[00:00:01]
OKAY.I THINK WE HAVE QUORUM COMMISSIONERS.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED.
DISTRICT ONE, DISTRICT TWO PRESENT.
YOU PRESENT? ON MY WAY UP? NO.
TODAY IS THURSDAY, JUNE 6TH, 2024, 9:03 AM WELCOME TO THE BRIEFING OF THE DALLAS CITY PLAIN COMMISSION.
UH, THIS IS JUST A TIME FOR, UH, THE BODY TO ASK QUESTIONS OF STAFF.
WE'LL KEEP ALL OUR COMMENTS TO THE HEARING THIS AFTERNOON.
UH, BEFORE WE GET STARTED, I WOULD LIKE TO RECOGNIZE MS. LOU, GOOD MORNING, UH, COMMISSIONERS, OUR, OUR NEW DIRECTOR FOR THE PLANNING, PLANNING AND URBAN DESIGN DEPARTMENT.
WE ALL LOOK VERY MUCH, UH, FORWARD TO WORKING WITH YOU AND YOUR LEADERSHIP.
AND, UH, YOU CAME IN AT JUST THE RIGHT TIME.
NOTHING IS HAPPENING RIGHT NOW.
UH, WE'RE GONNA START WITH THE DEVELOPMENT PLANS.
WE HAVE TWO ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.
UH, THOSE WE CAN BRIEF BY REQUEST.
WELL, ACTUALLY, LET'S, LET'S TAKE
[BRIEFINGS]
A STEP BACK.UH, WE DO, WE DO, UH, HAVE THE, UH, FORWARD DALLAS, THE LATEST DRAFT THAT WAS RELEASED LAST NIGHT.
I WANT TO THANK STAFF FOR ALL THE HARD WORK AND THE VERY HEAVY LIFTING THAT I KNOW HAPPENED.
AND, UH, I KNOW SOME TECHNICAL ISSUES ON TOP OF ALL OF EVERYTHING.
UH, AND THAT IS NOT GONNA BE BRIEF TODAY, COMMISSIONERS, BUT STAFF IS HERE IF ANYONE HAS A QUESTION FOR THEM.
UH, OTHERWISE, WE WE'RE GONNA TAKE A DEEP DIVE ON THE 17TH, PLEASE.
COMMISSIONER FORESITE, SINCE THE PLAN WAS JUST RELEASED LAST NIGHT, AND WE HAVE LESS THAN TWO WEEKS TO REVIEW, UH, THE NEW VERSION OF THE PLAN, UH, IT, IT WOULD SEEM TO ME THAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE, UH, FOR THE COMMISSION TO GIVE, UH, UH, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION AS WELL AS THE PUBLIC, UH, MORE TIME TO BE ABLE TO REVIEW THE PLAN BEFORE WE HAVE THIS IN, IN-DEPTH MEETING.
UH, I, I THINK THAT AT LEAST THREE WEEKS, UH, WOULD BE APPROPRIATE.
AND I WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST THE CHAIR TO CONSIDER MOVING THE, UH, THE HEARING FROM JUNE 17TH TO, TO THE WEEK, THE LAST WEEK OF JUNE.
UH, YOU KNOW, LIKE THE, THE 27TH OF JUNE, DULY NOTED.
UH, AT, AT THIS TIME, WE'RE GONNA, WE'RE GONNA KEEP IT ON THE 17TH.
WE, WE'VE BEEN PLANNING THIS ALL ALONG, WE'VE NOTICED IT.
UM, AND, YOU KNOW, CONSIDERING HOW DIFFICULT IT IS TO GET EIGHT OR NINE OF US AT THE SAME PLACE AT THE SAME TIME, UH, I THINK WE'RE JUST GONNA KEEP IT THERE FOR NOW.
UH, BUT I, I APPRECIATE THAT RECOMMENDATION.
COMMISSIONER, UH, AS COMMISSIONER, UH, CARPENTER JUST STATED, WE CAN, WE CAN ALWAYS ADD AN ADDITIONAL MEETING AFTER THAT.
UH, AND IN FACT, UH, I, I DON'T SEE US, UH, ENDING THE PROCESS ON THE 17TH.
IT'S JUST, UH, TOO MUCH TO DISCUSS AND IT'S GONNA BE A LONG DAY.
I'M SURE THERE'S GONNA BE LOTS OF FOLKS, LOTS
[00:05:01]
OF PUBLIC SPEAKERS, AND SO, UM, WE'RE GONNA KEEP IT MOVING AS SCHEDULED.UM, SO, SO THE, THE PROCESS THEN ON THE 17TH, UH, YOU WILL ALLOW FOR PUBLIC, UH, SPEAKERS IN THE MORNING.
WE'RE GONNA START OUT WITH THE, WITH PUBLIC SPEAKERS, AND, UH, HOPEFULLY WE'LL GET TO OUR WORK IN THE AFTERNOON.
WILL, WILL FOLKS BE ABLE TO SPEAK REMOTELY, VIRTUALLY? UH, ABSOLUTELY, ABSOLUTELY.
UM, JUST, YOU KNOW, AS ALWAYS, UH, PER OUR RULES, FOR THE FOLKS WHO WANT TO SPEAK REMOTELY, PLEASE MAKE SURE YOU REGISTER.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO REGISTER IF YOU, UH, WANT TO COME IN PERSON CHEER.
UH, I, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE AN, UH, AN ANNOUNCEMENT TODAY AS A VERY SPECIAL DAY FOR ONE OF OUR COMMISSIONERS.
COMMISSIONER TURNOCK IS HAVING A BIRTHDAY TODAY.
MY PRESENT TO YOU, COMMISSIONER IS THAT I'M NOT GONNA SING HAPPY BIRTHDAY.
MIGHT JUST END THE MEETING RIGHT THERE.
CAN WE BRING BACK COMMISSIONER STA FOR SOME FROM SONG AND DANCE? ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS, BEFORE WE MOVE ON, PLEASE? COMMISSIONER FORESITE.
SO THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO ASK QUESTIONS OF STAFF.
SO I, I DID WANT TO ASK, UH, THE LAST PRESENTATION WHEN STAFF GAVE THEIR PRESENTATION AND WE, WE REVIEWED, UM, UH, THE ELEMENTS OF THE PLAN THAT THE STAFF WANTED TO CHANGE, UH, OR, OR BASED ON THE PUBLIC FEEDBACK THAT THEY HAD RECEIVED AT THE TOWN HALLS.
I, I WAS CONCERNED BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT, UM, THE, THE, THAT PRESENTATION DID NOT ADDRESS, UH, TWO IMPORTANT AREAS THAT, THAT I FEEL NEED TO BE MADE OR CHANGES THAT I NEED TO BE, NEED TO BE MADE IN THE PLAN.
ONE OF THE AREAS THAT, UH, THE STAFF ADDRESSED AT THE TOWN HALL MEETINGS WAS THE, THE, THE, THE FACT THAT THE, THAT THEY WERE NOT TARGETING SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS WITH, WITH THIS INCREASED DENSITY, THAT THE, THAT THE MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING WOULD NOT BE PLACED IN THE MIDDLE OF A SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT THAT IT WOULD BE PLACED ALONG THE MAJOR TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS.
AND, AND I DID NOT HEAR THAT, THAT, THAT, UH, ITEM BROUGHT UP DURING THE LAST MEETING.
ALSO, THERE WAS A, A PROMISE TO PROTECT HISTORIC DISTRICTS, CONSERVATION DISTRICTS, NEIGHBORHOOD STABILIZATION OVERLAY DISTRICTS, UH, IN PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS TOO.
AND, AND AGAIN, UH, THAT WAS, UH, LEFT OUT OF THE PRESENTATION, UH, AT THE LAST MEETING.
SO I'M, I'M CONCERNED THAT THESE TWO IMPORTANT ELEMENTS ARE, YOU KNOW, WERE, WERE NOT ADDRESSED, UH, BY THE STAFF.
UH, WERE NOT BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THIS BODY.
AND, AND I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THOSE COMMITMENTS THAT, THAT, UH, HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE PUBLIC THAT, THAT WERE REALLY SERIOUS, THAT WE'RE GONNA PROTECT SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS AND WE'RE NOT GONNA BE TARGETING THEM WITH DUPLEXES AND TRIPLEXES AND QUADPLEXES BEING PLACED IN THE MIDDLE OF OUR STREETS AND SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS.
AND ALSO THAT WE'RE GONNA PROTECT THE HISTORIC DISTRICTS, THE CONSERVATION DISTRICTS, AND THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS AND THE NSOS.
AND, AND, AND, UH, AND, AND THAT WAS THE QUESTION THAT I ASKED THAT I WOULD LIKE TO ASK OF STAFF.
UH, LAWRENCE AGU, CHIEF PLANNER, UH, PLANNING URBAN DESIGN.
SO, JUST TO CLARIFY A FEW THINGS.
YOU MENTIONED THE PRESENTATION THAT WE PROVIDED LAST TIME WE MET WITH YOU ALL WAS TO CLARIFY SOME, UH, KEY ISSUES THAT WE WANTED DIRECTION ON.
UH, SOME OF THE OTHER ISSUES THAT YOU MENTIONED IN TERMS OF THE LANGUAGE, UH, REGARDING SINGLE FAMILY, UH, COMMUNITIES.
THOSE WERE ALREADY CONFIRMED IN TERMS OF HOW WE'D ADDRESS THOSE IN THE PLAN.
AND IF YOU ARE, ARE ABLE TO READ THE PLAN THAT WAS ISSUED LAST NIGHT, YOU'LL SEE HOW THAT'S APPLIED TO THE DOCUMENT.
UH, SO IN TERMS OF WHAT WE DISCUSSED, THE PRESENTATION WASN'T A, THIS IS WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO, IT WAS MORE A, UH, CPC, PLEASE PROVIDE DIRECTION ON WHICH WAY TO GO ON THESE KEY ITEMS. THERE WERE SEVEN ITEMS THAT WE WENT OVER, AND THOSE WERE WHAT WE DISCUSSED WITH THAT LAST PRESENTATION.
SO, UM, WITH THAT PRESENTATION IN THE LAST FEW MEETINGS THAT WE HAD, THE UPDATED PLAN DOCUMENT SHOULD ADDRESS ALL THAT YOU JUST MENTIONED, SIR.
UNFORTUNATELY, WE DIDN'T GET THAT PLAN UNTIL 11 O'CLOCK LAST NIGHT, SO I DON'T THINK ANYONE'S HAD A CHANCE TO READ IT.
AND, AND, AND, UH, SO YOU'RE, YOU'RE INDICATING TO ME THAT THESE CONCERNS THAT, THAT WERE, UH, ADDRESSED AT THE TOWN HALL MEETINGS, THAT THOSE ARE BEING ADDRESSED IN THE NEW VERSION OF THE PLAN? YES, SIR.
I LOOK FORWARD TO READING BACK.
SOME, SOME GOOD ADJUSTMENTS IN THERE.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONERS? OKAY.
[00:10:01]
COMMISSIONER.AGAIN, BACK TO ITEMS NUMBERS TWO AND THREE.
UH, DO WE HAVE ANYONE THAT WA WANTS EITHER OF THOSE BRIEFED? COMMISSIONER, UM, HAMPTON IS SHAKING HER HEAD NO.
GOOD MORNING TO YOU, UH, COMMISSIONERS.
LET'S GO TO OUR ZONING CONSENT AGENDA AT THIS, UH, AT THIS POINT, CASES FOUR, SIX AND SEVEN HAVE COME OFF CONSENT.
SO THE CONSENT AGENDA CONSISTS OF ITEMS NUMBER 5, 8, 9, AND 10.
WE'LL BEGIN WITH CASE NUMBER FOUR, MR. PAP.
AND IT'S LOCATED NORTH OAK CLIFF, AND IT'S AN APPLICATION FOR ONE, A NEW SUBDISTRICT FOR WMU EIGHT ROCKWELL MIXED USE DISTRICT USES.
AND TWO, THE REMOVAL OF A SHOP FRONT OVERLAY ON A PORTION.
AND THREE, THE TERMINATION OF A D LIQUOR CONTROL OVERLAY ON A PROPERTY ZONE.
SUBDISTRICT E WITHIN PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 4 68, THE OLD CLIFF GATEWAY SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICT WITH AN SH SHOPFRONT OVERLAY AND A D LIQUOR CONTROL OVERLAY.
I CAN BRING IT A LITTLE CLOSER.
THE PURPOSE OF THE REQUEST IS TO, IS TO ALLOW MODIFIED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS PRIMARILY RELATED TO PRI PERMITTED USES, SETBACKS, PARKING AND FORUM DISTRICT STANDARDS TO DEVELOP RESIDENTIAL AND LIVE WORK USES.
AND HERE'S THE PROPERTY AS IT EXISTS TODAY.
IT'S MADE UP OF SEVERAL PARCELS, BUT IT DOES CONSTITUTE AN ENTIRE BLOCK.
AND SO AS IT EXISTS TODAY, IT HAS THAT SHOPFRONT OVERLAY ON THE WHOLE PORTION.
UH, THERE'S SINGLE FAMILY AND MEDICAL CLINIC TO THE NORTH.
IT'S BLENDED RESIDENTIAL, UH, TO THE EAST WHERE THERE'S SINGLE FAMILY DUPLEX, MULTIFAMILY ALL NEXT TO EACH OTHER.
AND THEN THERE'S MULTIFAMILY TO THE SOUTH.
UH, THERE'S A HOTEL TO THE WEST ACROSS, UH, ZANG.
AND THERE CURRENTLY THAT SUBDISTRICT E WITHIN THE PD, UH, THAT PD IN ITS CURRENT FORM WAS MADE IN 2015, OR AT LEAST THE, THE MOST RECENT MAJOR, UH, AMENDMENTS TO IT.
AND THAT EXISTING MU EIGHT ENTITLES IT TO THE USE HEIGHTENED DENSITY, UH, THAT THEY NEED.
UH, THEY'D ACTUALLY BE BUILDING UNDER THAT.
I UNDERSTAND, BUT THEY HAVE THAT, THAT USE.
BUT REALLY WHAT THEY'RE HERE FOR IS SHOP SHOPFRONT OVERLAY.
SHOPFRONT OVERLAY APPLIES TO THE WHOLE PROPERTY AND DICTATES THAT THE WHOLE PROPERTY MUST BE MIXED USE SHOPFRONT DEVELOPMENT, UH, AND DICTATES THE TYPE OF USES, MEANS THAT THEY CAN'T PUT GROUND FLOOR RESIDENTIAL ON ANY OF IT AT THIS TIME.
SO THEY'RE PROPOSING A NEW SUBDISTRICT BASED ON A, THE EXISTING ZONING, UH, THAT ADDS LIVE, WORK USE, UH, WHICH IS ACTUALLY A USE IN THE PD ALREADY FROM OTHER SUBDISTRICTS.
THE NEARBY SUBDISTRICT CAN BE USED TO MEET SOME OF THE SHOP FRONT OVERLAY STANDARDS OR REQUIREMENTS.
AND SITE HAS THOSE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
THE WMU EIGHT, UH, IT'S NOT CONSTITUTE APPROVAL OF ADDITIONAL HEIGHT DENSITY OR THE, DOES IT CONSTITUTE APPROVAL OF THE DEMOLITION OF ANY STRUCTURES ON THE SITE.
UH, THE APPLICANT PROPOSES ONLY TO MODIFY THE SHOP FRONT OVERLAY, UH, EXCUSE ME, TO MODIFY THE SHOP FRONT ONLY TO INCLUDE THE WESTERN FRONTAGE OF THE SITE.
ALONG ZANG, UH, THEY REMOVED THE, THE D OVERLAY ON THE ENTIRE SITE, AND THE SUBDISTRICT WOULD THEN SPECIFY SPECIFIC MAN THAT ZANG AND BECKLEY ARE PRIMARY STREETS.
AND SO, JUST IN THE EXISTING DEFINITION, LIVE WORK IS THIS DEFINITION, BUT IT BASICALLY ALLOWS A, UH, A TENANT OF A SPACE TO OCCUPY IT WITH RESIDENTIAL, UM, AND OFFICE RETAIL.
IT IMPLIES A CERTAIN DEGREE OF BUILT OUT LIKE A SHOP FRONT.
UH, AND IT'S A NON-RESIDENTIAL USE UNDER THE PD.
[00:15:01]
SAH PROHIBITS RESIDENTIAL USES ON THE GROUND STORY FACADE.AND THE REQUEST TO REDUCE THE SH I HOPE IT'S VISIBLE TO A DEGREE ON THIS SLIDE, UH, THAT THEY'RE REDUCING IT FROM THE, THE ENTIRE SITE BACK TO THE LEFT FRONTAGE, LEFT THE WEST FRONTAGE, MEANING ZANG.
AND THEN THOSE GREEN FRONTAGES PER THE PD WOULD REMAIN PRIMARY STREETS THAT EAST AND WEST ALONG ZANG AND BECKLEY ZANG FURNITURE REMAIN SHOP FRONT.
UH, JUST SUBDISTRICT M DID SOMETHING SIMILAR.
UH, IT MODIFIED, IT ADDED LIVE WORK.
UH, IT'S NOT A ONE FOR ONE COMPARISON, WHAT THEY'RE DOING, BUT THEY ADDED LIVE WORK AS A USE THERE.
UH, AND THEN OTHER PARCELS ON THE BLOCK TO THE SOUTH TOOK OUT SOME OF THE SHOPFRONT OVERLAY.
SO AS WE GO AROUND THE SITE, HERE'S FIFTH STREET LOOKING SOUTH, WE MOVE AROUND.
THIS IS ON ZING, THE EXISTING MULTIFAMILY E OFFICE THAT EXISTS TODAY, LOOKING NORTH AND LOOKING WEST FROM BECKLEY, WHICH IS A FULL LAP OF THE SITE.
THERE'S A LOT OF GRADE DEFINITELY ON THE SITE.
UH, THE NORTHEAST CORNER BEING THE LOWEST PART I WAS TO LOOK NORTH.
THERE'S A DOCTOR'S OFFICE THAT'S A MULTIFAMILY AND HOTEL ACROSS, UH, BECKLEY, OR EXCUSE ME, ACROSS ZANG.
SO THE HOME ACROSS FIFTH STREET THAT LOOKS WEST AT THAT MULTIFAMILY, AND THERE'S MORE MULTIFAMILY TO THE SOUTHWEST SOUTH.
THAT'S THE SUB-DISTRICT M PROPERTY ACROSS SIXTH STREET.
AND THAT'S THE EXIT TO THE PROPERTY ON SIXTH STREET, ZIP BECKLEY AND SIXTH BECKLEY.
AND THAT'S ACROSS, THAT'S THE, UH, MULTIFAMILY ACROSS, UM, ACROSS BECKLEY.
AND THAT'S FULL WALK AROUND OF SITE.
SO THAT'S WHERE THE, THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
THIS LOOKS UNREADABLE FOR Y'ALL'S PURPOSES A LITTLE BETTER, HOPEFULLY.
POINT BEING, ARTICLE 13 HAS A BUILDABLE AREA THAT'S BETWEEN 10, UH, FIVE FEET AND 10 FEET OR 15 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE.
SO THERE'S A BUILDABLE AREA, 10 FEET.
THAT'S WHAT YOU SEE IN THE HATCHED AROUND THE PERIMETER OF THE SITE.
THEN YOU SEE SHOP FRONT OVERLAY THAT THEY INTEND TO, UH, MAINTAIN ON THE WESTERN FRONTAGE OF THE SITE.
SO THE 30 FEET, UH, OF THE WESTERN FRONTAGE LABELED SH SEVEN.
AND THEN THE PROPOSED SHEET DESIGNATIONS, UH, THEY MODIFY HOW STREET DESIGNATIONS WORK.
UH, USUALLY IT'S THE LONGEST SIDE, IN THIS CASE, THE SN, NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN APPEAR TO BE THE LONGEST FRONTAGES BY JUST A LITTLE BIT.
UM, BUT IN WORKING WITH THEM, IT BASICALLY, THE, THE PATTERN OF THE SURROUNDING AREA KIND OF DICTATES THAT YES, THIS BLOCK HAS A SMALLER FRONTAGE ON THOSE, BUT AS YOU GO THROUGH THE WHOLE AREA, NORTH TO SOUTH IS THE PATTERN OF PRIMARY STREETS, AND IT HELPS REINFORCE THAT CORRIDOR THAT YOU DO BETWEEN THE HOSPITAL UP NORTH.
AND BISHOP ARTS ARE THE SOUTH.
SO WE MODIFIED THAT SPECIFICALLY IN THE CODE THAT THE PRIMARY STREETS ARE FACULTY AND ZANG.
I DID SHOW THE ADJACENT BLOCKS JUST TO KIND OF CLARIFY HOW THAT WORKS.
THESE ARE THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR WMU.
IT'S A LITTLE DIFFERENT BETWEEN THE DEVELOPMENT TYPES.
I WON'T DRILL DOWN ON ANYTHING SPECIFIC, BUT WE HAVE IT IN CASE WE HAVE QUESTIONS.
BUT WITH THAT STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS ONE APPROVAL OF THE NEW SUB-DISTRICT FOR WMU MIXED USE DISTRICT USES WMU EIGHT, WALKABLE MIXED USE DISTRICT USES SUBJECT TO A DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND CONDITIONS, TWO, APPROVAL OF A REMOVAL OF A SHOPFRONT OVERLAY ON ABORTION, AND THREE APPROVAL OF A TERMINATION OF A DE LIQUOR CONTROL OVERLAY.
IS IT JUST ME OR YOU HAVE CONTROL? OVERSTANDING PLEASE.
QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS, COMMISSIONER HALL, MR. PEPE, UH, LOOKING AT YOUR PHOTOGRAPHS, WALKING AROUND IT, THE NEIGHBORHOOD DOESN'T LOOK ANYTHING ABOUT WHAT I ENVISION WHEN WE TALK ABOUT SHOP FRONT, UH, IT LOOKS LIKE A BUNCH OF, UH, OLDER HOMES, UH, AND, UH, A BLEND OF OTHER THINGS, BUT MAYBE HAD THAT HAD BEEN CONVERTED TO BUSINESSES.
YEAH, IT'S, SO, OF COURSE WHEN I, I'D IMAGINE THAT, WELL, CERTAINLY THE STRUCTURES ON THE SITE ARE OLDER THAN THE SHOP FRONT OVERLAY, OLDER THAN THE ARTICLE 13 ZONING OLDER THAN THE PD.
UM, SO A LOT OF THEM HAVE RESIDENTIAL USES.
SOME OF THEM HAVE OFFICE USES.
SO I WOULD SAY SOME OF THEM ARE OFFICE, SOME ARE MULTIFAMILY.
AND, AND SO I WOULDN'T SAY THAT THE MAJORITY OF THEM ARE BUSINESSES AT THIS TIME.
'CAUSE THE, THE ZONING IN PLACE DOESN'T IMPEL THEM TO BE BUSINESSES BECAUSE THEY'D PROBABLY,
[00:20:01]
WELL, THEY'D BE, THE USE WOULD BE ALLOWED, I THINK WE TALKED ABOUT THIS AT, UH, TALKED ABOUT DOWNTOWN ELMWOOD.YOU KNOW, THEY'RE, THEY'RE NOT NON-CONFORMING USES.
THEY PROBABLY HAVE, WOULD THEY BE CONSIDERED NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURES TO THE SHOP FRONT OVERLAY REQUIREMENTS? THE ARTICLE 13 REQUIREMENTS? SO THOSE USES ARE, ARE STILL ALLOWED IN THEIR, IN THEIR OLD BUILDINGS.
UH, BUT I WOULDN'T SAY THAT THE MAJORITY OF THEM ARE BUSINESSES.
THEY'RE EITHER, UH, MAYBE SOME EX EXTENT MULTIFAMILY OR THEY'RE VACANT AT THIS TIME.
THIS ONE, I, I STILL HAD A CO FOR AN OFFICE, WHICH IS WHY I PULLED IT OVER.
BUT I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S STILL OPERATING.
IS THE, WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN IF THIS, IS THERE GONNA BE DEMOLITION AND NEW THINGS BUILT, OR ARE THESE THINGS JUST GONNA BE PURPOSED OR, MY UNDERSTANDING IS IT'S GONNA BE MO ALMOST ENTIRELY DEMOLITION AND RECONSTRUCTION.
SO I'LL, I LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING THE, THE, THE PRESENTATION THIS AFTERNOON THEN.
UH, I HAVE A QUESTION ON THE, UH, REGARDING THE LIVE WORK.
YOU SHOWED A DEFINITION, UM, IF YOU COULD BRING THAT BACK.
SO ON, ON THE LIVE WORKS IS CO DOES CODE ENFORCEMENT, ARE THEY THE ONES THAT ARE ENFORCING THAT AND EXACTLY HOW DOES THE PROCESS GO WITH BUILDING INSPECTION WHEN THE CO IS PULLED FOR THOSE? INITIALLY, THEY WOULD HAVE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THEIR LIVE WORK TO PERMITTING.
I, I'M SORRY, CAN YOU, I, I CAN'T HEAR, HEAR YOU JUST MAYBE SLOWER AND LOUDER.
RIGHT WHERE I'M STANDING, THERE MUST BE SOME KIND OF SPEAKER GOING RIGHT STRAIGHT DOWN ON ME.
UM, THEY, SO THEY, THEY, YES, THEY NEED TO GO IN FOR PERMITTING AND DEMONSTRATE, YOU KNOW, WHAT USES ARE WHERE IN THEIR BUILDING THEIR ARTICLE 13.
SO THEY NEED TO BUILD OUT THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ZONING, WITH SHOPFRONT OVERLAY.
AND THEN AS THEY'RE GETTING PERMITTING REVIEW NEED TO DEMONSTRATE WHERE THEIR USES ARE, THEY GET A CO FOR THE BUILDING.
THEN AS THEY GO ON IN TIME, YOU KNOW, LIVE WORK IN THE SHOP FOR, AND OVERLAY WOULD BE THE, WOULD BE A PERMITTED USE RESIDENTIAL WOULD NOT BE PERMITTED ON THE GROUND FLOOR IN THE SHOP FOR AND OVERLAY.
SO YES, CODE EN ENFORCEMENT OR CODE COMPLIANCE WOULD BE THE, WOULD BE POTENTIALLY, UH, RESPONSIBLE FOR ENFORCING OR CONFIRMING THAT THERE'S A NON-RESIDENTIAL USE ON THE GROUND FLOOR OVER TIME.
BUT INITIALLY THAT CONFIRMATION HAS MADE IT PERMITTING.
VICE CHAIR RUBIN, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, THEN COMMISSIONER WHEELER.
AND, AND LET ME START OFF BY SAYING I'M HAVING IPAD ISSUES THIS MORNING, SO I APOLOGIZE THAT I DON'T HAVE THE DOCKET UP IN FRONT OF ME.
UM, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE SHOP FRONT OVERLAY IS SORT OF A NUDGE TO GET ACTUAL MIXED USES ON THE GROUND BY PROHIBITING RESIDENTIAL, BUT REQUIRING OTHER SORT OF STREET ACTIVATING USES.
IS THAT A FAIR DESCRIPTION? YES.
IT MANDATES THAT YOU HAVE TO USE THE MIX USE SHOP FRONT, OR YOU HAVE TO USE THE SHOP FRONT STYLE OF DEVELOPMENT, STEP ONE.
AND STEP TWO IS WHEN YOU'RE IN THAT DEVELOPMENT TYPE, YOU HAVE TO PUT, UH, NON-RESIDENTIAL USES ON THE GROUND FLOOR.
SO IT PROHIBITS THOSE ON THE GROUND FLOOR IN THE AREA WITH THE HOPE OF ENCOURAGING YES.
NUDGE, UH, NUDGING TOWARDS RE RETAIL USES OR THINGS LIKE THAT.
AND THEN WE SEE SOME FAIRLY DENSE ELSEWHERE IN THE CITY, SOME FAIRLY DENSE, YOU KNOW, RESIDENTIAL, YOU KNOW, MULTI-FAMILY DISTRICTS.
I CAN THINK OF LIKE HENDERSON, WHERE THERE REALLY AREN'T ACTIVE GROUND FLOOR USES.
IT'S A LOT OF JUST RESIDENCES THAT, THAT ENTER ONTO THE STREET.
SO IS THE SHOP FRONT OVERLAY SORT OF TO NUDGE AWAY FROM THAT AND GET MORE, MORE ACTIVE, YOU KNOW, WALKABLE WALKER FRIENDLY GROUND FLOOR? YES.
SO I'M TRYING TO THINK THROUGH THE TRADE-OFFS IS GOING FROM A SHOP FRONT OVERLAY TO BASICALLY ALLOWING LIVE WORK UNITS.
UM, AGAIN, IT COULDN'T JUST BE STRAIGHT RESIDENTIAL UNITS ON THE GROUND FLOOR ALONG THESE TWO STREETS, RIGHT? NO, THEY HAVE TO, THEY HAVE TO, WELL, IN THE PORTION THAT REMAINS SHOP FRONT, IN THE PORTION THAT REMAINS SHOP FRONT, WHICH IS THE WEST FRONTAGE, THEY NEED TO DEMONSTRATE A PERMITTING AND OVER TIME THROUGH CODE COMPLIANCE THAT THEY ARE LIVE WORK UNITS.
AND THAT THEN THEY HAVE TO TRIGGER THE DEFINITION THAT WE, WE JUST SAW WHERE THEY COULD MAINTAIN AN OFFICE
[00:25:01]
USE, THEY COULD MAINTAIN A SMALL RETAIL PERSONAL SERVICE TYPE USE.THAT APPLIES ONLY IN THE SHOP FRONT OVERLAY THAT THEY'RE MAINTAINING, WHICH AS I SAID IS THE WESTERN FRONTAGE, AND IT IS REMOVED FROM THE OTHER FRONTAGE.
SO THEY COULD PUT TRUE RESIDENTIAL ON THE OTHER THREE FRONTAGES.
AND WHAT'S, AND I GUESS LET'S JUST TALK ABOUT BECKLEY FOR A SECOND, WHERE THEY COULD PUT STRAIGHT RESIDENTIAL, WHAT IS STAFF'S RATIONALE FOR SUPPORTING THAT CHANGE FROM REMOVING THE SHOP FRONT OVERLAY ALONG BECKLEY, ALONG BECKLEY? YEAH, I MEAN, BECKLEY DEFINITELY HAS MORE OF A RESIDENTIAL CHARACTER.
WHEN YOU, WHEN YOU, UM, GO DOWN BECKLEY, YOU'RE GOING FROM NORTH TO THE SOUTH, UH, ESPECIALLY THE WEST SIDE OF THE STREET.
THAT SAID, I THINK THAT RETAIL AND PERSONAL SERVICE USES ARE COMPATIBLE WITH RESIDENTIAL USES WHEN THEY'RE IN A, IN A PROPER FORMAT.
UM, SO IT'S MAYBE NOT NECESSARILY A CONSISTENCY ARGUMENT, BUT UH, IT, IT, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A TRANSITION FROM ONE SIDE TO ANOTHER.
THAT WOULD BE THE SIDE TO HAVE IT, UH, TRANSITION ON.
AND FRANKLY, I, I AS A PLANNER HAVE SOME CAUTION ABOUT MANDATING RETAIL USES ON THE GROUND FLOOR.
I'M JUST GONNA SAY THAT, UM, I I I UNDERSTAND THAT THE LIVE WORK WILL ACT AS SOMETHING OF A, A TRANSITION POTENTIALLY ALLOW FINAL BUILD OUT OVER TIME.
UH, ESPECIALLY WHEN WE NEED HOUSING.
WE ARE, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PROHIBITING HOUSING ON THE GROUND FLOOR.
UH, AS A PLANNER, I AM WARY OF, OF MANDATING RETAIL USES, EVEN IF WE'RE GOOD INTENTIONS THROUGHOUT.
BUT I DO THINK IF THERE'S A PLACE TO MAINTAIN IT, ZANG IS THE ONE.
THERE SEEMED TO BE SOME INTERESTING TRADE OFFS HERE IN THE DECISION THAT, THAT WE'RE, WE'RE BEING ASKED TO MAKE.
AND I THINK FOLLOWING UP ALONG WITH COMMISSIONER CHER'S QUESTION, YOU KNOW, ARE WE GONNA ACTUALLY BE ASSURED LIVE WORK UNITS ALONG ZANG OR, YOU KNOW, IN PRACTICALITY OR THERE'S JUST GONNA BECOME RESIDENTIAL UNITS WITHOUT THE WORK COMPONENT? HOW DO WE, I MEAN, ARE WE JUST PUTTING OUR FAITH IN, IN CODE COMPLIANCE HERE TO HAVE, WELL, THEY, THEY NEED TO BUILD OUT UNDER SHOPFRONT STYLE.
THEY NEED TO BUILD THEM OUT TO LOOK LIKE A SHOPFRONT WITH SHOPFRONT WINDOWS, UH, ON, ON ZANG WHERE THEY BUILD THOSE LIVE WORK UNITS.
SO IT'D LOOK A LITTLE DIFFERENT THAN WOULD A MAYBE A RESIDENTIAL, UH, FRONTAGE.
AND THEY'VE HAVE TO HAVE DEGREE OF TRANSPARENCY AS WELL WITH THAT.
UH, THEY HAVE TO HAVE VERY FREQUENT ENTRANCES, UH, FOR THOSE KINDS OF THINGS.
SO IF THEY DON'T, I WILL SAY YES.
IF, IF, IF WE ARE ASSUMING THAT MAYBE THEY'LL ONLY DO RESIDENTIAL FOR, THEY, THEY, THEY DON'T DO A TRUE LIVE WORK OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, YOU KNOW, I, I HAVE FAITH, THEY'LL BUILD IT OUT HOW THEY'RE REQUIRED TO BY PERMITTING.
UM, SO IT WILL HAVE THAT, THAT LOOK ABOUT IT.
AND SO THE ONLY PLACE WE CAN SAY A GOOD COMPARISON IS TO THE SOUTH AND THE AESTHETICS OF THAT ASIDE.
YOU GO ON ZANG, THERE, THERE DO APPEAR TO BE BUSINESSES IN THERE, UH, AT LEAST THE, YOU KNOW, THAT'S THE, THE APPEARANCE.
'CAUSE THEY DO HAVE SIGNS OR THEY SAY WE'RE LEASING FOR A BUSINESS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT ON, UH, THE PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH.
SOME OF THEM HAVE SIGNS THAT INDICATE BUSINESSES OR THINGS LIKE THAT.
THAT WAS THE MAIN TIP OFF FROM OBSERVATION WHEN YOU'RE THERE.
UM, AND THEY ARE, BECAUSE OF THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS CLOSE TO THE STREET, EASILY ACCESSIBLE 'CAUSE OF THOSE WINDOWS AND DOORS.
SO THAT'S, THEY HAVE TO BUILD IT OUT LIKE THAT.
AND THERE'S SOME DEGREE OF, OF, UH, MODEL TO THE SOUTH AS HOW IT DOES EXIST OR, OR PLAY OUT.
BUT I KNOW THERE MAY BE OTHER INTERPRETATIONS HOW THAT'S GOING
AND REMIND ME, HOW, HOW LONG HAS THIS PD BEEN AROUND AND HOW LONG HAS IT BEEN IN THIS CURRENT FORMAT WITH THE SHOP FRONT OVERLAY? YOU KNOW, I DIDN'T RECORD THE HOW LONG THE WHOLE PD HAS BEEN AROUND, BUT THIS ORIENTATION OF USING WMU USING SHOPFRONT HAS BEEN SINCE FIFTH 2015.
COMMISSIONER CARPENTER? UH, YES, MR. PEPE, MY QUESTION HAS TO DO WITH, UM, I GUESS A LITTLE BIT OF DISCONNECT BETWEEN THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN THAT'S BEEN SUBMITTED AND WHAT'S REQUIRED IN THE PD.
BECAUSE THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN SAYS VERY SPECIFICALLY THAT EIGHT TO 10,000 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL ARE REQUIRED, IT'S IN THE SITE TABLE, BUT THERE'S NOTHING IN THE PD LANGUAGE THAT, THAT SAYS RETAIL IS REQUIRED.
AND IN FACT, THE, THE, THE PURPOSE OF THE, OF THE CHANGES TO THE PD WOULD BE TO ALLOW LIVE WORK UNITS TO SATISFY THAT SHOPFRONT OVERLAY REQUIREMENT.
[00:30:02]
UM, SO WOULD THE, ASSUMING THAT THE, UH, SHOPFRONT OVERLAY ON ZANG IS SATISFIED BY LIVE WORK, WOULD A CUMULATIVE TOTAL OF EIGHT 10,000 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL IN THOSE LIVE WORK UNITS SATISFY THAT DEVELOPMENT PLAN? OR WOULD A, A SEPARATE DEVELOP, EXCUSE ME, A SEPARATE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, HAVE TO BE SUBMITTED DOWN THE ROAD IF THEY DECIDE TO GO THE LIVE WORK ROUTE? I DON'T FIND THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN IS REQUIRING 8,000 SQUARE FOOT OF RETAIL.IT SAYS MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM ON THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
IT'S NOT, THAT'S, I READ IT, IT'S NOT, YEAH, THAT WOULD BE, IT'S NOT EXPRESSLY, EXCUSE ME, I'M TRYING TO FIND IT.
IT'S NOT EXPRESSLY REQUIRED BY THE, THE, EXCUSE ME, THE PD.
SO I DON'T SEE THAT AS TRULY REQUIRED, BUT THEY HAVE TO FULFILL THEIR SHOPFRONT OVERLAY ON ZANG.
AND ONE WAY OF DOING IT, NOT THE ONLY WAY OF DOING IT IS THROUGH LIVE WORK UNIT, BUT IT COULD BE OTHER RETAIL.
THE WHOLE PROPERTY IS ENTITLED TO A GROUND FLOOR RETAIL AT THIS TIME, BUT NOT IMPELLED IF THIS IS APPROVED AS PROPOSED.
AND JUST TO, TO CLARIFY A LITTLE BIT, UM, EVEN THOUGH THE PD IS BEING AMENDED TO ALLOW LIVE WORK TO SATISFY THE SHOP FRONT OVERLAY REQUIREMENT, THE, THE GROUND FLOOR HAS TO, UM, CONFORM MEET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE, THE BUILT FORM OF A SHOPFRONT OVERLAY.
THEY'RE NOT BEING EXEMPTED FROM THAT ON ZANG.
ON ZANG, UHHUH,
AND THAT'S SORT OF WHAT I WAS GETTING AT TO CORRECT COMMISSIONER RUBIN'S QUESTION WAS THAT THEY NEED, THEY MAY PLAN TO OCCUPY THEM WITH LIVE WORK USES.
THE FLEXIBILITY OF WHETHER THAT'S RESIDENTIAL OR RETAIL, I, I WOULD IMAGINE IS SOMEWHAT FLEXIBLE, BUT THE BUILT FORM THERE HAS TO COMPLY WITH THE SH OVERLAY.
WHILE, WHILE I UNDERSTAND THE INTENT OF THE, UM, UH, THE REQUESTED CHANGES, I, I JUST STILL HAVE A LITTLE CONCERN ABOUT WHAT, HOW THAT BOX, UH, REQUIRING A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF RETAIL IS GOING TO BE INTERPRETED WHEN IT GETS TO PERMITTING.
WE ARE, I'M GONNA ASK YOU A QUESTION ABOUT IT, BUT IN A WAY, WELL, I HAVE TO ASK YOU A QUESTION.
SO I ACTUALLY ACTUALLY HAVE A LIVE WORK.
MY, MY ACTUAL HOMESTEAD IS A LIVE WORK, SO I CAN UNDERSTAND IT A LITTLE BIT MORE.
SO, UM, IS IT, IS IT TRUE THAT IN THE LIVE WORK THERE'S ONLY ONE DWELLING THAT CAN BE ON SITE? WELL, THIS ONE ON SITE, WELL, SO THIS IS, THESE ARE, IN THIS CASE, THESE ARE LEASED SPACES WITHIN A MULTI-FAMILY BUILDING.
SO IT'S NOT LIKE THE BROADER CODE OR OTHER PLACES WHERE IT'S A SMALL, ONE SMALL BUSINESS AND ONE SMALL, UH, DWELLING THAT GOES WITH IT.
THESE ARE, THEY'RE LIKE, IF THERE WAS, YEAH, I MEAN, THEY'RE LIKE MULTI-FAMILY UNITS THAT ARE A HYBRID OF, OF COMMERCIAL FINISHED OUT SPACE AND RESIDENTIAL, SO THEY CAN HAVE MULTIPLE ON A SITE IN THIS DEFINITION.
SO HOW WOULD THE LIVE WORK APPLY THEN IF THE, IF THE LIVE WORK IN CODE SAYS THAT A LIVE WORK CAN ONLY HAVE ONE DWELLING ON, ON, ON THE PROPERTY AND, AND THE DWELLING HAS TO BE, THE LIVE WORK CAN BE ON THE, ON THE, ON THE LOWER FLOOR.
THE, THE DWELLING AND THE LIVE WORK, BOTH CAN BE ON ONE LEVEL, BUT THE LIVE, THE THE WORK PART MUST BE 50% OR MORE OF THE ACTUAL PROPERTY THAN THE ACTUAL LIVE PART.
WE, WHAT I'LL SAY IS THAT WE DON'T LEAN ON THE BROADER CODE DEFINITION OF LIVE WORK.
THIS IS A, THIS IS A DEFINITION OF LIVED WORK THAT IS UNIQUE TO THIS PD.
AND SO IT LIKELY IS INTERPRETED DIFFERENTLY AS ANYWHERE ELSE YOU MIGHT BE FAMILIAR WITH.
THIS IS A, I I THOUGHT THE BROADER CODE CALLED IT LIVE UNIT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
BUT THIS IS A, THIS IS A SPECIFIC USE FOR THIS PD.
IT WAS ACTUALLY CREATED BY THE DISTRICT TO THE SOUTH ORIGINALLY AND THEN INCLUDED IN THIS.
SO MY UNDERSTANDING, BECAUSE IT'S NOT LEANING ON THE BROADER DEFINITION IN CODE, IT'S NOT SUBJECT TO THOSE, SO IS THE DEFINITION, SO IS THE DEFINITION GOING TO BE CLEAR IN THIS PARTICULAR PD? UM, AND THE ONLY REASON WHY IT'S PD 5, 9 5 HAS A LIVE WORK UNIT AND IT READS AS, IT, IT READS OUT OF THE GENERAL CODE WHAT LIVE WORK IS.
SO HOW ARE, BECAUSE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MIGHT INTERPRET IT DIFFERENTLY WHEN IT COMES TO LIVE WORK
[00:35:01]
AND, AND THEN EXCLUDED BECAUSE THEY'RE GONNA BE LOOKING AT THE SO IS IN THIS PD, IS THE DEFINITION, UM, GOING TO BE DEFINED ENOUGH WHERE, WHERE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES WILL NOT TAKE THE BROADER CODE? YES.I MEAN, THAT HASN'T BEEN, THAT WASN'T THE CASE IN THE PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH.
UM, THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO PUT GROUND FLOOR, LIVE WORK UNITS ON THE PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH, FOR EXAMPLE.
SO MY UNDERSTANDING IS, AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES HASN'T USED THAT BROADER DEFINITION OR THE PD 5 95 DEFINITION, JUST 'CAUSE THIS ONE IS UNIQUE TO, TO THIS ONE.
IT OVERRIDES OR, UH, SUBVERTS ANY, ANY OTHER BROADER CODE ONE, AND IT HAS BEEN USED TO THE SOUTH.
AND SO THERE IS IN CODE WHERE THEY WILL NOT MAKE THE MISTAKE BECAUSE AGAIN, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES OFTEN INTERPRETS IT AS, UM, BASED OFF OF WHAT, WHAT THE BROADER IS INSTEAD OF THE, SO THAT IT IS DIFFERENT A DEFINITION IN THERE.
IT'S UNIQUE AND WE KNOW THAT WE HAVE TO DEFINE DEFINITELY IN THESE PDS THAT IT IS DEFINED ON WHAT THAT BROADER IT IS NOT.
IT'S A, UH, IT MAKES WAY FOR THE WHAT, THE USE IN THIS PARTICULAR PD THAT MIGHT NOT IN THE BROADER YEAH, IT'S UNIQUE TO THIS ONE.
AND IT'S BEEN USED IN THIS DISTRICT, UH, TO THIS END WITHOUT THE, WITHOUT, YOU KNOW, THOSE, THOSE LIMITATIONS YOU SPOKE OF FROM, FROM BROADER CODE, BECAUSE I GOT A PD SOON AS THEY INTRODUCED LIVE WORK
I MEAN, I GOT, I MEAN, I, I, I HAD THAT CO SOON AS THEY WERE ABLE TO PUT IT IN, IN, IN SOUTH DALLAS FOR ME TO HAVE A LIVE WORK UNIT.
COMMISSIONER CHAR, FOLLOW BY COMMISSIONER BLAIR ON, ON THE SHOP FRONT, UM, OVERLAY IS THERE, THERE'S A, A DEPTH REQUIREMENT OF THOSE UNITS OF 30 FEET OR NO, THE SHOP FRONT OVERLAY AS PROPOSED INCLUDES 30 FEET OF DEPTH.
SO THAT SHOULD MANDATE THAT DEVELOPMENT TYPE FOR AT LEAST THAT DEEP.
YOU CAN DO MULTIPLE DEVELOPMENT TYPE FOR, YOU CAN DO MULTIPLE ARTICLE 13 DEVELOPMENT TYPES WITHIN ONE BUILDING SITE.
BUT THE 30 FOOT EXTENT OF IT, UH, TO ME WOULD IMPLY THAT THEY'D HAVE TO HAVE NOT ONLY THAT DEPTH, BUT POTENTIALLY MORE FURTHER BACK.
BECAUSE YOU GOTTA DRAW THE LINE ON YOUR DEVELOPMENT TYPE SOMEWHERE WHEN THEY SUBMIT A SITE PLAN TO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES FOR ARTICLE 13, PROVING WHERE THEIR DEVELOPMENT TYPES BEGIN AND AT, SO I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTOOD THE ANSWER IN THE SHOP FRONT OVERLAY, IS IT MANDATED THAT THEY HAVE A 30 FOOT DEPTH ON THEIR SHOP FRONT? I NEED TO, I, I NEED TO DOUBLE CHECK THAT FOR YOU.
AND WHAT I'M TRYING TO GET IS, IS BOTH THAT ON, IT'S KIND OF MY NEXT QUESTION.
THE LIVE WORK IS JUST BEING ADDED AS A USE.
SO IT'S, UM, ON ALL TH THREE SIDES OF FIFTH, SIXTH, AND ZANG, BUT NOT BECKLEY.
SO IT'S NOT THAT SHOPFRONT IS GOING AWAY, IT'S JUST BEING ADDED AS A USE.
SO IF THE DEVELOPER WANTED TO DO A COMMERCIAL SPACE, THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED BY NORMAL SHOPFRONT, THAT'S AN OPTION.
IT'S JUST LIVE WORK IS ALSO AN ADDITIONAL OPTION.
I MEAN, IT'S PRESUMED THAT THEY WOULD USE LIVE WORK IF THEY'RE ASKING FOR IT ON ALL SIDES, BUT IT DOESN'T MEAN THEY WOULD NECESSARILY DO LIVE WORK.
THEY MAY DO A COMBINATION OF LIVE WORK, THEY MAY DO SOME RETAIL SPACES, IT'S JUST ANOTHER OPTION.
AND IN THE LIVE WORK, UM, THOSE, THAT DEPTH OF THE, OF THE UNIT WILL STILL BE REQUIRED.
CAN CAN YOU LOOK THAT UP TOO WHEN YOU ARE CHECKING? I WILL, I WILL.
AND WHAT I'M TRYING TO GET AT IS TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE, UH, WILL THE SHELL REMAIN COMMERCIAL READY? SHOULD AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE, THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE OF THOSE GROUND FOUR UNITS, WHEN THE MARKET DICTATES THAT COMMERCIAL IS VIABLE, THEY WILL BE ABLE TO BE CONVERTED RELATIVE RELATIVELY EASILY.
SO I, I WILL SAY, I'LL HAVE TO LOOK AT THE, THE DEPTH OR GET AN INTERPRETATION ON THAT, BUT THE, THE FLOOR PLATE HEIGHTS, THOSE WILL APPLY, UM, IN, IN THE SHOP FRONT.
THEN THE WINDOWS, THE BUILT FORM OF THOSE PORTIONS THAT ARE IN SHOP FRONT STILL HAVE TO DO ALL OF THOSE SPATIAL THINGS.
RIGHT? AND IT'S, AND IT IS TRUE THAT THE WMU IS WHAT DICTATES THE MINIMUM 15 FOOT PLATE HEIGHT.
IT'S NOT THE SHOP FRONT OVERLAY, IT'S THE DEVELOPMENT TYPE.
SO LET'S START OUR DISTRICT, OUR DISTRICT IS WMU.
THERE'S A WHOLE BUNCH OF DEVELOPMENT TYPES THAT ARE ALLOWED IN THERE, BUT THEN WE PUT A SHOP FRONT ON TOP OF IT THAT DICTATES THAT YOU HAVE TO
[00:40:01]
DO MIXED U SHOP FRONT WHERE THAT SHOP FRONT OVERLAY EXISTS.AND SO THAT MEANS, OKAY, THE WESTERN PORTION OF THE BUILDING OR THE WESTERN BUILDING HAS TO BE MIXED USE SHOPFRONT DEVELOPMENT TYPE.
AND WHEN YOU BUILD A MIXED SHOP, MIXED USE SHOPFRONT DEVELOPMENT TYPE, YOU HAVE TO HAVE A CERTAIN FLOOR PLATE AND OTHER FINISHES AND OTHER USES IN IT.
SO IT'S THE MIXED USE THAT DICTATES THE PLATE HEIGHT.
LIKE IF THEY COULD ALSO DO TOWN HOMES THERE, LIKE SAY THERE'S A DIFFERENT PROJECT THAT COMES THROUGH, I UNDERSTAND THERE.
A A, A DEVELOPMENT TYPE COULD BE TOWN TOWNHOME STACKED.
IT COULD BE AN APARTMENT, IT COULD BE A MIXED USE, BUT WHEN IT, THERE'S A MIXED USE PROJECT THERE, THAT GROUND FLOOR PLATE HEIGHT HAS TO BE 15 FEET MINIMUM, MAXIMUM OF 30, I BELIEVE THAT IS CORRECT.
AND IT'S MANDATED THAT THEY HAVE TO DO MIXED USE SHOP.
THEY HAVE TO DO MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT TYPE WHERE THE SHOPFRONT EXISTS.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS ON THIS ITEM? OKAY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. PII WAS JUST GONNA SAY I WAS, I WAS THANKFUL THAT Y'ALL DID DOWNTOWN ELMWOOD BEFORE THIS ONE AND GAVE ME
THIS IS, UH, CASE Z 2 2 3 DASH 2 57.
UH, MARTIN BATE, UH, THIS IS AN APPLICATION FOR A, SORRY, I'M JUST TRYING TO MOVE THIS WINDOW HERE AWAY FROM ME.
UH, THIS IS AN, OH, AN APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TWO AND EXPANSION OF PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 1 0 4 9 ON PROPERTY ZONE PD NUMBER 1 0 4 9.
AND I, OUR INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH DISTRICT AND IN IM INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURING DISTRICT, IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SINGLETON BOULEVARD AT THE TERMINUS OF NAVARRO STREET AND ON THE EAST LINE OF VIVI ROAD, SOUTH OF DULUTH STREET.
IT'S APPROXIMATELY 32.08 ACRES IN SIZE.
UH, IT'S LOCATED HERE IN WEST DALLAS.
HERE WE SEE THE AERIAL MAP SHOWING BOTH THE EXISTING, UM, THE EXTENT OF THE, UH, PD AND THEN THE PROPOSED ADDITION.
SO THIS DOTTED AREA HERE, THAT IS WHERE THE CURRENT BOUNDARIES ARE.
IF THE AMENDMENT OR THE EXPANSION WERE APPROVED, THEN IT WOULD EXPAND OUT TO INCLUDE THIS CORNER HERE.
ALL RIGHT, HERE'S THE EXISTING ZONING MAP SHOWING WHAT IS AROUND THE SITE.
UH, THE SUBJECT SITE IS STILL UNDEVELOPED.
UH, THE AREA TO THE NORTHWEST WHERE THEY'RE HOPING TO EXPAND INCLUDES VEHICLE DISPLAY SALES AND SERVICE IN A RESTAURANT USE TO THE WEST AS A PRIVATE SCHOOL.
UH, THERE'S SINGLE FAMILY AS WELL, AND THEN MULTIFAMILY AND SINGLE FAMILY OF THE EAST.
AND THEN INDUSTRIAL USE IS MAINLY FOR A, UM, UH, I BELIEVE IT'S BNSF, UH, RAILWAY, UH, LINE DOWN SOUTH.
SO THERE'S SOME BACKGROUND, UH, PD 10 49.
IT WAS ESTABLISHED BY CITY COUNCIL ON APRIL 14TH, 2021.
UH, THE AREA, THE REQUEST IS CURRENTLY UNDEVELOPED EXCEPT FOR THE PROPERTY IN THE IR AND IM DISTRICT AS MENTIONED.
UH, THE APPLICANT'S REQUESTING FIVE AMENDMENTS OF THE PD CONDITIONS AND EXPANSION OF THOSE BOUNDARIES.
AND THE APPLICANT HAS ALSO MADE A VERY SMALL AMENDMENT TO THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN.
JUST TO CLARIFY SOME INFORMATION IN THERE.
UH, THE FIRST AMENDMENT FOR THE, UH, FOR THE PD IS FOR THE HEIGHT LIMITS PERMITTING, THE ENCLOSED STAIRWELLS TO BE WITHIN 12 FEET, UH, WITHIN THE 12 FOOT ALLOWANCE FOR STRUCTURAL AND ARCHITECTURAL OVERRUNS.
UH, SO THESE CONDITIONS, THEY ALWAYS SAY, YOU KNOW, THIS IS THE MAX HEIGHT EXCEPT FOR A FEW ARCHITECTURAL TYPE FEATURES.
THOSE CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO GO TO 12 FEET OVER.
UH, THIS IS TO ALLOW THAT FOR ENCLOSED STAIRWELLS, AGAIN, ONLY FOR PARKING STRUCTURES.
UH, THE NEXT AMENDMENT IS TO ALLOW, ADJUST THE ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA RATIO FROM 1.9 TO 2.2.
THE THIRD IS TO ALLOW COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT INSIDE AS A PERMITTED USE WITHIN PHASE ONE OF THE PROPERTY.
AND MORE SPECIFICALLY, IT IS LIMITED TO A BOWLING ALLEY.
UH, NEXT AMENDMENT IS ALLOWING A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 85 FEET FOR STRUCTURES WITHIN PHASE ONE.
AND THE FIFTH AMENDMENT IS ADJUSTING HOURS OF
[00:45:01]
OPERATION FOR THE ARTIFICIAL SWIMMING LAGOON.FINALLY, THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN HAS BEEN AMENDED TO SHOW THE EXPANDED AREA, AND THERE'S ALSO A SMALL NOTE THAT'S INCLUDED REGARDING PHASE ONE, THAT, UH, OR THE EXTENT OF PHASE ONE TO MATCH THE PD TEXT.
JUST TO ADD SOME COLOR TO THIS.
THERE'S, UH, THE VIEW ON SINGLETON BOULEVARD LOOKING SOUTH AND THEN LOOKING SOUTHEAST, THEN THE SOUTHWEST LOOKING NORTH AWAY FROM THE SITE, NORTHWEST AND WEST.
AND THERE YOU CAN SEE SOME OF THOSE USES THAT WILL BE, THAT ARE PART OF THE, UH, AREA TO BE EXPANDED INTO.
THEN ON SINGLETON, LOOKING NORTH TO THE NORTHEAST, THEN DI GOING DOWN DULUTH.
THIS IS ON DULUTH LOOKING EAST.
SO THIS IS WHERE DULUTH DEAD ENDS.
AND THEN BEYOND THOSE TREES IS WHERE THE SUBJECT SITE IS.
THEN LOOKING WEST AWAY FROM THE SUBJECT SITE ON DULUTH, AND THEN ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF REAL BIG AND SINGLETON LOOKING EAST, LOOKING NORTH, LOOKING NORTHWEST AND LOOKING WEST.
UH, HERE'S THE EXISTING CONCEPTUAL PLAN.
AS YOU CAN SEE, IT DOES NOT INCLUDE THOSE LOTS TO THE NORTHWEST.
AND THEN THE PRO PROPOSED CONCEPTUAL PLAN, IT, THE MAIN THING IS IT JUST EXPANDS TO INCLUDE THAT NEW PROPERTY.
AND THERE IS A NOTE JUST EXPLAINING HOW THE PHASING FOR THIS PROPERTY WILL WORK.
UH, IN TERMS OF THE CHANGES TO THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, HERE WE HAVE SOME OF THEM HIGHLIGHTED.
THE FAR GOES UP FROM 1.9 TO 2.2.
UH, THE HEIGHT WAS ONE OF THE MAIN CHANGES WHERE ORIGINALLY THE WAY THE HEIGHT LIMITATION WAS DESCRIBED WAS THAT FOR STRUCTURES OF 50 FEET OR GREATER, UH, FRONTAGE ALONG SINGLETON BOULEVARD, THEIR MAX HEIGHT COULD BE 85 FEET.
YOU WOULD ALSO HAVE 85 FEET FOR ONE SEVEN STORY PARKING GARAGE IN PHASE ONE, AND THEN 65 FEET FOR ALL OF THE STRUCTURES WITH THE CHANGE TO THE AMEN OR THE AMENDMENT TO THE PD.
THE HEIGHT LIMIT WOULD SIMPLY BE 85 FEET FOR STRUCTURES IN PHASE ONE, AS WELL AS THE ENCLOSED STAIRWELL FOR THE PARKING STRUCTURE BEING INCLUDED IN THE, UH, 12 FOOT MAX HEIGHT OVERRUN ALLOWANCE.
THE COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT INSIDE LIMITED TO A BOWLING ALLEY IS ONLY PERMITTED IN PHASE ONE.
AND THEN THE ARTIFICIAL SWIMMING LAGOON HOURS, THE EXPANSION OF THE HOURS IS, UH, ESSENTIALLY ONE HOUR EXTRA IN THE MORNINGS AT 7:00 AM AND THEN GOING UNTIL 10:00 PM MONDAY THROUGH THURSDAY, AND THEN UNTIL 12 MIDNIGHT FRIDAY THROUGH SUNDAY.
AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO AN AMEND AMENDED CONCEPTUAL PLAN AND AMENDED CONDITIONS.
QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS, COMMISSIONER, CARPENTER, UM, MR. BATE AND FELLOW COMMISSIONERS? I, I BELIEVE THAT COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT AND CHAIR SHE DID, AND I WERE THE ONLY PEOPLE, UH, ARE THE ONLY PEOPLE HERE NOW WHO REMEMBER THIS CASE FROM OVER THREE YEARS AGO.
SORRY, I DIDN'T MEAN TO EXCLUDE YOU.
IT WAS AN INCREDIBLY CONTENTIOUS CASE.
AND SO THIS IS A MIRACLE IN OUR TIME THAT WE HAVE NO
UH, FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO DON'T KNOW WHAT THE CASE IS, BUT MAY HAVE READ ABOUT IT, THIS IS THE PROPERTY THAT'S MIXED USE IS GONNA HAVE A CRYSTAL LAGOON IN THE MIDDLE.
AND THE, UH, RESIDENTS ARE ACTUALLY VERY MUCH LOOKING FORWARD TO THIS.
AND WHAT HAS DRIVEN, I, I'M SORRY.
ARE YOU AWARE THAT, UM, WHAT HAS BASICALLY DRIVEN THIS, UH, COMING BACK TO US IS THAT SOME OF THE PROPERTY THAT ORIGINALLY WAS NOT AVAILABLE TO THIS PROJECT HAS NOW, YOU KNOW, THE OWNERS HAVE BEEN WILLING TO SELL.
SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE, UH, AND IT WILL REALLY, UM, EVEN UP THE, UM, SINGLETON FRONTAGE AND EVERYTHING ELSE IS J IS JUST, UH, BASICALLY A, A CLEANUP, SOME ADDITIONAL, UH, TWEAKS THAT HAVE, UH, REVEALED THEMSELVES IN THE LAST THREE YEARS.
YES, I'M AWARE OF THOSE CONDITIONS.
UH, COMMISSIONER HALLAL, THAT COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT, UH, MR. BATES, I JUST, UH, WANT TO UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHAT'S GOING ON IN THIS PROPERTY.
'CAUSE I HAVE NO RECOLLECTION OF THE, IS IT GONNA BE RESIDENTIAL SURROUNDING A ARTIFICIAL LAGOON WITH A BOWLING ALLEY? BOWLING ALLEY? YES.
SO IT'S GOING TO BE A RESIDENTIAL MIXED USE PROJECT.
UH, THERE'S A LARGE RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT IN PHASE.
SO IN PHASE ONE, MY UNDERSTANDING FROM READING THE, UH, PD AND TALKING TO THE APPLICANT IS IT IS A MIX OF BOTH RESIDENTIAL AND RETAIL USES.
UH, PHASE TWO I BELIEVE WOULD BE FOR PURELY RESIDENTIAL.
UM, BUT THE MAIN PHASE ONE, IT INCLUDES THE ARTIFICIAL SWIMMING LAGOON.
AND SO, UH, IF YOU READ THROUGH THE CONDITIONS, UH, THE WAY IT WAS KIND OF LAID OUT, IT, YOU KNOW, TYPICALLY PHASING I THINK HAS MORE OF A DELINEATION, BUT IN THIS CASE, IT WAS SAID THAT THE ARTIFICIAL SWIMMING LAGOON, IT MUST BE WITHIN 800 FEET OF THE, UH, OF SINGLETON.
AND SO EVERYTHING FROM THE LAGOON NORTH IS PHASE ONE.
SO WITHIN THAT PHASE ONE, YOU'LL HAVE RESIDENTIAL AND RETAIL USES.
I, I WOULD THINK THAT JUST THROUGH THE,
[00:50:01]
UH, SORT OF THE DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT AND ID IDEATION PHASE THAT, UH, THEY DECIDED THEY WANTED TO DO THE, UH, BOWLING ALLEY WITHIN THE MIXED USE, UH, RESIDENT OR MIXED USE AND RETAIL PORTION OF THE SITE.UH, BUT BECAUSE THAT USE WAS NOT SPECIFICALLY DELINEATED IN THE ORIGINAL CONDITIONS, THEY HAD TO ADD IT IN AS COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT INSIDE LIMITED TO A BOWLING ALLEY.
UH, WHICH PREVENTS SOME OF THE MORE, LET'S SAY, UH, INTENSIVE OB NOXIOUS VERSIONS OF COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT INSIDE FROM OCCURRING.
THERE IS, WOULD THE BOWLING ALLEY BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC? UH, THAT I'M NOT SURE OF.
IF IT'S, UH, WE, WE CAN ASK THE DEVELOPMENT.
YEAH, THAT'D BE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.
I'M SORRY, THE, THE, THE CASE IS ON CONSENT, SO THE APPLICANT WILL, WILL NOT BE SPEAKING.
OH, BUT, BUT HE WAS SHAKING HIS HEAD
COMMISSIONER HOUSE DRIVE, FOLLOWED BY COMMISSIONER HERBERT.
UH, MR. BAT, I'M JUST, UH, WANNA GET A LITTLE MORE EDUCATED ABOUT THIS PARKING REDUCTION FOR RETAIL.
THAT WAS A LITTLE BIT OF A NEW ONE ON ME, BUT THAT APPARENTLY THAT 15% REDUCTION HAS BEEN IN THE PD ALL ALONG AND WILL CONTINUE TO BE IN THE PD.
IS THAT, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE READING, RIGHT? YES.
UH, THAT WAS WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY WRITTEN TO THE PD, AND THERE WAS NO PROPOSED CHANCE TO THAT.
AND SO THEN THESE SPACES FOR RIDE SHARE VEHICLES, I GUESS WOULD BE DISTRIBUTED ACROSS THE ENTIRE 32 ACRES? IT'S, IT'S NOT THAT YOU'RE PUTTING SEVEN PARKING SPACES FOR RIDE SHARE IN ONE LOCATION.
I MEAN, I GUESS THE PD DOESN'T REQUIRE IT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, I GUESS.
BUT I GUESS THAT, THAT, THAT MUST BE THE INTENT IS THAT YOU COULD THEN DISTRIBUTE THESE RIDE SHARE, UM, SPACES AROUND THE SITE.
I CAN'T SPEAK TO THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF WHEN THIS WAS, UH, AS THESE CONDITIONS WERE WRITTEN, BUT YES, THE WAY IT IS WRITTEN, IT DOES NOT SPECIFY WHERE ON THE SITE, UM, THAT THOSE HAS TO BE PROVIDED.
IT JUST HAS TO BE, UH, ANYWHERE WITHIN THE PRIVATE, UH, PRIVATE PROPERTY AS IT WERE.
COMMISSIONER HARBERT? YEAH, I'M, UM, I'M CURIOUS.
I KNOW THE AREA I'VE DRIVEN IN A WHILE AND IT, THERE'S A CATHOLIC CHURCH THAT RESEMBLES A PRISON COMPLEX.
IS IT STILL IN OPERATION? THE ST.
MARY'S IMMACULATE CHURCH WITH THE BARBED WIRE FENCES ALL AROUND? IT WAS, IS THAT CHURCH STILL LIKE AN OPERATION? I BELIEVE THERE IS A CHURCH NEARBY THAT IS AN OPERATION I WASN'T AWARE OF, UH, THE BARBED WIRES BARBED WIRE THAT DIDN'T CATCH MY EYE, AT LEAST THEN IT CATCHES MINE EVERY TIME.
UM, BUT NO, UM, IS, I WAS JUST CURIOUS IF THERE WAS ANY COMMUNICATION OR, UH, INTERVENTION OR CONVERSATION WITH THAT CHURCH OR WORD FROM THEM? UH, THEIR APPLICANT IS SHAKING HIS HEAD.
THEY HAVE REACHED OUT AND COMMUNICATED WITH THEM REGARDING THE CHANGES.
COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, PLEASE.
SORRY, YOU, ARE YOU AWARE QUESTIONS? YES.
ARE YOU AWARE THERE HAS BEEN EXTENSIVE OUTREACH WITH THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND SCHOOL, UH,
IT'S NOT INTENDED TO BE A FREESTANDING BOWLING ALLEY, IT'S JUST SOME LANES ADDED AS AN AMENITY TO THE CENTRAL AMENITY BUILDING.
AND, UM, ALSO, YOU KNOW, ARE YOU AWARE THAT ALL OF THESE, OF THESE AMENITIES,
SO THE COMMUNITY IS ANTICIPATING IT AS A, AS A SIGNIFICANT ADDITION TO WHAT'S OFFERED, UM, IN THAT AREA.
AND I DIDN'T SEE ANY BARBED WIRES IN THE PD, SO I'M IN THE PLAN, SO THAT'S GOOD.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONERS? OKAY.
WE DON'T NEED TO, IT'S GONNA BE HELD.
UH, DO WE HAVE A DATE FOR THAT COMMISSIONER VAL? UM, ONE, UH, NEXT TO THE NEXT, OUR NEXT ONE WOULD BE 6 6 20.
WE WILL HOLD THAT TO JUNE 20TH.
THEN WE'LL GO TO CASE NUMBER SEVEN, WHICH HAS COME OFF CONSENT.
MORNING CHAIR, CAN YOU, GOOD MORNING.
CAN YOU HEAR ME? THIS IS WONDERFUL.
PARDON ME? NUMBER SEVEN, BEAR WITH ME AS I GET IT PULLED UP HERE.
[00:55:11]
IS THAT VISIBLE TO THE GROUP? WE CAN SEE IT, YES.I'M GONNA GET IT FULL SCREEN FOR YOU HERE AND LET'S, OKAY.
UM, IS THIS CASE Z 2 3 4 1, 2 3, LOCATED AT, UH, 35 51 BERNAL.
UH, STRAIGHT ZONING CHANGE REQUEST FROM RESIDENTIAL, THAT'S THE R FIVE A DISTRICT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES, NSA DISTRICT, UH, APPLICANT'S SEEKING TO, UH, DEVELOP A 3,500 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL, UH, BUILDING WITH FOUR, UH, COMMERCIAL UNITS.
I COULD SEE IT'S LOCATION THERE.
UH, TAKING A LOOK AT THE SURROUNDING ZONING CONDITIONS, YOU SEE IT'S THE R FIVE A DISTRICT ON ALL SIDES, UH, EAST, NORTH AND WEST.
UH, THERE'S A PARK PROPERTY ACROSS BERNAL TO THE SOUTH.
AGAIN, UH, THE REQUEST IS, UH, TO REZONE THE PROPERTY FROM R FIVE A TO THE NS NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES DISTRICT.
UH, IT'S CURRENTLY A VACANT SITE.
UH, THERE APPEARS TO BE A, A BUILDING SLAB ON SITE INDICATING THERE, THERE WAS A BUILDING AT ONE POINT.
UM, AND AGAIN, IT IS THE INTENT TO DEVELOP WITH A 3,500 SQUARE FOOT, UH, RETAIL COMMERCIAL STORE BEFORE STOREFRONTS.
UM, TAKING A LOOK AT THE SITE, UM, LOOKING NORTH ON BERNAL, YOU CAN SEE IT'S VACANT THERE.
THIS IS LOOKING, UH, WEST, UH, NORTHWEST AND THEN LOOKING, TAKING A LOOK BACK EAST, BUT BERNAL JUST THERE ON, UM, PHOTO, RIGHT? A LITTLE BIT OF A DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, UH, PERSPECTIVE HERE.
SO OUR, OUR EXISTING CONDITIONS ARE IN THE R FIVE A, UH, ROW WITH THE PROPOSED AT THE NSA, UH, ROW, UH, REDUCTION IN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK OVERALL, BUT WITH THE, UH, 20 FOOT SIDE AND REAR SETBACK ADJACENT TO THOSE, UH, RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES.
AND, UH, COMPLIANCE OF THIS WOULD BE EXPECTED AT TIME OF, UM, SITE DESIGN AND PERMITTING.
UH, JUST TAKING A LOOK AT THE, THE FOUR DALLAS PLAN, UH, PROMOTING BALANCED GROWTH AND ENSURING THAT ZONING IS FLEXIBLE AND CHANGING ECONOMIC CONDITIONS.
I THINK THAT IT WAS APPLICABLE IN THIS CASE AS WELL AS ESTABLISHING A WALK TO CONVENIENCE, UM, AS A VACANT SITE AND CLOSE PROXIMITY TO QUITE A BIT OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY, UH, PROVIDING LOCALIZED AND COMMERCIAL, UH, COMMUNITY SCALED RETAIL, WE FELT WAS APPLICABLE TO THAT GOAL.
UH, WITH THAT IN MIND, UH, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL.
I'M HAPPY TO DISCUSS AND ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AS BEST I CAN.
QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONER? THANK YOU.
UH, CAN YOU CONFIRM THAT THE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN ALONG, UH, VERNAL AND THE, THE ZONING ON THESE ADJOINING PROPERTIES IS ALL RESIDENTIAL? YES, THAT'S CORRECT.
COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONER HALL.
MR. ROBERTS, WHEN I LOOKED AT A MORE RECENT GOOGLE, GOOGLE IMAGE OF THIS, UH, THE PROPERTIES TO THE, UH, EAST, THEY APPEAR TO BE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, BUT ALSO BUSINESSES.
DID, UH, DID YOU NOTICE THAT WHEN YOU DID YOUR SITE VISIT? I MEAN, IT LOOKED LIKE THERE WERE A LOT OF TRUCKS AND MATERIALS AND THINGS.
THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT, THAT WE NOTICED, UH, DURING THE SITE VISIT COMMISSIONER.
UM, I BELIEVE IT'S ZONED AND, AND IS AT LEAST OUR OBSERVATION WAS USED AS A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY.
COMMISSIONER HOUSE, RIGHT? YES.
UM, I'D JUST BE INTERESTED IN GETTING SOME MORE BACKGROUND ON WHY YOU RECOMMEND APPROVAL HERE.
I MEAN, WE'VE GOT A SIMILAR CASE IN COMMISSIONER HALL'S DISTRICT WITH MASSIVE OPPOSITION ON THE SURFACE OF IT, DROPPING A, A COMMERCIAL USE IN THE MIDDLE OF A RESIDENTIAL STREET ACROSS FROM A LOVELY PARK JUST WOULDN'T NORMALLY PASS THE TEST HERE.
SO WHAT, WHAT AM I MISSING? WELL, I THINK IT'S SORT OF THE BEAUTY OF THIS REQUEST AND, AND, AND THIS PROCESS IS THAT WE, YOU KNOW, GET TO TALK ABOUT THAT NUANCE.
AND IN OUR PERSPECTIVE, SORT OF GOING BACK TO OUR FORWARD DALLAS ASSESSMENTS, UM, YOU KNOW, IN TERMS OF WALKABLE, LOCAL SCALE, COMMUNITY, RETAIL AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE, WHICH IS WHAT THE NS DISTRICT IS ULTIMATELY TRYING TO GET AT.
UM, YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES THOSE NESTLED INTO NEIGHBORHOODS, UH, CAN WORK REALLY WELL AND IT CAN ACTUALLY SERVE A,
[01:00:01]
A GREAT FUNCTION FOR RESIDENTS.UM, IT'S INTENDED TO BE A DISTRICT THAT PROMOTES, UM, UH, UH, LOCAL PERSONAL SERVICES AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE, NOT SOMETHING THAT'S, UH, UH, YOU KNOW, OF A LARGE SCALE, UM, INTENSE COMMERCIAL USE.
UM, AND SO THAT, THAT, THAT, THAT WAS THE LARGE COMPONENT IN TERMS OF OUR ASSESSMENT OF THIS.
UM, BUT OF COURSE WE UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE, YOU KNOW, IS EXISTING BUILDING PATTERN IN THE AREA, UM, THAT THAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS WELL.
AND SO, COMMISSIONER FORESIGHT, HAS ANY NEIGHBORHOOD INPUT BEEN SOLICITED ON THIS CASE OR RECEIVED? I'LL HAVE TO LEAN ON THE APPLICANT FOR THAT.
UH, IN TERMS OF IF THERE HAVE BEEN ANY, UM, LOCAL MEETINGS HELD OR THINGS TO THAT EFFECT, COMMISSIONER TWO LETTERS OF SUPPORT IN THE PACKET.
I, I BELIEVE THE ANSWER, UH, TO YOUR QUESTION IS NO.
THIS, UM, UH, LOOKING AT THE REPORT WE GOT LAST NIGHT, THERE WAS ONLY A 200 FOOT NOTIFICATION ZONE AND, UH, 31 NOTIFICATIONS WENT OUT WITH TWO IN SUPPORT AND ZERO IN OPPOSITION, WHICH I FOUND VERY INTERESTING BECAUSE ALTHOUGH MY CASE IS GONNA BE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT FROM THIS, IT, WE HAD QUITE A, QUITE A FEW MORE.
UH, WE HAD A LOT OF FEEDBACK, ESPECIALLY NEGATIVE FEEDBACK.
MR. CHAIR, IF I MAY REAL QUICK, PLEASE.
UH, I'D JUST LIKE TO REMIND THE BODY THAT THIS IS THE BRIEFING, SO IT'S STILL TIME FOR QUESTIONS.
AND SECOND, WE'RE NOT ON THE, WE ARE ON ITEM NUMBER SEVEN, NOT ANY OTHER ITEM THAT MAY BE ON THE AGENDA LATER IN THE DAY.
YEAH, THEY HAVE, IT HAS BEEN, IT HAS COME OFF CONSENT, APPLES AND ORANGES.
UH, PLEASE, COMMISSIONER WHEELER.
UM, WITH THIS ITEM, WHAT I KNOW THAT THE NOTIFICATION AREA MIGHT BE 200 FEET WAS IT TOOK INTO CONSIDERATION TO HAVE A FULL COMMUNITY MEETING WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS IN PROXIMITY ALSO, INCLUDING THOSE WITHIN 200 FEET.
SINCE THERE IS SUCH A PUBLIC PARK THAT WILL AFFECT THAT, IT WILL NOT JUST AFFECT THOSE WITHIN 200 FEET OF THIS, UH, PROPERTY, BUT PROBABLY THE GENERAL COMMUNITY JUST SURROUNDING IT.
THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION, COMMISSIONER.
SO WHEN WE DO OUR NOTICING, YOU KNOW, THAT'S DICTATED BY THE DEVELOPMENT CODE IN TERMS OF ITS RADIUS, IT'S IN RELATION TO THE, THE SIZE OF THE PROPERTY.
SO THAT'S BEEN OUR ROLE IN THIS.
ON THE STAFF SIDE, I'LL HAVE TO LEAN ON THE APPLICANT'S, UM, CONTEXT IN TERMS OF IF THERE HAVE BEEN ANY, UM, LOCAL MEETINGS WITH SURROUNDING HOAS OR OTHER SORT OF COMMUNITY GROUPS.
COMMISSIONER, AND WERE YOU, ARE YOU AWARE IF THAT, IF THAT WAS DONE BY THE APPLICANT? I'M NOT AWARE.
DO, DO YOU HAVE A SENSE WHEN YOU, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE FLOOR AREA RATIOS FOR WHAT, WHAT THIS, YOU KNOW, IF THERE WERE, IF THIS WERE TO BE APPROVED AND YOU START APPLYING, UH, PARKING REGULATIONS AND FLOOR AREA RATIOS, DO YOU HAVE A SENSE OF WHAT THE BUILDING MASS WOULD ACTUALLY END UP BEING AS IT'S IN, IN RELATION TO THE SIZE OF THE ENTIRE LAND? MM-HMM,
YEAH, IT'S A GREAT, IT'S A GREAT POINT, COMMISSIONER.
AND WHAT I WILL BRING UP, LET ME PARDON, AS I SCROLL THROUGH, SO AS PART OF THIS REQUEST, YOU KNOW, IT IS A GENERAL ZONING CHANGE REQUEST.
SO THE, THE BASE STANDARDS, THE NSA WOULD BE APPLICABLE IF THIS WERE TO BE APPROVED.
UM, SO OF COURSE ALL ALL USE REGULATIONS, UH, ALL MASSING AND SETBACKS AND COVERAGE REGULATIONS OF THE SORT, UH, WOULD BE APPLICABLE.
SO WE'RE LOOKING AT OUR LOT COVERAGE AT 40%.
OUR PARKING RATIO IS AT ONE TO 200.
UM, I HAVEN'T DONE THE ANALYSIS ON EXACTLY, YOU KNOW, SORT OF QUASI DESIGNING THE SPACE IN MY MIND IN TERMS OF WHAT IT WOULD ACTUALLY LOOK LIKE.
UM, BUT REST ASSURED THAT THE, THE CONDITIONS THAT YOU SEE AS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THAT NSA DISTRICT WOULD BE APPLICABLE, UM, JUST AS THEY WOULD BE IN ANY OTHER, UH, NSA DISTRICT OR STRAIGHT DISTRICT, STRAIGHT ZONING DISTRICT.
DO, DO YOU GET A SENSE WHAT, WHETHER IF I'M DOING SOME SHOOT FROM THE HIP CALCULATIONS, IT WOULD MM-HMM.
CORRECT? I WOULD ASSUME IS AS MUCH COMMISSIONER JUST AGAIN, SHOOTING FROM THE HIP.
[01:05:01]
COMMISSIONERS? OKAY.IT'LL ALSO BE ME BE HANGING OUT HERE FOR A LITTLE BIT IN THESE NEXT FEW CHAIR.
CAN EVERYBODY SEE THAT CASE 1 24? WE CAN.
UH, THIS IS CASE, UH, Z 2 3 4 1 24.
IT'S LOCATED AT, UH, 35 30 FOREST.
UH, IT'S A REQUEST FOR AN AMENDMENT TO PD THREE 15, UH, TO ALLOW FOR AN EXPANSION OF A, UH, DEVELOPED MINI WAREHOUSE.
UH, THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ABOUT 750 FEET EAST OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF, UH, BROMWELL DRIVE AND FOREST.
UM, A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND FOR YOU.
UM, THIS AT, AT THIS SITE ADDRESS, UH, 35 30 FOREST LANE, THAT'S COVERS THREE LOTS THREE A, THREE B, AND THREE C, UH, TOWARDS THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY.
SO ALONG FOREST, THERE'S A MINI WAREHOUSE, UH, STRUCTURE.
IT'S ABOUT 60,000 SQUARE FEET, UH, TO THE REAR.
UH, WHICH ABUTS RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH IS AN OFFICE USE.
UH, THAT'S, UM, AGAIN, THREE STORIES AND 70,000 SQUARE FEET.
UM, SO THIS REQUEST IS AN EXPANSION OF THAT FRONT PORTION AT MANY WAREHOUSE, UH, STRUCTURE.
AND I'LL SHOW YOU WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE HERE IN A SECOND.
UM, THERE WAS A, A CONDITION IN THE PD FOR, UH, THE RESIDENTIAL PROXIMITY SLOPE, UH, FOR THAT NORTHERN HALF OF THE PROPERTY THAT WOULD BE TWEAKED A LITTLE BIT, UH, WITH THIS, UH, CASE.
THE REASON FOR THAT BEING, AND I'LL, I'LL SHOW YOU HERE IN A SECOND.
UH, IF YOU CAN YOU SEE MY CURSOR? NEVER.
YOU SEE MY CURSOR? YES, WE CAN.
SO, UH, THE PROPERTY TO THE WEST IS DEVELOPED WITH A CHURCH, UM, IS A, A RESIDENTIAL ZONING, UH, WHICH WOULD TRIGGER A RESIDENTIAL PROXIMITY SLOPE, UH, FOR THIS PROPERTY.
SO THE AREA OF REQUEST REALLY, OR THE INTEREST IS RIGHT HERE IN DEVELOPING THIS PROPERTY, UH, AND EXPANDING THIS USE TO THE WEST.
SO THAT'S WHY THAT TWEAK IS PROPOSED.
UM, IT'S NOT INTENDED TO ALTER ANY STRUCTURE OR RESIDENTIAL PROXIMITY SLOPE TO THE SOUTH OF THIS PROPERTY.
JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WAS CLEAR.
AGAIN, THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF A CLOSEUP.
WE CAN, OF COURSE, ALWAYS COME BACK, SPEAK TO IT.
UH, LOOKING AT SURROUNDING USES, UM, UM, SIMILAR INTENSITY USES ALONG FOREST, UH, AS ONE MIGHT EXPECT WITH THE CHURCH TO THE WEST, UH, RETAIL, UH, RETAIL ESTABLISHMENTS TO THE EAST.
UM, THAT SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT, UH, JUST TO THE SOUTH OF THIS PROPERTY.
UH, TAKING A LOOK AT THE SITE, THIS IS ON FOREST LOOKING WEST.
UH, LOOKING UP AT THE, UH, EXISTING THREE STORY, UM, MINI WAREHOUSE STRUCTURE.
UH, TAKING A LOOK AT THE VACANCY OF THAT, UH, THIS IS WHERE SORT OF THIS CAVITY WOULD BE FILLED AS PART OF THIS REQUEST WITH, UM, MINI WAREHOUSE STRUCTURE IF THIS WOULD BE APPROVED.
AGAIN, LOOKING AT IT HERE, UH, FROM THE SOUTHEAST, THE CHURCH, JUST OFF TO THE RIGHT OF THE PHOTO.
AND THEN AGAIN, BACK TO THE CHURCH PROPERTY.
AGAIN, HERE'S THAT SITE PLANK COMPARISON.
UH, THE EXISTING, UH, GREEN BEING THE VACANT AREA OR THE, YOU KNOW, SPECIFIC AREA OF IMPACT.
UM, AND THEN ON THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN TO THE RIGHT, YOU COULD SEE THAT THAT BEING FILLED IN, UM, WITH A THREE STORY, UM, MINI WAREHOUSE STRUCTURE, NO CHANGES OR ANYTHING TO THE, UH, PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH OR THE PORTION OF THE PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH, THE EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING.
UH, WITH THAT, UH, STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THIS, UH, DUE ITS CONTINUITY OF USE AS SOMETHING SOMEONE MIGHT EXPECT ALONG FOREST, UH, SUBJECT TO THE AMENDED DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND OF ANY CONDITIONS.
WITH THAT, HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS, NO QUESTIONS.
WE'LL KEEP GOING TO CASE NUMBER NINE.
THAT'S A RENEWAL OF SUP 2359, UH, WHICH ALLOWS FOR THE SALE OF ALCOHOL ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES IN CONJUNCTION WITH A GENERAL MERCHANDISE OR FOOD STORE, LESS THAN 3,500 SQUARE FEET.
UH, IT'S LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SOUTH BUCKNER, UH, AND FORNEY ROAD.
IT'S IN THE D ONE OVERLAY IN APPROXIMATELY 26,000, ALMOST 27,000 SQUARE FEET.
I COULD SEE ITS LOCATION THERE.
UH, TAKING A LOOK AT ITS, UH, SURROUNDING USES, UH, AUTOCENTRIC USES, UH, WHETHER IT'S, UH, AUTOBODY SHOPS, STORAGE, UM, IN THE SURROUNDING AREA WITH A BASE ZONING OF ALLY, UM, VACANT PARCELS, PARCELS TO THE SOUTH AND SOME, SOME FLEX OFFICE USES.
AGAIN, THE THE PURPOSE IS, UH, FOR THE CONTINUATION, UH, OF
[01:10:01]
THE SALE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES, UH, WITH THE GENERAL MERCHANDISE FOOD STORE, LESS THAN 3,500 SQUARE FEET, THERE IS AN ACTIVE C-STORE REGISTRATION ON SITE.UM, THE REQUEST IS FOR A RENEWABLE FOR FIVE YEAR PERIOD.
UH, TAKING A LOOK AT THE SITE HERE DURING OUR SITE VISIT, ZONING SIGN, NICE AND VISIBLE, TAKING A LOOK SOUTH, AND THEN TAKING A LOOK AT THE CONDITION ON SITE.
UH, EVERYTHING SEEMED TO BE IN, IN GOOD CONDITION.
SITE PLAN, IN CASE WE NEED TO SPEAK TO IT A LITTLE BIT LARGER THERE.
SEEING THE SITE CONFIGURATION WITH THE CANOPY AND EXISTING BUILDING, TAKING A LOOK AT THE RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS, UH, WITH THE TIME LIMIT, AGAIN FOR FIVE YEARS THAT THIS WERE TO BE APPROVED, UH, RUNNING THE CRIME STATISTICS, UH, JUST WANTED TO PROVIDE THAT.
IT SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN YOUR, UH, IN YOUR REPORT FOR REVIEW IN CASE YOU'RE INTERESTED IN IT.
UH, AND WITH THAT, UH, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL.
NOW, QUESTIONS WILL GO TO CASE NUMBER 10.
AND THIS IS LAST ONE FOR ME THIS MORNING TO BRIEF HERE.
THAT'S LOCATED AT, UH, 26 0 5 ELM STREET.
THAT'S A REQUEST FOR RENEWAL OF SEP 2150, UH, WHICH ALLOWS FOR A BAR, LOUNGE, OR TAVERN, AS WELL AS AN INSIDE COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT LIMITED TO A LIVE MUSIC VENUE.
UM, THERE'S NO REQUESTED CHANGES TO THE EXISTING SITE PLAN OR THE CONDITIONS BEYOND THE TIME PERIOD.
UM, IT'S LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF ELM AND GOOD LATIMER.
WE'RE IN COUNCIL DISTRICT NUMBER TWO.
THAT'S LOCATED WITHIN TRACK DAY OF PD 2 69.
THAT'S THE DEEP ELM NEAR EAST SIDE DISTRICT, UM, IS WITHIN THE, UH, DOWNTOWN DEMOLITION OVERLAY.
UM, AND AS WELL AS THE LOVE FIELD HEIGHT OVERLAY SEATS, LOCATION THERE.
JUST USE THE DOWNTOWN AND THE HARD CORNER OF GOOD LADI OR AND ELM AERIAL IMAGERY THERE.
UH, STRUCTURE, UH, TAKING A LOOK AT SURROUNDING USES, UH, TRACK A OF THE SAME PD, UH, EAST OF GOOD LAM OR TRACK B ON THE, ON THE WEST SIDE, BUT IS SURROUNDED WITH, UH, EITHER UNDEVELOPED TO THE NORTH OR, UM, YOU KNOW, LIVELY RESTAURANT TYPE USES, UH, THROUGHOUT SOME BAR LOUNGES AND TAVERNS OR HOTEL, UH, AND SOME OTHER GENERAL MERCHANDISE, UM, ESTABLISHMENTS.
I CAN, TAKING A LOOK AT THE ESTABLISHMENT, UH, ON ELM LOOKING NORTH, TAKE A LOOK AT THE CORNER IMPROVEMENTS, AND THEN TAKING A LOOK BACK AT IT ON THE NORTHEAST ANGLE.
UH, AGAIN, NO CHANGES TO THE APPROVED SITE PLAN AND, BUT THAT STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL FOR THE FIVE-YEAR PERIOD, UH, SUBJECT TO THE SITE PLANNING CONDITIONS.
QUESTIONS ON THIS ONE? COMMISSIONERS, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER? YES, OUR, I MEAN, I MAY NOT HAVE SEEN IT IN THE FLURRY OF EMAILS THAT WE HAVE GOTTEN RECENTLY.
UM, BUT I NORMALLY ON THESE CASES FOR RENEWALS OF SUVS IN, UH, DEEP EL, WE GET SOME KIND OF COMMUNICATION FROM THE DEEP EL FOUNDATION.
DO YOU KNOW IF THEY HAVE EXPRESSED AN OPINION ON THIS? YOU KNOW, I DO.
I'M NOT AWARE OF, OF THAT DIRECTLY.
UM, ARE YOU AWARE, UM, THAT THE APPLICANT HAS BEEN IN TOUCH AS OF I WITH THE, UM, D ELLUM FOUNDATION AS, UH, COMMISSIONER HARPER HAS NOTED? I'M NOT AWARE.
COMMISSIONER, YOU HAVE NOT RECEIVED THAT.
NOT TO MY, NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE.
WE'LL, WE'LL BE SURE THAT'S, UM, INCLUDED IN THE RECORD.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? IS THIS ONE OFF CONSENT COMMISSIONER HAMPTON? NO.
WHERE TWO ARE UNDER ADVISEMENT CASES, UM, ARE THERE ANY ONES THAT NEED TO BE UPDATED? NO.
DO YOU NEED, DO YOU NEED CASE NUMBER 11 UPDATED? NO.
UNLESS THERE'S ANYONE AROUND THE HORSESHOE WHO'S NOT AWARE OF THIS CASE, BUT I'M OKAY WITH NOT HAVING, I KNOW I'M WELL AWARE OF IT.
UM, MR. GETTING UP TO SAY SOMETHING HERE.
UH, COMM HALL, DO YOU WANT AN UPDATE ON 13? UH, HOLD ON, HOLD ON.
I THOUGHT I HEARD, JUST CIRCLING BACK TO 12, UH, THAT WAS HELD OVER BECAUSE THERE WAS, UM, SOME, UH, COMMUNICATION THAT NEEDED TO HAPPEN BETWEEN THE APPLICANT
[01:15:01]
AND THE COMMUNITY, THE RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY THAT WAS BEHIND THIS, UM, PROPERTY.UM, SO THAT'S THE, THAT'S THE LATEST UPDATE.
COMMISSIONER HALL, DID YOU WANT AN UPDATE ON 13? UH, YES.
UM, I HEARD IT'S GETTING HELD.
DO WE NEED AN UPDATE STILL? JUST A QUICK UPDATE.
WE'RE GONNA, I, I WANT, I WANT TO PUT IT UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL AUGUST 11.
AND THAT IT WILL ALLOW US TO HAVE A COMMUNITY MEETING NEXT WEEK AND TO, TO GET SOME ORGANIZATION AND STUFF DONE FOR THE FUTURE.
AND I UNDERSTAND THAT FOURTEENTH'S ALSO BEING HELD, IS THAT CORRECT? YES.
UH, BOTH THE APPLICANT AND THE COMMUNITY WANT IT HELD UNTIL JUNE 20TH.
ALRIGHT, WE'RE NOW TO CASE NUMBER 15.
YOU GUYS ARE MAKING GREAT PACE.
THIS IS Z THIS IS Z 2 2 3 2 2 5.
AND IT'S LOCATED OFFICE STEMS. AND IT'S AN APPLICATION FOR A PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FOR MIXED USE.
ONE MU, ONE MIXED USE DISTRICT USES AND STANDARDS, AND A CON CONTRACTOR'S MAINTENANCE YARD USE WITH CONSIDERATION FOR A CS COMMERCIAL SERVICE DISTRICT ON PROPERTIES OWNED IN IR INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH DISTRICT.
AND THE PURPOSE OF THE REQUEST IS TO ALLOW A MODIFIED DEVELOPMENT STANDARD, PRIMARILY RELATED TO USES, SETBACKS, FLOOR AREA RATIO, HEIGHT, LOCK COVERAGE, LANDSCAPING, PARKING, AND LOADING SIDEWALKS, AND REQUIRED SCREENING TO DEVELOP THE SITE WITH CONTRACTORS MAINTENANCE YARD USE.
HERE'S THE SITE AS IT EXISTS TODAY.
AND HERE'S THE SURROUNDING USES.
THERE'S A TRINITY BRANCHWAY TO THE EAST.
THERE'S SINGLE FAMILY TO THE EAST.
THERE'S LIGHT INDUSTRIAL OUTSIDE WITH OUTSIDE SOURCES TO THE SOUTHEAST.
THERE'S AN INDUSTRIAL INSIDE USE TO THE SOUTH ACROSS BURGESS.
THERE'S AN UNDEVELOPED PROPERTY OF THE SOUTHWEST WAREHOUSE, AN OFFICE SHOWROOM WAREHOUSE OF THE WEST WITH A VEHICLE ENGINE REPAIR MAINTENANCE.
AND IT'S CURRENTLY IR INDUSTRIAL SEARCH DISTRICT.
IT'S BUILT, DEVELOPED WITH A BUILDING WITH A CO FOR A WAREHOUSE AND, OR EXCUSE ME, AN OFFICE AND ANOTHER CO FOR A DIFFERENT BUILDING WITHOUT WAREHOUSE.
UH, THEY WERE REQUESTING A PD WITH U ONE BASE THAT ALLOWS THE CONTRACTOR MAINTENANCE YARD MODIES SOME DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
UH, CITY CODE DEFINES A CITY, A CONTRACTOR'S MAINTENANCE YARD AS A FACILITY FOR THE STORAGE AND MAINTENANCE OF CONTRACTOR SUPPLIES AND OPERATIONAL EQUIPMENT.
AND THE PD HAS A CUSTOM DEFINITION THAT DEFINES IT AS A FACILITY FOR THE STORAGE AND MAINTENANCE OF A CONTRACTOR'S FACILITY.
AND OPERATIONAL EQUIPMENT OUTSIDE STORAGE OFFICES.
GREENHOUSE WAREHOUSE USES ASSOCIATED WITH THE CONTRACTOR'S MAINTENANCE YARD.
GENERALLY THE PROPOSED DISTRICT IS BUILT AROUND THE PROPOSAL ONLY FOR THAT CONTRACTOR'S MAINTENANCE YARD USE AND AUTHORIZING THE BUILT CONDITION ON THE GROUND TODAY, UH, THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND STAFF RECOMMENDS AGAINST SINGLE PROPERTY, SINGLE PURPOSE PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT.
THAT PROPOSED DISTRICT USE CAN BE ACCOMMODATED IN A CS DISTRICT, WHICH WOULD STILL BE A DOWN ZONING ON THE PROPERTY.
GO A LITTLE BIT DOWN ON BURGESS.
LOOKING NORTH, IT'S THE NEWER STRUCTURE THAT YOU SEE ON THE LEFT AND THEN BACK ON GRETNA MOVING UP GRETNA LOOKING EAST.
IT'S THE WAREHOUSE BUILDING LOOKING EAST, MOVING UP.
THAT'S THE OFFICE BUILDING AS EXISTS TODAY.
AND THE ASSOCIATED PARKING ON THE NORTH SIDE AND LOOKING AROUND OFF A SHOWROOM WAREHOUSE.
IT'S ACROSS GRETNA VEHICLE REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE OF THE EAST, OR EXCUSE ME, TO THE WEST, MOVING SOUTH UNDEVELOPED PROPERTY ACROSS THE STREET.
THE INDUSTRIAL USE MANUFACTURING USE AND THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AS IS PROPOSED HAS THESE TWO BUILDINGS THAT PERMIT THE USE AS WELL AS SOME OUT OUTDOOR STORAGE AREAS.
ALSO HAS THE REQUIRED LANDSCAPING ON IT OR THE REQUESTED LANDSCAPING ON IT.
A LITTLE BETTER VIEW, UH, THAT HE PROPOSED FUTURE BUILDINGS IN THE, I GUESS, SOUTHEAST PORTION OF THE SITE.
BUT THE OTHER BUILDINGS, THE ONES
[01:20:01]
SHOWN IN DARK BLACK ARE, ARE THOSE THAT EXIST TODAY.SO AGAIN, THEY'RE CON THEY'RE REQUESTED DEFINITION WOULD, UH, MODIFY THEIR DEFINITION.
UH, STAFF DOESN'T SEE AS NECESSARY IF YOU DO APPROVE A PD, UM, USE THE BASE DEFINITION OF CONTRACTOR'S MAINTENANCE YARD.
UH, THEY REQUESTED THE EXEMPTIONS IS ARTICLE 13.
UH, THE ONLY LANDSCAPING USES, EXCUSE ME, ONLY LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE USE WOULD BE AS FOLLOWS.
UH, I WON'T LIST ALL OF THEM, BUT AMONG OTHER THINGS THEY EXEMPT, UM, PARKING LOT TREES, UH, SOME REGARDS OF THE, UH, STREET BUFFER ZONES.
THEY, THEY CHANGE HOW THOSE WORK A LITTLE BIT.
UH, STAFF RECOMMENDS JUST MEETING BASE LANDSCAPING.
UM, IF THEY HAVE CERTAIN CONDITIONS BUILT TODAY, THAT'S OKAY.
THEY WILL HAVE TO, THEY'D BE EITHER NONCONFORMING OR THEY'D ONLY ARE TRIGGER, TRIGGER ARTICLE 13 IF THEY DO, UH, SIGNIFICANT CHANGES TO THE PURVIEW SURFACE OR BUILDINGS OR THINGS LIKE THAT.
UH, THEY REQUESTED EXEMPTIONS OF SIDEWALKS.
UH, THERE'S ALSO SOME UNCLEAR LANGUAGE IN THERE.
SO STAFF RECOMMENDS, UH, WHAT WE TYPICALLY WOULD FOR SIDEWALKS, WHICH IS SIX FOOT, UH, WIDTH OF UNOBSTRUCTED WIDTH ON ALL THE FRONTAGES, AS WELL AS SOME IMPROVED CROSSINGS.
AND THAT WOULD APPLY FOR ANY, UH, DEVELOPMENT.
UH, THE A BULLET THAT YOU SEE IN THE A THAT WE'RE RECOMMENDING, THOSE ARE ACTUALLY JUST ACROSS THE BOARD, UM, CONDITIONS IN THE DOCUMENT.
BUT, UH, I'LL, I'LL TOLD STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL FOR OF AN CS COMMERCIAL SERVICE DISTRICT IN LIEU OF THAT NEW PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT.
MR. PAPPI, I KNOW YOU AND I HAVE HAD EXTENSIVE, UM, EXCHANGES ABOUT THIS THIS WEEK, BUT I, I KNOW I NEED TO GO THROUGH IT FOR THE BENEFIT OF, OF THE COMMISSIONERS.
UM, YOU KNOW, SOME INFORMATION THAT I HAVE THAT MR. PEPE IS NOT AWARE OF IS THAT THIS AREA IS RAPIDLY AFFECTING A TRANSITION TO A MIXED USE ENVIRONMENT.
IT'S A BIT WEST NORTHWEST OF THE DESIGN DISTRICT.
THERE ARE A NUMBER OF PARCELS IN PLAY RIGHT NOW WHERE, UH, PEOPLE ARE PROPOSING, UH, RESIDENTIAL, SIGNIFICANT RESIDENTIAL COMPONENTS.
SO WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO WITH THIS, YOU KNOW, THE, THE TOOLS I HAVE TO WORK WITH ARE STRAIGHT ZONING, STRAIGHT ZONING WITH DEED RESTRICTIONS AND PDS.
SO, YOU KNOW, WITH THIS PARTICULAR, UH, PROPOSED USE, I MEAN, IT'S NOT A PROPOSED USE, IT'S A LOOSE USE THAT'S ACTUALLY ON THE GROUND.
AND IT, AS WE RECEIVED SOME, UH, YOU KNOW, COMMUNICATIONS, IT'S A, IT'S A DESIRED, UH, MEMBER OF THE COMMUNITY HERE.
UH, WHAT WE'RE, UH, ATTEMPTING TO DO HERE THROUGH THE PD IS TO, UH, AFFECT THE TRANSITION TO MIXED USE ZONING WHERE ALL THOSE, UH, MIXED USE SONY REGULATIONS WILL APPLY TO ANY FUTURE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE USE.
BUT WE'RE ATTEMPTING TO MAKE THIS PARTICULAR USE, YOU KNOW, BE ALLOWED BY RIGHT.
BUT, UM, PREVENT ANYTHING MORE INTRUSIVE FROM GOING IN AND THE, UH, RECOMMENDATION TO CHANGE TO A STRAIGHT CS.
WHILE I UNDERSTAND IT ON THE SURFACE, IT WOULD ALLOW, UM, IT, IT WOULD NOT GO ALONG WITH THE, UM, THE CHANGE IN CHARACTER IN THE AREA.
SO I'LL, I'LL, I'LL STOP THERE, BUT YES.
ARE YOU AWARE OF ALL THAT
AND, UH, ARE YOU ALSO AWARE THAT WE ARE GOING TO, MR. REEVES IS HERE.
WE'RE GOING TO PRESENT, UH, WE'RE GONNA FOLLOW, UM, STAFF'S, UH, RECOMMENDATIONS, UH, THAT YOU MADE ON, UH, LOADING AND SIDEWALKS WITH ONE SMALL CHANGE.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONERS? THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
MR. PEPPER, DO WE HAVE ANYTHING FOR THE AUTHOR AUTHORIZATION OF A HEARING? UM, OH, PARDON ME.
SEE, I'M ALREADY GETTING AHEAD OF MYSELF.
BLAIR, UH, ITEM NUMBER 16 IS GETTING HELD UNDER ADVISEMENT JULY 11TH.
IS THAT, ARE WE GONNA HAVE A MEETING ON JULY 11TH? SINCE JULY 4TH IS, IT'S USUALLY FIRST AND THIRD, BUT JULY THE, THE FIRST ONE IS FOURTH, SO WE'RE GONNA HAVE IT ON JULY 11TH, I THINK IT IS.
THAT TAKES US TO THE AUTHORIZATION OF A HEARING.
IS THERE ANYTHING THAT WE NEED TO BE BRIEFED ON THAT? NO.
ANY QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS ON EITHER THOSE TWO ITEMS? 33 OR 34? COMMISSIONER
[01:25:01]
HOUSEWRIGHT? UM, YEAH, LET ME FIGURE OUT WHETHER IT'S 33 OR 34 AND I'LL, I I WAS GONNA ASK THE QUESTION THIS AFTERNOON, BUT I'LL, I'LL JUST ASK IT NOW.UM, TH 33 IS JUST A BIG GLOBAL SORT OF HEARING AS I UNDERSTAND IT.
AND SO I WAS JUST KINDA CURIOUS 'CAUSE BECAUSE IT'S IT'S THE ENTIRE CITY.
IT'S NOT JUST A SPECIFIC SITE OR A SPECIFIC NEIGHBORHOOD OR A SPECIFIC DISTRICT.
IT'S, IT SPANS THE ENTIRE CITY.
THE WAY I, I READ THIS AND I DON'T KNOW WHO I'M ASKING THE QUESTION TO WHO, WHO, BUT, UM, WHAT'S BROKEN? WHAT ARE, WHAT'S, WHAT'S, WHAT ARE WE TRYING TO FIX HERE? I'M, I'M CURIOUS WHAT, WHY THIS IS BEING PROPOSED.
THIS IS, I THINK THIS IS MINE.
UM, COMMERCIAL VEHICLE PARK, NO, SORRY, I THINK YOU GUYS CAN ALL HEAR ME.
UM, THE, THE OPPORTUNITY CONTINUOUSLY EX BECOMING, UM, REQUESTED FOR OFFICE FOR, FOR COMMERCIAL VEHICLE PARKING, HEAVY EQUIPMENT, MACHINERY, UH, WAREHOUSING TO BE PLACED IN AREAS THROUGHOUT THE CITY.
WELL SPEC SPECIFICALLY IN DISTRICT THREE, DISTRICT EIGHT IN DISTRICT SIX, THAT ARE CAUSING ENVI EITHER, UH, ENVIRONMENTAL INEQUITIES WHEN IT COMES DOWN TO RESIDENTIAL PROXIMITY.
AND THE, THE GOAL IS TO, SINCE THERE ARE AREAS THAT ARE BECOMING LOGISTIC AREAS THAT THEY BE PLACED THEREBY, RIGHT? IF THEY ARE IN AREAS THAT ARE ABUTTING RESIDENTIAL OR PLACES THAT THEY SHOULD NOT BE, THEN, THEN IF THE LAND IS ALREADY ZONED INAPPROPRIATELY, UM, THEN THEY WOULD NEED AN SUP.
SO IT WOULD COME, STILL COME BEFORE THIS BODY TO, TO, TO REVIEW INSTEAD OF HAVING SOMETHING INTRUSIVE, UM, AUTOMATICALLY HAVING THE RIGHT TO CAUSE UN UNSAFE DEVELOPMENTS IN, IN COMMUNITIES.
BUT THE LOGICAL CONCLUSION OF THIS, WOULD IT NOT BE DOWN ZONING? NO, BECAUSE IT'S STILL THERE.
IT JUST MEANS IT COMES TO US AND IT, AND WE HAVE THE, TO THE RIGHT TO LOOK AT EACH CASE AND SAY MAYBE SO FOR THIS, WITH SOME, SOME MODIFICATIONS AND MAYBE NOT FOR, FOR THOSE THAT ARE GONNA JUST CAUSE UNSAFE, UH, HABITS OR UNSAFE TRAFFIC IN AREAS THAT, THAT SHOULD NOT BE.
CAUSE UM, IE LIKE IF YOU'RE, YOU'RE, YOU'RE MR. CHAIR, MR. MOORE HAS, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO REMIND THE BODY THAT THIS IS, THE ACTUAL ITEM IS TO AUTHORIZE THE HEARING FOR ZAC TO CONSIDER A POTENTIAL HOST OF THINGS.
IT, THERE'S NOTHING CONCRETE, THERE'S NO, NOT NECESSARILY ANY UN UNDERSTOOD MR. MOORE, BUT WE ROUTINELY, WE, WE, WE, WE AUTHORIZE THESE HEARINGS TIME AND TIME AGAIN WITH NO REAL THOUGHT TO THE INVESTMENT OF TIME AND RESOURCES REQUIRED BY THE CITY CHAIR AND THE COMMUNITY.
SO I THINK WE'RE GETTING INTO DEBATING THE MERITS OF THIS, WHICH IS PROBABLY MOST APPROPRIATE FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING.
YEAH, I, I, I, OKAY, BUT I, I, I WOULD MAINTAIN IT'S, IT IS APPROPRIATE TO DISCUSS THIS AT SOME POINT AND THAT JUST TO ROLL OVER ON EVERY AUTHORIZED HEARING IS NOT GOOD BUSINESS FOR THIS COMMISSION.
WE'LL TAKE THAT ITEM UP AGAIN FOR, UH, WE'RE HAPPY TO DEBATE IT THIS AFTERNOON.
COMMISSIONERS, UH, AT THIS MOMENT, IT WAS JUST FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES, BRIEFING WE'RE WE WILL AND CAN DEBATE IT THIS AFTERNOON.
UH, AND WITH THAT, THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS.
AND THAT CONCLUDES THE BRIEFING OF DALLAS CITY PLAN COMMISSION.
UH, COMMISSIONER, ENJOY YOUR LONG LUNCH.
THREE MONTHS OF IN-PERSON MEETING, I'M
[CALL TO ORDER]
GONNA START US OFF.WE'RE GONNA START OFF WITH THE ROYAL CALL COMMISSIONERS.
[01:30:01]
DISTRICT TWO, DISTRICT THREE PRESENT.DISTRICT SEVEN, PRESENT DISTRICT DISTRICT EIGHT.
GOOD AFTERNOON LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
TODAY IS THURSDAY, JUNE 6TH, 2020 4, 12 30 1:00 PM UH, WELCOME TO THE HEARING FOR THE DALLAS CITY PLAIN COMMISSION.
A COUPLE OF QUICK ITEMS BEFORE WE HEAD INTO THE AGENDA.
UH, IF YOU DO NEED AN AGENDA, WE HAVE SOME HERE ON THE TABLE, UH, AT THE BOTTOM TO YOUR RIGHT.
UH, ALSO DOWN THERE YOU WOULD SEE THOSE LITTLE YELLOW CARDS AT SOME POINT TODAY, IF YOU COULD PLEASE COME ON DOWN AND FILL ONE OF THOSE YELLOW CARDS AND LEAVE THEM THERE ON THE TABLE SO WE CAN HAVE A RECORD OF YOUR VISIT WITH US HERE TODAY.
UH, PER OUR RULES, UH, EACH SPEAKER WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES.
UH, WE WILL KEEP TRACK HERE AND WE'LL LET YOU KNOW WHEN YOUR TIME IS UP.
UH, WE DO HAVE SOME FOLKS ONLINE THAT ARE REGISTERED TO SPEAK.
I WOULD LAST OUR, OUR SPEAKERS ONLINE TO MAKE SURE THAT YOUR CAMERA IS WORKING.
WE HAVE TO BE ABLE TO SEE YOU IN ORDER TO HEAR FROM YOU.
UH, AND LASTLY, IN CASES WHERE WE DO HAVE OPPOSITION PER OUR RULES, THE APPLICANT WILL GET A TWO MINUTE REBUTTAL.
AND WITH THAT, WE'RE GONNA JUMP RIGHT INTO THE AGENDA.
THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE WITH US TODAY.
WE'LL BEGIN WITH THE MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS, THE DEVELOPMENT PLANS.
[Development Plans - Consent]
NUMBERS TWO AND THREE.WE'LL GET THOSE READ INTO THE RECORD.
ITEM NUMBER 2 2 3 4 DASH 0 0 7.
IT'S AN APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT PLAN ON PROPERTIES ON TRACK ONE, BUT THEN PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER FIVE OH FOUR'S ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF MIDWAY ROAD AND NORTH HAVEN ROAD.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL ITEM NUMBER 3 2 3 4 DASH 0 0 9.
AND APPLICATION FOR A LANDSCAPE PLAN ON PROPERTY ZONE SUBDISTRICT E TWO WITH PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 3 0 5 ON THE EAST LINE OF NORTH CENTRAL EXPRESSWAY BETWEEN NORTH CARROLL AVENUE AND NORTH HASKELL AVENUE.
UH, IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON EITHER THOSE TWO ITEMS? IF NOT ONE VOTE WILL DISPOSE OF BOTH ITEMS. ANYONE HERE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON ITEMS TWO OR THREE COMMISSIONERS.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? OKAY.
SEEING NONE, COMMISSIONER HALL, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION, SIR? THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
I DO, UM, IN THE MATTER OF, UH, ITEM D 2 3 4 0 0 7 AND ITEM D TWO, D 2, 3, 4, 0 0 9, I'M LOSE, UH, UH, MOVE THAT WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC RECORDS, UH, AND APPROVE THESE ACCORDING TO STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS.
THANK, THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COMMISSIONER HOFF FOR YOUR MOTION.
I ADVISE CHAIR RUBIN FOR YOUR SECOND.
GO TO, UH, OUR ZONING DOCKET CONSENT
[Zoning Cases - Consent]
AGENDA ITEMS. UH, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THOSE CASES ARE, UH, FOUR THROUGH 10 ITEMS. NUMBER FOUR, SIX AND SEVEN HAVE COME OFF CONSENT.SO THAT MEANS IS THAT THOSE CASES WILL BE HEARD INDIVIDUALLY.
THAT LEAVES CASES, UH, 5, 8, 9, AND 10 BEGINNING ON PAGE THREE.
AND THOSE WE BE, WILL BE DISPOSED OF IN ONE MOTION UNLESS THERE IS SOMEONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO BE, TO BE HEARD ON CASE NUMBER 5, 8, 9 OR 10.
WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK ON ANY OF THOSE FOUR CASES? NUMBER 5, 8, 9, OR 10? OKAY, WE'LL GET THOSE READY, PLEASE.
ITEM FIVE IS CASES Z 2 23 DASH 2 57, AN APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TWO AND EXPANSION OF PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 1 0 4 9 ON PROPERTY ZONE PLAN DEVELOPMENT, DISTRICT NUMBER 1 0 4 9 AND IR, INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH DISTRICT AND AN IM INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURING DISTRICT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SINGLETON BOULEVARD, THE TERMINUS OF NAVARRO STREET AND ON THE EAST LINE OF VIVI ROAD, SOUTH
[01:35:01]
OF DULUTH STREET.STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO AN AMENDED CONCEPTUAL PLAN AND AMENDED CONDITIONS.
ITEM EIGHT IS CASE Z 2 34 DASH 24.
AND APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 3 1 5 ON THE SOUTH LINE OF FOREST LANE BETWEEN CROMWELL DRIVE AND MARSH LANE.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO AN AMENDED DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND AMENDED CONDITIONS.
ITEM NINE IS CASES Z 2 34 DASH 1 55.
AND APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO SPECIFIC USE PERMIT NUMBER 2 3 59 FOR THE SALE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE GENERAL MERCHANDISER FOOD STORE.
3,500 SQUARE FEET OR LESS ON PROPERTY ZONE THAN LID ONE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT WITH A D ONE LIQUOR CONTROL OVERLAY ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SOUTH BUCKNER BOULEVARD AND FORNEY ROAD.
RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL FOR A FIVE-YEAR PERIOD SUBJECT TO A SITE PLANNING CONDITIONS.
ITEM 10 IS CASES Z 2 34 DASH 180.
AN APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO SPECIFIC USE PERMIT NUMBER 2 1 5 0 FOR A BAR, LOUNGE, OR TAVERN.
AND AN INSIDE COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT LIMITED TO A LIVE MUSIC VENUE ON PROPERTY ZONE TRACT A WITHIN PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 2 6 9, THE DEEP ELM SLASH NEAR EAST SIDE DISTRICT ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF ELM STREET AND NORTH GOOD LATIMER EXPRESSWAY.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL FOR A FIVE YEAR PERIOD SUBJECT TO A SITE PLANNING CONDITIONS.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COMMISSIONERS.
ANY QUESTIONS ON ITEMS 5, 8, 9 OR 10? COMMISSIONER FORESIGHT? NO.
DO YOU HAVE A MOTION, SIR? I DO MINE.
COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, PLEASE.
ON THE MATTER OF THE ZONING CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS 5, 8, 9, AND 10, I MOVE THAT WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND FOLLOW STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL AS READ INTO THE RECORD.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER CARPENTER FOR YOUR MOTION.
COMMISSIONER HOUSER FOR YOUR SECOND FOR THE ITEMS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.
ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE OF THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.
WE'LL GO BACK TO CASE NUMBER FOUR.
WE'RE GONNA TABLE IT FOR A MOMENT.
SORRY LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE'RE GONNA, WE'RE GONNA TABLE THIS ITEM FOR THE MOMENT WE HAVE, WE'LL COME BACK TO IT HERE IN A, IN A FEW MINUTES.
[6. 24-1831 An application for an amendment to Specific Use Permit No. 2439 for commercial motor vehicle parking on property zoned a CS Commercial Service District with deed restrictions [Z201-345], on the southeast line of Telephone Road, southwest of the intersection of Bonnie View Road and Telephone Road.]
GO AHEAD AND GO TO NUMBER EIGHT.PARDON ME? NUMBER SIX, CASE NUMBER SIX.
CAN WE GET THAT RIGHT IN PLEASE? I CAN, CAN YOU HEAR ME? CHAIR? WOULD YOU READ IT FOR US, PLEASE? YES, ABSOLUTELY.
UH, ITEM SIX, THIS IS CASE Z 2 34 DASH ONE SEVEN.
AND APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO SPECIFIC USE PERMIT NUMBER 24 39 FOR COMMERCIAL MOTOR MOTOR VEHICLE PARKING ON PROPERTIES ZONED A CS COMMERCIAL SERVICE DISTRICT WITH DEED RESTRICTIONS Z 2 0 1 DASH 3 4 5 ON A, ON THE SOUTHEAST LINE OF TELEPHONE ROAD, SOUTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF BON VIEW ROAD AND TELEPHONE ROAD.
RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL FOR A FIVE YEAR PERIOD WITH ELIGIBILITY FOR AUTOMATIC RENEWALS FOR ADDITIONAL FIVE YEAR PERIODS SUBJECT TO A SITE PLAN AND CONDITIONS.
I, IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? ROB BALDWIN, 3 9 0 4 ELM STREET SUITE, BE IN DALLAS.
I ASK THAT THIS CASE BE HELD FOR, UH, 30 DAYS TO LET ME WRAP UP SOME LOOSE ENDS ON IT.
UM, I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? ITEM NUMBER SIX, COMMISSIONER'S QUESTIONS FOR MR. BALDWIN? MR. RUBEN, YOU SAID 30 DAYS, I THINK WE DISCUSSED HOLDING IT TO JUNE 20TH.
DO YOU NEED, WOULD YOU LIKE TO BE HELD TO JULY? YES.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONERS QUESTIONS FOR STAFF CNM? COMMISSIONER BLAIR, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? YES, IN THE MATTER OF Z 2 3 4 1 1 7.
I MOVE THAT WE, UH, KEEP THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AND HOLD THIS CASE UNTIL JULY 11TH.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COMMISSIONER BLAIR AND THANK YOU COMMISSIONER CARPENTER FOR YOUR SECOND.
ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE OF THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.
[7. 24-1832 An application for an NS(A) Neighborhood Service District on property zoned an R-5(A) Single Family District, on the northeast corner of Bernal Drive and Shadrack Drive.]
SEVEN.CASE NUMBER SEVEN, UH, IT'S APPLICATION Z 2 34 DASH 1 23.
THE APPLICATION FOR AN NSA NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICE DISTRICT ON
[01:40:01]
PROPERTY ZONED AND R FIVE, A SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF AL DRIVE AND CHADWICK DRIVE.STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL.
IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? THIS IS ITEM NUMBER SEVEN.
COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS ITEM? OKAY, STAND ON.
COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? YES, IN THE MATTER OF CASES Z 2 3 4 DASH 1 23.
I MOVE THAT WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND NOT FOLLOW STAFF RECOMMENDATION, BUT TO DENY THE APPLICATION.
COMMISSIONER CARPENTER FOR YOUR MOTION COMMISSIONER HOUSE, RIGHT FOR YOUR SECOND, UH, TO CLOSE UP OVER HEARING AND NOT FALSE RECOMMENDATION, BUT RATHER DENY THE APPLICATION.
ANY COMMENTS? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.
[11. 24-1836 An application for an MF-2(A) Multifamily District on property zoned an R-7.5(A) Single Family District, on the southeast corner of West Kiest Boulevard and Guadalupe Avenue.]
11.COMMISSIONER ITEM 11 IS Z 2 2 3 2 7.
IT'S AN APPLICATION FOR AN MF TWO, A MULTIFAMILY DISTRICT ON PROPERTY ZONE IN R 7.5, A SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF WEST KEITH BOULEVARD IN GUADALUPE AVENUE.
S RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL OF AN MF TWO MULTIFAMILY DISTRICT.
IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? YES, SIR.
DARRELL BAKER, 63 0 6 ELDER GROVE DRIVE.
WE'RE, I'M SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION TO OF THIS REQUEST OF THIS IS IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, AND I WANNA BRING TO YOUR ATTENTION THAT WE HAVE A PLAN IN PLACE ALREADY AND IT'S A GOOD PLAN AND IT SHOULD BE RESPECTED.
THE KEY CENTER LINE IS, WAS ESTABLISHED AS A LOGICAL SEPARATION BETWEEN THE SINGLE FAMILY, UH, AND TOWNHOUSE AND MULT AND MULTIFAMILY TO THE NORTH.
WE, WE'VE ALMOST FINISHED BUILDING OUT THE SINGLE FAMILY PORTION OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND TOWNHOUSE NOR MULTIFAMILY WOULD BE APPROPRIATE ON A SINGLE LOT HERE.
THE TOWNHOUSE, UH, MULTIFAMILY AREAS WERE PLANNED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF KEYS, NOT ON THE SOUTHERN SIDE.
AND IT'S JUST ACROSS THE STREET FROM THIS REQUEST SITE.
SO, UM, AS YOU KNOW, THE ZONING AND THE DEVELOPMENT SHOULD FOLLOW THE PLAN, NOT VICE VERSA.
THE TOWNHOUSE REQUEST ON THIS LOT IS, UH, IS ALREADY PROBLEMATIC.
AND IT'S EVEN WORSE TO NOTE NOW THAT THE STAFF IS RECOMMENDING MULTIFAMILY, UH, INSTEAD OF SINGLE FAMILY HERE AND AGAIN ON A SINGLE LOT SURROUNDED BY SINGLE FAMILY USES.
WE FOUGHT FOR A LONG TIME IN DISTRICT THREE AGAINST WAREHOUSES IN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS AND AGAINST, UH, MULTIFAMILY IN AND AROUND OUR ESTABLISHED NEIGHBORHOODS.
AND THANKFULLY, PLAN COMMISSIONERS COME TO OUR DEFENSE AND, UH, SUPPORTED US.
OUR SOUTHERN SUB SUBURB, SUBURBAN NEIGHBORS ARE BUILDING STABLE, SOLID SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS.
AND, UH, THEY'RE BEING BUILT OUT.
AND THIS IS WHAT THE MISSING MIDDLE IS IN THIS PORTION OF OUR DISTRICT AT THIS SITE, TOWNHOUSE AND MULTIFAMILY DON'T FIT INTO OUR HOUSING NEEDS AND THEY CAN BE MET DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET.
THIS LINE IS THERE FOR A REASON AND IT NEEDS TO BE RESPECTED.
HI, ELLEN CAF 79 24 GLEN WAY DRIVE DALLAS.
AND I JUST WANTED TO SPEAK NOT NECESSARILY IN OPPOSITION TO THE TOWN HOMES, BUT WE DO WANNA MAKE IT VERY CLEAR THAT WE AS NE THOSE NEIGHBORHOODS WORKED VERY DILIGENTLY WITH THE CONTRACTOR, WITH THE DEVELOPER TO BUILD TOWN HOMES.
SO WE WERE UNSURE AND UNCLEAR WHY STAFF FELT IT NECESSARY TO GO ABOVE AND BEYOND THAT AND RECOMMEND MF TWO.
WE ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF MF TWO IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
WE COMPROMISED AND WENT WITH THE TOWN HOMES, BUT WE DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY MF TWO WAS BEING FORCED ON US.
SO WE JUST WANTED TO MAKE IT CLEAR TO CPC THAT THAT WAS
[01:45:01]
NOT OUR CHOICE AND THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO STAY WITH THAT TOWN HOMES ONLY.ANY OTHER SPEAKERS? COMMISSIONERS, DO WE HAVE QUESTIONS FOR OUR TWO SPEAKERS? QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? YES, COMMISSIONER, WE, WHAT, WHAT WAS THE REASONING FOR NOT, UH, RECOMMENDING, UM, A TOWN HOME DISTRICT INSTEAD OF A MULTI-FAMILY? THE MF DISTRICTS? THE ORIGINAL REQUEST WAS FOR MF TWO A AND WE FOUND THAT APPROPRIATE FOR THE SITE, GIVEN MACRO FACTORS AND OTHER THINGS.
SO WE, WE STILL RECOMMEND MF TWO.
WE HAVE NON OBJECTION TO, THEY AMENDED THEIR REQUEST OFFICIALLY TO TH THREE.
UH, BUT WE MAINTAIN MF TWO IS STILL MORE APPROPRIATE, BUT WE WOULDN'T FIND TH THREE APPROPRIATE.
SO WITH THE TH THREE, UH, EXTRA PROTECTIONS THAT WOULD, WOULD SATISFY WHAT THE COMMUNITY WANT.
UM, SO, UM, I, WHEREAS MF TWO MIGHT ALLOW FOR MORE UNITS THAN THE TOWN HOME, WELL, MF TWO WOULD LIKELY ALLOW FOR MORE UNITS THAN THE TOWN HOME.
AND WHAT WOULD THE TH UH, THREE EIGHT ALLOW FOR TH THREE? I I COULDN'T TELL YOU EXACTLY HOW MANY UNITS.
IT'S A LITTLE TRICKIER WITH, BECAUSE THEN THEY'D HAVE TO BE SPLITTING UP THEIR LOTS.
UH, FINDING ROOM FOR INTERNAL INFRASTRUCTURE BE THAT SHARED ACCESS OR OTHERWISE WOULD BE A LITTLE HARDER TO, UH, TO ESTIMATE.
GENERALLY THE DENSITY IS LOWER IN TH AND THEIR MINIMUM LOT SIZE IS LARGER IN TH AS WELL.
SO IS IT, IS IT THAT THEY, THAT THEY ARE WANTING TO DO TOWN HOMES NECESSARILY? TOWN HOMES ARE CONDOS, SO THEY WON'T HAVE TO SPLIT THE LOT.
AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE GOING THROUGH MF INSTEAD OF THE TH OR AS TOWN HOMES MAKE IT A SINGLE FAMILY UNITS AND THEY'D HAVE TO SPLIT THE LOT TO DO TH AND SO THEY HAVE TO SPLIT IT UP.
SO THEY'RE GOING WITH, SO IS IT THAT THEY'RE GOING WITH THE MF SO THAT THEY, IT IT'S MORE CONDO THAN TOWN HALL, BUT STILL TOWN HALL, THEY'RE GOING WITH TOWN.
THEY'RE GOING WITH TH DISTRICT.
THAT'S THEIR, THEIR, THEY INITIALLY REQUESTED MF TWO, THEY AMENDED THE APPLICATION ON THE RECORD TO TH THREE.
UM, AND SO WE, WE DON'T HAVE AN OBJECTION TO THAT, BUT THAT WILL ALLOW THEM TO DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAN THE MF TWO.
THEY'D HAVE TO REPL, THEY'D HAVE TO SPLIT IT INTO SMALLER LOTS.
'CAUSE THE MINUTE, UH, BECAUSE YOU CAN'T HAVE MORE THAN TWO UNITS ON A, ON A TH THREE LOT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF COMMISSIONER CHAR, PLEASE.
SO, A, THE APPLICANT'S NOT HERE IS WHAT I'M HEARING.
AND SO IS HE WITHDRAWN HIS DESIRE TO DO TH THREE? NO, HE STILL REQUEST A TH THREE.
SO THE LAST TIME WE HAD THE STAFF REPORT THAT WAS WRITTEN IN HERE, AND IT'S NOT NOW, IS THERE LITTLE, I DON'T THINK THERE'S BEEN A CHANGE IN THE STAFF REPORT SINCE THE PREVIOUS POSTING.
SO THEY HAD A POSTING, WE MENTIONED THEY WANTED TO DO TWO S TH THREE.
THAT WAS THE LAST TIME WE WERE HERE.
AND SO THAT WAS IN THE LAST REPORT.
IT HADN'T CHANGED SINCE THE LAST TIME.
I UNDERSTAND THAT THEY HAD AMENDED THE T TO TH THREE LAST TIME, BUT THE, THE HOLDOVER WAS TO CONDUCT COMMUNITY MEETING.
SO IN THAT, AND THAT COMMITTEE MEETING HAS HAPPENED? YES.
IN THE, IN THE, WHAT WAS THE GENERAL CONSENSUS? I CAN ANSWER.
SO THE GENERAL CONSENSUS WAS, UM, THE NEIGHBORS RESPECTED THE COMPROMISE AND WAS OKAY WITH THE, THE 16 TOWN HOMES WITH THE TH THREE DESIGNATION.
AND IF I CAN GET A SECOND I'LL, WE'RE, I THINK WE'RE READY FOR MOTION COMMISSIONER AND THE KZ.
I MOVE TO GO, UM, GO AGAINST STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND WITH THE DEVELOPER'S RECOMMENDATION OF TH THREE ENCLOS THE PUBLIC HEARING.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HERBERT FOR YOUR MOTION.
COMMISSIONER WHEELER FOR YOUR SECOND COMMENTS.
COMMISSIONER HERBERT? YEAH, SO, UM, AS YOU GUYS KNOW, WE'VE BEEN HERE QUITE A FEW TIMES.
WE HAD A FINAL COMMUNITY MEETING, UM, ONLINE.
THE NEIGHBORS DIRECTLY, UM, TOUCHING THIS PROPERTY WAS ON THE CALL AND RAISED THEIR CONCERNS, GOT THE ANSWERS
[01:50:01]
THAT THEY NEEDED, AND WE'RE OKAY WITH THE 16.UM, THIS WAS A BIG COMPROMISE FROM THE DEVELOPER WHO, UM, LIKE I SAID, WAS VERY HARD IN THE BEGINNING.
SO THE FACT THAT HE CAME WITH A COMPROMISE WAS RESPECTED BY THE NEIGHBORS.
UM, THEY DIDN'T, THEY WANTED SINGLE FAMILY.
THEY REALLY WANTED SINGLE FAMILY ON THESE LOTS.
UM, AND, AND I UNDERSTOOD WE HAVE A LOT OF APARTMENTS IN THIS CORRIDOR ALREADY.
A LOT OF THEM ARE LOW INCOME AND WE JUST DIDN'T WANT TO CREATE MORE OF A HAVOC.
BUT I THINK THIS SHARED ACCESS, UM, TH THREE IS THE COMPROMISE.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? COMMISSIONERS? OKAY.
[12. 24-1837 An application for an MU-3 Mixed Use District on property zoned an RR Regional Retail District with H/90 Oak Cliff United Methodist Church Historic District Overlay, on the northwest corner of East Jefferson Boulevard and South Marsalis Avenue.]
CASE NUMBER 12.THIS IS ITEM NUMBER 12, CASE Z 2 23 DASH 315.
AND APPLICATION FOR AN MU THREE MIXED USE DISTRICT ON PROPERTIES OWNED IN RR REGIONAL RETAIL DISTRICT WITH H 90 OAK CLIFF UNITED METHODIST CHURCH, HISTORIC DISTRICT OVERLAY ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF EAST JEFFERSON BOULEVARD AND SOUTH MERCEDES AVENUE.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, ROB BALDWIN, 3 9 0 4 ELM STREET, SUITE B, REPRESENTING THE OWNER OF THIS PROPERTY.
THIS IS THE OAK CLIFF UNITED METHODIST CHURCH, A HISTORIC PROPERTY, UH, ON THE CORNER OF MARCELLUS AND EAST JEFFERSON.
IT'S CURRENTLY ZONED REGIONAL RETAIL.
WE ARE SEEKING A MIXED USE THREE, SO WE CAN OCCUPY IT WITH A MIXTURE OF USES, INCLUDING SOME RESIDENTIAL USES.
WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR ANY CHANGES TO ANY OF THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
UH, AT OUR LAST MEETING, UH, SOME NEIGHBORS CAME UP AND HAD SOME CONCERNS.
WE HAD A NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING WITH THEM AT THE CHURCH RIGHT NEXT DOOR.
IT WAS WELL ATTENDED, AND I DO BELIEVE WE ANSWERED ALL THEIR QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS.
SO I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
I HOPE YOU CAN SUPPORT THIS REQUEST.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? THIS IS ITEM NUMBER 12 ON PAGE FIVE Z 2 23 315.
QUESTIONS FOR MR. BALDWIN? COMMISSIONER HARBOR, PLEASE.
THIS COULD HAVE BEEN ANSWERED THE FIRST TIME.
I JUST WANT TO REITERATE, WILL THE HISTORICAL VALUE OF THE CHURCH BE RECOGNIZED AT ALL? YES, SIR.
WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR ANY CHANGES TO THAT.
WOULD YOU CONFIRM THAT, UM, AS A PART OF THE PROJECTS PROCESS, IT WILL GO BEFORE LANDMARK COMMISSION WITH A HISTORIC OVERLAY.
I'M SORRY, COMMISSIONER HAMPTON? I DIDN'T CATCH ALL OF THAT.
WOULD YOU CONFIRM THAT YOU'LL BE GOING TO LANDMARK COMMISSION? YES, MA'AM.
WE'RE NOT, WE'RE NOT TOUCHING HISTORIC OVERLAY AT ALL.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONERS FOR MR. BALDWIN? QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? OKAY.
COMMISSIONER CHER, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION, SIR? I DO.
IN THE MATTER OF Z 2 23 DASH THREE 15, I MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE, UH, THIS CASE WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER CHERLOCK FOR YOUR MOTION AND COMMISSIONER HOUSE, RIGHT FOR YOUR SECOND.
[13. 24-1838 An application for a Planned Development District for NO(A) Neighborhood Office District uses and standards and personal service uses, with consideration for an NS(A) Neighborhood Service District on property zoned an R-16(A) Single Family District, on the northeast corner of Royal Lane and Dallas North Tollway.]
MOVE NUMBER 13.[01:55:51]
UH, MR. RUBIN, YOU HAVE A MOTION, SIR? YES.I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO RECONSIDER ITEM NUMBER SEVEN Z 2 34 DASH 1 23.
THANK YOU MR. RUBIN, FOR YOUR MOTION TO RECONSIDER AND COMMISSIONER BLAIR FOR YOUR SECOND.
UH, ANY COMMENTS? SEE NONE OF THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
ANY THE OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES.
DO WE NEED TO READ THAT INTO THE RECORD AGAIN? LET'S JUST GO AHEAD AND DO IT.
NUMBER SEVEN, WE'RE GOING BACK TO NUMBER SEVEN.
IT'S AN APPLICATION FOR AN NSA NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICE DISTRICT ON PROPERTIES OWNED IN R FIVE, A SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF VERNAL DRIVE AND SHADRACH DRIVE.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL.
OKAY, WE'RE, WE'RE READY FOR YOUR COMMENTS, MA'AM.
PLEASE BEGIN WITH YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
THERE'S A LITTLE BUTTON AND THEN PULL DOWN THE MICROPHONE.
YOU SHOULD SEE A LINE ON NOPE.
GOOD AFTERNOON LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
I'M CASE NUMBER Z 2 3 4 DASH 1 2 3 WK.
AND I WOULD LIKE TO PLEAD YOUR CONSIDERATION AND SUPPORT IN APPROVING THIS VENTURE.
YOU KNOW, WEST DALLAS IS A GROWING COMMUNITY AND THERE'S A LOT OF HOME OWNERSHIP AND A LOT OF SMALL ENTREPRENEURS THAT NEED ACCESS TO CONVENIENCE, TO CONVENIENCE TO GET, UM, GROCERY ITEMS SERVICES BECAUSE THEY'RE, THERE'S A LOT OF LITTLE ENTREPRENEURS WITHOUT HAVING TO TRAVEL VIA, UH, PUBLIC TRANSIT OR 15 PLUS MINUTES JUST TO GET A LOAF OF BREAD OR MILK.
THERE IS LIKE A STORE CLOSE BY, BUT THEY SELL LIQUOR AND WE WOULDN'T WANT OUR KIDS GOING TO THOSE PLACES.
OUR GOAL IS TO OFFER THE COMMUNITY THE CONVENIENCE OF BUYING BASIC NECESSITY, TOILETRIES AND SERVICES CLOSE TO HOME, AND AT THE SAME TIME OFFER ACCOUNTING SERVICES, BEAUTY SHOP, FLORIS GIFT SHOPS AT THE CONVENIENCE FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF.
IF YOU DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, DOES THAT CONCLUDE YOUR COMMENTS? I'M SORRY? DOES THAT CONCLUDE YOUR COMMENTS? YEAH.
DID YOU ALSO WANNA SPEAK, SIR? NO, NO, NO HONOR.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? OKAY, NOW COMMISSIONERS QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? PLEASE GO AHEAD.
SO ARE YOU SAYING THAT YOU WANNA OPEN THIS, UH, PARTICULAR, UM, TYPE OF BUSINESS BECAUSE THERE IS, WITHIN WALKING DISTANCE, THERE IS NOT ANYTHING THAT'S MORE CONVENIENT FOR THE COMMUNITY TO GET SOME SMALL ITEMS OR SOMETHING THAT THE CHILDREN CAN RUN? IS THAT WHAT YOUR CONSIDERATION IS? YES.
AND IT'S MORE OF A CONVENIENCE STORE TYPE OF DEAL.
FORGIVE ME, BUT, UM, IT'S MORE LIKE CONVENIENCE STORE.
YES, BUT WOULD I BUT WOULD THEY BUT YOU WILL NOT SELL ALCOHOL? OH, NO.
[02:00:01]
SEE, THAT'S WHY THE DREAM IS THERE BECAUSE THERE'S A STORE AT THE CORNER OF WESTMORELAND AND BURNELL AND THE WRONG CROWD HANGS OUT THERE, ALL THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.IF YOU WANNA BUY AN ICE CREAM, WHATEVER, YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH ALL THAT AND THAT'S, THE KIDS SHOULDN'T BE EXPOSED THERE.
SO THEY NEED LIKE CONVENIENCE STORES SERVICE YEAH.
AND THEN LIKE THE OTHER, THE BIGGER STORES, I MEAN, THEY'RE FARTHER WAY FARTHER.
AND I MEAN, WE ALL KNOW THE CONV ABOUT, I GREW UP IN A SMALL AREA LIKE THIS WHERE WE HAD CONVENIENCE STORES.
AS A MATTER OF FACT, MY FATHER WAS A MERCHANT, RIGHT.
AND WE, WE WERE POPULAR BECAUSE WE FOCUSED ON PROVIDING SERVICES TO THE GENERAL COMMUNITY, NOT THE ADULT THAT I KNOW EVERYBODY MIGHT DRINK, YOU KNOW, BUT WE DON'T WANT OUR KIDS BEING IN THAT CROWD BECAUSE THAT'S HOW THINGS GET STARTED.
THERE'S A LOT OF, UH, I MEAN IT'S HOMELESSNESS AND LIQUOR AND, AND BEER AND ALL THAT, RIGHT? WE DON'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH ALL THAT TO BUY OUT A LOAF OF BREAD, ICE CREAM, TOILETRIES, ET CETERA.
AND WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO RESTRICT THAT TO BE, UM, LIQUOR, ANY TYPE OF ALCOHOL FROM, OF COURSE, FROM YOUR USE? OF COURSE.
I I DON'T THINK THAT YOU WOULD APPROVE IT ANYWAYS BECAUSE IT IS RESIDENTIAL AND STUFF AND WE REALLY WANNA CATER TO THE COMMUNITY, KIDS, FAMILIES.
UM, SO LOOKING AT THE PROPERTY ITSELF, THERE, UH, SOME BEAUTIFUL SMALL HOMES SURROUNDING IT VERY CLOSE BY, HAVE YOU CONSIDERED CONVERSATIONS WITH THOSE NEIGHBORS? HAVE YOU HEARD FROM THOSE NEIGHBORS OR CONSTITUENTS AT ALL? THEY DON'T OPPOSE.
AS A MATTER OF FACT, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T HAVE ANYBODY THAT OPPOSED IT.
I, THEY THINK THAT IT'S A GOOD IDEA.
UM, AND TO ANSWER THIS, ARE, ARE YOU ONE OF THE NEIGHBORS IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD OR IS JUST ONLY YOU'RE GONNA OPERATE THE BUSINESS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD? NO, I HAVE FAMILY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN WEST DALLAS.
AND, YOU KNOW, ACQUAINTANCE AND FAMILY.
I THINK IT'S GOOD FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMISSIONERS.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? COMMISSIONER FORESITE, WHAT IS ON THE PROPERTY TODAY? IS IT, IS, IS THERE A BUILDING ALREADY THERE? IS IT A HOUSE? ARE YOU GONNA TEAR IT DOWN OR WHAT DO YOU PLAN? NO, IT'S, IT'S AN EMPTY LOT, SIR.
SO YOU'RE GONNA BE BUILDING A CONVENIENCE STORE, BASICALLY.
IT'S GONNA BE A, A UHHUH, IT'S GONNA BE A FOUR BUSINESS, YOU KNOW, BEAUTY SHOP, FLORIST, CONVENIENCE STORE AND ACCOUNTING SERVICES.
AND, AND WITH APPROPRIATE PARKING FOR THOSE YES.
PARKING SPACES FOR THOSE BUSINESSES.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? COMMISSIONERS? OKAY, QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? OKAY.
COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? YES.
IN THE MATTER OF CASE OF Z 2 34 DASH 1 23, I MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND NOT FOLLOW STAFF RECOMMENDATION, BUT TO DYE THE APPLICATION, I HAVE COMMENTS IF I GO A SECOND.
COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT AGAIN FOR YOUR SECOND COMMENTS.
COMMISSIONER CARPENTER? YEAH, UM, WHILE I UNDERSTAND YOUR, YOUR EXPLANATION, THE CHARACTER OF THIS AREA IS VERY WELL ESTABLISHED AS RESIDENTIAL.
YOU KNOW, BRUNO IS A RESIDENTIAL STREET WITH SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ON, YOU KNOW, ALL UP AND DOWN AND THERE ARE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, YOU KNOW, TO THE EAST, TO THE WEST AND, UH, TO THE NORTH OF THIS PARTICULAR LOCATION.
AND, UM, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT FAMILIAR.
I I I HAVE NOT HAD ANY CONTACT WITH YOU ABOUT THIS CASE.
YOU, AS FAR AS I KNOW, THERE'S BEEN NO OUTREACH TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND WHEN I REACHED OUT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, THE FEEDBACK THAT I GOT WAS UNIVERSAL THAT THEY DID NOT WANT ANYTHING BUT HOMES ON THIS PARTICULAR, UM, PROPERTY.
UM, THERE, AS YOU MENTIONED, THERE IS A STORE WITHIN WALKING DISTANCE, UM, AT THE END OF THE STREET AT, UH, WEST MARLAND WHERE THERE IS, YOU KNOW, NON, THERE'S A, YOU KNOW, STRIP OF NON-RESIDENTIAL USES AND, YOU KNOW, UH, I'M FAMILIAR WITH THE ISSUES THAT YOU ARE REFERRING TO THERE, BUT THE NEIGHBORS WERE VERY, UM, CLEAR THAT THEY SIMPLY DID NOT WANT TO INJECT NON-RESIDENTIAL INTO THEIR VERY QUIET COMMUNITY.
SO I'M, I'M SORRY, I'M NOT ABLE TO SUPPORT YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS, SO I'M RECOMMENDING DENIAL.
ANY OTHER QUE COMMENTS? COMMISSIONERS I WILL COMMENT ON.
I WILL ALSO BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION AND, UH, I THINK AS WE HAVE SAID
[02:05:01]
MANY TIMES, THESE KINDS OF CASES ARE, ARE SOME OF THE MOST DIFFICULT ONES THAT WE GET.UH, AND IT'S, IT'S USUALLY THE, THE CORNER LOT, THE END LOT AND YOU KNOW, IT WANTS TO BE SOMETHING OTHER THAN A SINGLE FAMILY AND EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM IS DIFFERENT.
UH, WHAT SOME OF THE THINGS I LOOK AT IS THE SIZE OF THE LOT.
THIS ONE IS RELATIVELY SMALL AT ROUGHLY 13,000 SQUARE FEET.
UH, THE RIGHT, YOU KNOW, THE WIDTH OF THE RIGHT OF WAY, THE WIDTH OF THE STREET, UH, WHAT IS THE SURROUNDING AREAS.
AND WHEN YOU ADD ALL THAT UP, UH, I AM COMPELLED THAT IT, IT'S, IT'S NOT THE APPROPRIATE MOVE FOR THIS ONE.
UH, AND I AM SURE THAT, THAT YOU TWO WOULD HAVE A FANTASTIC, UH, MANAGEMENT OF THIS PROPERTY.
BUT AS WE'VE SAID MANY, MANY TIMES HERE, YOU KNOW, THE, THE ZONING STAYS WITH THE LAND HERE.
AFTER, YOU KNOW, YOU, YOU MAY DECIDE TO SELL AT SOME POINT AND THEN WE ARE LEFT WITH THE ZONING ON THIS PROPERTY.
AND THEREFORE I THINK IT'S ABSOLUTELY APPROPRIATE, UH, MOTION TO DENY THIS APPLICATION.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? COMMISSIONERS? CAN I ADD SOMETHING? NO, MA'AM.
WE'RE, WE'RE PAST THAT MO THAT POINT.
ALTHOUGH IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.
OKAY, THAT WILL GO BACK TO CASE
[4. 24-1840 An application for 1) a new subdistrict for WMU-8 Walkable Urban Mixed-Use District uses; 2) the removal of an SH Shopfront Overlay on a portion; and 3) the termination of a D Liquor Control Overlay on property zoned Subdistrict E within Planned Development District No. 468, the Oak Cliff Gateway Special Purpose District, with an SH Shopfront Overlay and a D Liquor Control Overlay, in an area bound by North Beckley Avenue, East Fifth Street, North Zang Boulevard, and East Sixth Street.]
NUMBER FOUR.OKAY, FOR THE OPPORTUNITY, CASE NUMBER FOUR IS Z 2 12 3 57.
IT'S AN APPLICATION FOR ONE, A NEW SUBDISTRICT FOR WMU EIGHT, WALKABLE MIXED USE, WALKABLE URBAN MIXED USE DISTRICT USES THE REMOVAL OF AN H SHOPFRONT OVERLAY ON A PORTION AND THREE DETERMINATION OF A DEALER CONTROL OVERLAY ON PROPERTY ZONE SUBDISTRICT E WITHIN PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 4 68, THE OAK CLIFF GATEWAY SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICT WITH AN SH SHOPFRONT OVERLAY AND A D LIQUOR CONTROL OVERLAY.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL OF EACH OF THOSE ITEMS. I SEE THE APPLICANT IS HERE.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, ROB BALDWIN, 3 9 0 4 ELM STREET, SUITE B IN DALLAS.
AND I'M HERE, UH, WITH A REQUEST, UH, FOR THE PROPERTY.
IT'S BOUNDED BY FIFTH STREET ON, ON THE NORTH, NORTH BECKLEY ON THE EAST SIX WEST SIXTH ON THE SOUTH, AND ZANG ON THE WEST.
UM, IT'S A TIRE BLOCK ABOUT 1.6 ACRES.
UH, IT'S IN SUBDISTRICT E OF PD 4 68, WHICH IS A WALKABLE MIXED JUICE EIGHT SUBDISTRICT, WHICH, UH, CURTISS MIXED JUICE DEVELOPMENT UP TO EIGHT STORIES.
AND, UH, WE ARE NOT REQUIR REQUESTING ANY CHANGES TO THE YARD LOT AND SPACE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS DISTRICT.
OUR OUR, OUR REQUEST IS BASICALLY TO, UM, REMOVE A SHOPFRONT OVERLAY ON THREE SIDES OF THE PROPERTY.
AND FOR THOSE OF YOU NOT VERSED ON, UH, ARTICLE 13 OR THE FORM BASED CODE, A SHOP RUN OVERLAY IS PUT ON, UH, A PIECE OF PROPERTY.
AND THAT REQUIRES, UH, RETAIL OR OTHER NON-RESIDENTIAL USES ON THE GROUND FLOOR.
WE THINK THAT FIFTH STREET AND SIXTH STREET AND THIS PORTION OF NORTH BECKLEY ARE MORE RESIDENTIAL IN, IN NATURE, AND WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THAT, UH, REQUIRING NON-RESIDENT USERS ON THE GROUND FLOOR MAKES SENSE HERE.
THEY'RE ALLOWED, BUT THEY WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED.
UM, AS YOU SEE THE, THE, THE BLUE DIAMONDS ARE THE SHOP FRONT OVERLAY.
UM, IT'S HARD TO SEE THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, BUT HERE'S A BLOW UP OF IT.
UH, IT SHOWS THAT WE DO HAVE A SHOPRUNNER OR AN SH SEVEN ALONG NORTH ZANG, UH, BUT NOT ON, UH, BECKLEY FIFTH OR SIXTH.
BECKLEY IS STILL CONSIDERED A PRIMARY STREET, WHICH MEANS WE HAVE TO HAVE PRIMARY ENTRANCES THERE.
OUR, UH, GOAL ON THAT SIDE OF THE STREET OR ON THIS SECTION OF BECKLEY IS TO HAVE OUR MULTIFAMILY BUILDING OR MIXED USE BUILDING, UH, HAVE TOWN HOME TYPE DEVELOPMENT ALONG THE GROUND FLOOR WITH ENTRANCES AND THEN STEP BACK A LITTLE BIT AND THEN AND CONTINUE UP.
UM, ALONG ZANG, WE ARE PROPOSING NON-RESIDENTIAL USES.
UH, WE ARE ALSO ASKING FOR, UH, A LIVE WORK UNITS TO BE ALLOWED ON THE PROPERTY.
WE ARE NOT ASKING FOR THEM TO BE CONSIDERED A SUBSTITUTE FOR OUR NON-RESIDENTIAL ALONG ZANG, BUT WE WANT 'EM BE AVAILABLE.
UH, PD 4 68, WHICH IS THE OAK CLIFF GATEWAY, ALLOWS, DEFINES AND ALLOWS, UH, LIVE WORK UNITS IN CERTAIN DISTRICTS.
BUT UNFORTUNATELY NOT IN THIS ONE.
WE THINK IT WOULD BE A, UH, A GOOD OPTION TO ACTIVATE THE STREET AS WELL, BUT WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR THEM TO SUBSTITUTE
[02:10:01]
OUT FOR OUR, UH, REQUIREMENT ALONG ZANG.ONE OTHER THING THAT WE'RE ASKING FOR IS, UH, THERE'S, WE'RE RIGHT, THIS PORTION OF ZANG HAS A STREETCAR GOING UP IT, AND ON THE NORTHWEST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, I'M GONNA GET THIS WORD WRONG.
SO, UH, THERE GANTRIES OR SOMETHING THAT, UH, CANARY SUPPORT THAT, WHAT ARE THEY CALLED? WHAT? CANARY? ARIES.
UM, SO THEY'RE CATENARY THERE WHERE WE CANNOT MOVE THEM.
AND SO WE CANNOT PUT INDENTED PARKING THERE.
WE WANNA HAVE PARKING ALONG ZANG, BUT WE CAN'T MOVE, UH, INFRASTRUCTURE LIKE THAT TO, TO DO THAT.
SO THIS IS JUST A CROSS SECTION.
YOU CAN SEE WE HAVE, UH, ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE, THAT'S BECKLEY.
YOU CAN SEE HOW WE HAVE TWO STORIES AND THEN BE SET BACK.
WE HAVE ONE AND A HALF, UH, FLOORS OF UNDERGROUND PARKING.
THE OTHER PARKING IS ABOVE GROUND, BUT IT'S, THIS IS TOTALLY WRAPPED.
UM, THIS IS ANOTHER CROSS SECTION.
SO THIS IS A GROUND FLOOR SITE PLAN.
YOU'LL SEE THE PURPLE IN THE, UH, UH, IS 8,400 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL.
WE HAVE OUR LEASING OFFICE AND ACTIVATED SPACE.
EVERYTHING IN YELLOW IS, UH, WHERE WE'RE PROPOSING EITHER, UH, RESIDENTIAL OR LIVE WORK UNITS.
AND THE GRAY AREA IS JUST KIND OF THE BACK OF HOUSE AREA THAT WE NEED TO PUT SOMEWHERE AND THAT'S, THAT'S WHERE WE DO IT MADE MOST SENSE.
SO THIS IS WHAT BECKLEY LOOKS LIKE.
UH, YOUR TIME'S UP, MR. BALDWIN, BUT, OKAY.
WELL, I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
YOU MAY HAVE A QUESTION HERE TOO HERE ABOUT YOUR POWERPOINT IN SECOND.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM AND SUPPORT? NOW WE HAVE SOME TWO REGISTERED SPEAKERS ONLINE.
ANYONE HERE LIKE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION? ARE TWO SPEAKERS ONLINE.
MS. SWAT WATLEY, ARE YOU ON LINE? HI, CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES, WE CAN.
I LIVE AT 10 28 NORTH BECKLEY.
UM, I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF 2,256 PEOPLE WHO SIGNED A PETITION AGAINST THIS ZONING CHANGE.
UH, THE CURRENT ZONING WAS PUT IN PLACE 15 YEARS AGO, AND AT THAT TIME, NEIGHBORS WERE PROMISED RETAIL NOT LIVE WORK, UH, AND A MORE WALKABLE NEIGHBORHOOD OF REMOVING THE SHOPFRONT OVERLAY ALL THE WAY AROUND.
ONLY SERVES TO BENEFIT THE DEVELOPER AND DOESN'T DO ANYTHING AT ALL FOR THE NEIGHBORS, WHICH WE WOULD LOVE TO HAVE A PLACE TO WALK TO, UH, THAT CLOSE TO US.
UH, AND THE DEVELOPER ALREADY WANTS TO TEAR DOWN ALL THOSE A HUNDRED ISH YEAR OLD HOUSES THAT ARE IN THAT ENTIRE CITY BLOCK.
AND WE FEEL LIKE THE LEAST THEY COULD DO IS GIVE US A LITTLE SHOPS TO, YOU KNOW, TO GO TO, UM, SEVEN STORY BUILDING, 253 UNITS OR SOMETHING.
UH, I THINK THEY HAVE THE SPACE TO DO THAT.
UH, THERE THERE'S JUST ZERO BENEFIT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN CHANGING.
IT JUST DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE.
THANK YOU FOR JOINING US, SIR.
TIME FOR YOUR REBUTTAL, MR. BALDWIN.
UM, SO LET'S TALK ABOUT FIRST OF ALL, THE HOUSES THAT ARE ON THE STREET TODAY.
IT'S A YELLOW HOUSE RIGHT ON THE, THE CORNER OF SIXTH IN ZANG.
WE ARE WORKING WITH A REALTOR TO RELOCATE THAT HOUSE AT, UH, AT THEIR COST, OBVIOUSLY, BUT WE'D BE HAPPY TO DONATE THAT HOUSE TO ANYBODY WHO WOULD BE WILLING TO TO MOVE IT.
UM, IF YOU'VE DRIVEN UP YOU JUST SEC, UH, SECTION OF ZANG PRETTY MUCH FROM, FROM DAVIS NORTH OR, OR EVEN ALONG FORT WORTH AVENUE WEST, UH, OF, OF SINGLETON, I MEAN WEST OF, UH, COMMERCE, YOU'LL SEE THAT WHERE YOU TRY TO FORCE RETAIL, YOU OFTEN END UP WITH VACANT SPACE.
WE WOULD LIKE THE OPPORTUNITY NOT TO HAVE, BE REQUIRED TO HAVE VACANT SPACE ON STREETS THAT WE THINK ARE MORE SUITABLE FOR RESIDENTIAL.
IT'S ALLOWED, BUT NOT REQUIRED.
UM, WE ARE PROVIDING 8,400 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL, WHICH IS A LOT RIGHT ON ZANG.
SO IT IS WALKABLE DISTANCE FOR THEIR, FOR OUR NEIGHBORS, JUST TO THE SOUTH OF US.
AS YOU SAW THE BRIEFING, UH, THE, THAT PROPERTY DOES HAVE VACANT RETAIL SPACE AS WELL.
SO THERE, THERE'S PLENTY OF RETAIL SPACES AROUND SHOULD, UH,
[02:15:01]
THE MARKET CHANGE THAT WAY.AND, AND OUR BUILDING WILL BE DESIGNED TO ACCOMMODATE THAT AS WELL.
UM, WE BELIEVE THAT BRINGING MORE RESIDENCES IN HERE WILL, UH, HELP ACTIVATE THE WHOLE AREA.
AND I THINK THIS IS A REASONABLE AND WELL THOUGHT OUT PROJECT.
I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.
COMMISSIONER'S QUESTIONS FOR MR. BALLING? COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, MR. BALDWIN, DO YOU HAVE SOME PHOTOGRAPHS OR A PART OF YOUR POWERPOINT PRESENTATION THAT CLARIFIES THE, UH, CURRENT CONDITIONS ON THOSE FRONTAGES? UH, I'M SORRY, I OH, I'M SORRY.
UM, I KNOW YOU DIDN'T FINISH YOUR POWERPOINT PRESENTATION.
WERE THERE ADDITIONAL SLIDES THAT WOULD, WOULD CLARIFY FOR US WHAT THE CONDITIONS ARE, THE EXISTING CONDITIONS ON THOSE STRAIGHT FRONTAGES? YEAH, IF YOU, IF, IF YOU'RE OKAY WITH THAT, I'LL, I'LL FINISH THAT UP.
SO THIS, THIS IS AT THE CORNER OF SIXTH OR FIFTH IN SANG, LOOKING SOUTH.
AS YOU CAN SEE, WE HAVE THE LAKE CLIFF NEIGHBORHOOD TO THE, TO THE EAST OF US.
UH, SINGLE FAMILY HOME IS A MIXTURE.
SINGLE FAMILY DUPLEX AND SMALL APARTMENTS, SINGLE FAMILY, UH, ABOVE US.
AS YOU CAN SEE, WE HAVE RESIDENCES ON OUR, OUR, OUR PROPERTIES TO THE WEST.
WE HAVE RESIDENCES TO THE P EAST.
THIS IS ZANG THAT SHOWS SOME OF THE, THE, WHAT, WHAT ARE THOSE CALLED AGAIN? MICHAEL? UH, CANARIES.
THOSE ARE THE ITEMS WE CANNOT MOVE.
UM, WE, WE AGAIN THINK THIS IS, UH, A WELL THOUGHT OUT AND REASONABLE PROJECT AND I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.
COMMISSIONER CHARRON, COULD YOU SPEAK A LITTLE BIT TO THE TOPOGRAPHY OF THE SITE? YES, SIR.
UM, THE TOPOGRAPHY, THERE'S A LOT OF TOPOGRAPHY ON THIS SITE.
UH, CAN I GO BACK TO MY PRESENTATION? DO YOU, DO YOU GUYS MIND? SO THIS IS ALONG ZANG.
YOU CAN SEE THERE'S SMALL RETAINING WALLS ALONG ZANG.
UM, OUR SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, UH, THIS IS ALONG BECKLEY.
YOU CAN SEE THE LARGE RETAINING WALLS, UH, ALONG BECKLEY.
UM, AND LET'S SEE, THIS KIND OF SHOWS IT.
SO ON THE LEFT IT IS ZANG, ON THE RIGHT IS BECKLEY.
SO YOU CAN SEE THE ZANGS MUCH HIGHER THAN BECKLEY.
AND, AND THIS ONE SHOWS, UH, FIFTH STREET ON THE LEFT AND SIXTH STREET ON THE RIGHT.
AND YOU CAN SEE THERE'S ELEVATION CHANGES AS WELL.
SO MOST OF THE ELEVATION CHANGES BETWEEN, UH, ZANG AND BECKLEY, BUT WE ALSO HAVE IT GOING NORTH AND SOUTH BETWEEN FIFTH AND SIXTH ON THE, THE BECKLEY CORRIDOR.
THERE, ARE THERE ANY THAT STRETCHES FROM, KIND OF INTERSECT ZANG FARTHER NORTH AND THEN IT INTERSECT WITH DAVIS TO THE SOUTH.
THERE, THERE ISN'T ANY COMMERCIAL THAT IS ON BECKLEY THAT FRONTS THE NEIGHBORHOOD ISN'T, IF YOU GO ABOUT TWO BLOCKS SOUTH, THERE IS A, A MEDICAL BUILDING, BUT THERE'S NO REAL RETAIL UNTIL YOU GET ALL THE WAY DOWN TO DAVIS.
BUT THE, WHERE THAT MEDICAL IS, IT'S RETAINING WALLS IN A PARKING LOT.
THERE'S NOT FACADE FRONTAGE ON BACK.
SO IT ALMOST ACTS AS THE BACKYARD, UNFORTUNATELY, FOR THAT CORRECT LITTLE CORRIDOR THROUGH THERE.
DID YOU, YOU WERE GONNA SAY ANYTHING MORE ABOUT NO, THAT, THAT'S IT.
UM, MR. BALDWIN, THE, UH, 8,000 PLUS SQUARE FEET THAT YOU'RE PROVIDING ON ZANG FOR RETAIL USES, I PRESUMABLY THAT WOULD ACCOMMODATE RESTAURANT FOOD SERVICE AS WELL AS RETAIL.
AND THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WE'RE ASKING TO REMOVE THE DRY OVERLAY AS WELL, IN CASE WE GET A RESTAURANT THAT WANTS TO COME IN THERE AND, AND SERVE ALCOHOL.
ER, WILL THIS PROJECT INCLUDE, UM, LARGER SIDEWALKS? UH, YES MA'AM.
UH, PD 4 68 HAS, UH, VERY SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS FOR SIDEWALKS ON BOTH PRIMARY AND SECONDARY STREETS.
AND WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR ANY CHANGES TO THOSE EXCEPT FOR, UH, THE, THE PARKING WHERE WE HAVE THE, THE INFRASTRUCTURE.
IS THIS PROJECT LARGE ENOUGH TO HAVE, UH, UM, PICKUP AND DROP OFFS FOR SHARED RIDE SHARE? UH, IT HASN'T BEEN DESIGNED YET, BUT, UH, SINCE THAT'S PART OF THE WORLD WE LIVE IN NOW, THERE WILL BE, UH, REQUIREMENTS FOR THAT.
I KNOW THAT THE, THE CITY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT LIKES TO HAVE
[02:20:01]
DROP OFF FOR BOTH, UH, PACKAGE DELIVERY AND UBERS AND, AND WHATNOT.AND I DON'T KNOW IF IT'LL BE IN THE GARAGE OR OUT ON FRONT AND ZANG.
AND IS THAT A STRONG CONSIDERATION, ESPECIALLY SINCE THAT ZANG GANG BECKLEY ARE HEAVILY TRAVELED AND A, UM, AND WHAT ARE SMALLER THEY FOR? YES, MA'AM.
UH, DO YOU KNOW THE, THE HOMES ALONG BECKLEY, HOW MANY OF THOSE WILL BE ERASED? ALL OF THEM.
JUST CURIOUS THEIR HOMES ON BECKLEY CURRENTLY? WELL, BECKLEY WE'RE DESIGNING IT TO BE OKAY RESIDENTIAL.
WITH THE TOWN HOME FIELD WITH, WITH ACCESS POINTS TO KIND OF ACTIVATE THE STREET WITH A RESIDENTIAL USE RATHER THAN ACTIVATING IT WITH A NON-RESIDENTIAL USE.
SO I SAW ON THE PLAN THAT THERE WAS AN OVERLAY FOR DEMOLITION FOR, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT.
UM, THE HOMES ALONG BECKLEY ARE THERE UNDER THAT ORDINANCE, AND WILL THAT BE TAKEN CARE OF? RIGHT.
WELL, THE, THE HOMES ALONG BECKLEY WILL BE, UH, REMOVED FOR PART OF THIS.
THERE IS A NICE HOME AT ZANG AND, AND SIX, WHICH WE'RE TRYING TO RELOCATE.
AND WILL THEY, THE BECKLEY AGAIN IS A SMALL TWO-WAY, THOROUGHFARE THE ENTRANCES AND EXITS FOR THE RESIDENTIAL UNITS THAT'LL BE THERE.
HOW WILL THEY HANDLE THE INTEREST AND EXITS TO THOSE DEVELOPMENTS? HAS THAT BEEN, IS THE NEIGHBORS ACROSS THE STREET? SOME OF THEM HAVE TO BACK OUT.
SO WE'RE WORKING WITH A TOPOGRAPHY.
SO YOU'LL SEE WE HAVE ONE EXIT ON FIFTH THAT WILL COME TO THE UNDERGROUND PARKING GARAGE, AND THEN WE WILL HAVE ONE COMING OFF OF ZANG.
THERE'LL BE NO, NO INTEREST IN EXIT OFF BECKLEY.
'CAUSE BECKLEY IS A TWO-WAY STREET ON A THOROUGHFARE PLAN.
IT DOESN'T CALL FOR REDING WIDENING.
SO BECKLEY ISS AS BIG AS BECKLEY IS EVER GONNA GET.
COMMISSIONER HALL, THE, THE HOMES ON BECKLEY THAT ARE GONNA BE REMOVED, WHAT'S THEIR CONDITION OR STATUS RIGHT NOW? THEY'RE NOT IN GOOD SHAPE.
WE, WE WERE JUST LOOKING AT SOME STREET VIEWS.
IT LOOKS LIKE SOME ARE BOARDED UP MAYBE.
YOU KNOW, THE, THIS PART OF OAK CLIFF IS A, A REAL MISHMASH.
THERE'S SOME REALLY LOVELY HOMES.
AND THEN THERE'S SOME THAT HAVE NOT BEEN TAKEN CARE OF ON OUR BLOCK.
THERE'S ONE NICE HOME LEFT, AND, UH, THAT'S WHEN WE'RE TRYING TO GET RELOCATED.
ALRIGHT, THANK YOU COMMISSIONER FORZA.
HOW MANY HOMES ARE SLATED FOR DEMOLITION THAT ARE ON THIS PROPERTY TODAY? I'M SORRY, I, I'M EXACTLY HOW MANY HOMES ARE ON THIS PROPERTY THAT ARE SLATED FOR DEMOLITION? I THINK THERE'S FOUR.
THERE'S ONE, TWO, THERE'S FIVE HOMES.
SOME OF THEM HAVE MORE THAN ONE TENANT IN THEM, BUT THEY'RE NOT ALL OCCUPIED TODAY.
AND THERE'S ONE HOME THAT YOU SAY IS A, IS A VERY NICE HOME THAT YOU'RE YES, SIR.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE, UH, THE BIG LOT, RIGHT ON THE HARD CORNER, IT'S A, UH, OF, UH, SIXTH AND ZANG.
CAN YOU SEE MY CURSOR? YES, SIR.
THAT'S THE HOUSE THAT WE'RE, WE'RE TRYING TO GET RELOCATED.
IT'S A NICE TWO STORY, UH, PRAIRIE STYLE HOME.
SO IS, UM, WHAT HAPPENS IF YOU'RE, IF YOU'RE NOT SUCCESSFUL THEN IN GETTING IT RELOCATED.
IF WE'RE UNSUCCESSFUL GETTING RID OF IT, THEN, UH, OR TRANSFERRING TO ANOTHER OWNER, THEN IT WILL BE, IT WILL BE DEMOLISHED.
UM, MS. WATLEY AND HER TESTIMONY, UH, SAID THAT, THAT, THAT THEY HAD A PETITION WITH 2,256 SIGNATURES OPPOSING THIS PROJECT.
IT'S A, IT'S A, HISTORICALLY, I THINK IT'S BEEN A ROOMING HOUSE.
SO THE, THE HOUSE THAT WE'RE TRYING TO REPURPOSE, IT'S A, A LARGE HOUSE AND I HISTORICALLY, IT APPEARS TO BE A ROOMING HOUSE.
THERE'S A LOT OF MAILBOXES OUT THERE.
IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE IT'S BEEN A SINGLE FAMILY HOME TO ME FOR A LONG TIME.
I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S OCCUPIED RIGHT NOW.
HAVE YOU HAD MEETINGS WITH THE COMMUNITY? I'M, I'M CURIOUS.
I MEAN, MS. WATLEY SAID THAT THERE WAS A PETITION SIGNED, UH, THAT 2,256 PEOPLE SIGNED THIS PETITION OPPOSING THE PROJECT.
SO I'M JUST CURIOUS WHY THERE'S, I MEAN, THAT'S A LOT OF PEOPLE.
BUT DID SHE SAY 2 0 2, 256 PEOPLE? SO THANK YOU FOR CORRECTING.
WE, WE MET WITH THE, THE LAKE CLIFF.
[02:25:02]
SO WE MET WITH THE LAKE LAKE CLIFF NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION BEFORE WE FILED THIS BACK IN THE COVID TIME.HAVE YOU NOTICED THIS CASE HAS BEEN, UH, BEEN FILED FOR TWO YEARS AND SINCE THAT TIME WE'VE MET WITH THEM A HANDFUL OF TIMES.
WE HAD A NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING AS WELL.
AND, UH, YEAH, THERE IS AN ONLINE PETITION, UH, THE PEOPLE OPPOSING IT, BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THE, THE RESPONSES THAT CAME BACK, THERE'S ONE PERSON IN OPPOSITION IN, IN ALL OF THAT.
SO, UM, THE, IN MY MIND, ONLINE PETITIONS, THEY REALLY DON'T SPEAK TO THE ISSUE, UH, PER SE BECAUSE, UH, I WOULD SAY THAT A LOT OF PEOPLE DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY'RE PROTESTING.
BUT IN THE, IN THE NOTIFICATION AREA, THERE'S NOT A LOT OF OPPOSITION.
UH, UH, MELISSA, IF YOU GIMME JUST ONE MOMENT.
UH, UH, FORGIVE ME, UH, TABITHA.
UM, THE OTHER QUESTION I WANT TO ASK IS HOW MANY UNITS ARE, ARE, ARE YOU ACTUALLY PROPOSING TO BUILD A MULTI THAT ARE GONNA BE, UH, LIVING UNITS ABOUT 300, 300 LIVING UNITS? YES, SIR.
IT'S GONNA BE AN EIGHT STORY BUILDING.
IT'S GONNA BE AN EIGHT STORY BUILDING.
THAT'S A, THAT'S UNDER THE CURRENT ZONING? YES.
YOU READY? COMMISSIONER WHEELER, PLEASE.
WOULD YOU SAY THAT THE BUILDING, THE PROPERTY, WHAT ARE YOU PROPOSING IS, IS IS GEARING TOWARD WITH THE CURRENT, WITH THE CHANGING CLIMATE OF, UH, RESIDENTIAL MICHU IN THAT AREA? RIGHT.
IT IS UNDER THE, WE'RE PROPOSING A BUILD UNDER THE CURRENT ZONING THERE TODAY, WE'RE JUST, WE'RE NOT CHANGING ANY OF THE YARD LOT AND SPACE REQUIREMENTS AND NOT THE HEIGHT, NOT THE DENSITY, NOT THE SETBACKS, BUT IT IS, IT IS A LINE WHAT IS BEING BUILT IN THE, THE CURRENT AREA OF SURROUNDING.
IF, IF YOU GO FARTHER DOWN SAYING THAT, THAT'S WHAT'S BEEN BUILT AS WELL.
AND, AND YOU SAID THAT THE PROPERTY, THE, THE PARTICULAR, UM, HOUSE THAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT TAKEN AWAY IS ACTING MORE AS A MULTI-FAMILY AND NOT SINGLE FAMILY? SO PRETTY MUCH, IT APPEARS TO ME THAT THOSE HOUSES, UH, ARE HAVE MULTIPLE, ALL THE HOUSES HAVE MULTIPLE RESIDENCE IN THEM, WHETHER OR NOT THEY, THERE ARE ACTUALLY MULTI-FAMILY, MEANING THAT THEY ALL HAVE, EACH UNIT HAS A BEDROOM, BATHROOM, AND A KITCHEN, OR THERE ARE ROOMING HOUSES.
I, I DON'T KNOW, BUT THERE'S A LOT OF MAIL.
THE HOUSES TEND TO HAVE A LOT OF MAILBOX, BUT THERE IS MULTIPLE MAILBOXES, WHICH WOULD YES, MA'AM.
INSINUATE THAT THEY ARE, YES, MULTIPLE.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONERS FOR MR. BALDWIN? OKAY.
MS. WATLEY IS, IS OUT OF THOSE SIGN OUT OF THOSE PETITIONS, IS THAT PETITION ONLINE FOR ANYONE TO SIGN UP? OR IS THAT, AND HOW MANY OF THOSE WHO HAVE SIGNED UP FOR PETITION ARE ACTUALLY RESIDENTS OF THE CURRENT AREA IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE ACTUAL PROPOSED, UH, DEVELOPMENT? YES.
UM, AND I SENT A LINK TO, I DON'T KNOW THE GENTLEMAN'S NAME, WHO, WHO, THE PERSON WHO WAS SUPPOSED TO GET PRESENTATIONS TO BE SHOWN.
UM, I DON'T HAVE AN ACTUAL PRESENTATION OF IT, IT WAS JUST A LINK.
UM, BUT I, I DO WANNA ALSO SAY IT'S SEVEN HOUSES THAT ARE GOING TO BE TORN DOWN.
AND THE ONES ALONG BECKLEY, THERE'S FIVE AND THEY'RE ALL CRAFTSMAN STYLE HOUSES THAT ARE, I THINK THEY, THEY MAY BE NOT A LITTLE ROUGH INSIDE, BUT THEY'RE QUITE NICE OUTSIDE.
SO WHAT I'M ASKING YOU ABOUT THE, OH, THE, SO THE PETITION WOULD, IS SAYING THAT THESE ARE PEOPLE ARE IN OPPOSITION, IS THIS A GENERAL ONLINE PETITION OR IS THIS IS, OR THE PEOPLE THAT ARE SIGNING UP ARE IN PROXIMITY WHO WILL BE DIRECTLY AFFECTED BY THIS PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT? YES.
MOST IT IS A GENERAL PETITION.
UM, AND I DO HAVE A EXCEL SHEET OF EVERYONE, EVERYONE WHO SIGNED, AND MOST OF THE SIGNATURES ARE FROM THE CITY OF DALLAS.
UM, IT DID CATCH A LITTLE BIT OF FIRE.
IT GOT SOME PRESS WITH CANDY'S DIRT AND THE DALLAS OBSERVER.
UM, SO THEY GOT AROUND DALLAS PRETTY WELL.
SO I THINK THAT, I THINK I, SO I'M ASKING IN A DIRECT QUESTION, HOW MANY, HOW MANY PEOPLE WHO ARE IN THE OP SO WE CAN HAVE, SO WE, WE HAVE OFTEN HAVE, UM, NOW I FORGOT WHAT I WAS GONNA TO SAY.
PETITIONS,
[02:30:01]
THOUGH THAT THEY MIGHT ASSIGN THE PETITION, THEY ARE NOT DIRECTLY AFFECTED.SO WE, WE MIGHT CONSIDER, BUT HOW MANY OF THOSE 2000, BECAUSE THAT'S A LOT.
VERY SELDOM DO WE SEE THAT MANY, UNLESS IT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU'RE, HOW MANY OF THOSE 2000 ACTUALLY LIVE? OR HOW DO YOU DETERMINE IF THEY ARE DIRECTLY AFFECTED BECAUSE THEY LIVE IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THAT PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT? THAT, I DON'T HAVE A NUMBER FOR YOU.
THE, THERE WASN'T ANY PLACE TO GATHER THAT DATA.
IF, IF THEY'RE ACTUAL OAK CLIFF RESIDENTS OR NOT.
BECAUSE I SO THAT NUMBER AND I'M, AND, AND I WOULD, YOU WOULD CONSIDER THAT IF, I MEAN, WITHOUT HAVING THAT PARTICULAR TYPE OF DATA SAYING THAT THESE, THAT THIS IS JUST A GENERAL PETITION THAT SOMEONE IN WISCONSIN CAN SIGN AND THEY HAVE NO, NO ACCESS.
YEAH, I KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN, RIGHT.
JUST A COUPLE OF FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS.
CAN EVERYONE TURN OFF THEIR MICS? I THINK WE'RE GETTING A LOT OF FEEDBACK.
NOW I CAN HEAR MYSELF THINKING AND I CAN TALK
UM, MS. WATLEY, YOU MENTIONED THAT, THAT PEOPLE WHO SIGNED THE PETITION COULD PUT THEIR, UM, CITY, COULD THEY ALSO PUT THEIR ZIP CODE? UM, I THINK THERE IS A PLACE FOR PEOPLE TO PUT THEIR ZIP CODE.
DO YOU KNOW WHAT, WHAT ZIP CODE IS THIS PROJECT IN? SEVEN FIVE.
OH, IT'S, UM, RIGHT ON THE BORDER OF 7 5 2 0 8 AND 7 5 2 0 3.
I LIVE ACROSS THE STREET IN 7 5 2 0 3.
BUT THE OTHER SIDE OF BECKLEY MAY BE 7 5 2 0 8.
AND I, I KNOW ZIP CODES ARE CAN BE FAIRLY BIG, BUT HOW MANY PEOPLE FROM THOSE TWO ZIP CODES SIGNED THIS PETITION? THAT I DON'T HAVE AN, AN ANSWER TO.
AND I THINK MR. BALDWIN MENTIONED THE, THE LAKE CLIFF NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
HE HAD SEVERAL MEETINGS WITH THAT.
ARE YOU PART OF THAT GROUP? YEAH, THE LAKE CLIFF.
UM, LAKE CLIFF WAS A HISTORIC DISTRICT.
UH, IT WAS, TO MY UNDERSTANDING, THERE WERE ONLY ABOUT FIVE PEOPLE WHO ATTENDED THAT MEETING.
AND MANY PEOPLE THAT I SPOKE TO NEVER EVEN KNEW THAT THERE WAS A MEETING HAPPENING.
OR DID YOU ATTEND THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION MEETINGS ON THIS? NO, I DIDN'T.
I DIDN'T KNOW THEY WERE HAPPENING.
UM, I ONLY KNEW ABOUT THIS WHEN THE, UH, NOTIFICATION LETTER WAS SENT OUT.
AND AT THAT POINT, THERE WAS ANOTHER NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING OVER AT ENO'S UPSTAIRS.
UM, WE PRETTY MUCH FILLED HALF OF THAT SPACE.
UM, IT, IT WAS A, IT WAS A GOOD MEETING.
SO YOU ATTENDED THE, THE SECOND MEETING, BUT YOU'RE NOT, JUST, JUST TO CLARIFY, ARE YOU IN THE LEADERSHIP OF THE LAKE COULD CLIFF NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION? NO.
AND I GUESS WE DON'T HAVE ANYONE FROM THAT NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION HERE TODAY, DO WE? OKAY.
MISS WATLEY, IN YOUR COMMENTS, I WASN'T, UH, CLEAR.
IT SEEMED LIKE YOU WERE SUPPORTER OF THE PROJECT IF THERE WAS COMMERCIAL GROUND FLOOR USES.
DID I UNDERSTAND THAT CORRECTLY? AND I NO.
I, I KIND OF HATE THAT IT'S STRIPPING AWAY, YOU KNOW, A CHUNK OF OAK, OAK CLIFF HISTORY, UM, FOR A BIG, MODERN EIGHT STORY BUILDING.
BUT IF, IF THERE WAS ANY KIND OF CONCESSION, IT WOULD BE A LITTLE BIT OF RETAIL THAT WE COULD ENJOY.
SO YOU, YOU'RE, I'M STILL NOT CLEAR.
SO YOU FEEL LIKE IT SHOULD BE A QUID PRO QUO? YOU WOULD FEEL BETTER AND SUPPORT THE PROJECT IF THERE WAS GROUND FLOOR USES? NO, I WOULD NEVER SUPPORT THE PROJECT.
BUT THE, THE, THE THING IS, THE PROJECT AS IT'S, AS THEY'RE PRESENTING IT, IS ALLOWED BY THE CITY OF DALLAS.
SO I CAN'T REALLY PROTEST THAT.
I MEAN, I GUESS I COULD, BUT THIS WAS, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING THAT THEY WERE PROPOSING WE THOUGHT WE COULD TRY.
ARE YOU AWARE THAT THE LAKE CLIFF NEIGHBORHOOD, WHEN THIS PD WAS CREATED, THE PROCESS FOR THE, THE PD CREATION TOOK FOUR YEARS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD? THERE WAS, ON THE STEERING COMMITTEE, THERE WERE SEVERAL REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE LAKE CLIFF NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION THAT SAT ON THAT STEERING COMMITTEE, AND THERE WAS EXTENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD INTERACTION AND FEEDBACK.
AND PART OF THE REASON THAT THIS BASE ZONING AT THIS SITE IS AT EIGHT STORIES WITH GROUND FLOOR MIXED USE IS BECAUSE THE LAKE CLIFF NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION ADVOCATED FOR THAT.
AND WE ALSO ADVOCATED TO HAVE THE, THE RETAIL ALL AROUND THE, THE GROUND FLOOR THERE.
SO,
COMMISSIONER FORESITE, UH, MS. WATLEY, UH,
[02:35:01]
WOULD YOU REPEAT AGAIN, HOW MANY HOMES ARE ALONG BECKLEY AND HOW MANY HOMES ARE ALONG ZANG THAT WILL BE DESTROYED WITH THIS PROJECT? SURE.THERE'S FIVE HOUSES ON THE BECKLEY SIDE.
UM, ON THE ZANG SIDE, THERE'S THE BIG YELLOW HOUSE THAT MR. BALDWIN'S REFERRING TO AS HOPING SOMEBODY WILL PICK UP AND MOVE BECAUSE IT IS FANTASTIC.
UM, AND THEN NEXT TO THAT HOUSE, TO THE NORTH IS THE MULTIFAMILY PROPERTY.
WHAT LOOKS TO BE THE MULTIFAMILY PROPERTY, THAT'S THE ONE WITH THE MAILBOXES OUTSIDE.
UM, AND THEN TO THE NORTH OF THAT IS AN EMPTY LOT.
SO SEVEN PROPERTIES ARE GONNA BE DESTROYED.
APPROXIMATELY, MR. CHAIR, IF I MAY, I JUST LIKE TO REMIND THE BODY THAT CPC DOES NOT APPROVE DEMOLITION OF HOMES, AND THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WILL NECESSARILY RESULT AS A, IF THIS ZONING REQUEST IS ULTIMATELY APPROVED BY COUNCIL.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR OUR SPEAKER COMMISSIONERS? QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF COMMISSIONER? SEEING NONE.
COMMISSIONER CHERNO, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION, SIR? UH, THANK YOU.
I HAVE SOME COMMENTS AFTERWARDS.
UH, IN THE MATTER OF Z TWO 12 DASH 3 57, I MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE THIS ITEM, SUBJECT TO A DEVELOPMENT PLAN, THE TERMINATION OF SHOPFRONT OVERLAY ALONG BECKLEY AVE AND SIXTH STREET ONLY, AND THE APPLICANT'S REQUESTED CONDITIONS WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGES.
AND SECTION 51 P DASH 4 68 1 0 9 0.4 SUBDISTRICT O SUB SUBSECTION F LIVE WORK UNIT IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS, EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN THIS SUBSECTION.
A LIVE WORK UNIT IS A PERMITTED USE IN ALL DEVELOPMENT TYPES AND MAY BE LOCATED ON THE GROUND STORY.
IT MAY NOT BE USED TO FULFILL THE NON-RESIDENTIAL USE REQUIREMENTS FOR GROUND STORIES ON THE FRONTAGE OF ZANG STREET AND SECTION 51 P DASH 4 68 0.10 9.4, SUBDISTRICT O SUB SUBSECTION D BUILDING ELEMENTS IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS, FOR A MIXED USE SHOPFRONT DEVELOPMENT TYPE STOOPS AND FRONT PORCHES ARE PERMIT PERMITTED BUILDING ELEMENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 51 A DASH 13 DASH 3 0 5 E AND F NO MORE THAN THREE FEET IN HEIGHT.
AND SECTION 51 P DASH 4 68 1 0 9 0.4 SUBDISTRICT O SUBSECTION G ON STREET PARKING IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS ON STREET PARKING AND SECTION 51 P 4, 68 0.106 D 3G IS NOT REQUIRED FOR THE ZANG BOULEVARD STREET FRONTAGES IN THE AREAS THAT CONTAIN CANARY.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER CHER FOR YOUR MOTION.
COMMISSIONER HOUSER FOR YOU A SECOND I ELIMINATION OF DII WAS ABOUT TO ASK THAT.
CAN WE NEED CLARIFICATION ON, UM, THE REMOVAL OF THE, UH, SH SHOP FRONT OVERLAY AND THE TERMINATION OF THE DE LIQUOR CONTROL OVERLAY? WHAT'S YOUR INTENTION THERE? OH, THAT'S GONNA FOLLOW STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.
ON, ON THE, ON THE LIQUOR OVERLAY.
AND THEN YOU HAD A, YOU, UH, MOTION FOR A, UH, DIFFERENT EXTENT ON THE SHOP FRONT OVERLAY, CORRECT? YES.
AND SO THAT IS YES, NO, THAT'S FINE.
THE SHELF FRONT OVERLAY IS, IS AN ACTUAL OVERLAY AND WE'RE JUST AMENDING THE DESCRIPTION AND OVERLAY ON IT JUST FOR EVERYONE'S CLARITY.
BUT HE RECOMMENDED A, A DIFFERENT, UH, PORTION IN WHICH IT WOULD BE TERMINATED, WHICH I UNDERSTAND JUST TO BE THE BECKLEY FRONTAGE, CORRECT? YES.
AND I WAS GONNA EXPLAIN SOME OF THIS IN MY COMMENTS.
SO YEAH, THAT WAS AN EXTENSIVE MOTION AND THERE'S A LITTLE BIT THERE TO UNPACK.
UH, THE FIRST THING THAT, UM, I'LL SAY IS WE HAVE THE BASE PD 4 68, THAT'S THE GOLD STANDARD.
UM, AND HOW WE GET THERE, UH, IN A PERFECT WORLD, WE WOULD JUST BE ABLE TO BUILD A BUILDING AND WE'D BE ABLE TO HAVE THOSE GROUND FLOOR STREET ACTIVATING USES LIT UP IMMEDIATELY WITH, WITH
[02:40:01]
SOME GREAT AMENITIES FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD.UNFORTUNATELY, THERE'S SOME JUST MARKET, UH, REALITIES WHERE THOSE GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL SPACES ARE REMAINING VACANT IN OTHER PROJECTS IN OUR DISTRICT.
SO ON ONE SENSE, WE HAVE THE DEVELOPER, LET'S SAY THAT THEY WANT TO HAVE RESIDENTIAL UNITS EVERYWHERE IN THE BUILDING AND DON'T EVEN WANNA HAVE TO BUILD ANY COMMERCIAL.
AND THEN THE OTHER EXTREME, YOU HAVE THE PD PURISTS WHO DON'T WANT ANYTHING BUILT UNLESS IT MATCHES EXIST EXISTING 4 68 CONDITIONS.
UM, I THINK, THINK THE APPROPRIATE AND BEST PLAN IS THE COMPROMISE BETWEEN THOSE TWO.
THE THING THAT I'M MOST INTERESTED IN IS MAKING SURE THAT THE BUILDING SHELL IS COMMERCIAL READY.
SO AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE, WHETHER IT'S 10 YEARS, 20 YEARS, OR 50 YEARS, WHEN COMMERCIAL USES BECOME VIABLE, THEY CAN BE ACTIVATED ON THE GROUND FLOOR.
AND THE REASON THAT'S IMPORTANT IS SOMETHING THAT I HAD ALREADY ALLUDED TO IS THAT THIS PD IN PARTICULAR, THIS STRETCH ALONG ZANG, HAD EXTENSIVE INPUT FROM THE COMMUNITIES ACROSS ZANG AND THE COMMUNITIES TO THE EAST, WHICH WOULD BE LAKE CLIFF.
THEY WANT COMMERCIAL USES THAT THEY CAN WALK TO.
THEY ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT WILL NEVER HAPPEN WITHOUT DENSITY.
SO IT'S THE OLD CHICKEN AND THE EGG, WHICH IS GONNA COME FIRST.
WELL, IN REALITY, THEY'RE GONNA KIND OF CO CO BE CREATED.
YOU'RE NOT GONNA GET ONE WITHOUT THE OTHER.
AND WE HAVE TO COME UP WITH GOOD SOLUTIONS SO WE CAN GET THESE MULTIFAMILIES PROJECTS BUILT.
BUT I WANNA SEE THAT SHELL OF THAT BUILDING AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE BE ABLE TO CONVERT TO THE ORIGINAL INTENT, WHICH I'M CALLING THE GOLD STANDARD OF PD 4 68.
SO I'LL JUST UNPACK QUICKLY ON ZANG, WHAT MY MOTION SAYS IS SHOP FRONT OVERLAY LIVE WORK NOT ALLOWED JUST AS PD 4 68.
SO THAT'S THE PD PURIST 4 68 REMAINS INTACT.
WE ARE ALLOWING SHOP FRONT, UM, UH, ON FIFTH STREET AS WELL WITH THE AMENDMENT OF ALLOWING LIVE WORK.
SO SHOPFRONT REMAINS IN PLACE ON FIFTH STREET WITH THE ADDITION OF LIVE WORK THAT'LL GIVE THE, THE DEVELOPER THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE THE CHOICE.
IF HE CAN GET A COMMERCIAL TENANT IN THERE FOR THE SHOPFRONT, GREAT.
EVERYBODY BENEFITS IN THE COMMUNITY FROM THAT.
IF, IF IT DOESN'T WORK, THEN HE HAS THE OPTION TO DO A LIVE WORK CHOICE IN ITS PLACE, WHICH IS STILL A COMMERCIAL USE.
UH, AND THEN ON THE OTHER TWO, UM, WE, I'M ALLOWING SOME COMPROMISE.
UM, AND THE REASON I LIKE TO COMPROMISE ON BECKLEY IS BECAUSE THERE IS SOME FEEDBACK OUT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
SOME PEOPLE LIKE THERE TO BE A SOFTER TRANSITION WITH RESIDENTIAL USES.
TWO, WE'VE GOT EXTENSIVE GRADE CHANGED.
AND IF YOU ACTUALLY GO ALONG THAT CORRIDOR, THERE ARE NO COMMERCIAL FRONTAGES ON BECKLEY.
AND PART OF THAT IS IT'S VERY, VERY DIFFICULT TO PUT A INFRASTRUCTURE AT GROUND LEVEL THERE.
UM, SO THAT WAS THE ESSENCE OF THE, THE MODIFICATIONS FROM STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.
THE OTHER RECOMMENDATION I MADE WAS WITH REGARDS TO THE PARKING IN THE FRONT, I ADDED A LITTLE BIT, UM, MORE DEFINED LANGUAGE AROUND WHAT CONSTITUTED STREETCAR INFRASTRUCTURE WITH IT ONLY BEATING BEING THE CANARY'S, NOT THE STREET CAR TRACKS, WHICH WOULD ALLOW THEM TO NOT DO ANY STREET PARKING.
SO THIS IS GONNA ASSURE US THAT WE'RE GOING TO START RESHAPING THE, UM, INFRASTRUCTURE TO GO FROM A MORE SUBURBAN TO A MORE URBAN.
AND THAT IS THE TRANSITION, THAT'S WHAT'S HAPPENING THROUGH THIS ENTIRE DISTRICT.
WE WERE A ONCE SUBURBAN DISTRICT THAT IS BECOMING QUASI URBAN.
AND WHEN THE PD 4 68, WHICH WAS 850 ACRES, AND IT WAS THE LARGEST REZONING IN THE CITY THAT EVER HAPPENED, UH, YOU WERE TAKING A LARGE LANDMASS THAT WAS SUBURBAN BASED, AND WE ARE NOW CREATING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING AND THE APPROPRIATE PLANS TO MIGRATE IT TO BECOMING URBAN.
AND I FEEL LIKE THE MOTION THAT'S MADE FOR THIS PROJECT IS HELPING MAKING THAT TRANSITION.
AND UH, THANK YOU COMMISSIONER TURNOCK FOR GOOD WORK ON THIS ONE.
UH, I APPRECIATE THE, UM, INITIATIVE TO BE FLEXIBLE ON THE SHOP FRONT OVERLAYS, THE, UH, OUR FORM-BASED DISTRICTS, OUR PDS OFTEN, UM, JUST PUT TOO MUCH SHOP FRONT OVERLAY AND FRANKLY, UM,
[02:45:01]
FOR WHAT CAN BE SUPPORTED BY THE MARKET.UM, I'VE BEEN INVOLVED IN A LOT OF RETAIL ARCHITECTURE OVER THE YEARS AND, AND OFTENTIMES OUR ZONING JUST ASKS FOR WAY MORE THAN CAN POSSIBLY BE UTILIZED IN TO MR. CHER'S OBSERVATION THAT THERE IS VACANT RETAIL ON THE GROUND FLOOR OF, OF A NUMBER OF BUILDINGS IN HIS DISTRICT.
AND SO I THINK THE FLEXIBILITY FOR LIVE WORK FOR, UM, STOOPS AND RESIDENT ENTRIES ON THE STREET ACCOMPLISHED MUCH THE SAME THING IN TERMS OF GETTING EYES ON THE STREET, WALK, PEDESTRIANS ON THE STREET, ET CETERA, BUT IN, IN A FLEXIBLE AND CREATIVE WAY, AND PERHAPS A LITTLE MORE NUANCED WAY THAN JUST, UH, YOU KNOW, CARTE BLANCHE SAYING SHOP FRONT OVERLAYS EVERYWHERE.
SO GOOD, UH, GOOD ADJUSTMENTS.
UM, THANK YOU COMMISSIONER CHAIR FOR YOUR HARD THOUGHTFUL WORK ON THIS.
I JUST HAD ONE QUESTION ABOUT YOUR MOTION.
CAN YOU REREAD THE PORTION WHERE YOU ADDRESS THE LIVE WORK UNIT LANGUAGE EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN THE SUBSECTION A LIVE WORK UNIT AS THE LOCATION OF THE LIVE WORK OR THE, I THINK YOU MODIFIED THE DEFINITION OF LIVE WORK, IS THAT CORRECT? UM, NOT, NOT THE DEFINITION.
LIVE WORK IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS, EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN THIS SUBSECTION.
A LIVE WORK UNIT IS PERMITTED USE IN ALL DEVELOPMENT TYPES AND MAY BE LOCATED ON THE GROUND STORY.
IT MAY NOT BE USED TO FULFILL THE NON-RESIDENTIAL USE REQUIREMENTS FOR GROUND STORIES.
AND THEN, UH, THE UNDER BUILDING ELEMENTS, IT'S FOR A MIXED USE SHOPFRONT DEVELOPMENT TYPE STOOPS AND FRONT PORCHES ARE PERMITTED BUILDING ELEMENTS IN ACCORDING WITH THE SUBSECTION.
LOOKS LIKE YOU HAVE THAT WRITTEN OUT.
CAN I JUST EYEBALL WHAT YOU'VE GOT RATHER THAN TRY? YEAH, YEAH.
WHILE WE DO THAT, COMMISSIONER BLA I, UM, WILL BE SUPPORTING THIS, AND IT'S INTERESTING IN THE CITY THAT THIS, THIS AREA OF DISTRICT ONE IS GOING FROM A SUBURBAN TO A URBAN, WHEREAS IN DISTRICT EIGHT THEY WANT TO BE SUBURBAN
UM, AND AS I DRIVE THROUGH THIS AREA IN MY TRAVELS THROUGHOUT THE CITY, I, THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I SAW AND I, AND I NOTED THAT THERE IS A LOT OF STREET OF FIRST FLOOR RETAIL THAT IS VACANT.
AND I, I HAVE SAID THAT IT'S A SHAME THAT WE, IN OUR MIXED USE, OUR DEFINITION OF MIXED USE, IT MAINTAINS THAT WE NEED SOME TYPE OF RETAIL OFFICE.
AND SOMETIMES THAT IS NOT SOMETHING WE CAN SUPPORT.
JUST LIKE WITH, WITH, UH, UH, CHAIR, UM, HOUSEWRIGHT SAID THAT THAT, THAT THERE'S A LOT OF TIMES THAT HE SEES ARCHITECTURAL, UM, REQUIREMENTS THAT A LOT OF RETAIL AND IT'S THIS, THE AREA JUST CAN'T SUPPORT THAT MUCH RETAIL, BUT IF WE NEED SOME TYPE OF APARTMENTS OR THAT HAVE TO GO WITH IT, YOU, YOU ARE ACTUALLY CAUSING BLIGHT, UM, TO HAPPEN BEFORE IN, IN, IN A NEW AREA.
THAT'S NEVER OUR INTENT TO BLIGHT A COMMUNITY BEFORE WE EVEN MAKE THE COMMUNITY OR BUILD THE COMMUNITY.
SO WHERE, WHEN I READ THIS, I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND IT AT ALL.
IT, IT JUST WENT STRAIGHT OVER MY HEAD BECAUSE THIS IS NOT SOMETHING WE SEE ON A, ON A REGULAR THIS, I, I DON'T EVEN KNOW IF THIS IS THE FIRST TIME WE'VE SEEN WORK, LIKE WORK LIVE, UM, BEING IMPLEMENTED.
SO THE FACT THAT, THAT YOU WERE ABLE TO PICK IT OUT AND TO, TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO GET IT DONE, I, I APPLAUD YOU.
UM, I LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING THIS HAPPEN BECAUSE I STILL GO THROUGH THAT AREA.
UM, SO I LOOK FORWARD TO THIS AND I, AND I THINK IT'S VERY THOUGHTFUL THE WAY YOU DID IT.
I HOPE THE HOUSING THAT YOU NEED TO RELOCATE IS ABLE TO BE RELOCATED, UM, INSTEAD OF JUST BEING DESTROYED.
I TRULY DO HOPE THAT DOES HAPPEN.
[02:50:02]
COMMISSIONER, SHE, I, I, I 100% SUPPORT THIS.AND IT GOES TO REALLY THINKING ABOUT COMMUNITY.
UM, SO MUCH DEVELOPMENT IS BEING BUILT IN OUR CITY THAT DOES NOT ALSO HAVE THOUGHT THINKING ABOUT COMMUNITY.
A GOOD FRIEND OF MINDS HAD A MIXED USE, UM, AND IT, AND, AND IT WAS FORECLOSED ON BECAUSE OF THE COMMERCIAL UNITS AND NOT THE RESIDENTIAL UNITS THAT WERE NEVER EMPTY.
AND, AND THE CITY COULD NOT UNDERSTAND WHY THE COMMERCIAL UNITS WERE WERE EMPTY AND IT WAS BECAUSE IT WAS TOO MUCH.
AND OFTENTIMES WHEN WE SEE THESE PROJECTS, UM, DEVELOPERS SWAY AWAY FROM THAT MIXED USE BECAUSE OF THE CHANCES OF THAT COMMERCIAL UNIT NOT BEING ABLE TO BE, UM, UM, OCCUPIED.
AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE DID LEARN IN MINNEAPOLIS WAS THAT WHEN DEVELOPERS MEET COMMUNITY AND THE CITY GETS INVOLVED AND CREATES SOMETHING SUCH AS THIS, THAT IT IS BENEFICIAL.
WHEREAS IF THE COMMERCIAL DOES NOT NECESSARILY PEAK THAT THE DEVELOPER WILL NOT LOSE BECAUSE THEY MIGHT BECAUSE OF THE UPPER UNITS.
UM, AND THE LIVE WORK, DEFINITELY I PAY CLOSE ATTENTION TO WHAT YOU SAID AND BEING SENSE THAT MY DISTRICT IS GOING THROUGH A GETTING READY TO HAVE THEIR PD MODIFIED AND WE'RE LOOKING AT HOW DO WE DO THIS COMBINATION TO ACTUALLY SEND WHAT YOU SAID OVER TO OUR PUT REPRESENTATIVES TO SAY, THIS IS HOW WE HAVE, ESPECIALLY IN LIVE WORK, WHERE YOU HAVE ENOUGH SPACE THAT IN OUR DISTRICT IT SAYS ONE DWELLING PER, PER, PER PRETTY MUCH PLAT OF LAND.
AND SO WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE MORE, UM, UNITS.
SO YOU HAVE ACTUALLY GIVEN US SOME DESIGN STANDARDS AND SOME, A DIFFERENT THOUGHT PATTERN ON WHAT DOES MIXED USE LOOK LIKE.
UM, AND, AND SOMETIME THAT COMES FROM THIS VERY ROOM.
AND I'M VERY APPRECIATIVE OF THE, OF WHAT YOU HAVE DONE.
UM, BECKLEY IS A, IS A, A MAJOR THROUGHWAY, WHEREAS SIXTH STREET IS NOT SO MUCH.
SO HAVING THAT OPTION WHERE SOMEONE THAT JUST NEEDS A OFFICE SPACE, SOMEONE THAT MIGHT BE A DESIGNER, SOMEONE THAT THAT IS, THAT MAYBE JUST OPERATES A SMALL TAX OFFICE CAN LIVE IN THEIR BUSINESS ON THE SIDE STREET AND NOT NECESSARILY MAIN STREET.
AND BELIEVE ME, I ALSO WANT A COPY OF THAT SO I CAN SEND IT STRAIGHT TO LIZZIE AND PATRICK AND SAY, LOOK AT HER
YOU EITHER YOU CHOPS AND THAT IS NOT WORKING AND WE HAVE VACANCIES AND, AND RESTRICTIONS THAT IS GONNA CAUSE FOR FAILURES.
AND SO THIS WILL HELP US BE ABLE TO SEE WHEN WE GET READY TO MOVE TO THE HOUSING COMPONENT IN OUR AREA AND LOOKING AT WHERE THESE, WHERE WE CAN HAVE, WHERE A DEVELOPER DOES NOT HAVE TO BUILD A TOTAL SHOP FRONT BUT CAN ADD TO DENSITY AND SOME SHOPPING AND SOME LIVE WORK.
SO THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THAT COMMISSIONER HERBERT.
SO, UM, I, I DO THINK THE PROJECT, THE LIVE WORK I HAVE LIVE WORKS IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD THAT IS A PART OF A PD THAT WAS APPROVED IN 2005.
UM, THOSE UNITS ARE NEVER FOR SALE.
THEY GO ON FOR SALE FOR ONE DAY AND THE NEXT DAY THEY'RE PENDING.
SO I KNOW THE IMPORTANCE OF THE LIVE WORK AND DO SUPPORT 'EM.
I AM STRUGGLING WITH THE EIGHT FLOORS AT THIS END OF THE LAKE CLIFF AREA.
I THINK THIS WOULD BE THE LARGEST, UM, BUILDING ON THAT END.
UM, I KNOW SOME OF THOSE NEIGHBORS BEHIND THAT AREA WHO HAVE COMPLAINED ABOUT THE CHANGES IN THIS AREA.
SOME I LIKE THE CHURCH THERE THAT'S BEEN CONVERTED TO HOMES THEY LOVE, RIGHT? THERE'S A LOT THERE THAT PEOPLE LIKE.
UM, IT'S JUST THE HEIGHT, UM, IS SCARY FOR FOR SOME OF 'EM.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? COMMISSIONERS, COMMISSIONER SCHOCK? YEAH.
UH, THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS EVERYONE.
AND UM, COMMISSIONER, UM, HERBERT, THE, WITH REGARD TO THE HEIGHT OBVI, I'M SURE YOU KNOW THIS, BUT THIS CASE IS NOT, THEY'RE NOT ASKING FOR HEIGHT.
THAT THAT HEIGHT AND THAT MUA IS ALREADY A, A BASE ZONING THAT'S IN PLACE.
THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, THIS ENTIRE CORRIDOR ON THE, ON THE EAST SIDE OF ZANG ALLOWS FOR THAT SAME, SO THIS ISN'T AN ISOLATED PARCEL THAT HAS THE, THE EIGHT STORIES.
I DON'T EVEN THINK THEY'RE USING THEIR FULL EIGHT STORIES.
I THINK WE'RE SIX TO SEVEN 'CAUSE THERE'S SOME TOPOGRAPHY CHANGE DEPENDING ON WHICH SIDE OF THE PROJECT.
IT, IT'S, IT IS A TALLER BECAUSE IT'S UH, TWO, WHAT'S IT ON THE ZANG FRONTAGE ON THE ZANG FRONTAGE, RIGHT? THE EXHIBITS I SHOWED SHOW, UH, SIX, SIX AND EIGHT ALONG, UH, RIGHT, EXACTLY
[02:55:01]
RIGHT.SO THAT IS IN, AGAIN, THAT PROCESS FOR THAT PD TOOK YEARS AND YEARS AND YEARS.
AND THE COMMUNITY THROUGH THAT PROCESS REALLY GOT TO UNDERSTAND, OKAY, THAT COMMERCIAL THAT WE DESIRE, THAT WALKABLE LIFESTYLE THAT WE DESIRE, ALL THAT, THAT BENEFIT THAT URBANISM BRINGS, UH, ISN'T GONNA HAPPEN WITHOUT THE DENSITY.
AND WE'RE JUST STARTING TO GET THERE WITH SOME CRITICAL MASS BECAUSE OF PROJECT, LIKE, PROJECTS LIKE THIS HAVE BEEN BUILT.
AND IT'S LIKE IF WE, YOU KNOW, IF WE CAN KEEP GOING ON THAT TREND, THEN IT'S GONNA REALLY ALLOW THOSE THAT, THAT UH, COMMERCIAL TO THRIVE AND GET THAT AMENITY, YOU KNOW? YEAH.
URBANISM, IT'S GOTTA, FOR PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO TOLERATE THE DENSITY, IT'S GOTTA PROVIDE SOMETHING AND IT'S LIKE, HOW DO YOU GET THERE? HOW DO YOU GO FROM THIS, THIS SUBURBAN, UH, LANDSCAPE AND THEN TRANSITION? AND THAT'S, THAT'S SOMETHING.
AND, AND JUST, YOU KNOW, FOR THE LONGEST TIME OUR COMMUNITY ALWAYS HAD TO DRIVE ACROSS THE BRIDGE TO GET THOSE COMMUNITY SERVICES.
AND WHAT'S NEXT FOR OUR COMMUNITY IS FOR US TO NOT HAVE TO TAKE THOSE LONG TRIPS TO GROCERY STORES, UH, OR THE HAIRCUTS OR JUST ALL OF THE STUFF THAT SUPPORTS YOUR LIFE WHERE WE CAN NOW HAVE THOSE AMENITIES ON OUR SIDE OF THE BRIDGE, NOT HAVE TO MAKE THOSE LONG COMMUTES FOR THE BASICS.
WE WON'T BE ABLE TO GET THERE UNTIL WE HAVE A CRITICAL MASS OF DENSITY.
SO JUST SOME THOUGHTS THERE IF I CAN CHAIR, IF I CAN ANSWER WHAT? YES SIR.
SO THANK YOU FOR ACKNOWLEDGING MY THOUGHT AND, AND SPENDING THAT MUCH TIME ON IT.
UM, AND MY, MY THING WASN'T ABOUT THE POPULATION, IT WAS ABOUT THAT END OF THE AREA HAVE RESTRICTED, THEIR HEIGHT.
SEEMS LIKE THEY HAVEN'T WENT UP TO EIGHT EVEN THOUGH THEY'VE BEEN ALLOWED.
SO, AND THAT'S ON ZANG, SO I DO APPRECIATE THAT IT MAY NOT BE EIGHT ON ZANG.
UM, I UNDERSTAND THE PART ABOUT GOING ACROSS THE BRIDGE BECAUSE ON THE SOUTH SOUTH OAK CLIFF SIDE, I GO TO LAKE CLIFF FOR SERVICES AND RESTAURANTS AND ENTERTAINMENT WHILE YOU GUYS ARE GOING DOWNTOWN FOR THE SAME, RIGHT?
UM, SO I DEFINITELY UNDERSTAND, RIGHT? 'CAUSE YOU HAVING IT THERE MAKES IT EASY FOR ME TO COME DOWN BECKLEY INTO YOUR AREA AND INDULGE AND ENJOY BISHOP ARTS AND ZANG AND SO ON AND SO FORTH.
UM, MY THING WAS MORE ON THE DIMENSION OF THE HEIGHT AND NOT POPULATION, BUT THANK YOU FOR ACKNOWLEDGING THAT AND FOR ANSWERING.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? COMMISSIONERS? SEEING NONE? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.
ANY OPPOSED? UH, COMMISSIONER HEMP.
I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS FOR OPPOSITION OR, OKAY.
COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, YOU RAISED THUMBS UP IN SUPPORT OR THUMBS UP IN OPPOSITION IN SUPPORT.
COMMISSIONERS, IT'S, UH, TWO O'CLOCK.
OKAY, COMMISSIONERS, WE'RE, WE WILL, UH, WE'RE GONNA MOVE AHEAD ON, UH, WE'LL COME BACK TO 13, WE'LL
[14. 24-1839 An application for a Specific Use Permit for an electrical substation on property zoned an R-16(A) Single Family District, on the west side of Edgemere Road, between Lawnhaven Road and Royalton Drive.]
GO TO 14, UM, SINCE IT'S ALSO GONNA GET HELP AND WE'RE BACK ON THE RECORD.ARE WE RECORDING? RECORDING? GOOD AFTERNOON, SIR.
UH, THIS IS ITEM 14, CASE Z, 2 34 DASH 1 42.
AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR AN ELECTRICAL SUBSTATION ON PROPERTY ZONE IN R 16, A SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT ON THE WEST SIDE OF EDGEMERE ROAD BETWEEN LONG HAVEN ROAD AND ROYALTON DRIVE.
RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL FOR A FIVE YEAR PERIOD, UH, SUBJECT TO A SITE PLANNING CONDITIONS.
UH, IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM SAYS NUMBER 14, PAGE SIX.
SO JUST WANTED TO ALSO STATE, UM, STAFF DID RECEIVE AN UPDATED, UM, SITE PLAN, UM, AFTER THE, AN, UM, ORIGINAL DOCKET WAS UH, PUBLISHED.
SO STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THE SITE PLAN THAT WAS PUBLISHED IN THE DOCKET, UH, NOT THE REVISED SITE PLAN.
UH, COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS ITEM? COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, PLEASE.
JUST TO CLARIFY, YOU'RE SUPPORT, HAVE YOU, YOU HAVEN'T REVIEWED THE AMENDED, YOU DON'T KNOW IF STAFF'S GOING TO SUPPORT IT OR NOT? JUST AT THE PRESENT TIME YOU'RE
[03:00:01]
SUPPORTING THE ONE IN THE DOCKET? NO.SO STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE REVISED AND WE ARE NOT IN SUPPORT OF THE REVISED.
THANK THE, YEAH, THE, THE REVISED HAS SOME, SOME ISSUES.
SO I, I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT HAS ASKED TO, LET'S TAKE A, UH, ANOTHER PAUSE ON THIS ONE.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? STAFF? UH, FOR STAFF? SEEING NONE? COMMISSIONER, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION, SIR? YES, IN THE MATTER OF, UH, CASE Z 2 3 4 1 42, I MOVE TO KEEP THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AND HOLD THIS MATTER UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL JUNE 20TH.
THANK YOU SIR FOR YOUR MOTION.
COMMISSIONER LER, INVITE YOUR ROOM FOR YOUR SECOND.
ANY COMMENTS? UH, UH, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER TO MAKE THE DOCKET FOR JUNE THE 20TH, ANY, ANY SUBMITTED, UM, CHANGES OR SITE PLANS WOULD NEED TO BE IN BY TOMORROW FOR, TO MEET THE DEADLINE FOR STAFF EVALUATION? IS THAT NOT CORRECT? SO IS JUNE 20TH GONNA GIVE US ENOUGH TIME TO TIME REVIEW A SITE PLAN THAT HASN'T BEEN, I DON'T UNDERSTAND, HAS BEEN ALTERED YET? I DON'T.
COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, I CAN SPEAK TO THAT.
UM, YEAH, IT WOULD BE PREFERABLE IF WE COULD HOLD THIS TO THE FIRST MEETING IN JULY.
UM, IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE ARE STILL SOME MAJOR CHANGES, UH, NEEDED TO THE SITE PLAN THAT WILL NEED TO BE REVIEWED BY STAFF.
UM, SO THAT WOULD, WOULD WORK BETTER FOR US JUST LOGISTICALLY.
AYA, YOU OKAY WITH THAT? WE DO HAVE A MOTION THEN FOR, UH, HOLD MY ADVISEMENT UNTIL JULY 11TH.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.
A THE OPPOSED MOTION CARRIES 13.
NO, WE'RE GONNA COME BACK TO 13.
YEAH, 'CAUSE HE WAS, COMMISSIONER HALL WAS OUT OF THE ROOM.
IT'S AN APPLICATION FOR PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FOR NOA NEIGHBORHOOD OFFICE DISTRICT USES AND STANDARDS AND PERSONAL SERVICE USES WITH CONSIDERATION FOR AN NSA NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICE DISTRICT ON PROPERTY ZONED IN R 16, A SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF ROYAL LANE IN THE DALLAS NORTH TOY STAFF.
RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL OF AN NSA NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICE DISTRICT IN LIEU OF A PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT.
IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? IT SAYS ITEM NUMBER 13, BOTTOM OF PAGE FIVE.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SEE NONE.
COMMISSIONER HALL, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? YES.
UH, IN THE MATTER OF CASE Z 2 2 3 3 2 9.
UH, I MOVE THAT WE KEEP THE PUBLIC RECORD OPEN AND PUT PLACE THIS UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL AUGUST THE 11TH.
OKAY, THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HALL FOR YOUR MOTION.
COMMISSIONER HERBERT FOR YOUR SECOND.
ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NOT COMMISSIONER CARPENTER? MY CALENDAR SHOWS THAT WE DON'T HAVE A MEETING ON THE 11TH, BUT THAT'S A SUNDAY.
SHOULD IT BE AUGUST THE EIGHTH?
WAIT, I DON'T REALLY WANT TO COME HERE ON SUNDAY.
UH, HOLD THE, UH, MEETING, PUBLIC HEARING OPEN UNTIL AUGUST EIGHT.
ALTHOUGH IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.
CARRIE EIGHT NOW IT'S NOW WE MOVE
[15. 24-1841 An application for a Planned Development District for MU-1 Mixed Use District uses and standards and a contractor's maintenance yard use with consideration for a CS Commercial Service District on property zoned an IR Industrial Research District, on the northeast corner of Gretna Street and Burgess Boulevard.]
TO NUMBER, UH, 15.IT'S AN APPLICATION FOR PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FOR MU ONE MIXED USE DISTRICT USES AND STANDARDS AND A CONTRACTOR'S MAINTENANCE YARD USE WITH CONSIDERATION FOR A CS COMMERCIAL SERVICE DISTRICT ON PROPERTIES OWNED AND IR INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH DISTRICT ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF GRETNA STREET AND BURGESS BOULEVARD.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL OF A CS DISTRICT, CS COMMERCIAL SERVICE DISTRICT IN LIEU OF A PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT.
I SEE THAT THE APPLICANT IS HERE.
MY NAME'S ROBERT REEVES, 38 0 7 VINE CREST 38 0 7 VINE CREST, DALLAS, TEXAS.
THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FOR MU ONE DISTRICT AND A CONTRACTOR'S MAINTENANCE YARD YARD FOR A LANDSCAPE, UH, CONTRACTOR'S MAINTENANCE
[03:05:01]
MAINTENANCE YARD ON PROPERTY THAT IS CURRENTLY ZONED INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH ZONING.UH, THE SAF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL OF COMMERCIAL SERVICE, WHICH ALLOWS A A CONTRACTOR'S MAINTENANCE YARD IN LIEU OF A PLAN DEVELOPMENT 'EM A DISTRICT.
UH, FRANKLY, IT'S, IT'S MY OPINION BASED ON THE DEFINITION OF A CONTRACTOR'S MAINTENANCE YARD, UH, THAT, UH, COMMERCIAL SERVICE DISTRICT OPEN-ENDED IS JUST VERY OPEN-ENDED.
IT ALLOWS ALL TYPES OF, UH, CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT, HEAVY CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT, AND OUR PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT PROHIBITS HEAVY CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT.
A WHOLE MYRIAD OF, UH, THOSE TYPES OF GUIDELINES THAT WE THINK WE BE AND MYSELF AND MY CLIENT THINK THAT HELPS TO ENSURE THAT THIS USE WILL CONTINUE TO BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE GOALS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
INCIDENTALLY, MY CLIENT, UH, BOUGHT THIS PROPERTY ON IN FEBRUARY THE 19TH, 2014.
SO HE'S BEEN IN OPERATION FOR OVER, OVER 10 YEARS.
SO I'M JUST GONNA KIND OF CUT TO THE CHASE AND GET TO THE BOTTOM LINE HERE.
WE ARE ASKING YOU TO APPROVE THE CONDITIONS, PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT CONDITIONS IN THE DOCKET AND INCLUDE THE PROVISIONS THAT THERE'S NOTATIONS THAT SAYS THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST.
SO APPROVE OUR PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT'S AND THEN INCLUDE THE, UH, CONDITIONS THAT SAY APPLICANT'S REQUEST WITH TWO EXCEPTIONS.
ONE EXCEPTION IS, AND I'M JUST GONNA KIND OF READ IT, I READ, I, I KIND OF WROTE THIS OUT MYSELF.
ONE EXCEPTION WOULD BE EXCEPT FOR A CONTRACTOR'S MAINTENANCE YARD LOCATED ON LAGOON DRIVE INCLUDE THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION FOR A SIX FOOT SIDEWALK ALONG ALL STREET FRONTAGES.
AND THE SECOND CONDITION WOULD BE A CONTRACTOR'S MAINTENANCE YARD AND OFFICE GREENHOUSE AND YADA YADA, YADA.
CONTRACTOR'S MAINTENANCE YARD, OFFICE, GREENHOUSE AND WAREHOUSE USE ASSOCIATED WITH A CONTRACTOR'S MAINTENANCE MAINTENANCE YARD MUST COMPLY WITH THE LOADING REGULATIONS TO CHAPTER 51 A.
SO MR. CHAIRMAN, THOSE ARE OUR REQUEST.
UH, I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU, SIR, PLEASE STAND BY.
THERE MAY BE QUESTIONS FOR YOU.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? COMMISSIONERS.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? NO QUESTIONS.
COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? YES.
IN THE MATTER OF Z 2 23 DASH 2 25, I MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT SUBJECT TO A DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND THE APPLICANT'S REQUESTED CONDITIONS WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGES IN SECTION 51 P DASH 1 1 1, SIDEWALKS AND FENCES ADD A NEW SUBSECTION, A IN GENERAL TO READ AS FOLLOWS EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN THIS SECTION, SIDEWALKS WITH AN UNOBSTRUCTED WIDTH OF SIX FEET ARE REQUIRED ON ALL STREET FRONTAGES AT A NEW SUBSECTION B CONTRACTOR'S MAINTENANCE YARD TO READ AS FOLLOWS ALONG GRETNA STREET AND BURGESS BOULEVARD.
SIDEWALKS WITH AN UNOBSTRUCTED WIDTH OF SIX FEET ARE REQUIRED.
A SIDEWALK ALONG LAGOON IS NOT REQUIRED AT A NEW SUBSECTION.
C PEDESTRIAN DRIVEWAY CROSSINGS TO READ AS FOLLOWS, SIDEWALKS MUST BE LEVEL ACROSS ALL DRIVEWAYS, CURB CUTS AND ENTRANCES OR EXITS TO LOADING AREAS AT THE INTERSECTION OF EACH DRIVEWAY WITH A SIDEWALK.
DRIVEWAYS MUST BE CLEARLY MARKED BY COLORED CONCRETE, PATTERNED OR STAMPED CONCRETE OR BRICK PAVERS FOR PEDESTRIAN CROSSING.
AND IN SECTION 51 P DASH HUNDRED 12 PARKING AND LOADING, DELETE SUBSECTION C.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER CARPENTER FOR YOUR MOTION.
COMMISSIONER HOUSE WRAP FOR YOUR SECOND.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE SAY AYE.
[16. 24-1842 An application for a Planned Development District for CS Commercial Service District uses on property zoned a CS Commercial Service District with consideration for a Specific Use Permit for a truck stop, on the north corner of South Lancaster Road and Cherry Valley Boulevard.]
MOVE TO CASE NUMBER 16.ITEM 16 IS CASE Z 2 34 DASH 115.
AN APPLICATION FOR A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FOR CS COMMERCIAL SERVICE DISTRICT USES ON PROPERTY ZONE TO CS COMMERCIAL SERVICE DISTRICT WITH CONSIDERATION FOR A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR A TRUCK STOP ON THE NORTH NORTH CORNER OF SOUTH LANCASTER ROAD IN CHERRY VALLEY BOULEVARD.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS DENIAL.
I'LL SEE IF THE APPLICANT IS HERE.
ANDREW REIG 2201 MAIN STREET, DALLAS, TEXAS.
UM, WE WOULD UH, LIKE TO REQUEST THAT THIS BE HELD, UH,
[03:10:01]
UNTIL THE JULY 11TH MEETING.WE'RE STILL WORKING WITH COMMISSIONER BLAIR AND STAFF TO WORK OUT SOME ADDITIONAL DETAILS FOR THE UM, UH, PD APPLICATION REQUESTS.
HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS SHOULD THERE BE ANY.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? UH, WE DO HAVE A REGISTERED SPEAKER.
DO WE HAVE A SPEAKER ALL LINE? NO.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? NO QUESTIONS.
COMMISSIONER BLAIR, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION PLEASE? YES, I DO.
IN THE MATTER OF THE 2 3 4 1 1 5, I MOVE THAT WE KEEP THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AND HOLD THIS MATTER UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL JULY 11TH.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER BLAIR FOR YOUR MOTION.
ANY COMMENTS? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.
[SUBDIVISION DOCKET - Consent]
NOW MOVE TO OUR SUBDIVISION DOCKET CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS CONSIST OF CASES 17 THROUGH 29.UH, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THOSE WILL BE DISPOSED OF IN ONE MOTION UNLESS THERE IS SOMEONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON ANY ONE OF THOSE CASES, THEN WE WILL PULL IT OFF THE CONSENT AGENDA AND HEAR IT INDIVIDUALLY.
SO IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON ANY OF THE CASES 17 THROUGH 29 BEGINNING ON PAGE SEVEN OF THE AGENDA? IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO BE HEARD ON ANY OF THOSE CASES? 17 THROUGH 29.
OKAY, WE'LL GET THOSE RIGHT IN.
GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR COMMISSIONERS AL ITEM SEVEN, THE CONSENT CON.
THE CONSENT AGENDA CONSISTS OF 13 ITEMS. SORRY, EXCUSE ME.
THERE IS ONE SPEAKER FOR AN ITEM ON THIS LIST.
UH, THAT GENTLEMAN RIGHT THERE WANTS SPEAK ON 25.
OKAY, COMMISSIONERS WILL TAKE, UH, NUMBER 25 OFF THE CONSENT AGENDA SCHOOL.
UH, WE WILL EXPLAIN IT TO HIM.
OKAY? OKAY, WE'LL KEEP IT ON CONSENT.
SO WE ARE BACK TO 17 THROUGH 29.
COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS ON ANY OF THOSE CASES? SEEING NONE, COMMISSIONER HERBERT, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION SIR? MR. CHAIR, WE NEED TO READ THEM IN.
YES, AND, AND, UM, WE DID, WE READ THEM INTO THE RECORD.
SHE DIDN'T READ THEM ON THE RECORD.
UM, THE CONSENT IS IN THE CONCEPT OF 30 13 ITEMS. ITEM 17 S TWO 12 DASH ONE R 1 1 1 R, ITEM 18 S 2 3 4 DASH ONE FOUR ITEM 19 S 2 3 4 DASH 115, ITEM 20 S 2 34 DASH 116, ITEM 21 S 2 34 DASH ONE SEVEN ITEM 22 S 2 34 DASH ONE 18, ITEM 23 S 2 34 DASH NINE, ITEM 24 S 2 3 4 DASH 1 2 0 ITEM 25 S 2 34 DASH 1 21.
ITEM 27 S 2 34 DASH 1 25, ITEM 28 S 2 34 DASH 1 26, ITEM 29 S 2 34 DASH 1 27.
ALL CASES HAVE BEEN POSTED FOR HEARING AT THIS TIME AND STAFF RECOMMENDED IS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN DOCKET AND ARE AS AMENDED AT THE HEARING.
OKAY, COMMISSIONERS, TAKE TWO.
DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON ANY OF THESE ITEMS? C AND NONE.
[03:15:01]
YOU HAVE A MOTION? I DO IN THE SUBDIVISION CASES AT 17 THROUGH 29 ON CONSENT, I MOVE TO GO WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATION, APPROVAL AND CLOSE ALL THE PUBLIC HEARINGS.THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HERBERT FOR YOUR MOTION AND COMMISSIONER CARPENTER FOR YOUR SECOND.
AND UH, WE HAVE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND FALSE RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE DOCKET.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE SAY AYE.
[30. 24-1887 An application to replat a 0.232-acre tract of land containing part of Lot 7 in City Block 1747 to create one 5,049-square foot lot and one 5,050-square foot lot on property located on Crozier Street, northwest of Carpenter Avenue.]
30 S 2 34 DASH ONE THREE AN APPLICATION TO REPLY THE 0.232 ACRE TRACK OF LAND CONTAINING PART OF LOT SEVEN IN CITY BLOCK 1 7 4 7 TO CREATE ONE 5,005,000 0 4 9 SQUARE FOOT LOT AND ONE 5,050 SQUARE FOOT LOT ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON CROSIER STREET NORTHWEST OF CARPENTER AVENUE.33 NOTICES WERE SENT TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE PROPERTY ON MAY 20TH, 2024.
WE HAVE RECEIVED ONE REPLY IN FAVOR AND ZERO REPLY IN OPPOSITION TO THIS REQUEST.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE DOCKET OR AS AMENDED AT THE HEARING.
IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? IT SAYS NUMBER 30 S 2 3 4 103 COMMISSIONERS.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SEEING NONE, COMMISSIONER WHEELER, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION ITEM NUMBER 30 IS A MATTER OF UH, IS A MATTER OF S 2 34 DASH ONE WAR THREE.
I MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND FOLLOW STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS OF PROB SERVICE TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE DOCKET.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER WHEELER FOR YOUR MOTION AND VICE CHAIR RUBIN FOR YOUR SECOND.
ANY DISCUSSION? I SEE NONE OF THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
[31. 24-1888 An application to replat a 2.531-acre tract of land containing all of Lots 1 through 11 and an abandoned alley in City Block 30/3652 to create one lot on property bounded by Illinois Avenue, Maryland Avenue, Montana Avenue, and Marsalis Avenue.]
S 2 3 4 DASH 1 22 CORRECTION ON REQUEST.AN APPLICATION TOLAT A 2.531 ACRE TRACK OF LAND CONTAINING ALL OF LOT ONE THROUGH 14 AND AN ABANDONED ALLEY IN CITY BLOCK 30 OVER 3 6 5 2 TO CREATE ONE LOT ON PROPERTY BOUNDED BY ILLINOIS AVENUE, MARYLAND AVENUE, MONTANA AVENUE, AND MARCELL AVENUE.
13 NOTICES WERE SENT TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE PROPERTY ON MAY 20TH, 2024.
WE HAVE RECEIVED ZERO REPLIES IN FAVOR AND ZERO REPLIES IN OPPOSITION TO THIS REQUEST.
STAFF RECOMMENDED AN APPROVAL SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE DOCKET AND OR AS AMENDED AT THE HEARING.
IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? YES SIR.
I'M DALLAS RICE, UH, REPRESENTING THE SAINTVILLE SANCTUARY CHURCH OF GOD IN CHRIST 2200 SOUTHMORE AVENUE.
AND ONLY IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? COMMISSIONERS QUESTIONS FOR OUR SPEAKER AND FOR STAFF.
QUESTIONS FOR STAFF COMMISSIONER FORESIGHT IN THE CASE REPORT IT STATES THAT THE, YOU KNOW, IN THIS CASE THE LOTS MUST CONFORM TO THE WIDTH DEPTH IN THE AREA TO THE PATTERN ALREADY ESTABLISHED IN THE ADJACENT AREAS.
UM, MY UNDERSTANDING FROM OUR PREVIOUS APPLIED CASES THAT IT ALSO NEEDS TO, UH, CONFORM WITH THE ZONING RIGHT FOR THAT, FOR THAT AREA.
IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT, YES.
IS IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT, YES.
SO MY QUESTION IS, IF WE LOOK AT, UH, THE, THE, THE ZONING MAP, WHICH IS IN THE CASE REPORT, COULD YOU TELL ME, YOU KNOW, THE, THESE LOTS, WHAT ARE THEY CURRENTLY ZONED FOR TODAY? THE LOTS THAT, THAT ARE BEING COMBINED.
UM, ALL OF THEM ARE IN R 7.5 A, THE, THERE, THERE ARE ALL R SEVEN FIVE A.
SO, SO BASICALLY THIS DOESN'T CONFORM WITH THE BASE ZONING OF THE CURRENT RIGHT? IT HAS TO CONFORM WITH THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF R SEVEN FIVE A, WHICH IS 7,500 SQUARE FEET.
SO IF THOSE LOTS ARE AT LEAST 7,500 SQUARE
[03:20:01]
FEET, IT CONFORMS WITH THE ZONING.SO IT COULD BE ABOVE IT? YES, IT CAN IT THE, THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE IS A MINIMUM.
IT CAN BE ABOVE 7,500 SQUARE FEET, BUT IT HAS TO BE AT LEAST 7,500 SQUARE FEET.
UH, TABITHA QUESTION, COMMISSIONER, UH, CARPENTER, FOLLOW THAT COMMISSIONER.
WE, UM, MR. MOORE, IS IT NOT TRUE THAT WHILE THESE LOTS HAVE TO CONFORM, AT LEAST MEET OR EXCEED THE MINIMUM SIZE FOR THE UM, R SEVEN FIVE ZONING FOR AN INSTITUTIONAL USE? THE STANDARDS OF 8.503 REQUIRING COMPLIANCE WITH, UH, DEPTH WITH AN AREA DON'T GENERALLY APPLY.
THAT IS GENERALLY A POLICY DECISION THAT THIS BODY HAS MADE.
ISN'T THIS THE REASON THAT THE, THIS HAS BEEN, THAT THESE, UM, PLATS ARE BEING COMBINED IS BECAUSE OF THE REMODEL, UM, BECAUSE THE CHURCH BURNT AND THEY HAD SEPARATE LOTS PREVIOUSLY, BUT THEY'VE ALWAYS BEEN CONSIDERED ONE LOT MEANING USED BY THIS ONE ENTITY.
MAYBE I'M ASKING THE WRONG QUESTION, BUT THAT'S KIND OF WHY THEY'RE NEEDING TO COMBINE THE, THE REASON THAT THEY'RE NEEDING TO COMBINE THE LOTS IS BECAUSE OF THE CHURCH BURNT.
RIGHT? THE CHURCH BURNT AND TO DO THE REMODEL, THEY NOW HAVE TO REPL QUESTION.
I I, I KNOW A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THIS.
SO
AND NOW TO REMODEL YOU HAVE TO COMBINE, YOU HAVE TO MAKE IT ONE PLAT.
WE, AND WE'VE ALWAYS OWNED THAT PROPERTY.
IT'S NOT SOMETHING WE JUST PURCHASED AND THE ZONING.
SO YES, WE, WE'VE OWNED IT FOR YEARS AND IT SAYS BEING A PART OF THE CHURCH PARKING AND THAT.
BUT PREVIOUSLY BECAUSE YOU'RE A GRANDFATHER, YOU DIDN'T NEED TO, THE REMODEL IS MAKING YOU HAVE TO GET THE REPL.
WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE IT ONE LOT.
THIS WAS A HISTORICAL CHURCH OF GOD IN CHRIST.
I'M PREPARED TO MAKE A MOTION.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONERS THEN WE'RE READY FOR YOUR MOTION.
UH, CHAIRMAN SHADI IN THE CASE NUMBER S 2 34 DASH 22, I MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE THIS ITEM SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE DOCKET.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER FORT FOR YOUR MOTION.
AND COMMISSIONER CARPENTER FOR YOUR SECOND READ TO THE RECORDS AS YOU CORRECTED IT.
I DIDN'T REALIZE SHE DID CORRECT IT.
NOW, COMMISSIONER FORT, I BELIEVE THAT, UH, A, A CORRECTION WAS READ INTO THE RECORD.
IS YOUR MOTION PER THE CORRECTION THAT WAS READ INTO THE RECORD? YES.
[32. 24-1889 An application to replat a 2.571-acre tract of land containing part of Lot 2 in City Block M/8734 to create a 31-lot shared access development ranging in size from 2,000 square feet to 2,281 square feet and 2 common areas on property located on Genstar Lane at Davenport Road, southwest corner.]
ITEM 32 S 2 34 DASH 1 24 AN APPLICATION TO REPLIED A 2.571 ACRE TRACK OF LAND CONTAINING PART OF LOT TWO IN CITY BLOCK M OVER 8, 7, 3 4 TO CREATE A 31 LOT SHARED ACCESS DEVELOPMENT RANGING IN SIZE FROM 2000 SQUARE FEET TO 2,281 SQUARE FEET AND TWO COMMON AREA ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON IN STAR LANE AND DEVONPORT ROAD, SOUTHWEST CORNER 1330.NOTICES WERE SENT TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE PROPERTY ON MAY 20TH, 2024.
WE HAVE RECEIVED ZERO REPLY IN FAVOR AND SIX REPLIES IN OPPOSITION TO THIS REQUEST.
WE HAVE ALSO RECEIVED, RECEIVED 10 REPLIES IN OPPOSITION TO THIS REQUEST FROM OUTSIDE THE NOTIFICATION BOUNDARIES STAFF RECOMMENDATION, APPROVAL SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN DOCKET AND ARE AS AMENDED AT THE HEARING.
IS THE APPLICANT HERE ON THIS ITEM? ARE YOU THE APPLICANT, MA'AM? NO.
IS THERE ANYONE HERE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR? I'M ASSUMING YOU'RE IN OPPOSITION.
WE'RE READY FOR YOUR COMMENTS.
YOU MIGHT WANT TO SPEAK RIGHT INTO THAT MICROPHONE SO OUR FOLKS ONLINE CAN HEAR YOU.
IT'S LOT 27 ON THE GENSTAR PLOT.
[03:25:01]
THE REPL THAT'S BEING PROPOSED HERE FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS.I MOVED FROM ADDISON 20 YEARS AGO TO GET OUT OF HIGH DENSITY HOUSING, AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED HERE.
THE HOMES IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD ARE ALL SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.
WE HAVE A MINIMUM SETBACK FROM THE STREET OF 40 FEET BEFORE WE BUILD ON THIS RE PLATING, EVEN IN THE AREA CALLED THE COMMON AREA.
I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH YOU'RE GONNA DO WITH FIVE FEET.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE PLAT FOR DAVENPORT ROAD, THE TOWN HOMES ARE BUILT RIGHT UP TO THE CURB, SO THERE IS NO SETBACK.
IT GIVES ME A CONCERN FOR VISIBILITY FOR RESIDENTS, PEDESTRIANS.
WE ALL WALK OUR DOGS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, THERE'S NO VISIBILITY AT ALL COMING AROUND, ANY OF THE ENTRANCEWAYS IN AND OUT OF HERE.
ALSO, THERE'S AN ISSUE WITH PARKING.
THIS RE PLATING ALLOWS FOR SIX GUEST PARKING SPOTS IN THE ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT.
THEY'VE ALREADY COME DOWN GEN STAR AND PUTS PARKING STRIPING IN FRONT OF OUR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.
IT LOOKS LIKE WE'RE NOW IN A DOWNTOWN PARKING ZONE THAT'S IN ANTICIPATION OF ALLOWING FOR EVERYONE TO PARK THEIR VEHICLES IN FRONT OF OUR HOMES IN ORDER TO GET INTO THEIR TOWN HOMES, WHICH ARE BUILT RIGHT ON TOP OF THE, UH, THE THE SIDEWALK.
SO THE OTHER THING IN THIS RELOTTING IS THAT ALL OF OUR HOMES ARE BUILT BRICK.
THERE'S NO BRICK IN THIS AT ALL.
SO A LOT OF THESE THINGS ARE DETRIMENTAL TO THE VALUE OF OUR HOMES.
I GOT LAID OFF FROM MY JOB EIGHT WEEKS AGO.
THERE'S FOUR HOMES ALREADY FOR SALE ON GENSTAR BECAUSE OF THIS REPL AND THE HIGH DENSITY HOUSING THAT'S PROPOSED HERE.
IT DOESN'T FIT WITH THE REST OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
WE'RE NOT NECESSARILY OPPOSED TO TOWN HOMES.
THIS REPL, THOUGH, IS HORRIFIC WHEN YOU LOOK AT IT COMPARED TO THE REST OF THE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
SO FOR THESE REASONS, UM, THE LACK OF A COMMON AREA, UH, THE TYPE OF TOWN HOMES THAT THEY'RE BUILDING, THEY'RE NOT HIGH-END.
THE AMENITIES THAT WERE PROPOSED DON'T FIT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD EITHER.
IT'S NOT KEEPING THANK YOU FOR JOINING US.
I LIVE AT 64 20 REN WOOD, AND THAT'S REN WOOD WITH A W I'VE, UM, BEEN IN DALLAS MY WHOLE LIFE AND I'VE BEEN IN 7, 5 2, 5 2 ALL OF MY ADULT LIFE.
SO I'VE BEEN IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD FOR 30 YEARS.
WE RECOGNIZE THE WORLD WE'RE IN IS GOING MULTI-FAMILY MORE DENSE THAN ONE SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON A 70 FOOT WIDE LOT.
SO WE DIDN'T OPPOSE THE PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY FOR TOWN HOMES, BUT I DO OPPOSE 31 TOWN HOMES ON THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY.
UM, THE TOWN HOMES DON'T HAVE THE GREEN SPACE THAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF OUR YARDS IN FRONT OF OUR HOUSES.
IT'S GONNA BE VERY OBVIOUS THAT THEY DON'T HAVE THE SAME AMOUNT OF GREEN SPACE.
NOT THAT I'M EXPECTING THAT, BUT I WOULD LIKE A LITTLE BIT MORE TREES AND GREEN SPACE AND FLOWERING THINGS TO MAKE IT LOOK LIKE A HOME COMMUNITY THAT FITS IN OUR COMMUNITY.
THE SETBACK IS PLATTED, I THINK IS ABOUT FIVE FEET, WHICH IS NOT MUCH.
UM, IF IT GOES FORWARD, ACCORDING TO THIS RELA I HAVE CONCERNS ON THE EAST SIDE, WHICH BORDERS DAVENPORT.
DAVENPORT IS A VERY BUSY STREET.
WE HAVE TRAFFIC CALMING, UM, THINGS ON IT ALREADY IN THE, IN THE TERMS OF SPEED BUMPS.
WE RECOGNIZE PEOPLE FLY DOWN THAT STREET.
IF THEY BUILD THOSE TWO TOWN HOMES RIGHT UP TO THAT PROPERTY LINE, THOSE PEOPLE COMING OUT OF THOSE TOWN HOMES, IT'S GONNA BE A BLIND, UM, LEFT TURN OR RIGHT TURN, ESPECIALLY SINCE THERE'S GONNA BE 62 ADDITIONAL HA UM, CARS IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND MORE THAN LIKELY THERE, SOME OF THOSE CARS ARE GONNA PARK ON GENSTAR AND DAVENPORT.
WELL, IF YOU CAN'T SEE PAST THE BRICK OR THE THE WALL THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO EXIT TO GET ONTO DAVENPORT, IT'S GONNA BE DANGEROUS EVERY SINGLE TIME YOU TRY TO EXIT THAT PROPERTY.
[03:30:01]
IT'S GONNA BE DANGEROUS FOR US WHO COME DOWN GENSTAR TO TURN RIGHT ON DAVENPORT BECAUSE WE CAN TURN RIGHT ON DAVENPORT AND THERE CAN BE A CAR RIGHT THERE FACING US.UM, SO THAT'S ONE OF MY CONCERNS.
THAT'S A T INTERSECTION RIGHT THERE AT DAVENPORT AND, UM, GENSTAR AND THEN AT GENSTAR, AND FOR, WHICH IS THE OTHER CLOSE INTERSECTION, THAT'S ALSO A T INTERSECTION.
SO THAT'S ALSO GONNA BE, UM, THE VIEW'S GONNA BE BLOCKED BECAUSE OF THE CARS PARKED ALONG THE STREET.
UM, SO ON GENSTAR, THAT'S A, THAT'S A MAIN CUT THROUGH FOR OUR FIRE DEPARTMENT AND OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT, AND WE CANNOT PUT ANY CALMING HUMPS.
WE CAN'T PUT ANY TRAFFIC HUMPS ON THERE.
THE ONLY THING WE COULD DO, WE HAD A TRAFFIC STUDY DONE.
THE ONLY THING WE COULD DO WAS ADD A STOP SIGN FARTHER DOWN GENSTAR, AND THEN, UM, WE COULD, UM, PUT THE, THAT NARROWING VISUAL STRIPE IN, WHICH HASN'T DONE ANYTHING.
AS YOU KNOW, HILLCREST IS SHUT DOWN SOUTH OF FRANKFORT, WHICH IS VERY NEAR OUR PROPERTY.
AND SO THANK YOU SO MUCH, MA'AM.
I'M ALSO ON GENSTAR 64 11 GENSTAR BLUE COLLAR WORKER, WHICH, UM, I REPRESENT PROBABLY MOST OF THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND, AND WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT THE VALUE OF OUR HOU HOMES COMING DOWN.
IF, IF THESE CONDOS ARE TOWN HOMES AREN'T BUILT UP TO THE QUALITY OF OUR HOMES OR EVEN CLOSE IT, IT COULD BRING DOWN THE VALUE OF MY HOMES.
AND, AND THAT IS MY MAIN INVESTMENT.
UM, AND TALKING ABOUT THE, THE PARKING SITUATION, I, I BELIEVE IT'LL TURN GENSTAR LANE INTO A PARKING LOT.
AND LIKE KAREN SAID, IT'S A THOROUGHFARE FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, FIRE DEPARTMENT, AND NOW THEY GOTTA DRIVE THROUGH THIS PARKING LOT SITUATION.
AND, AND, AND I'M AGAINST, UM, 31 TOWN HOMES GOING IN THERE.
IT, IT'S LIKE, IF, IF WE'RE GONNA DO THIS, I THINK WE NEED TO DO IT RIGHT.
AND I, I THINK 31 TOWN HOMES IS UNREASONABLE.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? COMMISSIONERS? ANY QUESTIONS FOR OUR SPEAKERS? COMMISSIONER FORESIGHT? NO.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR OUR SPEAKERS? NO, FOR STAFF VICE CHAIR RUBIN, JUST A COUPLE QUICK QUESTIONS.
UM, SOME OF THE SPEAKERS EXPRESS CONCERN ABOUT VISIBILITY.
SO IS IT CORRECT THAT THIS PLAT JUST SHOWS LOT LINES, RIGHT? IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY SHOW WHERE, WHERE BUILDINGS WILL BE CONSTRUCTED? THAT'S RIGHT.
AND WHEN THEY COME IN FOR PERMITTING, THEY WOULD HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE REQUIREMENTS THAT ENGINEERING HAS.
IS THAT RIGHT? UH, THAT'S, THAT'S RIGHT.
AND ENGINEERING HAS ITS OWN COMP IN OUR DOCKET TOO.
UM, IN OUR CONDITIONS THEY HAVE TO MEET THAT TOO.
COMMISSIONER HALL, I DON'T KNOW IF I CAN ASK THIS.
IS THE CURRENT ZONING ALLOWABLE FOR THOSE TOWN FOR TOWN HOMES? YES.
THIS, UH, IT WAS JUST RECENTLY, UH, CHANGED FROM C TO TS THREE A ON MARCH 7TH, 2024.
SO THAT MEANS THAT IF THIS GOES FORTH, THEY CAN BUILD BY BUILD, UM, BY, RIGHT.
AND I KNOW THAT'S NOT THE RIGHT WORD.
AND THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE IS 2000 SQUARE FEET FOR SINGLE FAMILY AS IT'S A SHARED ACCESS DEVELOPMENT.
IT MIGHT BE HELPFUL TO REVIEW, REVIEW FOR OUR GUEST.
THE, THE CONDITIONS THAT WE HAVE TO VOTE ON.
IF THIS MEETS, UH, IF STAFF SAYS THIS IS COMPLIANT WITH THE CONDITIONS, THEN AREN'T, AREN'T WE REQUIRED TO APPROVE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS? THAT IS CORRECT.
UM, IF IT COMPLIES WITH CHAPTER TWO 12 OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE ARTICLE EIGHT OF CHAPTER 51 A AND 8.503, IT IS A MINISTERIAL DUTY AND YOU MUST APPROVE THE PLOT.
AND, AND SO WE, WE COULD NOT DENY THIS REQUEST UNLESS WE FELT IT WAS NOT COMPLIANT WITH THE EXISTING CODES.
AND IF YOU WERE GOING TO MAKE A MOTION TO DENY, YOU WOULD NEED TO CITE TO A PROVISION OF EITHER STATE LAW OR CHAPTER 51 A THAT IT FAILS TO COMPLY WITH.
[03:35:02]
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF COMMISSIONERS? WE'RE, WE'RE READY FOR A MOTION.IN THE MATTER OF S 2 34 DASH 12 FOUR, I MOVE THAT WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND FOLLOW STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE DOCKET.
AND I HAVE A QUICK, HOPEFULLY QUICK COMMENT IF I HAVE A SECOND.
COMMISSIONER HARA FOR YOUR SECOND COMMENTS.
OUR, OUR ABILITY, OUR, OUR DISCRETION ON PLATS IS VIRTUALLY NIL.
I MEAN, THE WAY THAT WE, UH, YOU KNOW, PRIMARILY ADDRESS DENSITY AND LOT SIZE IS THROUGH ZONING.
WHEN WE GET A PLAT APPLICATION IN FRONT OF US, OUR, OUR, OUR DISCRETION IS, IS VERY MINIMAL.
AND WE'RE JUST CHECKING TO MAKE SURE THAT IT COMPLIES WITH, UM, THE ZONING REQUIREMENTS AS WELL AS THE REQUIREMENTS OF ONE PROVISION OF THE CODE SECTION 8.503.
SO DON'T, DON'T TAKE OUR, THIS MOTION IS A, UM, DISREGARD OF THE CONCERNS THAT YOU'RE ADDRESSING ABOUT THE PROPERTY, BUT JUST FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE, OUR HANDS ARE REALLY, YOU KNOW, DON'T HAVE A LOT OF FREEDOM HERE AND THEY'RE RELATIVELY TIED, BUT, SO THANK YOU SO MUCH.
UH, COMMISSIONER HERBERT? YEAH.
TO THE NEIGHBORS WHO ARE WALKING AWAY, UM, JUST FYII, MY SUGGESTION WOULD BE TO TRY TO COMMUNICATE WITH THIS DEVELOPER TO BRING THIS HOME FOR YOU GUYS.
UM, I HAVE THE SAME SITUATION IN MY VERY NEIGHBORHOOD RIGHT NOW.
DEVELOPMENT CLAN CAME THROUGH LITERALLY RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET FROM MY HOUSE, EVEN AS THE PLAN COMMISSIONER, THERE WAS NOTHING I CAN DO, UM, BUT TRY TO MAKE IT PRETTY AND WORK WITH THE DEVELOPER AFTERWARDS.
SO THAT WOULD BE MY SUGGESTION TO YOU TODAY.
WE DEFINITELY UNDERSTAND YOUR CONCERN.
UM, PAY ATTENTION TO THOSE ZONING CASES VERSUS PLATTING, RIGHT? IT WOULD'VE BEEN NICE TO HEAR FROM YOU WHEN IT CAME FOR ZONING.
SO JUST SOME EDUCATION AND THINGS TO THINK ABOUT.
CAN I RESPOND TO, I DON'T THINK YOU CAN LEGALLY RESPOND.
WE'RE GONNA GO RIGHT TO A VOTE.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? COMMISSIONERS? SEEING NONE.
[33. 24-1844 Consideration of authorizing a public hearing to consider amending Chapters 51 and 51A of the Dallas Development Code with consideration to be given to appropriate zoning districts and developing appropriate standards associated with warehouse; office showroom/warehouse; freight terminal; commercial motor vehicle parking; and machinery, heavy equipment, or truck sales and service uses. This is a hearing to consider the request to authorize the hearing and not amendments to the Dallas Development Code at this time.]
NUMBER 33.ITEM 33 IS CONSIDERATION OF AMENDING A, SORRY, AUTHORIZING A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AMENDING CHAPTERS 51 AND 51 A OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE WITH CONSIDERATION TO BE GIVEN TO APPROPRIATE ZONING DISTRICTS AND DEVELOPING APPROPRIATE STANDARDS ASSOCIATED WITH WAREHOUSE, OFFICE, SHOWROOM, WAREHOUSE, FREIGHT TERMINAL, COMMERCIAL, MOTOR VEHICLE PARKING, AND MACHINERY, HEAVY EQUIPMENT, TRUCK SALES, ORS, AND SERVICE USES.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MS. MAY, UH, IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT WANTS TO BE HEARD ON THIS? I SEE WE HAVE ONE SPEAKER.
CARL CARLEY 2201 MAIN STREET, DALLAS, TEXAS.
UM, UH, TRENT IN OUR OFFICE AND I WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT IT.
UM, THE RAMIFICATIONS OF THIS MAY NOT BE AS MORE THAN JUST THIS PARAGRAPH.
OBVIOUSLY, IF, IF THE CITY OF DALLAS MOVES TOWARDS REQUIRING SUVS FOR WAREHOUSES, WE WERE JUST GUESSING ON HOW MUCH THAT WOULD MAKE IN THE WAY OF NON-CONFORMING WAREHOUSES.
AND WE GUESSED IT WOULD PROBABLY CLOSE TO A BILLION.
AND THAT'S WITH A B BILLION SQUARE FEET OF WAREHOUSES THAT WOULD BE MADE NON-CONFORMING IF YOU ACQUIRED AN SUP.
SO I'D ASK THAT WHEN THESE DISCUSSIONS TAKE PLACE, BECAUSE BELIEVE ME, AGAIN, I THINK I'VE TOLD YOU BEFORE, I'M A WONK AND I READ THE NEWSPAPER, BUT I DOUBT A WHOLE LOT OF INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPERS OR OWNERS OR WAREHOUSE OWNERS READ THE NEWSPAPER THAT THIS HEARING WAS YOU WERE GOING TO CALL A HEARING ABOUT CONSIDERING THEIR PROPERTIES AND STUFF AND THE POSSIBILITY OF MAKING THEM NON-CONFORMING.
SO I THINK THAT'S, UH, WHEN THESE DISCUSSIONS TAKE PLACE, THERE NEEDS TO BE A, A ROBUST REACH TO, UH, THOSE DEVELOPERS.
UM, PART OF THIS LETTER THAT WAS ATTACHED TO IT TALKED ABOUT SPECIAL REGULATIONS FOR THE INLAND PORT.
UM, I'VE BEEN AROUND LONG AND TIP, I'M SORRY, BUT YOU'VE BEEN AROUND DALLAS PROBABLY LONG AND PROBABLY NEIL HAS, UM, THERE'S A LITTLE AREA THAT'S OVER BY STEMMONS CALLED THE STIMS BUSINESS CORRIDOR THAT PROBABLY BETWEEN THAT AND THE CBD MAY DALLAS GROWTH THAT IT IS TODAY.
UM, SO THE INLAND PORT IS THE JOHNNY COME LATELY OF THAT, MOST OF THE INLAND PORT IS IN WILMER AND HUTCHINS, BUT THE STEMMONS BUSINESS CORRIDOR HA CORRIDOR HAS MILLIONS OF SQUARE FEET OF INDUSTRIAL AND WAREHOUSE SPACE THAT NEEDS TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION WITH ANY OF THESE THINGS.
[03:40:01]
UM, REACHES OUT AND GETS THOSE GROUPS INVOLVED.IT USED TO BE THE STEMMONS BUSINESS CORRIDOR WAS WAS THE BIG BUSINESS ORGANIZATION IN DALLAS, AND IT STILL HAS A LOT OF CLOUT AND THEY HAVE A LOT OF SQUARE FOOTAGE AND A LOT OF TAX DOLLARS THAT IF SUVS WERE GONNA START BEING REQUIRED FOR WAREHOUSES, THAT WOULD INSTANTLY BECOME NON-CONFORMING.
SO I THINK THAT THIS SOUNDS LIKE A LITTLE BITTY ITEM, BUT IT IS A BILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF RAMIFICATION ON THIS.
ANYONE ELSE WANNA SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? THIS IS NUMBER 33 COMMISSIONER'S.
QUESTIONS FOR OUR SPEAKER? MR. RUBIN? UH, MR. CROWLEY? SURE.
WHO IS THAT GENTLEMAN OVER THERE THAT YOU JUST ADDRESSED? TIP HOUSE? RIGHT? WHAT DID YOU, HOW DID YOU REFER TO HIM? I SAID HE AND I HAVE BEEN AROUND IN DALLAS FOR A WHILE.
NO, BUT WHAT, WHAT TERM OF ADDRESS DID YOU USE FOR HIM? I DON'T RECALL.
UM, YOU KNOW, I DON'T CARE WHAT YOU CALL ME, BUT I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO USE FORMAL TITLES WITH, UH, MY COLLEAGUES.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS ITEM? COMMISSIONER WHEELER, WHO'S THE STAFF? ANDREA, I MEAN, WHO'S THE STAFF FOR THIS ITEM? BETWEEN ME AND SARAH? MAY, BUT SARAH MAY IS OVER THE CODE AMENDMENTS.
SARAH MAY, UM, MS. MAY I WANNA MAKE SURE I MISS, I WANNA MAKE SURE I REFER TO THE, I'M IN THE RIGHT TITLE.
UM, HOW ARE YOU DOING, MS. MAY I, I'M GREAT, THANK YOU.
HOW ARE YOU? SO I KNOW THIS PUBLIC HEARING AND, AND, AND I, AND, AND I'M GONNA THROW A LITTLE CAUTION AND I, AND I UNDERSTAND WHY SOME OF MY COMMISSIONERS DEFINITELY WANT, UH, SUVS FOR WAREHOUSES.
UM, IS THERE ANY, ANYTHING THAT WAS TOOK INTO CONSIDERATION WHERE WAREHOUSES ARE NOT IN PROXIMITY TO RESIDENTIAL AND LET, IF IT'S IN PROXIMITY TO RESIDENTIAL, HAVING THE SUP, BUT IF IT'S NOT IN PROXIMITY TO RESIDENTIAL, NOT HAVING TO HAVE A SUP, IS THAT EVEN, IS, HAS THAT BEEN CONSIDERED? BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND THAT FOR, FOR OUR QUALITY OF LIFE AND NOT HAVING TO HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING ON EVERY, UM, EVERY TIME THAT WE HAVE AN ISSUE WITH WAREHOUSING, THAT THOSE THAT ARE NOT IN PROXIMITY, SUCH AS, UM MM-HMM.
WHEN THEY'RE NOT IN PROXIMITY TO RESIDENTIAL, NOT REQUIRING AN SUP, BUT WITHIN PROXIMITY TO RESIDENTIAL NEEDING AN SUP AS IF WE, SOME OF THE OTHER BUSINESSES, I MEAN, UH, UM, SAY WE HAVE, AND I, MY DISTRICT HAS PD 5 9 5 HAS THE, THE SAME AMOUNT OF S BUT I UNDERSTAND WHY THEY WERE CREATED TO PROTECT THE COMMUNITY.
SO I UNDERSTAND IF THEY'RE CLOSE TO JOBY OR, UM, UH, CLOSE TO, UM, A LOT OF THE PLACES IN DISTRICT THREE AREAS IN DISTRICT THREE AND IN DISTRICT EIGHT, I UNDERSTAND IN SOME AREAS.
AND THEN THERE'S AREAS THAT DOES NOT HAVE THAT PROXIMITY, THAT WOULD NOT REQUIRE HUP.
SO WE HAVEN'T STARTED THIS CASE YET.
SO WE HAVEN'T REALLY STARTED ANY RESEARCH AND THROWN OUT ANY PROPOSALS ON WHAT KIND OF CHANGES THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE GONNA RECOMMEND TO ZO OAC.
SO, YOU KNOW, WE'RE, YOU KNOW, IF IT'S AUTHORIZED TODAY, THEN WE'D BE HAPPY TO TAKE ALL THOSE THINGS, YOU KNOW, JUST LET ME, OR EVENTUALLY WHENEVER WE ASSIGN IT TO A STAFF, IF IT'S AUTHORIZED.
SO IT'S JUST THE PUBLIC TO GIVE THE AUTHORIZATION.
'CAUSE I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE, 'CAUSE I UNDERSTAND IF IT'S IN PROXIMITY TO RESIDENTIAL, WE DEFINITELY SHOULDN'T HAVE SOME SUVS OR SOME PROTECTIONS.
SO THE WAREHOUSES DON'T JUST POP UP EVERY WHICH WAY WE HAVE TO KEEP COMING BACK.
BUT WHEN THEY SEND AREAS THAT WE DEEM, AS IN OUR HARRY, HE AREAS NOT SOME OF THOSE AREAS THAT ARE PRETTY MUCH AN INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE THAT SUPPORT, BECAUSE THOSE PARTICULAR PEOPLE WHO WORK FOR THE INDUSTRIAL SOMETIMES MAKE A LIVING.
AND WE DON'T WANNA MAKE WHERE WE RUN OFF ALL BUSINESS, BUT IN AREAS SUCH AS THE AREAS PART OF IN LAPORTE SHOULD HAVE A SUP.
NO, IT'S THE, IT'S NOT, IT'S THE AREAS THAT ARE OUTSIDE
[03:45:01]
OF THE INLAND PORT.IF THEY'RE INSIDE OF THE INDUS OF THE LOGISTICS AREA OF THE CITY, THAT THEY DO NOT NEED AN SUP AND THEY DON'T NEED A, A CONSIDERATION.
SO IF IT'S AN AREA THAT HAS BEEN DESIGNATED AS LOGISTICS, MEANING WAREHOUSE INTENTS, WAREHOUSE SUPPORTIVE, THEY DON'T NEED SUVS.
AREAS THAT ARE IN RESIDENTIAL WOULD NEED, OR THAT ARE OUTSIDE OF THE, IN THE LOGISTICS AREA, WOULD RE WOULD, WOULD RE WOULD REQUEST AN SUP SO THAT THE INTENSITY AND THE USE COULD BE CONSIDERED WITH THE USE NEXT TO A RESIDENTIAL AREA.
SO I A HUNDRED PERCENT GET THAT NOW BECAUSE I HAVE ACTUALLY HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH JOBY PER SE TO SAY, HEY, BACKED UP TO CHOPPY.
NO, BUT ACROSS THE STREET THAT SINCE SITS BETWEEN THREE 10 AND 45, WHAT ARE YOU ALL THINKING? THEY HAD SOME, THEY, IT'S LIKE, WE COULD, BUT WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE? AND THAT SUP WILL ALLOW FOR THEM TO SAY, OH, BECAUSE THEY UNDERSTAND THAT PART OF THAT COULD, BUT NOT THE RIGHT NEXT.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT QUESTION.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF COMMISSIONER CARPENTER? YEAH, MS. MAY.
I JUST WOULD LIKE YOUR CONFIRMATION, IF YOU WOULD, THAT THE OUTCOME IS NOT PREDETERMINED HERE.
NOTHING HAS BEEN, THIS IS JUST THE INITIAL EXPIRATION OF APPROPRIATE STANDARDS.
YOU, WE HAVEN'T REALLY DONE OUR RESEARCH.
I EVEN STARTED OUR RESEARCH YET.
IT'S JUST A QUESTION TO CONSIDER TO EXPLORE.
WE, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE ANSWER'S GONNA BE.
AFTER, IF, IF IT'S INITIATED TODAY, THEN UH, IT WILL GET ASSIGNED TO STAFF AND THEY'LL BE RESEARCHING ALL BEST PRACTICES AND WHAT OTHER CITIES ARE DOING.
AND YOU KNOW, WHAT OUR CURRENT LAYOUT OF OUR CURRENT, YOU KNOW, INDUSTRIES THAT WE ARE, THAT I READ INTO THE RECORD, YOU KNOW, WE'LL HAVE A WHOLE LOT OF QUESTIONS TO ANSWER IF IT'S AUTHORIZED.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT, PLEASE? I THOUGHT OF ONE, UM, MS. MAY, WOULD THIS ISSUE, UM, NOT BE APPROPRIATE FOR, UH, ZAC? I MEAN, WOULD IT, WOULD IT BE APPROPRIATE? I I THINK, YOU KNOW, ZAC IS A, IS A GREAT BODY AND IT CAN DO ALL THE CODE AMENDMENTS THAT, THAT Y'ALL THROW AT IT.
UM, WE DO HAVE A, A FULL CODE REFORM ON THE HORIZON.
SO I MEAN, IT'S, IT'S UP TO Y'ALL WHETHER Y'ALL WANT TO ADDRESS THIS AS A SEPARATE FOCUSED CODE AMENDMENT WITH THIS AUTHORIZATION OR IF THAT'S MAYBE MORE APPROPRIATE FOR A FULL CODE REFORM.
SO A FULL CODE AMENDMENT WOULD INCLUDE USES SUCH AS INDUSTRIAL USES.
IF IT'S AUTHORIZED HERE, THEN WE WILL BE FOCUSING ON WHAT WAS AUTHORIZED IN A SPECIFIC CASE.
UH, MS. MAY, JUST TO CLARIFY, THIS ITEM IS GOING TO ZAC IF AUTHORIZED.
EVENTUALLY IT WILL BE GOING TO, YES.
SO I WANNA MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND, BECAUSE THIS SORT OF SOUNDS LIKE A FLORAL FARMS, UH, THING.
IF, IF WE CAME OUT AND WE APPROVED A CODE CHANGE THAT SAID TO HAVE A WAREHOUSE, YOU HAD TO HAVE AN SUP THAT WOULD NOT FORCE BUSINESSES CURRENTLY OPERATING TO SHUT DOWN.
IT MIGHT MAKE THEM LEGAL, BUT NON-CONFORMING.
IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT.
SO WE WOULDN'T NECESSARILY HAVE A BI, A BILLION SQUARE FEET OF WAREHOUSE SPACE THAT SUDDENLY HAD TO MOVE OR GO AWAY.
WE, OUR, USUALLY OUR PRACTICE IS WHEN A CODE AMENDMENT COMES AND AN SUP IS ADDED TO A LAND USE WHERE BEFORE THEY WERE ALLOWED BY.
OR IF IT'S PROHIBITED OUTRIGHT, THEN THEY BECOME NON-CONFORMING USES, ASSUMING THEY OBTAINED A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY AND WERE LAWFULLY ESTABLISHED.
UM, KIND OF THE NEW ASPECT THAT THE STATE LEGISLATURE, UH, MANDATED ABOUT A YEAR AGO NOW, IS THAT WE HAVE TO, IN A CODE AMENDMENT AND IN ZONING CHANGES, IF ANY LAND USE IS GOING, HAS THE POTENTIAL OF BECOMING
[03:50:01]
NON-CONFORMING, YOU KNOW, WITH WHAT YOU KNOW IS BEING CONSIDERED BY DECISION MAKING BODIES, UM, THEN THEY ARE REQUIRED TO GET A NOTICE FOR CPC AND FOR COUNCIL.SO IF, IF THE DECISIONS MADE AT Z OAC TO REQUIRE AN SEP FOR CERTAIN LAND USES IN CERTAIN ZONING DISTRICTS, THEN UH, WE WOULD HAVE TO SEND OUT NOTIFICATION TO THOSE PRO FIGURE OUT WHO THOSE ARE FOR THE FIRST PLACE, AND THEN SEND OUT NOTIFICATIONS TO THEM OF THE CPC MEETING AND COUNCIL MEETING.
UH, SOUNDS LIKE A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF WORK.
COMMISSIONER WHEELER, FOLLOWED BY COMMISSIONER BLAIR.
IT IS INCLUDED IN THIS 'CAUSE THIS IS WAREHOUSE.
UM, BY ANY CHANCE, IS THIS INCLUDED IN WHAT IT WOULD BE CONSIDERED LIGHT INDUSTRIAL OR AREA INDUSTRIAL OR NO? UM, SO YEAH, WE'LL, WE'LL TAKE A LOOK AT ALL THE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS.
SO, SO, AND REASON I'M, I'M GONNA ASK YOU THIS 'CAUSE ARE YOU AWARE THAT BATCH PLANT ARE CONSIDERED LIGHT INDUSTRIAL? WHAT? THEY SHOULD PROBABLY HAVE MORE INTENSE, UM, INTENSE USES INSTEAD OF, I MEAN, COULD WE BE RECONSIDERING SOMETHING MORE INTENSE? WE ACTUALLY AMENDED THE CODE A COUPLE YEARS AGO TO SAY THAT CONCRETE BATCH PLANTS ARE CONSIDERED, UH, POTENTIALLY INCOMPATIBLE AND THEREFORE THEY ARE ONLY ALLOWED BY SUP IN THE IM DISTRICT.
BUT IS THERE A WAY THAT WE, THAT, THAT THE USE CAN BE RECLASSIFIED BECAUSE IT'S NOT LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, IT SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED LIGHT INDUSTRIAL.
SO AM I, UM, INDUSTRIAL AS, AS A GENERAL USE, EITHER INDUSTRIAL INSIDE OR INDUSTRIAL OUTSIDE IS NOT IN THE LIST OF USES THAT WAS IN THE AUTHORIZATION.
SO IF THIS IS AUTHORIZED, WE WILL NOT BE, WELL, I SUPPOSE Y'ALL CAN MAYBE EXPAND THE USES THAT WE TAKE A LOOK AT, BUT IT'S NOT IN THIS AUTHORIZATION RIGHT NOW.
SO WE WOULDN'T START RESEARCHING CONCRETE BATCH PLANTS AS A PART OF THIS CODE AMENDMENT UNLESS IT'S ADDED TO IT.
SO, AND HOW DO WE AND, AND, AND YOU AND HOW WOULD THEY BE ABLE, HOW CAN WE ADD THAT? 'CAUSE I THINK THAT IS, IT IS DEFINITELY WE WANT TO ADD THOSE ITEMS THAT ARE NOT LIGHT, THAT ARE CONSIDERED LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, BUT ARE HARMFUL TO USES TO COMMUNITIES THAT SHOULD BE RELABELED LIGHT INDUSTRIAL TO, TO ME, AS I HAVE EXPLAINED,
WELL CON CONCRETE BATCH PLANE IS NOT CONSIDERED LIGHT INDUSTRIAL.
AND IT'S ONLY ALLOWED IN, IM, THAT'S THE CURRENT REGULATIONS.
IN THE PAST IT WAS A LOT MORE PERMISSIVE, BUT IT CHANGED A COUPLE YEARS AGO.
COMMISSIONER BLAIR, UM, MS. MAY OR MS. WEER, UM, IS IT NOT TRUE THAT THE PROCESS FOR THIS IS IF IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT IT IS INVESTIGATED, THAT IT WOULD GO THROUGH ZAC AND ZAC WOULD THEN PICK IT APART, FIGURE OUT WHAT IS BEST FROM WHAT IS NOT THE BEST.
THEY WOULD ALSO LOOK AT NON-CONFORMING AND CONFORMING AND MAKE DETERMINATIONS AS TO WHAT, IF ANY CHANGES WOULD BE RECOMMENDED AND THEN SEND IT BACK TO THIS BODY.
UM, WOULD IT NOT BE THROUGH THAT PROCESS THAT ALL BUSINESSES THAT WOULD BE IMPACTED WOULD BE CONSIDERED AND HOW THEY ARE IMPACTED WOULD ALSO BE CONSIDERED? AND IS IT NOT TRUE? YOU'RE SHAKING YOUR HEAD YES.
SO I'M, I'M, YES, THAT'S CORRECT.
SO IS IT ALSO NOT CORRECT THAT, THIS IS NOT TO MAKE A CHANGE, BUT JUST TO LOOK AT IF THE APPROPRIATENESS OF HAVING, UM, INCOMPATIBLE USES WITH RESIDENTIAL OR, UM, CONSIDERED FOR PROTECTIONS OF THE RESIDENTIAL USES THAT ARE ALREADY ON THE GROUND? YES, THAT IS CORRECT.
WE'RE NOT, IT'S NOT THIS, THIS, THIS REQUEST IS NOT TO, UM, HINDER OR, OR NEGATE AREAS OF THE CITY THAT HAVE, HAVE BEEN DESIGNATED AS APPROPRIATE USES FOR WAREHOUSES TO BE IMPACTED.
[03:55:01]
ALL THE REGULATIONS.SO IF IT'S THE AREA OF THE CITY IE AND DISTRICT EIGHTH AND INTERNATIONAL INLAND PORT, THE CORRIDOR AND DISTRICT THREE THAT IS HEAVILY WAREHOUSE INTENSIVE, ARE THAT FOR DALLAS HAS IDENTIFIED AS LOGISTICS AREA WITHIN THE ENTIRE CITY, THAT THOSE AREAS WOULD STILL BE FULLY OPERATIONAL FOR WAREHOUSING AS IT IS TODAY.
ISN'T THAT THE INTENT AT THIS POINT IN TIME? NOT THE RULE IF IT GOES THROUGH THE PROCESS.
SO THE WAY OUR STRUCTURE IS SET UP WOULD BE, UM, YOU KNOW, CONSIDER WHAT ZONING DISTRICTS WOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR THESE USES AND OR WHAT CONDITIONS THEY WOULD BE APPROPRIATE.
UM, TO, TO BE CLEAR, I DON'T THINK WE CAN USE FORWARD DALLAS AS A MEASURE OF WHERE THE USES ARE ALLOWED BECAUSE WE WOULD STILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE ZONING PROCESS FOR DALLAS.
BUT SO WE WOULD BE LOOKING AT WHAT ZONING DISTRICTS AND WHAT ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS WOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR THE USES THAT WAS READ INTO THE RECORD.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? COMMISSIONERS? OKAY, THEN, UH, UH, I NEED A MOTION COMMISSIONER BLAIR, IN THE MATTER OF 24 DASH 81 84, I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE MOVING THIS, UH, HEARING TO AUTHORIZE THE HEARING AND NOT AMENDMENTS TO THE DALLAS CODE DIS AUTHORIZED HEARING.
THANK, THANK YOU COMMISSIONER BLAIR FOR YOUR MOTION.
COMMISSIONER HERBERT FOR YOUR SECOND.
COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONER BLAIR FOLLOWED BY COMMISSIONER HOUSE.
WHILE I DO KNOW THAT, UM, WAREHOUSING HAS BEEN, UH, VERY LUCRATIVE, UM, INDUSTRY WITHIN THE DALLAS COMMUNITY, I ALSO KNOW THAT WAREHOUSING IN THE APPROPRIATE PLACE HAS ALSO PROVI.
IT CAN ALSO PROVIDE UNSAFE, UM, OPPORTUNITIES FOR RESIDENTIAL AND BUSINESSES TO COEXIST.
THIS, THIS AUTHORIZED, UH, THIS REQUEST FOR AN AUTHORIZED HEARING IS NOT SAYING THAT WAREHOUSES ARE NOT APPROPRIATE, IT'S JUST ASKING THAT A NEW LOOK BE GIVEN AS TO HOW TO BETTER PROVIDE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR RESIDENTIAL USES AND INDUSTRIAL USES TO, UH, BE CONSIDERED FOR THEIR APPROPRIATENESS IN LAYING THEM SIDE BY SIDE.
TODAY WE SEE, EXCUSE ME, UM, WAREHOUSING AND THE USE OF THE SUPPORTIVE SERVICES FOR WAREHOUSING TO BE CO-LOCATED WITH RESIDENTIAL, WHICH IS A UNSAFE, UH, PRACTICE.
WHAT WE HEARD IN FLORAL FARMS THAT SOMETHING THAT, UM, COMMISSIONER HALL HAD MADE REFERENCE TO WAS THAT THE WAY WE HAVE DONE INDUSTRIAL AND RESIDENTIAL OF THE PAST IS NOT NECESSARILY THE WAY THAT, UM, THE CITY NOR MORE, MORE SO, UM, THE COMMUNITIES OF, AS A WHOLE HAVE LOOKED AT LOOKING AT HOW RESIDENTIAL AND INDUSTRIAL OP, UM, DEVELOPMENTS SHOULD COEXIST THAT RESIDENTS HAVE THE RIGHT TO LIVE IN SAFE ENVIRONMENTS, EXCUSE ME.
AND THAT IN THE CITY OF DALLAS, WE JUST NEED TO LOOK AT THE WAY WE HAVE DONE IT AND HOW WE NEED TO DO IT MOVING FORWARD.
SO THIS IS JUST, JUST A REQUEST TO, TO APPROVE AN AUTHORIZED HEARING.
IT'S NOT A REQUEST TO MAKE A CHANGE TODAY, BUT A JUST TO, TO LOOK, JUST TO LOOK AT, EXCUSE ME.
SO I ASK YOU JUST TO, UM, PROVIDE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO LOOK AT THAT AND TO NOT LOOK
[04:00:01]
AT IT AS WHAT WE ARE THAT WE HAVE MADE A DECISION AS TO WHAT WE SHOULD OR SHOULD NOT DO.THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER HOUSE.
UM, APPRECIATE HAVING A CONVERSATION WITH COMMISSIONER BLAIR AND, UH, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER THIS MORNING, UH, FOLLOWING OUR BRIEFING, SORT OF HELPING ME UNDERSTAND A LITTLE BIT THE MOTIVATION BEHIND THIS REQUEST FOR THE HEARING.
UM, NEVERTHELESS, I'M STILL, UM, FINDING MYSELF WHERE I'M NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO SUPPORT THIS MOTION.
I THINK THIS SETS, UH, SETS IN MOTION A PROCESS WITH, UH, HIGHLY UNKNOWN OUTCOMES, UH, THAT HAVE POTENTIAL IMPACT ON JOBS, ON, UH, LAND VALUES, ON TAX BASE, ON VERY, VERY IMPORTANT COMPONENTS IN OUR CITY.
WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO RESIDENTIAL, UH, UH, AREAS AND, AND CITIZENS, THAT'S IMPORTANT TOO.
I THINK THESE ISSUES CAN BE ADDRESSED.
I DON'T THINK THIS IS THE PROCESS TO DO THEM.
WE'RE GONNA HAVE A, A, A REWORK OF, OF OUR CODE, AS MS. MAY TALKED ABOUT.
UM, I, I THINK THROWING THIS OPEN INTO AN AUTHORIZED HEARING PROCESS THAT WILL LITERALLY TAKE YEARS, UM, JUST DOESN'T SEEM LIKE THE THING TO DO.
AND IN PARTICULAR, WITH THE, UM, APPLICATION TO EVERY LAST COUNCIL DISTRICT, EVERY LAST NEIGHBORHOOD, EVERY LAST ACRE AND SQUARE FOOT OF THIS CITY, UM, IF THIS WERE AN AUTHORIZED HEARING OF A PARTICULAR ZONE, A PARTICULAR, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD, A PARTICULAR DISTRICT THAT WAS, YOU KNOW, WAS URGENT TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE IN, I THINK I COULD BE A LITTLE MORE OPEN TO IT.
UM, BUT I, I JUST THINK THIS IS A PROBLEMATIC WAY TO APPROACH AN ISSUE THAT NEEDS, UH, ATTENTION.
UH, BUT IT, IT'S, UH, I THINK IT'S, IT, IT'S AN OVERREACH AND, UM, IT'S SORT OF JUST AN INAPPROPRIATE VENUE, UH, THROUGH WHICH TO ADDRESS THIS.
YEAH, I AM PLEASED TO SUPPORT THIS MOTION.
I THINK IT'S, UM, RAISING QUESTIONS ABOUT AN INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT ISSUE THAT WE FACE IN OUR CITY, WHICH IS THE CO-LOCATION OF RESIDENTIAL AND MUCH HEAVIER USES.
IN THIS CASE, IT'S IT'S WAREHOUSE, WHICH SOME MAY CLASSIFY AS INDUSTRIAL.
AND I DO THINK SENDING THIS TO ZAC FOR A LOOK IS IMPORTANT.
IT MAY BE THAT ZAC GETS TO IT IN ADVANCE OF THE, UM, CODERY WORK, OR IT MAY BE THAT THE CODERY WORK COMES FIRST AND IT GETS FOLDED IN.
BUT GIVEN THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS ISSUE AND SOME OF THE EQUITY INEQUITIES THAT WE'VE SEEN IN THE PAST WHEN IT COMES TO LOCATING WAREHOUSES NEAR, YOU KNOW, RESIDENTIAL, YOU KNOW, AREAS IN THE SOUTHERN SECTOR, I AM, YOU KNOW, HAPPY TO SEND THIS ONTO ZAC FOR A SERIOUS LOOK.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE RIGHT ANSWER IS, WHETHER IT'S AN SUP OR NOT, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT SHOULD STOP US FROM STARTING TO TAKE A LOOK.
WHICH, UM, BRINGS ME TO THE OTHER THING THAT I WANT TO ADDRESS.
UM, I HAD A BIT OF AN EMOTIONAL REACTION TO, UM, ACCO SOME OF THE THINGS THAT ONE OF OUR SPEAKERS SAID, AND I KIND OF WANT TO EXPLAIN MY THINKING THERE BECAUSE I DO THINK IT, IT, IT IS A MATTER THAT'S IMPORTANT.
AND THAT'S, UM, DECORUM AROUND THE HORSESHOE.
PERSONALLY, I REFER TO EVERYONE EITHER AS COMMISSIONER OR MR. OR MS, ET CETERA, ET CETERA, ARE ON THIS HORSESHOE.
AND, YOU KNOW, THAT IS FOR A VERY SPECIFIC REASON.
UM, WE ARE HERE CONDUCTING BUSINESS ON BEHALF OF THE PUBLIC AND THE CITIZENS OF THE CITY OF DALLAS IN A VERY PUBLIC FORUM.
AND WE'RE NOT MERELY CONDUCTING PERSONAL BUSINESS, BUT WE'RE CONDUCTING BUSINESS ON A PROFESSIONAL LEVEL.
AND WITH THAT, I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE USE TERMS OF RESPECT TO ADDRESS EACH OTHER.
NOW, I, I PERSONALLY DON'T CARE WHETHER I'M CALLED COMMISSIONER.
IT'S, IT'S NOT ABOUT ME BEING APPOINTED TO THE SEAT OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
IT'S ABOUT THE GRAVITY OF THE BUSINESS WE DO HERE AND THE TERMS THAT WE USE TO ADDRESS OUR EACH OTHER AROUND THIS BODY.
I THINK SPEAK TO THE FACT THAT WE ARE DEALING WITH PUBLIC ISSUES IN THE PUBLIC SETTING.
SO I THINK THE QUORUM IS INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT AROUND HERE.
UM, AND I THINK THAT SPEAKS TO WHY I HAD SUCH A STRONG REACTION EARLIER.
I APOLOGIZE IF I LET THE, MY EMOTIONS TAKE THE BEST OF ME, BUT I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT THAT WE'RE VERY THOUGHTFUL ABOUT HOW WE ADDRESS EACH OTHER AROUND HERE, CONSIDERING THE WORK THAT WE'RE DOING.
COMMISSIONER CHER, UH, THANK YOU COMMISSIONER RUEN FOR THOSE COMMENTS ON DECORUM.
UM, I ALSO LIKE TO SAY THAT I'M, I'M LEANING TOWARDS SUPPORTING THE MOTION, BUT I, I THINK COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT BRINGS UP A LOT OF GOOD POINTS.
UH, MY, MY QUESTION SPECIFICALLY
[04:05:01]
IS WHAT, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE ZONING REFORM COMING.WHAT WOULD APPEAR TO BE IN TANDEM WITH THIS? WHAT HAPPENS IF THAT JUST SORT OF OVERLAPS AND IS THERE A, AT, AT A POINT? IS THERE A PROCESS OR THE ABILITY AT SOME OTHER POINT TO SAY, LOOK, THESE THINGS ARE JUST SIMULTANEOUSLY TRACKING AND WE COULD PRETTY MUCH HAVE THE DISCUSSIONS ON THIS PARTICULAR MATTER IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE ZONING REFORM.
IS THERE A WAY TO SORT OF TERMINATE, SUNSET, WHATEVER THE CORRECT TERM WOULD BE ON THIS PARTICULAR MATTER, AND LET IT JUST CONTINUE ITS PROCESS INSIDE THE, THE OTHER, THE OTHER PROCESS? THAT WAS MY QUESTION FOR STAFF.
UM, MEGAN WEER PLANNING AN URBAN DESIGN.
TO TERMINATE AN AUTHORIZED HEARING, ONCE IT HAS BEEN AUTHORIZED, IT WOULD ESSENTIALLY HAVE TO GO BACK THROUGH THE PROCESS TO BE DEEDED.
IT'D HAVE TO GO BACK ON AN AGENDA TO BE RECONSIDERED, UM, AND THEN OPEN BACK UP FOR CONSIDERATION.
AND THEN AT THAT TIME YOU COULD SAY, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T WANT THIS TO GO FORWARD.
SO, WHICH I BELIEVE WE HAVE DONE BEFORE, I CAN'T REMEMBER THE SPECIFICS, BUT YES, WE HAVE DONE THAT BEFORE.
UM, I'LL BE SUPPORTING A MOTION.
I SIGNED A THREE MEMBER MEMO TO GET HERE.
UM, I THINK THE AREAS THAT ARE AFFECTED, OR A LARGE PERCENTAGE OF THIS CITY, UM, WE PROVIDE A LARGE TASK BASE TO THE CITY.
WE ARE NOW INUNDATED WITH TRUCK PARKING ON OUR FREEWAYS, UNDER OUR OVERPASSES IN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS.
IT'S BEGINNING TO BE A PROBLEM.
SO THE OVERREACH HAS ALREADY HAPPENED ON OUR END AND WE'RE JUST TRYING TO CONTROL IT.
UM, A LOT OF THE AREAS HAVE ALREADY BEEN DEEMED INDUSTRIAL AREAS.
RED BIRD DISTRICT, WHICH IS IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD, WILL REMAIN THE SAME, RIGHT? YES.
SO THERE'S SEVERAL DISTRICTS THAT ARE ALREADY LABELED THAT WILL NOT BE TOUCHED.
RIGHT? BUT AS NEW CONSTRUCTION HAPPENS, AS NEW DEVELOPMENT HAPPENS, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO BRING ON AREAS THAT ARE HISTORICALLY ZONED INDUSTRIAL.
I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH AN SUP AT THIS LEVEL.
SO THAT'S WHY I'LL BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? COMMISSIONER CARPENTER? UH, YES.
UH, THESE USES ARE USES THAT HAVE THAT, FOR THOSE OF US WHO REPRESENT DISTRICTS THAT HAVE HEAVY CONCENTRATIONS OF INDUSTRIAL AND CONCENTRATIONS OF INDUSTRIAL WITH RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCIES, THESE ARE THE USES THAT OVER AND OVER AGAIN PRESENT GREAT CHALLENGES IN TRYING TO EX EXTRICATE OURSELVES FROM THE, YOU KNOW, NEGATIVE EFFECTS OF THE CO-LOCATION OF, UH, YOU KNOW, RESIDENTIAL AND SOME OF THESE USES.
AND, AND AS FAR AS I, I'M, I'M REALLY TRYING TO WORK THROUGH WHAT THE RESISTANCE IS TO HAVING THIS WORK DONE AT ZAC, BECAUSE WHETHER IT'S DONE AT ZAC OR WHETHER IT'S DONE AS PART OF A FUTURE, UM, YOU KNOW, ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT, THIS WORK IS GOING TO HAVE, IT'S GOING TO HAVE TO BE DONE.
AND IT'S, IT'S VERY FOCUSED WORK.
IT'S IMPORTANT FOR OUR DI FOR, I'LL SAY OUR, THE DISTRICTS THAT HAVE A LOT OF INDUSTRIAL TO, TO, TO, TO FIND A PATHWAY TO EXTRICATE OURSELVES FROM SOME OF THE, YOU KNOW, INEQUAL EFFECTS OF ZONING DECISIONS THAT WERE MADE IN THE PAST.
AND, UM, TO MY MIND, THERE IS NO PREDETERMINED RESULT OF WHAT, WHAT, WHATEVER THIS EXPLORATION IS GOING TO BE.
BUT FOR THOSE OF US WHO LIVE WITH THESE, UH, ISSUES ON A REGULAR BASIS, WE SEE, DEFINITELY SEE THE NEED TO COME UP WITH SOME SENSIBLE GUIDELINES THAT I, I DON'T THINK ARE GOING TO BE ANYWHERE NEAR AS GLOBAL AS, AS SOME OF THE SPEAKERS HAVE THOUGHT THEY'RE GOING TO BE.
I THINK SOME SMALLER TARGETED DECISIONS COULD MAKE A, A VERY BIG, UM, IMPACT ON SOME OF THE DISTRICTS AND POSSIBLY REDUCE THE WORKLOAD ON, ON SOME CPC.
SO, YOU KNOW, I, I DEFINITELY AM GONNA SUPPORT IT AND I WOULD APPRECIATE THE SUPPORT OF THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? COMMISSIONER? I THINK THAT THIS ADVISOR IN A PUBLIC, JUST IN A PUBLIC HEARING, THAT SO THAT WE CAN START THE PROCESS TO HELP WITH ENVIRONMENTAL, UM, INJUSTICES THAT ARE, ARE DEFINITELY IN THROUGHOUT DALLAS.
THAT THIS IS JUST A, A PATH IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION AND BEING THAT IT IS GOING TO GO TO ZAC, UM, THAT WE, WE HAVE TO START.
UM, AND IT WAS IMPORTANT TO THE COMMISSIONERS AND STAFF THAT INITIATED THIS, THAT WE DO MOVE FORWARD.
WE HAVE SO MANY ENVIRONMENTAL INJUSTICES.
DALLAS IS BUILDING AND MOVING AT A RAPID SPEED, AND IF WE WAIT ANY LONGER, WE'LL CONTINUE TO HAVE ORGANIZATIONS THAT HAVE TO COME AND FIGHT TOOTH AND NAIL JUST
[04:10:01]
TO, SO THAT PEOPLE IN AREAS WHO DO NOT, THAT DO NOT HAVE THE MEANS AND THE FUNDS TO CONTINUE TO COME DOWN HERE AND FIGHT AND SPEAK ON THEIR BEHALF.THIS GIVES US THE PATHWAY TO HELPING THOSE ORGANIZATIONS THAT ARE FIGHTING TOOTH AND NAIL FOR THE INJUSTICES THAT HAVE BEEN SET UP, ESPECIALLY IN THE SOUTHERN SECTOR FOR GENERATIONS THAT ARE KILLING THE LI THAT ARE KILLING, UM, THOSE RESIDENTS IN THOSE AREAS AND IS DECREASING THEIR QUALITY OF LIFE.
SO THIS IS THE RIGHT STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION AND US HAVING THIS GO FORWARD FOR THE HEARING SO THAT, SO THAT THIS ISSUE CAN BE RESOLVED AS, AS BEST POSSIBLE AND CAN ALLOW WITH FORWARD DALLAS, UM, THE SOUTHERN SECTOR IS, I CAN'T EVEN IMAGINE.
I CAN'T TELL WHY I, I'VE, UM, BUT HEARING AND LEARNING IN THE LAST FOUR OR FIVE YEARS ABOUT THE INJUSTICES, I GREW UP WITH ALLERGIES AND SINUSES.
NEVER KNOWING THAT I LIVED RIGHT AROUND THE CORNER, RAISED IN THIS INTERNAL COURT PROJECTS THAT EVERY DAY OUR LIFE WAS IN DANGER, BUT MY MOTHER DIDN'T KNOW.
AND, AND COUSINS WHO HAVE HAD ASTHMA THEIR WHOLE LIFE DIDN'T KNOW.
SO I DO BELIEVE THAT TO DELAY THIS IS TO FURTHER PROVIDE INJUSTICES TO THOSE IN DISTRICTS WHO CANNOT FIGHT FOR THEIRSELVES.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? COMMISSIONERS, COMMISSIONER HALL? I, I DON'T KNOW THE RIGHT OR THE WRONG OF THIS
I THINK YOU GUYS HAVE SPOKEN ELOQUENTLY AND I, UH, I CAN UNDERSTAND THE REASON FOR DOING THIS, EVEN THOUGH I KNOW IT'S GOING TO BE A MASSIVE EFFORT.
UH, SO I JUST WANT TO, UH, EXPRESS MY, UH, APPRECIATION FOR WHAT YOU ALL HAVE SAID.
UH, IT'S BEEN AN EDUCATION AND I DO APPRECIATE THAT.
COMMISSIONER BLAIR, PICK A ROUND.
YES, IT IS ENVIRONMENTAL INJUSTICES OF THE SOUTHERN SECTOR, AND HE WHO DOES NOT OR HAS NOT LIVED IN THAT MAY NOT APPRECIATE THAT, BUT HE WHO HAS LIVED IN IT, HAS A TRUE APPRECIATION.
AND LIKE WE ALWAYS SAY, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT COMES FIRST, THE CHICKEN OR THE EGG, BUT THIS HAS HAPPENED, AND THIS IS, HAS BEEN IN, IN THIS TYPE OF, OF COMMINGLING OF RESIDENTIAL AND INDUSTRIAL HAS HAPPENED FOR DECADES AND CENTURIES.
YES, IT WILL CRE CREATE A HUGE, UM, TASK.
BUT I DON'T KNOW WHEN WE HAVE SAID THAT WE WILL ONLY DO THE WORK BASED ON THE SIZE OF THE TASK.
AND IF THAT'S WHAT WE'RE SEEING HERE TODAY, THAT WE ARE ONLY GOING TO DO WORK ON THE SIZE OF THE TASK, AND I THINK WE ALL SHOULD REEVALUATE WHY WE ARE HERE.
AND IT DOESN'T MATTER WHETHER IT IS WITH CODE REFORM OR WITH JUSTICE APPRE APPRECIATING OR APPROVAL OF THIS AUTHORIZED HEARING.
IF AT SOME POINT IN TIME THE AUTHORIZED HEARING AND THE CODE AMENDMENT COLLIDE, THERE'S ALWAYS A PROCESS TO DE AUTHORIZE THIS AUTHORIZED HEARING.
SO IF IT MEANS THAT THE AUTHORIZED HEARING IS FOLDED INTO THE CODE CHANGE, THEN IT'S FOLDED INTO THE CODE CHANGE, BUT THE, THE QUALITY OF, SO THE QUALITY OF LIFE SHOULD HAVE.
I, I I, I, I DON'T KNOW WHEN WE SAY QUALITY OF LIFE, IT, IT TAKES SECONDARY TO BIG BUSINESS PRO PROCEEDS.
AND IF THAT'S WHAT WE'RE SAYING, I, I, I AM APPALLED, BUT SO I, I JUST ASK THAT WE TAKE A LOOK,
[04:15:01]
ALLOW THE PROCESS TO HAPPEN AND AT, IF TOMORROW COMES WHERE WE NEED TO NOT ALLOW, NOT CONTINUE WITH THIS PROCESS, THEN TO DEAUTHORIZE IT, THAT'S ALL WE ARE ASKING FOR.ANY OTHER COMMENTS? COMMERS? OKAY.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.
ANY OPPOSED? ONE IN OPPOSITION.
WE HAVE A BREAK THAT'S BEEN REQUESTED.
WE'LL GO FALL OUT FOR 10 MINUTES IN THE BACK.
WE'LL BE BACK TO TAKE THE LAST TWO ITEMS, UH, IN 10 MINUTES.
OKAY, COMMISSIONERS IS 10 MINUTES.
WE'RE GONNA GET BACK ON THE RECORD.
THERE'S EIGHT OF US, SO WE'RE GONNA GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED.
COMMISSIONERS, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8.
[34. 24-1845 Consideration of a public hearing to determine the proper zoning on property zoned an IM Industrial Manufacturing with Specific Use Permit No. 2078 for an industrial (outside) potentially incompatible use limited to concrete or asphalt crushing; on the east line of Luna Road, north of Ryan Road and with consideration being given to evaluating whether Specific Use Permit No. 2078 is compatible with adjacent property and consistent with the character of the neighborhood. This is a hearing to consider the request to authorize the hearing and not the rezoning of property at this time.]
UH, LET'S GO TO CASE NUMBER 34, DR.ITEM NUMBER 34, CONSIDERATION OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO DETERMINE THE PROPER ZONING ON PROPERTIES ZONED IN IM INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURING DISTRICT WITH SPECIFIC USE PERMIT NUMBER 2 0 7 8 FOR AN INDUSTRIAL OUTSIDE POTENTIALLY INCOMPATIBLE USE LIMITED TO A CONCRETE OR ASPHALT CRUSHING ON THE EAST LINE OF LUNA ROAD NORTH OF RYAN ROAD.
AND WITH CONSIDERATION BEING GIVEN TO EVALUATING WHETHER SPECIFIC USE PERMIT NUMBER 2 0 7 8 IS, IS COMPATIBLE WITH ADJACENT PROPERTY AND CONSISTENT WITH THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THIS IS A HEARING TO CONSIDER THE REQUEST TO AUTHORIZE THE HEARING AND NOT THE REZONING OF PROPERTY AT THIS TIME.
IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM 34? YEAH, GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF COMMISSION, SANTOS MARTINEZ, 2 4 8 9 CAMINO PLATA LOOP, NORTHEAST RIO RANCHO, NEW MEXICO, 8 7 1 4 4, WHERE I THINK IT'S A GLORIOUS 88 DEGREES.
MS. UH, MR. CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF COMMISSION, I'LL BE VERY BRIEF.
I'D LIKE TO SPEAK AGAINST THIS APPLICATION FOR AN AUTHORIZED HEARING.
FOR ONE REASON THIS SUP IS SET TO EXPIRE IN JANUARY.
UH, THERE WAS NO RENEWAL OPTION ON THIS SUP, UH, WHEN IT WAS RECONSIDERED IN 2020 WITH A FIVE YEAR TERM.
UH, WE'D ASK RESPECTFULLY, LET THIS PROPERTY OWNER SEEK A NEW APPLICATION TO COME UP WITH NEW CONDITIONS, UH, FOR THIS USE RATHER THAN THIS PROCESS FOR AN AUTHORIZED HEARING STAND FOR ANY QUESTIONS.
UH, IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT'D LIKE TO BE HEARD ON THIS ITEM? COMMISSIONER'S.
QUESTIONS FOR OUR SPEAKER? QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SEEING NONE.
COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, DO YOU HAVE MOTION PUNCH THE WRONG BUTTON, UM, FOR ITEM NUMBER 34, UM, CONSIDERATION
[04:20:01]
OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO DETERMINE THE PROPER ZONING ON PROPERTY ZONED.AND I AM INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURING DISTRICT ON LUNA ROAD, AS IS IN THE DOCKET.
I MOVE THAT WE, UM, AUTHORIZE THE HEARING.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER, UH, CARPENTER FOR YOUR MOTION.
COMMISSIONER HOUSER FOR YOUR SECOND.
ANY DISCUSSION? COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT.
COMMISSIONER, IF YOU WANT SOME EXPLANATION.
NO, I, I WAS GONNA
THIS IS A, A VERY, UM, WELL-DEFINED LOCATION, AND THERE ARE, UM, JUST SAY THERE ARE COMPLIANCE ISSUES, UM, ON THIS SITE AND, UH, THAT A AUTHORIZED HEARING IS THE WAY TO PROCEED TO, UM, ADDRESS SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT HAVE COME UP.
THANKS, CHAIR, RUBEN? YEAH, I'LL JUST ADD, I'M, I'M HAPPY TO SUPPORT THE MOTION.
I HEAR MR. UM, MARTINEZ A SUGGESTION OF WHY DON'T WE WAIT UNTIL, UM, THIS THING COMES UP, UM, FOR SUP RENEWAL IN, I GUESS, LATE THIS YEAR OR EARLY NEXT YEAR, SIX MONTHS FROM NOW.
YOU KNOW, AS, AS WE KNOW, UM, THE CITY'S POLICY IS WITH SUP RENEWALS, IS THAT THE USER'S ALLOWED TO CONTINUE OPERATING FOR, UM, AS LONG AS THE SGP IS IS PENDING, YOU KNOW, IF WE APPROVE IT, GREAT.
IF WE DON'T APPROVE IT, GREAT.
BUT UNTIL IT'S FINALLY, YOU KNOW, RESOLVED OR DENIED.
SO I THINK, YOU KNOW, UNDERSTANDING COMMISSIONER CARPENTER'S CONCERNS WITH THE SITE, I THINK A SIX MONTH HEAD START ON THAT PROCESS IS, IS COMPLETELY FINE AND A GOOD IDEA.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? COMMISSIONERS.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.
YOU PREPARED? WE ASK YOU ANYTHING? OKAY.
[35. 24-1843 An appeal of the Landmark Commission’s decision of denial without prejudice to replace all existing windows (non-historic) with Alside 1700-Series vinyl windows in “beige” color.]
NOW MOVE ON TO OUR LANDMARK APPEAL.ITEM NUMBER 35 IS CA 2 34 DASH 2 46 AND APPEAL OF THE LANDMARK COMMISSION'S DECISION OF DENIAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO REPLACE ALL EXISTING WINDOWS NON HISTORIC WITH OUTSIDE 1700 SERIES VINYL WINDOWS AND BEIGE COLOR STAFF.
RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS.
LANDMARK COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS WAS DENIAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COMMISSIONERS.
THIS IS AN APPEAL OF AN APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OR OF APPROPRIATENESS, WHICH WAS DENIED BY THE LANDMARK COMMISSION AT ITS HEARING ON APRIL 1ST, 2024.
THE DECISION OF THE LANDMARK COMMISSION IS REFLECTED IN ITS OFFICIAL MINUTES, WHICH ARE PART OF THE RECORD FOR THIS APPEAL.
THE APPELLANT IS REPRESENTED BY MR. LINDBERGH AND THE LANDMARK COMMISSION IS REPRESENTED BY CY CITY ATTORNEY JUSTIN ROY.
MR. POWELL'S REPRESENTING, UH, THE LANDMARK COMMISSION HERE AT THIS TIME.
IF YOU COULD, UH, ALL THE SPEAKERS, PLEASE STAND AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
DO YOU SORE AND AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE COMMISSION? PLEASE ANSWER.
UH, ANY COMMUNICATIONS RECEIVED BY THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION MEMBERS PENDING THIS APPEAL HAVE BEEN COLLECTED BY THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION'S SECRETARY AND MADE AVAILABLE TO THE PARTIES FOR INSPECTION.
IF ANY PLAN COMMISSIONER HAD RECEIVED ANY COMMUNICATION ON THIS MATTER, PLEASE DISCLOSE IT FOR THE RECORD NOW.
UH, THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION HAS RECEIVED AND REVIEWED THE RECORD OF THE LANDMARK COMMISSION AND EACH PARTY'S BRIEF ON THE APPEAL.
THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION MAY HEAR NEW TESTIMONY AND CONSIDER NEW EVIDENCE ONLY TO DETERMINE IF THAT TESTIMONY OR EVIDENCE WAS NOT AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING BEFORE THE LANDMARK COMMISSION.
DOES EITHER PARTY HAVE ANY NEW EVIDENCE OR TESTIMONY TO SUBMIT TO THE COMMISSION TODAY? NO NEW EVIDENCE.
BOTH SIDES HAVE PREVIOUSLY RECEIVED A COPY OF THE PROCEDURES WE WILL FOLLOW TODAY.
THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION WILL NOW HEAR AND CONSIDER TESTIMONY AND CONSIDER CON AND EVIDENCE CONCERNING THE PREVIOUS RECOMMENDATIONS AND ACTIONS OF THE CITY STAFF AND THE LANDMARK COMMISSION AND ITS TASK FORCES.
EACH SIDE WILL BE ALLOWED 20 MINUTES FOR ITS PRESENTATION AND THE APPELLANT WILL HAVE AN ADDITIONAL FIVE MINUTES FOR REBUTTAL PRESENTATIONS WILL BE MADE BY THE APPELLANT AND COUNCIL FOR THE LANDMARK COMMISSION ONLY.
THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION MAY ASK QUESTIONS AFTER THE PRESENTATIONS.
[04:25:02]
TIME TAKEN BY THE QUESTIONS WILL NOT BE DEDUCTED FROM THE TIME ALLOTTED.EACH COMMISSIONER WILL BE ALLOWED FIVE MINUTES TO ASK QUESTIONS DURING THE FIRST ROUND.
BE AWARE THAT THOSE FIVE MINUTES INCLUDE ANSWERS, THREE MINUTES WILL BE ALLOTTED FOR A SECOND ROUND IF NEEDED.
THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION SECRETARY WILL KEEP TRACK OF TIME.
IF A PARTY REQUIRES ADDITIONAL TIME TO PRESENT ITS CASE, THE PARTY SHALL REQUEST THAT ADDITIONAL TIME BE GRANTED BY THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION.
IF THE COMMISSION GRANTS ONE PARTY ADDITIONAL TIME, THE OPPOSING PARTY SHALL ALSO BE GRANTED AN EQUAL TIME EXTENSION.
DO THE PARTIES HAVE ANY PRELIMINARY MATTERS TO RAISE AT THIS TIME? MR. CHAIR? YES, SIR.
I'M HERE PINCH HEADING FOR JUSTIN ROY FOR THE CITY.
I'VE NOT MET MR. LINDBERG BEFORE, BUT I'VE BEEN HERE THE LAST COUPLE OF HOURS.
OH, UH, I, I, I DON'T THINK HE'S HERE AND I DUNNO WHY HE'S NOT HERE.
THAT'S, THANK YOU FOR THAT, SIR.
UH, YOU'RE NOT MR. LINDBERG? NO.
SO WE STILL, UH, THIS IS MR. POWELL AND THIS IS STAFF WHO I'M ASSUMING WAS GONNA BE INTRODUCED TO THE COMMISSION WITH YOUR, UH, PRESENTATION.
THIS IS MARCUS WATSON AND THE REASON HE'S IMPORTANT AND HE DOES RECOGNIZE MR. LINDBERG, WE'RE HERE.
HE IS WITH THE CITY, THE SENIOR PRESERVATIONIST.
AND, UH, COMMISSIONER HAMPTON.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU IF YOU CAUGHT THAT, BUT, UH, THE, UH, THE APPELLANT YES.
UH, SO MY UNDERSTANDING IS WE STILL NEED, WE STILL NEED A MOTION.
UH, COMMISSIONERS, THIS HAS BEEN, UH, NOTICED AND IS PART OF OUR DOCKET.
SO WE WILL ADVISE CHAIR, UH, WE HAVE A WRITTEN BRIEF TO GO ON.
SO, I, I UNDERSTAND THE ELEPHANT APPLICANT MAY NOT HAVE, HAVE CHOSEN TO APPEAR.
HAS YOUR OFFICE HAD ANY COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE APPELLANT? I, I HAVEN'T.
WITH THE OTHER LAWYER WHO ACTUALLY WROTE THE BRIEF.
SO I, MY INVOLVEMENT HAS BEEN ONLY VERY RECENTLY I'VE NOT HAD ANY COMMUNICATION WITH HIM.
AND THE OTHER LAWYER IS COUNTRY, SO I DON'T THINK HE HAS EITHER, BUT I DON'T KNOW.
WE'RE NOT, I, I'M NOT CERTAIN I'M, I'M GLAD TO GO FORWARD IF YOU PREFER ME TO DO, HE HAS SUBMITTED, AS YOU NOTED, HE HAS SUBMITTED A WRITTEN THREE.
UH, YOU HAVE NOT HEARD FROM THE APPELLANT? NO.
WE'RE GONNA PAUSE THEM TO KIND OF, TO SEE WHAT OUR OPTIONS ARE HERE TO MAKE SURE WE KNOW WHAT THE OPTIONS ARE BEFORE WE MOVE.
IS, IS BAIR, MR. BAIRD, THE APP APPELLANT, RIGHT? RIGHT.
MY GENTLEMAN'S NAME IS BARRETT LINDBERG.
I'VE NOT TALKED WITH HIM, BUT I, HIS FIRST NAME.
BUT HE WASN'T REGISTERED TO SPEAK, WHICH IS WHY I DIDN'T RECOGNIZE HIM.
SO, BUT HE IS ONLINE? YEAH, HE'S ONLINE.
SO, MR. LIMBER, DID YOU, IS YOUR CAMERA ON, SIR?
[04:30:10]
THANK YOU.THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR JOINING US.
APPRECIATE, APPRECIATE YOU ALLOWING ME TO JOIN.
I'VE, I'VE BEEN WATCHING HELPLESSLY.
LET ME GO AHEAD AND, UM, AND SWEAR YOU IN.
CAN YOU PLEASE STAND UP, STAND AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
DO YOU SWEAR AND AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE COMMISSION? PLEASE ANSWER.
MR. CHAIR, COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, JUST FOR THE RECORD, UM, I, UM, HAVE PREVIOUSLY WORKED WITH VOY PARTNERS, SO I JUST WANTED TO STATE ON THE RECORD THAT THEY'D REACHED OUT TO ME AS MR. LINDBERGH WAS TRYING TO GET ONLINE, BUT I'VE HAD NO COMMUNICATIONS REGARDING THE MATTER BEFORE US.
UH, PLEASE STAND BY JUST ONE MOMENT.
MR. LIMBER, DO YOU HAVE, UH, ANY EVIDENCE TODAY THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO PROVIDE THE COMMISSION? IT WASN'T, THAT WAS NOT AVAILABLE, UH, AT THE TIME OF THE LANDMARK COMMISSION HEARING? NO.
DO YOU HAVE ANY PRELIMINARY MATTERS, SIR? NO.
THAT YOU'D LIKE TO RAISE AT THIS TIME? NO.
UH, MR. LIMBERG, WE'RE NOW TO THE POINT WHERE WE'RE READY TO HEAR FROM YOU, SIR.
AND, UH, YOU'RE, WE WILL HEAR FROM YOU FOR UP TO 20 MINUTES AND WE'RE READY TO HEAR FROM YOU, SIR.
UH, I WANNA TAKE SOME TIME AND JUST NOTE THAT NOT ALL OLD BUILDINGS ARE MEANT TO BE TREATED AS HISTORIC.
THIS BUILDING THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TODAY IS AT 1001 NORTH CRAWFORD AND IT'S IN THE LAKE CLIFF HISTORIC OVERLAY.
WHEN THAT WAS CREATED IN 1997, IT WAS SPECIFICALLY CALLED OUT AS NON-CONTRIBUTING TO THE HISTORIC OVERLAY DISTRICT.
THIS MEANS IT DOES NOT HAVE HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE TO THAT DISTRICT.
DURING THE LANDMARK COMMISSION MEETING IN APRIL, THE CHAIRWOMAN, UH, ASKED ME IF WE WOULD LANDMARK THIS BUILDING DESPITE ITS LACK OF HISTORIC VALUE TO THE DISTRICT.
UH, THIS INCIDENT EXEMPLIFIES A, A BROADER ISSUE IN HOW THE LANDMARK COMMISSION SOMETIMES HANDLES NON-CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES WITHIN HISTORIC OVERLAYS.
I'M WITH HI SABO EQUITY PARTNERS.
OVER THE PAST DECADE, WE'VE SUCCESSFULLY BUILT AND RENOVATED 50 SMALL APARTMENT BUILDINGS IN THE CITY OF DALLAS.
MANY OF THESE HAVE BEEN NON-CONTRIBUTING APARTMENT BUILDINGS IN HISTORIC OVERLAYS.
UM, 6, 7, 8 OF THEM HAVE, HAVE MET THAT CRITERIA, JUST LIKE 1,001 NORTH CRAWFORD.
AND SO I'M HERE TODAY TO APPEAL THE LANDMARK COMMISSION'S DECISION, UH, TO DENY OUR APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, UH, TO USE VINYL WINDOWS AS WE DO A GUT RENOVATION ON THIS APARTMENT BUILDING.
UH, I FIRMLY BELIEVE THIS DECISION WAS MADE IN ERROR AND DID NOT ALIGN WITH THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE.
SO ACCORDING TO THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE, THE LANDMARK COMMISSION MUST APPROVE REQUESTED IMPROVEMENTS FOR NON-CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES IF THE PROPOSED WORK IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE DISTRICT.
AND OUR PROPOSED VINYL WINDOWS MEET THIS CRITERIA.
THEY'RE SIMILAR IN APPEARANCE TO WINDOWS FOUND ON AT LEAST 10 OTHER PROPERTIES, AND THAT WAS NOTED IN OUR SUBMISSION PACKAGE TO THEM ORIGINALLY.
UM, WE'VE COMPLETED RENOVATIONS ON OTHER NON-CONTRIBUTING BUILDINGS IN THE LAKE CLIFF HISTORIC DISTRICT USING VINYL WINDOWS APPROVED BY LANDMARK COMMISSION.
UH, THESE PROJECTS ARE AT 5 0 1 5 15, 6 0 6 AND 7 0 7 NORTH MARUS.
AND THEY HAD THE SUPPORT OF BOTH CITY STAFF AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD TASK FORCE.
AS A DEVELOPER, SOMETHING THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT FOR US TO CONTRIBUTE TO AND IMPROVE NEIGHBORHOODS IS UNDERSTANDING WHAT DALLAS WANTS
[04:35:01]
US TO DO AND ALLOWS US TO DO.AND THAT'S RELYING ON THE CODE.
UH, IN SPECIFICALLY IN THE CASE OF 1,001 NORTH CRAWFORD, THE NEIGHBORHOOD TASK FORCE EXPLICITLY SUPPORTED OUR PROPOSAL.
SO PART OF THE PROCESS GOING THROUGH LANDMARK COMMITTEE IS THAT FIRST YOU HAVE TO MEET WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND, AND A FEW PEOPLE WHO VOLUNTEER ON THIS NEIGHBORHOOD TASK FORCE.
IN THIS CASE, WHEN WE MET WITH THEM, THEY SPECIFICALLY SUPPORTED THE VINYL WINDOWS AND FURTHER, AND I'M QUOTING NOW THEIR APPROVAL, THE PROPOSED VINYL WINDOWS ARE IN HARMONY WITH THE OVERALL AESTHETIC AND CHARACTER OF THE LAKE CLIFF HISTORIC DISTRICT.
SO THIS IS MY SECOND TIME APPEALING A LANDMARK DECISION TO CPC.
UH, THE LAST TIME WAS IN 2015.
I WAS SUCCESSFUL THAT TIME AND UNFORTUNATELY IT WAS FOR THE EXACT SAME REASON I'M HERE TODAY.
UM, EARLIER IN THE CPC MEETING, YOU, THE COMMISSIONERS APPROVED A REPL SUBMISSION, UH, DESPITE, UH, OBJECTIONS FROM SEVERAL NEIGHBORS AND YOU HAD TO FOLLOW DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE 51 A TO A TO THE LETTER.
THE LANDMARK COMMISSION IN THIS CASE, UH, HASN'T TAKEN SUCH GREAT CARE TO FOLLOW A DIFFERENT SECTION OF 51 A SPECIFICALLY, UH, 51 A 4.501 G SIX C ROMAN TWO.
AND THAT SAYS, FOR NON-CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES, UH, THE LANDMARK COMMISSION MUST GRANT THE APPLICATION IF IT DETERMINES THAT THE PROPOSED WORK IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE HISTORIC OVERLAY DISTRICT.
AND THAT'S REALLY THE CRUX OF WHY WE'RE HERE TODAY.
UM, SO FOR PRIOR APPROVALS FOR SIMILAR PROJECTS, THERE WAS A DIFFERENT CITY STAFFER AND THEY MORE CLOSELY FOLLOWED THOSE GUIDELINES.
BUT IN THIS CASE, THE CITY STAFFER, UM, REALLY WAS WANTING WOOD WINDOWS AND SO THEY REALLY PUSHED FOR THAT.
UM, BUT THE LETTER OF THE LAW SHOULD BE FOLLOWED IN THESE CASES TO, UM, TO MAKE IT EASIER TO MAKE PROGRESS IN THESE AREAS.
ULTIMATELY, THE LANDMARK COMMISSION'S DENIAL WAS BASED ON A PREFERENCE FOR WOOD WINDOWS, BUT THAT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY DALLAS CODE OR THE ACTUAL PRESERVATION CRITERIA FOR NON-CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES.
UM, WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT, THAT THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION OVERTURN THE LANDMARK COMMISSION'S DECISION AND THAT THE VINYL WINDOWS THAT WE'VE PROPOSED ARE, ARE ALLOWED, UH, THEY ARE COMPATIBLE WITH THE HISTORIC OVERLAY, UM, AS THE NEIGHBORHOOD TASK FORCE AGREED.
AND, UM, WE BELIEVE THAT OUR APPLICATION COMPLIES WITH DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODES, SPECIFICALLY 51 A 4.501 G SIX C ROMAN TWO.
UH, YOUR AGREEMENT TODAY WILL ENSURE UNIFORM APPLICATION OF THE RULES AND ENCOURAGE CONTINUED INVESTMENT IN DALLAS HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOODS.
COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONERS, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE MEMBERS WITH A REMINDER THAT EACH COMMISSIONER'S QUESTION WITH THE ANSWERS ARE LIMITED TO FIVE MINUTES? COMMISSIONER CHARNOCK, PLEASE.
I, I HAVE A QUESTION, I THINK FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY.
UM, IS THAT APPROPRIATE TO ASK NOW OR JUST WE'RE JUST TALKING, ASKING QUESTIONS TO WHO? JUST THE APPELLATE TO, AT THIS POINT, JUST THE APPELLATE, BUT WE, WE, WE'LL GO TO STAFF COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT, MR. CHAIR? UH, COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, PLEASE.
NO, I'M HAPPY TO DEFER TO COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT FIRST.
UM, SO, UM, MR. LIMBERG, ONE QUESTION.
IN READING THE DISCUSSION FROM THE LANDMARK COMMISSION, IT APPEARS THAT THERE WAS DISCUSSION ABOUT AN ALTERNATE PROFILE WITHIN THE SERIES OF WINDOWS THAT MIGHT BE DETERMINED TO BE COMPATIBLE.
UM, WERE YOU ABLE TO RESEARCH THAT AT ALL, OR WAS THAT ANYTHING THAT WAS A CONSIDERATION? UM, 'CAUSE I UNDERSTAND FROM THE COMMISSION THAT WAS ONE OF THE CONSIDERATIONS IN THEIR DELIBERATIONS.
UM, YOU KNOW, MOMENTARY THING, I BELIEVE THAT THAT COMMISSIONER ACTUALLY ENDED UP VOTING IN FAVOR OF THE VINYL WINDOWS THAT I HAD PROPOSED, BUT I DID NOT HAVE MORE INFORMATION ON THAT SPECIFIC WINDOW THAT HE BROUGHT UP.
UM, SO I THINK HE ACTUALLY MADE THE MOTION, UM, BUT THANK YOU, UM, FOR THE CLARIFICATION.
UM, MR. LINDBERG, I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT KIND OF WINDOW SPECIFICALLY THE, THE LANDMARK COMMISSION WAS ASKING YOU TO INSTALL.
WOULD THESE BE RAW WOOD WINDOWS THEN YOU WOULD THEN PRIME AND PAINT? OR WAS IT A QUESTION OF THE PROFILE OR WHAT, YOU KNOW, THEY SAID NO TO THE VINYL WINDOWS.
WHAT WOULD, WHAT WOULD THEY HAVE SAID YES TO, UH, PREVIOUSLY,
[04:40:01]
AND I, SO ACTUALLY TODAY WE HAVE A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS THAT SAYS WE MUST USE WOOD WINDOWS.IT DOES NOT SPECIFY TYPE OF WOOD WINDOWS WE MAY USE.
SO IF I MAY, SO THEY MIGHT BE WOOD WINDOWS THAT HAD CLADDING OR NOT, OR THERE'S JUST SOMETHING ABOUT, ABOUT THE WOOD WINDOWS THAT THEY WANTED.
COMMISSIONER HERBERT, UH, WHAT ARE THE CURRENT WINDOWS ON THE BUILDING NOW? THEY'RE ALUMINUM.
DOES, DOES THE HISTORIC DISTRICT CALL CALL OUT SPECIFICALLY IF WOOD IS, UH, ALLOWED OR IF FINAL'S ALLOWED, OR IS IT NOT HAVE A LEVEL OF SPECIFICITY? UH, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE HISTORIC DISTRICT HAS VERY SPECIFIC RULES FOR THE TYPES OF WINDOWS ALLOWED IN CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES.
UM, SINCE THIS IS NOT A CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE OR FACADE, UH, HONESTLY I HAVE NOT DUG TOO DEEPLY INTO THOSE RULES.
SO, SO AS YOU MENTIONED, THIS COMES DOWN TO, UH, COMPATIBILITY.
WHAT IS YOUR DEFINITION OF COMPATIBILITY? GENERALLY, WHEN WE DIG INTO COMPATIBILITY, WE LOOK FOR OTHER SIMILAR WINDOWS IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT SINCE THERE WERE 10 BUILDINGS WITH OTHER SIMILAR VINYL WINDOWS IN THE DISTRICT, AND WE HAD DONE THREE OTHER PROJECTS WITH THE EXACT SAME WINDOWS, UM, WE ASSUMED THAT THESE WOULD BE CONSIDERED COMPATIBLE.
THAT IS THE CRITERIA WE'VE USED ON MULTIPLE OTHER PROJECTS.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONERS? ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, PLEASE.
UH, I THINK MY QUESTION'S GONNA BE FOR STAFF.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONERS FOR THE APPELLANT? OKAY.
WE'LL NOW HEAR FROM THE LANDMARK CASE, UH, LANDMARK COMMISSIONS CASE FOR UP TO 20 MINUTES.
I'M PINCH HITTING HERE FOR JUSTIN ROY, WHO WROTE THE CITY'S BRIEF.
AND, UH, I WILL SAY, I THINK DID AN EXCELLENT JOB OF CAP ENCAPSULATING AND SUMMARIZING THE ISSUE.
UH, THIS, THIS IS A FAIRLY STRAIGHTFORWARD MATTER.
I GUESS, LET ME SAY ALSO AT THE OUTSET THAT I WANNA MAKE SURE AND INTRODUCE MARCUS WATSON.
UH, MR. WATSON IS THE SENIOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION PLANNER WITH THE CITY.
AND TO THE EXTENT THAT YOU HAVE QUESTIONS THAT GET INTO THE FINER POINTS, OR MAYBE EVEN NOT THE FINER POINTS, MOST ANY POINT ABOUT HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND THE CITY'S PERSPECTIVE AND THE REASON FOR PREFERRING WOOD WINDOWS, I'M GONNA DEFER THOSE QUESTIONS TO HIM TO ANSWER BECAUSE THIS SUBSTANTIVELY IS NOT MY AREA.
UH, A COUPLE OF POINTS, I GUESS.
UH, FIRST OF ALL, THERE'S NOT ANY DISPUTE THAT THIS IS A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE.
THERE'S NOT A GRAY AREA ABOUT IT.
THIS STRUCTURE WAS BUILT IN THE 1940S.
MOST OF THE OTHER STRUCTURES THAT, UH, ARE DEEMED CONFORMING WITHIN THIS, UH, HISTORIC OVERLAY DISTRICT WERE BUILT IN THE TWENTIES AND THIRTIES.
IT HAS CURRENTLY ALUMINUM WINDOWS THAT APPARENTLY ARE NOT ORIGINAL.
WHEN THIS STRUCTURE WAS BUILT IN THE FORTIES THAT PROBABLY WERE ORIGINALLY WOOD WINDOWS THERE, SOMETIME LATER, PROBABLY IN THE SIXTIES, THE ALUMINUM WINDOWS WERE INSTALLED.
THE STANDARD, I THINK I I'LL, UH, UH, GIVE MR. LINDBERGH CREDIT, HE DOES PROPERLY IDENTIFY THE STANDARD.
IT SAYS, AND I'M READING FROM THE ORDINANCE ITSELF, SAYS, THE LANDMARK COMMISSION MUST GRANT THE APPLICATION IF IT DETERMINES QUOTE FOR NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES.
THE PROPOSED WORK IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE HISTORIC OVERLAY DISTRICT.
AND THE LANDMARK COMMISSION DETERMINED THAT THE VINYL WINDOWS THEY WERE PROPOSING TO INSTALL ARE NOT COMPATIBLE.
THEY ARE INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE HISTORIC OVERLAY DISTRICT BECAUSE THESE OTHER STRUCTURES, THE BUILDINGS THAT ARE CERTAINLY THE CONFORMING STRUCTURES, THEY'RE PART OF THE OVERLAY DISTRICT, HAVE WOOD WINDOWS AND A POINT OR TWO.
I WANT TO ADDRESS THE, UH, THE COMMISSION HERE, EACH OF YOU.
[04:45:01]
STANDARD HERE IS, UH, WELL, I'M GONNA AGAIN, READ FROM THE ORDINANCE.IT SAYS ABOUT AS WELL AS I COULD, THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION SHALL GIVE DEFERENCE TO THE LANDMARK COMMISSION DECISION AND MAY NOT SUBSTITUTE ITS JUDGMENT FOR THE LANDMARK COMMISSION'S.
JUDGMENT GOES ON TO SAY, THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION SHALL AFFIRM THE LANDMARK COMMISSION DECISION UNLESS IT FINDS THAT IT WAS NOT REASONABLY SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, CONSIDERING THE EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD, THE EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD.
AND YOU HAVE THAT BEFORE YOU, UH, WAS PRINCIPALLY FROM MR. WATSON WHO'S HERE, UM, TALKING ABOUT THE HISTORICAL, THE OVERLAY DISTRICT AND THE FACT THAT THE BUILDINGS, THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF THE BUILDINGS HAVE WOOD WINDOWS.
THERE MAY BE, AND I'M NOT IN A POSITION TO TAKE ISSUE OR DISPUTE MR. LINDBERGH'S STATEMENT, THAT THERE ARE OTHER BUILDINGS THERE THAT HAVE VINYL WINDOWS.
DON'T KNOW EXACTLY HOW THOSE CAME TO BE, BUT I WOULD SUBMIT THAT THOSE ARE NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE HISTORIC OVERLAY OF THE DISTRICT.
AND THAT THE LANDMARK COMMISSION, WHICH IS ITS RESPONSIBILITY TO TRY AND MAINTAIN THE STANDARDS OF BUILDINGS THAT ARE IN THESE HISTORIC OVERLAY DISTRICTS.
THE LANDMARK COMMISSION DENIED, UH, INITIALLY THEY, UH, APPROVED SUBJECT TO HAVING WOOD WINDOWS.
AND THIS PETITION WAS BROUGHT BACK A SECOND TIME.
AND, UH, AND MR. MARCUS, UH, MR. WATSON CAN SPEAK TO THIS, UH, THE SECOND TIME IT CAME BACK, THE REQUEST WAS MADE THAT JUST GIVE US A STRAIGHT UP APPROVAL OR A STRAIGHT UP DENIAL.
WE DON'T WANT AN APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS.
WHEN THE APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS WAS GIVEN THE FIRST TIME THAT IT BE WOOD, THERE WAS A REQUEST THAT, OKAY, YOU NEED TO NEGOTIATE, TALK WITH US ABOUT IT SO WE CAN GET COMFORTABLE WITH THE IDEA OF WHAT YOU'RE PLANNING TO DO.
AND THEN THE PETITION WAS FILED A SECOND TIME, AND IT WAS REQUESTED THAT IT EITHER BE A STRAIGHT UP APPROVAL OR A STRAIGHT UP DENIAL.
NO CONDITIONS, NO LIMITATIONS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
UM, I WOULD SUBMIT THAT THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN THE RECORDS.
THE, THE, THE, THE, THE POINT THAT THE TASK FORCE MAY HAVE RECOMMENDED APPROVAL, UH, I DON'T THINK CHANGES.
THE FACT THAT THE LANDMARK COMMISSION, EVEN KNOWING WHAT THE TASK FORCE HAD SAID, FOLLOWED THE RECOMMENDATION FROM STAFF.
I'M NOT SURE WHERE I'M GETTING THE ECHO FROM.
I THINK YOU'RE COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, I THINK YOU'RE OFF ON MUTE.
BUT THE, UH, COMMISSIONER HAMPTON ASKED A QUESTION, AND I, WHEN I HEARD THE QUESTION, THERE WAS A THOUGHT THAT OCCURRED TO ME AND NOW I'VE SCRIBBLED IT IN MY NOTES AND CAN'T FIND THE NOTE THAT I HAD.
SO MAYBE IF THE QUESTION COMES UP AGAIN, I CAN ADDRESS IT.
BUT I THINK THAT'S THE CASE IN ESSENCE, AND I WELCOME ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE.
AGAIN, I MIGHT DEFER THOSE QUESTIONS TO MR. WATSON SINCE HE MIGHT KNOW IT.
COMMISSIONERS, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS WITH THE SAME REMINDER THAT QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ARE LIMITED TO FIVE MINUTES PER EACH? COMMISSIONER RA RUBIN? YES.
I WANNA MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND THE RELATIONSHIP.
THERE'S A STANDARD IN THE CODE THAT SAYS, FOR NON-CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES, THE PROPOSED WORK, THE LANDMARK COMMISSION MUST GRANT THE APPLICATION OF THE PROPOSED WORK IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE HISTORIC OVERLAKE DISTRICT.
ARE WE OR THE LANDMARK COMMISSION SUPPOSED TO LOOK AT COMPATIBILITY AT LARGE? BECAUSE THERE ARE ALSO THESE PRESERVATION CRITERIA THAT IT APPEARS THAT THE LANDMARK OR COMMISSION RELIED UPON? IS, IS COMPATIBILITY JUST DETERMINED SORT OF AS A BROAD QUESTION OR IS IT BASED ON THE, THE PRESERVATION CRITERIA? I'M GONNA TAKE A STAB AT THE BEST ANSWER.
I I THINK IT'S ONE OF THOSE THINGS.
IT'S IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER.
I MEAN, WHAT DO YOU VIEW TO BE COMPATIBLE WITH THIS OVERLAY DISTRICT? THE MAJORITY, THIS WASN'T, THIS WASN'T, UH, UH, 12 TO ZERO OR WHATEVER VOTE.
I MEAN, THE, THE LANDMARK COMMISSION, IT WAS AN EIGHT FIVE VOTE.
RECOGNIZING THE COMPATIBILITY ISSUE, WHICH YOU'VE JUST ASKED ABOUT, IS PROBABLY SOMETHING THAT THERE'S NOT A REALLY CLEAR, BRIGHT LINE ANSWER.
BUT THE LANDMARK COMMISSION, EIGHT TO FIVE, VOTED AND DETERMINED THAT THIS PROPOSED WORK IS NOT COMPATIBLE OR IS INCOMPATIBLE
[04:50:01]
WITH THE HISTORIC OVERLAY.UM, MR. WATSON GOT UP AND WALKED TOWARD ME, AND I'M GUESSING THAT'S PROBABLY 'CAUSE HE HAS A BETTER ANSWER THAN I JUST GAVE.
SO IF YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO THAT, IF I COULD DEFER TO HIM.
I'M MARCUS WATSON, SENIOR PLANNER WITH THE, UH, PLANNING AND URBAN DESIGN DEPARTMENT.
UM, SO IT MUST BE UNDERSTOOD THAT THE, THE HISTORIC LANDMARK HERE IS NOT ANY INDIVIDUAL BUILDING.
SO WE HAVE SOME BUILDINGS THAT CONTRIBUTE TO THAT AND SOME BUILDINGS THAT DO NOT.
THE OPERATIVE WORD HERE IS COMPATIBLE TO THE DISTRICT COMPATIBILITY COMES DOWN TO, IT'S, IT'S INTENTIONALLY SUBJECTIVE.
SO THAT THE 15 MEMBERS OF THE LANDMARK COMMISSION, WHO PRESUMABLY HAVE SOME EXPERTISE IN HISTORIC PRESERVATION, UH, THEY DECIDE WHAT COMPAT COMPATIBILITY IS.
THEY DO USE THE DESIGN CRITERIA AS YOU, UH, POINTED OUT.
SO THEY RELIED ON 5.2 AND 5.3.
ARE THEY ALLOWED TO LOOK AT THINGS OUTSIDE OF THOSE TWO CRITERIA AND DETERMINING COMPATIBILITY? ARE THEY LIMITED TO 5.2 AND 5.3? THEY LOOK AT 5.2.
THEY ALSO LOOK AT THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR STANDARDS, UH, WHICH ARE AL WERE ALSO IN THE CASE REPORT AS WELL.
UM, TO DETERMINE THAT, UM, THE, THE STAFF, THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION WAS BASED ON THE IDEA THAT OF 5.2, THAT MATERIALS SHOULD BE COMPATIBLE.
AND SO THAT WAS WHY OUR RECOMMENDATION WAS THAT VINYL IS NOT A COMPATIBLE, UH, MATERIAL IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT.
WE DON'T EVEN ALLOW VINYL SIDING.
AND, UH, I, THIS MAY GO BACK TO MR. POWELL, BUT 5.2 SPEAKS OF REPLACEMENT OF WINDOWS AND DOORS THAT HAVE BEEN ALTERED AND NO LONGER MATCHED.
THE HISTORIC APPEARANCE IS RECOMMENDED.
SO THAT WAS ALSO THE BASIS FOR THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION THAT IT WAS APPROVAL, NOT DENIAL.
THE REASON WE RECOMMENDED APPROVAL WAS THAT YES, THOSE EXISTING WINDOWS THAT ARE NOW ALUMINUM SHOULD BE, SHOULD BE REPLACED UNDER OUR CRITERIA.
WE HAD NO PROBLEM WITH THE WINDOWS BEING REPLACED.
THEY SHOULD JUST BE REPLACED CORRECTLY.
I MEAN, CITY STAFF WILL SOMETIMES TELL US WHEN WE PUT, WANNA PUT RECOMMENDATIONS IN A PD ORDINANCE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THEY SAY RECOMMENDATIONS ARE GREAT, BUT THEY REALLY DON'T TIE ANYONE'S HANDS.
SO DOES A RECOMMENDATION AND PRESERVATION CRITERIA GIVE THE LANDMARK COMMISSION A BASIS TO APPROVE OR DENY THIS REQUEST? AND IT'S PHRASED IN TERMS OF A RECOMMENDATION, RECOMMENDATION WHEN THERE ARE OTHER LANGUAGE.
IT SAYS, REPLACEMENT DOORS AND WINDOWS MUST EXPRESS YADA YADA YADA COMM.
MY, UH, RESPONSE TO THAT IS, THE LANDMARK COMMISSION FACED THE SAME QUANDARY THAT YOU'RE ARTICULATING RIGHT NOW.
THEY HAD THE CHOICE TO EITHER FOLLOW THE RECOMMENDATION OR NOT.
THEY, UH, ESSENTIALLY DETERMINED THAT THIS, THE RECOMMENDATION WAS COMPATIBLE.
WHAT THE APPLICANT WANTED TO DO WAS INCOMPATIBLE.
AND THE LANDMARK COMMISSION MADE A DECISION.
AND THAT DECISION IS ENTITLED TO DEFERENCE AND SHOULD BE UPHELD IF, IF, UH, VICE CHAIR RUBEN, IF YOU WERE ON THE LANDMARK COMMISSION AT THE TIME IN CASTING A VOTE, YOU MIGHT'VE WELL BEEN PART OF THE FIVE THAT SAID, WE'RE NOT GONNA GO THE RECOMMENDATION.
HEY, I'LL, I'LL STOP YOU THERE.
I COMPLETELY GET THAT, THAT I DON'T, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT SITTING IN THE SHOES OF THE LANDING ART COMMISSION.
I'M IN AN APPELLATE ROLE HERE WHERE MY, MY DISCRETION IS LIMITED.
ONE, ONE LAST QUESTION, I THINK SURE.
UM, I THINK MR. LINDBERGH REPRESENTED THAT AT LEAST SOME OF THE, UM, STRUCTURES WITH VINYL WINDOWS HAD COME THROUGH LANDMARK AND HAD BEEN APPROVED BY LANDMARK.
HOW DOES THAT SQUARE WITH OUR SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE STANDARD, ASSUMING THAT'S CORRECT? WELL, I I'M GOING TO, I THINK I'M GONNA DEFER TO, TO MR. WATSON ON THAT.
I, I DO WANT TO, AS YOU SAID, ASSUMING THAT'S CORRECT, I DON'T HAVE ANY INFORMATION THAT THAT IS CORRECT OR NOT.
THE DECISION IS MADE BY THE CURRENTLY SITTING COMMISSION.
THE RECOMMENDATION IS MADE BY THE CURRENT STAFF, UM, TO THE BEST OF THEIR KNOWLEDGE AND TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, UM, MY, I USED MY 26 YEARS IN, IN THE FIELD, AND MY BOSS IS 46 OR SO YEARS IN THE FIELD TO MAKE OUR RECOMMENDATION.
UM, THE REASON THAT WE MAY NOT NECESSARILY AGREE WITH PREVIOUS DECISIONS, AND, AND I I, I VERY RESPECTFULLY SAID THIS IN THE HEARING AND, AND TO THE, TO THE LANDMARK COMMISSION THEMSELVES, IS THAT WE BELIEVED THAT THE LAND, THE, THE PREVIOUS DECISIONS WERE
[04:55:01]
IN ERROR THEMSELVES.THAT THAT NOW IS THE TIME TO MAKE THE RIGHT DECISION.
AND, AND HOW MANY TIMES HAD LANDMARK COMMISSION PREVIOUSLY APPROVED VINYL WINDOWS IN THIS HISTORIC DISTRICT? I DON'T HAVE AN EXACT NUMBER FOR THAT.
I, I SEE SOMEONE HOLDING UP THE NUMBER THREE.
WOULD, WOULD, WOULD YOU DISAGREE WITH THAT? I, I, I CANNOT SAY.
BUT AT LEAST ON ONE, IN ONE INSTANCE, LANDMARK HAD APPROVED REPLACEMENT WINDOWS WITH FINAL AS OPPOSED TO ONE.
IF I COULD JUST ADD ONE BRIEF SUPPLEMENT TO THE RESPONSE.
HE JUST MADE THE RECORD AT THE LANDMARK COMMISSION INCLUDED THE INFORMATION ABOUT THE CONTENTION THAT THERE WERE OTHER BUILDINGS THAT HAD ALUMINUM WINDOWS OR OTHER ONES HAD BEEN APPROVED.
SO THAT IS INFORMATION THE LANDMARK COMMISSION DID HAVE, AND YET MADE THE DECISION THAT THEY MADE UNDERSTOOD.
THAT WASN'T A DISPUTED FACT LANDMARK COMMISSION THOUGH, WAS IT? I I'M NOT GONNA SAY IT WAS A DISPUTED FACT.
NO ONE PUSHED BACK AND SAID, OH, ABSOLUTELY NOT.
BUT THEY HEARD THAT INFORMATION.
AND NONETHELESS, THE LANDMARK COMMISSION MADE THE DECISION THEY MADE THAT WE'RE HERE ABOUT, IT'S PURELY AS A FACTUAL MATTER, THE CITY'S NOT DISPUTING THOSE PAST APPROVALS OF, OF CAS FOR VINYL WINDOWS IN THIS HISTORIC DISTRICT.
I I'M NOT HERE TO DISPUTE THAT.
I'M JUST SAYING THAT THE LA THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THE LANDMARK COMMISSION WAS UNAWARE OF WHEN THEY MADE THEIR DECISION.
YEAH, I JUST WANNA, UH, HIGHLIGHT ONE THING, AND I THINK IT'S KIND OF A, UM, A POINT THAT COMMISSIONER RUBIN BROUGHT UP, BUT IN THE BRIEF BY THE CITY ATTORNEY, THE, THE YOU POINT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD RECOMMENDATION, THE, THE COM, THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION AS NOT GERMANE, THAT IT WAS JUST SIMPLY A RECOMMENDATION AND THERE SHOULDN'T BE THE BASIS OF MR. LINDBERGH'S TALKING POINT, SO TO SPEAK.
YET AT THE SAME TIME, YOU POINT TO THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION TO SUPPORT YOUR VIEWPOINT.
WELL, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE TASK FORCE.
I THINK THAT'S, I'M I'M TALKING ABOUT THE TASK FORCE, AND THEN I'M TALKING ABOUT THE BRIEF.
WHEN YOU READ THE BRIEF, YOU CALL OUT MR. LINDBERGH'S TALKING POINT AS SAYING IT'S NOT, IT, THE, THE TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION IS NOT GERMANE AND NOT RELEVANT.
IT'S SIMPLY A RECOMMENDATION FOR THE LANDMARK COMMISSION.
AND THEN AT THE SAME TIME, RIDDLED THROUGHOUT THAT ENTIRE BRIEF, YOU BOLSTER YOUR TALKING POINTS BY POINTING TO THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.
I MEAN, AT THE END OF THE DAY, THIS IS MUDDYING THE WATER.
NEITHER ARE, NEITHER ARE, ARE BOTH ARE JUST, JUST, UH, RECOMMENDATIONS.
THE, AND A LOT OF WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE IS, IS, IS BECOMING A DISTRACTIONS.
IT'S REALLY NOT WHAT WE'RE HERE TO, TO DECIPHER WHAT, WHAT WE'RE HERE TO DECIPHER, GET BACK TO COMMISSIONER RUBIN IS 5.3, WHICH READS, RECOMMEND RECOMMENDS REPLACEMENT OF WINDOWS THAT EXPRESS MUTTON AND MULIAN SIZE, LIGHT CONFIGURATION AND MATERIAL TO, TO MATCH THE HISTORIC.
AND THEN IT ACTUALLY CUTS OFF.
I'M, I'M PRESUMING THERE WAS MORE WORDS THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADDED THERE.
SO THE, I I MEAN, THE QUESTION IS, DID THE LANDMARK COMMISSION APPLY THAT STANDARD APPROPRIATELY? IS THAT, IS THAT, I DON'T WANT TO GET OVER TO THE ATTORNEYS, BUT IS THAT YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THIS, WHAT WE'RE HERE TODAY TO, TO DETERMINE? WELL, IT, IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING AND MY UNDERSTANDING COMES FROM NOT HAVING PERSONALLY ATTENDED THE HEARING, BUT I DID READ THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE HEARING AND THE DIALOGUE BETWEEN THE COMMISSIONERS THAT IT WAS IN THE LAST THREE, FOUR PAGES OF IT.
AND THEY VERY SPECIFICALLY DID TALK ABOUT THE CONCEPT OF COMPATIBILITY AND WHETHER OR NOT THESE WERE COMPATIBLE OR NOT.
CAN CAN YOU READ ME WHERE IT SAYS THAT IN THE TRANSCRIPT? OKAY, LET ME, BECAUSE THE ATTORNEY'S REPORT THAT THE BRIEF SAYS, QUOTE, THE SUBSTANTIVE DISCUSSION OF THE LANDMARK COMMISSIONERS RELATED TO THE VINYL WINDOWS IN THEIR APPEARANCE COMPARED TO WOOD.
WHEN I WENT THROUGH THAT TRANSCRIPT, I COULDN'T FIND THAT.
I, I DO NOT SEE, AND I MAY HAVE MISSED IT, BUT I SEE WHERE THEY TALKED ABOUT COST.
WHERE ONE OF THE COMMISSIONERS ASKED THEM IF THEY WERE INTERESTED IN FILING TO HAVE THE PROPERTY BECOME A CONTRIBUTING, UH, PROPERTY.
I, I SEE WHERE THEY TALKED ABOUT WINDOWS BEING CUSTOM SIZES TO FILL THE ENTIRE OPENINGS.
I SEE THAT THEY ASKED THEM ABOUT OTHER PROJECTS IN THE AREA, BUT I DON'T SEE WHERE THEY ACTUALLY ASKED SIGNIFICANT IN, IN, IN, IN YOUR, IN LEGAL,
[05:00:01]
UH, BRIEF SUBSTANTIAL DISCUSSION.AND, AND I MIGHT BE MISSING IT.
AND I'M, UH, I, I APPRECIATE YOUR QUESTION IN THE TRANSCRIPT, UM, WHICH THE COPY THAT I HAVE, THE RECORD WAS NUMBERED, UH, 33 AND THEN A BUNCH OF PAGES.
IT WAS LIKE 120 PAGES ALTOGETHER.
THE TRANSCRIPT ITSELF, THE PAGES IN THE TRANSCRIPT THAT I'M LOOKING AT THAT TALK ABOUT THE COMPATIBILITY ARE PAGES 52.
IN THE TRANSCRIPT, IN THE UPPER RIGHT HAND CORNER, THERE ARE PAGES 10 AND 11 OF THE TRANSCRIPT.
IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE RECORD, IT'S PAGE 33, 52 AND 53.
THE TRANSCRIPT HAS LINE ITEMS. SO JUST CALL ME OUT, JUST TELL ME WHICH LINE YOU'RE ON.
UH, WELL, THERE, THERE ARE TWO PLACES.
UM, LET ME MENTION THE ONE ON, ARE YOU LOOKING AT TRANSCRIPT PAGES OR RECORD PAGES? UH, TRANSCRIPT PAGES, IF YOU WANNA CALL OUT THAT.
SO TELL ME WHAT PAGE YOU'RE ON AND THEN WHICH LINE? OKAY.
UPPER RIGHT HAND CORNER OF THE TRANSCRIPT, PAGE 10.
AND IF YOU LOOK AT STARTING WITH LINE 16, THERE'S SOME LANGUAGE THERE.
COMMISSIONER RENA SAYS, WITH THE PROPOSED EFFECT, WORK IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE HISTORIC OVERLAY DISTRICT.
AND THEN THAT KIND OF IS HANGING.
NOW YOU'VE GOTTA GO TO THE NEXT PAGE AND I WANNA READ SOME PASSAGE THERE.
UH, COMMISSIONER RENA, I GUESS HE'S CONTINUING TO TALK.
UH, MADAM CHAIR, IF I MAY, BEFORE WE TAKE A VOTE, I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT THE STANDARD IS WHETHER OR NOT THESE WINDOWS AS PRESENTED THE VINYL WINDOWS, WHETHER OR NOT IT'S COMPATIBLE WITH THE HISTORIC THOSE ARE THE FIVE MINUTES, SIR.
YOU HAVE A STRICT FIVE MINUTE RULE.
UM, WHAT HE FOR COMMISSIONER CHER'S QUESTIONS.
IT INCLUDES THE ANSWER, DOESN'T IT? RIGHT, RIGHT.
SO ANYONE ELSE CAN ASK YES, THAT YEAH, THE SEC.
BUT THEN HE GETS A SECOND ROUND OF, UH, THREE, THREE MINUTES.
COMMISSIONER CHERLOCK, WE HAVE A SECOND ROUND FOR THREE MINUTES COMING YOUR WAY.
UH, COMMISSIONERS, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF MR. POWELL? COMMISSIONER HAMPTON? THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
AND THIS IS FOR MR. POWELL OR MR. WATSON.
UM, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THE OVERALL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE, WHICH GIVES US, UH, OR GIVES THE LANDMARK COMMISSION GUIDANCE ON COMPATIBILITY.
BUT IS IT ALSO CORRECT THAT THEY HAVE TO GO BACK TO THE LAKE CLIFF HISTORIC DISTRICT AS WELL? THIS SPECIFIC GUIDANCE FOR THAT DISTRICT ON WHAT IS, UM, CONSIDERED FOR NEW WINDOWS, NEW DOORS, WHATEVER THE, THE CASE MAY BE IN THIS CASE? WINDOWS? I, I, I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND OR MAYBE DIDN'T CORRECTLY HEAR THE QUESTION, BUT I GUESS AS BEST I CAN, IF I UNDERSTOOD IT, THE, THE ORDINANCE, THE STATUTE SAYS THAT THE, THEY, THE COMMISSION, THE LANDMARK COMMISSION SHOULD CONSIDER QUOTE, WHETHER THE PROPOSED WORK IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE HOR HISTORIC OVERLAY DISTRICT.
DEPENDING ON WHAT DISTRICT THAT IS, IT MAY, IT WILL VARY DEPENDING ON THE DISTRICT, BUT IT CERTAINLY DOES DIRECT THE LANDMARK COMMISSION TO CONSIDER THIS SPECIFIC DISTRICT AND HOW THIS WORK IS COMPATIBLE WITH THIS.
I THINK THIS IS THE LAKE CLIFF HISTORIC DISTRICT.
WHAT'S COMPATIBLE WITH ANOTHER DISTRICT, MAYBE SOMETHING ENTIRELY DIFFERENT.
I'M GETTING A NOD THAT WHAT I'VE JUST RIGHT SAID IS CORRECT.
SO AND SO, SO WITHIN OUR, UM, BRIEFING MATERIALS, WE HAVE THE LAKE CLIFF ORDINANCES.
IT'S ON PAGE 6 23 OF THE DOCKET.
AND IT NOTES THAT REPLACEMENT DOORS AND WINDOWS MUST EXPRESS MUTTON, MULIAN SIZE, LIGHT CONFIGURATION AND MATERIAL TO MATCH THE HISTORIC.
SO THAT WAS REALLY THE STARTING POINT.
WOULD THAT BE CORRECT? WHEN DETERMINING COMPATIBILITY, UM, I'M TRYING TO QUICKLY LOOK AT THE ORDINANCE THAT WAS PART OF THE MATERIALS AND YEAH, I DO SEE A PART OF THE ORDINANCE.
IT'S IN THE RECORD OF MATERIALS 33 DASH 78 AND 79 IS WHAT I'M LOOKING AT.
AND IT'S TITLED PRESERVATION CRITERIA EXHIBIT A.
AND IT SAYS THAT CORRECT IT THEN, SORRY, GO AHEAD.
IT IT SPEAKS, I'M GONNA JUST READ THE QUOTE.
THE, THE PROPOSED WORK HAS HISTORIC, HISTORICALLY ACCURATE AND CONSISTENT WITH THE SPIRIT AND INTENT OF THE PRESERVATION CRITERIA.
AND THE PROPOSED WORK WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE HISTORIC CHARACTER OF THE PROPERTY OR THE INTEGRITY OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICT.
THERE'S A LOT OF LANGUAGE HERE.
[05:05:01]
I HAD HIGHLIGHTED THAT WHEN I READ OVER IT, BECAUSE THAT STRUCK ME AS VERY PERTINENT TO WHAT WE'RE HERE ABOUT.UH, I, I I HOPE THAT THAT'S RESPONSIVE TO YOUR QUESTION.
WELL, I GUESS THERE, THERE ARE TWO, TWO PROVISIONS AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THAT GOVERN LANDMARK COMMISSION.
ONE, THE CITY'S OVERALL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE, WHICH, AND THEN AS YOU'VE NOTED, EACH HISTORIC DISTRICT HAS THEIR OWN ORDINANCE, WHICH DEFINES THE PRESERVATION CRITERIA.
AND IT CAN VARY FROM DISTRICT TO DISTRICT.
SO WITHIN THE LAKE CLIFFS ORDINANCE, THERE'S FENESTRATION AND WINDOWS, AND THEN THE CRITERIA THERE, WHICH WAS THE ITEM THAT I HAD, UM, REFERENCED IT BY 0.3.
SO I WAS JUST UNDER WANTING TO MAKE SURE THAT I UNDERSTOOD CORRECTLY THAT THOSE TWO HAD TO SPEAK TO EACH OTHER.
DO YOU HAVE SURE, I I'M, I'M GONNA, I'M GONNA ASK, UH, MY WORTHY AND KNOWLEDGEABLE ASSISTANT TO RESPOND TO YOUR QUESTION.
'CAUSE HE PROBABLY UNDERSTANDS IT BETTER THAN I DID.
AND, AND I THINK IT'S IN THE STAFF REPORT FOR THIS AS WELL.
UM, TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT THAT WE LOOK FIRST AT THE, THE ENABLING ORDINANCE, WHICH IS THE MAIN ORDINANCE.
WE, THE COMMISSION WILL LOOK FIRST AT THE, THEN WE'LL LOOK FIRST AT THE CRITERIA FOR THEIR GUIDANCE.
AND IF THERE IS NOT CLEAR GUIDANCE IN EACH INDIVIDUAL DISTRICT'S CRITERIA, AND THERE THEY ARE DIFFERENT FOR EACH, UH, DISTRICT, LIKE YOU SAID, UM, THEN THEY WILL ALSO LOOK AT THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR STANDARDS FOR TREATMENT OF HISTORIC BUILDINGS UNDER THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE.
IS IT ALSO CORRECT THAT WHEN LOOKING AT WORK, UM, ON CONTRIBUTING OR NON-CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES, THAT THE INTENT IS NOT TO MAKE A STRUCTURE MORE NON-CONTRIBUTING? SO WHILE THE ALUMINUM WINDOWS WOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED APPROPRIATE, YOU A CHANGE TO VINYL WOULD ALSO NOT BE AND, AND POTENTIALLY MORE INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE DISTRICT.
YOU ACTUALLY TOOK A QUOTE RIGHT OUT OF MY MOUTH.
WE, WE, THE RULE OF THUMB IS TO NOT MAKE SOMETHING MORE NON-CONTRIBUTING.
WE WANT TO LEAN MORE TOWARDS MAKING IT MORE CONTRIBUTING TO THE DISTRICT.
AND SO, PARDON? PARDON? COMMISSIONER, IS THAT MY YES, PLEASE.
WE GOT A THREE MINUTE ROUND COMING.
UH, ANYONE WANNA TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE FIRST FIVE MINUTE ROUND COMMISSIONERS? IT HASN'T ALREADY TAKEN ADVANTAGE.
WE ARE ONLY ASKING STAFF QUESTION.
UH, UH, JUST THESE TWO GENTLEMEN, THEN WE GET TO STAFF AT THE VERY END.
AND SO WE CAN'T ASK THE, THE APPLICANT ANY MORE QUESTIONS.
AND ONLY REASON WHY, THE ONLY REASON WHY I ASK THAT IS THAT WE, WHEN, WHEN COMMISSIONER, UM, RUBEN ASKED HOW MANY OTHER TIMES IT SEEMED LIKE THAT THE APPLICANT WAS THE ONLY ONE THAT KNEW, KNEW THE THREE OTHER TIMES.
'CAUSE THEY, I THINK THEY ARE THE ONES THAT APPLIED FOR IT.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER CHERLOCK, YOUR SECOND ROUND, SIR.
SO IF WE, IF WE PICK BACK UP WITH, UH, WHAT YOU WERE SAYING, UH, PAGE 11, LINE 18, THERE IS, YOU WANT TO GO AHEAD AND READ FROM THERE? UH, LEMME IF IF I, IF THE, IF I'M NOT GONNA SAY MADAM CHAIR SAYS, IF I MAY.
BEFORE WE TAKE A VOTE, I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT THE STANDARD IS WHETHER OR NOT THESE WINDOWS ARE PRESENTED AS THE VINYL WINDOWS OR WHETHER OR NOT IT'S COMPATIBLE WITH THE HISTORIC DISTRICT.
SO I SEE THAT IN THERE, BUT I THINK THAT'S WHAT I READ A MOMENT AGO.
IT IS, THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE, THAT'S WHAT YOU STARTED TO READ.
BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THERE WAS CONVERSATION ABOUT 5.3 WHEN I READ THROUGH THE TRANSCRIPT, THERE WERE QUITE A FEW DISCUSSIONS ABOUT VARIOUS THINGS, INCLUDING SOME REFERENCE TO, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THESE VINYL WINDOWS, CERTAIN MODELS LOOK A LITTLE BIT LIKE WOOD.
I MEAN, THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSION.
BUT THEN THE LAST COUPLE OF PAGES IS WHERE THE COMMISSIONERS GET INTO TALKING ABOUT WHAT THEY'RE DECIDING, WHAT THE STANDARD IS AND COMPATIBILITY.
THERE WAS SOME QUESTION RAISED ABOUT WHETHER THEY EVEN UNDERSTOOD COMPATIBILITY WAS THE RELEVANT CRITERIA.
AND I THINK THE LANGUAGE THAT I READ INDICATES THEY UNDERSTOOD COMPATIBILITY AND WHETHER THESE ARE COMPATIBLE OR NOT.
THAT'S THE CRITERIA THEY WERE TRYING TO APPLY WHEN THEY MADE
[05:10:01]
THEIR DECISION.YEAH, THAT SOUNDS, BUT WHEN YOU READ IT, IT DOESN'T READ THAT WAY.
AS COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT SAID TO ME EARLIER, THE KEYSTONE COPS IS WHAT IT READ.
LIKE IF IT READ, UH, QUITE DIFFERENT THAN THAT.
AND THERE REALLY WASN'T A ROBUST, I MEAN, THE, THE, THE ATTORNEYS IN THEIR BRIEF, THEY WERE BOLSTERING THEIR ARGUMENT BY THE WORD SUBSTANTIVE.
SO AS IF TO SAY IF IT WASN'T SUBSTANTIVE, THEN THEY WOULD FEEL DIFFERENTLY.
SO, SO EVEN IN THE ATTORNEY'S LANGUAGE, IT IT REALLY FO WAS IT SUBSTATIVE? WELL, WHEN YOU LOOK IN HERE, I SEE A MENTION IN THE TRANSCRIPT ABOUT WOOD.
I SAW NO CONVERSATION ABOUT MOUNTAIN OR MOWING SIZE.
THERE WAS NO QUESTIONS OR ANY CON CONVERSATION ABOUT LIGHT CONFIGURATION.
AND THE MATERIAL WAS, WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT WOOD OR VINYL, WAS REALLY WITH REGARD TO THE TEAR SHEET, SO TO SPEAK, OR THE, UM, UH, THE PICTURES OF THE 1700 SERIES THAT WAS PRESENTED BY MR. LINDBERGH.
UH, MR. RE MADE ONE COMMENT, AND YOU IDENTIFIED IT HERE, BUT THERE WAS NOT A SUBSTANTIAL CONVERSATION ABOUT 5.3.
LET ME, IF I COULD JUST IN, IN RESPONDING TO YOUR QUESTION, THERE'S ANOTHER LINE, MR. RENA STILL SPEAKING.
THERE'S A LINE THAT I DON'T THINK ADDS ANYTHING TO THE DISCUSSION.
AND THEN HE GOES ON THE VERY LAST SENTENCE OF THAT DISCUSSION OR THAT STATEMENT, HE SAYS, QUOTE, THAT SHOULD BE THE STANDARD BEFORE HE IS TALKING ABOUT COMPATIBILITY.
WHETHER OR NOT THIS WORK, THE PROPOSED WORK IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE HISTORIC DISTRICT.
THAT'S WHAT HE WAS LOOKING AT.
AND THE STANDARD IN THE ORDINANCE IS THAT THE LANDMARK COMMISSION MUST GRANT, THEY, THEY NORMALLY WOULD GRANT THE APPLICATION IF IT DETERMINES FOR NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURES THAT THE PROPOSED WORK IS COMPATIBLE BY VIRTUE OF THE FACT THAT THEY DENIED IT.
AND THE DISCUSSION MAKES CLEAR, THEY DETERMINED IT'S NOT COMPATIBLE.
ALRIGHT, THREE MINUTES ARE UP, SIR.
UH, COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, DID YOU WANT TO TAKE A SECOND ROUND? THREE MINUTES? SECOND ROUND.
LET'S, LET'S JUST WAIT HERE A COUPLE OF 10 SECONDS.
OH, COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, DID YOU WANNA TAKE A SECOND ROUND FOR THREE MINUTES? IF I MAY JUST ASK ONE FOLLOW UP.
AND IT HAS TO DO WITH THE QUESTION OF, UM, AND I THINK, WELL, HOW, HOW COMPATIBILITY WAS DETERMINED BY LANDMARK COMMISSION.
AND I, AGAIN, I, THERE WERE A NUMBER OF ELEMENTS THAT ARE WITHIN THE ORDINANCE THAT INCLUDED MATERIAL PROFILE.
AND I THINK SPEAKS TO SOME OF WHAT COMMISSIONER CHERLOCK WAS REFERENCING IS THAT, UM, THERE, THERE'S VARIOUS ELEMENTS THAT SPEAK TO COMPATIBILITY.
IN OTHER WORDS, AS MUCH AS WE'RE SPEAKING TODAY AND, AND THE WAY IT'S, IT WAS PHRASED WAS WOOD VERSUS VINYL, BUT THERE'S OTHER ELEMENTS RELATED TO THAT DISCUSSION THAT ARE, THAT WERE CONSIDERED.
IS THAT CORRECT? I, I THINK WHAT YOU JUST SUMMARIZED IS CORRECT.
I'M HAVING A LITTLE TROUBLE HEARING YOU.
I THINK THAT, THAT I HAVE A, MY CONNECTION WENT BAD.
IF, IF, IF MR. WATSON HEARD BETTER THAN I DID, I, I I I WANT TO DEFER TO HIM.
HE MAY WELL, THE PROBLEM WITH THAT IS THAT I'M ACTUALLY VERY HEARING IMPAIRED.
SO
UM, I WILL SAY THAT THE, THE MATTER OF COMPATIBILITY DID CENTER MOSTLY ON MATERIAL BECAUSE THE CONFIGURATION, THE ONE OVER ONE LIGHT CONFIGURATION, UH, WAS, WAS FINE.
THEY HAD NO, THERE, THERE'S, THERE'S NOTHING INCOMPATIBLE ABOUT THE CONFIGURATION OF THE WINDOWS.
IT, IT WAS JUST, JUST THE MATERIALS.
AND I THINK A LOT OF IT CAME MORE SO FROM, THEY JUST WERE TAKING MY STAFF REPORT, THE CASE REPORT AND GOING MOVING FORWARD FROM THAT, WHERE I SAID, BASICALLY I GAVE THE, THE STANDARDS THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR AND THE CRITERIA, UM, THE, THE PRESERVATION CRITERIA, AND BASICALLY ENDED UP SAYING THAT THE, THAT WINDOWS IN A HISTORIC DISTRICT ARE CHARACTER DEFINING FEATURES AND THEREFORE VINYL WINDOWS DO NOT MEET THE STANDARD WOOD WINDOWS WOULD SATISFY THE STANDARD AS WELL AS PRESERVATION CRITERION 5.3.
AND IF I'M ASK ONE QUICK FOLLOW UP, IS IT CORRECT THAT THIS WAS THE SECOND CONSIDERATION BY LANDMARK COMMISSION OF THIS SAME ITEM? YES, THAT IS CORRECT.
AND SO THAT SPEAKS TO, THEY, THEY'VE HEARD IT ONCE PREVIOUSLY, IT CAME THROUGH AGAIN.
AND, AND DOES THAT SPEAK TO THE AMOUNT
[05:15:01]
OF CONSIDERATION THAT WAS INCLUDED IN LANDMARKS? THERE WAS DELIBERATION, WORDS SAID DELIBERATE TWICE.YES, IT WAS, IT WAS CONSIDERED HEAVILY BOTH TIMES.
UM, THE, THE REALLY, THE ONLY REASON THAT IT CAME BACK WAS BECAUSE THE FIRST TIME IN MARCH IT THE, UM, THE MOTION OR THE, THE DECISION WAS APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS.
AND YOU CAN'T APPEAL AN APPROVAL, ONLY A DENIAL.
THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONERS.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR OUR TWO GENTLEMEN? OKAY.
SO WE'LL NOW HEAR THE REBUTTAL AND CLOSING BY THE APPELLANT.
AND, UH, IT IS, YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES, MR. BERG.
I APPRECIATE, UH, THE SUBSTANTIVE DISCUSSION THAT WE'VE HAD HERE TODAY.
UH, I THINK THE DISCUSSION SURROUNDING, UH, COMPATIBILITY THAT WE'VE HAD HERE IS FAR GREATER THAN THE SEVERAL SENTENCES OF DISCUSSION ABOUT COMPATIBILITY THAT WE HAD AT EITHER OF THE TWO LANDMARK COMMISSION MEETINGS.
UH, AS I MENTIONED, I HAVE BEEN IN THIS POSITION BEFORE APPEALING A LANDMARK COMMISSION DECISION, UH, AND WAS SUCCESSFUL IN GETTING IT OVERTURNED IN 2015.
UH, ABOUT THE SAME THING, UH, ABOUT COMPATIBILITY WITH THE DISTRICT.
IT WAS A DIFFERENT, UH, HISTORIC OVERLAY THAT WAS IN, UH, MUNGER PLACE.
UM, BUT I THINK IN THIS CASE, UM, WE HAD THE CRITERIA NOT DISCUSSED.
SO IN THE FIRST MEETING AND THE SECOND MEETING, THE ENTIRE DISCUSSION SURROUNDED VINYL VERSUS WOOD, WHAT DO WE LIKE, WHAT DO WE NOT LIKE? AND THE DISCUSSION SHOULD HAVE BEEN AROUND, UM, IS THIS COMPATIBLE WITH OTHER BUILDINGS IN THIS AREA? IN THIS CASE, I VERY CLEARLY SHOWED THEM THAT THERE'S 10 OTHER NON-CONTRIBUTING APARTMENT BUILDINGS IN THIS OVERLAY WHERE THERE ARE VERY FEW APARTMENT BUILDINGS AND ALL OF THE, ALMOST ALL OF THOSE HAVE VINYL WINDOWS ALREADY.
THE NEIGHBORHOOD TASK FORCE VERY CLEARLY AGREED THAT THIS IS HARMONIOUS WITH THE DISTRICT.
UM, THE CITY ATTORNEY DOESN'T SEEM TO GIVE ANY CREDENCE TO THE OPINION OF THE NEIGHBORS THAT VOLUNTEER THEIR TIME TO GO THROUGH THESE CASES.
BUT, UH, THAT, THAT'S IMPORTANT TO US.
UM, YOU KNOW, WE HOPE THAT YOU WILL UNDERSTAND THE IMPORTANCE OF WHAT WE'RE DOING AND UNDERSTAND THAT APPLYING THIS SECTION OF 51 A UNIFORMLY, UM, SO APPLYING IT HERE CLEARLY AS IT WAS APPLIED ON OUR PRIOR THREE PROJECTS OVER THE PAST 18 MONTHS IS THE RIGHT WAY TO MOVE FORWARD.
I'M NOT SURE THAT I HAVE MORE TO ADD.
COMMISSIONER, WE NOW ARE AT QUESTIONS FOR STAFF AGAIN WITH THE FIVE MINUTE, THREE MINUTE AND, UH, NO THIRD ROUND.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF COMMISSIONER TURNER, PLEASE, SIR.
I WISH WE COULD HAVE STARTED HERE.
AND ARE WE, ARE WE SUPPOSED TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE LANDMARK COMMISSION SUFFICIENTLY APPLIED THAT 5.3 COMMISSIONER? THIS, UH, IS A, YOU HAVE TO GIVE HIGH IT.
SO, UH,
SO IT'S, IT'S A, WHEN I TALK ABOUT HOW PLATS ARE A VERY NARROW QUESTION, THIS IS A VERY NARROW QUESTION AS WELL.
SO, CHAPTER 51 A PROVIDES THAT SOMEONE WHO IS DISSATISFIED WITH THE DECISION AT LANDMARK CAN APPEAL TO CPC, BUT CPC MUST, UH, GIVE DEFERENCE TO LANDMARK'S DECISION AND CANNOT SUBSTITUTE CPCS DECISION FOR THAT OF THE LANDMARK.
ADDITIONALLY, CCP C MUST AFFIRM THE LANDMARK COMMISSION'S DECISION UNLESS CPC FINDS
[05:20:01]
THAT LANDMARK VIOLATED, UH, THE STA SOME VIOLATED AN ORDINANCE OR STATUTORY PROVISION EXCEEDED LANDMARK'S AUTHORITY OR WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.AND SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, ACCORDING TO THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT, IS ONLY REQUIRES MORE THAN A MERE ILLA.
SO, UM, THAT, THAT'S SORT OF THE, THE BACKDROP TO ALL OF THIS IS DOES THAT, AND I, SO IT'S THREE THERE, RIGHT? IT'S ONE OF THOSE THREE.
AND WHAT IS SILLA? WHAT GIMME MORE BACKGROUND ON THE WORDS SILLA IS, I CAN LOOK IT UP, BUT I SMALL.
SO THAT'S, THAT'S IMPORTANT TO ME.
SO IT'S THAT THIRD THING AND IT'S, IT'S A SMALL, CAN YOU PLEASE READ THAT ONE MORE TIME JUST TO HELP SURE.
SO, THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION SHALL AFFIRM THE LANDMARK COMMISSION'S DECISION UNLESS CPC FINDS THAT LANDMARK'S DECISION WAS NOT REASONABLY SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, CONSIDERING THE EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD.
AND THEN THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT HAS SAID THAT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS ONLY MORE THAN A MERE SILLA.
SCINTILLA IS A TINY TRACE COMMISSIONER WHEELER FOR STAFF.
AND CAN ANY COMMISSIONER, UH, DETER, UM, MAKE A MOTION WITH A BASIS OF WHAT THAT
I CAN'T CONFUSE OF THE, I, I MEAN THE CPCS RULES ALLOW ANY COM ANYONE TO MAKE A MOTION.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAT
THAT PROMISE YOU I SEEN SUFFERING OVER THERE.
UH, COMMISSIONER HEMP DID NOT ANSWER YOUR HAND WAS UP.
PLEASE, COMMISSIONER, JUST ONE, ONE FOLLOW UP QUESTION FOR STAFF.
UM, DEPENDING ON WHAT THE DECISION OF THIS BODY MAY BE, IS IT CORRECT THAT THE APPLICANT STILL HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO RETURN TO LANDMARK COMMISSION, WHICH I THINK WAS NOTED IN SOME OF THEIR COMMENTS? YES, THEY CAN RETURN TO THE LANDMARK COMMISSION.
OR IF SOMEONE IS DISSATISFIED WITH A DECISION THAT THIS BODY MAKES, THEY CAN SEEK JUDICIAL REVIEW AT A COURT.
ANY OTHER, UH, QUESTIONS FOR STAFF COMMISSIONERS? OKAY.
UH, THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION MAY CHOOSE TO DEBATE AND DECIDE THIS MATTER TODAY OR MAY HEAR THE PRESENTATIONS AND DELAY THE DEBATE OR THE VOTE ON THE MATTER.
IF ADDITIONAL TIME IS REQUIRED TO PROPERLY DECIDE THE CASE, A MOTION TO UPHOLD OR OVERTURN THE LANDMARK COMMISSION REQUIRES A MAJORITY VOTE.
WHEN THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION MAKES ITS DECISION ON THIS APPEAL, A RESOLUTION UPHOLDING OR OVERTURNING THE LANDMARK COMMISSION WILL BE ENTERED INTO THE MINUTES AS PART OF THE RECORD.
NOW THAT WE HAVE HEARD BOTH SIDES, WE MUST MAKE A DECISION.
THE CITY PLAIN COMMISSION MAY REVERSE OR AFFIRM IN WHOLE OR IN PART, OR MODIFY THE DECISION OF THE LANDMARK COMMISSION OR THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION MAY REMAND A CASE BACK TO THE LANDMARK COMMISSION FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.
THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION MUST GIVE DEFERENCE TO THE LANDMARK COMMISSION DECISION AND MAY NOT SUBSTITUTE ITS JUDGMENT FOR THE LANDMARK COMMISSION'S JUDGMENT.
THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION MUST AFFIRM THE LANDMARK COMMISSION DECISION UNLESS IT FINDS THAT IT ONE VIOLATES A STATUTORY OR ORDINANCE PROVISION TWO EXCEEDS THE LANDMARK COMMISSION'S AUTHORITY OR WAS NOT REASONABLY SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
CONSIDERING THE EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD, EVIDENCE IS DEFINED, REFERS TO EVIDENCE THAT A REASONABLE MINE COULD ACCEPT AS ADEQUATE TO SUPPORT A CONCLUSION.
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS MORE THAN A MERE SCINTILLA.
DO WE HAVE A MOTION? YES, I'D LIKE TO, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION, BUT I WANNA MAKE SURE I DON'T MESS THIS MOTION UP PLEASE.
SO, IF I WANNA MAKE A MOTION TO UPHOLD THE LANDMARK COMMISSION'S, UH, RULING ON THIS, THIS IS GONNA BE A DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT WOULD JUST BE A MOTION TO AFFIRM LANDMARK COMMISSION'S DECISION.
UM, MR. CHAIR, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION, UH, I MOVE THAT WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING IN CASE TWO FOUR DASH 1 8 4 3 AND AFFIRM THE LANDMARK COMMISSION'S RULING.
[05:25:01]
YOU.UH, COMMISSIONERS, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND DISCUSSION.
ANY COMMENTS? I HAVE SOME COMMENTS, PLEASE.
UM, SO THIS MADE IT BY ILLA FOR ME,
AND IT SEEMED LIKE A LOT OF WHAT WE DISCUSSED TODAY WAS OFF TOPIC, REALLY GETTING DOWN TO THE CORE OF WHAT WE WERE REALLY TRYING TO WORK THROUGH.
UM, AND IT, IT, BUT THREADING A NEEDLE FOR ME, ELLA, IS A, IS THERE WAS A LITTLE BIT BARELY
THE WORD WOOD WAS USED, I THINK SOMEWHERE, BUT WHEN YOU READ THROUGH THAT TRANSCRIPT, IT, IT WAS, UM, IT, IT WAS BARELY DISCUSSED.
SO I, I JUST WANNA MAKE THOSE COMMENTS THAT, UH, I WAS REALLY OBVIOUSLY ON THE FENCE ON THIS ONE, BUT WHEN WE HAVE TO, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE HAVE TO APPLY A VERY TIGHT STANDARD, IT IS WHAT IT IS.
COMMISSIONER FORSYTH, I WOULD LIKE TO, UH, SUPPORT, UH, UH, COMMISSIONER CHER'S MOTION.
AND I WOULD SUPPORT IT BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT THE LANDMARK COMMISSION, UH, UH, MADE A DECISION HERE.
UH, I HEARD TODAY THAT MATERIAL WAS ONE OF THE, UH, REQUIREMENTS THAT IS IN THE ORDINANCE AND, AND CERTAINLY WOOD VERSUS, UH, VINYL IS THE MATERIAL OR, OR, OR FITS IN THAT CRITERIA.
AND I HEARD, UH, IT STATED THAT, UH, VINYL WINDOWS DO NOT MEET THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION STANDARD.
AND SO I THINK THAT THE LANDMARK COMMISSION ACTED APPROPRIATELY, AND I, AND I'M PROUD TO AFFIRM THEIR DECISION.
YEAH, THIS WAS, I WOULD SAY A VERY CHALLENGING CASE.
WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IS NOT NECESSARILY WHAT THE LANDMARK COMMISSION DISCUSSED EXPRESSLY, BUT WHAT EVIDENCE THEY HAD IN THE RECORD, UM, ON WHICH THEY COULD BASE THEIR DECISION.
WHAT MADE THIS ESPECIALLY CHALLENGING IS THERE ARE INSTANCES WHERE THE LANDMARK COMMISSION HAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED, UH, VINYL REPLACEMENT WINDOWS IN THIS VERY HISTORIC DISTRICT.
UM, AND THAT FRANKLY, IF WE WERE WEIGHING THE EVIDENCE ON OUR OWN, OR, YOU KNOW, AS A FIRST PASSES, MEMBERS OF LANDMARK COMMISSION, YOU KNOW, IT WOULD, THAT'S A VERY COMPELLING POINT.
BUT IT COMES DOWN TO THE QUESTION OF WAS THERE, YOU KNOW, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THERE COULD, WAS THERE ILLA OF EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD? AND I, I BELIEVE THAT THERE WAS, THE THING THAT I WILL ADD IS, YOU KNOW, IF LANDMARK COMMISSION, YOU KNOW, I KNOW PEOPLE PSYCH, THAT BODY FROM TIME TO TIME TO TIME WERE TO CONTINUE TO APPROVE MORE AND MORE APPLICATIONS FOR VINYL WINDOWS IN, IN THAT DISTRICT.
RIGHT NOW, I BELIEVE THERE WERE POSSIBLY THREE.
IT BECOMES A MORE, MUCH MORE DIFFICULT CALL ON WHETHER THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THERE OR NOT.
SO NOT, NOT SAYING THIS IS THE DECISION THAT I WOULD'VE MADE HAD I BEEN IN LANDMARK COMMISSION'S SHOES, BUT UNDER THE NARROWEST STANDARD OF REVIEW THAT I, I HAVE, I FEEL COMPELLED TO AFFIRM THE LANDMARK COMMISSION COMMISSIONER.
I'M JUST VOTING 'CAUSE I BELIEVE IT.
BUT IF THEY'VE DONE IT IN THE PAST, I CAN'T UNDERSTAND WHY THEY DIDN'T, BUT I DON'T UNDERSTAND LANDMARK ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.
SO I I'M GOING TO GO, BECAUSE WE, I WAS UP UNDER THE IMPRESSION MAYBE THERE, THERE WAS A SILLION OR EVIDENCE TO SAY OTHERWISE, WHICH BECAUSE OF, UH, PREVIOUS THAT THEY HAD APPROVED AND THAT THIS WAS WITHOUT AM I, AM I CORRECT TO SAY THAT IF THEY, THAT THIS WAS OUTSIDE OF THE PRESERVATION OR SOMETHING, WHAT WAS IT SAY THAT THIS BUILDING IS, IS NON-CONTRIBUTING THAT IT WOULD, THAT IT WOULD ALLOW THAT? YEAH, WHATEVER.
I GUESS WE HAVE TO, RIGHT? I GUESS WE HAVE TO.
COMMISSIONER SHERLOCK, JUST BEFORE YOU GO, I'M JUST VERY, VERY BRIEFLY HAPPY TO SUPPORT THE MOTION.
UH, I THINK UNDER THE VERY, VERY NARROW WINDOW THAT WE LOOK AT THESE CASES, THIS IS, UH, AN APPROPRIATE MOTION.
UH, WE CANNOT SUBSTITUTE OUR JUDGMENT FOR THE LANDMARKS COMMISSION.
AND FRANKLY, I PERSONALLY DON'T WANT TO, I DON'T HAVE THAT BACKGROUND.
I DON'T HAVE THAT EDUCATION, UH,
[05:30:01]
THAT THEY DO AND THAT THEY'RE VERY PASSIONATE ABOUT.UH, AND SO THAT I DON'T WANT TO GET ANYWHERE, ANYWHERE NEAR, UH, THE JUDGMENT PIECE.
UM, COMMISSIONER SCHLOCK, DR. BROWN? YES.
I'D LIKE TO ADDRESS MR. LINDBERG.
I, I HOPE YOU DO UNDERSTAND THE NARROW SCOPE THAT WE HAVE TO ACTUALLY LOOK AT THIS.
I WANT TO, UH, SAY TO YOU THAT I IMAGINE YOU FEEL LIKE THE GOALPOST HAS MOVED, UH, FOR YOU.
AND I JUST WANT TO TELL YOU THAT AS THE COMMISSIONER OF OUR DISTRICT, WE DEEPLY APPRECIATE YOUR INVESTMENT IN YOUR EFFORTS AND OUR COMMUNITY.
I HOPE THIS DOESN'T DISCOURAGE YOU TO MAKE MORE COMMISSIONER CARPENTER.
I'LL JUST SAY THAT I AM GOING TO CONFIRM, UM, AFFIRM THE, UH, MOTION, GO ALONG WITH THE MOTION BECAUSE I MEAN, THESE ARE VERY FRUSTRATING CASES FOR PLAN COMMISSIONERS BECAUSE WE ARE USED TO JUMPING IN WITH BOTH FEET AND, YOU KNOW, EVALUATING ALL THE EVIDENCE AND, UH, YOU KNOW, COMING TO A DECISION ON OUR OWN.
BUT WE HAVE SUCH A NARROW, UM, SCOPE IN REVIEW OF THESE CASES THAT IT COMES DOWN.
EVERY CASE COMES DOWN TO WAS THE LANDMARK DECISION, LANDMARK COMMISSION'S DECISION SUPPORTED BY EVEN A ILLA OF EVIDENCE.
AND, YOU KNOW, IT'S DIFFICULT TO IMAGINE THAT, UH, A CASE WOULD COME OUT OF LANDMARK WITH ATTORNEYS SITTING THERE THAT WOULD ALLOW A, A DECISION TO BE MADE THAT WASN'T SUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER.
SO, YOU KNOW, UNFORTUNATELY, UM, FOR THE, UH, PEOPLE APPEALING THESE DECISIONS, WE, IT'S NOT A SECOND CHANCE AT, YOU KNOW, ARGUING THE CASE.
WE HAVE TO AFFIRM THE LANDMARK COMMISSION'S DECISION IF THERE'S ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER.
AND, AND THAT'S, THAT'S WHERE WE ARE WITH THIS.
THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER, CARPENTER, COMMISSIONER, FORESIGHT, COMMENT? NO.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? COMMISSIONERS, SEEING NONE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.
COMMISSIONERS, WE HAVE THE MINUTES FOR THE MAY 2ND, NINTH AND 16TH.
ANY, ANYBODY HAVE A CHANCE TO GO THROUGH THOSE? WE WILL TABLE THOSE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COMMISSIONERS.
IT IS 5:07 PM THANK YOU VERY MUCH.