* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.
          GOOD 
          [00:00:01]
MORNING. 
          LET'S GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED. 
          GOOD MORNING, COMMISSIONERS. 
          DISTRICT ONE, COMMISSIONER SCHOCK. 
          PRESENT, DISTRICT TWO. 
          COMMISSIONER HAMPTON. 
          PRESENT, DISTRICT THREE. 
          COMMISSIONER HERBERT, PRESENT, DISTRICT FOUR. 
          COMMISSIONER FORSYTH PRESENT, DISTRICT FIVE. 
          CHAIR SHAD PRESENT, DISTRICT SIX. 
          COMMISSIONER CARPENTER. 
          PRESENT, DISTRICT SEVEN. 
          COMMISSIONER WHEELER, REAGAN, DISTRICT EIGHT. 
          COMMISSIONER BLAIR? I'M HERE. 
          DISTRICT NINE. 
          COMMISSIONER SLEEPER. 
          DISTRICT 10. 
          COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT. 
          HERE. 
          DISTRICT 11, VACANT. 
          DISTRICT 12. 
          UM, COMMISSIONER HAWK DISTRICT 13. 
          UH, COMMISSIONER HALL HERE. 
          DISTRICT 14. 
          COMMISSIONER KINGSTON HERE AND PLACE 15 VICE CHAIR RUBIN, I'M HERE. 
          YOU HAVE A QUORUM, SIR. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          UH, GOOD MORNING COMMISSIONERS. 
          TODAY IS THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 27TH, 21ST, 2024 AT 9:08 AM WELCOME TO THE BRIEFING OF THE DALLAS CITY PLAN COMMISSION. 
          UH, GOOD MORNING COMMISSIONERS. 
          UM, HAVE A LONG AGENDA. 
          LOTS OF ITEMS. UH, I THINK WE CAN GET THROUGH IT. 
          UH, WE WILL GET THROUGH IT. 
          WE MUST GET THROUGH IT. 
          WE'RE GONNA START OFF, UH, WITH THE PARKING. 
          GOOD MORNING. 
          GOOD MORNING CHAIR. 
          GOOD MORNING, COMMISSIONERS. 
          LET'S SEE. 
          WHOOP. 
          OKAY. 
          I'M MICHAEL WADE, UH, INTERIM CHIEF PLANNER OF CODE AMENDMENTS FOR THE DEV PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. 
          I KNOW YOU HAVE A VERY FULL DAY TODAY. 
          SO MY, UM, MY POWERPOINT WAS PRETTY LONG THAT I SENT OUT. 
          I'M GONNA HIT THE HIGH POINTS OF EACH ONE, AND I THINK AS QUESTIONS ARISE, MAYBE WE CAN DIG INTO SOME MORE DETAILS. 
          WE'RE TALKING ABOUT OFF STREET PARKING AND LOADING THE CODE AMENDMENT. 
          THAT HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR A FEW YEARS NOW. 
          TODAY IS JUST THE BRIEFING. 
          OF COURSE, IT'S NOT A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE TOPIC, BUT WE DO WANT TO JUST, UH, GIVE YOU THE INFORMATION NEEDED FOR, UH, WHEN YOU DO COME BACK AND DISCUSS IT AT A PUBLIC HEARING. 
          WE'LL TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE BACKGROUND, UH, WHY THIS IS A TOPIC WORTH CONSIDERING. 
          THEN WE'LL JUMP RIGHT INTO THE PROPOSAL. 
          WE'LL TALK ABOUT THE TDMP, WE'LL TALK ABOUT PARKING MINIMUMS AND SOME DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS. 
          THEN WE'LL GO RIGHT INTO SOME CONCERNS THAT, UH, HAVE COME UP. 
          THERE ARE FOUR POINTS WHERE STAFF HAS, UM, COME UP WITH SOME RECOMMENDED REVISIONS. 
          THESE ARE GENERALLY JUST IN LINE WITH XX CONVERSATION. 
          THESE, UM, ARE REALLY JUST TWEAKS TO, UM, MAKE THIS AS GOOD OF A, A TOOL AS GOOD OF A CODE AMENDMENT AS WE CAN. 
          SO LET'S JUMP IN. 
          THIS BEGAN, UH, REALLY IT WAS FORMALLY AUTHORIZED IN 2019. 
          UM, THERE WERE CONVERSATIONS ON THE TOPIC BEFORE THAT A WHOLE LOT OF ZO OAC MEETINGS FOR THE TWO YEARS FOLLOWING, UH, MEETINGS, LISTENING SESSIONS, ALL OF THOSE ZO OAC MEETINGS, UH, WERE FUNCTIONALLY PUBLIC HEARINGS TOO. 
          THERE WAS A BREAK FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS DURING, UH, LEADERSHIP CHANGES, DEPARTMENT CHANGEOVER. 
          WE CAME BACK IN 2023. 
          THAT'S TYPO. 
          AUGUST 4TH AND EIGHTH 2023, WE HELD LISTENING SESSIONS, ADDITIONAL ZAC MEETINGS. 
          AND FINALLY, THE ZAC VOTE ON THE CODE AMENDMENT HAPPENED ON JANUARY 30TH, 2024. 
          THIS IS JUST SORT OF LISTING THE TOPICS AT EACH MEETING IN THE LISTENING SESSIONS CURRENTLY, AND I KNOW THAT THIS BODY IS VERY AWARE, SO I WON'T LINGER ON CURRENT REGULATIONS. 
          WE HAVE PARKING MINIMUMS PER LAND USE. 
          UM, THERE ARE SOME VARIANCES, THERE ARE SOME EXCEPTIONS, BUT VERY LIMITED. 
          AND THEN PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS KIND OF CARRY THEIR OWN CUSTOMIZED PUBLIC, UH, PARKING MINIMUMS. WE HAVE SEVERAL DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS IN OUR REGULATIONS. 
          THE WAY THIS INTERACTS WITH REVIEW AS A SITE PLAN COMES IN ZONING REVIEWERS, CHECK IT OUT FOR LARGER AND COMPLEX DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS THAT GO TO TRANSPORTATION REVIEWERS. 
          WE'RE STUDYING THIS BECAUSE OVER TIME THESE REGULATIONS, THESE PARKING REGULATIONS HAVE BEEN FOUND TO, UH, REALLY GET IN THE WAY OF SOME CITY GOALS. 
          SLOW AND PREVENT NEW HOUSING PRODUCTION, CONSTRAIN, ADAPTABLE, REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT OF EXISTING BUILDINGS IMPOSE A REALLY CUMBERSOME PROCESS FOR STAFF AND ANYONE TRYING TO GO THROUGH PERMITTING, GETTING THE PROJECT PERMITTED. 
          IT DISPROPORTIONATELY BURDENS SMALL BUSINESSES, AND THIS HAS AN EQUITY IMPACT. 
          PERPETUATES REALLY AN UNSAFE, UN WALKABLE, TOTALLY UNPLEASANT ENVIRONMENT. 
          VERY OFTEN, UH, IT WORKS AGAINST ADOPTED ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY GOALS, PRESERVES A FINANCIALLY UNDERPERFORMING LAND USE AND OVERALL 
          [00:05:01]
IS JUST A VERY GENERIC, RELATIVELY BASELESS SOLUTION THAT HAS VERY LITTLE TO DO WITH THE CONTEXT OF ANY GIVEN LAND USE. 
          THIS IS AN ECOSYSTEM TOO, SO NOT GOING THROUGH EVERYTHING, BUT WE KNOW THAT BUILDING PARKING CAUSES MORE DRIVING. 
          SO THIS IS NOT JUST ABOUT LAND USE, THIS IS ALSO ABOUT TRANSPORTATION BEHAVIOR. 
          THIS IS ABOUT HOW IT IMPACTS THE ENVIRONMENT. 
          THIS IS A CLIMATE AND HEALTH ISSUE. 
          THIS IS A WATER, UH, QUALITY ISSUE, A HEAT ISLAND EFFECT ISSUE, A BIODIVERSITY ISSUE. 
          THIS IS A FINANCIAL ISSUE. 
          AGAIN, LONG TENTACLES INTO THE ECOSYSTEM OF SOMEONE'S FINANCIAL LIFE. 
          IN DALLAS, PARKING SPACES ARE EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE TO BUILD. 
          THEY CAN BE. 
          UM, THIS ADDS UP TO INCREASES IN RENT, MONTHLY RENT INCREASES IN HOME PURCHASE PRICES, AND THEN GROCERY HOUSEHOLD ITEMS. EVERYTHING ELSE. 
          A DEVELOPER HAS TO ROLL IN THEIR COST FOR THEIR PARKING SPACES INTO THE PRODUCTS THAT THEY'RE SELLING. 
          IT'S VERY COSTLY. 
          THE DELAYS THAT THIS CAUSES AS SOMEONE GOES THROUGH PERMITTING, AND THEN IT'S COSTLY FROM A LAND USE PERSPECTIVE, WE HAVE A FINITE AMOUNT OF LAND IN THE CITY. 
          UM, IS PARKING REALLY THE BEST USE OF THAT LAND WHEN, UH, THERE COULD BE A MORE PRODUCTIVE TAXI USE THAT CONTRIBUTES TO SIDEWALKS, STREET REPAIR, ET CETERA. 
          AND THEN JUST WALKABILITY URBAN FABRIC, THE FEEL. 
          WE DON'T USE THE WORD FEEL IN ZONING CODE, BUT WE ALL KNOW THAT THIS IS A, A MENTAL AND HEALTH REALITY IN OUR WORLD. 
          IS THIS THE BEST, THE HIGHEST AND BEST LAND? USE OUR PLANS. 
          THESE ARE KIND OF OUR NORTH STAR FOR MAKING A LOT OF THESE DECISIONS. 
          THESE ARE ADOPTED PLANS. 
          THIS IS, THESE ARE THE DIRECTIONS THAT THE CITY HAS DECIDED TO GO. 
          ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND SEWER CHIP, MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS, HOUSING AFFORDABILITY AND OPTIONS, EQUITABLE ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY AND WALKABLE COMMUNITIES FORWARD. 
          DALLAS 2.0 WAS JUST ADOPTED. 
          THAT, UM, LEADS US TO PARKING MINIMUMS IN CERTAIN CONTEXTS. 
          INVESTIGATE REDUCTION IN REMOVAL OF RESTRICTIVE PARKING REQUIREMENTS, IMPACTING SMALL BUSINESSES OR DEVELOPMENT FEASIBILITY, UPDATE DEVELOPMENT CODE TO REDUCE OR ELIMINATE PARKING MINIMUMS IN TOD AREAS, CONSIDER IMPLEMENTATION OF PARKING MAXIMUMS IN THESE AREAS. 
          VERY IMPORTANTLY, ALSO, OUR COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL AND CLIMATE ACTION PLAN. 
          AND THEN CONNECT DALLAS AND MANY OF OUR OTHER PLANS DISCUSS HOW LAND USE IMPACTS TRANSPORTATION. 
          WE WANT TO AVOID INCREASE INCREASES IN SINGLE OCCUPANCY GASOLINE POWERED VEHICLE TRIPS. 
          WE'RE TRYING TO INCREASE THE MODE SHARE OF ALTERNATIVE FORMS OF TRANSPORTATION, AND THEN JUST INCREASE ACCESS, WHAT'S CONVENIENTLY AROUND US. 
          LASTLY, IN THESE PLANS, ALSO RECENTLY THIS YEAR, OUR ON-STREET PARKING AND CURB MANAGEMENT POLICY WAS ADOPTED AT CITY COUNCIL. 
          THAT SETS THE DIRECTION FOR MANAGING CURB PARKING IN OVER SPILL SITUATIONS WITH TOOLS LIKE PARKING BENEFIT DISTRICTS, LOCAL PARKING AND CURB MANAGEMENT PLANS, AND TIME LIMITED AND PAID PARKING AREAS, AND THEN DESCRIBES THE EXISTING AND UPDATES TO THE RESIDENTIAL PARKING ONLY PERMITS. 
          SO LET'S JUMP RIGHT INTO THE PROPOSAL. 
          AGAIN, IT'S THREE PARTS. 
          TRANSPORTATION, DEMAND MANAGEMENT PLAN, PARKING MINIMUMS AND PARKING DESIGN. 
          THE TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT PLAN, OR TDMP FROM HERE OUT IS JUST ASSEMBLING OUR CURRENT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PRACTICES INTO A FORMAL AND PREDICTABLE REVIEW PROGRAM THAT REQUIRES DEVELOPMENTS TO PLAN COMPREHENSIVELY FOR THEIR IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS. PARKING MINIMUMS. THIS PROPOSAL IS, UH, TO REMOVE PARKING MINIMUMS CITYWIDE TO ALLOW RIGHT SIZED PARKING SITE BY SITE. 
          AND THEN PARKING DESIGN THAT LEANS INTO WALKABILITY PROVIDES FOR WALKABILITY, ESPECIALLY. 
          LET'S TALK ABOUT THE TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT PLAN. 
          THIS IS SOMETHING THAT DOES HAPPEN IN CITIES AND COUNTIES AROUND THE COUNTRY. 
          ALSO IN EUROPE, GERMANY, ENGLAND, ET CETERA, WHERE IT JUST ASSEMBLING CURRENT STAFF CONSIDERATIONS FOR TRANSPORTATION REVIEW INTO A TRANSPARENT, PREDICTABLE REVIEW CAUSING DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS TO INCENTIVIZE THE USE OF SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION TYPES IN PURSUIT OF ADOPTED CITY TRANSPORTATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP GOALS. 
          THIS IS GENERALLY IN TWO PARTS. 
          UM, WHAT'S BEING INTRODUCED INTO THE CODE AS A NEW 51 A DASH 4.804. 
          THAT'S THE, THE BULK OF IT. 
          THAT IS THE PROCESS THAT IS, UH, TRIGGERING THRESHOLDS. 
          THAT IS REVIEW TYPE. 
          THAT'S THE, THE NARRATIVE OF THE DEVELOPMENT FROM BEGINNING TO END. 
          AND THEN A-T-D-M-P GUIDE THAT WOULD BE ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCIL. 
          THIS IS JUST THE TECHNICAL GUIDE, UH, AND WE'LL GET INTO WHAT'S IN THAT. 
          THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS PROGRAM, 
          [00:10:01]
WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING FOR THIS 4.804, A CHART OF PROJECT THRESHOLDS WOULD BE IN THE CODE, AND WE'LL LOOK AT THAT CHART IN A MINUTE. 
          THRESHOLDS ARE BASED ON RANGES OF NEW DWELLING UNITS, NEW COMMERCIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE, AND IN PARTICULAR, NON-RESIDENTIAL LAND USES. 
          REGARDLESS OF SCALE. 
          WHEN A DEVELOPMENT OR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT REACHES ONE OF THOSE THRESHOLDS, IT WILL UNDERGO A MINOR OR MAJOR REVIEW AT THE TIME OF SITE PLAN REVIEW. 
          IT'S REALLY JUST PART AND PARCEL WITH THE SITE PLAN REVIEW. 
          ADDITIONAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS REALLY JUST CODIFY WHAT STAFF ASK FOR ANYWAY. 
          WE WANT YOU TO LOOK AT TRAFFIC, WE WANT YOU TO LOOK AT TRANSIT. 
          WE WANT YOU TO LOOK AT PEDESTRIAN INFRASTRUCTURE, ET CETERA. 
          THE PROJECT IS ALSO ASSIGNED A POINT TARGET. 
          NOW, WHEN WE SAY ASSIGNED, AGAIN, THE CHART WILL HAVE POINT TARGETS, AND SO, UM, WE'LL SEE THE CHART. 
          THIS WILL BE ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCIL. 
          IT WILL BE PREDICTABLE. 
          THERE WILL BE NOTHING SURPRISING ABOUT IT. 
          UM, AT THE VERY FIRST CONCEPTION OF A DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, SOMEONE WILL BE ABLE TO GO ONLINE AND SEE, OKAY, THIS IS IN THIS LOCATION. 
          THIS IS, UH, OF THIS NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS, THIS NUMBER OF SQUARE FOOTAGE. 
          SO I'LL NEED TO HIT THIS NUMBER OF POINTS COMPLETELY TRANSPARENT AND PREDICTABLE. 
          THE POINT TARGET MUST BE REACHED BY IMPLEMENTATION OF STRATEGIES THAT ENCOURAGE REDUCTIONS IN SINGLE OCCUPANT GASOLINE POWERED VEHICLE TRIPS. 
          THESE STRATEGIES WILL BE IN THE TDMP GUIDE, ADOPTED, TRANSPARENT, PREDICTABLE IN SORT OF A MENU FORMAT, AND WILL INCLUDE THE POSSIBILITY OF CUSTOMIZING STRATEGIES. 
          SO IF YOU'RE IN A PART, IF YOU BEING THE DEVELOPER, IF YOU ARE IN A PARTICULAR LOCATION WITH A PARTICULAR KIND OF LAND USE, UH, THAT MAYBE DOESN'T WORK WELL IN, IN SOME OF THE STRATEGIES THAT ARE IN THE GUIDE, BRING OUR STAFF YOUR OWN IDEAS, TOTALLY OPEN FOR THAT. 
          UM, STRATEGIES ARE ASSIGNED POINTS. 
          SO ADD A BIKE RACK, GET FIVE POINTS, THAT KIND OF THING. 
          AND THE DEVELOPER ADDS THESE STRATEGIES UNTIL THEY REACH THE POINT TARGET. 
          THE TDMP, THE PLAN MUST BE APPROVED IN ORDER TO GET YOUR BUILDING PERMIT. 
          AND THEN WE'LL CHECK TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU'VE IMPLEMENTED THESE STRATEGIES IN ORDER TO BE ISSUED A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. 
          CURRENTLY, THERE ARE THREE REVIEW TYPES. 
          MINOR TO SUBMIT THE DOCUMENTS, IMPLEMENT STRATEGIES TO REACH YOUR POINT TARGET. 
          BOOM, YOU'RE GOOD TO GO THE MAJOR, SUBMIT THE DOCUMENTS, IMPLEMENT THE STRATEGIES, AND THEN YOU MAY NEED TO, UM, SUBMIT A TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS OR OTHER TRANSPORTATION STUDY MATERIALS. 
          NOW, THIS IS A PLACE OF THE FIRST STAFF RECOMMENDED REVISION. 
          IN XX RECOMMENDATION. 
          THERE WAS ALSO A DISCRETIONARY REVIEW. 
          THIS IS FOR DEVELOPMENTS IN, UM, STRANGE PLACES OR WITH ABNORMAL COLLECTIONS OF LAND USES, JUST THINGS WHERE WE CAN'T REALLY FORESEE EXACTLY WHAT THE TRANSPORTATION IMPACT IS GOING TO BE. 
          UH, THIS DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IS JUST A VERY EXPLICIT PLACE FOR OUR STAFF TO SAY, WE NEED YOU TO SUBMIT THESE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS TO TELL US HOW YOU'RE GONNA MANAGE THIS IMPACT. 
          ONE THING THAT WE'VE HEARD FROM THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY PRETTY CLEARLY IS THAT THEY WANT TO LIMIT UNPREDICTABILITY, AND THAT MAKES SENSE. 
          THAT HELPS THEM TO MOVE FASTER AND DELIVER THE HOMES AND BUSINESSES THAT THE CITY NEEDS. 
          SO, UM, THIS DISCRETIONARY REVIEW SIDE GAVE SOME PEOPLE SOME HEARTBURN. 
          IT'S SOMETHING THAT AFTER TALKING WITH STAFF ON THE IMPLEMENTATION SIDE OF THIS, WE DON'T THINK WE REALLY NEED. 
          AND SO THIS IS ONE PLACE, UM, THAT, UH, WE CAN CONSIDER A REVISION. 
          SO THIS IS THE CHART. 
          IT'S SMALL. 
          MAYBE ON YOUR, UH, POWERPOINT ON YOUR, IF YOU PRINTED IT OUT OR ON YOUR COMPUTER, YOU HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK THROUGH THIS. 
          THE LEFT SIDE OUTLINED IN YELLOW IS WHAT'S PROPOSED TO BE ADOPTED IN CODE. 
          THIS IS THE THRESHOLDS, THE NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS, THE NUMBER OF SQUARE FOOTAGE, PARTICULAR LAND USES, AND THE REVIEW TYPES. 
          THIS PLUS THE BLUE SECTION WOULD BE IN THE TDMP GUIDE. 
          THE BLUE SECTION ARE THE PARTICULAR NUMBERS. 
          WE ARE AT PROBABLY 70, 75% DRAFT ON THESE NUMBERS. 
          WE ARE WORKING WITH THE, UH, GDPC, THE GREATER DALLAS PLANNING COUNCIL ON REVIEWING THIS AND KIND OF REVIEWING THE GUIDE. 
          EXACTLY. 
          AND SO THESE NUMBERS AREN'T FINAL, BUT THEY DEMONSTRATE THE BALLPARK. 
          SO FOR INSTANCE, IF YOU ARE BUILDING A NEW BUILDING WITH 20 UNITS, YOU ARE NOT NEAR A, UH, RAIL STATION, YOU'RE NOT IN DOWNTOWN, YOU MIGHT HAVE A POINT TARGET OF ABOUT FIVE. 
          WE'VE CREATED THIS TO BE A VERY LIGHT TOUCH PROGRAM, MUCH LESS COMPLICATED OR BURDENSOME THAN IN OTHER CITIES. 
          UH, AND SO YOU CAN DO SOMETHING LIKE ADD AN ADDITIONAL BIKE RACK, UM, MAYBE A, A BIKE REPAIR FACILITY, SOMETHING RELATIVELY EASY. 
          YOU'VE GOT YOUR FIVE POINTS, YOU'RE GOOD TO GO. 
          JUST AN EXAMPLE OF THE MENU OF STRATEGIES. 
          NOW, THIS IS INTENDED TO BE EVENTUALLY ALL ONLINE. 
          ONE VERY EASY TO USE 
          [00:15:01]
PLATFORM, ALL THE MAPPING RESOURCES THAT YOU NEED. 
          UM, VERY EASY TO USE. 
          MODELED AFTER DENVER'S. 
          DENVER'S IS EXTREMELY EASY TO USE. 
          UM, BUT SO WE HAVE CATEGORIES, WE'VE GOT SUBCATEGORIES, BUT THE MOST IMPORTANT THING ARE THE STRATEGIES. 
          SO SUBSIDIZING TRANSIT PASSES IS WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT HERE. 
          UH, YOU SEE, OKAY, WE'RE IN A PLACE WHERE OUR POINT TARGET NEEDS 10 POINTS. 
          CALL UP DART, CALL UP, UH, DANIEL DICKERSON THERE USING THE, UM, REVIEW, OR EXCUSE ME, THE, THE A RESIDENTIAL, UM, PASS PROGRAM THAT THEY'RE BASICALLY JUST SITTING READY TO PUSH A BUTTON AND SET UP. 
          THEY'VE DONE IT IN OTHER PLACES TOO. 
          GET THAT SET UP WITH DART. 
          DART CALLS US, THE DEVELOPER CALLS US, THEY'VE DONE IT STAMP, YOU'RE GOOD TO GO. 
          YOU'VE GOT YOUR 10 POINTS THAT MEETS YOUR TARGET, SOMETHING LIKE THAT. 
          AND SO WE'VE, WE'VE WORKED WITH DART ON, UM, SETTING THIS UP, FOR EXAMPLE, WHETHER IT'S PROGRAMMATIC OR WHETHER IT'S, UM, PHYSICAL, SHOW US THAT IT'S IMPLEMENTED, YOU'RE GOOD TO GO. 
          CATEGORIES INCLUDE TRANSIT, SHARED MOBILITY, ELECTRIC VEHICLE INFRASTRUCTURE, LOADING MANAGEMENT, PEDESTRIAN REALM, ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION, PARKING, PRICING. 
          AND THEN SOMETHING MORE. 
          A MORE RECENT ADDITION IS JUST LOCATIONAL EFFICIENCY. 
          ARE YOU A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT? WHAT KIND OF USES ARE THERE THAT REALLY MAKE SENSE WHEN PUT TOGETHER? WHAT KIND OF LAND USES ARE YOU CLOSE TO? THIS IS ANOTHER COMMENT FROM GDPC AND FROM THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY EXAMPLE, STRATEGIES. 
          AGAIN, BICYCLE INFRASTRUCTURE, PEDESTRIAN INFRASTRUCTURE, UM, MAKING A SPECIAL DESIGN FOR PICKUP AND DROP OFF, UH, ACTIVITIES SO THAT YOU DON'T JUST HAVE TRUCKS IDLING OUTSIDE OF YOUR DEVELOPMENT. 
          ON THE PROGRAMMATIC SIDE, AGAIN, DART SUBSIDY, PROVIDING SHUTTLE SERVICES, UH, JOINING OR FORMING SOMETHING LIKE A TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY OR ANOTHER GROUP THAT CAN MANAGE PARKING AND TRANSPORTATION FOR A GROUP OF PROPERTIES. 
          THERE'S THE CHANCE FOR AN EXEMPTION TO THIS. 
          IF YOU ARE IN A PLACE WHERE ACTUALLY THE NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS AND THE NUMBER OF SQUARE FOOTAGE DON'T DIRECTLY TRANSLATE TO YOUR TRAFFIC IMPACT, MAYBE IT'S A PARTICULAR LAND USE A PARTICULAR LOCATION YOU CAN APPLY FOR A WAIVER TO THIS PROGRAM. 
          SO THERE'S FLEXIBILITY. 
          ALSO, I DIDN'T CREATE A SLIDE FOR THIS, BUT GOING BACK HERE AGAIN, YOU CAN CUSTOMIZE, UM, YOUR PARTICULAR ASSEMBLAGE OR JUST COME UP WITH A NEW STRATEGY THAT MAKES SENSE AND INCENTIVIZES PEOPLE TO, TO DRIVE ALONE A LITTLE BIT LESS AND THINK ABOUT WHAT OTHER OPTIONS ARE OUT THERE IF THEY WANT TO. 
          COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT, A MOBILITY CORRIDOR COORDINATOR, EXCUSE ME, MUST BE DESIGNATED AND KEPT UP WITH, UH, AT THE CITY AS A POINT OF CONTACT. 
          THIS IS JUST A POINT OF ACCOUNTABILITY, SOMEONE TO TALK TO TO MAKE SURE THAT THESE STRATEGIES ARE BEING IMPLEMENTED. 
          SELF-AUDITS FOR TWO YEARS, FROM THE POINT OF ISSUANCE OF THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, THIS CAN BE AS EASY AS A CITY PROVIDED SURVEY. 
          HERE'S SOME QUESTIONS TO ASK. 
          EMAIL TO YOUR RESIDENTS, SEND IT BACK. 
          YOU'RE DONE. 
          OTHER CITIES, AUSTIN, SAN FRANCISCO, OTHERS REQUIRE EXTREMELY LENGTHY AND TECHNICAL, UM, MONITORING DOCUMENTATION. 
          THAT'S NOT THE DIRECTION THAT WE'RE GOING RIGHT NOW. 
          STAFF CAN CHECK THE PROPERTY AT ANY TIME FOR IMPLEMENTATION WITH APPROPRIATE RESPECTFUL NOTICE TO THE PROPERTY. 
          UH, IF FOUND TO BE DELINQUENT, MAINLY WE'RE JUST ENCOURAGING YOU COME WORK WITH US TO, UH, ACHIEVE WHAT YOUR PLAN WAS OR WE CAN AMEND THE PLAN. 
          WE CAN CHANGE THE PLAN IF NEED BE. 
          BUT IN GENERAL, WORK WITH US TO ACHIEVE THE GOALS OF THE TDMP. 
          HERE'S ANOTHER POINT OF A STAFF RECOMMENDED REVISION. 
          SIMPLY ADDING ONE LINE TO THE COMPLIANCE SECTION OF THIS CODE, CLARIFYING THAT A PROPERTY NEEDS TO WORK WITH STAFF. 
          IN THE CASE OF A LOT OF PARKING SPILLOVER THAT IS PRODUCING TRUE NUISANCES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AROUND THE DEVELOPMENT PARKING MINIMUMS. THIS WILL BE MUCH EASIER TO EXPLAIN EVEN IF IT'S, UH, A HOT TOPIC AS WELL. 
          PARKING MINIMUMS, UH, REQUIRED OFF STREET PARKING FOR EACH LAND USE. 
          AND 4.2 HUNDRED JUST BECOMES ZERO. 
          WE'RE NOT REALLY CHANGING THE STRUCTURE ON THAT POINT. 
          UH, WE'RE JUST REDUCING IT TO ZERO. 
          SO THAT SORT OF, BASICALLY ALL OF THE PDS THAT STILL INTERRELATE WITH 51 A AND 51, UM, NONE OF THOSE LEGAL CONNECTIONS ARE BROKEN. 
          WE'LL TALK A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT PARKING MINIMUMS. JUST WANNA TOUCH ON LOADING MINIMUMS IN THE XX RECOMMENDATION. 
          IT CAME WITH THE LINE. 
          WELL, SO CURRENT, CURRENTLY, EXCUSE ME, MULTIFAMILY, UH, BUILDINGS HAVE NO MINIMUMS, NO MINIMUM LOADING. 
          THIS MAKES IT TOUGH WHEN A 200 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING COMES IN. 
          OUR TRANSPORTATION REVIEWERS HAVE TO SAY, WE KNOW THAT PEOPLE WILL BE MOVING IN AND MOVING OUT. 
          UM, 
          [00:20:01]
WHAT ARE YOU DOING FOR LOADING? AND THEY GET BLANK STARES. 
          THE XX RECOMMENDATION WAS TO ADD THE LINE. 
          ADEQUATE OFF STREET SPACE FOR LOADING MUST BE PROVIDED AT THE DIRECTOR'S DISCRETION. 
          C-SECTION 4.303 FOR LOADING REGULATIONS. 
          AFTER HEARING AGAIN FROM, UH, THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY, THERE'S A DESIRE TO LIMIT UNPREDICTABILITY. 
          TALKING THIS OVER WITH REVIEW STAFF, WE RECOMMEND GOING IN THE DIRECTION OF, JUST SHOW US ON THE PLANS HOW YOU'RE GOING TO MANAGE THE LOADING THAT HAPPENS. 
          SO IT'S NOT ABOUT THE NUMBER OF YOUR LOADING SPACES NECESSARILY, BUT JUST WHEN YOU TURN IN YOUR SITE PLAN, SHOW US ONSITE OR OFFSITE AREAS OF ANTICIPATED LOADING AND UNLOADING ACTIVITY, INCLUDING SHORT, SHORT TERM PICKUP AND DROP OFF MUST BE IDENTIFIED AT THE TIME, TIME OF BUILDING PERMIT, INCLUDING ANY RELEVANT BUILDING COMPONENTS SUCH AS FREIGHT, ELEVATOR, AND ENTRANCES. 
          JUST TO BEGIN THE CONVERSATION AND MAKE SURE THAT MANAGEMENT OF LOADING IS A TOPIC THAT THE DEVELOPER IS THINKING ABOUT. 
          PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS, WE HAVE A LOT OF THEM. 
          Y'ALL DEAL WITH THEM ALL THE TIME. 
          YOU KNOW THAT SOME OF THEM HAVE 100% THEIR OWN PARKING REQUIREMENTS. 
          THEY DON'T RELATE TO 51 A OR 51. 
          SO CHANGES THAT WE MAKE TO 51 A OR 51 DON'T NECESSARILY. 
          UH, AS FAR AS THE MINIMUMS DON'T NECESSARILY IMPACT THESE MINIMUMS. THERE ARE OTHERS THAT ARE COMPLETELY RELIANT ON 51 A AND 51. 
          THOSE WOULD BE IMPACTED BY A CHANGE TO ZERO MINIMUMS AND 51 A AND 51. 
          AND THEN OF COURSE, MANY OF THEM ARE JUST CUSTOMIZED. 
          IT WILL BE A PD THAT WAS SET UP FOR A HOSPITAL. 
          THE ONLY PARKING MINIMUM IN THAT PD IS FOUR HOSPITALS. 
          AND SO THAT PARKING MINIMUM THAT'S CUSTOMIZED AND SPECIFIED THERE WOULD REMAIN SOME LESSONS FROM OTHER CITIES. 
          BUFFALO JUST STARTING OFF WITH A VERY INTERESTING ONE. 
          BUFFALO REMOVED PARKING MINIMUMS CITYWIDE. 
          THEY SAW ON AVERAGE A 21% FEWER PARK NEW PARKING SPACES ACROSS THE CITY. 
          THE STUDY OF THIS BROKE THAT DOWN INTO MIXED USE, RES DEDICATED RESIDENTIAL AND DEDICATED COMMERCIAL. 
          THE TRUE REDUCTION WAS IN MIXED USE. 
          RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL DEDICATED PROPERTIES WERE STILL BUILDING MORE PARKING THAN THE PREVIOUS MINIMUM. 
          SO THOSE BY THEMSELVES, IF YOU TAKE MIXED USE OUT OF THE CALCULATION, ALL OF THESE, UH, PROPERTIES ARE STILL BUILDING A LOT MORE PARKING THAN THEY WERE REQUIRED TO IN THE FIRST PLACE. 
          WHERE IT WAS REALLY EFFECTIVE WAS MIXED USE PROPERTIES, AND ON AVERAGE, UH, 21% FEWER NEW PARKING SPACES WERE BEING BUILT. 
          AUSTIN HAS ELIMINATED, UH, PARKING MINIMUMS THAT WAS RECENT ENOUGH THAT WE CAN'T, WE DON'T HAVE DATA FROM THAT. 
          YES, IT'S, THIS TAKES TIME TO ROLL OUT, BUT THEY HAVE A PROGRAM CALLED AFFORDABILITY UNLOCKED THAT'S SIMILAR TO OUR M-I-H-D-B PROGRAM WHERE THE INCLUSION OF, UM, AFFORDABLE UNITS ALLOWS FLEXIBILITY IN PARKING. 
          THEY SAW 25% FEWER NEW PARKING SPACES UNDER THAT PROGRAM GOING CLOCKWISE DOWN TO SEATTLE. 
          SEATTLE PARKING REFORMS RESULTED IN 40% LESS NEW PARKING. 
          THAT'S SORT OF GETTING UP THERE INTO THE EYEBROW RAISING, UM, ZONE UNTIL YOU READ THE KING COUNTY REPORT THAT CAME OUT BEFORE THAT KING COUNTY WHERE SEATTLE IS LOCATED, UH, TOOK A SURVEY OF ALL PARKING SPACES ACROSS THE CITY, AND THEY SAW THAT 40% OF PARKING SPACES, I MEAN, ACROSS THE COUNTY, EXCUSE ME, 40% OF ALL PARKING SPACES ACROSS THE COUNTY ARE NEVER USED. 
          AND SO WITH THIS PARKING REFORM IN SET IN SEATTLE, WE SEE THAT, UH, THE NEW SITES WERE JUST RIGHT SIZED IN THE THE AMOUNT OF PARKING THAT THEY WERE DEVELOPING. 
          AND THEN LASTLY, MINNEAPOLIS, THEY'VE BEEN WORKING ON THIS INCREMENTALLY SINCE 2012. 
          IN 2012, THE AVERAGE NEW PARKING RATIO FOR MULTIFAMILY UNITS WAS 1.2 SPACES PER UNIT. 
          BY 2023, THEY HAD ELIMINATED MINIMUMS. IT WAS AT 0.7 PER UNIT. 
          THE STUDY THAT PRODUCED THESE NUMBERS DIDN'T BREAK DOWN THE, WHETHER THESE ARE MIXED USE OR JUST RESIDENTIAL. 
          UM, STAFF ANECDOTALLY HAVE OBSERVED A LOT OF MIXED USE BUILDINGS GOING UP THERE AND WONDER IF THIS IS SIMILAR TO BUFFALO, WHERE DEDICATED MULTI-FAMILY PROPERTIES ARE STILL BUILDING A LOT, BUT IT'S MIXED USE PROPERTIES WHERE YOU DON'T NEED TO DRIVE AS MUCH, WHERE THIS REALLY CAN, UH, PRODUCE AN IMPACT. 
          STAYING ON MINNEAPOLIS FOR A MINUTE, THEY'VE SEEN THAT THIS IMPACTS HOUSING PRICES. 
          WHILE THE REST OF MINNESOTA, UH, SAW INCREASES IN HOUSING PRICES, MINNEAPOLIS STAYED FLAT AND HOUSING PRICES. 
          THIS CAME AT THE TIME OF A COUPLE OF OTHER ZONING CHANGES TOO. 
          BUT THEIR PLANNING DIRECTOR HAS SAID A COUPLE OF TIMES NOW, NO SINGLE LEGISLATIVE ACTION DID MORE TO CONTRIBUTE TO HOUSING CREATION THAN THE ELIMINATION OF PARKING MINIMUMS. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT'S HAPPENING AROUND THE COUNTRY AND AROUND THE WORLD. 
          UH, 
          [00:25:01]
I'M NOT SHOWING THE THE COUNTRIES IN EUROPE ON THIS MAP, BUT THERE ARE SEVERAL. 
          THE RED DOTS ON THIS MAP HAVE ELIMINATED MINIMUMS COMPLETELY. 
          THE ORANGE DOTS WERE JUST SIGNIFICANT REDUCTIONS. 
          THE LATEST WAS NEWPORT NEWS IN VIRGINIA, THE LARGEST IN NORTH AMERICA, MEXICO CITY, TORONTO, EDMONTON, AND AUSTIN. 
          AND JUST REPEATING THE NOTE THAT IN DALLAS, WE'VE BEEN DOING THIS INCREMENTALLY THROUGH PDS, THROUGH THE M-I-H-D-B PROGRAM AND IN DOWNTOWN PARKING DESIGN, JUST A HANDFUL OF PARKING REQUIREMENTS. 
          UM, NEAR THE BEGINNING OF THIS STUDY, WE HAD INCLUDED A WHOLE LOT OF ENVIRONMENTAL, UM, STANDARDS IN THIS AS WELL. 
          THOSE HAVE OVERALL BEEN SLICED OFF AND REALLOCATED TO OUR IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE CODE AMENDMENT, WHICH HAS ALSO BEEN VOTED ON BY SO OAC AND IS, UH, COMING TO CPC REALLY RIGHT AFTER PARKING. 
          AND ANY OF THE THINGS THAT I'M ABOUT TO SAY ARE SUBJECT TO WAIVERS AND EXEMPTIONS IF THEY DON'T WORK FOR A PARTICULAR PROPERTY CURB CUTS THE LOCATION AND NUMBER OF CURB CUTS CAN REALLY IMPACT THE, UH, WALKABILITY AROUND A PROPERTY. 
          SO WE'RE PROPOSING CURB CUT LIMITATIONS ON JUST LOTS WITH ONE TO FOUR UNIT DWELLINGS. 
          ONE CURB CUT MAXIMUM OF 12 FEET OR 20 FEET IF IT'S A SHARED CURB CUT WITH A NEIGHBORING PROPERTY. 
          THIS IS MEASURED AT THE SIDEWALK. 
          SO THIS IS NOT A LIMITATION ON THE DRIVEWAY WIDTH. 
          AGAIN, THAT'S SOMETHING ELSE THAT WILL BE SORT OF APPROXIMATED IN THE IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE CODE AMENDMENT, BUT THIS IS JUST ON THE ENTRANCE, ON THE DRIVEWAY ENTRANCE CURB CUTS OFF OF ALLEYWAYS CURRENTLY FOR MULTIFAMILY PROPERTIES. 
          IF YOU ARE ADJACENT TO AN ALLEYWAY THAT IS ADJACENT TO SINGLE FAMILY DUPLEX OR TOWNHOME ZONING, YOU CAN'T LOCATE THE ENTRANCE TO YOUR PARKING LOT OFF OF THAT ALLEYWAY. 
          THAT CAUSES A LOT MORE CURB CUTS, A LOT MORE CONFLICT POINTS AT THE SIDEWALK OF STREETS AROUND THAT PROPERTY. 
          AND SO WE ARE PROPOSING, UM, TO DO AWAY WITH THAT LIMITATION. 
          AND THEN ALSO, UH, JUST TO DO AWAY WITH THE LIMITATION ON ENCLOSED PARKING SPACES THAT THEY NEED TO BE 20 FEET FROM ALLEYWAYS. 
          WE HAVE ELECTRIC, UH, GARAGE OPENERS. 
          NOW, PEDESTRIAN PATHS, THIS PROPOSED REQUIREMENT WOULD REQUIRE PEDESTRIAN PATHS THROUGH PARKING LOTS WITHIN 65 FEET OF ANY SPACE. 
          SO, UH, YOU'VE PROBABLY SEEN THIS IN SOME LARGER PARKING LOTS WHERE THERE'S ONE PATH GOING FROM THE DOOR TO THE SIDEWALK THAT JUST GETS THE PEDESTRIAN TO THE PEDESTRIAN NETWORK. 
          THE GOAL OF THIS IN GENERAL IS TO GIVE PEOPLE SAFE ACCESS FROM THEIR CAR TO THE FRONT DOOR. 
          THIS CAN COUNT SIDEWALKS IF IT'S WITHIN THAT 65 FEET DISTANCE FROM SPACES. 
          AND ONE MAIN PATH MUST CONNECT TO THE EXISTING PEDESTRIAN NETWORK AND MUST BE RAISED TO THE LEVEL OF THE CURB OR SIDEWALK AND BE OF CONTRASTING COLOR OR TEXTURE WHEN CROSSING A DRIVE. 
          DRY VILE SOME QUICK IMAGES, AGAIN, THESE ARE NOT UNCOMMON. 
          THE PARKING SETBACK, UH, PARKING FOR ANY USE WILL NEED TO BE LOCATED BEHIND ONE FRONT SETBACK LINE. 
          SO THERE ARE SITUATIONS OF CORNER LOTS THROUGH LOTS, ET CETERA. 
          THIS IS, UH, ONLY RELEVANT FOR ONE OF THOSE SETBACK, SETBACK LINES. 
          ONE OF THOSE FRONT SETBACK LINES. 
          DRAINAGE, INTRODUCING A PROHIBITION ON DRAINING SURFACE WATER FROM PARKING LOTS ACROSS THE SURFACE OF SIDEWALKS. 
          YOU CAN GO UNDER, YOU CAN GO AROUND. 
          THERE ARE A LOT OF TECHNIQUES FOR THIS. 
          THE ONE ITEM THAT WAS PROPOSED BY STAFF THAT WAS NOT RECOMMENDED BY ZAC WAS A REQUIREMENT ON THE LOCATION OF PARKING. 
          UH, THE REQUIREMENT WAS THAT PARKING MUST BE LOCATED TO THE REAR OR TO THE SIDE OF A BUILDING. 
          THIS WAS NOT RECOMMENDED BY ZAC. 
          SO IT'S NOT CURRENTLY A PART OF THE PROPOSAL. 
          THERE HAS BEEN AN IDEA FOR A REVISION TO MAKE IT AN INCENTIVE. 
          IF YOU LOCATE ALL OF YOUR PARKING BEHIND THE BUILDING, YOUR FRONT PORCH, FRONT STOOP, ET CETERA, CAN LOCATE IN THE FRONT SETBACK. 
          BICYCLE PARKING, JUST UPDATING DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS PROHIBITING A COUPLE OF STYLES OF RACKS THAT OUR ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLANNERS SAY ARE NOT ANYWHERE NEAR BEST PRACTICES. 
          AND CHANGING THE, UH, MINIMUM REQUIREMENT FROM ONE BIKE SPACE PER 25 REQUIRED VEHICLE SPACES TO ONE BIKE SPACE PER 20 PROVIDED VEHICLE SPACES WITH A MINIMUM OF TWO. 
          ALRIGHT, WE'LL JUST TALK ABOUT SOME CONCERNS AND SOME QUESTIONS THAT WE'VE HEARD, SOME GENERAL RESPONSES. 
          AND, UH, I'LL HAND IT BACK OVER TO YOU. 
          SO SOME QUESTIONS THAT WE'VE HEARD. 
          I NEED TO DRIVE MY KIDS. 
          I NEED TO DRIVE TO 
          [00:30:01]
CARRY MY KIDS AROUND FOR WORK OR BECAUSE I HAVE MOBILITY IMPAIRMENTS THAT PREVENT ME FROM ANY OTHER USE OF TRANSPORTATION. 
          HOW AM I SUPPORTED? JUST TO BE CLEAR ON THIS, A DA HANDICAP REGULATIONS ARE STILL IN EFFECT. 
          THOSE ARE FEDERAL REGULATIONS. 
          THERE ARE RATIO OF ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES TO ALL OTHER PARKING SPACES. 
          THE VERY FIRST PARKING SPACE NEEDS TO BE IN, UH, A VAN ACCESSIBLE SPACE. 
          AND THERE'S A WHOLE BODY OF DESIGN REGULATIONS AROUND THAT AND AROUND ACCESS TO THE FRONT DOOR, THOSE WILL STAY. 
          ADDITIONALLY, THE CITY ALLOWS VEHICLES WITH A HANDICAPPED DECAL OR LICENSE PLATE TO PARK IN METERED STREET PARKING FOR FREE. 
          THAT'S SOMETHING I DIDN'T KNOW UNTIL PERFORMING THIS STUDY. 
          ONE OF THE BEST KEPT SECRETS OF DALLAS, YOU CAN PARK IN A STREET METERED SPACE. 
          YOUR USUAL DESTINATIONS WILL STILL PROVIDE PARKING. 
          DEVELOPERS ARE STILL UNDER A GREAT AMOUNT OF PRESSURE TO BUILD ALL THE PARKING WE SAW, AGAIN, BRINGING UP BUFFALO, UM, ANYWHERE ELSE. 
          A LOT OF THE OTHER DEVELOPERS THAT YOU TALK TO, GENERALLY THEY'RE GONNA BE BUILDING LOADS OF PARKING. 
          THIS IS ABOUT FLEXIBILITY. 
          THIS IS ABOUT GETTING THE CITY OUT OF THE GAME OF REQUIRING ADDITIONAL PARKING THAT DON'T MAKE SENSE IN A GIVEN SITUATION. 
          THE RESULTING CHANGE FROM THIS AMENDMENT WILL BE VERY SLOW. 
          THIS IS A GENERATIONAL CHANGE THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, NOT JUST BECAUSE OF THE SLOW PACE OF DEVELOPMENT, BUT BECAUSE, UM, OF HOW JUST KIND OF LITTLE BIT BY LITTLE BIT THIS, UH, CHANGE WILL IMPACT THE CITY OVER TIME. 
          I LIVE IN A LOW DENSITY NEIGHBORHOOD NEXT TO MULTIFAMILY BUILDINGS THAT ALREADY PRODUCE PARKING ALONG THE PUBLIC CURB IN FRONT OF MY HOME. 
          WON'T THIS JUST INCREASE? MANY MULTIFAMILY BUILDINGS DO PREFERRED, UH, DO PRODUCE SPILLOVER PARKING AS WE'VE GONE THROUGH AND CHECKED PARTICULAR ONES THAT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT TO US TIME. 
          AND AGAIN, IT'S MANAGEMENT TIME AND AGAIN, THEY'RE CHARGING A CERTAIN FEE, UM, AND RESIDENTS CHOOSE TO OPT OUT OF IT. 
          THIS ISN'T A, A QUANTITY OF SPACES ISSUE. 
          AND THEN PARKING SPACES ARE VALUABLE TO PROPERTIES. 
          SO, UH, I KNOW THAT I LIVE IN AND NEAR MULTIFAMILY SPACES. 
          EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THOSE PARKING SPACES IS AN AMENITY THAT THEY WANT TO KEEP. 
          AND IF THEY'RE NOT KEEPING IT, IF THEY'RE REPLACING IT WITH SOMETHING ELSE, IT NEEDS TO MAKE SENSE IN THEIR PRO FORMA. 
          IT'S GOING TO BE EXPENSIVE TO LOSE, EXPENSIVE TO REPLACE. 
          AND, UM, VERY GENERALLY, THIS IS NOT GOING TO, NOT GOING TO WORK IN PROFORMA WITHOUT A MAJOR MAJOR, UH, REDEVELOPMENT. 
          I LIVE ON A LOW DENSITY BLOCK RIGHT NEXT TO A POPULAR COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR WHERE PARKING MINIMUMS LIMIT GROWTH, MAINTAIN THE EXISTING BUILT FORM AND KEEP OUT UNDESIRABLE LAND USES. 
          WE LOVE THESE AREAS SOMETIMES AND WE WANT MORE OF THEM. 
          VERY OFTEN THESE SHOULD NOT BE UNIQUE. 
          WE HAVE A SITUATION WHERE PEOPLE FROM AROUND THE CITY, PEOPLE FROM AROUND THE COUNTY COME SPECIFICALLY TO A COUPLE OF AREAS THAT WERE DEVELOPED BEFORE PARKING MINIMUMS. AND THEN WE DRIVE THERE AND THEN WE WONDER WHY WE CAN'T FIND PARKING THERE. 
          THESE ARE PLACES THAT, UM, WITH GUIDED ZONING CHANGES, UM, I CAN HAVE MY NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, RESTAURANT, I CAN HAVE MY WALKABLE AREA AND I WON'T NEED TO GO TO THE SAME PLACE THAT EVERYONE ELSE IS GOING. 
          INCREASES IN THE VALUE OF THESE AREAS ARE CHANGING, AND IT CHANGES THE NATURE OF WHICH BUSINESSES CAN LOCATE IN HIGH VALUE AREAS. 
          THE APPROPRIATENESS OF LAND USES ADDITIONALLY SHOULD BE TARGETED WITH LAND USE REGULATIONS, NOT PARKING REQUIREMENTS. 
          AND THEN FOR TARGETED LOCALIZED, UH, TRANSPORTATION ISSUES, TRAFFIC IMPACTS, WE HAVE THE ON STREET PARKING AND CURB MANAGEMENT POLICY. 
          AND THEN ADDITIONALLY IN THE END, PDS, WHICH ARE STILL AN OPTION TO ENACT, UH, PARKING MINIMUMS. EXCUSE ME. 
          WHAT ABOUT INCREMENTAL CHANGES? WE TOUCHED ON PDS DOWNTOWN AND M-I-H-D-B PROJECTS AS ONES THAT HAVE SORT OF BEEN ONGOING TEST SUBJECTS FOR THIS IDEA. 
          PARTIAL REDUCTIONS TO MINIMUMS REALLY DON'T ACHIEVE THE PERMITTING EFFICIENCY POSSIBLE WITH FULL ELIMINATION. 
          THAT'S, THAT'S A JUST CATEGORICAL DIFFERENCE. 
          GEOGRAPHICALLY. 
          ISOLATED REDUCTIONS DON'T ADDRESS, UM, VEHICLE MILES IN THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM IN ITS FULL BREADTH. 
          AS A REGIONAL, UH, SITUATION. 
          WE'RE DRIVING ACROSS DALLAS, WE'RE DRIVING TO FORT WORTH, WE'RE DRIVING TO DENTON AND ARLINGTON, ET CETERA. 
          AND THEN FULL REMOVAL ITSELF, AGAIN, IS EXPECTED TO JUST PRODUCE VERY SLOW CHANGE, INCREMENTAL PROGRESS TOWARD CITY ADOPT GOALS. 
          DO WE EXPECT INCREASES IN STREET PARKING MARGINALLY HERE AND THERE? THESE MAY HAPPEN. 
          STREET 
          [00:35:01]
PARKING GENERALLY IS ACCOUNTED FOR IN A LOT OF THE DESIGN OF STREETS. 
          NOT EVERY STREETS. 
          WE HAVE SOME, UH, NARROW ONES. 
          STREET PARKING SLOWS VEHICLES IN NEIGHBORHOODS, CREATING MORE AWARE AND SAFE DRIVING BEHAVIOR. 
          AND THEN, UH, WHEN WE BRIEFED THE CITY COUNCIL ON THIS IN SEPTEMBER, THE COUNCIL CALLED UP STAFF FROM DALLAS FIRE DEPARTMENT, DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT ASKING, IS THIS GOING TO BE A CONSIDERABLE BARRIER TO YOU DOING YOUR DUTIES? AND THEY SAID, REALLY, NO, WE CAN DO OUR DUTIES, UH, OF KEEPING THE CITY SAFE AND, UM, ADDRESSING FIRE EMERGENCIES WITHOUT STREET PARKING BEING A PROBLEM. 
          WILL THE TDMP REVIEW BURDEN DEVELOPMENT, ADD UNPREDICTABILITY AND SLOW DOWN DEVELOPMENT OF HOUSING AND BUSINESS? IT IS INTENDED TO DO THE EXACT OPPOSITE. 
          ADD PREDICTABILITY BY TRANSPARENTLY STATING EXPECTATIONS RIGHT UP FRONT THAT THE CITY IS ALREADY BRINGING UP, UH, AT THE TABLE WHEN THESE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS COME IN. 
          CITIES WITH TDMP REVIEWS HAVE REPORTED SUCCESS IN AVOIDING NEW TRAFFIC FROM NEW DEVELOPMENT. 
          I WAS JUST READING ABOUT CAMBRIDGE, MINNESOTA. 
          I THINK, UH, THEY, NO, IT WAS ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA. 
          THEY HAD A GROWTH OF 30, IS IT 33, 30 6,000 NEW DWELLING UNITS. 
          AND THEIR VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED INCREASED BY 2.3%, SO RELATIVELY LOW PERCENT FOR HOW MANY NEW RESIDENTS THEY HAD. 
          THE PROPOSED TDMP IS VERY LIGHT TOUCH AGAIN, UM, I'D ENCOURAGE YOU TO LOOK AT AUSTIN'S, LOOK AT DENVER'S, LOOK AT SAN FRANCISCO'S, UH, MINNEAPOLIS AND ST. 
          PAUL'S. 
          THESE ARE USED ALL OVER THE, ALL OVER THE COUNTRY. 
          AND OURS IS VERY SIMPLE, VERY DIRECT, AND ALL OF OUR IMPLEMENTATION IS INTENDED TO BE VERY DIRECT AND VERY EASY TO USE. 
          THAT'S OUR PRESENTATION FOR THE DAY. 
          ONE THING THAT WE'RE WANTING TO DO WITH CODE AMENDMENTS IN GENERAL IS WHEN WE BRING THEM TO THE CPC, ALLOW THE ZONING ORDINANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE CHAIR JUST TO MAKE A STATEMENT, A SUMMARY STATEMENT ABOUT THE DISCUSSION. 
          THIS SPENT A LONG TIME AT ZAC, SO WE THOUGHT IT WAS APPROPRIATE. 
          I'VE ASKED, UH, COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT TO MAKE A SHORT STATEMENT ON THAT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU SO MUCH, COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, WELL, UM, THANK YOU MR. WADE FOR, UH, A GREAT BRIEFING. 
          UM, I'M, I'M REALLY, UH, PROUD OF WHAT STAFF AND ZAC HAVE DONE ON THIS, UH, TOPIC SO FAR. 
          UM, I THINK, UM, THIS HAS THE, THIS, THIS, UH, AMENDED ORDINANCE HAS THE POTENTIAL TO DO MORE GOOD FOR THE CITY IN TERMS OF LAND USE AND URBAN DESIGN THAN ANYTHING ELSE WE'LL DO AT THIS HORSESHOE TODAY. 
          UM, THAT THIS IS, THIS IS REALLY, REALLY IMPORTANT. 
          UM, AS A, UM, PRACTICING COMMERCIAL ARCHITECT, THE FIRST THING YOU DO WHEN YOU START A PROJECT IS FIGURE OUT HOW TO SOLVE PARKING BEFORE YOU EVER EVEN DESIGN THE BUILDING. 
          AND IT REALLY SHOULDN'T HAVE TO BE THAT WAY. 
          UM, WE CONSISTENTLY BUILD 20 TO 30% MORE PARKING IN OUR PROJECTS THAN IS NEEDED. 
          AND SO, UM, I'M, I'M A BIG SUPPORTER OF THIS, UM, OF THIS ORDINANCE. 
          UM, I WOULD ENCOURAGE EVERYONE HERE TO, UH, DIG INTO THIS DRAFT AND CORRESPOND WITH, UH, WITH MICHAEL OF, CORRESPOND WITH DR. 
          RE WITH YOUR QUESTIONS. 
          UH, YOU KNOW, GET YOUR, GET ANSWERS TO YOUR QUESTIONS. 
          UH, TALK ABOUT, UH, ANY POTENTIAL EDITS YOU SEE WITH THEM. 
          UM, I WOULD LOVE TO SEE US, UH, TREAT THIS FRANKLY WITH SOME URGENCY. 
          UM, SO, UH, APPRECIATE, UH, ALL THE WORK THAT'S GONE INTO THIS SO FAR. 
          AND, AND REALLY FOR THE, THE ZAC COMMITTEE THAT WORKED ON THIS LONG BEFORE I WAS EVER APPOINTED TO ZAC, I'M, I'M STILL KIND OF A ROOKIE AT, UH, AT ZAC, AND SO THERE'S A WHOLE LOT OF WORK THAT WENT ON BEFORE I EVER CAME ON THE SCENE. 
          SO, UM, I IN PART GET TO TAKE CREDIT FOR THINGS THAT, THAT I DIDN'T DO. 
          SO, UM, THANKS FOR, UH, YOUR, UH, YOUR ATTENTION AND STUDY ON THIS. 
          I'LL, I'LL GIVE IT BACK TO YOU CHAIR. 
          THANK YOU, SIR. 
          QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONER HALL. 
          MR. WADE? UH, THANK YOU. 
          UH, I, I SERVED ON THAT ZAC COMMITTEE FOR FOUR YEARS. 
          UH, THIS BRINGS BACK A LOT. 
          UM, YOU MENTIONED, UH, REDUCTION OF GASOLINE POWERED VEHICLE TRIPS. 
          UH, THESE DAYS WE HAVE A LOT OF HYBRID VEHICLES. 
          WE'RE INTRODUCING ELECTRICAL VEHICLES. 
          UH, IS IT REDUCTION OF GASOLINE VEHICLES ONLY OR IS IT JUST VEHICLE TRAFFIC IN GENERAL? THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER FOR THE QUESTION. 
          [00:40:01]
IT'S BOTH. 
          UM, AND SO GENERALLY SPEAKING, UM, PEOPLE ARE DRIVING MOSTLY STILL GASOLINE POWERED VEHICLES. 
          THE REASON THAT WE SAY SINGLE OCCUPANT GASOLINE POWERED VEHICLE TRIPS, UM, BOTH OF THEM MATTER WHEN IT COMES TO TRANSPORTATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT. 
          SO IF SOMEONE DECIDES TO MOVE FROM THEIR GAS POWERED VEHICLE TO AN ELECTRIC VEHICLE BECAUSE THE DEVELOPMENT PROVIDED A CHARGING FACILITY, SOMETHING LIKE THAT MAKES IT VERY CONVENIENT. 
          ENVIRONMENTAL WIN, THEY'RE STILL OUT DRIVING ON THE ROADS, AND SO MAYBE THE SAFETY IMPACT ISN'T THERE. 
          BUT AS FAR AS OUR ENVIRONMENTAL GOALS, THAT'S SOMETHING IF SOMEONE IS DRIVING A GASOLINE POWERED VEHICLE ALONE AND THEY DECIDE TO CONTINUE DRIVING THAT ONE, BUT THEIR CAR CARPOOLING NOW, THEN THAT'S ANOTHER CAR THAT'S OFF THE ROAD BECAUSE THEY HAVE A PEDESTRIAN. 
          SO THAT ALSO CONTRIBUTES TO CITY GOALS. 
          SO IT'S A BOTH END SITUATION. 
          ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER? WELL, I MEAN, I COULD ASK QUESTIONS FOR HOURS, BUT I KNOW IT'S NOT APPROPRIATE TODAY. 
          UH, AT WHAT POINT ARE WE GOING TO BE GIVEN THE, THE FULL BODY OF THE, OF ALL THESE VARIOUS COMPONENTS OF THIS? SURE. 
          SO THE, ALL OF THE TEXT, UH, AMENDMENT IS ONLINE. 
          THE REPORT TO ZAC IS ONLINE. 
          UM, THE REVISIONS I'VE JUST INTRODUCED TODAY, I CAN SORT OF GIVE A, A WRITTEN DESCRIPTION OF THOSE. 
          THE TDMP GUIDE PORTION OF THAT, UH, THAT'S AGAIN AT ABOUT 75% AND THAT'S KIND OF UTMOST, UM, PRIORITY IN WHAT WE'RE WORKING OUT RIGHT NOW. 
          ITS FINAL FORM WILL BE ONLINE, UM, BUT RIGHT NOW IT'S A PDF. 
          AND SO THAT DRAFT IN THIS DRAFT FORM, HAPPY TO SEND OUT AS WELL. 
          YOU SAY IT'S AT 75% AT THIS TIME. 
          UH, WHEN ARE YOU ANTICIPATING IT BEING COMPLETE OR COMPLETE SUBJECT TO WHATEVER REVISIONS HAPPEN AS IT GOES THROUGH THE PROCESS? SURE. 
          THE MAIN THINGS THAT ARE BEING TWEAKED RIGHT NOW ARE THE NUMBERS, UH, THE NUMBERS OF THE POINTS. 
          AND SO THIS IS SOMETHING THAT I WILL BE LEAVING THIS ROOM AND WORKING ON, WOULD LOVE FOR IT TO BE WITHIN THE NEXT SEVEN TO 10 BUSINESS DAYS. 
          UM, IN THE END, THERE MIGHT, THERE WILL NEED TO BE SOME LEADERSHIP REVIEW OF IT AS WELL. 
          AND SO, UM, THE, I DON'T HAVE A DATE FOR YOU. 
          I THINK IF WE WANT TO TALK TO PDD LEADERSHIP AND REALLY ESTABLISH A HARD DATE THAT CAN BE VERY PREDICTABLE, THEN THAT'S, UH, THAT CAN BE WORTH DOING. 
          ARE YOU ANTICIPATING, YOU KNOW, WEEKS, MONTHS, WEEKS, WEEKS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, FOLLOWING UP, UH, I DID LISTEN TO THE LAST TWO ZAC MEETINGS ON, UH, THE, I WATCHED THE VIDEOS OF THE LAST TWO ZAC MEETINGS ON PARKING. 
          AND I KNOW THERE WERE A FAIR NUMBER OF QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PRESERVATION OF CUSTOM PARKING REQUIREMENTS WITHIN PDS. 
          AND YOUR, UH, PRESENTATION TODAY SEEMED TO ALSO INDICATE THAT THOSE WERE GOING TO BE, YOU KNOW, INTACT UNLESS THE PD WAS WRITTEN THAT IT JUST DEFERRED TO 51 A. 
          BUT WHEN I READ THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE, THERE WAS, UM, TEXT ADDED TO THE ORDINANCE THAT SAID THAT THE DIRECTOR HAD THE RIGHT TO ALTER THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS IN ANY PD AT THAT PERSON'S DISCRETION, WHICH SEEMED TO UNDERMINE WHAT IS IN THIS PRESENTATION AND WHAT WAS TOLD AS ZAC. 
          SO WHERE DOES THAT STAND NOW? HAS THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE BEEN MODIFIED? NO, IT HASN'T. 
          SO, UH, TO CLARIFY IN SAYING THAT IT, UM, AFFECTS OR DOESN'T AFFECT PDS, THAT'S JUST THE CHANGING OF THE, THE MINIMUM THAT'S IN 51 A TO ZERO. 
          SO THE LANGUAGE THAT IS IN 51 A ABOUT, UM, EXCEPTIONS. 
          SO CURRENTLY IT CAN BE A 5% REDUCTION, IT COULD BE A 10% REDUCTION. 
          THERE'S A LIMIT ON THAT, UM, THAT IS, THAT IS IN THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE AND THAT'S PROPOSED TO REMAIN. 
          AND SO INSOFAR AS THAT EXCEPTION, UM, CAN AFFECT A PD, THEN IT STILL CAN, AND I THINK I MIGHT TURN IT OVER TO DR. 
          ANDREA. 
          YEAH, WE LEGALLY CANNOT CHANGE WHAT'S IN AN ORDINANCE. 
          SO UNLESS THE ORDINANCE GIVES THE DIRECTOR ANY DISCRETION, EXACTLY WHAT MICHAEL WAS SAYING, SENDING BACK TO 51 A WHEN IT COMES TO REDUCTIONS AND STUFF LIKE THAT. 
          BUT NO, THIS CODE AMENDMENT MONEY IS NOT INTENDING TO CHANGE PDS. 
          I HAVE TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE TEXT THAT WAS THERE. 
          BUT MOVING ON TO THE QUESTION ABOUT ATTEMPTING TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF SINGLE OCCUPANCY, UH, VEHICLE TRIPS. 
          HOW DOES THAT CORRELATE TO, UH, THE SEEMING INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF, UH, BUSINESSES THAT SEEM TO BE GOING TO DRIVE THROUGH ONLY 'CAUSE HOW WOULD A TRAFFIC DEMAND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND A POINT SYSTEM, UH, SEEM TO BE THE GOALS OF THAT WOULD SEEM TO BE IN OPPOSITION TO THE GOALS OF A DRIVE THROUGH BUSINESS, WHICH WOULD SEEM TO WANT AS MANY PASSENGER VEHICLES MOVING THROUGH REGARDLESS OF HOW MANY OCCUPANTS THERE ARE. 
          SURE. 
          AND I AGREE WITH THAT CONCERN. 
          AND WHAT YOU'RE APPROACHING IS REALLY THE BOUNDS OF THE 
          [00:45:01]
SCOPE OF THE AMENDMENT THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT. 
          AND SO WHAT WE, WHAT WE CAN AFFECT IS PARKING AND PARKING REGULATIONS. 
          AND THEN FOR OUR TDMP PROGRAM, WE'RE REQUIRING A MAJOR REVIEW. 
          SO THAT'S A TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS, SUSTAINABLE MODES ANALYSIS REPORT, ET CETERA, FOR ANYTHING THAT ADDS A DRIVE-THROUGH OR DRIVE-IN COMPONENT. 
          WHAT THIS PARTICULAR STUDY ISN'T INTENDED TO AFFECT IS WHERE DRIVE-THROUGHS ARE LOCATED. 
          UM, THAT WOULD BE A DIFFERENT STUDY, I THINK WHERE DRIVE-THROUGHS ARE ON THE SITE OR WHERE THERE, WHERE DRIVE-THROUGHS ARE ALLOWED TO EXIST AS A LAND USE. 
          WELL, I WAS THINKING SECOND, BUT BOTH REALLY. 
          OKAY, THANK YOU. 
          I'LL, I'LL DEFER TO OTHER QUESTIONERS. 
          THANK YOU COMMISSIONER. 
          COMMISSIONER KINGSTON. 
          WELL, LIKE COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, I COULD PROBABLY SPEND THE REST OF TODAY ON THIS, BUT WE WON'T. 
          UM, YOU SORT OF SIDESTEPPED A QUESTION. 
          UM, I REPRESENT LOIS GREENVILLE AND WE USE PARKING TO MANAGE THE BALANCE OF USES. 
          IT'S REALLY THE ONLY WAY WE CAN DO IT LEGALLY UNDER STATE LAW. 
          AND IF WE ELIMINATE PARKING MINIMUMS, I ANTICIPATE THAT WHAT WE NOW HAVE AS NEIGHBORHOOD SERVING RETAIL ESTABLISHMENTS IN NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES WILL BECOME MORE BARS AND RESTAURANTS WITH THE ATTENDANT ISSUES THAT WE HAD SEEN IN THE PAST WHEN WE PASSED PD 8 42. 
          SO HOW DOES ELIMINATING ALL PARKING MINIMUMS BENEFIT LOIS GREENVILLE AND COMMUNITIES LIKE THAT? THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. 
          IN GENERAL, UM, WE'VE SEEN A DIFFERENCE IN, UH, WHICH THINKING SPEAKING BEFORE, I'M THINKING WHICH DIRECTION TO GO. 
          SO VERY GENERAL. 
          UM, THERE PROBABLY WILL BE A COUPLE OF NEW RESTAURANTS THERE. 
          IF IT'S BARS, YOU HAVE THE SEP REQUIREMENTS, SO YOU GET TO REVIEW EVERYTHING ABOUT THE SITE PLAN AND THE SITE AND SEE IF THAT FITS IN THERE. 
          UM, THE ON STREET PARKING AND LOADING, UH, EXCUSE ME, ON STREET, UM, PARKING AND CURB MANAGEMENT PLAN WE SEE AS THE MOST APPROPRIATE TOOL FOR A TARGETED NEIGHBORHOOD ONE CORRIDOR AND THE, OF COURSE, THE NEIGHBORHOOD OUTSIDE OF THAT, UH, WE KNOW THAT THERE ARE CONSERVATION DISTRICTS IN THE AREA TOO WITH PARKING MINIMUMS AND WE KNOW THAT THERE ARE PDS IN THE AREA AS WELL. 
          AND SO GENERALLY SPEAKING, UH, WE WOULD POINT AND WE HAVE POINTED IN THE PAST TO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC WORKS, AND THEN THE TOOLS THAT ARE IN THEIR PROPOSED POLICY AS THE BEST WAY TO, UH, IMPACT ONE AREA WHILE WE'RE LOOKING AT SOMETHING THAT IS IMPACTING THE CITY. 
          AND I THINK I WOULD TURN IT ALSO, UM, LET'S, LET'S START WITH DR. 
          UREA. 
          UM, AND THEN, YEAH, THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, I'VE BEEN SAYING THIS IN THE PAST TOO, LIKE PARKING IS ABOUT CARS AND DRIVING CARS. 
          LAND USE IS LAND USE. 
          SO I WOULD LOVE FOR THIS TO KIND OF LIKE BE DETACHED AS MICHAEL WAS SAYING, SUP UH, BARS REQUIRES SUVS. 
          THERE ARE A LOT OF OTHER ZONING OR LAND USE MECHANISMS TO ADDRESS THE NUISANCE THAT COMES WITH THE LAND USE. 
          WHEN IT COMES TO THE BENEFITS OF, UH, UM, ALLOWING THE FLEXIBILITY OF RIGHT SIZING, IT DEPENDS ON THE AREA. 
          I WOULD THINK THAT THE QUESTION FOR A NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD BE LIKE, DO YOU PREFER AN EMPTY PARKING LOT OR A PARKING LOT VERSUS A BUSINESS OR MORE HOUSING OR SOMETHING THAT HAS EYES ON THE STREET. 
          SO IT'S A MATTER OF WHAT DO YOU WANT THE CITY TO BE? DO YOU WANT THE CITY TO BE CARS AND PARKING LOTS OR DO YOU WANT THE CITY TO BE, UM, AGAIN, USABLE USES EYES ON THE STREETS, PEOPLE USING THOSE USES AS OPPOSED TO, I KEEP ON SAYING WE CAN JUST LOOK OUTSIDE THE WINDOW AND WE CAN COUNT THE PARKING LOTS IN DOWNTOWN AND ASK, IS THIS WHAT WE WANT FOR THE CITY? SO THAT'S, THAT WOULD BE A QUESTION. 
          I'M SORRY, LIKE IT'S A CODE AMENDMENT. 
          WE'RE NOT NECESSARILY TALKING ABOUT VISION, BUT ALSO I WOULD CAUTION US TO SAY WE WANT PARKING REQUIREMENTS JUST BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT THESE USES. 
          THEN LET'S TALK ABOUT THOSE USES WHEN WE ARE GONNA DO THE CODE REFORM INSTEAD OF USING INCENTIVIZING PEOPLE TO DRIVE AND HAVE MORE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES VERSUS ADDRESSING THE NUISANCE OF THE USES, THE POTENTIAL NUISANCE OF THE USES HEAD ON. 
          AND I HAVE ONE LAST THING, UM, ON THE LAND USE THING. 
          UM, SO JUST LIKE MICHAEL MENTIONED, BARS REQUIRES, BUT RESTAURANTS, WHEN THEY'RE WITHIN 330 FEET 
          [00:50:01]
OF A RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT WILL REQUIRE A RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY REVIEW. 
          IT IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW, BUT VERY TYPICAL CONDITIONS THAT ARE PUT ON RESTAURANT R ARE HOURS OF OPERATION, UH, PATIO LIMITATIONS, UM, OR MAYBE PROHIBITIONS JUST DEPENDING ON HOW THE LAYOUT, UH, IS LOOKING. 
          UM, AND ALSO NO SPEAKERS OUTSIDE. 
          AND SO THEY CAN ADDRESS SOUND AND, YOU KNOW, JUST KIND OF THE OPERATIONAL ASPECTS OF RESTAURANTS THAT ARE WITHIN 330 FEET OF SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICTS, WHICH IS ALREADY IN THE CODE THAT DOESN'T NEED ANY CODE REFORM RIGHT NOW. 
          UM, BUT PART OF THE PROBLEM IS, IS THAT PEOPLE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH PARKING TO BE CONSIDERED A RESTAURANT. 
          YOU KNOW, THEY DON'T HAVE ONE SPACE PER 100 SQUARE FEET A FLOOR AREA. 
          SO THEY INSTEAD CHANGE THEIR BUSINESS MODEL AND BECOME THIS TO-GO ONLY SITUATION, WHICH PROBABLY STILL HAS ALL THE IMPACT, BUT NO RAR REQUIREMENT. 
          SO THERE ARE SOME BUILT-IN PROTECTIONS FOR RESTAURANTS AND BARS, UH, IN NEIGHBORHOODS THAT, YOU KNOW, COULD ADDRESS A LOT OF THESE CONCERNS. 
          AND MAYBE IT'S ANOTHER CONVERSATION WE NEED TO HAVE, YOU KNOW, MAYBE THERE'S SOME BETTER PRACTICES FOR REERS. 
          BUT YOU KNOW, I THINK ANDREA AND, AND, AND ALL THE STAFF THAT, YOU KNOW, PERFORMS, UH, RER REVIEWS AND I KNOW THAT WE'VE HAD AN RER ON LOWER GREENVILLE THAT THE RESTAURANT DID NOT, UH, DID NOT LIKE, AND SO THEY APPEALED IT TO CPC AND I'M PRETTY SURE THAT ONE WAS DENIED. 
          SO THERE ARE PROTECTIONS ALREADY BUILT IN FOR RESTAURANTS AND BARS NEXT TO NEIGHBORHOODS REGARDLESS OF PARKING. 
          WELL, LOOK, I I'M NOT GONNA TAKE UP ALL OF OUR TIME ON THIS TODAY. 
          I AM, I'M CLEARLY NOT SOLD. 
          UM, BUT WHAT I WILL ASK THE NEXT TIME WE TALK ABOUT THIS IS HOW A MODIFIED DELTA OVERLAY MIGHT, UM, COME INTO PLAY. 
          SO I WOULD ASK THAT YOU ALL CONSIDER THAT AS WELL. 
          I'M NOT SURE THAT THERE'S MORE THAN ONE IN THE CITY. 
          I'M AWARE OF ONE AND THE, THE NATURE OF THAT AND WHAT THAT MEANS FOR THAT COMMUNITY. 
          ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          COMMISSIONER KINGSTON? YES, SIR. 
          MR. RAY, THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION. 
          IN MY TURN. 
          YES, I'M SORRY. 
          SORRY. 
          UM, YOU HAD MENTIONED, UH, CHAPTER 51 AND 51 A WERE, UH, REDUCING THE ZERO, BUT DIDN'T MENTION ANYTHING ABOUT ARTICLE 13. 
          CAN YOU SPEAK TO HOW THIS WILL AFFECT ARTICLE 13? IT, IT WILL ART AFFECT ARTICLE 13 EXACTLY THE SAME WAY I WAS. 
          IT'S ARTICLE 13 OF 51 A AND SO, UH, IT WOULD APPLY TO EVERYTHING THERE AS WELL. 
          YES, COMMISSIONER WHEELER FOLLOWED THAT COMMISSIONER HEAD THAT'S, UM, GOING THROUGH THE SOUTH DALLAS AREA PLAN. 
          UM, THE, UH, TASK FORCE THAT WAS CREATED, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE DID, WE HELD OFF ON, UM, LOOKING AT OUR PARKING REQUIREMENTS BECAUSE WE WERE HOPING THAT OAC WOULD'VE BEEN FURTHER ALONG. 
          UM, WE HAVE KIND OF THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT'S GOING ON IN LOWER GREENVILLE. 
          UM, WE CAN'T USE OUR CURRENT PARKING OUT FRONT, UM, THAT KIND OF MIMICS JEFFERSON, UM, DELORE GREENVILLE AND SOME OF THOSE OLDER AREAS AS A PARK. 
          WE CAN USE IT AS PARKING, BUT WE CAN'T USE IT IN OUR PARKING AGREEMENT. 
          AND BY NOT BEING ABLE TO USE IT IN OUR PARKING AGREEMENT, UM, IT'S A, IT'S, IT HAS, IT HAS CREATED A, UM, IT IT IS PART OF THE REASON THAT WE HAVE SO MANY EMPTY BU BUSINESSES, BUILDINGS THAT COULD BE UTILIZED FOR BUSINESSES, BUT BECAUSE THERE WERE, THEY DON'T HAVE ENOUGH PARKING OR THEY CAN'T UTILIZE PARKING THAT IS USED EVERY DAY. 
          HOW, HOW SOON WOULD THAT AFFECT THOSE PARTICULAR AREAS? BECAUSE PD 5, 9 5 REVERSE ACCESS OF 51 A, UM, AND HOW CLOSE ARE YOU ALL WORKING WITH, UM, ANDREA AND LONG-TERM PLANNING? UM, FOR THIS TYPE OF SITUATION? WE'RE LANDLOCK AND WE DON'T HAVE ANY, ANY OTHER OPTIONS FOR ADDITIONAL PARKING, BUT WE DO HAVE A LOT OF EMPTY BUILDINGS AND MOST THE NUMBER ONE REASON IS THEY DON'T HAVE THE PARKING THAT, THAT WAS BUILT AT THE TIME THAT THEY HAD, UM, THAT THE BUILDING WAS BUILT CAN NO LONGER BE USED AS PART OF, UM, REQUIRED SPACES IN THE PARKING AGREEMENT. 
          THANK YOU COMMISSIONER FOR THE QUESTION. 
          SO ANY, ANYWHERE THAT 51 A PARKING MINIMUMS ARE RELIED UPON THIS, THIS PROPOSAL WOULD JUST REMOVE THE NEED TO HAVE REQUIRED PARKING. 
          AND SO, UM, WHETHER THE RESTAURANT STILL NEEDS TO USE THAT PARKING AGREEMENT, UM, FOR PARKING, THAT WILL BE 
          [00:55:01]
BASED ON THE OPERATION, BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE THE PARKING AGREEMENTS ARE GETTING IN THE WAY OF THE OPERATION OF BUILDINGS OR THE ADAPTABLE REUSE OF THOSE BUILDINGS. 
          THIS PROPOSAL WILL JUST REMOVE THE NEED FOR THAT, UM, AT ALL. 
          AND SO WE HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH ANDREA, WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THE, UH, AREA PLANNING TEAM, THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING TEAM IN LOOKING AT, UM, PD 5 95 IN PARTICULAR, WE KNOW THAT THERE'S SOME VERY IMPORTANT CORRIDORS DOWN THERE THAT DO NEED ADDITIONAL FLEXIBILITY, NEED SOME ADDITIONAL, UM, JUST, UH, SOME LIVENING UP THAT WE'RE LOOKING FORWARD TO WITH ALL OF THE ATTENTION, UH, THAT THEY'VE BEEN GIVEN. 
          AND SO THIS PROPOSAL IN SO FAR AS 5 95 REFERS TO 51 A WOULD JUST REMOVE SOME OF THOSE CONSTRAINTS THAT LEAD TO THOSE PARKING AGREEMENTS IN THE FIRST PLACE. 
          OKAY. 
          AND WELL, DID YOU, YOU ALL DID SAY THAT THE CONCURRENTLY, IF THIS IS NOT APPROVED PRIOR TO, UM, THE, UM, THE P PD 5 9 5 AND THE AREA PLAN COMING FOR CPD, IT CAN AND CAN THEY, CAN LINDSEY AND PATRICK NOW GO AHEAD AND INCLUDE OR, OR, UM, TAKE IN CONSIDERATION WHAT WE'VE ASKED, UH, FOR PARKING AS FAR AS REDUCTION? I OWN ONE OF THOSE BUILDINGS. 
          MY CLIENTS NEVER PARK IN THE BACK. 
          THEY ONLY PARK OUT FRONT, UM, VERY SELDOM UNLESS WE GET A LARGE, AND I JUST HAVE AN OFFICE AND I NEVER NEEDED THE PARKING IN ARREAR. 
          SO AS PART OF THE PLAN THAT THEY'RE CREATING, THAT'S NOT ANY KIND OF CODE AMENDMENT, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THAT WILL BE FOLLOWED UP IMMEDIATELY WITH AN AUTHORIZED HEARING AND THAT WOULD, UH, BE AN OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS IN PD 5 95. 
          OKAY. 
          I, I THANK YOU BECAUSE WE'VE BEEN DEFINITELY WAITING ON ZAC FOR QUITE SOME TIME. 
          UM, WE EVEN CONSIDERED NOT EVEN TALKING ABOUT OUR, UM, THE CHANGES WE NEEDED FOR PARKING BECAUSE ZAC, WE WERE THINKING WE WERE REINVENTING THE WHEEL SINCE ZAC HAD ALREADY BEEN WORKING ON, AND WE'VE BEEN FIVE YEARS THEN SINCE YOU ALL BEEN IN SIX OR SEVEN. 
          THANK YOU COMMISSIONERS, IF I MAY, MR. CHAIR, COMMISSIONER HAMPTON. 
          THANK YOU. 
          I THINK WE'RE HAVING SOME TECHNICAL CHALLENGES AT THE MOMENT, SO THANK YOU. 
          UM, MR. WADE, THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION. 
          UM, I JUST, I WANTED TO FOLLOW UP ON, UM, COMMISSIONER WHEELER'S QUESTION. 
          I HAD A COUPLE OF OTHER ITEMS ON PARKING AGREEMENTS, AND I THINK IT'S VERY COMMON IN A LOT OF OUR OLDER AREAS OF TOWN. 
          I CAN THINK OF THREE DIFFERENT, UM, RETAIL AREAS, UM, IN MY, UM, DISTRICT WHERE EFFECTIVELY THERE'S PARKING IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. 
          IT SERVES THESE OLDER BUSINESSES. 
          THEY ALSO HAVE THE PARKING AGREEMENTS. 
          AND I THINK WHAT I UNDERSTOOD YOU TO SAY IS THAT THE PARKING AGREEMENTS WILL BE EVALUATED BASED ON WHATEVER THE NEW REQUIREMENTS ARE THAT ARE PASSED POTENTIALLY. 
          IF THERE'S NO MINIMUMS, THEN THERE WOULD BE NO PARKING. 
          BUT THEN HOW WOULD THAT BE SUBJECT TO THIS TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT AND CURB MANAGEMENT PLAN? BECAUSE EFFECTIVELY THERE IS NO CURB MANAGEMENT, THE CURB MANAGEMENT IS THE RIGHT OF WAY PARKING THAT SERVES THOSE BUSINESSES. 
          SO IS THAT ANYTHING THAT STAFF IS EVALUATED OR IS THAT SOMETHING THAT CAN BE PART OF OUR, OUR NEXT EVALUATION OF THIS? SURE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, SO THE, THE PURPOSE OF THE TDMP ISN'T TO IMPACT CURB PARKING. 
          UM, THAT'S THE, THE ON STREET PARKING AND CURB MANAGEMENT PLAN, THAT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC COURSES. 
          SO THAT'S JUST IN GENERAL, THE SCOPE OF THAT, UM, IS TO LOOK AT TRIPS GENERATED. 
          IT IS TO LOOK AT PARKING DEMAND, UM, BUT IT'S NOT INTENDED TO LOOK AT THE ON STREET PARKING OR AGREEMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN THAT PERTAIN TO THAT. 
          AM I UNDERSTANDING THE QUESTION CORRECTLY? WELL, I, I THINK, AND, AND MAYBE I NEED TO DIG IN A LITTLE BIT MORE ON THE DETAILS, BUT I THOUGHT WHAT I UNDERSTOOD WAS THAT TRAFFIC DEMAND MANAGEMENT WOULD ESTABLISH WHAT WOULD BE REQUIRED OR WHAT PROVISIONS THEY HIT THE POINT SYSTEM, BUT THAT A PART OF THAT WAS THE CURB MANAGEMENT REVIEW. 
          IS THAT NOT PART OF IT OR IT'S, AND I UNDERSTAND IT'S TWO SEPARATE THINGS, BUT I THOUGHT THEY WENT HAND IN HAND. 
          YEAH, I THINK CONCEPTUALLY THEY DO, THE TDMP IS NOT INTENDED TO DO A CURB MANAGEMENT REVIEW. 
          AND SO THERE ARE, UM, THERE ARE STRATEGIES IN THE TDMP THAT A DEVELOPER COULD CHOOSE TO ACHIEVE THEIR POINT TOTAL, FOR INSTANCE, HOW THEY ARRANGE LOADING ON SITE, HOW THEY, UM, AGAIN, HOW THEY DESIGN PARKING ON SITE. 
          UM, THIS IS SOMETHING WORTH ANOTHER THINK, BUT NO, THE, THE TDMP IS NOT INTENDED TO AFFECT OR REGULATE ON, ON STREET PARKING. 
          AND, AND I GUESS I MAY NEED TO CLARIFY BECAUSE IT'S, I GUESS COULD BE CONSIDERED ON STREET PARKING, BUT IT'S ACTUALLY PARKING SPACES THAT ARE SHARED. 
          THEY'RE ESSENTIALLY SPLIT BETWEEN THE PROPERTY AND THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. 
          THAT'S JUST FUNCTIONALLY HOW THEY 
          [01:00:01]
DEVELOPED. 
          I, AND I'LL SEND YOU A FEW EXAMPLES, IT'S JUST SOMETHING THAT I THINK THERE'S PROBABLY A LOT OF AREAS OF TOWN WHERE THIS OCCURS WHERE WE HAVE OLDER RETAIL. 
          AND YOU TOUCHED ON ONE OF THE OTHER THINGS I WANTED TO ASK ABOUT. 
          UM, WHEN YOU TALKED ABOUT LOADING, UM, YOU MENTIONED THAT IT WOULD SIMPLY BE REVIEWED AT PLANNING FOR WHETHER IT WAS OFF STREET OR ON STREET LOADING. 
          I WOULD SAY AS SOMEONE WHO REGULARLY NAVIGATES FROM EAST DALLAS TO DOWNTOWN, I'M FAMILIAR WITH HOW ON STREET LOADING WORKS OR DOESN'T WORK. 
          UM, AND I GUESS THIS MAY BE AGAIN, MORE OF THE CURB MANAGEMENT REVIEW VERSUS THE TRAFFIC REVIEW, BUT I THINK IT MIGHT BE HELPFUL TO UNDERSTAND THAT I'VE SEEN EVERYTHING FROM U-HAUL TRUCKS TO DUMPSTERS BEING PARKED OUT IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, WHICH I KNOW IS NOT CURRENTLY ALLOWED BY CODE, BUT IT'S HAPPENING. 
          BUT AS WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS, IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO UNDERSTAND JUST HOW WE'RE OVERALL THINKING ABOUT USING OUR RIGHT OF WAY. 
          BECAUSE I THINK PART OF WHAT I'M HEARING, WE'RE TRYING TO REIMAGINE HOW WE'RE DOING IT SO IT'S MORE EFFECTIVE FOR EVERYONE IN OUR CITY. 
          UM, SO IF YOU GUYS CAN JUST TAKE A LOOK AT THAT, AND AGAIN, I'M HAPPY TO SHARE A FEW EXAMPLES. 
          UM, I THINK ONE OF THE OTHER THINGS I WANTED TO UNDERSTAND IS, AS YOU GUYS ARE LOOKING AT THE TRAFFIC DEMAND, HOW ARE AREAS THAT AREN'T SERVED BY, UM, PUBLIC TRANSIT BEING CONSIDERED, HOW DOES THAT WORK WITHIN THE POINT SYSTEM? SURE. 
          IN A COUPLE OF WAYS. 
          SO, UM, FIRST OF ALL, JUST EVEN BEFORE THE POINT SYSTEM, UM, THIS IS JUST CODIFYING OUR REVIEW. 
          SO EVEN, EVEN BEFORE THE POINT SYSTEM, BEFORE THE INCENTIVE STRUCTURE, THE KIND OF REQUIRED INCENTIVE STRUCTURE, UM, THIS IS ABOUT BEING PREDICTABLE AND ADDING TRANSPARENCY TO WHAT WE'RE GOING TO ASK ANYWAY. 
          UM, BUT YOU'RE RIGHT, THERE WILL BE, UM, A GROUP OF SINGLE FAMILY HOMES THAT ARE BY NO BUS ROUTES, NO BICYCLE INFRASTRUCTURE, NOTHING LIKE THAT. 
          IN THOSE SITUATIONS, IF REALLY NO TDMP INCENTIVES MAKE ANY SENSE AT ALL, AND WE DON'T THINK THAT THEY WOULD, YOU KNOW, UM, OPEN UP OPTIONS FOR USERS OR FOR RESIDENTS, ET CETERA, THEN WE HAVE THE WAIVER PROCESS. 
          WE HAVE THE EXEMPTION PROCESS. 
          UM, THIS IS, AGAIN, THIS IS MEANT TO BE VERY LIGHT AND NOT BURDENSOME, BUT IT IS MEANT TO LOOK FOR OPPORTUNITIES. 
          AND THAT'S, THAT'S REALLY THE OVERARCHING SENTIMENT IS JUST SHOW US WHEN YOU COME TO US WITH YOUR 20 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING, THAT'S BY NOTHING AT ALL AND THERE ARE NO CITY PLANS TO DO ANYTHING. 
          SHOW US THAT THAT'S THE CASE. 
          THAT'S, THAT'S SENSIBLE. 
          THAT'S A MATTER OF THE LAND USE AND THE LOCAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM. 
          AND SO WE HAVE, IT'S PART OF THE PROVISION IN THERE IS, UH, AN EXEMPTION POSSIBILITY, A WAIVER POSSIBILITY. 
          OH, AND I'LL USE MAYBE AN OPPOSITE EXAMPLE, AND IT WAS SOMETHING THAT IS PART OF PD DOES REFER BACK TO BASE CODE AND IT WAS NEW DEVELOPMENT ON RIVERFRONT. 
          THERE IS NO BUS TRANSIT, THERE'S NOT ANYTHING THERE TODAY. 
          UM, THIS BODY PASSED, IT, IT, WE AGREED THAT IT WAS A GREAT OPPORTUNITY TO GET AHEAD OF GENTRIFICATION IN THE AREA TO GET AFFORDABLE HOUSING ON THE GROUND. 
          UM, AND WE ACTUALLY BUILT IN TRYING TO THINK ABOUT HOW IN THE FUTURE AS REDEVELOPMENT IS COMING, IT WAS AT THE TAIL END OF CAD IS WE KNOW CONVENTION CENTER, A LOT OF OTHER THINGS HAPPENING IN THE AREA. 
          AGAIN, I'M, I'M TRYING TO TAKE WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT AND LOOK INTO THE FUTURE AND UNDERSTAND HOW SOME OF THESE THINGS ARE GONNA BE, THINK OF, THOUGHT ABOUT WHEN WE MOVE TO A CITYWIDE APPLICATION, BECAUSE THAT ONE WAS OBVIOUSLY ABLE TO BE TAILORED. 
          WE'RE NOW MOVING THAT INTO, YOU KNOW, I THINK WHEN, YOU KNOW, A PROCESS FOR ALL DEVELOPERS TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THAT VERSUS HAVING TO GO THROUGH A PLAN DEVELOPMENT OR WHAT THE OTHER, YOU KNOW, TOOLS THAT WE DO HAVE AVAILABLE OR FUTURE TOOLS THAT WE'LL HAVE. 
          BUT, UM, I DON'T THINK IT'S ONLY SINGLE FAMILY. 
          I THINK THERE'S GONNA BE A LOT OF OPPORTUNITIES, UM, FOR DIFFERENT TYPES OF DEVELOPMENT. 
          SO AGAIN, JUST AN EXAMPLE TO MAYBE UNDERSTAND HOW THOSE TYPES OF PROJECTS WILL BE THOUGHT ABOUT. 
          AND ONE FINAL QUESTION, UM, HAD TO DO WITH, WHERE'S MY NOTES? OH, UM, AND IT'S JUST GOING BACK TO A QUESTION THAT YOU ASKED. 
          'CAUSE I KNOW IT WAS A LOT OF THE CONVERSATIONS THAT I HAD EARLY ON IN THIS, UM, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF OUR, UM, TOOLS THAT WE USE ARE INCENTIVE TOOLS. 
          AND SO WE TARGET, WHETHER IT'S REDUCTIONS, WHETHER IT'S M-I-H-D-B ON TRYING TO INCENTIVIZE THE TYPES OF DEVELOPMENTS YOU MENTIONED BUFFALO, OR WHERE THEY'RE REALLY SEEING IT IN THE MIXED USE PROJECTS, YOU KNOW, USING THAT APPROACH VERSUS SAYING, NO MINIMUMS, AND THEN HERE'S WHAT WE THINK THE OUTCOME WOULD BE. 
          BUT COULD YOU JUST GIVE A LITTLE BIT MORE CONTEXT ON WHY WE DON'T THINK USING, WHETHER IT'S AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORRIDOR, WHETHER IT'S HOUSING, YOU KNOW, WHETHER IT'S MIXED USE PROJECTS THAT WE, WE DON'T FOCUS THIS WHERE WE REALLY WANNA SEE OUR INVESTMENT GO VERSUS THE CITYWIDE APPROACH. 
          I CAN TAKE A CRACK AT THAT. 
          THIS IS A, A 20 YEAR, 2040 YEAR, 20 60, 20 80 KIND OF CONVERSATION. 
          AND 
          [01:05:01]
WHEN DIGGING INTO THE DATA AROUND THIS, IT GETS SPARSE IN SORT OF COMPARING THESE DIFFERENT STRATEGIES. 
          SO WHAT WOULD A 365 SQUARE MILE DELETION OF PARKING MINIMUMS MEAN COMPARED TO A KNOWN NUMBER, UNKNOWN NUMBER OF PROJECTS GOING THROUGH M-I-H-T-B, THAT KIND OF A THING. 
          UM, AND, AND IN PDS OF LOWER PARKING MINIMUMS. SO THERE'S NOT MUCH DATA FOR US TO SINK OUR TEETH IN, IN MAKING THAT KIND OF DISCERNMENT. 
          I THINK THAT'S, UM, AS WE'VE SORT OF CREATED THIS TOOL, UH, THAT'S A MATTER OF WHAT SYSTEM DO WE WANNA PURSUE, AND, UH, KIND OF A, A POLICY CONVERSATION. 
          THAT'S, THAT'S BEEN OUR ATTITUDE ABOUT IT. 
          IT'S MY ATTITUDE. 
          I THINK DR. 
          RE WANTED TO SAY SOMETHING. 
          SHE WAS MAKING MOVES LIKE SHE DID. 
          YEAH. 
          I, I WILL GO BACK TO, TO THE SAME, TO THE VISION. 
          LIKE, UH, OBVIOUSLY IT'S ALSO A LITTLE BIT OF TRANSPARENCY. 
          IT'S HARD TO HAVE REGULATIONS FOR SMALL BUSINESSES, SMALL DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE NOT SOPHISTICATED ENOUGH TO APPLY INCENTIVES. 
          UM, AND THEN YOU NEED TO AT SOME POINT RECOGNIZE, AS I SAID, WHAT IS THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE OF HAVING A ONE SIZE FITS ALL RATIO THAT IS COMPLETELY INSENSITIVE TO LOCATION OR DEVELOPMENT TYPE IT. 
          YOU'RE GONNA GET MORE CARS. 
          SO IF THAT'S THE MESSAGE THAT IS FOR THIS CITY, LIKE, YEAH, WE NEED PARKING TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYBODY DRIVES, THEN THAT'S THE VISION THAT WE HAVE FOR THE CITY. 
          IF NOT, WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO WORK TOWARDS DESIGN STANDARDS TOWARDS SAYING, NO, I CARE. 
          AS I SAID, MORE ABOUT WALKABILITY, ABOUT SAFE STREETS, ABOUT WHERE THE DRIVEWAY GOES. 
          WHEN YOU REQUIRE PARKING, YOU'RE GONNA GET CARS. 
          YOU'RE GONNA GET 30 FOOT WIDE DRIVEWAY DRIVE APPROACHES STABBING INTO YOUR SIDEWALKS. 
          YOU'RE GONNA GET FRONT YARDS THAT ARE COMPLETELY CONCRETE JUST BECAUSE YOU NEED ACCESS TO THOSE PARKING SPACES. 
          SO YOU, WE HAVE TO, WE HAVE THIS PARKING REQUIREMENTS SINCE 1960S. 
          IN 2012, WE INCREASED THEM, AND NOW LET'S GO AROUND THE CITY AND SEE DO THEY WORK? WHAT, WHAT DID WE GET? IS THE CITY MORE WALKABLE? IS THE CITY SAFER FOR BIKES? IS THE CITY SAFER FOR PEDESTRIANS? DO WE HAVE MORE OPPORTUNITIES FOR TRANSIT? WELL, IF WE DON'T, IT MEANS THAT WE NEED TO CHANGE THE APPROACH BECAUSE THIS INCENTIVE APPROACH HAS BEEN IN THE BOOKS FOR 40 YEARS. 
          DOES IT WORK? AS I SAID, LET'S GO IN THE FLAG ROOM AND LOOK, LOOK, LOOK, UM, OUTSIDE AND COUNT THE NUMBER OF SURFACE PARKING LOTS IN DOWNTOWN AND DOWNTOWN HAS REDUCED REQUIREMENTS AND INCENTIVES. 
          DOES IT WORK? SO IT GOES BACK TO THE VISION AND THE QUESTION THAT YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU. 
          WHAT DO WE WANT FROM OUR CITY? WELL, THANK YOU FOR THAT. 
          I WOULD ALSO JUST OBSERVE, IN THE CASE OF DOWNTOWN, I THINK WE HAVE OTHER CHALLENGES THAT HAVE LED TO A LOT OF THE SURFACE PARKING LOTS THAT EXIST THERE, HAVING WATCHED A NUMBER OF THOSE BUILDINGS COME DOWN, SADLY. 
          UM, BUT I DON'T DISAGREE THAT CERTAINLY PARKING IS A COMPONENT OF CREATING, UM, OR HOW WE ADDRESS PARKING AS A, AS A COMPONENT OF HOW WE ADDRESS WALKABLE CITIES. 
          I GUESS ONE THING I DO WANNA MAKE, AND AGAIN, I THINK IT'S NOT PARKING RELATED, BUT CURB MANAGEMENT RELATED. 
          YOU MENTIONED THE EXAMPLE OF THE 30 FOOT DRIVE ISS SERVING. 
          THAT WOULDN'T ACTUALLY BE PROHIBITED WITH WHAT'S IN FRONT OF US THOUGH, WOULD IT? I THINK WE HAVE ONE OF THE DESIGN STANDARDS WHERE WE TRY TO LIMIT THAT. 
          UH, AND WE ALSO HAVE OTHER TYPE OF DESIGN STANDARDS THAT WE WANNA BRING FORTH. 
          THAT'S THE EXACT PURPOSE OF, OKAY, LET'S LOOK AT QUALITY OF PARKING, QUALITY OF ACCESS TO YOUR LOT AS OPPOSED TO LIKE, YOU NEED 500 PARKING SPOTS. 
          UH, I WOULD SAY YES, WE WOULD ADDRESS THAT THE SAME. 
          WE WOULD ADDRESS THAT WITH IMPERVIOUS CURVE, UH, SURFACE. 
          BUT AS I SAID, LIKE RIGHT NOW, BECAUSE PARKING IS TIED TO THE USE, IT'S REALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO OCCUPY HISTORICAL STRUCTURES. 
          PREEXISTING CONDITIONS WITH USES IS REALLY HARD. 
          EXACTLY WHAT COMMISSIONER, UM, UM, WHEELER WAS SAYING IS REALLY HARD TO MAKE IT WORK BECAUSE THAT'S NOT HOW THE CITY BEHAVES. 
          THAT'S NOT HOW THE USES BEHAVE. 
          SO I WOULD SAY YES, WE DO ADDRESS THAT. 
          WE DO HAVE CONDITION TO, UH, MINIMIZE THE WIDTH OF DRIVEWAYS AND DISTANCE BETWEEN THOSE, THAT TYPE OF QUALITY WE WANNA TALK ABOUT, NOT, OKAY. 
          YOU NEED A THOUSAND PARKING SPOTS. 
          AS I SAID, WHEN A DEVELOPER COMES IN AND WE SAY, OH, WE WOULD LIKE FOR YOU TO HAVE A SIX FOOT SIDEWALK AND STREET TREES AND PARKING BEHIND THE BUILDING, AND WHERE'S YOUR DOOR STOP? AND THEY SAID, I NEED A THOUSAND PARKING SPOTS, OR I NEED A HUNDRED PARKING SPOTS. 
          OKAY, ACCESS TO DOWNTOWN GARAGE RAMP, ACCESS TO ABOVE RAMP MEANS DOUBLE DRIVEWAYS. 
          SO WE ARE NOT 
          [01:10:01]
ACTUALLY MAKING IT WORK BECAUSE PARKING IS GONNA TRUMP EVERYTHING ELSE THAT WE WANNA BUILD IN THE CITY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          BUT I JUST , I'M, AND I APPRECIATE ALL THE CONTEXT. 
          SO IT'S RELATED, BUT IT'S NOT, OR, WELL, THIS HELPS UNLOCK THE ABILITY TO HAVE THE DESIGN STANDARDS THAT WOULD LEAD TO THE CHANGE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          WITHOUT A DOUBT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          COMMISSIONER. 
          UH, BLAIR FELL BY COMMISSIONER HERBERT. 
          UM, THANK YOU. 
          AND I WOULD LIKE TO, UH, TO PIGGYBACK ON SOMETHING THAT COMMISSIONER HAMPTON SAID ABOUT, UH, NON-URBAN AREAS IN THE CITY. 
          I HAVE A, I HAVE THE LARGEST, IF NOT PROBAB. 
          WELL, I HAVE THE LARGEST NON-URBAN AREA IN THE CITY WHO ALSO DOES NOT HAVE ANY MEANS OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION. 
          MY DISTRICT ONLY HAS ONE DARK RAIL LINE IN OVER 50 SQUARE MILES, AND IT HAS VERY LITTLE CONNECTIVITY TO JOBS. 
          WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE INLAND PORT, ACTUALLY. 
          AND WHEN YOU LOOK AT MY WESTERN AREA, DART HAS COMPLE COMPLETE, WELL, 95% LEFT THE COMMUNITY. 
          SO I, THE ONLY MEANS WE HAVE IS, IS USING A CAR. 
          AND ALTHOUGH WE DO USE URBAN STANDARDS, AND WE AND STAFF TRIES TO USE URBAN STANDARDS IN OUR RURAL AREA, AND WE HAVE A PLAN THAT'S OUTDATED, AND WE'VE BEEN WAITING FOR FIVE YEARS TO UPDATE IT, TO POSSIBLY INCORPORATE SOME OF THE STANDARDS THAT THE CITY WOULD LIKE FOR HOUSING. 
          BUT WHAT WE FIND IS IT, BECAUSE OUR HOUSING IS ALSO EXTREMELY, UH, UH, AFFORDABLE IN COMPARISON TO A LOT OF AREAS IN THE CITY, UM, IT'S STILL NOT WHEN WE, IT'S STILL NOT AFFORDABLE ENOUGH. 
          AND BECAUSE THERE'S NO TRA NO PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION, WE ALSO SEE, UM, FIVE AND SIX CARS TO ONE HOUSEHOLD WITH NOT ENOUGH PARKING. 
          UM, AND BECAUSE THE, THE COMMERCIAL AREAS ARE DESIGNED MORE URBAN ISH, THEY'RE, THEY PARK ON THE STREET BECAUSE THERE'S STILL NOT ENOUGH PARKING BECAUSE IN ORDER TO GET TO 'EM, THEY HAVE TO DRIVE. 
          SO WHEN, AND WE DON'T GET THE BONUSES BECAUSE THE DEVELOPERS DON'T COME AND OFFER THOSE IN, OR THOSE INCENTIVES ARE NOT APPROPRIATE. 
          AND MY AREA. 
          SO WE, IT SEEMS WITH WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, MY DISTRICT WOULD BE LEFT WITH NO INCENTIVES AND ON THE, UM, ON THE MERCY OF DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS AND, AND THESE AND ARCHITECTS WHO APPRECIATE THE NEEDS OF THE COMMUNITY IN WHICH THEY'RE, THEY'RE THEY'RE BUILDING TO, HOW CAN WE WRITE, HOW, HOW CAN WE, AND, AND, AND LET ME ALSO SAY I APPRECIATE THE PARKING CHANGES THAT ARE REQUIRED. 
          I APPRECIATE THAT THERE ARE DEVELOPERS WHO, WHO PARK AND, AND WHO BUILD AND WHO CAN, WHO ARE CONSIDERATE OF THE NEEDS OF THE COMMUNITY. 
          I, I I I, BUT HOW DO WE CODIFY THAT IN THE REDUCTION WELL, OR IN MAKING IT THAT THERE'S NO MINIMUMS, UM, WHEN WE ARE SEEING THAT WE HAVE SOME NEEDS THAT AREN'T BEING MET. 
          SURE, THANK YOU. 
          UM, WHEN WE LOOK GENERALLY AT THE NUMBERS OF CAR OWNERSHIP BY INCOME, CAR OWNERSHIP DROPS OFF DRAMATICALLY IN THE STATE OF TEXAS AND IN AMERICA, UM, AS YOU REACH ABOUT, I THINK IT'S 55, 40% OF A MI. 
          AND SO THERE DEFINITELY ARE THOSE HOUSEHOLDS WITH SIX CARS. 
          YOU'RE RIGHT. 
          AND THEY'RE PARKING ON THE CURB, GENERALLY SPEAKING, WHEN MOST OF THE HOUSEHOLDS AT THAT AFFORDABILITY 
          [01:15:01]
GO TO THE GROCERY STORE, THEY'RE PAYING EXTRA PRICES. 
          AND THE, THE IMAGE ON THE, UM, BOTTOM OF THE SCREEN IS A GROCERY STORE PARKING LOT. 
          UM, THEY'RE PAYING EXTRA FOR THEIR GROCERIES BECAUSE THE DEVELOPER HAD TO BUILD THOSE PARKING SPACES THAT MOSTLY SIT UNUSED. 
          UM, AND SO I THINK WE CAN KIND OF COMPARE INDIVIDUAL INTERSECTION INTERSECTIONS, INDIVIDUAL, UH, SHOPPING CENTERS, ET CETERA. 
          BUT OVERALL, WE HAVE A HORRIBLY LARGE AMOUNT OF SPACES THAT ARE UNUSED. 
          AND SO ARE THESE THE LOCATIONS THAT ANY GIVEN HOUSEHOLD NEEDS TO GO? I DON'T KNOW. 
          THAT'S, THAT'S UP TO THE HOUSEHOLD. 
          BUT, UH, THESE ARE GROCERY STORES, THESE ARE SALONS, THESE ARE, UM, THESE ARE CHURCH PARKING LOTS, THESE KINDS OF THINGS. 
          AND, UM, OVERALL, AS THESE LAND USES COME THROUGH OUR TDMP PROCESS, UH, WE LOOK AT THOSE AND WE SAY, AGAIN, THESE AREN'T PARKING MINIMUMS, BUT THIS IS EXPECTED. 
          THIS IS A, A BIG TRIP GENERATOR. 
          IT'S EXPECTED TO DRAW ONE HUNDRED, ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY, ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY, UH, TRIPS PER HOUR AT THE PEAK HOUR. 
          WHAT CAN WE DO WITH THIS? AND HOW CAN WE, UM, GUIDE THIS DEVELOPER TO DO IT IN SUCH A WAY THAT PEOPLE DON'T NEED TO DRIVE HERE, UM, AS MUCH. 
          AND SO AGAIN, WE'RE LOOKING AT THE DATA OF WHO, WHO OWNS CARS. 
          WE SEE GREATER CAR OWNERSHIP AT THE HIGHER INCOME LEVELS, AND IT'S THOSE FOLKS WHO REALLY BENEFIT FROM HAVING KIND OF FREE AND ABUNDANT PARKING EVERYWHERE IN THE CITY. 
          AND SO, UM, IF THAT'S A PLACE THAT'S, UH, STAFF CAN BRING MORE DATA JUST TO SORT OF DISCUSS THE TOPIC OF CAR OWNERSHIP AND AFFORDABILITY, WE CAN DO THAT. 
          AND I WILL CONTINUE THE ANSWER. 
          SORRY ABOUT THAT. 
          UM, I WOULD SAY THAT, UM, FIRST OF ALL, LIKE HAVING A CODE THAT DOESN'T REQUIRE PARKING MINIMUM, IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT YOU CAN PROVIDE PARKING AND OBVIOUSLY PARKING WILL BE PROVIDED PER WHATEVER THE DEMANDS OF THE MARKET. 
          YOU KNOW, EVERYTHING HAS TO BE VIABLE, RIGHT? UH, BECAUSE WHAT CAN KILL A BUSINESS IS A REQUIREMENT THAT'S UNREALISTIC AND UNALIGNED WITH THE CONTEXT OF THE AREA OR, UH, NOT PROVIDING IT WHERE, WHEN THE NEIGHBORS OR THE, THE, THE CUSTOMERS NEED IT. 
          SO I WOULD SAY THAT IT WILL CONTINUE TO BE PROVIDED. 
          WE HAVE INDUCED THE DEMAND FOR DRIVING IN THE CITY FOR SO LONG, WE WILL FOR SURE SEE, CONTINUE TO SEE PARKING BEING PROVIDED IN ABUNDANT AMOUNTS, BECAUSE THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS. 
          AND THEN I WILL MAKE A COMMENT, UM, THAT NO PARKING MINIMUM PROVISION IN A CODE IS NOT SOMETHING THAT IT'S URBAN. 
          UM, ENCAGE ALASKA ELIMINATED THEIR MINIMUMS, AND I DON'T KNOW IF THEY HAVE TRANSIT AT ALL. 
          IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH TRANSIT. 
          IT HAS TO DO WITH ALL BEHAVIORS, SHORTER DISTANCES, HAVING SERVICES CLOSER TO YOUR HOUSE THAT DON'T HAVE ADDED COST. 
          IT HAS TO DO WITH ELIMINATE, UH, I'M SORRY, LIMITING THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE. 
          LIKE WE SURELY DON'T WANT THOSE RURAL AREAS TO BECOME SURFACE PARKING LOTS, RIGHT? WE WANT THEM TO BECOME, UH, SENSITIVE TO THEIR CONTEXT AND CONTINUE TO SERVE THE COMMUNITY. 
          AND I'LL ALSO MAKE A COMMENT. 
          UM, I GREW UP IN A RURAL AREA AND PARKING WAS NOT REQUIRED BECAUSE PEOPLE BY NATURE, WALK, BIKE AND ALSO DRIVE. 
          SO THERE ARE WAY MORE MODES OF TRANSPORTATION THAN JUST CARS AND TRANSIT. 
          UM, THERE IS A LOT OF MICRO, THERE IS A, THERE IS A MICROORGANISM IN ANY NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE YOU NEED YOUR DAILY NEEDS AND YOU CAN WALK OR YOU CAN BIKE, OR AGAIN, IF NEED BE, YOU CAN DRIVE TO THEM. 
          SO I WOULD SAY THAT, UM, HUMANS BY NATURE DON'T NECESSARILY DRIVE IN RURAL COMMUNITIES AS WE SEE. 
          THAT'S WHY IN THE, BETWEEN BEFORE THE SIXTIES, WE DIDN'T HAVE PARKING REQUIREMENTS BECAUSE IT IS NATURAL TO ACTUALLY BALANCE THE WAY YOU, UM, YOU BEHAVE OR YOU USE THE CITY. 
          SO I, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO DETACH NO MINIMUMS. IT'S NOTHING NECESSARILY TO DO WITH URBAN. 
          IT IS JUST ABOUT, AS I WOULD SAY, THE WAY THE COMMUNITY CAN USE, UM, CAN USE THE AREA IMMEDIATELY AROUND THEM. 
          AND I WANTED TO BUILD ON THAT. 
          UM, AND WHAT I HEARD YOU SAY WAS ALSO, UM, YOU WOULD LIKE MORE THOUGHTFUL DESIGN IN YOUR PART OF TOWN. 
          AND, UM, AND I THINK THAT'S ON THE HORIZON. 
          WE'RE, UM, IT'S, YOU KNOW, THIS CONTAINS A VERY LIGHT TOUCH OF DESIGN STANDARDS THAT I THINK WOULD BE GOOD FOR ALL AREAS OF THE CITY. 
          YOU KNOW, MINIMAL, UH, DRIVE APPROACHES AND, YOU KNOW, SOME THINGS THAT WE CAN, UM, MAKE AN ARGUMENT THAT THEY'RE RELATED TO THE CPC AUTHORIZED AUTHORIZATION OF OFF STREET PARKING, UM, AND LOADING. 
          UM, 
          [01:20:01]
BUT OTHER THINGS ARE KIND OF OUTSIDE THAT, YOU KNOW, AUTHORIZATION. 
          SO WE CAN'T DO A WHOLE LOT FOR REALLY EXTENSIVE DESIGN STANDARDS OF BUILDING TYPES AND WHOLE SITE DESIGNS. 
          UM, BUT YOU KNOW, AS YOU DO KNOW, WE DO HAVE THE IMPERVIOUS, UH, SURFACE CODE AMENDMENT COMING UP AFTER WE FIGURE OUT WHAT HAPPENS WITH PARKING. 
          SO I THINK THAT'S GOING TO GIVE A LOT OF GOOD, UM, TOOLS IN OUR TOOL BELT TO DISCUSS AND, AND WORK ON THOSE DESIGN STANDARDS AND THINGS THAT I THINK COULD REALLY HELP. 
          I'M GOING TO MOVE TO A DIFFERENT AREA OF, OF MY DISTRICT. 
          AND BEFORE I GO BACK TO, WELL, TO THE RURAL SIDE, I GO TO A CHURCH THAT, BECAUSE WE'RE LIMITED IN PARKING, WE HAD, WE'VE HAD TO GO TO MULTIPLE SERVICES. 
          WE HAVE FIVE OVER 10,000 MEMBERS. 
          AND, AND WHEN WE TRY TO LEAVE IT AND TRY TO GET 'EM IN, IT'S, AND EVERYBODY, IF YOU WANT TO GET THERE, BECAUSE IT'S THE ONLY WAY YOU GET THERE IS WITH A CAR, IT'S NOT WALKABLE. 
          IT'S, IT'S, IT'S NONE OF THAT. 
          UM, IT ACTUALLY COULD BENEFIT FROM A PARKING STRUCTURE. 
          UM, BUT IT, BUT IT'S ALSO WHERE WE HAVE OUR LARGEST, OR OUR MORE, MORE ONE OF OUR MORE PROGRESSIVE MIXED USE AREA. 
          THAT, AND WE ARE UTILIZING THOSE PARKING SPACES, UM, THE BEST THAT WE CAN, BUT WE STILL FIND THAT THERE ARE MOMENTS AND TIMES WHERE THE PARKING LOT IS, IS A HUNDRED PERCENT FULL. 
          SO IT TOO DOES NOT LEND ITSELF TO, UM, THE STAND TO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. 
          BUT GOING BACK TO MY RULE, YOU KNOW, IF YOU LOOK AT THE RULE, WE NEED HORSE, WE NEED HORSE PARKING, UM, ESPECIALLY ON THE WEEK. 
          NO, I'M SERIOUS. 
          ON THE WEEKEND, YOU CAN'T DRIVE ON THE WEEKENDS, THERE'S STREETS YOU CAN'T DRIVE ON BECAUSE THERE'RE HORSES ON IT. 
          AND THAT'S PART OF MY COMMUNITY. 
          WE HAVE OVER 500 HORSES JUST IN THAT AREA, AND THERE'S NO, WE DON'T, THEY DON'T BIKE. 
          THEY, THEY, THEY RIDE HORSES OR THEY DRIVE. 
          SO IT'S A REALLY UNIQUE AREA THAT HAS VERY UNIQUE NEEDS THAT WE HAVE UNIQUE APPRECIATIONS FOR WHAT AND WHAT YOU, WHAT IS BEING OFFERED TO THEM. 
          IT LOOKS AS THOUGH THEY ARE NOT BEING HEARD. 
          SO I JUST ASK THAT WHEN WE TALK ABOUT ANY TYPE OF PARKING FOR MY RURAL AREA THAT WE MAKE, WE ARE, WE'RE CONSIDERATE, UH, WE'RE REALLY CONSIDERATE THAT YOU DON'T TAKE A GENERAL CONCEPT AND TRY TO APPLY IT TO A VERY UNIQUE AND SPECIFIC DISTRICT. 
          THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER HERBERT. 
          UM, YEAH, I WON'T BELITTLE A LOT OF THE POINTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE. 
          MY U MY DISTRICT IS UNIQUE, I THINK IN A LOT OF WAYS BECAUSE OF THE LARGE APARTMENT COMPLEXES THAT WE HAVE IN THE OVERFLOW, PARKING ONTO THE STREETS AND NEIGHBORHOODS OF COMMUNITIES. 
          UM, LIVING IN MY DISTRICT, LIVING IN DISTRICT FOUR, UM, BEING, LET'S SAY MAKING LOWER THAN THE POVERTY LINE OR UNDER $40,000 WITHIN THE LAST FIVE YEARS, IF YOU DON'T HAVE A CAR IN THE SOUTHERN SECTOR, YOU ARE NOT SUCCESSFUL. 
          OUR BUSES DON'T ALIGN WITH OUR COMMUNITY UNLESS WE'RE GOING TO WORK IN PLANO. 
          IT TAKES AN HOUR TO GET THERE. 
          I CAN GET TO PLANO FASTER THAN I CAN GET DOWNTOWN FROM THE VA HOSPITAL. 
          THAT'S A PROBLEM. 
          UM, WE HAD, I GET IT. 
          THIS IS GREAT. 
          I GET IT. 
          I GET THE IDEA OF IT, UM, MERGING IT WITH BEFORE DALLAS TALKING ABOUT OTHER THINGS THAT WE'RE DOING TO MAKE OUR AREAS LIVABLE. 
          UM, IT'S, IT'S A, IT'S A OVERALL PICTURE, BUT IT'S GOING TO TAKE AN OVERALL ORGANIZATION DARK, UM, NATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS, STATE ORGANIZATIONS, REGULATIONS, UM, EVEN EVEN IN DISTRICT THREE NEAR THE WHEATLAND CEMETERY, IF I WANT TO GO FROM THAT WHEATLAND CEMETERY OR THE OLD METHODIST CHURCH TO THE SOCIAL SECURITY OFFICE, WHICH IN HINDSIGHT DOESN'T LOOK FAR, THE BLOCKS ARE TREMENDOUSLY LONG. 
          THERE'S NOT EVEN BIKING 
          [01:25:01]
WILL TAKE EFFORT, RIGHT? WE, WE HAVE A VERY UNIQUE CITY IN THE SOUTHERN SECTOR THAT WAS BUILT IN A VERY UNIQUE WAY THAT IS GOING TO TAKE DECADES TO CORRECT. 
          AND I BELIEVE THIS IS A START, THIS CAN HELP, BUT THAT IT HAS TO BE WITH THE OVERALL PICTURE, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT COMES TO THE AMOUNT OF APARTMENT AND OVERFLOW PARKING THAT WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH TODAY. 
          UM, I HAVE A CASE TODAY, THE STREET I THINK IS 26 FEET WIDE. 
          GUY DRIVES A DUALLY TRUCK. 
          HE CAN'T GET OUT HIS PARKING LOT TODAY WHEN ANOTHER CAR IS PARKED ON THE STREET, ONE CAR IS PARKED ON THE STREET. 
          IF TWO'S THERE, IT'S, IT'S, IT'S, IT'S IMPOSSIBLE. 
          HE HAS TO KNOCK ON HIS NEIGHBOR'S DOOR TO GET OUT TODAY IN OAK CLIFF. 
          SO I, I GET IT. 
          UM, I THINK THERE'S AREAS WHERE THIS WILL WORK. 
          UM, BUT I ALSO THINK THAT THERE'S AREAS OF CONCERN THAT EXISTS TODAY THAT WE NEED TO HAVE A PLAN, UM, TO, TO BRING URBAN LIVING MORE MIXED USE, MORE MIXED DEVELOPMENT TO THAT AREA SO PEOPLE CAN SURVIVE. 
          THE FIRST THING I DID AFTER HURRICANE KATRINA WAS TRY TO GET FROM THE CONVENTION CENTER TO MY NEW APARTMENT IN FAIR OAKS CROSSING, RIGHT? I LOST MY WALLET THAT DAY. 
          I MEAN, IT WAS, IT WAS A FIGHT. 
          I LITERALLY GOT IN THE CAB, WENT TO DALLAS, I CHRYSLER AND JEEP, AND WAS LIKE, I NEED A CAR. 
          I DON'T CARE WHAT YOU DO. 
          OF COURSE, I GOT A 26% INTEREST RATE AND SOME OTHER THINGS THAT I'M PROBABLY STILL PAYING FOR TODAY, BUT NEITHER HERE OR THERE. 
          IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE TO GO TO FIVE APPOINTMENTS IN ONE DAY TO GET ON YOUR FEET IN DALLAS. 
          IT, IT, IT'S JUST HARD FOR POOR PEOPLE NOT TO HAVE A CAR AND BE SUCCESSFUL. 
          AND I SAY THAT TO THE CAR COUNT IN DALLAS, MOST PEOPLE IN DALLAS, THIS IS WHY PLEASANT GROVE IS SO POPULAR, RIGHT? THE CAR, LOTS OF GRAND PRAIRIE PEOP THESE CAR LOTS ARE SUCCESSFUL BECAUSE POOR PEOPLE NEED VEHICLES TO SURVIVE IN THIS CITY. 
          SO YES, I BELIEVE WE'RE ONTO SOMETHING HERE, BUT IT'S GOING TO TAKE A OVERALL APPROACH AND WITHOUT DART AT THE TABLE, BUILDERS AT THE TABLE, DEVELOPERS AT THE TABLE TO MAKE AN URBAN ENVIRONMENT, WE'RE A LONG WAY. 
          SO I JUST WANTED TO GET THAT OUT. 
          I DON'T THINK THERE'S A RESPONSE TO THAT, BUT, UM, THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION. 
          WE JUST REALLY, THIS TO ME DOESN'T SPEAK TO THE SOUTHERN SECTOR OR PROVIDE BENEFITS IN THE SHORT TERM. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONERS? SECOND ROUND COMMISSIONER CARPENTER. 
          UH, YOU SAID THAT IF A SPILLOVER PROBLEM WAS IDENTIFIED, THE, UM, PROPERTY OWNERS, OPERATORS WOULD BE REQUIRED TO COME BACK AND, UM, WORK WITH THE STAFF. 
          WHAT IS THAT ACCURATE? FIRST OF ALL, THAT'S, THAT'S A RECOMMENDED REVISION AT THIS TIME. 
          OKAY. 
          YEP. 
          UH, OKAY. 
          IF THAT RECOMMENDATION IS ENACTED, WHAT MECHANISM OR TOOLS OR TEETH WOULD YOU SEE? WHAT STRATEGIES WOULD STAFF HAVE TO ADDRESS THAT SORT OF ISSUE? SO WE, WE DO THIS ALREADY. 
          UM, IT JUST TAKES A LOT OF COMPLAINING UP TO THE CITY COUNCIL MEMBER. 
          THE CITY COUNCIL MEMBER COMES DOWN AND TELLS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, WE NEED TO FIGURE THIS OUT, REDESIGN THE STREETS. 
          AND SO WHEN YOU TALK TO SOME OF OUR ENGINEERS, FERNANDO AND OTHERS, THEY SPEND A LOT OF THEIR TIME DOING FREE ENGINEERING WORK SORT OF ALREADY. 
          AND SO, UM, WHAT THIS LOOKS LIKE IS AN EXPECTATION OF IF THAT YOU'RE GOING TO BE ON THE HOOK PIZZA RESTAURANT OR SOMETHING ELSE. 
          IF AND WHEN THIS GOES, UM, GOES SOUTH, AND I'LL STOP THERE. 
          YOU'RE, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT AN ANTICIPATED SPILLOVER PROBLEM. 
          YOU'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT A SPILLOVER PROBLEM THAT, THAT DEVELOPS BECAUSE SOMETHING WENT IN WITH, WITH NOT ENOUGH PARKING OR WHATEVER BECAUSE, AND, AND THERE'S A PROBLEM AT THAT POINT, WHAT RETROACTIVELY COULD BE DONE. 
          SURE. 
          WELL, AND AND TO BE CLEAR, I'M, I'M SAYING THE CODE IN THERE WILL LET PEOPLE KNOW THAT WE'RE GONNA RETROACTIVELY COME BACK TO YOU. 
          AND SO AS FAR AS THE TOOLS, I THINK ANDREA HAS A RESPONSE. 
          YEAH, I THINK THAT GOES BACK TO PARKING QUANTITY VERSUS MANAGEMENT OR QUALITY. 
          AS YOU KNOW, FOR INSTANCE, THE CODE RIGHT NOW ALLOWS YOU TO DO THOSE MUD CHARTS. 
          WE'RE FAMILIAR WITH THEM, RIGHT? WE PUT THEM IN THE PD. 
          IT MEANS THAT IF, UH, FOR INSTANCE, IN A RETAIL STRIP, OR LET'S SAY, UH, IN AREAS, THERE ARE ONE LOT AND YOU HAVE MULTIPLE USES. 
          IF THEY DON'T, IF THEY HAVE MUL MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE HOURS, THEY CAN USE THE SAME PARKING SPOTS. 
          IT'S JUST A BETTER USE OF EXISTING PARKING THAT YOU HAVE ON THE SPOT. 
          IF YOU HAVE SITUATIONS WHERE, UM, YOU CAN DO REMOTE PARKING OR YOU CAN DO SHARE PARKING, THOSE ARE ALREADY CODIFIED RIGHT NOW. 
          UM, BUT BECAUSE, UH, YOU HAVE REQUIRED, YOU CAN ONLY DO THAT FOR WHATEVER IS IN EXCESS. 
          SO DEVELOPERS OR WHATEVER OPERATORS, SMALL BUSINESSES MAY GO BACK TO WHAT ARE MY HOURS OF OPERATION? SO IT NATURALLY, THE INTENT OF ADDING, AS I WAS SAYING, THAT'S ALSO AN INCENTIVE. 
          THE INTENT OF ADDING THOSE INCENTIVES IN THE CODE IS TO ENCOURAGE 
          [01:30:01]
AND SUPPORT MIXED USE. 
          THE REALITY IS THAT YOU CAN'T, IF YOU HAVE A, A BIG REQUIRED RATIO, IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE RATIO REQUIRED, THOSE MIX OF USES AND THAT, THAT SHARING OF GOODS, WE ENVISION AND WE HOPE THAT IT WILL HAPPEN. 
          SO WHAT CAN HAPPEN IS, UH, THEY CAN, AGAIN, WE CAN GET ON THE SAME, UH, TABLE WITH THE OPERATOR AND LOOK AROUND THEIR AREA AND WITH OUR ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, LOOK AROUND THE AREA AND LOOK AROUND THE USES THAT THERE ARE THERE AND SEE, OKAY, UH, CAN YOU COME TO AN AGREEMENT TO YOUR NEIGHBOR? DO YOU NOT USE THE SAME OR THE ENTIRE PARKING THAT YOU HAVE ON THE SPOT? ARE THERE ANY REMOTE LOTS THAT YOU'RE, YOU'RE NOT USING? THERE ARE SO MANY WAYS TO MANAGE PARKING THAT ARE HAPPENING SOMETIMES, UM, AD HOC OR THEY GO THROUGH THE HOOPS OF SEVEN. 
          I'M NOT GONNA MAKE A SNARKY COMMENT OF THE EXISTING CODE TO CONVINCE THE DIRECTOR THAT IT'S HAPPENING ALREADY. 
          I KEEP ON SAYING WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PROBABLY THIS PROBLEMATIC OR HIGH INTENSITY USES HAPPEN AT LIMITED POINTS IN TIME. 
          THE PARKING SITS THERE EMPTY FOR MORE THAN IT'S BEING USED. 
          IT'S JUST A MATTER OF HOW CAN YOU SHARE, HOW CAN YOU BETTER UTILIZE THE LAND? THERE IS ALREADY ZONE THERE IS ALREADY DEVELOPED WITH PARKING. 
          I UNDERSTAND THAT. 
          BUT I, I GUESS WHAT I'M ENVISIONING IN MY AREA IS ARE, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE, THE SMALL, SAY YOU HAVE A CLUSTER OF EXISTING SMALL, UM, STRUCTURES THAT RIGHT NOW ARE UNDERUTILIZED OR LIGHTLY UTILIZED BECAUSE THEY CAN'T MEET PARKING, IF ALL OF A SUDDEN THERE ARE NO PARKING, UM, REQUIREMENTS, AND YOU, YOU FILL 'EM UP WITH BUSINESSES THAT NEED A LOT OF PARKING, AND THEN YOU GET SPILLOVER INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE MAYBE THEY'RE USING ALL THE PARKING FOR BLOCKS AND BLOCKS AND BLOCKS AROUND, WHERE'S THE STRATEGY AT THAT POINT? OH, SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE CURB PARKING, AS I WAS SAYING. 
          AND YOU KNOW, AND I KNOW, I KNOW, UH, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT THERE ARE A LOT OF CURB MANAGEMENT MECHANISMS OR TOOLS THAT, UM, ALREADY EXIST. 
          AND THERE ARE OTHERS THAT WERE CREATED WITH OUR CURB MANAGEMENT POLICY THAT WAS JUST VOTED BY CITY COUNCIL. 
          AS I SAID, MAYBE, AND WE TALKED ABOUT THIS YEARS AGO BEFORE THE CURB MANAGEMENT POLICY WOULD, OR CURB MANAGEMENT PLAN, I DON'T KNOW HOW THEY CALL IT, WAS VOTED. 
          UM, YOU CAN PUT NO RESIDE, NO PARKING OR RESIDENT PARKING ONLY, OR, UM, UM, PARKING MANAGEMENT DISTRICTS THAT ARE SUPPOSED TO START WORKING. 
          THERE ARE A LOT OF TOOLS THAT CAN BE USED FOR CURB MANAGEMENT. 
          AND AS I SAID, LIKE IF IT BECOMES A HAZARD WHEN IT COMES TO, UM, UM, SITUATIONS LIKE THAT, LIKE NO PARKING IS GONNA, NO PARKING AT THE CURB IS GONNA HAVE TO BE ENFORCED. 
          SO IT IS A DIFFERENT CONVERSATION THAT WE HAD FOUR YEARS AGO, UM, BECAUSE RIGHT NOW WE DO HAVE A CURB CURB MANAGEMENT POLICY, BECAUSE RIGHT NOW, DEPARTMENT TRANSPORTATION IS VERY AWARE. 
          THEY STARTED TO IMPLEMENT THAT AND THEY HAVE A NEW OTHER TOOLS THAT THEY'RE LOOKING INTO IMPLEMENTING. 
          SO I WOULD SAY THAT OVERALL THE CITY IS LOOKING AT ITS CURB SPACE A LITTLE BIT AS THAT'S VALUABLE SPACE, BUT IT'S ALSO A SPACE THAT NEEDS TO BE BETTER REGULATED OR BETTER USED. 
          SO, UM, YEAH, THAT WOULD BE A DISCUSSION WITH WHAT CAN WE DO WHEN IT COMES TO CURB MANAGEMENT. 
          I'LL JUST ADD THAT IT'S A VERY TRICKY SITUATION IN AREAS THAT, LIKE I HAVE IN, IN WEST ALLISON, DISTRICT SIX, WHEN YOU HAVE NEIGHBORHOODS, SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS THAT HAVE HIGH UTILIZATION OF CURB PARKING SIMPLY BECAUSE OF THE, THE NUMBER OF VEHICLES THAT THE FAMILY HAS. 
          AND THEN YOU'RE SANDWICHED IN BETWEEN HEAVY COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL AREAS THAT ALSO TEND TO SPILL OVER. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, THAT THAT'S IT, IT GETS COMPLICATED. 
          BUT MY, MY FINAL QUESTION WILL BE ABOUT, UM, THE APPLICABILITY OF, UM, ALL OF THIS TO INDUSTRIAL AREAS, UM, ESPECIALLY INDUSTRIAL AREAS THAT HAVE CLOSE PROXIMITY TO RESIDENTIAL AREAS BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, WE, THERE, THERE'S REALLY NOT GOING TO BE ANY WAY. 
          YOU'RE GOING TO SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCE, YOU KNOW, SEEING, YOU KNOW, LARGE TRUCK TRAFFIC COMING TO THESE BUSINESSES. 
          IT'S THEIR, IT'S JUST WHAT THEY DO NOW. 
          SURE, MAYBE THE EMPLOYEES CAN, COULD DO SOMETHING ELSE, BUT YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE, UH, IT'S GONNA BE ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO MAKE ANY REASONABLE SIGNIFICANT REDUCTION. 
          UM, AND SO, UH, FOR THE AREAS THAT ARE CLOSE TO THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, QUEUING IS ALREADY A PROBLEM. 
          YOU KNOW, IF YOU HAVE A, AN INDUSTRIAL BUSINESS OR HEAVY COMMERCIAL BUSINESS THAT GOES IN THAT HAS LOTS AND LOTS OF TRUCK TRAFFIC COMING, AND THERE'S NOT ENOUGH, YOU KNOW, ALL OF A SUDDEN, YOU KNOW, NO PARKING MINIMUMS, YOU, YOU, I MEAN, WHAT'S GOING TO BE DONE ABOUT MAKING SURE THERE'S ENOUGH SPACE FOR, FOR QUEUING THAT THEY CAN ACTUALLY 
          [01:35:01]
HANDLE ON THEIR SITE WITHOUT, 'CAUSE I HAVE NUMEROUS BUSINESSES THAT JUST FLOW OVER ONTO THE COMMERCIAL STREETS AND TO, I MEAN, I HAVE TRANSMISSION REPAIR SHOPS THAT USE EVERY CURB, UH, PARKING SPACE FOR THREE BLOCKS AROUND. 
          I MEAN, WHAT, IS THERE ANY ? IS THERE ANY WAY OUT OF THIS? I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO YOUR LAST QUESTION. 
          IS THERE ANY WAY OUT OF THIS, UM, I'M GONNA GIVE A PARTIAL ANSWER TO THE PROCEEDING QUESTION. 
          SO YOU'RE RIGHT THAT, UM, THE INCENTIVES ARE REALLY ABOUT MAYBE THE EMPLOYEE AT BEST, THE EMPLOYEES THAT WORK THERE. 
          IT'S NOT REALLY INTENDED TO ADDRESS, UH, THE DRIVE THROUGH CUSTOMERS OR THE TRUCKERS WHO WORK AT THESE SHOPS. 
          UM, THAT'S, THAT'S THE INCENTIVES FOR THE REVIEW. 
          THE GOAL IS THAT WITH OUR THRESHOLDS OF COMMERCIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE, ET CETERA, UM, GUIDING CERTAIN LAND USES STRAIGHT INTO TRANS, UH, TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS. 
          SO THEY HAVE TO SHOW ALL OF THIS BEYOND JUST A BEAR SITE PLAN REVIEW. 
          THEY NEED TO BE SHOWING US HOW THEY'RE GONNA GOING TO MANAGE ALL OF THIS. 
          AND SO, UM, THERE WILL BE REFINEMENT OF THOSE THRESHOLDS. 
          THERE WILL BE, UM, REFINEMENT OF MAYBE SOME STRATEGIES IN THE INCENTIVES CAN IMPACT SOMETHING LIKE THAT, UH, SOMETHING LIKE QUEUING. 
          BUT OVERALL, THE MORE THAT WE CAN USHER SIGNIFICANT TRAFFIC GENERATORS INTO THE, THE IN DEPTH PORTION OF THE TDMP REVIEW, THE BETTER. 
          AND SO WHETHER THAT'S PLAYING WITH THE SQUARE FOOTAGE, UM, SOMETHING ELSE WE CAN DO THAT. 
          I HAD ANOTHER NOTE, BUT I'M FORGETTING, GO AHEAD. 
          I, I WOULD JUST ADD THAT THE CONVERSATION ABOUT TRUCK ROUTES IN THE CITY HAS BEEN HAPPENING AT LEAST SINCE I STARTED WITH THE CITY, RIGHT? UM, I THINK IT'S, AGAIN, A DEPARTMENT TRANSPORTATION AND A THOROUGHFARE PLAN, UH, DISCUSSION. 
          UM, WE HAVE BEEN TALKING, THE CODE DOES SAY THAT IDENTIFY SOME TRUCK ROUTES, BUT WE ALL KNOW THE REALITY IS NOT THAT. 
          BUT I WOULD SAY THAT CONVERSATION ABOUT TRUCKS AND TRUCK ROUTES AND INDUSTRIAL AREAS, THAT IS A CONVERSATION WITH THE NEW THOROUGHFARE PLAN. 
          AND I'M HOPING THAT IT'S GONNA HAPPEN SOON. 
          AND IT'S THAT CONVERSATION BECAUSE, UM, I, I DON'T SEE HOW THAT IS, I MEAN, IT MAY HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF A CONNECTION, A LITTLE BIT OF A TANGENT WITH OUR PARKING CODE AMENDMENT. 
          HOWEVER, IT ALL GOES BACK TO THE TRUCK ROUTES AND ALL WHERE, WHERE THE TRUCKS CAN ACTUALLY TRAVEL IN THE CITY. 
          AND THE FACT THAT THEY CAN GO ON EVERY CITY, EVERY CITY STREET IS PROBLEMATIC. 
          BUT IT'S A DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CONVERSATION. 
          IF I MAY, I WASN'T SO MUCH CONCERNED ABOUT THE STREETS THEY WERE PARKING ON AS IS WHERE THEY END UP TO MAKE SURE THEY HAVE ENOUGH. 
          THERE'S SOME KIND OF REVIEW GOING ON THAT WITH THE ANTICIPATED AMOUNT OF TRA TRUCK TRAFFIC THAT THEY HAVE, AND THE, THE, THE TIME IT TAKES FOR TRUCKS TO, TO GET LOADED AND, AND TRANSACT THEIR BUSINESS AND LEAVE THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME, YOU KNOW, I GUESS A BETTER REVIEW OR MORE INTENSIVE REVIEW THAN WHAT'S GOING ON NOW TO MAKE SURE THAT THEIR SITES HAVE ENOUGH, UH, I'LL CALL IT PARKING SPACE, YOU KNOW, OR, OR QUEUE LANES OR WHATEVER TO ACCOMMODATE. 
          THAT'S WHERE I WAS. 
          I WHOLEHEARTEDLY AGREE, AS I KEEP ON SAYING THAT'S, THAT'S WHY I ENVISION, UH, UH, TRUCK ROUTES MASTER PLAN, OR I DON'T EVEN KNOW, DESIGNATION, BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY THE INTENSITY AND THE LOCATION OF YOUR OPERATION DEPENDS IF YOU DO HAVE ACCESS TO A TRUCK ROUTE. 
          SO THE ANSWER TO THAT, I KNOW, BUT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE FUTURE AND IDEAL, IDEALLY WOULD BE THAT USES THAT NEED TRUCK TRAFFIC AND THAT AMOUNT OF TRUCK MANEUVERING SHOULD NOT BE LOCATED WHERE THEY DON'T HAVE A TRUCK ROUTE. 
          SO IT, IT'S A LITTLE BIT A DIFFERENT ROUTE. 
          YES, MAYBE THIS USE IS ALLOWABLE OR IS ALLOWED AT THAT LOCATION, HOWEVER YOU CANNOT OPERATE IT. 
          SO MAYBE IT'S NOT THE BEST LOCATION THAN YOU CAN FIND FOR THAT. 
          AND WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY IS THAT THE WAY YOU CAN SOMEHOW FORCE THAT LOCATION IS BY HAVING A DESIGNATED TRUCK ROUTE. 
          COMMISSIONER WEER, UM, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I LEFT OFF, UH, Y'ALL, I'M SORRY, I'M SICK TODAY, SO I DIDN'T WANNA GET YOU ALL SICK. 
          SO YOU WANNA COME IN. 
          UM, SO I, I THINK, UM, WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT CURB CONTROL, THE BIGGEST ISSUE WITH PD 5 95 IS NOT SO MUCH THAT WE NEED A PARKING REDUCTION. 
          IT IS THE AMOUNT THAT, UH, OUR PARKING STARTS 25 FEET FROM THE CURB. 
          SO IF YOU HAVE A VITAL BUSINESS THAT HAS MULTIPLE SUITES AND THEY ALREADY CAN'T BECAUSE OF THE 25 FEET FROM THE CURB, THEIR FRONT PARKING IS NOT ALLOWABLE, THEN 25 FEET FROM THE CURB IF THEY'RE ON TWO ON TWO STREETS. 
          UM, PARTICULARLY I HAVE A, UM, FAMILY MEMBER WHO HAS A BUILDING THAT'S ON MALCOLM X 
          [01:40:01]
AND REED LANE. 
          UM, WHEN WE WENT IN TO GET SOME CERTIFIC CERTIFICATE WAY IN TO GET, UM, SOME CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR OTHER SUITES IN ORDER FOR, WE HAD TO, UH, DO A SIGNED LETTER SAYING THAT WE WOULDN'T RENT OUT ANY MORE SUITES BECAUSE WE DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH PARKING AND THIS BUILDING. 
          AND, AND AGAIN, NO ONE USES NOTHING BUT THE FRONT PARKING, THE BACK PARKING IS VERY SELDOM USED. 
          BUT BECAUSE OF THAT 25 FEET FROM THE CURB, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S IN 51 A 'CAUSE IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, PD 5, 9 5, REVERSE BACK TO 51 A. 
          BUT THAT ALONE CAN CAUSE AN ISSUE, ESPECIALLY IN THESE OLDER DISTRICTS. 
          AND THE SOUTHERN SECTOR IS A LITTLE BIT MORE, IS IS A LOT DIFFERENT THAN WHEN YOU GO UP, WHEN YOU GO NORTHERN WHERE THERE IS A LOT OF INFIELD. 
          AND IN THE SOUTHERN SECTOR, WE HAVE A LOT OF OPEN SPACES. 
          AND HOW IS THE PARKING? UM, WE DON'T WANT IT WHERE THE PARKING WILL DETER, UM, FUTURE, UM, UM, DEVELOPMENT. 
          SO HOW, HOW IS THAT BEING ADDRESSED? BECAUSE, UM, I LITERALLY MEASURED HER BUILDING, UM, WHEN I WENT TO GO DO HER PLANS, AND IT WAS 25 FEET FROM THE CURB, HER FIRST PARKING SPOT WOULD ALMOST, UM, WOULD ALMOST HIT THE MIDDLE OF HER BUILDING. 
          AND THAT'S, AND SO SHE WAS LEFT SHORT OF ENOUGH SPACES WHERE PEOPLE HAVE PARKED FOR OVER 40 YEARS WITHOUT A PROBLEM. 
          THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. 
          IF I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT MAYBE A 25 FOOT SETBACK, UM, REQUIRED IN, UH, PD 5 95, ANDREA, DO YOU KNOW? YEAH, I THINK THAT THERE IS A PROPOSAL AND WE'RE GONNA HAVE A BRIEFING ON PD 5 95 OR ON, UH, SOUTH DALLAS AREA UPLAND PRETTY SOON. 
          SO I THINK THAT WOULD BE ADDRESSED IN PD 5 95. 
          BUT, UH, I WOULD SAY THAT, UM, YEAH, IF, AGAIN, THIS IS ANOTHER THING, LIKE IF YOU DON'T HAVE A SET REQUIRED RATIO, IT WILL HELP IN SITUATIONS LIKE THIS. 
          THIS IS ANOTHER UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE OF HAVING A, A HIGH RATIO AND COMBINED WITH DESIGN STANDARDS, THAT'S WHY YOU NEED TO BASICALLY KEEP THE DESIGN STANDARDS AND REDUCE THE RATIOS OR NOT HAVE RATIOS SO SITUATIONS CAN SOLVE THEMSELVES. 
          OKAY, BECAUSE I MEAN, UM, WELL, WE SEE BUILDING, WE SEE BUILDINGS THROWING UP EVERY SINGLE DAY WITH WHAT YOU, WHAT WHAT IS CONSIDERED HOME STREET PARKING, EVEN THOUGH IT'S A CUTOUT IN FRONT OF IT, WHETHER THAT'S THE PARALLEL OR JUST STRAIGHT PULL IS, AND IT'S BEING BUILT ALL OVER THE CITY WHEN YOU HAVE THESE OLDER DISTRICTS WHO ARE 100% BEING, UM, CUT OUT BECAUSE OF SOME DESIRE, BECAUSE OF SOME CHANGES. 
          PD 5, 9 5, CURRENTLY THE AREA PLAN, WE ARE NOT ADDRESSED PARKING BECAUSE WE WERE HOPING WE, UH, WE KNOW THERE'S AN ISSUE WITH OUR PARKING. 
          IT, IT'S, THE MAJOR ONE IS 25 FEET FROM THE CURB, BUT WE WERE WAITING ON ZAC. 
          SO I DON'T NECESSARILY BELIEVE THAT THAT IS GONNA BE DISCUSSED, UH, BECAUSE, UH, WE REVERT BACK TO 51 8 AND WE WOULD HAVE TO CHANGE IT AND, AND, UM, AND NOT VERT BACK TO 51 A AND AS LEAST MORE SPECIFICATE PD 5 9 5, UM, IF WE WANT IT DONE SOONER. 
          MY MICROPHONE TEST. 
          YES. 
          I, OH, I'M SORRY. 
          I I WAS ASKING, UM, MAYBE ASK AGAIN THAT QUESTION, IS THAT THE, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT LINDSAY AND, AND PATRICK SHOULD BE ASKING TO THE PD OR, I MEAN, AS FAR AS THE AREA, THE, THE, UH, AREA PLAN? OR SHOULD WE JUST WAIT ON ON SINCE WE, OUR PD IS WROTE TO REVERT TO 51 A FIVE, THE DEPARTMENT? THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. 
          UM, I THINK IT WOULD BE GOOD TO SEE WHAT HAPPENS WITH THIS CONVERSATION, BUT I KNOW THAT PATRICK AND LINDSAY ARE LISTENING AND PAYING ATTENTION AND CAN PROBABLY ADVISE YOU BEST WHEN IT COMES TO THAT TIME. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          UH, COMMISSIONERS. 
          IT IS, UH, 10 51. 
          UH, WE'RE, WE'RE GOING BACK TO THE WAY WE USED TO DO THINGS AROUND THE, THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION WAY BACK. 
          IF YOU NEED TO TAKE A BREAK OR REFRESH YOUR COFFEE, JUST GO AHEAD AND, AND DO IT. 
          UH, JUST MAKE SURE TO BE MINDFUL THAT WE, WE ALWAYS HAVE TO HAVE A QUORUM. 
          UH, THANK YOU VERY MUCH MR. ROY. 
          APPRECIATE IT. 
          WE'LL SEE YOU BACK ON THE FIFTH, DECEMBER 5TH. 
          UH, IN THE MEANTIME, COMMISSIONERS, AS ALWAYS, IF THERE'S, UH, ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE REACH OUT TO STAFF AND MAKE SURE THAT, UH, THOSE GET ADDRESSED. 
          COMMISSIONERS. 
          WE'RE GONNA GO AHEAD AND KEEP MOVING. 
          WE'LL GO TO THE LAKE WARD EXPANSION, CONSERVATION DISTRICT EXPANSION. 
          [01:45:01]
GOOD MORNING, GEORGE. 
          CAN I HAVE 20 GOOD MORNING COMMISSIONERS. 
          GOOD MORNING. 
          THIS IS, UH, LAKEWOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT, UH, PROPOSED EXPANSION, CASE NUMBER Z 2 12 3 5. 
          SEE IF I CAN GET RID OF THAT. 
          UH, THIS PROCESS WAS INITIATED, UH, THROUGH A NEIGHBORHOOD COMMITTEE, BUT THE REQUEST IS A CITY PLAN COMMISSION AUTHORIZED HEARING, SEEKING A RECOMMENDATION REGARDING A PROPOSAL TO CHANGE THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM R SEVEN FIVE A AND R 10, A SINGLE FAMILY ZONING DISTRICT TO THE LAKEWOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT. 
          NUMBER TWO, TRACKED FOUR. 
          THE AREA, UH, UH, SUBJECT AREA IS LOCATED IN EAST DALLAS, UH, JUST ON THE WEST SIDE OF WHITE ROCK LAKE. 
          THE AREA IS GENERALLY BOUNDED BY ALLEYS BETWEEN WESTLAKE AVENUE AND MEADOW LAKE AVENUE, AND BETWEEN LAKEWOOD BOULEVARD AND WESTLAKE AVENUE ON THE NORTH LAU DRIVE ON THE EAST TOON DRIVE, AND THE ALLEYS BETWEEN TOON DRIVE AND BOTH PASADENA AVENUE AND AVALON AVENUE, AND THE ALLEY BETWEEN LORNA LANE AND AVALON AVENUE ON THE SOUTH. 
          AND BRENDAN WOOD DRIVE, COPPERFIELD LANE, AND THE ALLEY SOUTH OF WESTLAKE AND THE WINDOVER ROAD ON THE WEST, AND CONTAINS APPROXIMATELY 114.183 ACRES. 
          THE CURRENT ZONING IS R SEVEN 50 A AND R 10 A. 
          UH, WE DO HAVE A, UH, INDIVIDUALLY DESIGNATED HISTORIC PROPERTY WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES AS WELL. 
          THE AREA IS, UH, ZONED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND HAS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL BOTH TO THE NORTH, UH, AND SOUTH OF THE AREA. 
          AND ON THE WEST IS THE CONSERVATION DISTRICT. 
          UH, NUMBER TWO, ALSO WANT TO POINT OUT THE, UH, OTHER CONSERVATION DISTRICTS AND HISTORIC DISTRICTS THAT ARE IN THE AREA. 
          UH, JUST FOR CONTEXT IN THIS CONVERSATION, IN THE SURROUNDING AREA, WE HAVE THE TOON PARK JUST TO THE SOUTH, UH, ON THE EAST END OF THE PROPOSED EXPANSION AREA, THE FILTER BUILDING AND WHITE ROCK LAKE PUMP STATION, ALSO TO THE EAST LAKEWOOD ELEMENTARY TO THE NORTHWEST. 
          AND THEN CONSERVATION DISTRICT NUMBER TWO TO THE WEST. 
          THESE ARE JUST GONNA BE SOME INDICATIVE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE, UH, ARCHITECTURE THAT'S FOUND ON THE, THE EAST WEST STREETS IN THE PROPOSED EXPANSION AREA. 
          WESTLAKE AVENUE, LAKEWOOD AVENUE LAKE, SHORE AVENUE, TOON AVENUE. 
          AND REALLY, UH, THE CONVERSATION WILL CENTER AROUND WHY THIS TRACK FOUR SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE LAKEWOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT. 
          IT DOES FULFILL ALL THE PURPOSE OF A, A CONSERVATION DISTRICT. 
          UM, THIS WILL BE, UH, DONE AS A RESULT OF A NEIGHBORHOOD INITIATED PROCESS. 
          THE AREA MEETS ALL THE, UH, REQUIRED ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA AND IS ALSO SIMILAR TO AND COMPATIBLE WITH THE PHYSICAL ATTRIBUTES OF THE ESTABLISHED CD TWO, UH, LAKEWOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT, UH, CONTAINS NUMEROUS EXAMPLES OF SIGNIFICANT ARCHITECTURE DESIGNED BY, UH, NOTABLE DALLAS ARCHITECTS AND DEVELOPERS, AND PROVIDES AN APPROPRIATE REGULATORY STRUCTURE FOR AN AREA SUCH AS THIS. 
          JUST VERY BRIEFLY, WHAT THE PURPOSE OF A CONSERVATION DISTRICT IS, IS TO PROTECT THE PHYSICAL ATTRIBUTES OF AN AREA OR NEIGHBORHOOD, PROMOTE DEVELOPMENT OR REDEVELOPMENT THAT IS COMPATIBLE WITH AN EXISTING AREA OR NEIGHBORHOOD, PROMOTE ECONOMIC REVITALIZATION, ENHANCE LIVABILITY OF THE CITY, AND ENSURE HARMONIOUS, ORDERLY, AND EFFICIENT GROWTH. 
          THERE ARE GONNA BE SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PROCESS, AND SO I'M JUST GONNA BRIEFLY TOUCH ON THESE. 
          UH, THERE WILL BE MORE IN THE, UH, 
          [01:50:01]
EXPANDED, UH, HEARING, UH, PRESENTATION LATER. 
          BUT I DO WANT TO OUTLINE, UH, SORT OF ALL OF THE STEPS THAT TOOK PLACE TO GET US TO THIS POINT. 
          IN APRIL, 2020, THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMITTEE CONTACTED THE CITY ABOUT CREATING A CONSERVATION DISTRICT. 
          UM, STAFF HELD TWO MEETINGS WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMITTEE IN NOVEMBER OF 21 AND JANUARY OF 2022 BEFORE ACCEPTING THEIR DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY IN APRIL OF 2022. 
          STAFF THEN PROVIDED PETITIONS, UM, TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          ULTIMATELY, CPC WILL NOW BE ON A 10 MINUTE BREAK. 
          , 
          [01:56:29]
WE'RE GOOD. 
          WE 
          [02:01:36]
OKAY, COMMISSIONERS, I THINK WE'RE, WE'RE READY TO GET BACK ON, ON THE RECORD. 
          IT'S BEEN EXACTLY 10 MINUTES, 11:09 AM AND WE'RE BACK TO YOU, SIR. 
          AND CAN YOU START OVER THAT LAST LINE, TREVOR? THE PROCESS? UH, YEAH, I, I THINK MAYBE A COUPLE OF SLIDES BACK. 
          IS THAT RIGHT? COMMISSIONER KING KINGTON, MAYBE TWO SLIDES BACK. 
          YEAH, SO I, I ACTUALLY WENT BACK A COUPLE OF SLIDES. 
          UM, SO WE'LL GET TO THAT. 
          UM, SO I THINK THIS IS WHERE WE STARTED HAVING ISSUES, UM, WHY TRACK FOUR SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE LAKEWOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT, UH, BESIDES THE FACT THAT IT FULFILLS THE PURPOSE OF A, A CD, UH, AS A RESULT OF A NEIGHBORHOOD INITIATED PROCESS, THE AREA MEETS ALL OF THE ELIGIBILITY, ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA AND IS SIMILAR TO AND COMPATIBLE WITH THE PHYSICAL ATTRIBUTES OF THE ESTABLISHED CD TWO. 
          UM, THE AREA CONTAINS NUMEROUS EXAMPLES OF SIGNIFICANT ARCHITECTURE DESIGNED BY NOTED DALLAS ARCHITECTS AND DEVELOPERS, AND A CD PROVIDES THE APPROPRIATE, UH, REGULATORY STRUCTURE FOR THIS TYPE OF ENDEAVOR. 
          PURPOSE OF A CONSERVATION DISTRICT IS, OF COURSE, TO PROTECT THE PHYSICAL ATTRIBUTES OF AN AREA OR NEIGHBORHOOD, PROMOTE DEVELOPMENT OR REDEVELOPMENT THAT'S COMPATIBLE WITH AN EXISTING AREA OR NEIGHBORHOOD, PROMOTE ECONOMIC REVITALIZATION WHILE ENHANCING THE LIVABILITY OF THE CITY AND ENSURING HARMONIOUS, ORDERLY AND EFFICIENT GROWTH. 
          SO, I'LL GO THROUGH A LITTLE BIT OF THE PROCESS AND HOW, UM, THE CITY, UM, ENGAGED WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          UH, INITIALLY IN APRIL, 2020, UH, THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMITTEE APPROACHED, UH, THE CITY ABOUT, UM, POSSIBLY CREATING A CD. 
          UM, TWO MEETINGS WERE HELD IN NOVEMBER OF 21 AND JANUARY OF 22 WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMITTEE TO DISCUSS, UH, THOSE ITEMS THAT WERE, UH, INTENDED TO, TO BE DISCUSSED. 
          IN THE PROCESS, A DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY WAS ACCEPTED, WHICH TRIGGERED, UH, THE PETITIONING OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          ULTIMATELY, 189 PETITIONS WERE SUBMITTED BY THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMITTEE FOR VERIFICATION, WHICH, UH, LED TO, UM, WHICH CAME OUT TO BE 68% OF THE TOTAL, UM, PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN THE PROPOSED BOUNDARIES. 
          UH, THIS TRIGGERED, UH, A SERIES OF NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS. 
          ULTIMATELY, 15 NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS WERE HELD TO DISCUSS THE TOPICS THAT WERE INCLUDED ON THE PETITION, UH, BEFORE THE STAFF, UH, USED THAT INFORMATION TO DRAFT AN ORDINANCE, UH, WHICH WAS PRESENTED INITIALLY IN JANUARY OF THIS YEAR. 
          TWO, UH, FOLLOW UP MEETINGS WERE HELD TO, TO DISCUSS THE DRAFT ORDINANCE THAT WAS, UH, PRESENTED BEFORE A SURVEY WAS POSTED ONLINE TO GATHER ADDITIONAL INPUT FROM, UM, THOSE AREAS, UH, THOSE NEIGHBORS WITHIN THE PROPOSED BOUNDARIES, UH, THAT ULTIMATELY LED TO A REVISED PUBLIC DRAFT BEING PRESENTED OR, OR POSTED TO THE WEBSITE IN SEPTEMBER, UH, BEFORE WE HELD OUR FINAL NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, MEETING TO DISCUSS THE REVISIONS THAT WERE MADE BASED ON THE INPUT GATHERED AFTER THE FIRST DRAFT. 
          THIS IS A BREAKDOWN OF THE, THE MEETINGS THAT WERE HELD AND THE, THE TOPICS THAT WERE DISCUSSED. 
          UM, YOU'LL SEE THAT IN MANY INSTANCES, UM, UH, CERTAIN TOPICS WERE CONTINUED OVER TO ANOTHER MEETING. 
          [02:05:01]
UH, THIS REFLECTS THE ITEMS THAT WERE LISTED ON THE PETITION THAT THE 68% OF NEIGHBORS SIGNED, UH, TO INITIATE THE PROCESS. 
          AND THEN YOU'LL SEE AGAIN, THOSE, THOSE TWO MEETINGS IN FEBRUARY TO DISCUSS THE DRAFT, UH, FIRST DRAFT BEFORE, UM, OUR LAST MEETING ON OCTOBER THE 29TH. 
          SO WE USED A VARIETY OF METHODS, UH, TO SOLICIT INPUT AND FEEDBACK. 
          CERTAINLY, UH, DURING THOSE 15 HOUR AND A HALF LONG PUBLIC MEETINGS. 
          UM, THE DISCUSSIONS WERE DOCUMENTED BY STAFF, BUT WE ALSO AT EV EACH MEETING, UH, HANDED OUT A COMMENT SHEET, AND WE HAVE AN EXAMPLE OF THAT THERE IN THE LOWER, UH, RIGHT HAND CORNER TO GATHER ADDITIONAL INPUT IF, UH, YOU KNOW, NEIGHBORS WEREN'T, UH, WILLING TO NECESSARILY RAISE THEIR HAND AND, AND, UH, PROVIDE INPUT OR ASK QUESTIONS, THEY HAD THE ABILITY TO DO SO ON THOSE COMMENT SHEETS. 
          UM, RESIDENTS, UH, AND STAFF ALIKE BOTH OBSERVED AND REPORTED CONDITIONS, UM, AS IT RELATES TO THE DEVELOPMENT, DEVELOPMENTAL AND ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES FOUND WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          AND THEN AT EACH MEETING, UH, STAFF'S CONTACT INFORMATION WAS PRESENTED SO WE COULD, UM, GET EMAIL OR PHONE COMMUNICATIONS FROM ANYONE WHO WANTED TO PROVIDE INPUT. 
          SO, JUST AS A, A QUICK SUMMARY, THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE IS A RESULT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD INITIATED AND GUIDED PROCESS FOR ESTABLISHING, UM, THE CONSERVATION DISTRICT. 
          THE PROPOSED AREA DOES MEET THE ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA SET FORTH IN THE DALLAS CITY CODE, AND IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GOALS OF THE FORWARD DALLAS 2.0 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, UH, AS WELL AS THE RECENTLY ADOPTED, UH, PRESERVATION PLAN. 
          UH, THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS WILL HELP CONSERVE THE DISTINCTIVE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          UM, AND AGAIN, THIS AREA CONTAINS 87 EXAMPLES, UH, AS IDENTIFIED BY THE NEIGHBORS OF SIGNIFICANT ARCHITECTURE BY EITHER NOTED DALLAS ARCHITECTS OR DEVELOPERS. 
          AND AGAIN, THIS, UH, CD IS THE APPROPRIATE REGULATORY INSTRUMENT, UM, FOR ACCOMPLISHING THE GOALS THAT WERE SET FORTH BY THE NEIGHBORS. 
          STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF THE LAKEWOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT TRACK FOUR ZONING ORDINANCE AND ILLUSTRATIONS, WHICH ARE PART OF YOUR, UH, PACKET. 
          THANK YOU, SIR. 
          QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS, COMMISSIONER KINGSTON? I DO, CAN SOMEBODY TURN THAT OFF, PLEASE? OH, AND THIS MAY BE FOR, UH, CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. 
          UH, I'LL, I'LL LET WHOEVER WANTS TO FIELD THIS. 
          UM, WHAT WAS THE APPLICATION FOR? THE APPLICATION WAS FOR EXPANSION OF THE CONSERVATION DISTRICT NUMBER TWO. 
          OKAY. 
          AND IN AN EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING CONSERVATION DISTRICT, CAN THE EXPANDED AREA INCLUDE DIFFERING CONDITIONS THEN EXIST IN THE ORIGINAL CONSERVATION DISTRICT? IN OTHER WORDS, CAN THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMITTEE INCLUDE, UM, ARCHITECTURAL CHARACTERISTICS, FOR EXAMPLE, OR OTHER TERMS IN THE EXPANDED AREA THAT ARE DIFFERENT THAN WHAT THE ORIGINAL CONSERVATION DISTRICT ORDINANCE PROVIDES? GOOD MORNING COMMISSIONERS. 
          DANIEL MORRIS, CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. 
          YES. 
          COMMISSIONER KINGSTON, SUBSECTION E OF THE, UM, CONSERVATION DISTRICT ORDINANCE EXPRESSLY SUBSECTION E IS THE SECTION THAT DEALS WITH EXPANDING AN ESTABLISHED CD. 
          AND LITTERED THROUGHOUT THAT SUBSECTION ARE REFERENCES TO ADDITIONS TO DEVELOPMENT AND ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS. 
          AND IN FACT, WHEN PREPARING THE ORDINANCE, THE CITY SHALL PREPARE AMENDMENTS TO AN ESTABLISHED CD IN ACCORDANCE WITH ANOTHER SUBSECTION TO ESTABLISH, UM, DEVELOPMENT AND ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS TO THE AREA TO BE ADDED. 
          SO, YES, IN SUBSECTION E ALLOWS THE CITY TO EXPAND AND TO CREATE ITS OWN, UM, ARCHITECTURE AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. 
          AND WHAT IS THE PROCESS TO BE FOLLOWED TO DO THAT? THE PROCESS IS OUTLINED IN SUBSECTION E, AND I'LL LET TREVOR EXPLAIN THAT PROCESS. 
          BUT THE PROCESS IS, UM, GENERALLY YOU HAVE A NEIGHBORHOOD COMMITTEE, OR IT CAN BE AN AUTHORIZED HEARING IF THERE'S A NEIGHBORHOOD COMMITTEE, YOU HAVE TO MEET CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS IN TERMS OF WHO CAN BE ON THE COMMITTEE, BUT THEN YOU HAVE, UH, PETITIONS THAT ARE SENT OUT, APPLICATIONS, ET CETERA. 
          AND TREVOR CAN GO INTO SOME OF THE MORE DETAILED TO THE, INTO THE WEEDS IF YOU'RE INTERESTED IN WHAT THEY SPECIFICALLY DID. 
          BUT FROM THE BIG PICTURE, SUBSECTION E, UM, IT, IT REQUIRES, 
          [02:10:01]
LIKE I SAID, GENERALLY, UH, D DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY PETITIONS AND THEN AN APPLICATION. 
          AND DOES THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMITTEE HAVE TO APPLY SEPARATELY FOR SOME SORT OF AMENDMENT? SUBSECTION F DEALS WITH AMENDING THE, AN ESTABLISHED CD, BUT THEY, THAT'S NOT HOW, THAT THEY DO NOT TO, TO ANSWER THE QUESTION. 
          AND THE REASON IS BECAUSE WHILE SUBSECTION F DEALS WITH AMENDING THE REGULATIONS WITHIN A CD, THE SUBSECTION E ALLOWS YOU TO AMEND THE NEWLY INCORPORATED AREA TO ESTABLISH, UH, A NEW TRACT AND NEW STANDARDS. 
          SO LET ME, LET ME RESTATE THIS SO I MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND IT. 
          IF YOU ARE APPLYING TO EXPAND AN EXISTING CD, THEN ANY TERMS IN THAT EXPANSION SECTION, WHICH I BELIEVE IS SUBDISTRICT FOUR IN THIS CASE, THOSE AREN'T AN AMENDMENT, THOSE ARE NEW TERMS, RIGHT? YES, MA'AM. 
          SO YOU WOULDN'T APPLY FOR AN AMENDMENT, IT'S AN EXPANSION WITH NEW TERMS? CORRECT. 
          AND, AND SO SIMILAR QUESTION, IF THERE WERE TO BE SUBDISTRICTS WITHIN THIS NEW SUB DISTRICT, SUB SUB DISTRICTS, I GUESS, UM, WITH DIFFERING CONDITIONS, AGAIN, YOU WOULD NOT BE APPLYING UNDER THE SECTION OF THE CODE THAT ASKS FOR, OR THAT REQUIRES A SEPARATE APPLICATION TO AMEND AN EXISTING CD BECAUSE THIS IS NOT AN AMENDMENT TO AN EXISTING CD, IT IS AN EXPANSION THAT WOULD JUST HAVE DIFFERENT CONDITIONS, IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? YES, THAT'S CORRECT. 
          YOU CAN DO ALL OF THAT UNDER THE SUBSECTION E, WHICH IS THE EXPANDING THE EXISTING CONSERVATION DISTRICT. 
          OKAY. 
          AND IS THAT THE PROCESS THAT WAS FOLLOWED IN THIS CASE? YES, IT WAS. 
          ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          WELL, I HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION FOR YOU. 
          I SEE THAT THERE IS A, UM, PROHIBITION AGAINST SOLAR PANELS ON THE FRONT FACADE OF HOMES. 
          DO YOU BELIEVE THAT COMPLIES WITH THE CITY CCAP? I KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT. 
          I, I WOULD HAVE TO REVIEW THE CITY CCAP IN ORDER TO GIVE YOU A DEFINITIVE ANSWER, COMMISSIONER. 
          OKAY. 
          WELL YOU HAVE UNTIL THE HEARING. 
          THANK YOU. 
          A LITTLE BIT OF HOMEWORK. 
          UH, COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, PLEASE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          SIMILAR QUESTION TO COMMISSIONER KINGSTON'S. 
          UM, HAS TO DO WITH, UM, THE ESTABLISHMENT OF SUBDISTRICTS THAT'S FAIRLY COMMON WITHIN, UH, BOTH OUR HISTORIC AND CONSERVATION DISTRICTS. 
          IS THAT CORRECT TO HAVE DIFFERENT SUB AREAS OR SUB DISTRICTS, UM, WITHIN THOSE THAT REFLECT ESSENTIALLY THEIR INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERISTICS? THAT'S CORRECT. 
          AND THEN, UM, AS THIS WAS EVALUATED, AND I KNOW THERE'S, UM, THE DIFFERENT ARCHITECTURAL STYLES THAT ARE TALKED ABOUT HERE, UM, ALL OF THOSE, WELL, I SHOULDN'T SAY ALL OF THOSE, BUT THOSE WENT THROUGH EXTENSIVE REVIEW IN YOUR PUBLIC MEETING PROCESSES, IS THAT CORRECT? AND TOOK COMMUNITY FEEDBACK? THAT'S CORRECT. 
          EACH OF THOSE ITEMS THAT WAS LISTED ON THE PETITION WERE DISCUSSED IN DEPTH, UH, WITH A STAFF PRESENTATION OF WHAT, YOU KNOW, THE EXISTING ZONING, UH, WOULD REQUIRE OF THEM AS IT PERTAINS TO THAT PARTICULAR ITEM. 
          UH, AND THEN FOLLOWING THE DISCUSSION, THERE WAS A, A RECAP OF WHAT WE HEARD FROM THE NEIGHBORS. 
          OFTENTIMES WE TRIED TO KIND OF PRESENT SOME, UM, POTENTIAL LANGUAGE FOR THEM TO KIND OF SEE AND CONSIDER, UM, WHAT THAT MIGHT LOOK LIKE IN AN ORDINANCE. 
          AND I THINK IN YOUR PRESENTATION YOU HAD COVERED THAT WHEN YOU HAD YOUR INITIAL COMMUNITY MEETINGS, UM, THIS SPRING THERE WAS A LOT OF FEEDBACK. 
          SO A REVISED DRAFT WAS POSTED AND THEN IT WAS PRESENTED AT YOUR OCTOBER MEETING, AGAIN, TAKING IN ALL THAT ADDITIONAL, UM, INPUT THAT WAS RECEIVED. 
          THAT'S CORRECT. 
          THE SECOND DRAFT REFLECTED, UH, THE INPUT THAT WAS GATHERED FOLLOWING THE FIRST DRAFT PRESENTATION. 
          OKAY. 
          AND THEN JUST WANTED TO ASK ONE GENERAL QUESTION. 
          WE RECEIVED, UM, A LETTER, UM, THAT WAS RAISING A FEW QUESTIONS, BUT ONE OF WHICH WAS TALKING ABOUT, UM, APPLYING FOR, UM, TAX INCENTIVES THROUGH THE CITY PROGRAM. 
          IS IT CORRECT THAT YOU NEED TO BE WITHIN A DESIGNATED, UM, HISTORIC DISTRICT IN ORDER TO QUALIFY FOR THOSE TAX INCENTIVES? YES, MA'AM. 
          THAT'S CORRECT. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. 
          THANK YOU. 
          COMMISSIONER HAMPTON? YES, SIR. 
          COMMISSIONER CHER, I HAVE A QUESTION SOMEWHERE IN THE CASE FILE. 
          THERE WAS A TIMELINE THAT, UM, BROKE DOWN THE MEETINGS AND THEN WHAT WAS DISCUSSED AT ANY 
          [02:15:01]
OF THE MEETINGS. 
          WAS IT EVER DISCUSSED THE EFFECTS OF CONSERVATION DISTRICTS ON PROPERTY VALUES? AND IS THAT, UM, WELL, I'LL JUST LET YOU GO AHEAD AND ANSWER IT. 
          UH, SO THE QUESTION OF HOW CONSERVATION DISTRICTS MIGHT IMPACT PROPERTY VALUES DID COME UP AT SEVERAL MEETINGS, UH, SPECIFICALLY, UM, SORT OF THE INITIAL, UH, FIRST POST APPLICATION MEETING ONCE THE PETITIONS WERE DISTRIBUTED. 
          UM, BUT IT, IT CERTAINLY CAME UP SORT OF IN, IN THE CASUAL CONVERSATIONS ABOUT CERTAIN THINGS. 
          UH, AND THEN CERTAINLY, UH, IN THESE LAST COUPLE OF MEETINGS, IS THERE, IS THERE A, A DATA OR A SOURCE THAT A CITY WOULD USE THAT'S EITHER LOCAL OR NATIONALLY THAT SU SUBSTANTIATES OPINIONS AROUND THAT? THERE WAS A STUDY, UM, THAT INCLUDED DALLAS FROM THE, I WANNA SAY THE MID NINETIES. 
          UM, THAT, THAT HAS SOME PRETTY DATED INFORMATION. 
          UH, THE CITY IS CURRENTLY UNDERTAKING, UH, A STUDY, AN ECONOMIC IMPACT STUDY OF HISTORIC AND CONSERVATION DISTRICTS. 
          UH, THAT JUST IS KICKING OFF, YOU KNOW, UH, THIS WEEK AS A MATTER OF FACT, JUST AS A SIDE NOTE, I WOULD LOVE TO SEE CITY DIG INTO THAT MORE. 
          I MEAN, THAT'S ALWAYS LIKE A GO-TO TALKING POINT AGAINST CONSERVATION DISTRICTS. 
          IT'S LIKE THE NUMBER ONE THING THAT AFFECTS EVERYBODY. 
          I REALLY FEEL LIKE MORE DATA AROUND THAT TO SUBSTANTIATE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER WOULD BE REALLY USEFUL FOR COMMUNITIES. 
          SURE. 
          AND I THINK THAT'S THE, THAT WAS THE INITIATIVE FOR THE ECONOMIC IMPACT STUDY THAT WE'RE UNDERTAKING. 
          THAT'S TRUE. 
          WE WANNA FOLLOW BACK, UH, COMMISSIONER HOUSE WRIGHT. 
          YEAH. 
          UM, THANK YOU MR. BROWN. 
          I WANTED TO TALK ABOUT THE DEMOLITION, UM, PROVISION. 
          AND THE WAY THAT I READ IT IS IF YOU HAVE A HOUSE THAT WAS BUILT THAT'S NOT CONTRIBUTING, IT'S NOT WITHIN ONE OF THE FIVE STYLES, YOU CAN DEMOLISH IT. 
          IS THAT RIGHT? WITHOUT GOING THROUGH THE LENGTHY PROCESS? SO THE QUESTION WAS, UH, IF A PROPERTY IS NON-CONTRIBUTING, NOT CONTRIBUTING, SUPPORTING, THERE, THERE ARE NO, UM, THERE ARE NO PROHIBITIONS ON DEMOLISHING A BUILDING THAT'S NOT DESIGNATED AS A CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE. 
          BUT THEN YOU'VE GOTTA BUILD BACK IN ONE OF THE FIVE ARCHITECTURAL STYLES. 
          SO FOR EXAMPLE, IF THERE'S A, YOU KNOW, 1955 RANCH STYLE HOUSE THAT SOMEONE WANTS TO TEAR DOWN, THEY'VE GOTTA BUILD BACK IN, IN ONE OF THE FIVE STYLES. 
          WHY DID, WHY IS THAT IN THERE? WHY IS THAT A REQUIREMENT? WELL, SO THAT WAS, UH, AS A RESULT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S DESIRES, UH, IT'S ALSO BASED ON THE EXISTING CD TWO. 
          UM, THE, THE CONTRIBUTING STYLES ARE, ARE ALMOST EXACTLY THE SAME. 
          EXISTING CD TWO, I BELIEVE LUMPS COLONIAL REVIVAL IN GEORGIAN TOGETHER. 
          WHEREAS, UH, THE NEIGHBORS IN THEIR DISCUSSION, THEY DIDN'T REALLY HAVE ANYTHING, UM, THAT WOULD BE, UH, DESIGNATED AS GEORGIAN. 
          SO, UH, COLONIAL REVIVAL, I MEAN, UM, NEOCLASSICAL WAS ADDED BECAUSE THERE WERE SEVERAL, UH, SIGNIFICANT NEOCLASSICAL. 
          AND IS THAT TYPE OF PROVISION FOR A SUPPORTING NON-CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE, IS THAT COMMON IN OTHER PDS THROUGHOUT THE CITY? OR DO OTHER, OR I'M SORRY, CDS THROUGHOUT THE STATE, OR DO OTHERS ALLOW YOU TO BUILD, YOU KNOW, BACK A SUPPORTING STRUCTURE IN WHATEVER ARCHITECTURAL STYLE YOU WANT? ALMOST EVERY CONSERVATION DISTRICT THAT HAS ARCHITECTURAL REGULATIONS REQUIRES YOU TO BUILD BACK IN ONE OF WHAT THEY CONSIDER TO BE A CONTRIBUTING STYLE, SOMETHING THAT'S CONSISTENT AND COMPATIBLE WITH THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT? YES, THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. 
          UM, MR. BROWN, THE CASE REPORT, UM, THERE'S FIVE BULLET POINTS ABOUT THE PURPOSE OF A CONSERVATION DISTRICT. 
          UM, I, I ASSUME THAT YOU BELIEVE THAT THIS CONSERVATION DISTRICT, THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE, SATISFIES THOSE FIVE POINTS, BUT I COULD YOU PARTICULARLY FOCUS ON THE LAST THREE ABOUT ECONOMIC REVITALIZATION, LIVABILITY AND HARMONIOUS EFFICIENT GROWTH. 
          HOW, HOW DOES THIS PROMOTE THOSE THREE? WELL, I THINK, UH, PART OF THAT CAN BE ADDRESSED IN WHAT WE ARE SEEING IN OTHER PARTS OF THE CITY WHERE INCOMPATIBLE NEW DEVELOPMENT MAY COME IN, UM, SORT OF CHANGING THE, UH, OVERALL CHARACTER OF A, OF A NEIGHBORHOOD, UM, POTENTIALLY, UM, IMPACTING, UH, HOW THOSE PROPERTIES MIGHT BE DEVELOPED IN THE FUTURE. 
          UM, SPECIFIC TO, UM, LIVABILITY, YOU KNOW, I THINK WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF, AND THAT'S PART OF THE REASON I SHOWED THE, THE SLIDE WITH THE ADJACENT CONSERVATION DISTRICTS AND HISTORIC DISTRICTS IS, YOU KNOW, THIS AREA IS, UM, SIGNIFICANT, NOT ONLY 
          [02:20:01]
OBVIOUSLY TO THOSE WHO LIVE THERE, BUT I THINK, UH, THE DALLAS AND ITS, UM, SORT OF HERITAGE AND EN LARGE. 
          SO I THINK THAT SORT OF ADDRESSES THE, UM, UH, COMPATIBILITY WITH WHAT, YOU KNOW, ESPECIALLY THE FORWARD DALLAS, UH, PLAN IS WANTING TO DO IN PROTECTING OUR NEIGHBORHOODS. 
          UM, I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANY OF THOSE SPECIFICALLY THAT YOU WANT ME TO ADDRESS DIRECTLY. 
          WELL, UM, I'M NOT GOING TO MAKE MY COMMENTS ON THOSE, BUT I, I THINK THOSE THREE ARE NOT NECESSARILY ACCOMPLISHED THROUGH THIS. 
          BUT, UH, A FINAL QUESTION. 
          UM, IN THE EIGHTIES AND NINETIES, I LIVED IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          UH, I LIVED ON MEADOW LAKE. 
          THE NORTHERN PROPOSED BOUNDARY WOULD'VE BEEN IN MY ALLEY. 
          I KNOW THOSE STREETS WELL, I'VE DRIVEN THEM TWICE IN THE LAST WEEK. 
          UM, ONE OF THE CHARMS OF LAKEWOOD IN THE EIGHTIES. 
          AND TODAY IS THE HIGH AMOUNT OF ECLECTIC ECLECTICISM, IF THAT'S A WORD. 
          IT IS VERY ECLECTIC. 
          AND SO HOW DOES THIS ORDINANCE, WHICH SORT OF PUTS EVERYTHING INTO FIVE BOXES. 
          HOW DOES IT, UH, HONOR THE ECLECTIC NATURE OF THAT NEIGHBORHOOD? WELL, IT SHOULDN'T CHANGE IT IMMEDIATELY, RIGHT? 'CAUSE THE ONLY TIME WE WILL BE, UH, MAKING ANY TYPE OF NEW, UH, CONSTRUCTION WOULD BE IF, IF ANY OF THESE BUILDINGS ARE DEMOLISHED. 
          SO IT, IT SHOULDN'T CHANGE THE ECLECTICISM OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, CERTAINLY IN THE NEAR TERM. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, THE, THE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE FIVE STYLES WAS A RESULT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S, UH, CONVERSATIONS ABOUT, I THINK WANTING TO BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE EXISTING CD TWO. 
          UM, BUT ALSO THAT THOSE WERE THE STYLES THAT IF NEW CONSTRUCTION WAS TO COME INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THAT THEY DESIRED TO SEE SOMETHING THAT WAS MORE IN KEEPING WITH THOSE, UM, YOU KNOW, ORIGINAL HOMES TO THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER CARPENTER. 
          I DID NOTICE IN THE, THE LONG LIST THAT BROKE DOWN, YOU KNOW, ALL OF THE HOMES THAT ARE IN THIS AREA AND IDENTIFIED THE STYLE AND, AND WHERE THEY WERE LOCATED. 
          THAT THERE SEEMED TO BE SOME BLOCKS IN THE, YOU KNOW, 100 BLOCKS IN THE EXPANSION AREA WHERE ALL OF THE HOMES ON THAT BLOCK WERE, UH, DESIGNATED SUPPORTING. 
          IS IT POSSIBLE THAT THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT HOMES ON THOSE BLOCKS THAT AREN'T SUPPORTING? BECAUSE YOU CAN BE SIGNIFICANT IF YOU WERE DESIGNED, UH, IF IT WAS DESIGNED TO BUY A PARTICULAR ARCHITECT, BUT YOU MIGHT NOT NECESSARILY BE IN ONE OF THOSE FIVE STYLES. 
          I GUESS I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHY THOSE PARTICULAR BLOCKS MIGHT HAVE BEEN, WERE INCLUDED IF EVERYTHING WAS DESIGNATED AS SUPPORTING. 
          SO THE BOUNDARIES OF THE PROPOSED EXPANSION AREA WERE DETERMINED BY THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMITTEE. 
          THAT WAS PART OF THE DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY THAT WAS SUBMITTED. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, UH, I THINK PEOPLE FOCUSING ON, UH, THE NUMBER OF SUPPORTING STRUCTURES IN AN AREA, UM, THAT WAS NOT A FACTOR IN THE INITIAL, UM, EVALUATION OF THE DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY. 
          'CAUSE IT HADN'T BEEN DISCUSSED. 
          WHAT WAS GONNA BE ONE OF THE CONTRIBUTING STYLES OR WHAT MIGHT BE A, A NON-CONTRIBUTING OR SUPPORTING. 
          SO I THINK IT WAS MERELY, UH, THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UM, LOOKING AT THE AREA, UM, AND IDENTIFYING WHAT THEY FELT LIKE WOULD OFFER A, A BUFFER OR PROTECTION OF THE EXISTING, UH, CHARACTER OF, OF THOSE HOMES, ESPECIALLY THERE ON, UH, LAKEWOOD AND LAKESHORE, UH, AND TOON. 
          BUT, UM, UH, I, THERE ARE CERTAINLY SUPPORTING STRUCTURES THAT ARE IDENTIFIED AS SIGNIFICANT. 
          I KNOW, UH, A HANDFUL DOWN ON THE, THE FAR END OF LAKEWOOD OR LAKE SHORE THAT WERE LISTED AS SUPPORTING, BUT ALSO AS SIGNIFICANT STRUCTURES BECAUSE OF WHO THEY'RE ASSOCIATED WITH. 
          ONE OTHER QUESTION, I I BELIEVE IN THE STAFF AND THE CASE REPORT, IT SAYS THAT WHEN THE PETITIONS WERE DONE, IT WAS 68% SUPPORT. 
          IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. 
          OKAY. 
          BUT WE'VE BEEN GETTING EMAILS GIVING US SOME, UM, POLLING NUMBERS, SURVEY NUMBERS THAT, YOU KNOW, SEEM TO SAY DIFFERENT THINGS. 
          DO YOU KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE MECHANISM OF THIS SURVEY OR POLLING THAT WAS DONE? I MUST ASSUMING BY A NEIGHBOR. 
          I CAN'T SPEAK TO THE METHOD OF, UH, POLLING THAT WAS DONE. 
          WE DO HAVE A, UH, MAP BASED ON THE RESPONSES, UH, THAT WENT OUT WITH THE CPC NOTIFICATION, UH, THAT INCLUDES, UH, 102 IN FAVOR WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE PROPOSED EXPANSION AND 108 IN OPPOSITION. 
          THANK YOU. 
          [02:25:02]
THANK YOU. 
          COMMISSIONER HALL FILED BY COMMISSIONER KINGSTON. 
          WHEN A SUPPORTING HOME IS DEMOLISHED AND HAS TO BE REBUILT IN ONE OF FIVE STYLES, IT THAT, DOES THAT JUST MEAN THE EXTERIOR OF THIS HOME HAS TO LOOK A CERTAIN WAY? IT DOESN'T IMPACT WHAT YOU WOULD DO ON THE INTERIOR, DOES IT? THAT'S CORRECT. 
          THE CONSERVATION DISTRICT WOULD HAVE NO, UH, OVERSIGHT OVER INTERIORS. 
          AND REALLY THE, UM, ARCHITECTURAL REGULATIONS WILL ONLY APPLY TO THE AREA. 
          THAT'S WHAT'S REFERRED TO AS THE WRAPAROUND. 
          SO THE FRONT HALF OF THE HOUSE HAS THE ARCHITECTURAL REGULATIONS. 
          UM, SO THAT'S REALLY THE, THE AREA THAT WOULD BE FOCUSED ON IN TERMS OF ONE OF THE FIVE STYLES, UH, MEETING THE CRITERIA. 
          SO IT COULD BE QUITE MODERN ON THE INSIDE, BUT LOOK MORE HIS HISTORICAL FOR, UH, ON THE OUTSIDE. 
          DOES THAT REQUIRE, UH, TO DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT, DOES THAT REQUIRE SPECIALTY ARCHITECTS AND SPECIALTY CONSTRUCTION COMPANIES? SO THE CITY HAS 18 CONSERVATION DISTRICTS THAT ALL, UH, ONLY REGULATE THE EXTERIOR. 
          UM, AS FAR AS I KNOW, THERE HAS NOT BEEN ANY ISSUE IN FINDING, UH, PROFESSIONALS TO ACCOMPLISH, UH, PRODUCING PLANS BASED ON THE REGULATIONS. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          COMMISSIONER KINGSTON. 
          IN CREATING THE PETITIONS THAT GO OUT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, YOU INCLUDE A LIST OF POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS THAT THE CD MAY REGULATE, CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. 
          AND DOES THE CITY HAVE A FORM PETITION THAT HAS A, A, A LIST OF POTENTIAL, UM, ITEMS? SO THE DEVELOPMENT CODE, UH, THE ENABLING OR, OR ORDINANCE FOR CONSERVATION DISTRICTS OUTLINES THOSE AREAS THAT MUST BE INCLUDED. 
          UM, AND THEN ALSO GIVES THE ABILITY TO ADD ADDITIONAL, IF THE NEIGHBORHOOD SEES FIT, THERE IS NO FORM, UH, PETITION THAT IS USED. 
          UH, IN FACT, UM, THE, THE NEIGHBORS CAN DECIDE. 
          THERE, THERE YOU HAVE TO SPECIFY THE TYPES OF THINGS THAT YOU'RE GONNA TALK ABOUT UNDER EACH OF THOSE POTENTIAL ITEMS THAT THE ORDINANCE, UH, ALLOWS YOU TO TALK ABOUT. 
          SO SPECIFICALLY AS IT RELATES TO FENCES, IT SAYS YOU HAVE TO REGULATE FENCES, BUT THEN THE NEIGHBORS CAN DECIDE WHAT IS IT ABOUT FENCES THAT THEY REALLY WANT TO, UH, DISCUSS, POSSIBLY REGULATING. 
          SO THE CODE IDENTIFIES CERTAIN TOPICS THAT CAN BE UP FOR REGULATION, AND THOSE TOPICS HAVE TO BE LISTED ON THE PETITION AS ITEMS THAT ARE UP FOR DISCUSSION? THAT'S CORRECT. 
          WE ONLY DISCUSS ITEMS ON THE PETITION AND THEN IT, DURING THE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS, WHAT REGULATIONS ACTUALLY COME OUT OF ACTUALLY MAKE IT INTO THE ORDINANCE IS A PRODUCT OF THE COMMUNITY'S DISCUSSIONS. 
          IN OTHER WORDS, THAT'S CORRECT. 
          YOU HAVE A BROAD TOPIC ON THE PETITION AND THE SPECIFICITY GETS HASHED OUT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS. 
          CORRECT. 
          IS THERE ANY PROHIBITION IN THE CODE FOR LISTING ALL OF THE POTENTIAL TOPICS THAT THE CODE ALLOWS IN YOUR PETITION? NOT THAT I KNOW OF. 
          OKAY. 
          AND IN THIS CASE, WERE ALL OF THE POTENTIAL TOPICS LISTED IN THE PETITION? NO, I DON'T BELIEVE SO. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONERS ARE TWO COMMISSIONERS ONLINE. 
          I, I CAN'T SEE YOU ANYMORE, SO IF YOU THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS ONLINE, WE'LL TAKE THOSE NOW. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SIR. 
          WE'LL SEE YOU THIS AFTERNOON. 
          UH, COMMISSIONERS, UH, LET'S GO AHEAD AND STAY IN ORDER. 
          UH, WE DO HAVE SOME MOVING PIECES AS ALWAYS. 
          SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND GO TO CASE NUMBER 21 BEFORE WE HEAD INTO THE ZONING CASES. 
          UH, AND THEN JUST FYI, THIS ITEM MAY BE MOVED UP ON THE AGENDA, UH, THIS AFTERNOON IF WE HAVE TO. 
          21. 
          MM-HMM, . 
          GOOD MORNING. 
          [02:30:28]
THE MIC. 
          THE MICROPHONE. 
          OH, THANK YOU COMMISSIONER. 
          UH, THE NEXT CASE IS CASE NUMBER Z 180 9 DASH 3 2 4 0 GYM TOWN NEIGHBORHOOD AUTHORIZED HEARING. 
          AND THIS IS AN AUTHORIZED HEARING THAT WAS APPROVED IN 2019, AND THE PURPOSE WAS TO DETERMINE PROPER ZONING FOR AN AREA OF, UH, GYM TOWN NEIGHBORHOOD THAT IS PREDOMINANTLY DEVELOPED WITH SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, UH, STRUCTURES, BUT IS ZONED MULTIFAMILY MF TWO A. 
          UH, A LOT OF THE DISCUSSION AND PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT ABOUT THE REZONING HAPPENED DURING WORKUP. 
          SO WE APPROACH THIS FROM AN IMPLEMENTATION STANDPOINT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, OF THE AREA PLAN, WEST IFF AREA PLAN, AND THE AREA IS ENTIRELY ZONED, UH, MF TWO. 
          AND, UH, IT IS ABOUT 10 ACRES. 
          SO THAT IS A GENERAL LOCATION MAP. 
          UH, IT IS IN WEST IFF, UH, IN DISTRICT ONE. 
          UH, THAT IS THE, UH, MAP OF THE AREA OF REQUEST. 
          I KNOW WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF TIME, SO I'M GONNA RUSH THROUGH THE SLIDE. 
          UH, IF YOU WANT ME TO ADDRESS ANYTHING ON THE SLIDE, JUST LET ME KNOW. 
          BUT IN GENERAL, THE AREA IS APPROXIMATELY 10.37 ACRES. 
          IT'S PREDOMINANTLY OCCUPIED BY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS THAT WERE BUILT IN THE 1920S. 
          UH, ONLY TWO OF THE 50 PROPERTIES IN THE AREA OF REQUEST HUB, MULTI-FAMILY PROPERTIES. 
          SO JUST TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT BACKGROUND ABOUT THE, THE CASE, UH, LIKE I SAID, WE, WE APPROACHED THIS FROM AN IMPLEMENTATION OF THE WEST OAK CLIFF AREA PLAN, WHICH WAS UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED BY THE CPC IN 2022. 
          AND THAT PLAN DO PROVIDE, UH, THE LONG RANGE LAND USE AND REDEVELOPMENT VISION FOR THE AREA. 
          SO WHEN STAFF WAS COMING UP WITH A RECOMMENDATION, UH, THEY, THEY FOLLOWED THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLAN, WHICH RECOMMENDED THAT WE DOWN ZONE, UH, THE, THE DISTRICT TO MATCH WHAT WAS ALREADY ON THE GROUND. 
          THAT PLAN ALSO DID IDENTIFY SEVERAL AREAS, AND THIS IS ONE OF THEM. 
          SO WE HAVE OTHER AUTHORIZED HEARING IN WEST OAK CLIFF, UH, THAT WE ARE WORKING ON AS PART OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE WEST OAK CLIFF AREA PLAN. 
          UH, THIS FLOW CHART KIND OF SUMMARIZES THE ENGAGEMENT, UH, PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT PROCESS THAT WE WENT THROUGH. 
          WE'VE HAD, UH, ABOUT FOUR MEETINGS WITH THE COMMUNITY, AND, UH, THEY'VE BEEN PRETTY SUPPORTIVE OF THE RECOMMENDATION OF STAFF. 
          UH, THEY, THEY WANTED TO PROTECT THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD THAT THEY HAVE. 
          UH, SO OUR RECOMMENDATION IS AN ALIGNMENT WITH THE COMMUNITY VISION. 
          FOR THIS AREA, AGAIN, THIS IS JUST A SUMMARY OF THE SAME FLOW CHART. 
          IT SHOWS THE DATES WHEN WE HAD THE MEETING, YOU KNOW, WHAT THE MAIN TOPIC WAS AND WHAT THE OUTCOME WAS. 
          SO IT SUMMARIZES THAT WE'VE HAD FOUR MEETINGS. 
          THE FIRST ONE WAS ON MARCH 15, AND IN THAT WE DID EXPLAIN THE PROCESS TO THE COMMUNITY, INTRODUCE THEM TO THE AUTHORIZED HEARING PROCESS, AND IN THE NEXT MEETING WE DID, UM, UH, AGAIN, EXPLAIN THE PROCESS AND INTRODUCE THEM TO THE ZONING, UH, CONCEPT THAT WE ARE GOING TO INTRODUCE. 
          AND THE THIRD MEETING WAS HOSTED BY THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION THEMSELF. 
          THEY INVITED US AND THEY HAD HAD DISCUSSION AND THEY HAD A VISION THAT THEY WANTED US TO IMPLEMENT. 
          SO THERE WAS ALREADY SUPPORT FROM THE COMMUNITY THAT ALIGNED WITH THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. 
          AND THEN THE LAST MEETING THAT WE HAD, THE FOURTH MEETING WAS JUST TO BUILD CONSENSUS AND ENSURE THAT WE WERE ON THE SAME PAGE. 
          AND THEN AFTER THAT, WE WENT TO ZRT. 
          AND HERE WE ARE TODAY PRESENTING IT TO THE CPC. 
          AS YOU CAN SEE, THESE ARE THE PHOTOS TAKEN OF THE PROPERTIES IN THE AREA OF REQUEST. 
          IT'S A PRETTY STANDARD ESTABLISHED, UH, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          UH, UH, THERE WERE SOME RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE PLAN TO CONSIDER URBAN DESIGN STANDARDS ABOUT SIDEWALKS AND OTHER, OTHER ELEMENTS, UH, FROM A FORM BASED CODE. 
          BUT BASED 
          [02:35:01]
ON WHAT WE SAW AND, UH, AND OUR ASSESSMENT ON THE GROUND, I THINK WHAT WE JUST NEEDED TO BE ADDRESSED WAS THE ZONING. 
          THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS PRETTY ESTABLISHED AND IS A STABLE NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          AGAIN, IN TERMS OF EXISTING LAND USE, THE, THE AREA OF REQUEST IS PREDOMINANTLY SURROUNDED BY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, UH, STRUCTURES, ZONE R 7.5 A EXCEPT TO THE EAST WHERE WE HAVE SOME COMMERCIAL AND MIXED USES, UH, PRIMARILY RETAIL AND PERSONAL SERVICES. 
          THIS TABLE SUMMARIZES THE SURROUNDING USES, AND AS YOU CAN SEE, IT'S AGAIN, THE AREA SURROUNDED BY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES, EXCEPT ON THE EASTERN SIDE WHERE WE HAVE SOME COMMERCIAL USES. 
          AGAIN, THAT IS REPRESENTED IN A MAP. 
          YOU CAN SEE WHAT EACH AND EVERY PARCEL THAT BORDERS OR ABOUTS THE, UH, AREA OF REQUEST AND WHAT THE USE IN THEM IS. 
          SO THE CURRENT ZONING ON THE AREA OF REQUEST IS MF TWO A. 
          IT IS THE SAME ZONING FOR THE ENTIRE DISTRICT, AND, UH, IT'S SURROUNDED BY R 7.5 A AND MU AND CR TO THE EAST. 
          SO IN TERMS OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION, WE APPROACHED THIS FROM TRYING TO MATCH WHAT WAS ALREADY ON THE GROUND. 
          AND THE, THE DISTRICT HAS 50 PROPERTIES, 48 OF THEM HAVE SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED HOUSING. 
          AND SO THE RECOMMENDATION WAS THAT FOR ANY PROPERTY THAT HAD SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED STRUCTURE, WE RECOMMENDED R 7.5, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. 
          AND THERE ARE TWO PROPERTIES WITHIN THE AREA OF REQUESTS THAT ARE HIGHLIGHTED THERE IN RED. 
          THOSE TWO PROPERTIES HAVE MULTI-FAMILY APARTMENTS, UH, WITH FOUR UNITS. 
          SO THE QUADPLEXES, INITIALLY WHEN WE HAD THE MEETING WITH THE COMMUNITY, THEY WANTED THE ENTIRE AREA TO BE ZONE SINGLE FAMILY, BUT WE EXPLAINED TO THEM, YOU KNOW, THE RECOMMENDATION OF WORKUP AND ALSO THE PRIORITIES OF THE CITY FROM $4 STANDPOINT OF PRESERVING, UH, AFFORDABLE EXISTS NATURALLY OCCURRING AFFORDABLE HOUSING. 
          AND THERE WERE MANY ABLE TO THAT THE COMMUNITY HAS BEEN VERY SUPPORTING AND VERY UNDERSTANDING. 
          SO THEY WERE OPEN TO DOWN ZONING, UH, A BIT OF THOSE PROPERTIES FROM MF TWO TO MF ONE A. 
          THE OTHER THING THAT THE COMMUNITY DID REQUEST TO HAVE TO DO IS TO CONSIDER, UH, CREATING ACCESSORY, ESTABLISHING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT OVERLAY ON THE SINGLE FAMILY PORTION OF THE DISTRICT ON THE AREA THAT WE ARE RECOMMENDING FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES. 
          WE DID CHECK WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND THEY CONFIRM THAT WE COULD DO THAT. 
          SO STAFF IS RECOMMENDING ESTABLISHING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT OVERLAY OVER THE AREA THAT HAS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES. 
          ONLY THE TWO PROPERTIES THAT ARE STILL GOING TO CONTINUE BEING MULTIFAMILY ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THAT OVERLAY. 
          THESE ARE A SUMMARY OF THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARD, PRETTY STANDARD BASED ZONING DEVELOPMENT STANDARD. 
          AND THEN YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE ASSOCIATED DWELLING UNIT. 
          SO CURRENTLY THERE ARE TWO ESTABLISHED PROCESSES THAT'S A PROPERTY OWNER CAN USE TO, UH, BUILD A ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT. 
          ONE IS TO APPLY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND ASK FOR EXEMPTION. 
          AND THE OTHER ONE IS TO GO THROUGH A NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION PROCESS WHERE THEY ESTABLISH AN A DU OVERLAY. 
          THAT'S WHAT WE CALL A BY RIGHT PROCESS. 
          AND THEN THE A D WOULD BE ALLOWED IN THAT DISTRICT BY RIGHT. 
          AND THEN THIS IS THE THIRD ONE. 
          WHAT STAFF IS RECOMMENDING IS TO CREATE AN, UH, A DU OVERLAY THROUGH THE AUTHORIZED HEARING. 
          THE ONLY THING THAT IT DOES IS THAT IT REMOVES A REQUIREMENT TO GO TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FOR APPROVAL OR FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO DO THE PETITION PROCESS. 
          BUT STILL ALL THE OTHER REQUIREMENTS OF A DU OR THE REGULATION OF A DU AS A CONTAINING IN THE CITY CODE STILL DO APPLY. 
          SO THE MAP OVER THERE IS SHOWS THE A DU OVERLAY BOUNDARY, AND AS YOU CAN SEE, TWO OF THE PROPERTIES THAT HAVE MULTIFAMILY, UH, APARTMENTS ARE EXEMPT. 
          THEY'RE OUTSIDE THE A DU OVERLAY, BUT THEN THE PROPERTY OWNERS WOULD STILL HAVE TO APPLY FOR A PERMIT TO BUILD AN A DU. 
          AND ALL THE REGULATION THAT ARE STIPULATED IN THE CODE WOULD STILL APPLY. 
          I'M NOT GONNA GO THROUGH THEM, BUT THEY'RE LISTED OVER THERE. 
          AND THEN WE ALSO DID ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF WHITE LIMITATION. 
          UH, THE COMMUNITY WAS, UH, CONCERNED ABOUT THAT AND THEY WANTED TO ENSURE THAT THIS PROTECTION FOR THE EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY. 
          SO WE DID 
          [02:40:01]
RECOMMEND THREE TO ONE RPS, UH, IN THE, UH, CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WAS SURROUNDING, UH, THE DISTRICT IN TERMS OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL. 
          AND THAT'S IT. 
          ANY QUESTION? THANK YOU, SIR. 
          QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER TURNER, PLEASE, SIR. 
          ON THE, ON THE, UM, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAS SOME EXISTING ADUS THAT ARE OPERATING ILLEGALLY EFFECTIVELY. 
          IS THAT TRUE? YES. 
          YES. 
          UH, SO DURING THE DISCUSSION, THE ISSUE CAME UP AND, UH, THEY WERE MENTIONED THAT THERE ARE ALREADY SOME STRUCTURES THAT ARE OPERATING AS A DU. 
          UH, SO WE DID, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT IT DID DURING ONE OF THE COMMUNITY MEETINGS THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION ORGANIZED IS WE WALKED, UH, THE, EVERY STREET LOOKED AT EVERY PROPERTY IN THE AREA WITH THE COMMUNITY RESIDENCE. 
          AND WE DID IDENTIFY SOME STRUCTURES THAT ALREADY HAVE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES. 
          NOW, WE ARE NOT TRAINED TO DETERMINE WHETHER THEY'RE LEGAL OR NOT, BUT THEY'RE, MY COUNT WAS ROUGHLY 15 TO 20 STRUCTURES THAT WE SAW. 
          AND THEN THIS ALSO A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT WAS BUILT IN THE 1920S, SO THERE'VE BEEN ADDITIONS. 
          SO IF THERE ARE SOME STRUCTURES OF A DU THAT ARE ATTACHED TO THE MAIN UNIT, IT'S VERY HARD TO TELL. 
          SO, BUT THERE ARE A FEW OF THEM WE JUST . 
          AND SO IF THIS SHOULD PASS, THOSE WOULD BECOME LEGAL IF THE ONLY THING THAT WE ARE ADDRESSING THROUGH THIS, THE AD OVERLAYS TO ALLOW THEM TO EXIST IF THEY CHOOSE TO, BUT THEY STILL HAVE TO MEET ALL THE CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR AD. 
          OF COURSE. 
          YEAH. 
          AND THE OTHER QUESTION, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE DIALOGUE WITH THIS NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE CITY PREDATED WCAP, THE, THE INTENT FOR THIS TO HAPPEN WAS SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN A, A LONG TIME IN THE MAKING. 
          YES, THE CONVERSATION HAS HAP HAD HAPPENED FOR A LONG TIME. 
          UH, I, I THINK MOST OF IT HAPPENED DURING WOKE UP. 
          AND WHEN WE WALKED INTO THE COMMUNITY, I THINK THEY ALREADY HAD A VISION OF WHAT THEY WANTED. 
          UH, THE ZONING ALSO SEEMED TO BE OUTTA PLACE BECAUSE IT DIDN'T MATCH WHAT WAS ON THE GROUND. 
          AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION WAS VERY SUPPORTIVE OF THE DOWN ZONING, UH, AS PROPOSED IN THE WORKUP. 
          SO THE CONVERSATION HAD HAPPENED AMONG THEM, THE THE PROPERTY OWNERS AND THE COMMUNITY FOR A LONG TIME. 
          THANK YOU, SIR. 
          QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER HAMPTON? THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. 
          UM, THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION. 
          UM, I JUST, UM, I SEE A LOT OF SIMILARITIES, SOME OF OUR OTHER CASES ON THE DOCKET TODAY, BUT, UM, SO THE MF TWO ZONING WAS OVERLAID ON AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. 
          AND THAT'S REALLY WHAT THIS IS DOING IS BRINGING IT BACK TO ALIGN WITH THE USES THAT ARE ON THE GROUND TODAY. 
          AND WHERE THERE WAS AN EXCEPTION, STAFF HAS RECOGNIZED THAT AND IS, UM, ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THROUGH THE ALTERNATE ZONING DISTRICT. 
          IS THAT, AM I JUST IN A NUTSHELL? THAT'S CORRECT. 
          THAT'S CORRECT, MA'AM. 
          UH, THERE ARE TWO, UH, RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES THAT HAVE APARTMENT COMPLEX. 
          THE QUADPLEX WERE BUILT IN 1987. 
          RIGHT. 
          AND I SUSPECT THAT IS WHEN THEY REZONE THAT AREA. 
          PROBABLY SOMEBODY THOUGHT THEY WERE GONNA BUILD APARTMENTS THERE THAT NEVER HAPPENED. 
          THE STRUCTURES ARE STILL SINGLE FAMILY. 
          AND SO WHAT YOU'VE SAID IS EXACTLY CORRECT. 
          OKAY. 
          THAT'S WHAT IS HAPPENING. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. 
          COMMISSIONER CARPENTER. 
          SO A NEWLY CONSTRUCTED A DU COULD NOT BE TALLER THAN THE PRIMARY UNIT, IS THAT CORRECT? YES. 
          THAT'S ONE OF THE, THE ONLY WAY IT COULD BE TALLER THAN THE PRIMARY UNIT WOULD BE IF IT'S, UM, ON TOP OF AN EXISTING DETACHED GARAGE. 
          AND THEN IT'S LIMITED BY THE 30 FEET THAT'S IN THE R SEVEN FIVE ZONING DISTRICT? THAT'S CORRECT. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, I, I THINK I READ SOMEWHERE THAT, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THESE LOTS ARE NOT ACTUALLY EXISTING. 
          LOTS WITH STRUCTURES ON THEM ARE NOT ACTUALLY 7,500 SQUARE FEET, WHICH R SEVEN FIVE WOULD REQUIRE, BUT BECAUSE THEY HAVE HAD HOMES ON THEM IN THE PAST THAT WERE LEGAL BUILDING SITES, IF IT WERE TO BE REDEVELOPED, THERE WOULD BE NO PROBLEM WITH THE FACT THAT THE LOT IS SMALLER THAN 7,500 SQUARE FEET. 
          IS THAT CORRECT? Y YOU ARE CORRECT, YES. 
          UH, WE DIDN'T DO THE MEASUREMENT, BUT LOOKING AT THE DATA, WE'VE GIVEN THE RANGE 6,000 TO 7,500 SQUARE FEET. 
          NOW THAT IS BASED OFF D CARD, WHICH IS AN APPROXIMATION. 
          UH, BUT THEY SEEM PRETTY STANDARD WITH WHAT IS AROUND THEM, AND THEY ALL HAVE R 7.5 A ZONING. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER. 
          ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM? ANY QUESTIONS FROM OUR FOLKS ONLINE? I, OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SIR. 
          UH, COMMISSIONERS, I THINK WE HAVE TIME TO SQUEEZE IN A ZONING CASE OR TWO, UH, OUR, OUR DEVELOPMENT PLAN. 
          UH, DO WE NEED THAT BRIEF? WOULD ANYONE REQUEST TO HAVE THAT BRIEF? THIS IS ITEM NUMBER TWO. 
          OKAY. 
          [02:45:01]
WELL THEN LET'S GO AHEAD AND JUMP RIGHT INTO, UH, CASE NUMBER THREE, UM, MR. CHAIR. 
          YES. 
          UM, CASE NUMBER THREE IS GONNA BE HELD. 
          WE'RE WORKING OUT WITH A FEW CLARIFICATIONS. 
          PERFECT. 
          SO WE CAN BRIEF IT WHEN WE HEAR IT. 
          IT WILL BE ON SO MUCH ON DECEMBER THE FIFTH. 
          DECEMBER 5TH. 
          SO LET'S GO TO CASE NUMBER FOUR. 
          COMMISSIONER HAM. 
          THAT ONE. 
          OKAY. 
          FOUR. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          LET'S GO TO FOUR, MR. BATE. 
          GOOD MORNING, SIR. 
          GOOD MORNING. 
          THIS IS CASE NUMBER Z 2 3 4 DASH 2 41. 
          AN APPLICATION FOR A NEW PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FOR WR THREE WALKABLE URBAN RESIDENTIAL USES ON PROPERTY ZONE IN IR INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH DISTRICT. 
          LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST LINE OF KINSEY DRIVE NORTH OF MORNINGSTAR PLACE, APPROXIMATELY 7,405 SQUARE FEET IN SIZE. 
          UH, LOCATED HERE IN, UH, KIND OF NEAR THE LOVEFIELD AREA. 
          THE STEMMONS CORRIDOR MEDICAL DISTRICT AREA IS THE AERIAL MAP SHOWING THE SUBJECT SITE, UH, THE ZONING MAPS. 
          THIS IS A BIT OF AN INTERESTING AREA. 
          THERE'S A MIX OF MF TWO AND WR THREE ZONING IN THIS AREA. 
          UM, THERE'S ALSO THE IR INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH DISTRICT AND THEN PD 9 0 7 THAT CONTAINS ATTACHED SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES. 
          UH, SOME OF THE HISTORY AROUND THIS AREA IS THAT THIS PARCEL IS ZONED IR AND THEN EVERYTHING TO THE NORTHEAST OF IT WAS ALSO ZONED IR. 
          UM, FOR THE LAST SEVERAL DECADES, I WOULD THINK, AND OVER THE YEARS IT HAS BEEN REZONED, UH, PIECE BY PIECE TO WR THREE. 
          SO CURRENTLY ZONED IR AND THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSING A FIVE UNIT MULTI-FAMILY BUILDING UNDER THE WR THREE WALKABLE URBAN RESIDENTIAL STANDARDS. 
          HOWEVER, IN ORDER TO ACCOMPLISH THIS, THE APPLICANT'S REQUESTING A PD WITH THE WR THREE USES, AND WE'LL GET INTO THAT IN A BIT. 
          HERE WE ARE ON KEMPSEY DRIVE, LOOKING SOUTHEAST AT THE SUBJECT SITE, THEN LOOKING NORTHEAST, AND THEN TO THE NO, TO THE NORTHWEST. 
          WE'RE SEEING THIS GENERAL TREND OF MULTIFAMILY HOUSING THROUGHOUT THE AREA, AS WELL AS THAT ATTACHED SINGLE FAMILY FURTHER TO THE SOUTHWEST. 
          LOOKING SOUTH OF THE SUBJECT SIDE AGAIN, AND YOU CAN SEE IN THE BACKGROUND OF THE PHOTO, THERE'S AN EXISTING MULTIFAMILY BUILT UNDER MF TWO, UH, THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. 
          SO THIS IS ALWAYS A LITTLE FUN TO GET INTO HERE IN THE WEEDS OF THE FORM-BASED DISTRICTS. 
          I'LL TRY TO KEEP IT HIGH LEVEL AND IF THERE ARE QUESTIONS, CERTAINLY WE CAN, UH, HELP CLARIFY HERE. 
          UH, BUT THE MAIN THRUST OF WR THREE AND FOREIGN-BASED DISTRICTS IN GENERAL IS THAT THEY ARE FOCUSED LESS ON JUST REGULATING USES IS OUR BASIC, UH, EUCLIDEAN ZONING IS AND MORE FOCUSED ON THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT ITSELF. 
          THEY WANNA LOOK AT HOW DOES SOMETHING FIT INTO, IN THIS CASE, A WALKABLE URBAN RESIDENTIAL AREA. 
          SO FOR INSTANCE, YOUR FRONT FOOT SET, YOUR FRONT SETBACKS, AND THIS IS BASED ON YOUR TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENT TYPE. 
          SO LEMME BACK THAT UP THERE. 
          UNDER FORM-BASED DISTRICTS, YOU'VE GOT YOUR GENERAL DISTRICT. 
          IN THIS CASE IT'S WR THREE. 
          WITHIN EACH OF THESE DISTRICTS, THERE'S CERTAIN BUILDING TYPES THAT ARE ALLOWED, AND THERE'S ALSO ACTUAL USES THAT ARE ALLOWED. 
          AND EACH DEVELOPMENT TYPE IS GOING TO HAVE DIFFERENT STANDARDS, UH, THAN OTHER ONES. 
          SO IN THIS CASE, WE'RE USING THE TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENT TYPE IS AN EXAMPLE. 
          THE FRONT SETBACK IS GONNA BE BETWEEN FIVE FEET AND 15 FEET. 
          IT'S A FIVE FOOT MINIMUM. 
          YOU ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF STREET FRONTAGE. 
          SO THE IDEA HERE IS THAT RATHER THAN HAVING A LOT WHERE YOU HAVE A VERY NARROW BUILDING THAT DOESN'T REALLY HAVE MUCH STREET FRONTAGE, DOESN'T ENGAGE IT, YOU'RE REQUIRED TO HAVE AT LEAST 70% OF THAT FRONTAGE ON THE STREET. 
          UH, THE PARKING SETBACK ON THE PRIMARY STREET HAS TO BE 30 FEET MINIMUM, SO AWAY FROM THE FRONT YARD LINE. 
          UM, AND IF IT'S ADJACENT TO MULTI-FAMILY OR NON-RESIDENTIAL, IT HAS TO HAVE A FIVE FOOT MINIMUM SETBACK THERE. 
          UH, YOUR SIDE SETBACK IS ZERO FEET OR FIVE FEET. 
          UM, IT JUST DEPENDS ON WHETHER IT'S ADJACENT TO MULTI-FAMILY OR NON-RESIDENTIAL. 
          UM, THE REAR SETBACK IS A 24 FOOT MINIMUM. 
          THE DENSITY IS A 1200 SQUARE FEET PER UNIT. 
          AND THEN THE HEIGHT, UH, RATHER THAN HAVING A STRAIGHT HEIGHT LIMIT, IT'S A ONE STORY MINIMUM. 
          3.5 STORIES FOR 50 FEET MAX. 
          UH, YOU HAVE A STORY HEIGHT REGULATION, UH, AND PROBABLY THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IS ACTUALLY YOUR TRANSPARENCY REQUIREMENT. 
          SO 30% TRANSPARENCY ON THE GROUND STORY, 20% ON THE UPPER STORY. 
          AGAIN, THE IDEA HERE IS THAT WHEN YOU'RE BUILDING OUT THESE WALKABLE URBAN RESIDENTIAL AREAS, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT MAKES US AREA WALKABLE AND FEEL NICE IS TO HAVE TRANSPARENCY. 
          TO HAVE WINDOWS, TO HAVE DOORS, RATHER THAN WALKING ALONG A LONG CONCRETE BRICK, WHAT HAVE YOU, FACADE, YOU GET SOME ACTIVATION BY HAVING THAT TRANSPARENCY REQUIREMENT. 
          UH, THERE'S ALSO A REQUIREMENT FOR ENTRANCES TO BE ON THE FRONT, UH, ON THE PRIMARY STREET RATHER THAN ON THE SIDE. 
          AGAIN, THAT'S TALKING ABOUT YOUR ENGAGEMENT WITH THE STREET, UH, BLANK WALL AREA, 30 FEET MAX. 
          UM, AND THE SPECIAL STANDARDS HERE, I MARKED THERE, PROXIMITY SLOPE. 
          SO WHY ARE THEY ASKING FOR A PD? IT'S PRETTY SIMPLE. 
          THE WAY THAT OUR CODE IS WRITTEN, RPS, 
          [02:50:01]
WHICH IS GENERATED BY OUR RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, WHICH INCLUDES MF TWO RPS, APPLIES TO YOUR TYPICAL THINGS THAT YOU WOULD HOPE IT WOULD APPLY TO, SUCH AS COMMERCIAL USES, RETAIL USES, ET CETERA. 
          BUT IT ALSO APPLIES TO OUR FORM-BASED DISTRICTS. 
          IF THEY WERE TO GO WITH A STRAIGHT WR THREE FORM-BASED DISTRICT, THEY WOULD ACTUALLY BE LIMITED IN HEIGHT TO ABOUT 26 FEET, GIVE OR TAKE. 
          UH, TECHNICALLY THE WAY THAT PROJECTS, YOU COULD THEORETICALLY HAVE A BUILDING THAT BEGINS AT 26 FEET AND WOULD GO UP TO ABOUT 29 FEET. 
          UH, BUT IT WOULDN'T REALLY BE PRACTICAL. 
          MEANWHILE, IF THEY WENT WITH AN MF TWO DISTRICT, WHICH IS WHAT WAS ACTUALLY ORIGINALLY REQUESTED, THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO BUILD UP TO 36 FEET IN HEIGHT. 
          SO KIND OF LET THAT SINK IN. 
          IF IT WENT WITH JUST STRAIGHT WR R THREE, IT WOULD BE LIMITED TO A LOWER HEIGHT THAN WHAT WOULD BE ALLOWED WITH AN MF TWO. 
          AS SUCH, UH, WHAT WE LOOKED AT HERE WAS, WELL, ONE IS WR THREE APPROPRIATE FOR THE AREA, AND IF SO, WOULD A PD MAKES SENSE TO, UH, ADDRESS THIS ISSUE OF THE RPS? SO THE PD WOULD ALLOW FOR AN EXEMPTION FROM RPS AND THEREBY ACHIEVE THE BENEFITS OF THE WR THREE STANDARDS, WHICH IS SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN PURSUED ALONG KENZIE DRIVE IN THE PAST. 
          UM, THE HEIGHT, THE ONLY PROPOSED CONDITIONS ARE THAT THE HEIGHT IS THE PROPERTY IS NOT SUBJECT TO RPS. 
          AND FOR PLANS, UH, NO CONCEPTUAL PLAN OR DEVELOPMENT PLAN BEING REQUIRED, UH, THIS GIVES SOME FLEXIBILITY TO THE DEVELOPER TO JUST GO AHEAD AND FOLLOW THE WR THREE STANDARDS AND BUILD WHATEVER THEY SEE FIT. 
          STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS. 
          THANK YOU, SIR. 
          COMMISSIONER HAMPTON. 
          THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. 
          UM, AND THANK YOU, MR. BATE. 
          IS IT CORRECT THAT IF THIS SITE WAS, UM, CONSIDERED AS MF TWO AS ORIGINALLY SUGGESTED, IT WOULD OPPOSE THE SAME HEIGHT LIMITATION ON THE ADJACENT WR THREE PROPERTY? IT WOULD DO THAT? YES. 
          SO THIS IS A WAY OF BRIDGING, UM, EARLIER, UM, REZONING WITH THE TREND THAT IS NOW BEING ESTABLISHED ALONG KIMSEY. 
          UM, WHICH IS, UM, OR, AND I GUESS I'LL BACK UP ONE STEP AND SAY, IS IT CORRECT THAT THERE'S EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY EVEN THOUGH IT IS ZONED IR? YES, THE EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY WAS BUILT THERE. 
          UH, MY BEST GUESS WOULD BE THAT THIS WAS AN AREA THAT WAS ESTABLISHED BEFORE ANY OF OUR, EITHER OUR CONTEMPORARY ZONING REGIME OR WHAT WAS EXISTING BEFORE, UH, THE 1980S AMENDMENT, RIGHT. 
          UH, VERY COMMON THROUGHOUT THE CITY. 
          AND SO REALLY, UH, AND I THINK YOU NOTED THIS, EVERYTHING IS EVOLVING INTO MULTIFAMILY STYLE DEVELOPMENT, WHETHER IT'S THROUGH A PD, WHETHER IT'S THROUGH A MIXED USE DISTRICT OR THE, UM, WR THREE THAT'S BEING UTILIZED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF KIMSEY. 
          SO THIS IS REALLY ESSENTIALLY BRIDGING WHERE THE TWO ARE INTERSECTING, AND THAT'S THE REASON WHY IT'S A PD. 
          YES. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM? COMMISSIONERS? OKAY. 
          UH, COMMISSIONERS. 
          IT'S EXACTLY NOON. 
          LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE OUR, OUR LUNCH BREAK. 
          WE'LL BRIEF THE REST OF THE, THE ZONING CASES BEFORE WE HEAR THEM. 
          IT'S 12 O'CLOCK. 
          THAT CONCLUDES THE BRIEFING OF THE DALLAS CITY PLAN COMMISSION. 
          WE'LL BE BACK ONLINE AT 1230. 
          OKAY. 
          COMMISSIONERS, PLEASE TAKE YOUR SEATS. 
          WE'RE GONNA GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED. 
          UH, CAN WE START OFF WITH THE ROLL CALL, PLEASE? GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONERS. 
          DISTRICT ONE, COMMISSIONER SCHOCK. 
          PRESENT, DISTRICT TWO. 
          COMMISSIONER HAMPTON. 
          PRESENT, DISTRICT THREE. 
          COMMISSIONER HERBERT PRESENT, DISTRICT FOUR. 
          COMMISSIONER FORSYTH, DISTRICT FIVE. 
          CHAIR SHA DID PRESENT DISTRICT SIX. 
          COMMISSIONER CARPENTER PRESENT? DISTRICT SEVEN. 
          COMMISSIONER WHEELER, REAGAN. 
          DISTRICT EIGHT. 
          COMMISSIONER BLAIR PRESENT? DISTRICT NINE. 
          COMMISSIONER SLEEPER. 
          HERE. 
          DISTRICT 10. 
          COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT. 
          HERE. 
          DISTRICT 11, VACANT. 
          DISTRICT 12. 
          COMMISSIONER HAWK PRESENT. 
          DISTRICT 13. 
          COMMISSIONER HALL HERE. 
          DISTRICT 14, COMMISSIONER KINGSTON AND PLACE 15 VICE CHAIR RUBIN? I AM HERE. 
          YOU HAVE QUORUM, SIR. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          UH, GOOD AFTERNOON LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. 
          TODAY IS THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 21ST, 2020 4, 12 39. 
          WELCOME TO THE DALLAS CITY PLAN COMMISSION. 
          UH, COUPLE OF QUICK ANNOUNCEMENTS BEFORE WE GET STARTED. 
          OUR SPEAKER GUIDELINES IS EACH SPEAKER WILL RECEIVE THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK. 
          UH, IN CASES WHERE THERE ARE A POSITION PER OUR RULES, THE APPLICANT WILL GET A TWO MINUTE REBUTTAL. 
          OUR RULES ALSO ALLOW US TO ADJUST THE SPEAKER TIME, UH, ON A CASE BY BASIS. 
          AND THERE IS A CASE AND MAYBE TWO WHERE, UH, WE WILL GO DOWN TO ONE MINUTE PER SPEAKER. 
          AND THAT'S, UH, CERTAINLY ON, UH, WILL HAPPEN ON CASE NUMBER 20 Z 2 12 3 15. 
          THAT'S THE LAKEWOOD CD EXPANSION. 
          AND MAYBE ONE OTHER DEPENDING ON, UH, HOW MANY SPEAKERS WE HAVE, UM, DOWN HERE AT THE, THIS, THIS TABLE. 
          [02:55:01]
AND, AND THANK YOU SIR FOR FEELING THE LITTLE YELLOW CARD OUT AT, AT SOME POINT, IF YOU DON'T MIND, COME DOWN AND, AND, UH, FILL OUT ONE OF THESE YELLOW CARDS. 
          YOU CAN LEAVE THEM RIGHT THERE ON THE TABLE. 
          WE REALLY WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A RECORD OF YOUR VISIT HERE WITH US TODAY. 
          UM, I WILL PLEASE ASK ALL SPEAKERS TO BEGIN YOUR COMMENTS WITH YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, THIS IS A HYBRID MEETING. 
          WE'LL HAVE SOME SPEAKERS ONLINE FOR OUR SPEAKERS, UH, THAT ARE ONLINE. 
          MAKE SURE THAT YOUR CAMERA IS ON AND WORKING. 
          STATE LAW REQUIRES THAT WE SEE YOU IN ORDER TO HEAR FROM YOU. 
          AND WITH THAT, UH, COMMISSIONERS, WE'RE GONNA GO BACK TO, UH, BRIEFING THE CASES, UH, BEFORE WE HEAR THEM, BUT I THINK, UH, WE HAVE A SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENT. 
          THANK YOU SO MUCH, CHAIR, AND THANK YOU EVERYBODY FOR ALLOWING ME TO MAKE THIS LITTLE ANNOUNCEMENT. 
          SO TODAY IS THE LAST CITY PLAN COMMISSION HEARING FOR OUR, ONE OF THE PILLARS OF OUR TEAM, MS. DONNA MORMAN. 
          UH, AFTER 13 YEARS WITH THE CITY, SHE'S GONNA RETIRE. 
          UM, IT'S VERY BITTERSWEET FOR ALL OF US. 
          I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANYBODY IN THE TEAM THAT WHOSE PROFESSIONAL LIFE AND CAREER WAS NOT TOUCHED BY DONNA. 
          UH, SHE'S BEEN WORKING WITH US, AS YOU ALL KNOW. 
          SHE'S DONE A LOT. 
          SHE WORE, SHE WORE A LOT OF HAT IN THE DEPARTMENT. 
          UM, I PERSONALLY, UH, WHEN I STARTED WITH THE CITY, UM, I MOVED TO THE CODE AMENDMENTS TEAM, AND DONNA WAS MY SUPERVISOR, MY BOSS. 
          I LEARNED A LOT FROM HER, AND I THINK IT'S A VERY NICE WAY TO CLOSE THE CIRCLE BECAUSE I MEAN, IT'S PERSONAL TO ME. 
          DONNA. 
          IT'S DIFFERENT FOR DONNA PROBABLY. 
          UM, YEAH, I STARTED WITH HER TEAM. 
          UH, I KICKED OFF THE PARKING CODE AMENDMENT AND TODAY FINALLY  AFTER SO MANY YEARS, THE PARKING CODE AMENDMENT, UH, WAS BEING BRIEFED AT COUNCIL. 
          SO AT CPC, I'M SORRY. 
          SO, UM, I JUST WANTED TO TAKE THIS MOMENT TO MAKE THIS ANNOUNCEMENT TO LET Y'ALL KNOW AND TO SAY MY PERSONAL THANK YOUS TO DONNA. 
          THANK YOU FOR TOUCHING ALL OUR LIVES AND, UM, FOR EVERYTHING THAT YOU'VE DONE FOR THE CITY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          AND I JUST WANNA SAY IT'S, I THINK I'VE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO WORK WITH EACH AND EVERY ONE OF YOU FOR THE MOST PART THROUGH THE YEARS AND HAVING STARTED OUT COMING IN AND WORKING ON ZAC INITIALLY, AND THEN MOVING INTO, WELL, DOING CODE AMENDMENTS, AND THEN AUTHORIZED HEARINGS, AND NOW SPECIAL ZONING PROJECTS, TEAM AND, AND ZONING CASES. 
          SO IT'S BEEN A, IT'S BEEN A GREAT, GREAT RUN, AND I'VE ENJOYED WORKING WITH ALL OF YOU THROUGH ALL OF IT, SO THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU, MS. MS. MOR. 
          DON'T, DON'T GO AWAY. 
          DON'T GO AWAY. 
          REAL QUICK, JUST, JUST ONE MORE MINUTE. 
          UH, JUST ON, ON A PERSONAL NOTE, UH, DONNA WAS, UH, REALLY OUR, UM, THE, THE PERSON THAT IN ZAC WAY BACK WHEN, A DECADE AGO, UH, THAT I FRANKLY LEARNED THE MOST FROM, UH, I THINK I HAD MENTIONED TO MY COLLEAGUES HERE. 
          WHEN I JOINED THE CPCI FRANKLY ALMOST DIDN'T KNOW WHAT A PD WAS. 
          AND SO I, I RAMPED UP THE, THE LEARNING CURVE, FRANKLY, BY LISTENING TO MS. WARMAN. 
          AND WHAT I VERY MUCH APPRECIATED WAS, UH, THAT YOU EXPLAINED THINGS VERY CAREFULLY, AND IN MY CASE, YOU EXPLAINED THINGS MULTIPLE TIMES, AND I APPRECIATE THAT YOUR PATIENCE IS AMAZING. 
          UH, AND THEN ALSO JUST YOU WERE, YOU WERE FEARLESS. 
          YOU KNOW, WE GOT TO WORK TOGETHER ON THE, THE ARTICLE 10, THE TREE ORDINANCE, WHICH, YOU KNOW, THE TREE ORDINANCE, RIGHT? BUT IT WAS, UH, A VERY TOUGH, IN FACT, VICIOUS PROCESS AT TIMES. 
          AND MS. WARMAN, UH, STAYED VERY CALM AND STEADY AND, AND I APPRECIATE THAT. 
          AND THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR SERVICE AND YOUR HELP TO ME. 
          IF I MAY, MR. CHAIR? YEAH, PLEASE, COMMISSIONER. 
          I JUST WANTED TO SECOND ALL OF THOSE COMMENTS, BUT ALSO JUST ACKNOWLEDGE MY VERY FIRST ZONING CASE WITH MS. MORMON WAS A REVISION TO THE CEDARS AUTHORIZED HEARING, PD THREE 17 THAT I THINK TOOK ME A YEAR AND HER HELP ASSISTANCE DETAILED KNOWLEDGE WAS INVALUABLE. 
          SO I JUST WANNA ECHO THAT. 
          YOU'VE BEEN FABULOUS FOR THE CITY AND APPRECIATE ALL OF YOUR YEARS OF SERVICE. 
          THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER HAMPTON. 
          OKAY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UH, COMMISSIONERS, I THINK WE LEFT OFF ON CASE NUMBER FIVES. 
          UH, SO WE WILL NOT READ THAT INTO THE RECORD, BUT WE WILL, UH, BRIEF IT. 
          [03:00:05]
JORGE, IS COMMISSIONER WHEELER ONLINE? NO, SHE'S NOT LYING. 
          IT'S OKAY. 
          I HAVE TO TAKE THIS TIME TO STATE THE VERY OUTRIGHT BIAS AGAINST TALL PEOPLE AT THE CITY OF DALLAS. 
          BE CAREFUL. 
          THIS MEETING'S BEING RECORDED. 
          UH, I THINK WE'RE GONNA, WE'RE WE'RE GONNA COME BACK TO THIS ONE. 
          COMMISSIONER WHEELER'S NOT LINE. 
          UH, SO WE'LL, WE'LL COME BACK TO THIS ONE AT THE END. 
          SO LET'S GO TO NUMBER SIX. 
          AFTERNOON CHAIR. 
          CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES, SIR, WE CAN. 
          WONDERFUL THE CHAIR. 
          THANK YOU. 
          COMMISSION, BEAR WITH ME. 
          SO YOU GET THIS STARTED HERE. 
          CAN YOU SEE MY SCREEN? YES, SIR, WE CAN. 
          WONDERFUL. 
          OKAY. 
          THIS CASE IS Z 2 3 4 DASH 3 1 9. 
          IT'S AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR THE SALE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE RESTAURANTS WITHOUT DRIVE AND, OR DRIVE THROUGH SERVICE. 
          UH, IT'S LOCATED AT THE NORTH LINE OF WALNUT HILL LANE, WEST OF MARSH LANE. 
          UH, THE SUP AREA IS A SMALLER SUBSET OF A LARGER LOT. 
          IT'S ABOUT 10,000 SQUARE FEET OF THAT LOT, COUNCIL DISTRICT 13. 
          UH, THE ZONING CONDITION ON SITE IS CR COMMUTER RETAIL DISTRICT. 
          IT IS WITHIN THAT D ONE LIQUOR CONTROL OVERLAY, WHICH REQUIRES THIS SUP, SEE ITS LOCATION HERE, ZOOMED IN A LITTLE BIT, THAT RED SQUARE WITHIN THE ADDRESS, A LOT OF 1 0 0 5 1. 
          TAKING A LOOK AT THE ZONING MAP, UH, CR DISTRICT TO THE NORTHEAST AND SOUTH, THERE'S, UH, PD 31 TO THE WEST ACROSS AN ALLEY THAT IS, UH, ZONED FOR DUPLEX. 
          USES SITE VISIT SITE'S STILL CURRENTLY, UH, BEING CONSTRUCTED AND FINISHED UP AT THE TIME THAT I DID MY SITE VISIT AND TAKE A LOOK FROM AN ACCESS DRIVE LOOKING TO THE NORTHWEST TOWARDS THE UNIT, YOU CAN SORT OF SEE THE PATIO AREA, THE UNCOVERED PATIO AREA, LURKING THERE IN THE CORNER, TAKING SAME ACCESS DRIVE, LOOKING TO THE NORTHEAST BACK AT THE UNIT, AND THEN BACK TO THE, UH, NORTH OF THE PROPERTY UNIT TO THE LEFT OF THIS PHOTO. 
          AND THEN PHOTO FROM THE ALLEY, UH, JUST OVER THIS WALL WOULD BE THE PATIO AREA. 
          TAKING A LOOK AT THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN, AGAIN, YOU CAN SEE THE UNITS IN PATIO AREA THERE HIGHLIGHTED IN RED. 
          THAT WOULD BE THE SUP BOUNDARIES. 
          AND WITH THAT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL FOR A THREE YEAR PERIOD WITH ELIGIBILITY FOR AUTOMATIC RENEWALS FOR ADDITIONAL THREE YEAR PERIODS. 
          UH, WITH THAT, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. 
          THANK YOU, SIR. 
          QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONER HALL? UH, THANK YOU, MR. ROBERTS. 
          UM, AM I CORRECT THAT THERE HAD BEEN A PREVIOUS RESTAURANT AT THIS VERY SITE THAT HAD AN SUP FOR, UH, ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES? THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION, COMMISSIONER. 
          I'M NOT TOO SURE. 
          I DO KNOW THAT THIS SITE WAS ALTERED AND OR REMOVED, LEVELED BY A NATURAL EVENT. 
          I BELIEVE IT WAS A TORNADO. 
          I'M UNCERTAIN, THOUGH, ABOUT THE USE IN THE CURRENT LOCATION OF WHAT THIS UNIT WOULD BE. 
          YEAH, I APOLOGIZE. 
          I I'M FAIRLY CONFIDENT THERE WAS A RESTAURANT THERE THAT, UH, AND THAT WHOLE AREA WAS DAMAGED BY THE TORNADO A FEW YEARS AGO. 
          UM, AND SO, UH, IT WENT OUTTA BUSINESS, BUT IT DID HAVE AN SUP. 
          AND I JUST BROUGHT THIS UP TO POINT OUT THAT THERE'S BEEN A, A HISTORY FOR MANY YEARS OF, UH, RESTAURANT, UH, SELLING ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES FOR ONSITE CONSUMPTION. 
          UH, THANK YOU. 
          UNDERSTOOD. 
          THANK YOU MR. RUBIN? YES, MR. ROBERTS, I JUST HAD A QUESTION. 
          THE SITE PLAN SEEMS TO SHOW THE ENTIRE SHOPPING CENTER. 
          DOES THAT MEAN THE WHOLE SHOPPING CENTER HAS TO BE BUILT OUT WITH ALL THE PARKING THAT'S, THAT'S SHOWN ON THE SITE PLAN, EVEN THOUGH THE REQUEST IS FOR JUST A 10,000 SQUARE FOOT SUITE? MM-HMM, , THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. 
          SO AS FAR AS I UNDERSTAND IT TO BE, AND I'LL LET MAYBE PERHAPS RYAN WEIGH INTO IF HE'S GOT AN OPINION ON THIS, BUT THE, THE AREA IS FOR THE LCP IS LIMITED TO THAT, WHAT YOU SEE IN RED THERE, COMMISSIONER. 
          SO THE CONTEXT WAS PROVIDED AS PART OF THIS APPLICATION, BUT IN TERMS OF, YOU KNOW, VESTING THOSE USES OR ANYTHING OF THAT SORT 
          [03:05:01]
WOULD BE REVIEWED AT SEPARATE TIME OF PERMITTING THOSE CEOS. 
          OKAY. 
          I MEAN, THE SUP PROPOSED CONDITIONS, SAY THE USE AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY MUST COMPLY WITH THE ATTACHED SITE PLAN. 
          MAYBE I'M JUST OVER ANALYZING THIS, BUT IT, IT MIGHT HELP TO CLARIFY WHAT IS AND WHAT, WHAT ISN'T COVERED, BECAUSE I KNOW THAT LOT TWO SAYS IT'S NOT A PART WHICH SUGGESTS THAT THE ENTIRE REST OF IT MAY BE A PART. 
          UH, JUST SOMETHING THAT WE, I'M SURE WE WANNA HAVE IT HAMMERED OUT BEFORE COUNCIL DISPOSES OF THIS. 
          YEAH, IF I COULD JUST JUMP IN TO, UH, SPEAK ABOUT THAT. 
          UM, YEAH, SO BETWEEN, I'M JUST GONNA SIT DOWN, UH, BETWEEN CPC AND COUNCIL, THE PLAN WOULD NEED TO BE REVISED, UM, TO JUST SHOW THE SUITE IN QUESTION AS WELL AS THE REQUIRED PARKING FOR THAT SUITE. 
          UM, THE REST OF THE PLAN WOULD NEED TO BE MARKED AS NOT A PART OF THE SUP REQUEST. 
          THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY IS GONNA HAVE US DO ANYWAY, SO THAT WILL BE TAKEN CARE OF. 
          THANK YOU SO MUCH. 
          THANK YOU. 
          COMMISSIONER CARPENTER. 
          THE CASE REPORT SAYS THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE A, UH, 5,200 SQUARE FOOT UNCOVERED PATIO, UM, AND IT LOOKED IN FROM THE PICTURES THAT THERE'S REMODELING GOING ON. 
          IS THIS PATIO AN, UH, A NEW ADDITION OR A LARGER ADDITION TO WHATEVER WAS THERE BEFORE THAT OPERATED AS A, AS A RESTAURANT, MY CONCERN HAS TO BE, HAS TO DO WITH THE SEPARATION BETWEEN THIS LARGE OUTDOOR PATIO AND THE POSSIBLE HOURS OF USE AND THE MUSIC THAT COULD BE PLAYING OUT THERE, AND HOW MUCH SEPARATION AND DISTANCE AND PROTECTION THE ADJOINING DUPLEXES HAVE. 
          MM-HMM, . 
          YEAH. 
          THANK YOU. 
          COMMISSIONER FOR THE QUESTION. 
          I, I'M UNCERTAIN IF THAT EXISTING SPACE WAS USED AS A PATIO IN THE PREVIOUS ITERATION OF THE SITE, UM, SOMETHING THAT PERHAPS THE APPLICANT WOULD HAVE, UM, SOME MORE CONTEXT TO. 
          I I DO KNOW THAT, UM, RATHER SUBSTANTIVE SCREENING WALL PROVIDED THERE, UH, ALONG THE ALLEY, UH, THAT MIGHT HELP MITIGATE FOR SOME OF THOSE CONCERNS THAT YOU MENTIONED. 
          UH, DO YOU KNOW THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE EDGE OF THAT PATIO AND WHERE THE, UH, DUPLEXES, DUPLEX YARDS WOULD BE IN FEET APPROXIMATELY? SO THE MM-HMM, , THE ALLEY RIGHT AWAY ITSELF IS ABOUT 20 FEET. 
          MM-HMM. 
          , UH, SO WE CAN ESTIMATE MAYBE SLIGHTLY OVER BASED OFF THIS PLAN, UH, FROM WHERE THE, THE EDGE WALL TO THAT ALLEY RIGHT AWAY WOULD BE. 
          UH, AND THEN FROM THERE, THE, AND THEN BEAR WITH ME AS I ZOOM BACK A LITTLE BIT, UH, FROM THE ACTUAL PROPERTY LINE OF THOSE DUPLEXES STARTING. 
          SO, UM, AND OF COURSE A LITTLE BIT OF A DISTANCE TO THE BUILDING ITSELF OF THE DUPLEX. 
          SO ARE, DID YOU HAVE ANY CONCERN ABOUT THE RECOMMENDATION FOR AUTO RENEWAL? CONSIDERING THAT WE DON'T HAVE A ESTABLISHED, UM, TRACK RECORD FOR THE COMPATIBILITY BETWEEN A LARGE OUTDOOR PATIO WITH, UH, NO LIMITATIONS ON THE HOURS AND THE ADJACENCY TO RESIDENTIAL? I DID NOT HAVE ANY IMMEDIATE CONCERNS WITH THAT. 
          UH, YOU KNOW, THE RESTAURANT USE IS, IS COMMER WITH THE, THE CR DISTRICT, IN MY OPINION, UM, FELT THAT THE, THE REQUEST WAS SUITABLE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM? COMMISSIONERS? OKAY. 
          LET'S GO TO THE NEXT CASE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU, SIR. 
          NUMBER SEVEN. 
          THERE ARE NO UPDATES ON THIS CASE, BUT I AM HERE IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS. 
          THIS ONE HASN'T BEEN BRIEFED BEFORE, CORRECT? YES. 
          NUMBER SEVEN. 
          GOT SIX. 
          THAT WAS SIX. 
          THAT WAS SIX. 
          WE SKIPPED FIVE, WE SKIPPED, THAT WAS SIX. 
          SKIPPED FIVE. 
          NOW WE'RE, THAT'S OKAY. 
          WE, WE SKIPPED FIVE. 
          UH, THIS LAST ONE WAS SIX, SO WE'LL, WE'LL GO BACK TO FIVE. 
          SO NOW WE'RE ON SEVEN. 
          THAT WAS BRIEF BEFORE, BUT, AND NO UPDATES, IS THAT WHAT YOU SAY? NO UPDATES. 
          JUST, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM? YES, SIR. 
          PLEASE, COMMISSIONER. 
          SO THERE, THERE WAS A CHANGE THAT, I THINK WE BROUGHT IT UP AT THE LAST HEARING. 
          THERE WAS A D RESTRICTION OF THE CREEK, RIGHT. 
          THAT'S ALREADY BEEN READ INTO THE RECORD AND IS IN IT'S PART OF THE DOCKET AND ALL OF THAT. 
          YES. 
          GOTCHA. 
          SO WE GOT A LIST OF, UH, QUESTIONS AROUND AND COMMENTS AROUND OUR, UM, OPPOSITION AND I, SINCE YOU'RE STAFF AND ON THE CASE, I JUST WANT TO GET CLARITY. 
          UM, THE FIRST STATEMENT IS LEAVING ARTESIAN CREEK UNTOUCHED, PRESERVING ITS NATURAL BEAUTY. 
          IN YOUR REVIEW OF THE CREEK AND HOW IT'S STRUCTURED, WHERE DOES ZONING FIT IN THAT, IF YOU DON'T MIND? YEAH, NO, GOOD QUESTION. 
          ZONING IS GONNA BE ABOUT LAND USES THAT ARE PERMITTED, UM, HEIGHTS AND WIDTHS OF BUILDINGS THAT ARE PERMITTED. 
          UH, IT'S NOT GOING TO HAVE GOOD OVERSIGHT OVER THINGS LIKE STORM WATER, DRAINAGE, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION. 
          IT CAN'T BE A SUBSTITUTE FOR THOSE THINGS. 
          THOSE PROCESSES NEED TO OCCUR AND THEY DO OCCUR, UH, LATER 
          [03:10:01]
IN THE PROCESS AS THEY PLA AS THEY PERMIT, AS THEY SUBMIT CIVIL PLANS TO, UH, CARRY FORWARD THEIR PROJECT, UH, REGARDLESS OF THEIR ZONING DISTRICT, WHETHER IT'S COMMERCIAL ZONING THAT THEY HAVE NOW, OR A MULTI-FAMILY ZONING THAT THEY'RE PROPOSING. 
          COMMISSIONER HERBERT, YOU'RE, YOU'RE MARK? YES. 
          THERE'S A, A, THEY'RE PROPOSING A RETAINING WALL TO MAKE THIS SITE WORK WHERE THAT RETAINING WALL GOES ON THE SITE WILL BE DETERMINED BY ENGINEERING OR DENIED BECAUSE OF WHERE IT'S AT OR ACTS TO BE MOVED OR WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE. 
          YES, THAT IS TRUE REGARDLESS OF ZONING DISTRICT. 
          OKAY. 
          SO, UH, THE NEXT THING CAME UP WAS THE BUFFER. 
          UM, THERE'S AN EXISTING BUFFER BETWEEN DEVELOPMENTS, UM, CURRENTLY, UM, WE SPEAK ABOUT THE BUFFER IN THE, UH, IN YOUR CASE REPORT, UM, ABOUT KEEP, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? THE BUFFER CURRENTLY IS RUGGED. 
          UH, SO SOME HOMES ARE 40 FEET AWAY FROM, SOME ARE 10. 
          RIGHT. 
          WERE YOU ABLE TO DETERMINE A RANGE OR HOW DID YOU COME UP WITH THAT BUFFER ZONE? ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE BUFFER THAT'S PROPOSED IN THE DEED RESTRICTION? YES. 
          THAT WAS PROPOSED BY THE APPLICANT. 
          WE DIDN'T, STAFF DIDN'T FORMULATE IT. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, BUT IT WOULD, AS WE READ HOW IT'S PER, EXCUSE ME, HOW IT IS PROPOSED, IT WOULD TRACK ALONG THE CENTER LINE OF THE CREEK AND IT JUST PROHIBITS DEVELOPMENT, WHICH IS A BROAD TERM, BUT, UH, SHOULD BE QUITE ENCOMPASSING. 
          BUT I DIDN'T, WE DIDN'T USE ANYTHING TO FORMULATE A WIDTH 'CAUSE IT WAS APPLICANT, UH, PROPOSED. 
          OKAY. 
          SO THERE WAS A QUESTION ABOUT THAT BUFFER ZONE. 
          DO WE DETERMINE, 'CAUSE I THINK IT SAYS 55 FEET, UM, FROM THE MIDDLE OF THE, THE CREEK IS, IS WHAT I'M REMEMBERING. 
          UM, IF WE SAY THAT THEY HAVE TO MAINTAIN THAT BUFFER ZONE, DO WE HAVE TO DETERMINE WHAT THAT BUFFER ZONE LOOKS LIKE OR WILL THAT BE DETERMINED AT A LATER STATE? GOOD QUESTION. 
          I'M TRYING TO ASCERTAIN HOW TO APPROACH IT. 
          THEY, THEY'D HAVE TO DEMONSTRATE THROUGH THEIR PERMITTING PROCESS WHERE THE CENTER LINE IS AND, AND VERIFY THAT WITH, UM, BOTH PERMITTING AND, AND EXCUSE ME, THE DALLAS WATER UTILITIES AS THEY GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS. 
          UH, RIGHT NOW THERE'S NOTHING IN THE DOCUMENT THAT REGULATES EXACTLY HOW THAT LOOKS. 
          UH, BUT TO ME IT'S, UH, FAIRLY STRAIGHTFORWARD HOW IT'S APPLICABLE. 
          GOTCHA. 
          UM, THERE'S ALSO BEEN MENTION OF A TRAIL, UM, DEDICATED BY THE OWNERS AS THAT TRAIL IS NOT IN THIS ZONING CASE OR IN THE AREA. 
          AM I CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THAT'S ALL I HAVE FOR STAFF COMMISSIONER CARPENTER. 
          MR. PEPE. 
          WE, UH, UM, RECEIVED TODAY, I BELIEVE A, UM, GOOD NEIGHBOR AGREEMENT ABOUT THIS PROPERTY, BUT IT SAYS IN THE WORDING THAT THIS IS NOT A LEGALLY BINDING CONTRACT, NOR IS IT INTENDED TO BE. 
          SO WHAT VALUE IS IT? I HAVE NOT REVIEWED THE GOOD NEIGHBOR AGREEMENT, BUT GENERALLY WE DON'T, UH, GET INVOLVED IN THEM BECAUSE THEY ARE, UH, NOT ENFORCED BY THE CITY. 
          THE CITY DOESN'T TAKE PARTY TO THEM, UM, FOLLOW THROUGH ON ENFORCEMENT BECAUSE THERE'S NOT A, A MECHANISM FOR THAT AT THE END OF THE DAY. 
          SO IT IS A, SOME KIND OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN, UH, PRIVATE PARTIES AT THE END OF THE DAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          COMMISSIONER HALL. 
          SO, MR. PEPE, OUR, OUR JOB HERE TODAY IS TO STRICTLY CONSIDER THE ZONING REQUEST ALMOST AS IF WE'RE LOOKING AT A, JUST A FLAT AERIAL VIEW. 
          AND DOES, UH, DOES THE ZONING THAT THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED MAKE SENSE FOR THAT AREA? AND THERE ARE OTHER DEPARTMENTS IN THE CITY THAT WOULD CONSIDER THE DRAINAGE, THE STORMWATER RUNOFF, UH, AND SO FORTH? YEAH. 
          YES. 
          THAT'S, I MEAN, THAT TRACKS WITH, WITH HOW OUR PURVIEW IS, IS GENERALLY LIMITED TO, UM, THERE'S NOT MUCH WE CAN OR SHOULD DO TO INFLUENCE HOW, UM, ENGINEERING IS, IS PLAYED OUT AT THE END OF THE DAY. 
          UM, THAT DOES REQUIRE STUDY AND IT DOES REQUIRE, UH, CERTAIN SUBMITTALS TO, TO THAT PROCESS WHEN THEY OCCUR. 
          BUT YES, WE'RE, WE'RE TASKED WITH LOOKING AT LAND USE OF ONE TYPE OF LAND USE TO THE OTHER, BECAUSE AGAIN, GENERALLY THE REGULATIONS THAT GOVERN, UH, UM, ENGINEERING STORM WATER, UH, CREEK MANAGEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ARE, CAN BE PRETTY SIMILAR BETWEEN, UH, ZONING DISTRICTS. 
          AND WE ALSO DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY WILL BE UNTIL THEY SUBMIT OTHER ENGINEERING DOCUMENTS THROUGH THAT PROCESS. 
          SO YES, SO EVEN IF WE, UH, APPROVED 
          [03:15:01]
THE ZONING CHANGE REQUEST, THIS PROJECT MIGHT NOT GO THROUGH DUE TO SOME, UH, DENIAL BY ANOTHER CITY DEPARTMENT. 
          VERY POSSIBLE. 
          IT HAPPENS PLENTY WITH OTHER, UH, KINDS OF REGULATIONS, OTHER KINDS OF PROJECTS. 
          THEY STILL HAVE TO MEET ALL OF THOSE REGULATIONS THAT ARE ULTIMATELY REQUIRED BY THAT. 
          AND, UH, YOU KNOW, JUST THE SAME SIGNING OFF ON THIS, UH, IN A ZONING SENSE DOESN'T ABSOLVE THEM OF ANY OF, UH, THE TYPICAL REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE REQUIRED IN THOSE PROCESSES. 
          SO IT, IT CUTS BOTH WAYS. 
          YOU KNOW, WE CAN'T, UH, WE CAN'T ALTER THE PROCESS THAT IS REQUIRED BY PLATING AND ENGINEERING, BUT AT THE SAME, AT THE SAME WAY, NOTHING WE DO ABSOLVES THEM OF THE OBLIGATIONS THAT THEY HAVE AT THAT PHASE. 
          THANK YOU, MR. PEPE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UH, ONE QUICK FOLLOW UP FOR ME AND, AND MY APOLOGIES. 
          YOU KNOW, THESE CASES SOMETIMES TEND TO RUN TOGETHER IN MY MIND, BUT, AND I THINK WE HAVE HAD THIS CONVERSATION BEFORE, BUT JUST FOR THE RECORD THIS TIME AROUND, SINCE WE'RE HERE IN THE CASE NOW, THIS BODY IN, IN GENERAL, WE DON'T CONSIDER ENGINEERING ISSUES. 
          WE DON'T, WE DON'T HAVE THE TRAINING, THE EXPERIENCE OR THE BACKGROUND IN GENERAL TO CONSIDER THIS ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS. 
          AND WE, WE OPERATE ON THE, ON THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE'S A WHOLE BACKEND PROCESS THAT HAPPENS AFTER AN APPLICATION COMES, COMES THROUGH THIS BODY THAT LOOKS AT THOSE THINGS, UH, WITH FOLKS THAT HAVE THAT KIND OF TRAINING EXPERIENCE AND EDUCATION. 
          IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. 
          AND I'M HERE AS A, A PERSON. 
          NOT TO SAY THAT THOSE PROCESSES ARE PERFECT, BUT I AM GOING TO MAKE THE STATEMENT THAT WE CAN'T SUBSTITUTE A ZONING PROCESS FOR THOSE KINDS OF PROCESSES. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU SIR. 
          COMMISSIONERS. 
          ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM? OKAY, WE'LL GO TO THE NEXT ONE. 
          THANK YOU, SIR. 
          UH, JUST FYI COMMISSIONERS ON, ON THIS CASE. 
          AND ON THE NEXT ONE, UH, THERE WAS A QUESTION OF THE SIGNS. 
          SO WE WILL BE CONSIDERING THAT FIRST. 
          GOOD AFTERNOON COMMISSIONERS. 
          UH, NEXT CASE IS Z 2 34 DASH 14 FOUR. 
          IT IS AN APPLICATION FOR AN MU THREE MIXED USE DISTRICT ON PROPERTIES ZONE PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 69. 
          IT'S LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF SOUTH RL THORNTON FREEWAY, SOUTH OF EAST OVERTON ROAD, AND IT'S ABOUT 20, UH, 0.9 ACRES. 
          HERE IS THE LOCATION MAP SHOWING THE PROPERTY AND CITY LIMITS. 
          HERE IS THE AERIAL MAP, UH, OUTLINING THE AREA OF REQUEST. 
          AND BLUE. 
          UH, YOU CAN SEE A LOT OF THE SURROUNDING USES ON THIS MAP. 
          ALSO, THE ZONING MAP FOR THE AREA OF REQUESTS AND THE SURROUNDING AREA, UH, AS WELL AS SURROUNDING LAND USES. 
          SO TO THE NORTH, UH, WE SEE WE HAVE A MULTIFAMILY USE A LITTLE FURTHER NORTH. 
          WE HAVE SOME, UH, COMMERCIAL USES TO THE NORTHEAST. 
          WE HAVE A PUBLIC OR PRIVATE SCHOOL USE, UH, TO THE EAST AND SOUTH IS A SINGLE FAMILY SUBDIVISION. 
          AND THEN TO THE WEST ACROSS THE HIGHWAY IS ANOTHER MULTIFAMILY USE. 
          SO SORRY FOR, FOR THE WALL OF TEXT. 
          UH, THERE HAVE BEEN A LOT OF UPDATES TO THIS ONE SINCE DOCKET PUBLICATION LAST FRIDAY THAT I WANT TO GO THROUGH. 
          UH, SO THE AREA OF REQUEST IS CURRENTLY UNDEVELOPED AND IS CURRENTLY WITHIN, UH, PD NUMBER 69. 
          UH, THIS WAS ORIGINALLY APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL ON OCTOBER 21ST, 1974. 
          UNDER PD 69. 
          UH, USES ARE PRETTY LIMITED. 
          THEY'RE LIMITED TO, UH, MULTIPLE FAMILY USES, UH, WITH A MAXIMUM OF 740 DWELLING UNITS AND A DAYCARE CENTER NOT TO EXCEED, UH, 2,500 SQUARE FEET IN FLOOR AREA. 
          THOSE ARE THE ONLY USES PERMITTED IN THE EXISTING PD. 
          UH, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO DEVELOP THE SITE WITH A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT. 
          UH, THEY'RE THEREFORE, UH, PROPOSING TO TAKE THIS PROPERTY OUT OF PD 69 AND REZONE IT TO A STANDARD MU THREE MIXED USE DISTRICT. 
          SINCE THE PREVIOUS HEARING, UH, THE APPLICANT HAS VOLUNTEERED DEED RESTRICTIONS THAT WOULD RESTRICT OR PROHIBIT CERTAIN USES, RESTRICT DWELLING UNIT DENSITY, RESTRICT MAXIMUM STRUCTURE HEIGHT, AND PROHIBIT VEHICULAR ACCESS ON SUN VALLEY DRIVE. 
          UM, THAT VERSION OF THE DEED RESTRICTIONS WAS PUBLISHED IN THE DOCKET LAST FRIDAY. 
          UM, HOWEVER, THIS WEEK SINCE DOCKET PUBLICATION, UH, THE APPLICANT HAS VOLUNTEERED A REVISED SET OF DEED RESTRICTIONS, UH, WITH CHANGES TO PERMITTED USES, 
          [03:20:01]
SETBACKS, DENSITY, MAXIMUM STRUCTURE, HEIGHT SCREENING, AND VEHICULAR ACCESS. 
          UH, THOSE WERE CIRCULATED A LITTLE BIT EARLIER TODAY TO THE COMMISSION FOR THEIR CONSIDERATION. 
          UM, UH, ANY OF THE CHANGES THAT HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE VOLUNTEER DEED RESTRICTIONS SINCE THE DOCKET, THE APPLICANT WILL NEED TO VOLUNTEER AT THE PODIUM TODAY. 
          UM, I DID JUST WANT TO GIVE A SUMMARY OF THOSE CHANGES. 
          UM, SINCE DOCKET PUBLICATION, UH, THERE'S BEEN SEVERAL CHANGES, UH, IN THE PERMITTED USES CATEGORY. 
          UH, PREVIOUSLY, UH, CAR WASH AND OFFICE SHOWROOM WAREHOUSE WERE PERMITTED WITH CERTAIN CONDITIONS. 
          UM, NOW THEY'RE ON THE LIST OF PROHIBITED USES. 
          UM, THEY HAVE ALSO ADDED A STIPULATION THAT THE MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA FOR A CHURCH IS 1000 SQUARE FEET. 
          UM, HOWEVER, I DO WANT TO NOTE THAT THIS IS NOT LEGAL. 
          WE CANNOT, UM, PLACE ANY KIND OF LAND USE RESTRICTIONS ON RELIGIOUS LAND USES. 
          UM, SO IF THIS CASE DOES MOVE FORWARD, OUR CITY ATTORNEY WOULD STRIKE THAT. 
          UM, ALSO WE'VE ADDED A STIPULATION OR THE APPLICANT HAS ADDED A STIPULATION THAT A COMMERCIAL PARKING LOT, A GARAGE, IS ONLY PERMITTED AS AN ACCESSORY USE. 
          UM, ALSO THAT FOR A MOTOR VEHICLE FUELING STATION, THE APPLICANT HAS ADDED A STIPULATION THAT A, UH, GAS STATION WITH DIESEL FUEL IS PROHIBITED. 
          IN TERMS OF SETBACKS, THE APPLICANT HAS VOLUNTEERED A 100 FOOT SETBACK ALONG THE SOUTHERN AND EASTERN PROPERTY LINES THAT WOULD APPLY TO NON-RESIDENTIAL USES. 
          IN TERMS OF DENSITY, PREVIOUSLY, THE DENSITY RESTRICTION WAS A MAXIMUM DENSITY OF 100 UNITS PER ACRE. 
          UM, HOWEVER, THAT IS NOW A MAXIMUM NUMBER OF UNITS OF 1400, UH, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS HERE. 
          UM, IF THE PROPERTY, UH, IS DEVELOPED AT 600 UNITS, UH, A MINIMUM OF 5,000 SQUARE FEET OF NON-RESIDENTIAL USES WOULD BE REQUIRED BEFORE A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY COULD BE ISSUED. 
          UM, AT 900 UNITS, A COMBINED MINIMUM OF 10,000 SQUARE FEET OF NON-RESIDENTIAL USES MUST BE CONSTRUCTED 5,000 SQUARE FEET OF WHICH, UH, MUST BE RETAIL AND PERSONAL SERVICE, UH, USES, UH, IN THE, UH, VOLUNTEER DEED RESTRICTIONS THAT WERE CIRCULATED EARLIER TODAY. 
          I DID WANNA NOTE, UH, THAT THERE IS AN ISSUE WITH THE CONDITION FOR PEDESTRIAN LIGHTING, UH, IN THIS PARAGRAPH. 
          UM, WE WOULD NEED THAT TO BE FLUSHED OUT A LITTLE BIT MORE. 
          UM, OTHERWISE ONE STREETLIGHT COULD MEET THE PEDESTRIAN LIGHTING CONDITION WE NEED, WE NEED MORE DETAIL THERE. 
          THAT'S WHAT STAFF WOULD RECOMMEND. 
          UH, AND THEN LASTLY, AT 1200 UNITS, THERE MUST BE A COMBINED MINIMUM OF 15,000 SQUARE FEET OF NON-RESIDENTIAL USES. 
          UH, IN TERMS OF MAXIMUM STRUCTURE HEIGHT, UH, HEIGHT WAS PREVIOUSLY LIMITED TO 150 FEET. 
          THAT HAS BEEN REDUCED TO A MAXIMUM OF 120 FEET. 
          AND IN TERMS OF SCREENING, UM, THE APPLICANT HAS VOLUNTEERED IN ADDITIONAL CONDITION THAT A FENCE OR SCREENING WALL WITH A MINIMUM HEIGHT OF EIGHT FEET MUST BE PROVIDED WITH CONSTRUCTION OF ANY USE, RESIDENTIAL OR NON-RESIDENTIAL WITHIN 100 FEET OF THE SOUTHERN OR EASTERN PROPERTY LINES. 
          AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST, AN ADDITIONAL VEHICULAR ACCESS CONDITION HAS BEEN VOLUNTEERED. 
          STIPULATING THAT GOLDEN BEAR WAY OR GARZA AVENUE, UH, SHALL NOT BE EXTENDED FOR VEHICULAR ACCESS UNTIL A TRAFFIC STUDY IS CONDUCTED. 
          UH, DID WANNA NOTE FROM THE STAFF SIDE, THIS WOULD ALREADY BE REQUIRED PER CODE. 
          SO THIS WOULD BE SORT OF A BELTS AND SUSPENDERS CONDITION, UH, IN THE DEED RESTRICTIONS. 
          MOVING ON TO SITE PHOTOS, UM, THIS IS ON GARZA AVENUE LOOKING WEST. 
          IT'S SORT OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THIS EXISTING SITE, WHICH, LIKE I SAID, IS UNDEVELOPED. 
          UM, THIS IS ON SUN VALLEY DRIVE LOOKING NORTHEAST. 
          THIS IS KIND OF ALONG THE SOUTHERN PROPERTY LINE OF THIS CASE. 
          UM, JUST SOME MORE VIEWS FROM THAT ACCESS POINT THERE ON SUN VALLEY DRIVE, EXCUSE ME. 
          AND THEN SURROUNDING USES, UH, THIS IS BACK ON GARZA LOOKING SOUTHWEST. 
          YOU CAN SEE ON THE BACK OF SOME OF THOSE EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, MORE VIEWS FROM THAT ACCESS POINT. 
          SOME OF THAT EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. 
          UM, THAT SCHOOL ON THE NORTH SIDE OF GARZA AVENUE, OR I BELIEVE IT'S NOW CALLED GOLDEN BEAR WAY, THIS IS ON SUN VALLEY DRIVE, ALONG THE SOUTHERN PROPERTY LINE, LOOKING AT SOME OF THE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES THERE. 
          AND THIS IS ON OVERTON ROAD, UH, NORTH OF THE PROPERTY. 
          THIS IS, UH, LOOKING AT THE, UM, ADJACENT PROPERTY TO THE NORTH THAT WOULD REMAIN IN PD 69. 
          YOU CAN SEE IT'S DEVELOPED WITH A MULTIFAMILY APARTMENT COMPLEX. 
          AND THEN MORE U UH, MORE VIEWS ON WEST OVERTON ROAD THERE. 
          UH, THESE ARE THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS UNDER THE EXISTING PD 69, UM, AS WELL AS THE PROPOSED, UH, MU THREE BASED DISTRICT, PLUS THE, UH, ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS THAT WOULD APPLY, UM, UNDER THE, UH, APPLICANT'S VOLUNTEER DEED RESTRICTIONS. 
          FORGIVE ME, I DID NOT GET A CHANCE TO UPDATE 
          [03:25:01]
THIS SECTION OF THE PRESENTATION, UM, WITH THE DEED RESTRICTIONS THAT WERE CIRCULATED EARLIER TODAY. 
          UM, BUT ESSENTIALLY THE, UH, FRONT YARD SETBACK IN EITHER CASE, UH, WOULD STAY THE SAME. 
          HOWEVER, THERE WOULD BE, UH, URBAN FORM SETBACK THAT WOULD APPLY UNDER MU THREE. 
          UM, PRETTY MASSIVE DIFFERENCE TO THE SIDE AND REAR YARD SETBACKS. 
          UM, THERE WERE ESSENTIALLY NO, NOT B SIDE AND REAR YARD SETBACKS UNLESS THE PROPERTY IS ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL, IN WHICH CASE THERE WOULD BE A 20 FOOT SIDE AND REAR YARD SETBACK. 
          THIS WOULD APPLY ALONG THE SOUTHERN AND EASTERN PROPERTY LINE. 
          UM, AGAIN, UH, GETTING RID OF THAT RESTRICTION ON A MAXIMUM OF 740 DWELLING UNITS. 
          UH, REPLACING THAT WITH AN FAR RESTRICTION. 
          UH, AND THEN AGAIN, LIKE I SAID, A HUNDRED DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE IS NOW, UH, EXPIRED. 
          IT'S NOW A MAX OF 1400 UNITS FOR THE PROPERTY. 
          UM, PRETTY SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE IN HEIGHT. 
          UH, THIS PD IS, IT'S WRITTEN TODAY, HAS ONE OF THE MOST RESTRICTIVE HEIGHTS I'VE SEEN IN MY TIME WITH THE CITY. 
          UH, THIS IS ACTUALLY TWO FEET LESS THAN AN RPS HEIGHT RESTRICTION WOULD BE, UM, UH, INCREASING THAT SUBSTANTIALLY UNDER THE BASEM U THREE DISTRICT TO 270 FEET. 
          OF COURSE, WITH THE VOLUNTEER DEED RESTRICTIONS, IT WOULD BE ABOUT 120 FEET. 
          UH, MAX LOCK COVERAGE OF 60% UNDER PD 69, THIS WOULD GO UP TO 80% UNDER MU THREE. 
          UM, LIKE I SAID, URBAN FORM SETBACK WOULD APPLY, TOWER SPACING WOULD APPLY. 
          RESIDENTIAL PROXIMITY SLOPE WOULD APPLY. 
          THERE'S A LOT OF PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH AND THE EAST. 
          IT WOULD BE A SITE OF ORIGINATION FOR RESIDENTIAL PROXIMITY SLOPE. 
          UM, AND THEN OF COURSE THEY COULD RECEIVE, UH, DEVELOPMENT BONUSES UNDER THE MIXED INCOME HOUSING DEVELOPMENT BONUS PROGRAM. 
          HOWEVER, THOSE WOULD STILL BE RESTRICTED BY RESIDENTIAL PROXIMITY SLOPE. 
          UM, AND THEN A PRETTY SIGNIFICANT CHANGE TO PERMITTED USES AS WELL. 
          WITH THAT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL, AND BY THAT I DO MEAN AN APPROVAL OF A STRAIGHT MU THREE DISTRICT, NO DEED RESTRICTIONS, AND I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS. 
          THANK YOU, SIR. 
          THERE ARE QUESTIONS. 
          COMMISSIONER BLAIR, THIS PD PD 69 CORRECT. 
          IS ONE OF THE OLDEST PDS WE HAVE IN THE CITY, CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT. 
          THERE ARE 68 PDS THAT ARE OLDER THAN THIS ONE , BELIEVE IT OR NOT, I WAS IN HIGH SCHOOL WHEN THIS PD WAS WRITTEN . 
          UM, SO IN TAKING THIS SECTION AND, AND THIS PD IS WRITTEN OUT, UH, CHAPTER OR CHAPTER 51, NOT 51 A, CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. 
          SO TAKING THIS SECTION OUT OF THIS PD GIVES US THE OPPORTUNITY TO UPGRADE IT TO THIS AREA, TO, UM, CHAPTER 51 A SOON TO BE 51 BC 50. 
          IS THAT NOT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. 
          THE MU THREE, UH, DISTRICT WOULD BE UNDER CHAPTER 51 A, NOT CHAPTER 51. 
          SO IF YOU WERE TO KEEP THIS UNDER CHAPTER 51, YOU COULD NOT USE THE MU THREE, IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT, YEAH. 
          THE MIXED USE DISTRICTS, UH, ACTUALLY WEREN'T ADDED TO CODE WHEN CHAPTER 51 A WAS ADOPTED. 
          THEY'RE MORE RECENT THAN THAT. 
          UM, SO YEAH, THE MIXED USE DISTRICTS DO NOT EXIST IN CHAPTER 51. 
          SO THE ONLY WAY THAT MU THREE OR M THE MIXED USE COULD BE USED IN THE MIXED USE IN, IN THE, UM, MIXED INCOME HOUSING BONUSES COULD BE USED IS IF IT'S OUT OF FIF OUT OF 51 AND INTO 51 A? CORRECT? CORRECT. 
          OKAY. 
          SO, UM, I LOVE THE ONE, THE CHURCH COULD ONLY BE A THOUSAND FEET, A THOUSAND SQUARE FEET. 
          UM, THAT IS, UM, IN, IN, IN CHAPTER IN EITHER CHAPTER 51 OR 51 A, AS YOU SAID. 
          AND, AND JUST TO REITERATE, UM, OUR CODE DOES NOT GIVE THE STA THE CITY THE OPPORTUNITY TO DENY A CHURCH FROM OPERATING, NO MATTER THE SIZE IT IS IN ANY, ANY ZONING DISTRICT THAT WE HAVE. 
          IS THAT NOT CORRECT? UH, SORT OF. 
          THAT'S NOT A CITY REQUIREMENT, THAT IS FEDERAL LAW. 
          OH. 
          WE CANNOT PLACE RESTRICTIONS ON RELIGIOUS LAND USES UNDER RUPPA, WHICH IS A VERY FUN FEDERAL ACT TO SAY, OH, IN MY MISUNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW, IT'S NOT, THE CITY IS NOT THE STATE, IT'S FEDERAL. 
          SO FEDERALLY SPEAKING, NO CHURCH CAN BE DENIED THE OPPORTUNITY TO FUNCTION IN ANY PARTICULAR ZONING DISTRICT IN ANY DIFFERENT, IN ANY PARTICULAR SIZE. 
          IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT. 
          WOW. 
          LEARN SOMETHING EVERY DAY. 
          UM, SO IN, IN THIS, THESE PROPOSED CHANGES, UM, YOU CHAPTER IN THE MU THREE, WHAT IS THE ACTUAL 
          [03:30:01]
HEIGHT THAT YOU CAN GO UP TO? LET ME GO BACK TO THAT TABLE. 
          THAT'S PAGE EIGHT OR NINE. 
          NO, THOSE ARE YOUR, YOUR, YOUR RESTRICTIONS. 
          YEAH. 
          YEAH. 
          SO IN A BASE, UH, MU THREE DISTRICT, THE MAX HEIGHT IS 270 FEET. 
          UM, THE APPLICANT HAS VOLUNTEERED OR DEED RESTRICTION THAT WOULD RESTRICT THAT DOWN TO 120 FEET. 
          AND IN THE STANDARD THAT WE USE TODAY, HOW HIGH, HOW TALL OF A BUILDING COULD THAT BE? 120 FEET, 150 FEET? OH, YEAH. 
          OH, IT'S, YEAH. 
          120 FEET THAT, THAT'S BEING ASKED TO BE RESTRICTED TO, THAT'S CORRECT. 
          SO HOW TALL, APPROXIMATELY HOW TALL OF A BUILDING COULD THAT BE? I, THIS IS A REALLY ROUGH ESTIMATE. 
          I USUALLY THINK OF A STORY AS ABOUT 12 FEET, SO THAT COULD BE AROUND 10 STORIES. 
          AND HOW MANY REALLY COULD IT BE IF IT WAS JUST STRAIGHT U THREE? 270 DIVIDED BY 12 IS . 
          OKAY. 
          I DON'T LIKE TO DO MATH IN PUBLIC, BUT I CAN GET MY CALCULATOR OUT 22 AND A HALF. 
          THANK YOU. 
          WHOEVER BEHIND ME SAID THAT ABOUT 22 STORIES. 
          OH, SO IT'S, SO THIS IS, IS CONCEIVABLY BEING CUT IN HALF, CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. 
          SO ALSO WHERE, UM, SINCE RPS WILL STILL APPLY IN THIS STRAIGHT ZONE, THIS KIND OF STRAIGHT ZONING CASE. 
          MM-HMM, , UM, AND IT'S, THIS LOCATION IS SURROUNDED WITH MOSTLY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. 
          TO THE SOUTH, TO THE SOUTH AND THE EAST. 
          SO TO THE SOUTH AND TO THE EAST IS, IS SINGLE FAMILY ZONING. 
          SO NORTH AND WEST WOULD BE THE ONLY LOCATIONS THAT YOU COULD CONCEIVABLY GO HIGHER THAN THE RPS WILL ALLOW YOU TO GO UP? THAT'S CORRECT. 
          AND TO THE NORTH, AGAIN, THERE IS A SCHOOL AND ANOTHER MULTIFAMILY COMPLEX, UH, TO THE WEST, IMMEDIATELY THERE'S A HIGHWAY, AND THEN ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT HIGHWAY IS MULTIFAMILY. 
          UM, AND WHILE I HAVE THE FLOOR, UH, I DO WANNA SAY THAT A GOOD WAY TO THINK ABOUT RESIDENTIAL PROXIMITY SLOPE BECAUSE IT'S A ONE TO THREE RATIO, UM, FOR THE FIRST 78 FEET AWAY FROM A SHARED PROPERTY LINE. 
          YOU CAN'T GO ABOVE 26 FEET IN HEIGHTS. 
          UH, AND THEN YOU CAN INCREASE AT A ONE TO THREE RATIO UP TO THE MAX HEIGHT FOR THE DISTRICT. 
          UM, SO THE APPLICANT, UM, HAS, YOU KNOW, VOLUNTEERED SOME ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS WITHIN A HUNDRED FEET OF THAT SHARED PROPERTY LINE. 
          BUT FOR THE FIRST 78 FEET OF THAT BUFFER, UM, NO BUILDINGS COULD BE ABOVE 26 FEET IN HEIGHT ANYWAY. 
          AND BASED ON THE SIZE OR, OR THE STRUCTURE OF THIS LOT, DOES THAT GIVE THEM MUCH RANGE TO GO HIGHER THAN 26 FEET ON THE WEST AND I MEAN ON THE EAST AND NOT FOR A CONSIDERABLE DISTANCE? YEAH, SO CONSTRUCTING, UH, SO RESTRICTING IT EVEN FURTHER, WOULD THAT JUST MEAN THAT THERE'S A SLIVER ON THE BACK END THAT COULD GO HIGHER THEN, WHICH WOULD BASICALLY BE THE SAME THING ANYHOW, BASED ON THE SIZE AND THE STRUCTURE OF THIS LOT? CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. 
          UM, SO IN WITH THE STANDARD MU THREE, HOW MANY DWELLING UNITS CAN YOU HAVE? UH, THERE IS NO MAXIMUM DWELLING UNIT DENSITY IN MU THREE. 
          UM, SO IT'S KIND OF HARD TO, TO PREDICT THAT. 
          UM, WE COULD INSTEAD LOOK AT THE OTHER DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS THAT WOULD APPLY IN AN MU THREE, UM, TO KIND OF GET A SENSE OF HOW MUCH THEY WOULD BE RESTRICTED. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY FRONT SIDE AND REAR SETBACKS WOULD APPLY. 
          UH, MAXIMUM HEIGHT WOULD APPLY, RPS WOULD APPLY MAXIMUM LOCK COVERAGE, ALL THOSE SORTS OF THINGS. 
          SO ALTHOUGH THERE ISN'T A RESTRICTION ON DWELLING UNIT DENSITY AND MU THREE, ALL OF THE OTHER DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WHEN PUT TOGETHER, UM, STILL RESTRICT DEVELOPMENT ON THE PROPERTY. 
          SO, SO EVEN THOUGH IT'S FURTHER RESTRICTED, IT'S GONNA BE RESTRICTED BASED ON THE SIZE AND THE PROX AND THE PROXIMITY OF SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND, AND RPS AS TO HOW MANY UNITS YOU COULD ACTUALLY BUILD ON THIS PARTICULAR LOT. 
          IS THAT CORRECT? WHAT I'M HEARING? THAT'S CORRECT. 
          YEAH. 
          IT'S IMPORTANT NOT TO HONE IN TOO MUCH ON JUST ONE DEVELOPMENT STANDARD THAT WILL APPLY TO A PIECE OF PROPERTY. 
          UH, WE NEED TO CONSIDER ALL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS HOLISTICALLY AS WELL AS THE CONFIGURATION OF THE LOT, UM, ACCESS TO EXISTING STREETS, ALL THAT KIND OF STUFF. 
          UM, THE LAST THING, THIS IS FACING, I BELIEVE, ARTHUR, 
          [03:35:01]
UM, UM, 35 INTERSTATE, 35 MM-HMM. 
          . 
          AND THIS IS REQUIRING, UM, A RECONFIGURATION OF ON AND OFF ON OVERTON, IS THAT NOT CORRECT? UM, I DID SOMEWHAT SIMILAR, LIKE SOMEWHAT SOME ALTERATIONS ON THE ACCESS THE SERVICE ROAD, IS THAT CORRECT? YES. 
          UM, THERE WOULD BE SOME MODIFICATIONS MADE TO THE ACCESS ROAD, UH, ALONG THE HIGHWAY. 
          AND WE HAVE SOMEONE HERE WHO CAN SPEAK TO THAT IF YOU HAVE MORE QUESTIONS. 
          OH, WE'RE GONNA GET TO DR. 
          KLEY HERE NEXT, BUT WHY NOT? GOOD AFTERNOON. 
          HELLO, GOOD AFTERNOON. 
          MY NAME IS GUIN CARLY. 
          I'M THE DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC WORKS FOR THE CITY OF DALLAS. 
          UM, WHEN I WAS MADE AWARE OF THIS PROJECT FEW MONTHS BACK, I SAW A GREAT OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO, UH, IMPROVE THE TRAFFIC OPERATION IN THAT AREA. 
          SO SHOULD THIS PROJECT MOVE FORWARD, THE OPPORTUNITY EXISTS, WHICH WE MAY INCLUDE THE, UH, EXPLORING THE OPPORTUNITY TO TALK TO, UH, TXDOT AND OTHER, UH, PARTNERING AGENCIES TO, UH, IMPROVE THE RAMP ARRANGEMENTS IN THAT AREA, WHICH WILL ALSO RESULT IN IMPROVEMENTS POTENTIALLY FOR THE BECKLEY COMPONENT, UM, SOUTH OF OVERTON, IMPROVEMENT TO THE INTERSECTION OF BECKLEY AT OVERTON. 
          UM, AND, UH, BASICALLY THE OVERALL CIRCULATION, UM, IN THAT AREA, ESPECIALLY SINCE, UH, RECENTLY OVERTON, UM, WE'VE HAD A LOT OF SERVICE REQUESTS FOR, UH, SPEEDING THAT IS HAPPENING IN THAT AREA. 
          AND THEN WE ALREADY INSTALLED SOME, UH, SPEED CUSHIONS ON OVERTON, UH, TO HELP OUT A LITTLE BIT WITH THE, UH, UH, CONTROL OF THE TRAFFIC MOVEMENT AND SPEEDING THAT IS HAPPENING, ESPECIALLY NEAR THE HIGH SCHOOL, UM, IN THAT AREA. 
          SO BY, UH, HAVING THE OPPORTUNITY TO IMPROVE THAT INTERSECTION BY 35 AND ADDING THAT POTENTIALLY A TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT THAT LOCATION WILL GREATLY, UH, HELP ALSO WITH THE SAFETY, UH, IN THAT AREA. 
          SO THAT'S MY, UH, 2 CENTS ON THAT ONE. 
          WELL, YOU KIND OF JUST TOOK MY QUESTIONS AWAY, BUT, UM, THE SERVICE ROAD AND, AND THE INTERACTION OF THE, OF THIS PARTICULAR AREA YOU HAVE WHEN YOU COME OUT OF SOUTH OAK CLIFF, UM, HIGH SCHOOL SOCK AND YOU'RE TRYING TO GET ON 35 OR YOU GETTING OFF ON 35 AND TRYING TO GET TO THE SCHOOL IS WHERE YOU SEE A LOT OF THE SPEEDING, CORRECT? YES, MA'AM. 
          ON OVERTON, WE, UH, IT HAS BEEN, LIKE I SAID, WE, UH, WE RECEIVED A LOT OF REQUESTS AND THEN WE EVALUATED IT AND WE ENDED UP PUTTING IN THE SPEED CUSHIONS TO HELP OUT WITH THE CONTROL OF THE SPEED. 
          CONSIDERING I'M ONE OF THOSE, THEN YOU'RE NOT MY FRIEND BECAUSE I'M THE ONE WHO LIKES TO GO REAL FAST. 
          UM, BUT IT'S A SAFETY HAZARD SPECIAL ROUND SCHOOL. 
          SO WHEN WE WILL, THERE ALSO BE SOME, UM, RECONFIGURATION OF THE LIGHTING STRUCTURE, THE, THE, THE LIGHT STRUCTURE, I MEAN THE, THE TRAFFIC LIGHT STRUCTURE. 
          SO CURRENTLY THERE IS NO TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT THE BECKLEY OVERTON, UH, INTERSECTION. 
          SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT COULD COME UP AND COULD RESULT FROM, UH, THIS REARRANGEMENT, IF YOU WILL, IS THE ABILITY TO WARRANT THAT TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT THAT LOCATION AND PUT IT IN, PUTTING IT IN, WHICH WILL HELP WITH THE TRAFFIC MOVEMENT IN THAT, UH, IN THAT AREA. 
          SO WHEN YOU GUYS LOOK AT THE TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT OF THIS PARTICULAR AREA, ALL OF THOSE THINGS WILL BE TO COME INTO PLAY WHEN IT, WHEN THE, THE WAY IT'S, UM, THE TRAFFIC IS, IS TO GO ON AND OFF AND THE FLOW OF TRAFFIC IN THIS PARTICULAR AREA AND HOW TO CLEAN UP THE DYSFUNCTIONAL FLOW. 
          IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT. 
          SO WE WILL BE LOOKING CLOSELY AT THE OVERALL TRAFFIC OPERATION IN THAT AREA. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER HART. 
          HAPPY YOU'RE HERE, SIR. 
          NO, NO, NO, NO. 
          COME BACK, COME BACK, COME BACK. 
          UM, JUST, JUST A QUESTION ABOUT PLANNING. 
          UM, YOU MENTIONED BECKLEY BEING IMPROVED SOUTH OF OVERTON, BUT NORTH OF OVERTON IS PRETTY BAD AS WELL. 
          IS THERE ANY PLANS TO COMPLETE BECKLEY FROM KE ALL THERE? I, I HAVE TO FOLLOW UP OR YOU CAN SEND, UH, UH, GENERATE A SERVICE REQUEST AND WE'LL TAKE A LOOK AT IT. 
          , I APPRECIATE THAT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ONE LAST FOLLOW UP FOR YOU DR. 
          KLEY. 
          UH, JUST TO SUMMARIZE, UH, THE QUESTIONS FOR, FOR COMMISSIONER BLAIR ABOUT THE ACCESS ROAD AND, AND THIS PROPERTY, COULD YOU GIVE US ANOTHER, ANOTHER 30 SECONDS EXPLANATION HERE AS TO WHAT'S IN THE PLANS, WHAT'S IN THE WORKS? SO AGAIN, THIS IS ALL CONCEPTUAL, AGAIN, PENDING IF THIS, UH, UH, IF THIS PROJECT MOVES FORWARD, UH, OR IS APPROVED, UH, BY THIS COMMISSION. 
          SO IF IT, UH, IF IT IS APPROVED, THEN 
          [03:40:01]
CERTAINLY WE WILL BE, UH, WORKING, UH, OR SEIZE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO WORK WITH THE, UH, DEVELOPER AND OUR, UH, PARTNERING AGENCIES TO OVERALL LOOK AT, UM, THE OVERALL CIRCULATION AND TRAFFIC OPERATION IN THAT AREA. 
          AND I SEE THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO KIND OF MAKE SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENTS THERE. 
          EXCELLENT. 
          THANK YOU, SIR. 
          UH, COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, PLEASE. 
          AND, AND I THINK YOU ADDRESSED THIS AND I JUST HAD A HARD TIME FOLLOWING IT BECAUSE IT IS NOT REALLY ON THE GROUND TODAY, BUT AS MUCH AS IT'S A CONSIDERATION OF SOUTH BECKLEY AVENUE THAT EXISTS JUST NORTH OF THE SITE, WE HAVE TWO ACCESS ROADS, UM, ONE EXITING FROM THE HIGHWAY ONE OR EXITING FROM ONE EXITING ON TWO, I'M SAYING THAT BACKWARDS, BUT I THINK YOU FOLLOW, ARE THEY INTENDED TO CONNECT ALL THE WAY THROUGH DOWN TO, UM, TO THE SOUTH, OR ARE THEY ONLY CONNECTING THIS SITE NORTH TO OVERTON? SO CURRENTLY YOU HAVE A SHORT EXIT FROM I 35 GOING NORTHBOUND. 
          CORRECT. 
          AND IT TAKES YOU DIRECTLY INTO THE INTERSECTION OR VERY CLOSE TO THE INTERSECTION, RIGHT? SO YOU DON'T HAVE ENOUGH STORAGE, YOU DON'T HAVE ENOUGH, UH, RIGHT. 
          UH, SAFETY PROVISIONS IF YOU WILL, UH, FOR WEAVING. 
          SO WHAT THIS COULD TRIGGER IS AS PART, AGAIN, WORKING WITH THE, UH, WITH OUR, UH, PARTNERING AGENCIES, IS TO TAKE THAT EXIT AND MAKE IT THE ON RAMP ONTO I 35 AND THEN PUT THE EXIT FURTHER BACK, WHICH WILL ALLOW PEOPLE TO EXIT SLOW DOWN AND GET BEFORE YOU GET TO THE INTERSECTION. 
          AND THEN THE OTHER THING THAT IT WOULD DO IS WE WILL REMOVE ALL THE TRAFFIC THAT WILL BE GENERATED FROM POTENTIALLY GENERATED FROM THAT SITE AND GET IT OUT OF THE INTERSECTION AND ONTO THE, THROUGH ONTO THE FREEWAY, ESPECIALLY THOSE THAT ARE GOING NORTH. 
          SO AGAIN, GREAT OPPORTUNITY FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO THE TRAFFIC OPERATION THERE. 
          SO ANY IMPROVEMENTS SOUTH OF THE SITE RELATED TO THE FREEWAY WOULD BE LIMITED TO HOW IT'S THOUGHT ABOUT FOR THE EXITING AND POTENTIAL NEW ENTRANCE AT THIS SIDE AREA. 
          SO NOT EXTENDING DOWN TO ANN ARBOR? CORRECT. 
          I MEAN, AT THIS POINT, AGAIN, THIS IS MORE OF A DETAILED, I MEAN, THIS IS MORE OF AN WHEN WE GET TO THAT ENGINEERING, UH, DESIGN BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT THE GRADES AND ALL THAT STUFF AND THEN WHAT, HOW WE'RE GONNA, UH, MAKE IT WORK. 
          YEAH. 
          BUT, UM, ALL TO SAY IS FROM A CONCEPTUAL STANDPOINT, IT WILL SIGNIFICANTLY IMPROVE THE OPERATION THERE. 
          UNDERSTOOD. 
          IT JUST, IT WOULDN'T APPEAR THERE WAS RIGHT AWAY, SO IT WASN'T SURE WHAT THE EXTENTS WERE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. 
          THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. 
          THANK YOU. 
          COMMISSIONER HEMPTON. 
          COMMISSIONER FORSYTH, PLEASE, SIR. 
          UH, RYAN? YES, SIR. 
          IN YOUR PRESENTATION, YOU SAID PREVIOUSLY THE HEIGHT, UH, I'M SORRY, THE DENSITY WAS SET AT A HUNDRED UNITS PER ACRE. 
          UH, WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY PREVIOUSLY? OR DO YOU MEAN, DO YOU MEAN BY THE PREVIOUS, UH, DEED RESTRICTIONS THAT WERE OFFERED LAST FRIDAY THAT WERE SUBMITTED OR ARE IN THE ORIGINAL SUBMISSION? UH, THAT'S CORRECT. 
          THE DEED RESTRICTIONS THAT WERE PUBLISHED, UH, IN THE DOCKET LAST FRIDAY, THE DENSITY RESTRICTION WAS A HUNDRED DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE. 
          UH, NOW IT'S A MAX OF 1400 UNITS. 
          RIGHT. 
          BUT TO BE CLEAR, IN THE ORIGINAL SUBMISSION THERE, THERE WAS NO REFERENCE TO A DENSITY, RIGHT? IT WAS, IT WAS TO BE ASSUMED THAT IT WAS A MAXIMUM, UH, OR UNLIMITED DENSITY BECAUSE THERE'S NO MAXIMUM ON AN MU THREE. 
          AND THAT WAS ONLY ADDED IN THE DEED RESTRICTIONS THAT WERE OFFERED LAST FRIDAY, THAT CORRECT? YEAH, THAT, THAT'S CORRECT. 
          WHEN THE APPLICATION WAS ORIGINALLY FILED, IT WAS JUST A REQUEST FOR A STRAIGHT U THREE DISTRICT. 
          AND, AND DO YOU KNOW, UM, AND, AND THE EXISTING PD 69, UH, HOW MANY UNITS ARE, ARE, WERE, UH, ALLOWED IN THAT, THAT EXISTING PD 69 MM-HMM. 
          , UH, IN PD 69, THERE'S A MAXIMUM OF 740 UNITS ALLOWED ACROSS THE ENTIRE PD, WHICH ESSENTIALLY COMPRISES TWO PROPERTIES, RIGHT? UH, THE, THE EXISTING OVERTON PARK PROPERTY AS WELL AS THE, THE 20 ACRES OF THE SUN VALLEY PARK, WHICH IS THIS DEVELOPMENT HERE. 
          THAT'S CORRECT. 
          IS THAT CORRECT? SO IT WAS 740 FOR, FOR FOR BOTH PROPERTIES? MM-HMM. 
          , THAT'S CORRECT. 
          AND, BUT, UH, AND THE ORIGINAL PLANS, UH, INCLUDED, UH, THE BUILDING OF, OF, OF MULTIFAMILY IN THAT SOUTHERN SITE, RIGHT? THE SUN VALLEY PARK, BUT THAT, THAT PHASE WAS NEVER COMPLETED? THAT'S CORRECT. 
          YEAH. 
          THE, UM, THE PLAN, I WON'T SAY DEVELOPMENT PLAN, IT'S CALLED A SITE PLAN AND THE PD CONDITIONS, ALTHOUGH IT SHOULD BE CALLED A DEVELOPMENT PLAN, UH, THE PLAN ON FILE FOR PD 69 TODAY DOES SHOW THAT, UH, THIS PROPERTY, UH, WAS INTENDED TO BE DEVELOPED WITH A, A LOW RISE GARDEN STYLE MULTIFAMILY PRODUCT. 
          THE, THE SAME TYPE OF APARTMENTS THAT WERE IN OVERTON PARK, CORRECT? THAT ARE, ARE IN OVERTON PARK? THAT'S CORRECT. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          AND HOW MANY APARTMENTS ARE IN OVERTON PARK? UM, UH, THE PLAN ENTITLES THEM FOR, UM, 360 UNITS. 
          I THINK THAT'S CORRECT. 
          SO BASICALLY THE 
          [03:45:01]
AREA THAT WAS IN THE SUN VALLEY PARK TO THE SOUTH OF OVERTON PARK, THAT WOULD, WHICH WOULD'VE BEEN THE FI FINAL PHASE OF OVERTON PARK, THAT AREA WOULD'VE BEEN ABOUT 300 UNITS OR LESS. 
          YEAH, 300, 320, SOMETHING LIKE THAT. 
          YEAH. 
          RIGHT. 
          SO WE'RE LOOKING AT, YOU KNOW, GOING FROM A DENSITY OF 300 UNITS THAT WERE IN THE ORIGINAL PD TO NOW, UH, THE, THE DEVELOPER IS OFFERED AS OF LAST, AS OF TODAY, EARLIER TODAY, THEY'VE OFFERED, UH, YOU KNOW, TO, UH, HAVE A MAXIMUM DENSITY OF 1400 UNITS? THAT'S CORRECT. 
          OKAY. 
          AND, AND, UM, SINCE FRIDAY, UM, HOW MANY, UH, DIFFERENT ITERATIONS HAVE THERE BEEN OF THE, THE DEED RESTRICTIONS? UM, I'VE ONLY BEEN PRIVY TO TWO VERSIONS, UM, SINCE LAST FRIDAY. 
          I DO NOT MEAN TO SUGGEST AT ALL THAT THERE WERE ONLY TWO VERSIONS. 
          UM, I RECEIVED A VERSION FROM YOU, UH, THIS MORNING. 
          UM, AND THEN THE, UH, VERSION I, UH, HAD DISTRIBUTED TO THE COMMISSION, UH, EARLIER THIS MORNING, UM, WAS THE RESULT OF A CONVERSATION WITH THE APPLICANT THIS MORNING. 
          RIGHT. 
          SO, YOU KNOW, ALTOGETHER I THINK THERE'S BEEN AT LEAST THREE, MAYBE FOUR. 
          AND THEN THAT, LIKE YOU SAY, THERE WAS AN AD HOC DISCUSSION OR A-A-A-A-A IN PERSON DISCUSSION WITH YOU THIS MORNING AND NOTHING GIVEN TO YOU IN WRITING JUST OVER THE PHONE, CORRECT? YEAH, THAT'S, THAT'S KIND OF ENDEMIC TO DEED RESTRICTIONS IS THE, THE FLURRY OF ACTIVITY THAT HAPPENS AT THE VERY LAST MINUTE. 
          AND, AND, AND MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THERE ARE STILL CHANGES TO BE MADE WITH REGARD TO THE PEDESTRIAN LIGHTING. 
          UM, I WANT TO USE, I WANNA CHOOSE MY WORDS CAREFULLY BECAUSE, UM, STAFF CANNOT RECOMMEND CHANGES TO DEED RESTRICTIONS BECAUSE THEY ARE VOLUNTEERED BY THE APPLICANT. 
          UM, UH, STAFF WOULD THOUGH RECOMMEND THAT THE PEDESTRIAN LIGHTING CONDITION, UH, MENTIONED IN THE DEED RESTRICTIONS VOLUNTEERED BY THE APPLICANT, BE FLESHED OUT A LITTLE BIT MORE, UM, SO THAT IT REQUIRES CONSISTENT LIGHTING ALONG THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF THE PEDESTRIAN PATH THAT'S PROPOSED. 
          OKAY. 
          SO THAT WOULD BE ANOTHER CHANGE THAT WE'D LIKE FOR THEM TO MAKE IN THE DEED RESTRICTIONS THE APPLICANT, UM, COULD, COULD VOLUNTEER THAT CHANGE AT THE, AT THE PODIUM TODAY? YES, SIR. 
          I GOT OFF TRACK A LITTLE BIT, SO I WANNA GO BACK TO THE QUESTION ON, ON ALL THE DENSITY. 
          UH, DO YOU KNOW, UH, WHEN THE, UH, REQUEST WAS ORIGINALLY SUBMITTED TO YOU, WHAT THE ESTIMATED DENSITY WAS IN TERMS OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS, UM, ORIGINAL PLAN BEFORE THE DEED RESTRICTIONS? UH, NO, BECAUSE ALL WE'RE CONSIDERING THEN IS AN MU THREE DISTRICT, WHICH DOESN'T HAVE A MAXIMUM DWELLING UNIT DENSITY. 
          UM, SO WHEN STAFF IS EVALUATING A GENERAL ZONING CHANGE LIKE THIS, WE'RE JUST CONSIDERING ALL OF THE ENTITLEMENTS THAT COULD POTENTIALLY BE ON THE PROPERTY. 
          UH, WERE THE NEW DISTRICT, YOU KNOW, CHANGED ON THAT PROPERTY. 
          UM, WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY SPECIFICS AS FAR AS NUMBER OF UNITS OR ANYTHING ELSE ABOUT A PARTICULAR PLAN, UM, BECAUSE WE WEREN'T CONSIDERING THAT IN OUR REVIEW. 
          DID Y'ALL GO TO ANY OF THE COMMUNITY MEETINGS? UM, I HAVE NOT ATTENDED ANY COMMUNITY MEETINGS. 
          I'M ACTUALLY FILLING IN FOR, UH, LILIANA GARZA ON THIS BECAUSE SHE'S ON PARENTAL LEAVE AT THE MOMENT. 
          I'M NOT AWARE, UM, IF SHE WENT TO ANY COMMUNITY MEETINGS BECAUSE AT ONE OF THE COMMUNITY MEETINGS, YOU KNOW, UH, IT WAS STATED THAT THE ESTIMATED NUMBER OF UNITS WAS ABOUT 1200 TO 1,250. 
          THAT'S, UM, A NUMBER THAT I HAVE HEARD . 
          SO YOU HAVE HEARD THAT NUMBER? YOU CAN CONFIRM THAT. 
          I'M SORRY. 
          YOU CAN CONFIRM THAT THAT WAS PROBABLY THE ORIGINAL NUMBER. 
          I CAN'T, YEAH, 'CAUSE AGAIN, WE'RE, WE'RE JUST CONSIDERING THE DISTRICT NOT A PARTICULAR PLAN. 
          SO WE'VE GONE FROM, YOU KNOW, 1200 UNITS ORIGINALLY. 
          THEN THEY, UH, MADE THE, UH, THE DEED INCORPORATED THE DEED RESTRICTION THAT THEY WOULD GO TO THE MU TWO DENSITY, WHICH IS A HUNDRED U UNITS PER ACRE, WHICH EQUATES TO 2000 UNITS. 
          AND THEN A, WITH, WITH OBJECTIONS, YOU KNOW, OR CONCERNS FROM THE COMMUNITY, THEY WENT BACK TO 1600 AND THEN NOW THEY'RE BACK TO 1400, BUT WE'RE STILL, YOU KNOW, A COUPLE HUNDRED UNITS OVER WHAT THE ORIGINAL PLAN WAS. 
          THAT THAT SOUNDS TO BE CORRECT. 
          YEAH, I JUST WANTED TO CONFIRM ALL THAT. 
          UM, AND, AND, AND, AND THE FINAL QUESTION I HAD WAS, UH, HELP ME TO UNDERSTAND, IN THE ORIGINAL PD THERE WAS, UH, PD 69, THERE WAS TO BE NO ACCESS ON THE SOUTHERN END, UH, FROM SUN VALLEY, GAR, UH, SUN VALLEY, UH, ROAD INTO THE PROPERTY, AND, AND THEY'VE INCORPORATED THAT INTO THE DEED RESTRICTION THAT THERE WOULD STILL BE NO ACCESS FROM SUN VALLEY ROAD, BUT, BUT ON THE GARZA, I, SO I THINK THAT'S, THAT, THAT, THAT THAT'S CONSISTENT, BUT WITH GARZA, WHICH IS ALSO KNOWN AS GOLDEN BEAR. 
          MM-HMM. 
          , IT'S, UH, GARZA IS, IS GARZA EAST OF BECKLEY, AND THEN WEST OF BECKLEY, UH, YOU KNOW, IT, UH, I'M SORRY, WEST OF, UH, MAR MARUS PARK, IT'S, IT'S GOLDEN BEARS, RIGHT WHERE THIS HIGH SCHOOL IS, BUT IT DEAD ENDS BEFORE 
          [03:50:01]
THE PROPERTY, RIGHT? MM-HMM, . 
          AND, AND IN THE ORIGINAL PD THAT, UH, 69, UM, IF MY UNDERSTANDING IS CORRECT, THERE WAS TO BE NO ACCESS INTO THE COMMUNITY FROM GARZA, IS THAT RIGHT? UM, THE, THE ONLY THING I WAS AWARE OF AS OF THE DEED RESTRICTIONS PUBLISHED LAST FRIDAY, UH, IS THAT VEHICULAR ACCESS WAS PROHIBITED, UM, TO THE SOUTH. 
          DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE PD 69 CALLED FOR? YEAH, SO THE CONDITIONS OF PD 69, UM, I BELIEVE DON'T MENTION ANYTHING ABOUT VEHICULAR ACCESS TO THAT PARTICULAR STREET. 
          UM, I DON'T BELIEVE THE PLAN, UH, WHERE, YOU KNOW, ANY DEVELOPMENT IN THIS PD WOULD NEED TO COMPLY WITH THE PLAN. 
          I DON'T BELIEVE THE PLAN SHOWED ANY ACCESS TO THAT STREET. 
          UM, IT SAYS IN PD 69 UNDER TRAFFIC VIC VEHICULAR ACCESS FROM PROPERTY TO SUN VALLEY DRIVE GARZA AVENUE AND HUCKLEBERRY CIRCLE IS PROHIBITED. 
          OKAY. 
          YEAH. 
          I'LL, I'LL TAKE YOUR WORD FOR IT. 
          ALRIGHT, SO THAT'S READING FROM THE PD 69 MM-HMM. 
          , AND, AND TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, IT SOUNDS LIKE THE APPLICANT HAS VOLUNTEERED DEED RESTRICTIONS NOW THAT WOULD, UM, SORT OF REPLICATE THAT PROHIBITION ON VEHICULAR ACCESS THAT'S IN THE PD TODAY. 
          SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT THEY HAVE INCLUDED NOW IN THE, BECAUSE THIS WAS NOT IN THE DEED RESTRICTIONS THAT I'VE SEEN. 
          YEAH, SO THE, UM, DEED RESTRICTIONS PUBLISHED LAST FRIDAY. 
          UM, AND LET ME PULL THAT UP REAL QUICK BEFORE I TELL YOU THE WRONG THING. 
          WELL, NO, WE, WE, I, I, I, I WANT THE DEED RESTRICTIONS THAT WERE OFFERED YESTERDAY. 
          I MEAN MM-HMM. 
           BECAUSE IT WASN'T IN LAST FRIDAY, CORRECT? YEAH. 
          UM, LET ME JUST PULL THIS UP REAL QUICK. 
          UM, SO THESE ARE THE, UH, REVISED DEED RESTRICTIONS THAT WERE CIRCULATED, UM, EARLIER TODAY. 
          UM, ANYTHING HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW REPRESENTS A CHANGE FROM THE VERSION PUBLISHED IN THE DOCKET LAST FRIDAY. 
          FOR EXAMPLE, UH, CAR WASH WAS A PERMITTED USE WITH CERTAIN CONDITIONS. 
          UM, NOW IT'S ON THE LIST OF PROHIBITED USES, SO THAT'S WHY THAT'S HIGHLIGHTED. 
          UM, BUT IF WE GO DOWN TO WHERE THE ACCESS CONDITIONS ARE, I CAN FIND THEM. 
          YEAH, SO IN THE DOCKET PUBLISHED LAST FRIDAY, THERE WAS A CONDITION VOLUNTEERED THAT VEHICULAR ACCESS ON SUN VALLEY DRIVE TO THE SOUTH IS PROHIBITED. 
          UM, AND AS OF THE DEED RESTRICTIONS CIRCULATED, COULD YOU READ THAT PLEASE? THAT THIS IS THE VERSION FROM FRIDAY? THIS, THIS IS, UH, THE VERSION FROM FRIDAY, AND THEN TEXT HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW IS WHAT WAS AMENDED WITH THE VERSION CIRCULATED EARLIER TODAY, BECAUSE THAT, THAT'S NOT IN THE VERSION THAT I'M LOOKING AT. 
          THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING THIS QUESTION. 
          THE VERSION IN THE DOCKET THAT I'M LOOKING AT IS THE VERSION THAT I UNDERSTOOD IT, IT, IT HAS THE MAXIMUM STRUCTURE HEIGHT IS 120 FEET, WHICH IS THE NEW VERSION FOR HEIGHT. 
          SO I PRESUME THIS IS A FAIRLY CURRENT VERSION. 
          THIS IS THE CURRENT, CURRENT VERSION. 
          YEAH, I'M JUST SAYING THAT THE TEXT HIGHLIGHT IN YELLOW IS WHAT'S CHANGED SINCE THE VERSION PUBLISHED IN THE DOCKET LAST FRIDAY. 
          OKAY. 
          SO YOU'RE SAYING THIS IS WHAT THEY GAVE TO YOU VERBALLY THAT YOU'VE TYPED IN? UM, THIS, THIS IS, THIS IS A RESULT OF THE CONVERSATION I HAD WITH THE APPLICANT THIS MORNING AND HAD CIRCULATED. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          I I, I, I THINK MY POINT IS PRETTY CLEAR IS, IS THERE'S A LOT OF CONFUSION ABOUT THE DEED RESTRICTIONS AND, AND WHAT, WHAT WHAT WE'RE SEEING HERE IS NOT WHAT I WAS GIVEN. 
          AND, AND, AND, UH, I I, I THINK THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, WE NEED TO CONTINUE TO HOLD THIS CASE UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL, YOU KNOW, WE GET A CLEARER ON THE DEED RESTRICTIONS CLARITY. 
          IF THE QUESTION WAS, WE'RE IN THE BRIEFING JUST NOW, SO WE'RE IN JUST QUESTIONS FOR STAFF, RIGHT. 
          COMMISSIONER, FOR, ARE YOU, HAVE YOU CONCLUDED YOUR QUESTION, SIR? UH, MR. MULKEY, YOU WERE GONNA SAY SOMETHING? I, I WAS, IF, IF THE QUESTION, IF COMMISSIONER FORSYTH'S LAST QUESTION WAS ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THE APPLICANT HAS VOLUNTEERED, UH, CONDITION THAT, UM, VEHICULAR ACCESS TO GOLDEN BEAR WAY WOULDN'T BE PERMITTED UNTIL A TRAFFIC STUDY HAS BEEN CONDUCTED, THAT THAT HAS BEEN VOLUNTEERED, UM, BY THE APPLICANT, AND THAT WAS IN THE VERSION I HAD CIRCULATED EARLIER TODAY. 
          SO THAT WAS THE PART THAT I, I THOUGHT I UNDERSTOOD, AND I WANNA MAKE SURE HERE THAT WHAT, WHAT WE'RE LOOKING HERE AT THE SCREEN IS WHAT WE READ THIS MORNING. 
          CORRECT. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, COMMISSIONER'S QUESTIONS FOR STAFF. 
          UH, SO JUST TO FOLLOW UP REAL QUICKLY, UH, TO COMMISSIONER BLAIR'S QUESTIONS, UH, ABOUT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION VERSUS WHAT THE DEED RESTRICTIONS NOW CAP IN TERMS OF HEIGHT AND DENSITY. 
          SO, YOU KNOW, IS IT COMMON FOR A CASE LIKE THIS TO BEGIN WITH, WITH A, A PROPOSAL AND A STAFF RECOMMENDATION, AND THEN IT GOES THROUGH A, YOU KNOW, MULTIPLE MEETINGS WITH THE PUBLIC, WITH THE, WITH THE COMMUNITY, AND THAT GETS MORPHED INTO A SET OF DEED RESTRICTIONS, WHICH IS KIND OF WHAT WE HAVE NOW. 
          UM, 
          [03:55:01]
I WANNA START MY REPLY WITH THE WORD, UNFORTUNATELY, UH, THAT IS A VERY COMMON OCCURRENCE. 
          RIGHT, BUT, BUT WHAT, WHAT I'M ASKING IS THE, THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IN TERMS OF HEIGHT AND DENSITY IS NOT, IS GREATER THAN WHAT THESE DE RESTRICTIONS THEY ARE NOW CAPPING, CORRECT? YEAH. 
          STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS FOR A STRAIGHT MU THREE, UH, THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL IS NOW AN MU THREE WITH THESE DE RESTRICTIONS, WHICH CAP? HEIGHT? END DENSITY. 
          HEIGHT, END DENSITY. 
          OKAY. 
          COMMISSIONER'S, QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS CA, COMMISSIONER FORESIGHT PLEASE. 
          ONE LAST QUESTION. 
          UH, HOW MANY OTHER MU THREE DISTRICTS ARE EXIST IN DALLAS NEXT TO ADJACENT TO SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS? THAT'S NOT A QUESTION I COULD ANSWER OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, BUT THAT'S CERTAINLY SOMETHING WE COULD DO SOME RESEARCH INTO. 
          PLEASE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF COMMISSIONERS? OKAY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SIR. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, ? NO, BUT, UH, WE, WE HAVEN'T BRIEFED THIS ONE YET, SO WE NEED TO GO BACK TO THIS ONE. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          DO YOU HAVE NUMBER FIVE? ARE YOU DOING NUMBER FIVE Z 2 34, 2 95? WE DIDN'T BRIEF THAT ONE. 
          THAT'S ME. 
          I CAN BRIEF THAT PLEASE, IF YOU DON'T MIND. 
          ALL RIGHT, NEXT IS ITEM FIVE KC 2 34 DASH 2 95. 
          THE REQUEST IS AN APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO SPECIFIC USE PERMIT NUMBER 24 19 FOR A COMMUNITY SERVICE CENTER ON PROPERTIES OWNED IN MF TWO, A MULTIFAMILY DISTRICT. 
          IT'S LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST LINE OF AVENUE Q BETWEEN LAUGHLIN DRIVE AND RAK ROAD. 
          UH, IT'S APPROXIMATELY 43,400 SQUARE FEET, JUST SHY OF ONE ACRE, UH, LOCATION MAP SHOWING THE PROPERTY AND CITY LIMITS AERIAL MAP WITH THE AREA OF REQUEST OUTLINED IN BLUE AND ZONING MAP WITH THAT SAME AREA OF REQUEST OUTLINED. 
          UH, TO THE NORTHWEST IS A CREDIT UNION, UM, PARTIALLY IN AN MF TWO, A DISTRICT, PARTIALLY IN AN AN OA DISTRICT, UH, TO THE EAST AND TO THE SOUTH WITHIN AN MF TWO, A DISTRICT ARE, UH, SINGLE FAMILY USES AS WELL AS UNDEVELOPED PROPERTY. 
          AND TO THE SOUTHWEST IN PD TWO 90 IS SURFACE PARKING, UM, FOR ONE OF THE ADJACENT CREDIT UNIONS ALONG FERGUSON ROAD. 
          UH, LIKE I SAID, THE, THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED AT MF TWO A DISTRICT. 
          UM, A COMMUNITY SERVICE CENTER IS CURRENTLY PERMITTED ON THE PROPERTY UNDER THE EXISTING SUP 24 19. 
          UH, THIS SUP WAS ORIGINALLY APPROVED ON AUGUST 11TH, 2021 FOR A THREE YEAR PERIOD, UH, AND WAS SET TO EXPIRE ON AUGUST 11TH OF THIS YEAR. 
          UM, HOWEVER, AN APPLICANT, THE APPLICANT DID FILE FOR RENEWAL, UH, IN TIME ON JULY 24TH OF THIS YEAR. 
          SO IT'S STILL VALID. 
          THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONTINUE, UH, USE OF THE SITE AS A COMMUNITY SERVICE CENTER. 
          THEY'RE REQUESTING A TIME LIMIT OF FIVE YEARS WITH ELIGIBILITY FOR AUTOMATIC RENEWAL FOR ADDITIONAL FIVE YEAR PERIODS. 
          OTHER THAN THAT, THE APPLICANT PROPOSES NO OTHER CHANGES TO THE EXISTING CONDITIONS OR SITE PLAN OF SUP NUMBER 24 19 SITE PHOTOS. 
          THIS IS ON SITE, UH, LOOKING AT THE FRONT OF THE EXISTING BUILDING, SOME MORE PHOTOS ON SITE, UH, LOOKING DOWN THE STREET. 
          AND THEN, UH, SURROUNDING USES YOU CAN SEE SOME OF THOSE SINGLE FAMILY USES IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA. 
          UH, UH, THIS IS THE EXISTING SITE PLAN FOR THIS SUP. 
          LIKE I SAID, THERE ARE NO CHANGES PROPOSED TO THIS SITE PLAN. 
          AND STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL FOR A FIVE YEAR PERIOD WITH ELIGIBILITY FOR AUTOMATIC RENEWAL FOR ADDITIONAL FIVE YEAR PERIODS SUBJECT TO AMENDED CONDITIONS. 
          AND I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS. 
          THANK YOU, SIR. 
          QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER WHEELER, PLEASE. 
          UM, CAN YOU GIVE ANY INSIGHT ON WHY DID THEY HAVE TO GET AN SUP SINCE THEY HAVE BEEN THERE SINCE, UM, IT LOOKS LIKE THEY HAVE BEEN THERE SINCE, UH, HOLD ON 1990. 
          WHAT, WHAT DO, WHAT TRIGGER THAT THEY HAD TO GET AN SUP. 
          UH, THE, IT'S, IT'S A COMMUNITY ART CENTER ESSENTIALLY. 
          UM, AND IN OUR CODE THAT IS CLASSIFIED AS A COMMUNITY SERVICE CENTER, 
          [04:00:01]
UM, WHICH IS A PRETTY BROADLY WRITTEN USE, UM, BUT THAT USE DOES REQUIRE AN SUP, UH, IN THE EXISTING ZONING DISTRICT, THE MF TWO A DISTRICT. 
          UH, SO THEY NEED AN SUP IN ORDER TO OPERATE. 
          SO I, I KNOW THAT, THAT, SO MY, I'M ASKING BECAUSE THEY, SO WHY DIDN'T THEY NEED ONE PRIOR TO 2021? UH, IT'S, IT'S, I HAVEN'T, UM, DONE TOO MUCH RESEARCH INTO THE SITE. 
          IT'S POSSIBLE THAT THEY DID HAVE AN, UH, PRIOR SUP THAT, UM, LAPSED OR EXPIRED IN SOME OTHER WAY. 
          UH, AND WHEN THEY CAME IN, IN 2021, THEY HAD TO, UH, GET A NEW SUP, UH, IN ORDER TO CONTINUE OPERATING THERE. 
          OKAY. 
          WERE YOU AWARE THAT, UM, I SPOKE TO THE COMMUNITY AND F FERGUSON ROAD INITIATIVE, WHO WOULD BE OKAY FOR THEM HAVING A LONGER SUP? UM, THEY STARTED OUT IN 1966 AND, UM, THEY MOVED TO THIS CURRENT LOCATION IN 1990. 
          UM, AND SO THEY BELIEVE THAT THEY'RE A GREAT ASSET. 
          SO WOULD YOU ALL BE AGAINST, UM, WOULD STAFF BE AGAINST THE LONGER SUP STAFF? WOULD HAVE NO OBJECTION TO THAT. 
          THANK, THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, THAT'S, THAT'S PRETTY MUCH ALL I HAD. 
          UM, I'M ASKING, UM, CHAIR TO TAKE IT OFF OF, UM, CONSENT. 
          CONSENT FOR THAT REASON ALONE. 
          THANK YOU SO MUCH. 
          WE WILL, WE WILL, UH, DISPOSE OF THIS CASE INDIVIDUALLY. 
          SO THAT LEAVES THE CONSENT AGENDA OF CASES FOUR AND SIX. 
          YEP. 
          SO THREE AND FIVE HAVE COME OFF CONSENT, FIVE AND SIX, EXCUSE ME, FOUR AND SIX. 
          ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM? COMMISSIONERS? OKAY. 
          LET'S, UH, GO TO THE NEXT CASE, WHICH IS NUMBER NINE. 
          NUMBER NINE, AND, UH, VICE CHAIR, IT DOES NOT NEED TO BE BRIEFED BECAUSE, UM, IT'S GOING TO BE PUT UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL FEBRUARY THE SIXTH. 
          AND THE APPLICANT'S AWARE OF THAT AS WELL AS MR. CLINTON. 
          THANK YOU COMMISSIONER CARPENTER FOR YOUR, UH, FOR THE HEADS UP AND JUST, UH, UH, FOR THE RECORD, UH, VICE CHAIR RUBIN HAS A CONFLICT ON THIS ITEM AND STEPPED OUT OF THE ROOM AND IT CAN NOW STEP BACK IN AND WE'LL GO TO CASE NUMBER 10. 
          ITEM 10 IS KC 2 34 DASH 1 96. 
          UH, IT'S AN APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO DED RESTRICTIONS Z 8 56 DASH 1 0 7 AND Z 8 67 DASH 25 ON PROPERTY ZONED IN IR INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH DISTRICT. 
          IT'S LOCATED ON THE EAST LINE OF SOUTHAMPTON ROAD, NORTH OF WEST DANIELDALE ROAD. 
          IT'S ABOUT, UH, 8.82 ACRES, AND THE PURPOSE OF THE REQUEST IS TO ALLOW OVERNIGHT PARKING OF COMMERCIAL MOTOR COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLES. 
          UH, THIS IS THE LOCATION MAP SHOWING THE PROPERTY AND CITY LIMITS AERIAL MAP WITH THE AREA OF REQUEST OUTLINED IN BLUE. 
          AND, UH, ZONING MAP WAS SURROUNDING USES, UH, TO THE NORTH AND TO THE EAST ARE WAREHOUSE USES, UH, TO THE SOUTH IS KIND OF A HODGEPODGE. 
          IT'S SOME UNDEVELOPED PROPERTY, COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLE PARKING AND VEHICLE DISPLAY SALES AND SERVICE. 
          AND THEN TO THE WEST, ACROSS HAMPTON ROAD IS AN EXISTING SCHOOL AS WELL AS SOME OTHER WAREHOUSE AND OFFICE USES. 
          THE AREA OF REQUEST IS CURRENTLY DEVELOPED WITH THE COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE AND IS ZONED IN IR INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH DISTRICT, UH, WITH TWO DIFFERENT SETS OF DEED RESTRICTIONS. 
          UH, Z 8 56 1 0 7 APPLIES TO ABOUT THE WESTERN TWO THIRDS OF THE PROPERTY. 
          UH, Z 8 67 DASH 25 APPLIES TO THE EASTERN THIRD OF THE PROPERTY. 
          UM, THE FIRST SET OF DEED RESTRICTIONS, UH, WERE APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL ON MAY 22ND, 1986. 
          THE SECOND WAS APPROVED A LITTLE LESS THAN A YEAR LATER FEBRUARY, 1987. 
          UH, THE SITE CURRENTLY HAS A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLE PARKING. 
          UH, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING PERMISSION TO PARK THESE COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLES OVERNIGHT. 
          UH, AND PER THESE TWO SETS OF DEED RESTRICTIONS, UH, COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLES ARE ALLOWED TO PARK ON THE PROPERTY JUST NOT OVERNIGHT. 
          UH, THIS IS DUE TO THE PROHIBITION OF OPEN STORAGE IN THE DEED RESTRICTIONS. 
          SO WITH THIS REQUEST, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO TERMINATE THAT PROHIBITION, UH, IN BOTH SETS OF DEED RESTRICTIONS. 
          UM, SOME SITE PHOTOS, THIS IS ON THE SITE, UH, LOOKING AT THE SIGN FOR THE PROPERTY, UM, MORE PHOTOS OF THE SITE AS IT EXISTS TODAY. 
          AGAIN, THERE'S THAT, UH, VACANT STRUCTURE, 
          [04:05:03]
MORE SITE PHOTOS, AND THEN THIS LOOKING ACROSS THE STREET AT SOME OF THE OTHER WAREHOUSE USES THAT EXIST IN THE PROP, UH, IN THE AREA. 
          AND STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE DEED RESTRICTIONS Z 8 56, 1 0 7, AND Z 8 67 1 12 5 AS VOLUNTEERED BY THE APPLICANT. 
          THANK YOU, SIR. 
          QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONER BLAIR? UM, THANK YOU FOR PICKING THIS ONE UP, MR. MOKEY. 
          I REALLY APPRECIATE IT. 
          UM, THIS, THESE TWO DEED RESTRICTIONS ARE A LITTLE OLD, AREN'T THEY? AND, AND THE USES HAVE THE DEFINITION AND THE WAY WE WRITE THEM HAS CHANGED FROM THE TIME THESE DEED RESTRICTIONS ARE OR ORIGINALLY OFFERED UP, CORRECT? UH, THAT IS CORRECT. 
          AND I'M STARING AT OUR CITY ATTORNEY SO I DON'T SAY THE WRONG THING. 
          UM, BUT THERE IS A CLAUSE THAT, UH, WE AS A CITY STARTED ADDING TO DEED RESTRICTIONS AROUND THE YEAR 2006. 
          THAT IS EFFECTIVELY A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE THAT WOULD ALLOW, UM, PROPERTY OWNERS, UM, WITHIN A SET OF DEED RESTRICTIONS TO AMEND THOSE RESTRICTIONS FOR JUST THEIR PROPERTY, UM, WITHOUT HAVING TO GET THE CONSENT OF THE OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS AFFECTED BY THOSE DEED RESTRICTIONS. 
          UH, BECAUSE THESE TWO SETS WERE OLDER, THEY DO NOT HAVE THAT CLAUSE. 
          UM, TODAY. 
          YOU, YOU GOT AHEAD OF ME. 
          OKAY. 
          , I'LL TAKE YOUR LEAD. 
          . 
          SO JUST TO CLARIFY, THESE TWO SETS OF DEED RESTRICTIONS, THIS, THESE, THIS AREA HAS MULTIPLE PROPERTY OWNERS, BUT THEY ARE ALL FALLING UNDERNEATH THESE TWO SETS OF DEED RESTRICTIONS, CORRECT? AT LEAST THESE TWO. 
          YES, THERE ARE SEVERAL OTHERS THAT KIND OF OVERLAP IN THE AREA, BUT YES. 
          AND THIS PARTICULAR APPLICATION OR A, UH, APPLICANT IS ONLY LOOKING TO MAKE CHANGES AT THEIR SITE AT 91 86 SOUTH HAMPTON AND NOT ALL OF THE PROPERTIES IN ASSOCIATED WITH THE DEED RESTRICTIONS AND TRACK ONE AND TRACK TWO, CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. 
          SO THIS APPLICANT IS LOOKING TO BE ABLE TO PARK, UH, COMMERCIAL VEHICLE TRAILERS OR, OR OVER FOR LONGER THAN 20 OR COMMERCIAL VEHICLES LONGER THAN 24 HOURS, IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. 
          UM, IS IT NOT TRUE THAT RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET FROM THERE IS, UH, A CHARTER SCHOOL THAT IS ALSO CORRECT AND SHARING AND HAMPTON IS A, WAS IS IT A SIX ROW, IS IT A SIX ROW OR IS IT IT'S SIX ROW, SIX LANE. 
          SIX LANE. 
          UH, YES. 
          SURE. 
          SO IT'S A MAJOR THOROUGHFARE, CORRECT? THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING. 
          AND THAT MAJOR THOROUGHFARE, YEAH, UM, YOU CAN, YOU CAN TRUST ME. 
          I'LL JUST NOD MY HEAD AND SAY YES. 
          AND THAT MAJOR THOROUGHFARE GOES STRAIGHT TO, UM, JUST SOUTH, GO STRAIGHT TO A DIFFERENT MUNICIPALITY AND GOING TRAVELING NORTH LEADS YOU STRAIGHT TO I 20, CORRECT? YES. 
          UM, BUT THE SCHOOL IS, UH, RIGHT ACROSS FROM THE SCHOOL IS, I'M JUST TRYING TO HELP PAINT A PICTURE. 
          UM, IS A, UM, UH, CHARTER SCHOOL WHO HAS THEIR ATHLETIC FIELD THAT IS ACTUALLY RIGHT ON HAMPTON, UH, ROAD, CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. 
          UM, SO IS IT NOT ACTUALLY ACCURATE THAT AS OF YESTERDAY THAT THE APPLICANT IS, IS BRINGING IN NEW DEED RESTRICTIONS OR VOLUNTEERING, UH, NEW DEED RESTRICTIONS FOR THEIR PARTICULAR TRACT LAND? THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING. 
          HOWEVER, STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED, UH, ANY NEW DEED RESTRICTIONS JUST YET FROM THE APPLICANT. 
          YOU DID? I DON'T THINK I DID. 
          YEAH, YOU DID. 
          OKAY. 
          I SENT THEM YESTERDAY AND THEY WERE, DID YOU SEND THEM OR DID THE APPLICANT VOLUNTEER THEM? NO, THE APPLICANT SENT THEM TO ME. 
          I FORWARD THEM ON TO STAFF TO STAFF TO FORWARD THEM ON TO THE PLANNING COMMISSIONERS WITH A CC DU AND LEGAL. 
          I DID RECEIVE AN EMAIL YESTERDAY FROM THE APPLICANT WITH A SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST, UH, THAT WAS CIRCULATED TO THE COMMISSION. 
          UM, BUT IF THE APPLICANT IS VOLUNTEERING DEED RESTRICTIONS, THEY NEED TO COME FROM THE, FROM THE APPLICANT, NOT FROM THE COMMISSIONER. 
          OH, ABSOLUTELY. 
          I'M, I'M, I'M AWARE OF THAT, BUT I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT, THAT WE WERE TALKING THE SAME LANGUAGE RIGHT HERE. 
          YES, WE ARE ON THE SAME PAGE. 
          SO THE A SO THE APPLICANT IN THIS PARTICULAR REQUEST IS ASKING FOR A DE PROHIBITION OF A DEED RESTRICTION TO BE RE 
          [04:10:01]
TO BE GRANTED, BUT THEY'RE ALSO IN THE VOLUNTEERING NEW DEED RESTRICTIONS. 
          IS THAT YOUR UNDERSTANDING? THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, PLEASE, MR. BAALKE, I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT COMM, EXCUSE ME, COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLE PARKING. 
          'CAUSE THEY COULD LEGALLY PARK THESE TRUCKS OVERNIGHT, BUT THEY CANNOT DETACH THE TRAILERS AND LEAVE THEM THERE. 
          IS THAT CORRECT? I MEAN THE, THE CAB AND THE TRAILER COULD PARK AS A UNIT BECAUSE IT'S ALL A COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLE PARKING. 
          UM, OUR UNDERSTANDING, AND BY THAT I MEAN CURRENT PLANNING'S UNDERSTANDING, UH, IS THAT PERMITTING STAFF HAVE INTERPRETED THE PROHIBITION ON OPEN STORAGE TO MEAN THAT, UM, COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLES CANNOT BE PARKED ON THE SITE IN EXCESS OF 24 HOURS. 
          SO THAT'S HOW THE, THE CASE MADE ITS WAY FROM PERMITTING STAFF'S INTERPRETATION TO THE ZONING CASE THAT'S BEFORE THE COMMISSION TODAY. 
          I'LL, I'LL HAVE TO THINK ABOUT THAT, BUT THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU COMMISSIONER. 
          ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM? COMMISSIONER? THANK YOU SIR. 
          THANK YOU. 
          LET'S GO TO THE NEXT CASE. 
          IS UH, CASE NUMBER 11 AND MR. CHAIR? YES, PLEASE. 
          THE NEXT SERIES OF CASES ARE ALL WITHIN THE SAME PD AS WELL AS CASE NUMBER 17. 
          DO WE WANNA BRIEF ALL THOSE TOGETHER? I WAS JUST ASKING ABOUT THAT COMMISSIONER HAMPTON AND I THINK IF THEY CAN WORK IT OUT. 
          'CAUSE I THINK THERE'S TWO DIFFERENT PLANNERS, SO I DON'T KNOW IF THEY HAVE TWO DIFFERENT POWERPOINTS OR DO YOU KNOW, I'S ASK DEFER TO THEM IF THEY THINK THEY CAN, MAYBE THEY CAN EAT. 
          WELL, I'LL, I'LL TRY TO COMBINE MY QUESTIONS FOR EFFICIENCY. 
          OKAY. 
          FOR THE COMMISSION. 
          MAYBE YOU AS THEIR MANAGER, I CAN DIRECT MARTIN AND LAQUAN TO SPEAK IN UNISON THE ENTIRE TIME THEY'RE PRESENTING. 
          IF THAT'S SOMETHING YOU'D LIKE THAT, THAT WOULD I THINK BE GREAT . 
          OKAY. 
          WELL MAY MAYBE, UH, MR. BAT YOU CAN BRIEF US ON THE, UH, A BUCKET OF THESE THAT YOU HAVE AND THEN THANK YOU SIR. 
          I'LL ALSO HAVE GENERAL COMMENTS THAT MIGHT APPLY TO ALL OF THEM THAT I'LL GIVE BEFORE WE GO THROUGH. 
          I MEAN WE'LL HAVE INDIVIDUAL PHOTOS, UH, WHICH CAN BE VIEWED IF DESIRED, AND REFERRED TO OTHERWISE. 
          POINT BEING IS, SO WE'VE GOT FIVE CASES ALL LOCATED IN PD 1 34. 
          UH, PD 1 34 IS CREATED IN, UH, 1980S ROUGHLY. 
          AND BASICALLY IT HAS A LARGE SUB AREA CALLED SUB AREA A, THAT, UH, TO A GREAT DEGREE DEFAULTS TO R SEVEN FIVE. 
          UH, EXCEPT IT SAYS THAT CERTAIN, SO BASICALLY THE PD OPENS UP AND SAYS THE USE IS PERMITTED IN SUB AREA A ARE LIMITED TO SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED HOMES AND DUPLEX DWELLINGS. 
          THAT'S A , THE FIRST PART OF THE USES SECTION OF PD 1 34. 
          SECOND PART OF THAT SAYS ALL EXISTING USES AS SHOWN ON A LAND USE MAP, UH, ARE MADE LAW LEGAL NONCONFORMING. 
          AND THEY ALLOW BASICALLY, UM, THOSE USES TO REMAIN, UH, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAND USE MAP. 
          UH, WHICH THERE WAS A LAND USE MAP ASSOCIATED WITH THIS. 
          YOU'LL SOMETIMES SEE PDS, WHICH ENCODED, UH, EXISTING USES AT THE TIME ONTO A MAP AND THEN THEREAFTER SORT OF ALLOWED THEM TO ASK ACT SOMETHING LIKE, UH, UH, SMALL SCALE ZONING MAP. 
          AND IN THE CASE OF PD 1 34, THERE WAS A, UH, LAND USE MAP ASSOCIATED WITH THAT, UH, DRAWN IN, IN DIGITAL, OR EXCUSE ME, DRAWN IN INK, UM, FOR THE ORIGINAL PD. 
          UM, AND ALTERED UH, BEFORE THIS TIME WHAT STAFF HAS DONE IS CREATED A DIGITAL VERSION OF THAT, BASICALLY TAKING THE, THE LAND USE FROM THAT, UM, AND THEN DIGITIZED IT AND REVIEWED IT CLOSELY. 
          UH, ANY CASES THAT WERE UP WOULD BE, COULD BE APPROVED IN THIS PD. 
          WE MIGHT USE THAT OPPORTUNITY TO UPDATE THE MAP AS WE WOULD ANY TRACK MAP. 
          UH, MOST OF OUR PDS HAVE TRACKED MAPS AND THINGS LIKE THAT, UH, THAT WE DO UPDATE, UH, WITH AN INDIVIDUAL ZONING CASE. 
          UH, SHOULD ANY OF THESE CASES BE APPROVED, WE MIGHT HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO UPDATE THAT MAP TO BE DIGITAL. 
          BUT POINT BEING IS THESE FIVE CASES HAVE BEEN TREATED AS GENERAL ZONE CHANGES, UM, THAT ALTER THE, UH, THE TRACKED MAP OR THE, UH, THE ZONING LAND USE MAP FROM SINGLE FAMILY TO DUPLEX ON THAT MAP. 
          AND SO WITHOUT GETTING TWO MORE INVOLVED, I'LL LET THEM TAKE IT AWAY. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          THANK YOU MICHAEL. 
          UM, WE'RE GONNA GO AHEAD AND GO THROUGH, I'LL DO MY CASES FIRST AND THE CALL WILL BRIEF. 
          HIS MINE WILL BE ITEMS 11, 12 AND 17. 
          SO ITEM 11 IS CASE Z 2 34 DASH 2 28. 
          IT IS AN APPLICATION TO AMEND THE LAND USE MAP TO ALLOW DUPLEX USE ON PROPERTY THAT CURRENTLY ALLOWS A SINGLE FAMILY USE WITHIN SUB AREA A WITHIN PD 1 34 LOCATED ON THE EAST CORNER OF ASHLAND, SOUTH HENDERSON AVENUE, SOUTHEAST TERRY STREET, APPROXIMATELY 7,500 
          [04:15:01]
SQUARE FEET IN SIZE LOCATED IN THE MOUNT AUBURN NEIGHBORHOOD, OLD EAST DALLAS ISH AREA. 
          HERE WE SEE THE AERIAL MAP SHOWING THIS SITE. 
          UH, SO IT'S ON THE CORNER LOT HERE WITH UH, ASHTON HENDERSON. 
          THE ZONING MAP, IT IS ALL PD 1 34 SUB AREA A UH, THERE'S A MIX OF USES IN THE SURROUNDING AREA AS YOU ZOOM OUT. 
          UH, BUT IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY IT IS ADJACENT TO SOME SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES AT A CHURCH ACROSS THE STREET. 
          AS MENTIONED, IT IS CO ZONE ZONED PD 1 34 SUB AREA A AND ON THAT LAND USE MAP THAT MICHAEL MENTIONED, IT IS DESIGNATED FOR SINGLE FAMILY. 
          THE APPLICANT DOES INTEND TO BUILD A DUPLEX IN ORDER TO ACCOMPLISH THIS. 
          THEY ARE REQUESTING A RE DESIGNATION FOR THE DUPLEX LAND USE ON THE MAP. 
          UH, HERE'S AN EXAMPLE OF THE UH, ORIGINAL LAND USE MAP THAT WAS DIGITIZED, UH, BY ONE OF OUR COLLEAGUES IN LONG RANGE PLANNING, A VERY HEAVY LIFT AND EFFORT ON HIS PART AND WE THANK HIM. 
          UH, TED, UH, IF YOU'RE LISTENING, THANK YOU. 
          UH, BUT THE WAY THAT IT WAS DIGITIZED WAS TO REFLECT HOW THE CURRENT CURRENT ITERATION OF THE LAND USE MAP EXISTS. 
          IT WAS COLOR CODED INTO DIFFERENT USES. 
          AS YOU SEE HERE, THIS LIGHTER YELLOW AS IT APPEARS ON THE SCREEN, LIGHTER YELLOW INDICATES A SINGLE FAMILY USE AND THE ORANGE JUST DESIGNATES A DUPLEX USE. 
          SO THERE ARE SOME DUPLEX DESIGNATED LOTS WITHIN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY OF THIS SITE. 
          UH, HERE'S A PHOTO OF THE SUBJECT SITE ON ASH LANE LOOKING SOUTHEAST, THEN LOOKING EAST ON ASH LANE, LOOKING TO THE NORTHEAST, LOOKING NORTH, THEN NORTHWEST AWAY FROM THE SITE AT THAT CHURCH ON THE CORNER OF ASHTON HENDERSON LOOKING EAST AT THE SITE, LOOKING WEST AWAY FROM THE SITE, LOOKING NORTHEAST ON HENDERSON AT THE SITE SOUTHEAST WITH THE SITE TO THE LEFT HAND SIDE OF THE PHOTO SOUTH AWAY FROM THE SITE NORTH TOWARDS THE SITE. 
          UH, THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. 
          THE PD REFERENCES R 7.5 AND TO BE CLEAR, THAT'S R 7.5 FROM THE ORIGINAL DEVELOPMENT CODE, NOT THE PRE-ME OR THE PRE AMENDMENT CODE, NOT THE AMENDED CODE. 
          THE PD 1 34 STANDARDS DO DEVIATE SLIGHTLY FROM R 7.5. 
          THEY ONLY REQUIRE A 10 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK VERSUS A 25 FOOT. 
          THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE IS 7,250 SQUARE FEET AND THE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH IS 50 FEET RATHER THAN 55 FEET. 
          WE ALSO INCLUDED AS A COMPARISON A DUPLEX DISTRICT, WHICH WAS WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY REQUESTED. 
          AS YOU CAN SEE, A DUPLEX DISTRICT WOULD HAVE A LARGER FRONT YARD SETBACK, WHICH WOULD ACTUALLY IMPOSE BLOCK FACE CONTINUITY ONTO ANY BLOCKS THAT WOULD BE REZONED TO, UH, THEY HAVE SOME CHANGES TO THE SIDE AND REAR YARD SETBACKS AND PERHAPS THE BIGGEST CHANGE IS THAT THEY DO HAVE LARGER LOT COVERAGE AND HEIGHT. 
          AGAIN, THAT'S FOR A STRAIGHT DUPLEX ZONING DISTRICT, NOT FOR THE DUPLEX USE WITHIN PD 1 34 STAFFS ANALYSIS FINDS THAT THE AREA IS A MIX OF SINGLE FAMILY AND DUPLEX USES. 
          UH, THERE'S PROXIMITY TO RETAIL ON GRAND AVENUE AND SCHOOLS IN THE MOUNTAIN AUBURN NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          THIS SITE IN PARTICULAR IS A CORNER LOT. 
          UH, IT'S OFTEN BETTER SUITED FOR SOME OF THE CONSIDERATIONS THAT ARE MADE FOR BUILDING A DUPLEX AND THAT THE PD 1 34 STANDARDS THAT WILL RESULT IN A BUILDING ENVELOPE THAT IS SIMILAR TO WHAT IS ALLOWED WITH SINGLE FAMILY CONSTRUCTION STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL. 
          THANK YOU MR. BATE. 
          IF I MAY ASK COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, I'M GONNA HOLD MY QUESTIONS BECAUSE I THINK IT MIGHT BE HELPFUL TO SEE SOME OF THE OTHER SITES THAT I THINK ARE GONNA BE ABOUT THIS QUICK TO GO THROUGH OKAY WITH SOME OF THE OTHER PHOTOS. 
          EVERYBODY GOOD WITH THAT? LOOKS LIKE WE ARE ALL CONTINUE ROCK AND ROLL THROUGH. 
          THE NEXT CASE IS IVAN 12 CASE Z 2 34 DASH 2 35 APPLICATION TO AMEND LAND USE MAP TO ALLOW A DUPLEX USE ON PROPERTY THAT CURRENTLY ALLOWS A SINGLE FAMILY USE SUB AREA, A PD 1 34. 
          THIS ONE'S LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST LINE OF GARLAND AVENUE. 
          NORTHEAST OF FAIRVIEW AVENUE IS APPROXIMATELY 7,400 SQUARE FEET IN SIZE MOUNT AUBURN NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          HERE'S AN AERIAL MAP SHOWING THE SUBJECT SITE AND THEN THE ZONING MAP SHOWING AGAIN THAT IT IS ALL WITHIN 1 34 SUB AREA. 
          A UH, THIS SITE IS ADJACENT TO A CHURCH AND THEN A SINGLE FAMILY DIRECTLY NEXT TO IT. 
          THERE IS A DUPLEX TO THE SOUTHEAST OF THERE. 
          IT'S CURRENTLY DESIGNATED FOR SINGLE FAMILY. 
          THE APPLICANT INTENDS TO BUILD A DUPLEX AND SO THEY REQUEST A RED DESIGNATION. 
          ONCE AGAIN, THE LAND USE MAP AS UPDATED AND OR DIGITIZED, THAT SHOULD SAY BY OUR, OUR DEPARTMENT. 
          UH, WE SEE HERE THAT THE ORIGINAL LAND USE MAP DOES DESIGNATE THE CHURCH AREA AS PUBLIC OR SEMI-PUBLIC SPACE. 
          UH, THERE'S A VARIETY OF DUPLEX DESIGNATED LOTS ON THIS BLOCK AND IN THE SURROUNDING AREA AS WELL AS A FEW THAT WERE DESIGNATED AS VACANT. 
          HERE WE ARE ON GARLAND AVENUE LOOKING NORTHWEST OF THE SUBJECT SITE, THEN LOOKING NORTH TO THE NORTHEAST, TO THE EAST, TO THE SOUTHEAST, TO THE SOUTH, TO THE SOUTHWEST AND TO THE WEST. 
          AND THEN GOING A LITTLE FURTHER CLOSER LOOKING NORTHWEST, UH, THERE'S THE SUBJECT SITE IN THE MIDDLE NEIGHBORING HOUSE TO THE LEFT 
          [04:20:01]
AND OF A DEEPER LOOK AS WELL. 
          UH, THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, UH, THE SAME THING THAT I MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY. 
          UH, STAFFS ANALYSIS, AGAIN, WE FIND THAT IN GENERAL THIS AREA HAS A MIX OF SINGLE FAMILY AND DUPLEX USES AND THAT THERE IS PROXIMITY TO RETAIL AND SCHOOLS, WHICH IS GENERALLY MORE SUPPORTIVE OF MORE, UH, INTENSE AND DENSER RESIDENTIAL BUILDING. 
          AND THAT AGAIN, THE PD 1 34 STANDARDS DO RESULT IN A BUILDING ENVELOPE THAT IS VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT'S ALLOWABLE WITH SINGLE FAMILY CONSTRUCTION AND STAFF'S. 
          RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL. 
          THIRD CASE IS Z 2 34, ITEM 17 CASE Z 2 34 DASH 2 94 APPLICATION TO AMEND THE LAND USE MAP TO ALLOW DUPLEX USE ON THE PROPERTY THAT CURRENTLY ALLOWS A SINGLE FAMILY USE SUB AREA, A PD 1 34. 
          THIS ONE IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST LINE OF SOUTH ST. 
          MARY AVENUE. 
          SOUTH OF SANTA FE AVENUE IS APPROXIMATELY 5,321 SQUARE FEET IN SIZE. 
          IT'S A LITTLE SMALLER THAN THOSE OTHER ONES. 
          UH, HERE WE SEE THE AERIAL MAPS SHOWING THE SITE ON ST. 
          MARY AND THE ZONING MAP SHOWING THE SURROUNDING AREAS. 
          SO AGAIN, THIS IS MOSTLY PD 1 34 SUB AREA A AND THEN TO THE NORTH. 
          NORTHWEST IS A DA DUPLEX DISTRICT, UH, THAT DOES HAVE SOME SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES. 
          UH, IT IS CURRENTLY ZONED PD 1 34 SUB AREA A. 
          THEY INTEND TO BUILD A DUPLEX AND REQUEST THE DUPLEX DESIGNATION. 
          UH, HERE LOOKING AT THE IMMEDIATE SURROUNDING AREAS ON THE ORIGINAL LAND USE MAP, UH, MAJORITY OF THE SITES ARE DESIGNATED FOR SINGLE FAMILY. 
          UH, THERE ARE A FEW THAT ARE MARKED AS VACANT. 
          UH, THEY DO APPEAR TO BE DEVELOPED AT THIS TIME, BUT THAT'S JUST HOW THEY ARE MARKED IN THE ORIGINAL LAND USE MAP. 
          UH, I THINK IT IS THOSE BEAR MENTIONING OR REPEATING THAT THIS MAP PERHAPS HAS NOT BEEN, UH, AMENDED IN, IN, IN SOME TIME. 
          HERE WE ARE ON SOUTH SAM, MARY AVENUE LOOKING SOUTHWEST AT THE SUBJECT SITE, THEN LOOKING SOUTH, THEN TO THE SOUTHEAST, TO THE EAST, TO THE NORTHEAST, TO THE NORTH, TO THE NORTHWEST AND TO THE WEST. 
          THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TABLE. 
          AND I THINK WE'RE ALL GETTING VERY FAMILIAR WITH NOW. 
          UH, STAFFS ANALYSIS, AGAIN, WE DO FIND THAT THERE'S THIS MIX OF SINGLE FAMILY AND DUPLEX USES THIS PARTICULAR SITE. 
          THERE AREN'T AS MANY DUPLEX USES IN THE IMMEDIATE SURROUNDING AREA. 
          BUT IF WE LOOK AT THE BROADER PICTURE, AGAIN, WE DO SEE A MIX HERE. 
          UH, THERE'S THE PROXIMITY TO THE RETAIL AND GRAND AND SCHOOLS AS MENTIONED, AND ALSO IN THIS CASE PROXIMITY TO THE SANTA FE TRAIL AND THAT THE PD 1 34 STANDARDS, AGAIN, YOU'LL RESULT IN AN ENVELOPE SIMILAR TO WHAT COULD BE ALREADY CONSTRUCTED UNDER THE SINGLE FAMILY DESIGNATION. 
          STATUS RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL. 
          AND WITH THAT, I'LL TURN IT OVER TO PLEASE LET ME HIT PAUSE THERE REAL QUICK. 
          UM, OUR FIRE MARSHAL APPARENTLY DOES NOT ALLOW PEOPLE TO CONGREGATE IN THE BACK OF THE ROOM, SO IF YOU ARE STANDING AT THE BACK OF THE ROOM, WE'D ASK THAT YOU PLEASE DO TAKE A SEAT. 
          GREAT, THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          VICE CHAIR, UH, FOLKS IN THE BACK STANDING IN THE BACK. 
          MA'AM, I, I NEED YOU, YOU CAN, UH, OUR FIRE MARSHAL DOESN'T ALLOW PEOPLE TO CONGREGATE IN THE BACK OF THE ROOM, SO IF YOU EITHER WANNA TAKE A SEAT HERE, THAT'S GREAT OR YOU CAN STAND OUTSIDE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ALRIGHT, IS THAT THE CONCLUDES YOUR BRIEFING ON THESE CASES, MR. BATE? THAT CONCLUDES MY CASES NOW MY COLLEAGUE MR. CLINTON, WILL HIS THANKS. 
          YOU TOO. 
          ALL RIGHT, THIS IS ITEM NUMBER 13, CASE Z 3 2 3 4 DASH 2 36. 
          IT'S AN APPLICATION FOR A DUPLEX DISTRICT ON PROPERTY ZONE PLAN DEVELOPMENT. 
          DISTRICT NUMBER 1 34 SUBDISTRICT ONE SUB AREA A LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST SIDE OF GARLAND AVENUE BETWEEN SOUTH MUNGER BOULEVARD AND SOUTH ST. 
          MARY AVENUE. 
          UH, PURPOSE OF THE REQUEST IS TO REZONE THE PROPERTY, UM, TO ALLOW DUPLEX USE APPROXIMATELY 7,400 SQUARE FEET IN TOTAL SIZE. 
          HERE'S OUR LOCATION MAP. 
          THIS IS THE AERIAL MAP AND OUR ZONING MAP SHOWING THE SURROUNDING USES. 
          SO SURROUNDING USES INCLUDE, UH, RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE FAMILY, UM, AND PD 1 34, UH, IN EVERY, UH, DIRECTION TO THE PROPERTY. 
          HERE'S THE LAND USE MAP AS MARTIN, UH, WENT OVER. 
          THIS WAS DIGITIZED TO BE, UH, CURRENT WITH THE, UH, REFLECTING OUR CURRENT USES. 
          SO AGAIN, YELLOW IS SINGLE FAMILY, THE ORANGE IS DUPLEX. 
          AND HERE ARE OUR SITE VISIT PHOTOS. 
          THIS IS ON SITE LOOKING NORTH. 
          I'M SORRY, LOOKING WEST. 
          THIS IS ON SITE LOOKING SOUTHWEST. 
          THIS IS ON ONSITE LOOKING NORTHEAST, ON ONSITE LOOKING SOUTH. 
          UH, BRIEF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, I THINK 
          [04:25:01]
MR. BATE ALREADY WENT OVER TH WENT THROUGH THAT. 
          UH, QUICK ANALYSIS. 
          SO THERE ARE EXISTING, UH, UH, SURROUNDING RESIDENTIAL USES. 
          THERE ARE DUPLEXES IN, IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA, ACTUALLY ON THE SAME BLOCK AS THIS PROPERTY. 
          UM, THE ONLY DIFFERENCE WITH THIS CASE AND THE PREVIOUS THREE CASES, UM, PREVIOUS THREE CASES CASES ARE VACANT LANDS OR UNDEVELOPED LAND. 
          UH, THIS CASE HAS AN EXISTING STRUCTURE AND STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL. 
          AND THIS IS ITEM NUMBER 14, CASE Z 2 34 DASH 2 38. 
          UH, SIMILAR REQUEST IN APPLICATION FOR DUPLEX DISTRICT ON PROPERTY ZONE PLAN DEVELOPMENT. 
          DISTRICT NUMBER 1 34 SUBDISTRICT ONE SUB AREA A. 
          THIS ONE IS LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST SIDE OF WAYNE STREET BETWEEN SANTA FE AVENUE AND ASH LANE. 
          AGAIN, THE PURPOSE OF THE REQUEST IS TO REZONE THE PROPERTY TO ALLOW DUPLEXES ON THE PROPERTY, UM, SAME SIZE AS THE PREVIOUS CASE. 
          7,400 SQUARE FEET. 
          HERE'S OUR LOCATION MAP. 
          THIS IS THE AERIAL MAP SURROUNDING USES, UM, INCLUDE MULTIFAMILY, DUPLEX, UH, P, SINGLE FAMILY, AND UH, AGAIN PD, UH, 1 34 WITH SINGLE, WITH A MIX OF SINGLE FAMILY AND DUPLEX USES. 
          HERE'S THE EXISTING LAND USE MAP. 
          ONCE AGAIN IT WAS DIGITIZED TO SHOW THE CURRENT USES. 
          UH, THIS, UH, THESE ARE THE, UM, SITE VISIT PHOTOS. 
          THIS IS ON THE PROPERTY LOOKING NORTHEAST. 
          THIS IS ON PROPERTY LOOKING SOUTHWEST WEST. 
          THIS IS ON PROPERTY LOOKING SOUTHEAST. 
          THIS IS ON PROPERTY LOOKING SOUTH. 
          AGAIN, DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TO COMPARE THE TWO, THE EXISTING, UH, R SEVEN 50 A AND THE PROPOSED, UH, DUPLEX ANALYSIS IS PRETTY MUCH THE SAME. 
          UM, SIMILAR USES IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA. 
          UM, RESIDENTIAL USES. 
          THERE'S A MIX OF SINGLE FAMILY, MULTIFAMILY AND DUPLEX. 
          UM, ONCE AGAIN, THIS PROPERTY HAS AN EXISTING STRUCTURE, UM, SIMILAR TO MY PREVIOUS CASE. 
          AND STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL. 
          THANK YOU SO MUCH MR. CLINTON AND MR. BATE. 
          COMMISSIONER HAMPTON. 
          THANK YOU. 
          AND I'M GONNA START AND I APPRECIATE MR. PEPE GIVING SOME OF THE CONTEXT ON, UM, THE HISTORY OF THE PD. 
          AND I KNOW WE HAVE, UM, MR. BLADE'S WITH US AS WELL, SO WHOEVER WANTS TO TAKE THE QUESTIONS. 
          BUT I'D LIKE TO START BY, UM, UNDERSTANDING THE PD 1 34 CAME ABOUT FROM AN AREA PLAN THAT WAS A STAFF AND COMMUNITY LED REVIEW PROCESS. 
          IS THAT CORRECT? YES. 
          THAT'S CORRECT. 
          AND AS A PART OF THAT, THERE WERE A NUMBER, OR, WELL, THE REVIEW AREA WAS IN FACT, LARGER THAN MOUNT AUBURN, THE PD 1 34. 
          THERE WAS AN AREA SOUTH OF OWEN WOOD THAT BECAME ITS OWN PD. 
          THERE WERE OTHER AREAS THAT WERE CONSIDERED THAT ALL HAD INDIVIDUAL RECOMMENDATIONS. 
          BUT FOR THE CASE BEFORE SPD 1 34, IT WAS INCLUDED IN THIS AREA PLAN IN THIS STUDY. 
          Y YES. 
          SO, UM, GOOD AFTERNOON, UH, VICE CHAIR MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION. 
          UH, MY NAME IS PATRICK BLADES. 
          I'M THE CHIEF PLANNER FOR NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITY PLANNING HERE WITH, UH, PLANNING DEVELOPMENT. 
          UM, THE DOCUMENT THAT YOU'RE REFERENCING, UM, IT'S ACTUALLY A, UH, AN ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, UH, FROM 1981 FROM NOVEMBER OF 81, UM, BACK IN THIS AREA. 
          AND AGAIN, NOT TO GO TOO DEEP INTO HISTORY, BUT THIS AREA WAS DEVELOPED ORIGINALLY WITH A LOT OF SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. 
          THE INITIAL ZONING DISTRICTS WAS A, THE DWELLING DISTRICT, WHICH ALLOWED SINGLE FAMILY AND DUPLEXES, UM, THAT WAS UPDATED, UM, IN THE FORTIES TO ALLOW JUST SINGLE FAMILY HOMES IN THIS AREA. 
          IN 1965, IT WAS REZONED TO WHAT WAS TECHNICALLY CALLED F TWO, WHICH EVENTUALLY MORPHED INTO THE TOWN HOME THREE ZONING DISTRICT. 
          AND IN, UH, 1981, UH, THERE WAS A MORATORIUM PUTTING PLACE IN THIS AREA. 
          AND IT'S NOT JUST PD, UM, 1 34, UM, BUT IT'S MOUNT AUBURN, UM, THEY CALL IT, UH, SANTA FE AND THE PRAIRIE VIEW AREA, OR PARK VIEW AREAS, UH, TO DETERMINE THE, UH, THE MOST PROPER ZONING FOR THOSE AREAS. 
          SO IT'S NOT, IT'S, IT LOOKS, AND IT FUNCTIONS LIKE A PLAN, BUT IT'S AN ANALYSIS TO DETERMINE THE MOST APPROPRIATE ZONING, DIS ZONING FOR THOSE PROPERTIES. 
          IN 1981. 
          AND IN 1981, IT WAS DETERMINED THROUGH THE CITY, THE, UH, CITY AND COMMUNITY EFFORT TO SAY THAT THE MOST APPROPRIATE ZONING IN PD 1 34 WOULD BE FOR THE DUPLEXES TO BE DUPLEXES IN THE SINGLE, THE EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOMES TO BE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. 
          UM, DOES THAT ANSWER THE, THE QUESTION? I THINK SO. 
          AND, AND IS, YOU KNOW, I THINK YOU TOUCHED ON THAT, YOU KNOW, THE AREA DEVELOPED IN THE 19 HUNDREDS, THE 1920S, SO PREDATED OUR CITY ZONING. 
          [04:30:01]
IT WAS SERVING, UM, A NUMBER OF USES, A NUMBER OF EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES, INCLUDING THE FORD PLANT THAT USED TO BE, UM, LOCATED IN THE AREA. 
          IT WAS CONSTRAINED BY WHAT WAS THE SANTA FE RAILROAD AT THE TIME? IT'S NOW THE SANTA FE TRAIL. 
          EVENTUALLY I 30 CAME IN AND FLANKED IT ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE CURRENT PD. 
          SO THAT WAS ADDITIONAL DISPLACEMENT, RIGHT OF WAY PURCHASES, UM, VACANT LOTS THAT WERE CREATED OUT OF THAT, THE ZONING AS YOU WENT THROUGH. 
          SO AT THE TIME OF THIS STUDY, 1981, UM, THE ZONING WAS PREDOMINANTLY TH THREE, BUT THAT DIDN'T REFLECT WHAT WAS ON THE GROUND. 
          UH, THAT IS CORRECT. 
          THAT THERE WERE A NUMBER, AND THE, THE CONCERNS DETAILED IN THAT STUDY WERE THAT A NUMBER OF NEW PROPERTIES THAT, UM, DIDN'T HAVE A STRUCTURE ON THEM OR PREVIOUSLY HAD A STRUCTURE ON THEM WERE TURNING INTO DUPLEXES, OR IN FACT, PEOPLE WERE MOVING STRUCTURES. 
          THEY WERE MOVING A DUPLEX ONTO THAT PROPERTY. 
          AND THAT WAS WHAT THE STUDY IN 1981, AND AGAIN, IT'S TAKING A LOOK, AS YOU MENTIONED, A LARGER AREA, NOT JUST PD 1 34, BUT THE RESULTS OF THAT STUDY SAID N 1 34. 
          THIS WAS A DESIRE IN 1981. 
          AT THAT TIME, THERE WAS AN EVALUATION, BOTH OF WHAT WAS VACANT LOTS. 
          UM, WHAT WAS, I KNOW THERE'S SINGLE, OR EXCUSE ME, THERE'S VACANT LOTS, SINGLE FAMILY DUPLEX, THERE'S SOME MULTIFAMILY, LITTLE BIT OF OFFICE COMMUNITY SERVING RETAIL THAT WAS ALL CODIFIED. 
          AND THAT'S THE VARIOUS SUB-DISTRICTS THAT WE SEE TODAY WITHIN THE PD 1 34. 
          IS THAT CORRECT? UM, MOSTLY THERE ARE SOME AREAS A PART OF THAT STUDY THAT AREN'T PART OF 1 34, BUT THEY SAID WE'RE JUST GONNA STRAIGHT ZONE THEM FOR, UM, MULTI-FAMILY OR RETAIL. 
          AND SO THEY'RE NOT PART OF 1 34. 
          BUT YES, THERE ARE OTHER AREAS THAN JUST THIS ONE PARTICULAR AREA OF 1 34 THAT DO HAVE ZONING THAT'S DIFFERENT THAN THE SINGLE FAMILY OF THE DUPLEX. 
          AND IS IT CORRECT THAT PER, AND AGAIN, THE, THE AREA STUDY BECAME THE LAND USE MAP THAT WE HAVE AS A PART OF PD 1 34 MINOR CHANGES HAVE HAPPENED RELATED TO A GROCERY STORE THAT'S NOW A SCHOOL WITHIN THE AREA CREATED A PARKING LOT TO SUPPORT THAT USE. 
          BUT GENERALLY, THAT LAND USE MAP FROM 1981, ADOPTED 1982, THAT'S THE LAND USE MAP WE HAVE TODAY. 
          YES. 
          COMMISSIONER, THAT'S ESSENTIALLY CORRECT THAT WHAT WE, WHAT WE CODIFIED IN 1981 FOR THE ALLOWED LAND USES IS, IS ESSENTIALLY THE SAME AS IT IS TODAY. 
          AND DID THAT STUDY IDENTIFY WITH THE PERCENTAGE OF, UM, AND I'M GONNA CALL IT DUPLEX AND MULTIFAMILY TOGETHER, JUST FOR EASE OF USE, BUT WHAT THAT PERCENTAGE WAS? UH, I CAN PULL THAT UP IF YOU GIMME ONE SECOND. 
          WELL, AND IF IT FAIR TO SAY, AND AGAIN, SANTA FE AND MOUNT AUBURN WERE BROKEN OUT IN TWO NEIGHBORHOODS. 
          THEY'RE ALL WITHIN PD 1 34. 
          IT WAS 17 AND 18%. 
          IT WAS 2% AND 3%. 
          SO GENERALLY ABOUT 20% PREDOMINANTLY DUPLEX IS WHAT WERE THE RESIDENTIAL USES, NON SINGLE FAMILY WITHIN THE DISTRICT? Y YES. 
          YEAH. 
          UM, IN THOSE THREE DIFFERENT NEIGHBORHOODS, IT'S 82, 83, 83, 80 2%. 
          SO IT'S BASICALLY, UM, FOR THE RESIDENTIAL COMPONENTS, IT'S BASICALLY 20, SORRY, 80% SINGLE FAMILY, 20% OTHER TYPES OF RESIDENTIAL PRODUCTS. 
          AND THEN WE ALSO HAVE DATA JUST TO, TO THROW IN. 
          WE ALSO HAVE THE DATA ON THE, TO CURRENT, YOU KNOW, LAND USE MAP THAT WE HAVE, IF THAT'S HELPFUL BASED ON DIGITIZATION. 
          YES. 
          IT'S ABOUT, OF THE RESIDENTIAL USES, IT'S 16.2%, DUPLEX, 83% SINGLE FAMILY. 
          THERE'S A BIT OF ROUNDING THERE. 
          UH, OF ALL THE LOTS IN THE PD, IT'S 14.2% DUPLEX, 73% SINGLE FAMILY. 
          AND THAT'S INCLUDING YOUR VACANT LOTS, THE, UH, COMMERCIAL ONES, ET CETERA. 
          WELL, IT MIGHT BE HELP. 
          I'D ASKED FOR THAT. 
          I'M VERY EXCITED TO KNOW THAT IT'S NOW AVAILABLE , BECAUSE I HADN'T RECEIVED THAT PREVIOUSLY. 
          SO HAPPY TO DRILL DOWN INTO THAT IN A LITTLE BIT MORE AS WELL. 
          BUT, UM, I GUESS ONE OTHER KEY POINT BEFORE I CLOSE OUT, QUESTIONS RELATED TO THE, UM, ANALYSIS, THE, WHEN THE PD WAS ADOPTED, THERE'S SPECIFIC LANGUAGE THAT TALKS ABOUT THE NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS THAT THE DWELLING UNITS MAY, UM, REMAIN. 
          UM, BUT THEY MAY NOT BE INCREASED. 
          IT'S REFERENCED IN A COUPLE OF AREAS. 
          IS IT ALSO CORRECT THAT LOTS THAT WERE IDENTIFIED AS VACANT WERE ABLE TO BE DEVELOPED AS EITHER SINGLE FAMILY OR DUPLEX BASED ON THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WITHIN THE PD? COULD YOU CLARIFY WHERE YOU'RE READING THAT? BECAUSE I'VE, I'VE HEARD ABOUT I THE WAY YOU'RE READING IT, THAT, UM, AND I WANT TO UNDERSTAND WHERE WE'RE COMING FROM ON THAT, BECAUSE I READ YOUR, YOUR PD SAYS THE TWO USES ALLOWED IN SUBDISTRICT A ARE SINGLE FAMILY AND DUPLEX. 
          THAT'S POINT A AND B SAYS TO THE CONTRARY, I'LL EXIST EXISTING USES AS SHOWN ON THE LAND USE MAP WITHIN THIS PDR LEGAL NON-CONFORMING USES AND STRUCTURES ON THIS ARTICLE, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THIS ONE LOT, WHICH MAY CONTAIN A DUPLEX NO RESIDENTIALLY DEVELOPED LOT IN THE PD MAY 
          [04:35:01]
CONTAIN MORE DWELLING UNITS THAN THE NUMBER INDICATED ON THE LAND USE MAP. 
          IF YOU CONTINUE WITHIN THAT SAME SECTION, UM, 1 0 5 D DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS DIVINED IN THIS SECTION APPLY TO THE FOLLOWING, USES ONE ALL LOTS AND SUB AREA A THAT ARE VACANT ON JANUARY 27TH, 1982. 
          AND THEN TWO, ANY RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE IN THE PD THAT IS TO BE ENLARGED AS LONG AS THE NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS DOES NOT INCREASE. 
          SO IT'S SPECIFICALLY DEFINED VACANT LOTS. 
          AND THEN VACANT LOTS SEND YOU DOWN TO DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. 
          DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS STATE THAT THE FOLLOWING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS APPLY TO SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED AND DUPLEX, WHICH ARE WHAT ARE REFERENCED UP IN D. 
          GOTCHA. 
          YEAH, NO, I, I READ THAT AS WELL WHERE I'M REALI WHERE THE WAY I READ IT IS THE DEVELOPMENTS, YOU KNOW, IT SAYS THE, EXCUSE ME, APPLY TO VACANT LOTS, BUT THEN IT'S TALKING ABOUT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS NOT USES. 
          AND THE USES THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ARE SINGLE FAMILY VERSUS DUPLEX. 
          SO THAT'S THE BOTTOM OF THE USES SECTION. 
          AND SO I READ THAT OUR USES HAVE BEEN LAID OUT FOR US IN THE EARLIER PART OF 1 0 5 A AND B. 
          BUT THEN WHEN WE TALK ABOUT VACANT LOTS, THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT SOLELY ABOUT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, UH, SETBACKS, LOT SIZES, THINGS LIKE THAT. 
          I, I PRESUME TO ENFORCE A POTENTIALLY LOT SIZE MINIMUMS, THINGS LIKE THAT. 
          AND SETBACK MINIMUMS. UH, BUT MAYBE NOT THE USES SUCH AS SINGLE FAMILY AND DUPLEX, WHICH ARE DEFINED IN 1 0 5. 
          THAT'S HOW STAFF HAS ASSESSED IT. 
          WELL, I THINK THAT MAY VARY. 
          'CAUSE I, I WILL, AND HAPPY TO HAVE THIS CONVERSATION FURTHER. 
          THERE'S CERTAINLY A NUMBER OF OUR OLDER PDS THAT EXIST THAT HAVE SIMILAR LANGUAGE. 
          UM, THAT, AND, AND I WILL SAY THERE IS A ADJACENT PD WHERE I JUST HAD A SIMILAR CONVERSATION WITH STAFF AND HAD A DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION. 
          SO IT'D BE GREAT TO, UM, REVIEW THAT IN MORE DETAIL. 
          SO I GUESS IT'LL BE AN OPEN QUESTION THEN ON HOW THE VACANT LOTS WOULD BE INTERPRETED. 
          BUT CERTAINLY ON THE GROUND TODAY, LANGUAGE PER THE PD, THE UNDERSTANDING WOULD BE THERE'S A MIX EXISTING TODAY OF DUPLEX AND MULTIFAMILY SOMEWHERE IN THE 1820. 
          IT SOUNDS LIKE STAFF HAS SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT NUMBERS NOW. 
          THAT'D BE GOOD TO UNDERSTAND WHY IT VARIES FROM THE PLAN, BUT, UM, I THINK WE'RE SAYING THERE'S AN EXISTING MIX. 
          NOBODY'S DISPUTING THAT. 
          SO THAT LEADS ME TO MY NEXT QUESTION. 
          HOW DID STAFF EVALUATE THE LANGUAGE WITHIN THE EXISTING PD THAT STATES THE NUMBER OF DWELLING UNIT SHALL NOT BE INCREASED? 'CAUSE IT APPEARS IN THREE DIFFERENT AREAS OF THE PD, AND THIS RECOMMENDATION SEEMS TO BE DIRECTLY COUNTER TO THE PROVISIONS WITHIN THE PD. 
          THE WAY I READ THAT IS THAT IT'S NOT NECESSARY. 
          IT'S A PD, IT'S NOT A PO, IT'S NOT A POLICY DOCUMENT, IT'S A REGULATORY DOCUMENT, AND IT SHALL NOT, UH, UH, VARY FROM THE AMOUNT OF UNITS INDICATED ON THE LAND USE MAP. 
          AND THIS IS THE PROCESS OF AMENDING THE LAND USE MAP. 
          SO IF IT WERE TO BE AMENDED, THEN THEY WOULD BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THAT REGULATION. 
          WE'RE READING IT AS A RE AS A REGULATORY TEXT, NOT A POLICY TEXT. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU FOR THAT. 
          UM, SECOND QUESTION. 
          WHEN STAFF IN, UM, INCLUDED A FEW REFERENCES TO DIFFERENT AREA PLANS, UM, INCLUDING NEIGHBORHOOD PLUS, I THINK THE 360 PLAN WAS REFERENCED, UM, THOSE DON'T INCLUDE THE MOUNT AUBURN NEIGHBORHOOD, IS THAT CORRECT? AND I'LL LET WHOEVER WANTS TO TAKE THAT. 
          BOTH, BOTH REPORTS MENTIONED THE TEXT. 
          SO COULD YOU RESTATE THE QUESTION? I JUST, I DIDN'T CATCH THE, WELL, THERE WERE TWO AREA PLANS THAT WERE REFERENCED WITHIN THE STAFF REPORTS, ONE OF WHICH WAS THE DOWNTOWN DALLAS 360 PLAN THAT TALKS ABOUT DIFFERENT HOUSING TYPES. 
          UM, THE FULL SENTENCE APPEARS TO BE REFERRING TO DIFFERENT HOUSING TYPES WITHIN THE CENTRAL AREA. 
          BUT MY FIRST QUESTION WAS, IS MOUNT AUBURN WITHIN THE 360 AREA? NO, IT IS NOT. 
          AND WE DO STATE THERE THAT IT IS OUTSIDE THE BOUNDARIES, THE 360 AREA PLAN. 
          OKAY. 
          AND THEN, UM, THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLUS PLAN WAS ALSO REFERENCED. 
          IT REFERENCES THAT, UM, REZONING SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN TARGET AREAS. 
          WAS MOUNT AUBURN ONE OF THE TARGET AREAS WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD? PLUS, I'M NOT SURE I WOULD'VE TO CHECK THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLUS PLAN. 
          I BELIEVE THE TARGET AREAS, THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN A LANGUAGE THAT COMES FROM, UH, FROM THE HOUSING DEPARTMENT PULL THAT. 
          UM, THERE'S ACTUALLY A MAP ASSOCIATED WITH IT. 
          I THINK I MAY HAVE LOST MY PRINTED COPY, BUT IT, IT'S NOT SHOWN. 
          I'LL JUST, THERE, THERE IS ANOTHER COMMUNITY WITHIN DISTRICT TWO THAT WAS PART OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLUS PLAN. 
          UM, SO JUST WANTED TO HAVE THAT CLARIFICATION. 
          UM, 
          [04:40:01]
AND AGAIN, I'LL LET YOU ALL, OR MR. BLAKE, I KNOW WE'VE ALL SPOKEN ABOUT THIS TOGETHER. 
          UM, WAS THE MOUNT AUBURN COMMUNITY ACTIVELY ENGAGED IN THE, FOR DALLAS 2.0 DISCUSSIONS? YES. 
          COMMISSIONER, UM, WE HAD, UM, MEETINGS SPECIFICALLY WITH THE MOUNT AUBURN NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AS WELL AS MEETINGS, UM, AT, YOU KNOW, AT AT A, A PUBLIC MEETING THAT WAS BASICALLY ADJACENT TO MOUNT AUBURN, UM, IN WHICH I BELIEVE A NUMBER OF THOSE INDIVIDUALS DID ATTEND. 
          IS IT CORRECT THAT, UM, THERE'S BEEN SEPARATE CONVERSATIONS BEGUN WITH THE COMMUNITY TO CONSIDER WHAT INFILL HOUSING MIGHT BE APPROPRIATE WITHIN THE COMMUNITY? YES. 
          THAT, UM, IN TAKING A LOOK AT THE, UH, THE STUDY THAT WAS DONE 43 YEARS AGO BEFORE MY SET, BEFORE THE THREE OF US WERE ALIVE, UM, IT'S IMPORTANT TO ALWAYS UPDATE THOSE. 
          AND SO WE'VE HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH THE COMMUNITY COMING OUT OF FOUR DALLAS TO SAY, WE THINK IT'S TIME TO TAKE A LOOK AT THIS AND SEE WHAT'S APPLICABLE, BUT WHAT WE ALSO NEED TO ADD TO IT AS WELL. 
          BUT, AND THAT'S MEANT TO LOOK AT AS ALL THE THINGS THAT WE WOULD DO WITHIN A REVIEW DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. 
          WHAT IS, UM, WELL, AND I GUESS I'LL ALSO PHRASE THIS IN THE CONTEXT OF, IS IT CORRECT THAT THERE'S REDEVELOPMENT HAPPENING TODAY WITHIN THE AREA, BOTH IN SINGLE FAMILY AND DUPLEX USES? UM, I THINK MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY CAN SPEAK TO THAT MORE SO THAN I CAN, BUT I WOULD, I WOULD JUST SAY THAT, UM, THERE ARE, THERE ARE CONDITIONS, MARKING CONDITIONS THAT EXIST TODAY THAT DID NOT EXIST IN 1981, UM, THAT HAVE DRIVEN SOME OF THE CONVERSATIONS TO SAY, WE NEED TO BE LOOKING AT SOME DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN THE AREA. 
          OKAY. 
          AND SO, AND NONE EXIST IN THE PD TODAY. 
          SO WHEN THE PD GOT ADOPTED, THE UNDERSTANDING WAS IT WASN'T, IT WAS SETTING MINIMAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. 
          IT WAS DEFINING THE USES, BUT IT WAS WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT REDEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT WAS BOTH WARRANTED AND WAS WELCOMED. 
          I MEAN, AND IT'S HAPPENING. 
          SO, UH, GOING BACK TO THE STUDY THAT WAS DONE IN 1981, IT TALKS ABOUT, UH, THE NEED FOR REINVESTMENT IN THAT COMMUNITY. 
          I BELIEVE THE WAY THE STUDY REFERENCED IT IS THOSE WERE THOSE DUPLEXES IN THE APARTMENTS. 
          UM, BUT THE STUDY DOES NOT MENTION, UM, THE EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, UM, WITH REFERENCE TO DESIGN STANDARDS OR REINVESTMENT IN THOSE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. 
          WELL, ISN'T IT CORRECT THAT THERE'S ACTUALLY A WHOLE, UM, ONE OF THE PAGES TALKS ABOUT AN EXISTING STRUCTURE CONDITION THAT TALKS ABOUT, UM, YOU KNOW, HOUSING STOCK THAT NEEDS REPAIR, MINOR REPAIRS, MAJOR REPAIRS, AND THAT IT WAS CONDUCTED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE AREA. 
          YEAH. 
          SO IT TALKS ABOUT THE CONDITIONS OF THOSE HOMES, BUT IT DOESN'T TALK ABOUT THE, UH, THE DESIGN OF THOSE HOMES OR THE INVESTMENT IN THOSE HOMES. 
          NO, I AGREE. 
          THERE, THERE'S NO DESIGN STANDARDS ASSOCIATED WITH IT. 
          YES. 
          YEAH. 
          THE, THE STUDY WAS FOCUSED ON TRYING TO ENSURE INVESTMENT AND MAINTENANCE IN THOSE STRUCTURES. 
          AGREED. 
          AND I, I GUESS I WAS TRYING TO HIGHLIGHT THAT DIFFERENCE. 
          AND I THINK PART OF WHAT, WELL, I'LL SAY THAT FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING PORTION OF THE, UM, MEETING, FINAL QUESTION, THE TWO AREAS, UM, THAT ARE PART OF MOUNT AUBURN, WE HAVE THE MARKET VALUE ANALYSIS THAT IS AT THE END OF ALL OF OUR, UM, CASE REPORTS THAT WE RECEIVE, UM, COULD SPEAK TO HOW THAT'S UTILIZED. 
          AND I'M, I'M ASKING THIS QUESTION IN THE CONTEXT OF DISPLACEMENT, WHICH WAS ANOTHER SIGNIFICANT PART OF THE CONVERSATIONS, UM, THAT WE HAVE HAD AROUND THIS HORSESHOE. 
          AND IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS COMMUNITY. 
          UM, HOW IS MARKET VALUE CONSIDERED, UM, WHEN EVALUATING THESE CASES, YOU KNOW, DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE AREA DEVELOPMENT THAT'S ONGOING? I'LL HAPPY TO SPEAK TO THAT. 
          UM, WHAT I WILL SAY IS THAT I DON'T THINK THAT MARKET VALUE PLAYS AN INDIVIDUAL, UH, OR, OR THAT THERE'S A SPECIFIC POLICY DIRECTION FOR MARKET RIGHT HOUSING, UH, FOR DIFFERENT MVAS THAT IS TAKEN BY STAFF. 
          UH, BECAUSE AS THE DALLAS HOUSING PLAN AND THE, UH, THE HOUSING 2033 PLAN,  SAY, UM, YOU KNOW, THERE NEEDS TO BE A DISTRICT OR A CITYWIDE APPROACH TO HOUSING THEIR NEEDS. 
          UH, DEFINITELY OUR NEEDS IN EVERY SINGLE DISTRICT, EVERY SINGLE MVA, UH, WHEN WE GET DOWN TO DETAILED DATA, WE HAVE MVAS FROM 2018, WE HAVE MVAS FROM 2023, RIGHT? SO WE, WE 
          [04:45:01]
GET TO SEE A BIT OF, UH, MOMENTUM OF DIFFERENT MARKETS. 
          SO FOR THE NORTHERN HALF OF MOUNT AUBURN, YOU'LL SEE THAT THE MVA INCREASED FROM THE, UH, FROM THE TWO, UH, DATA SETS THAT WE HAVE. 
          IT REMAINED THE SAME FROM THE, IN THE SOUTHERN HALF, AND THAT THE SOUTHERN HALF IS, THE NORTHERN HALF IS NOW IN A-M-V-A-F, THAT'S A ABOVE AVERAGE. 
          AND THEN H IS BELOW AVERAGE. 
          THE LOWER HALF, THE SOUTHERN HALF HAS STAYED THE SAME. 
          THE NORTHERN HALF HAS INCREASED IN ITS MVA. 
          HOWEVER, MVA IS A CITYWIDE INDEX. 
          SO IF YOU ARE MAINTAINING WHERE, IF YOU ARE MAINTAINING YOUR MVA CATEGORY RELATIVE, YOU ARE MAINTAINING YOUR PACE OF AFFORDABILITY WITH THE REST OF THE CITY. 
          SO FOR EXAMPLE, IF I STAY, IF I WAS AN H IN 2018 AND I WAS AN H IN 2023, THAT DOESN'T MEAN IT'S BECOMING MORE AFFORDABLE. 
          UH, IT'S DECLINING IN VALUE OR BECOMING, UM, A LOWER MARKET. 
          IT MEANS THAT IT'S MAINTAINING WITH THE REST OF THE CITY. 
          WELL, WHEN WE LOOK AT THE C THE CITY AS A WHOLE, WE FOUND THAT M AFFORDABILITY HAS DECREASED CITYWIDE AND, UH, MARKET STRENGTH HAS, HAS GENERALLY INCREASED ACROSS THE BOARD. 
          SO, POINT BEING FOR MOUNT AUBURN SOUTH, YOU SAW THAT MVA MAINTAIN, UH, SO IT TRACKS WITH THE REGULAR PRESSURE THAT HAS BEEN APPLIED ACROSS THE REST OF OUR CITY, WHICH IS ONE BIG MARKET. 
          AND THEN IN MOUNT AUBURN NORTH, YOU'VE SEEN INCREASING PRESSURE AS IT'S MOVED UP TO MVAH. 
          SO THAT'S A VERY LONG WAY OF, OF SAYING THAT WE HAVE SOME DEGREE OF DATA FOR THIS. 
          WE DON'T HAVE ALL OF THE DATA FOR IT. 
          MVA IS BASED, UH, PRIMARILY AROUND, UH, HOME SALES AND, AND, AND, AND OWNERSHIP PRODUCT. 
          UM, I THINK THAT YOU'LL, YOU'LL SEE INCREASES IN THESE MVAS ESPECIALLY. 
          SO FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE NORTHERN PART, UH, BECAUSE OF, UH, SUPPLY CONSIDERATIONS, UM, OTHER CONSIDERATIONS THAT WILL DRIVE UP THE PRICE, UH, RELATIVE TO, EVEN RELATIVE TO THE CITY, WHICH AGAIN, SAW AN INCREASE OVERALL. 
          UM, MAKES ME THINK ABOUT THE, GENERALLY THE, THE HOUSING 2033 PLAN CALLS FOR CITYWIDE PRODUCTION, UM, IDENTIFIES AGAIN THAT FIRST AND FOREMOST THERE'S A, A CITYWIDE SHORTAGE OF SUPPLY, AND THEN THERE'S MORE ACUTE SHORTAGES IN CERTAIN MVA CATEGORIES, CERTAIN PLACES THAT HAVE, UH, CONTRIBUTED TO THOSE RISE IN THEIR MVA CATEGORIES. 
          SO IS ANOTHER WAY TO SAY THAT, THAT THIS IS PART OF OUR CITY'S NATURALLY OCCURRING AFFORDABLE HOUSING? WELL, AS I SAID IN THE NORTHERN PART, IT INCREASED IN MBA CATEGORY, WHICH IS ANOTHER WAY OF SAYING, UH, IT'S DECREASED IN AFFORDABILITY TO THE AVERAGE. 
          UM, THE AVERAGE INCOME EARNER, WHAT I WILL SAY IS THAT NATURAL NATURALLY OCCURRING AFFORDABLE HOUSING, UM, IS AT THE SAME RATE WORTH REALIZING IS ALSO MARKET RATE HOUSING. 
          BECAUSE IT'S RATE RENTING AT A MARKET RATE, IT'S SELLING AT A MARKET RATE. 
          IT MAY BE AFFORDABLE, BUT THAT MAY HAVE TO DO WITH THE CONDITION OF THE, OF THE PROPERTY OR THINGS LIKE THAT. 
          SO THAT'S STILL IN THE CONSIDERATION OF STAFF. 
          OKAY. 
          AND THEN ONE FINAL QUESTION, UM, I JUST WANNA HIGHLIGHT, AND I THANK MR. CLINTON AND MR. BATE, 'CAUSE I KNOW WE'VE HAD ONGOING CONVERSATIONS FOR THIS. 
          SO WE HAVE FIVE CASES. 
          WE HAVE TWO WITH HOUSES ON THEM. 
          WE HAVE TWO THAT ARE CURRENTLY VACANT, UM, THAT HAD STRUCTURES ON THEM PREVIOUSLY PER OUR, UM, ANALYSIS. 
          AND THEN WE HAVE ONE THAT IS CURRENTLY VACANT. 
          UM, YOU NOTED THAT THERE WAS A CHURCH USE ACROSS THE STREET, UM, AND THIS IS THE ONE THAT'S ON THE CORNER OF HENDERSON AND ASH STREET, FIRST CASE THAT WE STARTED WITH. 
          UM, ARE YOU AWARE THAT THAT WAS ACTUALLY A PARKING LOT, UM, FOR THE CHURCH THAT'S ACROSS THE STREET, UM, THAT HAS NOW BEEN SOLD AND THAT THE CHURCH AND THE LOT HAVE SEPARATE OWNERSHIP? I THINK THAT'S SHOWN IN OUR, UM, ON OUR LAND USE OR ON OUR, UM, NOTIFICATION AREA OWNERSHIP DATA. 
          UH, I WAS NOT AWARE OF ITS PREVIOUS USE AS A PARKING LOT, NO. 
          OKAY. 
          AND, UM, I, I GUESS YOU'RE THEN NOT AWARE THAT IT'S NO LONGER, THE OTHER SITE IS NO LONGER FUNCTIONING AS A CHURCH. 
          I MIGHT HAVE NOTICED THAT. 
          SO MIGHT'VE TOLD ME THAT, BUT IT WASN'T AFTER THAT. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU TO MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS FOR LETTING ME GET ALL MY QUESTIONS OUTTA THE WAY. 
          THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. 
          OH, ABSOLUTELY. 
          FIVE CASES. 
          UH, COMMISSIONER FORESIGHT FILED BY COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT. 
          THE, UH, YOU, YOU INDICATE THERE ARE THREE OF THE FIVE PROPERTIES THAT ARE, THAT HAVE A HOUSE CURRENTLY ON THE PROPERTY, AND TWO ARE VACANT OR ARE OTHER WAY AROUND. 
          [04:50:01]
THERE ARE THREE THAT ARE UNDEVELOPED AND TWO WITH STRUCTURES EXISTING ON THEM. 
          AND THE EXISTING STRUCTURES, ARE THEY SINGLE FAMILY HOMES? YES. 
          OKAY. 
          AND, UM, I THINK IT WAS THE THIRD CASE THAT MARTIN REFERENCED, UH, A CASE ITEM NUMBER 17. 
          YOU INDICATED THAT THE PROPERTY, THE LOT SIZE ON THAT PROPERTY WAS 5,200 SQUARE FEET, BUT YES, THEREABOUTS. 
          RIGHT? BUT THEN WHEN YOU SHOWED THE CHART FOR THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE FOR DUPLEX, IT SAYS 6,000 SQUARE FEET. 
          SO HOW DOES THAT QUALIFY FOR THE DUPLEX IF IT'S UNDER 6,000 SQUARE FEET? CERTAINLY IN TERMS OF THE, UH, LOT SIZE MINIMUM, LOT SIZE, THE FIRST CLARIFICATION IS THE, UH, THAT 6,000 SQUARE FEET WAS IN REFERENCE TO OUR GENERAL DUPLEX DISTRICT. 
          IN THIS CASE, THE MINIMUM MOD SIZE IS ACTUALLY WITHIN PD 1 34. 
          IT'S, I BELIEVE, 7,200 SQUARE FEET. 
          HOWEVER, THIS GETS INTO A QUESTION ON THE PERMITTING SIDE ABOUT LEGAL BUILD SITES THROUGHOUT THE CITY OF DALLAS. 
          THERE ARE NUMEROUS LOTS THAT WERE EITHER PLATTED, UH, BEFORE, I'LL PUT IT THIS WAY. 
          THEY WERE EITHER PLATTED BEFORE CURRENT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WERE PUT IN, OR THEY WERE, I BELIEVE THE TERM IS, UH, SEPARATELY OWNED. 
          SO IT WASN'T PLATTED, BUT IT WAS SEPARATELY OWNED ON A DEED IN AN AREA THAT WAS OR DID, WAS NOT GETTING MY WORDS MIXED UP. 
          IF IT WAS SEPARATELY OWNED BEFORE 1929, I WANNA SAY IF THERE'S SOME SPECIFIC DATE THERE, UH, THEN IT'S CONSIDERED A LEGAL BUILD SITE. 
          SO AT THAT POINT WHEN, AND I, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG HERE, BUT, UH, AT THAT POINT, IF IT'S CONSIDERED A LEGAL BUILD SITE, THEN PERMITTING, WE'LL LOOK AT IT AND SAY, OKAY, IT'S A LEGAL BUILD SITE IN TERMS OF LOT SIZE. 
          WHAT ELSE NEEDS TO BE FOLLOWED IN ORDER TO BUILD ON HERE? SO IN THIS CASE, IF IT WERE TO BE BUILT, UM, IF IT WERE A LEGAL BUILD SITE, WHICH WE BELIEVE IT IS, IT WAS PLATTED BACK, I THINK IN THE EARLY 19 HUNDREDS, UH, THEY WOULD THEN LOOK AT YOUR YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS, YOUR LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS. 
          UH, SO MINIMUM LOT SIZE IS KIND OF JUST ONE FACTOR HERE, UM, IN TERMS OF WHAT'S, UH, WHAT'S BUILDABLE. 
          SO IN THIS CASE, IF IT'S A LEGAL BUILD, SITE PERMITTING THEN SAYS, OKAY, YOU CAN BUILD ON HERE, BUT THE MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE IS, I BELIEVE IT WAS 60%. 
          SO 60%. 
          SO YOU CAN ONLY COVER 60% OF THE LOT. 
          YOU HAVE TO HAVE YOUR SIDE YARD SETBACKS, YOUR FRONT YARD SETBACKS, ET CETERA. 
          SO IT WOULD RESULT IN A SMALLER, UH, SMALLER PRODUCT OVERALL, WHETHER IT WAS BUILT AS SINGLE FAMILY OR AS DUPLEX. 
          AND YOUR CODE CITATION FOR THAT, JUST TO ADD ADDITIONAL CLARITY, IS 51 A 4.601 CREATION OF A BUILDING SITE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ALL GOOD. 
          IS THAT ONE OF THE VACANT LOTS? BY THE WAY, TH THIS THIRD CASE THAT YOU HANDLED, NUMBER 17, IS THAT ONE OF THE VACANT LOTS? IS THAT A VACANT LOT? YES, THAT IS A VACANT LOT. 
          COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT. 
          THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. 
          UM, COMMISSIONER HAMPTON HELPED ME OUT A MOMENT AGO BY CLARIFYING THE PERCENTAGE OF DUPLEX AND, UH, SINGLE FAMILY I WAS HAVING A HARD TIME HEARING, BUT I THINK WE'RE SOMEWHERE AROUND 2080. 
          IS THAT 20%, 80%? IS THAT WHAT WE LANDED ON? UH, THAT'S USEFUL, UH, HEURISTIC BASED ON THE LOTS. 
          SO WHEN OUR MAP WAS DIGITIZED, EVERY SINGLE LOT GETS A DESIGNATION AND WE CAN DO SORT OF A EXCEL SPREADSHEET SUM UP TO GET THE TOTAL NUMBER OF LOTS BASED ON THAT IS, THAT WAS CALCULATED. 
          IT WAS 16.2 83% FOR RESIDENTIAL. 
          UH, BUT I'D SAY 80 20 IS A FAIR. 
          OKAY. 
          BACK OF THE NAPKIN. 
          YES. 
          WELL, THANK, AND IT MIGHT BE FROM, FROM THE ORIGINAL. 
          THANKS FOR DECIPHERING THIS BECAUSE IT'S KIND OF ILLEGIBLE THAT THE, WHAT'S ON THE RECORD, IT IS VERY SMALL. 
          YES. 
          YEAH. 
          UM, SO I WAS CURIOUS THAT, HERE'S MY REAL QUESTION. 
          HOW MANY LOTS OR HOME SITES ARE WE TALKING ABOUT? IF YOU ADD THE, THE SINGLE, THE TWO CATEGORIES, THE SINGLE FAMILY AND THE MULTIFAMILY, DO WE KNOW THAT? I MEAN, HOW MANY? SEVERAL HUNDRED, I GUESS. 
          SORRY, COULD YOU, YOU'RE ASKING JUST THE, THE RAW NUMBER OFS? YEAH, JUSTS, THE RAW NUMBER OF, OF LOTS THAT HAVE RESIDENCES ON THEM OF ALL LOTS. 
          THERE'S 1,203 RESIDENTIAL USES, UH, 998 OR SINGLE FAMILY 195 OR DUPLEX. 
          OKAY. 
          AND WE'RE STILL HAVING A LITTLE TROUBLE HEARING. 
          SO I'VE GOT 9 98 AND WHAT WAS THE OTHER NUMBER? 9 98 FOR SINGLE FAMILY. 
          1 9 5 FOR DUPLEX, 10 MULTIFAMILY. 
          AND I WILL STATE THAT THIS, THIS MAKES THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE ORIGINAL EXISTING LAND USE MAP IS INACCURATE REPRESENTATION OF YEAH. 
          WHAT'S THERE TODAY OR WHAT HAVE YOU. 
          OKAY. 
          SO THAT'S, I JUST SHY OF 1200 LOTS. 
          OKAY, THAT'S HELPFUL. 
          THAT THAT'S ALL FOR NOW. 
          I'LL HAVE MORE AT THE, AT THE HEARING. 
          COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, IS THERE A TIPPING POINT AT WHICH STAFF WOULD STOP RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO CONVERT TO CHANGE THE LAND MAP FROM, UH, SINGLE FAMILY TO DUPLEX? I AM SORRY, COULD YOU REPEAT THAT? IS THERE A TIPPING POINT AT WHICH STAFF WOULD, WOULD SAY NO TO A REQUEST FOR, UH, CHANGING THE LAND MAP FROM SINGLE FAMILY TO DUPLEX? IN OTHER WORDS, COULD THIS NEIGHBORHOOD CASE BY CASE GET A STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO CHANGE THE LAND MAP FROM SINGLE FAMILY TO DUPLEX? AND, 
          [04:55:01]
AND WHAT JUSTIFICATION WOULD BE USED TO EITHER? I'LL JUMP IN ON THAT ONE. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, THE CURRENT PLANNING TEAM CONSIDERS INDIVIDUAL ZONING CASES, ALL OF WHICH NEED TO BE EVALUATED ON THEIR OWN MERIT, UM, OUTSIDE OF CONSIDERING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GOALS, AREA PLAN GOALS, ET CETERA. 
          WE, WE DON'T CONSIDER CASES AS A BIG BATCH. 
          I MEAN, EVEN THESE FIVE CASES, THEY ALL NEED TO BE EVALUATED ON THEIR OWN INDIVIDUAL MERIT, MEANING THAT, YOU KNOW, WE COULD HAVE DIFFERENT STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS OR CPC RECOMMENDATIONS ON EACH OF THEM. 
          UM, SO I, I THINK THAT QUESTION GOES BEYOND THE BOUNDS OF WHAT WE'RE CONSIDERING WITH EACH OF THESE INDIVIDUAL ZONING CASES. 
          YES, THAT'S TOTALLY ACCURATE TO HOW THE PROCESS IS PLAYED OUT. 
          WHEN WE REVIEWED THESE, WE REVIEWED THESE AS A GROUP FOR THE PURPOSES OF, OH, THEY'RE A SIMILAR MECHANISM. 
          THEY ARE A, UH, THEY FUNCTION SIMILARLY. 
          THEY WILL NEED SOME OF THE SAME, UM, COMPONENT, UH, REVIEWS, BUT THEN WE ASK EACH PLANNER TO LOOK AT EACH CASE ON A, ON ITS BLOCK, LOOK AT THE BLOCK, LOOK AT THE IN UNDERLYING INFRASTRUCTURE, LOOK AT THE THINGS THAT CAN SUPPORT, UH, ONE RESIDENTIAL USE OR ANOTHER, UH, INDI, UH, INDIVIDUALLY REVIEW THOSE THINGS, UH, RECOMMEND APPROVAL IF YOU FIND THAT THEY ARE ACCURATE, UH, THEY'RE APPROPRIATE FOR THIS PARTICULAR USE ON THIS LOT. 
          NOT ONE, NOT ALL AT A TIME, BUT ONE AT A TIME. 
          UH, IT JUST SO HAPPENED THAT IN THIS CASE, EACH OF THEM WAS APPROVAL. 
          AND I WOULD SAY THAT THAT GOES TO BROADER, THAT DOES RELATE TO BROADER THINGS BECAUSE WHEN WE LOOK AT ONE RESIDENTIAL USE TO ANOTHER, UH, TYPICALLY WE'LL LOOK AT IS A RESIDENTIAL COM COMPATIBLE WITH RESIDENTIAL NEXT DOOR? WELL, I WOULD SAY YES, BUT DO WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO GET THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE ON THIS SITE, THE THINGS THAT THEY NEED TO LIVE AS WELL? CAN WE SUPPORT THESE PEOPLE THROUGH INFRASTRUCTURE, THROUGH, UH, OTHER AMENITIES THAT THEY MAY NEED THROUGH TRANSPORTATION? UH, IS THAT HERE, THAT WAS ASSESSED AS YES, ON E ON EACH OF THESE? BUT THAT'S GENERALLY A PROCESS WE MIGHT LOOK AT AS WE REVIEW RESIDENTIAL CASES, UH, IN RELATION TO OTHER RESIDENTIAL THAT'S NEARBY THEM TO FOLLOW UP. 
          I KNOW WE'VE HAD PROTRACTED DISCUSSIONS OF, UM, YOU KNOW, COMPATIBLE AND INCOMPATIBLE INFILL OVER THE LAST FEW MONTHS. 
          AND, YOU KNOW, MY RECOLLECTION OF WHERE WE LANDED WAS THAT IT WAS IMPORTANT IN THESE NATURALLY AFFORDABLE, UM, NEIGHBORHOODS, YOU KNOW, THAT TO CONSIDER THE EFFECT OF INCOMPATIBLE, UM, DENSITY, INFILL DENSITY, YOU KNOW, WITHOUT DESIGN STANDARDS THAT HAS THE, THE POSS THAT HAS THE EFFECT OF, OF DRIVING DISPLACEMENT AND REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING RESIDENTS. 
          I MEAN, IS THERE ANY, WAS THERE ANY CONSIDERATION IN THESE CASES GIVEN TO, UM, THE NEED FOR DESIGN STANDARDS THAT WOULD INCREASE THE COMPATIBILITY AND REDUCE THE LIKELIHOOD OF DISPLACEMENT? WELL, IF YOU WANNA TALK IN, IN REGARDS TO DESIGN STANDARDS, IT, THEY'RE HELD TO THE EXACT SAME STANDARDS AS THE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES THAT ARE NEARBY. 
          THAT WAS A BENEFIT OF KEEPING IT IN THE PD. 
          WE SAW IT AS ONE OF THE WAYS TO CARRY OUT THE, THE PD INTENT. 
          UH, IT, THESE CASES WILL REMAIN IN THE PD AND BE, BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT GOING FROM R 75, FOR EXAMPLE, TO D ZONING, THEY'RE NOT CHANGING THEIR DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, THEY'RE MAINTAINING THEIR DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND ARE HELD AT THE SAME STANDARD AS NEW SINGLE FAMILY. 
          NOW, YOU, YOU, YOU GO TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, YOU WILL SEE NEW DUPLEXES, YOU'LL SEE OCCASIONAL NEW SINGLE FAMILY. 
          THOSE ARE HELD AT THE SAME DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, WHETHER THEY CHOOSE TO TAKE USE OF, UH, ALL OF THOSE THINGS OR, OR ANOTHER, OR ANOTHER THING. 
          BUT THEY ARE HELD TO THE SAME STANDARD SINGLE FAMILY IN TERMS OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. 
          UH, DESIGN STANDARDS ARE NOT AP ABLE TO BE APPLIED IN THIS CASE. 
          THEIR PROCESS IS A GENERAL ZONE CHANGE. 
          UH, THINGS COULD OCCUR TO DO THAT, BUT AGAIN, THEY ARE NOT ADDING INTENSITY TO A, TO A NEIGHBORHOOD IN TERMS OF, UH, IN TERMS OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS BECAUSE THEY'RE HELD TO THE SAME DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AS THE SINGLE FAMILY. 
          UH, THAT'S ALREADY ENTITLED UNDERNEATH. 
          NICE CHAIR RUBEN. 
          YEP. 
          FOLLOWING UP ON COMMISSIONER CARPENTER'S QUESTION, UM, WHAT CAN BE BUILT THERE IN, IN PD 1 34 TODAY BY WRIGHT, WHETHER IT'S DUPLEX OR SINGLE FAMILY, IS PROBABLY QUITE A BIT LARGER THAN THE MAJORITY OF THE HOUSING STOCK IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD TODAY. 
          IS THAT FAIR TO SAY? N NOT NECESSARILY. 
          SO THE MAX HEIGHT ALLOWED IS 36 FEET. 
          SO TECHNICALLY IN TERMS OF STRUCTURE OR SIZE, IT WOULDN'T BE THAT MUCH LARGER THAN WHAT'S EXISTING. 
          [05:00:01]
I MEAN, ARE, WOULD YOU SAY THERE ARE A LOT OF THE OLDER HOUSING STOCK IS A LOT OF SINGLE FAMILY OR SINGLE STORY HOMES, WHEREAS A LOT OF THE NEW DUPLEX AND SINGLE FAMILY CONSTRUCTION IS MULTI-STORY? YES. 
          IF, IF I CAN JUMP IN, UH, VICE CHAIR, UH, YES. 
          THE EXISTING HOMES THAT WERE BUILT A HUNDRED YEARS AGO ARE A MUCH SMALLER SIZE THAN THE NEWER STRUCTURES THAT ARE BEING BUILT, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THEY'RE SINGLE FAMILY OR DUPLEXES. 
          BUT THE NEWER STRUCTURES IN THE COMMUNITY CAN PROBABLY PROVIDE BETTER, UH, TESTIMONY THAN I CAN 100%. 
          BUT THE NEWER STRUCTURES UNDER THE CURRENT DESIGN STANDARDS AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, UM, YOU CAN BUILD A, A MUCH LARGER STRUCTURE THAN THE HOMES THAT WERE BUILT A HUNDRED YEARS AGO. 
          OKAY. 
          AND SO I, I ASK, I GUESS THERE'S TWO SORT OF WAYS TO THINK ABOUT COMPATIBILITY. 
          THERE'S, THERE'S COMPATIBILITY WITH WHAT CAN BE BUILT BY, RIGHT? AND THERE'S ALSO COMPATIBILITY WITH WHAT'S ACTUALLY BUILT OUT TODAY ON THE GROUND. 
          IF YOU KNOW, THE, WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE THROUGH SOMETHING LIKE DEED RESTRICTIONS TO KIND OF FIND A MIDDLE GROUND THAT IF NEW DUPLEXES COME IN, THEY'RE CLOSER IN SCALE AND DEVELOPMENT STYLE TO THE LONGSTANDING HOUSING IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AS OPPOSED TO WHAT CAN BE BUILT BY RIOT IF IT'S MAXED OUT TODAY, EITHER SINGLE FAMILY OR DUPLEX IN THE DUPLEX LOTS? SURE. 
          D RESTRICTIONS ARE ONE OPTION, HOWEVER, THE BETTER OPTION IN STAFF'S OPINION IS TO AMEND THE PD TO INCREASE DESIGN STANDARDS. 
          AND THAT WOULD REQUIRE AN AUTHORIZED HEARING, RIGHT? THAT'S CORRECT. 
          AND AUTHORIZED HEARINGS ARE TAKING ROUGHLY SIX YEARS, FIVE OR SIX YEARS RIGHT NOW, APPROXIMATELY. 
          OKAY. 
          HAS THERE BEEN ANY DISCUSSION, YOU KNOW, BETWEEN EITHER OF YOU AND ANY OF THESE APPLICANTS ABOUT, UM, MAYBE ADDRESSING SOME OF THESE ISSUES THROUGH DEED RESTRICTIONS, RECOGNIZING THAT IF WE COULD DO AN AUTHORIZED HEARING, IT WOULD PROBABLY BE BETTER, BUT THERE'S SOME TIME CONCERNS THERE? I, UH, I BELIEVE I MAY HAVE BROUGHT UP DEED RESTRICTIONS WITH ONE APPLICANT. 
          AT SOME POINT. 
          MORE IS JUST A PASSING MENTION OF, HEY, THERE MAY BE A DISCUSSION FROM THE COMMISSION OR THE COMMISSIONER REGARDING THIS. 
          THEY MIGHT WANNA LIMIT THINGS LIKE HIRE OR OTHER STANDARDS. 
          UM, BUT THE TOPIC MORE GENERALLY, I DON'T THINK IT HAS BEEN DIRECTLY BROACHED WITH EACH APPLICANT. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, BUT YES, TO ECHO MR. CLINTON'S COMMENTS, THE RESTRICTIONS CAN BE USED TO AN EXTENT TO PUT IN CERTAIN, UH, RESTRICTIONS, CERTAIN LIMITATIONS ON DEVELOPMENT. 
          UM, THEY ARE ONE TOOL THAT'S AVAILABLE. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          AND, AND STEPH, AND JUST TO ADD ON, STEPH WOULD NEED DIRECTION AS TO WHAT WE'RE RESTRICTING IN A DISTRICT WHERE THEY'RE HELD TO THE SAME DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AS A SINGLE FAMILY IN TERMS OF HEIGHT, WIDTH, DEPTH, THOSE KINDS OF THINGS. 
          WE WOULD NEED TO KNOW WHAT WE'RE RESTRICTING IN THAT CASE TO MAKE THEM MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN THE SINGLE FAMILY ZONING. 
          AND ADDITIONALLY, AS A REMINDER, DE RESTRICTIONS HAVE TO BE VOLUNTEERED, CORRECT. 
          BY THE APPLICANTS. 
          MM-HMM. 
           UNDERSTAND THAT COMPLETELY. 
          WELL, UM, THANKS TO BOTH OF YOU. 
          ONE QUICK FOLLOW UP, UH, GENTLEMEN, IN TERMS OF BUILDING ENVELOPE. 
          AND, UH, THIS IS WILL FOLLOW UP TO MR. RUBIN'S, UH, LINE OF QUESTIONING. 
          THREE OF THE FIVE LOTS ARE EMPTY LOTS. 
          THAT CORRECT? YES. 
          SO IT, IT, CAN YOU EXPLORE A LITTLE BIT THE, THE MAXIMUM BUILDING ENVELOPE THERE FOR A SINGLE FAMILY HOME THAT COULD BE BUILT TODAY ON THOSE THREE LOTS. 
          AND CAN YOU BUILD A FLAT ROOF? ROOF? A FLAT ROOF IS CERTAINLY ALLOWED. 
          UM, IN TERMS OF SO LOT COVERAGE, I'M GONNA DO SOME QUICK MATH HERE, BUT ON A 7,300 SQUARE FOOT LOT WITH 45% LOT COVERAGE, YOU'RE LOOKING AT ABOUT 3,200 SQUARE FOOT, UM, MAXIMUM HOUSE SIZE, UM, FOR, UH, FOR 7,500 SQUARE, OR SORRY, 7,300 SQUARE FOOT LOT. 
          UM, YOUR MAXIMUM HEIGHT IS 30 FEET. 
          SO, UH, WITH A FLAT ROOF, THAT'S KIND OF THE TREND YOU SEE, UH, WITH A LOT OF NEW DEVELOPMENT THESE DAYS IS IN ORDER TO MAXIMIZE BUILDING ENVELOPE, YOU GO WITH A FLAT ROOF, YOU END UP WITH YOUR FULL 3,200 SQUARE FEET OF INDIVIDUAL FLOOR AREA PER FLOOR. 
          I SUPPOSE IF YOU MAX OUT THE LOT COVERAGE, DO TWO STORIES. 
          YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT CLOSE TO 6,000, 6,400 SQUARE FEET OF TOTAL FLOOR AREA ACROSS TWO STORIES. 
          WHAT WAS THE TOTAL SQUARE FEET? IT WOULD BE ABOUT 6,000 BETWEEN TWO FLOORS, BUT THE ACTUAL FOOTPRINT WOULD BE RIGHT ABOUT 3,200. 
          GOTCHA. 
          YEAH, THAT'S, IF YOU MAXIMIZE 60% LOT COVERAGE ON A 7,300 SQUARE FOOT LOT, THAT'S A SINGLE FAMILY HOME COMMISSIONER. 
          KINGSTON, PLEASE. 
          OKAY. 
          I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND THIS. 
          THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT ON THE SINGLE FAMILY HOME IS 30 FEET, WHEREAS THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT ON THE DUPLEX IS 36 FEET. 
          IN THIS CASE, WITH THIS PD, THE RES, THE WAY THE REGULATIONS ARE WRITTEN, THEY'RE BOTH SUBJECT TO 30 FOOT HEIGHT MAX. 
          OKAY. 
          AND 
          [05:05:01]
THE MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE FOR SINGLE FAMILY IS 45%. 
          AND THE MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE FOR DUPLEX IS 60%? NO, IT'S, THEY'RE BOTH 45%. 
          BOTH 45%. 
          OKAY. 
          AND ARE YOU AWARE THAT THERE ARE A NUMBER OF NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOME, UH, SINGLE FAMILY HOMES THAT ARE ONE STORY THAT HAVE BEEN BUILT IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD COMPARABLE IN SIZE TO THE ORIGINAL HOMES? UM, NO. 
          OR IN INCOMPARABLE IN SIZE TO THE ORIGINAL HOMES, CORRECT. 
          I'M NOT AWARE OF ALL THE DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS THERE. 
          NO. 
          I, I DID, I YOU WERE, I'M SORRY YOU WERE MUMBLING. 
          CAN YOU SAY THAT AGAIN, ? SORRY, UH, TO DIRECTLY ANSWER THE QUESTION. 
          NO, I WAS NOT AWARE OF ANY NEW ONES THAT ARE SIMILAR IN SIZE TO WHAT HAS EXISTED THERE. 
          UM, I WILL SAY THAT GENERALLY THE ONES THAT STAND OUT ARE THE ONES THAT DON'T MATCH THAT SIZE. 
          THE ONES THAT DO MATCH THAT SIZE, IT'S VERY EASY TO MISS THAT IF YOU'RE JUST DRIVING DOWN THE STREET. 
          THERE ARE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONERS, PLEASE? COMMISSIONER HAMPTON? JUST ONE FOLLOW UP. 
          I THINK, AND I APPRECIATE MY OTHER COMMISSIONERS 'CAUSE YOU ASKED A LOT OF THE THINGS I REALIZED I DIDN'T ASK. 
          UM, BUT IS IT ALSO CORRECT THAT SURROUNDING, UM, THIS PD BUYRIGHT, THERE'S BOTH DUPLEX, MULTIFAMILY, AND AGAIN, I KNOW THERE'S SOME COMMERCIAL SPRINKLED IN, BUT THIS IS SURROUNDED WHERE THESE USES ARE BY, RIGHT? IS THAT CORRECT? YES. 
          YEAH, AND I THINK IT SHOWS UP IN THE LAND USE MAPS, SO THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU, MR. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT. 
          I SAID I WAS DONE, BUT I'LL JUST ASK, UH, STAFF ONE QUESTION 'CAUSE YOU ALL PROB PROBABLY KNOW THIS, BUT, UM, YOU KNOW, GOOGLE EARTH IS A REALLY POWERFUL TOOL TO LOOK AT HISTORY, AND I, I ASSUME YOU'RE AWARE THAT THESE THREE VACANT LOTS HAVE BEEN VACANT FOR IN THE VICINITY OF 25 TO 30 YEARS EACH, RIGHT? CORRECT. 
          PER DCA RECORDS, THERE HAVE BEEN NO RECORDED IMPROVEMENTS ASSESSED ON THOSE LOTS SINCE 1999. 
          YEAH. 
          UM, AND I KNOW ONE LOT IN PARTICULAR, THE ONE ON SOUTH ST. 
          MARY WAS ACTUALLY DEMO DEMOLISHED IN, UH, THE 1996. 
          YEAH. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONERS, COMMISSION, COMMISSIONER WHEELER PLEASE. 
          SHE SAY NEVERMIND. 
          OKAY, LET'S GO TO THE NEXT CASE FOR EVERYONE'S BENEFIT. 
          LOOKS LIKE IT'S ITEM 15. 
          . 
          I JUST REALIZED I FORGOT TO MAKE THIS ANNOUNCEMENT EARLIER. 
          UM, AND IT WAS KIND OF ROLLED OUT SLOWLY, UH, BUT, UH, LAST MONDAY WAS GIANNA BRIDGES LAST DAY WITH THE CITY. 
          UH, SHE HAS MOVED ON TO ANOTHER POSITION, UH, AND WILL MISS HER A GREAT DEAL. 
          SHE WAS AWESOME AND ENTERTAINING AND VERY FUNNY AND VERY HARDWORKING. 
          UM, BUT THAT'S WHY I AM COVERING HER CASES TODAY. 
          SHE WILL BE MISSED. 
          OKAY, NEXT CASE IS ITEM 15 KC 2 34 DASH 2 63. 
          IT'S AN APPLICATION FOR A TH THREE, A TOWNHOUSE DISTRICT ON PROPERTIES OWNED AS CR COMMUNITY REALTY RETAIL DISTRICT. 
          IT'S LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST LINE OF SEVILLE ROAD, NORTHWEST OF WARRIOR DRIVE, SO AT 1.41 ACRES. 
          AND THE PURPOSE OF THE REQUEST IS TO ALLOW SINGLE FAMILY ON THE PROPERTY. 
          HERE WE SEE THE LOCATION MAP SHOWING THE PROPERTY IN CITY LIMITS, WHICH I BELIEVE IS INCORRECT. 
          SORRY ABOUT THAT. 
          UH, HERE IS THE AERIAL MAP WITH THE PROPERTY OUTLINED IN BLUE, UH, AS WELL AS THE ZONING MAP WITH SURROUNDING DISTRICTS AND LAND USES. 
          UM, SO THE SOUTHEAST TO THE SOUTH AND TO THE SOUTHWEST ARE SINGLE FAMILY USES UNDER AN R FIVE A DISTRICT, UH, TO THE NORTHEAST UNDER CR IS SOME UNDEVELOPED PROPERTY. 
          AND THEN TO THE NORTHWEST ALSO UNDER CR IS ZONED, UH, I'M SORRY, IS A POST OFFICE 
          [05:10:01]
USE MR. MULKEY. 
          MY, UM, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT WE'VE BRIEFED THIS ONE BEFORE AND MAYBE WE'RE JUST DOING CHANGES. 
          OH, SORRY ABOUT THAT, PLEASE. 
          YES. 
          UM, THANK YOU. 
          SINCE THE PREV, HERE WE GO. 
          SINCE THE PREVIOUS HEARING, UH, THE APPLICANT HAS VOLUNTEERED DEED RESTRICTIONS THAT WOULD PROHIBIT DUPLEX AND RETIREMENT HOUSING USES. 
          UH, ALSO RESTRICT THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS TO 20 AND REQUIRE THAT THE CONNECTION TO LITTLE FOX BE GATED AND ONLY USED FOR EMERGENCY VEHICLE EGRESS FROM THE PROPERTY. 
          WE WILL SKIP ALL THAT. 
          AND STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL, UH, AND BY APPROVAL WE MEAN A STRAIGHT TH THREE A DISTRICT, NO DEED RESTRICTIONS. 
          THANK YOU, SIR. 
          QUESTIONS? ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM? COMMISSIONERS? OKAY, WE WILL GO TO THE NEXT CASE. 
          UH, COMMISSIONER HERBERT. 
          I DON'T REMEMBER IF WE BRIEFED THIS ONE BEFORE. 
          DO WE REMEMBER NUMBER 16? UH, WE NEED TO BRIEF IT. 
          WE DO. 
          THANK YOU, SIR. 
          WE WANTED THIS ONE BRIEFED. 
          SORRY, WE BRIEFED THIS PREVIOUSLY. 
          WE, WE CAN GO INTO THE DISCUSSION. 
          WE BRIEFED IT PREVIOUSLY. 
          NO NEED TO BRIEF IT. 
          YES. 
          UH, ANY ANY UPDATES, CHANGES? NO UPDATES TO THIS ONE. 
          OKAY. 
          QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS ON THIS ONE? NO. 
          UM, WERE YOU AWARE THERE WAS A COMMUNITY MEETING LAST NIGHT, SIR, TO DISCUSS? I AM NOW THIS CASE. 
          I'M OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OKAY, LET'S GO TO 17. 
          THAT ONE. 
          WE, WE DID THAT ONE RIGHT? OKAY. 
          SO WE'RE GO TO 18 AND, UH, 18, UH, Z 2 3 4 3 0 8. 
          THAT HAS ALSO BEEN BRIEFED PREVIOUSLY AND WE DON'T HAVE ANY CHANGES TO THAT ONE. 
          OKAY. 
          DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT ITEM? COMMISSIONER WHEELER? DID I SEE YOUR HAND ON THIS ONE OR NOT? OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, I BELIEVE THAT THE, UH, SPECIAL SIGNED DISTRICT WILL ONLY BE BRIEFED PER REQUEST. 
          UM, YOU'RE, NO, WE'RE NOT. 
          YOU'RE, YOU'RE SOLID. 
          UH, AND JUST LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT COMMISSIONER KINGSTON DOES HAVE A CONFLICT ON THAT ONE, BUT WE'RE NOT BRIEFING IT. 
          SO, UM, I THINK WE WENT THROUGH THE DOCKET. 
          UH, COMMISSIONERS. 
          LET'S TAKE A 15 MINUTE BREAK AND WE'LL COME BACK TO IT FOR THE HEARING. 
          UH, COMMISSIONERS, 
          [CALL TO ORDER]
WE'RE GONNA GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED. 
          UH, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE'RE GONNA GO RIGHT BACK TO 
          [2. 24-3574 An application for a development plan on property zoned Tract 13A - MF-2(A) within Planned Development District No. 508, on the west line of Normandy Brook Road, north of Singleton Boulevard. ]
THE BEGINNING OF THE, THE AGENDA AND START WITH CASE NUMBER TWO. 
          GOOD AFTERNOON. 
          WELCOME BACK. 
          OKAY, GOOD AFTERNOON. 
          THIS IS ITEM NUMBER TWO, CASE D 2 34 DASH 0 0 2. 
          IT'S AN APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT PLAN ON PROPERTY ZONE TRACK 13 A MF TWO A WITHIN PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 5 0 8 ON THE WEST LINE OF NORMANDY BROOK ROAD, NORTH OF SINGLETON BOULEVARD. 
          STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          UH, IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? GOOD AFTERNOON. 
          YEP, THERE. 
          PERFECT. 
          UM, MY NAME IS STEPHANIE BAR. 
          I'M AT 10 44 BURLINGTON BOULEVARD. 
          I'M THE ARCHITECT ON THIS PROJECT AND I'M HERE FOR ANY QUESTIONS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU FOR JOINING US. 
          IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? COMMISSIONERS. 
          ANY QUESTIONS FOR MS. BARRY? QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SEEING NONE. 
          COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? YES. 
          IN THE MATTER OF D 2 34 DASH 0 0 2, I MOVE THAT WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND FOLLOW STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL. 
          THANK YOU. 
          COMMISSIONER CARPENTER FOR YOUR MOTION. 
          COMMISSIONER HOUSER FOR YOUR SECOND. 
          ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE OF THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. 
          AYE. 
          ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UH, WE'LL 
          [Zoning Cases - Consent]
NOW MOVE TO OUR UH, ZONING CASES. 
          CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS CONSISTING OF CASES THREE THROUGH SIX THREE AND FIVE HAVE COME OFF CONSENT AND WILL BE VOTED ON AND DISPOSED OF INDIVIDUALLY. 
          THAT LEAVES CASES FOUR AND SIX TO BE DISPOSED OF IN ONE MOTION, UNLESS THERE IS SOMEONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON EITHER OF THOSE TWO CASES, FOUR OR SIX. 
          IT'S Z 2 34, 2 41, AND Z 2 34 3 19. 
          IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON THOSE CASES? OKAY. 
          OKAY, ITEM FOUR IS Z 2 3 4 2 4 1. 
          IT'S 
          [05:15:01]
AN APPLICATION FOR A NEW PLAINTIFF DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FOR WR R THREE WALKABLE RESIDENTIAL USES ON PROPERTY ZONE IN IR. 
          WERE INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH DISTRICT ON THE SOUTHEAST LINE OF KIMSEY DRIVE NORTH OF MORNINGSTAR PLACE. 
          STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS, APPROVAL, SUBJECT CONDITIONS. 
          ITEM SIX IS Z 2 3 4 3 19. 
          IT'S AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR THE SALE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES IN CONJUNCTION WITH A RESTAURANT WITHOUT DRIVE IN DRIVE THROUGH SERVICE ON PROPERTIES OWNED A CRD ONE COMMUNITY RETAIL DISTRICT WITH THE D ONE LIQUOR CONTROL OVERLAY ON THE NORTH LINE OF WALNUT HILL LANE, WEST OF MARSH. 
          UH, STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL FOR A THREE YEAR PERIOD WITH ELIGIBILITY FOR AUTOMATIC RULES FOR ADDITIONAL THREE YEAR PERIODS SUBJECT TO A SITE PLANNING CONDITIONS. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COMMISSIONERS. 
          ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEMS? SEEING NONE, COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? I DO. 
          THANK YOU MR. CHAIR. 
          IN THE UH, ZONING CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS FOUR AND SIX, I MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE PER STAFF RECOMMENDATION. 
          THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HAMPTON FOR YOUR MOTION AND VICE CHAIR RUBIN FOR YOUR SECOND. 
          ANY COMMENTS? DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE OF THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. 
          AYE. 
          ANY OPPOSED? AYES HAVE IT. 
          GO BACK TO NUMBER THREE PLEASE. 
          [3. 24-3575 An application for a Planned Development Subdistrict for an art or craft production facility use on property zoned Subdistrict 3 within Planned Development District No. 317, the Cedars Area Special Purpose District, on the south corner of Griffin Street, East and South Ervay Street.]
ITEM THREE IS Z 2 3 4 24. 
          IT'S AN APPLICATION FOR A PLAN DEVELOPMENT SUBDISTRICT ART OR CRAFT PRODUCTION FACILITY USE ON PROPERTY ZONES SUBDISTRICT THREE WITHIN PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 3 1 7 CEDARS AREA SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICT ON THE SOUTH CORNER OF GRIFFIN STREET, EAST AND SOUTH VE STREET STAFF. 
          RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO A REVISED EXHIBIT 3 1 7 A PROPERTY DESCRIPTIONS AND CONDITIONS. 
          IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? COMMISSIONERS QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SEEING NONE. 
          COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, DO YOU HAVE MOTION? I DO. 
          THANK YOU MR. CHAIR IN THE MATTER OF Z 2 3 4 DASH 24 0. 
          I MOVE TO KEEP THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AND HOLD THIS MATTER UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL DECEMBER 5TH. 
          THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HAMPTON FOR YOUR MOTION. 
          AND COMMISSIONER CARPENTER FOR YOUR SECOND. 
          ANY DISCUSSION? COMMISSIONER HOUSE? COULD WE GET AN EXPLANATION WHY WE'RE HOLDING THIS? UM, THERE'S TWO REVISIONS TO THE RESTRICTIONS AND IN LIEU OF INUNDATING US WITH ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS, UM, AT THE HORSESHOE I WORKED WITH THE APPLICANT TO HOLD IT SO THAT THEY'RE IN OUR NEXT DOCKET. 
          THANK YOU FOR THAT. 
          ANY OTHER DISCUSSIONS? NONE. 
          ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. 
          A. 
          ANY OPPOSED? AYES HAVE IT. 
          WE'LL GO TO NUMBER SIX. 
          NUMBER SEVEN. 
          PARDON ME? NUMBER WE NUMBER SIX WAS PARDON? PARDON ME. 
          NUMBER FIVE THEN. 
          [5. 24-3577 An application for an amendment to Specific Use Permit No. 2419 for a community service center on property zoned an MF-2(A) Multifamily District, on the northwest line of Avenue Q, between Laughlin Drive and Riek Road.]
OH FIVE FIVE. 
          ITEM FIVE KC 2 34 DASH 2 95. 
          AN APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO SPECIFIC USE PERMIT NUMBER 24 19 FOR A COMMUNITY SERVICE CENTER ON PROPERTIES ZONED IN MF TWO, A MULTI-FAMILY DISTRICT ON THE NORTHWEST LINE OF AVENUE Q BETWEEN LAUGHLIN DRIVE AND AK ROAD STAFF'S. 
          RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL FOR A FIVE YEAR PERIOD WITH ELIGIBILITY FOR AUTOMATIC RENEWAL FOR ADDITIONAL FIVE YEAR PERIOD SUBJECT TO AMENDED CONDITIONS. 
          THANK YOU, SIR. 
          IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? THIS IS ITEM NUMBER FIVE AT THE BOTTOM OF PAGE TWO OF THE AGENDA COMMISSIONERS. 
          ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS ITEM? COMMISSIONER WHEELER, PLEASE. 
          THERE'S NO ONE IN THE GALLERY TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM. 
          COULD YOU REPEAT YOUR QUESTION? THERE'S NO ONE IN THE GALLERY TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM. 
          NO. 
          THERE WE HAVE NO SPEAKERS. 
          UM, CAN I HOLD THIS TO THE FIFTH BECAUSE I WANTED THEM TO REACH OUT. 
          UM, I DON'T KNOW WHY THEY DIDN'T REACH OUT. 
          'CAUSE THEREFORE I CAN WE HOLD THIS CASE TO THE FIFTH THEN? DECEMBER 5TH? YES. 
          PERFECT. 
          UH, WE, WE HAVE A MOTION COMMISSIONERS BY COMMISSIONER WHEELER TO KEEP THIS, KEEP THIS CASE, UH, HOLD THIS CASE UNDER ADVISEMENT TO DECEMBER 5TH SECOND ABOUT COMMISSIONER HERBERT. 
          ANY DISCUSSION? SEE ANY DISCUSSION? SEEN NONE. 
          ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. 
          AYE. 
          ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. 
          AND WE GO TO CASE NUMBER 
          [7. 24-3579 An application for an MF-2(A) Multifamily District on property zoned an NS(A) Neighborhood Service District with deed restrictions [Z889-187 Tract 2] and an A(A) Agricultural District, on the north line of West Camp Wisdom Road, between Clark Road and Royal Cedar Way]
SEVEN, UH, COMMISSIONERS CASE NUMBER SEVEN. 
          UH, CASE NUMBER SEVEN. 
          UM, THERE WAS A QUESTION ABOUT, WELL, LET'S GET IT RIGHT INTO THE RECORD FIRST ITEM SEVEN IS Z 2 2 3 2 2 0. 
          IT'S AN APPLICATION FOR AN MF TWO MULTIFAMILY DISTRICT ON PROPERTIES ZONE IN NSA NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICE DISTRICT WITH THE DESCRIPTION Z 8 8, 9 1 8 7, TRACK TWO, AND AN A, A AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT ON THE NORTH LINE OF WEST CAMPUS ROAD BETWEEN CLARK ROAD AND ROYAL CEDAR WAY STAFF. 
          RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL. 
          THANK YOU SIR. 
          COMMISSIONERS THERE, UH, FOR THIS CASE? ON THE NEXT ONE THERE WAS A QUESTION ABOUT THE POSTING OF THE SIGNS. 
          UH, SO WE WILL, UH, DISCUSS AND VOTE ON THAT ITEM FIRST 
          [05:20:01]
AND THEN WE'LL GO INTO THE MERITS OF THE CASE. 
          UH, SO WE WILL HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT'S FIRST, UH, JUST THE SIGN ISSUE AND THE POSTINGS OF THE SIGN. 
          I WILL ASK YOU TO PLEASE BEGIN WITH YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. 
          GOOD AFTERNOON. 
          GOOD AFTERNOON. 
          MAKE SURE YOU HAVE THAT, THAT MIC ON. 
          YES, SIR. 
          MY NAME IS STEVEN EURICH AT 37 48 V CRIST DRIVE. 
          UM, AS IN REGARDS TO THE, UH, THE SIGN, THAT SIGN WAS, UH, INITIALLY POSTED ON, UM, MARCH 10TH, 2023. 
          UM, ACCORDING TO THE SIGN PROCEDURE, I PUT THEM OUT PERSONALLY. 
          I WAS BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION ON MONDAY THAT, UM, THERE WAS AN ISSUE WITH THE SIGNS. 
          I WENT TO THE SITE. 
          I, I SAW, I WENT TO THE SITE THAT I SAW ONE SIGN WAS VERY WEATHERED, THE OTHER SIGN WAS MISSING. 
          I PROMPTLY REPLACED BOTH SIGNS, UH, THAT DAY. 
          UM, I HAVE A COUPLE OF PICTURES OF THE SIGN SINCE THEN, BUT FROM, YOU KNOW, UH, MARCH 10TH, 2023 UNTIL MONDAY, I'VE SEEN THE SIGNS. 
          UM, I HAVE NO DOCUMENTATION, I HAVE NO PICTURES, BUT I, UM, INTENDED TO FOLLOW THE PROCEDURES AND POLICIES OF THE SIGN PLACEMENT. 
          THANK YOU, SIR. 
          YES, SIR. 
          IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN ON THIS ITEM? JUST ON THE SIGNS? YES, MA'AM. 
          GOOD AFTERNOON. 
          MY NAME'S ELLA TAF, 79 24 GLEN WAY DRIVE, DALLAS, TEXAS. 
          AND WE HAVE PICTURES OF THE, OF THERE BEING NO SIGNS IN THE NOVEMBER 11TH OF 23. 
          WE HAVE A DRONE VIDEO IN MARCH OF THIS YEAR WHEN IT RUNS DOWN THE ROAD. 
          AND AGAIN, THERE ARE NO SIGNS WHEN COUNCILMAN GRACIE CAME OUT AND VIEWED THE SITE, THAT WAS A COMMENT HE MADE TO US THAT THERE WERE NO SIGNS FOR THE ZONING CASE ON THE PROPERTY AT THAT TIME. 
          AND I REACHED OUT TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND ASKED THAT QUESTION ON MONDAY. 
          AND MONDAY AFTERNOON THE NEW SIGNS WENT UP, BUT TO US IT'S STILL NOT ENOUGH. 
          THE SIGNS SHOULD HAVE BEEN UP FOR THE WHOLE YEAR. 
          HAVING THEM UP TWO DAYS BEFORE THE VOTE ON THE PROJECT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. 
          THE NEIGHBORS DIDN'T GET A CHANCE TO KNOW AND RESPOND. 
          THANKS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO YES, SIR. 
          MY NAME IS DEAN BOWMAN. 
          I LIVE AT 69 31 ROLLING CREEK LANE. 
          RIGHT. 
          UH, ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE CREEK FROM THIS PROPOSED PROJECT. 
          I, FOR A FACT KNOW THERE HAVEN'T BEEN SIGNS UP FOR OVER A YEAR THERE. 
          UM, THEN MONDAY, I, I GO BY THERE EVERY DAY ON MY WAY HOME FROM WORK. 
          AND THEN ON MONDAY I SAW A VEHICLE AND THEY WERE PUTTING OUT SIGNS MONDAY MORNING. 
          AND SO, LIKE I SAID, THEY HAVEN'T BEEN THERE FOR A YEAR. 
          THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY ABOUT IT. 
          THANK YOU, SIR. 
          IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THE SIGN ISSUE COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? MR. RUBIN? YEAH. 
          WHEN DID Y'ALL FIRST BECOME AWARE THAT THERE WERE ISSUES WITH THE SIGNS? MONDAY MORNING, SIR. 
          MONDAY AND THAT YOU PUT THEM BACK, YOU REPOSTED LATER THAT DAY? YES, SIR. 
          UH, I HAD A EMAIL FROM, UH, MR. PEPE STATING THAT, UM, THERE WAS AN ISSUE. 
          I WAS ON SITE WITHIN 15 MINUTES OF SEEING THAT AND SIGNS REPLACED THAT DAY. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          YES, SIR. 
          UH, SIR, YOU, YOU MENTIONED THAT YOU HAD PICTURES OF THE SIGNS THAT YOU TOOK. 
          I HAVE CURRENT PICTURES OF THE SIGNS. 
          UH, YES SIR. 
          UM, YEAH, COULD WE TAKE A LOOK AT THOSE AND JUST, YOU KNOW, JUST KNOW IF YOU GIVE IT TO US, WE HAVE TO KEEP 'EM FOR THE RECORD. 
          SURE. 
          YOU'RE, YOU'RE WELCOME TO. 
          OKAY. 
          YOU PASS ONE ON EACH SIDE. 
          PARDON ME? ARE THOSE DATED? SIR, ARE THEY DATED THE PICTURES? THEY'RE NOT DATED? NO. 
          UM, DID YOU TAKE 'EM WITH YOUR PHONE? I I CAN SHOW YOU MY IPHONE IF YOU'D LIKE TO SEE. 
          NO, YOU DID TAKE 'EM WITH YOUR PHONE. 
          YEAH, I DID TAKE 'EM WITH MY PHONE. 
          SO THEY'RE, IT'S OKAY. 
          THEY'RE DATED, THEY'RE TIMESTAMPED THERE. 
          UM, NOW ON THIS SITE THERE'S TWO SIGNS JUST BECAUSE OF THE, UH, THE SIZE OF THE, OF THE SITE. 
          IT REQUIRES TWO SIDES. 
          WE JUST NEED TO GET IT BACK TO HERE. 
          COMMISSIONERS. 
          ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? COMMISSIONER, 
          [05:25:01]
CARL, WHEN WERE THESE PICTURES TAKEN? DO YOU KNOW? ONE WAS TAKEN, UH, MONDAY AFTER I REPLACED THAT SIGN. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, AND I'LL BE A LITTLE BIT MORE SPECIFIC IF YOU BEAR WITH ME A MOMENT, BUT THEY WERE TAKEN AFTER YOU REPOSTED THE SIGNS AFTER BEING INFORMED THAT THEY WERE MISSING. 
          OKAY, THANK YOU. 
          I I DON'T NEED THE EXACT DATE. 
          YEAH, BUT THAT'S OKAY. 
          JUST TRYING TO GET THE TIMELINE AND THEN, UH, A TUESDAY MORNING. 
          UH, YES MA'AM. 
          SO, SO JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, YOU STATED THAT YOU, THERE WAS A SIGN THAT WAS WEATHERED AND YOU REPLACED THAT ONE AND THE ONE, THE OTHER ONE, THE OTHER ONE I COULD NOT FIND. 
          AND WHEN I SAY WEATHERED, I MEAN IT WAS BASICALLY A BLANK SHEET IN ALL HONESTY. 
          UM, BUT YES, BOTH SIGNS HAD BEEN REPLACED. 
          REPLACED. 
          OKAY. 
          COMMISSIONERS, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? QUESTIONS FOR OUR FOLKS IN OPPOSITION. 
          VICE CHAIR RUBIN? YEAH. 
          UM, MS. TAFT? YES, SIR. 
          WHEN DID YOU FIRST BECOME AWARE OF THE ISSUES WITH THE SIGNS? UM, LAST YEAR IN NOVEMBER AND I REACHED OUT TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND THEY SAID THEY WOULD CHECK INTO IT, BUT NOTHING EVER HAPPENED AND I DIDN'T GET ANY FURTHER RESPONSES. 
          WHO IN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT DID YOU REACH OUT TO? UM, UH, NO, I DON'T HAVE THE NAME. 
          IT WAS A YOUNG LADY'S VOICE, BUT IT WAS A, SHE WAS A PERSON ANSWERING THE PHONE IS ALL, SHE WAS NOT. 
          OKAY. 
          SHE NOT MADE A CALL. 
          THERE'S NO EMAIL THERE? UM, I DID NOT, I DID NOT GO BACK AND LOOK FOR EMAILS OKAY. 
          IN MY COMPUTER, BUT I EASILY COULD. 
          I APOLOGIZE. 
          OH, NO, THAT'S FINE. 
          I DID NOT THINK OF THAT LAST NIGHT. 
          UM, SO I, I COULD, BUT, UM, ALL OF YOU HAVE A COPY OF THE VIDEO, THE DRONE VIDEO, AND IN THE VERY BEGINNING IT'S ALREADY, YOU GOT IT A MONTH AGO WHEN YOU'RE, WHEN THE DRONE GOES DOWN THE STREET IN MARCH, YOU CAN, IT RUNS RIGHT ALONG THE ROAD AND YOU CAN SEE THERE ARE NO SIGNS UP. 
          OKAY. 
          AND BEYOND, UM, THAT TIME IN NOVEMBER OF LAST YEAR, WHEN ELSE DID YOU NOTIFY EITHER THE APPLICANT OR THE CITY ABOUT THE ISSUES WITH THE SIGNS? UM, I ONLY SPOKE TO PEOPLE. 
          I DID NOT SEND ANY ADDITIONAL EMAILS. 
          OKAY. 
          AND, AND REGARDLESS OF HOW YOU DID IT, WHEN ELSE DID YOU NOTIFY PEOPLE ABOUT ISSUES WITH THIS? UM, WELL I, I HAVE SPOKEN TO MY COUNCIL MEMBERS' STAFF. 
          OKAY. 
          WHAT ABOUT, BUT WHAT ABOUT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT? CER WHATEVER THE NEW DEPARTMENT NAME IS, WHICH I'M BLANKING OUT. 
          POD I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THOUGH. 
          WHAT ABOUT ON THE, THE PLANNING STAFF SIDE? WHEN HAVE YOU NOTIFIED, UM, ON THE SIGN ISSUE? I DID NOT PURSUE THAT, SIR. 
          OKAY. 
          AND DID YOU CONTACT THE APPLICANT EVER TO NOTIFY THEM ABOUT THEIR ISSUES WITH THE SIGN? I I DID NOT HAVE THE APPLICANT'S CONTACT INFORMATION AT THAT TIME. 
          OKAY. 
          SO HAVE YOU EVER CONTACTED THE APPLICANT ABOUT ISSUES WITH THE SIGN ABOUT OTHER ISSUES? YES, SIR, BUT NOT ABOUT THE SITE. 
          OKAY, THANK YOU. 
          AND JUST SO I UNDERSTAND, I KNOW THE OTHER GENTLEMAN LIVES ON ROLLING CREEK, WHICH IS RIGHT, UM, BY THE SITE. 
          WHERE, WHERE ARE YOU RELATIVE TO THE SITE? I'M HALF A MILE TO THE WEST, SO I HAVE TO DRIVE BY THE SITE. 
          IF I GO TO THE GROCERY STORE OR A GAS STATION, IF I GO ANYWHERE TO THE EAST, I HAVE TO GO BY THE SIDE. 
          OKAY, THANK YOU. 
          ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONERS QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? MS. MORRIS, CAN YOU PLEASE READ THE ORDINANCE? LAURA MORRISON, CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. 
          UM, SECTION 51 A DASH 1.106 OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE SAYS THAT THE APPLICANT SHALL POST THE REQUIRED NUMBER OF NOTIFICATION SIGNS ON THE PROPERTY WITHIN 14 DAYS AFTER AN APPLICATION IS FILED. 
          THE SIGNS MUST REMAIN POSTED UNTIL THE FINAL DECISION IS MADE ON THE APPLICATION. 
          UM, FOR TRACKS WITH STREET FRONTAGE, SIGNS MUST BE EVENLY SPACED OVER THE LENGTH OF EVERY STREET, UH, FRONTAGE POSTED UP AT A PROMINENT LOCATION ADJACENT TO A PUBLIC STREET AND BE EASILY VISIBLE FROM THE STREET. 
          FOR TRACKS WITHOUT STREET FRONTAGE. 
          SIGNS MUST BE EVENLY POSTED IN PROMINENT LOCATIONS MOST VISIBLE TO THE PUBLIC. 
          AND APPLICANT HAS COMPLIED WITH THE REQUIRED POSTING OF NOTIFICATION SIGNS IF ANY LOST, STOLEN, OR VANDALIZED NOTIFICATION SIGNS ARE TIMELY REPLACED AND THE APPLICANT HAS MADE A GOOD FAITH EFFORT TO KEEP THE NOTIFICATION SIGNS POSTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY CODE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          QUESTIONS COMMERS FOR STAFF COMMISSIONER CARPENTER MS. MORRISON, IS THERE A LEGAL STANDARD FOR GOOD FAITH EFFORTS? 
          [05:30:01]
ARE, I MEAN TO CONTINUE? ARE APPLICANTS NOW REQUIRED TO CONFIRM THAT THEIR, UM, SIGNS REMAIN POSTED ON SOME SORT OF REGULAR BASIS. 
          THERE'S NOT A LEGAL STANDARD FOR GOOD FAITH EFFORT. 
          IT'S, UM, UP TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION. 
          THANK YOU. 
          FOLLOW UP ON THAT ONE. 
          UH, THANK YOU. 
          COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, UH, SMORES OR OUR APPLICANTS REQUIRED TO TAKE A PICTURE OF THEIR SIGNS EVERY DAY, ONCE A WEEK, ONCE A MONTH. 
          THERE'S NO REQUIREMENT THAT THE APPLICANT PROVE TO THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION THAT THE SIGN WAS UP EVERY SINGLE DAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          PLEASE, COMMISSIONER BLA. 
          UM, MS. MORRISON. 
          SO IF THERE, IF THERE IS NO REAL DEFINITION AROUND GOOD FAITH EFFORT OR ANY, UM, STANDARDS THAT SAYS YOU MUST ON THIS DAY, THIS DAY, AND THIS DAY, MAKE SURE, UM, HOW WOULD A A, A APPLICANT THAT IS NOT LOCAL BE ABLE TO COMPLY TO THE STANDARDS THAT WE DO HAVE TO ENSURE THAT THEIR SIGNS ARE POSTED, THAT WOULD BE UP TO THE APPLICANT. 
          THERE'S NOTHING IN THE CITY CODE THAT SAYS WHAT THE APPLICANT MUST DO IN ORDER TO PROVE TO THE PLAN COMMISSION THAT THE SIGNS WERE UP. 
          IS IT UP TO THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION TO MAKE A JUDGMENT CALL BASED ON THE INFORMATION WE ARE GIVEN AT THE PODIUM? YES, IT'S UP TO THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION. 
          ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS ON THE SIGN ISSUE? YOU? I HAVE . 
          OKAY. 
          I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION. 
          DO WE HAVE A MOTION? YES. 
          COMMISSIONER HERBERT, PLEASE, SIR. 
          I'LL MAKE A MOTION. 
          UM, IF I HAVE A SECOND, I'LL HAVE COMMENTS. 
          UM, I MOVE TO HOLD THE CASE NUMBER Z 2 23 20 20 UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL JANUARY, OR AT LEAST FOUR WEEKS BECAUSE OF THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION FINDS THAT THE APPLICANT HAS NOT FULFILLED THE APPLICANT'S OBLIGATION UNDER SECTION 51 A DASH 1.106 REGARDING THE POSTING OF ZONING NOTIFICATION SIGNS BECAUSE OF THE APPLICANT HAS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION THAT THE APPLICANT POSTED THE REQUIRED NUMBER OF NOTIFICATION SIGNS IN THE WIRE LOCATION AND THE REQUIRED LOCATIONS AT LEAST 14 DAYS AFTER THE ZONING APPLICATION WAS FILED, OR HAS MADE GOOD FAITH EFFORTS TO KEEP THE REQUIRED NOTIFICATION SIGNS POSTED IN ACCORDANCE TO DALLAS CITY PLANNING COMMISSION CODE. 
          CAN I HAVE A SECOND? DO WE HAVE A SECOND? COMMISSIONER HERBERT SECOND. 
          THAT DISCUSSION? OKAY. 
          SO, UM, THE COMMISSIONER HERBERT, I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT YOU. 
          YES. 
          UM, BEFORE WE CONTINUE, UM, DID YOU WANT TO HOLD THE CASE TO THE CPC HEARING ON, UH, THURSDAY, JANUARY 23RD? IS, IS, IS DECEMBER 5TH TOO SOON? YES. 
          YES. 
          YES. 
          OKAY. 
          FOUR WEEKS. 
          YEAH. 
          THANK YOU. 
          MM-HMM, . 
          SO, UM, A PART OF THE PROBLEM IS MY BOSS DIDN'T SEE THE SIGN. 
          UM, HE GETS THIS CASE IN TWO WEEKS, UM, AND HE WAS ON THE SITE AND DID NOT SEE THE SIGNS HIMSELF. 
          UM, I THINK THAT WOULD BE ONE A PROBLEM. 
          UM, TWO, THERE'S A LOT OF ISSUES WITH THIS CASE THAT WILL BE PASSED. 
          ZONING, UH, IF THIS GETS PASSED, IT HAS TO GO THROUGH A LOT OF OTHER PROCESSES, UM, BEFORE DIRT CAN BE MOVED. 
          I DON'T WANT ANYTHING OTHER THAN THE CASE TO HOLD THAT BACK. 
          UM, WE, WE, WE KNOW, I PROBABLY CAN'T EVEN SPEAK ON IT, BUT THERE'S CASES ABOUT THIS SIGN ISSUE, UM, GOING ON RIGHT NOW. 
          SO I'M, I'M IN A POSITION OF THE SIGN HOSE REGARD. 
          YES, THERE'S OTHER NOTIFICATIONS AREAS. 
          YES, I THINK THE PERSON WHO EVEN MADE THE COMPLAINT WAS AWARE. 
          UM, BUT THERE'S OTHER NEIGHBORS AND NEIGHBORS THAT GO ALONG THAT MAJOR THOROUGHFARE THAT PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED AND WEREN'T. 
          UM, SO I THINK THEY GET THE OPPORTUNITY AT LEAST FOR 30 DAYS TO SEE THE SIGN AGAIN, THAT'S WHY I MADE THAT CHOICE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ANY OTHER COMMENTS? COMMISSIONERS? OKAY. 
          SEE NONE. 
          ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. 
          LET'S HAVE A RECORD VOTE. 
          DISTRICT ONE. 
          AYE. 
          DISTRICT TWO AYE. 
          DISTRICT THREE? AYE. 
          [05:35:01]
DISTRICT FOUR? AYE. 
          DISTRICT FIVE? NO. 
          YOU SAID NO. 
          DISTRICT SIX. 
          AYE. 
          DISTRICT SEVEN AYE. 
          DISTRICT EIGHT. 
          AYE. 
          DISTRICT NINE, DISTRICT 10. 
          NO. 
          DISTRICT 11 ABSENT. 
          DISTRICT 12, ABSENT DISTRICT 13. 
          AYE. 
          DISTRICT 14 AND PLACE 15. 
          NO. 
          MOTION PASSES. 
          WE'LL 
          [8. 24-3580 An application for an MU-3 Mixed Use District on property zoned Planned Development District No. 69, on the east side of South R. L. Thornton Freeway, south of East Overton Road.]
GO TO CASE NUMBER EIGHT. 
          ITEM EIGHT KC 2 34 DASH 1 44. 
          AN APPLICATION FOR AN MU THREE MIXED USE DISTRICT ON PROPERTY ZONE PLAN DEVELOPMENT. 
          DISTRICT NUMBER 69 ON THE EAST SIDE OF SOUTH RL THORNTON FREEWAY, SOUTH OF EAST OVERTON ROAD STAFFS. 
          RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL. 
          THANK YOU, SIR. 
          UH, COMMISSIONERS, THIS CASE ALSO HAS A QUESTION ABOUT THE SIGN. 
          SO WE WILL TAKE THAT UP FIRST BEFORE WE TAKE UP THE MERITS OF THE CASE. 
          YOU SEE THAT THE APPLICANT IS HERE. 
          GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIR. 
          COMMISSIONERS. 
          THANKS FOR YOUR TIME TODAY. 
          VICTORIA MORRIS WITH JACKSON WALKER, 2323 ROSS AVENUE, SUITE 600 IN DALLAS. 
          UM, IN RESPONSE TO, UH, MASTER PLAN'S INQUIRY, I'M HAPPY, HAPPY TO SHARE THE PRACTICES THAT JACKSON WALKER FOLLOWS WITH REGARD TO SIGNED POSTINGS. 
          UM, WHEN WE FILE AN APPLICATION, WE NOTE THE 14 DAY DEADLINE TO POST THE ZONING SIGNS AND EITHER COORDINATE WITH A VENDOR OR DIRECTLY WITH OUR CLIENT TO POST THE ZONING SIGNS BY THAT DEADLINE. 
          IN THIS INSTANCE, THE APPLICATION WAS FILED ON DECEMBER 13TH, 2023, SO SIGNS NEEDED TO BE POSTED BY DECEMBER 27TH, 2023. 
          IT IS ALSO JACKSON WALKER'S PRACTICE TO TAKE PHOTOS OF THE SIGNS ONCE THEY'RE POSTED. 
          HERE ARE TIMESTAMPED IMAGES OF THOSE SIGNS, THE FOUR REQUIRED SIGNS. 
          UM, AND I DO BELIEVE THAT ALL OF THESE PHOTOS AND DOCUMENTATION WERE SHARED WITH THE COMMISSION AHEAD OF TIME, BUT HAPPY TO GO OVER IT. 
          HERE IS THE OTHER TWO SIGNS. 
          DECEMBER 26TH, 2023, WE ALSO SUBMITTED THE POSTING NOTIFICATION SIGN FORM THAT THE CITY PROVIDES. 
          IT'S NOT REQUIRED, UM, UNDER CHAPTER 51 A 1.1, CHAPTER 51 A 1.106. 
          UM, AGAIN, CONFIRMING THE TIME, UH, AND DATE THAT THESE WERE POSTED. 
          AS YOU KNOW, THE CITY'S CODE ALSO DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT WE TAKE PHOTOS OF THE SIGNS, BUT WE HAVE MADE A GOOD EFFORT, UH, A GOOD FAITH EFFORT TO POST ANY LOST, STOLEN OR DAMAGED SIGNS. 
          AND WHILE WE HAVE PHOTOS, UH, THAT WE WILL SHARE THAT WE HAD HANDY, THERE ARE CERTAINLY INSTANCES WHERE WE'VE CHECKED AND OR REPLACED SIGNS WITHOUT ACTUALLY TAKING THE PHOTOS. 
          SO WE HAVE PHOTOS DATED MARCH 28TH, 2024. 
          HERE ARE THE FOUR PHOTOS FROM THAT DATE. 
          WE ALSO HAVE OCTOBER 29TH, 2024, NOVEMBER 6TH. 
          THIS IS JUST ONE PHOTO, BUT THIS WAS BECAUSE IT WAS A REPLACEMENT SIGN. 
          THAT ONE WAS DOWN AND AGAIN, NOVEMBER 14TH, 2024 OR, AND WITH THAT, UM, I THINK THAT THIS EVIDENCE, UH, SHOWS THAT WE HAVE MADE A GOOD FAITH EFFORT TO POST, REPOST AND KEEP THE SIGNS POSTED THROUGHOUT THIS PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS. 
          BUT THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          IS THERE ANYONE ELSE I'D LIKE TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THE SIGN? THE APPLICANT, SPEAKER OPPO, THEY'VE MADE IT, THEY'VE REPLACED IT. 
          NO OBJECTION. 
          OKAY. 
          COMMISSIONER'S QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? 
          [05:40:01]
YES. 
          COMMISSIONER HALL, MS. MORRIS, THERE'S ABSOLUTELY NO ACCESS TO THAT SITE. 
          HOW DID YOU DO ALL OF THAT? THAT SURE IS THE CASE. 
          UM, WELL, PROPERTY OWNER AND DEVELOPER JOHN WALKER UP THERE, HE ACTUALLY PERSONALLY DID IT. 
          UM, SOMETIMES WE WILL INQUIRE WITH A THIRD PARTY TO ACTUALLY PRODUCE THE SIGNS. 
          THEY'RE A BIT FLIMSY, SO WE HAVE THEM MOUNTED TO BOARDS AND JUST HAVE A COUPLE ON DECK KNOWING THAT THE SIGNS WILL NEED TO BE REPLACED EVENTUALLY WITH WEATHER. 
          SO TREACHEROUS ACTIVITIES, BUT WE DID MAKE IT HAPPEN. 
          I HAVE ONE QUICK QUESTION FOR YOU. 
          I I, UM, I VISITED THE SITE TWICE AND I I SAW THE SIGN TWICE, BUT I DON'T REMEMBER THE DATES, BUT I DO REMEMBER THE SECOND TIME WAS THE DAY THAT WE HAD THE COMMUNITY MEETING THERE IN THE SHOPPING CENTER. 
          SO IF YOU COULD, JUST FOR THE RECORD, IF YOU HAVE THE DATE OF THAT, THAT MEETING, I KNOW THAT THE SIGN I, I SAW IT PERSONALLY THAT DAY. 
          YES, SIR. 
          WE HAVE HAD SIX NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS, SO I'D HAVE TO GET A LITTLE BIT MORE GRANULAR ON THAT. 
          I'M SORRY. 
          YEAH. 
          UM, BUT WE HAVE, UH, I BELIEVE NOVEMBER 14TH WAS ONE OF THOSE DATES. 
          IF I WERE TO ADVANCE IT, IT WAS THE MEETING WHERE, UH, IT WAS THE WORKING GROUP THAT WORKED THROUGH THE, THE DEED RESTRICTIONS? YEAH. 
          IN FACT, IT MIGHT'VE BEEN THE LAST ONE. 
          I'M NOT SURE. 
          I YEAH, I I GOT 'EM FUZZY. 
          I THINK I ATTENDED FOUR. 
          THE FIVE OR FIVE, THE SIX AND ONE OF THOSE. 
          YES, SIR. 
          UH, SO WE HAD OCTOBER 29TH, NOVEMBER 6TH, NOVEMBER 14TH, NOVEMBER 19TH, MAYBE 19TH. 
          WE HAVE PHOTOS FROM, UH, SOME OF THOSE DATES. 
          NOT ALL OF THEM AGAIN, BUT YES, THEY WERE AT THAT TIME. 
          THANK YOU. 
          JUST FOR THE RECORD, UH, COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONER FORZA, I VISITED THE PROPERTY ON MONDAY AND I CAN CONFIRM THAT THERE ARE SIGNS AT THE SUN VALLEY, UH, DEAD END AT SUN VALLEY DRIVE, AND THERE'S ALSO SIGNS AT THE END OF GARZA DRIVE OR GOLDEN BEAR. 
          UH, I WAS NOT ABLE TO CONFIRM ALONG 35 BECAUSE OF THE TRAFFIC, AND I WAS JUST BY MYSELF. 
          UH, AND I ALSO, UH, I WENT INTO THE, UH, ENTRANCE OF THE PROPERTY WHERE THE GATE IS. 
          I DIDN'T SEE A SIGN THERE, SO I'D LIKE TO ASK IF YOU COULD JUST CAN CONFIRM THAT THERE WERE SIGNS UP ALONG 35 AND ALSO ALONG THE, UH, THE OVERTON PARK PAR, UH, APARTMENTS, UH, NORTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. 
          OKAY. 
          YES, SIR. 
          SO I BELIEVE THAT THE CITY'S CODE REQUIREMENT, UM, IS THAT THE SIGNS BE POSTED ALONG PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY. 
          SO THE ONLY PLACES WHERE WE WERE REQUIRED TO POST THE SIGNS WERE ALONG 35 AT SUN VALLEY DRIVE AND AT, UH, GOLDEN BEAR WAY. 
          UM, SO YOU WEREN'T REQUIRED TO POST A SIGN ON THE, THE NORTHERN END WHERE THE OVERTON APARTMENTS ARE? THAT'S CORRECT, BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE ANY FRONTAGE. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, BUT I CAN SHOW YOU THE MOST RECENT IMAGES. 
          THESE ARE TWO OF THE ZONING SIGNS ON THE FRONTAGE ROAD. 
          IT DOES HAVE A BIT OF A STEEP INCLINE, SO HARD TO SEE. 
          ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONERS OF THE APPLICANT? SEEING NONE. 
          DO WE HAVE A MOTION? COMMISSIONER FORSYTH? YES, CHAIRMAN, I MOVE TO PROCEED WITH THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE NUMBER Z 2 3 4 DASH 44 WITH THE FINDING OF FACT THAT THE APPLICANT HAS FULFILLED THEIR RE OBLIGATIONS UNDER SECTION 51 A DASH 1.106 REGARDING THE POSTING OF ZONING NOTIFICATION SIGNS. 
          BECAUSE THE APPLICANT HAS DEMONSTRATED TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE PLAN COMMISSION THAT THE APPLICANT HAS POSTED THE REQUIRED NUMBER OF NOTIFICATION SIGNS AND HAS MADE GOOD FAITH EFFORTS TO KEEP THE REQUIRED NOTIFICATION SIGNS POSTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY OF DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE. 
          THANK YOU COMMISSIONER FOR, FOR YOUR MOTION. 
          COMMISSIONER CARPENTER FOR YOUR SECOND. 
          ANY DISCUSSION? C AND NONE ALL AS IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. 
          AYE. 
          ANY OPPOSED? AYE. 
          HAVE IT AGAIN WITH THE MERITS OF THE CASE. 
          GOOD AFTERNOON. 
          GOOD AFTERNOON. 
          MY NAME IS BART SOFF. 
          I LIVE AT 78 0 7 MORTON STREET IN DALLAS. 
          I'M THE OWNER OF JOE BAR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ALONG WITH MY PARTNER JOHN WALKER. 
          AND WE OWN APPROXIMATELY 20 ACRES LOCATED AT 3,900 SOUTH OR THORNTON FREEWAY. 
          MR. CHAIR COMMISSIONERS, THANKS SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME TODAY. 
          AFTER LONG WAIT, WE ARE EXCITED TO BE BEFORE YOU WITH AN OPPORTUNITY TO CREATE A VIBRANT DEVELOPMENT, A LIVE WORK PLAY ENVIRONMENT FOR RESIDENTS AND NEIGHBORS ALIKE. 
          JOHN AND I PURCHASED THIS PROPERTY APPROXIMATELY TWO YEARS AGO WITH A VISION TO DEVELOP LAND THAT HAS BEEN NEGLECTED FOR OVER 50 YEARS. 
          WE HAVE HELD MULTIPLE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS OVER THE PAST FEW MONTHS AND LISTENED TO ANY CONCERNS THE LOCAL RESIDENTS HAD ON THE PROJECT, AND WE ARE APPRECIATIVE OF ALL THEIR INPUT. 
          I'M A FOURTH GENERATION DALLASITE AND HAVE DEEP ROOTS HERE. 
          MY 
          [05:45:01]
GRANDFATHER STARTED KNOWN FARMERS MEAT MARKET ON HARWOOD STREET BACK IN THE SIXTIES. 
          IF ANYONE IN THE CITY NEEDED TO BUY MEAT, YOU HAD TO BUY IT AT FARMER'S MEAT MARKET. 
          IT SERVED THE LOCAL MUNICIPALITIES INCLUDING THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS, JAILS, GOVERNMENT OFFICES, GROCERY STORES, AND ALL THE LOCAL RESTAURANTS. 
          MY FATHER STARTED BIG OWL'S SMOKEHOUSE IN 1974 AND HAS BEEN A FAMILY OWNED BUSINESS SINCE BIG AL'S IS ONE OF THE OLDEST BARBECUE RESTAURANTS IN DALLAS AND IS NOW RUN BY MY SISTER AND HER FAMILY. 
          MY PROFESSIONAL CAREER IS A BIT MULTIFACETED WITH MY PRIMARY BUSINESS, HAS BEEN STARTING AND OPERATING A LOGISTICS COMPANY, SUMMIT TRUCKING IN 1997. 
          WE PROVIDE TRUCKING AND TRANSPORTATION SERVICES AROUND THE NATION TO MANY FORTUNE 500 COMPANIES. 
          I'M AN ALSO ACTIVE AND PASSIVE INVESTOR IN REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES THROUGHOUT THE METROPLEX. 
          I HAVE BEEN BUILDING SINGLE FAMILY HOMES WITH MARK HAYES OF HAYES SIGNATURE HOMES FOR OVER 15 YEARS. 
          TO DATE, WE HAVE BUILT WELL OVER $50 MILLION WORTH OF HOMES IN THE NORTH TEXAS AREA. 
          I'M ALSO PARTNERS WITH JUSTIN SMALL OF JS SMALL INVESTMENTS. 
          OVER THE PAST 25 YEARS, WE HAVE PURCHASED AND REDEVELOPED MANY COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES IN THE NORTH TEXAS AREA. 
          MOST NOTABLY, I WAS INVOLVED IN THE REVITALIZATION OF PEGASUS PARK, A 250,000,023 ACRE, 750,000 SQUARE FOOT BIOTECH LIFE SENTENCE CAMPUS NEAR THE SPLIT OF 35 AND 180 3. 
          THAT WE ARE STILL ACTIVELY GROWING. 
          AND WHILE I'M NOT A TRADITIONAL REAL ESTATE DEVELOPER, I CERTAINLY KNOW HOW TO PARTNER WITH BEST IN CLASS PARTNERS TO BRING MEANINGFUL PROJECTS TO FRUITION. 
          THIS, TO ME, IS A LEGACY PROJECT THAT I'M EXCITED TO BE A PART OF AND PUT MY NAME ON. 
          THE REVITALIZATION OF THE AREA IS NOT ONLY IMPORTANT TO THE LOCAL RESIDENTS, BUT TO MY FAMILY AS WELL. 
          I'LL NOW PASS IT OVER TO JOHN WALKER, MY FRIEND AND BUSINESS PARTNER TO DIVE DEEPER INTO THE PROJECT. 
          THANK YOU, SIR. 
          THANK YOU BART. 
          MR. CHAIR COMMISSIONERS, UM, BART AND I, AS HE SAID, DECIDED TO PURCHASE THIS PROPERTY APPROXIMATELY TWO YEARS AGO. 
          UH, WHEN WE PURCHASED THIS PROPERTY, WE REALIZED THAT IT HAD, UH, SEVERAL MAJOR ISSUES, MOST NOTABLY ISSUES WITH ACCESS, UH, AS ONE OF THE KEY THINGS TO IT, UH, AS WELL AS JUST THE TOPOGRAPHY AND, AND THE COST TO DEVELOP IT. 
          UM, JUST OUR PRELIMINARY ESTIMATES ALONE ARE SHOWING THAT JUST TO CLEAR THE LAND AND GET IT READY TO DEVELOP FOR CONSTRUCTION, THE COST WILL BE IN THE TENS OF MILLION OF DOLLARS. 
          IN SPITE OF THIS, WE DECIDED TO PURCHASE THIS PROPERTY BECAUSE WE REALIZED IT IS A GREAT OPPORTUNITY. 
          SO AS PART OF THIS, WE INITIALLY ENGAGED A ARCHITECTURAL FIRM, UH, CALLED STUDIO ARCHITECTURE AND TALKED TO THEM ABOUT THE NUMBER OF OPTIONS THAT MAY BE AVAILABLE FOR THIS PROPERTY, UH, AND HOW TO DEAL WITH THE THINGS SUCH AS THE LIMITED INFRASTRUCTURE, THE FLOODPLAIN, AND ALL THE VEGETATION. 
          WE INITIALLY LOOKED AT SEVERAL RESIDENTIAL ONLY OPTION AND COMMERCIAL ONLY PROJECTS, BUT NONE OF THESE WE DEEMED TO BE VIABLE, AND THAT'S WHY WE ENDED UP PURSUING THE MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS THAT WE WILL BE PRESENTING TO YOU SHORTLY. 
          UM, THE CONCEPTUAL PLANS THAT WE HAVE UP THERE, AS YOU CAN SEE, WE, WE TAKE INTO ACCOUNT MANY OF THE RESTRICTIONS AND THINGS THAT WERE TALKED ABOUT EARLIER ON THE HEIGHT. 
          AND WHAT WE WILL SHOW YOU AS WE PROCEED IS THE HIGHER BUILDINGS AND THINGS ARE ALL ON THE NORTH AND ON THE WESTERN SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, SO THAT WE WOULD NOT, UM, BE IN VIOLATION OF ANY OF THE HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS CLOSE TO THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES, UM, THROUGHOUT THIS PROCESS. 
          AND MOST NOTABLY, AS THEY'VE TALKED ABOUT SIX TIMES OVER THE LAST SIX TO EIGHT WEEKS, WE'VE MET WITH THE COMMUNITY TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION, UH, THEIR WANTS, THEIR DESIRES. 
          AND THAT'S WHY WE WENT THROUGH SEVERAL ITERATIONS WITH THE DEEDS. 
          AND WE WILL CONTINUE TO TRY AND WORK WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE COMMUNITY THERE BECAUSE THEY'VE PROVEN TO BE GOOD PARTNERS WITH US AND, AND MANY OF THEM ARE VERY SUPPORTIVE OF THIS PROJECT. 
          UH, WITH THAT, I WILL PASS IT ON NOW TO SUZANNE KEDRON, WHO IS WORKING WITH US ON THIS PROJECT. 
          GOOD AFTERNOON. 
          GOOD AFTERNOON. 
          CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE DALLAS CITY PLAN COMMISSION. 
          SUZANNE KEDRON, 2323 ROSS AVENUE. 
          AS MR. WALKER TOUCHED ON, WE HAVE HAD SEVERAL MEETINGS WITH THE COMMUNITY. 
          WE HAD THREE THAT WE SET UP WITH THE, UH, COUNCIL WOMAN'S OFFICE PRIOR TO THE FIRST TIME WE CAME TO CPC. 
          AND SINCE THEN WE'VE HAD THREE MORE MEETINGS. 
          UH, THOSE MEETINGS THAT WE'VE HAD, OUR SUBSEQUENT MEETINGS HAVE BEEN MOSTLY WITH THE MARCELLUS PARK, HOA MEETING. 
          WE ALSO DID HAVE ONE, UH, MEETING IN OUR OFFICE WITH THE, A BUDDING PROPERTY OWNER THAT'S STILL CURRENTLY 
          [05:50:01]
IN OPPOSITION. 
          UM, AND WHEN WE HAD THE FIRST THREE MEETINGS AND WE MET WITH THE LARGER MARCELLUS PARK, HOA, THEN FROM THERE THEY ASSIGNED A FEW MEMBERS AND WE HAD A SMALL FOCUS GROUP MEETING. 
          WE DID A PAGE TURN ON THE USES, WHICH YOU'RE GONNA HEAR A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THAT LED TO THE BASIS OF OUR DEED RESTRICTION DOCUMENT. 
          UM, AND SINCE THEN WE'VE BEEN SOLICITING A LOT OF FEEDBACK AND, UM, I'M GONNA TURN IT OVER SOON TO VICTORIA MORRIS. 
          SHE'LL GO INTO MORE DEPTH WITH OUR DEED RESTRICTION DOCUMENT. 
          UM, AS MR. WALKER TOUCHED ON WITH THE SITE, WE HAVE SEVERAL SITE CONSTRAINTS, MOST NOTABLY THE ACCESS. 
          UM, YOU HEARD PART OF THAT WHEN, UH, MR. GUS FROM, UM, PUBLIC WORKS TALKED ABOUT THE FREEWAY FRONTAGE ROAD. 
          UM, WE ALSO HAVE SOME SIGNIFICANT FLOODPLAIN ISSUES. 
          UM, AND THEN THERE'S ALSO, UM, SIGNIFICANT TREE MITIGATION THAT WILL HAVE TO OCCUR. 
          BASICALLY, THE SITE HAS NOT BEEN DEVELOPED. 
          THERE'S A LACK OF UTILITIES, THERE'S A LACK OF INFRASTRUCTURE, AND THERE'S NOT EVEN A PLOT FOR THE PROPERTY. 
          SO, UM, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A LONG WAY TO GO BEFORE WE PUT STUFF ON THE GROUND THERE. 
          UM, WITH THAT, I'LL TURN IT OVER TO VICTORIA. 
          THANK YOU. 
          GOOD AFTERNOON. 
          HELLO AGAIN. 
          VICTORIA MORRIS, JACKSON WALKER, 2323 ROSS AVENUE, SUITE 600 IN DALLAS. 
          I'M GOING TO DIVE INTO THE SITE CONSTRAINTS A LITTLE BIT MORE, UH, THAT IMPACT THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PROPERTY. 
          THE FIRST AND PERHAPS THE BIGGEST IS ACCESS AS COMMISSIONER HALL APTLY NOTED. 
          UM, IF YOU VISIT THIS PROPERTY TODAY AND APPROACHING FROM SOUTH BECKLEY, YOU ESSENTIALLY HAVE TO TRAVERSE ACROSS A, AN OFF RAMP, A HIGHWAY OFF RAMP, ONTO AN UNDEVELOPED, UH, CONTINUATION OF SOUTH BECKLEY AVENUE. 
          PERHAPS I SAY THAT WITH A QUESTION MARK BECAUSE IT'S A DIRT ROAD. 
          UM, AND QUITE TREACHEROUS AGAIN TO, TO TRAVERSE. 
          WE HAVE WORKED, UH, WITH THE CITY OF DALLAS AND TTO IN CONCEPTUAL, UM, DESIGN OF A RECONFIGURATION OF THE ON AND OFF RAMPS, UH, TO CREATE BETTER TRAFFIC FLOW BETWEEN OVERTON AND ANN ARBOR. 
          UH, THIS AGAIN IS COORDINATION BETWEEN THE CITY OF DALLAS BECAUSE THEY OWN A PORTION OF THE RIGHT OF WAY. 
          AND THEN OF COURSE, TEXT TDOT. 
          I BELIEVE THAT THERE WERE SOME QUESTIONS REGARDING THAT CONFIGURATION DURING BRIEFING. 
          AND SO THIS IS JUST AN ILLUSTRATION TO SHOW WHAT THE EXISTING CONDITION IS AND WHAT THE PROPOSED CONDITION WOULD BE WITH SERVICE BETWEEN ANN ARBOR TO THE SOUTH OVERTON TO THE NORTH VIA A, UM, AN ACCESS ROAD. 
          AND THEN OF COURSE, THE RECONFIGURATION OF THE ON AND OFF RAMP FROM WHAT APPEARS TO BE AN X ON THE EXISTING CONDITION. 
          CONDITION TO WHAT NOW WE UNDERSTAND IS A Y AND AGAIN, FLIGHT, FLOODPLAIN AND TREE, UH, REMOVAL AND MITIGATION. 
          I THINK THAT THESE IMAGES RELATIVELY SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES, BUT AGAIN, THE COMBINED, UM, IMPACT OF ALL OF THESE CONSTRAINTS, RESULTS, AND AS JOHN SAID, UH, TENS OF MILLION, TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO RESOLVE JUST TO GET THE PROPERTY PRIMED FOR DEVELOPMENT. 
          WE HAVE WORKED HAND IN HAND WITH OUR NEIGHBORS TO PRODUCE VOLUNTEER DEED RESTRICTIONS, MEMORIALIZING THE COMMUNITY'S VISION AND DESIRE FOR THIS PROJECT. 
          WE HAVE A COPY OF OUR INITIAL DEED RESTRICTIONS IN YOUR PACKET, WHICH DID INCLUDE, UH, THE ADDITION THAT NO VEHICULAR TRAFFIC WAS TO GO THROUGH SUN VALLEY DRIVE. 
          BUT SINCE THEN, WE HAVE MADE, UH, SEVERAL UPDATES TO THE PLAN, UH, TO THE DEED RESTRICTIONS BASED ON FURTHER DISCUSSIONS ALL THE WAY UP UNTIL THIS MORNING THAT WE HAVE HAD WITH, UH, THE COMMUNITY AND WITH, UM, SOME OF YOUR COLLEAGUES. 
          SO WE HAVE, UH, AGREED TO PROHIBIT A CAR WASH AND OFFICE SHOWROOM WAREHOUSE. 
          WE HAVE PROVIDED, THOUGH I UNDERSTAND IT MAY NOT BE LEGAL, A MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA FOR A CHURCH OF 1000 SQUARE FEET. 
          A COMMERCIAL PARKING LOT OR GARAGE IS ONLY PERMITTED AS AN ACCESSORY USE. 
          WE'VE ADDED THAT A MOTOR VEHICLE FUELING STATION WITH DIESEL FUEL IS PROHIBITED. 
          WE HAVE ALSO REDUCED THE, UH, MAXIMUM DWELLING UNIT DENSITY FROM WHAT WAS IN YOUR PACKET, 100 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE, WHICH WAS BASED OFF OF THE MU TWO, UH, DENSITY REQUIREMENT TO 1,400 DWELLING UNITS TOTAL. 
          AND THIS ALSO INCLUDES SOME PHASING. 
          WITH THAT, WHAT WAS YOUR THOUGHT? IF THERE ARE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS, I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM AND WE WOULD RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, ARE THERE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS IN SUPPORT OF THIS APPLICATION THAT WOULD LIKE TO BE HEARD? YES, SIR. 
          GOOD AFTERNOON. 
          THERE'S A LITTLE MIC BUTTON THERE. 
          YES, SIR. 
          COURSE. 
          THERE WE GO. 
          PERFECT. 
          GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR AND, UH, COMMISSIONERS. 
          MY NAME IS ANDREW MOORE. 
          I'M A HOMEOWNER AT 4 2 1 0 ELKHORN TRAIL IN THE MARCELLUS PARK NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          I'M A MEMBER OF THE MARCELLUS PARK, HOA, AND I WAS ON THE FOCUS GROUP 
          [05:55:01]
THAT WHO WORKED WITH THE DEVELOPERS ON THE DEED RESTRICTIONS FOR THIS REZONING. 
          AND, UH, THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TODAY. 
          I'M, I'M PROUD OF THE WORK THAT THE FOCUS GROUP DID TO HELP SHAPE THESE DEED RESTRICTIONS. 
          I ALSO APPRECIATE THE EFFORT THE DEVELOPERS HAVE PUT INTO MEETING WITH US AND WORKING TO ADDRESS OUR CONCERNS. 
          AND OF COURSE, I WANT TO, I HAVE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE PRESIDENT OF OUR HOA, UH, MS. HOLA ALLEN, WHOSE LEADERSHIP AND DEDICATION MADE THIS ENGAGEMENT POSSIBLE. 
          UH, SHE'S THE ONE WHO CAME HERE TO CITY HALL, UH, INSISTING THAT OUR VOICES BE HEARD. 
          AND OF COURSE, I I ALSO WANNA ACKNOWLEDGE, UM, TOM FORSYTH, WHO'S BEEN, UH, WITH US EVERY STEP OF THE WAY, HAS BEEN A GREAT SOURCE OF, OF INFORMATION AND A GREAT ADVOCATE FOR OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AS WELL. 
          OVER THE COURSE OF SIX COMMUNITY MEETINGS, MY NEIGHBORS STEPPED UP AND SPOKE OUT, UM, ABOUT THEIR CONCERNS, ABOUT THEIR NEEDS, ABOUT THEIR ASPIRATIONS FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT. 
          WE HASHED OUT ISSUES RANGING FROM TRAFFIC TO DENSITY, TO HEIGHT, TO LAND USE. 
          AND WHILE NOT EVERYONE AGREED ON EVERY POINT, I THINK WE'VE COME TO A PLACE WHERE THE FRAMEWORK REFLECTS THE SHARED PRIORITIES OF OUR COMMUNITY. 
          I BELIEVE THIS REZONING WILL BRING REAL VALUE TO MARCELLUS PARK AND THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS. 
          FOR YEARS, THIS LAND HAS SAT UNUSED, OFFERING NO BENEFIT TO THE COMMUNITY. 
          DEVELOPMENT WILL CHANGE THAT. 
          IT'LL BRING MUCH NEEDED RETAIL SERVICES AND AMENITIES. 
          THINGS LIKE GROCERY STORES, HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS, RESTAURANTS, THINGS THAT WILL ENHANCE THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR EVERYONE WHO LIVES THERE. 
          THAT SAID, I, I DO HAVE TO MENTION ONE CAVEAT, AND THAT IS OF COURSE, THE DENSITY. 
          UM, WHILE I PERSONALLY CAN ACCEPT THE PROPOSED DENSITY OF 1400 SQUARE FEET, UH, MY NEIGHBORS IN THE HOA AGREED TO A MAXIMUM OF 1200 UNITS. 
          MY HOME IS ON ELK CORN TRAIL, WHICH IS SOME DISTANCE FROM THE 21 ACRES, UM, FURTHER THAN SOME OF MY NEIGHBORS WHO LIVE ON FORDHAM VANETTE OR SUN VALLEY DRIVE. 
          AND I UNDERSTAND THAT THEIR PROXIMITY MAY LEAD TO DIFFERENT CONCERNS REGARDING DENSITY AND TRAFFIC AND THAT SORT OF THING. 
          AND I DO THINK THAT THOSE CONCERNS DESERVE CONSIDERATION SPECIFICALLY AROUND DENSITY. 
          BUT IN CLOSING, I WANNA REITERATE MY SUPPORT FOR THIS REZONING. 
          I THINK IT'S A HUGE STEP FORWARD FOR OUR COMMUNITY AND I'M GRATEFUL TO EVERYONE WHO HAS WORKED SO HARD TO GET US TO THIS POINT. 
          AND, UM, I'D LIKE TO THANK THE COMMISSION FOR YOUR TIME AND THANK YOU FOR CONSIDERING THIS REZONING. 
          THANK YOU FOR JOINING US. 
          IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE YES, MA'AM. 
          GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONERS. 
          MY NAME IS STEPHANIE BEARING, I'M THE ARCHITECT ON THIS PROJECT WITH RES STUDIO ARCHITECTURE. 
          I JUST WANTED TO ADDRESS ONE COMMENT ABOUT THE DIFFERING NUMBER OF UNITS. 
          UM, COMMISSIONER FORSETH, YOU MENTIONED THIS DURING THE BRIEFING, THE 1200 THAT WAS ORIGINALLY DISCUSSED WAS A WHOLE MIXED USE PROJECT. 
          SO THERE'S OTHER USES, AND THAT'S WHY IT WAS A LOWER NUMBER. 
          THE 1600 WOULD BE IF IT WAS ALL RESIDENTIAL WITH THE BASE ZONING AS WRITTEN. 
          AND THEN THE DEED RESTRICTION IS BRINGING IT DOWN TO THE 1400. 
          SO THAT'S WHERE THOSE NUMBERS CAME FROM. 
          AND I'M HERE IF YOU GUYS HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU SO MUCH. 
          IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT'D LIKE TO BE HEARD IN SUPPORT? OKAY, WE'LL HEAR FROM OUR FOLKS IN OPPOSITION, MR. CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION. 
          DALLAS CATHERINE 2201 MAIN STREET. 
          I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'RE PARTICULARLY OPPOSED. 
          WE'RE, BUT WE THINK THIS NEEDS A LOT OF ADDITIONAL WORK. 
          UM, I WILL SAY, I DON'T THINK THAT, WHAT I HEARD WAS WE'VE WORKED HAND IN HAND WITH THE NEIGHBORS. 
          WELL, WE'RE NEIGHBORS. 
          I MEAN, WE MAY BE A COMMERCIAL NEIGHBOR, BUT YOU KNOW, WE HAVEN'T SEEN THE TDOT THING UNTIL THIS WEEK. 
          AND THE APPLICANT NEVER SENT ME THE DEED RESTRICTIONS. 
          I GOT THEM FROM A COMMISSIONER, SO I GOT, I I'VE NEVER BEEN SENT ANY, AND I GOT THE LATEST ROUND DURING THE BRIEFING. 
          SO I'D SAY THAT'S A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE AND WE'D LIKE TO REVIEW IT AND THE ON AND OFF GREAT. 
          WE REALLY WANT THE TXDOT THING TO HAPPEN, BUT THAT WOULD ALSO IMPACT OUR PROPERTY. 
          WE MAY WANT A TRAFFIC ENGINEER TO ASSESS WHAT DOES THIS HAPPEN TO US AND IS THE, IS IT GONNA BE ELEVATED? YOU KNOW, WE HAVE TWO STORY UNITS THAT ARE THERE. 
          UM, SO I THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE MORE WORK ON THAT. 
          I, YOU KNOW, WE'RE STILL A PART ON WHAT THE APPROPRIATE DENSITY IS, BUT I THINK MY BIGGEST CONCERN IS IF IT'S GONNA BE A MIXED USE DISTRICT, THEN WHY DON'T THEY MEET THE 5% REQUIREMENT INSTEAD OF, MY MATH SAYS IT'S ABOUT 1.3%. 
          THERE'S NO REAL REQUIREMENT FOR THEM TO HAVE GROCERY STORES AND THINGS. 
          I MEAN, THEY COULD JUST DO A LOT OF APARTMENTS. 
          AND THE WAY I READ THE DE RESTRICTIONS STILL, THIS IS MOSTLY A MULTI-FAMILY DEAL. 
          THAT'S FINE. 
          I'M NOT, WE'RE NOT OPPOSED TO THAT EITHER, BUT WE JUST WOULD LIKE TO HAVE SOME MORE TRANSPARENCY AROUND THAT. 
          I THINK THE OTHER THING RIGHT NOW, LIKE THE, LIKE GUS SAID, THERE MAY 
          [06:00:01]
BE SOLUTIONS AND IT'S ALL CONCEPTUAL. 
          THAT'S DIFFERENT ACCESS. 
          AND THEN THE DEED RESTRICTIONS ON GOLDEN BEAR NOW SAY THAT YOU CAN HAVE ACCESS, YOU KNOW, ONCE A TRAFFIC DONE. 
          WELL, WE, WE, YOU KNOW, THAT'S A SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE TO PD 69, UH, THAT WE'RE IN AND WE'LL REMAIN IN, YOU KNOW, UH, AND I THINK THE LAST THING I'LL TALK IS THAT, THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT THAT PD REQUIRED A LOT OR CREATED A LOT OF PROTECTIONS AROUND A PARK. 
          UM, I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT'S BEEN, YOU KNOW, COMPLETELY HANDLED. 
          I THINK WITH ADDITIONAL TIME WE'LL GET THERE AND WE'LL BE SUPPORTIVE. 
          WE SHARE THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THE TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORS, UM, IDEA OF A MIX OF USES THAT WOULD ALSO BE GOOD FOR OUR APARTMENT THAT MY CLIENT HAS COMPLETELY RENOVATED AND IS VERY NICE. 
          UM, SO, UH, THAT'S A SHARED INTEREST. 
          WE WANT THEM TO BE SUCCESSFUL. 
          WE JUST WANT ENOUGH RULES AROUND IT. 
          UM, AND THEY'VE ADDRESSED SOME OF THE THINGS. 
          NO ISSUES WITH THE USES NOW, GREAT, THEY'VE ADDRESSED THOSE THINGS, BUT TOO MANY THINGS ARE TOO OPEN-ENDED, UH, AT THIS POINT. 
          I MEAN, AND I WOULD ENCOURAGE THEM, IF THEY WANT TO OPEN GARZA, THEY SHOULD HAVE MEANINGFUL AND SUBSTANTIAL CONVERSATIONS WITH THE DALLAS SCHOOL DISTRICT. 
          A CHANGE THERE WOULD POTENTIALLY ALTER THE TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN. 
          UM, I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT, UH, I'M PRETTY SURE THAT HAS NOT HAPPENED AT THE HIGH LEVELS AT DISD. 
          SO, UM, YOU KNOW, JUST, IT WOULD BE OUT OF THE HANDS OF THE COMMISSION OF THE COUNCIL IF THESE DEED RESTRICTIONS ARE APPROVED. 
          THAT SAID, IF A TRAFFIC STUDY'S DONE WELL, I MEAN, UM, SO I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME AND ATTENTION TO THIS. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, I, I WOULD LIKE THAT. 
          IS THAT THE TIME WE RECEIVED? THE TIME IS UP, SIR. 
          THANK YOU. 
          APPRECIATE, THANK YOU. 
          NEXT SPEAKER AND OPPOSITION. 
          UH, HELLO. 
          I'M PATRICK HODGINS. 
          I AM THE OWNER OF THE TON PARK APARTMENTS. 
          I LIVE AT 71 30 PASADENA IN THE LAKEWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD AND HAVE BEEN FOR 11 YEARS. 
          I HAVE ONLY APARTMENTS FOR 12 YEARS. 
          AND AS DALLAS SAID, I HAVE A, A GREAT DEAL OF FINANCIAL REASONS WHY I'M THERE AND WHY I WANT TO CONTINUE TO STAY THERE. 
          I THINK WE'RE CLOSE ON MAKING SOMETHING WORK WITH THE DEVELOPERS THAT ADDRESSES THE DENSITY ISSUE AND ASK THAT WE CAN, UH, HAVE MORE TIME TO WORK THAT OUT. 
          AND I DO APPRECIATE ALL THE, UH, DEED RESTRICTIONS THAT THEY'VE OFFERED SO FAR. 
          I'M NOT SURE WE'RE QUITE THERE YET, BUT I'M HOPEFUL THEY'LL GET THERE. 
          THANK YOU SO MUCH. 
          IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION? PER OUR RULES? THE APPLICANT GETS A TWO MINUTE REBUTTAL. 
          GOOD AFTERNOON. 
          WE HAVE BEEN AT THIS FOR OVER A YEAR. 
          WE HAVE SAT DOWN WITH MASTER PLAN IN OUR OFFICE. 
          WE WERE HOPEFUL THOSE CONVERSATIONS WOULD GO SOMEWHERE FROM THERE. 
          THEY DECIDED TO JUST DEAL DIRECTLY WITH THE COMMISSIONER. 
          SO WE'VE DONE THE SAME. 
          UM, LAST NIGHT I GOT THIS TEXT FROM DALLAS COTHAM AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO READ IT INTO THE RECORD JUST BECAUSE I FIND IT IMPORTANT. 
          IT'D BE GOOD IF YOU JUST AGREE TO HOLD THE CASE UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL THE FIRST MEETING IN JANUARY. 
          I SUSPECT WE WOULD END UP BEING BASICALLY SUPPORTIVE. 
          I'D RATHER NOT POUND ON THE REQUEST. 
          I'M HAPPY TO DO SO, BUT IT'LL GO EASIER IF WE JUST GET IT RESOLVED. 
          WE HELD ANOTHER ACTUAL NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING TONIGHT, LIKE WITH PEOPLE THAT OWN HOMES AND NOT MISS OLAS APPROVED VENDORS. 
          IF YOU LIKE, WE CAN TALK IN THE MORNING OR LACE UP OUR BOXING GLOVES. 
          I LIKE BOTH EQUALLY. 
          SO I SAY THAT TO SAY WE WILL NOT BE THREATENED. 
          I WILL NOT BE BULLIED. 
          I WILL TAKE THIS TO YOU ALL FOR A DECISION. 
          I WILL NOT DISREGARD THE COMMITMENT WE'VE MADE TO THE COMMUNITY. 
          AND I DO NOT APPRECIATE THE WAY THAT DALLAS COTHAM HAS CHARACTERIZED OUR INTERACTIONS WITH THE COMMUNITY. 
          'CAUSE I THINK IT'S JUST NOT FAIR. 
          THIS COMMUNITY DESERVES RESPECT, IT DESERVES UNITY AND NOT FEARMONGERING AND DIVISION. 
          RESPECTFULLY. 
          WE SEEK YOUR SUPPORT. 
          THANK YOU COMMISSIONERS. 
          QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT OR THOSE IN SUPPORT APART? COMMISSIONER FORSET, UH, SUSAN OR VICTORIA, IF YOU COULD, UH, TRY TO EXPLAIN THE, THE, THE TIMELINE THAT WE'VE HAD ON THE DENSITY ISSUE. 
          I THINK THAT'S THE MAIN STICKING POINT RIGHT NOW. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, IT'S, UH, MY UNDERSTANDING WHEN Y'ALL FIRST WE STARTED DISCUSSIONS WITH YOU, UH, AND AT ONE OF THE COMMUNITY MEETINGS THAT WAS HELD AT THE FOUR OH CLIFF BUILDING. 
          AND, AND THAT QUESTION WAS ASKED, YOU HAD INDICATED THAT THERE WERE GONNA BE 1200 UNITS IN THE FACILITY AND, AND THEN WE WENT TO THE, UH, MU TWO, UH, DESIGNATION, WHICH IS A HUNDRED UNITS PER ACRE, WHICH WOULD ALLOW FOR 2000 UNITS. 
          AND, AND SO JUST TRY TO HELP EXPLAIN 
          [06:05:01]
WHERE WE'RE AT AND WHY WE SETTLED ON THE 1400. 
          ABSOLUTELY. 
          SO THE APPLICATION BEFORE YOU TODAY IS FOR A GENERAL ZONING CHANGE. 
          UH, FOR AN MU THREE DISTRICT IN THE MU THREE DISTRICT, THERE IS NO DWELLING UNIT DENSITY MAXIMUM. 
          SO WHILE WE WENT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND PRESENTED A CONCEPTUAL PLAN, UH, LIKE STEPHANIE HAD SAID, OUR REQUEST WAS, PLEASE PROVIDE US WITH THE MOST INTENSE IN TERMS OF USES SCENARIO. 
          UH, SO THAT INCLUDED OFFICE, IT INCLUDED LODGING, IT INCLUDED MULTIFAMILY, SOME TOWN HOMES, UM, AND OF COURSE RETAIL ON THE GROUND FLOOR. 
          THAT IS WHERE THE 12, TECHNICALLY IT WAS 1257 UNITS IN THAT EXACT SCENARIO. 
          BUT, BUT, BUT THAT, THAT, THAT WAS A MIXED USE ENVIRONMENT, RIGHT? WITH RETAIL OFFICE AND RESIDENTIAL, RETAIL OFFICE, RESIDENTIAL LODGING, YES. 
          A A FULL GAMUT OF, OF, UH, MIXED USE. 
          BUT, UM, AS WE ALL KNOW, ALSO, THE MARKETS CAN ABSOLUTELY SHIFT. 
          AND THE ULTIMATE REQUEST WAS NO DWELLING UNIT DENSITY. 
          WHEN WE GOT INTO THE WEEDS A BIT WITH REGARD TO WHAT THE SPECIFIC DENSITIES ARE, BECAUSE MU THREE HAD NO MAXIMUM, UM, I BELIEVE IT WAS YOUR SUGGESTION TO REDUCE IT TO THE MU TWO, WHICH WE DID A HUNDRED DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE, WHICH WAS THE MU TWO, SO THAT WE COULD ACTUALLY COMMIT TO A DENSITY MAXIMUM RATHER THAN LEAVING IT OPEN-ENDED. 
          UH, FROM THERE ADDITIONAL FEEDBACK THAT NOW BEING AT 2000 UNITS, UH, WAS NOT FEASIBLE FOR FOLKS INVOLVED. 
          AND THAT'S WHEN WE THEN TOOK A FURTHER LOOK AT IT. 
          UM, WE DID ADDITIONAL STUDIES TO REALLY LOOK AT IF OFFICE WASN'T VIABLE OR IF LODGING WASN'T VIABLE. 
          UH, WHERE, WHERE CAN WE SORT OF INFILL THOSE RESIDENTIAL UNITS THAT MAXIMUM WAS THE 1600, UH, THAT SEVEN, UH, THAT STEPHANIE HAD MENTIONED, A ADDITIONAL FEEDBACK FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          AND REALLY THE BOTTOM LINE IS 1400 DWELLING UNITS IS THE, THE BASE THAT WE CAN GO, AND THAT IS WHAT IS PART OF OUR DEED DEED RESTRICTIONS TODAY. 
          AND SO WHAT CHANGES THOUGH, BETWEEN, I MEAN, WE'RE, WE'RE STILL AT THE SAME, YOU KNOW, TYPE OF MIXED USE WITH RETAIL OFFICE AND RESIDENTIAL. 
          SO I MEAN, WHAT, WHAT CHANGES FROM, YOU KNOW, 1200 TO 1400? SURE. 
          THE, THE CONSIDERATION IS AGAIN, IF THE, IF THE OFFICE BUILDING IN THIS MIXED USE ENVIRONMENT THAT WE HAVE PROPOSED IN THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN, IF THE OFFICE IS NOT VIABLE, THEN WE'D LIKE TO BE ABLE TO FILL THAT SPACE WITH ADDITIONAL RESIDENTIAL UNITS. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, LOOKING AT YOUR, UH, EXHIBIT FOR YOUR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, UM, I DID WANT TO ASK REGARDING, UH, THE, THE TOWN HOMES THAT YOU'RE, UH, PROPOSING ON THE EASTERN END OF THE PROPERTY AND THE SOUTHERN END OF THE PROPERTY. 
          UM, UH, FROM, FROM, AND I WISH EVERYONE HAD ACCESS TO THIS PICTURE, OR IF YOU HAD A WAY OF BRINGING UP THIS PICTURE. 
          COULD YOU BRING IT UP THIS PICTURE? I AM, THANK YOU. 
          TRYING TO BRING THAT ONE UP AND I SEEM TO HAVE LOST IT IN THE DECK. 
          THANK YOU. 
          I HAVE THE, THE ALTERNATIVE VERSION WHICH I'LL DISPLAY. 
          UH, I'D REALLY APPRECIATE IT IF YOU COULD BRING UP THIS ONE. 
          OKAY. 
          JUST GIMME ONE MOMENT. 
          I KNOW YOU HAD SENT IT TO ME AS A SEPARATE PDF. 
          YES, SIR. 
          SORRY. 
          OKAY. 
          THERE WE GO. 
          SHARE THIS. 
          YES, SIR. 
          GREAT, THANK YOU. 
          OKAY, SO LOOKING AT THE, UH, THE, UH, WHAT DO YOU CALL THIS SITE, UH, DEVELOPMENT OR KIND OF A CONCEPT, RIGHT? CONCEPT PLAN? YES. 
          IT'S A CONCEPTUAL PLAN. 
          CONCEPTUAL PLAN. 
          SO, UH, THE TOWN HOMES THAT ARE IN THE, ON THE SIDE THAT ARE EAST OF, UH, THE ALICE BRANCH, BRANCH CREEK, UM, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE, UM, BASICALLY I I, I SEE THIS ROAD HERE AND IT LOOKS LIKE YOU HAVE ACCESS OFF OF GARZA ROAD, AND IT LOOKS LIKE THAT'S GONNA BE THE ONLY ACCESS TO THOSE TOWN HOMES THAT ARE IN THAT SOUTHEASTERN CORNER OF THE PROPERTY. 
          AND, AND I, I GUESS I WANTED YOU TO SQUARE THAT BECAUSE MY UNDERSTANDING 
          [06:10:01]
IS THAT, YOU KNOW, THE ORIGINAL PD 69 RESTRICTED ACCESS OFF OF GARZA ROAD, AND IT'S STILL A MATTER OF QUESTION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THERE WOULD BE ACCESS OFF OF GARS ROAD, BUT WHEN I LOOK AT YOUR CONCEPT PLAN, IT LOOKS LIKE YOU HAVE TO HAVE ACCESS OFF OF GARZA ROAD EVEN TO MAKE THAT WORK. 
          SO I'LL START FROM THE PD. 
          YES. 
          THE PD PROHIBITS ACCESS, UM, FROM SUN VALLEY DRIVE AND GARZA ROAD. 
          WHAT WE HAVE STATED IS THAT, UH, THE VEHICULAR ACCESS IN THE DEED RESTRICTIONS, VEHICULAR ACCESS ON SUN VALLEY DRIVE IS NOT PERMITTED, BUT WE WILL, UH, ALLOW, UH, CONTINUATION OF GARZA ROAD IF THERE IS A TRAFFIC STUDY. 
          SO YOU CANNOT CONTINUE GARZA, UH, OR EXCUSE ME, GOLDEN BEAR. 
          YOU CANNOT CONTINUE GOLDEN BEAR UNLESS THERE HAS BEEN A TRAFFIC STUDY PERFORMED. 
          UM, AGAIN, THIS IS JUST A CONCEPTUAL RENDERING TO JUST ILLUSTRATE THE VARIOUS ACCESS POINTS. 
          AGAIN, WITHOUT A FRONTAGE ROAD, THE PROPERTY HAS NO ACCESS IN EITHER CONDITION. 
          UM, THE PROPERTY ACTUALLY UNDER THE CURRENT ZONING IS ONLY ACCESSED VIA A DIRECT CONNECTION THROUGH THE EXISTING OVERTON PARK APARTMENTS. 
          AND I BELIEVE, UH, MR. PATRICK HODGINS HAS EXPRESSED THAT HE DOES NOT WANT THAT EITHER. 
          SO WE HAVE NO ACCESS. 
          SO BASICALLY THIS AREA THAT'S ON THE EASTERN SIDE OF ALICE BRANCH COULD NOT BE DEVELOPED UNLESS YOU HAVE ACCESS OFF GARZA ROAD. 
          I MEAN, IF, IF I LOOK AT THIS PICTURE, WELL, IT IS POSSIBLE TO CREATE A CONNECTION FROM THE, UM, FROM THE ACCESS ROAD THROUGH HEADED, UH, EAST. 
          IF WE WERE TO HAVE IT, THE ACCESS ROAD. 
          COULD YOU POINT ON THE PICTURE THERE? SURE. 
          OKAY. 
          CAN, CAN YOU ALL SEE MY MOUSE? OH, BOY. 
          WELL, OKAY. 
          I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S HELPFUL. 
          CAN YOU SEE MY MOUSE? YES, I CAN. 
          OKAY. 
          SUMMED UP OR LEFT HAND. 
          SO IF YOU WERE TO HAVE THE ACCESS ROAD AND BE ABLE TO PROVIDE ACCESS HERE OR AT ANY LENGTH OF THIS FRONTAGE AND CREATING SOME MANEUVERABILITY ACROSS HEADED EAST AND THEN, UH, TRAVERSING ACROSS THE FLOODPLAIN, WHICH THERE ARE SEVERAL INSTANCES THROUGHOUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE YOU CAN TRAVERSE THE, THE FLOODPLAIN FOR, AGAIN, VEHICULAR PEDESTRIAN ACCESS, AND THEN YOU'D BE ABLE TO LOOP DOWN, UH, INTO THESE UNITS. 
          SO ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT A BRIDGE OVER DALLAS? BECAUSE I MEANT, MY UNDERSTANDING IS I, I, I, YOU KNOW, WAS ABLE TO, THANKS TO PATRICK HODS BE ABLE TO WALK THIS TERRITORY THIS PAST WEEK. 
          AND WHEN WE WALKED ALONG THIS AREA HERE, WE WERE ON THE, THE WEST SIDE OF THE ALICE BRANCH CREEK. 
          BUT LOOKING DOWN, THERE'S LIKE A 30 FOOT DROP OFF, RIGHT? THERE'S A, A, A SIGNIFICANT DEPRESSION IN THE TOPOLOGY. 
          SO I, I GUESS I'M ASKING, ARE YOU, ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT A, A, A BRIDGE THAT'S GONNA BE GOING OVER THAT, UH, ALICE BRANCH CREEK IN ORDER TO GET TO THAT PART OF THE COMMUNITY? YES. 
          IF THAT IS WHAT'S NEEDED, THAT WOULD, THAT WOULD BE CONSTRUCTED? YES, SIR. 
          OKAY. 
          AGAIN, I THINK ALL OF THAT GOES TO THE SERIES INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT THAT NEEDS TO BE, UM, INVESTED INTO THIS PROPERTY SO THAT IT CAN BECOME A VIABLE DEVELOPMENT. 
          OKAY. 
          AND THEN, UM, I KNOW YOU ADDRESSED THIS IN THE, UH, THE LAST VERSION OF THE, UH, DEED RESTRICTIONS, BUT YOU ARE COMMITTING TO HAVING THAT PARK, UH, GOING ALONG THE, THE PATHWAY GOING ALONG THE ALICE BRANCH CREEK SO THAT NEIGHBORS CAN COME IN OFF OF SUN VALLEY AND THEN WALK ALONG THIS PATH SO THEY COULD CONNECT UP TO THE RENAISSANCE PARK ON OVER OFF OF OVERTON, RIGHT? THAT IS CORRECT. 
          SO I WILL JUST PULL UP THE SPECIFIC LANGUAGE BECAUSE I DO BELIEVE THAT, UM, STAFF HAD A, A CONCEPTUAL, UH, SUGGESTION FOR A DEED RESTRICTIONS SINCE THESE ARE VOLUNTEERED. 
          BUT YES, WE HAVE ADDED LANGUAGE THAT STATES THAT A PEDESTRIAN TRAIL WITH AN AVERAGE MINIMUM WIDTH OF EIGHT FEET AND A AND A MINIMUM LENGTH OF 700 LINEAR FEET MUST BE PROVIDED WITH CONNECTIVITY TO SUN VALLEY DRIVE, PEDESTRIAN SCALE LIGHTING THAT PROVIDES A MINIMUM MAINTAINED AVERAGE ILLUMINATION LEVEL OF 1.5 FOOT CANDLES MUST BE PROVIDED ALONG THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF THE PEDESTRIAN TRAIL. 
          AND THAT IS INCORPORATED WITH THE RESIDENTIAL PHASING. 
          AND THAT WOULD BE STARTING FROM SUN VALLEY GOING ALL THE WAY UP THROUGH THE, THE, THE ALICE BRANCH? YES, SIR. 
          PROVIDING ACCESS FROM SUN VALLEY. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU FOR, UH, ANSWERING MY QUESTIONS. 
          I DID HAVE SOME QUESTIONS FOR PATRICK. 
          UH, IF YOU DON'T MIND, WE'RE GONNA GO TO COMMISSIONER. 
          OH, I'M SORRY. 
          FORGIVE ME, FORGIVE ME. 
          I'M SORRY. 
          YES, NO PROBLEM. 
          UH, WE'LL COME TO YOU GENTLEMEN IN, IN A MINUTE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          SORRY, PATRICK, FORGIVE ME. 
          YOU'RE FINE. 
          QUICK QUESTION FOR YOU. 
          YES, SIR. 
          UH, I, I THINK I UNDERSTAND MAYBE POSSIBLY WHERE THE, THE CONFUSION ON THE DENSITY, UH, HAS, HAS COME AROUND. 
          UH, 
          [06:15:01]
I, I THINK, AS YOU KNOW, I, I DID ATTEND MULTIPLE OF THESE MEETINGS, AND I, AND JUST IN TERMS OF FULL DISCLOSURE, I LEFT AFTER THE FIRST HOUR AND 15 MINUTES OF THE LAST MEETING, AND I DID ATTEND ONE OR TWO, VIRTUALLY ONE FROM A HOTEL ROOM IN MEXICO. 
          SO I'M, I MIGHT HAVE MISSED SOME OF THE DIS DISCUSSION HERE, BUT WE APPRECIATE YOUR DEDICATION. 
          IT, IT WAS, UH, IT WAS GOOD. 
          UM, FROM MY UNDERSTANDING WHEN, WHEN WE SEE THESE KINDS OF, UH, OF RENDERINGS ON STRAIGHT ZONING CASES, AND I THINK PART, PART OF WHAT APPLICANTS ARE TRYING TO COMMUNICATE IS WHAT COULD BE THE BUILDING ENVELOPE. 
          AND FROM WHAT I UNDERSTOOD BACK THEN, AND AGAIN, YOU KNOW, UH, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, THE, THE FIRST TIME THAT THE APPLICANT HERE, YOUR CLIENT, UH, PUT A NUMBER, A MAXIMUM NUMBER, YOU KNOW, WE HAD THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF NOMAX, AND THEN WHEN YOU, YOUR CLIENT COMMITTED TO A MAXIMUM, IT WAS AT, AFTER A REQUEST TO DO THE MU TWO AT A HUNDRED UNITS PER ACRE, WHICH PUTS YOU AT 2100, ROUGHLY. 
          ROUGHLY. 
          YES, THAT'S CORRECT. 
          SO THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING. 
          THAT WAS, THAT IS WHEN YOUR CLIENT SAID, OKAY, FINE, IF WE'RE GONNA DO A MAXIMUM HERE, THAT'S THE NUMBER. 
          DID I MISUNDERSTAND THAT? NO, THAT'S CORRECT. 
          AND THEN, UH, AND THEN AFTER THE PROCESS OF, OF GOING THROUGH THE COMMUNITY, INCLUDING ONE, ONE COMMUNITY MEETING WHERE WE SAT THERE FOR I THINK AN HOUR AND A HALF AND WENT THROUGH LINE BY LINE WITH ONLY TWO PEOPLE THAT SHOWED UP, AND MS. HELEN, LOVELY, MS. HELEN WENT THROUGH EVERY SINGLE USE ONE BY ONE, AND THEN YOU WENT IN ANOTHER COMMUNITY MEETING. 
          AND AT THAT ONE, UH, WHEN YOU HAVE THE RETAIL COMPONENT, YOUR CLIENT THEN CAME BACK AND SAID, FINE, WE CAN NOW COME TO A DIFFERENT NUMBER. 
          IS, IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. 
          UM, JUST FOR FURTHER CLARIFICATION, THE, THE COMMITMENT TO A NON-RESIDENTIAL USE WAS ALSO NOT INCLUDED AS PART OF THE DEED RESTRICTION OR THE DISCUSSIONS MORE BROADLY? MU THREE ALLOWS FOR A MIXED USE PROJECT AND YOU ARE INCENTIVIZED FOR IT. 
          THAT'S WHY WE ARE PURSUING THIS ZONING DISTRICT. 
          BUT, UM, AGAIN, TECHNICALLY SPEAKING, BECAUSE IT'S GENERAL ZONING, IT COULD BE ONE OR ALL. 
          AND, UM, SO WE HAVE NOW WITH THE DWELLING UNIT DENSITY REDUCTION TO, TO WHAT WAS 1600, NOW 1400, WE HAVE FURTHER COMMITTED TO PROVIDING SPECIFIC NON-RESIDENTIAL USES AT DIFFERENT PHASES OF, UH, THE RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT. 
          AND SO, UH, IT, AS YOU KNOW, THIS BODY DOESN'T CONSIDER ECONOMICS, IT DOESN'T CONSIDER MARKET VALUES. 
          IT DOESN'T CONSIDER, YOU KNOW, IS, IS IS THIS AN AREA THAT, UH, YOU CAN DEVELOP RETAIL RISKLESS? UH, AND SO I'M, I'M CURIOUS ABOUT, UH, HOW YOU, YOU KNOW, THE CONNECTION HERE BETWEEN THE RESIDENTIAL AND THE NON-RESIDENTIAL. 
          SURE. 
          UM, IT IS CERTAINLY NOT RISKLESS, UM, BUT IT IS VIABLE. 
          AND WE HAVE, UH, DONE A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT, UM, CORPORATE STUDIES IN TERMS OF BIG RETAILERS AND WHAT THEIR DEMOGRAPHIC REQUIREMENTS ARE. 
          UH, WE HAD ONE IN PARTICULAR, AND THEIR REQUIREMENT WAS A POPULATION OF 200,000 PEOPLE WITHIN A FIVE MILE RADIUS AND A CERTAIN, UM, AVERAGE INCOME. 
          UH, SO IT, WE ARE VERY CLOSE TO BEING ABLE TO MEET THOSE THRESHOLDS. 
          AND SO IT PROVIDES AN OPPORTUNITY. 
          IT'S, AGAIN, NOT QUITE THERE, BUT WE ARE, UM, VERY CLOSE AND WE'RE PURSUING THAT OPTION WITH THESE, UH, DEED RESTRICTIONS TO BE ABLE TO COMMIT TO THAT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMM? YES. 
          COMMISSIONER HOUSER? I FOLLOW COMMISSIONER CARPENTER. 
          UM, YES. 
          UM, MS. MORRIS, YOU, I APPRECIATE THE CHAIR'S RECAP OF ALL THESE MEETINGS AND KIND OF HOW, HOW THAT LAY LAID OUT. 
          AND I COMMEND YOU ALL FOR DOING THOSE. 
          YOU'LL RECALL THAT THE, UM, PROPERTY OWNER NEXT DOOR, I BELIEVE IT'S MR. HODGES, CAME HERE TWO WEEKS AGO AND SAID THAT HE HAD NOT BEEN CONTACTED, WAS NOT ENGAGED IN ANY DIALOGUE. 
          DO YOU KNOW IF ANY OF THESE MEETINGS THAT YOU HELD THAT INVITATION WAS EXTENDED TO HIM? YES, SIR. 
          WE PERSONALLY MAILED INVITATIONS TO ALL OF THE RECIPIENTS ON THE CITY OF DALLAS' MAILING LIST. 
          IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THAT ADDRESS PERHAPS IS NOT CORRECT, BUT WE DID, AGAIN, MAKE A GOOD FAITH EFFORT TO REACH OUT TO HIM, UM, AND INVITE HIM TO THE COMMUNITY MEETINGS. 
          OKAY, THANK YOU. 
          MR. CARPENTER, I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE DEED RESTRICTION OR ONE OF ITEM 10 ON THE DEED RESTRICTION THAT, UM, HAS APPEARED IN, IN ONE OF THE LAST ITERATIONS, WHICH SAYS THAT GOLDEN BEAR WAY SHALL NOT BE EXTENDED FOR VEHICULAR ACCESS UNTIL A TRAFFIC STUDY IS PERFORMED. 
          UM, THAT WORDING TO ME SEEMS TO LACK SUBSTANTIAL MEANING, YOU KNOW, A STUDY COULD JUST BE, YOU KNOW, ONE PAGE AND YOU WOULDN'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO IMPLEMENT THE FINDINGS. 
          IS THERE, I GUESS I WOULD, IF MR. NAVAREZ IS AVAILABLE OR I GET YOUR, 
          [06:20:01]
UM, FEEDBACK AND UNTIL HE IS, UM, IS THERE A WAY TO TIGHTEN UP THAT LANGUAGE OR TO EXTEND THE COMMITMENT TO DO A, A, A TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS TO IMPLEMENT THE FINDINGS, WHATEVER? SO IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS, UH, DEED RESTRICTION IS A BIT, UM, REDUNDANT ONLY BECAUSE THE CITY OF DALLAS WILL ALREADY REQUIRE AT TIME OF PERMITTING A TRAFFIC STUDY AND, UH, IMPLEMENTATION OF ANY MITIGATION MEASURES. 
          UH, I DID SPEAK WITH DAVID ABOUT THIS BEFORE THE HEARING, AND SO THIS IS AGAIN, SORT OF REITERATING THAT CONVERSATION. 
          UM, BUT HAPPY TO HAVE HIM WEIGH IN. 
          ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. 
          ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? COMMISSIONERS, UH, COMMISSIONER WHEELER, PLEASE. 
          I, I'M LOOKING AT THE, LET ME GET BACK TO THE . 
          I'M LOOKING AT THE APPLICANT, THE, UH, OVERVIEW OF THE PROPERTY. 
          UM, UM, FIRST OF ALL, SOMEONE ARE, ARE THIS, IS THIS PROPERTY GONNA HAVE ANY, UM, AFFORDABLE HOUSING, UM, UNITS? NO, MA'AM. 
          OUR PROPOSAL IS FOR MARKET RATE HOUSING, WHICH IS AGAIN, ONE OF THE REASONS WHY WE PURSUED MU THREE OPPOSED TO DIFFERENT ZONING DISTRICTS DUE TO THE RESIDENTIAL PROXIMITY SLOPE. 
          THERE IS, UH, A LOT OF PROTECTION FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN TERMS OF HEIGHT, BUT WITH THAT ALSO COMES A LIMITATION IN TERMS OF FLOOR AREA AND WHAT YOU CAN DEVELOP. 
          HAD WE PURSUED AN MU ONE OR AN MU TWO, WE WOULD HAVE NEEDED TO UTILIZE THE MIXED INCOME, HAS MIXED INCOME HOUSING DEVELOPMENT BONUS IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE THE FAR THAT WOULD MAKE THIS PROJECT VIABLE. 
          SO THAT IS A DRIVING FACTOR BEHIND THE MU THREE IS TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE MARKET RATE HOUSING, WHICH IS, UH, A COMMENT THAT WE HAVE HEARD FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD AS WELL. 
          WHICH SIDE? SO, UM, SO THIS PARTICULAR NEIGHBORHOOD, UM, UH, I DON'T EVEN KNOW HOW TO SAY IT. 
          UM, THIS PARTICULAR NEIGHBORHOOD COULD BENEFIT NOT FROM LAW TECH, BUT FROM AFFORDABLE HOUSING, THE STUDENTS THAT GO TO THE SCHOOL. 
          HAVE THERE BEEN ANY CONTACT WITH THE INC, UH, THE TRUSTEE EVEN IN THAT AREA? UM, STOCK HIGH SCHOOL HAS A, A STRONG ALUMNI. 
          THE STUDENTS, UM, ARE, ARE VERY, UH, STUDENTS ARE VERY, UH, INVOLVED IN THE COMMUNITY AROUND IT. 
          AND IN THAT SENSE, THE REASON THAT THE SCHOOL LOOKS, THE WAY IT DOES IS BECAUSE THE STUDENTS BOYCOTTED AND SAT OUT BECAUSE OF THE SCHOOL. 
          WASN'T ANY, ANY REACH TO THE SCHOOL DISTRICT. 
          SO I, I BELIEVE THERE WERE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS IN THERE, BUT HAD WE REACHED OUT TO, UH, SOUTH OAK CLIFF HIGH SCHOOL, SOC, UH, WE HAVE NOT PERSONALLY HAD COMMUNICATIONS WITH SOUTH OAK CLIFF HIGH SCHOOL, BUT WE HAVE BEEN RELYING ON THE, THE PRESIDENT OF THE MARSALIS PARK, HOA, WHO HAS GREAT RELATIONSHIPS WITH THE HIGH SCHOOL. 
          UH, AND SHE HAS BEEN SORT OF OUR, OUR VOICE AND BACK AND FORTH WITH THEM. 
          UH, THERE HAS BEEN NO QUESTION FROM SOUTH OAKCLIFF HIGH SCHOOL ABOUT MIXED INCOME HOUSING OR, UM, ANYTHING TO THAT NATURE. 
          AND REALLY WE'RE JUST, AGAIN, RELYING ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S FEEDBACK AND WHAT THEY ARE HOPING TO SEE FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT, WHICH IS MARKET RATE HOUSING. 
          SO DID THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, DID THEY MENTION AT ANY GIVEN TIME THAT THEY HAD SPOKE WITH SOC, GOT INVOLVED WITH SOC, WITH THE PARENTS OR ANY OF THOSE THINGS WHO LIVE IN THAT AREA? YES, MA'AM. 
          I DO BELIEVE THAT, UH, MS. OLA ALLEN SPOKE WITH THE PRESIDENT, UH, EXCUSE ME, THE PRESIDENT, THE, UM, PRINCIPAL OF SOUTH, SOUTH OAK CLIFF HIGH SCHOOL. 
          UM, AND AGAIN, OUR, THROUGHOUT OUR SIX NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS, WE HAVE HAD, UH, OVER 30 ATTENDEES AT AT LEAST TWO OF THEM, PROBABLY OVER 50 ATTENDEES AT ANOTHER, TWO OF THEM, PERHAPS THREE. 
          UM, AND DURING ALL OF THOSE MEETINGS, IT INVOLVED, UH, RESIDENTS FROM THE MARAL PARK, HOA, WHICH IS IMMEDIATELY SOUTH, UM, AND IMMEDIATELY EAST OF THIS PROPERTY. 
          SO THE SURROUNDING AREAS VERY WELL AWARE OF THIS REQUEST. 
          DO YOU, DO YOU UNDERSTAND HOW IT COULD BE CAUSED FOR CONCERN BECAUSE THIS AREA, UM, HAVING MARKET RATE ONLY APARTMENTS IN THIS AREA, UM, COULD CONTRIBUTE TO GENTRIFICATION OF THIS AREA AGAIN? YES, MA'AM. 
          I UNDERSTAND. 
          WHAT WE HAVE BEEN, UH, TASKED WITH IS JUST WORKING WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THAT IS THE FEEDBACK THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAS PROVIDED US WITH. 
          AND IN AN EFFORT TO GARNER SUPPORT AND TRUST WITH THEM, WE ARE PURSUING THAT ENDEAVOR. 
          I WOULD HOPE THAT BEFORE IT GOES TO COUNCIL, IF IT IS PASSED, IF IT IS PASSED TODAY, THAT YOU ALL EFFORT TO SPEAK DIRECTLY WITH 
          [06:25:01]
THE DI , THE SCHOOL, ESPECIALLY  GOING TO BE, UM, IT'S GOING TO BE DIRECTLY AFFECTED BY THIS PROJECT. 
          UNDERSTOOD. 
          THANK YOU. 
          COMMISSIONER WHEELER. 
          ONE FOLLOW UP TO THAT. 
          UH, I, THE, THE SOC THE MEETING HEARD THE MEETING HELD AT SOC, WHICH I ATTENDED. 
          TRUSTEE JOHNSON WAS THERE, WAS HE NOT? YES, I BELIEVE SO. 
          IN FACT, DIDN'T WE BEGIN WITH HIM, UH, MAKING A STATEMENT? YES, SIR. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UH, , PLEASE GO AHEAD. 
          I ASKED THAT IT WAS LIKE THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS THE ONE WHO REACHED OUT TO HIM. 
          THAT'S ALL I WANTED. 
          DID, DID SOMEONE FROM STOCK WAS IN CONTACT AND THEY WAS SAYING I, I BELIEVE, I DON'T KNOW, MAYBE THE COUNCIL. 
          OKAY, UNDERSTOOD. 
          YEAH. 
          AND APOLOGIES IF THAT WASN'T CLEAR. 
          YES, WE HAVE HAD ACTUAL HOA MEETINGS AT SOC. 
          UM, AND I DO RECALL THAT THE TRUSTEE WAS THERE. 
          I GUESS I HAVE ALWAYS HEARD OF THEM AS PRINCIPALS. 
          I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE TRUSTEE'S PARTICULAR ROLE IS, BUT HE WAS THERE AND HE DID SPEAK AHEAD OF THE MEETING. 
          BE FAIR TO MAXIE JOHNSON. 
          HE DID NOT STAY AT THE ENTIRE MEETING. 
          HE, HE ONLY WAS THERE AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MEETING AND THEN LEFT, YOU KNOW, TO BE FAIR. 
          CORRECT. 
          BUT HE IS AWARE OF THE PRO THE PROJECT. 
          HE'S AWARE OF THE PROJECT. 
          DEFINITELY. 
          UH, MS. MORRIS, I'M BEING ADVISED THAT, UH, YOU SHOULD READ THESE DEED RESTRICTIONS THAT YOU WERE, UH, OFFERING OUT. 
          OH, READ THEM? YES, SIR. 
          READ THEM IN THE RECORD, PLEASE. 
          AND MS. MORRIS, I JUST FORWARDED YOU, UH, REVISED COPY, UM, WITH ALL OF THE CHANGES SINCE DOCKET POPULATION. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW. 
          OKAY. 
          ONE MOMENT PLEASE. 
          CAN, CAN I ASK RYAN A QUESTION? OF COURSE. 
          UH, I JUST RECEIVED, UH, AN EMAIL FROM, UH, DAVID NAVARRO, WHO THAT WENT TO, UH, DEBORAH. 
          AND, AND HE HAS A, A PROPOSED REVISION TO THE, THE LANGUAGE ON THE GOLDEN BEAR, UH, ACCESS. 
          IS THAT INCLUDED IN, IN, IN THIS LAST VERSION? ONE MOMENT. 
          SUZANNE JUST CAME UP IN MY EAR AND SAID THE SAME THING, AND WE WILL INCLUDE IT. 
          OKAY. 
          BUT PLEASE HOLD FOR A MOMENT WHILE EMAILS LOAD. 
          CAN I ASK ONE QUESTION? CAN YOU TEXT IT TO ME? I THINK SHE'S GONNA READ THEM INTO THE, THE RECORD AND THEN WE'LL GO BACK TO QUESTIONS. 
          COMMISSIONER WHEELER. 
          MY APOLOGIES. 
          RYAN, I DON'T THINK IT HAS COME THROUGH YET. 
          OH, NOPE. 
          CAN I, CAN I READ WHAT I HAVE IN MY NOTES AND THEN YOU CAN STOP ME IF, OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          SO I BELIEVE THE CHANGES TO THE DOCKET ARE TO PROHIBIT CAR WASH, PROHIBIT OFFICE, SHOWROOM WAREHOUSE, ADD MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA FOR A CHURCH IS 1000 SQUARE FEET. 
          ADD A COMMERCIAL PARKING LOT OR GARAGE IS ONLY PERMITTED AS AN ACCESSORY USE. 
          ADD THAT A MOTOR VEHICLE FUELING STATION WITH DIESEL FUEL IS PROHIBITED. 
          REVISE THE MAXIMUM DWELLING UNIT DENSITY TO STATE 1,400 DWELLING UNITS. 
          SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING. 
          AND I'M READING ALL THESE, RIGHT? YES. 
          OKAY. 
          PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A FINAL CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY THAT WOULD RESULT IN THE TOTAL NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS EXCEEDING 600 DWELLING UNITS, A BUILDING PERMIT MUST BE ISSUED FOR A MINIMUM OF 5,000 SQUARE FEET OF NON-RESIDENTIAL USES. 
          LITTLE I OR LITTLE DOUBLE I PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A FINAL CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. 
          THAT WOULD RESULT IN THE TOTAL NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS EXCEEDING 900 DWELLING UNITS. 
          ONE, A BUILDING PERMIT MUST BE ISSUED FOR A CO COMBINED MINIMUM OF 10,000 SQUARE FEET OF NON-RESIDENTIAL USES, OF WHICH A MINIMUM OF 5,000 SQUARE FEET MUST BE RETAIL AND PERSONAL SERVICE USES. 
          AND TWO, A PEDESTRIAN TRAIL WITH AN AVERAGE MINIMUM WIDTH OF EIGHT FEET. 
          AND A MA AND A MINIMUM LENGTH OF 700 LINEAR FEET MUST BE PROVIDED WITH CONNECTIVITY TO SUN VALLEY DRIVE. 
          PEDESTRIAN SCALE LIGHTING THAT PROVIDES A MINIMUM MAINTAINED AVERAGE ILLUMINATION LEVEL OF 1.5 FOOT CANDLES MUST BE PROVIDED ALONG THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF THE PEDESTRIAN TRAIL. 
          THREE LITTLE I PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A FINAL CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY THAT WOULD RESULT IN THE TOTAL NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS EXCEEDING 1,200 DWELLING 
          [06:30:01]
UNITS. 
          A BUILDING PERMIT MUST BE ISSUED FOR A COMBINED MINIMUM OF 15,000 SQUARE FEET OF NON-RESIDENTIAL USES. 
          MAXIMUM STRUCTURE HEIGHT IS 120 FEET. 
          ADD GOLDEN BEAR WAY, HANG ON. 
          GOLDEN BEAR WAY SHALL ONLY BE EXTENDED FOR VEHICULAR ACCESS, SUBJECT TO A COMPREHENSIVE ENGINEERING STUDY AT THE EXPENSE OF THE PROPERTY OWNER TO ASSESS THE POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ROAD ON LOCAL TRAFFIC PATTERN SAFETY AND INFRASTRUCTURE. 
          THE STUDY MUST DEMONSTRATE WHETHER THE PROPOSED ROAD WILL RESULT IN ADVERSE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS SUCH AS CONGESTION, INCREASED SAFETY HAZARDS, OR OTHER NEGATIVE IMPACTS ON SURROUNDING ROADWAYS AND COMMUNITIES. 
          THE STUDY MUST IDENTIFY ANY SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT IMPACTS AND RECOMMEND MITIGATION MEASURES AS DETERMINED BY CITY STANDARDS BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE ROAD. 
          ALSO, ADD, EXCEPT WHERE VEHICULAR, PEDESTRIAN OR BICYCLE ACCESS IS PROVIDED, A FENCE OR SCREENING WALL WITHIN MINIMUM HEIGHT OF EIGHT FEET SHALL BE PROVIDED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A FINAL CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR ANY USE WITHIN 100 FEET OF THE SOUTH OR EAST PROPERTY LINES. 
          AND ALSO ADD A MINIMUM SETBACK OF 100 FEET IS REQUIRED ALONG THE SOUTH AND EAST PROPERTY LINES WHERE THERE, WHEN THERE IS AN ABUTTING NON-RESIDENTIAL USE. 
          ANYBODY HAVE WATER? THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          UH, COMMISSIONER FORESITE, YOU HAVE YOUR LIGHT ON. 
          YOU HAVE. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          COMMISSIONERS. 
          ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT OR THE TEAM? QUESTIONS FOR OUR SPEAKERS IN OPPOSITION? COMMISSIONER FORAL BY COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT? YES. 
          UH, DALLAS AND, AND PATRICK. 
          THANK YOU. 
          SO AS YOU'VE HEARD THE, THE, THE DEVELOPER IS PROPOSING 1400 AS THE MAXIMUM UNITS. 
          I, I, I'D LIKE TO HEAR, YOU KNOW, HOW YOU FEEL. 
          I KNOW THAT, UH, YOU'VE INDICATED TO ME THAT YOU, YOU FELT THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, ORIGINALLY IT SHOULD ONLY BE LIKE SEVEN 90 UNITS. 
          SO I'D LIKE FOR YOU TO KIND OF GIVE YOUR VIEW ON THE DENSITY ISSUE AND WHETHER THIS IS, UH, PRACTICAL, YOU KNOW, UH, IN SUSTAINABLE WITH 1400. 
          WELL, FIRST OF ALL, IT'S NOT ON, OH, OKAY. 
          YOU KNOW, WE DIDN'T HAVE A MEETING WITH HIM UNTIL FRIDAY AND, YOU KNOW, I STILL HAVEN'T SEEN THE DEED RESTRICTIONS. 
          SO, UH, OR THE STUFF ABOUT GARZA THAT JUST READ IN, IF I, WE COULD LOOK AT THAT CORPORATE STUDY AND BE ABLE TO CORRELATE THAT AND CORROBORATE THAT, THAT THAT 1200 UNITS OR A THOUSAND UNITS MAKES A DIFFERENCE. 
          AND THEN THAT THE DEED RESTRICTIONS SAY, OKAY, FOR EVERY AT 600, YOU HAVE TO HAVE THIS MUCH RETAIL. 
          I MEAN, IT'S NOT THAT WE'RE OPPOSED TO EVEN THE 1400, IT'S THAT THEY HAVE TO HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT. 
          IT'S JUST LIKE THE HEIGHT. 
          I SEE THE ONE 20, AND IT'D BE RIGHT AT OUR TWO STORY APARTMENTS. 
          WE'RE NOT OPPOSED TO THAT IF THEY'RE REQUIRED TO HAVE STRUCTURED PARKING FOR IT, YOU KNOW, SO IF THEY WANT THE HEIGHT, THEN THEY GOTTA PROVIDE THE QUALITY. 
          WE'RE NOT AFRAID OF THE E EITHER OF THOSE THINGS. 
          WE JUST WANT PROTECTIONS IN THAT REWARD THEM FOR DOING THE RIGHT THING. 
          IF THEY DO THE RIGHT THING, THEN WE PROBABLY WOULD BE SUPPORTIVE OF THAT, BUT AT THIS POINT, IT'S JUST 1400 UNITS LARGELY TRUST US. 
          AND WE CAN DO A SMALL AMOUNT OF RETAIL. 
          LIKE I, THE ONE VERSION I SAW SAID THEY CAN HAVE A FUELING STATION IF THE GROCERY STORE IS 2,500 SQUARE FEET. 
          WELL, TRADER JOE'S IS A CLIENT. 
          THEY'RE, THEY'RE MUCH LARGER THAN THAT. 
          THAT'S NOT A REAL GROCERY STORE. 
          SO IT'S, WE'RE NOT THAT FAR AWAY, BUT WE'RE FAR ENOUGH AWAY THAT WE REMAIN MAYBE AT BEST, CAUTIOUSLY OPTIMISTIC. 
          BUT, UM, YOU KNOW, WE, WE HAVEN'T, WE HAVEN'T SEEN, WE HAVE NOT SEEN ENOUGH STUFF OVER ENOUGH PERIOD OF TIME. 
          WE'LL WORK DILIGENTLY TO REVIEW IT. 
          THEIR INTERESTS ARE NOT, NOT ALIGNED WITH OURS. 
          YOU KNOW, WE WILL BENEFIT FROM, FROM THAT. 
          BUT WE CERTAINLY, UH, WANT TO KNOW A LOT MORE ABOUT OPENING GARZA. 
          I, I GOT A TEXT MESSAGE, OR I TEXTED AN ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT WHO SAID, UM, THAT THIS IS THE FIRST TIME HEARING ABOUT IT. 
          AGAIN. 
          I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT AND WHAT WOULD NEED A LOT MORE INFORMATION? WHAT IS GOLDEN BEAR? SO I KNOW THE TRUSTEES HAVE A ROLE, AND IF WE'RE GONNA READ OFF OUR PHONES, I MEAN, JOHN LANDER SENT ME THAT TEXT. 
          I MEAN, I, I THINK THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OPENING 35 ALONG GOLDEN BEAR IS SOMETHING THE DISTRICT OUGHT TO WEIGH IN ON. 
          UM, IT'S GONNA PUT A LOT OF CARS THROUGH THERE, RIGHT? BY THE PRACTICE FIELDS AND, AND ALL THAT. 
          IT MAY BE FINE. 
          UH, BUT THAT'S LARGELY FOR, FOR, I THINK FOR, FOR THEM TO SAY. 
          SO I JUST THINK MAYBE WE COULD RETURN AND BE FULLY SUPPORTIVE. 
          IT'S NOT THE DENSITY THAT WE'RE OPPOSED TO. 
          IT'S THE QUALITY THAT WE NEED THE 
          [06:35:01]
ASSURANCE OF. 
          I MEAN, I CAN ABSOLUTELY SEE AN THING WHERE THERE'S THREE PODS OF THREE DIFFERENT PRICE POINT MULTIFAMILY THAT INTERACT AROUND, UM, UH, SOME GOOD RETAIL, MAYBE THINK LIKE PRESTON HOLLOW VILLAGE, WHERE THERE'RE THREE DIFFERENT PRICE POINTS. 
          GREAT. 
          WE'D LOVE TO SEE THAT. 
          THAT'D BE GOOD FOR OUR TENANTS. 
          BUT THERE'S NO REQUIREMENT. 
          AND THAT PICTURE, IT'S JUST A PICTURE. 
          I MEAN, IF IT WAS A PD AND A CONCEPTUAL PLAN, THEN WE MIGHT BELIEVE IT MORE, BUT AT THIS POINT, I GUESS THEY'RE JUST ASKING US TO TRUST US. 
          WE'LL TRUST THEM WHEN IT'S IN THE DEED RESTRICTIONS. 
          THAT'S WHAT THE PROCESS IS. 
          AND I JUST THINK, YOU KNOW, AS SOMEBODY WHO HAS REHABBED AGING MULTIFAMILY, THAT HAS A A, THE, IS THE LARGEST SINGLE PROPERTY OWNER, I, I THINK THAT MY CLIENT WHO HAS DEMONSTRATED THAT HE HAS REHABBED SOMETHING AND IT'S NICE HOUSING, HE DESERVES THE COURTESY OF SOME TIME BECAUSE IT IS GOING, MANY OF THESE THINGS ARE GONNA HAVE A MATERIAL IMPACT ON HIM, HOPEFULLY POSITIVELY. 
          BUT WE STILL KNOW. 
          I MEAN, AND ABSENT THAT ASSURANCE, WE NEED SOME EXTRA TIME. 
          SO, I MEAN, MAY I ALSO CLARIFY, THEY'VE HAD SIX MEETINGS. 
          I WAS NEVER NOTIFIED OF THE MEETINGS. 
          THEY MAY HAVE FOLLOWED THE LETTER OF THE LAW AND SENT IT TO AN OLD BUSINESS ADDRESS. 
          BUT YOU WE'RE RIGHT. 
          THERE WE'RE THE BIGGEST PROPERTY IN THE AREA. 
          COME KNOCK ON OUR DOOR, GIVE CREDIT TO OLA ALLEN. 
          SHE'S THE ONE WHO CAME AND KNOCKED ON MY DOOR AND TOLD ME THERE WAS A MEETING AT SOC. 
          FIRST TIME I HEARD OF IT TWO WEEKS AGO. 
          AND I KNOW ENOUGH TO HIRE SOMEBODY LIKE MASTER PLAN SO THAT WE COULD FIGURE THIS OUT TOGETHER. 
          SO WE ASK YOU FOR THE TIME TO DO THAT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          AND, AND, AND THEIR DEED RESTRICTIONS THAT THEY JUST OFFERED, THEY HAD, UH, THREE DIFFERENT LEVELS FOR, YOU KNOW, THE, THE PHASE IN, YOU KNOW, LIKE, UH, I DON'T REMEMBER EXACTLY, BUT I KNOW THAT THE FIRST LEVEL WAS LIKE, UH, YOU KNOW, 300 UNITS. 
          UH, I THINK, UH, OR, UH, YOU KNOW, IT WOULD BE FIVE. 
          WHAT? COULD YOU READ THAT AGAIN? UH, EXACTLY WHAT IT WAS FOR. 
          THE DEED RESTRICTIONS ON THE, ON THE PHASING IN IT SAYS, UH, YOU RESULT IN A TOTAL NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS, EXCEEDING 600 DWELLING UNITS OF BUILDING PERMIT MUST BE ISSUED FOR A MINIMUM OF 5,000 SQUARE FEET OF NON-RESIDENTIAL. 
          AT 900, THERE HAS TO BE 10,000 NON-RESIDENTIAL, OF WHICH 5,000 SHALL BE RETAIL AND PERSONAL SERVICE. 
          AND THEN WHEN YOU GO UP TO 1200 DWELLING UNITS, YOU HAVE A COMBINED MINIMUM OF 15,000 SQUARE FEET OF NON-RESIDENTIAL USES. 
          BUT THE ONLY REQUIREMENT FOR RETAIL AND PERSONAL SERVICE IS THAT IS TRIGGERED AT THE 900 DWELLING UNITS AND THEN IT'S 5,000 SQUARE FEET. 
          I MEAN, IT'S JUST, IT'S JUST A SMALL AMOUNT. 
          DOESN'T MEAN YOU HAVE TO HAVE COS I MEAN, IF YOU WANT TO HAVE A MEANINGFUL TRIGGER, THEY HAVE TO HAVE A CO I MEAN, THAT'S SUCH A SMALL NUMBER. 
          AND YOU SAW THIS ON, ON, I GUESS IN, IN WEST DALLAS WHERE PEOPLE BUILT THE STRUCTURE AND SOME OF THEM STILL HAVEN'T BEEN LEASED. 
          SO, UM, I KNOW COMMISSIONER CARPENTER KNOWS SOME OF THOSE. 
          I MEAN, SO IT'S JUST, IT'S NOT A GUARANTEE 15,000 OR 5,000 SQUARE FEET. 
          I MEAN, THAT'S JUST, THAT'S NOT A MIXED USE PROJECT. 
          AND THAT'S WHY THE MU STANDARD SAYS IT SHOULD BE 5% OF THE FLOOR AREA THAT I DID SOME MATH. 
          MATH. 
          AND I'M NOT GOING TO BORE YOU WITH HOW CARL AND I CAME UP WITH THOSE NUMBERS, BUT IT'S MAYBE 1% OR LESS, LIKE IF EVEN IF THEY JUST SAID, WE'LL MEET THE MU REQUIREMENTS, WELL, THEY'RE NOT MEETING THE MU REQUIREMENTS, THEY'RE WRITING THEIR OWN. 
          I KNOW 5% MAY BE TOO MUCH, BUT THEY COULD, THEY NEED TO DO MORE IF THEY'RE SELLING A MIXED USE PROJECT. 
          THE DEED RESTRICTIONS NEED TO MAKE 'EM DO IT. 
          UM, AND, AND IT SHOULD BE TIERED. 
          I MEAN, I, YOU KNOW, THEY CERTAINLY SHOULD GET SOME OF THEM FREE. 
          THE OLD PD 69 ENVISIONED THAT THERE'D BE SOME TWO STORY APARTMENTS, 300 AND SOME ODD. 
          FINE, WE'LL GIVE THEM THOSE FREE. 
          UH, BUT BEYOND THAT, THEN THEY NEED TO SORT OF PAY FOR IT WITH, UH, ANY KIND OF A MIX OF USES. 
          IT DOES NOT REALLY MATTER TO US. 
          WE, THE ONLY ONE WE DIDN'T REALLY LIKE WAS CAR WASH, UH, BECAUSE OF THE POTENTIAL FOR, FOR NOISE COMPATIBILITY. 
          UH, BUT WE'RE NOT GONNA BE PRESCRIPTIVE ABOUT WHAT THOSE USES ARE. 
          WE WANT THEM TO HAVE FLEXIBILITY. 
          WHAT WERE THE THREE LEVELS THAT Y'ALL OFFERED? UH, WE, IN YOUR PROPOSAL, I KNOW THAT YOU HAD DIFFERENT LEVELS OF DENSITY, BUT YOU, YOU HAD YOUR THREE LEVELS. 
          YOU HAD LIKE, I THINK WHAT, 15,000 SQUARE FEET TO START WITH AND THEN UP TO 50,000 RIGHT. 
          WOULD BE THE MAXIMUM REQUIREMENT. 
          YEAH. 
          AND THAT'S STILL NOT A LOT, BUT YES, THAT'D BE A GOOD START. 
          I MEAN, AND THAT'S WHY WE SHOULD BE WORKING WITH THEM AND COME UP WITH A COMPROMISE. 
          A COMPROMISE IS USUALLY WHEN BOTH SIDES ARE UNHAPPY, HAS BEEN MY EXPERIENCE DOWN HERE AT THE HORSESHOE. 
          UM, AND, UM, YOU KNOW, IT JUST NEEDS MORE WORK. 
          THE FACT THAT WE'RE DOING THIS RIGHT NOW, WE'RE MAKING THE SAUSAGE, AND YOU'RE GONNA HAVE A LONG DAY. 
          I MEAN, I'M USUALLY ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT WHERE I'M THE ONE PUSHING FOR IT. 
          BUT I CAN JUST TELL YOU, I MEAN, I STILL DON'T HAVE A SET OF THEM THAT JUST SEEMS 
          [06:40:01]
UNFAIR. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, IT'S KIND OF SURPRISE AND MAYBE I SENT A TESTY EMAIL. 
          I THINK EVERYBODY KNOWS I'M SERIOUS AND YOU KNOW, THAT PROBABLY DIDN'T SURPRISE THEM. 
          SO, UM, COMMISSIONER PORTSIDE, DO YOU HAVE A FOLLOW UP, SIR? THANK YOU. 
          COMMISSIONER KINGSTON. 
          I CALL THE QUESTION GREAT. 
          WE HAVE A QUESTION, THE SECOND MOTION AND A SECOND, ANY DISCUSSION? THERE IS NO DISCUSSION. 
          ALL PARDON ME? JUST PARDON ME. 
          SORRY. 
          UH, MS. MORRISON, WE HAVE A CORN CLEANUP ITEM PLEASE. 
          THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. 
          I UNDERSTAND THAT ONE OF THE DEED RESTRICTIONS OFFERED BY THE APPLICANT IS THAT A CHURCH IS LIMITED TO A MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA OF A THOUSAND SQUARE FEET. 
          UH, DUE TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES WITH THAT, I WOULD ASK THAT THE APPLICANT STRIKE THAT FROM THEIR OFFERED DEED RESTRICTIONS. 
          AND IF NOT, I WOULD ASK THAT ANY MOTION TO APPROVE THIS ZONING CASE WOULD REJECT THAT PART OF THE DEED RESTRICTIONS. 
          WE ARE WILLING TO ACCEPT THAT REVISION WITH A COMMENT JUST TO THE COMMISSION THAT IT WAS THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S FEEDBACK, AND THAT IS WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO DO. 
          SO, ANDREW, I HOPE THAT YOU WILL COMMUNICATE THE RESULT OF THIS AS WELL AS YOU COMMISSIONER FORSYTH. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UH, COMMISSIONER KINGSTON, MY UNDERSTANDING IS WE, WE, WE CAN'T CALL THE QUESTION TILL THERE'S A MOTION. 
          SO WE'RE STILL AT QUESTIONS FOR OPPOSITION. 
          AND NOW, IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR OUR FOLKS IN OPPOSITION? QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? OKAY, NOW WE'RE READY FOR A MOTION COMMISSIONER FORESIGHT, UH, CHAIRMAN SHAIDE, UH, IN THE MATTER OF CASE Z 2 34 DASH 1 44, I MOVE THAT WE KEEP THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AND, UH, UH, PUT THIS CASE UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL DECEMBER 5TH IN ORDER FOR THERE TO BE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR A FINAL SET OF CLEAN DEED RESTRICTIONS TO BE MADE AVAILABLE TO THE MEMBERS OF THIS BODY BEFORE WE FINALLY VOTE ON THIS. 
          AND HOPEFULLY DURING THAT TIME, IT WILL BE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR, YOU KNOW, THE FOLKS, UH, WITH THE DEVELOPER AND THEIR REPRESENTATIVE TO BE ABLE TO ADDRESS SOME OF THESE CONCERNS THAT, THAT WE'VE JUST, UH, YOU KNOW, HEARD FROM THE MASTER PLAN FOLKS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER FORT FOR YOUR MOTION. 
          COMMISSIONER CARPENTER FOR YOUR SECOND TO HOLD THE MATTER TO ADVISEMENT THAT DECEMBER 5TH. 
          ANY DISCUSSION? COMMISSIONER KINGSTON, PLEASE. 
          I'M NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO SUPPORT THE MOTION. 
          WE'VE HELD THIS CASE MORE THAN ONCE. 
          I DON'T NEED TO SEE A CLEAN SET OF THE DEED RESTRICTIONS. 
          WE'VE READ 'EM REPEATEDLY TODAY. 
          UM, FRANKLY, I'M TIRED OF WORKING CASES AT THE HORSESHOE. 
          THIS IS JUST ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF IT. 
          THIS CASE IS BEYOND READY. 
          IT'S NOT FAIR TO THE APPLICANT THAT WE JUST KEEP DRAGGING 'EM BACK DOWN HERE. 
          UM, WE NEED THE HOUSING THEY'RE OFFERING TO PUT MILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF DEVELOPMENT INTO THIS CITY. 
          I THINK IT'S TIME WE MOVE THIS CASE FORWARD. 
          SO I AM NOT WILLING TO SUPPORT THE MOTION TO HOLD THIS CASE. 
          COMMISSIONER, UH, BLAIR HARBERT. 
          COMMISSIONER BLAIR, PLEASE. 
          I TOO WILL NOT BE ABLE TO SUPPORT HOLDING THIS CASE UNTIL DECEMBER 5TH. 
          UM, WE HAVE HEARD AND YOU HAVE HEARD THAT I ALSO HAVE A CASE THAT I WE ARE MOVED. 
          WE'RE, WE'RE READING, WE'RE WE'RE READING DEED RESTRICTIONS INTO THE RECORD AS OF THIS, THIS DOCKET. 
          UM, THIS, THIS CASE IS NOT ONE. 
          AND I'VE KNOWN OF THIS CASE BEFORE. 
          COMMISSIONER FORESIGHT HAS, UM, BEEN WORKING ON, HAS BEEN A, A CITY PLANNING COMMISSIONER. 
          I'VE SPOKEN WITH THE PREVIOUS, UM, ZONING COMMISSIONER, UH, MR. ANDERSON, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, WHEN HE ORIGINALLY STARTED THIS PARTICULAR CASE. 
          AND, AND WE'VE, WE TALKED ABOUT IT AND WE WORKED ON IT. 
          UM, I UNDERSTAND THAT, THAT IN REGARDS TO, UM, THIS PD, THIS PD IS, LIKE I SAID, I WAS IN HIGH SCHOOL WHEN IT WAS WRITTEN, AND THIS AREA IS STAGNANT. 
          DEFINITELY NEEDS THE DEVELOPMENT. 
          IT NEEDS, IT NEEDS THE HOUSING MORE THAN IT NEEDS THE RETAIL. 
          UM, YOU HAVE, UH, BIG, WAS IT BIG T BIZARRE? THAT IS A STRUGGLING, 
          [06:45:01]
UM, RETAIL ESTABLISHMENT. 
          YOU HAVE WALMART THAT IS UP THERE THAT IS SURVIVING. 
          UM, IT HAS BOUTIQUES AND IT HAS E EATERIES. 
          WHAT THEY NEED, THERE IS NEW RES RESIDENTIAL HOUSING THAT SUPPORTS THIS COMMUNITY'S GROWTH AND GIVES THEM SOMETHING BETTER THAN WHERE THEY ARE. 
          UM, THEY'RE BEGINNING TO SEE THE, THE BIG MEGA MANSIONS IN THE MIDDLE OF, IF YOU, AS YOU GO DOWN BECKLEY, THE HOUSING STOCK IS SUFFERING. 
          WHY ARE WE ASKING TO PROLONG A, A GENTRIFIED COMMUNITY TO SUFFER ANY LONGER? ESPECIALLY WHEN WE HAVE A DEVELOPER WHO'S WILLING TO PUT IN MILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF INFRASTRUCTURE TREE MITIGATION AND HAS DONE EVERYTHING THAT THE RESIDENTS HAS ASKED FOR. 
          UM, ANYONE WHO'S GONE PAST THERE HAS SEEN THE ZONING SIGNS. 
          IF YOU HAVEN'T DRIVEN BY THEN, YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE SIGNS. 
          SO I I I, I I CAN'T SUPPORT IT. 
          I WOULD ASK THAT. 
          UM, WE GIVE DEVELOPMENT TO THE SOUTHERN AREA BECAUSE THE SOUTHERN AREA IS DE WE ARE DESPERATELY IN NEED. 
          THAT'S ALL I CAN SAY. 
          YOU COMMISSIONER CARPENTER? I WILL BE. 
          I OBVIOUSLY, I'M SUPPORTING THE MOTION BECAUSE I SECOND IT. 
          I DON'T THINK A TWO WEEK DELAY IS, IS, YOU KNOW, A SUBSTANTIAL, UM, ROADBLOCK TO REDEVELOPMENT IN THE SOUTHERN SECTOR. 
          I UNDERSTAND EVERYONE'S TIRED OF TALKING ABOUT THE CASE TODAY, BUT, UM, THERE HAVE BEEN A TREMENDOUS NUMBER OF CHANGES TO THESE DE RESTRICTIONS THAT HAVE GONE ON IN THE LAST WEEK. 
          AND THEY GET IMPROVED EVERY TIME. 
          I THINK WITH THE, UM, MEETINGS THAT WERE HELD WITH THE COMMUNITY, THERE WAS THE, AT LEAST THE IMPRESSION CONVEYED THAT THERE WAS GOING TO BE A, A SIGNIFICANT COMMITMENT TO, YOU KNOW, RETAIL AND PERSONAL SERVICE. 
          I DON'T THINK OUR, THE LANGUAGE HERE GETS US THERE. 
          I THINK, UM, THE DO SIDES ARE VERY CLOSE TO AGREEMENT, AND I WOULD HATE TO SEE US SACRIFICE WHAT COULD BE A BETTER MIXED USE PROJECT BY JUST OUR DESIRE TO, TO GET THIS ACROSS THE FINISH LINE TODAY. 
          COMMISSIONER WHEELER. 
          UM, I'M NOT GONNA SUPPORT THE MOTION. 
          UM, AS MUCH AS I WOULD LOVE SOME AFFORDABILITY, I ALSO KNOW THAT THE, THAT THE DEPARTMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN, THAT IS CLOSE BY HAVING BEEN CRIME, READING, MURDERS, ROBBERIES AND EVERYTHING TO BRING. 
          AND WE'VE CAN BRING IN SOMETHING THAT WILL BE VITAL, WILL HELP, UH, CREATE OPPORTUNITIES IN THIS COMMUNITY WITH THIS MIXED USE PROJECT. 
          AND IT'S TRIGGERING TDOT AND THE CITY TO DO, UM, SOME MORE ROAD WORK. 
          UM, I, I WELCOME THAT. 
          HOLDING THIS UP ON ADVISEMENT. 
          WE NEED WHERE MORE HOUSES ARE BEING BUILT AND LESS APARTMENTS, UM, IN THIS AREA. 
          UM, WE NEED MORE HOUSING. 
          UM, IT'S A VERY VITAL PART OF OAK CLIFF. 
          UM, AND WE NEED NOT THE SAME OLD TYPE OF APARTMENTS FROM THE PAST, UM, THAT THROUGH CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP. 
          SO HOWEVER, THE CRIME IS STILL THERE. 
          UM, MY, MY ONLY THING IS THAT TO, UM, ONE OF MY, THE BILLS IS TO ASK THAT THE APPLICANT ENSURE THAT THERE IS, UM, SOME TYPE OF CRIME, UH, MANAGEMENT, UH, PLAN IN PLACE. 
          UM, BECAUSE RIGHT NEAR, THAT WAS JUST A, A ROBBERY TWO WEEKS AGO IN THE APARTMENT. 
          UM, BUT I WILL SUPPORT, UM, REVITALIZING, UM, OAK CLIFF AND BRINGING NEW HOUSING STOCK TO THIS AREA. 
          COMMISSIONER . 
          THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. 
          UM, I AGREE WITH, UM, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER. 
          I DON'T THINK TWO WEEKS IS GONNA, IS GONNA KILL US HERE. 
          UM, I THINK THIS IS FUNDAMENTALLY A GOOD APPLICATION. 
          UM, JUST FOR WHATEVER REASON, A VERY LARGE PROPERTY OWNER NEXT DOOR CONTINUES TO TELL US THAT THEY JUST HAVEN'T HAD A LOT OF, UH, DIALOGUE OR NOTICE ON THIS. 
          AND THEN I THINK, UM, THE QUALITY OF THE PROJECT IS REALLY IMPORTANT. 
          I MEAN, WHAT, WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR HERE IS SOMETHING EXECUTED AT THE QUALITY LEVEL FROM OTHER PARTS OF THE EQUAL TO OTHER PARTS OF THE CITY. 
          THAT THIS IS NOT A MIXED USE LIGHT OR MIXED USE THAT'S BEEN DUMBED DOWN BECAUSE IT'S SOUTH OF 30. 
          BUT THE, THE, THERE'S, THE, THE EXPECTATION THAT IT'S THE SAME QUALITY LEVEL IS IN ANOTHER PART OF THE CITY. 
          AND SO I THINK THERE'S BEEN SOME GOOD COMMENTS IN DIRECTED THAT ISSUE, UH, EARLIER. 
          SO, UH, I'M HAPPY TO HOLD THIS FOR A COUPLE MORE WEEKS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UH, COMMISSIONER 
          [06:50:01]
HERBERT, I'LL FOLLOW YOU, SIR. 
          SO, UM, I THINK IT'S A GREAT PROJECT. 
          I KNOW THE AREA. 
          I'VE LIVED IN IT. 
          I HAVE A HOME NEARBY. 
          THE BLUE COMMU, UM, COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER IS THERE. 
          IT'S A, IT'S A NUCLEUS TO THE ENTIRE GOLDEN GATE IS ACROSS THE WAY. 
          IT IS JUST, THIS IS A PRIME LOCATION FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT. 
          UM, OVERTON HAS BEEN AWESOMELY REDEVELOPED BEFORE THAT. 
          IT WAS, IT'S STILL BAD. 
          THE BECKLEY EXIT, THE WHOLE EXIT SITUATION SHOULD BE REPAIRED. 
          AND I THINK THIS IS A GOOD WAY TO DO IT. 
          UM, DO I THINK MUCH MORE CAN BE ACCOMPLISHED IN TWO WEEKS THAN HAS BEEN? NO, I DON'T. 
          UM, I THINK WE'RE AT THE DRAWING BOARD HERE. 
          UM, IT IS WHAT IT IS. 
          THE DE RESTRICTIONS CAME FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          UM, THEY WEREN'T DEVELOPED BY THE DEVELOPER. 
          UH, THE, THE, THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAS SPOKEN. 
          THE PEOPLE OF THE COMMUNITY HAVE SPOKEN. 
          UH, THE SCHOOL TRUSTEE HAS SPOKEN. 
          UM, I, I, WE'VE HAD MEETINGS AT THE SCHOOL. 
          I JUST DON'T SEE A REASON TO CONTINUE HOLDING THE CASE. 
          UM, SO I, I WON'T BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION. 
          THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER HERBERT. 
          NOT MUCH I CAN ADD OTHER THAN I ALSO WILL RESPECTFULLY, RESPECTFULLY NOT BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION. 
          UH, LIKE COMMISSIONER BLAIR, THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN ON MY RADAR FOR A LONG, LONG, LONG TIME. 
          IT HAS GONE THROUGH MANY DIFFERENT VERSIONS, AND THEN RIGHTLY, COMMISSIONER FORESIGHT TOOK IT OVER AND TOOK IT TO THE COMMUNITY, UH, AND THAT, THAT IS WHAT WE SEE HERE TODAY. 
          THIS, THIS PROJECT IS A DIRECT RESULT OF THE INPUT FROM THE FOLKS THAT LIVE RIGHT NEXT DOOR IN MULTIPLE MEETINGS, UH, SIX MEETINGS. 
          UH, THE APPLICANT WAS MORE THAN WILLING TO MEET WITH ANYONE. 
          THEY WOULD MEET WITH ANYONE ON, ON A SEVEN 11 IF THAT'S WHAT THEY WANTED. 
          AND THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT WE SAW HERE. 
          SO I THINK THIS PROJECT IS, IS A GOOD ONE, AND I THINK IS ONE THAT IS READY TO GO TODAY. 
          UM, SO WE'LL, WE'LL TAKE A RECORD, VOTE ON, ON THE MOTION, PLEASE. 
          UH, PERSONAL, UH, POINT OF , PLEASE. 
          COMMISSIONER FORT. 
          I WOULD LIKE TO CLARIFY THE STATEMENT THAT THE TRUSTEE, THE SCHOOL TRUSTEE HAS SPOKEN. 
          MAXIE JOHNSON HAS NOT SPOKEN IN, IN FAVOR OF THIS, UH, PROJECT. 
          HE WAS NOT AT THE FULL COMMUNITY MEETING, AND HE HAS NOT SPOKEN IN FAVOR OF THIS PROJECT. 
          THAT SHOULD BE CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD. 
          LET'S TAKE A RECORD. 
          VOTE PLEASE. 
          COMMISSIONER WHEELER, DID YOU HAVE A FOLLOW UP? UH, LITERALLY RIGHT AFTER, ONCE I ASKED ABOUT THE SCHOOL, I TEXT, UH, TRUSTEE MAXEY AND, UH, THE, UM, DOMINIQUE ALEXANDER, WHO WAS AWARE OF THE PROJECT AND WAS IN SUPPORT OF THE PROJECT. 
          THEY ARE BOTH ARE VERY MUCH AWARE. 
          I DON'T KNOW WHICH, UH, SUPERINTENDENT, UM, ESPECIALLY THAT DOESN'T KNOW WHAT GOLDEN BEAR IS OR SOCK, BUT, UH, THE HEAD SUPERINTENDENT DOES KNOW WHAT THEY, WHAT GOLDEN BEAR AND SOCK IS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          COMMISSIONERS WILL NOW TAKE VOTE ON THE MOTION TO KEEP THE PUBLIC HEARING HOPE AND HOLD THE MATTER UNDER ADVISEMENT TO DECEMBER 5TH. 
          RECORD. 
          VOTE. 
          DISTRICT ONE? NO. 
          DISTRICT TWO, NO. 
          DISTRICT THREE, NO. 
          DISTRICT FOUR TO KEEP IT UNDER ADVISEMENT FOR DECEMBER 5TH? YES. 
          DISTRICT FIVE? NO. 
          DISTRICT SIX? YES. 
          DISTRICT SEVEN? NO. 
          DISTRICT EIGHT? NO. 
          DISTRICT NINE? NO. 
          DISTRICT 10? YES. 
          DISTRICT 11, VACANT. 
          DISTRICT 12. 
          NO. 
          DISTRICT 13, NO. 
          DISTRICT 14? NO. 
          AND PLACE 15? NO. 
          OKAY. 
          CAN I HAVE AN ALTERNATE MOTION COMMISSIONER, PLEASE, SIR? UM, IN THE MATTER OF CASE Z 2 3 4 DASH 1 44, I MOVE THAT WE CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING AND AND APPROVED THE STAFF FOR RECOMMENDATION FOR THIS PROJECT WITH, UH, UH, ALONG WITH THE DEED RESTRICTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN OFFERED BY THE APPLICANT AND WITH THE, UH, SPECIFIC, UH, REMOVAL OF THE REFERENCE TO A CHURCH, UH, REQUIRING A, A 1000 SQUARE FOOT LIMIT. 
          THANK YOU COMMISSIONER FOR, UH, COMMISSIONER FORSYTH. 
          JUST TO BE TOTALLY SURE, UH, THOSE WERE THE DEED RESTRICTIONS VOLUNTEERED BY THE APPLICANT AT THE HEARING TODAY. 
          IS THAT CORRECT? THE DEED RESTRICTIONS VOLUNTEERED BY THE APPLICANT TODAY WITH ALL THE CHANGES THAT HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED, INCLUDING, YOU KNOW, THE LAST MINUTE PROVISION, UH, ON THE LANGUAGE OF GOLDEN BEAR FROM MR. VARS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          COMMISSIONER FORSIGHT FOR YOUR MOTION. 
          COMMISSIONER BLAIR, FOR YOUR SECOND, UH, COMMISSIONERS. 
          WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 
          FALSE RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL, UH, WITH ADDITION OF THE DEED RESTRICTIONS AS VOLUNTEERED BY THE APPLICANT AS AND IS READ INTO THE RECORD HERE TODAY AT THE PODIUM. 
          ANY FURTHER COMMENTS? SEEING NONE. 
          ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE 
          [06:55:01]
SAY AYE. 
          A AYE. 
          THE OPPOSED MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY, UH, COMMISSIONERS, BEFORE WE TAKE A BREAK, WE, WE ARE HAVE, UH, HAVE TO TAKE ONE ITEM BEFORE, UH, ONE OF OUR COLLEAGUES HAS TO RUN. 
          LET'S DO, UH, 
          [9. 24-3581 An application for 1) a TH-3(A) Townhouse District; and 2) the termination of deed restrictions [Z167-361] on property zoned an NO(A) Neighborhood Office District, on the southeast corner of North Hampton Road and Calypso Street.]
LET'S DO NUMBER NINE. 
          WELL, YOU HAVE A CONFLICT ON THAT. 
          NUMBER NINE. 
          OKAY. 
          YEP. 
          LET THE RECORD AFFECT THAT VICE CHAIR. 
          RUBIN HAS A CONFLICT ON ITEM NUMBER NINE AND HAS STEPPED OUTTA THE CHAMBER. 
          THAT'S GONNA BE ITEM NINE. 
          CASE KC 2 3 4 DASH 1 95. 
          AN APPLICATION FOR ONE A TH THREE, A TOWNHOUSE DISTRICT AND TWO, THE TERMINATION OF D RESTRICTIONS Z 1 67 361 ON PROPERTY ZONE AT NOA NEIGHBORHOOD OFFICE DISTRICT ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF NORTHAMPTON ROAD IN CALYPSO STREET STAFF'S. 
          RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL. 
          THANK YOU, SIR. 
          IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO BE HEARD ON THIS ITEM? COMMISSIONER'S QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SEEING NONE. 
          COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, YOU HAVE A MOTION? YES. 
          IN THE MATTER OF Z 2 3 4 DASH 1 95. 
          I MOVE THAT WE KEEP THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AND PUT THIS CASE UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL FEBRUARY THE SIXTH, 2025. 
          THANK YOU COMMISSIONER CARPENTER FOR YOUR MOTION. 
          AND COMMISSIONER HAMPTON FOR YOUR SECOND. 
          ANY COMMENTS? SEEING NONE. 
          ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. 
          OPPOSED? AYES HAVE IT 
          [21. 24-3593 A City Plan Commission authorized hearing to determine the proper zoning, uses, development standards, and other appropriate regulations on properties zoned MF-2(A) Multifamily District in Jimtown area generally bounded by Franklin Street on the west, the alley north of Kingston Street on the north, a line running north/south west of the alley west of Hampton Road on the east, and Brandon Street on the south, and containing approximately 10.37acres.]
NOW. 
          LET'S MOVE TO CASE NUMBER. 
          YES, THE YES. 
          21. 
          THANK YOU. 
          CASE NUMBER 21. 
          ITEM 21 KC 180 9 DASH 2040. 
          A CITY PLAN COMMISSION AUTHORIZED HEARING TO DETERMINE THE PROPER ZONING USES, DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND OTHER APPROPRIATE REGULATIONS ON PROPERTY ZONED AT MF TWO. 
          A MULTIFAMILY DISTRICT AND JIMTOWN AREA, GENERALLY BOUNDED BY FRANKLIN STREET ON THE WEST, THE ALLEY NORTH OF KINGSTON STREET ON THE NORTH. 
          A LINE RUNNING NORTH SOUTH WEST OF THE ALLEY, WEST OF HAMPTON ROAD ON THE EAST, AND BRANDON STREET ON THE SOUTH, AND CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 10.37 ACRES. 
          STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL OF AN R SEVEN FIVE, A SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT AND ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT, A DU OVERLAY AND MF ONE, A MULTIFAMILY DISTRICT ON A PORTION. 
          THANK. 
          THANK YOU, SIR. 
          IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO BE HEARD ON THIS ITEM? GOOD EVENING. 
          GOOD EVENING. 
          THERE'S A LITTLE BUTTON THERE THAT YOU MAY HAVE TO TURN ON. 
          OH, . 
          THANK YOU, SIR. 
          EXCUSE THIS. 
          WE'VE NEVER BEEN HERE BEFORE, SO PERFECTLY FINE. 
          UM, GOOD EVENING. 
          THIS, THIS. 
          I'M, I'M VICTOR ROMO AND MY WIFE LINDA. 
          UM, JANUARY 22ND WILL BE 54 YEARS WE'VE BEEN MARRIED. 
          AND, UH, WE WERE CHILDREN WHEN WE GOT TO MARRIED. 
          AND SO HERE WE ARE. 
          WE LIVE AT 24 31 EMMETT STREET. 
          UM, WE'VE BEEN THERE SINCE 1988 AND WE'VE LIVED, UM, IN OLD CLIFF. 
          UM, ALL OUR LIVES, ALL OUR LIVES. 
          UH, WE ORIGINALLY LIVED OVER WHERE THEY CALL NOW TRINITY GROVE. 
          IT WAS KNOWN BY LAVA HALA. 
          SO, UH, WE THOUGHT WE WERE MOVING ON UP LIKE GEORGE JEFFERSON. 
          SO, YOU KNOW, EVERYTHING WAS GOOD. 
          AND NOW, UH, WE'VE SEEN PEOPLE COME, PEOPLE GO, UM, FROM OUR NEIGHBORHOODS AND, UH, ALL WE WERE REQUESTING IS THAT WE WOULD BE ABLE TO, UH, SAVE ONLY 49 HOMES. 
          THAT THAT'S THE CORRIDOR OF HAMPTON AND CLAREDON, UH, BETWEEN, 
          [07:00:02]
UH, KINGSTON AND BRANDON AND FRANKLIN AND, UM, AND, UM, BE ABLE TO PUT, UH, WHAT THEY CALL MOTHER-IN-LAW'S BACK HOUSE, WHICH I'M, I'M SURE SOME PEOPLE ALREADY HAVE 'EM, BUT , UH, AND THEN HAVE A CAP TO ON, ON TOP OF THAT. 
          SO WE COULD PROBABLY BE ASSURED THAT WE PUT ALL OUR PENSION, OUR MONEY, UH, INTO THAT. 
          AND I DON'T KNOW WHERE WE COULD MOVE SOMEWHERE APPLE FOR APPLE, UM, AND NOT HAVE, 'CAUSE WE'RE ALL ON, UH, SOCIAL SECURITY. 
          AND, UH, I STILL DO LANDSCAPING 'CAUSE MY SOCIAL SECURITY AIN'T ENOUGH. 
          SO IT'S RIDICULOUS THAT WE'RE LIVING IN THE TIMES THAT WE ARE. 
          BUT, YOU KNOW, HEY, YOU CAN'T STOP PROGRESS. 
          AND WE UNDERSTAND THAT. 
          WE'RE JUST HOPING THAT Y'ALL CAN SEE, UH, WHERE WE'RE STANDING. 
          UM, WE DON'T LIVE IN HIGHLAND PARK. 
          WE CAN'T AFFORD TO LIVE IN HIGHLAND PARK. 
          AND I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHERE WE CAN AFFORD TO LIVE IF WE CAN'T PAY THE TAXES. 
          'CAUSE, UH, COUPLE LIKE US, OUR DREAMS ARE, UH, AND I THINK I SPEAK FOR THE 49 PEOPLE, 'CAUSE UH, I THINK THREE FOURTHS OF 'EM DON'T SPEAK ENGLISH, BUT THEY ARE HOMEOWNERS AND I SPEAK ON THEIR BEHALF. 
          AND, UH, ALL THEY WANT IS SECURITY TO KNOW THAT THEY'RE NOT GONNA BUILD THREE, TWO STORY CONDOS ON ONE LOT. 
          AND, UH, WE CAN'T, OUR OUR CHILDREN CAN'T AFFORD TO LIVE THERE ANYMORE WHEN WE PASS. 
          'CAUSE OF COURSE RIGHT NOW, YOU KNOW, WE'RE 70 YEARS OLD. 
          SHE'LL BE 71 IN JANUARY. 
          SO THEY SAY OLDER WOMEN MAKE BETTER LOVERS. 
          SO THAT WAS KIND OF THE WAY I LOOKED AT WHEN WE GOT MARRIED. 
          UH, 'CAUSE SHE'S A LITTLE CONSIDERABLE. 
          I'M, I'M GONNA TURN 70 AND SHE'S GONNA BE 71. 
          AND, UH, SO, UM, WE JUST HOPE THAT, YOU KNOW, Y'ALL CAN FIND IT IN Y'ALL'S HEART TO WHERE, YOU KNOW WHAT, AT LEAST I CAN'T SAVE THE WORLD. 
          SO I, I WOULD BE CONTENT JUST TO 49 HOMES AND I WOULD MAKE ALL MY CONSTITUENTS, UH, HAPPY. 
          AND I WOULD APPRECIATE THE CPC. 
          THE GENTLEMEN, UH, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, UH, CAN SEE OUR WAY. 
          THANK YOU FOR JOINING US. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          THANK YOU. 
          AND Y'ALL HAVE A WONDERFUL EVENING. 
          THANK YOU, SIR. 
          IT'S BEEN A LONG DAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          SHE'S DIABETIC. 
          OUR OTHER CONSTITUENT HAD TO LEAVE 'CAUSE OKAY. 
          HIS SUGAR WAS GETTING BAD AND WE RAN OUTTA CANDY. 
          THANK YOU, SIR. 
          , BY THE WAY, BEFORE YOU GO, FOR SOME OF US IT'S STILL, YEAH, . 
          YES. 
          IT'LL ALWAYS BE LALA. 
          UH, GOOD EVENING. 
          UH, MY NAME IS MARY LOUPA AND I'M AT 27 0 3, UH, KINGSTON STREET. 
          AND, UM, I'M NOT IN THE 49 HOMES, BUT, UH, I AM THE PRESIDENT OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, JIMTOWN, WHERE THESE HOMES ARE. 
          AND SO I, WE STARTED FROM THE VERY BEGINNING WITH THE INITIATION OF THE AUTHORIZED HEARING, UH, BECAUSE THIS WAS VERY IMPORTANT, UM, TO OUR COMMUNITY. 
          UH, AND THESE, UH, OUR PROPERTY OWNERS IN THIS, UH, ZONING CASE WERE, UH, JUST IN FEAR BECAUSE THEY WERE ZONED MULTI, THEY ARE ZONED MULTIFAMILY UNIT TOO. 
          SO I AM SO THRILLED AND HAPPY THAT WE ARE HERE TODAY. 
          AFTER FIVE YEARS, I BELIEVE THAT WE'VE BEEN WAITING AND THANKS TO THE, UH, WCAP THAT I WAS, UH, PART OF THE TASK FORCE THAT THIS CAME TO FRUITION AND HELPED US TREMENDOUSLY, UH, TO GET THIS HERE. 
          AND I JUST WANNA THANK TO OUR, UH, WE HAD SOME OF THE BEST, UH, CITY PLANNERS THAT, UM, WERE VERY GOOD AND HELPING US, YOU KNOW, UH, UNDERSTAND A LOT OF THIS. 
          UM, BUT I JUST WANT TO, UM, JUST TO ASK THAT THIS GETS PASSED, UM, BECAUSE WE'VE WAITED SO LONG AND I STAND WITH MY, WITH MY NEIGHBORS. 
          AND, UH, WE JUST WANNA SEE, UH, THIS THROUGH. 
          I SAW SO SPEAK FOR, WE HAVE SOME OF OUR PROPERTY OWNERS THAT, THAT CAME ILL, THAT, UM, COULDN'T CO COULDN'T BE HERE. 
          UH, AND OTHERS WERE BECAUSE OF THEIR JOB OR WE HAD VARIOUS REASONS, BUT WE STOOD TOGETHER STRONG AND WE ALL UNITED WHEN WE MET AS A COMMUNITY. 
          UH, AND SO I'M HERE TO STAND AND SPEAK FOR THOSE THAT CANNOT BE HERE BECAUSE IT MEANS A LOT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU FOR JOINING US. 
          ARE THERE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM? COMMISSIONERS? ANY QUESTIONS FOR OUR SPEAKERS? QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SEEING NONE, COMMISSIONER TURNER, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION, SIR? THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. 
          UH, IN THE MATTER OF CASE Z 180 9 DASH 24 0. 
          SO I MOVE THAT WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND FILE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL OF A SEVEN R 7.5, A SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT AND ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT, A DU OVERLAY AND MF ONE, A MULTIFAMILY DISTRICT ON A PORTION. 
          THANK YOU COMMISSIONER SCHOCK FOR YOUR MOTION. 
          COMMISSIONER HOUSE. 
          STRIKE FOR YOU SECOND. 
          ANY COMMENTS? COMMISSIONER HERBERT, PLEASE, SIR. 
          Y'ALL KNOW I LIKE HISTORY. 
          UM, SO THANK YOU GUYS FOR SPEAKING. 
          I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT. 
          I'LL BE QUICK 'CAUSE WE GOT A 
          [07:05:01]
LOT TO GET TO TONIGHT. 
          UM, BUT JIMTOWN IS ONE OF THE OLDEST COMMUNITIES IN THIS CITY. 
          JIMTOWN DATES BACK TO 1870 AS ONE OF THE MOST THRIVING PARTS OF DALLAS. 
          SO PROTECTING THEM, PROTECTING THIS FAMILY, THESE 47 HOMES LEFT RIGHT, UM, IS IMPORTANT. 
          SO I WILL BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU FOR THAT. 
          COMMISSIONER. 
          COMMISSIONER OCK, PLEASE. 
          UH, JUST SOME QUICK COMMENTS AS WELL. 
          I, I, THIS IS A VERY LONG TIME COMING FOR THIS COMMUNITY. 
          THEY STARTED DIALOGUE WITH THIS CITY THAT PREDATED WOKE CAP. 
          AS MARY LOU MENTIONED OVER FIVE YEARS AGO. 
          I'D LIKE TO JUST RECOGNIZE, UH, MARY LOU AND SOME OF THE OTHER LEADERSHIP, UH, THAT WORKED SO HARD ON THIS FOR SO MANY YEARS. 
          UH, THANK YOU FOR BEING PATIENT AND, UM, THANK YOU FOR YOUR HARD WORK. 
          IT WAS MENTIONED A LITTLE BIT EARLIER TODAY IN THE BRIEFING THAT THIS WAS A DOWN ZONING. 
          I THINK TECHNICALLY IT PROBABLY QUALIFIES AS THAT, BUT I ALMOST LIKE TO THINK OF IT MORE AS A LATERAL ZONING THAT WE ARE DOWN ZONING FROM MULTIFAMILY, BUT WE'RE DOING AN A DU OVERLAY, WHICH IS SIGNIFICANT. 
          THIS IS THE FIRST ONE IN THE CITY OF DALLAS. 
          AND SO THERE'S RELEVANCE FOR ALL DISTRICTS HERE. 
          WE NOW HAVE AN A DU SHOULD THIS PASS. 
          WE HAVE AN A DU OVERLAY IN PLACE THAT WE CAN MONITOR AS A CITY AND THAT WE CAN POINT TO AND SHARE WITH OTHER COMMUNITY MEMBERS TO SHOW THEM HOW THEY FUNCTION, HOW THEY WORK, AND, AND ALSO JUST ULTIMATELY, UH, SHOW THEM THAT IT'S NOT SOMETHING TO BE AFRAID OF. 
          UH, THIS, UM, YOU KNOW, AS A LOT OF OUR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS MOVE INTO SORT OF THEIR NEXT PHASE OF DENSITY, THESE ADUS ARE A CRITICAL PIECE, UH, TO THAT PUZZLE. 
          UM, WHAT NEXT WOULD BE NEXT WOULD BE EITHER DUPLEX. 
          UM, BUT I FEEL LIKE, UH, IN LIEU OF A DUPLEX OR, OR A MULTI SMALL MULTIPLEX, I THINK THE A D OVERLAY REALLY ACHIEVES THE SAME THINGS, UM, OVER THE NEXT SEVERAL DECADES. 
          SO, UM, I HOPE YOU ALL, UH, JOIN ME IN SUPPORTING THE MOTION. 
          THANK YOU. 
          COMMISSIONER COMM. 
          COMMISSIONER CARPENTER. 
          NO, I JUST WANNA SAY I'M VERY HAPPY THAT WE ARE, UM, DOING THIS TODAY AND THAT WE MANAGED TO GET THIS PASSED AT LEAST THROUGH THIS, THIS FAR BEFORE SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES WERE MADE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          THE, THE NEIGHBORS HAVE BEEN VERY CONSISTENT THROUGH THE WHOLE WCAP PROCESS, THROUGH, THROUGH THE MEETINGS THAT TOOK PLACE, THAT LED TO WCAP AND WHAT THEY WANTED, UH, YOU KNOW, TO GET THEIR SINGLE FAMILY ZONING RESTORED. 
          AND THEY'VE BEEN VERY REASONABLE AND REALISTIC, YOU KNOW, AS, AS FAR AS WHAT'S THE APPROPRIATE TYPE OF DENSITY TO ADD TO THEIR TYPE OF NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          SO, UM, I, I THINK THIS IS SOMETHING WE CAN REALLY BE PROUD OF. 
          I'M GLAD TO SUPPORT IT. 
          THANK YOU COMMISSIONER. 
          COMMISSIONER HERBERT. 
          RIGHT REALLY QUICK. 
          JIMTOWN ROAD WAS CHANGED TORIN DEN BECAUSE CITY STAFF THOUGHT IT WAS TOO COUNTRY. 
          BYE  WITH THAT COMMISSIONER, ZALO IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. 
          AYE. 
          BE OPPOSED. 
          AYES HAVE IT. 
          UH, FIVE 14. 
          LET'S TAKE A 15 MINUTE BREAK. 
          THERE'S PIZZA IN THE BACK. 
          COMMISSIONERS OUR RECORDING COMMISSIONERS. 
          IT IS 5 31. 
          WE ARE RECORDING AND WE'RE GONNA GET BACK ON THE RECORD. 
          UH, JORGE, CAN YOU, CAN YOU LET ME KNOW WHEN COMMISSIONER CARPENTER IS ONLINE? SHE IS ONLINE. 
          OKAY, PERFECT. 
          UH, COMMISSIONERS, WE WE'RE GONNA MOVE AROUND A LITTLE BIT IN THE DOCKET. 
          UH, 
          [19. 24-3591 An application to create a new subdistrict, Lawyers Building, within the West End Historic Sign District on a property zoned CA-1(A) Central Area District with Historic Overlay No 2., on the southwest corner of Main Street and South Austin Street.]
WE'RE GONNA TAKE CASE NUMBER 19. 
          NEXT, LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT COMMISSIONER KINGSTON HAS A CONFLICT ON THIS ITEM AND HAS STEPPED OUT OF THE CHAMBER. 
          GOOD EVENING. 
          GOOD EVENING. 
          UH, MEMBERS OF THE, UH, CITY PLAN COMMISSION ASRA WITH, UH, THE SCIENCE, UH, TEAM APPLICATION, UH, UH, OR ITEM 19 IS AN APPLICATION TO CREATE A NEW SUB-DISTRICT, THE LAWYERS BUILDING WITHIN THE WEST, UH, AND HISTORIC, UH, SUB-DISTRICT ON A PROPERTY ZONE CA ONE, A CENTRAL, UH, AREA DISTRICT WITHIN THE HISTORIC OVERLAY. 
          NUMBER TWO ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF MAIN STREET AND SOUTH AUSTIN STREET. 
          STAFF. 
          RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL, THE SPECIAL ASSIGNED DISTRICT ADVISOR COMMISSION, UH, RECOMMENDED APPROVAL, UH, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS. 
          THANK YOU, SIR. 
          THE APPLICANT HERE. 
          I SEE THE APPLICANT IS HERE. 
          GOOD EVENING. 
          TELL ME IF I'M GONNA MAKE IT ANYTHING, PAUL? OKAY, THAT'S GOOD ENOUGH. 
          MR. CHAIR COMMISSIONERS VICTORIA MORRIS WITH JACKSON WALKER. 
          2323 ROSS AVENUE, SUITE 600 IN DALLAS. 
          WE ARE HERE TODAY WITH A REQUEST TO AMEND THE WEST END SPSD TO ALLOW A SUPER GRAPHIC SIGN AT 7 0 6 MAIN STREET. 
          FOR BACKGROUND, THE WEST END SPSD HAS THREE SUBDISTRICTS, ALL OF WHICH WERE ESTABLISHED TO PERMIT A SUPER GRAPHIC SIGN. 
          AND WE ARE PROPOSING 
          [07:10:01]
THE LAWYERS BUILDING SUBDISTRICT HERE IS JUST AN AERIAL OF THE PROPERTY WITH THE FACADE, UH, THE EAST FACADE, WHICH IS WHERE THE SUPER GRAPHIC SIGN WOULD BE LOCATED, UH, AGAIN, ORIENTED TO THE EAST, JUST CONTE CONTEXTUAL IMAGE FOR WHERE THE PROPERTY'S LOCATED. 
          THE PROPOSED REQUEST IS TO ALLOW A SUPER GRAPHIC SIGN SUBJECT TO THE SAME CONDITIONS THAT WERE RECENTLY APPROVED FOR THE MKT SUBDISTRICT, WHICH IS JUST NEXT DOOR. 
          THE DIMENSIONS, UH, HAVE A MINIMUM OF 10 FEET ABOVE THE GROUND, UM, AND A MINIMUM SIZE OF 1,200 SQUARE FEET AND A MAXIMUM SIZE OF 6,500 UH, SQUARE FEET. 
          PRIOR TO COMING BEFORE YOU TODAY, WE WENT TO THE DE DESIGNATION COMMITTEE, THE LANDMARK COMMISSION, AND S-S-D-A-C. 
          WE RECEIVED SUPPORT FROM THESE COMMITTEES WITH A CONDITION THAT WE MOUNT THE SIGNS, UM, IN THE MORTAR RATHER THAN IN THE BRICK IN AN EFFORT TO PRESERVE THE HISTORIC FACADES. 
          AND OF COURSE, WE ARE HAPPY TO DO SO. 
          THESE ARE ELEVATIONS OF THE SIGN JUST BLOWN UP FOR REFERENCE. 
          THIS IS SOME OF THE FASTENING DETAILS. 
          AGAIN, ONCE IT IS CONSTRUCTED, IT WILL GO THROUGH THE, UH, MORTAR RATHER THAN THE BRICK. 
          AND THE SIGN WILL BE, UH, PROVIDED, UH, FOR THE BUILDING TO PROVIDE A MUCH NEEDED REVENUE STREAM TO ENSURE THAT THE HISTORIC TREATMENT OF THE BUILDING CAN BE MAINTAINED AS IT IS IN THIS HISTORIC DISTRICT. 
          AND WITH THAT, WE WOULD RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THIS ITEM? ANYONE SPEAK IN OPPOSITION? GOOD EVENING. 
          HI, MR. CHAIR. 
          THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR, UH, TAKING THIS, UH, A LITTLE OUT OF ORDER. 
          REALLY, IT, IT REALLY HELPS. 
          UM, I'M PHILIP KINGSTON, KINGSTON CONSULTING 5 9 0 1 PAL PINTO. 
          UM, I REPRESENT THE MKT SUBDISTRICT THAT YOU ALL APPROVED IN JUNE. 
          UH, AND THAT'S WHY I'M HERE TODAY. 
          UH, I IT, I AM UPSET, FRANKLY, TO BE DOWN HERE OPPOSING A SIMILAR REQUEST FROM A NEIGHBORING, UH, BUILDING. 
          HOWEVER, THERE ARE SOME DIFFERENCES IN WHAT YOU APPROVED IN JUNE AND WHAT COUNSEL APPROVED IN AUGUST ON THE HISTORIC MKT BUILDING AND THE LAWYER'S BUILDING THAT IS PROPOSED FOR TODAY. 
          UM, THE FIRST ONE IS THAT OUR SIGN IS SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER QUALITY THAN IT WAS. 
          WHAT, WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED FOR THE LAWYERS' BUILDING? OURS WILL BE HAND PAINTED ON THE EAST WALL. 
          UM, YOU CAN SEE ACTUALLY WHEN YOU'RE THERE, YOU CAN SEE SOME GHOST ADVERTISING THAT'S UNDER SOME OLD LAYERS OF PAINT. 
          SO WE KNOW THERE WAS ADVERTISING IN THE, IN THE, IN THE HISTORIC MOMENT. 
          UH, AND YOU CAN TELL FROM THE FACADE OF THE LAWYER'S BUILDING THAT THEY NEVER HAD THAT BECAUSE THERE ARE ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES THAT ARE VESTIGIAL THAT SHOW A CONNECTION TO A BUILDING THAT'S NO LONGER THERE. 
          UM, SO WE, WE THINK IT'S THAT OURS IS MORE HISTORICALLY APPROPRIATE. 
          UH, WE THINK IT'S OF HIGHER QUALITY. 
          WE ALSO THINK THAT YOU ALL MAY REMEMBER IN JUNE WHEN I CAME HERE, I SAID BECAUSE OF THE, UH, HIGHWAY BEAUTIFICATION ACT, YOU'RE NOT GONNA GET A FLOOD OF THESE BECAUSE THERE AREN'T VERY MANY STREETS ON WHICH YOU CAN HAVE A SUPER GRAPHIC IN DALLAS, AFTER THE HBA WAS UPDATED TO INCLUDE MORE STREETS TO PROTECT IN DOWNTOWN, UH, THEY FOUND ONE OF THE OTHER ONES, BUT IT'S RIGHT NEXT TO OURS. 
          SO IN CONTRAST TO WHAT I PROMISED YOU, YOU ARE GETTING A, A PROLIFERATION, AT LEAST IN THIS AREA. 
          THE THIRD THING IS WE DON'T HAVE PARKING, WHICH WAS THE BASIS OF OUR APPLICATION. 
          WE, BECAUSE WE HAVE NO PARKING, WE'RE 100% OFFICE USE IN A HISTORIC STRUCTURE. 
          THE RENTS WE CAN CHARGE ARE A LOT LOWER THAN YOU WOULD ANTICIPATE. 
          UM, THE LAWYER'S BUILDING DOESN'T HAVE THE SAME PROBLEM BECAUSE THEY HAVE A BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP WITH THE PARKING LOT IMMEDIATELY TO THE EAST, WHICH IS WHERE I GOT THE PICTURE THAT I SENT TO ALL OF YOU IN THE EMAIL. 
          I APOLOGIZE FOR THE LENGTH OF THAT EMAIL, I DON'T LIKE TO DO THAT. 
          BUT IT, IT WAS NECESSARY TO EXPLAIN IT. 
          AND BECAUSE OF THAT BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE LAWYER'S BUILDING AND THE PARKING LOT WHERE THEY HAVE PARKING, I, I HAVE COME TO LEARN FOR THEIR BUILDING. 
          THE PARKING LOT OWNER IS REFUSING ANY ACCESS AGREEMENT TO ALLOW US TO IMPLEMENT THE SIGN THAT YOU ALL APPROVED IN JUNE. 
          SO WE'VE BEEN SITTING WITH A BLANK WALL SINCE AUGUST WHEN COUNSEL APP DID THE FINAL APPROVAL FOR OUR SUB-DISTRICT. 
          AND SO WE THINK THE APPLICATION HERE IS A MANNER OF BAD FAITH. 
          UM, IT IS, IT, THEY, WE HAVE BEEN TOLD BY THE PARKING LOT OWNER THAT THE REASON FOR THEIR OPPOSITION TO OUR ACCESS IS THAT THEY THINK IT WILL ENHANCE THE REVENUE 
          [07:15:01]
FROM THE THANK YOU. 
          YOUR TIME IS UP. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU, SIR. 
          WE'RE ON THAT THREE MINUTE RULE. 
          UH, PER OUR RULES, THE APPLICANT WILL GET A TWO MINUTE REBUTTAL. 
          OH, I'M SORRY. 
          THERE'S ANOTHER SPEAKER IN OPPOSITION. 
          REBUTTAL. 
          REBUTTAL. 
          YES. 
          WELL, IS THERE ANYONE ELSE I WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION FOR? OKAY, WE'LL GO TO REBUTTAL. 
          GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. 
          UM, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. 
          MY NAME IS AARON WATKINS. 
          I'M WITH BIG OUTDOOR, UH, ADDRESS IS 38 11 TURTLE CREEK BOULEVARD, SUITE 1200, DALLAS, TEXAS 7 5 2 1 9. 
          UM, SPEAKING TO MR. MR, SORRY, MR. KINGSTON'S COMMENT ON, UM, THE HAND PAINT ISSUE. 
          UM, WE DO, WE HAVE MANY SUPER GRAPHICS DOWNTOWN. 
          WE OFFER A LOT OF THOSE DEPENDING ON MATERIALS AND SIZE, IF IT'S A POSSIBILITY AS HAND PAINTS, WE WOULD PLAN TO ALSO OFFER THIS AS A HAND PAINT. 
          THE PROBLEM WITH THAT IS THAT THERE, AS FAR AS I'M AWARE, WE'VE HAD NO TICKERS ON HAND PAINTS. 
          IT IS A VERY, VERY EXPENSIVE PROCESS. 
          UM, IT'S TYPICALLY TWO TO THREE TIMES THE PRICE OF VINYL PRINT AND INSTALL, WHICH MAKES IT PRETTY PROHIBITIVE FOR ADVERTISERS TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT. 
          SO WHILE WE'RE HAPPY TO OFFER IT AND WE PLAN TO DO THAT, UM, IT'S NOT SOMETHING I THINK I FORESEE BRINGING IN A LOT OF REVENUE TO A BUILDING. 
          UM, SECONDLY, UM, ON ECONOMIC NEED, UM, MR. KINGSTON CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT IT IS OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT THE 7 0 1 COMMERCE OWNERSHIP OWNS THE PARKING LOT AT MARKET IN MAINE AND CAN USE THAT FOR PARKING FOR THEIR PROPERTY. 
          UM, SECONDLY, HE EXPRESSED THAT THE 7 0 6 MAIN PROPERTY HAS A BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP WITH THE EAST SIDE PARKING LOT. 
          UM, I SPOKE TO THE PROPERTY OWNER THIS MORNING. 
          HE SAID THE EXTENT OF THE BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP IS THAT HE PAYS FOR A FEW MONTHLY PARKING PASSES, AND THAT'S JUST FOR A FEW OF HIS EMPLOYEES. 
          UM, HIS BUILDING IS 7 6 7 0 6. 
          MAIN BUILDING IS IN VERY POOR CONDITION. 
          UM, TWO FLOORS ARE OCCUPIED. 
          TWO FLOORS ARE ACTUALLY COMPLETELY UNABLE TO BE, EXCUSE ME, COMPLETELY UNABLE TO BE USED BECAUSE THEY ARE IN SUCH POOR CONDITION. 
          AND THE REVENUE FROM THE SIGN WOULD GO TO REPAIRING THOSE SO THAT HE COULD GET SOME MORE INCOME IN THE PROPERTY. 
          HE SAID HIS FAMILY'S BEEN USING THE, UH, IT'S, HE'S OWNED IT. 
          HE'S AN ELDERLY MAN. 
          HIS MOTHER OWNED IT BEFORE HIM. 
          HIS PROPERTY'S BEEN LOSING MONEY ON, I MEAN, HIS FAMILY'S BEEN LOSING MONEY ON THE PROPERTY AS LONG AS HE CAN REMEMBER. 
          UM, AS FAR AS THE, UM, THANK YOU. 
          YOUR TIME IS UP. 
          OKAY, COMMISSIONER'S QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT. 
          COMMISSIONER HAMPTON. 
          THANK YOU. 
          AND I DON'T KNOW WHICH OF THE APPLICANT TEAM WANTS TO TAKE THIS, BUT COULD YOU SPEAK TO HOW THIS, UM, IS SUPPORTED BY THE PURPOSE STATEMENT WITHIN THE SIGNED DISTRICT? SURE. 
          I BELIEVE THE PURPOSE STATEMENT, UM, IS INTENDED TO, UH, FURTHER SUPPORT THE HISTORIC NATURE OF, UH, THE DISTRICT. 
          AND REALLY, UM, I THINK A VITAL PIECE OF THAT, THAT AARON WAS ALSO JUST TOUCHING ON IS THE FACT THAT THESE BUILDINGS ARE, UH, ARE LIMITED IN TERMS OF THEIR REVENUE STREAMS. UM, AND MAINTAINING A HISTORIC BUILDING IS OF COURSE A COSTLY ENDEAVOR. 
          UM, SO THE PURPOSE OF BEING ABLE TO PROVIDE A SUPER GRAPHIC SIGN ON THE FACADE IS OF COURSE REVENUE GENERATING. 
          UM, I BELIEVE, UH, AARON WAS JUST MENTIONING THAT THE, THE VACANCY IN THE BUILDING HAS FURTHER, UM, POSED A FINANCIAL ISSUE FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER. 
          AND SO BEING ABLE TO GENERATE AN ADDITIONAL REVENUE STREAM HELPS TO SUPPORT THE HISTORIC BUILDING AND THUS FURTHER SUPPORT THE PURPOSE OF THE, THE, UH, DISTRICT SO THAT IT CAN, UM, REMAIN A VIABLE HISTORIC BUILDING. 
          AND THAT WOULD THOUGH APPLY TO ALL THE BUILDINGS WITHIN THE DISTRICT? CORRECT. 
          AND WE HAVE THREE OF THESE, UM, SIGNS ALLOWED CURRENTLY. 
          AND I GUESS I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IT IN THE BROADER CONTEXT BECAUSE IT'S THE, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, THE PURPOSE STATEMENT READS IN PART AESTHETIC CONSIDERATIONS TO ENSURE THAT NEW SIGNAGES OF APPROPRIATE HISTORICAL DESIGN AND DOES NOT VISUALLY OBSCURE SIGNIFICANT ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES OR THE DISTRICT IN GENERAL. 
          AND SO I, YOU KNOW, I KNOW THERE'S PROVISIONS IN HERE THAT SPEAKING ABOUT YOUR ATTACHMENT METHODOLOGY, CLEARLY I THINK THE TYPE OF SIGN THAT'S BEING PROPOSED ISN'T HISTORIC IN AND OF ITSELF. 
          UM, CERTAINLY, YOU KNOW, THE PAINTED APPLIED SIGNS COULD BE, THERE'S OTHER CONSIDERATIONS THERE, BUT COULD YOU HELP ME AGAIN, UNDERSTAND HOW THIS WORKS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE DISTRICT? SURE. 
          UM, I THINK THERE'S A COUPLE OF CONSIDERATIONS WITH REGARD TO SUPER GRAPHIC SIGNS MORE BROADLY. 
          AND MR. KINGSTON TOUCHED ON IT AS WELL, BUT THERE ARE A LIMITED NUMBER OF LOCATIONS FOR WHERE THESE SIGNS CAN BE, UM, MOUNTED DUE TO THE HIGHWAY BEAUTIFICATION ACT. 
          SO IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT CAN GO 
          [07:20:01]
JUST ANYWHERE IN THE DISTRICT. 
          UM, THESE ARE, UH, REMOVABLE SIGNS, SO IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT PERMANENTLY ALTERS THE FACADE. 
          UM, AND THIS FACADE IN PARTICULAR HAS A COUPLE OF ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS AND WE HAVE WORKED, UM, SPECIFICALLY TO SET BACK FROM THOSE ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS SO THAT THE FACADE CAN BE PRESERVED. 
          AND COULD YOU TELL ME HOW THAT'S DEFINED IN THE CONDITIONS? BECAUSE THE ONLY THING I SAW LISTED THAT IT'S OVER OR ABOVE 10 FEET IN GRADE IN TERMS OF ITS HEIGHT, BUT I DIDN'T SEE ANY OTHER PROVISIONS OTHER THAN THE OVERALL SIZE. 
          SURE. 
          IT'S NOT, UM, I GUESS IT'S NOT PARTICULAR IN THE CONDITIONS OF THE REQUEST, BUT IT IS JUST IN FACT A, A CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENT SO THAT THE SIGN DOES NOT, IN FACT DAMAGE THE FACADE. 
          YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S SET OFF FROM THE WALL A LITTLE BIT AND IT HAS MO MOVABILITY SO THAT WHEN WIND COMES, IT'S NOT TORN. 
          UM, AND SO IT'S SET OFF FROM THE FACADE JUST ENOUGH SO THAT IT IS ABLE TO, UH, PROTECT THE ACTUAL FACADE ITSELF. 
          SO THAT'S JUST A, IT'S A DESIGN FEATURE. 
          OKAY. 
          AND THEN FINAL QUESTION, THERE'S A QUITE A RANGE AND THERE'S AGAIN, THREE OF THESE, UM, SIGN SUBDISTRICTS EXIST. 
          THIS WOULD BE THE FOURTH ONE. 
          TWO OF THEM STARTED AT 2,500 MINIMUM. 
          THE, UM, MKT IS AT 12. 
          THERE'S A CROSS OUT IN OUR DOCKET. 
          SO I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IF THERE WAS A THOUGHT PROCESS BEHIND THE SIZE THAT'S REQUESTED. 
          YES, MA'AM. 
          MAY I DEFER TO OSCAR BECAUSE I BELIEVE, WELL, I CAN TRY TO COVER IT, BUT I BELIEVE THAT THERE'S A, UH, A CAVEAT IN THE, UH, HIGHWAY BEAUTIFICATION ACT THAT IF, UH, IF THE INTERPRETATION OF THE ACT IS TO SOMEHOW CHANGE THAT THE SIGN WOULD STILL BE PERMITTED UNDER A, A REDUCED SIZE. 
          OKAY. 
          I CAN ASK STAFF THAT QUESTION. 
          UM, AND FINAL, UM, ITEM, THE SUPER GRAPHIC SIGN IN TERMS OF ITS, UM, GRAPHIC AND TEXT COMPONENTS, THE TWO, UM, WHAT I'M GONNA CALL EARLIER DISTRICTS. 
          UM, WERE 80% NONT TEXTUAL, 20% TEXT. 
          THE MOST RECENT ONE WAS 70 30, YOURS IS NOW 70 30. 
          WAS THERE A DIFFERENCE IN, IN HOW YOU GUYS ARE APPROACHING THE TYPE OF MESSAGING YOU'RE INTENDED? AND I'M NOT COMMENTING ON WHAT THE MESSAGING MAY BE THAT IS OUTSIDE OF OUR PURVIEW? UH, NO MA'AM. 
          WE WERE REALLY JUST FOLLOWING THE, THE MOST RECENT ITERATION OF A SUPER GRAPHIC SIGN IN THAT SUBDISTRICT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? COMMISSIONERS QUESTIONS FOR OUR SPEAKER IN OPPOSITION? VICE CHAIR RUBIN, JUST ONE BRIEF QUESTION FOR MR. KINGSON. 
          SO IT'S YOUR CLIENT'S INTENT TO DO A HAND-PAINTED SIGN, RIGHT? YES, SIR. 
          BUT THE ORDINANCE THAT YOU PROPOSED AND GOT PASSED ON BEHALF OF YOUR CLIENT ALLOWS YOUR CLIENT TO DO OTHER TYPES OF SIGNS LIKE VITAL. 
          AND SO IT DOES HAVE THOSE OPTIONS, RIGHT? IT DOES HAVE THOSE OPTIONS. 
          THEY WERE, UH, DRAFTED BY STAFF, FRANKLY. 
          OKAY. 
          AND YOU DIDN'T ASK TO HAVE THOSE REMOVED? PARDON ME? AND, AND YOU WERE FINE WITH HAVING THOSE IN THE, THE ORDINANCE? YEAH, WE'RE, WE'RE FINE WITH HAVING ME IN THE ORDINANCE, BUT WE VERY MUCH DISAGREE THAT HAND-PAINTED SIGNS ARE ECONOMICALLY LESS FEASIBLE THAN VINYL. 
          THE REASON WE'RE DOING IT IS BECAUSE WE HAVE ADVERTISERS WHO WANT IT. 
          SO IT, THIS IS, I MEAN, THIS IS A SITUATION WHERE, UM, WE SEEM TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO DO IT. 
          WE DON'T KNOW WHY OTHER PEOPLE CAN'T. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          YOU'RE WELCOME. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER SLEEPER, PLEASE. 
          MR. KINGSTON, YOU, YOU PROBABLY SAID THIS EARLIER AND IT'S LATE IN THE DAY, SO I, I MAY HAVE DISMISSED IT, BUT, UM, IS THERE AN ISSUE HERE WITH THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE PROPOSED SIGN AND THAT IT WOULD BE BLOCKING YOUR CLIENT'S ABILITY TO UTILIZE THE SIDE OF THEIR BUILDING FOR SIGN IT? IT'S NOT THAT THE LAWYER'S BUILDING PROPOSED SIGN DOES ANYTHING TO BLOCK US FROM DOING ANYTHING. 
          THE ISSUE IS THAT THE NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR WHO HAS THE BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP WITH THE LAWYER'S BUILDING, WHICH FORGIVE ME, I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS, EXCEPT THAT THEY HAVE TOLD US THAT THE REASON THEY'RE OPPOSING US HAVING ACCESS IS TO BENEFIT THE LAWYER'S BUILDING. 
          SO HOW THAT CAME TO BE, I DON'T KNOW. 
          I'M NOT PRIVY TO THAT. 
          I'M JUST TELLING YOU WHAT THE PARKING LOT OWNER TOLD ME. 
          AND THE REALLY WILD THING IS, IS THE PARKING LOT IS FIRST, IS UNDER CONTRACT FOR A CLOSING AT THE END OF FEBRUARY AS PART OF THE BANK OF AMERICA SALE. 
          SO WHY THEY WOULD CARE, I REALLY DON'T KNOW. 
          AND BELIEVE ME, I DON'T ENJOY BEING DOWN HERE, UH, OPPOSING A CASE THAT MS. MORRIS AND MS. KEDRON ARE, UH, BRINGING TO YOU. 
          IT'S NOT A COMFORTABLE THING FOR ME. 
          I MEAN, HAVE YOU SEEN SUZANNE'S SHOES? THEY GOT SPIKES ON 
          [07:25:01]
'EM, . 
          UM, SO I, WE WOULD LOVE, WE'VE BEEN TOLD REPEATEDLY BY, UM, UH, BIG OUTDOOR TEXAS, UH, WHICH IS HAS A GREAT REPUTATION BY, UM, THE BUYER OF THE, THE LOT, WHICH IS MIKE HOOCH, UM, BY JACKSON WALKER, THAT THIS WOULD BE WORKED OUT, BUT IT HAS NOT BEEN WORKED OUT. 
          AND SO WE HAVE VERY LITTLE CHOICE BUT TO DO EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE DOING. 
          DO I SUSPECT THAT IF, YOU KNOW, HOWEVER THIS COMES OUT, THERE WILL BE FURTHER DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN HERE AND COUNSEL? A HUNDRED PERCENT. 
          I WOULD LOVE TO GET ON THE SAME PAGE, BUT AS OF TODAY, WHAT I'VE GOT IS SOMEBODY FOR NON-ECONOMIC REASONS OR ECONOMIC REASONS THAT DON'T INVOLVE US BLOCKING US FROM GETTING TO THE EDGE OF OUR BUILDING, WHICH THEY'VE ALLOWED US TO DO IN THE PAST, WHICH YOU CAN TELL BY THE FRESH PAINT ON THE WALL, . 
          I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S DIFFERENT NOW. 
          THANK YOU, COMMERS. 
          ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? COMMISSIONER HAMPTON? YOU KEEP FORGETTING ME. 
          OH, MY APOLOGIES. 
          . 
          COMMISSIONER WHEELER. 
          I'M, I'M WEARING MY GLASSES, SO YOU'RE LIKE HALF AN INCH BIG ON MY SCREEN. 
          MY APOLOGIES. 
          PLEASE, . 
          I KNOW, I'M, I'M GONE OFF . 
          SO I NEED TO ASK, I GUESS, UH, UM, MR. KINGSTON. 
          YES, COMMISSIONER. 
          SO ARE, ARE, ARE YOU ASKING US TO HOLD IT OR DENY IT? BECAUSE THEY WON'T ALLOW ACCESS AND IF THEY ALLOW ACCESS, YOU WILL BE ABLE TO GET BEHIND IT. 
          UH, I THINK OUR CONCERNS ARE MULTIFOLD, BUT I THINK IF WE WERE ABLE TO GET TO AN AGREEMENT THAT ALLOWED US TO PUT UP OUR SIGN, IT'S MUCH EASIER FOR US TO AT LEAST NOT OPPOSE THEM. 
          UM, AND I DON'T MEAN TO BE MELY MOUTHED IN MY RESPONSE, BUT I HAVEN'T CLEARED THAT WITH THE CLIENT. 
          WE, I DID CLEAR THAT IF YOU ALL WERE TO HOLD IT, WE WOULD BE VERY HAPPY WITH THAT AS WELL, BECAUSE I DO BELIEVE THESE, UH, APPLICANTS AND THEIR, THEIR, UH, REPRESENTATIVES THAT THEY DO INTEND TO WORK IT OUT. 
          I JUST, I WANNA BE ABLE TO DO THAT BEFORE I HAVE A PIECE OF PAPER THAT SAYS THEY GET ASSIGNED AND WE DON'T. 
          IF THAT MAKES SENSE. 
          SO DO YOU, DO, DO YOU, DO YOU THINK THIS IS PROBABLY BETTER SUITED FOR A CIVIL INSTEAD OF IN THIS PARTICULAR, UH, BEFORE THE COMMISSION? BECAUSE IT'S, IT'S FOR VITAL REASON THAT YOU'RE ASKING. 
          IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S MORE CIVIL THAN, UM, AND OUT OF OUR PE DADDY. 
          UM, FOR US, THE ONLY REASON FOR ME, WHAT I'M SEEING IS, IS BECAUSE THERE'S A DISPUTE BETWEEN TWO PROPERTY OWNERS AND, AND THAT SHOULD BE HANDLED CIVILLY AND NOT BEFORE US. 
          WELL, COMMISSIONER WHEELER, I'M SURE YOU'RE AWARE THAT IF IF THERE'S A, A SOLUTION THAT CAN BE HAD IN CIVIL COURT, I WILL FIND IT. 
          UM, BUT NO, I THINK THAT IT IS VERY APPROPRIATE TO LOOK AT THE, THE PURPOSES OF THE DISTRICT, THE IMPACT ON THE GROUND OF PROLIFERATION IN THIS AREA, AND THE RELATIVE QUALITY OF WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED AND MAKE A LAND USE DECISION. 
          THAT'S WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR TODAY. 
          IF THAT DECISION IS DELAY IT AND FIGURE OUT HOW TO LIVE TOGETHER, UM, YEAH, WE ARE, WE ARE IN FOR THAT. 
          I'M DONE. 
          OKAY. 
          I HAVE A FOLLOW UP FOR YOU, UH, MR. KINGSTON. 
          YES, SIR. 
          SO AS, AS COMMISSIONER SLEEPER SAID, IT IS LATE IN THE DAY AND YOU KNOW, WE HAD OUR PIZZA, SO WE'RE GONNA TAKE A LITTLE, MAYBE TAKE A STEP BACK. 
          , AND YOUR EMAIL WAS VERY HELPFUL. 
          UM, WE, WE DON'T TEND TO GET THESE KINDS OF CASES WITH, WHICH SEEMS TO BE A BIT OF A COMPLEX RELATIONSHIP THERE IN THE BACKGROUND. 
          SO I'M HOPING MAY, LET'S TAKE ONE STEP BACK AND YOU CAN WALK US THROUGH AGAIN HERE AT ALMOST SIX O'CLOCK. 
          SET THE TABLE FOR US EXACTLY ABOUT THE, THE RELATIONSHIPS HERE, WHAT WE HAVE AND WHAT SEEMS TO BE SOME, SOME CONFLICT. 
          WELL, THE, THE RELATIONSHIPS, MR. CHAIR ARE, I ONLY CAN SEE DARKLY THROUGH A GLASS BECAUSE IT'S WHAT'S BEEN TOLD TO ME BY THE OWNER OF THE PARKING LOT, WHICH IS THAT THEY ORDINARILY WOULD ALLOW US ACCESS, WHICH THEY HAVE IN THE PAST FOR PAINTING, FOR INSTANCE, BUT THEY'RE NOT DOING IT THIS TIME BECAUSE THEY THINK THAT IT WILL ENHANCE THE VALUE OF THE ADVERTISING ON THE LAWYER'S BUILDING. 
          WHY THEY CARE ABOUT THAT? I DO NOT KNOW. 
          I'M SURMISING THAT'S A BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP. 
          I, I DON'T KNOW ANY OF THE REASON THEY, THEY WOULD TAKE THAT POSITION. 
          SO THAT'S, THAT'S, THAT'S ALL I CAN TELL YOU IN TERMS OF WHAT I KNOW, AND IT'S REALLY NOT WHAT I KNOW. 
          IT'S WHAT I'VE BEEN TOLD BY AN ACTOR THAT DOESN'T SEEM TO HAVE THAT MUCH OF AN ECONOMIC IMPACT FROM LETTING 
          [07:30:01]
US PUT IN A SIGN. 
          I MEAN, IT, IT, THIS IS, THIS IS BASIC, UH, REAL ESTATE NEIGHBOR STUFF THAT HAPPENS ALL AS YOU WELL KNOW, ALL OVER TOWN ALL THE TIME. 
          UM, AND IT'S NOT THAT WE HAVEN'T OFFERED MONEY AND AN INDEMNITY AND ALL THE THINGS THAT, THAT PROPERTY OWNERS REQUIRE FOR ACCESS, IT'S THAT THERE'S SOMETHING ELSE GOING ON THERE. 
          AND I DON'T HAVE A WAY TO DEFINE IT MORE CLEARLY FOR YOU THAN THAT. 
          UM, BUT WHAT I CAN SAY IS THAT EVEN WITH OUR CONCERNS ABOUT HAVING A COMPETING SIGN NEXT DOOR, WE ARE PROBABLY ABLE TO GET PAST THAT IF WE CAN FIGURE OUT A WAY TO GET OUR SIGN UP. 
          FAIR ENOUGH. 
          THANK YOU. 
          DOES THAT ANSWER THE QUESTION? IT DOES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU COMMISSIONERS. 
          ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MR. KINGSTON? QUESTIONS FOR STAFF COMMISSIONER HAMPTON? UM, TWO QUESTIONS. 
          ONE WAS REGARDING THE SIZE COMPONENT. 
          THERE WAS AN ORIGINAL 11, 1100 SQUARE FOOT ROUND NUMBERS. 
          IT'S NOW I THINK 25. 
          SORRY, I'M CHECKING SOMETHING ELSE. 
          UM, IS, IS THERE A REASON WHY THAT MINIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE VARIES? UH, YES. 
          SO DOES THE HIGHWAY, UH, BEAUTIFICATION ACT, UH, THE LIMIT IS, UH, 1,200 IF, UH, THEY'RE WITHIN AVIS, UH, VISIBLE, UH, HIGHWAY AND UH, CURRENTLY IT IS NOT BECAUSE, UH, COMMERCE STREET GOES, UH, WEST, RIGHT? NO, I'M SORRY, EASTBOUND. 
          BUT IF, UH, LATER THE CITY TRIES TO SWITCH TWO WAY, THEN IT WOULD POTENTIALLY BE THIS TO, TO TWO WAYS OR TO CHANGE IT THE OPPOSITE WAY TO GO WESTBOUND, THEN IT WILL AFFECT, AND THEN THAT SIGN CAN ONLY BE 1,200. 
          AND THAT'S THE REASON THAT, UH, WE MADE THAT ADJUSTMENT. 
          AND THEN SECOND QUESTION IS REGARDING THE, UM, TEXT TO NON-TEXT, UM, COMPONENTS THAT VARIED FROM THE TWO ORIGINAL SUBDISTRICTS TO THE CURRENT. 
          WAS THERE A CHANGE IN THE BEAUTIFICATION CODE THERE AS WELL OR IS THAT JUST A CHANGE IN APPROACH? SO THAT WAS, UH, UH, SIMILAR TO WHAT IT WAS APPROVED FOR THE COMMERCE, UH, UH, SUPER GRAPHIC A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO. 
          SO THERE'S NO REAL RATIONALE BETWEEN THE TWO COMPONENTS? NO, IT'S, IT WAS JUST, IT'S JUST A PER SE CARBON COPY OF THE PREVIOUS, UH, APPROVAL. 
          I, I WROTE THE ONE ON COMMERCE IF YOU'D LIKE TO HEAR THE EXPLANATION. 
          COMMISSIONER, UM, THANK YOU. 
          WE MAY COME BACK TO THAT. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, FINAL QUESTION FOR STAFF. 
          THE APPLICANT MENTIONED THAT THEY WERE SETTING BACK THE SIZE OF THE SIGN TO NOT OBSCURE ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES. 
          I THINK THAT'S A BASE REQUIREMENT WITHIN THE SIGN DISTRICT PURPOSE STATEMENT. 
          DOES THAT NEED TO BE MORE CLEARLY DEFINED WITHIN THIS POTENTIAL SUBDISTRICT? UM, UM, CC, UM, I APOLOGIZE. 
          I DIDN'T. 
          UH, UH, WELL, THE, I WAS ASKING THE APPLICANT ABOUT THE SIZE OF THE SIGN, HOW IT'S LOCATED ON THE BUILDING, IF THERE WERE ANY PROVISIONS OTHER THAN PLACE THE ATTACHMENTS IN THE MORTAR JOINTS, IT WAS STATED THAT IT WAS BEING LOCATED TO BE HELD OFF THE SIDES OF THE BUILDING TO NOT OBSCURE ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES. 
          THAT'S NOT DEFINED WITHIN THE SUB AREA, HOWEVER, IT IS WITHIN THE OVERALL PURPOSE STATEMENT OF THE DISTRICT. 
          SO MY QUESTION WAS, DOES THAT PURPOSE STATEMENT GIVE ENOUGH DEFINITION OF THE INTENT TO NOT OBSCURE ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES? IS, OR WOULD THAT NEED TO BE DEFINED? THAT, UH, THAT IS A CORRECT AND ALSO IF IT HAD LIKE, UM, AN ALL PAINTING FROM, FROM BEFORE, YOU CANNOT COVER THAT AS WELL. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU MR. CHAIR. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF COMMISSIONERS? SEEING NONE, DO I HAVE A MOTION? THANK YOU. 
          COMMISSIONER HAMPTON? UH, YES, I HAVE BRIEF COMMENTS IF I HAVE A SECOND IN THE MATTER OF SPSD 2 3 4 DASH 0 0 3, I MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE PER STAFF AND S-S-D-A-C RECOMMENDATIONS. 
          THANK YOU FOR, THANK YOU FOR YOUR MOTION, COMMISSIONER HAMPTON AND ADVISE CHAIR RUBIN FOR YOUR SECOND COMMENTS. 
          COMMISSIONER HAMPTON. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, I WILL SAY THIS GIVES ME PAUSE TO PUT TWO OF THESE SIGN DISTRICTS IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO EACH OTHER WITHIN A HISTORIC DISTRICT BECAUSE THEY CERTAINLY, TO ME, DON'T REFLECT THE CHARACTER IN THE SPIRIT. 
          HOWEVER, IT HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY LANDMARK COMMISSION. 
          IT HAS, THEY HAVE DONE THEIR DUE DILIGENCE. 
          AND I'M NOT HEARING ANYTHING ON HOW IT IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE PURPOSE STATEMENT. 
          UM, I CERTAINLY HOPE THAT BETWEEN NOW AND IF THIS BODY IS TO APPROVE IT AND IT MOVES TO COUNSEL THAT THE QUESTIONS BETWEEN THE 
          [07:35:01]
TWO PROPERTY OWNERS ARE RESOLVED. 
          OTHERWISE, IT MAY BE COMING BACK TO US, BUT IT'S CERTAINLY NOT A USUAL CASE. 
          AND CERTAINLY, UM, WILL ECHO OUR SPEAKER IN OPPOSITION, MR. KINGSTON, THAT I HOPE WE DO NOT SEE FURTHER OF THESE. 
          SO THANK YOU MR. CHAIR. 
          THANK YOU, MR. RUBIN. 
          UM, I, I SECOND INTO THE MOTION. 
          UM, I, I LOOK AT THIS CASE PRETTY SIMPLY THROUGH A LAND USE LENS AND ULTIMATELY FIND THAT IT MEETS THE, IS IN KEEPING WITH THE, THE PURPOSE STATEMENT IN THE ORDINANCE AND, AND MAKES SENSE. 
          I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS A, YOU KNOW, A PRIVATE DISPUTE BETWEEN TWO OR MAYBE EVEN THREE LANDOWNERS IN THE AREA, BUT, UH, FRANKLY, I DON'T THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT SHOULD, UM, ENTER INTO OUR, OUR DECISION MAKING HERE. 
          BUT I DO HOPE THAT THOSE PARTIES THAT HAVE THE DISAGREEMENT ARE ABLE TO WORK THEIR DIFFERENCES OUT. 
          ANY OTHER COMMENTS? COMMISSIONER SLEEPER? WELL, I'D LIKE TO OFFER A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT IF I COULD. 
          I'M INCLINED TO BELIEVE MR. KINGSTON WHEN HE SAYS IF, IF HE HAD A, EVEN A SHORT DELAY THAT HE THINKS THEIR DIFFERENCES COULD BE WORKED OUT. 
          AND I THINK IT'S WORTH, UM, GIVING THEM THAT OPPORTUNITY. 
          SO IF YOU WOULD ACCEPT IT, I WOULD LIKE TO, TO MOVE THAT WE DELAY IT UNTIL, UH, DECEMBER 5TH. 
          I THINK WE COULD SECOND THAT. 
          SO, UH, DO YOU HAVE A DATE COMMISSIONER? DID HE SAY MENTION THIS? DECEMBER 5TH. 
          OKAY. 
          WE HAVE A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT THAT WAS ACCEPTED AND ACCEPTED BY THE BODY. 
          OKAY, UH, COMMISSIONERS, WE NOW HAVE A, A, A MOTION ON THE TABLE TO, UH, KEEP THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN, HOLD THE MATTER UNDER ADVISEMENT TO DECEMBER 5TH. 
          ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THAT? YES. 
          OKAY. 
          , PLEASE. 
          I SEE , PLEASE. 
          COMMISSIONER WHEELER. 
          I CAN'T SUPPORT THAT MOTION BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE THAT WE ARE NOW GETTING INTO PRIVATE DISPUTES AND THAT'S A PRIVATE DISPUTE. 
          IT HAS MET THE, A BURDEN WITH THE LANDMARK COMMISSION, UM, AND IN THE NEXT TWO WEEKS IS TIME ENOUGH FOR IT TO GO BEFORE IT GO TO COUNSEL? US HOLDING IT BECAUSE OF A PRIVATE DISPUTE, UM, PUTS US IN AS JUDGE AND JURY AND WE'RE NOT, THAT WE ARE A BODY AND IS VOTING ON THE LAND. 
          USE FOR THIS PARTICULAR CASE. 
          UM, UNFORTUNATELY, WHATEVER IS GOING ON WITH THOSE PRIVATE, UM, OWNERS HAS NO BEARING ON THIS. 
          AND I THINK THAT IF WE MAKING THESE DECISIONS, WE WILL HAVE MORE PEOPLE COME BEFORE US DOING THE SAME THING. 
          WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE NEIGHBOR ACROSS THE STREET IS SAYS HE DOESN'T WANNA, UM, HE, HE WANNA PROVE AN APARTMENT OR A DUPLEX ENLIST THE OTHER PERSON DOES WHAT THEY WANT, UM, BECAUSE THEY BOTH HAVE SOME TYPE OF FINANCIAL GAIN. 
          SO I JUST THINK THAT, UM, WE SHOULD NOT, I THINK WE'RE GETTING INTO CIVIL MATTERS, UM, AND THIS IS NOT THE, WHAT WE SHOULD BE DOING, UM, BUSINESS AT THE COMMISSION. 
          SO I CANNOT SUPPORT THAT MOTION. 
          THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HERBERT. 
          UH, THANK YOU TABITHA, FOR BRINGING THAT UP. 
          I THINK THAT'S A GOOD POINT. 
          UM, I ALSO THINK DELAYING IT KIND OF TAKES US OUT IF WE APPROVE THIS AND THE OTHER COMPETITOR GETS IT UP FIRST OR THEY DON'T GET IT UP SECOND, OR YOU KNOW, IT, WE STILL INVOLVE, I THINK THE DELAY TO ALLOW THEM A CHANCE TO WORK IT OUT BEFORE WE HEAR IT. 
          UM, I CAN SUPPORT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THAT'S TRUE. 
          YEAH. 
          I, I ECHO COMMISSIONER WHEELER'S SENTIMENTS. 
          I WILL SAY A CONSTANT REFRAIN OR A FREQUENT REFRAIN THAT WE HEAR AROUND THIS BODY OR THAT, YOU KNOW, PRIVATE BUSINESS CONSIDERATION SHOULD NOT, YOU KNOW, BE MATTERS THAT WE TAKE INTO ACCOUNT, INTO OUR ZONING CON, YOU KNOW, DECISIONS WE MAKE HERE. 
          WE SHOULD MAKE THEM ON A LAND USE BASIS. 
          AND YOU KNOW, I CAN THINK OF TIMES WHEN APPLICANTS HAVE COME TO US SAYING, OH, WE'VE GOT A OPTION THAT EXPIRES BY DATE X SO WE'VE GOTTA GET THIS ZONING DONE NOW. 
          AND WE, WE'VE HELD STRONG AND WE'VE SAID THAT'S NOT OUR CONCERN. 
          WE HAVE TO MAKE THE RIGHT DECISION ON THE LAND USE. 
          AND I CAN THINK OF OTHER EXAMPLES WHERE THERE HAVE OTHER BEEN OTHER SORT OF PRIVATE BUSINESS MATTERS THAT HAVE, YOU KNOW, WE, WE'VE SAID, SORRY, THOSE ARE VERY LEGITIMATE CONCERNS THAT THE APPLICANT OR AN INTERESTED PARTY HAS, BUT WE'RE A BODY THAT IS FOCUSED ON LAND USE AND FOR US TO HOLD A CASE TO ALLOW PARTIES TO TRY AND SORT OUT THIS DISPUTE ABOUT ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY AND THINGS LIKE THAT, I JUST DON'T THINK THAT'S A GOOD STEP FOR OUR BODY TO TAKE. 
          UM, IF WE DO IT, I HOPE WE NEVER DO IT AGAIN, BUT I HOPE THAT WE DON'T DO IT THIS EVENING. 
          ANY OTHER COMMENTS? COMMISSIONERS? OKAY. 
          WE HAVE A MOTION TO SECOND TO KEEP THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN. 
          HOLD THE MATTER TO ADVISEMENT TO DECEMBER 5TH. 
          WE'LL TAKE A RECORD VOTE. 
          [07:40:03]
DISTRICT ONE. 
          DISTRICT TWO. 
          DISTRICT THREE. 
          AYE. 
          DISTRICT FOUR. 
          AYE. 
          DISTRICT FIVE? YES. 
          DISTRICT SIX? YES. 
          DISTRICT SEVEN? NO. 
          DISTRICT EIGHT. 
          WHAT IS YES AND WHAT IS YES. 
          HOLD IT. 
          YES. 
          DISTRICT NINE. 
          DISTRICT 10? YES. 
          DISTRICT 11. 
          VACANT. 
          DISTRICT 12? YES. 
          DISTRICT 13? NO. 
          DISTRICT 14 AND PLACE 15. 
          NO. 
          OKAY. 
          MOTION PASSES. 
          LET'S GO, LET'S GO BACK TO OUR ORDER TAKES. 
          THANK YOU COMMISSIONERS. 
          IT TAKES US BACK TO NUMBER, NUMBER 
          [10. 24-3582 An application for an amendment to deed restrictions [Z856-107 and Z867-125] on property zoned an IR Industrial Research District on the east line of South Hampton Road, north of West Danieldale Road.]
10. 
          10 10, 10 10. 
          ITEM 10 KC 2 34 DASH 1 96. 
          AN APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO DEED RESTRICTIONS Z 8 56, 107 AND Z 8 67 25 ON PROPERTIES OWNED IN IR INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH DISTRICT ON THE EAST LINE OF SOUTH HAMPTON ROAD, NORTH OF WEST DANIELDALE ROAD. 
          STATUS'S RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT, AMENDMENT TO DEED RESTRICTIONS Z 8 56, 107 AND Z 8 6, 7 12 5 AS VOLUNTEERED BY THE APPLICANT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? UH, YEAH, I'M PREPARED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE OWNERSHIP. 
          UH, MY NAME'S MIKE COOGAN. 
          I'M HERE TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE OWNERSHIP OF 91 86 SOUTH HAMPTON. 
          UH, WE'VE GOT A PRESENTATION THAT WE'VE CIRCULATED AROUND AND COMMUNICATED WITH COMMISSIONER BLAIR THAT, UH, IN THE INTEREST OF TIME I WAS GONNA FOREGO THE PRESENTATION AND OPEN UP TO QUESTIONS. 
          WOULD LIKE TO THANK COMMISSIONER BLAIR FOR TAKING THE TIME TO SET UP SEVERAL COMMUNITY MEETINGS AND HELP TRANSLATE THAT FEEDBACK INTO, UH, ADDITIONAL DEEP RESTRICTIONS THAT WE COULD PUT ON THE PROPERTY TO, UH, BE MORE, UH, CONSISTENT WITH THE FORWARD VISION, UH, OF THE AREA. 
          THANK YOU FOR JOINING US. 
          UH, YEAH, DID YOU, UH, PUT YOUR ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, SIR? IT'S, UH, 91 86 SOUTH HAMPTON ROAD. 
          EXCELLENT, THANK YOU. 
          SEE WE HAVE A SECOND SPEAKER. 
          GOOD EVENING. 
          GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. 
          ANGELA HUNT, 500 NORTH ACKER STREET REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT TONIGHT. 
          I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AS WELL AND WE'RE ALSO PREPARED TO VOLUNTARILY INTRODUCE SOME ADDITIONAL USES WE'D LIKE TO PROPOSE TO PROHIBIT IN THE DEED RESTRICTIONS. 
          WOULD YOU LIKE TO READ THOSE IN PLEASE? I, I WOULD IF I MAY. 
          NOW PLEASE. 
          OF COURSE. 
          THE ADDITIONAL PROHIBITED USES WILL BE AS FOLLOWS, BUS OR RAIL TRANSIT VEHICLE MAINTENANCE OR STORAGE FACILITY, ALCOHOL, BEVERAGE MANUFACTURING, GAS DRILLING AND PRODUCTION. 
          INDUSTRIAL. 
          OUTSIDE MEDICAL, INFECTIOUS WASTE INCINERATOR, MUNICIPAL WASTE INCINERATOR, PATHOLOGICAL WASTE INCINERATOR, LODGING OR BOARDING HOUSE OVERNIGHT. 
          GENERAL PURPOSE SHELTER, HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY, HOME IMPROVEMENT CENTER, LUMBER, BRICK OR BUILDING MATERIALS. 
          SALES YARD, COMMERCIAL BUS STATION AND TERMINAL TRANSIT. 
          PASSENGER SHELTER, TRANSIT PASSENGER STATION OR TRANSFER CENTER MANUFACTURED BUILDING SALES LOT. 
          MINI WAREHOUSE RECYCLING, BUYBACK CENTER RECYCLING COLLECTION CENTER RECYCLING, DROP OFF FOR SPECIAL OCCASION COLLECTION AND TRADE CENTER. 
          THANK YOU. 
          IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? COMMISSIONER'S. 
          QUESTIONS FOR OUR TWO SPEAKERS? MS. CHAIR? RUBEN. 
          MS. HUNT, WHAT'S THE THOUGHT BEHIND NOT ALLOWING A TRANSIT PASSENGER SHELTER? THAT'S JUST A COVERED BUS STOP, RIGHT. 
          YOU KNOW, IN TALKING WITH THE COMMUNITY, I THINK THERE WAS SOME REAL CONCERN WITH THE, THE CHARTER SCHOOL THAT'S ACROSS HAMPTON ABOUT HAVING KIND OF SOME TRANSIENT, UM, UH, PEDESTRIANS IN THE AREA AND ANYTHING WE COULD DO TO DISCOURAGE THAT, WE WANTED TO, SO WE VOLUNTEER THAT WE OF COURSE LEAVE IT TO THE COMMISSION AS TO WHETHER YOU WANNA INCLUDE 
          [07:45:01]
THAT, BUT WE THOUGHT THAT IT WAS RESPONSIVE TO THE COMMUNITY. 
          AND IN TALKING WITH THE COMMISSIONER, UM, COMMISSIONER, I BELIEVE SHE AGREED. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONERS QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SEEING NONE, COMMISSIONER BLAIR, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? YES. 
          IN THE MATTER OF Z 2 3 4 1 96. 
          I MOVE, WE CLOSE A PUBLIC HEARING AND WE FOLLOW STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL TO, OF AN AMENDMENT, UH, TO DEED RESTRICTIONS Z 8 5 6 1 0 7 AND Z 8 67 1 12 5, UH, UM, AS WELL AS THE DE RESTRICTIONS VOLUNTEERED BY THE APPLICANT AT THE PUBLIC. 
          THANK YOU COMMISSIONER BILL FOR YOUR MOTION. 
          I WILL SECOND IT. 
          UH, COMMENT. 
          UM, YES, THIS ONE WAS A HARD ONE FOR, FOR THE COMMUNITY BECAUSE OF THE SCHOOL RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET, BUT I'VE WORKED WITH THE APPLICANT. 
          WE'VE TALKED VERY LONG AND HARD, INCLUDING UP TO THE LAST MINUTE, HAVING THEM APPRECIATE THE NEEDS OF THE COMMUNITY AND THE NEEDS OF THE SCHOOL ACROSS THE STREET. 
          THEY HAVE SHOWN ALREADY THAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO WHAT THEY SAID THEY WERE GONNA DO AND I TRUST THAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO IT. 
          THANKS. 
          ANY OTHER COMMENTS? COMMISSIONERS, MR. RUBEN? I'LL JUST SAY THAT NOT ALLOWING A BUS STOP ON THE PROPERTY, I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S NOT A TRANSIT ROUTE THERE RIGHT NOW. 
          JUST SEEMS LIKE COMPLETE OVERKILL AND IT'S, IT'S UNFORTUNATE THAT WAS AN ASK AND IS BEING INTRODUCED IN THESE TEETH RESTRICTIONS, BUT AGAIN, OVERALL, I I DO APPRECIATE COMMISSIONER BLAIR'S VERY HARD WORK ON IT. 
          THAT'S JUST MY ONE QUIBBLE AND I WANTED TO PUT THAT ON THE RECORD. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ANY OTHER COMMENTS? ANY, NONE. 
          ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE SAY AYE. 
          AYE. 
          ANY OPPOSED? AYE. 
          HAVE IT. 
          JORGE, DO WE HAVE ANY COMMISSIONERS ONLINE? OKAY. 
          OH, THERE'S COMMISSIONER HAKO. 
          PERFECT. 
          1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. 
          WE DO HAVE A QUORUM COMMISSIONERS, LET'S GET BACK ON THE RECORD. 
          UH, WE RECORDING. 
          JORGE, WE ARE RECORDING 6:20 PM WE'RE BACK ON THE RECORD. 
          WE'RE, UH, GONNA MOVE TO CASE 20. 
          LET'S GET CASE NUMBER 20. 
          GOOD 
          [20. 24-3592 A City Plan Commission authorized hearing seeking a recommendation regarding a proposal to change the zoning classification from R-7.5(A) single-family zoning district and R-10(A) single-family zoning district to Tract IV of the Lakewood Conservation District No. 2 being a tract of land consisting of portions of City Blocks C/2818, E/2829, L/2840, A/4416, 4418, 4417, H/2823, F/2805, D/2805, K/2025, L/2840 and all of City Blocks D/2819, F/2834, B/4416, B/4415, K/2839, J/2838, G/2835, I/2837, H/2836, E/2820, G/2823, J/2825, V/2804, K/2825 generally bounded by alleys between Westlake Avenue and Meadow Lake Avenue and between Lakewood Boulevard and Westlake Avenue on the north, Lawther Drive on the east, Tokalon Drive and the alleys between Tokalon Drive and both Pasadena Avenue and Avalon Avenue and the alley between Lorna Lane and Avalon Avenue on the south, and Brendenwood Drive, Copperfield Lane and the alley south of Westlake, and Wendover Road on the west.]
EVENING. 
          UH, THIS IS CASE NUMBER 20 Z 212 DASH 315 A CITY PLAN COMMISSION AUTHORIZED HEARING, SEEKING A RECOMMENDATION REGARDING A PROPOSAL TO CHANGE THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM R SEVEN 50, A SINGLE FAMILY ZONING DISTRICT AND R 10, A SINGLE FAMILY ZONING DISTRICT TO TRACK FOUR OF THE LAKEWOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT. 
          NUMBER TWO, BEING A TRACK OF LAND CONSISTING OF PORTIONS OF CITY BLOCKS C 28 18 E 28, 29, L 28, 40 A 44, 16 AND 44, 18 AND 44 17 H 28, 23 F 28 0 5 D 28, 5K, TWO L 28 40, AND ALL OF CITY BLOCKS. 
          D 28 19 F 28, 34, B 44, 16, B 44, 15 K, 28 39 J 28, 38 G 28, 35 I 28, 37 H 28, 36, E 28, 20 G 28, 23 J 28, 25 V 28, 0 4 K, 28 25. 
          GENERALLY BOUNDED BY ALLEYS BETWEEN WESTLAKE AVENUE AND MEADOW LAKE AVENUE AND BETWEEN LAKEWOOD BOULEVARD AND WESTLAKE AVENUE ON THE NORTH LOTHAR DRIVE ON THE EAST TOON DRIVE AND THE ALLEYS BETWEEN TOON DRIVE AND BOTH PASADENA AVENUE AND AVALON AVENUE AND THE ALLEY BETWEEN LORNA LANE AND AVALON AVENUE ON THE SOUTH. 
          AND BRENDAN WOOD DRIVE, COPPERFIELD LANE AND THE ALLEY SOUTH OF WESTLAKE AND WINDOVER ROAD ON THE WEST. 
          STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          UH, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE. 
          UH, WE'RE WE'RE GONNA HANDLE THIS LIKE ANY OTHER ZONING CASE. 
          WE'RE GONNA TAKE OUR FOLKS IN SUPPORT AND THEN OUR FOLKS IN 
          [07:50:01]
OPPOSITION. 
          UH, SO IF YOU'RE IN SUPPORT, WE'LL WE'LL BEGIN WITH OUR FOLKS THAT ARE HERE AND THEN WE'LL GO TO THE VERY LONG LIST OF FOLKS THAT WE HAVE ONLINE. 
          SO WE'LL ASK YOU ALL TO PLEASE BEGIN WITH YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, MS. LOPEZ. 
          WE'LL KEEP TIME AND WE'LL LET YOU KNOW. 
          SO WE'RE GONNA GO WITH ONE MINUTE PER SPEAKER PLEASE. 
          GOOD EVENING. 
          YOU MAY HAVE TO PRESS THE, THERE'S A LITTLE BUTTON FOR THE MICROPHONE. 
          THANKS. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, SUMMER LOVELAND 70 31 LAKEWOOD. 
          I'M ONE OF THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS WHO INITIATED THE EXPANSION APPLICATION. 
          WE'RE SEEKING EXPANSION AS WE LIVE IN THE AREA OF BUDDING THE EXISTING CD AND SIMILAR TO, SIMILAR TO MANY AREAS IN DALLAS, WE'VE BEGUN TO SEE A TREND IN ILL-FITTING AND OVERSIZED DEVELOPMENT, WHICH CHANGES THE CHARACTER OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          OUR HOMES ARE SIMILAR IN STYLE AND PERIOD TO THE EXISTING CD AND JUST AS DESERVING OF PROTECTION EXPANSION IS THE CORRECT PROCESS FOR US TO HAVE FOLLOWED. 
          WE'VE TAKEN STEPS THE CITY CREATED FOR US TO EXERCISE OUR RIGHTS TO PROTECT OUR PROPERTY AND THE FUTURE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD BASED ON THE OPPOSITION, WHICH WAS SPURRED AFTER OUR 15 ORDINANCE MEETINGS. 
          WE'VE RECOMMENDED FOR MONTHS THAT A REVISED MAP BE CONSIDERED TO REMOVE THE AREAS THAT ARE OPPOSED AND LIMIT THE CONNECTING BLOCKS TO DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. 
          ONLY PLEASE SEE THE HANDOUT. 
          UM, FEEDBACK HAS BEEN OBTAINED AND ADDRESSED IN DRAFT TWO OF THE ORDINANCE. 
          MOST OF THE OPPOSITION YOU'LL HEAR FROM TODAY IS FROM BLOCKS WE WANT REMOVED. 
          THE REMAINING AREA HAS A STRONG MAJORITY WHO WANT THIS THANKS TO STAFF WHO'VE WORKED DILIGENTLY ON THIS PROCESS. 
          MOUNT AUBURN WOULD BE A DIFFERENT DISCUSSION TODAY. 
          THEY THANK YOU. 
          YOUR TIME IS UP. 
          NEXT SPEAKER PLEASE. 
          GOOD EVENING. 
          HELLO, I'M LINDSAY POPE, 68 61 LAKEWOOD LAKEWOOD'S BEEN HOME FOR 13 YEARS. 
          A HOME IS THE LARGEST INVESTMENT MOST PEOPLE WILL MAKE IN THEIR LIFE. 
          THE OPPOSITION IS ALL ABOUT THEIR RIGHTS, BUT WHERE DO MY RIGHTS, WHERE DO THEIR RIGHTS INFRINGE ON MINE WHEN I WALK OUT THE FRONT DOOR TO BE WELCOMED BY A WALL FROM THE HOUSE BUILT 10 FEET CLOSER TO THE ROAD WHEN MY SKY VIEW BECOMES A BEDROOM OVERLOOKING MY YARD. 
          WHEN ALL THE MOTION SENSORS LIGHTS SHINE IN MY KIDS' WINDOWS AT ALL HOURS OF THE NIGHT WHEN MOUNDS OF SAND WASH INTO MY BACKYARD FROM THE LOT NEXT DOOR. 
          WHERE IS MY PROPERTY PROTECTION? I'LL TELL YOU RULES, RULES AND REGULATIONS ARE IN PLACE IN ALL ASPECTS OF OUR LIVES TO PROTECT THE GREATER GOOD. 
          WE ABIDE BY LAWS AND RULES EVEN IF IT'S HARD AND DOESN'T BENEFIT US, BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT BEING A GOOD CITIZEN REQUIRES. 
          JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN DOESN'T MEAN YOU SHOULD. 
          MY HOME WAS BUILT IN 1928 AND IT IS AN HONOR AND PRIVILEGE TO BE HER STEWARD FOR THE SHORT TIME I PASSED THROUGH HER LIFE IN 2050 YEARS. 
          WHAT DOES LAKEWOOD LOOK LIKE IN YOUR MIND? I GUARANTEE YOUR VISION INCLUDES THE VERY THINGS WE ARE ASKING TO PROTECT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          GOOD AFTERNOON. 
          MY NAME IS MARK BEASLEY AND I LIVE AT 70 26 LAKEWOOD BOULEVARD. 
          MY WIFE AND I MOVED TO LAKEWOOD 30 YEARS AGO BEFORE BECAUSE WE FELL IN LOVE WITH ITS VERY CHARMING NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          MANY OF ITS BEAUTIFUL DISTINCTIVE HOMES WERE BUILT IN THE 1920S AND THIRTIES AND DISPLAY SOME OF THE MOST LOVELY ARCHITECTURE FROM THAT ERA. 
          NOW THOUGH, WE'RE SEEING CHIC MODERN NEW CONSTRUCTION AND REMODELING, WHICH DOES NOT FIT IN WITH A NEIGHBORHOOD AND IT'S PICTURESQUE MIX OF UNIQUE OLDER HOMES THAT MAKES LAKEWOOD LAKEWOOD. 
          UNFORTUNATELY, SOME OF THESE IRREPLACEABLE OLDER HOMES ARE BEING TORN DOWN TO MAKE ROOM ALONG WITH THEIR MAJESTIC MATURE TREES. 
          LAKEWOOD IS A SPECIAL, EXCEPTIONAL PLACE AND DESERVES TO BE PROTECTED WHILE STILL ALLOWING FOR COMPATIBLE GROWTH AND FLEXIBILITY. 
          THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE HAS BEEN DEVELOPED WITH EXTENSIVE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, UH, COMMUNITY, UH, INVOLVEMENT WITH CITY STAFF OVER MORE THAN TWO YEARS. 
          PLEASE VOTE TO APPROVE IT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UH, JOHN PERRY. 
          72, UH, 10 LAKEWOOD BOULEVARD. 
          UM, I BELIEVE MANY OF MY NEIGHBORS THAT ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF THE EXPANSION OF THE LAKEWOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT MAY HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT A NEGATIVE ECONOMIC IMPACT TO THE VALUE OF THEIR PROPERTY. 
          I CAN PROVIDE A DATA POINT THAT SUPPORTS THE PROPOSED ZONING CHANGES, WILL NOT NEGATIVELY IMPACT VALUES OF THE THREE HOMES I HAVE OWNED IN EAST DALLAS, ONE IN HOLLYWOOD HEIGHTS, ONE ON REMONT STREET IN THE CURRENT HOME IN LAKEWOOD. 
          THE HOME IN HOLLYWOOD HEIGHTS HAS THE HIGHEST MULTIPLE INCREASE IN VALUE OR RETURN ON INVESTMENT AT A 2.7 X INCREASE IN VALUE. 
          THAT'S FROM WHAT I ORIGINALLY PAID. 
          NOTE THAT THE ZONING IN HOLLYWOOD HEIGHTS IS MUCH MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED FOR LAKEWOOD. 
          ADDITIONALLY, I FEEL THIS EXPANSION PROCESS HAS EVOLVED SUCH THAT THE PROPOSED ZONING CHANGES DO NOT MATERIALLY RESTRICT THE RIGHTS OF PROPERTY OWNERS. 
          [07:55:01]
THESE TYPE OF CHANGES ARE NORMAL FOR OLDER AND HISTORIC AREAS. 
          MOST NEIGHBORHOODS DO HAVE A STANDARDIZED ZONING. 
          THANK YOU. 
          YOUR TIME IS OUT. 
          WE STAND. 
          GOOD EVENING. 
          WE HAVE A SLIDESHOW THAT'S SUPPOSED TO BE PLAYING. 
          UH, CAN WE HAVE THAT ACTIVATED PLEASE? STAND BY. 
          WE'LL, WE'LL GET THAT GOING. 
          WE WILL PAUSE FOR A SECOND. 
          THIS ONE, CORRECT? YES. 
          THAT SHOULD BE ON THE RECIRCULATING. 
          ALSO HAVE THAT DID YOU SET THE PRESENTATION TO MOVE? YEAH, IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE REC. 
          SUPPOSED TO RE TO EVOLVE RECIRCULATE. 
          YEAH, THAT'S IT. 
          AN ISSUE. 
          I THINK WHAT WE CAN DO IS, OH, THANK YOU. 
          THE MICROPHONE TURNED OFF. 
          SORRY. 
          PERFECT. 
          THANK YOU SIR. 
          THANK YOU COMMISSIONERS. 
          MY NAME IS STAN COWAN. 
          I RESIDE AT 7 0 2 3 TOLE ON DRIVE. 
          I'M HERE TODAY IN STRONG SUPPORT OF EXPANDING THE BOUNDARIES OF CD TWO, WHICH FOR 36 YEARS HAS SUCCESSFULLY SUCCESSFULLY PRESERVED THE UNIQUE CHARACTER OF THE AREA. 
          I BELIEVE IT IS ESSENTIAL TO CONTINUE THIS WORK TO MAINTAIN OUR HISTORIC LEGACY. 
          THE AREA'S HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE IS TIED TO ITS ORIGINAL DESIGN, ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE, AND ITS CONNECTION TO THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT. 
          WITH TREE LINED SHADED PARKWAYS LINKING LAKEWOOD SHOPPING CENTER TO WHITE ROCK LAKE, REAL ESTATE VALUES WITHIN THE CD TWO HAVE CONSISTENTLY INCREASED WITH HIGH VELOCITY OF SALES. 
          THIS REFLECTS THE DESIRABILITY OF THE AREA, WHICH IS DIRECTLY INFLUENCED BY ITS DISTINCTIVE ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES AND COMMUNITY ORIENTED DESIGN. 
          PRESERVING THE ASSEMBLY OF THE ARCHITECTURE THAT ABUTS THE PUBLIC REALM WILL PROTECT THE UNIQUE QUALITIES OF THE AREA THAT DRAW PEOPLE TO VISIT, TOUR AND CALL LAKEWOOD HOME. 
          WITHOUT THESE PROTECTIONS, TEAR DOWNS AND REBUILDS IN THE EXPANSION AREA COULD TAKE PLACE WITHOUT BEING HELD TO THE APPROPRIATE DEVELOPMENT AND ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          EXCUSE ME. 
          ROBIN MCCAFFREY, 69 10 NORWAY PLACE DALLAS COME TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THE EXTENSION OF THE DISTRICT. 
          IN 1970, I WORKED WITH THE DALLAS URBAN DESIGN DIVISION WITH WILLIAM LOU. 
          AND AT THAT TIME WE INITIATED HISTORIC DISTRICTS AND CONSERVATION DISTRICTS. 
          CONSERVATION DISTRICTS WERE CREATED FOR PLACES LIKE OLD LAKE WOOD PLACES SHAPED BY THE GROUND PLANE OF WHITE ROCK LAKE. 
          THE PRICE PER SQUARE FOOT IS A HUNDRED TO A HUNDRED DOLLARS, A HUNDRED TO MORE THAN A HUNDRED DOLLARS PER SQUARE FOOT. 
          GREATER HERE THAN IN AREAS ARE NOT SO ENRICHED. 
          SO IT'S A SUBMARKET AND AS A SUBMARKET THAT VALUE IS COLLECTIVELY OWNED. 
          SO WHILE NO ONE PERSON CAN CREATE THE VALUE, ONE PERSON CAN CERTAINLY HURT IT. 
          AND SO THAT'S WHY THIS CONSERVATION DISTRICT IS SO IMPORTANT AND SHOULD BE EXTENDED. 
          NOT TO DO SO WOULD LEAVE THE AREA THAT'S ALREADY PROTECTED, VULNERABLE, AND REALLY NOT PRESERVE THAT AREA FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          [08:00:01]
IS IT ON? GOOD. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU ALL SO MUCH AND IT'S BEEN AN AMAZING DAY, BUT EXHAUSTING. 
          I REALLY RESPECT YOU. 
          UM, MY NAME IS SARAH BLANCHARD. 
          I WAS BORN AT OR LIVED FROM THE AGE OF SEVEN, NOT BORN, LIVED FROM THE AGE OF SEVEN AT, UH, 7 0 2 6 TOON DRIVE, AND WE STILL OWN THE HOME. 
          IT'S A QUAINT TUDOR HOME AND IT HAS, BUT OUR BLOCK IS REALLY OUTSTANDING. 
          AND SO I'M GONNA TALK TO YOU BRIEFLY ABOUT THE 7,000 BLOCK. 
          WE HAVE A GEORGE DAHL, ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT ARCHITECTS AND WHO BUILT ALL THE ART DECO. 
          UH, AT THE STATE FAIR. 
          WE HAVE VERNE SHANKLIN WHO'S DESIGNED MANY IMPORTANT HOMES. 
          WE HAVE HUS, WHICH I'M SURE YOU'VE HEARD ABOUT, AND WE HAVE A HOME FROM TWO HOMES THAT ARE ALMOST PRE ARCHITECTURE IN THE AREA 1924 AND 1925. 
          SO TWO OF THE EARLIEST HOMES IN THE AREA. 
          WE WANT THIS BLOCK TO BE A PART OF THE CONSERVATION DISTRICT. 
          WE KNOW THAT THERE ARE SOME HOMES THAT WILL BE TURNED, TORN DOWN, WHICH IS THE BEAUTIFUL THING ABOUT THIS DISTRICT BECAUSE IT OFFERS THE ABILITY FOR FLEXIBILITY FOR PEOPLE MOVING IN WHILE STILL HAVING SOME CONTROLS QUICKLY. 
          I LIVE IN CALIFORNIA A LOT OF THE TIME IN BEVERLY HILLS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          YOUR TIME IS UP. 
          OH, IT GOES BY FAST. 
          THANKS FOR JOINING US. 
          GOOD EVENING. 
          GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. 
          MY NAME IS LISA MARIE GALA. 
          I RESIDE AT 58 35 MORNINGSIDE AVENUE IN DALLAS. 
          24 YEARS AGO, I STOOD HERE AND ORGANIZED THE EFFORT FOR THE M STREETS EAST CONSERVATION DISTRICT, WHICH WAS OFFICIALLY DESIGNATED IN 2003. 
          OVER THE PAST TWO DECADES, THE STABILITY AND STEWARDSHIP OF THE CONSERVATION DISTRICT DESIGNATION HAS PROVED TO BE AN ESSENTIAL TOOL FOR PRESERVING HISTORIC ARCHITECTURE. 
          OVERALL, IT HAS SAFEGUARDED THE IDENTITY AND ATTRACTED INVESTMENT. 
          WE'VE ENCOURAGED LONGTIME RESIDENTS TO STAY AND ATTRACTED TO NEW ONES FOSTERING COMMUNITY WHERE HOMES ARE CONTINUOUSLY EXPANDED AND REMODELED TO ACCOMMODATE MODERN AMENITIES AND LARGER FOOTPRINTS AND EMBRACING SUSTAINABILITY BY PROTECTING AND ADAPTING A HUNDRED YEAR OLD HOMES FOR MODERN USE. 
          THE HUDSONS IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD HAVE STAYED OUTTA LANDFILLS EXTENDING THE LIFESPAN OF THESE WELL-CONSTRUCTED STRUCTURES UNDERSCORES ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF REINVESTING IN HISTORIC STRUCTURES. 
          ADDITIONALLY, WE HAVE THOUGHTFULLY, UM, DESIGNED INFILL THAT CAN COMPLIMENTS OUR ORIGINAL HOMES. 
          OUR HISTORIC MULTIFAMILY AND APARTMENT STRUCTURES ENHANCES COUNCIL UNIVERSITY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          GOOD EVENING, MR. CHAIRMAN. 
          COMMISSIONERS. 
          GOOD EVENING. 
          UH, MY NAME'S OTTO MARQUEZ. 
          I LIVE AT 70 11 LAKEWOOD BOULEVARD. 
          I'VE LIVED THERE FOR 28 YEARS WITH MY WIFE. 
          UH, I'M HERE IN SUPPORT OF CD TWO AND NEIGHBORHOOD SELF-DETERMINATION. 
          I RECEIVED A NOTICE IN THE MAIL ABOUT THE MEETING DATES AND ATTENDED ALL 18 MEETINGS. 
          YES, 18 MEETINGS. 
          IT WAS VERY IMPORTANT TO ME. 
          I SPOKE TO NEIGHBORS AND ENCOURAGED THEM TO ATTEND. 
          ALL THE MEETINGS WERE RECORDED SO IT WAS EASY TO REVIEW A TOPIC OR LOOK AT THE SLIDES POSTED ON THE WEBSITE. 
          TREVOR BROWN GAVE A RECAP OF EVERY OF THE PREVIOUS MEETINGS OF, AT THE BEGINNING OF EVERY MEETING, SO THERE WAS OPPORTUNITY TO CONSIDER PREVIOUS DISCUSSIONS. 
          I APPLAUD TREVOR BROWN AND HIS TEAM FOR THEIR FORESIGHT AND FORTITUDE. 
          PLEASE SUPPORT CD TWO. 
          UM, AND THEY'RE NOT MAKING THESE HOUSES ANYMORE. 
          AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. 
          THANK YOU, SIR. 
          GOOD EVENING, MR. CHAIRMAN. 
          GOOD EVENING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE COMMISSION. 
          MY NAME IS NORMAN ALSTON, 5 0 6 MONTE VISTA. 
          38 YEARS AGO, MY WIFE AND I MOVED OUR YOUNG FAMILY INTO THIS HOUSE IN EAST DALLAS AT 5 0 6 MONTE VISTA. 
          A FEW YEARS LATER, WE WERE PART OF THE BRAND NEW, UH, HOLLYWOOD SANTA MONICA CONSERVATION DISTRICT. 
          WE SUPPORTED THAT CONSERVATION DISTRICT BECAUSE WE UNDERSTOOD IT WOULD HELP US WITH TWO THINGS THAT WERE IMPORTANT. 
          ONE IS SUPPORTING OUR QUALITY OF LIFE THROUGH, UH, PROTECTION OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER. 
          THE REASON WE MOVED THERE TO START WITH THE OTHER WAS SUPPORT, UH, FINANCIALLY AND ECONOMICALLY BY HELPING US MAINTAIN AND ENHANCE OUR PROPERTY VALUES. 
          ALL THESE YEARS LATER, WE REMAIN STRONG SUPPORTERS OF THE CONSERVATION DISTRICT BECAUSE IT HAS PERFORMED SPECTACULARLY IN BOTH OF THOSE, UH, CATEGORIES. 
          WE ARE REMINDED CONSTANTLY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER RETENTION WHEN FRIENDS COME OVER FOR THE FIRST TIME OR EVEN WHEN UBER DRIVERS DROP US OFF AND GO, WOW, THIS IS A COOL NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          WE LOVE THAT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          YOUR TIME IS UP. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU, SIR. 
          GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. 
          UH, MY NAME IS SHAUNA HEFFLER. 
          I LIVE AT 69 19 
          [08:05:02]
CORONADO AND I AM HERE TONIGHT IN SUPPORT OF THE CONSERVATION DISTRICT EXPANSION. 
          I WOULD SAY THAT MY FIRST POINT IS THAT ARCHITECTURE MATTERS. 
          WE SIT HERE IN AN I AND P BUILDING AND YOU NOTICE ALL OF THE DETAILS. 
          NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER MATTERS, ARCHITECTURAL INTEGRITY MATTERS. 
          EVERYONE IS HERE ON BOTH SIDES BECAUSE THEY LOVE LAKEWOOD. 
          BUT THIS ISN'T A NEW FIGHT. 
          I MEAN, 40 YEARS AGO IT WAS SAVING SWISS AVENUE HISTORIC DISTRICT 30 YEARS AGO IT WAS SAVING THE M STREETS FROM MCMANSIONS. 
          THESE, YOU KNOW, THIS ORGANIZATION HAS SEEN SOME OF THE PITFALLS AND THINGS THAT ARE HAPPENING TO OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS AND THEY'RE TRYING TO PREVENT WHAT'S HAPPENING IN AUBURN HILLS AND ELM THICKET. 
          YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT THE SAME ECONOMIC ISSUES, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, WE ALL EXPERIENCE THESE THREATS. 
          SO WE APPRECIATE YOU AND THE PROTECTIONS THAT THIS ORDINANCE OFFERS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          MEMBERS OF THE CPC COMMISSIONERS, THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO BE HERE AND SPEAK FOR A MINUTE TODAY. 
          MY NAME IS ART HARVEY AND I, MY WIFE LIVE AT 70 31 WESTLAKE AVENUE. 
          MY WIFE WAS A MEMBER OF THE CONSERVATION DISTRICT EXPANSION COMMITTEE AND THEREFORE, BY EXTENSION I WAS HIGHLY INVOLVED. 
          THE COMMITTEE, UM, THE COMMITTEE FOLLOWED THE PROCESS FOR EXPANSION AS DEFINED IN THE CITY ORDINANCES. 
          THE NEIGHBORHOOD WAS PETITIONED, SIGNATURES WERE COLLECTED, AND SUBSEQUENT PUBLIC MEETINGS WERE HELD, I BELIEVE 18 OR 19 MEETINGS. 
          I ATTENDED THE MAJORITY OF THOSE MEETINGS. 
          15 OF THOSE MEETINGS WERE SPECIFICALLY FOR ADDRESSING THE CONCERNS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          IN THOSE MEETINGS, THERE WERE OCCASIONALLY LOUD VOICES THAT EXPRESSED OPINIONS OF ON A WIDE RANGE OF TOPICS. 
          I BELIEVE THE RESULTING DRAFT ORDINANCE ADEQUATE ADEQUATELY ADDRESSES THE AVERAGE OF THOSE EXPRESSED VIEWS AND CONCERNS. 
          I'M THANKFUL FOR THE CITY STAFF THAT WORKED SO HARD AND INVESTED THEIR TIME AND ENERGY INTO THIS EFFORT, AND I'M HOPEFUL FOR POSITIVE OUTCOME. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          THANK YOU, SIR. 
          GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. 
          MY NAME IS MARCUS TAYLOR. 
          I'M THE OWNER OF ENGLISH HERITAGE HOMES, WHICH IS A RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY THAT WAS FORMED IN 1995. 
          I HAVE WORKED CONTINUALLY IN LAKEWOOD SINCE 2000. 
          I HAVE HAD AT LEAST ONE HOME OR MORE UNDER CONSTRUCTION IN LAKEWOOD AT ALL TIMES SINCE 2000 I ESTIMATE I'VE RENOVATED AND RESTORED ABOUT 50 HOMES IN LAKEWOOD. 
          THE SIGNIFICANT HOMES THAT I'VE WORKED ON ARE WORTH PRESERVING AND IN MY OPINION, THE RESTRICTIONS THAT ARE PLACED BY THE NEW, UH, CONSERVATION IS NOT UNDUE. 
          WE ARE ABLE TO ACCESS THE MATERIALS THAT WE NEED AND I BELIEVE THAT THE NEW CD OFFERS MANY OPTIONS IN TERMS OF MATERIALS AND SELECTIONS FOR THE OWNER. 
          ALSO, I HAVE NOT FOUND THE CONSTRUCTION EXPENSES IN THE CD AREA THAT I WORK IN TO BE EXCESSIVE OR GREATER THAN WORKING IN THE CITY OF DALLAS. 
          THANK, THANK YOU. 
          HELLO, GOOD EVENING. 
          I'M KAREN EUBANK. 
          I LIVE AT 6 2 7 VALENCIA IN A CONSERVATION DISTRICT FOR 34 YEARS. 
          I ALSO WRITE ABOUT HISTORIC PRESERVATION FOR K DIRT. 
          ONE OF MY OWN ARTICLES IS BEING USED BY THE OPPOSITION AND IT IS CERTAINLY NOT AN ALTERNATIVE TO A CONSERVATION DISTRICT. 
          THEY'RE SUGGESTING TAX CREDITS WILL WORK. 
          NO OWNER OCCUPIED HOMES DO NOT QUALIFY FOR HISTORIC TAX CREDITS IN A CONSERVATION DISTRICT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. 
          THE OTHER THING IS MARKET VALUE. 
          I WANNA TALK TO, I KNOW YOU'RE NOT THAT INTERESTED IN THE ECONOMICS, BUT HOMEOWNERS ARE THE JOURNAL OF REAL ESTATE RESEARCH SAYS THEIR RESEARCH RESULTED IN DE IN A DEMONSTRATIVE AND POSITIVE AND STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL SALE PRICES AND PROPERTIES WITHIN A CONSERVATION DISTRICT. 
          THE INCREASE IN SALES PRICE WAS 7.3 TO 23.7% IN YOUR HOME. 
          IF YOU ARE IN A CONSERVATION DISTRICT, THESE ARE TWO REALLY BIG REASONS FOR YOU TO PASS THIS CONSERVATION EXPANSION. 
          THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF HYSTERIA ABOUT IT. 
          THIS IS OUR HISTORY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          YOUR TIME IS UP. 
          OUR ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY AND OUR CULTURAL HISTORY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          GOOD EVENING. 
          CHRIS NER. 
          I LIVE AT 69 36 LAKESHORE, UH, ONE OF THE HOUSES THAT IS, UH, PART OF THE PROPOSED EXPANSION DISTRICT. 
          UH, OUR HOUSE WAS BUILT IN 1926. 
          UH, IT WAS THE OLDEST HOUSE ON THE BLOCK. 
          UH, 
          [08:10:02]
WOULD REALLY LIKE TO MORE TALK ABOUT THE ISSUES THAT HAVE COME UP WITH THE OPPOSITION IN ANTICIPATION OF WHAT YOU WILL BE HEARING FROM THEM. 
          UM, I WAS PART OF A SMALL GROUP THAT MET WITH SEVERAL OF THE PEOPLE WHO WERE, UM, ESSENTIALLY IN CHARGE OF THE OPPOSITION ON THIS PRO ON THIS PROPOSAL. 
          WE SPENT A CONSIDERABLE EFFORT TRYING TO REACH CONSENSUS AND, AND FINDING MIDDLE GROUND ON PLACES WHERE WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO, UM, TO COOPERATE. 
          AND AT EVERY TURN WE WERE FACED WITH NO, THEY JUST SIMPLY DON'T WANT IT. 
          AND IN ORDER FOR US TO MAKE ANY PROGRESS OR TRY TO REACH ANY SORT OF CONSENSUS AS A NEIGHBORHOOD, WE HAD NO LUCK IN THAT WHATSOEVER. 
          IT WAS VERY DISAPPOINTING TO ME. 
          THESE ARE PEOPLE WHO ARE MY FRIENDS AND MY NEIGHBORS, AND WE WERE NOT ABLE TO REACH ANY SORT OF CONSENSUS. 
          DESPITE ALL OF OUR BEST EFFORTS, I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO FOLLOW THE LEAD OF THE CITY STAFF WHO DID TREMENDOUS WORK. 
          YOUR TIME IS OUT THIS TOGETHER. 
          THANK YOU, SIR. 
          HI AM TAM F AT 1914, SKILLMAN DALLAS AND F 2 0 6, AND I'M A DESIGN BUILDER WHO SPECIALIZES IN HISTORIC AND CONSERVATION, UM, HISTORIC REMODEL. 
          AND I HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH THE CITY ON, UH, GETTING APPROVALS FOR HISTORIC AND CONSERVATION, UM, DISTRICT HOMES. 
          AND IT IS A VERY NAVIGABLE PROCESS. 
          IT'S VERY DOABLE. 
          THERE IS NO, YOU KNOW, THERE'S, IT'S NOTHING COMPLICATED, YOU KNOW, READ SOME PAPERS, FIGURE IT OUT. 
          UM, SO I, UM, I'VE ALSO WON, UH, FIVE PRESERVATION AWARDS AND A GILHAM, UM, PATTERSON AWARD FOR THESE RESTORATIONS THAT I'VE DONE. 
          AND WITH THAT BEING SAID, THERE IS ALWAYS AN INCREASE IN VALUE IN WORKING IN A HOME, UM, THAT IS AN EXISTING HOME THAT'S IN A CONSERVATION AND HISTORIC DISTRICT. 
          UM, OVER TIME IT ACTUALLY IS BETTER THAN THE NEWER BUILDS. 
          SO FOR A PRICE PER FOOT. 
          UM, THANK YOU. 
          YOUR TIME IS UP. 
          OKAY. 
          GOOD EVENING. 
          GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. 
          I'M LISA MARINO. 
          OUR FAMILY HAS LIVED AT 69 15 LAKEWOOD BOULEVARD FOR 26 YEARS IN OUR A HUNDRED YEAR OLD HOME, WHICH WE VALUE AND HAVE WORKED HARD TO PRESERVE LAKEWOOD'S VALUE LIVES IN ITS UNIQUE CHARACTER AS A HISTORICALLY INTACT NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE HOMES ARE LIKE WORKS OF ART, CREATING A SENSE OF PLACE THAT ELEVATES US AND THE ENTIRE CITY AS THE CROWN JEWEL OF EAST DALLAS. 
          LAKEWOOD IS THE GATEWAY TO WHITE ROCK LAKE, THE HEART OF PARADES AND MARATHONS, THE BELOVED DESTINATION FOR HALLOWEEN AND CHRISTMAS. 
          IT'S A WALKABLE, CONNECTED NEIGHBORHOOD THAT ENHANCES OUR CITY'S LIVABILITY AND VIABILITY. 
          THE CONSERVATION DISTRICT PROTECTS THIS LEGACY BY PROMOTING ORDERLY GROWTH THAT COMPLIMENTS THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S CHARACTER. 
          PRESERVING THAT SENSE OF PLACE. 
          IN ALLOWING CHANGE TO HAPPEN IN HARMONY, WE MUST PRESERVE, PRESERVE THE MOST SIGNIFICANT BLOCKS OF THIS IRREPLACEABLE NEIGHBORHOOD WE HAVE NOW BECAUSE CHANGE IS COMING QUICKLY. 
          AFTER THREE YEARS OF HARD WORK AND WITH DEDICATED SMART CITY PROFESSIONALS, THIS ORDINANCE REFLECTS THE INPUT OF NEIGHBORS WHO CARE DEEPLY ABOUT OUR COMMUNITY. 
          COMMISSIONERS YOU HAVE A RARE OPPORTUNITY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          TIME UP. 
          A POSITIVE LASTING IMPACT. 
          PLEASE FOCUS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU, THANK YOU. 
          WILFORD CHU 71 19 LAKE SHORE DRIVE. 
          IN ONE OF THE COMMUNITY INPUT MEETINGS, A NEIGHBOR ASKED ABOUT THE VALUE INCREASE OR DECREASE OF HOMES THAT ARE IN CONSERVATION DISTRICTS. 
          MY BACKGROUND IS IN DATA ANALYSIS, SO I VOLUNTEERED TO LOOK AT EXISTING CITY STUDIES FROM ACROSS THE COUNTRY THAT VALUED THE DIFFERENTIAL BETWEEN HOUSES WITHIN CONSERVATION DI DISTRICTS VERSUS LIKE HOMES WITHIN THE SAME CITY. 
          I REVIEWED A DOZEN STUDIES, MANY WERE CONDUCTED BY UNIVERSITIES. 
          MY CONCLUSION, THE STUDIES REGULARLY REPORTED AN INCREASE IN HOME VALUE WHEN A NEIGHBORHOOD CREATES A CONSERVATION DISTRICT VERSUS COMPARABLE HOMES, NOT IN THE CONSERVATION DISTRICT. 
          SPECIFIC DETAIL IS IN THE PACKET WE PROVIDED YOU. 
          THE DATA IS VERY CLEAR AND CONSISTENT. 
          HELLO, MY NAME IS TEMPLE SHIPLEY. 
          I'M A RESIDENT AT 65 18 LAKEWOOD BOULEVARD. 
          I'VE BEEN A RESIDENT SINCE 2021 AND THIS IS IN THE EXISTING CONSERVATION DISTRICT AND I'M IN SUPPORT OF THE EXPANSION. 
          UM, IT'S A TUTOR FROM 1936 AND I WANTED TO JUST SHARE THAT WHEN MY HUSBAND AND I WERE 
          [08:15:01]
LOOKING AT HOMES, UM, WE VERY STRONGLY CONSIDERED LAKEWOOD AND WE MADE TWO OFFERS ON HOMES IN THE CONSERVATION DISTRICT. 
          SO IT WAS NOT FOR US, A REASON TO NOT CONSIDER. 
          IT WAS ACTUALLY SOMETHING THAT WE WERE EXCITED ABOUT. 
          UM, WE WERE ABLE TO MOVE INTO A HOUSE THAT HAD HAD A REMODELED BACK PORCH, UM, A NEW ROOF AND, UM, IT HAD PAINT AND IT WAS JUST, I JUST WANNA SAY THAT I'M VERY MUCH IN FAVOR OF THE CONSERVATION DISTRICT. 
          I GREW UP IN EAST DALLAS AND LAKEWOOD IS JUST A GEM THAT I THINK, UM, THIS IS WRITTEN IN A WAY THAT ALLOWS US TO MODERNIZE WHILE ALSO HONORING OUR HISTORICAL LEGACY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          HI, MY NAME'S LAURA BROCH. 
          I LIVE AT 7,003 LAKEWOOD BOULEVARD. 
          MY HUSBAND AND I HAVE LIVED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR 25 YEARS AND, UH, FOR THE LAST 17 IN A HUT. 
          AND BEFORE THAT, ACROSS THE STREET, UM, WE WERE DRAWN TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD BY ITS CHARM, ITS ARCHITECTURE, ITS HISTORY, AND I THINK LOTS OF OTHER PEOPLE ARE DRAWN TO FOR THOSE SAME REASONS. 
          IT'S VERY COMMON TO SEE SIGNS ON CORNERS DIRECTING THE CREW FOR A MOVIE OR TELEVISION AD BECAUSE OTHER PEOPLE ALSO LOVE THE ARCHITECTURAL INTEGRITY OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          UM, WHITE ROCK MARATHON, AS YOU KNOW, GOES THROUGH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          YOU KNOW, THE CITY WANTS TO SHOWCASE. 
          ITS DOWNTOWN AMERICAN AIRLINE CENTER AND ITS HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOODS. 
          ALL OF THE TRULY GREAT CITIES OF THE WORLD HAVE NEIGHBORHOODS LIKE THIS WITH ARCHITECTURAL INTEGRITY AND THAT ARE IMPORTANT ARCHITECTURALLY AND CHARMING. 
          WE DON'T WANNA BE DUBAI, I THINK WE WANNA BE MORE LIKE LONDON. 
          THANKS SO MUCH. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ANN WILLIS BROWN, 73 27 LAKEWOOD. 
          MY BLOCK IS THE 7,300 BLOCK OF LAKEWOOD. 
          IT'S THE LAST BLOCK BEFORE ARRIVING AT WHITE ROCK LAKE. 
          ON THE LEFT SIDE, ON THE ODD SIDE OF THE STREET, THERE IS A ROW OF NINE QUAINT HISTORIC HOMES. 
          EIGHT OF THEM ARE HISTORIC HUS FROM THE THIRTIES. 
          LIKE MANY HOUSES ON MY BLOCK, MY HOUSE IS SMALL. 
          IT IS LESS THAN 1900 SQUARE FEET, BUT IT HAS A VIEW OF THE LAKE. 
          MY HOME IS EASY PICKINGS FOR A DEVELOPER TO TEAR DOWN AND THEN MAX OUT THE 7,500 SQUARE FOOT SMALL NARROW LOT, NOT ONLY TO TOWER OVER MY NEIGHBOR'S DOWNHILL. 
          THIS KIND OF UNRESTRICTED DEVELOPMENT WILL EVENTUALLY LEAD TO THIS ROW OF HOMES FALLING LIKE DOMINOES. 
          IT'S NOT A QUESTION OF IF, BUT WHEN OUR BLOCK GREETS A LOT OF PEOPLE HEADING TO AND FROM THE LAKE, MANY STOPPED TO ADMIRE A LITTLE ROW OF HUDSON HOMES FOR THEY ARE THE KEYSTONE TO THE ENTRANCE OF THE LAKEWOOD BOULEVARD AND THE KEYSTONE TO THE ENTRANCE OF WHITE ROCK LAKE. 
          I JUST WANT YOU TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE PHOTOS THAT ARE SLIDE GOING THROUGH THE SLIDESHOW. 
          THERE IS NOT A COLLECTION LIKE THIS OF THESE STYLE OF HOMES THAT EXISTS ANYWHERE IN DALLAS AND IT CAN BE JUST GONE IN AN THANK YOU. 
          YOUR TIME WAS UP YEAR. 
          THANK YOU. 
          HELLO, MY NAME IS KIM EDGE AND I LIVE AT 70 11 LAKEWOOD BOULEVARD. 
          THERE'S BEEN 34 DEMOLITIONS SINCE WE MOVED IN IN 1996. 
          SEVEN OF THOSE WERE DS AND CRAFTS HOMES BUILT BETWEEN 1935 AND 19 41 6 ON WESTLAKE BLOCK, 6,900 TO 7,001 ON THE LAKEWOOD BLOCK OF 6,900. 
          IN ADDITION, WE LOST TWO BELOVED HUT HOMES. 
          THAT'S NINE SIGNIFICANT HOMES BUILT BY PROMINENT DALLAS BUILDERS WORKING SPECIFICALLY IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          ONCE DEMOLITION TAKES A FOOTHOLD IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THE ORIGINAL HOME BECOMES INCONSEQUENTIAL AND THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY IS DETERMINED BY THE LAND THE HOUSE OCCUPIES, WHICH IS CALLED TEAR DOWNS. 
          I WANNA THANK YOU FOR THE COMMISSIONERS FOR YOUR PATIENCE AND TREVOR AND HIS TEAM. 
          THANK YOU. 
          I HOPE YOU SUPPORT US. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UH, I AM MICHELLE WALKER, 1841 SHE MEYER DRIVE. 
          I'M READING A LETTER FROM MARCEL QUIMBEE, FAIA. 
          I'M MARCEL QUIMBEE AND I LIVE AT 7,001 HAMMOND AVENUE IN HOLLYWOOD, SANTA MONICA CONSERVATION DISTRICT SPEAKING AS AN ARCHITECT AND RESIDENT OF 15 YEARS, UM, THE CONSERV CONSERVATION DISTRICT GUIDELINES ARE STRICT, YET EFFECTIVE, WHILE ALLOWING REASONABLE CHANGES IN ADDITIONS TO THE HOME. 
          THE ORDINANCE PROCESS HAS BEEN CHANGED WITH MODIFICATIONS IN 1993 AND 2007 THAT WERE REQUESTED BY THE NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          THE NEIGHBORS, INCLUDING MYSELF, 
          [08:20:01]
ARE VERY PLEASED WITH THE CRITERIA. 
          SORRY. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, IN ADDITION TO LAKEWOOD'S UNIQUE CHARACTER, IT HAS A COLLECTION OF ARCHITECTURALLY SIGNIFICANT HOMES. 
          BUT HUDSON BECK, GEORGE DAH, BERTRAND HILL AND OTHERS, THEIR LOSS WOULD BE DEVASTATING. 
          I URGE THE HOMEOWNERS IN LAKEWOOD TO PROTECT THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S REMARKABLE CHARACTER AND ITS OUTSTANDING ARCHITECTURE WITH THE EXPANSION OF THE CONSERVATION DISTRICT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          CYNTHIA TIM, 7 0 0 8 LAKE SHORE DRIVE. 
          AS A CHILD, I HAD THE PRIVILEGE OF LIVING IN CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA. 
          CHARLESTON HAD BEEN ONE OF THE NATION'S MOST PREEMINENT CITIES, BUT THE CIVIL WAR DECIMATED ITS ECONOMY. 
          IT LANGUISHED UNTIL UPON REAWAKENING, IT BEGAN TO LOSE ITS HISTORY TO URBAN RENEWAL. 
          CHARLESTON DECIDED TO PRESERVE ITS DOWNTOWN, AND TODAY IS CONSIDERED TO BE ONE OF AMERICA'S MOST BEAUTIFUL CITIES. 
          DALLAS HAS ALWAYS BEEN FOCUSED ON ITS FUTURE, BUT IN ITS ENTHUSIASM FOR WHAT IT CAN BE. 
          DALLAS SOMETIMES FAILS TO PROTECT WHAT IT HAS BEEN. 
          WHAT CHARLESTON REALIZED WAS THAT ITS PAST WAS ITS FUTURE. 
          FOR A CITY TO BE PREEMINENT, IT MUST PROJECT A SENSE OF IDENTITY. 
          THERE MUST BE SOMETHING UNIQUE IN THAT CITY. 
          THAT UNIQUENESS OCCURS MOST NATURALLY WHEN THE CITY HOLDS ON TO THE BEST OF ITS PAST AS IT TRANSITIONS INTO ITS FUTURE. 
          LAKEWOOD, THANK YOU. 
          YOUR TIME IS UP. 
          THANK YOU. 
          JIM ANDERSON, 47 0 6 SWISS AVENUE DALLAS. 
          I'M THE FORMER PRESERVATION OFFICER FOR THE CITY OF DALLAS AND WORKED IN HISTORIC PRESERVATION FOR 26 YEARS IN THE CITY OF DALLAS. 
          I WROTE MANY OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICT ORDINANCE AND REVIEWED ALL OF THE HISTORIC AND CONSERVATION DISTRICT REVIEWS. 
          I RECALL NO PROBLEMS AT ALL. 
          REVIEWING THE, THE, UM, THE LAKEWOOD DISTRICT. 
          EVERYTHING WAS REALLY FINE. 
          NO CONTROVERSIES. 
          UM, HISTORIC PRESERVATION. 
          HISTORIC DISTRICTS ARE VERY SEVERE. 
          CONSERVATION DISTRICTS ARE MORE LIBERAL. 
          IN FACT, THE NEIGHBORHOODS DRAFT THEIR OWN HISTORIC, UH, CONSERVATION DISTRICT ORDINANCES. 
          SO WHAT YOU'RE REVIEWING TODAY WAS REDUNDANT BY THE NEIGHBORHOOD, PICKING OUT WHAT THEY WANTED TO DO, WHAT THEY WANTED TO, TO PRESERVE IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          DALLAS WAS A SMALL TOWN TO THE 1950S WHEN OIL HIT DALLAS EXPLODED. 
          SO THE CITY OF DALLAS DOESN'T HAVE AS MUCH ARCHITECTURAL STOCK AS YOU MIGHT SEE IN OTHER MAJOR CITIES. 
          SO HISTORIC BUILDINGS ARE MORE RARE AND THEY'RE VERY SPECIAL IN MY OPINION. 
          YES. 
          UM, IF YOU DON'T PROTECT THE, THE, UH, STRUCTURES WITHIN OR THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THANK YOU. 
          YOUR IS UP 20 MILES OF DOWNTOWN, YOU'RE GONNA LOSE THEM. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ARE THERE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS IN SUPPORT? OKAY. 
          UH, BEFORE WE GO TO OUR FOLKS ONLINE, WE'LL TAKE THE, OUR SPEAKERS IN OPPOSITION HERE IN THE CHAMBER. 
          GOOD EVENING. 
          HELLO. 
          UH, I'M KATHY ERDMAN. 
          I'M A RETIRED PHYSICIAN. 
          LAKEWOOD HAS BEEN MY HOME FOR MORE THAN HALF MY LIFE. 
          I WAS ATTRACTED TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, AS I MOVED IN WITH A TWO YOUNG CHILDREN. 
          I WAS ATTRACTED TO THE HILLS, TO THE TREES, TO THE NEARBY LAKE, AND TO A VARIETY OF HOMES. 
          I CHOSE IT AS MY FOREVER HOME. 
          I RAISED MY DAUGHTERS HERE. 
          I WAS CLOSE TO WORK. 
          I IMPROVED THE HOME WITH ITS FOUNDATION PROBLEMS. I POPULATED THE ONCE EMPTY LOT WITH 12 TREES. 
          I MADE GREAT NEIGHBORS. 
          SOME OF THEM HAVE A LEFT OVER THIS ISSUE, UH, MOVING AWAY BEFORE, UH, THEY DIDN'T WANNA SEE WHAT WOULD HAPPEN. 
          OTHER NEIGHBORS SOLD THEIR HOUSE IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, UM, TO, AT A VERY HIGH RATE. 
          THOSE LOVELY HOMES WERE TORN DOWN AND HUGE UN LIKE HOMES WERE PUT IN ITS PLACE. 
          [08:25:02]
I AM NOT SURE WHAT MOTIVATED THIS PROJECT, BUT I DO THANK YOU YOUR TIME. 
          THE MAJORITY OF HOMEOWNERS DO NOT WANT IT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          TRY TO STAY UPRIGHT COMMISSIONERS, UH, ROB RICHMOND 69 0 4 TOON. 
          UH, I'VE LIVED IN THAT HOUSE FOR 42 YEARS. 
          IT'S A HUNDRED YEARS OLD THIS YEAR. 
          I WANT TO CONGRATULATE ALL OF THESE LAKEWOOD NEIGHBORS. 
          EVEN THOUGH MANY OF US ARE ON DIFFERENT SIDES OF THIS ISSUE, UH, IT REALLY HASN'T OVERCOME US BEING GOOD, STILL BEING GOOD NEIGHBORS. 
          UM, I'VE SENT EACH OF YOU IN AN EMAIL TODAY A MAP OF THE RESPONSES THAT CAME UP AS A RESULT OF THIS MEETING. 
          OKAY. 
          AS WELL AS A BREAKDOWN BY STREET. 
          THE INTERESTING THING WAS, UH, ALMOST EIGHT OVER 80% OF THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN THE EXPANSION AREA, THE PEOPLE THAT THIS IS GONNA AFFECT. 
          AND IT SPLIT ALMOST 50 50 ON NUMBERS. 
          OKAY. 
          AND, UH, THANK YOU. 
          YOUR TIME IS UP. 
          OH, OKAY. 
          THANK YOU SIR. 
          OKAY. 
          A PRESENTATION. 
          IS THERE A WAY I COULD GET HELP WITH IT? WE'LL PAUSE ONE MOMENT. 
          IT IS 16 PAGES, BUT I'LL TRY TO MAKE IT QUICK. 
           COMMISSIONER SLEEPER, UH, ESTEEM. 
          MEMBERS OF THE CPC APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY. 
          SIR, YOU WANT TALK TO THE MICROPHONE PLEASE? THANKS. 
          JUST SPEAK YOU TODAY. 
          MY NAME IS STEVE HU. 
          I LIVE AT 6 8 5 5 LAKEWOOD BOULEVARD. 
          WANNA COVER FOUR AREAS WITH YOU. 
          MAJORITY OF THIS IS THE WRONG PRESENTATION. 
          MAJORITY OPPOSED, UH, FROM THE BEGINNING NUMERICALLY, UH, ALSO VISUALLY. 
          UM, AND IF YOU DROVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD, YOU'D SEE THE SAME. 
          UH, THE CD IS NOT UNDER ANY THREAT. 
          IN FACT, IT'D BE THE EXACT OPPOSITE. 
          LAKE FOOT IS AMONG LAKEWOOD IS AMONG THE TOP FIVE MOST DESIRABLE NEIGHBORHOODS IN ALL OF DALLAS. 
          THE CITY'S OWN SURVEY SHOWS OVER THE LAST A HUNDRED YEARS, WITHOUT THESE CONTROLS IN PLACE, 96% OF THE HOMES ARE INTACT. 
          THAT MEANS OVER THE LAST 13 YEARS, 12 HOMES HAVE BEEN BUILT LESS THAN ONE PER YEAR. 
          UH, ADDITIONALLY, THIS CONSTITUTES A TAKING, IT RESTRICTS THE OWNER'S, RIGHT? AND IT IMPACTS THE PROPERTY VALUES BY 25%. 
          THE 12 NEW HOMES, WHICH ARE A MARKED IMPROVEMENT OVER WHAT WAS PREVIOUSLY THERE, THE WEIGHTED AVERAGE INCREASE ACCORDING TO D AD IS 181%. 
          ALSO, THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAM. 
          THIS WAS AN, UH, A WAY FOR BOTH SIDES TO COME TOGETHER. 
          I WOULD CHALLENGE THE, THE DISCUSSION EARLIER. 
          IF YOU LOOK UNDER PAGE SIX, THANK YOU, YOUR TIME, ALL PROPERTIES AND SECTION. 
          THANK YOU, SIR. 
          51. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          I APPRECIATE IT. 
          THANK SO MUCH. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          NEXT SPEAKER, PLEASE. 
          GOOD EVENING. 
          I MIGHT NEED THESE. 
          HELLO COMMISSIONERS. 
          MY NAME'S ERIC JOHNSON. 
          SPEAKING TO THE MICROPHONE, PLEASE, SIR. 
          HELLO COMMISSIONERS. 
          MY NAME'S ERIC JOHNSON, 68 49 LAKEWOOD. 
          UH, THIS MORNING I SENT Y'ALL AN ARTICLE. 
          UM, EVERYBODY ON THE COMMISSION, IT'S A, IT WAS BY DALLAS COTRAN. 
          HE JUST LEFT, UH, KIND OF EXCITED TO SEE HIM HERE. 
          TOO BAD HE LEFT. 
          BUT, UH, IN HIS ARTICLE, 
          [08:30:01]
HE, HE SPECIFICALLY SAID IN HIS PROFESSIONAL OPINION, THIS CD EXPANSION SHOULD BE REJECTED FOR MANY COMPELLING REASONS BECAUSE OF TIME CONSTRAINTS. 
          I DON'T HAVE TIME TO GO INTO ALL OF IT, BUT BASED ON WHAT ROB WAS SAYING AND THE MAP THAT WAS UP HERE WITH THE EXPANSION AREA OF 275 HOMES, A MAJORITY OF THE RESPONDENTS HAVE ALREADY INDICATED THAT THEY'RE OPPOSED TO THIS CHANGE. 
          BASED ON THIS FACT ALONE, THERE ARE MORE PEOPLE OPPOSED TO THIS MEASURE THAN IN FAVOR OF IT. 
          I CALL ON YOU TO REJECT, REJECT THIS ZONING CHANGE. 
          MR. CORAN, EXCUSE ME. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION. 
          PLEASE MAKE THE JUDICIOUS CHOICE TO PROTECT THE PROPERTY RIGHTS OF ALL THE CITIZENS OF LAKEWOOD. 
          THANK YOU. 
          GOOD EVENING. 
          HELLO, I'M SAMANTHA CRISPIN. 
          I'M AT 68 59 TOON. 
          AND UNLIKE A NUMBER OF FOLKS THAT YOU'VE HEARD FROM THE PRIOR THIS EVENING, WHO ARE FOR THIS? I AM IN THE PROPOSED EXPANSION DISTRICT. 
          I HAVE LIVED IN MY HOUSE FOR 21 YEARS, AND GUESS WHAT? I TORE DOWN MY HOUSE. 
          IT WAS A 1970S SPECIAL. 
          IT HAD AN INDOOR OUTDOOR SWIMMING POOL. 
          IT HAD A, IT HAD A 12 FOOT WET BAR. 
          IT HAD A DJ BOOTH. 
          IT WAS THE UGLIEST HOUSE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          WE TORE THAT DOWN AND WE PUT SOMETHING IN THE PLACE THAT LOOKS A HECK OF A LOT LIKE THE REST OF THE HOUSES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          AND GUESS WHAT? I DIDN'T NEED REGULATION TO DO THAT. 
          SO LET'S NOT ASSUME THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF REGULATION THAT PEOPLE ARE GONNA BUILD MONSTROSITIES. 
          PEOPLE LOVE LAKEWOOD, THEY'RE GONNA DO THE RIGHT THING. 
          THE OTHER THING I WANNA TALK ABOUT, I WANNA ECHO SOMETHING THAT ONE OF MY NEIGHBORS WHO IS FOR THIS SAID, RULES SHOULD BE FOLLOWED. 
          THEY ABSOLUTELY SHOULD. 
          AND THIS PROCESS IS NOT FOLLOWING THE RULES. 
          THERE IS NO WAY CALLING THIS AN EXPANSION IS A JOKE. 
          HOW CAN IT BE AN EXPANSION WHEN THERE ARE 30 PLUS PAGES? MULTIPLE NEW DEFINITIONS, 18 MEETINGS NEEDED TO DISCUSS WHAT THIS IS AN EXPANSION. 
          THANK YOU. 
          IS UP. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          THANK YOU FOR JOINING US. 
          THE MIC TURNED OFF. 
          YEAH, I TURNED OFF. 
          HI, I'M CHARLES ECKER. 
          I LIVE AT 69 14 TOKON. 
          I'VE LIVED IN LAKEWOOD FOR 55 YEARS AND ON LON FOR 25 YEARS. 
          MY HOUSE WAS BUILT BY THE NEIGHBOR NEXT DOOR FOR A FAMILY MEMBER. 
          IT'S A LITTLE SMALL HOUSE, 2,400 SQUARE FOOT HOUSE ORIGINALLY BUILT ON A VERY LARGE LOT. 
          CURRENTLY THE ORIGINAL HOUSE AND THE ADDITION THAT WAS PUT ON BEFORE I BOUGHT THE HOUSE DON'T FLOW. 
          WELL, IT IS SMALL BATHROOMS. IT HAS SMALL BATHROOMS, SMALL CLOSETS. 
          THIS HOUSE HAS NO SIGNIFICANT VALUE. 
          IT'S BUILT IN 1945, BUT YET TODAY, WELL ONE COULD BUILD A MUCH NICER FLOWING HOUSE THAT COULD UTILIZE THE ENTIRE LOT, BUT THIS PLANNED PROPOSAL WOULD FOREVER KEEP THIS HOUSE THAT'S NON-FUNCTIONING AN UNDERUSED LOT FOREVER. 
          IT'S GONNA SIT THERE. 
          THE CURRENT PROPOSED CD PLAN HAS TOO MANY RESTRICTIONS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          YOUR TIME IS UP FOR THE DIVERSITY OF HOUSES AND LOT SIZE. 
          THANK YOU, SIR. 
          THANK YOU FOR VOTING. 
          THANK YOU. 
          NO, HI THERE. 
          JENNIFER WILEY, 24 32 HIDEAWAY DRIVE. 
          WE LIVE ON A STREET THAT IS CONSIDERED 100% NON-CONTRIBUTING, AND WE ARE 100% AGAINST THIS CONSERVATION EXPANSION. 
          IT SEEMS UNCONSCIONABLE TO ME THAT THE CITY WOULD FORCE US TO ABIDE BY A SET OF RULES THAT WE CAN'T POSSIBLY MEET. 
          IF ANY OF US WANNA REMODEL OUR HOMES, WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO TEAR THEM DOWN. 
          OTHERWISE, WE'RE GONNA BASTARDIZE THE LOOK OF OUR HOUSE. 
          THOSE OF US THAT ARE IN A W RENT STYLE HOMES ARE BEING COMPLETE, COMPLETELY NEGLECTED ON THIS. 
          UM, SHOULD ANY OF, EXCUSE ME, OUR HOUSE, SHOULD ANY OF US WANT TO REMODEL, WE WOULD HAVE TO TEAR THIS DOWN BECAUSE WE ARE DEEMED AS UNWORTHY BY OUR NEIGHBORS AND BY THE CITY. 
          SO I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU ALL THAT. 
          IF ANYONE WANTS TO PRESERVE THEIR HOME, THEN ASK THEM TO DO A DEED RESTRICTION. 
          MOST OF US ACTUALLY ARE IN FAVOR OF PRESERVATION, BUT WE WOULD LIKE TO DO IT THE RIGHT WAY. 
          MY HOME SPECIFICALLY, WE BOUGHT IT WITH THE INTENT OF FIXING IT UP AND MAKING IT EVEN NICER BY THESE RULES, THOUGH WE WON'T BE ALLOWED TO DO SO, THEREFORE HURTING OUR VALUES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          YOUR TIME IS UP. 
          ALISON MOORE. 
          6 9 5 5 LAKESHORE. 
          [08:35:01]
WE DO LIVE IN THE CONSERVATE, THE PROPOSED, UH, EXPANSION DISTRICT. 
          I HAVE ONE THING, NOT NOT, I DON'T WANNA REPEAT ANYTHING ANYONE ELSE HAS SAID, BUT IF YOU DO ONE THING BEFORE YOU VOTE IN FAVOR OF THIS, I ASK THAT YOU LOOK AND COMPARE THE PLAT MAP WITH THE LOTS AND THE HOUSE SIZES FOR THE CURRENT EXPANSION OF THE CURRENT CD AND COMPARE IT TO THE LOTS AND THE SIZE OF THE HOUSE SIZES ON THE PROPOSED EXPANSION. 
          THE, THE CURRENT CD, THE HOUSES ARE MUCH MORE HOMOGENEOUS IN TERMS OF THE SIZE OF THE HOUSE. 
          THE LOTS ARE MUCH MORE HOMOGENEOUS IN TERMS OF BOTH SIZE AND SHAPE. 
          BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE PROPOSED EXPANSION DISTRICT, THE SIZE IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. 
          MY HOUSE IS ON AN 80 FOOT LOT. 
          THE HOUSE NEXT TO US IS ON A 102 FEET LOT. 
          SOME HOUSES ARE OR HAVE A CROSS COMING AT A CROSSWAY, AND SO THEY'RE ACTUALLY A PIE SHAPE AND WHEN YOU TRY TO IMPOSE RESTRICTIONS. 
          THANK THIS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          HELLO, MY NAME IS SCOTT JACKSON. 
          I LIVE AT 70 10 DELROSE DRIVE. 
          SIR, CAN YOU SPEAK INTO THE MICROPHONE PLEASE? THANKS. 
          HELLO, MY NAME IS SCOTT JACKSON. 
          I LIVE AT 70 10 DELROSE DRIVE. 
          I'VE LIVED IN LAKEWOOD MY ENTIRE LIFE. 
          I'M A FOURTH GENERATION DALLAS SITE. 
          I'M A REALTOR IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          I'M WELL VERSED WITH HISTORIC CONSERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICTS. 
          THE PROCESS OF DEVELOPING THESE NEW GUIDELINES FOR OUR NEIGHBORS IS CHALLENGING AND PLACES NEIGHBORS PROPERTY RIGHTS AND VALUES IN PLAY AT MAKING THESE DECISIONS. 
          THESE NEW SETS OF GUIDELINES PRESENTED DO NOT MIMIC THE ORIGINAL LAKEWOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT, WHICH I HELPED DEVELOP ON THE ORIGINAL SET. 
          THE NEW PROVISIONS ARE COMPLICATED AND ONEROUS FOR NEIGHBORS TO UNDERSTAND THE CONSEQUENCES. 
          AND PREVIOUS PUBLIC MEETINGS, IT'S BEEN SUGGESTED PURSUE THE VARIANCE PROCESS TO RESOLVE THESE DISCREPANCIES AND GUIDELINES TO ONE'S USAGE. 
          THIS PROCESS REQUIRES A GREAT DEAL OF TIME AND INVESTMENT FROM THE HOMEOWNER. 
          THE HOMEOWNER MUST UNDERSTAND THE GUIDELINES TO REPRESENT THEMSELVES OR PAY CONSULTANTS TO PRESENT THEIR PLANS. 
          STRINGENT AND COMPLICATED CONSERVATION DISTRICTS POTENTIALLY HOLD BACK. 
          THANK YOU. 
          YOUR TIME IS UP. 
          HELLO, I'M ROXANNE STAFF. 
          I LIVE AT 69 64 TOON AND, UH, WE HAVE LIVED IN LAKEWOOD 45 YEARS, 30 ON TOON. 
          WHEN WE BOUGHT OUR HOUSE IN 79, WE WERE JUST EXCITED TO BE IN LAKEWOOD. 
          AND 45 YEARS LATER, LAKEWOOD IS FINE. 
          ORGANICALLY, IT HAS BECOME EVEN MORE DESIRABLE. 
          I'M GONNA TAKE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT TACT AND ASK YOU TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE LARGER PICTURE. 
          IF YOU BELIEVE THE DALLAS MORNING NEWS AND MOODY'S, OUR CITY IS GOING TO FACE NEGATIVE RATINGS AND A HARD BUDGET DECISION REGARDING CORE CITY SERVICES LIKE FIRE AND POLICE PROTECTION. 
          YOUR VOTE ALONG WITH CITY COUNCIL MAY COMMIT THIS CITY'S RESOURCES, PERSONNEL, AND BUDGET TO ADJUDICATE WHETHER OR NOT I PUT THE RIGHT WINDOWS IN A $2 MILLION HOUSE. 
          THINK ABOUT THAT. 
          THINK YOUR TIME IS UP IF IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE. 
          GARRETT JOHNSON, 68 49 LAKEWOOD. 
          OVER THE PAST CENTURY, LAKEWOOD'S ARCHITECTURE HAS EVOLVED NATURALLY, NOW STANDING AS A SNAPSHOT OF THE MELTING POT THAT IS THE AMERICAN SOUTH. 
          BY LIMITING THE ARCHITECTURAL STYLES TO THE FIVE LISTED IN THE CASE, CD TWO DIRECTLY UNDERMINES THE FORMULA THAT ALLOWED LAKEWOOD TO ORGANICALLY GROW INTO THE ARCHITECTURALLY DIVERSE NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          IT IS TODAY. 
          THIS UNPLANNED MELTING POT HAS CREATED A DISTINCTIVE CHARACTER AND CHARM THAT IS NOT LIMITED TO A SINGLE DECADE OR PERIOD OF TIME AND SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRICTED TO THE PAST. 
          LAKEWOOD'S VALUE IS IN THE FREEDOM FOR EACH HOMEOWNER TO CONTRIBUTE UNIQUELY TO THE COMMUNITY'S IDENTITY. 
          RESTRICTING THIS EVOLUTION THROUGH THIS CONSERVATION DISTRICT'S INITIATIVE RISKS THE VERY INDIVIDUALITY THAT MADE LAKEWOOD UNIQUE 
          [08:40:01]
IN THE FIRST PLACE. 
          LET'S PRESERVE THE INDIVIDUAL FREEDOMS THAT FOSTER DIVERSITY OF ARCHITECTURE RATHER THAN IMPOSE RIGID CONTROLS THAT WOULD DILUTE THE COMMUNITY'S UNIQUE SPIRIT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          TIME. 
          IS IT? I'M FOR YOU TO REJECT THIS PROPOSITION THAT STRIPS HOMEOWNER. 
          THANK YOU, SIR. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          GOOD EVENING, JEFF POME. 
          7 0 1 9 WESTLAKE. 
          UH, THIS PROCESS HAS BEEN TOUTED AS NEIGHBORHOOD DRIVEN, BUT IT'S ANYTHING BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THE 274 RESPONSES OF THE PEOPLE IN THE, IN THE AREA THAT'S ACTUALLY IMPACTED ONLY 102 RESPONDED IN FAVOR. 
          IT'S 39%. 
          THESE PEOPLE HAVE THROWN TWO YEARS OF THEIR LIVES AT THIS THING, AND THE BEST THEY CAN DO IS 39%, 37%. 
          I MISSPOKE. 
          UM, IF YOU LOOK AT MY BLOCK, 7,000 WESTLAKE, IT'S EVEN WORSE. 
          WE HAD THREE HOMES OUT OF 20 SUPPORT THIS THREE OUTTA 20. 
          AND FOR GOOD REASON BECAUSE IF YOU DRIVE DOWN THE 7,000 BLOCK OF WESTLAKE, YOU'RE GONNA FIND NOTHING TO PRESERVE. 
          IT'S A JOKE. 
          UH, IF THE COMMISSION IS COMPELLED TO LET THIS THING GO THROUGH IN ANY FORM, I URGE YOU TO AT THE VERY LEAST, CARVE OUT 7,000 WESTLAKE BLOCK BECAUSE IT'S NOT SUPPORTED, IT'S NOT APPROPRIATE. 
          IT, UH, IT SHOULD BE STRICKEN. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          HI. 
          UM, I'M ANN KING. 
          I'M AT SIX, UH, 68 65 LAKE SHORE, AND I'M IN THE EXPANSION DISTRICT. 
          I'M ON THE EDGE. 
          I'M THE BLOCK THAT BUTTS UP AGAINST THIS, THE CURRENT CD. 
          SO THEY HAVE TO INCLUDE US, BUT WE ARE ALL RANCHES. 
          THERE IS NOTHING TO PRESERVE. 
          THERE'S A LOVELY HOUSE ADJACENT TO OUR BLOCK THAT, BUT IT'S, IT'S, I AM BUMMED. 
          I DON'T WANT YOU TO APPROVE THIS. 
          I DON'T THINK OUR BLOCK NEEDS THESE ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS. 
          UM, WHEN I DIDN'T SIGN THE ORIGINAL PETITION, WHEN THE PETITION PASSED, I WASN'T TOO WORRIED BECAUSE I LOOKED AT THE CD TWO THAT EXISTED AND IT PRESERVED HISTORIC HOMES AND LEFT EVERYBODY ELSE PRETTY MUCH ALONE. 
          NOW WE HAVE THIS TOME THAT HAS ALL OF THIS. 
          OH, I THINK, I THINK THAT IT'S JUST, IT'S TOO MUCH FOR THE HOMES THAT ARE NOT HISTORIC. 
          IF YOU EXPANDED THE EXISTING CD TWO, YOU'D HAVE A LOT LESS PUSHBACK. 
          THANK YOU. 
          YOUR TIME IS A NEW CD TWO. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THE MICROPHONE IS OFF, SIR. 
          YOU MIGHT. 
          PERFECT. 
          UM, CHRIS KING, 68, 65 LAKE SHORE. 
          YOU KNOW, HALF AS YOU'VE HEARD, HALF THE NEIGHBORHOOD HOMEOWNERS ARE STRONGLY OPPOSED. 
          MY WIFE AND I OWN A PLAIN RANCH THAT HER PARENTS PURCHASED IN THE 1960S. 
          YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT ONE YOU'LL SEE IN THE PICTURES. 
          YOU KNOW, I'M, I'M A CPA, I'M, I'M GOOD AT ADDING, SUBTRACTING AND COSTS. 
          YOU KNOW, WE ARE AGAINST THE EXTREME RESTRICTIONS OF THIS PROPOSAL. 
          YOU KNOW, IT HAS TO BE VERY COSTLY AND TIME AND MONEY TO REMODEL. 
          YOU KNOW, I THINK THIS IS A SUBTRACTION THAT'S UNCALLED FOR. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          MIKE STARCHER, 68 65 TOKO ON, UM, I SENT MOST OF Y'ALL A EMAIL OUTLINING, UH, A POTENTIALLY BAD SCENARIO FOR ME. 
          IF Y'ALL PASS THIS, I ACTUALLY HAVE A MORTGAGE ON MY HOUSE AND THERE IS, MY HOUSE IS NONCONFORMING. 
          WE CAME UP WITH THIS TERM NONCONFORMING IN ONE OF THOSE 18 MEETINGS. 
          MY HOUSE COULD NOT BE BUILT THE WAY IT SITS RIGHT NOW TODAY, IF I HAVE A CASUALTY ON MY HOUSE, THERE'S A GOOD CHANCE AND TREVOR'S ON RECORD THREE TIMES TELLING ME IT WOULD HAVE TO BE REBUILT EXACTLY. 
          BUT 
          [08:45:01]
I WOULD BE A OVER LOOMING WHAT, UH, STRUCTURE ON MY NEIGHBOR WHO YOU HEARD FROM A FEW MINUTES AGO. 
          SO THERE'S A CHANCE THAT MY HOUSE IS UNINSURABLE IF YOU GUYS PASS THIS, BECAUSE YOU CAN'T FIND AN INSURANCE COMPANY THAT WILL GO OUT THERE AND WRITE A POLICY TO, TO REBUILD A HOUSE THAT WAS BUILT EXACTLY AS IT WAS IN 1926. 
          THERE'S NO WAY TO DOCUMENT IT. 
          THERE'S NO WAY TO REBUILD IT AT THAT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          YOUR TIME IS UP. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          HELLO. 
          UM, MY NAME IS ASHLEY MARTIN AND I THINK, UH, MY HUSBAND AND I ARE IN A UNIQUE SITUATION IN THAT WE LIVED IN HOLLYWOOD HEIGHTS THE FIRST 10 YEARS OF OUR MARRIAGE, AND THEN WE MOVED TO LAKEWOOD AND WE OWN 70 31 LAKE SHORE DRIVE. 
          AND WE RECENTLY PURCHASED 68 32 LAKEWOOD BOULEVARD. 
          THROUGH A LOT OF HARD WORK, WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO PURCHASE A HOME THAT IS BEAUTIFUL WITH A LOT OF LAND. 
          THAT'S WHAT WE WANTED AND SAVORED IN LAKEWOOD VERSUS, VERSUS GOING TO OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS. 
          HAD WE KNOWN THAT THE CONSERVATION DISTRICT HAD IT BEEN IN PLACE, OR WE THOUGHT IT WAS GOING TO BE PASSED, WE WOULD NOT HAVE PURCHASED THAT HOME. 
          THE RULES AND REGULATIONS ARE SO STRINGENT, AND LET ME SAY THIS AND SAY THIS STRONGLY. 
          WE LOVE LAKEWOOD AND WE WOULD DO EVERYTHING IN OUR POWER TO KEEP THESE, THESE HOMES BEAUTIFUL. 
          AND THAT'S EVERY EXPECTATION OF OURS. 
          BUT GIVEN THE RULES AND REGULATIONS IN THIS NEW CONSERVATION DISTRICT, WE WOULD'VE HAD OUR HANDS TIED AND WE WOULD NOT HAVE PURCHASED THIS HOME AND WE WOULD'VE LOOKED ELSEWHERE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          YOUR TIME IS UP. 
          RANDY ESBERG 69 57 TOKO LAWN DRIVE. 
          I'VE LIVED IN LAKEWOOD FOR 28 YEARS. 
          I'M NOT AGAINST CONSERVATION, BUT I'M AGAINST THIS ORDINANCE AS WRITTEN BECAUSE IT'S OVERLY BURDENSOME AND COMPLEX AND CREATES ALL KINDS OF PROBLEMS FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          IT'S NOTHING LIKE CD TWO, CALLING IT AN EXPANSION OF CD TWO IS A JOKE, LIKE WAS SAID EARLIER. 
          THIS IS AN ENTIRELY NEW ORDINANCE THAT IS GONNA CAUSE BIG PROBLEMS FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT I DON'T THINK HAVE EVEN BEEN CONTEMPLATED YET BY THE CITY. 
          BUT THE PEOPLE WHO OWN THE HOUSES THAT ARE GONNA BEAR THE BRUNT OF THEM HAVE CONTEMPLATED 'EM. 
          PLEASE DO NOT PASS THIS ORDINANCE. 
          IT'S, IT'S NOT A CON CONSERVATION ORDINANCE. 
          IT'S A CONVERSION ORDINANCE THAT WILL SLOWLY SQUEEZE THE DIVERSITY OUT OF LAKEWOOD AND MAKE IT A WORSE NEIGHBORHOOD, MUCH WORSE NEIGHBORHOOD THAN IT IS. 
          THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMITTEE DOES NOT REPRESENT THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE INSIDE THE BOUNDARY OF THE MAP THEY DREW. 
          THIS HAS SUPPORT ON LAKEWOOD ON A COUPLE OF BLOCKS IN A BLOCK OF WEST SHORE, WEST LAKE. 
          THE PEOPLE ON THE BOUNDARY OF, UH, THE EXISTING CD TWO DO NOT SUPPORT IT, BUT THEY'RE BEING USED TO CONNECT IT TO CD TWO. 
          SO WE CAN THANK YOU. 
          YOUR TIME IS UP. 
          OKAY. 
          CAN EVERYONE HEAR ME? CAN UM, COMMISSIONERS, THANK YOU FOR LISTENING TO US. 
          TREVOR, NICE TO SEE YOU. 
          UM, I'M JULIE BROBERG AND FOR 35 YEARS I LIVED AT 69 45 TOLAN. 
          UM, AND I AM NOW LIVING IN MINNESOTA. 
          THAT'S PRETTY RECENT. 
          UH, I HEARD ABOUT, UH, AN ARCHITECTURAL HISTORIAN. 
          I THINK TREVOR CALLED HIM THE PREEMINENT, ONE OF THE PREEMINENT ARCHITECTURAL HISTORIANS IN THE CITY OF DALLAS. 
          UH, I CONTACTED HIM WHEN WE HAD TROUBLE WITH, UH, STYLES AND, UH, ASKED HIM IF HE WOULD IDENTIFY THE STYLES IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          AND OVER 90 HOURS OF WORK WITH HIM, HE IDENTIFIED 18 SEPARATE STYLES IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          AND THIS GOT CONDENSED TO FOUR TO MATCH CD TWO SO THEY COULD CREATE AN EXPANSION. 
          THANK YOU. 
          YOUR TIME IS UP. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU SO MUCH. 
          THANK YOU. 
          GOOD EVENING. 
          MY NAME IS SUSAN HUGHES. 
          I LIVE AT 73 30 LAKEWOOD BOULEVARD. 
          THE PROPOSED CD DISREGARDS THE UNIQUENESS, UNIQUENESS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, DISCRIMINATES AGAINST ARCHITECTURAL STYLES THAT HAVE EVOLVED HARMONIOUSLY 
          [08:50:01]
OVER TIME AND FORCES A SUBDIVISION LIKE LIMITATION OF STYLES THAT DO NOT REPRESENT THE ESSENCE OF LAKEWOOD. 
          IN ADDITION TO EARLY 1900 ARCHITECTURE, THERE ARE FINE EXAMPLES OF MID-CENTURY TO MODERN DAY ARCHITECTURE THAT ALL COM COMPATIBLY, THAT ALL RESIDE COMPATIBLY WITH EACH OTHER, CREATING LOOK-LIKE ARCHITECTURE DOES NOT SUPPORT PRESERVATION. 
          IT ONLY DIMINISHES THE UNIQUENESS OF LAKEWOOD AS IT HAS EVOLVED AND THE PRIDE OF OWNERSHIP ON DISPLAY. 
          PLEASE DO NOT ALLOW FOR THE DESTRUCTION OF WHAT IS ONE OF THE MOST UNIQUE AND DESIRABLE NE NEIGHBORHOODS IN DALLAS. 
          FOR ME, THE PROCESS HAS NOT, HAS NOT BEEN FORTHCOMING. 
          I DID NOT RECEIVE ANY NOTIFICATION UNTIL IT WAS TIME FOR THE REVIEW OF THE DRAFT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          YOUR TIME IS UP. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          CAN Y'ALL HEAR ME? WE CAN. 
          THANK YOU, COMMISSIONERS. 
          I'M GONNA FINISH THE THOUGHT. 
          MY WIFE STARTED ON BRAD BROBERG. 
          UH, SHE SAID 39, I'M NOT SURE WHERE SHE GOT THAT NUMBER. 
          WE'RE 25 YEARS AT, UH, 69 45 TOON DRIVE. 
          UM, WILLIS WINTERS WAS TOUTED AS THE EXPERT WHO REVIEWED THE INVENTORY. 
          UH, THERE'S CLAIMS IN THE DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY OR IN THE, UM, BY THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS, UH, ON RECORDED MEETINGS. 
          TREVOR, UH, SUGGESTED IN MEETINGS THAT WILLIS WINTERS ACTUALLY, UH, UH, REVIEWED THE INVENTORY AND BLESSED IT. 
          UM, HE'S TOUTED AS A PREEMINENT HISTORIAN. 
          UH, WE CONTACTED HIM, WE HIRED HIM TO DO A INVENTORY. 
          IT DISAGREES WITH THE INVENTORY ON THIS PLAN, UM, 40 SOME PERCENT OF THE TIME. 
          IT'S DIFFERENT. 
          IT'S JUST COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. 
          WE ASKED TO USE IT AND THE CITY REFUSED TO USE THE PREEMINENT HISTORIAN'S INVENTORY. 
          WE'RE NOT SURE WHY, BUT THAT'S WHERE WE ARE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? OKAY, JORGE. 
          SO WE, UH, WE'RE JUST GONNA TAKE THE, OUR FOLKS ONLINE AND WHAT, WHATEVER ORDER YOU HAVE ON THERE IN YOUR SCREEN, PLEASE, CHRIS MCNEIL ON YOUR LINE. 
          JUST PLEASE OUR FOLKS ONLINE, PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT YOUR CAMERA IS ON AND WORKING. 
          OTHERWISE, WE CAN'T HEAR FROM YOU. 
          GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. 
          MY NAME IS WILL WINTERS. 
          I'M A FORMER RESIDENT OF DALLAS AND LAKEWOOD, NOW LIVING IN MINERAL WELLS. 
          I'M AN ARCHITECT AND AN ARCHITECTURAL HISTORIAN, THE AUTHOR OF SEVEN BOOKS ON THE ARCHITECTURE OF DALLAS IN TEXAS, INCLUDING THE 2005 PUBLICATION, GREAT AMERICAN SUBURBS, THE HOMES OF THE PARK CITIES DALLAS, MY CO-AUTHOR FOR THAT BOOK, VIRGINIA MCALLISTER, IF SHE WERE STILL ALIVE, WOULD BE WITH ME TODAY TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF EXPANDING THE BOUNDARIES OF THE LAKEWOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT TO PRESERVE THE UNIQUE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AS WELL AS IN NUMEROUS, ARCHITECTURALLY SIGNIFICANT RESIDENCES DESIGNED BY MANY OF THE MOST IMPORTANT ARCHITECTS IN DALLAS DURING THE 1920S AND 1930S, INCLUDING CD HU AND GEORGE MARBLE. 
          THE ONLY FEASIBLE WAY TO ACCOMPLISH THIS AND TO SAVE LAKEWOOD FROM THE ONGOING PLIGHT OF THE PARK CITIES WHERE THERE'S NO ARCHITECT, NO HISTORICAL PROTECTION IN WHICH HAS BEEN VICTIMIZED BY THE ENDURING TRAGEDY OF RESIDENTIAL DEMOLITION IS THROUGH REGULATION. 
          I URGE YOU DENY YOUR TIME OF THAT TO SUPPORT THE BOUNDARY EXPANSION. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU, SIR. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU FOLKS. 
          ALRIGHT, DAVE LOVELAND. 
          GOOD EVENING, DAVE LOVELAND, 70 31 LAKEWOOD. 
          THE PROPOSED STANDARDS DIFFER FROM THE ORIGINAL CD FOR GOOD REASON FROM THE START, STAFF WARNED NEIGHBORS THAT THE ORIGINAL CD, WHICH IS THE SECOND ONE IN THE CITY, WRITTEN IN 1988, CAN BE VAGUE IN WORK REVIEWS REQUIRING MUCH INTERPRETATION. 
          THE ORDINANCE WAS DRAFTED FOR CLARITY. 
          SO HOMEOWNERS AND ARCHITECTS KNOW THE PARAMETERS WHEN PLANNING. 
          THE CITY HAD LEARNED A LOT SINCE 1988. 
          A DEMO CLAUSE WAS INCLUDED AS IT IS IN FOUR SUCCESSFUL DALLAS CDS. 
          THIS WAS STRONGLY RECOMMENDED BY STAFF REGULATION OF REMODELING. 
          NON-CONTRIBUTING DIFFERS FROM THE ORIGINAL CD BASED ON WHAT'S HAPPENING 
          [08:55:01]
IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          PERMITS FOR EXTREME INTERIOR REMODELS EQUIVALENT TO NEW CONSTRUCTION. 
          THE ORIGINAL CD HAD A CATCHALL STYLE, TRADITIONAL ECLECTIC, WHICH STAFF RECOMMENDED WE NOT HAVE. 
          THIS MEANS WE HAVE MORE NON-CONTRIBUTING HOMES IN OUR MAP, THUS, THE NEED TO REGULATE REMODELING OF THIS CATEGORY. 
          NO ONE IS TRYING TO CONVERT A RANCH TO A TUTOR. 
          JUST MAINTAIN THE EXISTING CHARACTER LAKEWOOD NEEDS THIS PAST OR WILL END UP LIKE OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS THAT ATTEMPTED TO. 
          THANK YOUR TIME IS UP. 
          DE DENIED. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ALRIGHT, WE'LL CIRCLE BACK TO CHRIS MCNEIL. 
          ARE YOU THERE? HI. 
          GOOD EVENING EVERYBODY. 
          UH, MY NAME IS CHRIS MCNEIL. 
          I LIVE AT 7 1 0 2 LAKEWOOD BOULEVARD. 
          OUR HOME WAS COMPLETED IN 1930 AND IT WAS BUILT BY CLIFFORD HU. 
          THE FIRST OWNER OF OUR HOUSE WAS THE OWNER OF THE DALLAS MINOR LEAGUE BASEBALL TEAM, GEORGE SHEPP. 
          WE FELL IN LOVE WITH OUR HOUSE. 
          WE BOUGHT IT IN 2018. 
          WE FELL IN LOVE BECAUSE OF THE CHARM AND THE CHARACTER OF THE HISTORIC HOMES IN LAKEWOOD. 
          UH, WE'RE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT SEEING, UH, THE LARGE HOMES THAT COME IN, UH, IN MODERN STYLES WITH MINIMAL SETBACKS, CUTTING DOWN THE TREES, WHICH GIVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD SUCH ITS BEAUTIFUL ATMOSPHERE. 
          WHEN WE PURCHASED OUR HOME, OUR HOME INSPECTOR SAID IT WAS THE BEST BUILT HOUSE HE'D EVER SEEN, UM, INCLUDING ORIGINAL IRON WORK, TILE FLOORS AND PLASTER WALLS, UH, INSTALLED IN THE 1920S BEFORE IT WAS COMPLETED IN 1930. 
          WE LOVINGLY RENO RENOVATED OUR HOME. 
          WE ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO DO THE SAME, AND WE'RE IN FAVOR OF THIS, UM, BECAUSE IT EMPHASIZES THAT IT IS POSSIBLE TO BOTH MODERNIZE AND PRESERVE HOMES. 
          AND WE, UH, WE HOPE YOU'LL DO WHAT'S NECESSARY TO HOPE, PRESERVE THE CARE. 
          THANK IS. 
          THANK YOU, SIR. 
          UH, JORGE, ANY OTHER SPEAKERS ONLINE? NO MORE SPEAKERS ONLINE. 
          ANYONE ELSE HERE WOULD LIKE TO BE HEARD THAT HAS NOT SPOKEN? UH, MY NAME IS RANDY STAFF AND I LIVE AT 69 64 TOGA LAWN. 
          I'VE LIVED IN LAKEWOOD FOR 45 YEARS. 
          I'VE LIVED AT THAT ADDRESS FOR 30 YEARS. 
          I HAD NOT INTENDED TO SPEAK TONIGHT, BUT I I WAS QUITE SHOCKED AND DISMAYED COUNTING THE TWO PEOPLE THAT DIDN'T LIVE IN LAKEWOOD. 
          10 PEOPLE THAT SPOKE IN FAVOR DON'T LIVE IN LAKEWOOD. 
          OKAY. 
          IN ADDITION TO THAT, SIR, MY APOLOGIES. 
          I THINK YOUR MIC MAY BE, MIGHT BE OFF, BUT CAN YOU, OH, SORRY. 
          IS THAT BETTER NOW? YES. 
          JUST MAKE SURE YOU, ME, KIND OF LEAN INTO IT A LITTLE BIT, PLEASE. 
          I'M RANDY STAFF. 
          I LIVE AT 69 64 TOON. 
          I'VE LIVED IN LAKEWOOD FOR 45 YEARS AND MY WIFE HAD INTENDED TO SAY THAT WE STRETCHED TO MOVE BY THE FIRST HOUSE, WHICH WOULD BE A CHARITABLE CHARACTERIZATION OF IT. 
          BUT, UH, WE DIDN'T, I'VE LIVED IN A TOON FOR 30 YEARS. 
          I HAD NOT INTENDED TO SPEAK TONIGHT BECAUSE MY WIFE HAS BEEN MORE INVOLVED IN THIS, BUT I DID NOTICE TONIGHT THAT AT LEAST EIGHT OF THE PEOPLE THAT SPOKE IN FAVOR DON'T LIVE IN LAKEWOOD, DON'T LIVE IN THE BOUNDS OF LAKEWOOD. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          IN ADDITION TO THAT, I'VE BEEN INVOLVED WITH A LOT OF, UH, UH, LITIGATIONS AND BOARDS BEFORE. 
          I NEVER HAVE SEEN, THEY SAY WE'RE GONNA TAKE THE PROS AND THEN TAKE THE CONS AND THEN LET THREE PROS DO IT AT THE END. 
          AND I THINK THAT IS TOTALLY INAPPROPRIATE. 
          NOW, HAVING SAID THAT, I THINK THE WHOLE PROCESS WAS INAPPROPRIATE. 
          A LADY CAME TO OUR BOARD AND SAID DOOR BEFORE THEY STARTED. 
          THANK YOU. 
          YOUR TIME IS UP. 
          WELL, SHE SAID THANK YOU SIR. 
          WILL YOU, UH, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          THANK YOU, SIR. 
          HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT A STUDY? THANK YOU, SIR. 
          THANK YOU. 
          AND WE SAID, OKAY, TAKE A STEP. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOLKS. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          I APPRECIATE YOUR PATIENCE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          I THINK YOU TURNED IT OFF, SIR. 
          YEP. 
          ONE MORE. 
          SORRY. 
          PERFECT. 
          GOOD EVENING. 
          MY NAME'S ANTHONY ADAMS, UH, 68 70 TOON DRIVE. 
          MY WIFE AND I BOUGHT A ALMOST A HUNDRED YEAR OLD HOUSE BACK IN 2016, AN ENGLISH TUTOR. 
          WE KNEW WE HAD TO HAVE EXTENSIVE RENOVATIONS ON IT AND HAVE SPENT HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS MAKING THOSE RENOVATIONS. 
          AND I THINK IT LOOKS AS BEAUTIFUL TODAY AS IT LOOKED WHEN WE BOUGHT IT, AND IT KEPT IT IN THE SAME STYLE. 
          I KNOW COLLECTIVELY MY NEIGHBORS, WHEN ALL THE STREETS IN THIS EXPANSION HAS SPENT MILLIONS OF DOLLARS ON RENOVATIONS IN OUR PLACE. 
          OUR AREA LOOKS BEAUTIFUL AND WE ALL DID IT UNDER THE CURRENT AND 
          [09:00:01]
EXISTING REGULATIONS. 
          WE DIDN'T NEED ANY ADDITIONAL REGULATIONS TO HAVE TO GO TO, TO GET EVERYTHING APPROVED THAT WE WANNA DO. 
          AND SO I WOULD JUST SAY THAT WE DEEPLY OPPOSE THIS RESTRICTION AND, UH, I THINK WE KNOW HOW TO SPEND OUR MONEY THE WAY WE'D LIKE TO SPEND IT. 
          THANKS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ANYONE ELSE? IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO BE HEARD? SOMEONE ELSE ONLINE LINE? THERE IS SOMEONE ELSE ON LINE FOR ANOTHER CASE? DO WE HAVE, IS THERE SOMEONE HERE FOR THIS CASE? JORGE. 
          OKAY. 
          PER OUR RULES, UH, THE APPLICANT DOES GET A TWO MINUTE REBUTTAL. 
          WHO WOULD LIKE TO TAKE IT? GET MY APOLOGIES. 
          I'VE BEEN, I'VE BEEN CORRECTED THAT, UH, THIS IS A SPECIAL CASE, SO THERE IS NO REBUTTAL TIME. 
          MY APOLOGIES. 
          I APPRECIATE IT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UH, IT'S, WE'RE, WE'RE ON OUR 13TH HOUR HERE, UH, COMMISSIONERS QUESTIONS FOR OUR FOLKS IN SUPPORT. 
          ANY QUESTIONS FOR ANY OF THE SPEAKERS IN SUPPORT COMMISSIONER HERBERT? JUST A POINT OF CLARIFICATION, AND I GUESS MS. SUMMER CAN ANSWER, BUT THERE WAS CONCERNS ABOUT PEOPLE'S ABILITY TO REMODEL THEIR HOMES. 
          UM, AND MY UNDERSTANDING WAS REMODELING WOULD BE OKAY, BUT REBUILDING WOULD TAKE A MUCH STRONGER EFFORT. 
          IS THAT CORRECT? WELL, BOTH ARE OKAY. 
          AND WE DEFINITELY ENCOURAGE REMODELING OF EXISTING HOMES, BUT, UM, IF A HOME IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE DEMOLITION CLAUSE, UM, ANYTHING THAT'S POST 1960 THAT'S NOT A CONTRIBUTING OR THAT IS NOT A CONTRIBUTING STYLE IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE DEMO CLAUSE. 
          AND THEN, I MEAN, SO YOU COULD GET A DEMO PERMIT AND REBUILD OR REMODEL AN EXISTING HOME REBUILDING HAS TO BE ONE OF THE FOUR STYLES. 
          YES. 
          FIVE REMODELING DOES NOT FIVE STYLES. 
          RIGHT. 
          UM, SO REBUILDING, IF YOU WERE BUILDING NEW CONSTRUCTION, IT'S ONE OF THE FIVE STYLES. 
          I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT IN THE EXISTING CD TWO, THERE'S ONLY FOUR STYLES, SO THERE'S MORE. 
          A LITTLE MORE VARIETY THERE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR FOLKS IN SUPPORT? COMMISSIONER FORESITE, PLEASE. 
          SO WHAT ABOUT THO WHAT ABOUT THOSE RANCH STYLE HOMES? IT SOUNDS LIKE I, I'VE HEARD THERE ARE A LOT OF RANCH STYLE HOMES. 
          ARE THEY NONCONFORMING? DO THEY HAVE TO IF THEY'RE, IF THEY WANT TO, YOU KNOW, UH, IF THEY NEED TO REMODEL OR, UH, WOULD THEY HAVE TO REBUILD IN ONE OF THOSE FOUR OR FIVE STYLES? SO IT'S ACTUALLY NON-CONTRIBUTING AND NOT NON-CONFORMING IS A DIFFERENT DEFINITION THAT TREVOR COULD DO BETTER THAN ME ON THE FLY. 
          BUT, UM, SO A RANCH IS NOT A CONTRIBUTING STYLE. 
          IT'S CALLED A SUPPORTING HOUSE AS DEFINED IN THE, UM, ORDINANCE. 
          ANYTHING THAT'S NOT ONE OF THE FIVE IS A SUPPORTING HOUSE. 
          AND A RANCH COULD REMODEL AS A RANCH. 
          A RANCH CAN ADD ON A SECOND STORY. 
          A RANCH COULD BE TORN DOWN AND THEN REBUILD NEW CONSTRUCTION. 
          THAT COULD BE ONE OF THE FIVE STYLES. 
          ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONERS FOR OUR FOLKS IN SUPPORT? OKAY. 
          QUESTIONS FOR OUR, UH, SPEAKERS IN OPPOSITION. 
          COMMISSIONER, PLEASE. 
          I HAD A QUESTION FOR THE GENTLEMAN WHO MADE THE COMMENT ABOUT IT NOT BEING ABLE TO INSURE HIS HOME BECAUSE HE'S NON-CONFORMING. 
          SORRY, SO FAR. 
          MIKE STARCHER 68 65 TO LOAN. 
          OKAY, SO, UH, YOU, YOU, YOU, YOU INDICATE THAT YOUR, YOUR HOME WOULD, YOU COULD NOT INSURE IT IF YOU'RE NON-CONFORMING. 
          EXPLAIN THAT. 
          I, I DIDN'T. 
          SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE WAY THEY HAVE LAID THIS OUT, MY HOUSE IS TALL AND IT SITS CLOSE TO THE PROPERTY LINE. 
          AND SO IT'S CONSIDERED A LOOMING FACILITY. 
          SO IF I HAVE, SO I DON'T HAVE TO GO DO ANYTHING TODAY, BUT IF I HAVE A CASUALTY AND I HAVE TO REPLACE IT, THEN IT WOULD HAVE, IN ORDER TO REBUILD MY HOUSE, WHICH MOST PEOPLE INSURE THEIR HOUSE, TO HAVE IT REBUILT THE SAME WAY IN ORDER TO REBUILD MY HOUSE, IT WOULD HAVE TO BE BUILT EXACTLY LIKE, NOT KIND OF, NOT A LITTLE BIT, BUT EXACTLY AS IT SITS TODAY. 
          MY HOUSE WAS 
          [09:05:01]
BUILT IN 1926. 
          IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO REBUILD A 1926 HOUSE TODAY. 
          IT TO THE EXACT SPECIFICATIONS. 
          AND SO YOU TAKE IT TO YOUR INSURANCE AGENT AND SAY, I NEED YOU TO INSURE MY HOUSE. 
          HERE ARE THE RESTRICTIONS. 
          46 RESTRICTIONS VERSUS CD TWO IS SIX OR WHATEVER. 
          SO HERE IT IS. 
          YOU GO UNDERWRITE THIS FOR ME. 
          WHAT DO YOU THINK HE DOES? HIS HEAD EXPLODES. 
          HE SAYS, THERE'S NOBODY THAT'S GONNA UNDERWRITE THAT. 
          AND BY GOD, IF THEY WILL, I LIKE, I'D BE BETTER OFF BURNING MY HOUSE DOWN AND STARTING OVER WITHOUT INSURANCE. 
          'CAUSE THE INSURANCE PREMIUM WILL COST MORE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU, SIR. 
          UH, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR OUR SPEAKERS IN OPPOSITION? ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR OUR SPEAKERS IN OPPOSITION? COMMISSIONERS? QUESTIONS FOR STAFF COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, PLEASE. 
          UM, MR. BROWN, THE QUESTION ON NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURES, UM, IS COVERED WITHIN THE, UM, CD CONDITIONS, IS THAT IF IT'S NOT THE INTENTIONAL ACT OF THE OWNER, THE RIGHT TO REBUILD A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE, UM, IS ALLOWED, IT'S ONLY IF IT'S THE INTENTIONAL ACT OF THE OWNER THAT PREVENTS YOUR ABILITY TO REBUILD. 
          IS THAT CORRECT? AND I'M ON PAGE 2020 OF THE CASE REPORT. 
          SO THE YES, IF, IF IT'S THROUGH THE INTENTIONAL ACT OF THE OWNER, THEY WOULD THEN LOSE THE RIGHT TO REBUILD A NON-CONFORMING IF THEY DEMOLISH THE HOUSE THEMSELVES. 
          BUT IF IT DOES, UH, IS LOST THROUGH, YOU KNOW, FIRE, NATURAL, NATURAL DISASTER, WHATEVER MIGHT HAPPEN, THEN JUST LIKE NON-INTENTIONAL ACT, THEN JUST LIKE THE REST OF THE CITY OF DALLAS, YOU CAN REBUILD THAT NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE JUST AS IT WAS PREVIOUSLY. 
          AND IS IT ALSO THAT CORRECT. 
          PER OUR BUILDING CODES, WHILE THIS IS CONTROLLING EXTERIOR APPEARANCE, THAT ALL OTHER PROVISIONS OF OUR BUILDING CODE WOULD APPLY, IF IT IS NOT COVERED BY THE ORDINANCE, THE DEVELOPMENT CODE DOES APPLY. 
          OKAY. 
          AND THAT'S SIMILAR TO ALL OF OUR CONSERVATION DISTRICTS, ALL OF OUR HISTORIC DISTRICTS, ALL OF OUR RESIDENTIAL ZONING THROUGHOUT THE CITY? THAT'S CORRECT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          QUESTIONS FOR STAFF COMMISSIONERS? OKAY. 
          SEEING NONE, COMMISSIONER SLEEPER, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION, SIR? I DO. 
          AND IF THERE'S TIME, IF I GET A SECOND, I'D LIKE A FOLLOW UP COMMENT IF I COULD. 
          SO IN THE CASE OF Z TWO 12 DASH THREE 15, I MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION WITH THE FOLLOWING AREAS BEING REMOVED FROM THE CONSERVATION DISTRICT. 
          AND I, BY THE WAY, I I HOPE WE HAVE A MAP THAT WE CAN POINT TO ON THIS, UH, SO PEOPLE CAN FOLLOW WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. 
          CAN WE GET THAT UP, UH, JORGE REAL QUICK. 
          ALLOW, ALLOW ME TO SHARE. 
          OKAY. 
          JUST PAUSE ONE SECOND. 
          I I'LL READ IT AND WE CAN BACK OVER. 
          SO, UH, THE AREAS TO BE EXCLUDED ARE, UH, CITY BLOCK K 28 25, THE HALF ALONG THE NORTHERN SIDE OF LAKESHORE BETWEEN WINDOVER ROAD AND COPPERFIELD. 
          SECOND AREA IS THE AREA LOCATED WEST OF WEST SHORE DRIVE, AND SOUTH OF THE NORTH NORTH PORTION OF CITY BLOCK F 28 21 FRONTING LAKE SHORE DRIVE, AND SOUTH OF THE NORTH PORTION OF CITY BLOCK E 28 20 FRONTING LAKEWOOD BOULEVARD. 
          THE THIRD AREA IS THE AREA, THE AREA LOTS FRONTING ON EITHER SIDE OF WEST LAKE DRIVE, EAST OF WEST SHORE DRIVE. 
          THE FOURTH AREA IS THE AREA LOCATED SOUTHEAST OF LAKEWOOD BOULEVARD AND NORTH OF HEATH STREET. 
          AND THE FIFTH AREA IS THE AREA LOCATED ALONG THE SOUTHEAST LINE OF TOON DRIVE, NORTHEAST OF WINSTEAD DRIVE. 
          NOW THOSE OF YOU THAT LIVE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD MAY UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT AREA IS, BUT I, YEAH, THERE WE GO. 
          I, IF YOU LOOK AT THAT MAP, THAT WOULD SHOW YOU THE AREA WITHIN THE BLACK DOTTED LINE, UH, REPRESENTS THE AREA THAT, UM, IS COMPRISED IN MY MOTION. 
          SORRY. 
          WE ONLINE CAN'T SEE THE PRESENTATION. 
          THANK YOU. 
          COMMISSIONER CARPENTER. 
          STAND BY. 
          [09:10:04]
IT MAY BE YOUR LAYOUT. 
          I'M ABLE TO SEE IT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          COMMISSIONER HAWK. 
          CAN I HAVE A SECOND? THANK YOU. 
          UH, COMMISSIONER SLEEPER. 
          WE HAVE A MOTION. 
          WE HAVE A SECOND. 
          GOODBYE. 
          UH, COMMISSIONER KINGSTON COMMENTS? YES, SIR. 
          WELL, I ALSO HAVE A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO OFFER. 
          OKAY. 
          WE DO HAVE A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT, BUT, UH, COMMISSIONER KINGSTON. 
          OH, OKAY. 
          COMMISSIONER SLEEPER. 
          WOULD YOU CONSIDER A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO ELIMINATE, UH, UNDER SECTION FOUR DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS? SUBSECTION P THE SOLAR PANELS PROVISION? SO IT WOULD ESSENTIALLY ELIMINATE THE PROHIBITION OF PROHIBITING SOLAR PANELS ON THE FRONT OF HOMES. 
          MAY I ASK, UM, TREVOR TO, UH, GIVE HIS INTERPRETATION OF THAT AMENDMENT? SO I'M SURE THAT I UNDERSTAND WHAT IT SAYS, , I BELIEVE THE COMMISSIONER'S, UH, ASKING TO ELIMINATE THERE, THE ONLY PLACE SOLAR PANELS ARE PROHIBITED CURRENTLY IS ON THE FRONT FACING, UH, ROOF PITCH. 
          SO I BELIEVE SHE'S JUST ASKING TO REMOVE THAT FOR, TO REMOVE THAT LIMITATION. 
          CORRECT. 
          YEAH. 
          I'LL, THERE WEREN'T SOLAR PANELS IN 88. 
          HMM. 
          UH, I, I, I'LL ACCEPT THAT AMENDMENT. 
          OKAY, THANK YOU. 
          JUST ONE, ONE QUICK QUESTION THAT ALIGNS WITH THE CURRENT CD. 
          THAT'S CORRECT. 
          SOLAR PANELS ARE ALLOWED IN CD TWO. 
          PERFECT. 
          UH, COMMENTS? COMMISSIONER SLEEPER, PLEASE, SIR. 
          SO, UM, WHEN I AGREED TO SERVE ON THE PLAN COMMISSION, WHEN COUNCILWOMAN BLACKMAN ASKED ME TO SERVE, SHE TOLD ME THERE, THERE'S REALLY ONLY ONE TOUGH ZONING CASE COMING UP IN DISTRICT NINE, AND THAT'S IN THE LAKE, THE LAKEWOOD CD, BUT THAT'S GONNA BE RESOLVED BEFORE YOU GET SEATED. 
          AND THAT WAS, THAT WAS A LITTLE OVER A YEAR AGO. 
          SO, UM, IN SOME WAYS I CAN SAY I FEEL THE PAIN OF ALL THE NEIGHBORS THAT HAVE HAD TO LIVE THROUGH THIS. 
          I KNOW IT'S BEEN A VERY TAXING PROCESS ON EVERYBODY. 
          AND, AND THAT'S REALLY UNFORTUNATE. 
          AND AT, AT, AT THE RISK OF SOUNDING LIKE, UM, I'M TALKING ABOUT CHARLOTTESVILLE. 
          I WANNA SAY THAT I, I THINK THERE'RE REALLY A LOT OF WONDERFUL PEOPLE ON BOTH SIDES OF THIS ARGUMENT. 
          A LOT OF GOOD PEOPLE, A LOT OF PEOPLE I'VE GOTTEN TO KNOW AND GET REACQUAINTED WITH, I, I DON'T SEE ANY RIGHTS OR WRONGS IN THIS GROUP. 
          THEY'RE ALL PEOPLE THAT WANT TO DO THE RIGHT THING AND DOING A GOOD THING WITH JUST A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION ON HOW TO GET THERE. 
          UM, I HOPE ONCE THIS IS RESOLVED, THE THE UNSETTLING FEELINGS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD WILL, WILL HEAL UP IN SHORT ORDER. 
          AND LASTLY, I JUST WANNA SAY THAT, UM, WELL, TWO THINGS. 
          UH, I, I WANT TO RECOGNIZE THE VERY HARD WORK OF STAFF ON THIS. 
          TREVOR AND HIS STAFF HAVE PUT IN A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF TIME, A LOT OF IT LONG, A LOT OF IT LONG BEFORE I, I CAME ON THE SCENE, SO I, I KNOW WHAT IT'S BEEN LIKE JUST IN THE LAST YEAR OR SO. 
          I CAN IMAGINE WHAT ALL THOSE FIRST 15 MEETINGS WERE LIKE. 
          UM, AND IT PROBABLY IS, WOULD BE OBVIOUS TO THOSE OF YOU WHO HAVE TRACKED THIS, BUT, BUT BASICALLY MY RECOMMENDATION IS BA IS BASED LARGELY ON YOUR RESPONSES TO THE FORMS. IF YOU, UM, IF, IF, IF YOU LOOK AT THAT MAP UP THERE, THAT SHOWS YOU, UM, HOW ALL OF THE DIFFERENT RESPONSES CAME IN, EITHER WITH THE GREEN ONES BEING IN FAVOR AND THE PINK ONES BEING AGAINST, AND BY AND LARGE, MY RECOMMENDATION FOLLOWS THAT MAP. 
          NOW, SOMEBODY MAY WANT TO CALL ME OUT ON ONE BLOCK OR ONE PART OF A BLOCK, BUT BY AND LARGE, THAT'S WHAT IT'S BASED ON. 
          AND, UM, SO WITH THAT, I'LL TURN IT OVER TO ANYBODY ELSE THAT HAS ANY QUESTIONS. 
          THANKS, TERRY. 
          RUBEN CHAIR. 
          SORRY, MY, MY BUTTON'S NOT WORKING. 
          CAN I PROPOSE ONE ADDITIONAL AMENDMENT TO THE ORDINANCE, UM, IN SECTION FOUR D TO STRIKE THIS SECOND SECTION THAT READS NEW CONSTRUCTION? AND THOSE LOTS MUST BE IN ONE OF THE FIVE CONTRIBUTING STYLES. 
          AND IN SECTION FIVE D UH, AFTER, UM, THE PHRASE ALL NEW CONSTRUCTION, INSERT THE FOLLOWING ON A LOT OCCUPIED BY A CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE ON NOVEMBER 20TH, 2024. 
          [09:15:02]
AND IF I HAVE A SECOND, I'M HAPPY TO SPEAK TO THE CONTENT IN MY AMENDMENT. 
          I'LL SECOND IT JUST FOR THE DISCUSSION. 
          UM, SURE. 
          WE'VE, WE'VE HEARD CONCERNS FROM A, A LOT OF HOMEOWNERS ON LOTS OR OCCUPIED BY MID-CENTURY LOTS OR RANCH STYLE HOUSES THAT IF FOR WHATEVER REASON, THEY, YOU KNOW, DECIDE THE CURRENT HOUSE ISN'T SUITABLE OR IF THE CURRENT SOMETHING HAPPENS TO THE CURRENT HOUSE, THAT THEY WOULD BE, UM, REQUIRED TO BUILD BACK IN ONE OF THE FIVE STYLES. 
          AND ONE OF THE MOST SORT OF COGENT CRITICISMS OF, OF THE ORDINANCE THAT I'VE SEEN IS IN AN EMAIL THAT WE GOT FROM AN ARCHITECT THAT SAID, YOU KNOW, THEY WERE STRONGLY SUPPORTIVE OF PRESERVING THE EXISTING, YOU KNOW, HISTORIC AND ARCHITECTURALLY SIGNIFICANT HOUSES, THE HUTS, THE DINES AND CRAFTS. 
          BUT AT THE SAME TIME, YOU KNOW, BUILDING TUTORS TODAY OR BUILDING, YOU KNOW, JORDAN REVIVALS TODAY, THAT THERE, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A RISK THAT WE'RE SORT OF DISNIFYING THESE SORTS OF THINGS. 
          AND THERE THERE'S A LOT OF GREAT, YOU KNOW, MODERN ARCHITECTURE THAT COULD BE PUT ON SOME OF THESE LOTS THAT DON'T HAVE A CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE. 
          AND I, I JUST GET UNCOMFORTABLE ABOUT TYING PEOPLE'S HANDS IN THAT RESPECT. 
          IT'S ONE THING IF, IF THERE, IF THERE'S A SIGNIFICANT STRUCTURE ON A LOT, BUT PLEASE JUST HOLD YOUR APPLAUSE. 
          AND, UH, BUT IF IT'S A RANCH STYLE HOUSE, AND SOME OF THOSE ARE WONDERFUL HOUSES, IF SOMEONE WANTS TO DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT, I THINK WE SHOULD ALLOW THAT SORT OF CREATIVITY. 
          AND I THINK THAT WOULD STRIKE A FAIR BALANCE HERE, WHICH ALLOWS PRESERVATION AND REQUIRES PRESERVATION OF THE ARCHITECTURALLY SIGNIFICANT HOUSES, BUT GIVES FLEXIBILITY TO PEOPLE WHO OWN HOMES ON LOTS WITH DIFFERENT HOMES WITH DIFFERENT ARCHITECTURAL STYLES. 
          COMMISSIONER KINGSTON, I'M NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO SUPPORT COMMISSIONER RUBIN'S, UH, PROPOSED AMENDMENT. 
          I THINK IT BELIES THE POINT OF A CONSERVATION DISTRICT. 
          I'VE LIVED IN A CONSERVATION DISTRICT FOR OVER 20 YEARS, AND WHILE IT IS TRUE WHEN THEY TEAR DOWN AN ORIGINAL STRUCTURE, WHETHER IT BE CONTRIBUTING OR NOT, AND THEY REBUILD ONE OF THE ORIGINAL IN ONE OF THE HANDFUL OF STYLES, WHAT THAT DOES FOR THE COMMUNITY IS IT, IT IT CREATES MORE COHESION ARCHITECTURALLY IN THE COMMUNITY. 
          AND IT, IT HELPS CREATE AND MAINTAIN THAT SENSE OF PLACE. 
          WE DON'T HAVE A LOT, GIVEN THE LANDMASS IN THE CITY OF DALLAS, IT'S A LARGE CITY GEOGRAPHICALLY, WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF AREAS THAT ARE PROTECTED. 
          AND THIS IS A RELATIVELY SMALL NEW AREA, UM, WITH A FAIRLY SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER OF THE HOMES BEING CONTRIBUTING. 
          SO I DON'T SEE, UM, THE IMPOSITION OF, IF YOU DEMOLISH A HOME, HAVING TO REBUILD IT IN ONE OF THE FIVE STYLES BEING ALL THAT IMPOSING AND AS IF AS MR. UM, I THINK IT'S MARCUS, MARCUS TAYLOR, I THINK, UH, POINTED OUT, UM, IT IT'S NOT THAT DIFFICULT TO BUILD IN ONE OF THESE STYLES. 
          IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT SIGNIFICANTLY MORE EXPENSIVE. 
          IT'S NOT THAT DIFFICULT TO, TO FIND AND LOCATE THE MATERIALS THAT MATCH. 
          UM, AND SO I, I JUST THINK THAT THE POINT OF A CONSERVATION DISTRICT OR HISTORIC DISTRICT IS TO CONSERVE WHAT'S THERE. 
          THE POINT OF A CONSERVATION DISTRICT IN DIFFERENCE TO A HISTORIC DISTRICT IS TO PROMOTE THE STYLES THAT ARE THERE AND TO PROMOTE NEW CONSTRUCTION IN THOSE STYLES. 
          AND I THINK THE AMENDMENT THAT COMMISSIONER RUBIN HAS PROPOSED GOES AGAINST THAT GRAIN. 
          IT GOES AGAINST THE VERY NATURE OF CONSERVATION DISTRICTS AND THE ENABLING LEGISLATION THAT CREATES THEM. 
          AND HAVING LIVED IN ONE FOR OVER 20 YEARS AND HAVING HELPED NUMEROUS OTHER COMMUNITIES CREATE THEM AND AMEND THEM OVER THE YEARS, I JUST, I'VE FUNDAMENTALLY BELIEVE THAT THAT IS A MISTAKE AND I THINK THAT'S A MISTAKE FOR THIS COMMUNITY. 
          UM, SO I CAN'T SUPPORT THAT MOTION. 
          UM, I'M HAPPY TO SUPPORT COMMISSIONER SLEEP'S MOTION. 
          I KNOW THAT, UM, HE HAS AGONIZED OVER WHAT TO DO IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          I KNOW THAT COMMISSIONER KINGSTON, PARDON ME. 
          YEAH, LET'S DISPOSE OF IT. 
          IT'S JUST THIS MOTION. 
          OKAY. 
          YES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UH, COMMISSIONER SLEEPER. 
          THE, THE PROTOCOL WAS FOR ME TO ASK IF YOU ACCEPTED 
          [09:20:01]
IT AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT. 
          SORRY FOLKS, UH, BUT, UH, AND THEN TO SEE IF ANYONE IN THE, THE BODY OBJECTED, WHICH SOMEONE DID. 
          SO WE, THIS WOULD, IS NOW AN UNFRIENDLY AMENDMENT, SO WE WILL, UH, DISCUSS AND THEN VOTE ON THAT. 
          UH, SO COMMENTS ON, UH, VICE CHAIR RUBINS. 
          COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, PLEASE. 
          THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. 
          I ALSO WON'T BE ABLE TO SUPPORT, UM, COMMISSIONER, VICE CHAIR RUBINS, UM, SUGGESTED AMENDMENT. 
          I UNDERSTAND THE SPIRIT IN WHICH IT'S OFFERED, UM, BUT I ALSO FIND THAT IT'S NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE PURPOSE OF OUR CONSERVATION DISTRICTS. 
          I CAN'T THINK OF ANOTHER DISTRICT, UM, WITHIN OUR HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAM THAT DOESN'T DEFINE WHAT IS BUILT BACK IF A STRUCTURE IS REMOVED. 
          AND AS MENTIONED BY, UM, COMMISSIONER KINGSTON, IT'S THE UNDERLYING PURPOSE OF THESE IS TO STRENGTHEN NEIGHBORHOOD IDENTITY AND NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER. 
          UM, I THINK WE HEARD FROM THE APPLICANT AND IN THE CONDITIONS BEFORE THE, UM, FOLKS IN SUPPORT, THERE'S ACTUALLY AN ADDITIONAL ARCHITECTURAL STYLE HERE. 
          AND WHILE I ALSO DID HEAR FROM THOSE WHO ARE IN OPPOSITION THAT THEY'RE CONCERNED THAT IT DOESN'T HAVE ENOUGH FLEXIBILITY. 
          I LIVE IN A HISTORIC DISTRICT THAT HAS EVEN MORE STRINGENT RULES. 
          AND I DON'T THINK ANYTHING ANYONE THINKS THAT WE DON'T HAVE A VARIETY OF CHARACTERS, HOW THE ELEMENTS THAT ARE DEFINED WITHIN THOSE STYLES CAN BE IMAGINED IN MYRIAD DIFFERENT WAYS. 
          AND THAT IS WHAT GIVES YOU THE TEXTURE AND THE CHARACTER WHILE STILL PRESERVING THE OVERALL CONTEXT AND THE IDENTITY. 
          UM, SO I WILL NOT BE ABLE TO SUPPORT THE MOTION. 
          THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ANY OTHER COMMENTS? COMMISSIONERS ON THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT BEFORE WE TAKE UN UNFRIENDLY AMENDMENT, BEFORE WE TAKE A RECORD VOTE. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, WE WILL NOW VOTE, VOTE ON THE, PARDON ME. 
          THIS IS THE VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT ON, ON VICE CHAIR REIN ON FRIENDLY AMENDMENT ON STRIKING THOSE, THOSE TWO SECTIONS ON NON-CONTRIBUTING. 
          UH, LET'S TAKE A WORK VOTE PLEASE. 
          DISTRICT ONE, DISTRICT TWO? NO. 
          DISTRICT THREE? NO. 
          DISTRICT FOUR? YES. 
          DISTRICT FIVE? YES. 
          DISTRICT SIX? NO. 
          DISTRICT SEVEN, DISTRICT SEVEN, DISTRICT EIGHT? NO. 
          DISTRICT NINE? NO. 
          DISTRICT 10. 
          OH, I'M SORRY. 
          DISTRICT 11 VACANT. 
          DISTRICT 12. 
          NO. 
          DISTRICT 13? NO. 
          DISTRICT 14? NO. 
          AND PLACE 15? YES. 
          OKAY. 
          NO, UH, FRIENDLY AMENDMENT FAILS. 
          WE GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL, UH, MOTION. 
          YES. 
          SHE SAID NO. 
          DISTRICT, DISTRICT SEVEN. 
          NO THANK YOU. 
          OKAY. 
          COMMISSIONER KINGSTON COMMENTS PLEASE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, I'M HAPPY TO SUPPORT COMMISSIONER SLEEPER MOTION. 
          I KNOW THAT HE'S AGONIZED OVER THIS DECISION, AND I KNOW THAT THIS HAS BEEN VERY DIFFICULT FOR YOUR COMMUNITY. 
          UM, I'VE LIVED THROUGH, YOU KNOW, A SIMILAR FIGHT IN MY OWN COMMUNITY. 
          I'VE ASSISTED OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS IN SIMILAR ISSUES IN THEIR COMMUNITIES. 
          I KNOW HOW DIVISIVE, DIVISIVE THIS FEELS RIGHT NOW. 
          I ALSO BELIEVE THAT IN THE NOT TOO DISTANT FUTURE, IT WON'T FEEL THAT DIVISIVE. 
          UM, AND I, AND I REALLY HOPE THAT THAT'S TRUE FOR YOU ALL THE, AND I THINK THAT HE'S DONE A NICE JOB IN BALANCING THE INTEREST IN SAYING, OKAY, THERE'S CLEARLY AREAS THAT DON'T HAVE THAT MUCH SUPPORT, AND THERE'S CLEARLY AREAS WHERE THERE'S A FAIR AMOUNT OF SUPPORT. 
          UM, AND I THINK LAKEWOOD IS, IS A FANTASTIC PART OF OUR CITY, AND IT'S GOT SOME OF THE MOST BEAUTIFUL HOMES IN THE CITY. 
          YOU ALL ARE FORTUNATE TO LIVE IN SUCH A, A WONDERFUL PART OF THE CITY. 
          UM, I UNDERSTAND WHY YOU'RE, YOU'RE PASSIONATE ABOUT IT. 
          UM, AND I, I BELIEVE THAT CONSERVATION DISTRICTS ARE A GREAT TOOL. 
          THEY PROVIDE A MECHANISM FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION WITHOUT MAYBE ALL OF THE, UM, RESTRICTIONS THAT HISTORIC DISTRICTS REQUIRE. 
          SO I, I THINK THAT'S A, A GOOD COMPROMISE IN A LOT OF WAYS. 
          UM, I'M UNPERSUADED BY THE LEGAL ARGUMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE. 
          UM, I'VE HELPED WRITE THE UNDERLYING CONSERVATION 
          [09:25:01]
DISTRICT ENABLING LEGISLATION BACK WHEN IT WAS WRITTEN. 
          UM, UM, I APPRECIATE YOUR EFFORTS, BUT I, I BELIEVE THE CITY ATTORNEY'S RIGHT ON THEIR INTERPRETATIONS. 
          UH, I ALSO WANNA, UH, COMMEND STAFF FOR THEIR HARD WORK ON THIS. 
          I THINK THAT THEY'VE HAD TO DO A LOT OF HARD WORK ON THIS CASE. 
          UM, AND I THINK THEY'VE DONE A NICE JOB WITH IT. 
          AND I, I HOPE THAT, UM, YOU ALL CAN GET PAST THE ANIMOSITY AND THAT THIS IS A LONG-TERM SUCCESS STORY IN THE END. 
          THANK YOU. 
          YOU, ANY OTHER COMMENTS? COMMISSIONERS? COMMISSIONER HARBERT? YES. 
          UM, THIS IS, YOU GUYS KNOW I LOVE HISTORY. 
          UM, SO THE HISTORY OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD IS VERY IMPORTANT TO WHERE WE'RE AT AS A COMMISSION. 
          UM, THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, I WASN'T ALLOWED, IT WAS WRITTEN IN THEIR RUSE THAT I WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO PURCHASE A HOME THERE. 
          THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY OF IT. 
          I'M FROM A CONSERVATION CITY FOR 22 YEARS. 
          I SPENT MY LIFE IN NEW ORLEANS. 
          UM, RIGHT AFTER CORONAVIRUS, MAYBE BEFORE DOING A LOT OF THE AIRBNB TALK, PEOPLE STARTED BUILDING HOMES THAT DID NOT MATCH ANYTHING IN THE CITY. 
          NOT THE NEIGHBORHOODS, NOT THE GARDEN DISTRICT, NOT ALGIERS. 
          IT DID NOT MATCH ALL HELL BROKE LOOSE NATIONALLY. 
          A YOUNG LADY SPOKE TODAY THAT PEOPLE WILL FOLLOW THE RULES UNTIL THEY THINK THEY CAN'T AND GET AWAY WITH IT. 
          IN MY OPINION, THIS PROTECTS THE AREA FROM FUTURE DEVELOPMENT, THE EXISTING CD AND WHAT'S COMING. 
          UM, BECAUSE YOU JUST NEVER KNOW WHAT HAPPENS IN SOCIETY WHERE HISTORY GOES OUT OF THE WINDOW. 
          UM, ARCHITECTURAL VALUE GOES OUT OF THE WINDOW AND SOMEONE WALKS UP AND SAYS, I WANNA DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT. 
          SO I WILL BE SUPPORTING MR. SLEEP'S MOTION. 
          COMMISSIONER SLEEP'S MOTION. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          COMMISSIONER HEMP. 
          WELL, I WILL ALSO BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION. 
          I WANT TO THANK EVERYONE WHO'S HERE. 
          BOTH THOSE WHO SPOKE, UM, IN OPPOSITION AS WELL AS THOSE IN SUPPORT. 
          UM, I, YOU KNOW, APPRECIATE COMMISSIONER SLEEPER, UM, HAVING ME ATTEND SOME OF THE MEETINGS. 
          UM, I DO THINK THAT THE, UM, REVISED ORDINANCE THAT'S IN FRONT OF US, UM, WORK TO ADDRESS MANY OF THE CONCERNS THAT I HEARD AT SOME OF THOSE INITIAL MEETINGS. 
          IT IS VASTLY, I THINK, IMPROVED ADDRESSING, UM, WHAT IS THE EXISTING CHARACTER AND BUILDING IN FLEXIBILITY FOR THE FUTURE. 
          IT, YOU KNOW, THE, THESE DISTRICTS, EVEN WITH THE CRITERIA PROPOSED, ARE GONNA GROW AND THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE EXPANSIONS AND RENOVATIONS AND NEW CONSTRUCTION. 
          UM, THEY'RE MEANT TO DO THAT. 
          THIS IS SIMPLY TRYING TO GUIDE WHAT THE FORM OF THOSE, UM, CHANGES ARE AND TO STRENGTHEN THE IDENTITY THAT HAS MADE IT SO SPECIAL TO SO MANY OF THE FOLKS WHO ARE HERE. 
          UM, I DO, UM, APPLAUD COMMISSIONER SLEEPER AND ALL OF HIS WORK ON THIS. 
          I KNOW IT WAS NOT AN EASY CASE, BUT I, UM, WILL BE SUPPORTIVE MOTION. 
          THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. 
          THANK YOU, MR. DERWIN. 
          YEAH. 
          UM, FIRST OFF, I JUST WANNA THANK COMMISSIONER SLEEPER FOR ALL OF HIS HARD WORK ON THIS. 
          I'M SURE STEPPING IN MIDSTREAM IN A VERY CONTENTIOUS, UM, ZONING MATTER WAS INCREDIBLY CHALLENGING, BUT, UH, YOU, YOU REALLY HANDLED IT WITH, WITH GRACE, AND I THINK ULTIMATELY REACHED A SOLUTION THAT, WHILE I DON'T THINK IS, IS PERFECT, I THINK REALLY STRIKES A GOOD BALANCE AND DOES PRESERVE, YOU KNOW, AND DOES FURTHER THE PRESERVATION OF SOME REALLY HISTORIC HOMES IN THE CITY. 
          SO I WILL BE HAPPY TO SUPPORT THE MOTION. 
          AGAIN, THANK YOU. 
          AND ALSO THANK YOU TO MR. BROWN AND STAFF FOR ALL OF YOUR HARD WORK ON THIS. 
          UH, COMMISSIONER WHEELER. 
          THANK YOU. 
          COMMISSIONER SADID , UM, I, I I DEFINITELY WILL SUPPORT THE MOTION. 
          UM, THESE ARE SOME BEAUTIFUL HOMES. 
          UM, WHEN I STARTED DRAFTING AND LOOKING AT HOUSES, UM, I, I WOULD RIDE THE CITY AND JUST LOOK AT SOME OF OUR OLDER HOUSES AND BE ABLE TO JUST LEARN SO MUCH RICH HISTORY. 
          UM, COMING FROM A PERSON WHO HAS A FRONT PORCH THAT STRETCHES THE LENGTH OF MY, UM, OF MY HOUSE, I THOUGHT AT ONE TIME THERE WAS SOME UNUSED LAND, SOME UNUSED SPACE THAT NEEDED TO BE CLOSED IN. 
          AND IN THE PROCESS OF NOW REALIZING HOW IMPORTANT PORCHES IS IN THE ARCHITECTS OF A NEIGHBORHOOD, WHEN WE HAVE SUCH GROWTH INCOMPATIBLE HOUSES BEING BUILT IN SOME OF OUR HISTORICAL NEIGHBORHOODS, UM, JUST TO DRIVE DOWN SOME OF THESE STREETS 
          [09:30:01]
EVEN, UM, YOU CAN TELL HOW SO, SO MANY PEOPLE CARE ABOUT THOSE NEIGHBORHOODS FROM THE MAN MANICURED LAWNS, UM, TO THE WAY EVEN SOME OF THE STONES SEEMED TO SHINE. 
          UM, WHEN WE WERE IN MINNEAPOLIS, I FELT THE SAME WAY ON HOW BEAUTIFUL THEIR CITY WAS, THEIR DOWNTOWN WAS, AND HOW IT SEEMED LIKE THEY CLEANED THEIR, UM, SEEMED LIKE THEY CLEANED THE BUILDINGS WHERE IT SEEMED LIKE IT WAS JUST SHINY AND BRAND NEW. 
          SO I CAN ALWAYS, UM, RESPECT SOME THE ARCHITECT DESIGNS OF A NEIGHBORHOOD AND IT'S GROSS AND COMPATIBLE CALIFORNIA STYLE HOMES THAT ARE BEING BUILT ALL OVER OUR CITY. 
          UM, THEY HAVE A PLACE, BUT NOT IN OUR HISTORICAL DISTRICTS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ANY OTHER COMMENTS? COMMISSIONERS? UH, UH, JUST VERY QUICKLY, I WILL ALSO BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION FOR ALL OF THE REASONS, UH, ARTICULATE ABOUT MY COLLEAGUES. 
          JUST LIKE TO THANK, UH, COMMISSIONER SLEEPER, UH, FOR ALL YOUR HARD WORK. 
          UM, NOT MANY OF US GET TO WORK, UH, ON THESE KINDS OF ZONING CASES WHEN WE PERSONALLY HANDLE THEM. 
          AND SO I APPRECIATE YOU, YOU WERE HANDED A, A LIVE GRENADE, AND YOU, YOU DIDN'T TAKE A STEP BACK AND YOU WERE CURIOUS AND YOU WERE CALM, WHICH WAS FRANKLY THE MOST IMPORTANT THING. 
          AND SO I, I APPRECIATE YOUR HARD WORK. 
          UH, ALSO STAFF, UM, THIS WAS A DIFFICULT ONE FOR YOU, UH, FOR ALL OF YOU. 
          AND I APPRECIATE YOU ALWAYS, UH, BEING THERE FOR, FOR THE FOLKS AND ANSWERING THE SAME QUESTION PROBABLY 10 TIMES AND 10 TIMES FOR ME. 
          UH, AND, UM, ALSO, FRANKLY, JUST FOR THE, THE FOLKS HERE, I DID HAVE THE PRIVILEGE TO, TO MEET WITH LOTS OF FOLKS ON, ON BOTH SIDES OF, OF THIS ISSUE. 
          AND OUTSIDE OF THE DETAILS ABOUT WHY WE'RE HERE TODAY, I THINK ALL OF YOU HAVE THE SAME TWO THINGS IN COMMON, AND WHICH IS THAT YOU, YOU LOVE YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND YOU, YOU LOVE YOUR NEIGHBORS. 
          AND I THINK AS COMMISSIONER KINGSTON SAID, UH, THIS TOO SHALL PASS. 
          AND, UH, I LOOK FORWARD TO RUNNING INTO YOU FOLKS WHEN THAT HAPPENS. 
          UH, BUT WITH THAT, COMMISSIONERS, WE'RE GONNA TAKE A, A VOTE. 
          WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. 
          ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. 
          AYE. 
          ANY OPPOSED? MOTION PASSES. 
          LET'S TAKE A 10 MINUTE BREAK. 
          COMMISSIONERS, WE ARE RECORDING. 
          WE'RE BACK ON THE RECORD. 
          COMMISSIONERS, UH, WE'LL JUST HEAD RIGHT BACK TO THE, UH, THE AGENDA AND GO IN ORDER TAKES 
          [11. 24-3583 An application to amend the land use map to allow a duplex use on property that currently allows a single-family use within Subarea A within Planned Development District No. 134, on the east corner of Ash Lane and South Henderson Avenue, southeast of Terry Street.]
US TO CASE NUMBER 11. 
          GOOD EVENING. 
          GOOD EVENING. 
          CASE NUMBER 11 IS CASE Z 2 3 4 2 2 8. 
          AN APPLICATION TO AMEND THE LAND USE MAP TO ALLOW DUPLEX USE ON PROPERTY THAT CURRENTLY ALLOWS A SINGLE FAMILY USE WITHIN SUB AREA A WITHIN PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 1, 3 4 ON THE EAST CORNER OF ASHLAND AND SOUTH HENDERSON AVENUE, SOUTHEAST TER STREET STAFF. 
          RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THE APPLICANT IS HERE. 
          GOOD EVENING. 
          PUSH. 
          OKAY. 
          GOOD EVENING. 
          YEAH. 
          UM, RESPECTED CHAIR, VICE CHAIR AND THE, YOU KNOW, FELLOW COMMISSIONER. 
          SO, UM, FIRST TIME SPEAKING BEFORE THE COMMISSION, SO YEAH. 
          YEAH, GOOD EVENING AND MAYBE IT'S GOOD NIGHT. 
          YOU KNOW, I'VE BEEN HERE SINCE 1230 . 
          SO, UH, YEAH. 
          UM, I, A LOCAL, UH, WHAT IS IT? UH, YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AS WELL. 
          WHAT'S YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS? OKAY, SURE. 
          SO MY NAME IS SUMAN AND I LIVE IN FRISCO, TEXAS. 
          UM, UH, UH, I'M A LOCAL, UH, AFFORDABLE DEVELOPER. 
          I MEAN, I TRY TO BUILD AFFORDABLE HOMES, UH, IN DALLAS AND FORT WORTH AREA. 
          UH, THREE YEARS BACK, I JUST BOUGHT THIS LOT ALONG THIS, THIS LOT. 
          I HAVE FEW MORE LOTS IN THIS AREA. 
          THE POINT WAS WHEN I WENT AND DO MY DUE DILIGENCE IN THE CITY, THEY SAID, YOU CAN BUILD A DUPLEX HERE. 
          AND THEY WROTE IN WRITING TOO. 
          THE POINT WAS, UH, UH, LATER WHEN I SUBMITTED THE PLANS FOR ONE OF MY HOUSES, THEY, UH, THEY TOLD US THAT, HEY, THERE'S SOMETHING CALLED LAND USE MAP. 
          AND THEN IT WAS ONLY KNOWN, YOU KNOW, INTERNALLY. 
          SO AS A RESULT, YOU KNOW, THAT ONE, UH, I COULDN'T FIGHT AT THE TIME, THEN I JUST CONSTRUCTED, UH, TWO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES IN THAT AREA. 
          UH, I'M REALLY APPLAUD THE CITY'S DECISION IN, UH, IN FACT, UH, TRYING TO DIGITIZE THIS MAP THAT WAY. 
          UH, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE LIKE ME, YOU KNOW, WILL NOT BUY THOSE LOTS IN THE FIRST PLACE. 
          SO, UM, COMING BACK TO THAT, WHEN I BUILD, UH, THIS TWO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, I WAS ABLE TO SELL IT, YOU KNOW, FOR 800, 900 K RANGES. 
          BUT I STILL FEEL, YOU KNOW, THE BURDEN ON MY BUYERS, UH, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT AFFORDABLE, YOU KNOW, AS A RESULT. 
          THE POINT WAS THAT I THOUGHT, YOU KNOW, THIS IS A BEAUTIFUL CONDO LOT, WHICH IS LIKE 7,500 SQUARE FOOT WHERE IT IS. 
          UH, YOU KNOW, WE CAN HAVE ENTRANCES EITHER SIDE OF IT. 
          AND THEN IT'S A BEAUTIFUL OPPORTUNITY TO, YOU KNOW, TO BUILD MODERN, UH, WHAT IS IT CALLED, THE DUPLEXES, CAPTURING TO, UH, THE NEEDS WHERE, UH, YOU KNOW, A UH, LIKE A FAMILY OF, UH, TWO OR THREE OR FOUR CAN HAPPILY STAY THERE. 
          AND AT THE SAME TIME, UH, YOU KNOW, UH, THEY'LL HAVE, I, I'LL TRY TO BE IN THE RANGES OF FIVE, 400 FIFTIES AND FIVE HUNDREDS. 
          THAT WAY IT'LL BE MORE AFFORDABLE, UH, IN THAT, UH, THING. 
          UM, SO FOR THIS CASE, UH, I'M REQUESTING, YOU KNOW, TO CHANGE IT TO A DUPLEX. 
          THAT'S IT. 
          DOES THAT CONCLUDE YOUR COMMENTS, SIR? WHAT'S THAT? IS THAT ALL YOU HAVE TO SAY? OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UH, 
          [09:35:01]
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? IT'S YES IN SUPPORT, YEAH. 
          OH, OKAY. 
          HELLO, GOOD EVENING. 
          HELLO, UH, MY NAME IS LAURA VALEZ. 
          I RESIDE IN 51 18 GARLAND AVENUE OF, I LIVED IN DALLAS, OLD EAST DALLAS THE FULL 24 YEARS. 
          UM, I'M IN SUPPORT FOR THE REZONING CHANGE FROM SINGLE FAMILY HOMES TO DUPLEX. 
          UH, I'VE SEEN AS THE, THE PART OF DALLAS HAS GROWN INTO, UH, MORE MODERN LOOKING HOMES. 
          AND, UH, I KNOW THAT THERE'S MULTIPLE HOMES THAT ALSO LOOK THE SAME. 
          THERE'S DIFFERENT DUPLEX HOMES, AND THERE'S ALSO MODERN SINGLE FAMILY HOMES IN THAT AREA. 
          UM, I KNOW IN THE STREET BEHIND OUR HOME, THERE'S TWO DUPLEX HOMES, UH, AND OUR STREET, THERE'S ONE DUPLEX HOME AND ALL OVER THAT AREA, THERE'S MULTIPLE OF THE SAME, BUT I'M IN SUPPORT. 
          THANK YOU FOR JOINING US. 
          ANYONE ELSE IN SUPPORT? OKAY. 
          WE'LL TAKE OUR SPEAKERS IN OPPOSITION. 
          DO WE HAVE TWO MINUTES ON OUR TIME? THREE MINUTES. 
          THREE. 
          OKAY, GREAT. 
          YES. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, STEPHANIE CASEY, I LIVE AT 9 0 9 CAMERON IN MOUNT AUBURN. 
          I'VE LIVED THERE FOR SEVEN YEARS AND I OWN THE HOME. 
          UM, AS THE YOUNG LADY HERE SAID, WE ALREADY HAVE LOTS OF DUPLEXES. 
          WHAT WE'RE REALLY AFRAID HERE IS THAT WE'RE GONNA HAVE A SLIPPERY SLOPE IF WE JUST SAY APPROVE, APPROVE, APPROVE, APPROVE. 
          THE PD WAS PUT IN PLACE WAY BACK IN THE EIGHTIES, AS YOU KNOW, YOU SAY, UM, REALLY THOUGHTFULLY. 
          UH, IF THIS NEEDS TO BE REVISITED AS A WHOLE, WE'RE HAPPY TO DO THAT AS A COMMUNITY AND WITH COMMISSION COUNCIL. 
          UM, WE DON'T WANT THIS TO BECOME A SLIPPERY SLOPE. 
          SO WE, THE NEIGHBORHOOD DOES NOT WANT THIS. 
          WE HAVE A SMALL REPRESENTATIVE HERE. 
          WE'VE DONE A LOT OF FOOTWORK, UM, WITH PEOPLE GOING DOOR TO DOOR TO TRY TO GET AFFIDAVITS AND BALLOTS, WHICH IS CHALLENGING IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          WE HAVE WORKING FAMILIES FOR THE MOST PART. 
          UM, WE DO NOT WANT TO GET A BUNCH OF NEW DUPLEXES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          AND WE'RE AFRAID IF THIS, ALL THESE THINGS GO THROUGH, IT'S JUST GONNA SET A PRECEDENCE FOR APPROVE, APPROVE, APPROVE. 
          YOU VALUED THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF LAKEWOOD. 
          WE ASK YOU TO ALSO LOOK AT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AS AN ENTITY. 
          THAT IS THE WAY IT IS RIGHT NOW. 
          AND NEIGHBORS ARE VERY HAPPY WITH HOW IT IS. 
          THESE ARE OUTSIDE DEVELOPERS COMING IN AND PUTTING IN DUPLEXES. 
          AND OF COURSE, EVEN THE SINGLE FAMILIES GO EDGE TO EDGE. 
          BUT WITH THE DUPLEXES, THEY ALSO CONCRETE THE ENTIRE FRONT. 
          WE'VE ALREADY HAD FLOODING ISSUES. 
          YOU GET NO RUNOFF, YOU KNOW, THERE'S NOWHERE FOR RUNOFF TO SOAK IN, UM, COMPLETELY CHANGING THE NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          WE UNDERSTAND GENTRIFICATION, WE'RE FINE WITH THAT, BUT RIGHT NOW WE DON'T WANT IT TO GO INSANE. 
          WE WANNA PRESERVE THE PD THAT WAS PUT IN PLACE AND IS STILL ACTIVE. 
          THERE ARE PLENTY OF DUPLEX, LOTS TO BUILD DUPLEXES, AND, UH, THESE ARE SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND WE WANT THEM TO STAY A SINGLE FAMILY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          I'M KAREN ROBERTS, 5 0 2 CAMERON AVENUE. 
          THANK YOU FOR SAVING LAKEWOOD. 
          I HOPE YOU'LL SAVE MOUNT AUBURN. 
          UM, THE CREATION AND PASSAGE OF PD 1 34 WAS LED BY RESIDENTS OF MOUNT AUBURN AND SANTA FE NEIGHBORHOODS. 
          UNDER THE PROFESSIONAL GUIDANCE OF OUR DALLAS CITY PLANNER AND THE DIRECTOR OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, WELL OVER 50% OF THE OWNERS SUPPORTED THE PD. 
          IT PASSED WITH THE APPROVAL OF A HUNDRED PERCENT OF THE PLAN COMMISSION AND A HUNDRED PERCENT OF THE CITY COUNCIL. 
          THE FIVE CASES ON THE AGENDA TODAY IN PD 1 34 ARE IN A, ARE A VIOLATION OF THE ZONING MADE BY THIS PD. 
          THE PUR. 
          THE PURPOSE OF PD 1 34 IS TO PROTECT OUR AFFORDABLE NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING. 
          EARLIER THIS YEAR, NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTS MET WITH COMMISSIONER HAMPTON AND AGREED TO REVIEW OUR PD AND IMPROVE THE PROTECTION FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          PLEASE GIVE US TIME TO DO THAT. 
          MOUNT AUBURN IS IDENTIFIED AS A HIGH DENSITY, AFFORDABLE, UH, INCOME NEIGHBORHOOD IN THE 2020 CENSUS. 
          MOST RECENTLY, THE BUILDERS OF HOPE IDENTIFIED THE, UH, WITH THEIR ANTI-DISCRIMINATION TOOL, IDENTIFIED MOUNT AUBURN AS MOST VULNERABLE. 
          AND THE MAP YOU'VE JUST BEEN GIVEN DEMONSTRATES IS THEIR, IS THEIR MAP SHOWING HOW VULNERABLE THE HOUSING, THE EXISTING HOUSING IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD IS THE, THE DALLAS HOUSING POLICY HAS SEVEN PILLARS. 
          ONE IS TO PRESERVE OUR EXISTING HOUSING. 
          THE OTHER IS TO PREVENT DISPLACEMENT. 
          [09:40:01]
CHANGING THESE SINGLE FAMILY LOTS TO DUPLEXES WILL ENCOURAGE DISPLACEMENT AND DEMOLITION OF EXISTING HOUSING IF APPROVED, THESE WILL EXPAND. 
          WHAT, WHAT, JUST WHAT, UM, UH, STEPHANIE WAS TALKING ABOUT ALREADY. 
          THERE IS ANOTHER CASE WAITING FOR YOU AND IT HAS A NICE SINGLE FAMILY LOT THAT WAS RECENTLY REDONE AND NOW THEY WANNA PUT A DUPLEX ON IT. 
          WE'RE GONNA LOSE OUR AFFORDABLE HOUSING. 
          PLEASE VOTE AGAINST THIS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          NEXT SPEAKER PLEASE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          MELANIE VAN LANDINGHAM, 63 11 LAKESHORE NEIGHBORHOOD ADVOCATE. 
          HERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY FOR DALLAS TO ACTUALLY ADDRESS HOUSING CRISIS AND TAKE ANTI-DISPLACEMENT ACTIONS. 
          HEAD ON DALLAS MUST DELIBERATELY AND PURPOSEFULLY PROTECT AND STABILIZE NEIGHBORHOODS EXACTLY LIKE MOUNT AUBURN, DEFINED AS AMONG THE MOST VULNERABLE BY THE RECENT BOH STUDY. 
          IT FALLS BELOW 80% OF A MI, UH, PRIMARILY HISPANIC OWNERS AND RENTERS. 
          HIGH PERCENTAGE OF CHILDREN IN POVERTY, AND ALREADY ONE OF THE MOST DENSE RESIDENTIAL AREAS DUE TO ITS MULTI-GENERATIONAL SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. 
          RESPECT THIS NEIGHBORHOOD LED PD ZONING THAT VERY EARLY RECOGNIZED ITS RESIDENTS VULNERABILITY AND STABILIZED ITS HEALTHY BALANCE OF LOT ZONING. 
          THIS CASE WANTS UP ZONE DUPLEX INFILL THAT VIOLATES PD 1 34. 
          IT VIOLATES THE DALLAS HOUSING POLICY AND FORWARD DALLAS THAT ALL CALL FOR PROTECTING EXISTING AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND THREATENED NEIGHBORHOODS. 
          UPZONING WILL DIRECTLY DESTABILIZE MOUNT AUBURN. 
          GENTRIFICATION IS NOT JUST A TREND, IT IS A PURPOSEFUL ACT. 
          THIS COMMUNITY MATTERS TO PLEASE OPPOSE THIS CASE. 
          HELLO, MY NAME'S JASMINE GRIFFITHS. 
          I'M AT 10 23 MOUNT AUBURN AVENUE, UH, AND I'M THE CHAIR OF MOUNT AUBURN NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. 
          ONE OF THE CHAIRS, UH, WE'VE HAD MANY MEETINGS ON THIS VERY SUBJECT AND ALL THE SUBJECTS THAT MY NEIGHBORS WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT. 
          UH, WHILE PD 1 34 MIGHT SEEM OLD AND IRRELEVANT, IT'S TALKED ABOUT IN ALMOST EVERY SINGLE ONE OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS THAT I'VE ATTENDED AND RAN FOR THE PAST TWO YEARS. 
          SO, WHILE IT MIGHT SEEM OLD AND OUTDATED, IT IS REALLY RELEVANT AND WE HOLD IT DEAR. 
          IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO US NOT ONLY TO PRESERVE THE CHARACTER OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT ALSO TO PRESERVE THE LIVELIHOODS OF OUR NEIGHBORS. 
          THERE ARE SO MANY NEIGHBORS THAT ARE ALREADY HAVING TROUBLE PAYING PROPERTY TAXES DUE TO INCREASING COSTS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          I BOUGHT MY HOUSE IN 2020. 
          IT'S MY FIRST HOME. 
          AND WHENEVER I BOUGHT MY HOUSE, MANY OF MY FRIENDS IN THE SAME SITUATION LOOKING FOR A F FIRST HOME STARTED TO LOOK IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          AND I QUICKLY HAD TO TELL THEM A YEAR OR TWO LATER THAT, HEY, I, I DON'T THINK I COULD EVEN AFFORD TO BUY A HOUSE IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD TWO YEARS AFTER I BOUGHT MY HOUSE. 
          AND IT'S DIRECTLY DUE TO ALL OF THE LOTS BEING DEVELOPED INTO DUPLEXES. 
          AND THERE ARE SOME LOTS IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD THAT CAN BE DEVELOPED INTO VERY LARGE TWO STORY. 
          AND EVEN ONE OF THESE IS PROPOSING A THIRD STORY, UM, HOUSES. 
          AND THAT IS OKAY AT THIS POINT. 
          THAT'S WHAT OUR PD 1 34 ALLOWS, BUT NOT THESE OTHER LOTS. 
          NOT ONLY IS IT NOT WITHIN THE CHARACTER, BUT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD IS ALREADY STRUGGLING WITH DENSITY. 
          IF YOU DRIVE DOWN ANY OF OUR STREETS, IT IS SO HARD TO EVEN SEE ALL OF THE HOUSES AND DRIVEWAYS BECAUSE WE'RE FULL WITH PARKING. 
          SO AS MY NEIGHBORS SAID, WE'RE ALREADY A DENSE, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          AND LIKE THEY ALSO MENTIONED, WE'VE HAD FLOODING ISSUES. 
          ONE, UM, SPECIFIC CASE WAS A VERY ACTIVE NEIGHBOR WHO WAS REALLY PASSIONATE ABOUT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          THEY HAD TO MOVE OUT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD BECAUSE THE FLOODING RUINED THEIR HOUSE. 
          AND IT IS DIRECTLY DUE TO BEING OVERWHELMED, THE INFRASTRUCTURE NOT BEING ABLE TO KEEP UP WITH INCREASED DENSITY BECAUSE THERE ARE MANY LOTS IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          WHILE THEY ARE CURRENTLY ZONED DUPLEX, THEY ARE EMPTY RIGHT NOW. 
          SO WE'RE ALREADY INCREASING 
          [09:45:01]
DENSITY NATURALLY BY JUST BUILDING ON THE VACANT LOTS. 
          WE DON'T NEED TO INCREASE DENSITY EVEN MORE BY CHANGING ZONING OF THESE LOTS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          IS THERE ANYONE ELSE I WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? COMMISSIONERS QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? I THINK ONE PERSON ONLY. 
          OKAY. 
          IS IT, UH, MANTA? SO IS MANTA ONLINE? YEP. 
          YES, I'M HERE. 
          OKAY. 
          GOOD EVENING. 
          GOOD EVENING. 
          I DON'T KNOW HOW TO TURN MY CAMERA ON, SO YES, PLEASE. 
          I WE CAN SEE YOU NOW. 
          GOOD EVENING. 
          OKAY. 
          GOOD EVENING. 
          THANK, THANK YOU COMMISSIONERS. 
          UM, MY NAME IS MARIA ADA. 
          I LIVE AT 53 0 8 ASH. 
          UM, I'M RIGHT NEXT TO ONE OF THE, THE SPECIFIC CASE. 
          AND I'M JUST HERE TO SAY IF YOU CAN, UH, COMMISSIONERS CAN PLEASE TAKE IN CONSIDERATION ALL THE AFFIDAVITS, ALL THE, UM, DOOR TO DOOR KNOCKING THAT WE'VE DONE IN THE PAST MONTH. 
          UM, WE HAVE A LOT OF NEIGHBORS THAT ARE AGAINST THIS CASE IN ANY, ALL THE OTHER CASES IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          UM, WE DON'T WANT ANY DUPLICATE, DUPLICATE HOUSES BUILT, UH, NEXT TO OUR HOMES, ESPECIALLY BEING TWO TO TWO TO THREE STORY HIGH, UM, HOUSES. 
          UM, WE DON'T WANT OUR NEIGHBORS TO LOOK INTO OUR HOME WHILE WE'RE COMFORTABLY, COMFORTABLY IN OUR HOME. 
          UM, WE DON'T WANT OUR TAXES TO GET, UM, TO INCREASE AS WELL. 
          UM, AND JUST LIKE MISS STEPHANIE AND MISS JASMINE AND MISS KAREN SAID, UM, I'M, I'M ALSO WITH THEM WITH, UM, WITH THE FLOODING. 
          I KNOW OUR CORNER ACTUALLY GETS FLOODED WHEN IT RAINS. 
          AND IF THIS HOUSE GETS BUILT, UM, THEY DON'T HAVE ANY YARD TO WHERE THE RAIN IS GONNA SOAK INTO THE GROUND, SO IT'S JUST GONNA GO STRAIGHT BACK INTO THE STREET AND CAUSE MORE FLOODING. 
          UM, JUST LIKE YOU VALUE GENIUS HEIGHTS, WHICH IS OUR NEIGHBOR DOWN THE STREET, IF YOU CAN JUST PLEASE PROVIDE YOUR, OUR, OUR, OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AS WELL. 
          WE WANNA KEEP OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AS IT IS. 
          WE LOVE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          UH, WE LOVE OUR HOUSES HERE. 
          WE JUST DON'T WANT ANY OF THOSE BIG, BIG BOX HOUSES BUILT IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          UM, AND YOU CAN JUST PLEASE TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION. 
          UM, LIKE I SAID, WE JUST, WE LOVE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AS IT IS. 
          WE DON'T WANT ANY, ANY HOUSES BEING ABOLISHED OR BUILT AS WHERE THEY CAN SEE INTO OUR HOUSES. 
          UM, THAT'S PRETTY MUCH IT. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. 
          THANK YOU FOR JOINING US COMMISSIONERS QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT. 
          COMMISSIONER HAMPTON. 
          THANK YOU MR. ATTI. 
          THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE TODAY AND FOR ALL OF OUR FOLKS BOTH ONLINE AND IN PERSON. 
          I KNOW YOU GUYS HAVE SPENT THE DAY WITH US, SO THANK YOU. 
          UM, YOU MENTIONED THAT YOU HAVE DEVELOPED OTHER HOUSES, UM, SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          THOSE WERE ON BEACON, IS THAT CORRECT? SO ALSO WITHIN THE PD, UM, COMPLIANT WITH THE CONDITIONS, YES. 
          UH, I BUILT A SINGLE FAMILY HOME, CORRECT, YES. 
          OKAY. 
          AND SO, UM, YOU PURCHASED THIS LOT, YOU HAD VISITED WITH STAFF, I THINK PERHAPS HAD GOTTEN SOME INCORRECT INFORMATION INITIALLY, UM, ON HOW THE LAND USE MAP WAS APPLIED FOR THIS LOT. 
          IS THAT CORRECT? NOT ONLY THIS LOT, THE OTHER LOTS TOO. 
          YOU KNOW, UH, THEY, THEY MADE ME BUY THIS THING FOR A  FOR A PREMIUM, YOU KNOW, FOR A DUPLEX, YOU KNOW, LOT. 
          SO, UH, UH, WE DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING ABOUT PD PD 1 34 AT THAT POINT IN TIME, SO OKAY. 
          BUT, BUT YOU ON THE OTHER TWO YOU SUCCESSFULLY BUILT AND YOU HAVE, UM, COMPLETED. 
          I WAS SUCCESSFULLY ABLE TO BUILD THE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND THEN IN THE RANGE OF 3,500 TO 4,000 SQUARE FOOT. 
          SO WE ARE NOT INCREASING FOR THE DUPLEX TO LIKE, TO STAY THE SAME SQUARE FOOTAGE, NOT INCREASE ANY SQUARE FOOTAGE MORE. 
          RIGHT. 
          SO YOU'RE, AND AGAIN, YOU, YOU WOULD WORK WITHIN THE CONDITIONS, UM, AND ABSOLUTELY THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ABSOLUTELY. 
          SO WHATEVER RECOMMENDATIONS THE STAFF WANTS, LIKE, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER YOU WANTED, I'M ALWAYS HERE TO IN FACT HELP. 
          I WOULD LIKE TO ANSWER TWO QUESTIONS. 
          UM, THE ONE THING IS, SORRY, UM, I APOLOGIZE. 
          THIS IS A TIME FOR, FOR US TO ASK, ASK QUESTIONS FOR YOU. 
          AND I'M NOT QUITE SURE WHAT IT MIGHT BE FOR ME TO BE ABLE TO ASK YOU THAT. 
          OH, NO PROBLEM, PROBLEM. 
          SO I APOLOGIZE. 
          DO I NEED TO RESPOND BACK TO WHATEVER CONCERNS THEY BROUGHT IT UP OR HE ACTUALLY DID? YES. 
          YEAH, YOU DO ACTUALLY HAVE A REBUTTAL. 
          WE DID NOT HAVE A REBUTTAL. 
          THAT, THAT WAS MY, UH, MY MISTAKE, SIR. 
          YOU ACTUALLY DID GET A, A TWO MINUTE REBUTTAL. 
          SO LET'S DO THAT NOW, PLEASE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          I THINK THE S ARE MORE OPPOSED ABOUT THE PROPERTY TAXES. 
          I REALLY PT AS WELL, YOU KNOW, EVEN I HAD INCREASE IN MY PROPERTY TAXES IN FRISCO. 
          SO, UH, THE POINT IS, 
          [09:50:01]
UH, AND THE OTHER QUESTION IS ABOUT FLOODING. 
          YOU KNOW, I REALLY EVEN IT IS A SINGLE FAMILY OR A DUPLEX, IT IS GOING TO BE THE, YOU KNOW, THE SAME ISSUE. 
          IF IT IS THERE AND IT IS NOT DENSELY POPULATED, IT'S LIKE ONLY 16% OF THE ENTIRE 1200 HOUSES HAVE ONLY DUPLEX. 
          AND THERE ARE LOTS WHERE THE DUPLEX WAS ZONED, BUT THEY BUILT SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AS WELL. 
          SO, UM, GETTING AN EMPTY LOTS, LIKE THIS IS VERY DIFFICULT. 
          AND THEN AT THE SAME TIME, UH, YOU KNOW, WE ARE NOT TRYING TO ADD MORE DENSITY. 
          WE'RE NOT BUILDING A, UH, LIKE A TOWNHOUSE OF FOUR UNITS, NOTHING. 
          WE'RE JUST ADDING ONE, YOU KNOW, AFFORDABLE HOUSE IN THAT AREA. 
          AND, UH, YES, COMING BACK TO THE PROPERTY TAXES, IT'LL BE THE SAME OR LESSER BECAUSE WE ARE GOING TO BUILD IN THE RANGE OF FOUR FIFTIES TO FIVE HUNDREDS IN A OTHER WAY. 
          SO, UM, I STILL FEEL 16% WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, STILL MORE ROOM IF WE CAN. 
          THAT'S IT. 
          THANK YOU, SIR. 
          UH, BACK TO QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT, MR. RUBIN. 
          UM, MR. TEI, UM, I UNDERSTAND THAT SOME OF THE NEIGHBORS HAVE EXPRESSED CONCERNS ABOUT WHAT SOME OF THE DUPLEXES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT HAVE BEEN BUILT ALREADY, YOU KNOW, LOOK LIKE THEIR DIMENSIONS, THEIR, YOU KNOW, SORT OF HOW MUCH CONCRETE IS IN THE FRONT YARD, WHERE THE PARKING IS. 
          IS THAT SOMETHING THAT YOU WOULD BE WILLING TO WORK WITH THE NEIGHBORS TO ADDRESS THEIR CONCERNS ON? OH, DEFINITELY. 
          THE POINT IS, AS THIS BEING A CON LOT, WE DON'T NEED TO HAVE TWO DRIVEWAYS ON THE SAME SIDE OF IT. 
          WHAT IT MEANS IS THAT, UH, UM, WHAT THE, UH, WE HAVE TWO DRIVEWAYS NEXT TO EACH OTHER IN A DUPLEX, BUT HERE WE CAN HAVE ONLY ONE DRIVEWAY HERE, WE CAN HAVE ANOTHER DRIVEWAY TOWARDS THE CORNER OF IT. 
          THAT WAY WHEN ONCE YOU LOOK, YOU KNOW, IT'LL BE LIKE A SINGLE FAMILY, YOU KNOW, TRADITIONAL HOUSE. 
          AND ALSO, YOU KNOW, THIS IS A GOOD DESIGN TO HAVE IF WE CAN, AND I'M NOT ASKING FOR YOU TO, YOU KNOW, SUGGEST ANYTHING SPECIFICALLY THIS EVENING, BUT, UM, ACTUALLY I'LL, I'LL JUST LEAVE IT THERE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          NO, I'M WILLING TO WORK, YOU KNOW, . 
          THANK YOU. 
          COMMISSIONER HERBERT, PLEASE. 
          I'LL FOLLOW COMMISSIONER RUBIN ON THAT AND GET IN TROUBLE. 
          UM, SO A LOT OF THE BUILDS HAVE BEEN NO FRONT DOORS IN THE FRONT. 
          WE CAN'T REQUIRE THESE THINGS. 
          CAN YOU TALK ABOUT THE DESIGN THAT YOU ARE THAT'S IN YOUR MIND RIGHT NOW TO KIND OF HELP CALM THE NEIGHBORS? AND I'LL RE I'LL SAY SOME OF THE PROBLEMS WE ARE HAVING IN OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS OR FRONT DOORS ARE REALLY SIDE DOORS. 
          SO WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE HOUSE, THERE'S NO FRONT DOOR THERE, RIGHT? IT'S ONLY GARAGE OR ONLY UH, UH, UH, WINDOWS. 
          UH, WHAT'S YOUR, WHAT'S YOUR IDEA? YES, YES. 
          UH, WHEN WE SEE THOSE THINGS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, WE HAVE SEEN THAT THERE IS NOT POSSIBLE IF IT IS GOING TO BE LIKE A INTERIOR LOT, BUT AS THIS BEING THE, UH, THE CORNER LOT, THE ONE HOUSE WILL HAVE COMPLETELY LIKE A MAIN DOOR FACING THE ROAD. 
          OKAY. 
          SO THE OTHER ONE WILL HAVE LIKE A ONLY GARAGE, LIKE HOW LIKE A SINGLE FAMILY HOME WILL BE THERE AND THEN PEOPLE CAN ENTER TOWARDS THE SIDE OF THAT ONE. 
          SO IN SHORT, IT IS EXACTLY LOOKING LIKE A SINGLE FAMILY HOME WHEN YOU LOOK FROM THE STREET. 
          SO THE SIDE OF IT WILL HAVE LIKE A, YOU KNOW, THE, UH, LIKE A CORNER. 
          IT CAN HAVE LIKE GARAGE, YOU KNOW, THIS WAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONERS FOR THE APPLICANT? ALSO, THIS IS 7,500 SQUARE FEET, THE BIGGEST FLOOD THAT YOU CAN GET IN THIS AREA, YOU KNOW. 
          THANK YOU. 
          QUESTIONS FOR OUR FOLKS IN OPPOSITION, COMMISSIONER HAMPTON? YES, AND I DON'T KNOW IF MS. GRIFFITHS, MS. ROBERTS, WHO WANTS TO TAKE IT'S, UM, QUESTIONS FOR THE OPPOSITION. 
          THANK YOU MR. O TEDDY, THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. 
          UM, IS IT CORRECT THAT, UM, WHAT YOU ALL ARE SEEING, AND I THINK YOU HAD SHARED SOME PHOTOS THAT WERE, UM, CIRCULATED WITH THE COMMISSION, IS THAT THE NEW CONSTRUCTION THAT'S COMING IN, BOTH SINGLE FAMILY AND DUPLEX IS SIGNIFICANTLY LARGER IN SCALE THAN THE EXISTING HOUSING IS, IS THAT CORRECT? COULD YOU SPEAK TO THAT A LITTLE BIT? OH, DEFINITELY, DEFINITELY. 
          AND SO YOU HAD SENT SOME PHOTOS THAT I THINK HAD SHOWED THAT THE GARAGES AND, SORRY, I'LL TRY TO SPEAK INTO THE MIC A LITTLE BETTER HERE. 
          UM, THAT GARAGES, UM, ARE ESSENTIALLY DOMINATING THE FRONT FACADE, YOU KNOW, DOUBLE DRIVEWAYS WITH, YOU KNOW, 36 FEET OF WIDTH, UM, YOU KNOW, FRONT DOORS THAT AREN'T ENGAGED WITH THE STREET. 
          ARE YOU SEEING THAT SAME, UM, PATTERN WHILE THE BUILDING FORM MAY BE THE SAME SIZE ON THE YES, THERE'S THE PHOTO THAT WAS SENT WITH US. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, IS, IS THIS TYPICAL OF THE DUPLEXES THAT ARE BEING BUILT IN THE AREA? OH, EXACT. 
          THEY ALL LOOK LIKE THAT. 
          [09:55:01]
OKAY. 
          AND THEN NEXT DOOR TO THAT, I THINK THAT MAY ACTUALLY BE A SINGLE FAMILY HOME, BUT THAT'S A SINGLE FAMILY HOME. 
          BUT THE, UM, DUPLEXES IN THE AREA ARE SIMILAR IN SCALE. 
          THEY'RE PREDOMINANTLY SINGLE STORY, BUT THEY WOULD HAVE TWO ENTRIES, GARAGES ON THE BACK, SINGLE DRIVEWAYS TO ACCESS THEM. 
          IS THAT CORRECT? THEY, THEY LOOK LIKE THEY'RE TWO STORY TO ME, BUT MAYBE THEY'RE NO, NO, THE, THE, THE ORIGINAL DUPLEXES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          OH YES, THEY WERE. 
          YES. 
          THE ORIGINAL DUPLEXES ARE SIMILAR. 
          YOU MEAN YOU ALMOST DON'T ALWAYS RECOGNIZE THAT IT IS A DUPLEX, THEN YOU START NOTICING TWO MAILBOXES. 
          OKAY. 
          , THANK YOU. 
          AND YOU'RE SEEING BOTH NEW SINGLE FAMILY AND NEW DUPLEXES BEING CONSTRUCTED, IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. 
          OKAY. 
          MAY, MAY I JUST SAY WE DON'T LIKE THE LOOKS OF THE NEW DUPLEXES, BUT OUR CONCERN IS THAT THIS IS GOING TO TAKE AWAY AND DESTROY OUR EXISTING HOUSING. 
          THANK YOU. 
          I THINK WE HEARD, HEARD YOU LOUD AND CLEAR ON THAT ONE. 
          UM, I'M, I'LL LET MY OTHER COMMISSIONERS ASK QUESTIONS IF THEY HAVE HAVEN'T. 
          THANK YOU. 
          COMMISSIONER KINGSTON. 
          MS. ROBERTS, WOULD YOU SAY IN THE LAST SAY FOUR OR FIVE YEARS A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF THE ORIGINAL HOMES HAVE BEEN REDONE? YES, DEFINITELY INCLUDING LIKE EIGHT ON MY BLOCK. 
          AND HAVE THERE BEEN SOME NEW CONSTRUCTION HOMES THAT ARE ONE STORY THAT ARE WHAT? ONE STORY? THEY, THEY ALL LOOK TO ME LIKE THEY'RE TWO STORY. 
          OKAY. 
          AND THEY HAVE, MOST OF THEM HAVE FLAT ROOFS, SOME DON'T, BUT THEY, MY NEIGHBOR AND I CALLED THEM DENTAL OFFICES. 
          , . 
          NOW WE, NOW WE HAVE NEIGHBORS. 
          I THINK THAT'S ALL THE QUESTIONS I HAVE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, PLEASE. 
          WE'LL ASK JUST ONE FOLLOW UP BECAUSE MS. ROBERTS HAD HAD MENTIONED IT. 
          IS IT CORRECT THAT, UM, THERE HAD BEEN CONVERSATIONS BOTH WITH CITY STAFF AND I HAD MET WITH THE COMMUNITY SEPARATELY AND THEN ATTENDED THE COMMUNITY MEETING WHERE THERE WAS DISCUSSION OF CONSIDERING THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WITHIN PD 1 34? ABSOLUTELY. 
          AND THAT IS ONE OF THE THINGS I'M ASKING, CAN WE PLEASE HAVE TIME TO DO THIS? OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, WE ARE TRYING TO PRESERVE OUR EXISTING HOUSING AND WE, OUR COMMISSIONER OFFERED TO HELP US WITH THAT. 
          AND, AND I THINK IT IS TIME. 
          YES, I KNOW THAT PD WAS DONE BEFORE SOME OF THE WERE BORN. 
          I DID IT. 
          I WAS VERY INVOLVED IN THAT PD AND I'M VERY PROUD TO SAY THAT. 
          AND YES, I RECOGNIZE THAT BOTH OF US NEED A REDO. 
          SO THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU MS. ROBERT. 
          THAT'S PRICELESS. 
          UH, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONERS FOR OUR SPEAKER IN OPPOSITION? SHE NEEDS A REDO. 
          UH, YEAH, YOU HAVE SOME DISAGREEMENT FROM THIS SIDE OF THE HORSESHOE. 
          MR. ROBERTS, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR OUR SPEAKERS IN OPPOSITION COMMISSIONERS? QUESTIONS FOR STAFF COMMISSIONER HAMPTON STAFF? YES. 
          UM, I DON'T WANNA RE-REVIEW ALL THE THINGS THAT WE WENT OVER, BUT JUST GENERALLY, UM, BECAUSE THE SIZE OF THE HOUSING HAS COME UP, WE SAW SOME OF THE PHOTOS. 
          UM, IS IT CORRECT FROM YOUR REVIEW THAT THE SCALE OF EXISTING HOUSING STOCK VARIES FROM WHAT THE ALLOWED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ARE WITHIN THE PD AND WE'RE SEEING THAT IN THE, IN THE NEW BUILDS. 
          I WOULD SAY THAT, YES. 
          WHAT, UH, THE LEGACY YOUR OLDER STOCK THERE IT IS GENERALLY, IT DOES NOT MAXIMIZE WHAT IS ALLOWED UNDER THE PD. 
          YES. 
          AND I KNOW WE TALKED BRIEFLY ABOUT, UM, THE, UM, CHARACTER OF THE AREA AND, UM, WE HEARD FROM SOME OF OUR TESTIMONY ABOUT, UM, YOU KNOW, IT IS A MA MAJORITY HISPANIC DISTRICT. 
          IT'S NATURALLY OCCURRING AFFORDABLE HOUSING. 
          IT'S AT HIGH RISK OF DISPLACEMENT. 
          UM, ARE THERE TOOLS THAT THE CITY HAS AVAILABLE OR HAS THE ANTI DISPLACEMENT TOOLKIT BEEN DEVELOPED THAT WAS TALKED ABOUT? LET ME ASK IT THAT WAY. 
          TRYING TO GET MY BUTTON TO WORK. 
          SO A LOT OF, EXCUSE ME, A, A LOT OF WHAT WE HAVE TO APPLY FOR ANTI DISPLACEMENT IS BEGINS IN DALLAS HOUSING POLICY 2033. 
          UM, I HAVEN'T REVIEWED THAT. 
          THE, UH, TOOLKIT IN REFERENCE TO THIS CASE. 
          UM, I, WHAT, HOW WAY 
          [10:00:01]
WE'VE REVIEWED IT IN, IN REFERENCE TO THE, UH, HOUSING POLICY IS WE'VE GOT CITYWIDE PRESERVATION IS A GOAL. 
          CITYWIDE PRODUCTION IS ALSO A GOAL. 
          AND THE DATA THAT'S BUILT INTO THE 2030, THAT'S SO HARD TO SAY. 
          2033, UM, POLICY IS A, THE, THE DATA FROM THE 2018 STUDY, UH, FOR THE HOUSING POLICY AND 2018 NORTH TEXAS REGIONAL HOUSING ASSESSMENT. 
          UM, BOTH OF WHICH ARE IDENTIFYING SHORTAGES. 
          SO PRODUCTION IS PART OF ANTI DISPLACEMENT, UH, IN MY READING OF THESE DOCUMENTS, UH, AS WELL AS THE PRESERVATION ANGLE. 
          SO BOTH OF THOSE ARE IMPORTANT PORTIONS OF, UH, ANTI DISPLACEMENT. 
          AND JUST ONE FOLLOW UP QUESTION, 'CAUSE I DID PULL THE CENSUS DATA TO HELP MAYBE UNDERSTAND SOME OF THE CONTEXT OF THE AREA. 
          UM, WOULD IT SURPRISE YOU THAT THE, UM, OWNERSHIP IN BOTH OF THE, UM, CENSUS TRACKS COVERED BY PD 1 34 ARE OVER 50% OVER OCCUPIED, OWNER OCCUPIED? I DON'T KNOW IF I, I, I'M MORE INTERESTED, SO I'M GONNA TAKE TIME TO PROCESS THAT DATA. 
          I WOULDN'T SAY I'M SURPRISED. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ONE QUICK QUESTION FOR YOU, SIR. 
          AND, UM, I, I DROVE THIS, THIS AREA, BUT I DON'T REMEMBER WHICH LOT WAS THIS ONE. 
          IS THIS ONE OF THE VACANT ONES? ONE OF THE THREE VACANT? THIS IS ONE OF THE VACANT ONES. 
          THIS IS ON THE CORNER OF ASHTON HENDERSON. 
          OKAY. 
          AND SO LET'S SAY THE APPLICANT DECIDES TO BUILD A SINGLE FAMILY HOME. 
          WHAT'S THE MAXIMUM BUILDING ENVELOPE THAT THEY COULD DO THERE NOW? AND DOES THAT INCLUDE A FLAT ROOF? UH, THE MAX BUILDING ENVELOPE THAT THEY COULD DO WITH A 7,500 SQUARE FOOT LOT WOULD BE, LEMME OPEN UP A CALCULATOR HERE. 
          3,375 SQUARE FEET. 
          UM, AND THE OTHER QUESTION WAS IF WE COULD HAVE A FLAT ROOF. 
          YES. 
          THERE ARE NO ROOF PITCH REQUIREMENTS, UH, IN PD 1 34. 
          SO THEORETICALLY, IF THIS APPLICANT GETS DENIED, THEN HE COULD PUT IN A ALMOST 4,000 SQUARE FOOT HOME WITH A FLAT ROOF. 
          YES, CLOSER TO 3000, BUT YES, A LARGE HOUSE WITH A FLAT ROOF. 
          OKAY. 
          ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF COMMISSIONERS? OKAY, SEE NONE. 
          COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, YOU HAVE A MOTION? I DO. 
          AND IF I HAVE A SECOND, I HAVE, UM, QUESTION OR COMMENTS, UM, IN THE MATTER OF Z 2 3 4 DASH 2 28, I MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, NOT FOLLOW STAFF RECOMMENDATION, BUT DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR MOTION. 
          COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, YOU HAVE A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER KINGSTON. 
          COMMENTS, AND I WILL SAY THIS ONCE, AND I WILL NOTE THAT IT APPLIES TO ALL , BUT, UM, I DO RECOMMEND DENIAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 
          UM, THERE'S A NUMBER OF FACTORS THAT, UM, WERE PART OF MY CONSIDERATION. 
          THEY WERE MANY OF THE FACTORS THAT WERE DEBATED BY THIS BODY DURING FOR DALLAS. 
          UM, TALKING ABOUT THE ROLE OF NEIGHBORHOOD LED PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS, CONSIDERATION OF DESIGN STANDARDS FOR INFILL HOUSING PRESERVATION OF OUR NATURALLY AFFORDABLE, UH, OCCURRING AFFORDABLE HOUSING, AND HOW WE ADDRESS DISPLACEMENT. 
          UM, THIS PD, AS WE SAID IN THE BRIEFING, IT'S TWO NEIGHBORHOODS. 
          IT'S THE OLDER SANTA FE NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          AND AS MUCH AS IT'S MORE RECENT 1920S MOUNT AUBURN, THEY'RE ALL KNOWN AS MOUNT AUBURN TODAY. 
          IT'S AN ESTABLISHED NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          IT IS MAJORITY HISPANIC IN BOTH OF THE, UM, CENSUS TRACKS THAT COMPRISE THE PD. 
          IT IS A WORKING CLASS NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          UM, I'VE MET WITH THE COMMUNITY ON THIS. 
          THEY'RE ACTIVELY INVOLVED IN INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS FROM THE REDESIGN OF I 30 THAT IS GONNA RECONNECT BOTH THIS NEIGHBORHOOD TO OWEN WOOD AND TO JUBILEE PARK THAT WERE SEGREGATED WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF I 30 IN THE 1950S. 
          IT WAS HISTORICALLY PART OF EAST DALLAS. 
          AND YOU TAKE THAT, THERE IS AN ONGOING STUDY FOR THE CONVERSION OF BEACON, UM, TO ADD TRAIL INFRASTRUCTURE. 
          THERE'S REVIEW OF EAST GRAND STREET, WHICH IS THE OTHER FLANKING EDGE OF MOUNT AUBURN. 
          IT IS A LONG NARROW DISTRICT, AND IT WAS CREATED BECAUSE OF UP ZONING BY AN EARLY ITERATION IN TRYING TO STABILIZE THE COMMUNITY. 
          I KNOW THERE'S MANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS WHO ARE CONCERNED, UM, AND RIGHTLY SO ABOUT THE TIME THAT IT TAKES FOR, UM, US AS A BODY AS PLANNING STAFF TO GET THROUGH SOME OF THE UPDATES. 
          BUT WE HAVE FIVE CASES, AND I CANNOT THINK OF ANOTHER TIME THAT WE HAVE HAD FIVE CASES IN AN ESTABLISHED PD WITHIN THIS SHORT AMOUNT OF TIME, AS WAS OBSERVED BY ONE OF THE OTHER, UM, SPEAKERS TODAY. 
          THERE IS ANOTHER ONE THAT'S ALREADY BEEN FILED AND I HAVE ALREADY RECEIVED CALLS. 
          IT'S COMING. 
          [10:05:01]
IT'S ALREADY COMING. 
          IT'S ALREADY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD REDEVELOPMENT. 
          AND YOU, YOU KNOW, MS. ROBERTS HAS MADE THE, UM, COMMENT ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS. 
          I CAN'T RECALL IF SHE MADE IT TODAY, THAT WHEN THE PD WAS ESTABLISHED, THEY UNDERSTOOD THAT CHANGE WAS COMING, THAT REDEVELOPMENT WOULD BE PART OF IT. 
          THEY DIDN'T INTRODUCE THINGS THAT WE TYPICALLY THINK OF AS DESIGN STANDARDS AND WHAT WE ARE NOW TRYING TO TALK ABOUT BECAUSE THE DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS WERE DIFFERENT IN 1980. 
          I UNDERSTAND THAT. 
          I THINK WE'RE SEEING THE RESULTS OF THAT, AND I THINK WE AS A BODY ARE TALKING ABOUT HOW WE THINK ABOUT THAT AND HOW WE THINK ABOUT INFILL. 
          THERE IS PROBABLY A SOLUTION FOR THIS PARTICULAR LOT. 
          BUT IF WE GO DOWN THE PATH OF A LOT BY LOT SOLUTION, I'M CONCERNED THAT WE'RE DOING A DISSERVICE TO THE LARGER COMMUNITY AND WHAT, AND TO OUR CITY AND WHAT MIGHT BE A BETTER LONG-TERM SOLUTION AND SET THIS COMMUNITY ON THE PATH FOR THE NEXT 40 YEARS. 
          I HOPE THAT YOU'LL SUPPORT ME IN ALLOWING THE TIME FOR THOSE CONVERSATIONS TO TAKE PLACE. 
          I'VE ALREADY TALKED TO STAFF ABOUT HOW TO DO THAT IN A MORE EXPEDITIOUS MANNER THAT ISN'T SIX YEARS AS SOME OF OUR COMMUNITIES HAVE HAD TO WAIT. 
          AND WE HAD AN AUTHORIZED HEARING TODAY WHERE WE HEARD ABOUT JIMTOWN AND HOW LONG IT TOOK THAT COMMUNITY WHO STAYED AS ADVOCATES FOR THEIR COMMUNITY. 
          I AM COMMITTED TO ROLLING UP MY SLEEVES AND SO IS THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          AND THAT WAS THE QUESTION I PUT TO THEM WHEN I ASKED THEM THIS. 
          ARE WE GONNA ROLL UP OUR SLEEVES AND GET THIS DONE? AND THE RESOUNDING ANSWER WAS YES. 
          I ASK YOU TO ALLOW US THE TIME FOR THAT TO HAPPEN. 
          AND I HOPE THAT I KNOW WE'VE GOT MORE CASES COMING, MORE APPLICANTS HERE. 
          I'VE SPOKEN TO ALL OF THEM. 
          I HOPE THEY'RE INVOLVED IN THE PROCESS BECAUSE I THINK THAT THEY NEED TO BE PART OF THE CONVERSATION AND FINDING THE SOLUTIONS. 
          PLEASE SUPPORT THE MOTION. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          COMMISSIONER KINGS TOFA BY COMMISSIONER HERBERT. 
          I SECONDED THE MOTION. 
          YOU KNOW, WE JUST GOT THROUGH A LONG ARDUOUS PROCESS DEVELOPING, UM, FORWARD DALLAS. 
          AND I REALIZE THESE CASES WERE FILED BEFORE FORWARD DALLAS WAS PASSED. 
          BUT YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE CONCEPTS WE TALKED ABOUT IN PASSING FORWARD DALLAS WAS ADDRESSING PROBLEMS LIKE, YOU KNOW, IDENTIFYING AREAS WHERE WE HAD DECREASING STOCK OF NATURALLY OCCURRING AFFORDABLE HOUSING. 
          THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT THAT COMES TO MY MIND EVERY TIME I HEAR SOMEONE TALK ABOUT THAT IS MOUNT AUBURN. 
          I I'M SURPRISED MOUNT AUBURN HASN'T BEEN OBLITERATED BEFORE NOW, FRANKLY. 
          UM, AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE IS TO PROTECT AND PRESERVE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS THAT IS MOUNT AUBURN. 
          AND YOU KNOW, THIS PD IS UNIQUE IN THAT, YOU KNOW, MOST PDS THAT ALLOW, IF THERE'S AN EXISTING DUPLEX, THEY MAKE 'EM NON-CONFORMING GOING FORWARD. 
          THIS COMMUNITY HAS EMBRACED THEIR MULTIFAMILY AND DON'T MAKE YOU DO SILLY THINGS LIKE KEEP UP ONE WALL TO PRETEND LIKE YOU'RE RENOVATING A BUILDING WHEN ACTUALLY YOU'RE TEARING EVERYTHING DOWN AND BUILDING SOMETHING NEW. 
          SO, YOU KNOW, THEY'VE, THEY'VE ALREADY EMBRACED SOME OF THAT CHANGE AT A POINT IN TIME THAT YOU DIDN'T SEE THAT BEFORE, AND YOU CERTAINLY DON'T CONTINUE TO SEE IT. 
          UM, IT'S ALSO A LARGE COLLECTION OF HISTORIC CRAFTSMAN BUNGALOWS. 
          AND NOT TOO LONG AGO IT WAS ON THE NATIONAL HISTORIC TRUST FOUNDATION'S, UM, MOST ENDANGERED NEIGHBORHOODS IN THE COUNTRY FOR CRAFTSMAN BUNGALOWS. 
          IT, IT WAS PART OF THAT COLLECTION. 
          IT IT STILL AN ENDANGERED NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          UM, I DON'T THINK FOR A SECOND THAT WE WOULD BE HAVING THIS CONVERSATION IF WE HAD FIVE LOTS ON LAKEWOOD BOULEVARD OR TOON BOULEVARD WHERE SOMEBODY WAS TALKING ABOUT TAKING FIVE HISTORIC HOMES OR FIVE LOTS AND CONVERTING SINGLE FAMILY LOTS INTO DUPLEX. 
          I DON'T THINK WE WOULD BE HAVING THIS CONVERSATION ABOUT TURNING FIVE SINGLE FAMILY LOTS IN PRESTON HOLLOW INTO DUPLEX LOTS. 
          THE ONLY REASON WE'RE HAVING THIS CONVERSATION ABOUT THESE FIVE LOTS IS BECAUSE PEOPLE HAVE TARGETED THIS NEIGHBORHOOD BECAUSE OF THE PRICE OF THE LOTS. 
          AND BECAUSE IT'S A COMMUNITY THAT HAS HISTORICALLY 
          [10:10:01]
STRUGGLED TO DEFEND ITSELF. 
          AND I DON'T THINK THAT'S RIGHT. 
          THEY HAVE A PD IN PLACE. 
          WE SPECIFICALLY SAID IN FORWARD DALLAS THAT NEIGHBORHOOD LED PDS WOULD BE PROTECTED. 
          THEY'RE ASKING FOR THE SAME CONSIDERATION THAT WE GIVE OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS. 
          AND I, AND I THINK THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THEY DESERVE AND WHAT WE SHOULD DO. 
          AND MY COMMENTS ON THIS CASE APPLY TO THE OTHER FOUR THAT WE'RE GONNA HEAR TONIGHT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER. 
          WE THERE. 
          THIS IS A SITUATION WHERE, UM, I'M GONNA SUPPORT A COMMISSIONER HAMPTON. 
          UM, WE OFTEN, ONE OF THE, THE DRAWBACKS OF NOT HAVING, UM, ABLE TO LOOK AT DESIGN STANDARDS ON THESE TYPE OF ZONING CASES, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT RELATES TO HOUSING, LEADS US TO, UM, THESE TYPE OF SITUATIONS. 
          UM, BECAUSE OF, UM, OUR NEIGHBORHOOD ITSELF, UM, HAD TO STEP BACK ONE MORE TIME BEFORE PRESENTING OUR PD, UM, BACK BEFORE THE COMMISSION BECAUSE WE HAD TO RECREATE DESIGN STANDARDS IN OUR PD. 
          AND SO I THINK IT IT, THE EFFORT THAT, UH, COMMISSIONER HAMPTON IS DOING, ESPECIALLY IN A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT IS, UM, UH, DEMOGRAPHIC WHO HAS CHANGED AND IS MORE HISPANIC NOW, UM, IT, IT SERVES AS A COMMITMENT TO HONORING THOSE WHO LIVE THERE WHO ARE RAISING CHILDREN THERE. 
          UM, BUT HOLD ON MOMENT. 
          HOLD ON ONE MOMENT. 
          WE'LL COME BACK TO YOU. 
          OH, THERE SHE IS. 
          SORRY. 
          . 
          UM, SO, UM, BUT THESE, THIS IS ONE OF THOSE SITUATIONS WHEN, UM, HAVING DESIGN STANDARDS WITHIN THE PD REALLY HELPS. 
          UM, IS THERE ROOM FOR DUPLEXES? DUPLEXES SHOULD LOOK LIKE A HOUSE WITH TWO DOORS. 
          IT SHOULD NOT LOOK LIKE, UM, UM, SOMETHING OUTTA THE ORDINARY IN A COMMUNITY. 
          MOUNT ARMY IS ANOTHER ONE OF THOSE NEIGHBORHOODS THAT STILL HAVE BEAUTIFUL ARCHITECTS. 
          UM, IT CHANGES AS YOU GO FURTHER INTO GOING BACK TOWARDS SANTA FE, BUT THE HOMES ARE STILL BEAUTIFUL. 
          UM, BUT REVISITING AND TRYING AND, AND LOOKING AT DESIGN STANDARDS FOR THIS PD, I HOPE COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, UM, WOULD, WOULD, WOULD OFFER, UM, HAVE STAFF OFFER THAT. 
          UM, WE DID IT AND, AND, AND WE WERE PLEASED WITH WHAT, UM, LONG TERM PLANNING OFFERED US. 
          COMMISSIONER HERBERT? YES. 
          UM, I, I TOO WILL BE SUPPORTING A MOTION. 
          UH, MOUNT AUBURN'S HISTORY, UM, IS VAST. 
          UM, THE SOUTH DALLAS, EAST DALLAS, HOWEVER YOU WANNA LOOK AT IT. 
          BUT THE, THE CEMETERY BEHIND OAKLAND CEMETERY, UM, THAT OPPORTUNITY PARK WAS BUILT ON TOP OF, IS CALLED MOUNT AUBURN CEMETERY. 
          THAT WAS A POPPER'S AND FORMER SLAVE CEMETERY, RIGHT? THE HISTORY OF THIS COMMUNITY IS STRONG. 
          UM, IT SHOULD BE PROTECTED. 
          AND I, AND WHAT I'VE EXPERIENCED SINCE I'VE BEEN IN DALLAS, THIS ONSLAUGHT OF CASES FOR DUPLEXES, ALTHOUGH THEY MAY NOT PASS TODAY, AND WE ARE FEARFUL THAT MORE DUPLEXES MAY BE COMING IN, BUT AFTER TODAY, SINGLE FAMILY MANSIONS WILL START BEING BUILT. 
          SO THE MATTER OF TIME THAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN FOR YOU GUYS TO PULL UP YOUR SLEEVE STARTS TODAY BECAUSE WHAT PEOPLE ARE WATCHING, THEY'LL SAY, NO DUPLEXES, OKAY, WATCH THIS. 
          SO BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR, BUT ROLL UP YOUR SLEEVES AND GET THIS DONE. 
          'CAUSE YOU'RE GONNA NEED IT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          NICE . 
          YEAH, THIS IS, IN MY VIEW AN AN INCREDIBLY DIFFICULT CASE. 
          I DON'T LIVE TOO FAR AWAY HERE AND FROM HERE AND I, YOU KNOW, BIKE THE SANTA FE TRAIL AND I SEE THE DUPLEX PLEX HOUSING STOCK THAT IS GETTING ADDED TO MOUNT AOR AND IT IS REALLY, REALLY PROBLEMATIC. 
          AND THAT'S PROBABLY PUTTING IT LIGHTLY BECAUSE THERE ARE HOUSES THAT ARE LOOM OVER THE EXISTING, YOU KNOW, SINGLE FAMILY HOMES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT HAVE BEEN THERE FOR DECADES, IF NOT A CENTURY. 
          THE YARDS OR THE FRONT YARDS ARE COMPLETELY PAVED OVER AND THERE AREN'T FRONT ENTRANCES AND THERE'S SIMPLY A WALL OF GARAGE, UM, UP FRONT. 
          AND CERTAINLY I THINK FLIPPING INDIVIDUAL LOTS TO, UM, 
          [10:15:01]
DUPLEX IN MOUNT AUBURN WITHOUT BEING VERY, VERY THOUGHTFUL ABOUT HOW WE DO IT, IS INCREDIBLY PROBLEMATIC. 
          UM, WITH THAT SAID, THERE ARE SOME OTHER CONSIDERATIONS INVOLVED IN THIS CASE, AND THAT IS, AS COMMISSIONER HERBERT ALLUDED TO, IS THE STATUS QUO IS NOT STABLE FOR THIS NEIGHBORHOOD EITHER, AS WE'VE SEEN IN, IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          THERE IS ALSO CONSTRUCTION OF SINGLE FAMILY HOMES THAT ARE SUFFER FROM MANY OF THE SAME PROBLEMS THAT WE SEE, UM, WITH THE DUPLEXES THAT ARE BEING BUILT, UM, BY RIGHT HERE. 
          AND MY FEAR IS THAT WE HAVE AN APPLICANT HERE TODAY WHO WANTS TO BUILD A DUPLEX BUT DOES NOT HAVE, YOU KNOW, THE RIGHT TO DO IT TODAY. 
          AND THERE IS ROOM FOR NEGOTIATION THROUGH SOMETHING LIKE DEED RESTRICTIONS TO GET A MORE COMPATIBLE DUPLEX PRODUCT THAT WOULD BE BETTER THAN A SINGLE FAMILY HOME. 
          THAT THERE IS A GOOD CHANCE IT GETS BUILT HERE BECAUSE OF OUR DECISION TO DENY THE CASE. 
          UH, WE'VE WORKED WITH DUPLEX, YOU KNOW, WE'VE WORKED WITH DEED RESTRICTIONS IN TH THREE TO SOME SUCCESS. 
          IT MAY NEED EVEN A MORE, YOU KNOW, STRICT SET OF DEED RESTRICTIONS HERE WHERE THERE'S MORE GIVE AND TAKE WHERE THE, YOU KNOW, DEED RESTRICTIONS ULTIMATELY MAKE, UM, OR ARE MORE RESTRICTION THAN WHAT YOU COULD BUILD FOR SINGLE FAMILY. 
          AND YOU GET TWO UNITS OUT OF IT AND YOU GET SOMETHING THAT IS CLOSER IN SCALE AND DESIGNED TO A LOT OF THE LONG-STANDING EXISTING HOUSING IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          SO, YOU KNOW, I DON'T THINK I'M GOING TO BE ABLE TO SUPPORT THE MOTION. 
          THE OTHER THING THAT I'LL NOTE, THIS IS A CORNER LOT AND THERE IS NOT A HOUSE ON THERE TODAY. 
          SO WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, PRESERVING AN EXISTING HOUSE THAT SOMEONE COULD MOVE INTO AT A MUCH LOWER PRICE POINT. 
          I THINK THE, YOU KNOW, WE'RE GONNA SEE OTHER CASES WHERE THERE ARE HOUSES ON THOSE LOTS, AND MY CONSIDERATION ON THOSE COULD BE, UM, DIFFERENT. 
          UM, THE, THE LAST THING THAT I'LL I'LL SAY IS ONE OF MY, YOU KNOW, COMMISSIONER KINGSTON MADE A COMMENT ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WE WOULDN'T BE HERE, YOU KNOW, IF WE DON'T SEE PROPOSALS LIKE THIS IN, IN LAKEWOOD AND PRESTON HOLLOW, ET CETERA, ET CETERA. 
          BUT, YOU KNOW, NEIGHBORHOODS LIKE THAT NEED TO, YOU KNOW, BEAR THE CITY'S HOUSING NEEDS ON THEIR SHOULDERS, JUST LIKE NEIGHBORHOODS IN MOUNT AUBURN AND ALL NEIGHBORHOODS ACROSS THE CITY. 
          AND I, I HOPE THAT AS YOU KNOW, WE MOVE FORWARD. 
          IT MAY NOT BE TODAY, IT MAY NOT BE TOMORROW, IT MAY NOT BE THIS YEAR, IT MAY NOT BE NEXT YEAR THAT WE SEE NEIGHBORHOODS ALL ACROSS THE CITY TAKE A SERIOUS LOOK AT PROVIDING DIFFERENT HOUSING TYPES TO OTHERS. 
          AND JUST BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T SEEN IT IN LAKEWOOD AND PRESTON HOLLOW TODAY DOESN'T MEAN THAT WE SHOULDN'T BE HAVING THOSE CONVERSATIONS AND SEEING WHETHER IT CAN MAKE SENSE IN THOSE INSTANCES. 
          SO THIS IS AN INCREDIBLY HARD CASE. 
          IT MIGHT BE ONE OF THE HARDEST I'VE EVER DEALT WITH THIS PLANNING COMMISSION, BUT I DON'T THINK I'M GONNA BE ABLE TO SUPPORT THE MOTION. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ANY OTHER CO COMMISSIONER BLAIR? I'LL GO AFTER YOU. 
          JUST LIKE VICE CHAIR REUBEN. 
          THIS ONE IS HARD BECAUSE THIS IS ON A CORNER LOT AND THIS ONE, UM, IF YOU DON'T, AND, AND, AND I HATE TO SAY IT, I, I HATE, I HATE THESE GREAT BIG HOUSES, FLAT ROOFS THAT THAT LEND THEMSELVES TO GE SHEER MASS OF UGLINESS. 
          BUT, UM, I FEEL AS THOUGH WE ARE HAMSTRUNG THAT WE'RE HAMSTRUNG THAT IF WE DON'T GIVE IN TO THE DUPLEX, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GONNA GET. 
          MAXIMIZATION, MAXIMIZING THE OPPORTUNITY TO BUILD THE BIGGEST THAT YOU CAN IN A, IN A LIMITED AMOUNT OF SPACE. 
          UM, AND WITH THIS PARTICULAR ONE, IT'S ON A CORNER LOT. 
          AND, AND I HAVE, I HAVE SEEN THIS BODY AGREE TO, UM, 
          [10:20:01]
HOUSING, YOU KNOW, UH, MULTIPLE DUPLEXES ON A CORNER LOT THAT THEY WOULD NOT DO ON A MID BLOCK. 
          AND SO I, I AM, I'M JUST STRUGGLING WITH THIS ONE BECAUSE THIS ONE IS, IS WHAT WE SAY, CORNER LOT SHOULD HAVE THE DUPLEXES. 
          BUT I ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT THIS COMMUNITY DOESN'T WANT DUPLEXES, THAT THEY'VE ALREADY GIVEN UP A LOT OF THEIR LOTS FOR DUPLEXES. 
          THEY'VE ALREADY DONE THEIR, THEY'VE ALREADY DONE THEIR FAIR SHARE. 
          AND EVEN THOSE THAT IN OPPOSITION, THEY UNDERSTAND THAT, THAT IF WE, IF WE DON'T GIVE IN TO THE ASK THE ALTERNATIVE COULD BE ONE OF THE MCMANSIONS THAT WE, WE ALL SEE. 
          SO I REALLY DON'T KNOW WHAT I'M GONNA DO, BUT I DO KNOW THAT WHATEVER IT IS, IT'S, THIS IS LIKE, LIKE, UM, VICE CHAIR RUBIN SAID, ONE OF THE HARDEST DECISIONS I'M MAKING, 'CAUSE I HAVE SOME IN FIELD I NEED TO LOOK AT NEXT. 
          SO, UH, I'LL GO NEXT. 
          UM, I'M STILL WAITING FOR THE EASY INFILL CASE. 
          I THINK, I THINK THEY'RE ALL HARD. 
          I HAVEN'T SEEN AN EASY ONE YET. 
          UH, AND AND THIS IS A, A COMPLEX ONE, AND I'LL TAKE ONE LITTLE SLIVER OF COMMISSIONER HERBERT'S, UH, COMMENTS AND I'LL SUMMARIZE THEM AS PICK YOUR POISON. 
          UH, AND IF WE DENY THIS APPLICATION, WHAT WE'RE GONNA SEE ON THIS LOT IS THE ABSOLUTELY BIGGEST HOUSE THAT THE APPLICANT CAN BUILD. 
          AND OF COURSE HE WOULD DO THAT AND HE HAS A RIGHT TO DO THAT, AND HE WOULD BE A TERRIBLE BUSINESSMAN, A TERRIBLE BUILDER IF HE DIDN'T DO THAT. 
          AND SO I GUESS THE PIECE WHERE I'M STRUGGLING IS HOW DOES THAT SAVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD? AND, AND, AND THAT'S THE PART THAT IS THE COMPLEX PART ABOUT THIS, UM, BECAUSE I THINK THAT THAT'S KIND OF WHAT WE ALL WANT. 
          UM, BUT WHICH, WHICH CHOICE DOESN'T UNLEASH THE DOGS HERE AND THAT DOESN'T UNLEASH THE, THE VICIOUS MARKET THAT, AS COMMISSIONER KINGSTON SAID, IT'S SHOCKING. 
          IT HASN'T TURNED OVER YET. 
          UH, SO THAT, THAT'S THE PART ABOUT WHERE I WISH I HAD THE SOLUTION BECAUSE IF I, IF I DID, I WOULD BE ON THE CIRCUIT AND I'VE WRITTEN A BOOK ABOUT, YOU KNOW, HOW YOU YOU PUT THE BRAKES ON, ON GENTRIFICATION BY DENYING DUPLEXES AND PUT AND MAXIMIZING THESE LOTS WITH A SINGLE FAMILY HOME. 
          I JUST DON'T SEE THAT HAPPENING. 
          UH, BUT I UNDERSTAND THE OTHER SIDE OF IT. 
          AND, AND LIKE VICE CHAIR RUBIN, THAT WAS MY FIRST QUESTION. 
          WAS THIS ONE OF THE EMPTY LOTS? UH, BECAUSE FRANKLY, IF IT WAS, UH, AT MIDBLOCK AND IT HAD A HOME ON IT, IT MAY NOT BE AS COMPLICATED AS IT AS THIS ONE FOR ME. 
          UH, IT MAY BE A MUCH EASIER, UM, DECISION. 
          BUT WITH THAT, YES, UH, THIS IS, THIS IS NOT AN EASY ONE EITHER WAY FOR ME. 
          ME, UH, COMMISSIONER KINGSTON, SECOND ROUND IN A VACUUM, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH DUPLEX ON CORNER LOTS. 
          I I REALLY THINK THAT'S PROBABLY SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD CONSIDER AS A CITY IN A LOT OF PLACES. 
          BUT I DON'T LOOK AT THIS CASE IN A VACUUM BECAUSE WE HAVE FIVE CASES WITH MORE COMING. 
          AND I THINK WHAT TIPS IT FOR ME IS THAT THE MINUTE WE START SAYING, YES, WE'RE GONNA DOUBLE THE AMOUNT OF CASES WE HAVE IN MOUNT AUBURN. 
          AND SO I THINK IT'S, I THINK THAT IF WE DON'T DRAW A HARD LINE, WE'LL JUST HAVE MORE AND MORE OF THESE CASES AND THE SCARE TACTIC OF, OH, WE ARE JUST GONNA GET A HUGE HOUSE WITH A FLAT ROOF. 
          FIRST OF ALL, I KNOW THIS NEIGHBORHOOD WELL, THAT IS NOT THE STYLE THAT IS ALWAYS BEING BUILT WITH THE NEW HOMES THERE. 
          IT JUST ISN'T. 
          UM, AND AS FOR THE TWO LOTS THAT HAVE EXISTING HOMES ON THEM, A SURPRISING NUMBER OF HOMES ARE BEING REDONE IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          IN PART BECAUSE GENERATIONALLY FAMILIES ARE STAYING IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UM, WHICH IS NOT SOMETHING YOU TYPICALLY SEE IN A LOT OF THESE NEIGHBORHOODS. 
          THEY ARE FIXING UP THESE HOMES AND STAYING IN THEM, AND KIDS ARE STAYING IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD BECAUSE THEIR PARENTS LIVE THERE. 
          AND I, I THINK THOSE, THOSE TWO CASES ARE MUCH EASIER FOR ME BECAUSE I THINK THAT YOU GIVE THOSE HOMES A CHANCE. 
          UM, BUT EVEN VACANT LOTS, I, TO ME, I THINK THE MINUTE YOU START SAYING YES, YOU'RE JUST GONNA GET A WHOLE LOT MORE APPLICATIONS. 
          AND WHAT THEY'LL DO IS THEY'LL TEAR THE HOUSE DOWN AND SAY, LOOK, IT'S VACANT. 
          OH, HEY LOOK, IT'S VACANT. 
          AND WE HEARD THIS DEVELOPER SAY, WELL, THIS IS A CORNER LOT. 
          SO YOU COULD PUT THE GARAGE ENTRANCES ON TWO SIDES AND YOU COULDN'T DO THAT ON, ON AN INTERIOR LOT. 
          WELL, THAT'S HOOEY. 
          [10:25:02]
OF COURSE YOU COULD, YOU ABSOLUTELY COULD PUT A 10 FOOT SIDE DRIVEWAY WITH PARKING IN THE REAR. 
          THEY JUST DON'T. 
          AND THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT OF GIVING THIS COMMUNITY THE OPPORTUNITY TO TALK ABOUT DESIGN STANDARDS, TO CREATE SOMETHING THAT IS MORE IN LINE WITH WHAT HAS HISTORICALLY BEEN THERE. 
          THAT'S THE POINT OF SAYING NO TO ALL OF THESE APPLICATIONS TO GIVE THIS COMMUNITY THAT OPPORTUNITY. 
          AND I, I REALLY, REALLY DON'T THINK WE WOULD BE HAVING THE DISCUSSION ABOUT TURNING A BUNCH OF SINGLE FAMILY LOTS IN AN AFFLUENT NEIGHBORHOOD INTO DUPLEX LOTS. 
          I JUST DON'T, I THINK WE'RE KIDDING OURSELVES. 
          IF WE THINK WE, MAYBE WE WOULD, WE WOULD LIKE TO THINK WE WOULD, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT WOULD PASS. 
          I DON'T THINK IT WOULD PASS THIS BODY, AND I'M REAL SURE IT WOULDN'T PASS THE NEXT ONE. 
          ANY OTHER COMMENTS? AND I THINK WE HAVE, COMMISSIONER WHEELER HAS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT. 
          UM, I I DON'T KNOW HOW I, SO IS THERE A A BECAUSE IF HOW LONG AFTER, HOW LONG AFTER, UM, WE DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE, CAN THEY REFILE? YEAH. 
          THE, THE MOTION WAS FOR DENIAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 
          HOW LONG AFTER THEY DENY WHAT WE DENY OUR PRIVILEGES CAN THEY REFILE ANYTIME. 
          OKAY. 
          SO WITH THAT BEING SENT, IS THERE A WAY THAT, UM, THIS, THIS DEVELOPER, WE CAN HOLD THE CASES AND THAT THE DEVELOPER, UM, GO TO THE COMMUNITY, GO BACK TO THE COMMUNITY, OFFER SOME DEED RESTRICTIONS IF THEY CHOOSE, UM, AND LOOK AT STYLES OF HOMES IN THE AREA THAT HAVE OLDER DUPLEXES ON IT. 
          AND, AND, AND SEE, ESPECIALLY WITH THE, FOR A LOT WHICH IS ON HENDERSON, AND GO LOOK. 
          BECAUSE WHAT I DO BELIEVE IS A LOT OF TIME DEVELOPERS ARE NOT DOING THAT. 
          THEY'RE NOT LOOKING AT THE STYLES OF HOME THERE DUPLEXES IN MOUNT ARMOR THAT YOU CAN BARELY TELL, YOU KNOW, THAT ARE DUPLEXES. 
          UM, BUT HOLD THIS CASE, UM, UNTIL, UM, POSSIBLY FEBRUARY, MARCH  SO THAT THEY CAN GET WITH HIM. 
          AND, AND THIS AGAIN, NOT HAVING DESIGN STANDARDS CAUSES THIS ISSUE. 
          UM, BUT IF WE CAN HOLD IT, UM, AND LET THEM GO TO THE COMMUNITY AND, AND HAVE THEM LOOK AT THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGNS OR SOME OF THE OLDER ONES AND MEET SOMEWHERE IN THE MIDDLE, BECAUSE AGAIN, YOU DO NOT, YOU, YOU DON'T, YOU DON'T WANT THE DUPLEXES, WHICH, UH, DEVELOPERS ARE NOW BUILDING DUPLEXES IN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS, UM, FROM MOUNT ARMOR ALL THE WAY TO SOUTH DALLAS THAT ARE OVER, THAT THE FRONT YARD IS CONCRETE AND THAT THEY HAVE DRAINING ISSUES. 
          AND ALL THOSE THINGS ARE NOT. 
          THEY'RE, THEY'RE TELLING THE TRUTH ON THAT. 
          I THINK THIS IS OPPORTUNITY WITH FIVE LOTS GETTING A COMPROMISE. 
          UM, SOME KIND OF WAY I WOULD ADD ONE PROCEDURAL WRINKLE THAT IT IS FEASIBLE THAT IF ONE APPLICANT WANTED TO PAY THE, UH, PDS SUBDISTRICT CREATION FEE, THEY COULD DO SO EITHER IN A NEW CASE OR IN AN AMENDED VERSION OF THIS, BUT PD. 
          SO IF YOU CREATE A NEW SUBDISTRICT, IT CAN BE USED IN, IN OTHER CONTEXTS AND IT CAN HAVE THINGS LIKE DESIGN STANDARDS RATHER THAN, FOR EXAMPLE, DEED RESTRICTIONS, WHICH MAY NOT BE NECESSARY ON TOP OF A, A PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, BUT THAT JUST WOULD REQUIRE THAT APPLICANT TO, UH, GO THROUGH THE PD SUBDISTRICT APPLICATION AND IT'S THE FEE ASSOCIATED WITH IT, WHICH IS $5,800. 
          MR. CHAIR, MAY I, SO QUESTION ATTORNEY COMMISSIONER, I JUST HAVE ONE PLEA. 
          GO AHEAD. 
          I'M NO, OH, HOLD ON. 
          COMMISSIONER HAMPTON. 
          UH, UH, MY ONLY CONCERN, UM, AND, AND THIS IS TO STAFF AND COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, IS WE MIGHT HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY BEFORE, HOWEVER IT MIGHT NOT TAKE TO GET TO THE PD, HOW WE MIGHT HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY NOW TO GET A DEVELOPER THAT HAS TO THINK AND DEAL WITH THE COMMUNITY NOW AND, AND CREATE SOME STANDARDS THAT WILL HELP THEM THAT, UH, THAT THAT COULD BENEFIT THE COMMUNITY INSTEAD OF GOING AND SAYING, LEAVING HERE AND SAYING, YOU KNOW WHAT? I'M JUST GONNA BUILD A WHOLE SIZE HOUSE, IS MY ONLY CONCERN. 
          COMMISSIONER HERBERT MADE A GREAT POINT, UM, IN OTHER COMMISSIONERS, BUT I THINK GETTING THEM TO WORK WITH THE CURRENT COMMUNITY WITH THE POSSIBILITY OF BEING ABLE TO DEAL BUILD SOMETHING, IT, IT WOULD BE, SEEMED LIKE IT WOULD BE BETTER THAN US JUST TO SAY, HEY, YOU CAN'T HAVE, WE CAN'T DO THIS. 
          [10:30:03]
OKAY. 
          UH, JUST ONE QUICK LAST COMMENT JUST 'CAUSE I'M, I'M ENTICED TO, UH, IT IS 9:15 PM AND I WOULD LOVE TO GET INTO A NICE PHILOSOPHICAL DISCUSSION ABOUT, UH, THE DIFFERENCES IN GENTRIFICATION BETWEEN, UH, THIS NEIGHBORHOOD IN PRESTON HOLLOW. 
          I THINK IT'S APPLES AND ORANGES, UH, AND COMPLETELY DIFFERENT MARKET FORCES AT WORK. 
          AND IT'S A MUCH LONGER DISCUSSION AND, UH, WON'T HAVE IT HERE TONIGHT OTHER THAN TO SAY THAT DENYING THIS APPLICATION TODAY POSSIBLY CLOSES ONE MARKET FORCE AND IT JUST OPENS ANOTHER, UH, AND IT'S THE SAME MARKET FORCE THAT WE HAVE SEEN IN OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS AND THAT WE'LL CONTINUE TO SEE, FRANKLY, BECAUSE THAT'S, THAT IS THE MOST VULNERABLE MARKET. 
          IT HAS MY OPINION, NOTHING TO DO WHERE, WHICH PART OF TOWN IT IS. 
          AND FRANKLY, FRANKLY, EVEN THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN THOSE PARTS OF TOWN, IT'S JUST THE NUMBERS. 
          IT'S JUST THE NUMBERS WORK EASIER AND IT, AND THE MARKET IN THIS MARKET BECAUSE OF THAT PRICE POINT MAKES IT MORE VULNERABLE. 
          UM, BUT WITH THAT, DID I HEAR THAT WE HAD A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT? I, I'M SORRY I DIDN'T, COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, IF I CAN'T HAVE A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO AT LEAST, UM, A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO HOLD THE CASE UP ON THE ADVISEMENT UNTIL, UM, POSSIBLY FEBRUARY OR MARCH, UM, GIVEN IT TO COMMUNITY TIME WITH THE COMMISSIONER, UM, TO WORK WITH THE APPLICANTS, UM, THE APPLICANT AND THE, THE OTHER FOUR CASES, UM, TO COME TO SOME TYPE OF COMPROMISE ON HOW, UM, SOME TYPE OF COMPROMISE. 
          UM, AND DOING THAT BY LOOKING AND WORKING WITH LONG-TERM, LONG-TERM STAFF, LONG-TERM PLANNING STAFF, UM, ON LOOKING AT CURRENT DUPLEXES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, WELL ESTABLISHED DUPLEXES, COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, UM, I JUST WANNA ACKNOWLEDGE, UM, COMMISSIONER WHEELER AND I, I DO AGREE AND I HEAR YOU AND I THINK PART OF WHAT THE COMMUNITY IS TRYING TO, THEY'RE TRYING TO DO WHAT EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. 
          BUT WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO DO IS DO IT FOR THE ENTIRE PD TO TRY TO SET A, AN UNDERSTANDING BOTH FOR THE COMMUNITY, FOR THE RESIDENTS, FOR DEVELOPERS, FOR FUTURE FOLKS WHO ARE GONNA COME IN AND BUY THESE LOTS. 
          AND WHAT MY CONCERN IS, IS IF WE WOULD LIKELY NEED TO HOLD IT AT LEAST UNTIL MARCH TO UNDERSTAND WHAT WORKS BOTH WITH THE COMMUNITY, WITH THE DEVELOPMENT TEAM, AND WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY AND STAFF, BECAUSE IT WOULD LIKELY RESULT IN NEW SUBDISTRICT. 
          DEFINE WHAT IT IS AND, UH, AND STANDBY. 
          I THINK WE'RE GONNA ASK THE APPLICANT IF THEY WOULD OBJECT TO HOLDING IT FOR THREE MONTHS. 
          UH, THANK YOU. 
          UM, AND, AND, AND, AND AS A, AS SOMEONE, WE LITERALLY, THE LAST MINUTE WE DID THAT AND UM, I CAN TELL YOU THAT LINDSEY AND PATRICK WENT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, TOOK PICTURES, CAME BACK, SHOWED US DESIGNS, AND WE WERE ABLE TO KINDA COME UP WITH SOMETHING AND IT DIDN'T, IT DIDN'T TAKE US LONG. 
          I THINK THIS IS A WAY TO WORK AND STILL BE ABLE TO PRESENT THE PD, STILL WORK ON THE PD. 
          AT THE SAME TIME, IT'S ALSO ACROSS APPLICANTS TO START DEALING WITH THE COMMUNITIES THAT THEY ARE TRYING TO BUILD IN, UM, BEFORE COMING BEFORE THIS BODY. 
          YES. 
          [10:35:09]
I ASK, I THINK YOU HEARD ALL THE DISCUSSION, MR. TEDDY, IF THIS BODY WERE TO HOLD THE CASE UNTIL, UM, IT WOULD NEED TO BE OUR JANUARY 23RD MEETING, WHICH IS OUR FIRST MEETING IN JANUARY, UM, IN ORDER TO MEET WITH THE COMMUNITY AND UNDERSTAND IF THERE IS A PATH FORWARD IN CONSIDERING DESIGN STANDARDS AS A PART OF PD, WOULD YOU BE OPEN TO THAT? I APPLIED FOR THIS ONE IN THE MONTH OF MAY. 
          IT HAS TAKEN SIX MONTHS FOR US TO COME HERE. 
          AND THEN WE DO HAVE ALREADY, WHAT IS IT CALLED? YOU POSTPONE IT A COUPLE OF MONTHS, YOU KNOW, FOR HAVING THE COMMUNITY MEETING. 
          WE ALREADY MET THE COMMUNITY AND I'M NOT PROPOSING ANYTHING DIFFERENT, WHICH THE COMMUNITY DOESN'T HAVE TODAY. 
          SO THE POINT IS THAT I ALREADY BILL, AS YOU SAID, AS TONY HAS SAID, I'LL BE A TERRIBLE BUSINESSMAN IF I DON'T CONSTRUCT A SINGLE FAMILY, YOU KNOW, THE BIGGEST STRUCTURE, WHICH IS DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING. 
          THAT'S WHAT I HAVE DONE FOR MY TWO LOTS BECAUSE I WAS NOT ALLOWED THE DUPLEXES. 
          IF I GOT A GOOD BUYER, I WILL DEFINITELY CONSTRUCT, WHAT IS IT CALLED, YOU KNOW, THE BIGGER SINGLE FAMILY HOME. 
          IT'S, IT'S, BUT HAVING SAID THAT, AS IS BEING SLOW SEASON OF MY YEAR, I'M REALLY UPSET WITH THE ENTIRE PROCESS. 
          I'M ACTUALLY GOING TO ATLANTA, I'M MOVING TO FORTH WORTH, WHICH IS VERY EASIER FOR ME TO DEVELOP IT BECAUSE IT IS APPLES TO APPLES, WHATEVER, WHEN I APPLY FOR IT, THEY'LL EXACTLY TELL WHAT I SHOULD DO. 
          THIS IS A VERY COMPLICATED CASE WHERE THE ZONING IS BY LOT, NOT BY THE AREA. 
          THAT MAKES IT REAL DIFFICULT FOR ME TO IN FACT PROCESS THIS KIND OF A THING. 
          UM, REMEMBER I ALREADY INVESTED QUITE A BIT ONTO THIS LOT, SO, UH, SO YOUR PREFERENCE IS THAT WE ACT ON THE CASE TODAY? NO. 
          IF YOU CAN COME UP WITH A SOLUTION, NOT POSTPONING FURTHER, BUT JANUARY, MAYBE EVEN TWO MONTHS, I CAN DEFINITELY WAIT. 
          BUT THE POINT IS, UM, AGAIN, WHAT IS IT WE ARE TRYING TO DISCUSS IS I'M NOT TRYING TO CONSTRUCT A FLAT ROOF. 
          THAT IS NOT MY CONCERN. 
          I'M TRYING TO CONSTRUCT A NORMAL LOOKING, WHAT IS IT CALLED, YOU KNOW, STRUCTURE AS WHAT IT IS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          ARE WE TRYING TO PROPOSE, UH, A SINGLE FAMILY DUPLEXES LIKE A, LIKE A ONE STORY LIKE DUPLEX OR WHAT IS THE COMMUNITY WANTS IN A SENSE? YOU KNOW, AND, AND I THINK WE'RE TRYING NOT TO DO THIS AROUND THE HORSESHOE AFTER, AND I KNOW YOU HAVE BEEN WITH US SINCE 1230 AS WELL. 
          SO YES, THAT IS THE, UH, YOU KNOW, I'VE BEEN TO COMMUNITY MEETINGS. 
          I SEE THAT WHAT THEY REALLY WANTED, I'M REALLY OPEN TO WORK WITH THEM. 
          BUT THE POINT IS, IF THEY WANTED SINGLE STUDY BUILDING A THOUSAND SQUARE FEET HOME ON A 7,500 LOT AFTER PAYING TWO 50 K ON THAT, IT IS NOT GONNA HAPPEN. 
          IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE. 
          AND I BELIEVE THE COMMUNITY IS AWARE OF THAT. 
          SO. 
          OKAY, COMMISSIONERS, WE HAVE A, A MOTION ON THE TABLE, UH, MADE BY COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER KINGSTON TO, UH, NOT FALSE STAFF RECOMMENDATION, BUT RATHER CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND DENY THE APPLICATION WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 
          UH, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE SAY AYE. 
          AYE. 
          ANY OPPOSED? AYE. 
          THREE IN OPPOSITION, UH, VICE CHAIR, RUBIN, COMMISSIONER, UH, WHEELER AND MYSELF. 
          MOTION PASSES. 
          DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 
          [Items 12,13, & 14]
LET'S GO TO THE NEXT CASES THAT I THINK WE CAN TAKE 
          [10:40:01]
'EM, UH, AS A GROUP. 
          YEAH. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          THE FOLLOWING CASES, UH, THEY WILL BE ITEMS 12, 13, AND 14. 
          I'LL READ EACH ONE TO THE RECORD AND THEN WE'LL GO TO THE, YEP. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, ITEM 12 IS CASE Z 2 34 DASH 2 35. 
          AN APPLICATION TO AMEND THE LAND USE MAP TO ALLOW DUPLEX USE ON PROPERTY THAT CURRENTLY ALLOWS A SINGLE FAMILY USE WITHIN SUB AREA A WITHIN PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 1 3 4 ON THE NET NORTHWEST LINE OF GARLAND AVENUE NORTH OF FAIRVIEW AVENUE. 
          STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL. 
          ITEM 13. 
          YEAH. 
          AM I READING ALL? ITEM 13 IS CASE Z 2 34 DASH 2 36. 
          AN APPLICATION TO AMEND THE LAND USE MAP TO ALLOW DUPLEX USE ON PROPERTY THAT CURRENTLY ALLOWS A SINGLE FAMILY USE WITHIN SUB AREA A OF PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 1 3 4 ON THE NORTH LINE OF GARLAND AVENUE BETWEEN SOUTH MUNGER BOULEVARD AND SOUTH SAM AREA AVENUE STAFF. 
          RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL AND ITEM 14 IS CASES Z 2 34 DASH 2 38. 
          AN APPLICATION TO AMEND THE LAND USE MAP TO ALLOW DUPLEX USE ON PROPERTY THAT CURRENTLY ALLOWS A SINGLE FAMILY USE WITHIN SUB AREA A OF PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 1, 3 4 ON THE NORTHEAST LINE OF WAYNE STREET BETWEEN SANTA FE AVENUE AND ASH LANE. 
          STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL. 
          THANK YOU, SIR. 
          IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO BE HEARD? IS THE APPLICANT HERE? I'M GONNA TRY TO SPEAK ENGLISH. 
          PERFECT. 
          HI, UH, MY NAME IS HECTOR VALEZ AND I LIVE ON, UH, 51 18 GARLAND AVENUE. 
          UM, AND I, UM, I HAVE 25 YEARS LIVING ON THE SAME STREET, 18 YEARS ON 51 18 GARLAND. 
          UM, MY, MY KIDS BORN IN DALLAS ON THE SAME STREET. 
          THEY BEEN LIVING WITH ME, ALREADY GROWN UP. 
          SHE'S MY OLDER 1 24 YEARS. 
          UM, I HAD THREE PROPERTIES THAT I PROPOSED FOR DUPLEX. 
          UM, I'VE BEEN IN CONSTRUCTION FOR 25 YEARS AND I'VE BEEN WORK, I'VE BEEN WORKING ON THAT SAME AREA. 
          LAKEWOOD, UH, SWISS AVENUE AND EAST DALLAS, NORTH DALLAS, AND ALL OVER. 
          I I I WORK ON THREE 50, UM, PROJECTS A YEAR. 
          UM, MINE A HAS EVERY HOUSE IS TOTALLY DIFFERENT. 
          NOT NONE, NOT TWO HOUSES ARE ARE THE SAME. 
          TOTALLY, TOTALLY DIFFERENT. 
          UM, I, I'VE BEEN WORKING IN CAMEROON, CAVERN STREET, HALF OF THE CAMERON STREET. 
          THEY'RE, THEY'RE VERY MODERN HOUSES. 
          HALF OF HALF OF THE STREETS ON CAMEROON. 
          I DON'T KNOW IF YOU GUYS CAN SEE THE AREA, YOU GUYS CAN SEE IT. 
          SANTA FE TRAIL HAS PROBABLY 30 DUPLEXES. 
          I GOT 32 DUPLEXES IN HERE THAT SOMEBODY APPROVE IT THIS YEAR. 
          THEY'RE ALL NEW. 
          HELLO? THEY'RE ALL NEW. 
          THEY STILL, THEY STILL WORKING ON IT, SIR. 
          LEMME CALL. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          COMMISSIONER WHEELER, YOUR MICROPHONE'S ON, YOU WANT TO SEE IT. 
          FLAT ROOF, DUPLEX. 
          SANTA FE. 
          SANTA FE. 
          THEY USED TO START THIS ONE ON LEASE LAKE AVENUE, 52, 27 LILEY AVENUE, WHICH IS BEHIND MY PROPERTY. 
          52 29 LEASE LAKE AVENUE FLAT ROOF, VERY MODERN. 
          50 50 14 GARLAND AVENUE. 
          TRADITIONAL. 
          THAT'S WHAT I WANNA BUILD. 
          VERY TRADITIONAL, KEEP THE STYLE OF THE HOUSES. 
          50 17 MARTINIQUE FLAT ROOF. 
          4 0 6 PER PARKVIEW, VERY TRADITIONAL FRONT. 
          THOSE ARE, UM, 2000 SQUARE FEET EACH 1 57, 56, 27 SANTA FE. 
          IT'S A HUNDRED. 
          IT'S LIKE TWO HOUSES FROM, FROM ANOTHER PROPERTY. 
          56 0 5 SANTA FE FLAT ROOF. 
          MARTINIQUE, I, I CAN'T REMEMBER THE ADDRESS. 
          THE, THE NUMBER. 
          VERY TRADITIONAL FOUR 11 CRYSTAL. 
          VERY TRADITIONAL TERRY AND HENDERSON. 
          VERY TRADITIONAL. 
          53, 52, 33 TERRY STREET. 
          VERY TRADITIONAL, ALMOST, ALMOST 40 DUPLEXES THAT THEY JUST WORKING 
          [10:45:01]
ON FINISHING IN THIS YEAR. 
          SO THAT'S WHY I, I BUY MY LAWNS THREE YEARS AGO. 
          LIKE I SAY, I'VE BEEN WORKING 25 YEARS. 
          HARD, HARD. 
          THANK YOU. 
          YOUR TIME IS UP, SIR, TO DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          SO I DON'T SEE ANYTHING. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH THAT I CANNOT GET. 
          THANK YOU, SIR. 
          PARDON ME. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OKAY. 
          IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT? UH, HELLO AGAIN. 
          MY NAME IS LAURA VALEZ. 
          UH, I LIVE IN 51 18 GARLAND AVENUE. 
          UH, JUST TO CONTINUE OFF OF HIM, I AM IN SUPPORT OF BUILDING DUPLEX HOMES IN THAT AREA IN OLD EAST DALLAS. 
          UM, THE TWO HOMES THAT HAVE HOMES ON THEM, BOTH HOUSES ARE FALLING APART. 
          THEY'RE NOT LIVABLE. 
          EVEN IF THEY WERE TO BE REBUILT, THEY WOULD BE, HAVE TO BE TORN DOWN AND REBUILT FROM THE GROUND UP. 
          'CAUSE NO FOUNDATION, NO FLOOR, ANYTHING IS NOT LIVABLE. 
          THE OTHER LAND IS VACANT LAND. 
          SO, UM, I WOULD, I WOULD, UH, I'M IN, HOW DO YOU SAY IT, IN SUPPORT FOR DUPLEXES, JUST BECAUSE I KNOW THAT MOST OF THE HOMES IN THAT AREA WERE DUPLEXES TO BEGIN WITH. 
          I KNOW OUR HOME USED TO BE A DUPLEX AND IT WAS TURNED INTO A SINGLE FAMILY HOME. 
          AND I KNOW OTHER HOMES AS WELL HAVE BEEN TURNED FROM DUPLEX TO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES JUST TO MATCH WHAT THE CURRENT OWNERS ARE. 
          UM, THEY'RE LIVING SITUATIONS. 
          UM, THERE'S TWO HOMES THAT WERE NEW BUILTS, THOSE TWO HOMES, THEY'RE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, BUT THEY'RE ALSO TWO FLOORS, NOT, THERE'S NO NEW, UH, BUILDS THAT ARE SINGLE FLOORS. 
          AND I WOULD LIKE TO ARGUE THAT, UM, THE CURRENT TRENDS ARE MODERN LOOKING HOMES. 
          I THINK THAT'S WHY A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE BUILDING MODERN HOMES JUST TO FIT THE TREND THAT IS CURRENTLY HAPPENING RIGHT NOW. 
          AS HE HAS SAYS, HE HAS WORKED IN CONSTRUCTION AND HE CAN TELL YOU ALL THE DIFFERENT TRENDS THAT HAVE HE HAS SEEN THROUGHOUT THE 25 YEARS. 
          IT USED TO BE TRADITIONAL GOTHIC, YOU KNOW, MODERN RIGHT NOW MODERN AND IS THE MOST POPULAR. 
          SO I THINK THAT'S WHY A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE SEEING THOSE BUILDS AT THIS MOMENT. 
          UH, THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ANYONE ELSE IN SUPPORT? OKAY, SPEAKER'S IN OPPOSITION. 
          UH, THANK YOU ALL FOR TAKING THE TIME TO CONSIDER THESE SEPARATELY. 
          I KNOW THERE ARE UNIQUE CONDITIONS, UM, FOR EACH OF THESE, ESPECIALLY HOMES WITH HOUSES ON THE LOT. 
          I AM ONE OF THE PEOPLE WHO BOUGHT A RENOVATED OLDER HOME. 
          AND YES, THE PEOPLE WHO RENOVATED MY HOUSE DID A LOT OF WORK TO IT. 
          AND THEN I MOVED IN AND I DID EVEN MORE WORK TO IT. 
          I HAVE PAID FOR A NEW FOUNDATION AND A NEW ROOF AND AN ENDLESS NUMBER OF OTHER THINGS TO MAKE IT UP TO MODERN STANDARDS OF LIVING. 
          BUT I DID THAT. 
          AND I THINK THERE ARE OTHER PEOPLE THAT ARE WILLING TO DO THAT BECAUSE THESE HOUSES DO HAVE VALUE. 
          THEY HAVE HISTORIC VALUE AS YOU'VE TALKED ABOUT. 
          THE CRAFTSMAN STYLE OF THESE HOMES IS UNIQUE TO DALLAS. 
          I MYSELF AM AN INTERIOR DESIGNER BY TRADE. 
          MY HUSBAND'S AN ARCHITECT, AND WE CHOSE THIS NEIGHBORHOOD BECAUSE OF THE VALUE OF THE HISTORIC HOMES THAT YOU CAN'T FIND IN THE OTHER AREAS OF DALLAS. 
          OR IF YOU DO, IT'S JUST A ONE-OFF. 
          SO, ESPECIALLY IN THIS CASE OR IN THESE CASES WHERE THERE ARE EXISTING HOUSES ON THE LOTS, I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT THAT YOU RECOGNIZE THAT ALTHOUGH THEY'RE SAYING THAT IT WOULD BE A TEAR DOWN AND REBUILD, THERE ARE PEOPLE OUT THERE WILLING TO DO THE WORK. 
          AND I'M MYSELF BOUGHT ONE OF THESE HOMES, BUT SINCE I BOUGHT THAT HOUSE, THERE ARE MULTIPLE HOUSES ON MY STREET THAT ARE ALSO BEING REDEVELOPED IN A SIMILAR FASHION THAT HOLDS TRUE TO THE FABRIC OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          THAT IS AN OLDER CRAFTSMAN STYLE HOUSE. 
          THEY DON'T HAVE A GARAGE ON THE FRONT, MUCH LESS TWO GARAGES. 
          UM, THESE DUPLEXES I LIVE ACROSS FROM ONE LOT THAT WAS EMPTY AND GOT REDEVELOPED FOR THIS. 
          THEY TORE DOWN TREES THAT I KNOW EVERYONE KNOWS THE VALUE OF TREES. 
          BUT ALSO THE OTHER THING WHICH I DON'T WISH ON ANY ONE OF MY NEIGHBORS IS THAT THIS HOUSE, UH, IN THE EVENINGS IS NORTH OF ME. 
          IT REF, IT'S A WHITE FACE AND IT REFLECTS SUNLIGHT DIRECTLY INTO MY LIVING ROOM. 
          AT FIVE O'CLOCK, I HAVE TO CLOSE MY SHADES BECAUSE THE HOUSE IS OUT OF SCALE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND I DON'T LIVE DOWNTOWN. 
          I NEVER EXPECTED TO HAVE REFLECTION ISSUES IN MY, 
          [10:50:01]
IN THE FRONT LIVING ROOM OF MY HOUSE. 
          SO I WOULDN'T WISH THAT ON ANYONE. 
          I HOPE YOU SAY NO . 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          HELLO. 
          THIS IS A MARATHON. 
          NAMASTE. 
          YOU GUYS ARE AMAZING. 
          THIS IS CRAZY. 
          I HAD NO IDEA THESE MEETINGS COULD GO ON THIS LONG. 
          UM, I ALSO LIVE IN A RENOVATED CRAFTSMAN THAT WAS GUTTED DOWN TO THE STUDS AND COMPLETELY REDONE. 
          THIS WAS WHEN THE NEIGHBORHOOD FIRST STARTED FLIPPING. 
          UH, WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT DESIGN HERE THOUGH. 
          WE'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT REZONING. 
          AND I THINK THAT, UH, WHAT WE'RE REALLY TRYING TO DO HERE IS JUST DRAW THAT LINE AND, YOU KNOW, UM, KEEP THE, THE ZONING FLIPS. 
          SO, UH, WE HOPE YOU'LL VOTE NO ON ALL OF THEM. 
          THANK YOU. 
          MELANIE. 
          VANLANDINGHAM, 63 11 LAKE SHORE. 
          I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO REALIZE THAT PRIORITIZING ECONOMIC GROWTH OVER COMMUNITY PRESERVATION TAKES MANY FORMS, INCLUDING THE INTENTIONAL DISMANTLING AND ERASURE OF CULTURALLY DIVERSE NEIGHBORHOODS LIKE MOUNT AUBURN. 
          IT IS ABOUT GENTRIFICATION AND DISPLACEMENT. 
          IT GOES BEYOND DESIGN. 
          I ENCOURAGE OUR CITY'S PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND POLICY MAKERS TO BETTER UNDERSTAND THE DYNAMICS OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD AND THOSE LIKE IT MOVING FORWARD. 
          UPZONING TO DUPLEX WILL DIRECTLY DESTABILIZE MOUNT AUBURN. 
          IT WILL ENCOURAGE FURTHER DEMOLITION. 
          JUST AS, UH, UH, COMMISSIONER KINGSTON MENTIONED, IT WILL ENCOURAGE FURTHER DI DEMOLITION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING. 
          IT WILL ENCOURAGE DISPLACEMENT OF, OF FAMILIES AND CHILDREN. 
          IT WILL ELIMINATE THE CULTURAL FABRIC OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD AND PROMOTE GENTRIFICATION. 
          THAT'S WHAT IT'S THE DEMOLITION OF HOMES THAT WE'RE TRYING TO AVOID. 
          UPZONING TO, TO DUPLEX WILL TELL EVERY DEVELOPER IN THE CITY AND BEYOND THAT THIS NEIGHBORHOOD IS A TARGET. 
          AND IT'S OKAY TO UP ZONE THIS CULTURALLY DIVERSE, THREATENED NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          YOU'VE GOT TO REALIZE THAT IT'S NOT ABOUT DESIGN AND WHERE THE GARAGE IS. 
          IT'S ABOUT LOSS OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          THIS, THIS COMMUNITY OF COLOR YOUR FORWARD DALLAS SAID THAT MATTERED. 
          IT'S TIME THAT THE CITY E APPLIES, ITS APPROVED AND ADOPTED POLICIES. 
          YOU SAID IT WAS IMPORTANT. 
          THIS NEIGHBORHOOD IS THE PERFECT EXAMPLE OF THAT KIND OF GENTRIFICATION AND DISPLACEMENT. 
          YOU SAID IN FOR DALLAS, A DISPLACEMENT TOOL WILL IS COMING AND IT WILL FIX EVERYTHING. 
          WELL, YOU'VE GOT THE BEGINNINGS OF ONE. 
          AND THAT DISPLACEMENT TOOL LOOKED AT THIS SPECIFIC NEIGHBORHOOD AND SAID, THIS ONE IS ENDANGERED. 
          IT IS OF OF GREATEST THREAT OF DISPLACEMENT. 
          THIS IS THE CASE STUDY. 
          YOU WANNA MAKE IT EASY. 
          THIS IS THE CASE STUDY TO APPLY YOUR NEW FORWARD DALLAS, YOUR HOUSING POLICY THAT SAYS DISPLACEMENT. 
          THANK YOUR TIME IS UP, SHOULDN'T BE HAPPENING. 
          NEXT SPEAKER, PLEASE. 
          HAS THIS BEEN SAID? IT'S NOT ABOUT DESIGN. 
          I HEARD THAT OVER AND OVER AND FORWARD DALLAS. 
          WELL, I THINK IT'S REALLY JUST THE DESIGN. 
          NO, NO, IT'S NOT. 
          IT'S THE TEARING DOWN OF OUR EXISTING HOMES. 
          IT'S THE THREAT TO OUR EXISTING COMMUNITY. 
          IT'S THE BARGAIN HANDED OUT TO THE DEVELOPERS. 
          I KEPT SEEING FORWARD DALLAS AS THE DEVELOPER'S DREAM. 
          WE FINALLY GOT IT MOLDED INTO BEING SOMEWHAT RESPECTFUL AND FRIENDLY TO OUR NEIGHBORHOODS. 
          WE FOUGHT HARD TO GET PROTECTION FOR PDS THAT WAS NOT PART OF THE BEGINNING OF FORWARD DALLAS. 
          AND HERE WE ARE FIGHTING FOR 
          [10:55:01]
OUR PD. 
          IT IS NOT ABOUT DESIGN, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, HOW MUCH I'D LOVE TO JUST SEE CRAFTMAN HOUSES MOVED IN. 
          IT'S THE TEARING DOWN OF OUR HOMES. 
          NOW, THIS PARTICULAR APPLICATION IS GONNA BE WEDGED IN BETWEEN TWO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. 
          ANOTHER, WHETHER HE DESIGNS A PEAK ROOF OR A FLAT ROOF OR A ROUND ROOF, IT'S GOING TO DOMINATE THE LOT AND INVADE THE SPACE. 
          AND WE'VE SEEN IT IN OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS. 
          I'VE SEEN IT RECENTLY IN ONE OF THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF YOU ALL. 
          AND THAT'S INVASIVE WHEN THEY BUILD ON THE BOTH ENDS OF THE LOT. 
          NOW, UM, I WANNA REFER TO THE, THE REPORT FROM THE STAFF. 
          UH, THIS REPORT IS FULL OF MISINFORMATION AND UNRELATED ISSUES. 
          GOAL 2.1, STATES PROMOTE BALANCED GROWTH AND AGAIN, IGNORING THE PILLARS OF THE DALLAS HOUSING POLICY TO PRESERVE EXISTING HOUSING AND PREVENTING DISPLACEMENT. 
          GOAL 5.2, ENCOURAGE COMPLIMENTARY BUILDING HEIGHTS, SCALE, DESIGN AND CHARACTER. 
          MR. MENDO. 
          SO COULD YOU PUT THOSE PICTURES UP AGAIN? YOU SEE WHAT WE'RE GETTING IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD? IT DOES NOT CONFORM. 
          IT DOES NOT FIT. 
          BUT YOU KNOW, AS, AS COMMISSIONER HAMPTON SAID, WHEN WE DID THE PD, I REMEMBER MR. KRA, OUR PLANNER, SAID TO ME, YOU KNOW, KAREN, ONE DAY THIS IS ALL GONNA CHANGE. 
          AND I SAID, YES, BUT IT WILL BE EVOLUTIONARY, NOT REVOLUTIONARY. 
          BUT RIGHT NOW WE'RE AT THE, AT FACING A REVOLUTION. 
          IF YOU ALL PASS THESE CASES, THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, AS HAS BEEN SAID, WILL SOON BE GONE. 
          THIS NEIGHBORHOOD OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING, I WENT DOOR TO DOOR IN THIS. 
          I CANNOT TELL YOU HOW MANY OF THE PEOPLE THAT I SPOKE WITH AND I WASN'T ALONE, FORTUNATELY OF THE ONLY ESPANOL I HAD TO GO THROUGH MY CITY COUNCILMAN TO GET AN AFFIDAVIT OF PROTEST IN ESPANOL. 
          WE HAVE TO RESPECT THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, THESE PICTURES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          YOUR TIME IS UP. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU SO MUCH, SIR. 
          YOU HAVE A TWO MINUTE REBUTTAL. 
          TWO MINUTES. 
          TWO MINUTES, TWO MINUTES. 
          I WISH, I WISH I CAN GET LIKE FIVE MINUTES LIKE HER, BUT UH, THAT'S OKAY. 
          OH, SO SHE GOT THREE MINUTES. 
          THAT'S FINE. 
          SO WHEN I BUY THOSE TWO HOUSES AT, I CAN FLIP IT, BUT THERE'S NO WAY THE TWO HOUSES ARE BURIED ON THE GROUND. 
          I CAN, I MEAN, I DON'T HAVE A, FORTUNATELY I DON'T HAVE THE PICTURES WITH, BUT THE LAND, IT'S BEEN ALONE FOR I THINK 50 YEARS. 
          I PAY A LOT OF TAXES FOR, TO BUY THAT LAND. 
          OBVIOUSLY IF YOU HAVE BUILD ADU PLACE OF 2000 SQUARE FEET, IT'S GONNA BE 4,000. 
          I CAN BUILD A HOUSE OR 4,000 SQUARE FEET WITH A FLAT ROOF. 
          IT'S GONNA BE LOOK THE SAME EXCEPT FOR THE GARAGE. 
          UM, I'VE BEEN WORKING IN HIGHLAND PARK. 
          I KNOW PEOPLE THAT TEAR OUT 2 MILLION HOUSES AND THEY BUILD 5 MILLION. 
          I MEAN, UH, I AM PRETTY SURE WHEN I GET OLD, 50, 55 YEARS, I'M GONNA GO OUT OF TOWN AND LEAVE IT WITHOUT ANY PROBLEMS OF THE CITY. 
          A LOT OF MORE YOUNG PEOPLE IS GONNA BECOME AND THEY'RE GONNA KEEP TURNING DOWN HOUSES, OLD HOUSES AND BUILD NEW HOUSES. 
          I'M PRETTY SURE, BECAUSE THIS IS THE WAY IT GROW UP CITIES. 
          I'M PRETTY SURE WHEN YOU GUYS WERE YOUNGER IT WAS A LOT OF MORE OLD HOUSES. 
          IF HE, IF HE, I CHECK ON ON ONLINE, YOU CAN SEE ALL THE PERMITS. 
          UH, JEFFERSON, UH, THEY GIVE IT TO FOR NEW HOUSES IS DALLAS, WEST DALLAS, SOUTH DALLAS. 
          BECAUSE LIKE I SAY, I DO 3 50, 3 50 JOBS A YEAR. 
          AND I'VE BEEN WORKING FOR 20 YEARS FOR MYSELF, 25 YEARS ON THE SAME WORK. 
          THANKS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT, COMMISSIONERS. 
          QUESTIONS FOR OUR FOLKS IN OPPOSITION. 
          QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? DO WE HAVE A MOTION? AND THIS IS FOR THE THREE CASES, PLEASE. 
          I DO WANNA, SO AT 12, 13 AND 14? YES. 
          OKAY, SO IN THE MATTER OF Z 2 3 4 DASH 2 3 5 Z 2 3 4 DASH 2 3 6 AND 2 3 4 DASH 2 3 8, I MOVE TO CLOSE 
          [11:00:01]
THE PUBLIC HEARING, NOT FOLLOW STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 
          SO IS THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE? IS THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE? YES. 
          THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HAMPTON FOR YOUR MOTION. 
          AND COMMISSIONER KINGSTON FOR YOUR SECOND, UH, TO CLOSE ABOVE THE HEARING, NOT FILE TO RECOMMENDATION, BUT RATHER DENY THE APPLICATION WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 
          ANY COMMENTS? I KNOW IT'S LATE. 
          WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS. 
          UM, THESE ARE TWO OF THE CASES THAT HAVE EXISTING HOUSES. 
          I UNDERSTAND MR. VALDEZ'S POINT OF VIEW. 
          I WILL SIMPLY SAY I'VE PERSONALLY RESTORED THREE HOUSES AND EVERY SINGLE ONE OF 'EM HAS COME WITH A ROOF LEAK AND SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGES. 
          SO IT IS A CHALLENGE. 
          I RECOGNIZE THAT, BUT IT IS PART OF WHAT IS ALSO PRESERVING AFFORDABLE HOUSING STOCK IN OUR COMMUNITIES. 
          AND THERE ARE EXAMPLES OF THESE HOUSES IN VERY POOR CONDITION BEING BROUGHT BACK. 
          AND I DO HOPE THAT THERE IS A PATH FOR THESE EXISTING HOUSES TO BE PART OF THAT SUCCESS STORY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          AND COMMISSIONER KINGSTON FILE BY RIGHT? YEP. 
          I'LL KEEP IT BRIEF. 
          UH, JUST TO REITERATE WHAT COMMISSIONER HAMPTON SAID, I'VE RESTORED MORE THAN ONE OLD HOUSE THAT WAS ON THE GROUND THAT HAD TO BE REDONE PRACTICALLY. 
          IT CAN BE DONE. 
          UM, IT'S MORE ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY. 
          IT'S, I I I UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S NOT ALWAYS EVERYBODY'S PREFERENCE, BUT IT IS EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IN TERMS OF PRESERVING OUR NATURALLY AFFORDABLE HOUSING. 
          AND I AM SEEING IT DONE ALL OVER THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          HOUSES THAT YOU WOULD SWEAR WERE ABSOLUTE TEAR DOWNS ARE BEING RENOVATED AND CONTINUING TO BE LIVED IN ALL OVER THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THAT'S TRUE, RUBEN. 
          UH, I, I I THINK THE MS. MS. ROBERTS MADE A COMMENT ABOUT EVOLUTION VERSUS REVOLUTION. 
          AND I THINK WE'RE AT THE POINT, UNFORTUNATELY WHERE IT, IT'S A REVOLUTION NO MATTER WHAT WE DO TONIGHT, AND WE ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO DO SOMETHING TO MANAGE CHANGE IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          SO I HOPE THAT, THAT WHATEVER AUTHORIZED HEARING, WHATEVER APPROACH WE USE TO ADDRESS THIS HAPPENS POST-HASTE BECAUSE THE, THE STATUS QUO IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. 
          AND I, I FEAR THAT BY DOING NOTHING, THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS UNDER JUST AS MUCH THREAT AS IT IS IF WE WERE TO OPPOSE, OPPOSE, APPROVE A FEW CHANGES TO DUPLEX WITH APPROPRIATE DEED RESTRICTIONS. 
          SO I'M, I'M NOT GONNA BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION HERE. 
          AGAIN, THIS IS AN INCREDIBLY CHALLENGING ISSUE. 
          BUT, UM, YEAH. 
          ANY OTHER COMMENTS? COMMISSIONERS? COMMISSIONER? I HAVE ONE. 
          COMMISSIONER BLAIR. 
          AND THEN I DON'T KNOW IF I SAW COMMISSIONER WHEELER'S HAND, BUT WE'LL START WITH YOU. 
          COMMISSIONER BLAIR. 
          I, I TOTALLY AGREE THAT WITH, WITH WITH, UM, COMMISSIONER RUBIN SAID THAT WE HAVE GOT TO DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT IF WE WANT TO PRESERVE, UM, COMMUNITIES AND WE WANT TO, TO, UM, HAVE A WISHES OF THE RESIDENTS, THEIR VOICE IS HEARD. 
          AND I, BUT I ALSO A APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT, UM, TIME WAITS FOR NO MAN. 
          AND WE'RE ASKING TIME TO SIT STILL FOR SIX YEARS TO GO THROUGH AN AUTHORIZED HEARING PROCESS. 
          WE GOTTA, YOU KNOW, COME ON. 
          WE GOTTA, AS, AS A BODY, WE HAVE GOT TO DO SOMETHING BETTER BECAUSE THE, THE WHAT WE ARE, WHAT'S SITTING HERE TODAY IS A CHALLENGE THAT IS UNFAIR TO EVERYONE. 
          SO I, UM, I'M GONNA SUPPORT, AND, AND LET ME TELL YOU WHY I'M GONNA SUPPORT ON THESE BECAUSE WE'RE TALKING ONE THAT'S MIDBLOCK AND, AND THEY HAVE STRUCTURES ON 'EM. 
          THESE, THIS IS NOT A CORNER LOT, BUT THESE ARE MID-BLOCK WITH STRUCTURES ON 'EM, SO THANK YOU COMMISSIONER WHEELER. 
          WE'LL, STATE FIRST ROUND PLEASE. 
          UM, THIS IS, I'M KIND OF TR I I THINK THE DIFFERENCE IN THIS APPLICANT IS, UM, THIS IS AN APPLICANT THAT IS FROM OUTSIDE THE NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          APPLICANT HAS BEEN HERE FOR, UM, 20 PLUS YEARS, RAISED HIS FAMILY HERE AND VEING. 
          AND, UH, I, I THINK THAT, UM, A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO HOLD THIS ONE. 
          UM, UM, I KNOW THAT THE OTHER APPLICANT WASN'T SO KEEN ON THAT ONE, BUT, UH, AT LEAST THE ONE WITHOUT THE STRUCTURE ON IT TO HOLD, UM, I, I'M NOT AS QUICK WITH AN, UH, THE APPLICANT HAS LIVED, RAISED THEIR CHILDREN IN THE SAME NEIGHBORHOOD AND IS REINVESTED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          SO I'M ON THE FENCE ABOUT THIS ONE, 
          [11:05:01]
AT LEAST FOR THE ONE THAT DOES NOT HAVE A, UH, AND HE HAS STATED THAT HE WOULD RATHER BUILD A TRADITIONAL TO DUPLEX THAN ONE OF THE NEW, UM, NO MODERN. 
          I'M DEFINITELY ON THE FENCE ABOUT THIS ONE. 
          MR. RUBIN, I HAVE ONE OTHER COMMENT. 
          WE'VE SPENT HOURS HERE TODAY ON, YOU KNOW, A VERY CONTROVERSIAL CONTRA CONSERVATION DISTRICT IN A VERY AFFLUENT PART OF TOWN AND OURS HERE TODAY ON, UM, INDIVIDUAL ZONING CASES IN MOUNT AUBURN. 
          AND THE CITY HAS FINITE RESOURCES. 
          IF WE COULD, YOU KNOW, WALK AND CHEW GUM AT THE SAME TIME, I WOULD LOVE TO DEVOTE THE CITY'S RESOURCES TO, YOU KNOW, ALL OF THE PRESSING NEEDS. 
          BUT AS WE DECIDE HOW TO PRIORITIZE RESOURCES IN THE FUTURE, UM, WITH FINITE NEEDS, I, I DO HOPE THAT WE'RE VERY DELIBERATE ABOUT, UM, DEVOTING RESOURCES TO AUTHORIZE HEARINGS TO PROTECT VERY VULNERABLE NEIGHBORHOODS LIKE, LIKE THIS ONE. 
          UM, AS OPPOSED TO DOING, YOU KNOW, VERY NICE THINGS FOR PRESERVATION IN AN AFFLUENT NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          I JUST WANTED TO PUT THAT ON THE RECORD. 
          ANY OTHER COMMENTS? COMMISSIONERS, SEEING NONE. 
          ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. 
          ANY OPPOSED A NAY TO AN OPPOSITION? MOTION PASSES. 
          WE GO TO 17. 
          OPPOSITION. 
          COMMISSIONER WHEELER WAS, WAS, WHAT WAS THAT? YOU IN OPPOSITION? YES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THREE IN OPPOSITION AND MYSELF. 
          [17. 24-3589 An application to amend the land use map to allow a duplex use on property that currently allows a single-family use within Subarea A within Planned Development District No. 134, on the southwest line of South Saint Mary Avenue, south of Santa Fe Avenue.]
17. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          THE LAST ONE OF THESE, ITEM 17 IS CASE Z 2 34 DASH 2 94. 
          AN APPLICATION TO AMEND THE LAND USE MAP TO ALLOW DUPLEX USE ON PROPERTY THAT CURRENTLY ALLOWS A SINGLE FAMILY USE WITHIN SUB AREA A WITHIN PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 1, 3 4 ON THE SOUTHWEST LINE OF SOUTH ST. 
          MARY AVENUE, NORTH OF SANTA FE AVENUE. 
          STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL. 
          OKAY, IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS CASE? THIS IS NUMBER 17 Z 2 34. 
          2 94. 
          OKAY, LET'S GO TO OUR SPEAKERS IN OPPOSITION. 
          I THINK YOU'VE, UH, SORRY. 
          JASMINE GRIFFITHS 10 23 MOUNT AUBURN AVENUE. 
          UM, I THINK YOU'VE HEARD A LOT OF, UH, GREAT POINTS FROM US TODAY. 
          AND I THINK ONE POINT THAT YOU GUYS ARE CONSIDERING IS THAT, UM, IT'S THE LESSER OF TWO EVILS. 
          UM, BUT, OR THERE'S JUST TWO BAD OPTIONS. 
          BUT FROM THE STANDPOINT OF THE NEIGHBORS IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, WE'RE FACING INCREASING PROPERTY VALUES THAT ARE A REAL CHALLENGE FOR PEOPLE WHO HAVE LIVED IN THEIR HOUSES FOR A REALLY LONG TIME, ESPECIALLY GENERATIONALLY. 
          AND WHEN YOU CONSIDER WHAT HAPPENS ON A DUPLEX LOT, AND I CAN TELL YOU FROM THE GROUND WHERE I'VE LOOKED AT THESE LOTS AND WHAT'S HAPPENING WITH THEM, UH, EACH SIDE IS SELLING FOR LIKE 600, $700,000. 
          WHEREAS WHEN YOU'RE BUILDING A SINGLE FAMILY HOME, EVEN IF IT IS NOT GREAT LOOKING, IT IS NOT $1.2 MILLION. 
          SO THAT IS THE ONE THING THAT I WOULD LIKE YOU TO CONTINUE TO CONSIDER IS, UH, EVEN IF THE STRUCTURE IS EQUALLY OFFENSIVE, UH, IN SIZE AND SCALE, AND IT'S IN, AND IT'S JUST OUT OF SCALE AND, UH, EXPENSIVE FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD, TWO, $600,000 DUPLEXES VERSUS A SINGLE $800,000 HOUSE IS A VERY DIFFERENT ECONOMIC IMPACT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UH, STEPHANIE CASEY, NINE AND ON CAMERON. 
          UM, I WANTED TO SAY THAT TOO, THE LAST TIME I SPOKE. 
          UH, WE, IF WE UNDERSTAND THAT WE'RE GONNA GET THE GIANT MONSTROSITIES EDGE TO EDGE, IT'S GONNA BE SINGLE FAMILY. 
          IF THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED TO BUILD DUPLEXES, MOST LIKELY THAT IS PREFERABLE FOR ALL THE REASONS THAT MY NEIGHBOR JUST EXPLAINED. 
          UM, WE, WE GET THAT. 
          BUT, UH, YEAH, THAT'S, THAT'S OUR PREFERENCE OVER REZONING. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OKAY. 
          I, I WANNA REITERATE WHAT JASMINE SAID. 
          THESE NEW DUPLEXES, I WAS ON THE, ON THE INTERNET THE OTHER DAY, $600,000 PER SIDE. 
          A FEW MONTHS AGO. 
          I WAS LOOKING AT 'EM, THE RENT WAS $4,000 
          [11:10:02]
PER SITE. 
          NOW WE'RE TALKING ABOUT REPLACING THESE LITTLE CRAFTSMAN HOUSES BECAUSE WE'RE WORRIED ABOUT NOT HAVING ENOUGH HOUSING, AND WE ARE GONNA REPLACE 'EM WITH PLACES THAT RENT FOR $4,000 A UNIT. 
          THERE'S, THERE'S ONE ON, I DON'T REMEMBER IF IT WAS GARLAND OR ASH, IT'S DOWN PROBABLY IN THE 5,500 BLOCK. 
          IT'S BEEN ABANDONED. 
          IT'S BEEN ABANDONED BY THE OWNERS BECAUSE THE RENT'S TOO HIGH. 
          AND THERE'S A GROUP OF PEOPLE SQUATTERS LIVING THERE. 
          AND AS I STOOD ACROSS THE STREET TALKING TO ONE OF THE NEIGHBORS ACROSS THE STREET, THESE GUYS ARE WORKING ON CARS. 
          THEY HAVE OPENED A CAR REPAIR SHOP. 
          NOW, APPARENTLY THE OTHER SIDE IS OWNED BY DRUG DEALERS. 
          I DIDN'T SEE THEM, BUT THAT'S WHAT WE'RE FACING. 
          NOW, I WANNA GO BACK TO THIS, THESE, UH, REPORTS FROM THE STAFF. 
          WE ARE NOT NEAR DOWNTOWN. 
          I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THE 360 PLAN WE'RE BEING THROWN INTO THAT. 
          WE ARE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE FREEWAY FROM JUBILEE PARK. 
          AND IF YOU'VE BEEN THROUGH THERE, YOU'LL SEE WHAT CAN BE DONE WITH A NEIGHBORHOOD LIKE MOUNT AUBURN. 
          AND DON'T PUT US IN WITH THE DOWNTOWN AND TRY TO TURN US INTO AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. 
          WE ARE A RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY. 
          I THINK THAT'S, THAT'S ENOUGH. 
          BUT YOU ALL KNOW WE'RE OPPOSED TO THIS. 
          WE THINK IT'S A BAD IDEA AND WE WANT YOU TO DENY IT. 
          AND I APPRECIATE THOSE OF YOU WHO HAVE SPOKEN UP SO GRACIOUSLY FOR OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OKAY, COMMISSIONER HAS QUESTIONS FOR OUR SPEAKERS IN OPPOSITION. 
          QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SEEING NONE. 
          COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, DO YOU HAVE MOTION? UM, I DO JUST WANT TO HAVE ONE CLARIFICATION IF STAFF, IF I MAY UM, ON THE ST. 
          MARY CASE, THIS IS OUR, UM, CASE THAT IS A, UM, AND I'VE LOST MY LESS THAN 5,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT. 
          I BELIEVE IT'S 45 FEET IN WIDTH AND NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN THE PD. 
          IS THAT CORRECT? UH, THE LOT IS 5,321 SQUARE FEET IN SIZE. 
          UM, THE WIDTH IS A LITTLE SMALLER. 
          OKAY. 
          SORRY, I DROPPED A NUMBER THERE. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, AND THANK YOU MR. CHAIR. 
          WE'LL MAKE A MOTION, PLEASE. 
          UM, IN THE MATTER OF Z 2 34 DASH 2 94, I MOVE TO CLOSE A PUBLIC HEARING, UM, AND DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 
          SECOND. 
          THANK YOU. 
          I HAVE A MOTION TO SECOND. 
          ANY DISCUSSION? DITTO. 
          YEAH. 
          DI OKAY. 
          THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR PATIENCE AND YOUR CARE AND ATTENTION TO THIS IMPORTANT NEIGHBORHOOD FOR MY COMMUNITY IN DISTRICT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. 
          AYE. 
          YOU OPPOSED? I HAVE IT. 
          LET'S GO BACK TO THE ORDER. 
          SECOND. 
          IT KINGSTON. 
          SECOND IT. 
          GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. 
          [15. 24-3587 An application for a TH-3(A) Townhouse District on property zoned a CR Community Retail District, on the southwest line of Seagoville Road, northwest of Warrior Drive.]
ITEM 15 KC 2 3 4 DASH 2 63. 
          AN APPLICATION FOR A TH THREE, A TOWNHOUSE DISTRICT ON PROPERTIES ZONE AS CR COMMUNITY RETAIL DISTRICT ON THE SOUTHWEST LINE OF SEVILLE ROAD, NORTHWEST OF WARRIOR DRIVE. 
          STATUS RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL. 
          THANK YOU. 
          IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO BE HEARD ON THIS ITEM? GOOD EVENING. 
          HI. 
          GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. 
          MY NAME IS ELMAR RACHO, UH, 25 17 JUSTIN ROAD, HIGHLAND VILLAGE. 
          FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME AND RESILIENCE TODAY. 
          IT'S BEEN A LONG DAY FOR EVERYBODY. 
          UH, SO WE ARE HERE REQUESTING A STRAY ZONING CHANGE FROM COMMERCIAL RETAIL TO, UH, TOWN HOMES, UH, FREE, UM, WITH THE INTENT OF DEVELOP SINGLE FAMILY DETACH HOMES. 
          UH, OUR CASE WAS HEARD ON OCTOBER 10TH AND HELD ON THEIR ADVISEMENT. 
          UH, THERE WERE SOME CONCERNS REGARDING THE CONCEPT PLAN WE PRESENTED TO THE STAFF. 
          FIRE ACCESS AND ENGINEERING HAD A COUPLE COMMENTS. 
          ALL OF THOSE HAVE BEEN CLEARED OUT, UM, TODAY. 
          AND ALSO, UH, THE DEVELOPER HAS VOLUNTEERED THE RESTRICTIONS ON THIS ZONING CASE TO ALLOW ONLY SINGLE FAMILY IN IN TOWN HOMES, UH, MAXIMUM OF 20 UNITS. 
          AND THE CONNECTION TO WITH LITTLE FOLKS DRIVE IS GONNA BE GATED AND ONLY FOR, UH, EMERGENCY ACCESS. 
          TO THE BEST OF OUR KNOWLEDGE, WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY OPPOSITION LETTERS OR EMAILS, 
          [11:15:01]
UH, FOR THIS CASE. 
          AND WE ACTUALLY HAVE A FEW SUPPORTING LETTERS THAT WE DID SHARE WITH STAFF AND COMMISSIONER BLAIR. 
          SO IF YOU GUYS HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, WE'RE HERE TOO. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR JOINING US. 
          UH, IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? COMMISSIONER, QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SEEING NONE. 
          COMMISSIONER BLAIR, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? YES. 
          IN, IN THE MATTER OF Z 2 3 4 2 63. 
          I MOVE. 
          WE, WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND WE FOLLOW STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL. 
          THANK YOU. 
          COMMISSIONER BLAIR. 
          IS THAT SUBJECT TO THE DEED RESTRICTIONS AS PUBLISHED IN THE DOCKET SUBJECT TO THE DEED RESTRICTIONS PUBLISHED IN THE DOCK? THANK YOU, MA'AM. 
          THANK YOU COMMISSIONER BLAIR FOR YOUR MOTION. 
          UH, VICE CHAIR RUBIN FOR YOUR SECOND. 
          ANY COMMENTS? C NONE. 
          ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. 
          OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. 
          [16. 24-3588 An application for a Specific Use Permit for a handicapped group dwelling unit on property zoned an R-7.5(A) Single Family District, on the northwest line of Indian Creek Trail between Foxboro Lane and University Hills Boulevard.]
17, PLEASE. 
          UH, ITEM 16. 
          EXCUSE ME. 
          EXCUSE ME. 
          YES, SIR. 
          UH, Z 2 3 4 2 85. 
          UH, AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR A HANDICAP GROUP DWELLING UNIT ON PROPERTIES ZONE IN R SEVEN FIVE, A SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT ON THE NORTHWEST LINE OF INDIAN CREEK TRAIL BETWEEN FOXBOROUGH LANE AND UNIVERSITY HILLS BOULEVARD. 
          STATUS RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL FOR A FIVE YEAR PERIOD WITH ELIGIBILITY FOR AUTOMATIC RENEWAL FOR ADDITIONAL FIVE YEAR PERIOD SUBJECT TO A SITE PLAN AND CONDITIONS. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          UH, IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS ITEM? YES. 
          NO, NO. 
          GOOD, GOOD EVENING. 
          MY NAME'S, UH, PROPERTY ADDRESS IS PROPERTY ONE INDIAN CREEK TRAIL. 
          OH. 
          CAN YOU HEAR ME? PERFECT. 
          THANK YOU, SIR. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          UH, MY NAME'S EDNO PROPERTY ADDRESS IS 10 41 INDIAN CREEK TRAIL. 
          UH, WE, WE HAVE, UH, APPLIED FOR SPECIAL SPECIFIC USE PERMIT, UM, TO OPEN A RESIDENTIAL CARE HOME ASSISTED LIVING AND BE SPECIFIC. 
          UH, WE WILL, UH, FOLLOW STATE AND LOCAL GUIDELINES. 
          UH, THIS IS FOR THE ELDERLY WHO CAN NO LONGER, UH, BE SELF-SUFFICIENT AND STAY IN THEIR OWN HOMES. 
          WE BELIEVE THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO STILL STAY IN THE COMMUNITY, AND WE JUST HOPE YOU GUYS HEAR US OUT. 
          DOES THAT CONCLUDE YOUR COMMENTS, SIR? UH, YES, SIR. 
          THANK YOU. 
          IS THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE IN SUPPORT? I THINK WE HAVE SOME SPEAKERS ONLINE. 
          UH, THESE ARE TWO FOLKS IN OPPOSITION, UH, MR. , MATT GILBERT, MAC GILBERT. 
          YES, SIR. 
          GOOD EVENING. 
          GOOD EVENING. 
          WE READY FOR YOUR COMMENT, SIR? OKAY. 
          UH, THIS AREA SURROUNDING THE PROPERTY TO THE WAY I FEEL IS NOT INTENDED FOR MORE THAN A SINGLE FAMILY. 
          UH, AND THIS PROPERTY IS TO HAVE FIVE PATIENTS ACCORDING TO THE APPLICATION. 
          SO THERE MAY BE FIVE PATIENTS, FAMILY MEMBERS VISION AT ANY ONE TIME. 
          THERE ARE AT LEAST TWO EMPLOYEES PRESENT AT ANY ONE TIME. 
          THERE IS ALSO THE POSSIBILITY OF MAINTENANCE WORKERS AND ET CETERA. 
          SO AT ANY ONE TIME, IT MAY POTENTIALLY BE SEVEN OR MORE VEHICLES. 
          AT THIS PROPERTY AT ONE TIME, OUR STREET IS NARROW. 
          IT'S 24 FEET OF USABLE ROADWAY. 
          THE AVERAGE CAR WIDTH IS SIX FEET AND THE SEVEN FEET FOR TRUCKS. 
          THE TRUCK I DRIVE IS NINE FEET WIDE. 
          IT'S A DUALLY, THE AVERAGE WIDTH OF A FIRE TRUCK IS 10 FEET. 
          SO IF TWO TRUCKS ARE PARKED ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE STREET, EMERGENCY VEHICLES MOST LIKELY WILL HAVE A VERY DIFFICULT TIME GETTING THROUGH, IF AT ALL. 
          AND ALSO, THERE'S A HOUSE FULL OF YOUNG CHILDREN ACROSS THE STREET. 
          SO I FEEL LIKE THIS WILL MAKE, THAT TRAFFIC WILL MAKE IT AN UNSAFE PLAY AREA. 
          NEXT, AS NEIGHBORS, WE ALL HAVE RESPECT FOR EACH OTHER'S PROPERTY. 
          WE ALL WANNA LIVE IN A CLEAN, SAFE, AND WELCOMING ENVIRONMENT. 
          WE'VE ALREADY ENCOUNTERED SITUATIONS WHERE THIS WASN'T THE CASE. 
          THE DEBRIS OF A BATHROOM GUT JOB HAD BEEN LEFT IN THE BACK OF THE APPLICANT'S HOUSE FOR QUITE A WHILE. 
          WHEN THEY FINALLY CAME TO PICK UP THE TRASH, THEY BACKED A TRUCK AND TRAILER IN OUR SINGLE CAR DRIVEWAY TO PICK UP THE TRASH EFFECTIVELY BLOCKING ME AND MY WIFE OUT IN THE, IN THE DRIVEWAY AND MY ELDERLY MOTHER 
          [11:20:01]
OUT THE DRIVEWAY. 
          WHEN MY MOTHER GOT HOME, SHE HAD TO WALK UP A STEEP HILL. 
          OUR DRIVEWAY IS A, IT'S ON A STEEP HILL, SINGLE, SINGLE DRIVEWAY AROUND THE TRUCK WITH TRASH HANGING OUT OF IT TO GET IN HER OWN HOUSE. 
          THEN THEY LEFT TRASH BEHIND BLOWING IN THE GRASS. 
          IT'S STILL OUT THERE RIGHT NOW. 
          IT'S NOT AS, IT IS NOT AS MUCH, BUT IT'S STILL QUITE A BIT OF DEBRIS IN THE GRASS BESIDE OUR DRIVEWAY. 
          NOW THERE'S THE SAFETY AND PRIVACY FOR MY WIFE AND DAUGHTER AND MOTHER THAT CONCERNS US. 
          SINCE WE HAVE A SINGLE CAR DRIVEWAY THAT IS ABOUT NINE FEET WIDE, IT'S NOT THAT MUCH ROOM BETWEEN OUR HOUSES, WHICH CONCERNS THE WHOLE FAMILY BECAUSE OF SO MANY DIFFERENT PEOPLE, CONTRACTORS, EMPLOYERS, VISITORS, ET CETERA, WILL NOT HAVE A DIRECT LINE OF SIGHT TO OUR BELONGINGS. 
          THE WAY OUR, WHERE OUR HOUSE IS SET UP IS THIS A OUR DRIVEWAY GOES UP THE SIDE OF OUR HOUSE AND TO THE BACK OF OUR AREA WHERE WE KEEP ALL OUR, YOU KNOW, OUR PRIVATE STUFF. 
          THIS, BECAUSE IT, IT IS NOT A, IT'S NOT A OPEN ACCESS AREA FROM TO THE PUBLIC. 
          IT'S LIKE YOU HAVE TO COME IN THE BACK OF OUR HOUSE TO ACCESS THIS AREA. 
          THANK YOU. 
          YOUR TIME IS UP. 
          UH, I THANK YOU, SIR. 
          YOUR TIME IS UP. 
          THANK YOU, SIR. 
          UH, ALL RIGHT. 
          THANK YOU FOR JOINING US. 
          STAND BY. 
          THERE MAY BE QUESTIONS FOR YOU. 
          IS OUR OTHER SPEAKER ONLINE? JORGE? OKAY. 
          YES, I'M NEED THE COMPUTER? YES, MA'AM. 
          WE'RE READY FOR YOUR COMMENTS. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, MUCH OF WHAT TOBY SAID IS EXACTLY HOW OUR WHOLE FAMILY FEELS AND MUCH OF THE, UM, COMMUNITY. 
          UM, BUT I'VE LIVED HERE SINCE I WAS 24. 
          I'M 68 NOW, SO THIS IS A BIG CHANGE FOR ME. 
          YOU KNOW, LIFE OFFERS CHANGES, WE KNOW THAT, BUT I DO HAVE A CONCERN FOR, UM, OUR PRIVACY, FOR MY SAFETY. 
          UM, LIKE TOBY SAID, IT IS A ONE CAR DRIVEWAY AND, UM, IT PULLS STRAIGHT UP TO OUR, UM, PATIO AND BACK ROOM AND BACKYARD. 
          UM, SO I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THAT. 
          I, I LIKE TO, YOU KNOW, COME HOME FROM WORK AND WHEN THE SUN'S GETTING READY TO DO WHAT IT DOES, I LIKE TO HAVE THE CURTAIN OPEN AND SO I CAN SEE, YOU KNOW, NATURE OUT, OUT MY WINDOW. 
          AND BY DOING THAT, I EXPOSE MYSELF TO THE NEIGHBORS. 
          YOU KNOW, THEY HAVE DIRECT LINE OF VIEW FOR MY BEDROOM IN THE FRONT BEDROOM AS WELL, HONESTLY. 
          SO THAT'S A CONCERN FOR ME. 
          I AM ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT THE, THE EXTRA RISK THAT IT'S GOING TO MAKE FOR THE ELDERLY AND THE CHILDREN THAT LIVE ON THE STREET, UM, WITH MORE TRAFFIC AND THE ELDERLY. 
          THERE, THERE ARE QUITE A FEW TRIPS, UH, FROM AMBULANCES THAT COME UP AND DOWN THE STREET TO ATTEND TO THEM IF WE HAVE SOME THAT ARE IN THEIR SEVENTIES. 
          UH, ONE THAT'S IN THEIR EIGHTIES, ONE THAT'S IN HER NINETIES. 
          WE HAD AN 80-YEAR-OLD, A WOMAN AT THE END OF OUR STREET, MRS. POLK, WHO WAS AN INDEPENDENT WOMAN AND, UM, WOULD TRAVEL ON HER OWN TO THE BANK AND WHEREVER SHE WANTED TO GO, JUST ONE MORNING, SHE JUST DISAPPEARED. 
          SHE HASN'T BEEN FOUND YET. 
          SO ALL OF THESE THINGS HAVE AFFECTED THE WHOLE NEIGHBORHOOD AND, UM, CAUSED US TO REALLY KIND OF LOOK AT OUR SURROUNDINGS AND LOOK AT EACH OTHER AND, YOU KNOW, KIND OF PAY MORE ATTENTION TO ONE ANOTHER. 
          SO, UM, THE UPKEEP OF THE PROPERTY CONCERNS ME. 
          UM, THEY'VE HAD IT FOR WHAT A YEAR AT LEAST, AND I KNOW THEY'VE DONE SOME WORK INSIDE, BUT THE OUTSIDE IS A MESS. 
          UM, THE OTHER THAN THE BACK, UM, PATIO HAVING ALL THE DEBRIS FROM WHAT THEY TORE OUT, THE FENCE IS FALLING OVER. 
          MY SON PROPPED THAT UP. 
          THE, UM, AT THAT PATIO DOOR IN WINDOW, THERE ARE SEVERAL WASP NESTS THAT WERE FULL OF WASPS, WHICH CONCERNED US BECAUSE THEY WOULD COME OVER IN OUR DIRECTION AND TRY TO MAKE A NEST AROUND OUR PATIO AREA. 
          SO MY SON WENT OUT AND SPRAYED THOSE AND KNOCKED THEM DOWN, BUT THEY'VE COME BACK, SO THAT'S A PROBLEM. 
          THANK YOU. 
          IT'S JUST, IT MAKES ME A LITTLE ANXIOUS. 
          THANK YOU, MA'AM. 
          OH, OKAY. 
          THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING US. 
          SORRY, PLEASE. 
          NO, YOU'RE FINE. 
          PLEASE STAND BY. 
          THERE MAY BE QUESTIONS FOR YOU, SIR. 
          PER OUR RULES, YOU GET A TWO MINUTE REBUTTAL. 
          FIRST I'D LIKE TO THANK, UH, TOBY AND HIS MOTHER FOR, FOR THOSE, UH, COMMENTS AND CONCERNS. 
          UM, UH, JUST TO SPEAK ON A FEW OF THEM, UH, WE ACTUALLY HAD OPEN DIALOGUE WITH, WITH 
          [11:25:01]
THEM AS WELL AS THE COMMUNITY, UH, JUST AS RECENT AS YESTERDAY WITH SOME OTHER, UM, COMMENTS AND CONCERNS. 
          AND WE DO HAVE A PLAN, UH, ACTION IN PLACE. 
          UM, A LOT OF THOSE REALLY IS JUST STEMMING FROM US WAITING TO GET HERE AND GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS AND, UM, YOU KNOW, RECEIVE A GOD WILLING APPROVAL. 
          UM, WE HAVE SPOKE TO THE CONTRACTORS AND, AND, AND MADE THEM AWARE, UM, AND I PERSONALLY WILL MANAGE THEM A LOT, A LOT CLOSER. 
          WE WILL HAVE A HOURS OF OPERATIONS AND, UH, THE RESIDENTS WILL NOT HAVE VEHICLES. 
          SO AS FAR AS THE, THE TRAFFIC AND, AND THINGS LIKE THAT, THAT WILL BE, UH, MANAGED ACCORDINGLY. 
          THANK YOU, SIR. 
          COMMISSIONER'S QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT. 
          COMMISSIONER HERBERT? YEAH, UH, WE, UM, IN YOUR CALL LAST NIGHT, UM, I'M AT YOU, UH, WE HAD A CALL LAST NIGHT, CORRECT? WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD? YES, SIR. 
          DURING THAT, UM, I'M SORRY, TOBY, I'M TALKING TO AHMED. 
          I USE YOUR NAME, MY, MY BAD. 
          I'M SORRY ABOUT THAT. 
          UM, BUT AHMAD, DURING THAT CONVERSATION, A LOT OF CONCERNS CAME UP, A LOT OF THINGS YOU GUYS SAID THAT YOU WOULD BE WILLING TO WORK WITH THE NEIGHBORS AND BE A GOOD NEIGHBOR TO CORRECT. 
          AM I, AM I RIGHT ABOUT THAT? THAT'S CORRECT. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, WE DID DISCUSS THAT THERE WAS NO WAY I CAN HOLD YOU TO THOSE THINGS IN THE DOCKET TODAY, BUT WE WOULD TALK ABOUT YOUR SOP, THE, YOUR SUP, THE TIMING OF IT, AND THEN COMING BACK AND DISCUSSING HOW YOU GUYS HAVE BEEN PERFORMING AS A GOOD NEIGHBOR. 
          IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU COMMISSIONERS. 
          ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? QUESTIONS FOR OUR SPEAKERS IN OPPOSITION? ANY QUESTIONS FOR, UH, SPEAKERS IN OPPOSITION? QUESTIONS FOR STAFF, PLEASE? UM, TOBY OR EITHER, UM, YOUR MOTHER, EITHER ONE. 
          UM, YOU MENTIONED YOUR FRONT DOOR TO ME IN, IN REFERENCE TO WHEN YOU WALK OUTTA YOUR FRONT DOOR. 
          CAN YOU REMIND ME WHAT YOU SEE TODAY WHEN YOU WALK OUT OF YOUR FRONT DOOR? HMM. 
          UH, WHAT DO YOU MEAN? LIKE THE I SMALL THE STREET IS? SO, UH, I REMEMBER YOU SAID YOUR ENTRANCE TO YOUR HOME FACES THEIR GARAGE OR YOUR, YOUR FRONT PORCH FACES. 
          OH, THAT'S OUR, THAT'S, THAT'S OUR BACK, OUR BACK AREA. 
          OKAY. 
          IT FACES, YEAH, OUR BACK AREA FACES THEIR, UH, BACK DOOR. 
          OKAY, THANK YOU. 
          YEAH. 
          YEAH. 
          SO, UH, IT'S A REALLY, REALLY SMALL SPACE, UH, IN BETWEEN, I LITERALLY CAN BARELY FIT MY TRUCK, UH, IN OUR DRIVEWAY, ESPECIALLY IF IT'S A CAR PARKED AT THE END OF OUR DRIVEWAY, IT'S NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE. 
          BUT, UM, AS FAR AS THE PRIVACY GOES, LIKE MY MOTHER, SHE LIKES TO LET, LIKE I SAID, LET THE SUN GET IN AND IF YOU OPEN THE WINDOW OR COME OUT OUR BACK DOOR, YOU SEE DIRECTLY INTO THEIR, THEIR, THEIR HOUSE, YOU KNOW, LIKE HER, THEIR BACK DOOR, THEIR BACK WINDOWS. 
          UH, SO THAT WAS, YOU KNOW, ONE THING THAT CONCERNED US, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE KNEW EVERYBODY, IT, YOU KNOW, 'CAUSE WE GREW UP, I, I GREW UP AT THIS HOUSE AND THE NEIGHBORS, YOU KNOW, THEY KNOWN ME SINCE WHEN I WAS A KID, SO IT DIDN'T MAKE US FEEL SO UNCOMFORTABLE, UH, TO JUST, I'M NOT, I'M NOT AGAINST PEOPLE. 
          I DON'T MIND MEETING NEW PEOPLE, YOU KNOW. 
          AND, UH, THERE'S ALSO, THE THING, I KNOW THIS IS OFF THE QUESTION, BUT THERE'S ALSO LIKE 151, UH, ASSISTED LIVING FACILITIES IN THIS DISTRICT. 
          IT'S 30, 33 OF 'EM IN THIS ZIP CODE. 
          SO IT'S A DENSE POPULATION OF HOUSES LIKE THIS. 
          AND, YOU KNOW, THERE'S JUST, I FEEL LIKE IT'S NOT A REAL NECESSITY, YOU KNOW, ELDERLY NEED SOMEWHERE TO GO. 
          WELL, WE HAVE 151 PLACES FOR 'EM TO GO IN THIS AREA. 
          THANK YOU, TOBY. 
          UM, THANK YOU. 
          UH, IN REFERENCE TO THE PRIVACY, WE TALKED ABOUT THAT LAST NIGHT. 
          THE OWNER AND APPLICANT MENTIONED THAT THEY WOULD WORK ON FENCING IF THIS WAS APPROVED. 
          UM, I HOPE THAT STILL CARRIES THROUGH, BUT I JUST WANTED TO GET THAT NOTED TODAY. 
          SO THANK YOU FOR THAT. 
          OKAY. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU, SIR. 
          ANY OTHER QUE WELL QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SO STAFF, PLEASE. 
          THE, THE NUMBER OF HOUSES IN THE DISTRICT FOUR DISTRICT THREE AREA THAT CROSSES OVER IS LARGE. 
          IS THAT A PART OF OUR PURVIEW IN THIS SITUATION? SORRY, COULD YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION? THE NUMBER OF THE HOMES, LIKE THIS IS OVER 150 FOR SURE. 
          IS, IS THAT SOMETHING WE LOOK AT IN THIS CASE, IN CASES LIKE THESE GROUP, GROUP DWELLINGS WHEN CONSIDERING A HANDICAPPED GROUP? DWELLING UNIT? YEAH. 
          MM-HMM. 
          THE NUMBER OF HOMES IN THE AREA, THE OTHER, THE OTHER HANDICAPPED GROUP DWELLINGS THAT EXIST IN THE AREA. 
          OH, I SEE. 
          I, I BELIEVE I SEE WHAT YOU'RE ASKING. 
          YEAH. 
          UM, UH, THE, UH, USE CONDITIONS FOR A HANDICAP GROUP DWELLING UNIT, UM, DO NOT REQUIRE 
          [11:30:01]
A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT. 
          UM, AS LONG AS THERE IS NOT ANOTHER, UH, GROUP RESIDENTIAL FACILITY OR HANDICAP GROUP DWELLING UNIT WITHIN A THOUSAND FEET OF THE AREA OF REQUEST. 
          IF THERE IS ANOTHER OF THOSE USES WITHIN A THOUSAND FEET, UH, THEN AN SUP IS REQUIRED. 
          SO IN THIS CASE, BECAUSE THERE IS ANOTHER, UH, SIMILAR USE WITHIN A THOUSAND FEET, UH, THAT'S WHY THE, THE CASES BEFORE THE BODY, IF THAT WEREN'T THE CASE, THEN THIS WOULDN'T BE AN SEP REQUEST AT ALL. 
          AND I KNOW THIS WASN'T YOUR CASE, YOU TOOK IT ON, BUT IF, IF THIS WAS YOUR CASE OR IN A CASE LIKE THIS AND YOU NOTICE WHAT, WHAT'S THAT THRESHOLD FOR YOU TO BE DENIAL, RIGHT? IF THERE WAS FIVE WITHIN A THOUSAND FEET, ONE IN A THOUSAND FEET, DOES THAT EVEN MAKE A DIFFERENCE? UM, NOT REALLY. 
          I MEAN, THAT'S REALLY JUST A DISTANCE CONDITION THAT WOULD TRIGGER THE NEED FOR AN SUP. 
          UH, OTHER THAN THAT, WE WOULD JUST USE OUR STANDARD METRICS FOR EVALUATING AN SUP, YOU KNOW, JUST A, UM, ZONING AND LAND USE ANALYSIS. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          YEAH, THANK YOU. 
          MAKES SENSE. 
          IF THERE ARE OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF COMMISSIONERS. 
          OKAY. 
          SEEING NONE. 
          COMMISSIONER HERBERT, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION, SIR? IN THE CASE OF Z 2 3 4 2 85, I RECOMMEND WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND, UM, APPROVE FOR A TWO YEAR PERIOD WITH ELIGIBILITY FOR AUTOMATIC RENEWAL FOR ADDITIONAL FIVE YEAR PERIOD SUBJECT TO A SITE PLANNING CONDITIONS. 
          THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HERBERT FOR YOUR MOTION. 
          I WILL SECOND IT. 
          THANK I HAVE A COMMENT. 
          COMMENTS, PLEASE. 
          YEAH, SO THIS IS A, THIS IS A HARD CASE. 
          UM, THIS WAS VERY DIFFICULT NOT ONLY BECAUSE OF, UH, THE, THE FIVE INDIVIDUALS, FIVE TO EIGHT INDIVIDUALS WHO COULD BE THERE, UM, BUT BECAUSE OF HOW NARROW THE STREET WAS AND HOW CLOSE THESE HOMES WERE TOGETHER, UM, I KNOW THE STATE LAW, I KNOW THE FEDERAL LAWS AROUND ADAS AND REQUIRING HOMES FOR EVERYBODY AND HAVING A RIGHT TO LIVE. 
          UM, AND THAT'S WHAT GUIDED ME IN GOING WITH THE APPROVAL, UM, IN THE TWO YEARS. 
          UM, THE, THE OWNER MADE A PASSIONATE PLEA LAST NIGHT FROM THE HEART THAT ALSO WON ME OVER. 
          UM, AND I HOPE THAT THEY CAN, THEY DO MAKE THE PROMISES THAT THEY HAVE BROUGHT FORWARD AND, UM, CONTINUE TO BE GOOD NEIGHBORS OR BEGIN TO BE GOOD NEIGHBORS. 
          UH, WE HAD TROUBLE WITH CONSTRUCTION, WE HAD TROUBLE WITH CARS, WE HAD TROUBLE WITH VEHICLES JUST SINCE THIS CASE HAVE BEEN FILED. 
          UM, THE TEAM TOOK ACCOUNTABILITY, THEY GOT A PLAN OF ACTION AND THEY WANT TO MAKE THE GOOD EFFORT TO DO SO. 
          SO I THINK THEY, THEY DESERVE THE RIGHT TO DO SO, AND THAT'S WHY I APPROVE THE CASE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU, SIR. 
          UH, COMMISSIONERS, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO CLOSE UP PUBLIC HEARING. 
          FALSE STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL FOR, UH, TWO YEAR PERIOD WITH ELIGIBILITY FOR RENEWALS FOR ADDITIONAL FIVE YEAR PERIOD, SUBJECT TO SITE PLANNING CONDITIONS. 
          ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. 
          THE OPPOSED MOTION PASSES. 
          UH, COMMISSIONERS BEFORE WE GO TO 18, LET'S PICK UP NUMBER 
          [36. 24-3608 An application to replat a 1.236-acre tract of land containing all of Lot 18 in City Block 8/6144 to create one lot and to remove a 30-foot platted building line along north line of Bolivar Drive on property located on Bolivar Drive at El Centro Drive, northwest corner.]
36 AND THEN WE'LL COME BACK TO 18. 
          GOOD EVENING, YOU ITEM NUMBER 36 S 2 45 DASH 0 1 7. 
          IT IS AN APPLICATION TO PLETT A 1.236 ACRE TRACK OF LAND CONTAINING ALL OF LOT 18 IN CITY BLOCK EIGHT OVER 61 44 TO CREATE ONE LOT AND TO REMOVE A 30 FOOT PLATTED BUILDING LINE LONG NORTH LINE OF BOLIVAR DRIVE ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON BOLIVAR DRIVE AT EL CENT DRIVE NORTHWEST CORNER. 
          THIS REQUEST REQUIRES TWO MOTIONS BECAUSE IT IS TO RELA AND TO, IT INVOLVES THE REMOVAL OF THE PLATTED BUILDING LINE. 
          THE FIRST MOTION IS TO APPROVE OR DENY REMOVING AN EXISTING 30 FOOT PLATTED BUILDING LINE ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF BOULEVARD DRIVE. 
          AND SECOND MOTION IS TO APPROVE OR DENY THE PLAT STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON BUILDING LINE REMOVAL APPROVAL SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITION LISTED IN THE DOCKET. 
          STAFF. 
          RECOMMENDATION ON RE PLAT IS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITION LISTED IN THE DOCKET AND OR AS AMENDED AT THE HEARING. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? THIS IS NUMBER 36 S 2 45 0 17 COMMISSIONERS. 
          ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SCENE NONE. 
          COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, DO YOU HAVE THE FIRST OF TWO MOTIONS? 
          [11:35:01]
YES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          IN CASE NUMBER S 2 45 DASH 0 1 7, I MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE THE REQUEST TO REMOVE THE EXISTING 30 FOOT PLANTED BUILDING LINE ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF BOLIVER DRIVE. 
          WITH THE FINDING OF FACT THAT REMOVAL OF THE BUILDING LINE WILL NOT REQUIRE A MINIMUM FRONT SIDE OR REAR YARD SETBACK LINE LESS THAN REQUIRED BY THE ZONING REGULATION, BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST, ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES, OR ADVERSELY AFFECT THE PLAN FOR THE ORDERLY DEVELOPMENT OF THE SUBDIVISION. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR MOTION, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER AND VICE CHAIR RUBIN FOR YOUR SECOND. 
          ANY DISCUSSION? SEE NONE OF THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. 
          ANY OPPOSED? AYE. 
          THE AYES HAVE IT. 
          SECOND MOTION PLEASE. 
          IN THE MATTER OF CASE S 2 45 DASH ZERO SEVEN, MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND FOLLOW STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS LISTED DOCKET. 
          THANK YOU COMMISSIONER COOPER FOR YOUR MOTION. 
          VICE CHAIR RUBIN FOR YOUR SECOND. 
          ANY DISCUSSION? SEE NONE. 
          ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. 
          ANY OPPOSED? AYE. 
          HAVE IT. 
          LET'S 
          [18. 24-3590 An application for an amendment to Specific Use Permit No. 2048 for the sale of alcoholic beverages in conjunction with a general merchandise or food store greater than 100,000 square feet or more on property zoned an RR-D-1 Regional Retail District with a D-1 Liquor Control Overlay, on the north line of Samuell Boulevard, west of South Buckner Boulevard.]
GO BACK TO 18. 
          ITEM 18 KC 2 34 DASH 3 0 8. 
          AN APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO SPECIFIC USE PERMIT NUMBER 2048 FOR THE SALE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE GENERAL MERCHANDISER FOOD STORE. 
          GREATER THAN A HUNDRED THOUSAND SQUARE FEET OR MORE ON PROPERTY ZONED IN RRD ONE REGIONAL RETAIL DISTRICT WITH A D ONE LIQUOR CONTROL OVERLAY ON THE NORTH LINE OF SAMUEL BOULEVARD, WEST OF SOUTH BUCKNER BOULEVARD. 
          STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL FOR A THREE YEAR PERIOD WITH ELIGIBILITY FOR AUTOMATIC RENEWAL FOR ADDITIONAL THREE YEAR PERIODS SUBJECT TO AMENDED CONDITIONS. 
          I SEE THAT THE APPLICANT IS HERE AND VERY PATIENTLY WAITING. 
          THOSE ARE REALLY COMFORTABLE CHAIRS I KNOW UP THERE. 
          I THINK IT WAS ON, UH, GOOD EVENING, . 
          IT'S LONG PAST THIS AFTERNOON, SO GOOD EVENING. 
          LAUREN FER, KIMLEY, HOR AND ASSOCIATES. 
          1 3 4 5 5 NOEL ROAD, DALLAS, TEXAS. 
          I'M THE APPLICANT'S REC REPRESENTATIVE FOR THIS MATTER. 
          UM, SINCE WE WERE ORIGINALLY HELD UNDER ADVISEMENT, WE HAVE MET WITH BOTH, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS, UM, ADJACENT TO THE PROJECT AS REQUESTED BY THE COMMISSIONER, UM, AND HAVE OBTAINED LETTERS OF SUPPORT FOR OUR RENEWAL THAT I BELIEVE WERE PASSED OUT TO THE COMMISSION. 
          UM, IF THERE ARE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, I AM HERE TO ADDRESS THEM. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? COMMISSIONER'S. 
          QUESTIONS FOR OUR APPLICANT? QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? OKAY. 
          C NONE. 
          COMMISSIONER WHEELER, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? WE'RE READY FOR A MOTION. 
          COMMISSIONER WHEELER, IF YOU CAN HEAR US, YOU, ME, THE CASE NUMBER COMMISSIONER SHADI Z. 
          WHAT? IT'S YES, YES. 
          UM, PARDON ME. 
          THAT'S Z 2 3 4 3 0 8 2 3 4 IN THE MATTER? YES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          2, 3, 4 WHAT? 3 0 8 UM, Z TWO IN THE MATTER Z 2 3 4 DASH 3 0 8. 
          I MOVED TO, UH, FOLLOW STAFF RECOMMENDATION. 
          I MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND FOLLOW STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS OF APPROVAL. 
          UM, YEAH. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          UH, COMMISSIONER WHEELER AND VICE CHAIR RUBIN FOR YOUR SECOND TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FILE STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL FOR A THREE YEAR PERIOD WITH ELIGIBILITY FOR AUTOMATIC RENEWALS FOR ADDITIONAL THREE YEAR PERIODS SUBJECT TO AMENDED CONDITIONS. 
          ANY COMMENTS? YES, PLEASE. 
          UM, THANK, UM, I WANNA THANK WALMART FOR REACHING OUT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS AROUND THEM. 
          UM, WE WEREN'T HOLDING IT FOR DENIAL. 
          WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UM, ASSOCIATIONS MRI AND BUCK HARRIS, UH, WERE ABLE TO WEIGH IN. 
          THEY BOTH, UH, WEIGHED IN, UM, THAT THEY WERE OKAY WITH IT AND THAT THEY ALSO HAD SOME PARTNERSHIPS TO HELP THE COMMUNITY AROUND. 
          UM, I FOUND OUT THAT A 20 YEAR EMPLOYEE FOR WALMART HAD HAD BEEN HAVING SOME DIFFICULTIES, UM, AND LIVED IN THE AREA AND FRI WAS ABLE TO TELL THAT TO WALMART AND SO I THINK THEY WERE HELPING THEM OUT. 
          UM, BUT OVERALL, 
          [11:40:01]
UM, THANK WALMART FOR THE, FOR BEING ACTIVE IN WORKING WITH THOSE PEOPLE IN NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS. 
          THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER. 
          ANY OTHER COMMENTS? SEE NONE OF THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. 
          AYE. 
          OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. 
          THANK YOU FOR STAYING WITH US. 
          UH, 
          [SUBDIVISION DOCKET - Consent Items]
COMMISSIONERS. 
          LET'S GO TO OUR SUBDIVISION DOCK AND CONSENT. 
          AGENDA ITEMS CONSISTING OF CASES 22 TO 33. 
          IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON CASES ON ANY OF THE CASES? 22 THROUGH 33. 
          MR. PENDLETON, I THINK YOU MENTIONED WHICH, WHICH, WHICH CASE ARE YOU HERE FOR, SIR? FOUR FIVE DASH FOUR. 
          WHICH ONE IS THAT? 30. 
          WHAT NUMBER IS THAT? 35. 
          35. 
          OKAY. 
          WE'LL, WE'LL COME TO YOU. 
          UH, WHAT WAS THE LAST THREE NUMBERS? WE'LL GET TO YOU, SIR. 
          WE'RE COMING. 
          UH, THANK YOU SIR. 
          COMMISSION? YES, LET'S GET THOSE ALREADY IN. 
          THANK YOU. 
          CONSENT AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 22 S 2 3 4 DASH 0 35 R. 
          ITEM NUMBER 23 S 2 4 5 DASH ZERO THREE. 
          ITEM 24 S 2 4 5 DASH ZERO 14. 
          ITEM 25 S 2 4 5 DASH ZERO 15. 
          ITEM 26 S 2 4 5 DASH ZERO 16. 
          ITEM SE 27 S 2 45 DASH 18, ITEM 28 S 2 45 DASH 19, ITEM 29 S 2 45 DASH 20, ITEM 30 S 2 45, 22. 
          ITEM 31 S 2 45 DASH 23, ITEM 32 S 2 45 DASH 25. 
          AND ITEM 33 S 2 45 DASH 26. 
          ALL CASES HAVE BEEN POSTED FOR A HEARING AT THIS TIME AND THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE DOCKET AND ARREST AMENDED AT THE HEARING. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          UH, MREC COMMISSIONERS. 
          ANY QUESTIONS ON ANY OF THESE ITEMS? SEEING NONE, COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, DO YOU HAVE MOTION? I DO IN THE MATTER OF THE SUBDIVISION CONSENT DOCKET ITEMS 22 THROUGH 33. 
          I MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE PER STAFF RECOMMENDATION SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE DOCKET OR AS BRIEFED. 
          THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HAMPTON FOR YOUR MOTION. 
          COMMISSIONER HERBERT FOR YOUR SECOND. 
          ANY DISCUSSIONS? NONE. 
          ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. 
          AYE. 
          ANY OPPOSED? AYES HAVE IT GO TO 33 
          [34. 24-3606 An application to replat a 0.43-acre (18,880-square foot) tract of land containing all of Lot 15 in City Block D/6730 to create two 0.2167-acre lots on property located on Limestone Drive at Cheyenne Road, northeast corner. Applicant/Owner: Isai Bernal & Martha Hernandez]
ME 34. 
          ITEM NUMBER 34 S 2 4 5 DASH 0 2 1. 
          IT IS AN APPLICATION TOLAT A 0.43 ACRE THAT IS 18,880 SQUARE FOOT TRACK OF LAND CONTAINING OLIVE LOT 15 IN CITY BLOCK D OVER 67 30 TO CREATE TWO 0.2167 ACRE LOTS ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON LIMESTONE DRIVE AT CHAINING ROAD NORTH NORTHEAST CORNER. 
          17. 
          NOTICES WERE SENT TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE PROPERTY ON NOVEMBER 4TH, 2024 AND WE HAVE RECEIVED ZERO REPLY IN FAVOR AND ZERO REPLY IN OPPOSITION TO THIS REQUEST. 
          STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITION LISTED IN THE DOCKET AND AS AMENDED AT THE HEARING. 
          THANK YOU, MS. RETA. 
          IS THERE, YOU'RE ALL HERE TO SPEAK ON NUMBER 34. 
          HELLO? UH, GOOD EVENING. 
          UM, ONE SECOND PLEASE. 
          UM, NAME'S RICK REYES. 
          I AM, UM, PROJECT MANAGER AND ON BEHALF OF MR. BERNAL'S, UH, PROPERTY DIVISION REGARDING THE, UH, PRE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE, UH, CORNER OF 1842 LIMESTONE DRIVE AND CHEYENNE ROAD NORTHEAST CORNER. 
          WE PREFERRED, UH, YOU KNOW, THE, UH, THE SUBMITTED PLAT FOR THE, UH, R 75 A SUBDIVISION. 
          HOWEVER, SINCE THE WATER AND SEWER LINES ARE ONLY AVAILABLE ALONG CHEYENNE ROAD AND NOT LIMESTONE, I'D LIKE TO EXPLORE OPTIONS FOR CONNECTING LOT 15 B AS SHOWN ON THE, UH, PLAT AND WOULD AND IF THE, UH, CITY WOULD CONSIDER ASSISTING WITH INS, UH, INSTALLATIONS OF THE LINES ON LIMESTONE SINCE PROPERTY TAXES ARE BEING PAID. 
          IF THIS ISN'T FEASIBLE, COULD WE, UH, AMEND THE LOT DIVISION LINE 
          [11:45:01]
OR WOULD A COMPLETELY NEW PLAT BE REQUIRED? ADDITIONALLY, WE HAVE A FLAG DIVISION DESIGN THAT COULD ALLOW BOTH LOTS TO CONNECT TO CHEYENNE ROAD AS WELL, UH, WITH YOUR APPROVAL. 
          UH, AL ALTERNATIVELY, SOMETHING SIMILAR TO THE PLAT TO THE NORTH COULD BE CONSIDERED AND DOW TECH IS ON STANDBY, OUR ENGINEERS TO AMEND THE DIVISION LINES AS SOON AS YOUR APPROVAL, UH, OF THE WASTEWATER AND WATER LINE CAN BE ACCOMPLISHED OR THEY CANNOT BE ACCOMPLISHED BY THE CITY. 
          I DO THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. 
          THANK YOU SO MUCH. 
          IT'S MR. REYES WRIGHT? YES. 
          CAN YOU PROVIDE YOUR ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD? UH, THE ADDRESS HERE, SIR? YOUR, YOUR, YOUR ADDRESS. 
          OH MY ADDRESS. 
          UH, 40 25 SALEM DRIVE, SIR. 
          GREAT, THANK YOU. 
          IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER 34 QUESTIONS FOR MR. REYES? YES. 
          UH, THANK YOU MR. REYES. 
          YES, SIR. 
          SO IT, IT'S 10 30 AT NINE AND YOU WENT THROUGH THAT VERY QUICKLY. 
          SO YOU, YOU MIGHT HAVE TO WA ARE, ARE YOU, YOU ARE SUPPORTING THE PLAT AS IS, AS AS IT IS IN OUR DOCKET AND REGISTERED AND UH, UM, OR ARE YOU, ARE YOU PROPOSING CHANGES HERE? WELL, I'M PROPOSING CHANGES. 
          IT'S 'CAUSE I'M, I'M, I'M TALKING ON BEHALF OF HIM. 
          I'M, I'M, I'M THE PROJECT MANAGER ON IT. 
          IT'S JUST WHEN HE PLATTED IT, IT DIDN'T, UM, HE DIDN'T REALIZE THAT THERE WASN'T ANY SEWER LINES OR WATER LINE ON LIMESTONE BECAUSE IT'S ACTUALLY THE END, UH, TO BALD SPRINGS IN DALLAS. 
          AND SO THAT WAS A CONTROVERSY. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, 'CAUSE WE WANTED TO SPLIT IT TO MAKING IT INTO TWO LOTS TO BUILD, YOU KNOW, TWO LITTLE EXPRESS HOMES. 
          BUT THAT'S NOT THE CASE NOW. 
          YOU KNOW, YOU'D HAVE TO TEAR THE WHOLE STREET DOWN, YOU KNOW, ACCORDING TO THE ENGINEER. 
          UM, SO YOU, YOU'RE PROPOSING CHANGES TO THE, THE PLOT THAT WE HAVE, THE, EXCUSE ME, THE PLOT THAT WE HAVE HERE AND THAT, THAT WE HAVE NOW SEEN AND IS IN OUR DOCKET. 
          I DON'T KNOW IF YOU SAW IT, YOU, YOU'RE PROPOSING CHANGES THERE FROM THE PODIUM? YES, SIR. 
          IF, IF, IF, IF I CAN'T GET YOUR GUYS' APPROVAL OR ASSISTANCE TO MEET THAT, UH, WASTEWATER LINE ON LIMESTONE, THEN YES, I, IT WOULD, I MEAN, IT'D BE GREATLY APPRECIATED IF I CAN AMEND, UH, YOU KNOW, AND MOVE THE LINES OF THAT PLAT, UM, YOU KNOW, TO, YOU KNOW, IF YOU COINCIDE WITH THE ONES THAT ARE NEXT, UH, OKAY TO, TO THE PLOT OR WE HAVE ANOTHER DESIGN THAT KIND OF KEEPS THAT SAME SIDE TO SIDE, BUT IT GIVES US, UH, YOU KNOW, THE SAME EQUAL SPLIT THAT WE'LL BE ABLE TO RUN THE WASTE WATER LINE, YOU KNOW, OURSELVES. 
          SO, AND THEY'LL STILL CONNECT TO, TO DALLAS, UH, CHEYENNE ROAD. 
          GOT IT. 
          UNDERSTOOD. 
          YES. 
          A QUESTION FOR, SO LET ME JUST FOLLOW UP. 
          I WANNA MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR. 
          WE HAVE THE, YOU KNOW, PLAT PROPOSED PRELIMINARY PLAT THAT, THAT YOU SUBMITTED OR YOUR, UM, THE SURVEYOR SUBMITTED AND WE ALSO HAVE THE CONDITIONS ON THE PLAT PROPOSED. 
          ARE YOU TRYING TO CHANGE THE CONDITIONS THAT HAVE BEEN PROPOSED, WHICH I BELIEVE WERE PROPOSED BY CITY STAFF? OR WERE YOU, YOU TRYING TO CHANGE THE PLAT DRAWING ITSELF? THE PLAT DRAWING ITSELF? BECAUSE THE CONDITIONS IT WOULD MEAN, I MEAN, YOU GUYS DON'T APPROVE BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, WE CAN'T EVEN REALLY CONNECT. 
          I WOULD JUST HAVE A, YOU KNOW, HALF PIECE OF DIRT, YOU KNOW, YOU GET WHAT I'M SAYING? SO IT'S, UH, IT'S, I HAVE A, WELL, KIND OF A ROUGH DRAFT OF KIND OF AN IDEA OF THE PLA THAT I WAS KIND OF TALKING ABOUT. 
          YOU COULD KIND OF, I DON'T KNOW, YOU CAN'T REALLY SEE MUCH, BUT UH, YOU KNOW, I JUST KIND OF ROUGH DRAFT UP, BUT IT'S LIKE A FLAG SYSTEM YOU WOULD SAY THAT WAY I COULD ACTUALLY RUN, YOU KNOW, THE WASTE, UH, THE WASTEWATER LINES DOWN TO A CHEYENNE ROAD. 
          UM, BUT UH, IT, WELL, I WOULD JUST HAVE TO GET YOU GUYS' APPROVAL HONESTLY. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, SO THE, THE PLOT THAT, THAT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED YEAH, THE PLOT THAT'S THERE, IT'S, IT'S, I MEAN IT'S, BUT BUT YOU DON'T WANT IT APPROVED AS SUBMITTED. 
          YOU WANT IT APPROVED IN AN AMENDED FORM. 
          YEAH, AS IN SUBMIT AS IN, I WOULD PROBABLY, IF YOU GUYS COULD ASSIST ME TO, YOU KNOW, PUT THE WASTEWATER LINE ON A LIMESTONE, THAT'D BE GREAT. 
          BUT I HIGHLY DOUBT THAT'S GONNA BE, I'M PROBABLY GONNA HAVE SOME QUESTIONS FOR CITY STAFF ABOUT HOW AND WHERE THAT GETS ACCOMPLISHED. 
          YEAH, WE KIND OF GOT OURSELVES INTO IT. 
          SO DOES IT, DOES ANYONE ELSE HAVE QUESTIONS FOR MR. REYES? CAN WE GO TO CITY STAFF STAFF? MR. MS. REEN, MS. SPORT BAR? NO. 
          EITHER ONE OF YOU. 
          BOTH OF YOU . 
          SO DO YOU WANNA TAKE THE QUESTIONS? DO YOU WANT ME TO TAKE 'EM CHAIR? UH, WELL MR. RO JUST WITH, WHERE ARE WE AT AND WHAT'S OUR FLEXIBILITY HERE AND AND WHAT'S YOUR OPINION HERE? THIS IS A RESIDENTIAL REPL. 
          THIS WAS ADVERTISED AS WHAT WE SEE IN THE DOCKET TODAY AND THE NOTICES WERE SENT OUT WITH THE CONFIGURATION AS WE SEE IN THE DOCKET TODAY. 
          THEREFORE WE 
          [11:50:01]
CANNOT CHANGE IT OR AMEND IT AT THIS HEARING RIGHT NOW. 
          I UNDERSTAND WHAT THE APPLICANT IS ASKING FOR. 
          I THINK I HEARD IF HE CAN SPLIT THE LOT THE SAME AS THE LOT TO THE NORTH OF IT. 
          YES SIR. 
          YES. 
          SO IF I MAY RECOMMEND, THIS IS ONE WAY OF FIXING THIS, WE CAN APPROVE THE PLAT AS IT IS AND THEN THEY CAN SUBMIT A REVISED PLAT ON THE SAME PLAT IN A SORT OF BE IN A SPLIT VERTICALLY NOW IT'S GONNA BE, UH, HORIZONTALLY. 
          SO, AND, AND THEN IT WOULD BE ADVERTISED, IT WOULD BE, UH, NOTICED IN THE NEWSPAPER, BUT RIGHT NOW WE CANNOT CHANGE IT. 
          ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? ALRIGHT. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          UH, SEEING NONE, MR. CHAIR, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? ABSOLUTELY, I DO. 
          IN THE MATTER OF S 2 45 0 21, I WOULD CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING FALLS TO RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE DOCKET. 
          GREAT. 
          THANK YOU MR. CHAIR FOR YOUR MOTION. 
          COMMISSIONER HAMPTON FOR YOUR SECOND. 
          ANY DISCUSSIONS SAYING NONE. 
          ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. 
          AYE. 
          UH, I'LL OPPOSE SAY NAY. 
          THE MOTION CARRIES. 
          IF YOU HAVE FURTHER QUESTIONS, MR. BBAR MIGHT BE ABLE TO DISCUSS THOSE WITH YOU. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          NUMBER 
          [35. 24-3607 An application to replat a 1.004-acre (43,755-square foot) tract of land containing all of Lot 88 in City Block 6080 to create two 0.5022-acre (21,878-square foot) lots on property located on Fordham Road, west of Stanley Smith Drive.]
35, MR. ESTA. 
          ITEM NUMBER 35 S 2 45 DASH 24. 
          IT IS AN APPLICATION TO REPLAT A 1.004 ACRE, UH, THAT IS 43,755 SQUARE FOOT TRACK OF LAND CONTAINING ALL OF LOT 88 IN CITY BLOCK 60 80 TO CREATE TWO 0.5022 ACRE. 
          UH, THAT IS 21,878 SQUARE FOOT LOTS ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON FORDHAM ROAD WEST OF STANLEY SMITH DRIVE 40 NOTICES WERE SENT TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE PROPERTY ON NOVEMBER 4TH, 2024. 
          AND WE HAVE RECEIVED ZERO REPLIES IN FAVOR AND ONE REPLY IN OPPOSITION TO THIS REQUEST. 
          AND WE HAVE RECEIVED ONE ADDITIONAL OPPOSITION EMAIL TODAY. 
          AND PER PAVING AND DRAINAGE SECTION, A CONDITION TO BE ADDED ON THE FINAL PLAT. 
          DEDICATE 25 FOOT OF RIGHT OF WAY VIA FEE SIMPLE OR STREET EASEMENT FROM THE ESTABLISHED CENTRAL LINE OF JENNINGS AVENUE. 
          AND THERE IS SECOND CONDITION TO BE ADDED ON THE FINAL PLAT AT THREE FOOT BARRIER EASEMENT EITHER ALONG FORDHAM DRIVE, UH, FORDHAM ROAD, OR ALONG JENNING AVENUE. 
          STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE DOCKET AND OR AS AMENDED AT THE HEARING. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH MR. ESTA? YES, SIR. 
          YES. 
          UM, I'D LIKE TO, UH, OPPOSE THIS REPLA. 
          UM, MY NAME IS ADAM PENDLETON. 
          I'M THE PROPERTY MANAGER FOR TEXAS LATINO HOMES LLC THAT OWNS 28 31 SOUTH JENNINGS AND 28 35 SOUTH JENNINGS. 
          THOSE, THOSE LOTS ARE ADJACENT TO THIS D LOT DALLAS LOT. 
          I'M JUST GONNA READ THIS. 
          UM, WE OBJECT TO THIS REPL BECAUSE WE BELIEVE IT IS THE CITY OF DALLAS OBLIGATION TO INSTALL A CUL-DE-SAC OR STREET HERE ON THIS LOT. 
          THIS IS NECESSARY SO THAT THE TWO LOTS MENTIONED ABOVE ARE NOT LANDLOCKED AND HOUSES CAN BE BUILT ON THEM. 
          ADDITIONALLY, YY CASTANERA, A CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WITH THE CITY OF DALLAS, TOLD US SHE COULD NOT ACCESS OUR LOTS TO REMEDY A DOG DOG BREEDING SITUATION AND UNAUTHORIZED HORSE TRAILERS AND TRASH ON OUR PROPERTY. 
          THIS ACCESS IS IMPERATIVE FOR ALL OF THESE REASONS. 
          UH, THANK YOU SIR. 
          IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? COMMISSION'S QUESTIONS FOR OUR SPEAKER? COMMISSIONER HERBERT, PLEASE. 
          SO YOU MIND COMING BACK? I LOOK, I WE DON'T GET A CHANCE TO STUDY THESE THINGS UNTIL IT'S KIND OF RIGHT IN FRONT OF US, BUT I SEE A SQUARE BOX IN THE MIDDLE OF THIS SECTION. 
          IS THAT THE TWO LOTS THAT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THAT'S LANDLOCKED? YES, SIR. 
          OKAY. 
          AND THERE'S NO ENTRANCE OR EXIT BY CAR TO THAT, THOSE LOTS CURRENTLY? THAT'S CORRECT. 
          OKAY, THANK YOU. 
          I'M GLAD YOU GOT IT COMMISSIONER HERBERT, BECAUSE I'M STILL TRYING TO DECIPHER IT HERE. 
          UH, QUESTIONS FOR THE, OUR SPEAKER BEFORE WE GET THE STAFF, JUST TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND THAT THEY'RE LANDLOCKED TODAY. 
          THESE AREN'T THE LOTS BEING PROPOSED TO BE PLATTED. 
          YOU'RE, YOU'RE THEY'RE ADJACENT TO THERE'S SOME YEAH, 
          [11:55:01]
I, I, I GIVE TOM, UH, THERE'S A, A PLAT A PIECE OF PAPER, UM, THAT HAS A DRAWING ON IT. 
          UM, IT SHOWS, IT SHOWS WHERE OUR LOTS ARE ADJACENT TO THE PROPOSED REPL. 
          AND SO IDEALLY SINCE THE CITY OF DALLAS ALREADY OWNS THAT LOT, UH, A CUL-DE-SAC COULD BE PUT IN THERE AND THEN, UH, OUR TWO LOTS WOULD, WOULD BE ACCESSIBLE. 
          OUR TWO LOTS ACTUALLY ARE TO THE EAST OF THE PROPOSED REPL LOT. 
          THE OTHER OBJECTION PROBABLY COMES FROM THE NEIGHBOR TO THE WEST. 
          UM, WE'VE VISITED WITH HIM ABOUT DEVELOPING THAT AREA AND AND HOW THE CITY NEEDS TO PARTICIPATE IN ORDER TO, TO, UH, DEVELOP IT PROPERLY. 
          SHOOT, I THINK WE'RE GONNA, WE WHAT'S, WHAT'S HAPPENING, SIR? THESE ARE LANDLOCKED TODAY, RIGHT? EVEN BEFORE THE REPL? YES. 
          DOES THIS THING GET ANY WORSE AFTER THE REPL OR IS IT JUST THE, DOES THE STATUS QUO MAINTAINED? WELL, UM, IT'S A, IT'S A STEP IN THE WRONG DIRECTION I FEEL, BECAUSE PART I, I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT WIDTH OF A CUL-DE-SAC OR A STREET THAT I DON'T KNOW HOW WIDE IT NEEDS TO BE. 
          AND SO IF, IF PART OF THE LOT, THAT LOT IS REPLANTED PLATTED, IT MIGHT BE TOO WIDE OR TOO NARROW OR WHATEVER I, FOR, FOR A STREET OR A CUL-DE-SAC TO BE PUT IN THERE. 
          DO YOU HAVE A FOLLOW UP? I A FOLLOW GO AHEAD. 
          MY APOLOGIES. 
          IT'S BEEN A LONG DAY. 
          UH, YES. 
          SO, UH, YOU, YOU ARE CONCERNED THAT IF THESE TWO LOTS ARE, ARE DIVIDED INTO TWO, THEN THEY WON'T BE ABLE TO BE USED TO GAIN ACCESS INTO THE LANDLOCK LOTS. 
          YEAH, FOR EXAMPLE, LET'S JUST SAY THAT THE WIDTH OF A STREET NEEDS TO BE 16 FEET AND, UH, IF, IF THESE LOTS ARE RE PLATTED AND THE IT'S EITHER TOO WIDE OR TOO NARROW, IT, IT COULD FURTHER PREVENT, UH, YOU KNOW, PROGRESS TOWARDS PUTTING IN A CUL-DE-SAC OR A STREET THERE. 
          AND, AND THE CUL-DE-SAC WOULD GO WHERE AND ON, ON SOMEBODY ELSE'S ON THESE PROPERTIES? NO, IT WOULD LIKE THE ACTUAL DALLAS LOT WOULD BECOME THE CUL-DE-SAC SO THAT WE'D HAVE ACCESS TO, THERE'S A DRAWING THAT, UM, WAS SUBMITTED, UM, THAT SHOWS LIKE IT WAS MA IT WAS, IT WAS MAILED OUT TO US THERE, THERE WAS LIKE A, AN ACTUAL HERE, UM, THIS IS WHAT WAS MAILED OUT. 
          SO RIGHT HERE ARE OUR TWO LOTS RIGHT HERE. 
          SO THE IDEA WOULD BE IN THIS PORTION OR THE ENTIRE WIDTH, I'M NOT SURE HOW MUCH IS NECESSARY FOR A STREET OR A CUL-DE-SAC SO THAT THERE'S ACCESS TO OUR TWO LOTS BECAUSE THERE IS AN EASEMENT RIGHT HERE. 
          THERE'S ENOUGH ROOM TO, UH, TO ACCESS THOSE TWO LOTS. 
          OKAY. 
          I, I THINK MS. MS. ESTA IS GONNA TRY TO EXPLAIN IT GLOBALLY HERE INSTEAD OF ONE AT A TIME. 
          BUT IF WE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THIS GENTLEMAN HERE, WE'LL, WE'LL TAKE THIS NOW. 
          COMMISSIONER HAMPTON. 
          WELL, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE ONE AND SO I UNDERSTAND YOU SUB SUBMITTED A FOLDER FOR THIS BODY TO CONSIDER. 
          AND, AND I THINK IT GOT TO YOU, MS. LOPEZ, IS THAT THIS DRAWING? THIS IS FROM YOU. 
          SO, UM, THERE WAS A, I THINK THE, THE GENTLEMAN HAD, SO THEY WERE JUST REPLY FORMS. OKAY. 
          SO THERE WASN'T A DRAWING THAT YOU SUBMITTED TO US. 
          THERE IS, I STATE WAS A DRAWING IT, IT WAS DELIVERED TO COMMISSIONER FORAY. 
          SO THE COMMISSIONERS, I SUGGESTED IT GO TO MS. LOPEZ TO ALLOW IT TO BE SHARED WITH THE COMMISSION AS THE APPROPRIATE PASS SINCE IT WAS A SUBDIVISION AND WE CANNOT COMMUNICATE OUTSIDE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING. 
          ABSOLUTELY. 
          THANK YOU COMMISSIONER. 
          UH, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE, OUR, THE GENTLEMAN HERE AND AND WE ARE NOW CIRCULATING? YEAH, WE CAN CIRCLE BACK TO HIM ONCE WE UNDERSTAND 
          [12:00:01]
WHAT THIS MEANS. 
          HELLO? OH, COMMISSIONER WHEELER, PLEASE. 
          OH MY GOD. 
          CAN, CAN I ASK YOU? UM, SO SIR, SIR, YES MA'AM. 
          SO THE, SO THE CURRENT PROPERTIES THAT YOU HAVE, YOU DO HAVE ACCESS TO, BUT THEN YOU HAVE PROPERTIES THAT'S FAR BEHIND THE PROPERTY? HE HAS NO MA'AM, WE DO NOT HAVE ACCESS TO OUR PROPERTY RIGHT NOW. 
          OKAY. 
          SO IF HE LEAVES IT PLATTED, SO IF THE, DOES THE APPLICANT OWN BOTH LOTS MA'AM? AM I CORRECT? THE APPLICANT'S OWN BOTH LOT, RIGHT? IT IT'S JUST ONE LOT RIGHT NOW. 
          TABITHA, HE'S TRYING TO, THE APPLICANT IS TRYING TO SPLIT IT INTO TWO APPLE'S, TRYING TO SPLIT IT INTO TWO. 
          AND SO, OKAY. 
          EVEN WITH THE TWO, WITH THE ONE LOT, YOU DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO YOUR PROPERTY, RIGHT? THAT'S CORRECT. 
          SO IF HE LEAVES IT THE SAME, IT IS NOT OWNED BY THE CITY OF DALLAS, IT'S OWNED BY THE APPLICANT. 
          WHAT, WHAT WOULD GIVE HIM, WHAT, WHAT WOULD ES HIM TO WANT TO GIVE YOU ACCESS TO? A LOT THAT YOU BOUGHT THAT DIDN'T HAVE ACCESS TO, THAT YOU DIDN'T HAVE ACCESS TO? THE LOT IS OWNED BY THE CITY OF DALLAS. 
          THE LOT THAT IS PROPOSED TO BE SPLIT IS OWNED BY THE CITY OF DALLAS. 
          SO THE CITY OF DALLAS IS THE APPLICANT? YES. 
          HUH. 
          OKAY. 
          WELL LAST TIME WE CHECKED THE CITY OF DALLAS OWNED THAT LOT. 
          I, MAYBE IT WAS, MAYBE IT'S BEEN SOLD TIME. 
          AND THESE ISN'T THESE THE LOTS THAT WERE SOLD AT AUCTION LAST YEAR? UM, I'M NOT AWARE. 
          THESE LOTS WERE SOLD AT AUCTION LAST YEAR WASN'T IT? OR BEGINNING THIS YEAR. 
          OKAY, SO IT'S NO LONGER OWNED BY THE CITY OF DALLAS? NO. 
          OKAY. 
          IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, THESE LOCKS WERE ALL SOLD LAST YEAR. 
          THEY WERE ON THE AUCTION LIST AND, AND I CAN RECALL BECAUSE SOMEONE DIDN'T, BECAUSE OF THIS, THIS, BECAUSE OF THIS SITUATION, THERE WAS SOME BUYERS WHO DIDN'T BUY IT BECAUSE THAT THEY WOULD BE LANDLOCKED. 
          OKAY. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          OKAY. 
          SO, SO WHEN, WHEN WE BOUGHT THESE LOTS LAST YEAR, THE CITY OF DALLAS OWNED THE PROPOSED LOT. 
          THAT'S FOR, FOR BEING, UM, REPLANTED. 
          SO PERHAPS SINCE THAT TIME IT'S BEEN SOLD EITHER WAY, WE DON'T WANT THAT TO HAPPEN. 
          WE WANT THERE TO BE ACCESS TO OUR LOTS. 
          SO I FEEL LIKE SPLITTING THESE LOTS IS JUST ONE MORE STEP IN THE WRONG DIRECTION. 
          WE WANT THIS, THIS LOT TO BECOME A STREET. 
          SO I'M CONFUSED. 
          SO WHEN YOU BOUGHT THIS, WHERE, WHERE WOULD YOU PUT THE STREET SIR, SIR? WHERE WOULD YOU PUT THE STREET TO ACCESS YOUR PROPERTY? THE LOT THAT'S BEING PROPOSED TO BE SPLIT IN HALF, BUT THAT'S SOMEBODY ELSE'S PROPERTY. 
          THAT'S WHY WOULD WHY WOULD HE, WHY WOULD HE OR SHE PUT A STREET THERE TO GIVE YOU ACCESS? WELL, FIRST, FIRST OF ALL BECAUSE WHEN I FIRST RESEARCHED IT, IT SAID THAT IT WAS BELONGED TO THE CITY OF DALLAS. 
          OBVIOUSLY SINCE THEN, IT DOES NOT ANYMORE. 
          I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE PROTOCOL IS FOR, UH, LANDLOCKED LOTS TO BE, TO BE, UM, YOU KNOW, ACCESSED. 
          UM, THE, THE MAIN REASON WAS I THOUGHT THE CITY OF DALLAS OWNED THIS LOT, BUT IF THEY DO NOT, THEN YOU KNOW, THEN IT'S KIND OF A MOOT POINT BECAUSE THEN IT WOULD BE ANYBODY'S LOT, YOU KNOW, YOU'D HAVE TO CREATE IMMINENT DOMAIN ON SOMEBODY FLICK A CLIP A COIN. 
          WHO'S WE? COMMISSIONER KINGSTON DEMO AND PUT A STREET IN. 
          I HAVE A QUESTION. 
          I I WASN'T FINISHED. 
          PLEASE GO AHEAD. 
          GO AHEAD COMMISSIONER WHEELER. 
          SO AGAIN, I RECALL WHEN ALL THESE LOOKING AT THE LOTS I RECALL WHEN ALL THESE LOTS WERE FOR SALE BY THE CITY AND UM, WHEN YOU BOUGHT THE LOT, YOU TOOK THE CHANCE. 
          AM I CORRECT ON BUYING LANDLOCK? 'CAUSE IT WAS LANDLOCKED LAST YEAR AT THE OPTION. 
          UM, ARE YOU, ARE YOU PROPOSING, BUT HAVE YOU TRIED TO SPEAK WITH THE APPLICANT? NO, BECAUSE I WRONGFULLY ASSUMED THAT IT BELONGED TO THE CITY OF DALLAS. 
          OKAY. 
          ALL RIGHT, MR. CHAIR. 
          YES. 
          CAN WE KEEP THE DISCUSSION TO THIS RESIDENTIAL REPL INSTEAD OF THE NEIGHBORING LOTS ? ABSOLUTELY. 
          COMMISSIONER KINGSTON. 
          UH, WELL I WAS JUST GONNA ASK, UH, LEGAL IF THEY COULD CLARIFY THAT THERE ARE PROCESSES IN THE LAW THAT, UH, DEAL WITH ACCESS EASEMENTS THAT ARE BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THIS CASE AND THEN CALL THE QUESTION. 
          WELL I GUESS THERE'S NOT A MOTION, BUT YOU GET THE POINT. 
          YES. 
          YOU'RE, YOU'RE CORRECT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONERS FOR THE GENTLEMEN? QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? 
          [12:05:02]
JUST A QUICK ONE, PLEASE. 
          WHY IS JENNINGS BROKEN UP LIKE THAT? NO. 
          IS THERE A HISTORY OF OF WHAT HAPPENED THERE? YEAH, SO UH, IF YOU SEE YOU HAVE THAT PLAT RIGHT? SO 87 C AND 87 D AND 87 B AND 87 A THAT USED TO BE LOT, ALL LOT 87. 
          SO WHEN THEY REPLANTED, UH, THOSE 2 87 A AND 87 B IS FACING HALF FRONT IS A FORDHAM ROAD AND LOT 87 C AND D IS DEDICATING THAT 50 FEET RADIUS OF CUL-DE-SAC, LIKE HALF CUL-DE-SAC. 
          SO WHENEVER LOT 64 COMES TO REPL, THEN THE CITY GONNA ASK ANOTHER CUL-DE-SAC. 
          SO EVENTUALLY THERE ARE GONNA BE A CUL-DE-SAC AND THAT'S HOW IF YOU SEE THE JENNINGS AVENUE ON, YOU KNOW, IN MIDDLE OF THERE IS LIKE PART BEACH BETWEEN PARTS, RIGHT? THOSE REACTS EVERY TIME THEY COME TO PL. 
          YEAH. 
          RIGHT. 
          SO EVERY TIME THEY COME TO REPLA THE OTHER LOTS WE ARE GONNA ASK, SITTING GONNA ASK 25 FEET OF RIGHT AWAY FROM THE CENTER LINE. 
          SO THAT'S HOW EVENTUALLY IT'S GONNA BE A JOURNEY AVENUE LIKE OVERALL, BUT AGAIN, WE CANNOT JUST ASK IF THERE IS NO ANY REPL. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THAT MAKES SENSE. 
          ONE FOLLOW COMMISSIONER HANON. 
          UM, IF THIS HASN'T PREVIOUSLY, CAN IT BE SHARED WITH THE GENTLEMAN FOR INFORMATION IF HE DOESN'T ALREADY HAVE IT? YEAH, I HAVE EXTRA COPY . 
          SO AM I CORRECT THAT STAFF WOULD BE AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS THE, UM, SPEAKER HAD? OKAY. 
          COMMISSIONERS, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? UH, WHICH BY THE WAY, JUST TO CLEAR IT UP, THIS PLAT UH, INCLUDES THE 25 FOOT EASEMENT. 
          YES, SIR. 
          COMMISSIONER FORESITE, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION?  IT WAS YOURS. 
          , YOU WIN  CHAIRMAN, UM, IN THE MATTER OF CASE S 2 45 DASH OH TWO FOUR. 
          I MOVE THAT WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPT THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITIONS THAT ARE LISTED IN THE DOCKET. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU COMMISSIONER FORSET FOR YOUR MOTION. 
          I WILL SECOND IT TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 
          FALSE RECOMMENDATION, APPROVAL SUBJECT OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE DOCKET AS WELL AS THE ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS AS READ AND AS AMENDED. 
          UM, I WAS ABOUT TO SAY THAT, YES. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          AS, AS WELL AS THE, THE TWO CONDITIONS THAT WERE ADDED AND AMENDED BY STAFF HERE AT THE HORSESHOE. 
          ANY DISCUSSION? ALTHOUGH IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. 
          AYE. 
          ANY OPPOSED? AYES HAVE IT. 
          UH, ARE WE FINISHED ALL MINUTES? YES. 
          DO 
          [APPROVAL OF MINUTES]
I HAVE A, DO WE HAVE ANYBODY LOOK AT THE MINUTES? I DID. 
          PLEASE COMMISS YOUR HAND. 
          UM, IN THE MATTER OF THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES, OCTOBER 10TH, 24TH AND NOVEMBER 7TH, I MOVE TO APPROVE. 
          AND, UM, MS. LOPEZ, MAY I ASK YOU TO CLARIFY THE THREE CORRECTIONS TO THE MINUTES THAT I GAVE YOU? MM-HMM, , THERE'S UM, ON THE OCTOBER 10TH, UH, CITY PLAN COMMISSION DRAFT MINUTES. 
          ITEM 21, UH, 24 DASH 31 42 Z 23 4 DASH HUNDRED FOUR. 
          UM, THERE WAS A NUMBER MISSING IN, UM, CHANGE FIVE. 
          IT READ IN SECTION 51 P DASH 6 25 0.11 AND IT SHOULD BE 0.117 IN THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES, UH, DRAFT MINUTES FOR NOVEMBER 7TH. 
          UM, ITEM 30, UH, 24 DASH 34 49. 
          UH, CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS 2 4 0 9 1 6 0 0 15. 
          UM, IT READ, UH, PRICK P-R-I-C-K AND IT SHOULD BERICK. 
          AND ON ITEM 31, CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, UM, ITEM 24 DASH 33 4 5, UH, 2 4 0 9 1 6 6. 
          UM, IT READ IN LIEU THROUGH 
          [12:10:01]
FAITH PRICK AND IT SHOULD BE BRICK. 
          THANK YOU MS. LOPEZ. 
          MOTION TO APPROVE AS CORRECTED. 
          THANK YOU. 
          COMMISSIONER HINTON. 
          I'LL SECOND THAT. 
          ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE SAY AYE. 
          A OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. 
          WE HAD A MOTION TO ADJOURN 11. 
          OH, SORRY, THE, THE OTHER MINUTES WE, THERE WERE NO CORRECTIONS TO NOTE. 
          UH, OCTOBER 24TH. 
          SO AS, UH, SO IT WAS, UM, OCTOBER 10TH, MINUTES AS CORRECTED. 
          OCTOBER 24TH AS SUBMITTED NOVEMBER 7TH AS CORRECTED. 
          AWESOME. 
          THANK YOU SO MUCH. 
          COMMISSIONER HAMPTON COMMISSIONERS 10:54 PM HAVE A GREAT EVENING. 
          OUR MEETINGS ADUR.
* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.