLY NON-CON PERFORMING.
DOESN'T MEAN IT'S ONLY BEEN OUT THERE FOR 18 MONTHS, BUT THAT'S HOW THE CURRENT OWNER AND OPERATOR GOT TO WHERE THEY ARE WITH A LEGALLY NON-CONFORMING STATUS.
THEY MADE A LOT OF IMPROVEMENTS TO THE PROPERTY TO GET TO THAT POINT.
REALLY NONE OF WHICH HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH INCREASING THE DURATION OF THE USE ITSELF.
BUT IT WAS JUST TO BECOME COMPLIANT WITH CITY CODE.
AND IT WASN'T BECAUSE CODE COMPLIANCE SHOWED UP, IT WAS BECAUSE A MORE RESPONSIBLE COMPANY TOOK OVER OPERATION OF THE PROPERTY.
SO, FAST FORWARD TO TODAY, THE LAST IMPROVEMENT THEY WANT TO MAKE IS THIS MODULAR BUILDING FOR EMPLOYEES TODAY.
THERE'S NO PLUMBING HOOKED UP TO THE CITY SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM, AND WE'RE TRYING TO CREATE A CONDITIONED SPACE FOR WORKERS TO STORE THEIR GOODS, TO HAVE MEETINGS, UH, TO HAVE PLUMBED RESTROOM FACILITIES THAT WOULD GO ON THE SITE.
WHEN YOU COMPARE THAT TO YOUR STANDARD, THAT IMPROVEMENT, THIS MODULAR LITTLE OFFICE MEETING BUILDING HAS NO IMPACT ON THE LONGEVITY OF BATCHING USE ITSELF.
AND WHEN I SAY THAT IT DOESN'T INCREASE THE USEFUL LIFE OF ANY OF THE EXISTING BATCHING EQUIPMENT IN ANY WAY, AND IT DOESN'T INCREASE THE CAPACITY TO PRODUCE THE, UH, CONCRETE READY MIX AT ALL TODAY, IT SIMPLY PROVIDES A BETTER ENVIRONMENT FOR THE EMPLOYEES WHO ARE OUT THERE TODAY, MANY OF WHOM HAVE BEEN EMPLOYEES THERE FOR A LONG TIME AND ARE RESIDENTS OF THE CITY.
SO WE UNDERSTAND THERE'S SENSITIVITY AROUND THE USE, WHICH IS WHY WE'VE PROACTIVELY BEEN TRYING TO ADDRESS IT WITH THE CITY LONG BEFORE WE ARRIVED HERE TODAY.
UH, AND WE DO THINK IT'S HEADED IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.
WE THINK THIS DOES MEET THE STANDARD, HOPEFULLY AS I'VE EXPLAINED THE HISTORY, IT REMOVES SOME OF THE CONFUSION AND THE
[01:15:01]
ANXIETY AROUND THE TOPIC THAT WE HAVE THE TEAM HERE THAT CAN FILL IN ANY HOLES I LEFT OUT.UM, BUT WITH THAT INFORMATION, WE WOULD'VE RESPECTFULLY REQUESTED TO ALLOW THIS IMPROVEMENT TO BE MADE TO THE PROPERTY.
I HAVE A QUESTION FOR CITY STAFF WITH THE, WITH THE BATCH PROCESSING PLANT, UM, WHERE, WHERE ARE THEY ALLOWED TO BE LOCATED? IT'S, YEAH, WE WOULD HAVE TO LOOK IT UP.
THERE'S JUST DIFFERENT ZONING DISTRICTS THAT WOULD ALLOW THAT, BUT WE, WE DON'T KNOW EVERY ZONING DISTRICT THAT WOULD ALLOW IT.
SOUNDS LIKE WE, THAT THE CITY HAS OUTLAWED 'EM IN INDUSTRIAL AREAS.
UM, SO I'D BE CURIOUS TO KNOW, IT SEEMS LIKE A PLACE YOU'D PUT A CONCRETE PLANT, BUT, UH, SO I'M JUST CURIOUS, WHERE ARE THEY ALLOWED BY? RIGHT.
THEY, THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED ANYWHERE BY RIGHT ANYMORE.
THEY, THEY WERE ONLY ALLOWED BY RIGHT IN IM, WHICH IS WHAT'S THIS ZONE? THAT'S CORRECT.
NOW YOU HAVE TO GET AN SUCS ANYWHERE, SO THEY ARE ALLOWED NOWHERE, BUT RIGHT.
BUT WHEN THIS ONE OBTAINED ITS CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, IT WAS ALLOWED BY, RIGHT THEN THE RULES CHANGED IN MAY OF 2022 IS ORDINANCE 3 2, 2 0 9.
I HAVE A COPY OF IT IF YOU WANNA, FOR THE RECORD.
SO LIKE, I MEAN, IF YOU GET AN SUP FOR ONE OF THESE THINGS, IS THE EXPECTATION THAT YOU'RE THERE FOR A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME WHILE YOU'RE DOING WORK IN THAT AREA? LIKE, HELP ME UNDERSTAND.
SO THERE'S, THERE'S TWO TYPES OF BATCHING PLANTS UNDER THE CODE.
THERE'S A TEMPORARY ONE, WHICH IF IT'S A LARGE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, THEY MAY WANT TO DO IT ON SITE JUST TO PRODUCE THE READY-MIX FOR THAT PROJECT.
AND THAT ONE IS TEMPORARY FOR THIS ONE.
THEY'RE PROVIDING THE READY MIX FOR PROJECTS IN THE AREA, WHETHER IT'S ROADWAY PROJECTS, WHETHER IT'S OTHER CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS.
AND THEY WOULD, YOU KNOW, THEY'LL TAKE THEIR TRUCKS WILL TAKE IT OFFSITE TO SOMEWHERE ELSE AND THEY HAVE TO DO ALL, SOME CONCRETE TRUCKS AND THEY HAVE TO BE WITHIN A CERTAIN DISTANCE AND TIME TO THEIR LOCATION TO GET THEM THERE.
SO THIS IS THAT TYPE OF OPERATION.
A TEMPORARY ONE IS ONE THAT'S SET UP AT A PARTICULAR PROJECT TO OPERATE UNTIL IT'S COMPLETED.
THERE ARE SEVERAL OF THESE NEXT TO HIGHWAYS THAT ARE ALLOWED IN SOME OF THE PDS FOR THAT REASON.
WHEN THEY RECONSTRUCT THE HIGHWAY, THEY ALLOW THE TEMPORARY BATCH PLANT FOR THE
SO IT'S OPERATED BY TEXT O AND THAT'S IS, IS THE CITY'S HOPE THAT ALL CEMENT PROCESSING THINGS WOULD BE A TEMPORARY USE THAT PEOPLE WOULD PROPOSE IN FOR? I MEAN, WHAT, WHAT IS THE CITY'S GOAL? I MEAN, I KNOW THAT THEY'RE, THEY, THEY'RE POLLUTANTS AND ALL THE DIFFERENT THINGS, BUT I MEAN, IN OUTLAWING THEM, WHERE DOES THE CITY EXPECT THEM TO BE? 'CAUSE IT CLEARLY YOU NEED CONCRETE TO BUILD THINGS.
SO I THINK JUST LIKE MR. MANN WAS SAYING, LIKE, UH, THEY, THEY'RE INTENDED TO BE TEMPORARY.
THEY'RE INTENDED TO BE TEMPORARY MOVING FORWARD.
SO THIS ONE FEELS LIKE IT'S FAIRLY PERMANENT SINCE IT'S BEEN THERE.
THERE, THERE ARE SEVERAL THAT STILL ARE IN OPERATION AROUND THE CITY UNDER NON-CONFORMING RIGHTS.
I ALSO THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THEY'RE COMING HERE TO, UH, ADD AMENITIES OR JUST BASIC STANDARDS FOR THEIR EMPLOYEES.
HAVE THEY NOT COME HERE? THEY WOULDN'T, IT WOULDN'T, YEAH.
I WHAT I THINK THE ONLY TWO AVENUES HERE IF THEY WANT TO EXPAND AND PROVIDE THIS IS TO COME HERE OR GO GET AN SUP.
AGAIN, I'M JUST STRUGGLING WITH THE PIECE AROUND ARE WE MAKING IT LESS TEMPORARY FOR THEM TO STAY THERE BY PROVIDING THAT? AND I DON'T, IF THEY DON'T COME, IF THEY DON'T COME FROM US TODAY, THE, THEIR EMPLOYEES CONTINUE TO USE, UH, PORTABLE BODIES AND THEY CAN CONTINUE TO OPERATE IN PERPETUITY UNLESS THE CITY FINDS THEM.
I'M NOT A GOOD ACTOR AND PULLS THEIR NON-CONFORMING STATUS.
UH, QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT HERE.
UM, JUST TO, IT'S MORE, UH, INFORMATION ON THIS STRUCTURE HERE.
CAN YOU JUST SHARE WITH THE BOARD THE INSTALLATION PROCESS FOR A MODULE STRUCTURE? YOU KNOW, AS FAR AS SETUP TIME, HOW LONG THESE THINGS CAN BE ON THE SITE, YOU KNOW, THEIR TAKE DOWN.
COULD YOU PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT MORE INFORMATION ON, ON THE TRUCTURE, HOW LONG WANT IT'S AS COMPARED TO YEAH, IT'S A MATTER OF DAYS.
TO SET IT UP AND YOU GOTTA HOOK THE PLUMBING UP.
BUT, AND IT COULD SIMILARLY BE REMOVED IN A MATTER OF DAYS.
AND THIS BUILDING IN AND OF ITSELF WOULDN'T EVEN BE NON-CONFORMING.
IT'S ONLY NON-CONFORMING BECAUSE IT'S BEING USED BY THE BATCH OBSERVATION.
AND AN OFFICE BUILDING COULD BE PUT ON THE PROPERTY, OBVIOUSLY.
SO JUST TO, JUST TO CLARIFY, SO THREE, ABOUT THREE DAYS SET UP, BUT THEN IF THIS PLANT WERE TO CEASE OPERATIONS, THEN THAT'S ABOUT A THREE DAY HAUL OFFICE SITE DISCONNECT PLUMBING, AND THEN YEAH, IT'S DAYS NOT NOT MONTHS OR, OKAY.
[01:20:03]
ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR SPEAKER? ARE THERE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS ON THIS? UM, NO.DO WE HAVE A MOTION, MS. LAMB? I MOVE TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 3 4 DASH 0 0 7 ON APPLICATION OF THOMAS ETON.
GRANT, THE REQUEST OF THIS APPLICANT TO ENLARGE A NON-CONFORMING USE BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND THE TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT ENLARGING THE NON-CONFORMING USE ONE WILL NOT PROVI PROLONG THE LIFE OF THE NON-CONFORMING USE TWO WOULD HAVE BEEN PERMITTED UNDER THE ZONING REGULATIONS THAT EXISTS WI WITH THE NON-CONFORMING USE WAS ORIGINALLY ESTABLISHED BY RIGHT AND THREE WILL NOT HAVE AN ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE SURROUNDING AREA.
I FURTHER MOVE THAT THE FOLLOWING CONDITION BE OPPOSED TO FURTHER THE PURPOSE AND ATTEND TO THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE.
COMPLIANCE WITH ALL SUBMITTED SITE PLAN IS REQUIRED.
THAT MOTION I MOVE TO APPROVE THIS.
UM, I THINK THAT, UM, WE SHOULD APPLAUD THE APPLICANT FOR, UH, CREATING, UM, WORK CONDITIONS THAT ARE BENEFICIAL TO, UM, EMPLOYEES.
I ALSO THINK THAT THEY DID A GOOD JOB OF MEETING THE STANDARD FOR THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION AND MADE A CASE THAT THEY WILL NOT BE PROLONGING THE, THE LIFE OF THE NON-CONFORMING USE.
UM, THEY ARE EXPANDING, UM, THEY ARE PUTTING IT A MODULAR STRUCTURE, WHICH TO ME IS NOT BY ANY MEANS A PERMANENT STRUCTURE, BUT ALSO ALLOWS BETTER CONDITIONS FOR, UH, THE EMPLOYEES.
AND I THINK WE MET ALL THE STANDARDS AND FOR THAT REASON, I HAVE MOVED TO GRANT THIS APPLICATION AND MY SUPPORT FOR THIS MOTION, UM, PRETTY MUCH ECHOES WHAT MS. LAMB JUST STATED.
UM, KNOWING THE NATURE OF CONSTRUCTION AND OF COURSE THE MODULE STRUCTURE, I BELIEVE THAT THIS, UH, EXPERIENCE HERE MEETS ALL THE BARS FOR FOR PASSAGE.
SO THANK YOU ALL FOR THE INFORMATION.
WHILE I'M SYMPATHETIC TO THE CAUSE OF THE WORKERS NEEDING A PLACE I, A CONDITION PLACE, I DO THINK THAT THIS DOES ALONG THE LIFE OF THE NONCONFORMING USE ON, UH, 'CAUSE OF THAT, I WILL NOT SUPPORT THE MOTION.
DO WE HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE MR. CANNON? AYE.
MOTION PASSES FOR FOUR TO ONE.
ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
UM, MOVING ON TO CASE BDA 2 3 4 DASH 0 1 48 11 KELSEY ROAD, THE APPLICATION OF AARON WALWORTH, REPRESENTED BY A NEW TIM TIM ROCKER FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO DEFENSE HEIGHT REGULATIONS AND A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO DEFENSE OPACITY STANDARD REGULATIONS.
UM, WE CAN HAVE THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD AND UM, WE'LL SWEAR YOU IN AND YOU CAN STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
DO YOU SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? YES, I DO.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS BEFORE PROCEEDING.
COLLINSVILLE, CAN YOU SPEAK A LITTLE CLOSER TO THE MICROPHONE SO WE CAN HEAR YOU? YES, SORRY.
CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? SO I'LL BE QUICK.
UM, I WASN'T HERE DURING THE FULL BRIEFING, SO, UM, I JUST WONDER, JUST GIVE US YOUR ADDRESS I THINK.
I JUST DUNNO IF HE GAVE THE ADDRESS.
UM, SO I WASN'T HERE DURING THE WHOLE BRIEFING, I APOLOGIZE, BUT I JUST WANNA BE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS ON THE, UH, MATTER.
SO I BELIEVE Y'ALL HAVE THE PLANS AND EVERYTHING ON THIS FENCE.
I JUST WANNA POINT OUT THAT, UM, WE'RE JUST ASKING TO BUILD SOMETHING THAT THE NEIGHBORS ALREADY HAVE ON ALL THREE SIDES.
WE'RE JUST GONNA TIE INTO, UH, THE EXISTING FENCE.
SO THIS WOULD, THIS PROJECT WAS A DEMOLITION AND A NEW HOME, SO WE'RE JUST REBUILDING A FENCE.
SO, UM, BASED ON THE BRIEFING WE HAD, UM, THIS, THE, THE SENTIMENT AND, UM, OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES, UM, AND WHAT, WHAT EXISTS THERE ARE ACTUALLY, UM, NOT, UH, OPAQUE FENCES AND COMPLY WITH THE HEIGHT.
SO WHY IS IT IT'S, IT'S ON YOU, THE APPLICANT TO MAKE THE CASE AS TO WHY YOU WANT A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR THE FENCE HEIGHT.
'CAUSE WHAT'S ALLOWED BY RIGHT, IS FOUR FEET GRASPING FOR SEVEN, AND THEN THE FENCE STANDARDS REQUIRE, UM, A CERTAIN LEVEL OF OPACITY.
[01:25:01]
UM, FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION ON THAT AS WELL.SO CAN YOU PLEASE SPEAK TO YEAH, SURE.
SO THIS PROPERTY IS IN BETWEEN STRAIGHT LANE AND LENNOX.
UM, DO WE HAVE PICTURES OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD PROPERTY OR DO Y'ALL, SO EVERY, WE SAW 'EM THIS MORNING AND OKAY, THEY ALL HAVE FENCES, BUT THEY'RE ALL OPAQUE OR THEY'RE ALL, I MEAN, THEY'RE ALL OPEN.
THEY DON'T HAVE THE OPACITY AND THEY'RE ALL, THEY LOOK ABOUT SHORTER THAN SEVEN FEET JUST BASED ON THE PICTURES WE SAW.
SO WE'RE ASKING FOR SIX FOOT, EIGHT, SIX FOOT FENCE WITH, UH, CASTSTONE CAST CAPS, WHICH WOULD BE A SIX FOOT, UH, SEE-THROUGH FENCE EXCEPT FOR THE STUCCO COLUMN.
UM, AND THEN DRIVEWAY GATES THAT ARE SEE-THROUGH AS WELL.
SO, I MEAN, TO MY OPINION, IT MATCHES EVERYTHING THAT'S IN THAT AREA.
SO, SO YOUR APPLICATION'S ACTUALLY ASKING FOR BOARD ON BOARD AND YOUR SITE, YOUR SITE PLAN, ISN'T IT? NO.
UM, YOU SHOULD HAVE THE PLAN, WHICH, UH, WHERE YOUR APPLICATION HAS TWO AREAS ON EITHER SIDE OF THE DRIVEWAY GATES, TWO PORTIONS THAT ARE SOLID AND OKAY, GOOD, GOOD.
SO, UM, THE PROPERTY ALONG THE FRONT IS, UM, ROUGHLY A HUNDRED AND SOMETHING FEET.
SO THE WHOLE FENCING IS SEE THROUGH, EXCEPT FOR 12 STUCCO COLUMNS THAT ARE 17 INCHES WIDE.
AND THEN ALL THE PANELS IN BETWEEN ARE WROUGHT IRON, SEE-THROUGH, AND THEN TWO DRIVEWAY DOUBLE GATES.
AND THE STUCCO WALL ON EITHER SIDE OF THE DOUBLE GATES IS ONLY ABOUT FIVE FOOT WIDE.
SO IT'S ABOUT THIS WIDE ON EITHER SIDE OF THE STUCCO GATE, I MEAN EITHER SIDE OF THE SEE-THROUGH GATES.
SO THE VISUAL FROM THE STREET, YOU'LL, IT'S 90% OPEN.
IT'S NOT, UH, OBSCURING ANYTHING FROM THE QUESTION FOR STAFF.
I MEAN, IF, IF IT'S NOT, THAT'S LESS THAN 50%, IS IT BECAUSE OF THOSE PORTIONS THAT ARE COMPLETELY OPAQUE AND THAT'S WHY YOU HAVE TO, SO HE WOULD MAKE THOSE YES.
THE THE PORTIONS WITH THE WALL, THAT'S THE PORTION THAT CANNOT BE LOCATED BETWEEN THE PROPERTY LINE AND FIVE FEET INTO THE PROPERTY.
SO I'M ASSUMING THAT THOSE ARE WITHIN THAT DISTANCE? YEAH, SO THE FENCE STARTS AT 20 FOOT FROM THE PROPERTY LINE.
SO WE'RE GONNA TIE INTO THE NEIGHBOR'S FENCE, WHICH THEIR FENCE IS 20 FOOT.
WE'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT THE WALLS, NOT THE FENCE ITSELF.
SO THOSE, THAT PORTION OF THE WALL THAT IS WITHIN THE FIVE FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE, THAT CANNOT BE THERE.
IT HAS TO BE 50% OPEN, BUT THE WALL IS SOLID, SO THEREFORE YOU HAVE TO REQUEST THAT ALSO.
SO I THINK WHAT YOU'RE, THE COLUMNS ARE SOLID.
THAT'S THE NATURE OF COLUMNS, CORRECT? THE, UH, THE PANELS IN BETWEEN THE COLUMNS ARE ROD IRON, CORRECT? THEY'RE NOT IN QUESTION BECAUSE THEY ARE, YOU CAN SEE THROUGH THEM THE, THE OPACITY ISSUE IS IN THE SECTION THAT IS ADJACENT WITHIN FIVE TO SIX FEET OF THE GATE.
THAT AM I, AM I UNDERSTANDING THAT CORRECTLY? THAT'S WHERE I'M CONFUSED.
I'M, NO, I'M TRYING TO GET, MAKE SURE WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE.
THE PAST CITY QUESTION IS REGARDING THE STUCCO.
SO THE REASON WHY ONE OF THE APPLICATIONS YOU HAD TO FILE WAS, WAS FOR, UH, UM, FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION ON THE OPACITY STANDARD, JUST FOR THE, THE TWO PARTS NEAR THE GATE THAT ARE STUCCO.
BECAUSE TECHNICALLY OTHER THAN THE COLUMNS WITHIN THIS, THIS AREA, YOU ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF OPACITY.
BUT WHEN YOU IMPLEMENTED THE STUCCO COMPONENT, THAT MEANT THAT YOU NEEDED A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW IT TO HAVE LIKE YOU'RE, 'CAUSE YOU'RE NOT MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS, THE OPACITY.
SO, SO THE QUESTION WITH I HAVE WITH STAFF THOUGH, IS THE, THE APP, THE MOTION THAT I'M SEEING IN FRONT OF US, IT, UM, IF WE DO GRANT, THIS IS, UM, COMPLIANCE TO THE PASTING FENCE LOCATION REQUIREMENTS ILLUSTRATED, THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF ALL SUBMITTED PLANS ARE REQUIRED.
UM, THAT'S NOT TIED TO ELEVATIONS, BUT IF, IF THIS WAS, THIS ONE COMPONENT WAS APPROVED BASED ON THIS LANGUAGE,
[01:30:01]
DOES THIS THEN ALLOW ONLY FOR THIS OPACITY OR DOES THIS ALLOW FOR HIM TO HAVE TO GO COMPLETELY SOLID WITH THE ENTIRE FENCE? SO THE LANGUAGE WAS CHANGED FROM COMP COMPLIANCE WITH, SO FOR THE, THE HEIGHT MOTION DEALS WITH HEIGHT AND FENCE LOCATION, AND THE OPACITY MOTION DEALS WITH OPACITY AND FENCE LOCATION ILLUSTRATED IN THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF ALL SUBMITTED PLANS.SO, UH, THE REASON IT IS WORDED THAT WAY IS BECAUSE ELEVATIONS ARE CONSIDERED PART OF THE SITE PLAN OR PART OF ALL OF THE SITE PLANS.
LOCATION DEALS WITH THE PHYSICAL LOCATION OF WHERE THE FENCE IS, RIGHT? SO IF YOU GRANT OPACITY AND THE FENCE AT THAT LOCATION, THEY CAN'T COME BACK AND SAY, AND MOVE THE LOCATION OF THE FENCE.
IT'S THE EYE, BUT YOU GRANTED ME OPACITY BECAUSE IT'S TIED TO ITS LOCATION AND THE OPACITY OF IT.
IF THE HEIGHT SAYS IT'S SIX FEET AND WE, AND YOU SAY, OKAY, WE'LL GIVE YOU SIX FEET AND IT'S SIX FEET AT LOCATION A, BUT IT'S FIVE FEET OF LOCATION, BD IT'S TIED TO THOSE, I'M GONNA SAY COORDINATES.
RIGHT? AND, AND SO IT CAN'T CHANGE, CAN'T CHANGE.
SO THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION IS BASICALLY THAT THE, THE WAY THE MOTION IS DRAFTED PRESENTLY IS TO PRESERVE THOSE INDIVIDUAL THINGS, BOTH THE HEIGHT AND THE OPACITY.
SO THEY CAN'T BE TIED TO, IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT A BLANKET APPROVAL OF ANY HEIGHT OR OPACITY.
IT'S TIED TO THE EXACT LOCATIONS AND OPACITY PRECISELY WITH, WITH WHAT IS SUBMITTED TODAY.
UM, SO I GUESS JUST OTHER THAN AESTHETICS, UM, JUST TO, I MEAN I, I I THINK I JUST NEED A LITTLE BIT MORE UNDERSTANDING OF, OF WHY YOU WANT ADDITIONAL HEIGHT AND WHY YOU WANT THIS SPECIAL EXCEPTION ON THE OPACITY HERE.
UM, A LOT OF THE CONTEXT OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD HAS, UM, SECURITY THAT'S, THAT'S, UM, AND, AND KIND OF A BUFFER THAT'S CREATED WITH LANDSCAPING RATHER THAN IN AND FENCE.
BUT THE FENCES ARE HISTORICALLY THAT FOUR FOOT WITH A TALL SHRUB BASED ON WHAT, WHAT WE SAW, UM, IN THE BRIEFING TODAY.
SO ACTUALLY THEY'RE, THESE, THESE HOMES ARE, I WOULD SAY THEY START AT FIVE OR 6 MILLION A PIECE AND GO TO 20.
RIGHT? SO, UH, MOST OF THE HOMES HAVE OVER SIX FOOT FENCING, UH, IF NOT TALLER.
UM, WHAT I'M JUST ASKING TO TIE IN EXACTLY WHAT ALL THREE NEIGHBORS ON EITHER SIDE AND ACROSS THE STREET, EVERYWHERE WE CAN SEE OR HAVE THE SAME THING.
WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR, CAN WE, CAN WE PULL UP PICTURES OF THE JASON PROPERTY? AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT WE HAVE THIS BOARD NO CASE THAT'S PRECEDENT.
SO EVEN IF YOUR NEIGHBORS HAVE THAT, UM, THERE'S STILL A STANDARD HERE.
UM, BUT IF WE COULD, IF, IF POSSIBLE, WE CAN PULL UP SO WE CAN, THERE, THERE'S A REASON WHY THE DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR THIS SPECIFIC NEIGHBORHOOD HAS FOUR FOOT HIGH FENCES.
UM, AND, AND BRIDGES HAVE NOT FENCES, IF YOU WILL.
UM, BUT WE'RE GONNA GO AHEAD AND LOOK AT THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES.
SO WE'RE LOOKING EACH, SO THERE'S THE COLUMNS WITH WROUGHT IRON.
THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO.
ACROSS THE STREET, DOWN STREET, SAME AS THAT ONE.
I THINK IT WOULD ACTUALLY MAKE THE PROPERTY VALUE GO DOWN, NOT, NOT UP.
AND I'M SURE IF I WERE TO DO THAT, I WOULD HAVE NEIGHBORS THAT WOULD NOT LIKE ME IF I WERE TO PUT A FOUR FOOT FENCE AND THEY ALL HAVE SIX FOOT FENCES.
WELL, THAT THE FOUR FOOT FENCE IS WHAT, WHAT THE, THIS PARTICULAR, UM, AREA'S DEVELOPMENT CODE, UM, ALLOWS OR REQUIRES IF YOU DO PUT A FENCE.
CORRECT, WE'RE JUST ASKING TO DO THE RIGHT.
BUT IF YOU'LL NOTICE NONE OF THESE FENCES HAVE, UM, SOLID WALLS.
UM, AND ONE, AND ONE OF YOUR NEIGHBORS HAS, UM, COME FORTH AND ASKED AND STATED THAT IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, WHILE PEOPLE HAVE FENCES, THEY'RE ALL OPEN.
SO THAT STUCCO THAT YOU HAVE IS KIND OF A HARD SELL FOR THEM.
THEM, UM, I THINK JUST EYEBALLING AND I MEAN, AND THIS
[01:35:01]
WOULD BE UP TO THE APPLICANT, YOU, UM, TO LET US KNOW WHAT THOSE FENCE HEIGHTS ARE.I MEAN, TO ME THAT DOES NOT LOOK LIKE A SEVEN FOOT FENCE.
IT LOOKS MORE LIKE A FIVE OR A SIX FOOT FENCE.
I DON'T THINK IT'S A FOUR FOOT.
UM, BUT IT'S NOT SEVEN FEET UNLESS YOU HAVE OTHER DATA.
UM, BUT I, I CAN'T GO OUT THERE AND MEASURE IT.
THAT'S UP TO YOU TO BRING THAT INFORMATION TO US SO THAT WE CAN COMPARE IT.
UM, BUT YOU DO HAVE ONE OF, ONE OF OUR, THE NUMBER ONE THING FOR US TO BE ABLE TO MAKE A DECISION IS, IS IT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST? AND WE HAVE A NEIGHBOR THAT HAS STATED THAT SHE IS UNCOMFORTABLE WITH WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING.
AND SO THAT MAKES IT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST.
WE WOULD NEED YOU TO WORK WITH THE NEIGHBORS.
AND, UM, I MEAN IF YOU LOOK AT WHAT IS GOING ON IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, I DON'T SEE ANY SOLID FENCING.
UM, SO THAT MAKES IT A LITTLE BIT OF A HARD SELL.
SO I GUESS, ARE WE TALKING ABOUT TWO DIFFERENT THINGS THEN THE, BECAUSE WE HAVE THE FENCE.
YOU, YOU, YOU'VE PUT IN TWO, YOU'VE PUT IN TWO REQUESTS, ONE FOR A FENCE HEIGHT, UM, BECAUSE BY CODE YOU'RE A LOT OF FOUR FOOT FENCE.
I MEAN, YOU PUT IN A THREE FOOT VARIANCE OF A SEVEN FOOT FENCE.
AND YOUR SECOND PIECE IS FOR LESS THAN 50% OPACITY.
UM, AND YOU HAVE FOUR SECTIONS OF THE FENCE THAT HAVE LESS THAN 50% OPACITY.
SO YOU HAVE TWO APPLICATIONS THAT YOU'VE PUT FORWARD.
AND I THINK BASED ON THE LETTER FROM THE NEIGHBOR, I THINK THE BIGGEST CONCERN IS THE OPACITY.
UM, BUT LOOKING AT HEIGHT WISE, UM, YOU KNOW, IF THEY'RE ALL SIX FEET, I THINK PUTTING IN A SIX FOOT FENCE WOULD BE A GOOD NEIGHBOR.
BUT WE DO HAVE TWO APPLICATIONS, RIGHT.
SO WE COULD CONCE MAKES SENSE THAT WE YOU HAVE TWO APPLICATIONS.
WHAT WAS THE OPPOSITION REGARDING? WAS IT JUST YOUR PASTRY OR WAS IT THE HEIGHT OR WAS IT BOTH? UH, IT IS MAINLY THE HEIGHT.
SO, UH, SO THE HEIGHT IS NOT THE CONCERN HERE.
IT'S THE OPACITY, BUT THEY'RE REQUESTING TO DENY BOTH PIECES.
HAVE YOU REACHED OUT TO YOUR NEIGHBORS? I HAVE NOT, NO.
UM, I ASKED MY CLIENT TO DO THAT AND THEY HAVE NOT.
UM, I MEAN, THE HOU A HOUSE IS BEAUTIFUL.
WE UNDERSTAND KIND OF WHAT YOU WANNA DO HERE, BUT, UM, FOR US, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A COMPONENT ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND REACHING OUT, UM, IF, ESPECIALLY IF YOU'RE REQUESTING TO, TO DEVIATE FROM WHAT'S KINDA THE STANDARD, UM, WITH YOUR NEIGHBORS.
IT, IT, YEAH, IT'S HARD FOR US TO, YOU KNOW, ADHERE TO OUR STANDARD, WHICH IS, UM, NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST AND WITH A LETTER FROM A NEIGHBOR.
UM, AND THERE'S, YOU HAVEN'T REACHED OUT TO THE NEIGHBORS AT ALL.
UM, IT MAKES IT TOUGH, SO, OKAY.
I GUESS THE FENCE HEIGHT IS ON THE DRAWING, IT'S SIX FOOT EIGHT, RIGHT? SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO YEAH, I I THINK THE REQUEST IS FOR SEVEN FEET THOUGH.
THAT'S WHAT THE ACTUAL REQUEST WAS FOR, WAS FOR A SEVEN FOOT HEIGHT VARIANCE.
UM, SO I, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU INFORMATION THAT WE NEED TO MAKE DECISIONS IS, UM, THAT IT'S NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST.
AND SO YOU, IT DOES NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.
AND SO WHEN YOU HAVE A NEIGHBOR THAT IS, UM, STATING THAT IT IS ADVERSELY AFFECTING AND FROM, FROM LOOKING AT THE PICTURES, IT APPEARS THAT IT IS THAT YOU WILL HAVE AN OPAQUE FENCE, UM, THAT NO ONE ELSE HAS, UM, WHICH ADVERSELY AFFECTS NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.
UM, SO THERE, I THINK THERE'S SOME HOMEWORK THERE TO DO IF YOU'D LIKE TO GO BACK OR WE CAN, UM, WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO HOLD OVER, BUT IF, YOU KNOW, OR WE CAN MAKE A DECISION TODAY, I MEAN, THE HOMEOWNER'S NOT STUCK WITH THIS DESIGN.
HE, HE'D BE WILLING TO, TO CHANGE IT.
UM, BUT I KNOW, SO THE, THIS, THIS PERSON THAT'S OPPOSED TO THIS, THEY WOULD RATHER SEE US PUT A FOUR FOOT FENCE THAN A SIX FOOT.
I THINK THEY WOULD LIKE TO SEE A, A FENCE THAT IS SIMILAR TO WHAT IS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT IS, UM, SEE-THROUGH AND OF SIMILAR HEIGHT TO WHAT'S IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD SO THAT YOU'RE IN KEEPING WITH THE NEIGHBORS.
SO IF I POSSIBLY COULD GO BACK AND MEASURE THE NEIGHBORS AND PUT THAT EXACT DIMENSION ON THIS ONE AND TAKE THE OP, THE STUCCO WALL OFF, IS THAT, WOULD THAT BE RECOMMENDED? I THINK, I MEAN, AND I THINK WE'RE TALKING TO THE NEIGHBORS, YOU CAN TELL US, I MEAN, TO ME IT LOOKS LIKE THE HEIGHT IS A, IS COMMENSURATE WITH THE NEIGHBOR TO ME, BUT ON THAT'S JUST FROM PHOTOGRAPHS.
WE NEED SOMEONE TO KIND OF TELL US THAT.
BUT I THINK THAT IT SOUNDS LIKE IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT FOR THEM TO ARGUE THE HEIGHT IF YOU'RE IN LINE WITH EVERYBODY ELSE'S ISSUE.
BUT THE OPACITY IS NOT SOMETHING THAT'S FOUND IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
[01:40:01]
OKAY.AND WE COULD TAKE THAT OFF AND JUST MAKE THAT RIGHT IRON, I MEAN, THANK YOU.
SO I THINK THAT IF, IF KINDA WHAT, UH, VICE CHAIR GABO MENTIONED EARLIER, WE, WE ARE ONLY GIVEN THE INFORMATION THAT COMES FROM CITY STAFF BRIEFING AND THE APPLICANT.
WE CAN'T GO OUT AND DRIVE THE PROPERTY.
SO, UM, IF, IF YOU ARE CONFIDENT THAT WHAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR HERE IN TERMS OF THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR, UM, A SEVEN FOOT HIGH FENCE IS IN LINE WITH WHAT THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES ARE, WE ENCOURAGE YOU TO GO DO MEASUREMENTS AND TAKE PICTURES.
UM, AND YOU KNOW, I WOULD BE OPEN.
UM, I KNOW THERE'S NO EMOTION ON THE TABLE TO HOLDING THIS OVER TO ALLOW YOU TO DO THAT.
AND, UM, IF, IF YOU WANNA GO TO YOUR CLIENTS AND, UM, YOU KNOW, WE CAN'T TELL YOU WHAT TO DO HERE, BUT YOU KNOW, IF, IF OPACITY IS SOMETHING THAT'S NEGOTIABLE WITH YOUR CLIENTS, UM, I THINK THAT WE ARE JUST HERE TO PROTECT KIND OF THE CONTEXT OF THE NEIGHBOR AND MAKE SURE THAT WHAT YOU'RE DOING HERE DOESN'T HAVE AN ADVERSE EFFECT ON NEIGHBORING PROPERTY.
SO, UH, IF YOU THINK YOU CAN KIND OF ACHIEVE THESE AND, AND HAVE YOUR CLIENT REACH OUT TO THE NEIGHBOR OF CONCERN AND KIND OF, OR, OR, AND OR REVISE YOUR PLANS, UM, THAT ARE MORE IN LINE WITH WHAT THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES ARE, THEN I THINK THAT YOU PROBABLY HAVE A, A MORE FAVORABLE RESPONSE FROM THIS BOARD.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS ON THIS? NO, THOSE SPEAKER.
ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? DO I HAVE A MOTION? MS.
UM, SO THIS, SO WE ARE HOLDING THIS CASE OVER.
UM, THE, THE OPTION WE HAD WERE EITHER TO APPROVE, TO DENY OR HOLD OVER.
UM, IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU AND YOUR CLIENT MIGHT BE AGREEABLE TO KIND OF DO A LITTLE BIT MORE LEGWORK AND DO SOME MEASUREMENTS AND KIND OF COME BACK WITH SOMETHING THAT'S A LITTLE BIT MORE IN CONTEXT, THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND MAYBE REACH AND HOPEFULLY REACH OUT TO THAT, THAT NEIGHBOR.
SO WE'RE GIVING YOU A LITTLE BIT OF TIME, WE'RE GIVING YOU A MONTH TO DO THAT.
UM, THERE'S A, A ROOM WHERE IF YOU HAVE CHANGED THE PLANS, WE ASK THAT YOU HAVE THEM IN WITHIN, I DON'T KNOW, 10 DAYS OF THE HEARING TO STAFF FOR THEIR REVIEW.
UM, BUT THIS IS JUST GIVING YOU A LITTLE BIT MORE ROOM TO KIND OF COME BACK AND, AND DO MEASUREMENTS AND, AND SOLIDIFY YOUR CASE A LITTLE BIT MORE.
UM, MAY I ASK THE, COULD I FIND OUT THE NEIGHBORS SO I COULD TALK, WE COULD TALK TO THAT? YES.
SO, SO YOU CAN, UM, THAT'S ALL PUBLIC RECORD SO YOU CAN, UM, REACH OUT.
WELL ACTUALLY, UM, TO OUR BOARD SECRETARY, SHE CAN, UM, UH, GIVE YOU WHAT'S APPROPRIATE IN TERMS OF, UM, LETTERS OF OBJECTION SO THAT YOU CAN DO YOUR DUE DILIGENCE THERE.
I DO KNOW WE HAVE A VOTE ON THE TABLE.
UM, ANYBODY ELSE HAD ANYTHING TO SAY? NO.
SO IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, YOU KNOW, REACH OUT TO, UH, MS. WILLIAMS OR, UH, ONE OF THE, UH, CITY STAFF AND THEY'LL BE ABLE TO HELP YOU.
BD 2 2 3 DASH 1 1 2 19 14 ASHBY STREET.
UM, THIS IS THE APPLICATION OF NAI FOR A VARIANCE SIDE YARD SETBACK.
WE WILL SWEAR YOU IN, THEN YOU CAN STATE YOUR NAME AND WAIT REST OF THE RECORD.
OH, UM, WE ACTUALLY HAVE, SINCE YOU HAVE TWO APPLICATIONS, IT HOLDS OVER BOTH.
DO YOU SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? I DO.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS BEFORE PROCEEDING.
UH, 1 3 6 0 1 PRESTON ROAD, SUITE, UH, 9 3 0, DALLAS, TEXAS 7 5 2 4 0.
UM, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, UH, LAST MONTH WE CAME IN, UM, AND WE WERE SEEKING OUR ORIGINAL APPLICATION WAS SEEKING A, UH, A FIVE FOOT SIDE YARD VARIANCE, UH, AT 1914 ASHBY STREET.
UM, AT THE TIME WE DID RECEIVE OBJECTIONS FROM NEIGHBORS, UM, REGARDING THE PRIMARY ISSUE, WHICH WAS FLOODED.
UM, AND YOU ALLOWED US TO POSTPONE THE ISSUE TO NOW.
UM, SINCE THEN WE HAVE REACHED OUT, WE DID GO AHEAD AND REACH OUT TO SOME OF THE NEIGHBORS.
UM, ONE OF THE, THE BIGGEST ISSUE THAT WAS THERE, WHICH WAS THE FLOODING ISSUE.
UH, AND WE ALSO REACHED OUT AND SPOKE TO THE, UH, THE CITY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT AS WELL.
UH, ONE OF THE BIGGEST REVELATIONS WAS THAT THAT WHOLE AREA
[01:45:01]
IS LOCATED IN THE MILL CREEK FLOOD, UH, FLOOD PLAIN, UH, WHICH IS ACTUALLY AN ONGOING PROJECT THAT THE CITY'S DOING NOW TO ALLEVIATE THE, UM, UH, THE FLOODING THAT IS OCCURRING IN THAT AREA.UM, MY MY UNDERSTANDING IS, UH, THEY'RE IN, THEY'RE DOING A, UH, DRAINAGE RELIEF TUNNEL, WHICH IS SCHEDULED TO BE COMPLETED, I BELIEVE SOMETIME IN 2025, WHICH WILL ALLEVIATE 60% OF THE FLOODING THAT'S HAPPENING IN THE AREA.
UH, THIS WHOLE AREA PREVIOUSLY WAS, I GUESS A CREEK BEFORE THE DEVELOPMENT HAPPENED.
UM, AND AT THE TIME, I THINK IN THE THIRTIES, 1930S, FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, UM, THEY, THEY BASICALLY TOOK THE CREEK UNDERGROUND, RIGHT? SO WE DID UNDERGROUND TUNNELS, BUT THOSE TUNNELS WERE NOT ADEQUATE, OBVIOUSLY BASED ON WHAT'S HAPPENING IN DEVELOPMENT TODAY.
SO THIS IS NOT A QUOTE UNQUOTE, I GUESS A, A DEVELOPMENT ISSUE.
IT'S JUST A FLOOD ISSUE THAT'S HAPPENING IN THAT WHOLE AREA.
SO WE DID SPEAK TO, UM, OUR NEIGHBOR AT 1910 AT, UH, ASHBY NEXT TO US AT THE, THE, UH, SMALLER HOUSE.
AND, UH, WE, WE DID, UH, EXPLAIN THAT TO HIM.
UM, HE STILL WAS NOT HAPPY WITH IT, UM, EVEN THOUGH HE SAID THAT NO, THE DEVELOPMENT IS A RESULT OF, WE FELT LIKE IT WAS A RESULT.
THE FLOODING WAS A RESULT OF THE DEVELOPMENT.
UM, AND WE EXPLAINED THAT THAT IS NOT THE CASE, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE OF THE, THE, UM, UH, THE FLOODPLAIN THAT THE PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN.
UM, ALSO ALL NEW CONSTRUCTION IN THIS AREA IS REQUIRED TO BE UP THREE FEET ABOVE THE NEAREST INLET, WHICH WE HAVE TO COMPLY WITH WHEN WE SUBMIT OUR PLANS TO THE CITY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT.
THEY WILL NOT APPROVE OUR PLANS UNLESS WE MEET THAT STANDARD.
UM, SO HIS HOME BEING OLDER MAYBE MAY BE SUSCEPTIBLE TO, OBVIOUSLY IT'S NOT GONNA HAVE THAT SAME LEVEL OF ELEVATION.
THAT MIGHT BE SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT HE'S HAVING.
UM, IN ADDITION, OF COURSE WE'LL HAVE RETAINING WALLS AND ALL THE WATER WILL GO OUT TO THE STREET.
BUT I, AGAIN, THE BIGGEST ISSUE WAS THE FACT THAT THE CITY IS DOING SOMETHING ON, IN THIS AREA.
I THINK IT'S A $300 MILLION PROJECT THAT THEY'RE CURRENTLY DOING TO ALLEVIATE THIS ISSUE.
AND IT'S BEEN, IT'S IN THE NEWS.
I MEAN, THESE ARTICLES ON IT, UM, JUST FOR THIS WHOLE GENERAL AREA.
UH, THE OTHER ISSUE THAT WAS THERE, I BELIEVE WAS IN REGARDS TO DENSITY AND UH, UM, THE CONCERN WAS WHY ARE WE DOING FIVE UNITS? RIGHT? UM, HE FELT LIKE WE SHOULD HAVE A SINGLE FAMILY HOME, TWO HOMES.
UM, AND THE, THE ISSUE FOR US AS DEVELOPERS IS THAT, YOU KNOW, AS WE ARE SEEING LIKE MOST OTHER URBAN AREAS IN, IN, IN THE COUNTRY, UM, WE'RE SEEING AN INCREASE, SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN, IN, IN AFFORDABILITY ISSUES WITH HOUSING.
UM, SO WE FEEL LIKE DOING, YOU KNOW, SORT OF A SMALLER PRODUCT, UM, WHICH IS STILL VERY FUNCTIONAL.
UH, 1300 SQUARE FEET ON AVERAGE, UH, ALLOWS US TO BE ABLE TO ALLEVIATE SOME OF THOSE ISSUES THAT WE'RE SEEING TODAY IN TERMS OF AFFORDABILITY, ESPECIALLY IN LARGER METROPOLITAN AREAS.
AND ESPECIALLY WITH THE DIRECTION THAT THE CITY OF DALLAS AND THE AMOUNT OF PEOPLE WE'RE HAVING COMING HERE.
UM, NOT EVERYBODY CAN AFFORD SEVEN, $800,000 TARS.
I COULD BUILD THEM AND PUT THREE UNITS AND SELL 'EM FOR 800,000.
BUT WE'RE NOT ALLEVIATING A LONGER TERM ISSUE THAT THE CITY'S FACING TODAY.
AND THAT WE'RE CONTINUING TO SEE.
IN ADDITION TO THAT, OUR ACTUAL LOT COVERAGE, UM, FOR MF TWO 60% IS THE, IS IS THE MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE.
SO WE STILL ARE MEETING ACTUALLY EXCEEDING THAT, THAT STANDARD.
UM, AND THEN I THINK THE OTHER THING FOR MY NEIGHBOR WAS THE, THE NEIGHBOR, UH, FIDEL WAS THE FACT THAT HE FELT LIKE THE, THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THE SINGLE FAMILY PRODUCT, YOU KNOW, THAT WE'RE KIND OF STEPPING AWAY FROM THAT AND 'CAUSE THERE IS A LOT OF CONSTRUCTION THAT'S HAPPENING, MULTI-FAMILY AND, AND I'M SYMPATHETIC TO IT BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, I MEAN HE'S HAD THREE GENERATIONS THAT HAVE LIVED THERE AND I, AND I CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND THAT.
UM, YOU KNOW, I, SO, BUT TO, WE DID EXPLAIN TO HIM, I MEAN, IN THIS SITUATION, I, I DID ASK HIM, I SAID, TYPICALLY WHEN THESE CHANGES HAPPEN DURING ZONING, USUALLY THERE'S PUBLIC HEARINGS AND THERE'S INPUT FROM THAT.
AND I EXPLAINED TO HIM AT THE TIME, I SAID, WERE YOU ABLE TO MAYBE PARTICIPATE IN THAT? AND HIS RESPONSE WAS, YOU KNOW, WE JUST WE'RE NOT ABLE TO GET THE OUTCOME.
YOU KNOW, THE MAJORITY RULED, I GUESS THE OUTCOME.
WE WEREN'T ABLE TO GET THE OUTCOME THAT HE DESIRED BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, DALLAS WAS GOING IN A NEW DIRECTION.
SO, UM, BUT I, I FEEL LIKE WE'VE PRESENTED, YOU KNOW, EVIDENCE THAT HAS SHOWN THAT, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY WE'RE NOT CONTRIBUTING THE PLACE A BIGGER ISSUE HERE IN FROM THE, THE FLOOD CLAIM.
[01:50:01]
AND HOPEFULLY, YOU KNOW, AFTER YOU REVIEW THE EVIDENCE, YOU'LL FEEL THE SAME.UM, ARE THESE, UH, TOM, ARE THEY FOR, ARE THESE UNITS FOR SALE OR ARE THEY FOR RENT? THEY'RE GONNA BE FOR, FOR SALE? FOR SALE.
FOR SALE PRODUCT? YEAH, IT'S A CONDO.
I JUST WANT TO SPEAK, FIRST OF ALL, I KNOW THE CONCERNS THAT, UH, THE NEIGHBOR BROUGHT UP, JUST THE FACT THAT YOU, UM, DON'T REALLY SEE THIS TOO OFTEN.
BUT THE FACT THAT, UM, THE RESEARCH WAS, LOOKS LIKE YOU'VE GONE ABOVE AND BEYOND, UM, PROVIDING THE RESEARCH AS FAR AS WHAT THE CITY'S DOING AS, UM, TO THAT FLOODING ISSUE AND MAKING THAT GOOD EFFORT AS FAR AS SHARING THAT WITH, UM, I THINK IS THAT THE, WITH THE NEIGHBOR THAT WAS IN OPPOSITION OF THIS PROJECT.
SO, UM, I'M MIGHT HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS LATER ON, BUT SURE.
I THINK WE ASKED DURING BRIEFING IF WE COULD FIND, UM, IF WE CAN GET CLARITY ON LETTERS OF SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION IF SOME OF THOSE LETTERS OF OPPOSITION HAD SWITCHED TO SUPPORT OR HAD NOW MAINTAINED, UH, BECAME NEUTRAL.
SO THERE WERE SIX LETTERS OF SUPPORT AND ALL SIX OF THEM WERE NEW AND TWO, TWO OF THEM WERE OUTSIDE THE NOTIFICATION AREA.
AND THEN THE FOUR LETTERS OF OPPOSITION, THERE ARE FOUR LETTERS OF OPPOSITION.
NOW ONE OF THEM ARE NEW, BUT THERE WERE THREE FROM THE PREVIOUS HEARING AND THEN ONE NEW ONE.
UM, WERE ANY OF THOSE LETTERS OF OPPOSITION, UM, DID ANY OF THEM REACH OUT, UH, IN BETWEEN THE LAST HEARING AND THIS HEARING, UH, OF OPPOSITION? ONE, ONE DID.
SO, BUT THE, THE LETTERS, THE OTHER THREE LETTERS OF OPPOSITION, UM, WERE JUST FROM, WERE FROM THE DECEMBER HEARING, DECEMBER HEARING.
AND THEN I BELIEVE ONE OF THOSE, HE, HE SENT THE SAME EMAIL.
SO WE STILL CONSIDER THEM, UM, AS LETTERS OF OPPOSITION.
DO YOU THINK YOUR ACTIVITIES OR YOUR PRESENCE THAT'S CAUSING A PROBLEM FOR THIS, FOR YOUR NEIGHBOR? UM, DO I THINK OUR ACTIVITIES, COULD YOU ELABORATE? LIKE DO YOU THINK YOUR PRESENCE OR YOUR ACTIVITIES IN THAT, UH, SPACE YOU, YOU OCCUPY IS CAUSING A PROBLEM FOR YOUR NEIGHBOR? THAT'S, THAT'S CONCERNING? UM, I MEAN WE, WE DON'T THINK SO.
IT'S AN, ARE YOU SAYING CURRENTLY OR, OR AS IN CURRENTLY? UM, WE, WE DON'T THINK SO.
I MEAN, WE, IT'S AN EMPTY LOT CURRENTLY, SO, YOU KNOW, THERE'S, THERE'S NOTHING ON THERE.
SO, UM, WE DO HAVE NEIGHBORS FROM TIME TO TIME DUMPING STUFF OVER THE FENCE, WHICH, WHICH WE TRY AND CLEAN UP.
YOU'VE GOT A LOT OF TRASH THAT'S ACCUMULATING 'CAUSE IT'S NOT A USABLE LOT CURRENTLY IN ITS CURRENT FORMAT.
THAT'S WHY IT HASN'T BEEN DEVELOPED.
UM, SO YOU GET A LOT OF ISSUES WITH LIKE, LIKE I SAID, I THINK THERE'S A, UM, I THINK A HOUSING DEVELOPMENT BEHIND IT AND THERE'S SOME PEOPLE WHO ARE THROWING TRASH AND STUFF AND YOU KNOW, JUST SO IT, IT IS A NUISANCE ISSUE IN THAT RESPECT.
SO WE, WE THINK THAT BY US DEVELOPING THAT AND YOU HAVE THE BOARD ALLOWING US TO GO TO DO THAT, THAT WILL ERADICATE THAT ISSUE AS WELL.
UNLESS ANYBODY HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION.
IS THERE OPPOSITION? UNLESS ANYBODY HAS ANY QUESTIONS? LET'S ASK.
UM, I, I DO, I HAVE QUESTIONS.
UM, SO YOU MENTIONED THAT, UM, YOU'RE ALLOWED A LOT COVERAGE OF UP TO 60%.
WHAT MADE YOU DECIDE TO JUST DO 40% LOT COVERAGE HERE? WELL, IN TERMS OF OUR LOT COVERAGE, WE ARE LOOKING AT THE, THE, THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT, RIGHT? SURE.
'CAUSE WE HAVE A 45, UH, UH, 45 FOOT WIDE LOT.
UH, 20% IS THE DRIVEWAY, UH, SORRY, 20 FEET IS THE DRIVEWAY.
UM, AND THEN 20 FEET WIDE OR ESSENTIALLY OUR FIRST FLOOR.
UM, AND THEN WE ARE GOING 120 FEET, WHICH IS THE LENGTH OF THE BUILDING.
SO I THINK THAT WORKS OUT OKAY.
THAT GIVES US ROUGHLY I THINK 2,400 SQUARE FEET.
SO, UM, I, I DO APPRECIATE THE DUE DILIGENCE YOU'VE DONE.
I THINK SOMETIMES WITH CASES LIKE THESE, UM, IT, I THINK NEIGHBORS GET SURPRISED BY WHAT THE, UM, WHAT USE IS ALLOWED BY, RIGHT? I THINK ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU HAVE, UH, HISTORICALLY A LOT OF SINGLE FAMILY AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN A LOT OF MULTI-FAMILY POPS UP.
I CAN GET CATCHES NEIGHBORS BY SURPRISE.
UM, AND I DON'T ALWAYS KNOW IF THEY'RE OBJECTIONS ARE REALLY BASED ON THE PROJECT, BUT MORE OF THE USE.
UM, BUT THAT'S, THAT'S A USE THAT ONCE GETTING LAW BY.
UM, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT YOUR, YOUR PROPERTY IS ONE THAT'S A LITTLE BIT MORE DIFFICULT TO, TO BUILD ON JUST BECAUSE OF THE SHAPE.
UM, IT BEING MUCH SMALLER, UM, OF, OF A LOT.
SO I APPRECIATE YOUR DUE DILIGENCE AND REACHING OUT TO YOUR NEIGHBORS.
I THINK YOU REALLY TOOK, UM, INTO CONSIDERATION WHAT WE SAID AT THE LAST HEARING.
UM, AND YOU WILL NOT ALWAYS GET A HUNDRED PERCENT SUPPORT.
UM, BUT IT IS CLEAR THAT YOU HAVE DONE YOUR WORK.
UM, YOU HEARD THE, THE, UM, COMMENTS FROM THE NEIGHBORS AND CONCERNS ABOUT FLOODING.
SO I APPRECIATE YOU GOING ABOVE AND BEYOND AND ADDRESSING THESE CONCERNS WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING HERE, UM, AND REACHING OUT TO NEIGHBORS.
[01:55:01]
SO WHEN YOU SAY IT'S A 40% LOT COVERAGE, DOES THAT INCLUDE THE DRIVEWAY AND THE BUILDING? NO, WE'RE JUST SPEAKING TO, SO, SO THIS WAS TO ADDRESS, WE'RE ADDRESSING DENSITY.SO HE, 'CAUSE THAT WAS THE SECOND ISSUE WE HAD.
ONE WAS FLOODING, THE SECOND WAS THE DENSITY.
HE WAS LIKE, WELL, WHY DON'T YOU BUILD, YOU KNOW, TWO OR THREE UNITS FOR EXAMPLE.
AND I SAID, IN REALITY, IT'S THE SAME NET RESULT.
UH, THE REASON WE ARE GOING IN THIS DIRECTION IS SIMPLY BECAUSE WE'RE TRYING TO CREATE A MORE ECONOMICALLY, ECONOMICALLY ATTAINABLE PRODUCT.
UM, AND, AND I THINK WHAT WILL THE UNIT SELL FOR? UM, WE, WE ARE GONNA BE PROBABLY WITHIN THE 4 75 TO 500 RANGE.
I MEAN, WHICH AGAIN, IN URBAN, IN AN URBAN ENVIRONMENT IS, IS PRETTY TOUGH TO GET.
SO BETWEEN FOUR, WE MAY HAVE SOME UNITS STARTING OUT AT FOUR 50, BUT AGAIN, IT, IT PUTS PEOPLE MORE BECAUSE WE HAVE PRODUCT RIGHT NOW THAT WE ARE, YOU KNOW, WE'RE SELLING AT SIX, SEVEN, 800,000 AND YOU JUST DON'T HAVE THAT MUCH OF, UH, THAT MUCH THAT THAT MUCH OF A MARKET FOR IT, NUMBER ONE.
AND IT, IT DOES JUST OUTTA CUR.
HOW DOES THAT, I MEAN, I'M LIKE THE, THE SQUARE FOOTAGE PRICE, WHAT IS THE PRICE PER SQUARE FOOT FOR LIKE THIS UNIT VERSUS THE $800,000 ONES? SO FOR A 1300 SQUARE FOOT U UH, PRICE POINT, YOU'RE LOOKING ANYWHERE FROM, I MEAN ANYWHERE FROM 300 TO THREE 50, THE PRICE POINT DOESN'T CHANGE AS MUCH.
EVEN WITH A SAY A 2,500 SQUARE FOOT OR, YOU KNOW, UM, UH, UNIT YOU STILL, 'CAUSE I HAVE A UNIT FOR EXAMPLE, THAT, UH, IS 3000 SQUARE FEET, RIGHT? WHICH I COULD DO TWO UNITS LIKE THAT, 3000 SQUARE FEET.
UH, BUT THEY'RE STILL SELLING AT 3 25 TO THREE 50.
WE JUST SOLD ONE FOR MILLION AND 50.
PER SQUARE FOOT, SORRY, PER SQUARE FOOT.
SO WE'RE GOING OFF THE PER SQUARE FOOT PRICE, RIGHT? SO WE'RE USING THAT METRIC, USING THAT METRIC SO THAT THE PRICE PER SQUARE FOOT IS THE SAME FOR THESE SMALLER UNITS.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS ON THIS? NO, THE SPEAKERS.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? DO WE HAVE A MOTION? UM, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 2 3 1 1 2, UH, YES.
ON APPLICATION OF NASH CHASSIS GRANT, FIVE FOOT VARIANCE, THE SIDE YARD SETBACK REGULATIONS REQUESTED BY THIS APPLICANT BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISION TO THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE AS IT AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP TO THIS APPLICANT.
I FURTHER MOVE THAT THE FOLLOWING CONDITION BE IMPOSED TO FURTHER, FURTHER THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE.
COMPLIANCE WITH THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF ALL SUBMITTED PLANS ARE REQUIRED.
I THINK I MADE THIS MOTION BECAUSE I THINK THIS IS A CLEAR CUT, UH, CASE.
I MEAN, IT, IT MEETS ALL THREE OF THE STANDARD.
IT'S NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
I, TO ME, PUB NOT CONTRARY THE PUBLIC INTEREST DOESN'T MEAN THAT THERE'S NO ONE IN OPPOSITION.
IT MEANS THAT IT DOESN'T HURT ANYBODY.
AND THERE MAY BE PEOPLE WHO ARE IN OPPOSITION, BUT IT STILL IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
UM, IT'S NECESSARY TO PERMIT THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS LAND.
AND IT IS, THIS LAND WOULD BE UNDEVELOPABLE IF AT WITH THE, UM, NARROW WIDTH AND NOT GRANTED REALLY, THE SELF-CREATED PERSONAL HARDSHIP.
OBVIOUSLY THIS WAS IN PLACE LONG BEFORE MR. UH, NAY PURCHASED OR CHASSIS PURCHASED THE, UH, PROPERTY.
AND SO THOSE ARE THE REASONS WHY I MADE THE MOTION.
UM, I SUPPORTED THIS A, UH, THIS MOTION, UM, FOR THE REASONS THAT WERE JUST STATED, BUT IN ADDITION TO THE WORK THAT THE APPLICANT DID, UM, AND I THINK THAT THE FACT THAT THIS LAND HAS NEVER BEEN DEVELOPED ALSO SPEAKS TO THE SHAPE OF IT AND THE IRREGULAR NATURE OF IT, UM, WHICH WOULD BASICALLY REQUIRE US TO GRANT THIS NOR TO ALLOW YOU TO DEVELOP IT.
THIS, THIS NEIGHBORHOOD HAS, HAS, YOU KNOW, BEEN DEVELOPED FOR A VERY LONG TIME WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THIS PARCEL.
SO, UM, I FULLY SUPPORT THIS APPLICATION AND I APPRECIATE ALL THE WORK AND THAT YOU LISTEN TO THIS BOARD LAST, LAST, UM, MEETING, UM, AND, AND MADE THIS AN EASY DECISION FOR US.
WE'LL MOVE ON TO OUR LAST CASE OF THE DAY, WHICH IS BDA 2 3 4 DASH 0 1 18 74
[02:00:02]
TEMPLE ROAD.THIS IS AN APPLICATION OF GREGORY JURICH REPRESENTED BY KFM ENGINEERING DESIGN FOR A VARIANCE OF RIGHTY YARD SETBACK REGULATION.
UM, IF THE APPLICANT WILL COME FORWARD AND, UM, IF WE CAN, UH, SWEAR HER IN AND THEN STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.
UM, JUST WANTED TO MAKE A PUBLIC DISCLOSURE, UH, FIRST TIME I'M DOING THIS, UH, THAT I HAVE A, UM, COLLEGIATE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE APPLICANT HERE.
UH, WE'RE BOTH, UH, COLLEAGUES AT SMU GRADUATE BUSINESS SCHOOL.
SO JUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT, BUT WE DO NOT HAVE ANY FINANCIAL OR PERSONAL, UM, ATTACHMENTS TO THIS PROJECT IN WHICH WE'RE ABOUT TO HEAR.
AND, UM, YOU, YOU SHOWED ME THE CORRESPONDENCE EARLIER AND IT HAD NOTHING SUBSTANTIAL TO DO WITH THE CASE, SO IT DOESN'T NEED TO BE TURNED OVER TO THE BOARD.
DO YOU SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? I DO.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS BEFORE PROCEEDING.
UM, ADDRESS 1707 MARKETPLACE BOULEVARD IN IRVING, TEXAS, 7 5 0 6 3.
UM, I AM REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT, WHICH IS LENNAR HOMES, AND I WANTED TO GIVE SOME BACKGROUND OF KIND OF HOW WE GOT TO WHERE WE ARE TODAY.
UM, THIS IS A PROPERTY THAT WE ACQUIRED FROM THE DEVELOPER, WHICH IS WILDWOOD.
WE DID NOT DEVELOP THESE LOTS.
WE'RE SIMPLY BUILDING THESE HOMES.
SO PHASE ONE WAS DONE IN 2005.
LENNAR WAS NOT THE BUILDER AT THAT TIME, AND WE RECENTLY ACQUIRED PHASE TWO AND PHASE THREE, UM, IN 2023.
SO WE PURCHASED, UM, THE LOTS IN MAY AND STARTED CONSTRUCTION OF 1874 TEMP IN JUNE.
UM, THIS WAS GONNA BE THE MODEL HOME.
SO THIS IS THE FIRST FOUND FOR THE FIRST HOME THAT WE STARTED IN ANTICIPATION FOR THAT.
UM, AT THAT TIME WHEN WE STARTED, OUR CONSTRUCTION MANAGER MENTIONED THAT THE INSPECTOR DID NOTE THAT THERE WAS A LITTLE BIT OF CONFUSION ON THE SETBACKS BECAUSE OUR FINAL PLAT DID NOT NOTE ANY TYPE OF SETBACKS.
UH, WE DISCUSSED WITH THE ENGINEER WHO WAS DES ENGINEERING AT THAT TIME, AND HE SAID THAT THAT WAS A, A CITY COMMENT.
WHEN THEY GOT THOSE PLANS APPROVED, THAT SETBACKS WERE NOT NOTED ON THE FINAL PLATT.
SO, UM, EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS A LITTLE BIT CONFUSION, HE STILL GAVE US, OR HE GAVE OUR CONSTRUCTION MANAGER A VERBAL GO AHEAD.
AND IT WAS AN INTERIM, UM, INSPECTOR FOR STEVE CUNNINGHAM AND THIS WAS AROUND JUNE.
SO OUR CONSTRUCTION MANAGER, THEY POURED THE FOUNDATION, WE CONTINUED AND IN AUGUST OF 25, OR AUGUST 25TH IS WHEN WE RECEIVED ANOTHER, ANOTHER NOTICE FROM A DIFFERENT INTERIM CITY INSPECTOR THAT SAID THAT WE HAD TO COMPLETELY HALT CONSTRUCTION.
AND THAT'S WHERE THE HOME STANDS TODAY.
UM, ON LITTLE TO TOUCH ON THAT LITTLE, THE SETBACK ISSUE AND IT, IT'S A LITTLE BIT CONFUSING BECAUSE PHASE ONE DOES NOT HAVE THE BLOCK BASE CONTINUITY REQUIREMENT.
SO THEIR CORNER SETBACKS ARE 15 FEET WIDE BASED OFF OF THE PLATS THAT WE HAD FOR PHASE ONE.
BUT ON PHASE TWO AND PHASE THREE, WHICH IS WHERE WE'RE BUILDING IT NOTED 20 FOOT.
AND THAT IS SINCE WE ENCOUNTERED THIS ISSUE WITH THIS HOME, EVERY SINGLE OTHER CORNER LOT HAS BEEN ADDRESSED AND WE'RE FOLLOWING THAT 20 FOOT SETBACK.
BUT THIS HOME WAS ALREADY THREE HOMES OR THREE MONTHS INTO THE BUILDING BY THE TIME WE FOUND OUT THAT IT WAS NOT IN COMPLIANCE OF, UH, THAT SETBACK.
SO, UM, AT THAT TIME, SO WE DID GET WITH THE, THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT FOR THE CITY OF DALLAS TRYING TO CONFIRM, GET IT SET IN WRITING THAT IT WAS FOR SURE 20 FOOT.
UM, AND AT THAT TIME WE GOT IT CONFIRMED AND THAT'S WHEN WE SUBMITTED THIS REQUEST FOR THE VARIANCE SIMPLY BECAUSE THE, THE HOME IS ABOUT 90% COMPLETE.
WE HAVE OPENED FOR SALE, WE ENDED UP BUILDING ANOTHER MODEL HOME ACROSS THE STREET AND WE'RE SELLING FROM THERE TODAY.
WE OPENED FOR SALE ABOUT TWO MONTHS AGO, BUT THIS ONE, IT'S THE HOME IS JUST, IT'S SITTING THERE UNTIL WE FIGURE OUT WHAT TO DO NEXT, JUST SIMPLY BECAUSE THE HOME'S ALREADY BUILT.
SO I AM HERE FOR ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.
UH, THIS IS MAYBE THE FIRST TIME THIS HAS HAPPENED ON OUR END, SO NOT A GOOD POSITION TO BE IN.
SO YOU SAID YOU STARTED CONSTRUCTION AND YOU, YOU TOOK OVER IN MAY AND STARTED THE CONSTRUCTION IN JUNE.
AND FROM JUNE TO AUGUST 25TH, YOU HAD THAT MUCH COMPLETED ON THE HOUSE.
OUR CYCLE TIME IS 90 DAYS ON HOMES, SO WE'RE A PRODUCTION HOME BUILDER.
UH, THE MODEL HOME, USUALLY WE CAN GET IT DONE IN ABOUT TWO TO THREE MONTHS.
[02:05:01]
SO THAT'S WHY THAT ONE WAS SO FAR ALONG.SO IF YOUR, UM, CYCLE TIME IS 90 DAYS, UM, AND YOU WERE ESSENTIALLY CONFIRMED THAT YOU, UM, WERE HAD BUILT HIM A SETBACK, WHY NOT BETWEEN AND AUGUST 25TH? WHY NOT JUST, WHY NOT JUST TEAR IT ON THE HOUSE AND REPORT AND START OVER? UM, 'CAUSE YOU WOULD'VE ALREADY HAD IT, YOU WOULD'VE ALREADY HAD IT DONE AND THEN BEEN IN COMPLIANCE BECAUSE BY AUGUST 25TH, 'CAUSE WE'RE NOW, WE'RE NOW WHAT, 120 DAYS ABOUT THAT? CORRECT.
SO THAT'S BEEN THE STRUGGLE INTERNALLY, IT'S, WE'RE BEING A CORPORATE BUILDER THAT DECISION'S A LITTLE BIT HARDER TO TAKE.
AND THE FIRST THING THAT THE CONSTRUCTION TEAM CAME TO US IS, GUYS WE MESSED UP.
CAN YOU GUYS HELP US FIX THIS? AND THAT'S MAYBE THAT'S LIKE THE LAST RESORT OPTION TO TEAR DOWN THE HOME.
UM, I KNOW FINANCIAL DON'T REALLY WANNA GO INTO THAT A LOT 'CAUSE I KNOW THAT THAT'S NOT REALLY A, A GOOD TOPIC TO DISCUSS, BUT WE HAVE SPENT ABOUT 90% OF THAT.
SO WE'RE GONNA TEAR IT DOWN AND BUILD IT RIGHT BACK UP.
AND THE VALUE OF THESE HOMES IS DEFINITELY MORE ON THE AFFORDABLE END.
WE'RE SELLING FROM 226,000 TO 259,000.
UM, THIS IS JUST, WE KNOW THAT THERE'S A NEED IN THESE AREAS FOR MORE AFFORDABLE HOMES.
WE DON'T HAVE ANY TYPE OF GRANT OR ANYTHING.
SO THIS IS ALL LENNAR, UH, OR LE NOT FUNDED AND WE'LL MAKE THAT DECISION IF THAT'S WHAT IT COMES TO.
IT'S JUST WE HAVE NOT WANTED TO TAKE THAT, THAT DECISION YET.
UM, ARE THERE ANY CONCERNS WITH GRADING OR OTHER ISSUES THAT MIGHT AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES WITH THE FACT THAT THIS IS BUILT WITHIN A SETBACK? IT'S A QUESTION FOR STAFF.
I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE IMPACT COULD BE ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES.
SO BASED ON THIS PARTICULAR LOT, IT APPEARS THAT THE GRADING, UM, WAS ON A CORNER LOT.
SO THEREFORE IF THERE WAS A SLOPE IT WOULD BE SLOP INTO THE STREET.
AND A FURTHER QUESTION WITH THAT, SINCE WHAT THIS IS, UH, WHAT A FOOT AND EIGHT INCHES WOULD THAT GRADING, WOULD THAT ADVERSELY EFFECT RUN OFF INTO THE, THE STREET? UH, POTENTIALLY IT COULD.
I MEAN, UH, THAT'S AN ENGINEERING QUESTION, UM, THAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO ASK ENGINEERING.
IN TERMS OF THE GRADING, I MEAN TYPICALLY WE JUST SAY LOT TO LOT.
SO THE COMPANY WOULD BE ABLE TO BE ABLE TO TELL YOU IF THAT ADDITIONAL FOOT EIGHT INCHES THAT THEY'VE LOST, HOW DID THEY GRADE THE LOT, HOW DID THEY OVERCOME THAT LOSS OF ONE FOOT EIGHT INCHES.
SO THAT MAY BE A QUESTION BETTER TO ASK THE APPLICANT.
UM, I'LL REDIRECT THAT QUESTION TO THE APPLICANT AS FAR AS, UM, YEAH, I WOULD LIKE DAVID TO SPEAK ABOUT THIS.
DAVID, YOU'LL NEED TO BE SWORN IN AND THEN STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
MY ADDRESS IS 35 0 1 OLYMPUS BOULEVARD IN DALLAS.
DO YOU SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? I DO.
UM, I I WOULD JUST LIKE TO KNOW I AM AN APPLICANT AND WE'LL BE HERE FOR QUESTIONS AS WELL.
UM, BUT AS IN REGARD TO ANY ADDITIONAL RUNOFF, UH, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE, THE REQUEST IS FOR A REDUCTION IN FRONT YARD SETBACK, BUT THAT IS, IT'S BASED OFF THE BLOCK CONTINUITY.
SO THE, THIS IS ACTUALLY THE SIDE YARD OF THE LOT.
SO INSTEAD OF 20 FOOT, WE'RE UP ONE FOOT EIGHT INTO IT.
NOW, UH, WHAT WAS STATED IS CORRECT RUNOFF FROM THAT SIDE OF THE STREET DOES FLOW IN, UH, DOES FLOW INTO THE STREET NOT ONTO A NEIGHBORING PROPERTY.
SO THE AMOUNT OF RUNOFF IS THE SAME AS IT WOULD BE.
UM, IT'S NOT DIRECTED, NO, THERE'S NO LOT DRAIN ALLOWED.
SO THERE'S NO ISSUE WITH ANY TYPE OF RUNOFF.
AND THAT ANSWERS MY QUESTION AND I DON'T KNOW IF THIS QUESTION IS SHOULD BETTER ANSWERED BY STAFF OR THE APPLICANT.
BUT WHEN THIS, REMIND ME AGAIN THE ACRONYM THE UH, C IT'S NOT AN S-E-P-C-U-D WAS DEVELOPED, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT IS DEVELOPED WITH THE DEVELOPER AND THE CITY WORKING TOGETHER? IS IT IS SOMETHING THAT IS APPLIED TO THIS WITHOUT THE DEVELOPER'S INPUT? HOW IS, HOW IS THIS, HOW DID WE GET TO THIS SET OF RULES THAT ARE IN PLACE HERE? SO AS EXPLAINED EARLIER, THE CUD IS TO OVERCOME.
UH, SO IN THEORY THEY WOULD'VE HAD TO ZONE THIS R FIVE BECAUSE OF THE LOT SIZE.
SO BY THEM ZONING IT R SEVEN FIVE, WHICH IS WHAT IT CURRENTLY IS, AND THE LOTS ARE REDUCED, THEY ALLOW FOR APPLICANTS TO HAVE A REDUCED SIDEY YARD SETBACK AND SAY TYPICALLY IT'S AN AGREED UPON AMOUNT.
UH, THE DEVELOPER DOES IT IN THE BEGINNING AND IN THIS CASE, WHOMEVER PURCHASED IT FROM THE ORIGINAL DEVELOPER WOULD HAVE TO
[02:10:01]
KNOW AND UNDERSTAND WHAT THOSE UH, AGREEMENTS WERE.SO THEY'RE ON THE PLA FOR THE ORIGINAL, UH, SUBDIVISION WHEN IT WAS ALL, UM, ORIGINALLY LAID OUT.
THE CUD UH, INFORMATION WOULD BE ON THERE, LIKE WHAT IT WAS REDUCED DOWN TO.
UM, I DO WANNA ADDRESS THOUGH THAT THE CONTINUITY, UH, OR THE BLOCK FACE, UM, WAS NEVER SOMETHING THAT WAS IGNORED.
SO IN TERMS OF STATING THAT THE CONTINUITY WAS NOT A PART OF, UH, PHASE ONE CONTINUITY IS A PART OF EVERY PHASE.
AND SO YOU STATED THAT WHEN YOU HAD THE ORIGINAL PLANS IT DIDN'T HAVE THE 20 FOOT SETBACK, SO CORRECT.
SO DO YOU HAVE A COPY OF THOSE PLANS THAT SHOW THAT IT DOESN'T HAVE IT? I HAVE A PLOT THAT SHOWS THE 15 ON THE SIDE AND 20 ON THE FRONT AND IT'S ON OUR PLOT.
THAT'S FOR PHASE TWO AND THREE.
I COULD PULL IT UP AND FORWARD IT, WE CAN SHARE THE SCREEN WITH THE ORIGINAL SET OF PLANS THAT WERE APPROVED SHOWING THAT THE ORIGINAL SET OF PLANS WERE APPROVED AT 20 FOOT THREE INCHES AND THEN IT WAS JUST OVERBUILT.
OH, CAN WE, THE PLANS THAT WOULD BE FOR THE CONS FOR THE BUILDERS THAT ARE OUT THERE SHOWED THE 20 FOOT AND THE PLANS ARE APPROVED.
CAN WE PULL THOSE UP? CAN WE SEE THE PLANS THAT WERE APPROVED THAT WOULD'VE BEEN ON THE CONSTRUCTION SITE WITH THE BUILDER? SHE'S GETTING TO DO IT NOW.
DOES THIS, THIS MAY BE A SILLY QUESTION, BUT DOES THIS, THE FACT THAT IT WAS BUILT UM, WITHIN THE SETBACK BY ONE POINT, UH, 1.8 INCHES, DOES THIS CHANGE THE LOT SIZE AT ALL OR IS IT JUST BUILT WITHIN THE SETBACK? OKAY.
IT JUST IDENTIFIES AS IT'S, UH, WITHIN THE SETBACK.
AND YOU CAN SEE UP ON THE SCREEN.
UM, AND SO WHO, WHO SUBMITTED THESE PLANS? THE BUILDING PERMIT? THIS WOULD'VE BEEN NAR THAT'S, THAT'S Y'ALL RIGHT? THAT'S ME.
SO WHAT THERE, WHAT STAFF IS SAYING IS Y'ALL SUBMITTED PLANS IN THAT WERE USER COMPLIANT, CORRECT? YES.
IF YOU, CAN YOU BLOW UP ON THE LEFT A LITTLE BIT MORE.
SO I SEE 20, SO YOU HAD EVEN A LITTLE BIT OF GRACE HERE WITH THE SETBACK.
BUT THAT'S BUT WHAT THE, WHAT IS BEING PRESENTED IN FRONT OF US IS THAT Y'ALL HAD TO PLAQUE THAT DIDN'T HAVE A SETBACK THAT WAS 20 FEET, IT WAS 15, BUT YET YOU HAVE PLANS SUBMITTED HERE THAT ARE COMPLIANCE.
YEAH, THE ISSUE WAS THAT WHEN IT WAS ONSITE, WHEN WE WERE GETTING READY TO, FOR THE FOUNDATION, THEY, I TALKED TO MY CONSTRUCTION MANAGER 'CAUSE I WAS ALSO TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THIS 'CAUSE IF WE HAVE PERMITS, USUALLY THE CONSTRUCTION TEAM FOLLOWS BUILDING PERMIT 'CAUSE THAT IS WHAT'S APPROVED FROM THE CITY AND IT WAS POURED IN THE WRONG PLACE.
AND AT THAT TIME ALSO THE CITY INSPECTOR DID NOT CATCH IT.
WE CONTINUED AND THEN WE GOT TO AUGUST 25TH WHEN IT WAS OFFICIALLY CAUGHT AND THAT'S WHEN WE HALTED CONSTRUCTION.
IT'S NOT REALLY ON CITY STAFF 'CAUSE Y'ALL FILED THE PLANS THAT HAVE IT COMPLIANT, UM, SHOULD BE BUILT BASED ON WHAT'S APPROVED.
HAD Y'ALL SUBMITTED PLANS THAT WERE, YOU KNOW, KNOW 15 FOOT SET BACK MM-HMM
YEAH, IT'S A TOUGH SITUATION 'CAUSE YOU'RE 95% BUILT.
BUT THEN AGAIN YEAH, YOU KNOW, WE'RE HERE AND IT IS A SELF-CREATED HARDSHIP AND YOU KNOW, Y'ALL ARE BUILDING A LOT OF PROPERTIES.
SO THE QUESTION IS, IS YOU KNOW, THE PLANS ARE APPROVED, Y'ALL HAVE THE PLANS, WHAT'S TO SAY? IT DOESN'T HAPPEN AGAIN THAT Y'ALL ARE NOT BUILDING BASED ON DEVELOPMENT CODE AND PLANS ARE ARE APPROVED BY THE CITY.
YEAH, IT'S A VERY EXPENSIVE MISTAKE.
IT'S DEFINITELY, AND I AGREE, I WE ARE FOLLOWING THOSE PLANS ON SITE.
WE GIVE THEM TO OUR TEAM AND THEN THEY'RE THE ONES THAT EXECUTE.
AND TO GET THOSE COS AND TO GET TO BE ABLE TO SELL THESE HOMES, WE DO HAVE TO GO THROUGH ALL OF THIS.
AND IT DOES GET VETTED AT THE VERY END.
BUT IN THIS CASE IT WAS A LITTLE BIT TOO LATE.
AND YEAH, IT GOT TO WHERE WE ARE TODAY.
IT'S ALSO A FACTOR OF, YOU KNOW, Y'ALL ARE SELLING A GREAT PRODUCT AND AN AFFORDABLE PRICE POINT, BUT LITTLE ERRORS LIKE THIS, YOU KNOW, WHO'S EVER BUYING IT NEEDS TO HAVE CONFIDENCE THAT Y'ALL CAN BUILD IN A WAY THAT'S, YOU KNOW, THAT'S COMPLIANT WITH THE CITY.
AND Y'ALL HAVE AN ATTENTION TO DETAIL.
RIGHT? JUST SLOWING DOWN A LITTLE BIT AND MAKING SURE WHAT YOU'RE BUILDING IS, IS COMPLIANT.
[02:15:01]
ONLINE? NO, THE SPEAKERS, DO I HAVE A MOTION MS SIGN? I MOVE TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER BD 2 3 4 DASH ZERO ONE ON APPLICATION OF JOHN DOE DENY THE VARIANCE TO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK REGULATIONS REQUESTED BY THIS APPLICANT WITHOUT PREJUDICE BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND THE TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF PROVISION OF DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD NOT RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP TO THIS APPLICANT WITHOUT, OKAY, I'M I'LL SECOND THAT.SO WE'RE IN A TOUGH PLACE HERE.
UM, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T HAVE A LUXURY OF, OF KIND OF DEVIATING OUTSIDE OF THE STANDARD AND UNFORTUNATELY THIS IS A SELF-CREATED HARDSHIP.
UM, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE TO PROTECT THE CONSUMER.
WE HAVE TO PROTECT THE DEVELOPMENT CODE.
UM, YOU KNOW, I WISH Y'ALL WEREN'T 95% BUILT HERE.
UM, BUT I, I REALLY COULD NOT FIND ANY WAY TO, TO GET AROUND, UM, DENYING THIS.
UM, SEEING AS A SELF-CREATED, YOU KNOW, Y'ALL HAVE APPROVED PLANS HERE, UM, AND PERMITS WITH A, WITH A COMPLIANCE SETBACK.
AND UNFORTUNATELY MEASUREMENTS WERE THE ERROR HERE.
UM, THAT, THAT'S KIND OF WHERE I'M AT.
YOU KNOW, FORTUNATELY FOR Y'ALL, UM, IT'S AN UNFORTUNATELY FOR Y'ALL, IT'S AN EXPENSIVE MISTAKE, BUT FORTUNATELY FOR Y'ALL, Y'ALL, YOUR TURNAROUND TIME IS 90 DAYS.
SO, UM, YOU KNOW, BUT I DID GIVE YOU A LITTLE GRACE HERE WITH DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE THAT IF, IF ANY CIRCUMSTANCES CHANGES, YOU CAN COME AND WE'RE NOT HOLDING YOU, UM, TO, TO NOT COME UP ON BOARD FOR TWO YEARS.
I'M SYMPATHETIC AT THAT'S A MISTAKE, BUT IT'S, UH, IT'S HARD TO SQUARE GRANTING THIS WHEN IT'S PRETTY CLEAR THAT THIS IS SELF-CREATED HARDSHIP.
UM, I, YEAH, I JUST HAVE A COMMENT THERE.
UM, I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THIS MOTION.
I UNDERSTAND THE POINT WHERE MY COLLEAGUES ARE COMING FROM, UM, BUT ALSO JUST THE, AND I GET YES, OUR STANDARDS FOR, UM, EITHER PROVE OR DENYING, BUT THIS IS SOMETHING JUST HEARING THE BACKGROUND STORY AS TO HOW WE ARE AT THIS CASE NOW.
THAT YES, IT IS A VERY EXPENSIVE MISTAKE.
UM, BUT I BELIEVE THAT THIS WAS MORE AN ERROR OF PROBABLY A SUBCONTRACTOR, UM, FOR A FOOT AND EIGHT INCHES.
BUT JUST, UM, SHARING MY, MY REASON AS TO WHY I'LL BE VOTING AGAINST THIS MOTION AND SYMPATHETIC TO YOUR CAUSE AND UNDERSTAND THAT, UM, YOU'RE 95%
UM, BUT FOR ONE, 1.5 WEEKS, UM, DIFFERENCE OR OUTLINE, IT'S, YEAH, THE CHALLENGES IS THE CITY AND THE APPLICANT WERE ON THE SAME PAGE IN TERMS OF THE PERMITS THAT WERE, WERE AWARDED BASED ON THE SITE PLANS.
AND WE CAN'T BE A CITY THAT ALLOWS AND, AND SIGNS OFF ON PERMITS AND THE, THE DEVELOPER BUILDS SOMETHING OTHER THAN WHAT BOTH PARTIES HAVE AGREED TO.
AND SO THIS IS PROTECTING DEVELOPMENT CODE, IT'S PROTECTING THE CONSUMER THAT'S BUYING THIS PRODUCT.
UM, AND WE, WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THOSE DEVELOPING WITHIN THE CITY BUILD TO THE STANDARD THAT'S AGREED UPON ON BEHALF OF THE CITY, THE CITIZENS AND THE DEVELOPING CODE.
WELL, HOLD ON, JUST TO BACK UP HERE IS CAN I ASK ONE MORE QUESTION OF THE APPLICANT OR IS THAT PERIOD OF OKAY.
WELL IN THAT CASE, UM, THEN I WOULD RESERVE MY COMMENT.
ONE, ONE FOOT EIGHT INCHES IS NOT A LOT, BUT AT THE SAME POINT IT'S, IT'S PRETTY CUT AND DRY, I THINK STANDARD FOR THE VARIANCE IS NOT MET.
AND SO SUPPORT SUPPORTED, I AM STILL A LITTLE SYMPATHETIC, PATHETIC TOWARDS THEN BECAUSE, UM, THIS IS NOT ONLY THE BUILDING, THEY, THE ONLY BUILDING THEY HAVE, THEY HAVE SEVERAL BUILDINGS THAT HAVE COME ALONG.
SO FOR THIS TO BE THE ONLY OUTLIER, I FEEL THAT THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT SHOULD BE GIVEN TO THE DEVELOPMENT.
AND NOW, OKAY, NOW I'M COMING BACK HERE.
SO POINT C HERE, NOT GRANTED TO RELEASE, SELL, CREATE A PERSONAL HARDSHIP.
MY UNDERSTANDING OF THIS, IF WE'RE GOING DOWN TO THE
[02:20:01]
LANGUAGE HERE, IS THAT THE HARDSHIP WAS REALLY CREATED BY, AND I'M GONNA JUST MY KNOWLEDGE OF CONSTRUCTION BY SURVEYOR WHO YES, THEY HAD THE PLANS ON SITE, BUT THROUGH EITHER THESE QUICK CYCLE TIMES OR JUST PROFESSIONAL ERRONEOUS ACTIVITIES LATE JUST LAID OUT THE FOUNDATION INCORRECTLY.SO WOULD IT BE FAIR TO SAY THAT THIS HARDSHIP WAS NOT CREATED BY THE BUILDER ITSELF, BUT ONE OF THEIR SUBCONTRACTORS, WHICH THEN WOULD, DOES THAT MAKE THAT SELF-CREATED? SO THE ANSWER IS YES TO ALL YOUR QUESTIONS.
SO EVEN THOUGH IT'S YOUR SUBCONTRACTOR, YOU TAKE AGENCY OVER THEM, IT'S STILL YOUR RESPONSIBILITY.
SO IT WOULD, IT'S UP THE BOARD TO DETERMINE WHETHER IT'S SELF-CREATED.
BUT IN THAT SCENARIO, YOU HAVE LAID OUT.
YEAH, AND IT'S JUST LIKE, UM, UH, THE VANESSA CASE MM-HMM
SO I MEAN YOU EVEN IF, EVEN IF THIS PLAN DIDN'T SHOW 20 FEET AND THEY BUILT OVER, UM, IT COULD STILL BE ARGUED THAT YOU HAVE TO, I MEAN, THAT, THAT'S THE ESCO CASE TO A T WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, IT'S ON THE, ON THE PERSON THAT OWNS THE LOT THAT HAS TO LIVE UP TO THE STANDARD.
AND I, I APPLAUD THE APPLICANT FOR, FOR CREATING AND OFFERING NEW AFFORDABLE HOMES.
BUT ALSO WHEN YOU HAVE A 90 DAY TURNAROUND, THEY'RE, YOU'RE, YOU'RE, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S LIKE A RUBBER STAMP.
YOU'RE, YOU'RE, YOU KNOW, YOU ARE GONNA HAVE ERRORS, BUT THIS WILL ALLOW THEM TO SLOW DOWN ON THE REMAINING HOUSES THEY'RE BUILDING AND THEY CAN GET CREATIVE.
THEY CAN LIFT THE HOUSE UP BEFORE THE FOUNDATION AND MOVE IT OVER.
IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THEY NECESSARILY HAVE TO JUST TEAR EVERYTHING DOWN, BUT THEY, THIS IS SELF-CREATED.
UM, THE PLANS WERE, WERE APPROVED, THE PERMIT WAS APPROVED BY THE CITY AND THE APPLICANT BASED ON WHAT THEY, THE CITY THOUGHT THEY WERE GONNA BUILD.
AND THAT'S NOT WHAT THE, THE CITY HAS RECEIVED.
UH, MY ARGUMENT WILL STILL REST ON THE DEVELOPMENTS THAT I SEE THERE.
AND THE PREMISE OF MY ARGUMENT WILL BE AGAIN ON THE FACT THAT LAND MOVES FROM TIME TO TIME.
SO IF WE'RE ARGUING ABOUT, UH, ONE AND A HALF FEET LAND CAN ALWAYS MOVE AND ONCE IT MOVES, IT CAN REALLY ALIGN WITH WHAT WE ARE LOOKING ABOUT.
THEY, THEY WERE GIVEN PLANS THAT WERE APPROVED BASED ON THE SETBACK.
SO THE, THEY, YOU KNOW WHAT, THEY CAN GO AFTER THE, THE SUBCONTRACT TO THE BOARD THIS AND, AND SEEK RAMIFICATIONS.
BUT THEY NEED TO BE IN COMPLIANCE.
THIS WHAT THEY WERE APPROVED IS NOT WHAT THEY BUILT.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, SCOTT? ALL RIGHT.
MOTION OF THE MOTION PASSES? THREE.
THIS MEETING IS ADJOURNED AT 3:24 PM