[00:00:01]
PRACTICE FOR PUBLIC TESTIMONY.[Board of Adjustments: Panel A on December 9, 2024.]
NO PUBLIC, UH, SPEAKERS AT THE MOMENT.ANY ANY ONLINE REGISTERED SPEAKERS? NO.
THEN PUBLIC TESTIMONY IS CLOSED.
NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS OUR MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS, AND OUR FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS A MEETING MINUTES FROM NOVEMBER 19TH.
THE CHAIR WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
I MOVE TO APPROVE THE MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 19TH.
IT'S BEEN MOVED BY MS. DAVIS TO APPROVE THE MEETING MINUTES OF PANEL A FROM NOVEMBER 19TH.
THOSE OPPOSED? MEETING MINUTES ARE APPROVED.
NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS, UH, BDA 2 3 4 DASH 1 44 40 BDA, OR FR ONE BDA 2 3 4 DASH 44 FR ONE.
IS THE APPLICANT HERE PLEASE? HOLD, HOLD ON ONE SECOND.
SO WE'LL JUST HOLD FOR A SECOND.
MARY, I, WE HAVE SOMEONE THAT WANTS TO GIVE YOU BLUE SLIPS.
WE HAVE REVISED STAFF REPORTS THAT HAVE THE CORRECT LANGUAGE.
EACH PERSON CAN TAKE GRAB ONE AND SEND ON, GRAB ONE, SEND ON, GRAB ONE, SENT ON.
WHAT I'M PASSING TO EACH OF THE MEMBERS IS THE STAFF REPORTS THAT REVISE, THAT HAVE, THAT ARE FOR, THAT HAS THE CORRECT LANGUAGE AS IT RELATES TO FOUR THE VARIANCE APPLICATIONS AS OPPOSED TO THE TYPOS THAT, UH, WERE IDENTIFIED THIS MORNING.
CORRECT? IS THAT WHAT I'M GETTING? YES, THAT IS CORRECT.
ALRIGHT, SO THE FIRST ITEM IN FRONT OF US IS BDA 2 3 4 DASH 43.
MR. BALDWIN, GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR NEWMAN, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
MY NAME'S ROB BALDWIN OF THE 3 9 0 4 ELM STREET, SUITE B IN DALLAS, AND I'M REPRESENTING, UH, THE TOPPLES FAMILY PROPERTIES ON THE NEXT THREE CASES.
UH, AND I'LL JUST KIND OF GIVE YOU GENERAL OVERVIEW ON THIS SO I DON'T HAVE TO REPEAT.
WHAT'S RELEVANT NOW IS STRICTLY THE REQUEST FOR FEE REIMBURSEMENT.
AND I'LL JUST READ, AND YOU KNOW THIS VERY WELL, MR. BALDWIN.
SO, UM, WHAT IS IN FRONT OF US IS IN 2 3 4 DASH 1 43 FR ONE IS A REQUEST FOR, UH, FEE REIMBURSEMENT.
WE WERE TOLD BY THE STAFF THAT THERE WERE FOUR FEES PAID, TOTALING $2,400, IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT.
SO OUR, WHAT'S THE REQUEST BEFORE US IS FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF THAT AND THE STANDARD FOR THE REIMBURSEMENT IS PAYMENT OF THE FEE WOULD RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL FINANCIAL HARDSHIP FOR THE APPLICANT.
THAT IS WHAT YOU CAN SPEAK TO.
SO THE, THIS REPORT SOLELY ON THIS, THIS CASE I KNOW.
UH, IT'S ONE OF THE ELM THICKET CASES AND WE'LL TALK ABOUT IT MORE IN DETAIL THIS AFTERNOON.
UH, THE CITY ISSUED PERMITS, WE PAID OUR PERMIT FEES, WE EARNED A CONSTRUCTION.
AND AS YOU SAW AT THE BRIEFING SESSION, HOW MUCH OF THE CONSTRUCTION'S BEEN DONE? WE GOT A STOP WORK ORDER AND WAS GENERATED, UH, VARIANCE REQUESTS IN THIS CASE.
AND WE THOUGHT IT WAS APPROPRIATE THAT SINCE IT WAS A CITY'S MISTAKE TO REQUEST A FEE WAIVER OR FEE REIMBURSEMENT SO WE DON'T HAVE TO PAY ADDITIONAL FEES ON SINCE IT WAS A CITY'S MISTAKE ISSUE.
QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? UH, THE CHAIR WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
YOU HAVE A QUESTION? I'M SORRY.
MR. HAITZ, UH, MR. BALDWIN, CAN YOU LET US, UH, DESCRIBE FOR US THE, THE, UM, SUBSTANTIAL FINANCIAL HARDSHIP THAT YOUR CLIENT HAS FROM THIS? YES, SIR.
THAT, I'LL BE HONEST WITH YOU, THAT'S A TOUGH ONE TO, TO PROVE THE SUBSTANTIAL FINANCIAL HARDSHIP BECAUSE THIS IS A, YOU KNOW, A MILLION DOLLAR HOUSE AND IT'S MORE OF THE, THE SEEKING JUSTICE AND BEING APPROPRIATE FOR, UH, NOT HAVING TO PAY FOR A CITY'S ESTATE.
THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? OKAY.
UM, THE CHAIRMAN WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
MS. DAVIS, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 3 4 DASH 1 43 FFR ONE ON APPLICATION OF BALDWIN ASSOCIATES GRANT THE REQUEST TO THE REIMBURSEMENT OF THE FILING FEES PAID IN ASSOCIATION WITH A REQUEST FOR NUMBER ONE, A VARIANCE TO THE HEIGHT REGULATIONS.
NUMBER TWO, VARIANCE TO THE LOT COVERAGE REGULATIONS, THREE VARIANCE TO THE HEIGHT REGULATIONS AND FOUR VARIANCE TO THE HEIGHT REGULATIONS AS REQUESTED
[00:05:01]
BY THIS APPLICANT.BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT THE PAYMENT OF THE FEE WOULD RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL FINANCIAL HARDSHIP TO THIS APPLICANT, A MOTION HAS BEEN MADE BY MS. DAVIS TO GRANT THE FEE REIMBURSEMENT FOR THE FOUR ITEMS WITHIN BDA 2 3 4 DASH 43 FR ONE.
IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND THE MOTION DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION.
YES, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CALL FOR CALL FOR THE VOTE MS. BOARD SECRETARY MS. HAYDEN? AYE.
NEXT ITEM BEFORE THE BOARD IS 2 3 4 DASH 1 44 FR ONE.
IS THE APPLICANT HERE? YES, SIR.
ROB BALDWIN, 3 9 0 4 ELM STREET, SUITE B IN DALLAS, SAME THING AS LAST TIME, BUT THE FEE REQUEST IS $1,200 THIS TIME INSTEAD.
$2,400 AND I WON'T, I WON'T GO BACK THROUGH EVERYTHING ELSE AGAIN.
MS. DAVIS, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 3 4 DASH 1 44 FFR ONE ON APPLICATION OF BALDWIN ASSOCIATES GRANT THE REQUEST TO THE REIMBURSEMENT OF FILING FEES PAID AND ASSOCIATION WITH A REQUEST FOR ONE VARIANCE TO THE HEIGHT REGULATIONS AND TWO VARIANCE TO THE LOT COVERAGE REGULATIONS AS REQUESTED BY THIS APPLICANT.
BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT THE PAYMENT OF THE FEE WOULD RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL FINANCIAL HARDSHIP TO THIS APPLICANT, IT'S BEEN MOVED IN THE MATTER OF BDA 2 3 4 1 4 4 FR ONE TO GRANT THE REQUEST FOR FEE REIMBURSEMENT.
IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND THE MOTION MOTION'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED.
DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION I'LL JUST SIMPLY SAY THAT I THINK THIS IS A REASONABLE REQUEST GIVEN THAT THE, A APPLICANT HAS BEEN FOLLOWING THE RULES, UH, CONSISTENT WITH THE STAFF REPORTS WE'VE BEEN GIVEN AND, UM, I THINK IT'S A REASONABLE REQUEST.
DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION MR. HOKO, UM, IN, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY, UM, UH, FINANCIAL HARDSHIP BEING DESCRIBED, UH, YOU OPPOSING MOTION MR. NARY? I CONCUR.
UM, I I DON'T, DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE, THAT THE, UH, PAYMENT OF THE FEE WOULD RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL FINANCIAL HARDSHIP TO THIS PARTICULAR APPLICANT.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? MS. DAVIS? I'LL JUST SECOND THE CHAIRMAN'S COMMENTS THAT I DO THINK THIS IS A REASONABLE REQUEST CONSIDERING THAT THE CITY IS THE ONE THAT MADE THE ERROR, NOT THE APPLICANT.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? THE BOARD SECRETARY WILL CALL FOR THE VOTE.
NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS BDA 2 3 4 DASH 1 45 FFR ONE.
IS THE APPLICANT HERE? YES I AM.
IF YOU PROCEED SIR ROB BALDWIN 3 9 0 4 ELM STREET, SUITE B IN DALLAS.
UH, SAME REQUEST AS LAST TIME, BUT THIS ONE WAS ALSO FOR $2,400.
AND I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.
DISCUSSIONS FOR THE APPLICANT.
IF NO DIS DISCUSSION FOR THE APPLICANT OR QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT, MR. HAITZ, SO I WILL, MR. BALDWIN, I WILL ASK YOU AGAIN IF THERE'S, IS ANYTHING DIFFERENT ABOUT THIS ANSWER? NO, IT'S JUST, IT'S A, IT'S A, THAT'S A HARD, UH, HARD THRESHOLD TO MEET AND, UH, NO, IT'S, IT JUST, UH, WHAT I THINK IS FAIR AND, AND NOT, WE CAN'T MEET THAT SUBSTANTIAL.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION OR ANY OTHER DISCUSSION QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? THE CHAIR WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
MS. DAVIS, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 3 4 DASH 1 45 FR ONE ON APPLICATION OF BALDWIN ASSOCIATES GRANT THE REQUEST TO THE REIMBURSEMENT OF THE FILING FEES PAID IN ASSOCIATION WITH A REQUEST FOR ONE A VARIANCE TO THE HEIGHT REGULATIONS TWO VARIANCE TO THE LOT COVERAGE REGULATIONS THREE.
VARIANCE TO THE HEIGHT REGULATIONS AND FOUR VARIANCE TO THE HEIGHT REGULATIONS AS REQUESTED BY THIS A APPLICANT APPLICANT PARDON ME BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT THE PAYMENT OF THE FEE WOULD RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL FINANCIAL HARDSHIP TO THIS APPLICANT.
IT'S BEEN MOVED BY MS. DAVIS IS AND 2 3 4 1 4 5 FFR ONE TO GRANT THE REQUEST FOR A FEE REIMBURSEMENT.
IS THERE A SECOND? I WILL SECOND THE MOTION.
[00:10:01]
AND SECONDED TO GRANT A FEE REIMBURSEMENT 2 3 4 1 4 5 DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? I WILL SAY AGAIN, I THINK IT'S A REASONABLE REQUEST GIVEN THAT THE CITY HAS ADMITTED THAT IT WAS THEIR MISTAKE FROM THE BEGINNING AS IT RELATES TO, UM, HANDLING THESE ITEMS. DISCUSSION A VOTE GO AHEAD AND TAKE THE VOTE.MS. BOARD SECRETARY MS. HAYDEN AYE.
MOTION FAILS THREE TO TWO BDA 2 3 4 DASH 1 56 IS THE APPLICANT HERE? I YES I AM.
IF, UH, UH, YOU'VE GIVEN, UH, WHAT'S BEFORE US IS BD 2 3 4 DASH 56 FFR ONE, THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A FEE REIMBURSEMENT.
WE WERE TOLD THAT YOU YOU HAD PAID $1,200, THAT'S TWO FEE INSTALLED, IS THAT CORRECT? OKAY.
UH, OUR CRITERIA THAT IS BEFORE US IS THE PAYMENT OF THE FEE WOULD RESULT IN A SUBSTANTIAL FINANCIAL HARDSHIP TO THE APPLICANT.
UM, I'VE BEEN SHUT DOWN FOR NEARLY HALF A YEAR.
UM, I'VE BEEN PAYING INTEREST THIS WHOLE TIME.
I STILL HAVEN'T GOTTEN REIMBURSED FOR THE PREVIOUS, UM, UM, HEARING.
THANK YOU DIS UH, QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT.
MR. OVITZ, HAVE YOU BEEN TOLD WHY YOU, I BELIEVE WE GRANTED YOU A FEE REIMBURSEMENT IN THE PAST THAT YOU KNOW WHY YOU HAVE NOT RECEIVED IT? WELL, LET'S, LET'S HOLD ON A SECOND.
UM, THAT IS NOT SPECIFIC TO THIS REQUEST, SO I'M GONNA, I'M GONNA SAY, I'M GONNA LET YOU MAKE YOUR COMMENT, BUT WE'RE NOT GONNA CHASE THAT COMMENT.
UH, THAT'S A TRANSACTION JUST GOES THROUGH THE CITY PROCESS.
I'M GONNA ASSUME THAT THAT'S A PROCESS THAT TAKES A COUPLE WEEKS.
THAT WAS A HEARING ON THE 19TH OF NOVEMBER.
SO IT'S STILL UNDER, I'M ASSUMING THAT PROCESS IS ONGOING.
I BELIEVE, UM, THE FINANCIAL DEPARTMENT'S A LITTLE SHORT STAFFED, SO THEY'RE A LITTLE BIT BEHIND ON THAT, BUT THEY ARE PROCESSING, IT HAS BEEN PROCESSED AND SO THE BOARD DID APPROVE IT.
AND SO THAT'LL BE COMING TO YOU FOR THE PREVIOUS SEPARATE CASE? YES.
THAT IT'S NOT OF ISSUE TODAY? YES.
DIANE? I I SPOKE TO DIANE, UH, LAST WEEK WHEN I SUBMITTED THE APPLICATION, BE IN THIS HEARING.
I I WANNA MAKE SURE WE SEPARATE THE TWO 'CAUSE THIS HEARING IS SPECIFIC ON THE VARIANCE REQUEST AND WHAT THE REQUEST AND BEFORE US IS A REIMBURSEMENT OF THE TWO FEES FOR THE VARIANCE REQUESTS.
OTHER DISCUSSION, OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? MR. N THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN.
UM, JUST FOR CLARIFICATION PURPOSES, UH, 65 29 VICTORIA IS YOUR ONLY, UH, DEVELOPMENT PROJECT IN THIS AREA, IS THAT CORRECT? UH, YES.
QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? THE CHAIR WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
MS. DAVIS, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 3 4 DASH 56 FR ONE ON APPLICATION OF DANIEL LEE GRANT THE REQUEST TO THE REIMBURSEMENT OF THE FILING FEES PAID IN ASSOCIATION WITH A REQUEST FOR ONE, A VARIANCE TO THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS AND TWO VARIANCE TO THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS AS REQUESTED BY THIS APPLICANT.
BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT THE PAYMENT OF THE FEE WOULD RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL FINANCIAL HARDSHIP TO THIS APPLICANT, A MOTION HAS BEEN MADE IN 2 3 4 1 5 6 FFR ONE TO GRANT THE REQUEST FOR A FREE RE FEE REIMBURSEMENT BY MS. DAVIS.
I, DAVE NEWMAN AS CHAIRMAN WILL SECOND THE MOTION.
DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION MS. DAVIS? UM, I I DO BELIEVE THAT THE APPLICANT HAS SHOWN THAT THIS WOULD BE A FINANCIAL HARDSHIP, WHICH IS WHY I'M SUPPORTING THIS MOTION AND I ENCOURAGE MY FELLOW BOARD MEMBERS TO DO THE SAME.
UH, I WOULD WHOLEHEARTEDLY AGREE.
UM, I THINK THIS IS A REASONABLE REQUEST.
I'M THE PART OF THE APPLICANT.
OTHER DISCUSSION IN THE MOTION MR. HAITZ? UH, I I CONCUR AS WELL.
MR. LEE'S BEEN PUT THROUGH CROWN RINGER AND, UH, I'M IN FAVOR OF REIMBURSING HIM TO FEE FOR THIS AS WELL.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? HEARING NONE WILL GO TO A VOTE.
MS. BOARD SECRETARY, MS. HAYDEN? AYE.
UM, JUST SO EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS WHERE WE'RE GOING HERE, WE HAVE THREE ORIGINAL CASES ON THE UNCONTESTED DOCKET.
2121 IRVING BOULEVARD, 70 38 GREENVILLE AVENUE, 7 26 WEST BRIAN GREENBRIER LANE,
[00:15:01]
THEN FOUR CASES ON THE INDIVIDUAL DOCKET, 45 16 HOPKINS, 4,500 HOPKINS, 46 0 4 HOPKINS, AND 65 29 VICTORIA AVENUE.THAT IS THE ORDER BY WHICH WE'RE GOING TO HANDLE THESE CASES.
SO, UM, ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? OKAY, LET'S DO THIS A SECOND.
OKAY, THE NEXT ITEM FOR THE BOARD TO CONSIDER TODAY IS 2 3 4 DASH 1 4 7 2 3 4 DASH 1 4 7.
THIS IS AT 2121 IRVING BOULEVARD.
IS THE APPLICANT HEARING PLEASE COME FORWARD.
UM, WE'RE GONNA ASK YOU TO, UM, UH, GIVE US YOUR NAME OR, UH, WE'RE GONNA ASK YOU TO SWEAR IN OUR BOARD SECRETARY, SWEAR YOU IN.
THEN IF YOU GIVE US YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS AND THEN HOLD FOR A SECOND.
SECRETARY, DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH AND YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? YES MA'AM.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND PROCEED.
UH, MISSION RICH CONSULTANTS, PLANO, TEXAS, UH, PO BOX 2 0 6 0 3 3.
MS. BOARD SECRETARY, ARE THERE ANY SPEAKERS REGISTERED FOR THIS CASE OTHER THAN THE APPLICANT? UH, YES.
MS. CHARLOTTE QUIS FOR OR AGAINST? UM, SHE'S WITH THE APPLICANT.
SO, UH, SO THE APPLICANT PLUS ANOTHER SPEAKER.
OUR RULES OR PROCEDURES SAY THAT THE APPLICANT'S GIVEN FIVE MINUTES.
ANY OTHER SPEAKERS IN FAVOR OR GIVEN FIVE MINUTES? ANYONE IN OPPOSITIONS GIVEN FIVE MINUTES AND THEN THE APPLICANT'S ALLOWED FIVE MINUTES REBUTTAL.
SO, UH, YOU BEING THE APPLICANT, YOU BASICALLY HAVE FIVE THEN FIVE 10.
I'LL BE GENEROUS WITH TIME IN ORDER FOR YOU TO BE ABLE TO SPEAK TO WHATEVER YOU FEEL YOU NEED TO SPEAK TO.
I JUST HAVE TO BE FAIR TO EVERYONE INVOLVED.
SINCE THERE'S NO ONE IN OPPOSITION, UH, IT, IT'S NOT, NOT NECESSARILY A, A DEAL, I JUST DON'T WANT YOU TO GO ON AND ON FOREVER.
SO HOPEFULLY YOU HEARD SOME OF THE DISCUSSION THIS MORNING.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WERE HERE OR NOT, UM, BUT, UH, HOPEFULLY YOU CAN ADDRESS SOME OF THOSE COMMENTS WE WERE GIVEN.
WE WERE GIVEN THIS PRELIMINARY TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT REPORT, UH, AFTER THE BRIEFING OR AT THE END OF THE BRIEFING THIS MORNING.
SO SOME I MAY NEED TO, UM, YOU MAY WANNA WALK US A LITTLE BIT THROUGH THIS.
'CAUSE I THINK ALL WE WERE GIVEN WAS ONE PAGE ORIGINALLY, YOUR PAGE FIVE.
AND SO IT, UH, BUT I'LL LET YOU GO AHEAD AND HAVE YOUR, YOUR TIME, SIR.
I WAS LOGGED IN INTO THE WEBEX.
YOUR LAST NAME IS THIBO TIDO, I APOLOGIZE.
IT'S A FRENCH, LOUISIANA NAME.
YES, I WAS, UH, LOGGED ON ONLINE ON THE, UH, WEBEX, UH, BRIEFING VIDEO THIS MORNING.
UH, IT'S GOOD THAT YOU GUYS GOT THE, UH, FULL ASSESSMENT, UH, THAT WAS HANDED TO STAFF, UH, VIA EMAIL ON SEPTEMBER 27TH.
UM, SO I GUESS JUST THE PARKING GENERATION SHEET MADE IT INTO THE PACKET FOR YOU GUYS.
UH, SO WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT, UM, IT IT REALLY FEEDS INTO RELATIVE DIS DISCUSSION.
UH, THE PARKING GENERATION SHEET, OF COURSE, THE WHOLE ASSESSMENT KIND OF WORKS YOU THROUGH EVERYTHING.
SO WHAT WE'RE FOLLOWING HERE IS THE INSTITUTE OF, UH, TRAFFIC ENGINEERS, OUR ENGINEERS, UH, THE RESPECT TO PACHECO KOCH.
I'M SURE EVERYBODY IN THIS ROOM HAS HEARD OF THEM.
UM, AND WHAT THEY DO IS THEY FOLLOW, UH, THE, THE LAND USE CODE MANUAL.
AND THIS SECTION WAS, UH, SECTION NUMBER 2, 2, 1.
UH, AND WHEN YOU FOLLOW THE QUANTITY OF THE DWELLING UNITS, UH, AND THEN YOU, YOU, UH, ASSESS IT AT THE PEAK GENERATION TIME AND THE NUMBER ASSOCIATED WITH THAT.
UH, YOU COME UP WITH THE MANUAL AT 1.31 DWELLING UNITS, UH, I'M SORRY, PARKING SPACES PER DWELLING UNIT.
UM, SO THAT'S WHAT WE ARE, UH, CONSTRUCTING OFF OF.
I THINK WE'RE ACTUALLY, UH, NOT EVEN GOING THIS LOW IN OUR ACCOUNTS WHEN YOU ACTUALLY DO THE FINAL MAP.
UH, WE ARE CURRENTLY AT 317 UNITS AS DISCUSSED THIS MORNING.
UH, THIS WAS DONE AT A TIME, IF YOU SEE THE DATE WHERE A FEW MORE UNITS WERE, UH, WERE BEING CONTEMPLATED.
OF COURSE, THAT CHANGES OVER THE COURSE OF, UH, CONSTRUCTION DEVELOPMENT.
UH, SO THAT'S WHERE THIS NUMBER CAME FROM.
UM, YOU KNOW, WE, WE BELIEVE THE, UH, WE'RE JUST FOLLOWING REALLY WHAT THE PD IS SET UP TO DO IS TO TURN, TURN OVER THE AREA FOR USES LIKE OURS.
UH, WE, WE SAW THE VIDEO THIS MORNING THAT WAS SHOWN AND THERE IS PARKING, UH, OFF TO THE EAST, YOU KNOW, UH, KIND OF IN A, WHAT'S FORMING INTO A WALKABLE AREA, UH, VERSUS KIND OF WHAT THE SITE WAS A COUPLE YEARS AGO.
I REMEMBERED THAT, UH, 10, 15 YEARS AGO, EVEN BEYOND THAT WHEN I WAS A KID, IT WAS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT, UH, AT THAT TIME.
UH, SO WE FEEL LIKE WE'RE FOLLOWING THE PD.
UH, WE'RE ALSO, UM, FOLLOWING THE FORWARD DALLAS AND THE PARKING CODE AMENDMENTS THAT ARE BEING DONE, I THINK LAST THURSDAY, LAST WEEK, UH, THE DALLAS PARKING REFORM WAS HEARD AT CPC.
SO WE WERE JUST FOLLOWING ALL OF THAT.
UH, YOU KNOW, OUR, OUR REQUEST IS FOR A 12% REDUCTION, UH, IN AN AREA WHERE WE'RE ALLOWED TO REQUEST UP TO 50%.
SO WE FELT LIKE OUR REDUCTION WAS VERY, VERY REASONABLE.
UM, MY CLIENT WHO IS HERE AND IS HAPPY TO ANSWER WHATEVER QUESTIONS YOU HAVE THAT ARE
[00:20:01]
RELATIVE TO HIM, UH, THEY HAVE, UH, A LOT OF EXPERIENCE BUILDING THESE.AND WHAT WE DID, WHAT WE DO SEE, I THINK IT WAS BROUGHT UP BY MR. NEVAR THIS MORNING, UH, IS THAT WE DO HAVE, UH, UNUTILIZED PARKING IN A LOT OF THESE, UH, UH, DEVELOPMENTS THAT THEY HAVE DONE.
AND SO WE JUST DON'T WANT TO DO THAT.
UH, SO WE WANT TO UTILIZE THE REDUCTION AT A PRETTY MINIMAL REQUEST, UH, WHILE WE'RE FORWARDING, UH, OR FOLLOWING WHAT'S GOING ON WITH THE CITY OF DALLAS ALONG WITH OUR PD.
UH, SO WE SUPPORT OUR, OUR PROPOSAL AND WE FEEL, UH, YOU KNOW, WE WERE AT ACCEPTABLE PLACE IN NON-CON AREA.
UH, BUT WE'RE HERE TO ANSWER ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS THAT YOU GUYS MIGHT HAVE.
UH, DO WE WANNA DO QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT OR DO WE WANNA HAVE THE OTHER OTHER PERSON THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? I'LL, I'LL LEAVE THAT TO YOU.
DO YOU HAVE, WHO'S THE OTHER PERSON THAT'S REQUESTED TO SPEAK, MR. HOWELL? UM,
I'M HERE FOR QUESTIONING YOU GUYS.
SO WE'LL GO TO QUESTIONS AND THEN, UH, WE'LL DIRECT 'EM THROUGH YOU.
IS THAT IT? A REGISTERED SPEAKERS OKAY.
THAT'S WHAT I MEAN FOR THIS CASE.
I HAVE SEVERAL, BUT I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND GO TO, AND AGAIN, MS. HAYDEN, FLAG ME DOWN IF THERE'S ANYTHING, IF YOU WANNA ASK QUESTIONS.
UM, HELP ME UNDERSTAND THE TRAFFIC STUDY THAT WAS DONE.
UM, BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY THE COMPLEX IS NOT THERE, RIGHT.
AND THAT WILL GENERATE TRAFFIC, RIGHT? SO WHAT WE'RE CONCENTRATED ON IN THIS PARKING STUDY IS PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC, AND THAT'S IN THE CURRENT, UH, TRAFFIC THAT'S GOING ON THERE RIGHT NOW.
UH, AND THEN THEY, WE HAVE TO RELATE IT TO THE USES IF IT WERE DEVELOPED PER THE STUDY.
SO THE, UH, ENGINEERS, THEY GO AND THEY TAKE TRAFFIC COUNTS THROUGHOUT THE, UH, TIME PERIOD.
THEY DO THAT AND THEY ASSESS THOSE, THOSE, UH, NUMBERS, AND THEY GO BACK TO THEIR MANUAL AND THEY ASSESS AT PEAK HOURS, WHICH IS THE MOST BUSY TIME YOU CAN HAVE IN THE AREA.
UH, THEY ASSESS WHAT THE MANUAL TELLS THEM, AND THIS, YOU KNOW, USUALLY YOUR MANUAL'S A LITTLE BIT FARTHER AHEAD AND SO JUST KIND OF CATCH UP TO THESE NUMBERS.
AND SO THEY GENERATE THEIR NUMBER, UH, BASED ON THE, BASED ON THE, UH, CALCULATIONS THEY HAVE THAT COME FROM THE INSTITUTE OF, UH, TRAFFIC ENGINEERS MANUAL.
UM, THAT'S BASICALLY HOW IT'S DONE.
UM, AND HOW YOU COME TO THESE NUMBERS, I'M SORRY, I DIDN'T QUITE, SO THAT DOES OR DOES NOT INCORPORATE ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC FROM THE CONSTRUCT, FROM THE, FROM THE EXISTENCE OF THE COMPLEX? RIGHT.
AND IT DOES, IT DOES TAKE INTO ACCOUNT WHAT IS TO COME, YOU KNOW, IN ASSOCIATION HERE.
SO IT TAKES IN THE EXISTING CONDITIONS, THE CURRENT TRAFFIC THAT WE'RE SEEING NOW AND WHAT THE, UH, AND, AND THE, THE UNITS ARE CALCULATED IN THAT TOTAL, UH, AMOUNT AS WELL.
I APOLOGIZE, THAT WASN'T CLEAR.
UM, IS IT, IS THERE A, A NUMBER AS TO, UH, I SEE WHERE THERE'S HOW MANY APARTMENTS THERE ARE TO BE THERE? YEAH.
3, 317 UNITS RIGHT NOW, DO YOU, DO YOU HAVE ESTIMATES AS TO, IT DOESN'T SPECIFY IF THERE ARE ONE BEDROOM, TWO BEDROOM, FOUR BEDROOM.
DO YOU UNDER, DO YOU HAVE AN ESTIMATE OF HOW MANY HOW MANY YOU'RE, YOU'RE DARN GOOD.
THAT WAS ONE OF MY QUESTIONS COMING IN, BUT KEEP GOING.
MR. OVITZ, OF HOW MANY, HOW MANY PEOPLE, IF THE PLACE WERE FULLY RENTED OUT, HOW MANY PEOPLE WOULD BE LIVING THERE? RIGHT.
IF, IF YOU SPEAK, I'M GONNA NEED YOU TO HAVE YOU SWORN IN.
SO ARE YOU CHOOSING TO SPEAK? SURE.
HAVE YOU, HAS HE FILLED OUT A BLUE SLIP? YES.
IF YOU GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.
MS. BOARD SECRETARY, DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? YES.
NOW, YOU, YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES.
SO AS, SO STUDIOS OR 25 STUDIOS ARE 7.8%, ONE BEDROOMS 245 OR 77.3%, AND THEN TWO BEDS ARE 47 UNITS, OR 14.8%.
SO VERY, VERY HEAVY STUDIO AND ONE BEDROOM MIX HERE.
I I'M GONNA HAVE YOU REPEAT THAT.
25 STUDIOS, 2 45 1 BEDROOMS AND 47 2 BEDROOMS? YES, SIR.
AND SO, UH, CAN YOU JUST EXPLAIN THE, THE, UH, OH, SO YOU'RE BUILDING A PARKING GARAGE? YES, SIR.
SO YOU COULD BUILD IT OUT HOWEVER YOU WANTED TO BUILD IT OUT.
SO CAN JUST HELP ME UNDERSTAND, HELP US UNDERSTAND HOW YOU ARRIVED AT THE LESSER NUMBER THAN WHAT THE, UM, WHAT THE, UM, CODE WILL REQUIRE FOR THAT.
SO, UH, I'LL START BY SAYING WE WE'RE A MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY IN THE PAST 12 YEARS.
WE'VE BUILT 60 PROJECTS ACROSS THE STATE, ROUGHLY 18,000 UNITS.
SO WE'RE PRETTY GOOD AT UNDERSTANDING WHAT THE MARKET WANTS, WHAT, WHAT RENTERS NEED.
[00:25:01]
THAT FOR CERTAINLY FOR OUR INTERNAL ANALYSIS AS TO WHAT WE'RE GONNA BUILD.AND THEN OF COURSE, THE TRAFFIC STUDY, UM, IS A BIT OF A SUPPLEMENT OR KIND OF SUPPORT DOCUMENT, IF YOU WILL.
BUT ON THIS PARTICULAR SCENARIO, WE'RE LOOKING AT STUDIOS.
WE COUNT FOR ROUGHLY 1.1 PARKING SPACE PER STUDIO FOR ONE BEDS, 1.2 FOR ONE BED, AND FOR TWO BEDS, TWO CARS PER TWO BEDROOM.
UM, AND SO THAT, THAT IN THIS CASE BLENDS OR EQUATES TO 14, 415 AND A HALF PARKING SPACES.
FOR OUR UNIT MIX, WE'RE ASKING FOR 420.
AND OF COURSE, AND THAT'S JUST SLIGHTLY BELOW WHAT THE, WHAT THE TRAFFIC ENGINEER SUGGESTED AS WELL.
THE, THE REASON THAT I'M ASKING IS IT DIDN'T APPEAR THAT THERE IS REALLY ANY OPTIONAL PARKING IN THE AREA THAT'S, UM, CONVENIENT TO SOMEONE LIVING THERE.
IF PARKING GARAGE HAPPENED TO BE FULL, THERE'S NO, I DIDN'T SEE, IS THERE ANY PLANS SURFACE PARKING ON YOUR PROPERTY? THERE ARE NINE SPACES IN THE FRONT, AND THAT'S, YOU KNOW, THAT'S FOR, UH, POTENTIAL RESIDENTS, VISITOR, I GUESS VISITORS, BUT IN, IN THE GARAGE, THE FIRST FLOOR, FOR THE MOST PART, REALLY MORE THAN THE FIRST FLOOR IS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC FOR VISITORS AND WHATNOT.
NONE THAT, THAT PART DOESN'T EXACTLY SPEAK TO YOUR QUESTION.
YOU'RE SPEAKING ABOUT OVERFLOW.
WELL, SO, UM, SO PART OF THE PARKING SPOTS IN THE GARAGE YES, SIR.
ARE NOT INTENDED FOR USE OF THE RESIDENCE? NO.
WE JUST HAVE THEM BE, WE HAVE THEM IN FRONT OF THE GATE SO EITHER RESIDENTS CAN USE 'EM, WHICH THEY OFTEN DO IF THEY'RE SPECIFICALLY, IF THEIR PART, IF THEIR UNIT IS ON THE FIRST FLOOR OR FOR VISITORS.
OH, I'M GONNA FOLLOW UP ON, SO THE NINE YES, SIR.
IS THAT FOR STAFF AS WELL? YES, SIR.
AND FOR VISITORS OF RESIDENTS, ANY OF THOSE THREE WOULD LIKELY PART, THAT DOESN'T SEEM VERY MANY SPACES FOR, WELL, THE GUESTS OF 317 UNITS.
SO THE, THE GUEST PARKING IS CALCULATED IN THAT, WHAT I, THE METRICS I MENTIONED EARLIER, THE 1.1 FOR STUDIOS, THE 1.2 FOR ONE BEDS, AND THE TWO FOR TWO BEDS.
THAT ACCOUNTS FOR, FOR GUESTS AS WELL.
AND PLEASE KEEP IN MIND, UM, YOU KNOW, YOU HEAR ABOUT, WE'RE AT FULL OCCUPANCY AND ALL THIS, THERE, THERE TO REALLY UNDERSTAND HOW THAT GOES.
I MEAN, YOU MIGHT BE 98% LEASED, BUT YOU'RE REALLY AT NO GIVEN TIME, MORE THAN 92% OCCUPIED, THAT THAT'S HOW THESE THINGS PRACTICE.
SO THERE'S REALLY AN INHERENT BUFFER BUILT INTO THAT AS WELL.
JUST TO REITERATE, WITHOUT A DOUBT, WE'RE ONE OF THE MOST ACTIVE APARTMENT OWNERS IN THE, IN THE PAST DECADE ACROSS THE STATE.
AND WE'RE PRETTY GOOD AT UNDERSTANDING WHAT OUR RESIDENTS NEED.
THE LAST, I'M MORE INCENTIVIZED THAN ANYONE TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE ADEQUATE PARKING.
AND WE LIKEWISE FOLLOWS THE CODE.
AND GRANT AN EXCEPTION WHEN WE SEE A CLEAR PATH TO THAT EXCEPTION.
AND WE'RE GUARDED, AT LEAST I AM ONE MEMBER GUARDED BY MAKING SURE THERE'S ADEQUATE PARKING, THERE'S NOT SPILLOVER PARKING.
UM, AND IT JUST SEEMS TO ME IT'S THIS, THERE'S NOT, DOESN'T SEEM LIKE FOR 317 UNIT, I GET THE ONE BEDROOM, TWO BEDROOM, UH, SCENARIO.
SO THERE'S NO THREE BEDROOMS. THAT'S CORRECT.
UM, AND ONLY NINE SPACES FOR GUESTS.
THERE'S NINE SPACES OUT FRONT FOR PROSPECTIVE RESIDENTS AND STAFF.
A GUEST COULD SPARK THEIR, COULD PARK THERE A STAFF TYPICALLY, I MEAN, OF COURSE WE PUT THE, THE STAFF ON THE TOP FLOOR OF THE GARAGE IF THERE'S NOT ENOUGH, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE NOT GONNA GET THE PREMIUM PARKING SPOTS THEY CAN WALK.
UM, DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? YEAH, I'M LISTENING, BUT I'M JUST READING THEM IN THEORY, ANY OF THOSE THREE BUCKETS OF PEOPLE COULD, COULD PARK OUT FRONT.
NOW IF WE ARE, IF WE ARE HAVING TROUBLE WITH THOSE NINE SPACES, OF COURSE STAFF IS GONNA BE THE LAST PERSON TO GET THAT, TO GET THAT SPACE.
SO FOR THE MOST PART, PERSPECTIVE RESIDENTS IN ALL PRACTICE, THAT'S WHO'S PARKING FRONT.
UM, MR. NRI, UH, MS. HAYDEN, DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION? IS THAT, DID I HEAR? YES.
MS. I'VE GOT MR. NRI THEN MS. HAYDEN, MR. NARY.
SO JUST AS A POINT OF CLARIFICATION, THE ENTIRE PARKING STRUCTURE AND THESE SPACES WILL BE TOTALLY CONTAINED WITHIN THE PROPERTY.
AND THAT THE GARAGE WILL ALSO BE AVAILABLE FOR GUEST PARKING IN ADDITION TO THE NINE SPACES IN THE FRONT.
SO JUST TO KIND OF CLARIFY ON THE, ON THE, UH, THE GUEST PARKING OR VISITOR PARKING, I SUPPOSE YOU SAID THAT'S IN THE FIRST FLOOR OF THE GARAGE.
HOW DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY SPACES THAT IS? OH GOSH, I DON'T HAVE THE PLAN IN FRONT OF ME.
I'M GUESSING 50, MAYBE AS MUCH AS 60.
[00:30:01]
BE ASSIGNED PARKING SPACES, RESERVED PARKING SPACES FOR THOSE THAT OWN THE UNITS OR ARE RENTING OR OCCUPYING THE UNITS? WE CERTAINLY HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO THAT.WE HAVE NOT CRACKED THAT NUT YET.
YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT UNDER CONSTRUCTION YET.
WE, WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO THAT.
UM, IT'S A DECISION WE MAKE GENERALLY AS WE START TO OPEN THE BUILDING WHEN WE DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT WE NEED TO, IF IT'S APPROPRIATE.
SO WILL IT BE GATED THEN? I MEAN, HOW DO YOU KEEP THE VISITOR PARKING PEOPLE FROM PARKING IN THE RESIDENCE SPOTS? YES, MA'AM.
THAT'S THE FIRST FLOOR'S OPEN.
WELL, YES, THE FIRST FLOOR IS OPEN AND THERE'S A GATE GOING UP INTO THE SECOND FLOOR.
AND THEN ONE MORE QUESTION I DON'T RECALL FROM THE SIDE PLAN WAS, IS THE ENTRANCE TO THE PARKING GARAGE DIRECTLY OFF OF IRVING BOULEVARD? OR DO YOU PULL ONTO THAT SORT OF ALLEYWAY? YEAH, YOU, YOU PULL DOWN THE FIRE LANE ON THE, I GUESS YOU CALL IT WEST SIDE OF THE SITE, NORTH SIDE OF THE SITE.
COMPASS IS A LITTLE WONKY OVER THERE.
UM, THAT NORTHWEST SIDE OF THE SITE, YOU WOULD PULL IN THAT FIRE LANE IN THE MAIN ACCESS, AND ABOUT HALFWAY DOWN THE SITE, YOU WOULD PULL INTO THE GARAGE.
SO THE GARAGE IS, YOU CAN'T SEE THE GARAGE FROM THE STREET.
MY, MY QUESTION WAS MORE ABOUT THE, UH, TRAFFIC SAFETY.
UM, I THINK ONE OF THE, THAT'S THE CRITERIA WE'RE LOOKING AT IS THAT IT WILL NOT CONSTITUTE A TRAFFIC HAZARD.
I BELIEVE SO, UM, ANYTHING THAT CAME OFF OF IRVING BOULEVARD, I'D BE A LITTLE CONCERNED ABOUT.
BUT SINCE THIS ENTRANCE IS AROUND THE CORNER, I THINK THAT'S MUCH BETTER.
SO FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, I, I'M, I'M SPEAKING OUT LOUD HERE, SO YOU CAN HEAR AT LEAST ONE PERSON'S THINKING ON ONE HAND.
SO AS A PROPERTY OWNER, THEY'RE GONNA BUILD AN APARTMENT BUILDING 317 UNITS.
AND BOY, IT'S HIS OWN FORTUNE OR MISFORTUNE, WHETHER YOU PARK OR UNDER PARK OR OVER PARK.
IF YOU UNDER PARK, THEN YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TENANTS THAT ARE GONNA BE UPSET BECAUSE THEY CAN'T PARK THEIR CAR.
AND THAT CREATES ALL SORTS OF ISSUES.
AND IF THEIR GUESTS DON'T HAVE A PLACE TO PARK, THAT CREATES ALL SORTS OF ISSUES.
SO IT'S, UH, SO US CONSIDERING THIS IS SETTING YOURSELF UP TO BE SUCCESSFUL OR SUFFER THE CONSEQUENCES IF YOU UNDER PARK.
SO ON ONE SIDE, I THINK, WELL, IF THEY'RE SMARTER, IF THEY'VE DONE THEIR DUE DILIGENCE, IT'S THEIR OWN POISON TO, TO HANDLE THAT OR NOT.
ON THE OTHER HAND, I'M LEERY ABOUT A MULTIFAMILY IN THIS AREA.
THERE'S NO OTHER MULTIFAMILY IN THE AREA.
SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT'S GONNA DO TO THE WHOLE ISSUE OF TRAFFIC, UH, ALONG IRVING BOULEVARD.
AND THE, THE PARKING ISSUE AS IT RELATES INTO YOUR PROPERTY.
I DON'T KNOW WHERE YOUR, FROM WHAT WE SAW, I DON'T KNOW WHERE YOUR PEOPLE, YOUR TENANTS AND OR GUESTS WOULD PARK IF THEY COULDN'T PARK.
I MEAN, THEY, I GUESS THEY'D HAVE TO PARK DOWN THE STREET OR THE ADJACENT STREET OVER.
AND THAT'S, THAT'S LIKE A REAL NO BRAIN OR NO, NO GO.
THEY WOULD'VE TO GO TO EITHER MANUFACTURING, WHICH IS ADJACENT TO, AGAIN, IT'S ALMOST A BLOCK HALF BLOCK AWAY.
AND THAT, IF YOU NOTICED ON OUR VIDEO THAT WAS CLOGGED.
A LOT OF PARKING ON THE STREET, WHICH AGAIN, GIVES US PAUSE.
WELL, THEY, THEY WOULDN'T DO THAT.
NOR, AND I GUESS THE OTHER OPTION WOULD BE TO GO ACROSS THE STREET.
OH MY, THAT'S TOO BUSY A STREET TO HAVE PEOPLE GO ACROSS THE STREET.
I, I, I GUESS WHAT I'M SAYING IS I AGREE WITH YOU.
UM, IF IF THEY'RE NOT GONNA RENT, THEY'RE NOT GONNA RENEW THEIR LEASE.
THAT AIN'T, THAT'S NOT GONNA, THAT'S NOT GONNA SUSTAIN.
IF OUR PARKING OVERFLOW IS A, IS A PROBLEM, THEY'RE JUST NOT GONNA RENT THERE.
A LOT OF TIMES THAT'S BACK TO OUR OKAY.
AND I, AGAIN, I'M JUST ESPOUSING FOR MY BENEFIT, FOR MY PANEL'S BENEFIT.
AND FOR YOU, A LOT OF TIMES OUR HESITANCY IS TO SPILLOVER TO RESIDENTIAL.
BECAUSE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS DO NOT WANT CARS FROM COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES AND OR MULTIFAMILY PARKED CONTINUALLY ON THEIR NARROW STREETS OR CURB STREETS.
AND DALLAS, YOU CAN PARK ON THE STREET FOR 24 HOURS AFTER THAT YOU CAN GET A TICKET.
I'M, BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW WHERE THEY'D SPILL OVER TO, I GUESS, I GUESS AGAIN, I DON'T THINK THERE'S GONNA BE OVERFLOW, BUT IN THAT WORST CASE THAT THERE IS, IT WOULD IN THEORY BE AT NIGHT WHEN EVERYBODY'S AT HOME.
THAT'S WHEN ALL THE COMMERCIALS VACANT.
WHICH IS OFTEN WHY SOME PEOPLE WANNA JUSTIFY CROSS PARKING, UM, AND MIXED USE DEVELOPMENTS, IF THAT MAKES ANY SENSE.
SO TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, I DON'T THINK IT'S GONNA BE VERY, UM, A GOOD QUALITY FOR MY RESIDENT AND THEY'RE, THEY'RE NOT GONNA RENEW THEIR LEASE IF IT COMES TO THIS.
SO I THINK THAT PROBLEM WILL ULTIMATELY SOLVE ITSELF.
BUT IF THE, IF THERE IS THE OVERFLOW ISSUE, IT WOULD BE AT NIGHT AND THEY WOULD GO EITHER TO MANUFACTURING OR ACROSS THE STREET.
I WANNA, I WISH YOU WOULDN'T GO THERE ON THAT.
'CAUSE THEN IT MAKES ME THINK THAT YOU AS A PROPERTY OWNER CONTEMPLATING THAT AS AN OPTION.
SO LET, LET, I'M GONNA ERASE THAT YOU SAID THAT.
WELL, I'LL JUST, I'M GONNA ERASE FOR YOUR BENEFIT THAT YOU SAID THAT, 'CAUSE THAT'S CROSSING SIX LANES OF TRAFFIC, WHICH IS, WHICH
[00:35:01]
IS DANGEROUS.SO, UH, AGAIN, I GO BACK TO MY SLOW JUSTIFICATION IS WHY WOULD A PROPERTY OWNER BUILD A MULTIFAMILY AND PUT, I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN THE GROUND TO SET THEMSELVES UP FOR LACK OF PARKING FOR THEIR TENANTS? THAT THAT'S, THAT'S, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE I'LL TELL YOU IN THE FACE OF IT, I'M AGAINST IT.
BUT I'M TRYING TO THINK, OKAY, I WANNA MAKE SURE YOU'RE SMARTER THAN ME ON THIS.
BUT I ALSO DON'T WANT ANY SPILLOVER.
BUT SPILLOVER IS A, I I, I GOTTA BELIEVE IS, IS, IS IS NOT A NON-STARTER BECAUSE NO ONE'S GONNA DO THAT.
THEY'RE GONNA SAY TO YOU, I DON'T HAVE THIS PLACE TO PARK.
I I AND THAT WOULD BE TO YOUR DETRIMENT PERIOD.
SO I, I'M, I'M JUST SAYING THAT TO MY PANEL, JUST THINKING OUT LOUD OF HOW I'M TRYING TO RATIONALIZE ONE OF THE OTHER, OKAY, MS. DAVIS.
SO THE REQUIREMENT IN DALLAS IS 1.5 SPOTS PER UNIT, AND YOU CAME UP WITH A 1.3 THAT'S BASED ON YOUR CALCULATION OF THE, THE STUDIOS, THE ONE BEDROOM APARTMENTS, AND THE TWO BEDROOM APARTMENTS.
IS THAT CORRECT? I WOULD JUST, THE ONE THING I WOULD, UM, RESPOND THERE IS THE REQUIREMENT IN THE PD, THE DEPART.
IT'S NOT A, IT'S NOT A DOUBT WIDE THING.
OF COURSE, YOU KNOW, WE WE'RE, WE'RE 1.28 ON THE NEARBY AMBASSADOR SITE THAT WE'RE BUILDING.
SO JUST JUST DEPENDS ON THE PD.
I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED BY THAT.
SO YOU'RE SAYING THE PD AND THE, AND THE AREA YOU'RE IN PD, UM, 6 21 SUB SUBTRACT ONE A I CAN HELP OUT HERE.
SO THERE'S A PLAN DEVELOPMENT ESTABLISHED IN THE AREA THAT PLAN DEVELOPMENT 6 21.
AND THAT PLAN DEVELOPMENT HAS ITS OWN SPECIAL REGULATIONS, PARKING.
AND THAT PARKING 1.5, UH, PER UNIT THAT YOU SEE IS ASSOCIATED WITH THAT PLAN DEVELOPMENT.
UH, HE JUST TOLD YOU THERE'S ANOTHER PLAN DEVELOPMENT THAT THEY'RE BUILDING IN, IN THE CITY OF DALLAS.
THAT PD, UH, HAPPENS TO HAVE A LOWER RATIO, IT SOUNDS LIKE CLOSE TO 1.28.
SO IT'S, IT'S JUST WHAT THIS PD CALLS FOR.
THERE ARE OTHER PDS IN THE CITY THAT HAVE, UH, DIFFERENT PARKING RATIOS, AND SO THAT'S WHERE THAT NUMBER'S COMING FROM.
BUT, BUT THE PD FOR THIS SITE IS 1.5? YES, MA'AM.
THAT'S FOR ANOTHER LOCATION THAT YOU'RE USING THAT 1.3? THAT'S CORRECT.
IF, IF THIS DOES NOT GO THROUGH TODAY, WHERE WOULD YOU PUT THOSE EXTRA SPACES? WE'LL BUILD ANOTHER LEVEL OF THE GARAGE.
IS THE PARKING ALL INTERIOR EXCEPT FOR THOSE NINE OUT FRONT? YEAH, AGREED.
AND I DON'T VIEW THOSE AS RESIDENT PARKING.
THAT'S, THAT'S, THAT'S A PERSPECTIVE OR OTHERWISE, SO THAT'S RIGHT.
I'M NOT TRYING TO TELL YOU HOW DO YOUR BUSINESS, I'M JUST EN ENVISIONING AND I LOOKED AT YOUR REPORT, IT SHOWED SHOWS THE NINE, THE NINE SPACES OUT FRONT TOO.
WHAT OTHER QUESTIONS DO WE HAVE, MR. HAITZ, UM, AS A MATTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY, UM, ARE YOU PLANNING TO, OR IS THERE AT THE ENTRY AND EGRESS POINT FROM YOUR PROPERTY POINT, UH, TO REQUEST OR IS THERE A STOPLIGHT? NO, SIR.
THE, THAT IS, THAT WAS NOT SUGGESTED OR CERTAINLY NOT REQUIRED BY THE CITY.
AND AGAIN, THE, THE, THE ENTRY AND EGRESS POINT ARE GOING TO BE NOT ON IRVING BOULEVARD, BUT ON A SIDE STREET OR TO THE GARAGE WILL BE ON OFF OUR FIRE LANE.
YOU ACCESS OUR SITE, THERE'S TWO CURB CUTS ON OUR SITE, ON IRVING.
THIS, SO PEOPLE WILL EXIT AND, AND ENTER THE PROPERTY FROM IRVING BOULEVARD? YES, SIR.
AND THIS IS THE FIRST THING WE SORTED OUT WITH, WITH NAVAREZ AND THE TRAFFIC.
THEY DIRECTED, THIS IS EASTBOUND IRVING BOULEVARD.
IT WAS A MEDIAN CUT THAT YOU CAN GO ALL THE WAY ACROSS.
AND THIS IS THE FIRST THING WE SORTED OUT WITH TRAFFIC DEPARTMENT.
AND THAT'S BEYOND OUR PURVIEW.
UM, IT'S BEYOND OUR PURVIEW, BUT WE'RE JUST TRYING TO GET OUR EYES AROUND WHAT ARE THE IMPACTS ABOUT CHANGING PARKING.
MR. MARY, DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING? YEAH, JUST ANOTHER POINT OF CLARIFICATION.
SO WITH WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING, I'M, I SEE ABOUT JUST OVER A HUNDRED EXTRA ADDITIONAL PARKING SPOTS OR GUEST PARKING OR WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT, BASED ON YOUR PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE WITH YOUR OTHER PROJECTS.
IS THIS A SIMILAR RATIO, UM, TO, YOU KNOW, VIS-A-VIS, UH, DWELLING UNITS AS OPPOSED TO GUEST PARKING? AND YOU'RE, YOU'RE CONFIDENT, I WOULD ASSUME, UH, THAT THAT'S MORE THAN ADEQUATE? YES, SIR.
AS IS PROVEN BY OUR PROJECT ACROSS THE, ACROSS THE STREET FROM HERE AT THE AMBASSADOR HOTEL, WE HAVE MORE TWO BEDROOMS IN THAT BUILDING AND LESS OF A LOWER RATIO.
SO I GUESS I'M SAYING THAT THAT'S, WE STAND BY OUR, OUR CALCULATIONS THERE, IF THAT MAKES ANY SENSE.
[00:40:01]
KNOW THE, UH, TRAFFIC ENGINEER DURING THE BRIEFING KIND OF BROUGHT UP A POINT WHERE THEY'RE SEEING THE OVER UTILIZATION FOR THE SAME REASONS.UH, NOT SURE EXACTLY WHAT DETAIL HE WENT INTO, BUT THAT'S WHAT WE'RE FOLLOWING FOR MARKET DRIVEN DATA, IT JUST TAKES A WHILE FOR THAT TO BE BUILT IN THE CODES AND EVERYTHING.
I'M ASKING MY BORDER ATTORNEY TO SOMETHING
I'M GONNA ASK MY BOARD ATTORNEY TO AGAIN, TELL THE, THE BOARD AND PUBLIC WHAT THE STATED CRITERIA, ACCORDING TO THE CODE, IS FOR US TO CONSIDER A REQUEST LIKE THIS.
MS. BOARD ATTORNEY, THIS PD STATES THAT IT DEFAULTS TO SECTION 51 A DASH 4.31, AND THAT THAT SECTION STATES THAT THE BOARD MAY GRANT A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO AUTHORIZE A REDUCTION IN THE NUMBER OF OFF STREET PARKING SPACES REQUIRED.
IF THE BOARD FINDS THAT THE PARKING DEMAND GENERATED BY THE USE DOES NOT WARRANT THE NUMBER OF OFFS, STREET PARKING REQUIRED.
AND THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WOULD NOT CREATE A TRAFFIC HAZARD OR INCREASED TRA TRAFFIC CONGESTION ON ADJACENT OR NEARBY STREETS.
SILENCE, MR. CHAIRMAN? YES, MR. HAITZ.
UM, SO IS OUR OPTION TO EITHER APPROVE THE 323 OR THE 4 85 OR DO WE HAVE LEEWAY? UH, WE HAVE LEEWAY TO GRANT EVERYTHING UP TO THE REQUEST.
WE CAN'T GRANT MORE THAN REQUEST.
'CAUSE THAT WASN'T ADVERTISED.
MS. BORDER ATTORNEY? THAT IS CORRECT.
SO WE COULD, WE COULD DENY IT, WHICH REQUIRES THEM TO MEET THE PDS REQUIREMENT OF 1.5 PER RESIDENTIAL UNIT.
OR WE COULD GRANT SOMETHING IN BETWEEN, BUT WE CANNOT GO BEYOND THE 56 SPACE SPECIAL EXCEPTION REQUEST.
SO I DO HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION.
UM, WITHOUT HAVING TO ADD A FOURTH LEVEL TO THE PARKING GARAGE, COULD YOU EXPAND THE THREE LEVEL GARAGE SET ADDITIONAL SPACE? AND IF YOU COULD, HOW MANY? OKAY.
I'M VERY CONFIDENT WE COULD GET EIGHT MORE, BUT SHORT OF ME GOING BACK TO THE DESIGN TEAM AND ALL THAT, I COULD COMMIT TO EIGHT.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR YOU, MS. HAYDEN? OKAY, ONE SECOND.
MR. HAITZ, ANY QUESTIONS FOR YOU AT THIS POINT IN TIME, MS. HAYDEN? OKAY.
UM, MR. HAITZ, ARE YOU GOING TO HAVE AN ELEVATOR IN THE PARKING GARAGE? YES.
I'LL BET YOU A CODE REQUIRES THAT.
ANYTHING OVER THREE? I DON'T CERTAINLY THE MARKET THOUGH.
WELL, CER CERTAINLY THE RENTER.
SO, WELL, AND AGAIN, PART OF MY COMMENTS GO BACK TO THE MARKET AND THAT WHY WOULD YOU BUILD SOMETHING THAT DON'T SERVE THE NEEDS OF YOUR TENANTS AND, BUT YOU, THE SILENCE YOU HEAR SHOWS WE'RE NOT CONVINCED YET.
SO I'M JUST SPEAKING FOR MYSELF AND YOU NEED FOUR VOTES.
UM, ONE OF THE FACTORS, ONE OF THE FACTORS OUR BOARD ATTORNEY GAVE OR SAID, THE, ACCORDING TO THE, WHAT THE CODE REQUIRES, IS THAT DOESN'T CREATE A, A TRAFFIC HAZARD.
CREATE A TRAFFIC HAZARD OR INCREASE TRAFFIC CONGESTION.
ALRIGHT, SO THAT GOES TO THE ISSUE.
THAT GOES TO THE ISSUE OF ENTERING AND EXITING THE PROPERTY AND, UM, UH, THE WHOLE IRVING BOULEVARD.
I'M NOT, I'M NOT THERE YET, MR. NARY.
I, I, I AM THERE AND PRIMARILY BECAUSE, UH, THE POINT THAT MS. HAYDEN RAISED ON THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE, THAT THEY'LL BE TURNING OFF OF IRVING BOULEVARD AND THERE WON'T BE ANY SORT OF CREATED BACKUP, IS MY UNDERSTANDING ON IRVING BOULEVARD.
OH, YOU MEAN, AS THEY TURN IN? CORRECT.
SO, BECAUSE I, I THOUGHT IF, YOU KNOW, CARS ARE GONNA BE LINED UP OR BACKED UP ON IRVING BOULEVARD YEAH, THAT WOULD PRESENT AN ISSUE.
I WOULD, I WOULD HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THAT.
BUT I WAS REALLY GLAD MS. HAYDEN RAISED THAT POINT.
[00:45:02]
MR. CHAIRMAN? YES, MS. HAYDEN.SO, YOU KNOW, TO ME, IT'S NOT UNCOMMON.
I, I, AT LEAST IN MY EXPERIENCE, I DON'T KNOW THAT, UM, YOU WOULD HAVE A CERTAIN NUMBER OF ASSIGNED SPOTS FOR EACH, UM, TENANT IN A BILL, IN A MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING UNIT.
AND THOSE TENANTS, OR, YOU KNOW, RENTERS WOULD BE MADE AWARE OF, HEY, YOU HAVE A STUDIO, YOU HAVE ONE PARKING SPOT IN THE GARAGE FOR THE STUDIO.
AND THEY HAVE TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THEY CAN, YOU KNOW, DEAL WITH THAT.
IF IT'S, IF IT'S ONE PERSON IN A STUDIO, THEN THAT'S FINE TO HAVE ONE SPOT.
THE SAME WITH, YOU KNOW, MAYBE A ONE BEDROOM OR TWO BEDROOM.
YOU MIGHT HAVE TWO SPOTS THAT ARE AVAILABLE FOR THAT TENANT.
THAT'S WHY I ASKED THE QUESTION ABOUT RESERVED PARKING.
AND I'M NOT SURE IF THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE CAN APPROVE WITH THE STIPULATION THAT, UM, EACH UNIT HAS A CERTAIN NUMBER OF SPOTS ASSIGNED TO IT, OR IF THAT WOULD MAKE IT WORSE.
I, YOU KNOW, I'M, I DON'T KNOW.
IT'S JUST SOMETHING I'M, I'M MULLING IN MY HEAD RIGHT NOW, MULLING AROUND IT IS WITHIN OUR AUTHORITY TO PUT SPECIAL CONDITIONS ON A REQUEST.
BUT THEY HAVE TO BE REASONABLE TO THEIR REQUEST.
AND AGAIN, OF COURSE, IT'S JUST SAYING YOU ARE OKAY WITH REDUCING THE NUMBER OF OFFS, STREET PARKING SPACES, BUT WE CAN'T DICTATE WHERE THEY ARE, HOW THEY ARE PROVIDED.
AND, AND AGAIN, YOU KNOW, JUST THINKING OUT LOUD HERE, IF THEY WERE TO ASSIGN THEM, THEN THAT WOULD, THAT WOULDN'T OPEN IT UP TO OTHER UNITS THAT MIGHT NEED MORE PARKING SPACES THAN, UM, THAN SAY A, A A A UNIT THAT JUST NEEDS ONE.
SO IT'S PROBABLY A MOOT POINT, BUT YEAH, THAT'S, I'M JUST THINKING OUT LOUD HERE, MR. NI, I THINK IT, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE ONLY UNIT THAT IS GOING TO RE NEED TO BE, NEED TO HAVE TWO DESIGNATED SPOTS ARE THE TWO BEDROOMS. UM, NOT NECESSARILY A ONE BEDROOM COULD HAVE TWO PEOPLE.
WELL, THAT'S TRUE, BUT WELL, I MEAN, SO YOU, I, YOU'D HAVE TO DO THE NUMBERS.
AND, AND AGAIN, WE GRANT THIS TO THE PROPERTY, NOT NECESSARILY, WE DON'T KNOW THE MIX OF THE TENANTS.
UH, WE WE'RE JUST, THIS ALL CONJECTURE TRUE.
UH, EVERY TRAFFIC STUDY I'VE EVER SEEN IN MY LIFE SUPPORTS THE REQUEST.
WE'VE SEEN ENOUGH TRAFFIC STUDIES TO KNOW THEY ALL THEY'RE BOUGHT.
AND WHAT'S THE NUMBER YOU WANT? OKAY, THERE YOU GO.
NOW THAT I'M NOT DISPAR DISPARAGING PACHECO COKE 'CAUSE THEY'RE GOOD.
BUT, UM, SO MR. NERI, I MEAN, ONE BEDROOM COULD BE TWO PEOPLE.
IT COULD BE ONE PERSON, THE STUDIO, YOU WOULD THINK AS ONE PERSON.
BUT NOWADAYS, YOU KNOW, STUDIO COULD BE TWO.
UM, THIS ONE MEMBER'S NOT CONVINCED YET, BUT, UH, YOU DON'T NEED ALL FULL FIVE OF US.
DID YOU HAVE A COMMENT? WELL, I WAS JUST GONNA SAY TO MS. HAYDEN'S POINT, WE, WHETHER OR NOT YOU GUYS ENFORCE IT, WE CERTAINLY HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO THAT.
AND, AND LIKE I KIND OF GAVE YOU A NON-ANSWER EARLIER WHEN I WAS LIKE, I DON'T KNOW, MAYBE, MAYBE NOT.
IF WE RUN INTO THE PROBLEM AND WE'VE GOT OVERFLOW PARKING, WE CAN START, THAT'S, THAT'S THE MINUTE WE START ASSIGNING PARKING SPACES, AND THAT'D BE KIND OF A WORST CASE SCENARIO.
SO, UM, WHAT WE'D PROBABLY DO BEFORE THAT IS LIMIT THE TWO BEDROOMS OR, YOU KNOW, RESERVE THE TWO BEDROOMS FIRST.
BUT, BUT IN ANY EVENT, MY POINT IS, IS THE OPTION'S ALWAYS GONNA BE THERE TO FIX THAT PROBLEM THAT YOU'RE CONCERNED ABOUT.
SO MAYBE THAT MAKES YOU FEEL BETTER.
NOTHING YET MAKES ME FEEL BETTER.
ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY OTHER CHALLENGES, PARKING CHALLENGES THAT YOU HAVE AT ANY OF THE OTHER DEVELOPMENTS THAT YOU'VE BUILT? NOT THAT WE'RE UNDER PARKED.
I'M OVER PARKED ON OAK IN OAK LAWN BY 1.5.
VERY SIM VERY SIMILAR PROJECT.
WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY OVER PARKED? WE BUILT WAY TOO MANY PARKING SPOTS.
AND THEY, THEY ENFORCE ONE AND A HALF HARDCORE.
UM, THAT'S CHARACTERISTIC OF 1 93.
SO, UM, I JUST, I JUST KNOW THIS IS TOO MANY SPACES BASED ON EXPERIENCE.
UM, UM, AND WELL ALSO, THIS IS NOT A VERY PEDESTRIAN AREA.
IT'S NOT, YOU DON'T SEE A LOT OF BIKES.
YOU DON'T SEE A LOT OF FOOT TRAFFIC.
IT'S JUST NOT, IT'S, THEY'RE ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF YOU.
MY BEST RECOLLECTION, THEY'RE, UH, SMALL BUSINESSES THAT HAVE FRONT END GARAGES FOR WAREHOUSE SMALL W SPACES.
AND IT'S NOT ALL THE SAME, BUT IT'S NOT A HIGHLY PEDESTRIAN
[00:50:01]
AREA OR, UH, BECAUSE I DON'T THINK THERE'S EVEN A SIDEWALK ON YOUR SIDE.UM, I DON'T, I DON'T RECALL A SIDEWALK, BUT I, AGAIN, I'M GOING TO THE FACT THAT IT'S GONNA BE DRIVEN, PEOPLE ARE GONNA HAVE TO DRIVE HERE TO GET HERE, TO GET TO YOUR LOCATION.
NOW, IF IT WAS A SITUATION ELSEWHERE IN THE CITY WHERE, YOU KNOW, PEDESTRIAN OR BICYCLING WAS COMMON, THEN IT, THEN IT GOES TO THE, UH, SITUATION TO AVOID BEING OVERPOWERED.
SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT, WHAT'S YOUR OPINION OF THAT COMMENT, MS. HAYDEN, ABOUT THE ISSUE OF, OF THE AREA BEING MY OPINION, NOT VERY PEDESTRIAN OR BICYCLE? WELL, I THINK, UM, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE RIGHT THE WAY IT IS RIGHT NOW.
BUT THAT'S NOT TO SAY THAT THAT COULDN'T CHANGE.
I, I JUST, UM, YOU KNOW, I CAN FEEL LIKE, I DON'T KNOW.
I THINK, UM, I, I THINK THIS CAN BE RESOLVED AS THE APPLICANT TESTIFIED WITH, UM, JUST A CERTAIN NUMBER OF SPACES FOR EACH UNIT, YOU KNOW, AND, AND I'VE SEEN THAT OTHER PLACES WHERE THEY'LL, THEY'LL SAY, HEY, IF YOU HAVE A STUDIO, YOU GET ONE PARKING SPOT.
IF YOU HAVE A TWO BEDROOM, YOU GET TWO PARKING SPOTS.
AND THEN THE APP, THE THE TENANTS OR THE RENTERS OR, OR THE OWNERS HAVE TO FIGURE OUT HOW THEY'RE GOING TO, YOU KNOW, PARK THE OTHER VEHICLE.
AND, YOU KNOW, IF THERE'S STREET PARKING, THAT'S GREAT.
IF THERE'S, YOU KNOW, THERE'S DEFINITELY BUSES ALONG THE ROUTE, THERE'S, YOU KNOW, UM, SO I, I'M, I'M NOT THAT, I'M, I'M NOT THAT CONCERNED WITH THE, WITH THAT TO BE HONEST LIST.
AND CAN I MAKE A COMMENT? YEAH.
UM, AND I KNOW THIS ISN'T A PLANNING AND ZONING HEARING, UH, BUT AGAIN, I JUST WANT TO REINFORCE THAT OUR USE IS A USE THAT'S ALLOWED ON THIS AREA NOW VIA THE CHANGE OF ZONING TO SPARK AND, AND INCUBATE THESE KIND OF CHANGES.
SO IT CAN BECOME WALKABLE AND THESE DYNAMICS CAN CHANGE, JUST LIKE THE CITY HAS AN ENVISION FOR NOT JUST OUR LOCATION, BUT THE GREATER, UH, KIND OF SUB-COMMUNITY IN THAT AREA.
SO WE FEEL LIKE THIS PROJECT WOULD, UH, HELP THOSE MATTERS.
THIS ISN'T A PLANNING AND ZONING.
THIS IS A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND OUR QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCESS BY WHICH WE GET FACTS PRESENTED TO US, AND WE MAKE A JUDGMENT AND COMPARE THAT TO THE CODE.
AND WE'RE VERY HESITANT ABOUT GRANTING A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR 12% OR WHATEVER, AND OUR PARKING, BECAUSE WE WANNA PROTECT AGAINST THIS CRITERIA OF TRAFFIC HAZARD AND SPILL OVER AND THAT.
SO WE'RE, WE'RE VERY PROTECTIVE OF THAT.
I MEAN, SO, BUT OKAY, SO OPINIONS.
ARE WE READY FOR A MOTION? I DON'T KNOW.
THE CHAIR WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
MR. HAITZ, I MOVE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 3 4 DASH 1 47 ON THE APPLICATION OF STEVE BODEN JR.
REPRESENTED BY SKY THIBO ODO, THANK YOU.
DENY THE SPECIAL EXCEPT EXCEPTION TO THE PARKING REGULATIONS REQUESTED BY THIS APPLICANT WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY, THE TESTIMONY SHOWS THIS SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL INCREASE TRAFFIC HAZARDS OR INCREASE TRAFFIC CONGESTION ON ADJACENT OR NEARBY STREETS.
AND THE PARKING DEMAND GENERATED BY THE USE WARRANTS THE NUMBER OF REQUIRED PARKING SPACES IN THE MATTER BDA 2 3 4 DASH 1 47.
A MOTION HAS BEEN MADE BY MR. KOVI TO DENY THE REQUEST WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IS THERE A SECOND? THE MOTION FAILS FOR LACK OF SECOND.
THE CHAIRMAN WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION OR WE CAN CONTINUE TO THE DISCUSSION.
UH, MR. CHAIRMAN, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 3 4 DASH 1 47 ON APPLICATION OF STEVE ODEN JR.
REPRESENTED BY SKY THIBODAUX GRANT, THE REQUEST OF THIS APPLICANT TO PROVIDE 420 OFF STREET PARKING SPACES TO THE OFF STREET PARKING REGULATIONS CONTAINED IN THE DA DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED, WHICH REQUIRES 476 OFF STREET PARKING SPACES.
BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY USE AND THE TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT THIS SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT INCREASE TRAFFIC HAZARDS OR INCREASE TRAFFIC CONGEST CONGESTION ON ADJACENT OR NEARBY STREETS.
AND THE PARKING DEMAND GENERATED BY THE USE DOES NOT WARRANT THE NUMBER OF REQUIRED PARKING SPACES.
THIS SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS GRANTED FOR A MULTIFAMILY USE ONLY.
I FURTHER MOVE THAT THE FOLLOWING CONDITION BE IMPOSED TO FURTHER THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE.
THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION OF 56 SPACES SHALL AUTOMATICALLY AND IMMEDIATELY TERMINATE IF AND WHEN THE MULTIFAMILY USE
[00:55:01]
IS CHANGED OR DISCONTINUED IN THE MATTER OF BDA 2 3 4 DASH 47.UM, MR. NRI HAS MOVED TO GRANT THE REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION.
IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND.
MR. NARY, THEN MS. HAYDEN? MR. NARY? THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
YEAH, I THINK THE TESTIMONY HAS REALLY ASSUAGED MY CONCERNS ON THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT.
UM, ONE, I BELIEVE THAT, UH, THE ORIGINAL, UH, AFFIDAVIT, I THINK SAID WAS A 10% REDUCTION.
I THINK WE'RE ALL IN CONCURRENCE NOW THAT IT'S A 12% REDUCTION IN THE REQUIRED NUMBER OF SPACES.
I THINK THAT'S FAIRLY MINIMAL.
UM, OVERALL, NOW, IF THIS WAS A 2020 5% REDUCTION OR GREATER, I WOULD BE VERY HESITANT.
BUT, YOU KNOW, 10 OR 12% TO ME IS NOT THAT, NOT THAT MUCH.
UH, FURTHER, UM, THE FACT THAT IRVING BOULEVARD IS A VERY BUSY STREET HEAVY TRAFFIC.
UH, BUT I, BUT MY CONCERNS ON THAT WITH REGARD TO THE INGRESS AND EGRESS ON THE PROPERTY ROSS WAGE BY THE POINT THAT MS. HAYDEN RAISED IN HER EARLY QUESTIONING.
SO, UM, THAT'S THE REASON I'M SUPPORTING THE THANK YOU.
MS. HAYDEN? YES, I AGREE WITH MR. NER.
UM, MY, MY QUESTION EARLIER WAS RELATED TO WOULD THIS CO CONSTITUTE A TRAFFIC HAZARD? UM, AND I THINK THAT THE FACT THAT THE ENTRANCE TO THE GARAGE IS NOT RIGHT OFF OF IRVING BOULEVARD, UM, HELPED, UM, UH, CONVINCE ME THAT THIS WOULD NOT CONSTITUTE A TRAFFIC HAZARD.
I THINK A 12% REDUCTION IS NOT, UM, IS, IS NOT EXCESSIVE FOR THIS USE AND IN THIS AREA.
AND I KNOW THAT, THAT SINCE THIS IS A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, THIS, THIS IS ALL CHANGING IN THAT AREA.
UM, ALSO THE FACT THAT THERE IS A MEDIAN OPENING FOR THE, UH, WESTBOUND IRVING BOULEVARD, UM, PUT MY MIND AT EASE, UM, FROM THAT DIRECTION BECAUSE WE WON'T HAVE PEOPLE PASSING UP THE SITE AND THEN DOING U-TURN, WHICH ARE, UM, MORE HAZARDOUS THAN HAVING A LEFT TURN LANE, A DEDICATED LEFT TURN LANE AND MEETING AND OPENING.
SO, UM, THAT'S WHY I'M VOTING IN FAVOR OF THIS.
OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? MS. DAVIS? I'LL SUPPORT THE MOTION.
I'M REALLY TRUSTING YOUR WORD AND YOUR JUDGMENT.
AND I, I THINK YOU'D HAVE TO BE A REALLY SILLY BUSINESS PERSON TO UNDER, UM, TO BUILD UNDER THE REQUIRED NUMBER OF PARKING OR UNDER THE NEEDED NUMBER OF PARKING.
THAT WOULD JUST BE REALLY SILLY.
AND YOU'VE GOT A TRACK RECORD OF SUCCESS.
SO IT, IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE THAT YOU WOULD, UM, KNOWINGLY GO IN AND CONSTRUCT LESS THAN WHAT YOU REALLY NEED.
SO THAT'S WHY I'M SUPPORTING THIS MOTION.
I, I'LL SUPPORT MR. N'S MOTION AND MS. UH, HAYDEN'S CONCURRENCE.
UM, AND I WILL ECHO AGAIN MY COLLEAGUE, MS. DAVIS'S COMMENT, IT IS IN YOUR SELF-INTEREST TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU BUILD A QUALITY PROJECT THAT YOUR TENANTS FEEL SAFE, THAT THEY CAN PULL IN OFF OF IRVING BOULEVARD AND, UH, FIND A PLACE TO PARK.
THE SPILLOVER WOULD BE A DISASTER.
NUMBER ONE, IT WOULD BE SAYING WE MADE THE WRONG DECISION.
NUMBER TWO, IT'S GOTTA BE A DEAL BREAKER FOR A TENANT TO HAVE TO NOT BE ABLE TO PARK WITHIN YOUR, YOUR PROPERTY.
UH, AGAIN, AS MS. HAYDEN SPOKE TO, IF YOUR ENTRANCE AND YOU SAID THE ENTRANCE TO THE PARKING GARAGE IS FARTHER TO THE BACK, RIGHT? SO THERE'S NO WAY THERE'S GONNA BE ANY CARS LINED UP COMING IN.
THERE'S PLENTY OF PLENTY OF, OKAY.
WOULD YOU SAY THAT ON THE RECORD? JUST FOR THERE'S, THERE'S, THERE'S NO BACKUP ON IRVING BOULEVARD.
NO BACKUP, NO QUEUING, NONE OF THAT.
'CAUSE THAT WOULD BE A DEAL KILLER.
AND IT WOULD BE A DEAL KILLER, I THINK AS A SOUND BUSINESS INVESTMENT.
AND HOW MUCH IS THIS PROJECT DOLLAR WISE? JUST GIMME A ROUND NUMBER.
SPEND A HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS.
THANK YOU FOR INVESTING IN DALLAS, SPENDING A HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS.
AND THEN HAVE TENANTS THAT DON'T HAVE A PLACE TO PARK.
I MEAN D-U-M-B-I DIDN'T CALL YOU THAT.
SO I'M GONNA, UH, SUPPORT IT AND, AND BELIEVE THAT YOU'RE USING GOOD JUDGMENT TO TAKE CARE OF YOUR PROPERTY AND YOUR TENANTS.
BUT JUST KNOW THAT WE ARE VERY HESITANT ABOUT PARKING EXCEPTIONS BECAUSE OF THE HISTORY OF THE BLEED OVER.
SO, SO I'LL BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? MR. KOVI? I'LL NOT BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION FOR THE PRIMARY REASON THAT THERE IS ESSENTIALLY NO ALTERNATIVE PARKING AVAILABLE TO ANYONE WHO COMES HOME TO THE RESIDENCE AND FINDS THE PARKING GARAGE AT SCHOOL.
UM, THERE'S JUST NOTHING REASONABLE FOR THEM TO DO AT THAT POINT.
UH, SO I CANNOT, UH, VOTE IN FAVOR OF THAT.
ONE OTHER EDITOR COMMENT I'LL GIVE YOU IS WHAT YOU SAID THE BREAKDOWN WAS.
[01:00:01]
BEDROOM.THERE'S THAT MANY ONE BEDROOM AND STUDIOS THAT PUSHES ME TO ONE CAR AS OPPOSED TO TWO CAR.
IF THAT NUMBERS WERE HIGHER ON THE TWO BEDROOMS, I THINK THAT'S TWO CARS.
SO I'M JUST SAYING THAT TO CONVINCE MYSELF THAT I'M, THAT I'M NOT GONNA MAKE A POOR DECISION HERE.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION OF THE MOTION? HEARING NONE WILL GO TO A VOTE MS. BOARD SECRETARY, MS. HAYDEN? AYE.
MOTION IS GRANTED FOUR TO ONE IN BDA 2 3 4 DASH 1 47, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, GRANTED THE REQUEST FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR PARKING.
UH, ON A FOUR TO ONE VOTE, YOU'LL GET A LETTER FROM OUR BOARD ADMINISTRATOR.
OKAY, NEXT ITEM, UH, ON OUR AGENDA IS, UM, BDA 2 3 4 DASH 1 48 2 3 4 DASH 48.
THIS IS AT 7 0 3 8 GREENVILLE AVENUE.
IS THE APPLICANT HERE? YES, SIR.
THE RECORD SHOWING THAT I'M, WE'RE BEING GIVEN A HANDOUT FROM THE APPLICANT.
UM, SO, UM, MS. WILLIAMS, DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS OTHER THAN THE APPLICANT? OTHER SPEAKERS? ALL RIGHT.
WE JUST HANDED YOU A BLUE CARD.
UH, OUR, OUR TRAFFIC ENGINEERS HERE AS WELL.
AND SO, WELL, IF YOU CAN GET UP, HE CAN GET SWORN IN.
HE'S SOMEHOW, YOU KNOW HOW TO DO THIS, MR. I READ, I READ, I JUST WONDER HOW YOU KNOW THIS.
I JUST WONDER HOW YOU KNOW THIS.
ALL RIGHT, MS. UH, WILLIAMS WILL SWEAR BOTH OF YOU ALL IN.
DO YOU BOTH SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? YES, MA'AM.
SO WE'RE GONNA START OFF WITH MR. BALDWIN.
UM, YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES PLUS OR MINUS.
TAKE YOUR TIME, MAKE YOUR PRESENTATION.
UH, I'LL CUT YOU OFF IF YOU'RE REDUNDANT.
UH, OKAY, PROCEED SIR, IF YOU CAN GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
MY NAME IS ROB BALDWIN, 3 9 0 4 ELM STREET, SWEEPY IN DALLAS.
WE'RE HERE SEEKING A, A PARKING, A PARKING VARIANCE FOR, UH, THAT'S A RETAIL PRINTING STORE, BUT IT'S ACTUALLY, YOU'LL HEAR MY TESTIMONY WHEN LLOYD'S TESTIMONY.
IT'S ACTUALLY CONSIDERED A CUSTOM BUSINESS SERVICE.
IT'S UP ON GREENVILLE AVENUE, JUST NORTH OF PARK LANE.
UH, IT'S A EXISTING BUILDING BUILT IN 1965.
IT'S BEEN USED AS A A FURNITURE STORE SINCE ABOUT 1965, EAST SIDE OF, UH, OF GREENVILLE AVENUE.
AS YOU CAN SEE, IT'S KIND OF AN ODD SHAPED PIECE OF PROPERTY, AND THEN IT'S A TRAPEZOID, WHICH MAKES IT HARD TO, TO LAY OUT FOR PARKING.
AND WE HAVE A, A, A LARGE BUILT-IN THERE THAT'S NOT MOVING.
UH, THERE'S ACTUALLY MORE PARKING SPACES ON THE SITE TODAY THAN WE'RE PROPOSING.
WE CAME IN AND, UH, SHOWED OUR SITE PLAN TO THE CITY, AND THEY SHOWED THAT WE HAD SOME PARKING SPACES AND SITE VISIBILITY TRIANGLES.
WE HAD SOME PARALLEL PARKING SPACES THAT WERE IN THE, UH, FIRE LANE.
SO WE WENT FROM 20 PARKING SPACES ON THE SITE TODAY TO, TO 15.
SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR.
THIS IS A SITE PLAN THAT WE'RE PROPOSING.
SO, UM, AT THE BRIEFING SESSION WE TALKED, Y'ALL TALKED ABOUT, UH, THE PARKING VARIANCE, AND IT GOES WITH THE USE AND NOT THE, THE, THE WELL USED IN THE TENANT.
SO WE'RE ASKING FOR A REDUCTION FOR, UH, A PRINTING OPERATION, WHICH IS CLASSIFIED AS A COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT INSIDE.
SO IF THAT USE WERE TO GO AWAY AND SOMEONE CAME BACK IN FOR A RETAIL USE OR RESTAURANT USE THE PARKING VARIANCE, IT GETS EXTINGUISHED.
THAT DOES NOT TRANSFER TO ANOTHER USE.
UM, ANOTHER THING YOU ASKED FOR IS, UH, IN WRITING WHAT THE USES ARE.
SO WHAT YOU SEE HERE THAT WE HANDED OUT, MR. DENWOOD, WAS KIND ENOUGH TO, TO DO THIS ON THE FLY.
THESE ARE THE, THE CODE REQUIREMENTS OUT OF THE, THE CITY ZONING ORDINANCE, CHAPTER 51 A.
SO CHAPTER 51 A, IT DEFINES USES.
UH, AND HERE, YOU KNOW, WE SEE THE DEFINITION FOR CUSTOM BUSINESS SERVICE AND FURNITURE STORE.
AND IN THE DEFINITION FOR THE USES, IT ALSO TELLS YOU WHAT YOUR PARKING REQUIREMENT'S GONNA BE AND YOUR LOADING REQUIREMENT.
AND THEN THE ZONING DISTRICT TELLS YOU WHAT COLLECTION OF USES ARE ALLOWED ON A PIECE OF PROPERTY.
SO WE ARE AN MU THREE DISTRICT OR A MIXED USE THREE DISTRICT.
AND BOTH CUSTOM BUSINESS SERVICES AND A FURNITURE STORE ARE ALLOWED USES ON THE PROPERTY.
SO THE PARKING REQUIREMENT TRIGGERED BY THE
[01:05:01]
USE WE'RE ASKING FOR, AND NOT THE ZONING DISTRICT ITSELF.IT JUST SO HAPPENS THAT THIS USE IS ALLOWED IN THE, THE NU THREE DISTRICT.
SO I'M GONNA TALK TO RELY ON MR. DENMAN TO GIVE YOU THE DETAILS ON THIS 'CAUSE HE IS, UH, AN ENGINEER.
BUT I'LL JUST TELL YOU THAT WE THINK THIS USE IS, UH, REASONABLE.
'CAUSE LIKE A FURNITURE STORE, THE REASON THE FURNITURE STORE HAS A LESS PARKING REQUIREMENT THAN A RETAIL USE, EVEN THOUGH IT'S A RETAIL USER, THEIR INVENTORY TAKES UP A LOT OF THE SPACE.
SO INVENTORY AND THEIR SALES FLOOR TAKES UP A LOT MORE SPACE THAN IF IT WAS LIKE A CONVENIENCE STORE.
IN THIS CASE, OUR RETAIL PRINTING OPERATION, EVEN THOUGH IT'S RETAIL, WE HAVE VERY FEW PEOPLE COME IN.
MOST OF THE USERS, UH, GET THEIR, THEY, THEY GO ONLINE, MAKE THEIR ORDERS, AND THEN THE, THE PRINTER DALLAS PRINTING DELIVERS IT TO THEM.
AND THEIR EQUIPMENT HAS A BIG FOOTPRINT.
SO LIKE THE FURNITURE, YOUR PRINTING MACHINES TAKE UP A LOT OF AREA, AND, UM, THEY DON'T GENERATE A LOT OF PARKING DEMAND.
UH, IF WE CAN GO SWITCH OFF, UH, TO HAVE LLOYD DIMON KIND OF GO THROUGH HIS REPORT, UH, THAT WOULD BE GREAT.
AND THEN COME BACK TO QUESTIONS.
SO THIS IS AN INTERESTING AND UNUSUAL REQUEST BECAUSE THIS IS AN EXISTING, WELL-ESTABLISHED BUSINESS.
IT'S BEEN IN OPERATION FOR 50 YEARS.
BY MOVING LOCATIONS FROM PRESTON CENTER TO GREENVILLE AVENUE, IT'S ACTUALLY INCREASING, ITS PARKING 25%.
IT'S GOING FROM 12 SPACES TO 15 SPACES.
SO YOU THINK, WONDERFUL, WE'RE INCREASING THE PARKING, BUT THEY STILL HAVE TO REQUEST A REDUCTION BASED ON THE CODE.
SO AS FAR AS THE BUSINESS OPERATING, IT'S GAINING PARKING SPACES.
AND AS ROB MENTIONED, THIS IS A UNIQUE BUSINESS.
I LIVE NEAR PRESTON CENTER AND I NEEDED A CUSTOM ALUMINUM BLANK SIGN.
AND I FOUND THIS BUSINESS 'CAUSE IT WAS CLOSE BY, THERE ARE ONLY TWO PARKING SPACES FOR CUSTOMERS.
TWO, AND IT'S TUCKED AROUND BACK.
SO IT WAS REALLY HARD TO FIND.
WHEN I WENT TO THE BUSINESS, THE TWO SPACES WERE OPEN.
I WENT IN, DID MY BUSINESS LEFT.
A WEEK LATER I CAME TO PICK UP MY CUSTOM SIGN.
SO I ASKED THE OPERATOR DURING A VISIT, HOW DO YOU MAKE IT WITH ONLY TWO PARKING SPACES? AND HE SAID, WE DON'T HAVE MANY CUSTOMERS THAT COME PICK UP THEIR ORDERS.
WE MAINLY, UH, HAVE CALL IN ORDERS, ONLINE ORDERS, AND WE SHIP OUT.
SO THIS IS NOT A RETAIL, A TYPICAL RETAIL TYPE BUSINESS, UM, WHERE WE, ARE WE PLANNING ON GOING THROUGH MY ACTUAL DOCUMENT OR I DON'T THINK, YEAH, SO, YOU KNOW, IRONICALLY THE BUSINESS IS GAINING PARKING, YET WE'RE ASKING FOR A REDUCTION BECAUSE OF THE LOCATION.
AND IT IS A PLUS IN MY MIND, THERE'S BETTER ACCESS OFF GREENVILLE THAN THERE WAS TUCKED IN PRESTON CENTER FOR BOTH THE EMPLOYEES AND THE CUSTOMERS.
THIS PARTICULAR SITE IS GAINING A LOADING DOCK WHERE THERE WAS NO LOADING DOCK BEFORE.
AND, UM, WHEN YOU WENT OUT, YOU DID OBSERVATION, RIGHT? YEAH.
OH, I WAS GONNA SAY, THE EXISTING FURNITURE BUSINESS IS EMPTY, YOU KNOW, SO THIS IS A OPPORTUNITY TO RECLAIM AN EXISTING BUILDING, YOU KNOW, TO ME IT'S A WIN-WIN.
YOU SAID IT'S EMPTY, MEANING THERE'S NOTHING THERE.
PICTURES WE SAW THIS MORNING, THERE WERE, THERE WAS CARS IN FRONT OF IT WHEN I WENT.
AND IT LOOKED LIKE IT WAS GOING OUT OF BUSINESS THOUGH.
WELL, OUR PICTURES, I THOUGHT HAD CARS IN THE LOT.
I SAW THOSE SAME PHOTOS, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING WHEN I WENT BY THERE, THERE WAS BUSINESS DID NOT OPERATE.
THERE'S CARS MAY BEFORE, UH, SOMEBODY, UH, NEXT DOOR OR SOMEBODY LOOKING AT THE SIDE.
WE, THE, OUR CLIENT IS CLOSER TO THE MICROPHONE, MR. BOLDER, OUR, OUR CLIENT IS ANALYZING THE BUILDING AND HE'S HIRED PROFESSIONALS TO GO IN THERE AND, AND DO TOURS OF THE BUILDING TO MAKE SURE THE ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS WORK AND, YOU KNOW, THE HVAC SYSTEMS WORK.
SO THEY, THEY, THEY COULD BE THOSE PEOPLE.
BUT, UH, THE, UH, RIGHT NOW IT'S NOT OPERATING AS A FOR INSTANCE STORE.
MR. CHAIRMAN, ANYTHING ELSE? OH, MR. MS. HAYDEN, PLEASE.
UM, DO YOU HAVE AN IDEA OF HOW MANY STAFF WILL BE WORKING IN THIS LOCATION? YES, THAT WAS IN MY REPORT AS WELL.
[01:10:01]
ARE 11 EMPLOYEES, NINE OF WHICH ARE TYPICALLY THERE, AND THERE WILL BE NINE EMPLOYEE SPACES IN THE BACK AT PRESTON CENTER WHEN THEY WERE OPERATING WITH ONLY TWO CUSTOMER SPACES, IT'S BECAUSE THE EMPLOYEES WERE PARKING IN A SEPARATE AREA ON TOP OF A PARKING GARAGE, NOT ACCESSIBLE TO THE PUBLIC.QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT, MR. HAITZ? SO, I'M SORRY, THERE'S A LOT OF NUMBERS BEEN THROWN AROUND.
SO THERE'S, THERE'S NINE PARKING SPOTS IN THE BACK FOR, FOR EMPLOYEES.
THEN HOW MANY WILL THERE BE FOR CUSTOMERS? SIX.
THE FRONT, IN THE FRONT WHERE THE, AND THEY'VE BEEN OPERATING FOR ALL THESE YEARS WITH ONLY TWO.
DOES THE SIX, YOU SAID NINE IN THE BACK AND YOU SAID SIX IN THE FRONT AND ONE OF THE SIX IS THE HANDICAP? CORRECT.
IN WHICH WE HEARD THIS MORNING WAS REQUIRED ONE, IF IT'S MORE THAN FOUR, SO IT'S, IT, SO IT'S ONE.
AND, UM, AND A LOADING DOCK WHERE THERE WAS NO LOADING DOCK BEFORE.
I, I'M LOOKING AT YOUR, THE SCHEMATIC HERE AND I SEE THE LOADING DOCK UP FRONT AND I THINK WE SAW A PICTURE OF IT THIS MORNING TOO.
UM, SO THE GIST OF YOUR CASE IS THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF YOUR BUILDING IS A, IS BEING DRIVEN BY THE SIZE OF MACHINE, NOT NECESSARILY THE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES OR CUSTOMERS.
CORRECT? ACTUALLY, I THINK THE BUILDING IS JUST THE BUILDING, YEAH.
THEY DIDN'T SPEC IT OUT BY SQUARE FEET, IT'S JUST THE LOCATION WHERE THEY'RE MOVING.
YOU'RE HERE BECAUSE YOU'RE WANTING TO HAVE A 56% REDUCTION IN PART, SO THAT GETS OUR ATTENTION, AS YOU CAN HEAR IN THE PREVIOUS CASE FOR JUST 12%.
SO, UH, AND OBVIOUSLY OUR CONCERN ALWAYS IS THE SPILLOVER TO OTHER PROPERTIES AS WELL AS THE TRAFFIC ON GREENVILLE AVENUE AND THAT SORT OF THING.
I THINK THE, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THIS CASE AND THE LAST CASE, THE LAST CASE CLOSER TO THE MICROPHONE, THE LAST CASE THE, THE BUILDING WAS PROPOSED AND, BUT THIS, WE HAVE AN EXISTING BUILDING AND AN OPERATOR THAT'S BEEN IN BUSINESS FOR 50 YEARS AND HAS A CURRENT OPERATION THAT, UH, IT'S KNOWN.
AND, UH, SO WE KNOW HOW IT OPERATES THAT, AND WE KNOW HOW MANY PEOPLE COME AND GO, UH, FROM THE, FOR THE RETAIL LOCATION.
BOTH OF IT IS, UH, YOU KNOW, DELIVERED AND COME ACROSS ONLINE.
AND IT SHOWS THAT WE NOTIFIED 40 SHOWS, 40 SHOWS THAT WE NOTIFIED.
IT SAYS 40, 40 DIFFERENT PEOPLE WERE NOTIFIED OF THIS REQUEST AND NO ONE RESPONDED ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.
AND I'VE SENT LETTERS TO ALL THOSE PEOPLE AS WELL AND DIDN'T HEAR FROM ANY OF THEM, WHICH COULD BE GOOD, COULD BE BAD, BUT WILL, BUT ABSENCE OF A FIRE IS NO FIRE.
WELL, IN MY EXPERIENCE, USUALLY IF PEOPLE ARE CONCERNED, I HEAR ABOUT IT.
I, I HEAR YOU QUESTIONS, OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT AND YOU'RE ASSURING US THERE WILL BE NO SPILLOVER PARKING? CORRECT.
THERE'S PLENTY OF ROOM AS YOU PULL OFF OF GREENVILLE TO, TO MANEUVER INSIDE THE PARKING LOT, MR. CHAIRMAN, MR. NER HAS A YES.
I, MS. HAYDEN THEN MR. NER, MS. HAYDEN.
SO JUST TO, JUST TO CONFIRM WHAT I'VE HEARD EARLIER, UM, THIS IS MU THREE.
SO IT HAS A CERTAIN NUMBER OF SPACES, UM, FOR THE USE.
BUT THIS, THIS, UH, THIS REQUEST, THIS VARIANCE RE REQUEST IS FOR THE USE OF THIS.
SO IF THE USE CHANGES IN THE FUTURE, OUR VARIANCE GOES AWAY, RIGHT? UM, CORRECT.
HAS A DIFFERENT USE FOR THIS, THIS SPOT.
I'M VISITING WITH MY BOARD ATTORNEY.
SO I'M GONNA ASK MY BOARD ATTORNEY TO REPEAT WHAT SHE JUST SAID TO ME.
WE, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT WHETHER THE USE GOES TO THE LAND OR TO WHETHER THE VARIANCE SPECIAL, WHETHER THE PARKING VARIANCE GOES WITH THE LAND OR WITH GOES WITH THE USE.
AND WHETHER THAT NEEDS TO BE CONDITIONED AS PART OF WHAT WE WOULD OR WOULD NOT CONSIDER.
THEY'RE GONNA MAKE THIS SEMI-LEGAL.
[01:15:02]
SO IF I LOOK MR. NER, OH, YOU HAD SOMETHING NEXT, MR. NER.IF I LOOK AT THIS, THIS, I'M, I'M READING YOUR SHEET AND IT SAYS HERE, ONE SPACE PER 300.
AND ON THE BOTTOM IT SAYS ONE SPACE FOR 500.
SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT THIS IS CONSIDERED A CUSTOM BUSINESS SERVICE, NOT A, UNDER THE FURNITURE STORE COMPONENT.
SO THE CRITERIA HERE IS ONE SPACE FOR 300 IS WHAT YOU'RE ASKING TO GET AN A VARIANCE FROM? THAT'S CORRECT.
DID YOU WANNA GO AHEAD AND ASK YOUR QUESTION MR. NER? AND THEN I'M GONNA, WELL, UM, I KIND OF WOULD LIKE TO HEAR WHAT THE ATTORNEY HAS TO SAY IT FIRST BEFORE.
MR. KOVIC, MR. CHAIRMAN, UH, WHO WOULD, UNDER THE, UNDER THE SITUATION WHERE IF THE USE CHANGES, THE VARIANCE CHANGES OR GOES AWAY, WHO WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ENFORCING THAT CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCIES? OR, WELL, THAT THEY'RE TRYING TO DISCERN RIGHT NOW.
'CAUSE VARIANTS USUALLY GOES TO THE LAND WHERE A SPECIAL EXCEPTION GOES TO THE USE.
NOW I'M GONNA TURN TO, NOPE, NOT YET.
SO THEY'RE GONNA DECIPHER THAT.
UM, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S IN THE PERMITTING PROCESS.
AND, AND MR. MOND WAS WITH THE CITY FOR 20 YEARS AS WELL, SO HE CAN SPEAK TO IT AS WELL.
UM, IN THE CITY, ALL OPERATING BUSINESSES HAVE TO HAVE A BALLOT CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANTS OR A CO.
NOW IF THE USED WERE TO CHANGE OR THE, IF THE TENANT WERE TO CHANGE OR THE OWNERSHIP OR, YOU KNOW, IT'S GOING FROM ROB'S PRINTING TO LLOYD'S PRINTING, WE'D HAVE TO GET WHAT THEY CALL A NAME CHANGE CO.
AND THAT SHOWS THAT THE USE IS STAYING THE SAME, BUT THE OWNERSHIP'S CHANGING.
IF THE USE IS CHANGING, GOING FROM ROB'S PRINTING TO LLOYD'S RETAIL OPERATION, THEN YOU HAVE TO GET WHAT THEY CALL, UH, A USE CHANGE CO.
AND THAT REQUIRES FULL REVIEW FROM BUILDING CODE FIRE DEPARTMENT AND ZONING.
THE ZONING'S GONNA GO CHECK YOUR, YOUR PARKING TO MAKE SURE IT COMPLIES.
AND SHOULD THIS BE APPROVED, THEY WOULD SEE THAT A, UH, A VARIANCE WAS APPROVED FOR A CUSTOM BUSINESS SERVICE.
AND IF LLOYD'S COMING IN FOR A RETAIL USE, THEY SAY, WELL, THAT DOESN'T COUNT ANYMORE.
SO YOU NEED TO PROVIDE ONE SPACE FOR 200 SQUARE FEET OF PARKING.
SO THE ANSWER GET THIS QUESTION IS IT'D BE BUILDING INSPECTION.
AND YOU GET A CAUGHT OPERATING WITHOUT A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, THEY CAN, UH, HAVE YOUR POWER TURNED OFF.
YOU, YOU DON'T SEE IT VERY OFTEN, BUT THEY CAN DO THAT.
SO, MS. BORDER ATTORNEY, THE QUESTION WAS AS IT RELATES TO VARIANCE VERSUS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION, AND WHETHER IT'S CONDITIONED, WHETHER IT GOES TO THE USE OR THE, OR THE LAND, WHAT'S BEEN IN FRONT OF US IS A VARIANCE REQUEST.
DID YOU WANNA RESPOND TO THAT OR DID YOU WANT MS. MAY TO SPEAK TO THAT? WE BOTH, WELL, VARIANCE IS RUN WITH THE LAND, BUT I'LL LET MS. MAY, UM, ELABORATE FURTHER.
THAT THAT WOULD BE MY UNDERSTANDING AS WELL.
THAT, UH, SINCE IT'S A VARIANCE, IT'S, UH, A HARDSHIP OF THE LAND.
SO IT WOULD RUN WITH THE LAND FEES, HOWEVER BIG OF A VARIANCE, WHICH MAKES IT PERMANENT, WHICH MEANS IT WOULDN'T TRIP THEN IF THEY COME BACK IN ON A USE, RIGHT? CORRECT.
UH, COULD YOU POSSIBLY CONDITION IT TO A SITE CLAIM THAT COULD MAKE THINGS MORE CERTAIN? CAN CAN I ASK YOU TO LOOK AT YOUR MOTION? 'CAUSE THE MOTION YOU HAD FOR THE LAST ONE TIED IT TO A MULTIFAMILY USE.
AND I WOULD SUSPECT THIS MOTION TIES IT TO A CUSTOM BUSINESS SERVICE.
THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING THE QUESTION.
'CAUSE THE SITE PLAN ON THE DATA TABLE, ON THE SITE PLAN CLEARLY CALLS OUT, UH, CUSTOM BUSINESS SERVICE.
SO WE WOULD ASK YOU TO TIE IT TO THE SITE PLAN AND THE USE.
UM, SO MS. BOARD ATTORNEY, WHETHER, I DON'T KNOW IF WE PUT LANGUAGE IN THAT REFERENCES THAT AND SITE PLANS AS IT RELATES TO USE.
I THINK IT MORE SPECIFIC WE CAN BE THE BETTER IF WE'RE GONNA GRANT SOMETHING.
'CAUSE WE DON'T WANT IT TO BE OPEN-ENDED.
I DID HEAR MS. MAY SAY THAT VARIOUS GOES OF THE LAND NOT SPECIFIC TO USE, BUT ALSO WITHIN IT'S UN WITHIN OUR PREROGATIVE TO CONDITION IT.
SO I'M GONNA GIVE YOU A MINUTE TO, TO SCRIBE.
THAT DOESN'T MEAN WE HAVE THE VOTES, BUT WE'LL SEE IF THAT'S THE CASE.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS AT THIS JUNCTURE? MR. NER? DID THAT SEMI NOT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? I'M STILL A LITTLE CONFUSED.
UM, YOU KNOW, GRANTED A 56% REDUCTION IS, IS LARGE IN MY OPINION.
SO, UM, IN MY MIND, MY DECISION REALLY WOULD HAVE TO DO WITH WHETHER OR NOT, UH, THE, THE GRANTING IS USE SPECIFIC OR I WOULD AGREE AS OPPOSED TO OH,
[01:20:01]
GOES TO THE LAND, WHICH MEANS IT DOESN'T GET TRIGGERED LATER.SO MS. BOARD ATTORNEY, YOU HEAR THE SENTIMENT OF THE BOARD IS WE WANT IT CONDITIONED.
WHAT'D YOU CALL THE USE ROB? IT'S A CUSTOM BUSINESS SERVICE.
AND THAT'S CALLED INTO THE CODE? YES, SIR.
SO IF YOU WANT, YOU CAN MAKE IT EVEN MORE SPECIFIC.
YOU CAN SAY A CUSTOM BUSINESS SERVICE SERVICE UNDER 54 2 0 2 5 IS CUSTOM BUSINESS SERVICE.
SO YOUR MOTION COULD BE TO MAKE IT MORE SPECIFIC, A CUSTOM BUSINESS SERVICE LIMITED TO A PRINTING OPERATION.
WELL, WE DON'T WANT TO HANG YOU TOO MUCH.
I'M JUST TRYING, I'M TRYING TO GET THIS APPROVED AND TRYING TO GIVE YOU I I HEAR YOU.
WHAT YOU NEED TO, TO GET THERE.
IIII CAN'T SPEAK FOR THE BOARD.
I THINK THERE'S SENTIMENT TO APPROVE THE QUESTION IS IF WE'RE GONNA DO IT, WE WANT IT TO TRIGGER IF THE USE CHANGES TO, TO REVERT BACK.
SO GIVE THEM A MOMENT TO SCRIBE THIS AND THEN WE WILL CONCEIVE IF THE BOARD WILL CONSIDER IT.
DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE ON THIS, MS. HAYDEN? OKAY.
FOR THE PUBLIC, WE'RE IN THE PROCESS OF TRYING TO CREATE THE LANGUAGE THAT MAKES IT ENFORCEABLE SO THAT WHEN BUILDING INSPECTION TODAY OR IN THE FUTURE, THEY HAVE SPECIFIC DIRECTION FROM THE ACTIONS OF THE BOARD AS OPPOSED TO SOME GENERAL COMMENTS.
SO WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE IT AS SPECIFIC AS POSSIBLE.
ARE THE, ARE THE SPACES IN THE BACK USED BY THE CURRENT TENANT? BECAUSE I SAW SOME GRAFFITI ON THE WALL THERE YEAH.
WHICH DIDN'T MAKE IT LOOK LIKE IT'S BEING USED.
UH, I THINK THEY USED TO BE USED AND THERE WAS ACTUALLY MORE SPACES THAN, THAN WHAT'S SHOWN HERE.
UM, THE, THE BUILDING COULD USE A LITTLE LOVE.
AND IS THIS A, IS THIS A PURCHASE SUBJECT TO UM, ZONING? YES, SIR.
WE'RE JUST HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
HOPE YOU CAN SUPPORT THIS REQUEST.
I MOVE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL BDA 2 3 4 1 48 AND THE APPLICATION OF ROD BALDWIN GRANT THE 1818 SPACE VARIANCE TO THE PARKING REGULATION REQUEST BY THE APPLICANT.
BECAUSE OF OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND THE TESTIMONY SHOWS THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISION OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP TO THE APPLICANT.
I FURTHER MOVE THAT THE FOLLOWING CONDITION BE IMPOSED TO FURTHER THE PURPOSE AND INTENDED DEVELOP DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE NUMBER ONE, COMPLIANCE WITH THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF ALL SUBMITTED PLANS.
NUMBER TWO, THIS VARIANCE SHALL AUTOMATICALLY AND IMMEDIATELY TERMINATE IF AND WHEN THE CUSTOM BUSINESS SERVICE USE IS CHANGED OR DISCONTINUED.
IT'S BEEN MOVED BY MR. NEWMAN, SECOND BY MR. NER.
I THINK THIS IS A REASONABLE REQUEST BASED ON WHAT WE ARE HEARING AND WE PUT SOME, UM, GUARDRAILS IN PLACE THAT IF THE USE CHANGES OUT OF THE CUSTOM BUSINESS SERVICE, THEY WOULD, THEY WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK TO THE BOARD IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN THIS OR IT WOULD REVERT BACK TO THE ONE SPACE FOR 300, WHICH IS CONSISTENT UNDER THE CURRENT MU THREE.
DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION HEARING NONE THE BOARD WILL CALL FOR VOTE MS. BOARD SECRETARY, MS. HAYDEN? AYE.
[01:25:01]
TO ZERO IN THE MATTER BDA 2 3 4 DASH 1 48.THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVES IT FIVE TO ZERO.
YOU'LL GET A LETTER FROM OUR BOARD ADMINISTRATOR.
AND, UM, MARY, WE'RE GONNA MAKE SURE THAT LANGUAGE FOLLOWS WHATEVER, OR, OR, OKAY.
'CAUSE THAT'S GONNA HAVE TO BE ON THE ORDER THAT I SIGNED AS WELL.
NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA TODAY IS BDA 2 3 4 DASH 41 BDA 2 3 4 DASH 1 4 1.
THIS IS AT 7 2 6 WEST GREENBRIAR LANE.
IS THE APPLICANT HERE PLEASE COME FORWARD.
UM, HOW MANY SPEAKERS DO WE HAVE FOR 2, 3, 4.
UM, WE'RE GONNA HAVE YOU BOTH SWEAR IN, UH, UH, MS. BOARD SECRETARY, CORRECT.
UM, DO YOU BOTH SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? OKAY.
WHO, UH, IF YOU GO AHEAD AND INTRODUCE YOURSELF, PULL THAT MICROPHONE RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU SO THAT NOW TO PUSH THAT BUTTON.
UM, MY NAME IS CHARLOTTE YOUNGQUIST.
MY HUSBAND AND I RUSSELL LIVE AT 7 26 WEST GREENBRIAR LANE IN EAST KESSLER.
UM, I WAS BORN AND RAISED IN DALLAS AND GREW UP IN KESSLER.
MR. NEWMAN, I THINK YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH OUR LITTLE NEIGHBORHOOD.
IT IS A VERY UNIQUE NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, WE HAVE SOME OF THE MOST BEAUTIFUL SMALLER HOMES AND WE HAVE RANCH STYLE HOMES AND WE HAVE SOME MEGA MANSIONS GROWING UP,
WE HAVE MADE MANY IMPROVEMENTS SINCE WE BOUGHT THE PROPERTY AND WE THINK IT MIGHT HAVE MANY ELEMENTS OF THE CHARLES BECK DESIGN.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN TELL FROM SOME OF THE PICTURES, BUT IT'S GOT THE CRAZY BRICK OR DRUNKEN BRICK.
AND SO WE'VE REALLY TRIED TO KEEP WITH THE WAY THE HOME WAS ORIGINALLY BUILT, WHEN WE HAVE DONE AN ADD-ON AND A AND AN ADDITION, IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, WE ADDED A CARPORT.
SO THE CARPORT, UM, I BELIEVE THERE ARE TWO ISSUES IN QUESTION.
THE REASON THAT WE BUILT THE CARPORT, AND BY THE WAY, IT IS MY FAULT, NO ONE, NO ONE ELSE'S FAULT THAT WE DO NOT HAVE A PERMIT.
FIRST I WORKED WITH A CONTRACTOR WHO WAS OUT OF TARRELL, TEXAS.
HE BUILT A LOT OF THINGS, REMODELS, NEW HOMES AND SUCH IN DALLAS.
BUT HE HAD NOT BUILT A CARPORT.
I DID RELY ON HIM TO GIVE ME INFORMATION AS TO WHETHER A PERMIT WOULD BE NEEDED OR NOT NEEDED.
I CAME FROM ANOTHER, UH, CITY THAT I HAD LIVED IN FOR 20 YEARS AND THE THE RULES WERE DIFFERENT.
I DIDN'T QUESTION IT, I SHOULD HAVE QUESTIONED IT.
SO I DO COME TO YOU WITH MY HAT IN MY HAND.
THAT BEING SAID, THE WAY WE BUILT THE CARPORT AND WHY WE BUILT THE CARPORT, EVERYONE REMEMBERS IN APRIL ALL THE HAIL DAMAGE, BOTH OF OUR CARS WERE COMPLETELY DEMOLISHED.
AND I BEGAN THIS, THE PROCESS OF GETTING A CARPORT BUILT AGAIN, WORKING WITH MY CONTRACTOR.
UM, I THOUGHT IT WAS DOING THE RIGHT THING, BUT I DID NOT, I SHOULD HAVE TAKEN IT A LITTLE FURTHER.
THE WAY OUR PLOT, OUR PLAT IS, UH, DESIGNED, IT IS A PIE SHAPED, UM, PIECE OF PROPERTY AND IT UNFORTUNATELY, IT DIDN'T GIVE US A LOT OF OPTIONS AS TO HOW TO BUILD THE CARPORT OR WHERE.
SO, UM, WE ARE ASKING FOR A VARIANCE ON TWO ITEMS. UM, ONE OF WHICH IS, IS TOO CLOSE TO THE STREET, THE OTHER OF WHICH IS PERHAPS TOO CLOSE TO THE NEIGHBOR.
[01:30:01]
LETTERS AND IN FACT, UH, PETER KAVANAUGH HAS BEEN VERY INSTRUMENTAL IN HELPING ME THROUGH THIS PROCESS.UM, WE HAVE SIGNED LETTERS FROM NEIGHBORS ON BOTH SIDES OF OUR PROPERTY THAT THEY HAVE NO ISSUE WITH WHERE WE BUILT OR HOW WE BUILT OR HOW CLOSE IT IS TO THE STREET AND OR THEIR PROPERTY.
UM, THOSE LETTERS WERE PRESENTED ORIGINALLY ON OCTOBER THE 17TH WHEN WE CAME, UM, AND PAID FOR THE, THE VARIANCES.
SO, UM, PETER, SOMETHING YOU WOULD LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND ADD TO IT.
I'M, I'M NOT GONNA TAKE AWAY FROM YOUR TIME 'CAUSE I'M GONNA GIVE YOU WHATEVER TIME YOU WANT.
WE, WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING IN THE FILE FROM ANYONE REGARDING YOUR CASE FOR OR AGAINST.
UH, I HAVE COPIES OF LETTERS IF YOU'D LIKE.
AND WHO DID YOU TURN THEM INTO? 'CAUSE WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING.
THERE'S, WHEN WE WERE BRIEFED THIS MORNING, WE WERE TOLD THERE WAS NO ONE THAT RESPONDED.
25 PEOPLE WERE NOTIFIED AND NO ONE RESPONDED IN FAVOR OR AGAINST, AND THERE'S NOTHING IN OUR CURRENT FILE DEAL.
SO DO YOU REMEMBER WHO YOU TURNED THEM INTO? PETER WOULD HAVE DENNIS, GO AHEAD.
YEAH, WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING HERE.
SO NOW THAT'S NOT SAYING ANYTHING OTHER THAN WE JUST DON'T HAVE 'EM HERE.
SO IF YOU HAVE COPIES OR SOMETHING, WE'D LOVE TO LOOK AT 'EM.
MARY, THESE WILL END UP BEING PART OF THE RECORD, SO YES.
UM, THEY WERE ORIGINALLY PRESENTED, I'M NOT SURE WHY THEY'RE NOT IN THE FILE, BUT, UM, EARLIER TODAY I WAS HERE AND SO I DID HEAR SOME OF YOUR COMMENTS AND CONCERNS AND I DO WANNA ADDRESS THAT.
I ACTUALLY SENT THEM LAST WEEK AND I THOUGHT THOSE WOULD BE PART OF THIS PRESENTATION, BUT I NOTICED THEY WERE NOT.
AND SO I SENT THEM OVER LUNCH AND THEY ARE IN THE FINAL NOW IF YOU WOULD CARE TO SEE THEM, BECAUSE I THINK YOU HAD A QUESTION ABOUT, OKAY, WELL IT, IT ABUTS TO EASTES AND GREENBRIER, SO IF YOU'D LIKE TO LOOK AT ANY OF THOSE IN ONE SECOND.
SO THE, THE, THE LETTERS THAT YOU GAVE US YES.
AND AUGUST 16TH, YOUR APPLICATION AS RECEIVED BY THE CITY WAS OCTOBER 17TH.
SO DID YOU TURN THESE IN IN AUGUST OR IN OCTOBER? SO THE LETTERS ARE DATED IN, IN AUGUST.
BUT WE HAD TO HAVE AN ARCHITECT DROP ALL OF THE NEW DRAWINGS AND THAT TOOK TIME.
AND THEN BY THE TIME IT WAS SUBMITTED UNDERSTOOD.
OCTOBER 17TH, THOSE LETTERS WERE PART OF THAT PACKET.
ALRIGHT, WELL I DON'T KNOW WHERE THEY WENT.
I, I APOLOGIZE ON BEHALF OF THE CITY, SO, ALRIGHT, IF YOU WANNA SHOW US PICTURES, THIS IS YOUR TIME, MA.
UM, YEAH, GO AHEAD AND, SORRY.
MR. CHAIRMAN RAMIR COMMISSION.
MY ADDRESS IS 3 0 5 WEST GREENBRIAR.
YOU MAY SEEN ME BEFORE REPRESENTING PEOPLE BITTEN ONCE OR TWICE.
UH, IN THIS CASE, I'M ACTUALLY JUST A NEIGHBOR HELPING A NEIGHBOR.
UH, I'M GLAD I DON'T FIX CARS BE BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT I WOULD BE DOING FOR MY NEIGHBORS, BUT IN THIS CASE, I'M KIND OF A ZONING GUY.
SO, UH, I'VE BEEN WORKING WITH CHARLOTTE.
WHEN SHE FIRST CALLED ME ABOUT THIS, I SAID, OH MY GOD, YOU, I CAN'T BELIEVE YOU BUILT A CARPORT AND KESSLER IN FRONT OF YOUR HOUSE.
BUT IN FACT, THE REASON THAT, THAT WAS MY INITIAL REACTION, MINE TOO.
AND, AND, AND I SAID, THE ONLY WAY YOU, YOU HAVE A PRAYER IS IF YOU GO TO YOUR NEIGHBORS AND TALK TO 'EM.
AND SHE SAID, WELL, I'VE ALREADY GOT NICE COMPLIMENTS FROM THIS, FROM, FROM DOING THIS.
I SAID, WELL GET SOMETHING FROM, SO THE LETTERS THAT YOU JUST RECEIVED WERE ACTUALLY SUBMITTED WITH THE APPLICATION.
AND I'LL GO THROUGH SOME AND I WAS HERE THIS MORNING, SO I'M GONNA, IF WE GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
THESE WERE JUST PUT TOGETHER BETWEEN THE BRIEFING AND NOW, UH, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.
THIS IS THE STR THE STRUCTURE THAT, THAT SHE BUILT AND, AND THE NOT TO DEFEND THE CONTRACTOR BECAUSE HIS VIOLATION WAS REALLY OF THE SETBACKS.
THERE'S A RULE BASICALLY IN THE, IN THE CONSTRUCTION ORDER TO, SO THE FACT IF YOUR STRUCTURE HAS NO ELECTRICITY'S, ONLY LESS THAN 200 SQUARE FEET, YOU CAN BUILD IT, BUT YOU REALLY CAN'T BUILD IT IN THE FRONT YARD.
IS IT BOTH CORRECT? NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.
THIS IS, THIS IS A PICTURE BASICALLY FROM THE
[01:35:01]
STREET, IF YOU WILL.IT DOESN'T TAKE REALLY AWAY FROM THE HOUSE.
THIS IS THE, BASICALLY LOOKING AT THE HOUSE FROM INSIDE OF, IT'S A VERY SIMPLE STRUCTURE, UH, PLEASANT COLORS MATCHING THE HOUSE.
DO ACROSS THE STREET FROM THIS PROPERTY TO THE WEST IS WHERE ANOTHER HOME STOOD.
UH, NOT SO LONG AGO THAT HOUSE WAS REMOVED IN ORDER TO BUILD A NEW HOUSE.
IT'LL BE THIS, IT'LL BE JUST FARTHER.
IS THAT YOUR DRIVEWAY? IS THAT, THAT'S ACTUALLY THE DRIVEWAY NEXT DOOR TO US.
SO WHAT'S OCCURRING IN EAST KESS? LIKE A LOT OF NEIGHBORHOODS, WE'RE LOSING A LOT OF THE OLD, UH, NEAT MID-CENTURY HOMES AND THEY'RE GOING AWAY AND NEW STRUCTURES ARE BEING BUILT.
THE REASON I THREW THIS LITTLE GUY IN THERE IS, AS, UH, CHARLOTTE MENTIONED THE BRICK DESIGN, THIS BUILDING, IT'S CALLED HOLLYWOOD.
I I RAN ON, JUMPED ON THE INTERNET OVER THE, OVER LUNCH AND FOUND A ONE IS CALLED, THERE'S THESE CALLED HOLLYWOOD DRUNKEN, BUT THE BRICKS ARE KIND OF IN EVERY DIFFERENT DIRECTION AND THAT'S JUST A TYPE OF BRICK.
YOU DON'T SEE THAT DESIGN VERY MUCH IN DALLAS AND CERTAINLY DON'T SEE IT MUCH ON, UH, MID-CENTURY HOMES.
APPARENTLY IT'S A LITTLE MORE POPULAR IN THE PARTS OF THE COUNTRY, BUT THIS IS A SLIDE FROM, UH, ST.
AND THAT'S THAT DRUNKEN DESIGN THEY CALL IT IN THE, IN THE BRICKS SQUARE.
THIS IS A SLIDE, OBVIOUSLY OF OUR SITE PLAN, AND WHEN YOU ASK FOR A VARIANCE OR EVEN A SPECIAL EXCEPTION, BUT MOST ESPECIALLY IF YOU ASK FOR A VARIANCE, YOU REALLY NEED TO SHOW A HARDSHIP.
THE HOUSE IS IN THE MIDDLE AND IN THE FRONT OF THE HOME.
UH, THE FRONT BY THE WAY, IS ON THE NORTH OR THE TOP OF THIS.
UH, IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN THE CURRENT, UH, UH, FRONT YARD AND WHATNOT, THEY JUST USED THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY, WIDENED IT A TAD BIT BACK BY THE GARAGE AND PUT A A, A PRETTY NICE LOOKING LITTLE, UH, CARPORT.
CLEARLY THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN HERE BEFORE YOU, BEFORE THEY TRIED TO DO THIS, BUT INDEED IT DID GET DONE.
THE NEIGHBORS ARE ALL HAPPY WITH IT.
UH, THE REASON NOBODY PROBABLY SUPPORTED IS BECAUSE SHE DIDN'T ASK ANYBODY TO SUPPORT IT.
SHE JUST SAYS, IS IT OKAY? THEY SAID, YEAH.
AND A FEW PEOPLE WROTE LETTERS.
UH, BUT THERE'S BEEN ABSOLUTELY NO OPPOSITION OR CONCERN FOR THIS WHATSOEVER, WHATSOEVER.
RESPECTFULLY, MR. KAVANAUGH, THERE'S SOMEONE BECAUSE THEY REPORTED TO CODE COMPLIANCE.
WELL, WE'LL WE'LL JUST LEAVE IT AS ANONYMOUS.
'CAUSE CODE DOESN'T, UH, CODE I DON'T THINK GOES LOOKING FOR THINGS.
THEY REALLY ARE MORE RESPONSIVE TO THINGS.
SO ANYWAY, AS ONE OF HER, JUST TO CORRECT THE RECORD, THANK YOU.
AS OF ONE OF HER NEIGHBORS, UM, UH, WE HAVE A A, A VERY STRONG SENSE OF SUPPORT FOR THIS.
UH, IT'S A NICE LITTLE OPEN STRUCTURE.
IT'S, UH, DOES NOT TAKE AWAY FROM THE, FROM THE, UH, FROM THE, FROM A, A UNIQUE LOOKING HOUSE THAT'S BEEN THERE A LONG TIME.
AND CHARLOTTE'S BASICALLY REMODELED THE WHOLE HOUSE IS AN, IS AN ALT THAT SHE'S DONE.
THERE'S REALLY NEAT POOL IN THE BACKYARD AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
SO, UH, AND THE HOUSE RIGHT NEXT TO IT'S KIND OF LINED UP WITH THIS ONE.
AND THEY HAVE A DRIVEWAY JUST PARALLEL TO OURS, BUT THEY DON'T HAVE APPARENTLY HAVE A NEED FOR A CARPORT.
BUT, BUT CERTAINLY THEY'RE WITH US AND OKAY.
WELL, TO YOUR, SO WHAT I, WHAT I'VE DONE HERE IS FROM THE, THE, THE NOTES THAT YOU TURNED GAVE, GAVE US, I, I'M CHARTING ON OUR, JUST SHOWING YOU WHAT WE DO.
CHARTING IS ON A MAP THAT SHOWS WITHIN THE 200 FEET OF NOTIFICATION AREA.
SO YOU'D GIVE ME A SECOND FOR ME TO PUT TO CHART THE FOUR THAT ARE WITHIN THE NOTIFICATION AREA.
NUMBER 10, THERE'S NUMBER 10, NUMBER 12 AND NUMBER 13.
SO, UH, ACCORDING TO WHAT YOU'VE SUBMITTED TO US, UH, THE NEIGHBORS TO YOUR, I'M GONNA, THIS WILL TEST MY, THIS WILL TEST MY GEOGRAPHY.
THE NEIGHBORS TO YOUR EAST AND THE NEIGHBORS TO YOUR WEST BOTH ARE IN SUPPORT HERE.
AND THEN NEIGHBOR TO YOUR, I THINK THAT'S SOUTHWEST ACROSS THE STREET IS IN FAVOR.
AND THEN A NEIGHBOR TO THE FAR NORTH OFF OF OAK KNOLL, WHICH IS RIGHT IN THE CORNER OF THEIR PROPERTY IN THE 200 FEET, BUT IT'S WITHIN THE 200 FEET.
[01:40:01]
YOU HAVE A NEIGHBOR ON BOTH SIDES IN FAVOR OF IT.UH, IT'S ALWAYS DISCONCERTING WHEN WE HAVE SOMEONE THAT BUILDS SOMETHING WITHOUT A PERMIT, UM, IN AN ILLEGAL SPACE BASICALLY.
SO IT'S NOT, AND NOT JUST BUILDING WITHOUT A PERMIT, BUT IT'S ALSO IN A PLACE THAT YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE.
UM, SO, UM, MY CONCERN ALWAYS IS DOES, IS YOU KNOW, HOW DOES THIS FALL CLEARLY WITHIN OUR CRITERIA THAT THE, THE SHAPE OF YOUR LOT IS IRREGULAR.
ON THE OTHER HAND, IT ALSO IS, IS THE ISSUE OF NOT BEING DE DETRIMENTAL, THE IMPACT ON SURROUNDING PROPERTIES.
UM, I DON'T, DIDN'T SEE IN OUR PICTURES ANY OTHER CARPORTS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THEY'RE JUST NOT MAYBE RIGHT WITHIN THAT SAME AREA.
SO, UM, IS THIS IN A, IS THIS IN A PD? NO, IT'S JUST STRAIGHT UP R SEVEN FIVE.
IS THAT CORRECT? JUST STRAIGHT R SEVEN FIVE ZONING? YES.
THERE'S THIS NOT, IT'S NOT IN A CONSERVATION DISTRICT.
OH, THAT'S MAINE KESSLER NOT EAST KESLER.
ALRIGHT, WELL THAT'S KIND OF MY COMMENTS.
DID YOU HAVE, DID YOU WANNA ADD ANYTHING ELSE? I THINK THERE WAS MAYBE TO THE MICROPHONE PLEASE.
I THINK THERE WAS A QUESTION OF COULD I HAVE BUILT SOMETHING IN THE BACK OF THE YARD AND THERE'S NO ROOM TO DO THAT.
AND IT'S A REALLY SMALL GARAGE THAT WE HAVE NO ATTIC SPACE, ET CETERA.
SO, YOU KNOW, EVERYTHING ELSE GOES IN THE GARAGE.
AND THAT'S A KIND OF A SMALL WEDGE FOR AN R SEVEN FIVE TOO.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE LOT IS, BUT, UH, JUST BY VIRTUE VISUAL.
SOMETIMES I'M AMAZED AT HOW WE PLAT LAND IN THE CITY
ALRIGHT, WHAT QUESTIONS DO WE HAVE FOR THE APPLICANT MR. VEZ QUESTIONS? MS. DAVIS, DO YOU HAVE ANY PHOTOS THAT SHOW, UM, BLOCK FACE CONTINUITY SO THAT WE CAN SEE, YOU KNOW, HOW FAR OUT THOSE OTHER HOUSES ADJACENT TO YOU ARE COMPARED TO THE STREET? I'M TRYING TO SEE IF, IF IT'S ALL CONSISTENT EXCEPT FOR YOUR CARPORT, WHICH IS JUTTING OUT, OR IF THERE'S OTHER STRUCTURES THAT ARE CLOSER TO THE STREET LIKE YOUR CARPORT.
DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? IT WOULD'VE BEEN EASY TO GIVE YOU THAT, UM, FROM AN ADJACENCY, EXCEPT THERE WAS A LOT WHERE THE HOME WAS TORN DOWN.
AND THERE'S A NEW NEW HOUSE GOING UP NEXT TO IT.
SO THERE WERE, THERE WERE DOUBLE LOTS.
IT WOULD'VE SHOWN YOU THAT, BUT THERE'S NOTHING PERHAPS TO SHOW YOU NOW.
AND CHAIRMAN, YOU HAD, YOU, YOU PLOTTED WHERE THE APPROVALS WERE, IF I COULD SEE THAT PLEASE.
AND MA'AM, HAVE YOU, HAVE YOU RECEIVED ANY, OTHER THAN THE PERSON THAT TURNED YOU INTO CODE COMPLIANCE, UM, HAVE YOU RECEIVED ANY OTHER NEGATIVE FEEDBACK FROM YOUR NEIGHBORS? NO, BUT I HAVE, I'M ASTONISHED I HAVE RECEIVED SO MANY POSITIVE THINGS.
I HAD A NEIGHBOR WHO DROVE BY, ROLLED HER WINDOW DOWN AND SAID THIS HOUSE WAS NEVER WHAT IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE UNTIL YOU MOVED IN AND MADE IT A HAPPY HOUSE.
WELL, UM, ARTISTICALLY THE CARPORT LOOKS VERY NICE AND WELL CONSTRUCTED AND THAT SORT OF THING, BUT IT STILL IS IN, IN, IN, IN YOUR SIDE YARD, IN, IN FRONT YARD SETBACK.
SO, UM, ARTISTICALLY IT LOOKS GREAT.
ALRIGHT, WHAT OTHER QUESTIONS DO WE HAVE FOR THE APPLICANT? ANY QUESTIONS? THE APPLICANT, IT, THE CHAIR WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
OH, QUESTIONS? YEAH, PLEASE DO MR. HABE.
UM, I, I, UM, SO IF I KNEW THE ANSWER TO THIS, I WOULDN'T BE ASKING THE QUESTION.
IF I KNEW THE ANSWER, I WOULDN'T BE ASKING THE QUESTION.
UM, WE'RE LOOKING AT AUTHOR AUTHORIZATION OR NOT OF A SPECIAL EXCEPTION.
DOES THAT AUTOMATICALLY RESOLVE THEIR ISSUE OF NOT HAVING A BUILDING PERMIT
THEY WOULD STILL HAVE TO GO GET THE BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE STRUCTURE.
AND THEY WOULD DO THAT UNDER THE GUISE OF AN APPROVAL FROM THE BOARD ABSOLUTELY.
[01:45:01]
WE ENDED UP APPROVING OR NOT.SO IF WE APPROVE SOMETHING WITH A DIMENSIONS INTO A SIDE YARD SETBACK AND OR FRONT YARD SETBACK, THAT'S THE BLUEPRINT BY WHICH THEY WOULD THEN GET A BUILDING PERMIT BECAUSE WE'RE TELLING BUILDING INSPECTION, THEY'RE, THEY'RE ALLOWED TO GO INTO THAT SETBACK, WHETHER IT BE FRONT OR SIDE.
I'LL SAY, I'LL SAY AGAIN, I'M ASTONISHED THAT THAT, THAT THERE'S NOT MASS OPPOSITION.
I'M, I'M NOT MAKING A JUDGMENT FOR OR AGAINST THIS COMMUNITY.
I'M JUST SAYING IT'S A VERY TIGHT KNIT COMMUNITY AND, AND THERE AREN'T VERY MANY CARPORTS.
AND, AND, AND SO WOULD WE BE CONDITIONING OUR APPROVAL ON THEM GETTING OR APPLYING FOR A BUILDING PERMIT WITHIN A CERTAIN PERIOD OF TIME? TIME? I THINK THAT'S INCUMBENT ON THAT.
I THINK OUR REQUIREMENT'S 180 DAYS, ISN'T IT? YES, IT'S IN, IT'S REQUIRED.
OUR DECISION, UH, EXPIRES IF A PERMIT'S NOT FILED FOR WITHIN 180 DAYS.
I CAN'T BELIEVE I CAN REMEMBER THAT.
SO IF THEY DON'T, THEY, THEY'D HAVE TO COME BACK SO, UH, THE CHAIR WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 3 4 DASH 1 41 ON APPLICATION OF CHARLOTTE YOUNGQUIST GRANT, THE EIGHT FOOT SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK REGULATION FOR CARPORTS CONTAINED IN THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED.
BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND THE TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT THIS SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT HAVE A DETRIMENTAL IMPACT ON SURROUNDING PROPERTIES AND THERE IS NOT ADEQUATE VEHICULAR ACCESS TO AN AREA BEHIND THE REQUIRED BUILDING, FRONT BUILDING LINE THAT WOULD ACCOMMODATE, UH, PARKING SPACE.
I FURTHER MOVE THAT THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS BE IMPOSED TO FURTHER THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE.
ONE, THAT COMPLIANCE WITH THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF ALL SUBMITTED SITE SUBMITTED PLANS ARE REQUIRED.
AND TWO, STORAGE OF ITEMS OTHER THAN MOTOR VEHICLES IS PROHIBITED IN THE CARPORT IN THE MATTER OF BDA 2 3 4 DASH 1 41 MR. N HAS MOVED TO GRANT THE EIGHT FOOT SPECIAL EXCEPTION IN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK WITH THOSE CONDITIONS.
IT'S BEEN SECONDED BY MS. DAVIS, MR. NARY DISCUSSION IN THE MOTION.
UM, YEAH, IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, UM, AGAIN, I'M, I'M ALWAYS DISAPPOINTED AND RELUCTANT TO APPROVE ANYTHING THAT HASN'T BEEN PERMITTED, OBVIOUSLY, BUT I THINK THE APPLICANT HAS BEEN VERY CONTRITE IN HER PRESENTATION TODAY.
ALSO, I NOTICED UNDER, UH, THE GENERAL FACTS AND STAFF ANALYSIS THAT THE SUBJECT SITE IS IN A REGULARLY, UH, SHAPED LOT, PARTICULARLY IN A TRIANGLE.
I MEAN, IT'S NOT A STANDARD LOT IN MY OPINION.
UM, ALSO THE SUBJECT SITE IS RESTRICTED IN SIZE LIMITING THE, UH, VARIOUS OPTIONS.
UH, SO, UH, AND THIRDLY, BECAUSE THERE'S NO OPPOSITION FROM THE NEIGHBORS, UM, AND, UH, ALSO IN THE DRIVE BY PRESENTATION, UH, VISIBILITY WAS A BIG CONCERN OF MINE.
AND THERE DOESN'T APPEAR TO ME, AT LEAST FROM WHAT HAS BEEN PRESENTED, THAT THERE'S A VISIBILITY OBSTRUCTION, UH, THAT WOULD BE INVOLVED WITH THE TWO STREET TWO INTERSECTING STREETS IN QUESTION.
SO THAT'S THE REASON I MADE THE MOTION.
MS. DAVIS, I'M SUPPORTING THIS MOTION FOR ALL OF THE REASONS THAT MR. NER INDICATED, AND I ALSO WANNA THANK YOU FOR OWNING YOUR MISTAKE BECAUSE SO MANY PEOPLE COME IN HERE, THEY TRY TO MAKE EXCUSES OR THEY TRY TO, UH, BLAME IT ON SOMEBODY ELSE AND THAT REALLY IS NOT APPRECIATED.
SO WE HEAR A LOT OF CASES AND PEOPLE MAKE MISTAKES, WE GET IT.
AND WE APPRECIATE WHEN YOU OWN THAT.
SO THANK YOU AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR DUE DILIGENCE.
I WOULD AGREE ON ALL ACCOUNTS, MR. MARY, THE WAY YOU'VE DISSECTED THAT I AM NOT A ONE IN FAVOR OF, OF CARPORTS IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS AND IN FRONT YARD, FRONT YARD CARPORTS.
AND I'M ASTONISHED THAT THE EAST KESSLER COMMUNITY HASN'T PITCHFORK,
UM, BUT UH, IT'S WELL CONSTRUCTED.
UM, AND AS MS. DAVIS SAID, YOU OWNED WHAT YOU, WHAT HAPPENED, AND YOU'RE HERE AND YOU'RE TRYING TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS.
AND SO I APPRECIATE THAT AND, UH, JUST KEEP IT IN THAT SHAPE PLEASE.
SO THAT, AND AS MR. NERI SAYS, I DON'T THINK THERE'S OBSTRUCTION FOR THE INTERSECTION.
THAT'S ANOTHER THING WOULD BE DANGEROUS.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS MOTION? THE MOTION IS TO GRANT, THIS
[01:50:01]
IS MOTION NUMBER ONE FOR THE FRONT SENATE YARD.HEARING NONE, WE WILL TAKE A VOTE ON, UH, MOTION NUMBER ONE.
THIS IS A MOTION 2 3 4 1 4 1 TO GRANT THE EIGHT FOOT SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK.
MOTION TO GRANT PASSES FIVE TO ZERO IN THE MATTER BDA 2 3 4 1 41.
THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVES GRANTS THE REQUEST FOR EIGHT FOOT EIGHT FOOT SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK BY A VOTE OF FIVE TO ZERO.
MOTION NUMBER TWO, MR. NERING, THIS IS THE SIDE YARD.
NOW I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IN APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 34 DASH 1 41 ON APPLICATION OF CHARLOTTE YOUNGQUIST GRANT, THE TWO FOOT SIX INCH SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK REGULATIONS FOR CARPORTS CONTAINED IN THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED.
BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND THE TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT THIS SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT HAVE A DETRIMENTAL IMPACT ON SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, I FURTHER MOVE THAT THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS BE IMPOSED TO FURTHER THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE.
COMPLIANCE WITH THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF ALL SUBMITTED PLANS ARE REQUIRED AND TWO, STORAGE OF ITEMS OTHER THAN MOTOR VEHICLES IS PROHIBITED IN THE CAR WORK IN THE MATTER.
BD 2 3 4 DASH 1 41 MR. NER HAS MOVED TO GRANT THE TWO FOOT SIX SIX INCH SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK.
MR. NO ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION? UM, JUST, UH, AGAIN, WHAT I PREVIOUSLY STATED ON THE, ON THE FIRST MOTION, MS. DAVIS, ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION MS. WILLIAMS CALL FOR THE VOTE? NOPE.
I WOULD SAY, UM, I PERSONALLY WOULDN'T LIKE SOMETHING THAT CLOSE TO MY PROPERTY LINE.
BUT THE PERSON WHO LIVES NEXT TO YOU APPARENTLY, UH, IS OKAY WITH IT.
I A COMMENT THAT I FOLLOW HIS, IT, THE STATE AND OUR CITY CODE SAYS THAT WE ARE REQUIRED TO NOTIFY PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET OF A PROPOSED SPECIAL EXCEPTION VARIANCE, UM, SITUATION.
IT DOES NOT BIND US TO THEIR OPINION, IT'S JUST INFORMATION.
AND SO THERE ARE MANY TIMES THAT WE REACT TO WHAT NEIGHBORS SAY THAT THEY'RE FOR OR AGAINST.
THERE ARE MANY TIMES WHEN WE DON'T REACT, IT IS A CASE BY CASE BASIS.
SO, UH, IT HELPS THE FACT THAT THIS IS ALL POSITIVE.
THERE'S NO NEGATIVE OUT THERE WHEN IT'S OPPOSING.
IT'S, IT'S A HARD THING TO DECIPHER.
BUT THE, THE STATE STATUTE AND OUR CITY CODE DOES NOT SPECIFY WHAT TO DO WITH THAT INFORMATION, BUT THAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO RECEIVE THE INFORMATION.
SO THAT BEING SAID, WE'LL GO TO A VOTE ON BDA 2 3 4 DASH 1 4 1.
THIS ZERO IN THE MATTER OF BDA 2 3 4 DASH 1 4 1, THE, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT UNANIMOUS SEEK RANCHER REQUEST FOR TWO FOOT SIX INCH SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK.
UH, BY A FOUR TO FIVE TO ZERO YOU'LL GET A LETTER FROM OUR BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ADMINISTRATOR.
I'D LIKE TO THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR TIME AND UM, YOU GUYS DO A GREAT JOB KEEPING OUR CITY IN GOOD SHAPE.
ALRIGHT, WE'RE GONNA TAKE A FIVE MINUTE BREAK.
2:59 PM UH, WE'LL, WE'LL WE'RE GONNA RECESS UNTIL 3:05 PM UH, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PANEL A IS IN RECESS AT 2:59 PM AND WE'LL COME BACK INTO ORDER AT 3:05 PM THANK YOU.
IT'S 3:05 PM TURN YOUR MONITORS BACK ON.
WE HAVE FOUR REMAINING CASES ON THE AGENDA.
THE NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS BDA 2 3 4 DASH 1 43.
THIS IS AT 4 5 1 6 HOPKINS AVENUE.
UM, IS THE APPLICANT HERE? YES, SIR.
UM, UM, MS. WILLIAMS, LET'S GO AHEAD AND SWEAR HIM IN.
WELL FIRST OF ALL, HOW MANY SPEAKERS DO WE HAVE FOR 2 3, 4 1.
I HAVE ONE IN SUPPORT AND FIVE IN OPPOSITION.
NO, NOBODY IN OPPOSITION FOR FOURTH.
1, 4 3 WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IT.
[01:55:01]
OR DO YOU HAVE ANY, JUST MR. BALDWIN, IS THERE ANYONE ELSE? THERE'S A GENTLEMAN WHO, I THINK YOU'RE SPEAKING OFFICER WILLIAMS? YEAH, WE HAVE ONE PERSON HERE.MS. MS. WILLIAMS WHO HAS FILED FOR SPEAKING.
YOU SAID JUST ONE IN SUPPORT? UM, YES.
UM, WELL HE DIDN'T KNOW WHAT, HE DIDN'T WRITE THE CASE NUMBER HE WANTS TO SPEAK.
SO ASSUMING YOU GET THAT, YOU HAVE ONE SPEAKER IN SUPPORT THE APPLICANT, AND ONE PERSON IN OPPOSITION, CORRECT? CORRECT.
ALRIGHT, UM, WE'RE GONNA GO AHEAD AND SWEAR YOU BACK IN.
MS. WILLIAMS, DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? YES MA'AM.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME, ADDRESS, AND PROCEED AND JUST WAIT.
YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND THEN HOLD ROB BALDWIN, 3 9 0 4 ELM STREET, SLEEPY, DALLAS, TEXAS 7 5 2 2 6.
ALRIGHT, JUST HOLD A SECOND, MARY.
OUR RULES OR PROCEDURES ARE SUCH THAT THE APPLICANT'S GIVEN FIVE MINUTES TO PRESENT.
ANYONE ELSE THAT'S IN SUPPORT IS ALSO GIVEN FIVE MINUTES TO PRESENT, UH, OR SPEAK.
AND THEN ANYONE IN OPPOSITION IS GIVEN FIVE MINUTES, THEN THE APPLICANT IS ALLOWED FIVE MINUTE REBUTTAL.
I'M GONNA BE GENEROUS WITH TIME AND LET EVERYONE SPEAK WHATEVER REASONABLE TIME THAT THEY WANNA SPEAK.
I HAVE TO BE FAIR AND EVEN, UM, JUST DON'T BE REDUNDANT, SIR.
I'M SURE THERE'LL BE QUESTIONS, UM, BUT I WANT TO GIVE EVERYONE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK.
GOOD AFTERNOON LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
LIKE I SAID, ROB BALDWIN SPEAKING FOR TOPLESS PROPERTIES.
I ALSO HAVE THE, THE CONTRACTOR HERE IN CASE SOME TECHNICAL QUESTIONS COME UP.
UM, THIS, THE NEXT THREE CASES, UH, I'LL DO 'EM ONE AT A TIME, BUT THEY'RE ALL PART OF THAT WHOLE ELM THICKET, UH, UNFORTUNATE EVENT.
UM, THE DIFFERENCE IN THIS ONE, AND THE ONE CASES YOU'VE HEARD BEFORE IS WE'RE NOT APPEALING THE BUILDING OF OFFICIAL'S DECISION.
WE'RE NOT SAYING THE BUILDING OFFICIAL ERRORED IN THE, THE REVIEW OF THE CODE, WE'RE JUST WISHING THEY WOULD'VE DONE IT BEFORE OUR HOUSES WERE ISSUED PERMITS AND UNDER CONSTRUCTION, UH, IN FACT, STAFF HAS BEEN GREAT TO WORK WITH ON THIS AND WE ARE ASKING FOR A VARIANCE, BUT WE DON'T HAVE A PROPERTY HARDSHIP AS MR. THOMPSON POINTED OUT, BUT WE DO, IT WILL COST MORE THAN 50% OF THE APPRAISED VALUE OF THE STRUCTURE TO BRING IT INTO COMPLIANCE.
AND I'LL GET TO THAT IN JUST A SECOND, BUT I JUST WANNA POINT OUT WE'RE NOT ANGRY WITH STAFF.
STAFF'S BEEN GREAT TO WORK WITH.
IT'S JUST A, A FULL UNFORTUNATE EVENT THAT WE HAVEN'T BEEN INVOLVED IN.
IN FACT, MY CLIENT ACTUALLY HAD SIX STOP WORK ORDERS OR, UH, PERMITS ISSUED IN VIOLATION AND THEY WERE ABLE TO SOLVE THREE OF 'EM.
THE THREE THAT YOU'LL SEE TODAY IS THEY WERE TOO FAR ALONG TO, TO BE SOLVED.
AND SO, UM, WE HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH THE CITY AND WE, UH, WE HOPE THAT, UH, WE'RE SUCCESSFUL TODAY.
SO NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE LET ME COMMENT.
YES SIR, CONSISTENT WITH OUR RULES OF PROCEDURE AND CONSISTENT WITH OUR PRACTICE, THIS TIME'S NOT BEING TAKEN AWAY FROM YOU.
WE WANT YOU TO SPEAK SPECIFIC TO 1 4 3.
THAT'S WHAT, AS BEST AS PROPER.
THAT'S WHAT I'M, I SAW ON THE AGENDA.
YOU'RE REPRESENTING ALL THREE AND THAT'S ALL GOOD AND WELL.
BUT WE REALLY WANT TO TRY TO LOOK AT EACH CASE, EACH REQUEST ON ITS OWN MERIT.
SEPARATELY, YES, THERE'LL BE BLEED OVER BACKWARDS AND FORWARD, BUT AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, LET'S TRY TO ZERO IN ON 2 3, 4 1, 4 3 IN THIS CASE 4 5 1 6 HOPKINS.
AND, AND I I'M NOT GONNA CUT YOU AT THE KNEES FOR YOU MENTIONING THE OTHERS.
I'M JUST TRYING TO TRY TO STAY FOCUSED HERE.
I JUST WANTED TO KIND OF GIVE YOU AN OVERVIEW SAYING THAT UNLIKE OTHER CASES YOU'VE HEARD, WE'RE NOT SAYING THE CITY, UH, INTERPRET THEIR ORDINANCES WRONG.
SO IN THIS CASE, UH, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.
WE'RE WITHIN TRACK ONE OF PD 67.
THAT USE IS ALLOWED IN THIS DISTRICT.
UM, WE RECEIVED A PERMIT FOR THIS ON MARCH 1ST, 2023.
AND, UH, THE HOME HAS BEEN PRETTY MUCH FULLY COM BUILT UNDER THE APPROVED PLANS.
UM, SPOKE WITH THE CONTRACTOR AFTER A BRIEFING SESSION.
HE SAYS IT'S AT LEAST 75%, UH, COMPLETED.
THE ONLY OUTSTANDING THING IS THE INTERIOR.
NOW ALL THE EXTERIOR, ALL THE FRAMING IS UP AND IT'S DRIED IN FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES.
ON SEPTEMBER 16TH, 2024, THE PROPERTY OWNER RECEIVED A LETTER FROM THE CITY STATING THE PERMITS WERE ISSUED AN ERROR AND WORK HAD TO STOP ON
[02:00:01]
THE HOME.WHAT DATE AGAIN, PLEASE? SEPTEMBER 16TH, 2024.
PERMIT ISSUED MARCH 1ST, 2023.
THE NEXT SLIDE PLEASE, IS ACTUALLY MARCH 2ND.
AS YOU CAN SEE, ALL THE WINDOWS ARE IN, ALL THE FAC IS ALL DRIED IN.
UM, AND FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES, IT'S JUST INTERIOR FINISH OUT.
SO THIS SHOWS THE PERMIT WAS ISSUED APPLIED FOR DECEMBER 12TH, 2022.
THIS SHOWS GO BACK ONE CLICK PLEASE.
AND, AND, AND I'M NOT GONNA PENALIZE YOU YOUR TIME.
I'M, WE'RE, THIS IS DISCOVERY.
SO THIS SAYS APPLICATION DECEMBER 12TH, 2022.
SO THAT'S THE DATE YOU REPRESENTING THE PROPERTY OWNER MADE APPLICATION TO THE CITY DECEMBER 12TH, 2022.
AND IT WAS, I'M SORRY, THAT'S WHAT THE RECORD SHOW.
I WAS NOT REPRESENTING HIM AT THE TIME.
I'M, I'M SPEAKING TO YOU AS THE, YOU'RE THE APPLICANT.
AND THIS SAYS THAT MARCH 2ND IS WHEN THE PERMIT WAS ISSUED.
SO THAT IS ALMOST THREE MONTHS.
DECEMBER TO JANUARY TO FEBRUARY TO MARCH.
I'M JUST, I'M JUST DIGESTING FACTS.
THIS, THIS, THIS SHOWS THAT ON, UH, FEBRUARY 20TH OR FEBRUARY 16TH BE CALLED IN FOR INSPECTIONS FOR ZONING FOUNDATION.
AND THAT WAS CALLED OUT ON FEBRUARY 20TH, MEANING THEY CAME OUT AND DID THE INSPECTION.
AND A FOUNDATION INSPECTION IS WHERE THE CITY COMES OUT, REVIEWS YOUR PLANS, REVIEWS HOW THE FOUNDATION WAS STAKED OUT ON THE GROUND, DOES THEIR MEASUREMENTS, AND SAYS, YES, YOUR FOUNDATION IS CONSISTENT WITH THE APPROVED PLANS AND, AND THE, AND THE APPROVED ZONING ON THE PROPERTY.
THIS SHOWS THAT ON IN JULY 15TH, 2024, WE CALLED IN FOR THE FRAMING INSPECTION.
JOB JULY 15TH CALLED IN FOR FRAMING INSPECTION.
SO FRAMING INSPECTION, IF YOU SEE THE NOTE DOWN ON THE BOTTOM, IT SAYS ZONING FRAMING ONLY.
SO ZONING FRAMING MEANS THE ZONING INSPECTORS CAME OUT, MEASURED, MADE SURE THAT WE WERE BUILT ACCORDING TO THE PLANS.
OUR WIDTH, OUR SETBACKS, OUR HEIGHT, EVERYTHING COMPLIED WITH THE ZONING.
YOU'RE, YOU'RE YOUR ZONING, YOUR, UH, FRAMING, COMPLIES WITH THE ZONING.
YOU MADE ME DRY IT IN AND CONTINUE WORK.
AND, AND THEN WE GOT KEPT WORKING UNTIL, UH, SEPTEMBER WHEN WE GOT UNDER, WE GOT THE STOP WORK ORDER.
AND SO NO WORK HAS BEEN ON, BEEN ON THE PROPERTY SINCE WE FOUND OUT THERE WAS A PROBLEM.
AND IN FACT, WE FOUND OUT THERE WAS A PROBLEM ABOUT A MONTH BEFORE THE OFFICIAL STOP WORK ORDER WENT ON, UH, AS WE WERE WORKING WITH THE CITY TO SEE IF WE COULD RESOLVE IT.
SO NO WORK'S BEEN ON THE, BEEN GOING ON, ON THE PROPERTY FOR ABOUT FOUR MONTHS.
SO ALL THE, THE CONTRACTORS, THE, THE, THE WORKERS CARPENTER, BRICK LAYERS, EVERYBODY, THEY'VE BEEN PAID PRETTY MUCH OFF OFF THE WORK FOR THE THREE HOUSES SINCE THEN.
THESE ARE JUST THE, THE APPROVED PLANS SHOWING THAT THE CITY HAS REVIEWED IT AND THEY'VE STAMPED IT.
IF YOU LOOK ON THE, THE TOP RIGHT HAND CORNER, IF THERE'S AN APPROVED STAMP.
THIS IS THE ELEVATION SHOWING THAT THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT IS 36 FEET AND THAT WE COMPLIED WITH IT AGAIN, APPROVED.
WHAT DOES THE DATE SAY? 12 20 22.
SO WE BILLED ACCORDING TO THEIR APPROVED PLANS, UNFORTUNATELY, UH, THE PLANS DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE ZONING AS UNDER NO TO US AND THE CITY AT THE TIME.
SO WHAT'S THE REQUEST? WE'RE SEEKING THE FOLLOWING VARIANCES TO BRING THE HOUSE INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THE, THE CURRENT ZONING, A VARIANCE OF A MAXIMUM LOCK COVERAGE OF 50% RATHER THAN 40%.
A HEIGHT VARIANCE TO ALLOW A TRUCK TO BE 32 FEET TALL RATHER THAN 30 FEET TALL.
AND A VARIANCE TO THE HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS TO WHERE THE ROOF FORM IS TRIGGERED AT 32 FEET.
SO, UM, WE ARE SEEKING THESE VARIANCE BASED ON SECTION 51 A DASH 3 0 2 C, 10 B, LITTLE ROMAN I, A DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE THAT SAYS STRUCTURES IN EXERCISE AND STORY IN SUBSECTION A TO THE BOARD MAY CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING OF GROUNDS TO DETERMINE WHETHER COMPLIANCE WITH THE ORDINANCE IS APPLIED TO A STRUCTURE.
A STRUCTURED APPEAL WOULD RESULT
[02:05:01]
IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.SO RATHER THAN JUST HAVING YOUR LOT, HAVING A WEIRD SHAPE OR TOPOGRAPHY OR SOMETHING THAT IF THE FINANCIAL COST OF COMPLIANCE IS GREATER THAN 50% OF THE APPRAISED VALUE OF THE STRUCTURE AS SHOWN ON THE MOST RECENT APPRAISAL ROLE CERTIFIED BY THE SYSTEM MUNICIPALITY UNDER SECTION 26.01 OF THE TEXAS TAX CODE TO BRING THIS PROPERTY INTO COMPLIANCE, ESPECIALLY WITH THE LOT COVERAGE, WE'LL HAVE TO REMOVE THE STRUCTURE AND BUILD OVER THE, UM, THE LOT COVERAGE IS HOW MUCH LAND AREA, HOW MUCH OF THE PROPERTY IT CAN, UH, COVER.
AND UNFORTUNATELY, THIS IS WHAT THEY CALL, UM, YOU KNOW, UH, POST TENSION SLAB.
AND SO YOU CANNOT JUST CUT OFF A LITTLE BIT OF THE SLAB AND MAKE IT WORK YOU BECAUSE THEY HAVE, UH, WIRE, UH, IT'S STICK WIRE, BUT RUNNING THROUGH THERE TO KEEP THE, FROM SHIFTING IN THE CLAY.
SO MS. DAVIS HAS A QUESTION FOR YOU.
DO, DO YOU HAVE A COST FOR COMING UNDER COMPLIANCE FOR THE HEIGHT REGULATIONS? OKAY.
UH, MS. WILLIAMS, WOULD YOU MIND S SWEARING? UH, TANNER RIVERA IN PLEASE.
DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? I DO.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND PROCEED.
DO YOU I HAVE TO GIVE MY PERSONAL ADDRESS.
THAT'S WHERE I WORK OUT OF ADDRESS.
I GIVE MY VOICE ADDRESS PARK LANE, DALLAS, TEXAS.
SO THE QUESTION TOLD MR. DAVIS US, HOW MUCH WOULD IT COST PAY WHEN? UH, PROBABLY AT LEAST $150,000.
AND WHY IS THAT? TO REDO THE ROOF, TO FIT THE HEIGHT AND THE ROOF PITCH REQUIREMENTS, THE ENTIRE ROOF HAS TO BE PULLED OFF.
UH, THE HOUSE IS ALREADY DRIED IN WITH SHEET ROCK, HVAC, ELECTRICAL, SO YOU ALSO RISK A LOT OF DAMAGE TO THE HOME IF IT RAINS.
UH, SO THERE'S GONNA BE A CONSIDERABLE EXPENSE JUST TO PROTECT THE HOME ITSELF FROM THE, UH, I GUESS MOTHER NATURE.
UH, THERE'S GONNA BE A CONSIDERABLE EXPENSE TO TRY TO DO THIS WITHOUT DAMAGING THE PROGRESS THAT'S ALREADY MADE ON THE HOME.
UH, I'M NOT SURE HOW FAMILIAR EVERYBODY IS WITH CONSTRUCTION, BUT TO TAKE OFF AN ENTIRE ROOF THAT'S ALREADY BEEN SHINGLED, UH, WITH ROOF DECKING AND REMOVE, THAT WOULD CAUSE A LOT OF DEMO WORK AND WOULD ALSO FURTHER ENHANCE DAMAGE TO NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.
UH, SO TO GO IN AND MEET THIS REQUIREMENT, IT'S NOT JUST A SIMPLE, UM, ADD A DIFFERENT RIDGE LINE OR CHANGE A HIP OR MOVE A COUPLE RAPTORS AROUND, UH, THEY LITERALLY HAVE TO TAKE OFF THE ENTIRE ROOF AND REFRAME IT TO MEET THE HEIGHT REQUIREMENT AND MEET THE ROOF PITCH REQUIREMENT.
AND THEN COULD YOU ALSO JUST REITERATE WHAT THAT ADDITIONAL COST WOULD BE TO BE COMPLIANT WITH THE, UM, LOT COVERAGE? SO THAT COSTS TO, YOU ESSENTIALLY HAVE TO START OVER.
UH, YOU CANNOT, WE DESIGNED PLANS FOR NEW DUPLEXES THAT MEET THE NEW PD 67 REQUIREMENTS, AND IN DOING SO, WE FOUND OUT WHAT IS CHANGING TO THE DUPLEX.
THE FOUNDATION HAS TO BECOME MORE NARROW.
UH, THE GARAGES ARE SMALLER, THE PATIOS ARE SMALLER, AND THEY'RE ALL IN DIFFERENT LOCATIONS.
IN ORDER TO MEET THIS REQUIREMENT, THE SQUARE FOOTAGE IS SMALLER AS WELL.
SO, UM, IF YOU GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
I'M GONNA WRAP IT UP BECAUSE, UH, SO NEXT SLIDE.
SO I'D LIKE YOU TO PLEASE CONSIDER THAT THE NEED FOR THESE VARIANCES WERE TRIGGERED DUE THE MISTAKES IN THE PERMITTING PROCESS, THE HOUSE IS NEARLY COMPLETE AND THE VARIANCES ARE NEEDED TO, IN ORDER TO PREVENT THE HOME FROM HAVING TO BE DEMOLISHED AND STARTED OVER AND THE VARIANCES ARE WARRANTED, WOULD COST MORE THAN 50% OF THE APPRAISED VALUE TO REBUILD THE HOMES TO MEET THE UNDERLYING ZONING REQUIREMENTS.
THE PROPOSED HOME IS IN KEEPING WITH RECENTLY BUILT HOMES ON HOPKINS STREET IN IMMEDIATE VICINITY, AS YOU SAW.
AND ONE OTHER THING TO KEEP IN MIND, THE PURPOSE, ONE OF THE PURPOSES OF THE REVISED ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE ELM THICKET NEIGHBORHOOD WAS TO HAVE, UH, PITCHED ROOFS AT A CERTAIN, UH, AT A CERTAIN ANGLE OF FOUR 12.
AND I DO, I WOULD ARGUE THAT OF ALL THE SITES WE SAW TODAY ON THE, THE TOUR, WE HAVE SOME OF THE BETTER LOOKING HOMES.
WE HAVE THE, THE ROOF PITCHES APPROPRIATE.
[02:10:01]
HOUSE DOES, DOESN'T TOWER OVER THE OTHER REBUILDS IN THE AREA.THIS HAS JUST BEEN A VERY UNFORTUNATE SITUATION ALL AROUND.
IT'S, IT'S BAD FOR THE NEIGHBORS, IT'S BAD FOR THE CITY, AND IT'S BAD FOR US.
WE THINK WE HAVE FOUND AN, AN ELEGANT WAY TO GET OUT OF OR RESOLVE THIS WITHOUT POINTING FINGERS AT ANYBODY OR GETTING MAD AT ANYBODY.
AND WE HOPE YOU CAN SUPPORT THIS REQUEST.
UH, I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AS IS HANNAH.
YOU STILL HAVE REBUTTAL OF A REBUTTAL TIMEFRAME.
ANY QUE OTHER QUESTIONS FOR HIM? MR. N HAS A QUESTION.
YEAH, I, THERE'S ANOTHER POINT OF CLARIFICATION.
UM, DID MR. RIVERA, UH, STATED THAT IT WOULD COST, UM, UH, APPROXIMATELY AT LEAST 150,000 TO REMOVE THE HEIGHT OR TO, IT'S GOTTA BE MORE MAX BRING, BRING THE HEIGHT INTO COMPLIANCE.
AND YOU SAID THAT THE, UH, ENTIRE CONSTRUCTION VALUE, THE IMPROVEMENT, THE VALUE ON THE OF THE PROPERTY IS 980,000.
IS THAT RIGHT? THE 980,000 WOULD BE YOU WERE TO START OVER TO MAKE EVERYTHING BE IN THE NEW COMPLIANCE.
'CAUSE YOU ESSENTIALLY HAVE TO DEMO START OVER FRESH.
YOU CAN'T JUST CUT DOWN A FOUNDATION.
THESE FLOOR JOISTS ARE MADE SPECIFICALLY FOR THE WIDTH OF THE FOUNDATION.
SO THE FLOOR JOSS HAVE TO COME OUT, THE WALLS HAVE TO COME IN.
THE FOUNDATION HAS TO COME IN.
EVERYTHING HAS TO START FROM FRESH.
I I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT WHAT, WHAT IS THE VALUE OF THE IMPROVEMENT OR OF THE CONSTRUCTION AS IT IS RIGHT NOW? THE, THE LAST DUPLEX SOLD FOR 870,000 FOR ONE HALF.
IN MY IN MIND THAT, YOU KNOW, IF WE WERE JUST TO RE REDUCE THE ROOF, IT WOULD, IT WOULD LOOK A LITTLE ODD AND, YOU KNOW, IT WOULDN'T HAVE THE, THE, THE ART, THE ARCHITECT'S DESIGN.
YOU KNOW, I, I UNDERSTAND THAT I, AND THE SYMMETRY AND I ALL THAT I I I GET THAT.
WHAT I'M TRYING TO GET AT IS, UM, THE 50%, YOU, YOU'VE, YOU'VE ASSERTED YEAH.
THAT THE, THE COST MORE THAN 50% OF THE TOTAL VALUE.
UM, WELL, THE 50% OF THE APPRAISED VALUE THE LAST TAX, AND THERE WAS NOTHING ON THE SITE THE LAST TIME IT WAS TAXED.
SO I THINK WE, I THINK WE CAN SAY WE, WE CAN MEET 50% OF, OF NOTHING.
SO, UM, YOU HAD FINISHED YOUR COMMENTS.
DO WE HAVE OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? I'VE GOT MR. HAITZ, THEN MS. DAVIS.
MR. HOP, COULD WE PULL UP THE SLIDES PLEASE? AGAIN, MR. MR. BALDWIN SLIDE THAT HE HAD, UH, THE, UH, LEAVE THE NEXT SLIDE PERHAPS.
THIS ONE, THIS ONE RIGHT HERE.
UH, YOUR FIRST BULLET POINT THERE SAID THAT WE'RE SEEKING THE FOLLOWING VARIANCES AND THERE ARE THREE BULLET POINTS.
YEAH, WE HAVE FOUR VARIOUS REQUESTS.
SO MY FIRST QUESTION TO YOU IS TO IS TO RECONCILE FOUR VARIOUS REQUEST WHILE WE'RE REQUESTS WITH THREE BULLET POINTS.
BUT, BUT I HAVE ADDITIONAL, I THINK ADDITIONAL TO ASK ABOUT THAT.
WHAT WAS THE QUESTION? UH, TO, TO, THERE ARE FOUR VARIANCE REQUESTS.
HE'S GOT THREE BULLET POINTS THAT SAYING WE'RE SEEKING THE FOLLOWING VARIANCES.
AND THERE'S THREE, ONE IS LOT COVERAGE, 50 OVER 40.
THE NEXT ONE IS HEIGHT VARIANCE, 32 OVER 30.
THE NEXT ONE WAS HYPER REQUIREMENTS.
AND THE FOURTH ONE WOULD BE, UH, A 12 FOOT.
SO MR. BOLD, HIS REQUESTS, RIGHT, ACCORDING TO THE, WHAT WE HAVE ARE, THERE ARE FOUR REQUESTS.
IS THAT WHAT YOU FIND? OR OR THREE? NUMBER ONE IS, UH, A RES.
WE WANNA CON MAINTAIN A RES INSTRUCTURE WITH A MIDPOINT HEIGHT OF THE ROOF, 26 AND A HALF.
SO THAT IN PD 67, THAT, THAT WAS MODIFIED.
SO NORMALLY, UH, YOUR HEIGHT ALWAYS GOES TO THE MIDPOINT OF THE ROOF IN, UH, IN A STRAIGHT ZONING DISTRICT IN PD SIX, SEVEN WAS CHANGED.
SO THE, THE MIDPOINT, THE SECOND ONE IS THE MAXIMUM LOCK COVERAGE, 40 VERSUS 50 VERSUS 40.
THE THIRD ONE IS A 2.4 INCH VARIANCE OF THE HEIGHT REGULATION.
[02:15:01]
YES.SO WHAT IS THE 12.7? 12 FOOT SEVEN INCH VARIANCE? THAT'S TO WHERE, UH, THE WAY PD 60 SEVEN'S WRITTEN, UH, ABOVE.
IF YOU HAVE A ROOF TALLER THAN 20 FEET, THEN YOU HAVE TO HAVE START HAVING A ROOF PITCH, UH, IN A ROOF FORM.
AND SO THIS REQUEST IS TO SAY THAT THAT ROOF PITCH IN ROOF FORM BASICALLY GOES AWAY.
SO CAN I CLARIFY ONE THING ABOUT THE ROOF CLOSER TO THE MICROPHONE? UH, IN REGARDS TO THE ROOF PITCH, OUR ROOF STYLE ACTUALLY MEETS THE REQUIREMENT, BUT FOR WHATEVER REASON, THE CITY OF DALLAS HAS SAID THAT IT HAS TO BE A FOUR 12 ROOF PITCH TO BE A GABLE OR HIP, UH, IN ANY BUILDING CODE, YOU CAN HAVE A TWO 12 GABLE, YOU CAN HAVE A TWO 12 HIP, YOU CAN HAVE A THREE 12 GABLE, A THREE 12 HIP.
SO WE'RE ASKING TO ALLOW US TO HAVE, WE HAVE A COUPLE SECTIONS THAT HAVE A THREE 12 ROOF FISH.
IS THAT YOUR OPINION AS WELL, MR. BALDIN? YES, SIR.
MS. DIANA, THEY'RE SAYING THAT THEY, THEY'RE COMPLYING IN THAT ONE.
IS THAT YOUR OPINION FROM STAFF? UM, THE DEF THE DEFINITIONS IN PD 67 FOR A GABLE ROOF CALLS OUT THE FOUR 12 PITCH AS WELL AS FOR THE HIP ROOF, THE FOUR 12 PITCH.
THAT'S WHERE THAT'S COMING FROM.
SO DISAGREEING WITH, THEY'RE SAYING THEY'RE COMPLYING ALREADY? NO, WE'RE SAYING THAT PART OF OUR ROOF, EVEN THOUGH IT MEETS, UH, IF THE PITCHED ROOF PART OF OUR ROOF IS AT THREE 12 INSTEAD OF FOUR 12, ARE YOU IN AGREEMENT WITH THAT OR DISAGREEMENT? I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT ROOF PITCH OF THEIR PLANS.
BUT WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT, UM, IN ORDER FOR IT TO BE CONSIDERED A HIP AND GABLE IS IT HAS TO MEET THE FOUR 12 PITCH IN PD 67.
IN PD 60, WE'RE TALKING SEVEN, CORRECT? THAT'S RIGHT.
NO, WHAT, WHAT, WHAT TANNER WAS SAYING IS THAT YOU CAN HAVE A, A PIT IN GABLE ROOF, UH, AND OTHER ZONING DISTRICTS.
WHAT I'M TRYING TO BE IS FACTUAL.
WE WENT THROUGH THE FIRST THREE AND WE RECOGNIZE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO.
AND YOUR CLIENT SAID THAT HE COMPLIED WITH NUMBER FOUR.
AND I'M JUST TRYING TO HAVE PROFESSIONAL STAFF TELL US AND SEE IF YOU AGREE, DISAGREE.
THE STAFF IS SAYING THAT NO DOES NOT COMPLY CURRENTLY.
AND I'M TRYING TO, ACCORDING TO WHERE IT'S BUILT IN PD 67, CURRENTLY, I THINK WHAT HE, I'LL I'LL ASK HIM TO SPEAK FOR HIMSELF.
MY UNDERSTANDING WAS IS THAT HE SAID WE DIDN'T COMPLY WITH THE FOUR 12, WHICH IS WHAT WE HEARD WE WERE TOLD IS WHAT THE PD 67 STATES.
BECAUSE WE DO HAVE A PITCHED ROOF EVERYWHERE, BUT PART OF THE, PART OF THE PITCHED ROOF IS THREE 12, WHICH DOES NOT COMPLIED WITH FOUR 12.
AND IF, IF HE'S RIGHT, I WANT HIM TO BE RIGHT, BUT I JUST WANT TO DEAL IN FACTS.
SO MY INTENTION WAS THAT WE ARE DESIGNED TO BE A TECHNICAL HIP OR GABLE.
WE ARE JUST NOT DESIGNED TO BE WHAT THEY CALL A FOUR 12.
I'M NOT TRYING TO UNDERCUT YOUR DESIGN.
I'M TRYING TO GO TO WHAT THE CODE SAYS VERSUS WHAT YOU HAVE, AND THEN YOUR REQUEST.
IF IT'S THE SAME, THE SAME, THEN THERE'S NO REQUEST BECAUSE THE CODE 67, AND THIS IS A VARIANCE REQUEST.
SO I'M LOOKING WHAT IS, WHAT THE PD 67 REQUIRE VERSUS WHAT YOU HAVE.
IF THERE'S A DIFFERENCE, THERE'S THE REQUEST.
AND I'LL SAY I SAT DOWN WITH MR. POOLE AND WENT OVER ALL OF THESE, AND HE CONFIRMED THAT WHAT WE WERE ASKING FOR IS WHAT WE NEEDED.
BUT YOUR CLIENT SAID THAT HE COMPLIED ALREADY AND IT'S, IT'S NOT THE CASE.
WHAT I, MY INTENTION WAS TO EXPLAIN THAT WE ARE COMPLYING WITH THE HIP AND GABLE STYLE, BUT NOT ACCORDING TO THE REQUIREMENT.
THE PI QUESTION WAS WHAT WAS THE OTHER VARIANCE? AND IT WAS THE HEIGHT THAT TRIGGERS A FOUR 12 PITCH.
SO THAT'S, THAT WAS THE OTHER VARIANCE.
BUT WE'VE GOT THE, YOU'RE WEARING ME OUT, SO YOU'RE WEARING ME OUT.
I GO OUT, YOUR CLIENT SAID HE COMPLIED.
NOT CONSISTENT WITH WHAT THE STAFF IS SAYING.
I WILL GO ON RECORD SAYING WE DO NOT COMPLY.
HENCE, YOU'RE HERE FOR THAT AS OF THE FOURTH VARIANCE REQUEST.
AND OKAY, SO I, I REALLY NEED TO BE, HAVE ONE SPOKESPERSON FOR THE APPLICANT BECAUSE WE'RE TRYING TO DEAL WITH REQUESTS THAT HAVE BEEN IN FRONT OF US.
AND WHEN YOU TELL ME YOU DON'T, WE COMPLIED, THEN WE, THEN THERE'S A CONFUSION AS TO WHAT WE'RE DEALING WITH.
SO WE HAVE FOUR REQUESTS IN FRONT OF US TO BE THE MIDPOINT FOR THE HE ROOF, THE LOT COVERAGE, THE HEIGHT, RAW HEIGHT, AND THEN THIS FOUR 12, IS THAT WHAT YOU CALL DIANE? FOUR 12 PITCH GABLE? RIGHT.
THOSE ARE THE FOUR THINGS IN FRONT OF US.
DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? UH, NOT AT THE LEAST, BUT, UH, SO NONE OF THESE FOUR MENTIONED A ROOF, UH, A HIP AND GABLE OF A CERTAIN PITCH.
THAT, THAT TERM IS NOT IN HERE.
IT'S NOT, UH, BECAUSE WE WORKING WITH STAFF, WE DIDN'T QUITE KNOW HOW TO, TO STATE THAT.
AND SO THAT'S WHY, UH, NUMBER FOUR, IT JUST SAYS IF YOU,
[02:20:02]
THE, THE REQUEST IS THAT THE WAY PD 67 IS WRITTEN, YOU GET 20 FEET, THEN YOU HAVE TO HAVE THE ADDITIONAL, UH, YOU KNOW, THE PITCH ROOF AT FOUR 12 GETS KICKED IN.WE'RE SAYING THAT THAT GETS KICKED IN AT OUR, AT THE HEIGHT OF OUR BUILDING.
SO IT'S JUST A, IT'S A CONVOLUTED WAY TO, TO EXEMPT OURSELF FROM THAT REQUIREMENT.
I'M GONNA ASK THE BOARD ATTORNEY TO, TO SPEAK TO WHAT THE PROVISION WITHIN PD 67 SAYS AS IT RELATES TO THIS.
FOR THAT FOURTH REQUEST, IT SAYS, FOR RUTH, WHEN THE HEIGHT OF A ROOF IS ABOVE 20 FEET, 90, WHICH THIS ONE IS, 90% OF THE ROOF OF THE MAIN STRUCTURE MUST BE HIP AND GABLE.
SO THEY'RE ASKING FOR A VARIANCE TO BE OVER THE 20 FEET SO THEY DON'T HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE HIP AND GABLE REQUIREMENT.
SO IN BULLET POINT NUMBER TWO, IT REFERS TO, UH, IT SAYS A HEIGHT VARIANCE TO ALLOW A STRUCTURE TO BE 32 FEET HIGH RATHER THAN 30.
I BELIEVE THE CURRENT PD 67 WAS 25, AND THE PRIOR WAS 35.
UH, WHERE'S 30 FEET COME FROM? AND THE RELEVANCE OF THAT, UM, THE, THE, I DON'T HAVE PD SIX SEVEN IN FRONT OF ME, BUT IF I RECALL CORRECTLY, IT SAYS THAT YOU'RE ABOVE 20 FEET.
YOU HAVE THE EXTRA REQUIREMENTS FOR THE HIP AND CAP, BUT AT NO POINT SHOULD YOUR, CAN YOUR STRUCTURE BE TALLER? THE TOP OF YOUR ROOF CAN'T BE TALLER THAN 30 FEET.
AND IT'S NOT MEASURED TO THE MIDPOINT LIKE IT IS EVERYWHERE ELSE IN THE CITY.
IT'S A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF A, THE TOP OF A ROOF IS 30 FEET.
IT'S 25 FEET TO THE MIDPOINT, 30 FEET TOTAL.
I CAN GO ONTO ANOTHER QUESTION WHILE WE'RE WAITING FOR THAT.
SO, UH, PART OF, PART OF YOUR ARGUMENT AS WELL, UM, IT WAS ALMOST A, PARDON THE EXPRESSION, IT WAS ALMOST A, UH, HAVE P OF AN ORPHAN BECAUSE I KILLED MY PARENTS PART.
PART OF YOUR EXPLANATION WAS THERE'S THESE OTHER HOUSES WHICH WE'RE GOING TO BE DISCUSSING TODAY, WHICH ARE IN VIOLATION OF THE CURRENT ZONING.
AND YOU'RE SAYING, EXCUSE ME, BECAUSE LOOK AT THOSE, BUT THOSE ARE YET TO BE ADJUDICATED AS WELL.
MR. KOVI, LET'S STICK WITH THE SPECIFICS TO THIS CASE AND THIS REQUEST.
WELL, THAT'S PART OF THE ARGUMENT SPECIFIC TO THIS CASE AND THE COMPARISON BETWEEN WHAT THE PD 67 CALLS FOR AND HIS REQUEST AND VARIANCE.
LET'S STICK WITH JUST THOSE FOUR THINGS.
WHAT IS THE PD CALL FOR VERSUS WHAT IS THE VARI, WHAT IS HIS REQUEST? THE DIFFERENCE IS THE VARIANCE.
AND AS I SAID AT THE BEGINNING LIST AS BEST AS POSSIBLE, STICK TO THIS SPECIFIC CASE.
SO, QUESTIONS THAT RELATES TO THIS PROPERTY, JUST POINT OUT TO THE SHERIFF.
I DIDN'T BRING UP, I DIDN'T INITIATE BRINGING UP OTHER PROPERTIES, BUT AT YOUR POINT, SO WE LOOK, ARE WE GONNA FIND, OKAY, ALL RIGHT.
WHAT OTHER QUESTIONS DO WE HAVE NOW, MS. DAVIS? GOING BACK TO THE ROOF, YOU HAD MENTIONED $150,000, WHICH SEEMS REALLY, REALLY LOW TO REPLACE THE ROOF.
UM, BUT IF YOU, IF YOU NEEDED TO COME IN TO BE COMPLIANT AND YOU NEEDED TO, YOU KNOW, LOWER THE ROOF, UH, I GUESS TAKE OFF THE ROOF AND COMPLETELY REDO IT, WHAT DOES THAT DO TO THE VALUE OF THE HOUSE? I'M, I'M A BUILDER.
I'M NOT AN EXPERT FROM A REAL ESTATE SALES STANDPOINT.
UH, I THINK AT THE END OF THE DAY, THE PROBLEM IS JUST GOING TO BE THE COSTS THAT ARE GONNA BE INCURRED AND THE TIME LOST BY TAKING ON THAT TASK.
AND POTENTIALLY, I GUESS FROM A BUILDER'S POINT OF VIEW, I WOULD SAY A HOME BUYER COULD COME IN WITH AN INSPECTOR AND SEE A BUNCH OF REWORK DONE TO THE ROOF AND MIGHT THINK THAT ITS INTEGRITY WAS COMPROMISED, UM, MIGHT HAVE ISSUES ABOUT HOW PROTECTED IT WAS DURING THAT TIME FROM THE ELEMENTS.
[02:25:01]
SO I THINK THE ISSUE WE PROBABLY WOULD RUN INTO IS THE SELLABILITY OF THOSE SPECIFIC THREE STRUCTURES THAT HAD TO HAVE THAT WORK REDONE.AND WHAT TYPE OF COMPROMISE TO THE ENGINEERED INTEGRITY OF THE ROOF AND POTENTIAL RAIN OR WATER DAMAGE THAT HAPPENED DURING THAT TIME.
AND NON-TECHNICAL ANSWER, BECAUSE I'M A ZONING GUY, IS I THINK IT'S THE SYMMETRY.
YOU KNOW, YOU'RE, IF YOU HAVE A, A ROOF THAT'S DESIGNED TO BE LIKE THIS AND NOW IT'S LIKE THIS AND IT'S PUSHED DOWN, UH, IT COULD LOOK LIKE AN AFTERTHOUGHT.
QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? I'LL HAVE MINE IN A MINUTE.
UH, YOU STILL, CAN I DO A QUESTION? YES.
MR. N JUST AGAIN, TO REITERATE, YOU ARE SELLING EACH HALF OF THESE DUPLEXES FOR 870, IS THAT RIGHT? THAT'S THE, THE LAST ONE THAT I SOLD, YES.
ONE SIDE WAS 870,001, UH, THAT, NO, THAT ONE
UH, A, A QUESTION BACK, I'LL ASK A COUPLE OF MINE NOW.
SO YOU SAID IT IN YOUR PRESENTATION, YOU'RE 75% COMPLETE.
THAT'S OUR, THAT'S TANNER'S ESTIMATE? YES.
THE PERMIT WAS ISSUED ON MARCH 2ND, 2023.
UM, IN YOUR LETTER YOU SUBMITTED TO US, IT SAID THAT ON FEBRUARY 20TH OF 24, THE FOUNDATION WAS APPROVED WITH GREEN TAGS? YES, SIR.
THEN JULY 18TH, THE FRAMING, WHICH WOULD BE THE HEIGHT AND THE ROOF PITCH, WAS APPROVED ON JULY 18TH, 2024.
AND I GOT THAT FROM THE CITY, UH, YEP.
AND THEN YOU GOT A STOP PAYMENT, OR EXCUSE ME, A STOP WORK ORDER ON THE 16TH, SEPTEMBER.
AND YOU KEYED TO THAT REQUEST? WE STOPPED BEFORE THAT, BUT THAT WAS OH, YOU STOPPED BEFORE THAT? YEAH, THAT WAS, THAT WAS WHEN WE GOT THE OFFICIAL, UH, NOTICE.
UH, AND PRIOR TO THAT OFFICIAL NOTICE, DID YOU OR DID ANYONE THAT YOU'RE AWARE OF WERE AWARE, OR DID YOU OR ANYONE THAT ELSE IS INVOLVED IN THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY AT, UH, 45 16 HOPKINS KNOW OF THE, UH, THAT YOU WERE BUILDING CONTRARY TO WHAT THE ZONING ALLOWED? YEAH, WELL WE HEARD FROM, UH, MR. POOLE AND NO.
PRIOR TO HEARING FROM MR. POOLE ON OR ABOUT THE 16TH SEPTEMBER DURING THE, THE CONSTRUCTION PHASE, WERE YOU AWARE THAT YOU WERE, YOU WERE GIVEN GREEN TAGS IN ERROR? NO.
DO YOU KNOW WHERE THE FIRST TIME YOU HEARD FROM MR. POOL? AUGUST IS WHEN WE RECEIVED THE STOP WORK ORDER.
SOMEBODY CAME TO THE JOB SITE AND STOPPED US.
WERE YOU AWARE OF, AND, AND AFTER YOU HAD GOTTEN GREEN TAGS, THEN YOU MOVED FORWARD IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT.
DID YOU MOVE FORWARD IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT KNOWING THAT WITH YOU OR ANYONE ELSE KNOWING THAT YOU WERE DOING SO IN VIOLATION OF THE PD? WE DIDN'T KNOW WE WERE IN ERROR ON THESE.
THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO GET TO CORRECT YOU NOR ANYONE ELSE THAT YOU KNEW OF.
NOT NOT ON THESE PARTICULAR ONES.
I'M TALKING ABOUT THIS HOUSE ONLY, THIS PARTICULAR ONE.
THAT'S ALL WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
WE HAD OUR PERMIT, SO WE MOVED FORWARD AS PLANNED TO BUILD IT SO THAT, SO NO ONE WAS IN ANY KNOWLEDGE FIRSTHAND OR, OR SECONDHAND OF BEING AWARE THAT YOU WERE OUTSIDE OF THE ZONING RESTRICTIONS ON THIS ONE? THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, CORRECT.
WE'RE ONLY TALKING ABOUT THIS ONE? CORRECT.
AND SO IF I CAN EXPAND ON IT JUST A LITTLE BIT VERY BRIEFLY.
SO, UH, MR. POOL AND OTHERS, WHEN THEY FOUND OUT THERE WAS AN ISSUE, THEY GAVE EVERYBODY A STOP WORK ORDER, WHICH WE COMPLIED WITH, AND THEN THROUGH THE MONTH OF AUGUST, WE WORKED WITH THE CITY TO TRY TO SEE IF WE COULD RESOLVE THE ISSUES.
AND THEN WE GOT THE OFFICIAL WRITTEN NOTICE IN SEPTEMBER THAT, THAT YOU, YOU ARE, YOU ARE NOW OFFICIALLY STOPPED AND YOU HAVE 30 DAYS TO FILE FOR.
SO WE HAVE BEEN WORKING THROUGH OCTOBER.
I'M TRYING TO GO BACK TO SINCE MARCH 2ND, 2023, SUBSEQUENT GREEN TAG'S WORK.
PROGRESS THAT HAPPENED WAS, WAS ANYONE IN, IN FIRST OR SEC, PRIMARY SECONDARY KNOWLEDGE THAT YOU WERE DOING THINGS INCONSISTENT WITH THE ZONING? AND WHAT I'VE HEARD IS CONCLUSIVELY WHAT? NO, SIR.
THAT'S, I WANTED TO HEAR ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.
AND YOU'RE UNDER OATH, SO JUST SO IT'S VERY CLEAR.
AND WE'RE ONLY TALKING ABOUT THIS PROPERTY.
I WILL ASK THE SAME QUESTION ON THE REMAINING FOUR, THE REMAINING THREE WE HAVE, 'CAUSE THEY'LL ALL DEAL WITH 'EM SEPARATELY.
YOU HAVE TIME RESERVED FOR YOUR REBUTTAL.
UM, THE OTHER SPEAKER, WE, WE HAVE NO OTHER SPEAKERS IN FAVOR, CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT.
DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS IN OPPOSITION, MR. SACK THOMPSON? MR. THOMPSON, YOU MAY COME FORWARD PLEASE.
YOU ROLL NINE AND IF YOU SWEAR YOU IN.
[02:30:01]
DO YOU SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? I DO.I DON'T KNOW WHAT TYPE OF REPERCUSSIONS YOU HAVE WHEN YOU SWEAR IN.
'CAUSE MR. BALDWIN WAS REPRESENTING THE MAJORITY OF THE BUILDERS, UH, AS WE WENT THROUGH PD 67 REZONING.
AND SO MOST OF THOSE, UH, ZONING REQUESTS WERE TURNED DOWN BY THE CPC.
SO TO STAND HERE THIS AFTERNOON AND HEAR EACH ONE OF THESE INDIVIDUALS SAY THEY, THEY WERE UNAWARE OF THE CHANGES OF PD 67 IS NOT ACCURATE.
THEY WERE INVOLVED IN IT AS WELL AS MR. TARLEY, THE BUILDER.
THEY KNEW ABOUT PD 67 AND THE CHANGES THAT WERE COMING DOWN.
THEY WERE ALSO PARTICIPATING IN THE CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS, UH, VOICING THEIR OPINION AGAINST THE CHANGES TO PD 67.
SO TO STAND HERE TO SAY TODAY, TO SAY THEY WERE NOT AWARE OF PD 67 REZONING IS AN ABSOLUTE LIE.
NOW THEY NEED TO STAY WITHIN THE, THE ZONING REQUEST OF PD 67 NEEDS TO BE FOLLOWED BY THE BUILDER.
YOU KEEP ASKING THEM ABOUT A COST $150,000.
THIS IS NOTHING TO A SLUM LORD WHO HAS BEEN DOCUMENTED, HAS TAKEN RENT FROM PEOPLE WITHOUT IMPROVING THEIR HOUSES.
SO HE HAS $150,000 IN WALKING AROUND MONEY.
SO WHEN YOU ASK THIS QUESTION, I'M REALLY TAKEN ABACK BY THE FACT THAT THIS BUILDER HAS THE MONEY TO MAKE THE CHANGES.
THEY WERE AWARE OF PD 67 CHANGES ANNUAL IMPROVEMENT, AND THEREFORE THIS BOARD SHOULD STAY WITH THE PROCESS OF PD 67.
ALSO, WE NEED TO MAKE A REQUEST TO THE STATE LEGISLATURE BECAUSE, UH, CHAIRMAN NEWMAN, YOU, YOU, YOU, WE WANT YOUR SAME ENTHUSIASM THAT YOU HAD FOR THE LAST, UH, PERSON THAT WAS UP FROM KESSLER PARK.
YOU HAVE NOT SHOWN THAT TO LM THICKETT NOR PARK AS IT COMES DOWN TO AFRICAN AMERICAN HISTORIC AREA.
WE HAVE NOT SEEN THAT ENTHUSIASM OR YOUR COMMITMENT TO MAINTAINING THAT NEIGHBORHOOD.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS TODAY, SIR.
UM, YOU, YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES OF REBUTTAL.
UM, ROB DEN AGAIN, FIRST OF ALL, UM, I DID A REZONING OR TRIED TO DO A REZONING PD 67 ABOUT FOUR YEARS AGO, AND IT DID NOT GO WELL.
AND I HAVEN'T DONE ANYTHING IN THERE SINCE I WAS NOT PARTICIPATING IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM IN THE REZONING OF PD 67 THAT WENT, THAT WENT THROUGH, DIDN'T REPRESENT ANYBODY EITHER FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR DEVELOPERS.
I WAS NOT INVOLVED IN THIS CASE UNTIL AFTER THE STOP WORK ORDER WAS ALREADY BROUGHT ON.
I, SO I DON'T, I CAN'T SPEAK TO ANY OF THAT, BUT THERE'S NO WAY THAT, AND I, I'VE GO ON RECORD THAT HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE, THE DEVELOPMENT OR PROCESSING OF P THE CHANGES TO PD 67.
I WAS BROUGHT ON AFTER THE ISSUE'S BROUGHT UP.
SO, UM, I, I THINK THAT, LIKE I SAID, THIS IS CLEARLY AN UNFORTUNATE SITUATION ALL THE WAY AROUND.
UH, I, I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND NEIGHBOR'S CONCERN.
I UNDERSTAND THE CITY'S CONCERN.
I UNDERSTAND MY CLIENT'S CONCERN.
I HOPE THAT WE CAN GET YOUR SUPPORT FOR, FOR THIS REQUEST THAT I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.
UH, OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? UH, HE CAN IS PART OF YOUR TIME.
I JUST WANNA CLARIFY, I'M, I'M NOT THE PROPERTY OWNER THAT HE SPOKE, I'M JUST THE BUILDER THAT WAS HIRED TO BUILD THESE.
UM, SO HE SPOKE TO ME AS THE PROPERTY OWNER.
I JUST WANNA CLARIFY, HOLD ON FOR THE RECORD.
WE'LL HAVE REASONABLE ORDER HERE.
I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY FOR THE RECORD THAT I'M, I'M JUST THE BUILDER.
I'M NOT THE PROPERTY OWNER, I'M NOT THE DEVELOPER, AND WE WERE ISSUED A PERMIT ON THIS PARTICULAR DUPLEX.
AND SO I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT WE COULD BUILD THIS DUPLEX.
ANYTHING ELSE, MR. BALDWIN? NO, SIR.
I THINK YOU HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS COMING MR. HAITZ.
MR. BALDWIN, PRIOR TO THE ZONING CHANGE IN PD 67, DID YOUR CLIENT OWN PROPERTIES IN THAT AREA? I'M ASSUMING SO, BUT HE WAS, THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I'VE EVER REPRESENTED HIM.
SO TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, HE, YOU, YOU DON'T KNOW IF HE DID OR DIDN'T, IS THAT YOUR, I DON'T KNOW, BUT I KNOW HE OWNS A LOT OF PROPERTY THERE, SO I'D BE SURPRISED IF HE BOUGHT 'EM ALL RECENTLY, BUT I, I DON'T KNOW.
DO YOU KNOW WHEN THIS PARTICULAR LOT WAS ACQUIRED? NO, SIR.
SINCE HE, UH, APPLIED FOR A PERMIT IN DECEMBER OF 22, WOULD IT BE REASONABLE TO ASSUME HE HAD ALREADY ACQUIRED IT PRIOR TO OCTOBER OF 22? UH, LET'S BE CAREFUL THAT WE DON'T SPEAK UNLESS WE KNOW NOW.
I I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT.
[02:35:01]
CLIENT WAS AT THE ZONING MEETING ON THAT THE PD 67 ZONING LAW WAS CHANGED? I DON'T KNOW THAT.OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT, MS. DAVIS? I I JUST WANNA UH, SORT OF JUST GO BACK THROUGH THE TIMELINE JUST REALLY QUICKLY.
SO YOU GOT YOUR, YOU GOT, YOU APPLIED FOR YOUR PER PERMIT DECEMBER, 2022, YOU GOT YOUR PERMIT 2023.
YOU KEPT GETTING GREEN TAGS ALONG THROUGHOUT THAT PROCESS THAT EVERYTHING WAS LOOKING GOOD, EVERYTHING WAS CHECKING OUT.
AND THE FIRST TIME THAT YOU HEARD THAT YOU NEEDED TO STOP WAS IN AUGUST OF THIS PAST YEAR, IS THAT CORRECT? YES MA'AM.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT AT THIS TIME? OKAY.
UM, I'M GOTTEN PREPARED TO MAKE A MOTION.
I MOVE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER 2 3 4 DASH 1 43 ON APPLICATION OF BALDWIN ASSOCIATES GRANT, THE ONE FOOT FIVE INCH VARI THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT REGULATIONS REQUESTED BY THIS APPLICANT.
BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT THE PHYSICAL CARE OF THE PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP TO THE APPLICANT.
I FURTHER MOVE THE FOLLOWING CONDITION, BE IMPOSED TO FURTHER THE PURPOSE OF THE INTENT OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE COMPLIANCE WITH MOST RECENT VERSION OF ALL, ALL SUBMITTED PLANS THAT ARE REQUIRED, IT'S BEEN MOVED.
IT'S BEEN SECONDED BY MS. DAVIS.
THESE ARE NOT EASY DISCUSSIONS.
UM, I AM PERSUADED BY VIRTUE OF THE GOOD FAITH EFFORT OF THE APPLICANT REPRESENTED BY MR. BALDWIN, UM, IN COMMUNICATING A REQUEST IN RESPONDING TO APPROVALS BY THE GOVERNMENT AGENCY BUILDING INSPECTION ALONG THE WAY AND STOPPING WHEN TOLD TO STOP WORKING.
ITS DURING ITS STOP WORK ORDER IN AUGUST, SEPTEMBER OF THIS YEAR.
UH, I AM PERSUADED BY VIRTUE OF THE FEEDBACK WE'VE GOTTEN FROM THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS, 13 IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION WITHIN THE 200 FEET AREA.
I HAVE SAID FOR YEARS, THAT IS NOT CONCLUSIVE, THAT'S INDICATIVE, THAT'S NOT INCONCLUSIVE, IT'S INDICATIVE.
UM, I AM PERSUADED BY VIRTUE OF THE PROPERTY BEING 75 PER PLUS PERCENT COMPLETE.
I AM PERSUADED THAT THIS PROVISION THAT THE STATE LEGISLATURE CREATED LAST YEAR, YEAR BEFORE THIS ELEMENT TWO SUBSTITUTE, WHEN IT TALKS TO A GREATER THAN 50% APPRAISED VALUE, GIVES THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO USE AS PART OF ITS JUDGMENT.
ITS DISCRETIONARY JUDGMENT THAT IT, IT COMPLIES WITH THAT.
I AM PERSUADED THAT THIS IS NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST.
NONE OF OUR DECISIONS ARE CLEAR CUT.
UM, THE PICTURES THAT WE SAW RELATING TO THIS PROPERTY IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD TELLS ME THAT, UM, THIS IS AN UNFORTUNATE MESS THAT UNFORTUNATELY THAT FOR UNFORTUNATE MESS THAT WE ARE GONNA HAVE TO RESOLVE IN AS FAIR WAY AS POSSIBLE.
AND SO I ENCOURAGE MY COLLEAGUES TO CONSIDER THE TOTALITY OF WHAT'S IN FRONT OF US, UM, AND SUPPORT THIS ONE OF FOUR REQUESTS.
DAVIS, I AGREE WITH CHAIRMAN NEWMAN'S COMMENTS.
WHAT PERSUADED ME REALLY IS JUST LOOKING AT THAT TIMELINE.
BECAUSE IF I WAS IN YOUR SITUATION AND I WAS GETTING GREEN TAGS AND I WAS ISSUED A PERMIT IN MARCH OF 2023, I WOULD BE MOVING ALONG UNTIL I WAS TOLD OTHERWISE.
AND YOU STOPPED WHEN YOU WERE TOLD OTHERWISE.
I AGREE THAT IT'S VERY UNFORTUNATE YOU'VE GOT THE SUPPORT LOCALLY.
THE, UH, STRUCTURE, 75% COMPLETED AND IT CERTAINLY IS GONNA COST MORE THAN HALF THE VALUE OF THE, UM, OF THE BUILDING COST TO BRING THIS INTO COMPLIANCE.
'CAUSE YOU'D HAVE TO BASICALLY RAISE THE ENTIRE THING AND START OVER.
SO BECAUSE OF THAT, I'M SUPPORTING THIS MOTION.
OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION, MS. HAYDEN? I'LL BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION, UM, FOR THE REASONS THAT WERE MENTIONED EARLIER AS WELL.
UM, YOU KNOW, THIS IS NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST.
WHEN OWING THE SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THIS CHAPTER WILL RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
AND I THINK THAT'S CLEARLY THE CASE HERE.
AS THE APPLICANT WENT THROUGH THE APPROPRIATE PERMITTING PROCESS AND INSPECTION PROCESS THROUGHOUT THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PROJECT, UM, I DON'T THINK THAT THIS PERSON SHOULD BE PENALIZED FOR MISTAKES THAT THE CITY HAS MADE.
AS UNFORTUNATE AS IT IS FOR THE, FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND AS DISAPPOINTED
[02:40:01]
AS IT IS FOR THE CITY, I STILL BELIEVE THAT, UM, THIS APPLICANT SHOULD NOT BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR MISTAKES THAT THE CITY HAS MADE.ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? MR. VEZ? UH, I HAVE A COUPLE COMMENTS, BUT FIRST I HAVE A QUESTION, UH, FOR THE CHAIR.
I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE MOTION.
CAN YOU, CAN SOMEONE PUT THIS MOTION IN TERMS OF THE PARTICULAR PART OF THE ZONING THAT THIS IS ASKING TO VARY? THE, THE MOTION I'M READING IS MOTION 1 0 4 AND IT'S TALKING ABOUT THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT.
AND WHAT I SAID WAS GRAND, ONE FOOT FIVE INCH ABOVE THE PD 67 BUILDING HEIGHT.
AND THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT WAS 30 FEET, 25 ON THE AVERAGE 30 AT THE TOP POINT.
MY UNDERSTANDING, I'M READING THE FIRST MOTION, WHICH TALKS ABOUT THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT.
AND IT'S ONE FOOT FIVE INCH VARIANCE.
AND THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT IN THE TRAILER, 25 IS THE MAXIMUM BUILDING? YES.
AND IT'S, AM I, AM I CORRECT? AM I CORRECT? THE PD STATES THAT THE MAXIMUM RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE HEIGHT IS 25 FEET AND THEN NO PORTION OF THE RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE MAY BE GREATER THAN 30 FEET ABOVE GRADE.
SO THIS MOTION DEALS WITH THAT FIRST PART OF THAT PROVISION WHERE THE MAXIMUM RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE HEIGHT IS 25 FEET.
BUT THAT'S AN AAV THAT'S AN AVERAGE OF SOME TYPE, IS IT NOT? IF YOU CAN HAVE A 30 FOOT SECTION, THEN IT MUST BE AN AVERAGE.
THAT'S WHEN, UH, THE CITY OF DALLAS MEASURES TO MIDPOINT.
SO IT'D BE FROM THE MIDPOINT TO THE AVERAGE GRADE HEIGHT, THE BID POINT, OKAY.
SO, SO WHAT PART OF THIS STRUCTURE IS RESOLVED BY A ONE FOOT FIVE INCH VARIANCE TO A 30 FOOT MAXIMUM? WHERE IS THE 28 FOOT SEVEN INCH SECTION OF THE, OF THE ROOF THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT? WHATEVER PORTION OF HIS ROOF THAT IS MEASURING, UH, 26 5.
THAT'S, THAT'S, UH, THAT'S THE PORTION, THE ONE FOOT? MM-HMM
ONE AND A HALF FOOT OVER ANYTHING ABOVE THE 25 FEET.
THIS IS ALLOWING HIM TO GO TO 26 FEET FIVE INCHES, WHICH IS, THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IN TERMS OF THE STRUCTURE, WHERE IS THE SUPPLY, WHAT IS THIS PROVIDING VARIANCE TO? IF THE PLANNER, IF THE SENIOR PLANNER PULLS UP THE, THE ELEVATIONS AGAIN, THAT'LL PROBABLY BURN DOWN A LITTLE BIT BETTER.
SO SIR, WOULD YOU PLEASE BE IN ORDER? OKAY.
DIANA, WHAT, WHAT WAS YOUR REQUEST, UH, FOR MR. UH, BRYANT TO PULL UP HIS, UM, FOR MR. THOMPSON TO PULL UP HIS, UH, ELEVATIONS SO HE COULD DISCUSS THE, THE HEIGHT OR SHOW WHERE THE HEIGHT IS AT MIDPOINT AND THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT?
SO WE WOULD TAKE THE MIDPOINT OF THE ROOF, SO ANYTHING ABOVE THE 25 FEET TO GRADE, UM, THAT PORTION IS, UM, WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT FOR THE FIRST SECTION, THE MAXIMUM RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE HEIGHT OF 25 FEET.
OKAY, SO, SO I I THOUGHT IT HAD A, I THOUGHT HE ILLUSTRATED WHERE THE 25 FOOT WAS.
IS THERE NOT ONE IN THE PACKET? YEAH, ONE PAGE 1 29.
OKAY, SO, AND IT'S REDLINED THAT'S, THIS IS NOT 1 0 9.
[02:45:05]
YEAH.MR. POOL, DO YOU NEED TO HELP HIM? OKAY.
SO COULD, COULD YOU ZERO IN ON THIS, DIANA? SO THAT'S THE MIDPOINT RIGHT THERE.
THAT, THAT'S AT 26 AND A HALF.
SO THAT'S WHERE THE ONE, ONE AND A HALF FOOT, UH, VARIANCE IS BEING REQUESTED.
THAT'S WHERE IT'S THE MAXIMUM RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE.
SO HE'S ABOVE THAT BY A FOOT AND A HALF.
WELL, WE'RE ONLY TALKING ABOUT THIS CASE RIGHT NOW.
OKAY, SO DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION HEARING, NO DISCUSSION WILL GO TO A VOTE MS. BOARD SECRETARY BDA 2 3 4 1 4 3.
THE MOTION IS TO GRANT A ONE FOOT FIVE IN VARI TO THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT FROM THE MIDPOINT.
IS THAT THE CORRECT WAY OF SAYING IT? DIANA, MS. HAYDEN? I AYE.
MOTION TO GRANT PASSES FIVE TO ZERO IN THE MATTER BDA 2 3 4 1 4 3 THE BOARD AND A UNANIMOUS VOTE OF FIVE TO ZERO GRANTS, THE ONE FOOT FIVE INCH VARIANCE TO THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT FROM THE MIDPOINT.
BD UH, I MOVE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IN BDA 2 3 4 DASH 1 43 ON THE APPLICATION OF BALDWIN ASSOCIATES.
GRANT THE 10% VARIANCE TO THE MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE REGULATIONS REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP TO THE APPLICANT.
I FURTHER MOVE THAT THE FOLLOWING CONDITION BE IMPOSED TO FURTHER THE PURPOSE AND THE INTENT OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE.
COMPLIANCE WITH THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF ALL SUBMITTED PLANS ARE REQUIRED.
IT'S BEEN MOVED BY CHAIRMAN NEWMAN SECOND AND BY MS. DAVIS THE BASIS BY MY REQUEST HERE FOLLOWS, UH, THE PREVIOUS MOTION IN THAT I FEEL THAT THE APPLICANT HAS IN GOOD FAITH, UM, UH, FILED FOR BURN FOR PERMITS, PROCEEDED WITH GREEN TAGS STOPPED WHEN TOLD TO STOP IS UNAWARE OR WAS UNAWARE OF THE, OF THE SPECIFIC CHANGES IN ZONING FOR DURING THIS TIME, TIME PERIOD OF CONSTRUCTION AND MEETS THE, THE THREE CRITERIA THAT ARE CONSISTENT WITH OUR BUILDING WITH OUR DEVELOPMENT CODE AS IT RELATES TO VARIANCE, NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST.
[02:50:01]
UM, THE PROVISION SPEAKING TO ELEMENT AND NUMBER TWO AS IT RELATES TO GREATER THAN 50% OF APPRAISED VALUE, COST.AND NUMBER THREE, UM, NOT GRANTED A REALLY SELF RELATED, CREATED PERSONAL HARDSHIP.
I THINK IT, AND, AND FOR THAT REASON I'M RECOMMENDING THAT WE APPROVE THIS VARIANCE FOR THE, UM, MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE DISCUSSION MS. DAVIS, I AGREE WITH CHAIRMAN NEWMAN'S COMMENTS, I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION MR. NARY.
I'LL BE, UH, SUPPORTING THE MOTION BASED ON THE FACT THAT IT TO, TO DENY IT WOULD BE WAY OVER 50% OF COST AS FAR AS LOT COVERAGE AND I'M BASING MY DECISION ON THE COMPLETION FACTOR OF THIS PARTICULAR CONSTRUCTION.
THANK YOU MR. NARY DISCUSSION MR. HAITZ? I CONCUR WITH MR. N'S COMMENTS EITHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION HEARING NONE WILL GO TO A VOTE MS. BOARD SECRETARY MS. HAYDEN AYE.
MOTION TO GRANT PASSES? FIVE TO ZERO.
I MOVE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IN APPEAL NUMBER B BDA 2 3 4 DASH 43 ON APPLICATION OF BALD ASSOCIATES.
GRANT THE TWO FOOT FOUR INCH VARIANCE TO THE OVERALL BUILDING HEIGHT REGULATIONS REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT.
BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND TESTIMONY SHOWS THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THE PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE DOLLARS DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP TO THIS APPLICANT.
I FURTHER MOVE THE FOLLOWING CONDITION, BE IMPOSED TO FURTHER THE PURPOSE AND INTENT.
THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE COMPLIANCE WITH THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF ALL SUBMITTED PLANS ARE REQUIRED.
SECONDED BY MS. DAVIS DISCUSSION OF THE MOTION.
UH, WE HAVE THREE CRITERIA THAT WE LOOK AT AS IT RELATES TO A VARIANCE ONE, NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST.
UH, THE FEEDBACK WE'VE GOTTEN FOR THIS, UH, ALL THE ADJACENT SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS WERE IN FAVOR NUMBER TWO, UM, UH, NECESSARY TO DEVELOP A PARCEL OF LAND.
IT COMPLIES WITH THE ELEMENT TWO SUBSTITUTE.
AND NUMBER THREE, UM, NOT GRANTED OR A RELIEVE A SELF-CREATED OR PERSONAL HARDSHIP IN MY OPINION, THE APPLICANT, UM, FILE A FILED BUILDING, UM, PERMIT REQUESTS, RECEIVED A PERMIT.
CONS BUILT THE PROPERTY, FOLLOWED GREEN TAGS, AND AT THE WORK AND PROCESS STAGE, STOPPED THE WORK WHEN TOLD TO BY THE STAFF AND, AND WAS UNAWARE DURING THE PERIOD OF TIME OF CONSTRUCTION OF A CHANGE IN ZONING.
THEREFORE, I THINK THIS IS A REASONABLE REQUEST AND THE PRIMARY PURPOSE WE ARE HERE AS A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO MAKE SUCH VARIANCES.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? MR. KOVI? I'LL NOT BE SUPPORTING THIS MOTION.
UH, THE COST OF REMEDIATION OF THE, OF THE EXTREMELY HIGH ROOF HEIGHT COMPARED TO CURRENT CODE, UM, TO ME IS REASONABLE IN RELATION TO THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AND SO I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING IT.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? WE'LL GO TO A VOTE.
THIS BOARD SECRETARY, MS. HAYDEN AYE.
MOTION GRANT TO GRANT PASSES FOR THE ONE I MOVE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 3 4 DASH 1 43 ON THE APPLICATION OF BALDWIN ASSOCIATES.
GRANT THE 12 FOOT SEVEN INCH VARIANCE TO THE ROOF HEIGHT REGULATIONS REQUESTED BY THIS APPLICANT BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THE PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE DOLLARS DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP TO THIS APPLICANT.
I FURTHER MOVE THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS BE IMPOSED TO FURTHER THE PURPOSE AND THE INTENT OF THE DOLLARS DEVELOPMENT CODE.
COMPLIANCE WITH THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF ALL SUBMITTED PLANS ARE REQUIRED.
IT'S BEEN SECONDED BY MS. DAVIS DISCUSSION OF THE MOTION, UH, NOT TO BE REDUNDANT, BUT TO BE REDUNDANT, I DO FEEL THAT THE APPLICANT IN GOOD FAITH FILED FOR BUILDING FOR A PERMIT, RECEIVED A PERMIT, BEGAN CONSTRUCTION, RECEIVED REPETITIVE GREEN PAGS, UM, STOPPED WHEN GIVEN THE STOCK WORK ORDER, UM, WAS UNAWARE OF ANY CHANGES TO THEIR, UM, OFFICIALLY GIVEN GREEN TAGS AND PERMIT.
UM, AND WE AS A BODY CONSTITUTED BY THE CITY AND THE STATE OF TEXAS ARE DOING WHAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO DO.
AND THAT IS WE MAKE AN ADJUSTMENT TO THE CODE.
AND AS IT RELATES TO NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST AS IT RELATES TO THE ELEMENT NUMBER TWO,
[02:55:01]
SUBSTITUTE WHEN IT'S GREATER THAN 50% OF APPRAISED VALUE.AND NUMBER THREE, WHEN AS IT RELATES TO NOT GRANTED A SELF RELATED HARDSHIP, THAT IS WHAT WE'RE HERE FOR THIS, THIS PARTICULAR CASE MERITS ALL THREE OF THOSE CONDITIONS.
DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION MR. HAITZ, UM, RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE MR. CHAIRMAN.
UM, I THINK IT IS CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS EXPRESSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL IN, IN MAKING ZONING CHANGES IN PD 67.
AND I ALSO BELIEVE THAT THE COST OF REMEDIATION OF THE ROOF HEIGHT, UM, IS EXPRESSED BY THE, UH, UH, APPLICANT AND HIS WITNESS, UH, ARE REASONABLE COMPARED TO THE VALUE OF THE PROJECT.
THANK YOU MR. KOVI DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION.
MR. NRI? UH, I'M GONNA CONCUR WITH MR. HAITZ ON THIS, UM, BECAUSE FINANCIALLY I DON'T, DON'T BELIEVE THAT IT WOULD PRESENT AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP TO THIS APPLICANT.
I WOULD LIKE TO DRAW THE CHAIRMAN'S ATTENTION TO OUR MISSION STATEMENT.
AS IT'S POSTED ON THE WEBSITE, IT SAYS, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AIMS TO UPHOLD THE MEANING AND SPIRIT OF THE ZONING ORDINANCES AS ENACTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL.
NOW, I THINK, WE'LL, WE'RE ALL IN AGREEMENT THAT THE CITY COUNCIL, UH, CHANGED THE, UH, PD 67 ZONING ON IN OCTOBER OF 2022.
IT'S EXTREMELY UNFORTUNATE THAT THERE WAS A LACK OF COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS THAT GREEN TAGGED THESE, UH, UH, VARIOUS STAGES OF CONSTRUCTION.
UM, I DO THINK THAT THE APPLICANT ACTED IN GOOD FAITH, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, WE ARE TASKED WITH, UM, TRYING TO ADHERE TO THE ZONING, UH, ORDINANCES AS, AS PASSED AND EXPRESSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL.
SO ON THIS PARTICULAR RESOLUTION, I'M GONNA BE VOTING NO.
THE DISCUSSION AND THE MOTION.
MS. DAVIS, I'M SUPPORTING THE MOTION BECAUSE, UM, BY NOT SUPPORTING THE MOTION, YOU'RE JUST DRAGGING OUT THE CONSTRUCTION OF THIS HOUSE.
IT'S NOT GONNA LOOK CONSISTENT WITH THE HOUSES THAT ARE NEARBY.
IT'S GOING TO SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASE THE, THE COST.
IT WILL AFFECT THE DESIRABILITY OF THE HOUSE.
IT COULD SIT VACANT FOR QUITE SOME TIME, WHICH IS NOT GOOD FOR ANYBODY.
AND THE APPLICANT DID WHAT THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO DO.
THEY APPLIED FOR A PERMIT, THEY KEPT GETTING THEIR GREEN, UM, THEIR GREEN TAGS.
I WANNA SAY GREEN SLIP AND, UM, THAT, THAT'S WHY I CONTINUE TO SUPPORT THIS MOTION.
OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? MS. HAYDEN? I'M SUPPORTING THE MOTION AS WELL, UM, FOR THE REASONS THAT I'VE PREVIOUSLY STATED FOR THE PREVIOUS MOTIONS ON THIS CASE.
UM, MY ONLY OTHER COMMENT WOULD BE, I AGREE, MR. MARY, THAT OUR CHARGE IS TO AD, AD ADHERE TO THE MEANING AND SPIRIT OF THE ZONING ORDINANCES AS ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL.
BUT LIKEWISE, WE ARE CHARGED WITH MAKING JUDGMENT CALLS WHEN THINGS ARE INCONSISTENT WITH THE LETTER OF THE ZONING LAW.
AND WHEN IT SAYS NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST WHEN OWING TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE CHAPTER WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
AND SO THAT THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE DONE.
AND I THINK ANYTHING SHORT OF LETTING THIS PROPERTY OWNER FINISH HIS PROJECT WOULD BE LACK OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE.
UH, UNFORTUNATELY, WE'RE BEING PUT IN THE POSITION OF HAVING TO JUDGE WHAT JUSTICE IS IN THIS CASE, AND THE COUNCIL AND THE STATE LEGISLATURE DELEGATES THAT.
NOT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, NOT TO THE COUNCIL, BUT TO US.
SO THAT IS THE BASIS BY WHICH I'VE MADE THIS RECOMMENDATION.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? YOUR LIGHTS ON? NO, I, I APPRECIATE, UH, THOSE OPINIONS AND AGREE, BUT I I DON'T THINK THAT IT WOULD BE A FINANCIAL HARDSHIP TO THIS PARTICULAR APPLICANT, SO I JUST WANTED THAT STATED ON THE RECORD.
MS. MS. WILLIAMS. MS. HAYDEN AYE.
MR. NARY, I'VE CHANGED MY POSITION.
MOTION TO GRANT PASSES FOR ONE IN THE MATTER B BDA 2 3 4 DASH 1 43.
THE BOARD GRANTS THE 12 FOOT SEVEN INCH VARIANCE OF THE WHARF HEIGHT REGULATIONS AS REQUESTED BY A VOTE OF FOUR TO ONE.
[03:00:01]
RECEIVE A LETTER FROM OUR BOARD ADMINISTRATOR, UM, WITHIN THE WEEK.I, IS THERE A SHOT OF WHISKEY ANYWHERE?
THAT'S, THAT'S A STRESS LAUGH ANYWAY.
OKAY, SO NEXT ITEM ON OUR, OUR DOCKET IS BDA 2 3 4 DASH 1 44 2 3 4 DASH 1 44.
IS THE APPLICANT HERE? YES, SIR.
UH, IF YOU, WELL, YOU'RE CONSIDERED SWORN IN, SO WE'RE, WE'RE FINE ON THAT.
ALRIGHT, MS. UM, WILLIAMS, WHAT SPEAKERS DO WE HAVE ON 2 3 4 1 4 4.
HOPKINS WE HAVE, UH, SPEAKERS HERE.
UM, ONE IN SUPPORT, ONE IN OPPOSITION AND THEN ONLINE THAT ARE REGISTERED.
I HAVE THREE ONLINE OR ACTUALLY TWO TWO ONLINE THAT ARE IN SUPPORT OR IN OPPOSITION? OPPOSITION.
SO AS IS ARE CONSISTENT WITH OUR RULES OF PROCEDURE, UM, YOU AS THE APPLICANT ARE ALLOWED TO GIVE A FIVE MINUTE PLUS OR MINUS PRESENTATION.
ANYONE ELSE IN SUPPORT CAN ALSO GIVE, UH, UH, COMMENTS THEN THE OPPOSITION WHEN OPPOSITION'S GIVEN EQUAL TIME, AND THEN YOU'RE ALLOWED A FIVE MINUTE REBUTTAL.
SO I, I WILL GRANT YOU FIVE MINUTES PLUS OR MINUS IF IT GOES TO 10.
I WANT TO GIVE THAT TO EACH PERSON SPEAKING.
SO I WANNA MAKE SURE YOU AND EVERYONE ELSE HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK.
3 9 0 4 ELM STREET, SUITE B IN DALLAS, VERY SIMILAR TO THE LAST CASE, BUT THIS ONE WE'RE JUST ASKING FOR TWO VARIANCES.
UM, THIS HOUSE IS ALSO ABOUT 75% COMPLETED.
I'M SORRY, MR. BALDWIN, YOU SAID WHAT PERCENTAGE COMPLETED? UH, ABOUT 75%.
THIS ONE IS THE SAME AS THE LAST ONE.
AS YOU CAN SEE, UH, THIS ONE IS ABOUT DRIED IN AS WELL.
YOU SEE DOWN THE SIDE WE HAVE ALL THE SIDING AND ON THE SIDE WE JUST DON'T HAVE THE MASONRY IN THE FRONT.
THIS ONE, THE, THE TIMELINE'S SIMILAR, BUT WE APPLIED FOR THIS PERMIT.
UH, THEY ISSUED THE PERMIT ON JANUARY 9TH, 2024.
WE CALLED IN FOR, UH, FRAMING INSPECTION, OR THE FOUNDATION INSPECTION ON JANUARY.
SO I'M GONNA, I'M GONNA ZERO IN THIS, THIS SAYS THAT THE APPLICANT APPLIED ON DECEMBER 9TH, 22.
IS THAT NOT WHAT I'M READING? RIGHT.
AND THEN THE ISSUE IN JANUARY OF YOU SAID 2024.
THEY APPLIED, IT WAS ISSUED ON JANUARY 9TH, 2023.
UH, ALL RIGHT, SO I, I'M OKAY.
SO PERMIT APPLIED FOR IN DECEMBER 22, ISSUED ON JANUARY OF 23.
AND THEY CALLED IN FOR THEIR ZONING FOUNDATION INSPECTION ON FEBRUARY 22ND, 2024, AND IT WAS, UH, APPROVED AND THEN THEY CALLED IN FOR THEIR ZONING FRAMING INSPECTION ON JULY 15TH, 2024.
AND THIS ONE WE HAVE JUST TWO VARIANCE REQUESTS INSTEAD OF THE FOUR ON THE LAST ONE, WE HAVE THE LOT COVERAGE OF 50% RATHER THAN 40%.
AND THIS ONE, UH, THE HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS TO WHERE THE ROOF FORM IS TRIGGERED AT 27 FEET, THREE INCHES INSTEAD OF 20 FEET.
UM, THIS, THIS ROOF IS NOT AS TALL.
IT'S GOT A DIFFERENT PICTURE, SO IT'S NOT AS TALL AS THE, THE PREVIOUS ONE.
SO WE ONLY NEEDED TWO VARIANCES ON THIS ONE.
UM, AGAIN, WE'RE, WE SAY WE HAVE A HARDSHIP DUE TO THE FINANCIAL BURDEN ON THIS.
UM, I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.
AGAIN, WE HAVE, UH, THE BUILDER HERE.
IF, UH, THE REST MY SLIDE, JUST SHOW THE APPROVED PLANS.
UH, YOU, YOU QUICKLY GO THROUGH THOSE.
THE TOWN SAYS GO, THESE ONES SHOW THE APPROVED PLAN, UH, FOR THE ELEVATION, DOES NOT EXCEED THREE SIX FEET.
AND THAT'S THE APPROVED SITE PLAN SHOWING THE LOT COVERAGE.
UM, I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AND WE ALSO HAVE MR. RIVERA HERE IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS.
SO, SO THE MAX HEIGHT ON THIS PARTICULAR UNIT IS WHAT? THE, THE MAX HEIGHT IS LESS THAN 30 FEET AND, UH, THE MIDPOINT IS, UH, LESS THAN 25 FEET REQUIRED.
GO BACK TO THAT, UH, TO MR. NE'S CUP.
GO BACK ONE CLICK OR SOMETHING HERE ON, RIGHT, ANOTHER ONE PLEASE.
RIGHT THERE IT SAYS MAY NOT EXCEED MAX HEIGHT 36.
[03:05:01]
THAT'S A CITY NOTE WHEN THEY REVIEWED IT.SO LET'S BE CLEAR FOR THE, THE, THE REQUEST THAT'S IN FRONT OF US IS MAX HEIGHT REQUEST OR IS THIS PITCH GABLE THING? IT'S A, IT'S A PITCH GABLE.
SO WHAT IS THIS 36 ON YOUR REFERRING TO? THOSE RED NOTES ARE THE CITY PUT ON WHEN THEY REVIEWED IT.
SO THIS IS, THIS IS THE PLAN THAT, THAT WE EACH SUBMITTED WITH OUR BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION.
THE CITY PUT THE NOTE MAY NOT EXCEED 36 FEET IN HEIGHT AND UH, IF YOU LOOK ON THE UPPER RIGHT HAND CORNER, THERE'S A, A STAMP THAT SHOWS CITY APPROVAL ON IT.
AND THAT WAS, THAT WAS STAMPED AFTER OCTOBER OF 2022.
YEAH, I THINK YOU HAVE TO SQUINT MR. MARY LOOK IN THE TOP RIGHT CORNER THERE.
CAN YOU, IS THERE A WAY TO, OKAY.
IT LOOKS LIKE DECEMBER 20TH, 2022.
YEAH, SO FULL TWO MONTHS AFTER THE CITY, THE PDD.
UM, SO WE HAVE WHAT'S BEFORE US IS A REQUEST FOR LOT COVERAGE AT 50% VERSUS 40%, CORRECT? CORRECT.
ALRIGHT, TELL ME AGAIN HERE, BUT BEFORE US IS, AS IT RELATES TO HEIGHT, IT'S NOT THE TOTAL HEIGHT, IT'S THE HEIGHT AT THE MIDPOINT, IS THAT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT? NO, NO, SIR.
ON THIS ONE WE'RE JUST ASKING THAT, UH, INSTEAD OF THAT THE, THE REQUIREMENT, UH, THAT ABOVE 20 FEET, THEN YOU HAVE THE, THE FOUR AND 12 GABLE, UH, 90% OF YOUR ROOF.
WE'RE ASKING THAT, THAT BE, UH, STARTED AT THE TOP OF THE ROOF.
SO IT DOESN'T APPLY, EVEN THOUGH WE HAVE A PITCH BOOTH, WE DON'T MEET THE, THE FOUR AND 12 REQUIREMENTS FOR
SO THE NET EFFECT OF THAT IS A SEVEN FOOT, SEVEN INCH VARIANCE TO THE PITCHING GABLE.
THE NET EFFECT IS, WE'RE ASKING THAT, THAT DOESN'T APPLY TO US.
MR. HAITZ, WHAT IS THE HEIGHT OF THE HOME? THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT AS CURRENTLY CONSTRUCTED? YES.
27 FEET, SEVEN INCHES IS THE MAXIMUM? YEAH.
AND WHAT IS THE CODE ALLOW THE 30 30.
SO IT'S, IT'S BELOW THE, THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT.
IT'S JUST THIS PITCH PITCHING GABLE THAT IT'S, YOU'RE ASKING THE VARIANCE FOR.
WE DON'T MEET THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE 90% OF THE ROOF ABOVE 20 FEET BEING A FOUR 12 PITCH.
OH, THE PD 60 SEVEN'S COMPLICATED.
I, I, WE'RE, WE'RE WE'RE LIVING IN THAT
ALRIGHT, WHAT OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? OKAY.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE SPEAKING IN FAVOR TODAY? NO, BUT, UH, MR. RIVERA HERE IN CASE YOU HAVE QUESTIONS.
ALRIGHT, SPEAKERS IN OPPOSITION, MS. BOARD SECRETARY SPEAKERS THAT ARE HERE FIRST BEFORE ONLINE.
YOUR, YOUR QUESTIONS AND YOUR COMMENTS ARE DIRECTED TO THE PRESIDING OFFICER AND I THINK YOUR MIC IS OFF, SO MAKE SURE THAT'S ON.
THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN A PROPERTY OWNER FOR OVER 65 YEARS.
WHEN MY FAMILY WAS MOVED FROM LOVE FAIR AIRPORT, WE STAYED IN A TOP APARTMENT ON HOPKINS.
SO THAT'S WHY I KNOW HE'S THE ACTUAL OWNER.
SO THE CONCERN IS WE NEED TO FOLLOW PD 67 AS PART OF THE REZONING.
SO HERE'S TWO THINGS I, I GUESS WE NEED TO MAKE SURE IT'S CLEAR.
EVERYONE IN THE CITY OF DALLAS PERMITTING SHOULD BE BEFORE THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE BECAUSE THIS IS ALL FRAUDULENT.
THERE IS NO WAY ANY OF THESE PERMITS SHOULD HAVE BEEN LET OUT.
AND SO FOR US TO STAND HERE WEEK AFTER WEEK TALKING ABOUT THIS WHOLE ZONING IS RIDICULOUS.
THE CITY OF DALLAS NEEDS TO OWN THIS, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS, AND I'M NOT TO SAY MR. I, I, I, I THINK YOU WERE ON THE CITY COUNCIL, BUT IT APPEARS THAT YOU GO TO SOME KIND OF KU KLUX KLAN MEETING 'CAUSE YOU NOT SUPPORTING DALLAS BLACK RESIDENTS AT ALL.
YOU, YOU HAVE BEEN FOUR BUILDERS.
LET'S, LET'S NOT NOT, AND YOU HAVE BEEN FOR THESE INDIVIDUALS ALL THE TIME.
NOT LET, LET'S NOT DISPARAGE ANY ONE PERSON.
[03:10:01]
YOU WANNA MAKE COMMENTS AS IT RELATES TO THIS REQUEST, YOU CAN BEYOND COMMENTS TO THIS SPECIFIC REQUEST.THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS, QUESTIONS.
OTHER SPEAKERS, MS. WILLIAMS. MS. UH, KAISHA RICHARDSON, CAN YOU PLEASE PROVIDE VIDEO AND AUDIO I, MS. RICHARDSON? YES.
DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? YES.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.
MY NAME IS KAISHA RICHARDSON, AND I LIVE AT 73 14 KENEL STREET, DALLAS, TEXAS 7 5 2 0 9.
UH, YEAH, I JUST REALLY ONLY WANTED TO MAKE A FEW POINTS HERE, UM, BECAUSE I KNOW WE'VE SPOKEN ABOUT A LOT OF THE SAME THINGS, BUT WITH REGARDS TO THESE PROPERTIES, THIS ONE SPECIFICALLY AS WELL, JUST WANTED TO STATE THAT THE BUILDER OF THE, THE HOPKINS PROPERTY HERE, TOPPLES OWNS OVER AT LEAST 25 PROPERTIES WITHIN ELM PICKET ALONE.
THERE MAY BE MORE UNDER LLCS, BUT HE, HE OWNS OVER 25 PROPERTIES IN ELM PICKET.
GRANTED, HE IS A WELL-KNOWN SLUMLORD, BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, THIS BUILDER WAS AWARE OF THE UPDATED P PD 67 AS THEY SPOKE PHYSICALLY AT THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGAINST THE ZONING.
AND WHEN SOMEONE ASKED WHEN THE CHANGES WOULD GO INTO EFFECT, IT WAS STATED THAT THE CHANGES WOULD BE EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY.
IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE ME, GO BACK AND WATCH THE VIDEO.
SO, TO SIT HERE AND REQUEST VARIANCES AND TO SAY THAT THERE IS A FINANCIAL HARDSHIP WHEN THIS HARM WAS SELF-INFLICTED, CONTINUES TO BAFFLE MANY OF OUR RESIDENTS.
THERE CONTINUES TO BE COMPASSION SHOWN FOR THE BUILDER, YET THERE IS NO COMPASSION SHOWN FOR THE ADJACENT NEIGHBORS OR PROPERTIES OR THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
IN GENERAL, THIS, HE IS A, UH, SIGNIFICANT PROPERTY OWNER IN THE BRINGING THESE PROPERTIES INTO COMPLIANCE WOULD NOT CAUSE SIGNIFICANT FINANCIAL LOSS.
AGAIN, I'D LIKE TO THANK THE ONLY TWO BOARD MEMBERS WHO ARE ADHERING TO THEIR OWN POLICIES AND PROCEDURES.
AND CONSIDERING THE INTENT OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND PD 67 ZONING AND ITS IMPACT ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD, IT IS NOT GO UNNOTICED.
I DO RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT YOU UPHOLD AND DENY THESE VARIANCES AND UPHOLD THE CITY COUNCIL'S DECISION MADE IN OCTOBER OF 2022.
MR. JONATHAN MAPLES, CAN YOU PLEASE PROVIDE AUDIO AND VIDEO?
MS. WILLIAMS, DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS? NO, THE SPEAKERS REGISTER, SIR.
UM, MR. BALDWIN, OUR RULES SAY THAT YOU HAVE A FIVE MINUTE REBUTTAL.
I HAVE NO REBUTTAL EXCEPT FOR, UH, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
I HOPE YOU CAN SUPPORT THIS REQUEST.
AGAIN, IT'S, THIS HAS BEEN AN UNFORTUNATE EVENT FOR EVERYBODY INVOLVED AND, UH, I HOPE WE CAN GET PAST THIS.
SO I'LL ASK YOU THE QUESTION AS IT RELATES TO 4 5 0 0 HOPKINS AVENUE.
THE SAME QUESTION I ASKED YOU ON A PREVIOUS CASE, AND THAT IS, HAVE YOU OR ANYONE ELSE THAT YOU'RE, THAT'S BEEN ASSOCIATED WITH THIS CONSTRUCTION, UH, BEEN MADE AWARE OF SINCE GETTING YOUR ORIGINAL PERMIT AND THE SUBSEQUENT GREEN TAGS THAT THE ZONING CHANGED AND THAT, UH, YOU, YOU WERE BUILDING A, THE PROPERTY OUTSIDE OF THE ZONE? NO, SIR.
ONCE WE FOUND OUT THAT WE WERE NOTIFIED THAT WE STOPPED IMMEDIATELY.
AND HAVE NOT DONE ANY WORK SINCE.
AND WE'RE ONLY TALKING ABOUT 4504 5 0 0 HOPKINS RIGHT NOW? YES, SIR.
THIS IS THAT, THAT'S THIS CASE.
QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? MR. MR. N THANK YOU,
[03:15:01]
MR. CHAIRMAN.I, I'M CURIOUS TO KNOW, AND PERHAPS LEGAL COUNSEL COULD ANSWER THIS QUESTION.
UM, WOULD IT BE WITHIN OUR PURVIEW TO REQUEST THAT THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, MR. TOPPLES, APPEAR BEFORE US IN SOME OF THESE CASES? AND THE REASON BEING IS THAT THERE SEEMS TO BE CONFLICTING TESTIMONY AS TO WHAT WAS KNOWN AND WHEN IT WAS KNOWN.
UM, DO WE HAVE THE POWER TO SUBPOENA? LET ME LOOK THROUGH YOUR RULES.
WE MIGHT TALK ABOUT IT IN HERE, BUT IF YOU WOULD GIVE ME A MOMENT, I'LL TELL YOU THAT, UH, IF THAT'S THE WISH OF THE BOARD, I'M HAPPY TO ASK.
AND THE REASON I BELIEVE IT'S RELEVANT IS BECAUSE, UM, YOU KNOW, THERE'S COM LIKE I SAID, THE BUILDER, OBVIOUSLY MR. RIVERA DIDN'T, DIDN'T KNOW, UH, YOU AS THEIR HIRED REPRESENTATIVE DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THIS.
BUT THERE HAS BEEN TESTIMONY GIVEN THAT MR. TOPPLES DID KNOW.
AND THAT'S THE REASON I WHY I THINK IT'S WOULD BE GERMANE, UH, TO HELP US IN REACH A DECISION IN THESE CASES.
I, I APPRECIATE THE, THE QUESTION.
UM, I WILL, I WILL TELL YOU CONSISTENT WITH OUR RULES, UH, SECTION FIVE DUTIES OF THE PRECEDING OFFICER.
IT SAYS THE PRESIDING OFFICER SHALL COMPEL, UH, THE ATTENDANCE OF WITNESSES WHEN NECESSARY.
SO IT IS WITHIN THE, UH, POWER AND THE AUTHORITY OF, OF THE BOARD.
UM, I I DON'T KNOW IF THAT, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S NECESSARY OR GERMANE.
MR. HOP, DID WE LOSE SOMETHING HERE? MY OKAY.
WE ALSO, UM, THE MEETING AT WHICH THE MR. TOPPLES IS ALLEGED TO HAVE MADE COMMENTS AND, AND WHICH WOULD INDICATE HE WAS AWARE OF WHAT WAS GOING ON, UM, WOULD BE WITHIN THE MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING WHERE THAT CHANGE TOOK PLACE.
WHICH OTHER OTHER COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD? MS. DAVIS? I, I'M A LITTLE TORN ON WHETHER OR NOT I FEEL LIKE THAT'S GERMANE BECAUSE I, I LOOK AT THE FACTS OF WHEN YOU APPLIED, WHEN THE PER BUILDING PERMIT WAS ISSUED, WHEN THE FOUNDATION WAS APPROVED, WHEN THE FRAMING, UM, INSPECTION WAS APPROVED.
SO THAT'S DOCUMENTATION THAT I HAVE THAT SHOWS THAT YOU WERE GETTING THE GREEN LIGHT TO PROGRESS IN TERMS OF WHAT WAS GOING ON AND HOW MUCH THE OWNER MAY OR NOT MAY OR MAY NOT KNEW OR, YES.
I, I MEAN THIS IS, THIS IS WHAT I'M LOOKING AT.
I'M LOOKING AT THESE DEFINITIVE DATES AND THE APPROVAL AND THE GREEN LIGHT TO GO AHEAD AND PROCEED WITH BUILDING OTHER COMMENTS.
MR. HAITZ? CHAIRMAN, I'D LIKE TO GO JUST ON THE OFFICIAL RECORD IS REQUESTING THE MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING FROM OCTOBER 12TH, 2022.
UM, I TOO THINK THAT THAT WOULD BE JERMAINE, UH, THE RULES STATE THAT THE PRESIDING OFFICER CAN COMPEL WITNESSES WHEN NECESSARY.
I WILL DO THAT IF THERE'S A MAJORITY VOTE IN THE BOARD.
I AM BEING ADVISED BY MY BOARD ATTORNEY THAT THE STAFF CAN PULL THE MINUTES FROM THE MEETING.
UH, IF THEY GIVE, IF WE GIVE THE STAFF FIVE TO 10 MINUTES TO DO THAT.
IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? IS THAT WHAT THE REQUEST IS? WHAT CITY COUNCIL MEETING ARE WE TALKING ABOUT? OCTOBER 12TH, I BELIEVE IT WAS THE DATE.
THE DATE AT WHICH PD 67 ZONING LAW WAS CHANGED.
IS THAT WHAT WE'RE IS THAT, IS THAT, IS IS.
THE STAFF'S SAYING THEY CAN PULL THAT INFORMATION, WHICH IS FINE.
THAT WOULD BE SUFFICIENT FOR ME.
ALRIGHT, SO WE'LL DO, SO WE WILL RECESS.
IT IS 4:31 PM UH, ON OCTOBER, EXCUSE ME, ON DECEMBER 9TH, 2024.
WE'LL, RECESS TILL 4:40 PM UM, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PEP
[03:20:01]
NO.UH, AND NOW 'CAUSE THEY'RE GONNA GO ELSEWHERE.
I KNOW, I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
UH, WE'RE GONNA BE IN RECESS TILL 4:40 PM UH, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PANEL.
SO MS. HAYDEN'S BACK WITH THIS.
DO WE HAVE TECHNOLOGY? YES, WE DO.
OH, WE GOTTA WAIT FOR HER TO SAY THAT.
UH, MARY, UH, I'VE BEEN ADVISED BY STAFF, THEY DO NOT HAVE TRANSCRIPTS OF, OF WHAT WAS SAID AT THAT MEETING AS THEY HAVE THE TRANSCRIPTS OF THE VOTE OF COUNCIL MEMBERS, BUT NOT THE TRANSCRIPTS OF WHO SAID WHAT.
SO, UM, DO THEY HAVE A, DO THEY HAVE A LIST OF WHO SPOKE? UM, DO THEY HAVE A LIST WHO SPOKE? WE'D HAVE TO GO TO THE CITY SECRETARY FOR THAT.
SO THE QUESTION IS, WHAT, WHAT, WHAT IS THE WILL OF THE GROUP? I DON'T THINK IT CHANGES.
WHAT IS THIS? THANK YOU, MARY.
THIS IS THE MINUTES OF THE, UM, COUNCIL MEETING.
SO THIS IS A LIST OF WHO SPOKE.
THAT DOESN'T SAY WHAT THEY SAID.
SO TELL ME WHAT, TELL ME WHAT THE REQUEST IS BECAUSE I, WELL, I'M GONNA MOVE US FORWARD HERE, GUYS.
I'M GONNA, I'M, WE HAVE TO BE VERY CAREFUL THAT WE DON'T, UH, WE HAVE TO BE VERY CAREFUL THAT WE DON'T, UM, INSERT KNOWLEDGE OF SOMETHING THAT WE DON'T HAVE FIRST KNOWLEDGE OF.
UM, WELL, AND LET'S STICK TO WHAT IS IN FRONT OF US TODAY.
WHAT'S IN FRONT OF US TODAY IS A REQUEST FOR VARIANCES THAT ARE NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST, THAT ARE NECESSARY TO DEVELOP A SPECIFIC PARCEL OF LAND AND THAT ARE NOT GRANTED TO RELIEVE TO SELF RELATED OR CREATED OR PERSONAL HARDSHIP.
THAT'S, THAT'S THE CRITERIA THAT'S IN FRONT OF IT.
NOW, WHAT I'M, WHAT I'M GOING TO SAY IS THAT IF SOMEONE, I THINK IT'S A REASONABLE CONCLUSION IF SOMEONE WAS AT THAT MEETING AND ADDRESSED IT, THAT THEY KNEW WHAT WAS BEING DISCUSSED.
IF THEY GOT UP AND ADDRESSED THE CITY COUNCIL.
WELL, THAT THEY KNEW WHAT THE SUBJECT OF YOU, YOU'RE THE DISCUSSION WAS.
YOU'RE EXTRAPOLATING IF YOU'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION, MR. KOVI, THE CHAIR WILL ENTERTAIN YOUR MOTION.
WELL, I'D LIKE TO BE ABLE TO READ THE, THE WHOLE LIST.