[00:00:04]
IT IS 9:12 AM ON THURSDAY, AUGUST 22ND, 2024.
THIS IS THE BRIEFING OF THE DALLAS CITY PLANT COMMISSION.
UM, JUST AS A REMINDER, THIS IS THE TIME FOR STAFF TO GIVE PRESENTATIONS AND FOR, UM, US AS MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION TO ASK QUESTIONS OF STAFF.
YOU KNOW, THE SUBSTANTIVE DISCUSSION CAN TAKE PLACE LATER THIS AFTERNOON.
UM, CAN WE GO AHEAD AND BEGIN WITH THE ROLL CALL, PLEASE? SORRY.
DISTRICT ONE, COMMISSIONER SCHOCK.
COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, DISTRICT THREE.
COMMISSIONER HERBERT PRESENT, DISTRICT FOUR.
COMMISSIONER CARPENTER PRESENT.
OUR DOORS ARE LOCKED AND OUTSIDE.
IT'S 9:14 AM ON TUESDAY OR THURSDAY.
THIS IS THE BRIEFING OF THE DALLAS CITY PLAN COMMISSION AND WE HAVE A QUORUM.
CAN WE START WITH THE ROLL CALL, SIR? GOOD MORNING, COMMISSIONER, DISTRICT ONE.
PRESENT, DISTRICT TWO COMMISSIONER, UM, HAMPTON.
COMMISSIONER HERBERT PRESENT, DISTRICT FOUR.
COMMISSIONER FORSYTH PRESENT DISTRICT FIVE CHAIR? SHE DID DISTRICT SIX.
COMMISSIONER KINGSTON AND PLACE 15 VICE CHAIR RUBIN.
[BRIEFINGS]
GREAT.UM, THERE HAS BEEN A REQUEST TO BRIEF THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN ITEM ONE.
SO MS. BLUE, WHENEVER YOU'RE READY.
UH, CO-CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS.
THIS IS, UH, ITEM NUMBER 1D TWO 34,000,005.
IT'S A APPLICATION FOR A NEW DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
IT'S ON A LAND THAT'S APPROXIMATELY 21 ACRES.
IT'S IN COUNSELOR DISTRICT SIX, AND IT'S LOCATED IN PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 10 12.
THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ALONG THE WEST LINE OF STEMMONS FREEWAY SERVICE ROAD AND NORTH OF VICEROY DRIVE.
HERE'S A FEW DETAILS ABOUT THE REQUEST.
THE PURPOSE OF THE REQUEST IS TO ALLOW FOR A COMMUNITY RESEARCH CAMPUS FOR SALVATION ARMY.
UM, THERE ARE SOME REGULATIONS IN THE PD THAT REQUIRES THIS ADDITIONAL USE AS WELL AS ASSOCIATE, ASSOCIATE USES IN, IN CONJUNCTION USES WITH THIS, UH, RESOURCE CAMPUS.
AND SO BELOW HERE I HAVE CAMPUS LAND USES.
THESE ARE THE USES THAT ARE GONNA BE, UM, ON CAMPUS.
THEY'LL HAVE A OVERNIGHT GENERAL PURPOSE SHELTER, A DINNER DINING FACILITY, SORRY, DINING, UH, FACILITY, A CHURCH, A MEDICAL CLINIC, A OFFICE, A WAREHOUSE, A INDOOR ANIMAL SHELTER.
THEY'RE ALSO GONNA HAVE TRANSITIONAL HOUSING, A CHILDCARE FACILITY, A COMMUNITY SERVICE, UH, CENTER, A PRIVATE RECREATION CENTER, A TECHNICAL SCHOOL, UH, SOME SITE AMENITIES
[00:05:01]
THAT WOULD INCLUDE A DOG PARK AND ALSO A DART BUS STATION ON, UH, SITE.UM, THE JUST BELOW INFORMATION.
SO FOR THE OVERNIGHT SHELTER, AS THAT'S GONNA BE THE EMERGENCY SHELTER AND ALSO THE TRANSITIONAL HOUSING, THEY WILL HAVE TWENTY TWO, TWO HUNDRED AND FOUR UNITS.
UM, LET ME SLOW DOWN JUST A BIT.
UM, SO FOR THE TRANSITIONAL HOUSING, IT WILL BE 158 UNITS.
UM, FOR THE OVERNIGHT GENERAL PURPOSE SHELTER, IT WOULD BE 66 66 UNITS, AND SO PD 10 12.
AND AS WELL AS, UM, THE BASE ZONING DISTRICT, THERE'S NO MAX DENSITY, SO THEY ARE ALLOWED TO HAVE THESE UNITS, THESE ADDITIONAL, UH, DWELLING UNITS ON CAMPUS.
HERE'S AN AREA VIEW OF THE PROPERTY, UM, AND ALSO IT'S SURROUNDED BY IR.
AND THEN SOME MU THREE, WHICH IS MIXED USE.
HERE'S A ZONING MAP OF THE PROPERTY.
HERE'S THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN THAT WAS APPROVED WITH THE ORIGINAL ORDINANCE.
HERE IS THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE PROPERTY SHOWING THE LOCATION OF THE BUILDINGS, THE CHURCH AS THE CENTER, UM, SOME PARKING AROUND THE BUILDING, AND THEN ALSO THE DART BUS STOP AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER, UM, OF, OF, UH, VICE ROY AND STIMS. HERE IS THE ENLARGEMENT OF THAT DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
AND SO, UH, THE OTHER DAY THERE WAS SOME CONCERNS ABOUT A FEW ITEMS THAT WAS ON THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
THE FIRST CONCERN WAS, UM, THE APPLICANT HAD PROPOSED DWELLING UNITS, BUT IT WAS NOT SPECIFIED.
UM, THERE WAS CONCERNS IF THEY WERE GONNA HAVE PERMANENT TRANSITIONAL HOUSING.
THEY'RE ONLY GONNA HAVE THE TRANSITIONAL HOUSING AND THE OVERNIGHT GENERAL PURPOSE SHELTER.
SO WE ADDED THAT NOTE TO THE SITE DATA TABLE.
AND THEN ALSO THERE IS A CLAUSE IN THE PD THAT REQUIRES THEM TO CALL OUT THE DECELERATION LANE, AND THAT WILL BE APPROVED BY TEXT DO LATER AT PERMITTING ONCE THEY GO THROUGH THE ENGINEER REVIEW.
AND SO THAT ALSO WAS ADDED TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION AS OF TODAY, IS APPROVED AS BRIEF.
THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.
ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM? COMMISSIONER CARPENTER? YES, MS. BLUE, I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THAT THE STANDARD HERE FOR APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT PLAN IS THAT IT COMPLIES WITH THE, WITH THE ZONING, CORRECT? YES, MA'AM.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER HALL? UH, MS. PLU? SO IT, THE, THE, THE ZONING IN THE PD IS, IS SUFFICIENT TO COVER EVERYTHING THAT THEY WANT TO DO? YES, SIR.
SO THE ZONING AND THE PD HAD THE ADDITIONAL, WELL, ACTUALLY THEY WROTE THE PD
AND THEN THEY HAD THESE ADDITIONAL USES THAT THEY ALSO WANTED TO ADD ON CAMPUS.
AND SO THEY ADDED THOSE, COUNT, THOSE USES ON CAMPUS.
AND WITH THE ADDITIONAL USE, THEY HAD TO HAVE TWO OF THE ASSOCIATE USES, UH, IN ORDER TO HAVE THE IN CONJUNCTION USES.
SO YES, THEY, THEY COMPLY WITH ALL THE LAND USES THAT'S ON CAMPUS, AS WELL AS THE REQUIREMENTS FOR DESIGN STANDARDS FOR, UM, SIDEWALKS, FOR FENCING, UM, FOR RE RESCUE AREAS AND DIFFERENT PLACES THAT WAS, UH, PROPOSED WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
AND, AND SO THEY WILL NOT HAVE TO COME BACK TO US IN THE FUTURE FOR WITH THE ZONING REQUEST CASE.
THE ONLY REASON I SEE THAT THEY MIGHT HAVE TO COME BACK, I'M NOT OVER AT PERMITTING ANYMORE.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GONNA GO IN WHEN THEY GO IN AND PERMIT IT, UM, BECAUSE THIS IS JUST A DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
SO IT'S JUST PRELIMINARY INFORMATION AND ONCE THEY GET THEIR CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS, IT'LL BE MORE DETAILED.
BUT AS FAR AS WHAT I SEE, THEY HAVE THEIR BUILDINGS IN PLACE FOOTPRINTS WISE.
UM, IF THERE'S ANY, UH, REASON THAT THEY WANT TO ADD ANY ADDITIONAL USES THAT'S CALLED OUT IN THE PD, THEN THEY CAN COME IN AND ADD THOSE BUILDING BUILDINGS IN THE FUTURE.
LET'S MOVE ON TO CASE NUMBER TWO.
CAN EVERYBODY HEAR ME ALRIGHT? YES, SIR.
CAN EVERYBODY SEE MY SCREEN? WE CANNOT SEE YOUR SCREEN YET.
HOW ABOUT NOW? WE CAN SEE IT NOW.
[00:10:01]
VICE CHAIR, THANK YOU.THAT'S A SP TO ALLOW FOR A PRIVATE RECREATION CENTER, CLUB OR AREA ON A PROPERTY ZONE.
UH, IT'S LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF WOODCREST LANE AND SKILLMAN, UH, IT IS ANTICIPATED TO BE ADJACENT TO AND IN CONJUNCTION WITH A CHILDCARE FACILITY TO THE NORTH.
AND I'LL GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF CONTEXT TO THAT.
SO SEE IT'S LOCATION THERE IN THE CITY.
LOOKING AT THE AERIAL MAP, YOU'LL SEE IT IS AT THAT HARD CORNER OF WOODCREST AND SKILLMAN.
UH, THE PROPERTY JUST TO THE NORTH IS WITH THE CHILDCARE FACILITY UNDER A PD AND ASSOCIATED SUP AND THEN SINGLE FAMILY HOMES IN THE AREA.
YOU CAN SEE THAT ZONING CONDITION THERE.
HISTORIC AERIALS SHOW US THAT THERE WAS A SINGLE FAMILY HOME OR A SIMILAR STRUCTURE ON THIS SITE IS SINCE BEEN REMOVED.
UM, AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, THE CHILDCARE FACILITY TO THE NORTH ESTABLISHED UNDER PD 49 38.
THAT'S A SITE SPECIFIC PD AS WELL AS A SUP UH, 1976.
UM, THERE'S AN UNIMPROVED ALLEY RIGHT OF WAY TO THE WEST OF THIS SITE, AND THERE ARE A HANDFUL OF MATURE TREES ON SITE ANTICIPATED TO BE PRESERVED DURING THE SITE VISIT.
YOU CAN SEE PHOTOS OF THE PROPERTY LOOKING EAST FORREST, LOOKING NORTH, YOU CAN SEE THAT UNIMPROVED ALLEY RIGHT AWAY.
LOOKS LIKE THERE ARE UTILITIES OCCUPYING THAT SPACE TO THE LEFT OF THAT PHOTO, UH, STANDING AT THE CORNER, LOOKING INTO THE SITE, SEE THAT BACK FENCE OF THE SU OF THE UH, CHILDCARE FACILITY.
AND THEN LOOKING UP SKILL ONE, UH, SOME DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, UH, THE R SEVEN FIVE WOULD THE STANDARDS IN THE R SEVEN FIVE DISTRICT WOULD PREVAIL HERE.
UH, THE, UH, ONE I WANNA POINT OUT IS THE PARKING CONDITION.
IT DOES REQUIRE THREE FOR, UM, THE, THE GAMES COURT SLASH FIELD, UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY AN SUP.
SO YOU'LL NOTICE THAT THAT IS A, IS A CONDITION ON THIS SITE.
LOOKING AT THE SITE PLAN, YOU CAN SEE THE PROPOSED SUP AREA IN YELLOW, UH, SOME OF THE SPECIFIED CONDITIONS, UH, FIVE YEAR PERIOD OF ELIGIBILITY FOR AUTOMATIC RENEWALS FOR ADDITIONAL FIVE YEARS.
UM, NO PARKING IS AS THE, THE REQUEST IS THAT NO PARKING BE REQUIRED AS, UH, IT'S ANTICIPATED TO BE ASSOCIATED WITH THE CHILDCARE FACILITY.
UH, THE HOURS OF OPERATION FOR THE FIELD ARE FROM 8:00 AM TO 8:00 PM OR THEY'RE PROPOSED TO BE.
AND, UH, FIELD LIGHTING IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.
UH, SO WITH THAT, A STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL FOR THE FIVE YEAR PERIOD IN ELIGIBILITY, UH, FOR AUTOMATIC RENEWAL.
AND, UM, HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE.
COMMERS COMMISSIONER SLEEPER, I, I HAVE A QUESTION.
UM, IT SAYS THIS IS DISTRICT TWO, BUT IT LOOKS A WHOLE LOT LIKE DISTRICT NINE ARE, ARE WE SURE ABOUT? I APOLOGIZE.
YEAH, I APOLOGIZE, COMMISSIONER.
IT SHOULD BE, SHOULD BE NINE, I BELIEVE.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM? ALRIGHT, SEEING NONE, WE'LL MOVE ON TO OUR NEXT ITEM NUMBER THREE.
MR. BATE, GOOD MORNING COMMISSION.
THIS IS ITEM THREE IN IS CASE.
LEMME HAVE THE SIGN ON THE WAY.
IT IS AN AMENDMENT TO SPECIFIC USE PERMIT NUMBER 2 0 71 FOR DETACHED NON-PREMISE SIGN OR BILLBOARD ON PROPERTY ZONE PLAN DEVELOPMENT.
DISTRICT NUMBER 1 0 1 3 LOCATED ON THE SOUTH LINE OF LBJ FREEWAY WEST OF BANK WAY LANE, APPROXIMATELY 672 SQUARE FEET IN SIZE HERE IT IS IN THE FAR NORTHWESTERN SECTION OF THE CITY.
AN AERIAL MAP, UH, WITH A FUNNY LOOKING BOUNDARY THERE, JUST THE WAY WE RENDER THINGS.
AND THE ZONING MAP AS YOU SEE, IT'S WITHIN THIS SMALL PD 1 0 1 3, UH, SURROUNDED BY MU TWO TO THE WEST SOUTHWEST, AND THEN PD 1 4 0 TO THE EAST.
UH, GENERALLY JUST OFFICE BUILDINGS.
UH, THE AREA OF REQUEST IT IS DEVELOPED WITH THIS DETACHED ON-PREMISE SUN OR BILLBOARD ON A LOT DEVELOPED WITH AN OFFICE BUILDING.
APPLICANT'S REQUESTING RENEWAL OF THE SUP FOR A PERIOD OF 10 YEARS.
IT WAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON FEBRUARY 12TH, 2014 FOR A PERIOD OF 10 YEARS.
FEBRUARY 12TH OF THIS YEAR, AND THEY FILED FOR RENEWAL ON JANUARY 22ND.
[00:15:02]
HERE.WE'RE ON LBJ FREEWAY LOOKING SOUTHWEST TOWARDS THE SIGN AND LOOKING WEST.
AND AS YOU CAN SEE, IT'S, UH, WELL, IT'S A BUSY INTERSTATE HIGHWAY SERVICE ROAD WITH, UH, OFFICE USES AROUND NOW THE PROPOSED CONDITIONS.
ALL THEY'RE REQUESTING IS JUST ANOTHER 10 YEARS ON THE SUP STAFF.
IS THIS THE SMALLEST SUP IN THE CITY OF DALLAS
AND, AND THIS BILLBOARD HAS BEEN THERE AT LEAST 10 YEARS, IS THAT CORRECT? UH, AT LEAST 10 YEARS, YES.
MM-HMM,
IS THERE A, UM, STANDARD MAXIMUM TERM THAT THE CITY ALLOWS FOR BILLBOARDS AND, AND IS THIS THE MAXIMUM? UH, THERE'S NO CODIFIED MAXIMUM, BUT WHEN I WAS LOOKING AT OUR LIST OF BILLBOARD SUVS, UH, THEY'VE ALL BEEN DONE FOR 10 YEARS.
SO 10 IS THE STANDARD, IF NOT THE MAXIMUM.
I WOULD SAY 10 IS THE, THE CUSTOM AT LEAST.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALRIGHT, WE MOVE ON TO ITEM FOUR.
CAN EVERYONE SEE MY SCREEN? YES, WE CAN.
THIS IS CASE Z 2 34 DASH 1 61.
IT'S A REQUEST FOR A NEW SUP THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR A COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLE PARKING ON PROPERTY ZONED LI THAT'S LIGHT INDUSTRIAL.
UH, THERE ARE A SERIES OF DEED RESTRICTIONS THAT I'LL GO OVER AND THAT ARE LISTED IN YOUR REPORT.
UH, THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY UNDEVELOPED.
IT'S LOCATED APPROXIMATELY A THOUSAND FEET OR SO SOUTHWEST FROM THE CORNER OF BON VIEW AND TELEPHONE.
UM, THE REQUESTED EXPIRATION IS FOR FIVE YEARS.
IT DOES COME WITH ELIGIBILITY FOR AUTOMATIC RENEWALS.
BACKGROUND, THE LI LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT, UM, COVERS THREE PARCELS LOTS, UH, 39 ADDRESS, 39, 25, AND 39 35.
HAVE A FEW ACTIVE DEED RESTRICTIONS THAT RELATE TO SITE DESIGN.
I'VE LISTED SOME OF THOSE HERE, AT LEAST THE ABRIDGED VERSIONS.
UM, AND THEN THERE ARE ALSO SEVERAL USE PROHIBITIONS.
UH, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLE PARKING IS NOT INCLUDED IN THOSE PROHIBITIONS.
I CAN SEE ITS LOCATION HERE ON SITE.
AGAIN, YOU CAN SEE THOSE THREE PARCEL LINES IF YOU LOOK AND SEE THOSE BLUE, UH, SORT OF PARCEL DIVISIONS.
AGAIN, SORT OF CLOSER LOOK THERE, SURROUNDED BY SEVERAL DISTRIBUTION WAREHOUSE USES, UH, AS WELL AS SOME AGRICULTURALLY ZONED LAND.
AND, UM, VACANT, UNDEVELOPED LAND.
UH, TAKING A LOOK AT THE SITE OFF OF TELEPHONE LOOKING NORTHWEST, UH, INTO A EXISTING DRIVEWAY.
LOOKING INTO THE SITE AGAIN, THERE'S A VACANT, UH, LOOKING ACROSS.
UM, THERE'S A ACTIVE, UH, SIMILAR USE COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLE ACROSS TELEPHONE.
UH, TAKING A LOOK AT THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN, TWO POINTS OF ACCESS ON TELEPHONE, UM, SORT OF SERVICING TWO DIFFERENT LOTS SEPARATED BY LOT LINES.
UH, WITH THAT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL FOR THE FIVE-YEAR PERIOD WITH ELIGIBILITY, UH, FOR AUTOMATIC RENEWALS.
AND I'M AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AS I CAN.
I'LL NOTE FOR THE RECORD THAT, UM, COMMISSIONER UH, WHEELER JOINED US ONLINE AT NINE 30.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS ONE? ALRIGHT, SEEING NONE WILL MOVE ON TO OUR NEXT ITEM.
[00:20:10]
THIS IS CASE Z 2 34 DASH 1 73.IT'S AN APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE SPECIFIC USE PERMIT NUMBER 1 3 9 3 FOR A PRIVATE SCHOOL ON PROPERTY ZONE R SEVEN FIVE SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT ON THE EAST LINE OF RUGGED DRIVE, NORTHWEST OF LEDBETTER DRIVE.
THIS LOCATION MAP THE AREA MAP, THE AREA REQUEST IS OUTLINED IN BLUE.
THIS IS A ZONING MAP SURROUNDING THE SITE.
YOU DO HAVE SINGLE FAMILY AND YOU HAVE JOHN WW CARPENTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL.
THE NEXT FEW PICTURES WILL BE PICTURES OF THE SITE AND THE SURROUNDING AREA.
ANY QUESTIONS? UH, COMMISSIONER FORSYTH, UM, COULD YOU HELP ME TO UNDERSTAND, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THIS WAS, UH, SEP EXPIRED AND THAT, UH, UH, BASICALLY, UH, I BELIEVE IT WAS EXPIRED SOMEWHERE LIKE EARLIER IN THE YEAR.
AND SO COULD YOU HELP ME TO UNDERSTAND WHAT HAPPENED THERE? YES, SIR.
THE, BY THE TIME THE APPLICANT APPLIED TO RENEW THEIR SUP, IT EXPIRED, SO THEY HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS AGAIN.
AND, UM, THIS SAYS AN APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE SUP.
SO WHAT DOES THE AMENDMENT, UH, SPECIFICALLY ENTAIL? IT IS REALLY NO AMENDMENT, SO THERE WAS AN ERROR.
COMMISSIONER FORSYTH, DO YOU HAVE FURTHER QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONER? I CAN JUMP IN ON THE KIND OF HISTORY OF THIS SUPA LITTLE BIT.
UM, SO THE BACKGROUND SECTION OF THE STAFF REPORT, IT DOES TALK ABOUT, UH, THE FACT THAT THE APPLICANT MISSED THEIR WINDOW FOR AUTOMATIC RENEWAL OF THE SUP, UM, BUT THEY DID NOT MISS THEIR DEADLINE TO FILE FOR A REGULAR RENEWAL OF THE SUP.
UH, THE SUP WAS SET TO EXPIRE ON FEBRUARY 25TH, 2024, AND THEY FILED ON FEBRUARY 21ST.
SO, UH, THIS WOULD BE A RENEWAL OF THE EXISTING SCP RATHER THAN AN ENTIRELY NEW ONE.
UH, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, DO YOU STILL HAVE A QUESTION? YES.
I, I, I UNDERSTAND THAT THE STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL THAT THE TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN IS ACCEPTABLE, BUT, UM, IN READING, IN READING IT IN DETAIL, IT SEEMED THAT THERE WERE QUITE A FEW DISAGREEMENTS THAT THE, UH, TRAFFIC, UM, ENGINEERS THOUGHT THAT THERE WAS CONSIDERABLE ROOM FOR IMPROVEMENT THE WAY THE TRAFFIC MOVED HERE.
BUT THAT BEING THE CASE, IS THE STAFF WILLING TO GIVE THE TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN THAT THEY'RE CURRENTLY FOLLOWING A CHANCE TO, TO OPERATE? FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, YES MA'AM.
WHENEVER I SPOKE WITH DAVID, THAT WAS, YOU KNOW, HIS DECISION.
ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS ON CASE NUMBER FIVE? CHAIR? I HAVE ONE.
COMMISSIONER HERBERT, MAKE SORRY I DIDN'T SEE YOU THERE ONLINE.
UM, WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THE, UM, SUP, THE TIMEFRAME OF THE SUP, UM, IF YOU CAN DO COMMISSIONER HERBERT, WHAT WAS THE QUESTION? THE TIMEFRAME OF THE SUP THAT'S BEING PRESENTED.
UH, ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE PROPOSED TIME LIMIT OR THE HISTORY OF THE SUP? THE PROPOSED.
UM, DO YOU WANNA, DO YOU WANNA TAKE THAT ONE GIANNA? WELL, THE, UH, TIMEFRAME WILL BE FOR 20 YEARS AND THEN AFTER THAT AUTOMATIC RENEWAL, UH, FOR AN ADDITIONAL 20 YEARS.
AND IF THERE'S A PROBLEM WITH THE TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN, UM, DO CAN, 'CAUSE I KNOW SOME PEOPLE HAVE A SHORTER TIMEFRAME IN REGARDS TO THE TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN, BUT IF NEIGHBORS OR SOMEONE FINDS OUT THAT THIS TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN ISN'T WORKING, CAN WE BRING THIS BACK TO THE, TO THE BOARD? UM, SO THE, UH, TIME PERIOD OF THE SUP THAT'S BEING PROPOSED, AS GIANNA SAID, IS, IS 20 YEARS WITH ELIGIBILITY FOR AUTO RENEWAL FOR ADDITIONAL 20 YEAR PERIODS.
UM, BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THE LANGUAGE OF THE TRAFFIC, UH, MANAGEMENT PLAN CONDITION
[00:25:01]
FOR THE SUP, THEY'RE REQUIRED TO SUBMIT AN UPDATE TO THEIR TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN, UH, BY NOVEMBER, UH, FIRST OF NEXT YEAR.UM, AND THEN THEY'RE REQUIRED TO SUBMIT UPDATES TO THAT PLAN, UM, EVERY TWO YEARS.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS ONE? ALRIGHT, UM, IN CASE NUMBER FOUR, BY THE WAY, HAS COME OFF OF CONSENT, SO WE'LL TAKE THAT UP AS AN INDIVIDUAL ITEM.
CASE NUMBER SIX, MR. BATE, THIS CASE OR ITEM SIX, UH, CASE Z 2 34 DASH 1 93.
IT IS AN APPLICATION FOR SPECIFIC USE PERMITS TO ALLOW VEHICLE DISPLAY SALES AND SERVICE ON PROPERTY ZONE SUB-DISTRICT ONE WITH PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 5 3 5, THE CF HAN SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICT NUMBER THREE WITH A D ONE LIQUOR CONTROL OVERLAY LOCATED ON THE WEST CORNER OF CF HA FREEWAY AND ELLENWOOD DRIVE, APPROXIMATELY 1.17 ACRES IN SIZE, UH, HERE IN THE FAR FAR SOUTHEASTERN PART OF THE CITY.
UH, THIS IS THE ZONING MAP, UH, AS YOU SEE IT IS WITHIN THAT PD.
UH, THERE'S, UH, UH, VARIOUS INDUSTRIAL USES AROUND AS WELL AS A, UH, SAW TOWER, RADIO TOWER ANTENNA, UH, AS WELL AS AN INDUSTRIAL INSIDE USE.
AND THEN COMMERCIAL SERVICE USE OF THE SOUTHWEST AND AN UNDEVELOPED PROPERTY TO THE EAST SOUTHEAST.
UH, THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY DEVELOPED AT THE VEHICLE DISPLACED SALES AND SERVICE BUSINESS.
UH, THEY WERE PREVIOUSLY ISSUED SUP NUMBER 2, 2 7 6 FOR VEHICLE DISPLAY SALES AND SERVICE.
AND, UH, THAT SUP EXPIRED ON JUNE 9TH OF LAST YEAR.
HERE WE ARE ON ELLENWOOD DRIVE LOOKING SOUTHWEST, UH, WITH THE SITE TO THE RIGHT, THEN LOOKING SOUTH AWAY FROM THE SITE, LOOKING TOWARDS THE EAST OUT, UNDEVELOPED PROPERTY TOWARDS THE NORTHEAST WITH THE SITE TO THE LEFT OF THE PHOTO, LOOKING NORTH AT THE SITE LOOKING NORTHWEST TOWARDS THE SITE.
UH, LOOKING SOUTHWEST, UH, THIS IS MORE AT THE CORNER OF ELLEN WOODEN CF HAN DOUBLE PHOTO AND THEN ON SEA UPON LOOKING TOWARDS THE SITE AND THEN NORTHWEST WITH A SITE ON THE LEFT, UH, THIS IS THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN, UH, PROPOSED CONDITIONS.
IT IS FOR VEHICLE DISPLAY SALES AND SERVICE.
UH, THE TIME LIMIT WOULD BE FOR A FOUR YEAR PERIOD, UH, THAT WOULD REQUIRE THE SIX FOOT HIGH WROUGHT IRON FENCING, UH, HOURS OF OPERATION IN EIGHT TO EIGHT MONDAY THROUGH SATURDAY.
UH, PROHIBIT PRO PROHIBITION OF, UH, FLAGS AND PENANCE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS APPROVAL.
IS IT NOT, UH, CORRECT THAT THIS PARTICULAR PD IS, GOES BETWEEN TWO DISTRICTS, DISTRICT FIVE AND A SMALL PIECE OF DISTRICT EIGHT? UH, I WOULD'VE TO CHECK THE, UH, THE, THE DISTRICT MAP VERSUS, OR THE PD MAP VERSUS THE, UH, COUNCIL DISTRICT MAP, BUT I BELIEVE SO, YES.
UM, THE FREEWAY ACTUALLY SEPARATES THE TWO.
UM, SO CAN YOU EXPLAIN HOW THIS APPLICANT ALLOWED THEIR SUP TO EXPIRE? THEY, DO YOU KNOW THE BACK, BACK HISTORY OF WHY? YES.
UH, I DID HANDLE THE, UH, PRIOR REQUEST FOR RENEWAL ON THAT SUP AND MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT THE, UH, UH, REASON FOR DENIAL WAS DUE TO A, UH, LACK OF COMPLIANCE WITH, UH, BOTH CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS FOR PERMITS AND WITH THEIR PRIOR SUP UH, CONDITIONS AND SITE PLAN.
SO, CAN YOU HELP ME HAVE THEY NOW BECOME VE COMPLIANT IN ALL OF THE, UM, ISSUES THAT KEPT THEM FROM GETTING THEIR GETTING THEIR SUP ON TIME? UH, I DON'T HAVE AS MUCH INSIGHT INTO SOME OF THEIR CODE OR THEIR BUILDING PERMITS AND, UH, KINDA CONSTRUCTION PERMITS AND WHATNOT.
UH, I WOULD RECOMMEND CERTAINLY ASKING THAT OF THE APPLICANT.
UM, BUT WE DID ADVISE THEM TO ENSURE THAT THOSE ISSUES WERE ADDRESSED, UH, AS PART OF THIS CASE.
[00:30:05]
OKAY.SO YOU ACTUALLY WENT THERE ON A, ON A BAD DAY WHEN THERE WAS A LOT OF WATER POOLING? YES, THERE WAS QUITE A BIT OF WATER POOLING.
IT WAS, I THINK DURING THOSE, UH, THAT PERIOD WE HAD WITH A LOT OF STORMS FOR LIKE THREE WEEKS.
SO DOES THIS SITE HAVE ENOUGH, UM, INFRASTRUCTURE IN ORDER TO ALLOW CARS TO COME IN AND OUT OF THE LOCATION? UH, I WOULD SAY THAT YES, THERE IS, UH, CERTAINLY HAVE A LARGE, UH, DRIVEWAY AND ENTRANCE THERE.
I CAN'T SPEAK FROM A AUTHORITATIVE TECHNICAL PERSPECTIVE OF WHETHER IT IS APPROPRIATE OR NOT.
UH, BUT TO ME IT LOOKS LIKE THERE IS ENOUGH INFRASTRUCTURE TO GET IN AND OUT.
CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE, UM, YOUR, YOUR SITE OF THE LOCATION? THIS ONE? YES.
SO IF THERE IS NO INFRASTRUCTURE FOR CARS, AND THIS IS RIGHT ON THE, UH, SERVICE ROAD, UM, IS THERE ENOUGH PARKING TO ALLOW THE NUMBER OF CARS THEY WANT TO DISPLAY AS WELL AS CARS TO COME IN TO LOOK AT AT CARS? IN TERMS OF THAT? LEMME PULL UP THE SITE PLAN, HERE WE GO.
SO INGRESS EGRESS WOULD BE THROUGH, UH, ELLEN WOOD ROAD OR ELLENWOOD DRIVE HERE, AND I BELIEVE CARS WOULD BE ABLE TO ENTER BOTH THROUGH THIS GATE AND THROUGH HERE.
UH, IN TERMS OF THE PARKING VERSUS THE AMOUNT OF VEHICLES DISPLAYED, UH, THE APPLICANT DIDN'T SPECIFY HOW MANY VEHICLES WOULD BE DISPLAYED.
AND I WOULD NOTE THAT, UH, PART OF THE WAY THAT THE, THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR THIS USE IS CALCULATED.
IT'S SORT OF A, IT'LL DEPEND ON HOW MANY VEHICLES YOU WANT TO DISPLAY ESSENTIALLY.
AND SO IF YOU HAVE X AMOUNT OF VEHICLES OR X AMOUNT OF FLOOR AREA FOR VEHICLE DISPLAY, THEN THAT IN TURN IT ARRIVES INTO Y AMOUNT OF, UH, PARKING SPACES THAT ARE REQUIRED.
UH, SO THE APPLICANT WOULD NEED TO, UH, I THINK THEY, YOU COULD SAY THAT THEY WOULD NEED TO ADJUST THEIR, HOW MANY THEY CAN, UH, DISPLAY VERSUS HOW MANY THEY CAN PARK BASED ON THE TOTAL AVAILABLE, UH, SPACE ON THE SITE.
COMMISSIONER BLAIR, DO YOU WANT THIS ONE TO STAY OUT? CONSENT OFF? OKAY.
WE'LL MOVE ON TO CASE NUMBER SEVEN.
DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION ON THIS ONE? I SEE A HAND, BUT WE CAN'T HEAR YOU.
LET'S GIVE COMMISSIONER WHEELER A SECOND TO GET HER AUDIO BACK ON.
COMMISSIONER WHEELER, WE'RE STILL UNABLE TO HEAR YOU.
UM, SINCE THIS ONE IS COMING OFF CONSENT, UM, IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, MAYBE WE CAN ASK THEM THIS AFTERNOON AT THE, THE HEARING.
ALL RIGHT, LET'S GO ON TO NUMBER SEVEN, MR. ROBERTS.
CAN EVERYONE SEE MY SCREEN? CAN EVERYONE HEAR ME? UH, YES, WE CAN SEE IT.
UH, COMMISSIONER, THIS IS CASE Z 2 34 DASH 2 0 3.
THAT'S A REQUEST FOR AN AMENDMENT.
UH, AN AMENDMENT TO AN EXPANSION OF SPECIFIC USE PERMIT NUMBER, UH, 2076, UM, FOR INSIDE COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT USE.
UH, LIMITED TO A LIVE MUSIC VENUE AND DANCE HALL PROPERTY ZONE, TRACK A WITHIN PD 2 69.
THAT'S THE DEEP NEAR EAST SIDE DISTRICT.
UH, THE REQUESTED SSUP EXPIRATION IS A SEVEN YEAR PERIOD.
THAT'S AN UP FROM THE EXISTING FIVE YEAR LIMITATION.
UM, AND THEN WITH ELIGIBILITY FOR AUTOMATIC RENEWALS FOR ADDITIONAL FIVE YEAR PERIODS FOLLOWING THAT SEVEN YEAR PERIOD.
UM, THE SITE IS LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF CROWDS IN CANTON.
[00:35:01]
REFRESHER.PD 2 69 AND TRACK A DOES REQUIRE THAT SUP FOR INSIDE COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT.
UM, SO DOWNTOWN DEMOLITION DELAY OVERLAY.
UM, AND THEN THE EXISTING SUP 2076, UH, WAS RENEWED IN APRIL OF 2019.
SEE ITS LOCATION THERE ON SITE.
YOU CAN SEE IT OCCUPIES ALMOST THE WHOLE BLOCK OVER TO HENRY.
UH, THE EXISTING SUP UH, SORT OF CUTS OFF THE RIGHT MOST UNITS.
SO THIS SUP WOULD BE EXPANDED, UH, TO ENCOMPASS THAT ALL OWNED BY THE SAME ENTITY AND, AND OPERATED.
IT'S SORT OF A CLEANUP, IF YOU WILL.
THE LIMITATIONS OF THAT SUPI SEE SURROUNDING USES THERE.
SOME, SOME VACANT VACANT BUILDINGS, MULTIFAMILY USES IN THE AREA.
UH, THIS IS ON CROWDS LOOKING SOUTH WEST DOWN CANTON, BACK UP AT THE, THE CORNER THERE AND THEN LOOKING WEST AND DOWN CANTON.
AND THAT, THAT RED BOUNDARY THAT YOU SEE ON THE UPPER RIGHT, THAT IS THE EXISTING SUP LIMITATIONS.
SO THIS WOULD BE EXPANDED TO ACCOMPANY THAT PORTION OF THE BUILDING JUST EAST OF THAT TO THE HARD CORNER.
AND THEN LOOKING BACK UP ON CANTON.
SO THERE'S THE EXISTING SITE PLAN AGAIN, YOU CAN SEE THOSE LIMITATIONS SORT OF SHADED IN THERE AT THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN.
LOOKING AT THAT DASHED LINE, THE PROPERTY LINE BEING THE NEW LIMITATION, UH, WITH THAT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL, UH, AS REQUESTED, THE SEVEN YEAR PERIOD WITH ELIGIBILITY FOR THE FIVE YEAR PERIOD, AUTOMATIC RENEWALS.
AND, UH, I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE.
I BELIEVE COMMISSIONER HAMPTON HAS A QUESTION.
UM, MR. ERS, I HAD SENT YOU AN EMAIL ASKING SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THE VARIANCE BETWEEN THE EXISTING SITE PLAN AND THE SITE PLAN THAT IS PROPOSED MISSING OUR SITE DATA TABLE ON STREET PARKING.
UM, THERE'S A PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALK THAT'S PART OF THE SEP CONDITIONS.
WOULDN'T THOSE TYPICALLY BE MAINTAINED ON THE NEW SITE PLAN? IT IS SOMETHING THAT WE CAN, WE CAN CERTAINLY MAYBE INCLUDE IN SOME SORT OF ACTION ON THIS TO, TO RECOMMEND THAT THOSE ITEMS GET PLACED BACK IN THERE.
UH, SO IS THAT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL SUBJECT TO REVISED SITE PLAN TO MATCH THE, UM, UNDERSTANDING THE REVISED SITE PLAN IS REALLY DRIVEN BY INCORPORATING THE SPACE THAT ALWAYS FUNCTIONALLY BEEN PART OF IT, THAT IT'S NOW BEING INCLUDED WITHIN THE SUP, CORRECT? CORRECT.
AND I THINK JUST FROM A PROCEDURAL STANDPOINT, WE TEND NOT TO ILLUSTRATE TOO MUCH OR TRY NOT TO ILLUSTRATE TOO MUCH ON THE SITE PLAN AND LET THE, THE LANGUAGE SORT OF CONTROL, UM, SORT OF GIVES US A LITTLE BIT OF FLEXIBILITY IN TERMS OF WHEN WE GET THIS TO, YOU KNOW, THE CO PROCESS IN PERMITTING.
UM, BUT IF, IF THE COMMISSION WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT ILLUSTRATED, UH, WE CAN CERTAINLY TAKE A LOOK AT THAT.
SO, MR. CHAIR, IT SOUNDS LIKE WHEN WE HEAR THIS INDIVIDUAL, OKAY, TAKE ITEM SEVEN OFF CONSENT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS CASE? COMMISSIONER CARPENTER? UH, DID WE GET ANY, UM, COMMUNICATION FROM THE DEEP EL FOUNDATION REGARDING THIS PARTICULAR CASE? 'CAUSE I DON'T RECALL ANY CASES THAT WE'VE HAD FOR SUP RENEWALS WHERE THEY SUPPORTED AUTOMATIC RENEWALS.
I HAVE NOT, UH, RECEIVED ANYTHING.
THAT MIGHT BE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT IF THIS IS COMING OFF CONSENT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COLLEAGUES? ALRIGHT, THANK YOU MR. ROBERTS.
UM, WE'LL GO ON TO ITEM EIGHT.
WE'RE JUST WAITING FOR YOUR PRESENTATION TO COME UP.
ARE YOU ABLE TO SEE MY SCREEN? NOT YET, BUT LET'S GIVE IT JUST A SECOND.
HOW ABOUT NOW? ALRIGHT, WE CAN SEE IT NOW.
UH, THIS IS, UH, KZ 2 3 4 2 30.
SO RENEWAL OF SUP NUMBER 2211.
IT'S RENEWAL OF, UH, SEP TWO 11 FOR A BAR, LOUNGE OR TAVERN, UH, IN AN INSIDE COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT LIMITED TO A LIVE MUSIC VENUE.
REQUESTED TIME PERIOD IS THREE YEARS.
IT'S LOCATED ON THE SOUTH, UH, EAST CORNER OF COMMERCE STREET AND MURRAY STREET LOCATED IN COUNCIL.
HERE IS THE LOCATION MAP THAT IS IN D BEUM.
THEN HERE, HERE'S THE AERIAL MAP AND, UH, SURROUNDING USES.
THERE, UH, IS A MULTIFAMILY DIRECTLY NORTH, UH, WITH SOME PARKING FOR THAT MULTIFAMILY TO THE EAST.
UM, SOME OFFICE RETAIL USES AND SOME WAREHOUSE USES TO THE SOUTH,
[00:40:01]
UM, AND TO THE WEST, UM, AND NORTHWEST.SO, UH, THIS IS AN EXISTING LIVE MUSIC VENUE.
IT'S THE DEEP A ART COMPANY, UH, LOCATED WITHIN PD 2 69.
IT'S TRACK DAY OF THE DEEP ALLEN NEAR EAST SIDE DISTRICT.
UH, SUP UH, 2211 WAS ESTABLISHED, UH, IN, UH, 2021 AND IT EXPIRES IN OCTOBER THIS YEAR.
IT'S, UH, ZONING SIGN ON COMMERCE ZONING SIGN ON MURRAY, UH, HERE IS ON MURRAY LOOKING NORTHWEST.
AND THEN ON COMMERCE LOOKING EAST, HERE'S THE SITE PLAN SHOULD BE NOTED THAT, UM, THIS, UH, INSET PARKING SPACE IS NOT THERE, BUT THERE IS AN ON STREET PARKING SPACE IN FRONT POST CONDITIONS.
UH, IT IS, UM, LOOKING FOR A THREE YEAR TIME PERIOD.
UM, THE HOURS OF OPERATION ARE 4:00 PM TO 2:00 AM UH, MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY.
AND THEN, UH, BETWEEN 11:00 PM AND 2:00 AM ON SATURDAY AND SUNDAY.
AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL FOR THIS CASE.
ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM? COMMISSIONER HAMPTON.
UM, MR. KERR, JUST TWO, UM, QUESTIONS FOR YOU.
UM, YOUR PHOTOS ON YOUR SITE VISIT, WE RECEIVED TWO REPLIES THAT WERE INDICATING THERE WERE SOME ONGOING ISSUES WITH TRASH, UM, NOISE WITH THE VENUE.
IS THAT ANYTHING? OH, YOUR PHOTOS CLEARLY DON'T SHOW THAT.
UM, DID YOU RECEIVE ANY FEEDBACK ON THAT? I RECEIVED, UM, ONE, ONE LETTER, UH, STATING THE, UH, THE NOISE LEVEL AT NIGHT.
I DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING WHILE WE WERE ON OUR SITE VISITS, UH, WITH TRASH OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
AND ARE YOU AWARE IF THERE ARE, UM, INTERMEDIATE BUSINESSES BETWEEN THIS SITE LOCATION AND, UM, WHERE SOME OF THE, THE RESIDENCES ARE LOCATED THAT MIGHT BE CONTRIBUTING TO SOME OF THESE OTHER ISSUES? UH, I'M NOT AWARE OF THAT.
MR. KERR, COULD YOU GO BACK TO THE SITE PLAN PLEASE? RIGHT THERE.
WHAT'S THAT SQUIGGLY LINE? UH, IN, UH, CUTTING THROUGH THE, SO THAT'S THE, UH, SORRY, GO AHEAD.
UH, THAT LOOKS LIKE THAT'S THE TERRAIN LINE, UM, GOING THROUGH THERE, SHOWING THE, THE, THE, THE TERRAIN OF THE, THE
I DIDN'T KNOW THAT WE HAD TOPOGRAPHY IN DEEP ELLUM, BUT YOU LEARNED SOMETHING NEW EVERY DAY.
UM, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COLLEAGUES? ALRIGHT, THANK YOU MR. KERR.
UM, WE'RE GONNA MOVE ON TO CASE NUMBER NINE, MS. GARZA, WHICH I BELIEVE HAS NOT YET BEEN BRIEFED.
ITEM NUMBER NINE IS KZ 2 2 3 3 0 1.
THE REQUEST IS AN APPLICATION FOR A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FOR A SPECIFIC RESIDENTIAL AND NON-RESIDENTIAL USES ON PROPERTIES ZONE IN MA MHA MANUFACTURING HOME DISTRICT AND AA AGRICULTURE DISTRICT, AND AN L LI LINE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT AND AN RF FIVE, A SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT WITH CONSIDERATION FOR AN R FIVE A DISTRICT.
IT IS LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF INGERSOLL STREET, WEST SIDE OF ERICAS DRIVE AND NORTH OF NOMA STREET.
IT'S APPROXIMATELY 44.6 ACRES.
THE AERIAL MAP AND ZONING MAP SURROUNDING USES IS MOSTLY A SINGLE FAMILY TOWARDS THE SOUTHWEST IS UNDEVELOPED.
UM, TOWARDS THE NORTHWEST IS A COMMERCIAL STABLE.
UH, THERE IS A, UH, CHURCH USE ON THE SOUTH EAST AND A PUBLIC OR PRIVATE SCHOOL.
THE AREA REQUEST CONSISTS OF 44.6 ACRES OF UNDEVELOPED LAND ON OCTOBER ONE, UH, 2020.
THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION RECOMMENDED DENIAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE OF AN APPLICATION FOR A CH CLUSTERED HOUSING DISTRICT FOR THIS SITE.
THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEVELOP THE SITE WITH SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT, HOWEVER, DEVIATING FROM THE YARD LAW SPACE AND REGULATIONS.
THEREFORE, THE APPLICANT, UM, IS REQUESTING A PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT.
UM, THIS ITEM HAS BEEN, UM, HELD ON JUNE
[00:45:01]
20, UH, JULY 11 AND AUGUST 8TH, UM, BY THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION.AND THERE HAVE BEEN CHANGES, UM, SINCE THE, UH, FOR THE RE REQUEST SINCE AUGUST EIGHT.
AND THESE ARE SOME OF THE SITE PHOTOS ON INGERSOLL STREET, LOOKING WEST ON GALLAGHER STREET, LOOKING NORTH ON ERICA DRIVE, LOOKING NORTHWEST, LOOKING WEST, LOOKING NORTHWEST, LOOKING SOUTHWEST SURROUNDING USES ON AL, UH, STREET LOOKING NORTH, LOOKING SOUTH ON GALLAGHER STREET, LOOKING EAST, LOOKING SOUTHEAST ON ERICA'S DRIVE.
LOOKING SOUTHEAST, LOOKING SOUTHEAST, LOOKING SOUTHEAST, LOOKING SOUTH ON ERICA'S DRIVE LOOKING NORTHWEST ON NO STREET, LOOKING NORTH, LOOKING EAST, LOOKING NORTH, LOOKING WEST.
AND THESE WERE DILEMMA STANDARDS.
UM, SO EXISTING AS MAINTENANCE, L-I-M-H-A-A-A, UM, AND R FIVE A.
UM, THEY'RE PROPOSING, UM, BER A AND B TO BE THE SAME, UM, STANDARDS.
UM, SO ONE OF THE MAIN, UM, DEVIATIONS FROM BER A AND B AND C IS THAT A AND B.
UM, MINIMUM LODGE SIZE IS 4,000.
AND FOR SUB C THEY'RE PROPOSING 2000.
UH, SO THIS IS A CONCEPTUAL PLAN.
THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN HAS CHANGED SINCE THE DOCKET.
UH, THE ONLY THING THAT CHANGED WAS THAT ON SEVERITY C, THE DENSITY, UM, IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE NINE, UM, DRILLING UNITS PER ACRE, NOT EIGHT.
AND THEN IT IS WITHIN THE TRINITY RIVER CORRIDOR COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE.
THE APPLICANT LAND USE REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH GOALS AND POLICIES OF THE TRINITY RIVER CORRIDOR COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE.
AND THEN AS WELL AS THE WEST DALLAS COMPREHENSIVE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE STUDY.
UM, THE APPLICANT'S LAND USE TO THE NORTH OF THE REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GOALS OF THE WEST HOUSE COMPREHENSIVE LINE USE.
HOWEVER, A PORTION OF THE REQUEST TO THE SOUTH IS NOT CONSISTENT SINCE THE FUTURE LINE USE RECOMMENDATION IS LIGHT INDUSTRIAL.
UM, STAFF CONSIDERATION IF, UH, FOR CPC TO CONSIDER A CPC MOVES TO, WE RECOMMEND APPROVAL, UH, ON THE DELAY PLAN.
UM, STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS FOR A SINGLE FAMILY USE, A FINAL PLAN MAY SERVE AS A DEVELOP PLAN IF THERE IS A CONFLICT BETWEEN THE TEXT OF THIS ARTICLE AND A FINAL PLAN.
THE TEXT OF THIS ARTICLE CONTROLS FOR ALL THE USES.
THE PLAN MUST BE APPROVED BY THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION BEFORE THE INSURANCE OF ANY BUILDING PERMIT TO AUTHORIZE WORK IN THIS DISTRICT, AS WELL AS STATUTE CONSIDERATION FOR SECTION, UM, DESIGN STANDARDS.
UM, THOSE ARE THE STATUTE RECOMMENDATION ON, UH, YOU THAT EXCITED? UH, I THINK SO.
SO, UM, IT SEEMS LIKE SOMEONE HAS THEIR MICROPHONE ONLINE, SO IF YOU COULD, EVERYONE COULD PLEASE MUTE THEMSELVES, THAT WOULD BE GREAT.
SO, UH, ION IS ALSO THE SIDEWALKS DIGESTIVE SCALE LINING AND ALLEYS, UM, CHANGES SINCE THE, THE LAST, UH, UH, CPC MEETING, AUGUST EIGHT ARE MOSTLY, UH, MAIN USES.
UM, THE APPLICANT IS NOW REMOVING COUNTRY CLUB WITH PRIVATE MEMBERSHIP AS A PERMITTED USE PRIVATE RECREATING CENTER CLUB OR USE, UH, IS NOW BEING, UH, IS SUP IS REQUIRED AND ELECTRIC SUBSTATION NOW REQUIRES AN SUP.
AND THEN, UM, THE YARD LODGE SPACE, UM, CHANGES FOR ARIA A AND B.
AND THEN ARIA A AND B IS FULL.
THE OTHER CHANGES, AND THEN AGAIN, UM, YARD LODGE SPACE FOR SUB A AND B AND STORIES, AND THEN THE CHANGES FOR BER C FOR FRONT YARD SIDE AND REAR AND BER C UH, DENSITY AND LOT WIDTH.
AND THEN, UH, FOR O STREET PARKING, UM, SIDE RECOMMENDATION IS TO JUST REMOVE THE GAS.
PARKING MAY BE PROVIDED WITHIN PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.
AND THEN FOR OPEN SPACE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS, UH, TO REMOVE A MAXIMUM OF 55% OF OPEN SPACE AREAS MAY INCLUDE DETENTION ERRORS OR FLOOD ZONES.
AND THEN, UM, ANOTHER CHANGES, ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS, UM, THE DRIVEWAYS, UH, WIDTH AND THE RIGHT OF WAY.
AND THEN TION IS APPROVED IN R FIVE A DISTRICT IN LIEU OF A PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT.
UH, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, DO YOU HAVE QUESTIONS FIRST? I'M,
[00:50:02]
I HAVE TO ASK THIS QUESTION.ARE YOU AWARE THAT, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE REASON, WELL THE REASON WHY THIS WAS HELD WAS THAT, THAT WE COULD HAVE COMMUNITY MEETINGS TO SEE IF WE COULD, YOU KNOW, REACH A CONSENSUS ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR SITE.
UM, AND ARE YOU AWARE THAT IN THE PAST THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAS BEEN VOCIFEROUSLY OPPOSED TO BOTH PROPOSALS FOR MOBILE HOMES, MANUFACTURED HOUSING ON THIS SITE AND FOR, UM, PERMANENT RENTAL HOUSING AND THAT THIS PARTICULAR PROPOSAL IS FOR DETACHED OWNERSHIP, SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND, UH, THERE HAVE BEEN CONSIDERABLE NOTIFICATIONS TO DESIGN STANDARDS AND LOT COVERAGE AND ALL THE VARIOUS DIFFERENT STANDARDS TRYING TO REACH, UM, YOU KNOW, A COMPROMISE BETWEEN DENSITY AND AFFORDABILITY.
COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT? UH, YES, I WANTED TO TALK ABOUT THE SIDEWALKS.
UM, THOSE ARE OF COURSE VERY GENEROUS SIDEWALKS.
THEY'RE, THEY'RE NICE SIX FEET WITH FIVE FEET BACK FROM THE CURB.
UH, YET WE HAVE SOME 2000 FOOT LOTS IN THIS APPLICATION.
UH, WAS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT, WELL, AND, AND FURTHERMORE ON THOSE 2000 SQUARE FOOT LOTS, THERE'S NO MINIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK.
AND SO IS THERE BEEN ON THE 4,000 FOOT LOTS, BUT THE TWO, 2000, WELL, MY REPORT SAYS THERE'S NO MINIMUM ON THE, ON THE 2000 ANYWAY, THE, I'M UH, JUST ASKING THE QUESTION ABOUT THE IMPACT ON THE DEVELOPABILITY AND THE, UM, SITE PLANNING WHEN THERE'S THAT BIG A SIDEWALK REQUIREMENT ON THAT SMALL A LOT.
AND I DIDN'T KNOW IF THAT HAD BEEN DISCUSSED, BUT YES, IT HAS.
THERE BE AN ALTERNATE CONDITION PROPOSED AND THERE IS A A 20 UM, FEET, THE MINIMUM FRONT YARD ON ALL THREE, UM, DISTRICTS, IT'S 20 FEET.
OKAY, SO I'M MS SO I'M MISREADING MY REPORT.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE, THE REPORT, THE, THE, UM, STAFF REPORT MAY NOT BE IN SYNC WITH THE PD CONDITIONS, BUT THE PD CONDITIONS SHOW 20 FEET.
AND THEN, UM, ON ANOTHER TOPIC, WAS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT, UM, THE RATIO OF GUEST PARKING? UM, IN MY COMMUNITY ON DEVELOPMENTS OF SIMILAR DENSITY, UH, I ALWAYS PREFER I ALWAYS PURSUE MORE GUEST PARKING.
'CAUSE I DON'T THINK THAT FOR SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED NEIGHBORHOODS THAT THAT 0.25 IS REALLY ADEQUATE.
NO, IT, UM, DIDN'T DISCUSS, BUT THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A MINIMUM OF ONE GUEST SPACE FOR EVERY FOUR DWELLING UNITS.
THE QUESTION WAS, WAS THERE DISCUSSION ABOUT SOMETHING OTHER THAN THAT? NO.
JUST ONE QUICK FOLLOW UP QUESTION THERE.
THAT'S A PARKING MINIMUM, CORRECT.
SO THE DEVELOPER COULD PUT IN TWO OR THREE GUEST PARKING SPACES FOR, YOU KNOW, ANY FOUR UNITS, RIGHT? THIS IS JUST THE FLOOR, NOT A CEILING.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS CASE? COMMISSIONER FORSYTH? ARE THERE ANY, UH, FLOOD ISSUES WITH THIS PROPERTY BEING ALONG THE TRINITY RIVER FLOOD PLAIN ISSUES? I BELIEVE IT IS.
UM, SOME AREAS ARE WITHIN THE FLOOD PLAIN, UM, BUT THEY WILL HAVE TO, UM, ADJUST THAT BEFORE THEY START DOING THE, THE ACTUAL DEVELOPMENT.
SO ONCE IT GOES TO THE ACTUAL, UM, DEVELOPMENT, UM, BUILDING INSPECTIONS, THEY'LL HAVE TO MODIFY THE AREA SO IT'S NOT, UM, WITHIN THE FLOOD PLAIN.
MR. CARPENTER, UM, CAN WE CLARIFY ALSO, THIS IS NOT A SHARED ACCESS DEVELOPMENT.
THE STREETS ARE, WILL BE PUBLIC STREETS BUILT TO, UH, REGULAR CITY STANDARDS.
AND THAT IN ALL OF THE, UH, DISTRICTS IN THE PD, EVERY HOUSE WILL BE SET BACK 20 FEET FROM THE STREET.
SO THERE WILL BE PARKING IN THE, THERE'LL BE PARKING IN THE DRIVEWAY.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALRIGHT, I DON'T THINK I SEE ANYONE ONLINE EITHER.
UM, CASE NUMBER 10 HAS BEEN BRIEFED, BUT I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE MAY BE SOME QUESTIONS FOR MR. PEPE ON THIS ONE.
[00:55:01]
UH, WOULD BE THAT THE APPLICANT VOLUNTEERED DEED RESTRICTIONS.THOSE WERE DISTRIBUTED, UH, TWO DAYS AGO.
AND, AND I'M GLAD THAT WE'RE FINALLY HERE TODAY TO GET THIS CASE HEARD.
UM, THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION WAS FOR A PD WITH NEIGHBORHOOD OFFICE AND, UM, YOU CAME, UH, THE STAFF CAME UP WITH A RECOMMENDATION, UH, FOR NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES FEELING THAT, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD OFFICE MAYBE WAS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAND USE PLAN AND WASN'T THE BEST USE.
COULD YOU ELABORATE JUST A BIT ON THAT? YES, NO, ABSOLUTELY.
I MEAN, THE EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CALLS FOR US TO HAVE FLEXIBLE ZONING THAT CAN BE USED FOR MULTIPLE PURPOSES.
UM, THAT CAN BE USED FOR MULTIPLE USES, UH, THAT ENCOURAGES MORE COMPLETE NEIGHBORHOODS.
UM, THEN SINGLE USE SMALL LOT, UH, PDS.
SO DEFINITION OF PDS ALSO CALLS FOR THEM TO BE USED IN SITUATIONS WHERE THERE ARE PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF A SITE THAT PREVENT IT FROM BEING DEVELOPED WITHIN THE EXISTING CODE.
AND STAFF PUTS THAT INTO PRACTICE THAT IF THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT LIMITATIONS OF EXISTING CODE, UM, THAT'S A, A GOOD OPPORTUNITY TO MAYBE USE PD.
UM, BUT NOTHING ABOUT THIS PROPOSAL COULDN'T MEET CODE.
IT WAS A PRETTY STANDARD, UH, COMMERCIAL SPACE.
UH, SO IT LIKELY CAN MEET A, UM, A UH, PRETTY STANDARD, UH, NSA ZONING.
SO THAT WAS FOUND TO BE MORE APPROPRIATE BASED ON, AGAIN, FOR DALLAS ORIGINAL.
AND, UM, THE APPLICANT, IF, AM I CORRECT THAT THE APPLICANT WANTED A PD WITH NO TO LIMIT THE USES OF THIS SITE SPECIFICALLY TO AN OFFICE? UH, BUT BY GOING, GOING WITH NS, UH, WE NOW, AND AND AFTER CONVERSATIONS WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, WE'VE, IT D DETERMINED THAT WE COULD GO WITH NS WITH DEED RESTRICTIONS AND, AND, UH, GET THE SAME RESULTS.
YES, THAT WAS THEIR STATED INTENTION FOR A PD IN THE FIRST PLACE.
UM, AND, BUT THEY ALSO, THEY, WHILE IT WAS TRICKY 'CAUSE THEY NEEDED, THEY HAD THE NO BASE, BUT UM, THEY STATED THAT THEY MIGHT WANT SOME PERSONAL SERVICE USES, WHICH ARE NOT ALLOWED IN THE NO BASE.
SO THEY USE PD TO SHOVE THAT INTO THE NO, BUT WHY DO THAT WHEN AN NS UH, DISTRICT ACCOMMODATES BOTH OF THOSE USES, UH, AND IS APPROPRIATE FOR THE SITE.
UH, AND SO THEN YES, I UNDERSTOOD THAT, UH, DE RESTRICTIONS AROSE.
THEY TOOK OUT SOME OF THE MORE INTENSE PARTS OF NSA, UM, THAT, UH, TO MEET THOSE NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS.
COULD, COULD YOU, UH, UM, IN YOUR, IN YOUR BRIEFING YOU SAY THAT THIS SITE, UH, IS NO LONGER SUITABLE FOR R 16 FOR RESIDENTIAL.
UH, COULD YOU JUST ELABORATE A BIT ON THAT? YES, I, I, I THINK, AND A LOT OF PLANNERS WOULD, THIS IS A CLASSIC PLANNING QUESTION THAT LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, UH, KIND OF ISOLATED, DETACHED HOME RIGHT NEXT TO FREEWAY.
WE, WE'VE HAD COMMENTS THAT SAY THIS IS A HIGH TRAFFIC CORRIDOR ON, ON ROYAL ALONE.
UM, SO IT'S A, IT'S A HIGH TRAFFIC ARTERIAL, YOU KNOW, TODAY YOU MIGHT NOT EVEN BE ABLE TO GET A, A RESIDENTIAL DRIVEWAY ON AN ARTERIAL, UH, WITH, BECAUSE OF CURRENT STREET STANDARDS.
SO POINT BEING IS COMBINATION OF THAT SIZE, ROAD THAT SIZE, HIGHWAY ACCESS ROAD, ONE WAY ACCESS, UM, IT'S QUALITY OF LIFE.
IT, IT IS ABOUT QUALITY OF LIFE, UM, IN THAT CASE, NOISE, SAFETY, THOSE KINDS OF THINGS.
SO WOULD NOT FIND DETACHED LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL APPROPRIATE THERE NOW THAT THERE'S, NOW THAT THE ROAD IS THE WAY IT IS IN THE HIGHWAY IS THE WAY THAT IT IS.
JUST IF SOMEONE WAS DETERMINED TO PUT SOME SORT OF RESIDENTIAL THERE, IT COULD STILL BE ALLOWED.
I AM I CORRECT IF WE, IF WE DID NOT CHANGE THE ZONING? YEAH, IT'S, IT'S COMPLETELY DEVELOPABLE AS RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY RIGHT NOW BY RIGHT.
UM, THE, UH, THE LAND USE PLAN FORWARD DALLAS 2006 HAS THIS, UH, A SECTION THAT, UH, STATES THAT SITES LIKE THIS ARE VERY, UH, WOULD BE VERY GOOD TO PUT SOME SORT OF NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES ON THEM SITES THAT MAJOR INTERSECTIONS AND SO FORTH, THAT WASN'T, THAT WASN'T STATED IN YOUR
[01:00:01]
BRIEF, BUT IT IS PART OF, IT IS PART OF FORWARD DALLAS.YEAH, THAT, THAT, UH, PART OF THE IMPLEMENTATION STEPS, UH, IS OBVIOUSLY A SUBSET OF OTHER LAND USE, UM, GOALS AND OBJECTIVES.
UH, BUT I WOULD AGREE THAT IT APPLIES IN THIS SITUATION FOR SURE.
YOU SAY THAT LOW RES, LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ISN'T APPROPRIATE AT THE CORNER OF WHAT I BELIEVE IS A MAJOR ARTERIAL AND A FREEWAY WOULD BE MORE APPROPRIATE FOR HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.
DOES THE GREATER DENSITY OBVIATE THE PROBLEMS OF BEING NEXT TO A FREEWAY? THAT'S A, THAT'S AN IMPORTANT QUESTION.
IN OUR FIELD RIGHT NOW, I WOULD SAY FACING, 'CAUSE WE HAVE FREEWAYS RUNNING ALL OVER THE CITY, UH, I THINK THAT THERE ARE ARGUMENTS THAT IF YOU HAVE A, A MORE DENSE RESIDENTIAL, IT INSULATES UH, INDIVIDUAL UNITS TO A DEGREE.
UH, SO YOU HAVE MORE PEOPLE THERE.
BUT THEN A DENSER BUILDING, A THICKER DENSER BUILDING CAN SHELTER RESIDENTIAL TO THE, TO THE EAST.
BUT, UH, I THINK THAT WE MIGHT, YOU MIGHT FIND THAT BECAUSE YOU HAVE ATTACHED UNITS, THEY'RE A LITTLE MORE INSULATED.
THEY DON'T HAVE FOUR SIDES EXPOSED NECESSARILY TO THE, TO THE SIGHT AND SOUNDS OF, UH, WHAT'S AROUND THEM.
SO I, I, I WOULD FIND THAT HELPS A LITTLE BIT.
UM, BUT ALSO THERE'S ACCESS TO, TO ROADS AS WHENEVER YOU HAVE SIGNIFICANT ACCESS TO INFRASTRUCTURE THAT KIND OF CUTS IN A DIFFERENT DIRECTION THAT IT'S MORE APPROPRIATE FOR HIGHER DENSITY WHEN YOU HAVE THE MORE INFRASTRUCTURE THERE.
THANK YOU FOR INDULGING THAT ONE.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COLLEAGUES? ALRIGHT.
YEAH, WHY DON'T WE TAKE A BREAK.
LET'S TAKE 10 MINUTES AND BE BACK AT 10:25 AM ALL RIGHT.
IT IS 10:31 AM AND WE ARE BACK ON, UM, THE RECORD.
I THINK WE ARE ON CASE NUMBER 11, MR. CLINTON.
THIS IS ITEM NUMBER 11, CASE Z 2 34 DASH 1 9 0.
IT'S AN APPLICATION FOR AN LI LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT ON PROPERTY ZONED IN A, A AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF TELEPHONE ROAD BETWEEN NORTH DALLAS AVENUE AND VAN HORN DRIVE.
THE PURPOSE OF THE REQUEST IS TO REZONE THE PROPERTY, UM, TO, I'M SORRY, THAT SHOULD SAY CS.
IT'S AN APPLICATION FOR A CS, UH, COMMERCIAL SERVICE DISTRICT ON PROPERTY ZONED AA AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF TELEPHONE ROAD BETWEEN NORTH DALLAS AVENUE AND VAN HORN DRIVE.
UM, THE APPLICANT IS LOOKING TO REQUEST OR TO REZONE THIS PROPERTY, UH, CS TO ALLOW, UH, THE DEVELOPMENT OF A TRUCKING BUSINESS WAREHOUSE.
UM, IT'S APPROXIMATELY 6.5 ACRES IN TOTAL SIZE.
UH, REALLY QUICKLY, THIS WAS HEARD AT THE JULY 11TH, UH, MEETING AND IT WAS, UH, MOVED TO HOLD UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL TODAY.
SINCE THE LAST HEARING, UH, THE APPLICANT HAS VOLUNTEERED A FEW D RESTRICTIONS, UM, TO PROHIBIT CERTAIN USES ON THE PROPERTY.
IN ADDITION TO THAT, THEY HAVE VOLUNTEERED D RESTRICTIONS, UH, UH, INVOLVING THE MINIMUM REAR, REAR YARD SETBACK, SIDE YARD SETBACK AND PARKING.
AND ALSO THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION HAS CHANGED SINCE THE LAST HEARING.
SURROUNDING USES INCLUDE, UH, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, AGRICULTURAL, UH, AND SINGLE FAMILY TO THE SOUTH.
HERE ARE THE SITE VISIT PHOTOS.
THIS IS ON TELEPHONE ROAD LOOKING SOUTHEAST.
UM, TELEPHONE ROAD LOOKING SOUTHEAST.
SAME, SAME LOCATION LOOKING SOUTHWEST, SAME LOCATION LOOKING NORTHEAST, SAME LOCATION.
LOOKING TO THE ADJACENT, UH, SURROUNDING USES, THIS IS ALSO, UM, TO THE LEFT OF THE SITE.
AND THIS IS LOOKING TOWARDS THE PROPERTY AS WELL AS, UH, FROM
[01:05:01]
THE INTERSECTION AND A BRIEF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS CHART.AGAIN, THE EXISTING ZONING IS AGRICULTURAL AND THE APPLICANT IS LOOKING TO CHANGE IT TO COMMERCIAL SERVICE.
HERE'S A BRIEF, UH, SUMMARY OF THE VOLUNTEER DE RESTRICTIONS.
AGAIN, UH, THE APPLICANT IS VOLUNTEER DE RESTRICTIONS TO PROHIBIT CERTAIN USES, MAIN USES AND ACCESSORY USES.
THOSE USES ARE LISTED IN THE CASE REPORT.
UM, THEY HAVE ALSO VOLUNTEERED DE RESTRICTIONS TO MINIMUM AREA YARD BEING, UM, A HUNDRED FEET MINIMUM SIDE YARD BEING 20 FEET.
AND THEN, UH, PARKING AND MANEUVERING OF VEHICLES IS NOT ALLOWED TO THE REAR YARD.
SETBACK, UH, DUE TO THE ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL USES, UH, STAFFS ANALYSIS, UH, THERE ARE EXISTING SURROUNDING RESIDENTIAL USES TO THE SOUTH.
UM, THERE'S A FARM TO THE WEST OF THE SITE.
UH, PARKING AND TRAFFIC INGRESS AND EGRESS ACCESS WILL BE, UM, WILL NEED TO BE WORKED OUT.
UH, THEIR ZONING SIGNS WILL NEED TO BE SECURED AGAIN.
UH, 'CAUSE LAST TIME I WAS OUT THERE DOING THE SITE VISIT, THE SIGN WAS ON THE GROUND.
AND THEN, UH, THERE ARE ALSO AGRICULTURAL USES TO THE EAST AND WEST.
SO STAFF FINDS THAT THE PROPOSED USE IS APPROPRIATE FOR THE AREA AND STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE D RESTRICTIONS VOLUNTEERED BY THE APPLICANT.
UM, IS IT NOT CORRECT THAT THIS PART, THIS AREA ESPECIALLY THIS STREET, IS UM, IN A TRANSITION IT'S RIGHT NEXT TO PD 7 61, WHICH IS THE INLAND PORT AND IT'S IN A TRANSITIONAL STATE TO MORE OF AN INDUSTRIAL USE OPPOSED TO ANY OTHER USE? THAT'S CORRECT.
UM, IS IT NOT, AND I DON'T REMEMBER HEARING IN YOUR STAFF REPORT, UM, OR IN YOUR BRIEFING THAT, THAT THERE HAS BEEN IN THE LAST YEAR TWO OR THREE OTHER ZONING CASES THAT DID THE SAME, THAT DID THE SAME KIND OF USE.
SO IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS, THERE HAVE BEEN TWO ZONING CASES.
AND THERE THEY'RE THE BOTH AND BOTH OF THEM HAD THE SAME TYPE OF USE? THAT'S CORRECT.
UM, AND THE BUFFERING IN THE BACK, THE HUNDRED IS, UH, THE A HUNDRED FEET, IS THAT NOT ALSO, UM, A A, UH, AS A BUFFERING FOR IN, FOR THE RE THE NEXT USE, BUT IS THERE NOT A CREEK THAT GOES BACK THERE? YES, THERE IS A, A CREEK THAT RUNS TO THE SOUTH OF THE, UM, SUBJECT SITE.
UM, AND THAT SPLITS BETWEEN, THAT RUNS IN THE, I GUESS BETWEEN THE SUBJECT SITE AND THE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL TO THE SOUTH OF THE SITE.
SO THE NATURAL BUFFER WOULD BE THAT CREEK AND THEN THE A HUNDRED FEET ADDITIONAL BUFFERING WOULD BE TO PROTECT THE, UM, THE CREEK FROM THIS PARTICULAR USE AS WELL AS UM, KEEPING IT MORE OF A, OF A PRETTIER BACK.
IS THAT NOT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.
UM, IS IT NOT, WELL, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU KNOW IS, BUT IS IT NOT TRUE THAT THIS IS A FAR BIGGER BUFFER THAN THE OTHER CASE THAT IS ON THIS SAME CREEK AS IS PROVIDING YES.
MM-HMM,
ALRIGHT, UM, THANK YOU SO MUCH MR. CLINTON.
LET'S MOVE ON TO NUMBER 12, MR. PEPE.
THIS IS LOCATED IN UPTOWN AND IT'S AN APPLICATION FOR A CLAIM DEVELOPMENT SUBDISTRICT ON PROPERTY ZONED IN MF TWO MULTIPLE FAMILY SUBDISTRICT WITH PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 1 9 3, THE
UM, APPROXIMATELY 2.447 ACRES.
AND THE PURPOSE OF THE REQUEST IS TO ALLOW MODIFIED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS PRIMARILY RELATED TO USE OF SETBACKS, DENSITY, LOT COVERAGE,
[01:10:01]
FLURRY RATIO, HEIGHT, DESIGN STANDARDS, PARKING, LANDSCAPING SIGNS AND MIXED INCOME HOUSING.DEVELOP THE SITE WITH RESIDENTIAL AND RESTAURANT USES.
AND HERE'S THE SITE AS IT EXISTS TODAY.
SO WE WALK AROUND THE SITE, THERE'S AN ELECTRICAL SUBSTATION TO THE NORTH.
THERE'S VERTICAL MIXED USE TO THE NORTHEAST.
THERE'S MULTIPLE FAMILY MULTI, YEAH, MULTIPLE FAMILY TO THE EAST AND SOUTH.
AND THERE'S MORE MULTIPLE FAMILY UNDER THE DEVELOPMENT IN THE SOUTHWEST AND KATY TRAIL RUNS ALONG THE NORTHWEST APPROACH OF THE PROPERTY.
SO, UH, BACKGROUND BEING, IT'S, IT'S CURRENTLY THAT MF TWO SUBDISTRICT IS DEVELOPED WITH MULTIPLE FAMILY USES, UH, PLAN TO BE REMOVED, UM, SORT OF A LOW RISE MULTIFAMILY AT THIS TIME.
UH, YOU'RE REQUESTING A PDS BASED ON MF TWO WITH SOME SIGNIFICANT CHANGES TO ADD IN, UH, STANDARDS AS WELL AS THE RESTAURANT USE.
UM, THEY'RE PROPOSING DEVELOPMENT PLAN ON THE LANDSCAPE PLAN.
IT'S THE ENTRANCE TO THE CURRENT MULTIFAMILY, IT'S PARKING LOT OF THE MULTIFAMILY INTERNAL CARLISLE PLACE, WHICH IS KIND OF A ONE WAY, NOT A ONE WAY, BUT A DEAD END STREET.
AND HERE IS BACK OF THE MULTIFAMILY.
FLIP AROUND DOWN TO HALL, UH, LOOK NORTH AT THE PROPERTY.
EXISTING MULTI-FAMILY, EXISTING MULTIFAMILY.
NOW BACK HERE ON THE KATY TRAIL, LOOKING BACK TOWARDS, THAT'S THE PARKING LOT YOU COULD SEE FROM THE TRAIL AT THIS TIME.
AND IT'S KIND OF THE SOUTH PART OF THE EXISTING MULTIFAMILY FROM THE TRAIL BACK ON.
UM, BACK ON CARLISLE PLACE LOOKING NORTH, LOOKING NORTH AT THE MIXED USE NORTH OF HERE OFFICE FARTHER EAST MULTIFAMILY ACROSS CARLISLE, MULTIFAMILY SOUTH OF HALL.
AND THE, UH, DEVELOPMENT SITE ACROSS HALL.
HEADED BACK TOWARDS THE TRAIL.
AND HERE'S THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AS THEY PROPOSED IT.
UM, REALLY SORT OF JUST TO PUT IT IN BROAD STROKES.
THIS DEVELOPMENT PLAN IS BACKED UP BY THE, UH, ZONING CONDITIONS, UH, THAT PRESCRIBES A LOWER, LOWER HEIGHT DOWN ON HALL STREET.
UH, IT INCREASES AS IT HEADS TOWARDS CARLISLE PLACE, UM, BOTH BY SETBACKS.
AND THIS PLAN ALSO LIMITED, A LITTLE MORE LIMITED IN HEIGHT ALONG THE KATY TRAIL FOCUSES THAT HEIGHT ON CARLISLE PLACE THAN THE RESTAURANT IS MEANT TO BE BACK ON ON THE KATY TRAIL.
HERE'S THE LANDSCAPE PLAN AS THEY PROPOSED IT AGAIN, SHOWS THE RESTAURANT AREA, SHOWS THE EXISTING BUILDING, SHOWS THE STREET TREES, AND HERE ARE ALL THE, UH, CHANGES TO THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AS THEY PROPOSED THEM.
UH, AGAIN, THEY'D TIE HEIGHT AND MUL, UM, EXCUSE ME, FAR TO MEXICAN HOUSING.
AND AGAIN, THE SETBACKS GOVERN THAT, THOSE STEP BACKS IN THE BUILDING.
UM, WHEN ANALYZING FOR A BASE FAR AND HEIGHT, IT LOOKS AT THE, UH, WHAT'S ENTITLED AROUND THE AREA RIGHT NOW.
KIND OF A BIG, BIG VARIETY AND A COUPLE OF PD SUBDISTRICTS AS WELL AS THE EXISTING SUBDISTRICTS OF 1 9 3 AND THE FAR NEARBY.
SO WE DID SET THE BASE AT, UH, 2.5 FAR IS THE BASE.
THERE ARE HIGHER FA NEARBY, BUT NOT EXACTLY AT THIS SITE.
AND SO AS FOR THE MIXED INCOME HOUSING PROVISIONS, THEY'RE REQUESTING TO TAKE THAT 2.5 FAR TO 5.8.
SO MOST SIMILAR IN THE EXISTING CODE, IN THE EXISTING BONUS STRUCTURE THAT WE HAVE IS 10 AT 61 TO 80 A MI FIVE AT 81 TO 100 A MI THAT'S 3.0.
THEY'RE REQUESTING A LITTLE BIT MORE THAN THAT.
UH, BUT AS SUCH, CLOSEST THING WE'RE USING THAT, UH, 10 AND FIVE IS THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND SAID THE APPLICANT RE PROPOSES FIVE AT THAT 61 TO 80.
UH, QUICKLY DESIGN STANDARDS, UH, DO USE FOUR POINT 1107.
THE MIX INCOME HOUSING DEVELOPMENT, BONUS DESIGN STANDARDS, EXCEPT WE'RE SPECIFIED, BUT THEY MEET, UH, MOST OF THEM, UH, INCLUDING, UH, GARAGE SCREENING.
MOST ALL THEIR GARAGES HAVE TO BE UNDERGROUND EXCEPT FOR ONE PARTIAL FLOOR.
AND THAT'S JUST 'CAUSE OF THE SLOPE OF THE SITE.
THE SLOPE SITE SLOPES AS YOU HEAD TOWARDS THE HALL.
AND THEN CARLISLE'S PLAY PLACES HIGHER.
UM, THAT'S IT FOR THE PARKING, UH, STRUCTURES.
THEY HAVE SIX FOOT SIDEWALK, FIVE FOOT PARKWAY, UH, SOME PROTECTED CROSSINGS AND, AND A A WHERE THEY ABUT PARKING.
[01:15:01]
UH, IF THERE IS ANY PARKING, ANY PARKING HAS TO BE ACTUALLY JUST TEMPORARY DROP OFF PICKUP.UH, PEDESTRIAN SCALE LIGHTINGS BUILT IN THEIR TRANSPARENCY IS MEANT TO BE EVENLY SPACED ALONG THE FACADES, INDIVIDUAL ENTRIES.
SO UNITS HAVE TO HAVE INDIVIDUAL ENTRIES, BUT, UH, USES ALONG THE TRAIL, INCLUDING THAT RESTAURANT, HAVE TO HAVE ACCESS TO THE TRAIL TO ACTIVATE THAT.
UH, STANDARD FENCING LANGUAGE FROM THE DESIGN STANDARDS, UH, TWO PIECES OF STREET FURNITURE ON EACH FRONTAGE.
UM, 20,000 SQUARE FOOT OF OPEN SPACES IS REQUIRED.
THAT'S 19% OF THE LOT AREA AND THERE'S LIMITS ON THE DRIVEWAY WIDTHS, UH, AND HOW MANY THEY CAN HAVE PER FRONTAGE.
AS FOR THE LANDSCAPING, THEY DID NEED SOME, UM, VARIATIONS FROM THE PART ONE LANDSCAPING OF PD 1 93.
UH, BUT LET'S THINK OF IT AS QUALITY VERSUS QUANTITY.
THEY HAD TO DECREASE THEIR LANDSCAPE SITE AREA.
THAT'S THE MORE GENERAL LANDSCAPE AREA BUILT INTO PD 1 93.
UM, AND SO THIS SAYS MORE OF IT HAS TO BE FOCUSED IN THEIR FRONT YARDS AND BEYOND.
THAT INCREASES GENERAL PLANTING AREA, WHICH THINK OF IT AS A ONE UPGRADE STEP OF QUALITY OF LANDSCAPING IS INCREASED.
AND THEN THEY INCREASE THE SPECIAL LANDSCAPING AREA, THE, THE HIGHEST QUALITY UP A LITTLE BIT MORE.
AND SO ALL OF THOSE NEED TO BE FOCUSED TOWARDS THE FACADE.
SO IT'S LESS LANDSCAPING SIDE AREA PER THE ENTIRE LOT, BUT WE GET MORE QUALITY 'CAUSE IT'S NEAR THE STREETS NEAR WHERE PEOPLE CAN ACTUALLY EN ENJOY AND SEE IT, UM, BE SHADED BY IT AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
AND THEN THERE'S A HIGHER PERCENTAGE OF THAT QUALITY LANDSCAPING SPACE.
THEY'RE PROPOSING PARKING AT PART ONE.
UH, THE BASE PART ONE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS FOUR POINT 1107, WHICH IS THE, UH, DESIGN THE STANDARD FOR MIXED INCOME HOUSING.
AND FINALLY, STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO A DEVELOPMENT PLAN, A LANDSCAPE PLAN, AND STAFF'S RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS.
MR. PEPPY, UH, QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM.
UM, ARE YOU, I AM NOT SURE IF YOU HIT THIS, BUT ARE YOU AWARE THAT THE APPLICANT IS ALSO FUNDING A, UH, CROSSWALK ACROSS, I THINK IT'S CARLISLE.
AND ARE YOU ALSO AWARE THAT THE APPLICANT IS DOING VOLUNTARY DEED RESTRICTIONS IN FAVOR OF THE OAKLAWN COMMITTEE FOR THE SISTER SIDE ACROSS THE STREET? I'VE HEARD, YES.
THE CROSSWALK DID MAKE IT INTO THE CONDITIONS HERE, SO THAT'S THERE.
WELL, THE DEED RESTRICTIONS WOULDN'T BE, BUT I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT TO THIS COMMUNITY MEMBERS.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM? ALRIGHT, SEEING NOW WE MOVE ON TO CASE NUMBER 13.
THIS IS LOCATED ABOUT AS FAR NORTHWEST IN THE CITIES YOU CAN GET WITHOUT BEING IN CYPRUS WATERS.
UM, IT'S AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR AN INDUSTRIAL OUTSIDE POTENTIALLY INCOMPATIBLE USE, LIMITED TO ASPHALT OR CONCRETE CRUSHING ON PROPERTY.
ZONED IN IM INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURING DISTRICT ON THE EAST LINE OF LUNA ROAD.
BETWEEN Y STREET AND RYAN ROAD.
AND PURPOSE OF THE REQUEST IS TO ALLOW THE USE OF AN ASPHALT OR CONCRETE CRUSHING FACILITY ON THE SITE.
AND HERE'S THE SITE AS IT EXISTS TODAY, UNDEVELOPED MULTIPLE INDUSTRIAL USES AROUND IT.
SO TO THE NORTH THERE'S AN, AN ASPHALT OR CONCRETE BATCHING PLANT TO THE EASTER SAND, GRAVEL OR EARTH SAILS AND STORAGE TO THE SOUTH.
THERE IS ANOTHER, UH, CONCRETE CRUSHING FACILITY, UH, UNDER A DIFFERENT SUP AND THERE'S A PUBLIC PARK GOLF COURSE ACROSS THE STREET.
SO IT IS CURRENTLY UNDEVELOPED.
UH, PROPOSED USE PUT TO PUT A LOT OF WORDS SHORT IS, UM, SPECIFICALLY IT'S IN INDUSTRIAL OUTSIDE WHERE INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURING TAKES PLACE OUTSIDE.
UH, CONCRETE CRUSHING IS ONE OF THOSE ENUMERATED USES, BUT IT DOESN'T GIVE US ADDITIONAL DEFINITION.
UH, BUT WE'VE CONFIRMED WITH, UM, OUR, OUR PERMITTING SIDE THAT THIS IS THE CORRECT USE FOR, FOR THIS SUBSET.
SO THEY'RE LIMITED TO THAT CONCRETE CRUSHING
[01:20:02]
IN THIS SUP.AND AS WE GET DOWN TO THE SITE, HERE WE ARE ON LUNA, LOOKING EAST OF THE SITE, GOING A LITTLE FARTHER SOUTH, A LITTLE FARTHER SOUTHEAST, AND LOOKING WEST SAND ON THE INGRESS TO THE SITE AND LOOKING WEST AT LUNA, LOOKING SOUTHWEST AT LUNA, AND LOOKING DOWN SOUTH ON LUNA AND LOOKING BACK NORTH UP THE ROAD THAT'S LOOKING AT PARK, OTHER, UH, FACILITIES THAT ARE TO THE WEST.
SO AS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT CENTERS, THEY DO HAVE TO KEEP TO THOSE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OF IM, UH, NO TRADITIONAL BUILDING BEING CONSTRUCTED HERE.
SO THAT'S NOT A PARTICULAR ISSUE FOR THEM.
UH, BIG PART OF REVIEW IS ATTORNEY RIVER CORRIDOR, COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN.
YOU CAN KIND OF, MAYBE IF YOU PUT YOUR FACE TO THE SCREEN, SEE THE BLUE SQUARE IN THE NORTHWEST MOST PORTION, IT, IT IS, UH, DESIGNATED AS HIGHER, HIGHER CAPACITY INDUSTRIAL.
BUT IT DOES HAVE A, UH, A MORE CLOSER URBAN DESIGN FRAMEWORK.
YOU CAN MORE EASILY SEE THE LIGHT BLUE PART OF THE PARCEL, UH, RIGHT THERE ALONG LUNA, WHICH BEING THE, THE WEST STREET.
IN THIS PLAN, UH, PLAN CALLS FOR BETTER BUFFERING ALONG LUNA, UH, YOU KNOW, SUPPORT THE INVESTMENTS HAVE MADE IN PART, UH, FACILITIES AROUND THERE.
UM, IMPROVE THAT ROAD JUST A LITTLE BIT.
AND SO, UH, AS YOU'LL SEE SOME OF THE CONDITIONS CALLED TO CARRY THAT OUT, THERE'S A SITE PLAN FOR THE USE.
UH, BASICALLY, UH, CONCRETE CRUSHING TAKES PLACE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE SITE.
RUBBLE IS STORED AT THE BACK PART OF THE SITE.
CONDITIONS WILL HAVE LIMITS ON, ON THOSE FUNCTIONS.
AND THEY ENTER ONLY FROM LUNA ROAD.
UM, THEY ARE REQUESTING 10 YEARS WITH 10 YEARS AUTOMATIC RENEWAL.
UM, STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS GONNA BE FIVE YEARS FOR THE USE, ALLOW FOR ADDITIONAL REVIEW, UM, COMPLIANCE WHEN THEY GET THE FACILITY RUNNING, UH, STOCK, EXCUSE ME, THERE'S A LIMIT ON THE STACKING HEIGHT OF THAT.
AND, UM, SIMILARLY TOS IN THE AREA CALLS FOR WHEEL WASHING WHEN THEY DO IMPROVE LUNA ROAD.
UH, NOT, NOT IN PLACE AT THE MOMENT 'CAUSE IT'S A SUBSTANDARD ROAD, IF YOU WILL AT THIS TIME, BUT THEN THEY'D HAVE TO CARRY THAT OUT AFTER THAT POINT.
SNOOZE, MY COMPUTER'S TRYING TO UPDATE.
WELL, THAT'S A PROBLEM FOR LATER.
UM, WE DID HAVE BUFFERING CONDITIONS IN, YOU CAN SEE THERE.
UH, HOWEVER, CONVERSATIONS WITH, UM, COMMISSIONERS AS OUR LANDSCAPE STAFF, UH, PRODUCE SOME DIFFERENT CONDITIONS.
THESE ARE, ARE THE STOCK CONDITIONS THAT THEY HAVE IN THERE ALREADY RIGHT NOW.
UH, WE DON'T RECOMMEND CHANGES TO THOSE.
THOSE ARE FINE TO HAVE IN THERE, BUT I WILL GET TO CONDITIONS PROPOSED AFTER THE DOCKET.
THOSE BEING, THEY WOULD REPLACE THE SIX AND SEVEN BUFFER YARD CONDITIONS, UM, CALLING FOR A A 30 FOOT BUFFER YARD ALONG THE WESTERN PART OF THE PROPERTY.
UM, AND BASICALLY WHAT THAT THAT CALLS FOR IS YOU CAN'T PUT STRUCTURES THERE, STORAGE MATERIALS, THINGS LIKE THAT.
AND SO AT THE, AT THE HEART, AND MOST IMPORTANT IS THEY CALL FOR A, A TIGHTER SHRUB ROW, UH, ABOUT SIX FEET IN HEIGHT, SIX FOOT ALONG, UH, ALONG THAT RIGHT OF WAY, UH, IN THE FIRST 15 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE AND EXCLUDING THE DRIVEWAYS.
AND THEN A CANOPY TREE IS 30 FEET AND THEY'D HAVE DOUBLE ROWS STAGGERED, UM, TO KIND OF HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE DEPTH ON THOSE CANOP ON THAT CANOPY, UH, CALLS SEVEN 5% OF THEM TO BE BE LIVE OAKS, WHICH ARE EVERGREEN, UM, CAN'T BE CLOSER THAN 20 FEET.
SO BASICALLY, UM, THE INITIAL INTENT OF THE CONDITIONS IN THE DOCKET WERE, UH, FILTERING.
THIS IS, GOES A LITTLE BIT FURTHER IN THAT REGARD, UH, FILTERING OF MATERIAL DUST.
AND SO WE DO APPROVE OF THOSE CONDITIONS BRIEFED AND STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS FOR OUR FIVE-YEAR PERIOD, SUBJECT TO A SITE PLAN AND CONDITIONS AS BRIEFED.
GOOD MORNING, COMMISSIONERS QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM.
COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONER CHAIR, PLEASE.
UH, I HAVE A QUESTION ON WHEN IT SAYS POTENTIALLY INCOMPATIBLE, THAT'S JUST NOT A TERM I'M FAMILIAR WITH ANY OF OUR PREVIOUS CASES.
WHAT DOES EXACTLY DOES THAT MEAN? YEAH, IT'S NOT A, IT'S NOT MAKING A, UH, A, A A A VALUE JUDGMENT, I GUESS YOU COULD SAY.
[01:25:01]
IT'S PART OF HOW OUR CODE, I'M TRYING TO SCROLL BACK TO THE DEFINITION PERSONALLY.UH, IT'S PART OF HOW OUR CODE PUTS, UH, THE MOST INTENSE INDUSTRIAL USES.
THEY CALL THEM POTENTIALLY INCOMPATIBLE INDUSTRIAL USES.
IT'S ANY INTENSE INDUSTRIAL USE YOU CAN THINK OF THAT GOES OUTSIDE.
AND BASICALLY IT SAYS, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN DO INDUSTRIAL USES OUTSIDE IN IM BY, RIGHT? UNLESS THEY'RE X, Y, Z, THIS IS ONE OF THE X, Y, Z USES CRUSHING.
UM, AND SO IN, THEN IN THAT CASE YOU NEED AN SUP BECAUSE POTENTIALLY INCOMPATIBLE IS BASICALLY KIND OF A FILTER TO SAY, HEY, DO YOU NEED AN SUP FOR THIS USE ON, EVEN IN AN IM? AND THEN IT ADDS A REVIEW TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S NOT IN AN INCOMPATIBLE LOCATION.
SO IT'S THE MOST INTENSE INDUSTRIAL USES, BUT THAT QUALIFIER IS, UH, WE SHOULD USE AN SUP TO MAKE SURE THIS IS AN APPROPRIATE PARTICULAR SITE FOR IT.
COMMISSIONER HALL, UH, MR. PEPE, ARE THERE SIMILAR BUSINESSES TO THE NORTH AND SOUTH OF THIS SITE? THERE IS AN A, THERE'S THE SAME USE AS ESTABLISHED IN AN SEP TO THE SOUTH, AND THEN TO THE NORTH IS A CONCRETE BATCHING PLANT.
SO I'M NOT AN EXPERT, BUT I THINK THAT THEY ARE RELATED BECAUSE I THINK THAT YOU MAY BREAK DOWN CONCRETE ON ONE, PRODUCE, CONCRETE ON THE OTHER.
SO THEY FUNCTION KIND OF SIMILARLY, BUT ABSOLUTELY, IT'S A VERY INTENSE CORRIDOR.
IT'S WHY WE HAVE SOME MITIGATION MEASURES IN THE CONDITIONS, BUT GENERALLY THE USES OF THIS INTENSITY ARE ESTABLISHED IN THE AREA FOR SURE.
AND WHEN YOU, UH, I NOTICED YOU RE THEY'RE, THEY'RE REQUIRING WHEEL WASHING AND THEN, UH, SPRINKLING THE SITE TO KEEP THE DUST DOWN.
UH, SO OBVIOUSLY THIS IS GONNA GENERATE A LOT OF DUST ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.
AND, UM, THE LANDSCAPING IS EXTENSIVE ON THIS AND, AND I NOTICED THEY, UH, SUGGESTED 75% LIVE OAKS, BUT, UH, IS THE, WHEN, WHEN WE TELL THEM THEY HAVE TO LANDSCAPE THIS, OR DO WE GIVE 'EM MORE SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS FOR WHAT KIND OF BUSHES AND TREES TO USE THAT ARE MORE, PERHAPS MORE HEARTY AND, AND WOULD NOT BE IMPACTED BY THE DUST AND, AND TRAFFIC AND THINGS LIKE THAT? YEAH, NO, GREAT QUESTION.
UM, OUR ARBORISTS HAVE LOOKED AT THIS AND, AND HAVE SOME CERTAINTY ABOUT LIVE OAK SPECIES, UH, BEING ACCEPTABLE OTHERWISE.
UM, THE SHRUBS AND OTHER PLANT MATERIALS, UM, EITHER HAVE TO BE FROM THE APPROVED LIST OR OR APPROVED BY THE DIRECTOR.
SO THERE IS SOME, UH, OVERSIGHT THAT ARE LANDSCAPING FOLKS WILL BE ABLE TO PLAY INTO THIS US TO CHOOSE APPROPRIATE PLANTINGS AND CHOOSE, UM, UH, CHOOSE HARDY ONES THAT WILL BE APPROPRIATE FOR THE SITE.
AND BEYOND THAT, IF THEY WERE TO CHOOSE SPECIES THAT WE'RE, UM, YOU KNOW, WE'RE, WE'RE NOT WORKING FOR THAT ENVIRONMENT, UH, WHEN THIS COMES UP FOR RENEWAL, THAT'S A THING TO REVIEW FOR.
WE CAN SAY, WELL, THEY'VE, THEY'VE PLANTED SOME OF THIS, BUT THEIR SHRUBS DIED.
YOU NEED TO REPLANT AND, AND PICK ANOTHER ONE.
IT'S POTENTIAL POINT FOR, UH, UPON RE-REVIEW OF AN SUP IS COMPLIANCE WITH THAT.
IF, IF THEY WERE TO CHOOSE SOMETHING THAT THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE.
MM-HMM,
AND WHEN, WHEN YOU, UH, UH, SAY YOU RECOMMEND APPROVAL, DOES THAT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE IMPACT THAT THIS SITE MIGHT HAVE ON THE, SAY THE GOLF COURSE ACROSS THE STREET? YES.
AND I THINK THAT WAS PART OF THE TRINITY RIVER LAND USE CORRIDOR STUDY, A RECOMMENDATION FOR ENHANCED LANDSCAPING ALONG HERE WHERE THEY RECOGNIZE, YOU KNOW, THEY SAY THAT THIS IS GONNA BE A HEAVY INDUSTRIAL AREA.
THEY, THAT PLAN RECOGNIZES THAT, BUT IT ALSO CALLS FOR THESE ENHANCED PLANTINGS WITH THE EXPRESS PURPOSE OF KIND OF, UH, PROTECTING THOSE INVESTMENTS, PROTECTING LUNA ROAD AS WELL.
UM, IT, I DO FEEL LIKE THAT THESE WILL MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN, IN THAT REGARD.
COMMISSIONER FORSYTH, ARE THERE ANY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS THAT ARE GONNA BE IMPACTED BY THIS, THAT ARE NEARBY? THIS IS, THIS IS A, UH, HIGHLY ISOLATED, UM, AREA OF INDUSTRIAL.
SO THE LAND USE PLANS HAVE CALLED FOR INDUSTRIAL SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE IT IS QUITE DISTANCE FROM IT.
I COULD, I COULD GO INTO DETAIL, BUT WE HAVE THIS INDUSTRIAL AREA, WE HAVE THE RAILROAD, WE HAVE MORE INDUSTRIAL, AND THEN IT TRANSITIONS TO COMMERCIAL AS YOU GET TOWARDS, UH, 35, THEN YOU HAVE COMMERCIAL OF HARRY HINES, UH, CORRIDOR, AND THEN, THEN ONLY THEN MULTIPLE MILES AWAY.
ARE YOU IN A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD? SO I WOULD, IT'S, IT WAS NOT A CONCERN BE, IT WAS NOT A CONCERN BECAUSE IT'S NOT AN ISSUE PRESENT.
[01:30:05]
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONERS? OKAY, THANK YOU SIR.THIS IS CASE D 2 23 DASH 3 0 2.
IT'S AN APPLICATION FOR A CS COMMERCIAL SERVICE DISTRICT ON PROPERTY ZONE AND R SEVEN 50, A SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT.
THE PURPOSE OF THE REQUEST IS TO ALLOW AN OFFICE SHOWROOM SLASH WAREHOUSE AND INDUSTRIAL INSIDE FOR LIGHT MANUFACTURING USES ON THE SITE.
THE LOCATION MAP OUTLINE IN BLUE IS THE AREA OF REQUEST.
THE NEXT FEW SLIDES WILL BE PICTURES OF THE SITE AND THE SURROUNDING AREA.
THIS IS THE SITE PLAN AND THESE ARE THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS DENIAL.
QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS, COMMISSIONER HALL, UH, WHAT SITS ON THIS SITE RIGHT NOW? IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S SOME TYPE OF WAREHOUSE DISTRIBUTION, UM, THAT'S CURRENTLY ON THE, THE SITE IN FRONT, BUT THE ACTUAL AREA REQUEST IS, IT SHOULD BE VACANT, BUT IT HAS SOME OF THE SPILLOVER FROM THE, UM, WAREHOUSE USE ON THE SITE.
AND IN YOUR REPORT, I THINK YOU SAID THAT IT APPEARED THAT THIS SITE WAS ALREADY ENCROACHING ON SINGLE FAMILY.
WHAT, WHAT DID DID YOU MEAN BY THAT? THEY MEAN THAT SOME OF THE, UM, ITEMS THAT THEY HAVE IS PLACED INTO THE AREA OF REQUEST.
AND THERE ARE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES JUST TO THE SOUTH ACTUALLY.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS? OKAY, THANK YOU.
NOW TO OUR, UH, GO TO NUMBER 15, OUR DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT.
MR. WAIT, GOOD TO SEE YOU AGAIN, SIR.
LET ME SET UP QUICKLY THANK YOU TO THE SUPERIOR, MICHAEL FOR HELPING ME WITH TECHNOLOGY RIGHT NOW.
UH, MICHAEL WADE, CODE AMENDMENTS WITH PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT.
TODAY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLE CODE AMENDMENT DCA 2 2 3 0 0 3.
[01:35:06]
AND BEFORE I READ THIS, I JUST WANNA MAKE CLEAR THAT THIS IS NOT THE, UM, LARGER OFF STREET PARKING AND LOADING CODE AMENDMENT.WE RECEIVED SOME PHONE CALLS AND COMMUNICATIONS OF PEOPLE THINKING THAT IT MIGHT BE, UH, THIS IS NOT AT ALL RELATED TO THAT.
SO THE TOPIC TODAY, CONSIDERATION OF AMENDING CHAPTERS 51 AND 51 A, THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE WITH CONSIDERATION TO BE GIVEN TO AMENDING SECTIONS 51, 2 0.102 AND 51 A 2.102 DEFINITIONS, 51 A 4.202 10 MACHINERY HEAVY EQUIPMENT OR TRUCK SALES AND SERVICE 51, A 4.2 10 B THREE AUTO SERVICE CENTER, 51 A 4.2 10 B 8.1, COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLE PARKING 51 4 0.2 1218 AND 51 A 4.2 10 B NINE COMMERCIAL PARKING LOT OR GARAGE 51, A 4.2 10 B 16.1 LIQUIFIED NATURAL GAS FUELING STATION 51 A 4.2 10 B 30.1 TRUCK STOP, 51 4 0.2 12 TWO AUTOMOBILE OR MOTOR VEHICLE, UH, MOTORCYCLE DISPLAY SALES AND SERVICE OUTSIDE DISPLAY, 51 A 4.2 10 B 30.1 VEHICLE DISPLAY SALES AND SERVICE 51 4 0.2 17 B NINE, OPEN STORAGE, 51 A 4.2 17 B SIX ACCESSORY OUTSIDE STORAGE AND RELATED SECTIONS WITH CONSIDERATION TO BE GIVEN TO DEVELOPING APPROPRIATE STANDARDS, DEFINITIONS AND DISTINCTIONS FOR OVERSIZED VEHICLES AND TRAILERS.
AND I PROMISE THAT THAT'S THE LONGEST SLIDE THAT WE HAVE TODAY.
SO THIS IS GOING TO BE A BRIEF PRESENTATION, TALK ABOUT WHY WE'RE LOOKING AT IT, WHAT WHAT STAFF LOOKED AT, AND THEN THE PROPOSAL THAT'S BEEN RECOMMENDED BY ZONING ORDINANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
THIS BEGAN IN DECEMBER OF 2022.
OUR CODE COMPLIANCE DEPARTMENT PRESENTED TO THE QUALITY OF LIFE ARTS AND CULTURE COMMITTEE ABOUT DIFFICULTY ENFORCING THE WEIGHT MAXIMUM ON VEHICLES PARKED IN FRONT FRONT DRIVEWAYS IN SECTIONS 51, A 4.2 17 B SIX ACCESSORY OUTSIDE STORAGE.
SO JUST TO NOTE THAT, IN THE CITY OF DALLAS, WE REGULATE VEHICLES PARKED IN THE FRONT DRIVEWAY AS STORAGE, NOT AS PARKING.
THE CURRENT REGULATION IN THAT, UH, CODE SECTION IS THAT CODE PROHIBITS A VEHICLE OVER 32 FEET LONG OR 1.5 TONS OF CARRYING CAPACITY FROM PARKING IN ANY PRIMARY YARD.
THIS IS THE ONLY PLACE IN THE CODE THAT WE USE THE TERM PRIMARY YARD.
AND ACTUALLY OUR PROPOSAL, UM, RECOMMENDS JUST SORT OF UNDOING THAT TERM.
IT'S SOME, IT'S A USEFUL TERM THAT WE CAN USE, UH, ELSEWHERE.
VERY, BASICALLY IT JUST MEANS THE AREA BETWEEN THE BUILDING AND ANY STREET.
SO YOU HAVE A DIAGRAM THAT SHOWS THE YELLOW AREA, UH, OF A CORNER LOT, WHICH WOULD BE CONSIDERED THE PRIMARY YARD.
THE ISSUES THAT CODE COMPLIANCE STAFF HAVE IDENTIFIED CARRYING CAPACITY INFORMATION IS DIFFICULT TO ASCERTAIN FOR VEHICLES.
UH, CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICERS WOULD NEED TO DO A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF RESEARCH ON VERY SPECIFIC MODELS OF VEHICLES TO IDENTIFY CARRYING CAPACITY AND MULTITUDE OF OTHER WEIGHT METRICS.
UM, VERY FREQUENTLY THESE ACTUALLY JUST AREN'T EVEN ONLINE.
THE INCREASING SIZE OF PICKUP TRUCKS USED AS PERSONAL OR NON-COMMERCIAL VEHICLES IS, UH, BRINGING ATTENTION TO THE INCONSISTENCY OF THIS REGULATION.
SO CARS ARE GETTING BIGGER, TRUCKS ARE GETTING BIGGER, AND THEN THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE GENERALLY USES INCONSISTENT METHODS TO REGULATE VEHICLES.
WE USE DIFFERENT WEIGHTS, SIZES AND, AND BUILDS IN, UH, THE ZONING ORDINANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
WE DISCUSSED THE MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS OF VARIETY THAN ANY PARTICULAR TRUCK, UH, COULD COME IN DEPENDING ON THE BUILD.
HERE ARE TRUCKS THAT ARE BEING PARKED IN FRONT DRIVEWAYS.
THE VEHICLES ON THE BOTTOM ARE VEHICLES THAT STILL KIND OF FLIRT WITH THE LINE THAT WE DRAW AROUND WHAT'S APPROPRIATE.
SO YOU MIGHT SEE SOME VERY COMMON VEHICLES THERE.
UM, THIS IS WHY WE ARE REASSESSING THIS REGULATION.
AND TO BE CLEAR, TODAY'S CODE AMENDMENT IS REALLY JUST TWEAKING THE ZONING CODE TO BE MORE USEFUL FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT.
STEPPING BACK, WHY DO WE HAVE A REGULATION LIKE THIS? GENERALLY, IT'S TO PROTECT THE REASONABLE ENJOYMENT OF RESIDENTIAL AREAS BY PROHIBITING VEHICLES THAT INTRODUCE MAJOR NOISE, DIRT, OR VISUAL NUISANCES.
THIS ISN'T STATED IN THE CODE, THIS IS STAFF SORT OF AMALGAMATED, UH, REASONING.
AND THEN ALSO WE USE SIZE AND OTHER, UM, THRESHOLDS TO DELINEATE CLEARLY WHICH VEHICLES ARE INTENDED TO BE SERVED BY CERTAIN LAND USES.
YES, THIS REGULATION DOES NOT GET INTO, AND THIS CODE AMENDMENT DOES NOT GET INTO PROHIBITING ALL VEHICLES USED FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES.
WE'RE NOT TRYING TO PROHIBIT ANY SMALL TRUCK FOR A, A SMALL BUSINESS THAT DOUBLES AS A PERSONAL VEHICLE NECESSARILY.
[01:40:01]
NOT TRYING TO REDEFINE OR REEXAMINE WHAT'S CONSIDERED A REASONABLE USE OF SOMEONE'S PROPERTY.UM, WE'RE NOT NECESSARILY GETTING INTO POLICY AROUND WHETHER WE CAN, UM, PARK RVS OR BOATS OR, UH, 18 WHEELERS IN FRONT YARDS, THAT THIS IS REALLY JUST TWEAKING THE CODE TO MAKE IT MORE USABLE FOR CODE COMPLIANCE.
ADDITIONALLY, WHAT WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT TODAY IS REGULATING THE IMPACT OF VEHICLE SIZES OR THE ACTIVITY OF VEHICLES ON PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.
UM, THAT'S THE REALM OF DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND THERE ARE OTHER PROVISIONS IN THE CITY CODE TO DEAL WITH THAT.
STAFF ANALYSIS INCLUDED THE WHOLE SLATE AND LAYERS OF REGULATIONS, FEDERAL, STATE, AND DALLAS CITY CODE.
THAT INCLUDES CHAPTER 51 A AND 51, THE DEVELOPMENT CODE.
WE ALSO LOOKED TO CHAPTER 28 AND CHAPTERS 44 AND OTHER AREAS OF THE CODE JUST FOR CUES ON WHAT'S CONSIDERED APPROPRIATE, HOW THE CITY TREATS DIFFERENT SIZES OF VEHICLES.
WE LOOKED AT PEER CITIES, UH, THE MARKET, WHAT ARE PEOPLE BUYING AND, UM, REALLY WHAT ARE THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THOSE VEHICLES.
AND THEN WE KEPT UP, OF COURSE, A HEALTHY CONVERSATION WITH CODE COMPLIANCE AND OUR DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO GET INTO THE PROPOSAL QUICKLY.
WE JUST RECOMMEND A VERY STANDARD DEFINITION FOR AN OVERSIZED MOTOR VEHICLE WITH A DIMENSIONAL BOX OF 22 FEET LONG, EIGHT FEET WIDE, OR NINE FEET HIGH.
SO ANY VEHICLE THAT EXCEEDS ANY ONE OF THOSE DIMENSIONS WOULD BE CONSIDERED AN OVERSIZED MOTOR VEHICLE OR IF IT HAS TWO OR MORE REAR AXLES, UH, OR IF IT IS DESIGNED TO TRANSPORT MORE THAN 15 PASSENGERS OVERSIZED TRAILER.
WE'RE ALSO RECOMMENDING JUST AS A STANDARDIZED DEFINITION FOR, UM, WHAT COULD BE USED AS A JUST A VERY INAPPROPRIATE TRAILER USE.
AGAIN, SOME IMAGES, THESE VEHICLES GENERALLY SHOW ABOUT THE BOX, AND I HAVE ANOTHER KIND OF MORE DIAGRAMMATIC IMAGE FOLLOWING THIS.
UM, WE HAVE THE MERCEDES-BENZ SPRINTER 15 PASSENGER VAN ON THE RIGHT, AND THEN SOME TRUCKS ON THE LEFT SIDE.
IF YOU CAN SEE THE GREEN BOX ON YOUR SCREENS, THAT'S THE DIMENSIONAL BOX THAT WE'RE PROPOSING.
GENERALLY, THE PERSONAL VEHICLES THAT WE'VE LOOKED AT FIT WITHIN THAT BOX.
UH, AGAIN, IN NO WAY WE'RE TRYING TO CHANGE CITY POLICY AROUND WHETHER IT'S GOOD TO PARK DUMP TRUCKS, 18 WHEELERS, ET CETERA, IN A FRONT DRIVEWAY.
ADDITIONAL PARTS OF THIS PROPOSAL, WE JUST WANT TO IMPLEMENT THESE VERY STANDARDIZED DEFINITIONS, UM, THROUGHOUT SOME OF THESE LAND USES.
THIS IS KIND OF WHAT ZAC CONVERSATIONS CENTERED ON, AND THEN WE'RE ALSO JUST UP UPDATING AND ORGANIZING, UH, RELEVANT LAND USES THE ACCESSORY OUTSIDE STORAGE LAND USE TO MAKE IT MORE READABLE AND TO REFLECT WHAT ZONING REFUSED STAFF, UM, HAVE ALREADY INTERPRETED FROM OUR ZAC CONVERSATION.
IMPLEMENTING THE NEW TERM OVERSIZED MOTOR VEHICLE DOES NOT IMPACT OUR ABILITY TO INTERPRET AND DELINEATE BETWEEN RELEVANT LAND USES.
UH, SO FOR INSTANCE, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MOTOR VEHICLE FUELING STATION AND TRUCK STOP IS NOT ANY MORE AMBIGUOUS THAN IT WAS BEFORE.
ADDITIONALLY, WE'RE PROPOSING TO INSERT THE LANGUAGE OR ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STATIONS INTO THE TRUCK STOP LAND USE.
UH, ZONING REVIEW IS SAYING THAT THIS ALSO DOES NOT, UH, INTRODUCE ANY CONFUSION OR AMBIGUITY.
IT'S SIMPLY CLARIFYING THAT THIS IS AN APPROPRIATE ACTIVITY OR ELEMENT OF A TRUCK STOP UP.
XX RECOMMENDATION WAS APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT AND TO FORWARD IT TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR PUBLIC HEARING.
UH, ONE OTHER ELEMENT QUICKLY, CHAPTER 28, UH, WHICH DOES DEAL WITH OUR PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, WE'LL NEED TO SEE AN AMENDMENT.
THIS IS A DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, UM, ISSUE AND THEY'RE, THEY'RE LOOKING INTO THAT RIGHT NOW, UH, JUST IN OUR 28 80 AND 28 81.
THIS INVOLVES, UM, PARKING ALONG RESIDENTIAL BLOCK FACES.
WE'RE SAYING THAT THESE NEED AMENDMENTS JUST TO BRING EVERYTHING INTO ALIGNMENT WITH THESE NEW DEFINITIONS.
AND AGAIN, WE WORKED WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ON, UH, THESE NEW DEFINITIONS.
COMMISSIONER HALL IS, IS THIS JUST ABOUT PARKING IN THE FRONT YARD? DRIVEWAYS, UH, THESE VEHICLES COULD STILL PARK IN THE STREET.
OUR CODE AMENDMENT TODAY DOESN'T REGULATE WHAT'S PARKED ON THE STREET.
OKAY, SO THEY COULD, THEY COULD STILL BE PARKED AT A RESIDENCE ON THE STREET, BUT NOT IN THE DRIVEWAY.
AND I BELIEVE CHAPTER 28 HAS PROVISIONS, HAS AN ALLOWANCE FOR WHAT CAN BE PARKED THERE FOR, UH, 24 HOURS VERSUS LONGER THAN 24 HOURS.
[01:45:01]
THANK YOU.WHAT ARE THE CURRENT, UH, ARE, ARE THERE ANY CURRENT REGULATIONS OR SPECIFICATIONS RIGHT NOW? YOU'RE, YOU'RE INDICATING THIS IS LIKE 22 FEET LONG.
IS THERE ANYTHING IN THERE NOW OR IS YES.
CURRENTLY IT'S A LENGTH OF 32 FEET AND A CARRYING CAPACITY OF ONE 1.5 TONS.
THAT IS, UM, RELATED TO HOW PICKUP TRUCKS WERE SORT OF MANUFACTURED AND BRANDED IN THE EARLY 19 HUNDREDS.
AND IT WAS JUST A LABELING SYSTEM THAT HAS CARRIED ON TO TODAY.
SO YOU SEE THAT REFLECTED IN NAMES LIKE FORD, F-150, THAT KIND OF A THING.
HOWEVER, THOSE LABELS DON'T, AREN'T ATTACHED AT ALL TO CARRYING CAPACITY ANYMORE.
SO OUR MAIN, UM, GOAL HERE WAS TO REMOVE WEIGHT AS A CONSIDERATION.
THAT'S THE REAL CRUX OF THE DIFFICULTY FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS AND TO MAKE IT SOMETHING THAT THEY CAN ASCERTAIN, UH, READILY JUST BY MEASURING HEIGHT, LENGTH, AND WIDTH.
AND COULD YOU GO BACK TO YOUR SLIDE WHERE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT WHAT YOU'RE NOT REGULATING? YOU, YOU, YOU, YOU, YOU INCLUDED IN THERE, YOU STATED NOT REGULATING 18 WHEELERS.
I DIDN'T, I DIDN'T, I WOULD THINK AN 18 WHEELER WOULD BE AN OVERSIZED TYPE OF, SO, YES, AND I'M SORRY, LET ME CLARIFY WHAT THIS CODE AMENDMENT IS DOING IS NOT CHANGING OUR CURRENT PROHIBITION ON 18 WHEELERS.
SO FOR INSTANCE, THOSE, THOSE ARE ILLEGAL.
THOSE ARE, UM, NOT APPROPRIATE, NOT PERMITTED.
RIGHT NOW OUR CODE AMENDMENT TODAY ISN'T CHANGING THAT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM? COMMISSIONERS? OKAY.
MR. WADE, UH, COMMISSIONERS NUMBER 16 HAS BEEN BRIEFED BEFORE AND I THINK WE HAVE SOME STAFF AVAILABILITY FOR ABOUT THREE MINUTES, SO MAYBE WE'LL JUST, WE'LL, UH, WE'LL TABLE IT FOR NOW AND WE'LL TAKE QUESTIONS BEFORE THE, THE HEARING IF WE HAVE ANY.
IF THERE ARE ANY OUTSTANDING QUESTIONS ON NUMBER 16, THEN WE WILL CIRCLE BACK TO THOSE, UH, BEFORE WE HEAR THE CASE.
NUMBER 17 IS GONNA BE HELD UNDER ADVISEMENT TILL SEPTEMBER 19TH.
COMMISSIONERS, EXCELLENT, UH, COMMISSIONERS, IT'S 11:17 AM THAT CONCLUDES THE BRIEFING OF THE DALLAS CITY PLAN COMMISSION RECORD TIME.
[CALL TO ORDER]
GOOD AFTERNOON.WE'RE GONNA GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED.
MS. LOPEZ, CAN YOU PLEASE START US OUT WITH THE ROLL CALL? GOOD AFTERNOON COMMISSIONERS.
DISTRICT ONE COMMISSIONER SCHOCK, DISTRICT TWO.
COMMISSIONER HAMPTON PRESENT, DISTRICT THREE.
COMMISSIONER HERBERT PRESENT, DISTRICT FOUR.
COMMISSIONER FORSYTH PRESENT, DISTRICT FIVE.
CHAIR SHADI PRESENT DISTRICT SIX.
COMMISSIONER CARPENTER PRESENT, DISTRICT SEVEN.
COMMISSIONER BLAIR PRESENT, DISTRICT NINE.
COMMISSIONER HALL PRESENT DISTRICT 14.
COMMISSIONER KINGSTON HERE AND PLACE 15 VICE CHAIR RUBEN HERE YOU HAVE QUORUM, SIR.
GOOD AFTERNOON LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
TODAY IS THURSDAY, AUGUST 22ND.
IT IS 12:32 PM WELCOME TO THE DALLAS CITY PLAN COMMISSION.
A COUPLE OF QUICK ANNOUNCEMENTS BEFORE WE GET STARTED.
OUR SPEAKER GUIDELINES, UH, ALL SPEAKERS WILL RECEIVE THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK, UH, PER OUR RULES.
IN CASES WHERE THERE IS OPPOSITION, THE APPLICANT WILL RECEIVE A TWO MINUTE REBUTTAL.
WE DO HAVE SOME SPEAKERS REGISTERED TO SPEAK ONLINE.
IF YOU ARE ONE OF THOSE ONLINE SPEAKERS, MAKE SURE THAT YOUR CAMERA IS ON AND WORKING.
STATE LAW REQUIRES THAT WE SEE YOU IN ORDER TO HEAR FROM YOU.
UH, WELL PLEASE ASK ALL THE SPEAKERS TO, TO BEGIN YOUR COMMENTS WITH YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
AND WITH THAT WE'RE GONNA GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED.
UH, THERE ARE SOME AGENDAS DOWN HERE IF YOU WOULD LIKE A COPY AT THE TABLE TO THE BOTTOM TO YOUR RIGHT.
[01:50:02]
ALSO DOWN HERE AT THE TABLE YOU'RE GONNA FIND THESE LITTLE YELLOW FORMS. I WOULD LOVE FOR EACH OF YOU TO PLEASE AT SOME POINT TODAY TO FILL OUT ONE OF THESE FORMS SO WE HAVE A RECORD OF YOUR VISIT WITH US HERE TODAY.AND WITH THAT, AGAIN, WELCOME.
UH, WE'RE GONNA GET STARTED, COMMISSIONERS
[1. 24-2538 An application for a development plan on property zoned Planned Development District No. 1012, on the west line of Stemmons Freeway Service Road, north of Viceroy Drive.]
WITH THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN.ITEM NUMBER 1D 2 34 DASH ZERO FIVE APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT PLAN ON PROPERTY ZONE PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 10 12 ON THE WEST LINE OF STEMMONS FREEWAY SERVICE ROAD NORTH OF V VANCE ROY DRIVE.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL.
SEE THAT THE APPLICANT IS HERE.
ANDREW REIG, 2201 MAIN STREET, UH, DALLAS, TEXAS HERE, UH, REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT, SALVATION ARMY.
UH, JUST WANTED TO THANK STAFF FOR THE, UH, THOROUGH BRIEFING THIS MORNING.
AND, UH, MENTION THE TWO NOTES THAT WERE THE CHANGES TO THE PLAN THAT WERE NOT IN THE, UH, DOCKET, WHICH WAS THE, UH, DECELERATION LANE NOTE, UM, ON STEMMONS FREEWAY SERVICE ROAD, AND A CLARIFICATION OF THE NUMBER OF, UH, TRANSITIONAL HOUSING UNITS.
UH, I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS IF THERE ARE ANY.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO BE HEARD ON THIS ITEM? THIS IS ITEM NUMBER ONE.
COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? OH, WE DO HAVE A REGISTERED SPEAKER, DON'T WE? IS MR. PERRY ONLINE? NO, NOT ONLINE.
PATRICK PERRY, NOT LINE COMMISSIONERS.
QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SEEING NONE.
COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? YES.
IN THE MATTER OF D 2 34 DASH 0 0 5 I MOVE THAT WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND FOLLOW STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL AS BRIEFED.
COMMISSIONER CARPENTER FOR YOUR MOTION.
COMMISSIONER HOUSE RIGHT FOR YOUR SECOND.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.
[Zoning Cases - Consent]
COMMISSIONERS, WE'LL NOW MOVE TO OUR ZONING CASES UNDER ADVISEMENT.THOSE CASES ARE TH TWO THROUGH EIGHT CASES FOUR, FIVE, AND SEVEN HAVE COME OFF.
CONSENT WILL BE HEARD INDIVIDUALLY.
THAT LEAVES CASES 4, 5, 6 AND SEVEN SIX AS WELL CAME OFF 6, 4, 5, 6 AND SEVEN CAME OFF, FIVE CAME OFF AND SEVEN FIVE CAME OFF.
THERE WAS SOME LANGUAGE THAT NEEDS TO BE CORRECTED SO THAT LEAVES CASES TWO, THREE, AND EIGHT THAT WILL BE DISPOSED OF IN ONE MOTION UNLESS THERE IS SOMEONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON ANY OF THOSE THREE CASES.
CASES NUMBERS TWO, THREE OR EIGHT.
IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON ANY OF THOSE ITEMS? SO WE'LL PULL IT OFF AND, AND, UH, HEAR IT INDIVIDUALLY.
OKAY, LET'S GET THOSE RIGHT IN PLEASE.
AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR A PRIVATE RECREATION CENTER, CLUB, OR AREA ON PROPERTIES ZONED IN R SEVEN 50.
A SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF WOODCREST LANE AND SKILLMAN STREET STAFF'S.
RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL FOR A FIVE-YEAR PERIOD WITH ELIG ELIGIBILITY FOR AUTOMATIC RENEWAL FOR ADDITIONAL FIVE-YEAR PERIOD.
SUBJECT TO A SITE PLAN, A LANDSCAPE PLAN AND CONDITIONS ITEM THREE KC 2 34 DASH 58 AND APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO SPECIFIC USE PERMIT NUMBER 27 1 FOR A DETACH NON-US SIGN BILLBOARD ON PROPERTIES ZONE PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 10 13 WITH DEED RESTRICTIONS Z 8 45 2 27 ON THE SOUTH LINE OF LBJ FREEWAY WEST OF BANK WAY.
RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL FOR A 10 YEAR PERIOD SUBJECT TO AMENDED CONDITIONS.
AND ITEM EIGHT KC 2 3 4 DASH 23.
AN APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO SPECIFIC USE PERMIT NUMBER 2211 FOR A BAR, LOUNGE OR TAVERN AND AN INSIDE COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT LIMITED TO A LIVE MUSIC VENUE ON A PROPERTY ZONE TRACT A WITHIN PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 2 6 9, THE DEEP LM NEAR EAST SIDE DISTRICT ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF COMMERCE STREET AND MURRAY STREET STAFF'S.
RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL FOR A THREE YEAR PERIOD SUBJECT TO AMENDED CONDITIONS.
COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS ON CASES TWO, THREE, AND EIGHT? OKAY, WE'RE READY FOR MOTION.
COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, I AM HAPPY TO ORDER DEFER TO COMMISSIONER SLEEPER, BUT I'M IN THE ZONING CONSENT
[01:55:01]
AGENDA ITEMS TWO, THREE AND EIGHT.I MOVE THAT WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND FOLLOW STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HAMPTON FOR YOUR MOTION.
COMMISSIONER SHERLOCK FOR YOUR SECOND.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.
[4. 24-2541 An application for a Specific Use Permit for commercial motor vehicle parking on property zoned an LI Light Industrial District with deed restrictions [Z212-207], on the northwest line of Telephone Road, between Bonnie View Road and Van Horn Drive.]
NOW MOVE TO CASE NUMBER FOUR.CASE NUMBER FOUR IS Z 2 34 DASH 1 61 AND APPLICATION FOR SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLE PARKING ON PROPERTY ZONED IN LI LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT WITH DEED RESTRICTIONS Z TWO 12 DASH 2 0 7 ON THE NORTHWEST LINE OF TELEPHONE ROAD BETWEEN BONVIEW ROAD AND VANHORN DRIVE.
STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL FOR A FIVE YEAR PERIOD WITH ELIGIBILITY FOR AUTOMATIC RENEWALS FOR ADDITIONAL FIVE YEAR PERIODS SUBJECT TO A SITE PLANNING CONDITIONS.
I SEE THAT THE APPLICANT IS HERE.
ROB BALDWIN 3 9 0 4 ELM STREET, SUITE B IN DALLAS.
I'M HERE ING THE PROPERTY OWNER IN THIS REQUEST FOR A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR MOTOR VEHICLE, UH, TRUCK PARKING ON A 33.6 ACRE SITE IN A UH, INLAND PORT.
UH, I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO BE HEARD ON THIS ITEM? COMMISSIONERS QUESTIONS FOR MR. BALDWIN? OH, YES SIR.
YES, MY NAME IS JULIAN AND THIS IS MY WIFE GLORIA MOHAMED.
WE ARE AT THIRTY NINE OH ONE TELEPHONE ROAD, DALLAS, TEXAS SEVEN FIVE TWO FOUR ONE.
WE ARE ADJACENT OUR PROPERTY, OUR HOME THAT WE'VE BEEN LIVING AT FOR OVER 20 YEARS IS ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY THAT, UH, AND WE'RE DISCUSSING HERE AND WE ARE OPPOSED TO IT, BUT WE ARE OPPOSED TO IT IF, I MEAN, WE WOULD AGREE TO IT IF, IF A WALL IS BUILT ON THE PROPERTY LINE TO SEPARATE US BECAUSE WE ARE AFRAID OF THE NOISE, THE SAFETY OF SAFETY OF OUR GRANDCHILDREN PLAYING IN THIS AREA, UH, THE IDLING TIMES OF THE TRUCKS.
AND WE PULL UP A CODE FROM, UH, THAT STATES THAT NO MORE THAN FIVE CONTINUOUS MINUTES SHOULD BE IDLING FOR TRUCKS AND 300 AWAY AND 300 FEET AWAY FROM OUR RESIDENCE AND THE HOURS IS IN AND OUT.
THE TEXAS, UH, TRANSMISSION CODE SAID THAT NO PARKING BETWEEN 10:00 PM AND 6:00 PM THE PARKING LOT FAR AS LIGHTING.
UH, THE LIGHTING CANNOT CROSS PROPERTY LINE HEIGHT NOT TO EXCEED 30 FEET.
SO WE ARE JUST CONCERNED ABOUT OUR PROPERTY AND OUR CHILDREN AND OUR FAMILY BECAUSE WE'VE BEEN, WE'VE MADE THIS OUR HOME FOR OVER 20 YEARS AND WE KNOW THAT THESE TRUCKS HERE ARE GONNA BE, BEING PARKED NEXT TO US IS GONNA CREATE A LOT OF NOISE AND, AND POSSIBLY MAYBE INJURY TO OUR, OUR GRANDCHILDREN PLAYING IN OUR, IN OUR YARD.
SO WE, WE OPPOSE IF A, A A A WALL IS NOT PUT UP DOWN THE PROPERTY LINE.
UH, MR. BALDWIN, PER OUR RULES.
YOU GET A TWO MINUTE REBUTTAL, SIR.
Y'ALL, THOUGH HAVE BEEN ON THE COMMISSION FOR A FEW YEARS, MAY REMEMBER THIS CASE IN OCTOBER OF 22.
UH, WE REZONED THE PROPERTY ADJACENT TO THE GENTLEMAN'S PROPERTY AND PUT DEED RESTRICTIONS ON IT.
THEY REQUIRED US TO BUILD A WALL AND, UH, OTHER SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND THOSE STILL ARE IN EFFECT AND WILL BE IMPLEMENTED BEFORE WE COULD DO ANYTHING ON THE PROPERTY.
UH, COMMISSIONER'S QUESTIONS FOR MR. BALDWIN? COMMISSIONER BLAIR? MR. BALDWIN? YES, MA'AM.
SO WHEN WE ORIGINALLY DID THIS, UH, THIS PROJECT, WE DID THESE, THESE CHANGES, WE DID DO ALONG THEIR PROPERTY LINE THERE THAT THE A DID AT THAT PARTICULAR TIME DIDN'T, UM, THE PROPERTY OWNERS TO THE NEXT TO YOU, THEY DID ASK FOR SOME TYPE OF FENCING OR WALL OR SOMETHING TO BE BUILT ALONG THOSE PROPERTY LINES, CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.
AND AT THIS PARTICULAR, EXCEPT FOR WHERE THE, ALL THE, IN THE BACK IT GOES INTO THE CREEK.
SO AT THAT PARTICULAR TIME, THERE WAS NO BI THERE WAS NO, YOU HAD NOT BUILT ON THE, THE, YOU WERE NOT BUILT ON THE, YOUR ON THE LOT THAT WE DID, THE DEED RESTRICTION.
I MEAN WE DID THE CHANGES IN THAT PRESENTED TO DEED RESTRICTIONS, CORRECT? CORRECT.
SO AT THIS PARTICULAR TIME, HAVE YOU, HAS ANYTHING BEEN BUILT ON THAT SIDE? NO, MA'AM.
IS THERE ANY PLANS AT THIS PARTICULAR TIME TO BUILD ON THAT? AT THIS POINT THERE'S BEEN NO PLANS FOR THE WAREHOUSE AT THIS POINT.
THERE'S, MY UNDERSTANDING IS IN THE
[02:00:01]
NEAR FUTURE, UH, WHEN THE, UM, SOME OF THE WAREHOUSES THAT HAVE BEEN BUILT BUT HAVE NOT BEEN OCCUPIED YET, WHEN THOSE LEASE UP IN THIS PROPERTY WOULD TRANSFERRED OVER TOWARDS THAT.SO AT THIS PARTICULAR TIME, BECAUSE THERE ARE WAREHOUSES THAT ARE NOT OCCUPIED, YOURS IS NOT BEING BUILT, CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.
AND ONCE THE NEED ARISES, THEN THAT WILL BE DONE, CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT.
AND IT WILL BE DONE PER THE SPECIFICATIONS OF THE RESTRICTIONS THAT WERE ORIGINALLY DEVELOPED AT THE TIME THE, THE ZONING CHANGE WENT THROUGH THREE YEARS AGO, CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONERS FOR MR. BALLWIN? QUESTIONS FOR MR. MOHAMMAD? COMMISSIONER BLAIR? MR. MOHAMMED? YES.
YOU NEED TO, TO GO UP TO THE MIC? YES.
SO WHEN THE, THE, WHEN WE ORIGINALLY WENT THROUGH THIS PARTICULAR PROCESS AND YOU WERE VERY ADAMANT ABOUT WHAT YOUR NEEDS WERE, BUT IT WAS ALSO VERY, UM, UM, INFORMED, INFORMATIVE THAT NOT, NOT ONLY DO YOU DO BUSINESS AT THIS PARTICULAR LOCATION IN WHICH YOU LIVE, CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.
YOU ARE YOU STILL DOING BUSINESS AT THE LOCATION IN WHICH YOU LIVE? THAT IS CORRECT.
AND SO YOUR BUSINESS IS STILL IN EFFECT AND, BUT YOU CAN'T ADVERTISE IT.
IS THAT NOT CORRECT? I DON'T UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION.
YOU CAN'T ADVERTISE YOUR BUSINESS WITH AT THIS, YOU CAN'T PUT SIGNS.
I DON'T, I DON'T ADVERTISE MY BUSINESS.
SO WHEN AND IF THIS PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT IS, UM, THE NEEDS TO, TO ARISE FOR THEM TO ACTUALLY DO WHAT THEY ARE ZONED TO DO, AND THEY ARE IN AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE YOU WITH THE, THE MASONRY WALL THAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR AND THE RESTRICTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN ALREADY MADE WITH THIS PARTICULAR APPLICANT, THEY WILL BE IN CO COMPLIANCY TO YOUR REQUEST, IS THAT NOT CORRECT? MEANING THAT YOU'LL GET THE WALL? YES.
DO YOU DO UNDERSTAND THAT YOU WILL GET THE WALL AND THERE WILL BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH LIGHTING AS YOU HAVE, HAVE FORMALLY REQUESTED AND, AND IT HAS BEEN CODIFIED IN DE RESTRICTIONS, RIGHT? YES.
JUST TO, JUST TO TRY TO CLARIFY A POINT, IS THIS, UH, THIS MEETING TODAY, IS IT FOR, UH, I THOUGHT IT WAS FOR COMMERCIAL PARKING ONLY.
YOU ALL ARE TALKING ABOUT BUILDING A STRUCTURE NOW.
SO WHICH IS IT, IS IT, IS IT BUILDING A WAREHOUSE OR IS IT JUST COMMERCIAL? IT'S JUST FOR PARKING RIGHT NOW.
UH, MR. MOHAMMAD, UH, I, I THINK I REMEMBER YOU, YOU SPOKE THE LAST TIME WHEN THIS ITEM CAME UP.
SO IF I'M UNDERSTANDING YOUR COMMENTS THAT YOU MADE INITIALLY, IT, IT SEEMS LIKE MAYBE THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF CONFUSION IN TERMS OF WHAT WE PASSED THE LAST TIME VERSUS WHAT IS HAPPENING HERE TODAY.
UH, IN, IN TERMS OF WHAT, UH, COMMISSIONER BLAIR MENTIONED, THERE'S A, SOME, A SET OF STEPS THAT WERE KIND OF IMMORTALIZED THE LAST TIME WE HAD THIS CASE, AND I'M WONDERING IF MAYBE YOU AND, UH, MR. BALDWIN HAD GOT TOGETHER, MAYBE TALKED IT THROUGH, MAYBE THERE MIGHT CLEAR UP SOME OF THE CONFUSION ON YOUR PART, SIR.
WE HAVEN'T TALKED AND, AND OUR CONCERN REALLY IS JUST THE, THE FACT THAT THE, THE, THE POLLUTION IN THERE AND THE SAFETY OF OUR GRANDCHILDREN BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT THESE BIG TRUCKS WILL BE NEXT DOOR TO US AND OUR CHILDREN, OUR GRANDCHILDREN PLAY IN THE BACK, BACK THERE IN THE YARD, AND THAT'S A SAFETY ISSUE WE THOUGHT.
SO WE ARE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THAT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR OUR SPEAKERS? QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? OKAY.
COMMISSIONER BLAIR, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? YES, IN THE MATTER OF Z 2 3 4 1 61.
I MOVE THAT WE CLOSE A PUBLIC HEARING AND WE, UH, APPROVE FOR A FIVE YEAR PERIOD SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN PLANNING CONDITIONS.
OKAY, CO COMMISSIONERS, WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BLAIR, SECOND BY VICE CHAIR RUBIN TO CLOSE UP A HEARING, FALSE RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL FOR A FIVE YEAR PERIOD AND AUTOMATIC RENEWALS SUBJECT TO SITE PLANNING CONDITIONS.
THIS PARTICULAR CASE, UM, AS YOU CAN HEAR HAS
[02:05:01]
IS ONE THAT WAS, UH, MEMORIALIZED TWO YEARS AGO.IT WAS TWO YEARS WITH NO AUTO AT THAT PARTICULAR TIME.
IT WAS TO COME BACK BEFORE CPC IF THERE WERE ANY CHANGES THAT THAT GAVE US THE OPPORTUNITY TO, UM, TO MAKE SURE THAT MR. HAM'S NEEDS HAD BEEN MET.
I AM, BECAUSE THE NEEDS, THERE HAVE NOT BEEN ANY CHANGES AND THE, THE NEEDS THAT HE HAS ASKED FOR ARE MEMORIALIZED IN THE DEED RESTRICTIONS.
I'M NOT GOING TO, UM, PROVIDE A FIVE YEAR AUTO JUST SO THAT IN THE, WHEN THE APPLICANT IS READY TO, UH, WAIT A MINUTE, I DON'T WANT MY COMPUTER TO GO OUT WHEN THE APPLICANT IS READY TO ACTUALLY DO, AS THE, THE ZONING REQUEST HAS GIVEN HIM THE OPPORTUNITY.
HE STILL, INSTEAD OF GIVING HIM AUTO RENEWALS, HE STILL HAS TO COME BACK BEFORE THIS BOARD AND TO ENSURE THAT MR. MUHAMMAD IS HIS SAFETY AND THE THE REQUIREMENTS THAT HA HE HAS ASKED FOR ARE STILL BEING HONORED.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? COMMISSIONERS? SEEING NONE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.
ANY, ANY OPPOSED OR IN OPPOSITION? UH, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER.
[5. 24-2542 An application for an amendment to Specific Use Permit No. 1393 for a private school on property zoned an R-7.5(A) Single Family District, on the east line of Rugged Drive, north of West Ledbetter Drive.]
NUMBER FIVE.THIS IS CASE NUMBER FIVE Z 2 3 4 1 73.
AN APPLICATION FOR AMEN TO SPECIFIC USE PERMIT NUMBER 1393 FOR A PRIVATE SCHOOL ON PROPERTIES ZONE.
R SEVEN FIVE SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT ON THE EAST LINE OF R DRIVE, NORTHWEST OF LEDBETTER DRIVE.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS, APPROVAL FOR A 20 YEAR PERIOD WITH ELIGIBILITY FOR AUTOMATIC RENEWAL FOR AN ADDITIONAL 20 YEAR PERIOD SUBJECT TO A TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN AND AMENDED CONDITIONS.
IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? THIS IS NUMBER FIVE ON PAGE THREE.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SEEING NONE.
COMMISSIONER FORESIGHT, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? YES.
CHAIRMAN SHADI IN THE MATTER OF CASE C 2 34 DASH 1 73, I MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE THIS ITEM SUBJECT TO A TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN AND STAFF'S RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS WITH THE FOLLOWING, CHANGE THE HOURS OF OPERATION.
THE PRIVATE SCHOOL MAY ONLY OPERATE BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 7:00 AM AND 10:00 PM THANK YOU.
COMMISSIONER FORSYTH FOR YOUR MOTION.
COMMISSIONER HOUSE FOR YOUR SECOND.
ANY DISCUSSION? COMMISSIONER FORSYTH, WHAT WAS THE TIME PERIOD YOU WERE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF 7:00 AM AND 10:00 PM THE TIME PERIOD OF THE SUP OH UH, UH, 20 YEAR PERIOD WITH ELIGIBILITY FOR AUTOMATIC RENEWAL FOR ADDITIONAL 20 YEAR PERIOD.
ANY DISCUSSION COMMISSIONERS? UH, UH, ME? YES, SIR.
SO I KNOW THAT THERE'S A, A, A LARGE FOOTBALL, UM, FAMILY AND AT BISHOP DUNN HIGH SCHOOL, THE 10 O'CLOCK TIMEFRAME, IS THAT ENOUGH TIME FOR THEM TO SHUT DOWN THE, THE, THE ARENA AND DO WHAT THEY NEED TO DO TO GET THE STUDENTS OUT HERE? UM, I, I, UH, WAS ADVISED BY MR. UH, MOORE.
SO, UH, COMMISSIONER HERBERT, THERE WAS A TIME THAT THE APPLICANTS REQUESTED WHEN I SPOKE WITH THE APPLICANT, HE SAID THAT THERE WILL BE ENOUGH TIME FOR THE LIGHTS TO BE OFF AND EVERYONE TO BE CLEARED OUT.
AND JUST FOR THE RECORD, THE ITEM WAS, WAS NOT PULLED OFF CONSENT BY COMMISSIONER FORT SIDE OR A COMMISSIONER, BUT RATHER, UH, MR. MOORE TO, TO FIX A COUPLE OF ERRORS IN THE LANGUAGE.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? COMMISSIONERS, SEEING NONE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.
[6. 24-2543 An application for a Specific Use Permit for vehicle display, sales, and service on property zoned Subdistrict 1 within Planned Development District No. 535, the C. F. Hawn Special Purpose District No. 3, with a D-1 Liquor Control Overlay, on the west corner of C. F. Hawn Freeway and Ellenwood Drive.]
ITEM SIX IS CASE Z 2 34 DASH 1 93.AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR VEHICLE DISPLAY
[02:10:01]
SALES AND SERVICE ON PROPERTY ZONE SUBDISTRICT ONE WITHIN PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 5 3 5.THE CF HAN SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICT NUMBER THREE WITH THE D ONE LIQUOR CONTROL OVERLAY ON THE WEST CORNER OF CF HAN FREEWAY IN ELLENWOOD DRIVE.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL FOR A FOUR YEAR PERIOD SUBJECT TO A SITE PLAN AND CONDITIONS.
IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? GOOD AFTERNOON.
GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONERS.
COMMISSIONER BLAIR? UH, MY NAME IS MICHAEL STANLEY.
SHE'S HERE BECAUSE I HAVE HAD AN UNFORTUNATE INCIDENT WITH A TABLE.
SO, UM, I'M HERE REPRESENTING THE OWNERS OF SALES, AUTO SALES AND PARTS.
WE ARE REQUESTING SUP, UH, FOR AUTO SALES AND DISPLAY.
WE PREVIOUSLY HAD THIS, IT'S KIND OF EXPIRED.
AND I HAVE THE OWNERS AND SEVERAL OTHER COMMUNITY MEMBERS WITH ME.
I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.
ANYBODY ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK? NO.
JUST HERE FOR SUPPORT COMMISSIONERS.
ANY QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONER FORESIGHT? NO.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? COMMISSIONERS, QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? OKAY.
SEEING NONE, COMMISSIONER BLAIR, DO YOU HAVE A MARSHAL IN THE MATTER OF Z 2 3 4 1 93? I MOVE THAT WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FILE STATUS, RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL FOR FOUR YEAR PERIOD, SUBJECT AS SITE PLAN CONDITION.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER BLAIR FOR YOUR MOTION AND I'LL SECOND IT.
UH, ANY DISCUSSION PLEASE? COMMISSIONER BLAIR? THIS PARTICULAR SITE WE SAW, UM, TODAY WAS ONE THAT HAS BEEN AROUND FOR A WHILE.
THIS PD, PD 5 9 5 35 IS A SHARED PD BETWEEN DISTRICT EIGHT AND DISTRICT FIVE, WHICH IS RIGHT ON, I HAVE A SMALL PORTION OF THIS PD AND THE MAJORITY OF THIS PD BELONGS TO, UM, DISTRICT FIVE AND MY, IN OUR CHAIR.
UM, SHE DID, I ASKED THAT HE TAKE A LOOK AT THIS SITE.
I, I WOULD, WAS NOT WILLING TO MAKE A DEC A FINAL DECISION UNLESS I HAD HIS AGREEMENT AND HIS CONCURRENCE.
SO I WILL AGREE TO A FOUR YEAR PERIOD SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN AND CONDITIONS.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? COMMISSIONERS? OKAY, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
[7. 24-2544 An application for an amendment to an expansion of Specific Use Permit No. 2076 to for an inside commercial amusement limited to a live music venue and dance hall on property zoned Tract A within Planned Development No. 269, the Deep Ellum/Near East Side District, on the southwest line of South Crowdus Street, between Clover Street and Canton Street.]
TAKES US TO NUMBER SEVEN.CASE NUMBER SEVEN IS KC 2 34 DASH 2 0 3.
AN APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO AN EXPANSION OF SPECIFIC USE PERMIT NUMBER 2076 FOR AN INSIDE COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT LIMITED TO A LIVE MUSIC VENUE IN DANCE HALL ON PROPERTY ZONE TRACK A WITHIN PLAN DEVELOPMENT NUMBER 2 6 9.
THE DEEP EL NEAR EAST SIDE, THE DISTRICT ON THE SOUTHWEST LINE OF, SO CROWDER STREET BETWEEN CLOVER STREET IN CANTON STREET STAFFS.
RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL FOR A SEVEN YEAR PERIOD WITH ELIGIBILITY FOR AUTOMATIC RENEWALS FOR ADDITIONAL FIVE YEAR PERIODS, SUBJECT TO AN AMENDED SITE PLAN AND AMENDED CONDITIONS.
IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? THIS IS NUMBER SEVEN, TOP OF PAGE FOUR COMMISSIONERS.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS ITEM? OKAY, CNO.
COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? I DO.
IN THE MATTER OF Z 2 3 4 DASH 2 0 3, I MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE THE REQUEST PER STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR A SEVEN YEAR PERIOD WITH ELIGIBILITY FOR AUTOMATIC RENEWALS FOR ADDITIONAL FIVE YEAR PERIODS, SUBJECT TO AMENDED CONDITIONS AND AN AMENDED SITE PLAN REVISED TO INCLUDE ITEMS AS SHOWN ON THE EXISTING SITE PLAN AS FOLLOWS, SITE DATA SUMMARY TO INCLUDE ZONING, BLOCK COVERAGE AREAS AND PARKING TABULATION, NO ROOFTOP PATIO ON STREET PARKING AND ACCESSIBLE ACCESS, CURB RAMPS, ENTRANCE EGRESS, AND LOADING STATIONS.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HAMPTON FOR YOUR MOTION AND COMMISSIONER
[02:15:01]
HOUSE RIGHT FOR YOUR SECOND.ANY ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM? JUST A BRIEF COMMENT IF I MAY.
I JUST WANTED TO NOTE FOR THE COMMISSION, SEVEN YEARS IS LONGER THAN I WOULD TYPICALLY RECOMMEND.
UM, THIS IS AN OWNER WHO HAS AN EXISTING AUTO RENEWAL, SUP, THERE BEFORE US TODAY BECAUSE AN ADJACENT SUITE THAT HAS ALWAYS BEEN FUNCTIONALLY A PART OF THE PROPERTY IS BEING ADDED TO THE SUP.
JUST TO CLARIFY THROUGH THEIR REVIEW WITH STAFF, UM, PENDING THAT, UM, ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW AND GETTING THAT CLEANED UP, IT'S GOING BACK TO FIVE YEARS, WHICH ARE TYPICAL.
AND THEN MAINTAINING THE AUTO RENEWALS, WHICH THEY ALREADY HAD.
THEY'RE LONG TERM OPERATOR IN THE AREA AND I HOPE THE FELLOW COMMISSIONERS WILL SUPPORT THE MOTION.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? COMMISSIONERS? SEEING NONE.
TAKES US TO OUR FIRST CASE UNDER ADVISEMENT NUMBER NINE.
[9. 24-2546 An application for a Planned Development District for specific residential and nonresidential uses on property zoned an MH(A) Manufactured Home District, an A(A) Agricultural District, an LI Light Industrial District, and an R-5(A) Single Family District with consideration for an R-5(A) District, on the west side of Ingersoll Street, on the west side of Iroquois Drive, and north of Nomas Street.]
NUMBER NINE IS KZ 2 2 3 301.AN APPLICATION FOR A PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FOR SPECIFIC RE RESIDENTIAL NON-RESIDENTIAL USES ON PROPERTY ZONE IN MHA MANUFACTURER HOME DISTRICT IN AA, AGRICULTURE DISTRICT, LI LINE, INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT, AND AN R FIVE, A SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT WITH CONSIDERATION FOR AN R FIVE, A DISTRICT ON THE WEST SIDE OF AL STREET ON THE WEST SIDE S DRIVE AND NORTH OF NOMAS STREET STATE.
RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL OF AN R FIVE A DISTRICT IN LIEU OF A PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH MS. GARZA.
IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO BE HEARD? GOOD AFTERNOON.
I ACTUALLY HAVE A PRESENTATION IF WE CAN GET THAT LOADED UP.
UH, CARLOS TALLON, UH, TH 33 0 9 M STREET, SUITE B, DALLAS, TEXAS 7 5 2 0 3.
I'M HERE REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT FOR THE REQUEST FOR A PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FOR SINGLE FAMILY USES.
I'D LIKE TO START THIS SAYING, WE WORK VERY CLOSELY WITH COMMISSIONER CARPENTER IN CREATING PD CONDITIONS THAT WERE, UH, CONDUCIVE FOR THE NEIGHBORING, UH, THE, THE NEIGHBORHOOD SURROUNDING THE SITE, AS WELL AS TO MAKE A GREAT PRODUCT FOR OUR, UH, APPLICANT.
SO WE'RE GONNA START WITH THE ZONING MAP.
YOU CAN SEE, UH, WE HAVE THREE COLORS HERE.
SO IN THE YELLOW TO THE NORTH, THAT'S GONNA BE MA MANUFACTURED HOME, UH, SOUTH, AND THE PURPLE IS GONNA BE THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT.
AND THE D DONUT HOLE IN THE CENTER IS GONNA BE, UH, AGRICULTURAL.
IT'S APPROXIMATELY 45, UH, ACRE SITE.
AND NOW WE HAVE OUR CONCEPTUAL PLAN.
SO HERE ON THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN, YOU'LL SEE THAT WE HAVE THREE SUB AREAS.
WE HAVE SUB AREA A, SUB AREA B, AND SUB AREA C.
THE MINIMUM LOT COVERAGE, THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE FOR SUB AREAS A AND B ARE GONNA BE 4,000 SQUARE FEET LOTS.
SUB AREA C IS GONNA BE A MINIMUM OF 2000 SQUARE FOOT LOTS, UH, DELINEATED BY THE GRAY.
ON THE, ON THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN ARE GONNA BE THE OPEN SPACE AREAS, WHICH WE WORKED WITH COMMISSIONER, UH, CARPENTER TO CREATE A 20% OF THE DEVELOPMENT WE'RE GONNA BE OPEN SPACE AS OPPOSED TO THE NORMAL 10% OF THE DEVELOPMENT, UH, IN THOSE OPEN SPACES WILL BE SHADE, SHADE STRUCTURES, PLAYGROUNDS, PARK BENCHES, THINGS OF THAT SORT.
UH, AND SUB AREA B, THERE'RE GONNA BE A MINIMUM OF FIVE OF THOSE ACTIVATIONS.
UH, AND THAT'S, UH, OPEN SPACE AND SUB AREAS A AND C ARE GONNA BE A MINIMUM OF TWO OF THOSE ACTIVATIONS OF EACH OF THE OPEN SPACES.
ALSO, YOU'LL SEE IF YOU CAN SEE THE DOTS HERE.
WE HAVE FIVE LOCATIONS WHERE YOU WILL ENTER OUR NEW DEVELOPMENT FROM THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT.
WE'LL GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE WHERE YOU'LL SEE MORE OF A LAYOUT.
UH, SPEAKING WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND HAVING A NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING, UH, THEY WERE VERY ADAMANT THAT THEY DID NOT WANT TO HAVE A GATED COMMUNITY, SO THEREFORE NONE OF THE FIVE ENTRANCES TO THE COMMUNITY ARE GATED.
UH, THEY'LL BE FREE FLOWING FROM THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD TO THE PROPOSED NEIGHBORHOOD.
ALSO, THOSE STREETS WILL BE UP TO CITY STANDARDS, UM, 53 FOOT RIGHT OF WAVES.
UM, AND IT WAS PROVIDE EASY FLOW ALSO FROM THE, UH, COMMUNITY MEETING THEY DID.
UH, IF YOU SEE SOME OTHER WEST DALLAS DEVELOPMENTS, THEY'RE HAVING, UH, THREE FOOT DEVELOPMENTS HOMES AND THEY'RE HAVING PATIOS LOOKING OVER INTO THE SKYLINE OF DALLAS.
THEY WERE ADAMANT THEY DIDN'T WANT THE, THAT HEIGHT IN THE COMMUNITY.
SO WE ALSO ADDED A MINIMUM, A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 30 FEET AND A MAXIMUM STORY OF TWO STORIES.
SO WE WOULD NOT BE, UH, NO ONE WOULD BE PERCHING INTO THE LOTS OF THE, UM, THE, THE, UH, EXISTING DEVELOPMENT.
UH, I'LL STAND BY FOR ANY QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE ANY.
[02:20:02]
IS MR. MARTINEZ ONLINE? I'M NOT ONLINE.IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO BE HEARD ON THIS ITEM? COMMISSIONERS.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. TOWSON, PLEASE? COMMISSIONER BLAIR.
UM, MR. TOWSON, I, I, IN THE REPORT IT SAID 36 FEET HEIGHT, BUT YOU'RE SEEING 30 FEET.
WE WORKED OUT WITH COMMISSIONER CARPENTER AND SO, AND, AND WITH A AGREEMENT.
NONE OF THE HOUSING WILL BE MORE THAN TWO STORIES HIGH.
NONE MORE THAN TWO STORIES AND NO, UH, PATIOS.
NO ROOFTOP PATIOS ALLOWED EITHER.
NO ROOFTOP PATIOS LOOKING OVER.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONERS QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SEE NONE.
COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? YES.
IN THE MATTER OF Z 2 23 DASH 3 0 1, I MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND FOLLOW STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL, BUT FOR A PD SUBJECT TO A CONCEPTUAL PLAN AND APPLICANT'S RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGES FOR SECTION 51 P DASH 1 0 6 P DEVELOPMENT PLAN, FOLLOW STAFF'S CONDITIONS FOR SECTION 51 P DASH 1 0 9 YARD LOT AND SPACE REGULATIONS FOR SUB AREAS A AND B DENSITY SHOULD READ AS MAXIMUM DENSITY IS SIX UNITS PER ACRE.
FOR SUB AREA C DENSITY SHOULD READ AS MAXIMUM DENSITY IS NINE UNITS PER ACRE.
FOR SECTION 51 P DASH ONE 10 PARKING AND LOADING, STRIKE THE MINIMUM GUEST PARKING REQUIREMENT.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER CARPENTER FOR YOUR MOTION AND COMMISSIONER HOUSE FOR YOUR SECOND.
ANY DISCUSSION? COMMISSIONER CARPENTER? YES.
UH, WAS YOUR RECOMMENDATION SUBJECT TO ANY PLAN, DEVELOPMENT PLAN, CONCEPTUAL PLAN, ET CETERA? OH, I'M SORRY.
IT SAID A PD SUBJECT TO CONCEPTUAL PLAN AND APPLICANT'S RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS.
THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION, VICE RUBEN.
YEAH, UM, I'M VERY EXCITED ABOUT THIS CASE AND, UM, I'M SAD THAT IT HAD TO BE A PD, NOT BECAUSE I DON'T THINK A PD WAS THE RIGHT WAY TO DO IT UNDER EXISTING CODE, BUT THE FACT THAT OUR EXISTING ZONING DISTRICTS DON'T NECESSARILY, UM, ACCOMMODATE A DEVELOPMENT LIKE THIS VERY WELL, PARTICULARLY WITH THE LOT SIZES AND THE DESIGN STANDARDS.
SO I LOOK FORWARD TO, UM, YOU KNOW, FUTURE UPDATES, THE DEVELOPMENT CODE THAT, UM, POTENTIALLY MAKES SOMETHING LIKE THIS MUCH MORE EASY TO DO BY BY, RIGHT.
MAYBE WITH SOME LIGHT DEED RESTRICTIONS.
UM, I'M EXCITED TOO THAT THIS TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT IS COMING IN DISTRICT SIX THAT MAKES IT SEEMS THAT IT'S ATTAINABLE HOUSING FOR THE COMMUNITY THAT IS ALREADY THERE.
UM, AND IT'S A, A MORE OF A BLEND THAN SOMETHING THAT COULD BE CONCEIVED AS ARBITRARY IN COMPARISON TO WHAT'S ALREADY WITHIN THAT PARTICULAR NEIGHBORHOOD.
I'M ESPECIALLY EXCITED TO SEE THE GREEN SPACE AND THE WHERE THE GREEN SPACE IS, IS LOCATED AND, AND THE, THE, THE BEAUTY THAT IT APPEARS THAT IT'S GOING, THAT IT COULD BE, UH, THAT THAT COULD BE DEVELOPED HERE.
SO I'M EXCITED TO SEE IT TO BE DEVELOPED AND GROW.
COMMISSIONER BLA UH, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, FOLLOW UP.
COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT? NO, I JUST WANNA SAY THAT, UM, I APPRECIATE THE, UM, EFFORT THAT THE, UM, ZONING REPS AND THE, UM, OWNERS, YOU KNOW, WENT TO AND THE POTENTIAL DEVELOPER IN WORKING OUT A COMPROMISE WITH THE NEIGHBORS.
FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO'VE BEEN ON THIS, UH, BODY FOR A WHILE, WE HAD A VERY CONTENTIOUS PLAT SOME YEARS AGO, UM, FOR THE MANUFACTURED HOUSING PORTION OF THIS SITE.
AND, YOU KNOW, UH, THE COMMUNITY WAS VERY UNHAPPY THAT THAT WAS EVEN A POSSIBILITY.
AND THERE WERE EVEN LESS UNHA, THEY WERE EVEN LESS HAPPY OR MORE UNHAPPY THAT, YOU KNOW, UH, WAREHOUSING OR SOMETHING OF THAT NATURE COULD BE ON THE LOT INDUSTRIAL PORTION.
THEY'D BEEN VERY ADAMANT THROUGH THE YEARS AT WHAT THEY WANTED TO SEE WAS DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.
AND I GUESS ONE OF THE BENEFITS OF THE TIME THIS CASE HAS TAKEN TO WORK OUT IS PEOPLE HAVE COME TO A REALIZATION THAT THERE HAVE TO BE COMPROMISES MADE IF YOU WANT DETACHED, AFFORDABLE HOMES.
SO, UM, YOU KNOW, I'M PROUD OF THE WORK THAT WAS DONE ON THIS CASE, AND I, I THINK IT'S GONNA BE, IT HAS A POTENTIAL FOR BEING A REAL ASSET AND WE'RE ADDING A LOT OF AFFORDABLE OWNERSHIP HOMES, WHICH IS WHAT THE COMMUNITY WANTED TO SEE.
SO I HOPE IT HAS EVERYONE'S SUPPORT.
YEAH, I JUST WANTED TO COMMEND COMMISSIONER CARPENTER FOR HER GOOD WORK ON THIS CASE AND, AND GETTING US TO THIS POINT.
AND THEN I WANTED TO WHOLEHEARTEDLY AGREE WITH VICE CHAIR RUBIN'S REMARKS ABOUT OUR ORDINANCES.
WE'VE GOTTA MAKE NEIGHBORHOODS LIKE THIS EASIER TO DO AND ENCOURAGE DEVELOPERS TO DO THEM.
SO, UM, LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH VICE CHAIR TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? UH, I'LL ALSO BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION
[02:25:01]
FOR ALL THE COMMENTS ALREADY STATED AND JUST WANT TO HIGHLIGHT, AND I THINK COMMISSIONER CARPENTER'S WORK ON THIS ONE AS WELL AS THE APPLICANT.UH, ALL THESE CASES ARE, ARE THEIR OWN STORIES.
THIS ONE IS PARTICULARLY INTERESTING SAGA THAT WE'LL TALK ABOUT SOME OTHER TIME.
BUT, UH, IT, IT, AT ONE POINT, UH, WE DIDN'T THINK THAT WE WOULD GET TO THIS POINT, SO I'M GLAD THAT WE'RE, WE'RE HERE AND HAPPY TO VOTE ON IT AND HAP HAPPY TO SUPPORT IT.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? COMMISSIONERS, SEE? NONE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.
[10. 24-2547 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. (Part 1 of 2)]
QUARTER NUMBER 10, MR. PETTY.UM, Z 2 2, 3, 3, 2, 9 IS AN APPLICATION FOR A PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FOR NOA AND NEIGHBORHOOD OFFICE DISTRICT.
USES AND STANDARDS AND PERSONAL SERVICE USES CONSIDERATION FOR AN NSA NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICE DISTRICT ON PROPERTY ZONED IN R 16, A SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT STAFF LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF ROYAL LANE IN DALLAS, NORTH TO TOLLWAY AND STAFF.
RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL OF AN NSA NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICE DISTRICT IN LIEU OF PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT.
SEE THAT THE APPLICANT IS HERE.
GOOD AFTERNOON IS MILES SEGOVIA STANEC CONSULTING, UH, 70 NORTHEAST LOOP FOUR 10 SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS.
UM, WE DO HAVE A PRESENTATION.
I'M HERE, UH, REPRESENTING THE CONSULTANT.
THIS IS FOR 58 OH SAN ROYAL LANE.
UH, APPLICANT IS LOOKING TO REZONE THE PROPERTY, UH, TO, UH, PLACE A NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICE ON THE SITE.
THIS IS ME AND MY PARTNER ON THE, ON THE CASE, UH, THE STANEC.
AND THIS IS THE ZONING PROPOSAL.
SO WE'RE LOOKING TO DO A STRAIGHT ZONING CHANGE TO, UH, NSA.
IT'S GONNA BE A ONE STORY BUILDING, NO DRIVE THROUGH, UH, NO DRIVEWAYS, UH, TO QUINCY LANE, UH, NO ACCESS, UH, THROUGH THE ALLEY 'CAUSE WE KNOW THAT WAS A MAJOR CONCERN.
AND THEN ADDITION TO PEDESTRIAN AMENDMENTS, UH, TO BE LOCATED ON THE SITE.
AND WE'RE STILL LOOKING AT POTENTIALLY PLACING A SIGN ON THE LOCATION FOR PRESS HOLLOW.
UM, THE LATEST THING THAT CAME OUT WAS WITH THE FORWARD DALLAS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT WAS LOOKED AT, UH, A COUPLE OF MONTHS BACK.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION DID HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING, UH, AND THEN THE RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL WAS MOVED FORWARD.
WE TOOK A LOOK AT, UH, THE POTENTIAL SITES AND OUR SITE IS BEING RECOMMENDED, UH, FOR A MIXED USE TYPE RESIDENTIAL, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL TYPE USE.
SO WE ARE, UH, HAPPY ABOUT THAT.
WE DID ALSO GET SOME FEEDBACK FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UM, IN REGARDS TO TRAFFIC CONGESTION, PARKING ISSUES, RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS, INCREASED TRAFFIC ALONG SOME RESIDENTIAL STREETS.
THERE WAS A PUBLIC, UH, MEETING HELD ON JUNE 12TH, UH, WITH THE PUBLIC TO MEET AND DISCUSS THIS.
UM, WE DID DISCUSS SOME, UH, CONDITIONS AND SOME RESTRICTIONS TO BE PLACED ON THE PROPERTY.
WE HAVE SOME, SOME FEEDBACK RESPONSES TO THEM.
AGAIN, WE'RE LOOKING FOR NSA INTENDED TO BE, UH, CLOSER, MORE ADAPTED TO THE, UH, SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD.
ENVISION SMALL RETAIL BUILDING OCCUPIED.
UH, MAINLY MORE LIKE A PROFESSIONAL OFFICE FINANCE INSTITUTION WITH, UH, SMALL TRAFFIC CONGESTION OR SMALL TRAFFIC VOLUMES.
UH, WE'RE GONNA GET RID OF, UH, UH, LARGE TRAFFIC TYPE USES, NAIL SALONS, BARBER SHOPS, LIQUOR STORES, ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
IN REGARDS, UH, TO, UH, LAND USES THAT.
WE HAVE WORKED WITH STAFF ON, UH, DEED RESTRICTIONS.
AND AGAIN, THE PARKING WILL BE ON THE SITE AND THERE WILL BE FENCING ALL ALONG THE PROPERTY.
THESE ARE THE RESTRICTIONS THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT THROUGH THE DEEDS.
TEMPORARY BATCH PLANT, UH, DRY CLEANER COLLEGE DORM MASON, UH, SORRY, MONASTERY CARNIVAL.
UH, FULL, FULL SCALE NAIL SALON, UH, FUELING STATION, UH, GAS DRILLING, CEMETERY, MAUSOLEUM, FUNERAL HOME COLLEGE.
ALL THIS IS, UH, GONNA BE PLACED ON DEED RESTRICTIONS THAT WE'RE WORKING WITH.
HERE'S A SITE PLAN THAT WE WE'RE PROPOSING, SO IT'S GOT ALL THE PARKING
[02:30:01]
ON THE SITE.AND IN ADDITION TO THAT, WE'RE ALSO, UH, WORKING WITH THE CITY TO SEE IF, UH, WE CAN PROVIDE EITHER THROUGH EASEMENTS, THROUGH, UH, RESERVATION OR THROUGH DEDICATION IN ENOUGH SPACE FOR A RIGHT TURN LANE, EXCUSE ME, A RIGHT TURN LANE.
UH, AS THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT THE PROP UH, THE, UH, SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS WERE CONCERNED ABOUT TRAFFIC.
HOW MANY MINUTES DO I HAVE? THREE MINUTES.
UM, I LIVE TWO BLOCKS AWAY AT 60 18 ROYAL CREST PLAIN.
UH, I AM THE DEVELOPER WHO, UH, PUT THIS PROPERTY UNDER CONTRACT THREE AND A HALF YEARS AGO.
UH, I LIVE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND I THINK THIS IS A UNIQUE SITE BECAUSE FOR THE PAST 16 YEARS IT'S BEEN VACANT, UM, AT THE CORNER OF ROYAL AND THE TOLL ROAD.
AND SO, UH, I GUESS A NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN THE AREA AND MYSELF ARE KIND OF TIRED.
I, I DRIVE BY THIS CORNER AT LEAST TWICE A DAY.
UM, THERE SEEMS TO BE AN ISSUE RELATED TO, UH, NOT HAVING A TURN LANE THERE.
AND SO ONE OF THE REASONS THAT I GOT INVOLVED IS 'CAUSE I THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE A TURN LANE AT THIS LOCATION.
AND SO THE BEST WAY THAT I COULD SEE GETTING A TURN LANE HERE IS TO ACTUALLY BUY THE PROPERTY.
UM, IF I BUY THE PROPERTY AND DEDICATE THE LAND TO THE CITY OF DALLAS, IT'LL MAKE A BETTER POSITION IN THE FUTURE.
UM, WHERE THE CITY DOESN'T ACTUALLY HAVE TO BUY THIS LAND IN THE FUTURE.
IT'S ALREADY BEEN PRED, UH, TO THE CITY OF DALLAS.
SO AT SOME POINT, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE THE TORNADO WENT THROUGH THIS AREA, THERE ARE OTHER AREAS ADJACENT TO THIS THAT ARE RIPE FOR DEVELOPMENT.
UM, ESPECIALLY LARGER DENSITY DEVELOPMENT, WHICH I THINK WILL ALSO REQUIRE HAVING A TURN LANE AT THIS LOCATION.
SO THAT WAS ONE OF THE MAIN REASONS THAT WE GOT INVOLVED WITH THIS.
I'M ALSO TIRED OF SEEING THINGS GET DUMPED THERE, UM, PEOPLE UTILIZING IT AS CUT THROUGH.
AND SO ALL FOR ALL OF THOSE REASONS, UM, THAT THAT IS, THAT IS WHY WE GOT INVOLVED.
UM, WE ALSO GOT, WE ALSO THINK THAT IT WOULD BE NICE TO HAVE A MONUMENT SIGN, DEMAR KAING THE AREA.
UM, THIS IS KIND OF AN AREA THAT IS KNOWN AS, UH, YOU KNOW, NORTH DALLAS OR PRESTON HOLLOW.
UM, SO THOSE, THERE'S, YOU KNOW, A PICTURE THAT THAT WAS SHOWN UP THERE OF, OF HOW WE CAN HAVE A, UM, A WONDERFUL SIGN THAT'S, THAT'S THERE.
AND THEN ALSO A NICE, UH, NON-INTRUSIVE USE.
SO, UM, NSA DOES NOT HAVE, UH, DEED RESTRICTIONS IN PLACE.
SO WE RECOMMENDED IN WORKING, UH, WITH, UH, THE STAFF, UM, DIFFERENT TYPES OF DEED RESTRICTIONS THAT WE COULD PUT ON, ON THE PROPERTY ITSELF, UM, AS PART OF THIS APPROVAL PROCESS.
UH, AND THOSE DEED RESTRICTIONS, LIKE, FOR EXAMPLE, A NAIL SALON OR A GAS STATION OR THINGS THAT WOULD CAUSE INCREASED TRAFFIC, UM, SELF-IMPOSED DEED RESTRICTIONS ON THE SITE.
UM, WE INTEND TO OWN IT LONG TERM.
MORE THAN LIKELY IT'LL END UP BEING LIKE SOME TYPE OF A DOCTOR'S OFFICE, A VERY LOW IMPACT TYPE OF USE AT THIS CORNER.
AND, UM, AND AS, UH, AS HE MENTIONED, UM, EARLIER, THE, THE OTHER COMPONENTS THAT, THAT, UH, ARE, ARE PART OF THIS, UM, ARE I THINK REASONS WHY I'M IN SUPPORT OF, OF HAVING THIS HERE.
LIKE I SAID, I'VE BEEN WORKING ON IT FOR ABOUT ABOUT THREE YEARS NOW.
AND SO, UM, WE AREN'T THE APPLICANT 'CAUSE THE APPLICANT IS THE OWNER.
AND SO, UH, THAT'S, THAT'S WHO WAS SPEAKING TO YOU BEFORE.
HI, MY NAME'S DANA AND MY MOTHER AND I ACTUALLY OWN THE PROPERTY.
WE HAVE HAD THAT LOCK JUST SITTING THERE, VACANT, ORIGINAL.
THE ORIGINAL OWNERS TRIED TO SELL IT FOR 10 YEARS.
NEVER COULD NOBODY WANTED TO BUILD A HOUSE THERE.
I ALSO LIVE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND WE ARE CONSTANTLY GETTING CALLS.
PEOPLE DUMP TRASH ON THE PROPERTY, YOU KNOW, THEY THROW STUFF OUT THE WINDOWS.
I THINK IT WOULD BE A GREAT CHANGE FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND EVEN IF I LIVED DIRECTLY BEHIND THERE OR NEXT TO IT, JUST TO HAVE SOMETHING TO SHELTER.
THE, THE SOUND FROM THE TOLLWAY AND THE EMISSIONS.
UH, WHAT SCOTT IS INTENDING TO BUILD THERE.
WE ALREADY HAVE A FEW PEOPLE THAT WE THINK WOULD BE GREAT TENANTS FOR HIM.
UM, THERE'S A PLASTIC SURGEON THAT WOULD PUT LIKE A DAY SURGERY CENTER THERE, UM, A THERAPIST.
I MEAN, SOMETHING THAT WILL NOT OPERATE DURING THE EVENING AND WOULD BE VERY QUIET.
NO, NO DRIVE THROUGH OR ANYTHING LIKE
[02:35:01]
THAT.SO I THINK IT WOULD BE A GREAT, YOU KNOW, IMPROVEMENT TO A VACANT LOT WITH NO TREES.
I MEAN, IT'S JUST THERE ANYWAY.
COULD YOU PLEASE GIVE US YOUR ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD? MY OWN ADDRESS PLEASE? 4 6 2 1 IRVIN SIMMONS.
IT'S JUST WEST OF THERE BETWEEN, UH, INWOOD AND ROYAL.
ANY OTHER SPEAKERS IN SUPPORT? OKAY, OUR SPEAKERS IN OPPOSITION.
HI, MY NAME IS RENEE ROBINSON.
I RESIDE AT 56 43 MEADOW CREST DRIVE.
I MANAGE A NEIGHBORHOOD GROUP EMAIL ABOUT ISSUES AFFECTING THE RESIDENTIAL AREA JUST NORTH OF THE PROPERTY AT 58 0 7 ROYAL LANE.
THE EMAIL INCLUDES OVER 110 HOMEOWNERS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE MAJORITY OF THEM OPPOSE THIS ZONING CHANGE.
I HAVE ONLY HEARD FROM TWO NEIGHBORS WHO APPROVE OR THINK IT COULD BE WORSE.
OUR NEIGHBORS ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE INCREASE IN TRAFFIC AT THE RIGHT TURN CORNER ONTO THE NORTH TOLLWAY.
IN ADDITION, ALLOWING JUST ANY RETAIL BUSINESS COULD ALSO BRING NOISE, FOOD, SMELLS THAT COULD AFFECT SURROUNDING HOMES.
NOT TO MENTION LITTERING AND CRIME.
WE ARE CONCERNED THAT MORE LOCATIONS WOULD EXPAND DOWN THE BLOCK AS THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS DECIDE TO SELL.
NO ONE WANTS ANOTHER LOVER'S LANE SHOPPING AREA AND TRAFFIC NIGHTMARE IN OUR LOVELY NEIGHBORHOOD.
ON JUNE 12TH, WE MET HAD A COMMUNITY MEETING WITH LARRY AND THE DEVELOPER DOWN AND EXPRESSED THAT HE WAS, SCOTT EXPRESSED THAT HE WAS OUR NEIGHBOR AND UNDERSTOOD OUR CONCERNS.
HE MADE PROMISES TO US THAT HE WOULD DEED RESTRICT THIS PROPERTY TO A LOW TRAFFIC OFFICE TYPE BUSINESS, PLACED A BRICK WALL TO THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY AND ATTRACTIVE LANDSCAPING NEXT TO THE BUILDING, UH, NEXT TO THE HOME EXISTING TO THE EAST.
HE ALSO AGREED TO A LOWER BUILDING HEIGHT, LIMITED INGRESS AND EGRESS WITH ONLY 13 PARKING SLOTS.
LASTLY, HE OFFERED TO SEE THE FRONT 20 FEET ACROSS THE ROYAL LANE SIDE SO THE CITY COULD HAVE IT FOR A POSSIBLE DEDICATED TURN LANE IN THE FUTURE.
WE UNDERSTAND THAT THAT COULD BE FAR, FAR INTO THE FUTURE, BUT WE APPRECIATE HIS FORESIGHT.
IF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSIONERS DECIDE TO APPROVE THE ZONING CHANGE, WHICH IS OPPOSED BY THE NEIGHBORHOOD, WE ASK THAT YOU AGREE TO THESE CONDITIONS SO THAT MR. BECK CAN KEEP HIS PROMISES TO HIS NEIGHBORS.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO BE HEARD? YES, SIR.
I LIVE AT 58 26 GRAMERCY PLACE, WHICH IS NORTH OF THE PLAT, THE FIRST ROAD ON THE RIGHT.
SO OBVIOUSLY I UNDERSTAND SCOTT AND, AND THE LANDOWNERS HAVE MENTIONED THIS LAND HAS NOT BEEN USED FOR MANY, MANY, MANY YEARS.
'CAUSE IT'S AN ODD PIECE OF LAND.
I KNOW THAT LIFE IS A COMPROMISE AND EVERYBODY HAS TO BE REASONABLE AND FIND MIDDLE GROUND.
SO I DON'T THINK ANYBODY FROM THE PEOPLE I'VE SPOKEN TO OPPOSE AN OFFICE, A DOCTOR'S OFFICE.
I THINK THAT WHAT THEY ARE OPPOSED TO IS SOMETHING THAT, AND WITH LARRY IN DETAIL ABOUT THIS, DIDN'T I, UH, SOMETHING WOULD INCREASE TRAFFIC FLOW.
AND THE REASON IS, IF YOU COME OUT OF THE FRONT OF THIS ROAD, THERE'S A MEDIAN ON ROYAL LANE AND YOU CAN'T MAKE A TURN TO GO EASTBOUND.
EVERYBODY WOULD EVEN WANNA GET EASTBOUND ON ROYAL LANE.
THEY'RE GONNA HAVE TO TURN RIGHT, GO UP THE SLIP ROAD, TURN RIGHT INTO GRAMERCY, PLACE MY ROAD, AND TURN RIGHT AGAIN ONTO JAMESTOWN.
AND RIGHT WHERE THEY TURN, RIGHT.
THERE IS A SCHOOL, AN EPISCOPALIAN SCHOOL FOR LITTLE CHILDREN.
AND I CAN'T HELP BUT THINK IF YOU HAVE AN INCREASE OF CARS MIXED IN WITH CHILDREN, THERE HAS TO BE, AND I SAID THIS TO LARRY, THERE HAS TO BE AN INCREASE IN THE LIKELIHOOD OF AN ACCIDENT WHICH NOBODY WANTS HAPPENING.
AND I'M SURE THAT'S WHERE SCOTT, EVERYBODY WANTS TO MAKE SURE WE AVOID AN INCREASE THE TRAFFIC.
SO I WOULD ABSOLUTELY SAY THAT WHATEVER IS PUT THERE WITHIN THE DEED RESTRICTIONS, IT MUST BE SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T DRASTICALLY OR DRAMATICALLY INCREASE TRAFFIC FLOW.
BECAUSE I'VE YET TO BE CONVINCED BY CITY PLANNERS THAT INCREASED TRAFFIC MIXED WITH CHILDREN DOESN'T LEAD TO A HIGHER POSSIBILITY OF ACCIDENTS.
SO I THINK THAT, YEAH, A DOCTOR'S SURGERY WOULD PROBABLY BE OKAY.
I THINK THAT WHEN THEY TALKED ABOUT A THERAPIST, I THINK ANYWHERE WHERE
[02:40:01]
YOU'VE GOT SHORT KIND OF VISITS, IE IT'S AN APPOINTMENT WHERE IT'S ONLY 30 MINUTES OR AN HOUR, THAT'S GONNA HAVE TO LEAD TO A DANGEROUSLY INCREASED LEVEL OF TRAFFIC TURNING RIGHT DOWN GRAMERCY AND RIGHT DOWN JAMESTOWN, RIGHT OUTSIDE THE SCHOOL WHERE THE LITTLE ONES ARE GETTING INTO CARDS IN MUM AND DAD'S.AND, UH, ALSO TO THE POINT I THINK SCOTT'S BEEN VERY KIND IN RECOMMENDING THE RIGHT TURN ONLY LANE BECAUSE IT IS AN ISSUE.
SO AGAIN, I THINK THAT AS LONG AS THAT GETS PUT IN PLACE AND THERE'S NO DEVELOPMENT ON THERE UNTIL AFTER THE, THE, UH, SITE'S BEEN UNTIL AFTER THE RIGHT TURN ROAD HAS BEEN DEVELOPED AND ALSO THE WALL, BECAUSE OF THE NOISE, WE KNOW THAT WALLS TIPS AN ARCHITECT HE'LL KNOW.
WE KNOW THAT WALLS STOP NOISE AGAIN.
SCOTT'S KIND OF SAID A WALL DOWN THE BACK.
I THINK A WALL ALONG THE SIDE.
AM I OUTTA TIME NOW? YOU'RE AT TIME, SIR.
THANK MUCH THANK YOU FOR JOINING US SO MUCH.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE I'D LIKE TO BE HEARD IN OPPOSITION, MRS. YES.
WE HAVE OUR FIRST ONLINE SPEAKER.
IS IT, UH, IS THAT MS. ROBINSON? MS. CARMA CARMEN, YES.
WE READY FOR YOUR COMMENTS, MA'AM.
I LIVE AT 5 8 3 4 GRAMERCY PLACE.
I'M A NEIGHBOR OF ADAM WHO JUST SPOKE.
UM, THE REZONING OF THE PROPERTY AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF ROYAL LANE IN THE DALLAS NORTH TOLLWAY POSES SIGNIFICANT CONCERNS FOR OUR COMMUNITY.
NUMBER ONE, NEIGHBORHOOD ISSUES WITHOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF A LEFT TURN WHEN LEAVING THIS PROPERTY, ALL EASTBOUND TRAFFIC AND SOME NORTHBOUND TRAFFIC WILL DIVERT THROUGH THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THIS WAS EVIDENT WHEN THE TEMPORARY FIRE STATION WAS LOCATED ON THIS PROPERTY.
AS THE FIRETRUCK TRAVELED ALONG GRAMERCY PLACE MULTIPLE TIMES EACH DAY, PARKING ISSUES DUE TO THE CONGESTION ALONG ROYAL LANE IN THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING.
CUSTOMERS MAY CHOOSE TO PARK ON GRAMERCY PLACE OR BURGUNDY ROAD IN FRONT OF OUR HOMES, INGRESS AND EGRESS ISSUES.
EASTBOUND TRAFFIC CANNOT MAKE A LEGAL U-TURN FOR A QUARTER OF A MILE AND WESTBOUND TRAFFIC CANNOT MAKE A LEGAL U-TURN FOR ALMOST A THIRD OF A MILE.
AS WE ALL KNOW, DALLAS DRIVERS WILL TAKE THE PATHS OF LEAST RESISTANCE AND MAKE ILLEGAL U-TURNS OR CROSS OVER THREE LANES OF TRAFFIC WITHOUT REGARD TO SAFETY PROPERTY VALUE CONCERNS.
INTRODUCING NON R 16 ZONING IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE CHARACTER OF OUR EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD AND COULD LOWER PROPERTY VALUES IN THE AREA.
TRAFFIC ISSUES CHANGING THIS PROPERTY FROM R 16 WILL EXACERBATE EXISTING TRAFFIC PROBLEMS AT THE INTERSECTION OF ROYAL LANE AND THE NORTH DALLAS TOLLWAY, WHERE TRAFFIC REGULARLY BACKS UP PAST JAMESTOWN.
CUSTOMERS OF THIS BUSINESS WILL ADD TO THIS CONGESTION PROBLEM AND IMPEDE THE ABILITY TO BE FOR FIRE STATION 41 VEHICLES TO RESPOND TO EMERGENCIES.
THE NEARBY PRESTON ROYAL SHOPPING CENTER HAS FOUR CORNERS OF SHOPS, RESTAURANTS, OFFICE SPACES, AND PARKING.
AND IT IS DESIGNED FOR CUSTOMER TRAFFIC WITH ESTABLISHED TRAFFIC PATTERNS FOR SAFETY.
CHANGING THE ZONING FROM RESIDENTIAL COULD EXPAND THE SHOPPING CENTER INTO THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD.
ADDITIONALLY, PER A GOOGLE SEARCH, THERE ARE MORE THAN A HUNDRED BUSINESS PROPERTIES AVAILABLE FOR LEASE IN THE 7 5 2 3 ZIP CODE.
SO THERE'S NO REASON TO ADD MORE COMMERCIAL SPACE TO THIS AREA.
THE PROPOSED REQUEST STATES THE SITE WILL BE RESTRICTED TO OFFICE AND PERSONAL USE USES, WHICH PREDOMINANTLY SERVE NEIGHBORHOOD OR COMMUNITY NEEDS.
WHILE THE APPLICANT'S CLAIM THAT DEED RESTRICTIONS WILL BE PUT IN PLACE, WHAT ARE THE CONTROLS AVAILABLE TO ENFORCE THIS? WE DO NOT NEED A BUSINESS IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD WITH A CONSTANT FLOW OF CUSTOMERS, TRAVELING CUSTOMERS THROUGHOUT THE DAY.
THE PROPOSED REQUEST STATES THAT THE SITE IS NOT SUITABLE FOR RESIDENTIAL USES, GIVEN ITS SIZE AND LOCATION AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE DALLAS NORTH TOLLWAY AND ROYAL LANE.
GIVEN THAT THERE WAS A HOME ON THIS SITE UNTIL THE EARLY TWO THOUSANDS AND THAT THERE ARE NEIGHBORING HOMES OF THE SAME LOT SIZE LOT I DISAGREE.
IF HOUSES CAN EXIST AT THE CORNERS OF MOCKINGBIRD AND THE DALLAS NORTH TOLLWAY, AN EQUALLY BUSY INTERSECTION, A HOUSE CAN EXIST ON THIS SITE.
ADDITIONALLY, THIS CHANGE GOES AGAINST ADDRESSING THE HOUSING SHORTAGE SITUATION IN DALLAS, AND IT IS NOT MY PROBLEM OR THE CITY OF DALLAS'S PROBLEM TO FIX THE FACT THAT THE ASKING PRICE FOR THIS PROPERTY HAS ALWAYS BEEN ABOVE MARKET LEVELS.
I WANT TO LEAVE YOU WITH THIS.
THERE ARE FOUR OTHER RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES ON ROYAL LANE BETWEEN THE DALLAS NORTH TOLLWAY AND JAMESTOWN, AND NOT TO MENTION MANY MORE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES BETWEEN PRESTON AND EDGEMERE.
IF ANY OF THESE IS CHANGED FROM RESIDENTIAL STATUS TO COMMERCIAL STATUS, IT'LL BE THE BEGINNING OF A SLIPPERY SLOPE AND WE DON'T NEED ANOTHER LEVER'S LANE FOR ALL THE ABOVE REASONS.
I ENCOURAGE YOU TO OPPOSE THIS APPLICATION.
ARE THE ARE TWO SPEAKERS ONLINE? NONE OF THE OTHER SPEAKERS ONLINE.
OKAY, MR. SEGOVIA, PER OUR RULES, YOU GET A TWO MINUTE REBUTTAL, SIR.
CAN YOU HEAR ME? OKAY? ALRIGHT.
[02:45:01]
UH, AGAIN, THE, UH, PARKING ISSUES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.THE SITE IS GONNA HAVE ITS OWN ONSITE PARKING SITUATION BASED ON THE CODES REQUIREMENTS.
SO THERE WON'T BE ANY ON STREET PARKING, UM, DEED RESTRICTIONS.
WE'RE LOOKING AT TAKING OUT ANY TYPE OF USES THAT WOULD REALLY INCREASE TRAFFIC.
YOU KNOW, WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH STAFF, THE COMMUNITY MEETING SPOKE WITH, UH, THE DIFFERENT, UH, RESIDENTS THAT SHOWED UP, GET, GOT THEIR INPUT, UH, GOT, UH, COMMISSIONER HALL INPUT INTO IT AND THAT WE'VE GOT SOME MORE INFORMATION.
THAT'S WHERE DE RESTRICTIONS CAME FROM.
AND THEN ALSO IN REGARDS TO THE BEST IN BEST USE FOR THE LOT, IT IS A CORNER LOT ON A MAJOR THOROUGHFARE AND A HIGHWAY.
UM, IT'S DIFFICULT TO SEE A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE GOING ON THERE, ESPECIALLY IF IT'S BACKING OUT WITH THE AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC THAT'S GOING.
UM, AGAIN, USUALLY THOSE GO FOR COMMERCIAL.
UH, BUT IN THIS CASE, AGAIN, WE'RE LOOKING AT A NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICE, SO DOCTOR'S OFFICES, SMALL AGAIN, SMALL MON POT TYPE SHOPS THAT'LL PROVIDE SUPPORT TO THE NEIGHBORHOODS.
YEAH, I BELIEVE, UM, THE DEVELOPER MENTIONED THAT THERE WERE SOME OTHER SITES NEARBY THAT WOULD ALSO BE APPROPRIATE FOR DEVELOPMENT.
CAN YOU IDENTIFY THOSE FOR ME? THE OTHER ONES THAT, UH, COULD POTENTIALLY TAKE A LOOK AT? AGAIN, THIS IS NOT DEVELOPER TAKING A LOOK AT 'EM, OR NOT EVEN US AT EC, IT'S JUST, YOU KNOW, PLANNING LONG RANGE DOWN THE ROAD IS ANY LOTS THAT ARE LONG, MAJOR CORRIDORS AGAIN, LIKE ROYAL THAT COULD POTENTIALLY BE COM BECOME COMMERCIAL OR NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL.
SHE, YEAH, ACTUALLY HE'S THE ONE WHO SAID IT.
SO AT, AT, SO THE TORNADO TORE DOWN A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF, UH, PRESTON ROYAL, I'M AWARE, SEVERAL YEARS BACK, RIGHT? UM, THERE'S A, THERE'S A STRIP CENTER THAT IS, UM, IF YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH THIS CORNER, WHERE THE BENCHMARK BANK BUILDING IS.
THERE WAS AN OFFICE BUILDING THAT'S BEHIND THAT, UM, THAT, THAT KIND OF A COLLECTION OF PEOPLE OWN OR WE'RE NOT INVOLVED IN IT.
UM, BUT THAT WHOLE OFFICE BUILDING IS STILL VACANT AND THEY JUST RECENTLY ACQUIRED THE PARCEL THAT'S IN FRONT OF IT THAT'S, THAT'S FACING ROYAL LANE.
SO, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU, WHEN YOU PROJECT OUT, AND I LIVE LITERALLY, YOU KNOW, WALKING DISTANCE FROM THIS AREA.
AND SO WHEN YOU PROJECT OUT JUST THE NEXT, YOU KNOW, FOUR OR FIVE, SIX YEARS, THE SAME TYPE OF THING THAT YOU GUYS JUST WENT THROUGH AT NORTHWEST HIGHWAY IN THE TOLL ROAD IN TERMS OF WHAT, WHAT THEY'RE DOING WITH THAT DEVELOPMENT THERE, THAT YOU CAN EXPECT SOMETHING SIMILAR.
SO I THINK, UM, YOU KNOW, FOR THOSE REASONS AND JUST IS, IS WHY IT'S SO IMPORTANT THAT WE GET, UM, FOR ME AS A RESIDENT LIVING IN THIS AREA, AN OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE, YOU KNOW, A DEDICATED TURN LANE THAT'S GONNA BE, UM, ACCESSING ONTO THE TOLL ROAD.
WHERE'S THE DEDICATED TURN LANE ON THIS, UH, PROPOSAL? IT'S, WELL, I DON'T KNOW HOW TO USE THIS.
IT WAS UP THERE ON THE SCREEN BEFORE.
CAN YOU, WE, IT, IT'S BASICALLY, UM, IT'S, IT'S THE, IT'S A, IT 20 FEET, I BELIEVE IT WAS 2020 OR 22 FEET.
WE'RE DEDICATING THAT LAND THAT'S ADJACENT TO THE STREET THAT'S PRIVATE PROPERTY TODAY TO THE CITY OF DALLAS TO BE ABLE TO PUT A DEDICATED TURN LANE ALONG QUINCY ADJACENT TO ALONG ROYAL ON ROYAL ON ROYAL.
SO YOU'D BE ABLE, SO, SO AS YOU'RE GOING DOWN ROYAL, INSTEAD OF HAVING TO JUST BACK UP TRAFFIC, YOU COULD ACTUALLY MAKE A RIGHT HAND TURN LANE TO THEN GET ONTO THE TOLL ROAD BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT EVERYBODY'S DOING.
LIKE MY, MY KIDS GO TO SCHOOL, UH, FURTHER UP IN NORTH DALLAS, UM, PARISH AND, UH, IN GREENHILL.
SO I'M LITERALLY AT THAT CORNER EVERY MORNING AT SEVEN O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING.
AND SO TO GET ON THE TOLL ROAD, THAT'S WOULD BE GREAT TO HAVE A TURN LANE RIGHT THERE.
THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING THAT.
AND THEN, UM, GOING BACK TO MY FIRST QUESTION ABOUT OTHER SITES THAT ARE SUBJECT TO POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE FUTURE, ARE ANY OF THOSE SITES CURRENTLY ZONED RESIDENTIAL THAT YOU WERE REFERENCING THAT THAT'S THAT'S A COMMERCIAL SITE THAT, THAT HE WAS TALKING ABOUT AND THAT I'M TALKING ABOUT.
I THINK, I THINK THAT THE, THE PEOPLE THAT WERE TALKING ABOUT THIS EARLIER RELATED TO OTHER SITES, THERE'S TALKING ABOUT SOME KIND OF A SLIPPERY SLOPE THAT OTHER RESIDENTIAL SITES COULD BE TURNED INTO COMMERCIAL IN THE FUTURE.
BUT YOU SPECIFICALLY SAID THAT THERE WERE OTHER POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SITES IN THE AREA.
WERE YOU REFERENCING ANY OTHER RESIDENTIAL ZONED SITES? NO, I WAS REFERENCING THE SITE THAT I JUST DESCRIBED.
THE ONE THAT WAS, THAT WAS AN OFFICE BUILDING, THAT WAS A SUBSTANTIAL OFFICE BUILDING THAT'S DIRECTLY BEHIND RESIDENTIAL THAT I THINK IS RIPE TO BE REDEVELOPED.
I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
CAN SOMEBODY PUT UP THE DEED RESTRICTIONS, UH, FOR ME AGAIN, I I, IF THEY'RE IN THE DOCKET, I COULDN'T FIND THEM.
[02:50:01]
TWO DAYS AGO.YEAH, LET ME, LET ME BRING 'EM UP.
AND THEY'RE, THEY WERE PROBABLY IN MY EMAIL.
YOU WANT ME TO STILL READ 'EM? WE WILL.
WE'LL CIRCLE BACK TO COMMISSIONER KINGSTON.
MY QUESTION IS ABOUT DUE RESTRICTIONS AS WELL, BECAUSE THE, UM, THE VERSION THAT I HAVE THAT WAS EMAILED TO ME IS A LIST OF 10 PROHIBITED USES.
AND THEN THERE'S ALSO, UM, SOME INFORMATION ABOUT THE DEDICATION FOR THE RIGHT TURN LANE.
IS THAT THE COMPLETE SET OF DE RESTRICTIONS? YES, IT IS BECAUSE, UH, 'CAUSE MY QUESTION HAS TO DO WITH, IT SEEMS TO ME LIKE THERE'S SOMEWHAT OF A NUCLEUS OF AN AGREEMENT HERE.
I I HEARD YOU SAY THAT Y'ALL, YOU WERE WILLING TO LIMIT THE HEIGHT AND I HEARD REFERENCE TO A WALL AND RESTRICTING EGRESS AND INGRESS FROM CERTAIN STREETS IN AN ALLEY AND SOME, UM, SOME LANGUAGE ABOUT A SIGN AND LANDSCAPING.
AND NONE OF THAT IS REFLECTED IN THESE DEED RESTRICTIONS.
ARE THERE FURTHER, UM, REFINEMENTS OF THESE DEED RESTRICTIONS THAT ARE BEING PROPOSED? BECAUSE WHAT I HEAR YOU OFFER IS NOT ENCAPSULATED IN THESE DEED RESTRICTIONS.
AND THEN I HEARD AN ALL, UM, FROM ONE OF THE PEOPLE WHO SPOKE IN OPPOSITION WHO REFERENCED A COMMUNITY MEETING, IT SOUNDED LIKE THERE WERE SOME ADDITIONAL, UM, YOU KNOW, CONDITIONS THAT WERE GRANTED.
SO IT JUST SEEMS TO ME THAT THERE'S PROGRESS BEING MADE, BUT WE'RE NOT QUITE THERE WITH THESE DEED RESTRICTIONS.
SO MY UNDERSTANDING WHERE THIS CASE IS WITH DEED RESTRICTIONS, WELL AGAIN, THE DEED RESTRICTIONS THAT WE'VE WORKED ON IS THE LAND USE DEED RESTRICTIONS.
AND THEN IN REGARDS TO LIKE THE SIGNAGE AND ITEMS LIKE THAT, THAT'LL COME UP WITH THE SITE PLAN ONCE THAT STARTS GOING THROUGH.
I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT IT, THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION.
UM, SO SPECIFICALLY WITH REGARDS TO THE DEED RESTRICTIONS, THESE ARE THE 10, RIGHT? THERE'S LANGUAGE THAT'S IN HERE THAT ALSO DEFINES WHAT A FULL SERVICE NAIL SALON IS, AND THERE'S ALSO ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE IN THERE THAT TALKS ABOUT HOW WE'LL DEDICATE THE LAND SO THAT WE CAN HAVE THAT DEDICATED TURN LANE.
UM, ALL OF THOSE ARE DEPICTED, UM, ON, ON THE PRESENTATION, UM, AS WELL AS ON THAT PRESENTATION AS A SITE PLAN.
AND SO THERE, I MEAN, I AM HAPPY FOR US TO ADD TO THIS, UM, THE, UH, A, A VERBAL DESCRIPTION OF WHAT'S PHYSICALLY ON THE SITE PLAN.
IT'S, IT WAS THE INTENTION WHEN, SINCE SPEAKING WITH STAFF THAT, UM, THE DISCUSSIONS AND THIS, AND THESE EXHIBITS WOULD BE PART OF THE RECORD AS IT RELATES TO PNZ.
AND SO THAT WHEN WE, WE GO IN FOR OUR SITE PLAN, THE SITE PLAN'S GONNA LOOK EXACTLY LIKE WHAT'S UP ON THE SCREEN.
I UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT, BUT WE, WE ARE BEING ASKED TO APPROVE IS A STRAIGHT ZONING CHANGE WITH DEED RESTRICTIONS AND THERE'S NO SITE PLAN THAT THAT COMES WITH WITH THAT.
SO I MEAN, TO SATISFY MY CONCERNS, IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO HAVE, YOU KNOW, A WRITTEN, UH, A WRITTEN, WRITTEN DESCRIPTION OF WHAT THAT IS, A DESCRIPTION IN THOSE DE RESTRICTIONS OF WHAT HAS BEEN AGREED TO THAT, YOU KNOW, VIA YOUR SITE PLAN.
AND, AND WE WOULD HAVE NO OBJECTION TO, UM, TO EITHER YOU OR ANY OF ANY OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSIONERS, YOU KNOW, READING INTO THE RECORD THE THINGS THAT, THAT ARE DESCRIBED IN THERE OR FOR US TO ARTICULATE THAT RIGHT NOW TO BE READ INTO THE RECORD.
YOU ACTUALLY MUST ARTICULATE IT THEN.
NOW THESE ARE VOLUNTEERED OR WHENEVER YOU'D LIKE US TO DO THAT TABLE LIST TO LET THEM HAVE, UH, LET'S GET ON THROUGH OUR QUESTIONS AND THEN WE'LL, UH, COMMISSIONER HALL, UH, I BELIEVE MR. PEPE HAS GOT AN ANSWER TO THIS.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THE SIZE OF THE BUILDING, THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING, ET CETERA, IS, IS MANDATED BY THE ZONING, THE NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES.
BUT MR. PEPE, UH, IF YOU'LL COMMENT YES, NO, I DID WANT TO CLARIFY JUST WHAT WE'RE WORKING WITH, WHAT WE'RE NOT WORKING WITH SITE PLAN.
THE SITE PLANS SPECIFICALLY AS A REGULATORY DOCUMENT IS NOT TIED TO THE GENERAL ZONING.
THERE'S ONLY A, THERE'S A VERY SMALL SELECT OF SITE PLANS ONE COULD BUILD ON THIS SITE GIVEN THE FRONT SETBACK BEING 35.
UM, ON ROYAL, THE HEIGHT IS, IS ALREADY LIMITED TO THE HEIGHT IS IS LIMITED TO 30.
UH, BUT THEN IT WOULD BE LIMITED MORE BY RPS BECAUSE IT'S HAS SINGLE FAMILY ON EITHER SIDE 26 BASICALLY.
SO THEIR HEIGHT IS SEVERELY LIMITED BY THE, BY THE ZONING THAT'S IN PLACE.
THE SETBACKS ARE BECAUSE THEY HAVE THE 35 FOOT FRONT SETBACKS AND, UM, JUST IN PRAC.
SO IN IN PRACTICE THEY CAN ONLY HAVE ACCESS FROM ROYAL.
THEY, THEY CAN'T HAVE COMMERCIAL ACCESS FROM THE ALLEY AND ENGINEERING AND SAY THEY WILL NOT APPROVE ONE ON THE ONE WAY QUINCY ROAD.
SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE WORKING WITH.
IF MORE THINGS WERE WANTING TO BE ADDED,
[02:55:01]
IT'S FEASIBLE, BUT THAT, THOSE ARE ALREADY FACTS ON THE GROUND.BUT I, I THINK I HEARD A REFERENCE TO A WALL, UM, THAT WAS, WAS PROMISED AND SOME, SOME LANDSCAPING STANDARDS AND UH, THERE MAY HAVE BEEN MORE, I DON'T KNOW, THOSE ARE THE THINGS THAT I REMEMBER.
YEAH, THOSE, THOSE WERE THINGS THAT WE HAD AGREED TO DO.
RIGHT, WHICH IS A MASONRY WALL ON THE BACKSIDE OF THE PROPERTY THAT'S FACING, UM, THE ALLEYWAY.
UM, THERE ALREADY IS A FENCE THERE, BUT WE WOULD, WE WOULD OBVIOUSLY CONTINUE THAT MASONRY FENCE ALONG THAT, ALONG THAT SIDE AS WELL AS PUT ADDITIONAL SCREENING.
UM, ALL OF THOSE THINGS ARE DEPICTED ON, UH, THIS DOESN'T RUN UP TO GO UP THERE ARE, ARE DEPICTED IN THE PACKAGE I THINK THAT YOU HAVE.
UM, BUT AGAIN, IF, IF YOU'D LIKE US TO READ THAT INTO THE RECORD TODAY, I'M HAPPY TO FURTHER READ THAT INTO THE RECORD.
I THINK THAT'S WHAT YOU WOULD NEED TO DO.
WAS THERE A HEIGHT OF THE WALL DISCUSSED OR A DEPTH OF THE LANDSCAPING? UM, I THINK THE HEIGHT OF THE WALL IS ACTUALLY, UM, IS ONLY ALLOWED BY ORDINANCE AS TO EIGHT FEET I THINK IS WHAT IT IS.
UM, IN THAT AREA WE'RE GONNA NEED TO CALL IT A SIGN.
WE'RE GONNA NEED TO CALL IT A SIGN AND NOT WALL A SIGN.
'CAUSE IT'S, THAT WAS THE, THAT I UNDERSTAND WAS THE, OH, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT FENCING IN THE REAR? NO, SHE'S TALKING ABOUT THE WALL.
YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT FENCING IN THE REAR.
YOU'RE GONNA HAVE, YEAH, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE YOUR BASE SCREENING THAT'S REQUIRED BETWEEN A COMMERCIAL SITE AND RESIDENTIAL SIDE OF EIGHT FEET, SOLID SCREENING ALREADY.
SO IF THEY WANT IT TO BE A WALL OR SOMETHING DIFFERENT, THAT WOULD, COULD BE A RESEARCH IN OR A DEPTH OF LAND.
A DEPTH OF LANDSCAPING THAT WAS, THAT WAS DISCUSSED AT THE MEETING AND OR IS THERE A, I DON'T KNOW IF THERE WAS, I DON'T THINK THAT WAS LIKE SPECIFICALLY IT WAS, IT WAS, IT WAS REALLY MORE DISCUSSED IN TERMS OF LANDSCAPE SCREENING.
UH, BETWEEN, BETWEEN THE PROPERTIES, UM, OR MR. PEPPY, IS THERE A, A RULE FOR THEY THE AVERAGE, THEY HAVE TO HAVE IT WIDTH OF YES, EXACTLY.
THEY HAVE TO HAVE A RESIDENTIAL LANDSCAPE BUFFER ON THE REAR AND SIDES.
I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT, UM, WIDTH THAT IT HAS TO BE, BUT YOU'RE RIGHT, YOU'RE REFERENCING THE RIGHT THING IN ARTICLE 10 THAT IT IS A PORTION OF THE SITE WITH A MINIMUM OF FIVE AND THEN IT INCREASES WITH, UH, UM, THE WHAT WIDTH.
SO IT MAY BE THE MASONRY WALL IS THE ONLY THING WE'RE MISSING HERE.
AND, AND WE'RE HAPPY TO, TO AGREE TO THAT, TO BE AN ENHANCED LANDSCAPING BUFFER IF THAT WAS PROMISED.
SINCE I WASN'T AT THE MEETING, I DON'T KNOW WHAT WAS DISCUSSED OR PROMISED.
WE INTEND TO DO ENHANCED LANDSCAPING.
SO IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER IT WAS PROMISED OR NOT, THAT'S WHAT OUR, THAT'S OUR INTENTION IS.
SO WE'RE HAPPY TO ALSO READ THAT INTO THE RECORD.
WE'LL, WE'LL HAVE THAT LANGUAGE.
I HAD A NUMBER OF SIMILAR QUESTIONS, UM, TO COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, BUT SPECIFICALLY REGARDING THE BUFFER, THE SITE PLAN THAT'S IN THE DOCKET, AND IT SEEMED TO MATCH WHAT YOU HAD UP ON THE SCREEN SHOWED TWO DIFFERENT DEPTHS.
I HEAR HEARING FROM MR. PEPE THAT FIVE FEET IS THE MINIMUM, UM, BUT CAN YOU SUSTAIN A LANDSCAPE PLANTING IN THAT FIVE FOOT BUFFER WITH THE SOLID MASONRY FENCE THAT'S BEING PROPOSED? I'M NOT SURE WHAT SHE'S ASKING AND I CAN'T SEE WHETHER IT DOESN'T HAVE THE SIDES.
THERE'S A BUFFER SHOWN ON THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY.
THERE'S A BUFFER SHOWN EAST, AND THEY'RE TWO DIFFERENT WIDTHS.
THEY'RE BOTH WITHIN THE 15 FOOT SETBACK.
I WAS JUST WONDERING A, WHY THEY WERE DIFFERENT.
AND THEN B, IF YOU'RE PLANNING TO PUT LANDSCAPING, IS THERE, IS THAT A SUFFICIENT DEPTH TO ACCOMMODATE BOTH THE WALL AND THE PROPOSED LANDSCAPING REQUIRED? I WAS GONNA SAY THAT'S THE BUMPER FROM THE YES, SO, SO AS IT RELATES TO THE FENCE ALONG THE BACK, UM, THAT, THAT'S A, UM, AN ALLEYWAY, RIGHT? AND SO THE LANDSCAPE WOULD BE BETWEEN THE FENCE ITSELF AND THE BUILDING ALL ALONG, ALL ALONG THAT BACK.
SO FROM ROYAL LANE, YOU'RE NOT GONNA REALLY BE ABLE TO SEE THE MASONRY FENCE.
IT'S MORE OF, LET'S SAY A SOUND BARRIER OR, OR THE ABILITY, THE NON ABILITY FOR PEOPLE FROM THE RESIDENT, FROM THE RESIDENTIAL AREA TO LITERALLY WALK ONTO THE PROPERTY, THE PEOPLE THAT ARE COMING TO THE PROPERTY TO WALK INTO THE ALLEYWAY.
UM, SO THAT'S ON, ON, ON THE, ON THE ADJACENT SIDE.
UM, IT'S, IT LOOKS TO ME LIKE THERE'S A LARGER SETBACK AND THE INTENTION IS, UM, FOR US TO HAVE AN INCREASED LANDSCAPE BUFFER AS WELL AS A FENCE ALONG THE SIDE.
AND I'D STATE ADDITIONALLY THAT THE ZONING I WAS TALKING ABOUT LANDSCAPE BUFFER, THE ZONING REQUIRES A 20 FOOT SETBACK ON THE BACK END SIDE DIFFERENT
[03:00:01]
THAN THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER.BUT THAT MAY DICTATE THAT YOU HAVE YOUR SPACE TO DO PLANTINGS IF THEY SO NEED TO.
IN, IN THIS, I'M HAPPY TO DEFER TO STAFF TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND WHAT MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS ARE BECAUSE IT SEEMS THAT THERE'S A DISCREPANCY BETWEEN WHAT'S SHOWN IN THE PLAN AND WHERE THE, UM, MINIMUMS WOULD BE.
IS THAT A SETBACK? NO, EVERYTHING'S THE SAME.
AND I HAVE QUESTIONS STAFF, WHEN WE GET THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR ASKED.
I DON'T KNOW IF I SHOULD ADDRESS THIS TO THE STAFF OR TO THE APPLICANT, BUT MY QUESTION IS, WHAT, WHAT IS THE OBJECTION TO THE TURN LANE? I I UNDERSTAND THAT, THAT, THAT YOU WANT TO DO A TURN LANE ONTO ROYAL IS, I MEAN, ONTO, ONTO THE TOLL ROAD FROM ROAR.
AND, AND YET THE COMMUNITY MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY OBJECT TO IT AND I'M, THEY DON'T OBJECT TO IT.
THERE, THERE'S NOBODY THAT OBJECTS TO HAVING A TURN LANE THERE.
I THINK EVERYONE THINKS THAT THAT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA.
UH, VICE JURY, IS IT A INTENDED TO BE A SLIP TURN LANE OR JUST STATE REGULAR TURN LANE? UH, SO, SO THE, WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING IS TO, IS TO, UM, FREE OF CHARGE, DEDICATE THE LAND TO THE, THE EASEMENT TO THE CITY TO BE ABLE TO PUT A TURN LANE IN.
I THINK AS PART OF THE, FROM WHAT WE'VE BEEN TOLD BY STAFF IS THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE A STUDY DONE AS PART OF A LARGER STUDY OF WHAT, WHAT, WHAT'S FEASIBLE AT THAT, AT THAT INTERSECTION AS PART OF A LARGER CITYWIDE STUDY THAT'S GONNA HAPPEN.
AND SO AGAIN, FOR ME AS A RESIDENT, THE, AND BEING INVOLVED IN THE DEVELOPMENT BUSINESS MYSELF, THOSE THINGS TEND TO TAKE ON A LIFE OF THEIR OWN WHEN THE LAND ISN'T ALREADY AVAILABLE.
AND SO IN THIS CASE, WE'RE GONNA HAVE THE LAND ALREADY PRE RESERV SO THAT WHEN THIS PROCESS UNFOLDS, IT, IT CAN BECOME ONE OF MANY TYPES OF, YOU KNOW, STREET DESIGNS.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR OUR SPEAKERS AND SUPPORT? DO YOU HAVE A FOLLOW UP COMMISSIONER KING STAND FOR JUST AS A POINT OF CLARIFICATION.
I MEAN, I, I DON'T HAVE A QUESTION FOR THEM.
WE'LL GO TO OUR, UH, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT COMMISSIONERS QUESTIONS FOR OUR SPEAKERS IN OPPOSITION? COMMISSIONER FORESITE, I, I'M CURIOUS, UH, WOULD YOU MIND GENTLEMEN COME BACK UP? YES, SIR.
IT SOUNDS LIKE WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS ADDING THE, THE WALL TO THE EXCEPTIONS.
IS THAT SATISFACTORY TO YOU? I MEAN, WHAT, WHAT, WHAT WOULD THAT'S MY MAIN CONCERN.
I THINK MY MAIN CONCERN IS THE USAGE THAT IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING LIKE A NAIL SALON OR A THERAPY CENTER OR SOMETHING WHERE YOU HAVE A HIGH TURNOVER OF TRAFFIC, THEN IT'S THE FACT THAT WHERE IT IS, IF YOU HAVE TO GO, YOU CANNOT GO EASTBOUND OUT OF THAT PLACE, UH, OUT OF THAT LOCATION ON ROYAL LANE.
YOU HAVE TO GO ON SLIP ROAD, RIGHT ON GRAN SEAI STREET AND RIGHT ON JAMESTOWN.
AND THAT IS EXACTLY WHERE THE EPISCOPALIAN ST.
SO I THINK THAT WHEN WE TALK ABOUT WHAT HA UH, TO, TO, UH, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER'S POINT ABOUT WHAT HAS TO BE WRITTEN DOWN IN THE DEEDS, IF WE JUST SAY, YOU CAN'T USE THIS AS SOME TYPE OF DRIVE THROUGH YOU, YOU KNOW, THE USE CAN'T BE A NAIL SALON OR A HAIR SALON OR A THERAPY CENTER.
IT'S COMMON SENSE OF WHEN WE LOOK AT THE LIST OF WHAT'S ALLOWED, WHAT'S HIGH TRAFFIC AND WHAT ISN'T.
SO OBVIOUSLY YOU'RE AN OFFICE WHERE PEOPLE GO FOR EIGHT HOURS, YOU'RE NOT GONNA GET A MASSIVELY INCREASED USE OF CARS, ARE YOU? AND I JUST CAN'T HELP THINKING THAT INCREASED CARS AND CHILDREN WILL LEAD TO AN ACCIDENT.
THAT'S MY VIEW, THAT'S MY MAIN OBJECTION.
AREN'T THOSE USES, THOSE USES THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT LISTED THOUGH, IN THE, UH, DEED RESTRICTIONS? UM, COMMISSIONER HALL TOLD ME THEY WERE, BUT I HAVEN'T ACTUALLY FOUND THEM, UM, TO, TO COMMISSIONER CARPENTER'S POINT.
SO, UM, YEAH, SO I, THAT'S THE BIT THAT WAS REALLY RAISING ALARM BELLS FOR ME BECAUSE I ABSOLUTELY UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, WHAT'S SCOTT'S DOING IS RIGHT.
YOU KNOW, WE HAVE TO DEVELOP DALLAS, DALLAS, THE CITY NEEDS MONEY, WE NEED INCOME.
IT'S IMPRACTICAL TO PUT A HOUSE THERE, BUT
[03:05:01]
WE JUST NEED TO GO INTO THIS WHEN OUR EYES OPEN.IS DOES THAT HELP MR. LER? NO, MR. FORSYTH, SORRY, IS IT'S FORESIGHT.
SORRY, I I IS IT POSSIBLE FOR THEM TO BE ABLE TO KIND OF GET TOGETHER TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL THESE ITEMS ARE LISTED IN AS THE DEED RESTRICTIONS, AND MAYBE WE COULD TABLE THIS UNTIL THEY GET TOGETHER AND COME BACK WITH THE DEED RESTRICTIONS THAT ADDRESS ALL THE CONCERNS.
IF THAT'S A MOTION, I SECOND IT, I MAKE THE MOTION THEN.
I DIDN'T, I DID NOT HEAR THE MOTION.
I MAKE A MOTION THAT, UH, WE, UH, TABLE THIS SO THAT THE TWO, UH, PARTIES CAN KIND OF GET TOGETHER AND COME UP WITH A LIST OF THE DEED RESTRICTIONS THAT THEY MUTUALLY AGREED TO THAT WOULD SATISFY EVERYONE'S CONCERNS HERE.
I THINK THAT AS COMMISSIONER CAR CARPENTER SAYS THERE'S A SOLUTION HERE, JUST WE NEED TO HAVE THOSE DEED RESTRICTIONS GIVE, LET'S GIVE 'EM TIME TO DO THAT.
AND JUST TO CLARIFY, COMMISSIONER FORTNIGHT, THE MOTION TO TABLE WOULD JUST MOVE IT FURTHER DOWN IN TODAY'S PROCEDURES UNTIL THEY CAN COME BACK FINE.
YEAH, I THINK I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT.
I MEAN, THE, IT WAS THOSE USES THAT, THAT YOU'RE CONCERNED ABOUT ARE IN THE DEED RESTRICTIONS, BUT THEY WERE JUST UP FOR A HOT MINUTE THERE ON THE SCREEN AND, YOU KNOW, YOU MAY NOT BE ABLE TO SPEED READ THEM, SO I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM.
AND WE DO NEED TO GET THE LANGUAGE, UH, FOR THE OTHER DEED RESTRICTIONS THAT ARE NOT IN THE DOCUMENT.
UH, SO WHY DON'T WE JUST MOVE THIS, UH, BACK, UH, TO THE END OF THE, THE ZONING CASES AROUND BEFORE THE, THE PLATS.
WE'LL TABLE IT FOR THE MOMENT.
IT'S GEORGE, ARE WE RECORDING? SIR? WE ARE RECORDING COMMISSIONERS.
IT IS 2:08 PM AND WE ARE BACK ON THE RECORD.
UH, WE TABLED ITEM NUMBER 10 FOR THE
[11. 24-2548 An application for a CS Commercial Service District on property zoned an A(A) Agricultural District, on the southeast line of Telephone Road, between North Dallas Avenue and Van Horn Drive.]
MOMENT THAT TAKES US TO CASE NUMBER 11 Z 2 3 4 1 90.THIS IS ITEM NUMBER 11, CASE Z 2 34 DASH ONE 90.
AN APPLICATION FOR A CS COMMERCIAL SERVICE DISTRICT ON PROPERTY ZONED IN AA AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT ON THE SOUTHEAST LINE OF TELEPHONE ROAD BETWEEN NORTH ALICE AVENUE AND VANHORN DRIVE.
RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO DEED RESTRICTIONS VOLUNTEERED BY THE APPLICANT.
ANDREW REIG, 2201 MAIN STREET, DALLAS, TEXAS 7 5 2 0 1.
UH, HERE REPRESENTING THE, UH, APPLICANT FOR THIS REQUEST.
UM, AS YOU HEARD IN THE BRIEFING, UH, REZONED TO CS WITH SOME DEED RESTRICTIONS VOLUNTEERED BY US TO RESTRICT USES.
UH, THE USES RESTRICTED ARE VERY SIMILAR TO THE, UH, PROPERTY NEXT DOOR THAT ALSO WENT THROUGH THIS, UH, REZONING REQUEST TO CS, UH, ABOUT A YEAR AGO.
UM, WE'VE ALSO INCLUDED SOME SETBACK RESTRICTIONS IN OUR DEED RESTRICTIONS JUST TO PUSH OUR DEVELOPMENT, UH, FURTHER, FURTHER UP FROM THE REAR, WHICH THERE'S A CREEK AND SOME, UH, UH, WOODED AREAS BACK THERE.
AND JUST CONCENTRATE OUR DEVELOPMENT ON TELEPHONE ROAD, WHICH IS, UH, AS DESCRIBED IN THE BRIEFING, UNDERGOING, UH, SOME CHANGES TO BE MORE COMPATIBLE WITH THE, UH, UH, NEARBY INLAND PORT AREA AND SOME WAREHOUSE TRUCKING TYPE USES.
UH, SO WITH THAT, HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? COMMISSIONERS.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? OKAY.
C ON COMMISSIONER BLAIR, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? YES, IN THE MATTER, UH, Z 2 3 4 1 90.
I MOVE THAT WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE SUBJECT TO DE FILE STATUS, RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL SUBJECT TO DE RESTRICTIONS VOLUNTEERED BY THE APPLICANT.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER, BOTH FOR YOUR MOTION.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.
[12. 24-2215 An application for a Planned Development Subdistrict on property zoned an MF-2 Multiple-Family Subdistrict within Planned Development District No. 193, the Oak Lawn Special Purpose District, on the west line of Carlisle Street, between North Hall Street and Carlisle Place.]
[03:10:03]
ITEM 12 IS Z 2 2 3 2 8 0.IT'S AN APPLICATION FOR A PLAN DEVELOPMENT SUBDISTRICT ON PLAN ON PROPERTY ZONED IN MF TWO MULTIFAMILY, MULTIPLE FAMILY SUBDISTRICT WITHIN PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 1 9 3, THE OAK OAKLAND SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICT ON THE WEST LINE OF CARLISLE STREET BETWEEN NORTH HALL AND CARLISLE PLACE.
STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO A DEVELOPMENT PLAN, A LANDSCAPE PLAN, AND STAFF'S RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS.
SEE THAT THE APPLICANT IS HERE.
WE HAVE THREE SPEAKERS ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT.
I'VE REGISTERED ON THE WEBEX TO BE ABLE TO SCREEN SHARE.
IF I COULD BE ENABLED, IT'LL BE MR. OUT, MR. BEATTY, AND THEN ME.
BUT IF YOU CAN ENABLE TOMMY MANN, I'LL SHARE OUR SLIDES.
YOU DON'T NEED SLIDES, BUT YOU GOT THEM.
HI, MY NAME IS DEREK OUT, 68 30 ROBIN ROAD, DALLAS, TEXAS.
I JUST WANTED TO MAKE A FEW COMMENTS.
UH, JUST OVERALL, UH, BEFORE WE, UH, HAND IT OVER TO THE TEAM.
UM, WE BOUGHT THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY SEVERAL YEARS AGO AND WE HAD, UH, MANY, MANY NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS.
WE REACHED OUT TO ANY AND ALL WHO WANTED TO MEET WITH US.
UM, WE HAD, UH, MONTHS AND MONTHS OF MEETINGS BEFORE WE DRAW OR DREW ANYTHING ON PAPER.
UM, UH, THE REASON FOR THAT WAS WE WANTED TO GET A LOT OF COMMUNITY FEEDBACK, UH, ULTIMATELY WAS ALL INCORPORATED, UM, IN, IN VARIOUS WAYS.
LOTS OF PEOPLE HAD, UH, TIME TO LOOK AT IT, RESPOND, UM, ADDRESS CONCERNS.
YOU KNOW, WE WENT THROUGH MANY ITERATIONS, UH, BEFORE WE CAME UP WITH WHAT WE, UM, HAVE TODAY.
WE'RE VERY HAPPY WITH THE PROCESS, AND I JUST WANT TO, UM, TELL YOU THAT'S BEEN THE EXPERIENCE FOR, FOR, FOR US AS A DEVELOPER TO GET TO THIS POINT.
UM, I WANT TO TURN IT OVER TO MY, UH, MY TEAM, BUT I JUST WANTED TO TELL YOU THAT IT'S BEEN, UH, IT'S BEEN A LONG COLLABORATIVE PROCESS AND, AND, AND HERE'S OUR TEAM.
THIS IS, UH, EVAN BEATTY WITH GFF DESIGN.
WE'VE BEEN SERVING AS THE PROJECTS ARCHITECT.
UH, AND IT'S BEEN A PLEASURE WORKING WITH DEREK AND THE LANG PARTNERS TEAM ON THIS PROJECT.
UH, THEY SEE THIS AS A LEGACY PROJECT FOR THEIR FAMILY, UH, AND HAVE ENGAGED THE COMMUNITY AT EVERY TURN.
AND THE DESIGN THAT YOU'RE SEEING ON THE SCREEN NOW HAS BEEN SHAPED HEAVILY BY, UH, COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND, UH, REQUESTS FOR, FROM THE COMMUNITY FOR SPECIFIC DESIGN, UH, REFINEMENTS.
UH, THE THE BUILDING VIEW YOU'RE SEEING NOW IS AT THE CORNER OF CARLISLE STREET AND CARLISLE PLACE.
CARLISLE STREET'S ON THE LEFT AND CARLISLE PLACE IS ON THE RIGHT.
UH, THIS IS A, A MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING, AND THE MAIN ENTRANCE WILL BE HERE AT THIS CORNER.
UH, THE SITE HAS OVER 40 FEET OF GRADE CHANGE ACROSS IT.
THIS IS THE HIGH CORNER OF THE SITE, AND ALL OF THE PARKING IN THE BUILDING IS LOCATED EITHER AT GRADE OR BELOW GRADE.
UH, SO FROM THIS HIGH CORNER OF THE BUILDING, WE'LL HAVE A VEHICLE ENTRANCE, WHICH YOU'LL, YOU'LL SEE IN THE, UH, ONE SLIDE LATER.
UH, THE BUILDING HAS BEEN DESIGNED TO BE OF A, A, A QUALITY AND TIMELESS ARCHITECTURAL CHARACTER, UH, WITH A FACADE THAT'S, UH, PRIMARILY, UH, MASONRY AND HAS, UH, VERY DEEP RECESSES IN IT TO ALLOW FOR SHADOW PLAY, UM, AND QUALITY ARCHITECTURAL DETAILING.
AS WE MOVE DOWN CARLISLE STREET.
IN THIS VIEW, YOU CAN SEE THE ENTRANCE WE'VE PLANNED EXTENSIVELY FOR INTERIOR BUILDING SERVICES FOR LOADING AND DELIVERIES.
UH, NOTE THAT THIS ENTRANCE IS DOUBLE HEIGHT, ALLOWING, UH, THOSE AMAZON AND, AND, UH, DELIVERY TRUCKS TO COME IN, UH, AND, AND BRING FOOD TO THE RESIDENCE.
AND AS WELL AS PACKAGES MOVING DOWN THE SITE TO THE CORNER SECTION OF HALL STREET, HALL STREET'S ON THE LEFT HERE AND CARLISLE STREET'S ON THE RIGHT.
UH, WE HAVE LOWER SCALE DEVELOPMENT ON OVER 75% OF THE SITE.
UH, THE SITE, UH, ADJACENCIES ARE PRIMARILY THREE STORY TOWN HOMES TO THE SOUTH AND TO THE EAST.
UH, AND WE'RE HONORING THAT LOWER SCALE HERE, HOLDING THE BUILDING CORNER WITH THREE STORY, UH, CONSTRUCTION, UH, THAT STEPS DOWN FROM OUR, OUR HIGH-RISE BUILDING.
UH, THE HIGH-RISE BUILDING IS ON LESS THAN 25% OF THE SITE.
AND, UH, THROUGH COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT, UH, WE'VE POSITIONED THE HIGH RISE TO MINIMIZE ITS IMPACT TO, UH, THE, THE CLOSEST NEIGHBORS TO THE SOUTH.
YOU CAN SEE HERE OUR SIX FOOT PARKWAY AND SIX FOOT SIDEWALKS.
UH, WE STARTED OUT THINKING THE NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD WANT A WIDER SIDEWALK HERE, AND WE HEARD THROUGH COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT THAT THEY REALLY WOULD RATHER HAVE A SIX FOOT SIDEWALK AND SIX FOOT PARKWAY.
UH, WE'VE GOT INDIVIDUAL UNIT STOOPS AND A 45 FOOT SETBACK, A LONG HAUL STREET HERE, HONORING THE EXISTING BUILDING LINE.
AND AGAIN, BUFFERING FROM, UH, DEVELOPMENT
[03:15:01]
TO THE SOUTH.UH, EACH OF THE UNITS ALONG HALL STREET WILL HAVE A STOOP AND A STAIR ENTRANCE.
AND, UH, WE'RE REALLY HONORING THAT SCALE OF TOWN HOMES, UH, THAT WE HAVE ADJACENT TO US.
OUR PROJECT WILL HAVE A NEW TRAIL ENTRANCE, UH, THAT WE'VE WORKED WITH THE FRIENDS OF THE KATY TRAIL ON THE DESIGN OF AND, AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY OF DALLAS TEAM.
UH, WE'RE VERY EXCITED TO BE ABLE TO OFFER THIS NEW ENTRY POINT TO THE COMMUNITY, WHICH WE THINK WILL HELP, UH, COMMUNITY ACCESS TO THE TRAIL AND, AND HAVE THE SUPPORT OF THE FRIENDS OF THE KATY TRAIL.
UH, WE'RE PROPOSING, UH, ONE OR TWO SMALL RESTAURANTS ALONG THE TRAIL, UH, HELP ACTIVATE IT.
THIS AREA OF THE TRAIL DOESN'T HAVE A RESTAURANT ANYWHERE VERY CLOSE TO IT.
AND SO WE SEE THESE AS BEING, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD SERVING RESTAURANTS THAT DO, UH, BREAKFAST, LUNCH, AND DINNER SERVICE AND, AND BRIDGE THAT GAP BETWEEN THE SOUTHERN END OF THE TRAIL WHERE WE HAVE A LOT OF, UH, FOOD AND BEVERAGE AMENITIES AND, AND KNOX STREET WHERE THE NEXT, UH, NEXT OPPORTUNITY TO, TO GRAB A CUP OF COFFEE OR A SMOOTHIE WHILE YOU'RE ON YOUR, WHILE YOU'RE ON THE TRAIL.
UH, WE'RE EXCITED ABOUT THE ADDITION THAT THIS WILL BE TO THE COMMUNITY AND, UH, WE'RE REALLY PLEASED WITH THE FEEDBACK WE'VE RECEIVED THAT'S HELPED SHAPE THIS REQUEST.
TOMMY MANN 500 WINSTEAD BUILDING, AND, UM, REALLY WHAT YOU'RE SEEING TODAY IS THE TIP OF THE ICEBERG.
AS DEREK ALLUDED TO IN, IN THE MANY, MANY MONTHS AND YEARS OF WORK THAT HAVE LED TO TODAY.
WE RECOGNIZE THAT THE HEADLINE OF UPZONING MF TWO INVITES MORE SCRUTINY, AND WE KNEW THAT FROM DAY ONE, AND THAT'S WHY WE'VE TAKEN THE DELIBERATE APPROACH THAT WE HAVE HERE.
AND WE'RE VERY PROUD OF THE SUPPORT THAT YOU'LL HEAR TODAY FROM COMMUNITY STAKEHOLDERS AND THE CLOSEST HOMEOWNERS.
AND WE THINK THAT'S EVIDENCE OF THE FUNDAMENTAL REASON TO SUPPORT THIS REQUEST, WHICH IS THAT DENSITY IS APPROPRIATE HERE.
IF IT'S DONE THE RIGHT WAY, IT'S APPROPRIATE BECAUSE IT'S UPTOWN AND IT'S ON THE TRAIL AND IT'S MULTIMODAL AND IT'S CONNECTED AND IT'S BEEN DONE THE RIGHT WAY BECAUSE THE COMMUNITY SUPPORTS IT.
IN THAT VEIN, THERE IS ONE IMPORTANT ISSUE I WANNA HIGHLIGHT BEFORE I TURN IT OVER TO OUR COMMUNITY SUPPORTERS, MY CLIENT, IN ADDITION TO PURCHASING THE SITE THAT IS BEFORE YOU TODAY, PURCHASED THE SITE IMMEDIATELY ACROSS THE STREET, WE HAVE AGREED TO ENTER INTO A PRIVATE DEED RESTRICTION THAT WE WILL NOT SIMILARLY SEEK AN UPZONING OF IT WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE SUPPORT OF THE OAK LAWN COMMITTEE, THE LONG AND DESERVED STEWARD OF THIS COMMUNITY.
UH, AND WE KNOW WE WOULDN'T GET ANYWHERE WITHOUT THEIR SUPPORT ANYWAY, AND IT'S SOMETHING WE'RE HAPPY TO DO TO RECOGNIZE THE HIGHER SCRUTINY THAT SHOULD BE APPLIED ON A SITE LIKE THIS THAT I MENTIONED AT THE OUTSET.
SO THERE IS A LOT MORE INFORMATION.
THERE ARE A FEW DIFFERENCES WITH STAFF THAT I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT.
YOU'LL FIND ALL THE HALLMARKS OF A DISTRICT 14 REQUEST WITH RESPECT TO SUSTAINABILITY AND WALKABILITY AND CONNECTIVITY IN THIS REQUEST.
UH, AND I'M GONNA LET SOME OF THE OTHERS SPEAK, BUT WE HAVE ANOTHER 70 PAGES OR SO IN HERE IF THERE ARE QUESTIONS.
GOOD, GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONERS.
I LIVE AT 44 37 COLE AVENUE IN KNOX, AND I AM THE 2024 PRESIDENT OF THE OAKLAWN COMMITTEE.
I THINK YOU ALREADY KNOW THAT WE HAVE ALMOST 200 MEMBERS WHO LIVE, WORK, OR OWN PROPERTY IN PD 1 93, AND FOR OVER 40 YEARS, WE HAVE BEEN THE CHAMPIONS AND GATEKEEPERS FOR THE OAK LAWN PLAN.
AS, UH, YOU JUST HEARD FROM MR. MANN, THIS PROJECT WAS PRESENTED TO US ACTUALLY IN THE FALL OF 2022, AND THEY CAME BACK MULTIPLE TIMES TO SEEK THE OAK LAWN COMMITTEE SUPPORT.
IN PARTICULAR, WE WERE CONCERNED ABOUT THE HEIGHT AS HE MENTIONED THE, UH, DEPARTURE FROM MF TWO, THE IMPACT TWO IN RELATION WITH THE KATY TRAIL SITE CIRCULATION AND LANDSCAPING OF SPECIFIC CONCERN WAS THE DEVELOPER'S PLAN, AS HAS BEEN MENTIONED TO REDEVELOP ACROSS THE STREET, THE MF TWO THAT IS ON THERE ON CARLISLE.
AND OUR MEMBERS SOUGHT ASSURANCE THAT DEVELOPMENT WOULD RESPECT THAT EXISTING MF TWO ON THAT SITE, WHICH WOULD IMPACT THE ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD.
I WOULD LIKE TO COMMEND THE DEVELOPER AND THEIR DESIGN TEAM FOR REALLY ADDRESSING MANY OF THE ISSUES THAT THE OAKLAWN COMMITTEE MEMBERS RAISED AND WE DID, UH, SUPPORT THE PROJECT IN JUNE OF 2023.
WE ARE QUITE APPRECIATIVE OF THE DEVELOPER'S WILLINGNESS TO PROVIDE FURTHER SAFEGUARDS FOR THE ADJACENT MF TWO PROPERTY, AND I THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.
ANY OTHER SPEAKERS I WANT TO HEAR HERE?
[03:20:01]
OKAY, WE'LL, OUR SPEAKERS ONLINE, MR. PAGE.CHAIRMAN, ADEEN COMMISSIONERS.
MY NAME IS TONY PAGE AND I RESIDE AT 32 10 CARLISLE STREET, DALLAS.
I'M HERE TODAY REPRESENTING BOTH DIVINE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION AND THE UPTOWN NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION TO OFFER OUR FULL, UNQUALIFIED AND ENTHUSIASTIC SUPPORT FOR THE CARLISLE AND THE CREEK DEVELOPMENT.
PROPOSED BY THE DALLAS HOME FAMILY OFFICE BACKED LANG PARTNERS DIVINE IS HOME TO NEARLY 200 RESIDENTS WHO LIVE DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.
WE APPLAUD THE DEVELOPERS AT LANG PARTNERS LED BY THE LOCAL AND WELL-REGARDED OUT FAMILY AND THEIR ADVISORS, INCLUDING SARAH DOD, THE DESIGN TEAM AT GFF, HEADED BY EVAN BEATTY AND HER LEGAL ADVISORS AT WINSTEAD, LED BY TOMMY MANN.
THEY PROACTIVELY REACHED OUT TO US LONG BEFORE COMMENCING DESIGN WORK TO UNDERSTAND AND EMBRACE OUR VISION FOR A BETTER NEIGHBORHOOD.
OVER A PERIOD EXCEEDING ONE YEAR THROUGH A COLLABORATIVE AND MUTUALLY RESPECTFUL PROCESS, WE REACHED AGREEMENT ON A DESIGN FORWARD PROJECT FEATURING SUPERIOR TREATMENT OF THE GROUND PLANE AND INCLUDING BOUNCE SPACE PROGRAMMING, EFFICIENT TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT, AND SOFTENED TREATMENT OF STREET EDGES BY SMARTLY ENCOURAGING WELL-DESIGNED HIGHER DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS SUCH AS CARLISLE ON THE CREEK WITH ADEQUATE BUFFERING FROM ADJACENT LOW DENSITY HOUSING.
STOCK CITY STAFF IS PROMOTING INCREASED WALKABILITY, SUSTAINABILITY AND RESILIENCE IN A MANNER WHICH STABILIZES AND REINFORCES THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE PLAN YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY'S LAND USE PLANS AND POLICIES, INCLUDING FOR DALLAS 2.0.
IT ALLOWS FOR AN INCREASE IN MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHTS AND DENSITY IN EXCHANGE FOR MULTIMILLION DOLLAR COMMITMENTS TO BURY ALL THE PARKING AND EXISTING UTILITIES.
LIMIT THE FOOTPRINT OF THE TOWER TO A SMALL PORTION OF SITE LOCATED OVER 500 FEET AWAY FROM NEAREST LOW RISE RESIDENTIAL USES, BUFFERED BY NEW LOW DENSITY MF TWO COMPATIBLE RESIDENTIAL HOUSING, IMPROVE WALKABILITY AND RESILIENCE BY IMPROVING KATY TRAIL CONNECTIVITY WITH A SIGNALED PEDESTRIAN CROSSING AT CARLISLE STREET AND REDUCE CAR DEPENDENCY BY ADDING A LONG DESIRED WALK TO NEIGHBORHOOD DINING DESTINATION ALONG THE KATY TRAIL, SOMETHING OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS TO THE NORTH AND SOUTH ALREADY ENJOY.
TO REITERATE, THE RESIDENTS OF THE VINE, ALONG WITH THE UPTOWN NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, DEEPLY APPRECIATE THE DEVELOPMENT TEAM'S TIME AND EFFORT, WHICH HAVE CULMINATED IN A TRULY WIN-WIN SOLUTION FOR THIS IMPORTANT DEVELOPMENT SITE.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND YOUR SERVICE.
THIS IS, UH, JESSE COPELAND ONLINE.
UH, IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE IN SUPPORT OR OPPOSITION? I JUST WANTED TO SAY I'M SORRY.
WE, WE, WE DON'T GET A SECOND ROUND.
BUT THERE MAY BE A QUESTION FOR YOU.
UH, QUESTIONS FOR OUR SPEAKERS.
COMMISSIONERS, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, SIR, I'D LIKE FOR YOU TO CLARIFY WHAT YOU JUST WANTED TO SAY TO US.
I JUST WANTED TO THANK, UM, A LOT OF PEOPLE BECAUSE I'VE NEVER GONE THROUGH A PROCESS LIKE THIS AND THIS IS, UH, VERY, UM, IT'S, IT'S REALLY A AMAZING TO SEE WHAT PEOPLE CAN DO WHEN EVERYBODY GETS TOGETHER AND, AND, AND PUSHES AND PULLS.
AND I WANTED TO THANK, UH, OUR TEAM, UH, UNBELIEVABLE DESIGN, UH, EVAN BEATTY, TOMMY MANN, SARAH, I WANTED TO THANK, UH, OUR ZONING COMMISSIONER KINGSTON AS WELL, OAK LAWN COMMITTEE.
UM, IT, I THINK THIS TYPE OF COLLABORATION REALLY DOES CREATE, UH, THE BEST POSSIBLE PROJECT AFTER ALL THE, THE PUSHING AND PULLING HAS BEEN DONE AND I JUST WANNA SAY THANKS TO EVERYBODY.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR ANY OF OUR SPEAKERS? OKAY.
COMMISSIONER KINGSTON, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION IN THE MATTER OF Z 2 23 DASH TWO 80 A MOVE THAT WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE? UM, SUBJECT TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, LANDSCAPE PLAN, AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGES IN SECTION 1.06, MAIN USE IS PROHIBITED.
ADD THE FOLLOWING LANGUAGE TO THE BEGINNING OF SECTION B FOR A PROJECT OBTAINING MIXED INCOME HOUSING BONUS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION S ONE 14 IN SECTION 1 0 9 OFF STREET PARKING AND LOADING, DISREGARD STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION REGARDING PARKING AND GO WITH THE APPLICANT'S, UM, CHOSEN
[03:25:02]
LANGUAGE IN SECTION 1 1 3.LANDSCAPING STRIKE SECTION B, SUBSECTION TWO, AND SUBSECTION B SUBSECTION THREE AS REDUNDANT IN SECTION ONE 14, DEVELOPMENT BONUSES FOR MIXED INCOME HOUSING.
UM, IN SUBSECTION B, DISREGARD STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IN FAVOR OF THE APPLICANT'S UM, SELECTION IN SUBSECTION THREE, I'M SORRY, SUBSECTION C, DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.
SUB SUBSECTION ONE SHOULD READ AS FOLLOWS ONE, BUILDING DESIGN SUBSECTION A.
ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS SUBSECTION I.
AND ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS SUCH AS THE FOLLOWING MUST BE PROVIDED ADJACENT TO ALL BUILDINGS, I'M SORRY, ALL BUILDING CORNERS.
ARCHITECTURALLY PROMINENT PUBLIC ENTRANCES, CANOPIES, AWNINGS, BUILDING MATERIAL VARIATIONS, VARIATIONS IN BUILDING MASSING, INCREASED TRANSPARENCY IN VARIATIONS IN FENESTRATION SUBSECTION TWO, ALONG CARLISLE PLACE, TRANSPARENCY IS REQUIRED FOR EVERY 50 LINEAR FEET OF CONTINUOUS STREET FRONTING AND OPEN SPACE FRONTING FACADE ALONG THE KATY TRAIL, HAR CALL, I'M SORRY, HALL STREET AND CARLISLE STREET.
TRANSPARENCY IS REQUIRED FOR EVERY 50 LINEAR FEET OF CONTINUOUS STREET FRONTING AND OPEN SPACE FRONTING FACADE.
SUBSECTION THREE, BUILDING ENTRIES MUST BE ARCHITECTURALLY PROMINENT AND CLEARLY VISIBLE FROM THE STREET.
AND SUBSECTION, FOUR BLANK WALLS LONGER THAN 30 FEET AND LENGTH ARE PROHIBITED.
WHERE BLANK WALLS OCCUR, HORIZONTAL OR VERTICAL ARTICULATION IS REQUIRED.
AND IN SUB AND IN SECTION ONE 16, ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS ADOPT THE APPLICANT'S REQUESTED PROVISIONS.
THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER KINGSTON FOR YOUR MOTION.
AND COMMISSIONER BLAIR FOR YOUR SECOND COMMENTS.
THIS HAS BEEN A DIFFICULT CASE.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE REPLY PACKET, THERE ARE 63, UM, RESPONSES IN FAVOR AND ZERO IN OPPOSITION IN THE NOTIFICATION ZONE.
AND AS YOU HEARD PEOPLE TODAY, THE ONLY SPEAKERS WERE IN FAVOR.
WE HAD NO SPEAKERS IN OPPOSITION.
BUT I DO RECOGNIZE THAT THERE IS OPPOSITION TO THIS CASE.
UM, THERE WERE PEOPLE WHO ARE IN OPPOSITION TO CHANGING WHAT IS MF TWO ZONING TO A, A SUBSTANTIALLY MORE DENSE, UM, DEVELOPMENT.
THERE WERE FOLKS WHO FUNDAMENTALLY DON'T WANT THIS TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT ON THE KATY TRAIL.
THEY HAVE A DIFFERENT VISION FOR THE KATY TRAIL, AND THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN NEARBY TOWERS WHO DO NOT THINK TOWERS ARE APPROPRIATE FOR THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, WHILE I DO UNDERSTAND THAT, UM, PRESERVING MF TWO ZONING IS IMPORTANT FOR MANY AREAS OF OAK LAWN, I THINK THAT GIVEN THE AMOUNT OF COMMUNITY SUPPORT, UM, THIS CHANGE IS APPROPRIATE HERE.
UM, THE, AS YOU CAN SEE, THE THE PROJECT HAS A LOT OF OF SUPPORT.
AND AS WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IT, MANY CASES, INCLUDING CASES WHERE YOU DO HAVE A LOT OF OPPOSITION.
YOU KNOW, CITIES CHANGE AND THE SUPPORT RECEIVED IN THIS PROJECT, PARTICULARLY WHEN VIEWED FROM THE AMOUNT OF OPPOSITION THAT SOME OF THE VERY SAME PEOPLE WHO SPOKE IN SUPPORT OF THIS PROJECT WHO VOTE, WHO SO VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED LINCOLN'S PROJECT IMMEDIATELY NEXT DOOR SIX OR SEVEN YEARS AGO, THAT ARE, THAT'S, UH, IN SOME WAYS AS DENSE, BUT IN SOME WAYS NOT AS DENSE, JUST GOES TO DEMONSTRATE HOW CITIES DO CHANGE AND THE ATTITUDES OF THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN CITIES CHANGE.
AND, YOU KNOW, AS PEOPLE WHO SIT AROUND THIS HORSESHOE, WE HAVE TO RECOGNIZE THAT, AND WE HAVE TO BE WILLING TO HELP FACILITATE THOSE CHANGES AND MANAGE THOSE CHANGES.
AND THAT'S WHERE BALANCING THE SUPPORT FOR PROJECTS AND THE OPPOSITION FOR PROJECTS AND, AND SHEPHERDING THE APPLICANTS THROUGH THIS PROJECT BECOMES DIFFICULT SOMETIMES.
IN THE END, I'M SUPPORTING THIS PROJECT NOT ONLY BECAUSE THE OPPOSITION SIGNIFICANTLY OUTWEIGHS, I MEAN, I'M SORRY, THE SUPPORTS SIGNIFICANTLY OUTWEIGHS THE OPPOSITION.
UM, BUT ALSO BECAUSE I THINK THE PROJECT IS A GOOD PROJECT.
IT'S GOT GREAT URBAN DESIGN IT,
[03:30:02]
AND WHILE IT IS GOING TO ELIMINATE NATURALLY AFFORDABLE, UH, MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING ON THE SITE, UM, IT IS PROVIDING MORE HOUSING AND IT IS PARTICIPATING IN OUR MHID, UM, OUR MIXED INCOME HOUSING PROGRAM.IN ADDITION TO THAT, IT'S COMMITTED TO PROVIDING 5% MICRO UNITS.
SO IT IN THEORY WOULD BE ABLE TO PROVIDE SOME HOUSING FOR FOLKS WHO WORK ON SITE OR NEARBY.
IT'S GOT A COMMITMENT TO PROVIDING MICRO MOBILITY INFRASTRUCTURE, WHICH I THINK TIES IN NICELY WITH THE TRAIL ACCESS THAT IT HAS.
IT'S GOT A NEW PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE TRAIL ACCESS POINT.
UM, THE DEVELOPER HAS COMMITTED TO, UM, PAYING FOR A PEDESTRIAN CROSSING FACILITY AT CARLISLE, WHICH IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE ALREADY USING SORT OF A GOAT PATH THERE.
AND I THINK THAT WILL INCREASE THE, UM, PUBLIC SAFETY INFRASTRUCTURE AT THE SITE.
UM, IT'S GOING TO PROVIDE REST, UH, RESTAURANTS AND WHILE THEY DIDN'T MENTION IT, UM, PUBLICLY AVAILABLE RESTROOMS FOR TRAIL USERS, UH, AT THE SITE, WHICH NOT ONLY CREATES A MIXED USE BUILDING, WHICH TYPICALLY PROVIDES FOR LONGER LONGEVITY OF A BUILDING, BUT ALSO IS HELPING TO CREATE SOME VIBRANCY ON THE TRAIL AT THIS LOCATION.
UM, THE BUILDING ALSO WILL PARTICIPATE IN A NUMBER OF GREEN BUILDING, UM, ASPECTS THAT I THINK ARE IMPORTANT FOR MEETING OUR CITY'S CCAP GOAL AND MEETING THE CHALLENGES OF CLIMATE CHANGE IN THE FUTURE.
THE ENTIRE SITE WILL COMPLY WITH HABITAT GARDEN STANDARDS.
IT WILL HAVE SOME SOLAR ENERGY PRODUCTION.
IT'LL HAVE EV PARKING AND MICRO MOBILITY INFRASTRUCTURE, UM, HEAT PRODUCTION, MINIMIZING FEATURES ON THE ROOF RECYCLING FACILITIES THROUGHOUT, INCLUDING RECYCLING ABILITY FOR TRAIL USERS AND OTHERS, UM, ALONG THE PUBLIC RIGHTS AWAY, UH, WATER RECAPTURE AND REUSE ON SITE, ET CETERA.
SO IN ADDITION TO THAT, ONE OF THE GREATEST CONCERNS WAS IF, YOU KNOW, WE APPROVE THIS SITE, AREN'T THEY JUST GONNA COME BACK AND WANT THE SAME THING ACROSS THE STREET? AND I THINK THAT WAS A FAIR CONCERN BECAUSE I THINK AS YOU ENCROACH ON THE MF TWO ZONING IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, IT CAUSES A LOT OF CONCERN FOR FOLKS.
AND SO, UM, THE DEVELOPER HAS COMMITTED TO GIVING AN A DEED RESTRICTION, UH, IN FAVOR OF THE OAKLAWN COMMITTEE, THAT THEY WILL NOT SEEK TO UP ZONE THE SISTER SIDE ACROSS THE STREET WITHOUT THE OAKLAWN COMMITTEE'S SUPPORT.
AND I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT BECAUSE, UM, NOT ONLY WOULD THEY REALLY NEED THE OAKLAWN COMMITTEE'S SUPPORT IN PRACTICALITY MOST OF THE TIME TO, TO GET ANYWHERE, BUT I ALSO THINK THAT THAT ENSURES THAT YOU'RE REALLY EMBRACING THIS IDEA THAT YOU'RE NOT GOING TO CHANGE THAT USE UNLESS THERE'S A REAL SEA CHANGE IN THE COMMUNITY, WHICH IS GONNA BE REFLECTED IN THE OAK LAWN COMMITTEE.
SO WITH ALL OF THAT, I AM HAPPY TO SUPPORT THIS PROJECT AND I HOPE THAT YOU ALL WILL JOIN ME.
THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER SLEEPER.
WELL, I, I JUST WANNA START BY SAYING, I, I DON'T, I DON'T, THIS ISN'T MY DISTRICT, BUT I'VE LIVED, WORKED AND PLAYED IN THIS DISTRICT FOR OVER 30 YEARS.
I WAS JUST A CHILD WHEN I MOVED DOWN HERE,
AND, UM, WHEN I FIRST HEARD ABOUT THIS CASE, I THOUGHT, THERE IS NOT A CHANCE THEY'LL GET THIS APPROVED BY THE OAK LAWN COMMITTEE.
AND IF THEY GET IT BY THE OAK LAWN COMMITTEE, THEY'LL NEVER GET IT BY TONY PAGE.
AND IF THEY GET IT BY TONY PAGE, THEY'LL STILL NEVER GET IT BY THE COMMISSIONER FOR THE DISTRICT WHO'S NOW COMMISSIONER KINGSTON.
WELL, FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO COMPLIMENT THIS GROUP ON THE WAY THEY'VE TAKEN ON THIS PROJECT THAT THE, I THINK THE, THE THINGS THAT THEY'RE DOING FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UM, MORE THAN OFFSET, UM, THE HEIGHT AND THE DENSITY THAT'S THERE.
AND, UM, I REALLY COMPLIMENT YOU OR DID THE WAY YOU'VE ADDRESSED IT.
UM, I REALLY WANT TO COMPLIMENT THE OAKLAWN COMMITTEE, MS. POTTER.
UM, THE, UM, NOT TOO MANY YEARS AGO, THIS WOULD NEVER HAVE GOTTEN ENDORSED BY THE OAK LAWN COMMITTEE.
AND I THINK WHAT'S HAPPENED OVER TIME IS THE OAK LAWN COMMITTEE HAS LEARNED TO APPRECIATE THAT THERE ARE MORE IMPORTANT THINGS THAN JUST
[03:35:01]
THE DENSITY AND THE HEIGHT THAT GOES ON THE SITE.THEY'RE THE THINGS THAT MAKE A PROJECT HELP A NEIGHBORHOOD OR HURT A NEIGHBORHOOD.
ALL THOSE LITTLE ISSUES LIKE THE PARKING, THE, THE, THE BUILDING FORM, THE, THE WAY THEY HANDLE SERVICING AND ALL THOSE ISSUES HAVE REALLY BEEN DRESSED WELL IN THIS.
AND I KNOW THAT WOULDN'T HAVE HAPPENED WITHOUT THE OAKLAWN COMMITTEE'S INPUT.
SO, UM, THAT ALL THAT BEING SAID, I'M, I HAPPY TO ENDORSE THIS CASE.
I APPRECIATE ALL THE HARD WORK COMMISSIONER KINGSTON'S PUT IN TO MAKE EVERYTHING WORK RIGHT, TO TAKE THE RIGHT THINGS INTO, INTO, UH, COMBINATION.
I THINK IT'LL BE ONE THAT, THAT WOULD, THE COMMUNITY WILL BE VERY GLAD TO SEE WHEN IT'S COMPLETED.
THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER WHEELER.
UM, AS ALWAYS, THE, THE PROJECTS THAT ARE BEING BUILT IN UPTOWN RIGHT NOW HAVE BEEN REALLY THOUGHTFUL, IMPACTFUL TO THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY.
AND IT'S THINKING ABOUT THE COMMUNITY OF WHAT ALL CAN BE ON SITE.
UM, FOR ME, UM, IT'S ALWAYS GONNA BE, IS THERE GOING TO BE ADDITIONAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING, UM, BESIDES THE MICRO UNITS.
AND, UM, I WAS LAST WEEK, LAST, LAST HEARING, OUR, UM, OUR CO-CHAIR READ INTO RECORD WHAT THAT A MI LOOKS LIKE FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
UM, AND IT'S 60,000, $80,000 IN OUR WORKING CLASS PEOPLE, UM, FIREMEN, OUR TEACHERS, UM, THOSE WHO WOULD IN PAST BE ABLE TO AFFORD THIS AREA CANNOT.
UM, I WOULD HOPE THAT AT SOME POINT, A DEVELOPER WHO'S BUILDING THESE AMAZING, UM, SITES THAT ARE NOT USING IT FROM, FROM THE, EACH, FROM EACH PORTION OF THEIR SITE LINE BUILDING APARTMENTS, BUT BUILDING AMENITIES WOULD ALSO CONSIDER NOT DOING THE ENLO FEE AND ALLOWING SOME OF THESE UNITS TO BE AFFORDABLE FOR THE THOSE WORKING CLASS PEOPLE.
BUT I DO SUPPORT THIS CASE BECAUSE YOU ALL HAVE THOUGHTFUL IMPACTS OF WHAT YOU'RE BUILDING UP AND UPTOWN NOW, UM, COMPARED TO OTHER PARTS OF THE CITY WHERE THEY'RE BUILDING TO THE LOT LINE AND NOT MAKING SURE THERE'S COMMUNITY AMENITIES AND PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN APARTMENTS STILL WANT TO WORK, LIVE AND PLAY WHERE THEY STAY.
AND SO THANK YOU ALL FOR THAT.
BUT I HOPE THAT YOU ALL CAN CONSIDER THE WORKING CLASS WHO REALLY MAKES TWO YEARS AGO, MADE ENOUGH MONEY TO LIVE IN THIS AREA IN, IN, IN DALLAS PERIOD, AND REALLY ARE FINDING THEIRSELF WITH NOWHERE TO TO STAY.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS, COMMISSIONERS, EXCEPT AROUND COMMISSIONER KINGSTON.
THEY DID A GOOD JOB ON THIS, AND I FORGOT TO SAY THAT AT THE BEGINNING.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? COMMISSIONERS? UH, UH, JUST VERY BRIEFLY FOR ME, UH, HAPPY TO SUPPORT THIS CASE.
AND I, I THINK THE FLOW OF THIS CASE AT THIS HEARING TODAY HAS BEEN A BIT OF A MIRAGE.
UH, YOU KNOW, FOR FOLKS THAT DON'T KNOW WHAT WE DO AND THEY WATCH THE LAST 20 MINUTES, THEY THINK, WELL, YOU KNOW, THIS WAS ONE OF THEIR EASY ONES.
UH, WHEN IN FACT, IT'S, IT'S NOT, IT'S, UH, IT'S A CASE FILLED WITH LOTS OF PUSHING AND PULLING AND LOTS OF COMPROMISE.
AND I WANT TO THINK I'LL INVOLVE THE APPLICANT OR TEAM OAK OAKLAND COMMITTEE, MR. PAGE, AND OF COURSE, COMMISSIONER KINGSTON.
UH, AS WE ALL KNOW, UH, YOU KNOW, THE WORD QUALITY IS HARD TO, TO PUT IN A PD.
AND I THINK THIS ONE TAKES US AS FAR AS AS IT CAN, AND THE REST IS THE, IS A LEAP OF FAITH, UH, THAT I THINK IN THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT WILL ABSOLUTELY, UH, COME TO FRUITION.
SO I'M VERY MUCH HAPPY TO SUPPORT IT.
UH, ANY OTHER COMMENTS? COMMISSIONERS, SEE? NONE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY, AYE.
WE HAVE SOME, UH, COUPLE OF MOVING PARTS.
[23. 24-2559 An application to replat a 0.433-acre (18,850 square foot) tract of land containing all of Lots 22 and 23 in City Block F/7478 to create one lot on property located on Shoreview Road, east of Audelia Road.]
UH, LET'S TAKE ITEM NUMBER 23, WHICH IS THE LAST PLA CASE.[03:40:07]
WE'RE, WE'RE GONNA GO TO CASE NUMBER 23.IT'S THE LAST, VERY LAST PAGE ON PAGE 11.
UM, ITEM 23 S 2 34 DASH 1 68, AN APPLICATION TO REPLY, A 0.433 ACRE.
THAT IS 8,008 50 SQUARE FOOT TRACK OF LAND CONTING, ALL OF LOTS, 22 AND 23.
AND CITY BLOCK F OVER 7, 4 78 TO CREATE ONE LOT ON PROPERTY.
LOCATED ON SHOREVIEW ROAD ROAD, EAST OF ADEELA ROAD.
13 NOTICES WERE SENT TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE PROPERTY ON AUGUST 5TH, 2024.
WE HAVE RECEIVED NINE REPLIES IN FAVOR AND ONE REPLYING OPPOSITION TO THIS REQUEST.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION, DENIAL OF THE REQUEST.
HOWEVER, SHOULD THE COMMISSION APPROVE THE REQUEST, STAFF RECOMMEND THAT APPROVAL BE SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE LISTED IN THE DOCKET AND OR AS AMEN AT THE HEARING.
IS SEE, THE APPLICANT IS HERE.
UH, GEORGE, CAN YOU, I I'M NOT DOING SOMETHING RIGHT.
UH, GOOD AFTERNOON LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
ROB BALDWIN, 3 9 0 4 ELM STREET, SUITE B IN DALLAS.
I'M HERE REPRESENTING THE SLAUGHTER FAMILY.
AND THIS REQUEST FOR A, A RE A RESIDENTIAL REPL, UM, THE PROPERTY IS NORTH OF WHITE ROCK LAKE, UH, IS KIND OF, UH, IT, IT'S BETWEEN, UH, ELIA AND FERNDALE OVER, UH, BY THE KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS, IF YOU KNOW WHERE THAT IS.
IT'S, UM, HERE'S THE PROPERTY HERE.
UH, IT'S THE AREA OUTLINED IN BLUE.
THE, UH, THE SLAUGHTERERS, UH, OWN BOTH LOTS.
THEY'D LIKE TO PUT 'EM TOGETHER INTO ONE LOT TO BUILD, UH, A NEW HOME ON THE PROPERTY.
UH, THEY HAVE DONE EXTENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH, SPOKE TO, UH, ALL THEIR NEIGHBORS THAT THEY COULD, EVERYBODY IN THE GREEN.
HERE IS THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE, UH, WRITTEN LETTERS TO SUPPORT, AND YOU SHOULD HAVE THOSE IN YOUR PACKET.
UH, THE, THE OTHER PEOPLE, UH, WERE EITHER NOT AVAILABLE OR WERE NOT WILLING TO SIGN A LETTER OF SUPPORT.
AS YOU KNOW, 8 0 5 0.3 IS PROBLEMATIC, AT LEAST FROM, UH, THE APPLICANT'S STANDPOINT A LOT OF TIMES.
UM, I THINK THAT THE PURPOSE OF THAT IS TO NOT, SO NEIGHBORS AREN'T SURPRISED WHEN SOMEONE'S PROPERTY GETS REFLATED, WHETHER THEY'RE COMBINING TWO LOTS OR TAKING ONE BIG LOT AND MAKING IT SMALL LOTS.
IN THIS CASE, THE SMALLERS HAVE CLEARLY GONE THROUGH AND EXPLAINED THEIR PLANS TO EVERYBODY.
WE HAVE, UH, EXTENSIVE, UH, SUPPORT FOR WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO.
AND IF YOU LOOK AT THIS SLIDE, THESE ARE LOTS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT DO NOT MATCH THE EXISTING LOT PATTERN AS PUT FORTH IN THE SUBDIVISION DOCKET.
THIS AREA IS NOT A TYPICAL GRID PATTERN LIKE YOU WOULD FIND FARTHER WEST OVER, UH, LIKE IN THE M STREET AREA.
IT HAS, UH, KER LINEAR STREETS, IT HAS SOME HILLS, AND IT, UH, SO THE LOTS ARE NOT ALL 50 BY ONE 50 NORMAL, UH, CITY LOTS IN, IN THE EAST DALLAS AREA.
IN FACT, IF YOU LOOK AT THIS SLIDE OVER ON THE FAR RIGHT, THE TRAPEZOIDAL SHAPE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF SHOREVIEW, SOMEONE HAS BUILT A HOUSE OVER TWO LOTS, BUT THEY HAVEN'T RELA IT.
SO IT SHOWS UP AS TWO LOTS IF IT'S ACTUALLY ONE BUILDING SITE.
I HOPE THAT YOU WOULD TAKE A LOOK AT THIS, UH, THIS SLIDE THAT SHOWS THAT THERE MAY NOT BE AN EXISTING LOT PATTERN.
I'D ARGUE THERE'S NOT AN EXISTING LAW PATTERN IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
COUPLE THAT WITH THE SUPPORT THAT THE SLAUGHTERERS HAVE HAD AND THE SUPPORT THIS REQUEST.
AND, UH, MS. SLAUGHTERERS WOULD LIKE TO SAY A FEW WORDS AND THEN WE'RE HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.
UH, UH, WE LIVE AT 9 8 3 5 SHOREVIEW ROAD, WHICH IS ONE OF THE, THE HOUSES THAT'S PROPOSED IN THE REPL.
SO WE MOVED TO DALLAS ABOUT 12 YEARS AGO, UH, MOVED INTO LAKE HIGHLANDS, WHICH IS WHERE WE STILL RESIDE.
UH, STILL RESIDE AT SHOREVIEW ROAD.
SO JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT, WE'VE BEEN ON THIS STREET FOR 12 YEARS.
UH, WE SPENT A LONG TIME THERE, HAVE GOTTEN TO BE REALLY GOOD FRIENDS WITH OUR NEIGHBORS.
UH, THEY'RE SOME OF OUR BEST FRIENDS AT THIS POINT.
WE HAVE A YOUNG DAUGHTER AND SOME OF HER BEST FRIENDS ALSO LIVE ON THIS STREET.
SO I JUST WANTED TO KIND OF POINT OUT THE SUPPORT THAT ROB SHOWED ON THE MAP IS JUST BECAUSE, ESPECIALLY ON SHOREVIEW ROAD, WE HAD
[03:45:01]
A HUNDRED PERCENT SUPPORT ON SHOREVIEW ROAD.THERE WAS TWO NEIGHBORS THAT JUST DIDN'T ANSWER THE DOOR, THEY KIND OF KEEP TO THEMSELVES.
SO EVERYONE WE SPOKE TO SUPPORTED THIS PROJECT AND THE REJUVENATION THAT IT WOULD BRING TO THIS STREET.
SO IT JUST KIND OF TOLD US WE KNEW THIS IS WHERE WE WANTED TO BUILD OUR FOREVER HOME, AND THAT THIS WAS KIND OF THE RIGHT PATH FOR US.
UH, ONE OF THE OTHER THINGS I WANTED TO POINT OUT WAS WHAT BROUGHT US TO THE LAKE ISLANDS AREA WAS JUST THE WARMTH AND THE WELCOMING OF THE NEIGHBORS AND, AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND SO WE WANT TO BE SURE WE MAINTAIN THAT CHARACTER.
SO WE HIRED AN ARCHITECT THAT ACTUALLY LIVES IN LAKE HIGHLANDS AND THEY LIVE A BLOCK AWAY FROM US.
SO THEY ACTUALLY DRIVE BY OUR HOUSE, UH, EVERY DAY ON THE WAY TO WHITE ROCK COFFEE.
SO THEY ARE EQUALLY INVESTED IN MAKING SURE THIS HOUSE BLENDS IN, UH, TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, JUST LIKE ALL OF THE OTHER PROJECTS THAT THEY WORK ON IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
SO, JUST WANTED TO SAY THANK YOU FOR THE TIME HERE.
AND Y'ALL'S SUPPORT WOULD MEAN THE WORLD TO US AS WE LOOK TO BUILD OUR FOREVER HOME IN DALLAS.
ANY OTHER SPEAKERS? OKAY, I THINK WE DO HAVE ANOTHER SPEAKER.
GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONERS.
MY NAME IS MICHELLE ADAMS AND I RESIDE AT 98 30 FITZROY DRIVE, WHICH IS DIRECTLY BEHIND THIS PROJECT.
I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO VOICE MY OPPOSITION REGARDING PATRICK AND RACHEL SLAUGHTER'S APPLICATION TO REPL LOTS 22 AND 23 ON SHOREVIEW.
I LIVE DIRECTLY BEHIND THIS PROPERTY, SO THIS PROJECT IS GOING TO IMPACT ME GREATLY.
TO BEGIN, I AM A PROPONENT OF RESPONSIBLE GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT.
UNFORTUNATELY, BUILDING A CONNECTING PROPERTY THAT IS GOING TO TOTAL 6,000 SQUARE FEET ON TWO LOTS IS UNLIKE ANYTHING IN THE AREA AND WILL NEGATIVELY IMPACT THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES.
THIS PROJECT HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO SET A PRECEDENT FOR NEW BUILDS IN THE AREA, AND I WOULD ENCOURAGE THEM TO BUILD THEIR PROJECTS SO IT WILL ADD VALUE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
UNFORTUNATELY, THEY INTEND TO STRIP THE LOTS OF HEALTHY, VALUABLE TREES TO MAXIMIZE THEIR BUILDABLE SPACE.
AND IF THIS PROPERTY WAS OVER TWO ACRES OR COMMERCIAL PROPERTY, THESE PARTICULAR TREES WOULD BE PROTECTED, CLASSIFIED AS TEXAS HERITAGE TREES.
AND WHY DOES THIS MATTER? ACCORDING TO THE CITY OF DALLAS, THE QUALITY OF LIFE IN OUR CITY IS ENHANCED WHEN WE HAVE A CANOPY OF TREES SHADING OUR HOMES AND STREETS, MITIGATING STORM WATER EFFORTS AND PROVIDING ENERGY SAVINGS AND IMPROVING PROPERTY VALUES.
RESPONSIBLE HOMEOWNER GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT INCLUDES SAVING ELEMENTS OF THE EXISTING AREA THAT WILL REFLECT ITS HISTORY, SUCH AS THE TREES, WHILE CREATING NEW PROPERTIES THAT BLEND AND ILLUSTRATE HOW TO COMBINE THE BEST OF YESTERDAY WITH THE FUTURE OF CONSTRUCTION, HAVING SMALLER EXISTING HOMES PAIRED WITH LARGER NEW BUILDS.
AGAIN, I APPRECIATE YOUR CONSIDERATION OF MY OPINION OPPOSING THE SLAUGHTER'S APPLICATION FOR REPL, AND I THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.
MR. BALDWIN, YOU GET A TWO REBUTTAL.
UH, IT'S AGAIN, I THINK THAT THE, IN MY EXPERIENCE, PEOPLE DON'T LIKE BEING SURPRISED.
CLEARLY, THIS IS NOT A SURPRISE THEY'VE BEEN IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
I THINK PUTTING TOGETHER TWO LOTS, UH, CAN ACTUALLY BE LESS DISRUPTIVE TO PEOPLE, ESPECIALLY PEOPLE BEHIND US.
'CAUSE THAT WAY THEY ONLY HAVE ONE BUILDING SITE BEHIND THEM RATHER THAN TWO.
GIVEN THE PROPERTY VALUES IN LAKE HIGHLAND, BOTH LOTS WILL BE BUILT ON, AND BOTH LOTS WILL HAVE NEW HOMES ON THEM, WHETHER THEY'RE BOTH OWNED BY MR. SLAUGHTER OR WHETHER, UH, IT'S TWO DIFFERENT PEOPLE AND THEY WILL BOTH TAKE UP AS MUCH OF THE LOT AS THEY COULD.
UH, IF THEY'RE INDIVIDUAL LOTS, I THINK YOU HAVE MORE FLEXIBILITY IN DESIGN AND POSSIBILITY OF SAVING TREES AND HAVING MORE OPEN SPACE WHEN YOU HAVE ONE LOT WITH ONE HOUSE ON IT, RATHER THAN TWO HOUSES ON TWO LOTS.
I HOPE YOU CAN TAKE, UH, THE FACT THAT WE HAVE MASSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD SUPPORT FOR THIS AND THE FACT THAT THERE'S NOT AN ESTABLISHED LOT PATTERN IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND CAN SUPPORT THIS REQUEST.
UH, BOTH THE SLAUGHTERERS AND I ARE HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.
COMMISSIONER'S QUESTIONS FOR OUR SPEAKERS IN SUPPORT COMMISSIONER FORSYTH.
IS, IS THERE A, A PROPERTY ON BOTH LOTS RIGHT NOW, OR IS ONE OF THE, UH, LOTS VACANT THERE? THERE'S, THERE'S STRUCTURES ON BOTH LOTS.
MR. CHAIR, COMMISSIONER FORSYTH, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO REMIND THE BODY THAT WE'VE MOVED TO THE PLAT REQUIREMENTS.
[03:50:01]
THIS IS A, A NARROW REQUEST.THE REQUEST IS WHETHER OR NOT CPC MUST APPROVE THE PLAT IF IT CONFORMS WITH THE ZONING AND 8.503.
THAT'S REALLY THE WHAT THE QUESTION SHOULD BE AIMING TOWARDS.
COMMISSIONER FORSYTH QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS FOR, UH, UH, PARDON ME? COMMISSIONER HOUSE? ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? UH, QUESTIONS FOR OUR SPEAKER AND OPPOSITION? OKAY.
QUESTIONS FOR STAFF COMMISSIONER HOUSER.
UM, MR. SHAR, I WONDER IF YOU COULD, UH, READ 8.503 FOR US, AND THEN IF YOU COULD EXPLAIN YOUR RECOMMENDATION OF DENIAL, PLEASE.
UM, SECTION 51, 8 0.503 LOTS MUST CONFORM IN WIDTH, DEPTH AND AREA TO THE PATTERN CONFORM IN WIDTH, THE, UM, PATTERN ALREADY ESTABLISHED IN ENT AREAS HAVING DUE REGARD TO THE CHARACTER OF THE AREA, ITS PARTICULAR SWITCH ABILITY FOR DEVELOPMENT AND TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION.
SO IN THAT CASE, IN THIS CASE, UM, WIDTH WILL BE DOUBLE, AN AREA WILL BE DOUBLE THAN THE EXISTING PATTERN, BUT THE DEATH WILL REMAIN SAME.
SO IT IS THE WIDTH IN THE AREA THAT IS THE BASIS FOR YOUR RECOMMENDATION OF DENIAL.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF COMMISSIONERS? OKAY.
CNN COMMISSIONER HOUSER, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? YES.
IN CASE NUMBER S 2 3 4 DASH 1 68, I MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOLLOW STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION OF DENIAL BECAUSE THE PROPOSED LOT DOES NOT CONFORM IN WIDTH, DEPTH AND AREA TO THE LOT PATTERN ALREADY ESTABLISHED IN ADJACENT AREAS AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 51, A 8.503 OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HAUSER FOR YOUR MOTION.
AND COMMISSIONER CARPENTER FOR YOUR SECOND.
ANY DISCUSSION? VICE CHAIR RUBEN? YEAH, I'LL JUST SAY THIS IS NOT ABOUT ULTIMATELY, YOU KNOW, THE, THE CITY CODE HERE REALLY TIES OUR HANDS.
IT'S NOT ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WHETHER THE APPLICANT HAS GARNERED COMMUNITY SUPPORT OR HAS FAILED TO GARNER COMMUNITY SUPPORT.
YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S NOT ABOUT WHETHER RE PLATTING THESE TWO LOTS INTO ONE IS A GOOD IDEA OR A BAD IDEA.
IT'S NOT REALLY ABOUT WHETHER, YOU KNOW, WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO THE TREES AND THE PROPERTY.
UNFORTUNATELY, IT'S A VERY NARROW DECISION ABOUT WHETHER THERE'S A PATTERN IN THE AREA TAKING INTO ACCOUNT CERTAIN FACTORS.
AND I DO SEE A PATTERN THAT THIS WOULD DISRUPT.
I MEAN, WE, WE PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE A CONVERSATION ABOUT SECTION 8.503 MOVING FORWARD AND HOW WE MIGHT ADJUST IT AND, AND, YOU KNOW, FIGURE OUT WHETHER IT'S REALLY SERVING OUR CITY'S NEEDS AT THIS POINT.
BUT, UH, BASED ON THE CODE THAT WE'RE OBLIGATED TO FOLLOW, I, I, I DON'T SEE MUCH OF A CHOICE HERE OTHER THAN TO FOLLOW STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF DENIAL.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? COMMISSIONERS.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.
WE'LL GO BACK TO OUR, UH, I THINK WE HAD ONE MORE ZONING.
[13. 24-2549 An application for a Specific Use Permit for an industrial (outside) potentially incompatible use limited to asphalt and concrete crushing on property zoned an IM Industrial Manufacturing District, on the east line of Luna Road, between Y Street and Ryan Road.]
GO BACK.GO BACK TO 13 THIRTEEN'S FINE.
IT'S AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR AN INDUSTRIAL OUTSIDE, POTENTIALLY INCOMPATIBLE USE, LIMITED TO ASPHALT OR CONCRETE CRUSHING ON PROPERTY.
ZONED IN IM INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURING DISTRICT ON THE EAST LINE OF LUNA ROAD BETWEEN Y STREET AND RYAN ROAD.
RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL FOR A FIVE YEAR PERIOD SUBJECT TO A SITE PLAN AND CONDITIONS AS BRIEFED.
GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIRMAN ROBERSON 22 1 SOUTH MAIN STREET.
UM, I'M REAL, REALLY HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
OUR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, WE'VE WORKED WITH STAFF, UM, QUITE INTENSIVELY FOR A WHILE NOW ON THIS TO MAKE SURE WE GET
[03:55:01]
IT RIGHT.UM, MY CLIENT, UH, BIG CITY CRUSH CONCRETE, THEY HAVE A PROVEN RECORD IN THE CITY OF WHAT THEY'VE DONE IN THE, UM, WHAT THEY'VE DONE AND THE STANDARDS THEY HAVE SET.
AND WE COMMISSION CARPENTER PROPOSED SOME ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS, WHICH WE DO ACCEPT.
WE FEEL THIS WILL BE A BENEFIT TO THE DEVELOPMENT AND WE'LL SET A GREAT STANDARD FOR FUTURE PROJECTS DOWN THE ROAD FOR OTHER PEOPLE TRYING TO COME IN.
AND ONCE I'M HERE FOR ANY QUESTIONS, AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME, PLEASE STAND BY.
THERE MAY BE QUESTIONS FOR YOU.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM? COMMISSIONERS QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? OKAY.
SENIOR COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, DO YOU HAVE OUR YES.
IN THE MATTER OF Z 2 23 DASH 2 86, I MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND FOLLOW STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL FOR A FIVE YEAR PERIOD SUBJECT TO A SITE PLAN AND STAFF'S RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS AS BRIEFED.
AND I HAVE BRIEF COMMENTS IF I GO A SECOND.
COMMISSIONER HARA FOR YOUR SECOND COMMENTS.
UM, THE REALITY IS THAT THIS AREA OF TOWN, UH, YOU KNOW, LNO, RYANS SPANGLER IS A VERY INTENSIVELY HEAVY INDUSTRIAL AREA.
UH, BIG CITY CRUSH CONCRETE IS A, A VERY REPUTABLE, UM, OPERATION.
THEY'RE A LONG TIME OPERATION.
I'VE BEEN ON A TOUR OF THEIR OPERATION.
I'M VERY CONFIDENT THAT THIS IS GOING TO BE, UM, A WELL RUN OPERATION.
AND WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY HERE, UM, THAT THE, UM, APPLICANT HAS AGREED TO TO TRY TO REALLY, UH, IMPROVE THE, UM, VISUALS OF A, UH, THE VISUALS, THE AESTHETICS OF LUNAR ROAD, WHICH COULD USE ALL OF THE HELP IT COULD GET AT THIS POINT.
SO I WANT TO COMMEND MR. PEPPY FOR HIS WORK ON THIS AND TO THANK MR. IRWIN, UH, THAT WE, UM, BASICALLY LOOKED AT THE LANDSCAPING BUFFERING PROVISIONS THAT WERE, UM, COME UP WITH WHEN WE WERE LOOKING AT CONCRETE BATCH PLANTS AND WE ADAPTED IT TO THIS.
SO, UM, I THINK THAT WE HAVE DONE AN ADEQUATE JOB IN, IN TRYING TO, UM, YOU KNOW, BUFFER, UH, THIS OPERATION.
AND I'D APPRECIATE YOUR SUPPORT.
I AM SUPPORTING THIS AND IT'S NOT BECAUSE, UH, THE COMMISSIONER CARPENTER IS, BUT BECAUSE OF, UH, BIG, UH, THE BATCH, THE, THE COMPANY THAT IS THERE, THEY'RE ALSO IN MY DISTRICT.
AND OF THOSE WHAT CONCEIVABLY COULD BE CONTENTIOUS, UM, DEVELOPMENTS, THIS IS ONE OF THE BEST DEVELOPMENTS I HAVE IN THE FLORAL FARMS AREA.
SO I WILL BE SUPPORTING, UM, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER'S, UH, RECOMMENDATION FOR THIS PARTICULAR APPLICANT.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? COMMISSIONERS? SEEING NONE OF THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.
[10. 24-2547 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. (Part 2 of 2)]
GO BACK TO 10.MR. SEGOVIA, THE APPLICANT SHOULD HAVE ONE MORE, UH, DEED RESTRICTION.
THEY'D LIKE TO REACH THE RECORD.
AND THIS IS, UH, IS MAL SEGOVIA 70 NORTHEAST LOOP FOUR 10 SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS, UH, FOR STANTEC AND FOR THE APPLICANT, UH, FOR THE ZONING CASE.
LET ME MAKE SURE I GET THE WORDING CORRECTLY.
SO WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IS ADDING IN SOME WORDING TO THE DEED RESTRICTION THAT STATES, I GUESS IT'LL BE LETTER C NOW, UH, AN EIGHT FOOT SOLID MASONRY FENCE IS, UH, REQUIRED ALONG THE NORTH AND EASTERN PROPERTY LINE LINES IN THE LOCATION REQUIRED BY SECTION 51 A DASH 4.602 B REQUIRED SCREENING.
QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS? COMMISSIONER KINGSTON, CAN YOU REPEAT THAT? SURE.
LEMME GET THAT IT IS AN EIGHT FOOT SOLID MASONRY FENCE IS REQUIRED ALONG THE NORTH AND EASTERN PROPERTY LINES IN THE LOCATIONS REQUIRED BY SECTION 51 A DASH 4.602 B REQUIRED SCREENING.
[04:00:02]
THAT'S A DEED RESTRICTION YOUR VOLUNTEER, CORRECT? CORRECT, SIR.QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS, COMMISSIONER FORSET, WAS THERE A DEED RESTRICTION ON WHAT, UH, WOULD BE THE ALLOWED USE OR DISALLOWED USES ON THIS PROPERTY? YES, THOSE, UH, LEMME SEE.
LET'S PUT THOSE ON THE SCREEN SO WE CAN ALL GO THROUGH THEM.
THE, UH, PROHIBITION OR THE PROHIBITED USES, UH, ARE THOSE THAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT IN FRONT OF YOU AT THIS MOMENT? AND DURING THE, UH, THE LITTLE RECESS THAT WAS TAKEN, WE DID MEET WITH, UH, THE INDIVIDUALS THAT WERE REQUESTING, UH, SOME OF THESE, UH, PROHIBITIONS TO VERIFY 'EM.
AND WHAT YOU SEE HERE IS WHAT WE AGREED UPON.
COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, UH, I I DO HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE USES ON THE, UH, DUE RESTRICTIONS BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, WHAT I WAS, UM, UNDERSTANDING FROM SOME OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S COMMENTS IS THAT THEY WERE REALLY CONCERNED WITH, UM, ELIMINATE OR PROHIBITING THE USES THAT WOULD BE VERY TRAFFIC INTENSIVE.
UM, AND, YOU KNOW, IN NS ZONING, SAY DAYCARE CENTER ISN'T ALLOWED USE, UM, BY RIGHT.
CHURCHES, SCHOOLS, UM, TO ME THOSE WOULD BE, I MEAN, A DAYCARE CENTER AT THAT LOCATION WOULD BE EXTREMELY PROBLEMATIC.
SO I'M, I DON'T FIND THAT THESE DE RESTRICTIONS REALLY ADDRESS THE, UM, THE INTENT OF, OF, OF, OF WHERE I UNDERSTOOD THE NEIGHBORS WERE TRYING TO GET.
WERE, WERE THERE ANY, LET'S SEE, I ASK A QUESTION.
DID YOU SIT DOWN WITH THE GROUP WITH A LIST OF THE USES THAT WERE ALLOWED IN NA YES.
AND HAVE THEM GO THROUGH IT? YEAH, NO, WE DIDN'T.
UH, WE, WHEN WE, UH, SAT DOWN HERE ON THE SIDE, THEY HAD THE LIST AND WE WENT DOWN THROUGH EACH OF THE USES THAT WERE ALLOWED IN THE DISTRICT.
AND WE IDENTIFIED, OKAY, YES, THIS IS NOT, THIS IS NOT, THIS IS NOT.
AND THAT'S AGAIN WHERE THIS LIST CAME FROM.
I GUESS THIS IS A QUESTION FOR MR. PEPE, BUT SHOULD WE TALK ABOUT DRIVE-THROUGH LANES AND, AND PROHIBIT THOSE, OR ARE THOSE PROHIBITED ALREADY OR NO.
DRIVE-THROUGH USE PERMITTED IN THIS DISTRICT? UH, SO THE, IN THAT PARTICULAR ZONING CATEGORY DOES NOT ALLOW DRIVE-THROUGHS THE BANK WITH DRIVE THROUGH, NO RESTAURANT WITH A DRIVE THROUGH.
NO, THOSE ARE THE PRIMARY ONES.
AND THERE WAS, ARE NOT ALLOWED, JUST PUT A FINER POINT ON IT.
YOU COULDN'T HAVE A LITTLE BITTY DRIVE THROUGH STARBUCKS WITH THE ZONING.
YOU COULDN'T HAVE A LITTLE ONE OR A LARGE ONE FOR THAT MATTER.
THAT'S, THAT'S A VERY THOROUGH ANSWER.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONERS, COMMISSIONER FORCE, BUT MICHAEL, CAN YOU HAVE A RESTAURANT ON THIS PROPERTY? RESTAURANT WITHOUT DRIVE THROUGH IS PERMITTED IN THE DISTRICT? IT'S FOR STAFF COMMISSIONER CAR.
MY, I KNOW THE, THE DOCKET HERE SAYS THAT THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION WAS FOR A PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AND STAFF.
YOU KNOW, UH, RECOMMENDATION IS FOR NSAI, I GUESS MY QUE I MEAN, IT SEEMS, WELL IT'S NOT, YOU DON'T NEED MY OPINION.
MY QUESTION IS, GIVEN SOME OF THE COMPLEXITIES OF THE SITE AND THE ISSUES THAT HAVE COME UP, WHY WASN'T A PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT CONSIDERED PLAN DEVELOPMENT? DIS DISTRICT DIDN'T OFFER US AN OFFER.
ANYONE, UM, ADDITIONAL OVERSIGHT THAT'S NOT CAPABLE.
I MEAN, IT'S, IT'S HAPPENING HERE THROUGH DE RESTRICTION.
UM, BUT IT WAS ESSENTIALLY THE SITE PLAN OF, OF THE PD WAS A NS SITE PLAN.
IT WAS PRETTY CONSISTENT WITH A, WITH AN NS DISTRICT AND WHAT KIND OF VERY FEW AMOUNTS OF THINGS YOU COULD BE ABLE TO BE BUILT.
UM, IT WAS NOT SEEN AS APPROPRIATE FOR A SMALL 15 16,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT TO HAVE A PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FOR A SINGLE USE SINGLE, SINGLE PROPOSED USE.
QUESTIONS FOR STAFF COMMISSIONERS.
COMMISSIONER KINGSTON RESTAURANTS ARE ONLY, UM, ALLOWED ON THE SITE WITH AN SUP, IS THAT CORRECT?
[04:05:01]
WITH AN RAR RESTAURANT WITHOUT DRIVE THROUGH REQUIRES AN RAR, WHICH IS THE RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY REVIEW, WHICH IS A LAYER OF VIEW.IT'S NOT NE IT'S, IT'S NOT AN SUP THAT GOES THROUGH A PUBLIC HEARING, BUT IT'S AN ADDITIONAL LAYER.
WHY DID WE DE THAT OUT? WAS THERE ANY DISCUSSIONS? WERE THERE ANY DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THE, THE RESTAURANT THAT DEED RESTRICTING THAT OUT, SIR? NOT THAT I CAN RECALL ANY RESPECT.
I THINK THE CONCEPT IS IS THAT, UM, IN THERE, THERE WAS DISCUSSION OF THAT, UH, WHEN WE WERE AT OUR TOWN HALL MEETING, UM, AND THE AMOUNT OF PARKING SPACES REQUIRED TO HAVE A RESTAURANT WOULD EFFECTIVELY NEGATE BEING ABLE TO HAVE A RESTAURANT.
SO YOU PUT A 2,600 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING ON IT AND IT'S A RESTAURANT, IT NEEDS SUBSTANTIALLY MORE PARKING THAN YOU HAVE LEFT.
SO IT, IT BASICALLY RENDERS THE CONCEPT OF HAVING A RESTAURANT THERE.
THE, THE THEN, I GUESS, GUESS I'M SAYING IS THE SITE CONSTRAINTS THEMSELVES WOULD NOT PER, PER, UH, PERMIT A RESTAURANT DID.
BUT WAS THERE ANY DISCUSSION THOUGH, JUST TO GO AHEAD AND DE RESTRICT IT OUT? THERE WASN'T NO COME, I KNOW, I KNOW WHERE YOU GO COMMISSIONER, BUT FELLOW COMMISSIONER KINGSTON.
SO THE, UM, THE QUESTION THEN BECOMES HOW DO WE, AND I GUESS THIS IS FOR MR. PEPE, HOW DO WE MEMORIALIZE THAT? YOU CANNOT PUT A RESTAURANT IN THIS SPACE IF IT'S ALLOWED PER THE NS ZONING, IF THAT'S WHAT Y'ALL WOULD LOOK FOR IN MAKING A MOTION, THE APPLICANT COULD VOLUNTEER THAT RESTRICTION.
I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION, AND I GUESS THIS IS A, A FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION.
WHAT WOULD THIS LOOK LIKE IF WE WERE TO SEE WHAT AND, AND WHAT NSA WOULD GIVE AND WHAT THE REQUESTED PD WOULD GIVE? DO WE HAVE A SIDE BY SIDE VIEW THAT WOULD KIND OF MAKE IT EI BECAUSE I, I'M SORRY, I AM SO FAR LOST BASED ON WHAT WE ARE HEARING HERE.
WHAT WAS, WHAT WAS OFFERED BY THE APPLICANT AND WHAT STAFF IS, IS RECOMMENDING? I'M JUST LOST.
I MEAN, THE DATA TABLE IN THE REPORT REPORTS ON NSA, I MEAN, A GENERAL ZONING DISTRICT IS A COLLECTION OF USES AND, AND SETBACKS AND, YOU KNOW, AND OTHER BUILDING RELATED RESTRICTIONS.
SO THERE'S, IN REALITY, THERE'S NOT TOO MANY THINGS YOU CAN BUILD.
I MEAN, THIS SITE PLAN I DOCTORED A LITTLE BIT AND IT COMPLIES PRETTY MUCH WITH, UH, NSA.
SO IT'S NOT MANY OTHER THINGS.
I MEAN, THERE'S A SET 15 FOOT SETBACK ON QUINCY.
THERE'S A 35 ON ROYAL, THERE'S 20 ON THE TWO SIDES.
THERE'S NOT TOO MUCH THAT CAN BE BUILT, UM, A RESTAURANT WOULD REQUIRE.
SO THIS, THIS PLAN HAS 2,600 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE.
A RESTAURANT OF THAT SIZE WOULD REQUIRE DOUBLE THE PARKING THAT'S HERE.
SO THEY'VE GOT 13 PARKING SPACES HERE.
THEY'D REQUIRE DOUBLE THAT AMOUNT OF PARKING.
SO I WOULD SAY THAT THAT'S, UH, PRACTICALLY DIFFICULT.
UM, BEYOND THAT, I MEAN, I CAN RESHARE THE DATA TABLE FROM THE CASE REPORT BECAUSE THAT DESCRIBES THE, UH, STANDARD DIFFERENCES I'M GETTING THERE.
THE STANDARD DIFFERENCES BETWEEN NSA AND A PD, I MEAN, A PD CAN BE ANYTHING I WANTED.
AND IN THE CASE OF THIS ONE, THEY DID REQUEST VARIOUS MINOR VARIATIONS ON THE SETBACK.
UH, BUT IT SHOULD BE WHOLLY DEVELOPABLE AS SUCH.
AND THEN THERE'S ALSO THE USES THAT WE TALKED ABOUT.
IF YOU WANNA MAKE COMPARISONS.
SO, UH, THE USE TABLE IS HERE.
I CAN HIGHLIGHT CERTAIN THINGS, BUT I WAS GONNA ZOOM IN ON THE, UH, DATA
[04:10:01]
TABLE UNTIL IT'S LEGIBLE.THE ADJACENCY WITH R 16 IMPOSES A SIGNIFICANT FRONT SETBACK, HAS TO SET THE BUILDING PRETTY FAR BACK.
UM, AND THEN WE'VE GOT LOGO LOCK COVERAGE.
UH, I DO SAY 30 FOOT MAX HEIGHT, BUT RPS BEING GENERATED FROM TWO SIDES LIMITS THE HEIGHT TO 26 FEET LOWER THAN THE SINGLE FAMILY MR. CHAIR.
I'LL, MR. MR. BECK, I'LL JUST CUT THE CHASE.
WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO ALSO DEED RESTRICT OUT A RESTAURANT ON THE SITE? YEAH, I WAS GONNA SAY THAT.
IT'S THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM.
THEY WE'RE TRYING TO, WE'RE VERY HAPPY TO NOT, UH, HAVE A RESTAURANT ON THIS SITE.
WE'RE WE'RE ALSO, THE OTHER THING THAT I HEARD WAS A CHURCH, UM, WE'RE HAPPY TO NOT HAVE A CHURCH ALSO CAN'T INDEED RESTRICT THAT OUT.
RESTRICTIONS SHOULD BE DOING, PROHIBIT A CHURCH.
SO WE ARE VOLUNTEERING AT DEED RESTRICTION, UH, WITH NO RESTAURANT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONERS, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER STAFF? YES, PLEASE.
THE DEED RESTRICTION, UM, REGARDING THE RIGHT TURN LANE SAYS THE PROPERTY OWNER MUST COORDINATE WITH THE CITY OF DALLAS TO DEDICATE SUFFICIENT RIGHT OF WAY ALONG THE FRONTAGE OF THE PROPERTY FOR A RIGHT HAND TURN LANE ON ROYAL LANE.
SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF THE DIRECTOR.
I WAS ASKED DURING ONE OF THE BREAKS, DOES THAT MEAN THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO PUT, DOES THAT GUARANTEE THAT THIS RIGHT HAND TURN LANE WOULD BE, UM, INSTALLED WHEN ANY, PARDON ME? COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, THIS POOR MAN I THINK IS LOOKING FOR HIS, HIS FOB.
SIR, SIR, IN THE STANDS, SIR, YOU'RE LOOKING FOR YOUR KEYS, SIR.
COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, VERY PLEASE CONTINUE.
DOES THAT LANGUAGE MEAN THAT WHEN, UM, ANYTHING, WHEN THEY GET PERMITS TO BUILD ANYTHING HERE, THAT THAT RIGHT HAND TURN LANE WOULD BE BUILT? NO, A DEDICATION IS SETTING ASIDE A RIGHT OF WAY FOR IT.
THEY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO BUILD, UH, UP TO THAT LINE.
BUT IT'S TALKING ABOUT A DEDICATION, WHICH IS THAT RIGHT OF WAY IS SET ASIDE FOR THE CITY TO COME AND DO THAT WITHOUT, UH, SO WITHOUT BUYING IT.
SO AT PERMITTING THEY WOULD JUST BE MAKING THE, THE PERMITTING STAFF WOULD JUST BE MAKING SURE THAT THAT DEDICATION IS MADE, BUT IT WOULD NOT REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION? YES.
AND THEN THE CITY COMES WHEN IT SO CHOOSES AND LAYS THE PAVEMENT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER? COMMISSIONER HALL, PLEASE? YEAH, I'D LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT DURING THE COURSE OF, OF, UH, MANY, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD CONTACTS, UH, STAFF'S BRIEFING WITH THIS TABLE WAS DISTRIBUTED TO THE COMMUNITY, UH, SOME OTHER TABLES OF WHAT NS ALLOWS AND, UH, A LOT OF CONVERSATION TOOK PLACE REGARDING HOW NS IS FAIRLY SIMILAR TO R 16.
IT DOES ALLOW MORE THAN R 16, BUT IN GENERAL, THEY'RE QUITE, UH, UH, SIMILAR.
SO THE COMMUNITY HAD ACCESS TO WHAT THE EXISTING ZONING IS VERSUS WHAT THE APPLICANT REQUESTED, WHICH WAS NEIGHBORHOOD OFFICE VERSUS WHAT STAFF RECOMMENDS AND WHY.
SO THIS, THIS IS NOT NEW TO THEM.
UH, AND SO DURING THE COURSE OF THESE MEETINGS, UH, IT WAS WORKED OUT THAT THE COMMUNITY WANTED FEWER CERTAIN THINGS ELIMINATED, NAIL SALON, GAS STATION, ET CETERA.
AND SO THOSE WERE, THOSE WERE WORKED OUT WITH WITH THE, UH, APPLICANT AND HIS TEAM.
I THINK WE'RE READY FOR A MOTION.
IN THE MATTER OF Z 2 2 3 3 29, I MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE THIS ITEM SUBJECT TO STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS OF A NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES DISTRICT AND DEED RESTRICTION, UH, WITH, UH, DEED RESTRICTIONS OFFERED BY THE APPLICANT ALONG WITH THE RESERVATION OF RIGHTS FOR AN EASEMENT.
AND IF I GET A SECOND, I HAVE A FEW COMMENTS IF I MAY.
YOU ABSOLUTELY DO GET A SECOND.
COMMISSIONER HARA FOR YOUR SECOND COMMENTS.
COMMISSIONER HALL? YEAH, SO I ACTUALLY PREPARED THREE PAGES OF COMMENTS.
I I DON'T KNOW THAT I'M GOING TO BOTHER TO MAKE THEM NOW, BUT I'LL JUST SAY, UH, I BELIEVE THAT WITH THIS MOTION I'VE MADE THE RIGHT AND BEST DECISION REGARDING LAND USE FOR THIS SITE.
I ALSO KNOW I'VE DISAPPOINTED MANY OF THE COMMUNITY MEMBERS AND I WANTED TO GIVE A BRIEF, UH, REVIEW OF THE CASE JUST TO EXPLAIN MY MOTION TO THE RESIDENTS OF DISTRICT 13.
[04:15:01]
FROM THE MAP THAT 58 0 7 ROYAL LANE IS A, IS A ROUGHLY 17,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT ZONED R 16, LOCATED AT THE VERY SOUTHWESTERN EDGE OF A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD.IT SITS ON THE CORNER OF A KEY INTERSECTION OF ROYAL LANE IN THE DALLAS NORTH TOLLWAY.
IT'S A SITE THAT'S BEEN VACANT FOR ROUGHLY 18 YEARS AND BECAUSE OF ITS LOCATION HAS LONG BEEN CONSIDERED BY MANY TO BE UNSUITABLE FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.
AND STAFF HAS STATED THAT R 16 ZONING IS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR THIS SITE.
THE CASE IS SUBJECT TO GUIDANCE FROM THE EXISTING LAND USE PLAN FORWARD DALLAS 2006.
UH, THE APPLICANT MENTIONED FORWARD DALLAS 2.0 AND WHAT MIGHT BE SEEN IN THE FUTURE, BUT THAT PLAN HAS NOT BEEN APPROVED.
SO WE'RE STILL SUBJECT TO FORWARD DALLAS 2006 AND IN THE PAST 18 YEARS, UH, THAT HAS OVER THAT HAS, UH, RULED WHAT GOES ON FORWARD DALLAS 2006 SAYS, UH, TO ENCOURAGE NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICE, SCENE, OFFICE, RETAIL, OR OTHER NON-RESIDENTIAL USES TO BE LOCATED IN RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY AREAS PRIMARILY ON SIGNIFICANT ROADWAYS OR AT KEY INTERSECTIONS.
AND THIS IS A SITUATION THAT WE HAVE TODAY BEFORE US STAFF RECOMMENDED NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES, WHICH CONFORMS WITH THE LAND USE PLAN AND CONSIDERS THE LONG-TERM USE OF THE PROPERTY ENSURES FLEXIBLE ZONING TO RESPOND TO CHANGING ECONOMIC CONDITIONS AND ENCOURAGES A BALANCE OF LAND USE IN THE AREA.
THE CASE WAS PLACED UNDER ADVISEMENT TO ALLOW FOR COMMUNITY MEETING, A MEETING WITH CONDOMINIUM HOA ACROSS ROYAL LANE NEIGHBORHOOD FEEDBACK AND ACCOMMODATING THE SCHEDULES OF THE APPLICANT DEVELOPER AND NEIGHBORHOOD LEADERS.
AND THESE DELAYS ALSO GAVE THE DEVELOPER THE OPPORTUNITY TO VISIT WITH THE COMMUNITY LEADERS.
THE 500 FOOT NOTIFICATION ZONE CONTAINED 236 ADDRESSES LARGELY FROM MULTI-FAMILY COMPLEXES ACROSS ROYAL LANE.
SINCE THERE'S NO LONGER AN HOA FOR THE IMMEDIATE SINGLE FAMILY, NEIGHBORHOOD, NEIGHBORHOOD LEADERS UTILIZE, UTILIZE AN EXTENSIVE EMAIL NOTIFICATION LIST AND SET UP A WEBSITE.
THESE RESULTED IN 87 ADDITIONAL CONTACTS RANGING FROM THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY TO TWO OR MORE MILES OUT.
THERE WAS SOME SUPPORT FOR THIS MORE THAN JUST ONE, BUT MOST CONTACTS WERE IN OPPOSITION, MAINLY DUE TO CONCERN ABOUT TRAFFIC.
AND THIS IS A VERY BUSY TRAFFIC CORRIDOR AND A DESIRE TO LEAVE THE LOT AS RESIDENTIAL.
OTHER CONCERNS WERE THE NEED FOR A DEDICATED RIGHT TURN LANE ON ROYAL TO ACCESS THE TOLLWAY ENTRY.
BUT NOTE THAT THIS WOULD REQUIRE AN EASEMENT ALONG THE ENTIRE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY PLUS AN EASEMENT OF THE LOT NEXT TO IT IN ORDER TO BE ACCOMPLISHED.
THEY WERE CONCERNED ABOUT THE FUTURE OF THE FOUR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES IMMEDIATELY TO THE EAST AND ABOUT THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
SOME COMMUNITY MEMBERS SUGGESTED THE SITE COULD BE DEVELOPED WITH TOWN HOMES.
THAT'S TRUE, BUT THAT'S NOT THE CASE THAT WAS BROUGHT BEFORE US.
IN ADDITION, THE UN SUITABILITY OF THE SITE FOR SINGLE FAMILY IN MY MIND, RENDERS IT UNSUITABLE FOR TOWN HOMES AND IT WAS FINALLY SUGGESTED THAT THE CITY BY THE SITE AND DEVELOP IT WITH A POLICE SUBSTATION OR CORNER PARK LIKE THOSE WE SEE IN LOVER'S LANE, IN UNIVER UNIVERSITY PARK.
BUT ANY ACTION BY THE CITY TO BUY THIS PROPERTY WOULD TAKE LONG-TERM PLANNING AND QUITE A BIT OF TIME TO COME TO FRUITION.
UH, THE LOT MAY BE TOO SMALL FOR A SUBSTATION ANYHOW.
AND I ALSO FEEL THE CORNER PARKS OF UNIVERSITY PARK ARE SITUATIONALLY DIFFERENT AND HAVE EXCELLENT WALKABILITY THAT THIS SITE DEFINITELY LACKS.
IN THE COURSE OF CONVERSATIONS WITH COMMUNITY LEADERS, WE ASK THAT THEY INVESTIGATE THE POSSIBILITY OF BUYING THE LAND AND MANAGING THE PROPERTY THEMSELVES, BUT THAT PROVED IMPRACTICAL.
WE THEN SUGGESTED THAT THEY ASSUME THE SITE MIGHT BE REZONED IN NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES AND DETERMINE WHAT USE WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE AND WHAT WOULD NOT.
THIS WAS DONE AND LED TO DEED RESTRICTIONS AND THE EASEMENT OFFERED BY THE APPLICANT.
SO TO SUMMARIZE, I TOOK THE FOLLOWING INTO CONSIDERATION TO REACH MY MOTION STAFF'S GUIDANCE STAFF'S ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING THE APPLICATION, THE GUIDANCE OF THE LAND USE PLAN, THE SITE'S LOCATION IN A MAJOR INTERSECTION ON THE VERY CORNER OF A NEIGHBORHOOD, THE UN SUITABILITY OF THE ALLOT FOR RESIDENTIAL USE COMMUNITY FEEDBACK DEED RESTRICTIONS OFFERED BY THE APPLICANT.
AND THUS, I'VE ASKED THE COMMISSION TO APPROVE THE RECOMMENDATION OF STAFF FOR MY MOTION.
I APPRECIATE THE COURTESY AND PROFESSIONALISM OF ALL THE PARTIES INVOLVED IN THIS CASE.
[04:20:02]
THE NEIGHBORS WERE QUITE COURTEOUS.I ESPECIALLY WANT TO THANK THE NEIGHBORHOOD LEADERS FOR THEIR EFFORTS.
COMMISSIONER KINGSTON, I BY THE SITE ON THE WAY TO WORK FOR WELL OVER A DECADE.
AND I ALSO SHARE COMMISSIONER HALL'S OPINION THAT THE LIKELIHOOD OF THIS EVER BECOMING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY IS NEXT TO NIL.
IF THAT WAS GONNA HAPPEN, IT WOULD'VE HAPPENED BY NOW.
AND IF SOMEBODY WANTED THAT TO HAPPEN, WELL THEY COULD HAVE BOUGHT IT AND TURNED IT INTO
SO I I DO SHARE HIS VIEW THAT DOING SOMETHING WITH THIS PROPERTY IS BETTER THAN DOING NOTHING WITH IT AND DOING SOME MILD OR OR LESS DENSE, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD SERVING USE IS A GOOD WAY TO TURN WHAT IS OTHERWISE VACANT PROPERTY IN OUR CITY INTO SOMETHING THAT BENEFITS THE COMMUNITY, ENHANCES OUR TAX BASE, KEEPS IT FROM BEING, UM, A NEGATIVE IN OUR CITY.
AND SO I'LL BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION.
AND I KNOW THIS WASN'T AN EASY CASE, SO I I APPRECIATE YOUR WORK AND I APPRECIATE YOU TAKING THE TIME TODAY, UH, TO DEAL WITH THE CONFUSION THAT THE DOCKET CAUSED FOR SOME OF US.
UM, I JUST WANNA EXPRESS MY APPRECIATION TO COMMISSIONER HALL HALL FOR YOUR HARD WORK ON THIS CASE.
I I THINK WE'VE SEEN A LOT OF CASES IN THIS, THIS VEIN WHERE A HIGHWAY HAS SORT OF OPENED UP A GASH IN THE MIDDLE OF THE COMMUNITY, WHETHER IT'S ALONG LBJ, ALONG I 35, ALONG THE TOLLWAY, WHICH WHERE THE HIGHWAY'S ESSENTIALLY AN ANTI PLACE AND WE HAVE TO FIGURE OUT WHAT MAKES SENSE FOR THIS PROPERTY GOING FORWARD.
AND I DO THINK THAT YOU HIT UPON WHAT IS INAPPROPRIATE USE BECAUSE I IMAGINE THE HOUSE THERE, UM, WAS THERE SIGNIFICANTLY BEFORE THE, THE TOLLWAY WAS THERE.
THE ONLY THING I'LL ADD IS WITH RESPECT TO THAT, THAT RIGHT HAND TURN LANE, I KNOW THIS SITS RIGHT ACROSS THE TOLLWAY FROM THE PRESTON ROYAL LIBRARY.
THAT'S THE LIBRARY THAT I USED TO GO TO GROWING UP.
I DON'T THINK THE PEDESTRIAN INFRASTRUCTURE TO GET FROM ONE SIDE OF THE TOLLWAY TO THE OTHER TO GET THAT LIBRARY IS NECESSARILY SUITABLE, WHICH IS A REAL SHAME BECAUSE IT'D BE GREAT IF PEOPLE FROM THAT SIDE OF THE TOLLWAY COULD, COULD WALK TO THAT LIBRARY.
BUT AS WE LOOK AT POTENTIALLY RE-ENGINEERING THAT INTERSECTION, I JUST HOPE THAT WE'D BE THOUGHTFUL ABOUT HOW WE DO IT, IF IT'S EVEN FEASIBLE TO MAKE IT MORE POSSIBLE FOR PEOPLE TO GET, UM, TO THAT LIBRARY BY WALKING.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? COMMISSIONERS? OKAY.
WE HAVE A, A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HALL, EG.
ABOUT COMMISSIONER HOUSE RIGHT TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, FALSE STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL OF THE NSA NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICE DISTRICT IN LIEU OF A PD AND ACCEPTING THE VOLUNTEER DEED RESTRICTIONS, UH, INCLUDING THOSE VOLUNTEERED AT THE PODIUM TODAY.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.
[14. 24-2550 An application for a CS Commercial Service District on property zoned an R-7.5(A) Single Family District, on the southwest line of C. F. Hawn Freeway, between Silverado Drive and Jordan Valley Road.]
GO TO NUMBER 14.THIS IS ITEM NUMBER 14, CASE D 2 23 DASH 3 0 2.
IT IS AN APPLICATION FOR A CS COMMERCIAL SERVICE DISTRICT ON PROPERTY ZONE AND R SEVEN FIVE, A SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT ON THE SOUTHWEST LINE CF HUNT FREEWAY BETWEEN SILVERADO DRIVE AND JORDAN VALLEY ROAD.
UH, MY NAME IS DENNIS THOMAS AND, UH, I'M THE OWNER OF CLAY STRUCTURES AT 1 2 1 5 OH CF HA FREEWAY IN DALLAS, TEXAS.
WE HAVE BEEN, UH, WORKING WITH, UH, MS. BRIDGES AND WITH COMMISSIONER BLAIR ON OUR APPLICATION AND, UH, WE HAVE SOME CHANGES THAT WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO MAKE WITHIN THE NEXT MONTH AND WE'RE LOOKING FORWARD TO THOSE.
UH, I JUST TOOK THIS TIME TO, UH, SHOW, UH, A RENDERING OF THE BUSINESS THAT WE'RE GONNA TRY TO BUILD AT THAT LOCATION.
UH, AND, UH, WE KNOW THAT WE HAVE SOME SUPPORT FROM OUT IN THE COMMUNITY THAT WAS GONNA BE ONLINE TODAY, AND I DIDN'T WANT TO BE AMISS BY NOT BEING HERE IF THEY WERE ONLINE.
SO I'M TAKING THIS TIME JUST TO, UH, UH, SHOW OFF A LITTLE BIT AND WE'RE THANKFUL FOR YOUR WORK AND IF THERE'S ANYONE ONLINE THAT WANTS TO SAY ANYTHING, WE WANTED TO BE HERE TO HEAR IT.
AND, UH, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
UH, IS THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM ONLINE? WE'LL GO TO, UM,
[04:25:01]
MR. THOMAS TYLER THOMAS.UH, I'M WITH REGARDS TO THE PROJECT ON HA FREEWAY.
UH, I JUST WANTED TO REITERATE WHAT DENNIS SAID.
WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON THIS PROJECT FOR A LONG TIME AND WE KNOW THAT WE HAVE SOME LITERATURE TO GET THROUGH ON INDEED RESTRICTIONS, STUFF LIKE THAT.
BUT WE'RE EXCITED ABOUT THE PROJECT.
WE'VE BEEN THERE FOR, UH, 20 YEARS AND, UH, WE, UH, HOPE TO GET TO STAY AND EXPAND OUR BUSINESS THERE AND LOOK FORWARD TO FUTURE BUSINESS IN THE AREA.
MR. CARRANZA, WE READY FOR YOUR COMMENTS, SIR.
MR. CARRANZA, PLEASE, PLEASE MAKE SURE YOUR CAMERA IS ON, SIR.
MY MOM SAID IT WAS ON AND HAD A PICTURE.
NOW I THINK YOU ACCIDENTALLY MUTED YOURSELF, SIR.
I'M CALLING IN FAVOR OF THIS DEVELOPMENT.
UM, YOU KNOW, IN THIS AREA WE DON'T HAVE A WHOLE LOT OF NICE LOOKING THINGS NEXT TO THE FREEWAY.
UH, COMING INTO CAVER AREA, DRIVING DOWN 1 75 AND THAT BUILDING I THINK IS A BEAUTIFUL BUILDING AND RENDERING OF WHAT HE WOULD LIKE TO DO.
UM, WE HAD A NICE COMMUNITY MEETING.
A LOT OF PEOPLE SHOWED UP AND EVERYBODY WAS PRETTY MUCH OVERWHELMINGLY IN SUPPORT OF, UH, DEVELOPMENT.
UM, WE WERE TRYING TO SEE TRUCKS OF PARKING PLACES AND AUTO
UH, WE, UH, STRONGLY WANT TO RECOMMEND THAT WE GET THIS IN THIS AREA.
SO IT STARTS MAKING THIS AREA.
THE LIGHTS ARE LOOKING, UM, JUST A BUNCH OF THE OLD SAME THINGS WE SEE EVERY DAY WITH THE BROKEN DOWN TRUCKS AND THINGS.
SO, UM, I THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS FOR ANY OF OUR SPEAKERS? QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SEEING NONE, COMMISSIONER BLAIR, DO YOU HAVE MARSHA? YES, IN THE MATTER OF Z 2 2 3 3 0 2, I MOVE THAT WE KEEP THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AND HOLD IT UNTIL SEPTEMBER THE 19TH.
IS THAT WHEN WE SEPTEMBER THE 19TH.
THANK YOU MR. CHAIR
I WILL SECOND IT TO HOLD THE MATTER TO SEPTEMBER 19TH.
THIS IS COMMISSIONER HAMPTON ONLINE.
WE DO HAVE A QUORUM COMMISSIONERS.
[15. 24-2551 Consideration of amending Chapters 51 and 51A, the Dallas Development Code, with consideration to be given to amending Sections 51-2.102 and 51A-2.102, “Definitions”; 51A-4.202(10), “Machinery, heavy equipment, or truck sales and service”; 51A-4.210(b)(3), “Auto service center”; 51A-4.210(b)(8.1), “Commercial motor vehicle parking”; 51-4.212(18) and 51A-4.210(b)(9), “Commercial parking lot or garage”; 51A-4.210(b)(16.1), “Liquefied natural gas fueling station”; 51A-4.210(b)(30.1), “Truck stop”; 51-4.212(2), “Automobile or motorcycle display, sales, and service (outside display)”; 51A-4.210(b)(30.1), “Vehicle display, sales, and service”; 51-4.217(b)(9), “Open storage”; 51A-4.217(b)(6), “Accessory outside storage”; and related sections with consideration to be given to developing appropriate standards, definitions, and distinctions for oversized vehicles and trailers.]
AND WE'RE GONNA GO TO OUR, UH, DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT.THIS IS ITEM 15, DCA 2 2 3, 0 0 3.
CONSIDERATION OF AMENDING CHAPTERS 51 AND 51 A.
THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE WITH CONSIDERATION BE GIVEN TO AMENDING SECTIONS 51, 2 0.102 AND 51 A 2.102 DEFINITIONS 51 A 4.202 10 MACHINERY, HEAVY EQUIPMENT AND TRUCK SALES AND SERVICE 51 A 4.2 10 B THREE AUTO SERVICE CENTER, 51 A 4.2, 10 B 8.1, COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLE PARKING 51 4 0.2 1218 AND 51 A 4.2 10 B NINE, COMMERCIAL PARKING LOT OR GARAGE 51 A 4.2 10 B 16.1 LIQUIFIED NATURAL GAS FUELING STATION 51 A 4.2 10 B 30.1 TRUCK STOP, 51 4 0.2 12 TWO.
[04:30:01]
DISPLAY SALES AND SERVICE OUTSIDE DISPLAY.51 A 4.2 10 B 30.1 VEHICLE DISPLAY SALES AND SERVICE 51 4 0.2 17 B NINE OPEN STORAGE 51 A 4.2 17 B SIX ACCESSORY OUTSIDE STORAGE AND RELATED SECTIONS WITH CONSIDERATION TO BE GIVEN TO DEVELOPING APPROPRIATE STANDARDS, DEFINITIONS AND DISTINCTIONS FOR OVERSIZED VEHICLES AND TRAILERS.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION WAS APPROVAL.
ZAC RECOMMENDATION WAS APPROVAL.
UH, COMMISSIONERS, WE HAVE TWO REGISTERED SPEAKERS NOT ONLINE.
IS THERE ANYONE HERE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? YES SIR.
UH, I AM CURRENTLY, UH, AT 8 0 9 BERKSHIRE CIRCLE, UH, GARLAND.
UH, I AM IN FAVOR OF, UH, THIS BILL HERE.
UH, I AM ALSO WOULD LIKE TO, UH, COME UP AND SPEAK FOR A MOMENT ON PERSONAL STORY AND SOMETHING ELSE THAT I HOPE COULD BE BROUGHT UP WITH THE NEXT CPC MEETING, IF THAT IS ALL RIGHT.
UH, UH, I'VE SPENT 30 OF MY 31 YEARS ALIVE IN EAST DALLAS ACTUALLY.
AND I REMEMBER GROWING UP IN CASTLES VIEW JUST OFF OF BARNES BRIDGE AMONG COUNTLESS FELLOW POOR AND WORKING CLASS FAMILIES.
I REMEMBER WHEN YOU COULD HAVE A HOME ON A SINGLE INCOME.
NOW EVEN WITH MULTIPLE JOBS GOING TOWARDS THE SAME HOUSE, EVEN WHILE TRYING TO LIVE IN WHAT WAS CONSIDERED IMPOVERISHED AREA, MOST OF OUR FAMILIES CAN'T LIVE THERE ANYMORE AND HAVE MOVED AWAY.
I REMEMBER WHEN 100 DEGREE WEATHER HAPPENED MAYBE ONCE OR TWICE EVERY SUMMER.
NOW THE SAME HEAT LASTS FOR WEEKS ON END.
I REMEMBER HOW THE KIDS AT SCHOOL WITH FAMILIES AROUND THE RICHER NEIGHBORHOODS TOLD ME ALL ABOUT THE PARKS AND POOLS AND COMMUNITY CENTERS THEY GOT TO PARTICIPATE IN NOT REALIZING THAT THE REASON I DIDN'T HAVE THOSE THINGS WAS BECAUSE THE CITY WAS MAKING SURE THAT I LITERALLY HAD TO STAY ON MY SIDE OF THE TRACKS.
I REMEMBER SPENDING TIME IN OUR YARDS OR THE SIDEWALK OR IN OUR HOMES OR PLAYING IN THE DIRT LOTS NEAR OUR NEIGHBORHOOD BECAUSE THERE WAS ALMOST NOWHERE ELSE TO GO.
NOW IT'S TOO HOT OR TOO EXPENSIVE TO EVEN HAVE THESE BECAUSE FOR DECADES UNTIL THIS VERY DAY, UH, I FEEL THAT MY CITY SPENDS MORE MONEY AND TIME ON PARKING LOTS AND HIGHWAYS THAN ON PLACES TO BUILD AND CULTIVATE OUR COMMUNITY.
WE BUILT A COMMUNITY NOT BECAUSE OF OUR CIRCUMSTANCES, BUT IN SPITE OF THEM.
AND TODAY, THE INTERCONNECTED COMMUNITY AS PART OF NO LONGER EXISTS.
THERE'S SO MUCH TO DO TO SAVE EAST DALLAS.
I BELIEVE THE FIRST STEP IS BY ENDING PARKING MINIMUMS, UH, PARKING REFORM IN THE CITY OF DALLAS.
BY DOING THIS, WE CAN HAVE MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR THOSE LIVING IN THESE AREAS AS DEVELOPERS AND COMPLEXES NO LONGER HAVE TO BUDGET FOR EXCESSIVE PARKING LOTS.
WE CAN BUILD MORE THIRD PLACES IN THESE AREAS AND BUSINESSES NO LONGER HAVE TO COMPENSATE FOR PARKING LOTS OUTSIDE.
WE CAN ALSO STOP THE INCREASE IN OUR HEAT INDEX BY HALING THE DEVELOPMENT OF URBAN HEAT ZONES THROUGH LESS CONCRETE AND MORE NATURE.
I'M FROM EAST DALLAS AND I WANT BETTER FOR EACH.
THANK YOU FOR JOINING US, SIR.
ANY OTHER SPEAKERS, COMMISSIONERS, QUESTIONS FOR OUR SPEAKER? MR. MCNAIR? QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SEEING NONE.
COMMISSIONER HOUSER, DO YOU HAVE MOTIONS, SIR? YES.
UM, I MOVE THAT WE FOLLOW STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND, UH, ZAC RECOMMENDATION AND APPROVE DCA 2 2 3 DASH 0 0 3.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HOUSER FOR YOUR MOTION.
COMMISSIONER CARPENTER FOR YOUR SECOND.
ANY DISCUSSION? COMMISSIONER CARPENTER? I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY BRIEFLY, AS A PERSON WITH A VERY KEEN INTEREST IN COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLES
AND I THINK IT'S GOING TO GO A LONG WAY TO MAKE ENFORCEMENT OF SOME OF OUR ORDINANCES EASIER.
SO I I I TRULY RECOGNIZE THE AMOUNT OF WORK AND I APPRECIATE IT.
COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT? YES, I, I WOULD SECOND THAT AND, AND, UH, THANK STAFF FOR THE GOOD WORK, THOROUGH WORK ON THIS.
THIS IS JUST A REAL PRAGMATIC, PRACTICAL ADJUSTMENT TO OUR CODE TO AID AND CODE ENFORCEMENT AND I, I'M SURE THAT MANY OF US, IF NOT ALL OF US, ARE CONFRONTED WITH CODE ENFORCEMENT ISSUES IN OUR DISTRICTS.
AND THIS IS JUST ONE SMALL STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS, COMMISSIONERS? NONE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.
[16. 24-2552 Consideration of amending Chapter 51A, the Dallas Development Code, with consideration to be given to amending Section 51A-3.102, “Board of Adjustment”. Section 51A-4.701, “Zoning Amendments”. Section 51A-4.703, “Board of Adjustment Hearing Procedures,” Section 51A-4.704, “Nonconforming Uses and Structures,” and related sections with consideration to be given to amending the notice requirements for zoning cases and code amendments that may result in the creation of a nonconforming use and the requirements for initiating and conducting a board of adjustment hearing to establish a compliance date pursuant to the requirements of Texas Senate Bill 929, 88th Legislature.]
GO TO NUMBER 16.[04:35:10]
OKAY, ITEM 16 IS DCA 2 2 3 0 0 8 CONSIDERATION OF AMENDING CHAPTER 51 A.THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE WITH CONSIDERATION TO BE GIVEN TO AMENDING SECTION 51 A 4.3, SORRY, THREE ONE, SORRY, 51 A 3.102 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SECTION 51 A 4.701 ZONING AMENDMENTS SECTION 51 A 4.703, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HEARING PROCEDURES SECTION 51 A, UH, 4.704 NONCONFORMING USES AND STRUCTURES AND RELATED SECTIONS WITH CONSIDERATION TO BE GIVEN TO AMENDING THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS FOR ZONING CASES AND CODE AMENDMENTS THAT WILL RESULT IN THE CREATION OF A NON-CONFORMING USE AND THE REQUIREMENTS FOR INITIATING AND CONDUCTING A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HEARING TO ESTABLISH A COMPLIANCE DATE PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF TEXAS SENATE BILL 9 2 9 88 LEGISLATURE.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL OF STAFF'S RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS, AND OACS RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL OF X OACS RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COMMISSIONERS.
UH, WE HAVE STAFF AVAILABLE HERE.
WHY DON'T WE START WITH, UH, WITH QUESTIONS FOR STAFF BEFORE WE TAKE OUR REPUBLIC INPUT, SINCE WE DIDN'T TAKE ANY BRIEFING, WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF MR. RUBEN? YEAH.
JUST REAL QUICKLY, UM, IN SECTION 51, A 4.704, IT READS, IF THERE ARE INSUFFICIENT FUNDS IN THE NON-CONFORMING USE FUND, THE APPLICATION SHALL BE DEEMED INCOMPLETE FOR LACK OF FUNDING.
WHAT DOES BEING DEEMED INCOMPLETE MEAN? MR. CHAIR, BURT VANDENBERG, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY.
UH, I BELIEVE THE COMMISSIONER'S QUESTION WAS WHAT DOES IT MEAN DEEMED INCOMPLETE? I MEAN, WE WOULD CALL IT INCOMPLETE AND NOT ACCEPT IT.
COMMISSIONER HALL? YES, I, I, I KNOW YOU'VE EXPLAINED THIS TO US BEFORE, BUT I, I GUESS I'D LIKE TO HEAR IT AGAIN.
THE CITY HAS TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THE STATE LAW, IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS, THAT IS TRUE.
WE'VE, WE'VE HAD COMMUNITY FEEDBACK THAT THERE MIGHT BE OPTIONS TO DO THINGS OR TO MAYBE LOOK AT THAT IN DIFFERENT MANNERS.
UH, UH, I, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU JUST, COULD YOU COMMENT ON THAT, THAT PLEASE, JUST SO, UH, IT IS CLEAR IN MY MIND WHAT WHAT THEY'RE ASKING IS NOT POSSIBLE OR WHATEVER, MR. CHAIR? UM, I'VE READ A NUMBER OF LETTERS FROM THE COMMUNITY.
UM, A LOT OF, UH, TO BE HONEST, A LOT OF, OF, A LOT OF VERY INTERESTING IDEAS.
UNFORTUNATELY, NONE OF THEM ARE ONES THAT WE COULD, THAT, THAT I SEE A WAY FOR US TO DO.
WE CAN'T IMPOSE TAXES WITHOUT AUTHORITY.
UM, THE IDEA OF US BEING ABLE TO KEEP TRACK OF EVERY NON EVERY USE IN THE CITY THAT IS NONCONFORMING AND CAUSING HARM, I, I DON'T SEE HOW WE COULD CONCEIVABLY DO THAT.
OUR CODE, OUR CODE COMPLIANCE IS REACTIVE RATHER THAN PROACTIVE, JUST BY, JUST BECAUSE OF THE VOLUMINOUS NATURE OF IT.
UM, AND, AND AS FAR AS CODE COMPLIANCE, WHILE IT'S, UH, UM, I SEE HOW IT'S RELEVANT TO THIS, IT, IT'S NOT REALLY THE PURVIEW OF THE BODY, BUT CERTAINLY WE HAVE, UH, WE'VE HEARD FROM THE COMMUNITIES, AND I KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF DISCUSSION WITHIN CERTAIN DISTRICTS, UH, EVEN RELATED TO THIS, BUT I HAVE THE, THE, WHAT WE HAD BEFORE, THE AMORTIZATION PROGRAM WE HAD BEFORE WE THOUGHT WAS FAIR, AND IT WORKED FOR A LOT OF THESE REASONS, FOR A LOT OF THE, UH, A LOT OF THE NEEDS OF THE COMMUNITIES.
UH, UNFORTUNATELY, STATE LAW HAS CHANGED, AND WE, WE THOUGHT OF EVERY POSSIBLE WAY WE COULD DO IT.
AND THIS IS WHAT WE PRESENTED TO YOU AS WHAT WE THINK IS THE MOST PRACTICAL AND DOABLE SOLUTION.
COMMISSIONER, I UNDERSTAND THAT STAFF, YOU KNOW, CRAFTED THIS BASED ON INSTRUCTIONS THEY GOT FROM ZAC WHO MADE THE REQUEST BASED ON INPUT THEY GOT FROM THE COMMUNITY WHO, WHO BASICALLY DON'T WANT TO BELIEVE THAT AMORTIZATION IS DEAD.
BUT IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THROUGH SENATE BILL 9 29, THE STAFF, THE STATE, DID A VERY THOROUGH KILLING OF THE AMORTIZATION PROCESS.
THAT THERE REALLY ISN'T A WAY TO GET TO WHAT THE COMMUNITY, WHAT CERTAIN COMMUNITY MEMBERS DESIRE AND CREATING THIS NON-CONFORMING USE FUND.
I MEAN, I, I UNDERSTAND THAT TECHNICALLY IT'S A, IT'S A WAY TO GIVE THE
[04:40:01]
COMMUNITY, UH, I MEAN A CITIZEN A WAY TO, YOU KNOW, START THE PROCESS.BUT ARE WE SPINNING OUR WHEELS HERE WITH THIS, WITH THIS ORDINANCE? BECAUSE I DON'T SEE THAT, I MEAN, I, I GIVE STAFF CREDIT FOR, YOU KNOW, CUDDLING THEIR BRAINS AND COMING UP WITH SOMETHING.
BUT DOES IT GET WHERE THESE PEOPLE WANT TO GO BASED ON THE, THE LETTERS I SAW AND, AND A LOT OF THE COMMUNITY INPUT WE'VE HEARD, AND A LOT OF THE PUBLIC SPEAKERS, I'VE HEARD A LOT OF PUBLIC SPEAKERS, UH, FOR A NUMBER OF HEARINGS.
UH, FRANKLY, IT DOES NOT, BUT IT GETS THEM AS CLOSE AS WE THINK WE CAN GET WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THE NEW STATE LAW.
IT IS WHAT WE THOUGHT WAS ACHIEVABLE.
CAN I ASK WHAT WOULD BE THE, UH, RESULT IF THIS BODY CHOSE TO DENY THIS REQUEST? WE WOULD TAKE THAT AS A ZONING RECOMMENDATION, AND THIS WOULD MOVE FORWARD TO COUNSEL.
WE WOULD HAVE TO BRING IT FORWARD THAT THERE ARE CHANGES TO STATE LAW, OUR, THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS AND THE, UM, UH, JUST THE STANDARDS WITHIN THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT THAT THEY NEED TO USE TO MAKE THEIR DETERMINATION OF THE VALUATION.
COMMISSIONER AU I I HAD A QUESTION MORE, UM, ON THE STATE STATUTE, JUST, UM, ON THE MECHANICS OF A DETERMINATION OF REMEDIES, I DON'T KNOW HOW WELL YOU KNOW THIS DOCUMENT, SO I
UH, IT SAYS THAT THE, UM, COST INCURRED BY THE OWNER OF LEASE OF THE PROPERTY THAT ARE DIRECTLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO CEASING THE NON-CONFORMING USE OF THE PROPERTY.
IT GOES ON TO LIST A FEW THINGS, BUT THE LAST ONE IS THE DISCHARGE OF A MORTGAGE.
D DOES THAT MEAN THAT THE CITY WOULD HAVE TO REIMBURSE OR HAVE TO PAY OFF A MORTGAGE? KIND OF SOUNDS THAT WAY.
IT IS THAT PRIOR TO IT BECOMING NON-CONFORMING OR JUST ANY OUTSTANDING MORTGAGE.
THIS AT THE, UH, MR. CHAIR, I APOLOGIZE TO INTERRUPT, BUT IT ACTUALLY, UM, IT SEEMS LIKE THIS IS PRETTY HEAVY HANDED AND YOU'RE PAYING OUT AHEAD OF TIME.
I MEAN, THE, THE PREVIOUS WAY WE DID IT, UM, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT WOULD DETERMINE THE INVESTMENT, UM, UP UNTIL THE POINT OF NON-CONFORMITY.
AND THAT'S, THAT'S SORT OF WHAT WE WORKED ON.
THIS DOESN'T SEEM TO WORK THAT WAY.
AND I'M GONNA JUST DO SOMETHING AND JUST LOOK AT CASEY AND CASEY'S EITHER GONNA NOD OR SHAKE HIS HEAD.
I, I MEAN, I ASK BECAUSE IT'S NOT, YEAH, SO I'M CORRECT.
UH, LIKE, IT'S LIKE IF YOU OWNED A $10 MILLION PIECE OF PROPERTY AND YOU DID A CASH OUT LOAN, AND YOU TOOK A $7 MILLION CASH OUT, AND THEN YOU LEVERAGED UP A 70% MORTGAGE.
SO DOES THAT MEAN THAT A BUSINESS COULD CASH OUT MONEY FROM THEIR BUSINESS, PUT THAT IN THEIR BANK ACCOUNTS, AND THEN IF THEY HAD A CASE COME AGAINST THEM, THE CITY'S GOTTA PAY OFF THE 70% MORTGAGE? THAT'S A DOUBLE DIPPING.
SO I
AND I KNOW YOU GUYS DIDN'T CREATE THIS EITHER, SO I'M JUST TRYING TO GET FILLED IN.
AND, AND I'M AFRAID I DON'T QUITE KNOW ALL THE, THE FINANCIAL WAYS THAT THAT COULD BE DONE, BUT IT SOUNDED VERY CONVINCING THE WAY YOU SAID IT.
I, I'M NOT ACTUALLY BEING VERY GLIB.
I MEAN, I'M SURE THERE'S WAYS TO, THAT YOU COULD MANIPULATE IT.
ONE QUICK FOLLOW UP TO COMMISSIONER SER I THAT MR. VANDERBERG, JUST FOR THE RECORD ON THE, THE LAST TIME YOU BRIEFED THE SIDEMAN, I WAS NOT HERE.
YOU DID USE THE WORD POISON PILL MULTIPLE TIMES.
MADE THE NEWS, MADE THE, MADE THE MAGAZINES.
I, I SAW THE LITTLE RED PILLS ON THERE.
COMMISSIONERS, COMMISSIONER, CARPENTER? I, I, YES, I I HAVE A QUESTION.
UM, I'M GONNA READ SOME OF 16, UH, DASH SIX.
IT SAYS IT'S CRUCIAL TO NOTE THAT UNDER SB 9 29, IF A MUNICIPALITY AMORTIZES, A NON-CONFORMING USE AND ISSUES A PAYOUT, THE PROPERTY OWNER RETAINS OWNERSHIP.
THIS MEANS THAT MUNICIPALITY DOES NOT ACQUIRE THE PROPERTY AND PREVENTS THE MUNICIPALITY FROM REALIZING FUTURE ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF PROPERTY OWNERSHIP.
SO WHAT DOES A PAYOUT GAIN? A MUNICIPALITY.
THE, THE USE WOULD GO AWAY FOR THE EXCHANGE OF THE FUNDS.
[04:45:01]
THE, THE PROPERTY OWNER MAINTAINS OWNERSHIP.AND THERE'S PAYOUT AND YOU CAN, THEY CAN CHARGE US FOR THE, BASICALLY THEY CAN CHARGE THE CITY FOR THE DEMOLITION OF THE ABUSE.
THEY CAN CHARGE THE CITY TO RELOCATE STUFF THEY CAN, AND THEN THERE'S AN EXTRA VALUE, THEN THERE'S AN AND ON IT TOO, WHICH IS THE DIMINUTION, HOW MUCH THE VALUE WENT DOWN,
THERE'S A NUMBER OF PROPERTY OWNERS STILL OWNS THE PROPERTY AND HAS THE ZONING, PRESUMABLY THE INCOMPATIBLE ZONING
I USED THAT WAS, UH, NONCONFORMING IN IR.
THEY COULD PROBABLY PUT A DIFFERENT IRU IN ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS, PLEASE.
COMMISSIONER COOPER? I GUESS I DO HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION.
I MEAN, WERE YOU YEAH, BECAUSE OKAY.
THE WAY THIS, OR, OKAY, I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU MAY, WE MAY HAVE TO CHANGE, THE CITY MAY HAVE TO CHANGE ITS CODE TO GO ALONG WITH THE PROVISIONS OF, OF THE BILL THAT TALKS ABOUT NOTIFICATION AND THE BOLDNESS OF THE TYPE AND ALL OF THAT.
BUT I, I UNDERSTAND WE HAVE THE CITY HAS TO DO THAT, BUT AS FAR AS CREATING THIS FUND AND, AND, AND THAT'S GOING TO GO NOWHERE.
I I'M NOT SEEING THE VALUE TO THE CITY.
I MEAN, WHAT, WHAT DOES I, I WOULD SAY THAT IF THE, IF EVEN IF CITY COUNCIL WAS TO BRING FORWARD CASES, THEY NEED TO HAVE THE FUNDING IN PLACE IF THEY WERE TO RECOMMEND IT.
CITY COUNCIL HAS DONE THAT BEFORE.
UH, THERE'S BEEN FIVE PERSON MEMOS WHERE THEY HAVE, UH, ASKED THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO CONSIDER, UH, UH, AMORTIZATION CASES.
I DON'T SEE THAT THEY COULD BRING IT FORWARD IF THEY HADN'T ALREADY SET UP A FUND OF SOME TYPE THEMSELVES.
IT'S ALSO THAT THE, THE, THE POSSIBLE EXTENT OF THE PAYOUT COULD BE ALMOST ENDLESS BY THE TIME YOU CALCULATE THE MORTGAGES AND THE, THE, UH, THE, THE LOSS OF VALUE TO THE PROPERTY, THE DIMINISHING VALUE.
UM, CAN YOU ANTICIPATE THAT? WELL, NO.
THAT'S NOT A, THAT'S TOO HIGH.
NO, THAT, THAT'S WHAT SEE WHERE YOU'RE GOING, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, AND IT'S JUST THE COMPLEXITY OF THIS, AND YOU, YOU, IT'S A LEAP OF FAITH.
YOU'D HAVE TO DO SOME KIND OF, UH, GUESSTIMATE ON A FUND, SET IT ASIDE AND HOPE THAT THESE, THESE USES MATCH WHATEVER THAT FUND AMOUNT IS.
BUT I BELIEVE WE DID ASK, UH, UH, AS PART OF THE APPLICATION PROCESS TO AT LEAST DO THE ESTIMATE.
AGAIN, I UNDERSTAND IT COULD BE CO EXCEEDINGLY COMPLEX COMMISSIONER KINGSTON.
BUT IN THEORY, IF COUNSEL WANTED TO ASK THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THEN THEY COULD SET UP A FUND.
AND WE DON'T HAVE TO HAVE THIS PROCESS IN THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS RULES.
IN OTHER WORDS, WE COULD COMPLY WITH STATE LAW WITHOUT HAVING THIS FUND SET UP AND THIS PUBLIC PROCESS SET UP.
WE DON'T HAVE TO HAVE A PROCESS WHERE THE PUBLIC CAN INITIATE THE ABILITY TO NOMINATE A PROPERTY AS BEING NON-CONFORMING OR WHATEVER.
THAT WAS, THAT WAS OUR DIRECTION FROM ZAC TO TRY TO COME UP WITH A WAY.
AND SO WE COULD JUST TAKE ALL OF THAT OUT OF THIS DOCUMENT.
AND IF WE DID, AND COUNSEL WANTED TO DEEM A PROPERTY NON-CONFORMING OR ASK THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO DEEM A PROPERTY NON-CONFORMING, IT WOULD BE UP TO THEM TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO FUND IT.
UH, IF, IF A IF THE CITY COUNCIL WANTED TO BRING A COMPLIANCE CASE AGAINST A NONCONFORMING PROPERTY, IT WOULD BE UP TO THEM TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO FUND IT.
UM, SO, AND THIS, IF I'M WRONG, I'M SURE DANIEL CORRECT ME.
UH, UM, THE STAFF WILL, UM, NOW I'M TRYING TO USE AN EXAMPLE BECAUSE IT'S BEEN THROWN AT ME THIS WAY.
WE CURRENTLY HAVE SOMETHING COMING TO THE CITIZENS IN REGARDS TO MARIJUANA AND THE AMOUNT THAT'S DIFFERENT THAN THE STATE LAW.
HOW ARE WE ABLE TO DO THAT IN THAT SCENARIO? BUT NOT IN THIS ONE? THE CHARTER AMENDMENT IS NOT BEFORE THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION.
AND, AND I CAN'T TALK ABOUT THAT.
[04:50:01]
WAS JUST A STATE LAW THAT WAS PASSED, AND WE ARE TRYING TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE WITH IT.AND THE OTHER WAS A RESIDENT LED OR VOTER LED PETITION PROCESS.
SO IF THE CITIZENS LED A PETITION, UM, TO NOT GO ALONG WITH STATE LAW AND THAT PETITION CAME TO THE COUNCIL, WOULD IT BE BOUGHT BEFORE THE CITIZENS FOR A VOTE? UH, AGAIN, I DON'T REALLY THINK THIS IS WITHIN THE BOUNDS.
AND WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS AMENDMENT TO OUR CODE TO COMPLY WITH STATE LAW.
AND EVEN IF THE CHARTER'S AMENDED, THERE COULD BE, UM, DISCUSSION ABOUT WHETHER THAT CHARTER AMENDMENT COMPLIES WITH STATE OR FEDERAL LAW.
THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE WORKED OUT DOWN THE ROAD, RIGHT? THAT IS ALSO CORRECT.
I THINK THERE MAY BE A MISUNDERSTANDING HERE, OR MAYBE I'M THE ONE THAT MISUNDERSTANDS, BUT THE, IF WE APPROVE THIS, UH, THIS CODE AMENDMENT TODAY, WE'RE NOT THE, THE THE, WE'RE NOT SETTING UP A FUND AND WE'RE NOT DOING AMORTIZATION.
YOU ARE MAKING A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT THEY CONSIDER, UH, DOING THE PROCESS SET FORWARD IN THIS, IN THIS ORDINANCE.
YOU'RE MERELY RECOMMENDING IT.
BUT THAT PROCESS DID NOT HAVE A FUND.
CURRENTLY, THE PROCESS DOES NOT HAVE A FUND.
CURRENTLY, THIS PROCESS IS NOT IN PLACE COMMISSIONER BLAIR.
BUT WHEN WE, IS IT NOT TRUE WHEN WE SEND IT TO CITY COUNCIL AND EVENTUALLY WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO COME INTO COMP? IT'S TRUE.
WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE WITH SB 9 29.
CORRECT? I WOULD SAY THAT IS TRUE.
AND PART OF SB 9 29 SAYS THAT WE MUST DO THIS THING.
AND PART OF THIS THING SAYS THAT IF WE TAKE A BUSINESS AND COM AND MAKE IT NON-CONFORMING, WE, AND WE, AND, AND THERE IS A PROCESS THAT SAYS AT THE END OF THE PROCESS, WE MUST MAKE THAT BUSINESS WHOLE, WE HAVE TO PAY.
IF A NON, IF A COMPLIANCE CASE IS BROUGHT AGAINST A NONCONFORMING USE AND IT IS FOUND TO BE, HAVE AN ADVERSE EFFECT, AND THEN IT IS FOUND, THEN THEY DETERMINE AN AMORTIZATION AMOUNT.
WE WOULD HAVE TO, IF THEY CHOOSE TO, IF THEY CHOOSE TO TAKE THE PAYMENT, WE WOULD HAVE TO PAY.
AND IF THEY CHOOSE TO, AND WE HAVE TO PAY THEM, WE HAVE TO HAVE A FUNDING SOURCE IN ORDER TO GET IT DONE.
WE DO NEED TO BE ABLE TO PAY FOR IT.
SO THERE, AND THE WAY THAT THIS STATE, THIS S BETWEEN 9 29 IS, IS WRITTEN, THERE'S NO LOOPHOLE FOR US NOT TO HAVE TO DO THAT.
'CAUSE THAT ONE'S TOO, TOO TOUGH.
UM, IS IT NOT CORRECT THAT WHEN WE WERE GOING THROUGH THE, GOING THROUGH ZAC, UM, THERE WAS A LARGE OUTCRY FROM COMMUNITY THAT THEY WANT, THEY TOO FELT THE NEED TO BE PART OF THE PROCESS, THAT THEY WANTED TO BE ABLE TO DETERMINE THAT A BUSINESS WAS NON-CONFORMING.
THEY WANTED TO BE ABLE TO DETERMINE, THEY WANTED TO BE ABLE TO BRING A CASE AGAINST AN ALREADY NON-CONFORMING USE AND SAY THAT IT HAD HAD AN ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE, UH, ON THE SURROUNDING AREA.
AND WAS IT NOT DETERMINED THAT, UM, I DON'T EVEN KNOW HOW TO SAY THIS.
UM, IN THE WAY THAT WE CRAFTED 9 2 9 AND IN ZAC THAT WE STILL ALLOW THEM A VOICE, BUT ALTHOUGH WE DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW AT THIS POINT IN TIME HOW TO, HOW TO MAKE,
[04:55:01]
HOW TO, HOW TO, WE, IT'S, IT'S STILL A, UM, A LOT TO BE DESIRED IN LETTING EVERYBODY MAKE THAT TYPE OF DETERMINATION CORRECT.SORRY, AS I UNDERSTAND THE, THE QUESTION.
SO, COULD THIS BODY, SINCE IT'S NOW AT CPC, MAKE THE DETERMINATION, UM, TO ONLY ALLOW CITY COUNCIL TO ENTER INTO THAT PROCESS AND NOT THE, NOT THE, THE CITIZENS OF THE, THE CITY? YOU COULD ABSOLUTELY AMEND THE ORDINANCE TO SAY THAT, TO HAVE US TAKE OUT THE, THE, TO LIMIT WHO CAN MAKE APPLICATION FOR EVERYBODY SAYS, SEND ME HATE MAIL.
I'M JUST ASKING WHAT OPPORTUNITIES ARE AVAILABLE TO, UM, LESSEN THE NEGATIVE FINANCIAL IMPACTS AT THIS BILL AND THIS PROCESS COULD MAKE ON THE CITY IF A SMALLER SUBSET OF THE CITY IS THE ONLY ONE WHO CAN MAKE THE DETERMINATION TO GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS, WOULD THAT NOT BE AN ACCURATE STATEMENT? THE FEWER PEOPLE WHO CAN MAKE APPLICATION, THE FEWER CHANCES ARE THAT THE CASE WOULD BE BROUGHT FORWARD AND THE PAYMENTS WOULD BE REQUIRED.
I'M TRYING TO GO DOWN A NARROW HOLE AND NOT GO INTO THE DARK.
UM, SO IS IT SAFE TO SAY THAT AS THIS, AS SB 9 29 WAS WRITTEN, AND AS OUR CODE IS BEING REQUESTED TO BE AMENDED, UM, STILL LEAVES THE CITY IN A, IN A PLACE OF DISCOMFORT IF IT EVER HAS TO COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF 9 29? THAT ONE IS A LITTLE BIT OUTSIDE OF MY KNOWLEDGE BASE.
I WOULD SAY THAT, THAT THAT'S, THAT'S MORE OF A CITY COUNCIL AND FUNDING AND THEIR, THEIR COMFORT LEVEL.
I, I WOULDN'T WANNA SPEAK TO THAT.
THE AMENDMENT THAT WOULD NEED TO BE MADE TO ELIMINATE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR SOMEONE OTHER THAN COUNSEL TO INITIATE THIS PROCESS WOULD BE TO REMOVE THE SENTENCE IN 4.704 SUBSECTION A SUB SUBSECTION ONE SUB SUBSECTION A.
THAT STARTS WITH, IN ADDITION, ANY PERSON WHO RESIDES OR OWN RAIL PROPERTY IN THE CITY, BUT WHO IS NOT AN OWNER OR OPERATOR OF NONCONFORMING USE MAY REQUEST THAT THE BOARD CONSIDER IMPOSING A COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENT FOR NONCONFORMING USE.
AND IF YOU REMOVE THAT SENTENCE, THEN ONLY COUNSEL COULD INITIATE THAT PROCESS.
IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT, I BELIEVE.
I HAVE A, IS THE ULTIMATE INTENT HERE WITH WHAT'S BEFORE US.
TODAY'S JUST TO MITIGATE THE DOWNSIDE RISK EXPOSURE TO THE CITY FINANCIALLY.
THE WHAT IS BEFORE YOU IS MEANT TO BRING THE CITY INTO COMPLIANCE WITH SB 9 29.
AND WHEN WE BROUGHT IT FORWARD AT ZAC, ZAC SENT IT FORWARD WITH A REQUEST THAT WE EXPLORE WAYS TO HAVE, UH, PUBLIC INPUT IN THE PROCESS.
SO IT IS THE, I WAS TRYING TO BRING IT INTO COMPLIANCE AND MEET ZAC C'S REQUEST.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONERS? OKAY.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, GENTLEMEN.
UH, COMMISSIONERS, WE'LL GO TO OUR SPEAKERS ONLINE.
MR. BROOKINS, ARE YOU ONLINE? AND GOOD AFTERNOON.
UM, BEGINNING, GOOD AFTERNOON, EDWARD BROOKINS WITH ADVOCATES FOR COMMUNITY TRANSFORMATION 52 40 BANTING AWAY.
SO, UH, WE OFFER COMMENT AT THE NOVEMBER ZAC MEETING WHERE THAT COMMITTEE INSTRUCTED THE CITY TO PRESENT AN OPTION TO THIS COMMISSION FOR COMPLYING
[05:00:01]
WITH SB 9 29 THAT WOULD PRESERVE THE ABILITY OF RESIDENTS TO APPLY TO THE BOARD FOR READDRESS WHEN THEY WERE BEING ADVERSELY IMPACTED BY NONCONFORMING USES.AND I, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE CURRENT AMENDMENT ACCOMPLISHES THIS.
SO, WHILE, WHILE THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT ALLOWS RESIDENTS TO FILE APPLICATIONS, AS YOU ALL HAVE STATED, IT ALSO KILLS THE APPLICATION.
IF THERE'S NOT SUFFICIENT MONEY IN THE NONCONFORMING FUND, THE AMENDMENT STILL EFFECTIVELY SHUTS DOWN THE PROCESS FOR RESIDENTS WHAT'S OFFERED IN THE CURRENT AMENDMENT.
IT IS MEANINGLESS WITHOUT FURTHER DIRECTION FROM THE CODE ON HOW MONEY CAN BE PROVIDED TO THE FUND AND HOW RESIDENTS CAN ADVOCATE FOR THEIR APPLICATIONS.
AND BECAUSE OF THIS, UM, MORE CONSIDERATION SHOULD BE GIVEN TO HOW THE CITY CAN PRESERVE THE RIGHT OF RESIDENTS TO BE HEARD.
AND, UM, EARLIER THIS FUND, WE SENT A LETTER TO THE COMMISSION ASKING IT TO CONSIDER THE IMPLEMENTATION OF A PRE-APPLICATION PROCESS WHEREBY THOSE BEING ADVERSELY IMPACTED BY NONCONFORMING USES CAN STILL FILE THEIR MATERIALS WITH THE BOARD AND WORK WITH THEIR COUNCIL MEMBER TO SECURE THE NECESSARY FUNDS.
THEN NOT, I DON'T SEE ANY LANGUAGE IN STATE LAW THAT PROHIBITS THIS, AND IT WOULD CREATE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR DIALOGUE BETWEEN THE RESIDENT AND THE COUNCIL MEMBER SO THAT MERITORIOUS CASES COULD STILL MOVE FORWARD AND BE HEARD.
WE, WE TRULY BELIEVE THAT RESIDENTS KNOW WHAT'S BEST FOR THEIR COMMUNITIES, AND THAT THEY SHOULD HAVE EVERY TOOL AVAILABLE FOR AGGREGATING FOR THEIR NEIGHBORHOODS.
AND, UH, WE BELIEVE THE MORE TIME SHOULD BE TAKEN TO CRAFT THE POLICY THAT SUPPORTS THIS IDEAL, WHICH WE ALSO BELIEVE THAT YOU, YOU ALL SHARE.
SO, I, I THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME THIS AFTERNOON AND, AND, UH, HAPPY TO COLLABORATE AS Y'ALL SPEAK THE RIGHT SOLUTION.
MR. ROBERTS, ARE YOU, DON'T MIND? NOT.
OKAY, MS. MAYO, GOOD AFTERNOON.
EVELYN MAYO, 2 8 3 3 PROVINCE LANE, DALLAS, TEXAS 7 5 2 2 8.
CO-CHAIR OF DOWN WINDERS AT RISK, AN ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE NONPROFIT.
I'M SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION TO THIS ITEM.
AND IN SUPPORT OF RESIDENTS LIVING IN FRONTLINE ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE COMMUNITIES THAT NEED TO RETAIN THE RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE FULLY IN THE PROCESS OF REMOVING DANGEROUS NON-CONFORMING USES FROM THEIR COMMUNITIES.
IT IS DISINGENUOUS TO SAY THAT IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE TO FIND THE NON-CONFORMING USES THAT ARE CAUSING HARM.
THERE ARE CLEAR INDUSTRIALLY ZONED AREAS NEXT TO HOMES WITH CLEAR MAJOR SOURCES OF POLLUTION.
ONLY A SMALL AMOUNT OF THE USES IN BOTH OF THESE CATEGORIES HAVE ALSO BEEN IMPACTED BY A CHANGE IN ZONING, BOTH GAF IN WEST DALLAS AND TAMCO AND PY ARE NONCONFORMING INDUSTRIAL USES EMITTING DANGEROUS AMOUNTS OF POLLUTION.
THE CURRENT PROPOSAL FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY THROWS A ROADBLOCK UP BEFORE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CAN EVEN DETERMINE IF THERE'S AN ADVERSE IMPACT FOUND BY REJECTING APPLICATIONS.
IF THERE'S NO FUNDING AVAILABLE IN A FUNDING MECHANISM THAT DOES NOT EXIST, LET RESIDENTS FILE APPLICATIONS DETERMINE HARM, THEN HAVE A CHECKPOINT FOR FUNDING TO BE ALLOCATED.
THE CITY NEEDS TO TREAT NON-CONFORMING USES IN ALIGNMENT WITH HOW THEY'RE DESCRIBED IN THE CODE, WHICH IS THAT THEY ARE MEANT TO BE BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANCE FOR PUBLIC GOOD.
WE WILL BE STUCK IN TIME AND HELD HOSTAGE BY NON-CONFORMING USES LIKE JAF AND TAMCO.
IF WE DON'T PROACTIVELY DETERMINE THE WORST NON-CONFORMING USES THEIR POTENTIAL COSTS FOR REMOVAL AND ACTUALLY BUDGET FOR THEIR REMOVAL.
WE ARE NOT ASKING YOU TO IGNORE SB 9 29.
THE STATE AND GAF HAVE BEEN VERY INTENTIONAL IN THIS DETERRING CITIES AND CITIZENS FROM BRINGING NON-CONFORMING USES INTO COMPLIANCE.
ALL WE ARE ASKING IS THAT THE CITY HOLDS ONTO THE RESIDENT RIGHT TO INITIATE THIS PROCESS AND BE CONSIDERED FOR ASSESSING HARM, WHILE ALSO ENSURING THERE ARE ACTUAL FUNDING MECHANISMS TO FOLLOW THROUGH IF, IF HARM IS FOUND.
IT IS JUST VERY DISTURBING TO HEAR THIS COMMITTEE TALK ABOUT THE REMOVAL OF TOXIC USES AS, UM, NOT IN IN ALIGNMENT WITH THE PUBLIC GOOD AND NOT IN ALIGNMENT WITH THE IMPLEMENTATION OF FORWARD DALLAS.
GAF HAS BEEN SITTING THERE NON-CONFORMING FOR 50 YEARS.
THE CITY HAD THE TOOL AND THE CITY SQUANDERED IT.
WE'RE NOW BEGGING TO RETAIN SOME FORM OF INTERVENTION FOR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHEN OUR CITY COUNCIL PEOPLE HAVE DEMONSTRATED BY DECADES OF NEGLECT THEIR UNWILLINGNESS TO ENGAGE THE CODE AND BE PROACTIVE ABOUT THESE TYPES OF SITUATIONS.
KAYLA ROBERTS, 2 8 4 7 ALABAMA AVENUE, UH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF DOWN WHEN IS AT RISK.
I WOULD LIKE TO ECHO A LOT OF WHAT, UH, EVELYN SAID.
[05:05:01]
I THINK WHAT WE ARE HERE TO, TO SUGGEST IS THAT, UH, PUBLIC SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO FILE PERIOD, NO MATTER THE SB 9 29 DOESN'T STATE ANYTHING ABOUT PUBLIC'S RIGHT TO FILE.UM, AND I I JUST WANTED TO DRAW BACK TO THE, TO THE FACT OF LIKE, THE REASON THAT THE PUBLIC NEEDS TO BE ABLE TO FILE IS BECAUSE THE PUBLIC HAS BEEN ON THE FOREFRONT OF LETTING THE CITY KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON IN THEIR COMMUNITY, NOT VICE VERSA.
SO TO TO TO STOP THE, THE PUBLIC IN ANY WAY OR FASHION FROM BEING ABLE TO PRESENT THAT TO A A GOVERNING BODY IS SOMETHING THAT WE DISAGREE WITH.
WHETHER IT'S A FUND OR ANY OTHER MECHANISM THAT THIS BODY OR ANOTHER COMES UP WITH SHOULD ALWAYS ALLOW THE PUBLIC TO FILE.
I DON'T BELIEVE IN THE FRIVOLOUS, UH, UH, SENSE OF SOMEONE FILING.
THERE'S REAL PEOPLE WHO HAVE BROUGHT REAL THINGS TO THE CITY, AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE EVEN IN THIS FIGHT NOW, IS BECAUSE RESIDENTS HAVE BROUGHT UP THE FIGHT.
SO, UH, EVEN IN CREATING A, A, A FUND, IF THAT IS WHAT IS SAID TO BE, THERE ARE STIPULATIONS, UM, THAT CAN, UH, BRING THE FUND IN, IN LINE WITH OTHER THINGS LIKE FORT DALLAS AND THINGS THAT THE CITY HAS DECIDED.
SO IF YOU ALLOW THE RESIDENTS THE RIGHT, UH, I BELIEVE WHAT YOU'LL SEE IS, UH, RESIDENTS FILING ON THINGS THAT THEY EXPERIENCED AND NOT HAVING TO WAIT TO THE CITY, UH, TO COME TO TERMS WITH WHAT'S GOING ON IN THE CITY.
UM, SO BASICALLY THAT RIGHT TO FILE IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING.
NO MATTER WHAT, RESIDENTS SHOULD BE ABLE TO BRING THINGS TO A GOVERNING BODY.
SB 9 29 DOES NOT SPEAK ON THAT.
WE UNDERSTAND THE RULE DOES CHANGE THINGS IN CITY PROCESSES, BUT IT DOES NOT CHANGE THE FACT THAT RESIDENTS SHOULD AND ALWAYS HAVE BEEN THE ONES TO BRING ISSUES TOWARDS THE CITY.
THANK YOU FOR JOINING US, MS. CISNEROS.
I LIVE AT 28 21 BEDFORD STREET, DALLAS, TEXAS, 9 5 2 1 2.
JUST A FEW WEEKS AGO, I WENT TO VISIT MY MOM AND MY THREE NEPHEWS WERE THERE VISITING THEIR GRANDMOTHER.
THEY'RE ALL AGE THREE, AND THEY ALL WANTED TO PLAY OUTSIDE IN HER YARD.
THE STENCH FROM GAF WAS STRONG THAT DAY.
AFTER SECONDS, JUST SECONDS OF BREATHING IN THE AIR, I GOT A PIERCING MIGRAINE AND MY STOMACH STARTED TO HURT.
IF THAT IS WHAT WAS HAPPENING TO MY BODY, WHAT DO YOU THINK WAS HAPPENING TO MY TODDLER NEPHEWS? AT BEST, IT'S A NUISANCE.
AT WORST, IT'S DAMAGING THEIR DEVELOPING LUNGS.
CALLING 3 1 1 TO REPORT HASN'T RESULTED IN ANYTHING HELPFUL.
OEQS INVESTIGATORS PERFORM A SNIFF TEST WITH THEIR NOSE.
THAT LEVEL OF TECHNOLOGY IS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR THE INTERVAL EMISSIONS THAT CHARACTERIZE GAS OPERATIONS.
THERE IS BETTER EQUIPMENT AVAILABLE TO EVALUATE CHEMICALS IN THE AIR.
NO ONE WANTS TO TAKE ACCOUNTABILITY, AND NO ONE WANTS TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE ON ANYTHING RELATED TO GAF BASED ON THE LACK OF ACTION.
IT SEEMS LIKE LEADERS IN THIS CITY ARE OKAY WITH KIDS BEING POISONED BY TOXIC AIR POLLUTION.
WELL, MAYBE JUST CERTAIN KIDS THAT, THAT COME FROM A CERTAIN BACKGROUND.
IN SOME COMMUNITIES, A PERSISTENT NUISANCE IS ENOUGH FOR ACTION.
SO FAR, I'VE ONLY HEARD DIRE CONCERN FOR THE FINANCIAL RAMIFICATIONS TRIGGERED BY SB 9 29.
WE ACTUALLY ASKED OUR COUNCILMAN TO INITIATE AMORTIZATION OF GIF YEARS BEFORE SB 9 29 WAS EVEN A THOUGHT.
THE EXCUSE THEN WAS DIRE CONCERN FOR THE USE OF C FUNDS FOR POSSIBLE POSSIBLE LITIGATION.
Y'ALL MAY WANNA HOLD COUNCILMAN OMAN NOVA ACCOUNTABLE FOR THAT.
BOTTOM LINE IS THAT THERE'S NEVER BEEN A WILL OR COURAGEOUS LEADERSHIP TO BRING JUSTICE TO ALL THE FAMILIES IN WEST DALLAS.
AND EVERY STEP IN ACTION HAS POTENTIALLY COST THE CITY MORE FINANCIALLY AND IN ADVERSE HEALTH IMPACTS WE DON'T NEED NEXT YEAR'S.
THIS IS THE THIRD TIME THIS CASE IS BEFORE CPC.
I URGE YOU TO SERIOUSLY CONSIDER ALL THE COMMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE IN OPPOSITION, OPPOSE, OR WILL CONTINUE TO PERPETUATE ENVIRONMENTAL RACISM.
OPPOSE WHAT IS INEQUITABLE TO THE MOST VULNERABLE PEOPLE IN THIS CITY.
ABOUT, UH, MS. QUINTERO NOT ONLINE.
COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS FOR ANY OF OUR FOUR SPEAKERS? OH, UM, PARDON ME, SIR, PLEASE COME ON DOWN.
THERE'S A LITTLE MICROPHONE BUTTON THERE.
J UM, 31 14 BUCKHORN STREET, MEMBER OF SUNRISE, UM, DALLAS.
AND I ALSO WANNA SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO
[05:10:01]
ONE 16 AND DEFEND THE RIGHT FOR THE PUBLIC TO STILL BE ABLE TO BE HEARD.UM, IN THIS CASE, ESPECIALLY LISTENING TO THE CONVERSATION EARLIER AROUND THIS SB UM, 9, 2 9, IT SOUNDS LIKE THE CITY WILL HAVE TO CREATE A FUND ANYWAY.
AND THEN I ALSO ASK IN THIS MOMENT TO THEN, WHAT IS THE COST OF A LIFE, RIGHT? AS WE CAN SIT AND WE CAN TALK BACK AND FORTH ABOUT WHAT CODES ARE AND AMENDMENTS.
UM, THEN WHAT IS THE COST OF A LIFE AS I HEAR MY FOLKS SPEAKING ONLINE, UM, YEAH, JUST SPEAKING THE OPPOSITION OF THIS.
AND PEOPLE JUST HAVE THE RIGHT TO CONTINUE EVEN HEARING THIS IDEA THAT AN APPLICATION, UM, WILL BE REMOVED.
THEY HAVE TO GO TO THE CITY COUNCIL, WHAT'S TO BE CALLED IN THAT THE CITY COUNCIL WILL CALL NON-CONFORMING BESIDE THE PEOPLE WHO ARE BEING IMPACTED IN PERSON.
A 3-YEAR-OLD SHOULDN'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT HAVING ASTHMA OR LUNG CANCER IN A CITY WHERE PEOPLE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEM.
EVERYBODY WHO IS ELECTED IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT 3-YEAR-OLD TO THAT GRANDMOTHER WHO STEPS OUTSIDE.
THEY DESERVE TO HAVE A HEALTHY AIR AND A HEALTHY LIFE.
AND SO I SPEAKING THE OPPOSITION, AT LEAST THE BARE MINIMUM FOR PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO SPEAK WHAT'S GOING ON IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD.
IS THERE ANY ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO BE HEARD ON THIS ITEM? COMMISSIONERS QUESTIONS FOR OUR SPEAKERS? QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? OKAY.
SEEING DONE, COMMISSIONER HOUSER, I DO HAVE A MOTION.
AND I THINK I'VE GOT A COUPLE OF COMMENTS.
IF, UH, WE GET A SECOND, UM, I MOVE THAT, UM, WE FOLLOW, UM, STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND ZO OAC RECOMMENDATION AND APPROVE DCA 2 23 DASH EIGHT WITH THE ONE, UM, CHANGE.
AND THAT IS STRIKING THE, THE SENTENCE IN 4.704 A ONE A BEGINS WITH, IN ADDITION, ANY PERSON WHO RESIDES OR OWNS REAL, REAL PROPERTY IN THE CITY, BUT WHO IS NOT AN OWNER OR OPERATOR OF A NON-CONFORMING USE MAY REQUEST THAT THE BOARD CONSIDER IMPOSING A COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENT FOR NON-CONFORMING USE.
SO THAT WOULD BE STRICKEN FROM THE, UM, FROM THE AMENDMENT.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HOUSER FOR YOUR MOTION.
COMMISSIONER KINGSTON FOR YOUR SECOND COMMENTS.
COMMISSIONER HOUSE WRIGHT COMMISSIONER.
UM, YOU WANNA MAKE IT NOW, MR. NO, I GONNA SPEED.
UM, YEAH, THIS IS A, OBVIOUSLY A VERY DIFFICULT CASE AND, UM, A LOT OF PEOPLE HAVE WORKED, WORKED HARD ON THIS.
I WANT TO, UH, THANK, UH, CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE FOR AT LEAST CONSIDERING ZAK'S, UM, REQUEST TO TAKE ONE MORE LOOK AT WHETHER OR NOT WE COULD, WE COULD, UH, FIND A WAY TO, UM, HAVE SOME SORT OF A, OF A CITIZEN INPUT PROCESS AND, AND, AND STILL NOT BE SUBJECT TO A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF RISK.
AND I, I BELIEVE THEIR ANSWER TODAY IS NO.
WE, WE, THERE IS NOT A PROCESS LIKE THAT.
AND I THINK, UH, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER'S LINE OF QUESTIONING WAS, WAS VERY APPROPRIATE AND HELPFUL.
UM, SO, UM, YOU KNOW, THIS COMMISSION DIDN'T LOBBY FOR THE PASSAGE OF SB 9 29.
WE DIDN'T WRITE IT, WE DIDN'T IMPOSE IT ON THE CITY.
UM, I THINK THIS COMMISSION IS CHARGED WITH PROTECTING MANY, MANY DIFFERENT INTERESTS IN THIS CITY.
AND, UM, I FEEL LIKE THAT, UM, THE MOTION MADE IS, UH, THE BEST OUTCOME AMONG, AMONG MANY.
TODAY MAY NOT BE THE OUTCOME THAT WE WOULD ALL LIKE, BUT I THINK IT'S THE BEST AVAILABLE TO US AT THE MOMENT.
UH, YEAH, I SECONDED THE MOTION.
UM, I AGREE WITH WHAT COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT HAD TO SAY.
FRANKLY, I THINK IT'S TARGETING DALLAS.
I THINK IT TIES HER HANDS IN A LOT OF WAYS.
I'M VERY SYMPATHETIC TO THE OPPOSITION THAT CAME DOWN HERE TO SPEAK.
I WOULD LOVE NOTHING MORE THAN TO PROVIDE RESIDENTS OF THIS CITY WITH AN OPPORTUNITY TO BRING THEIR GRIEVANCES DOWN HERE IN MANY FASHIONS.
I DO THINK THAT YOU STILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO BRING THESE ISSUES TO CITY HALL THROUGH YOUR COUNCIL MEMBER OR THROUGH OTHER REPRESENTATIVES, BUT I THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE ONE CLEAR PATH TO RESOLVE THESE TYPE OF ISSUES AND NOT MANY PATHS BECAUSE NUMBER ONE, IT'S CLEAR TO ME THAT RESIDENT INITIATED PATH THAT HAS NO FUNDING IS NOT SOMETHING THAT'S PRACTICALLY GOING TO
[05:15:01]
WORK.AND IT'S JUST GOING TO RATE WASTE ALREADY PRECIOUS CITY RESOURCES THAT COULD BE USED TO IMPROVE THE LIVES OF OUR RESIDENTS INSTEAD OF WASTING THEM ON A PROCESS THAT ISN'T GOING TO WORK AND FRUSTRATE PEOPLE WHO, UM, REALLY DESERVE BETTER.
AND SO, I SUPPORTED THE MOTION.
UM, I, I DON'T LIKE THE OUTCOME.
I JUST KNOW THAT SOMETIMES GOOD GOVERNMENT MEANS BEING FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE.
AND WHILE I DON'T LIKE THE LAW THAT WE'RE RESPONDING TO, I DO THINK YOU STILL HAVE A PATH, UM, HERE AT THE CITY TO RAISE THESE ISSUES.
AND IF YOUR COUNCIL PERSON ISN'T RESPONSIVE, YOU'VE GOT 14 OTHERS WHO MIGHT BE.
UM, AND IN ADDITION TO STAFF MEMBERS AND BOARD AND COMMISSION MEMBERS WHO MIGHT HELP YOU GET TO SOMEONE WHO WOULD BE RESPONSIVE, UM, I JUST DON'T THINK THAT DESIGNING A SYSTEM THAT ISN'T GOING TO WORK, THAT DOESN'T HAVE FUNDING, AND POTENTIALLY IF MISHANDLED COULD REALLY LEAD TO SOME FINANCIALLY, UM, IF NOT DISASTROUS, VERY DAMAGING OUTCOMES FOR THE CITY, THAT IN TURN COULD REALLY LIMIT SOME SERVICES.
AND, UM, AMENITIES THAT WE PROVIDE TO EVERYONE IS JUST NOT THE WAY TO GO, EVEN IF WE'RE SYMPATHETIC TO THE CAUSE.
SO I'M GONNA BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION.
YEAH, I WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE AN AMENDMENT TO, UM, COMMISSIONER HOUSE WRIGHT'S MOTION TO, UM, RESTORE THE SENTENCE THAT HIS MOTION STRUCK FROM 51 A 4.704 A ONE A REGARDING THE RESIDENT RIGHT TO FILE AND ALSO TO MAKE THE FOLLOWING CHANGE TO, UM, ADDITIONAL CHANGE TO 4.704 A ONE A, UM, STRIKING THE SENATE, STARTING WITH IF THERE ARE INSUFFICIENT FUNDS, IN THE SENSE, STARTING WITH, IF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER DETERMINES AND REPLACING IT WITH THE FOLLOWING, IF SUFFICIENT FUNDS ARE AVAILABLE WITHIN ONE YEAR OF FILING OF THE APPLICATION, THE BOARD SHALL HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER CONTINUED OPERATION THE NON-CONFORMING USE WILL HAVE AN ADVERSE EFFECT ON NEARBY PROPERTIES.
IF SUFFICIENT FUNDS ARE NOT AVAILABLE WITHIN THIS ONE YEAR PERIOD, THE APPLICATION SHALL BE DEEMED DENIED FOR LACK OF FUNDING.
SO LET'S, UH, MR. CHAIR, GIVE US ONE SECOND.
WE'RE LOOKING AT WHETHER OR NOT THAT AMENDMENT IS IN ORDER.
PLEASE, MR. CHAIR, WE HAVE CONSULTED ROBERT'S RULES AND THE MOTION THE AMENDMENT IS OUT OF ORDER BECAUSE IT'S CONTRARY.
[05:20:01]
TO UNDO WHAT THE MAIN MOTION DOES.THE MOTION WOULD BE IN ORDER IF COMMISSIONER HOUSE WRITES MOTION FAILS.
SO IT CANNOT BE AN AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION.
CAN I APPEAL THE RULING OF THE PARLIAMENTARIAN TO THE CHAIR.
WHY, IF, IF THAT'S A QUE YET, THEN YEAH, THAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO SO.
SO, SO LET'S GO THROUGH EXACTLY WHAT, WHAT YOUR AMENDMENT OPENS UP.
YEAH, IT WOULD RETAIN THE RESIDENT RIGHT TO FILE.
IT'S ADDING THE SENTENCE BACK, ADDING THE SENTENCE BACK, AND ADDITIONALLY, IT WOULD GIVE IT, RATHER THAN HAVING THE, THE APPLICATION DIE, IF THERE WEREN'T FUNDING IN THE FUND RIGHT NOW, IT WOULD GIVE IT A YEAR FOR THERE TO BE FUNDING WITH THE THOUGHT THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT WOULD GO THROUGH ONE BUDGET CYCLE AND THERE WOULD ACTUALLY BE CONCRETE APPLICATIONS ON THE TABLE FOR THE CITY COUNCIL TO CONSIDER.
WHEN THERE ARE, UM, WHEN, WHEN THEY'RE DECIDING WHETHER OR NOT TO PUT MONEY IN THIS FUND IN THE BUDGET PROCESS, I BELIEVE YOUR, I BELIEVE YOUR MOTION REFERRED TO SUFFICIENT FUNDING.
HOW IN THE WORLD DO YOU DEFINE SUFFICIENT FUNDING? I BELIEVE THAT'S IN THE DOCUMENTS ITSELF, THE OBJECT BEFORE WE GET THERE.
SO YES, SORT OF BEFORE WE GET TO APPEAL THE RULING OF THE CHAIR, THE CHAIR HAS TO, UH, EITHER AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THE PARLIAMENTARIAN'S RULING ON WHETHER OR NOT THE AMENDMENT IS IN ORDER.
IF THE CHAIR SAYS THAT THE AMENDMENT IS OUT OF ORDER, THEN VICE-CHAIR REUBEN CAN APPEAL THAT RULING OF THE CHAIR.
SO THAT'S SORT OF WHERE WE ARE.
FIRST, IS THE CHAIR MAKING A RULING ON VICE CHAIR RUBIN'S AMENDMENT BEING IN OR OUT OF ORDER? YES.
SO LET'S DISCUSS THE, UH, AMENDMENT BY VICE CHAIR RUBIN.
UM, I'LL SAY THAT SENATE BILL 9 29, I REALLY, REALLY CANNOT STAND, AND I THINK IT'S A TERRIBLE BILL.
UM, AND, YOU KNOW, I AM MYSELF SKEPTICAL ABOUT THIS PROCESS THAT, THAT WE ARE PUTTING IN PLACE HERE.
I THINK A DOOR WAS SHUT AND, YOU KNOW, WE SHOULD BE LOOKING FOR A BACKDOOR AT THE SAME TIME.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT DOORS WE HAVE AVAILABLE, UM, TO US IN THE FUTURE TO DEAL WITH INDUSTRIAL USES CAUSING HARM, WHETHER THEY'RE CONFORMING OR NON-CONFORMING.
SO WITH THAT SAID, WE HAVE THE RESIDENT RIGHT TO FILE BEFORE, I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT WHEN IT COMES TO HARMFUL INDUSTRIAL NON-CONFORMING USES.
AND I DO THINK THIS MOTION ACTUALLY ALLOWS THERE TO BE SOMETHING CONCRETE ON THE TABLE FOR THE CITY COUNCIL TO CONSIDER WHEN IT GOES TO THE BUDGET EACH YEAR IN TERMS OF APPLICATIONS, RATHER THAN HAVING TO JUST THROW MONEY INTO A POT.
THAT, THAT ITS PURPOSE IS UNCLEAR IF THERE ARE ACTUAL APPLICATIONS ON THE TABLE.
AGAIN, I'M NOT THRILLED BY THE SITUATION AND, AND I THINK WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE THE BEST OF A REALLY, REALLY AWFUL SITUATION THE LEGISLATURE STUCK IN.
BUT I THINK I WOULD BE MORE COMFORTABLE IF WE DID RETAIN A RESIDENT RIGHT, TO FILE TO ACTUALLY BRING THESE ISSUES UP AND HAVE THEM MEANINGFULLY CONSIDERED.
SOMEONE COULD, THE CHAIR ASKED ME TO PROVIDE AN EXAMPLE.
A, A RESIDENT COULD FILE AN APPLICATION ON JANUARY ONE IF THEIR, AND THEN, YOU KNOW, THE COUNCIL DOES THIS BUDGET, YOU KNOW, LATER IN THE YEAR AT THE TIME THE COUNCIL DOES ITS BUDGET.
THAT APPLICATION WOULD BE SOMETHING CONCRETE TO THINK ABOUT WHEN DECIDING WHETHER OR NOT TO PUT MONEY IN THE NON-CONFORMING USE FUND OR NOT.
THE COUNCIL'S NOT OBLIGATED TO DO IT, BUT IT IS A CONCRETE CONSIDERATION AS OPPOSED TO JUST PUTTING MONEY INTO A FUND WITHOUT ANY APPLICATIONS ON THE TABLE TO THINK ABOUT.
UM, SO, YOU KNOW, OTHERWISE, YOU KNOW, IF WE WENT WITH THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION THAT WE HAD TODAY BEFORE THE MOTION STRIKING THE RESIDENT RIGHT TO FILE, IF SOMEONE FILED ON JANUARY
[05:25:01]
ONE, AN APPLICATION, THERE WERE NO MONEY IN THIS NON-CONFORMING USE FUND, THEN THE APPLICATION WOULD BE DEAD ON ARRIVAL.SO I THINK THE APPLICATION SHOULD AT LEAST BE GIVEN A LITTLE MORE CONSIDERATION THAN, THAN WHAT'S BEEN PROPOSED TO US.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER BLA AND CHAIR, AND VICE CHAIR RUBINS.
UM, WELL, LET ME FIRST ALSO BE ON THE RECORD SAYING SB 9 29 IS THE MOST DETRIMENTAL, UM, LEGISLATURE THAT IS SENT TO THIS MUNICIPALITY IN ORDER FOR US TO HAVE TO NAVIGATE, UM, IN, IN VICE CHAIR RUBEN'S EXAMPLE, IF WE HAVE JUST ONE LARGE APPLICATION, IT DOESN'T MATTER WHO SENDS IT TO THE CITY, WHETHER IT'S A RESIDENT OR WHETHER IT'S WHOEVER, UM, BLESS YOU.
UM, THE, WE WOULD EITHER HAVE TO HAVE A FUND ALREADY IN PLACE, OR IF YOU HAVE MULTI, IF YOU HAVE MULTIPLE APPLICATIONS THAT WE HAVE THAT, THAT HAS TO COME, THAT HAS TO BE PAID OUT IN THIS ONE YEAR CYCLE, WHAT WOULD WE DO IF WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH FUNDS? PICK ONE.
UM, NO MATTER HOW WE TRY TO NAVIGATE THIS, THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT IS EASY TO DO.
UM, I, BUT I, I WOULD, I I, I'M, I'M STRUGGLING TO SAY WHETHER ONE IS BETTER THAN THE OTHER BECAUSE NEITHER ONE OF THEM WORKS FOR ME.
UM, BUT I DON'T KNOW HOW TO, HOW TO GET IT WHERE IT NEEDS TO BE.
SO I, IT'S, IT'S PICK IT'S, IT'S THE MATTER, IT'S THE STATE OF PICK ONE.
UM, TODAY FOR ME WHEN IT COMES DOWN TO THIS, BUT I'M NOT SO SURE THAT PUTTING A FUND TOGETHER AND SAYING THIS IS WHAT WE'RE GOING TO PAY AT THE END OF THE YEAR ALSO WORKS.
WELL, I APPRECIATE, UM, COMMISSIONER RUBIN'S EFFORTS TO TRY TO FIND A SOLUTION.
I'M NOT GONNA SUPPORT HIS MOTION.
UM, I THINK THAT IF COUNSEL IDENTIFIES A PROBLEM AND THEY WANNA SET ASIDE FINE FUNDS AT BUDGET SEASON TO SOLVE IT AND INITIATE THIS PROCESS, THEY ARE MORE THAN CAPABLE TO DO THAT.
THEY DO BUDGET SEASON EVERY YEAR.
THEY IDENTIFY THINGS THEY WANNA PAY FOR EVERY YEAR.
AND THIS CAN BE ONE OF THOSE THINGS.
UM, I THINK IN, IN INJECTING A RESIDENT LED, UM, PROCESS INTO ALL OF THIS, NEEDLESSLY COMPLICATES THAT PEOPLE CAN GO TO THEIR COUNCIL PERSON IF THERE'S A PROBLEM.
AND FRANKLY, THE TYPE OF PROBLEMS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ARE NOT UNKNOWN TO COUNCIL PEOPLE IN THOSE DISTRICTS.
AND COUNCIL PEOPLE CAN CHOOSE TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT, AND IF THEY DON'T, THERE ARE CONSEQUENCES FOR ELECTIONS.
SO I, I JUST, I FAIL TO SEE WEIGHING THE RISK AND THE COST AND THE TYPE OF FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY WE SHOULD BE EXERCISING AROUND THIS HORSESHOE WITH THE RISK, UM, THAT THIS TYPE OF POISON PILL TO QUOTE BURT, UM, LEGISLATION IMPOSES ON US HOW INJECTING THIS RESIDENT LED PART OF THE PROCESS IS REALLY HELPING ANYTHING AT THIS JUNCTURE.
SO I'M, I CAN'T SUPPORT THE MOTION COMMISSIONER CARPENTER.
UM, I WON'T BE SUPPORTING, UM, VICE CHAIR RUBEN'S MOTION.
UM, I MEAN, AS FAR AS I, AMORTIZATION IS DEAD AND SB 9 29 KILLED IT.
THAT'S JUST, YOU KNOW, THE WAY I SEE IT, THE ONUS WITH THIS BILL, THE ONUS IS NO LONGER ON THE BAT OPERATOR.
IT'S ON THE MUNICIPALITY, AND THE FINANCIAL LIABILITY
[05:30:01]
IS OPEN-ENDED, AND THE OUTCOME IS UNCERTAIN.UM, YOU KNOW, UH, I DON'T SEE THAT CREATING A FALSE HOPE THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE A PATH TO GET TO THE OLD AMORTIZATION IS REALLY GOING TO, UH, YOU KNOW, HELP ANYTHING.
AND I THINK WE ALSO NEED TO LOOK AT THE FACT THAT NOT ALL BAD OPERATORS ARE NON-CONFORMING.
WE HAVE BUSINESSES THAT CONFORM TO THE ZONING THAT ARE BAD OPERATORS AND NEED TO BE SHUT DOWN.
AND THERE, THERE'S A, A MECHANISM FOR DEALING WITH THAT THROUGH COMMUNITY PROSECUTION AND CODES.
SO, I MEAN, WE'RE JUST LOOKING AT PART OF THE, THE PROCESS.
SO I, I, I'M SORRY, BUT I CANNOT SUPPORT THAT.
DID I SEE YOU RAISE YOUR HAND, SIR? IT DID.
SO, UM, I, I SECONDED THE MOTION BECAUSE I WANTED THE CONVERSATION.
IT'S CLEAR, UM, THAT THIS IS, IS ABOMINABLE, RIGHT? AND EVEN IF THE DISTRICTS WERE TO HAVE TO RAISE MONEY INDIVIDUALLY, THE DISTRICTS IN THE SOUTHERN SECTOR WE KNOW ARE FINANCIALLY STRAPPED AS IT IS.
SO THIS, WE ARE, WE'RE ATTACKED EVERY WHICH WAY.
AND AS COMMISSIONER KINGSTON SAYS, THERE'S CONSEQUENCES FOR VOTING.
THIS IS A CONSEQUE A CONSEQUENCE FOR VOTING.
UM, AND I HOPE PEOPLE ARE LISTENING AND PAYING ATTENTION.
'CAUSE UM, THIS WILL HARM NOT ONLY MY COMMUNITY, UM, NEARBY, BUT EVERY COMMUNITY THAT TOUCHES MY DISTRICT.
I, I APPRECIATE, UM, UM, COMMISSIONER RUBIN, VICE CHAIR RUBIN'S, UM, TRY HERE.
I REALLY WANTED, WANTED TO SUPPORT IT AS WELL AND WOULD, UM, BECAUSE I THINK THE NEIGHBORS NEED A WAY TO VOICE THEIR PROBLEMS PUBLICLY, UM, EVEN IF WE'RE GOING TO TOWARDS CITY COUNCIL, RIGHT? UM, I, I THINK IF CITY COUNCIL WANTED TO TAKE AWAY SOMETHING OR, UM, COME TO THE DECISION ABOUT THE BUDGET, THAT THEY SHOULD HAVE THE OPTION ON THE TABLE TO DO THAT.
AND THAT'S WHY I WOULD'VE SENT IT TO THEM WITH, WITH THAT BUDGET ITEM.
SO THAT'S, THAT'S, THAT WAS MY CASE.
I JUST WANT TO TOUCH A CLARIFICATION.
WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HOUSE, RIGHT? UH, COMMISSIONER RUBIN MADE A, ANOTHER MOTION.
SO WE HAVE TO VOTE ON, UH, COMMISSIONER RUBINS, THEN WE CAN GET BACK TO VOTE ON COMMISSIONER HOUSE RIGHTS.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? CAN I ASK, UH, PLEASE.
COMMISSIONER FORSYTH, OF COURSE.
CAN I ASK COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT TO CLARIFY WHAT HIS ORIGINAL AMENDMENT WAS? AND THIS HELPS ME TO UNDERSTAND AND HOW TO VOTE ON COMMISSIONER FORSETH.
WHY, WHY, WHY DON'T WE HAVE STAFF COMPARE THE TWO MOTIONS AND THAT WAY WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE AND WE UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHAT COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT PROPOSED AND WHAT THE ADJUSTMENT THAT, UH, BY SHERRY RUBEN MADE MR. CHAIR, UH, COMMISSIONER HOUSE.
WRIGHT'S ORIGINAL MOTION WAS TO ACCEPT THE DOCUMENT THAT WAS PRESENTED TO YOU AFTER GOING THROUGH ZAC AND TAKING ZAC C'S RECOMMENDATION.
HOWEVER, HE MADE AN AMENDMENT TO REMOVE THE ONE SENTENCE FROM PARAGRAPH ONE OF SUBSECTION A OF 7.7 4.704, WHICH WAS THAT IN ADDITION, ANY PERSON RESIDES OR OWNS REAL PROPERTY IN THEIR CITY, BUT WHO IS NOT AN OWNER OPERATOR FOR NONCONFORMING USE MAY REQUEST THAT THE BOARD CONSIDER IMPOSING A COMPLIANCE, UH, REQUIREMENT FOR AN NONCONFORMING USE THAT WAS REMOVED, OTHERWISE IT WENT FORWARD AS IS.
WHAT DID THAT SENTENCE MEAN? WHAT DID THAT SENTENCE DO? THE SENTENCE WAS BASICALLY ALLOWING SOMEONE WHO, SOMEONE OTHER THAN THE CITY COUNCIL TO MAKE APPLICATION TO BRING AN NON A COMPLIANCE CASE.
ORIGINAL AMENDMENT THEN WAS TO ALLOW AN INDIVIDUAL, IT, IT TOOK THAT SENTENCE OUT.
IT'S, IT IS COMPLICATED, MADE A MAIN MOTION, AND THE MAIN MOTION EXCLUDED THAT SENTENCE.
THE MAIN MOTION EXCLUDED THAT SENTENCE THAT I READ, DELETED THAT SENTENCE.
AND NOW, VICE SHERIFF RUBIN'S UNFRIENDLY AMENDMENT, PUT THAT SENTENCE BACK.
PUT THAT SENTENCE BACK AND ADDED A YEAR.
SORT OF WAIT TIME FOR AN APPLICATION TO SEE IF IT WOULD BE FUNDED.
I, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S THE MOST ELOQUENT WAY TO SAY IT, BUT I BELIEVE THAT'S WHAT IT DID.
SO JUST PRACTICALLY, MR. VANDENBERG, UH, A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC COULD FILE A CASE.
IT'S, IT'S DEEMED NONCONFORMING, AND THEN IT HAS A YEAR TO GET FUNDED.
OR HOW, AS I UNDERSTAND, COMMISSIONER RUBIN'S MOTION, THE APPLICATION WOULD NOT, WOULD BE DEEMED IN LIMBO UNTIL THE END OF A YEAR AND AFTER, AT THE END OF A YEAR, IF THERE WAS NO
[05:35:01]
FUNDING AVAILABLE AT THAT POINT, IT WOULD BE DEEMED INCOMPLETE.IF THERE WAS FUNDING, IT WOULD MOVE FORWARD.
IT WOULD MOVE FORWARD WITH WHAT? TO THE BOARD OF JUSTICE.
IF THERE WAS FUNDING, IT WOULD MOVE FORWARD AS A AN AM A COMPLIANCE CASE THROUGH THE DETERMINATION PROCESS, THROUGH THE DETERMINATION PROCESS.
IT WOULD NOT ENTER THE DETERMINATION PROCESS, THAT'S IT.
COMMISSIONER FORESE? WELL, I, I, UNDERSTANDING THIS BETTER THAN, UH, I, I WILL DEFINITELY BE SUPPORTING COMMISSIONER RUBIN'S, UH, MOTION.
UH, I BELIEVE THAT WE SHOULD NOT BE REMOVING THE CITIZEN'S, RIGHT? AND I THINK THAT HE'S OFFERING A GOOD WAY OF HANDLING THESE SITUATIONS WHEN THEY DO ARISE.
THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER, PLEASE, WHEELER.
SO ESSENTIALLY WE'RE ALMOST DOING, IT'S ALMOST LIKE A, UM, SUPREME COURT CASE.
AND THEN WE ARE PICKING AND CHOOSING WHICH WE BASED OFF OF A FUND.
AND THE INTENSITY, THEN ESSENTIALLY, THAT'S ALMOST HOW THEY WOULD DETERMINE ON WHICH CASE WOULD MOVE FORWARD.
'CAUSE THAT'S WHAT HE'S SAYING.
'CAUSE IT HAS TO BE, UM, IF IT'S THREE CASES, RIGHT? UM, DO, ARE ALL THREE KILLED BECAUSE OF THE FUNDING? OR DO WE DO, IT'S LIKE, AGAIN, LIKE SUPREME COURT, YOU GOTTA FIGURE OUT IS THIS A, IS THIS CASE STRONG ENOUGH AND THAT WE WOULD MOVE FORWARD? AND IS IN PART, IS IT A CASE SUCH AS GJF OR WHAT IS IT? G-G-A-F-G, WHATEVER.
UM, SO THIS CASE SHOULD MOVE FORWARD AND WE SHOULD, UM, AND THIS IS THE ONE THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO FUND BECAUSE WHO DETERMINES OUT OF THE CASES WHO, WHICH ONE GETS DROPPED AND WHICH ONE GET FUNDED? I, I'LL JUST SAY THAT MY AMENDMENT DOES NOT ADDRESS PRIORITIZATION AMONGST FILED CASES.
AND SO WE ARE GOING TO RUN INTO A PROBLEM BECAUSE OF JUST THAT ALONE.
THERE'S NO WAY THERE'S GONNA BE ONE CASE, RIGHT? AND WHO, WHAT IS THE GUIDELINES FOR PRESIDENT? IT COULD BE ONE CASE, IT COULD BE MULTIPLE.
THE COUNCIL COULD GIVE VARIOUS DIRECTIONS TO THEIR BUDGET.
I, I THINK GETTING THAT FAR IN THE WEEDS IS THAT THAT'S WHERE IT IS KIND.
IT IS A GREAT IDEAL, UM, ON FACE.
BUT THEN WHEN IT GETS DOWN TO THAT, WE HAVE, RIGHT NOW I CAN SEE THREE, YOU HAVE TAMCO, YOU GOT GAF, THEN YOU HAVE SOMETHING OVER, UM, THE, UM, IN ONE OF THE OTHER ADJACENCIES.
AND THEN NOW, SO TWO OF 'EM WE KNOW ARE HARMFUL.
AND THEN THE THIRD ONE GETS TROUBLE.
WHICH ONE DO YOU CHOOSE? AND NOW YOU OPEN A DOOR.
IT'S, IT'S HARD TO TAKE AWAY SOMETHING FROM THE CITIZENS.
I I DON'T THINK THE RIGHTS SHOULD BE TAKEN AWAY FROM THE CITIZEN, BUT I ALSO DON'T THINK THAT WE SHOULD, IT SHOULD BE BASED OFF OF THE FUNDING.
IT'S EITHER WE GOING TO GIVE THEM THE RIGHT OR WE'RE NOT GOING TO GIVE THEM THE RIGHT.
AND UNFORTUNATELY, UM, I SEE THAT SOME STATE REPRESENTATIVES HAVE SENT US MESSAGES, BUT THEY SHOULD HAVE HANDLED THAT AT THE STATE.
'CAUSE WE WE'RE THE, THEY LEFT TOOK THE RIGHT, JUST LIKE THEY TOOK THE RIGHT FOR US TO DETERMINE ON WHETHER SOMEONE CAN BUILD SOME MATERIALS.
I, I, I THINK IT'S A IDEA GOOD IN PRINCIPLE, BUT WHO DETERMINES AND WE'RE GONNA HAVE A MAJOR FIGHT.
JUST, JUST TO MAKE CLEAR, MR. VANDERBERG, LET'S JUST SAY HYPOTHETICALLY AGAIN, WE'RE, WE'RE TRYING TO FOLLOW A HYPOTHETICAL PROCESS, RIGHT? THE SB 9 29 HAS, HAS PUT THE CITY IN A STRANGLEHOLD.
WE'RE TRYING TO FIND A CLEVER WAY TO KIND OF RELEASE THAT HOLD A LITTLE BIT.
SO LET'S SAY THERE ARE THREE CASES, AND UNDER THE, THE INFRASTRUCTURE HERE THAT WE'RE CONTEMPLATING, COUNSEL COULD LOOK AT THOSE THREE CASES AND CHOOSE TO FUND ONE OF THE THREE, TWO OF THE THREE, ALL THREE.
I, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE PRIORITIZATION METHOD WOULD BE.
I THINK THAT'S PART OF THE CON THAT'S PART OF THE CONFUSION I HAVE WITH THIS PARTICULAR AMENDMENT.
WOULD IT BE FIRST COME, FIRST SERVED? WOULD IT BE THE TWO THAT COULD BE FUNDED AT THE EXPENSE OF THE ONLY, THE ONE THAT COULD BE, I, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT WOULD BE.
I'D HAVE, THAT'S SOMETHING WE WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT.
DO YOU HAVE A FOLLOW UP? AGAIN, THAT CONCERN COULD BE A, A GROUP OF COMMUNITY MEMBERS IS I DON'T LIKE THE DAYCARE IN MY IN OVER HERE.
RIGHT? WELL, THE FUND HAS ENOUGH TO SUPPORT THE DAY, THE, THE DAYCARE.
BUT THEN YOU HAVE A, SOMETHING THAT IS NON-CONFORMING THAT WILL, WOULD CAUSE HEALTH ISSUES.
BUT THE FUND DOESN'T HAVE ENOUGH MONEY FOR THAT.
IT, IT'S A, IT'S, IT'S SUCH A CATCH 22 THAT, THAT I, I CAN'T, I, I KIND DON'T, I DON'T, I CAN'T SUPPORT IT BECAUSE OF THAT INCIDENT.
BUT I ALSO, I, LET ME SAY THIS, I CAN'T SUPPORT
[05:40:01]
THE FULL MOTION BECAUSE I DO SUPPORT US HAVING THE RIGHT NOW, THIS IS A MESS.I, UH, I MEAN, AND I UNDERSTAND.
I, BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND THAT A LOT OF THESE ISSUES ARE IN THIS, IN LIKE THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT AND WEST DALLAS, AND THEN SYSTEMATICALLY DONE THAT.
IT'S REMOVING THE RIGHTS SEEMS SO UNFORTUNATE AND, AND, AND PUTS US IN A BAD PLACE.
AND YES, WE CAN TALK ABOUT OUR CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS, BUT THEY'RE IN A SITUATION TOO.
SOMETHING THAT THIS HAPPENED AT THE STATE, RIGHT? UM, AND UNFORTUNATELY, WE MOVED TOO SLOW OFTENTIMES ON THINGS THAT COULD HAVE BEEN PUT A BUD IN A LONG TIME AGO.
AND SO YOU HAVE RESIDENTS THAT ARE COMING TO SPEAK TODAY THAT ARE SAYING, WE DID EVERYTHING WE WERE SUPPOSED TO DO.
NOW WE'RE BEING HIT WITH THIS, AND THEN OUR RIGHT IS GONNA BE TAKEN AWAY, AND THEN WE HAVE TO ENTER INTO A MONOPOLY.
AND WHOEVER WINS IN THIS MONOPOLY BOARD, UM, GETS THE FUNDING TO MOVE FORWARD.
I THINK COMMISSIONER HAUSER HASN'T SPOKEN.
FIRST ROUND, FILED BY COMMISSIONER CARPENTER.
UM, SO I GATHER WE'RE GONNA VOTE ON THE AMEND ON THE OTHER.
UM, WELL, LET'S, LET'S JUST SAY THAT, THAT IF THERE WAS A PROCESS AS VICE CHAIR RUBEN HAS, UM, TRIED TO OUTLINE, I THINK IT PUTS US, IT, IT FORCES US INTO A TERRIBLE, TERRIBLE PROCESS THAT, UM, HAS A VERY UNCERTAIN OUTCOME.
IT COSTS A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF MONEY, TAKES A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF TIME, AND THE, WE PAY THE PROPERTY OWNER A BUNCH OF MONEY AND THEY STILL OWN THE PROPERTY.
I JUST THINK IT'S A, WE'RE, WE'RE FORCING THIS WHOLE CONVERSATION IS ABOUT HOW CAN WE FORCE OURSELVES INTO A BAD PROCESS? WHY DO WE EVEN WANNA BE IN THAT PROCESS TO BEGIN WITH? IF WE'VE GOT A BAD ACTOR IN THE CITY, I WOULD SAY IT WOULD BE FASTER AND CHEAPER TO GO TO THEM AND NEGOTIATE A SETTLEMENT AND JUST BE DONE WITH IT, AND NOT GET WRAPPED UP IN THIS TERRIBLE PROCESS THAT AUSTIN HAS HAS WRITTEN.
I DON'T KNOW WHY WE WOULD EVER, WHY WE WOULD EVER WANNA DO THIS.
AND I THINK THIS NOTION THAT WE'RE ELIMINATING THE CITIZEN'S RIGHT TO SPEAK IS A FALSE CHOICE.
THERE ARE MULTIPLE AVENUES AND OPPORTUNITIES TO SPEAK TO, UM, UH, COMMUNICATE A GRIEVANCE TO COME BEFORE CITY COUNCIL TO VOTE A COUNCILMAN PERSON OUT OF OFFICE, UH, JUST ANY NUMBER, ANY NUMBER OF OTHER OPTIONS.
SO I, I THINK TO KIND OF WRAP THIS UP IN, IN THIS SORT OF POPULOUS LANGUAGE OF THE, THE PEOPLE HAVE TO HAVE IS, IS JUST A MISREPRESENTATION ENTIRELY OF WHAT, WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE.
NO, I, I JUST WANNA POINT OUT THAT WITH EITHER MOTION, THE CITY COUNCIL CONTROLS THE PROCESS BECAUSE THEY HAVE THE SOLE AUTHORITY TO CREATE THE FUND OR TO ALLOCATE THE FUNDING.
SO THERE IS NO PATH THAT ALLOWS A CITIZEN TO BYPASS THE CITY COUNCIL.
AND I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT THAT RATHER THAN GO THROUGH THIS WHOLE RIGMAROLE, IF THE CITY COUNCIL DECIDED THEY REALLY WANTED TO SHUT DOWN A BUSINESS, THEY'D BE BETTER OFF JUST SAYING, WE'LL BUY THE BUSINESS, PERIOD.
THEN WE OWN THE BUSINESS, THE LAND, WE CAN CHANGE THE ZONING.
WE DO WHATEVER WE WANT TO, BUT NOT GO THROUGH THIS MICKEY MOUSE PROCESS.
ANYBODY FIRST ROUND, SECOND ROUND, MR. RUBIN? YEAH.
I JUST WANT TO AGAIN SAY THAT WE'RE NOT COMMISSIONER HOUSER REFERS TO A CITIZEN'S RIGHT TO SPEAK.
I, I AGREE THAT REGARDLESS OF WE DO TODAY, A CITIZENS WILL HAVE A RIGHT TO SPEAK.
BUT WHAT THE CITIZENS HAVE TODAY ARE PRE SB 9 29, BEFORE IT JUST COMPLETELY THROUGH A WRENCH AND ARC PROCESS WAS A RIGHT TO FILE FOR AMORTIZATION.
SO NOW THAT WE HAVE, WE'LL BE MOVING TOWARDS A COMPLIANCE PROCESS AS OPPOSED TO AN AMORTIZATION PROCESS.
THIS WOULD ACTUALLY STILL PRESERVE A COMMENSURATE RIGHT.
I THINK THAT IS SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE, BE EXPLORED AND MAYBE SOMETHING THAT ULTIMATELY COULD BE BETTER, COULD BE WORSE THAN, THAN WHAT'S ON THE TABLE RIGHT NOW UNDER THIS CODE AMENDMENT.
BUT, BUT WE DON'T KNOW UNTIL WE ACTUALLY KNOW.
YOU KNOW, BUYING SOMETHING OUT FROM A BUYER WHO MAY HAVE NO DESIRE TO SELL WHATSOEVER CAN BE VERY EXPENSIVE.
A, A OPERATOR DOESN'T HAVE ANY OBLIGATION TO BUY, AND THE BUYOUT MAY EVEN BE MORE EXPENSIVE THAN COMPLIANCE UNDER THE SB 9 29 PROCESS.
I'M JUST NOT SURE UNTIL WE KNOW.
IT MAY BE THAT THIS PROCESS BECOMES DEAD LETTER BECAUSE THE BUYOUT OR EMINENT DOMAIN OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT BECOMES A MUCH BETTER OPTION.
BUT UNTIL WE KNOW, I THINK WE SHOULD HAVE A MEANINGFUL PROCESS IN THE CODE TO AT LEAST TRY TO GO THROUGH THE 9 29 PROCESS.
[05:45:02]
COMMISSIONER BLAIR, A QUESTION SECOND.WE HAVE, UH, UH, CALL TO QUESTION.
SO, UH, COMMISSIONER HAS CALLED THE QUESTION SECOND BY COMMISSIONER KINGSTON.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE SAY AYE.
THEN WE'LL TAKE A RECORD VOTE ON VICE CHAIR RUBIN'S, UH, I GUESS UNFRIENDLY AMENDMENT.
DISTRICT NINE, DISTRICT 10? NO.
WE GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THAT, PLEASE? UH, CAN I MAKE A MOTION? UH, ARE, ARE WE ALLOWED TO MAKE A MOTION TO HOLD THIS TO THE NEXT, UH, TO THE, JUST THE VERY NEXT ONE? WELL, I THINK WE, WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE TABLE.
UH, A MOTION TO POSTPONE TWO TIMES CERTAIN WOULD PREVAIL OVER THE MOTION TO AMEND.
SO IT WOULD BECOME THE, THE MOTION THAT'S BEFORE THE BODY IF IT IS MADE.
SO WE, WE, YOU WOULD NEED, SHE'D NEED A SECOND.
SO WE HAVE A MOTION SECOND TO WHAT DATE? TWO WEEKS TO THE NEXT, TO OUR NEXT YEAR.
WAS IT 19TH? WAS IT THE FIFTH? YEP.
WE HAVE A MOTION TO HOLD THIS MATTER UNDER ADVISEMENT TO SEPTEMBER 5TH MADE BY COMMISSIONER WHEELER.
SO I GOT BY COMMISSIONER FORESIGHT DISCUSSION ON THAT.
COMMISSIONER WHEELER FOR THE MOST PART, I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT AND, AND WHAT, AND, BUT I JUST THINK THAT THERE'S SOME QUESTIONS AND JUST THE, AND JUST THAT ONE, THOSE THAT ONE MORE DATE COULD KINDA CLARIFY, UM, OR CAN HELP OUT.
AND I, I KNOW WE, SOME THINGS WE LIKE TO MOVE, I WOULD LOVE TO MOVE THIS FORWARD, BUT I DEFINITELY DON'T WANNA MAKE A DECISION JUST BASED OFF OF WE'RE SICK OF SEEING IT OR SICK OF, OF, OF, OF IT BEING HERE.
THAT IT JUST TO ONE MORE HEARING WOULD MAKE A, UH, GIVE US TIME TO SEE IS THERE ARE SOME AMENDMENTS THAT CAN BE MADE OR FOR THAT CAN ADD TO THE WORK THAT, UM, ZAC HAS DONE OR, AND THIS, AND, AND THE CITY ATTORNEY.
I'M RESPECTFULLY NOT GONNA SUPPORT THE MOTION.
WE'VE HAD THIS TILL MAY AND WELL, YOU KNOW, THE POLICY WON ME.
WOULD LOVE TO CONTINUE TO TRY TO TINKER WITH IT.
I THINK THE MOST IMPORTANT THING THAT WE NEED TO DO IS TO GET THIS ON INTO COUNSEL, TO GET SOMETHING IN PLACE AND HAVE COUNSEL MAKE A FINAL DECISION ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.
BECAUSE RIGHT NOW WE DON'T HAVE ANY COMP PROCESS THAT COMPLIES WITH, WITH SB 9 29.
SO I DO THINK THERE IS VALUE IN GETTING THIS DONE TODAY.
WHETHER THE PROCESS IS SOLELY A COUNCIL PROCESS, WHETHER IT'S A CITIZEN INITIATED PROCESS, UM, WE NEED TO GET MOVING.
'CAUSE RIGHT NOW MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THIS PROCESS IS NOT ABLE TO OCCUR AT ALL.
COMMISSIONER CARPENTER? ALL THE QUESTION.
ALRIGHT, LET'S VOTE ON CALLING THE QUESTION.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.
LET'S TAKE A VOTE ON HOLDING THE MATTER UNDER ADVISEMENT.
UH, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE SAY AYE.
ANY OPPOSED? A, A MOTION FAILS.
WE GO BACK TO COMMISSIONER HOUSE RIGHTS.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THAT? STICK A RECORD.
THIS IS ON THE ORIGINAL MOTION.
MAKE COMMISSIONER HOUSE RIGHT.
SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KINGSTON.
[05:50:01]
DISTRICT SEVEN? NO.DISTRICT NINE, DISTRICT 10? YES.
DISTRICT 11, ABSENT DISTRICT 12.
1, 6, 5, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14 IN FAVOR.
[17. 24-2553 An application to create “The Frontier Subdistrict” within the Downtown Special Provision Sign District on a property zoned Planned Development District 193 Heavy Commercial District, on the northwest corner of McKinney Avenue at St. Paul Street, along Akard Street and Cedar Springs Road]
UH, COMMISSIONER SITS.UH, MR. CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION ASK WITH THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ZONING DIVISION, UH, I HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU ITEM, UH, 70 AN APPLICATION TO CREATE THE FRONTIER SUB-DISTRICT WITHIN THE DOWNTOWN SPECIAL PROVISION DESIGN DISTRICT ON A PROPERTY ZONE PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 180 3 HEAVY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF, UH, MCKINNEY AVENUE AT ST.
PAUL STREET ALONG AAKER STREET AND CEDAR SPRINGS ROAD.
THE SPECIAL SIGN DISTRICT COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL.
IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT'D LIKE TO BE HEARD ON THIS ITEM? COMMISSIONERS.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF SEEING ON COMMISSIONER KINGSTON? DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? I DO IN THE MATTER OF PSD 2 23 DASH 0 0 3.
I MOVE THAT WE HOLD THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN UNTIL SEPTEMBER 19TH.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER KINGSTON FOR YOUR MOTION.
HAVE ERS WILL MOVE ON TO OUR, UH, SUBDIVISION DOCK CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS CONSISTING OF 18 THROUGH 22.
I WANT PULL, I'D LIKE TO PULL NUMBER 21 OFF THE CONSENT.
[SUBDIVISION DOCKET - Consent Items]
LEAVES CASES, UH, 18 THROUGH 20 AND 22 ON THE CONSENT.ANY QUESTIONS ON ANY OF THOSE COMMISSIONERS? OKAY, LET'S GET THOSE RIGHT IN PLEASE.
THE, THE CONCEPT AGENDA CONSISTS OF FIVE ITEMS. ITEM 18 S 2 34 DASH 1 65, ITEM 19 S 2 34 DASH 1 66, ITEM 20 S 2 34 DASH 1 67.
ALL CASES HAVE BEEN POSTED FOR HEARING AT THIS TIME.
AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE DOCKET AND OR AS AMENDED AT THE HEARING.
UH, COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS ON ANY OF THOSE FOR ITEMS? SEEING NONE.
COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? YES.
IN THE MATTER OF THE SUBDIVISION CONSENT DOCKET, UM, CONSENT ITEMS NUMBER 18, 19, 20 AND 22.
I MOVE THAT WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND FOLLOW STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE DOCKET.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER CARPENTER FOR YOUR MOTION.
COMMISSIONER SLEEPER FOR YOUR SECOND ALL, BLESS YOU.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.
[21. 24-2557 An application to replat a 0.48-acre tract of land containing all of Lots 1, 2 and portion of Lot 3 in City Block 5/1010 to create one lot on property located on Routh Street at Welborn Street, northeast corner.]
CARRIES.WE GO TO 21 ITEM 21 S 2 3 4 DASH 1 69.
AN APPLICATION TOLAT, A 0.48 ACRE TRACK OF LAND CONTAINING ALL OF LOTS.
ONE, TWO, AND A PORTION OF LOT THREE IN CITY BLOCK FIVE OVER 1 0 1 0 TO CREATE ONE LOT ON PROPERTY.
LOCATED ON RUTH STREET AT WALBURN WILBURN STREET, NORTHEAST CO.
ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO BE HEARD ON THIS ITEM? YES SIR.
UH, 6 8 38 STEPHANIE DRIVE, DALLAS, TEXAS.
I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU GUYS HAVE.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO'D LIKE TO
[05:55:01]
BE HEARD ON THIS? COMMISSIONER'S QUESTIONS FOR MR. OLS? COMMISSIONER KINGSTON.PARDON? I DIDN'T REALIZE MY SPEAKER WAS ON.
UH, COMMISSIONER BLAIR, YOU HAVE NO QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? COMMISSIONERS QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SEEING NONE.
COMMISSIONER KINGSTON, DO YOU HAVE? I DO.
IN THE MATTER OF S 2 34 DASH 69, I MOVE THAT WE CLOSE A PUBLIC HEARING AND DENY THE APPLICATION.
AND IF I HAVE A SECOND, I HAVE COMMENTS.
COMMISSIONER KINGSTON, BECAUSE THIS IS A PLAT AND YOUR RECOMMENDED DENIAL, YOU HAVE TO CITE A PROVISION OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE STATE LAW OR FEDERAL LAW THAT THE PLAT DOES NOT COMPLY WITHIN YOUR MOTION.
UM, I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THIS APPLICATION COMPLIES WITH SECTION 51 A DASH 8.503 IN THAT I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE, UM, LOT BEING COMBINED, UM, CONFORM WITH THE WIDTH OF THE, IN THE AREA OF THE PATTERN ALREADY ESTABLISHED IN THE ADJACENT AREAS.
UM, AND SO FOR THAT REASON I AM DENYING IT.
UH, IF YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THE, OKAY.
DO WE HAVE, DO WE HAVE A SECOND COMMISSIONERS EXCUSE? NO, SHE'S, YEAH, I, I MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND DENY BECAUSE THE PROPOSED LOTS DO NOT CONFORM WITH THE WIDTH, DEPTH AND AREA OF THE LOT PATTERN ALREADY ESTABLISHED IN ADJACENT AREAS AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 51 A DASH 8.503 OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE.
ANYBODY? DO WE HAVE A SECOND? COMMISSIONER BLAIR? SECOND IT.
COMMISSIONER KINGSTON, PLEASE.
YEAH, UM, THIS, IF YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THE PLA YOU CAN SEE THAT THIS ENTIRE, UM, BLOCK IS UNIFORM IN SIZE AND IT'S ALSO, UH, UNIFORM WITH OTHER BLOCKS IN THE AREA.
UM, IT'S SUBJECT TO THE, UH, DEMOLITION, UH, DELAY OVERLAY.
AND I JUST DON'T THINK COMBINING MOST OF THE LOTS ON THIS BLOCK COMPLIES WITH SECTION 8.503.
I, I JUST DON'T THINK IT MEETS THE STANDARD.
I I THINK THAT IF WE'RE FOLLOWING THIS, THE STANDARD THAT THIS SHOULD BE A DENIAL.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? MR? YEAH, I JUST HAVE ONE QUESTION.
IS THE DEMOLITION DELAY OVERLAY A FACTOR THAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO CONSIDER IN PLATTING? UM, WE DON'T.
COMMISSIONER KINGSTON, WOULD YOUR RESULT STILL BE THE SAME REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE DEMOLITION DELAY OVERLAY WE'RE IN THERE OR NOT? IT WOULD ACTUALLY, MOST OF THEM ARE VACANT.
UM, I DUNNO, THIS IS, THIS IS A CHALLENGING ONE.
I'M NOT SURE WHERE I COME OUT ON THIS ONE.
THERE MAY BE QUITE A VARIETY OF, OF PATTERNS IN THE AREA AS OPPOSED TO ONE PATTERN.
SO I'M NOT SURE WHERE I FALL ON THIS ONE, MR. CHAIR.
I'D JUST LIKE TO REMIND THE BODY THAT THE STANDARD FOR THE PLAT IS IF IT COMPLIES WITH THE ZONING, IT MUST APPROVE IT.
AND THAT INCLUDES IF IT, IF THE PLAT CONFORMS TO 8.503, IT MUST APPROVE IT.
IF A IF IT DOES NOT COMPLY WITH 8.503, THE BODY CAN DENY IT.
IF THE PLAT DOES NOT COMPLY WITH 8.503, THE BODY CAN DENY THE PLAT.
BUT IF IT COMPLIES WITH 8.503 AND THE ZONING, IT'S A MINISTERIAL DUTY AND YOU MUST APPROVE IT.
DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION, COMMISSIONER BLAIR? SO IF 8.53 SAYS IT MUST CONFORM TO THE SI IT MUST CONFORM TO THE SIZE, THE, THE SIZE AND WIDTH AS IN THE PATTERN OF THE AREA, THEN WE MUST, WE MUST APPROVE THAT.
IF IT DOES NOT, OR IF THERE IS NO, IF THERE IS NO, NO PATTERN, THEN IT, THEN WE, WE, IF IT, IF THERE IS NO PATTERN, WE STILL HAVE TO APPROVE.
IF THERE IS NO PATTERN OR THEN IT DOES NOT HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE PATTERN BECAUSE IT DOESN'T EXIST.
[06:00:01]
IT'S JUST, DOES IT COMPLY WITH THE ZONING? AND IF IT DOES, YOU HAVE TO APPROVE.THAT'S, DID YOU LOOK UP THIS IN STAFF REPORT? UH, THIS IS CASE REPORT, SO THERE IS NO WELL ON HERE.
ANY QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONERS? I I KNOW THIS ONE FURTHER DISCUSSION.
I, I, COMMISSIONER KING, I GUESS I QUESTION WHETHER WE'RE ALL LOOKING AT THE SAME THING BECAUSE WHAT I'M LOOKING AT IS THE PLAT AND IT, ALL OF THE LOTS I'M LOOKING AT ARE EQUAL IN DEPTH WIDTH.
UM, I MEAN THEY'RE ALMOST EXACTLY THE SAME SIZE ON NOT JUST THIS BLOCK, BUT THE BLOCK BEHIND IT.
THE BLOCK NEXT TO IT, THE BLOCK CADDY CORNER TO IT.
WE'RE LOOKING, YEAH, THIS, I THINK WE'RE ON THE DIFFERENT PAGE.
ARE YOU LOOKING AT ON, UH, IT'S S 2 34 DASH DASH 1 69.
IT'S THE, IT'S IT'S THE 1 69 CASE MATERIALS FOR THIS CASE? YES.
WAIT, BUT SEE THE PLAN? SHE'S PAGE 21.
BUT DOCK, I MEAN I WAS LOOKING AT THE PLAT ACTUALLY.
I SEE THE, THE PICTURE YOU'RE LOOKING AT AND LET'S, LET'S TALK THAT THROUGH BECAUSE ON THAT'S KINGS REPORT.
YEAH, THE, ON THE CA THAT, I MEAN THAT'S A PLAT ON ON 21 F.
THE LOT PATTERN THERE SEEMS TO CONFLICT WITH 21 EI SEE WHAT COMMISSIONER KINGSTON IS SAYING ON 21 F.
BUT ISN'T THIS THE APPLICATION? YES.
BUT ON 21 E THERE'S A BUILDING THAT'S ENCOMPASSES TWO PLEASE.
WHAT WE ARE LOOKING IS TWO THINGS.
ONE, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE PLA, THOSE ARE LOTS.
AND IF YOU GO TO AERIAL MAP, THAT OWNERSHIP LINE, SO THE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN IS DIFFERENT THAN A LOT PATTERN.
WELL WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PLATTING, RIGHT? BUT WE LOOK AT DEVELOPMENT PATTERN TOO.
BUT, BUT I THOUGHT, BUT I THOUGHT 51 A SAYS ENOUGH TO LOOK AT.
YEAH, I'M LOOKING AT THE STANDARD IN 51.
I'M TALKING IN ABOUT THE STANDARD IN 0.8 0.503 AND WHICH SAYS THE PROPOSED LOT DOES NOT CONFORM IN WITH DEATH AND AREA TO THE LOT PATTERN ALREADY ESTABLISHED IN THE ADJACENT AREA.
AND THEN EVERY OTHER WEEK STAFF SENDS US THE SURVEY IN PREPARATION FOR THIS HEARING.
AND WHAT I'M LOOKING AT IS THESE BLOCKS THAT HAVE ALMOST IDENTICAL PLOTS, PLATTED BLOCK AFTER BLOCK, AFTER BLOCK.
SO I, I RECOGNIZE THAT SOMETIMES PEOPLE DEVELOP THINGS OVER LOT LINES IN, IN WHATEVER, BUT I'M LOOKING AT THE PLAT THAT THE CITY USES AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PLATTING.
SO IF, IF, IF WE'RE NOT USING THE SAME CRITERIA TO DECIDE THESE CASES, I GUESS AFTER TWO AND A HALF YEARS, THAT'S NEWS TO ME.
MR. BMORE, YOU HAVE SOME CLARIFICATION FOR US, SIR? GOOD AFTERNOON CHURCH.
COMMISSIONERS PLAID REGULATION REQUIRES THAT THE PLAT BE SUBMITTED ONLY SHOWING 150 FEET SURROUNDING AREA.
SO ALL THE PLAT THAT ARE PRESENTED TO THE COMMISSION, THEY DON'T SHOW THE ENTIRE AREA THAT WE LOOK FOR TO, UM, ANALYZE THE LOT PATTERN.
SO PLANNING REGULATION ONLY WANNA KNOW, WANNA SEE 150 FEET SURROUNDING AREA.
[06:05:01]
PLAT, WE LOOK AT THE AREA GREATER THAN WHAT THE ACTUAL PLAT SHOWS.THERE ARE AREAS IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY OF THIS PLAT THAT THEY ARE BY OWNERSHIP LARGER LOTS AND THERE ARE SOME SMALLER LOTS.
SO BASED ON THAT, WE STAFF, UH, ANALYSIS IS THAT THERE IS NO LOT PATTERN AND THAT'S WHY WE RECOMMEND APPROVAL.
UH, MR. WE FOLLOW BY COMMISSIONER? YEAH, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND.
8.503 READS THAT LOTS MUST CONFORM AND WITH DEPTH AND AREA TO THE PATTERN ALREADY ESTABLISHED IN THE ADJACENT AREAS.
PLURAL, RIGHT? NOT AREA SINGULAR.
THAT'S THE WAY 8.503 HAS A PLURAL.
SO WE NEED TO LOOK AT MULTIPLE ADJACENT AREAS IF THERE ARE ANY, NOT JUST A SINGLE ADJACENT AREA SET UP.
THAT WAS A, THAT WAS A, THAT THAT WAS A A QUESTION.
I'M NOT TRYING TO MAKE A, I I MAYBE I COULD HAVE PUT A BETTER QUESTION, VERBAL QUESTION MARK AT THE END OF IT.
THEN THAT WAS A QUESTION FOR YOU MR. MOORE.
THE QUESTION WAS WHETHER OR NOT ADJACENT AREAS IS PLURAL OR WAS THERE A, IF THERE ARE MULTIPLE ADJACENT AREAS, WE NEED TO LOOK AT ALL OF THEM.
8.503 SAYS ADJACENT AREAS WITH AN S.
CHAPTER 51 A DOES NOT DEFINE WHAT ADJACENT AREAS MEANS.
SO A COURT WOULD USE THE OR OR SO INTERPRETING IT YOU WOULD JUST USE THE ORDINARY COMMON USAGE.
FOLLOWUP COMMISSIONER FORESIGHT.
GENERALLY FOR FINDING OUT ORDINARY COMMON USAGE COURTS WOULD RELY ON DICTIONARIES.
I CAN LOOK UP, UM, ADJACENT AREAS IN THE DICTIONARY IF YOU THINK THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL.
OH MY ALWAYS FUND 8.503 A COMMISSIONER BLAIR.
UM, IT SAYS THAT THIS SAYS THAT WE'RE DOING A APPLICATION TO REPL 0.4 WITH 0.48 ACRES.
TRACK OF LAND CONTAINING ALL OF LOTS.
ONE, TWO AND A PORTION OF LOT THREE.
WILL LOT THREE STILL BE USABLE IN THE DISTRICT THAT IT'S, IT'S RESIDING IN.
SO THIS IS, THIS IS, OH THIS IS A MF THREE OUT OF PD 1 93.
SO WILL WILL, THAT PORTION THAT IS NOT BEING RELA BEING REPLANTED TO, TO BE THIS ONE.
WILL THAT LAST PIECE STILL BE A USABLE PIECE OF LAND? SO A PORTION OF LAW THREE HAS A STRUCTURE ON IT, BUT THE, THE PART IT'S TAKING IS DOESN'T HAVE ANY STRUCTURE.
SO WE, WE, WE WERE ABLE TO USE IT.
SO WHEN I'M LOOKING AT 21 PAGE 21 E AND I MAKE IT BIG SO I CAN SEE IT.
SO IS THE FIRST PIECE THE, THE PIECE THAT HAS THE STRUCTURE ON IT? YES.
BUT THAT'S, ISN'T THAT THE PART THAT'S BEING ADDED IS THIS ONE? IS IT WHAT WHERE IS LOTS? ONE, TWO, AND THREE.
SO, UH, RIGHT, IT'S ON THE NEXT PAGE.
UH, JUST I'LL JUMP IN HERE JUST 'CAUSE I HAD THE SAME QUESTION.
THE 21 E SHOWS THE USES AND THAT'S WHY IT DOESN'T HAVE THAT ONE.
IT'S A LITTLE CONFUSING BECAUSE IT'S MISSING ONE YELLOW LINE THERE BECAUSE THE APPLICANT OWNS THOSE TWO LOTS.
[06:10:01]
A BIGGER SQUA SQUARE HERE WHEN THE NEXT PAGE SHOWS, AND THAT'S THE ONE THAT COMMISSIONER KINGSTON WAS LOOKING AT SHOWS THE LOTS INDIVIDUALLY THE WAY THEY'RE PLOTTED.BUT 21 E SHOWS 'EM BY OWNERSHIP AND THAT'S WHY IT'S GOT ONE BIG, SO YELLOW, A SQUARE YELLOW AERIAL MAPS.
SO OWNERSHIP LINES, WHICH IS YELLOW, WHICH HAS TWO LOTS PER ONE.
AND THE PORTION OF LOT IS THE ANOTHER NEXT ONE.
BUT THE PLA WILL SHOW LIKE HOW IT IS LOOKING.
SO THE QUESTION IS, OKAY, ON IN PAGE 21 E YOU HAVE, THIS LOOKS LIKE A, A GREAT BIG BUILDING, RIGHT? YES.
AND THEN YOU HAVE YOUR YELLOW LINE.
AND THEN YOU HAVE THIS OTHER VACANT, THIS OTHER PIECE.
LOT THREE THAT THIS IS, THIS IS THREE UHHUH
BUT YOU'RE SAYING YOU'RE NOT, YOU'RE GONNA TAKE ALL OF PLAT THREE, YOU'RE ONLY TAKING A PORTION, PORTION OF LOT THREE.
SO WHAT PORTION ARE YOU TAKING? UM, HOWEVER, THERE, THERE IS SOME PORTION LEFT TO ANOTHER LOT LIKE FIVE FEET.
SO THE PORTION OF OF LOT OF PLA OF LOT OF SECTION THREE.
IT'S ALREADY, IT'S ONLY FIVE FEET.
UHHUH IT'S ONLY FIVE FEET WIDE.
AND THEN IS THAT PORTION USABLE? YES, IT'S ALREADY USABLE BECAUSE THE ANOTHER SIDE IS A LEGAL WHEEL SIDE TOO.
THE AFTER THAT LIKE THE PORTION OF THE FIVE IS INCLUDED IN THE OTHER TRACK OF, I MEAN ANOTHER LOT SITE.
BUT THEN IF IT'S NOT THE, OKAY, YOU HAVING FIVE FEET THAT YOU SENT, IT'S ALREADY BEEN USED.
BUT IS THAT PORTION BEING REPLANTED TO TO THAT OTHER LOT? IT'S ALREADY THE LEGAL BILL SITE.
THE FIVE FEET IS INCLUDED IN THE OTHER PROPERTY ALREADY, BUT IT'S NOT PLANTED THAT WAY.
BUT IT'S NOT PLANTED THAT WAY.
ARE YOU SAYING IT'S ALREADY A BUILD SITE? IT'S ALREADY BEEN BUILT AND IT'S BEEN BUILT OUT.
SO THEN THAT'S THAT OTHER IS WENT OVER A, A PROPERTY LINE FOR THEIR BILL FOR FOR THE PLATING PURPOSE.
WHEN WE LOOK AT THE PORTION OF LOT, IF THERE IS NO STRUCTURE ON IT, WE'LL JUST TAKE THAT PORTION.
WE DON'T LOOK AT THE REMAINDER PORTION WHEN THERE IS NO STRUCTURE ON IT.
BUT I AM REQUIRED TO ASK THE QUESTION IF YOU ARE REPL IT IS IT U IS THE PART THAT YOU'RE NOT TAKING USABLE? MM-HMM
BUT IF IT'S USED, IF YOU ARE ONLY TAKING, IF YOU ARE TAKING ALL OF LOT PLAT ALL OF LOT THREE, LOT THREE PORTION OF LOT THREE.
IF YOU'RE TAKING ALL OF ONE, ALL OF TWO, HE OWNS THE BOTH OF THOSE.
AND HE WANTS TO TAKE A PORTION OF LOT THREE ALL EXCEPT FOR FIVE FEET.
THAT PORTION IS OWNED BY THE OWNER NEXT TO AND WHEN HE COMES IN CLADDING, HE WILL DO THAT TOGETHER.
SO THAT OWNER OF PLAT FOUR MM-HMM
AND RELAID HIS HIS LOT WITH THAT FIVE FEET IN IT.
WHENEVER HE COMES COMES IN FOR NOW HE'S ALREADY OWNED BY THEM.
COMMISSIONER FORSYTH FOLLOW IT.
I JUST WANNA CLARIFY THAT 21 F IN THE CASE REPORT.
THAT IS DE PLA IS THAT RIGHT? 20 PAGE.
WELL IT, I MEAN IT'S CLEAR TO ME LOOKING AT THIS THAT YOU KNOW, THIS NEW RE PLATTING DOES NOT MATCH THE WIDTH OF THE OTHER LOTS.
I AGREE WITH UH, COMMISSIONER KINGSTON'S ANALYSIS.
COMMISSIONER WERE YOU THERE? WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT CALLING? SO I WANNA ASK THIS CLARIFICATION BECAUSE, AND I'M GONNA SAY THIS BECAUSE I OWN A HOUSE THAT IT SITS ON TWO, IT SITS ON SAY LOT THREE AND A PORTION OF LOT FOUR.
AND WHAT YOU'RE TELLING, WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO EXPLAIN TO COMMISSIONER BLAIR IS THE OTHER LOT, THE OTHER PROPERTY OWNER OWNS A PORTION OF THE LOT SWEET.
AND IF HE DOES NOT TEAR DOWN HIS PROPERTY, IF HE DOESN'T TEAR DOWN HIS STRUCTURE, HE DOESN'T HAVE TO COME FOR A REPL.
ONLY TIME HE WOULD'VE TO COME FOR A REPL IF HE DESTROYS THE STRUCTURE THAT'S ON THERE NOW AND WANTS TO BUILD SOMETHING ELSE.
AM I CORRECT? YEAH, WHENEVER HE COMES IN, BECAUSE IN SOMETIME IN THE BACK IN LONG YEARS AGO, LIKE WHAT WE'RE HAVING TO GO THROUGH, THEY JUST GO THROUGH WITH THE SCHOOLS AND
[06:15:01]
OTHER PLACES WE DID IT WITH THE Y THEY HAD A BUNCH OF PLAS, I MEAN A BUNCH OF LOTS.AND THEY HAD TO DO A REPL TO ONE.
AND THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
IF THERE WAS A STRUCTURE IN PORT REMAINDER PORTION OF THREE, WE WOULD HAVE ASKED THEM TO PROVE A LEGAL BILL SITE.
BUT THERE IS NO STRUCTURE ON THE PORTION OF THREE AND IT IT IS OWNED BY FOUR.
SO WHENEVER THEY COME IN FOR PLATING, THEY HAVE TO INPUT IT.
BUT FOR AS OF NOW THEY OWN AND THEY HAVE A STRUCTURE SO WE WON'T REQUIRE ANYTHING TO THEM.
SO THEY ONLY HAVE TO COME IN FOR PLATING IF THERE IS A, IF THERE IS A PLATING TRIGGERED WHEN THEY GO BACK TRIGGER.
AND WHAT WOULD TRIGGER IS A NEW BUILD.
THAT'S W THAT'S WHAT OH, OKAY.
AND UM, AND WHERE WE'RE LOOKING AT AND WITH THE PLURAL, WE'RE LOOKING AT WHAT'S ADJACENT, WHAT'S WHAT'S ON THE OTHER SIDE AND WHAT'S BEHIND IT.
AND IF WE ARE LOOKING AT ALL THOSE, UM, AS ADJACENT, NOT JUST THE ONES THAT'S ADJACENT, UM, IN, IN IN THE SAME ROW.
MM-HMM
THE ONES BEHIND IT ARE, ARE CLOSE, I MEAN ARE ABOUT THE SAME.
BUT YOU ALL ARE TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION BECAUSE THE ONES ACROSS THE STREET, WHICH IS PLURAL, ADJACENT IS NOT THE SAME.
AND ALSO MAYBE MORE CAN CORRECT ME, BUT WE LOOK AT DEVELOPMENT PATTERN TOO, WHICH IS ON THE BACK.
IF YOU SEE ON THE AERIAL MAP, IT'S A BIGGER LOT.
IT'S A BIG BECAUSE IT'S OWNED BY ONE.
AND SO, AND WHAT YOU ALL ARE ALSO CONSIDERING IS PRIOR TO BECAUSE OF THE BILLS THAT'S ALREADY THERE.
THEY'RE BUILT ACROSS LOT LINES AND BECAUSE THEY'RE BUILT ACROSS LOT LINES, THEY'RE ACTUALLY BIGGER AREAS.
EVEN THOUGH WE ARE LOOKING WHAT THE, WHAT THE, WHAT THE COMMISSIONERS ARE LOOKING AT RIGHT NOW IS SAYING WE'RE JUST LOOKING AT THE, THE LOTS AND PLATES ALONE AND NOT THE AREA VIEW.
THAT, THAT SAID THAT THESE ARE BUILT ACROSS LOT LINES, WHATEVER YOUR DATE AND TIME THAT THAT HAPPENED.
AND THAT'S WHY YOU'RE CONSIDERING THAT THIS ACTUALLY DOES PERFORM WITH WHAT'S ON IN THE AREA.
CONFIRMS THAT THERE IS A VARIATION IN THE AREA.
COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, I CALL THE QUESTION SECOND.
COMMISSIONERS, WE HAVE A MOTION TO CALL THE QUESTION.
ANY OPPOSED? WE GO BACK TO THE, THE MOTION THEN MADE BY COMMISSIONER KINGSTON, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BLAIR TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND NOT FALSE RECOMMENDATION OR RATHER DENY THE APPLICATION.
[APPROVAL OF MINUTES]
COMMISSIONERS.UH, LET'S GO BACK TO THE MINUTES.
DO WE HAVE A MOTION FOR THE MINUTES? COMMISSIONERS? ANYBODY HAVE A CHANCE TO TAKE? NO, I CAN MAKE A MOTION PLEASE TO APPROVE OUR JULY 25TH AND AUGUST 8TH MINUTES.
COMMISSIONER HALL FOR YOUR SECOND.
ANY DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
CAN I MOVE TO HOLD OUR JUNE 17TH MINUTES UNDER ADVISEMENT, PLEASE? I'LL SECOND THAT.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.
ALL THOSE OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES.
THANK YOU SO MUCH, COMMISSIONER'S.
5:32 PM AND OUR MEETING IS ADJOURNED.