[00:00:05]
CAN WE PLEASE START OFF WITH A ROLL CALL?
[BRIEFINGS]
GOOD MORNING COMMISSIONERS.DISTRICT ONE COMMISSIONER SCHOCK.
AND PLACE 15 VICE CHAIR RUBIN.
TODAY IS THURSDAY, MARCH 20TH, 2025.
9:09 AM WELCOME TO THE BRIEFING OF THE DALLAS CITY PLAN COMMISSION.
UH, COMMISSIONERS, WELCOME BACK.
UH, WE'RE GONNA DIVE RIGHT INTO THE AGENDA.
THE FIRST ITEM, BRIEFING ON THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE SOUTH DALLAS AREA FAIR, SOUTH DALLAS FAIR PARK AREA PLAN.
IT'S GONNA GET PUSHED, UH, TO APRIL.
UH, THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT.
AND, UH, THAT IS A PUBLIC, UH, HEARING, SO IF THERE'S ANYONE THIS AFTERNOON THAT WOULD LIKE TO BE HEARD ON THAT ITEM, WELCOME TO DO SO.
WE'LL START, UH, WITH OUR ZONING CASES, CONSENT AGENDA ITEM, CONSISTENT OF CASES TWO THROUGH EIGHT CONFLICT.
UH, VICE CHAIR RUBIN HAS A CONFLICT ON NUMBER TWO AND IS STEPPING OUT OF THE CHAMBER.
NUMBER TWO IS GONNA GET HELD AND WE CAN HOLD THE BRIEFING UNLESS ANY COMMISSIONERS HAD QUESTIONS.
AND PLEASE CHECK ME ON THE DATE.
OKAY, WE'LL LET THE VICE CHAIR RUBIN STEP BACK INTO THE CHAMBER.
DEBORAH'S ADVOCATING FOR GOING BACK IN TIME.
ITEM NUMBER THREE IS KZ 2 3 4 3 16.
THE REQUEST IS AN APPLICATION FOR ONE, A PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FOR MF THREE, A MULTIFAMILY DISTRICT USES, AND TWO REMOVAL OF A D ONE LIQUOR CONTROL OVERLAY ON PROPERTY ZONE CRD ONE COMMUNITY RETAIL DISTRICT WITH THE D ONE OVERLAY.
IT IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SOUTH JIM MILLER ROAD AND GRAY TRINITY FOREST WAY.
THE AREA REQUEST IS APPROXIMATELY 16.95 ACRES.
THIS IS THE AERIAL MAP SURROUNDING USES TO THE NORTH IS MULTIFAMILY AND RETAIL.
UH, TO THE WEST IS RETAIL AND SINGLE FAMILY.
AND MS. GARZA, MY, MY APOLOGIES.
THIS, THIS CASE IS GONNA BE HELD UNDER ADVISEMENT.
FOUR AS WELL IS GONNA BE HELD.
WELL, COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS CASE? WE WILL GET A, A DATE.
FOUR WILL ALSO BE HELD UNDER ADVISEMENT.
SO THAT'S TWO, THREE, AND FOUR OF CONSENT.
[00:06:03]
IS THAT THE MICROPHONE? OH, SORRY.IT'S APPLICATION FOR A R FIVE SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT ON PROPERTY ZONE CS, UH, COMMERCIAL ROUTE SERVICE DISTRICT.
UM, IT'S LOCATED ON THE EAST LINE OF CARBONDALE STREET SOUTH OF FALL LANE.
IT'S APPROXIMATELY 6,000 SQUARE FEET.
IT'S IN COUNCIL DISTRICT SEVEN.
UM, THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY UNDEVELOPED LAND ZONE CS.
UH, THE PURPOSE OF THE REQUEST IS TO ALLOW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE.
UM, HERE'S THE LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY WITHIN CITY BOUNDARIES.
HERE'S THE ZONING MAP WITH SOME SURROUNDING USES TO THE NORTH.
THERE'S SINGLE FAMILY AND UNDEVELOPED LAND TO THE EAST.
THERE'S COMMERCIAL AND SINGLE FAMILY SOUTH.
THERE'S SOME MORE COMMERCIAL AND UNDEVELOPED LAND INTO THE WEST.
THERE IS INDUSTRIAL INSIDE USES, UM, AND COMMERCIAL.
HERE ARE A FEW SITE PHOTOS I'LL GO THROUGH.
THIS IS THE ZONING SIGN ON THE PROPERTY.
THIS IS LOOKING NORTH DOWN CARBONDALE NORTHEAST.
THIS IS THE ADJACENT PROPERTY SOUTHEAST.
UM, THIS IS LOOKING SOUTH DOWN CARBONDALE, AND I'LL JUST GO THROUGH THEM.
THIS IS LOOKING WEST SURROUNDING PROPERTIES.
THESE ARE SOME EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES THAT ARE ON THE, UH, ON THE, UH, NAF OF THE PROPERTY.
AND THEN THIS IS A LITTLE COMMERCIAL USE THAT'S, UH, DOWN TO THE SOUTH OF THE PROPERTY.
AS YOU CAN SEE RIGHT HERE IN THE AREA.
UM, FOR DESIGN STANDARDS, THE ONLY MAIN CONCERN IS THAT FOR R FIVE THE SETBACK WILL BE 20 FEET, BUT FOR THAT BLOCK THAT THE, UH, AREA REQUEST IS ON, THERE'S ALREADY EXISTING HOUSE THAT SITS BACK, UH, 20 FEET.
SO ANY NEW DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THAT BLOCK WILL HAVE TO, UH, ADHERE TO BLOCK CONTINUITY.
UM, THIS IS THE FORT DALLAS CONSISTENCY REVIEW, WHICH IS, UH, COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL, WHICH ALLOWS SINGLE FAMILY DETACH OR DETACH, DETACH OR ATTACH HOMES.
UM, I ALSO LOOKED AT THE TRINITY RIVER, UH, CORRIDOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
AND THIS AREA ALSO CALLS FOR SOME, UM, SINGLE FAMILY USES.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL.
AND THAT CONCLUDES THIS PRESENTATION.
ALL NUMBER SIX IS Z 2 45 DASH 1 47.
UH, IT'S AN APPLICATION FOR A PACIFIC USE PERMIT FOR A HOTEL OR MO MOTEL USE ON PROPERTY ZONE CA ONE CENTRAL, UH, AREA DISTRICT.
IT'S LOCATED ON THE SOUTH LINE OF MAIN STREET BETWEEN SOUTH PEARL EXPRESSWAY AND CAESAR TRIVETTE BOULEVARD.
IT'S APPROXIMATELY 4 4500 SQUARE FEET.
UH, THE PURPOSE OF THIS REQUEST, UM, THEY'RE GONNA USE THE EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING THAT WAS BUILT IN 1958 AND CONVERTED INTO A HOTEL.
[00:10:01]
ALSO, UM, PROPOSING TO ADD ADDITIONAL THIRD FLOOR.THE EXISTING STRUCTURE HAS TWO LEVELS.
UM, THE HOTEL WILL HAVE A MAXIMUM OF 25 ROOMS AND AMENITIES FOR EACH ONE OF THOSE ROOMS. THEY WILL HAVE LIVING AND SLEEPING ACCOMMODATION.
THERE WILL BE NO KITCHEN OR KITCHENETTE PROVIDED IN THOSE SPACES.
UM, HERE IS JUST SOME PERMIT USE.
SO FOR HOTEL AND MOTEL USES, THEY'RE ALLOWED IN CA BUT ANYTHING THAT HAS LESS THAN 60 ROOMS IS REQUIRED.
HERE IS THE AREA REQUEST LOCATED WITHIN, UM, CITY OF DALLAS LIMITS.
HERE'S THE ZONING MAP TO THE NORTH.
YOU HAVE A PARKING GARAGE, SOME SURFACE PARKING AND SOME AND AN OFFICE.
YOU HAVE SURFACE PARKING AND OFFICE.
TO THE SOUTH YOU HAVE A, UM, MEDICAL CLINIC AND A SUP ALSO FOR A SMALLER HOTEL MOTEL.
IT HAS 39 ROOMS. AND THEN AN OFFICE USED ALSO TO THE SOUTH TO THE WEST.
UH, I'LL GO THROUGH A FEW SITE PHOTOS.
UM, THIS IS AT THE SITE, UH, THE ZONING SIGN.
THIS IS LOOKING STRAIGHT ONTO THE SOUTH, UM, SITE.
LOOKS LOOKING WEST, NORTH, WEST, NORTHEAST, LOOKING WEST, SOUTHEAST.
SO, UM, SOME SURROUNDING PROPERTY.
SO THIS IS SHOWING TO THE EAST, KIND OF TO THE SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, THE ALLEY BEHIND THE PROPERTY.
UM, THIS IS GOING BACK, UH, ON THAT BACK STREET, UM, JUST SHOWING SOME COMMERCIAL.
AND THERE'S ALSO THAT OTHER HOTEL USE ON THIS STREET.
THIS IS SOME SURFACE PARK TO THE SOUTHWEST OF THE PROPERTY.
UM, HERE ARE THE SUP CONDITIONS.
UM, SO USUALLY HOTELS DON'T REQUIRE SUP, SO I THINK WE WENT WITH A TIME LIMIT OF NO EXPIRATION DATE.
UM, I WAS FINE WITH THAT ALSO.
UM, THEY PUT IN A CONDITION WHERE THEY WON'T HAVE ANY OUTSIDE AMPLIFIED, UH, SOUNDS.
WE HAVE THE ROOM COUNT, UH, THE OVERALL SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE, UH, USE.
UM, AND THIS, THIS IS THE, THE THREE FLOORS ADDED TOGETHER.
THE 30, THE 13,500, AND THEN SOME MAIN AND GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE SUP.
UM, THIS IS PROPOSED SITE PLAN.
UM, THIS IS THE, FOR DALLAS CONSISTENCY REVIEW IS IN THE CITY CENTER, WHICH ALLOWS FOR LODGING USES.
AND THEN ALSO I LOOKED AT THE 360 PLAN, UM, WHICH IS FOR DOWNTOWN THAT USUALLY IT ALLOWS HOTEL, RESTAURANTS, A LOT OF ENTERTAINMENT.
UM, AND SO WITH THE 360 PLAN, THEY WOULD LIKE TO CONNECT THESE ITEMS WITHIN THE CITY AS FAR AS JOBS, ENTERTAINMENT, LODGING, ITEMS LIKE THAT.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL.
UM, THAT CONCLUDES THIS PRESENTATION.
ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM? OKAY, WE'LL GO TO THE NEXT CASE.
THIS IS ITEM NUMBER SEVEN, CASE Z 2 45 DASH 18.
IT'S AN APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO, SORRY, AMENDMENT TO PD.
UH, NUMBER SEVEN 14 ON PROPERTY ZONE PLAN DEVELOPMENT.
DISTRICT NUMBER SEVEN 14 SUBDISTRICT ONE A, THE WEST COMMERCE STREET, FORT WORTH AVENUE SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICT LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF WEST COMMERCE STREET AND PITTMAN STREET.
UH, THE PURPOSE OF THEIR REQUEST IS TO AMEND THE TEXT OF THE EXISTING PD TO CREATE A NEW SUBDISTRICT, UH, FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND ALLOW REDUCTIONS TO THE PERCENTAGE REQUIREMENTS, UM, TO THE EXISTING USES, AS WELL AS ADD A NEW USE.
IT'S APPROXIMATELY THREE ACRES IN TOTAL SIZE.
UM, SO IT'S CURRENTLY DEVELOPED WITH A SIX STORE MIXED USE PROJECT.
IT INCLUDES 331 DWELLING UNITS AND, UH, ABOUT 17,700 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL AND PERSONAL SERVICE USE.
UH, THERE'S ALSO AN EXISTING PARKING LOT, PARKING GARAGE, AND AMENITY SPACES.
UM, AND AGAIN, IT'S ZONED, CURRENTLY ZONED PD SEVEN
[00:15:01]
14 SUBDISTRICT ONE A.UH, THIS LOT HAS FRONTAGE ON PITMAN AND WEST COMMERCE STREETS, UH, GEOGRAPHICALLY LOCATED IN WEST DALLAS ABOUT TWO MILES FROM DOWNTOWN.
UM, AGAIN, THE PURPOSE OF THE REQUEST IS TO AMEND THE EXISTING PD TEXTS.
THERE HAVE BEEN TWO ZONING CASES IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA WITHIN THE LAST FIVE YEARS.
AND ONCE AGAIN, THIS IS JUST A PD AMENDMENT.
THIS IS THE AERIAL MAP WITH THE ZONE, UH, THE PROPERTY HIGHLIGHTED.
UM, HERE'S OUR ZONING MAP WITH THE SURROUNDING USES TO, UH, AGAIN, THE SITE IS PD SEVEN 14.
SUBDISTRICT ONE A TO THE NORTH IS ALSO PD SEVEN 14 SUBDISTRICT ONE A, UH, WITH PD 8 9 1.
UM, TO THE SOUTH IS, UH, PD SEVEN 14, SUBDISTRICT ONE A, UH, WITH SOME RESIDENTIAL USES.
UM, AND PD SEVEN 14 SUBDISTRICT 1D TO THE EAST IS PD SEVEN 14.
UH, SUBDISTRICT ONE A AS WELL AS, UH, UM, RESIDENTIAL AND MIXED USE.
UM, WITH EXISTING SUP 2 3 8 3.
AND THEN TO THE WEST IS, UH, PD SEVEN 14, SUBDISTRICT ONE B, UM, WITH A MIX OF RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL USES.
HERE'S OUR, UH, SITE VISIT PHOTOS.
LOOKING TOWARDS THE, UH, BUILDING.
THIS IS ON WEST COMMERCE LOOKING NORTHWEST.
UH, SAME POSITION, LOOKING ADJACENT TO THE RESIDENTIAL.
UM, USES SAME LOCATION LOOKING WEST, SAME LOCATION LOOKING EAST.
THIS IS ON THE EDGE OF THE, UH, PITTMAN STREET, OR I'M SORRY, THE CORNER OF PITTMAN.
LOOKING NORTH, THIS IS, UH, BEHIND THE PROPERTY LOOKING EAST AND SAME LOCATION LOOKING WEST.
UM, SO BRIEF ANALYSIS, UH, THE REQUEST, UH, IS AGAIN, IS JUST A AMENDMENT TO THE PD, UM, TO CREATE THE NEW, THE NEW SUBDISTRICT, UH, TO ALLOW A REDUCTION IN THE MIX OF RETAIL AND PERSONAL SERVICE USES, UM, FOR A MIXED USE PROJECT.
UM, ALLOW LIVE WORK UNITS AS A NEW, UH, USE AND REDUCE THE MINIMUM FLOOR TO FLOOR DIMENSIONS FOR GROUND FLOORS.
UM, SO BASICALLY THE APPLICANT IS LOOKING TO, HAS BEEN HAVING A HARD TIME TO, UM, LEASE OUT THE EXISTING SPACES ON THE GROUND FLOOR, I BELIEVE.
SO THEY WANT TO, UH, CREATIVELY FILL THIS SPACE.
UM, SO THEY WANNA DO SOME LIVE WORK UNITS, UH, THINGS OF THAT NATURE.
UM, AND THEN AGAIN, THEY ARE GOING TO USE, UH, THE CODE CONDITIONS AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OF THE EXISTING SUBDISTRICT AS THE BASE FOR THE NEW SUBDISTRICT THAT THEY WANNA CREATE.
UM, THIS IS, UH, GOING INTO THE, FOR DALLAS 2.0 CONSISTENCY REVIEW.
SO THE SITE IS, UM, CITY RESIDENTIAL PLACE TYPE, UH, TO THE NORTH IS COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL TO THE SOUTH IS CITY, RESIDENTIAL, COMMUNITY, RESIDENTIAL AND COMMUNITY.
MIXED USE TO THE EAST IS COMMUNITY.
MIXED USE TO THE WEST IS CITY, RESIDENTIAL, COMMUNITY, RE COMMUNITY, RESIDENTIAL AND COMMUNITY MIXED USE.
UM, SO THE SITE WOULD FALL WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS, UH, UH, CATEGORY.
BUT THEN THE SPECIFIC, UH, PLACE TYPE WOULD BE, UH, CITY RESIDENTIAL.
AND THE PRIMARY USES WITHIN THIS PLACE TYPE ARE MULTIPLEX APARTMENTS AND MIXED USE.
UH, WITH THE SECONDARY USES BEING AGRICULTURAL, PUBLIC OPEN, UH, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE OPEN SPACE.
UM, SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED AND ATTACHED, UH, AS WELL AS LODGING, COMMERCIAL OFFICE, CIVIC AND PUBLIC.
UM, INSTITUTIONAL AND UTILITY.
UM, SO CITY RESIDENTIAL, UH, AREAS WILL PRIMARILY CONSIST OF HIGH, UM, MID-RISE MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, UH, AS WELL AS A MIX OF TOWN HOMES AND DUPLEX HOUSING.
UH, FOR CITY RESIDENTIAL AREAS SURROUNDING DOWNTOWN DALLAS.
THE DEVELOPMENT IS CONCENTRATED IN COMPACT BLOCKS WITH, UH, QUALITY ACCESS TO TRANSIT.
TRANSIT, EXCUSE ME, AND HIGH DEGREE OF CONNECTIVITY TO THE EXISTING SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS.
UH, SO THIS PROPOSAL WOULD FALL WITHIN THE PRIMARY USE CARE CATEGORY OF MIXED USE.
SO STATUS'S RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO AMENDED CONDITIONS.
YEAH, WE'RE GONNA KNOCK ON WOOD.
WAS THAT STAYING ON CONSENT, COMMISSIONER? OKAY.
WE'RE KEEPING THAT ONE ON CONSENT, THAT'S NUMBER SEVEN.
UH, EIGHT HAS COME US CONSENT.
WE WILL HOLD THAT ONE TO APRIL 10TH.
AND JUST FOR THE RECORD, UH, VICE RUBIN HAS A CONFLICT ON THAT ONE, AND WE'LL STEP OUT DURING THE VOTE.
SO AT THIS POINT, THE CONSENT AGENDA CONSISTS OF CASES FIVE,
[00:20:01]
SIX, AND SEVEN.UH, HAS THIS ONE BEEN BRIEFED BEFORE, COMMISSIONER? I CAN'T REMEMBER.
UM, WELL, IT HAS NOT BEEN BRIEFED, BUT I THINK MR. CLINTON, WOULD YOU CONFIRM THAT THE APPLICANT HAS COMMUNICATED HE'S GOING TO ASK FOR A DENIAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE? YES, THAT'S CORRECT.
ALL RIGHT, THEN WE WILL GO ON TO NUMBER 10.
WE'RE MOVING FORWARD WITH NUMBER 10.
GOOD MORNING, MR. CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS.
THIS IS MY FIRST TIME UP HERE.
THIS, UM, UM, I'M NOT SURE THIS WILL BE THE LATEST ONE 'CAUSE THERE WAS A REVISION.
CAN I PULL IT UP FROM MINE? YEAH.
DID YOU PUT ON
BUT IT LOOKS LIKE YOU UPLOADED IT ON THE 11TH AND I THINK IT WAS DEFINITELY AFTER.
'CAUSE THERE WAS SOME CHANGES.
YEAH, SEE, THAT'S, THAT'S TOO EARLY.
CAN WE GET TO MY, CAN I GET MY LAPTOP OUT? OKAY.
UM, THERE'S BEEN SOME CHANGES.
UM, I KNOW I HANDED OUT AN EMAIL.
UH, THIS IS FOR Z 2 3 4 2 7 1 LL, UH, NUM.
[00:25:01]
ACTUALLY BEEN SEVERAL REVISIONS FROM THE APPLICANT AND, UM, THEY HAVE COME OUT AFTER EACH DOCKET WAS PUBLISHED FROM BOTH MARCH 6TH AND MARCH 20TH.SO, UM, THIS WOULD BE THE LATEST, REPRESENT THE LATEST CHANGES.
UM, SO YOU DID RECEIVE AN EMAIL ON MARCH 18TH ON THAT AMENDMENT, AND I'LL GO OVER THOSE.
UM, BUT THE ITEM, THE ITEM IS AN AMENDMENT TO ZONE THREE WITHIN PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 1 43.
IT'S THE COVENANT NIGHT SCHOOL.
THIS IS LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF INTERSTATE 6 35 L-B-G-L-B-J FREEWAY AND VALLEY VIEW LANE.
IT'S APPROXIMATELY 18 POINT 10 ACRES, 18 ACRES.
UM, THIS IS THE LOCATION, UM, BOTH THE LOCATION MAP AND THE AERIAL.
AS YOU CAN SEE, IT'S LOCATED IN NORTH DALLAS.
AND AGAIN, JUST SHOWING, UM, SOME OF THE ZONING AND LAND USE USES.
UM, OF COURSE THE, THE PD, UM, AREA WITHIN, UH, PD 1 43 IS INSTITUTIONAL USES.
UM, YOU HAVE WHITE, WHITE ROCK CREEK, UH, IMMEDIATELY TO ACTUALLY PAR PART, PARTIALLY ON THE PROPERTY TO THE WEST.
UM, YOU HAVE A VALLEY VIEW, UH, PARK SOCCER FIELD ALSO TO THE WEST.
AND, UM, THERE'S MULTIFAMILY IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT OR ACROSS VALLEY VIEW LANE TO THE EAST.
AND THEN YOU HAVE SOME PROFESSIONAL OFFICE AND INSTITUTIONAL, UM, SEVENTH OF LBJ FREEWAY.
AND YOU DO HAVE SINGLE FAMILY ALSO TO THE NORTH.
THE AREA OF REQUEST, UM, AGAIN, THIS IS ZONE THREE WITHIN, UH, PD 1 43, UH, WHICH IS REALLY THE LOWER HALF OR, UM, THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF THE SITE THAT'S, UH, MOST ADJACENT TO INTERSTATE 6 35.
UH, THE AREA IS DEVELOPED WITH THE HIGH SCHOOL AND ATHLETIC FIELD.
SO ON FEBRUARY 2ND, EXCUSE ME, 1983, CITY COUNCIL APPROVED PD NUMBER 1 43 TO ALLOW, ALLOW A PRIVATE SCHOOL USE.
THE APPLICANT IS NOW PROPOSING TO AMEND PD 1 43 TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW GUARDHOUSE AT THE ENTRANCE OF THE SCHOOL ALONG VALLEY VIEW LANE.
THEY'RE ALSO PROPOSING A NEW SURFACE PARKING LOT THAT IS, UM, NEAREST THE INTERSECTION OF 6 35 AND VALLEY VIEW LANE.
AND, UM, THEY, THEY'RE ALSO, ALSO ARE A FEW UPDATES TO THE ATHLETIC FIELD FOR THE HIGH SCHOOL AND SOME REVISED CONDITIONS.
AGAIN, CPC RECOMMENDED TO HOLD THE REQUEST UNDER ADVISEMENT AT BOTH THE FEBRUARY 20TH, 2025 MEETING.
AND AT THE MARCH 6TH, 2025 MEETING, THE APPLICANT PROVIDED A REQUEST, A REVISED AMENDMENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND THE LANDSCAPE PLANS AND REVISED ALSO AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONS BASED ON FEEDBACK FROM ANOTHER COMMUNITY MEETING THAT WAS HELD.
UM, AND AGAIN, THAT WAS EMAILED TO THE COMMISSION, UM, AFTER THE MARCH 6TH MEETING AND AFTER THE DOCKET WAS PUBLISHED.
AND THEN AGAIN, UH, THERE WERE SOME MORE REVISIONS, UH, JUST ONE REVISION REALLY, UH, TO THE AMENDED CONDITIONS THAT WAS SENT TO YOU ON, I BELIEVE, WEDNESDAY, MARCH 18TH.
UM, AGAIN, THAT WAS JUST AFTER THE MARCH 20TH DOCKET WAS ALREADY PUBLISHED.
NOW THERE'S NO CHANGES TO THE REVISED AMENDMENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, UM, OTHER THAT WAS PROVIDED, UM, INITIALLY FOR THAT FEBRUARY 20TH MEETING.
SO SOME OF THE AMENDMENTS TO THE REQUEST.
UH, THE REVISED AMENDMENT TO THE LANDSCAPE PLAN NOW PROVIDES PRESERVATION OF EXISTING TREE NUMBER 31 THAT IS ALONG VALLEY VIEW LANE.
THAT IS IMMEDIATELY NEXT TO WHERE THE GUARDHOUSE WILL BE.
THE NEW GUARDHOUSE WILL BE CONSTRUCTED.
AND, UM, ALSO, UM, THERE'S GREATER SPACING OF THE TREES THAT ARE SHOWN ALONG VALLEY VIEW LANE, WHERE THAT NEW PARKING LOT WILL BE ADJACENT TO, TO ALLOW FOR SOME, SOME OPPORTUNITIES FOR LARGER TREE PLANTINGS IF THEY'RE ABLE TO DO THAT.
[00:30:01]
TO CONDITIONS AFTER THE FEBRUARY 20TH MEETING ARE HIGHLIGHTED IN BLUE IN YOUR PACKET.THOSE ADD BACK IN HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS AND SEATING CAPACITY FOR THE BLEACHERS WITH MORE RESTRICTIVE HEIGHT AT FIVE FEET.
AND THEN, UH, SEATING CAPACITY AT THREE 50 FOR THE BLEACHERS ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE ATHLETIC FIELD, CAPPING THE TOTAL SEATING CAPACITY OF THE BLEACHERS AT 1500, UM, IN LIEU OF 1000.
THE LATEST REVISED AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONS EMAILED TO YOU ON MARCH 18TH OR HIGHLIGHTED IN GREEN TO DIFFERENTIATE THOSE.
UM, AND REALLY THAT'S TO SPECIFY THAT THE RECONFIGURATION OF VALLEY VIEW LANE AND THIS LANE IS TO REMAIN WITH THE PERMANENT BARRIER IN PLACE PER CITY STANDARDS.
AND I'LL SHOW YOU THAT LANGUAGE CHANGE IN A FEW MINUTES.
THE ACTUAL VERBIAGE, OTHER CHANGES INCLUDE A FEW CLARIFICATIONS AND A FEW UPDATES FOR ITEMS THAT NO LONGER APPLY TO THE PD.
THIS IS THE REVISED AMENDMENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
UM, YOU COULD SEE THE, THE GUARD HOSE RIGHT THERE ON WHAT'S SHOWN AS COVENANT LANE, UH, COVENANT DRIVE, I'M SORRY, IT'S VALLEY VIEW LANE.
UM, AND IF YOU'LL NOTICE ALSO THERE'S THE LITTLE BULB OUT, UM, RIGHT THERE, UH, AT COVENANT DRIVE AT THIS LANE.
IT DOES NOT GO THROUGH RIGHT NOW THE STREET VALLEY VIEW LANE, UM, KIND OF BULBS OUT WHERE THE ENTRANCE IS TO THE SCHOOL.
AND THEN THERE'S A BARRIER AT THIS LANE, UM, WHERE YOU CAN'T GO THROUGH THE REVISED AMENDMENT TO THE LANDSCAPE PLAN.
UM, I HIGHLIGHTED, UM, OR CLOUDED IN GREEN WHERE THE, THAT TREE, THE TREE IS, UH, THE EXISTING LARGER TREE THAT'S GONNA BE PRESERVED NOW.
SO THAT'S THE CHANGE FOR THAT.
AND THEN, UM, ALSO THE LAR UH, GREATER SPACING OF THE TREES ALONG, UM, THAT PARKING LOT AREA TO ALLOW FOR THE LARGER TREES.
SO THAT WAS THE CHANGE THAT WAS SENT OUT AFTER THE MARCH 6TH MEETING.
REVISED AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONS.
UM, SOME OF THEM ARE JUST CLEANUP AND A LOT OF THEM ACTUALLY.
SO, UM, THIS IS JUST TO CLARIFY THAT VALLEY VIEW PLACE IS A HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION, AND I THINK IT JUST SAID ASSOCIATION BEFORE THAT.
SO AGAIN, JUST SOME VERY MINOR LANGUAGE, UH, CLEANUP AND, UM, LAMBERT PARK DRIVE, WHICH DOESN'T APPLY ANYMORE, THAT'S JUST BEING STRUCK OUT.
UM, USES FLOOR AREA HEIGHT AND SETBACKS.
UM, THE SETBACKS FOR THE FRONT YARD, WE HAD TO MODIFY THE LANGUAGE SO THAT THE MINIMUM, MINIMUM FRONT YARD IS 25 FEET, BUT THERE IS NO, UH, FRONT YARD REQUIRED FOR THE GUARDHOUSE.
THE GUARD HAS TO BE WITHIN THAT 25 FOOT SETBACK, AND THAT'S THE ONLY THING THAT WILL BE WITHIN THAT, THAT SETBACK.
UM, THE ATHLETIC FIELDS, THIS IS THE LANGUAGE THAT I WAS REFERRING TO FOR THE BLEACHERS.
UM, BLEACHERS LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE ATHLETIC FIELD, OR LIMITED TO A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 12 FEET TO THE TOP OF THE HIGHEST BLEACHER SEAT.
UM, BLEACHERS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE ATHLETIC FIELD, THIS IS WHAT WAS CHANGED OR LIMITED TO A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF FIVE FEET AT THE TOP OF THE HIGHEST BLEACHER SEAT.
IT MAY NOT EXCEED THE SEATING CAPACITY OF 350 PERSONS WITH THE TOTAL OF 1500 PERSONS.
UM, JUST REMOVING CLASSROOM HOURS, THAT'S, THAT'S OPERATIONAL FOR THE SCHOOL.
AND THEN WE DO HAVE THE PEDESTRIAN PATHWAYS THAT THEY HAVE AGREED TO.
UM, A PEDESTRIAN PATHWAY THAT COMPLIES WITH THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPHS ARE REQUIRED FOR THE SURFACE PARKING AREA ONLY.
UM, SINCE THAT IS THEIR ONLY AREA THAT THEY'RE IMPROVING AND EVERYTHING ELSE IS EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY, UM, THEY AGREED TO DO TO PROVIDE THE PEDESTRIAN PATHWAYS THROUGHOUT THE PARKING LOT ONLY.
SO THAT'S WHAT THIS LANGUAGE IS.
AND AGAIN, WE JUST, JUST WORDSMITH IT A LITTLE BIT.
SO, UM, UH, TRANSPORTATION HAS AGREED THAT A RIGHT, A RIGHT TURN DECELERATION
[00:35:01]
LANE, UM, THAT WAS ORIGINALLY PROPOSED BACK WHEN, YOU KNOW, BACK IN THE EIGHTIES WHEN THE PD WAS IN PLACE, UM, THAT IT WAS TO BE PROVIDED AS AN ACCESS POINT WOULD NO LONGER BE REQUIRED OR NEEDED.UM, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT'S QUITE AN EXPENSIVE IMPROVEMENT.
SO, UM, THAT WAS, YOU KNOW, A NICE CONCESSION FOR THEM.
UM, THE LATEST LANGUAGE THAT I SENT OUT ON MARCH 18TH HAS TO DO WITH THAT BULB OUT THAT I WAS REFERRING TO.
AND SO THE LANGUAGE NOW WOULD SAY THE INTERSECTION OF VALLEY VIEW LANE AND THISTLE LANE MUST REMAIN CONFIGURED AS SHOWN ON CONCEPTUAL PLAN B TO PLACE A BARRIER PERMANENTLY SEPARATING THE PORTION OF VALLEY VIEW LANE NORTH OF THIS THISTLE LANE FROM THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF VALLEY VIEW.
LANE LABELED COMING AT DRIVE ON CONCEPTUAL PLAN B PER CITY STANDARDS AND PER CITY STANDARDS IS THE LANGUAGE THAT, YOU KNOW, TRANSPORTATION THAT, AND STAFF AGREED IS APPROPRIATE FOR AN IMPROVEMENT.
AS SUCH, UM, THE PHOTOS, UM, THIS IS LOOKING SOUTH, UM, OF VALLEY V LANE OR COVENANT AS IN ON THE PLAN, UH, LOOKING WEST, UH, INTO THE HIGH SCHOOL AREA.
AGAIN, THIS IS CLOSEST TO THE LOWER HALF OF THE PD, UH, BASICALLY SOUTH OF, JUST SOUTH OF WHERE THIS LANE, UH, DEAD ENDS FOR THIS SITE.
UH, THIS IS LOOKING SOUTH ON THE NORTH SIDE OF, UH, VALLEY VIEW LANE LOOKING SOUTHWEST FROM VALLEY VIEW LANE FROM THE NORTH SURROUNDING USES VALLEY VIEW LANE.
UM, AGAIN, WE HAVE THE APARTMENT COMPLEX THAT IS DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM THAT FROM THE SCHOOL ON VALLEY VIEW LANE.
UM, THIS IS THE BARRIER THAT I WAS REFERRING TO THAT IS YOU'RE LOOKING NORTH RIGHT NOW.
UM, NORTH, MOST NORTH FROM THAT BARRIER WOULD BE VALLEY VIEW LANE, BUT THEN WHEN YOU LOOK OVER TO THE, ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE SCREEN, YOU'LL SEE, YOU CAN PROBABLY SEE THE STREET SIGN THAT'S THIS LANE.
SO AGAIN, IT'S JUST THE SCHOOL PROPERTY IS ON THIS SIDE OF THAT BARRIER AND DOES NOT GO THROUGH LOOKING NORTHWEST.
THIS IS LOOKING OVER, UM, ACROSS, UM, THE RESIDENTIAL AREA ACROSS WHERE THIS LANE IS LOOKING SOUTHWEST.
THIS IS FROM VALLEY VIEW LANE LOOKING WEST FROM VALLEY VIEW, LANE LOOKING NORTHEAST FROM VALLEY VIEW LANE SOUTHEAST.
THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT AND LANDSCAPING PLAN FOR THE PD WAS ALL TOGETHER IN THE, IN THE PAST.
SO THIS IS JUST SHOWING THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, IT IS OUR PRACTICE CURRENTLY MOST CURRENTLY TO SEPARATE THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND THE LANDSCAPE PLAN, WHICH THEY HAVE DONE.
UM, SO WE HAVE THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PLAN THAT WE WENT OVER A MINUTE AGO, AND WE HAVE THE PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PLAN SEPARATELY.
UM, THESE ARE SOME OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE CONDITIONS THAT WENT THROUGH THE PACKET THE VERY FIRST TIME WITHOUT ANY, UM, ADDITIONAL CHANGE.
IT'S AFTER THE DOCKET WAS PUBLISHED.
UM, MOSTLY CLEANUP, AGAIN, IT'S JUST SEPARATING EXHIBIT ONE 40 3D IS NOW THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, NOT THE LANDSCAPE AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
UM, WE DISCUSSED THE RIGHT TURN LANE, THE CLASSROOM HOURS, ATHLETIC FIELDS WE'RE JUST TAKING OUT SCOREBOARD.
UM, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE REVISED AMENDED DEVELOPMENT AND LANDSCAPE PLANS, REVISED AMENDED CONDITIONS AND AMENDED TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN.
SO AS BRIEFED
I, I'M SORRY IF THAT WENT LONG.
I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
COMMISSIONER NGO? YES, THANK YOU.
THANK YOU MS. LEVY FOR ALL YOUR WORK ON THIS PROJECT AND ANSWERING ALL MY EMAILS.
UM, I DO HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS ABOUT THE INTERSECTION OF VALLEY VIEW LANE AND THIS LANE.
UM, SO KNOW WE DISCUSSED THE OTHER DAY, WERE YOU ABLE TO FIND OUT WHEN THAT RECONFIGURATION WAS ACTUALLY PUT IN PLACE AS IS AS IT IS TODAY? I'M SORRY, I DO YOU KNOW WHEN THAT CONFIGURATION, LIKE THAT MAKING IT, UM, BLOCKED OFF? DO YOU KNOW WHEN THAT WAS PUT IN PLACE? I, WHEN WE LOOKED AT IT, I BELIEVE IT WAS 2016.
[00:40:01]
IT WAS EITHER 2014 OR 2016.UM, WE ALSO LOOKED AT, UM, SOME OF THE, THE DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE RIGHT ACROSS ON THIS LANE, UM, WHICH IS ALSO SOMETHING THAT CAME UP, YOU KNOW, AS FAR AS EROSION, YOU WANNA MAKE SURE THERE'S CURVING AND, UM, THAT WAS CONSTRUCTED IN 2016.
UM, ACTUALLY I THINK THE BARRIER WAS ALREADY IN PLACE.
AND THEN DO YOU, WERE YOU ABLE TO CONFIRM IF THERE HAD BEEN ANY INCIDENTS OR ANY, ANYTHING THAT HAD HAPPENED AT THAT INTERSECTION SINCE THAT BERRY HAD BEEN IN PLACE? NOT THAT REMEMBER OF ANYTHING.
UM, IS THIS, AND THIS MAY BE FOR MR. NAVAREZ, UM, IS THIS A PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, THIS INTERSECTION THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT? OKAY.
IT IS, IT IS PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.
AND IN GENERAL, AND FORGIVE MY IGNORANCE, IS THE CITY REQUIRED FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY? UM, YEAH, THAT, THAT IS SOMETHING WE MIGHT WANT OUR TRANSPORTATION PERSON, UH, STAFF MEMBER DAVID NEVAREZ? NO, MA'AM.
UH, THIS WILL BE A REQUIREMENT FROM THE SCHOOL TO IMPROVE, TO PROTECT THE WELFARE AND SAFETY OF MOTORISTS, BUT ALSO TO MAKE SURE THAT WATER DRAINS CORRECTLY AROUND THE CORNER.
THE CURB WILL NEED TO BE INSTALLED AND VERY, YOU KNOW, MAYBE A HUNDRED, $200 SIGNS.
THEY'RE RED SQUI DIAMOND SHAPE SQUARES SO THAT A VEHICLE AT NIGHT LIGHTS ARE FLASHING AND DOESN'T CONTINUE.
THE FACT THAT THERE HAVEN'T BEEN ANY ACCIDENTS IS, UM, IS, UH, IT, IT, I I WOULD NOT TAKE THAT INTO ACCOUNT.
THIS IS A SAFETY ASPECT AND THE SCHOOL WILL BE RESPONSIBLE TO, UH, MAKE SURE THAT, THAT THE CONDITION ON THE PD IS ENFORCED PER CITY STANDARDS.
SO THE CURB AND THE DRAINAGE THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, IT'S NOT WORKING CURRENTLY? HOW IT IS IT, NO MA'AM.
THE WATER JUST FLOWS OUT AS IT AS IT GOES.
AND IT'S BEEN THAT WAY SINCE 2014.
IT'S BEEN THERE SINCE SOMEONE TOOK OUT UPON THEMSELVES TO BUILD, UH, TO CLOSE THAT STREET.
IF IT WAS UP TO THE CITY, WE WILL GO BACK AND OPEN IT.
UM, AND THEN, UM, THIS, THIS INTERSECTION AND WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT RIGHT NOW TECHNICALLY ISN'T PART OF, IS THAT PART OF WHAT WE ARE DISCUSSING OVERALL IN THIS CASE TODAY? IT'S PART OF THE PD, BUT YES, MA'AM.
CAN, CAN YOU REPEAT YOUR QUESTION? IT JUST, IS IT, UM, IS THIS INTERSECTION WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT RIGHT NOW, UM, DOES IT TOUCH OR CONCERN THE AREA THAT, UM, WE'RE SUGGESTING THE PUBLIC WROTE, UH, RIGHT OF WAY IMPROVEMENTS? I THINK YOU ANSWERED MY QUESTION.
FOR ALL PRACTICAL MATTERS, SOMEONE HAS TO GO AND DO THAT THING, RIGHT? YEAH.
IT'S NOT, THAT'S NOT SAFE AND IT'S NOT FLOWING THE WAY IT SHOULD BE.
UM, IS IT IMPOSED? ARE YOU IMPOSING THIS ON THE CITY? WE DIDN'T LET THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS AND TRANSPORTATION KNOW THAT THEY HAVE TO FIND FUNDS TO CONSTRUCT THAT.
WHEN WE BRING THIS UP TO THEIR ATTENTION, WHEN THEY COME THROUGH PERMITS, THEY'RE GONNA COME TO US AND SAY, WHY IS ZONING IMPOSING THIS ON US? WE'RE NOT, WE DON'T HAVE PLANS.
AND IF WE HAVE PLANS, WE'LL PUT IN A BOND PROGRAM AND WE'LL SEE IT DONE SOMETIME WITHIN FIVE AND 10 YEARS FROM NOW.
REGRETFULLY, THAT'S, WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH COUNSEL AND THEN, UH, APPROPRIATE FUNDS, UH, THAT NEEDS IMMEDIATE ATTENTION.
SO WHENEVER SOMEONE, THE ABUTTING PROPERTY, UH, WHO IS RESPONSIBLE TO MAKE, ENFORCE THIS CONDITION, THEY WILL BE RESPONSIBLE TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS IS CONSTRUCTED FOR CITY STANDARDS.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A $2,000 IMPROVEMENT, BY THE WAY.
AND THIS AS NO WEIGHING FACTOR ON YOU, BUT JUST FYI.
AND I'M SO SORRY, BUT EXPLAIN WHY THIS NEEDS IMMEDIATE DETENTION NOW, IF IT'S BEEN THIS WAY FOR 11 YEARS.
WELL, UH, AGAIN, WE FOUND NO RECORDS OF THERE BEING ANY ACCIDENTS.
IT'S A RESIDENTIAL STREET ON ONE SIDE, AND THEN ON THE OTHER SIDE IS A, UM, DEAD END CONDITION.
IT SERVES THE, IT SERVES A DEAD END ACCESS TO THE SCHOOL AND THE, UM, APARTMENT COMPLEX.
UM, WHEN A, WHEN A MOTORIST IS DRIVING, THEY NEED TO BE AWARE THAT, THAT THEY'RE, THAT THE STREET DEAD ENDS THEIR, YOU KNOW, $20 SIGNS THAT LOOK, YOU KNOW, WITH A, UH, RED FLASHERS, SOMEONE CAN REQUEST THE CITY TO GO AND INSTALL THOSE SIGNS.
RIGHT NOW YOU CAN CALL 3 1 1 AND THOSE SIGNS WOULD NEED TO BE INSTALLED.
THE CITY THEN WOULD COME BACK TO US AND SAY, WHY ARE WE BEING, WHY, WHY DOES THAT LOOK LIKE THAT? AND WHO INSTALLED IT? THEN IT WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH A CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.
WE WOULD HAVE TO FIGURE OUT HOW THE CITY WOULD HAVE NO INTEREST IN MAINTAINING IT THAT WAY.
IT'S THE PD THAT'S IMPOSING THIS CONDITION ON THE, ON THE SCHOOL TO IMPROVE IT, EXCUSE ME, TO, TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS REMAINS AND IT NEEDS TO BE TO CITY STANDARDS, NOT THE WAY SOMEONE INSTALLED IT WHENEVER THEY DID.
[00:45:01]
OKAY.I THINK THOSE ARE ALL MY QUESTIONS.
UM, I NOTICED THAT THE TRAFFIC PLANS AND THE OVERFLOW PARKING PLANS ARE, THERE'S AN OBLIGATION TO SHARE THOSE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION UPON REQUEST.
THAT SEEMS A LITTLE UNUSUAL TO ME.
I MEAN, IS THAT, I'M JUST INTERESTED IN WHAT THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE HAS TO SAY ABOUT THAT.
IT JUST SEEMS LIKE THE, THE, THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION ISN'T A PARTY TO ANY OF THIS.
SO WHY IS THERE THIS OBLIGATION TO, YOU KNOW, TO PRODUCE THESE DOCUMENTS UPON THEIR DEMAND? I BELIEVE THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT THEY WANTED, UM, OR THAT IS IN THE ORIGINAL PD.
UM, BUT I THINK DAVID CAN SPEAK TO THAT.
I'M SURE THEY, IT, I'M SURE THEY WANTED IT, BUT WHAT IS THAT? IS THAT APPROPRIATE? I, I, I CAN SPEAK ON, ON THE HISTORY OF IT.
THERE WAS ALSO ANOTHER SCHOOL JUST A BLOCK AWAY WHO SINCE THEN MOVED, AND THEY WERE ALSO REQUIRED TO SUBMIT, UM, TRAFFIC STUDY UPDATES ON A REGULAR BASIS TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND THE CITY OF DALLAS AT THE SAME TIME.
UM, FRANKLY, IT HELPED US KEEP TABS ON THAT.
YOU KNOW, THEY, THEY WERE, BOTH SCHOOLS HAVE BEEN VERY, UM, THEY, THEY'VE DONE THEIR DUE DILIGENCE BECAUSE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THE TOOLS TO COME BACK AND REMIND THEM THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION DOES.
AND SO THE, THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, IT'S BEEN AT THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS REQUEST THAT BOTH OF THOSE SCHOOLS, THE ONE THAT'S NO LONGER THERE, BUT THE PD STILL REMAIN, OR SUP STILL REMAINS IN THIS ONE THAT HAVE THAT REQUIREMENT.
UM, I'M GLAD YOU'RE BACK UP, MR. NAVAREZ.
I, I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED ABOUT THE THISTLE VALLEY VIEW.
I MEAN, I'VE DRIVEN THAT, SEEN IT.
IS IT THE THISTLE PART THAT'S UNSAFE OR THE VALLEY VIEW, LANE PART THAT'S UNSAFE OR BOTH? WHAT, WHAT IS IT? WHICH IS IT? THEY, THEY JUST NEED REFLECTORS.
THEY JUST NEED A REFLECTOR THAT SOMEONE CAN DRIVE IN HELP.
REFLECTORS ON THE VALLEY VIEW, LANE SIDE OR THELE SIDE ON BOTH SIDES? YES, SIR.
THEY'RE, THEY'RE, THEY'RE YELLOW, BLACK, AND YELLOW.
THERE'S A BLACK AND YELLOW LINE, AND THEN IT'S A, UH, DI DIAMOND SHAPE WITH FOUR BUTTONS ON IT.
UH, YOU'RE DRIVING ON IT AND IT TELLS YOU VERY CLEARLY THAT THAT'S THE END OF THE ROAD.
UM, AS YOU'RE DRIVING ALSO ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE, AS YOU'RE TURNING RIGHT OR LEFT, IT ALSO GUIDES YOU, UM MM-HMM
AND DID I UNDERSTAND THAT YOUR PREFERENCE WOULD BE THAT THIS JUST BE REOPENED AND RETURNED TO ITS ORIGINAL CONDITION? NO, SIR.
I THINK, I THINK THE WAY IT'S THERE, TODAY'S, WHOEVER INSTALLED THAT IS PERFECTLY FINE.
THIS IS A NEIGHBORHOOD ROAD, A LOCAL ROAD, A RESIDENTIAL ROAD.
UM, UH, IT CLOSES CONNECTIVITY, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, IT, UM, ENFORCES THE LIMITED ACCESS TO VEHICULAR ACCESS TO A NEIGHBORHOOD.
SO I THINK THE NE IF THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION REQUESTED IT, AND IT'S ALREADY BEEN INSTALLED AND MATURED IN THAT WAY, I THINK IT SHOULD REMAIN AS IS, EXCUSE ME, IT SHOULD REMAIN WITH THOSE CONDITIONS.
AND THEN THE CONSTRUCTION OF CURB AND GUTTER TO LINE, UM, WATER DOWN, STORM WATER DOWN THE INLET.
WELL, I'VE GOT, MAYBE I HAVE COMMENTS THIS AFTERNOON.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM? COMMISSIONERS.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR RECEIVING.
IT'S TABLE NUMBER 11 FOR THE MOMENT.
NUMBER 12 WILL BE HELD INTO OUR ADVISEMENT TILL APRIL 10TH, AND WE'RE READY FOR 13.
I THINK I SAW COMMISSIONER WHEELER ALL LINE GETTING HELD MORNING.
CAN YOU HEAR ME? IS IT 13 RESTRICTIONS, CIRCULATOR? I DON'T KNOW.
IT'S DO WE KNOW THIRTEEN'S GONNA GET HELD? COMM SHORT WHEELER.
MR. RAMERS, DO YOU KNOW IF THIS IS GETTING HELP DUE TO DEED RESTRICTIONS? CAN YOU HEAR ME, CHAIRMAN? YES.
I KNOW THAT WE ARE IN THE PROCESS OF REVIEWING VOLUNTEER GEAR RESTRICTIONS.
I DON'T BELIEVE THEY'VE BEEN FINALIZED, SO I WOULDN'T BE SURPRISED IF IT WAS HELD.
WE'LL TABLE THIS ONE FOR THE MOMENT THEN.
[00:50:01]
IS GONNA ALSO BE HELD UNDER ADVISEMENT OR APRIL 10TH, 15 ALSO WILL BE HELD UNDER ADVISEMENT.UH, DO WE HAVE A DATE? COMMISSIONER FORESITE.
IT'S, UH, ABOUT 10:00 AM LET'S TAKE A 15 MINUTE BREAK.
WE'LL COME BACK AND WRAP THESE UP.
WE'RE DOING CASE 13, THESE D SEVEN MR. ROBERTS.
CAN YOU, CAN YOU HEAR ME? WE CAN.
UH, THIS IS A APPLICATION FOR AN MF TWO, A MULTIFAMILY DISTRICT ON A PROPERTY CURRENTLY ZONED CR COMMUNITY RETAIL, UM, ZONING AREA IS APPROXIMATELY 2.26 AC ACRES.
AND IF YOU RECALL, ON FEBRUARY 6TH, EARLIER THIS MONTH OR LAST MONTH, UH, THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION MOVED TO HOLD THE CASE UNDER ADVISEMENTS.
UM, JUST A REFRESHER, UH, IT'S A SPLIT ZONING CONDITION ON THE SITE.
SO THE, UH, AREA OF REQUEST IS ACTUALLY IN THE DIAGONAL HASH THERE THAT YOU SEE ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF SCREEN.
SO THE EXISTING CR DISTRICT IS 2.26 ACRES.
UH, THERE'S AN ABUTTING EXISTING MF TWO A DISTRICT THAT'S JUST SHY OF AN ACRE ON THE PARCEL, AND THE WHOLE PROPERTY IS ABOUT 3.22 ACRES.
SO THIS REQUEST IS FOR THAT DIAGONAL HASH ENC SEES LOCATION THERE.
AGAIN, THE AREA OF REQUEST FROM THE DIAGONAL HASH, UH, SURROUNDING USES ARE MF TWO A MULTIFAMILY TO THE NORTH AND WEST, UM, TO THE EAST CR COMMUNITY RETAIL DISTRICT WITH SOME MISCELLANEOUS RETAIL USES, UH, ZONING ASSESSMENT.
LOOKING AT THE DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS, SEE, IT'S RELATIVELY SIMILAR IN TERMS OF ITS, UH, INTENSITY.
UH, OBVIOUSLY THE MF TWO A WOULD ALLOW FOR RESIDENTIAL USES, WHEREAS THE CR DOES NOT.
TAKING A LOOK AT THE SITE, UH, THIS WOULD BE A SHARED ACCESS DRIVE OR, OR AN A BUDDING SHARED ACCESS DRIVE, I SHOULD SAY, UH, TO THE EAST OF THE SITE.
UH, THIS IS FROM THE A BUDDING MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT.
UH, JUST SOME CONTEXT FOR YOU.
THIS IS WHAT THE SURROUNDING MF TWO A DEVELOPMENT LOOKS LIKE.
UH, IT'S A PART OF THE TWO POINTS.
WHITE ROCK EAST AREA PLAN, UH, DOES DESIGNATE THE AREAS.
AN URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD, THAT'S A PREDOMINANTLY RESIDENTIAL AREA, UH, WITH A WIDE VARIETY OF HOUSING OPTIONS.
UH, CHOICES OF HOUSING DO INCLUDE LOW TO MIDRISE CONDOMINIUMS, UH, OR APARTMENTS IN ADDITION TO SINGLE FAMILY AND TOWN HOMES.
UH, IN TERMS OF OUR RATIONALE ON THE STAFF SIDE TO THE, UH, RECOMMENDATION, UH, THE SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT DOES LIMIT ACCESS.
WHAT YOU SEE THERE LABELED AS A, AS A CONVENIENCE STORE, UH, THAT LIMITS HARD, UH, ACCESS TO THE HARD CORNER OF JOHN WEST AND LA PRADA.
UM, THE EXISTING SPLIT CONDITION DOES CREATE A DIFFICULT DEVELOPMENT CONDITION FOR THE EXISTING SPLIT CONDITION.
CREATES DIFFICULTY FOR EITHER THE MF TWO A OR THE CR DISTRICT.
SO, UH, WITH THAT ALLOWING A COHESIVE DEVELOPMENT ON THE SITE, WE ARE, UH, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE APPLICATION.
UM, REAL QUICK, COMMISSIONER, THERE WAS CONVERSATIONS OVER THE PAST COUPLE WEEKS, VOLUNTARY DEED RESTRICTIONS.
I, I DO NOT BELIEVE WE'VE REACHED A CONSENSUS ON THAT THOUGH.
JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT WAS SAID.
UM, HAPPY, HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE.
QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS CASE? 13.
UH, UM, AND AGAIN, 14 HELD TO APRIL 10TH, 15, HELD TO APRIL 14TH.
[00:55:03]
WHAT ABOUT NUMBER, UH, 28? COMMISSIONER SHERLOCK? DO WE NEED THAT BRIEFED? YES.THE AUTHORIZATION, UH, AUTHORIZED HEARING D ONE.
[01:00:47]
ALL RIGHT.SORRY ABOUT THAT, COMMISSIONERS.
MY NAME IS JAYLEN PORSCHE, SENIOR PLANNER WITH THE, UH, AUTHORIZED HEARINGS TEAM.
UM, TODAY I'LL BE PRESENTING ON HAMPTON CLAIRTON CORRIDOR, THE AUTHORIZED HEARING, UM, KNOWN AS CASE NUMBER Z 180 9 DASH 3 49.
THE AREA OF REQUEST, UM, IS AN AUTHORIZED HEARING TO DETERMINE THE PROPER ZONING ON PROPERTY ZONE CR COMMUNITY RETAIL, UH, CS COMMERCIAL SERVICES, MU ONE, UH, MIXED USE, UH, DISTRICT ONE RR REGIONAL RETAIL, AND P UH, A, WHICH IS A PARKING DISTRICT, AND THE HAMPTON CLAT COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR.
UM, CONSIDERATIONS ARE TO BE GIVEN TO THE USE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND OTHER APPROPRIATE REGULATIONS.
UM, THE AREA OF REQUEST IS APPROXIMATELY 35, UH, AND A QUARTER ACRES.
UH, AND THE PURPOSE IS TO IMPLEMENT THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE WEST OAK CLIFF AREA PLANT.
UM, THE AREA OF REQUEST IS LOCATED IN THE OAK CLIFF, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD, SPECIFICALLY THE WEST OAK CLIFF NEIGHBORHOOD IN DALLAS.
THIS AREA IS GENERALLY LOCATED ALONG BOTH SIDES OF HAMPTON ROAD, BETWEEN WENTWORTH STREET TO THE NORTH AND BRANDON STREET TO THE SOUTH, AND ALONG BOTH SIDES OF WEST CLATON DRIVE BETWEEN THE ALLEY PARALLEL TO HAMPTON ROAD AND MARLBOROUGH AVENUE CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY A 35 AND A QUARTER ACRE.
UM, THE ONE ON THE LEFT IS A PHOTO OF THE TOM THUMB, WHICH IS LOCATED ON THE NORTHERN END OF THE CORRIDOR.
UH, THE ONE IN THE CENTER IS DANNY'S AUTO SERVICE IS A MECHANIC SHOP LOCATED ALONG CLARATON.
UM, AND THEN THE ONE ON THE FAR RIGHT IS A PHOTO OF THE SHOPPING CENTER, WHICH IS ALSO LOCATED ON THE NORTHERN END OF THE, UH, AREA OF REQUEST.
HERE WE HAVE MORE, MORE PHOTOS OF PROPERTIES.
THIS ONE IS LOCATED ON THE CORNER OF CLAREDON AND OAK CLIFF, AND THE ONE ON THE RIGHT IS LOCATED ON THE CORNER OF HAMPTON AND CLAREDON.
THESE TWO, UH, TWO PROPERTIES, THE ONE ON THE LEFT IS LOCATED ALONG CLATON.
THE ONE ON THE RIGHT IS LOCATED ALONG HAMPTON.
BOTH OF THESE ARE LOCATED ALONG HAMPTON ON THE EAST AND WEST SIDES.
SO THE WEST OAK CLIFF AREA PLAN WAS ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCIL ON OCTOBER 26TH, 2022.
UM, IT PROVIDES A LONG RANGE VISION FOR LAND USE, URBAN DESIGN, TRANSPORTATION, MOBILITY, INFRASTRUCTURE, OPEN SPACE AND COMMUNITY CONCERNS AROUND REVITALIZATION.
UM, IN THAT PLAN, IT IDENTIFIED SEVERAL FOCUS AREAS AND PROVIDED SOME LAND USE, UM, AND ZONING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SOME.
UM, AND SO FAR WE'VE, UH, SUCCESSFULLY ADOPTED AND IMPLEMENTED, UM, TWO WITH THE THIRD ONE GOING UP TO CITY COUNCIL NEXT WEEK, WHICH IS A NORTH CLIFF.
THE TWO THAT WE HAVE PASSED FOR, UH, FROM THE WEST OAK CLIFF AREAS OF, UH, INTEREST ARE THE JIMTOWN NEIGHBORHOOD AND DOWNTOWN ELMWOOD.
SO THIS WOULD BE THE FOURTH THAT THE COMMISSION HAS SEEN SO FAR.
UM, THE RECOMMENDATIONS, UH, FOR THE WEST OAK CLIFF AREA PLAN FOR THIS SPECIFIC AREA RECOMMENDS A FORM-BASED DISTRICT FOR HAMPTON CLARATON.
MORE SPECIFICALLY, UM, THE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE TO AMEND THE EXISTING ZONING TO ALLOW FOR MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT.
UM, NEW ZONING SHOULD CONSIDER A FORM-BASED DISTRICT THAT WILL RESULT IN WALKABLE URBAN FORM, SUCH AS ACTIVATED FACADES, UH, WIDE SIDEWALKS, WHILE ALSO ENSURING APPROPRIATE SETBACKS AND PROXIMITY SLOPES TO ADJACENT SINGLE FAMILY USES.
UM, THE DEVELOPMENT SHOULD BE LIMITED TO EXISTING HEIGHT LIMIT OF 54 FEET AS CURRENTLY ALLOWED IN CR ZONING.
AND, UH, PERMITTED RESIDENTIAL SHOULD INCLUDE SMALL MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENTS AND TOWN HOMES.
SOME OTHER WCAP RECOMMENDATIONS, UM, WERE TO SUPPORT A COMMERCIAL CENTER THAT PROVIDES A VARIETY
[01:05:01]
OF WORK, CULTURAL SHOPPING AND LIVING OPPORTUNITIES, UM, TO ENCOURAGE BUSINESSES THAT ARE COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS TO IMPLEMENT TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES TO MAKE THE DISTRICT MORE WALKABLE, UH, AND TO ALSO CONSIDER PARKING REDUCTIONS FOR NEW STRUCTURES, LEGACY COMMERCIAL STRUCTURES AND SHARED PARKING USE AGREEMENTS WITH SURROUNDING PROPERTIES AND PERMITTING ON ADJACENT ON STREET PARKING TO COUNT TOWARDS PARKING REQUIREMENTS.SO, UM, SO FAR, UH, SOME OF THE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT WE'VE HAD FOR THE AUTHORIZED HEARINGS, UM, BACK IN APRIL, WE KICKED IT OFF, UM, WITH AND, AND WENT OVER THE PROCESS OF THE AUTHORIZED HEARING FOR ALL OF THE, UM, AUTHORIZED FOR SEVERAL WEST OAKCLIFF AREAS OF INTEREST THAT ALSO HAD AUTHORIZED HEARINGS.
WE RAN 'EM CONCURRENTLY AT A KICKOFF MEETING ON JUNE 1ST.
UM, STAFF MET WITH THE SUNSET, UH, HILL NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, AND WE INTRODUCED THE, UH, WE REINTRODUCED THE WEST OAK CLIFF AREA PLAN'S RECOMMENDATIONS, AND DISCUSS SOME OF THEIR ISSUES AND GATHER FEEDBACK.
WE DID THE SAME WITH THE HAMPTON HILLS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION ON JUNE 4TH.
UM, WE MET WITH THE AUTOMOTIVE ASSOCIATION, UM, AND GATHERED SOME FEEDBACK FROM THEM AND, UH, SOME IDEAS ABOUT THE REZONING.
UM, AND THEN ON JULY 10TH, WE LAUNCHED THE ANOTHER COMMUNITY MEETING AT MARTIN WEISS TO INTRODUCE THE ZONING CONCEPTS OF FORM-BASED CODES.
UM, ON JULY 16TH, WE MET WITH THE JIMTOWN NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND DID A TOUR OF THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD AND DISCUSSED SOME ASPECTS OF THE PLAN.
UM, ON SEPTEMBER 16TH, UH, WE RAN ANOTHER MEETING, UM, WITH ALL OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION LEADERS, UM, WHICH RAN DIRECTLY BEFORE OUR NEXT MEETING, WHICH HAPPENED TO BE SEPTEMBER 24TH, UH, WHICH IS WHERE WE INTRODUCED THE ZONING PROPOSAL ON OCTOBER 12TH.
UM, AFTER THE, SHORTLY AFTER THE MEETING, UM, THE SEPTEMBER MEETING WHERE WE INTRODUCED THE PROPOSAL, WE MET WITH THE EAST HAMPTON HILLS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
UM, AND THEN DECEMBER 12TH, DECEMBER 13TH AND DECEMBER 17TH, WE RAN THREE MEETINGS, TWO OF WHICH WERE VIRTUAL, UM, ONE OF WHICH WERE WAS SPANISH ONLY.
UH, AND THEN A FINAL COMMUNITY MEETING TO DISCUSS THE FINAL PROPOSAL, UH, BEFORE WE MOVE FORWARD TO THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION, UM, AND ALLOWS YOU ALL TO TAKE A LOOK AT IT.
UM, THIS PAST, UH, TUESDAY WE MET WITH, ONCE AGAIN, WE MET WITH ALL OF THE, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION LEADERS SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD, AND WE GOT SOME FINAL FEEDBACK FROM THEM WITH REGARDS TO SOME ITEMS. AND TODAY WE ARE HERE AT THE DALLAS, UH, CITY PLAN COMMISSION.
SO, UM, THE CURRENT LAND USE, UM, THROUGHOUT THE HAMPTON AND CLARATON CORRIDOR, UM, IS, MAJORITY OF IT IS RETAIL AND PERSONAL SERVICE, WHICH, UM, OCCUPIES APPROXIMATELY 38% OF THE PROPERTIES HERE.
UM, THERE'S A, A LARGE CHUNK OF AUTO SERVICE USES, WHICH OCCUPIES 13.1%.
THERE ARE SOME COMMERCIAL AND BUSINESS SERVICE USES, SOME INSTITUTIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE, UH, USES, UH, IN THE FORM OF SCHOOLS AND CHURCHES AND DAYCARES.
UM, THERE ARE SOME OFFICE USES HERE AS WELL AS, UM, A FEW SINGLE FAMILY, UH, HOMES THAT ARE SCATTERED THROUGHOUT THE CORRIDOR THAT FELL WITHIN THE BOUNDARY THAT ARE, UH, ZONE CR.
UM, THERE ARE SOME UTILITY AND PUBLIC SERVICE USES, UM, CELL TOWERS.
UM, THERE WERE A FEW OF THOSE.
AND THEN THERE ARE SEVERAL VACANT BUILDINGS AND VACANT LOTS THAT SIT THROUGHOUT THE HAMPTON CLAIRTON CORRIDOR.
SO, AS MENTIONED BEFORE, UM, THERE ARE FIVE BASED ZONING DISTRICTS WITHIN, UM, THE HAMPTON CLATON CORRIDOR, AND ONE OF WHICH IS, UH, PLAN DEVELOPMENT, WHICH HAPPENS TO BE THE TOM THUMB.
UM, THE CR DISTRICT REPRESENTS APPROXIMATELY 88% OF THE LAND, SO MAJORITY OF THIS PROPERTY, UH, THIS LAND IS ZONED CR UH, AND THAT DISTRICT GENERALLY INCLUDES COMMERCIAL SERVICING, RETAIL, PERSONAL SERVICES, AND OFFICE USES.
UM, AND THE CORRIDOR ITSELF IS PRIMARILY SURROUNDED BY R 7.5, A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL WITH A PORTION, UH, THAT WAS SURROUNDED BY MF TWO, BUT HAS NOW BEEN REZONED TO, UH, R 7.58.
AND THAT IS THE GYM TOWN NEIGHBORHOOD.
UH, AND THEN THERE IS ALSO A PORTION THAT IS ZONED TOWNHOUSE THREE ON THE, UM, WESTERN SIDE OF HAMPTON.
UH, AND YOU CAN SEE THAT ONE HERE ON THE SCREEN.
THE AREA OF REQUESTS, AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, CONTAINS COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS, INSTITUTIONAL OFFICE, PERSONAL SERVICES, COFFEE SHOPS, UH, AUTO SERVICES, RESTAURANTS, CHURCHES, DAYCARE, UM, A LOT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES, UH, RETAIL ESTABLISHMENTS THAT SERVE THEIR, THAT INTEND TO SERVE THEIR COMMUNITY.
AND THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY OF THE WEST OAK CLIFF AREA STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS WALKABLE URBAN MIXED USE FORM DISTRICT, WHICH IS WMU THREE WITH A SHOPFRONT OVERLAY ON A PORTION.
UM, THE FORM DISTRICT ACCOMMODATES
[01:10:01]
A MIX OF COMPATIBLE USES NEAR ONE ANOTHER AND A PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY ENVIRONMENT.UM, WMU THREE HAPPENS TO BE THE LOWEST INTENSITY OF THE SIX WALKABLE MIXED USE DISTRICTS MAKE IT COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING, UH, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, IT DIRECTLY ALIGNS WITH WOKE CAP'S GOAL OF TRANSFORMING THE AREA INTO A MIXED USE CORRIDOR THAT IS PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY.
UM, THERE IS NO MINIMUM ACREAGE REQUIRED FOR, UH, WMU ZONING DISTRICTS.
UM, WMU THREE ALSO ALLOWS FOR A VARIETY OF HOUSING TYPES, NON-RESIDENTIAL USES AND URBAN DESIGN STANDARDS TO ENSURE THAT THE DESIRED URBAN FORM IS MET.
I HAVE A TABLE OF NO, THE USES, SORRY, I WANNA MAKE SURE YOU ALL CAN SEE THAT ON YOUR SCREEN.
AND SO THIS TABLE LAYS OUT THE DEVELOPMENT TYPES THAT ARE ALLOWED IN THE WMUU THREE DISTRICT, UM, WHICH IS MIXED USE SHOP FRONT, SINGLE STORY SHOP FRONT, GENERAL COMMERCIAL APARTMENTS, TOWN HOME STACKS, TOWN HOMES, UH, MENOR HOUSES, CIVIC BUILDINGS, AND OPEN SPACE LOTS.
UM, THE ONE THAT ISN'T ALLOWED IS A SINGLE FAMILY HOME.
THAT DEVELOPMENT TYPE IS JUST NOT ALLOWED WITHIN WM.
E THREE, SOME PERMITTED USES, THEY'RE ALLOWED.
UM, AS IT PERTAINS TO, UM, THE CURRENT USES IN THE PROPOSAL USES, UM, THE ONLY USES THAT AREN'T ALLOWED AS A RESULT OF THAT AREN'T ALLOWED BY RIGHT AS A RESULT OF THE ZONING CHAIN, SHOULD IT BE ADOPTED, ARE TATTOO PARLORS, CELL TOWERS, AND DRIVE THROUGH RESTAURANTS, WHICH ARE, HAVE BEEN DIRECTLY AND EXPLICITLY STATED AND WOKE CAP THAT THEY NO LONGER WANT ANY MORE DRIVE-THROUGH ESTABLISHMENTS.
AND SO THE REST OF THE USES ARE ALLOWED BY RIDE STILL.
UM, AND THE USES THAT I DID JUST LIST ARE ALLOWED THROUGH A SUP AND A TATTOO PARLOR WOULD BE ALLOWED THROUGH A DIRECT ZONING CHANGE.
HERE WE HAVE SOME, UM, UH, A, A PICTURE OF THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
YOU CAN SEE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE EXISTING CR UH, AND THE PROPOSED WM U THREE.
I DID CR BECAUSE AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, IT REPRESENTS 88% OF THE DISTRICT.
AND SO, UM, MAJORITY OF THE LODGE ARE ON THAT, UH, CR UH, AND YOU CAN SEE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE, THE FRONT SETBACKS AND HOW WM U THREE, UH, AIMS TO BRING THE BUILDINGS CLOSER TO THE STREET, UH, AND PUT THE PARKING IN THE REAR.
UM, AND THEN THERE ARE NO MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS.
UM, RPS DOES STILL APPLY, UH, AND ONE OF THE, THE BIGGER CHANGES IS IT DOES BRING THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT DOWN FROM 54 FEET TO 50 FEET, THREE AND A HALF.
UM, AND SO THOSE ARE THE PRIMARY DIFFERENCES.
UH, OUTSIDE OF SOME MORE DESIGN ELEMENTS LIKE TRANSPARENCY, UH, BETWEEN THE EXISTING CR AND THE PROPOSED WME THREE.
SO YEP, WE HAVE, UH, SETBACKS.
UM, THE PROPOSE IS TO, FOR A MINIMUM OF FIVE, A MAXIMUM OF 15 FEET, A SIDE AND REAR YARD OF FIVE FEET, BUT 10 IF YOU'RE BUTTING A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.
UH, AND THEN YOU CAN HAVE A LOT COVERAGE RANGING FROM A HUNDRED TO 60%, WHICH DEPENDS ON THE DEVELOPMENT TYPE YOU DECIDE TO GO WITH.
UM, THE HEIGHT, IT LOWERS IT TO 50 FEET, THREE AND A HALF STORIES, BUT HIGH BONUSES, UH, MAY BE PROVIDED FOR MIXED INCOME HOUSING DEVELOPMENT BONUSES.
UM, AND THE RP THREE TO ONE RPS, UH, RESIDENTIAL PROXIMITY SLOPE DOES STILL APPLY.
UM, THE LANDSCAPING FALLS BACK TO ARTICLE 10 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE.
UM, AND THEN THE OPEN SPACE, THERE HAS TO BE AT LEAST 8% OF THE NET LAND AREA OF THE SITE MUST BE PROVIDED AS OPEN SPACE.
UM, ALL HVAC EQUIPMENT, MECHANICAL DEVICES AND DUMPSTERS MUST BE SCREENED FROM VIEW, UH, FROM ADJACENT STREETS AND PROPERTIES.
SO, UM, PART OF WHAT GOES INTO FORM-BASED DISTRICTS IS, UM, INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS.
UM, AND STREET SECTIONS TEND TO DEFINE A FORM DISTRICT.
AND SO THE INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS, THEY'RE TYPICALLY AIMED AT ENHANCING THE PUBLIC REALM TO HELP ACHIEVE THE DESIRED URBAN FORM.
AS NEW DEVELOPMENT TENDS TO COME ON BOARD, UM, THE COMMUNITY DESIRES A PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY, WALKABLE MISUSE DISTRICT, UM, BECAUSE THERE HAVE BEEN CONCERNS ABOUT PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLIST SAFETY AS A RESULT OF VEHICULAR IMPACTS AND POOR SIDEWALK CONDITIONS.
UM, SO WE AIM TO EXPLORE VEHICLE ACCESS MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES TO NARROW DRIVEWAY WIDTH, WIDTH TO REDESIGN STREETS, TO IMPROVE SAFETY AND ACCESSIBILITY ON HAMPTON AND CLATON INTERSECTION, UH, AND TO ALSO ENSURE THAT ROADWAY DESIGN THAT MOVES TRAFFIC AND OFFERS TRANSPORTATION CHOICES WOULD PROVIDE A BALANCED OPPORTUNITY TO WALK, BIKE, AND DRIVE TO AND FROM THE CORRIDOR.
HERE WE HAVE A CONCEPTUAL ROADWAY,
[01:15:01]
UH, CONFIGURATION, WHICH IS A RESULT OF THE WEST, UH, THE WEST CLARATON, UH, DRIVE TRANSPORTATION STUDY.UM, AS I'VE BEEN TOLD BY THE TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT, UM, THIS IS WHERE THEY'VE LANDED.
UM, THIS APPEARS TO BE THE FINAL DECISION.
UH, AS YOU CAN SEE, THERE IS A CONTINUING CONTINUOUS, UH, TURN LANE RUNNING THROUGHOUT THE CLAREDON DRIVE WITH PARKING LOCATED ON THE NORTHERN END THAT WILL BE AVAILABLE TO USE, BE USED BY BUILDINGS, UH, THERE, UH, TO HELP THEM ACCOMMODATE THEIR PARKING.
AS MENTIONED BEFORE, OUR RECOMMENDATION IS WMU THREE WITH A PORTION, UM, DESIGNATED FOR SHOPFRONT OVERLAY.
UM, SHOPFRONT OVERLAY IS INTENDED TO CREATE PEDESTRIAN SHOPPING STREETS THROUGH THE DESIGNATION OF STREET FRONTAGES WITH THE DEVELOPMENT TYPES THAT SUPPORT ACTIVE USES.
UM, A SHOPFRONT OVERLAY MAY BE APPLIED OVER ANY WALKABLE MIXED USE DISTRICT.
UM, AND IT'S A INTIMIDATE INTENDED TO ACCOMMODATE A LIMITED SET OF DEVELOPMENT TYPES.
SO WHAT THAT THOSE ARE, ARE, UM, SHOPFRONT AND MULTI, MULTI-STORY SHOPFRONT, UH, DEVELOPMENT TYPES IS INTENDED TO ACCOMMODATE THOSE.
UM, THE STANDARDS FOR A MIXED USE OR A SINGLE STORY SHOPFRONT DEVELOPMENT TYPE WOULD ONLY APPLY TO THE FIRST 30 FEET.
UM, AFTER THAT, UM, THE PROPERTY OWNERS TEND TO GET MORE FLEXIBILITY, UM, TO INCORPORATE MORE USES BEFORE THE FIRST 30 FEET.
UM, THE GOAL IS TO KEEP THE DISTRICT FEELING, UM, RETAIL COMMERCIAL ORIENTED AND TO ALLOW OFFICE IF THEY SEE FIT.
AND SO, UH, THAT'S THE PURPOSE OF THE SOFTWARE OVERLAY.
UM, STAFF HAS PROPOSED TO KEEP THAT TARGETED PRIMARILY AT THE CORNER OF HAMPTON AND CLAIRTON.
UM, AS A RESULT OF SOME, UH, DISCUSSIONS WE'VE HAD WITH SOME COMMUNITY LEADERS, UM, WHO EXPRESSED THE DESIRE TO, THEY LIMIT IT TO A SPECIFIC AREA WITHIN THE CORRIDOR.
ADDITIONALLY, UM, A LOT OF THE PROPERTIES WITHIN THE CORNER OF HAMPTON CLATON ARE BUILT TO THE STREET ALREADY.
AND SO, UM, STAFF FEELS THAT, UM, BY PROPOSING A SOFTWARE OVERLAY AT THE CORNER, UM, IT HELPS ENCOURAGE THE ADAPTIVE REUSE OF THOSE BUILDINGS BY ENSURING THAT AT THE GROUND FLOOR THEY STAY RETAIL ORIENTED, WHICH IS WHAT THEY'RE KIND OF BUILT TOWARDS RIGHT NOW.
SO, UM, AS MENTIONED BEFORE, THE SHOPFRONT OVERLAY IS INTENDED TO PRESERVE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS ALONG PRIMARY STREETS, DEFINED BY SMALL PARCELS, PEDESTRIAN SCALE BUILDINGS, ACTIVE STREETS, PUBLIC SPACES, AND RETAIL AND SERVICE USES.
UM, THEY REINFORCE AND EN ENHANCED THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD SCALE CHARACTER THROUGH SITE PLANNING, ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES AND ELEMENTS.
UH, STREET SCAPE FEATURES, LANDSCAPING, ARTWORK, LIGHTING AND SIGNAGE.
AND THEY MAINTAIN AND ENHANCED STREET LEVEL FACING STOREFRONTS WITH INDIVIDUAL IDENTITIES.
AS MENTIONED BEFORE, UM, THE RESIDENTIAL PROXIMITY SLOPE WOULD STILL APPLY.
UM, CURRENTLY, IT, IT DOES APPLY UNDER THE EXISTENCE CR BUT UNDER THE, UH, WMU THREE, UM, IT WOULD LIMIT THE HEIGHT TO 50 FEET, THREE AND A HALF STORIES.
UM, AND THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT TO NOTE, UM, AS YOU CONSIDER THAT THE ENTIRE AREA IS PRETTY MUCH SURROUNDED BY ALL RESIDENTIAL.
AND SO A LOT OF THESE PROPERTIES JUST DOES, DON'T HAVE THE DEPTH TO REACH THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT, UM, IN ORDER THEY'RE NOT PUSHED BACK ENOUGH FROM THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY.
SO NOT ALL OF THESE PROPERTIES, UM, STAFF FEELS THAT MOST OF 'EM WILL HAVE VERY DIFFICULT TIME REACHING THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT HERE.
IN SUMMARY, UM, WE'RE PROPOSING A FORM-BASED DISTRICT, WALKABLE, URBAN MIXED USE DISTRICT, UM, AS RECOMMENDED BY WCAP WITH THE SHOPFRONT OVERLAY ON A PORTION.
UM, WE'RE PROPOSING TO BRING THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT, UH, REDUCE IT FROM 54 FEET, FOUR STORIES TO 50 FEET, THREE AND A HALF, UH, TO RETAIN THE EXISTING THREE TO ONE RPS TO PROTECT, TO SURROUNDING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES.
UM, NO MINIMUM BUILDING HEIGHTS, UH, SHOP FRONT OVERLAY ON THE CORNER OF HAMPTON AND CLARINET, AND THEN TO ACTIVATE THE PUBLIC REALM, UH, AND THEN CON COMPLIMENTARY, UH, PUBLIC REALM ENHANCEMENTS THROUGH OUR TRANSPORTATION, UH, UH, IMPROVEMENTS AS A RESULT OF THE WEST, UH, CLARINET TRANSPORTATION STUDY.
ALRIGHT, THANK, THANK YOU, SIR.
UH, BEFORE WE GET STARTED WITH THE, THE QUESTION SPECIFICALLY FOR THIS, THIS CASE, I'M WONDERING IF YOU COULD MAYBE TAKE, TAKE US BACK A LITTLE BIT.
UH, AS YOU KNOW, THERE WAS STILL, CLIFF AREA PLAN WAS, UH, A SIGNIFICANT LIFT ABOUT TWO AND A HALF, THREE YEARS, UH, THAT THIS BODY AND THEN COUNSEL, AND I'M HOPING THAT YOU CAN PUT THIS CASE, UH, THAT I THINK IT'S THE LAST ONE THAT, THAT WAS UNLOCKED BY WOKE CAP, UH, INTO CONTEXT WITH THE KIND OF THE, THE BROADER LENS OF WOKE CAP.
[01:20:01]
WEST OAK CLIFF AREA PLAN, IT SET FORTH OVERALL GOALS FOR ADDRESSING THINGS LIKE DISPLACEMENT, UM, GENTRIFICATION, UM, BLIGHTED BUILDINGS, UH, TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS, UM, THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE WEST OAK CLIFF AREA PLAN.AND SO FAR, UM, WE'VE SUCCESSFULLY IMPLEMENTED THREE OF THEM, WELL, TWO IN THE POSSIBLE, BUT, UM, TWO OF THE AREAS OF INTEREST WHICH FOCUS ON ADDRESSING THINGS LIKE HOUSING AFFORDABILITY, UM, WALKABILITY, UH, INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS, AND THIS IS, UH, THE ENTIRE WEST CLIFF AREA PLAN, UM, BROUGHT TOGETHER, UH, VERY CLEAR AND DEFINED GOALS AND OBJECTIVES FOR EACH OF ONE OF THESE AREAS.
UM, AND SO THIS IS JUST THE, THE PART WHERE WE IMPLEMENT THAT PLAN.
UM, IT WAS A LONG PROCESS, I BELIEVE FOUR YEARS, UM, 17,000 TOUCH POINTS, A LOT, 14 BILINGUAL MEETINGS.
UH, AND, YOU KNOW, IT WAS HEAVILY DEBATED IN PUBLIC, UM, THROUGH COMMUNITY MEETINGS.
AND AS A RESULT OF IT, UM, THE COMMUNITY GOT TO A POINT TO WHERE THEY WERE SATISFIED WITH WHAT THE RECOMMENDED GOALS WERE FOR THE COMMUNITY.
AND, UM, THE, SPECIFICALLY FOR THE HAMPTON CLATON CORRIDOR, UM, THIS IS WHERE WE IMPLEMENT THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS.
QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS, COMMISSIONER CHER? NOT FOLLOW ADVICE CHAIR RUBIN, VICE CHAIR RUBIN, PLEASE.
SO, SENATE BILL NINE OH HI, SENATE BILL 9 29, WHICH PASSED, I THINK IN 2023, REQUIRES THE CITY TO SEND OUT NOTICES IF A ZONING CHANGE WILL RENDER ANY USE.
HOW MANY SB 9 29 NOTICES WERE SENT OUT FOR THIS ONE, WE SENT THEM OUT TO EIGHT BUSINESSES.
UM, A TATTOO PARLOR, SEVERAL CELL TOWERS, UM, WHICH WOULD REQUIRE A SUP AS A RESULT OF THE ZONING CHANGE.
AND THEN A DRIVE THROUGH AND DRIVE IN RESTAURANTS, UH, TOOL THE COUNTRY BURGER.
AND THEN THERE'S ANOTHER ONE THAT IS A DRIVE THROUGH.
UM, I CAN'T REMEMBER THE NAME, BUT WE SENT THEM OUT TO THEM, SO EIGHT TOTAL.
AND NONE OF THEM WENT TO THE AUTO SERVICE BUSINESSES, CORRECT? CORRECT.
ALRIGHT, THANK YOU COMMISSIONER TURNOCK.
UH, I'VE GOT A COUPLE, UH, QUESTIONS REGARDING HOW THE PLAN PROGRESSED OVER THE LAST YEAR.
UM, THE SHOPFRONT OVERLAY AT ONE POINT WAS RECOMMENDED TO BE THROUGH THE ENTIRE CORRIDOR, BUT THEN IT WAS DIALED BACK TO WHAT YOU SHOW HERE ACTUALLY ON THE SCREEN WE'RE LOOKING AT NOW.
HOW, HOW DID, WHY, WHY THAT, WHY DID THAT HAPPEN? HOW DID THAT HAPPEN? SO, UM, WE MET WITH THE FEW COMMUNITY, UH, MEMBERS, SPECIFICALLY THE AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, AND THEY HAD CONCERNS ABOUT THE SHOP FRONT OVERLAY.
UM, IT'S PARTICULARLY WITH THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE FIRST 30 FEET HAD TO BE, UH, ACCOMMODATING, UH, UH, MIXED USE OR SINGLE STORY SHOP RUN DEVELOPMENT TYPE, WHICH WOULD NOT ALLOW AUTOMOTIVE USES WITHIN THAT FIRST 30 FEET.
UM, AND SO WE SUGGESTED THAT, HEY, YOU COULD JUST PUT YOUR OFFICE THERE AND DO YOUR WORK IN THE BACK, UH, BEHIND THAT.
UM, BUT THEY WEREN'T COMMENCED AND THEY PUSHED BACK STRONGLY, UM, AGAINST STAFF SPREADING THE SHOPFRONT OVERLAY THROUGH THE ENTIRETY OF, UH, HAMPTON.
AND SO, UM, THROUGH NEGOTIATIONS WITH THEM AND THROUGH, UH, COMPROMISES STAFF DECIDED TO LIMIT IT TO THE DIRECT CORNER, UH, WHICH TYPICALLY AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, HAS A LOT OF BUILDINGS THAT ARE ALREADY BUILT CLOSE TO THE STREET, UM, HAS HISTORICALLY BEEN THE STRONGEST AND MOST CONSISTENT PERFORMING RETAIL AREA THROUGHOUT THE CORRIDOR.
UM, BUT THAT'S HOW WE ARRIVED AT OUR CURRENT PROPOSAL NOW.
SO IT WAS A MATTER OF COMPROMISE, SO TO SPEAK.
AND DID THE AUTOMOTIVE ASSOCIATION END UP SUPPORTING THE PLAN? UH, NOT PUBLICLY, YES.
BUT THE, I I'VE SPOKEN TO THEM AND THEY WERE VERY THRILLED THAT WE DID NOT EXTEND THE SHOP FRONT OVERLAY EVERYWHERE.
AND, UM, THERE'S A, THERE'S A PARCEL AT THE VERY NORTH END OF THE CORRIDOR THAT SITS ACROSS FROM, UH, THE PD, WHICH IS THE TOM THUMB.
UM, BUT IT'S THE NORTHEAST PARCEL AND IT'S THE LARGEST, IT'S ONE OF THE LARGER PARCELS IN THE DISTRICT THAT AT ONE POINT WAS INCLUDED IN THE WMU THREE RECOMMENDATION, BUT THAT WAS PULLED AND, AND THEN THE RECOMMENDATION IS TO LEAVE THAT AS CR CORRECT.
UH, TELL, TELL ME, HOW DID THAT GO FROM BEING A RECOMMENDATION FROM WM THREE TO, TO THEN NOT GOTCHA.
SO, UM, WHAT HE'S ASKING, AND,
[01:25:01]
AND I WOULD LIKE TO CLARIFY, I AM MISSING A SLIDE, BUT THE TOM THUMB WE'RE, WE'RE PROPOSING TO LEAVE THE TOM THUMB CURRENTLY ZONE PD AND THE PROPERTY DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET.THE SHOPPING CENTER WE'RE PROPOSING TO LEAVE THAT SCR, UH, I'M MISSING A SLIDE, IT'LL BE FIXED, UH, DURING THE PUBLIC BRIEFING.
BUT WE ARRIVED AT THAT DECISION BASED ON THE LOT DEPTH.
SO THE LOT DEPTH REALLY HELPS DETERMINE HOW MANY UNITS AND HOW VERTICAL A PROPERTY CAN GO.
AND THROUGH DISCUSSIONS WITH THE COMMUNITY, THEY REALLY DID NOT WANT LARGE SCALE MULTIFAMILY PRODUCTS.
AND SO BECAUSE THOSE TWO PROPERTIES ARE THE DEEPEST IN THE CORRIDOR, THEY, THEY CAN GO WELL OVER THE, THE 12 OR EVEN 18 UNIT COUNT BECAUSE THEY HAVE ENOUGH DEPTH TO BE ABLE TO ACCOMMODATE ALL THAT THEY NEED TO ACCOMMODATE WITH REGARDS TO PARKING, HEIGHT, ET CETERA.
AND SO, UM, THROUGH NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE COMMUNITY, WE DECIDED TO LEAVE THOSE AS CURRENTLY ZONED, UM, AND LET THE MARKET DECIDE, UM, OVER TIME THE FATE OF THE SHOPPING CENTER.
SO LEAVING IT, SO IT WAS AT, UH, A NEGOTIATION WITH THE COMMUNITY AND A COMPROMISE? CORRECT, BECAUSE THEY DID NOT WANNA SEE DEVELOPMENTS THAT HAD LARGE UNIT COUNTS.
AND THAT'S A PARCEL THAT THAT COULD, COULD HAPPEN AT TO LEAVE IT CR ALLOWS FOR A WHOLE BUNCH OF USES, DRIVE-THROUGHS BEING ONE OF THEM.
UM, CREMATORIUMS I WON'T MAKE GO THROUGH THE WHOLE LIST, BUT I, I, I LIST THOSE TWO BECAUSE WOKE CAP SPECIFICALLY ON THE DRIVE-THROUGHS, UM, THERE IS A LARGE SENTIMENT NOT TO HAVE DRIVE-THROUGHS.
THIS PAST WEEK, YOU AND I WERE IN A MEETING WITH SOME NEIGHBORHOOD LEADERS, THE PRESIDENTS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
UH, SOME STAFF WAS THERE, THE COUNCIL MEMBER WAS THERE.
WHEN THE COMMUNITY WAS ASKED, THE COMMUNITY LEADERS WERE ASKED OF THOSE TWO ISSUES.
WOULD YOU RATHER NOT HAVE THE POTENTIAL FOR A DRIVE-THROUGH OR WOULD YOU NOT RATHER HAVE THE POTENTIAL FOR LAR UH, MULTIFAMILY? WHAT WAS THE RES FEEDBACK THAT YOU GOT AT THE MEETING ON MARCH 18TH? THE FEEDBACK WAS, UM, THEY WERE MORE CONCERNED WITH DRIVE THROUGHS AND THE POTENTIAL TRAFFIC THAT THEY COULD, UM, UH, INTRODUCE TO HAMPTON A ROAD THAT IS ALREADY TYPICALLY CONGESTED, UM, EARLY IN THE MORNINGS AND LATE IN THE AFTERNOON.
UM, AND SO, UH, WHAT STAFF FELT JUST AS A RESULT OF THAT MEETING IS THAT THEY PREFERRED MULTI-FAMILY IF THEY HAD TO CHOOSE BETWEEN THE TWO.
AND THE, THE, THE, TELL US AGAIN, JUST HIGHLIGHT THE, THE, THE FORWARD DALLAS PLAN.
WHERE DOES THIS FALL IN THE FORWARD DALLAS PLAN? IT'S A NEIGHBORHOOD MIXED USE PLACE TYPE.
IN THAT PLACE TYPE DOES IT IS SMALL, IS, UM, SMALLER SCALE RESIDENTIAL, UH, A DESIRED USE.
UM, BUT, UH, A, A VARIETY OF USES IS, IS IDEAL HERE.
UM, AND IT DOES, IT WOULD ALLOW FOR APARTMENTS, UM, AND A A MIX OF USES, BUT IT DOESN'T EXPLICITLY STATE SMALL.
BUT RESIDENTIALS, I MEAN, IN YOUR CASE FILE, WHEN YOU WERE EXPLAINING WHAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD MIXED PLACE TYPE WAS, RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT WAS PART OF THAT DESCRIPTION? CORRECT.
AND I JUST WANNA DRILL DOWN ONE ON ONE MORE OF THE KEY.
SO I, I KNOW THAT, UM, SHOPFRONT OVERLAY WAS A VERY, UM, HOT TOPIC DISCUSSED WITH, WITH THE COMMUNITY.
UH, THE RESIDENTIAL UNITS WAS ANOTHER ONE.
UM, AND THE PROXIMITY SLOPE WAS ANOTHER ONE.
JUST SO I'M CLEAR ON THE EAST SIDE OF HAMPTON AND THROUGH MOST OF THE CLARE AND CORRIDOR, THO THOSE LOT DEPTHS ARE, ARE NOT VERY DEEP.
AND SO WHEN YOU APPLY THAT PROXIMITY SLOPE COMING OFF OF THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY LINE, THAT THEY BACK UP TO TWO STORY MAXIMUM ON THOSE PARTICULAR AREAS, WOULD YOU SAY? UM, SO THE, NOT NOT ON THE WEST SIDE.
YEAH, BECAUSE THE WEST SIDE, THE LOTS ARE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT, UH, A LITTLE BIT DEEPER ON HAMPTON, BUT LET'S JUST FOCUS ON THE EAST SIDE AND THEN THAT CLAT AND CORRIDOR OTHER, I KNOW THERE'S ONE OUTLIER PARCEL ON CLAT, AND THAT IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT, BUT THE PROXIMITY SLOPE, I KNOW THE STAFF DID,
[01:30:01]
DID A REALLY NICE JOB AND SPENT A LOT OF TIME REALLY STUDYING THE PROXIMITY SLOPE.I JUST, COULD YOU SHARE A LITTLE BIT ABOUT YOUR, YOUR SENSE OF HOW HIGH THE BUILDINGS WOULD ULTIMATELY BE? SO, UM, JUST BASED ON OUR STUDY OF THE PROXIMITY SLOPE STAFF, UM, CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT, UM, MOST OF THE BUILDINGS THAT WOULD BE DEVELOPED HERE WOULD HAVE TO BE TWO STORIES, BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE ENOUGH LOT DEPTH.
UM, THE LARGEST LOT DEPTH ON THE WESTERN SIDE OF CLAREDON T IT TENDS TO BE 164 FEET.
YOU NEED 150 FEET BEFORE THE TIP OF THE MAXIMUM THIRD FLOOR CAN EXIST.
THAT'S THE TIP, NOT THE ENTIRE FLOOR, THE TIP.
AND SO THAT LEAVES, UH, 12 FEET OF A THIRD FLOOR WHEN YOU ALSO HAVE TO FACTOR IN THE FIVE FOOT SETBACK THAT IS REQUIRED, UH, THE FRONT SETBACK.
AND SO THAT LEAVES EVEN LESS OF SPACE.
AND SO STAFF THINKS THAT, UM, A LOT OF THESE PROPERTIES, ESPECIALLY ON ALONG THE WEST SIDE OF HAMPTON, UH, AND THEN LONG CLARATON JUST DON'T HAVE ENOUGH DEPTH TO EVEN MAXIMIZE THE THREE AND A HALF STORES OR, OR THE THREE STORIES TO BEGIN WITH.
UH, THIS PAST WEEK WHEN WE MET WITH, UH, SOME OF THE COMMUNITY, UM, UH, PRESIDENTS, NEIGHBORHOOD PRESIDENTS, THEY HAD MENTIONED THAT THEY, UH, WERE INTENDING TO WRITE LETTERS, UH, AND ADDRESS 'EM TO THE PLAIN COMMISSION.
HAVE YOU SEEN OR RECEIVED ANY OF THOSE? SO WE'VE RECEIVED A FEW LETTERS FROM, UM, INDIVIDUALS REPRESENTING, UH, NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS THROUGHOUT THE GROUP, UH, CHURCH, UH, AND THEN THE NORTH CLIFF NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION SUBMITTED A LETTER, UH, IN SUPPORT.
WELL, A FEW INDIVIDUALS FROM THE NORTH CLIFF NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION SUBMITTED A LETTER IN SUPPORT.
UM, BUT I HAVEN'T REALLY SEEN ANY MORE BEFORE THAT.
I THINK WE RECEIVED ONE THIS MORNING FOR HIM.
UH, THE NORTH CLINTON NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, WAS FORWARDED, UH, I THINK COMMISSIONER TURNOCK ASKED ALL OF MY QUESTIONS.
BUT I DO HAVE ONE QUICK FOLLOW UP JUST, UH, TO DRILL, DRILL DOWN A LITTLE BIT ON THE RPS.
AND YOU HAD A VERY GOOD SLIDE THERE.
UH, AND, AND MAYBE IF YOU COULD JUST TALK ABOUT THAT AND AGAIN, JUST BRIEFLY ONE MORE TIME ABOUT THE EFFECTS OF THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS, THE RPS AND WHETHER, UH, THIS WOULD RESPECT THAT LINE AND THE ONE TO THREE RATIO.
UM, SO YEAH, SO IN ORDER TO MAXIMIZE THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT, YOU HAVE TO BE SET BACK 150 FEET, UH, AND TO, TO GET THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT THAT YOU'RE ALLOWED HERE.
UM, AND WITH THE SURROUNDING AREAS BEING COMPLETELY ENGULFED WITH SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, IT IS VERY UNLIKELY THAT A DEVELOPER WOULD LOOK AT THIS AS A SITE WHERE THEY COULD GET THREE STORIES WITHOUT NEEDING TO COME BACK TO THE HORSESHOE AND NEGOTIATE FOR SOME SORT OF RELIEF, WHETHER THAT BE A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OR SOMETHING OF THIS SORT.
UM, AND ADDITIONALLY, I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT, UM, THE SURROUNDING RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS HAVE A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 30 FEET THEMSELVES.
UH, AND THERE ARE CURRENTLY THREE STORY, UH, SINGLE FAMILY HOMES SCATTERED THROUGHOUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD TODAY.
SO AGAIN, JUST JUST TO SUMMARIZE THE, WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THAT THE WMU THREE, THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT, WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO OBTAIN AFTER, IF THIS PASSES CPC AND, AND ULTIMATELY COUNCIL, UH, AND TO REACH THAT MAXIMUM HEIGHT, MOST OF THIS, THIS AREA WOULD NEED TO FILE A NEW ZONING CASE AND START THROUGH THE PROCESS TO GO THROUGH THE COMMUNITY MEETINGS, CPC AND ULTIMATELY CITY COUNCIL TO PENETRATE THAT RPS, CORRECT? CORRECT.
THERE ARE A LOT OF NATURAL, UM, PROTECTIONS WITHIN THE CODE THAT WOULD FORCE PEOPLE WHO WANT TO DO SOMETHING THAT ISN'T IDEAL OR DOESN'T ALIGN WITH THE WEST OAK CLIFF AREA PLAN TO HAVE TO COME BACK DIRECTLY TO THE COMMUNITY AND NEGOTIATE.
UM, AND THAT'S ESPECIALLY TRUE WITH REGARDS TO DRIVE THROUGHS.
YOU ALLUDED TO SOME, UM, FORTHCOMING STREET REDESIGN, UH, CHANGES THAT WOULD BE COMING, I'M PRESUMING TO BOTH HAMPTON AND CLARENDON.
COULD YOU ELABORATE ON THAT? ARE YOU LOOKING AT, UH, LANE REDUCTIONS OR NARROWING ON HAMPTON? WHAT, WHAT? SO I, I DON'T WANT TO GET INTO TOO MANY SPECIFICS ABOUT THAT.
'CAUSE THAT IS A TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT AND WE LOOK ENTIRELY AT LAND USE.
UM, BUT FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, UM, THERE ARE ISSUES WITH SPEEDING.
UM, AND SO THE IDEA IS TO ALLOW ENTREE PARKING ON THE NORTHERN SIDE WITH, UH, FEWER DRIVE WITH, WHICH TYPICALLY HAVE FEWER DRIVEWAYS AS A NATURAL, UH, TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURE.
UM, AND TO BE HONEST, PEOPLE PARK ON THE STREET ON CLARATON
[01:35:01]
ALREADY, UH, ADDITIONALLY, UH, ALLOWING A CENTER TURN LANE TO, UH, PREVENT TRAFFIC FROM BOTTLING UP AND, UH, AS PEOPLE TURN LEFT AND RIGHT ALONG, UM, CLARATON, UH, AND UH, TWO STRAIGHT LANES AS WELL.BUT THIS PLAN RUNS FROM HAMPTON OR NO? UM, I DON'T EVEN WANNA TOUCH ON THAT, BUT YEAH.
BUT, UM, SO THE MOST OF WHAT I'M HEARING IS APPLYING TO CLARENDON? CORRECT.
IS THAT CORRECT? BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, I KNOW THERE'S BEEN CONCERN ABOUT POSSIBLE LANE REDUCTIONS ON HAMPTON.
THERE HAVE BEEN SOME EXPERIMENTS AND WHICH HAVE CAUSED TREMENDOUS TRAFFIC BACKUP.
UH, MY OTHER QUESTION, UH, THE EXISTING, THERE WAS A, I WAS ON THE CLUB COMMITTEE WHEN WE WERE FIRST WORKING ON WOKE CAP AND THERE WAS A LOT OF CONCERN, UM, FROM THE EXISTING AUTOMOTIVE USES ABOUT, UM, YOU KNOW, THEIR FUTURE.
UH, NO MATTER WHAT CHANGES CAME ABOUT FROM, FROM WCAP.
UM, CAN YOU CLARIFY FOR ME, ARE THERE THE, THE AUTO USES THAT EXIST NOW, ARE THEY STILL GOING TO BE ALLOWED UNDER THIS WALKABLE MIXED USE? YES.
ARE THERE ANY NEW AUTOMOBILE AUTOMOTIVE USES INTRODUCED? I MEAN, MY LOOKING AT FORM-BASED ZONING, WHICH I'M NOT AS FAMILIAR WITH AS SOME PEOPLE 'CAUSE I DON'T HAVE A GREAT DEAL OF IT IN DISTRICT SIX.
UM, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT, UH, CAR LOT'S VEHICLE SALES IST A IS A APPROVED USE.
BUT I KNOW WHEN WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, I REPRESENT DISTRICT SIX, WE HAVE AREAS THAT HAVE, UM, I'LL, I'LL CALL DOWN, DOWN MARKET DEMOGRAPHICS.
YOU KNOW, WE'VE HAD A PROBLEM IN THE PAST WITH, YOU KNOW, CAR LOTS CLUSTERING, UM, YOU KNOW, IN LOCATIONS THAT HAVE PERHAPS BEEN EMPTY FOR A LONG TIME.
UM, IS THERE ANYTHING ABOUT THE FARM-BASED ZONING STANDARDS THAT WOULD MAKE THAT LESS LIKELY TO HAPPEN? SO WITH THE, UM, REQUIREMENT THAT PARKING GOES INTO THE REAR, UH, AND, AND BUILT IN TO BE BUILT ALONG THE STREET WITH WATER SIDEWALKS MM-HMM
UM, IT DOES ITS BEST JOB IN ORDER TO OFFSET ANY NEGATIVE EXTERNALITIES AND NEGATIVE IMPACTS TO SURROUNDING PROPERTIES AND SURROUNDING RESIDENCES.
WHEN THE CITY OF DALLAS CAME TOGETHER BACK IN 2008, I THINK AND ADOPTED ARTICLE 13, OUR FORM-BASED CODE, UM, AUTOMOTIVE USAGE I'M SURE CAME UP AND THEY DECIDED DURING THAT TIME THAT THROUGH GOOD DESIGN PRINCIPLES, THESE USES COULD COEXIST WITH SURROUNDING RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS OR WITH OTHER USES.
UH, AND OUR CODE WITH THE GENERAL COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT TYPE, WHICH IS WHERE THEY WOULD BE ALLOWED, UM, DOES A GOOD JOB OF ENSURING THAT IT'S CONTAINED, THOSE ISSUES ARE CONTAINED AS BEST AS POSSIBLE.
IS IT ONLY THE SHOP FRONT OVERLAY THAT PREVENTED THAT, UH, PRESENTED A, A CHALLENGE TO THE EXISTING, UM, AUTOMOTIVE USES AS, AS FAR WHERE THE, WHERE THAT USE WAS LOCATED IN THEIR BUILDING? CORRECT.
UM, AND IF YOU LOOK AT, AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, IF YOU LOOK AT SOME OF THE LOTS ON CLARITON, THEY'RE VERY THIN, LOTS MM-HMM
AND SO, UH, I THINK, UM, THERE'S AN AUTOMOTIVE USE THAT SITS ON A LOT THAT IS 75 FEET.
SO IF A SHOPFRONT OVERLAY WERE PUT ON THAT PROPERTY, IT WOULD EAT UP 30 FEET THAT THEY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO USE FOR THEIR AUTOMOTIVE USE TO BEGIN WITH.
AND SO I SEE WHY THE SHOPFRONT OVERLAY WOULD BE A CONCERN TO SOME OF THEM, ESPECIALLY ALONG CLARITON.
UH, BUT ALONG HAMPTON, UM, STAFF FEELS THAT THEY HAD, WELL, MORE THAN ENOUGH SPACE TO ACCOMMODATE THEIR USE AND GROW, BUT THEY JUST WEREN'T CONVINCED.
AND SO, UM, THROUGH MEETING AND DISCUSSIONS, WE REACHED A A, A COMPROMISE POINT WITH THEM.
UM, I KNOW YOU SAID I BELIEVE THAT EIGHT EIGHT BUSINESSES BY USE, WERE, WERE GOING TO BE MADE NON-CONFORMING.
ARE THERE A NUMBER OF STRUCTURES THAT ARE GOING TO BE NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURES AS A RESULT OF THE CHANGEOVER TO YES.
UM, BUT ALSO THERE ARE A NUMBER OF STRUCTURES THAT ARE ALREADY NON-CONFORMING, PARTICULARLY AT THE CORNER OF HUNTINGTON AND CLATON WHERE WE PROPOSE THIS SHARP OVERLAY.
UM, THAT BUILDING THAT I SHOWED A PICTURE OF ON THE CORNER OF HAMPTON AND CLATON, UM, DOESN'T MEET THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS.
THE BUILDINGS TO THE SOUTH OF THEM DON'T MEET THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS.
UM, THERE ARE BUILDINGS ON CLATON THAT DON'T MEET THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS.
UM, AND, AND JUST VARIOUS ISSUES THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE CORRIDOR TODAY YES.
UNDER THE CR ZONING, ARE THERE ANY, UM, ESTIMATES OR CALCULATIONS DONE AS TO HOW MANY, UH, STRUCTURES WOULD BE MADE NON-CONFORMING AS COMPARED TO WHAT'S NON-CONFORMING NOW? UM, I HAVE, I, I CAN TRY TO GET A LIST AND HAVE IT PREPARED FOR YOU DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING.
COMMISSIONER HALL, I MISSED THE RED LIGHT
WELL, ONE MORE THING I WOULD LIKE TO ADD, ALTHOUGH I CAN TRY TO GET A LIST FOR YOU.
UM, THE MOST ACCURATE WAY TO DETERMINE IF A PROPERTY WILL BECOME NON-CONFORMING
[01:40:01]
OR CONFORMING IS THROUGH A OFFICIAL SURVEY.AND SO THESE WILL BE JUST GUESSTIMATES.
I, I JUST WAS LOOKING AT A BALLPARK NUMBER, YOU KNOW, A HANDFUL OF DOZENS, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER.
UH, I APOLOGIZE, I CAME IN A BIT LATE.
THE OFFICIAL NAME OF THIS AREA IS THE, UM, HAMPTON CORRIDOR DISTRICT.
IT WAS ORIGINALLY THE, UH, HAMPTON CLATON TROLLEY STOP.
BUT, UM, PEOPLE WERE UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT WE WERE PROPOSING A TROLLEY STOP FOR THIS AREA, AND SO WE HAVE TO CHANGE THE NAME.
AND SO IT IS NOW KNOWN AS THE HAMPTON CLAT CORRIDOR.
UM, THERE'S A, A LARGE NUMBER OF, UM, NOTICE NOTIFICATIONS THAT WENT OUT FOR THIS 814, AND WE GOT, UH, 18 RETURNS IN RESPONSE IN 52 IN OPPOSITION.
UH, SOME OF THE OPPOSITION, UH, I JUST WANTED TO ASK YOU ABOUT THAT.
I WAS GONNA ASK YOU, IS THERE GONNA BE A TROLLEY HERE? NO, SIR.
AND, UH, IS THIS VIEWED AS A LOCAL NEIGHBORHOOD KIND OF DESTINATION, OR IS THIS PERCEIVED AS A REGIONAL DESTINATION? DOES THIS DRAW PEOPLE IN FROM GREAT DISTANCES? SO WITH THE SMALL SCALE AND THE SIZE OF THE, THE LOTS, I THINK IT WOULD BE VIEWED AS A MORE OF A LOCAL, UH, SCALE THAN THE REGIONAL.
UM, THE, IF THIS PROPERTY WERE TO REDEVELOP OVER TIME, HOWEVER LONG THAT MAY BE, UM, STAFF DOESN'T FEEL THAT THE DEVELOPMENT PRODUCTS WOULD BE LARGE ENOUGH TO ACCOMMODATE AND BE KNOWN AND JUST BE VIEWED AS A REGIONAL ATTRACT, REGIONALLY ATTRACTING WALKABLE AREA.
UM, AND SO WE BELIEVE THAT IT'LL BE MORE LOCALLY SERVING.
YOU DON'T VIEW IT AS ANOTHER BISHOP ARTS OR LOWER GREENVILLE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT? NO, NO, NO.
BISHOP ARTS AND, UH, LOWER GREENVILLE HAVE DIFFERENT ZONINGS AND, UH, BUILDING HEIGHTS.
UM, THERE ARE SEVEN STORY BUILDINGS THROUGHOUT, UH, BISHOP ARTS.
THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING HERE.
AND THE LOTS JUST AREN'T BIG ENOUGH TO ACCOMMODATE THAT.
THIS IS MUCH MORE NEIGHBORHOOD FOCUSED.
COMMISSIONER TURNOCK, SECOND ROUND.
I HAVE A QUESTION, UH, REGARDING, YOU HAD A, UM, THE PUBLIC OUTREACH MEETINGS.
UM, I KNOW I WAS AT SEVERAL, MOST OF THEM YOU WERE, YOU WERE THERE AT, AT ALMOST ALL OF THEM AS WELL AND DID A GREAT JOB AND STAYED VERY LATE AND TALKED TO PEOPLE.
I'D HEARD SOMETHING THAT WAS A LITTLE BIT CONCERNING REGARDING SOME OF THOSE MEETINGS IN THAT SOME, UH, COMMUNITY MEMBERS DIDN'T FEEL COMFORTABLE EXPRESSING THEIR THOUGHTS ON THE, ON THE PROJECT BECAUSE MANY OF THOSE MEETINGS TOOK A VERY NEGATIVE TONE.
OPPOSITION WAS VERY, UM, VOCAL AT TIMES AGGRESSIVE.
IS THAT, IS MY UNDERSTANDING TRUE THAT THAT HAPPENED? HAD, HAS ANYBODY TALKED TO YOU OR REACHED OUT TO YOU AND EXPRESSED YES.
UM, SO DURING THE MEETINGS, UM, AS ALL ZONING MEETINGS, UM, THEY CAN BE A LITTLE BIT ROWDY, UM, AND PEOPLE CAN BE CONTENTIOUS AND PEOPLE HAVE STRONG FEELINGS TOWARD THINGS.
UM, AND PEOPLE CAN FEEL PRETTY MUCH ON AN ISLAND AS IT REGARDS TO SHOWING SUPPORT IN A ROOM FOR A PRODUCT.
AND SO TYPICALLY A LOT OF OUR FEEDBACK AND SUPPORT WAS OCCURRED PRIVATELY AFTER THE MEETING.
WE JUST DIDN'T WANNA RAISE OUR HAND AND WE JUST DIDN'T WANNA SAY ANYTHING.
UM, AND IT HAPPENED A LOT AT A LOT OF OUR MEETINGS.
DID YOU GET THE SENSE THAT WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOODS, PEOPLE ARE, ARE NOT PARTICIPATING IN THE PROCESS BECAUSE OF THAT DYNAMIC WHERE THEY FELT THAT, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE CORRECT TERM WOULD BE, BUT THEY, THEY JUST FELT LIKE THEY DIDN'T WANNA EXPRESS ANY VIEWPOINT BECAUSE THEY WERE FELT THAT THEY MAY BE ATTACKED FOR THEIR POSITION? YES.
UM, THIS IS ESPECIALLY TRUE, UH, WITH NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION LEADERS WHO MIGHT HAVE DISAGREED WITH THE, UH, MAJORITY, UM, OR WITH A HUGE CHUNK OF THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT JUST WERE SUPER UNCOMFORTABLE WITH, YOU KNOW, STANDING ON AN ISLAND BY THEMSELVES AND, AND REPRESENTING THAT, HEY, WE SUPPORT THIS PLAN.
WE REMEMBER WOKE CAP, WE PARTICIPATED IN THE WEST OAK CLIFF AREA PLAN, THE FORMULATION OF IT.
UM, AND THIS, THIS IS JUST THE IMPLEMENTATION PHASE.
IT ALIGNS WITH WHAT WE WANTED.
UM, IT, IT CAN BE A LITTLE BIT INTIMIDATING, UM, ESPECIALLY WHEN, UM, THERE ARE, UH, THERE'S OFTEN MISINFORMATION SPREAD THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY ABOUT WHAT THIS PLAN ACTUALLY
[01:45:01]
IS, WHAT IT DOES, WHAT IT TRIGGERS, UM, AND, YOU KNOW, IT MAKES IT DIFFICULT TO ACTUALLY SOLICIT AND GET GOOD FEEDBACK.AND IT MAKES IT ALSO DIFFICULT TO GET PEOPLE TO SHOW UP AND VERBALLY EXPRESS THEIR SUPPORT FOR A ZONING CHANGE.
I, I REALIZE THERE WAS A GREAT DEAL OF COMMUNITY, UM, OUTREACH, BUT CAN YOU, UM, TELL ME SPECIFICALLY HOW MANY MEETINGS OR WHAT WAS THE NATURE OF THE OUTREACH ONCE THE DECISION WAS MADE TO PURSUE THE FORM-BASED ZONING? 'CAUSE I THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE JUST NOT AS FAMILIAR WITH FORM-BASED ZONING AS THEY ARE OTHERS.
SO, SO THE, THE MEETING THAT STAFF FELT THAT WE REALLY WERE ABLE TO, TO, TO STRIKE A COURT WITH THE COMMUNITY WAS THE SEPTEMBER, UH, 24TH MEETING AT, UH, AT A LIGHT IDAHO ELEMENTARY.
UM, AND DURING THAT MEETING, PEOPLE CAME IN WITH CERTAIN MISCONCEPTIONS AND FEARS ABOUT WHAT FORM-BASED ZONING WERE, UH, WAS WHAT WE WERE PROPOSING.
AND AFTER THE MEETING, WE SPOKE TO SEVERAL NEIGHBORS AND RESIDENTS WHO NOW UNDERSTOOD WHAT FORM-BASED CODES WERE.
THEY UNDERSTOOD THAT, OKAY, OUR USE IS GOOD.
UM, AND WE SHOWED THEM DEVELOPMENT TYPES THAT ALREADY EXIST THROUGHOUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT ARE CLOSER, CLOSELY ALIGNED WITH WHAT FORM BASE COULD ACHIEVE.
AND THEY UNDERSTOOD IT AND THEY WERE, UH, A LOT OF 'EM ARE, WERE OKAY WITH IT.
UM, THE ISSUE LIES WITH, UM, THOSE WHO WERE, HAD STRONG CONCERNS WITH REGARDS TO TRANSPORTATION, UH, DISPLACEMENT OF BUSINESSES, UM, AND JUST WE'RE DISTRUSTING OF CITY STAFF AND WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING.
UM, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THIS, OUR RECOMMENDATIONS ARE PRETTY MUCH WORD FOR WORD DIRECTLY FROM THE WEST CLIFF AREA PLAN, WHICH, UM, YOU ALL APPROVE BY THE WAY.
UM, WERE THERE CERTAIN THEMES THAT THE CONCERNS AND OPPOSITIONS CIRCLED AROUND? I MEAN, WAS IT HEIGHT? WAS IT USES, WAS IT DRIVE-THROUGHS? WAS IT DISPLACEMENT, GENTRIFICATION, MULTIFAMILY? AT FIRST IT WAS DISPLACEMENT AND CONCERNS AROUND THE SHOP FRONT OVERLAY.
UM, THEN WE LIMITED THE SHOP FRONT OVERLAY TO THE CORNER AND IT REMAINED DISPLACEMENT.
UH, AND THEN IN OUR DECEMBER MEETINGS, THERE WERE STRONG CONCERNS ABOUT THE HEIGHT AND, UM, THERE WERE, UH, INDIVIDUALS THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY WHO WANTED TO INTRODUCE A HEIGHT OVERLAY.
UM, AND STAFF TOLD THEM THAT A HEIGHT OVERLAY WOULD, UM, JUST BE, THEY WOULDN'T NECESSARILY DO ANYTHING.
IT WOULD BE KIND OF REDUNDANT, UM, BECAUSE THE LOTS THEMSELVES JUST AREN'T THAT DEEP ANYWAY.
AND WE DIDN'T PREDICT THAT THERE WILL BE THESE VERY TALL TOWERING BUILDINGS TO COME INTO THE HAMPTON CLAT CORRIDOR ANYWAY.
COMMISSIONER SETH KOT, UH, CHIEF PLANNER, UH, I WORKED ON THE PROJECT WITH JP AND I JUST WANTED TO RESPOND TO YOUR QUESTION.
SO WE DID GET A LOT OF QUESTIONS THAT WERE SENT TO US WRITTEN FROM THE GROUP THAT WAS OPPOSED TO THIS STAFF DID A LOT OF RESEARCH AND THOSE ANSWERS WERE CIRCULATED TO ALL THE STAKEHOLDERS AND THEY WERE POSTED ON THE PROJECT WEBSITE.
SO IF YOU GO ON THE PROJECT WEBSITE FOR THIS PARTICULAR AUTHOR HEARING, YOU'RE GONNA GET WRITTEN RESPONSE FOR REMARKS OF THE TECHNICAL QUESTIONS THAT DEAL WITH, UH, THE FORM-BASED CODE.
IT'S TRUE THAT IN THE BEGINNING MOST PEOPLE DIDN'T REALLY UNDERSTAND, UH, THE FORM-BASED CODE, BUT THERE WERE A LOT OF FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS THAT FOLLOWED AFTER THAT, AND THERE WERE WRITTEN RESPONSE THAT TRIED TO ADDRESS THOSE.
I MEAN, ONE OF THE, SAY I HAVE TO ASK A QUESTION.
UM, ARE YOU AWARE THAT ONE OF THE REASONS I'M ASKING THESE QUESTIONS IS THAT WE'VE GOTTEN, UM, YOU KNOW, A PETITION AND SOME EMAILS VOCALIZING SOME, UH, YOU KNOW, OB OPPOSITION AND SO I WAS TRYING TO DETERMINE, YOU KNOW, WHERE THE EVOLUTION HAS BEEN IN THE OUTREACH.
SO, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE LOOK AT WNU THREE AND FORM-BASED CODE, IT CAN BE COMPLEX AS HIGHLIGHTED BY COMMISSIONER TURNOCK AND COMMISSIONER CARPENTER.
AND, YOU KNOW, YOU ADDRESSED, UH, FROM A QUESTION FROM ME BEFORE ABOUT THE HEIGHT.
AND SO I'M, I'M HOPING TO KIND OF CIRCLE BACK A LITTLE BIT THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE SOME CONSTRAINTS TO WHAT THE ZONING HERE IS BEING PROPOSED.
ONE IS THAT WE TALKED ABOUT BEFORE IS THE RPS AND ANOTHER ONE THAT YOU'VE MENTIONED A COUPLE OF TIMES.
BUT I JUST WANT TO, FOR YOU, MAYBE DRILL DOWN A LITTLE BIT FURTHER IS THE DEPTH OF THE LOTS.
I WONDER IF YOU COULD GO THROUGH WITH THAT, WITH THAT FOR US A LITTLE BIT? YEAH.
SO, UM, PART OF THE REASON WHY, AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, WE KEPT OUT THE TWO LARGEST AT THE TOP, IS 'CAUSE THEY HAD ENOUGH DEPTH TO BE ABLE TO MAXIMIZE THEIR HEIGHT AND BUILD ENOUGH
[01:50:01]
UNITS TO SUPER WELL EXCEED WHAT THE IDEAL GOAL WOULD BE FOR THE COMMUNITY.UM, BUT THE LOTS THAT WE INCORPORATED, UM, THEY JUST AREN'T BIG ENOUGH.
UM, AND THE LARGEST LOT, UM, ON HAMPTON IS APPROXIMATELY 164 FEET, UM, BASED ON THE PLAQUE, UM, FOR, UH, THE ONES THAT WE KEPT INTO THE ZONING.
UM, AND THAT'S JUST NOT ENOUGH TO ACCOMMODATE THE, AND TO MAXIMIZE THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT FOR THIS AREA.
AND CAN I JUST GIVE MY 2 CENTS PLEASE.
ANDREA GIL IS PLANNING IN DEVELOPMENT.
THE CURRENT HEIGHT IS 54 FEET.
SO CURRENTLY THE ZONING ALLOWS UP TO 54 FEET.
THE PROPOSED ZONING IS A MAX CAP AT 50 AND 3.5 STORIES.
THERE ISN'T THE 3 5, 3 0.5 STORIES CAP IN THE CURRENT CR AND SO WE'RE ACTUALLY DECREASING THE HEIGHT SLIGHTLY.
SO I JUST WANTED TO POINT THAT OUT 'CAUSE I KNOW THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF CONVERSATION ABOUT THE HEIGHT AND CONCERNS ABOUT THAT.
THIS IS ALREADY, IT'S SLIGHT, BUT IT'S, WE'RE NOT INCREASING THE HEIGHT ON THIS AT ALL.
AND IN FACT, AGAIN, GOING TO ALSO THE INCLUSION OF 3.5 STORIES, WHEREAS IN CR YOU COULD GET UP TO FOUR.
SO I JUST WANTED TO REITERATE THAT.
SO JUST, JUST TO SUMMARIZE, WITH THE CONSTRAINTS OF THE SETBACKS AND THE RPS, THERE'S JUST NOT ENOUGH DEPTH IN THESE, MOST OF THESE LOTS TO PUSH THE BUILDING BACK FURTHER AS FAR BACK AS YOU CAN TO REACH THAT MAXIMUM HEIGHT? YES, SIR.
UH, COMMISSIONER TURNOCK, I WONDER, UM, MS. GIL CAN, CAN COME BACK UP, UH, JUST TO KIND OF DRILL MORE DOWN ON COMMISSIONER HAMPTON'S INQUIRY ABOUT THE EVOLUTION OF THE PUBLIC INPUT.
I KNOW YOU'VE, YOU'VE FOLLOWED THIS AUTHORIZED HEARING FROM ITS BEGINNING.
COULD YOU TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THAT? SURE.
AND I, I, I WOULD SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, THE FORM BASE, THE RECOMMENDATION FOR FORM BASE WAS THE RECOMMENDATION COMING OUT OF THE GATE.
SO THAT WAS PART OF THE DISCUSSION FROM THE VERY BEGINNING OF, OF THE CONVERSATION.
AND YES, IT IS COMPLEX, RIGHT? THERE'S, THERE'S A LOT OF INFORMATION, A LOT TO DIGEST.
I THINK JP DID A REALLY GOOD JOB THROUGH THE SERIES OF MEETINGS, MAKING IT DIGESTIBLE AND THEN RESPONDING TO THOSE PARTICULAR QUESTIONS.
I THINK I WAS, THE MEETING, I WAS AT THE SEPTEMBER MEETING THAT HE TALKED ABOUT AND I HEARD THE, SOME OF THE SAME FEEDBACK WHERE IT WAS KIND OF LIKE AN AHA MOMENT FOR FOLKS THAT THEY WERE STARTING TO GET IT, THE FOREIGN BASE AND WHY THAT RECOMMENDATION.
UM, I WILL ALSO SAY THAT I DON'T KNOW THAT JP MENTIONED THIS, BUT HE ALSO, IT WASN'T JUST THESE COMMUNITY MEETINGS AND THE RESPONSE AND THE, THE BACK AND FORTH.
I MEAN, JP BASICALLY BLOCK WALKED THE ENTIRE THING MULTIPLE TIMES.
I ACTUALLY WAS LIKE, MAYBE YOU SHOULD PUT YOUR MAP TRACKER
AND SO HE REALLY DID TRY TO, YOU KNOW, GO ABOVE AND BEYOND TO MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE WERE UNDERSTANDING THIS, KNOWING THAT IT IS A COMPLEX ISSUE OR IT CAN FEEL COMPLEX, UM, BECAUSE THERE ARE A LOT MORE COMPONENTS TO IT FROM A DESIGN PERSPECTIVE VERSUS JUST THE USE.
UM, SO I THINK THAT THERE WERE A LOT OF DIFFERENT AVENUES THAT WE TRIED TO, AND WE TRIED TO GO BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN, OKAY, WE UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S CONCERNS WITH DRIVE-THROUGHS.
OKAY, WE UNDERSTAND THERE'S CONCERNS WITH HOUSING.
WE UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S CONCERNS WITH THE AUTOMOTIVE.
WE UNDERSTAND THERE'S THE CONCERNS WITH THE HEIGHT.
SO HOW ARE WE KIND OF MASSAGING THAT ALONG THE WAY WHILE STILL STAYING TO THE SPIRIT OF THE PLAN, THE WEST OAK CLIFF AREA PLAN THAT WAS ADOPTED, BUT THERE WAS ALWAYS SPACE TO MAKE SOME, YOU KNOW, ACCOMMODATIONS FOR SOME OF THE, THE VERY PRESSING TWO DAY CONCERNS THAT PEOPLE HAD.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONERS? EXCELLENT.
UM, WERE THE NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS ABOUT HEIGHT MOSTLY DRIVEN BY THE POSSIBILITY THAT UNDER THIS FARM-BASED ZONING YOU'D GET, UH, THE POSSIBILITY FOR, UM, YOU KNOW, INFILL MULTIFAMILY, INFILL MULTIFAMILY THAT WOULD BE BUILT TRADITIONALLY HIGHER THAN UM, THE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN THAT YOU SEE WITH CR.
'CAUSE ALTHOUGH WE UNDERSTAND THAT TECHNICALLY 54 FEET IS ALLOWED, IT'S RARE THAT ANYTHING GOES OVER TWO STORIES.
SO WAS THAT KIND OF THE CRUX OF THE CONCERN AND THAT YES, BUT THE FEELING IS THAT EXCEPT FOR THE TOM THUMB SITE AND POSSIBLY THE SITE ACROSS THE STREET FROM TOM THUMB, MOST OF THOSE OTHER LOTS ARE SO, UH, SHALLOW THAT THERE REALLY ISN'T A POSSIBILITY FOR, UM, ANY KIND OF, UH, RESIDENTIAL TO GET ANYWHERE CLOSE TO THAT FAR.
EXCELLENT JOB DEPUTY, UH, COMMISSIONER CISCO.
[01:55:01]
TO CASE NUMBER, I THINK IT WAS 11.OKAY, ITEM NUMBER 11 IS THE 2 3 4 3 3 3.
AND IT'S FOR 79 79 INWOOD ROAD.
IT'S A NEW SUP FOR AN ALCOHOL BEVERAGE ESTABLISHMENT, LIMITED TO A BAR, LOUNGE, TAVERN, ITS ZONE CR AND THEIR REQUEST IS FOR A THREE YEAR TIME PERIOD AND LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF INWOOD ROAD NORTH OF LOVER LANE AND DISTRICT 13.
THIS IS THE LOCATION MAP, AERIAL VIEW SURROUNDING USES.
AND ONE SECOND BECAUSE IT FROZE.
IT USED TO BE A CHIROPRACTIC FACILITY.
THIS IS ON ONSITE LOOKING EAST ON ONSITE.
LOOKING DOWN THE PEDESTRIAN ALLEY, LOOKING NORTH.
RIGHT HERE IS THE SUITE, THIS IS THE ENLARGED VIEW.
THESE ARE THE PROPOSED CONDITIONS.
UM, THIS ITEM WAS HELD TWICE AND WE WORKED WITH THE COMMISSIONER TO GET THESE TWO CONDITIONS ADDED FOR THE AMPLIFIED SOUND.
THERE WILL BE NO OUTSIDE SPEAKERS AND THE HOURS OF OPERATION WILL BE FROM 4:00 PM TO 1:00 AM THE NEXT DAY.
AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL, UM, SUBJECT TO THE SITE PLAN AND CONDITIONS.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER? ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS ONE? MS. CALDWELL? UM, YOU'RE AWARE THAT, UH, WE WANT TO CHANGE THE, UH, SUP CONDITIONS JUST SLIGHTLY AND INSTEAD OF YES, THE, INSTEAD OF OPERATING SEVEN DAYS A WEEK, THEY, UH, WE NOW PROPOSE SIX DAYS A WEEK.
IS THAT THAT'S CORRECT? YES SIR.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONERS? OKAY.
LET'S TAKE A FIVE MINUTE BREAK.
GO GET WARMED UP IN THE BACK, MAYBE THAW OUT A LITTLE BIT AND THEN WE'LL COME BACK AND DO A, A PARKING DISCUSSION IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT.
THERE'S NOT, THERE'S NOT A FORMAL PRESENTATION, CORRECT? THERE'S JUST STAFF IS JUST AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS, IS THAT RIGHT? THAT'S CORRECT.
WE HAVE RECEIVED SOME COMMISSIONER COMMENT AND I THINK THE IDEA WAS JUST TO PRESENT THAT AS SORT OF AN UPDATE TO THE CONVERSATION.
AND SO I HAVE IT READY TO PRESENT ON THE SCREEN, UH, IF WE WANT TO GO THROUGH THOSE ITEMS.
COMMISSIONER HAMPTON? UH, YOU CAN HAVE MORE THAN THAT.
WAS IT RECENT? YOU DON'T HAVE TO LOOK.
I KNOW THE, UM, STAFF HAD PRINTED OUT, UM, SOME HIGH LEVEL COMMENTS THAT I HAD, UM, CIRCULATED A STAFF EARLIER THIS WEEK.
THEY HAD HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW AND RESPOND.
THERE'S REALLY, I THINK, THREE LARGE BUCKETS THAT THESE ALL
[02:00:01]
GET REDUCED INTO, EVEN THOUGH IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S VERY LONG.ONE OF WHICH IS THE QUESTION ON SUVS AND WHERE WE HAVE AN SUP REQUIREMENT FOR USES, UM, WHERE THE PARKING IS PROPOSED TO BE LISTED AS NO MINIMUMS. AND I HAD ASKED STAFF AND IF STAFF WOULD PLEASE, UM, ADDRESS WHETHER OR NOT THERE THAT NEEDS TO BE SEPARATELY IDENTIFIED WITHIN OUR CODE SO THAT THERE'S NO CONFUSION.
IN OTHER WORDS, AN SUP AS I UNDERSTAND IT CAN ESTABLISH THE PARKING, BUT IF WE'VE SAID THE PARKING IS ZERO, HAVE WE CREATED THE IMPRESSION OF A NO PARKING REQUIREMENT WHERE ONE MAY BE REQUIRED THROUGH THE SUP PROCESS? SO THANK YOU STAFF.
SHORT, SHORT STORY IS, YES, AND THIS IS IN CONSULTATION WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND SO I'D LIKE TO INVITE LAURA MORRISON TO ALSO WEIGH IN.
BUT, UM, I THINK IN, IN GENERAL, THE SUP HAS THE ABILITY TO ENACT A MORE RESTRICTIVE PARKING REQUIREMENT THAN WHAT BASE CODE WOULD ALLOW.
SO I'D LIKE TO TURN IT OVER TO LAURA MORRISON, UH, LAURA MORRISON, CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.
SO FOR USE IS SUBJECT TO A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT.
THE CONDITIONS IN THE ORDINANCE GRANTING THE SPECIFIC USE PERMIT CAN REQUIRE MORE PARKING, UH, THAN IS REQUIRED BY CODE.
BUT IT CAN'T GIVE A BREAK ON PARKING.
ANY BREAK ON PARKING WOULD HAVE TO, UM, BE PURSUED THROUGH THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PROCESS.
SO THE FOLLOW UP QUESTION THOUGH IS THAT IF WE SAY WITHIN THE OFF STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS, NO MINIMUM DOES THAT CREATE A VESTED, RIGHT? I MEAN, HOW WOULD WE THEN COME BACK AND SAY THAT THERE IS ADDITIONAL CODE PARKING REQUIRED? I MEAN, WE JUST, IT SEEMS LIKE THERE WOULD BE SOME LANGUAGE THAT WOULD INDICATE THAT THE SUP PROCESS, WHETHER IT'S IN THE SUP PROVISIONS, WHETHER IT'S IN THE GENERAL STATEMENT WITHIN OFF STREET PARKING, THAT THAT WOULD SOMEHOW BE IDENTIFIED SO THAT FOLKS WOULD KNOW THAT THAT IS PART OF THAT REVIEW PROCESS.
UM, IF, IF A USE THAT'S SUBJECT TO A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT HAD ZERO PARKING REQUIREMENT UNDER THE SEP ANALYSIS BY STAFF, BY THIS BODY, AND BY COUNSEL, UM, ADDITIONAL PARKING REQUIREMENTS COULD BE ADDED TO THE ORDINANCE GRANTING THE SUP BECAUSE IN A WAY THAT WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, A CONDITION THAT WOULD MAKE THE USE MORE COMPATIBLE WITH SURROUND THE SURROUNDING AREA, WHICH IS, UM, THE ANALYSIS USED FOR GRANTING AN SUP.
AND I WOULD, I WOULD ADD THAT YES, IF THE BODY CONSIDERS THAT THERE'S NOT ENOUGH PARKING FOR THAT USE, THERE IS A GROUNDS FOR DENIAL FOR THE SUP.
SO KEEP IN MIND THAT AN SUP IS A DISCRETIONARY PROCESS THAT IS SUBJECT TO COUNCIL APPROVAL.
AND, UH, ADEQUATE PARKING CAN BE DISCUSSED AND CAN BE USED AS A MEANS THAT IT AFFECTS THE NEARBY PRO UH, PROPERTIES.
SO THEREFORE THE USE IS NOT SUITABLE AT THE LOCATION.
AND I, I THINK I UN UNDERSTAND ALL THAT.
AND I GUESS THE, THE, THE UNDERLYING QUESTION IS, AND IT MAY BE A QUESTION FOR THIS BODY TO DETERMINE IF THERE'S JUST A SIMPLE STATEMENT AT THE BEGINNING OF OFF STREET PARKING THAT WOULD SAY SOMETHING LIKE ANY USE SUBJECT TO A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT, PARKING MAY BE ESTABLISHED IN THE ORDINANCE GRANTING THIS, YOU KNOW, SUP AGAIN, MORE TO GIVE CLARITY TO FOLKS SIX MONTHS FROM NOW, SIX YEARS FROM NOW ON, ON THAT, JUST AS THEY'RE GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS.
'CAUSE IF I GO STRAIGHT TO MY USE AND I SEE NO PARKING MINIMUMS, I SEE I HAVE TO HAVE AN SUPI DON'T KNOW THAT THAT'S IMMEDIATELY GONNA TRIGGER BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T HAD TO HAVE THAT AS A REGULAR PART OF THE PROCESS BECAUSE TYPICALLY THERE HAVE BEEN MINIMUMS. AND I UNDERSTAND WE SOMETIMES VARY THAT IN THE SUP AND WE'VE DONE THAT, BUT WE'VE ALWAYS STARTED FROM A BASE WHERE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NO LONGER HAVING THAT.
SO I'M JUST TRYING TO LOOK AHEAD TO PROVIDE CLARITY.
I THINK IT'S KIND OF LIKE INCLUDED, THERE ARE SOME STATEMENTS IN THE SUP QUESTION THAT SAYS THAT THE DIRECTOR CAN ASK FOR TIA, THE DIRECTOR AND THE SAME FOR CPC.
SO, UM, I WOULD SAY THAT EVERYBODY, AND IN THE SIP PLAN SECTION FOR THE SUP, IT SAYS THAT THE SIP PLAN SHOULD SHOW THE ON STREET PARKING AND LOADING AND OPERATIONS.
IF YOU INDEED, IF WE INDEED GET AN SUP WITH ZERO PARKING ON SITE, WE CAN DEFINITELY THE BODY AND THE DIRECTOR CAN ASK THE APPLICANT TO SUBMIT A TIA TO EXPLAIN HOW WOULD THE SITE FUNCTION WITHOUT ONSITE PARK ON, ON STREET, ON ONSITE PARKING.
SO I, I THINK THE LANGUAGE IS ALREADY INCLUDED.
IT, IT'S A PROVISION UNDER THE SUP THAT SAYS THAT THE DIRECTOR CAN ASK FOR OTHER THINGS OTHER THAN THOSE LISTED.
I THINK WE HAD A FOLLOW UP FOR COMMISSIONER TURNOCK ON THIS POINT.
I JUST WANNA GET CLEAR ON THAT.
SO I, I'M NOT SURE I'M TRACKING A HUNDRED PERCENT ON
[02:05:01]
DOES THAT MEAN THAT WE WOULD BE SETTING THE PARKING PARAMETERS IN THE SUP AND RE-LOOKING AT THE, THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS ESSENTIALLY FROM SCRATCH FOR EVERY SUP ONLY IF THE BODY CONSIDERS TOE, YOU CAN DO THAT EVEN NOW, AND YOU CAN DO IT IN THE FUTURE.I THINK COMMISSIONER HAMPTON WANTED TO ESTABLISH AN EXPECTATION THAT WITH EACH SUP, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO PROVE YOUR PARKING, WHICH I WOULD GO BACK AND SAY, WITH EACH DISCRETIONARY PROCESS, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO PROVE YOUR OPERATION ANYWAY.
PARKING IS GONNA HAVE HOURS OF OPERATION OR OTHER THINGS, PARKING IS GONNA BE ONE OF THOSE.
SO IF THE BODY WISHES TO TALK ABOUT PARKING, YES, YOU CAN.
SO YOU'RE SAYING IT'S REDUNDANT? I WOULD SAY SO, YES.
COMMISSIONER HALL, COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, ARE YOU REFERRING TO A SPECIFIC SECTION OF CODE? AND THIS IS WHERE I'LL LEAN ON STAFF A LITTLE BIT.
THERE IS A SPECIFIC PROCESS WITH IT FOR SUVS, AND I DON'T HAVE IN FRONT OF ME TO SEE IF IT, I DON'T THINK IT'S SPECIFICALLY REFERENCES PARKING.
AND SO I WAS SUGGESTING THAT WE WOULD ADD A SENTENCE WITHIN OUR STREET PARKING REGULATIONS THAT WOULD SIMPLY A ADDRESS THAT THAT COULD BE ADDED.
AGAIN, I THINK WE'RE HEARING FROM STAFF THAT THEY FEEL COMFORTABLE THAT IT IS ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED IN CURRENT PROVISIONS.
I THINK I'M A LITTLE MORE CAUTIOUS.
UM, BUT THAT'S AGAIN, A QUESTION I THINK FOR THIS BODY.
UM, OKAY, I'M SORRY, I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE MICROPHONES YET.
YEAH, I, I'M HAVING A LITTLE DIFFICULTY, UM, UNDERSTANDING HOW THE, THE AVERAGE USER, WHICH IS NOT ANY OF US, UM, IS GOING TO LOOK AT A FUTURE PARKING ORDINANCE THAT SAYS NO UNDER EVERY USE, NO MINIMUM NO, NO PARKING MINIMUMS ESTABLISHED FOR THIS USE.
AND UNDERSTAND THAT THAT COULD BE REESTABLISHED THROUGH THE SUP PROCESS.
I MEAN, UNDERSTAND THAT THOSE OF YOU WHO WORK WITH IT ALL THE TIME, THAT'S CRYSTAL CLEAR.
SO I DON'T REALLY UNDERSTAND THE AVERSION TO JUST A SIMPLE STATEMENT THAT SAYS, YOU KNOW, UM, YOU KNOW, FOR ANY USE REQUIRING AN SUPA PARKING, UM, WHAT IS IT, ANY USE PERMITTED BY SUP MAY HAVE A PARKING REQUIREMENTS SET IN THE SEP CONDITIONS? IT WOULD JUST SEEM, 'CAUSE IF, TO ME, LOOKING AT IT, AND I THINK COMMISSIONER TURNOFFS QUESTION SEEMED TO INDICATE HE WAS HAVING THE SAME, UM, DIFFICULTY THAT IF, IF IT CLEARLY SAYS THERE'S NO PARKING MINIMUM, THAT IT'S NOT GOING TO BE CRYSTAL CLEAR TO PEOPLE THAT IF WITH AN SEP ALL OF A SUDDEN THERE CAN BE A PARKING NEED.
IT, IT, IT ALMOST LOOKS LIKE AS IF YOU HAVE AN ENTITLEMENT TO NO PARKING.
SO I WOULD SAY THAT WE CAN TALK ABOUT, LIKE IN THE CODE IT SAYS THAT AN SUP CAN ESTABLISH HOURS OF OPERATION AND YET AN SUP CAN DO THAT.
WHERE IN THE CODE IT SAYS THAT AN SUP FOR A PRIVATE SCHOOL CAN ESTABLISH A CAP ON ENROLLMENT AND YET AN SUP OR A PD DOES THAT, THAT'S PART OF THE DISCRETIONARY PROCESS UNLESS WE CREATE IN THE SUP SECTION, A SECTION OF THE CONDITIONS, A MENU OF CONDITIONS, I WOULD SAY TO JUST PICK UP ON PARKING OUT OF EVERYTHING OPERATIONAL, IT SEEMS A LITTLE BIT REDUNDANT, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE THE SITE PLAN NEEDS TO SHOW THE ON STRE, ON ON STREET PARKING OR NOT.
SO IT GOES BACK TO THE SAME AS THE QUESTION OF PARKING.
WHY ARE WE COMFORTABLE TO RECOMMEND NO MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR USES IN GENERAL, WHICH IS THE BASIS OF THIS PARKING, UH, REFORM.
THE, TO ADD ON TO THAT, THE DRAFT ORDINANCE THAT YOU'VE SEEN IN 4.301, IT DOES BECOME A LITTLE REDUNDANT FOR THE PURPOSES OF CLARITY, I THINK.
AND SO, FOR EXAMPLE, THE TABLE HAS BEEN SUGGESTED IN THERE THAT'S, UH, FOR COMMUNICATION'S SAKE, THERE ARE PROVISIONS BEFORE THAT THAT ARE RESTATING SOME OF WHAT'S IN THE 4.2 HUNDRED.
UH, AND SO THERE'S PRECEDENT FOR A STATEMENT LIKE THIS NOT CHANGING POLICY.
AND UH, PEOPLE WILL LOOK AT THE CODE, SEE 4.301, UNDERSTAND THAT THAT'S WHERE PARKING PROVISIONS ARE.
AND SO I THINK THERE'S ROOM FOR A STATEMENT LIKE THIS, COMMISSIONER TURNER.
SO WHEN WE THINK OF, THERE WE GO.
WHEN WE THINK ABOUT THIS IN PRACTICE, I MEAN, UM, OFTEN MANY OF OUR APPLICANTS ARE WORKING WITH THE ZONING CONSULTANT AND PRESUMABLY THE ZONING CONSULTANT IS GONNA BRIEF THEM ON EXACTLY WHAT'S TO BE EXPECTED FOR THE APPLICANTS THAT DON'T WORK WITH THE ZONING CONSULTANT WHEN THEY REACH OUT.
WHAT SORT OF TYPICAL PROTOCOL WHEN SOMEBODY REACHES OUT TO THE CITY AND YOU'RE EXPLAINING THE SUP PROCESS, WOULD THIS BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD, THAT WOULD BE DISCUSSED? YEAH, WE DO.
WE DO, UH, AT INTAKE, WE DO HAVE CONVERSATIONS WITH THE APPLICANTS AND THEN THE CASE PLANNER USUALLY ASK ALL THE, THESE QUESTIONS IS PART OF OUR REVIEW PROCESS.
AGAIN, AS I SAID, IT'S NOT JUST PARKING, THAT'S WHAT WE DO.
[02:10:01]
WHAT WOULD WE TYPICALLY, HOW IS YOUR OPERATION? DO WE NEED TO ADD OTHER CONDITIONS? SO THAT'S THE WORK IN THE REVIEW THAT STAFF STAFF DOES WITH THE APPLICANT, UM, REGARDLESS OF THEM HAVING A REPRESENTATIVE OR NOT.AND I WILL SAY FOR THE RECORD, AGAIN, THERE IS A PROVISION UNDER THE SUP CONDITION THAT SAYS ANY OTHER INFORMATION THE DIRECTOR DETERMINES NECESSARILY FOR A COMPLETE REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.
AND THEN, UM, CCPC AND CITY COUNCIL CAN MAKE A CASE TO SAY THAT IF THERE'S NOT ENOUGH PARKING, THAT IS A REASON, AN ENOUGH REASON TO DENY THE SUP RECOMMEND THE SUP REQUEST.
SO I WOULD SAY WE DON'T SET FALSE EXPECTATIONS.
THE EXPECTATION IS WITH ANY APPLICATION WITH US IS A DISCRETIONARY PROCESS.
THERE'S ENOUGH IN THE CODE AND THEN YOU HAVE ACCESS TO CITY STAFF AND THEN TO CITY PLAN COMMISSION AND THE HISTORY TO KNOW WHAT TO EXPECT OF SUCH PROCESS.
I GOT ONE MORE QUESTION, JUST SO I UNDERSTAND WHAT, WHAT'S HAPPENING RIGHT NOW.
ARE WE, ARE WE BEING BRIEFED ON NEW IDEAS THAT ARE GONNA BE VOTED ON THIS AFTERNOON? OKAY.
AND WHEN WE LEFT OUR LAST MEETING, THEN WE SAY THAT WAS ALL HAD TO BE INTO US 48 HOURS OR THERE WAS A DATE.
I I I BELIEVE THAT WE WERE SUPPOSED TO HAVE EVERYTHING THE, THESE WERE SUBMITTED, UM, THE EVENING OF THE DEADLINE DATE AND SO OH, OKAY.
AND TO BE FAIR, THOSE WERE SUBMITTED AND UH, THERE WAS SOME CONFUSION ABOUT WHETHER COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, IT WAS A QUESTION THE STAFF OR WHETHER IT WAS TO BE DISTRIBUTED TO THE, TO THE BODY AND THAT'S WHAT IT WAS SUPPOSED TO HAVE BEEN DISTRIBUTED TO THE BODY.
AND THEN THOSE WERE SUPPOSED TO BE SENT OUT YESTERDAY, BUT THERE WAS, THEY CAME OUT THIS MORNING, UH, BUT I BELIEVE AS COMMISSIONER HAMPTON STATED, IT IS NOT, UH, IT HAS BEEN WHITTLED DOWN FROM THE WHATEVER, TWO AND A HALF PAGES DOWN TO I THINK THREE THINGS.
UH, SO LET'S GO TO THE NEXT ONE, PLEASE.
AND I'LL JUST SO THAT THE GROUP KNOWS, I'D ASKED THE QUESTION ABOUT AGRICULTURAL DISTRICTS JUST BECAUSE WE'VE HAD A NUMBER OF THOSE, UM, REQUESTS COME THROUGH, UM, WHERE THEY WERE CHANGING USE AND JUST TO, AGAIN, REVERIFY WHAT I THINK ALL OF US KNOW THAT IF THE USE CHANGES, IT WILL BE SUBJECT TO WHATEVER THE DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS ARE FOR THAT USE.
SO I JUST HAD, WANTED TO MAKE SURE I WAS CLEAR ON THAT.
UM, THE NEXT ITEM WAS REGARDING ALCOHOL, BEVERAGE AND MANUFACTURING, WHICH WAS UNDER INDUSTRIAL USES.
WE SPENT A LOT OF TIME TALKING ABOUT MICRO BREWERIES, TALKING ABOUT RESTAURANTS.
I HAD SIMPLY SUGGESTED THAT THE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE MANUFACTURING MIRROR THE MICROBREWERY AND DISTILLERY FOR PARKING REQUIREMENTS.
SO IT ACTUALLY REDUCES THAT TO BE CONSISTENT WITHIN THE CODE SO THAT ALL OF THOSE ARE THE SAME.
I THINK STAFF WAS SUGGESTING THAT MAY BE A REASONABLE, I'LL LET STAFF SPEAK TO THEIR OWN POSITION, BUT I WOULD JUST, YOU KNOW, AGAIN FOR CLARITY WITHIN OUR CODE, SUGGEST THAT AMENDMENT BE CONSIDERED BY THE BODY.
IT DOES, IT DOES ACHIEVE CONSISTENCY.
UM, IT, IT DOESN'T HARMONIZE WITH STAFF'S ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION, BUT IT'S, UH, NOT A, IT'S THERE'S SENSE THERE.
COMMISSIONER HOUSER, I DON'T THINK THIS IS NECESSARILY A PART OF COMMISSIONER HAMPTON'S COMMENTS, BUT I WAS SURPRISED IN THE DRAFT THAT WE WERE HAVING, THAT WE HAD PARKING MINIMUMS FOR ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE MANUFACTURER.
I THOUGHT THAT HAD BEEN STRICKEN.
UH, IF, IF THAT IS IN THE DRAFT, IT SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN.
AND I THINK THAT THE COMMISSIONER'S COMMENT IS TO BRING IT BACK AND MAKE SURE THAT IT MIRRORS, UH, THE MANUFACTURING PORTION OF THE SALES.
AND I THINK YOU, YOU HAD SHOWED ME THAT.
SO THERE, THERE ARE THE TWO USES.
THERE'S ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE SALES, RIGHT? AND THEN MANUFACTURING IS A DIFFERENT USE.
AND THEN, BUT WITHIN SALES THERE'S THE MANUFACTURING FLOOR AREA.
UM, AND SO I THINK THE SORT OF COVER OVER ALL OF THAT COMMISSIONER HAMPTON'S IDEA IS THAT WHETHER IT'S THE MANUFACTURING USE OR JUST THE MANUFACTURING FLOOR AREA WITHIN THE SALES USE, THAT IT MIRROR, UM, WELL YOU'RE TALKING SAYING THAT THE MANUFACTURER WOULD MIRROR THE FLOOR AREA THAT'S IN THE SALES.
SO I'M, YES, AND I, I THINK I'M HAPPY TO UM, I THINK I UNDERSTAND COMMISSIONER HOUSE RIGHT'S QUESTION.
IT'S COVERED IN TWO DIFFERENT SECTIONS OF THE CODE AND THEN IN THE INDUSTRIAL USE ON THE MANUFACTURING IT HAD THE SAME STORAGE PRODUCTION, IT HAD RETAIL SALES AND UM, SEATING.
AND SO THE TOP TWO WOULD BE STRUCK.
AND I HAD JUST RECOMMENDED THAT THE SALES AND SEATING AREA BE REDUCED TO MATCH WHAT'S IN THE MICROBREWERY.
I'M MORE CONCERNED WITH THE, YEAH, NO, AND YEAH, AND I WAS SUGGESTING TO STRIKE THE FIRST TWO ITEMS I PROBABLY WASN'T CLEAR IN WHAT I TYPED UP.
AND COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT, YES, WE WILL RE-LOOK AT THE DRAFT BECAUSE YES, I SEE WE DID LEAVE SOME OF THE MINIMUMS FOR SOME OF THE
[02:15:01]
USES ALL THOUGH THERE WAS NOT THE INTENTION.AND I DO UNDERSTAND THAT WHAT CPC VOTED LAST TIME AND WHAT COMMISSIONER HAMPTON'S INTENTION IS JUST TO PUT MINIMUMS ON THE RETAIL PORTION OF ALL SUCH USES.
AND THEN ANOTHER COMMENT I WANTED TO MAKE REGARDING THIS USE AND OTHERS ALWAYS LIKE WE ARE HERE AND WE CAN TELL YOU HOW THE USE IS ALLOWED BECAUSE SOMETIMES THEY MAY NOT HAVE FOR THIS ONE IT DOESN'T MATTER BECAUSE I THINK THE COM THE THE MOTION IS NOT, UM, ALLUDING TO ANY REGISTRATIONAL ADJACENCY.
BUT WE ARE HERE TO ALSO TELL YOU HOW THE USE IS ALLOWED AND WHERE IS ALLOWABLE.
COMMISSIONER UH, COMMISSIONER HAMPTON.
I WAS TRYING TO GET, SO THE OTHER KIND OF TWO BIG BUCKETS AND IT'S THINGS THAT WE HAD TALKED ABOUT AT OUR MARCH 4TH MEETING ARE AREAS WHERE THERE WERE POTENTIAL RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCIES AND THEN WHERE THERE WERE, UM, THERE MIGHT BE LOADING REQUIREMENTS THAT, UM, MIGHT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED.
SO WHEN I WENT THROUGH RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCIES, THERE WERE A NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL TYPE USES THAT ARE GENERALLY CAN BE MORE INTENSE.
AND SO I HAD TAKEN A PASS AT THOSE, THEY'RE KIND OF SPRINKLED, 'CAUSE I DID THIS IN THE ORDER THAT THEY SHOW UP IN THE CODE.
UM, I'VE GROUPED THEM ALL TOGETHER, I'M GONNA READ THEM ALL JUST SO THAT EVERYBODY CAN HAVE IT INSTEAD OF TRYING TO JUMP BACK AND FORTH ON THESE VARIOUS PAGES.
SO THERE'S A GROUP RESIDENTIAL FACILITY, HANDICAPPED GROUP, DWELLING UNIT, RESIDENTIAL HOTEL LOADING, OR EXCUSE ME, LODGING OR BOARDING HOUSE.
AND THEN WITHIN THE WAREHOUSE, DISTRIBUTION AND STORAGE, AUTO AUCTION CONTRACTORS, MAINTENANCE YARD, MINI WAREHOUSE AND WAREHOUSE WITHIN RETAIL AND PERSONAL SERVICE USES.
THERE'S AUTO SERVICE CENTER GENERAL MERCHANDISE OVER A HUNDRED THOUSAND SQUARE FEET.
VEHICLE DISPLAYS, SALES AND SERVICE.
AND MY SUGGESTION TO THE BODY AND MY QUESTION TO STAFF WAS WHETHER OR NOT THOSE WOULD ALSO BE CONSIDERED FOR RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY PRIMARILY TO DO WITH THE MORE INTENSE USES AND ON, YOU KNOW, I'M GOING TO THE ONES THAT ARE MORE, UM, RESIDENTIALLY FOCUSED.
I HAVE A NUMBER OF THOSE IN MY DISTRICT.
IT'S NOT SAYING THAT THEY, IT WILL, UM, REQUIRE A PARKING, IT'S THAT IT SHOULD BE EVALUATED ABOUT WHETHER IT SHOULD BE REQUIRED.
AND I CAN CERTAINLY SPEED TO AUTO SERVICE THAT ARE IN VEHICLE DISPLAYS IN SERVICE.
I HAVE MULTIPLE AREAS IN MY DISTRICT WHERE THOSE ARE IN IMMEDIATE PROXIMITY TO RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS SOMETIMES WITHOUT AN EVEN ALLEY SEPARATION.
THAT ONE TO ME SEEMS LIKE A VERY CLEAR, UM, INTENT OF OUR DISCUSSION THAT THOSE WOULD'VE BEEN CAPTURED FOR THE RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY.
SO I, WITH THAT, I'LL, IF STAFF WANTS TO RESPOND, I THINK YOU HAD, UM, SUGGESTED IT NEEDED TO JUST BE A CONSIDERATION OF THE BODY, UM, ON THAT RECOMMENDATION.
BUT I DON'T KNOW IF OTHER COMMISSIONERS HAVE COMMENTS OR THOUGHTS, STAFF RESPONSE WHERE WE HAVE A FOLLOW UP QUESTION.
UM, YES, AS I SAID, I KNOW YOU, YOU WENT THROUGH THOSE.
I JUST WANNA, IF WE WANNA TAKE THEM ONE BY ONE, THERE ARE SOME USES THAT ARE ALLOWED ONLY BY SUP ANYWAY.
SO I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THE USES THAT ARE ALLOWED ONLY BY SUP ANYWAY TO LET THE SUP GOVERN.
UM, AND UM, ALSO LIKE KEEP, KEEP IN MIND AND I THINK IF NOT THAT THE DIDN'T WE LAST TIME SAY THAT ALL VEHICLE THEY'RE BEING SERVICE SHOULD BE PARKED ON SITE ANYWAY.
SO MAYBE A, A STATEMENT LIKE THAT WILL ALSO HELP.
BECAUSE SOMETIMES IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT THE RATIO, IT'S ABOUT THE OVER SPILL.
SO I THINK THAT'S A MORE, MORE, UM, A BETTER ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM.
BUT I KNOW LAST TIME, UM, YOUR MOTION COMMISSIONER CARPENTER SAID TO INCLUDE THAT LANGUAGE.
WAS IT FOR ALL VEHICLE RELATED USES IN ALL SECTIONS OF THE CODE OR JUST IN INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL? I'M SORRY, CAN YOU CLARIFY THE QUESTION? I, I'M THINKING ABOUT TOO MANY THINGS AT, AT ONCE.
I, I DID WANT TO SAY THAT, UH, WHILE WE DID ADD SPECIFIC LANGUAGE TO AUTO SERVICE CENTER VEHICLE OR ENGINE REPAIR MAINTENANCE AND HEAVY MACHINERY, WHATEVER THE REST OF THAT IS, I THINK WE DIDN'T GET VEHICLE DISPLAY SALES AND SERVICE ABOUT ACCOMMODATING.
SO I THINK THAT LANGUAGE DOES NEED TO BE ADDED THERE.
OKAY, SO I WAS GONNA READ YOUR MOTION WAS OKAY AND I'M NOT GONNA, THE FIRST PART WAS TO KEEP REQUIREMENTS FOR COMMERCIAL AND BUSINESS SERVICE USES AND INDUSTRIAL USES.
THERE ARE CONTINUOUS TO SINGLE FAMILY.
[02:20:01]
LEAVE THAT ASIDE.AND THEN YOU ALSO SAID, AND FOR ANY COMMERCIAL AND BUSINESS SERVICE USES AND INDUSTRIAL USES THAT SERVICE VEHICLES, ALL CUSTOMER VEHICLES BEING SERVICED MUST BE PARKED ON SITE.
SO I WAS GONNA SAY MAYBE A LANGUAGE LIKE THAT TO EXPAND IT FOR VEHICLE RELATED USES THROUGHOUT THE USES IN THE CODE.
I THINK THAT RATHER THAN JUST PUTTING A RATIO, UH, YES.
THANK YOU
UM, I THINK BETWEEN COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, DR.
UREA, WE COVERED MY FIRST QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER WE COULD SAY THOSE USES NEED TO BE PARKED ON SITE RATHER THAN IMPOSING A RATIO.
UM, I DID HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT GENERAL MERCHANDISE, YOU KNOW, OVER X NUMBER OF, OF SQUARE FEET AND HOW THAT WOULD WORK OUT IN PRACTICALITY.
UM, I'M THINKING OF OF THE, YOU KNOW, SHOPPING CENTER PROBABLY CLOSEST TO WHERE I LIVE AT AT MOCKINGBIRD EIGHT IN ABRAMS. THERE ARE A COUPLE OF, YOU KNOW, GROCERY STORES ON, ON TWO OF THE FOUR CORNERS THERE AND I BELIEVE THOSE SHOPPING CENTERS, UH, BUT YOU KNOW, RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS BEHIND THEM AND I ASSUME THEY'RE OVER X NUMBER OF, OF SQUARE FEET.
WOULD THAT THEN OPPOSE IMPOSED PARKING MINIMUMS ON SHOPPING CENTERS LIKE THAT, THAT ARE, ARE NEXT TO RESIDENTIAL? YES.
SO THAT'S WHY OUR RECOMMENDATION WAS NOT TO ADD IT IN.
I WILL ALSO, UM, IT DEPENDS IF THE GENERAL MERCHANDISE OR FOOD STORE IS OVER A HUNDRED THOUSAND.
SO THINK OF YOUR TYPICAL COSTCO OR SAM'S, RIGHT? THOSE ARE USUALLY, AND THAT'S WHY WE CREATED THIS TYPE OF USE.
KEEP IN MIND THIS TYPE OF USE IS ALLOWED ONLY IN RR AND IN IS BY SUP IN OTHER RETAIL DISTRICTS.
SO, UM, IF AND IN FACT WE WILL HAVE RR IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT, YES IT WILL, IT WILL IMPOSE A RATIO IN OUR EXPERIENCE.
UM, AND YOU'LL SEE THAT'S WHY THE CODE ACTUALLY ADDED DESIGN STANDARDS FOR THIS TYPE OF USE BECAUSE THIS TYPE OF USES ARE ALMOST ALWAYS OVER PARKED.
UM, SO WE WOULD LIKE ACTUALLY TO ENCOURAGE A MIX OF USES WHERE YOU HAVE AN ANCHOR LIKE THAT.
SO OUR RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE TO NOT IMPOSE A, UM, A PARKING RATIO ON THAT, ON THIS TYPE OF USE BECAUSE THESE ARE THE SHOPPING CORRIDORS THAT WE ACTUALLY WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THEY HAVE MORE USES.
SO CAN, ARE WE JUST ASKING QUESTIONS OF THE GENERAL ORDINANCE? WE'RE WE'RE PAST COMMISSIONER HAMPTON'S LIST OR NOT? I THINK WE WERE STILL ON THIS ONE PARTICULAR FOR COMMISSIONER HAMPTON.
UH, BUT IF THERE, THERE ARE NO OTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS, SOME OF THEM WILL ADDRESS, BUT SOME OF THEM KNOW, SO.
OKAY THEN UH, JUST BACK TO COMMISSIONER, UH, HAMPTON, WE, WE HAVE A NEW TWO PAGER AND UM, SO ARE, ARE THESE ALL GOING TO BE MOTIONS OR ARE THESE ALL THINGS THAT WE WANT TO JUST TALK ABOUT? OR WHAT ARE, WELL, WHAT ARE THESE? 'CAUSE I SEE THAT ONE ON THE SECOND PAGE WOULD NEED A RE A RECONSIDERATION OF SOMETHING WE ALREADY VOTED ON.
UM, I BELIEVE THAT MOTION WAS WITHDRAWN ON THE PAID PARKING.
I DON'T THINK WE EVER VOTED IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, BUT I'M HAPPY TO DISCUSS THAT OFFLINE WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY.
WELL, I'M TRYING TO GET A SENSE OF WHERE FOLKS ARE AT.
AND MY GENERAL INTENT WAS TO TRY AND ALIGN IT WITH OUR DISCUSSION ON MARCH 4TH, NOT TRY TO HAVE NEW CONVERSATIONS.
SO IF I'M HAPPY TO SPEAK OFFLINE, IF THERE'S CONSIDERATIONS THERE.
OKAY, WELL NO, I, I THINK THIS IS VERY HELPFUL, BUT, UH, I THINK FOR THIS AFTERNOON IT WOULD BE EVEN MORE HELPFUL IF WE HAVE ACTUAL MOTIONS TO READ BEFORE WE EVEN DISCUSS IT.
SO, YOU KNOW, THESE ARE GONNA TURN INTO MOTIONS.
LET'S READ THOSE MOTIONS AS WELL.
SO IF WE COULD HAVE STAFF, MAYBE HELP COMMISSIONER HAMPTON.
WHATEVER WE DECIDE TO, OR WHATEVER YOU DECIDE TO TURN INTO A MOTION TO GO AHEAD AND HAVE THAT LANGUAGE, THAT WAY WE'RE NOT MAKING IT UP ON, ON THE SPOT.
AND THEN WE HAVE TO, YOU KNOW, STOP AND TRY TO INTERPRET IT AND SEE WHAT THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES COULD BE.
SO COMMISSIONER HEMPTON, YOU HAVE THE FLOOR.
THAT'S, AND IT HAS BEEN SHARED WITH MS. MORRISON AND I WILL ENSURE THAT WE HAVE THOSE.
UM, THERE'S, I GUESS, THE OTHER LARGER KIND OF BUCKET.
WE'VE GOT A NUMBER OF USES THAT ARE EITHER WITHIN MULTIFAMILY DISTRICTS THAT ARE FUNCTION SIMILAR TO MULTIFAMILY, UM, COLLEGE AND DORMITORIES.
AND AGAIN, I, I SIMPLY WANNA MAKE SURE WE'VE HAD A DISCUSSION BECAUSE I DON'T REMEMBER US GOING INTO DETAIL ON THESE RETIREMENT HOUSING.
[02:25:01]
UM, THERE WAS ONE OTHER ONE THAT WAS JUST A QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED FOR A 0.5, SIMILAR TO WHAT WE DID WITH MULTI-FAMILY.SO, UM, IF STAFF WANTED TO SHARE THEIR THOUGHTS ON THAT.
YEAH, BOTH OF THOSE ARE IN 4.2009.
RETIREMENT HOUSING AND COLLEGE DORMITORY AND, UM, SOBRIETY HOUSES.
I THINK STAFF, STAFF DOESN'T HAVE VERY MUCH TO ADD HERE.
I MEAN, THESE ARE ALL A VARIETY OF DIFFERENT USES WITH DIFFERENT USE CASES.
THESE ARE FOLKS IN, IN SPECIFIC SITUATIONS.
A STUDENT AT A COLLEGE DORM IS DIFFERENT THAN A PERSON IN RETIREMENT.
HOUSING IS DIFFERENT THAN A PERSON IN A HALFWAY HOUSE.
SO I THINK THIS IS REALLY JUST A DISCUSSION FOR THE BODY.
A POLICY DIRECTION DISCUSSION.
I, I WOULD SAY THAT FOR INSTANCE, COLLEGE DORMITORY, FRATERNITY OR SORORITY HOUSE, THE DISTRICTS PERMITTED ARE BY RIDING AGRICULTURAL, MULTIFAMILY, MH, OFFICE, CR CENTRAL AREA, MIXED USE AND BY SUP IN SOME USES.
SO IT'S NOT EVEN ALLOWED IN SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.
WE'RE JUST THINKING IF THEY ARE ADJACENT TO A SINGLE FAMILY.
AND THEN THE REQUIREMENT FOR PARKING IN IT'S ONE SPACE FOR EACH SLEEPING ROOM, WHICH WAS EXACTLY THE CASE WE WERE TRYING TO MAKE WITH MULTIFAMILY, THAT IS BETTER TO HAVE IT PER UNIT.
UM, SO I, I, I WOULD NEED A RATIONALE TO MAINTAIN SUCH A RATIO, UM, FOR RETIREMENT HOUSING.
I SEE THE INTENTION TO MATCH IT WITH MULTIFAMILY.
OUR COMMENT WILL REMAIN THAT FOR RETIREMENT HOUSING, THE, THE PARTING PAR PARKING UTILIZATION IS NOT AS MULTIFAMILY EVER.
UM, IT'S BECAUSE IT'S A DIFFERENT TYPE OF USE.
IT IS DATA THAT ON RETIREMENT HOUSING, YOU DON'T NEED AS MUCH PARKING.
UM, WHAT ELSE? WAS IT RETIREMENT, LODGING, RESIDENTIAL? WAS IT ANOTHER USE RESIDENCE? AH, THE HALFWAY HOUSE RESIDENTIAL HOTEL.
DID WE, WHICH ONE? RESIDENTIAL HOTEL WAS THAT ONE OF THEM? OH, THAT'S A, I WOULD SAY THAT, UH, IT KIND OF FUNCTIONS LIKE A MULTIFAMILY TYPE OF USE.
UH, LET'S SEE WHERE IT'S ALLOWED.
IS IT UNDER LODGING OR RESIDENTIAL? I THINK IT'S UNDER RESIDENTIAL.
I THINK IT'S ONE PER UNIT RIGHT NOW, IF I REMEMBER.
UM, OH, IT'S 0.5 PER GUEST ROOM.
YEAH, SAME LIKE WE, AND IT'S ONLY ALLOWED IN MULTI-FAMILY AND CENTRAL AREAS AND STUFF LIKE THAT.
SO IF A RESIDENTIAL HOTEL IS CLOSE TO A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE IS ADJACENT TO A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE, THAT NEEDS TO HAVE 0.5 SPACES PER GUEST ROOM.
HOWEVER, A HOTEL HAS A DIFFERENT RATIO.
I THINK WE'RE JUGGLING RATIOS.
UM, WHICH ONE THEN? GROUP RESIDENTIAL FACILITY, HANDICAP GROUP, DWELLING UNIT, THOSE.
I THINK I ADDED THE, THE THREE ON THE SECOND PAGE.
IF I ADDRESS THOSE, IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT OTHERS, I'M HAPPY TO LOOK THROUGH THE CODE.
I UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION TO BE ABOUT THOSE THREE USES.
RETIREMENT, HOUSING, LODGING AND COLLEGE DORMITORY, FRATERNITY, FRATERNITY AND SORORITY.
IF WE HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT OTHER USES, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER.
I KNOW WE HAVE LOTS OF ITEMS TO DISCUSS.
WHY DON'T WE GO AHEAD AND TAKE OUR LUNCH BREAK AND CONCLUDE THE, THE, THE BRIEFING FOR THE MOR MORNING PORTION.
AND WE'LL COME BACK AND BEGIN THE HEARING WITH THIS PIECE.
WE'LL TAKE OUR TIME AND GO THROUGH ALL THE ITEMS. 1215.
WE'LL TAKE OUR 30 MINUTE LUNCH BREAK.
UH, THAT CONCLUDES THE BRIEFING OF THE DALLAS CITY PLAN COMMISSION.
[CALL TO ORDER]
JORGE,[02:30:01]
ARE WE RECORDING? WE ARE RECORDING.CAN YOU PLEASE TURN US OFF OF THE ROLL CALL? GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONERS.
DISTRICT ONE COMMISSIONER SCHOCK, DISTRICT TWO, COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, DISTRICT THREE.
COMMISSIONER HERBERT, DISTRICT FOUR.
COMMISSIONER FORSYTH, DISTRICT FIVE, CHAIR SHADI PRESENT, DISTRICT SIX.
COMMISSIONER CARPENTER HERE, DISTRICT SEVEN, COMMISSIONER WHEELER, REAGAN, DISTRICT EIGHT.
COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN, DISTRICT NINE.
COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT HERE.
COMMISSIONER NIGHTINGALE, DISTRICT 12.
COMMISSIONER HAWKE, DISTRICT 13.
DISTRICT 14, COMMISSIONER KINGSTON AND PLACE 15 VICE CHAIR RUBIN.
UH, GOOD AFTERNOON LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
WELCOME TO THE DALLAS CITY PLAN COMMISSION.
TODAY IS THURSDAY, MARCH 20TH, 2020 5, 12 50 7:00 PM A COUPLE OF VERY QUICK ANNOUNCEMENTS BEFORE WE GET STARTED ARE OUR SPEAKER GUIDE GUIDELINES.
UH, EACH SPEAKER WILL RECEIVE THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK.
UH, I WILL PLEASE ASK ALL THE SPEAKERS TO BEGIN YOUR COMMENTS WITH YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
UH, MS. LOPEZ WILL KEEP TIME AND WE'LL LET YOU KNOW WHEN YOUR TIME IS UP.
UH, PER OUR RULES, DO THEY DO ALLOW US TO, UH, CHANGE THE, THE SPEAKER TIMELINE, UH, AND I THINK WE WILL BE MAKING AN ADJUSTMENT ON, ON ONE CASE WHERE WE'LL BE GOING TO ONE MINUTE PER SPEAKER.
AND THAT IS FOR CASE NUMBER 28.
THAT IS THE AUTHORIZED HEARING IN DISTRICT ONE.
UH, THAT IS ALSO GOING TO BE HELD UNDER ADVISEMENT, UH, TO ONE OF OUR HEARINGS IN APRIL, I BELIEVE THE SECOND ONE IN APRIL.
SO CASE NUMBER 28, THE AUTHORIZED HEARING IN OAK CLIFF, UH, IS GONNA BE HELD UNDER ADVISEMENT.
UH, FOR ANYONE THAT IS HERE AND WOULD LIKE TO BE HEARD, WE'RE HAPPY TO HEAR FROM YOU.
UH, IF YOU'RE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ONLINE, WE'LL ALSO TAKE YOUR COMMENTS, UH, AND YOU CAN ALSO, UH, GO TO SOMEWHERE A LOT WARMER IF YOU'D LIKE, AND COME BACK IN APRIL.
AND WE'RE GONNA HOLD, AND LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, UH, THIS IS A HYBRID MEETING.
WE'LL, WE'LL ASK ALL OF OUR SPEAKERS ONLINE TO PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT YOUR CAMERAS ARE ON AND WORKING.
STATE LAW REQUIRES US TO SEE YOU IN ORDER TO HEAR FROM YOU.
AND AGAIN, UH, PER OUR RULES, ON CASES WHERE THERE'S OPPOSITION, THE APPLICANT WILL GET A TWO MINUTE REBUTTAL.
AND WITH THAT, I THINK WE HAVE SOME TWO LITTLE QUICK ANNOUNCEMENTS, SOME STAFF MOVEMENT, AND THEN WE'LL GET RIGHT BACK INTO PARKING.
I'LL TAKE THE FIRST QUICK ANNOUNCEMENT OF STAFF CHANGES.
I THINK ALL OF YOU RECEIVED AN EMAIL FROM MR. LAWRENCE AGU III, UM, THAT HE IS DEPARTING US AND HE IS MOVING ON TO DIFFERENT PASTURES.
UM, I AM BEGRUDGINGLY MAKING THIS ANNOUNCEMENT, UM, BECAUSE I HAVE NOT ACCEPTED THE DEPARTURE.
UM, BUT I DO JUST WANT TO, UM, MAKE THAT ANNOUNCEMENT.
AND THANK LAWRENCE FOR ALL OF HIS WORK.
OBVIOUSLY, YOU MOSTLY SAW HIM, OR MAINLY SAW HIM THROUGH THE FORWARD DALLAS PROCESS, WHICH, UM, COULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED WITHOUT HIM.
UM, AND JUST THE HOURS AND HOURS AND HOURS THAT HE PUT INTO THAT AND JUST, UM, HE'S JUST AN ALL AROUND, WE ALL GO TO HIM IN THE DEPARTMENT.
UM, HE HAS BEEN A RESOURCE TO EVERYONE, UM, AND IS ALWAYS SUPER QUICK AND SELFLESSLY READY TO HELP AND JUMP IN AT ANY GIVEN TIME, AND HE WILL BE GREATLY MISSED.
UM, SO I JUST WANTED TO GIVE THAT LITTLE SENDOFF TO LAWRENCE, UM, AND THANK HIM FOR ALL OF HIS WORK AND WISH HIM THE ABSOLUTE BEST IN THIS NEXT CHAPTER.
UH, AND I THINK WE, WE HAVE ANOTHER CHANGE AS WELL.
AND I, I THINK THE, THE COMMENTS, WELL, I'LL LET THE, I'LL LET THE ANNOUNCEMENT FIRST BEFORE I SAY
[02:35:01]
WHAT I NEED TO SAY.UH, THANK YOU SO MUCH, CHURCH YOU DID, AND THANK YOU COMMISSION AND THE PUBLIC FOR ALLOWING ME THIS LITTLE MOMENT OF PRIVILEGE.
I ALSO WANTED TO MAKE A VERY SAD ANNOUNCEMENT.
OUR WONDERFUL, UM, CHIEF PLANNER OVER CODE AMENDMENT.
UM, MR. MICHAEL WADE HAS ALSO ANNOUNCED US THAT HE'S LEAVING THE CITY TO PURSUE A DIFFERENT PATH IN HIS CAREER.
UM, VERY SAD, UH, SHOCKING NEWS.
UH, BUT, UM, I WANNA THANK HIM FOR ALL THE WORK THAT HE'S DONE.
WE WOULDN'T BE HERE WITH THE PARKING CODE AMENDMENT IF IT WASN'T FOR MICHAEL.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR ALL YOUR WORK AND FOR THE THOUGHTFULNESS THAT YOU PUT INTO THIS AND FOR HELPING WITH EVERYTHING, EVEN THE KICKOFF OF THE CODE REFORM.
UM, WE'LL BE GREATLY MISS, WE WISH YOU ALL THE BEST, AND PLEASE DO HAVE FUN.
UH, WE DO WISH YOU ALL THE BEST.
AND, UH, I'D JUST LIKE TO SAY, YOU KNOW, FOR, FOR THOSE OF YOU THAT ARE KIND OF WATCHING THIS, AND YOU KNOW, FROM, FROM THIS SIDE OF THE HORSESHOE, WE'RE, WE'RE EVENT EVENTUALLY ESSENTIALLY LOSING TWO LUCAS HERE.
AND, UH, SO IT IS KIND OF A SAD DAY HERE FOR, FOR A LOT OF US.
AND, UH, I THINK, YOU KNOW, FOR MY COMMENTS FOR BOTH OF YOU, I, I DID HAVE THE PLEASURE TO WORK WITH YOU ON, UH, ON TWO VERY DIFFICULT ITEMS ON THE FORD DALLAS AND ON THE PARKING ISSUE.
UH, BOTH ITEMS ARE VERY INTENSE.
UH, YOU KNOW, I, I WASN'T IN THE ROOM WITH LAWRENCE MULTIPLE TIMES IN COMMUNITY MEETINGS, UH, THAT I THINK SOMEONE A LITTLE EARLIER SAID, YOU KNOW, COULD GET A LITTLE RAUCOUS.
UH, BUT YOU STAYED VERY CALM AND RESPECTFUL AND ALWAYS HAD THE RIGHT ANSWERS AND TOTAL RESPECT FOR YOU, SIR.
UH, AND YOU KNOW, FOR MICHAEL, AGAIN, UH, YOU, YOU TOOK ON A, A TOUGH TASK AND, UH, YOU'RE ALWAYS ACCESSIBLE AND ALWAYS HAD THE, THE RIGHT ANSWER FOR ME ANYWAY.
AND I LOOK FORWARD TO PASSING SOMETHING TODAY THAT WILL HAVE YOUR FINGERPRINTS ALL OVER IT.
AND THANK YOU BOTH FOR YOUR SERVICE, UH, TO THE CITY AND THEN TO THIS BODY
[16. 25-1027A Consideration of amending Chapters 51 and 51A of the Dallas City Code regarding off-street parking and loading requirements, including Sections 51A-1.102 and 51A-1.101, “Applicability and Purpose”; Section 51A-2.102 and 51-2.102, “Definitions”; Division 51A-4.110, “Residential Zoning Districts”; Division 51A-4.120, “Nonresidential Zoning Districts”; Division 51A-4.200 and 51-4.200, “Use Regulations”; Division 51A-4.300, “Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations”; Division 51A-4.320, “Special Parking Regulations”; Division 51A-4.330, “Bicycle Parking Regulations”; Section 51A-4.505, “Conservation Districts”; Section 51A-4.702, “Planned Development (PD) District Regulations”; Division 51A-4.800 and 51-4.800, “Development Impact Review”; Section 51A-4.1106, “Development Regulations” and 51A-4.1107, “Design Standards”; Division 51A-13.300, “District Regulations”; Division 51A-13.400, “Parking Regulations”; Division 51A-13.700, “Administration”, and related sections regarding minimum off-street parking and loading requirements, including establishing a Transportation Demand Management Plan and off-street parking design standards. Staff Recommendation: Approval of staff’s recommended amendments. Zoning Ordinance Advisory Committee Recommendation: Approval of ZOAC’s recommended amendments. Planner: Michael T. Wade U/A From: December 5, 2024, January 16, 2025, and February 13, 2025, and March 4, 2025. Council District: Citywide DCA190-002(MTW) (Part 1 of 2)]
COMMISSIONERS.UH, WE'LL GO BACK TO THE PARKING.
ALL RIGHT, YOU, WE READY? ALRIGHT, COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, PLEASE.
UM, I THINK THE, WELL, TWO OTHER SIGNIFICANT ITEMS THAT I WANTED TO TOUCH ON.
UM, ONE OF WHICH WAS LOADING, UM, WHICH WE TALKED OUT ABOUT FOR A NUMBER OF USES.
THERE'S TWO, UM, USES THAT I WANTED TO ASK STAFF TO CLARIFY THE LANGUAGE.
UM, THE FIRST ONE IS ON LODGING.
IT'S IS NOTED AS TO BE A MOVING OR DELIVERY VAN.
UM, THE, I THINK THAT WAS PULLED DIRECTLY FROM THE MULTI-FAMILY LOADING LANGUAGE DISCUSSED.
I THINK IN REVIEW WITH STAFF, THERE WAS A SUGGESTION THAT THAT MIGHT BE LOADING PER SECTION 4.303 IN LIEU OF REFERENCING TO A TYPE OF VEHICLE.
IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT, YES.
AND SO IS THAT A MOTION THAT THIS BODY WOULD NEED TO MAKE OR IS THAT JUST A STAFF CORRECTION THAT WILL BE INCORPORATED AND I WOULD, I'M JUST ASKING FOR CLARITY FOR THE BODY.
I'M GLAD TO MAKE THE MOTION IF IT'S NEEDED, IT WOULD NEED TO BE A MOTION.
AND THEN THERE WAS A SIMILAR ITEM UNDER, UM, TRANSPORTATION USES ON A COMMERCIAL BUS STATION AND TERMINAL.
I THINK THERE'S SOME EXISTING LANGUAGE ABOUT, UM, UM, TO MAINTAIN THE, UH, LOADING OR UNLOADING OF PASSENGERS IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.
I THINK THAT WAS UNINTENTIONALLY STRUCK.
IS THAT GONNA BE MAINTAINED? THAT WAS UNINTENTIONALLY STRUCK, SO THAT WILL REMAIN.
AND THEN I HAD HAD A SECOND QUESTION.
UM, ACTUALLY I HAVE A NUMBER OF THESE, UM, IN MY DISTRICT WHERE THEY ARE IN, UM, INLINE RETAIL CENTERS.
UM, WHERE GENERALLY THE LOADING OCCURS EFFECTIVELY IN THE DRIVE AISLES.
IS THIS SOMETHING WHERE IT MAY BE APPROPRIATE, UM, FOR NEW USES TO SIMPLY SIMILAR TO WHAT WE DID IN OTHER AREAS, SHOW THE LOADING AND UNLOADING IT PERMIT? IS THAT ANYTHING THAT WAS CONSIDERED BY STAFF, THE, IT MAKES SENSE TO US TO HAVE THAT REQUIREMENT TO SHOW THE LOADING? IT'S, UH, WITHIN THE INTENT OF MANY OF THE OTHER MOTIONS? YEAH.
AND THEN I'D ASK, UM, A SIMILAR
[02:40:01]
LOADING QUESTION ON, UM, DAYCARE USES, UM, IN HALFWAY HOUSES.SO THERE WERE TWO THAT WE HAD IN OUR CHILDCARE AND DAYCARE, AND AGAIN, REMOVING PARKING, THE QUESTION WOULD JUST BE, I KNOW OPERATIONALLY THERE, THERE ARE LOADING AND UNLOADING THAT IS JUST A FUNCTION OF THEIR USE.
SO AS THOSE ARE BEING, UM, CONSIDERED IN THE FUTURE, IS THAT ONE THAT MIGHT AGAIN, JUST HAVE A PROVISION THAT IT IS SHOWN AT THE TIME OF PERMITTING? NOT NECESSARILY TRYING TO ADD ANYTHING, BUT JUST RECOGNIZING THAT THAT'S FUNCTIONALLY HOW THAT OPERATES AND HELPS ENSURE ITS COMPATIBILITY SINCE THESE ARE GENERALLY BY RIGHT USES.
SO YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, UM, DROP OFF AND, UH, PICK UP FOR CHILDREN, CORRECT.
AND THEN FOR HALFWAY HOUSES, I'VE, AGAIN, I HAVE A NUMBER OF THESE AT MY DISTRICT HAVE ACTUALLY THIS SPRING HAD A NUMBER OF CALLS WHERE THEY'RE, UM, EITHER ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL USES, UM, ANOTHER IS ADJACENT TO A SCHOOL WHERE THEIR DROP OFF FUNCTIONS ARE ACTUALLY, UM, HAVING IMPACTS ON THEIR SURROUNDING, UM, PROPERTIES.
JUST I THINK, AND SO AGAIN, IT WAS A QUESTION OF THAT SHOULD THAT BE INCLUDED SO THAT IT IS DEFINED, UM, AT THE TIME OF PERMITTING.
AS LONG AS IT DOESN'T HAVE A REQUIREMENT TO HAVE A SPACE OR SOMETHING, JUST SHOW IT.
SO, UH, DAVID OR WHOMEVER TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS CAN, UH, WORK WITH THE APPLICANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IS ADEQUATELY DONE.
I THINK THAT'S A VERY USEFUL PROVISION.
MAKE A NOTE ON THAT AND I DON'T KNOW IF OTHER COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON THOSE.
UM, I HAD I THINK TWO OTHER ITEMS, QUESTIONS ON THAT.
UM, SO I'M GONNA SKIP ONE AND COME BACK TO IT, BUT ARTICLE 13, UM, I HAD ASKED A QUESTION OF STAFF, I KNOW I'VE RUN INTO THIS ON CASES IN MY DISTRICT THAT THE ARTICLE 13 LANGUAGE, UM, CURRENTLY DOESN'T REALLY ALLOW FOR, UM, AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF, UM, PARKING REDUCTIONS.
THERE'S SOME LANGUAGE IN THERE, BUT SHOULD THAT BE AMENDED TO MATCH THE M-I-H-D-B LANGUAGE? YES, IT, IT ONLY ALLOWS DOWN TO 50% REDUCTION AND TO MATCH M-I-H-D-B, IT WOULD BE TO 100% REDUCTION.
AND SO AGAIN, THAT WOULD BE A MOTION THAT WOULD BE REQUESTED BY THE BODY? THAT'S CORRECT.
AND THEN, UM, TWO ITEMS THAT I HAD ASKED FOR ENGINEERING REVIEW AND I JUST WANNA, UM, GET THEM ON THE RECORD AND THEN TO UNDERSTAND ANYTHING THAT MAYBE NEED, NEED TO BE A MOTION.
THESE ARE BOTH IN SECTION 4.301.
UM, THE FIRST ONE HAS TO DO WITH THE ALLEY SETBACK REQUIREMENT, UM, THAT CURRENTLY REQUIRES FOR BOTH A PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY AND FOR AN ALLEY TO HAVE A 20 FOOT SETBACK WHEN IT'S ENCLOSED.
I THINK I UNDERSTAND FROM ENGINEERING AND I DON'T KNOW, I THINK MR. NAVAREZ MAY HAVE HAD A CONFLICT AT ONE O'CLOCK.
UM, BUT HE INDICATED, AND MY QUESTION WAS, IS THERE ANY CONSIDERATION OF BLOCKING OF SIDEWALKS, B BIKE LANES, YOU KNOW, OTHER NOT JUST VEHICULAR, BUT PEDESTRIAN, UM, MOVEMENT AND HE SEEMED TO INDICATE THAT THERE WAS SOME CONSIDERATION REGARDING STREETS, BUT NOT AT ALLEYS? THAT'S CORRECT.
AND YES, MR. DEVARE IS OUT IN A MEETING RIGHT NOW, BUT HE'S TOLD US THE SAME THING.
HE SHOWED US PLENTY OF EXAMPLES WHERE, UH, LESS THAN 20 FEET CAN CAUSE CARS AND, AND DOES CAUSE CARS TO PARK IN THE SIDEWALK, EVEN STICK OUT INTO THE STREET.
AND SO WHEN THIS WAS STRUCK ORIGINALLY THE THINKING WAS ABOUT ALLEYS 20 FEET, UM, SETBACK FROM ALLEYS AND ENGINEERING DOESN'T HAVE A, A PROBLEM WITH BRINGING THE GARAGE CLOSER TO THE ALLEY THAN 20 FEET, BUT, UH, WOULD LIKE IT MAINTAINED FOR STREET RIGHT OF WAY.
UM, AND THEN A SECOND ONE REGARDING ALLEY ACCESS IS THAT THE CURRENT PROVISIONS, UM, YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED ALLEY ACCESS GENERALLY.
UM, WHAT'S IN BEFORE US TODAY IS TO ALLOW, UM, ALL USES TO UTILIZE THE ALLEY AND AS I UNDERSTAND IT IN OUR CONVERSATION, TO HELP MINIMIZE CURB, CURB CUTS AND THE PARK PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.
AGAIN, FREE UP KIND OF ALL OF OUR PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.
UM, MY QUESTION HAD GONE BACK TO, UM, STAFF AND ENGINEERING REGARDING NON-RESIDENTIAL USES WITH RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCIES.
AND THIS IS SIMILAR TO THE CONVERSATION I WAS HAVING EARLIER ABOUT AUTO ORIENTED USES WHERE WE'VE GOT AN, YOU KNOW, VEHICLE SALES AND DISPLAY THAT'S IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO AN R FIVE.
YOU KNOW, WE HAVE OTHER MORE INTENSE USES ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT, UM, RESIDENTIAL ALLEY USE SHOULD BE RESTRICTED TO RESIDENTIAL USES.
SO AGAIN, ADDING MORE FLEXIBILITY BUT TRYING TO ADDRESS WHERE WE HAVE COMMERCIAL USES.
AND IF I, I THINK MR. NAVAREZ GAVE
[02:45:01]
ME SOME FEEDBACK ON THAT, BUT IF, UM, STAFF COULD ADDRESS THAT, I'D APPRECIATE IT.YEAH, I WOULD LIKE, IF YOU ARE OPEN, I WOULD SUGGEST TO BASICALLY TO TRY TO NAME SOME OF THE USES OR GIVE A GENERAL CATEGORY BECAUSE THERE ARE MAY BE SOME COMMERCIAL USES THAT ARE COMPATIBLE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THEN WE WOULD, UH, IT WOULD BENEFIT IF THEY HAVE ACCESS FROM THE ALLEY.
ALSO, KEEP IN MIND THAT IF ACCESS IS GOTTEN FROM THE ALLEY, THAT PROPERTY OWNER NEEDS TO IMPROVE AND MAINTAIN THE ALLEY TO, TO THE STANDARDS.
SO IT IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THAT ALLEY TO BE IMPROVED AND THE SINGLE FAMILY OR THE RESIDENTIAL USES MAY BENEFIT OUT OF THAT.
SO IF YOUR CONCERN, AND I DO UNDERSTAND THIS WITH VEHICLE SERVICE TYPE OF USES, THAT MAY OVER SPILL INTO AN ALLEY AND BLOCK IT, THAT'S ONE THING.
BUT IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, I DON'T KNOW, UM, A RETAIL USE OR I DON'T KNOW, A SCHOOL OR A USE OR DAYCARE OR SOMETHING THAT'S, OR A CHURCH, SOMETHING THAT'S COMPATIBLE, MAYBE WE WOULD LIKE TO MAINTAIN THE INTEGRITY OF THE SIDEWALK AND ALLOW, UM, THE USE OF THE ALLEY CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT IT MAY HAVE, IT MAY BRING SOME BENEFITS.
AND I'M HAPPY TO TAKE A CLOSER LOOK.
I THINK ONE OF THE OBSERVATIONS THAT MR. NEVAREZ HAD MADE TO ME WAS THAT IT'S NOT STRICTLY A FUNCTION OF CARS, BUT THAT ONCE THAT ACCESS IS ALLOWED, IT'S ALSO HIGHER IMPACT VEHICLES, UM, THAT IMPACT THAT FUNCTION IN THAT, UM, HOW, HOW THE ALLEY ITSELF OPERATES.
SO I THINK, AND AGAIN, I DON'T WANNA SPEAK FOR 'EM, BUT, UM, MAYBE IF I CAN WORK WITH STAFF BEFORE WE HEAR THIS AT THE PUBLIC HEARING TO MAYBE REFINE THAT TO ADDRESS STAFF'S, UM, COMMENTS ON THAT.
'CAUSE I THINK THOSE ARE, ARE CORRECT AND I THINK CONSISTENT WITH THE DISCUSSION AROUND THE HORSESHOE, I DO HAVE ONE OTHER ITEM, BUT I WANT TO YIELD THIS 'CAUSE I THINK I NEED TO FOLLOW UP WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE ON IT BEFORE I DO FURTHER.
SO THANK YOU TO THE COMMISSION.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, UH, COMMISSIONER AND, AND AND STAFF.
SORRY I DIDN'T FORGOT TO APOLOGIZE.
I APPRECIATE ALL THE STAFF'S TIME TO HELP REVIEW THESE THIS WEEK.
COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT AND THEN FOLLOWED BY COMMISSIONER KINGSTON.
UH, UM, I WANT, JUST WANTED TO ASK STAFF A QUESTION ABOUT 4.202 AS DRAFTED.
UM, THIS IS ABOUT THE, WHEN YOU HAVE CONTIGUOUS USES WITH SINGLE FAMILY AND THIS, THESE PARKING REQUIREMENTS, UH, THAT VARY, YOU KNOW, BY USE.
AND I THOUGHT ONE OF THE PREMISES OF THIS WHOLE PARKING EXAMINATION WAS THAT THESE RATIOS AND PARKING REQUIREMENTS WEREN'T REALLY, UH, SUPPORTED BY HARD EVIDENCE.
SO ONE TO 200, ONE TO 300, ONE TO 600, ONE TO 500, LIKE I THINK, I THINK THERE'S EVIDENCE THAT, THAT THOSE DON'T REALLY MEAN ANYTHING AND YET HERE THEY ARE LIVING ON IN.
AND SO I WAS JUST WONDERING WOULD YOU WOULDN'T OBJECT IF THESE WERE ALL ONE TO 500, FOR EXAMPLE, WOULD YOU I WAS GONNA SUGGEST THAT.
SO IN THE BEGINNING OF THE BEGINNING OF THE BEGINNING WE WERE ALSO, UH, RECOMMENDING THAT A UNIFIED RATIO FOR CATEGORY OF USES HELPS A LOT.
SO I WAS GONNA SUGGEST THAT A LOT.
I THINK IT'S MORE TRANSPARENT ALSO, UM, AND I COMMENT I WILL MAKE SINCE WE'RE HERE, IS THERE ARE SOME OF THESE USES THAT ALREADY HAVE A DISTANCE REQUIREMENT FROM SINGLE FAMILY.
LIKE FOR INSTANCE, THE HEAVY INDUSTRIAL ONES LIKE THE INCINERATOR, RIGHT? ALL THE INCINERATOR, THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED TO BE LINKED NEAR SINGLE FAMILY.
THEY, THEY MUST BE A THOUSAND FEET FROM SINGLE FAMILY ANYWAY.
SO I MEAN WE MAY KEEP IT AS COMMISSION AGREED TO IT, BUT I JUST WANTED YOU TO KNOW THAT.
UM, AND YES, THANK YOU FOR THE SUGGESTION.
WE WOULD TOTALLY, UM, SUPPORT A UNIF UNIFIED RATIO.
IT'S GONNA BE HARD TO TO FIND IT, BUT WE CAN, WE CAN TALK ABOUT IT.
AND SO YOU, YOU KIND OF OPENED THE DOOR FOR ME TO ASK YOU, PRESS YOU ON THAT LAST STATEMENT YOU MADE.
YOU'RE NOT A HUGE FAN OF THIS CONTIGUOUS LANGUAGE HERE IN 4.202.
I WILL TELL YOU, I'M NOT, NO STAFF WILL RECOMMEND, LIKE WE WILL BOX IT IN FRONT OF CITY COUNCIL STAFF, UH, WILL MOVE IT FORWARD.
THAT WILL NOT BE INCORPORATED IN THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER KINGSTON.
SO I, I HAVE A COUPLE THINGS, WELL I HAVE SEVERAL THINGS I JUST WANNA POINT OUT OR ASK SOME QUESTIONS ON.
[02:50:02]
PAGE 26, UNDER 4.209 RESIDENTIAL USES SUBSECTION SIX OFF STREET PARKING FOR SINGLE FAMILY ONE SPACE.UM, I THOUGHT THE MOTION WAS WE WERE REDUCING IT TO ONE SPACE FOR SINGLE FAMILY DUPLEX AND UM, TOWN HOME.
AND IT LOOKS LIKE THAT TOWN HOME DISTRICTS WAS STRUCK AND I DON'T SEE DUPLEX, AM I MISSING IT? UH, DUPLEXES IN THE DUPLEX LAND USE 4.209 B TWO, UH, IT'S ONE SPACE PER DWELLING UNIT AND THEN TOWNHOUSES INTO LAND USE.
AND SO, UH, THAT WOULD JUST BE THE, THE MULTIFAMILY LAND USE ONE PER DWELLING UNIT OR HALF, I'M SORRY, HALF SPACE PER DWELLING UNIT OR, OR A SINGLE FAMILY.
SO IF IT'S BUILT IN A TOWNHOUSE FORM, BUT THAT WOULD JUST BE THE SINGLE FAMILY ONE PER DWELLING UNIT.
HOW DOES THAT WORK? HOW DOES IT WORK? WELL, TOWNHOUSE ISN'T A LAND USE, IT'S HOW THE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ARE CONSTRUCTED, WHETHER THEY'RE ATTACHED OR DETACHED.
SO IF IT'S WHAT WE'RE CALLING A TOWNHOUSE, TWO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ATTACHED, BUT EACH IS ON ITS OWN LOT, ITS OWN PROPERTY.
AND SO EACH OF THOSE ATTACHED SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING UNITS WOULD HAVE ONE SPACE REQUIRED.
SO IT WOULD BE TWO TOTAL OR THREE TOTAL, YOU KNOW, HOWEVER MANY.
ALRIGHT, NEXT I'M ON PAGE 28, WHICH IS 4.210.
UM, THERE'S A C DASH II TALKS ABOUT FOR ALCOHOL BAG ESTABLISHMENTS THAT ARE IN HISTORIC PLACES AND IT'S UNDER, UM, ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES.
DOES THAT ALSO MODIFY BAR, LOUNGE, TAVERN AND MICROBREWERY? YES.
NEXT I'M UNDER, UM, CAN I ASK, SINCE YOU ARE AT THAT POINT, I'M SORRY, CAN I ASK FOR A CLARIFICATION ON THAT LANGUAGE AND I CAN ASK YOUR COMMISSION'S OPINION? YEAH, IF YOU, THANK YOU.
UM, SO THE WAY I READ IT, THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN, IT BASICALLY SAYS THAT, UM, ALL OF THESE USES WILL AUTOMATICALLY NEED AN SUP JUST FOR PARKING PURPOSES.
UM, AND I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND IF THE COMMISSION'S INTENT LAST TIME WAS YOU NEED AN SUP ONLY IF YOU GO TO ZERO.
BUT IF, IF IT'S WRITTEN CORRECTLY, THAT'S FINE.
I JUST WANTED A CLARIFICATION.
WELL, DON'T ALCOHOLIC BE VERSUS ESTABLISHMENTS NEED AN SUP ANYWAY.
BUT YOU SEE THIS LANGUAGE WAS ADDED FOR RESTAURANTS, FOR INSTANCE, THAT DOESN'T NEED AN SUP.
I DON'T UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION.
THERE, THERE ARE ALSO MICRO BREWERIES AND STUFF THAT ARE ALLOWED BY RIGHT.
IN CERTAIN PLACES, CERTAIN DISTRICTS.
SO MY QUESTION IS, I, I UNDERSTOOD IT LAST TIME IN THE CONVERSATION THAT THE INTENT OF THE SUP WAS IF THIS USE WAS TO NOT HAVE AS A MA A MINIMUM REQUIREMENT, BUT THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN IN HERE, IT SAYS THAT AN SUP IS REQUIRED ANYWAY JUST TO ESTABLISH THE PARKING FOR THESE USES.
IN OTHER WORDS, YOU CANNOT PUT A RESTAURANT IN A, IN A BUILDING WITHOUT AN SUP FOR PARKING.
WELL, THEY HAVE TO OBTAIN AN SUP FOR THE CONSIDERATE FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSIDERING WHETHER ADDITIONAL PARKING IS REQUIRED THAT WHAT IS THE REQUIRED PARKING, BECAUSE THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN, THAT'S WHAT, THAT'S WHY I WANTED, AND WE CAN FIGURE IT OUT.
I JUST WANT THE COMMISSION TO UNDERSTAND THE DISTANCE, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO.
SO CAN A RESTAURANT IN A DESIGNATED BUILDING NEAR THAT MEETS ALL THE OTHER QUALIFIERS IF IT PROVIDES PARKING, CAN IT DO IT BY RIGHT, OR IT STILL NEEDS AN SUP? WHAT DO YOU MEAN? IF IT PROVIDES PARKING? SO AS AN EXAMPLE, I GUESS IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT RESTAURANT WITHOUT DRIVE IN OR DRIVE THROUGH SERVICE, IF IT'S NOT IN A DESIGNATED BUILDING, THEN IT'S KEEPING THE, UH, ONE SPACE PER 200 SQUARE FEET OF ALL FLOOR AREA OR 501 SPACE PER 500 FOR THE MANUFACTURER, ET CETERA.
UM, SO I GET IT SOUNDS LIKE WHAT YOU'RE ASKING IS DOES THAT CARRY, CAN,
[02:55:01]
CAN THAT CARRY OVER TO A DESIGNATED BUILDING WITHIN 300 FEET OR IN THAT SITUATION, WOULD IT NEED AN SUP? OH, WELL, IF YOU'RE ASKING ME, UM, I I WOULD ASSUME THAT IF THEY'RE PARKING TO CODE AND THEY'RE IN A HISTORIC BUILDING THAT THEY DON'T NEED AN SUP ON TOP OF THAT.BUT IF THEY ARE TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THE ADDITIONAL PARKING REDUCTION BECAUSE THEY'RE IN A HISTORIC BUILDING, IF THEY'RE WITHIN 300 FEET, THEN THEY WOULD HAVE TO TAKE THE EXTRA STEP OF GETTING AN SUP FOR PURPOSES OF EVALUATING THE PARKING.
I DON'T KNOW IF MY COLLEAGUES AGREE.
BUT I WANTED EVERYBODY TO BE ON THE SAME PAGE BECAUSE THE LANGUAGE THAT'S IN FRONT OF US DOESN'T SAY THAT.
AND SO THAT'S PART OF, LIKE, THIS SECTION DOESN'T SEEM SUPER CLEAR TO ME.
AND, AND HOW THIS PARAGRAPH ABOUT THE HISTORIC BUILDING, WHAT IT MODIFIES WITHIN THE ALCOHOLIC USE DOESN'T SEEM CLEAR BECAUSE YOU, UH, THE COMMISSION VOTED UNDER THE ASSUMPTION THAT IT WILL APPLY TO BAR LUNCH AND TAVERN AND BYRE AND ALL THE ALCOHOL USES.
IF THAT'S THE CLARIFICATION THAT THE BODY IS MAKING TODAY, WE WILL CLARIFY IT IN A LANGUAGE.
THAT'S WHY I ASKED SO MANY QUESTIONS.
ARE WE READY FOR THE NEXT ONE? ALL RIGHT.
UM, I'M MOVING ON TO IT'S PAGE 31, SAME SECTION FOUR 2.10 RESTAURANTS.
AND THIS IS BOTH WITH AND WITHOUT DROP THROUGH SERVICE.
IT SAYS NO PARKING IS REQUIRED FOR THE FIRST 2,500 FEET OF ANY RESTAURANT, BUT THE MOTION, AND I THINK THE WAY WE ALWAYS TALKED ABOUT IT WAS ANY RESTAURANT THAT'S 2,500 FEET OR SMALLER WOULD NOT REQUIRE PARKING.
BUT IF IT'S LARGER THAN THAT, THAT'S WHEN IT WOULD REQUIRE PARKING.
AND THAT'S NOT WHAT THIS SAYS.
YOU'RE, YOU'RE CORRECT IN THAT CORRECTION.
SO WHAT'S ON THE PAGE IS IN ERROR.
AND THAT, DOES THAT REQUIRE MOTION? IT SHOULD JUST BE A CLARIFICATION OF THE VOTE.
UH, NEXT ON PAGE 33, TRUCK STOP SAYS NO PARKING REQUIRED.
IT IS MY RECOLLECTION THAT WE SPECIFICALLY TALKED ABOUT THESE TYPE OF USES REQUIRING THEM TO PARK ON SITE.
THAT'S WHAT I READ IN THE MORNING WITH COMMISSIONER CARPENTER.
SO I WOULD SAY THAT PROBABLY IF YOU WANNA MAKE A CLEAR OR EXPAND IT, PROBABLY IT NEEDS A VOTE TO SAY ORDER RELATED USES IN ALL USE CATEGORIES.
IT NEEDS TO HAVE A PROVISION THAT PARKING MUST BE PROVIDED ON SITE.
AND, UM, JUST TO MAKE SURE, UM, WE UNDERSTAND THE TRUCK STOP IS FOR THE FUELING PART, THE RETAIL AND THE RESTAURANT THAT GOES ALONG WITH A LOT OF TRUCK STOPS THAT WE SEE IN OUR REGULAR DAY-TO-DAY LIVES.
UM, THOSE RETAIL RESTAURANT LAND USES, SO THE LOVES TRAVEL CENTER AND STUFF, AND IT HAS SEVERAL USES GOING ON THERE, BUT THE, UM, A FACILITY FOR FUELING TRUCKS, THAT'S WHAT A TRUCK STOP IS.
WELL, WE DON'T HAVE ANY DISTRICT 14, BUT I WOULD THINK THE PEOPLE WHO DO HAVE THEM WOULD NOT BE REAL KEEN ON TRUCKS NOT PARKING ON THE SITE.
YEAH, BUT WE, IT'S THE SAME WITH GAS STATIONS.
YOU PARK WHERE YOU, YOU, YOU FUEL YOUR VEHICLE.
LIKE YOU DON'T HAVE VISITORS THAT, THAT'S NOT HOW TRUCK STOPS WORK.
A LOT OF TIMES THEY PARK OVERNIGHT TO SLEEP AND LONG HAUL TRUCKS AND YES.
AND IF THEY'RE PARKING AND I'M NO EXPERT ON TRUCKS, OUR TRUCKING EXPERT IS NOT HERE TODAY, BUT, AND IF THEY'RE PARKING OVERNIGHT, THAT'S CALLED A COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLE PARKING LOT.
OKAY, NEXT, UM, ONE PAGE 43 EC AT THE BOTTOM IT SAYS, ANY, AT THE TIME OF PERMITTING A NEW DEVELOPMENT, MOST PROJECT WITH ZERO OFF STREET PARKING MUST IDENTIFY THE NEAREST HANDICAP ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACE.
AN ACCESSIBLE ROUTE CONNECTING THE ACCESSIBLE SPACE TO THE MAIN BUILDING.
MY QUESTION IS, WHAT IF THERE ISN'T ANY? WHAT IF THERE ISN'T ANY SIDEWALK ACCESSIBLE PARKING NEARBY?
[03:00:01]
I WOULD SAY THAT, UH, IN DOWNTOWN, FOR INSTANCE, RIGHT? YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO, WE WOULD MAKE THE ASSUMPTION THAT WE HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO PARKING IN HOW MANY BLOCKS AN ACCESSIBLE ROUTE IS.DOES IT? IT CAN EVEN SAY FROM TRANSIT IF WE WANT, MAYBE WE HAVE TRANSIT OR THAT'S, THAT'S, THIS QUESTION IMPLIES THAT NO PARKING IS GONNA BE PROVIDED ANYWHERE IN THE CITY.
I'M JUST SAYING, WHAT IF THERE'S NO ACCESSIBLE NEARBY? WHAT'S THIS SOLUTION FOR? THERE'S, SINCE YOU HAVE TO IDENTIFY THE, THE CLOSEST ACCESSIBLE PARKING IN A ROUTE, WHAT IF THERE'S NOT ACCESSIBLE PARKING NEARBY? TOO BAD FOR YOU.
I MEAN, YEAH, CURB PARKING IS ACCESSIBLE AS WELL.
THAT'S, THAT'S, THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT.
LIKE THE SIDEWALK IS ACCESSIBLE, EVERYTHING ACCESSIBILITY IS NOT JUST PARKING IS ALSO THE ROUTE.
SO CURB PARKING THAT'S ACCESSIBLE.
DO WE NEED CLARIFYING LANGUAGE THERE THOUGH? I THINK THAT'S, THAT'S, DO WE NEED TO CLARIFY THAT? IT SAYS OFF STREET, WE, SORRY, IT SAYS, UM, MUST IDENTIFY THE NEAREST HANDICAPPED ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACE AND ACCESSIBLE ROAD CONNECTING.
YEAH, IT CAN BE ON STREET PARKING.
BUT MY QUESTION IS, WHAT HAPPENS IF YOU, THEY, THEY TAKE A LOOK AT IT AND THE NEAREST ACCESSIBLE IS NOT ALL THAT NEAR.
SHOULD WE BE GIVING AT LEAST THE DIRECTOR THE ABILITY TO REQUIRE SOME NEARBY ACCESSIBLE PARKING? I MEAN, THIS S CAUSES YOU TO LOOK AT ACCESSIBILITY, BUT IT DOESN'T CAUSE YOU TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT IF IT'S NOT NEARBY.
YOU KNOW, IT CAUSES YOU TO PROVIDE AN ACCESSIBLE ROUTE AND MAKE SURE THAT YOUR BUSINESS IS ACCESSIBLE.
DOESN'T, WHICH IS, WHICH IS WHAT THE FEDERAL LAW REQUIRES RIGHT NOW REQUIRES HANDICAP ACCESSIBILITY TO ANY BUILDING.
I MEAN, I, I'M NOT AN ACCESSIBILITY EXPERT, BUT I DON'T READ IT THAT WAY.
THE ONLY THING IT REQUIRES YOU TO DO IS IDENTIFY THE NEAREST, IT DOESN'T REQUIRE YOU TO PROVIDE IT IF IT'S NOT NEAR, AND IT DOESN'T GIVE THE CITY THE ABILITY TO REQUIRE IT IF IT'S NOT NEAR, SHOULDN'T WE GIVE THAT FLEXIBILITY TO THE CITY? TO FOR THE CITY? SO I HAVE A LOT OF ISSUES WITH THIS LANGUAGE.
ONE, BECAUSE THE WHOLE A DA COMPLIANCE IS A FEDERAL LEVEL REQUIREMENT AND ENFORCEMENT, AND I FEEL LIKE IF WE START REQUIRING AT LOCAL LEVEL, WE ARE GONNA MOVE THAT TO OUR LEVEL FOR ENFORCEMENT.
AND THAT'S NOT WHAT FEDERAL, STATE, FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS MAIN MANDATING US TO DO.
SO I WANT US TO BE VERY CAUTIOUS WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THINGS THAT ARE FEDERALLY REGULATED ANYWAY.
SO, UM, THE WAY ACCESSIBILITY WORKS IS THERE ARE MULTIPLE WAYS.
NOT EVERY I, I UNDERSTAND, BUT NOT EVERY, UM, EVERY PERSON THAT HAS A DISABILITY CAN DRIVE.
SO YOU NEED ACCESS VIA SIDEWALKS.
YOU MAY NEED A BUS STOP, YOU MAY NEED A, A VAN, YOU MAY NEED LOADING, UNLOADING.
THERE ARE MULTIPLE WAYS, AND I DON'T THINK THAT THIS IS THE SCOPE OF THE PARKING REFORM.
WE WENT ABOVE AND BEYOND TO SAY, IDENTIFY THE ROUTE, WHICH NORMALLY IS YOUR NEAREST SIDEWALK.
AND I THINK THAT'S HOW FAR WE CAN GO.
THAT'S WHY THE, THE PURPOSE OF THE A DA COMPLIANCE AT FEDERAL LEVEL AND TO JUST TO REQUIRE A HANDICAPPED PARKING THAT'S NOT ON YOUR PROPERTY TO JUST REQUIRE YOU WHO ARE AN OPERATOR OF YOUR PROPERTY TO SEARCH AND DO IT ELSEWHERE.
I DON'T EVEN KNOW HOW TO ADDRESS THAT.
WELL, DIDN'T YOU GUYS PUT THIS LANGUAGE IN THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE? NO, THIS WAS CBC'S LANGUAGE.
I AM GONNA TALK TO OUR EXPERT AT THE BREAK ON THIS ONE.
THE FIRST, UM, NUMBER II SAYS, FOR SINGLE FAMILY DUPLEX AND MULTIFAMILY USES WITH A MAXIMUM OF FOUR DWELLING UNITS ON ONE LOT, A MAXIMUM OF ONE CURB CUT WITH A MAXIMUM WIDTH OF 12 FEET IS ALLOWED.
AND CURB CUTS FOR SHARED DRIVEWAYS
[03:05:01]
ARE LIMITED TO A MAXIMUM WIDTH OF 20 FEET.I'M NOT SURE WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO SAY THERE, BUT I THINK IT'S UNCLEAR, MAYBE INTERNALLY INCONSISTENT.
WHAT ARE WE TRYING TO SAY THERE? THIS IS GONNA SOUND A LITTLE REDUNDANT, BUT HOPE, HOPEFULLY IT CLEARS IT UP.
UM, SO FOR OUR PROPERTY WITH UP TO FOUR UNITS, 1, 2, 3 OR FOUR UNITS ON ONE PROPERTY, A CURB CUT, THERE CAN BE NO MORE THAN ONE CURB CUT, AND IT CAN BE NO MORE THAN 12 FEET WIDE UNLESS IT'S SHARED WITH A, AN ADJACENT PROPERTY.
AND THEN THE TOTAL WIDTH OF THE CURB CUT CAN BE UP TO 20 FEET WIDE.
DO YOU THINK WE COULD TIGHTEN THAT LANGUAGE A LITTLE BIT? ABSOLUTELY.
IS THAT THE QUOTE SLINGBLADE? I'M NOT A SMART WOMAN, BUT I DIDN'T GET IT WHEN I READ IT THREE TIMES, SO I THOUGHT MAYBE WE CAN THANK YOU.
NEXT ON PAGE 49, WE'RE ON SECTION 4.303 A TWO, IT'S RESERVED.
WHAT DO WE SAVING IT FOR? THAT'S THE CURRENT CODE.
I THINK THERE WAS A PROVISION THAT WAS TAKEN OUT OF THE CURRENT CODE.
YEAH, WELL, WE'RE REWRITING THE WHOLE THING ANYWAY.
WHAT DID WE SAVE? THAT'S FOR THE ATTORNEYS.
AT, AT ORDINANCE DRAFTING TIME.
YOU PROBABLY WHAT? WE'D PROBABLY CLEAN THAT UP TO REMEMBER THAT SECTION.
I MEAN, THERE IS A D SO, UM, A LOT OF OUR PDS REFER TO VARIOUS SUBSECTIONS OF PARKING, AND SO I, I DON'T, I GET NERVOUS WHEN WE JUST TAKE OUT SUBSECTIONS AND RENUMBER EVERYTHING IN THE CODE.
SOMETIMES WE'LL KEEP SOMETHING RESERVED BECAUSE IF WE RENUMBER OR RELET AN ENTIRE SECTION OR SUBSECTION, IT'LL AFFECT A REFERENCE TO THAT ELSEWHERE IN THE CODE.
SO SOMETIMES WE KEEP IT RESERVED, SOMETIMES WE, UM, RE RENUMBER, RE-LET THE SECTION OR SUBSECTION.
IT'S JUST A, A DRAFTING CHOICE.
I HAD IN MY NOTES THAT WE TALKED ABOUT REMOVING THIS, AM I REMEMBERING THAT WRONG? THE MOTION THE STAFF UNDERSTOOD IT WAS TO REVIEW IT AND JUST BRING IT IN LINE WITH, UH, ANY OTHER REDUCTIONS IN PARKING MINIMUMS FOR ANY OTHER LAND USES.
AND SO, UM, WHEN STAFF WAS LOOKING AT THIS OFFICE USES RETAIL AND PERSONAL SERVICE EXCEPT FOR RESTAURANTS AND ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE ESTABLISHMENTS WITHIN 1200 FEET OF A RAIL STATION THAT'S ALREADY BEEN COVERED BY THE TOD, UM, MOTION TRADE CENTER WAREHOUSE OVER 100,000 SQUARE FEET.
I DON'T THINK WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE SAME THING.
OH, 4.313 WAS ADMINISTRATIVE PARKING REDUCTION.
AND SO, AND SO THE MOTION WAS TO, FOR THAT WHOLE SECTION 4.313 REVIEW IT, BRING IT IN LINE.
AND SO WHAT THAT LEFT WAS JUST INDUSTRIAL INSIDE AND INDUSTRIAL OUTSIDE, UH, AS LAND USES 50% MAXIMUM ADMINISTRATIVE REDUCTION, THAT WAS BROUGHT UP.
AND THEN IT WAS, UM, SUMMED UP, EXCUSE ME, IT WAS SUMMED UP IN THE ADDITION OF FOR BUSINESS AND COMMERCIAL USES AND INDUSTRIAL, THAT, UH, IT SOUNDS LIKE THAT WAS A MISINTERPRETATION.
I THINK, UH, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER MAY HAVE MADE THE MOTION.
THIS IS A MISINTERPRETATION BY STAFF, SO REALLY IT'S JUST INDUSTRIAL INSIDE AND INDUSTRIAL OUTSIDE THAT REMAIN WITH THE CHANCE TO HAVE A MAXIMUM ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATIVE REDUCTION OF 50%.
UM, YEAH, FOR THE NEXT SECTION, 4.314 REDUCTIONS FOR PROVIDING BICYCLE PARKING IN LIGHT OF ALL OF THE OTHER, UM, REDUCTIONS WE'RE PROVIDING.
DO YOU THINK THAT THE REDUCTIONS PROVIDED IN THIS SECTION STILL MAKES SENSE? I THINK WE DO BECAUSE THE, THE CONCEPT IS IF SOMEONE'S USING ONE FORM OF TRANSPORTATION, THEN THEY WON'T USE ANOTHER.
UM, BUT IT'S A POLICY CALL FOR Y'ALL TO DISCUSS.
[03:10:06]
4.328 ON PAGE 56, A SUBSECTION FIVE.THERE'S AN EITHER THERE WITHOUT AN OR.
WE WILL REVIEW THAT WITH THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF SCRUTINY.
SECTION 4.333 SPACES REQUIRED FOR BIKES, UM, REQUIRES THAT FOR EVERY 10 BICYCLE SPACES, A PORTION OF 10 BICYCLE SPACES, UM, A BUILDING HAS TO PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF TWO BICYCLE PARKING SPACES AVAILABLE FOR USE BY GUESTS OR VISITORS.
DO YOU THINK TWO'S ENOUGH THAT'S THAT'S IN THE CALL RIGHT NOW? IF WE WANNA CHANGE IT? YEAH, IF WE WANNA CHANGE IT, I WOULD SAY IT WOULD NEED A MOTION.
I DON'T KNOW IF TWO IS ENOUGH.
I, WE CAN, THAT'S MY, THAT'S ME ASKING YOU YOUR OPINION.
I THINK, UM, WE'RE DALLAS IS RIGHT NOW, AND UNLESS IT'S MAYBE AN ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICT WHERE REALLY SOME PEOPLE MIGHT BE PACKING IN WITH BICYCLES, I SEE A LOT OF, UM, YOU KNOW, SINGLE RACK, JUST TWO SPACES THAT DON'T HAVE BIKES IN THEM.
SOME OF THEM HAVE ONE, SOME HAVE TWO.
SO, UM, I, I HAVEN'T HEARD FROM THE DALLAS BICYCLE COALITION THAT THEY REALLY NEED MORE THAN THIS.
REALLY WHAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR IS JUST ANY BIKE RACKS AROUND AT ALL.
SO I THINK WE'RE, I THINK THIS IS AN APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENT RIGHT NOW.
WE'RE ALMOST DONE FOLKS ON SUBSECTION C, SUBSECTION TWO, MULTIFAMILY PARKING WHERE WE ADDED GUEST PARKING.
UH, IN THE PREVIOUS SECTION FOR MULTIFAMILY, WE SAID THAT THE GUEST PARKING MUST BE CLEARLY MARKED.
WE HAD CLEARLY MARKED LANGUAGE.
DO YOU REMEMBER THAT? I'M SORRY, WE'RE ON FOUR POINT 1107 C TWO.
WHERE WE'RE, WE'RE REQUIRING GUEST PARKING, BUT YOU REMEMBER IN THE CONVERSATION WHERE WE'RE REQUIRE GUEST PARKING TO BE CLEARLY MARKED MM-HMM
UM, YOU THINK WE SHOULD HAVE THAT SAME LANGUAGE IN THIS SECTION? I THINK IT CAN, CAN MAKE SENSE UP TO THE BODY.
IS A SECOND GONNA REQUIRE A MOTION.
AND, AND I THINK THE MOTION ON MARCH 4TH DID SPECIFY JUST THE 15%.
UHHUH, UM, I'VE, THAT'S ALL THE QUESTIONS I HAVE.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONERS, COMMISSIONER, CARPENTER? EXCUSE ME, I'M DYING OF THE PNEUMONIA HERE.
UM, AND ARE INSTITUTIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE USES, UM, CEMETERY OR MAUSOLEUM STILL SAYS THAT REQUIRED OFF STREET PARKING IS TWO SPACES.
IS SHOULD THAT BE STRUCK? THAT SHOULD BE STRUCK.
THAT WILL WE NEED A MOTION TO STRIKE THAT OR IS THAT A STAFF CLEANUP? THAT SHOULD BE STAFF CLEANUP.
THE NUMBER OF SPACES REQUIRED, THE TEXT THERE IS NOT THE SAME AS THE TEXT ON PAGE 53 IN THE CHART.
IT SAYS HERE, NONE IS REQUIRED FOR CHURCHES UNDER 20,000 SQUARE FEET IN FLOOR AREA.
AND THEN IT STRIKES THE ONE SPACE PER 3 33 SQUARE FEET IN FLOOR AREA.
IF A CHURCH HAS LESS THAN 5,000 SQUARE FEET OF FLOOR AREA AND IS LOCATED IN A SHOPPING CENTER WITH MORE THAN 20,000 SQUARE FEET AND THE FLOOR AREA AND THEN GOES ON.
BUT THAT LANGUAGE THAT IS STRUCK THERE IS IN THE, THE CHART ON PAGE 53.
SO WILL THAT BE A MOTION OR IS THAT A STAFF CLEANUP? SHOULD, SHOULD BE A CLEANUP.
I THINK THE INTENT OF THE MOTION WAS SIMPLY TO ADD THAT 20,000 SQUARE FOOT FLOOR AND THEN EVERYTHING BEYOND THAT IS THE SAME AS WE HAVE NOW.
UM, ON PAGE 30 16 DASH 32, UNDER PUBLIC OR PRIVATE SCHOOL D REQUIRED OFF STREET LOADING, THERE IS THE, UH, THE LOADING CHART THAT, UM, HAS EXISTED IN THE, UH, PARKING ORDINANCE FOREVER.
[03:15:01]
INTENTION THAT THAT PARKING, UH, THAT LOADING CHART SHOULD REMAIN? THE LOADING CHART SHOULD REMAIN.THERE HASN'T BEEN A MOTION ON THAT.
THEY, THEY UNDATED ON, LET'S SEE, WHAT PAGE IS THAT? PAGE 39, 16 DASH 39 UNDER NUMBER 11.
DO YOU HAVE A, UM, DRY CLEANERS, I'M SORRY.
IT'S NUMBER, IT'S ON PAGE, UM, 41 NOW.
UM, WHERE IT SAYS IF MORE THAN 10 OFF STREET PARKING SPACES ARE REQUIRED FOR THIS USE, HANDICAP PARKING MUST BE PROVIDED PURSUANT TO SECTION 51 A DASH 4.305.
IS THAT SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO STAY? WHAT, WHAT PARKING, I'M SORRY.
DO HAVE A REFERENCE? I THINK OUR PAGE NUMBERS MIGHT BE MISSING.
UM, IT'S, UM, DRY CLEANING, LET'S SEE, IT'S PAGE 16 DASH 41 OR PAGE 29 AND 30 OF THE, IT'S ACTUALLY PAGE THREE 70 OF THE DOCKET, IF THAT HELPS.
AND I'M SORRY, WOULD YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION? CERTAINLY IT'S DRY CLEANING OR LAUNDRY STORE.
IT SAYS REQUIRED OFF STREET PARKING, NONE.
AND THEN IT STRIKES ONE SPACE PER 200 SQUARE FEET OF FLOOR AREA.
THEN IT GOES ON TO SAY IF MORE THAN 10 OFF STREET PARKING SPACES ARE REQUIRED FOR THIS USE, HANDICAP PARKING MUST BE PROVIDED PURSUANT TO SECTION 51 A DASH 4.305.
BUT MY QUESTION IS, IF THERE IS NO PARKING SPACE, NO PARKING REQUIRED, DO WE NEED THAT, THAT LAST STATEMENT? NO, WE DON'T.
AND THAT'S A, JUST A TECHNICAL CLEANUP.
ALL AND FOR, UH, VEHICLE DISPLAY, UH, WHERE ARE WE? OKAY, THAT'S, UM, PAGE 3 73 OF THE DOCKET OR PAGE 16 DASH 44.
UH, WE'RE GOING TO ADD THE LANGUAGE.
UH, CAN I GET CLARIFICATION OR MAYBE IT'S A MOTION THAT I NEED TO DISCUSS WITH, UM, WITH STAFF FOR, FOR WHAT MS. DR.
DREA WAS SAYING EARLIER ABOUT ALL OF THESE VEHICLE RELATED USES.
UM, ARE YOU THINKING THAT ONE STATEMENT IS GOING TO BE ADEQUATE TO SAY THAT THESE, UM, THESE VEHICLE RELATED USES MUST ACCOMMODATE ALL OF THEIR VEHICLE PARKING ON SITE? YES.
I THINK IT'S GOOD FOR ENFORCEMENT PURPOSES.
I'LL, I WILL GET WITH, UM, STAFF, UH, WITH, UH, LEGAL BEFORE, BEFORE THIS AFTERNOON.
UM, I, I CAN'T GIVE A PLACE NUMBER OF NUMBER HERE BECAUSE IT'S NOT IN, IN OUR DOCUMENT, BUT AS I WAS GOING THROUGH CHECKING THIS ORDINANCE AGAINST THE, THE CURRENT PARKING CODE, UM, THERE IS A, UH, WE HAVE A, A, A USE FOR SHORT TERM RENTALS AND THERE IS A REQUIREMENT FOR ONE PARKING SPACE PER AND SINCE IT'S NOT ADDRESSED IN THIS ORDINANCE, THAT WOULD LEAVE THAT REQUIREMENT BE AND WAS THAT THE INTENTION BECAUSE IT WOULD BE UNDER LODGING USES IF IT WERE HERE? YEAH, I THINK IT, I THINK IT WOULD BE ZERO THE SAME AS, UM, THE BASE BASICALLY.
I I WASN'T SURE IF IT WAS AN INADVERTENT, UM, OMISSION OR WAS, OR IF IT WAS IN RESPONSE TO THE FACT THAT THAT WAS SUCH A LONG AND CONTENTIOUS DISCUSSION
AND I'D JUST LIKE TO CLARIFY ON PAGE 50 THAT THE MINOR AMENDMENT LANGUAGE IS REVERTING TO WHAT THE ORDINANCE HAS SAID.
[03:20:01]
OKAY.ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONERS, COMMISSIONER HAN AND I'LL APOLOGIZE.
I WAS TYPING MY ONE ITEM AND I JUST SAW THAT WITHIN OUR STRUCK ITEMS IT SAYS OFF STREET PARKING IS NOT PERMITTED IN A VISIBILITY TRIANGLE IS DEFINED IN SECTION 51 A 4.602.
I BELIEVE ENGINEERING MAY ASK THAT THAT BE MAINTAINED.
SO I, AGAIN, I JUST NOTING THAT FOR THE RECORD.
AND PLEASE LET US KNOW IF, WE'LL THAT WILL NEED TO BE A MOTION FROM STAFF AND I THINK COMMISSIONER CARPENTER'S ADVISING ME IT MAY HAVE BEEN RELOCATED, WHICH IS EVEN BETTER.
BECAUSE 'CAUSE THEY RE UM, THEY REFORM, IT BATTED FAIRLY EXTENSIVELY THAT GENERAL SECTION AND I WENT THROUGH AND CROSSED AND IT, IT'S THERE.
THAT'S JUST NOT WHERE IT USED TO BE.
UH, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONERS? OKAY, SO, UH, THE, THE PLAN COMMISSIONERS, AND I KNOW SOME OF THIS WAS KIND OF DISCUSSION, SOME OF A QUESTION AND SOME OF 'EM ARE GONNA LEAD TO MOTIONS.
SO THE GOAL IS TO GET THE, THOSE MOTIONS TO, UH, MS. MORRISON WHO HAS, UH, COMMITTED TO WRITING THOSE UP AND HAVING THOSE PRINTED OUT BEFORE WE GET TO THE HEARING PORTION OF PARKING.
AND SO WHAT WE'LL DO IS WE'LL DISTRIBUTE THOSE AND WE'LL TAKE A BREAK, HAVE A MOMENT TO, UH, ABSORB THOSE AND STUDY THEM AND ASK ANY FINAL QUESTIONS BEFORE WE GET TO THE, THE VOTING SECTION.
AND WITH THAT, THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH.
UH, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE'RE NOW GONNA GO BACK TO THE TOP OF OUR AGENDA.
WE HAVE SOME AGENDAS DOWN HERE AT THE BOTTOM RIGHT TABLE IF YOU NEED ONE.
[1. 25-1011A Briefing and a Public Hearing on the South Dallas Fair Park Area Plan Lindsay Jackson, Senior Planner, Planning and Development Department Patrick Blaydes, Chief Planner, Planning and Development Department]
WE'RE GONNA GO RIGHT TO THE, THE VERY BEGINNING.UM, THE NUMBER, THE, THE FIRST ITEM, UH, IS GONNA BE HELD UNDER ADVISEMENT TO WHAT DATE? NO, NO, YOU'RE ON NUMBER TWO.
WAS THAT THE, UM, THE SOUTH DALLAS AREA PLAN? DO WE HAVE A DATE FOR THAT? YES.
ARE WE, IS THIS STILL BRIEFING? ARE WE IN OPEN SESSION NOW? THIS IS THE HEARING NOW.
UH, SO THE, THE FIRST ITEM, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WAS NOT BRIEF BECAUSE IT'S GONNA BE HELD UNDER ADVISEMENT.
UH, BUT I BELIEVE THAT IT WAS NOTICED AS A PUBLIC HEARING.
SO IF THERE'S ANYONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO BE HEARD ON THE FIRST ITEM, THE NUMBER ONE ITEM THERE, THE BRIEFING ON THE PUBLIC HEARING.
SOUTH DALLAS FAIR PARK AREA PLAN.
I THINK WE HAD ONE SPEAKER REGISTERED ONLINE.
HE IS NOT ASSUMING WE NEED A MOTION TO HOLD THIS.
OKAY, LET'S GET THAT RIGHT IN.
CAN YOU NOT READING IT IN PLEASE? I DON'T THINK.
ITEM NUMBER ONE IS THE BRIEFING AND A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE SOUTH DALLAS FAIR PARK AREA PLAN.
ANYONE HERE WOULD LIKE TO BE HEARD ON THAT ITEM? COMMISSION'S QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.
SEEING NONE VICE DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? YEAH, IN THE MATTER OF THE SOUTH DALLAS FAIR PARK AREA PLAN, I MOVE THAT WE KEEP THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AND HOLD IT UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL APRIL 24TH, 2025.
VICE CHAIR ROOM FOR YOUR MOTION AND COMMISSIONER HOUSE RIGHT FOR YOUR SECOND.
ANY DISCUSSION? SEE NONE OF THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
[Zoning Cases - Consent]
UH, SO NOW WE WILL MOVE ON TO OUR ZONING CASES.AGENDA ITEMS CONSISTING OF CASES TWO THROUGH EIGHT AT THIS POINT, CASES 2, 3, 4 AND EIGHT HAVE BEEN TAKEN OFF CONSENT AND WILL BE DISPOSED OF IN ONE MOTION AND PARDON ME INDIVIDUALLY AND THAT LEAVES CASES FIVE, SIX, AND SEVEN THAT WILL BE DISPOSED OF IN ONE MOTION TOGETHER UNLESS THERE IS SOMEONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON CASES FIVE, SIX OR SEVEN.
AND IF THERE IS WE WILL PULL THAT OFF AND AND HEAR IT INDIVIDUALLY.
SO IS THERE ANYONE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON FIVE, SIX OR SEVEN? THAT'S Z 2 4 2 4 5 1 3 9 Z 2 4 5 1 47 AND Z 2 4 5 1 1 8.
OKAY, WE'LL GET THOSE RIGHT IN PLEASE.
ITEM NUMBER FIVE IS KZ 2 45 1 3 9 AND APPLICATION FOR AN R FIVE SINGLE FAMILY
[03:25:01]
DISTRICT AND PROPERTY ZONE.A CS COMMERCIAL SERVICE DISTRICT ON THE EAST LINE OF CARD CARD CARBONDALE STREET, SOUTH OF FELLOW LANE.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL.
ITEM NUMBER SIX IS KZ 2 4 5 1 47.
AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR A HOTEL OR MOTEL USE ON PROPERTY ZONE C ONE A CENTRAL AREA DISTRICT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF MAIN STREET, EAST OF SOUTH PRO EXPRESSWAY SITE.
RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO A SITE PLANNING CONDITIONS.
ITEM NUMBER SEVEN IS KZ 2 4 5 1 18.
AN APPLICATION FOR A NEW SUBDISTRICT ON THE PROPERTY ZONE.
SUBDISTRICT ONE A WITHIN PLAN DEVELOP DISTRICT NUMBER SEVEN 14, THE WEST COMMERCE STREET, FORT WORTH AVENUE SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICT ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF WEST COMMERCE STREET AND PITMAN STREET.
RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO AMENDED CONDITIONS.
ANY QUESTIONS ON ANY OF THESE THREE CASES? SEE AND NONE WE
I MOVE THAT WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND FOLLOW STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL AS LISTED IN THE DOCKET.
THANK YOU MR. ROOF FOR YOUR MOTION.
THE COMMISSIONER HOUSE REP FOR YOUR SECOND.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE SAY AYE.
[2. 25-1012A An application for a Specific Use Permit for a drive-through restaurant on property zoned a GR General Retail Subdistrict within Planned Development District No. 193, the Oak Lawn Special Purpose District, on the south corner of Maple Avenue and Hawthorne Avenue. Staff Recommendation: Approval for a two-year period, subject to site plan and conditions. Applicant: Raymundo Castaneda Planner: Liliana Garza Council District: 2 Z234-279(LG)]
HAVE IT.UH, LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT VICE RUBIN HAS A CONFLICT ON ITEM NUMBER TWO AND IS STEPPING OUT OF THE CHAMBER.
ITEM NUMBER TWO IS KZ 2 3 4 2 79.
AN APPLICATION FOR SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR A DRIVE THROUGH RESTAURANT ON PROPERTY ZONE GR GENERAL RETAIL SUBDISTRICT WITHIN PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 1 93, THE OAK LAWN AND SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICT ON THE SOUTH CORNER OF MAPLE AVENUE IN HOR AVENUE.
SITE RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVED FOR A TWO YEAR PERIOD SUBJECT TO SIP PLAN AND CONDITIONS.
IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? IT SAYS ITEM NUMBER TWO ON THE FIRST PAGE OF THE AGENDA.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR MS. GARZA? SEEING NONE, COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? I DO.
THANK YOU MR. CHAIR IN THE MATTER OF Z 2 3 4 DASH 2 79 I MOVE TO HOLD THE PARA PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AND HOLD THIS MATTER UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL APRIL THE 24TH.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HAMPTON FOR YOUR MOTION AND COMMISSIONER CARPENTER FOR YOUR SECOND.
ANY DISCUSSION? SEE NONE OF THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
ANY OPPOSED? AYES HAVE IT RECORD REFLECT THAT IYE REN IS BACK
[3. 25-1013A An application for 1) a planned development district for MF-3(A) Multifamily District uses and 2) removal of a D-1 Liquor Control Overlay on property zoned CR-D-1 Community Retail District with the D-1 Overlay, on the southeast corner of South Jim Miller Road and Great Trinity Forest Way. Staff Recommendation: Approval of 1) a planned development district for MF-3(A) District uses, subject to development plan and conditions; and 2) removal of a D-1 Liquor Control Overlay. Applicant: JPI Real Estate Acquisition LLC Representative: Tommy Mann/Jesse Copeland, Winstead PC Planner: Liliana Garza Council District: 8 Z234-316(LG)]
IN THE CHAMBER.WILL MOVE ON TO CASE NUMBER THREE.
ITEM NUMBER THREE IS KZ 2 3 4 3 16.
AN APPLICATION FOR ONE, A PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FOR MF THREE.
A MULTIFAMILY DISTRICT USES AND TWO REMOVAL OF A D ONE LAKER CONTROL OVERLAY ON PROPERTY ZONE CRG ONE COMMUNITY RETAIL DISTRICT WITH A D ONE OVERLAY ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SOUTH JIM MILLER ROAD IN GREAT TRINITY FOREST.
DWAY STATE RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL OF ONE A PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FOR MF THREE.
A DISTRICT USES SUBJECT TO DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CONDITIONS AND TWO REMOVAL OF A D ONE LIQUOR CONTROL OVERLAY.
IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? THIS IS CASE NUMBER THREE.
TOP OF PAGE TWO COMMISSIONERS.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SEEING NONE, VICE CHAIR RUBEN DO YOU HAVE MOTION? YEAH IN THE MATTER OF Z 2 34 3 16 I MOVE THAT WE KEEP THE PUBLIC HEARING CO AND HOLD THE CASE UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL APRIL 24TH, 2025.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH VICE TRU FOR YOUR MOTION AND COMMISSIONER HAMPTON FOR YOUR SECOND.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE SAY AYE.
[4. 25-1014A An application for an R-5(A) Single Family District on property zoned an A(A) Agricultural District with deed restrictions [Z845-372], on the northeast line of Haymarket Road, southeast of South Saint Augustine Road. Staff Recommendation: Approval. Applicant: TMM Development, LLC Representative: Karl A. Crawley, Masterplan Planner: Liliana Garza Council District: 8 Z245-124(LG)]
HAVE IT.ITEM NUMBER FOUR IS KZ 2 4 5 1 24.
AN APPLICATION FOR AN R FIVE R FIVE, A SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT ON PROPERTY ZONE IN AA AGRICULTURE DISTRICT WITH D RESTRICTION Z 8 4 5 DASH 3 7 2 ON THE NORTHEAST LINE OF HAY HAYMARKET ROAD, SOUTHEAST OF SOUTH ST.
AUGUST AUGUSTINE ROAD SITE RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL.
UH, IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO BE HEARD ON THIS ITEM? THIS IS ITEM NUMBER FOUR.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR MS. GARZA? SEEING NONE, VICE RUBIN DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? YES IN THE MATTER OF C 2 45 DASH 1 24 I MOVE THAT WE KEEP THE COVO HEARING OPEN AND HOLD THE MATTER IN ADVISEMENT UNTIL APRIL 4TH, 2024.
THANK YOU MR. FOR YOUR MOTION AND COMMISSIONER HAMPTON FOR YOUR SECOND.
[8. 25-1018A An application for a Specific Use Permit for a vehicle display, sales, and service use on property zoned Subarea 2, within Planned Development District No. 366, the Buckner Boulevard Special Purpose District with a D-1 Dry Liquor Control Overlay, on the west line of Conner Drive, south of Bruton Road. Staff Recommendation: Approval of a five-year period, subject to a site plan and conditions. Applicant: Daniel Marquez/Laura Marquez Representative: Isai Marquez Planner: LeQuan Clinton Council District: 5 Z245-125(LC)]
[03:30:02]
LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT VICE RUBIN HAS A CONFLICT ON ITEM NUMBER EIGHT AND HAS STEPPED OUT OF THE CHAMBER.THIS IS ITEM NUMBER EIGHT CASE, UH, Z 2 45 DASH 1 25.
AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR A VEHICLE DISPLAY SALES AND SERVICE USE ON PROPERTIES ZONE SUB AREA TWO WITHIN PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 360 6, THE BUCKNER UH, BOULEVARD SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICT WITH A D ONE DRY LIQUOR CONTROL OVERLAY ON THE WEST LINE OF CONNOR DRIVE SOUTH OF BRUTON ROAD.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL OF A FIVE YEAR PERIOD SUBJECT TO A SITE PLAN AND CONDITIONS.
IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? COMMISSIONERS ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. CLINTON? SEEING NONE, UH, COMMISSIONER HOUSE, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? YES.
THANK YOU MR. CHAIR IN THE MATTER OF Z 2 45 DASH 1 25 I MOVE THAT WE KEEP THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AND HOLD THIS MATTER UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL APRIL THE 10TH.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HOUSER FOR YOUR MOTION.
COMMISSIONER HAMPTON FOR YOUR SECOND.
UH, THE RECORD REFLECT THAT LAST
[9. 25-1019A An application for a CS Commercial Service District on property zoned a CR Community Retail District and an IR Industrial Research District, on the southeast line of Burbank Street, between Thurston Street and Denton Drive. Staff Recommendation: Approval. Applicant: Philip Lang, 2722 Burbank, LLC Representative: Rob Baldwin, Baldwin Associates Planner: LeQuan Clinton U/A From: February 20, 2025. Council District: 2 Z234-340(LC)]
CHAIR RUBIN IS BACK IN THE CHAMBER AND TAKES US TO CASE NUMBER NINE.CASE NUMBER NINE IS Z 2 34 DASH 3 4 0.
AN APPLICATION FOR A CS COMMERCIAL SERVICE DISTRICT ON PROPERTY ZONED A CR COMMUNITY RETAIL DISTRICT AND AN IR INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH DISTRICT ON THE SOUTHEAST LINE OF BURBANK STREET BETWEEN THURSTON STREET AND DENTON DRIVE.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL.
IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? YES SIR.
GOOD AFTERNOON, ROB BALDWIN, 3 9 0 4 ELM STREET SWEEPY IN DALLAS.
I WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST THAT THIS CASE BE DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLEASE.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO BE HEARD ON THIS ITEM? COMMISSION QUESTIONS FOR MR. BALDWIN.
QUESTIONS FOR STAFF AND SEEING NONE.
COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? I DO AND I HAVE BRIEF COMMENTS.
I HAVE A SECOND IN THE MATTER OF Z 2 3 4 DASH 3 4 0 MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND DENY THE REQUEST WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HAMPTON FOR YOUR MOTION.
VICE YOUR ROOM FOR YOUR SECOND COMMENTS.
I'D LIKE TO THANK MR. BALDWIN.
UM, WE HAD A COMMUNITY MEETING SCHEDULED BUT BEFORE THAT TOOK PLACE THERE WAS A CHANGE IN THE, UM, CURRENT TENANT, WHICH IS WHAT NECESSITATED THIS ORIGINAL REQUEST.
SO WE LOOK FORWARD TO, UM, THIS COMING BACK TO US AT A LATER DATE.
AND APPRECIATE COMMISSION SUPPORT.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HAMPTON.
[10. 25-1021A An application for an amendment to Planned Development District No. 143, on the northwest corner of IH-635 and Valley View Lane. Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to amended development, landscape, traffic management plans and amended conditions. Applicant: Suzan Kedron and Victoria Morris, Jackson Walker, LLP Planner: Lori Levy, AICP U/A From: February 20, 2025 and March 6, 2025. Council District: 11 Z234-271(LL)]
COURT NUMBER 10.COMMISSIONERS ITEM NUMBER 10, WHICH IS LISTED ON THE AGENDA AS TWO FIVE DASH 10 21 A ZONING CASE, 2 3 4 2 7 1 LL.
THIS IS AN APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 1 43 ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF INTERSTATE 6 35 AND VALLEY VIEW LANE.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO AMENDED DEVELOPMENT LANDSCAPE TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLANS AND AMENDED CONDITIONS AS BRIEFED.
WE'LL SEE THAT THE APPLICANTS ARE HERE.
MY NAME IS BRAT WRIGHT AND I HAVE THE PRIVILEGE OF SERVING AS THE ASSISTANT HEAD OF SCHOOL FOR OPERATIONS AND FINANCE FOR THE COVENANT SCHOOL.
AND ON BEHALF OF OUR BOARD OF TRUSTEES, OUR HEAD OF SCHOOL, DR.
ROBERT LITTLEJOHN, AND OUR ENTIRE COVENANT COMMUNITY, WE WANT TO THANK THE COMMISSION AND SPECIFICALLY COMMISSIONER NIGHTINGALE FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION OF OUR REQUEST.
SINCE 1993, COVENANT HAS HAD THE PRIVILEGE OF EQUIPPING STUDENTS TO PURSUE A LIFETIME OF LEARNING SO THAT THEY CAN DISCERN, DEFEND, AND REASON, TRUTH AND IN SERVICE TO OUR LORD AND SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST.
CURRENTLY WE HAVE 729 STUDENTS ENROLLED IN KINDERGARTEN THROUGH 12TH GRADE.
AND IN FOR THE 25 26 SCHOOL YEAR, WE EXPECT TO HAVE 750 STUDENTS.
OUR STUDENTS REPRESENT APPROXIMATELY 415 FAMILIES THAT LIVE ACROSS DALLAS AND IN SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES.
WE EMPLOY MORE THAN 150 FACULTY, STAFF, AND COACHES, AND WE ENJOY DUAL ACCREDITATION BY THE SOUTHERN ASSOCIATION OF INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS AND BY THE SOCIETY FOR CLASSICAL LEARNING.
WE'RE GOVERNED BY A 13 MEMBER INDEPENDENT BOARD COMMITTED TO COVENANT'S DISTINCT MISSION.
AS ALREADY REFERENCED, WE OCCUPY
[03:35:01]
18 ACRES ON THE NORTH SIDE OF 6 35, JUST EAST OF THE HIGH FIVE INTERCHANGE AND ADJACENT TO VALLEY VIEW PARK.SOME OF YOU WILL REMEMBER IT AS THE HOME OF THE OLD LAMBERT NURSERY.
SINCE ACQUIRING THIS BEAUTIFUL SITE IN 2005, WE'VE BEEN BLESSED WITH THE RESOURCES NEEDED TO BUILD FACILITIES THAT SUPPORT OUR GROWING ACADEMIC AND ATHLETIC PROGRAMS, WHILE MAINTAINING THE NATURAL BEAUTY OF THE SITE, WHICH REMAINS CENTRAL TO OUR CURRICULUM AND EDUCATIONAL PHILOSOPHY AS WE ASSUME THE DAY-TO-DAY RESPONSIBILITY OF NURTURING TEACHING AND DISCIPLING THE CHILDREN ENTRUSTED TO US, THE SAFETY OF THOSE CHILDREN, AS WELL AS THE SAFETY OF OUR FACULTY, STAFF, AND PARENTS REMAINS A PARAMOUNT CONCERN.
THE GROWING NUMBER OF SCHOOL SHOOTINGS ACROSS OUR COUNTRY, SPECIFICALLY LIKE THE ONE THAT OCCURRED AT THE COVENANT SCHOOL IN NASHVILLE IN 2023, KEEPS US VIGILANT IN OUR EFFORTS, UM, TO MAINTAIN HIGH SAFETY STANDARDS.
THE NEW GUARDHOUSE, WHICH IS IN OUR PROPOSAL, WILL BE LOCATED JUST OUTSIDE OF OUR MAIN GATE, WILL GIVE US THE ABILITY TO IDENTIFY AND WELCOME EVERY PERSON WHO ATTEMPTS TO ENTER OUR CAMPUS.
RIGHT NOW, WE MONITOR OUR MAIN GATE REMOTELY, WHICH INCREASES THE LIKELIHOOD THAT SOMEONE WITH ILL INTENT COULD ENTER OUR CAMPUS AND CAUSE SIGNIFICANT HARM BASED ON OUR RESEARCH.
WE BELIEVE THAT THE PROPOSED LOCATION AND THE FUNCTIONALITY OF THE GUARDHOUSE WILL ALLOW US TO OPERATE ACCORDING TO SAFETY AND SECURITY BEST PRACTICES FOR CAMPUSES JUST LIKE OURS.
THE NEW 70 SPACE PARKING LOT THAT WE PROPOSE WILL ALLOW US TO ACCOMMODATE ALL OF OUR STUDENT DRIVERS ON CAMPUS AND ELIMINATE THE RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH STUDENTS PARKING ON ADJACENT UNGUARDED PUBLIC STREETS, AND WALKING TO AND FROM OUR CAMPUS DURING DAY AND NIGHTTIME HOURS.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIR COMMISSIONERS VICTORIA MORRIS WITH JACKSON WALKER, 2323 ROSS AVENUE, SUITE 600 IN DALLAS.
THANKS SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME TODAY.
THANKS TO STAFF AND COMMISSIONER NIGHTINGALE FOR ALL OF YOUR ASSISTANCE TO GET US THUS FAR.
WE ARE EXCITED TO BE BEFORE YOU AGAIN ALONGSIDE THE COVENANT SCHOOL.
AND AS GRANT MENTIONED, THERE ARE THREE PRIMARY IMPROVEMENTS AND UPDATES AS PART OF OUR ZONING APPLICATION.
THIS IS AN AERIAL IMAGE ILLUSTRATING WHERE THE, UH, APPROXIMATELY 70 PARKING SPACES WILL BE LOCATED IN A SURFACE PARKING AREA.
UM, IT'S LOCATED NEAREST THE INTERSECTION OF 6 35 AND VALLEY VIEW LANE.
HERE IS A SNIPPET OF THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN SHOWING THAT PARKING AREA AND ALSO THE GUARD HOUSE AND WHERE THAT WILL BE LOCATED.
HERE ARE SEVERAL RENDERINGS OF THE GUARD HOUSE AND ITS POSITION ON THE SCHOOL'S CAMPUS.
AND FINALLY, THE LAST UPDATE IS TO RIGHTSIZE THE BLEACHER SEATING CAPACITY WITH HISTORIC AGREEMENTS THAT WE HAVE HAD WITH THE VALLEY VIEW NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS.
THAT CHANGES FROM 1000 TO 1500, UH, SEATS WITH NO MORE THAN 350 OF THOSE SEATS BEING LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE FIELD.
TYPICALLY, THAT'S WHERE THE VISITING TEAM SITS.
WE HAVE WORKED CLOSELY WITH STAFF AND THE TWO NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS TO ADDRESS COMMUNITY FEEDBACK, INCLUDING A CLEANUP REVISION TO LANGUAGE REGARDING THE INTER INTERSECTION OF VALLEY VIEW LANE AND THISTLE LANE.
DURING THE BRIEFING, THERE WERE QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS INTERSECTION'S HISTORICAL CONFIGURATION AND MAINTENANCE AND IMPROVEMENT OBLIGATIONS.
I'M HAPPY TO OPINE AND DETAIL THAT INFORMATION.
SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, WE, UH, APPRECIATE STAFF'S ASSISTANCE, FINE TUNING THE PD CONDITIONS, AND WOULD ASK THE COMMISSION FOR A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL FOR OUR REQUEST WITH ONE REVISION, AND THAT IS TO REMOVE PER CITY STANDARDS FROM THE END OF SECTION ONE 50, UH, EXCUSE ME, SECTION 51 P DASH 1 43 13 B ONE.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? YES, SIR.
BRIAN LARSON, 1 3 3 4 0 MEADOWSIDE DRIVE.
UM, AND SO WE LIVE ABOUT FIVE HOUSES BEHIND THE COVENANT SCHOOL AND HERE IN SUPPORT OF COVENANT'S APPLICATION.
UM, I'VE GOT ALSO, I HAVE FOUR KIDS THAT ARE AT THE COVENANT SCHOOL.
I THINK THERE'S MORE SOPHOMORES WITH DRIVER'S LICENSES PERHAPS AS A RESULT OF PEOPLE HOLDING BACK FOR FOOTBALL, BUT THEY'RE PARKING ON THE CITY STREET THERE.
AND I THINK THIS PARKING WILL BE SAFER FOR KIDS BEING ON CAMPUS AS WELL AS BENEFICIAL FOR THE, FOR THE NEIGHBORS.
I'LL ALSO MENTION WE JUST HAVE A VERY ACTIVE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION OR NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, AND, UH, AND THIS HAS BEEN, WELL, THESE PLANS SORT OF HAVE BEEN WELL VETTED WITH THAT CONSTITUENCY OVER MULTIPLE MEETINGS AND JUST PLEASED TO SAY THAT THERE WAS A UNANIMOUS SUPPORT OF COVENANTS APPLICATION AT THE MEETING.
[03:40:01]
SO THANK YOU.I'M ASHLEY BLAKESLEY, AND I ALSO LIVE AT 7 2 3 0 ELRIDGE DRIVE IN THE, UM, NORTHWOOD HILLS NEIGHBORHOOD ADJACENT TO THE SCHOOL.
I HAVE TWO STUDENTS THAT ATTEND THE SCHOOL, ONE THAT CURRENTLY DRIVES AND ONE THAT WILL NEXT YEAR AND WOULD PRESUMABLY BE, UM, ONE OF THE SOPHOMORES THAT WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO PARK ON CAMPUS.
UM, AND SO WE ARE IN FULL SUPPORT OF THIS AS A NEIGHBOR, SO THAT, UM, WE LOVE IT AS A NEIGHBOR BECAUSE IT PROTECTS THE STREETS FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE INFRACTION OF KIDS PARKING ON THAT STREET AND MAKING IT INCONVENIENT FOR THE NEIGHBORS.
UM, BUT ALSO AS A STUDENT JUST FOR THE SAFETY OF OUR CAMPUS.
AND THEN ALSO IN SUPPORT OF THE, UM, BLEACHER EXPANSION.
IT JUST ALLOWS US TO BE A GOOD HOST TO OUR VISITING TEAMS THAT COME IN.
BECAUSE OUR SCHOOL IS SUCH A TIGHT COMMUNITY, OFTEN OUR STANDS ARE FILLED WITH OUR STUDENTS, PARENTS AND FANS AND GUESTS ARE LEFT TO SIT IN LAWN CHAIRS OR BEHIND THE TEAMS WHERE THEY CAN'T SEE THE ACTION ON THE FIELD.
UM, AND IT'S JUST ANOTHER WAY FOR US TO OUTREACH TO THOSE THAT ARE COMING TO OUR SCHOOL TO, UM, SHOW GOOD SPORTSMANSHIP AND HOSPITALITY.
UM, AND AGAIN, AS A NEIGHBOR, UM, WE HAVE SUCH A VALUABLE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE SCHOOL AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UM, THAT WE WOULD LOVE TO CONTINUE TO IMPROVE THROUGH THESE IMPROVEMENTS TO OUR SCHOOL.
I LIVE AT 70 51 TEAKWOOD DRIVE.
UH, I AM A PARENT OF STUDENTS OF THE COVENANT SCHOOL, TWO WHO ARE THERE CURRENTLY, ONE WHO HAS ALREADY GRADUATED.
AND I'M ALSO HERE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THESE, UM, PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO OUR CAMPUS, UM, PARTICULARLY OUR, UH, PARKING LOT AND OUR SECURITY GUARDHOUSE.
UM, AS A PARENT, THESE ARE HUGE VALUE ADDS TO OUR CAMPUS AND OUR SCHOOL COMMUNITY.
ALSO, LIVING IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD JUST TO THE NORTH OF THE SCHOOL, I APPRECIATE THE ADDITION OF THE SECURITY AROUND THE SCHOOL AND WHAT IT PROVIDES, NOT ONLY TO OUR CAMPUS, BUT ALSO THE EYES THAT WE HAVE LOOKING OUT AROUND OUR NEIGHBORHOOD BECAUSE OF OUR SECURITY THAT'S IN PLACE THERE.
UM, YOU CAN IMAGINE OUR SECURITY GUARD IS THERE IN ALL WEATHER AND, UH, THE SECURITY GUARDHOUSE I THINK IS GONNA BE A GREAT PIECE OF OUR COMMUNITY AND OUR SCHOOL FOR HIM, UM, IN PARTICULAR.
SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME TODAY AND FOR YOUR SERVICE TO OUR CITY.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS THAT WOULD LIKE TO BE HEARD ON THIS ITEM? COMMISSIONER'S QUESTIONS FOR ANY OF OUR SPEAKERS? COMMISSIONER HALT.
UH, THERE'S ACTUALLY, UH, THREE ENTRANCES TO THIS CAMPUS.
ONE OF 'EM IS A ALONG, UH, IT LOOKS LIKE THE ACCESS ROAD OF LBJ, AND THEN THERE'S ANOTHER EMERGENCY EXIT THAT I ASSUME IS FOR FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS.
AND ALSO, UH, A MAJORITY OF THE WESTERN PORTION OF THE CAMPUS IS LOCATED IN THE FLOODPLAIN, AND SO THERE'S A LOT OF WATER THAT COMES THROUGH THERE.
UM, AND WHEN IT IS FLOODED OUT, THEY UTILIZE THAT NORTH ENTRANCE, UH, TO BE ABLE TO ACCESS THE SCHOOL.
AND THE, THE, UH, THE ENTRANCE ON THE SOUTH SIDE, I GUESS ALONG THE, THE AC THE FRONTAGE ROAD, IT, IT'S, IS IT MONITORED AS WELL? I MEAN, OR IS IT REMOTELY OPERATED OR, UM, DO YOU, WELL, LET ME PULL UP THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO MAKE SURE, I MEAN, YOU WOULDN'T HAVE ANY STUDENTS COMING IN THAT WAY OR, OR GUEST OR ANYTHING ON THE VERY SOUTH END.
UH, THAT'S ACTUALLY AN EXIT ONLY, IT'S A ONE WAY.
IS THE GUARDHOUSE GONNA BE MANNED 24 7 OR JUST DURING SCHOOL HOURS? WHAT'S THE IT WILL BE MANNED DURING OUR OPERATING HOURS, WHICH IS 6:30 AM TO 10:00 PM OKAY.
COMMISSIONER KNIGHT HAVE, YES, I BELIEVE YOU HAD A LITTLE MORE HISTORY ON THE INTERSECTION AND JUST CURIOUS WHAT INFORMATION YOU HAVE THERE.
UM, SO THERE WAS DISCUSSION DURING THE BRIEFING REGARDING, UH, THE INTERSECTION OF VALLEY VIEW LANE AND THISTLE LANE, PARTICULARLY AS IT'S RECONFIGURED SHOWN ON THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
SO, UH, IN AUGUST, 2007, THIS WAS OPEN VALLEY VIEW LANE EXTENDED ALL THE WAY THROUGH, AND THEN DURING THE SCHOOL'S CONSTRUCTION AND AN IN NEGOTIATION WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THAT INTERSECTION WAS RECONFIGURED.
UM, TO, AND THIS IS A LITTLE BIT OF AN AERIAL VIEW.
I WENT WAY BACK ON GOOGLE EARTH, BUT, UM, IT WAS RECONFIGURED TO CREATE A, A A HALF CUL-DE-SAC FOR THE SCHOOL'S OPERATIONS AND FOR BETTER TRAFFIC FLOW FOR THE NEIGHBORS.
UM, IN JULY, 2008, AGAIN, THIS IS JUST SHOWING THAT THAT CONSTRUCTION OCCURRED AND TOOK PLACE.
DECEMBER, 2009, IT WAS COMPLETED, AND THEN MARCH, 2012,
[03:45:02]
IT SHOWED THAT IT WAS STILL CLOSED.SHORTLY THEREAFTER, THE EXPANSION OF, UH, 6 35 OCCURRED AND THE CITY OF DALLAS, UH, OPENED UP THAT INTERSECTION TO HELP ALLEVIATE SOME TRAFFIC.
UM, BY 2015, THAT WAS THE EARLIEST PHOTO I COULD FIND.
IT HAD, UH, BEEN CLOSED AGAIN, AGAIN, THE CITY'S CONSTRUCTION OF, OF THAT CLOSURE.
UM, TODAY THERE IS A BARRICADE THAT HAS BEEN ADDED, WHICH I BELIEVE WAS ONE OF THE PRIMARY CONCERNS FROM TRANSPORTATION.
THERE HAS BEEN, UM, UH, A QUESTION ABOUT WHO WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CONSTRUCTING AND MAINTAINING THAT, UH, AS IT IS PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, WE WOULD, UM, SUGGEST THAT IT IS THE CITY'S RESPONSIBILITY TO MAINTAIN CURB AND GUTTER AND, UH, SAFETY MEASURES.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONERS OF OUR SPEAKERS? QUESTIONS OF STAFF? SEEING NONE.
AND IF I GET A SECOND, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT, UH, IN THE MATTER OF Z 2 34, 2 71, I MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE PER STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS WITH THE FOLLOWING, CHANGE, REMOVE PER CITY STANDARDS IN SECTION 51 P DASH 1 43 1 13 PERIOD B, PERIOD ONE.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER YOU FOR YOUR MOTION AND VICE CHAIR RUBEN, FOR YOUR SECOND COMMENTS.
UM, THANK YOU SO MUCH TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS TO THE SCHOOL, UM, AND TO, UH, VICTORIA FOR ALL THE WORK THAT YOU ALL HAVE DONE OVER THE PAST FEW MONTHS.
UM, PUTTING THIS ALL TOGETHER.
UM, I KNOW THAT IT WAS A LOT OF WORK AND YOU SAVED A TREE AND WE'RE GETTING SOME MORE PLANTED.
SO VERY EXCITED ABOUT THAT AND APPRECIATE THE WORK IN THAT, IN THAT WORK.
UM, THE CONFIGURATION OF THAT INTERSECTION IS SOMETHING THAT I THINK BOTH THE SCHOOL AND THE COMMUNITY WANT.
UM, AND, UH, WITH THIS LANGUAGE CHANGE, WE ARE ALL VERY AWARE THAT YOU WILL BE GOING THROUGH PERMITTING AND THAT THERE WILL BE SOME FURTHER DISCUSSIONS AROUND THAT.
SO, UM, THAT'S WHY I WANTED TO MAKE THAT CHANGE.
ANY COMMISSIONER HOUSER, PLEASE.
I WANNA THANK ALL THE PEOPLE COMMISSIONER, UH, NIGHTINGALE AND THE NEIGHBORS AND THE SCHOOL FOR WORKING HARD ON THIS.
I JUST WANNA MAKE A REMARK THAT I DON'T LIKE THAT IT IS SO DIFFICULT FOR OUR SCHOOLS IN THIS CITY TO GET THINGS DONE.
THE, TO DO A SIMPLE SECURITY BOOTH IN FRONT OF A SCHOOL THAT NEEDS BETTER SECURITY AND TO HAVE TO GO THROUGH WHAT THEY JUST WENT THROUGH.
I FEEL LIKE THEY, WE OWE THEM AN APOLOGY.
UM, WE SPEND AS MUCH TIME SUPPOSEDLY PROTECTING OUR NEIGHBORHOODS FROM SCHOOLS AS WE DO BATCH PLANTS AND INDUSTRIAL USES.
AND I'VE NEVER UNDERSTOOD IT IN MY YEARS ON THIS PLAN COMMISSION.
AND THIS IS ONE MORE CASE WHERE WE'VE HAD CITIZENS AND WE'VE HAD, UH, UH, SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS AND WE'VE HAD CITY STAFF SPEND COUNTLESS HOURS ON A CASE THAT, UH, JUST SIMPLY SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN THIS DIFFICULT.
SO, UM, I APPRECIATE EVERYONE'S PATIENCE.
THERE'S FOLKS IN THIS ROOM WITH MUCH MORE PATIENCE THAN I HAVE APPARENTLY, SO, UH, BUT I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE THOSE COMMENTS.
THANK YOU PREREQUISITE FOR BEING ON THE PLAN COMMISSION.
LOTS OF PATIENCE, THICK SKIN AND BROAD SHOULDERS, UH, COMMISSIONERS.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? SEEING NONE.
[11. 25-1022A An application for a new Specific Use Permit for an alcoholic beverage establishment limited to a bar, lounge, or tavern on property zoned CR Community Retail District and a P(A) Parking District, on the west line of Inwood Road, north of Lovers Lane. Staff Recommendation: Approval for a three-year period, subject to a site plan and conditions. Applicant: Prescott Interests Representative: La Sierra Planning Group Planner: Cherrell Caldwell U/A From: February 6, 2025 and March 6, 2025. Council District: 13 Z234-333(CC)]
IT.WE'LL MOVE ON TO, UH, NUMBER 13.
ITEM NUMBER 11 IS AN APPLICATION FOR A NEW SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR AN ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE ESTABLISHMENT, LIMITED TO A BAR, LOUNGE, OR TAVERN ON PROPERTY ZONE, CR COMMUNITY, RETAIL DISTRICT, AND A PA PARKING DISTRICT ON THE WEST LINE OF INWOOD ROAD, NORTH OF LOVER'S LANE.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL FOR A THREE YEAR PERIOD SUBJECT TO SITE PLANNING CONDITIONS.
UH, IS THERE, IS THE APPLICANT HERE? OH, I SEE THE APPLICANT.
I'M JUST HERE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.
I HAD TO PICK UP MY SON, SO I JUST RAN IN RIGHT ON TIME.
CARLOS TALLON, UH, ADDRESS? UH, 9 3 0 4 ELMS, SUITE B, DALLAS, TEXAS 7 5 2 2 6.
UH, IS THERE ANYONE ELSE I WOULD LIKE TO BE HEARD ON THIS ITEM? COMMISSIONERS.
QUESTIONS FOR MR. TALLON? QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SEEING NONE.
COMMISSIONER HALL, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? I DO.
AND IF I MIGHT HAVE A, A MOMENT OR TWO FOR A BRIEF COMMENT, UM, IN THE MATTER OF Z 2 34, 3, 3 3, I MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND A PROOF STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION WITH
[03:50:01]
THE FOLLOWING, CHANGE THE HOURS, AND THIS IS TO THE SUP CONDITIONS.THE HOURS OF OPERATION ARE 4:00 PM TO 1:00 AM SIX DAYS A WEEK WITH THE ALEC ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE ESTABLISHMENT BEING CLOSED ON MONDAY OR TUESDAY EACH WEEK.
THINK YOU COMMISSIONER HALL FOR YOUR MOTION.
AND COMMISSIONER CARPENTER FOR YOUR SECOND COMMENTS.
COMMISSIONER HALL? YEAH, UH, THIS, UM, THIS IS, UH, WAS AN INTERESTING CASE.
IT'S A, IT'S A VERY TINY LOCATION.
ONE POINT, UH, UH, 100, UH, 1300 SQUARE FEET, BASICALLY ON THE NORTH SIDE OF A STRIP CENTER THAT FACES AWAY FROM LOVER'S LANE, BUT IT IS AN AREA WHERE THERE'S QUITE A FEW RESTAURANTS, INWOOD ROAD AND LOVER'S LANE, AS WELL AS SOME ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE ESTABLISHMENTS.
UM, SO IT WAS A BIG CONCERNING AT FIRST TO HEAR THAT MAYBE ANOTHER BAR WAS GONNA GO IN AND MIGHT AND MIGHT DISTURB, UH, THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
UH, HOWEVER, AFTER, AFTER PUBLIC OUTREACH AND A LOT OF INVESTIGATION AND A REALLY A GOOD COMMUNITY MEETING IN WHICH 575 NEIGHBORS WERE NOTIFIED
IT'S REALLY A PRIVATE MEMBERSHIP DRIVEN CLUB.
UH, EVERYTHING IS GONNA BE TOTALLY INSIDE.
AND SO, UH, THE NEIGHBORS, UH, SEEMED TO BE FAIRLY EXCITED ABOUT IT AND WANTED TO KNOW HOW THEY COULD GET A MEMBERSHIP.
SO WE, WE DO APPRECIATE THE, UH, THE WORK OF THE, UH, OF, OF THE PLANNER AND ALSO OF THE APPLICANT IN EXPLAINING PATIENTLY TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD WHAT THIS IS ALL ABOUT.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? COMMISSIONERS? SEEING NONE OF THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.
ANY OPPOSED? THE AYES HAVE IT.
[12. 25-1023A An application for the amendment and renewal of Specific Use Permit No. 1871 for the sale of alcoholic beverages in conjunction with a general merchandise or food store 3,500 square feet or less on property zoned a CR-D-1 Community Retail District with a D-1 Liquor Control Overlay, on the northeast corner of Lake June Road and Holcomb Road. Staff Recommendation: Approval for a three-year period with eligibility for automatic renewal for additional three-year periods, subject to conditions. Applicant: Karim P. Rashid Representative: Robert Nunez Planner: Connor Roberts U/A From: March 6, 2025. Council District: 5 Z234-165(CR]
ALL RIGHT.UH, ITEM 12 IS CASE Z 2 34 DASH 1 65.
AN APPLICATION FOR THE AMENDMENT AND RENEWAL SPECIFIC USE PERMIT NUMBER 1 8 7 1 FOR THE SNAIL OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE GENERAL MERCHANDISER FOOD STORE.
3,500 SQUARE FEET OR LESS ON PROPERTY ZONED A CRD ONE COMMUNITY RETAIL DISTRICT WITH A D ONE LIQUOR CONTROL OVERLAY ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LAKE JUNE ROAD IN HOLCOMBE ROAD.
RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL FOR A THREE YEAR PERIOD WITH ELIGIBILITY FOR AUTOMATIC RENEWAL FOR ADDITIONAL THREE YEAR PERIODS SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS.
THANK YOU SO MUCH MR. ROBERTS.
IS THERE ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? CASE NUMBER 12 Z 2 34 1 65.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SEEING NONE, MR. CHAIR, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? I DO IN THE MATTER OF Z 2 3 4 1 6 5.
I MOVE TO KEEP THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN.
HOLD THE MATTER ADVISEMENT UNTIL APRIL 10TH.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR FOR YOUR MOTION.
COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT FOR YOUR SECOND.
[13. 25-1024A An application for an MF-2(A) Multifamily District on property zoned a CR Community Retail District, on the north line of John West Road, west of the intersection of La Prada Drive and John West Road. Staff Recommendation: Approval. Applicant: Mainul Khan Representative: Nasir Rizvi, Ark Architects Inc. Planner: Connor Roberts U/A From: February 20, 2025 and March 6, 2025. Council District: 7 Z234-323(CR) (Part 1 of 2)]
THANK YOU.CASE NUMBER 13 IS ZONING CASE Z 2 34 DASH 3 23.
AN APPLICATION FOR AN MF TWO, A MULTIFAMILY DISTRICT AND A PROPERTY ZONED A CR COMMUTE RETAIL DISTRICT ON THE NORTH LINE OF JOHN WEST ROAD, WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF LA PRADA DRIVE AND JOHN WEST ROAD.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL.
IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO BE HEARD ON THIS ITEM BEFORE WE GO TO OUR SPEAKERS ONLINE? UH, YES I AM.
UH, SO GOOD AFTERNOON EVERYONE.
UH, MY NAME IS, UH, MINOL KHAN AND I'M THE OWNER OF THIS PROPERTY AND IT IS CURRENTLY JOINED, UH, COMMERCIAL.
AND MY GOAL IS TO CONVERT IT TO MULTIFAMILY.
SO I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.
UH, ARE THERE ANY OTHER, ARE THERE TWO SPEAKERS ONLINE? WHICH ONE? BOTH OF THEM.
MR. ORAND? IS MR. NASIR ON? YES, I'M HERE.
WE'RE DID YOU JUST SPEAK, SIR? OH, I SEE, I SEE THAT, THAT'S WHAT GOT US CONFUSED.
YOU'RE USING THE SAME ACCOUNT.
WE'RE READY FOR YOUR COMMENTS, SIR.
PLEASE BEGIN WITH YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
MY NAME IS NA FROM ARC ARCHITECTS.
[03:55:02]
YES, SIR.DO I NEED TO SAY SOMETHING? WE'RE READY FOR YOUR COMMENTS IF YOU HAVE ANY.
WE'RE, WE'RE HAPPY TO HEAR FROM YOU, SIR.
IF NOT, THEN WE'LL JUST, JUST BE, UH, AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS.
NO, I DON'T HAVE ANY COMMENTS.
I'M JUST, UH, PRESENTING MY, MY PROJECTS.
UH, UH, I THINK IT'S FALLING IN MULTIFAMILY, BUT WE ARE DOING THE CONDO STYLE, UH, UH, UH, TOWN HOME, UH, PROJECTS 115, UH, UNITS IN THIS PROJECT.
IS, UH, MR. KAHAN ONLINE? YES, I'M HERE.
SO WHO HAVE WE NOT HEARD FROM? ALI? I MEAN, THIS IS A NA ALI.
ANY, IS THERE ANYONE ELSE I WOULD LIKE TO BE HEARD ON THIS ITEM? COMMISSIONER, UH, COMMISSIONER, UH, QUESTIONS? I SEE THAT COMMISSIONER, UH, WHEELER HAS QUESTIONS, PLEASE.
UM, YES, I THINK THAT, SO IN THIS CASE, THE APPLICANT, UH, WAS SAID THEY WERE GOING TO DO, UH, VERIFY THE APPLICANT WAS GOING TO, UM, OFFER DEED RESTRICTIONS.
SO I, I DON'T THINK THAT, UM, THEY KNEW, I GUESS IS THAT THIS, THIS WOULD BE THE TIME IF, IF THERE WERE, IF THEY WERE OFFERING DEED RESTRICTIONS AND THEY WOULD HAVE TO READ 'EM INTO RECORD.
UH, GENTLEMEN, HAVE, HAVE YOU OFFERED DEED RESTRICTIONS? I'M, I'M HEARING THAT YOU HAVE UH, YES.
UM, I HAVE, AND I HAVE WORKED WITH THE STAFF AND THEY HAVE THAT COPY OF, UH, THAT MY, UH, INTENDED, UH, RESTRICTIONS.
UH, COMMISSIONER WHEELER, UH, THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE DOES HAVE A COPY OF THE DEED RESTRICTIONS.
DID YOU GET A COPY? DON'T THEY HAVE TO READ IT TO RECORD? SO, MR. ROBERT, YOU HAVE IT AND YES SIR, YOU, IF YOU HAVE A COPY OF THOSE, PLEASE READ THEM INTO THE RECORD.
AND IS THAT IN REFERENCE TO ME STAFF? I DIDN'T CATCH THAT PARENT.
WHO WOULD YOU LIKE TO READ? NO, LET'S, UH, LET'S HAVE THE APPLICANT READ THEM INTO THE RECORD.
IT'S, UH, MAINLY THE THREE ITEMS. IT'S A LONG, I MEAN LETTER, BUT THE NUMBER ONE ITEM IS THE OWNER WILL PROVIDE THE CRIME PREVENTED THROUGH ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN STUDY FOR THE PROPERTY PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.
ITEM NUMBER TWO, THE OWNER TO PROVIDE AN ONSITE MANAGER OR OTHER, SIR, PARDON ME? JUST, JUST FOR CLARIFICATION.
READ THE OTHER SET THE PUBLIC DEED RESTRICTIONS, THOSE WERE THE PRIVATE ONES.
I THINK YOU HAVE A SET OF PUBLIC.
LET'S READ THOSE INTO THE RECORD AND, AND MAKE SURE THAT YOU STATE THAT YOU ARE VOLUNTEERING THOSE.
IT'S, UH, NUMBER ONE IS A VEHICLE ACCESS GATE MUST BE PROVIDED AT EACH, UH, VEHICLE ACCESS POINT.
A MINIMUM OF ONE, UH, SECURITY CAMERA MUST BE PROVIDED AT EACH VEHICULAR ACCESS POINT WITH A MINIMUM OF TWO ADDITIONAL CAMERAS PROVIDED AT THE PROPERTY PARAMETERS.
NUMBER TWO, ITEM A MINIMUM SIX FEET HIGH.
UH, PRE PERIMETER FENCE WITH MISSIONARY COLUMN AND METAL INFIELD FENCE PANEL ALONG WITH JOHN WEST ROAD FRONT IS MUST BE PROVIDED.
THE PERIMETER FENCING MUST BE PROVIDED BEFORE THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS FOR THE SECOND MULTIFAMILY BUILDING.
UH, NUMBER THREE, A MINIMUM OF ONE PARKING SPACE PER BEDROOM IS REQUIRED.
MAXIMUM NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES PER DWELLING UNIT IS TWO AND NUMBER FOUR, A MINIMUM OF 5% OF THE PROPERTY MUST BE OPEN.
A SPACE PROVIDED FOR USE BY RESIDENTIAL AND GUEST OPEN A SPACE MUST BE PROVIDED BEFORE THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT
[04:00:01]
FOR THE SECOND MULTIFAMILY BUILDING.SO THAT'S ALL I HAD, YOUR HONOR.
COMMISSIONER HA UM, MR. CONN, IS IT CORRECT THAT YOU HAD ALSO DISCUSSED A MAXIMUM NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS? UH, YES, THAT IS CORRECT.
IT'S GONNA BE 115 UNITS TOTAL.
AND, AND, AND IS THAT PART OF THE, UM, DEED RESTRICTIONS THAT YOU'RE VOLUNTEERING? UM, THAT IT'S WITHIN A MINIMUM OF FOUR INDIVIDUAL BUILDINGS? UH, YES, THAT'S GONNA BE, THAT FOR THE PUBLIC DEED RESTRICTION BUILDING WILL BE THE SIX TOTAL MINIMUM.
MINIMUM SIX, UH, FOUR BUILDINGS AND MAXIMUM 150 UNITS.
AND YOU, YOU VOLUNTEERED THOSE DEED RESTRICTIONS, IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.
COMMISSION QUESTIONS FOR OUR SPEAKERS.
UM, I JUST WANTED TO CONFIRM IN YOUR, UM, CONVERSATIONS WITH THE COMMUNITY, I THINK YOU'RE GONNA CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THE COMMUNITY ON SOME OTHER ITEMS THAT WE'RE NOT ABLE TO INCLUDE IN OUR ZONING, UM, BUT THAT YOU'RE GOING TO WORK WITH THEM TO ADDRESS, UM, SOME ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS, UM, AND, AND, UM, HOA PROVISIONS, AGAIN, OTHER THINGS THAT ARE JUST, UM, CONVERSATIONS THAT, THAT YOU'VE HAD WITH THE COMMUNITY.
IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT.
I I, I KNOW WE'VE HAD A LOT OF CONVERSATIONS THIS PAST WEEK AND WE APPRECIATE YOUR ENGAGEMENT WITH THE STAKEHOLDERS.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT? ARE WE GONNA GET A COPY OF THOSE? DO DO WE HAVE THEM LIKE TO LOOK AT OURSELVES? 'CAUSE I CAN'T, I COULDN'T.
I'M NOT SURE IF THERE WERE, THERE WERE EMAIL TO THE BODY.
IF WE DON'T, WE CAN TAKE A QUICK LITTLE PAUSE.
MS. MORRISON, DO YOU HAVE THOSE ARE ARE THOSE YES, PLEASE.
OH, IT'S GONNA TAKE, OH, NO, COMMISSIONERS.
YOU SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED THOSE IF YOU WANNA REVIEW THEM.
DID WE HAVE A CHANCE TO REVIEW THEM? COMMISSIONERS? OKAY.
[04:05:03]
QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SEEING NONE.COMMISSIONER WHEELER, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? COMMISSIONER WHEELER, IF YOU CAN HEAR US.
IN THE MATTER OF, UM, Z 2 34 DASH 4 23, I MOVED TO CLAUSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FILE STAFF, STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS OF APPROVAL, UM, AND INCLUDES THE, THE VOUCHER DEED IS DEED RESTRICTIONS OFFERED BY THE APPLICANT.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER WHEELER FOR YOUR MOTION.
COMMISSIONER HAMPTON FOR YOUR SECOND IN CASE Z 2 3 4 3 2 3.
UH, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FALLS RE RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL, UH, AS WELL AS ACCEPTING THE DEED RESTRICTIONS AS VOLUNTEERED BY THE APPLICANT.
ANY DISCUSSION? SEE NONE OF THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.
[14. 25-1025A An application for 1) a planned development district for certain nonresidential uses and to maintain the areas with a D-1 Liquor Control Overlay and 2) consideration of an MU-1 Mixed Use District with a Specific Use Permit for a mini-warehouse use and to maintain the areas with a D-1 Liquor Control Overlay on property zoned a CR Community Retail District and CS Commercial Service District with a D-1 Overlay, and an R-7.5(A) Single Family District, on the southeast line of South Belt Line Road, southwest of C.F. Hawn Freeway. Staff Recommendation: Approval of a Specific Use Permit for a twenty-year period, subject to a site plan and conditions, in lieu of a planned development district for certain nonresidential uses. Applicant: Milan Nguyen (sole owner), MNCN Development, LLC Representative: Karl A. Crawley, Masterplan Planner: Sarah May, AICP U/A From: February 6, 2025. Council District: 8 Z234-277(SM]
WE'LL GO TO 14.AN APPLICATION FOR A PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FOR CERTAIN NON-RESIDENTIAL USES AND TO MAINTAIN THE AREAS WITH THE D WITH A D ONE LIQUOR CONTROL OVERLAY AND TWO CONSIDERATION OF AN MU ONE MIXED USE DISTRICT WITH A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR A MANY WAREHOUSE USE AND TO MAINTAIN THE AREAS WITH A D ONE AND CS COMMERCIAL SERVICE DISTRICT, UH, WITH A D ONE OVERLAY AND AN R SEVEN FIVE, A SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT ON THE SOUTHWEST LINE OF SOUTH BELTLINE ROAD, SOUTHWEST OF CF HUNT FREEWAY.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS, APPROVAL OF A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR A 20 YEAR PERIOD SUBJECT TO A SITE PLAN AND CONDITIONS IN LIEU OF A PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FOR CERTAIN NON-RESIDENTIAL USES.
IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? COMMISSIONER'S QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SEEING NONE, VICE CHAIR.
RUBIN, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? YES.
I MOVE WITH THE BEHE THE WHOLE HEARING OPEN AND HOLD THE MATTER UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL APRIL 10TH, 2025.
VICE CHAIR RUBIN, COMMISSIONER HAMPTON FOR YOUR SECOND.
ANY COMMENTS? NONE OF THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
[15. 25-1026A An application for 1) a TH-3(A) Townhouse District and 2) deed restrictions on property zoned an R-7.5(A) Single Family District and an IR Industrial Research District, generally bounded by Bonnie View Road, Southerland Avenue, and Arrow Road, south of the terminus of Dalview Avenue, and on the east line of Arrow Road, north of Southerland Avenue. Staff Recommendation: Denial. Applicant: DR Horton Homes Representative: Rob Baldwin Planner: Martin Bate Council District: 4 Z234-286(MB)]
CASE 15.AN APPLICATION FOR A TH THREE TOWNHOUSE DISTRICT AND D RESTRICTIONS ON PROPERTY ZONED IN R SEVEN FIVE, A SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT AND THEN IR INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH DISTRICT, GENERALLY LO BOUND, BOUND BY BONDY VIEW ROAD, SUTHERLAND AVENUE AND ARROW ROAD, SOUTH OF THE TERMINUS OF BELLEVUE AVENUE AND THE EAST LINE OF ARROW ROAD, NORTH OF SUTHERLAND AVENUE.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS DENIAL.
UH, ROB BALDWIN, 3 9 0 4 ALLEN STREET SUITE.
BE UH, FIRST OF ALL, I'D LIKE TO APOLOGIZE TO YOU AND TO OUR NEIGHBORS BEHIND US.
UH, THIS CASE IS NOT READY TO MOVE FORWARD TODAY AND, AND I APOLOGIZE FOR HAVING IT PLACED ON THE DOCKET.
UH, THE NEIGHBORS HAVE BEEN GREAT TO WORK WITH AND, UH, WE STILL HAVE WORK TO DO WITH THEM AND WE'RE COMMITTED TO DOING THAT.
UH, WE'VE REVIEWED THE CITY STAFF REPORT AND I THINK WE CAN GET, UH, ADDRESS THEIR CONCERNS AS WELL.
SO AT THIS POINT, I'D LIKE TO ASK THAT THIS CASE, UH, BE HELD UNDER ADVISEMENT.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE I'D LIKE TO SPEAK? YES, SIR.
HI, MY NAME IS STEVEN MCKAGAN.
UM, UH, 33 33 EAST KEYS BOULEVARD, DALLAS, TEXAS.
UM, I'M HERE REPRESENTING BOTH, UH, A PROP, THE PROPERTY OWNER THERE ON KEYS BOULEVARD AND ALSO THE BUSINESS.
THAT'S THE TENANT THAT'S IN THE BUSINESS.
OUR REASON FOR OPPOSING THE ZONE CHANGE IS THAT WE DON'T SEE IT BEING ADVANTAGEOUS FOR THE INDUSTRIAL BUSINESSES IN THE AREA.
INDUSTRIAL BUSINESSES ARE NOISY AND THAT WILL MOST LIKELY IF THEY DO BUILD THE HOUSES BEHIND OUR FACILITY, IS RIGHT ACROSS THE CREEK FROM WHERE THEY PLAN TO BUILD PART OF THOSE HOUSES.
AND, UM, WE RUN BAILERS, WE RUN TRUCKS.
WE START AT FIVE, USUALLY BETWEEN FIVE AND SIX IN THE MORNING, AND WE RUN SOMETIMES TILL 10 O'CLOCK AT NIGHT.
[04:10:02]
EXCUSE ME.UM, IF THIS PASSES, WE WOULD ASK THAT IF, IF, UH, THERE WOULD BE ANY.
UH, SO WE'RE WORRIED ABOUT NOISE COMPLAINTS OR THE POTENTIAL OF NOISE COMPLAINTS FROM THESE TOWNHOUSES BEING PLACED BEHIND OUR FACILITY.
UM, IF ANY NOISE BARRIERS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT WE'D PURSUE THAT THE, UH, DEVELOPER WOULD HAVE TO, UH, FLIP THE BILL FOR, UH, ANY NOISE SUPPRESSION OR ANY SORT OF, UH, BARRICADE OR, UH, WALL THAT WOULD NEED TO BE BUILT BEHIND THE FACILITY OR BE, EXCUSE ME, OFF THE PROPERTY.
MY NAME IS MICHAEL BROWN, 2 1 3 3 SUTTER STREET.
UH, THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK HERE.
AND WE DO SUPPORT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, DENY THE PROJECT.
I'M VICE PRESIDENT OF THE CITY CREST NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH THE DEVELOPER AND THEIR CONSULTANT ON THIS PROJECT.
AS THEY MENTIONED, THIS PROJECT IS NOT READY TO REVIEW.
I JUST MET ANOTHER NEIGHBOR THAT'S STANDING OVER HERE TO MY RIGHT THAT WE NEED TO REACH OUT WITH HIM TO SEE WHAT THEIR CONCERNS ARE BECAUSE SOME OF HIS CONCERNS THAT HE HAS PRESENTED HERE, IT'S THE SAME CONCERNS THAT WE HAVE.
I'VE BEEN WORKING WITH CITY STAFF AND THEIR NOTES THAT THEY HAVE BROUGHT FORWARD HIT THE PROJECT RIGHT ON TARGET.
WE HOPE THAT IN THE FUTURE, AS ROB HAD JUST MENTIONED, THAT WE WILL HAVE THESE THINGS WORKED OUT AS A GROUP, THAT EVERYONE WILL BE TRANSPARENT AND EVERYONE WILL HAVE A COLLABORATIVE UNDERSTANDING OF THIS PROJECT AND HOW WE'RE GONNA MOVE FORWARD.
UM, THERE'S A NUMBER OF THINGS THAT I COULD ELABORATE ON, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT IT'S NECESSARY THAT YOU HAVE THE NOTES.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.
I LIVE DIRECT, OH 2228 SUTHERLAND AVENUE AND UH, I BELIEVE I'M NUMBER SEVEN, BUT THE PROPERTY WHERE I LIVE, IF YOU DID A SQUARE BOX, MARK CUBAN IS TO MY RIGHT, WE SHARE THE SAME LOT NUMBER.
HE'S EIGHT A, EIGHT H AS IN HODGE, AND I'M EIGHT G.
SO WE SHARE THE SAME LOT DIRECTLY ACROSS WHERE DR. HORTON WANTS TO BUILD.
AND I'M GLAD TO SEE IT'S BEING DENIED AS OF RIGHT NOW.
BUT WHERE THEY WANT TO BUILD IN FRONT OF ME DIRECTLY WHERE THEY ARE, IT'S A GREEN BELT.
SO SINCE THEY WANNA DO THE REZONING, THERE IS MULTIPLE ANIMALS, COYOTES, BOBCATS, SKUNKS, FERAL HOGS, THINGS LIKE THAT WILL BE INTERRUPTED.
THERE'S SCHOOL CHILDREN THAT WALK.
SO I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THAT, BUT ALSO THINKING ABOUT YOU ARE GONNA LOSE A LOT OF TREES.
AND THEN, UH, DR. HORTON HAS NOT REALLY BEEN TOTALLY TRANSPARENT WITH US HOW IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN, WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN, AND JUST THEY WANT A LOT OF PROPERTY.
AND I KNOW THAT THE CITY OF DALLAS, BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE COMING 'CAUSE YOU SEE IT IN THE NEWS, A LOT OF COMPANIES THAT ARE COMING THIS WAY.
SO I'M NOT FOR NOT BEING ABLE TO TRY TO HOUSE PEOPLE, BUT WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT THEY WANT SO MUCH BUT YET NOT OFFER TRULY LIKE NEIGHBOR FRIENDLY.
BUT I JUST WANTED THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD THAT IT'S NOT SO MUCH AS, UM, 'CAUSE THAT'S MY NEIGHBOR, 33, 33 EAST KEYS.
THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS THAT HAPPEN IN THAT LITTLE AREA THAT I'M SURE THAT THE YOU GUYS MAY NOT FREQUENT OR VISIT, BUT IF YOU DO, YOU JUST NOTICE THAT IT IS A HISTORICAL AREA.
THE INTEGRITY WILL BE, YOU KNOW, SHAKEN UP AND, AND WE KNOW WHAT CHANGE IS INEVITABLE AND THAT'S FINE AND THAT'S OKAY AND THAT'S GREAT.
IT'S JUST THAT I DO WISH THAT IT WOULD BE GREAT IF THE CITY WOULD ACTUALLY LOOK AT THE DYNAMICS THAT WILL BE, UM, CHANGED SO SEVERELY TO THE INTEGRITY MAY BE WELL WILL BE LOST, AND JUST THAT BEING EQUITABLE AND FAIR.
SO THANK Y'ALL SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME AND, BUT ALL YOU DO, THANK YOU.
HELLO, MY NAME IS JUANITA SHARPLESS AND I LIVE AT 2 4 1 8 LANDMARK AVENUE.
I LIVE DIRECTLY BEHIND THE CHURCH THAT HAS ALSO, UH, PROPOSED THE REZONING.
SO I AM IN SUPPORT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING
[04:15:01]
FOR THE CITY OF DALLAS.HOWEVER, IT SEEMS AS THOUGH THE SOUTHERN SECTOR, ESPECIALLY OUR NEIGHBORHOOD IS BEING OVERSATURATED WITH APARTMENTS AND OTHER NEW DEVELOPMENTS.
I HAVE WAITED FOR OVER 20 YEARS TO LIVE IN A CEDAR CREST NEIGHBORHOOD AND ONE OF THE REASONS WHY I CHOSE THIS NEIGHBORHOOD IS BECAUSE OF ITS BEAUTY.
IT IT IS STILL ONE OF THE ONLY PLACES THAT STILL HAS BEAUTIFUL TREES.
AND THAT IS SOMETHING THAT IS ALSO VERY IMPORTANT TO ME IS THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT THAT THIS DEVELOPMENT WILL PLACE ON OUR CITY.
WE ARE ALREADY IN A SITUATION WHERE WE ARE HAVING ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES AND I THINK THAT THE REMOVAL OF THE TREES WILL ALSO IMPACT OUR TREE CANOPIES, WHICH ALSO IMPACT THE COOLING OF THE CITY AND OTHER POLLUTION AND OTHER POLLUTION ISSUES THAT WE HAVE CURRENTLY.
SO I AM OPPOSED OF THE REZONING AND I AM JUST NOT IN FAVOR OF IT AT ALL.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO BE HEARD? MR. BALDWIN, WOULD YOU LIKE YOUR REBUTTAL? NO.
NEXT TIME COMMISSIONERS QUESTIONS FOR ANY OF OUR SPEAKERS? COMMISSIONER FORESITE, PLEASE, SIR.
UH, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STEVE.
UH, THE, UH, GENTLEMAN WHO HAS A, A PROPERTY OWNER ON EAST KEITH BOULEVARD? YES, SIR.
COULD YOU, UH, TELL ME A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT YOUR BUSINESS OPERATION, PLEASE? WE ARE, WE ARE A CORPORATE RECYCLER.
UH, WE ARE A CORPORATE RECYCLER, SO WE'VE BEEN OPERATING IN THIS LOCATION SINCE I BELIEVE IT WAS 2005.
WE OPENED HERE IN, IN ON KEITH BOULEVARD.
AND WE'VE BEEN, WE'VE BEEN OPERATING THERE WITHOUT ANY ISSUES OR ANY PROBLEMS FOR THE LAST 20 OR 20 YEARS.
AND SO, I MEAN, THAT PROPERTY'S BEEN VACANT BEHIND US FOR THE LAST 20 YEARS.
OTHER QUESTION? SO THERE, THERE ARE TRUCKS COMING IN AND OUT, UH, OF THE LOCATION? YES, ALL DAY LONG.
UH, WE USUALLY, LIKE I SAY, A TRUCK USUALLY, UH, LIKE FOR INSTANCE, ME AND MY CREW ROLL OUT PROBABLY AROUND SEVEN O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING BETWEEN, WE ALSO HAVE TRUCKS THAT LEAVE MAYBE SIX O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING AND THEN THEY WILL COME BACK, UH, MOST OF THE TIME AROUND FIVE O'CLOCK IN THE AFTERNOON UNDER MOST CASES.
AND UH, AND THEN THAT DOESN'T COUNT.
THAT'S OUR PERSONAL, THAT'S OUR COMPANY VEHICLES.
THAT DOESN'T COUNT ANY OTHER TRUCKS COMING IN AND OUT OF THE FACILITY.
BUT WE DO NOT RUN, WE ONLY RUN TYPICALLY TILL THREE 30 IN THE AFTERNOON ON A REGULAR BASIS.
WHEREAS, UH, WHEN WE RUN THE EQUIPMENT IN THE BACK WHEN WE ARE BACKED UP, WE WOULD RUN THE EQUIPMENT LONGER, SO THAT COULD BE UP TO 10 O'CLOCK IN THE EVENING.
SO YOUR CONCERN WOULD BE THAT YOUR OPERATION COULD POSE A NOISE ISSUE FOR THE NEIGHBORS? YES, SIR.
THE PEOPLE WHO ARE GONNA BE LIVING IN THIS AREA? YES SIR.
IT WOULD BE, IT WOULD NEGATIVELY OR POTENTIALLY NEGATIVELY, UH, NEGATIVELY AFFECT IF THEY PUT TOWN HOSES BEHIND US.
AND THEN NOISE COMPLAINTS TO US COULD CAUSE US AN ISSUE AND THEN BY PROXY IT WOULD CAUSE OUR BUSINESS TO HAVE A PROBLEM IF WE COULDN'T RUN THE WAY WE'VE BEEN RUNNING.
UH, HAVE YOU, DO YOU HAVE VACATION, UH, EVER TO ATTEND THE MEETINGS OF THE CEDAR CREST NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION? I HAVE NOT.
SEE, I JUST FOUND OUT ABOUT THIS.
SO THIS WENT TO THE PROPERTY OWNER AND I LITERALLY JUST FOUND OUT ABOUT THIS ON MONDAY.
SO I CAME IN HERE AS BEST PREPARED AS I COULD IN THE LAST COUPLE OF DAYS.
UH, I, I'LL MENTION THIS TO YOU AS WELL AS ALL THE NEIGHBORS HERE.
I, I AM IN COMMUNICATION WITH PHIL GIBSON, WHO IS THE PRESIDENT OF THE CEDAR CREST NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND HE'S TRYING TO SCHEDULE A MEETING FOR THIS THURSDAY NIGHT COMING UP.
IS THAT CORRECT? YOU'RE IN THIS 27TH OF MARCH? I THINK IT'S THIS THURSDAY.
UH,
AS I MENTIONED, I JUST RIGHT, RIGHT.
AND SO I NEED TO GET HIM INVOLVED WITH WHAT'S EXACTLY, I APPRECIATE YOU COMING OUT TOO AND HOPE THAT YOU CAN BECOME ENGAGED.
JUST PULLED OUT MY BUSINESS CARD.
I WILL HAND IT TO 'EM ONCE WE'RE DONE HERE.
UH, I APPRECIATE YOUR, YOUR, YOUR COMING OUT TODAY AND PLEASE, UH, SHARE YOUR INFORMATION WITH MICHAEL BROWN AND SO THAT WE CAN MAKE SURE THAT YOU'RE ENGAGED.
UH, WHEN WE DO HAVE THE NEXT COMMUNITY MEETING TODAY, PHIL SAID IT WAS GONNA BE NEXT THURSDAY NIGHT, BUT THAT MAY CHANGE.
UM, I'M SORRY, MICHAEL, DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING ELSE TO ADD? NO, NO, NO, NO.
WELL, I, I HAD A QUESTION FOR ROB.
SO ROB, PART OF THE PROPERTY THAT THE CHURCH OWNS IS
[04:20:01]
NORTH OF ARROW.IT'S ABOUT WHAT THE SIX OR SO ACRES WHERE YOUR CHURCH IS TODAY.
THE CHURCH OWNS ALL THOSE PROPERTY, BUT THERE IT IS.
THE CHURCH HAS IMPROVEMENTS NORTH OF ARROW.
BUT THAT, THAT'S ALSO ZONED FOR R SEVEN FIVE.
SO IF THIS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OF SOUTH OF AERO DOES NOT GO THROUGH WITH THE CHANGE, THEN ARE, ARE, IS THE WHOLE PROJECT OFF INCLUDING THE DEVELOPMENT AND THE ORIGINAL SIX ACRES THAT ARE GONNA STAY R SEVEN FIVE? I WOULD ASSUME SO JUST BECAUSE, UM, THERE'S A LOT OF TREES IN THE AREA AND THE TREE MITIGATION AND, UH, TOPOGRAPHY AND, UM, THE WAY THAT'S CURRENTLY PLATTED, ALL THAT WOULD CONSPIRE TO MAKE THESE LOTS JUST VERY, VERY EXPENSIVE IN R SEVEN FIVE DISTRICT.
AND, AND ARE WE STILL AT, LIKE THE PROPOSAL IS FOR 200 ADDITIONAL UNITS ON THE, ON THE PROPERTY, UH, THE 30, THE 29 ACRES OR SO, OR 28 ACRES RIGHT IN QUESTION HERE? YEAH.
AS YOU RECALL, BASED ON OUR CONVERSATIONS, THE MEETING WITH THE NEIGHBORS, WE'VE, WE'VE BASICALLY CUT OUR DENSITY IN HALF FROM 398 TO ABOUT 193.
UM, BUT IT IS STILL SPREAD OUT OVER ALL THAT ACRES.
WE'VE ALSO INCREASED THE AMOUNT OF OPEN SPACE AND, UH, REDUCED SOME OF THE, THE LOT, THE SIZE OF THE, THE AREA TO KEEP THE R 75 NEXT TO OUR NEIGHBORS THAT HAVE R 75 ZONING.
BUT THAT BEING SAID, I STILL HAVE A LOT OF WORK TO DO.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS QUESTIONS FOR STAFF SEEING THEM? COMMISSIONER, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? YES.
CHAIRMAN SHADI IN, IN THE MATTER OF MOTION, UH, OUR CASE C 2 3 4 2 86.
I, UH, UM, UH, MAKE A MOTION THAT WE KEEP THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AND, AND, UH, AND HOLD THIS CASE UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL, UH, OUR MEETING ON APRIL 24TH.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER FORESITE FOR YOUR MOTION.
ANY DISCUSSION? SEE NONE OF THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
IT'S CLOSE THE HERE, BUT IF YOU WANT TO TALK TO ME, I'LL BE GLAD TO TALK TO YOU.
OF COURSE, THE ONLY CO AT THAT ADDRESS IS FOR WAREHOUSE.
THE ONLY CO AT THAT ADDRESS IS FOR WAREHOUSE 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10.
SO WE DO HAVE A QUORUM COMMISSIONERS, IT IS 3 31 JORGE, WE RECORDING? WE ARE RECORDING 3:31 PM AND WE'RE BACK ON THE RECORD.
UH, WE'RE GONNA TABLE THE PARKING DISCUSSION
[SUBDIVISION DOCKET - Consent Items]
JUST FOR THE MOMENT AND MOVE ON TO OUR SUBDIVISION DOCK AND CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS CONSISTING OF CASES 17 THROUGH, UH, 23.AND I BELIEVE THAT SOME OF US MAY HAVE SOME DISCLOSURES.
I THINK THESE NEW MICS GET A FAIR AMOUNT OF FEEDBACK ANYWAY, UM, I NEED TO DISCLOSE THAT I RECEIVED AN EMAIL ON, UH, CASE NUMBER 21 S 2 45 1 1 2, AND I DID NOT READ THE SUBSTANCE OF IT ONCE I SAW THAT IT WAS ABOUT A PLAT.
I RECEIVED THE, UH, THE SAME EMAIL AND DID NOT READ IT.
I'M SEEING LOTS OF, UH, HEADS SHAKING AS WELL.
FULL DISCLOSURE FROM THE BODY.
UH, OKAY, WE'RE READY TO DIS UH, FOR 17 TO 33.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON 17 THROUGH 23 BEGINNING ON PAGE EIGHT? AND WE WILL PULL IT OFF THE, THE CONSENT AGENDA AND HEAR IT INDIVIDUALLY? WHAT CASE? GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONERS.
I'M HERE FOR, UH, CASE 17, GABRIELA AGUILERA.
JUST FOR THE, JUST STAND BY ONE MOMENT AND, AND WE'LL, WE'LL CIRCLE BACK TO THAT ONE.
COMMISSIONER, IS SHE IN OPPOSITION? WHAT'S THAT? DO WE KNOW IF SHE'S IN OPPOSITION OR, OR DID SHE NOT? UH, OR DOES SHE UNDERSTAND THE CONSENT? WE DO NOT KNOW.
ARE, ARE YOU IN OPPOSITION, MA'AM? I THINK IT'S, YOU'RE THE APPLICANT.
IS SHE? SHE'S, SHE IS THE REP.
UH, SHE USUALLY THE REPRESENTATIVES JUST WHEN THEY'RE ON THE CONSENT AGENDA THAT THEY JUST GET DISPOSED OF IN ONE MOTION AND WE DON'T PULL 'EM OFF AND DISCUSS THEM SEPARATELY.
[04:25:01]
THAN WELCOME TO IF YOU WANT YOURS PULLED OFF AND WE, WE, UH, MAKE A SEPARATE MOTION FOR IT.I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FOR THE COMMISSION, SO OKAY.
WE'LL, WE'LL, WE'LL LISTEN TO IT INDIVIDUALLY, UH, AND FOR OUR FOLKS ONLINE, SHE SAID THAT SHE HAS SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT IT.
SO, UM, WE, WE'LL TAKE IT OFF THE CONSENT AGENDA.
SO THAT LEAVES CASES 18 THROUGH 23.
WE'LL PULL 21 OFF THE CONSENT AGENDA SO THAT LEAVES 18, 19, 20 AND THEN 22 AND 23.
ANY OTHER CASES, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THAT'S FROM, SO WE HAVE 18, 19, 20, 22 AND 23.
UH, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE HAVE CASES 18, 19, 20, 22 AND 23 THAT WILL BE DISPOSED OF IN ONE MOTION UNLESS THERE IS SOMEONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON ANY OF THOSE CASES.
COMMISSIONERS, UH, LET'S GET THOSE RIGHT INTO THE RECORD PLEASE.
ITEM NUMBER 18 S 2 4 5 DASH 1 0 8.
ITEM NUMBER 19 S 2 4 5 DASH 1 0 9.
ITEM NUMBER 20 S 2 4 5 DASH 1 1 0.
ITEM NUMBER 22 S 2 45 DASH 103.
AND ITEM NUMBER 23 S 2 4 5 DASH ONE SEVEN ON ITEM NUMBER 20, UH, S 2 45 DASH PER PAVING AND DRAINAGE CONDITION 16 TO BE REVISED TO READ AS ON THE FINAL PLAN.
DEDICATE 25 FEET OF RIGHT OF WAY VIA FEE SIMPLE OR STREET EASEMENT FROM THE ESTABLISHED CENTER LINE OF ROUTE STREET.
ALL CASES HAVE BEEN POSTED FOR A HEARING AT THIS TIME.
AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE DOCKET AND OR AS AMENDED AT THE HEARING.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH MR. ESTA COMMISSIONERS.
ANY QUESTIONS ON ANY OF THOSE ITEMS? SEEING NONE, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? YES.
IN THE MATTER OF THE SUBDIVISION CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS NUMBER 18, 19 20 22 AND 23, I MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND FOLLOW STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE DOCKET AND AS AMENDED AND READ INTO THE RECORD.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER CARPENTER FOR YOUR MOTION AND COMMISSIONER HOUSE RIGHT FOR YOUR SECOND ON THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEM.
[17. 25-1028A An application to create one 0.505-acre lot, one 0.575-acre lot, and one 0.920-acre lot from a 2.0-acre tract of land in City Block 6879 on property located on Johnson Lane, north of Persimmon Road. Applicant/Owner: Manuel Aguilera Surveyor: Votex Surveying Company Application Filed: February 19, 2025 Zoning: R-7.5(A) Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to compliance with the conditions listed in the docket. Planner: Sharmila Shrestha Council District: 8 S245-107]
THANK YOU.ITEM NUMBER 17 S 2 45 DESK 1 0 7.
IT IS AN APPLICATION TO CREATE ONE 0.505 ACRE LOT, ONE 0.575 ACRE LOT AND ONE 0.920 ACRE LOT FOR ME.
TWO ACRE TRACK OF LAND IN CITY BLOCK 68 79 ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON JOHNSON AVENUE, JOHNSON LANE, NORTH OF PERCY MON ROAD.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS, UH, IS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE DOCKET, UH, AND OR AS AMENDED AT THE HEARING? YES.
READY FOR YOUR COMMENTS? THANK YOU.
UH, GABRIELA AGUILERA 34 74 GOLDENDALE DRIVE, UH, REPRESENTING MANELA GUERRA WHO IS THE APPLICANT AND OWNER AND I UM, HAVE JUST A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS ON THE CONDITIONS, UM, THAT HAVE BEEN LISTED FOR THE APPROVAL FOR THIS PROPERTY.
UM, THE PROPERTY AS IT CURRENTLY STANDS IS A TWO ACRE, UH, TRACT OF LAND THAT IS GOING TO BE SUBDIVIDED INTO THREE, UM, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENT, UH, LOTS.
AND AT THE MOMENT WE DO NOT HAVE PLANS IN PLACE TO BUILD ON TWO OF THE THREE LOTS.
THERE IS ALREADY, UM, CONSTRUCTION UNDERWAY FOR THE CENTER LOT.
UM, HOWEVER, WE WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IF THE, UM, PAVING AND DRAINAGE CONDITIONS CAN BE, UM, IF THOSE
[04:30:01]
CAN BE SUBJECT TO EACH INDIVIDUAL LOT VERSUS THE ENTIRE LOT AS IT STANDS CURRENTLY.UM, BECAUSE WE DO NOT INTEND TO RETAIN A OWNERSHIP OF THE TWO ADJACENT LOTS.
UH, SO THE APPLICATION, THE REQUEST IS TO CREATE THREE LOTS.
IT'S IN ONE LOT, BUT WHAT YOU CAN DO IS IF YOU JUST WANT TO WORK ON YOUR LOT, LIKE SOME INDIVIDUAL LOTS, THEN YOU CAN ALWAYS HAVE THE OPTION OF PHASING OUT.
SO NEXT OPTION IS IF YOU WANT TO, FOR EXAMPLE, IF YOU WANT TO WORK ON ONLY LOT TWO, YOU CAN PHASE IT OUT AND YOU CAN ONLY WORK ON PHASE LOT.
I'M LIKE, UH, THAT WILL BE LIKE PHASE A FIRST PHASE AND YOU CAN ONLY, AND THEN EVERYTHING WILL BE CONCERN.
UH, CONCENTRATE ONLY ON THAT LOT.
SO WHENEVER AND LATER ONCE YOU'RE DONE YOU CAN WORK ON YOUR, UH, CONDITIONS, ALL THOSE PAVING AND DRAINAGE, ALL THOSE UH, DEPARTMENT CONDITION WILL BE BASED ON THAT PHASE LOT AND ONCE YOUR FINAL RECORD YOU PLAN THAT'S GONE.
SO NEXT, UH, THOSE FOR THE NEXT REMAINING TWO LOTS, WHENEVER THOSE OWNERS ARE READY TO, UH, WORK ON OR IF, AND THEY HAVE TO SUBMIT AS A PHASE TWO, YOU KNOW, LIKE PHASE B, THIS PHASE C, THAT'S HOW IT GOES.
SO IF YOU ONLY WANT TO WORK ON YOUR LOT, YOU CAN PHASE IT OUT.
SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO, SO ALL THIS CONDITION WILL BE ONLY CONCENTRATED ON YOUR LOT, WHICHEVER LOT YOU'RE PHASING.
BUT RIGHT NOW THE REQUEST IS ALL FOR THREE LOTS.
SO THIS CONDITION IS FOR ALL THOSE THREE LOTS.
BUT IF THIS BODY APPROVES YOUR PLAT, YOU CAN COME TO OUR, UH, OUR UH, SUBDIVISION DEPARTMENT AND THEN YOU CAN REQUEST FOR PHASING CLA.
OKAY? UM, THEN AT THIS TIME I WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST APPROVAL FOR SUBDIVIDING THESE AND WE'LL CONTINUE WITH THE UH, PHASING.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? COMMISSION'S.
QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SEEING NONE, VICE RUBIN, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION IN THE MATTER OF S 2 45 DASH 1 0 7? I ADMIT THAT BE CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING AND FOLLOW SUBJECT TO STATUTE'S RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL, UH, OR FOLLOW STATUTE'S? RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE DOCKET.
THANK YOU VICE FOR YOUR MOTION.
AND COMMISSIONER CARPENTER FOR YOUR SECOND.
[21. 25-1032A An application to replat a 0.6651-acre tract of land containing all of Lots 6 through 8 and part of Lot 9 in City Block 4/1974 to create one lot on property located on Henderson Avenue, southwest of Madera Street. Applicant/Owner: Urban Eagle Henderson, LLC Surveyor: Kimley-Horn and Assoc., Inc. Application Filed: February 19, 2025 Zoning: PD 462 (Subdistrict 2) Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to compliance with the conditions listed in the docket. Planner: Sharmila Shrestha Council District: 14 S245-112]
TO NUMBER 21 PLEASE.ITEM ITEM NUMBER 21 S 2 4 5 12.
IT IS AN APPLICATION TO RE A 0.6651 ACRE TRACK OF LAND CONTAINING ALL OF LOT SIX THROUGH EIGHT AND PART OF LOT NINE IN CITY BLOCK FOUR OVER 1974 TO CREATE ONE LOT ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON HENDERSON AVENUE SOUTHWEST OF MADE STREET STAFF.
RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITION LISTED IN THE DOCKET AND ARREST M AND THE AT THE HEARING, IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO BE HEARD? YES SIR.
UH, MIKE NORTHROP, 5 7 0 3 GOLIAD AVENUE.
I THINK IT MUST HAVE BEEN MY EMAIL THAT PERHAPS, UH, COMMISSIONER RUBIN REFERENCED.
UM, I DIDN'T REALIZE THAT, UH, THINGS THAT I THOUGHT WERE GETTING ENTERED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD WOULD BE CONSIDERED, UH, A VIOLATION OF QUASI-JUDICIAL, UM, COMMUNICATIONS, UH, ISSUE, BUT UH, I GUESS THAT'S HOW IT'S BEING TREATED NOW.
SO HERE I AM TO TESTIFY PERSONALLY, UH, WHAT MY EMAIL SAID WAS THAT, UH, I'M WRITING TO YOU REGARDING THIS.
UM, ON THE CONSENT AGENDA, BECAUSE OF TWO REASONS.
FIRST, STAFF HAS RECOMMENDED APPROVAL BECAUSE IT COMPLIES WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF PD 4 62.
THAT ANALYSIS IS NOT COMPLETE, UH, FOR PD 4 62 DOES NOT CONTAIN REPL STANDARDS.
THE PLATTING STANDARDS ARE IN SECTION 51 A DASH 8.1 HUNDRED AND, UH, SUBSEQUENT SECTIONS OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE.
I WANT TO FURTHER NOTE THAT THERE ARE STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO RELAS OF RESIDENTIAL LOTS THEN THESE ARE, THESE LOTS ARE ZONED RESIDENTIAL AND ANY RELA APPLICATION AND MATERIALS SUPPORTING THAT NEEDS TO COMPLY WITH THOSE STANDARDS, THOSE REQUIREMENTS INCLUDE PROVISION OF NOTICE AND AN OPPORTUNITY FOR PROTEST.
UH, THE MATERIALS IN YOUR FILE DO NOT INDICATE THAT ANY OF THE PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS THERE HAVE BEEN MET AND UNTIL THEY HAVE BEEN MET, UH, I SUBMIT THAT THIS COMMISSION SHOULD DENY THIS APPLICATION FOR REPL.
ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO BE HEARD ON THIS ITEM? COMMISSION'S QUESTIONS FOR OUR SPEAKER? COMMISSIONER
[04:35:01]
KINGSTON? I DON'T HAVE QUESTION FOR THE SPEAKER.CAN YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN, UM, YOUR PROCESS AND HOW THE COMMERCIAL REPL RULES APPLY TO THIS CASE THAT YOU AND I DISCUSSED EARLIER? SO IN CHAPTER 51 8, UH, I WOULD LIKE TO READ THE DEFINITION OF RESIDENTIAL RELET.
UM, SO RESIDENCY RELET MEANS A REPL WITHOUT VACATION OF THE PRECEDING PLAT FOR PROPERTY, ANY PART OF WHICH WAS LIMITED DURING THE PRECEDING FIVE YEARS BY AN INTERIM OR PER MONEY ZONING CLASSIFICATION TO RESIDENTIAL USE FOR NOT MORE THAN TWO RESIDENTIAL UNITS PER LOT OR THAT CONTAINS A LOT IN THE PRECEDING PLAT THAT WAS LIMITED BY DEED.
RESTRICTIONS ARE RESIDENTIAL USE FOR NOT MORE THAN TWO RESIDENTIAL UNITS PER LOT.
SO THIS PROPERTY IS IN PD 4 62, SUB-DISTRICT TWO THAT DOES ALLOWS FOR MULTIFAMILY, UH, USE AND MULTIFAMILY USE IS, UM, THREE OR MORE UNITS.
SO THAT'S THE REASON THIS, UH, REQUEST DOES NOT QUALIFY AS A RESIDENCY REPLY PER OUR DEFINITION.
AND, UH, AND NOTICES, OWNER NOTICES AND NEWSPAPER NOTICES ARE ONLY ONLY DONE ON RESIDENCY REPLY SINCE THIS IS NOT CONSIDERED RESIDENCY REPLY, ALL NOTICES AND EVERYTHING WAS NOT DONE AND IT'S UNDER CONSENT ITEMS. MR. RUBIN, UM, JUST ONE FOLLOW UP, UH, QUESTION, UM, AFTER MR. NORTHROP'S COMMENTS, SO I'M TRYING TO PULL UP 51 A, BUT I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND.
I THINK IT'S SOMEWHERE IN, IN ARTICLE EIGHT WHERE IT SAYS THAT IN ORDER TO REPL THE PLAT HAS TO COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE ZONING REQUIREMENTS, RIGHT? YES.
SO THAT'S WHY WE DO THE FOUR POINT OR THAT'S WHY THE ANALYSIS IS DONE UNDER CHAPTER OR PD 4 62 IS BECAUSE ACTUALLY ARTICLE EIGHT HAS US GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE ZONING, CORRECT? I'M SORRY, I DIDN'T GET THE SURE.
I MEAN THE REASON WHY WE'RE LOOKING AT, AT PD 4 62 IN CONNECTION WITH THE REPL IS BECAUSE ARTICLE EIGHT ACTUALLY DOES HAVE US GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE ZONING REQUIREMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH THE A RELA.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HANEN, JUST ONE POINT OF CLARIFICATION IN THAT, UM, MULTIFAMILY IS CONSIDERED RESIDENTIAL, SO THE PURPOSE FOR THE PURPOSES OF 8.503, THE, UM, CHARACTERISTICS OF THE LOT ARE STILL APPLICABLE PER THE RESIDENTIAL REVIEW.
SINCE WE DO ANALYSIS ON MULTIFAMILY, UM, STREET MULTIFAMILY ZONING, YES IT DOES APPLY, BUT IT IS KIND OF OUR POLICY, YOU KNOW, IN PDS WE DON'T PUT THAT ANALYZE IN OUR, UH, IN OUR UH, STAFF REPORT.
BUT STILL I DO HAVE ALL THOSE, UH, LOT CONFIGURATION, ALL THOSE, UH, DETAILED INFORMATION IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO.
THEN I CAN, UM, JUST GO AHEAD AND JUST SEE HOW IT DOES COMPLY WITH THE LOCK PATTERN.
I THINK I JUST WANTED ON, ON THE RECORD THAT THE PROVISIONS OF 8.503 DO APPLY FOR THE MULTIFAMILY PROJECT SINCE IT'S MULTIFAMILY.
UH, QUESTIONS FOR STAFF COMMISSIONERS? OKAY.
COMMISSIONER KINGSTON, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? I DO IN A MATTER OF S 2 54 DASH 112, I MOVE THAT WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE IT AND IF I HAVE A SECOND, I HAVE COMMENT.
COMMISSIONER HOUSER FOR YOUR SECOND.
THE MATTER OF S 2 4 5 112 COMMISSIONER KINGSTON.
YEAH, I, I REALIZE THIS IS UM, KIND OF A CLOSE CASE.
THE LOTS BEHIND THESE FOUR LOTS ARE DESIGNED AS ARE SEVEN FIVE, AND THESE ARE LOOK LIKE OUR SEVEN FIVE, BUT EVERYTHING AROUND IT REALLY ISN'T.
AND THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER IS THAT HENDERSON IS REDEVELOPING PRETTY RAPIDLY.
UM, THESE ARE RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND THIS PD HAS A LOT OF RESIDENTIAL, UH, LOTS IN IT.
AND SO, UM, THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THESE ARE GOING TO BE DEVELOPED AS OUR SEVEN FIVE LOTS, UH, ARE, IT'S NOT GOOD ON HENDERSON AVENUE.
SO, YOU KNOW, REPLYING IT AND GIVING IT THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE MULTI-FAMILY
[04:40:01]
IN SUPPORT OF A MIXED USE WALKABLE NEIGHBORHOOD TO SUPPORT THE, UH, COMING, UH, BUSINESSES THAT ARE BEING BUILT THERE RIGHT NOW, WHICH INCLUDE OFFICE AND BAR, RESTAURANT AND SUBURBAN GARDEN AND THE EXISTING RESTAURANTS THAT ARE ALREADY THERE, WHICH INCLUDE SHOPPING AND RESTAURANTS, REALLY MAKES THE MOST SENSE FOR THE USE IN THIS AREA.SO I HOPE YOU CAN SUPPORT THE MOTION.
UH, COMMISSIONERS, WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER KINGSTON.
SECOND GOODBYE COMMISSIONER HOUSE.
RIGHT TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, FALSE STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE DOCKET.
ANY FURTHER COMMENTS? SEE NONE.
[24. 25-1035A An application to replat a 20.033-acre tract of land containing all of Lots 8 through 11 in City Block 8033 to create one lot on property located on Ledbetter Drive, at the terminus of Dan Morton Drive. Applicant/Owner: BCG W. Ledbetter Texas, LLC Surveyor: Robert Schneeberg Application Filed: February 19, 2025 Zoning: IR, TH-3(A) Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to compliance with the conditions listed in the docket. Planner: Sharmila Shrestha Council District: 3 S245-111]
NUMBER 24 PLEASE.ITEM NUMBER 24 S 2 45 DASH 1 1 1.
IT IS AN APPLICATION TO PLAT A 20.033 ACRE TRACK OF LAND CONTAINING ALL OF LOTS, EIGHT THROUGH 11 IN CITY BLOCK 80 33 TO CREATE ONE LOT ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON LAKE BATTER DRIVE AT THE TERMINUS OF, UH, DAN MORTON DRIVE.
45 NOTICES WERE SENT TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE PROPERTY ON MARS 3 20 25 AND WE HAVE RECEIVED ZERO REPLY IN FAVOR AND ZERO REPLY IN OPPOSITION TO THIS REQUEST.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE DOCKET AND ARREST AMENDED AT THE HEARING.
IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? IT'S NUMBER 24, PAGE 12.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SEEING NONE.
COMMISSIONER HERBERT, DO YOU HAVE MOTIONS, SIR? YES, IN THE CASE OF S 2 4 5 1 1 1, UM, I MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE, UH, THE PLA AS, UM, SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE DOCKET.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HERBERT FOR YOUR MOTION AND VICE CHAIR RUBIN FOR YOUR SECOND.
ANY DISCUSSIONS? SEE NONE OF THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
ANY OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES 25.
[25. 25-1036A An application to replat a 0.24-acre (10,381-square foot) tract of land containing part of Lot 9 in City Block 1/4340 to create one lot on property located on Ann Arbor Avenue, west of Biglow Avenue. Applicants/Owners: Javier Pedroza Beltran and Maria Isabel Pedroza Surveyor: CBG Surveying Texas, LLC Application Filed: February 20, 2025 Zoning: R-7.5(A) Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to compliance with the conditions listed in the docket. Planner: Sharmila Shrestha Council District: 4 S245-114]
ITEM NUMBER 25 S 2 4 5 14.IT IS AN APPLICATION TO REPL A 0.24 ACRE, UH, THAT IS 10,381 SQUARE FOOT TRACK OF LAND CONTAINING PART OF LOT NINE IN CITY BLOCK ONE OF WORLD 43 40 TO CREATE ONE LOT ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON ANN ARBOR AVENUE WEST OF BIGLOW AVENUE.
NOTICES WERE SENT TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE PROPERTY ON MARCH 3RD, 2025.
WE HAVE RECEIVED ONE REPLY IN FAVOR AND ZERO REPLY IN OPPOSITION TO THIS REQUEST.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS, APPROVAL SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE DOCKET AND ARREST AMENDED AT THE HEARING.
ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE? NUMBER 25.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? NO QUESTIONS.
MR. FORSYTH, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION AND CAN YOU TURN ON YOUR MICROPHONE? COMMISSIONER FORSYTH
YEAH, IN THE MATTER OF CASE S 2 45 DASH ONE 14 I MOVE THAT WE CLOSE A PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE DOCKET.
COMMISSIONER FORSYTH FOR YOUR MOTION.
COMMISSIONER HAMPTON FOR YOUR SECOND.
[26. 25-1037A An application to replat a 1.33-acre (57,852.87-square foot) tract of land containing all of Lots 1 and 2 in City Block 8/8186 to create one lot on property and to reduce a portion of an existing 40-foot building line by 4.38 feet for the distance of 16.20 feet along Valley Creek Drive on property located on Valley Creek Drive, north of Spring Valley Road. Applicants/Owners: Christine Dunn, J. Kenneth Dunn Surveyor: CBG Surveying Texas, LLC Application Filed: February 20, 2025 Zoning: R-10(A) Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to compliance with the conditions listed in the docket. Planner: Sharmila Shrestha Council District: 11 S245-115]
RIGHT.ITEM NUMBER 26 S 2 45 DASH ONE 15.
IT IS AN APPLICATION TO PLET A 1.33 ACRE THAT IS 57,852 POINT 87 SQUARE FOOT TRACK OF LAND CONTAINING ALL OF LOTS ONE AND TWO IN CITY BLOCK EIGHT OVER 81 86 TO CREATE ONE LOT ON PROPERTY AND TO REDUCE A PORTION OF AN EXISTING 40 FOOT PLANTED BUILDING LINED BY 4.38 FEET.
FURTHER DISTANCE OF 16.20 FEET ALONG VALLEY CREEK DRIVE ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON VALLEY CREEK DRIVE NORTH OF SPRING VALLEY ROAD.
17 NOTICES WERE SENT TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE PROPERTY ON MARS 3 20 25.
AND WE HAVE RECEIVED THREE REPLIES IN FAVOR AND ZERO REPLIES IN OPPOSITION.
THIS REQUEST REQUEST TWO MOTION BECAUSE IT IS TO REPLY AND IT INVOLVES THE REDUCTION OF APPLIED BUILDING LINE.
THE FIRST MOTION IS TO APPROVE OR DENY DENYING THE REDUCE DENY TO REDUCE AN EXISTING 40 FOOT PLATY BUILDING LINE STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF BUILDING LINE APPROVAL SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITION LISTED IN THE DOCKET AND OR AS AMENDED AT THE HEARING AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON REPLA IS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE DOCKET AND OR AS AMENDED
[04:45:01]
AT THE HEARING.IS THERE ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER 26? DO WE HAVE AN ONLINE SPEAKER? YES.
UM, ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. DUNN? QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SEEING NONE, COMMISSIONER KNIGHT? MIGUEL, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? YES, IT'S A LONG ONE.
IN CASE NUMBER S 2 4 5 115, I MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE THE REQUEST TO REDUCE A PORTION OF AN EXISTING 40 FOOT BUILDING LINE BY 4.38 FEET FOR THE DISTANCE OF 16.2 FEET ALONG VALLEY CREEK DRIVE ON PROPERTY LOCATED ALONG VALLEY CREEK DRIVE NORTH OF SPRING VALLEY ROAD.
WITH THE FINDING OF FACT THAT REDUCTION OF THE BUILDING LINE WILL NOT REQUIRE A MINIMUM FRONT SIDE OR REAR YARD SETBACK LINE LESS THAN REQUIRED BY THE ZONING REGULATION BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES OR ADVERSELY AFFECT THE PLAN FOR THE ORDERLY DEVELOPMENT OF THE SUBDIVISION.
COMMISSIONER NIGHTINGALE FOR YOUR MOTION.
COMMISSIONER HAMPTON FOR YOUR SECOND.
ANY OPPOSED? SAY DATE? THE MOTION CARRIES YOUR SECOND MOTION.
COMMISSIONER NIGHTINGALE THE SECOND MOTION IN CASE NUMBER S 2 4 5 1 1 5.
I MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE THE PLOT.
COMMISSIONER NIGHTINGALE FOR YOUR MOTION COMMISSIONER CONDITIONS SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE.
SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE DOCKET SUBJECT TO COMPLY TO THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE DOCKET.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER NIGHTINGALE FOR YOUR MOTION.
COMMISSIONER HAMPTON FOR YOUR SECOND.
ANY OPPOSED? SAY NAY OF THE MOTION CARRIES.
[27. 25-1038A An amendment to the City of Dallas Thoroughfare Plan to change (1) the designation of Grady Niblo Road between Mountain Creek Parkway and S. Merrifield Road from a standard six-lane divided principal arterial roadway in 107 feet of right-of-way (S-6-D) to a minimum four-lane divided minor arterial roadway in 80 feet of right-of-way (M-4-D(A)), and (2) the designated alignment of the unbuilt portion of the roadway. Staff Recommendation: Approval to amend the City of Dallas Thoroughfare Plan to change; (1) the designation of Grady Niblo Road between Mountain Creek Parkway and Merrifield Road from a standard six-lane divided principal arterial roadway in 107 feet of right-of way (S-6-D) to a minimum four-lane divided minor arterial roadway in 80 feet of right-of way (M-4-D(A)); and (2) the designated alignment of the unbuilt portion of the roadway. Applicant: The Potters House of Dallas, Inc. Representative: Claudio Segovia, PE Planner: Kierra Williams Council District: 3 Grady Niblo Road between Mountain Creek Parkway and S. Merrifield Road]
GO TO NUMBER 27, THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN.AMENDMENT THOROUGH FOR THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN AMENDMENT.
WE'RE, WE'RE WE JUST GONNA NEED TO GET IT READ INTO THE RECORD TO HOLD IT WHENEVER YOU'RE READY.
ITEM 27 IN AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF DALLAS THOROUGH FAIR PLAN TWO, CHANGE ONE.
THE DESIGNATION OF GRADY NIDO ROAD BETWEEN MOUNTAIN CREEK PARKWAY AND SOUTH MARYFIELD ROAD FROM A STANDARD SIX LANE DIVIDED PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL ROADWAY AND 107 FEET OF RIGHT OF WAY AT SIX D TO A MINIMUM FOUR LANE DIVIDED, MINOR ARTERIAL RIGHT WAY AND 80 FEET UP RIGHT OF WAY M FOUR DA AND TWO, THE DESIGNATED ALIGNMENT OF THE ON BUILD PORTION OF THE ROADWAY STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL TO AMEND THE CITY OF DALLAS THIRD FAIR PLANS TO CHANGE THE DESIGNATION OF GRADY NEBO ROAD BETWEEN MOUNTAIN CREEK PARKWAY AND MARYVILLE ROAD AND A DESIGNATED ALIGNMENT OF THE UNBUILT PORTION OF THE ROADWAY.
I THINK WE HAVE A COUPLE SPEAKERS SIGNED UP ONLINE OR EITHER OF THEM HERE NOW ANYONE HERE IN PERSON WHO'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN AMENDMENT? UM, SEEING NONE.
COMMISSIONER HERBERT OR ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SEEING NONE.
COMMISSIONER HERBERT, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? YES.
AND IF I HAVE A SECOND, I HAVE COMMENTS IN THE CASE OF IN THE TRANS IN THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN AMENDMENT TWO FIVE DASH 0 3 8 A, I MOVE TO, UM, KEEP THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN, UM, AND HEAR THIS CASE AT A LATER DATE.
UH, THE FIRST MEETING OF 8TH OF MAY, MAY.
DO WE HAVE THE DATE FOR OUR FIRST MAY MEETING? MAY 4TH BY ANY CHANCE? MAY 8TH? YES.
COMMISSIONER HERBERT, YOUR SECOND CHAIR, SHAJI.
ANY DISCUSSION? COMMISSIONER HERBERT? YES.
THIS IS A VERY MAJOR THOROUGHFARE THAT, UM, COULD CHANGE THE ASPECT OF SEVERAL COMMUNITIES THAT IT'S GOING TO IMPACT.
SO I THINK WE NEED TO HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND CONVERSATION AROUND IT.
I THINK AN HOA HAD MET WITH THE, UM, DEVELOPER THEMSELVES ABOUT, UH, MULTIPLE PROJECTS AND THIS ONE WAS, I THINK ADDED ON TO IT, UM, BUT NEEDS TO BE SEPARATED AND HAVE A MORE THOROUGH DISCUSSION AS THIS WILL CHANGE THE, UM, THE FACE OF DISTRICT THREE.
SO, THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT, DID YOU HAVE A COMMENT? I THINK COMMISSIONER PROBABLY ANSWERED MY QUESTION.
I WAS JUST UNDER TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE WHY BEHIND HOLDING IT.
UM, BUT I I THINK THAT COMMISSIONER HERBERT ADDRESSED THAT, SO THANK YOU.
YEAH, I'LL JUST ADD THAT I'M VERY EXCITED TO, TO SEE THIS.
I KNOW IN, IN THE MOUNTAIN CREEK AREA, THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN SOMETIMES
[04:50:02]
IS CITED AS THE IMPETUS FOR SOME OF THE, THE ZONING CHANGE REQUESTS THAT WE SEE THAT I THINK ARE SOMETIMES CONCERNING.I'M EXCITED TO SEE OTHER POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS TO THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN IN THE AREA TO HELP ALIGN THE VISION.
SO HAPPY TO, YOU KNOW, SUPPORT HOLDING IT TODAY AND LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING IT BACK IN MAY.
ALRIGHT, ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALRIGHT, SEEING NONE.
WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HERBERT, SECONDED BY THE CHAIR TO HOLD THE MATTER UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL MAY 8TH, 2025.
ANY, UH, OPPOSED A NATE? THE MOTION CARRIES.
UH, COMMISSIONERS, YOU SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED THE SHEET WITH THE, UH, THE POTENTIAL MOTIONS FOR THE PARKING DISCUSSION.
UH, WHY DON'T WE TAKE ABOUT 10 MINUTES AND KIND OF REVIEW THOSE ON, ON YOUR OWN AND THEN WHAT'S THAT? UM, SO LET'S, LET'S JUST TAKE ABOUT 10 MINUTES AND, AND KIND OF REVIEW THOSE ON OUR OWN AND, UH, CONSUME THOSE AND WE'LL BE READY TO ACT ON THOSE.
TAKE PUBLIC INPUT AND THEN START VOTING IN ABOUT 10 MINUTES.
SO IT'S FOUR O'CLOCK, WE'LL START AT FOUR 10.
IT'S 4:13 PM WE'RE GONNA GET BACK ON THE RECORD.
SIR, WE ARE RECORDING 4:13 PM BACK ON THE RECORD.
[16. 25-1027A Consideration of amending Chapters 51 and 51A of the Dallas City Code regarding off-street parking and loading requirements, including Sections 51A-1.102 and 51A-1.101, “Applicability and Purpose”; Section 51A-2.102 and 51-2.102, “Definitions”; Division 51A-4.110, “Residential Zoning Districts”; Division 51A-4.120, “Nonresidential Zoning Districts”; Division 51A-4.200 and 51-4.200, “Use Regulations”; Division 51A-4.300, “Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations”; Division 51A-4.320, “Special Parking Regulations”; Division 51A-4.330, “Bicycle Parking Regulations”; Section 51A-4.505, “Conservation Districts”; Section 51A-4.702, “Planned Development (PD) District Regulations”; Division 51A-4.800 and 51-4.800, “Development Impact Review”; Section 51A-4.1106, “Development Regulations” and 51A-4.1107, “Design Standards”; Division 51A-13.300, “District Regulations”; Division 51A-13.400, “Parking Regulations”; Division 51A-13.700, “Administration”, and related sections regarding minimum off-street parking and loading requirements, including establishing a Transportation Demand Management Plan and off-street parking design standards. Staff Recommendation: Approval of staff’s recommended amendments. Zoning Ordinance Advisory Committee Recommendation: Approval of ZOAC’s recommended amendments. Planner: Michael T. Wade U/A From: December 5, 2024, January 16, 2025, and February 13, 2025, and March 4, 2025. Council District: Citywide DCA190-002(MTW) (Part 2 of 2)]
UM, CAN WE GET THE NEXT ITEM RIGHT INTO THE RECORD, PLEASE? MR. MOORE OR SOMEONE HERE YOU'RE, I DIDN'T SEE YOU.CONSIDERATION OF AMENDING CHAPTERS 51 AND 51 A OF THE DALLAS CITY CODE REGARDING OFF STREET PARKING AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS, INCLUDING SECTIONS 51 A 1.102, AND 51 A 1.101 APPLICABILITY AND PURPOSE SECTION 51, A 2.102 AND 51 2 0.102 DEFINITIONS.
DIVISION 51 A 4.110 RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS DIVISION 51 A 4.120 NON-RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS DIVISION 51 A FOUR POINT TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY ONE FOUR POINT 200.
USE REGULATIONS DIVISION 51 A 4.3 HUNDRED OFF STREET PARKING AND LOADING REGULATIONS.
SPECIAL PARKING REGULATIONS DIVISION 51 A 4.330.
BICYCLE PARKING REGULATIONS SECTION SECTION 51 A 4.505.
CONSERVATION DISTRICTS SECTION 51 A 4.702.
PLAN DEVELOPMENT PD, DISTRICT REGULATIONS DIVISION 51 A FOUR POINT 851 DASH 4.8 HUNDRED.
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT REVIEW, SECTION 51 A FOUR POINT 1106 DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AND 51 A FOUR POINT 1107 DESIGN STANDARDS.
DIVISION 51 A 13.3 HUNDRED, DISTRICT REGULATIONS DIVISION 51, A 13.4 HUNDRED, PARKING REGULATIONS DIVISION 51, A 13.7 HUNDRED ADMINISTRATION AND RELATED SECTIONS REGARDING MINIMUM OFF STREET PARKING AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS, INCLUDING ESTABLISHING A TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT PLAN AND OFF STREET PARKING DESIGN STANDARDS.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION WAS APPROVAL OF STAFF'S RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS ZONING ORDINANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION WAS APPROVAL OF X OACS RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS.
WE'RE READY TO TAKE PUBLIC INPUT.
ANYONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? GOOD AFTERNOON, AF AFTERNOON.
UM, YES, I, I LIVE ON MAPLE AVENUE.
I I WALK OVER TO INWOOD LOVE FIELD STATION AND RIDE THE RAIL INTO WORK.
AND IT'S NOT TOO BAD OF A WALK EVEN DESPITE THAT CORRIDOR BEING AS DANGEROUS AS IT IS SADLY.
UM, BUT I NOTICED THERE'S SUCH A LOT OF EMPTY PARKING LOTS AT THIS STRIP CENTER NEAR ME.
IT'S ON CORNER OF INWOOD AND MAPLE AND
[04:55:01]
I GOT SOME REALLY NICE RESTAURANTS AND, AND SHOPS IN THERE.I I, I ENJOY AS A GUY WHO LIVES JUST A COUPLE BLOCKS OVER AND, AND IT'S FRUSTRATING 'CAUSE THAT PARKING LOTS ARE SO EMPTY AND IT'S JUST A HEAT ISLAND IN THE SUMMER.
ON TOP OF THAT, YOU'RE RIGHT NEAR INWARD LOVE FIELD, YOU GOT THE BUS ROUTE STOPPED FOR 2 0 7.
SO WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY IS, IS I AM IN FAVOR OF A PURE BLANKETED IN TO PARKING MAN MINIMUM MANDATES IN THIS CITY.
NO AMENDMENTS, NO REQUIRING IT FOR BARS OR, OR OH WE'LL, WE'LL END IT.
IF IT'S IN THIS SORT OF AREA OF A RAIL STATION OR BUS ROUTE, YOU'RE GONNA CREATE LOOPHOLES FOR PEOPLE THAT DON'T WANT, UH, DENSITY.
'CAUSE DENSITY'S VERY NECESSARY IN THIS CITY WITH A SMALL GEOGRAPHIC SPACE.
AND YOU REALLY NEED TO GROW YOUR TAX BASE.
AND WHAT WE ARE SAYING BY ENDING THIS MANDATE IS WE ARE ALLOWING BUSINESSES, RESIDENCES, COMMERCIALS TO DECIDE IF AT ALL THEY WANT THEM, HOW MUCH OR IF THEY DON'T WANNA MEET THAT MANDATE EXACTLY, BUT HAVE SOME, ET CETERA, ET CETERA.
AND YOU KNOW, YOU ARE GONNA CREATE A MORE APPROACHABLE, WALKABLE, TRANSIT DRIVEN CITY AND ALLOW YOU TO PUSH TRANSIT FOR THIS.
WHERE WE HAVE 75% OF DRUNK DRIVING, UM, UH, 75% OF DEATHS IN NORTH TEXAS ARE DRUNK DRIVING RELATED.
AND IT WILL REDUCE TRAFFIC AND MAYBE IT'LL KEEP YOU FROM CURSING IN YOUR CAR.
AND NO, THIS IS A HUNDRED PERCENT NECESSARY TO GROW OUR TAX BASE AND CREATE THIS REVENUE.
WE CAN TAKE THAT MANTLE AWAY FROM THEM OF BEING THE LARGEST CITY IN THIS COUNTRY TO END PARKING MANDATES AND THEIR RENT DROPPED 22%.
HOUSING AFFORDABILITY IS A CONSTANT ISSUE IN THIS COUNTRY, AND WE HAVE A CHANCE TO REALLY PUSH THAT FORWARD.
AND NONE OF THESE LOOPHOLES, NONE OF THESE AMENDMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED, I THINK THEY'RE RIDICULOUS.
I WANT A CITY THAT IS SMARTER, MORE APPROACHABLE TO FUTURE GENERATIONS AND, AND COULD BE A SHINING BEACON.
'CAUSE I THINK DART IS, IS THE BEST TRANSIT SYSTEM IN THE STATE.
A LOT OF ROOM FOR IMPROVEMENT, BUT WE CAN REALLY MAKE IT SMARTER WITH A SMARTER LAYOUT OF OUR CITIES AND ALLOW OUR BUSINESSES TO DECIDE IF AND WHAT PARKING WE WANT.
YOU'RE GONNA JUST HELP WITH AFFORDABILITY.
IF PEOPLE DON'T EVEN WANT A CAR, THEY CAN HAVE THAT AS AN OPTION.
AND I THINK IT'S A HUNDRED PERCENT VALID TO HAVE.
AND EARLIER TODAY I HEARD STUFF ABOUT ACCESSIBILITY.
I MEAN, TRANSIT IS ACCESSIBLE.
IT IS MORE ACCESSIBLE THAN FORCING SOMEONE IN A WHEELCHAIR, PAYING GOD KNOWS AMOUNTS OF MONEY.
CAN YOU PLEASE STATE YOUR CASE, SIR? MAKE IT ACCESSIBLE.
COULD YOU PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, SIR? OH, YES.
UM, MY NAME IS JED ULRICH AND MY ZIP IS 7 5 2 3 5, DISTRICT TWO.
I'M FROM, UH, 8 0 9 BROOKSHIRE CIRCLE, GARLAND, TEXAS.
UH, I'M HERE WITH SUNRISE MOVEMENT AND, UH, I KIND OF WANT TO ADDRESS THE SPIRIT BEHIND MINIMUMS, PARTICULARLY THOSE THAT HAVE HISTORICALLY BEEN APPLIED TO BARS AND TAVERNS OF WHICH TWO OF THESE AMENDMENTS ADDRESS.
I LEARNED RECENTLY THAT THE IDEA BEHIND BAR, UH, BAR PARKING MINIMUMS IS TO DEINCENTIVIZE MORE BARS FROM OPENING.
NOT ONLY HAS THIS BEEN IRRESPONSIBLE AND ENCOURAGING PEOPLE TO DRINK AND DRIVE, BUT THAT WE HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO FOLLOW THIS LOGIC TO ITS CONCLUSION.
PARKING MINIMUMS, DEINCENTIVIZE, ANY PRIVATE INSTITUTIONS, SMALL BUSINESSES, PRIVATE CLINICS AND AFFORDABLE APARTMENTS ARE ALL AFFECTED BY THIS MANDATE.
I'M NOT CLEAR IF PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS LIKE HOSPITALS ARE AFFECTED BY THIS PHENOMENON TOO, BUT IF THEY AREN'T, THEY UH, MUST USE OUR TAX DOLLARS TO BILL AND MAINTAIN PARKING FOR THEIR FACILITIES, MUCH OF WHICH IS REDUNDANT AND UNNECESSARY.
ULTIMATELY, PARKING MINIMUMS BENEFIT VERY FEW.
IT INCREASES TRAFFIC CONGESTION, CAR WRECKS INJURIES, AND TRAFFIC VIOLATIONS WITH MORE TRANSIT AND BIKE LANES AND LESS LOTS.
PEOPLE WHO LIKE OR NEED TO USE PUBLIC TRANSIT OR BICYCLES CAN SAFELY USE ALTERNATIVE MODES OF TRANSPORTATION LIKE ME.
SOMEONE WHO SUFFERS FROM EPILEPSY AND CANNOT DRIVE INVESTMENTS FIND OTHER WAYS TO GET PLACES.
SOME MIGHT SAY TO JUST USE RIDESHARE PROGRAMS, BUT $60 FOR A ROUND TRIP IS JUST TOO MUCH FOR ME AND MANY OTHERS.
THE CITY DOES NOT BENEFIT, AND THE EARTH DOES NOT BENEFIT FROM THESE MINIMUMS. I HOPE YOU'LL CONSIDER THESE THINGS TODAY WHEN FINALIZING THESE AMENDMENTS, PEOPLE OVER PARKING.
I'M ON, UH, UH, 13 4 11 FLAGSTONE LANE IN DALLAS.
[05:00:01]
MIND, DFW WILL GROW BY 10 MILLION PEOPLE BY 2030.WE NEED LESS PARKING SPACES AND MORE HOUSING.
WE ARE LIKELY TO SEE UNEMPLOYMENT TO RISE IN THE COMING MONTHS.
BOLSTERING OUR LOCAL ECONOMY INCLUDES ELIMINATING PARKING MINIMUMS. HOW SO? YOU MIGHT ASK, WHEN YOU ELIMINATE PARKING MINIMUMS, YOU ELIMINATE UNNECESSARY RED TAPE FOR LOCAL BUSINESSES.
HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AND MORE, MORE LOCAL BUSINESSES MEANS MORE JOBS AND A STRONGER LOCAL ECONOMY.
SORRY, I GOT TERRIBLE HANDWRITING.
UH, BUILDING HOUSING OR OTHER, UH, USEFUL DEVELOPMENT WHERE UNNECESSARY PARKING ONCE, UH, ONCE, UH, EXCUSE ME, UH, ONCE WAS, UH, CREATING JOBS FOR OUR LOCAL ECONOMY PROVIDES MORE USEFUL, UH, USE OF OUR LAND.
NOW MY QUESTION TO YOU IS, DO YOU WANT A WEAK ECONOMY IN DALLAS? DO YOU WANT, UH, MORE UNEMPLOYMENT IN DALLAS? THE ANSWER TO BOTH OF THOSE SHOULD BE NO.
SO YOUR ANSWER SHOULD ALSO BE TO ELIMINATE, UH, UH, PARKING MINIMUMS. ANOTHER THING, DRUNK DRIVING AND FATAL ACCIDENT ACCIDENTS ARE A MAJOR ISSUE HERE IN DALLAS.
UH, I THINK WE JUST HEARD A LION'S SHARE OF FATAL ACCIDENTS IS CAUSED BY DRUNK DRIVING WITH PARKING MINIMUMS. THIS ENCOURAGES DRUNK DRIVING.
A VOTE TO ELIMINATE PARKING MINIMUMS IS A VOTE TO ELIMINATE DRUNK DRIVING FROM OUR CITY.
UM, PLEASE AGAIN, KEEP IN MIND WE, WE HAVE A LOT OF, UH, SERIOUS ISSUES AT HAND IN THIS CITY.
UH, WE WE NEED A STRONG ECONOMY AND WE NEED SAFE STREETS TO DRIVE ON.
AND FOR THOSE WHO WANNA, UH, WALK OR RIDE A BIKE AND NOT GET, UH, HIT BY A DRUNK DRIVER, ELIMINATE THESE PARKING MINIMUMS. THANK YOU.
BRIAN TONY DALLAS HOUSING COALITION, 2,800 NORTHAMPTON ROAD.
I'M NOT HERE TO SAY A WHOLE LOT OR SEND ANY MORE LECTURES, BUT THANK YOU.
I COMMEND YOU ALL FOR THE HOURS THAT YOU POURED INTO THESE PARKING REFORM AMENDMENTS, UH, SINCE THE VERY BEGINNING.
THOSE OF YOU HAVE SERVED ON ZAC, UH, 2019.
UH, Y'ALL HAVE PROVED, UH, THAT YOU'RE WILLING TO DIG INTO THE WEEDS.
AND WHILE WE'RE NOT GETTING EVERYTHING THAT WE WANTED OR THAT STAFF, UM, OR ZAC EVEN RECOMMENDED, UH, WE ARE GETTING SOMETHING THAT'S A VALUABLE PRODUCT TO TAKE TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
AND AS YOU'RE CONSIDERING THESE AMENDMENTS, UH, FINALLY THIS AFTERNOON, UH, KNOW THAT WE'RE STILL JUST TRYING TO MAKE IT EASIER FOR RETIREES, FOR STUDENTS, FOR BUSINESSES, AND FOR RESIDENTS TO BE ABLE TO AFFORD AND TO LIVE AND THRIVE HERE, UH, IN THE CITY THAT WE ALL LOVE.
SO, UH, JUST THANK YOU SO MUCH.
UH, WE APPRECIATE YOU, UH, AND CONGRATULATIONS ON REACHING THIS MILESTONE.
WE LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH YOU IN THE FUTURE.
MIKE NORTHROP, 5 7 0 3 GOLIAD AVENUE.
TODD LITMAN AND DONALD CHUPE PROBABLY DESERVE AN AWARD FOR BEING THE GREATEST CONMAN SINCE GEORGE PARKER OR CHARLES PONZI PARKER IS THE GUY KNOWN FOR SELLING THE BROOKLYN BRIDGE MANY TIMES IN PONZI.
I THINK HIS NAME LIVES IN PHONY, PHONY.
UM, THEY LITMAN AND, AND CHUPE HAVE MADE THEIR LIVING OFF OF SELLING AN IDEA THAT ISN'T BACKED BY ANY DATA.
AND THE IDEA OF, OF NO PARKING MINIMUMS, UH, IS, IS THAT IDEA.
IT'S CONTRARY TO HUMAN BEHAVIOR AND HISTORY.
THE REASON PARKING MINIMUMS EXIST IS BECAUSE OF HUMAN BEHAVIOR, THAT WE KNOW THAT NO PARKING MINIMUMS RESULTS IN PROBLEMS FOR MUNICIPALITIES.
UM, WE KNOW THAT IN THE CITY OF DALLAS, AND YOU HAVE LOWER GREENVILLE AVENUE TO LOOK AT AS AN EXAMPLE THERE.
UM, THIS IS REALLY A STORY I THINK OF MISSED OPPORTUNITIES.
UM, THIS PARKING CODE AMENDMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN USED IN A MEANINGFUL WAY TO PROMOTE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, INTERMODAL, MASS TRANSIT, AND ENVI ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY DEVELOPMENT.
THOSE WERE ACTUALLY SOME OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT SCHOUP AND LITMAN HAVE.
[05:05:01]
THIS COMMISSION ARE FOLLOWING THOSE.IT'S LIKE THEY HEARD, YOU'VE HEARD NO MINIMUMS AND, AND YOU STOPPED.
YOU DIDN'T LISTEN TO ANY OF THE OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS, WHICH INCLUDED THINGS LIKE USING, USING THE PARKING REDUCTION TO INCENTIVIZE, UH, AFFORDABLE HOUSING, WHICH THIS COMMISSION DID IN THE CITY COUNCIL DID IN 2023 WITH ITS HOUSING POLICY.
BUT NOW YOU'RE TAKING THAT AWAY.
THOSE ARE THE KINDS OF THINGS THAT THIS BODY SHOULD BE LOOKING AT TO ADVANCE THE CITY, TO ADVANCE THE HOUSING.
BUT WE'RE NOT LOOKING AT THAT.
AND I THINK THIS COMMISSION SHOULD TAKE A, A STEP BACK AND TAKE A CLOSER LOOK AT THAT.
AND I WANT TO COMMENT ON COMMISSIONER HOUSE RIGHTS 2,500 SQUARE FOOT BAR RESTAURANT.
IT HAS NO BASIS, NO DATA BEHIND IT.
UM, AS TO WHY, AND AGAIN, LOOK AT GREENVILLE AVENUE, THAT WAS A DISASTER WHEN WE, WE DID SOMETHING LIKE THAT THERE.
AND WE'RE STILL LIVING WITH THAT TODAY.
UM, AND IF YOU GET IT WRONG BECAUSE OF VESTED PROPERTY RIGHTS, WHICH NOBODY'S TALKING ABOUT THAT HERE, THEN IT GOES REALLY WRONG.
UM, AND SO THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS THAT LITMAN SAYS, DON'T DO THIS ALL AT ONCE.
SO AGAIN, I WOULD ASK THAT THIS COMMISSION TAKE A STEP BACK AND NOT ADVANCE THIS AND HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE THOUGHTFUL, UH, CONVERSATION ABOUT IT.
IS CALDWELL, WE'RE READY FOR YOU.
WE CAN JUST PLEASE MAKE SURE YOUR, YOUR CAMERA'S ON.
UH, HOW ABOUT NAT? HOW, WAIT, DID IT START? OH, THERE, THERE WE GO.
HI, MY NAME'S MADELINE CALDWELL.
UM, MY ZIP CODE IS 7 5 2 0 6, AND I AM HERE TO SUPPORT THIS AMENDMENT.
ENDING PARKING MINIMUMS CAN CHANGE THE LANDSCAPE OF DALLAS.
EARLIER THIS WEEK, THE ONION RAN A HEADLINE THAT SAID, A HOMESICK LUCA DUN LOOKS AT AN EMPTY PARKING LOT TO REMEMBER DALLAS.
AND I THINK THAT IS EMBLEMATIC OF WHAT PEOPLE THINK OF WHEN THEY THINK OF THE CITY OF DALLAS.
UH, EARLIER THIS WEEK I WAS ON TIKTOK.
I SAW MULTIPLE VIRAL VIDEOS TALKING ABOUT HOW MISERABLE IT IS TO DRIVE HERE.
HOW PEOPLE WHO JUST MOVED HERE CANNOT MAKE FRIENDS.
AND THEY FEEL LIKE ALL THEY SEE IS EMPTY PARKING LOTS AND OFFICE PARKS.
BUT THAT HAS NOT BEEN MY EXPERIENCE IN MY DECADE OF LIVING IN DALLAS.
I DO EXPERIENCE A LOT OF CONCRETE, BUT I ALSO EXPERIENCE A GREAT AMOUNT OF COMMUNITY.
I WANT CHANGE FOR THE CITY AND BETTER FOR THE CITY SO THAT PEOPLE THAT VISIT, THAT SO THAT PEOPLE THAT MOVE HERE SO THAT PEOPLE THAT LIVE HERE CAN LEARN TO LOVE THE CITY AS I HAVE LOVED.
THE CITY CAN AFFORD TO CONTINUE TO LIVE HERE SO THAT WE CAN BUILD MORE GREEN SPACES SO THAT WE CAN AS A CITY THRIVE.
UM, MANY PEOPLE POINT TO GREENVILLE AVENUE AS A FAILURE OF PARKING, BUT THAT IS A VIBRANT NEIGHBORHOOD WITH THAT IS NOT AFFECTED AS MUCH BY THE HEAT ISLAND EFFECT.
AND WHEN PEOPLE COME FROM OUT OF TOWN, THEY SAY THE ONLY NEIGHBORHOOD THAT THEY FOUND LIVABLE IS GREENVILLE AND DEEP ELLUM AND OAK LAWN.
THESE NEIGHBORHOODS THAT DO HAVE LOWER PARKING MINIMUMS. IF YOU WANT TO LOOK AT A SUCCESSFUL NEIGHBORHOOD, A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT IS THROUGH FULL OF THRIVING LOCAL BUSINESSES OF CULTURE, OF INTERESTING THINGS, YOU LOOK AT NEIGHBORHOODS THAT HAVE MINIMIZED PARKING.
UH, WE DESERVE BETTER THAN CONCRETE.
AS A CITY, WE DESERVE TO BE KNOWN FOR OUR COMMUNITIES, OUR FOODS, OUR BARS, OUR SHOPPING, AND OUR ART.
IF EVERY TIME YOU WALK THROUGH A NEIGHBORHOOD IN DALLAS, YOU ARE JUST SURROUNDED BY EMPTY LOTS.
UM, THANK YOU SO MUCH AGAIN, I SUPPORT THIS AMENDMENT AND CONGRATULATIONS, UH, TO THE CITY PLANNERS WHO HAVE WORKED SO HARD TO GET THIS HERE.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? COMMISSIONERS QUESTIONS FOR ANY OF OUR SPEAKERS, QUESTIONS FOR STAFF AND,
[05:10:01]
UH, STAFF IS AVAILABLE.WE CAN ASK 'EM, UH, STAFF PER THE, THE MOTIONS THAT ARE STILL, UH, YET TO BE MADE.
UH, SO LET'S GET STARTED ON THOSE.
I, I DID HAVE KIND OF A, A A POINT OF ORDER THAT, UM, WE'VE WORKED ON THIS LITERALLY FOR FIVE YEARS.
THIS COMMISSION HAS MET ON THIS MULTIPLE TIMES.
UM, WHAT WE HAVE BEFORE US THIS AFTERNOON ARE A SERIES OF 22 MOTIONS, UM, WHICH I FIND TO BE SORT OF EXTRAORDINARY AT THIS POINT IN TIME.
UM, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO ASK THE QUESTION IF THE COMMISSION FEELS AN OBLIGATION TO DEBATE 22 MOTIONS OR IF WE CAN DEAL WITH ITEMS THAT CLARIFY OUR WORK SO FAR, RATHER THAN OPENING IT UP AGAIN.
AND I WOULD, UM, AS POLITELY AS I CAN SAY IT, I THE FIRST 13 ARE SIGNIFICANT ATE OF WHAT WE'VE ALREADY DONE.
AND, UH, I'M, I'M ALL ABOUT CLARIFYING AND PARTICULARLY THE ITEMS STAFF IDENTIFIED THIS MORNING THAT THEY WOULD, UM, ACCEPT MOTIONS OR THEY WOULD RECOMMEND NEW MOTIONS ON.
BUT, UM, I DON'T THINK THE COMMISSION SHOULD BE SPENDING TIME ON MOTIONS THAT ARE REALLY NOT IN THE SPIRIT OF PARKING REFORM.
AND I THINK WE'VE GOT SOME ON THIS PAGE IN FRONT OF US.
DO WE, UH, HAVE A COMMENT ON THAT? OKAY, LET'S TRY THAT.
UM, I DON'T, I GUESS WHAT I'LL SAY IS THAT SEVERALLY SEEM LIKE CLEANUPS TO ME.
OTHERS SEEM LIKE MATERIAL ALTERATIONS.
I HAVE PROBABLY FIVE OR SIX THAT I THINK, YOU KNOW, IF THE BODY WANTS TO GET IN, YOU KNOW, IF THE BODY WANTS TO GET INTO ALTERATIONS, YOU KNOW, I THINK WE DO NEED TO DISCUSS INDIVIDUALLY.
A LOT OF THESE, I FEEL LIKE WE MAY JUST BE ABLE TO, I DON'T KNOW, WE DON'T HAVE A CONSENT AGENDA, BUT THEY SEEM MORE LIKE CONSENT ITEMS. SO, YOU KNOW, ON, ON MY END, 4 9 7 4 9 7, SORRY, 4, 7, 9, UH, KINGSTON NUMBER THREE ARE, ARE, ARE THE ONES THAT I WOULD DEFINITELY WANT TO DISCUSS.
AND THERE ARE A COUPLE THAT I JUST DON'T UNDERSTOOD NEED TO FULLY MORE FULLY WRAP MY HEAD AROUND.
THE REST, AT LEAST AT FIRST GLANCE, TO ME, SEEM LIKE THEY'RE NOT, THEY'RE MORE MINOR ALTERATIONS.
SO THAT, THAT'S KIND OF WHERE I STAND ON THIS.
WHAT WAS YOUR LIST AGAIN? 4, 7, 9, UH, HAMPTON, 4, 7, 9, KINGSTON, THREE.
AND THEN THERE ARE A COUPLE OTHERS, BUT I'M STILL WRAPPING MY HEAD AROUND.
BUT THOSE ARE THE FOUR THAT I, I THINK MERIT DISCUSSION IN MY VIEW.
WELL, MR. CHAIR, PERHAPS I SHOULD HAVE MADE A MOTION IN MY FIRST, WHICH IS SIMPLY TO, UM, UM, SET ASIDE THE FIRST 13 MOTIONS AND, AND, UH, DEAL WITH ONLY THE, THE, THE FINAL, UM, SIX OR EIGHT LOST COUNT SIX PLUS THE, THE FINAL NINE WHEN ORDER.
SO TECHNICALLY THE MOTION WOULD BE TO DENY THOSE.
WOULDN'T IT, WOULDN'T THAT BE THEY HASN'T BEEN PUT FORWARD.
THE MOTION WOULD JUST SIMPLY BE TO NOT TAKE THEM UP BECAUSE THEY DON'T, THEY'RE, HOW CAN WE DENY WE, WE DON'T NEED TO DENY SOMETHING THAT'S NOT EVEN BEEN, THE MOTION'S NOT BEEN MADE.
WHAT IS OUR PROCEDURE? I DON'T THINK ANY OF THESE THINGS RISE TO THE LEVEL OF EMOTION THEY'VE BEEN PLACED BEFORE US.
DO WE WANT TO DISCUSS THEM? DO WE WANT, ARE WE GOING TO EVEN ALLOW THESE MOTIONS TO BE MADE? I, I, JUST BECAUSE THEY'RE ON THIS PIECE OF PAPER IN FRONT OF US, DOES NOT MEAN THAT THERE ARE MOTIONS.
DOES NOT MEAN THEY'RE ON THE AGENDA.
[05:15:01]
IS NOT AWARE OF THESE THINGS.WE HAVE PUBLISHED THIS ORDINANCE TIME AND TIME AGAIN TO THE PUBLIC IN ANTICIPATION OF THIS MEETING.
AND THE VAST MAJORITY OF THIS IS REALLY DISRESPECTFUL OF THE WORK THAT'S ALREADY BEEN DONE.
UM, I, UH, I HAVE, UH, I ASKED OUR ARIAN AND UH, SHE HAS ADVISED ME THAT IN FACT, YOU KNOW, UH, I'M NOT SURE WE CAN PREVENT ANYONE FROM MAKING A MOTION.
AND THEY'RE, THEY'RE NOT MOTIONS YET, BUT THEY COULD BE.
SO I'M, I'M NOT SURE COMMISSIONER HOUSER, HOW I CAN, OR ANYONE CAN PREVENT ANY ONE OF US FROM MAKING A MOTION.
WE COULD MAKE A MOTION, UH, TO THEN DENY IT, BUT NOT TO NOT TAKE THEM UP.
AS, AS WE STAND RIGHT NOW, THE FLOORS OPEN FOR A MOTION.
SO, YOU KNOW, ANY OF THESE BEFORE YOU CAN BE MADE, THEY DON'T HAVE TO BE MADE.
UM, SOME OF THEM CAN BE TAKEN TOGETHER, THEY CAN ALL BE TAKEN SEPARATELY.
UM, BUT I THINK A MOTION TO NOT TAKE UP MOTIONS WOULD BE OUT OF ORDER BECAUSE THE FLOOR IS OPEN FOR A MOTION.
COMMISSIONER KINGSTON, I MOVE THAT WE AFFORD OUR COLLEAGUES THE PROFESSIONAL COURTESY OF ALLOWING THEM TO OFFER MOTIONS IF WE'VE SPENT FIVE YEARS ON IT.
WHAT'S ANOTHER HOUR OR TWO? THAT'S TRUE.
I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH, WITH COMMISSIONER KINGSTON ON THE ONE THAT, THIS IS ONE OF THOSE MOMENTS THAT WE, I THINK COMMISSIONER KINGSTON AND I ARE ON THE SAME PAGE.
I UNDERSTAND THAT WE'VE WORKED LONG AND HARD ON THIS.
I DON'T AGREE WITH ALL OF THESE MOTIONS AS I JUST SAID, BUT LET'S ROLL UP OUR SLEEVES AND, AND WORK THROUGH THEM.
YOU KNOW, IF COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO CALL THE QUESTION THAT SOUNDS LIKE WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO HERE, I WOULD, YOU KNOW, SUGGEST YOU JUST DO THAT.
I THINK THAT WOULD ALL BE THE ONLY THING THAT'S IN ORDER HERE, BUT I WOULDN'T SUPPORT THAT.
I'LL CALL, CALL THE QUESTION THEN.
LET'S START WITH, UH, A SECOND.
HAS IT, HAS IT OFFICIALLY BEEN CALLED THOUGH? MAKE MOTION? YEAH.
WELL, SO LET, LET'S MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE ON THE SAME PAGE.
MOTION WAS OUT OF ORDER AND THEREFORE I THOUGHT WE WERE CALLING THE QUESTION BY BEING SO WE GO MOTION ONE, MOTION TWO, MOTION THREE.
NO, MY, MY UNDERSTANDING IS CALLING THE QUESTION WOULD ESSENTIALLY PREVENT US FROM DISCUSSING AND VOTING, VOTING ON THESE, WHICH I WOULD ABSOLUTELY NOT BE IN SUPPORT OF.
BUT I WAS, I WAS TOLD THAT WAS OUT OF ORDER, SO I ASSUMED THAT WAS OFF THE TABLE.
SO A MOTION TO CALL THE QUESTION WOULD IN EFFECT, WELL, THAT WOULD NEED A SECOND.
IT WOULD NEED, UH, A TWO THIRDS VOTE.
AND IF THAT PASSED, THEN WHAT'S ON THE FLOOR IS THE MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED BY OUR PRIOR MEETINGS.
AND SO THEN WE WOULD TAKE A VOTE ON THE MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED.
I THINK WHAT YOU, WHAT WE COULD DO IS JUST TAKE THESE ONE AT A TIME AND YOU COULD CALL THE QUESTION ONE AT A TIME.
I'M MORE THAN HAPPY TO WITHDRAW THE MOTION TO, IF THAT CLARIFIES THAT.
ON MOTION ONE, I MOVE TO ADD THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT TO SECTION 51 A 4.219.
AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT MAY INCREASE THE NUMBER OF REQUIRED PARKING SPACES IF NEEDED, TO MAKE THE USE MORE COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HAMPTON FOR YOUR MOTION.
VICE CHAIR ROOM FOR YOUR SECOND DISCUSSION.
SEEING NONE OF THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
ANY OPPOSED TO AND OPPOSITION? UH, HOUSE.
RIGHT, AND, AND NIGHTINGALE AND SHERLOCK.
UM, COMMISSIONER FORESITE, WERE YOU IN OPPOSITION ON THAT? LET'S, WHY DON'T WE DO A RECORDED VOTE? THAT'S WHAT, LET'S DO THAT.
WAIT, DID, DID SHE GET THIS? WAS SHE EMAILED THIS? YES, SHE WAS.
I THINK SHE, I CAN I PASS? 'CAUSE I DON'T, I I I CAN'T GO ONE WAY OR
[05:20:03]
NO.YEAH, WE, YEAH, WE CAN'T ABSTAIN.
COMMISSIONER, YOU'RE, UH, YOU WILL BE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
UM, DISTRICT EIGHT, DISTRICT NINE.
I MOVE TO MIRROR THE PARKING REQUIREMENT FOR ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE MANUFACTURING AFTER THE REQUIREMENT FOR MICROBREWERY MICRO DISTILLERY AND WINERY, WHICH IS ONE SPACE PER 200 SQUARE FEET OF FLOOR AREA USED FOR RETAIL SALES AND SEATING.
NO PARKING IS REQUIRED FOR ANY OTHER FLOOR AREA.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HAMPTON FOR YOUR MOTION.
VICE CHAIR RUBIN, FOR YOUR SECOND.
LET'S SECOND RECORD VOTE PLEASE.
GO TO NUMBER THREE FOR ADULT AND CHILDCARE FACILITY.
I MOVE THAT THE FOLLOWING MUST BE IDENTIFIED AT THE TIME OF PERMITTING, AREAS OF ANTICIPATED PASSENGER LOADING AND UNLOADING.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND? THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER KINGSTON FOR YOUR SECOND DISCUSSION.
OKAY, LET'S HAVE A RECORDED VOTE ON THAT ONE.
DISTRICT EIGHT, DISTRICT NINE.
MERCHANT PASSES NUMBER FOUR FOR THE FOLLOWING.
USES MAINTAIN CURRENT PARKING REQUIREMENTS ONLY WHEN CONTIGUOUS TOOK, UM, TO A PROPERTY CONTAINING A SINGLE FAMILY USE.
AUTO AUCTION FOLLOWED BY CONTRACTORS.
VEHICLE DISPLAY SALES OR SERVICE?
ARE THOSE THE FIVE THAT ARE REMAINING? CORRECT.
THOSE, THOSE WOULD BE THE FIVE THAT REMOVES FROM THE LIST.
SUB CIRCULATED GROUP, RESIDENTIAL FACILITY, HANDICAP GROUP, DWELLING UNIT, RESIDENTIAL HOTEL, LODGING OR BOARDING HOUSE AND GENERAL MERCHANDISE OVER A HUNDRED THOUSAND SQUARE FEET.
I, I'M SORRY, COMMISSIONER HAMPTON AS I, I WAS DISTRACTED WHEN THE, IT'S NOT THE LIST THAT I HAVE HERE, SO, YES.
COULD YOU REPEAT THOSE ONE MORE TIME? I'M SORRY.
I'M, I'M GOING TO, DO YOU WANT THE ONES I STRUCK OR THE ONES I'M KEEPING? THE ONES WE'RE KEEPING? YES.
THE ONES IN KEEPING AUTO AUCTION.
CONTRACTORS, MAINTENANCE YARD, MINI WAREHOUSE.
WAREHOUSE, AUTO SERVICE CENTER STRIKE.
GENERAL MERCHANDISE OVER A HUNDRED THOUSAND SQUARE FEET.
KEEP VEHICLE DISPLAYS, SALES OR SERVICE.
CAN I ASK A SLIGHT QUESTION, PLEASE? YES.
WELL, FIRST, DO WE HAVE A SECOND? OKAY, WE HAVE A SECOND ABOUT COMMISSIONER KINGSTON.
UH, DID STAFF HAVE A QUESTION BEFORE WE DISCUSS IT? YES, PLEASE.
UM, THE VEHICLE DISPLAY SALES AND SERVICE IS A RATIO BASED ON FLOOR AREA AND SITE AREA, EXCLUSIVE OF PARKING.
AND SO IN PRACTICE, WHEN YOU'RE DOING A PARKING ANALYSIS, IT'S KIND OF THE C CIRCULAR CALCULATION BECAUSE YOUR SITE AREA IS YOUR AREA THAT'S NOT LANDSCAPED OR REQUIRED OFF STREET PARKING.
SO IT MAKES A VERY DIFFICULT CALCULATION TO, TO COME UP WITH.
COULD WE DO IT BASED ON FLOOR AREA OR MAYBE NOT THE SITE AREA.
DID YOU CONSIDER, DID THIS REPLACE IT? I BELIEVE, UM, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER HAS A SEPARATE USE,
[05:25:01]
UM, HER MOTION ONE.SO I WILL REMOVE THAT FROM MY MOTION.
THE VEHICLE, VEHICLE DISPLAY, SALES OR SERVICE? SO WHAT AUTO SERVICE? STRIKE THAT ONE.
IT WOULD ONLY BE CONTRACTOR MAINTENANCE YARD, MINI WAREHOUSE WAREHOUSES AND AUTO SERVICE CENTER.
CAN I PER, PER THE USE LIST? THESE CAME STRAIGHT OUT OF THE USE LIST THAT WE HAD CIRCULATED.
UM, CAN I ALSO MAKE A COMMENT? I'M SORRY, I JUST PLEASE NO, TAKE YOUR TIME.
UM, I THINK THE AUTO AUCTION USE IS ONLY ALLOWED BY SUP.
I JUST WANNA PUT IT OUT THERE FOR THE COMMISSION TO, TO KNOW.
LET ME, LET ME FIND IT IN THE CODE.
SO THE AUTO AUCTION USE IS ONLY BY SUP AND CS AND IM SO I WOULD SAY THAT, UM, IT WOULD BE REDUNDANT OR IT'S GONNA COME IN FRONT OF THE BODY ANYWAY BECAUSE THE USE IS NOT ALLOWED BY RIGHT.
COMMISSIONER, I, COMMISSIONER I'LL SUPPORTING THE MOTION IS, IS THE IDEA SEEMS KIND OF HALF-BAKED AS WE'RE, WE'RE KIND OF HEARING IT UN UNFOLD.
COMMISSIONER SLEEPER, TO ME, IT DOESN'T MAKE, UH, IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO, UM, UH, HAVE A, UH, PROVISION THAT'S BASED UPON USE AS OPPOSED TO ZONING BECAUSE YOU COULD HAVE A SINGLE FAMILY USE AND A LOT OF OTHER DIFFERENT ZONING CATEGORIES AND I DON'T, I DON'T THINK THEY SHOULD TRIGGER THE, UH, UH, PARKING REQUIREMENT FOR WHAT'S NEXT TO IT.
SO TO ME IT'S JUST AN INAPPROPRIATE, UH, WAY TO IN INCLUDE SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
UH, BASED ON THE CONVERSATION HERE, AND I BELIEVE THAT COMMISSIONER CARPENTER'S OTHER MOTION RESOLVES MANY OF THE OPEN ITEMS, I'LL WITHDRAW THE MOTION.
IS THAT COMMISSIONER KINGSTON? YOU OKAY WITH THAT? THAT'S FINE.
AND THE BODY'S OKAY WITH THAT? OKAY.
FOR A HALFWAY HOUSE, I MOVE TO REQUIRE AREAS OF ANTICIPATED LOADING AND UNLOADING BE IDENTIFIED AT THE TIME OF PERMITTING.
I INVITE CHAIRMAN FOR YOUR MOTION.
UM, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.
IN THE OPPOSED TO AN OPPOSITION, UH, HOUSE, RIGHT.
NOT NUMBER SIX FOR A MO, EXCUSE ME.
FOR A HOTEL OR MOTEL, STRIKE THE WORDS OF ADEQUATE SIZE TO ACCOMMODATE A TYPICAL MOVING VAN DELIVERY BAND FROM THE OFF STREET LOADING REQUIREMENTS WITH LOADING TO BE PROVIDED PER SECTION 51 A 4.303.
MOTION COMMISSIONER CARPENTER FOR YOUR SECOND DISCUSSION ON THIS ONE.
WHAT, WHAT IS THIS REALLY GETTING AT HERE? YOU'RE SAYING WHAT, WHAT DOES THE MOTION GET AT? YEAH, WHAT'S THE MOTION TRYING TO SOLVE FOR? SO MOST, EXCUSE ME.
MOST USES WITH LOADING REQUIREMENTS, THEY DON'T SPECIFY A SIZE.
AND SO IT GOES RIGHT TO 4.303, WHICH HAS A GENERAL STANDARD SIZE FOR LOADING SPACES.
AND IN THE PROPOSAL IT'S JUST ONE SET DIMENSION.
IT APPROXIMATES WHAT WAS BEING CALLED THE MEDIUM SIZE IN, IN OUR CURRENT CODE.
UM, AND SO BY REMOVING THESE WORDS OF QUA SIZE TO ACCOMMODATE A TYPICAL MOVING VAN DELIVERY VAN THAT'S CAUSING HOTEL OR MOTEL LOADING TO JUST GO STRAIGHT TO 4.303, LIKE ALL OTHER LOADING USES DO, AND LIKE WE IT ALREADY DOES IN CURRENT CODE.
OTHER QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION? UH, OKAY.
FOR COMMERCIAL BUS STATION AND TERMINAL, I MOVE TO REQUIRE AREAS OF ANTICIPATED LOADING AND UNLOADING TO BE IDENTIFIED AT THE TIME OF PERMITTING.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HAMPTON FOR YOUR MOTION.
VICE CHAIR RUBIN FOR YOUR SECOND DISCUSSION.
[05:30:01]
C.ANY OPPOSED? COMMISSIONER CHERNO IN OPPOSITION.
I MOVE THAT ALL USES EXCEPT RESIDENTIAL USES MAY CHARGE FOR A REQUIRED PARKING, RESIDENTIAL PARKING MAY BE AVAILABLE AS FREE PARKING OR CONTRACT ON AN OTHER THAN HOURLY OR DAILY FEE BASIS.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER ANTHEM FOR YOUR MOTION.
AND COMMISSIONER KINGSTON FOR YOUR SECOND DISCUSSION OR QUESTIONS.
ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT VICE RUBIN? YEAH, I, I AM NOT COMFORTABLE WITH THIS ONE.
I THINK THAT THE DEVIL MAY BE IN THE DETAIL OF SOME OF THESE, UM, PARKING ARRANGEMENTS.
I CERTAINLY WANT PARKING TO BE, YOU KNOW, UN UNBUNDLED FROM, UM, YOU KNOW, RENT WHEN THAT'S POSSIBLE SO THAT WE CAN GIVE THE PEOPLE, YOU KNOW, THE, THE WITHOUT A CAR, YOU KNOW, THE OPTION OF, OF NOT HAVING TO PAY FOR RENT RATHER THAN, OR A CAR, RATHER THAN HAVING THAT BAKED INTO THEIR RENT.
I I UNDERSTAND THAT, THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS PROVIDES, YOU KNOW, THAT IT COULD BE PROVIDED AS CONTRACT PARTING PARKING ON OTHER THAN AN HOURLY OR DAILY FEE BASIS.
AND, AND I THINK IT'S TRYING TO GET IN THAT DIRECTION.
I'M JUST WORRIED THAT THERE'S TOO MANY UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES FROM THIS LANGUAGE.
SO I'M, I'M NOT COMFORTABLE WITH IT AND I WON'T BE SUPPORTING IT.
CAN I OFFER A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT? PLEASE? WOULD YOU ACCEPT A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT GETTING RID OF THE ABILITY TO CHARGE PARKING AT RESIDENTIAL? THAT'S NOT VERY FRIENDLY AMENDMENT, BUT
YEAH, I DON'T THINK I WOULD BE OPPOSED TO THAT.
SO WOULD THAT, I JUST, COULD YOU TELL ME WHAT THE REVISED WORDING WOULD BE IN THAT SECOND SENTENCE AT THAT POINT?
AND WE ARE GOING TO STILL HAVE PARKING BY RIGHT.
IN A LOT OF PLACES THEN, YOU KNOW, MAYBE THE, MAYBE A DIFFERENT WAY OF PUTTING IT IS COMMERCIAL PARKING MAY CHARGE.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE CODE LANGUAGE IS REGARDING RESIDENTIAL PARKING.
I DON'T KNOW IF THERE NEEDS TO BE A CHANGE TO RESIDENTIAL PARKING, BUT I THINK THE TARGET HERE IS TO ALLOW COMMERCIAL OPERATORS TO BE ABLE TO CHARGE FOR PARKING SO THAT YOU CAN HAVE FEE PARKING.
SO THE CODE RIGHT NOW ALLOWS, AND I, WE TALKED ABOUT IT LAST TIME, ALLOWS, UM, PARKING, PAID PARKING ON, I THINK THIS MOTION IS KIND OF LIKE WHAT'S IN THE CODE, WHAT'S IN THE CODE FOR RES, WHAT'S SECOND SENTENCE THAT SAYS RESIDENTIAL PARKING MAY, MAY BE AVAILABLE IS FREE PARKING OR CONTRACT PARKING ON OTHER THAN HOURLY OR DAILY FEE BASIS.
AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT THE CODE HAS FOR ALL USES RIGHT NOW.
SO BASICALLY, I THINK IF I READ IT CORRECTLY, WHAT THE MOTION SAYS THAT ANY, ANY USE OTHER THAN RESIDENTIAL MAY CHARGE AT ANY TYPE OF HOURLY, DAILY, WEEKLY, WHATEVER.
AND RESIDENTIAL USES CAN ONLY CHARGE, UM, MONTHLY SOMETHING THAT'S NOT HOURLY OR DAILY, WEEKLY, MONTHLY, YEARLY.
SO A APARTMENT COMPLEX COULD CHARGE FOR COVERED PARKING, FOR EXAMPLE.
AND THE, THIS LANGUAGE AS IT'S WRITTEN, WOULD ALLOW A GROCERY STORE OR A RESTAURANT TO CHARGE FOR THE PARKING IT'S PROVIDING WHETHER IT'S CODE PARKING OR NOT.
RA, YOU, YOU ACTUALLY MADE ME FEEL REALLY WELL WHEN IT, THE, YOUR VOICE SOUNDED LIKE YOU WA YOU WEREN'T QUITE SURE WHAT IT MEANT, THE WORDS ON THE PAPER.
SO MAYBE YOU OR MR. WAKE CAN GIVE US AN EXAMPLE, YOU KNOW, COMPARE, UH, A USE TODAY WHAT WE HAVE VERSUS A USE WITH THIS LANGUAGE.
'CAUSE I, AT THIS MOMENT I'M WITH, ALONG WITH VICE CHAIR RUMAN, I'M A LITTLE BIT UNCOMFORTABLE.
I'M NOT QUITE SURE EXACTLY WHAT, WHAT THE UPSIDE OF THIS IS AND WHAT WE'RE ACTUALLY CHANGING.
[05:35:04]
I CAN AT LEAST DESCRIBE THE CHANGE.THIS IS JUST GENERAL PARKING STANDARDS.
XXS RECOMMENDATION WAS TO STRIKE THE CURRENT PROHIBITION ON CHARGING ON AN HOURLY OR DAILY BASIS.
THIS IS BASICALLY ADDING IT BACK, ADDING THAT PROHIBITION BACK IN FOR RESIDENTIAL USES OF MULTIFAMILY PARKING LOTS, FOR EXAMPLE.
AND SO, UM, YEAH, WITH, WITH XXS RECOMMENDATION, MULTIFAMILY OR THE GROCERY STORE COULD CHARGE ON AN HOURLY BASIS FOR THEIR PARKING SPACES WITH THIS MOTION ONLY THE GROCERY STORE COULD CHARGE ON AN HOURLY BASIS.
THE MULTIFAMILY WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO CHARGE ON AN HOURLY BASIS, IF I MAY, BUT PLEASE COMMISSIONER, BUT COULD CHARGE MONTHLY RELATED FOR CORRECT COVERED PARKING IN COMMISSIONER KINGSTON'S EXAMPLE.
SO IT, AND JUST THE INTENT BEHIND THIS WAS TRY TO REFLECT, AND I KNOW WE HAD ROBUST DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THIS AT OUR LAST MEETING.
WE NEVER VOTED ON IT BECAUSE I THINK THERE WAS A LOT OF MAKING SURE WE DIDN'T CHANGE THE STATUS QUO, BUT WANTED TO RESPOND TO THINGS THAT ARE HAPPENING IN OTHER PARTS OF OUR CITY WHERE PARKING IS BECOMING AN IMPEDIMENT TO AFFORDABILITY FOR HOUSING.
SO NOT REMOVING THE ABILITY TO HAVE THE CHARGING FOR A FEE THAT EXISTS TODAY, BUT ALSO TRYING TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT IT, IT, IT SHOULDN'T BE BY DEFAULT.
I DON'T KNOW HOW ELSE TO SAY IT OTHER THAN THAT, BUT IT IS AVAILABLE SO IT WOULD NOT CHANGE THE STATUS QUO.
BUT ALL COMMERCIAL USES, WHICH THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSION AND I BELIEVE GENERAL SUPPORT FOR IT WAS JUST TRYING TO ADDRESS THE RESIDENTIAL ISSUE THAT CAME OUT OF OUR DISCUSSIONS OF THIS BODY.
I, IF I MAY CHAIR TO EXPLAIN IT A LITTLE BIT BETTER, IF YOU ALLOWED PAY PARKING FOR MULTIFAMILY, IT MEANS THAT, UM, IF IT'S IN A MIXED USE PROJECT, FOR INSTANCE, IT'S EASY FOR ME TO EXPLAIN WHEN THE RESIDENT IS NOT OCCUPYING THAT SPACE, THAT SPACE CAN BE PAID PARKING FOR A VISITOR FOR A DIFFERENT USE IN THE COMPLEX.
SO IT JUST PUTS THE PARKING THAT'S FOR MULTI-FAMILY OR RESERVED FOR MULTI-FAMILY IN A POCKET TO BE MONETIZED WHEN NOT NON USE, NOT USED FOR MULTIFAMILY.
IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT, I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY SOMEBODY MAY TRY TO BREAK THE RULES AND SAY, OKAY, YOU MY RESIDENT ARE GONNA PAY HOURLY BASIS FOR YOUR PARKING, WHICH I DON'T FORESEE THAT HAPPENING BECAUSE WHO'S GONNA DO THAT? OBVIOUSLY THEY'RE GONNA LOSE THEIR RESIDENTS.
THE INTENT TO ALLOW PAY PARKING FOR MULTIFAMILIES TO ALLOW MULTIFAMILY TO MONETIZE SOMETHING THAT THEY INVESTED IN FOR VISITORS FOR OTHER USES IN THE COMPLEX.
CAN I ASK A QUESTION? IF WE DON'T ADOPT THIS, THEN ZAC C'S RECOMMENDATION IS PART PAID PARKING GOES FORWARD AND IT DOESN'T HAVE A CARVE OUT THAT PROTECTS TENANTS.
SO IF WE DON'T DO SOMETHING, APARTMENT COMPLEXES CAN START CHARGING TENANTS MORE THAN THEY ALREADY CHARGE 'EM.
YES, BUT THEY ALREADY ARE CHARGING IT RIGHT NOW.
BUT THEY COULD CHARGE 'EM HOURLY, BUT THEY CAN ALSO UNBUNDLE, YOU MAY ALSO HAVE AN OPTION TO SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT? I DON'T NEED THE PARKING SPOT.
THAT'S, THAT'S BASICALLY WHEN YOU PAY FOR PARKING.
THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE THAT IS A GOOD CONSEQUENCE IS THAT IT MAY OFFER YOU THE OPTION TO PAY OUT OF IT.
TO NOT TO SAY, OKAY, I WANT A UNIT WITHOUT PARKING.
MAYBE THAT'S CHEAPER AND WE WANT THE MARKET TO START DELIVERING THAT.
AND THEN THE ONE WHO BUILT THE PARKING CAN SAY, OKAY, IF THE RESIDENT DON'T WANT IT BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE A CAR, THEY DON'T USE IT AND IT'S A CHEAPER UNIT, I CAN MONETIZE IT SOMEWHERE ELSE OF THE OFFICE NEARBY.
I'M TRYING TO LIKE LOWER, LIKE PUT IN HERE, LAY OUT AS MANY SCENARIOS AS POSSIBLE BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY WE CANNOT, AND WE WILL NOT GET INTO THE BUSINESS OF LIKE, WHO'S GONNA PAY FOR PARKING AND WHAT.
BUT I'M JUST TRYING TO EXPLAIN WHAT TYPE OF THINGS WE CAN ENABLE AND DO WE WANT THEM OR NOT.
AND IT'S UP TO THE BODY TO DESIGN.
WELL COMMISSIONER, UH, WHEELER, THEN WE'LL GO VICE CHAIR RUBIN.
SO I, I'M, I I'M, I'M BELIEVING THAT I'M CONFUSED BECAUSE I MEAN, I'VE LIVED IN SOME APARTMENTS AND SO I DON'T KNOW IF I'M SUPPOSED BE ASKING SOME OF PERSONAL FORMAT, BUT I'VE LIVED IN SOME APARTMENTS AND THE ONLY TIME I PAID FOR PAID PARKING IS WHEN I, WHEN I CHOSE TO PAY FOR, BECAUSE I WANTED A CERTAIN PARKING SPACE.
IT WAS NEVER BUILT INTO MY RENT.
UM, BUT SO MAYBE ANDREW, MAYBE,
[05:40:01]
UH, DR.RE I THINK THE PRO MAKE ME UNDERSTAND THIS BECAUSE RIGHT NOW THE SOUTHERN SECTOR IS BEING HIT HARD BY TOWING COMPANIES WHO ARE CHARGING BY THE DAY $5 FOR VISIT TO PARKING AND IT'S ALL OVER.
HOW DOES THIS NOT PROTECT THE, THE WELL ALL APARTMENT COMPLEXES THAT, THAT ARE ALREADY PRICE GOUGING OR PEOPLE TO PARK? I I I, I GUESS I SEE IT AS THE OPPOSITE THAT IT, IT'S GOING TO CAUSE AN ISSUE WITHIN THE COMMUNITY, ESPECIALLY IN THOSE LOWER INCOME PROPERTIES THROUGHOUT THE CITY WHO HAS ALREADY BEEN TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF.