This is a modal window.
Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window.
End of dialog window.
[Board of Adjustments: Panel C on March 17, 2025.]
[00:00:04]
GOOD AFTERNOON AND WELCOME TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.
IT IS 1:20 PM ON MONDAY, MARCH 17TH, 2025.
I'M THE VICE CHAIR OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND THE PRESIDING OFFICER OF THIS PANEL.
WE HAVE A QUORUM, SO WE ARE HEREBY CALLED ORDER AT NOON.
UM, MEMBERS HERE TO MY LEFT IS MEREDITH GRIFFIN, JUDY P*****K.
RODNEY MILLIKEN AND ROGER SINGTON.
MEMBERS SERVE AT THE BEHEST OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE MAYOR.
WE DO NOT, WE GIVE OUR TIME, UH, WE DO GET SANDWICHES AND, UH, AND WE ARE A QUASI-JUDICIAL BODY, WHICH MEANS WE CANNOT COMMUNICATE WITH APPLICANTS, UH, OR OPPONENTS ABOUT THE CASE, UH, BEFORE US.
UM, ALSO HERE TO MY RIGHT IS DANIEL MOORE, BOARD ATTORNEY AND ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY.
UH, WE IN, IN THE PLACE OF DR.
HOSKINS, UH, OUR, WHO IS OUR BOARD ADMINISTRATOR.
WE HAVE DIANA BARKING, WHO'S WORKING DOUBLE DUTY HERE, BUT, BUT SHE WILL ALSO SERVE AS OUR BOARD ADMINISTRATOR TO, TO HER RIGHT AS MARY WILLIAMS, UH, THE BOARD SECRETARY, TO THE EXTENT YOU NEED TO SUBMIT ANYTHING TO THE BOARD OR TO, UH, UH, TO SUBMIT A, A, UH, SPEAKER, UH, CARD THAT SHE IS THE PERSON TO SPEAK TO.
UM, BEFORE WE BEGIN, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A FEW GENERAL COMMENTS ABOUT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND THE WAY THE HEARING WILL BE CONDUCTED.
MEMBERS OF THE BOARD ARE APPOINTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL.
UM, OUR RULES OF PROCEDURE ARE POSTED ON OUR WEBSITE.
UH, NO ACTION OR DECISION ON A CASE SETS A PRECEDENT.
EACH CASE IS DECIDED UPON ITS OWN MERITS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
EACH USE IS PRESUMED TO BE A LEGAL USE.
WE'VE BEEN FULLY BRIEFED BY STAFF PRIOR TO THIS HEARING, AND THERE IS ALSO A DETAILED PUBLIC DOCKET POSTED ON OUR WEBSITE SEVEN DAYS BEFORE THIS HEARING.
ANY EVIDENCE YOU WISH TO SUBMIT TO THE BOARD, UH, YOU SHOULD SUBMIT THROUGH MS. WILLIAMS, UH, APPROVALS OF THE VARIANCE, SPECIAL EXCEPTION, OR REVERSAL OF A BUILDING OFFICIAL REQUIRES 75% OR FOUR AFFIRMATIVE VOTES OF THE FULL FIVE MEMBER PANEL.
ALL OTHER MOTIONS REQUIRE A SIMPLE MAJORITY VOTE.
UH, LETTERS OF THE BOARD'S ACTION TODAY WILL BE MAILED TO THE APPLICANT BY OUR BOARD ADMINISTRATOR SHORTLY AFTER TODAY'S HEARING AND BECOME A PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD.
ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK TODAY MUST REGISTER IN ADVANCE WITH MS. WILLIAMS, EACH REGISTERED SPEAKER, UH, IN THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY PART, WHICH WILL HAPPEN FIRST HAS THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK ON, UH, ANY TOPIC THAT'S ON OUR AGENDA.
UH, WE'LL CALL CASES AND LIKELY GIVE MORE THAN THIS, BUT WE'LL START WITH THE APPLICANT HAVING FIVE MINUTE, UH, THE OPPOSITION, FIVE MINUTES AND A REBUTTAL.
UH, REALISTICALLY, IN SOME OF THESE CASES, WE'RE GONNA HAVE MORE, BUT WE WILL, UH, WE WILL DO IT EQU AGAIN, UM, IF NOT EQUALLY.
UH, UH, ALL QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS COME THROUGH THE PRESIDING OFFICER.
IF YOU ARE ONLINE WITH US, UH, YOUR FACE NEEDS TO BE ON SCREEN THE WHOLE TIME, OR IT DOESN'T COUNT.
UH, BEFORE JUST HEADS UP, WE HAVE A SPEAKER IN OPPOSITION TO PARK LANE.
SO THAT IS OH THREE TWO, WHICH NOW COMES OFF OF OUR CONSENT DOCUMENT.
UM, SO THAT SAID, LET'S HEAR IT IN THIS ORDER.
UH, AFTER CONSENT, UH, WE'LL HEAR OH THREE TWO AND OUR SYLVAN AVENUE IS PRESENT.
UH, SO THEN WE'LL, WE'LL HEAR, UH, OH FOUR ZERO, UH, THEN OH 2 6 0 3 0 0 4 1, AND THEN OH TWO EIGHT AND OH TWO NINE.
IS THERE A MOTION BASED ON OUR MINUTES? VICE CHAIR AGS? I HAVE A MOTION.
MR.
UH, PARK LANE COMES OFF, UH, THE TOP ONE,
[00:05:03]
SO OH THREE TWO.SO WE STILL HAVE, UH, OH FOUR FIVE ON CONSENT.
PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE OH THREE SEVEN.
PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE REMAINS ON CONSENT.
SYLVAN COMES OFF AND PARK COMES OFF.
DOES I HAVE A MOTION ON THE MINUTES, MR. SASHEN? UM, I LIKE, I MOTION THAT THE BOARD APPROVE THE PREVIOUS MINUTES AS SUBMITTED.
ALL OPPOSED, CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.
UH, FUTURE MOTIONS WILL BE MADE BY ROLL CALL.
WHEN YOU ARE SWORN IN, PLEASE, UH, BE SWORN IN AND THEN BEFORE YOU SPEAK, GIVE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS, UM, WHICH WILL MAKE THINGS GO SMOOTHLY.
LET'S OPEN THE, ARE THERE SPEAKERS FOR THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY OR, UM, THERE WAS, BUT SHE IS NOT LINE RAJA, BUT, BUT SHE IS NOT ONLINE FOR PUBLIC STATE, UH, PUBLIC TESTIMONY.
UH, THEN WE'LL GO TO THE CONTESTED TO THE UNCONTESTED CASES.
IS, UH, IS THERE A MOTION VICE CHAIR AGON IS HAVE A MOTION? NO, WE, WE HAVE A, A, UH, A FIRST DAY, UH, ALTERNATE.
OH, I, I WAS ON, I WAS ONLY VOLUNTEERING BECAUSE I WAS ASKED TO, BUT I DIDN'T ASK YOU.
OH, MS. GRIFFIN, UH, I MOVED AT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT, THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION LISTED ON THE UNCONTESTED DOCKET BECAUSE IT APPEARS FROM OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND ALL RELEVANT EVIDENCE, THE APPLICATION SATISFY ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE AND ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE CODE AS APPLICABLE TO WHICH EDA 2 4 5 0 3 7, THE APPLICATION OF ALI FOR A VARIANCE TO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK REGULATIONS AND THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE IS GRANTED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION.
COMPLIANCE WITH THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF, OH, SORRY.
OH, COMPLIANCE WITH THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF ALL PLANS REQUIRED.
IS THERE A SECOND? I SECOND MS. P*****K.
ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, MS. P*****K? AYE.
SO SINCE WE HAVE OPPOSITION TO PARK LANE, LET'S JUST START THERE.
LET'S GO BDA 2 4 5 DASH 0 3 2 42 59 PARK LANE.
IS THE APPLICANT HERE? IF, IF YOU'RE HERE, WOULD YOU PLEASE BE, IF YOU'RE HERE TO SPEAK ON, ON THAT CASE, EITHER FOR OR AGAINST, WOULD YOU BE SWORN IN, PLEASE? MS. WILLIAMS, DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? OKAY.
PLEASE COME FORWARD TO THE MICROPHONE.
OH, CAN YOU SPEAK A LITTLE BIT CLOSER PLEASE? HERE.
I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF JENNIFER HERTO, THE APPLICANT.
UH, MY ADDRESS IS 34 0 9 ELM STREET, DALLAS, TEXAS, 7 5 2 2 6.
UH, AS STAFF, UH, BRIEFED IN THE CLAYS, UH, THE AREA WAS CONTACTED, THE NEIGHBORS, WE RECEIVED, UH, THREE LETTERS IN FAVOR OF THIS.
UH, WE BELIEVE THAT THE FENCE IS FITTING WITH THE AREA AND MEETS THE TEST TO ALLOW THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO APPROVE.
I'M HERE WITH ANY QUESTIONS IF NEEDED.
I BELIEVE WE HAVE ONE LETTER IN SUPPORT THAT WE SAW.
IS THAT APPROVED? WELL, I, I HAVE A FOLDER THAT HAD THE LEVIES.
I HEAR WHAT THE WORDS COMING OUTTA YOUR MOUTH, BUT I'M NOT OKAY.
[00:10:01]
LOOKING AT ME LIKE THAT HAPPENED.OH, THE, OH, OH, I THOUGHT THESE WERE JUST AT ONE POINT.
WE HAVE ONE, TWO, YOU'RE RIGHT.
OH, THEY WERE JUST FORWARDED THIS MORNING.
UM, I DON'T KNOW THE NATURE OF THE OPPOSITION, DO YOU? NO, I I DON'T KNOW IT EITHER.
I JUST SO YOU'LL HAVE A A OKAY.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS IN FAVOR OF THE APPLICATION THERE? NO.
WE, WE HAVE, UH, A SPEAKER IN OPPOSITION.
WOULD YOU, MR. HEIN TILLMAN, CAN YOU PLEASE PROVIDE VIDEO AND AUDIO MR. TILLMAN? YES, I'M HERE.
CAN YOU PLEASE PROVIDE VIDEO? I CLICKED ON THE VIDEO, BUT IT DOESN'T SEEM TO WORK.
UM, YOU NEED TO PROVIDE VIDEO IN ORDER TO SPEAK TO THE BOARD.
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.
TILLMAN HEIN 42 51 PARK LANE, DALLAS, TEXAS 7 5 2 2 0.
I CLICKED ON OPPOSED, UH, BECAUSE THE PAPER THAT I GOT WRONGLY STATED THAT THE FENCE WOULD BE SIX FOOT TALL WHEN IT IS ONLY FIVE FOOT EIGHT.
IN OPPOSITION TO, UH, WHAT, UM, THE OWNER OF 42 59 WISHES TO DO.
SO YOU TO, TO BE CLEAR, YOU, YOU ARE IN FAVOR OF THE APPLICATION.
UM, NOW TO THE, TO THE MATTER OF NOTICE.
UH, SO YOU, YOU RECEIVED A FORMAL NOTICE FROM THE CITY? I DID.
WHEN I SIGNED IN TODAY, I'M SORRY, I HAD THE OPTION OF CLICKING ON ONE OF TWO OPTIONS AND YOU CHOSE OPPOSITION EITHER OPPOSED OR IN FAVOR.
AND I PERCEIVED THAT THE, UH, UH, DISCUSSION WAS ABOUT THE WRONG TOPIC.
THAT IS WHY I CLICKED OPPOSED.
APPARENTLY YOU STATED THE APPLICATION CORRECTLY.
SO I AM WITHDRAWING WHATEVER I CLICKED ON THE, THE, THE FORM ON YOUR INTERNET FORM.
YOU WROTE A LETTER TO THE BOARD? I DID.
WE HAVE NO OBJECTING TO PLAN FENCING AS SHOWN TO US ON YOUR GRAPHICS.
AND TO BE CLEAR, THE FENCE HEIGHT IS FIVE FEET, EIGHT INCHES, WHICH IS HIS UNDERSTANDING.
I BELIEVE THE, UM, THE PLANS SHOW THAT THE COLUMNS ARE SIX FOOT AND THE, UH, FENCE IS FIVE AND A HALF.
BUT I WILL LOOK OVER TO, WELL, I'M MOSTLY CONCERNED WITH, UH, WHETHER WE NOTICED IT CORRECTLY.
SO WE NOTICED IT FOR SIX FEET.
WHICH MEANS THE MOTION WILL BE FOR SIX FEET.
USUALLY THE WAY THAT WORKS IS, IS YOU HAVE TO ASK FOR THE HIGHEST POINT ON THE FENCE SO THAT FOR THE MOST PART, THE FENCE MIGHT BE AT A CERTAIN LEVEL, BUT IF IT HAS, UH, A COLUMN TO EITHER SIDE THAT GOES UP A LITTLE HIGHER.
I'M GUESSING IF YOU SAW THE BRIEFING, UH, YOU SAW AN ELEVATION OF WHAT THEY WANT TO DO.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE SPEAKER?
[00:15:01]
THANK YOU.WOULD YOU LIKE TO REBUT OR, OKAY.
UH, IS THERE A MOTION? UH, OKAY, I'LL MAKE THE MOTION.
UH, I MOVE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 4 5 DASH 0 3 2 ON APPLICATION OF JENNIFER HARIMOTO.
GRANT, THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT TO CONSTRUCT AND TO MAINTAIN A SIX FOOT HIGH FENCE AS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE HEIGHT REQUIREMENT FOR FENCES CONTAINED IN THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED.
BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND THE TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT THIS SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTY, I FURTHER MOVE THAT THE FOLLOWING CONDITION BE IMPOSED TO FURTHER THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE.
COMPLIANCE WITH HEIGHT AND FENCE LOCATION REQUIREMENTS ILLUSTRATED IN THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF ALL SUBMITTED PLANS ARE REQUIRED.
MS. WILLIAMS? MS. P*****K? AYE.
ALRIGHT, THAT DONE? WE GO TO OH FOUR OH.
SO WE HAVE BD 8 2 4 5 0 4 1 6 3 7 SYLVAN AVENUE, IF YOU'RE HERE TO SPEAK.
AND I, AND I SUPPOSE WE HAVE THE OPPOSITION IS ONLINE, MS. WILLIAMS? THAT IS CORRECT.
SO WOULD YOU PLEASE BE SWORN IN AND DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? YES.
PLEASE STATE YOUR ADDRESS, UH, YOUR NAME, ADDRESS, AND PROCEED.
UH, MY NAME IS JAMES BULLS AND MY ADDRESS IS 1 6 3 7 SYLVAN AVENUE.
AND MY INTENT IS, UH, I PURCHASED THE HOUSE IN, UH, JULY OF 2023.
THERE WAS A LOT OF, UM, CLEANUP THAT HAD TO BE DONE, A LOT OF SHRUBS AND SO FORTH.
I DIDN'T EVEN KNOW THAT I HAD A RETAINING WALL THERE, BUT NOW THAT I'VE CLEANED IT UP, THERE WERE TWO RETAINING WALLS THAT WERE STACKED ON TOP OF EACH OTHER.
AND SO I'M JUST ESSENTIALLY TRYING TO REPLACE THOSE.
AND MY PROPERTY IS IN A UNIQUE SITUATION BECAUSE IF YOU GO SOUTH FROM I 30 ON SYLVAN, THE ROAD INCLINES, AND SO THERE'S AN ELEVATION CHANGE.
SO FROM THE FACING MY HOUSE ON THE RIGHT SIDE, UM, THE, THE RETAINING WALL WOULD BE 10 FEET, BUT IT NARROWS DOWN TO APPROXIMATELY FIVE FEET.
AND MY, UM, REQUEST WOULD BE TO, IS BUILDING IT OUTSIDE OF THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE.
UM, AND SO IT, IT WOULD COMPLY FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE, BUT, BUT JUST DUE TO THE ELEVATION THAT I'M ON AND BECAUSE OF THE URBAN MATERIAL THAT NEEDS TO BE RETAINED, I DON'T KNOW WHAT I'M GONNA DO BEYOND FOUR FEET.
I MEAN, IF, IF I CAN ONLY GO SO HIGH, BUT I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT, UH, EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS A RETAINING WALL.
IT'S NOT A FENCE, IT'S NOT ABOVE, YOU KNOW, IF MY, MY YARD, IT'S JUST RETAINED GROUND THAT'S THERE.
AND I'VE HAD ENGINEERING STUDIES DONE.
I'VE SPENT SEVERAL THOUSAND DOLLARS TO GET TO THIS POINT, HAVEN'T DONE ANYTHING, BUT IT WOULD BE ENGINEERED TO SPECIFICATIONS, UH, YOU KNOW, FOOTINGS, EVERYTHING THAT WOULD PROPERLY MAINTAIN THE WALL, THE INTEGRITY OF THE WALL.
I, I THINK THE ORIGINAL WALLS THAT WERE THERE WERE NOT BUILT PROPERLY.
AND SO THAT'S PROBABLY WHAT CAUSED 'EM TO COLLAPSE.
BUT MY INTENT WOULD TO MAKE THIS A LOT BETTER THAN WHAT WAS THERE AND THEN USE, UH, OKLAHOMA CHOPPED STONE.
SO IT WOULD BE VERY APPEALING.
AND THEN ULTIMATELY I'D LIKE TO PUT VINES BINDS AND VEGETATION WHERE YOU PROBABLY DON'T EVEN NOTICE THE
SO, UH, LUCKILY FOR ALL OF CIVILIZATION, WE, WE HAVE NO SAY OVER ENGINEERING SO THAT, BUT, UM, SO I, I PRESUME THAT'S SOMETHING YOU'LL GO THROUGH WITH, WITH THE STAFF, BUT, UH, I APPRECIATE THAT.
ARE THERE OTHER, OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY, LET'S, LET'S HEAR WHAT THE OPPOSITION IS AND YOU'LL HAVE A, OKAY.
THERE ARE NO, NO OTHER SPEAKERS IN FAVOR? NO, THE SPEAKERS, SIR.
THE SPEAKERS IN OPPOSITION, MR. MR. OR MRS. WHITNEY? UM, YES, THEY ARE ONLINE.
WOULD YOU PLEASE BE SWORN IN? OKAY.
CAN YOU TURN YOUR MIC ON PLEASE? YEAH, IT'S ON.
[00:20:01]
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.
YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES, CYNTHIA WHITNEY.
WE MARKED OPPOSED BECAUSE WE IMAGINE THIS HORRIFIC 10 FOOT FENCE RIGHT ON SILVER AFTER THE EXPLANATION, REALIZING IT IS A RETAINING WALL AND YES, HE IS ON THE ELEVATION OF THE HILL THERE.
THANK YOU FOR, UH, FOR, UH, BEING HERE AND FOR CLARIFYING THAT, AND I APPRECIATE IT.
I'M SURE THE APPLICANT DOES TOO, SO THANK YOU.
ANY QUESTIONS? OKAY, MS. WILLIAMS? UM, I THINK, UH, THERE'S NO OPPOSITION AND THE BOARD WAS, UH, INCLINED TO GRANT THE APPLICATION TO BEGIN WITH UNLESS, UNLESS YOU WOULD LIKE TO SAY ANYTHING.
MS. WILLIAMS? UM, DOES ANYONE HAVE A MOTION? OKAY, I MAKE ONE.
I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IN APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 4 5 DASH 0 4 0 AN APPLICATION OF JAMES BOWLES GRANT, THE REQUEST OF THIS APPLICANT TO CONSTRUCT AND OR MAINTAIN A 10 FOOT HIGH FENCE AS A SPECIAL EXEMPTION TO THE HEIGHT REQUIREMENT FOR FENCES CONTAINED IN THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE IS AMENDED AS AMENDED BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND THE TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT THIS SPECIAL EXEMPTION WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.
I FURTHER MOVE THAT THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS BE IMPOSED TO FURTHER THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE.
COMPLIANCE WITH HEIGHT AND FENCE LOCATION REQUIREMENTS ILLUSTRATED IN THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF ALL SUBMITTED PLANS ARE REQUIRED.
IS THERE A SECOND? IT'S NOT SIR.
MS. P*****K MOTION, MR. SINGTON? SECOND.
IS THERE COMMENT? THERE ARE NONE.
MS. WILLIAMS, MS. P*****K? AYE.
I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE HOW I LAID IT OUT, UH, A MINUTE AGO, BUT I THINK IT PROBABLY MAKES SENSE TO HEAR OH THREE ZERO.
UH, NEXT, IF, IF THAT'S OKAY, I DON'T REMEMBER EXACTLY HOW I SAID IT.
I, BUT, UH, THIS IS B BDA 2 4 5 DASH 0 3 53 23 MILLER AVENUE.
CAN I ASK A QUICK QUESTION? SURE.
SO AM I, AM I I'M ABLE TO CONTINUE TO WORK ON THAT NOW OR DO I NEED TO GET SOME YOU, YOU ARE, YOU HAVE THE APPROVAL OF THIS BOARD FOR WHAT YOU ASKED FOR AS TO WHAT NEXT STEPS.
MAYBE YOU COULD TALK WITH MS. JORDAN.
ARE THERE SPEAKERS IN FAVOR OF THIS APPLICATION?
WHO'S
THIS IS, YOU DON'T HAVE TO SNEAK.
IF YOU ARE HERE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR, I'LL PRETEND THAT BE OKAY.
WOULD YOU PLEASE BE SWORN IN, STATE YOUR NAME? CY PENDER.
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 YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES.
CAN YOU PLEASE SPEAK UP CLOSER TO THE MIC? IL PENDERGRASS 53 23 MILLER AVENUE, DALLAS, TEXAS, PLEASE.
I'M THE CONTRACTOR FOR MS. PRICE.
SHE WOULD LIKE TO BUILD A DETACHED GARAGE IN THE CONSERVATION DISTRICT IN DALLAS.
SHE PURCHASED THIS HOUSE BECAUSE IT'S A CONSERVATION DISTRICT.
UM, THE RULES, THE GARAGE HAS TO BE DETACHED, CANNOT GO PAST THE MAIN HOUSE.
WE'RE GONNA CARRY THE SAME ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES AS THE EXISTING HOUSE.
IT'S A CRAFTSMAN ARCHITECTURE.
[00:25:02]
THE BACK PROPERTY HAS A GUEST HOUSE AND WE'RE GONNA GO RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE GUEST HOUSE, THE WALL ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE GUEST HOUSE.WE'RE GONNA BE IN LINE WITH THAT.
HER DRIVEWAY IS 10 FEET WIDE AND SHE CAN JUST DRIVE STRAIGHT BACK INTO HER GARAGE TO THE LEFT.
IF WE WERE TO GO OUT OF THERE OR TO GET INTO THE MAIN YARD, THERE'S A WOODEN DECK AND ALSO THE MAIN THING, THERE'S A MATURE TREE THERE.
WE'D HAVE TO CUT DOWN AND SHE'D DRIVE DOWN THE 10 FOOT DRIVEWAY AND WE'D HAVE TO JOG TO THE LEFT, BUT WE'D HAVE TO LOSE A TREE OR SHE'D HAVE TO LOSE A TREE AND TAKE THE WOODEN DECK DOWN AND HER CARPORT IS GOING TO GO.
AND IT'S ACTUALLY FROM THE MAIN HOUSE, THE EAST THAT HANG DOWN FROM THE MAIN HOUSE, THE FRONT OF THE CARPORT.
THERE'S ABOUT 19 INCHES FROM THE MAIN PROPERTY, THE MAIN STRUCTURE.
WHAT ARE WE LOOKING AT HERE? THIS, UH, WELL THIS IS YOUR PRESENTATION, SIR.
SO YOU WALKED US THROUGH IT, SIR, BUT YEAH.
THAT'S THE FRONT OF HER HOUSE.
THAT'S HER DRIVEWAY ON THE EAST SIDE GOING, IT'S 10 FEET WIDE GOING STRAIGHT BACK.
AND THAT'S HER WOODEN FENCE AND HER CARPORT AND 20 INCHES PAST THAT TOWARDS THE GIST HOUSE THAT'S EXISTED.
SORRY, IN THIS MIDDLE PICTURE, IS THAT WHAT YOU MEAN? OR DO YOU MEAN IN THE, THE PICTURE ON THE RIGHT, UH, RIGHT MIDDLE ONE IS THE DRIVEWAY, THE ONE ON THE FAR RIGHT, THAT'S THE GUEST HOUSE.
THOSE FORMS. WE JUST PUT THAT SO YOU COULD SEE IT IN DETAIL.
THAT WOULD BE THE FORMS OF THE GARAGE.
AND THEN THE DRIVEWAY WILL CONTINUE 10 FEET WIDE.
AND THE ONLY, IT'S GONNA BE IN LINE WITH THE EXISTING ON THE FAR RIGHT PICTURE GUEST HOUSE.
THE ONLY OTHER THING THAT WILL BE PAST IT IS THE POST HOLDING HER CARPORT.
AND THERE ARE EIGHT BY EIGHT POSTS.
AND I TALKED TO AN ENGINEER AND WE CAN GO SMALLER POSTS IF WE USE STEEL.
SO THAT WOULD GIVE US ANOTHER FOUR INCHES, SAY FOR THE SIDE YARD SETBACK.
QUESTION FOR THE, FOR THE STAFF MS MARKING, IF WE APPROVE THIS, UH, DO WE, ARE WE SPEAKING AT ALL TO THE FIRE CODE? UH, I DID REACH OUT TO THE, UH, CONSERVATION DISTRICT AND THEY DID RELAY THAT INFORMATION TO THEM THAT THEY WILL HAVE TO, UM, YOU KNOW, PROVIDE SPECS FOR THE FIRE RATED WALLS OR THE FIRE RATED MATERIALS THAT THEY'RE USING.
SO YOU, YOU THAT IN THE STANDARD, IT DOES SAY THAT IT HAS TO BE, UM, BUILT ACCORDING TO THE BUILDING MATERIALS.
I DON'T KNOW EXACT LANGUAGE TO IT, BUT, UM, SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO SPEAK TO THAT, BUT THEY WILL HAVE TO COMPLY WITH ELEVATIONS AND SITE PLAN.
THEY'LL HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE SITE PLAN AND ELEVATION.
AND I BELIEVE THAT THE, UM, THE PLAN REVIEWER THAT'S REVIEWING FOR THE CONSERVATION DISTRICT, UM, SHE SAID THAT THE APPLICANT IS GONNA PROVIDE THEM WITH THE JUST SPECS ON THEIR, UM, PLAN BECAUSE THEY'RE GONNA BE USING MATERIALS.
YOU'RE, YOU'RE NOT GONNA PROVIDE THE ONE HOUR RATE OF WALL, YOU'RE GONNA PROVIDE MATERIAL NON COMBUSTIBLE MATERIALS.
SO AS FAR AS OUR ELEVATIONS, IT IS WHAT THEY SUBMITTED.
THAT IS WHAT THEY'RE ACTUALLY SUBMITTED TO FOR THE PLAN REVIEW ALSO, EXCEPT WE DO NOT HAVE THE TYPE OF MATERIAL THAT THEY'RE USING THAT'S GONNA BE, UM, REVIEWED DURING THEIR CD REVIEW OR APPROVED DURING THE CITY RULING.
SO IS IT TRUE THAT THAT'S NOT SOMETHING WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH AS AT THIS BOARD? YES.
IT DOESN'T HAVE, WE DO NOT, WE DON'T SPEAK TO THAT NO ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.
ARE THERE QUESTIONS FOR THE, HAVE YOU FINISHED YOUR PRESENCES? OKAY.
ARE THERE QUESTIONS? THANK YOU.
ARE THERE OTHER SPEAKERS IN FAVOR OF THIS HAPPEN? NO.
ARE THERE SPEAKERS IN OPPOSITION? NO.
UH, THE OPPOSITION FROM, UH, FROM STAFF.
[00:30:01]
MR. SASHING, I'M LOOKING FOR STAFF RATIONALE FOR DENIAL.HOW OFTEN DO I SPEAK FORCE BACK? IT WAS YOUR CASE, SIR, WAS PLEASE.
UH, SO IT'S BASED ON THE, UH, CONSERVATION DISTRICT, UH, PRESERVING THE, UH, SETBACKS, UH, SET FORTH.
SO THEREFORE THAT LOT IS NOT RESTRICTIVE, JUST LIKE, UH, COMPARED TO ANY OTHER LOT WITHIN CONSERVATION DISTRICT 15.
SO THE FACT THAT HE WOULD, THAT THIS BILL WOULD BE ENCROACHING UPON THE, UH, SETBACKS, UM, AND VIOLATING THE CONSERVATION DISTRICT? CORRECT.
SO THE CONSERVATION DISTRICT CODE DOES NOT DEAL WITH, LIKE, FOR EXAMPLE, THE TREE THAT THEY'RE TRYING TO PRESERVE.
IT DOESN'T DEAL WITH ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
UH, IT JUST DEALS WITH BASICALLY THE LOCATION.
AND SO THAT'S WHY IT'S MORE SO COMPETENT UPON THIS BOARD TO TAKING OTHER FACTORS AS OPPOSED TO JUST TO BLACK AND WHITE X, Y, Z ARE YOU SPEAKING TO, TO PART B OF THE STANDARD, WHICH IS THAT, THAT IT NEEDS TO BE OF SUCH A RESTRICTIVE AREA, SHAPE OR SLOPE? CORRECT.
BUT THERE ARE OTHER FACTORS THAT SOMETIMES CAN NOT BE A PART OF PART B THAT IF IT WERE A TREE ISSUE THAT WOULD BE A DIFFERENT, WOULD THAT BE A, A DIFFERENT MOTION OR? NO, THERE'S A SPECIAL EXCEPTION THAT ACTS AS A VARIANCE TO PRESERVE TREES.
BUT BECAUSE THIS IS IN A CONSERVATION DISTRICT, I DO NOT BELIEVE THEY'RE ELIG.
I WOULD NEED TO DOUBLE CHECK THE CONSERVATION DISTRICT REGULATIONS.
BUT TYPICALLY YOU CAN ONLY GET THE SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS THAT THE CD ALLOWS YOU TO GET.
THEREFORE, AND I'LL PULL IT UP REAL QUICK, BUT, UM, THEY MAY NOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR THAT SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO PRESERVE A TREE.
WELL, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT, THAT THE TREE ISN'T, UH, DOESN'T FALL SOMEWHERE INTO THE STANDING.
UH, MR. SASHEN, UM, AND THAT WAS GONNA BE MY OTHER QUESTION TO, UH, MR. IWIN, YOU DIDN'T, YOU DIDN'T HAVE ANY, UH, COMMENTARY ON THIS BECAUSE OF THE TREE? UH, AND I GUESS IT'S BECAUSE IT'S IN THE CONSERVATION DISTRICT.
NO, I HAD NOT HAD ANY CONVERSATION ON IT BECAUSE THAT HAD NOT BEEN BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION.
NOW, NOW HEARING, AND THAT'S, AND THAT'S, UH, MY LAST QUESTION.
SO THE BOTH, UH, OF YOU HEARING THE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FROM THE APPLICANT, DOES THAT CLARIFY OR MUDDY ANYTHING, UH, FOR, FOR EITHER OF YOU OR GIVE YOU COMFORT OR DISCOMFORT EVEN FURTHER? UM, I AM, I'M, I WELCOME ANY CASE THAT BRINGS FORWARD A TREE PRESERVATION.
SO IF IT IS ABLE TO BE PRESENTED AS SUCH, THEN I WOULD WELCOME IT.
SO MY CONCERN IS, UH, THE APPLICANT MENTIONED THAT THERE'S A, THERE'S A FAIR, THERE'S A MATURE TREE THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE REMOVED.
UM, AND YOU KNOW, MR. MR S YOUR AREA, WOULD, WOULD YOU RECOMMEND THAT THIS BOARD REQUIRES, YOU KNOW, REPLACEMENT OF THAT TREE, UH, RELOCATION OF THAT TREE OR SOME OTHER WAY TO, UM, PRESERVE THE TREE? I COULDN'T REALLY MAKE ANY RECOMMENDATIONS UNTIL I KNOW WHAT EXACTLY THE PURVIEW HERE THAT THE, THAT THE BOARD CAN ACTUALLY TAKE WITH THIS.
UH, IT SOUNDS LIKE THAT, UH, THERE'S QUESTION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT PRE PRESERVATION CAN EVEN BE PRESENTED AS A CASE.
LET, LET'S LET, UH, MR. MOORE WEIGH IN.
UM, MY INTERNET IS STRUGGLING TO LOAD, BUT I'M TOLD FROM THE CONSERVATION DISTRICT STAFF THAT THIS CD DOES NOT ALLOW FOR THAT SPECIAL EXEMPTION.
BUT THE APPLICANT, THE APPLICANT DOES NOT, IS NOT ASKING FOR AN EXCEPTION.
WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT THIS IS JUST A VARIANCE.
THIS IS JUST THE TYPICAL VARIANCE STANDARD.
THERE IS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION THAT ALLOWS YOU TO, IT ACTS AS A VARIANCE THAT ALLOWS YOU TO KEEP A TREE, YOU CAN BUILD FURTHER INTO A SIDE YARD IF THE TREE IS WORTH PRESERVING THAT SPECIAL EXCEPTION THIS APPLICANT CANNOT SEEK BECAUSE THEY IN THE CONSERVATION DISTRICT.
SO THIS IS JUST THE TYPICAL, YOU GOTTA MEET ALL THREE PARTS OF A VARIANCE STANDARD.
SO THE TREE PULL IT OFF THE TABLE
[00:35:01]
AT THIS POINT.WELL, IT'S JUST A, I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IS THERE A WAY NOT OUR SCOPE AT THIS POINT? YEAH.
IS THERE A WAY TREE COULD LAY INTO A VARIANCE WITH THAT? I DON'T KNOW OFF HAND.
I CAN'T THINK OF, I, I'M JUST CONCERNED ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THE FACT THAT WE COULD POTENTIALLY, WE COULD POTENTIALLY PASS SOMETHING THROUGH HERE THAT'S GOING TO PUT IN JEOPARDY A MATURE TREATMENT.
I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THEY'D HAVE TO RIGHT.
I, I THINK FROM STAFF'S PERSPECTIVE, AND MR. THOMPSON CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, IS THE CONCERN WAS ABOUT ELEMENT TWO, WHETHER OR NOT THE LOT WAS AN AREA RESTRICTIVE SHAPED SLOPE.
AND THE LOCATION WAS BASED ON BEING AWAY FROM THE TREE.
SO YOU ARE PROVING IT WOULD NOT BE ENCROACHING ONTO THE TREE GROWTH PER SE.
AND AGAIN, THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE A STUDY THAT WOULD BE VERIFIED, BUT BASED ON THE LOCATION, IT DOESN'T APPEAR LIKE IT'S BUDDING.
THE TREE IS PUSHED CLOSER TO THE SETBACK BECAUSE OF THE TREE, IS WHAT THE APPLICANT IS SAYING.
SO THE TREE CREATES A RESTRICTIVE, UM, WELL, THAT, THAT'S NOT WHAT HE'S SAYING.
THAT'S WHAT THE APPLICANT'S SAYING.
THAT'S WHAT THE APPLICANT OH, I THOUGHT NO, NO, NO.
THAT'S NOT WHAT I NO, THAT HE WAS SAYING.
THAT'S WHAT THE APPLICANT WAS SAYING.
SO YOU'D HAVE TO BELIEVE THE TREE IS SUCH THAT IT MAKES THE LOT UNDEVELOPABLE RELATIVE TO
THAT, THAT, THAT, THAT WAS IT.
ARE THERE QUESTIONS FOR THE SPEAKER? OKAY.
UM, ARE THERE OTHER SPEAKERS IN FAVOR? NO, THE SPEAKERS REGISTRAR, SIR, NONE AGAINST JUST, OKAY.
UM, YOU HAVE A FIVE MINUTE REBUTTAL.
YOU HAD A FIVE MINUTE CLOSING.
I'M NOT GONNA DENY HIM THESE FIVE MINUTES.
THAT SAID, IS THERE A MOTION? NO MOTION I THE DISCUSSION HERE, UM, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 4 5 0 3 0 ON APPLICATION OF ZERO PRICK ASKED GRANT, THE EIGHT FOOT TWO INCH VARIANCE FOR THE SA YARD SETBACK REGULATIONS REQUESTED BY THIS APPLICANT.
BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISION OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WILL RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP TO THIS APPLICANT.
I FURTHER MOVE THAT THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS BE IMPOSED TO FURTHER THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE THAT COMPLIANT WITH THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF ALL SUBMITTED PLANS ARE REQUIRED.
MR. SINGTON, IT'S YOUR MOTION.
UH, IT'S, IT'S, IT'S MY MOTION.
UH, I I DON'T REALLY HAVE ANYTHING.
I, I MEAN, I, I DON'T SEE THAT THERE'S ANY, UM, OBJECTION FROM NEIGHBORING, UM, FROM NEIGHBORS.
AND BASED ON THE, THE APPLICANT'S TESTIMONY, I, I DON'T REALLY HAVE A PROBLEM OTHER THAN MY CONCERN FOR THE TREE, UH, FOR WHAT THEY ARE, UM, PROPOSING TO DO SO TO, TO THAT, UM, I CAN ENVISION MYSELF SUPPORTING MR. MILLERTON.
YEAH, I FEEL THAT THE, UH, APPLICANT HAS MET EVERYTHING THAT WE REQUIRE.
SO I HAVE NO, UM, NO ISSUE IN, UM, SUPPORTING THE MOTION TO GRANT.
I AGREE WITH MR. SASHING AND MR. MILLIGAN.
I THINK THE APPLICANT HAS, HAS, UH, PRESENTED A, A GOOD SUPPORT FOR WHAT THEY'RE DOING.
AND THERE IS NO OPPOSITION, MS. GRIFFIN.
[00:40:04]
YOU KNOW HOW I'M GONNA THINK ABOUT THIS.AND I, I HAVE A HARD TIME WITH MIDDLE OF THE STREET.
RECTANGULAR, NO, NO SHAPE PROBLEMS. I, I, I REALIZE THERE'S, THERE'S NO OPPOSITION AND, UH, UH, LUCKILY I THINK MY VOTE ISN'T GONNA CHANGE IT.
SO, UH, THAT WOULD, UH, PLEASE CALL THE VOTE.
MR. RIGHTS CHAIR MAY MOTION PASSES FOR THE ONE.
UH, YOU WILL GET A LETTER AND, AND GOOD LUCK.
ALRIGHT, MR. MARTINEZ, WE COULD SKIP YOU ONE MORE TIME IF YOU WANT.
THIS IS BDA 2 4 5 DASH 26 1 14 WEST SEVENTH STREET.
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.
YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES, SANTOS.
SANTOS MARTINEZ, 2 4 8 9 CAMINO PLATA LOOP, NORTHEAST RIO RANCHO, NEW MEXICO, 8 7 1 4 4.
UH, MR. CHAIRMAN, I'VE GOT SIX SLIDES.
I'D LIKE TO RUN DOWN WITH YOU.
UH, IF WE CAN GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE.
UM, AS REFERENCED IN THE EXHIBITS, UH, AND FROM WHAT YOU SAW IN THE VIDEO, THERE'S ENOUGH ROOM FOR EIGHT SPACES TO PARALLEL PARK ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE CURB ALONG SEVENTH STREET AND ALSO THREE, I DID NOT LOOK AT THE NORTH HALF EASTERN HALF OF SEVENTH STREET BECAUSE THERE'S 1, 2, 3 DRIVE APPROACHES AND EACH ONE OF THOSE DRIVE APPROACHES GENERATES A 20 FOOT VISIBILITY TRIANGLE AND TO THE WEST, THAT CURVE, I JUST DIDN'T WANT TO DO THE MAP ON THAT, BUT I DIDN'T WANT FOLKS TO FEEL THAT THERE'D BE NO PLACE FOR PEOPLE TO PARK SHOULD THE VARIANCE BE, UH, APPROVED.
BUT THERE ARE SPACES ON THE STREET AND STAFF MENTIONED THERE'S, THERE AREN'T ANY SIGNS THAT INDICATE THERE'S NO PARKING AVAILABLE.
UH, IF WE CAN GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, HOW DO YOU DO A SIGN THAT SAYS NO PARKING AVAILABLE? YOU HAVE TO PETITION THE CITY AND YOU HAVE TO GET CONSENT FROM THE PROPERTY OWNERS TO DO THAT.
UM, THERE WAS A QUESTION ABOUT WHAT OTHER ZONING IS AROUND US AND WHAT THE PARKING STANDARDS LOOK LIKE.
UH, YOU'LL SEE OUR SITE IS IN RED AND THEN TO THE EAST OF US PD 10 19.
UH, THEY ACTUALLY HAVE A DIFFERENT STANDARD FOR PARKING.
WE'RE, WE'RE JUST, UH, COMMUNITY RETAIL PD 10 19.
IF YOU PARK ON THE STREET, YOU CAN COUNT THAT PARKING TOWARDS A RESTAURANT USE AND THE PARKING RATIO FOR A RESTAURANT.
AND PD 10 19 IS NOT ONE TO A HUNDRED, IT'S ONE TO 1 0 5 MS. MR DO YOU MEAN THAT THE, THERE IS A PD THAT COVERS TWO LOTS? IT'S FOUR.
THERE WAS ACTUALLY A TWO STORY BUILDING ON THAT SITE.
UH, IT WAS BEING CONSIDERED FOR A BOUTIQUE HOTEL.
A BOUTIQUE, UH, ANY HOTEL REQUIRES, YOU KNOW, NUMBER OF SPACES PER, UH, ROOM.
SO THEY WENT TO THE COUNCIL TO SAY, THIS IS BOUTIQUE.
WE'LL GET A VARIANCE BUILT INTO THE PROPERTY FOR THAT.
UH, THEY ADDED SOME OTHER USES THAT COULD HAVE DIFFERENT PARKING RATIOS.
THEY WERE GETTING SET TO SUBMIT PERMIT AND THE BUILDING BURNT DOWN SO THE PD REMAINS WITH THE LAND.
SO ANY NEW USE, UH, STILL GETS THE BENEFIT OF THE RATIOS FOR RESTAURANTS AND TO STILL BE ABLE TO PARK ALONG THE CURB.
COUNTING TOWARDS THAT USE TO THE WEST OF ZANG, UH, IS PD EIGHT 30 AND CONSERVATION DISTRICT SEVEN.
WHAT'S UNIQUE ABOUT BOTH OF THOSE, UH, ZONING DISTRICTS IS IN PD EIGHT 30 AND CD ONE, CD SEVEN, THE PARKING RATIO FOR A RESTAURANT IS NOT ONE TO A HUNDRED, IT'S ONE TO TWO 20.
AND IN PD EIGHT 30, IF YOU PARK ALONG THE STREET, THAT COUNTS TOWARDS YOUR PARKING THAT'S REQUIRED.
AND IN BOTH EIGHT 30 AND CONSERVATION DISTRICT SEVEN, YOU COULD GET A LEASE AGREEMENT WITH A PROPERTY OWNER WITHIN A THOUSAND FEET OF YOUR PROPERTY.
RATHER THAN GETTING A, A DEED RESTRICTED PARKING AGREEMENT PARTY WITH THE CITY OF DALLAS AS A, AS A PARTY TO THAT AGREEMENT, YOU CAN GET A LEASE AGREEMENT JUST SO LONG AS YOU'RE WITHIN A THOUSAND FEET.
IF WE CAN GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, AS IT WAS MENTIONED BY STAFF, PART OF THE STANDARD YOU HAVE IS WHAT'S THE SHAPE AND THE SLOPE? WE HAVE TO REMOVE HALF OF OUR BUILDING JUST TO PROVIDE SIX PARKING SPACES, THE RESTRICTIVE SIZE OF OUR LOT WHERE WE HAVE TO DEMOLISH HALF OF THE BUILDING JUST TO PUT SIX SPACES.
AND A BIKE RACK, I THINK IS TELLING.
IF WE CAN GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE.
[00:45:01]
WHAT'S ALSO SUBSTANTIAL ABOUT THIS, ABOUT THIS LOT IS THE ALLEY IS HIGHER THAN THE STREET.AND SO WHERE WE ARE DEMOLISHING THAT HALF OF THE BUILDING THAT ACTUALLY SITS ABOVE SIX FEET ABOVE THE FINISHED FLOOR OF OUR RESTAURANT.
AND SO YOU'LL NOTICE ON THE RIGHT WE HAVE A RAMP HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW TO BRING, UH, PATRONS FROM HANDICAPPED STALLS IN OUR PARKING LOT DOWN TO THE RESTAURANT FINISHED FLOOR.
WHAT'S INTERESTING ABOUT, WELL WHAT'S FRUSTRATING ABOUT THIS EXHIBIT IS THAT THIS RAMP WAS DONE AT A CALCULATION OF ONE FOR EVERY ONE VERTICAL, UH, FOOT, YOU GO THREE FEET HORIZONTAL.
WELL, THE CODE IS ACTUALLY FOR EVERY ONE VERTICAL FOOT, YOU NEED 12 FEET HORIZONTAL.
SO WHAT'S PROPOSED HERE ACTUALLY DID NOT PASS BUILDING CODE REVIEW BECAUSE IT WAS THE WRONG SLOPE.
SO THAT MEANS WE NEED OVER 70 FEET FOR THAT RAMP WHEN WE'VE ONLY GOT 56 FEET.
SO WE'RE NOW LOOKING AT, UH, A LIFT THAT WOULD BE GENERATED.
THERE WOULD BE A PLATFORM WHERE IT'S A MINI ELEVATOR.
BUT THAT GOES TO THIS PART OF THE RESTRICTIVE SHAPE SLOPE OF OUR PROPERTY, IS THAT IF WE JUST DEMOED EVERYTHING AND PAVED A PARKING LOT, YOU'D HAVE A FRONT HALF, YOU'D HAVE A BACK HALF.
WE DON'T HAVE ANY EFFICIENCY FOR PARKING.
UH, IF WE CAN GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, YOU'LL DE IT'S DEMONSTRATED.
YOU'LL SEE THERE'S A RETAINING WALL BEHIND THE SEVEN 11 THAT STARTS TO GO UPWARDS BETWEEN OUR BUILDING AND THE SEVEN 11.
AND THEN IT'S, IT'S QUITE, UH, EVIDENT ALONG THE ALLEY, ALONG THE SEVEN 11 WITH THE RETAINING WALL ON JUST HOW DIFFERENT THAT PROPERTY IS IMPACTING OURS BECAUSE OURS IS ONLY 50 FEET WIDE.
UH, IF WE GO TO THE LAST SLIDE, THE NEXT SLIDE, UH, AGAIN, IF WE WERE ACROSS ZANG, THAT 48 SPACE, UH, PARKING LOT WHERE WE HAVE THE LETTER IN OUR, UH, EXHIBIT WOULD QUALIFY BECAUSE IT'S WITHIN A THOUSAND FEET.
IT'S JUST WE'RE ON THE EAST SIDE OF ZANG.
AND SO WE CAN GET A LEASE AGREEMENT AS ALL THE OTHER NEIGHBORS WOULD TO THE WEST.
THE CITY WOULD NOT ACKNOWLEDGE A PARKING AGREEMENT BECAUSE AS STAFF CORRECTED THIS MORNING CORRECTLY, SO THAT THAT PARKING AGREEMENT ISN'T WITHIN 300 FEET, WE CAN'T COUNT 21 PARKING SPACES FOR THAT BECAUSE IT'S BEYOND 300 FEET.
IF IT WAS UP TO 600, THIS IS OVER 700 FEET AWAY.
IF WE WERE IN PD EIGHT 30 OR CD SEVEN, WE COULD USE THAT LEASE AGREEMENT AND COVER ALL OF OUR PARKING AND WE WOULDN'T HAVE TO GO TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.
BUT BECAUSE IT'S OVER 300 FEET, THE CITY WON'T ACKNOWLEDGE ANY OF THOSE SPACES THAT, UH, THAT MANAGEMENT COMPANY HAS AGREED TO PROVIDE US.
THERE'S ANOTHER SPACE OF PARKING, 28 SPACES SOUTHEAST OF THE LOT.
WE CONTINUE TO HAVE CONVERSATIONS WITH THAT, UH, LEASING COMPANY TO MAN THAT MANAGES THAT LOT.
IF THEY COULD ALSO PROVIDE SPACES AS WELL.
WE DID HAVE COMMITMENT BY THE TIME ALL THE DOCKETS WERE PREPARED AND READY FOR THE BOARD TO CONSIDER FROM THE 48 SPACES.
UM, WE'RE STILL ACKNOWLEDGING, UH, TRYING TO GET THE 28 TO HAVE SOME AGREEMENT.
UH, YOU STILL HAVE 11 SPACES IN THE STREET THAT PEOPLE LEGALLY COULD PARK.
UH, WE HAVE SIX IN THE BACK PLUS THE PARKING AGREEMENT.
UH, ALSO IF THIS WAS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION REQUEST, YOU COULD ALSO CONSIDER THE DART STOP THAT'S 245 FEET AWAY, UH, THAT SERVICES BISHOP ARTS.
AND AS YOU'LL REMEMBER IN YOUR DOCKET MATERIAL, THERE'S OVER A THOUSAND MULTI-FAMILY UNITS TO THE NORTH.
WITHIN A MILE YOU GET ALMOST 700 WITHIN 350 FEET OF THE SITE.
WE DO EXPECT A LOT OF WALKABILITY INTO IT.
THE APPLICANT ACTUALLY OWNS A RESTAURANT, I'LL TRY TO PUT THIS ON THE SCREEN IN THIS BUILDING HERE.
AND IN CD SEVEN, HE'S NOT REQUIRED TO HAVING PARKING AND HIS RESTAURANT'S FINE.
SO HE'S LOOKING FOR THIS VENUE TO STAY OPEN IN ADDITION TO THIS ONE, UM, IT'S BE MORE OF A SPORTS BAR AS OPPOSED TO, UH, THE MENU THAT'S PROVIDED HERE.
UH, BUT WE FEEL WITH A LOT OF WALKABILITY WITH THE RESIDENTS THAT ARE AROUND, GOING BACK TO THE STANDARD, OUR SLOPE IS SIGNIFICANT WHERE OUR PARKING IS NOT AT THE SAME LEVEL AS OUR FINISHED FLOOR AND OUR RESTRICTIVE SIZE WHERE WE HAVE TO REMO REMOVE, THAT'S OUR LAST SLIDE.
WE HAVE TO REMOVE HALF OF OUR BUILDING JUST TO COMPLY WITH CODE.
I THINK, UH, SPEAKS LOUDLY AS TO THE RESTRICTIVE, UH, SIZE AS WELL.
STAND FOR ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.
UH, WHY ISN'T IT A SPECIAL EXCEPTION? BECAUSE IT'S OVER 25% AND THIS IS 75%.
W THE, WE HAVE NO OTHER CHOICE BUT TO, TO GO THIS, THIS ANGLE AND THAT THAT'S HOW THIS LANDS.
SO YOU, YOU'VE GOT, WHY ARE YOU LOOKING FOR 52 PARKING SPACE TWO TIMES? DID YOU SAY TWO TIMES 28? NO, WE'RE ONLY LOOKING FOR 21.
RIGHT, BUT YOU'RE SAYING YOU'RE
[00:50:01]
LOOKING IN TWO DIFFERENT LOTS FOR THEM.UH, WE, WE ACTUALLY HAD BEEN APPROACHED BY BOTH SAYING, YEAH, WE WILL AGREE WITH YOU.
WE GOT ONE TO COMMIT ON PAPER TO ACTUALLY DEMONSTRATE THAT.
YES, WE'D STILL LIKE THE OTHER ONE.
SO IT'S NOT LIKE WE'RE, WE'RE, WE JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THERE WE'VE GOT, IF SOMETHING HAPPENS, WE'VE GOT ANOTHER AGREEMENT.
SO THE THING TRIGGERING THIS IS REALLY THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE LOT AND THE PROPOSED THAT'S OFFSITE PARK.
BECAUSE IT'S OVER 300 FEET AND THAT THAT PD SAYS YOU JUST NEED A LEASE AGREEMENT.
SO THAT LOT MAY BE ENCUMBERED WITH OTHER LEASES, BUT IT'S NOT, THE CITY OF DALLAS ISN'T A PARTY TO IT.
AND SO THEY CAN MODIFY THAT LEASE AND SAY, OH, DURING THE HOURS OF OPERATION OR, OR WHAT HAVE YOU, WE WOULD BE COVERED.
SO AGAIN, I DON'T WANT FOLKS TO THINK THAT, OH, WELL YOU GIVE OUT, GIVE A VARIANCE TO 21 SPACES.
NOW PEOPLE ARE JUST PART, NO, WE ACTUALLY HAVE A, A, A METHOD TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS WORKS WITH, UH, AVAILABILITY IN THE STREET, BUT WE REALLY WANT TO VALET AND TAKE CARS OVER HERE TO THE LOT.
MS. P*****K, THAT WAS GOING TO BE MY QUESTION.
WILL VALET PARKING BE AVAILABLE? YES, MA'AM.
AND HOW MANY SEATS ARE IN YOUR RESTAURANT? UH, I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT COUNT BECAUSE WE'VE HAD TO READJUST FOR THAT RAMP.
SOMEONE ELSE HAD MENTIONED HOURS OF OPERATION.
I I DON'T KNOW 'EM OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD.
I, MR. MARTINEZ, DID YOU SAY IT'S GOING TO BE A SPORTS BAR THOUGH? THAT'S CORRECT.
I JUST GOTTA PRESS, I MEAN, UM, TWO VERY IMPORTANT QUESTIONS THAT, UM, MS. POLLETT ASKED YOU, YOU DON'T HAVE ANSWERS TO, UM, THAT REALLY ARE GERMANE ONE HOURS OPERATION THAT THAT'S IMPORTANT INFORMATION.
YOU, YOU, YOU GOTTA GIVE US SOMETHING.
AND TWO, HOW MANY SEATS ARE, ARE IN THE RESTAURANT? I MEAN, CAN YOU GIVE US SO WE CAN, WE CAN ONLY HAVE UP TO 99 PEOPLE IN OUR FACILITY.
THAT'S THE, YOU HAVE A CAPACITY OF 99.
99 PEOPLE WOULD BE THE MOST BEFORE WE HAVE TO SPRINKLE THE SPACE AND WE HAVE NOT, UH, BEEN TOLD TO SPRINKLE THE SPACE.
SO THE OCCUPANCY CANNOT, IT CAN BE AT OR BELOW 99.
SO 99 THAT'S INCLUSIVE OF STAFF? THAT'S CORRECT.
SO IT WOULD BE SAFE TO SAY THAT YOU COULD SEAT, UM, PROBABLY, SO YOU TAKE 30, YOU SAY 30 STAFF, THAT'S PROBABLY ON THE HIGH END.
SO SAFE TO SAY YOU NEED AT LEAST ONE CAR PER PROBABLY ONE CAR PER UH, OKAY.
MR. MOORE, YOU WANNA, I I WAS JUST GONNA SAY MR. SINGTON, I'M NOT SURE HOW THE HOURS OF OPERATION EQUATE TO IT.
IT'S, UH, IT'S ULTIMATELY A VARIANCE FOR THE, THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS.
I DON'T SEE HOW, UM, YOU KNOW, IF THE ESTABLISHMENT CLOSED AT 9:00 PM WHY OR 11:00 PM HOW THAT CHANGES SOMEHOW THE ANALYSIS.
AND I'M HAPPY TO LIKE LISTEN TO YOUR RATIONALE, BUT I DON'T WELL, WELL IT, IT'S, IT'S IMPORTANT INFORMATION TO KNOW BECAUSE I MEAN, PEAK HOURS YOU NEED MORE PARKING OBVIOUSLY WHEN, UM, AND IF YOU'RE SHARING PARKING RIGHT, UM, BETWEEN TWO, TWO OR MORE FACILITIES, YOU, YOU NEED MORE PARKING AVAILABLE.
THAT, THAT'S JUST MY, MY THOUGHT THAT THAT GOES TO EVALUATING THE, IF SOMEBODY WERE, WERE MAKING AN ARGUMENT THAT SAY WE OUGHT TO BE ABLE TO DOUBLE USE THE SPACE.
I HEAR YOU SAYING THAT YOU WOULD LIVE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS THAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO, TO MEET WITH THE CITY WHERE IT SAY 200 FEET AND THAT WOULD MEAN GIVING THEM A SIGNED AGREEMENT.
I JUST WANNA POINT OUT THE LOT THAT WE SHOWED THAT'S GOT 48 SPACES.
IF THAT IS A TRUE VALET LOT, IF, IF I WOULD RECOMMEND DOUBLING THAT CAPACITY BECAUSE IN A VALET LOT YOU CAN TANDEM PARK YOUR, YOUR CARS, RIGHT? WHEREAS IF IT'S NOT PACKED, IT'S 48.
SO IF WE KNOW THAT THAT PARKING LOT IS A MANAGED LOT WITH A VALET COMPANY, WE'RE UM, UH, VISUALLY THAT'S A 48 STALL PARKING LOT.
BUT SINCE WE ALREADY KNOW THERE'S A VALET COMPANY, I ANTICIPATE THERE'S MORE THAN ENOUGH PARKING FOR THEM TO MANAGE ANY OTHER PATRONS THAN ESTABLISHMENTS THEY NEED TO, TO SATISFY IN ADDITION TO OURS.
UM, I WOULD, I WOULD POINT OUT AND AGREE WITH CITY ATTORNEY.
I, I KNOW, I THINK IT'S, IT'S IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THE HOURS OF OPERATION, BUT ULTIMATELY IT'S A, IT'S A REQUEST FOR A RESTAURANT WITHOUT A DRIVE THROUGH REGARDLESS OF THE DAYS OR REGARDLESS OF THE HOURS.
IT'S STILL A RESTAURANT REQUEST THAT GENERATES ONE, ONE
[00:55:01]
SPACE PER A HUNDRED SQUARE FEET.SO, UH, WE, I THINK LIKE THIS AREA OF THE CITY, BECAUSE THERE'S 700 HOMES RIGHT AROUND US THAT WE CAN IDENTIFY IN THE APARTMENTS AND CONDOS THAT'S TRULY WALKABLE.
AND WITHIN A MILE YOU TAKE UP THAT DART LINE, YOU HAVE 1200 UNITS AVAILABLE FOR PEOPLE TO TAKE.
SO I THINK THAT'S PART OF, UH, THE DRAW TO THIS PART OF THE CITY IS IT'S WALKABILITY AND THAT YOU COULD PARK ONCE AND YOU CAN SEE TWO OR THREE DIFFERENT VENUES.
AND SO I, I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S, IT'S, IT'S BENEFICIAL TO PENALIZE THIS TENANT TO SAY, GIMME 28 PARKING SPACES A HUNDRED PERCENT OF THE TIME, SEVEN DAYS A WEEK WHEN WE KNOW PEOPLE HAVE DIFFERENT TENDENCIES NOW TO LET'S GO EAT HERE, BUT LET'S GO WATCH THE GAME HERE OR VICE VERSA.
THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE QUESTIONS.
SO ARE YOU ABLE, UH, JUST BECAUSE I, I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE OF HOW IT WOULD WORK, IF YOU WERE WITHIN THE, THE 250 FEET, UH, ARE YOU WILLING TO PROVIDE AN, AN AGREEMENT SOMETHING THAT DESIGNATES ON THIS SPACE? WE HAVE 28 21 SPACES AND THEY'RE NOT GONNA BE COUNTED OTHERWISE.
AND HERE'S A LEASE FOR THIS ONE.
IF, IF WE'RE SUCCESSFUL WITH THIS APPLICATION, WE CAN SUBMIT A LEASE, UH, TO PUT IN OUR PACKET WITH, WITH OUR PERMIT APPLICATION THAT HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED, RELEASED TO DEMONSTRATE THAT WE'RE STILL GONNA BE ABLE TO PROVIDE THE 21 SPACES.
IT'S JUST TYPICALLY THE CITY WANTS TO SEE THEIR FORM, WHICH IS NOT A LEASE AGREEMENT, BUT THAT IS AN OPTION AVAILABLE IF WE WERE ON THE WEST SIDE OF ZANG, LEASE AGREEMENTS ARE ACCEPTED.
SO WE CAN USE THAT TEMPLATE THAT'S ACKNOWLEDGED ACROSS THE STREET AND ADD THIS TO OUR PERMIT REQUEST.
UH, IF THAT'S A DESIRE OF THE BOARD, COULD MS. BARKIN MAYBE WALK ME THROUGH THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CITY'S FORM AND A LEASE AGREEMENT? MAYBE MR. MARTINEZ CAN, WHAT THE CITY'S FORM IS A DEED RESTRICTION? YEAH.
IT RUNS WITH THE PROPERTY, RIGHT? SO LONG AS THAT USE IS THERE, RIGHT? A LEASE AGREEMENT, UH, HAS MORE FLEXIBILITY WHERE, HEY, I'M CHANGING OUT MY TENANT, I NEED ANOTHER TWO SPACES, OR I DON'T NEED THREE SPACES.
RIGHT? LET, AND WE CAN DO IT AS A TWO PARTY LEASE AS OPPOSED TO RUNNING WITH THE CITY AND GETTING THAT DONE.
WELL, I, I PERSONALLY WOULD LIKE TO MAKE SURE THAT, WELL, IF THAT'S THE WAY THAT THE, SO FOR EXAMPLE, WERE WE TO APPROVE THIS APPLICATION CONDITIONED UPON HAVING ACCESS TO THOSE SPACES AND THE CITY SAYS, OKAY, IT'S GOTTA BE ON OUR FORM, YOU COULD DO THAT.
I, I CAN'T DO THAT THE CITY FORM 'CAUSE IT'S OVER 300 FEET AWAY.
THAT'S PART OF THE REASON WHY WE'RE HERE IS THAT, BUT IF WE'VE APPROVED IT CONDITIONAL UPON THAT, WHAT WHAT I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IS HOW DO I IDENTIFY, ACKNOWLEDGE THE 21, THOSE SPACES SO THAT THEY'RE NOT SEVEN OTHER PEOPLE'S 21 THAT I MEANT.
I THINK THERE'S A WAY TO DO IT.
ONCE THE CITY REVIEWER GOES, THIS IS OVER 300 FEET AWAY AND THIS IS OF NO VALUE, BUT AREN'T WE GIVING THAT LEEWAY IF WE APPROVE THIS, IT, IT, MY ASSU, MY MY ASSESSMENT IS THAT THE VARIANCE IS APPROVED FOR 21 SPACES.
THE CITY IS, IS, IS NOT GOING TO NEED TO LOOK FOR THAT PARKING AGREEMENT, THAT DEED RESTRICTION.
AND IF WE SUBMIT THAT VOID WITH A LEASE AGREEMENT, EVEN THOUGH IT'S NOT THE CITY FORM, THERE'S STILL AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT THAT WE ARE GONNA BE ABLE TO PROVIDE PARKING.
I JUST THINK IF THE STANDARD THAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR IS THAT WE HAVE TO PUT IT ON THE CITY FORM AND WE ALREADY KNOW IT'S OVER 300 FEET, WE'RE GONNA GET STUCK IN ANOTHER LOOP THAT OUR PERMIT WON'T GET RELEASED BECAUSE THE CITY'S GONNA SAY, WELL THAT'S FINE.
IT'S JUST, IT'S NOT WITHIN 300 FEET.
BUT IF THERE'S A VARIANCE TO THE 21, THEN I, I JUST THINK STAFF IS GONNA BE LOOKING FOR SOMETHING THAT'S A, A DE RESTRICTED CITY AS A PARTY.
DIDN'T WE JUST DO THIS A COUPLE MONTHS AGO? WAS THAT, THAT WASN'T YOUR CASE RIGHT DOWN IN THIS AREA? I THINK THEY WERE PROVIDING SOME SPACES ON WITH THE PARKING AGREEMENT REGARDLESS THEY WERE ON OUTSIDE JUST LIKE THESE.
BUT, BUT THEY WERE, BUT NO, HE'S NOT PROVIDING IT WITH THE PARKING AGREEMENT.
HE'S JUST SUGGESTING THAT AS ANOTHER OPTION FOR THE PE TO HAVE PARKING THERE.
WE CONDITION NOT PART OF THE CASE APPROVAL ON THAT AGREEMENT.
BUT THEY WERE GONNA HAVE THE PARKING AGREEMENT.
WE'RE NOT GONNA, THE CITY'S NOT GONNA RECOGNIZE A PARKING AGREEMENT BECAUSE IT'S NOT AN ACTUAL PARKING AGREEMENT.
IT'S JUST SAYING, YEAH, WE'RE GONNA ALLOW THESE PATRONS TO PARK THERE.
BUT IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT MANDATORY FOR THEM TO PARK THERE OR FOR THEM TO, FOR THE RESTAURANT TO USE THAT PARKING AS THE PARKING SPACES.
THAT'S JUST GONNA BE AVAILABLE TO THEM BECAUSE OF THE DISTANCE.
THEY CAN'T HAVE A PARKING AGREEMENT WITH THEM.
OKAY, LET'S, LET'S SAY I SIT HERE AND SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT THE, THE THREE OR FOUR
[01:00:01]
REASONS, I, I WANT TO APPROVE THIS GIVEN THAT THE APPLICANT SAYS IT CAN PROVIDE 21 SPACES OFFSITE, BUT I WANT TO, I DON'T, I WOULD NOT APPROVE IT IF THERE WERE SEVEN.SO HOW DO I, HOW DO I MAKE THAT? BUT THEY'RE HERE REQUESTING THE REDUCTION FOR THE 21 SPACES.
SO WHEN IT'S GOING TO REVIEW, THEY'RE GONNA SAY, OKAY, THEY GOT A PARKING REDUCTION.
WHY ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT OFF SITE? THEN THE APPLICANT BROUGHT IT UP.
MEAN I, I JUST WANT FOLKS TO UNDERSTAND THAT WE ARE PRACTICALLY GOING TO HAVE SPACES, EVEN THOUGH BY CODE YOU'RE GONNA VARY IT DOWN TO ZERO.
THAT'S ADDITION BEYOND THE SIX OR SEVEN THAT WE HAVE AND ON OUR STAFF REVIEW, OUR PERMIT CAN FINALLY GET RELEASED BECAUSE THEY'RE GONNA SEE THAT IT FILING BALANCES.
BUT IN REALITY WE WILL HAVE 21 SPACES AVAILABLE FOR PATRONS OVER 700 FEET AWAY PLUS 11 SPACES IN FRONT OF THE FACILITY.
SHOULD PEOPLE WANT TO CHOOSE TO PARK PARALLEL IN FRONT OF THE FACILITY? I JUST THINK THERE'S A TENDENCY, THERE'S 11 IN FRONT.
SOMEBODY ELSE MAY PROBABLY FEELS LIKE THEY'RE THEIRS TOO.
I MEAN, THEY'RE SHARED, WHICH MEANS THEY'RE NOBODY'S.
BUT, UH, UH, LET, LET ME ADD A MRS, I MISS, SO LIKE THE PREVIOUS CASE THAT YOU'VE KIND REFER TO, UM, IF THEY HAD THE AGREEMENT, THEY WOULDN'T HAVE TO COME IN BEFORE THE BOARD.
IF THEY HAD THE AGREEMENT FOR THE 21 SPACES, THEY WOULDN'T BE HERE.
NOW THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO GET THEIR PERMIT 'CAUSE THEY WOULD HAVE A PARKING AGREEMENT IN PLACE.
THEY COULD HAVE FI THEY COULD TAKE THAT TO A PERMITTING PERMIT WOULD ISSUE THEM.
SO WHAT THEY'RE SAYING IS THAT IN THIS SCENARIO, ULTIMATELY THEY HAVE THE 21 SPACES.
BUT HERE, WE'RE HERE BEFORE THE BOARD BECAUSE THOSE 21 SPACES ARE NOT WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THE DISTANCE THAT'S REQUIRED.
THAT'S THE ONLY REASON WHY THEY'RE ACTUALLY HERE.
SO IF THE AGREEMENT OF 21 SPACES WAS WITHIN THE 300 FEET, YOU WOULD NOT SEE THEM TODAY.
SO, SO ASKING THEM TO HAVE THE AGREEMENT AND THE 21 SPACES IS KIND OF, WELL THE AGREEMENT IS FOR THE 21 SPACE.
BUT AGAIN, IF THEY CAN GET THE AGREEMENT, THEY DON'T HAVE TO COME FORTH.
WELL I'M HEARING THAT THEY WOULD BECAUSE OF THE DISTANCE.
SO I I THINK YOU'RE COMBINING TWO THINGS THAT ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.
THEY'RE PROVIDING INFORMATION FOR YOU THAT'S ACTUALLY KIND OF CONFUSED THE SITUATION.
SO REALISTICALLY LET'S ELIMINATE THE 21 SPACES.
OKAY? BECAUSE THEY'RE OUTSIDE OF 300.
OKAY THEN THAT, THAT'S YOUR OPTION.
IS THAT THE ONLY WAY THAT'S YOUR RIGHT.
SO WHAT THEY'RE SAYING IS THAT WE DON'T HAVE 21 SPACES TO EQUAL UP TO 28.
THAT'S WHY WE ARE HERE BEFORE THE BOARD.
SO LET'S SAY FOR EXAMPLE, THIS LOT WITHIN 200 FEET TO TAKE THAT ON THE TABLE, WE WOULD SAY, COOL, YOU GOT 21 SPACES 'CAUSE YOU GOT AN AGREEMENT.
CITY WOULD SAY, GOOD, WE WOULDN'T BE.
SO I THINK WHAT I'M HEARING IS THAT BY VIRTUE OF GOING FROM MY NOTIONAL 200 SPACE, UH, FEET TO SEVEN 50, WE THEN SAY, WELL IF THEY, IF THEY WERE 200 FEET, WE WOULD REQUIRE THIS PROOF OF THE 21.
BUT BECAUSE BY VIRTUE OF ALLOWING THE PARKING TO BE FARTHER AWAY, WE CAN'T REQUIRE PROOF GOING THE WRONG WAY IF GOING FARTHER AWAY AND THE CODE SEEMS TO RECOGNIZE THAT THE CLOSER IS BETTER THAN FARTHER, THEN BY VIRTUE OF GOING FARTHER, IF THE BOARD SAYS, OKAY, FARTHER IS FINE, BUT WE STILL CARE ABOUT THE SPOTS TO SAY BY VIRTUE OF YOU'RE YOU'RE GOING 700 FEET, WE NO LONGER WE, WE NO LONGER TRACK WHERE THE SPOTS ARE AND YOU CAN CHANGE THE CODE BECAUSE THAT'S THE WAY THE CODE CURRENTLY READS.
BUT I CAN'T AMEND IT OR, OR OR ACCEPT FROM IT.
AND I'M BEING ASKED TO, AND I I DON'T, I'M BEING TOLD I HAVE TWO OPTIONS.
WHEN I THINK THERE'S A COMPROMISE AND PEOPLE ARE TELLING ME I'M NOT ALLOWED TO COMPROMISE, I LIKE THAT.
THAT'S MR. SANTOS CAN OR HIS CLIENT CAN GET THE REMOTE PARKING AGREEMENT THAT'S BEYOND THE 300 FEET.
WHAT STAFF IS SAYING IS THAT THE CITY CANNOT REQUIRE IT.
RIGHT? LIKE THAT CANNOT BE A CONDITION PLACED ON IT.
'CAUSE THE VARIANCE IS JUST SAYING THAT BECAUSE OF THE, THE SHAPE AND THE SLOPE, THEY CANNOT PROVIDE THE NECESSARY NUMBER OF SPACES FOR A RESTAURANT USE.
THEY'RE ASKING TO NOT PROVIDE ALL OF THOSE SPACES.
WHAT I'M WHAT IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU WANT TO SAY IS THERE'S, IF YOU'RE GOING TO APPROVE IT, YOU'RE GONNA SAY, YEAH, THE SLOPE IS TOO STEEP, IT'S TOO SMALL,
[01:05:02]
BUT WE'RE JUST GONNA MAKE YOU PROVIDE THE SPACES A LOT FURTHER AWAY THAN WHAT THE CODE REQUIRES.NO, NO, BUT IT'S, IT'S, IT'S BEING REQUIRED AS A PART OF THE VARIANCE.
THAT'S THE, IT'S IT'S NOT JUST THAT, HEY, IT'D BE COOL IF YOU WOULD DO IT.
IT'S IF YOU WANT THE VARIANCE YOU HAVE TO DO THIS.
AND THAT'S MORE OF LIKE THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION, WHICH I THINK YOU WERE REFERENCING EARLIER, WAS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE OFF STREET PARKING REGULATIONS.
BUT THIS IS A VARIANCE TO THE OFF STREET PARKING REGULATIONS, WHICH ARE TWO DIFFERENT REQUESTS IN THAT DISTINCTION MATTERS FOR PURPOSES OF THIS MOTION.
SO IN ORDER TO MAKE A COMPROMISE, I CAN'T COMPROMISE AT UH, AND ALLOW THE 75%, BUT I COULD IF IT WERE 25%.
AND IT FEELS TO ME LIKE, LIKE LOOK, THE, THE APPLICANT AND THE APP PATIENT SAYS, HEY, WE NEED THIS MANY SPACES.
CODE SAYS WE'VE GOTTA HAVE THIS MANY SPACES.
WE WE DOING SOME THINGS ON THE LOT WE'RE GONNA PROVIDE ON SITE.
WE'VE IDENTIFIED THIS, WE'D LIKE TO PROVIDE IT.
BUT YOU DO HAVE TO PROVIDE IT BECAUSE THEN WHAT'S THE POINT? LIKE THAT JUST SEEMS TO BE A REWRITE OF THE CODE BECAUSE WE'RE SAYING THAT YES, YOUR LOT IS SMALL.
YES, YOUR LOT IS STEEP, BUT YOU CAN PROVIDE YOUR LOT, YOU CAN PROVIDE YOUR PARKING WAY OVER HERE.
WE JUST WANNA REWRITE, WE WANNA STRIKE 300 FEET, INSERT A THOUSAND.
AND BECAUSE WE'RE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, WE CAN JUST ORDAIN IT.
SO, AND THAT'S NOT WHAT YOU CAN DO.
YOU CAN ASSESS WHETHER OR NOT THE PARKING, WHETHER OR NOT THE REQUIRED PARKING THAT THE CODE SAYS YOU MUST HAVE FOR THIS RESTAURANT BECAUSE OF THE SHAPE AND THE SLOPE OF THE LOT IS ACTUALLY IF, IF THAT'S MAKES THIS LOT DEVELOPABLE.
SO THEN WE GET TO, OKAY, LET'S SAY, AND I DON'T, I HAVEN'T EVEN GOTTEN DOWN THAT ROAD, BUT LET'S SAY YOU DECIDE, HEY, THERE'S A HARDSHIP HERE, THERE, THAT, THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT YOU HAVE TO GIVE 9,000 SPACES.
WE COULD, YOU COULD DECIDE NINE.
YOU GOTTA, WE WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO MAKE A MOTION THAT IS SOMEWHERE BETWEEN YOU COULD DO SOMETHING LESS.
YOU, WE WOULDN'T, WE WOULD HAVE TO RE-NOTICE IF YOU WANTED TO GRANT MORE SPACES, BUT IF YOU WANT MORE, IF YOU WANTED TO INCREASE THE REDUCTION, WE WOULD HAVE TO RE-NOTICE, RIGHT? IF YOU WANTED TO DECREASE, DECREASE THE REDUCTION.
THAT IS SOMETHING THAT COULD BE DONE.
I'M TRYING TO FIND A WHAT, SO NORMALLY THERE'S A PART OF ME THAT SAYS, YOU KNOW, 75 IS A LOT, BUT THREE SPACES IN FRONT ARE SOMEBODY ELSE'S TWO.
BUT WE MAY BE AT, UH, I MEAN, BUT I, BUT I ACKNOWLEDGE WHAT THEY'RE DOING TO THE BACK TO CREATE, LIKE, I, I DON'T, THIS ISN'T SIMILAR TO MANY OF THE OTHER THINGS WHERE THEY'RE, THAT THEY'RE JUST AGGRESSIVELY BUILDING EVERYTHING THEY CAN AND THEN ASK THEM.
SO I, I, I THINK WHAT THEY'RE DOING WILL WORK AND IS RIGHT.
YOU JUST WANNA SAY, BUT YOU'RE TELLING ME I I CAN'T MAKE THE DEAL.
THE DEAL HE'S PROPOSING IS A GOOD DEAL.
AND LIKE I SAID, HIS CLIENT IS MORE THAN CAPABLE AND ABLE TO DO THAT.
WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT YOU CANNOT, AS A CONDITION OF THE VARIANCE, REQUIRE IT, THEY CAN CHOOSE TO DO IT.
LIKE, AND IF, IF, IF IT'S A SMART BUSINESS PRACTICE, I ASSUME THAT MR. SANTOS CLIENT WILL DO SO.
IF IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT REQUIRED BY THE, LIKE, THIS BOARD CANNOT REQUIRE IT.
SO, SO, UM, COUNSEL, UM, I ALMOST REFER, UH, COUNSEL.
SO FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, UM, WHAT I THINK I HEAR YOU SAYING IS THAT WE CAN'T REQUIRE HIM TO DO THE 28 SPACES.
IF THIS, IF THIS CLIENT WANTS TO GO OFF AND, AND, AND SECURE 28 ADDITIONAL SPACES, FINE.
WHAT'S BEFORE US TODAY IS WHETHER OR NOT THE CONDITIONS OF THE PROPERTY ARE LIMITING IN THE WAY THAT THEY CANNOT DEVELOP.
AND SO BASED ON WHAT THEY'RE ASKING, UH, A 75%, 75% REDUCTION, WE CAN EITHER AGREE TO THAT 75% REDUCTION OR SOMETHING SHORT OF 75%, UM, UH, FOR, FOR THIS PARTICULAR APPLICANT.
IS THAT CORRECT? UH, LET, LET ME MAKE SURE I, LET ME MAKE SURE I WANNA REPEAT IT BACK.
YOU COULD GRANT A SMALLER DECREASE.
SO, SO INSTEAD OF 75% THAT THEY'RE ASKING, WE COULD SAY, WELL, WE CAN GRANT, WE CAN GRANT 60% REDUCTION.
AND, AND IT'S NOT JUST AN ARBITRARY NUMBER, RIGHT? IT'S BASED ON ALL OF THOSE VARIANCES, RIGHT.
OR THE, THE ELEMENTS OF THE VARIANCE, RIGHT? IT'S NOT JUST, OH, THIS NUMBER SEEMS APPROPRIATE, RIGHT? WE'RE JUST F*****G OUT OF THIN AIR.
[01:10:02]
I DON'T BELIEVE THAT ANYTHING SAYS THAT, OKAY, ONCE YOU DECIDE SOMETHING'S GOT A WEIRD SLOPE, YOU THEN THEREFORE MUST GRANT ANYTHING THERE.AND WHY NOT? 300%? I MEAN, OUTSIDE OF THE FACT THAT WE DIDN'T KNOW THIS, WHY NOT 1%? WELL, IT DOESN'T REALLY SOLVE THIS PROBLEM.
UH, SO I, I JUST FEEL STRANGE TO SAY YOU'VE GOTTA MAKE AN ISOLATION.
ONE DECISION ERGO TO ONLY ONE THING.
I MEAN, THEY, THEY, THE, THE AMOUNT OF RELIEF, WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A 13 FOOT WALL AND A SEVEN FOOT WALL OR SOMETHING? WELL, BUT I, I DON'T, THAT'S WHAT I DON'T THINK THE HAND SAYS UP OR DOWN.
AND OH, BY THE WAY, IT HAS TO BE UP BECAUSE YOU THINK THERE'S A SLOW, I JUST, I I THINK THERE'S MY WE'RE STILL IN YOUR, IN YOUR, WELL THAT, THAT'S FINE.
MR. CHAIRMAN, I JUST, I JUST WANNA REITERATE A FEW THINGS.
THE STANDARD IS WHAT IS, WHAT IS THE DIFFERENT ABOUT THIS PROPERTY IN A NORMAL CR ZONING DISTRICT, IF, IF A PROPERTY OWNER WANTS TO REDEVELOP IT, BUT HAS TO RE DEMOLISH HALF OF ITS EXISTING STRUCTURE, THAT GOES TO CAUSE ON RESTRICTIVE SIZE, IF WHAT WE'VE ALREADY DEMONSTRATED AND, AND SWORN UNDER OATH, I HAVE A DIFFERENCE IN GRADE FROM MY PARKING LOT TO MY RESTAURANT FLOOR, THAT GOES TO SLOPE AS WELL.
SO THERE'S TWO IDENTIFIABLE PROPERTY HARDSHIPS THAT WE DID NOT CREATE.
THIS IS HOW THIS PROPERTY HAS BEEN SINCE IT WAS DEVELOPED IN 1951 WITH AN AUTO RELATED USE.
HAD AN AUTO RELATED USE, WANTED TO GO BACK IN, IT WOULD'VE ALREADY DONE THAT.
UH, IT WOULD'VE DONE THAT YEARS AGO.
BUT WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO MAINTAIN THE REMAINDER OF THIS STRUCTURE AND PROVIDED INTO A USE NOW THAT THERE'S MORE RESIDENTIAL TO ACTUALLY MAKE IT AN ASSET AND AMENITY TO THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.
WHAT I REALLY DON'T WANT FOLKS TO THINK, AND I MAYBE THAT'S WHERE THIS CONFUSION IS GETTING, IS THAT I THINK TYPICALLY WHEN I WAS WITH THE BOARD AS WELL, YOU DIDN'T WANT TO GRANT A VARIANCE FOR 75% AND THINK, WELL, THAT'S IT.
YOU, THEY'RE JUST GONNA PARK WHEREVER THEY WANT TO.
WE ACTUALLY HAVE DEMONSTRATED WE'RE GONNA MANAGE THAT.
WE HAVE A FACILITY THAT'S AGREED TO POST R 21.
THERE'S STILL SPACES IN THE STREET THAT ARE FREE FOR PEOPLE TO PARK A LOT NEXT TO US.
THE VACANT LOT, THEY GET THAT RIGHT.
ALL THE PROPERTIES TO THE WEST OF US ACROSS ZAG, THEY'VE GOT THAT RIDE.
WE JUST DON'T, 'CAUSE WE'RE CR SO I THINK THE REALITY OF IT IS PEOPLE ARE PARKING IN THE STREETS IN THESE ZONING DISTRICTS.
THEY'RE BEING ABLE TO COUNT THOSE SPACES.
UM, IT'S THE SAME OWNER OF THE PEOPLE TO THE EAST OF US IS THE SAME OWNER WHO OWNS THE SEVEN 11 TO THE WEST OF US.
THEY, THEY'VE GOT MORE PROPERTY AND THEY'VE BEEN ABLE TO COMBINE THEIR LOTS TO MAKE THEM DEVELOPABLE.
THEY'RE NOT SELLING SEVEN ELEVEN'S NOT SELLING.
WE DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER CHOICE.
UM, I DON'T, I JUST DON'T WANT THE CONFUSION TO BE, WE KNOW WE CAN STILL PROVIDE THE SPACE.
IT'S OUTSIDE THE NORMAL BOUNDS FOR THE CITY TO ACKNOWLEDGE IT.
WE JUST BROUGHT THIS UP SO THAT THERE'S MORE, I WOULD HAVE HOPE, COMFORT FROM THE BOARD TO SHOW THAT WE'RE WE, I'VE MADE AN, A PRACTICAL APPROACH TO FIND 21 SPOTS.
IT'S JUST BEYOND 300 FEET FOR US TO COUNT IT.
BUT THE STANDARD STILL REMAINS.
THE NEIGHBOR TO THE WEST OF US BOUGHT FOUR LOTS AND GRADED IT SO HE COULD MAKE IT FLAT.
IT'S EITHER A RESTAURANT OR A HOT DOG THING.
DOES IT MATTER WHAT? I THINK IT DOES? I HOPE NOT.
BUT
I I, I MEAN, I TAKE YOUR POINT, RIGHT? UM, AND I AGREE THAT IT, IT MAY BE A BENEFIT AND TO THE, TO THE COMMUNITY AT, AT, AT LARGE.
UH, BUT I'M NOT SURE JUST BECAUSE YOU WANT TO PUT SOMETHING THERE AND IT HAS THESE RESTRICTIONS THAT WE SHOULD OR SHOULD NOT GRANTED.
SO THAT, THAT'S WHERE I, IT'S, YEAH.
DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION? THESE INDIVIDUALS APPEAR TO BE EXPERIENCED RESTAURANT TOURS, AND I, IT IS MY CONTENTION THAT THEY WOULD NOT BE GOING TO THE EXPENSE OF DEMOLISHING HALF THE BUILDING AND DOING ALL THESE OTHER THINGS TO HAVE AN UNSUCCESSFUL OPERATION.
SO THEY WILL DO EVERYTHING IN THEIR POWER TO MAKE SURE THAT THEIR, UH, CLIENTS ARE ADEQUATELY PARKED, WHETHER THEY DRIVE A BICYCLE.
SORRY, BUT THE PROPERTY HAS TO BE CONSIDERED AS TO THE
[01:15:01]
LOCATION, THE SLOPE AND THE CONTEXT OF THAT PROPERTY.ARE THERE, JUST SO WE ARE, ARE YOU THE ONLY SPEAKER FOR THERE SPEAKERS AGAINST, UH, OKAY.
I JUST WANT TO, WANT TO GET THROUGH SO THAT WE, WE, MR. MARTINEZ IS STANDING UP HERE WHILE WE TALK AMONGST OURSELVES.
ARE ARE THERE QUESTIONS FOR MR. MARTINEZ? NO, I HAVE A MOTION.
I WILL ADD THAT THE VACANT LOT TO THE EAST OF US, WE ACTUALLY DID APPROACH THAT PROPERTY OWNER TO SAY THAT WAS OUR FIRST APPROACH FOR A PARKING AGREEMENT.
UH, THAT PROPERTY OWNER IS CONSIDERING A CONCEPT FOR A RESTAURANT AS WELL.
UM, AND ACCORDING TO MY CLIENT, UH, THERE WAS, THERE WAS A CONVERSATION THAT WE WOULD PAY FOR THAT PARKING LOT AND WE WOULD PAY A LEASE PAYMENT OF $11,000 A MONTH.
THE RESPONSE WAS WHY NOT 13? WE HAD AGREED TO THAT, THAT PROPERTY OWNER SUBSEQUENTLY CHANGED THEIR MIND.
SO, I MEAN, IT'S NOT THAT WE, THIS IS HOW WE LANDED AT FIRST OUT OF THE GATE.
WE HAVE HAD CONVERSATIONS FOR OVER A YEAR TRYING TO FIND PROPERTY WITHIN THAT 300 FEET, AND THE FIRST ONE ULTIMATELY WAS REJECTED.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? MR. RICHARDSON, DO YOU HAVE A COMMENT ON THAT? HE'S HE'S IN FAVOR OF IT.
ARE THERE FURTHER SPEAKER? ARE THERE SPEAKERS AGAINST? NONE? UH, I HAVE A MOTION.
I MOVE, UH, THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 4 5 DASH OH TWO SIX ON APPLICATION OF SANTOS MARTINEZ GRANT, THE 21 SPACE VARIANCE TO THE PER REGULATION REQUESTED BY THIS APPLICANT.
BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE DALLAS 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 OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE.
COMPLIANCE WITH THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF ALL SUBMITTED PLANS ARE REQUIRED IS, SO SECOND.
AGNE MOTION, UH, POLL SECONDS.
SO, UH, WE'VE SEEN CASES IN SITUATIONS LIKE THAT WHERE THIS WORK, PEOPLE TAKE THE SAME LOT AND THEY WANNA BUILD TWO STORIES AND, UH, PROVIDE TWO SPACES AND THEY WANNA, HEY, JUST TRUST US.
AND I DON'T, UH, IN THIS CASE, THE APPLICANT'S DOING IT RIGHT.
THEY'RE DEMOLISHING HALF, THEY'RE PROVIDING ONSITE SPACES.
THEY WOULD BE NUTS TO NOT FIGURE OUT HOW, HOW TO DO IT, TO, TO FIND OTHER SPACES.
BUT IN THE END, UM, IF I'M WRONG, THE PEOPLE WHO PAY ARE THE PEOPLE WHO ARE NEXT DOOR.
I MEAN, THERE'S ONLY SO MANY PLACES FOR CARS TO GO IN THIS CASE.
I APPRECIATE THAT THEY'RE DOING PART OF IT.
WE'VE SEEN SOME MUCH MORE AGGRESSIVE THINGS, UH, AND, UH, AND I THINK THE REALITIES OF THEIR BUSINESS WILL, WILL MAKE THEM DO IT.
I, I HOPE I'M NOT ACCEPTING, BUT, UM, BUT THAT'S WHY I SUPPORT IT.
UH, LARGELY THEY'RE NOT, THEY'RE NOT TRYING TO BUILD ON EVERY SQUARE INCH.
UH, SO THAT'S WHY I MADE THE MOTION WHILE I VOTE FOR, AND IT'S BEEN STATED THAT WE MAKE A VARIANCE BASED ON THE PROPERTY.
AND I, IT'S IMPORTANT TO TAKE THAT PROPERTY INTO CONTEXT AND WHERE IT IS LOCATION LOCATED, IT IS A VERY URBANIZED AREA AND THERE IS A LOT OF WALKING AND PEOPLE WHO, UM, PARTICIPATE IN SHOPS AND RESTAURANTS WITHIN A VERY RELATIVELY CONFINED AREA IN WHICH THEY LIVE.
SO I JUST DON'T THINK THIS WILL BE AN ISSUE.
YEAH, I DON'T THINK IT VIOLATES THE, THE PUBLIC INTEREST PART OF OUR, UH, OUR VARIANCE OR NEIGHBORING PRO, UH, MR. SASHING.
MS. WILLIAMS. MS. POLLARD? AYE.
[01:20:02]
THANK YOU.SO WE ARE NOW TO THAT POINT, HUH? WE'VE DONE THE, SO, ALL RIGHT.
THIS IS BDA 2 4 5 DASH 0 4 1 5 1 1 4 MCKINNEY AVENUE.
UH, I THINK I'D LIKE, WELL, HOW DO YOU WANNA DO, WOULD YOU LIKE, FIRST OF ALL, DO WE, DO WE HAVE THE APPLICANT TO DO? WE DO.
I THINK YOU'VE HEARD US TALK ABOUT, ABOUT OUR LEGALITY QUESTION.
I THINK YOU'VE SEEN THE LETTERS AGAIN.
SO IF YOU COULD ADDRESS THAT AS WELL.
MR. VICE CHAIR, UM, WHILE THE APPLICANT IS GATHERING, UM, IS IT STILL FIVE MINUTES OR ARE WE, IS IT STILL FIVE MINUTES OR ARE WE GOING TO GRANT, UM, A LITTLE BIT MORE TIME? WE'RE GONNA END UP GRANTING TIME, BUT WE'RE GONNA PLAY IT BY EAR.
DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? I DO.
PLEASE GET CLOSER TO THE MIC, PLEASE.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND PROCEED.
MALLORY MUSE, 500 WINSTEAD BUILDING, REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT.
PROCEDURALLY, I WILL NOT DENY THAT THERE IS NO PROJECT ABOUT TO BE BUILT ON THIS SITE.
UM, RATHER THE REASON FOR OUR REQUEST IS WE RAN TITLE AND SOME TITLE MATTERS CAME UP.
SOME OLD DEED RESTRICTIONS ARE ON THIS PROPERTY THAT, UM, AREN'T IN COMPLIANCE WITH CURRENT ZONING LAWS.
AND SO WE WENT TO THE CITY TO TRY AND UNDERSTAND PROCEDURALLY NEXT STEPS.
AND, UM, AFTER CAREFUL CONSIDERATION, WE'RE TOLD THAT THIS BOARD IS THE CORRECT BODY TO DETERMINE THOSE, UM, THE FATE, IF YOU WILL, OF THOSE D RESTRICTIONS.
UM, GIVEN DISCUSSIONS THIS MORNING AND LETTERS OF OPPOSITION THAT WE RECEIVED THIS MORNING, WE ARE NOW HERE BEFORE YOU TO ASK FOR DENIAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
SO THAT IS OUR CURRENT REQUEST.
UM, IF WE COME BACK, WE WILL MAKE SURE THAT WE COORDINATE WITH STAFF WHO HAVE BEEN EXTREMELY HELPFUL IN THIS MATTER AND COORDINATE WITH COMMUNITY AS WELL.
UM, YOU'VE COME HERE, YOU'VE TALKED WITH, WITH THE NEIGHBORS.
UH, DENIAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE OBVIOUSLY MEANS A, A WHOLE NEW APPLICATION.
IF YOU THOUGHT, FOR EXAMPLE, THIS BOARD DOESN'T MEET NEXT MONTH, IF YOU THOUGHT THREE MONTHS, UH, I, I WON'T SPEAK FOR THE BOARD, BUT IF, IF YOU HAD ANY SENSE FOR DATE CERTAIN, UH, THERE'S AT LEAST THE ABILITY TO HOLD IT TO A DATE CERTAIN, BUT IT MAY BE CLEANER TO GRANT HER REQUEST, BUT I'LL STOP OVERTHINKING IT.
I DON'T THINK WE HAVE A DATE CERTAIN, SO I, I JUST BECAUSE I THINK WE'LL SEE IT AT SOME POINT, IS, IS IT YOUR UNDERSTANDING THAT OKAY, 78 HAPPENED? UH, OF COURSE, NONE OF US WERE ALIVE.
I WAS NOT, UH, PD 1 93 WAS NOT ALIVE.
UH, THE ZONING CHANGED SOMEWHERE IN THE NINETIES.
AND HOW, WHAT DID, IF PD 1 93 WERE TODAY, WOULD, WOULD THIS PROPERTY MEET CODE? UM, NO SIR.
DOES DOES IT MEET CODE TODAY? NO, I, I APPRECIATE THE QUESTION.
THE RESTRICTIONS WOULD NOT, THE, THE RESTRICTIONS ARE ODD.
SO THEY SAY THEY APPLY ONLY FOR SO LONG AS A RESIDENCE HOME FOR THE AGED IS USED ON THE PROPERTY.
UM, TODAY THAT USE IS NOT IN EXISTENCE UNDER PD 1 93.
WE HAVE RETIREMENT HOUSING, OR WE HAVE NURSING AND CONVALESCENT HOMES.
UM, AND THEN IMPORTANT TO NOTE AS WELL, UNDER THOSE TWO USES, UH, RETIREMENT HOUSING REQUIRES PARKING FOR EACH DWELLING UNIT.
NURSING REQUIRES HOUSING PER BED.
THESE RESTRICTIONS SAY YOU CAN HAVE 30 CARS PER RESIDENT.
SO IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE IN LIGHT OF CURRENT ZONING.
I, BUT I I I THOUGHT IT MAXIMUM PARKING FOR RESIDE IS 30 SPACES PER RE NO, FOR SORRY, FOR RESIDENTS.
I DOUBT THAT'S, THAT'S THE INTENTION.
BUT, UM, I ALSO READ IT TO BE THE USES OF, WAS IT CALLED SENIOR HOUSING? IS THAT A DIFFERENT USE THAN EXISTS? IT'S A, A RESIDENCE HOME FOR THE AGED FROM THE ZONING PEOPLE, BECAUSE I,
[01:25:01]
ONE IS, YOU CAN'T LEASE IT TO ANYBODY UNDER 65, WHICH I ASSUME THEY'RE TRYING TO ENFORCE WHATEVER USE THAT IS.SO, SO THAT IS ANOTHER IMPORTANT CONSIDERATION.
'CAUSE CURRENT FAIR HOUSING AND ZONING LAWS ACTUALLY SAY THAT IT'S 55.
UM, AND SO 65 WOULD BE IN VIOLATION OF FAIR HOUSING.
THAT'S HOW YOU SHOULD SOLVE THIS.
YEAH, I, UH, IF THAT'S THE CASE, THAT'S, UH, ACTUALLY CLEAR THAN WHAT WE, BUT SHE IS AT.
I I JUST WANTED TO UNDERSTAND WHERE WE AT LEAST PUT THAT ON THE RECORD.
SO I, SO WHAT I HEAR IS THERE'S NO PLAN RIGHT NOW.
UH, THE CURRENT USE IS, UH, AS A MEMORY CARE.
UH, OH, IT'S OF SOME FORM OF, I DON'T KNOW THE CORRECT TERM.
RETIREMENT, SENIOR LIVING, SORRY.
UM, NOT A RESIDENT HOME FOR THE AGE SENIOR LIVING.
MAKE SURE THERE ARE NO QUESTIONS.
UM, ARE THERE SPEAKERS IN OPPOSITION TO THE CASE SINCE YOU'RE HERE? UH, SPEAKER, I HAVE NEVER SEEN YOU DO ANYTHING FOR JUST A MOMENT, BUT IF YOU WANNA TRY IT, GO FOR IT.
I, I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW HOW LONG A MOMENT IS YOU, I UNDERSTAND THAT SHE HAS YOU DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE, DENIAL, DENY WITHOUT.
IS THAT IF THEY WANNA FIGURE OUT EXACTLY, AND THIS, THIS HELPS FURTHER IT AND WE SEE IT THAT IF THEY CAN DO IT IN TWO MINUTES, BUT I, LET'S, LET'S TAKE FIVE MINUTES.
WE WILL RECONVENE AT, AT, UH, 2:52 PM THANK YOU.
IT IS 2 52 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.
MR. I WANNA ADJUST, UH, IF I MAY, YOU DO HAVE FIVE MINUTES.
WE SHOULD SWEAR, YOUR HONOR, YOU, YOU SWEAR TO BE SWORN IN, SIR, I'M EXCUSE.
CAN I SPEAK PLEASE, SIR? DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? YES, MA'AM.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND PROCEED.
YOU WERE GETTING SOME LEGAL ADVICE FROM SOMEONE AT THIS TABLE DURING YOUR BRIEFING THAT, UM, FOR A MOMENT, I WANT TO ADDRESS THE IMPLICATION THAT, THAT THE OPPONENTS THAT YOU HAVE RECEIVED, UM, LETTERS FROM WERE SOMEHOW LOOKING FOR A GOTCHA.
AND BOY, IF, IF WE DON'T GET IT HERE BY SAYING THAT YOU DON'T HAVE ANY EXPLICIT JURISDICTION, THEN WE WOULD ARGUE IT AT CPC OR WE WOULD ARGUE IT AT THE CITY COUNCIL.
I WOULD LIKE TO MENTION THAT ONE OF THE LETTERS YOU GOT IS FROM MICHAEL NORTHROP, WHO JUST SUBMITTED A BRIEF AT THE CITY, AT THE REQUEST OF THE CITY OF DALLAS TO THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS TO UPHOLD VANESSA.
SO WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT CRANKS, WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE WHO ARE DISINTERESTED OR PEOPLE WHO ARE SHOWING UP HERE TO CATCH THEIR HAIR ON FIRE.
WE HAVE A LEGITIMATE CONCERN THAT THE TEXAS GOVERN LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE DOES NOT EMPOWER YOU TO DISPOSE OF DEED RESTRICTIONS.
THAT'S A LEGISLATIVE BODY, THE DALLAS CITY CODE CREATED BY THE DALLAS CITY COUNCIL AND ORDINANCES.
ALSO, A LEGISLATIVE BODY DOES NOT EMPOWER YOU TO MODIFY OR TERMINATE DEED RESTRICTIONS.
AND FURTHERMORE, THE CITY CODE EMPOWERS SPECIFICALLY THE CITY COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGER.
AND I BELIEVE WHAT THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE HAS DECIDED UPON IS BECAUSE A DEED RESTRICTION IMPLICATES YOUR
[01:30:01]
PARTICIPATION THAT SOMEHOW EXPLICITLY EMPOWERS YOU.MELISSA KINGSTON DISAGREES WITH THAT.
A FORMER CITY ATTORNEY WHO ASKED ME NOT TO NAME HIM AGREES WITH THAT.
MICHAEL YOUNG AGREES WITH THAT.
THESE ARE ALL PEOPLE WHO HAVE SERVED THIS CITY.
SORRY, DO YOU MEAN AN ALL STAR SHORTSTOP FOR THE TEXAS RANGERS? YEAH, WE, I, I COULD DIG UP MORE.
IT'S A LITTLE MOOT TODAY BECAUSE WE'RE GONNA HAVE A DENIAL AT THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST.
BUT THE LEGAL MECHANISM HERE IS, AS YOU STATED IN THE BRIEFING, THIS DEED RESTRICTION IN RENEWS TO THE CITY OF DALLAS, THEY'RE VESTED WITH THIS PROPERTY INTEREST THAT IS ON THIS TRACT OF LAND.
WE CAN COUNT ON SENIOR HOUSING BECAUSE THIS DEED RESTRICTION EXISTS THAT NO ONE UNDER 65 CAN RESIDE THERE.
I DON'T CARE ABOUT THE PARKING, I DON'T CARE ABOUT ANYTHING ELSE.
I CARE ABOUT THE FACT THAT THAT IS A SIGNIFICANT IMPORTANT, UH, DEBATED AT COUNCIL OVER AND OVER AGAIN.
HOW DO WE GET MORE SENIOR HOUSING? HOW DO WE GET MORE SENIOR HOUSING? I AM JUST SUGGESTING THAT A FIVE PANEL BOARD THAT I AM PROUD OF HAVING BEEN A PART OF, I LED THIS PANEL FOR EIGHT YEARS.
I WANT TO ENSURE THAT YOU ARE NOT PLACED IN THE POSITION OF ESSENTIALLY DECIDING WHETHER MEMAW HAS A PLACE TO LIVE OR NOT.
BECAUSE THEY MAY SELL TO A DIFFERENT OWNER WHO SAYS, BOY, I'D LIKE TO PUT UP A PD 1 93 PARKING LOT, THAT DEED RESTRICTION INURED TO THE CITY OF DALLAS TO GUARANTEE THAT SENIOR HOUSING WAS PROVIDED MEMORY CARE, INDEPENDENT LIVING, ASSISTED LIVING.
I BELIEVE THAT THE CITY MANAGER, MANAGER, AND COUNCIL, AS ARE THE PROPER CHANNELS WHO ARE EXPLICITLY TOLD THAT THEY HAVE PURVIEW ARE THE PEOPLE WHO SHOULD MAKE THOSE DECISIONS.
NOT A PANEL THAT DOESN'T HAVE A STANDARD STANDARD FOR THIS.
YOU DON'T HAVE A VOTING MARGIN FOR THIS.
YOU DON'T HAVE ANY INFORMATION HOW TO HEAR THIS CASE.
AND THE PERSON WHO WAS GIVING YOU ADVICE SUGGESTED, WELL, IF YOU'RE GONNA BE, IF YOU'RE NOT GONNA BE CAPRICIOUS AND ARBITRARY, YOU JUST HAVE TO LISTEN TO THE PLANS.
WELL, THEY'RE GONNA SELL THE PROPERTY.
AND IF THIS DEED RESTRICTION IS LIFTED, MEMAW DOESN'T HAVE A PLACE TO LIVE.
IF THEY DECIDE THAT THEY'RE GOING TO DEVELOP SOMETHING ELSE, IT'S PRETTY MUCH THAT CUT AND DRIED.
I THINK YOU SHOULD WANT THE COUNSEL TO DECIDE IT.
I THINK THAT YOU COULD DENY IT BECAUSE YOU DON'T THINK YOU'RE THE PROPER BODY.
AND I DON'T THINK YOU WOULD GET SLAPPED AS INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE.
I THINK IT WOULD BE GOOD FOR A COURT TO DECIDE WHETHER YOU HAD THE POWER TO DISSOLVE OR MODIFIED DEED RESTRICTIONS.
THIS INSTITUTION IS IMPORTANT TO ME.
THAT'S WHY I AM MAKING THE INPUT.
AND, UM, THIS OUTCOME IS UNFORTUNATELY WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
SO IT CAN'T BE, IT'S NOT A FINAL RULING.
I WOULD, I WOULD GIVE A STRAIGHT DENIAL.
THAT WAY WE CAN GO TO THE COURTS AND SEE IF YOU ARE EMPOWERED TO MODIFY OR DISSOLVE THE RESTRICTIONS.
IT WOULD BE GOOD FOR THE COURTS TO SPEAK ON THAT.
YOU DO HAVE A REBUTTAL? UH, I THINK THE PANEL IS INCLINED TO GRANT YOUR REQUEST.
UH, DO I HAVE A MOTION? UH, VICE CHAIR AG? I HAVE A MOTION.
I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS, UM,
[01:35:01]
UH, GRANT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT TO DENY THE PREJUDICE, UM, WITHOUT PREJUDICE.UM, SORRY TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
I SAY, GRANT, THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
I SECOND MR. STON, YOU'RE MOTION.
LISTEN, I, UM, I, I DO TAKE BRUCE'S POINT, ALL OF THEM AS VALID.
UM, BUT I LIKE TO ALLOW THIS TO PLAY OUT AND GIVE THE APPLICANT WHAT THEY ASKED FOR.
I I, I WOULD PREFER PEOPLE, I MEAN, I'D SAY IF YOU'RE GONNA, THERE ARE SOME ISSUES.
AND WHILE I'M NOT A LAWYER AND TRY PRETTY HARD NOT TO CLAIM ONE, IF THIS WERE COMING, I THINK IN, IN ANY FORM OF A COURT, YOU'D HAVE SOME FORM OF BRIEF ON THESE ISSUES.
'CAUSE THE FUNDAMENTAL DISAGREEMENTS THAT I WOULD, I MEAN, WE, WE HAVE OUR ATTORNEY'S OPINION AND, AND SO WE, WE ACCEPT THAT.
UH, BUT IT WOULDN'T, YOU KNOW, YOU LOOK FORWARD ON AND SAY, ALL RIGHT, HOW, HOW DO I FIGURE OUT WHAT ON THE, THE BASIS ON WHICH I DO IT? I WOULD PROBABLY TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THE INTERESTS OF THE CITY ARE.
NOW, IF THE CITY WANTED TO SPEAK TO IT, THAT WOULD MAKE IT EASIER.
IF IN FACT, IT IS AN ISSUE OF BEING AN ILLEGAL DEED RESTRICTION, THAT'S A CLEANER ISSUE.
IF THAT'S THE CASE, AND OBVIOUSLY YOU DON'T COME TO THIS COURT, BUT, UH, SO TAKE THE TIME TO HASH IT OUT, COMES BACK.
SO OPERATING WITHOUT A STANDARD, WE, WE SPEND ALL OF OUR TIME TALKING TO OURSELVES ABOUT LIMITING THE, THE DECISION WE MAKE AND, AND THE THINGS THAT WE'RE NOT ALLOWED TO TALK ABOUT.
BUT, BUT, UH, I'M, I'M GLAD THERE'S A CHANCE TO TALK THROUGH THOSE THOUGH.
UM, THE, UH, THE RECORD AND, AND RESTATE, UH, MR. RICHARDSON'S, UM, UH, I, I REFERRED TO HIM AS BRUCE, MR. RICHARDSON'S, UH, COMMENTS.
OTHER COMMENTS? OKAY, MS. WILLIAMS. MS. P*****K? AYE.
OKAY, SO LET'S CALL BD TWO FOUR FIVE DASH 0 2 8 1 9 0 0 WHEATLAND ROAD.
DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? I'M SORRY, WE CAN'T HEAR YOU.
UH, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME, ADDRESS, AND PROCEED.
MY ADDRESS IS 35 0 1 11TH BOULEVARD, DALLAS, TEXAS.
AND I BELIEVE, UH, THERE'S A PRESENTATION FOR WE'RE HAVING A TOUGH TIME HEARING YOU.
I DON'T KNOW WHETHER YOU'RE ABLE TO INCREASE YOUR GAIN OR TRY AGAIN.
HOW ABOUT THAT? DOES THAT HELP ANYMORE? IS THAT, I'M SORRY.
CAN YOU, CAN YOU TRY AGAIN? YES.
IS THAT, IS THAT ANY BETTER? CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? YES.
UM, I'VE SAID I BELIEVE THERE'S PRESENTATION FOR THIS CASE AND, UM, PULL UP GREATLY APPRECIATE IT.
[01:40:04]
WELL, I FIRST WANNA SAY BIG THANK YOU TO ALL EMPLOYEE, NURSING STAFF FOR WORKING WITH THIS ON THIS CASE.AND THIS IS A HOLDOVER LAST MONTH AND THERE'S BEEN A, A FEW ITEMS THAT WE HAVE DISCUSSED WITH STAFF, MADE SOME ADJUST.
YOU WERE BACK IN, IN, UH, BAD RECEPTION, CELL PHONE TALKING.
YOU'RE GETTING ABOUT HALF OF A WORD IN.
I DON'T EXACTLY KNOW HOW TO SOLVE IT, RIGHT? IS THAT ANY BETTER? KIND OF, I MEAN, AS LONG AS IT DOESN'T CUT OUT, I, WE'LL JUST, WE'LL LET YOU KNOW IF YOU HAVE TO GO BACK.
ARE YOU CALLING IN? IS THAT WHAT'S HAPPENING? NO, I AM.
CAN YOU HEAR ME OKAY NOW? OH, OH, TRY AGAIN.
IS THAT ANY BETTER? WE'LL GO WITH WHAT WE GOT.
WELL MY NAME IS DAVID, DAVID PITCHER AGAIN.
UM, I WILL SAY THOUGH THAT THERE ARE OTHER PEOPLE, UM, THAT ARE FROM KFM AS WELL THAT ARE PREPARED TO SPEAK IF THE, UM, AUDIO DOES NOT WORK HERE.
SO, ACCOMPANY ME, WE GOT JOSH MILLSAP AS WELL AS SAM SNYDER.
SO JUST LET, PLEASE LET ME KNOW IF IT BECOMES AN ISSUE AND WE CAN HAVE THEM SWITCH OVER TO THE PRESENTATION.
SO FIRST I JUST WANNA SAY THANK YOU TO EVERYONE, UM, FOR WORKING WITH US THROUGH THESE LAST COUPLE OF MONTHS ON THIS PROJECT.
UM, I WILL SAY THAT SINCE OUR LAST MEETING, WE'VE HAD MULTIPLE CONVERSATIONS WITH STAFF AND HAVE MADE SOME ADJUSTMENTS TO CLARIFY WHAT OUR REQUEST IS TO THE BOARD.
UM, I DID WANT TO, I HAD THE PRESENTATION THAT WAS PREPARED PREVIOUSLY WITH SOME ADJUSTMENTS MADE TO THE END.
SO JUST FOR CLARITY'S SAKE, I'D LIKE TO RUN THROUGH SOME OF THOSE SAME CONVERSATIONS WE HAD.
SO IF YOU COULD GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, I'D APPRECIATE IT.
UH, I WILL TRY, I WILL KEEP THIS BRIEF AND THEN IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS ON SOME OF THE SUMMARY ITEMS, WE CAN ALWAYS GO BACK TO THEM.
YOU HAVE TWO PANELISTS WHO WERE NOT HERE LAST MONTH, SO YOU, YOU HAVE GREAT, THANK YOU SO MUCH.
UH, THE UNIVERSITY HILLS IS THE NAME OF THE DEVELOPMENT THAT WE ARE WORKING ON.
UM, JUST SO WE, JUST SO EVERYONE KNOWS, WE HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH STAFF FOR A PRETTY SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF TIME FOR ON THIS DEVELOPMENT, UM, THROUGH ALL DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS.
AND IT IS A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LANCASTER ROAD AND INTERSTATE 20.
SO IT'LL BE SINGLE FAMILY COMMERCIAL, MIXED USE, MULTIFAMILY, A LARGE DEVELOPMENT, AND YOU CAN SEE A SCREENSHOT OF THE CONCEPT PLAN HERE.
OR THE HARDSHIP ON THE PROPERTY.
UM, THEY, THE HISTORICAL USE OF THIS PROPERTY HAS BEEN AGRICULTURE.
SO DURING THE TIME THAT THERE, THERE WAS FARMING DONE ON THIS LAND, THERE WERE AGRICULTURAL CHANNELS THAT WERE DUG, UM, TO, IN LIEU OF WHERE THE NATURAL CHANNELS WERE.
AND THOSE MANMADE CHANNELS WERE NOT DESIGNED TO ANY TYPE OF ENGINEERING STANDARD.
SO WHAT HAS HAPPENED ON THE PROPERTY IS, UH, NOW THE FLOODPLAIN IN THE AREAS OF THOSE MANMADE CHANNELS IS MUCH LARGER.
SO THE CITY HAS PRETTY STRINGENT REQUIREMENTS FOR TREE REMOVAL OF TREES THAT ARE WITHIN FLOODPLAIN AREAS.
SO IT'S CAUSING A HARDSHIP ON THE AMOUNT OF TREES THAT WE'RE ABLE, UM, TO REMOVE TO REALLY MAKE THIS PROJECT A SUCCESS.
SO THE, IF YOU CAN SEE ON THE SCREEN, THERE IS A, A VERY WIDE LIGHT BLUE AREA.
NOW THAT, THAT IS THE CURRENT FLOODPLAIN A HUNDRED YEAR FLOODPLAIN THAT ENCUMBERS THE PROPERTY.
AND THAT IS DUE TO, TO THE FACT THAT THE CHANNELS ARE VERY SHALLOW IN THOSE AREAS.
AND IF YOU COULD GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, THERE HAVE A COUPLE OF AERIAL IMAGES TO SHOW WHEN THIS HAPPENED OR WHAT THE EFFECTS ARE.
SO ON THE LEFT YOU SEE A, A PICTURE FROM THE 1950S AND YOU CAN SEE THERE'S A STRAIGHT CHANNEL THAT WAS DUG FROM, UM,
[01:45:01]
THE EXISTING CREEK ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE SOUTH.NOW, OVER THE YEARS SINCE THIS PROPERTY HAS BEEN ABANDONED, AND AT LEAST NOT, HAS NOT BEEN FARMED, AND SO HAS BEEN OVERGROWN WITH ADDITIONAL TREES AND BRUSH.
SO THERE'S THE SAME PICTURE OF THE SITE, BUT IN TWO, IN 2020.
SO ONE THING THAT, AND THIS IS ADDED TO THE PRESENTATION, UM, I WANTED TO SHOW A BRIEF CLIP OF WHAT THE TREE REMOVAL PLAN LOOKS LIKE.
I KNOW THERE WAS A QUESTION ON HOW MANY TREES WERE BEING REMOVED, UM, WHAT THE ACTUAL NUMBERS WERE GONNA LOOK LIKE.
SO THE INTENT OF THIS DEVELOPMENT WAS TO KEEP THE NATURAL CHANNELS IN PLACE WHERE THEY WERE AND UTILIZE THE MAN MANMADE CHANNELS FOR DETENTION AREAS.
SO THIS AREA THAT'S OUTLINED IN GREEN, IT SHOWS WHERE THE NATURAL CREEKS ARE AND THE MAJORITY OF THE, THE OLDER TREES OR UM, MORE DENSE TREES IN THOSE NATURAL CHANNELS ARE BEING MAINTAINED.
AND ALL THE TREES WITHIN THAT MANMADE CHANNEL IN THE CENTER OF THE PROPERTY ARE SHOWING TO BE REMOVED.
NOW, ONE THING THAT WE DID, UM, BASED OFF THE REQUEST OF STAFF IN THIS LAST COUPLE MONTHS IS COME UP WITH A QUANTIFIABLE NUMBER OF TREES THAT WERE IMPACTED BY THIS FLOODPLAIN.
SO WE'VE PROVIDED A DETAILED LIST OF ALL THE TREES WITHIN THIS AREA THAT ARE IMPACTED.
AND NOT ONLY THAT, WE PROVIDED A, A LIST OF ALL OF THE TREES ON THE PROPERTY THAT WILL BE REMOVED WITH A TOTAL INCH NUMBER.
SO THE TOTAL INCHES THEN THAT WE WOULD BE REMOVING WITH THE PHASE ONE IS ABOUT 24,000 INCHES.
UM, BASED OFF OF ARTICLE X, WE WOULD BE REQUIRED TO MITIGATE 14,000 OF THOSE INCHES.
NOW THAT'S DUE TO SPECIES LOCATION, A MYRIAD OF OF REASONS.
SO IS THAT DRIVEN BY A PERCENTAGE? WHAT DRIVES 14? 7 33.
IT'S MOSTLY DRIVEN BY SPECIES.
THERE'S CLASS ONE, TWO CLASS THREE TREES.
SO THE LIST THEN, UM, OF THE TREES THAT WERE IMPACTED BY THIS LARGER FLOODPLAIN AREA IS ONLY 3,305 OF THOSE INCHES.
SO THE REQUEST THEN, INSTEAD OF, UM, INSTEAD OF WAIVING THE REQUIREMENT FOR OLD FIELD, WE LIKE TO REQUEST A REDUCTION OF THE MITIGATION INCHES BY 3304.7.
NOW THIS IS BASED OFF OF THE LIST OF EVERY DETAILED TREE THAT IS IN THAT AREA ADDED UP TOGETHER.
NOW, WHAT WE ARE PREPARED TO DO AS, UM, AS IN ADDITION TO THIS REQUEST IS BY PLANTING TREES TO REPLACE THE, THE REST OF THE TREES THAT WILL BE REDUCED, THAT WILL BE REMOVING.
SO THEY, THEIR PLAN ON THE RIGHT IS A CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN THAT SHOWS THE PROPOSED TREES AND THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF TREES THAT WERE PLA THAT WE'RE PROPOSING TO PLANT IS 7,000, SORRY, 6,792.
SO WELL ABOVE THE AMOUNT THAT WE'RE ASKING TO PRODUCE THE MITIGATION BY NEXT SLIDE.
OBVIOUSLY THESE ARE OUR CONTACTS.
UM, A COUPLE THINGS I WANTED TO JUST CLARIFY TOO.
UM, SO, UH, SOME OF THE QUESTIONS THAT AROSE ON THE LAST MEETING WAS ABOUT A, A, A TREE SURVEY FOR THE ENTIRE PROPERTY AS WELL AS A DELINEATION OF THE FOREST STANDS.
SO THAT INFORMATION HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO STAFF, UH, WAS PROVIDED TO STAFF AFTER OUR LAST MEETING.
SO THERE'S A FULL TREE SURVEY DONE FOR THE ENTIRE PROPERTY AS WELL AS A STUDY BY AN ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP THAT'S, THAT SHOWS WHICH, WHICH TREE STANDS WOULD QUALIFY FOR THE OLD FIELD AREAS.
UM, I DID WANT TO SPECIFY THAT WE, WE HAVE SPLIT UP OUR APPLICATIONS AND OUR PRESENTATIONS INTO BOTH PROPERTIES.
SO THIS IS SPECIFICALLY FOR THE 1900 EAST WHEATLAND PROPERTY.
AND THE NEXT CASE THERE WILL BE A SIMILAR PRESENTATION FOR THE 79 15 LANCASTER PROPERTY.
[01:50:01]
AND ALL THE NUMBERS THAT YOU SAW ON THIS PRESENTATION ARE SPECIFICALLY FOR THE 1900 EAST WHEATLAND PROPERTY.AND THEN I GUESS THE LAST THING WE'VE DISCUSSED IS THAT WE, WE DO HAVE THE, ALL THE DETAILED INFORMATION, UH, OF THE AMOUNT OF TREES INCLUDING ALL OF THE INCHES REDUCED, UM, AND REMOVED FOR EACH PROPERTY.
SO THAT HAS BEEN SENT TO STAFF AND REVIEWED, AND I BELIEVE THERE'S A STAFF REPORT THAT YOU SHOULD HAVE AS WELL THAT CONFIRMS SOME OF THOSE ITEMS. DO I UNDERSTAND? THANK YOU.
DO I UNDERSTAND THAT THAT WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING IS A PHASED MITIGATION PLAN OR IS IT JUST A PHASED BUILDING PLAN? IT'S JUST A PHASED BUILDING PLAN.
SO THERE ARE SOME, THERE ARE SOME PROPERTIES THAT ARE NOT BEING DEVELOPED AT THIS TIME, AND THOSE PROPERTIES WILL NEED TO PROVIDE THEIR OWN MITIGATION, IF THAT MAKES SENSE.
SO WE WE'RE CERTAINLY TOTAL AMOUNT OF TREES REMOVED.
I'M SORRY, YOU SAID THAT DOES ANSWER YOUR QUESTION.
I SAID IT ANSWERS MY QUESTION.
SO THE, THE 3,200, UH, INCH REDUCTION, SORRY, MR. IRWIN, I, IT'S 33 0 5.
UH, IS THAT DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WE TALKED OR HOW IS THAT? I, I JUST, I ALSO DON'T KNOW WHETHER ANY OF THE ANY OF THIS GOT SHIFTED FROM PROPERTY TO PROPERTY OR, NO.
UH, SO HE, MR. PITCHER WENT, WENT OVER THIS VERY WELL.
UH, HE GAVE US THE OVERALL AMOUNT OF TREES THAT ARE LOOKING TO BE REMOVED FOR THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT.
WHEN YOU GOT TO THE 24,260 INCHES.
THE, WHEN YOU GET THROUGH DEVELOPMENT WITH THE DEFENSES TO PROSECUTION, LIKE, UH, NEW STREET CONSTRUCTION AND SUCH AS THAT, THERE, THOSE ARE REDUCTIONS.
THEN THE CLASSIFICATION OF TREES ARE REDUCTIONS, UNPROTECTED TREES ARE REDUCTION.
SO YOU GET DOWN TO ACTUALLY, YOU'RE DEALING WITH 14,000 7 34 INCHES THAT, THAT'S ON HIS REPORT.
THE MITIGATION RATE THAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT FOR A REDUCTION OF THE 33 0 5, WHICH IS BASICALLY, UH, RELATED TO, UH, AREA THAT'S IN THAT DRAINAGE AREA THAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT.
SO THEY'RE SEEKING A, A NUMBER REDUCTION FROM THE OVERALL NUMBER THAT'S FOR THE WHOLE PROPERTY.
SO HE'S BEEN ABLE TO DEFINE THE OVERALL TREE, UH, MITIGATION POTENTIAL FOR THE PROPERTY.
THAT'S ALSO INCLUDING TREES THAT ARE GONNA PROTECT ON THE PROPERTY.
THEN ALSO, UH, THE AMOUNT THEY WOULD SEEKING A REDUCTION FOR.
AND THEN THEY'RE ALSO PRESENTING TO YOU THAT THEY ARE COMMITTING TO, UH, PLANTING BACK OVER 6,700 INCHES BACK INTO THE RESIDENTIAL TOWN HOME DEVELOPMENT THAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO.
BUT THEN THERE'LL BE ADDITIONAL MITIGATION THAT'LL BE APPLIED THROUGH THE MULTIFAMILY, THEY'LL BE BUILT IN THE FUTURE OR ANY OTHER DEVELOPMENT THAT'S HAPPENING THROUGHOUT OTHER PROJECTS THAT ARE GOING TO HAPPEN.
ALL OF THAT GONNA BE HANDLED THROUGH PERMITTING PROCESS.
SO WHILE ALL OF THIS CAN BE, MOST OF THIS CAN BE ADDRESSED THROUGH THE, THE, WELL THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS CAN ADDRESS THE MITIGATION AS YOU COME INTO THE PERMITS AND START CLEARING PROPERTY FOR THOSE PARTICULAR PROJECT.
THE, BUT FOR THE STREETS, THE, THE MITIGATION GOES AWAY AUTOMATICALLY FOR THAT BECAUSE OF THE DEFENSE PROSECUTION.
SO THERE'S A, THERE'S A NATURAL REDUCTION MITIGATION, AND THEN THERE'S, THEY'RE REQUESTING, IN THIS CASE, 3,305 INCHES.
MR. MILLER, MR. IRWIN, UH, AS A BOARD, HOW DO WE KNOW THAT THOSE, THAT MITIGATION, I GUESS, IS ADDRESSED BY THE, THROUGH THE PERMITTING PROCESS WHEN THEY COME BEFORE? RIGHT.
SO WHEN THEY COME IN FOR PERMITTING, ESSENTIALLY THEY'VE ALREADY GONE THROUGH PLA PROCESS.
WE KNOW WHERE THE ROADWAYS ARE, THE AREAS THAT ARE ENGINEERED THAT ARE REDUCED FOR MITIGATION FOR THOSE ROADWAYS ARE DEDUCTED.
WE LOOK AT THE PERMITS AND THEN WE DETERMINE THE TREES THAT ARE ON THE PROPERTY WHERE THAT PROJECT IS THEY SURVEYED FOR THE ENTIRE PROPERTY.
AND THE, THAT MITIGATION BE THE, THE FUTURE PROJECT WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE
[01:55:01]
FOR THAT MITIGATION ON THOSE IN THOSE PARTICULAR PROJECTS.SO THE MULTIFAMILY SECTION WILL HAVE ITS OWN MITIGATION AND THEY'LL PROBABLY TIE SOME OF THIS MITIGATION INTO THAT AS WELL.
SO THE, THE TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENT ONLY THE BEGINNING OF THE OVERALL MITIGATION, BUT THESE ARE NEW PLANTINGS GET PUT BACK INTO THE SITE REQUIRED BY LANDSCAPING PLUS WHAT THEY COULD PROVIDE A LONG STREET FRONTAGES AND, AND SUCH THAT, SO WE, WE CAN ADDRESS ALL THAT THROUGH THE PERMITTING PROCESS.
OUR PIN IN 2018 WAS AMENDED SO THAT WE CAN WORK THROUGH PERMITS TO BE ABLE TO, AS LONG AS PERMITTING PROCESS IS ONGOING THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT, THAT THE MITIGATION CAN BE RESOLVED IN THE PROCESS OF NEW CONSTRUCTION UNTIL THE PROJECT IS COMPLETED.
HOW MUCH OF THIS MITIGATION IS BEING PROPOSED? IS THERE ANY, BECAUSE I, I DON'T THINK I SEE IT BEING PROPOSED TO BE DONE OFFSITE.
IT'S HARD TO SAY AT THIS POINT.
WELL, I MEAN, ARTICLE 10 ALLOWS FOR THE MITIGATION TO BE PLANTED.
WITHIN FIVE MILES OF THE PROPERTY.
UH, BUT IT ALSO CAN BE PAID IN PART THROUGH A REFORESTATION FUND.
SO THE, BASICALLY, IF THERE'S PART OF IT THAT'S INCOMPLETE BEFORE THEY CAN GET A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, LIKE FOR THE MULTI-FAMILY PART, THEN THAT MIGHT HAVE TO BE RESOLVED BEFORE THEY CAN COMPLETE THAT MULTI-FAMILY, DEPENDING WHAT THE MITIGATION IS FOR THAT PARTICULAR PROPERTY.
SO WE LOOK, WE LOOK AT IT AS AN ADVANCE, THE PROJECT ADVANCES.
NOW WHAT THEY'RE REQUESTING ALSO IS TO, UH, SHOW THAT THEIR MITIGATION'S GONNA BE APPLIED INTO THE, ONTO THE TOWNHOUSE SITES, AND THEN THEY ALSO WANT TO BE ABLE TO PLANT SOME OF THOSE TREES ALONG THE STREETS, IT LOOKS LIKE.
SO I WANT, WE WOULD HAVE TO PROVIDE A CONDITION FOR THEM TO BE ALLOWED TO PLANT IN THE STREETS, UH, BA BASED UPON LICENSE ABILITY.
SO THE, THEY ARE PROVIDING PLACES TO LANDSCAPE IN THEIR PROPOSAL, WHICH IS DIFFERENT THAN A LANDSCAPE PLAN.
IT'S NOT, THEY'RE BASICALLY SAYING THESE ARE POTENTIAL PLACES AND WE DON'T EXACTLY KNOW WHERE.
SO EACH TOWNHOUSE IS REQUIRED AT LEAST ONE TREE, UH, ON A PROPERTY.
UH, WHERE THAT TREE IS LOCATED IS, IS TO BE DETERMINED.
UH, THEN THERE'S, THEY'RE ALSO TALKING ABOUT, LOOKS LIKE FROM THE CONCEPTUAL DRAWING, PROBABLY PLANTING WITHIN STREET ALONG THE STREETS IN ADDITION TO SOME OF THOSE TOWN HOMES.
SO THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT A, AN INCREASED DENSITY OF PLANTING WITHIN THAT, UH, IN, WITHIN THAT TOWNHOUSE AREA.
SO LAST TIME WE, WE GOT TO, UM,
WE DON'T EXACTLY KNOW WHAT WE'RE WAVING, BUT BY VIRTUE OF HAVING SOME KIND OF PLAN TO TIE IT TO AT LEAST WE DO, WELL, I BELIEVE WITH A PLAN THAT THEY'RE PRESENTING A PLAN IN VOLUNTARILY TO SAY THIS IS, WE'RE COMMITTING TO THIS MANY INCHES TO BE PLANTED HERE.
SO, YOU KNOW, A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF INCHES ARE GOING TO BE PLANTED BACK INTO THE PROPERTY BEFORE THEY EVEN COMPLETE ALL THE REST OF THE PROJECTS THAT ARE GOING TO HAPPEN WITH WITHIN THIS DEVELOPMENT.
SO A PORTION OF IT MAY STILL BE PAID INTO THE REFORESTATION FUND OR, OR IT MAY BE PLANTED SOMEPLACE ELSE, BUT MOST LIKELY IT'S ALL GONNA EITHER GONNA BE WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT OR PAID INTO THE REFORESTATION FUND.
AND WE, WE TYPICALLY WOULD PROBABLY SEE, BUT THAT'S WHAT I WAS TRYING TO ASK ABOUT WHEN I SAID PHASE MITIGATION.
BUT I, BUT THE PHASE MITIGATION IS BASICALLY BASED ON THE PERMITS THAT WILL BE ONGOING FOR DEVELOPMENT.
SO IT'S AREA DEVELOPS, THE TREES THEN GET REMOVED, THEY ARE THEN MITIGATED ACCORDING TO THAT PERMIT, AND BEFORE THEY GET A FINAL CO FOR THAT PARTICULAR PROPERTY, THEY WILL HAVE MITIGATION RESOLVED FOR THAT PARTICULAR PROPERTY.
SO IT'S AN ONGOING PROCESS CONTROLLED UNDER THE PERMIT PROCESS.
SO ALL THEY'RE ASKING AT THIS POINT, AT THE, AT THE ONSET IS TO SEEK THE REDUCTION OF THE 33 0 5 FOR THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY, WHICH IS WHAT PERCENT? I THINK THAT'S FROM THE 14 7 34
[02:00:02]
NUMBER.THAT'S A DIFFERENT NUMBER THAN WHAT THEY ASKED SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT.
WELL, UH, COMPARING IT TO WHAT IS ALREADY REDUCED, LIKE FOR THE 24,000 INCH NUMBER, WE'VE ALREADY REDUCED FOR WHAT ARTICLE 10 ALREADY REDUCES FOR, BUT THE DEFENSE OF THE PROSECUTION FOR THE CLASSIFICATION OF TREES, THEY'RE ALREADY, ALL THESE THINGS ARE ALREADY MEASURED INTO THAT 10,000 INCHES THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN TAKEN OFF THE TABLE BECAUSE THEY'RE REDUCED BY, BASED ON WHAT THE AGE AND COMPOSITION OF THAT STAND WAS IN THE FIRST PLACE.
DO YOU SUPPORT THIS? I SUPPORT IT, YEAH.
MRS. ULTIMATELY, I THINK WHAT I'M UNDERSTANDING NOW, MR. AARON, IS THAT, UM, AT TOWARDS THE END OF THE PROJECT THERE, THERE WILL, THEY WILL HAVE EITHER MITIGATED OR, OR PAID INTO THE REFOREST, SAY THAT WORD AGAIN? REFORESTATION FUND.
WELL, NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH THE DEFORESTATION PLAN.
YES, SO BY THE END OF THERE WOULD BE AGREEMENTS ALONG THE WAY THAT THEY'VE EITHER, UM, MET THE CREDITS OR PAID IN.
SO, AND EITHER WAY IS PER ARTICLE 10.
ANYBODY WANNA CONTRIBUTE YOU, ARE THERE OTHER QUESTIONS? YOU GUYS COME, HE'S SPOKEN FOR THE GROUP.
ARE ARE THERE SPEAKERS IN OPPOSITION? NO, THOSE SPEAKERS REGISTER, SIR.
UH, I PRESUME WE JUST, IS THERE ANYTHING YOU'D LIKE TO SAY IN, IN CONCLUSION TO THE APPLICANT? I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING UNLESS THERE'S ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS.
UM, ARE THERE OTHER QUESTIONS OR SHOULD WE TAKE A MOTION AND THEN DISPENSE? OKAY, LET'S TAKE A MOTION.
OKAY, MR. CHAIR, I HAVE A MOTION.
I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IN APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 4 5 DASH 29 ON THE APPLICATION OF, UH, DAVID PITCHER.
GRANT, THE REQUEST OF THIS APPLICANT FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE LANDSCAPE AND URBAN FOREST CONSERVATION REGULATIONS.
MR. MR. MILLIKEN, WE'RE, WE'RE ON OH TWO EIGHT.
HUH? DID YOU DO OH 2 9 2 8 ON THE APPLICATION OF DAVID PICTURE GRANT, THE REQUEST OF THIS APPLICA FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE LANDSCAPE IN URBAN FOREST CONSERVATION REGULATIONS CONTAINED IN ARTICLE 10 OF THE DALLAS DEVELOP CODE DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE 10 WILL UNREASONABLY BURDEN THE USE OF THE PROPERTY.
THE SPECIAL, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION, WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES, AND THE REQUIREMENTS ARE NOT IMPOSED BY SITE SPECIFIC LANDSCAPE PLAN APPROVED BY THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION OR CITY COUNCIL.
I FURTHER MOVE THAT THE FOLLOWING CONDITION BE IMPOSED TO FURTHER THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE.
ALL TREE MITIGATION TO BE PLANTED ON OTHER THAN SINGLE FAMILY LOTS MUST BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO THE FINAL CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY TO THE MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT ON THE PROPERTY.
REPLACEMENT TREES MAY BE PLANTED ON EXISTING OR PROPOSED STREETS THROUGHOUT THE PROPERTY IF AUTHORIZED BY LICENSE AND COMPLIANCE WITH THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF ALL SUBMITTED PLANS ARE REQUIRED.
IS THERE A SECOND SINGTON, SECOND MILLIKEN MOTION? SINGTON SECOND.
UH, IS THERE A, UH, CURRENT SITE, UH, LANDSCAPING PLAN? MR. UM, THERE IS
[02:05:01]
A TREE MITIGATION PLAN FOR THE PROPERTY THAT IDENTIFIES THE AREAS FOR PLANTING AND ALSO WITH THE TREE REMOVAL.SO THE MOTION JUST HELD IT TO A LANDSCAPE PLAN.
I THINK THAT WE SUBMITTED LANDSCAPE PLAN, THE SUBMITTED PLAN.
UM, IT'S YOUR MOTION, MR. MILKEN? I JUMPED IN.
I JUST FELT, UM, THE APPLICANT CAME BACK AND, UM, WITH BETTER NUMBERS AND WORKING WITH, UH, MR. IRVIN IN HIS DEPARTMENT, MR. IRWIN, IN HIS DEPARTMENT, UM, TO, UH, COME UP WITH BETTER NUMBERS EITHER THROUGH THE, UH, MITIGATION OR REFORESTATION.
SO I'M, I FEEL GOOD ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT, MR. ING YOU SECONDED.
DOESN'T MEAN YOU HAVE TO NOTHING FURTHER.
I HAVE A MUCH BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT, WHAT IS BEING ASKED TO BE.
UM, UM, I DON'T NEED ANY MORE INVENTORIES OF EVERY TREE IN DALLAS, BUT I APPRECIATE THAT WE KNOW IT AND THAT'S COOL.
UM, WAS THAT DONE BY DRONE OR BY PERSON? OH, PEOPLE HAVE SPENT A HARD TIME OUT ON THE WOODS.
UM, AND MAYBE MOST OF, MOST IMPORTANTLY, MR. IRWIN SUPPORTS IT, WHICH HE GETS TIRED OF ME SAYING THIS.
UM, WHEN I STARTED THIS, I, I KIND OF MADE THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE HARDEST PEOPLE TO DEAL WITH WOULD BE WITH AN, IF YOU WERE AN APPLICANT, WOULD BE THE ARBORIST.
I, I'VE SEEN MR. IRWIN FIGURE OUT WAYS TO, TO, TO MAKE THINGS HAPPEN WITH, TO, TO, TO GET WHAT THE CITY NEEDS AND, AND MAKE THINGS HAPPEN.
AND I'VE ALWAYS APPRECIATED THE ABILITY TO, TO GET INTO THE PROBLEM SOLVING MODE.
I, I'LL SAY IT AS LONG AS IT LET ME TALK.
MS. WILLIAMS. MS. P*****K? AYE.
SO I WOULD JUST NOTE THAT THIS ISN'T EXACTLY THE SAME APPLICATION HERE.
THIS NEXT CASE, IT'S DIFFERENT IN SOME WAYS.
UH, BDA 2 4 5 DASH 2 9 79 15 SOUTH LANCASTER ROAD.
WELL, I'LL GO AHEAD AND STATE MY NAME AND ADDRESS AGAIN JUST, JUST FOR FUN.
UH, MY NAME'S DAVID PITCHER, 35 0 1 OLYMPUS BOULEVARD, DALLAS, TEXAS.
I, I WOULD LIKE TO JUST POINT OUT SOME OF THE DIFFERENCES IN THIS APPLICATION, BUT WE'LL GO SLIDE BY SLIDE.
DO YOU GO TO THE NEXT ONE? SO THANK YOU.
UM, SO THE 79 15 LANCASTER PROPERTY IS OUTLINED IN RED.
IT'S SOUTH OF WHEATLAND ROAD, JUST NORTH OF I 20.
NOW THE SIMILAR, THE HARDSHIP IS, IS VERY SIMILAR ON THIS PROPERTY AS WELL.
IT'S FLOODPLAIN, A LARGE FLOODPLAIN DUE BY DUE TO MANMADE CHANNELS DURING THE AGRICULTURE, THE AGRICULTURAL USE OF THE PROPERTY.
NOW, THE DIFFERENCE THAT YOU'LL SEE ON THIS PROPERTY IS THAT THERE'S A YELLOW BOUNDARY THAT WE'RE REQUESTING THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION AREA FOR.
NOW, THE MAIN REASON THAT WE'RE DOING THIS IS BASED OFF OF THE PHASING OF THE OVERALL UNIVERSITY HILLS DEVELOPMENT.
SO THIS, THE YELLOW BOUNDARY IS ACTUALLY IN LINE WITH THE S 2 43 1 0 8 PLAT FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR PHASE ONE OF UNIVERSITY HILLS.
SO I UNDERSTAND THERE FROM OUR LAST DISCUSSION, THERE WAS A LITTLE BIT CONCERN OF WHEN ALL THIS, YOU KNOW, THE, THE MITIGATION WOULD BE HAPPENING,
[02:10:01]
UM, WHAT THE PLAN WAS.UM, SO I I UNDERSTAND THE NEED TO, YOU KNOW, IF WE, IF WE'D LIKE TO ONLY ALLOW THIS EXCEPTION WITHIN A SPECIFIC AREA WITHIN THE PHASE ONE AREA, THAT'S WHAT THIS YELLOW IS, UM, IS SHOWING HERE.
IF YOU GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
SO HERE'S THOSE SAME TWO PICTURES JUST POINTING OUT THE CHANNEL ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF WHEATLAND ROAD.
IT'S JUST A CONTINUATION OF THE PREVIOUS APPLICATION.
HERE'S THE TREE REMOVAL PLAN FOR THIS PROPERTY.
IT DOES SHOW ALL THE TREES WITHIN THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION AREA TO BE REMOVED, UM, AS WELL AS SOME ADDITIONAL OUTSIDE JUST FOR ROAD GRADING AND ADDITIONAL UTILITIES.
UH, HOWEVER, UH, WE CURRENTLY WERE NOT SHOWING IN OUR APPLICATION ADDITIONAL TREES ON THE PROPERTY BEING REMOVED, SO OUTSIDE OF THE YELLOW BOUNDARY.
SO THE CALCULATIONS THAT YOU'LL SEE ON THE SLIDE ON IN THIS PRESENTATION REALLY JUST, UM, ARE IN RELATION TO THIS PHASE ONE AND NOT FUTURE PHASE OF DE OF THE DEVELOPMENT.
I WILL NOTE THAT, UM, I PER THE REQUEST OF PHIL AND, AND THE STAFF HAVE PROVIDED, YOU KNOW, THE TOTAL NUMBER OF TREES ON THE PROPERTY SINCE WE DO HAVE THE FULL TREE SURVEY JUST FOR COMPARISON PURPOSES.
UM, SO I WILL NOTE THAT, UH, THIS PRESENTATION IS JUST FOR THE AREA IN YELLOW.
THIS, THIS TO BE REMOVED WITH PHASE ONE.
UM, BUT I DO HAVE CALCULATIONS FOR THE FULL PROPERTY IN THE FUTURE AS WELL, IF THAT'S HELPFUL.
SO THE BLUE, THE BLUE CALL OUT ON THIS IS JUST NOTING THAT FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS WILL STILL HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE, UH, FULL ARTICLE 10 AND THAT THIS SPECIAL EXCEPTION WOULD NOT APPLY TO THOSE.
SO THIS, THIS, UH, WHY IS THE SHAPE, WHY DID YOU, WHY DO WE HAVE THIS TAIL THAT RUNS TO THE EDGE OF, OF THE PROPERTY? WHY IS IT SHAPED AS IT IS? IS THAT BECAUSE THE, AS I RECALL, IF I OVERLAY THERE WERE BUILDING A BIG BUILDING THAT WAS SITUATED RIGHT ABOUT THERE.
RIGHT? SO YOU'RE BASICALLY SPLITING IT UP INTO PHASES EVEN THOUGH IT SUB PHASES ALMOST THAT YES, THAT'S CORRECT.
AND THE TAIL ON THAT AREA IS FOR THE RIGHT OF WAY THAT THAT CONNECTS TO I 20 MM-HMM
SO WE'RE BUILDING THAT CONNECTION WITH PHASE ONE OF THIS DEVELOPMENT.
I SEE IT LOOKS LIKE A GERRYMANDERED DISTRICT IN EAST TEXAS.
SO THIS, THIS ISN'T A PLAT, THIS IS JUST, YOU DECIDED TO CARVE THIS UP THIS ONE LOT.
THIS IS NOT THE, THE, THE OTHER ONE IS THE ONE THAT HAD DIFFERENT ZONING.
THIS, THIS IS, THIS IS A MORE SIMPLE PLAN.
AND SO WHY DID YOU DECIDE TO DO IT THIS WAY? WHAT, WHAT DID THAT SOLVE THAT THAT SOLVED? I THINK IT SOLVED SOME CONCERNS ABOUT FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS AND NOT NECESSARILY KNOWING WHEN OR HOW, HOW THOSE MIGHT BE DEVELOPED.
SO WE KNOW WHAT'S GONNA BE DEVELOPED WITHIN THIS AREA AND A GENERAL TIMEFRAME.
UM, BUT I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT IF WE'RE ALLOWING A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO TREAT TREE MITIGATION, THAT THAT DOESN'T GET APPLIED TO ADDITIONAL PROPERTIES THAT MIGHT DEVELOP IN THE FUTURE.
AT THE END OF THE DAY, UM, YOU KNOW, WE WILL MAKE SURE TO UTILIZE THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WITHIN THE PHASE ONE DEVELOPMENT.
SO IF WE WANT TO SIMPLIFY THE APPLICATION AND REMOVE THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION AREA AND JUST APPLY IT TO THE ENTIRE PROPERTY, I THINK IT ACHIEVES THE SAME GOAL.
I'M CONCERNED IT, IT, THIS IS EITHER THE CASE OR THE OPPOSITE.
UH, LIKE TO SOME DEGREE, IF WE DO THIS, DOES THIS NOT ESSENTIALLY PUT, WELL IT MAKES IT, IT LOOKS TO ME LIKE IT, IT PLACES THE BULK OF THE MEDIATION THAT'S GONNA HAPPEN IN WHATEVER HAPPENS DOWN THE ROAD.
IS THAT RIGHT? AND WHY WOULD I CARE? IT WOULD MEAN THAT IT, IT REQUIRES THAT MUCH MORE FOR WHOEVER DOES DEVELOP IT, OR IS IT THE OPPOSITE? I THINK THAT'S, I THINK THAT'S ACCURATE BECAUSE IN ORDER TO PROCEED WITH THE PHASE ONE, THE INITIAL INFRASTRUCTURE OF THE PROPERTY, YOU KNOW, WE REALLY NEED TO HAVE SOME RELIEF ON SOME OF THE TREES AND THEN THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS, IT WOULD STILL HAVE TO COMPLY COMPLETELY, BUT THEY WOULDN'T HAVE THE BULK OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS THAT WE'LL NEED TO PROVIDE.
[02:15:02]
OKAY.I THINK WE, WE HAVE A ONLINE SPEAKER WHO'S WAVING AT ME.
MS. GYER, WERE YOU WANTING TO BE RECOGNIZED? I KNOW, BUT SHE WANTED TO BE, SHE WAS WAVING, NO, NOT WAIVING.
SHE WAS WAIVING SHE'S DEFINITELY WAIVING JUST FOR THE RECORD HERE.
I, I'M TRYING TO MULTITASK AND I'M NOT DOING A VERY GOOD JOB OF IT, SO I APOLOGIZE.
WELL YOU CAUGHT EVERYONE'S ATTENTION.
DO WAIVE IF YOU WANNA BE RECOGNIZED.
DID THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION THOUGH? YES.
GOTTA FIGURE OUT WHAT THAT, SO WE'RE NOT CARVING THIS UP THOUGH AS A PLATTED LOT.
THIS, THIS YELLOW I IS NOT A CARVED UP PLAT, RIGHT? IT'S JUST, IT IT IS IT, WE ARE PLOTTING THIS, UH, THIS IS THE PRELIMINARY PLOT AREA FOR PHASE ONE SPECIFICALLY.
SO THIS WILL BE A PLOTTED LOT THIS GO GREEN.
IT, IT WILL BE MULTIPLE PLOTTED, IT'LL BE TWO PLOTTED LOTS WITH RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION AS WELL.
SO THE AREA ALL THE, THE EXTENSION ALL THE WAY DOWN TO I 20, THAT IS GONNA BE RIGHT OF WAY.
THE INTENT HERE IS TO, TO PLOT THE AREAS THAT WE PLAN TO DEVELOP WITH PHASE ONE.
AND I HAVE A, A CONCEPT PLAN THAT'S A LITTLE BIT MORE, UM, ZOOMED IN ON THE NEXT COUPLE SLIDES TO SHOW YOU THOSE AREAS.
DO YOU MIND GOING TO THE NEXT SLIDE? SO THE TREE REMOVAL CALCULATIONS FOR THIS PROPERTY WITH PHASE ONE.
SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE, THE YELLOW AREA ON THE PREVIOUS SLIDE IS 18,000 INCHES REMOVED.
UM, THE AMOUNT OF REQUIRED INCHES WOULD THEN BE 11,458.
AND THEN THE TREES THAT ARE WITHIN THE FLOODPLAIN AREA, THAT WITH WITHIN THAT MANMADE CHANNEL, FLOODPLAIN AREA AMOUNT TO 6,716 INCHES.
SO IT'S A LITTLE BIT MORE DENSELY PLA DENSELY POPULATED WITH TREES, UM, THAN THE PREVIOUS APPLICATION.
IF YOU CAN GO TO THE NEXT PROP, THE NEXT SLIDE.
I'M SORRY, I HAVE A QUESTION HERE.
UM, JUST TO BE, FOR MY UNDERSTANDING, THE, UM, TOTAL REQUIRED MITIGATION, UH, INCHES, DOES THAT INCLUDE, UM, INCHES FROM PREVIOUS MITIGATION? NO.
OR IS IT STANDALONE? IT IT'S STANDALONE.
IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT PREVIOUS APPLICATIONS, THIS IS THE FIRST APPLICATION ON THE PROPERTY.
NO, I WAS TALKING ABOUT THE PROPOSED PREVIOUS, UM, MITIGATION THAT WE CARE FOR, BUT YOU ANSWERED THE QUESTION.
SO THEN THE REQUEST FOR THIS PROPERTY WOULD BE TO REDUCE THE MITIGATION INCHES WITHIN THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION AREA BY THAT 6,716 INCHES.
SO WHAT WE DISCUSSED PREVIOUSLY WAS THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS IS WITHIN THE PRELIMINARY PLAT BOUNDARY.
I I WILL NOTE, UM, THAT ANYTHING ELSE OUTSIDE OF THIS BOUNDARY THEN WOULD NOT HAVE THIS, THIS SPECIAL EXCEPTION AND WOULD HAVE TO FOLLOW EVERY REQUIREMENT WITHIN ARTICLE 10.
SO THAT, THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HERE IS DOES THAT, OKAY, DID WE JUST SORT OF LOWER SOME OF THE NUMBERS BY DECREASING THE DENOMINATOR? DID, DID WE JUST PACK WHEN THE NEXT PART OF THIS LOT IS READY TO BE DEVELOPED, IS THERE MITIGATION GONNA BE BASED ON THE ENTIRE LOT? NOT THIS SUB AREA.
IT WOULD ONLY BE BASED OFF OF WHATEVER, WHATEVER BOUNDARY THAT THEY'RE DEVELOPING.
SO THERE ARE MULTIPLE, WHAT YOU MIGHT CALL PODS ON THE CONCEPT PLAN THAT SHOW MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT OR EXCUSE COMMERCIAL.
SO AS EACH OF THOSE DEVELOPS, THEN THEY WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR WHATEVER TREES THEY REMOVE ONLY AS OPPOSED TO WHAT? AS OPPOSED TO HAVING THE OVERHANG FROM WHAT YOU'VE ALREADY DONE.
[02:20:01]
MITIGATION FOR THE WHOLE MITIGATION FOR THE WHOLE PROPERTY? THAT, THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT I UNDERSTOOD THE QUESTION AS WELL.I'M JUST, YOU'RE MAKING A DISTINCTION AND I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHETHER THAT IS A LIMITING OKAY.
HE SAID THE OTHER, THE OUTSIDE OF THIS WILL BE RESPONSIBLE ONLY FOR THE TREES, MY WORDS THAT THEY CUT DOWN.
SO WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT WITH THE PREVIOUS CASE WAS THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT AND THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MITIGATION IN FRONT OF THEM.
SO IT'S THAT SITE IS ISOLATED AND, AND PLA TO THE SAME OWNER OR A DIFFERENT OWNER.
UH, THEY WILL BE ADDRESSING TREE MITIGATION ALL OVER AGAIN AS FAR AS BASED ON, BASED ON WHAT IS ON THAT PROPERTY AT WHEREVER THEY ARE.
BUT THEY'RE REQUESTING, AND AGAIN, IS A INITIAL REDUCTION OF THE MITIGATION BASED ON CONDITIONS IN THE AREA OF THEIR DEVELOPMENT, UH, TO BE ABLE TO REDUCE THAT NUMBER OF MITIGATION DOWN PER THAT PARTICULAR PHASE.
SO THIS, THIS PHASE WOULD HAVE THE BENEFIT OF BEING ABLE TO COMPLETE ITS MITIGATION SIMPLY BY LANDSCAPING AND WITH THE COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT.
AND THEN THE REST OF THE MITIGATION WOULD BE APPLIED TO EACH PROPERTY AS, AS IT GETS DEVELOPED BASED ON WHERE THOSE TREES ARE TO BE REMOVED.
SO THIS IS STILL ONE PLATTED LOT? NO, THIS PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY UNDER PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE YELLOW AREA YOU SEE ON THE IMAGE.
SO WE'RE STILL DEALING WITH THE RED AREA IS THE FULL PROPERTY FOR THIS CASE.
THE YELLOW AREA IS THE ONE IN QUESTION ABOUT FOR THE, FOR SEEKING THE REDUCTION ON THE MITIGATION.
SO ONCE IT'S CARVED OUT WHICH OF THESE LOTS IS GONNA HAVE RESPONSIBILITY FOR MITIGATION FOR WHAT? OR ARE WE BASICALLY JUST DOING A SPIN CODE HERE? ARE WE, IT'S ESSENTIALLY WHEREVER TREES ARE STANDING ON A PROPERTY AS IT'S BEING DEVELOPED IN THE FUTURE IS GOING TO BE DEALING WITH TREE MITIGATION AS IT COMES FORWARD.
SO AGAIN, WE'RE LOOKING AT REDUCING A, A NUMBER FROM WHERE WHAT'S, WHAT WOULD BE TAKEN DOWN FOR PHASE ONE, UH, FOR THAT FIRST PART OF WHATEVER'S TO BE BUILT THERE.
AND IT LOOKS LIKE IN TWO BLOCKS, UH, AS IT'S DONE BY THE PRELIMINARY PLA.
AND SO THEY WOULD SEEK TO NOT HAVE TO SEEK TO REDUCE THE REDUC MITIGATION REQUIREMENT BASED ONLY WHAT THEY WOULD NEED TO LANDSCAPE FOR THAT PROPERTY.
BECAUSE THERE IS A ARTICLE 10 LANDSCAPING APARTMENT, WHATEVER THEY BUILD ON THOSE PROPERTIES, UH, YOU PROBABLY NEED TO BE SWORN IN AND IF YOU HAVEN'T BEEN, I'M SORRY.
AND, UH, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, 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 AND ADDRESS BEFORE PROCEEDING.
IT'S JOSH MILLSAP, KFM, ENGINEERING 35 0 1 OLYMPUS BOULEVARD, DALLAS, TEXAS.
UM, IT MIGHT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION BETTER IF WE FLIP TO THE NEXT SLIDE.
SO THIS SHOWS THE INDIVIDUAL IN THE GRAY OR YOUR PROPOSED STREETS AND RIGHT OF WAYS PROPOSED WITHOUT THE, WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT.
SO THE YELLOW, UH, CROSS HAT FIT THE YELLOW OUTLINED AREA IS WHAT YOU'VE SEEN HERE IS 13, KIND OF ABOUT BASICALLY BLOCKS 13, 14, 19.
AND THEN YOU HAVE YOUR PROPOSED, UH, NORTH SOUTH ROAD THAT GOES ALL THE WAY DOWN TO 20, UH, THAT THAT RUNS BACK THROUGH THE SITE.
EACH OF THE INDIVIDUAL LOTS THAT ARE CREATED IN THE FUTURE, WHICH IN THIS CASE WOULD BE LOT 10, POD 15, POD 17.
AS EACH OF THOSE DEVELOPS THAT THOSE INDIVIDUAL PODS WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR OWN MITIGATION AS WE'LL.
WE'LL HAVE ADDITIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE WITH STREETS SURROUNDING THAT LOT AND THE DEVELOPMENT WITHIN, AT THIS POINT IN TIME WE HAVE PHASE ONE, WHICH WE'VE COME IN WITH, WHICH SHOWS THE CONCEPT PLAN SHOWN.
AND THAT'S WHAT WE KNOW BEFORE US IS WHAT WE'RE, WHY WE'RE GOING IN FOR MITIGATION ONLY ON THIS AREA, WHICH IS WHAT WAS OUTLINED IN YELLOW.
AND AS, UH, UH, MR. IRWIN MENTIONED THE AREA IN YELLOW IS WHAT IS CURRENTLY IN WITH THE CITY, WITH THE PRELIMINARY PLAT, UH, FOR BOTH RIGHT OF WAY AND THE LOTS FOR AREAS 13, 14, AND 19.
SO AS WE, AS WE ARE NOT FOR CERTAIN ON WHAT HAPPENS ON THE PODS 10 15, UH, WE DID NOT WANT TO COME IN FOR MITIGATION ON THOSE, WHICH WE DO NOT KNOW.
IS IT GOING TO BE A SURFACE PARKING LOT? WHAT IS THE BUILDING FIGURATION?
[02:25:01]
WHAT TREES ARE THEY GONNA BE ABLE TO SAVE OR REMOVE? THAT WAS OUT OF OUR DESTINY FOR RIGHT NOW.SO BECAUSE YOU ONLY KNOW WHAT YOU KNOW TODAY, RIGHT.
AND THE PROPERTY IS GOING TO BE FURTHER DEVELOPED AS TIME GOES ON WITH WHATEVER HAPPENS THERE.
AND THE, THOSE INDIVIDUAL, MAYBE INDIVIDUAL, EVEN, EVEN INCREMENTAL DEVELOPMENTS WILL CREATE THEIR OWN MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS AS THEY, AS THEY MOVE FORWARD.
THIS IS 55, 60% REQUEST, RIGHT? THOSE NUMBERS ARE ON YOUR, UH, WELL, I JUST, I'M NOT REMEMBERING THEM, BUT THERE ARE HERE, WHAT IS THE, THE, WELL, I ACTUALLY HAD A LITTLE BIT HIGHER NUMBER ON MY NU MY LIST FOR 19,000 ACTUALLY.
SO I THINK IT'S A LITTLE SOMEWHERE CLOSE TO THAT.
THE WHAT, 34%? UM, OF THE OVERALL, UH, UM, WHAT I SAW
WELL, REMEMBER I'M CALCULATING FROM THE 11,000 4 58 NUMBER BECAUSE WE'VE ALREADY DETECTED FOR ROADWAYS AND OTHER PRODUCTIONS THAT ARE BUILT IN.
SO IT'S 55 60, RIGHT? WELL, NO, HE SAID MINE'S OFF DUE, SO, OKAY.
I'M CONCERNED THAT WE ARE ESSENTIALLY STUFFING ALL OF THE MITIGATION INTO THIS SMALL CHUNK AND THEN, AND THEN REDUCING THE MITIGATION SUCH THAT, BUT I'M NOT FULLY SURE SUCH THAT THE, THE OTHER, I'M, I'M, THAT'S WHAT I'M COMPLAINING, BUT WE'RE, WE'RE CREATING AN ENTITY AND STUFFING IT WITH THE BAD DEBT.
YOU EVER HEARD OF US TAX CODE? NOPE.
I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING WHAT'S ALLOWED IS ALLOWED.
I'M A LEGITIMATE BUSINESSMAN, MR.
I DON'T, DON'T ANY IDEA WHAT YOU'VE SAID, BUT, UM, BUT OKAY, IF IT'S ALLOWED, IT'S ALLOWED NOW WHAT I SAID.
SO ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, MR. IRWIN? ARE YOU FORWARD THOSE I SUPPORT IT? WELL, I DO 60, IT FEELS LIKE A LITTLE PIG NUMBER IF I MAY JUST KIND OF EXPLAIN THAT.
SO AGAIN, WE LOOKED AT TREES THAT WERE WITHIN THAT AREA THAT WAS WITHIN THE FLOODPLAIN OF THE MANMADE CHANNEL.
SO THERE WERE A LOT OF SMALLER TREES.
UM, YOU KNOW, THAT NECESS WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PROTECTED IF IT WASN'T PART OF THE FLOODPLAIN.
UH, BUT SINCE IT IS FLOODPLAIN, THEY ARE PROTECTED AND PROTECTED AT A HIGHER RATE.
SO IT LOOKS LIKE 50 PERC, I MEAN, IT IS 50% OF THE TOTAL NUMBER, UM, BECAUSE THERE REALLY AREN'T THAT MANY OTHER TREES OUTSIDE OF THIS FLOODPLAIN THAT COUNT AS PROTECTED.
SO WITHIN THAT AREA, THAT'S, THAT'S REALLY THE MAIN REASON THAT, THAT THIS IS A, UM, A, A HIGHER PERCENTAGE.
UM, AND IT'S ALSO WE'RE CONTAINING IT WITHIN THAT SMALLER AREA.
SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE ENTIRE PROPERTY, THE 70, UH, 79 15 LANCASTER AND THE PERCENTAGE GOES DOWN.
UH, WE'LL PROBABLY WAY PAST FIVE MINUTES ARE, ARE WE, UH, ARE THERE, I PRESUME THERE ARE NO SPEAKERS IN OPPOSITION.
UM, I THINK WE'VE BEEN TALKING FOR, UNLESS YOU, YOU'VE GOT SOMETHING YOU NEED TO SAY AS A CONCLUSION, WE CAN TAKE A MOTION.
[02:30:02]
IF IT'S ALLOWED.MR. SA, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 45 DASH 0 2 9 ON APPLICATION OF DAVID PITCHER GRANT THE REQUEST OF THIS APPLICANT FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE LANDSCAPE URBAN FOREST CONSERVATION REGULATION CONTAINED AN A ARTICLE 10 OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED BECAUSE OF OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY.
AND TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT ONE, STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE 10 WILL UNREASONABLY BURDEN THE USE OF THE PROPERTY.
AND TWO, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.
AND THREE, THE REQUIREMENTS ARE NOT IMPOSED BY A SITE-SPECIFIC LANDSCAPE PLAN APPROVED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OR CITY COUNCIL.
I FURTHER MOVE THAT THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS BE IMPOSED TO FURTHER THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE.
ALL THREE MITIGATION TIME, ALL THE ALL TREE MITIGATION TIMING MUST BE COMPLETED IN COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 51, A TEN ONE, THREE, FOUR C, AND FIVE, EXCEPT THAT MITIGATION FOR PHASE ONE IDENTIFIED IN C ZERO 4.09 AS BLOCK TWO AND JJ SHALL BE COMPLETED WITH FINAL CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY.
IN PHASE ONE REPLACEMENT TREES MAY BE PLANTED ON EXISTING OR PROPOSED STREETS THROUGHOUT THE PROPERTY IF AUTHORIZED BY LICENSE AND COMPLIANCE WITH THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF ALL SUBMITTED PLANS ARE REQUIRED.
SESSIONING MOTION MS. P*****K SECONDS.
OKAY, MS. WILLIAMS. MS. P*****K? AYE.
MOTION IS GRANTED FIVE TO ZERO.
I DO WORRY ABOUT GETTING STOPPED, BUT OKAY, GOOD.
SO IF YOU NEED, SO, UH, DON'T FORGET TO GET YOUR COMPLIANCE STUFF AND TO THE CITY SECRETARY BY THE END OF THIS MONTH.
THANK YOU FOR WELCOME TO YOUR FIRST DAY.
YOU GET MUCH LESS COMPLICATED.
SO WE APPRECIATE YOU BEING HERE AND WELCOME.
UM, YOU CAN SURVIVE THIS GROUP, SURVIVE THE REST.
50 8:00 PM ON MARCH 17TH, 2025.
THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PANEL C IS ADJOURNED.