[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