[00:00:01]
I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND START.WE'RE GONNA START WITH THE ROLL CALL.
COMMISSIONER BLAIR IS IN THE ROOM.
WE DON'T SEE OUR FOLKS ONLINE.
ARE THEY ON, DO WE HAVE FOLKS ONLINE OR OUR FOLKS ONLINE ARE JUST COMING UP HERE.
MR. HELM, ARE WE RECORDING? SIR, WE ARE RECORDING.
UH, DO WE HAVE ANY COMMISSIONERS ONLINE THAT YOU CAN SEE? COMMISSIONER HAWK, TREADWAY, AND VICE CHAIR RUBIN? NO.
[BRIEFINGS]
UH, WE'RE GONNA GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED.THIS IS THE BRIEFING OF THE DALLAS CITY PLAN COMMISSION.
TODAY IS THURSDAY, MARCH 7TH, 2024, 9:07 AM AS ALWAYS, COMMISSIONERS.
UH, WE'LL KEEP ALL OUR COMMENTS AND CONCERNS FOR THE BRIEFING THIS AFTER FOR THE HEARING THIS AFTERNOON.
UH, ONE QUICK NOTE ON THE AGENDA.
THE, UH, FORWARD DALLAS BRIEFING, UH, WILL BE HELD AT THE END OF THE HEARING.
UH, I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE PLENTY OF TIME FOR DISCUSSION AND, AND QUESTIONS FROM, UH, FROM COMMISSIONERS.
SO THE FIRST ITEM, WE WILL PUSH IT ALL THE WAY BACK TO THE END OF THE HEARING, UH, THIS AFTERNOON.
UH, AND WITH THAT, WE DO HAVE TWO, UH, SETS OF MINUTES TO APPROVE.
AND BEFORE WE GET STARTED, UH, WE DO NEED A VICE CHAIR TO BE IN THE ROOM, IN THE CHAMBER.
SO COMMISSIONER HERBERT HAS GRACIOUSLY AGREED TO SERVE AS VICE CHAIR TODAY, BUT I NEED A MOTION.
THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER HAMPTON FOR YOUR MOTION.
AND COMMISSIONER CARPENTER FOR YOUR SECOND.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.
WE'LL GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED WITH ITEM NUMBER TWO, MS. GOOD MORNING EVERYONE.
LET ME KNOW WHEN YOU CAN SEE MY POWERPOINT.
CAN YOU HOLD ONE MOMENT PLEASE? I JUST WANNA CONFIRM THAT THE MEETING IS BEING RECORDED.
IT'S A REQUEST FOR A NEW DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A MULTIFAMILY.
UM, IT'S WITH, IT IS THE, UH, AREA REQUEST IS 2.948.
UM, IT IS IN PD 5 82 SOUTH SUB DISTRICT VICTORY, VICTORY PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT.
AND IT DOES HAVE A PRELIMINARY PLAT ON THE PROPERTY.
IT'S LOCATED ON THE WEST LINE OF VICTORY AVENUE BETWEEN MUSEUM WAY AND HIGH MARKET STREET.
THE PURPOSE OF THE REQUEST IS TO ALLOW FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A MULTI-FAMILY.
UM, THE ORIGINAL REQUEST WAS 28 STORIES, BUT DUE TO BUDGET, THE, THE APPLICANT AND THE OWNER, UH, DECIDE TO REDESIGN AND DROP IT DOWN TO 23 STORIES TALL.
SO THE CASE REPORT DOES SAY 2328 STORIES, BUT IT IS 23 AND IT'S SHOWN ON THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
UM, AND IT'S ALSO GONNA HAVE 479 UNITS AND THEN ABOVE GROUND, UH, PARKING GARAGE.
UM, I'VE ADDED THIS SECTION OF THE CODE THAT STATES THAT THERE'S NO MAX STRUCTURE AND IT CAN BE BUILT AT ANY HEIGHT.
SO THE, THE APPLICATION IS STILL IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CODE.
HERE'S THE AREA VIEW OF THE PROPERTY, HERE'S THE ZONING MAP.
HERE IS THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN WITH THE PROPERTY HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW.
[00:05:01]
IS THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PLAN OF THE PROPERTY.HERE'S ENLARGED DEVELOPMENT PLAN OF THE PROPERTY AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL.
COMMISSIONER HAMPTON? THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
UM, MS. BLUE, THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION AND CLARIFICATION ON THE NUMBER OF STORIES.
UM, IN THE DIAGRAM THAT YOU SHOWED ON THE AREA, IS IT CORRECT THAT THE ACTUAL DEVELOPMENT PARCEL, UM, EXTENDS TO AN INTERNAL DRIVE WITHIN THAT OVERALL PARCEL? IT'S ONLY THE EXISTING SURFACE PARKING LOT THAT'S BEING REDEVELOPED.
SO YOU STAND RIGHT HERE AT THE SOUTH OF THE PROPERTY? YES, MA'AM.
IT USED TO BE HIGH MARKET STREET THAT GOT ABANDONED, AND SO IT'S NOW PRIVATE PROPERTY AND THEY DO HAVE A PRIVATE DRIVE THERE? YES, MA'AM.
AND THEN ON THE, UM, DEVELOPMENT PLAN, THERE'S THE TABULATION THAT SPEAKS TO THE AMOUNT OF OPEN SPACE THAT'S IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PD FOR THIS AREA.
AND THEN THOSE AREAS WILL BE CONFIRMED AT PERMITTING.
UM, IF, IF THERE'S ANYTHING THAT'S DIFFERENT, THEN THEY WILL SEND BACK FROM DEVELOPMENT SERVICES AND, UH, THEY WILL AMEND THE PLAN, BUT IT DOES CONFIRM THAT THEY'RE MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CODE.
AND THEN AS PART OF YOUR REVIEW, I KNOW THERE'S VERY SPECIFIC, UM, SIDEWALK WIDTHS THAT ARE REQUIRED IN VARIOUS PARTS OF THE PD, UM, ALONG VICTORY AVENUE.
UM, THERE'S A NUMBER OF DIMENSIONS, BUT ALL OF THESE MEET THAT MINIMUM STANDARD OF NINE AND A HALF FEET, IS THAT CORRECT? YES, MA'AM.
YEAH, SOME OF 'EM ARE WIDER, SOME OF THE LAND IS WIDER, BUT IT DOES MEET THE STANDARD OF NINE AND A HALF, UH, FEET UN UNOBSTRUCTED.
AND, UH, THIS ONE MAY BE MORE FOR THE APPLICANT, BUT, UM, ON THE, I'M GONNA CALL THIS THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE, UM, PROPERTY.
THERE'S SOME EXISTING OPEN SPACE WITHIN THE PD.
DO YOU KNOW HOW THIS PROJECT INTENDS TO, UM, ADDRESS AND RELATE TO THAT TO STRENGTHEN THE GOALS OF THE PD REQUIREMENTS? UH, NO MA'AM.
I'M GONNA DEFER THAT QUESTION TO THE APPLICANT.
WELL, I, I WAS ABLE TO SPEAK TO THE APPLICANT AND I UNDERSTAND THEY ARE PUTTING SOME ENTRIES THAT ARE TRYING TO ENGAGE WITH THAT AND ENCOURAGE PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO KEEP THIS ON CONSENT? OKAY.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER HALL, PLEASE.
UH, DO WE KNOW, UH, 497 UNITS? DO WE KNOW, UH, THE COMPOSITION, UH, ONE BEDROOM, TWO BEDROOM, THREE BEDROOM? UM, NO SIR, THAT WOULD BE, UH, LAID OUT AT PERMITTING.
SO FOR WHAT? THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN? THEY JUST NEED TO MEET THE STANDARDS, WHICH THE STANDARDS IS NO MAX.
SO WE DON'T GO INTO DETAIL HOW MANY, UM, BEDROOMS ARE REQUIRED.
UH, I KNOW PARKING RATIO IS COUNTED BY THAT, BUT THAT WOULD BE CONFIRMED AT PERMITTING AS WELL.
AND WERE, UH, WAS THERE ANY DESIGNATED NUMBER OF AFFORDABLE UNITS IN THIS DEVELOPMENT? UM, SINCE THIS IS A DEVELOPMENT PLAN, IT'S NOT A ZONING CASE.
UH, THE PD DOESN'T CALL OUT ANYTHING FOR, UH, AFFORDABLE, UH, HOUSING, BUT IF THEY DO DECIDE TO TAKE SOMETHING, IT'LL BE TAKEN, TAKEN CARE OF, PERMITTED.
AND THEN, UM, HOUSING ALSO WOULD REGULATE HOW MANY AFFORDABLE UNITS ON THE PROPERTY.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM? COMMISSIONERS? OKAY.
WE'LL GO TO ITEM NUMBER THREE.
ALRIGHT, LET ME KNOW WHEN YOU CAN SEE MY PRESENTATION.
IT'S A REQUEST FOR A NEW DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR CROP PRODUCTION.
THE AREA REQUEST IS A HUNDRED 0.979 ACRES.
IT'S IN COUNCIL DISTRICT EIGHT.
IT IS LOCATED IN SUB AREA A AND B WITH THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 7 7 8.
IT ALSO HAS A PRELIMINARY PLAT ON THE PROPERTY.
UM, IT IS LOCATED EAST OF THE INTERSTATE, HIGHWAY 45 AND NORTH OF SIMPSON STEWART ROAD.
UM, THE APPLICATION REQUESTING A NEW DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO ALLOW FOR CROP PRODUCTION OF A COMMUNITY GARDEN, COMMUNITY, URBAN GARDEN, OR FARM OR RANCH.
UM, THIS SITE HAS ONE INGRESS AND EGRESS ASSET ACCESS POINT AT THE EAST OF THE SITE, UH, FROM BIRD LANE.
UM, THIS IS NOTED OUT BECAUSE IT DOES STATE IN THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN THAT IT SHOULD SHOW WHAT ACCESS IS COMING IN ONTO THE PROPERTY.
UM, AND THEN ALSO A DEVELOPMENT PLAN IS REQUIRED FOR THIS, FOR ANY BUILDING
[00:10:01]
PERMIT, UM, TO AUTHORIZE WORK WITHIN THIS DISTRICT.HERE'S AN AREA MAP OF THE PROPERTY.
IT IS SURROUNDED BY IR, UH, TO THE NORTH AND THEN ALSO THE EAST.
UM, THEN ACROSS SIMPSON, STEWART, THERE'S A AGRICULTURE DISTRICT.
AND THEN ACROSS THE HIGHWAY, UH, 45, THERE'S R 75.
HERE IS THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
AS OF NOW, THERE'S A MANMADE PUN ON THE PROPERTY.
THE REST OF DEVELOPMENT, THE PROPERTY IS UNDEVELOPED, UM, LAND.
AND THEN HERE I HAVE CIRCLED AND ARROWED THE INGRESS AND EGRESS ONTO THE PROPERTY.
HERE'S THE ENLARGE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL.
THAT CONCLUDES THIS PRESENTATION.
COMMISSIONER BLAIR, UH, MS. BLUE, UH, YESTERDAY, DID WE NOT MEET IN, IN REGARDS TO THIS PARTICULAR CASE AND DISCUSS THAT BODY OF WATER THAT IS PREVALENT ON THAT, THAT PIECE OF LAND? YES, MA'AM.
CAN YOU SHARE WITH THE, THIS BODY, WHAT WAS THE, UM, APPRECIATION WE WERE ABLE TO OBTAIN FROM THE, UH, ABOUT THE, THE, THAT BODY OF WATER? I THINK THE BO THE BODY OF WATER WAS EXISTING AND THE CONDITIONS IS VERY, THERE'S LIKE A, I WOULD SAY, DEBRIS AROUND IT.
AND SO THE APPLICANT IS THINKING, THE APPLICANT IS TRYING TO COME IN AND RESTORE THE PROPERTY TO HISS NATURAL STATE.
WAS THIS LAND NOT USED AS A MINING LOCATION? OH, GOD.
50 YEARS AGO OR SO? YES, MA'AM.
I WOULD JUST LIKE TO REMIND THE BODY THIS IS A DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
SO THE QUESTION IS WHETHER OR NOT THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN COMPLIES WITH THE TEXT OF THE PD.
AND I, I KNOW COMMISSIONER BLAIR, I KNOW, UM,
AND I JUST DON'T WANT TO GO DOWN THAT RABBIT HOLE.
I'M NOT GONNA GO DOWN THE RABBIT HOLE, BUT I, I DO WANT THE, THE, THE COMMISSIONERS TO APPRECIATE THAT THE BODY OF WATER IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WOULD INTERFERE OR HINDER THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF THE TRINITY RIVER BECAUSE THIS BODY OF WATER DOES NOT FEED INTO THE TRINITY RIVER, NOR IS IT GETTING, GETTING WATER FROM THE TRINITY RIVER.
THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO GET TO.
SO, TO FURTHER THE, THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS DEVELOPMENT PLAN AS IT STANDS IS APPROPRIATE AND DOES NOT HINDER ANYTHING AROUND THIS COMMUNITY.
UM, AM I GOOD? I JUST DON'T WANT TO GO DOWN THAT RABBIT HOLE COMMISSIONER IF WE COULD.
SO MS. BLUE, UM, BASED ON OUR KNOWLEDGE AND THE UNDERSTANDING WE RECEIVED YESTERDAY, SORRY, UM, CAN WE C CAN WE, UH, CAN WE AGREE THAT THIS DEVELOPMENT PLAN MEETS THE STANDARDS OF A DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND DOES NOT HINDER ANYTHING ELSE AROUND IT? YES, MA'AM.
UM, IT, THE LAND USE, THE LAND USE OF THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN MEETS WHAT'S REQUIRED IN THE CODE.
THE SETBACKS MEET WHAT'S REQUIRED IN THE CODE, UH, AND EVERYTHING ON THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AS FAR AS INGRESS AND EGRESS.
UM, THERE'S NO STRUCTURES ON THE PROPERTY, SO THERE'S NO PARKING REQUIRED.
ALL THOSE ITEMS MEET THE CODE.
COMMISSIONER CARPENTER? YES, MS. BLUE.
UH, THE PD REQUIRES THAT, UM, THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN.
AND THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN, UM, SHOWS A TREE PRESERVATION ZONE THAT I DID NOT SEE, UH, A DICTATED WIDTH ON THAT CONCEPTUAL PLAN.
BUT ON THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, IT SHOWS AN 80 FOOT TREE PRESERVATION ZONE.
IS THAT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE PREVIOUS CONCEPTUAL PLAN? BECAUSE THE, THE PD REQUIRES ARTICLE 10.
UM, A LANDSCAPE OR PRESERVATION PLAN WAS NOT SUBMITTED WITH THE APPLICATION.
UM, THAT WOULD BE CONFIRMED AT PERMITTING.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS, MR. HELM? DO, DO WE HAVE ANY COMMISSIONERS ONLINE?
[00:15:04]
NO.COMMISSIONERS WILL KEEP MOVING.
WE'LL MOVE ON TO OUR, UH, MINOR AMENDMENT CASES UNDER ADVISEMENT.
WE HAVE ONE ITEM NUMBER FOUR, UH, COMMISSIONERS.
UH, WE ARE HOLDING THIS ITEM UNDER ADVISEMENT TO MARCH 21ST, SO WE WILL BRIEF IT THEN.
UH, THAT TAKES US TO OUR ZONING CASES, UH, ON CONSENT COMMISSIONERS.
AT THIS POINT, WE HAVE FIVE THROUGH 11.
CASE NUMBER EIGHT HAS BEEN TAKEN OFF CONSENT.
SO WE WILL BEGIN NUMBER NINE AS WELL.
NUMBER SIX WILL ALSO NEED TO BE TAKEN OFF SIX AS WELL.
SO SIX, EIGHT, AND NINE HAVE BEEN TAKEN OFF.
CONSENT AT, UH, AT THIS TIME BEGIN WITH CASE NUMBER FIVE TO ROBERTS.
CAN YOU GUYS SEE ME BY CHANCE, CHAIRMAN? UH, NOT YET.
IT'S WORKING WITH A NEW SETUP HERE.
AND THEN LET ME KNOW AS SOON AS YOU CAN SEE THIS PRESENTATION.
IS THAT VISIBLE CHAIR? WE CAN SEE YOUR PRESENTATION.
UH, THIS IS CASEY Z 2 2 3 1 8 8.
UH, IT'S A REQUEST FOR RENEWAL OF SUP 2365 THAT DOES ALLOW FOR THE SALE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE GENERAL MERCHANDISE FOR FOOD STORE OR CONVENIENCE STORE.
UH, IT'S LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LAKE JUNE ROAD IN HOLCOMB ROAD.
IT'S ABOUT A LITTLE OVER 2000 SQUARE FEET WITHIN A 2,800 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING.
UH, IT'S CURRENTLY ZONED CR COMMUNITY RETAIL.
IT IS WITHIN THE, THE D ONE LIQUOR CONTROL OVERLAY.
UM, AND THE SAP WAS ADOPTED, UM, BACK IN 2021.
YOU'LL SEE ITS RELATIONSHIP, RELATIONSHIP THERE, UM, ON SCREEN, PARTICULARLY AS IT RELATES TO LATE JUNE AND HOLCOMB AT THE HARD CORNER THERE.
AS FAR AS THE AERIAL GOES, YOU'LL SEE IT REFLECTED THERE.
USES IN THE AREA ARE, UM, COMPATIBLE WITH ANOTHER, UH, CONVENIENCE STORE JUST ACROSS THE WAY.
UH, IT DOES BACK ONTO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES AND IS CURRENTLY DEVELOPED.
UH, TAKING A LOOK AT SITE PHOTOS, THIS IS LOOKING, UH, SOUTHEAST OFF OF LATE JUNE.
LOOKING TOWARD THE BUILDING FROM HOLCOMB BACK TOWARDS THE DEVELOPMENT.
UH, HERE'S THE EXISTING SITE PLAN.
YOU'LL NOTICE A COUPLE UPDATES AS I FLIP BACK BETWEEN THESE TWO TO SOME OF THE DETAILS OF THE SITE PLAN.
UH, JUST MAKING SOME UPDATES FOR THAT BASED OFF CHANGES OF USE, UH, ELSEWHERE ON SITE.
UH, WITH THAT, UH, STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL, UH, SUBJECT TO THE ADMITTED CONDITIONS, UH, FOR A TWO YEAR PERIOD, UH, WITH ELIGIBILITY FOR AUTOMATIC RENEWAL.
QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS ON THE ITEM? OKAY, WE'LL KEEP GOING.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. ROBERTS.
YOU WANNA BRIEF THIS ONE? IF IT'S GONNA BE HELD, THIS ONE'S GOING TO HAVE TO BE, UH, NOT HELD, BUT RENO, I DIDN'T KNOW IT WAS GONNA BE HELD.
WE WILL, UH, TO WHAT DATE DO WE KNOW? UH, JUST MARCH, MARCH 21ST.
KEEP MOVING TO CASE NUMBER SEVEN THEN, MS. GARZA.
[00:20:01]
GOOD MORNING.ITEM ITEM NUMBER SEVEN IS KZ TWO Z 2 2 3 2 85.
THE REQUEST IS AN APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT FOR A SPECIFIC, FOR SPECIFIC USE PERMIT NUMBER 2299 FOR AN OPEN ENROLLMENT CHARTER SCHOOL ON PROPERTY ZONED IN IR INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH DISTRICT.
IT IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SKILLMAN STREET AND THE NORTH LINE OF WENDELL ROAD, EAST OF PAGE MILL ROAD.
IT'S APPROXIMATELY THREE POINT 19 ACRES.
THIS IS AN AERIAL MAP OF THE SITE.
AND THEN, UM, SURROUNDING USES TO THE NORTH SEATTLE SERVICE CENTER, AS WELL AS A SINGLE FAMILY TO THE WEST IS AN OFFICE BUILDING.
UM, TODAY'S OFFICE WAREHOUSE, INDUSTRIAL INSIDE FOR LIGHT MANUFACTURING.
AND THEN TOWARDS THE SOUTH IS A SURFACE PARKING AND THEN ALSO AN OFFICE WAREHOUSE.
THE, THE AREA OF REQUEST IS DEVELOPED WITH FOUR BUILDINGS, THREE OF WHICH ARE OCCUPIED BY THE, BY THE CHARTER SCHOOL.
THE REMAINING BUILDING CONTAINS A MEDICAL CLINIC ON AUGUST 8TH, 2018.
THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVED A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT NUMBER 2299 FOR AN OPEN ENROLLMENT CHARTER SCHOOL FOR A FIVE YEAR PERIOD, SUBJECT TO A SIDE PLAN AND A TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN AND CONDITIONS.
THESE ARE SOME OF THE SITE PHOTOS ON SITE LOOKING SOUTH AS SLOW LOOKING SOUTH, LOOKING SOUTH, LOOKING SOUTH, LOOKING SOUTH AGAIN.
AND THEN LOOKING SOUTHWEST, LOOKING WEST, LOOKING NORTHWEST AND LOOKING NORTHWEST, THEN LOOKING NORTH, LOOKING NORTHEAST, LOOKING NORTHEAST, LOOKING NORTH.
AND THEN SURROUNDING USES ON SIDE LOOKING EAST.
AND THEN LOOKING EAST AGAIN, AGAIN LOOKING EAST, LOOKING EAST ON THE SOUTH END PORTION.
THEN LOOKING EAST TOWARDS THE SOUTH OF THE SITE AND THEN LOOKING SOUTH, THEN AGAIN LOOKING SOUTH, LOOKING WEST, LOOKING WEST AGAIN, LOOKING WEST, LOOKING NORTHWEST.
AND THEN LOOKING NORTH AND THEN LOOKING NORTHEAST.
UH, SO, UH, THE, THE SEP CONDITIONS PROPOSED THAT THE MAIN THINGS THAT ARE, UM, BEING UPDATED IS THE TIME LIMIT.
THE SPECIFIC USE PERMIT HAS NO EXPIRATION DATE.
AND THEN UNDER THE TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT CONDITIONS, UM, WE, THEY ARE ADDING, UM, THE ITEMS HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW.
AND THEN, UM, THIS IS THE EXISTING PLAN, SITE PLAN.
AND THEN THEY ARE UPDATING THE, THE SITE PLAN TO REFLECT WHAT IS ON SITE.
AND THEN, UH, SUCH RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO AMENDED SITE PLAN AND AMENDMENT, TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN, AND AMENDED CONDITIONS.
QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, FOLLOW COMMISSIONER HAMPTON? YES.
UM, I THINK IT'S AN INTERESTING ANOMALY HERE THAT WE'RE, WE HAVE A SCHOOL OPERATING ON AN IR PROPERTY WITH AN SUP WHEN WE RECENTLY PASSED, UM, YOU KNOW, AN ORDINANCE THAT DISALLOWED DAYCARE ON INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY.
HAS THERE BEEN ANY CONSIDERATION GIVEN TO CHANGING THE UNDERLYING ZONING ON THESE SCHOOLS THAT ARE IN THESE INDUSTRIAL AREAS? I BELIEVE IT'S, IT'S UNDER CONSIDERATION, BUT I'M NOT, UH, TOO SURE.
I HAD A, I GUESS A SIMILAR QUESTION JUST IN THAT AS WE'RE CONSIDERING PERMANENT TIME PERIODS, AS THE CHARACTER OF THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD MAY CHANGE, COULD YOU SPEAK TO HOW, UM, PERMANENT SUP WOULD BE CONSIDERED IN THAT LIGHT? UH, YES.
SO, UM, IT IS A SCHOOL, AND I KNOW MOST SCHOOLS DON'T REALLY CHANGE.
UM, AND THEN, UM, WITH, WITH THE SITES SURROUNDING, I KNOW IT'S INDUSTRIAL, UM, BUT I DON'T SEE THE SCHOOL DOING AFFECTING THE SURROUNDING SITES.
WELL, I GUESS THE CONTEXT FOR MY QUESTION IS THAT DALLAS CAN ACADEMY ACTUALLY USED TO BE IN EAST DALLAS.
I THINK THEY WERE THEN IN WEST DALLAS.
AND AGAIN, JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND CLEARLY AS THEY GROW, AS THEY NEED TO LOOK AT OTHER FACILITIES.
BUT I WAS ALSO TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE SURROUNDING CONTEXT.
[00:25:01]
THERE.I WAS JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND HOW THE PERMANENT SUP APPLIED, BECAUSE I DO HAVE A FEW IN MY DISTRICT AS WELL.
AND YOU KNOW, OVER TIME THINGS DO CHANGE.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM? COMMISSIONERS? OKAY, THEN WE'LL KEEP GOING.
HEY, WILSON, ARE YOU ONLINE PAGING WILSON KERR TO THE AFTER HOURS WAITING AREA? YEAH, WE CAN, WE'LL COME BACK TO THAT ONE.
BEAR WITH ME AS I GET THIS PULLED UP.
OH, I DID JUST RECEIVE A MESSAGE FROM WILSON AS WELL.
I'LL WORK WITH HIM ON THAT SWAP CHAIR.
CHAIRMAN, CAN YOU SEE THAT? YES, WE CAN.
OH, THIS IS CASE, UH, Z 2 23 3 24.
UH, IT'S AN APPLICATION FOR A NEW SEP, UH, FOR A COMMUNITY SERVICE CENTER.
UH, IT'S LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 240 FEET SOUTHEAST OF WEB CHAPEL IN BOLIVAR.
UH, AND IT IS WITHIN AN EXISTING, UH, LITTLE OVER 14,000 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING.
UH, THE SITE'S CURRENTLY ZONED CR COMMUNITY RETAIL DISTRICT IS WITHIN THE D ONE AND, AND LOVEFIELD AIRPORT OVERLAYS.
UM, THE EXISTING USE ON SITE, IF YOU WERE TO DRIVE BY TODAY, IS A MEDICAL CLINIC.
UH, BUT THE, UH, PROPOSED USE, UH, WOULD INCLUDE ADULT EDUCATION, ESL.
THERE'S CHILDHOOD LITERACY, UH, BUT THERE'S NO, UH, CHILDCARE ASSOCIATED AND THERE ARE NO PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE CR DISTRICT.
UH, YOU CAN SEE THOSE CONDITIONS HERE ON SCREEN.
OF COURSE, WE CAN COME BACK AND SPEAK TO THEM IF WE NEED TO.
UH, YOU'LL SEE ITS LOCATION MAP THERE AS IT RELATES TO ITS, UH, POSITIONING ON WEB CHAPEL.
TAKING A LOOK AT THE AERIAL, YOU'LL SEE THE ORIENTATION OF THE EXISTING SITE, WHICH I'LL ILLUSTRATE IN THE SITE PLAN COMING UP, UH, DOES IT, BUT SINGLE FAMILY, THERE'S A FEW OTHER MEDICAL, UH, USES OR MULTI-TENANT USES IN THE AREA ALONG WEB CHAPEL.
I CAN SEE A IMAGE OF THE SITE LOOKING UP WEB CHAPEL TO THE NORTHWEST AND LOOKING BACK DOWN WEB CHAPEL, LOOKING INTO THE SITE, ONE OF THE ACCESS POINTS.
AND THEN LOOKING BACK AT THE FRONT ENTRANCE OF THE, OF THE STRUCTURE, I CAN SEE THE, UH, SITE ORIENTATION THERE.
UH, WITH THAT, UH, IS APPROVAL FOR AN INDEFINITE PERIOD.
THAT WAS THE REQUEST BY THE APPLICANT.
UH, WE THINK THAT THE THANK YOU SIR.
SIMILARITY LAND USES IN THE AREA ALLOWS FOR THAT.
QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS, COMMISSIONER, CARPENTER? YES.
UM, GIVEN THAT THIS SITE IS, HAS RESIDENTIAL
[00:30:01]
ADJACENCY AND IT, AND IT'S ALSO A PROPOSED NEW USE, WHAT IS YOUR RATIONALE FOR AN SUP WITH NO EXPIRATION DATE? THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION, COMMISSIONER.SO WHEN WE WERE CONSIDERING THAT, WE TOOK A LOOK AT THE INTENSITIES OF THE LAND USES ALONG WEB CHAPEL, AND WE DIDN'T THINK THAT THERE WOULD BE ANY, UH, INCONSISTENCIES THERE.
UH, AS WELL AS LOOKING AT THE INTENSITY OF THE CURRENT USE, SWITCHING TO THE COMMUNITY SERVICE USE, DIDN'T THINK THAT THERE'D BE ANY, UH, CONCERNS IN THE INTENSITY OF THAT.
I DID, I DID TALK TO THE APPLICANT ABOUT THAT, OF COURSE.
UM, AND, YOU KNOW, EXPRESS THAT THERE, THERE'S BEEN CONSIDERATION IN PAST FOR A, FOR A NON INDEFINITE, UH, TIMEFRAME.
THEY WERE, UH, RECEPTIVE OF THAT.
BUT WE WENT FORWARD WITH THEIR INITIAL REQUEST TO YOU THIS MORNING.
ANY OF THE QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM? COMMISSIONERS? OKAY, WE'LL GO TO ITEM NUMBER 10.
UH, CONNOR, IS WILSON STILL HAVING AUDIO ISSUES? HEY RYAN? YEAH, I'M WORKING WITH HIM OFFLINE.
I THINK HE MIGHT'VE LOGGED IN WITH A BAD WEBEX LINK, SO I'LL WORK WITH HIM.
UM, YEAH, IF YOU COULD JUST SHOOT ME AN EMAIL WHEN HE'S, UH, ABLE TO JOIN US SO WE CAN GO BACK TO HIS ITEMS. I'D APPRECIATE IT.
MR. ROBERTS GOT THE HOT HAND TODAY,
BEAR WITH ME AS I SHARE SCREENS TWO CHAIRMAN.
CAN YOU SEE THAT? YES, WE CAN.
THAT'S REQUEST FOR RENEWAL OF SUP 2358.
THAT ALLOWS FOR A ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE ESTABLISHMENT, UH, LIMITED TO THE MICRO BREWERY, MICRO DISTILLERY OR WINERIES.
UH, BEING THE BREWERY CATEGORY, IT'S SPANS TWO PROPERTIES LOCATED 90 FEET OR 95 FEET, UH, WEST OF COMMERCE AND LANE STREET DOWNTOWN.
A LITTLE BIT OF THE ZONING BACKGROUND, IT'S WITHIN A SUB SUBDISTRICTS, A, B, AND C OF PD SIX, UH, ONE NINE, UH, SORT OF A FEW OF APPLICABLE OVERLAYS.
UH, THE, UM, ORIGINAL SP WAS ADOPTED ON, UH, JANUARY 25TH, 2022.
I CAN SEE ITS RELATIONSHIP THERE ON COMMERCE.
THERE'S ACTUALLY A DEDICATED PEDESTRIAN PATH JUST TO THE LEFT OF THAT.
IT'S AT THE BASE, UH, OF A MUCH TALLER BUILDING ON SURROUNDING USES, UH, COMMERCIAL PARKING STRUCTURE AND MULTIFAMILY OFFICE AND HOTEL IN THE AREA.
AND AGAIN, TAKING A LOOK AT THOSE USES AS THEY RELATE TO THE PD SUBDISTRICTS, UH, ON COMMERCE.
UH, LOOKING WEST, THE, UH, UNIT JUST TO THE LEFT ON THE PHOTO, LOOKING BACK EAST UNIT NOW TO THE RIGHT, UH, TAKING A LOOK AT THE EXTERIOR PATIO, UH, AREA, AND THEN LOOKING DOWN BRODER STREET, WHICH IS A PEDESTRIAN ACCESS ONLY.
AND LOOKING BACK AT THAT PATIO AREA, UH, THERE'S A PROPOSED SITE PLAN.
NO CHANGES ARE PROPOSED AS PART OF THIS RENEWAL.
UH, AND WITH THAT, UH, APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE MANY CONDITIONS FOR THE TWO YEAR PERIOD.
QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS, NO QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM, AND WE'LL GO TO NUMBER 12.
UH, I THINK NUMBER 12 HAS BEEN BRIEFED BEFORE THERE ANY UPDATES ON THIS ITEM? YES.
NO UPDATES, BUT THE APPLICANT DID ASK TO HOLD THIS CASE.
THEY DIDN'T GIVE A SPECIFIC DATE.
I THINK THEY'RE HAVING SOME ISSUES WITH THEIR EASEMENT THAT THEY'RE, THEY'RE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT, LET'S DO THE 21ST.
[00:35:08]
SO THAT TAKES US TO NUMBER 13 HAS NOT BEEN BRIEFED.LET'S, LET'S WAIT OFF ON THIS ONE.
UH, COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONER TREADWAY IS GONNA JOIN US LATER.
SO LET'S, LET'S BRIEF IT WHEN SHE'S ONLINE.
UH, WE MAY HAVE TO BRIEF IT BEFORE WE HEAR IT.
SO WE'RE, WE'RE GONNA, UM, STAY FLEXIBLE ON THAT ONE.
IT TAKES US TO, NUMBER 14, HAS NOT BEEN BRIEFED BEFORE, IS MY UNDERSTANDING.
GIANNA, ARE YOU WITH US? GOOD MORNING, COMMISSIONER WHEELER.
LET THE RECORD REFLECT, UH, HAS JOINED US AT 9 42.
I THINK WE ALSO HAVE FIGURED OUT WILSON AND CARTER'S ISSUE, SO HE'S AVAILABLE AS WELL.
OKAY, WE WILL COME BACK TO THAT ONE.
WE'LL GO TO CASE NUMBER 15, MR. CLINTON.
HELLO, HOW YOU DOING? IS THIS CASE? Z 2 2 3 2 9 9.
IT'S AN APPLICATION FOR AN MU MU TWO MIXED USE TWO DISTRICT ON PROPERTY ZONE AND REGIONAL RE, UH, REGIONAL RETAIL, EXCUSE ME, UH, DISTRICT ON CORNER OF INTERSECTION AT EAST CLARENDON DRIVE, VIOLA STREET AND UPTON STREET.
UH, THE PURPOSE OF THE REQUEST IS TO ALLOW, UH, THE BUILDING OF APPROXIMATELY 40 MULTIFAMILY UNITS UNDER THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OF AN MU TWO DISTRICT.
AND IT'S APPROXIMATELY 0.5 ACRES IN SIZE.
UH, THIS IS OUR AERIAL MAP WITH THE PROPERTY HIGHLIGHTED.
UH, QUICK ZONING MAP, UH, JUST GIVING THE SURROUNDING USES.
UH, THERE'S MULTIFAMILY TO THE NORTH, REGIONAL, REGIONAL, UH, RETAIL TO THE WEST, SINGLE FAMILY AND MULTIFAMILY TO THE SOUTH AND SOUTHEAST, AS WELL AS, UM, SOME LIGHT, UM, INDUSTRIAL USES TO THE EAST, IMMEDIATE EAST.
UM, THIS IS LOCATED, UH, GEOGRAPHICALLY IN THE SOUTHWEST DALLAS.
CURRENTLY A VACANT LOT ZONED REGIONAL RETAIL.
UM, AGAIN, THIS IS A CORNER LOT AT THE INTERSECTION, UH, OF VIOLA STREET, UPTON STREET, AND EAST CLARENDON DRIVE.
SO IT HAS FRONTAGE ON, UH, EACH OF THOSE, UH, STREETS.
AND THE APPLICANT PROPOSES THE PROPERTY BE REZONED TO, UH, MU TWO TO ACCOMPLISH THIS.
THEY ARE REQUESTING A GENERAL ZONING CHANGE.
HERE ARE, UM, SITE VISIT PICTURES.
UM, THERE'S THE ZONING SIGNS, ORIGINAL ZONING SIGNS POSTED.
AND THIS IS ON VIOLA STREET, LOOKING WEST.
UM, SAME LOCATION, LOOKING SOUTH TOWARDS THE SITE.
THE SAME LOCATION LOOKING NORTH, UM, TO THE RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCIES.
THIS IS ON THE SITE LOOKING SOUTH.
UM, AND NOW WE HAVE A FEW IMAGES OF THE SURROUNDING USES.
THIS IS ON EAST CLAIN, UH, LOOKING SOUTH.
UM, LOOKING DIRECTLY ACROSS THE, THE DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM THE SITE.
EXCUSE ME, THIS IS ALSO ON EAST CLARITIN LOOKING NORTH.
THIS IS ON UPTON LOOKING EAST.
HERE'S A BRIEF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
[00:40:01]
CHART.UM, JUST COMPARING THE EXISTING, UM, DISTRICT TO THE PROPOSED DISTRICT AND STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVED.
QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, GOOD MORNING.
UM, I DID GO OUT TO THIS SITE, BUT I WASN'T ABLE TO DETERMINE WHAT WAS GOING ON IN THE INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH OF THIS SITE.
DO YOU HAVE ANY INFORMATION ABOUT THAT INFORMATION ON WHAT'S GOING ON TO, ON THE INDUSTRIAL, INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH? IT'S A BIG COMPLEX, UH, UH, TO MY KNOWLEDGE, IT LOOKED LIKE A VACANT WAREHOUSE.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS? OKAY, WE'LL KEEP GOING.
SO WE'LL GO TO 16 MORNING MR. BATE.
UH, THIS IS CASE Z 2 23 DASH 3 0 9.
IT IS AN APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO SPECIFIC USE PERMIT NUMBER 1 4 9 5 FOR AN ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE ESTABLISHMENT, LIMITED TO A BAR, LOUNGE OR TAVERN, AND A COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT INSIDE, LIMITED TO A CLASS A DANCE HALL.
IT WAS LOCATED ON THE EAST CORNER OF VAL LIPSCOMB WAY AND MEADOW STREET, APPROXIMATELY 18,559 SQUARE FEET IN SIZE.
UH, WE SEE IT RIGHT HERE IN THE HEART OF, UH, SOUTH DALLAS.
UH, HERE'S THE AERIAL MAP SHOWING THE LOCATION OF THE SITE.
I ASSUMED IT WAS STILL SHARING.
WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO GO BACK TO THE BEGINNING OR CONTINUE? ALRIGHT, SO HERE WE SEE THE AERIAL MAP OF THE SITE, UH, LOCATED ALONG OUT LIPSCOMB AND MEADOW.
THIS IS THE ZONING MAP SHOWING A VARIETY OF USES AROUND IT.
AS YOU SEE, IT'S IN THE SORT OF, UH, THE, YOU COULD CALL IT THE BUFFER ZONE OR THE BORDER ZONE BETWEEN, UH, THE COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL SUBDISTRICT AND SOME OTHER SUBDISTRICTS AROUND THERE.
UH, TO THE NORTHWEST IS A SHOPPING CENTER WITH A VARIETY OF RETAIL USES.
UH, TO THE SOUTHWEST IS A LIQUOR STORE AND AN ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE ESTABLISHMENT.
UH, THEN FURTHER DOWN TO THE SOUTHEAST IS A MIX OF SINGLE FAMILY AND MULTIFAMILY.
I ALSO WANNA POINT OUT THERE IS THIS SMALL, UH, PA PARKING ZONING DISTRICT THAT IS, UH, SURFACE PARKING LOT OWNED BY THE, UH, OWNED BY THE APPLICANT AS WELL.
UH, SO CURRENTLY ZONED CC COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL SUBDISTRICT WITHIN PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 5 9 5, THE SOUTH DALLAS FAIR PARK SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICT.
UH, THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY DEVELOPED WITH THE BAR LOUNGE, TAVERN AND COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT INSIDE LIMITED TO THE CLASS A DANCE HALL.
UH, THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVED THE RENEWAL OF SEP 1 4 9 5 FOR FIVE YEAR PERIOD WITH AUTOMATIC RENEWAL FOR AN ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE ESTABLISHMENT, LIMITED TO A BAR, LOUNGE OR TAVERN, AND A COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT INSIDE LIMITED TO A CLASS A DANCE HALL ON AUGUST 13TH, 2008.
IT WAS AUTOMATICALLY RENEWED FOR A FIVE YEAR PERIOD ON AUGUST 13TH, 2018.
UH, THE SUP EXPIRED ON AUGUST 13TH, 2023, AND THE APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL WAS RECEIVED ON AUGUST 1ST.
AFTER THE AUTOMATIC RENEWAL WINDOW, UH, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING RENEWAL OF SUP 1 4 9 5 FOR A FIVE YEAR PERIOD WITH AUTO RENEWALS TO CONTINUE TO BORROW TAVERN USE AND THE COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT.
INSIDE I LIMITED TO A CLASS A DANCE HALL.
I DO WANNA MAKE A CORRECTION HERE.
I, UH, THERE, THIS IS A SLIGHTLY OUTTA DATE SLIDE.
UH, THERE IS A SLIGHT CHANGE TO CONDITIONS, NOTHING THAT I WOULD CONSIDER MATERIAL.
WE RESCINDED A COUPLE OF DUPLICATIVE, UH, ITEMS IN THERE REGARDING OFF STREET PARKING AS WELL AS THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY.
THESE ARE THINGS THAT ARE HANDLED AT PERMITTING.
IT WOULD NOT CHANGE WHAT IS THE ACTUAL REQUIRED PARKING.
UH, WE JUST WANTED TO CLEAN UP THE, THE SUP CONDITIONS A LITTLE BIT AND THERE ARE NO PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE SITE PLAN FOR THE SUP HERE.
WE SEE THE SITE ON ALEX LIPSCOMB WAY, LOOKING SOUTHEAST TOWARDS THE PROPERTY.
AND THEN FURTHER BACK LOOKING EAST, WE SEE ONE OF THESE NEIGHBORING RETAIL USES.
AND THEN, SO THE NORTHEAST DOWN ALEX LIPSCOMB SWAY LOOKING TO THE NORTH, THAT'S THAT SHOPPING CENTER.
AND THEN TO THE NORTHWEST AT THE SHOPPING CENTER ON THE CORNER OF VAL LIPSCOMB MEADOW, LOOKING EAST TOWARDS THE SUBJECT SITE.
AND THEN LOOKING NORTHWEST AWAY FROM THE SUBJECT SITE.
THIS IS ON MEADOW LOOKING NORTHEAST AT THE SUBJECT SITE ON MEADOW, LOOKING NORTH AT THE SUBJECT SITE.
AND THEN ON MEADOW LOOKING SOUTHEAST AWAY FROM THE SUBJECT SITE.
UH, THIS IS THE EXISTING SITE PLAN.
[00:45:01]
NO CHANGES PROPOSED TO IT.STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL FOR A FIVE YEAR PERIOD WITH ELIGIBILITY FOR AUTOMATIC RENEWAL FOR ADDITIONAL FIVE YEAR PERIODS SUBJECT TO THE AMENDED CONDITIONS.
QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS, COMMISSIONER, CARPENTER, I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE, UH, PARKING AND THE SITE PLAN BECAUSE THE, UM, CONDITIONS SHOW THE, THE, THE FORMER CONDITIONS, THE EXISTING CONDITIONS SHOW THAT THERE ARE 23 PARKING SPACES ON SITE, AND IT ALSO SHOWS THAT THERE'S NO CHANGES PROPOSED TO THE EXISTING SITE PLAN, BUT THE CURRENT REPORT AND THAT SITE PLAN SEEMS TO SHOW THAT THERE'S 37 PARKING SPACES ON SITE.
SO WAS THE PROPERTY JUST NEVER, THE CONDITIONS WERE NEVER IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE, WITH THE SITE PLAN? LET ME CHECK MY, UH, REPORT HERE.
UH, THERE MIGHT HAVE BEEN A, THERE MIGHT HAVE BEEN A MISMATCH THERE IN THE ORIGINAL CONDITIONS AS THEY WERE PUT VERSUS WHAT WAS IN THE SITE PLAN.
UM, IN LOOKING AT THE SITE PLAN AND COUNTING OUT THE TOTAL NUMBER OF PARKING SPOTS, IT'S A LITTLE FUZZY, BUT IT DOES APPEAR THAT THERE WOULD BE, THERE WAS NEVER A, THE FULL AMOUNT OF PARKING PROVIDED ON SITE, UH, THE ADDITIONAL PARKING WAS PROVIDED IN THAT PARKING LOT TO THE SOUTH, UH, EAST.
WHICH BY THAT, YES, I UNDERSTAND THAT PART, BUT JUST AS THE, THE EXISTING CONDITION SHOULD SAY THAT THERE'S 23 SITES, 23 SPOTS ON SITE, WHICH, WHICH THIS EXISTING SITE PLAN WITH NO CHANGES PROPOSED DOES NOT SHOW.
UM, BUT THIS SITE PLAN THAT IS WITH NO CHANGES DOES MATCH THE CONDITIONS ON THE GROUND AND WITH THE NUMBER OF SPACES THAT YOUR REPORT IS SAYING THAT THEY NEED TO HAVE ON SITE.
SORRY, I COULDN'T QUITE HEAR THE LAST BIT.
SO I GUESS IT BOILS DOWN TO DOES THIS EXISTING, THIS SITE PLAN THAT'S GOING TO BE GOING FORWARD, IT MATCHES THE CONDITIONS ON THE GROUND AND THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES THAT THEY CAN PROVIDE ON SITE? I BELIEVE SO.
I DIDN'T DO ACCOUNT OF THE, UH, INDIVIDUAL PARKING SPACES ON MY SITE VISIT.
UM, I WOULD CERTAINLY RECOMMEND ALSO ASKING THE APPLICANT THIS AFTERNOON.
I HAVE ONE ADDITIONAL QUESTION.
UH, MY QUESTION IS ABOUT AUTO RENEWALS.
I KNOW WE HAD A, UM, AN EMAIL THAT WAS SENT TO US, FORWARDED TO US THE LAST TIME THIS CAME UP FROM SOME, A NEIGHBOR SURROUNDING NEIGHBORS TALKING ABOUT ALL OF THE PROBLEMS THEY HAD AT THIS LOCATION.
EVERYTHING, DRUG USE, PROSTITUTION, LITTER.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT, DO YOU KNOW IF THERE WAS A COMMUNITY MEETING ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR SITE? AS I UNDERSTAND IT, I BELIEVE COMMISSIONER WHEELER HAS HELD SOME COMMUNITY MEETINGS ON THIS.
WERE YOU AWARE THAT THE CONDITIONS WERE NOT THE ONLY PROPERTY, IT WAS WITH PROPERTY THAT WAS SURROUNDED THAT, WERE YOU AWARE THAT IT WASN'T THE ACTUAL PROPERTY THAT HAD AN ISSUE WITH, IT WAS ANOTHER PROPERTY IN CLOSE PROXIMITY THAT THE, THAT THEY OWNED, THAT THAT WAS THE ISSUE WAS NEVER THE ACTUAL BUSINESS.
IT WAS THE HANGING WHEN THE BUSINESS WAS CLOSED? UH, YES, I'VE, I'VE HEARD FROM THAT.
AND DID, WERE YOU AWARE THAT THEY RAMIFIED SOME OF THAT WITH, UH, WITH, UH, CLEANUP AND FENCING AND WE, AND THEY WORKED AND THE COMMUNITY MEMBERS JUST WANTED TO HAVE A MEETING WITH THEM? UH, I WAS NOT AWARE OF SOME OF THE WORK THAT WAS DONE TO DO THAT, BUT I AM AWARE THAT THEY HELD THOSE COMMUNITY MEETINGS AND WORKED WITH THE, UH, SURROUND.
OH, YOU ALSO, OH, HOW AND HOW LONG HAS THIS BUSINESS BEEN IN ESTABLISHED AS I UNDERSTAND IT, ABOUT 24 YEARS.
AND HAS THERE BEEN ANY, UM, IN THIS REPORT, DO YOU ALL, I MEAN, INCLUDE ANY, UM, POLICE CALLS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT? UH, WE DO PROVIDE A CRIME REPORT THAT IS GENERATED BY DPD.
UH, THE CRIME REPORT IS GENERATED USING THE POINT ADDRESS, AND IT'S FOR ANY CALLS TO SERVICE THAT ARE REGISTERED IN THE SYSTEM AS BEING AT THAT ADDRESS.
UH, BUT WE DO NOT PERFORM ANY STAFF ANALYSIS OF THOSE STATISTICS.
THEY'RE PROVIDED FOR THE COMMISSION TO REVIEW.
UM, THANK YOU FOR BRINGING UP THE HISTORICAL HISTORY OF THIS SITE.
UM, I, WERE YOU ABLE TO DO ANY SITE VISITS DURING, ARE THEY IN OPERATION NOW IS BASICALLY MY QUESTION.
I BELIEVE THEY ARE STILL IN OPERATION.
UH, THEY OPERATE IN THE EVENINGS, SO, UH, I WAS NOT ABLE TO SEE IT, UH, AT NIGHT.
UH, MY NEXT QUESTION WAS GONNA BE A FUNNY ONE TOO, BUT I'LL, I'LL, I'LL SAVE THAT FOR LATER.
WE'RE GONNA COME RIGHT BACK TO THAT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM? OKAY, THEN WE'LL GO TO NUMBER 17.
WE DO HAVE, UH, WILSON KERR ONLINE MORNING.
[00:50:07]
AND, UH, CAN YOU ALL SEE THE SCREEN? WE CAN.CAN, ARE YOU ABLE TO, ARE YOU SEEING THE FULL SCREEN OR THE, SO THIS IS, UH, CASE C TWO.
UH, THIS IS CASE Z 2 2 3 3 30.
IT'S A RENEWAL OF SUP 1 5 3 2 AT, UH, 28 15 MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR.
UH, THIS REQUEST IS FOR, UH, RENEWAL OF SUP NUMBER 1532 FOR A CONVALESCENT AND NURSING HOME HOSPICE CARE OR RELATED INSTITUTION.
IT'S LOCATED AT THE NORTH CORNER OF MARTIN LUTHER KING JR.
BOULEVARD AND SOUTH MALCOLM X BOULEVARD.
IT'S ZONED PD 5 95, UH, SOUTH DALLAS FAIR PARK, SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICT TRACK NUMBER FOUR IN THE COMMUNITY, UH, COMMERCIAL, UH, AREA.
IT'S, UH, APPROXIMATELY 1.1 ACRES IN COUNCIL DISTRICT SEVEN.
AND THIS WAS HELD UNDER ADVISEMENT, UM, TO TODAY FROM THE, UH, THE MEETING ON THE 1ST OF FEBRUARY.
HERE'S THE LOCATION MAP REQUEST DETAILS.
UH, THIS IS, UH, CONTINUE TO ALLOW A CONVALESCENT NURSING HOME OR HOSPICE CARE OR RELATED INSTITUTION.
THE REQUEST IS FOR AN APPROVAL OF A PERMANENT SEP FOR THE USE.
AND, UH, THE SEP WAS INITIALLY APPROVED IN 2003 AND, UH, THE APPLICANT DID MISS THEIR AUTO-RENEWAL WINDOW.
THERE'S AN AERIAL MAP, UH, TO THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY IS, UH, ARE SOME SINGLE FAMILY AND MULTIFAMILY USES JUST TO THE NORTHEAST IS A BANK USE.
AND THEN TO THE SOUTHEAST ARE SOME RELIGIOUS AND CULTURAL USES.
AND THEN CATTYCORNER, UM, ARE RETAIL AND PARKING USAGES.
AS YOU CAN SEE, IT IS WITHIN TRACK FOUR OF PD 5, 9 5.
HERE'S ON THE SITE, LOOKING SOUTHWEST ON SITE, LOOKING NORTHEAST, UH, ON THE SITE LOOKING NORTHWEST, THAT, UM, THAT TRASH RECEPTACLE HAS BEEN REMOVED, UH, ON SITE LOOKING SOUTHEAST.
THEN THIS IS ON, UM, MALCOLM X LOOKING NORTHEAST.
AND HERE'S ON THE SITE LOOKING NORTHWEST.
AND HERE'S THE SITE PLAN AS WELL AS, UH, AN ENLARGED VERSION OF THE SITE PLAN.
AND THEN STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS, UH, FOR APPROVAL, IT'S FOR A 10 YEAR PERIOD WITH ELIGIBILITY FOR AUTOMATIC RENEWALS FOR ADDITIONAL 10 YEAR PERIODS.
UH, IT'S TO CONTINUE THE CURRENT, UM, UM, FOR MINUTES.
WAS THIS ITEM TAKEN OFF? CONSENT LA UH, BECAUSE, UH, THE APPLICANT WANTS A, UM, A LONGER PERIOD, THIS IS UNDER ADVISEMENT AND OH, YEAH, WELL, MAYBE THAT'S THE REASON.
THAT'S THE SAME COURSE I'M ASKING.
UM, AND THE REASON, UM, WHAT WAS THE DISCREPANCY? WAS IT, WHAT, HOW LONG DID THE APPLICANT WANT THE APPLICANT WAS ASKING FOR A PERMANENT SUP.
AND HOW LONG HAS THIS LOCATION BEEN IN, IN BUSINESS? I BELIEVE SINCE THE, THE, I BELIEVE SINCE THE EIGHTIES.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS? OKAY.
WE'LL GO TO NUMBER 18, PLEASE.
THIS IS CASE NUMBER Z 2 34 DASH 1 0 4.
AND APPLICATION FOR THE RENEWAL OF SPECIFIC USE PERMIT NUMBER 1 9 8 2 FOR A BAR, LOUNGE OR TAVERN AND INSIDE COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT FOR A CLASS A DANCE HALL ON PROPERTY ZONE TRACK A WITHIN PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 2 69, THE DEEP ELEMENT NEAR EAST SIDE DISTRICT WITH CBD DOWNTOWN DEMOLITION DELAY OVERLAY ON SOUTHWEST CORNER OF INTERSECTION AT ELM STREET AND NORTH.
UH, THIS IS A RENEWAL OF THE SUP TO ALLOW CONTINUED OPERATION OF THE BAR, LOUNGE OR TAVERN AND INSIDE COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT FOR A CLASS A DANCE HALL USE, UM, APPROXIMATELY 0.14 ACRES IN SIZE.
[00:55:01]
HERE'S OUR LOCATION MAP.IT'S, UH, CENTRAL DALLAS, DOWNTOWN DEEP EL I'M SORRY, DEEP EL.
UM, HERE'S OUR AERIAL MAP WITH THE PROPERTY HIGHLIGHTED.
THIS IS, UM, ZONING MAP WITH THE SURROUNDING USES, UM, WHICH ARE PRETTY MUCH ALL COMMERCIAL RETAIL, UH, PLAN DEVELOPMENT 2 69 AND VARIOUS SUVS.
UM, AGAIN, CURRENTLY ZONED UNDER PLAN DEVELOPMENT, UH, NUMBER 2 69.
IT, UH, THIS IS A CORNER LOT, SO IT HAS FRONTAGE ON BOTH ELM STREET AND NORTH CROWDED STREET.
UM, HOURS OF OPERATION CURRENTLY ARE 4:00 PM TO 2:00 AM UM, MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY, AND BETWEEN 12:00 PM UH, NOON AND 2:00 AM UH, SATURDAY AND SUNDAY.
UM, THE APPLICANT PROPOSES NO OTHER CHANGES TO THE LAND USE OR THE SITE PLAN, AND THEY ARE REQUESTING AN SUP RENEWAL FOR A FIVE YEAR PERIOD.
UM, THE CURRENT SUP EXPIRED, UM, OCTOBER OF LAST YEAR.
THEY FILED FOR RENEWAL OCTOBER OF LAST YEAR.
AND, UM, AGAIN FOR ANOTHER FIVE YEAR TERM.
UM, THIS IS ON THE PROPERTY ON ELM STREET LOOKING SOUTHEAST.
THIS IS ON, UH, NORTH CROWDED STREET, UH, LOOKING SOUTH SOUTHEAST.
THIS IS ON THE CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION LOOKING NORTHEAST.
THIS IS ON ELM STREET, LOOKING NORTHWEST, ALSO ON ELM STREET.
LOOKING NORTH HERE ARE THE, UH, THE PROPOSED SUP CONDITIONS.
AGAIN, NO CHANGES ARE BEING PROPOSED.
AND, UH, STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL FOR FIVE-YEAR PERIOD, SUBJECT TO AMENDED CONDITIONS.
QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS? YES, COMMISSIONER HAM.
WE HAD HELD THIS FROM THE LAST, UM, MEETING TO ALLOW FOR COMMUNITY OUTREACH.
ARE YOU AWARE IF THE APPLICANT HAS BEEN ABLE TO BE IN TOUCH WITH THE SURROUNDING STAKEHOLDERS? UM, TO MY KNOWLEDGE, THEY HAVE NOT SHARED THAT INFORMATION WITH ME.
WELL, I I BELIEVE THEY'LL BE HERE LATER TODAY AND WE CAN ASK THEM ABOUT THAT.
UM, I BELIEVE WHEN WE HEARD THIS LAST TIME, UM, THIS, WHILE IT'S A RENEWAL OF AN SUP, IT'S A NEW OPERATOR AT THIS LOCATION, IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.
SO SUVS RUN WITH THE LAND AND SO THEY WERE ABLE TO JUST, UM, CONTINUE THE USAGE.
SO WHILE A RENEWAL, UM, IN TERMS OF THE SUP REQUIREMENT, HOW IT'S OPERATING WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD BE EVALUATED BASED ON THE NEW BUSINESS, I'LL SAY.
UM, HOW WAS THAT FACTORED INTO STAFF'S CONSIDERATION ON THE FIVE YEAR PERIOD? UH, THANK YOU.
SO BASICALLY, UM, MY EVALUATION IS LOOKING AT, UM, THE NEW OPERATOR AND ALSO, UM, SURROUNDING SVPS IN THE AREA, UM, THE HISTORY OF THE, UH, THE SITE AS WELL.
AND LOOKING AT, UH, WHAT WAS GRANTED IN THE PAST FOR NEW OPERATORS OR NEW SUVS IN THAT SAME AREA.
SO THAT WAS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION FOR THE RECOMMENDATION.
AND ARE YOU AWARE IF THERE'S BEEN ANY, UM, CONCERNS WITH THE, WITHIN THE COMMUNITY, UM, CONCERNS IN TERMS OF HOW THE NEW OPERATOR IS INTEGRATING, UM, IN LIGHT OF THE OTHER SURROUNDING USES AND HOW THEY'RE ALL WORKING TOGETHER? THIS IS OBVIOUSLY AN ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICT, SO YOU KNOW, RIGHT, RIGHT.
SO THE APPLICANT HAS NOT SHARED THAT INFORMATION WITH ME.
I'LL ASK THE APPLICANT AT THE HEARING.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM? COMMISSIONERS? OKAY.
UH, IT IS, UH, 10:04 AM COMMISSIONERS.
COMMISSIONERS, WE'RE GONNA GO AHEAD AND GET BACK ON THE RECORD.
WE NEED, WE DO HAVE EIGHT COMMISSIONERS IN THE ROOM.
UM, WE'RE ON CASE NUMBER 19, AND I HAVE BEEN ADVISED 21ST THAT IT IS GONNA BE HELD UNDER ADVISEMENT TO MARCH 21ST BECAUSE OF THE ERROR AND NOTICE, UH, ON THE, THE OLD TYPO THERE, PD NUMBER THREE 17.
UH, I, I HAVE ALSO BEEN ADVISED THAT WE CANNOT BRIEF IT EVEN THOUGH I KNOW THAT THERE ARE LOTS OF QUESTIONS.
UH, MR. MOORE HAS ADVISED THAT WE, WE CANNOT BRIEF IT.
SO WE'LL BRIEF THAT ITEM ON THE 21ST.
THAT TAKES US TO CASE NUMBER 20.
[01:00:02]
GOOD MORNING MS. A GOOD MORNING.ITEM 20 IS CASE Z 2 23 DASH 2 72.
IT'S AN APPLICATION FOR A NEW SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR A PUBLIC SCHOOL OTHER THAN AN OPEN ENROLLMENT CHARTER SCHOOL ON PROPERTY ZONED AN R SEVEN FIVE, A SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT ON PROPERTY BOUNDED BY MILMORE DRIVE, SHILOH ROAD, HEALY DRIVE, AND CASA OAKS DRIVE.
IT'S APPROXIMATELY 12.4 ACRES LOCATED IN DISTRICT TWO, UH, AERIAL AND ZONING LAND USE MAP.
YOU CAN SEE THE PROPERTY IS SURROUNDED BY SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED, SINGLE FAMILY IN R SEVEN FIVE A WITH A PUBLIC PARK TO THE NORTHWEST.
THE AREA OF REQUEST IS DEVELOPED WITH AN EXISTING ELEMENTARY SCHOOL.
KEY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL HAS BEEN IN OPERATION ON THE SITE SINCE THE MID 1950S.
UM, THE APPLICANT, UH, PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A NEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AND THEN DEMOLISHED THE EXISTING SCHOOL.
UM, AND JUST FYI THERE IS AN APPROVED PRELIMINARY PRELIMINARY PLAT.
UM, AND I'M GONNA START ON HEALY DRIVE AND JUST WORK MY WAY AROUND CLOCKWISE SINGLE FAMILY.
JUST SHOWING YOU EXISTING CONDITIONS HERE.
I BELIEVE THE CHAIN LINK FENCE IS GONNA BE REMOVED.
SIDEWALKS ARE GONNA BE UPGRADED TO THE WIDER WIDTH.
UM, AND THEN I BELIEVE THEY'RE GONNA COME IN WITH A, UM, A WROUGHT IRON TYPE FENCE.
THIS IS THE PARK TO THE NORTHWEST HARRY STONE PARK.
LOTS OF SINGLE FAMILY EXISTING PORTABLES, UM, WILL NO LONGER BE NEEDED.
UM, ON HEALY DRIVE, THEY CURRENTLY HAVE THE SORT OF CIRCULAR DRIVEWAY AT THE EXISTING SCHOOL.
WHEN THEY BUILD, THEY'LL HAVE ONE ACCESS POINT ON THIS, ON THIS ROAD.
UM, THIS IS JUST HERE FOR REFERENCE.
UM, THIS CHART IS IN THE STAFF REPORT.
IF WE NEED TO DISCUSS FURTHER, IT'S HERE FOR REFERENCE.
UM, AND THEN THE PROPOSED SUP SITE PLAN.
UM, THERE ARE A FEW ITEMS THAT ARE THAT REMAIN OUTSTANDING.
THERE WERE FIVE ITEMS FROM THE TRAFFIC ENGINEERING REVIEW THAT REMAINED PENDING, UM, HAVING TO DO WITH THE, THE SIZE OF THE DRIVEWAY ACCESS POINTS, UM, THE SIZE OF THE RADIUS, AND THEN THIS ADDITIONAL BUS LANE AND BUS ACCESS POINT.
UM, AS WELL AS, UM, NEEDING SOME ADDITIONAL OR STAFF RECOMMENDING SOME ADDITIONAL ACCESS FOR PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS.
BASICALLY WE JUST NEED TO BE REVISED TO UPDATE, UM, TO CONFORM BASICALLY WITH THE SAME BASE SITE PLAN AS WHAT'S SHOWN, UM, THAT WE JUST LOOKED AT.
AND THEN HERE ARE THE PENDING ITEMS. I JUST WANTED TO KIND OF GO THROUGH QUICKLY AND UPDATE YOU AS TO STATUS.
BECAUSE APPLICANT AND STAFF HAVE CONTINUED DISCUSSIONS.
UM, ITEMS ONE AND TWO ARE RESOLVED BASED ON ADDITIONAL RESPONSES PROVIDED.
WE DO HAVE CROSSING GUARDS THAT ARE EXISTING CONDITION.
THERE WAS A CONCERN ABOUT IF THESE WERE NEW, UH, IF THIS WAS GONNA BE A NEW PROPOSAL.
SO, UM, WE DID VERIFY THAT THAT'S AN EXISTING CONDITION TO REMAIN.
UM, AND THEN THE THREE PICKUP LANE CONCEPT, THEY DID PROVIDE OBSERVATIONS FROM A SITE WHERE THIS IS BEING USED SUCCESSFULLY.
SO STAFF HAS, UM, REMOVED ANY OBJECTION TO THAT.
UM, ITEM THREE, THE BUS DRIVEWAY, UH, REMAINS WITH A STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR REMOVAL, UM, OF THE ADDITIONAL DRIVEWAY FOR BUSES.
THE APPLICANT DID PROVIDE AN EXPLANATION AS TO WHY THEY'RE PROPOSING THAT.
UM, THIS IS NOT A PARTICULARLY STICKY POINT OF CONTENTION.
UM, STAFF RECOMMENDS REMOVAL, BUT WE UNDERSTAND, UM, WHY THEY'RE PROPOSING TO HAVE IT THERE.
UM, ITEM FOUR REMAINS UNRESOLVED.
UM, AND WE'RE STILL WAITING ON ADDITIONAL RESPONSE FROM THE APPLICANT.
THEY SAID THEY WERE GONNA HAVE THEIR ENGINEER DO A LITTLE BIT MORE, UM,
[01:05:01]
I GUESS TURN STUDIES OR WHATEVER.I'LL LET DAVID GO INTO THAT A LITTLE BIT MORE.
BUT, UM, THE STANDARD, THE CITY STANDARD FOR THIS LOCATION AND USE WOULD BE A, A MAXIMUM 24 FEET, UH, DRIVEWAY WIDTH WITH A MAXIMUM 15 FOOT RADIUS.
UM, THE APPLICANT IS CURRENTLY PROPOSING A 30 FOOT OR TWO 30 FOOT WIDE DRIVEWAYS.
UM, AND THE RADIUS IS LARGER, BUT I, I BELIEVE THEY'VE AGREED TO COME DOWN TO THE 15 FEET FOR THE RADIUS.
UM, WE'RE JUST KIND OF WAITING TO HEAR WHAT THEIR ENGINEER HAS TO SAY ABOUT THE WIDTH AT THAT DRIVEWAY.
ONE OF THE THINGS WE TALKED ABOUT WITH THEM WAS, EXCUSE ME, POSSIBLY NOTING, UM, A, A RANGE OF WIDTHS ON THE DRIVEWAY, ACCESS POINTS ON THE SITE PLAN TO SAY 24 TO 30 FEET TBD AT PERMITTING.
ONCE THEY CAN GET IN THERE AND ANALYZE IT FURTHER.
UM, THEY SEEMED AMENABLE TO THAT, BUT I'LL LET THEM SPEAK TO THAT.
UM, AND THEN PROBABLY THE BIGGEST POINT OF DISAGREEMENT REMAINING WOULD BE, UM, THE RECOMMENDATION FOR ADDITIONAL ACCESS FOR PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS.
AND I DID WARN DAVID THAT I WAS GONNA KIND OF PUT HIM ON BLAST HERE, UM, AND BE AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS OR
UH, GO, GO A LITTLE BIT FURTHER ON THAT IF NEEDED.
UM, AND JUST RUNNING THROUGH QUICKLY, THE SUP CONDITIONS ARE FAIRLY STANDARD FOR SUP.
UM, WE DID ADD A CONDITION TO THE, THE SUP CONDITIONS FOR THE SIDE YARD BECAUSE THEY'RE PROPOSING A 25 FOOT SIDE YARD.
UM, AT MILMORE AND HEALY, TYPICALLY THE, THE REQUIREMENT WOULD BE 10 FEET IN A SIDE YARD FOR R SEVEN FIVE A.
SO, UM, BECAUSE THIS DIFFERS FROM THE BASE CODE, UM, WE'RE ADDING IT AS A CONDITION, UM, THE FENCE CONDITION IS THERE BECAUSE, UM, THERE IS A MAX HEIGHT OF FOUR FEET FOR A FENCE IN A FRONT YARD AT THIS LOCATION.
UM, BUT THE APPLICANT INDICATED THAT FOR A PORTION WHERE THEY WERE UNABLE TO, TO RECESS IT BACK BEHIND THE SETBACK LINE OR TO, ANYWAY, THEY COULDN'T QUITE WORK IT OUT UNDER THE BASE CODE.
SO THEY ARE GOING TO, UH, SEEK, UH, BOARD APPROVAL TO HAVE A SIX FOOT FENCE IN THE FRONT YARD AT, UM, CASA OAKS, CASA OAKS AND SHILOH.
SO THIS CONDITION IS WRITTEN IN HERE TO SAY, UM, THAT BASICALLY YOU CAN HAVE A MA MAXIMUM SIX FOOT HIGH FENCE IN A REQUIRED YARD.
UM, BUT THAT IN THE FRONT YARD, IT WOULD REQUIRE APPROVAL FROM THE BOARD TO BE TALLER THAN FOUR FEET.
UM, AND THEN PEDESTRIAN AMENITY LANGUAGE AND SIDEWALKS AND BUFFER LANGUAGE.
THIS WAS PROPOSED BY THE APPLICANT BASED ON THE STANDARDS THAT WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THEM, UM, FOR THE DISD BOND PROGRAM AND UPDATED THE TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT LANGUAGE TO THE CURRENT.
AND WITH THAT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO A REVISED SITE PLAN, REVISED TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN AND CONDITIONS QUESTIONS.
UM, I KNOW YOU AND I HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THIS EARLIER THIS WEEK.
UM, IS IT CORRECT THAT THE APPLICANT AT THIS TIME HAS NOT SUBMITTED ANY REVISED CONDITIONS TO STAFF? UM, THEY HAVEN'T JUST BECAUSE, I MEAN, THEY'VE, THEY'VE ADDRESSED IT WITH US.
WE'VE HAD A DISCUSSION AFTER YOU AND I MET, AND I GUESS THEY MET WITH YOU TOO.
WE GOT TOGETHER AND THEY WERE KIND OF ASKING FOR STAFF'S GUIDANCE ON THAT, BASICALLY.
UM, WE DON'T, WE DON'T HAVE A MOTION FOR ANY DIFFERENT LANGUAGE YET.
BUT SHOULD WE GET A MOTION FOR ANY DIFFERENT LANGUAGE, WE'VE INDICATED TO THEM THAT WE WILL WRITE THAT UP IN, IN PREPARATION FOR THE ORDINANCE.
AND SO, UM, ITEMS THAT I THINK WERE DISCUSSED AND, YOU KNOW, WHETHER YOU WANNA FIELD THIS OR DAVID, SO ON THE ENGINEERING COMMENTS REGARDING THE PEDESTRIAN ACCESS POINTS, MM-HMM,
SO I, IS IT CORRECT THAT THEY WERE LOOKING AT, UM, RELOCATING THOSE SO THAT THEY RELATED TO THE, UM, ACCESSIBLE WALKWAYS THROUGH THE PARKING AREAS? I'M NOT AWARE IF THEY'RE LOOKING INTO THAT OR IF IT'S, I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY CHANGE AS FAR AS THAT.
UM, WE HAVE ENCOURAGED THEM AND PART OF OUR RECOMMENDATION IN ADDITION TO ADDITIONAL AADE UH, PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE ACCESS POINTS, STAFF HAD CONCERN WITH, UM, AND WHAT COMMISSIONER HAMPTON IS REFERRING TO AS THIS ACCESS POINT HERE FOR PEDESTRIANS.
AND THEN THIS ACCESS POINT HERE, STAFF HAD CONCERN WITH THEM, ONE BEING LOCATED IN SUCH CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE VEHICULAR DRIVE.
[01:10:01]
AND THEN ALSO AS COMMISSIONER HAMPTON SAID, THE FACT THAT IT'S, IT'S DIFFICULT FOR A PEDESTRIAN OR BICYCLIST TO ACCESS THE SCHOOL VIA ONE OF THOSE PATHS WITHOUT HAVING TO CROSS THE CONFLICT POINT WITH THE VEHICLE.SO I BELIEVE THAT YOUR, YOUR RECOMMENDATION I, FROM MY UNDERSTANDING IS TO KIND OF FLIP, IT'S A, IT'S, IT'S A GOOD IDEA TO GET THEM FURTHER AWAY AND TO ALIGN THEM WITH THE ACCESS POINTS THAT EXIST FOR HANDICAP SPACES ALREADY.
UM, IN ADDITION TO THE LOCATION OF THESE TWO, HOWEVER, STAFF HAD CONCERNS ABOUT, UM, THE FACT THAT, I MEAN, THIS IS, THIS IS EMBEDDED WITHIN A SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD.
HOPEFULLY THERE WOULD BE MORE WALKERS ENCOURAGED BY WIDER SIDEWALKS AND ALL THESE PATHWAYS.
AND, AND IF ANYONE WERE TO SAY, IF THE COMMUNITY WERE TO USE ANY OF THE PLAY AREAS ON SATURDAY MORNING OR AFTER HOURS, NOT IN CONFLICT WITH THE SCHOOL, ANYONE FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD BASED ON THIS PROPOSAL HAS ONLY TWO POSSIBLE ACCESS POINTS WHEN THEY'RE ON FOOT OR BICYCLE.
SO WE WERE ENCOURAGING THEM TO ADD MORE, UM, AND I'LL, YOU KNOW, DEFER TO THE APPLICANT TO ADDRESS THE COUNTERPOINT.
AND AGAIN, THAT KIND OF THIRD ACCESS POINT THAT WAS RECOMMENDED THROUGH THE ENGINEERING AND STAFF REVIEW HAS TO DO WITH COMMUNITY ACCESS FOR THE PLAY FIELDS, THE SOCCER FIELDS, AGAIN, TO ENCOURAGE THE INTEGRATION OF THE SCHOOL OUTSIDE OF SCHOOL HOURS.
UM, AS I UNDERSTAND, AND CORRECT ME IF THIS IS WHAT YOU'VE HEARD FROM THE APPLICANT AS WELL, THEIR CONCERN IS, UM, SECURITY FOR THE PERIMETER.
HOWEVER, THIS COULD SIMPLY BE A CONVENIENCE GATE THAT WAS PROVIDED RIGHT? TO THOSE NOT THAT IT, YOU KNOW, WAS GONNA DISRUPT THE DAY-TO-DAY OPERATIONS OF THE SCHOOL AND THE DROP OFF COMPONENT.
IS THAT A FAIR ASSESSMENT? RIGHT.
MY UNDERSTANDING FROM THE APPLICANT IS THE TWO THAT ARE PROPOSED HERE WOULD BE WITHIN RANGE OF SECURITY CAMERAS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
SO THEY WANT TO LIMIT THE POINTS OF ACCESS.
BUT YES, EXACTLY WHAT YOU SAID.
IT COULD BE FOR AFTER HOURS OR ONLY.
I MEAN, IT, THIS IS NOT MEANT TO BE A A DURING PEAK HOURS ACCESS POINT.
AND THEN RELATED TO THE THREE LANE DROP OFF, I KNOW THAT SOMEWHAT OF A, OF A NEW CONCEPT I THINK OF, OF, UM, HOW DISD AND THE SCHOOL IN PARTICULAR IS THINKING ABOUT THEIR DROP OFF FUNCTIONS.
UM, THEY, I UNDERSTAND IN WORKING WITH STAFF HAD, UH, INCLUDED THIS, UM, PEDESTRIAN REFUGE AREA, I'LL CALL IT ESSENTIALLY THE LONG ISLAND THAT DIVIDES THE DROP OFF LANES FROM THE VEHICULAR CIRCULATION.
UH, IS IT CORRECT THAT THEY WERE EVALUATING AN INCREASE TO THAT ISLAND JUST TO GIVE A LITTLE BIT MORE BUFFER, UM, AS THEY'RE LOADING AND UNLOADING? THOSE ARE THE TWO LOCATIONS ON THE NORTH AND SOUTH OF THE BUILDING.
I I THINK I'LL HAVE TO DEFER TO THE APPLICANT ON THAT ONE.
IT'S TO THEM, IT'S, I KNOW IT'S BEEN BROUGHT UP.
I'M NOT SURE WHERE WE ARE ON THAT OR IF IT'S I'M, I DON'T KNOW.
AND THEN, UM, QUESTION ON THE SETBACKS.
UM, I WILL ACKNOWLEDGE AND THANK YOU, I WAS VERY PLEASED TO SEE THE, UM, SIDE YARD SETBACK INCLUDED.
I KNEW YOU WOULD BE SO HAPPY WITH THAT IN THE LANGUAGE
UM, WOULD IT BE APPROPRIATE, UM, SINCE THE SETBACKS THAT ARE SHOWN HERE ARE ALL 25 FEET, TO SIMPLY NOTE THAT THAT IS THE REQUIRED SETBACK ON ALL FRONTAGES, UM, IN, IN THIS CASE, WITH IT BEING AN SUP AND THE, THE, THE BASE CODE AT THIS LOCATION REQUIRES A 25 FOOT SETBACK AT FRONT YARDS.
UM, AND THE BASE CODE ALSO DEFINING FOR THIS TYPE OF, UH, FOR THIS LOCATION AND THIS LOT CONFIGURATION, IT REQUIRES THAT THE SHORTER FRONTAGES WOULD BE CONSIDERED FRONT YARDS.
UM, IT WOULD BE BASICALLY A REPETITION OF BASE CODE FOR US TO ADD ANYTHING ABOUT THOSE TWO FRONTAGES.
SO WHAT WE'RE ADDING TO THE SUP CONDITIONS IS ANYTHING THAT DIFFERS FROM THE BASE CODE, UM, AND CAN ONLY BE MORE RESTRICTIVE, NOT LESS, BUT IT MIGHT SERVE AS A BELTS AND SUSPENDERS.
IF THERE WAS EVER A FUTURE CHANGE IN HOW, UM, SETBACKS WERE EVALUATED, HOW FRONTAGES WERE CONSIDERED.
I MEAN, I I, I CAN'T REALLY SAY BELTS AND SUSPENDERS.
UM, I CAN ONLY SAY THAT WHEN, WHEN WE HAVE SUP ORDINANCES AND, AND I'VE SENT ANYTHING TO THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, THAT'S A REPEAT OF BASE CODE, IT TYPICALLY GETS STRUCK FROM THE ORDINANCE JUST BECAUSE IT'S, IT'S REDUNDANT TO THE BASE CODE.
UM, REGARDING HEIGHT AND STORIES, UM, I KNOW THEY'VE INCLUDED THIS ON THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AS AN INSTITUTIONAL USE.
THEY ARE NOT RESTRICTED ON THEIR HEIGHT.
WAS THERE CONSIDERATION OF INCLUDING
[01:15:01]
A MAXIMUM HEIGHT AND A NUMBER OF STORIES JUST TO GIVE EVERYONE CERTAINTY ON WHAT IS, UM, INTENDED FOR THE SITE? WELL, UH, THE SITE PLAN THEY HAVE LEFT THE NUMBER OF STORIES.YOU'LL SEE THAT THERE'S A SINGLE STORY PORTION OF THE SCHOOL AND THEN A, A TWO STORY PORTION OF THE SCHOOL.
SO IF THEY WERE TO TRY TO COME UP FROM THAT, THEY WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK JUST BASED ON THE SITE PLAN ALONE.
BUT IF THERE'S NOTHING IN THE CONDITIONS, IT WOULDN'T GIVE THIS BODY ANY FUTURE UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THE COMMUNITY REVIEW WAS, IS THAT CORRECT? JUST THAT IT'S IN THE, JUST THAT IT'S ON THE SITE PLAN.
SO THE SITE PLAN WITH IT BEING LABELED AS A TWO STORY AND ONE STORY IS, AND THAT HAVING BEEN APPROVED, UM, NOTES FOR ANYONE WHO LOOKS AT IT, THAT THIS IS THE LIMIT TO WHAT HAS BEEN APPROVED IN TERMS OF, OF NUMBER OF STORIES.
I'M NOT REALLY SURE I'M UNDERSTANDING THE QUESTION.
WELL, TYPICALLY THE, UM, WRITTEN CONDITIONS CONTROL OVER THE SITE PLAN.
I UNDERSTAND IF THEY CHANGE THE SITE PLAN, THEY HAVE TO COME BACK, BUT AGAIN, IT JUST, IT REINFORCES WHAT THE INTENT WAS BY INCLUDING IT WITHIN THE CONDITION.
AND, AND THAT WOULD BE AN EXAMPLE OF SOMETHING THAT, UM, WOULD BE A, A DEPARTURE FROM THE BASE CODE SINCE, AS YOU MENTIONED, THE HEIGHT IS NOT REALLY RESTRICTED HERE.
AND SO IF, IF THERE WERE A HEIGHT LIMIT IMPOSED, THAT WOULD BE, IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO ADD THAT TO CONDITIONS.
UM, BECAUSE IT IS MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN THE BASE CODE.
AND I BELIEVE THAT, I BELIEVE THAT THEIR PROPOSAL IS SOMEWHERE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF 42 FEET FOR THE STRUCTURE.
AND I WOULD ALWAYS ENCOURAGE THEM TO GIVE A LITTLE BIT OF WIGGLE ROOM TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S NOTHING WHEN THEY'RE ACTUALLY GETTING THROUGH THEIR PLANS.
UM, AND SIMILAR TO THAT, I KNOW MANY TIMES WE INCLUDE, UM, LIGHT POLE HEIGHTS, UM, I KNOW THEY'RE EVALUATING WHETHER OR NOT IT IS AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, UM, WHAT THOSE MAY BE, WAS THERE ANY STAFF CONSIDERATION ON, ON INCLUDING THAT AS A CONDITION? AGAIN, SIMILAR TO HOW WE'VE APPROACHED OTHER CASES, TYPICALLY, UM, STAFF RECOMMEND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LIGHT POLES WOULD HAVE TO DO WITH ATHLETIC FIELD LIGHTING.
UM, BECAUSE THOSE ARE GONNA BE TYPICALLY MUCH TALLER THAN THE STANDARD, THE BASE CODE WOULD LIMIT JUST ANY LIGHTING WITHIN A SETBACK WOULD LIMIT IT TO 20 FEET, OR IT WOULD HAVE TO BE PUSHED BACK BEHIND SETBACK LINES.
SO IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT STAFF CONSIDERED FOR THIS LOCATION AS THERE ARE NO, THERE'S NOT GONNA BE ANY ATHLETIC FIELD LIGHTING HERE.
MM-HMM,
UM, REGARDING SIGNS THAT ARE INCLUDED, THIS IS CONDITION 10 AND THE SUP MM-HMM.
UM, IS IT CORRECT, I MEAN, WOULD IT BE APPROPRIATE TO NOTE THIS AS A NON DISTRICT, AGAIN, DIRECTING DI YOU KNOW, TO, WHAT IS THE CONSIDERATION FOR THIS SINCE IT IS RESIDENTIAL? UM, IT'S, THIS, THIS WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT IT, IT WOULD BE REDUNDANT TO THE BASE CODE BECAUSE IT, THIS LOCATION BY DEFINITION WOULD HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE NON-BUSINESS DISTRICT SIGNS.
AND THEN RELATED TO THAT, UM, WAS THERE ANY CONSIDERATION OF ADDRESSING ILLUMINATION OR WHEN ILLUMINATION MAY OCCUR FOR SIGNAGE? SINCE THAT'S AN ALLOWANCE AND BASE CODE, WE DID NOT HAVE THAT DISCUSSION WITH THEM.
UM, BUT WE CAN, I MEAN, THAT WOULD AGAIN, BE SOMETHING THAT COULD BE ADDED TO CONDITIONS IF WE WANT TO RESTRICT FURTHER AS FAR AS, LET'S SAY, UM, EXTERIOR ILLUMINATION OF SIGNS OR SOMETHING OF THAT NATURE.
AND THEN SIMILARLY ON SCREENING, UM, YOU KNOW, WE'VE GOT SOME LOADING AREAS THAT ARE SHOWN THAT INCLUDE SCREENING.
HOWEVER, THOSE WOULD NOT NECESSARILY BE REQUIRED PER BASE CODE, UM, BECAUSE OF THEIR DISTANCE FROM THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.
UM, WAS THERE A CONSIDERATION OF STRENGTHENING THAT TO ENSURE THAT, UM, LOADING AND EQUIPMENT AREAS ARE FULLY SCREENED? UM, I, I DON'T, I DON'T THINK IT WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE TO ADD THAT IF, IF THE BODY DECIDES THAT WE WANNA MAKE SURE THAT SCREENING OF THOSE AREAS IS GONNA OCCUR REGARDLESS OF THE, THE BEING BEYOND THE DISTANCE THRESHOLD.
I KNOW WE'VE DONE THAT IN SOME PDS BEFORE WHERE IT WAS JUST OUTSIDE THE DISTANCE AND WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT IT STILL WAS SCREENED.
WE COULD CERTAINLY ADD THAT CONDITION.
AND THEN, SORRY, MY, MY LIST IS A LITTLE BIT OUT OF ORDER, SO I'M GONNA GO THAT'S OKAY.
GO ALL THE WAY BACK TO DRY AISLES NOW.
SO IN, AS STAFF WAS EVALUATING THE WIDTH OF THE DRY AISLES AND THEIR LOCATION, UM, I KNOW IF WE START ON THE NORTH AT, UH, MILL MAR, I THINK THEY'RE, YOU KNOW, GENERALLY MAINTAINING THERE'S AN EXISTING, UM, TWO DRIVE ACCESS POINTS, IF YOU WILL.
BUT TO SPEAK TO THE IDEA OF TRYING TO ENCOURAGE PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC AND USE BY THE COMMUNITY, WAS THERE ANY CONSIDERATION OF SPEAKING TO CHANGING THE MATERIAL AND FINISH AT THOSE CROSSWALKS? AGAIN, JUST TO EMPHASIZE THE PEDESTRIAN NATURE OF THOSE CROSSINGS.
SO WE DIDN'T, UM, WE DIDN'T, UH,
[01:20:01]
RECOMMEND OR NECESSARILY PROPOSE THAT TO THEM.WHAT, WHAT WE WERE MAINLY CONCERNED WITH IS THE DESIGN OF THOSE ACCESS POINTS BEING DONE IN SUCH A WAY THAT IT WOULD ENCOURAGE, UM, VEHICLES TO HAVE TO REDUCE SPEED AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE WHEN CROSSING THAT POINT.
THAT'S THE REASON FOR THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE 15 FOOT RADIUS AND THE NARROWER DRIVE WIDTH.
AND I, I'M, AGAIN, THAT'S PROBABLY A, A FOLLOW UP QUESTION WITH THE APPLICANT AS WELL.
MM-HMM,
SO, SO LET ME, LET ME ADDRESS THAT THIS WAY.
UM, LET ME TALK ABOUT A COUPLE DIFFERENT TYPES OF LIGHTING.
YOU SAID SOUND, I THOUGHT YOU SAID LIGHTING.
WELL, SOUND AND LIGHTING WAS ADDRESSABLE.
UM, NO, NO, JUST AS THE QUICK ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION, JUST BECAUSE IT IS AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, THERE'S NOT PROPOSED TO BE ATHLETIC FIELD LIGHTING AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT THEY COULD GO ADD AT PERMITTING BECAUSE IT WOULD BE, IT'S AN OPTIONAL FEATURE.
SO IN ORDER TO HAVE THE ATHLETIC FIELD LIGHTING HERE, THEY WOULD NEED TO HAVE APPROVAL AND IT WOULD NEED TO BE LISTED IN THE CONDITIONS OR SHOWN ON THE SITE PLAN THAT DIFFERS FROM, FOR EXAMPLE, THERE IS A CODE REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE ILLUMINATION FOR PARKING AT LOCATIONS THAT WOULD BE USED AFTER DARK.
SO THEY COULD GO TO PERMITTING AND ADD PARKING LOT LIGHTING WITHOUT HAVING IT SHOWN ON THE SITE PLAN HERE BECAUSE IT'S A CODE REQUIREMENT, BUT THEY CAN'T GO DO THE SAME THING FOR OPTIONAL FEATURES LIKE ATHLETIC FIELD LIGHTING.
SO GIVEN IT WAS AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AND THERE'S NONE PROPOSED, WE DIDN'T ADDRESS THAT WITH THEM.
AND THEN REGARDING SOUND, THE SAME THING I THINK WOULD BE THE ANSWER.
I'M NOT SURE WHERE THE SOUND WOULD BE COMING FROM HERE.
IF THERE WAS ANY OUTDOOR NOTICE, IF THERE WERE ANY, UM, YOU KNOW, I, I COULD THINK OF A NUMBER OF THINGS THAT WOULD POTENTIALLY HAVE AMPLIFIED SOUND THAT COULD START AS EARLY AS WELL AS EARLY AS THEY WANTED TO IF THERE WAS NO PRESCRIPTIONS.
AND I KNOW MANY TIMES WE INCLUDE A, NOT BEFORE 7:00 AM NOT AFTER 7:00 PM OR 8:00 PM AS AN EXAMPLE OF TWO RECENT CONDITIONS WE'VE INCLUDED.
SO, SO I GUESS THE REASON THAT I WENT STRAIGHT TO LIGHTING WHEN YOU MENTIONED SOUND IS THAT, UM, ANY OF THE ACTIVITIES THAT WOULD OCCUR AT THE LOCATION WOULD HAVE TO OCCUR DURING DAYLIGHT HOURS.
I MEAN, I GUESS UNLESS THEY'RE GONNA HAVE LIKE SOME SPOOKY HALLOWEEN SOMETHING AFTER DARK THING, I DON'T KNOW.
BUT IT'S, THERE'S NO, NO, THERE'S NO LIGHTING THAT'S GONNA ILLUMINATE THE FIELDS TO MAKE THEM USABLE AFTER DARK OR BEFORE LIGHT.
SO IT JUST REALLY DIDN'T COME INTO THE CONVERSATION.
BECAUSE YOU'RE AN EXPERT AT WHAT YOU DO.
UM, AND THIS IS RELATED TO THIS CASE, BUT IN GENERAL, YOU KNOW HOW I HATE THE, THE, THE OUTDOOR FACILITIES AND I KNOW THESE WILL BE GONE.
THE HOPE IS THAT THESE WILL BE GONE ONCE THIS PLACE IS REBUILT.
IS THERE EVER A WAY THAT FUTURE FUTURE, RIGHT, THAT WE CAN RESTRICT THESE THINGS FROM BEING ADDED TO FIELDS OR BE REQUIRED TO COME BEFORE US TO GET THEM ADDED TO THE TEMPORARY BUILDINGS? YEAH.
BUT YOU CAN SLEEP ON THAT, JENNIFER, AND COME BACK TO ME.
LET ME, LET ME LOOK INTO THAT A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE I'M NOT A HUNDRED PERCENT SURE.
'CAUSE SOMETIMES THERE ARE TEMPORARY BUILDINGS THAT, THAT I NEED TO, I NEED TO CHECK ON A COUPLE OF THINGS.
SOMETIMES TEMPORARY BUILDINGS ARE ALLOWED TO COME ONTO A CAMPUS, UM, WITHOUT ACTUALLY BEING APPROVED AND SHOWN ON SITE PLANS AND DEVELOPMENT PLANS.
SO I, I DON'T WANT TO LIE TO YOU.
ANOTHER QUESTION, COMMISSIONER.
I, I, I CAN KEEP GOING, BUT I, I BELIEVE MOST OF THEM WILL BE FOR THE APPLICANT AT THIS POINT.
ONE THING I WILL SAY IS I, ON BEHALF OF STAFF, I SPEAK FOR ALL OF US.
WHEN I SAY THANK YOU FOR SENDING THINGS AHEAD OF TIME, IT VERY, IT'S REALLY HELPFUL TO BE ABLE TO LOOK AT THAT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONERS? WE WILL KEEP MOVING THEN.
UM, THANK YOU MS. AGAR, WE'RE READY
[01:25:01]
FOR YOU.OLGA, GO TO CASE NUMBER 21 COMMISSIONERS, AND THEN WE'LL GO BACK AND PICK UP THE, UH, OTHER CASES.
UH, I AM NOT SURE HOW TO USE THIS NEW TECHNOLOGY.
SO DO I JUST GRAB THE COMPUTER OVER THERE? UM, SORRY, I JUST DON'T SEE.
DO YOU HAVE IT ON THE FOLDER? DO YOU HAVE IT HERE? THE WHAT? THIS YOUR ONE ON HERE.
UH, WHAT IS IT? IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE THERE.
HOW COME IT ISN'T THERE? I SENT IT TO YOU GUYS.
DO YOU HAVE YOUR, DO YOU HAVE YOUR LAPTOP? GO AHEAD AND BRING IT.
UM, Z 180 9 3 41 IS FLORIDA FARMS AUTHORIZED HEARING? IT'S NOT
[01:35:17]
SO[01:35:17]
COMMISSIONERS.I DID NOT WANNA MAKE AN ENTRANCE, BUT SOMETIMES TECHNICAL ISSUES OVERPOWER.
SO FLORAL FARMS IS AN AUTHORIZED HEARING FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE AND GOALS OF THE, OF THE, UH, AUTHORIZED HEARING IS TO AMEND THE ZONING IN THE AREA TO ADDRESS LAND USING COMPATIBILITIES AND COMPATIBILITIES SUCH AS HEAVY INDUSTRIAL ZONING, AB INDUSTRIAL USE RESIDENTIAL USES.
AND THE GOALS ARE TO TRANSITION SUNNING DISTRICTS, IR AND IM TO LIGHTER INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT IN THIS CASES LI THAT WILL HAVE A LESSER IMPACT ON SURROUNDING USES AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENVIRONMENT IN GENERAL AND TO PROVIDE PROTECTION TO THE EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY USES AND THE ENVIRONMENT IN GENERAL.
THIS IS THE LOCATION SOUTH, SOUTH DALLAS, UM, EAST OF I 45.
THE AREA IS GENERALLY BOUNDED BY RIVER OAKS ROAD TO THE NORTH UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD TO THE EAST.
MCCOMBS BLUFF TO THE SOUTH, AND SHE'S FREEWAY TO THE WEST.
THE AREA OF REQUEST IS F THE AREA OF, UM, STUDY IS 522 ACRES POINT 18.
IN AUGUST 19TH, 2000 AND, UH, AUGUST 19TH, 2019, THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION AUTHORIZED THE PUBLIC HEARING, THE AUTHORIZED HEARING FOR, I HAVE A LITTLE THING HERE ON MY SCREEN THAT I DON'T NEED TO LOOK AT.
UM, SO IT WAS DETERMINED TO, UM, AUTHORIZE A HEARING IN AUGUST 19TH, 2019.
FOUR COMMUNITY MEETINGS WERE HELD IN THE AREA, ONE IN SEPTEMBER 12TH, 2022 AND THREE ON JANUARY 17, APRIL 11 AND SEPTEMBER 12TH, 2023.
IN ADDITION TO THAT, STAFF WAS, UM, HAVING SEVERAL MEETINGS WITH DIFFERENT STAKEHOLDERS IN THE AREA.
THE AUTHORIZED HEARING AREA CONSIST ON A MIX OF SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USES, INDUSTRIAL USES, COMMERCIAL USES, VACANT STRUCTURES, AND UNDEVELOPED LAND.
THE EXISTING ZONING DISTRICTS IN THE AREA ARE AGRICULTURAL COMMUNITIES, SERVICES, INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH, INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURING, INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURING, WITH DEAL RESTRICTIONS ON A PROPERTY.
I AM WITH SUP NUMBER 7 73 ON A PROPERTY AND PD NUMBER 7 78.
THE SINGLE FAMILY USES WITHIN THE AUTHORIZED HEARING AREA WERE CONSTRUCTED PRIOR TO 1956 OPEN ANNEX SECTION.
THE LAND WAS ZONE AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT.
SEVERAL USES INCLUDING PROPERTY WITH SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USES BECAME NON-CONFORMING IN 1980S WHEN THE CITY DALLAS TRANSITION FROM CHAPTER 51 TO CHAPTER 51 8, THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE NON-CONFORMING USES ARE GRANTED PROVISIONS TO ALLOW REMODELING EXPANSION AND THE RIGHT TO REBUILD IF DESTROYED BY NATURAL DISASTERS OR AN INTENTIONAL ACT.
HOWEVER, IF THE RIGHT TO OPERATE, THE RIGHT TO OPERATE AN NONCONFORMING USE CEASES IF THE NONCONFORMING USES DISCONTINUED FOR AT LEAST SIX MONTHS OR MORE WHAT THE COMMUNITY AND STAKEHOLDERS WANT.
THEY WANT US TOONE SINGLE FAMILY USES TO PROPERTY, TO RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TO PROVIDE PROTECTION FOR EXISTING RESIDENCES TO PROTECT RESIDENTIAL USES AND THE AREA FOR HEAVY INDUSTRIAL USES TO EXPLORE TRAIL OPPORTUNITIES FOR BIKING AND WALKING.
THEY WANT US TO KEEP DUST FROM COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL OPERATIONS, FROM AFFECTING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES.
THEY WANT US TO EXPAND COMMERCIAL ZONING TO ATTRACT GAS STATIONS AND NEIGHBOR SERVICE RETAIL LIKE GROCERY STORES AND RESTAURANTS.
THEY WANT US TO MAINTAIN INDUSTRIAL ZONING ON PROPERTIES WITH EXISTING INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND, AND UNDEVELOPED LAND.
THEY WANT US TO ALLOW PROPERTIES TO KEEP EXISTING SPECIFIC USE PERMITS.
THEY DO NOT WANT US TO DOWN SOME PROPERTIES TO AN AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT.
THIS IS THE LOCATION ON RIVER OAKS ROAD.
THIS IS ON BIRD LANE, ON RHODES LANE, ON SUN ROAD, ON JOY ROAD, ON BERMUDA, ON MCCOMB BLUFF ON SIMPSON STEWART ROAD.
ON SIMPSON STEWART ROAD ON SIMPSON STEWART ROAD TO THE EAST OF CENTRAL EXPRESS WAY ON SOUTH CENTRAL
[01:40:01]
EXPRESS WAY, ON SOUTH CENTRAL EXPRESS WAY, ON SOUTH CENTRAL EXPRESS WAY.THIS IS THE INTERSECTION OF SIMPSON STEWART AND SOUTH CENTRAL EXPRESS WAY.
THE FIRST PICTURE IS IN SOUTHWEST CORNER.
THE SECOND PICTURE IS THE NORTHEAST CORNER.
AND HERE WE HAVE THE SOUTHWEST CORNER AND THE SOUTHEAST CORNER.
MORE PICTURES ON SOUTH CENTRAL EXPRESS.
WAY SOUTH CENTRAL EXPRESSWAY AND THE SURROUNDING USES ARE TO THE NORTH.
YOU GET TO SEE DOWNTOWN AND TODAY EAST THE RAIL, THE RAIL RAILROAD WAY ON EAST OF, UH, SIMPSON STEWART.
THIS IS WHAT WE CAN SEE ON SOUTH ON CENTRAL EXPRESSWAY AND WEST OF SIMPSON STEWART ROAD.
SO THE SITE HAS THE DIFFERENCE ON IT USES AS AGRICULTURAL COMMERCIAL LIGHT INDUSTRIAL INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH IN INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURING WITH SP 7 73 INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURING WITH DR.
AND, UM, PD 7 78 USES OUR SINGLE FAMILY AUTO RELATED USE COMMERCIAL AND DEVELOPED THE VACANT INSTITUTIONAL OUTSIDE STORAGE TO NAME A FEW.
ON THE NORTHEAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY.
WE HAVE INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH PD FIVE 40 WITH A CP 1382.
THE JOBA PRESERVE, DALLAS COUNTY NATURE PRESERVE IS LOCATED IN THAT AREA.
THERE IS A LAWN AND BUSINESSES, SOME UNDEVELOPED LAND, SOME RECYCLING CENTER AND OUTSIDE STORAGE.
ON THE NORTHWEST OF THE PROPERTY, WE HAVE OUTSIDE INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH FOR OUTSIDE STORAGE TRUCK SERVICES AND THE JULIUS SHIPS FREEWAY.
THE SOUTHEAST AREA HAS INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURING AND SUP 2335 INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURING.
WITH SUP 7 0 5, WE HAVE A DEVELOPED LAND NURSERY, MBL LANDFILL OUTSIDE STORAGE RESTAURANT AND A RECYCLING CENTER.
THE SOUTHWEST AREA IS ZONE AGRICULTURAL AND CS.
AND THE PROPERTY, UH, THE PROPERTIES ARE UNDEVELOPED SHIP, VACANT, UH, FREEWAY VACANT LEAD AND OUTSIDE STORAGE.
THIS MAP IS PRETTY HARD TO SEE.
UM, AND I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR ANY PARTICULAR, UM, WE HAVE EXISTING ZONING AND WE ARE PROPOSING FOR INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH.
WE'RE PROPOSING GOING TO LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USES COMMUNITY RETAIL, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, AGRICULTURAL DISTRICTS, AND AMEND PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 7, 7 8 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.
STAFF STRIVE TO STRIKE A BALANCE THAT RESPECTS BOTH THE RESIDENTS AND BUSINESS OWNERS WITH HOPE THAT THEY CAN COEXIST.
THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS AS FOLLOWS TO RECENT EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY PROPERTIES ARE A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS WHICH WILL AFFORD PROTECTIONS THAT INCLUDE, BUT THEY'RE NOT LIMITED TO ADDITIONAL, ADDITIONAL BUFFER LANDSCAPING SCREENING, RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY REVIEW RPS TRIGGERED BY NEW RES NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.
AND STAFF IS NOT RECOMMENDING ANY ADDITIONAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE AREA TO RESORT INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURING AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH TO LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AND PROPERTIES IN THE NORTH.
AND ON THE EAST SIDE OF CENTRAL EXPRESSWAY WHERE THE EXISTING BUSINESS ARE CONCENTRATED.
LIGHT INDUSTRIAL IS INTENDED TO PROVIDE FOR LIGHT INDUSTRIAL OFFICE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AND COMMERCIAL USES IN AN INDUSTRIAL PARK PARK SETTING.
LIGHT INDUSTRIAL IS DESIGNED TO BE IN AREAS APPROPRIATE FOR INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT, WHICH MAY BE ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITIES.
SO IT'S A MUCH LIGHTER TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT.
STAFF SEES THIS, UH, DISTRICT OF COMPROMISE TO AMEND PD 7 78.
SO WE ARE, THE PURPOSE IS TO ENSURE COMPATIBILITY TO COMPAR USE USES AND PROTECTION OF THE ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL USES IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER.
WE ARE PROPOSING TO INCREASE, UM, THE REQUIREMENT OF A SITE AND REAR YARDS FROM 2020 FEET TO 30 FEET TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL BUFFER FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT AND TO THE ADJACENT AND THE, FOR THE ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL USES TO REQUIRE RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY REVIEW.
FOR SOME USES TO REQUIRE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT REVIEW FOR SOME USES TO REQUIRE SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR CERTAIN USES TO REQUIRE SCREENING FOR OUTSIDE STORAGE AND TO LIMIT OUTSIDE STORAGE TO 40 FEET IN HEIGHT, WE ARE RECOMMENDING TO TERMINATE EXISTING DE RESTRICTIONS.
THE PROPERTIES OWNED BY THE CITY OF DALLAS AT
[01:45:01]
THE MOMENT, THE PROPERTIES CURRENTLY VACANT.THE DEAL RESTRICTIONS ALLOWED FOR MOST USES IN THE INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURING DISTRICT.
THE DE RESTRICTIONS LIMIT INDUSTRIAL INSIGHT, POTENTIALLY INCOMP COMPARABLE INCOMPATIBLE USES TO WOOD PROCESSING ALLOWED ONLY BY SUP.
THE PROPOSED ZONING IS AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT, WHICH DOES NOT NEED THE, THE CURRENT DEED RESTRICTIONS.
WE'RE RECOMMENDING TO AMEND A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT, WHICH ALLOWS FOR A METAL PROCESSING FACILITY.
THE PROPERTY IS CURRENT RELEASE ON IM THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT WILL PROVIDE AN EXPIRATION DATE OF FIVE YEARS FROM THE TIME OF THE APPROVAL OF THE ORDINANCE.
AND THE STAFF IS RECOMMENDING TO THE PROPERTY TO LI, WHICH DOES NOT ALLOW FOR THE USE.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THE COMMUNITY WANTED IS TO HAVE TRAILS IN THE AREA AND OPTIONS TO WALK.
SO WITH RESPECT TO THAT, THE FILE MILE CREEK GREEN BELL CORRIDOR WILL BE CONSTRUCTING IN THE FUTURE.
SIMPSON STU SIMPSON, STEWART STEWART TRAIL, CONNECTING IT FROM THE TRINITY RIVER FOREST TRAIL WITH THE NEWTON CREEK TRAIL.
ANY QUESTIONS? WE'RE READY FOR QUESTIONS.
UM, CAN YOU PLEASE ANSWER HOW MANY PROPERTIES ARE GOING TO BE NON-CONFORMING ONCE THE LI IS OVERLAID IN THAT, IN, IN THE AREA WILL OR WILL THERE BE ANY PROPERTIES THAT BECOME NON-CONFORMING BASED ON YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS? YEAH, WE WILL HAVE, UM, I WILL ANSWER IN TERMS OF ZONING AND USES, BECAUSE I EXACTLY DON'T KNOW THE PROPERTIES SINCE SEVERAL DON'T HAVE, UM, ENOUGH INFORMATION OR CLEAR INFORMATION.
SO PROPERTIES THAT ARE INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH AND INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURING THAT ARE DOING INSIDE INDUSTRIAL, INSIDE WITH POTENTIAL INCOMPARABLE USES, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE ALLOWED TO BE THERE.
PROPERTIES THAT HAVE INDUSTRIAL OUTSIDE POTENTIAL AND COMPATIBLE WILL NOT BE ALLOWED TO BE THERE.
SO ANY USERS LISTED UNDER THOSE PROPERTIES THAT HAVE METAL SALVAGE FACILITY, MINING, GAS PIPELINE, COMPRESSOR STATIONS THAT HAVE, UM, OUTSIDE, UM, SORRY, MUNICIPAL WASTE IN INID.
ORGANIC COMPOSED RECYCLING FACILITY OUTSIDE SALVATION RECLAMATION, PATHOLOGICAL WASTE, INSINUATION CONVALESCENT AND NURSING HOMES, HOSPICE CARE AND RELATED INSTITUTIONS, CONVAL CONVENT, MONASTERY RE, UH, FOREST FORESTER, HOME LIBRARY, ART GALLERY OR MUSEUM HAZARD, THOSE MAN WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES.
ANYTHING THAT HAS TO DO WITH RESIDENTIAL USE.
ANY, UM, COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT OUTSIDE CON CONVENIENCE STORE? YOU HAVE TO ANSWER.
THAT'S MORE SPECIFIC IF YOU WANT US TO JUMP IN.
SO YOU, WHAT, WHAT, WHAT DO YOU MEAN? JUST THE SPECIFIC, WHAT'S BASED, BASED ON COS WHAT'S BECOMING
ARE YOU ASKING ME TO BASED ON COS YEAH.
UM, I'M, I'M, WHAT I'M ASKING IS, WILL THE CHANGE TO LIGHT INDUSTRIAL TAKE PROPERTIES THAT ARE ALREADY IN OPERATION WITH A VALID CO OKAY, I GOTCHA.
AND MAKE IT NON-CONFORMING ANY PROPERTY THAT IS, IS OPERATING WITHOUT A VALID CO WILL BECOME NON-CONFORMING.
IT DOESN'T HAVE A CO OH, IT'S ILLEGAL
SO ANY PROPERTY THAT HAS A VALID CO BUT THE USE IS NOT PRE
[01:50:01]
PERMITTED WILL BECOME A NON-CONFORMING USE.BUT ANY PROPERTY THAT DOES NOT HAVE A SEAL WILL BECOME ILLEGAL.
UM, NO, I, LET ME SEE IF I CAN REWORD IT SO THAT, ARE THERE PROPERTIES THAT ARE ON THE GROUND IN THIS AUTHORIZED HEARING BASED ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF LIGHT INDUSTRIAL? WILL THERE BE PROPERTIES THAT DO HAVE VALID COS WILL THEY BE, DO YOU KNOW IF THERE ARE PROPERTIES THAT HAVE VALID COS WILL BECOME NON-CONFORMING WITH THIS RECOMMENDATION? NOT SPECIFIC ONES.
SO CHANGING ANY IM TO LI WILL NOT MAKE, MAKE ANY PROPERTIES ON THE GROUND WITH VALID COS NON-CONFORMING.
SAY THAT AGAIN PLEASE? MAKING LI ANY PROPERTIES THAT ARE, THAT ARE, THAT THE REC THIS RECOMMENDATION CHANGES FROM IM TO LI WILL THERE BE ANY VALID OPERATING BUSINESSES TO BECOME NON-CONFORMING? YES.
IF THEY HAVE A PROPER CO, THEY WILL, UM, COMMISSIONER BLAIR? YES.
UH, WE, I UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION.
UM, WE BELIEVE THAT WE ARE NOT MAKING ANYTHING NON-CONFORMING.
CAN YOU GO TO PAGE SEVEN AND EIGHT ON YOUR, YOUR PRESENTATION? YES MA'AM.
WHEN YOU'RE SAYING YOU'RE, THAT YOU'RE, YOU'RE LOOKING FOR THE RE THE PROTECTION OF RESIDENTIAL USE FROM THE AREAS THAT, THAT HAVE HEAVY INDUSTRIAL USES AND, AND YOU, YOU'RE LOOKING TO KEEP THE DUST FROM, FROM AWAY, FROM THOSE RES, THOSE AFFECTED RESIDENTIAL USES.
UM, I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU, YOUR RE THE RECOMMENDATION, IF I'M CORRECT, IS TO INCREASE THE BUFFER FROM 20 FEET TO 30 FEET.
CORRECT? THAT IS ONLY FOR THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 7 78.
IN THAT PD, AND I KNOW YOU HAD TO OPEN UP THE PD AND, AND REALLY LOOK AT IT.
IN THAT PD IS, DOES THE, THE PD ONLY PROVIDE ARTICLE 10 PROTECTION OR IS THE LANDSCAPING, UM, MORE INTENSE THAN ARTICLE 10? UM, THEY, THEY HAVE LANDSCAPE PROVISIONS, BUT THEY SAY THAT ACCEPTANCE PROVIDED IN THIS PARAGRAPH THEY ARE TO COMPLY AS FOLLOWS.
FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL, UM, FIRST ARIA A, WHICH IS ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE PD, UM, A TREE PRESERVATION ZONE MUST BE PROVIDED ALONG THE WESTERN PROPERTY OF THE BARRING ON I 45, WHICH WE DON'T HAVE RESIDENTIAL ON I 45.
SO IF WE DON'T, UM, IT TALKS ABOUT CALIPER AND, AND EVERGREEN TREES, BUT IT DOESN'T IN, IN THE PORT IN THE LOCATION AS SHOWN IN THE PLAN, IN THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN.
AND BASICALLY IT DOES NOT SAY ANYTHING EXCLUSIVELY WHEN IT COMES TO RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY.
SO PD 7 78 DOES NOT HAVE ANYTHING OR ANY LANDSCAPE PROVISIONS THAT, THAT ARE IN ALIGNMENT WITH INCREASING THE BUFFER FROM 30, FROM 20 FEET TO 30 FEET.
IT JUST SAYS THAT THERE IS JUST A GENERAL OVERVIEW OF WHAT, WHAT YOU ARE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE.
IN TERMS OF LANDSCAPING, THEY WILL HAVE TO PROVIDE ARTICLE 10 REQUIREMENTS.
SO PD PD 7 78 ONLY PROVIDES FOR ARTICLE 10, CORRECT? NO, MA'AM.
IT PROVIDES CERTAIN SPECIFIC, UH, REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTAIN AREAS.
BUT THEN IF IT IS NOT THAT, IF THAT DOESN'T APPLY, THEN YOU WILL HAVE TO GO TO ARTICLE 10 AND APPLY THE REQUIREMENTS FOR ARTICLE 10, LIKE A BUFFER LANDSCAPING TREES, UH, THE 10 FOOD, UM, OR, UM, I UNDERSTAND TEMPLATE BUFFER FOR LANDSCAPING ITEMS LIKE THAT.
[01:55:01]
OKAY.COMM COMMISSIONER, IF YOU DON'T MIND ME ADDING ONTO THAT.
SO I DO UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION.
UH, WE ARE NOT RECOMMENDING ANY PROVISION ON LANDSCAPING BEYOND ARTICLE 10, BUT WHEN THE USE IS OUTSIDE STORAGE, WE'VE KIND OF CALLED OUT SPECIFIC PROVISIONS THAT ARE GONNA COME INTO PLAY IN TERMS OF SCREENING, UH, WHEN THEY'RE ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL USE.
BUT THE DEFAULT IS TO GO WITH THE PROVISION OF ARTICLE 10 UNLESS THERE'S AN OUTSIDE STORAGE THAT IS ADJACENT TO OUR RESIDENTIAL USE.
UM, I WANNA GO OVER TO, I KNOW DUST CONSIDERATIONS ARE A CONCERN FOR THE RESIDENTS IN THAT COMMUNITY.
UM, YOU, YOU, IN WHICH YOU SAID IS YOU WANTED TO KEEP DUST FROM COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL OPERATIONS FROM AFFECTING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES.
WHAT DOES, WHAT DOES THIS, WHAT DOES THIS RECOMMENDATION OFFER FOR THAT PROTECTION? TECHNICALLY WE ARE NOT RECOMMENDING ANYTHING SPECIFIC BECAUSE A LOT OF THE NON-CONFORMING USES OR A LOT OF THE EXISTING USES, THEY HAVE BEEN THERE FOR SO LONG THAT THE REQUIREMENTS FOR, UM, THE PAVEMENT FOR THE SURFACE OF THE PROPERTY WHERE THEY PARK, UM, ITEMS LIKE THAT, IF THEY WERE NOT REQUIRED BEFORE, BASICALLY THE CEO KEEPS BEING APPROVED UNLESS THEY COME UP WITH A BUILDING OR A STRUCTURE.
SO COMMISSIONER AGAIN, UH, IF YOU LOOK AT THE ZONING DESIGNATION FOR RESIDENTIAL USE, WE MAY DELIBERATE AND INTENTIONAL ATTEMPT TO ENSURE THAT THE USES THAT ARE ADJACENT TO THOSE RESIDENTIAL USES ARE PRIMARILY AGRICULTURAL.
SO IF THERE ARE INDUSTRIAL USES THAT WERE ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL USE, THAT MAY BE THE OPERATION WOULD RESULT IN, UH, IN DS OR AIR POLLUTION IS SIGNIFICANT, THEN WE, WE INTENTIONALLY RESOLVE THOSE TO ARGUES WITH THE EXCEPTION OF TWO PROPERTIES THAT ARE ADJACENT TO THE PD IN WHICH WE INCREASE THE BUFFER FROM 20 FEET TO 30 FEET.
BUT FOR THE OTHER RESIDENTIAL USES, WE'VE MADE SURE THAT THEY ARE SURROUNDED BY AG USE IN ALMOST EVERY INSTANCE.
SO THERE, THERE IS NO PROVISIONS WITHIN THIS AUTHORIZED HEARING THAT ALLOWS OR THAT RECOMMENDS OR, OR REQUIRES, UM, ANYONE WHO COMES IN NEW FROM ANY TYPE OF MEDIATION OF THE, THE KICKING UP OF DUST OR ANY OF, UH, ANY KIND OF SEDIMENTS IN, IN HOW THEY DO BUSINESS.
IF ANYTHING IS NEW, THEY WILL HAVE TO COMPLY WITH SURFACE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE LAND AND THEY WILL HAVE TO PROVIDE, UH, CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS THAT WE HAVE FOR STORM WATER THAT WE HAVE FOR IRRIGATION.
AND THEY, WE HAVE, UM, BASICALLY THE LANDSCAPING TOO.
THEY WILL HAVE TO PROVIDE LANDSCAPES.
SO ALL THESE ITEMS TOGETHER WILL HAVE, UH, PROTECTION FOR REDUCTION OF PROTECTION OF THE AREA AND THE ENVIRONMENT AND TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF DUST IF IT IS NEW COMING IN.
COMMISSIONER, MAY I ADDRESS THE QUESTION? UM, IN, IN TERMS OF EXISTING USES, I BELIEVE THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE ASKING.
PROTECTION FROM EXISTING USES THAT ARE CREATING DUST.
UM, SO I WOULD SAY THAT OUR CODE COMPLIANCE DEPARTMENT WOULD BE A ONE REMEDY TO THAT, UM, TO, YOU KNOW, ENSURE THAT THE USES THAT ARE OPERATING, THE EXISTING USES ARE OPERATING IN COMPLIANCE WITH THEIR CO AND IN COMPLIANCE WITH, YOU KNOW, BEST PRACTICES.
I BELIEVE THAT MANY OF THE USES RE HAVE REQUIREMENTS OUTSIDE OF ZONING, BUT, UM, YOU KNOW, TO KEEP WATER TO WATER AND TO DO THINGS THAT HELP CONTAIN AND ELIMINATE DUST AND OTHER AIR QUALITY ISSUES.
UM, I BELIEVE THAT ALSO THERE IS SOME AIR QUALITY, UM, MONITORING THAT'S HAPPENING IN THE AREA RIGHT NOW.
WE HAVEN'T HEARD THE RESULTS OF THAT, BUT THAT IS ANOTHER POTENTIAL REMEDY IS TO, YOU KNOW, TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTIONS BASED ON WHAT THE, THE OUTCOME AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THAT ARE.
[02:00:01]
UM, AND, AND I DON'T, LET ME SEE HOW I WANNA DO THIS ONE.WE, WE HAVE ALL SEEN, UM, LETTERS FROM THE COMMUNITY IN WHICH THEY HAVE AGREED THAT, THAT THIS IS A HAPPY MEDIUM EXCEPT FOR THE REQUEST TO, ALONG THE TRINITY TO CHANGE LI TO AA.
CAN YOU PLEASE ADDRESS WHY THE RECOMMENDATION, UM, TO, TO SOFTEN LI MORE OR WHAT, WHAT HAS BEEN DONE TO SOFTEN LI REC, UH, PROPERTIES WITH RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY THAT DOES NOT WARRANT THE, THE RECOMMENDATION, THE RE THE CHANGE THAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR? RIGHT.
SO, UM, AS OLGA MENTIONED IN THE PRESENTATION, ALLY IS IS, YOU KNOW, CONSIDERED TO BE A KIND OF A COMPROMISE.
WE WERE TRYING TO FIND A BALANCE THAT, THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, ADDRESSES CONCERNS AND DESIRES OF, OF BOTH, BOTH SIDES
UM, BUT ONE THING THAT WILL, THAT WILL HELP IS BY ACKNOWLEDGING THE EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY PROPERTIES AND ZONING THOSE AS OUR DISTRICTS.
THERE ARE BUILT IN PROTECTIONS.
SO, UM, OUR CODE DOES, DOES SPECIFY THAT ALLY IS, YOU KNOW, THE LEAST INTENSE DISTRICT, UM, OF THE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS AND IS NOT INAPPROPRIATE ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL.
SO, UM, THEY'RE MOSTLY INSIDE USES.
THERE'S NOT A LOT OF HEAVY MANUFACTURING OR INTENSE OUTSIDE USES THAT ARE ALLOWED IN ALLY, BUT BY ZONING PROPERTIES WITH SINGLE FAMILY USES AS SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICTS, THERE ARE PROTECTIONS, UM, THAT ARE THEN TRIGGERED BY NEW DEVELOPMENT IN ALLY.
SOME USES REQUIRE A RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY REVIEW, SO THAT'S DONE AT STAFF LEVEL AT TIME OF PERMITTING, BUT IT IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO ADD CONDITIONS THAT HELP ENSURE COMPATIBILITY.
UM, LI ALSO REQUIRES SUVS OR DIRS FOR SOME USES.
SO AGAIN, BY ACKNOWLEDGING AND APPROPRIATELY ZONING THE SINGLE FAMILY USES, THEY WILL HAVE BUILT IN PROTECTION THAT WAY THAT THEY'RE NOT BEING AFFORDED RIGHT NOW WITH EVERYTHING BEING THE SAME, YOU KNOW, WITHIN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT, THOSE PROTECTIONS AREN'T BUILT IN.
WELL THE EVERY LETTER WE GOT ASKED THAT HAS BEEN CHANGED TO AA AND YOU'RE SAYING OUR, UM, TO RESIDENTIAL, BUT YOU'RE NOT GIVEN ANY DESIGNATE RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATION.
WE DON'T HAVE A ZONING CLASSIFICATION FOR JUST RESIDENTIAL.
WHEN YOU SAY RESIDENTIAL, WHAT, WHAT, WHAT DO YOU MEAN? RIGHT, SORRY.
SO A A AGRICULTURAL IS ACTUALLY CLASSIFIED UNDER USES AS A, AS A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.
BUT WHEN I SAY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, I'M REFERRING TO OUR, OUR DISTRICTS, WHICH ARE OUR SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICTS SUCH AS OUR 7.5 A, OUR 10 A, RIGHT.
AND SO THERE ARE PROTECTIONS THAT ARE, THAT ARE BUILT IN BY, UM, IDENTIFYING THOSE PROPERTIES AND ZONING IN IN THAT WAY.
SO THOSE, THE LOCATIONS WHERE THEY'RE SAYING THAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR AGRICULTURAL TO, TO, FOR, FOR THIS FROM BEING CHANGED FROM ALLY TO AGRICULTURAL, AND WE KNOW AGRICULTURE IS ALSO JUST A PLACEHOLDER FOR ANY TYPE OF ZONING, WOULD IT BE A BETTER RECOMMENDATION THEN TO CHANGE IT TO LIKE AN R SEVEN FIVE OPPOSED TO AGRICULTURAL? YEAH, SO COMMISSIONER, I THINK ONE OF THE, THE POINTS THAT WAS EMPHASIZED IN THE CASE REPORT WAS THAT STAFF IS NOT RECOMMENDING ADDITIONAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THIS AREA.
AND THE ONLY REASON WHY WE RECOMMENDED THOSE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT WAS BECAUSE WE WANTED TO PROVIDE PROTECTION FOR THE RESIDENCES THAT ARE ALREADY THERE.
SO CHANGING, UH, AND DEVELOP LAND INTO A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, UH, WHEN WE DON'T WANT MORE DEVELOPMENT IN THE, IN THE AREA BECAUSE IT IS A FLOODPLAIN, UH, WOULDN'T
[02:05:01]
MAKE SENSE.SO WE JUST KIND OF PROVIDE A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT FOR EXISTING HOMES, BUT I THINK IT IS NOT THE INTENT OR STAFF RECOMMENDATION THAT WE CREATE ADDITIONAL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TO ENCOURAGE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SUCH AS R 7.5 OR R FIVE A.
SO, AND I GET IT, I I I DO GET IT THAT, SO WITH THIS BEING ALL FLOODPLAIN AREA, THAT WOULD MEAN THAT IF THERE IS ANY TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT, THEY WOULD HAVE TO BRING IT OUT OF FLOODPLAIN IN ORDER TO DEVELOP IT.
SO ARE YOU, SO ARE WE SAYING THAT CHANGING IT TOI DOESN'T, IS GIVES THE PROTECTIONS, BUT IT DOESN'T REALLY MATTER BECAUSE IT'S FLOODPLAIN AREA AND THEY WOULD HAVE TO BRING IT OUT OF FLOODPLAIN TO DEVELOP IT ANYHOW? NO, THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M SAYING.
UH, WHAT I'M SAYING IS CHANGING IT TO A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT SUCH AS OUR NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO.
WHAT WHAT I'M SAYING IS IT DOESN'T MATTER WHETHER IT'S RESIDENTIAL, LIGHT, INDUSTRIAL, COMMERCIAL, IT'S IN A FLOODPLAIN.
AND BECAUSE IT'S IN A FLOODPLAIN, ARE YOU, ARE WE SAYING THAT IT IN ORDER TO DEVELOP IT? AND THAT'S A QUESTION.
SO IT'S NOT A STATEMENT IT TO, IN ORDER TO DEVELOP IT, IT WOULD, THE, ANY SITE WOULD HAVE TO BE LIFTED UP OUT OF A FLOODPLAIN TO DEVELOP AND TO BUILD ON.
SO WHETHER IT'S AA RESIDENTIAL, LICS, IT, YOU WOULD STILL HAVE TO COMPLY WITH BRINGING IT OUT OF, OUT OF A FLOOD PLAIN STATE IN ORDER TO BUILD THAT.
UH, THE, THE FLOOD PLAIN DEVELOPMENT REGULATION WOULD STILL APPLY REGARDLESS OF THE ZONING.
THAT'S A WHOLE SEPARATE PROCESS THAT ANY NEW DEVELOPMENT WILL NEED TO, AND STAFF DID MEET WITH, UH, TRINITY WATERSHED DEVELOPMENT GROUP AND THE FLOOD PLAN TEAM TO DISCUSS THIS.
SO THEY KIND OF MADE IT CLEAR TO US THAT ANY DEVELOPMENT, ANY NEW DEVELOPMENT THAT COMES WITHIN THAT AREA WOULD STILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH THEIR REVIEW PROCESS AND WOULD HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE FLOOD PLAIN DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.
AND SORRY, I JUST WANTED TO KIND OF CIRCLE BACK AROUND TO I THINK THE FIRST PART OF THE QUESTION.
UM, SO WE DID, WHEN, WHEN RECOMMENDING AG AGRICULTURAL, UM, THE AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT, WE STARTED WITH UNDEVELOPED PROPERTIES THAT CURRENTLY, YOU KNOW, DON'T HAVE ANY DEVELOPMENT AND WE WOULD RECOMMEND KEEPING THEM THAT WAY FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REASONS.
UM, AND THEN WITH THE LI WE ARE RECOMMENDING TO APPLY THAT TO PROPERTIES THAT ARE CURRENTLY DEVELOPED AND OPERATING BECAUSE WE DO NEED TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THEY EXIST
UM, AND WE WERE VERY CAREFUL AND, UM, INTENTIONAL WHEN RECOMMENDING A AGRICULTURE AGRICUL THE AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL.
COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, FOLLOWED BY COMMISSIONER CHER.
WAS THERE ANY CONSIDERATION GIVEN TO, UM, FORMULATING A PD FOR THE SECTION OF THIS THAT IS, UM, WHERE YOU CHOSE STRAIGHT ZONING ALLY? WE DID SET OUT TO SEE IF WE COULD MEET OUR OBJECTIVES WITH BASE ZONING.
AND UH, FORTUNATELY ENOUGH, WE, WE REALIZED THAT WE COULD STRIKE THAT BALANCE AND MEET OUR ZONING OBJECTIVE WITHOUT NECESSARILY REQUIRING A PD.
IT IS SOMETHING THAT WE TYPICALLY AS A PRACTICE TRY TO AVOID IF WE CAN MEET, UH, THE ZONING DISTRICTS THAT WE WANT WITHOUT REQUIRING A PD.
I, I UNDERSTAND THE THEORY, BUT I, I'VE ACTUALLY LIVED THIS IN REALITY, YOU KNOW, WHEN I, UH, YOU KNOW, 20, WHAT, ONE YEARS AGO NOW, WHEN WE WERE REZONING, WE WERE DOING AN AUTHORIZED HEARING TO REZONE THE WEST COMMERCE FORT WORTH AVENUE AREA.
YOU KNOW, THE ZONING STARTING FROM THE RIVER GOING WEST WAS I AM IR CS, YOU KNOW, ON AND ON.
AND AT THAT TIME, AND WE'VE HAD THESE DISCUSSIONS IN THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN MEETINGS AS WELL, THERE REALLY ISN'T A STRAIGHT ZONING CATEGORY THAT EFFECTIVELY WILL TRANSITION AN AREA AWAY FROM AN INDUSTRIAL PAST BECAUSE IR I GUESS I'LL MAKE THIS A QUESTION, UH,
[02:10:01]
UM, ELIMINATES THE POSSIBILITY OF COMING IN WITH NEW, THE MOST EXTREME OUTSIDE INCOMPATIBLE USES AND THE INSIDE INCOMPATIBLE USES, THERE ARE STILL LOTS AND LOTS.I MEAN, THERE, THERE, IF YOU GO THROUGH THE USE CHARTS THERE, THERE'S REALLY NOT VERY MUCH DIFFERENCE.
IT STILL ALLOWS, YOU KNOW, FREIGHT TERMINALS AND HEAVY MACHINERY EQUIPMENT AND MACHINERY AND COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLE PARKING AND OUTSIDE STORAGE AND, UH, WAREHOUSES, UH, ALL OF THESE USES CAUSE HAVE THE POTENTIAL AND A LOT OF TIMES THE REALITY OF CAUSING EXTREME INCOMPATIBILITIES WITH ADJOINING RESIDENTIAL THAT THE DIESEL PARTICULATE AND, YOU KNOW, CHANGING OF, I MEAN, I UNDERSTAND I APPRECIATE THE ADDITION OF, YOU KNOW, A LITTLE BIT EXTRA BUFFER HERE AND THERE, BUT WHEN YOU'VE GOT HUNDREDS OF ACRES OF, OF, YOU KNOW, DIESEL TRUCKS AND WHEN YOU ALREADY HAVE A REPUTATION AND A PRECONCEIVED IDEA ABOUT THE NATURE OF A PLACE AND THEN YOU'RE CONTINUE TO ALLOW, YOU KNOW, THROUGH STRAIGHT ZONING THE AGGREGATION OF THESE LOWER END USES, WHILE I I DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHY I CAN SEE THIS AS A BABY STEP? IT'S AN IMPROVEMENT, BUT MAYBE WE DIDN'T QUITE GET THERE.
SO IS THERE ANY CONCERN THAT WE ARE STILL CONSIGNING THIS NEIGHBORHOOD TO A, A PRETTY INDUSTRIAL FUTURE? BECAUSE WE WENT THROUGH THIS WITH COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN.
WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE TWO PLACE TYPES, INDUSTRIAL PLACE TYPES, THEY WERE COMING UP WITH THE INDUSTRIAL HUB AND THE FLEX INDUSTRIAL, AND THEY SAID, WELL, IMMEDIATELY THEY GOT FEEDBACK THAT NO ONE WANTED FLEX INDUSTRIAL.
'CAUSE THEY DIDN'T WANT THAT INDUSTRIAL NAME ANYWHERE NEAR THEM.
SO THEY WENT TO FLEX COMMERCIAL.
BUT THE REALITY OF WHAT WAS ALLOWED THERE, IT REALLY DIDN'T CHANGE THAT MUCH.
YOU KNOW, UH, WE, WE HAD A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS, WHETHER WE REALLY DON'T HAVE THE PLACE TYPE RIGHT NOW OR THE, THE, UM, UH, STRAIGHT ZONING TO, TO AFFECT THAT TRANSFORMATION.
SO I GUESS WHAT I'M ASKING AFTER ALL THAT IS, IS THERE ANY CONCERN THAT LI IS JUST NOT GETTING US AS FAR AS WE NEEDED TO GO, GIVEN THAT AUTHORIZED HEARINGS ARE SO RARE FOR AN AREA THAT COULD TAKE 20, 30 YEARS FOR THIS TO COME BACK, ARE WE CONSIGNING THEM TO A FUTURE THAT IS STILL HEAVILY INDUSTRIAL AND IS STILL GOING TO HAVE, YOU KNOW, THE, THE TRUCK TRAFFIC AND THE PARTICULATES, THE DUST, THE DIESEL THAT ARE NOT VERY COMPATIBLE WITH RESIDENTIAL? SO I THINK WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO IS A SOFTENING OF THE HEAVY INDUSTRIAL AND HEAVY MANUFACTURING.
LIKE I SAID, YOU KNOW, IN THE PRESENTATION THERE'S NO PERFECT SOLUTION.
AND WE DO UNDERSTAND THAT WHEN DEVELOPMENT COMES, WE'VE KIND OF BUILT IN SOME GUARDRAILS FOR THEM TO COME BACK.
AND MAYBE IF WORK WITH THOSE REVIEWS, WHETHER THEY ARE S OR DIR OR RAR, UH, THAT IF THERE ARE ALSO OPPORTUNITY FOR STAFF TO MAKE RECOMMENDATION THAT COULD LEAD INTO A PD, NOTHING PRECLUDES THEM FROM ASKING FOR A PD FOR SPECIFIC, UH, DEVELOPMENT.
BUT I THINK, UH, TO KIND OF STRIKE A BALANCE, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T WANT TO IMPOSE CONDITION BECAUSE THE GOAL IS WE ARE TRYING TO MAKE IT EASY FOR THEM TO TRANSITION INTO SOMETHING ELSE.
WE ARE NOT MAKING CONDITIONS FOR EXISTING USES.
WE ARE HOPING THAT THIS AREA WILL TRANSITION TO SOME SOFTER USES THAT ARE MORE COMPATIBLE WITH THE RESIDENTIAL AREA IN ALIGNMENT WITH WHAT $4 IS RECOMMENDING FOR THE AREA.
SO I DO UNDERSTAND YOUR CONCERN AND THERE'S NO EASY SOLUTION AND BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW WHAT MIGHT COME, WE DON'T WANT TO RESTRICT THEM TO CERTAIN CONDITIONS THAT MIGHT NOT NECESSARILY SUPPORT THE USE THAT MIGHT COME IN THE FUTURE.
THAT'S WHY WE TRY TO BE A LITTLE BIT GENERAL, BUT ALSO SOFTER IN WHAT IS ALREADY HAPPENING THERE.
I, I DO UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
I'M JUST, YOU KNOW, FROM, FROM THE EXPERIENCE I HAD WITH TRANSITIONING WEST COMMERCE AND FORT WORTH AVENUE, AND I THINK ANYONE WHO'S BEEN IN THAT AREA IN THE LAST 20 YEARS REALIZES IT'S CHANGED QUITE A BIT.
ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS THAT WE HAD TO ACCEPT WAS THAT, YOU KNOW, WE HAD TO GIVE PEOPLE A BEDROCK OF CERTAINTY IF THEY WANNA COME IN AND DO BETTER, IS THAT THERE WAS NOT GOING TO BE SOME HEAVY, UM, INCOMPATIBLE USE NEXT TO THEM.
SO, I MEAN, TO ME IT, IT COULD HAVE BEEN A, A PRETTY SIMPLE ADJUSTMENT.
YOU COULD HAVE DONE A PD WITH EVEN AN ALLY BASE, BUT ELIMINATE SOME OF THE MORE JUST A, JUST A HANDFUL OF THE MORE INTRUSIVE USES SO THAT NEW ONES DON'T COME IN.
YES, YOU HAVE TO LIVE WITH THE ONES THAT ARE ALREADY THERE AND HOPEFULLY WE CAN GET CODE COMPLIANCE OR COMMUNITY PROSECUTION OR WHOEVER IT TAKES ON BOARD TO, TO GET THE, THE WILDLY, YOU KNOW, THE COWBOYS IN
BUT I'M JUST, IF WE'RE, IF WE TRULY WANT TO TRANSITION THE AREA, I THINK IT'S A
[02:15:01]
DANGER TO DO A STRAIGHT ZONING THAT ALLOWS SOME OF THESE, UM, MORE INTRUSIVE, INCOMPATIBLE USES.COMMISSIONER IF, IF YOU ALLOW ME, UM, IN THE INDUSTRIAL, THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL RESTOR ONLY ALLOWS FOR ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE MANUFACTURING, INDUSTRIAL INSIGHT, NOT POTENTIAL COMPATIBLE ALLOWS FOR INDUSTRIAL INSIDE LIGHT MANUFACTURING.
AND THEN WE GO ALL THE WAY DOWN TO GAS PIPELINE, LEMME MAKE SURE IT IS SORRY TO GAS DRILLING AND PRODUCTION.
THOSE ARE THE ONLY INDUSTRIAL USES PERMITTED.
I, I, I'M QUITE FAMILIAR WITH THE USE CHARTS.
I WENT THROUGH THEM EXHAUSTIVELY AND MADE, MADE LISTS.
BUT, BUT SOME OF THE, THE MORE INTRUSIVE USES FALL UNDER, OFFICIALLY FALL UNDER COMMERCIAL, UM, USES OR EVEN THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLE PARKING, WHICH ALLOWS HUNDREDS OF ACRES OF, OF DIESEL TRUCKS IS A RETAIL AND PERSONAL SERVICE USE FOR SOME INCOMPREHENSIBLE REASON THAT NO ONE IN THE CITY HAS EVER BEEN ABLE.
THEY CAN TELL ME WHY IT BECAME A RE THEY CAN TELL ME WHEN IT BECAME A RETAIL AND PERSONAL SERVICE USE.
THE, THE FREIGHT TERMINAL, THE UM, THE, UM, OUTSIDE STORAGE, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLE PARKING, THE, YOU KNOW, EVERYTHING THAT ATTRACTS LOW END HIGH TRUCKING BUSINESS IS A PROBLEM.
COMMERCIAL AND BUSINESS SERVICE COMMISSIONER, I WOULD JUST RESPECTFULLY REMIND YOU, IT'S STILL A BRIEFING.
I I DO UNDERSTAND IF I, IF I MAY JUST ADD ONE MORE COMMENT.
UM, SO, UH, YOU GUYS RECEIVED A LETTER FROM, UM, SOME CITIZENS THAT SHOULD BE IN YOUR PACKETS, UM, REQUESTING THE ENTIRE AREA BE ZONED IN AA AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT.
UM, SO THAT IS ALL ALWAYS A CONSIDERATION.
UM, YOU GUYS COULD CERTAINLY MAKE THAT RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL IF THAT'S THE DESIRE TO, YOU KNOW, IN THE LONG TERM IF FOR THIS TO REVERT TO AGRICULTURE, THAT'S AN OPTION AS AS WELL.
UM, YOU KNOW, AS WE SAID, WE WERE TRYING TO FIND A BALANCE AND WE LIKE TO AVOID PDS WHERE, WHEREVER POSSIBLE.
SO IF THE DESIRE IS JUST TO CONSIDER A LESS INTENSE DISTRICT THAT'S, YOU KNOW, WE, WE HAVE, I WOULD SAY STAFF HAS NO, YOU KNOW, ADAMANT OPPOSITIONS TO THAT
SO, YEAH, BUT JUST TO ADD ON THAT, I THINK, UH, IN THAT LETTER, THE COMMUNITY ALSO POINTED OUT THE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT THAT HE'S BEEN RECOMMENDED THAT THEY FULLY SUPPORT.
AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN THIS AREA.
THE, THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD HAS LESS THAN A HUNDRED PEOPLE IS ONLY 25 HOUSES.
I DON'T THINK THAT'S ENOUGH POPULATION TO SUPPORT THE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT THAT THEY SO DESIRE.
SO ONE OF THE COMPROMISE THAT, YOU KNOW, WE HAD TO DEAL WITH IS HOW DO WE GET ENOUGH CUSTOMER BASE, UH, FOR THE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT.
THE COMMERCIAL DID KNOW THAT THEY REALLY WANT AND THEY FULLY SUPPORT.
AND THAT'S ONE OF THE REASON WHY WE STAFF FEELS THAT HAVING THOSE EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES THAT CAN BRING PEOPLE INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD BECAUSE THE ROADWAY THAT GOES THROUGH THERE IS A SUPER, IS A SUPERHIGHWAYS.
THEY'RE NOT STOPPING TO TO PATRONIZE THOSE BUSINESSES.
SO IF THE COMMUNITY DECIDES TO HAVE THAT COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, THEN I THINK THEY NEED TO TO FIGURE OUT A WAY THAT THEY CAN BRING IN ADDITIONAL DATA AND POPULATION.
AND I THINK THOSE, UM, EMPLOYMENT ESTABLISHMENT THAT YOU HAVE IN THOSE AREAS, UH, PROBABLY NEED TO BE SUPPORTED AND CONTINUE.
WE JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THEY DO NOT HAVE, CAUSE THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT THAT IS DETRIMENTAL TO THOSE WHO ARE LIVING THERE.
BUT I THINK IT'S CRITICAL THAT IF THEY SO DESIRE TO HAVE THAT COMMERCIAL NODE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT THAT YOU BRING IN THE POPULATION THAT WILL SUPPORT IT.
I WILL REFRAIN FROM ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTARY.
I DO HAVE ONE SPECIFIC QUESTION ABOUT PD 7 78.
I MEAN, YOU DID GO THROUGH AND YOU ADDED A LOT OF, UM, YOU KNOW, GIS RA RVS TO VARIOUS USES.
I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THE LOGIC BEHIND SAY ADDING AN SEP REQUIREMENT FOR A MINI STORAGE WAREHOUSE, BUT UH, JUST GOING TO RAR FOR A WAREHOUSE.
'CAUSE YOU KNOW, WAREHOUSES CAN BE HUGE LOGISTICS SITUATIONS WITH LOTS OF, I MEAN, WHAT WAS THE LOGIC FOR FOR HAVING A MORE STRINGENT REQUIREMENT FOR SAY A MINI STORAGE WAREHOUSE THAN FOR A, A FULL BLOWN WAREHOUSE? SO, SO I, I, I THINK THE INTENT WAS TO TRY TO MATCH WHAT IS ALLOWED IN LI WHICH IS BASICALLY WHAT IS AROUND IT.
SO IF IN THE LI DISTRICT THAT PARTICULAR USE, UH, REQUIRED SUP, WE WOULD MATCH IT TO THAT
[02:20:01]
AND THAT IS WHAT WAS INFORMING OUR DECISION.UH, I'D LIKE TO UH, CIRCLE BACK ON THE, UM, QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSIONER BLAIR.
IT WASN'T CLEAR TO ME ON THE NON-CONFORMING, ARE THESE, UH, IS IT GONNA BE AN ILLEGAL NON-CONFORMING USE OR JUST A NON-CONFORMING USE THAT A COMPLIANCE CASE COULD BE BROUGHT FORTH BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS? I, I DIDN'T CATCH THE LAST PART OF YOUR QUESTION.
SO MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT YOU, YOU CAN HAVE NON-CONFORMING LEGAL USE 'CAUSE IT WILL BE SPELLED OUT THAT ALTHOUGH THE LEASE IS NON, THE UH, USE IS NON-CONFORMING SUCH THAT A NEW APPLICANT GET THAT USE, THE EXISTING BUILDINGS COULD OPERATE, CONTINUE TO OPERATE INDEFINITELY AS A LEGAL NON-CONFORMING.
IF THEY ARE JUST NON-CONFORMING, SOMEBODY COULD BRING FORTH A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS CASE AGAINST THEM TO FORCE THEM INTO COMPLIANCE OR TRY TO FORCE THEM INTO COMPLIANCE.
WHICH ONE IS THE, WHICH ONE ARE WE? WELL BASICALLY, UM, I USE THIS EITHER LEGAL, IF IT IS LEGALLY IT HAS A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY AND IT COMPLIES WITH THE REQUIREMENTS.
NON-CONFORMING IS, FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN WE TRANSITION IT, TRANSITION THE ZONING, WHICH YOU, WE ARE PROPOSING HERE WHEN WE CHANGE THE ZONING.
IF THE USE IS NOT PERMITTED BY THE NEW ZONING DISTRICT, THEN THEY WILL BE NON-CONFORMING.
BUT IF A USE, DID I ANSWER THAT QUESTION? THAT PART, YEAH.
BUT IF THE USE HAS BEEN THERE AND IT IS NOT LEGAL, MEANING DON'T HAVE THE PROPER CO, THEN THEY WILL BE CURRENTLY OPERATING ILLEGALLY, CURRENTLY OPERATING.
THEY'RE JUST OPERATING ILLEGALLY.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HAMPTON.
I, I THINK I'VE FOLLOWED ALL THE DISCUSSION ABOUT HOW STAFF LANDED AT LI FOR THE AREAS THAT ARE AND AND WHY A PD, WHICH AGAIN MIGHT HAVE BEEN A WAY TO MORE STRONGLY ENCOURAGE A A, A FUTURE TRANSITION.
I GUESS WHAT I WAS ALSO, SO I UNDERSTAND AA IS ONE OF THE OTHER, UM, DISTRICTS THAT'S COME OUT OF COMMUNITY INPUT, BUT AS STAFF EVALUATED IT, I WAS TRYING TO GO THROUGH THE USES THAT ARE ON THE GROUND AND SOME OF THE OTHER DISTRICTS.
AND I APOLO YOU PROBABLY SAID THIS AND THERE WAS A LOT TO TAKE IN.
WHY WAS IT NOT, WHY WAS ALLY THE DISTRICT VERSUS ONE OF THE OTHER DISTRICTS? AND AGAIN, THEY ALL HAVE COMPATIBILITY ISSUES THAT I THINK WE'VE SEEN IN OTHER AREAS, BUT CAN YOU JUST BRIEFLY, HOW IS LI THE ONE THAT GOT THE DISTRICT THAT GOT SELECTED? SO THANK YOU COMMISSIONER.
SO WE TRIED ALSO TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT WHAT WAS EXISTING, THE OPERATION THAT WAS EXISTING ON THE GROUND.
SO A LOT OF THESE PROPERTIES HAVE INDUSTRIAL USES, UH, THAT WERE PERMITTED UNDER IM AND IR.
AND SO WE, LIKE WE'VE SAID SO MANY TIMES, TRYING TO STRIKE A BALANCE, SOFTEN THE USE, BRINGING IT DOWN JUST A LITTLE BIT.
BUT ALSO WE'VE MET WITH A LOT OF STAKEHOLDERS, YOU KNOW, IN THIS AREA, THE PROPERTY OWNERS, YOU KNOW, WE DO UNDERSTAND THE RESIDENTS THAT LIVE IN THIS AREA.
THE PROPERTY OWNERS ACTUALLY TOOK THEIR TIME TO COME TO THESE MEETINGS AND THEY MADE THEIR CASE, YOU KNOW, THEY MADE THEIR CASE.
AND WE AS STAFF, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE TO CONSIDER ALL THE STAKEHOLDERS AND WE TRY TO STRIKE A BALANCE.
AND I JUST WANNA MENTION SOMETHING THAT KIND OF STOOD OUT FOR ME.
UH, THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT WORK IN THESE BUSINESSES, RIGHT? AND ZONING THEM OUT OF COMPLIANCE, MAKING THEM ILLEGAL AND SHUTTING THEM DOWN IS GONNA HAVE SOME REAL IMPACT IN THE COMMUNITY.
AND WE DID, UH, ANALYZE A BIT.
A NUMBER OF THEM DON'T LIVE FAR FROM HERE.
THEY LIVE IN THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS AND IF WE WERE TO SHUT DOWN THE BUSINESSES, IT'S GONNA IMPACT THEIR LIVELIHOOD.
AND SO WE JUST KIND OF TRYING TO STRIKE A BALANCE.
HOW DO WE ALLOW SOME BUSINESSES THAT ARE NOT SO INTENSE THAT ARE NOT GOING TO COMPLETELY DESTROY THE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY, UH, WHILE STILL PROVIDING OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE BUSINESSES THAT ARE THERE AND PROTECTING THE TAX BASE FOR THE CITY.
I'VE HAD A FEW CASES IN MY DISTRICT WHERE WE'VE HAD THE SIMILAR ISSUES OF HOW DO WE SUPPORT OUR LONG-TERM EXISTING BUSINESSES, UM, AND ALLOW FOR TRANSITIONS.
I GUESS I WAS TRYING TO GO THROUGH THE LIST AND LOOKED AT CS.
AGAIN, THERE'S A LOT OF COMPARATIVE
[02:25:01]
ISSUES WITH CS AND IT SOUNDS LIKE WHAT WOULD'VE BEEN THE OUTCOME IS THERE WOULD'VE BEEN MORE NON-CONFORMING USES THAT WOULD'VE COME OUT OF THAT VERSUS THE LI IS THAT PROPOSED? IS THAT A FAIR IT IS FAIR.I THINK THE ISSUE OF CONFORMITY KEEPS ON COMING UP.
IF WE MAKE THEM AL THERE IS IMPLICATION TO THE CITY.
YEAH, BECAUSE, BECAUSE AGAIN, I THINK WE HAVE EXISTING ILLEGAL, WE HAVE POTENTIALLY NON-CONFORMING DEPENDING ON THE DIRECTION OF THIS BODY.
SO I DO WANNA MAKE SURE THERE'S A DISTINCTION BETWEEN THOSE TWO.
WE JUST DIDN'T WANT TO ZONE THEM OUT OF CONFORMITY.
AND ANOTHER THING I WOULD LIKE TO ADD IS WORD NOT RECOMMENDED.
THE COMMERCIAL BUSINESS SERVICES, UH, WE ARE NOT COMMEND RECOMMENDING THAT USE.
AND A LOT OF THE USES THAT AT THE MOMENT, UM, ARE OPERATING MIGHT NOT HAVE THE CERTIFICATE OF BUSINESS OCCUPANCY THAT THEY'RE REQUIRED TO HAVE.
SO IF THEY'RE OPERATING LEGALLY NOW, THEN THEY WILL CONTINUE BEING ILLEGAL AND IT'S A MATTER OF SOMEBODY FROM CODE TO COME AND SAY, WELL YOU GOTTA GO.
AND I UNDERSTAND THAT'S NOT, AGAIN, I WAS WORKING THROUGH ALL THE DIFFERENT DISTRICTS.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT.
UM, I JUST WANTED TO BACK UP AND ASK WHAT IS THE GOAL OF THIS, UM, AUTHORIZED HEARING? IS IT TO, UH, WE, WE HEARD EARLIER THERE'S APPROXIMATELY A HUNDRED RESIDENTS, 30 SOMETHING HOMES.
IS IT SIMPLY TO GIVE THEM SOME PROTECTION AND RELIEF OR IS IT A LAR IS IT A MORE AMBITIOUS GOAL TO CREATE A, UH, A HUNDRED ACRE AREA THAT MIGHT HAVE NEW RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION IN IT? I MEAN, IS IS THIS, IS THIS BASICALLY A TRUTH OR ARE WE TRYING TO CREATE A NEW COMMUNITY HERE? WHAT, WHICH IS IT? IT IS, IT IS BOTH.
UH, I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WORKS KIND OF BROUGHT OUT STRONGLY WAS THAT WE NEED TO PROTECT, TO PROVIDE PROTECTION FOR RESIDENCES THAT EXIST IN THE AREA.
THEY DIDN'T HAVE IT BECAUSE THEY WERE EXISTING IN INDUSTRIAL INDUSTRIAL ZONE LAND.
SO WE KIND OF HAD TO PROVIDE SOME RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT FOR THEM.
BUT ALSO WE ARE NOT TRYING TO BRING IN ADDITIONAL RESIDENCES.
I THINK, I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT IS USUALLY LOST HERE.
WE ARE PROTECTING THOSE WHO ARE THERE, BUT WE DON'T WANT TO CREATE A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT WITH ADDITIONAL RESIDENCES.
SO THAT'S WHAT WAS ONE OF THE OBJECTIVE, PROVIDING PROTECTION FOR ONLY THOSE WHO ARE THERE, BUT ALSO ENSURING THAT WE DON'T CREATE A SITUATION WHERE WE BRING IN ADDITIONAL PEOPLE TO LIVE IN THE FLOOD PLAIN.
BUT AT THE SAME TIME ALSO THERE IS THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECT OF THIS, THE POLLUTION THAT IS CAUSED BY THE EXISTING USES IN THE AREA BECAUSE OF THE CURRENT ZONING, WHICH IS HEAVY INDUSTRIAL.
AND SO WE WANT THE, OUR GOAL WAS TO TRY TO, IF POSSIBLE, ELIMINATE THAT AND IF THE IMPACT IS GONNA BE MORE ON THE NEGATIVE SIDE, SOFTEN IT, LOWER DOWN THE INTENSITY OF THE USES AND THOSE WHO ARE THE TRUE PRIMARY OBJECTIVE.
KEEPING IN MIND THAT THIS IS AN ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREA.
THERE'S THE FIVE MILE CREEK THAT ALSO WE NEED TO PROTECT.
SO IT WAS KIND OF A BALANCING ACT OF ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMIC IMPACT AND ALSO PROTECTION OF THE RESIDENCES THAT ARE THERE.
SO, UM, YOU'VE MENTIONED THE STAKEHOLDERS SEVERAL TIMES.
CAN YOU TELL US EXACTLY WHO THOSE ARE AND DO THEY AGREE THAT NO NEW RESIDENTIAL SHOULD BE IN, UM, SHOULD BE BUILT? SO THE STAKEHOLDERS, WE DO HAVE NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTS AND THEY'RE VERY ORGANIZED.
I THINK, UH, PROBABLY THEY'VE DEALT WITH THIS BODY A NUMBER OF TIME IN PREVIOUS CASES.
UH, THEY HAVE NEIGHBORHOOD ORGANIZATIONS THAT ALSO ARE VERY ORGANIZED AND VERY ADVOCATE STRONGLY FOR THEIR INTEREST.
BUT THERE'S ALSO THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY.
A LOT OF THESE INDUSTRIAL OPERATIONS ARE VERY LARGE ACREAGE OPERATIONS.
UH, SOME OF THEM ARE COMPANIES, UH, A FEW OF THEM ARE OWNED BY INDIVIDUALS.
UH, I ALSO WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THEY'RE VERY ORGANIZED.
YOU KNOW, THEY HAD THEIR MEETING AND THEY SHOWED UP AT THE MEETING.
AND I REMEMBER ONE OF THE COMMUNITY MEETINGS THAT WE HAVE AT SINGING HILL, UH, WAS PRIMARILY ATTENDED BY THE BUSINESS OWNERS.
AND THEY SPECIFICALLY TOLD US, YOU KNOW, WHAT THEY WANTED TO SEE ADDRESS OR PROTECTED THROUGH THIS AUTHORIZED HEARING.
AND IT WAS AMONG THE, THE POINTS THAT WERE LISTED UNDER WHAT WE HAD.
THEY WANTED TO PROTECT WHAT IS ALREADY THERE.
THEY WANTED THOSE INDUSTRIAL OPERATIONS TO CONTINUE AS THEY ARE.
THEY WANTED TO PROTECT INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURING AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH ZONING.
SO THEY DIDN'T GET THAT THROUGH THIS PROCESS.
[02:30:01]
BOTH SIDES OF THE EQUATIONS ARE VERY ORGANIZED.UH, THEY'VE ADVOCATED FOR THEIR INTEREST VERY STRONGLY.
THROUGH OUR ENGAGEMENT, WE'VE HAD TO ARRANGE FOR MEETINGS WITH SOME OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS WITH DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS IN THE CITY JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE ISSUES AND THE CHALLENGES THAT THEY'RE FACING, UH, IN TERMS OF DEVELOPMENT ARE ADDRESSED.
SO IT'S A WHOLE GAMENT OF DIFFERENT STAKEHOLDERS THAT WE DEALT WITH.
AND THEN THERE'S THE ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP THAT IS SPECIFICALLY HAS AN INTEREST ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECT OF THIS.
COMMISSIONER WEER IS THE RESIDENTIAL IS, IS THE OUTSIDE GROUPS THE ONE THAT'S PUSHING FOR AGRICULTURAL, UM, AND NOT THE RESIDENTS? SORRY, CAN YOU REPEAT THAT? WHO, WHICH, WHICH, WHO IS PUSHING FOR AGRICULTURAL? IS IT THE OUTSIDE GROUP OR THE RESIDENTS? IT'S THE RESIDENTS.
THE, THE RESIDENTS WANT AGRICULTURAL.
YEAH, THEY'RE PUSHING FOR AGRICULTURAL USE.
AND, AND SO HOW DO WE COME UP WITH KEEPING WELL, THE INDUSTRIAL USE, I UNDERSTAND WHY I'M, I'M, I'M QUITE A BIT ON THAT, ON THAT IN THAT AREA.
UM, SO THE, BUT THE MIDDLE GROUND WOULD BE, IT WOULD BE SOME TYPE OF, UH, INDUSTRIAL IN AREAS WHERE WE ALREADY HAD EXISTING INDUSTRIAL OPERATIONS.
SO ALL THE RESIDENCES, UH, WERE THAT WERE IN, IM, YOU KNOW, HAVE BEEN RESOLVED TO RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT AND AROUND THEM WE'VE INCREASED THE ACREAGE THAT IS ZONED, UH, AGRICULTURAL TO PROVIDE PROTECTION FOR THEM.
SO IT IS IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER THAT THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ACREAGE IS WAY LESS THAN WHAT WE HAD UNDER INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURING.
AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH IS WAY LESS THAN WHAT WE HAD BEFORE.
SO WE ARE KIND OF SHRINKING THE ACREAGE THAT IS ZONED INDUSTRIAL, INCREASING THE ACREAGE THAT IS ZONED AGRICULTURAL AND IS A COMPROMISE TRYING TO STRIKE A MIDDLE GROUND.
AND THIS IS, THIS IS THE PROPERTY THAT'S IN BETWEEN, THIS PROPERTY IS IN BETWEEN I 45 AND, AND, AND, UM, THREE 10 CENTRAL EXPRESSWAY.
SEE, I KNOW IT'S ON SIMPSON STORE, BUT IS IT THAT THAT PROPERTY ONE SIDE IS UM, IT'S CLOSE.
IT SITS KINDA LANE BETWEEN I 45 AND AND AND THREE 10 CENTRAL EXPRESSWAY.
AM I CORRECT? ARE YOU REFERRING TO THE PD? SO IS THAT THE FARTHEST PART OF THE INDUSTRIAL THAT IN THE WHOLE INDUSTRIAL ZONE? YES.
EVERYTHING HERE WAS UNDER INDUSTRIAL, SOME KIND OF EITHER INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH OR INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURING.
ARE YOU AWARE THAT THE MOST RETAIL, SMALLER RETAIL BUSINESS THAT, THAT CATER TO THE, UM, MORE RESIDENTIAL BASE USUALLY DON'T SURVIVE IN THAT AREA BECAUSE OF THE TYPE OF, UM, BECAUSE MOST OF IT'S TRUCK TRUCKERS OR SOMETHING IN INDUSTRIAL USE, INCLUDING THE CITY OF DALLAS? YEAH, I'M AWARE OF THAT.
AND THAT'S THE POINT THAT I WAS TRYING TO MAKE, THAT IF WE DON'T BRING IN SOME PEOPLE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH POPULATION TO SUPPORT RETAIL IN THIS AREA.
SO DO YOU, HAVE YOU ALL TOOK INTO CONSIDERATION THAT THIS IS CONTINUALLY MOVING IN INTO INDUSTRIAL AREAS? THAT, THAT, AND PUTTING MORE HOMES CLOSER WHERE WE WILL LOSE, UH, SOME OF OUR INDUSTRIAL BASE, THAT SERVICE AND THOSE PROPERTY ON SOME, A LOT OF PEOPLE IN THAT AREA DO LIVE AND WORK IN THAT RIGHT AREA.
WE DO UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT THIS IS A FLOOD PLANE.
WE DON'T WANT TO ENCOURAGE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, UH, JUST BECAUSE, AND EVEN IF WE DID, IT WOULD BE EXPENSIVE TO DEVELOP IN A FLOOD PLAIN.
AND THERE IS COST AMPLIFICATION OF ESTABLISHING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.
SO INITIALLY RESIDENCES THAT EXISTED HERE WERE NOT RECOGNIZED LEGALLY.
YOU KNOW, THEY WERE UNDER INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURING, SO TECHNICALLY THEY WERE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE THERE, BUT WE KIND OF CREATED A ZONING DISTRICT FOR RESIDENTIAL TO RECOGNIZE THEM AND PROVIDE PROTECTION FOR THOSE WHO ARE THERE.
WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO IS NOT ENCOURAGE MORE PEOPLE TO MOVE INTO THIS AREA BECAUSE IT IS A FLOODPLAIN.
AND I THINK THAT'S ONE OF THE REASON WHY IF YOU LOOK AT THE RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION THAT IS RIGHT OUTSIDE, IF YOU LOOK AT THE ZONING MAP, WE'LL SEE A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION THAT HAS BEEN EMPTIED OUT AND THAT WAS DONE BECAUSE OF FLOODING.
IT JUST SEEMS LIKE WE KEEP MOVING INTO INDUSTRIAL AND ALLOWING RESIDENTIAL TO TAKE HOLD AT SOME POINT.
WE'RE NOT GONNA HAVE ANY DISTRICT COMMISSIONER HALL.
UH, A CLARIFICATION, I HEARD MAYBE A HUNDRED PE A HUNDRED PEOPLE LIVED THERE, BUT I THOUGHT
[02:35:01]
I AL ALSO HEARD MAYBE ONLY 10 HOMES.WHAT DID I MIS MISUNDERSTAND? SO LET, LET, LET ME EXPLAIN HOW I CAME UP WITH THAT NUMBER.
THEY'RE 27 HOME RESIDENTIAL HOME, UH, BASED ON VISUAL INSPECTION.
WE BELIEVE THAT THREE OF THEM ARE VACANT, ARE UNOCCUPIED.
AND YOU KNOW, WE ARE TRYING TO DETERMINE APPROXIMATE NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN THE DISTRICT.
AND OUR ESTIMATE IS THAT WITH 25 HOMES, UH, WE HAVE LESS THAN A HUNDRED PEOPLE HERE.
IT COULD BE LESS, IT COULD BE 50.
SO WE ARE JUST GIVING THEM ON THE, BEING GENEROUS THAT THEY HAVE MAYBE TWO KIDS OR THREE KIDS AND THERE'S A FATHER AND A, SO FIVE PEOPLE PER HOUSEHOLD MULTIPLIED BY 25.
AND THAT'S HOW WE ARE ARRIVING AT THE, THE, THE APPROXIMATE FIGURE.
BUT TECHNICALLY I THINK WE HAVE WAY LESS PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN THIS AREA THAN A HUNDRED.
SO, SO NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE, BUT PEOPLE DO LIVE THERE.
THIS IS NOT THE SAME AREA AS OUR SECOND, UM, AUTHORIZED HEARING CASE.
UM, MR. CHAIR, COULD, COULD WE MAKE CIRCLE BACK AROUND TO ONE OF THE FIRST QUESTIONS AND MAKE A MINOR CLARIFICATION? OF COURSE, PLEASE.
SO THE USAGE THAT WILL BECOME, UM, NON-CONFORMING WILL BE THE MAYOR SALVAGE FACILITY THAT'S ONLY ALLOWED IN THE INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURING DISTRICT.
THERE IS AVE VEHICLE STORAGE LOT THAT WE HAVE ON SIMPSON STEWARD OF THE NORTHBOUND BETWEEN SIMPSON STEWARD AND THE, UM, CENTRAL EXPRESSWAY.
AND THEN WE ALSO HAVE AN OUTSIDE SALVAGE AND RECLAMATION, WHICH IS A VERY LARGE USE NORTH ON SOUTH CENTRAL EXPRESSWAY.
SO THOSE WILL BE THE THREE ONES.
NOW, ANY USE THAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW THAT IS, UM, ILLEGAL OPERATING ILLEGALLY, THAT THEY ARE GONNA BE ILLEGAL? YES, MA'AM.
SO COMMISSIONER, WE, WE THANK YOU.
SO, SO YOU, YOU JUST STATED THAT THERE ARE A HANDFUL OF OF USES THAT COULD, COULD CONCEIVABLY BECOME NON-CONFORMING IF WE MOVE THIS FORWARD, AND IF THERE IS ANYONE WHO CHALLENGED THEIR ABILITY TO OPERATE, THEN SENATE BILL 9 29 WOULD GO INTO EFFECT AND WE'D HAVE TO GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS, CORRECT? YES, MA'AM.
SIR, COULD I GET A CLARIFICATION AS TO WHAT THE SECOND OF THOSE THIRD USES? I HEARD SOMETHING STORAGE, BUT I COULDN'T UNDERSTAND WHAT IT WAS.
YEAH, YOU SAID A METAL ONE WAS THE FIRST ONE.
AND THEN THERE WAS AUTO SALVAGE VEHICLE VEHICLE STORAGE LOT VACANT STORAGE VEHICLE.
I I DO HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE, UM, STRAIGHT ZONING CHANGE TO AGRICULTURAL FOR PARTS OF THIS WHERE I HEAR YOU SAYING THAT, I MEAN, I UNDERSTAND WHY OF ALL THE STRAIGHT ZONING CHANGES, THAT'S THAT'S THE BEST ONE TO GET WHERE YOU'RE GOING, BUT IT IS A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, SOMEONE, IF IT'S CHANGED TO AGRICULTURAL, SOMEONE COULD CONCEIVABLY APPLY TO, I MEAN, OR BUILD RESIDENTIAL.
ARE YOU OR IS YOUR, BUT WELL, THE STATED GOAL IS TO NOT INCREASE THE RESIDENTIAL THAT IS A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.
BUT ARE YOU BELIEVING THAT BECAUSE OF THE FLOODPLAIN STATUS, THE EXPENSE AND WHATEVER OTHER PERMITTING OBSTACLES EXIST? THAT THAT THE RESULT WOULD BE THAT NO ONE WOULD TRY TO BUILD RESIDENTIAL THERE? UM, SO THAT, THAT'S ONE THOUGHT.
UM, THE OTHER IS, UH, A SINGLE FAMILY HOME AND AN AG DISTRICT REQUIRES A MINIMUM OF THREE ACRES.
AND SO IT WOULD REQUIRE, UH, BASED ON WHAT WE WERE LOOKING AT, YOU KNOW, PLATING AND THERE WOULD BE MANY OTHER PROCESSES, UM, TO, TO GO THROUGH.
IT'S A LITTLE HARD TO HEAR UP HERE, SO I'M GONNA, UH, I APOLOGIZE IF I'M REPEATING OR COVERING GROUND THAT'S ALREADY BEEN COVERED.
WELL, BUT UH, I BELIEVE WHAT I'VE HEARD IS THERE'S APPROXIMATELY 27 RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES, CORRECT? CORRECT.
AND THAT ONLY A SMALL PORTION OF THOSE APPEAR TO BE OCCUPIED, IS THAT CORRECT? NO, MAJORITY OF THEM ARE OCCUPIED.
THREE OF THEM WE SUSPECT ARE VACANT AND OCCUPIED.
[02:40:01]
OKAY.SO, BUT ABOUT, SO APPROXIMATELY 25.
OKAY, SO I HAD THAT, I HAD THAT BACKWARDS AND OCCUPIED.
UM, JUST CURIOUS HOW MANY BUSINESSES AND HOW MANY EMPLOYEES ARE IN THIS DISTRICT? LET'S ADD A QUESTION TO ANSWER COMMISSIONER, BECAUSE THERE ARE A LOT OF, UH, OPERATIONS THAT ARE HAPPENING WITHOUT GETTING THE PROPER DOCUMENT PERMITTING DOCUMENTS.
A LOT OF, UH, PROPERTIES THAT WE SAW HAVE MULTIPLE BUSINESSES, BUT I DID COUNT, UH, ABOUT 15 TO 17 PROPERTIES THAT HAVE BUSINESS OPERATIONS, SO THEY COULD HAVE MULTIPLE OPERATIONS, DIFFERENT BUSINESSES WITHIN THOSE PROPERTIES.
SO IT'S KIND OF HARD TO GIVE YOU AN EXACT NUMBER, BUT I KNOW IN TERMS OF WHAT STAFF IS RECOMMENDING, WE ARE PROPOSING 20 PROPERTIES TO BE ZONED CR CS, SORRY, CS, WHICH IS GONNA BE THE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT.
THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION.
HE, HE WAS CORRECT WHEN HE SAID CR I INCORRECTLY CORRECTED HIM ON THAT CR COMMISSIONER WHEELER, PLEASE.
AT THESE COMMUNITY MEETINGS, WERE IT, WERE IT THE, WERE IT THE SINGLE ON THE HILL COMMUNITY OR WAS IT THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF ON ON THOSE 25 RESIDENTS? SORRY, CAN YOU REPEAT THAT? WERE, WERE THE 20 WERE THE RE THE, THE, THE HOMEOWNERS, UH, OR PROPERTY OWNERS AND RESIDENCE IN THAT AREA, WERE THEY AT THE MEETING OR WAS IT J OR WAS IT ON THE OTHER SIDE OF I 45, WHICH IS SINGLE HILL? UM, LET, LET ME HELP WITH THAT.
THE, THE, THOSE COMMUNITY MEETINGS, THE, THOSE COMMUNITY MEETINGS INCLUDED NOT ONLY THE, THE, THE FLORAL FARMS COMMUNITY, THE MEETINGS ALSO INCLUDED THE RE THE COMM, THE BUSINESS OWNERS THAT ARE IN THIS AREA.
AND IT ALSO INCLUDED OUTSIDE STAKEHOLDERS WHO HAVE WORKED WITH BOTH THE BUSINESSES AND THE FLORAL FARM COMMUNITY.
THE FLORAL FARM COMMUNITY INCLUDES NOT ONLY THE RESIDENTS, THOSE THAT ARE, UM, UH, PROTECTIVE OVER THAT COMMUNITY, BUT ALSO ENVIRONMENTALIST WHO HAVE ENVIRONMENTAL IS, UM, CONCERNS, ISSUES AND APPRECIATION FOR WHAT THE, WHAT IS OUT THERE AS WELL AS STAFF.
STAFF WAS ALWAYS IN ALL THE, ALL OF EVERYBODY WAS ALWAYS INCLUDED IN ALL THE, THE COMMUNITY MEETINGS.
AND THERE WERE SEVERAL COMMUNITY MEETINGS IN WHICH NOT ONLY I AM PARTICIPATED IN, BUT THE DISTRICT PARTICIPATED IN.
SO WHEN, WHEN WE TALK, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT COMMUNITY MEETINGS, IT WAS A VERY IN DEPTH, OUTSPOKEN, IT EVEN INCLUDED PREVIOUS COM COUNCIL MEMBERS.
SO IT WAS A VERY IN DEPTH MEETING.
SO I GOT ONE MORE QUESTION AND I I ASK THIS QUESTION ANYTIME WE DEAL WITH INDUSTRY THAT IS IN PROXIMITY, WHO WAS THERE FIRST BECAUSE YOU SAID SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT THAT RESIDENTIAL WASN'T EVER SUPPOSED TO BUILD THERE, BUT THEY BUILT THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT HAPPENED BETWEEN 1920S AND 1950S.
AND THE NEXT SECTION OF THE LAND WAS IN 1956.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONERS? THANK YOU SO MUCH MS. HOLLY, OPEN AND TEAM, WE LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING YOU AGAIN, UH, FOR THE HEARING COMMISSIONERS.
UH, COMMISSIONERS, LET'S JUST GO AHEAD AND BRIEF THE, THE REST OF THE CASES BEFORE WE HEAR 'EM AT THE HEARING.
TO GO AHEAD AND TAKE OUR LUNCH BREAK.
IT IS 12:03 PM AND THAT CONCLUDES THE BRIEFING OF THE DALLAS CITY PLAN COMMISSION.
WE'LL BE BACK ONLINE AT 1230 SHARP.
MS. PINA, WE'RE READY FOR ROLL CALL.
GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONERS.
[02:45:02]
DISTRICT TWO PRESENT.DISTRICT 11, DISTRICT 12, DISTRICT 13 HERE.
DISTRICT 14 AND PLACE 15, SIR, YOU HAVE QUORUM.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH MS. FAINA.
[CALL TO ORDER]
AFTERNOON LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.WELCOME TO THE DALLAS CITY PLAN COMMISSION.
TODAY IS THURSDAY, MARCH 7TH, 2020 4, 12 30 5:00 PM COUPLE OF QUICK ANNOUNCEMENTS BEFORE WE JUMP INTO THE DOCKET.
UM, YELLOW FORMS, UH, THERE'S SOME YELLOW FORMS DOWN HERE ON THE, THE TABLE TO THE BOTTOM RIGHT, UH, WHERE YOU CAN REGISTER YOUR ATTENDANCE WITH US HERE TODAY.
WE WOULD LOVE TO HAVE A RECORD OF YOUR VISIT AT SOME POINT, UH, TODAY.
IF YOU DON'T MIND, COME DOWN AND FILL ONE OF THOSE FORMS OUT.
YOU CAN JUST LEAVE IT RIGHT THERE ON THE TABLE.
UH, OUR SPEAKER GUIDELINES, EACH SPEAKER WILL RECEIVE THREE MINUTES TODAY.
MS. BESINA WILL KEEP TIME AND WE'LL LET YOU KNOW YOUR TIME IS UP.
UH, FOR ANY CASES THAT DO HAVE OPPOSITION, THE APPLICANT PER OUR RULES WILL RECEIVE A TWO MINUTE REBUTTAL.
I WILL ASK ALL SPEAKERS TO PLEASE BEGIN YOUR COMMENTS WITH YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, FOR OUR FOLKS ONLINE, PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT YOUR CAMERA IS ON AND WORKING.
STATE LAW REQUIRES US THAT WE SEE YOU IN ORDER TO HEAR FROM YOU.
UH, AND WITH THAT, UH, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE DO HAVE, UH, AGENDAS HERE IF YOU NEED ONE AT, UH, THE TABLE, THE BOTTOM RIGHT.
UM, WE'LL GET STARTED RIGHT OFF THE VERY TOP.
UH, THE BRIEFING FOR THE FORWARD DALLAS, UH, IS GONNA HAPPEN AT THE END OF OUR HEARING.
IT'LL BE THE LAST ITEM THAT WE WE TAKE UP TODAY THAT TAKES US TO THE TWO DEVELOPMENT
[Development Plan Cases - Consent]
PLANS THAT ARE ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.ITEM NUMBER TWO IS AN APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT PLAN ON PROPERTY ZONE SOUTH SUBDISTRICT WITHIN PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 5 8 2 VICTORY PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT ON THE WEST LINE OF VICTORY AVENUE BETWEEN MUSEUM WAY AND HIGH MARKET STREET.
UM, THIS IS D 2 23 DASH 0 0 8.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL.
AND ITEM NUMBER THREE IS D 2 34 DASH 0 0 4.
AN APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT PLAN ON PROPERTY ZONE SUB AREAS A AND B WITHIN PLAN DEVELOPMENT NUMBER, PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 7 7 8 ALONG THE EAST LINE OF INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 45 NORTH 45 NORTH OF SIMPSON STEWART ROAD.
IT'S GOOD HERE LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE ARE TAKING THE TWO, THE FIRST TWO ITEMS, UH, WHICH ARE DEVELOPMENT PLANS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA WILL BE DISPOSED OF IN ONE MOTION.
UNLESS THERE IS SOMEONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON EITHER OF THOSE TWO ITEMS. I'M ITEM NUMBER TWO OR THREE.
IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO BE HEARD ON ON EITHER OF THOSE TWO ITEMS? OKAY, SEEING NONE.
ANY LAST QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? I QUESTIONS.
COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? I DO.
IN THE UH, DEVELOPMENT PLAN CASES, CONSENT AGENDAS, ITEMS D 2 23 DASH EIGHT AND D 2 34 DASH 0 0 4, I MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE PER STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COMMISSIONER HAMPTON FOR YOUR MOTION.
COMMISSIONER HOUSE, RIGHT FOR YOUR SECOND.
ANY DISCUSSION? MAY I MAKE ONE TO THE MOTION? ABSOLUTELY.
ANY FURTHER COMMENTS? ANY, NONE.
[APPROVAL OF MINUTES]
GO BACK AND PICK UP THE, UH, THE MINUTES FOR THE FEBRUARY 1ST AND FEBRUARY 15TH.I GET A MOTION FOR THE MINUTES.
COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT FOR YOUR MOTION.
AND COMMISSIONER HERBERT FOR THE SECOND.
[4. 24-845 An application for a minor amendment to an existing development plan on property zoned Planned Development District No. 166, on the west line of La Prada Drive, south of Blyth Drive. Staff Recommendation: Approval. Applicant: Nexus Incorporated Representative: Rob Baldwin, Baldwin Associates Planner: Tasfia Zahin U/A From: February 15, 2024. Council District: 7 M234-033(TZ)]
FOUR.ITEM ITEM NUMBER FOUR IS, UH, NOTED IN A DOCKET AS M 2 34 DASH 0 3 3.
THE ACTUAL CASE NUMBER IS M 2 23 DASH 0 3 3.
[02:50:01]
MINOR AMENDMENT TO AN EXISTING DEVELOPMENT PLAN ON PROPERTY ZONED PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 1 6 6 ON THE WEST LINE OF LA PRADA DRIVE SOUTH OF BLYTHE DRIVE.UM, STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO HOLD UNDER ADVISEMENT TO MARCH 21ST.
UH, IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO BE HEARD ON THIS ITEM IS ITEM NUMBER FOUR, STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO HOLD UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL MARCH 21ST.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF, PLEASE? IS THERE ANY REASON WHY WERE WE HOLDING ON THAT ADVISEMENT? UH, WE WERE ADVISED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE THAT, UM, DUE TO THE CASE NUMBER BEING INCORRECTLY NOTED IN THE DOCKET THAT WE NEED TO HOLD IT TO THE NEXT MEETING.
SO IT'S DANIEL'S FAULT? YEAH, THAT THAT'S CORRECT, COMMISSIONER, BECAUSE OF THE TYPO IN THE DOCKET, IT'S GOTTA BE HELD UNTIL IT'S NO LONGER HAS THE TYPO IN THE DOCKET.
SO, SO THAT IT'S CORRECT IN THE DOCKET.
SO WE'LL BE JUST HOLDING IT FOR ONE FOR, OKAY.
DANIEL
UH, ANY QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONERS ON THIS ITEM? SEEING NONE, COMMISSIONER WHEELER, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? I MOVED TO, UM, MY BRAIN JUST WENT, I MEAN, I MOVED TO KEEP THE PUBLIC HEARING, UH, IN THE MATTER OF IN 2 3, 4 0 3 3.
I MOVE TO HOLD THE, UH, KEEP THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN, UM, AND HOLD UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL THE MARCH 21ST CPC DATE.
UH, IT'S THE, THE NEW CASE NUMBER IS M 2 3 4 2 2 3 2 2 3.
IN THE MATTER OF M 2 23 DASH 0 3 3 I MOVED TO KEEP THE CLAIM NO, NO, NO, NO.
IT GOES BACK TO, OH MY GOD, IN THE MATTER OF OF M 2 23 DASH 0 3 3, I MOVED TO KEEP THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AND HOLD, UH, THIS CASE UP UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL THE MARCH 21ST CPC DATE.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR MOTION, COMMISSIONER HOUSE, UH, HAMPTON FOR YOUR SECOND.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE SAY AYE.
UH, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE ARE NOW MOVING ON
[ZONING DOCKET: Consent]
TO OUR ZONING CASES.THEY CONSIST OF CASES FIVE THROUGH 11 AT THIS POINT, CASES SIX, EIGHT, AND NINE HAVE BEEN TAKEN OFF THAT CONSENT AGENDA AND WILL BE HEARD INDIVIDUALLY UNLESS, UH, THERE IS SOMEONE HERE THAT WANTS TO BE HEARD ON CASES 5, 7, 10 OR 11, THEN THOSE WILL BE DISPOSED OF IN ONE MOTION UNLESS, AGAIN, THERE IS SOMEONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO BE HEARD AND WE'LL PULL THAT OFF THE CONSENT AGENDA.
ANYONE HERE WOULD LIKE TO BE HEARD ON CASES 5, 7, 10 OR 11 5, 7, 10 OR 11.
OKAY, WE'LL GET THOSE RIGHT INTO THE RECORD.
ITEM NUMBER FIVE IS KZ 2 2 3 180 8.
AN APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO SPECIFIC USE.
PERMIT NUMBER 2365 FOR THE SALE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES IN CONJUNCTION WITH A GENERAL MERCHANDISE OR FOOD STORE, 3,500 SQUARE FEET OR LESS THAN PROPERTY ZONE.
A CR COMMUNITY RETAIL DISTRICT WITH A D ONE LIQUOR CONTROL OVERLAY ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LAKE JUNE ROAD AND HOLCOMB ROAD.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVED FOR A TWO YEAR PERIOD WITH ELIGIBILITY FOR AUTOMATIC RENEWALS FOR AN ADDITIONAL TWO YEAR PERIOD SUBJECT TO AN AMENDED SITE PLAN AND AMENDED CONDITIONS.
ITEM NUMBER SEVEN IS KZ 2 2 3 2 85.
AN APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO SPECIFIC USE PERMIT NUMBER 2299 FOR AN OPEN ENROLLMENT CHARTER SCHOOL ON PROPERTY ZONED AND IR INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH DISTRICT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SKILLMAN STREET IN THE NORTH LINE OF WENDELL ROAD, EAST OF PAGE MILL SITE.
RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO AN AMENDED SITE PLAN AND AMENDED TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN AND AMENDED CONDITIONS.
ITEM NUMBER 10 IS KZ 2 2 3 3 3 4.
AN APPLICATION FOR SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR A CHILDCARE FACILITY ON PROPERTY ZONED IN R SEVEN FIVE, A SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT BETWEEN LOMAX DRIVE AND WI
[02:55:01]
WIMBLEDON.STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL FOR A 10 YEAR PERIOD WITH ELIGIBILITY FOR AUTOMATIC RENEWAL FOR AN ADDITIONAL FIVE YEAR PERIOD SUBJECT TO A SIPAN AND CONDITIONS.
ITEM NUMBER 11 IS KZ 2 3 4 1 3 3.
AN APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO SPECIFIC USE.
PERMIT NUMBER 2358 FOR AN ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE ESTABLISHMENT, LIMITED TO A MICRO BREWERY, MICRO DISTILL OR WINERY ON PROPERTY ZONE PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER SIX 19 WITH EIGHT, UH, 1 21 DALLAS POWER AND LIGHT BUILDING, HISTORIC DISTRICT OVERLAY ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF COMMERCE STREET AND BRODER STREET.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVED FOR A TWO YEAR PERIOD SUBJECT TO AMENDED CONDITIONS.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COMMISSIONERS.
ANY QUESTIONS ON ITEMS 5, 7, 10 OR 11? SCENE NONE.
COMMISSIONER HERBERT, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION, SIR? YES, I DO.
I MOVE TO APPROVE CASES 5, 7, 10 AND 11.
UM, ZT 2 3 1 8 8 Z 2 2 3 2 8 5 Z, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3 4 AND Z 2, 3, 4, 1, 3 3 ON THE CONSENT DOCKET AS READ INTO THE RECORD.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COMMISSIONER HERBERT.
ANY DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.
A ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES.
[6. An application for a new subarea on property zoned Tract IV within Planned Development District No. 317, the Preston Center Special Purpose District, on the north line of Colgate Avenue, between Westchester Drive and Preston Road. Staff Recommendation: Approval subject to a development plan, a traffic management plan, and conditions. Owner/Applicant: CKCP-RC Representative: Tommy Mann, Winstead PC Planner: Michael Pepe Council District: 13 Z223-243(MP)]
MOVE TO ITEM NUMBER SIX Z 2 23.ACTUALLY, UM, THIS ITEM LIZ AND JOHN HAS AN AN INCORRECT NUMBER, UH, AND THEREFORE, UH, WE DO NOT NEED A MOTION DOESN'T EXIST.
UH, WHICH NUMBER? THIS IS NUMBER SIX.
UH, BUT WE'LL BE BACK ON THE AGENDA ON MARCH 21ST.
SO ITEM NUMBER SIX AT A, UH, AN ERROR THERE IN THE NOTICE THAT PD NUMBER THREE 17 SHOULD BE THREE 14 OR THEREFORE IT WILL BE HEARD ON THE 21ST.
IT TAKES US TO CASE NUMBER SEVEN.
ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT? COMMISSIONER? SEVEN.
SEVEN WAS TAKEN OFF CONSENT, CORRECT.
IT WAS ALREADY DISPOSED OF IN THE CONSENT AGENDA.
[8. 24-854 An application for an amendment to Specific Use Permit No. 2429 for an alcoholic beverage establishment limited to a microbrewery, microdistillery, or winery and a bar, lounge, or tavern on property zoned Tract A within Planned Development District No. 269, The Deep Ellum/Near East Side District, on the south line of Commerce Street, west of South Malcolm X Boulevard. Staff Recommendation: Approval for a five-year period with eligibility for automatic renewal for additional five-year periods, subject to amended conditions. Applicant: Westlake Brewing Company Representative: Rob Baldwin, Baldwin Planning Planner: Wilson Kerr Council District: 2 Z223-323(WK)]
CASE NUMBER EIGHT, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN BRIEF.YOU ABLE TO SEE THE SCREEN NOW? WE CAN.
ALRIGHT, SO, UH, THIS IS CASE NUMBER 2, 2 3 3 2 3.
IT'S A RENEWAL OF SUP 2 4 2 9, LOCATED AT 28 16 COMMERCE STREET.
SO THE REQUEST IS, UH, RENEWAL, UH, OF SEP NUMBER 24 29, UH, FOR A MICROBREWERY WITH A BAR, LOUNGE, OR TAVERN COMPONENT FOR THE OUTSIDE CON UH, CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES.
IT'S LOCATED AT THE SOUTH CORNER OF COMMERCE STREET AND MALCOLM X BOULEVARD.
THE PROPERTY IS ZONED TRACK DAY WITHIN PD NUMBER 2 6 9, THE D BELLA, UH, NEAR EAST SIDE DISTRICT.
IT'S APPROXIMATELY, UH, 5,970 SQUARE FEET AND IT IS IN COUNCIL DISTRICT TWO.
HERE IS THE LOCATION, UH, THE REQUEST DETAILS.
THE PURPOSE OF THE REQUEST IS TO CONTINUE TO ALLOW AN ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE ESTABLISHMENT LIMITED TO A MICROBREWERY MICRO DISTILLERY OR WINERY AND BAR, LOUNGE OR TAVERN.
UH, THE REQUEST IS FOR A FIVE-YEAR PERIOD WITH ELIGIBILITY FOR AUTOMATIC RENEWALS FOR ADDITIONAL FIVE-YEAR PERIODS.
AND, UM, THE SEP, THE ORIGINAL SEP WAS APPROVED IN 2021.
SO AS YOU CAN SEE HERE, THE SURROUNDING USES.
SO, UM, UH, ACROSS THE STREET, ACROSS COMMERCE, UM, ARE SOME RESTAURANT AND BAR USES.
SAME WITH, UH, ACROSS MALCOLM X BOULEVARD.
UM, AND THEN, UM, TO THE, THE WEST IS PD 2 69, AND THEN TO THE SOUTH ACROSS CLOVER STREET IS A MICRO DISTILLERY.
[03:00:01]
NORTHEAST.HERE'S ON THE SITE LOOKING SOUTHEAST.
AND HERE'S ON THE SITE, UM, LOOKING SOUTHEAST AS WELL.
UM, HERE'S ON THE SITE FROM THE REAR PARKING LOT, AND, UH, AS YOU CAN SEE HERE IS THE SITE PLAN.
I APOLOGIZE FOR THE, UH, PIXELATION.
AND THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL FOR A FIVE-YEAR PERIOD WITH ELIGIBILITY FOR AUTOMATIC RENEWALS FOR ADDITIONAL PERIODS SUBJECT TO AMENDED CONDITIONS.
QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER HAMPTON? THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
UM, MR. KERR, WERE YOU ABLE TO REVIEW THE, UH, PRIOR CASE REPORT ON THIS MATTER? UH, I WAS, YES.
AND SO YOU'RE AWARE THAT THIS WAS, UM, A NEW SUP AT THE TIME OF 2021, PRIMARILY DUE TO A CHANGE IN THE OPERATOR? YES.
UM, RELATED TO STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION ON THE AUTO RENEWAL, UM, IS IT CORRECT THAT THE OPERATOR IS NOT THE OWNER OF THIS PROPERTY? ARE YOU AWARE? UM, I AM, UH, I'M NOT AWARE.
I WILL, UH, I I CAN FIND THAT INFORMATION FOR YOU THOUGH.
NO, THAT'S, UM, I, I BELIEVE I CAN REPORT THAT THROUGH MY, UM, REVIEW WITH THE APPLICANT AS WELL AS WITH THE STAKEHOLDER COMMUNITY.
AND, UH, WE ARE READY FOR MOTION.
COMMISSIONER HANEN, PLEASE THANK YOU.
IN THE MATTER OF Z 2 23 DASH 3 23, I MOVE, WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE THE REQUEST FOR A FIVE YEAR PERIOD WITHOUT ELIGIBILITY FOR AUTOMATIC RENEWALS AND HAVE BRIEF COMMENTS IF I A SECOND.
THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER HOUSER FOR YOUR SECOND, UH, COMMENTS.
UM, I APPRECIATE THE, UM, OPERATOR AND THE APPLICANT'S TEAM BEING ENGAGED ON THIS.
I WAS ABLE TO VISIT WITH THE DEEP ELLUM FOUNDATION, WHO HAS A VERY RIGOROUS, UM, SUP REVIEW PROCESS THAT'S BEEN IN PLACE.
THIS IS AN ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICT.
UM, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT AUTOMATIC RENEWALS ARE NOT GENERALLY SUPPORTED IN THIS AREA SIMPLY BECAUSE THE NUMBER OF THE SUVS WE HAVE AND MANY TIMES THE OPERATOR AND THE APPLICANT ARE, ARE THE OWNER, EXCUSE ME, AND THE OPERATOR ARE TWO DIFFERENT ENTITIES.
THE SUP WILL GO WITH THE LAND.
I THINK WE'RE GONNA TALK ABOUT THAT A LITTLE BIT LATER AS WELL ON ANOTHER ONE OF THE REQUESTS.
AND SO HOPE THE FELLOW COMMISSIONERS WILL SUPPORT THE REQUESTS.
THIS HAS BEEN A GOOD OPERATOR AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO THEM CONTINUING, UH, TO BE PART OF THE COMMUNITY.
COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, PLEASE.
I MAY NOT HAVE HEARD IT, BUT DID YOU SAY SUBJECT TO AMENDED CONDITIONS? THAT WAS GONNA BE MY QUESTION.
I'D LIKE NOT, BUT THANK YOU BOTH FOR THE, UH, CATCH ON THAT SUBJECT TO AMENDED CONDITIONS.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? COMMISSIONERS? OKAY.
IN THE MATTER OF, UH, Z 2 23, 3 23, HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FILE.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL FOR A FIVE YEAR PERIOD WITH NO AUTOMATIC RENEWAL SUBJECT TO AMENDED CONDITIONS.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.
[9. 24-855 An application for a Specific Use Permit for a community service center on property zoned a CR-D-1 Community Retail District with a D-1 Liquor Control Overlay District and deed restrictions [Z101-185], on the northeast line of Webb Chapel Road, southeast of Larga Drive. Staff Recommendation: Approval subject to a site plan and conditions. Owner/Applicant: Esperanza Ministries Representative: Bryce Green, Ministry Consultants Planner: Connor Roberts Council District: 6 Z223-324(CR)]
NUMBER NINE.UH, ITEM NUMBER NINE IS ZONING CASE Z 2 23 DASH 3 24.
AN APPLICATION FOR SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR COMMUNITY SERVICE CENTER ON PROPERTY ZONED A CR D ONE COMMUNITY RETAIL DISTRICT WITH A D ONE LIQUOR CONTROL OVERLAY DISTRICT AND DEED RESTRICTIONS THAT C 1 0 1 DASH 180 5 ON THE NORTHEAST LINE OF WEB CHAPEL ROAD, SOUTHEAST OF LARGA DRIVE.
UH, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO A SITE PLANNING CONDITIONS.
IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO BE HEARD ON THIS ITEM? THIS IS ITEM NUMBER NINE, PAGE FOUR OF YOUR AGENDA.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS ITEM? SEEING NONE.
COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? YES.
IN THE MATTER OF Z 2 23 DASH 3 24, I MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE THIS ITEM, SUBJECT TO A SITE PLAN AND STAFF'S RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGE, THE SUP EXPIRES FOUR YEARS FROM PASSAGE OF THE ORDINANCE.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER CARPENTER FOR YOUR MOTION.
COMMISSIONER HOUSER FOR YOUR SECOND.
ANY COMMENTS? OKAY, SEEING NONE, WE HAVE A MOTION, A SECOND FOR APPROVAL TO THE SIDELINE AND CONDITIONS AS WELL AS THE, UH, ADDED LANGUAGE IN TERMS OF THE FOUR YEAR, UH, SUP.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.
TAKES US TO, UH, FIRST CASE CENTER ADVISEMENT CASE NUMBER
[12. 24-860 An application for a Specific Use Permit for an auto service center and vehicle display, sales, and service on property zoned Subarea 2 within Planned Development District No. 366, the Buckner Boulevard Special Purpose District, with a D-1 Liquor Control Overlay, on the west line of Conner Drive between Bruton Road and Stonehurst Street. Staff Recommendation: Denial. Applicant: Daniel Marquez Representative: Isai Marquez Planner: Michael Pepe U/A From: November 2, 2023, January 18, 2024, and February 15, 2024. Council District: 5 Z223-116(MP)]
12.THAT'S ACTUALLY GOOD AFTERNOON.
CASE NUMBER 12 IS Z 2 2 3 116.
AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR AN AUTO SERVICE
[03:05:01]
CENTER AND VEHICLE DISPLAY SALES AND SERVICE ON PROPERTY ZONED PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 3 6 6, THE BUCKNER BOULEVARD SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICT WITH A D ONE LIQUOR CONTROL OVERLAY ON THE WEST LINE OF CONNOR DRIVE BETWEEN BRUTON ROAD AND STONE HURST STREET STAFF.UM, ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? I'M SORRY, THERE IS NOBODY HERE.
IS IS THE APPLICANT HERE, I'M SORRY.
OR SOMEONE HERE TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT OR ANYONE? IS THERE ANYONE HERE IN SUPPORT OF THE PROJECT OR IN OPPOSITION? QUESTIONS FOR STAFF COMMISSIONER WHEELER.
WAS THE APPLICANT ABLE TO COME? UM, WAS THE APPLICANT ABLE TO, UM, DO ANY TYPE OF SHIRT, UM, UH, EGRESS AND INGRESS WITH THE PROPERTY THAT THEY, THAT ALSO OWNED, WHICH THE CAR WASH? I BELIEVE THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE WORKING ON RIGHT NOW.
SO ARE WE HOLDING POSSIBLY UN ADVISEMENT? THEY ASKED FOR IT TO BE HELD.
CAN WE GET A MOTION? I DO HAVE A MOTION AND A VERY QUICK COMMENT IN THE MATTER OF Z 2 2 3 1 1 6, UH, MOVE TO KEEP THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN UNDER MATTER, UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL MARCH 21ST.
UM, WE HAVE A SECOND, UM, FROM COMMISSIONER BLAIR.
UH, THE, THE APPLICANT IS WORKING TO DO THE, UH, UH, THE SHARED EASEMENT.
UM, AND THIS IS A VERY SMALL OPERATOR DOING ALL THE WORK THEMSELVES, UH, MAYBE DOESN'T HAVE THE BUDGET TO HIRE, UH, OUR HIGH POWERED CONSULTANT TEAMS. UH, SO WE'RE GONNA HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF, UH, PATIENCE, UH, WITH THESE FOLKS WHILE THEY GET THEIR, THEIR BUSINESS IN ORDER.
I APPRECIATE YOUR SUPPORT, THANK YOU.
ANY, ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, CAN WE GET A VOTE? ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.
WOULD I COMMISSION, UH, WELL NOW MOVE TO CASE NUMBER 13.
UDE, I THINK WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO PAUSE FOR ONE MOMENT ON THIS CASE.
I THINK SHE'S, SHE'S TRYING TO GET ONLINE.
SO MAYBE LET'S, LET'S TABLE THE, THE ITEM FOR, FOR A FEW MINUTES UNTIL WE VERIFY THAT SHE'S ONLINE.
WE'LL GO BACK TO 13 HERE IN A MOMENT.
WHICH ONE WE'RE YES, WE'RE DOING 14, 13.
WE'LL TABLE FOR, FOR THE MOMENT, WE'LL GO TO NUMBER 14, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN BRIEFED.
WE'LL BRIEF THAT NOW AND THEN WE'LL HEAR IT.
[03:10:01]
GOOD AFTERNOON.THIS BRIDGES, THERE'S A MAGIC LITTLE BUTTON DOWN THERE SOMEWHERE IF YOU WANNA RAISE THAT TABLE UP.
[14. 24-862 An application for an MU-1 Mixed Use District on property zoned a CR Community Retail District, on the west corner of South Lancaster Road and Marfa Avenue. Staff Recommendation: Approval. Applicant: Uptown Reinvestment, LLC Representative: Sherry Flewellen Planner: Giahanna Bridges U/A From: January 18, 2024 and February 15, 2024. Council District: 4 Z223-282(GB) ( Part 1 of 2 )]
THIS IS Z 2 2 3 DASH 2 82.THIS IS AN APPLICATION FOR A MU ONE MIXED USE DISTRICT ON PROPERTY ZONE CR COMMUNITY RETAIL DISTRICT.
IT'S LOCATED ON THE WEST CORNER OF SOUTH LANCASTER ROAD AND MARFA AVENUE.
THIS IS THE, UM, LOCATION MAP OUTLINED IN BLUE IS THE AREA OF REQUEST ON THE AREA MAP.
THIS IS THE ZONING MAP SURROUNDING THE AREA OF QUESTION IN QUESTION.
YOU DO HAVE RETAIL, SINGLE FAMILY, AND YOU ALSO HAVE A MOTOR VEHICLE FUELING STATION.
THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED COMMUNITY RETAIL WITH A RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE ON THE PROPERTY.
UM, IT IS LOCATED 1739 MARFA AVENUE AND THEY PROPOSED TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTY WITH THE DUPLEX.
AND TO ACCOMPLISH THIS, THEY REQUEST A MU ONE MIXED USE DISTRICT.
THE NEXT FEW SLIDES WILL BE OF THE SITE AND THE SURROUNDING AREAS.
THESE ARE THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
YOU WILL SEE THE EXISTING CR AND UNDERNEATH THAT YOU WILL SEE THE PROPOSED, WHICH IS MIXED USE ONE.
AND STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL.
MRS. QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS, COMMISSIONER FORE PLEASE? YES.
UH, THE, UH, APPLICANT, UH, PROPOSES TO RENOVATE THE EXISTING FACILITY, IS THAT CORRECT? AND, AND, AND, AND, AND MAY AND YOU, SO IT'S, IT, THE EXISTING FACILITY IS A DUPLEX UNIT AND THEY PLAN ON KEEPING A DUPLEX UNIT THERE.
AND, UH, THE, UH, THE STREET, UH, MARVA STREET, THAT, THAT ONE OF THE HOMES, UH, OR THE DUPLEX PROPERTY FACES, THAT STREET IS PRIMARILY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.
UM, SO W WITH THIS MU DESIGNATION THAT ALLOWS FOR COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY ON THE PROPERTY, IS THAT CORRECT? YES.
UM, WOULD THE, UH, I, I, I, I, I GUESS MS. WELLEN IS HERE, IS IT APPROPRIATE TO ASK HER IF SHE'D BE OPEN TO A DEED RESTRICTION TO PREVENT, UH, COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PROPERTY? DO YOU WANNA TAKE THAT? SURE.
UM, UH, YOU'RE, YOU'RE WELCOME TO ASK THE APPLICANT THAT QUESTION.
UM, HOWEVER THAT WOULD BE, UH, DURING THE TIME FOR THE COMMISSION TO SPEAK WITH THE APPLICANT.
RIGHT NOW WE'RE ON QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.
BE, BECAUSE WE COULDN'T TAKE, WE RAN OUT OF TIME.
WE'RE, WE'RE TECHNICALLY JUST BRIEFING THE CASE NOW, I'M SORRY.
AND THEN SHE'LL, WE'LL OPEN IT UP FOR THE HEARING AND THEN WE'LL HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT.
AND THEN IF THE APPLICANT IS, IS WILLING TO VOLUNTEER SOME DEED RESTRICTIONS, THEN WE WOULD ABSOLUTELY ENTERTAIN THOSE.
COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE I WAS CLEAR ON TWO ITEMS. THIS REQUEST IS BEFORE US
[03:15:01]
PRIMARILY 'CAUSE THERE'S AN EXISTING DUPLEX ON THE PROPERTY AND THE CR ZONING DOESN'T ALLOW FOR RESIDENTIAL USE.AND THEN JUST ONE CLARIFICATION, UM, IN THE CASE REPORT, I THINK YOU HAD THE CORRECT, UM, TABLE UP IN, IN YOUR BRIEFING.
UM, BUT THERE'S THE ASTERISK BY THE HEIGHT THAT I BELIEVE WAS INTENDED TO BE ON THE SETBACKS.
JUST A POINT OF CLARIFICATION.
COMMISSIONER HAMPTON STOLE MY THUNDER AGAIN.
UM, WE'LL STAY ON THAT PAGE OF THE, OF YOUR REPORT THOUGH, ON PAGE 14 FIVE.
UH, I'M HOPING THAT YOU CAN GIVE US A LITTLE MORE DETAIL ON THE, THE LAST SENTENCE THERE ON THE FIRST PARAGRAPH THAT SAYS, IN NEW ZONING DISTRICT WOULD ALSO ELIMINATE ANY DIFFICULTIES IN DEVELOPING ADJACENT PROPERTIES THAT WILL NOT DISRUPT NEIGHBORING RESIDENTIAL USES.
NOW, UM, TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION, SOME OF THE, THE DIFFICULTIES THAT, UM, THE, THE DA WOULD, IF THERE WAS TO REZONE TO DA, IT WOULD, UM, CAUSE BLACKFACE CONTINUITY.
UM, IT WOULD ALSO, UM, CAUSE RPS, THOSE ARE TWO OF THE MAIN ISSUES THAT IF WE WERE TO REZONE TO DA INSTEAD OF THE MIXED USE.
YOU SAID BLOCK FACE CONTINUITY AND RPS? YES.
SO MAYBE WE CAN DIG DOWN ON THOSE JUST A LITTLE BIT JUST FOR, UH, FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES FOR ME.
SO WHEN YOU SAY THE BLOCK FACE CONTINUITY, DOES THAT MEAN THAT IF WE WERE TO REZONE THIS PROPERTY, DUPLEX, WHICH IS WHAT THE CURRENT USE IS, AND WHAT JUST INTUITIVELY YOU WOULD THINK THAT THAT'S WHAT WE WOULD WANT? WHAT, HOW DOES THAT PUT STRESS ON THE OTHER PROPERTIES? THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES, THE BLOCK FACE CONTINUITY PIECE? UM, BECAUSE YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TWO DIFFERENT ZONING DISTRICTS ON ONE STREET, AND THEN YOU WILL HAVE TO TAKE THE STRONGEST ZONING, UM, THE FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR THE STRONGEST ZONING.
SO THAT, THAT'S WHAT I MEAN BY BLACKFACE CONTINUITY.
SO, UH, SO THEREFORE IT WOULD CREATE ISSUES FOR IT, THE THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES.
UH, BECAUSE OF THE DESIGNATION AND OF, YOU KNOW, OUR CODE, UH, IT REQUIRES A, A SPECIFIC SETBACK THAT CORRECT.
THEN PUTS THE REST OF THE HOMES, UH, IN, IN A PROBLEMATIC ISSUE HERE.
SO EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE NOT FOR ZONING, IT COULD AFFECT THEM IN A POTENTIALLY NEGATIVE WAY.
AND IF THEY WANNA LIKE REZONE IN THE FUTURE OR ANY TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT, FUTURE DEVELOPMENT, IT WOULD CAUSE ISSUES.
AND ISN'T THAT ALSO KIND OF THE CASE IN A WAY? YOUR, THE SECOND ITEM THAT YOU MENTIONED WAS THE RPS? CORRECT? YEAH.
COULD YOU EXPLAIN THAT A LITTLE BIT? UM, RPS WILL COME INTO PLAY BECAUSE OF THE, AGAIN, YOU HAVE THE TWO ZONING DISTRICTS, SO ANYTHING ABOVE 26 FEET WILL CAUSE RPS.
AND BECAUSE YOU DO HAVE SOME COMMERCIAL THAT NEXT, THAT IS NEXT TO THIS PARTICULAR AREA OF REQUEST, THAT WOULD KICK IN THE RPS.
SO THEN IF I COULD SUMMARIZE THEN, THEN IF WE WERE TO, WHAT INTUITIVELY WOULD WOULD BE TO JUST ZONE THIS DUPLEX IT ACTUALLY DOING SO CREATES TWO KIND OF PROBLEMS, CREATES ONE PROBLEMS FOR THE OTH FOR THE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES THAT ARE ON THE SAME BLOCK FACE.
AND THEN TWO CREATES PROBLEMS FOR THE, THE CR OF PROPERTIES BECAUSE IT WOULD CUT OFF THE HEIGHT, THE POTENTIAL HEIGHT THAT THOSE PROPERTIES COULD BE DEVELOPED.
ANYTHING TO ADD, SIR? UM, NOT, NOT TOO MUCH.
VERY, VERY GOOD JOB WITH THAT EXPLANATION, GIANNA.
UM, A FEW MORE THINGS TO HIGHLIGHT IN TERMS OF LIKE THE RESIDENTIAL PROXIMITY.
UM, IF WE DID HAVE A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, LIKE A DA DUPLEX DISTRICT ABUTTING, UM, THESE, UH, ADJACENT LOTS THAT ARE IN CR TODAY, UM, A 20 FOOT SETBACK WOULD BE TRIGGERED ON THOSE COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES ADJACENT TO THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY.
UH, AND OUTSIDE OF ARTICLE FOUR, IF WE GO TO ARTICLE 10, UH, WHERE LANDSCAPING CONDITIONS ARE, UH, THERE WOULD BE A RESIDENTIAL COMPAT COMPATIBILITY BUFFER, UH, TRIGGERED ANYWHERE WHERE THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY ABUTS RESIDENTIAL AS WELL.
UM, AND I DON'T KNOW, ARTICLE 10, LIKE THE BACK OF MY HAND, BUT I BELIEVE THAT NEEDS AN AVERAGE WIDTH OF 10 FEET.
SO IT'S JUST SOME ADDITIONAL COMPATIBILITY REQUIREMENTS WOULD BE TRIGGERED IF THIS, UH, IF THIS WERE APPROVED AS A DUPLEX LOT SURROUNDED BY CR ZONING.
THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION.
UH, PLEASE, COMMISSIONER WEER, UM, SO WE COULDN'T USE DED RESTRICTIONS AS WE HAVE DONE IN SOME CASES WHERE THE D RESTRICTIONS WERE THE, IF THE, WOULD THAT SOLVE THE ISSUE IN A DUPLEX IF THE, IF THEY WERE WILLING TO DO DE RESTRICTIONS AND SO THAT IT WOULD MATCH THE REST OF THE BLOCK? YES, I DID SPEAK WITH DANIEL ABOUT THAT, AND HE SAID IF THE APPLICANT WOULD, IF THEY WANT TO VOLUNTEER DE RESTRICTIONS, THAT WOULD BE OKAY TO PROHIBIT ANY TYPE OF COMMERCIAL USE.
I ALSO SPOKE WITH, UH, COMMISSIONER FORSIGHT ABOUT THAT AS WELL, AND THE APPLICANT SAID SHE'S
[03:20:01]
OPEN TO THAT.AND WOULD THAT BE, WOULD THAT CHANGE THE ZONING TO, UM, WHAT, WHAT THE, WHAT STAFF IS RECOMMENDED OR FOR DUPLEX? NO, IT'LL STILL BE MU ONE, BUT IT'LL ALSO HAVE D RESTRICTIONS WITH THAT.
SO IT'LL STILL BE THE SAME ZONING THAT I'M IN, I AM RECOMMENDING.
UH, A QUESTION I'VE ASKED AT PREVIOUS BRIEFINGS, UH, ON THIS SIMILAR TO THIS, BUT, UH, WOULDN'T IT BE GREAT IF WE WOULD AMEND OUR DUPLEX ZONING TO, UH, MORE, UH, BE MORE COMPATIBLE WITH OUR SINGLE FAMILY ZONING? UH, WOULDN'T IT, I'M SURE THAT IT WOULD
SO I UNDERSTAND THE CURRENT BUILDING THAT'S THERE NOW HAS BEEN USED AS A DUPLEX.
IS ANYONE LIVING THERE NOW? I DON'T BELIEVE, UM, I DON'T BELIEVE ANYONE IS LIVING THERE NOW, BUT I THINK THAT WOULD BE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.
BUT SHE DID NOT MENTION THAT TO ME THAT SHE HAD SOMEONE LIVING THERE.
AND WHAT ABOUT THE, WHAT ABOUT THE PARKING FOR, IS THERE, UH, ADEQUATE PAVED PARKING FOR BOTH SIDES OF THE DUPLEX? I BELIEVE SO WHEN I DID MY SITE VISIT, I BELIEVE THAT IT WOULD BE ENOUGH PARKING.
'CAUSE THEY HAVE AT LEAST ONE SPACE PER DWELLING UNIT.
COMMISSIONER, ER SECOND ROUND.
UH, LET, LET'S, LET'S TAKE COMMISSIONER HAMPTON AND THEN WE'LL COME BACK TO YOU FOR A SECOND ROUND PLEASE.
UM, YOU KNOW, THE, THE, IT'S A GREAT OBSERVATION ABOUT THE, UM, ADJACENCY ISSUES AND THE ADDITIONAL, UM, BUFFERING THAT'S REQUIRED.
IS IT CORRECT THAT ON THE OTHER SIDE OF, UM, THIS LOT, THERE'S, I GUESS GONNA BE A REMAINDER, I'LL CALL IT A REMAINDER, A CR LOT, AND THEN THE REST OF THE BLOCK IS R SEVEN FIVE.
SO WOULDN'T THAT IMPOSE BLOCK FACE CONTINUITY ON THAT PROPERTY TODAY? IT, IT POSSIBLY COULD.
UM, BUT YOU ARE CORRECT THAT THE PROPERTY RIGHT NEXT TO IT IS ALSO ZONED CR RIGHT.
SO AGAIN, WE'RE, WE'VE KIND OF GOT, WE POTENTIALLY, DEPENDING ON WHERE THIS GOES, UM, WOULD HAVE THREE ZONING DISTRICTS ON FRONTING ONTO MARFA.
IF THIS WAS APPROVED TODAY, AND SO R SEVEN FIVE I THINK IS 25 FEET.
AND I I THINK DUPLEX IS ALSO 25.
SO WOULDN'T THOSE BE IN ALIGNMENT AND THEN CR WOULD BE LESS, BUT AGAIN, CR WOULD ALWAYS ALREADY BE REQUIRED TO MEET THE R SEVEN FIVE.
DO I FOLLOW THAT CORRECTLY? YOU ARE FOLLOWING IT CORRECTLY.
AND THEN ON THE QUESTION ON THE BUFFER, AND AGAIN, I THINK THIS IS A, A FUNCTION OF MAYBE HOW ALL OF THIS ZONING GOT LAID OUT, BUT THE R SEVEN FIVE ALREADY PUTS A BUFFERING REQUIREMENT ON THE ADJACENT CR.
SO THERE'S PROPERTY THAT'S ALREADY TO THE NORTH, UM, THAT WOULD HAVE THAT SAME BUFFER.
IT'S THE, THE ONE, THE PROPERTY IN BETWEEN, IF YOU WILL, ALONG MARFA THAT WOULD POTENTIALLY HAVE TWO.
BUT IS THAT A DUPLEX ON THE GROUND TODAY? I THINK IT WAS IN MAYBE YOUR PHOTOS.
JUST WANNA MAKE SURE I UNDERSTOOD HOW THAT WOULD APPLY.
COMMISSIONER, COULD I TOSS IN ONE MORE THING PLEASE? BECAUSE I, I WAS HELPING OUT WITH THIS ONE A GOOD DAY.
WE ALSO HAVE THE ISSUE OF BLOCK FACE CONTINUITY ON SOUTH LANCASTER, AND I THINK THAT'S MORE WHAT WE'RE, WE'RE GETTING AT.
BUT WOULD THE DUPLEX WOULD STILL BE, OR WHETHER IT'S DUPLEX, WHETHER IT'S MU IT WOULD BE CONSIDERED A SIDE YARD BECAUSE OF THE ORIENTATION? CORRECT.
BECAUSE IT HAS, IF, IF LOTS FRONTS LANCASTER, THEN YOU CAN'T USE THE THE SIDE YARD BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT THAT FRONTS LANCASTER TO THE NORTH THAT OVERRIDES THE, UH, YOU CAN USE A SIDE SETBACK.
IT, IT STILL NEEDS TO HAVE THAT FRONT BLOCK FACE CONTINUITY ON LANCASTER.
SO THE CR WOULD IMPOSE A GREATER SIDE SETBACK.
A D WELL, I I'M TALKING ABOUT A FRONT SETBACK ON LANCASTER.
SO YOU'RE, YOU'RE RIGHT THAT USUALLY WHEN YOU HAVE A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, IT APPLIES THE SIDE SETBACK ON, UM, SAY LIKE A SIDE STREET BECAUSE YOU'RE LONGER, YOUR SHORTER, UH, YARD IS YOUR FRONT SETBACK IN A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.
BUT THAT DOESN'T APPLY WHEN THERE'S A ANOTHER LOT THAT HAS A FRONT YARD ON LANCASTER.
AND SO LANCASTER IS A CR DISTRICT WITH A 15 AND IT'S CURRENTLY A A 15, BUT THE D DISTRICT WOULD APPLY AT 25 TO SOUTH LANCASTER, BUT WOULDN'T, AND AGAIN, I'M, I'M, I'M LOOKING AT THE ORIENTATION OF THE LOT BECAUSE AS I UNDERSTAND IT, IT'S THE LENGTH OF THE LOT.
SO THE SHORT FACE IS CONSIDERED THE FRONT YARD, WHICH WOULD MEAN THAT LANCASTER WOULD BE A SIDE YARD FOR THAT LOT, THE LOT IN QUESTION.
[03:25:15]
CAN I ASK, UH, COULD YOU BRING UP THE PICTURE AGAIN OF THE, OF THE UH, THE AERIAL VIEW? YES.THE PROPERTIES THAT ARE ALONG MARFA ARE ALL SINGLE FAMILY ARE SEVEN FIVE, RIGHT? NO, THERE IS A LOT.
RIGHT NEXT DOOR TO THIS, THIS PARTICULAR AREA OF REQUEST, THERE'S ALSO CR AND THE LOTS NEXT TO THAT PARTICULAR LOT ON DOWN ARE ALL R SEVEN FIVE.
BUT AGAIN, THAT, THAT WAS WHERE WE WERE SAYING IT SAW AS DUPLEX USE ON IT.
SO IT'S SIMILAR TO THIS ONE IN THAT YES, VERY SIMILAR.
SO IT'S ALSO ZONED IMPROPERLY, RIGHT? MM-HMM,
SO IT'S, IT'S AT, IT WOULD BE A 15 FOOT, UM, UNDER A REDEVELOPMENT IF, IF THEY WERE REDEVELOPED THE PROPERTY.
IT'S A FRONT SETBACK OF 15 STILL APPLIES EITHER IN THE DUPLEX DISTRICT OR THE MIXED USE OR CR ON LANCASTER TO THE EXISTING CR TO THE EX TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
SO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY TODAY THEN WOULD ALSO BE SUBJECT TO THAT SAME 15 FOOT? YES.
AND SO, AND AGAIN, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AN EXISTING BUILDING.
I THINK WE HEARD MS. BRIDGES SAY THAT THE APPLICANT INTENDS TO REUSE THAT SAME BUILDING.
SO THE BUILDING'S NON-CONFORMING TODAY, NOR IS WE HAVE A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE AND A NON-CONFORMING USE ON THIS ACTIVITY.
YOU'RE CORRECT, BOTH OF THOSE.
SO, AND THIS MAY BE, I'M NOT SURE WHO THIS QUESTION WOULD BE FOR.
IF THE APPLICANT INTENDS TO RENOVATE THE PROPERTY NOT BUILD NEW, IS IT NOT CORRECT THAT THEY COULD RENOVATE TODAY? AS LONG AS THEY ARE NOT INCREASING.
AND THIS IS PROBABLY A MR. MOORE QUESTION.
IF WE KEEP, IF THE APPLICANT INTENDS TO KEEP THE EXISTING STRUCTURE THAT IS A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE WITH A NON-CONFORMING USE, BUT DOES NOT INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF NON-CONFORMITY THEY COULD RENOVATE TODAY.
IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.
OR THEY COULD GO TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO ENLARGE THEIR NON-CONFORMING USE.
COMMISSIONER WHEELER FILED BY COMMISSIONER PLAYER.
THAT, THAT EXACTLY, BECAUSE WHAT I, WHAT WE WERE TOLD, I MEAN, YOU JUST SAID THERE WAS A DUPLEX ALREADY, RIGHT? YES.
IT'S A, IT'S A DUPLEX ALREADY NOW.
THEY'RE NOT USING IT RIGHT NOW, BUT IT IS A DUPLEX, THE STRUCTURE IS CONSIDERED A DUPLEX BECAUSE EXACTLY WHAT, UH, COMMISSIONER HAMPTON MEAN, HAMPTON WAS THAT, THAT WAS MY QUESTION.
IF IT'S ALREADY A DUPLEX AND PRETTY MUCH IT HAS NOT CHANGED, UH, IN USE, WHY ARE, WHY IS SHE HAVING TO GIVE A A ZONING CHANGE? WHAT WAS THE REASONING? BECAUSE RIGHT NOW IT IS ZONED CR AND YOU CAN'T HAVE DUPLEX USES ON CR, BUT IF IT'S ALREADY A DUPLEX, IT IS NOT THAT A PRETTY IT'S GRANDFATHERING IN AND IT'S, EVEN THOUGH IT'S NON-CONFORMING, IT'S ALREADY A DUPLEX.
UH, AS GANNA SAID, IT IS A DUPLEX STRUCTURE, UM, BUT THE STRUCTURE IS CURRENTLY VACANT.
SO WE HAVE A STRUCTURE AND WE HAVE A USE.
UM, THERE IS NO EXISTING NON-CONFORMING USE ON THE PROPERTY TODAY THAT USE BEING A DUPLEX.
UM, THERE IS A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE ON THE PROPERTY TODAY.
SO THE STRUCTURE AS, UH, COMMISSIONER HAMPTON SAID, AS LONG AS THEY DIDN'T EXPAND IT BEYOND THE POINT THAT THEY WOULD LOSE THEIR NON-CONFORMING STATUS AS A STRUCTURE, THE STRUCTURE CAN CONTINUE, BUT, UM, IT CANNOT BE USED FOR A DUPLEX USE BECAUSE THEY DO NOT HAVE A NON-CONFORMING USE ON THE STRUCTURE TODAY.
UH, THEREFORE ANY NEW USES ON THE PROPERTY WOULD HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE CURRENT ZONING DISTRICT, WHICH IS CR, WHICH DOES NOT ALLOW A DUPLEX USE.
AND WE KNOW THAT THEY HAVE NOT BEEN CONFORMING FOR OVER SIX MONTHS.
UH, WE, UH, OVER HERE IN CURRENT PLANNING DON'T CONFIRM, UH, USES OR, OR NON-CONFORMING STATUS.
SO IN, SO IN ORDER FOR IT TO, BEFORE, EVEN IN ORDER FOR A NON-CONFORMING USE TO BECOME, BE, UM, TO FOLLOW UP UNDER THE CURRENT ZONING, WOULD NOT IT HAVE TO BE VERIFIED FIRST THAT BECAUSE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES,
[03:30:02]
IF THEY CAN PROVE THAT THEY WERE AN OCCUPIED WITHIN SIX WITH LESS THAN SIX MONTHS, THEY WOULDN'T HAVE HAD TO COME TO, UH, ZONING CHANGE.I'LL LET, UH, MS. ALL GUY JUMP IN ON THAT.
SO, UM, WITH RESPECT TO DUPLEX USES, UM, THE, THE STANDARD PRACTICE AT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES IS TO SAY THAT IF, IF YOU HAVE A DUPLEX STRUCTURE AND THERE HAS BEEN NO, UM, THERE'S BEEN NO INTENTION OR ACTUAL RECONSTRUCTION TO MAKE IT ANYTHING OTHER THAN A DUPLEX STRUCTURE, TYPICALLY THEY WILL CONTINUE THE DUPLEX USE AS NON-CONFORMING REGARDLESS OF WHEN IT'S BEEN OCCUPIED.
SO THEY, THEY DO HAVE A NON-CONFORMING USE THAT THEY COULD LIKELY, BUT THIS IS, THIS IS BASED ON MY EXPERIENCE AT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
HOWEVER, I'M NOT AT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES RIGHT NOW AND WE WOULD NEED OFFICIAL DETERMINATION FROM THEM, BUT THAT'S THE PRACTICE.
SO I'M NOT OFFICIALLY A, A DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, BUT I WORK WITH THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
AND HOW DID THIS CASE BECOME A ZONING CASE IF IT'S ALREADY A DUPLEX? AND USUALLY WHEN WE GO INTO NONCONFORMING USES AND, UH, WITHIN THAT TIME PERIOD THAT THEN HAS TO MATCH THE CURRENT ZONING, IT WOULD FIRST WENT TO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES WHO WOULD SAY, SENT THEM TO ZONING.
BUT IF IT'S ALREADY THAT STRUCTURE, I'VE NEVER SEEN WHERE THEY COULD NOT CONTINUE THAT UNLESS THEY REMODEL, UM, OR ADD TO THAT STRUCTURE.
UM, I REALLY CAN'T ANSWER THAT QUESTION BECAUSE I DIDN'T RECEIVE ANYTHING FROM DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
I DIDN'T RECEIVE LIKE A LAND USE DETERMINATION OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT FROM DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
SO I WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO GIVE YOU AN ACCURATE ANSWER.
I DON'T KNOW IF SHE'S GONNA DO ANY TYPE OF REMODELING BECAUSE I DID NOT TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION IF SHE'S GONNA REMODEL ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
SO, SO THIS WASN'T A REFERRAL FROM DEVELOPMENT SERVICES? I DIDN'T RECEIVE ANY TYPE OF REFERRAL FROM DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
SO I SAVED MY QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT BECAUSE I, I'M CONFUSED HOW THEY, THEY'RE, THEY'RE CONTINUING USE OF A DUPLEX AND THEY'RE NOW WITH THE ZONING CASE.
SO YEAH, SO, SO, SO SOME OF THOSE QUESTIONS, UH, COMMISSIONER WHEELER MIGHT BEST BE ANSWERED BY THE APPLICANT.
UM, BUT REGARDLESS OF ANY, UH, NON-CONFORMING STATUS THAT MAY OR MAY NOT EXIST ON THE PROPERTY, UH, GENERALLY FOLKS WHEN THEY PURCHASE A PROPERTY WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THEY CAN USE IT IN CONFORMANCE WITH WHATEVER THE CURRENT ZONING DISTRICT IS.
UM, SO IT WOULD MAKE SENSE THAT THIS APPLICANT WOULD WANT TO REZONE IT SO THEY CAN HAVE THAT DUPLEX USE ON THERE.
UH, LEGALLY, LET'S SAY, THANK YOU FOR CLARIFICATION, COMMISSIONER HAMPTON.
I HAVE I THINK ONE FINAL QUESTION.
SO THE MU THAT IS PROPOSED TODAY HAS A FRONT YARD SETBACK OF 15, AND THEN NO SETBACKS REQUIRED ON SIDE UNLESS THERE'S RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY.
THEIR SIDES AT, BASED ON THE LOT ORIENTATION WOULD NOT BE ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL, BUT THE 15 FEET ON THE CR TO THE NORTH WOULD STILL APPLY TO THE FRONTAGE.
SO IF THE ZONING IS APPROVED, THE USE WOULD THEN BECOME ALLOWED, BUT THE STRUCTURE WOULD REMAIN NON-CONFORMING.
AND THEN, AND I HEARD, AND THIS WILL BE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT, THAT IF THERE WERE A CONSIDERATION OF DEED RESTRICTIONS, THE DEED RESTRICTIONS COULD, UM, ADDRESS COMPATIBILITY WITH THE ADJACENCIES, BUT CANNOT BE MORE RESTRICTIVE.
SO IN OTHER WORDS, WE CAN'T RESOLVE THE QUESTION ABOUT THE CR IMPOSING A FRONT YARD ON THE LANCASTER SIDE OF THE PROPERTY.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONERS? MR. CHAIR? I'M SORRY, CAN I MAKE A SMALL CLARIFICATION? I DON'T KNOW IF I HEARD COMMISSIONER HAMPTON CORRECTLY, BUT THE DEBT RESTRICTIONS MUST BE MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN THE CODE.
SO THE DEBT RESTRICTIONS CANNOT BE MORE PERMISSIVE.
YES, THAT'S IF I SAID IT BACKWARDS, THAT'S WHAT I INTENDED TO SAY.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR WE COMMISSIONER FORESIGHT? SO JUST TO CLARIFY, IF, IF WE GO WITH AN MU ONE DESIGNATION, WHICH IS WHAT IS REQUESTED, THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE A SETBACK.
I MEAN, I'M SORRY, THAT BUFFER YOU TALKED ABOUT.
ASK ME THAT QUESTION ONE MORE TIME.
IF, IF, IF WE GO WITH THE MU ONE DESIGNATION THAT YOU'VE DISCUSSED, EVEN WITH A DEED RESTRICTION ABOUT THE RESIDENTIAL, ARE YOU STILL GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE THAT, THAT THAT BUFFER THAT DIDN'T YOU SAY THERE WERE SET A SETBACK YES.
[03:35:04]
SO I, I, I GUESS, YOU KNOW, ME ONE IS REALLY NOT SOLVING THE PROBLEM THEN, WELL, IN, IN MY OPINION, IT KINDA DOES, UM, BECAUSE IT WILL ALLOW HER TO USE THE DUPLEX AND HAVE THE DUPLEX USE.UM, ALSO, AGAIN, IT WILL NOT CAUSE ISSUES WITH THE OTHER USES ALONG THE STREET.
SO THAT'S WHY, AGAIN, I'M RECOMMENDING THE MU INSTEAD OF THE DA BECAUSE OF THE SETBACK ISSUES, ALSO BECAUSE OF BLOCK FACE AND RPS.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS BEFORE WE HEAR THIS CASE? OKAY, LET'S GET THAT RIGHT INTO THE RECORD PLEASE.
IT'S AN APPLICATION FOR A MU ONE MIXED USE DISTRICT ON PROPERTY ZONE, A CR COMMUNITY RETAIL DISTRICT ON THE WEST CORNER OF SOUTH LANCASTER ROAD AND MARFA AVENUE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL.
UH, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO BE HEARD ON THIS ITEM? THIS IS CASE NUMBER 14 Z 2 2 3 2 82.
PLEASE BEGIN YOUR COMMENTS WITH YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
SAY THAT AGAIN, YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE.
SHERRY LEWELLEN, UM, 1739 MAR.
SO, UM, THE REASON I WANTED TO, I I WENT TO THE CITY TO SEE WHAT I CAN DO.
MY MOTHER PURCHASED THIS PROPERTY IN 1970, AND I, I'M A REALTOR AND I, UH, RENOVATE PROPERTIES AND STUFF, SO I WANTED TO DO SOMETHING WITH IT.
THEY SAID I COULDN'T DO ANYTHING AT THE CITY BECAUSE IT HAD BEEN VACANT A WHILE.
SO AFTER MY MOTHER GOT SICK, IT'S BEEN VACANT, SO THEY TOLD ME I'D HAVE TO, ANYTHING I'D HAVE TO DO, I WOULD, I WOULD HAVE TO COME THROUGH THE CITY.
SO I CAME BACK IN JUNE TO SEE IF I COULD RENOVATE OR REBUILD A NEW STRUCTURE.
AND THAT'S HOW I ENDED UP HERE.
I, I WANNA KNOW THAT WHATEVER I DO WITH IT, IF I WAS EVER TO, YOU KNOW, RESELL IT OR WHATEVER, IT WOULDN'T HAVE, UH, RESTRICTIONS FROM SOMETHING PREVIOUS THAT WAS ZONED.
I KNOW WE'VE HAD, LIKE I SAID, OVER 53 YEARS, SO I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY.
I BELIEVE THAT THE ZONING HAS BEEN CHANGED DURING THE PROCESS, BUT IT WASN'T MY PROPERTY, IT WAS MY MOTHER'S PROPERTY.
DOES THAT CONCLUDE YOUR COMMENTS, MA'AM? DOES THAT CONCLUDE YOUR COMMENTS? IT DOES.
PLEASE STAND BY THERE, THERE SHOULD BE QUESTIONS FOR YOU.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO BE HEARD ON THIS ITEM? COMMISSIONER'S QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? COMMISSIONER, ICK, IF, IF I MAY THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE AND I KNOW YOU WERE HERE WITH US AT OUR LAST MEETING AS WELL.
UM, IS IT CORRECT THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO USE THE PROPERTY AS A DUPLEX? IS THAT YOUR KIND OF INITIAL INTENT? AND I THINK I UNDERSTAND YOU WANNA ALSO THINK ABOUT LONG TERM, BUT YES.
AND, UH, YOU, I KNOW YOU JUST HEARD ALL OF OUR DISCUSSION AS WE'RE TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT'S THERE AND WHAT THE IMPLICATIONS OF THIS ARE.
UM, AS BASED ON OUR CONVERSATION, THE BUILDINGS, THE STRUCTURES AREN'T CONFORMING.
AND SO IF YOU, IF THEY'RE REMOVED, THEY WOULD HAVE TO BE BUILT BACK IN COMPLIANCE, WHICH WOULD REQUIRE A 15 FOOT SETBACK ON LANCASTER.
IS THAT ANYTHING THAT YOU'VE ANTICIPATED WITH THAT OR RIGHT NOW YOU'RE NOT THINKING ABOUT REBUILDING THE PROPERTY? SO I DON'T, I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE AS HOW, WHAT THE SETBACK IS NOW.
SO I WOULD HAVE TO GO BY AND MAKE SURE BEFORE I SIT 15 FEET, NO.
WELL, I GUESS IF WE WERE TO, LET ME SAY IT DIFFERENTLY THEN MAYBE.
ARE YOU PLANNING TO REUSE THE BUILDINGS THAT ARE THERE TODAY? UH, AS SORT OF WHAT YOU'D LIKE TO DO RIGHT NOW? RIGHT NOW I WOULD, BUT I WANT TO,
[03:40:01]
UH, HAVE THE OPTION TO REBUILD BRAND NEW.AND IT'S JUST, I THINK AT THAT TIME THAT'S WHEN SOME OF THESE OTHER REQUIREMENTS, BUT I, AND AGAIN, I THINK STAFF CAN SPEAK TO THIS AS WELL, WE CAN ASK THEM, UM, TO FOLLOW UP THAT WOULD APPLY TODAY AS WELL AS WITH WHAT I THINK IS BEFORE US.
UM, SO DUPLEX USE IN THE EXISTING BUILDINGS IS WHAT YOU'RE CURRENTLY PLANNING TO DO? CORRECT.
COMMISSIONER HERBERT, THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.
AND THANK YOU TO YOUR MOTHER FOR HER YEARS OF SERVICE TO, UM, THE ANN ARBOR AREA OF THAT, THE CITY.
UM, I FOLLOWED HER FOR QUITE A WHILE, SO I I APPRECIATE YOU BEING HERE TO REPRESENT HER.
UM, CURRENTLY, ARE THE TWO HOUSES CONNECTED OR ARE THEY SEPARATE? SO WHEN WE, UM, FIRST ACQUIRED THE PROPERTY, 36 17 SOUTH LANCASTER WAS THE SALON.
IT WAS A HAIR SALON THAT MS. HARRY SOLD TO MY MOM.
AND THEN THERE WAS A DUPLEX FACE MARFA.
AND THEN WE OWN THE PROPERTY NEXT DOOR, WHICH IS 1735 MARFA, WHICH IS STILL HAS A CR UM, ZONING.
THE 36 17 IS NOT CONNECTED TO THE 1739.
AND, AND, AND THE, THE HOUSE THAT FACES MFA, IS IT A DUPLEX HOME OR ARE YOU CONSIDERING BOTH OF THESE TO BE THAT? NO.
WHAT, WHAT ARE YOUR PLANS WITH THE, UH, UH, PROPERTY THEN AT 36 17 SOUTH LANCASTER? THAT WAS A HAIR SALON BEFORE.
WELL, WE'RE NOT GONNA USE, WE WEREN'T, WEREN'T GONNA USE THAT AS A BUSINESS ANYMORE.
I JUST WANT TO DO MORE RESIDENTIAL THAN, UM, COMMERCIAL.
SO YOU PLAN TO RENOVATE THAT AS A RESIDENTIAL PURPOSE AS WELL? I CAN.
SO, BUT YOU, THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT YOU HAVE NO COMMERCIAL INTENT, UH, TO OPEN THIS.
ARE YOU WILLING TO ACCEPT A DEED RESTRICTION ON THE PROPERTY? THAT IT COULD ONLY BE USED FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES? SURE.
ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONER FORESIGHT? WE CAN CIRCLE BACK IF YOU DON'T HAVE ANY AT THIS MOMENT.
YOU KNOW, I, I APPRECIATE YOUR COMING OUT AND I, I, I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT I ADMIRE YOU SO MUCH 'CAUSE I KNOW YOU'VE BEEN VERY PATIENT AND I THINK YOU'VE BEEN DOING THIS SINCE LAST JUNE.
SO, YOU KNOW, UH, AGAIN, I I I'M SORRY WE HELD YOU UP THE LAST TIME, YOU KNOW, DUE TO MY BEING NEW ON THE, ON THE COMMISSION TODAY.
BUT I HOPE YOU UNDERSTAND, WE'RE JUST TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DO OUR DUE DILIGENCE HERE.
SO HAS THE, HAS THE, THE PROPERTY THAT, THAT FACES MARTHA AND LANCASTER EVER BEEN USED FOR COMMERCIAL USE? HAS IT EVER BEEN USED COMMERCIAL UHHUH
SO, SO, AND THAT'S THE ONE THAT WAS A DUPLEX? YES.
SO THAT WOULD, THAT WOULD LEAD TO, BECAUSE AT SOME POINT IT, SO AT SOME POINT IT CHANGED FROM BEING USED RESIDENTIAL AND THEN USED AS A COMMERCIAL USE? YES.
THAT WAS, THAT'S THE REASON NONCONFORMING HAPPENED.
AND IT'S NOT CONNECTED WITH THE, THE SEPARATE, UM, THE STRUCTURE THAT'S IN BETWEEN FLU, ELLEN'S BEAUTY SALON NOW, AND, AND THAT PROPERTY? NO.
SO MY MOTHER PURCHASED 1735 MARFA, 1739 MARFA.
MM-HMM,
AND SO THEY'RE ON THE, BUT THE ONLY STRUCTURE WE'RE DEALING WITH IS THE, THE FORMER DUPLEX? YES.
SO NOW I CAN UNDERSTAND HOW YOU GOT HERE, BECAUSE AT SOME POINT IT WENT FROM BEING A DUPLEX, SO, SO WE CAN GET IT RIGHT.
AND SO AT SOME POINT IT WENT FROM BEING THE USE OF A DUPLEX TO COMMERCIAL USE AND NOW WE'RE GOING BACK TO A DUPLEX OR A SOMETHING IN THIS WITH THE USE OF A U ONE.
COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? MR. CHAIR, CAN I JUST CLARIFY PLEASE? THE, THE APPLICANT SAID THAT SHE WAS WILLING TO VOLUNTEER DEED RESTRICTIONS TO PROHIBIT COMMERCIAL USES.
I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT A COMMERCIAL USE IS AND IF THAT MEANS ONLY THE RESI EVERYTHING, BUT RESIDENTIAL USES, THAT'S GONNA BE A PROBLEM BECAUSE THAT WOULD PROHIBIT, FOR EXAMPLE, CHURCHES AND THERE'S
[03:45:01]
FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTIONS TO ALLOW CHURCHES BY.SO I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT IS A COMMERCIAL USE AS THE APPLICANT HAS SAID SHE'S WILLING TO VOLUNTEER THAT DEED RESTRICTION, MR. MOORE, COULD, WE, COULD, COULD YOU MAYBE MEET WITH HER ON A SIDEBAR TO CLARIFY EXACTLY THE POTENTIAL LANGUAGE OF A DEED RESTRICTION AND THAT WAY THE, THE COMMISSION WILL, WILL KNOW EXACTLY THE LANGUAGE THAT'S BEING PROPOSED.
IS THAT POSSIBLE THAT WE TABLE THE ITEM ITEM FOR A MOMENT? YES, I'M HAPPY TO DO THAT.
OKAY, WELL LET'S DO THAT COMMISSIONER.
SO LET'S, LET'S TABLE THE ITEM FOR THE MOMENT.
UH, LET'S GET THE DEED RESTRICTION LANGUAGE FIGURED OUT AND THEN WE CAN, UH, CONSIDER THAT.
PLEASE MEET WITH MR. MOORE HERE ON THE SIDE, THIS COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONERS.
WHY DON'T WE JUST GO AHEAD AND TAKE A BREAK THEN.
COMMISSIONERS, WE'RE GONNA GET BACK ON THE RECORD, UH, MR. MOORE AND THE APPLICANT NEEDS A LITTLE MORE TIME, SO WE'RE JUST GONNA TABLE THE ITEM FOR THE MOMENT AND WE WILL COME BACK TO IT.
UM, WE ARE ON THE RECORD IS 1:54 PM WE'RE BACK ON THE RECORD.
WE DO HAVE NINE COMMISSIONERS COM COMMISSIONERS.
UH, WE'LL GO TO CASE NUMBER 15.
SO JUST FOR THE RECORD, WE HAVE TABLED ITEMS 13 AND 14.
COMMISSIONER FORSYTH, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAUGHT THAT.
UH, MR. MOORE STILL WORKING WITH THE APPLICANT, SO WE'LL, WE'LL COME BACK TO THAT CASE.
UH, WE'LL MOVE ON TO CASE NUMBER 15,
[15. 24-863 An application for an MU-2 Mixed Use District on property zoned an RR Regional Retail District, on the west line of Upton Street, between East Clarendon Drive and Viola Street. Staff Recommendation: Approval. Applicant: 935 Clarendon LLC Representative: Paul Carden Planner: LeQuan Clinton U/A From: January 18, 2024 and February 15, 2024. Council District: 4 Z223-299(LC)]
MR. CLINTON.HOW ARE YOU SIR? GOOD, THANK YOU.
UH, THIS IS ITEM NUMBER 15, UH, CASE Z 2 23 DASH 2 99.
AN APPLICATION FOR AN MU TWO MIXED USE DISTRICT ON PROPERTY ZONED IN RR REGIONAL RETAIL DISTRICT ON THE WEST LINE OF UPTON STREET BETWEEN EAST CLARENDON DRIVE AND VIOLA STREET.
I SEE THAT THE APPLICANT IS HERE.
PLEASE PUT THAT ON A MICROPHONE.
OH, I DID HAVE A PRESENTATION.
I DIDN'T NEED TO GET THAT SET UP.
I THINK WE HAD A, WE HAD A PRESENTATION FOR OUR FOLKS ONLINE.
WE'RE GONNA GET A PRESENTATION ONLINE.
[03:54:31]
OKAY.UH, THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE EVERYONE.
PAUL CARIN, 2007 HARLANDALE AVENUE, DALLAS, TEXAS 7 5 2 1 6.
WE'RE GONNA GO OVER CASE CONTEXT HERE.
UH, FOR THOSE WHO MISSED THE LAST ONE.
SO JUST GO OVER THIS REALLY QUICKLY.
IT'S A HALF AN ACRE SITE ZONE REGIONAL RETAIL, UM, WITHIN 500 FEET OF A RAIL STATION.
UM, CURRENT HEIGHT AND BEST USE IS FOR A DRIVE-THROUGH, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT'S APPROPRIATE ADJACENT TO
[03:55:01]
A REGIONAL AMENITY.UH, AND IT IS A POOR PRESENTATION FOR GOOD LAND USE STAIRS.
I WANNA CHANGE THIS TO MIXED USE.
TWO TO ENABLE FOR 26, UH, 26 BOUTIQUE APARTMENTS AND WITH A FUTURE CAPACITY FOR SMALL AMOUNTS OF OFFICE AND RETAIL.
SO FURTHER CONTEXT, THE YELLOW IS WHERE THE DART STATION IS.
UH, BOTH, UH, ITEMS IN LIGHT BLUE ARE FOR, UH, FUTURE OFFICE AND RETAIL CONVERSIONS.
SO THIS SITE, UM, WAS, WE HAD TO WORK WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THE FLOODPLAIN.
THERE'S A SLIGHT BIT OF IT THAT'S KIND OF CUT OFF, UM, BUT WE'RE STILL ABLE TO GET QUITE A BIT.
UM, SO AGAIN, HERE'S A LAYOUT FRONTING ALONG CLA AND DRIVE REQUIRE MINIMUM, MINIMUM SIX FOOT SIDEWALKS, UH, AROUND A PERIMETER.
UM, AND WE'RE REALLY KINDA LIMITED BY PARKING REGULATIONS RIGHT NOW.
WE CAN EITHER DO HOUSING OR RETAIL, BUT NOT BOTH.
UH, BUT AS THE AREA BECOMES MORE WALKABLE, WE CAN MAKE THOSE ADJUSTMENTS AS NEEDED.
UH, AGAIN, MORE OF THE CONCEPTUAL OVERVIEW.
AND THAT WOULD'VE BEEN THE END OF IT, BUT NEXT SLIDE.
SINCE WE WERE DEFERRED, UM, I HAD ANOTHER COMMUNITY MEETING.
I CALLED 10TH STREET NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND APOLOGIZED FOR THE DELAY.
UM, THEY WERE NOT TOO THRILLED.
UH, I ALSO CALLED BRENTWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, SO I WENT 10TH STREET.
INVITED ME TO JUST COME OUT AND LET EVERYONE KNOW ABOUT THE DELAY AND WHAT'S GOING ON WITH THE CASE.
NEXT SLIDE, JUST TO BE EXTRA THOROUGH, I EVEN WENT TO SOME OF THE NEIGHBOR'S HELM DIRECTLY IN CASE THEY MISSED THE MEETING TO MAKE SURE WE DIDN'T LEAVE ANYONE OUT.
UM, AND JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT WE GOT, UH, THEIR FEEDBACK AND THEIR SUPPORT.
WENT TO THE HOUSE, EXPLAINED THE PLANS DIRECTLY, AND NEXT SLIDE.
AND EVEN TOOK SELFIES JUST TO MAKE SURE YOU GUYS KNOW, WE WERE ACTUALLY ON SITE DIRECTLY, UM, AND GETTING DIRECT COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT, UM, PER 10 STREET'S CONCERNS.
THEY'RE LIKE, UH, LARRY JOHNSON, I BELIEVE THIS IS A GOOD PROJECT AND THAT WILL BE BENEFICIAL TO THE COMMUNITY.
PLEASE DO NOT DELAY THE DISCUSSION AND RULING ON THE CASE NUMBER Z 2 23 DASH 2 99.