[00:00:03]
COMMISSIONER, SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED.
DISTRICT ONE, COMMISSIONER SCHOCK.
COMMISSIONER HERBERT PRESENT? DISTRICT FOUR.
COMMISSIONER FORSYTH HERE REMOTELY.
DISTRICT FIVE CHAIR SHED PRESENT.
DISTRICT NINE, COMMISSIONER SLEEPER.
DISTRICT 14, COMMISSIONER KINGSTON AND PLACE 15 VICE CHAIR RUBIN.
TODAY IS THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 5TH, 2024 AND 9:07 AM WELCOME TO THE BRIEFING OF THE DALLAS STATE PLAN COMMISSION COMMISSIONERS.
WE'RE IN A HURRY TO GET STARTED WITH THIS VERY LONG AND INTENSE DOCKET
UH, AND IN FACT, WE HAVE MR. MULKEY HERE THAT IS GONNA QUICKLY ADDRESS THAT.
UM, YEAH, I KNOW THERE WERE SOME CONCERNS RAISED AT COUNCIL LAST WEEK ABOUT, UM, YOU KNOW, HOW LONG IT CAN TAKE TO GET THROUGH THE ZONING PROCESS.
UM, SO I KNOW THAT, UH, THE NEXT WEEK, UH, HAVING A VERY SHORT CPC AGENDA IS NOT THE BEST LOOK.
UM, HOWEVER, HOWEVER, UH, I DID WANT TO POINT OUT, UM, WE, UH, WORKED WITH ALL OF OUR PLANNERS, REALLY DID SOME, SOME DIGGING AND SOME SCROUNGING TO SEE IF, UM, ANY OF THE OTHER CASES CURRENTLY ON THEIR PLATES, UH, WERE TRULY READY TO GO TO CPC.
UH, AND UNFORTUNATELY THIS GO AROUND, THEY WERE NOT, UM, YOU KNOW, THEY HAD SOME OUTSTANDING ISSUES.
WE WERE WAITING ON REVISED PLANS OR CONDITIONS OR, OR SOME OTHER ISSUE, UM, BEFORE WE COULD TAKE THE CASE TO CPC.
AND, UH, YOU KNOW, WE KNOW Y'ALL REALLY DON'T LIKE WHEN, UM, WE TAKE A CASE TO CPC BEFORE IT'S TRULY READY.
UM, SO UNFORTUNATELY THIS GO AROUND, WE JUST HAVE A FEW CASES.
UM, HOWEVER, UH, AT OUR NEXT MEETING THAT WE'LL BE NOTICING FOR TOMORROW, WE'RE GONNA HAVE LIKE 10 OR 13, SO KIND OF BACK UP TO AN AVERAGE NUMBER OF CASES, UM, FOR THAT AGENDA.
SO I JUST WANTED TO KIND OF SPEAK TO THAT BEFORE WE GET STARTED THIS MORNING, AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS Y'ALL MIGHT HAVE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COMMISSIONER.
OKAY, UH, LET THE RECORD REFLECT COMMISSIONER KINGSTON, UH, IS HERE IN THE CHAMBER WITH US TODAY.
[BRIEFINGS]
LET'S GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED.WE DO HAVE ONE DEVELOPMENT PLAN THAT WE WILL BE BRIEFING TODAY.
THIS IS, UH, D 2 23 DASH 0 0 1.
IT'S A REQUEST FOR A NEW DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
ALSO, WITHIN THIS PD, THEY HAD TO UPDATE THEIR MASTER TREE REPLACEMENT PLAN, SO THAT WAS UPDATED AND REVIEWED BY OUR ARBORIST.
UM, IT DOES NOT HAVE TO BE APPROVED BY CPC.
IT'S GONNA GO ON TO PERMITTING, UM, FOR TREE MITIGATION AND NEW TREE PLANNING.
UM, SO THE PROPERTY IS ZONED PD NUMBER 6 55.
IT'S, UH, THE AREA REQUEST IS LOCATED IN SUB AREA FIVE AND ALSO SUB AREA SIX.
UM, THE AREA REQUEST IS AROUND 12 ACRES.
A LITTLE BIT SHORT OF THAT, AND IT'S IN COUNCIL DISTRICT THREE.
THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF CAPELLA PARK AVENUE, WEST OF PRAIRIE WAY.
SO THE PURPOSE OF THE REQUEST IS TO ALLOW FOR A MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY.
AS I STATED EARLIER, IT'S LOCATED IN TWO DIFFERENT SUB AREAS.
UH, SUB AREA FIVE IS THE URBAN CENTER, AND THEN SUB AREA SIX IS THE URBAN CORE.
[00:05:01]
HERE I HAVE JUST SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION WHERE SUB AREA FIVE IS CONSIDERED AS A RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT, AND SUB AREA SIX IS CONSIDERED AS NON-RESIDENTIAL.UM, HERE I DID SOME COMPLIANCE DETAILS.
SO THIS BASICALLY LAYS OUT THE YARD LINE AND SPACE REGULATIONS FOR THE PROPERTY.
AS YOU CAN SEE, UH, FRONT YARD, SIDE YARD AND REAR YARD, NO MINIMUM AS FAR AS FAR, THERE'S NO MINIMUM HEIGHT FOR, UH, SUBDISTRICT FIVE IS 55 AND SIX IS 75.
THEY BOTH HAVE A HUNDRED PERCENT OF LOT COVERAGE.
UM, MINIMAL LOT SIZE IS SHOWN BECAUSE THIS AREA, THERE IS LAND USE FOR SINGLE FAMILIES ALSO ALLOWED ON THIS PROPERTY, BUT THEY CHOSE TO DO MULTIFAMILY.
AND SO FOR STORIES, THE MAX FIRST SUB DISTRICT FIVE IS FOUR AND SIX IS SIX.
AND SO HERE THERE ARE SOME ADDITIONAL COMPLIANCE.
THERE IS COMPLIANCE FOR DENSITY FOR THE WHOLE PD.
UM, THE PD ALLOWS 1300 DWELLING UNITS.
OF THOSE 1300, 400 HUNDRED OF THOSE DWELLING UNITS HAS TO BE MULTIFAMILY.
AND AS I LAID OUT HERE, THERE WAS ALREADY SOME PROPOSED IN THE PREVIOUS, UM, PROJECT THAT I, THAT GOT APPROVED EARLIER THIS YEAR.
UH, D 2 23 DASH 0 0 2 AND THAT WAS 47 MULTIFAMILY UNITS.
THAT WAS THE FIRST TO ACTUALLY GO INTO THIS, UM, PD.
AND SO NOW THEY'RE PROPOSING 91 AND SUB EXTRA AND SUB AREA FIVE AND THEN 42 AND SUB AREA SIX.
AND THIS BRINGS THEIR MULTIFAMILY TO 108 AND THERE'S ALREADY EXISTS IN 229.
UM, SINGLE FAMILY IN THE DISTRICT.
AND THIS WAS INFORMATION THAT I RECEIVED FROM THE APPLICANT.
UM, ADDITIONAL COMPLIANCE AS FAR AS THE MULTIFAMILY FOR PARKING, UH, FOR ONE OFFIC FOR ONE EFFICIENCY, THERE'S ONE SPACE.
UM, THEN THERE'S ONE SPACE PER BEDROOM AND THEN A HALF A SPACE FOR ANY ADDITIONAL BEDROOMS. UM, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING PRIVATE GARAGE, PERSONAL PRIVATE GARAGE FOR EACH UNIT, SO THEY DO COMPLY.
I THINK EACH UNIT IS GONNA HAVE THREE BEDROOMS AND SO TWO PARKING SPACE ARE SUPPLIED FOR THAT.
THEY DO HAVE ADDITIONAL PARKING, UH, SPRINKLED AROUND THE PROPERTY FOR GUEST PARKING.
UM, THE PD ALSO CALLS OUT FOR MULTI-FAMILY USES, UM, FOR FIVE AND SIX, THEY CAN DO SHARED OR REMOTE PARKING, BUT THAT'S NOT NECESSARY.
THERE WERE SOME ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR VISIBILITY TRIANGLE.
OUR STANDARD FOR STREET INTERSECTION IS 45, BUT THIS PD CALLS OUT 20, SO I WANTED TO MAKE SURE I BROUGHT THAT TO YOUR ATTENTION.
THE STANDARD 20, UM, THERE WAS SOME ADDITIONAL COMPLIANCE.
THERE IS A REGULATION PLAN THAT'S IN THE PD.
IT IS RECOMMENDED FOR DEVELOPMENT BUT NOT REQUIRED.
UM, ALSO THE BUILDING TYPE STANDARD IS ALSO RECOMMENDED AND NOT REQUIRED AS FAR AS STREET STREETSCAPE TYPE STANDARDS.
SINCE, UH, CAPELLA PARK AND ALSO FAIRWAY ARE ALREADY DEVELOPED.
THOSE STANDARDS ARE IN PLACE AS FAR AS WARE AND THEN ALSO AS FAR AS FIRE LANES AND ALSO FIRE ACCESS.
HERE'S A AREA MAP MAP SHOWING THE PROPERTY SUB AREA FIVE AND SIX AND THEN SURROUNDING PROPERTY.
ALL SURROUNDING PROPERTY, PROPERTY IS WITHIN THE PD.
HERE'S THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PLAN, SHOWING THEIR LAYOUT OF THEIR UNITS, THE FIRE LANE, ADDITIONAL PARKING SURROUNDING THE PROPERTY.
AND THEN THEY ALSO HAVE A DETENTION, UH, EASEMENT PROPOSED, UM, TO HANDLE ADDITIONAL RUNOFF OF WATER.
HERE'S THE ENLARGEMENT OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
ALSO ENLARGE THE TABLES, BUT THESE ARE THE SAME TABLES THAT WE LOOKED AT EARLIER.
THE BOTTOM INFORMATION IS JUST FOR PARKING AND HERE IS THE MASTER TREE REPLACEMENT SITE PLAN SHOWING THE AREA.
AND THEN THIS IS RUNNING THROUGH WITH ALL THE, THE TREES THAT THEY'RE REPLACING.
UM, AND THIS WILL BE REVIEWED AT PER MEETING AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL.
AND THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.
QUESTIONS COMMISSIONER HERBERT? UH, YEAH, UH, START OUT, LET'S START WITH, UM, I SEE THAT ON THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, THE TOPOGRAPHY, UM, IS HEAVY.
CAN YOU DESCRIBE THE AREA A LITTLE BIT, IF YOU DON'T MIND? AS FAR AS TOPOGRAPHY, I DID NOT GO OUT AND VISIT THE SITE BECAUSE OF THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
UM, AS FAR AS TOPOGRAPHY AND ALSO WATER RUNOFF, ALL THAT WILL BE HANDLED AT PERMITTING.
WHEN THEY SUBMIT FOR PERMITTING, THEY SHOULD SUBMIT WITH OUR PAVEMENT AND DRAINAGE DEPARTMENT.
UM, THEY SHOULD SUBMIT A GRADING PLAN THAT ACTUALLY SHOWS THE TOPOGRAPHY AND HOW THEY'RE GONNA GRADE IT.
AND THEN ALSO A DRAINAGE PLAN THAT SHOWS HOW THEY'RE GONNA MANAGE THE WATER RUNOFF.
UM, FOR RIGHT NOW IT'S JUST A DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
THEY'RE SHOWING THE TO TOPOGRAPHY, BUT WE DO NOT GO INTO DETAIL AS FAR AS THE SLOPE FOR THAT ON THE PROPERTY.
[00:10:02]
YOU, I REALIZE THAT IT'S STEEP, BUT IT IS 550 FOOT DROPS ARE PRETTY STEEP, SO THANK YOU.UM, CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT THE OBJECTIVES OF THE TWO SUBDISTRICTS ARE? YOU EXPLAINED BRIEFLY WHAT THEY WERE, UH, BUT CAN WE HAVE THOSE READ INTO THE RECORD? UH, I DO NOT HAVE THOSE WITH ME.
UM, CHAIR, I HAVE THOSE, CAN I READ THOSE OUT LOUD OR DO YOU AGREE THAT THIS, THIS EXPLAINS WHAT THEY ARE? MS. BLUE, IF YOU DON'T MIND THE, THE URBAN CENTER SUBDISTRICT IS THE MULTIFUNCTIONAL SOCIAL CENTER OF A NEIGHBORHOOD AND IS LOCATED WITHIN WALKING DISTANCE OF THE SURROUNDING RESIDENTIAL AREA.
SUBDISTRICT SIX IS URBAN CORE.
THE URBAN CORE SUBDISTRICT IS THE DENSEST BUSINESS SERVICE AND INSTITUTIONAL CENTER.
IT IS SHARED BY SEVERAL NEIGHBORHOODS.
IT STRADDLES THROUGHOUT THOROUGHFARES AT THEIR MOST ACTIVE INTERSECTION.
IT IS WITHIN WALKING DISTANCE OF A SUBSTANTIAL RESIDENTIAL POPULATION ORDINANCE.
NOTICE 2, 5, 3 0 1 AND 2, 6, 8, 9, 4.
DO YOU AGREE THAT'S ACCURATE? UM, AS FAR AS, UH, WHAT THE PD CALLS OUT, I'M QUITE SURE THAT WAS WITH THEIR INTENT.
BUT WE ALSO HAVE TO LOOK AT WHAT'S ALLOWED IN THE SUB-DISTRICT.
AND SO THERE ARE MULTIPLE LAND USES THAT ARE ALLOWED IN THE SUB-DISTRICT AND WE CAN'T RESTRICT THOSE LAND USES WITHIN THOSE DISTRICTS IF THE PD ALLOWS THEM BY.
UM, CAN YOU TELL US WHETHER INGRESS AND EGRESSES ARE ON THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN? SO FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS, I HAVE TO GO BACK.
IT WASN'T CLEAR IS WHY I ASKED.
I BELIEVE BOTH OF 'EM ARE OFF.
AND CAN YOU CONFIRM THAT THEY ARE MARKED ON THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN? SO WE HAVE ONE EGRESS COMING OFF CAPELLA, AND I THINK THAT IS THE ONLY, THAT'S THE ONLY EGRESS BECAUSE CAPELLA IS NOT COMPLETE.
SO IT STOPS AT WHERE THE ROAD IS IMPROVED.
AND DON'T MULTIFAMILY NEED TWO INGRESS AND EGRESSES TO BE, UM, THAT WOULD BE AN ENGINEERING QUESTION.
THE ENGINEER DEPARTMENT DID LOOK AT IT.
THEY DID NOT REQUEST ADDITIONAL INGRESS OR EGRESS.
TIA, DO YOU MIND DISPLAYING THE FULL SITE PLAN ON THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN? THE, THE BIGGER ONE? I THINK THERE, IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S TWO MAYBE.
SO THE LAST ONE IS WHERE THE UM, WHERE THE ROAD ENDS.
HERE'S ONE HERE AND THEN THERE'S ONE HERE.
UM, AND CAN, HOW MANY BEDROOMS ARE PRESENTED IN, IN THESE DEVELOPMENTS? DID, DID THE APPLICANT PRESENT THOSE? SO FOR, UH, ON THE TABULATION THEY SAID THREE, THEY COULD GO UP TO THREE SINCE THEY PUT IT IN THE PD.
THEY CAN MINIMIZE THAT TO TWO IF THEY DECIDE TO CHANGE IF PEOPLE ARE PERMITTING.
BUT RIGHT NOW THEY'RE PROPOSING THREE FOR EACH DWELLING UNIT.
UM, THREE BEDROOMS. ARE YOU AWARE THAT THE CITY OWNED GUN RANGE IS LESS THAN 150 FEET AWAY FROM THE EDGE OF THIS DEVELOPMENT? I WAS INFORMED ON THE LAST, UH, CASE THAT WAS IN THIS DISTRICT.
THE LAST CASE WAS A BIT FURTHER.
DO YOU KNOW THAT THERE'S STATE LAWS A AGAINST HAVING A GUN RANGE 150 FEET TO 300 FEET AWAY FROM A RESIDENTIAL AREA? NO, SIR.
I LOOKED AT THE BOUNDARIES WITHIN THE SITE AND WHAT WAS ALLOWED BY THE CODE.
I DID NOT LOOK AT SURROUNDING UNLESS RPS PAID CAME INTO PLACE AND IT DIDN'T COME INTO PLACE.
SO I DIDN'T REVIEW SURROUNDING, UM, PROPERTIES.
UM, COUPLE OTHER MEET QUESTIONS THAT I GOT FROM NEIGHBORS.
UM, THE SIGHTLINES CURRENTLY, UM, THEY TALKED ABOUT THEY COULD GO TO THREE OR FOUR STORIES, THEY'RE ONLY GOING TO TWO.
UM, STEIN BRIDGE, THE, THE, THE APPLICANT MENTIONED THAT THEY EXPRESSED, UH, THEY UNDERSTOOD THAT CONCERN AND THEY WOULD, UH, TRY TO BUILD LOWER STRUCTURES.
HAVE YOU, UM, LOOKED AT THE POSSIBILITY OF UM, WHERE THEY'RE GONNA BUILD EITHER CLOSE TO THE, THE STREET FROM THE STREET, ARE THERE SIDEWALKS INCLUDED AND HOW LARGE THOSE SIDEWALKS ARE INCLUDED? IS THO ARE THOSE THINGS ABLE TO BE TALKED ABOUT IN THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN? AS FAR AS SIDEWALKS, THEY ALREADY PUT IN PLACE BECAUSE CAPELLA PARK IS ALREADY CONSTRUCTED, SO SIDEWALKS ARE PART OF THE RIGHT OF WAY.
SO WHEN THEY PUT THE RIGHT THE STREET IN, THEY DID THE RIGHT, THE SIDEWALKS, UM, AS FAR AS HEIGHT, WHILE THEY JUST DID A BASE HEIGHT FOR EACH SUBDISTRICT, SO THEY DID NOT, UH, TELL ME WHICH UNITS WOULD BE LOWER THAN THE REST.
AND THERE ARE NO, THERE ARE NO SIDEWALKS THERE TODAY.
ARE YOU SAYING INCLUDED IN THE PLANS
[00:15:01]
FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THE THE GUIDELINES FOR THOSE SIDEWALKS ARE THERE? YEAH, THE SIDEWALK, THE STANDARD SIDEWALKS ARE IN THE PD.I'LL, UM, I'LL, I'M SURE THERE'LL BE MORE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT LATER.
OKAY, COMMISSIONER HALL, MS. BLUE, THIS UH, DEVELOPMENT PLAN HERE SHOWS 2029 BUILDINGS AND WILL THERE BE 400 MULTIFAMILY UNITS IN THOSE 29 BUILDINGS IS NO.
SO WHEN WE SAY UH, UNITS, I DO NOT, NO UNITS, UNITS WERE ONLY GONNA HAVE, I THINK IT WAS 91 AND ONE SUBDISTRICT AND THEN THE OTHER ONE IS 47.
SO WHEN WE TALK ABOUT DWELLING UNITS, WE TALK ABOUT ACTUALLY THE APARTMENT UNITS, WHICH MIGHT CONSIST OF ONE BEDROOM, TWO BEDROOM, A THREE BEDROOM.
SO EACH UNIT MIGHT HAVE MULTIPLE BEDROOMS, BUT IT'S ALL IN A HOLE CONSIDERED AS A UNIT.
OH, SO THEY'LL HAVE A TOTAL OF WHAT? A LITTLE BIT OVER, WHAT WAS IT? LIKE A HUNDRED SOMETHING 97, 91 AND 47.
SO WHAT IS THAT ONE? 30 30 ISH.
AND, AND, BUT, BUT THIS PLAN, IT JUST SHOWS 29 UNITS AND IN THOSE 29 UNITS WOULD BE ROUGHLY 130, UH, 91.
SO YOU BUILDING WISE, UHHUH,
AND FOR EACH ONE OF THOSE BUILDINGS TOTAL ON SITE, THEY'LL HAVE 130 SOMETHING UNITS.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONERS? OKAY, WE'LL KEEP GOING.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH MS. SPOOK.
UH, WE HAVE FOUR CASES ON THE CONSENT AGENDA AND CASE NUMBER TWO HAS, HAS COME OFF.
CONSENT WILL BE HELD UNDER ADVISEMENT TILL OCTOBER 10TH.
UH, LET'S TABLE THE BRIEFING OF NUMBER THREE FOR THE MOMENT.
SO WE'LL GO TO NUMBER FOUR, MR. BATE.
UH, THIS IS GONNA FEEL LIKE A DEJA VU ALL OVER AGAIN.
UH, THIS IS ITEM FOUR, CASE Z 2 3 4 2 0 5.
IT IS AN APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO SPECIFIC USE PERMIT NUMBER 2 4 3 7 ON PROPERTY ZONE SUBDISTRICT 1D WITHIN PD NUMBER 7 1 4, THE WEST COMMERCE STREET, FORT WORTH AVENUE SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICT LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF POWELL BETWEEN HASLET AND SULFUR NORTH OF YORKTOWN ROAD, ABOUT 30,000 SQUARE FEET IN SIZE FROM THE AREA OF REQUEST, UH, HERE IN WEST DALLAS.
HERE'S THE AERIAL MAP SHOWING THE SITE THE ZONING MAPS SHOWING, UH, THE SURROUNDING USES.
AND THE SUBJECT SITE IS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE MANUFACTURING, A VARIETY OF SORT OF WAREHOUSE USES AS WELL AS RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY OF THE NORTH AND MULTIFAMILY TO THE NORTHWEST.
UH, THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY DEVELOPED WITH AN ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE MANUFACTURING USE AND THIS USE DOES REQUIRE AN SEUP IN THIS PARTICULAR SUBDISTRICT.
UH, THE SEP WAS PREVIOUSLY RENEWED ON FEBRUARY 23RD, 2022.
UH, THE APPLICANT IS AMENDING THE SITE PLAN TO ADD A 610 SQUARE FOOT EDITION.
UH, HERE IS THE SITE ON SULFUR STREET LOOKING SOUTHWEST.
AND I'M GONNA KIND OF GO THROUGH THIS A BIT QUICKLY.
WE SEE THE SURROUNDING USES FACING AWAY FROM THE SITE AND LOOKING TOWARDS THE SITE.
AND THIS LITTLE POCKET OVER HERE WHERE MY CURSOR IS, THAT'S WHERE THE UH, ADDITION WOULD GO.
IT'S GONNA BE A COVERED STRUCTURE FOR SOME, UH, VATS OR FERMENTATION, UH, TANKS OF THAT SORT.
UH, THIS IS THE EXISTING SITE PLAN AND THEN THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN.
UH, HERE WE HAVE A DETAIL OF THAT AND A COMPARISON OF WHAT'S CURRENTLY THERE VERSUS WHAT WOULD BE ADDED AGAIN IS THE SQUARE 832 SQUARE FOOT EDITION.
UM, THERE'S ALSO A PROPOSAL TO CHANGE THE PD CONDITIONS TO REMOVE THE REQUIREMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT PLAN IN SUBDISTRICT 1D AND REMOVE THE ASSOCIATED REFERENCES AS WELL AS THE EXHIBIT.
UH, THE REASON FOR THIS IS THAT SUBDISTRICT 1D, IT ONLY COVERS THIS SITE AND WE FOUND THAT IT WAS A BIT, UH, DUPLICATIVE TO BOTH REQUIRE A DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND AN SUP WITH THE REQUISITE SITE PLAN FOR THIS USE.
UH, BY REMOVING THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, IT REDUCES THE HEADACHES AND ACCOUNT PERMITTING AND THE DIFFICULTY FOR DEVELOPMENT AND PERMITTING SERVICES TO, UH, REVIEW BOTH THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SITE PLAN.
UH, STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL.
[00:20:01]
JUST TO KIND OF GO OVER WHY THIS IS BACK BEFORE THIS BODY, UH, STAFF HAD MADE AN ERROR IN THE NOTIFICATION AREA FOR THIS, UH, WHEN WE ADDED THE PD AMENDMENT, WE DID NOT, WE JUST DIDN'T SET THE NOTIFICATION DISTANCE TO THAT OF A PD AS SUCH, WE DID RE-NOTICE THIS CASE FOR 500 FEET INSTEAD OF, UH, TWO OR 300 FEET AS ORIGINALLY DONE.THANKS FOR THE CLARIFICATION QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS.
GO TO CASE NUMBER FIVE, HIS CAR ISA.
ITEM NUMBER FIVE IS KZ 2 3 4 2 3 3.
THE REQUEST IS AN APPLICATION FOR A WR THREE WALKABLE URBAN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT ON PROPERTIES ZONE IN IR INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH DISTRICT.
IT'S LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST LINE OF KIM C DRIVE NORTHEAST OF MAPLE AVENUE.
IT'S APPROXIMATELY 0.421 ACRES.
THIS IS THE AERIAL MAP, UH, THE ZONING MAP, UH, SURROUNDING AREAS TO THE NORTHEAST, SOUTHEAST, SOUTHWEST, UM, AND NORTHWEST IS IR.
UM, THE NORTHWEST ALSO HAS AN MF TWO A, UM, TOWARDS THE NORTHEAST.
UM, IT'S THE TRAIN TRACK, UH, WITH DART, UM, TOWARDS THE SOUTHEAST.
UM, IT'S UNDEVELOPED AND THEN TOWARDS THE SOUTHWEST IS SINGLE FAMILY AND UNDEVELOPED SINGLE FAMILY.
AND THEN TOWARDS THE NORTHWEST IS MULTIFAMILY.
THE REQUEST CONSISTS OF TWO PARCELS.
THE SOUTHEAST PARCEL IS UNDEVELOPED AND THE PARCEL ON THE SOUTHWEST IS DEVELOPED WITH A SINGLE FAMILY STRUCTURE, WHICH WAS ERECTED IN 1936.
UH, PER DCA RECORDS, THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REDEVELOP A SIDE WITH MULTIFAMILY UNDER THE STANDARDS OF A WR THREE WALKABLE URBAN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.
UM, THE APPLICANT PLANS TO DEVELOP EIGHT UNITS OF MULTIFAMILY ON THE AREA OF REQUESTS.
THERE HAS BEEN A TREND OF LOTS WITHIN THE VICINITY BEING REZONED FROM INDUSTRIAL ZONING TO ALLOW MULTIFAMILY USE MOST RECENTLY TO WR THREE WALKABLE URBAN RESIDENTIAL.
AND SO FORM DISTRICT, UM, FORM-BASED ZONING DIFFER DIFFERS FROM TRADITIONAL ZONING AND THAT THE DEVELOPMENT STYLES FOCUS PRIMARILY ON THE FORM OF THE BUILDING RATHER THAN ITS, UM, INTENDED LOT USE DESIRE.
FORM OF BUILDING IS TYPICALLY MORE URBAN AND STYLE, UH, IZED BY MULTIPLE STORIES AT FRONT OF SIDE, CLOSER TO STREET, COMBINED WITH STANDARDS FOR STREET FRONT TRANSPARENCY, BUILDING, AR ARTICULATION, AND PEDESTRIAN AMENITIES.
IT'S ALSO INTENDED TO ENSURE ACTIVE STREET ESCAPE THAT ENCOURAGES PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY AND SCREENS.
PARKING BENEFITS TO PROPERTY INCLUDE ADDITIONAL BUILDING AREA, INCREASED HIGH DENSITY FLOOR AREA AND REDUCED PARKING REQUIREMENTS.
UM, FORM DISTRICT ARE INTENDED FOR NEIGHBORHOODS WITH DENSE URBAN CHARACTER AND HIGH WALKABILITY.
UH, SO THIS IS, UH, A BASIC, UH, DISTRICT, UH, REGULATIONS AND IT DIFFERS, UM, WITH THE FORUM DISTRICT.
UH, THE USE AND PLACEMENT IS ONE OF THE MAIN THINGS FOR THE FORUM, UM, DISTRICT AS WELL AS HIDE IN ELEMENTS, UH, CHARACTER EXAMPLES AND THEN SIDE PHOTOS OF THE SITE ON SIDE LOOKING SOUTHEAST, LOOKING AGAIN SOUTHEAST, SOUTHEAST AND THEN SURROUNDING USES ON KEMPSEY DRIVE LOOKING SOUTHWEST, LOOKING SOUTHWEST LOOKING SOUTHWEST, LOOKING NORTHWEST LOOKING NORTHEAST AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
UM, THIS IS THE ATION BETWEEN THE EXISTING IR AND THEN THE PROPOSED, UM, WR THREE A FORM DISTRICT.
UM, THE REASON WHY STAFF RECOMMENDS, UM, THE W THREE R THREE UM, FORM DISTRICT IS EMERGING DENSE URBAN CHARACTER SURROUNDING AREAS.
PROXIMITY TO INWOOD LOVE FIELD DAR STATION CRITICAL MASS REQUIREMENT.
MET, UH, SEVENTH QUARTER SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL DISTRICT AREA PLANT DESIGNATES AS URBAN RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM PLUS DART
[00:25:01]
INWOOD STATION STRATEGIC OPPORTUNITY AREA AND THE TRAIL ALONG DART, UH, RIGHT AWAY.UM, IT IS ALSO WITHIN THE STEMMONS CORRIDOR, SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL DISTRICT AREA PLAN, AS I MENTIONED.
SO I FIND THAT THE APPLICANT'S REQUESTS FOR A W THREE WALKABLE URBAN RESIDENTIAL TO BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE GOALS OF THE STEM CORRIDOR BECAUSE THEY WOULD PROVIDE DESIGN STANDARD IN AN URBAN FORM AS WELL AS AN ENHANCED PEDESTRIAN EXPERIENCE ALONG THE STREET FRONT.
UH, SPECIAL RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL.
I JUST WANTED TO, UM, CHANNEL OUR FORMER COLLEAGUE, COMMISSIONER YOUNG AND THANK YOU FOR ADDRESSING THE CRITICAL MASS REQUIREMENT IN THE REQUEST.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM? COMMISSIONERS? OKAY.
WE'LL GO TO, UH, OUR CASE UNDER ADVISEMENT.
WOULD THAT NEED TO BE BRIEFED TODAY, COMMISSIONER? NO, WE WON'T BE BRIEFING THAT TODAY.
TODAY IT'S GONNA BE HELD UNDER ADVISEMENT.
HELD, YEAH, HELD UNDER ADVISEMENT TO THE 24TH OF OCTOBER.
UM, MR. BALDWIN IS WORKING HARD TO GET A COMMUNITY MEETING SET AND WE'VE GOT MORE URGENCY THAN I THINK MAYBE THE NEIGHBORHOOD DOES.
OKAY, THEN LET'S GO BACK TO OUR, UH, CASE NUMBER THREE.
THIS IS CASE ZZ 2 34, UM, DASH 1 99.
IT IS AN APPLICATION FOR A NEW SUBDISTRICT ON PROPERTIES ZONE RS DASH C REGIONAL SERVICE COMMERCIAL SUBDISTRICT WITHIN PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 5 95, THE SOUTH DALLAS FAIR PARK SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICT.
AND THE PURPOSE OF THE REQUEST IS TO ALLOW MODIFIED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS PRIMARILY RELATED TO ENHANCED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SUCH AS HEIGHT STORIES, FLOOR AREA AND PLAN DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TO DEVELOP A MINI WAREHOUSE.
THIS IS THE LOCATION MAP, THE AREA MAP, YOU SEE THE AREA REQUEST IS HIGHLIGHTED IN BLUE.
THIS IS THE ZONING MAP IS SURROUNDED BY WAREHOUSE, USES A HOTEL SLASH MOTEL AND VACANT INDUSTRIAL LAND.
THE APPLICANT PROPOSES A NEW SUBJECTION FOR PLAN DEVELOPMENT NUMBER 5 95, THE SOUTH DALLAS FAIR PURPOSE, UH, FAIR PARK SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICT.
THE SITE IS CURRENTLY UNDEVELOPED AND IS LOCATED ON THE NORTH CORNER OF CLARENCE STREET AND SOUTH CAESAR CHAVEZ BOULEVARD.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO DEVELOP THE SITE WITH A MINI WAREHOUSE.
THE PROPOSED USE IS ALREADY PERMITTED BY WRIGHT, BUT THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING MODIFICATIONS TO DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR HEIGHT STORIES AND FLOOR AREA RATIO.
THE NEXT FEW SLIDES WILL BE PICTURES OF THE SITE AND THE SURROUNDING AREA.
THESE ARE THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
AS YOU WILL SEE, AGAIN, THEY ARE REQUESTING DEVIATIONS FOR THE HEIGHT, THE STORIES, AND THE FLOOR AREA RATIO AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH MR. RUBEN.
UH, YEAH, I THINK I EMAILED YOU OVER THE WEEKEND WITH SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS.
SO MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT PD 5 95 HAS WHAT ARE TERMED SUBDISTRICTS THAT ARE LIKE AN R 75 SUBDISTRICT OR AN R FIVE SUBJECT OR A RSC SUBDISTRICT LIKE WE HAVE HERE THAT ARE SORT OF DISPERSED THROUGHOUT PD 5 95, IS THAT RIGHT? YES, THAT IS CORRECT.
AND THERE REALLY, WITH ONE EXCEPTION, WHICH WE PASSED RECENTLY, THERE AREN'T SUB-DISTRICTS LIKE WE SEE IN OTHER PDS WHERE THE ZONING GETS MORE CUSTOMIZED.
IS THAT A FAIR DESCRIPTION? YES.
AND THAT ONE IS FOR THE, THE FOREST THEATER SORT OF ON A, IN A DIFFERENT PART OF PD 5 95.
HISTORICALLY, WHY HAVE THERE NOT BEEN SUB-DISTRICTS LIKE THE TYPE THAT WE JUST GAVE THE, FOR THE FOREST THEATER AREA AND LIKE THE TYPE THAT'S REQUESTED HERE? I THINK MICHAEL IS GONNA TAKE THAT
[00:30:01]
OVER FROM HERE OR I CAN DO IT, BUT I SEE HE'S WALKING UP EITHER OR IS FINE WITH ME.WELL, I WOULDN'T, I WOULDN'T NECESSARILY SAY THERE'S A, A REASON WE'VE ALWAYS HAD THE CAPACITY TO HAVE SUB-DISTRICTS WITHIN PD 5 95.
UM, WE, WE DO IT IN OTHER LARGE SUB, UH, EXCUSE ME, WE DO IT IN OTHER LARGE PDS, NOT NECESSARILY JUST LIKE 1 93, BUT, UM, OTHER LARGE ONES PRETTY COMMON.
SO TO ADD SUBDISTRICTS TO, TO VARIOUS STANDARDS WHILE KEEPING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, 80% OF EVERYTHING ELSE THAT REMAINS WITHIN THE PD.
UH, BUT I CAN'T SPEAK TO A HISTORICAL REASON, BUT COMMONLY THERE'S BEEN A PATTERN OF USING EXISTING SUBDISTRICTS, BUT IN A CASE WHERE THERE'S NOT A SUBDISTRICT AVAILABLE TO ACCOMMODATE THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS THAT THEY'RE PROPOSING, THEY MAY NEED THAT CUSTOM SUBDISTRICT.
I ALSO HAVE OPINIONS TO SHARE.
UM, I WOULD ARGUE THAT OVER THE COURSE OF PD FIVE 90 FIVE'S EXISTENCE PROPERTIES HAVE BEEN, PROPERTIES WITHIN THE SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICT HAVE RECEIVED, YOU KNOW, KIND OF MORE CUSTOM ZONING THAN WHAT THE BASE SUBDISTRICTS OF PD 5 95 ALLOW.
IT'S JUST THAT HISTORICALLY THEY'VE JUST BEEN TAKEN ENTIRELY OUT OF PD 5 95 AND, UH, REZONED, I DON'T EVEN THINK REALLY TO LIKE GENERAL ZONING CHANGES, MAINLY JUST OTHER PDS.
UM, SO, UH, WHAT WE DID KIND OF AS A, A NEW POLICY WITH THE FOREST THEATER AND NOW WITH THIS, UH, POTENTIAL SUBDISTRICT NUMBER TWO IS, UM, YOU KNOW, ALLOW SOME FLEXIBILITY TO CUSTOMIZE THE EXISTING ZONING FOR THIS AREA OF REQUEST, BUT IN A WAY THAT KEEPS IT WITHIN PD 5 95, UM, AND KIND OF HONORS THE, THE VISION AND THE INTENTION OF THE SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICT.
SO, UM, FOR THE MOST PART, THIS SUBDISTRICT WOULD JUST REFERENCE ONE OF THE EXISTING BASE SUBDISTRICTS AND 5 95, THE RSC, UM, BUT THEN HAVE THOSE FEW DEVIATIONS TO FLOOR AREA RATIO AND, AND WHATEVER THOSE OTHER THREE THINGS WERE.
I MAY HAVE SOME MORE, MORE QUESTIONS LATER, BUT I'LL LET MY COLLEAGUES ASK QUESTIONS IF THEY HAVE ANY COMMISSIONER WHEELER ANY WAY THAT I CAN'T GET, I CAN A ANSWER THAT QUESTION MORE IN DEPTH OR I'VE GOT TO ASK IT IN A FORMAL QUESTION.
YEAH, IF YOU COULD ASK IT AS A QUESTION, IT'D BE GREAT.
UM, WOULD YOU SAY THAT THE, THAT THE REASON THAT PD 5 95 HAS SUBDISTRICTS IS BECAUSE THE, THE, THE COMMUNITY, UM, THAT HELPED CREATE THIS PD SET THOSE STANDARDS TO PROTECT THE COMMUNITY FROM ANY UNWANTED, UH, OR HARMFUL USES THAT MIGHT PRESENT THEIR SELF BASED OFF OF THE HISTORICAL NATURE OF BAD ACT
UM, YEAH, I, I WOULD SAY THAT'S A FAIR ASSESSMENT.
I MEAN THIS, UH, ANY, ANY OF, UH, THE PDS THAT ARE CALLED SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICTS WERE ESTABLI ESTABLISHED THROUGH AN AUTHORIZED HEARING PROCESS, UM, WHICH OF COURSE IS A REALLY INVOLVED PROCESS WITH THE COMMUNITY.
UM, SO YEAH, I WOULD SAY THAT'S A, A FAIR ASSESSMENT.
UM, AND ARE YOU ALL AWARE THAT, UM, THAT THERE IS A, A ACTUAL A, UM, TASK FORCE, UH, UM, A SOUTH DALLAS AREA PLAN, TASK FORCE THAT, THAT ACTUALLY ADVISES AND IS IN THAT, UH, ON PD 5 95 AND CHANGES AND ADVISES AND HAVE COMMUNITY MEETINGS CONCERNING THESE MATTERS? YEAH, WE'RE AWARE OF THAT.
UH, MS. UH, MS. BRIDGES, UM, WERE YOU AWARE THAT I ASKED THE APPLICANT TO, UH, TO, TO, TO REACH OUT TO COMMISSIONER, UM, UM, COM, UH, DISTRICT TWO'S COMMISSIONER, UM, UH, COMMISSIONER HAMPTON AND THE CEDARS COMMUNITY? A, UM, BECAUSE OF THE MA BECAUSE OF THE, UH, DEVIATION? NO.
COMMISSIONER, I WAS NOT AWARE OF THAT.
WHAT WERE YOU ALSO AWARE THEY, I, I REQUESTED THAT ANY P ANY CHANGES, ANYTHING THAT HAPPENS WITHIN PD 5 9 5 THAT PRIOR TO BRINGING TO CPC THAT YOU, THAT IB CONTACTED? YES, MA'AM, I WAS AWARE OF THAT AND I INFORMED THE APPLICANT TO, UH, MAKE SURE THAT THEY CONTACT YOU.
DID YOU, WERE YOU AWARE THAT ALSO ASKED STAFF TO DO THAT BE SO THAT THEY COULD BE BECAUSE OF HOW SENSITIVE, UH, UH, ANY ZONING CHANGES IN
[00:35:01]
PD 5 95 IS OR STATE? NO, I WAS NOT AWARE OF THAT.UM, COMMISSIONER WHEELER TOOK ONE OF MY QUESTIONS, WHICH WAS IF THERE, IF YOU WERE AWARE IF THERE HAD BEEN, UH, COMMUNITY OUTREACH TO THE CEDARS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION? NO, MA'AM.
AND THEN, UM, I, THE REQUEST GENERALLY, I SEE THAT WE HAVE REQUESTS FOR AN INCREASE TO HEIGHT, THE NUMBER OF STORIES, THE FAR, UM, BUT SIMILAR TO SOME OF THE OTHER QUESTIONS, I'M NOT SEEING ANY, YOU KNOW, HOW THERE'S ADDRESSING OF THE PUBLIC REALM ADDRESSING OF CEDAR CHAVEZ BOULEVARD.
UM, ANY ENHANCEMENTS TO THE PUBLIC REALM? WERE THOSE ITEMS, UM, REVIEWED WITH THE APPLICANT, UM, WITH STAFF'S EVALUATION? NO, MA'AM.
I DIDN'T TAKE ANY OF THAT INTO MY EVALUATION.
AND ARE YOU AWARE THAT THERE'S DISCUSSIONS, UM, ON CEDAR CHAVES, UM, CLOSER TO I 30 AND GOING TOWARDS DEEP ELLUM FOR PUBLIC REALM IMPROVEMENTS? NO, MA'AM.
THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT.
I WAS JUST WONDERING IF I COULD GET STAFF TO MAYBE ELABORATE A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT WHY THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH THESE TWO AREA PLANS THAT ARE REFERENCED.
UM, IT LOOKS LIKE A MINI WAREHOUSE.
IT'S DESCRIBED AS A MINI WAREHOUSE.
I MEAN, WHY IS, WHY IS THAT A GOOD THING WHEN YOU SAY, ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE AREA PLANS REFERENCED IN THE REPORT? YEAH, THE, THE TRINITY RIVER CORRIDOR AND THE, THE SOUTH DALLAS FAIR PARK.
THERE WERE A COUPLE OF REPORTS, YOU KNOW, AREA PLANS REFERENCED IN THE, IN THE STAFF REPORT.
WELL, I WOULD SAY THAT SOUTH DALLAS FAIR PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN, UH, FIRST AND FOREMOST, BIG PART OF IT IS, IS REVITALIZATION.
ANY, ANY KIND OF REUSE OF A LOT, UM,
WHILE IT DOESN'T LAY DOWN NECESSARILY THE TRADITIONAL KIND OF URBAN FORM, UH, ASPECTS WE LOOK FOR, IT'S KIND OF MORE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND, UH, REDEVELOPMENT, REVITALIZATION FOCUSED.
AS FOR TRINITY RIVER COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE STUDY, IT CALLS FOR LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AT THIS PARTICULAR SITE, UH, YOU LOOK AT THE, THE BIG MAP, IT'S, IT'S BROKEN DOWN INTO DIFFERENT PLACE TYPES.
UH, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL IS WHAT IT CALLS FOR, UH, MANY WAREHOUSE.
IT'S ALLOWED IN OUR LIGHT USE DISTRICTS.
IT'S ALSO ALLOWED IN, UH, COMMERCIAL RETAIL, EXCUSE ME, THE MORE RETAIL DISTRICTS.
UH, SO IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THAT, UH, PORTION OF THE TRINITY RIVER.
THAT CORRIDOR PLAN STILL CALLS FOR, UH, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL WHILE NOT BEING A PARTICULARLY, UH, NOXIOUS INDUSTRIAL USE OR HAVING PARTICULAR IMPACT ON, UH, NEARBY USES BE KIND OF ONE OF THE FIRST REDEVELOPMENTS WITHIN THIS IMMEDIATE AREA.
UM, ARE YOU AWARE THAT THE, WHAT IS THAT THERE IS PLENTY OF CONSTRUCT, UM, REVITALIZATION GOING ON IN THAT AREA, AND MOST OF IT IS A, IS EITHER SOME TYPE OF RESIDENTIAL PLACE TYPE OR A MIXED USE PLACE TYPE, NOT SO MUCH AS INDUSTRIAL, UH, COMMISSIONER REALER, SORRY, I HAVE TO JUMP IN AND PLAY THE REFEREE REAL QUICK.
UM, I KNOW THE, UH, FOR DALLAS 2.0 HAS PASSED CPC, UM, HOWEVER, IT HAS NOT BEEN ADOPTED BY COUNCIL YET AS OFFICIAL CITY POLICY.
UM, SO WE AS CITY STAFF ARE NOT ABLE TO CONSIDER, UH, THE POTENTIAL NEW PLACE TYPES FOR THIS AREA, UH, IN OUR ANALYSIS OF THIS CASE OR ANY OTHER CASES, UH, UNTIL, UH, WHEN AND IF, UH, COUNSEL ADOPTS FOR DALLAS 2.0.
SO I'M NOT REFERRING TO PLACE TYPE, SO MAYBE I NEED TO REWORD IT IN THE AREA.
UM, AND THE REASON THAT I, I'M ASKING THE QUESTION IS BECAUSE IT WAS JUST STATED THAT, UM, THE USES, OR I MEAN, WHAT IS BEING BUILT AROUND IT, WHAT IS CURRENTLY, ARE YOU AWARE OF WHAT'S CURRENTLY BEING BUILT IN THE AREA? IS EITHER RESIDENTIAL, UM, SOME TYPE OF RESIDENTIAL, UH, WHETHER THAT'S MIXED USE OR MULTI-FAMILY USE OR TOWNHOME TYPES AND NOT, UM, MORE IR? YES.
NO, I, I DIDN'T MEAN TO NEGLECT ANY OF THAT.
I WAS USING A PRETTY, UH, ZOOMED IN VIEW, IF YOU WILL, IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCE
[00:40:01]
OF THE IMMEDIATE BLOCKS, UH, RIGHT HERE SOUTH OF CHAVEZ, OR EXCUSE ME, ON CHAVEZ, SOUTH OF THE, THE RAILROAD TRACK.UM, CERTAINLY IN THAT IMMEDIATE AREA, THERE'S SOME REUSE OF BUILDINGS, BUT THERE HASN'T BEEN, UH, REUSE OF VACANT LOTS IN, IN, IN JUST THAT THREE FOUR BLOCK AREA.
BUT I WOULDN'T NEGLECT, UH, THE REDEVELOPMENT THAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO CERTAINLY.
UM, ARE, ARE YOU CONSIDERING IT BECAUSE, ARE WE CONSIDERING IT BECAUSE OF THE SIDE OF CEDAR CHAVEZ? BECAUSE DIRECTLY, ARE YOU AWARE THAT DIRECTLY ACROSS, UM, I CAN SAY ALMOST CATTLE CORNER, THERE IS A DEVELOPMENT GOING ON RIGHT NOW OF, UM, UH, SOME MUST FAMILY OR TOWN HOME TYPES? YEAH.
WE HAVEN'T, UH, ASSESSED IT AS PART OF THAT AT THIS TIME.
I, I KNOW THAT CATTYCORNER, THEY'VE GOT THE NEW, UH, MARKET STORE IN A, IN AN EXISTING BUILDING, KIND OF TALKING ABOUT A COUPLE CERTAINLY KNOW OF THE USES THAT ARE IN EXISTING BUILDINGS, BUT NOT REDEVELOPMENT OF LOTS WHEN I SAID REDEVELOPMENT.
BECAUSE BEFORE, WELL BEFORE YOU GET TO THE MARKET, ARE YOU AWARE THEY'RE RIGHT, UM, ALMOST AT THE RAILROAD TRACKS, WHICH IS A DATE CLOSE TO THIS, THAT THERE IS ACTUALLY A DEVELOPMENT GOING ON RIGHT NOW, AND IT HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR MAYBE ABOUT SIX MONTHS.
THE TOWN HOMES NORTH OF THE RAILROAD, UM, RIGHT BY CB I'M DEFINITELY AWARE, YEAH.
SO, AND THAT'S KIND OF COUNTER TO THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY.
IT MIGHT ACTUALLY BE, UH, RIGHT ACROSS, ACROSS FROM IT.
UM, IS THIS, IS THIS MATTER BEING HELD UP ON ADVISEMENT? WOULD BE, THAT WOULD BE UP TO YOU AND, AND THE BOARD TO DETERMINE IT'S NOT SLOTTED FOR THAT YET.
YEAH, I, I'M GONNA REQUEST THAT THIS BE HELD ON THE ADVISEMENT.
OR WE'LL TAKE IT OFF CONSENT THEN.
TO WHAT DATE WERE WE HOLDING COMMISSIONER WHEELER SECOND DATE IN OCTOBER? I, I'M GOING, I THINK THE, UM, BEFORE I ASK IS, IS THIS UP ON THE ADVISEMENT OR IS THIS ON, UH, ON THE CONSENT AGENDA? MAYBE THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING.
IT, IT WAS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.
WE'LL, WE WILL TAKE IT OFF THE CONSENT.
AND, AND, AND I THINK THAT THERE NEEDS TO, UM, COMM, EVEN THOUGH THIS IS IN PD 5 95, IT IS MORE IN THE CEDARS, AND I WOULD WANT THE CEDARS TO BE DEFINITELY HAVE A, A COMMISSIONER HAMPTON TO BE ABLE TO SHARE ANY TYPE OF CONVERSATION WITH THE CEDARS BEFORE WE, UM, AND SO I DON'T KNOW IF WE NEED TO TAKE IT AND PUT IT UP ON ADVISEMENT OR WHAT, BUT I THINK IT, I THINK THAT IT NEEDS, EVEN THOUGH IT'S IN MY DISTRICT, IT NEEDS TO BE BRIEFED A LITTLE BIT MORE BY, UM, COMMISSIONER HAMPTON ALSO.
COMMISSIONER HAMPTON HAS A RECOMMENDATION.
AND THANK YOU COMMISSIONER WHEELER.
I WILL GET THAT, UM, EMAIL OUT, COPY YOU ON IT.
IF I MIGHT SUGGEST HOLDING IT UNTIL THE SECOND MEETING IN OCTOBER TO ALLOW TIME FOR THAT COMMUNITY OUTREACH.
I THINK THAT'D BE OCTOBER 24TH.
AND I, AND I, AND I AM OKAY WITH THAT.
AND WE'LL HOLD THAT, UH, CASE UNDER ADVISEMENT.
SO OCTOBER 24TH, WE HAVE, UH, FOUR AND FIVE.
STAY ON CONSENT, UH, COMMISSIONERS.
DO WE HAVE SOMEONE HERE TO BRIEF THE SIGN CASE, MR. CHAIR? I DO HAVE SOME QUESTIONS, BUT I'M HAPPY TO BRIEF IT AT THE HEARING IF THAT'S EASIER.
LET'S SEE IF WE HAVE SOMEONE HERE TO BRIEF IT, IF NOT, THE SIGNED CASE NUMBER 17.
WE WILL PUNT THAT BRIEFING TO THE HEARING.
UH, COMMISSIONERS, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY, SEEING NONE, IT IS 9:51 AM THAT CONCLUDES THE BRIEFING OF THE DALLAS CITY PLAN COMMISSION.
UH, COMMISSIONERS, ENJOY YOUR VERY LONG BREAKFAST, LUNCH, BRUNCH.
[CALL TO ORDER]
PLEASE TAKE YOUR SEATS.WE'RE GONNA GO AHEAD AND START, START OFF WITH THE ROLL CALL, PLEASE.
UH, GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONERS.
DISTRICT ONE COMMISSIONER SCHOCK, DISTRICT TWO,
[00:45:01]
COMMISSIONER HAMPTON.COMMISSIONER HERBERT PRESENT, DISTRICT FOUR.
COMMISSIONER FORSYTH PRESENT REMOTELY.
DISTRICT FIVE CHAIR? SHE DID PRESENT DISTRICT SIX.
COMMISSIONER CARPENTER PRESENT? DISTRICT SEVEN.
COMMISSIONER BLAIR PRESENT, DISTRICT NINE.
ALSO THAT AND PLACE 15 VICE CHAIR RUBEN, I'M HERE.
GOOD AFTERNOON LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
TODAY IS THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 5TH, 2020 4, 12 40 9:00 PM WELCOME TO THE HEARING OF THE DALLAS STATE PLAN COMMISSION.
COUPLE OF QUICK ANNOUNCEMENTS BEFORE WE GET STARTED.
UH, WE HAVE THESE LITTLE YELLOW CARDS DOWN HERE AT THE TABLE TO THE BOTTOM TO YOUR RIGHT.
UH, WE'D LOVE TO HAVE A RECORD OF YOUR VISIT WITH US HERE TODAY.
AT SOME POINT, PLEASE MAKE SURE YOU COME DOWN AND FILL OUT THIS ONE OF THESE YELLOW CARDS, AND YOU CAN JUST LEAVE THEM RIGHT THERE ON THE TABLE.
UH, THIS IS GONNA BE A HYBRID MEETING.
TODAY, WE'LL HAVE A COUPLE OF SPEAKERS POSSIBLY ONLINE.
UH, I WOULD PLEASE ASK ALL SPEAKERS TO BEGIN YOUR COMMENTS WITH YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, ALL SPEAKERS WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK.
WE'LL LET YOU KNOW WHEN YOUR TIME IS UP.
UH, AND, UH, WITH THAT, IF YOU DO NEED AN AGENDA, WE DO HAVE COPIES DOWN HERE AT THE BOTTOM RIGHT, UH, COMMISSIONERS.
WE'RE GONNA HEAD RIGHT INTO THE DOCKET.
[1. 24-2756 An application for a development plan on property zoned Subdistrict 5 Urban Center & Subdistrict 6 Urban Core within Planned Development No. 655, along the north line of Capella Park Avenue, west of Prayer way.]
UH, CASE NUMBER ONE, THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN.CASE NUMBER 1D 2 23 DASH ZERO ONE.
IT'S A APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT PLAN ON PROPERTY ZONE SUB AREA FIVE URBAN CENTER AND SUB AREA SIX URBAN CORE WITHIN PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 6 55 ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF CAPELLA PARK AVENUE, WEST OF PRAIRIE WAY STAFF RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL.
IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO BE HEARD ON THIS ITEM? GOOD AFTERNOON.
PLEASE BEGIN YOUR COMMENTS WITH YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE RECORD.
THERE SHOULD BE A LITTLE BUTTON TO TURN ON THE MICROPHONE THERE.
MY ADDRESS IS, UH, 1348 CHAPEL CENTER DRIVE IN, UH, GAMS, MARYLAND.
I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF THE, UH, DEVELOPER OWNER, UM, THE STEIN BRIDGE GROUP.
I'D LIKE TO JUST, UH, SAY A FEW WORDS.
THE STEIN BRIDGE GROUP OWNS, UM, 15 ACRES AT THE SITE THAT IS UNDER CONSIDERATION TODAY.
THE SITE WAS PURCHASED, UM, IN OCTOBER OF 2022, UM, FROM THE POTTER'S HOUSE CHURCH.
THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, UM, PHASE ONE WAS APPROVED LAST NOVEMBER 16TH, 2023, UM, WHICH CONSISTED OF 47 TOWNHOUSE UNITS.
THIS IS OUR SECOND PHASE THAT'S HERE TODAY FOR APPROVAL, WHICH IS 133 UNITS OF, UH, TOWNHOUSES.
UM, THESE ARE TWO STORY TOWNHOUSES WITH A VERY MODERN, UM, LOOKING FARMHOUSE STYLE.
UM, THEY ARE, UH, THE SECOND PHASE IS GONNA BE 133 TOWNHOUSE UNITS, ENERGY EFFICIENT.
UM, MEET IN THE, UM, DALLAS, UM, GREEN ENERGY CODES.
UM, WE HAVE PLANNED OVER THREE ACRES OF GREEN SPACE, UM, PARK LIKE SETTINGS THAT ARE GONNA BE AVAILABLE NOT ONLY TO THE RESIDENTS OF THE, THE NEW RESIDENTS, BUT ALSO THE EXISTING RES RESIDENTS THAT LIVE IN THE CAPELLA PARK, UM, AREA.
THIS, UM, DEVELOPMENT WILL HAVE SIGNIFICANT ECONOMIC IMPACT, UH, CREATING ROUGHLY A HUNDRED TO 200, UM, JOBS, ANCILLARY CONSTRUCTION, AND ANCILLARY JOBS.
UM, THAT'S KIND OF, UH, WHAT I'D LIKE TO JUST, UH, SAY TO THE, UH, TO, TO THE, UH, TO THE COMMISSION.
THANK YOU FOR JOINING US, SIR.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK
[00:50:01]
ON THIS ITEM? COMMISSIONERS QUESTIONS FOR OUR SPEAKER? YES, UH, CHAIR.COMMISSIONER HERBERT, PLEASE, SIR? YES.
MR. GARFIELD, ARE YOU COMING BACK UP? THANK YOU.
SO THREE, THREE QUESTIONS THAT CAME UP, UM, AFTER THE BRIEFING FROM, UM, SOME OF THE RESIDENTS THAT YOU MAY BE ABLE TO HELP WITH.
UM, THE FIRST IS, AS THIS IS A KIND OF NEW KIND OF DEVELOPMENT FOR THE AREA, UM, THE RESIDENTS HAD QUESTIONS ON HOW, UM, SPECIFICALLY THIS IS THE, WHO WOULD ASSUME MANAGEMENT OF THIS TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT INSIDE A PD, UM, WITH THE STATE REGULATOR, HOA, THAT HANDLES THE MANAGEMENT OF GREEN SPACES AND AMENITIES IN THE LIFE.
UM, WOULD YOUR COMPANY, OR WOULD YOU BE HOLDING ONTO THIS PROPERTY TO, TO MAINTAIN OR WHAT'S THE MAINTENANCE PLAN FOR THIS PIECE TYPE? WELL, THAT'S A THANK YOU COMMISSIONER.
UH, WE DO PLAN ON WORKING CLOSELY WITH THE HOA, UM, TO MANAGE, UM, THE, THE, THE COMMON AREA.
UM, BUT WE DO HAVE A PLAN TO HIRE A, UM, ESTABLISHED LOCAL PROPERTY MANAGER, UM, THAT WILL THEN MANAGE THE, THE PROPERTY NON HOA, UM, AREAS.
UM, A PART OF THE SUBDISTRICTS AND, AND THIS PLAN DEVELOPMENT, UM, YOUR BUILDING, UH, AGAINST THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT, UM, THE SUBDISTRICT IS SUBDISTRICT ONE.
ARE YOU AWARE AND DO YOU PLAN TO ADHERE TO THE PROTECTIVE FENCING THAT MUST BE USED WHEN CONSTRUCTION TAKES PLACE IN SUBDISTRICT OR ADJACENT TO SUBDISTRICT ONE? UH, WE PLAN ON VIDING BY ALL THE GOVERNING, UM, DOCUMENTS AND THE LAWS, UM, THAT, UH, GOVERN THAT, UH, DISTRICT.
UM, WE TALKED ABOUT THE BUILDING OF THESE RESIDENCES AS PHASES.
CAN YOU TALK ABOUT WHAT THAT PHASED APPROACH WILL BE, UM, FOR THE, UH, NEIGHBORS WHO ARE LISTENING? UH, THANK YOU.
AND IT'S 133 TOWNHOUSE UNITS, UH, VERY ENERGY EFFICIENT.
UM, WE PLAN ON BREAKING IT UP INTO THREE PHASES.
UM, THE FIRST PHASE WOULD BE CLOSEST TO CAPELLA AND PATIENTS BOULEVARD, UM, OUR PATIENTS ROAD.
UM, THAT FIRST PHASE WOULD BE ROUGHLY, UM, 30 TO 35 TOWNHOUSE UNITS.
UM, THAT SECTION IS THE RELATIVELY FLAT SECTION OF THE, OF THE PROPERTY.
UM, AND THEN WE'LL ROLL INTO A SECOND PHASE AND THEN ULTIMATELY INTO A THIRD PHASE.
UM, CHAIR, DO I HAVE A CHANCE TO ASK STAFF OF ANOTHER GROUP OF QUESTIONS? YES, SIR.
UM, STAFF, COUPLE OF QUESTIONS CAME UP AGAIN, UM, SPECIFIC AROUND HOW THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN IS APPROVED.
THE QUESTIONS WERE, WHO DETERMINES IF THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN MEETS THE CODE? I ASSUME THAT STAFF AND THE DIRECTOR.
AND WHAT PARAMETERS DO WE HAVE TO ASSESS IF, UM, THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, UM, IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE PD ITSELF? SO WHAT WE DO, WE ACTUALLY GO THROUGH AND THERE'S A CHECKLIST.
SO WE LOOK AT EVERYTHING THAT'S CALLED OUT IN THE CODE AND STUFF THAT NEED TO BE SHOWN ON THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, WHICH IS A STANDARD SITE PLAN.
WE GO IN AND DO A CHECK-IN BALANCE TO MAKE SURE ALL THAT IS IN COMPLIANCE.
SO WE'RE BASICALLY FOLLOWING WHAT'S IN BLACK AND WHITE AND WE'RE MAKING SURE THEY'RE IN THE PARAMETERS OF THAT.
AND THEN WE ASSESS THAT IT'S IN COMPLIANCE.
UM, THIS, THIS DEVELOPMENT TYPE, UH, IS SUPPOSED TO BE TOWN HOME, BUT SINGLE FAMILY RENTALS.
UM, DO YOU KNOW WHY WE REGULATED THESE AS MULTIFAMILY AND IS THERE A ZONING ORDINANCE, A DEV CODE THAT ACKNOWLEDGES OR RECOGNIZES THIS USE AND HOW IT SHOULD BE LOOKED AT AS A, UH, POTENTIAL PLACE TYPE OR, UM, CODE TYPE? YES, I CAN CLARIFY THAT.
SO IN OUR, UH, DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE CODE, SORRY, WE DO NOT HAVE A LAND USE FOR TOWNHOUSE.
WE DO HAVE A TOWNHOUSE ZONING DISTRICT, BUT ANYTHING THAT'S MORE THAN THREE DWELLING UNITS ON ONE SINGLE LOT WILL BE CONSIDERED AS A MULTIFAMILY.
SO AS FAR AS PERMITTED TO GO IN AS A MULTIFAMILY LAND USE.
AND THEN THEY WILL ALSO GET A CO FOR A MULTIFAMILY USE ON THE PROPERTY, BUT THEY CAN GO IN AND DESIGN IT AS TOWNHOUSES.
UM, WE DO HAVE SHARED ACCESS WHERE YOU CAN SUBDIVIDE THE LOT INTO INDIVIDUAL LOTS AND THERE WILL BE OWNED
[00:55:01]
BY EACH PROPERTY.UM, AND THOSE WOULD KIND OF BE LIKE TOWNHOUSE SINGLE FAMILY.
BUT AS FAR AS A MULTIFAMILY WITH MORE THAN THREE DWELLING UNITS ON ONE LOT, IT'S GONNA BE CLASSIFIED AS A MULTIFAMILY, UM, LAND USE.
AND EACH, UH, THIS, THIS IS CONSIDERED ONE LOT, CORRECT? YES SIR.
IT'S CONSIDERED, IT'S BEEN REPLANTED.
UM, CAN A DEVELOPMENT PLAN BE PRESENTED ON PROPERTY NOT OWNED BY THE APPLICANT? AS LONG AS THE OWNER HAS PERMISSION, WHEN WE, WHEN YOU SUBMIT THE APPLICATION, WE CHECKS EVERYTHING.
WE HAVE TO HAVE A LETTER AUTHORIZATION FROM THE OWNER.
UM, SO WE DID CHECK THAT INFORMATION WHEN THE APPLICATION CAME IN.
SO THE OWNER SHOULD KNOW THAT THIS DEVELOPMENT IS GOING ON THEIR PROPERTY.
SO I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS AROUND OWNERSHIP OF LAND BY DALLAS BAPTIST UNIVERSITY THAT'S INCLUDED IN THIS PLAN DEVELOPMENT.
UM, IN REGARDS TO, UM, THE DE DEVELOPING WITHIN THE PD, UM, READING THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND WHAT OUR RULES ARE AROUND PDS AND DEVELOPMENT PLANS DURING MY SLEEPLESS NIGHT HERE, UM, THE APPLICANT, I, I READ THIS AND YOU CAN, UM, EITHER TELL ME IF THIS IS INCLUDED OR WHY IT'S NOT AND UM, WE CAN GO FROM THERE.
BUT THE APPLICANT FOR A PD SHALL, IF THE APPLICANT DESIRES OR THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION OR CITY COUNCIL REQUIRES SUBMITTED DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE INDICATING THE DATE ON WHICH CONSTRUCTION IS TO BEGIN TO RATE A DEVELOPMENT UNTIL COMPLETION.
IS THAT SOMETHING WE FOLLOW IN THIS CASE? SO WE DON'T LOOK AT DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE OVER HERE IN PLANNING.
THEY CAN SUBMIT A DEVELOPMENT SPED SCHEDULE WHEN THEY GO IN FOR PERMITTING.
I WOULD LIKE TO REQUIRE THAT IF POSSIBLE, UM, UH, THE NUMBER FIVE, THE, THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION MAY REQUIRE ELEVATIONS AND PERSPECTIVE DRAWINGS FOR BUILDINGS MORE THAN 12 FEET IN HEIGHT THAT ARE NOT TO BE USED FOR SINGLE FAMILY OR DUPLEXES.
IS THAT RULE GONNA APPLY? IN THIS CASE? THIS DOES APPLY BECAUSE THERE LAND USE IS MULTI, IS CLASSIFIED AS MULTIFAMILY.
AND ON SEVERAL EXHIBITS INCLUDED IN OUR CASE REPORT, THE BILL TYPES THAT ARE BEING PRESENTED FOR RESIDENTIAL USE TODAY ARE NOT, UH, SHOWN ON THOSE EXHIBITS.
DOES THOSE EXHIBITS HOLD ANY WEIGHT IN, IN THIS CASE? SO AS FAR AS BILL TYPES AND DESIGN STANDARDS, ALL THOSE ARE IN THE, UH, REGULATION PLAN I THINK IT'S CALLED.
AND SO THE PD CALLS OUT FOR THE REGULARIZATION PLAN, DIFFERENT STANDARDS THAT CAN APPLY WITHIN THE DISTRICT, BUT THOSE STANDARDS ARE ONLY RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE PD AND NOT REQUIRED SO THAT APPLICANT OR THE OWNER CAN GO AND DECIDE AND DO THOSE ARCHITECTURE SOUND STANDARDS ARE THOSE BUILDING TYPE STANDARDS OR THEY CAN OPT OUT TO NOT DO THOSE.
AND RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY FOR PURPOSE OF SUB THIS, THIS SUBSECTION, IT SAYS A REQUEST SITE HAS RESIDENTIAL AGENCY.
IF THE PORTION OF DEVELOPMENT PLAN IS BEING AMENDED, UH, WITHIN 200 FEET OF A, UH, RESIDENTIAL LOT, IS THAT, IS, HAS RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY BEEN LOOKED AT AT ALL IN THIS CASE? IT'S, IT WAS LOOKED AT THIS CASE AND IT, CAN WE TALK ABOUT WHAT THAT RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY IS? BECAUSE I DON'T THINK THE STREET THAT'S BETWEEN THESE TWO SITES ARE MORE THAN 65 FEET.
CAN YOU CALL OUT THE SECTION THAT YOU JUST READ? 'CAUSE I DID TALK TO SOMEONE AT DEVELOPMENT SERVICE AND IN OUR STANDARD CODE AS FAR AS, UM, THE RESIDENTIAL PROXIMITY, IF IT'S CALLED OUT IN THE CODE, IT APPLIES.
IF IT'S NOT CALLED OUT IN THE CODE, IT DOESN'T APPLY.
SO WAS THIS SECTION PART OF THE REGULATION PLAN OR THIS SECTION PART OF STANDARD? UM, I CAN, I CAN GET THAT FOR YOU HERE IN A SECOND OF, OF WHAT SECTION OF THE LARGE PD
UM, I'LL GET IT FOR YOU HERE IN A SECOND.
UM, THE TWO MORE QUESTIONS, UH, MAY REQUEST SITE, AND I THINK YOU MAY HAVE ANSWERED THIS ALREADY.
UH, IN THE FIRE PLAN EXHIBIT, SEVERAL AREAS ARE LABELED AS FIRE LANES WITHIN THIS DEVELOPMENT.
WILL THE PLAN BE UPDATED OR WILL THE EXISTING FIRE LANES DEDICATED TO ASSIST WITH WILDFIRES IN THE CONSERVATION AREA BE PRESERVED? SO ALL FIRE LANES SHOULD BE RESERVED TO GET TO THE PROPERTY AND THEN ALSO THE APPLICANT, UH, SUPPLIED FIRE LANES AROUND THE, UH, TOWNHOUSE, BASICALLY THE MULTI-FAMILY LAND USES FOR FIRE ACCESS.
AND THAT WAS REVIEWED BY OUR FIRE PERMIT, UH, REVIEWER TO MAKE SURE IT'S IN COLI COMPLIANCE AS FAR AS BUILDING HEIGHT AND THEN THE WIDTH OF THE FIRE LANE.
SO WILL THE, WILL THE PD ITSELF BE
[01:00:01]
UPDATED WITH THAT, UH, UH, WITH THAT NEW INFORMATION FOR THE AREA AT ALL? SO THE PD CALLS OUT I THINK FIRE LANE FOR STANDARD ACCESS ONTO THE PROPERTY.AS FAR AS THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, THE FIRE LANE WITHIN THE PROPERTY LIMITS WILL NOT BE UPDATED INTO THE PD.
IT'S JUST A STANDARD, UH, FIRE LANE THAT WILL GIVE FIRE ACCESS TO THE BUILDING IN CASE OF A FIRE.
THAT, THAT ENDS MY LINE OF QUESTIONS.
COULD, COULD I JUST CLARIFY, UM, COMMISSIONER HERBERT REGARDING THE DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE THAT IS NOTED IN THE CODE FOR, UH, PDS THAT WOULD APPLY IF THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION, UH, REQUESTED THAT A DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE BE PROVIDED AT THE TIME OF THE CREATION OF THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT? IT DOES NOT APPLY ONCE THE PD HAS ALREADY BEEN CREATED AND WE'RE AT THE STAGE OF APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
SO IT'S, SO YOU'RE SAYING THIS, THIS WAS REQUESTED AT THE, WELL, IF IT WASN'T REQUESTED WHEN THE PD WAS ORIGINATED, WHICH IT'S IN THE PD LANGUAGE, I'M ASSUMING.
UM, BUT IF IT WASN'T PUT INTO THE LANGUAGE, IT'S NOT REQUIRED OR ALL THIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED WITH THE PD, UM, WHEN IT WAS SUBMITTED.
SO CITY PLAN COMMISSION HAS THE OPTION OF REQUIRING A DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE, UH, BE WRITTEN INTO THE ORDINANCE WHEN A PD IS CREATED.
UM, SINCE THAT WAS NOT REQUESTED AND IS NOT IN THE PD ORDINANCE ITSELF, THERE IS NO DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE THAT THIS APPLICANT, UH, CAN BE HELD TO AT THIS POINT WITHOUT, UH, AMENDING THE PD.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONERS? OKAY.
COMMISSIONER HERBERT, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? I DO.
AND IF I CAN GET A SECOND, I HAVE COMMENTS, UH, IN THE CASE OF DEVELOPMENT PLAN D 2 2 3 0 0 1 I I MOVE TO KEEP THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AND HOLD THIS MATTER UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL TEN THREE TWENTY TWENTY FOUR.
AND LIKE I SAID, IF I GET A SECOND, I WOULD LIKE COMMENT.
YOU DO HAVE A THI SECOND, UH, COMMISSIONER HAMPTON SECONDED YOUR MOTION COMMENTS.
COMMISSIONER HERBERT, THANK YOU.
YES, THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PLAN IS ADJACENT TO A CITY ON GUN RAGE, UH, THAT RAISES SIGNIFICANT SAFETY CONCERNS AND COMPLIANCE ISSUES.
ACCORDING TO THE TEXAS STATE LAW GUN RANGE, IT SHOULD BE NOT BE WITHIN 150 TO 300 SQUARE FEET OF A RESIDENTIAL OR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT.
THE PROXIMITY OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TO THE GUN RANGE POSES A POTENTIAL RISK OF PUBLIC SAFETY, WHICH CANNOT BE OVERLOOKED ADDITIONAL.
ADDITIONALLY, THERE IS TIME TO GET CONVERSATIONS WITH THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THE CITY ABOUT THIS DISTANCE AND, UH, MORE RESEARCH INTO THAT LEGAL STANDARD.
UM, ALSO THERE HAS BEEN LACK OF COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT REGARDING TO THIS DEVELOPMENT.
NO TOWN HALLS OR COMMUNITY MEETINGS HAVE BEEN CONDUCTED TO GATHER INPUT FROM RESIDENCES.
I KNOW THAT IS NOT AT FAULT OF THE DEVELOPER AT STANCE, BUT SOME OF, UH, COMMUNICATION BETWEEN HOA UM, AND COMMUNITY MEMBERS.
UM, BUT THE ABSENCE OF COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT AND FEEDBACK FURTHER EVAPORATES CONCERNS ABOUT SUITABILITY AND ACCEPTANCE OF THIS DEVELOPMENT PLAN WITHIN THE DISTRICT.
GIVEN THESE FACTORS, DEVELOPMENT PLAN DOES NOT ALIGN WITH THE CITY'S COMMITMENT TO ENSURING PUBLIC SAFETY AND FOSTERING COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT IN PLANNING DECISIONS.
AND I WOULD LIKE MORE TIME, UM, TO GET US THERE.
COMMISSIONER HERBERT, UH, THE FIRST CPC HEARING IN OCTOBER IS OCTOBER 10TH, NOT OCTOBER 3RD.
WAS THAT THE DATE YOU WANTED TO HOLD IT TO? THAT IS THE, THE DATE I WANNA HOLD IT TO.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? COMMISSIONERS SEE NONE OF THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.
[Zoning Cases - Consent]
WE'LL NOW MOVE INTO OUR ZONING CASES.OUR CONSENT AGENDA ITEM CONSISTS OF CASES 2, 3, 4 AND FIVE.
TWO AND THREE HAVE COME OFF CONSENT.
THAT LEAVES CASES FOUR AND FIVE, WHICH ARE ON PAGE THREE OF THE DOCKET OF THE AGENDA.
UH, THOSE WILL BE DISPOSED OF IN ONE MOTION UNLESS THERE IS SOMEONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON CASES FOUR OR FIVE.
IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON CASE FOUR Z 2 3 4 2 0 5 4 5 Z 2 34.
ALRIGHT, WE'LL GET THOSE RIGHT IN PLEASE.
[01:05:01]
CONSISTS OF THE FOLLOWING ITEMS. ITEM FOUR IS CASE Z 2 34 DASH FIVE.AN APPLICATION FOR ONE, AN AMENDMENT TO SUBDISTRICT 1D WITHIN PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER SEVEN 14, THE WEST COMMERCE STREET SLASH FORT WORTH AVENUE SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICT AND TWO, AN AMENDMENT TO SPECIFIC USE PERMIT NUMBER 2 4 3 7 FOR ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE MANUFACTURING ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF POWELL STREET BETWEEN HASLET STREET AND SULFUR STREET NORTH OF YORKTOWN STREET.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO SUBDISTRICT 1D WITHIN PD NUMBER SEVEN 14 SUBJECT TO AMENDED CONDITIONS AND APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO SUP NUMBER 2, 4 3 7 FOR A FIVE YEAR PERIOD SUBJECT TO AN AMENDED SITE PLAN AND AMENDED CONDITIONS.
ITEM FIVE IS CASE Z 2 34 DASH 2 33.
AN APPLICATION FOR WR THREE WALKABLE URBAN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT ON PROPERTY ZONED IN IR INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH DISTRICT ON THE SOUTHEAST LINE OF KINSEY DRIVE NORTHEAST OF MAPLE AVENUE.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THESE TWO ITEMS? SEEING NONE, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, DO YOU HAVE MOTION? YES.
UM, IN THE MATTER OF THE ZONING CONSENT AGENDA, ITEMS FOUR AND FIVE Z 2 3 4 205 AND Z 2 3 4 2 3 3, I MOVE THAT WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND FOLLOW STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL AS READ INTO THE RECORD.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER CARPENTER FOR YOUR MOTION, VICE CHAIR FOR YOUR SECOND.
ANY COMMENTS AND NONE OF THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY, AYE.
[2. 24-2758 An application for a Specific Use Permit for a late-hours establishment limited to a restaurant without drive-in or drive-through service on property zoned Planned Development District No. 842, the Lower Greenville Avenue Special Provision District, on the west side of Greenville Avenue, between Sears Street and Alta Avenue.]
HAVE IT.WE'LL GO BACK TO CASE NUMBER TWO.
THIS IS ITEM NUMBER TWO, CASE Z 2 34 DASH 1 94.
AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR A LATE HOURS ESTABLISHMENT LIMITED TO A RESTAURANT WITHOUT DRIVE-IN OR DRIVE THROUGH SERVICE ON PROPERTY ZONE PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 8 4 2, THE LOWER GREENVILLE AVENUE SPECIAL PROVISION DISTRICT ON THE WEST SIDE OF GREENVILLE AVENUE BETWEEN SEARS STREET AND ALTA AVENUE STAFF'S.
RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL FOR A FIVE YEAR PERIOD SUBJECT TO A SITE PLAN AND CONDITIONS.
IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS SIDE? NO.
AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS? UH, WE DO HAVE A REGISTERED SPEAKER.
IS SHE ONLINE? MS. UH, GANSER? NO.
COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS FOR, UH, MR. BALDWIN ON THIS ITEM? SEEING NONE, COMMISSIONER KINGSTON, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? THANK YOU.
IN THE MATTER OF Z 2 34 DASH 1 94, I MOVE THAT WE HOLD THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AND HOLD THIS MATTER UNTIL, UH, SEPTEMBER 10TH.
OH YEAH, OCTOBER 10TH IS FINE.
UH, I WILL THANK YOU MR. RUBIN FOR YOUR SECOND, UH, COMMISSIONERS.
WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND, UH, TO HOLD THE MATTER ORDER.
ADVISE 'EM UNTIL OCTOBER 10TH KEEPING THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN.
[3. 24-2759 An application for a new subdistrict on property zoned RS-C Regional Service Commercial Subdistrict within Planned Development District No. 595, the South Dallas/Fair Park Special Purpose District, on the north corner of Clarence Street and South Cesar Chavez Boulevard.]
GO TO NUMBER THREE.THIS IS ITEM NUMBER THREE, AN APPLICATION FOR A NEW SUBDISTRICT ON PROPERTY ZONE RS DASH C REGIONAL SERVICE COMMERCIAL SUBDISTRICT WITHIN PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 5 95.
THE SOUTH DALLAS FAIR PARK SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICT ON THE NORTH CORNER OF CLARENCE STREET AND SOUTH CAESAR CHAVEZ BOULEVARD.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS.
IS THE APPLICANT HERE OR WILL ANY YES.
HEY THERE, VICTORIA MORRIS WITH JACKSON WALKER.
UM, WE HEARD THE COMMENTS THIS MORNING AND I'LL PASS IT TO ARTHUR SANTO MARIA WITH HOKE GLOBAL IN A MOMENT.
BUT, UM, WE HEARD THE COMMENTS THIS MORNING AND THANK YOU TO COMMISSIONER WHEELER AND COMMISSIONER HAMPTON FOR, UH, THEIR ASSISTANCE TO SET UP A NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING INVITE.
UM, WE HAVE BEEN WORKING ON SCHEDULING THAT IN THE, IN THE BACKGROUND AS WELL.
UM, BUT JUST HAS NOT COME TO FRUITION.
AND THE WHEELS OF CPC WERE IN MOTION.
SO, UH, THANK YOU FOR, UH, YOUR TIME AND I'LL PASS IT TO ARTHUR.
[01:10:01]
MY ADDRESS IS 39 24 OAK A DRIVE, UH, HERE IN DALLAS.AND, UM, UH, LIKE, LIKE, UM, VICTORIA WAS SAYING, YOU KNOW, WE, WE HEARD THE, UH, THE COMMENTS FROM THIS MORNING AND, YOU KNOW, WE NOT ONLY WELCOME, WE'RE EAGER TO, YOU KNOW, ENGAGE WITH THE COMMUNITY.
REALLY, IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT FOR US AS A COMPANY IS TO ENGAGE WITH THE LOCAL COMMUNITIES, UNDERSTAND WHAT KIND OF GOALS ARE, WHAT'S BEEN HAPPENING.
AND YOU KNOW, ESPECIALLY IN THIS AREA OF TOWN WHERE THERE'S A LOT OF PLANNING, A LOT OF THOUGHT GOING INTO HOW THAT THAT DISTRICT IS GONNA DEVELOP.
WE HAVE PROJECTS THAT ARE, UH, ADJACENT TO IT AS WELL IN, IN OTHER DIRECTIONS.
SO WE'D LOVE FOR THIS, YOU KNOW, KIND OF EVERYTHING TO WORK COHESIVELY.
SO WE ARE, ARE EAGER TO, TO MEET WITH, UM, UH, THE COMMISSIONERS AND UM, YOU KNOW, JUST DO A GREAT PROJECT AND WORK WITH THE COMMUNITY ON IT.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? COMMISSIONER'S QUESTIONS FOR OUR TWO SPEAKERS? ANY QUESTIONS FOR OUR SPEAKERS? QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? OKAY.
SEEING NONE, COMMISSIONER WHEELER, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? UM, COULD YOU GIMME A CASE NUMBER? YES.
IT'S Z 2 3 4 1 99 IN A MATTER OF Z 2 3 4 1 9 9.
I MOVED TO KEEP THE, UH, PUBLIC HEARING OPEN UNTIL OCTOBER 10TH.
UM, IS THAT CORRECT, MR. COMMISSIONER HAMPTON? 24TH, 24TH I THINK WOULD ALLOW US TO GET THE MEETING SCHEDULED IF THAT'S ACCEPTABLE.
COMMISSIONER WHEELER, OCTOBER 24TH.
COMMISSIONER WHEELER FOR YOUR MOTION.
COMMISSIONER HAMPTON FOR YOUR SECOND TO KEEP THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN.
HOLD THE MATTER UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL OCTOBER 24TH.
ANY DISCUSSION? SEE? AND NONE.
[6. 24-2762 An application for a TH-3(A) Townhouse District with deed restrictions volunteered by the applicant on property zoned an R-7.5(A) Single Family District, on the southwest corner of Greenville Avenue and Old Greenville Road, south of Forest Lane and north of Royal Lane.]
SIX, PLEASE.ITEM NUMBER SIX IS KZ 2 3 4 2 0 7 AND APPLICATION FOR TH THREE A TOWNHOUSE DISTRICT WITH DATE RESTRICTIONS VOLUNTEER BY THE APPLICANT ON PROPERTIES ZONE IN R 7.5, A SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF GREENVILLE AVENUE IN OLD GREENVILLE ROAD, SOUTH OF FOURTH LANE AND NORTH OF ROYAL LANE.
APPLICANT IS HERE FOR QUESTIONS.
COMMISSIONER, IS THERE ANYONE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. BALDWIN? QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SEEING NONE, COMMISSIONER HOUSE, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? YES, MR. CHAIR.
IN THE CASE NUMBER Z 2 34 DASH 2 0 7, I MOVE TO HOLD THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AND, UH, HOLD THIS MATTER UNDER ADVISEMENT TILL OCTOBER THE 24TH.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HAUSER FOR YOUR MOTION AND COMMISSIONER HAMPTON FOR YOUR SECOND.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.
OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES THE MATTER UNDER ADVISEMENT,
[SUBDIVISION DOCKET - Consent Items]
WE WILL NOW GO INTO OUR SUBDIVISION DOCK CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS CONSISTING OF CASES SEVEN THROUGH 16 AND ITEM NUMBER NUMBER 13 HAS COME OFF CONSENT.SO IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON, UH, SEVEN THROUGH 12 OR 14 THROUGH 16? CASE SEVEN THROUGH 12 OR 14, 15 OR 16? BEGINNING ON PAGE FOUR, THOSE WILL BE VOTED ON IN ONE MOTION UNLESS THERE'S SOMEONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON ANY OF THOSE CASES, THEN WE'LL PULL IT OFF.
SEVEN THROUGH 12, 14, 15 AND 16.
NUMBER 13 IS PULLED OFF, RIGHT? YES, 13.
OKAY, SO THE CONSENT IS IN THAT CONSISTS OF NINE ITEMS. ITEM SEVEN S 2 3 4 DASH 1 71, ITEM EIGHT S 2 3 4 DASH 1 72, ITEM NINE S 2 3 4 DASH 1 73, ITEM 10 S 2 34 DASH 1 74, ITEM 11 S 2 34 DASH 1 75, ITEM 12 S 2 34 DASH 1 76, ITEM 14 S 2 34 DASH 1 78, ITEM 15 S 2 34 DASH 1 79, ITEM 16 S 2 34
[01:15:01]
DASH 180.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.
ANY QUESTIONS ON ANY OF THOSE ITEMS? 13 IS OFF.
ANY QUESTIONS ON ANY OF THOSE CASES? COMMISSIONERS? OKAY.
COMMISSIONER HERBERT, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? YES, I DO.
UM, AND THE, UM, IN THIS SUBDISTRICT DOCKET ON THE ITEMS INCLUDED ON THE CONSENT, I MOVE TO KEEP THE, UH, MOVE TO APPROVE THE DOCKET, THE CONSENT DOCKET AS WRITTEN TO THE RECORD.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HERBERT FOR YOUR MOTION.
AND COMMISSIONER BLAIR FOR YOUR SECOND TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FILE STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL ON THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS CONSISTING OF SEVEN THROUGH 12 14, 15, 16.
ANY COMMENTS? SEEING ALL THOSE FAVOR SAY AYE.
[13. 24-2769 An application to replat a 0.37-acre tract of land containing all of Lots 5 and 6 in City Block 4/2042 to create on lot, on property located on Bowser Avenue, southeast of Hawthorne Avenue.]
GO TO 13 ITEM 13 S 2 34 DASH 1 77 AN APPLICATION TO REPLY AT A 0.37 ACRE TRACK OF LAND CONTAINING ALL OF LOT FIVE AND SIX IN CITY BLOCK FOUR OVER 2 0 4 2 TO CREATE ONE LOT ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON BROWSER AVENUE SOUTHWEST OF HOT THRONE AVENUE STAFF.RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THIS CONDITION LISTED IN THE DOCKET.
IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? THIS IS NUMBER 13, CASE 13 ON PAGE SIX,
ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS ITEM? COMMISSIONER KINGSTON, PLEASE.
YEAH, I PULLED THIS BECAUSE AT OUR LAST HEARING I THINK THERE WAS SOME CONFUSION ABOUT WHAT STANDARD STAFF USES FOR RESIDENTIAL LOTS.
UM, UH, SO LET ME ASK THIS QUESTION.
THE YELLOW LINES ARE NOT LOT LINES, BUT INSTEAD DEMONSTRATE HOW THE LAND HAS BEEN DEVELOPED.
IS THAT CORRECT? YES, THOSE ARE OWNERSHIP LINES.
AND SO THE ONLY INFORMATION WE HAVE AS TO EXACT LOT LINES IS, UM, 13 E.
AND IS IT POSSIBLE TO GET A LARGER SECTION OF THAT SURVEY FOR THE YEAH, YOU, UH, WE CAN DO THAT ON THE CERTIFIED COPY OF PLA BUT STILL, UH, SOME OF THE LOTS ARE DEVELOPED.
LIKE IF, FOR EXAMPLE, IF YOU GO TO THE PLAT, YOU CAN SEE ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER YOU CAN SEE BIGGER, UH, LOT EIGHT A, WHICH IS ALREADY RECORDED.
WELL, I'M, I'M SPEAKING GENERALLY, IS IT POSSIBLE TO GET A LARGER SECTION OF THE PLAT THAT SHOWS THE EXACT LOT LINES? COMMISSIONER KINGSTON, ARE YOU ASKING FOR THE MAP ON PAGE, WHAT IS IT? 13 E IF IT COULD BE LARGER IN AREA? CORRECT THAT, SO UNDER ARTICLE EIGHT, THE DEVELOPER OR THE APPLICANT HAS TO SHOW 150 FEET SURROUNDING THE LOTS THAT ARE BEING PLATTED.
SO THAT IS ALL THEY HAVE TO SHOW.
AND THEN THIS QUESTION IS FOR YOU MR. MOORE.
HAVE YOU DETERMINED, UM, WHETHER MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS ARE GOVERNED BY 51, A 8.503? SO 8.503 APPLIES TO RESIDENTIAL LOTS, MULTI-FAMILY, AND IN THIS CASE, BECAUSE IT'S IN PD 1 93 AND REVERTS BACK TO CHAPTER 51, IT'S MULTIPLE FAMILY DO ARE GOVERNED BY 8.503.
BUT I GUESS THE FIRST PART OF EIGHT POINT, THE FIRST SENTENCE IN 8.503 SAYS THE SIZE OF EACH PLATTED LOT MUST COMPLY WITH THE MINIMUM REGULATIONS FOR THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH IT'S LOCATED.
AND IN THIS CASE, MULTIFAMILY AND MULTIPLE FAMILY HAS NO MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS.
SO IT'S SORT OF, UM, A CURIOUS RATIONALE FOR WHY
[01:20:01]
8.503 WOULD IN FACT APPLY TO MULTIPLE AND MULTIFAMILY, BUT IT, IT ULTIMATELY YES, UM, MULTIFAMILY AND MULTIPLE FAMILY ARE GOVERNED BY 8.503.SO THAT STANDARD IS A STANDARD WE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT IN MF TWO, MF ONE, MF TWO RESIDENTIAL.
AND IF YOU NEED MORE TIME AND WANT ME TO ASK THESE QUESTIONS AGAIN AT THE NEXT MEETING, I CAN, I, I'M COMFORTABLE SAYING THAT 8.503 IS SOMETHING THIS BODY CAN USE WHEN CONSIDERING PLATS THAT ARE ZONED MULTIFAMILY AND MULTIPLE FAMILY.
UM, AND SO THEN MY NEXT QUESTION IS BACK TO STAFF.
DO YOU CONSIDER THE REQUIREMENTS OF 51 A DASH 8.503 IN A VAL IN COMING UP WITH YOUR RECOMMENDATION FOR ALL RESIDENTIAL LOTS OR JUST CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL LOTS? ALL ALL RESIDENTIAL LOTS.
AND SO YOU USED THAT CRITERIA IN THIS CASE? YES, I DID.
IS THERE A REASON WHY THAT LEGAL STANDARD IS NOT EVEN MENTIONED IN THE STAFF'S MATERIALS? IN M UH, PD? UNDER THE PD MF WE DON'T ANALYZE, BUT WE TAKE IN CONSIDERATION WHEN I, WE WRITE THE REPORT AND I CAN EXPLAIN, UH, THAT AS WELL BECAUSE WITHIN A HUNDRED FEET ALSO YOU CAN SEE BIGGER LOT IN A PLAT.
IF YOU OPEN THE PLAT AND SEE IT'S STILL, THERE IS ONE LOT WHICH IS 16,000 SQUARE FEET, WHICH IS ALREADY APPROVED.
I'M, I'M NOT REALLY FOCUSING ON THIS PARTICULAR CASE AS MUCH AS THE PROCESS.
MM-HMM,
IS THERE A REASON IT'S THAT LEGAL STANDARD IS NOT REFERENCED IN YOUR REPORTS? SO WE DO ANALYZE FOR RESIDENTIAL RELA RESIDENTIAL STRAIGHT MF, BUT IF IT'S UNDER PD AND IT'S MF, WE DON'T SHOW THAT IN THE STAFF REPORT.
WE DON'T WRITE THAT ON STAFF REPORT, BUT WE STILL CONSIDER WHEN WE CONSIDER APPROVAL WHY NOT? WE CAN CONTINUE TO DO THAT.
BUT IN, BUT WHENEVER I STARTED, I HAVEN'T SEEN DONE THAT BEFORE TOO.
I DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONERS ON THIS ITEM? SEE NONE, COMMISSIONER TON.
DO YOU HAVE A MOTION IN THE MATTER? S 2 3 4 DASH 1 77? I MOVE THAT WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE IT.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER KINGSTON FOR YOUR MOTION.
COMMISSIONER BLAIR FOR YOUR SECOND.
ANY DISCUSSION MR. RUBEN? I'LL JUST CHIME IN AS WELL AND I THINK IT'S ALONG THE SAME LINE AS, AS SOMEONE COMMISSIONER KINGSTON'S QUESTIONING IF Y'ALL ARE LOOKING AT 8.503 IN THESE, IT WOULD BE HELPFUL IF YOU INCLUDED THAT IN THE STAFF OR REPORT FOR THESE RESIDENTIALLY ZONED LOTS.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS, DISCUSSIONS? NONE OF THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
[17. 24-2773 An application for a Certificate of Appropriateness by Jamieson Davis of ELEVATED SYSTEMS, INC., for a 450-square-foot non-illuminated attached mesh banner sign at 2550 PACIFIC AVE (northwest elevation)]
TO NUMBER 17.GOOD AFTERNOON, SCOTT ROPER AND I'LL BE BRIEFING CASE 2 4 0 5 0 9 8 5.
A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR A SIGN.
[01:25:01]
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS BY JAMESON DAVIS OF ELEVATED SYSTEMS INCORPORATED FOR A 450 SQUARE FOOT NON ILLUMINATED ATTACHED MESH BANNER SIGN AT 25 50 PACIFIC AVENUE ON THE NORTHWEST ELEVATION.THE STAFF RECOMMENDED APPROVAL THE S-S-D-A-C RECOMMENDED APPROVAL QUESTIONS.
UM, I I'M GONNA START WITH ONE QUESTION.
I KNOW MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS ARE REVIEWING THE DOCKET.
UM, MR. RIP, IS IT CORRECT THAT YOU REPOSTED, UM, THE CASE REPORT THAT HAD THE LINKED IMAGES, UM, ON REGISTRAR? THAT'S CORRECT.
AND IT'S FOR ANYONE WHO WAS TRYING TO LOOK AT IT, THE IMAGES GOT SEPARATED FROM SOME OF THE PAGES, SO THERE WERE NO BLANK PAGES.
THEY WERE JUST SEPARATED IN THE SEQUENTIAL NUMBERING FOR ANYONE WHO, UM, I HAD SOME TROUBLE WITH THAT, SO I WANTED TO MAKE SURE I WASN'T MISSING INFORMATION.
UM, REGARDING THE SIGN AS SUBMITTED, UM, THE SIZE ITSELF IS WITHIN THE ALLOWABLE FACADE COVERAGE.
IS THERE ANY CONSIDERATION OF THE PERCENTAGE OF TEXT RELATIVE TO THE SIZE OF THE IMAGE FOR THIS SUBDISTRICT? NO MA'AM.
THERE'S NOT IN THE SUBDISTRICT, THIS FALLS IN THE PERIMETER SUBDISTRICT, WHICH REVERTS BACK TO BUSINESS ZONING.
AND SO FOR OTHER, UM, DOWNTOWN DISTRICTS, FOR INSTANCE, WHERE THERE ARE PROVISIONS FOR SUPER GRAPHIC SIGNAGE WHERE THERE ARE IS A REQUIRED IMAGE TO TEXT THAT THAT PROVISION JUST DOESN'T APPLY HERE.
ON THIS SUBDISTRICTS THAT FALL WITHIN THE INTERLOOP AREA, UH, FOLLOW DIFFERENT, DIFFERENT PROVISIONS.
AND SO, UM, JUST FOR MY UNDERSTANDING, DID STAFF DO AN ANALYSIS ON WHAT THE PERCENTAGE OF THE TEXT, 'CAUSE AS IT'S IN OUR DOCKET, IT'S LISTED AS A SIGN WITH THE LISTED NUMBER OF WORDS, WHICH IS GOVERNED BY THE, UM, PROVISIONS OF THE BUSINESS SIGN DISTRICT, BUT IS THERE A REFERENCE FOR THE PERCENTAGE OF WORDS VERSUS IMAGE SIZE? THERE IS NOT, SINCE IT WAS NOT A REQUIREMENT, WE, WE DID NOT DO THAT.
UM, IF IN VISITING WITH THE APPLICANT, I THINK THEY INDICATED IT WAS ROUGHLY ABOUT 2%.
WOULD THAT SOUND ABOUT RIGHT? JUST BY LOOKING AT IT, IT, IT LOOKS APPROPRIATE.
AND THEN REGARDING THE MATERIAL, THIS IS NOTED AS A MESH SIGN, UH, WITH GROMMETS AND STAINLESS STEEL CABLE ATTACHMENTS TO THE PERIMETER OF THE BUILDING.
UM, ARE THERE ANY PROVISIONS REGARDING THE METHODOLOGY OF ATTACHMENT OR THE MATERIAL FOR THE SIGN THAT ARE CONSIDERATION? UH, NO MA'AM.
AGAIN, THIS FOLLOWS THE BUSINESS ZONING REQUIREMENTS, WHICH DOES NOT GOVERN, UH, MATERIALS, UH, JUST THAT IT IS MAINTAINED IN A GOOD STATE OF REPAIR AND, UH, NEED APPEARANCE AT ALL TIMES.
IT DOES RESEMBLE, UH, WHAT THE SUPERGRAPHICS IN THE INTER LOOP LOOK LIKE, BUT IT IN, IN ITSELF IS NOT A SUPER GRAPHIC.
SO EVEN THOUGH THE SIGN IT'S 450 SQUARE FEET, 30 BY 15 FEET IN SIZE, UM, IT'S NOT SUPER GRAPHIC IS ACTUALLY MUCH LOWER THAN WHAT THAT PERCENTAGE REQUIREMENT WOULD BE IF IT WERE TO BE APPLICABLE, WHICH I UNDERSTAND IT IS NOT.
UM, ARE THERE ANY PROVISIONS IN OUR BUSINESS SIGN FOR A BILLBOARD? IS THAT ANYTHING THAT IS DEFINED WITHIN OUR SIGNAGE ORDINANCE? SO IN, IN THE, UM, IN THE 51 A, UM, ORDINANCE, UH, BILLBOARD ITSELF IS NOT COVERED.
THEY'RE, THEY'RE DEFINED AS NON-PREMISE SIGNS.
NON-PREMISE SIGNS ARE NOT ALLOWED.
UM, THIS IS CONSIDERED A PREMISE SIGN, UH, BECAUSE THE, THAT WHICH IS BEING ADVERTISED ON THE SIGN IS ACTUALLY LOCATED WITHIN THE PREMISE.
IT, SO WITHIN THE PURPOSE STATEMENT FOR THE DISTRICT THAT IS ON PAGE 17 THREE OF OUR CASE REPORT, IT SPEAKS ABOUT AESTHETIC CONSIDERATIONS, UM, APPROPRIATE TO THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE DISTRICT AND THE IMPORTANCE OF, UM, THE, THE REGULATIONS BEING INSPIRED BY HIGH LEVEL OF PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY AND THAT, UM, TO MAXIMIZE THE ORIENTATION TOWARDS THE WALKING PUBLIC.
CAN YOU, UM, AS STAFF EVALUATED THIS, IT, IT SEEMS IT'S A, YOU KNOW, ON A PARKING GARAGE IT'S ELEVATED, YOU KNOW, CAN YOU SPEAK ABOUT HOW THIS IS,
[01:30:01]
HOW THIS WAS EVALUATED BY STAFF IN LIGHT OF THAT PURPOSE STATEMENT? YES, MA'AM.SO WE, WE DO CONSIDER THE SIGNS, UH, AND HOW THEY ARE, HOW THEY IMPACT THE, UH, WALKING PEDESTRIANS.
AND IN THIS CASE, UH, BECAUSE THE SIGN IS ELEVATED AND A LARGER SIZE, UH, ITS PURPOSE, UH, ASSUMABLY IS NOT TO THE WALKING PEDESTRIANS.
IT'S MOST LIKELY, UH, BASED ON ITS POSITION FOR DART AND HIGHWAY, ALTHOUGH THEY DO HAVE STREET LEVEL SIGNAGE, STREET LEVEL SIGNAGE.
THEY HAVE SEPARATE SIGNAGE THAT'S ALREADY APPROVED.
AND I ACTUALLY SAW THAT, SO THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION.
THAT WAS ONE OF MY OTHER QUESTIONS.
UM, FINALLY, UM, IN YOUR CONVERSATIONS WITH THE APPLICANT, UM, DID THEY SHARE WITH YOU THAT, UM, THIS WAS INTENDED TO BE A TEMPORARY SIGN THAT THEY, BUT THAT THERE WASN'T A PROVISION IN THE CODE FOR THEM TO UTILIZE FOR THIS SIZE OF SIGN? UM, AND THAT'S WHAT LED TO THE REQUEST THAT'S BEFORE US TODAY.
I PERSONALLY DID NOT SPEAK WITH THE APPLICANT ON THIS.
I'VE I'VE BEEN OUT FOR A MONTH AND A HALF.
UM, WELL, I'M, SO I ARE, ARE YOU AWARE THAT I HAD A CONVERSATION WITH THE APPLICANT AND THAT THEY SHARED THAT INFORMATION WITH ME? OKAY.
I'M NOT, YEAH, I WAS NOT AWARE OF THAT, SO THANK YOU.
I'LL YIELD TO MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS FOR OTHER QUESTIONS.
THERE ARE COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT.
UM, SO I, I GUESS THIS IS FOR STAFF.
I MEAN, I'VE, I'VE READ THE, THE PURPOSE STATEMENT FOR THE DISTRICT.
I'VE READ THE CRITERIA WERE THAT WE'RE TO USE TO EVALUATE THIS, BUT IT WOULD APPEAR THAT WE STILL HAVE QUITE A BIT OF DISCRETION AS TO WHETHER WE APPROVE THIS OR NOT, RIGHT? CORRECT, SIR.
SO IF WE HAPPEN TO HAVE AN OPINION DIFFERENT FROM STAFF OR S-S-D-A-C, WE'RE FREE TO EXPRESS THAT? THAT'S CORRECT.
BECAUSE I DO VICE CHAIR RUBIN, JUST JUST TO FOLLOW UP FOR MR. MOORE, WHAT WE CAN DIFFER IN OPINION WITH STAFF.
ARE THERE OR S-S-D-A-C ARE THERE BASIS ON WHICH WE, UNDER OUR FIRST AMENDMENT ANALYSIS CANNOT DENY A SIGNED REQUEST? I'M SORRY, VICE CHAIR RUBIN, CAN YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION? COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT JUST, JUST ASKED A QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER IF WE DISAGREE WITH STAFF AND S-S-D-A-C ON THEIR ANALYSIS MM-HMM,
I JUST HAD A QUICK FOLLOW UP QUESTION.
ARE THERE PERMISSIBLE BASIS ON WHICH WE CAN DENY A SIGNED REQUEST AND NON PERMISSIBLE BASIS THAT MIGHT IMPLICATE FIRST AMENDMENT CONCERNS HERE? SO THE CODE SAYS THAT CPC SHALL AND IT'S A SHALL, SO IT'S, UH, A MINISTERIAL SHALL CONSIDER THE SAME FACTORS THAT WERE REQUIRED BY S-S-D-A-C AND SS DACS FACTORS.
AND AGAIN, IT HAS A SHALL IN IT.
SO IT'S WHAT THE S-S-D-A-C MUST USE.
AND THAT IS, UH, THE COMMITTEE FIND THAT THEY HAVE TO APPROVE IT IF THE COMMITTEE FINDS THAT THE PROPOSED SIGN IS CONSISTENT WITH THE SPECIAL CHARACTER OF THE SPECIAL PROVISIONS OF THE SIGNED DISTRICT.
SO THAT'S THE CRITERIA THAT YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT.
DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, DR.
CHAIR RUBEN? AND WE'RE NOT ALLOWED TO CONSIDER THE MESSAGE CONVEYED BY THE SENATE, CORRECT? YEAH, YEAH, CORRECT.
BLACK LETTER OR FIRST AMENDMENT LAW.
JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT GOT COVERED.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HAMPTON.
JUST ONE FOLLOW UP, MR. MOORE.
THAT'S, UM, THOSE CONSIDERATIONS ARE NOTED ON 17 FOUR OF OUR DOCKET, IS THAT CORRECT? YES, THEY ARE.
THEY'RE THE, UH, HIGHLIGHTED RED TEXT THERE.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS? I SEE NONE.
COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? I DO.
AND I HAVE BRIEF COMMENTS IF I HAVE A SECOND IN THE MATTER OF CERTIFICATE APPROPRIATENESS FOR SIGNS 2 4 0 5 0 9 1 0 8 5.
I MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND DENY THE REQUEST WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
COMMISSIONER HAMPTON AND COMMISSIONER CORAN FOR YOUR SECOND COMMENTS.
UM, I DID HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO VISIT WITH THE APPLICANT ON THIS REQUEST.
I'VE SPENT MORE TIME REVIEWING THE LANGUAGE WITHIN THE SPECIAL DISTRICT SIGNED PROVISIONS.
I'M RECOMMENDING THIS DENIAL BECAUSE MY CONVERSATIONS WITH THE APPLICANT IS THAT THIS IS INTENDED TO BE A TEMPORARY SIGN, BUT THERE IS NO PROVISION WITHIN OUR ORDINANCE THAT ALLOWS FOR THAT TEMPORARY TO
[01:35:01]
SIGN SIGN.WE HAVE APPROVED A PERMANENT 450 SQUARE FOOT SIGN ON THE SIDE OF A PARKING GARAGE THAT, FROM MY EVALUATION, DOES NOT MEET THE PURPOSE OR INTENT OF THIS SIGN DISTRICT, WHICH SPECIFICALLY STATES THAT IT IS THE DISTRICT REGULATIONS ARE INSPIRED BY THE HIGH LEVEL OF PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY AND THE NEED TO MAXIMIZE EFFECTIVE ORIENTATION OF SIGNAGE TOWARDS THE WALKING PUBLIC.
I DO THINK THAT THERE IS LIKELY A PATH FOR THIS SIGN AND I'M, UM, HOPING TO FOLLOW UP WITH THE APPLICANT IS WHY I'VE RECOMMENDED IT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ALLOW FOR A CONVERSATION.
BUT I DON'T THINK SIMPLY LOOKING AT A DIFFERENT SIZE OR LOOKING AT AN ORIENTATION OF THE SIGN AS IT IS PROPOSED MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE PURPOSE FOR THIS DISTRICT.
AND I HOPE MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS WILL SUPPORT THE MOTION.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? OKAY, COMMISSIONERS, WE HAVE, UM, A MOTION, A SECOND TO CLOSE UP PUBLIC BOOK HEARING AND DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE THE ITEM.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.
ALRIGHT, COMMISSIONERS WILL GO TO NUMBER 18.
ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM? COMMISSIONERS ON NUMBER 18, COMMISS HAMPTON, YOU NEED A READ IN? OH, I DON'T KNOW.
DO WE NEED THESE READ IN DANIEL THE, THE MINUTE THE RECONSIDERATION? I'M SORRY, WHAT WAS THE QUESTION? DO WE NEED TO READ IN THE CONSIDERATION NUMBER 18 OR DO WE NEED TO READ THIS UNDER THE RECORD IN ORDER TO PLEASE? REAL QUICK,
[18. Items for Reconsideration Minutes Approval of Minutes of the July 25, 2024 City Plan Commission Hearing and the August 8, 2024 City Plan Commission Hearing.]
ITEM NUMBER 18 IS RECONSIDERATION OF ACTION TAKEN ON AUGUST 22ND, 2024, WHICH WAS TO APPROVE THE JULY 25TH CITY PLAN COMMISSION HEARING MEETING MINUTES IN THE AUGUST 8TH, 2024 CITY PLAN COMMISSION HEARING MEETING MINUTES.UH, COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM? SEEING NONE, COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, DO YOU HAVE MOTION? I DO IN THE, UH, MATTER OF RECONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES AND OF ACTION TAKEN ON AUGUST 22ND IN WHICH, UH, THE MOTION WAS TO APPROVE THE JULY 25TH, UH, CITY PLAN COMMISSION HEARING MINUTES IN THE AUGUST 8TH, 2024 CITY PLAN COMMISSION HEARING MINUTES I MOVE TO RECONSIDER.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER UH, HAMPTON FOR YOUR MOTION AND VICE CHAIR RUBIN FOR YOUR SECOND, ALTHOUGH IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.
UH, THANK YOU MR. CHAIR IN THE, UH, MATTER OF CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE JULY 25TH AND AUGUST 8TH CITY PLAN COMMISSION HEARING.
I MOVE TO HOLD THE MATTER UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL THE SEPTEMBER 19TH, 2024 MEETING.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HAMPE FOR YOUR MOTION.
COMMENTS? COMMISSIONER HAMPTON? I WAS JUST GONNA OBSERVE THEY'RE LONG, I NOTICED A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS.
I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE'VE DONE THIS AS WE'RE RECONSIDERING THEM AND WOULD APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO GIVE THEM A MORE DETAILED REVIEW.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HAMPTON.
UH, ANY OTHER DISCUSSIONS? CNN? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.
[APPROVAL OF MINUTES]
DO WE HAVE A MOTION FOR THE JUNE 17TH MINUTES? 17TH? AYE.OKAY, WE'RE NOT READY FOR THOSE.
I MOVE TO HOLD THE MINUTES UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL SEPTEMBER 19TH.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HAMPTON FOR YOUR MOTION.
CAN I GET, I THINK WHAT COMMISSIONER BLAIR DID YOU SAY? DID YOU WANT TO RECONSIDER THE, THE FORT DALLAS MATRIX? NO.
MR. MOORE? I JUST WANNA CLARIFY, COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, YOUR MOTION TO HOLD THE MINUTES.
DID THAT INCLUDE THE AUGUST 22ND? 20, 24 MINUTES AS WELL? THANK YOU MR. UM, MOORE FOR THE CLARIFICATION.
BOTH THE JUNE 17TH AND THE AUGUST 22ND, 2024.
PLAN, COMMISSION HEARING, CITY PLAN, COMMISSION HEARING MINUTES.
UH, COMMISSIONERS, IT IS 1 43 AND THAT CONCLUDES OUR HEARING.
WE'LL SEE YOU IN A COUPLE OF WEEKS.