* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting. UM, GOOD AFTERNOON. [00:00:01] WE HAVE TECHNOLOGY. ALRIGHT, GOOD. GOOD AFTERNOON. WELCOME TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. MY NAME IS DAVE NEWMAN AND I'M HONORED TO SERVE AS CHAIRMAN OF THE FULL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND THE PRESIDING OFFICER OF ITS PANEL A. TODAY IS TUESDAY, APRIL 15TH, 2025 WITH A TIME OF 1:00 PM AND I HEREBY CALL THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PANEL A TO ORDER FOR OUR PUBLIC HEARING, BOTH IN PERSON AND HYBRID VIDEO CONFERENCE. A QUORUM, WHICH IS A MINIMUM OF FOUR OR FIVE MEMBERS IS PRESENT, AND THEREFORE WE CAN PROCEED WITH THE MEETING TODAY. ALLOW ME TO INTRODUCE THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FIRST. AGAIN, MY NAME IS DAVID NEWMAN AND I SERVE AS CHAIRMAN. UM, TO MY IMMEDIATE LEFT IS KATHLEEN DAVIS. ANDREW FINNEY, JAY N AND THEN ONLINE WITH US IS MICHAEL OVITZ. UH, LET ME, UH, INTRODUCE OUR OFFICERS TO MY IMMEDIATE RIGHT IS DANIEL MOORE, OUR ACTING BOARD ATTORNEY, AKA EMERITUS AND ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY, UH, OUR BOARD ADMINISTRATOR, CHIEF PLANNING PLANNER, UH, DR. KAMIKA MILLER HOSKINS, AND OUR BOARD SECRETARY MEETING MODERATOR MARY WILLIAMS. BEFORE WE BEGIN, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A FEW GENERAL COMMENTS ABOUT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND THE WAY WE CONDUCT THIS. HEARING. MEMBERS OF THE BOARD ARE APPOINTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. WE GIVE OUR TIME FREELY RECEIVE NO FINANCIAL COMPENSATION FOR OUR TIME. WE GET COFFEE AND ICED TEA, AND, UH, A GOOD LUNCH. THE WRAPS WERE GOOD TODAY, MARY. THANK YOU. GOOD. WE OPERATE UNDER CITY COUNCIL, APPROVE RULES OF PROCEDURE, WHICH ARE POSTED ON OUR WEBSITE. NO ACTION OR DECISION ON A CASE SETS A PRECEDENT THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH CITY CODE. EACH CASE IS DECIDED ON UPON ITS OWN MERITS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED EACH USE IS PRESUMED TO BE A LEGAL USE. WE'VE BEEN FULLY BRIEFED BY OUR STAFF PRIOR TO THIS HEARING AND HAVE ALSO REVIEWED THE DETAILED PUBLIC DOCKET DOCKET, WHICH EXPLAINS THE CASE AND WAS POSTED ON THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT WEBSITE SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO OUR HEARING, WHICH AGAIN IS CONSISTENT WITH OUR RULES OF PROCEDURE. ANY EVIDENCE YOU WISH TO SUBMIT TO OUR BOARD, UH, FOR CONSIDERATION TODAY ON ANY OF THE CASES WE HEAR SHOULD BE SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD. SECRETARY, MS. MARY, RAISE YOUR HAND. UH, PRIOR TO THE CASE, THE EVIDENCE MUST BE RETAINED IN OUR BOARD'S OFFICE AS PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR EACH CASE. APPROVALS OF VARIANCE OF SPECIAL EXCEPTION OR REVERSAL BUILDING OFFICIAL, UH, REQUIRES 75% OR FOUR AFFIRMATIVE VOTES IN FRONT OF YOU. TODAY YOU HAVE FOUR MEMBERS, AND ONLINE WE HAVE OUR FIFTH MEMBER, MR. KOVI. SO AFFIRMATIVE OF VOTES REQUIRE FOUR OF FIVE THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH STATE LAW AND THE CODE. ALL THEIR MOTIONS REQUIRE A SIMPLE MAJORITY. I WILL COMMUNICATE THAT AS WE MOVE FORWARD ALONG THE WAY. LETTERS OF THE BOARD'S ACTIONS TODAY WILL BE MAILED. THEY'RE CALLED DECISION LIST WILL BE MAILED HOPEFULLY WITHIN TWO DAYS BY OUR BOARD ADMINISTRATOR AFTER TODAY'S HEARING AND WE BECOME PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD. ANYONE DESIRING TO SPEAK TODAY MUST REGISTER IN ADVANCE WITH OUR BOARD SECRETARY. THERE ARE BLUE SLIPS OF PAPER UP HERE. UH, JASON IS THERE. BLUE SHIP SLIPS THERE. OKAY. WOULD YOU DO A BLUE SHIP? AND WHAT? BLUE SHIP. IF YOU'RE GONNA SPEAK TODAY FOR YOUR CASE OR PUBLIC TESTIMONY, YOU NEED TO FILL OUT THAT BLUE SHEET OF PAPER AND GET IT TO OUR BOARD SECRETARY. UM, PUBLIC TESTIMONY WE'LL DISPENSE WITH MOMENTARILY IS THREE MINUTES OR WHEN A SPECIFIC CASE IS CALLED. UM, THE APPLICANT'S GIVEN FIVE MINUTES AND ANYONE ELSE FOUR OR AGAINST IS ALSO GIVEN FIVE MINUTES. AND WE WILL BE ELASTIC ON THE TIME IN ORDER TO MAKE SURE EVERYONE HAS A REASONABLE TIME TO ADDRESS THE BOARD. ALL REGISTERED SPEAKERS ONLINE. ALL REGISTERED ONLINE SPEAKERS MUST BE PRESENT ON THE VIDEO TO ADDRESS THE BOARD AND SHOULD HAVE REGISTERED WITHIN 24 HOURS PRIOR TO THE MEETING. NO TELECONFERENCING WILL BE ALLOWED VIA WEBEX. ALL COMMENTS ARE BE DIRECTED TO THE PRE PRESIDING OFFICER. THAT'S MYSELF WHO MAY MODIFY SPEAKING TIMES AS NECESSARY AS NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN ORDER. OKAY. BOARD MEMBERS, LET ME PREVIEW OUR AGENDA FOR THIS AFTERNOON, UH, MOMENTARILY. UM, WE'RE GONNA HAVE PUBLIC TESTIMONY IF THERE'S ANY PUBLIC TESTIMONY REGISTERED. UH, THEN WE'RE GONNA HAVE A BRIEFING FROM, UH, JASON POOLS, OUR ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, DALLAS. NOW UPDATE, WE'LL REVIEW AND APPROVE OUR MEETING MINUTES. WE HAVE A WAIVER FOR A TWO YEAR LIMITATION. WE HAVE A WAIVER REQUEST FOR A FEE, AND THEN WE'VE GOT 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 CASES THAT, UH, FIVE CASES THAT ARE ALL IN THE INDIVIDUAL ITEM. THEN WE HAVE A HOLDOVER CASE. UM, I THINK WHAT WE'RE GONNA DO IS SINCE ALL THOSE FIVE CASES, UH, MOVE FROM UNCONTESTED INDIVIDUAL, WE WILL DO THE PUBLIC SPEAKING. DALLAS. NOW UPDATE MEETING MINUTES WAIVER, UH, ON TWO YEAR WAIVER ON FEE. THEN WE'LL GO TO THE HOLDOVER. THEN WE'RE GONNA GO TO THE FIVE CASES, FIVE NEW CASES. THAT'S OUR ORDER OF THE AGENDA FOR TODAY. QUESTIONS. OKAY. FIRST ITEM ON THE, ON THE PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA IS PUBLIC TESTIMONY. MS. BOARD SECRETARY, DO WE HAVE [00:05:01] ANYONE REGISTERED FOR PUBLIC TESTIMONY? NO PUBLIC SPEAKERS REGISTER, SIR. OKAY. NO PUBLIC SPEAKERS. ALL RIGHT. NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS A DALLAS. NOW UPDATE MR. POOL. YOU'RE ALWAYS WELCOME HERE, BACK HOME. THANK YOU CHAIRMAN NEUMAN, AS WE, AS WE SAID THIS MORNING, AS I SAID THIS MORNING, AND MANY OF US COMMENTED, UM, THE VIDEO THAT YOU SHEPHERD, THE VIDEO PRESENTATION THAT YOU SHEPHERD TO THE BOARD OVER A YEAR AGO IS SO INVALUABLE TO US. NOW. I'LL SAY IT AGAIN FOR THE RECORD, I JUST CAN'T UNDERSTAND HOW WE HANDLED THIS BEFORE. THE, THE LIVE VIDEO THAT YOU CAN DO 360, I MEAN, THAT'S AN ESSENTIAL TOOL FOR US. SO THANK YOU AGAIN. THANK YOU. YOU COULD ALWAYS SUGGEST IMPROVEMENTS TO THAT. UH, IS SARAH OVER HERE? SARAH'S NOT OVER THERE. OKAY. WELL, YOU CAN ALWAYS MAKE IMPROVEMENTS FOR IT, BUT NO, IT'S PERFECT. WE VERY MUCH APPRECIATE IT. ALRIGHT, YOU'RE GONNA GIVE US A BRIEF PRESENTATION? YES, SIR. IF YOU'D GIVE US YOUR NAME AND YOUR, AND YOUR ROLE AND THEN PROCEED. SO, I AM JASON POOLE, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR THE CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE FOR PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT. UM, SO ALONG THE LINES OF IMPROVEMENTS, UH, WE ARE LOOKING TO GIVE YOU AN UPDATE ON OUR DALLAS NOW PROJECT. SO THIS IS AN INTRODUCTION TO DALLAS. NOW I'M GONNA PROVIDE A, A BRIEF OVERVIEW AND SOME KEY HIGHLIGHTS AND HOW IT AFFECTS THIS PARTICULAR BOARD IN GENERAL, OR AND BOARDS IN GENERAL. AND THEN SHARE SOME IMPORTANT DATES REGARDING DOWNTIME AND SOME, UH, SUPPORT RESOURCES THAT WE HAVE AVAILABLE. SO DALLAS NOW IS OUR NEW LAND MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE. AND I WANT TO GET INTO JUST BRIEFLY, WHAT IS A LAND MANAGEMENT SYSTEM? BASICALLY, A LAND MANAGEMENT SYSTEM IS WHAT WE USE TO MANAGE ALL OF OUR PERMITTING OR ANY KIND OF LAND USE IN THE CITY OF DALLAS. UH, OUR CURRENT SYSTEM IS CALLED POSSE. IT'S BEEN IN PLACE FOR A LITTLE OVER 20 YEARS, WHICH MEANS IT'S READY FOR AN UPDATE. UM, I HAVE A BRIEF VIDEO THAT FINGERS CROSSED EVERYTHING WORKS, AND I'M GONNA SHOW THIS THAT OUR TEAM HAS PUT TOGETHER AS A, A PROMO FOR, FOR OUR NEW SYSTEM. THE CITY OF DALLAS PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT IS EXCITED. IN JUST A FEW SHORT WEEKS, WE WILL INTRODUCE OUR NEW LAND MANAGEMENT PLATFORM, DALLAS. NOW THIS NEW PLATFORM WILL REVOLUTIONIZE HOW WE HANDLE PERMITTING, PLANNING, ZONING, INSPECTIONS, AND MUCH MORE. DALLAS NOW IS A CLOUD-BASED SYSTEM DESIGNED TO INTEGRATE 15 DIFFERENT SYSTEMS, INCLUDING PROJECT DOCS AND GIS INTO ONE SEAMLESS POWERFUL PLATFORM. THIS NEW SYSTEM IS SET TO ENHANCE EFFICIENCY, IMPROVE TRANSPARENCY, AND PROVIDE TOP-NOTCH CUSTOMER SERVICE. DALLAS NOW WILL CHANGE THE WAY WE MANAGE KEY PROCESSES AND DELIVER SERVICES TO OUR CUSTOMERS. KEY BENEFITS OF DALLAS NOW STREAMLINED PROCESS, IMPROVED PUBLIC TRANSPARENCY, ENHANCED CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE. DALLAS NOW IS MORE THAN JUST A PLATFORM. IT'S A GAME CHANGER IN HOW WE MANAGE PLANNING, ZONING AND LAND USE IN DALLAS. BY REDUCING DELAYS, IMPROVING COMMUNICATION, AND MEETING THE NEEDS OF OUR CUSTOMERS. WE'RE SETTING THE STAGE FOR A MORE EFFICIENT AND RESPONSIVE FUTURE. WE'RE EXCITED TO ROLL OUT DALLAS NOW AND CAN'T WAIT TO SEE HOW IT WILL IMPROVE OUR PROCESSES AND HELP US BETTER SERVE YOU. SO AS YOU'RE AWARE, IN JUNE OF 2024, PLANNING AND URBAN DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES WERE OFFICIALLY BROUGHT TOGETHER AS ONE DEPARTMENT BRINGING ALL OF OUR SERVICES ESSENTIALLY UNDER ONE UMBRELLA. UH, PRIOR TO THIS AND FOR ALMOST TWO YEARS, UH, WE WERE ALREADY WORKING TO BUILD A SYSTEM THAT WOULD MATCH THAT VISION. ORIGINALLY, WE WERE SET TO LAUNCH IN THE SUMMER OF THIS YEAR. HOWEVER, UH, WE ARE IN THE FINAL STAGES, WHICH PUTS US TWO MONTHS AHEAD OF SCHEDULE AND WE'RE SET TO LAUNCH ON MAY 5TH. UH, THIS IS PITCHED AS A UNIFIED SYSTEM FOR A UNIFIED DEPARTMENT, UH, DESIGNED TO MAKE WORK EASIER, MORE CONNECTED, AND SETTING US UP FOR A BETTER SERVICE AND FUTURE IMPROVEMENT. UH, DALLAS NOW IS DESIGNED TO MAKE US MORE INTEGRATED AND ACCESSIBLE. UH, IT BRINGS ALL OF OUR CORE FUNCTIONS, WHICH INCLUDE ZONING, PLATTING, ENGINEERING, PERMITTING, AND INSPECTIONS INTO ONE CLOUD-BASED SYSTEM. UH, CURRENTLY THESE ALL OPERATE INDEPENDENTLY, UH, WITH MOST OF OUR, UH, WITH OUR MOST ADVANCED SYSTEM, UH, BEING INTERNAL AND LOCALLY INSTALLED [00:10:01] WITH A FEW ONLINE COMPONENTS. AND MANY OF THESE PROCESSES ARE FULLY MANUAL, RELYING ENTIRELY ON PAPER AND PHYSICAL HANDOFFS. UH, WITH DALLAS, NOW EVERYTHING IS ONE PLACE. IT'LL BE ACCESSIBLE TO STAFF, TO APPLICANTS AND THE PUBLIC ANYTIME, ANYWHERE. THIS IS A NEW SYSTEM, UH, AND THAT CAN BE USED ON ANY DEVICE WITH WEB CAPABILITY. UH, IT ELIMINATES THE NEED TO TRAVEL TO CITY OFFICES, UH, FROM SUBMITTING AN APPLICATION TO STAFF COMMENTS TO REVISIONS AND POST-APPROVAL DOCUMENTS. ALL OF THESE CAN BE TRACKED AND ARE VISIBLE FROM A WEB BROWSER. FOR THOSE WHO STILL WISH TO COME IN PERSON, WE WILL HAVE, UH, ATTENDED SELF-SERVICE STATIONS IN OUR OFFICES INTERNALLY. UH, DALLAS NOW WILL INTEGRATE 15 PLATFORMS, WHICH CREATES A MORE EFFICIENT AND ACCURATE WORKFLOW FOR STAFF ACROSS ALL OF OUR DIVISIONS. DALLAS NOW IS DESIGNED TO BE FULLY DIGITAL, WHICH MEANS EVERYTHING HAPPENS IN A SECURE ONLINE ENVIRONMENT. UH, THERE'S NO MORE PAPER SUBMITTALS OR MANUAL HANDOFFS. PLANS AND DOCUMENTS ARE UPLOADED AND REVIEWED. DIGITALLY AND APPROVED DOCUMENTS ARE RESEARCHABLE INSTANTLY IN ONE CENTRALIZED LOCATION. DALLAS NOW OFFERS REAL-TIME TRANSPARENCY. OUR CITIZEN ACCESS PORTAL ALLOWS THE PUBLIC TO SEARCH RECORDS BY ADDRESS PARCEL ID TYPE CONTRACTOR AND, AND MORE FOR APPLICANTS. THERE'S REAL TIME EMAIL NOTIFICATIONS THAT ARE SENT FOR EACH KEY STEP. UH, THAT INCLUDES THEIR APPLICATION ACCEPTANCE. ONCE PAYMENT HAS BEEN CONFIRMED, IT INCLUDES ANY REVIEW UPDATES OR OUTCOMES INSPECTION RESULTS. FINAL DECISIONS ALL INCLUDE DIGITAL COPIES OF ANY RELATED DOCUMENTS THAT WOULD BE SENT OUT TO THEM. UH, THESE EMAILS ARE SENT ONCE EACH STEP IS COMPLETE AND THEY'RE DESIGNED TO PROVIDE CONSISTENT COMMUNICATION, IMPROVE OUR ACCOUNTABILITY, AND PROVIDE BETTER CUSTOMER SERVICE. SO, UH, TOOLS THAT ARE, THAT ARE DESIGNED SPECIFICALLY FOR BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS, UM, THERE ARE IMPROVED CASE TRACKING OPTIONS AND TRANSPARENCY. AGAIN, THE REALTIME NOTIFICATIONS FOR APPLICANTS AND CITIZENS. UH, WE PROVIDE, UH, WITH SOME OF OUR BOARD'S AUTOMATED LETTERS, REPORTS AND CAGE DOCUMENTS THAT COME FROM THE SYSTEM ITSELF. AND THEN WE HAVE AN EXPANDED SELF-SERVICE OPTION FOR APPLICATIONS AND RECORDS, UH, IN PREPARATION FOR THIS. PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT IS CURRENTLY, UH, WRAPPING UP OUR STAFF TRAINING. UM, WE HAVE THEM IN A HANDS-ON PRACTICE ENVIRONMENT RIGHT NOW. UH, DURING THE COMING WEEKS, UH, WE'LL BE PROVIDING ADDITIONAL ANNOUNCEMENTS, UH, DEMOS, WORKSHOPS AND ENGAGEMENT SESSIONS. WE'VE SET UP A PUBLIC WEBSITE, IT'S DALLAS.GOV/DALLAS. NOW, ON THERE YOU'LL FIND, UH, VIDEOS THAT, UH, PROMOTE SOME OF THE NEW FEATURES. UH, THESE WILL AFTER GO LIVE, BE CONVERTED IN TUTORIAL TUTORIALS THAT WILL ALLOW USERS TO SEE EXACTLY HOW TO USE THIS NEW SYSTEM. UM, SO THE THE FIRST KEY DATE, UH, WE HAVE OUR INTEGRATION AND DOWNTIME, WHICH WILL BE APRIL 25TH TO MAY 4TH. DURING THIS TIME, OUR SYSTEMS WILL BE SHUT DOWN AND MIGRATION FROM OUR EXISTING SYSTEM INTO OUR NEW SYSTEM. AS WELL AS TESTING WILL HAPPEN, UH, WE WILL BE DOING INSPECTIONS, EMERGENCY RELEASES AND CONSULTATIONS, BUT OUR OTHER SERVICES WILL BE LIMITED. UH, TO ACCOUNT FOR THIS, WE'VE LAUNCHED A TWO PHASE CUSTOMER SERVICE INITIATIVE DURING PHASE ONE, WHICH ACTUALLY STARTED ON MONDAY, AND WE'LL CONCLUDE NEXT FRIDAY BEFORE OUR OUR DOWNTIME GO LIVE PERIOD. UH, ALL TEAM MEMBERS WILL BE IN THE OFFICE. THEY ARE IN THE OFFICE, AND WE'RE OFFERING EXTENDED HOURS FROM 8:00 AM TO 6:30 PM AT OAK CLIFF MUNICIPAL CENTER. UM, THE NEXT STEP IS DALLAS. NOW WE'LL GO LIVE ON MAY 5TH, WHICH WILL LAUNCH OUR PHASE TWO CUSTOMER SERVICE INITIATIVE WHERE WE KEEP ALL SERVICE OR ALL TEAM MEMBERS IN THE OFFICE. SO WITH THAT, UM, WE DO HAVE A QR CODE AND AGAIN, WE HAVE SET UP A WEBSITE, UH, FOR UPDATES. WE'RE CURRENTLY SENDING OUT EMAIL BLASTS AND SOCIAL MEDIA POSTINGS ON ANY NEW VIDEOS WE HAVE. AND WE'VE BEEN ANNOUNCING IN, IN SEVERAL OF THE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS THROUGHOUT THIS MONTH, AS WELL AS, UH, SOME ENGAGEMENT SESSIONS WITH OUR, UH, OUR PARTNERS IN THE DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATIONS. AND I'M AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. QUESTION, IS THIS A CANNED PROGRAM THAT'S CUSTOMIZED OR DID YOU ALL WRITE THIS FROM SCRATCH? SO WE DO HAVE A VENDOR WHO, UH, WHO PROVIDES THIS SOFTWARE AND WE'VE CUSTOMIZED IT BASED ON OUR NEEDS PROVIDED BY THE, THE VENDOR. IS THIS COMPARABLE TO WHAT OTHER CITIES OUR SIZE HAS OR, OR, AND UTILIZES OUR COMPETITIVE CITIES? YES. I BELIEVE, UH, FORT WORTH USES THIS EXACT [00:15:01] SYSTEM AND THERE ARE SEVERAL OTHER LARGE CITIES THAT THAT DO. OKAY, GOOD. IS IT THE ANTICIPATION OF THE MANAGER THAT THIS WILL IMPROVE CYCLE TIMES FOR APPLICATION TO DECISION? I, I BELIEVE THIS WILL IMPROVE EVERYTHING. UM, AS WE ADJUST. I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY THERE WILL BE SOME ADJUSTMENT AND AS WE LEARN THE SYSTEM AND AS THE PUBLIC LEARNS THE SYSTEM, IT SHOULD STREAMLINE MANY THINGS. OKAY. ALRIGHT. GOOD. MR. N THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN. YES, MR. POOLE, I HAVE TWO SPECIFIC QUESTIONS ON THIS, UH, PROJECT SINCE IT, IT APPEARS EVERYTHING'S GONNA BE DIGITAL. NOW, UH, MY QUESTION IS, WILL UM, SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS STILL RECEIVE NOTICES VIA MAIL? THAT IS CORRECT, YES. OKAY, GOOD. 'CAUSE MY CONCERN IS WITH, PARTICULARLY WITH SENIORS WHO ARE NOT TECH TECHNOLOGICALLY AS PROFICIENT AND HOLD, HOLD THAT THOUGHT. LET ME ASK A QUESTION, MR. ATTORNEY, DOES THE CODE AND OR THE STATUTE SAY IT HAS TO BE BY MAIL OR CAN CITIES SUPPLEMENT THAT WITH EMAIL THE, OR REPLACE THAT WITH EMAIL CODE AND STATE LAW REQUIRE THAT THEY BE MAILED? THERE ARE BILLS MOVING THROUGH THE LEGISLATURE, HOWEVER, THAT WOULD ALLOW YOU TO OPT IN TO RECEIVE ELECTRONIC MAIL. WE'LL SEE IF THOSE PASS. UH, BUT THE CURRENT STATE LAW AND THE CODE BOTH REQUIRE, UH, SNAIL MAIL. THE DEFAULT IS SNAIL MAIL. YEAH, VERY GOOD. AND THERE, THE VALUE OF THAT IS, YOU'RE RIGHT, IT HELPS THOSE THAT AREN'T AS TECHNOLOGICALLY AVAILABLE OR CAPACITY, BUT THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE SAY THAT THEY DON'T GET IT OR GETS IT LATE. THAT SO THERE'S A THAT'S TRUE TOO POSITIVE, NEGATIVE. SO, BUT IT'LL BE INTERESTING TO SEE WHAT THE LEGISLATURE DOES. OKAY. I I APPRECIATE THAT. AND MY FOLLOW UP QUESTION IS, UH, I THINK THIS POTENTIALLY COULD BE WONDERFUL, UH, PARTICULARLY IF, UM, IF AND WHEN THE PLANNING COMMISSION OR THE CITY COUNCIL, UH, CHANGES ZONING UPDATES, ZONING MAPS, UH, WILL THOSE MAPS BE IMMEDIATELY AVAILABLE ONLINE FOR THE PUBLIC SO THAT WE DON'T ENCOUNTER ANOTHER ELM THICKENED DISASTER? OOH, I LOVE THIS QUESTION. I'M GONNA GIVE A DRUM ROLL FOR MR. POOLE TO THINK ABOUT HIS ANSWER. BOY. OH BOY. OKAY. AND I'LL FOLLOW UP. YES, MR. POOLE, THAT IS A GREAT QUESTION. THANK YOU. TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION, THIS SYSTEM IS STRICTLY FOR REVIEWS. UH, OUR, OUR GIS AND OUR OUR ZONING MAP SYSTEM ARE OUTSIDE OF THIS. HOWEVER, WE HAVE TAKEN STEPS IN OTHER ARENAS TO HELP STREAMLINE THAT PROCESS. NOW I DO BELIEVE THAT, UH, THIS SYSTEM HAS THE POTENTIAL TO INCLUDE THE CITY SECRETARY, BUT I WOULD HAVE TO GET YOU GET BACK WITH YOU ON THAT. BUT AT THE MOMENT, THIS SYSTEM WILL NOT, UH, ADDRESS THAT PART OF IT AT THIS POINT. WE DO HAVE SOME OTHER THINGS IN THE WORKS THAT, THAT ARE GEARED TOWARDS THAT, BUT THIS SYSTEM IS, IS NOT DESIGNED TO TAKE CARE OF THAT, THAT ISSUE. WELL, WELL THANK YOU FOR THAT ANSWER. UM, THAT WOULD BE A, UH, POSITIVE CONSTRUCTIVE RECOMMENDATION TO YOU AND THE OTHER POWERS THAT BE. THANK YOU. WELL, I'M DISAPPOINTED. I WAS KIND OF HOPING THE ANSWER WOULD BE YES AFTER THE, WHAT WE'VE BEEN GOING THROUGH, BUT OKAY. ALRIGHT. THANK YOU MR. N UH, OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MR. POOL? THANK YOU FOR YOUR LEADERSHIP IN THE AREA. WE MISS YOU MR. POOL. YOU WERE A VALUE ADDED TO OUR BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT THAT'S NOT TAKEN AWAY FROM SARAH MAY, BUT JUST SAYING THAT WE, WE MISS YOU, YOUR LEADERSHIP ON BEHALF OF US WITH THE, UH, FOURTH FLOOR. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU MR. POOLE. UM, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON DALLAS NOW? SOUNDS GREAT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALRIGHT. I DID HAVE ONE MORE THING TO ADDRESS THAT QUESTION, IF THAT'S OKAY. OKAY. LIKE, NOW THAT I THINK ABOUT IT. OKAY. SO BEING THAT EVERYBODY HAS ACCESS TO THE SAME SYSTEM, WE COULD GO IN A PERMIT REVIEWER GO IN AND LOOK AT THE APPLICATIONS THAT HAVE COME THROUGH FOR A PLANNING CASE SINCE IT'S ALL IN ONE PLACE. THIS USED TO BE A PAPER PROCESS AND, AND NOW THE ACCESS IS THERE TO GO IN AND ACTUALLY LOOK AT ANY OF THE ZONING CASES COMING THROUGH, SEE THE STATUS, SEE WHAT'S BEEN APPROVED AND, AND MOVE FORWARD. NOW COUPLED WITH OTHER TOOLS THAT WOULD MAKE IT VERY, VERY BENEFICIAL IN THAT, IN THAT ARENA. BUT BY ITSELF, I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S DESIGNED SPECIFICALLY TO ADDRESS THAT. OKAY. SO NOW I HAVE TO FOLLOW UP THAT. ALRIGHT, SO WHAT YOU JUST SAID IT COULD, BUT IT'S NOT DESIGNED FOR. SO THE UPDATING OF THE ZONING MAPS, IS THAT A FUNCTION OF THE CITY SECRETARY? IS THAT A FUNCTION OF THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE OR IS THAT A FUNCTION OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES? SO PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES UPDATE OUR ZONING MAPS BASED ON THE ACTIONS OF OF THE COUNCIL OF THE TEAMS. AND YES, THE COUNCIL, WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS WHEN THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTS A [00:20:01] CHANGE TO A ZONING ORDINANCE, WHETHER IT BE MINUTE OR THERE'D BE LARGE, THAT NEXT STEP GOES TO, 'CAUSE WE'VE HEARD BEFORE THAT THE CITY SECRETARY HAS TO DO CERTAIN THINGS. CITY ATTORNEY HAS TO DO CERTAIN THINGS. YOU'RE SAYING THAT'S NOT THE CASE, SO THEY STILL DO HAVE TO DO THOSE THINGS? YES. BUT, BUT THOSE, THOSE STATUSES WILL BE AVAILABLE IN THIS SYSTEM AT THE TIME THAT THEY OCCUR. SO BASICALLY THEY'LL SEE THAT IT'S GONE THROUGH. AND GRANTED, LIKE I SAID, THERE ARE OTHER THINGS THAT HAVE HAPPENED AND ARE IN EFFECT, BUT THIS WOULD ALLOW A PLAN REVIEWER TO ACTUALLY SEE THE STATUS OF SOMETHING AND, AND KNOW WHEN THE LAST UPDATE WAS BECAUSE THE COUNCIL APPROVES ZONING CASES EVERY OTHER WEDNESDAY. SO WE'RE TALKING 20, NOT 26, 24, 20 TIMES A YEAR. ZONING IS UPDATED. IT'S A CONSTANT. OKAY. OKAY. ALRIGHT. THANK YOU MR. POOLE. APPRECIATE IT VERY MUCH. ALRIGHT, UM, TO OUR AGENDA, WE TOOK CARE OF DALLAS SNOW UPDATE. THE NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS OUR IS REVIEW AND APPROVAL. OUR MEETING MINUTES FROM MARCH 18TH, THE CHAIR WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION. MS. DAVIS, I MOVE TO APPROVE THE MEETING MINUTES FROM MARCH 18TH. MS. DAVIS HAS MOVED TO APPROVE THE MARCH 18TH PANEL, A MEETING MINUTES AS PRESENTED. IS THERE A SECOND? I SECOND. IT'S BEEN SECONDED BY MR. FINNEY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION HEARING? NO DISCUSSION. THE ME UH, THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR IS TO APPROVE THE MEETING. MINUTES FOR PANEL A MARCH 18TH AS PRESENTED. ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. THOSE OPPOSED PASSES. FIVE TO ZERO UNANIMOUSLY MEETING MINUTES ARE APPROVED. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WHOOPS. SORRY. OKAY. NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA. UH, WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY PUBLIC TESTIMONY, SO WE'LL PROCEED ON, UH, NEXT ITEM IS A REQUEST, UH, FOR A WAIVER OF THE TWO YEAR, UH, RE, UH, TWO YEAR WAIVER REQUEST. UH, BDA 2 3 4 DASH 1 29. I'M JUST READING LIKE WHAT IT SAYS. TWO YW IS THE APPLICANT HERE. THIS WOULD BE MR. LANG, I BELIEVE. MR. HOWARD. MR. HOWARD. OH, I APOLOGIZE. MR. HOWARD'S HERE. OKAY, VERY GOOD. COME FORWARD, SIR. HOLD ON ONE SECOND. UH, AS CONSISTENT WITH OUR RULES, UH, OUR BOARD SECRETARY WILL SWEAR YOU IN AND THEN, UM, YOU CAN PRESENT MS. BOARD SECRETARY. MR. HOWARD, DO YOU AFFIRM OR SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH, SIR, IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, IF YOU'D GIVE US YOUR NAME, TURN ON YOUR MIC, PLEASE. YES. GIVE US YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS AND THEN, UH, YOU MAY PROCEED. JEFF HOWARD, 46 40 OF LYNDHURST AVENUE. THANK YOU CONTRACTOR FOR THE PROJECT. THANK YOU. MR. HOWARD. PROCEED. WE'VE RECEIVED APPROVAL INITIALLY IN NOVEMBER BY THE BOARD AND AFTER REVIEW WITH THE CLIENT, WE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A COUPLE OF SLIGHT CHANGES. ONE IS MOVING THE, WE HAD A PACKAGE DROP FENCE AREA BY THE PEDESTRIAN GATE WALKING INTO THE HOUSE AT THE SIDEWALK. WE'D LIKE TO RELOCATE THAT NEXT TO THE DRIVE GATE AND ADD ANOTHER PEDESTRIAN GATE THERE. AND THEN WE'D ALSO LIKE TO ASK PERMISSION TO MOVE THE, OR GET RID OF THE SIGHT LINE AT THE PEDESTRIAN GATE AND KEEP THAT GATE IN LINE WITH THE CURRENT SIX TO SEVEN FOOT TALL SHRUBS THAT ARE ON THE PROPERTY. OKAY. AND WE'RE DELETING TWO COLUMNS THAT WERE NOT NEEDED WHERE WE'RE TYING INTO EXISTING FENCE. I I'M GONNA HELP YOU. YES, SIR. THE CRITERIA FOR THE BOARD, OR FIRST OF ALL, UH, AS IN OUR BRIEFING THIS MORNING, WE WERE, UM, WE WERE, UH, INFORMED MM-HMM . UH, THAT THE CRI THAT FOR AN APPLICANT TO COME BACK TO THE BOARD, UH, WITHIN TWO YEARS OF A DECISION, EITHER IT IS, UH, IT, IT REQUIRES A CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES. OKAY. SO I'M GONNA READ THE CRITERIA THAT WE WOULD APPLY TO YOUR OR ANYONE ELSE'S REQUEST REGARDING IT, SIR. AND IT SAYS THE BOARD MAY WAIVE THE TWO YEAR LIMITATION. AND THERE'S TWO INSTANCES WHERE THERE'S LIMITATION. ONE IS WE DENY WITH PREJUDICE OR TWO WE APPROVE. AND AGAIN, AS WE SAID THIS MORNING THAT WE THINK WAS PUT IN PLACE BY THE CITY COUNCIL, WE DON'T SET POLICY, WE INTERPRET THE POLICY WAS TO, UH, MINIMIZE, UM, ABUSIVE USE OF THE, THE, THE APPROVAL PROCESS TO, TO THROTTLE THAT. UM, SO THE CRITERIA FOR US IS THE BOARD MAY WAIVE THE TWO YEAR LIMITATION IF THERE ARE CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES REGARDING THE PROPERTY SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT A NEW HEARING. NOW, TO APPROVE THIS, IT REQUIRES SIMPLE MAJORITY VOTE, WHICH MEANS THREE OF THE FIVE OF US. BUT THE CRITERIA FOR US [00:25:01] IS IF THERE ARE CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES REGARDING THE PROPERTY SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT A HEARING. SO WHAT I'M GONNA HELP YOU IS SAY, DO YOU HAVE CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES, DELIVERY OF THEIR NEW PACKAGES? YES, WE CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES, THE LOCATION OF THOSE PACKAGES. SO YOU'RE, YOU'RE TESTIFYING THAT THERE ARE CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES IN THIS REQUEST? YES. OKAY. QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE, THAT WE HAVE FOR THE APPLICANT, I, I'LL HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU. YES SIR. WERE YOU INVOLVED IN THIS ORIGINAL REQUEST IN, UH, NOVEMBER OF 24? YES SIR. WAS THERE ANY OPPOSITION? NO, SIR. DO WE HAVE A RECORD OF THAT ANYWHERE? CAN WE PULL A QUICK RECORD? I TRUST YOU, BUT I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THE REASON WHY IS I JUST HESITATE, YOU KNOW, IT GIVES ME PAUSE WHEN SOMEONE COMES BACK. I DON'T RECALL UNFORTUNATELY, WHEN YOU DESCRIBED ALL THAT, I'M THINKING, OKAY, WHERE, WHAT, WHO? AND, UH, SO THAT DOESN'T MEAN I'M OPPOSED, IT JUST, IT JUST, UM, MISS BOARD ADMINISTRATOR, ARE YOU LOOKING? THANK YOU. WE'RE GONNA GIVE IT A PAUSE, BUT YOUR, TO YOUR BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE, THERE WAS NO OPPOSITION. NO SIR. OKAY. AND MAY RECALL HELP YOU A LITTLE BIT, THIS WAS A PROJECT WHERE WE'RE ADDING NEW FENCE TO THREE SIDES OF THE FRONT PROPERTY. ALL THREE SIDES OF THIS PROPERTY CURRENTLY HAS SIX TO SEVEN FOOT TALL SHRUBS AROUND THE PROPERTY. I LOVE THAT. LOVE THAT. I LOVE THAT. BUT THE REALITY IS WE MEET MONTHLY AND WE HAVE YEAH, I KNOW EIGHT CASES TODAY. SO AS MUCH AS WE WANNA REMEMBER WHAT WE DID IN NOVEMBER OF LAST YEAR. YES SIR. NOW IF WE HAD PICTURES, WE'D ALL OF A SUDDEN GO, OH YEAH, I REMEMBER THIS. OR IF IT WAS A REALLY CONTROVERSIAL CASE, WE'D ALL BE GOING, OH YEAH, WE REMEMBER THAT. SO, UM, INTERRUPT ME AS SOON AS YOU HAVE AN ANSWER. THERE WAS NO OPPOSITION. OKAY. THAT CLEARS ONE POTENTIAL ISSUE. ALRIGHT, SIR. SO QUESTIONS THAT THE BOARD HAS FOR THE APPLICANT, MR. FINNEY? UH, YES. SO YOU SAID THERE WAS A CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES DUE TO, UH, RELATED TO THE PACKAGE DROP OFF AREA. SO WHAT WAS, WHAT, WHAT IS THE CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES THAT THE LOCATION OF THE DROP OFF IN ACCORDANCE OF WHERE THE CLIENT WOULD LIKE ALL OF HIS PACKAGES DROP. HE WOULD LIKE 'EM NEXT TO THE DRIVEWAY WHERE THEY COME IN EVERY DAY INSTEAD OF AT THEIR MAIN SIDEWALK, WHERE TYPICALLY THEY HAVE GUESTS AND CLIENTS COMING IN AND OUT OF THEIR HOUSE. OKAY. OKAY. AND MIND YOU, BOARD MEMBERS, WE'RE NOT APPROVING A NEW PACKAGE. ALL WE'RE DOING IS LETTING THEM APPLY. YES. AM I CORRECT, MR. BOARD ATTORNEY? THAT'S ALL WE'RE DOING? THAT'S CORRECT. THIS IS JUST WHETHER OR NOT STAFF CAN ACCEPT THE APPLICATION. YEAH. SO WE'RE OUR, OUR HANDS ARE NOT TIED IN ANY OF THIS. OKAY. MR. NE, YOU HAD A QUESTION? WELL JUST POINT OF CLARIFICATION. SO, UH, BASICALLY WE APPROVED THIS BACK IN NOVEMBER AND WITH A SUBMITTED SITE PLAN AND YOU WANT TO CHANGE THAT SITE PLAN NOW, BASICALLY, IS THAT CORRECT? VERY SMALL PORTIONS OF IT, YES, SIR. RIGHT, RIGHT. OKAY. THAT THAT, THAT'S MY QUESTION. THANK YOU. MR. KOVI HAS A QUESTION. SO, UM, THE SITE PLAN THAT WAS ORIGINALLY APPROVED AS THAT SITE PLAN BEEN COMPLETED? NO, NO CONSTRUCTION HAS BEEN COMPLETED OR STARTED. SO, UM, I I JUST WOULD LIKE TO UNDERSTAND, I KNOW WE'RE NOT HEARING THE NEW CASE RIGHT NOW, BUT WHAT ABOUT THE ORIGINAL SITE PLAN WILL NOT ALLOW WHAT YOU DESCRIBED AS THE REASON FOR THE CHANGE? THAT I'M NOT SURE. DID I, WAS MY QUESTION NOT CLEAR OR, OR, OR YOU'RE NOT SURE OF THE ANSWER? COULD YOU ASK THAT QUESTION ONE MORE TIME, SIR? CERTAINLY. SO WHO WANTS TO CHANGE WHERE THE PACKAGES ARE DROPPED OFF? WHAT ABOUT THE, THE ORIGINALLY APPROVED SITE PLAN? WILL THAT ALLOW THOSE PACKAGES TO BE DROPPED OFF AT A DIFFERENT PLACE? THE ACTUAL PACKAGE DROP OFF LOCATION IS ACTUALLY FENCED AND IS SHOWN ON THE ORIGINAL SITE PLAN. SO IT'D BE CHANGED IN THAT LOCATION AND THE FENCING MATERIAL AND LOCATION ON THE NEW SITE PLAN ALONG WITH ADJUSTING THE LOCATION. IS IT ENCLOSED AREA? YES, SIR. SO YOU'RE BASICALLY RELOCATING THE ENCLOSED AREA? YES, SIR. THANK YOU. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? UH, YES. UM, MR. NARY? YES, MR. MR. CHAIRMAN, THANK YOU. UH, JUST FOR MY OWN SATISFACTION, UH, YOU'RE NOT PROPOSING ANY CHANGE WHATSOEVER AS TO THE HEIGHT OF THE FENCE, CORRECT? WELL, NO SIR. WELL, THAT, BUT THAT'S NE THAT'S AT THIS TIME, NO, SIR. OKAY. I KNOW WITH YOUR APPLICATION YOU CAN DO WHATEVER, BUT THAT, YEAH. OKAY. THANK YOU. UH, WE'RE NOT MAKING, MAKING THAT DECISION TODAY. YES. [00:30:02] AND I THINK WE SAW THIS MORNING IT WAS SEVEN FEET, SIX INCHES, WHICH IS A TALL FENCE. UH, THE COLUMNS, IS THAT WHAT IT WAS? THE COLUMNS ARE SEVEN FOOT SIX MAX. THE FENCE ITSELF IS FIVE FOOT SIX. OKAY. WELL, AND I, I THINK MY BOARD ATTORNEY WOULD NUDGE ME UNDERNEATH THE TABLE SAYING, DON'T GO INTO THE CASE , BECAUSE WE'RE NOT DECIDING THE CASE TODAY. ALL WE'RE ASKING IS, UM, THE BOARD MAY WAIVE THE TWO YEAR LIMITATION IF THERE ARE CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES REGARDING THE PROPERTY SUFFICIENT TO WARN A NEW HEARING. AND YOUR ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION WAS YES. OKAY. UH, THE CHAIRMAN ENTERTAIN A MOTION, MS. DAVIS OR MR. NARY, WHICHEVER ONE OR DO IT. UM, MR. NARY. THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN. UH, YES, UH, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND REQUEST NUMBER BDA 2 3 4 DASH 1 29 ON APPLICATION OF ALEC LANG GRANT, THE REQUEST OF THIS APPLICANT TO WAIVE THE TWO YEAR LIMITATION ON A FINAL DECISION REACHED BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PANEL A ON NOVEMBER 19TH, 2024. BECAUSE THERE ARE CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES REGARDING THE PROPERTY SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT A NEW HEARING. UH, A MOTION HAVE BEEN MADE BY MR. NER IN BDA 2 3 4 DASH 29 2 YW. I LOVE THAT, UH, TO GRANT THE REQUEST FOR, UH, THE WAIVING OF THE TWO YEAR LIMITATION. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND, SECOND AMENDMENT, MS. DAVIS DISCUSSION IN THE MOTION, MR. NER? UM, I THINK IT'S CLEARLY OBVIOUS THAT, UM, THERE HAS BEEN A, UH, CHANGE OF CIRCUMSTANCES BASED ON WHAT HAS BEEN REPRESENTED TO US, AND I WOULD LIKE TO AFFORD THE APPLICANT THE ABILITY TO, UH, TO REVISE THAT, UH, AN APPLICATION, UH, DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION. MS. DAVIS? OKAY. UH, I'M A QUESTION FOR THE STAFF, MS. BOARD ADMINISTRATOR, DOES THE APPLICANT STILL PAY HIS FEE FOR THE NEXT ONE? RIGHT? IT'S LIKE A NEW CASE? YES, IT'S A NEW CASE, SO HE'LL HAVE TO PAY. YEAH. AND THAT'S WHAT I WILL WANT, BUT, OKAY. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION, MR. HVE DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? UH, ACTUALLY, I GUESS A QUESTION FOR STAFF. UH, WHAT IS THE IMPACT OF APPROVING THIS, IF ANY ON THE ORIGINALLY APPROVED, UH, CASE? THERE WON'T BE AN IMPACT. HE'LL JUST PROVIDE CLOSER TO THE MIC, PLEASE. THERE WON'T BE, THERE WILL NOT BE AN IMPACT. SO BASICALLY WHAT HE'S GONNA COME BACK FOR IS WHAT? IT WON'T HAVE ANY IMPACT ON WHAT WAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED. THAT'LL BASICALLY JUST GO AWAY. HE'LL MOVE FORWARD WITH HIS NEW PROPOSED PLAN. OKAY. I HAVE A CLARIFICATION TO THAT ANSWER AND I'M ASKING THE ATTORNEY ABOUT THIS. ISN'T THERE A 180 DAY RULE ON A, ON TIMETABLE FOR PULLING PERMITS FROM BOARD APPROVAL OTHERWISE THAT EXPIRES OR SOMETHING, SOMETHING SOMETHING. EDUCATE US ON THAT. YES, THERE'S 180 WITHIN 180 DAYS OF, UH, NOVEMBER 19TH, 2024, WHICH IS THE DATE. THIS PANEL ORIGINALLY GRANTED, THE, UM, SPECIAL EXCEPTION THEY HAVE TO PULL A PERMIT, BUT IF THE, IT SOUNDS LIKE THE APPLICANT INTENDS TO FILE A NEW APPLICATION, COME BACK BEFORE THE BOARD SO THAT SIX MONTH PERIOD IS TRIGGER IT WOULD THE, THE, THE EXCEPTION OR THE, THE, THE GRANTING FROM NOVEMBER WOULD EXPIRE, BUT THEY WOULD COME BACK A SECOND TIME WITH THE UPDATED SITE PLAN. SO HERE'S MY, HERE'S WHICH START A NEW SIX MONTHS. OKAY. SO HERE'S MY QUESTION, AND I DUNNO IF THIS IS TO YOU OR TO MISS THE BOARD ADMINISTRATOR. UH, WE JUST HEARD FROM THE STAFF THAT ON THE 19TH OF MAY, YOUR PREVIOUS APPROVAL WITHOUT A PERMIT BEING REQUESTED EXPIRES. POOF. YOU JUST NEED TO BE AWARE OF THE TIMETABLE. WE HAVE PULLED PERMIT ALREADY. WHAT'S THAT? WE DID PULL A PERMIT FOR THE ORIGINAL, SIR. WELL, THANK YOU SIR. THAT'S NEW INFORMATION. I JUST DIDN'T WANT YOU TO GET SOMETHING APPROVED HERE AND THEN LOSE THAT WHAT YOU HAVE ON THE 19TH OF MAY. THANK YOU, SIR. OKAY, SO THE CLOCK RESTARTS, I MEAN, IT'S LIKE THE OTHER THING. THERE'S NOT AN ISSUE OF AN EXPIRATION. YEAH. THEY'VE MET THE 180 DAY REQUIREMENT. IF THEY COME BACK BEFORE THE BOARD AND GET A NEW SIDE PLAN APPROVED, THERE WOULD BE A NEW 180 DAY CLOCK. GOT YOU. THANK YOU. MR. KOVIC. DID THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION ON THAT ONE? UH, WELL, IT, IT, IT, UM, RAISES ANOTHER QUESTION. IT DOES ANSWER THAT QUESTION. IT RAISES, GO AHEAD. UH, SO, SO WHEN THEY, ASSUMING THEY COME BACK AND REAPPLY, WILL THAT BE A VARIANCE TO THE PRIOR APPROVED PLAN, MR. BOARD ATTORNEY? IT WOULD BE A NEW SPECIAL EXCEPTION AND STAFF IN THE HISTORY WOULD NOTE THAT ON NOVEMBER 19TH, [00:35:03] UM, THE BOARD CONSIDERED AN APPLICATION, BUT IT WOULD BE A NEW SPECIAL EXCEPTION WITH A NEW SITE PLAN WHERE YOU WOULD CONSIDER THE SAME STANDARD ABOUT ADVERSE EFFECT AND ALL OF THOSE THINGS. OKAY. SO IT WOULD BE A SPECIAL EXCEPTION, NOT A VARIANCE. CORRECT. IT'S, IT'S, UH, IT'S, IT, IT WAS NEVER A VARIANCE. IT WAS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE FENCE HEIGHT. THOSE ARE ALWAYS SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS. OKAY, THANK YOU. OKAY. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR IS TO GRANT THE, THE REQUEST FOR, UH, A TWO YEAR WAIVER MOVED BY MR. NER, SECONDED BY MS. DAVIS. THE BOARD WILL CALL FOR A VOTE. MS. BOARD SECRETARY MS. DAVIS? YES. MR. FINNEY? AYE. MR. N AYE. MR. OVITZ? AYE. MR. CHAIRMAN? AYE. MOTION TO GRAHAM PASSES FIVE TO ZERO IN THE MATTER OF BDA 2 3 4 1 29 2 YW. THE BOARD APPROVES YOUR REQUEST FOR, UH, A TWO YEAR WAIVER, SO YOU'RE WELCOME TO TO REAPPLY. RIGHT. THANK YOU ALL. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS BD 2 4 5 0 5 2 FW ONE BDA 2 4 5 0 5 2 FW ONE. THIS IS A, UH, REQUEST FOR A FEE WAIVER, UM, A FEE WAIVER AT 7 8 8 0 7 MORTON STREET. IS THE APPLICANT HERE? I BELIEVE HE IS ONLINE. UM, YES I AM. ALRIGHT, CAN YOU PLEASE PROVIDE VIDEO AS WELL, SIR? YES. GIMME ONE SECOND. DOES ACCESS CAMERA NOT ALLOW? UH, WELL WE HEAR YOU BUT WE CANNOT SEE YOU. IT'S ALWAYS BETTER TO SHOW UP IN PERSON. UH, BUT WE, WE, WE CAN'T PROCEED UNLESS WE CAN SEE YOU AND HEAR YOU. MR. CHAIRMAN? YES, MR. KOVI JUST THE VICE FOR THE, UH, APPLICANT. I HAD THAT ISSUE THIS MORNING. IT WAS SOMETHING ON THE DEVICE I WAS USING THAT WAS PREVENTING THE VI THE VIDEO. MY LECTURE WAS, MY LECTURE WASN'T TO YOU MR. OVITZ? IT WAS TO THE NO, I UNDERSTAND IT WAS TO THE APPLICANT. NO, YOU'RE SUGGESTING HOW THEY MIGHT GET THEIR VIDEO. OH, I'M NOT GIVING YOU CRAP. OKAY, SO MS. BOARD SECRETARY, I'LL PULL THEM OUT, BUT OH YEAH, LET'S SEE. SO IT LOOKS LIKE WE LOST YOU ENTIRELY. ALRIGHT. YEAH, MAYBE YOU'RE REBOOTING HERE. OKAY, THERE WE WE GO. SOMETHING'S COMING BACK. THE JOY AND CURSE OF TECHNOLOGY, I DO ON A SEPARATE NOTE UNTIL HE COMES BACK ON. OH, THERE WE GO. I DO LIKE THE IDEA OF THE EMAIL OF BUY-IN ON NOTIFICATIONS, NOT, NOT REPLACING, BUT OPTIONAL. YES. BUT WE'LL SEE IF THE LEGISLATURE PASSES THAT. OKAY. DO YOU HAVE OUR AUDIO? YES. OKAY. OKAY, SIR. UH, IF YOU WOULD GIVE US YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS, THEN OUR BOARD SECRETARY WILL SWEAR YOU IN. KYLE VIC. 1 5 0 6 EVERHART ROAD BELLS, TEXAS 7 5 4 1 4. OKAY, SIR. KYLE, WHAT'S YOUR LAST NAME, SIR? VIC, WOULD YOU SPELL THAT FOR ME SO I DON'T MISPRONOUNCE IT? W-O-J-T-O-W-I-C-Z. IC. GOD. LOVE YOU, VIC. OKAY. STOP IT THERE. I I THINK YOU HAVE A KINDRED SPIRIT HERE, CORRECT? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? MICHAEL? I'M SYMPATHIZING WITH A HARD TO PRONOUNCE NAME. OKAY. WATO. OKAY. CLOSE. IT'S A CLOSE. WELL, I APOLOGIZE. ALL RIGHT, SIR. UM, MS. BOARD SECRETARY, DID YOU WANNA SWEAR HIM IN? DO [00:40:01] YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO TELL THE TRUTH TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? YES. OKAY. PLEASE PROCEED. YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES. GO AHEAD SIR. OH, FOR THE, FOR THE FEE WAIVER, UM, YES, THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE, WHAT'S WHAT'S IN FRONT OF US TODAY IS YOUR REQUEST TO WAIVE THE FEE, THE $600 FEE ASSOCIATED WITH A VARIANCE REQUEST FOR LOT COVERAGE AT 7 8 0 7 MORTON STREET. SO WHAT WE'RE LISTENING TO IS YOUR REQUEST FOR A FEE WAIVER. OKAY. UM, SO YES, I JUST, I REQUESTED THE FEE WAIVER, UM, JUST BECAUSE, UH, WHEN THIS PROJECT STARTED, WE WERE A SUBCONTRACTOR FOR ANOTHER BUILDER, UM, ASSOCIATED WITH THIS, UH, WITH THIS ADDRESS. UM, THE HOME BUILDER AT THE TIME, IT WAS A NEW HOME CONSTRUCTION, APPARENTLY THEY WERE TOLD THEY COULD NOT GET THE PERMIT. UM, AND SO I WAS TOLD TO DO SO. UM, AND THE PERMIT WENT THROUGH, UM, WITH NO CHANGES BEING MADE TO, TO WHAT WE BUILT. UM, AND SO SINCE I HAVE, UH, I'M NO LONGER WORKING WITH THAT, WITH THAT GENERAL CONTRACTOR, UM, NO ASSOCIATION WITH THEM IN THE LAST YEAR, YEAR AND A HALF. AND, UM, WE JUST REQUESTED THAT FEE WAIVER JUST BECAUSE WE WERE AT THE TIME THAT THE FEE WAS REQUESTED AND WE STILL ARE, UM, OWED ABOUT $30,000 FROM DIFFERENT BUILDERS. SO, UM, WE WERE JUST KIND OF LOOKING FOR SOME HELP ON, UH, ON THIS WHOLE ORDEAL THAT, UM, WE'RE JUST TRYING TO WRAP OUR HEADS AROUND. OKAY. I'M GONNA HELP YOU, SIR. UH, I, I, I DON'T MEAN ANY SHARP EDGES, SO WHEN I'M TRYING TO DO IS HELP YOU WITH YOUR REQUEST. WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DETERMINE IS WHETHER WE WAIVE THE CITY OF DALLAS FEE OF $600 RELATING TO A LOT COVERAGE ISSUE AT 7 8 0 7 MORTON STREET. OUR CRITERIA IS THE APP. UH, A CRITERIA IS THAT THE BOARD MAY WAIVE THE FEE IF IT WILL RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL FINANCIAL HARDSHIP TO THE APPLICANT. SO I'M GIVING YOU THE, THE WORDS FROM THE CODE THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IN FRONT OF US, AND THAT IS THE BOARD MAY WAIVE THE FEE IF IT RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL FINANCIAL HARDSHIP. UH, WE DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED OR SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED AS IT RELATES TO 7 8 0 7 MORTON STREET, AND I DON'T NECESSARILY WANNA KNOW EVERYTHING, BUT I NEED TO, WE NEED TO KNOW ENOUGH SO WE ESTABLISH WHAT THE ISSUE IS AND WHY THERE'S A HARDSHIP. IS THAT A FAIR WAY OF PUTTING IT, MR. BOARD ATTORNEY GETTING PERMISSION AFTER THE FACT? THE, GIMME ONE SECOND TO PULL UP THE STANDARD CHAIRMAN. OKAY, WELL I'M READING IT ON THE SHEET, DANIEL, I BELIEVE THAT THAT IS CORRECT, BUT SPECIFIES THE BOARD OF ADDRESS MAY WAIVE THE FILING FEE IF THE BOARD FINDS THE PAYMENT OF THE FEE WOULD RESULT IN A SUBSTANTIAL FINANCIAL HARDSHIP TO THE APPLICANT, RIGHT? THAT YES. YES, THAT IS, I'VE GOT THAT IN THE CODE AND IT REQUIRES FOUR OR FIVE VOTES. IT REQUIRES, UH, 75%, 4 4 4 VOTES. YES, SIR. OKAY. SO SIR, IF YOU WOULD BRIEFLY EXPLAIN WHY THERE'S AN ISSUE RELATING LOT COVERAGE, WHY THERE'S A FINANCIAL HARDSHIP? UM, SO FINANCIAL HARDSHIP IS KINDA LIKE I DESCRIBED. UM, WE'RE OWED SEVERAL, WE TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS FROM BUILDERS. SO IN UNEXPECTED PAYMENT OF $600 AT THIS POINT. UM, YOU KNOW, TRYING TO TO RECOUP ALL OF THAT LOSSES, UM, THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT, UH, THAT WE, WE REALLY WANT TO, AND THEY'RE TRYING TO FIND A WAY TO PAY FOR, UM, JUST TRYING TO KEEP THINGS AFLOAT. SO, SO IF I INTERPRET WHAT YOU SAID IS THAT YOUR FINANCIAL HARDSHIP, IS THIS $30,000 THAT YOU, THAT YOU EARNED BUT HAVE NOT BEEN PAID BY SEVERAL BY OTHER, BY OTHER BUILDERS? YES. OKAY. UM, AND WHAT IS THE ISSUE RELATING TO LOT COVERAGE AT 78 0 7 MORTON STREET? UM, FROM WHAT I'VE BEEN TOLD IS THAT, UH, THERE ARE NEW REQUIREMENTS IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD, UM, REGARDING WHAT PERCENTAGE OF THE LOCK CAN BE COVERED. ISN'T THE HOUSE BUILT ALREADY THE PICTURE WE SAW THIS MORNING? THE HOUSE IS ALREADY COMPLETE, YES, THE HOUSE IS COMPLETE. THE ISSUE IS THE ROOF STRUCTURE THAT I BUILT ON THE BACK OF THE HOUSE. OKAY. ARE YOU THE POOL, ARE YOU SAYING THAT YOU WERE, YOU WERE GIVEN INCORRECT [00:45:01] INFORMATION WHEN YOU BUILT THE ROOF STRUCTURE OR ARE YOU SAYING IT'S YOUR, WAS YOUR ERROR OR, OR THE CITY'S ERROR? TELL ME WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. SO I'M, WE ARE, WE'RE SAYING IT'S A CITY ERROR BECAUSE WE WERE PROVIDED A PERMIT FOR THIS PROJECT. UM, AND THEN NOW AFTER THE FACT, UM, AND EVEN THE PEOPLE THAT I'VE BEEN EMAILING WITH THE CITY SAID IT WAS AN OVERSIGHT FROM THE CITY, UH, TO EVEN PROVIDE ME WITH THAT PERMIT BASED ON THE LOT REQUIREMENTS. OKAY. HOLD ON A SECOND, MS. BOARD ADMINISTRATOR, DOES THE, IS THE STAFF AWARE OF A PERMITTING ERROR AT 78 SE 78 0 7 MORTON STREET FOR LOT COVERAGE? I WOULD ASSUME SO. AS STATED DURING THE BRIEFING, I BELIEVE THIS CASE FALLS WITHIN ALL OF THE OTHER PD SIX WITH FALL WITHIN THE SAME CATEGORY OF ALL THE OTHER PD 67 CASES. OKAY. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT FROM THE BOARD, MR. FINNEY? UH, YES. UM, MR. WIS WAKI, SORRY. UM, WICHO, WICHO WICHO, FORGIVE ME. HOW WAS THAT MICHAEL? GOOD . OKAY. UM, SORRY, MR. HAITZ, SO JUST TO BE CLEAR, SO THE $30,000 THAT ARE OWED TO YOU, ARE THEY ALL RELATED TO THIS ONE PROJECT AT 78 0 7 MORTON STREET? NO, THEY'RE, THEY'RE, NO, SIR, THEY'RE NOT RELATED TO THIS PROJECT. OKAY. ALRIGHT. WHAT ARE THE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT, MS. DAVIS? UH, IT, IT'S KIND OF A COMMENT, BUT A QUESTION, BUT I'M NOT, I'M NOT SEEING THE FINANCIAL HARDSHIP. SO IF YOU'RE, IF YOU, AT LEAST THIS ONE BOARD MEMBER IS NOT, UM, I'M, I'M NOT SEEING THAT THAT REQUIREMENT IS BEING MET. SO IF YOU DO BELIEVE THERE IS A FINANCIAL HARDSHIP, I WOULD SAY THIS IS YOUR LAST TIME TO EXPLAIN IT BECAUSE I, I KNOW I, THIS ONE PERSON IS NOT SEEING THAT HARDSHIP AND, AND I WILL FOLLOW UP WITH MS. DAVIS'S COMMENT. UH, AND, AND I'M NOT PUTTING WORDS IN YOUR MOUTH, I'M TRYING TO ZERO IN, IN ON THE CRITERIA THAT WE HAVE AND THE BASICS OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES. IT SOUNDED TO ME FROM WHAT YOU SAID THAT THE ONLY REASON YOU'RE GOING THROUGH THIS PROCESS IS BECAUSE OF A CITY ERROR OF BEING PERMITTED BUILDING AND NOW BEING TOLD YOU'RE, UH, YOU'RE NON-COMPLIANCE. IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT. SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT, THAT THAT INCORRECT PERMITTING AND THEN RELIANCE ON THAT, INCORRECT PERMITTING HAS CREATED THIS PROBLEM. IT'S NOT A PROBLEM THAT YOU CREATED, BUT IT'S A PROBLEM BECAUSE YOU WERE PERMITTED INCORRECTLY AND NOW YOU'RE HAVING TO COME BACK AND GET THIS RESOLVED. CORRECT. IF WE WERE TOLD FROM THE BEGINNING THAT WE WERE, WE WERE OVER THE LOT COVERAGE, NONE OF THIS, I WOULD, I WOULDN'T BE HERE. MICHAEL. EXCUSE ME, MR. HAITZ. UM, SO I'M, I'M HAVING, SO YOU, YOU WORKED ON THE ROOF LINE OF THE HOME, IS THAT CORRECT? I WORKED ON THE, UM, THE, THE ROOF STRUCTURE. SO NOT THE HOUSE ITSELF, BUT THE YES, THE ACCESSORY THAT'S, THAT'S THERE. YES. SO, SO I'M NOT A BUILDER, BUT I'M, I'M HAVING A HARD TIME SEEING HOW THE ROOF STRUCTURE, UH, HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE LOCK COVERAGE. THAT'S A QUESTION, SIR. UM, I, I, I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T KNOW EITHER. UM, THAT'S WHAT'S WHY THIS WHOLE PROCESS HAS BEEN JUST, UH, HAS BEEN A BIG, BIG QUESTION FOR ME, FOR THE HOMEOWNER AND FOR THE, FOR THE POOL BUILDER AS WELL. I THINK MR. HOPKOS QUESTION WAS, YOU SAID THAT YOUR ROLE, AND THEREFORE YOUR STANDING IN THIS IS A FUNCTION OF THE ROOF STRUCTURE, NOT THE LOT COVERAGE. YOU DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH A LOT COVERAGE ISSUE? I DIDN'T THINK I DID. UH, I MEAN, THAT'S WHY WE GOT THE PERMIT. IF THERE WAS AN ISSUE WITH THE LOT COVERAGE IN MY, MY ROOF STRUCTURE THAT'S ON THE BACK OF THE HOUSE, THEN IF WE WERE OVER THE PERCENTAGE OR HOWEVER YOU CALCULATE IT, THEN WE SHOULD HAVE BEEN NEVER BEEN GIVEN A PERMIT. AND A QUESTION FOR STAFF. SO THE, THE CRITERIA FOR ACCEPTING A REQUEST LIKE THIS, IS IT HAVE TO BE FROM THE PROPERTY OWNER OR CAN IT BE SOMEONE DESIGNATED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER? I MEAN, WHAT, WHAT ARE, WHAT'S, 'CAUSE NOW I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED ABOUT WHETHER THIS APPLICANT HAS STANDING TO MAKE THIS REQUEST BECAUSE I'M HEARING IT HAS TO DO WITH, SO, SO LET'S CLARIFY THAT FIRST. WHAT IS THE CRITERIA FOR WHO HAS STANDING TO MAKE THIS [00:50:01] REQUEST? IS IT SNS OUTDOORS? IS IT BART SOFF, IS IT KYLE VIC, OR IS IT THE OWNER? A PROPERTY OWNER CAN HAVE, UM, ONE OF THEIR AGENTS OR REPRESENTATIVES REPRESENT THEM IN FRONT OF THE BOARD. IN THIS CASE, THE CASE REPORT SAYS THAT THAT REPRESENTATIVE IS SNS OUTDOORS. I ASSUME MR. KYLE, UM, IS SNS OUTDOORS. ARE YOU SNS OUTDOORS, SIR? YES, I'M THE OWNER OF SNS OUTDOORS. MR. NER HAS A QUESTION. UM, YEAH, THIS IS, THIS IS FOR STAFF. UM, SO IF, IF WE WERE TO GRANT THIS FEE WAIVER, WHO WOULD ACTUALLY RECEIVE THE $600? WOULD IT BE THIS GENTLEMAN? UM, OR WOULD IT BE THE HOMEOWNER? NO, NO ONE. IT, SO NORMALLY WHEN YOU COME BEFORE THE BOARD, YOU HAVE TO PAY A FEE. IN THIS CASE, IF YOU GRANT THE FEE WAIVER STAFF WOULD JUST ACCEPT THE APPLICATION AND THERE WOULD BE NO FEE ASSOCIATED WITH IT. IT WOULD JUST COME BEFORE THE BOARD, LIKE, OKAY. AND SO I GUESS RE REFRAMING MY QUESTION, WHO WOULD, WHO WOULD THAT BE TO THE BENEFIT OF THIS GENTLEMAN OR THE HOMEOWNER? THE, THE, THE VARIANCE WOULD BE FOR THE PROPERTY. I THINK THAT'S PART OF THE CONFUSION. YEAH, I MEAN, WHO THE STANDING, UM, BECAUSE IF WE GRANT A FEE WAIVER, IF WE'RE, AND WE'RE RIGHT NOW ASKED BEING ASKED TO GRANT IT TO SNS OUTDOORS AND HIS, HIS OR HER HARDSHIP, OR IS, IS IT THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER'S HARDSHIP? IT, WE WOULD THINK IT WOULD BE THE PROPERTY OWNER. THAT'S WHERE, THAT'S WHY I'M CONFUSED NOW. SO IF STAFF WANTS TO HUDDLE FOR A MOMENT AND CLARIFY THAT, MR. VIC, YOU'RE NOT THE PROPERTY OWNER, ARE YOU? NO, I'M NOT. UH, WERE, WERE YOU AUTHORIZED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER TO MAKE THIS REQUEST? UH, YES. HE, I HAD, UM, WE HAD TO SIGN A BUNCH OF PAPERWORK AND GET THAT NOTARIZED AND HE GAVE ME ACCESS TO GO DOWN TO THE CITY. AND WHO IS THE PROPERTY OWNER? PARK SOFF. PARK SOFF IS THE PROPERTY OWNER. AND YOU HAVE DUE, CORRECT? HE IS. YOU HAVE DUE REP. YOU HAVE. ALRIGHT. AND SO I GUESS THE QUESTION TO STAFF IS WHO WOULD MAKE THE VARIANCE REQUEST? SNS OR MR. POFF? GIVE US ONE MOMENT, SIR. OKAY. OKAY, WE'RE GONNA RECESS FOR FIVE MINUTES. UM, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BD, UH, THE BOARD ADJUSTMENT PANEL A TUESDAY, APRIL 15TH IS GONNA RECESS TILL 2:00 PM SO JUST HANG LOOSE, SIR. WE'LL RECESS TILL 2:00 PM OKAY. UM, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS, LET'S TURN US BACK ON. TURN YOUR, UM, YOUR VIDEOS ON, UM, MR. KOVI WHEN YOU'RE READY. OKAY. ALRIGHT. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PANEL A, UH, IS BACK IN SESSION AT 2:00 PM TUESDAY, APRIL 15TH, 2025. UH, WHAT IS PENDING BEFORE US IS A FEE WAIVER REQUEST. UM, MR. BOARD ATTORNEY OR MS. BOARD ADMINISTRATOR, WOULD YOU HELP CLARIFY A LITTLE BIT HERE? UH, WHAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US IS A REQUEST FOR A FEE WAIVER. UH, THE CRITERIA IS THAT THE APPLICANT, UH, UH, NEEDS TO COMMUNICATE THAT HE HAS, UH, THAT PAYING THE FEE WOULD RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL FINANCIAL HARDSHIP. THE APPLICANT SAID THAT HE WAS HERE BECAUSE OF A PERMITTING ERROR AND SO, AND THAT HE, HE SAID UNDER OATH THAT HE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE OWNER BART POFF TO COME AND REQUEST THIS TODAY. SO CAN WE MOVE FORWARD TO THIS OR TELL ME HOW, TELL ME CLARIFY PLEASE. [00:55:01] SO THE, I'M JUST GONNA READ THE STANDARD AND THEN WE CAN TALK ABOUT IT. SO THE BOARD MAY WAIVE THE FILING FEE IF THE BOARD FINDS PAYMENT OF THE FEE WOULD RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL FINANCIAL HARDSHIP TO THE APPLICANT AND THE, THE, LIKE, THIS IS, THIS IS AGENCY PRINCIPAL LAW 1 0 1. YOU HAVE YOUR PRINCIPAL WHO IS THE PROPERTY OWNER. I FEEL LIKE I'M IN A LAW SCHOOL CLASS NOW. BUT GO AHEAD. YOU HAVE YOUR PRINCIPAL WHO'S THE PROPERTY OWNER WHO HIRES AN AGENT. SO IN THIS CASE, BART SOFF IS THE PROPERTY OWNER WHO'S HIRED SNS OUTDOORS TO BE HIS, UH, REPRESENTATIVE. SO THE APPLICANT IS STILL THE PROPERTY OWNER BART SOFF. SO THE QUESTION FOR THE BOARD IS WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S A SUBSTANTIAL FINANCIAL HARDSHIP TO BART SOFF THE PROPERTY OWNER. THE PROPERTY OWNER BUILT THE HOUSE BASED ON A PERMIT AND IS NOW BEING TOLD BY THE CITY THAT THAT PERMIT WAS IN ERROR. THAT'S WHAT WE, THAT'S WHAT HE SAID. AND THAT'S PART OF WHAT MS. UM, UH, BOARD ADMINISTRATOR SAID AS A RELATES COMPONENT OF THIS PD 67 ISSUE. SO, UM, OOH, SOMEONE'S SQUEAKING. ALRIGHT, SO IS THERE MR. MR. NER? THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN. UH, YES, THAT, THAT WAS MY CONTENTION AS WELL, SO THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING THAT. I DO WANNA BRING UP TO STAFF, HOWEVER, ON THESE, UH, MOTION FORMS, OH, THERE, THERE APPEARS TO BE AN ERROR. YES. UM, IT READS ON APPLICATION OF SNS OUTDOORS, REPRESENTED BY BART SOFF WHEN IT SHOULD READ ON APPLICATION OF BART POFF REPRESENTED BY SNS OUTDOORS, PLEASE SAY YES. YES, THAT IS CORRECT. MR. N OKAY. SO I'M PREPARED TO MAKE A MOTION UNLESS SOMEONE ELSE IS. ALRIGHT. I MOVE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 45 DASH 0 5 2 FFW ONE ON APPLICATION OF BART CLASS COST RE I'M MAKING A MOTION, PLEASE. I, I, I WAS TRYING TO GET YOUR ATTENTION BEFORE YOU STARTED. OH, OKAY. ALL RIGHT. I'LL WAIT. GO AHEAD MR. HOPKOS. I I JUST HAVE ONE QUESTION FOR MR. OCHO. THE PAPERWORK THAT YOU EXECUTED WITH THE HOMEOWNER GIVING YOU AUTHORITY TO BE HERE TODAY FOR HIM, DOES THAT DOCUMENT SPECIFICALLY PROVIDE THAT IF YOU ARE SUCCESSFUL, THAT, THAT, THAT YOU HAVE AGENCY TO COLLECT THAT MONEY DIRECTLY TO YOURSELF? NO. NO. AND I THOUGHT I WAS THE APPLICANT. OKAY. NOTHING FURTHER, MR. CHAIRMAN. OKAY. AND FOR C FOR FOR CLARIFICATION, THERE'S NO COLLECTION. ALL THIS IS WAIVING A TO BE PAID PAY FEE IF AN APPLICATION IS MADE. THAT'S, THAT'S ALL THIS IS. CORRECT. THIS IS A TO BE PAID FEE WAIVER. THAT IS CORRECT. NOT A REIMBURSEMENT. ALRIGHT, I MOVE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 4 5 0 5 2 FW ONE ON APPLICATION OF BART KO'S REPRESENTED BY SNS OUTDOORS. GRANT, THE REQUEST TO WAIVE THE FILING FEES TO BE THE PAID AND ASSOCIATION WITH THE REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE OF ON THE LOT COVERAGE BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND TESTIMONY SHOWS THE PAYMENT OF THE FEE RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL FINANCIAL HARDSHIP TO THE APPLICANT. IT'S BEEN MOVED BY CHAIRMAN NEWMAN. IS THERE A SECOND? I SECOND. IT'S BEEN SECONDED BY MR. FINNEY. I'M MAKING THIS MOTION BECAUSE, UH, THIS APPLICANT WOULDN'T BE HERE TODAY IF IT WASN'T FOR A PERMITTING ERROR BY OUR CITY OF DALLAS, UH, DEPARTMENT. UM, THAT DOES NOT FORECLOSE THE BOARD'S ADJUDICATION OF THE LOT COVERAGE ISSUE THAT JUST SAYS THAT WE'RE NOT GONNA CHARGE SOMEONE FOR TRYING TO COMPLY WHEN THEY ALREADY COMPLIED THE FIRST TIME AROUND. MR. FINNEY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? UM, I THINK YOU MADE IT VERY CLEAR. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION, MR. HOPKOS? YEAH, I WILL NOT BE, I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION. UM, UH, I'M NOT SEEING ANY HARDSHIP BY THE HOMEOWNER BEING DEMONSTRATED AND SO, UM, I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION. THANK YOU, SIR. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION IN THE MOTION? WE WILL CALL FOR A VOTE. UH, THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR BDA 2 4 5 DASH 0 5 2 FW ONE IS TO GRANT THE REQUEST FOR A FEE WAIVER. THE BOARD SECRETARY WILL CALL THE VOTE. MS. DAVIS. AYE. MR. FINNEY? AYE. MR. OVITZ AYE. NAY, MR. N NO, MR. CHAIRMAN? UH, AYE. OKAY. MOTION FAILS IN THE MATTER BDA 2 45 DASH 0 5 2 FW ONE. THE, THE BOARD VOTED THREE TO TWO, BUT OUR RULES REQUIRE A AFFIRMATIVE VOTE OF, OF FOUR OR [01:00:01] FIVE MEMBERS. SO THEREFORE THE MOTION FAILS. UH, IT IS, UM, SO I GUESS IT JUST FAILS IN ITS FACE. CORRECT. DO WE NEED TO MAKE ANOTHER MOTION OR JUST IT BECOMES DENIED? IF THE RULE, IF WE MOVE ON IN THIS MEETING ADJOURNS YOUR RULES WILL CONSTRUE IT AS A MOTION TO DENY WITH PREJUDICE, BUT THE CODE PERMITS SOMEONE TO FILE A FEE, A FEE WAIVER REQUEST, EVEN IF THERE WAS A DE THERE, THERE IS NO TWO YEAR HOLDOUT FOR FEE WAIVER REQUESTS. ALRIGHT, SO THE APPLICANT COULD COME BACK AND ASK FOR A FEE REIMBURSEMENT IF THEY FILED THE CASE OR THEY COULD COME BACK AGAIN WITH A FEE WAIVER. RIGHT. THIS THREE TO TWO FAILURE ON THE MOTION DOES NOT PRECLUDE ANYTHING BEING FILED TOMORROW OR WHATEVER DOESN'T INCLUDE THE TWO YEAR THING? THAT IS CORRECT. OKAY. SO THAT'S FINE. ALRIGHT SIR. UH, UNFORTUNATELY THE BOARD VOTED THREE TO TWO AND THAT'S NOT SUFFICIENT. SO YOUR REQUEST FOR A FEE WAIVER IN ADVANCE HAS BEEN DENIED. THAT DOES NOT PRECLUDE YOU FROM FILING A SEPARATE CASE AND ASKING FOR IT AGAIN OR ASKING FOR A REIMBURSEMENT. UM, THAT'S JUST THE WAY IT VOTED TODAY. THANK YOU SIR. YOU'LL GET A LETTER FROM US FROM OUR BOARD ADMINISTRATOR. THANK YOU. OKAY, THANK YOU. UH, THE NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS GONNA BE UM, 4 3 4 3 TRAVIS STREET. THIS IS BDA 2 4 5 DASH 0 3 9 BDA 2 4 5 DASH 0 3 9 AT 4 3 4 3 TRAVIS STREET. THIS IS A HOLDOVER. HE'S THE APPLICANT HERE. COME FORWARD PLEASE. WE HAVE TO DO THE BRIEFING FIRST. OH GOOD MAN. SO HAVE A SEAT. ALRIGHT, SO HOLD ON A SECOND. UH, 2 4 5 0 3 9. OKAY, THAT'S THIS. ALRIGHT, SO 2 4 5 DASH 0 3 9. UM, UH, MS. BOARD ADMINISTRATOR WHO'S BRIEFING US? MR. BRYANT THOMPSON? OF COURSE. THANK YOU MR. THOMPSON. PROCEED. UH, GOOD AFTERNOON. UH, BDA 2 4 5 DASH 0 3 9 AT 43 43. TRAVIS DEVELOPMENT SERVICE, PRIMARY METRICS OF 47 DAYS. FACILITY MAP IS TO THE RIGHT WITH THE SUBJECT SITE BEING IN THE AREA OF THE YELLOW STAR. IT'S NORTH OF NORTH FITSU, SOUTH OF ARMSTRONG, EAST OF KATY TRAIL AND WEST OF MCKINNEY AVENUE. UH, THE GOOGLE AREA MAP IS TO THE LEFT, UH, OUTLINED IN BLUE. THE ZONING MAP IS TO THE RIGHT. IT IS PD 1 93 WITH THE UNDERLINED ZONING DISTRICT OF MF TWO. THERE WERE A TOTAL OF 101 PROPERTY OWNERS NOTIFIED THREE LETTERS OF OPPOSITION WERE RECEIVED. UH, THE FIRST REQUEST IS A VARIANCE TO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK ALONG OLIVER STREET. UH, THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK IS 10 FEET AND THE VARIANCE REQUEST IS FOR FIVE. THE SECOND REQUEST IS FOR A SIDE YARD SETBACK. UM, AND THE REQUEST IS FOR FIVE FOR VARIANCE. SUBJECT SITE WAS PROPERLY NOTIFIED ALONG TRAVIS AND ALONG OLIVER STREET. UH, THIS IS A PROPOSED SITE PLAN. NOW ARE THE APPLICATION SHOWED THERE WERE UPDATED PLANS? CORRECT. SO THIS IS THE UPDATED VERSION? YES, SIR. OKAY, THANK YOU. AND SO THIS IS THE, UM, UPDATED SITE PLAN AND THEN THIS WILL SHOW THE AREAS OF REQUEST. THOSE, THESE ARE THE CHANGES. ISN'T THAT ORANGE? THAT IS CORRECT. SO THE RED BEING THE AREA THAT'S ENCROACHING INTO THE SETBACK, FOR EXAMPLE, THE GREEN BEING THE SETBACK ALONG THE PERIMETER OF THE, UH, TRAVIS AND THE INTERIOR AND THE RED BEING THE AREA THAT'S, THAT'S ENCROACHING INTO, GO BACK ONE CLICK, MR. THOMPSON AND THAT ENTRANCE EXIT, THERE'S NO ISSUE ON VISIBILITY TRIANGLE AND ALL THAT GOOD STUFF? NO. OKAY. SO THE BUILDING ITSELF IS ACTUALLY THE GRAY, UM, AND THE TIP OF THE GRAY IS AT THE EDGE OF THE RED. SO IT'S, THAT'S THE EDGE OF THE BUILDING. I GUESS I'M LOOKING AT THE ORANGE. IT'S THE GRAY, YES. OKAY. THANK YOU MS. MR. THOMPSON? YES. UH, SO LOOKING AT THE, THE SOUTHERN, UH, PROPERTY BOUNDARY, UH, YOU HAVE, YOU HAVE THE RED, UM, AND THEN IT KIND OF STOPS AND THEN [01:05:01] THERE'S GREEN. UM, BUT IT'S CLEAR THAT THE BUILDING IS PROJECTING INTO ALL OF THE GREEN. UM, SO I'M JUST CURIOUS, IS THAT AN ERROR, A GRAPHIC ERROR OR NO. SO, UM, 10 FEET BEING THE REQUIRED SETBACK, THAT 10 FEET RUNS THE ENTIRE DISTANCE. THE ACTUAL BUILDING ITSELF STOPS FIVE FEET SHORT OF THE ACTUAL PROPERTY LINE. SO THIS, MAYBE THIS WILL HELP OUT. WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO IS THIS ENTIRE 10 FEET HERE. MM-HMM . THIS, THIS GRAY, YOU STILL HAVE THE 10 FEET. SO IT'S STILL ENCROACHES FIVE FEET INTO THE BUILDING ITSELF. OKAY. I'M JUST CONFUSED AS TO WHAT THE RED REPRESENTS. SO THE RED REPRESENTS THE FIVE FEET THAT THEY'RE ACTUALLY ONLY PROVIDING. SO THEY'RE ONLY PROVIDING FIVE FEET HERE, NOT 10 FEET, WHICH WILL BE GREEN, WHICH MEAN THEY WILL BE ALL THE WAY GOOD. UH, AND THE SAME THING UP FRONT. SO THEY'RE PROVIDING 10 FEET AS OPPOSED TO THE FULL 15. OKAY. OKAY. OKAY. THANK YOU. SO IT'S FIVE AND FIVE. FIVE FOOT VARIES. YES. ON BOTH. YES. WHEREAS THE PREVIOUS REQUEST WAS FIVE AND ZERO. FIVE AND ZERO, SORRY, FIVE AND 10 BECAUSE THEY PROVIDED, CORRECT? YES. SO PREVIOUSLY THEY, IT WAS FIVE AND 10 AND NOW IT'S FIVE AND ZERO. AS FAR AS THE, THE ACTUAL, THE, I APOLOGIZE. YOU SAY IT WHAT PREVIOUSLY IT WAS FIVE AND 10. OF SETBACK OR OF? OF VARIANCE. OF VARIANCE. OKAY. FIVE FEET ALONG OLIVER? YES. WHICH IS ZERO IS THE TOP. ZERO ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE, WHICH SEPARATED. YES. AND THAT WAS OUR PUSHBACK LAST MONTH. THE BOTTOM PUSH. NOW IT IS. YES. AND SO THE PUSHBACK WAS ALONG THE INTERIOR PROPERTY LINE AND THEY WENT TO FIVE FEET. OKAY. UH, FIRST FLOOR, SECOND LEVEL, THIRD LEVEL ELEVATIONS. EAST NORTH ELEVATION, SOUTH ELEVATION AND WEST ELEVATION. UH, LOOKING AT THE SUBJECT SITE FROM TRAVIS, LOOKING NORTH, NORTHEAST, EAST, SOUTHEAST, SOUTH, SOUTHWEST AND WEST. AND THEN LOOKING FROM OLIVER, LOOKING WEST, NORTHWEST NORTH, NORTHEAST EAST, AND FINALLY SOUTHEAST. WOULD YOU LIKE TO VIDEO AGAIN OR MS. HOLD UP, MS. DAVIS HAS A QUESTION. COULD, COULD YOU GO BACK TO SHOWING THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING? I'M TRYING TO SEE, UH, IN, IN FRONT OF THOSE BUILDINGS, I'M TRYING TO SEE THE SURROUNDING BUILDINGS AND HOW FAR THEY COME FORWARD COMPARED TO THIS BUILDING. THE FRONT FROM OLIVER OR THE FRONT FROM TRAVIS, THE FRONT FROM WHATEVER THE, THE FRONT LINE IS THAT FRONT STREET. SO THERE ARE TWO STREETS. SO THERE'S OLIVER STREET AND THERE'S TRAVIS STREET. SO THIS IS FROM OLIVER STREET LOOKING THIS ONE. OKAY. YEP. IS THERE ANY WAY TO SEE THE PROPERTIES ON EITHER SIDE OF IT? OKAY. SO THERE'S ONE WHICH SEEMS FURTHER FORWARD. SO THIS ONE, I CAN'T, CAN YOU, WERE YOU ABLE TO TELL THAT LITTLE HOUSE, IS THAT IN LINE WITH WHERE THIS PROPERTY CURRENTLY IS OR IS IT A LITTLE BIT FURTHER FORWARD? UH, SO THE APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION KIND OF OKAY. DOES ADDRESSES THAT. YES, IT DOES ADDRESS WHAT'S GOING ON ALONG OLIVER. OKAY. ALONG THAT CORRIDOR. AND WOULD YOU LIKE TO WATCH THE VIDEO AGAIN? OH, ABSOLUTELY. TWO OF THE PANEL MEMBERS WERE NOT HERE LAST MONTH, SO, SO YES, PLEASE. FULL BLOWN. SO THIS IS THE BACKSIDE OF THE PROPERTY [01:10:01] AND I'LL NOTIFY YOU ONCE WE ARE YEAH, THIS IS THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THAT'S NOT IT. WE'LL, MAKING A RIDE ON TRAVIS. AND IN THIS VIDEO, ONCE WE GET TO TRAVIS AND OLIVER, IT MAY HELP, UH, THE PROPERTY'S GONNA BE TO LOOK DOWN BOTH LEFT, I THINK, TO ASK YOU A QUESTION, MS. DAVIS. AND IT'S TWO BUILDINGS, A LONG NARROW ONE AND THEN A SQUARE ONE. SO SUBJECT SIDE IS COMING UP ON THE RIGHT. OH, IT'S ON THE RIGHT. THE OTHER SIDE. OKAY. I'M SORRY. SO THIS IS OUR SUBJECT SITE THERE. IT'S TWO AND IT'S TWO SEPARATE BUILDINGS, CURRENTLY. TWO SEPARATE BUILDINGS. TWO SEPARATE BUILDINGS, YEAH, THE CORNER ONE. AND THEN, OKAY, YOU'RE GOING STRAIGHT HERE? YES, WE'RE GOING STRAIGHT, BUT JUST TO KIND OF, THIS IS KIND OF LIKE THE QUESTION I THINK THAT SHE WAS ASKING, LOOKING DOWN OLIVER. SO THAT KIND OF ANSWERS THE QUESTIONS ABOUT PROXIMITY. DID THAT HELP ANY, SO THIS BUILDING AND THIS, BUT THEY'RE GONNA BUILD THAT TO THE FRONT BUILDING LINE, AREN'T THEY? SO BOTH OF THESE BUILDINGS WILL BE REMOVED, DEMOLISHED. THE STRUCTURE THAT IT WOULD BE NEXT TO IS HERE. SO THEY WANNA PROVIDE A FIVE FOOT SETBACK ALONG THIS EDGE. MS. DAVIS, CAN YOU TELL WHAT THE SETBACK IS ON THAT HOUSE TO THE LEFT? IT LOOKS LIKE MORE THAN FIVE FEET. UM, THIS ONE RIGHT HERE. I, I THINK THE APPLICANT, THEY PROVIDED THAT THERE IS A FIVE FOOT SETBACK ALONG, WHICH IS HOW THEY CAME UP WITH THE FIVE FOOT FOR THE PROPOSAL HERE. OH, AND ARE THEY PUTTING THE, THE F THE, THE PROP, THE NEW PROPERTY TO THE BUILDING LINE? NO, ALONG TRAVIS. ALONG TRAVIS. IT'LL BE 15 FEET. YES. 15 FEET. OKAY. AND THEN WE WILL SEE THE PROPERTY ONE MORE TIME. AND AGAIN, MS. DAVIS, THIS IS OLIVER AND TRAVIS. SO THIS IS THE AREA THAT YOU WAS ASKING LIKE HOW CLOSE THIS IS THE, UH, SUBJECT SITE HERE. AND THAT CONCLUDES THE VIDEO. SO VARIANCE, UH, I'M SORRY. STANDARD SET REVIEW FOR DECISION MAKING. SO THE VARIANCE ALONG THE FRONT YARD, WHICH IS ALONG OLIVER, UH, STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS DENIAL. UM, THERE WERE THREE LETTERS OF OPPOSITION RECEIVED. UH, THE SUBJECT SITE DOES NOT DIFFER FROM OTHER PARCEL OF LAND. UM, IT IS ACTUALLY COMBINING LOTS 22, 23, AND 24 INTO LOTS 22 A, UH, UNDER CITY PLAN FILE S 2 45 DASH 0 71. UH, THEREFORE IT CAN BE DEVELOPED IN A MANNER OF COMMENS WITH OTHER, UPON OTHER PARTS OF THE LAND IN THE SAME ZONING. UM, AND IT'S NOT A SELF-CREATED OR PERSONAL HARDSHIP BECAUSE AT THAT POINT IT'LL BE A VACANT LOT, UH, VARIES FOR THE SIDE YARD. UM, AND AGAIN, UH, CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST AS TO LEVELS OF OUR OPPOSITION WILL RECEIVE THREE TOTAL. UM, AND THEN THE SUBJECT SITE AGAIN IS BEING REPLANTED FROM LOTS 22, 23, AND 24 INTO LOTS 22 A. THAT CONCLUDES BDA 2 4 5 DASH 0 3 9. QUESTIONS FOR THE STAFF REGARDING BDA 2 4 5 0 3 9. THAT'S [01:15:01] THE BRIEFING PORTION. OKAY. DO YOU QUESTIONS FOR THE STAFF? I, I DO. UM, SO, UM, THIS SAME CASE WAS PRESENTED LAST, THE LAST HEARING. SO, UH, HOW MUCH OF THE INFORMATION THAT YOU PRESENTED TODAY HAS CHANGED? OR IS THAT IN TERMS OF LIKE LETTERS OF OPPOSITION? SO ONE NEW LETTER OF OPPOSITION WE RECEIVED. OKAY. ZERO LETTERS OF SUPPORT STILL. UH, SO BEFORE IT WAS TWO LETTERS OF OPPOSITION. NOW ONE MORE. UM, THE APPLICANT DID REVISE THE PLANS BASED ON, UM, UH, COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD, UM, WHICH IS WHAT YOU WILL SEE, WHICH, WHAT YOU SAW IN THIS PRESENTATION. MM-HMM . UM, SO THE REDUCTION FROM ZERO TO FIVE FEET OR THE INCREASE FROM ZERO TO FIVE FEET WAS BASED ON COMMENTS MADE FROM THE BOARD. OKAY. UM, I GUESS I'M ASKING BECAUSE I REMEMBER ONE PERSON WHO WAS OPPOSED TO THE PROJECT, CAME TO THE HEARING LAST MONTH AND RESCINDED HER OPPOSITION. SO IS THE THREE EXCLUDING THAT PERSON OR I DON'T KNOW. UM, NO. SO THE THREE WERE BASED ON THE, THOSE TWO THAT WE ORIGINALLY RECEIVED AND THEN ONE NEW ONE, SO. OKAY. ALRIGHT. SO YOU WAS ASKING WAS THERE FOUR AND THEN NOW IT'S DOWN TO THREE, RIGHT? YEAH. OKAY. THANK YOU MR. FINNEY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? OKAY, WE'LL THAT COMPLETES THE, THE BRIEFING PORTION. NOW WE'LL GO TO THE PUBLIC HEARING PORTION FOR BDA 2 4 5 DASH 3 0 3 9, BDA 2 4 5 0 3 9. UH, AT FOUR THREE FOURTH U TRAVIS STREET IS THE APPLICANT HERE? ONE SECOND. ONE SECOND. IS THE APPLICANT HERE? YES. COME FORWARD. ALRIGHT. SO IS THIS, HOLD ON ONE SECOND. THE NEW PLANS, IT'S UH, OVER FIVE PAGES. OKAY. ALRIGHT. SO, UH, CONSISTENT WITH OUR RULES, IF WE ARE TO TAKE SOMETHING, IS THIS CORRECT MR. DANIEL, IF WE TAKE SOMETHING HERE, WE HAVE TO GET A WAIVER TO ACCEPT THIS, DON'T WE? FIVE? YES. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. ALRIGHT, SO, UM, BEFORE WE LOOK AT THIS, WAIT GUYS, BEFORE WE LOOK AT THIS, LET'S GET THE APPLICANT TO GIVE HIS NAME AND ADDRESS AND SWEAR IN YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS PLEASE. MY NAME IS MARK. GO AHEAD AND TURN THAT ON PLEASE. CAN YOU TURN ON THE MICROPHONE PLEASE? MY NAME IS MARK JIM BROWNY, JUST, JUST LEAVE IT ON, JUST PUSH IT ONCE AND LEAVE IT ON 36 10 EDGEWATER STREET, DALLAS. 7 5 2 0 5. ALRIGHT, MS. MARY. OKAY. UH, DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? YES, I DO. OKAY. OKAY. VERY GOOD. NOW PLEASE PROCEED. ALRIGHT. HE, THE APPLICANT HAS GIVEN THE BOARD SECRETARY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OTHER THAN WAS SUBMITTED. OUR RULES OF PROCEDURE ARE SUCH THAT IN ORDER FOR US TO ACCEPT THINGS THAT ARE MORE THAN FIVE PAGES, WE HAVE TO HAVE A WAIVER TO ACCEPT THE INFORMATION. IS THAT CORRECT, MR. BOARD ATTORNEY? I JUST WANT TO READ THAT CORRECTLY. UH, IT, IT'S, IT'S NOT A WAIVER, IT'S A SUSPENSION OF THE RULE. OKAY. I MOVE TO SUSPEND THE RULES TO ALLOW FOR THE APPLICANT TO GIVE US THE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. IS THERE A SECOND? I SECOND. IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED. UM, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. THOSE OPPOSED? IT IS PROOF. ALRIGHT, WE SUSPENDED OUR RULES TO TAKE THE INFORMATION. NOW YOU MAY PROCEED. ALRIGHT, BEFORE YOU PROCEED, MS. UH, BOARD SECRETARY, UH, HOW MANY SPEAKERS DO WE HAVE IN FAVOR AND AGAINST? WE HAVE HIS REPRESENTATIVE ONLINE. AND SO JUST ONE, THE, THE PERSON HERE PLUS ONE ONLINE IN FAVOR? CORRECT. AND DO WE HAVE ANY IN OPPOSITION? NO OPPOSITION. OKAY. ALRIGHT, NOW YOU MAY PROCEED AND TAKE WHATEVER REASONABLE TIME IT IS TO PRESENT. I WOULD ADVISE YOU TO START FROM SCRATCH. OKAY. THANK YOU. ASSUME WE KNOW NOTHING. THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON. UH, MY ARCHITECT BRIAN COURT IS ALSO ONLINE. THAT'S WHO'S ONLINE. JUST SO YOU GUYS KNOW, UM, I WOULD LIKE TO MENTION THAT THAT'S CORRECT. THERE WERE THREE LETTERS OF OPPOSITION LAST TIME. UM, BRIAN AND I MET WITH THOSE THREE PEOPLE WHO HAD OPPOSITION. THEY WERE SPECIFICALLY IN OPPOSITION OF THE ZERO SETBACK GOING TO FIVE FEET SETBACK, WHICH WE MADE THAT ADJUSTMENT AFTER TALKING TO THEM. AND, AND THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT TO THE SOUTH OF THE PROPERTY TO THE IS SAID SOUTH, CORRECT? YES. YES. TO THE SOUTH, TO THE SOUTH OF THE PROPERTY. UM, AND AS, UM, CHAIRMAN FINNERY FINNEY SAID, MR. FINNEY, THANK YOU. I'M NOT SURE HOW TO ADDRESS YOU MR. FINNEY. UM, ONE OF OUR OPPOSITION LETTERS ACTUALLY CAME AND SPOKE IN SUPPORT AFTER WE MET WITH THEM HOW SHE WAS THEN IN SUPPORT. AND, AND ACTUALLY IF YOU REMEMBER EVEN AFTER, ARE YOU SURE YOU'RE IN OPPOSITION, YOU'RE IN SUPPORT BECAUSE IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU'RE IN SUPPORT. AND SHE SAID, I'M IN SUPPORT NOW AFTER MEETING WITH THE APPLICANT. UM, AND THEN THE OTHER QUESTION IS JUST MAKING ONE OF THIS, ONE OF THE, IT'S ON A CORNER, SO WE JUST WANNA MAKE ONE THE SIDE YARD AND ONE THE FRONT [01:20:01] YARD. THE FRONT YARD IS CLEARLY ON TRAVIS THE SIDE YARD, WHICH IS SHOWN HERE. SO THE VERY FIRST THING THAT I'D JUST LIKE TO TALK ABOUT TO START FROM, SINCE WE'RE STARTING FROM SCRATCHES, IF YOU LOOK DOWN OLIVER STREET, THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE SETBACKS ARE 10 FEET. AND SO WE ARE JUST SIMPLY SUGGESTING THAT THAT BECOMES OLIVER OR TRAVIS IS 10 FEET OLIVER. SO TRAVIS IS THE MAIN STREET IN OUR MIND. YES. TRAVIS HAS A 15 FOOT SETBACK. WE WANT TO JUST USE THAT AS THE FRONT, FRONT SETBACK AND, AND GO BY. RIGHT. 15 TWO. SO YOU'RE NOT MAKING ANY REQUEST ALONG TRAVIS. CORRECT. NO REQUEST WHATSOEVER. HOWEVER, SINCE IT'S ON A CORNER AND THERE TECHNICALLY ARE TWO FRONT YARDS, WE DO WANNA MAKE A REQUEST TO MAKE ONE THE SIDE YARD. THAT WOULD BE ON OLIVER STREET. IF YOU LOOK UP AND DOWN OLIVER STREET, UH, BASED ON THIS SHADED PORTION, THAT SHADED PORTION IS A 10 FOOT SETBACK. YOU CAN SEE THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE BUILDINGS ARE A 10 FOOT SETBACK ALONG OLIVER. AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE SUGGESTING THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO USE THAT SAME SORT OF STANDARD FOR THAT STREET UP AND DOWN. NOW KEEP IN MIND THAT STREET'S ONLY ABOUT FOUR FEET, FOUR BLOCKS LONG. 'CAUSE IT ENDS AT THE CAGE TRAIL AND IT ENDS AT 75 TO THE EAST AND TO THE WEST. SO THIS IS THE, THIS IS IT IN TERMS OF OLIVER STREET. AND SO WHEN YOU CAN SEE MOST OF THE BUILDINGS ARE AT 10 FEET, THAT'S WHY WE'RE ALSO, UM, SUGGESTING THAT 10 FEET MAKES SENSE TO BE THE SIDE YARD ON THIS PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT. AND THEN THE FIVE YARD, UH, THE FIVE FOOT SETBACK ON THE SOUTH SIDE THAT WE HAD JUST TALKED ABOUT, THE TOWN HOME COMPLEXES ALONG THAT STREET HAVE THAT FIVE FOOT SETBACK. AND, UM, THE NEIGHBORS AGREED THAT FIVE FOOT SETBACK MAKES SENSE. YOU ACTUALLY ASKED THE QUESTION, UM, MS. DAVIS, IF I CAN ADJUST YOU THAT WAY, THAT, UM, DID THE, DID THE NEIGHBOR ALSO HAVE A FIVE FOOT SETBACK? THE ANSWER IS YES. THAT PROPERTY ALSO HAS A FIVE FOOT SETBACK. SO THAT'S, WE'RE JUST TRYING TO STANDARDIZE SORT OF THAT FIVE FOOT SETBACK AND STANDARDIZE THE SARD YARD ON OLIVER TO BE A 10 FOOT SETBACK. AND, UM, I THINK THOSE LETTERS OF OPPOSITION CAME IN JUST WITH, WITH REALLY A MISUNDERSTANDING OF, OF WHAT WE WERE DOING. AND YOU KNOW, WHEN THOSE SIGNS GO UP, THEY DON'T EXPLAIN WHAT'S GOING ON. IT JUST SAYS WE'RE APPLYING FOR A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. AND WHEN WE MET WITH THE PEOPLE AND THEY REALIZED THESE WERE TOWN HOMES, WHICH THEY WERE HAPPY, WE WEREN'T ASKING FOR HEIGHT VARIANCE AND THAT WE ARE GOING IN LINE WITH YOUR NEIGHBOR. SO YOU'RE SAYING THESE LETTERS OF OPPOSITION HAVE BEEN WITHDRAWN. WHAT, WHAT DID THEY COMMUNICATE TO YOU WHEN YOU VISITED WITH THEM? THAT'S WHAT THEY COMMUNICATED TO ME. I'M NOT SUGGESTING THAT THEY WERE WITHDRAWN. OKAY. I AM SUGGESTING THEY WERE PUT IN BEFORE WE TALKED TO 'EM AND AFTER WE TALKED TO 'EM, ONE OF THOSE THREE REPRESENTATIVES ACTUALLY CAME IN SUPPORT OF OUR MEETING LAST MONTH. YEAH. THESE ARE DATED MARCH 12TH, MARCH 17TH, AND FEBRUARY 23RD. YEAH, THAT MAKES SENSE. AND I BELIEVE I'D LIKE TO CONCLUDE MY PRESENTATION THERE. UM, OKAY. IF THAT'S OKAY. SO, BUT I'M GONNA HAVE YOU WALK THROUGH THIS. SURE. SO THE FIRST PAGE THAT YOU'VE GIVEN US YES. IS BASICALLY WHAT I CALL BLACKFACE CONTINUITY. IF YOU LOOK ALL THE WAY OLIVER STREET AND OLIVER STREET, DOES THAT GO EAST, WEST? YES. YES IT DOES. OH, EAST, WEST. UM, UH, AND SO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING THERE IS YOU'RE RESPECTING THE BLOCK FACE CONTINUITY ALL ALONG, OLIVER. IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO? YES. OKAY. AND, UM, I DIDN'T WANNA CUT OFF YOUR PRESENTATION, BUT I HAVE QUE I HAVE QUESTIONS. SO, UM, ARE YOU CONFIDENT AS THE DEVELOPER THAT THE TURN IN AND TURNOUT FROM YOUR PROPOSED PROPERTY ONTO OLIVER IS NOT GONNA CREATE A PROBLEM? YES. OKAY. THAT'S A LOT OF DENSITY OF PEOPLE IN THAT AREA. NOW, THE SAME TOKEN THAT SEEMED TO BE VERY CHARACTERISTIC OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. OKAY. NEXT PAGE. I'M GOING TO THE SECOND PAGE THAT YOU PROVIDED US. OKAY. UM, AND THESE ARE REVISED PLANS, CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. BASED ON WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT LAST TIME. ALRIGHT, SO MY, WHERE MY EYE IS GOING TO IS THE BOTTOM WHERE IT SHOWS FIVE FOOT SETBACK ADJACENT TO WHERE IT SAYS PROPOSED TOWN HOMES. THREE STORIES. YES. SO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THAT YOU'RE PROVIDING A FIVE FOOT SETBACK FROM THE PROPERTY LINE? YES. BY CODE IT REQUIRES 10. YOU ORIGINALLY GOING ZERO SETBACK, NOW YOU'RE TO FIVE. YES. OKAY. NOW, UH, TO DEAL WITH THE PROPERTY LINE AND THE SETBACK ON OLIVER, IT'S 10 AT THE TOP TO THE NORTH? YES. OKAY. AND BUT YOU'RE HONORING THE BUILD LINE ALONG TRAVIS. YES. NOT 15 FEET. YEP. WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH OTHER PROPERTIES ALONG TRAVIS. YES. IT'S A LOT OF DENSITY. IT'S A LOT. A LOT. OKAY. I THINK THOSE ARE MY QUESTIONS. MS. DAVIS HAS QUESTIONS. I JUST WANNA CONFIRM THAT YOU'RE NOT GOING IN, IN INTO ANY OF THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLES. THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY, THANK YOU. SO OUR CRITERIA IS NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST. UH, THE [01:25:01] LOT BEING, UM, NECESSARY TO DEVELOP SOMETHING HAVING RESTRICTIVE SHAPE AREA OR SLOPE, UH, OR THE, THE, THE, UM, ELEMENT TWO SUBSTITUTE AS IT RELATES TO 50% OF THE PRAISED VALUE. AND THE THIRD IS NOT TO GRANT, NOT GRANTED TO RELIEF, SELF-CREATED OR PERSONAL HARDSHIP. NOW, THE LOTS RESTRICTIVE AREA, SHAPE, OR SLOPE WOULD APPLY FOR THE TWO FRONT YARD SETBACKS ON DAVIS. EXCUSE ME, ON TRAVIS AND OLIVER, WHAT ABOUT THE ISSUE OF NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST? YOU NEED TO TESTIFY TO US YES. HOW IT'S NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST, NOT CONTRARY TO GOOD LUCK PUBLIC INTEREST, NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC'S INTEREST. UM, I'M NOT LEADING THE WITNESS, I'M JUST SAYING I'M READING OUR CRITERIA. OKAY. UM, MAYBE THIS IS NOT, I KNOW IT SOUNDS LIKE A DOUBLE NEGATIVE, BUT THAT'S WHAT THE CODE SAYS. MAYBE THIS IS NOT ANSWERING THE QUESTION APPROPRIATELY, BUT I'LL TRY. UM, ON THESE TWO PROPERTIES AT THE MOMENT, THERE ARE 16, 21, 22 UNITS ON THIS PROPERTY CURRENTLY, THEY'RE BOTH RENTALS. THEY'RE ALL RENTALS AT THE MOMENT. UM, AND THEY'RE OLD, YOU KNOW, BUILDINGS THAT ARE NOT VERY ATTRACTIVE FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD. CLEARLY THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS IMPROVING SIGNIFICANTLY. SO WHAT WHAT I'M SUGGESTING IS WE'RE TAKING 20, WHAT DID I SAY HOW SORRY, 16 5, 22 OLD KIND OF BROKEN DOWN UNITS THAT ARE RENTAL AND WE'RE TURNING 'EM INTO 14 VERY ATTRACTIVE FOR SALE UNITS. UM, THEREFORE I THINK WE'RE IMPROVING THE NEIGHBORHOOD SUBSTANTIALLY RELATIVE TO WHERE IT IS CURRENTLY. THAT'S WHY IT'S NOT, UH, A PROBLEM FOR THE NEIGHBOR. DID THAT ANSWER THE QUESTION APPROPRIATELY? IN YOUR MIND? NOT LEADING THE WITNESS, BUT THEREFORE IT'S NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST. CORRECT. THEREFORE, IT'S NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST. QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? I HAVE A QUESTION, MR. FINNEY? YES. UM, MR. JIMBO, UM, SO THE, THE OTHER TWO, UH, LETTERS OF OPPOSITION, HAVE YOU HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO REACH OUT TO THOSE PEOPLE, THOSE NEIGHBORS SINCE THE LAST HEARING? NO, NOT SINCE THE LAST HEARING. SO I WILL SAY THAT WHEN I CAME THE LAST TIME, THERE WERE THREE LETTERS OF OPPOSITION AND I MET WITH ALL THREE OF THOSE PEOPLE. UM, ONE OF WHICH THEN CAME IN FAVOR OF IT. UM, I, I WAS NOT AWARE UNTIL I JUST SHOWED UP THIS MORNING HERE THAT THERE WAS A FOURTH LETTER OF OPPOSITION. AND SO I MET WITH THREE OUT OF THE FOUR. I MET WITH THEM PRIOR TO THE LAST HEARING. UM, I DIDN'T MEET WITH THE NEW ONE 'CAUSE I WASN'T AWARE OF THE NEW, UM, LETTER UNFORTUNATELY. OKAY. AND, UM, WHAT WAS THE RESULT OF YOUR MEETING WITH THEM? OBVIOUSLY ONE OF THEM RESCINDED HER OPPOSITION, BUT YES. WHAT ABOUT THE OTHER TWO? WHAT WERE THEIR HANGUPS? SO THE OTHER TWO ALSO WERE VERY PLEASED, I BELIEVE, UH, WITH WHAT WE TOLD THEM. AND SO MUCH SO THAT THEY DIDN'T SHOW UP IN OPPOSITION NEITHER BY VIDEO LAST TIME OR IN PERSON. SO I THINK WE HAD SATISFIED THEIR CONCERNS AND THEN I FELT, I THOUGHT IT WAS VERY FORTUNATE THAT THEY PICKED ONE OF THE THREE BASICALLY TO COME AS THEIR REPRESENTATIVE. AGAIN, I DON'T WANNA PUT WORDS IN THEIR MOUTH, BUT THAT WAS MY, THAT WAS MY BELIEF. OKAY. OKAY. AND, UM, JUST FOR MATTER OF RECORD, UM, CAN YOU PLEASE CONFIRM THAT THE, ON THE PLAN, THERE'S A, THERE'S A WALL THAT APPEARS TO STICK OUT INTO THE SETBACK. CAN YOU PLEASE CONFIRM THAT THAT IS IN FACT LIKE A LANDSCAPE, LIKE RETAINING WALL? UH, NOT AN ACTUAL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE WALL ON THE OLIVER STREET PORTION? YES. YES. THE NORTH NORTHERN PORTION. THIS OR IT SAYS EXTERIOR FRONT YARD. IS THAT WHAT YOU YES, YES, YES. UM, CAN, CAN I REFER TO BRIAN, UH, COURT, WHO IS MY ARCHITECT HERE BECAUSE WE HAVE FOLLOWED ALL THE RULES THAT ARE APPROPRIATE FOR WHAT WE'RE DOING IN WITH THOSE SETBACKS. I DO THINK THERE'S A LITTLE WALL THERE. YOU'RE RIGHT. UM, AND BRIAN, MAYBE YOU CAN ADDRESS WHY THAT'S OKAY FOR US TO HAVE THAT WALL THERE. YEAH, AND WE ARE, WE'RE COMPLYING WITH, HOLD ON A SECOND. OOPS. SORRY. IF YOU'RE, IF HE HAS HE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK. OKAY. SO BEFORE, BUT HE HASN'T BEEN SWORN IN THOUGH. WHAT'S THAT? BUT HE HASN'T BEEN SWORN IN. THAT'S PRECISELY IT. YOU COULD ALMOST BE A BOARD SECRETARY . UH, BUT WE LOVE MARY TOO MUCH, SO HER JOB'S NOT OPEN. ALRIGHT. MS. BOARD SECRETARY, WOULD YOU SWEAR IN THE OTHER GENTLEMAN? YEAH. MR. BRIAN COURT. DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? YES, I DO. OKAY. NOW HE CAN GIVE US HIS NAME AND ADDRESS AND SPEAK. BRIAN COURT. MY ADDRESS IS 71 COLUMBIA STREET, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON, 9 8 1 4 4. WOW. YOU'RE, YOU'RE DIALING IN FROM WASHINGTON? YES, SIR. AS IN SEATTLE? THAT'S CORRECT. AS IN RAINY AND CLOUDY. [01:30:01] NO, IT'S BEAUTIFUL AND SUNNY TODAY. GOOD. GLAD TO HEAR IT. OKAY, . ALRIGHT, PROCEED SIR. UH, THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION IS YES, THOSE ARE FENCE HEIGHT WALLS. UM, WE CAN BUILD WITH CONCRETE BLOCK, GROUND FACE BLOCK. SO THE FINAL MATERIALS HAVEN'T BEEN DETERMINED YET, BUT WE'RE STAYING WITHIN, UH, THE ZONING CODE STIPULATION ON FENCE HEIGHT. THANK YOU. NOW THAT DOESN'T BOTHER YOU THAT IT'S FENCE HEIGHT WALLS MR. FINNEY? NO, BECAUSE IT DOES NOT OBSTRUCT THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLES. OKAY. SO, OKAY. OKAY. ALRIGHT. DID MR. UM, NO, THE OTHER, THE OTHER GENTLEMAN THAT JUST SPOKE, DID YOU WANT TORK SAY ANYTHING ELSE, MR. CORK? OR YOU JUST WANTED TO ANSWER HIS QUESTION? UNLESS ANOTHER QUESTION? I'M SORRY. THAT'S IT. NOPE, I'M JUST ANSWERING QUESTIONS. OKAY, VERY GOOD. OKAY, SO I'M GONNA KEEP FLIPPING THE PAGES HERE. UM, SO YOU CHANGED THE BOTTOM TO GIVE US FIVE FOOT SETBACK NEXT TO YOUR NEIGHBOR. YOU'RE HONORING THE SET, THE SETBACK AGAINST TRAVIS. YOU'RE HONORING THE SETBACK ALONG OLIVER. UM, THIS IS THREE STORIES, PARKING ON THE FIRST FLOOR AND THEN SECOND, THIRD, RIGHT? YES. AND WHAT IS THIS? EDUCATE ME AGAIN, I FORGOT. WHAT'S THIS, THIS COURT CALLED, IS THAT A SHARED DRIVEWAY? WHAT'S THE TERM? WHAT'S THE ZONING TERM? DO, DO YOU KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT, BRIAN? THAT A SHARED, SHARED DRIVEWAY IS WHAT WE'VE BEEN CALLING IT. IT'S CALLED A SHARED DRIVEWAY. IS THAT WHAT THE CITY OF DALLAS CALLS IT? WHAT DO YOU, WHAT DO YOU CALL THAT? A SHARED DRIVEWAY. SHARED EASEMENT. SHARED DRIVEWAY. OKAY. AND THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH OUR RULES TO HAVE THIS NARROW OF A SHARED DRIVEWAY? WELL, UH, IS THAT A QUESTION FOR DIANA OR FOR DAVID N UH, NAVAREZ OR HE'S NOT HERE? I'M JUST, I MEAN, IT, I'M ASSUMING IT WOULD NEVER PASS PERMITTING. UH, THAT WAS A FREUDIAN SLIP. UM, UH, IT JUST LOOKS NARROW AND ALL THAT. YEAH. SO, BUT IT SEEMS TO BE CON DIS CONSISTENT WITH THIS AREA IF YOU, IF YOU DON'T MIND ME SAYING SO YES, IT'S VERY CONSISTENT. ALL TOWN HOME PROJECTS I'VE SEEN HAVE THAT PARTICULAR, UH, ISSUE ALL THOSE A DANGEROUS TERM. MOST, MOST THAT I HAVE SEEN ALSO, MOST THAT I HAVE SEEN HAVE 20 FEET AS THIS DRIVEWAY. AND WE PROVIDED 24 FEET TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CAN BACK AND FORTH. OKAY. MY ABLE BOARD ATTORNEY EMERITUS SAID OUR RULE 20. YOU DID 24. SO THAT'S A CHECK MARK. OKAY. I'M JUST FLIPPING YOUR PAGE TO THESE, THESE ARE NICE DRAWINGS. UM, WE CAN'T EXPECT THIS FOR EVERY CASE, BUT THIS IS A NICE SET OF ELEVATION, OTHERWISE. OKAY, I'M DONE WITH MY QUESTION. MR. N HAS QUESTIONS. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. UM, YOU STATED THE, THE SHARED DRIVER WILL HAVE A 24 FOOT WIDTH, IS THAT CORRECT? YES. UH, QUESTION FOR STAFF. WHAT DOES THE DALLAS FIRE DEPARTMENT REQUIRE? 'CAUSE THAT WAS, THAT WAS MY CONCERN. THE EGRESS AND STUFF OF THE FIRE DEPARTMENT IN AND OUT HERE. I THINK MR. NAVARRE IS ABOUT TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION. EXCUSE ME, SIR, GO AHEAD. UM, NAME AND DEPARTMENT BOARD BOARD MEMBERS DAVID NAVARRE, TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. I APOLOGIZE, I STEPPED OUT. YOU'RE FINE. TAKING A PHONE CALL. BUT I UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION IS RELATED TO THE SIZE AND DIMENSIONS OF SHARED ACCESS EASEMENTS. THAT'S WHAT IT'S CALLED. SHARED? YES. THAT DRIVEWAY? NO, IT'S NOT A SHARED ACCESS E IT'S THE DRIVEWAY BETWEEN THE TOWN HOMES. AND SO THIS IS A MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT, MULTI-FAMILY? YES. NO, WELL, IT SAYS MULTI-FAMILY RE RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE. WHICH TOWN HOMES, YOU'RE RIGHT. IF THEY'RE TOWN HOMES, THEN THERE'S A STREET, A PUBLIC STREET PROVIDING ACCESS TO THEM. IT'S EITHER MULTI-FAMILY SHARED ACCESS OR, OR SINGLE FAMILY. IT'S, IT'S MULTIFAMILY. YES. OKAY, THANK YOU. AND THEREFORE, THIS IS MULTIFAMILY. THERE'S ONE DRIVEWAY AND, UM, 14 UNITS. CORRECT? SEVEN AND SEVEN. OKAY. 14 UNITS. SEVEN BY SEVEN. UH, OR SEVEN AND SEVEN. UH, THE, THE, THE LENGTH WOULD BE NO LESS THAN, NO MORE THAN 150 FEET AND THEREFORE THERE WOULD NOT BE A NEED FOR A FIRE LANE. THE ISSUE WAS WIDTH. THERE WOULD NOT BE A A, A FIRE LANE WIDTH REQUIRED, BUT THEY, BUT THEY'RE PROVIDING 24. THE QUESTION MR. NER HAD IS, WHAT IS THE MINIMUM WIDTH? 20 FEET WOULD BE THE MINIMUM, UH, AISLE WIDTH IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE. WHAT I WOULD ASSUME, AND I'M SORRY, I'M NOT LOOKING AT THE, THE DESIGN, BUT IF WE HAVE GARAGE ENTRANCES FOR EACH OF THESE TOWN HOMES, PRECISE PRECISELY. UM, IF YOU WANNA CALL 'EM TOWN HOMES THOUGH BY DESIGN, THEY, THEY LOOK AS ONE, UH, 20 FEET IS THE MINIMUM WIDTH THAT THAT WOULD NEED TO BE. AND YOU MAY THINK THAT IT'S IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE TWO-WAY TRAFFIC, I MEAN FOR SEVEN HOMES ON EACH SIDE, I THINK THAT IT'S MORE IN LINE TO ACCOMMODATE. THERE WE GO. THE ACTUAL THANK YOU SIR. BARN UP THERE IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE THE, THE, THE MANEUVERING AISLE WIDTH INTO EACH OF THOSE BARR GARAGES IN AND OUT. UM, BUT OBVIOUSLY THAT'S MORE THAN [01:35:01] ADEQUATE TO ACCOMMODATE TWO-WAY TRAFFIC THOUGH. I MEAN, IF YOU LIVE THERE, I'M SURE YOU COULD ASSUME THAT YOU'RE I HAVE NO PROBLEM HAVING TO. OKAY, SO, SO 20 IS THE LIMIT, IS THE MINIMUM. AND, AND THEY'RE PROVIDING 24. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YES SIR. WITHOUT ANY ACCOMMODATIONS FOR FIRE. THE FIRE IS ON OLIVER AND TRAVIS, IS THIS PROJECT, IN YOUR OPINION, EASY FOR YOU TO SAY YOU WANT US TO DO THIS CONSISTENT, INCONSISTENT, COMPARABLE WITH OTHERS IN THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD? UM, I THINK IT'S COMPARABLE IN TERMS OF ITS USE AND STRUCTURE. I THINK IT WILL BE AN UPGRADE TO THE STANDARD PROJECT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. OKAY. THANK YOU. OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? AND YOU SAID MS. MARY THAT THERE'S NO OTHER SPEAKERS? NO, THE SPEAKER'S REGISTERED. OKAY. ALRIGHT. THE CHAIR WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION. MR. FINNEY. I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 4 5 DASH 0 3 9 ON APPLICATION OF MARK JIM BROWNIE REPRESENTED BY ANDREW SES GRANT THE FIVE FOOT VARIANCE TO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK REGULATIONS REQUESTED BY THIS APPLICANT. BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP TO THIS APPLICANT. I FURTHER MOVE THAT THE FOLLOWING CONDITION BE IMPOSED TO FURTHER THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE. COMPLIANCE WITH THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF ALL SUBMITTED PLANS ARE REQUIRED. OKAY. IN THE MATTER OF BDA 2 4 5 DASH 0 3 9. MR. FINNEY MOVED TO GRANT THE REQUEST. IS THERE A SECOND, SECOND, SECOND BY MS. DAVIS. DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION. MS. FINNEY? UM, I I THINK IT'S VERY CLEAR THAT THEY ARE, UM, STAYING IN CHARACTER WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. UM, THE, THE BLACK FACE CONTINUITY ALREADY SUPPORTS THE FIVE FOOT VARIANCE ALONG OLIVER STREET THAT THEY'RE REQUESTING. UM, AND, UM, THEY ARE ACTUALLY REDUCING THE DENSITY. SO ANY CONCERNS ABOUT TRAFFIC, UH, ARE OBVIOUSLY, UM, NOT NECESSARILY BASED ON FACTS. UM, SO, UM, I'VE NO PROBLEM WITH IT. MS. DAVIS DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? I AGREE WITH MR. FRIEND'S COMMENTS. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? THE BOARD SECRETARY WILL CALL THE VOTE THIS VOTE, THIS MOTION 2 4 5 0 3 9 IS TO GRANT THE FIVE FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK. UH, IS THIS OLIVE OR IS THIS, THIS IS OLIVER. MM-HMM . YEP. OKAY. SO THIS IS ON THE NORTH PORTION? MM-HMM . OKAY. MS. BOARD SECRETARY MS. DAVIS? YES. MR. OVITZ? YES. MR. N AYE. MR. FINNEY? AYE. MR. CHAIRMAN? AYE. MOTION PASSES FIVE TO ZERO IN THE MATTER OF BDA 2 4 5 0 3 9. THE BOARD GRANTS YOUR REQUEST BY A VOTE OF FIVE TO ZERO UNANIMOUSLY FOR A FIVE FOOT VARIANCE SET SETBACK. THIS IS ON THE OLIVER PORTION. MR. FINNEY SECOND MOTION. I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 4 5 DASH 0 3 9 ON APPLICATION OF MARK JIM BROWNY, REPRESENTED BY ANDREW SIMONES GRANT, THE FIVE FOOT VARIANCE TO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK REGULATIONS REQUESTED BY THIS APPLICATION BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE VISIONS OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP TO THIS APPLICANT. I FURTHER MOVE THAT THE FOLLOWING CONDITION BE IMPOSED TO FURTHER THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE. COMPLIANCE WITH THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF ALL SUBMITTED PLANS ARE REQUIRED IN THE MATTER BD 2 4 5 0 3 9. MR. FINNEY'S MO MADE A MOTION TO GRANT THE FIVE FOOT VARIANCE ON THE SIDE YARD SETBACK. UH, IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND SECONDED BY MS. DAVIS DISCUSSION OF THE MOTION, MR. FINNEY? YES. UM, SO THEY, THEY MATCHED THE CURRENT SETBACK OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY, WHICH IS A FIVE FOOT SETBACK. UM, SO I THINK IT, IT MAKES PERFECT SENSE, UM, TO GRANT THE VARIANCE. SO, MS. DAVIS, NO COMMENTS, DISCUSSION OF THE MOTION? MR. NERING? THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN. YEAH, I WILL BE, UH, SUPPORTING THE MOTION. UM, INITIALLY I WOULD'VE BEEN OPPOSED WITH THE ZERO LOT LINE, UM, BUT I DO THINK THAT YOU'VE MADE A GOOD FAITH EFFORT, UM, IN TERMS OF ASSUAGING THE CONCERNS OF THE NEIGHBORHOODS ON THAT SETBACK. SO I WILL BE IN FAVOR. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? YES. BOARD. OH, MR. FINNEY? YES. UM, I DID LEAVE OUT, UH, I THINK THAT THE MOST PERSUASIVE, UH, THING ABOUT, ABOUT THAT, THAT CAUSED ME TO PROPOSE, UH, BOTH MOTIONS IS, UH, YOUR WILLINGNESS TO ENGAGE WITH THE NEIGHBORS. UM, AND SO I [01:40:01] THINK IN ANY CASE, THAT IS OUR BIGGEST CONCERN WHEN IT COMES TO VERIFYING WHETHER OR NOT THIS IS, UH, GOING TO CAUSE A HARDSHIP ON THE NEIGHBORS. UM, YOUR WILLINGNESS TO NOT ONLY ENGAGE, BUT ALSO COMPROMISE ONCE YOU DID BOTH. SO WE APPRECIATE THAT. MOVE TO EV VOTE. MS. DAVIS? YES. YES. MR. FINNEY? AYE. MR. OVITZ? AYE. MR. N AYE. MR. CHAIRMAN? AYE. MOTION TO GRANT PASSES FIVE TO ZERO IN THE SECOND MOTION. 2 2 4 5 0 3 9. THE BOARD UNANIMOUS UNANIMOUSLY. GRANTS BY A VOTE OF FIVE TO FOUR, FIVE TO ZERO. THE REQUEST FOR A FIVE FOOT VARIANCE TO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK, YOU'LL GET A DECISION LETTER FROM OUR STAFF IN HOPEFULLY TWO DAYS. THANK YOU, SIR. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. APPRECIATE IT MUCH. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALRIGHT, WE'RE GONNA TAKE A, UH, 12 MINUTE BREAK AND WE'LL COME BACK AND, UH, SO, UM, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PANEL A AT AT 2 48 AT 2:47 PM WE'LL RECESS UNTIL 3:00 PM UM, THERE WE GO. WE'LL COME BACK AT THREE O'CLOCK. DO WE NEED, DO WE NEED THESE? OKAY. IT IS 3:00 PM ON TUESDAY, APRIL 15TH, 2025. THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PANEL A IS CALLED BACK INTO SESSION. UH, WE HAVE 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 CASES REMAINING ON THE AGENDA TODAY. OUR FIRST CASE IS BDA 2 4 5 DASH 0 4 6 2 4 5 0 4 6. UH, THE ADDRESS IS 1617 HIGHLINE DRIVE. MS. BOARD AT BOARD SECRETARY. TELL ME WHAT SPEAKERS WE HAVE FOR 2 4 5 0 4 6. HOW MANY SPEAKERS? WE HAVE THREE SPEAKERS. ALL IN FAVOR? AND ARE THEY HERE OR ONLINE? THEY'RE ALL, ALL HERE. OKAY. ONE SECOND. OKAY. AS I, AS I ADVISE THE BOARD AND THE PUBLIC THIS MORNING, EACH ONE OF THESE CASES ARE HANDLED INDEPENDENTLY, UM, AND SEPARATELY, UH, AS WE CREATE A, A RECORD COURT RECORD, UH, FOR THE BOARD. AND SO THAT IS THE WAY WE'LL PROCEED ON THIS. UM, IS THE APPLICANT HERE FOR 1617 HIGHLINE DRIVE? MR. VINCENT? GOOD AFTERNOON. GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIR. UM, WE WILL, IF YOU WOULD INTRODUCE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND THEN OUR BOARD SECRETARY WILL, UH, SWEAR YOU IN. OKAY. UH, THE NAME IS JONATHAN VINCENT, 2323 ROSS AVENUE, DALLAS, TEXAS 7 5 2 0 1. DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO TELL THE TRUTH TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? I DO. OKAY. PLEASE PROCEED. AND WE WILL VIEW THIS AS YOU'RE SWEARING IN FOR ALL THIS CASE IN ANY SUBSEQUENT CASES THAT YOU GIVE TODAY. IS THAT OKAY? YES, SIR. THAT'S, UH, THAT'S FINE WITH ME. OKAY. THAT'LL TAKE CARE OF THAT. SO, OKAY. WE'RE GONNA TREAT EACH CASE SEPARATELY, UM, EACH CASE SEPARATELY. WE'LL SWEAR IN OTHER PEOPLE WHEN THEY, WHEN THEY SPEAK. OKAY. BUT FOR PURPOSES OF YOU, WHETHER IT BE THIS CASE OR OTHER CASES YOU'RE SWORN IN FOR THE DAY. OKAY. IS THAT OKAY? YES, SIR. THANK YOU. OKAY. ALRIGHT. UH, OUR RULES OR PROCEDURE ARE SUCH THAT EACH APPLICANT IS GIVEN FIVE MINUTES OF, UM, OF TESTIMONY THEN ANYONE ELSE SPEAKING IN FAVORS GIVEN FIVE MINUTES. AND THEN ANYONE IN OPPOSITION IS GIVEN FIVE MINUTES. AND THEN THE APPLICANT'S GIVEN A FIVE MINUTE REBUTTAL, UH, IN THIS CASE, SINCE I DON'T HEAR OF ANY OTHER SPEAKERS IN OPPOSITION, WE'LL GO WITH WHAT YOU WANT TO PRESENT AND ANYONE ELSE THAT WANTS TO PRESENT. AND I WILL BE GENEROUS WITH TIME. UM, JUST, I WOULD JUST ENCOURAGE YOU TO BE SMART WITH YOUR TIME. HOW'S THAT? YES, SIR. I AGREE. AND I'M SURE WE HAVE A LOT OF QUESTIONS COMING. OKAY. VERY GOOD. PROCEED. YES, SIR. THANK YOU. UH, AGAIN, JONATHAN VINCENT, UH, JACKSON WALKER, 2323 ROSS AVENUE HERE REPRESENTING, UM, THE APPLICANT IN THIS CASE AS WELL AS THE OTHERS, WHICH I KNOW WE'LL GET TO SEPARATELY. DDD PROPERTY HOLDINGS. UM, AND I HAVE WITH ME TODAY, UM, ADAM HAMMOCK, WHO IS IN THE AUDIENCE. HE'S A PRINCIPAL WITH HN CAPITAL, UH, PARTNERS, WHICH IS ACTUALLY THE PARENT ENTITY OF ALL OF THE OWNERS OF THESE PROPERTIES. UH, MR. HAMMOCK HAPPENS TO HAVE A MASTER'S DEGREE IN PLANNING URBAN PLANNING FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS. UH, LLOYD DENMAN, WHO I BELIEVE YOU PROBABLY ALL KNOW, WHO'S A, UH, PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER, UH, SPECIALIZING IN PARTICULAR IN, UH, TRAFFIC AND PARKING ISSUES. UH, MY PARTNER SUZANNE KEDRON FROM OUR LAND USE GROUP, UM, AT JW AS WELL AS WILL GUERIN, ONE OF MY COLLEAGUES, ALSO A PROFESSIONAL PLANNER. SO, UM, WE THINK WE CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE. UM, I WANNA SAY FIRST OF ALL ABOUT HN, AND I WON'T NECESSARILY REPEAT ALL OF THIS BECAUSE MUCH OF WHAT I'M GONNA SAY IS APPLICABLE TO EACH OF THE CASES, WHICH I KNOW WE WILL DISCUSS SEPARATELY. BUT I WOULD JUST ASK YOU TO BEAR, BEAR IN MIND, HN CAPITAL YOU MAY HAVE READ IN THE BUSINESS SECTION OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS HAS ACTUALLY ACQUIRED A, A LARGE PORTFOLIO OF PROPERTIES IN PD [01:45:01] 6 21 IN THE DESIGN DISTRICT. AND THIS IS PART OF AN OVERALL GLOBAL EFFORT TO REALLY, UM, VITALIZE THE DISTRICT EVEN FARTHER. I THINK THE DISTRICT HAS BEEN VERY SUCCESSFUL. I THINK IT PERSONALLY, I THINK IT'S ONE OF THE, UH, COOLER AREAS IN DALLAS. I THINK IT MAKES US MORE COMPARABLE TO OTHER BIG CITIES IN TERMS OF BEING A VIBRANT MIXED USE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE ABOUT HERE TODAY, WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO. UM, SO HN IS HEAVILY INVESTED IN THE DESIGN DISTRICT. THEY OWN ALL OF THESE PROPERTIES AND A NUMBER OF OTHERS WHICH YOU'VE SEEN. SO THEY ARE LITERALLY HEAVILY INVESTED IN THE SUCCESS OF EACH OF THESE PROPERTIES AS WELL AS THE TENANTS OF THESE PROPERTIES. SO I'LL JUST ASK YOU TO BEAR THAT IN MIND. SO THIS PARTICULAR SITE, 1617 HIGHLINE, IT'S THE, UH, UH, DECORATIVE CENTER. IT'S BEEN THERE A LONG TIME. UH, IT WAS BUILT, ACTUALLY DEVELOPED BY TRAMMELL CROW BETWEEN 1955 AND 1967. SO IT'S, YOU BEAR THAT IN MIND AS IT'S PART OF THE FABRIC, PART OF THE CONTEXT OF WHAT MAKES THIS AN INTERESTING NEIGHBORHOOD. IT GOES BACK TO THE EARLY DAYS OF THE DISTRICT, YOU KNOW, SORT OF THE MORE COMMERCIAL, YOU KNOW, UH, YOU GOT THE NAME OF THE DESIGN DISTRICT BECAUSE A LOT OF THE OFFICE SHOWROOM WAREHOUSE TYPE USES THERE. AND WE'RE CONTINUING THAT FABRIC, MODERNIZING IT AND UPDATING TO MORE OF A MIXED USE ENVIRONMENT. AND THAT'S THE FUNDAMENTAL REASON THAT WE'RE HERE TODAY ASKING FOR THESE PARKING SPECIAL EXCEPTION. UM, YOU CAN SEE FOR YOURSELF IN, IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE, UH, WE HAVE 300 SPACES ON SITE AT THE DECORATIVE CENTER. UM, 399, UM, IS THE OTHERWISE, UH, REQUIREMENT. SO WE'RE ASKING FOR A 24.81% REDUCTION. UM, NEXT LINE PLEASE, BRIAN. UH, SO WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR IS FOR THE OVERALL REDUCTION THAT WE'RE REQUESTING TO APPLY SITEWIDE. AND WE HAD SUBMITTED, UH, WITH THIS CASE AND THE OTHERS A PARKING SITE PLAN, WHICH SHOWS PROPOSED USES. WE WOULD LIKE TO CONDITION THIS TO THE FACT THAT WE CAN APPLY THIS PARKING REDUCTION SITE-WIDE, AND THAT THAT SHOWS BASICALLY THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF RESTAURANT USE, WHICH RESTAURANT, OF COURSE HAS THE HIGHEST REQUIREMENT. UH, THE OTHER IS GONNA PRIMARILY BE OFFICE SHOWROOM WAREHOUSE. AND SO WE WOULD ASK IF YOU SEE FIT TO IT, GRANT THIS, THAT, UM, YOU APPLY THAT PARKING SITE PLAN TO IT AND ALLOW US TO UTILIZE THIS PARKING REDUCTION SITEWIDE, BECAUSE THAT'S, THAT'S THE MIXED USE ENVIRONMENT. THAT'S WHAT WE THINK MAKES SENSE. UH, THAT QUESTION CAME UP DURING BRIEFING ABOUT THE PERCENTAGES HAVING CHANGED. WHEN WE ORIGINALLY FILED THIS REQUEST AS WELL AS THE OTHERS, UH, WE HAD NOT INCLUDED THE MIXED USE PARKING REDUCTION, WHICH WE CAN DO AS A MATTER OF RIGHT. AND IN FACT, UM, AND LLOYD CAN ADDRESS THIS AS WELL, WE UNDERSTOOD THAT WE REALLY SHOULD HAVE APPLIED THAT. SO WE DID. AND THAT'S WHY THE PERCENTAGES CHANGED. THAT'S WHY IT'S LESS OF A PERCENTAGE REDUCTION THAN ORIGINALLY STATED ON THE APPLICATION FORMS. QUESTION ALSO CAME UP ABOUT THE TIMING. UM, YOU KNOW, WHY WE FILED THESE. UM, AND IT TOOK A WHILE TO GET IN FRONT OF THE BOARD. THAT'S, YOU KNOW, WE MADE REVISIONS TO THE SITE PLAN, WE TRIED TO MAKE SOME CLARIFICATIONS, WE READJUSTED OUR NUMBERS. SO THAT'S JUST THE WAY IT WORKED OUT. IT'S, YOU KNOW, IT'S A FAIRLY COMPLEX ASK, AND SO WE WORKED HARD WITH STAFF, AND STAFF HAS BEEN TERRIFIC. THEY'VE WORKED VERY HARD WITH US TO GET THESE IN SHAPE TO BRING TO YOU. SO THAT'S, THAT'S THE ANSWER THERE. UM, NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. NO, HERE WE GO. ACTUALLY, GO BACK. SORRY ABOUT THAT. BRIAN, IF YOU CAN GO BACK ONE. SO THERE ARE MITIGATING FACTORS, UH, THAT WE THINK SUPPORT THE PARKING REDUCTION. UH, AS YOU'RE WELL AWARE, YOU KNOW, RESTAURANT VERSUS OFFICE, OFFICE, SHOWROOM, WAREHOUSE, THOSE ARE VASTLY DIFFERENT PEAK HOURS. I MEAN, THE KIND OF, BY DEFINITION A MIXED USE ENVIRONMENT MEANS YOU HAVE COMPATIBLE USES WITH DIFFERING PEAK HOURS OF OPERATION. THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT WE HAVE HERE. SO WE THINK THAT NOT ONLY SUPPORTS THIS REQUEST, BUT IT ADDS TO THE REVITALIZATION OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. UM, I'VE MENTIONED ALL OF THE OTHER PROPERTIES THAT, UM, H AND CAPITAL CONTROLS YOU. THERE'S A MAP THAT YOU'VE HAD IN THE MATERIALS THAT WERE SUBMITTED TO YOU EARLIER THAT SHOWS, YOU KNOW, REALLY THE SYNERGISTIC EFFECT OF HAVING THOSE DIFFERENT PROPERTIES THAT CAN WORK TOGETHER TO DEAL WITH PARKING REQUIREMENTS. UM, WHEN THE PD WAS INSTITUTED IN 2002, THAT WAS 23 YEARS AGO, UM, 23 YEARS AGO, NOBODY HAD EVER HEARD OF UBER OR LYFT OR, UM, ALTO OR ANY OF THE OTHER RIDE SHARING SERVICES. UH, THAT WAS, NOBODY HAD EVEN ENVISIONED THAT WE HAVE THAT NOW IN ABUNDANCE, ESPECIALLY PEOPLE GOING TO, YOU KNOW, RESTAURANTS AT NIGHT, UH, MAYBE HIGHER END RESTAURANTS, THEY'RE GONNA UTILIZE THOSE SERVICES. SO AGAIN, THE RIDE SHARING IS A BIG FACTOR IN THIS. UH, WE'VE ALSO INCLUDED OUR MIXED USE PARKING CALCULATIONS, WHICH AGAIN GOES BACK TO THE DIFFERING HOURS OF OPERATION. UH, NEXT LINE PLEASE. SO, PD 6 21, UM, I WANNA SPEND JUST A MINUTE ON THAT BECAUSE IT'S, IT'S VERY INTERESTING TO ME. I WAS INVOLVED WHEN IT WAS FIRST DRAFTED, UH, ALONG WITH, YOU KNOW, ED OAKLEY AND A LOT OF OTHER PEOPLE THAT YOU PROBABLY KNOW. UM, [01:50:02] PD 6 21. THE WHOLE CONCEPT WAS TO TRY TO ENCOURAGE ADAPTIVE REUSE. AND I THINK IT'S BEEN VERY SUCCESSFUL. I THINK IF YOU DRIVE, I THINK THE DESIGN DISTRICT, LIKE I SAY, I THINK IT'S ONE OF THE MOST INTERESTING PARTS OF THE CITY NOW. UM, I THINK IT'S BEEN SUCCESSFUL BECAUSE OF THE PARKING BRAKES, I'M GONNA CALL 'EM PARKING REDUCTIONS THAT WERE GRANTED. UM, AND IT'S NOT JUST THE FACT THAT YOU CAN ASK FOR UP TO 50% REDUCTION FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION, WHICH Y'ALL HAD A VERY GOOD DISCUSSION ON THAT IN BRIEFING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A PARKING VARIANCE AND A PARKING SPECIAL EXCEPTION. WE'LL GET TO THE STANDARD FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION IN A MINUTE. BUT THE FACT THAT PLAN COMMISSION AND COUNCIL OF SOFT FIT TO INSTITUTE A 50% THRESHOLD FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION INSTEAD OF 25% IN THE UNDERLYING CODE, THAT TELLS ME THAT THEY WANTED TO MAKE THIS SPECIAL EXCEPTION STANDARD MORE WIDELY AVAILABLE TO TRY TO FOSTER THIS ADAPTIVE REUSE. AND I THINK IT'S BEEN HUGELY SUCCESSFUL. UM, THE STANDARD, UH, ONCE YOU GET TO A SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS THAT THE PARKING DEMAND GENERATED BY THE USE DOES NOT WARRANT THE NUMBER OF OFF STREET PARKING SPACES REQUIRED. AND THAT THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WOULD NOT CREATE A TRAFFIC HAZARD OR INCREASE TRAFFIC CONGESTION ON ADJACENT OR NEARBY STREETS. WE HAVE TAKEN GREAT PAINS TO, YOU KNOW, PROVIDE PARKING STUDIES BY MR. DENMAN. UM, OTHER INFORMATION THAT WE'VE GIVEN TO YOU, WE THINK, MY PERSONAL OPINION IS THAT I THINK WE'VE AMPLY DEMONSTRATED THAT. I HOPE YOU'LL AGREE WITH THIS, BUT WE'LL SEE. BUT, YOU KNOW, I THINK THE EVIDENCE IS THERE, UH, TO DEMONSTRATE THAT WE CLEARLY MEET THE STANDARD. UM, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. THE AERIAL PHOTO OF THE SITE. YOU'VE SEEN THIS. UM, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. UH, THIS IS FROM, UM, WHEN WAS THE PROPERTY DEVELOPED? WHEN WAS THE, WHEN WAS IT BUILT? I'M TRYING TO GET A STARTING POINT. YEAH. ACCORDING TO MY INFORMATION I GOT FROM THE DALLAS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT, WHICH IS PRETTY GOOD ABOUT SHOWING WHEN PROPERTIES WERE BUILT. UH, THEY SAY IT'S BETWEEN 1955 AND 1967. WELL, THAT'S A BIG SPREAD. THAT'S 12 YEARS. I, I'M, I IMAGINE IT WAS DONE IN PHASES. SO WE DON'T DUNNO IF IT WAS 55 OR 67. WELL, I WOULD IMAGINE IT WAS DONE IN PHASES. OKAY. 'CAUSE THEY'RE DEC HAD SHOWS DIFFERENT BUILDINGS WITH DIFFERENT CONSTRUCTION BASE. OKAY. SO I THINK, WELL, I'LL JUST SAY 1960, THAT'S PROBABLY A GOOD AVERAGE. SURE, SURE. THAT, UM, SO THIS IS A, AN AERIAL PHOTO FROM GOOGLE MAPS. UM, AND YOU'LL SEE, YOU KNOW, IT'S OBVIOUSLY TAKEN DURING THE DAYTIME. YOU'LL SEE THE LARGE NUMBER OF SPACES, THE, UH, THE PHOTOS IN THE VIDEO THAT MR. UM, MR. THOMPSON PRESENTED. UM, I THINK ALSO DEMONSTRATES, YOU KNOW, DURING THE DAYTIME THERE IS A LOT OF AVAILABLE PARKING HERE. AND THAT KIND OF UNDERLINES WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS THAT THESE WERE BUILT WHEN THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS WERE WHATEVER THEY WERE BACK THEN, EVEN PRE 1965 WHEN CHAPTER 51 CAME IN. IN MY EXPERIENCE, I'VE SPENT A LOT OF MY CAREER WORKING WITH PARKING ISSUES AND A LOT OF THE PARKING RATIOS WE HAVE IN THE CITY OF ALLEN STATE BACK TO 1965 OR EVEN PRIOR TO THAT, IT'S A DIFFERENT WORLD NOW. AND SO THIS WAS BUILT, YOU KNOW, IN 1965 CODE OR PRE 1965 CODE, AND YOU SEE THE RESULT, LOTS OF PARKING. UM, NEXT LINE PLEASE. SO YEAH, THERE YOU GO. SO THIS IS, UH, THE SITE PLAN WE SUBMITTED THAT SHOWS USES, UH, THE MAXIMUM USES THAT WE WOULD WANNA HAVE. AND WE THINK, YOU KNOW, WITH VALET PARKING, WITH THE OTHER MITIGATING FACTORS, WE THINK THAT THIS WORKS VERY WELL. AND THIS IS WHAT WE WOULD REQUEST TO BE CONDITIONED TO. IF YOU, DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION, MS. DAVIS? WE'LL DO QUESTIONS AT THE END. OKAY. VERY GOOD. OKAY, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. UH, THIS IS OUR MIXED USE PARKING CHART, YOU KNOW, SPEAKS FOR ITSELF, BUT IT SHOWS THAT THESE USES WORK TOGETHER. COMPATIBLY, UH, NEXT SLIDE AFTER THAT, UH, THE, THE CODE PD 6 21 IN THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION SECTION REFERS TO CHAPTER 51 A STANDARDS FOR A PARKING SPECIAL EXCEPTION. THIS IS, THESE ARE THE ELEMENTS THAT, UM, ARE TO BE CONSIDERED. AND WE THINK IN EACH INSTANCE WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR IS SUPPORTED, UM, YOU KNOW, CONTROLLING NUMEROUS PROPERTIES AND FOR REMOTE SHARED OR PACKED PARKING, UH, PARKING DEMAND AND TRIP GENERATION CHARACTERISTICS. WE'VE ADDRESSED THAT IN OUR PARKING STUDY. CURRENT AND PROBABLE FUTURE CAPACITIES, WE THINK THERE'S PLENTY OF STREET CAPACITY. THERE IS SOME PUBLIC TRANSIT, THERE ARE SOME, UH, DARK BUS LINES AND THE FEASIBILITY OF PARKING MITIGATION MEASURES, FOR EXAMPLE, VALET PARKING FOR NIGHTTIME RESTAURANT USES. NEXT LINE PLEASE. SO, AGAIN, ABOUT THE, THE STANDARD FOR THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION. UM, I'M NOT GONNA REPEAT IT ONCE MORE, BUT YOU SEE WHAT IT IS HERE. IT, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T THINK THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES REQUIRED UNDER CURRENT CODE IS ANYWHERE NEAR WARRANTED, UH, FOR WHAT THE ACTUAL DEMAND IS. AND WE ARE CERTAIN THAT THIS IS NOT GONNA CREATE A TRAFFIC HAZARD OR INCREASED TRAFFIC CONGESTION. UM, SO YOU SEE THE CONCLUSION THERE, AND MR. DEN CAN, CAN ADDRESS THIS AS WELL. UM, [01:55:01] BUT, YOU KNOW, HE SUPPORTS THAT CONCLUSION. AGAIN, PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER HAS A WHOLE A LIFETIME CAREER OF LOOKING AT THESE ISSUES. WE THINK THAT'S CREDIBLE. SO WE THINK THAT WE CLEARLY MEET THE CRITERIA FOR THE PARKING SPECIAL EXCEPTION REQUEST. UH, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. AGAIN, IN MORE DETAIL, YOU KNOW, HOPEFULLY HAD A CHANCE TO OP TO READ THIS PARKING STUDY FOR YOURSELVES. IT WAS INCLUDED IN THE MATERIALS WE SENT OUT. AGAIN, EVERY BULLET POINT IS SOMETHING THAT SUPPORTS OUR REQUEST, WE BELIEVE. UM, NEXT LINE PLEASE. SO I TALKED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT PD 6 21. UM, I THINK IT'S BEEN VERY SUCCESSFUL IN, IN TERMS OF PLACEMAKING, IN TERMS OF CREATING A GREAT VIBRANT MIXED USE NEIGHBORHOOD. IT'S THE SUCCESS OF PD 6 21 IS CONTINUING. IF YOU LOOK AT THE DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS NOW, UM, YOU KNOW, MORE DENSITY, WHICH I THINK IS A GOOD THING IN A MIXED USE ENVIRONMENT, YOU KNOW, UPGRADING OF VARIOUS USES, UH, BUT STILL RETAINING THE FLAVOR OF, YOU KNOW, THE LITTLE DESIGN SHOWROOMS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. I JUST THINK IT'S A COOL ENVIRONMENT. SO IT'S BEEN SUCCESSFUL. WE'RE INVESTED IN THAT SUCCESS AND WE WANNA CONTINUE THAT. HOWEVER, YOU KNOW, REQUIRING MORE CONCRETE TO BE POURED TO PROVIDE MORE SURFACE PARKING, WE THINK IS NOT A GOOD THING AND NOT THE ANSWER FOR THE FUTURE SUCCESS OF THE DISTRICT. UH, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. SO THE, THE QUESTION CAME UP IN BRIEFING. THERE WAS AN ALLUSION TO THE FACT THAT WE HAD INCLUDED SOME INFORMATION ABOUT THE CURRENT PARKING REFORM EFFORTS THAT ARE GOING ON WITH THE CITY, UM, AS WE SPEAK. YOU KNOW, IT'S PASSED OUT OF PLAN COMMISSION, IT'S NOW GOING TO COUNCIL, UM, I IMAGINE IN THE NEAR FUTURE. AND IT'S, IT'S PRETTY FASCINATING TO ME TO SEE WHAT THEY'RE DOING WITH THAT. UM, I'M VERY SUPPORTIVE OF IT. I THINK, YOU KNOW, DALLAS, LIKE MOST CITIES IS, IS CATCHING UP. UH, WE STILL REQUIRE TOO MUCH PARKING IN MY PERSONAL OPINION, UM, WHERE IT'S NOT NECESSARY. AND I'M NOT SAYING THAT CITYWIDE THE SOLUTION IS TO ELIMINATE ALL PARKING. I KNOW THAT'S A WHOLE NOTHER CONTROVERSY, WHICH WE'RE NOT HERE TO DISCUSS. HOWEVER, IF YOU LOOK AT WHAT THEY ARE PROPOSING TO DO, WHAT CAME OUTTA PLAN COMMISSION, YOU KNOW, 15 CITIZEN VOLUNTEER NEIGHBORHOOD REPRESENTATIVES, THEY'RE SAYING THAT IN MANY INSTANCES FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION, FOR COMMERCIAL USES, LET THE MARKET DECIDE, YOU KNOW, LET'S NOT REQUIRE ANYTHING BECAUSE WE'RE IN A PD, WE CANNOT TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THAT. AND BECAUSE THE PD SPECIFIES CERTAIN PARKING RATIOS, IF WE WEREN'T IN A PD, IF WE WERE JUST UNDER CHAPTER 51 A AT SOME POINT, YOU KNOW, WITH NEW CONSTRUCTION, WE COULD TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THAT, BUT WE CAN'T IS MY UNDERSTANDING. SO WE'RE ASKING YOU TO AT LEAST CONSIDER WHAT WE THINK ARE APPROPRIATE AND SUPPORTABLE REDUCTIONS TO AT LEAST, UM, CONCEPTUALLY GO ALONG WITH SOME OF THE PARKING REFORMS THAT ARE AFOOT RIGHT NOW. UM, WE THINK THAT MORE SURFACE PARKING IS, YOU KNOW, DO WE WANT TO TAKE DOWN AN EXISTING BUILDING, MAYBE FROM 1955 OR 60 TO PUT AN ASPHALT PARKING LOT IN JUST SO WE CAN HAVE MORE SURFACE PARKING? I DON'T THINK ANY OF US WANNA SEE THAT RESULT. SO NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. SO JUST TO, TO WRAP UP AND CONCLUDE AGAIN, I WANNA REITERATE THAT WE THINK THAT WE MEET THE STANDARD, UH, CLEARLY AND AMPLY FOR A, UH, PARKING SPECIAL EXCEPTION HERE. UH, AND THAT THE PARKING DEMAND IS NOWHERE NEAR WARRANTED, UH, COMPARED TO THE NUMBER OF SPACES REQUIRED UNDER CURRENT CODE AND THAT IT WILL NOT IN ANY WAY IMPACT, YOU KNOW, ADJACENT STREETS IN TERMS OF TRAFFIC HAZARD TRAFFIC CONGESTION. SO I'M GONNA TURN IT OVER TO, UH, MR. DENMAN IF HE WANTS TO ADD ANYTHING TO THAT. UM, HE'S, HE'S THE ENGINEER. UM, SO FROM A TECHNICAL STANDPOINT, I'M SURE HE CAN ADD TO THAT A LITTLE BIT, UH, HOWEVER HE WANTS TO. AND THEN WE CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU MR. VINCENT. YES. PLEASE GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. LLOYD DENMAN, 29 28 WESTMINSTER, DALLAS, TEXAS. DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO TELL THE TRUTH TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? YES. OKAY. PLEASE PROCEED. THANK YOU. BOARD. I DON'T HAVE TOO MUCH TO ADD, BUT, UH, BUT JUST A FEW CLARIFICATION COMMENTS PERHAPS. UM, I DID MAKE PARKING OBSERVATIONS AND THAT'S THE BEST WAY TO JUDGE ENGAGE PARKING NEEDS. THE EXISTING CENTER DOES HAVE TWO RESTAURANTS ALREADY. CARBON, IF YOU'VE HEARD OF THAT. VERY SUCCESSFUL, VERY POPULAR RESTAURANT. AND THEN A SMALL STEAKHOUSE THAT'S ALSO THERE OPERATING BOTH WITH VALET, AS SUCCESSFUL AS THOSE RESTAURANTS ARE, IT'S ONLY HALF PARKED. THERE'S 300 SPACES. AND WHEN I DID MY PARKING OBSERVATION IN APRIL AND MAY OF 2024, AND THEN AGAIN JUST RECENTLY IN MARCH OF THIS YEAR, WHICH WAS CONSISTENT WITH THOSE, [02:00:01] THERE'S PLENTY OF EXCESS PARKING. AND THAT'S THE GOAL OF THE OWNER IS TO BEST UTILIZE THESE EXISTING BUILDINGS WITH THEIR EXISTING PARKING WITH THE RIGHT BALANCE. THERE'S OBVIOUSLY AVAILABILITY FOR MORE PARKING AND THAT'S WHY THEY WANT TO UP THE RESTAURANT USE. AS MR. VINCENT POINTED OUT, RESTAURANT IS THE HOG OF PARKING AND BRINGS THE MOST CARS DURING THE DAY. THE PARKING LOT'S EMPTY BECAUSE THE SHOWROOM USE GENERATES VERY LITTLE DEMAND FOR PARKING. THAT'S TRUE OF ALL THESE SITES. SO TO REVITALIZE THE AREA TO MAKE THE BEST USE OF THE EXISTING BUILDINGS WITH THE EXISTING PARKING LET'S UP THE RESTAURANT USE TO BETTER BALANCE WHAT'S THERE, BECAUSE THIS IS ALL INWARD FACING. THERE'S NO IMPACT TO THE EXISTING CITY STREETS. AND I'VE DRIVEN THAT MYSELF. THERE'S NO PARKING ALLOWED ON OAK EITHER SIDE OF OAK LAWN ANYWAY. SO IT'S, IT'S A WONDERFUL OPPORTUNITY TO REUSE AN, YOU KNOW, TO BEST UTILIZE AND REPURPOSE AN EXISTING BUILDING. AND TO YOUR SPECIFIC QUESTION EARLIER ON, HOW DID THE PERCENT NUMBERS CHANGE? AND IT ACTUALLY, WE WENT FROM A HIGHER PERCENT REQUEST TO A LOWER PERCENT REQUEST. SO INITIALLY FOR SIMPLICITY'S SAKE, WE CHOSE TO OMIT THE SHARED PARKING TABLE BECAUSE IT'S TIME OF DAY, IT'S A BUNCH OF PERCENTAGES BASED ON USE. IT'S RATHER COMPLICATED. AND WE THOUGHT, WHY DON'T WE JUST OFFER WHAT THE FULL DEMAND IS AND THEN WE WILL ASK FOR A REDUCTION THERE. HOWEVER, UPON A CLOSE TO READING OF THE PD, IT SAYS, YOU SHALL USE THE PARKING TABLE. SO WE HAD NO CHOICE. SO WE WENT BACK AND REDID THE CALCULATIONS USING THE TABLE AND THE REQUIRED PARKING WENT FROM 457 FOR A 34% REQUEST REDUCTION TO USING THE SHARED TABLE. IT WENT TO 3 99 REQUIREMENT AND ONLY A 25% REDUCTION. SO THAT WAS, THAT HAPPENED BECAUSE WE WERE FORCED BY THE PD TO USE THE SHARED PARKING TABLE. I HOPE THAT MAKES SENSE OR ANSWERS THAT QUESTION. AND THEN DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD OR DO WE WANT TO OPEN IT UP FOR QUESTIONS? UH, NO, I THINK WE'RE BOTH AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE ANY. THERE WAS A THIRD SPEAKER THAT HAD REGISTERED, THAT'S THE OWNER WHO'S HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. OKAY. WELL I'M JUST WANTED, I WANTED TO GIVE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR ANYONE THAT WANTED TO SPEAK BEFORE WE DO QUESTIONS, SO. YEAH, NO, I APPRECIATE THAT MR. CHAIR. UH, MR. HAMMOCK IS HERE, UH, WITH OWNERSHIP TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE FOR HIM AS WELL. OKAY. ALRIGHT. SO, UM, THANK YOU. UM, WE'LL GO TO QUESTIONS, UH, MS. DAVIS. FIRST I HAVE THREE QUESTIONS, PLEASE. UM, MY FIRST ONE YOU MENTIONED THAT DART IS IN THE AREA. HOW CLOSE DO THEY STOP TO THE PROPERTY? THEY, UH, THERE ARE BUS LINES THAT GO THROUGH THE AREA. UM, I BELIEVE I SAW SOME ON, FOR EXAMPLE, OAK LAWN IRVING BOULEVARD. UM, YOU KNOW, IT'S A FAIRLY DENSE AREA, SO THEY'RE, THEY SERVE IT PRETTY WELL. BUT YOU DON'T KNOW WHERE THEY STOP SPECIFICALLY? I MEAN, THERE ARE BUS STOPS ALONG THE MAJOR STREETS. OKAY. LIKE THEY TYPICALLY WOULD BE, AND THEY'RE, THEY'RE CERTAINLY CLOSE. THEY'RE CERTAINLY WITHIN WALKING DISTANCE OF THIS DEVELOPMENT AS WELL AS THE OTHERS. SO ARE YOU, AND OF COURSE, YOU KNOW, AS YOU KNOW, THE, THE BUS ROUTES CAN LINK UP WITH RAIL STATIONS LIKE IN MOST CITIES. THAT'S HOW IT'S ORGANIZED. OKAY. SO, SO YOU DON'T KNOW WHERE THEY STOP, YOU DON'T KNOW WHERE THEIR STOPS ARE IN RELATION TO THE PROPERTY, YOU'RE JUST GUESSING. CORRECT. I, I JUST WANNA, IF YOU KNOW OR NOT, I DID NOT MAKE A SPECIFIC OBSERVATION. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO SECOND QUESTION. YOU HAD SHOWED A PHOTO, UM, FROM 2025 THAT SHOWED A LOT OF EMPTY PARKING SPACES MM-HMM . SO HOW MUCH OF THE BUILDING IS OCCUPIED AT THAT POINT? I MEAN, ARE, ARE, ARE YOU STILL HAVE A LOT OF VACANCIES IN THE, IN THE BUILDING? NO, IT'S MOSTLY OCCUPIED. IT'S THAT SHOWROOM USE. OKAY. THAT GENERATES VERY LITTLE DAY PARKING. OKAY. SO WHAT PERCENTAGE WOULD YOU SAY THE BUILDING IS OCCUPIED IN THAT PHOTO? I'M JUST TRYING TO GET A SENSE FOR LIKE, IF IT'S HALF OCCUPIED, THEN IT'S NOT A VERY OCCU ACCURATE PHOTO. IF IT'S 90% OCCUPIED, THAT'S A DIFFERENT STORY THE OWNER WILL ANSWER. OKAY. THANK YOU. AND YOU GOT THIS SWORN IN MM-HMM . PATE MARY'S, IF YOU GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND OUR BOARD SECRETARY SWEAR YOU IN. SURE. ADAM HAMMOCK 1807 ROSS AVENUE, DALLAS, TEXAS. [02:05:01] DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? YES. OKAY. PLEASE PROCEED. TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, WE'RE APPROXIMATELY 85% LEASED AT THE DECORATIVE CENTER AT PRESENT. THANK YOU. AND THEN MY LAST QUESTION, YOU MENTIONED WALKABLE, UM, PARKING. IS THAT THE PARKING THAT YOU'RE GONNA BE USING FOR, UM, THE VALET? THE, THE OFFSITE PARKING THAT'S UNDER CONSTRUCTION? SO I'LL ADDRESS FIRST. OKAY. WITH MY PARKING STUDY I INCLUDED A WALKABILITY ANALYSIS. AND IS THAT TO WHICH YOU ARE REFERRING, IT'S IN THE PARKING STUDY? I THINK SO. YOU, YOU TALKED ABOUT WALKABLE SPACES, SO I WASN'T SURE IF THOSE WERE THE SAME SPACES YOU WERE USING FOR THE VALET OR IF THAT WAS SOMETHING ELSE. I BELIEVE IT'S SOMETHING ELSE. SO WHAT IT, THERE ARE OVER 2000 UNITS OF HOUSING WITHIN A FIVE MINUTE WALK, INCLUDING THE VIRGIN HOTEL AND THE IBI WITH A THOUSAND UNITS THAT WOULD GENERATE BUSINESS FOR THESE NIGHTTIME RESTAURANTS. ALRIGHT. THANK YOU. WHAT ARE THE QUESTIONS DO WE HAVE FOR THE APPLICANT? I HAVE A FEW. OKAY. UM, UM, THIS IS NOT MEANT TO DECAPITATE, BUT THIS IS JUST MEANT TO, I WAS STRUCK BY THE FACT THAT YOU INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKET, UH, YOUR SUMMARY PAGE 1 0 5 THROUGH 1 0 7 OF THE CURRENT PENDING CODE AMENDMENTS THAT AS OF MARCH 24TH, YOU SAID IS PENDING. IS THAT PENDING BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OR IS THIS VERSION THAT WAS PASSED OUT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION? THAT'S, UH, THAT ACTUALLY CAME FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES WEBSITE. AND THAT'S WHAT PASSED, CAME OUT OF PLANNING COMMISSION AND IS GOING ON TO COUNCIL SOAND. NATURAL QUESTION THAT I'D HAVE IS WHY ARE YOU HERE? WHY NOT WAIT FOR THE CITY COUNCIL TO ACT? I'M NOT TRYING TO UNDERCUT OUR AUTHORITY, OUR RESPONSIBILITY, OR ANY OF THE ABOVE, BUT I, BUT, UH, WE ARE A CREATURE OF THE TEXAS LEGISLATURE AND THE CITY COUNCIL. OUR JOB IS TO, IN UNIQUE SPECIFIED CIRCUMSTANCES, MAKE A FINDING AND THEN TRY TO RESOLVE THAT OUR JOB IS NOT TO CHANGE POLICY, TO TAKE AN AREA AND CHANGE AN AREA BASED ON ITS PERCEIVED NEEDS. OURS IS VERY SUPPOSED TO BE SURGICAL. AND I'M FEELING NOT VERY SURGICAL TODAY. THAT IS AN EXCELLENT QUESTION, AND I'M REALLY GLAD YOU ASKED IT BECAUSE WE'RE IN A PD, PD 6 21. MM-HMM . MY UNDERSTANDING BASED ON MY EXPERIENCE, UM, OVER THE YEARS IS THAT WE CAN CHANGE CHAPTER 51 A, THE DEVELOPMENT CODE, UNLESS A PD SPECIFIES THAT THE REQUIRED PARKING RATIOS IN THAT PD REFER BACK TO CHAPTER 51 A. THEN THE PD, TO THE EXTENT IT SETS ITS OWN PARKING RATIOS, IS NOT AFFECTED BY WHATEVER HAPPENS WITH CHAPTER 51 A. SO THE FACT THAT WE'RE HAVING THIS BIG DISCUSSION ABOUT PARKING, WELL, WHETHER I'M GOING AGAIN, MR. VINCENT TO WHAT YOU HAD SUBMITTED, RIGHT. YOU PUT IN HERE WHAT WAS PENDING THROUGH THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS. RIGHT. AND SO THIS IS A QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCESS. WE'RE NOT LEGISLATIVE HERE. AND SO I'M SCRATCHING MY HEAD AGAIN SAYING, OKAY, SO IF THE APPLICANT IS TELLING US, OH, BUT THE CITY'S CHANGING THE STANDARD IMPLYING YOU SHOULD MEANING US, AND I'M SAYING, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO. NO, WE, WE, WE TAKE OUR QUEUE FROM WHAT THE CITY COUNCIL DOES, WHETHER IT IS THE CODE FOR THE CITY OR FOR THIS PARTICULAR PD, WHICH IS 6 21. IS THAT WHAT IT IS? CORRECT. YEAH. SO YOU COULD GO AND FILE A CASE OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND AMEND PD 6 21. I, I'M, AGAIN, OUR ROLE IS TO BE SURGICAL. OUR ROLE IS TO BE IN A UNIQUE SITUATION WHERE THERE'S A SPECIAL EXCEPTION OR A VARIANCE. EXACTLY. RIGHT. AND MY POINT IN INCLUDING THAT WAS SIMPLY ILLUSTRATIVE IN TERMS OF HERE'S WHERE THE CITY OF DALLAS IS. I AGREE. AS A MATTER OF POLICY IS HEADED AND, AND OUR JOB IS NOT POLICY. RIGHT. BUT EXACTLY. YOU FELL INTO MY TRAP. OUR JOB IS NOT POLICY HERE. OUR JOB IS TO SAY, BE SURGICAL AND SAY, OKAY, IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, BASED ON THIS CRITERIA, THIS IS HOW WE APPLY IT. WE, WE, WE CANNOT BE IN THE BUSINESS OF DOING NEIGHBORHOOD REZONING BY SPECIAL EXCEPTION. WELL, AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE DOING. WE'RE BEING SURGICAL BECAUSE WE, WE HAVE ONE ISSUE, I DON'T KNOW IF I LOOK AT MY AGENDA TODAY, IT'S NOT VERY SURGICAL. WELL, NOW WE'RE, WE'RE DEALING WITH 16, 17, IS THAT WHAT THIS ONE? 1617 HIGHLINE MM-HMM . WHICH IS UNIQUE IN ONE PERSPECTIVE IN THAT IT'S INTERIOR. MM-HMM . SO THAT YOU GOT GOING FOR YOU, AND I GO BACK TO OUR CRITERIA AGAIN, IS, AS IT RELATES TO, WOULD NOT CREATE A TRAFFIC HAZARD. HAZARD WOULD NOT WARRANT EXCESS PARKING AND WOULD NOT INCREASE TRAFFIC CONGESTION. [02:10:01] SO THIS ONE MEMBER STARTS THINKING, OKAY, IF WE REDUCE THIS BY, OH MY GOSH, 25% HMM. TO A MAGICAL NUMBER OF SPACES IN THE PLACE, WHICH DOESN'T SEEM VERY CALCULATED. IT SEEMS VERY, YOU KNOW, SOLVE FOR X, WHICH ISN'T WHAT WE DO. WE DON'T SOLVE FOR X HERE. THAT'S NOT, THAT'S NOT PART OF OUR FORMULA. YEAH. UM, WILL IT BLEED OUT HMM. TO HIGHLINE OR TO OAK LAWN, OR TO WHATEVER THE OTHER CORRESPONDING STREET, UH, SLOCUM. SO, I MEAN, THOSE ARE, WHAT I'M GOING THROUGH IS MM-HMM . IS IF WE GO FROM A REQUIREMENT OF 3 99 DOWN TO 300, IS THIS GONNA BLEED OUT AND CREATE THESE OTHER ISSUES? AND THAT'S WHAT I'M GOING THROUGH. BUT AGAIN, I'M TRYING TO, TRYING TO BE VERY PRECISE TO SAY WE'RE TRYING TO, I'M TRYING TO EX CONSIDER YOUR REQUEST IN OUR BOX. MM-HMM . SO I READ THIS, WHAT YOU'VE DONE, AND YOU HIGHLIGHTED AND SO FORTH, AND I CIRCLED THIS AND I THOUGHT, OKAY, IS THIS REALLY RELEVANT? I DON'T THINK IT IS. BECAUSE THAT'S POLICY, IT'S RELEVANT IN THE SENSE THAT THAT REPRESENTS THE THINKING TODAY IN 2025. WELL, IT'S NOT THINK, IT'S NOT THINKING UNTIL THE COUNCIL PROVES IT. OKAY. WE'RE THEN, ONCE THE COUNCIL PROVES IT, BY GOSH, WE'LL FOLLOW IT BECAUSE THAT'S OUR CRITERIA. RIGHT. I I, SO THAT'S, THAT'S ONE BIT OF HESITATION. IF, CAN I, CAN I ADDRESS A COUPLE OF THOSE POINTS, SIR? SURE. OKAY. SO I RECOGNIZE THAT COUNCIL MAY TINKER WITH THIS. ALL I'M SAYING IS THAT IN 2025, EVEN IN A CAR-CENTRIC CITY LIKE DALLAS AND I GREW UP HERE, I KNOW IT'S, YOU SAID IT. I DIDN'T, BUT IT IS CAR-CENTRIC. YES, IT IS. . YOU KNOW, THE, THE, THE THINKING HAS EVOLVED ABOUT HOW MUCH PARKING DO WE WANNA REQUIRE? DO WE WANT MARKET SOLUTIONS VERSUS SOME RIGID CODE REQUIREMENT? AND I'M OVER WITH YOU. YEAH. I'M CONVINCED ON EVERYTHING YOU'RE SAYING. BUT AGAIN, OUR ROLE IS TO BE VERY PRECISE. RIGHT. AND BE VERY SPECIFIC AND BE VERY CAREFUL THAT WE DON'T GET OUT OF OUR BOX. EXACTLY. I AGREE WITH YOU. AND THAT'S WHY YOU USED THE WORD SURGICAL, WHICH I THOUGHT WAS A GOOD WORD. THAT'S EXACTLY WHY WE'RE HERE, IS TAKE A VERY, THESE ARE UNIQUE PROPERTIES. EACH ONE HAS ITS OWN SIZE PLAN. ITS, WE'LL, WE'LL DEAL WITH THE OTHER ONES LATER. YES. RIGHT. EXACTLY. BUT, YOU KNOW, EACH, THEY HAVE THEIR OWN MIX OF USES. WE THINK SUPPORTABLE BY THE DATA AND OTHER PLANNING PRINCIPLES. WE THINK THAT THIS IS, IF YOU WILL, A SURGICAL AND APPROPRIATE RESPONSE TO THIS SPECIFIC PROPERTY. WE CAN TALK ABOUT THE OTHERS LATER. UM, YOU KNOW, IN TERMS OF THE NUMBERS EQUALING THE NUMBER OF SPACES THAT ARE PRESENT. , I'M, I'M GLAD YOU BROUGHT THAT UP TOO, BECAUSE I KNOW THAT WAS, THAT WAS MENTIONED IN THE BRIEFING AS WELL. THERE'S A GOOD REASON FOR THAT. AND IT HEARKENS BACK TO THE FACT THAT THOSE ARE THE NUMBER OF SPACES THAT ARE THERE NOW. THEY'VE BEEN THERE FOR HOWEVER MANY DECADES THESE PROPERTIES HAVE EXISTED. SO ARE WE SOLVING FOR X? WE THINK ACTUALLY IT'S X MINUS WHATEVER THE NUMBER IS THAT, YOU KNOW, WE THINK THIS PARKING SUPPLY ACTUALLY EXCEEDS THE PARKING DEMAND IN A MIX. AND THAT'S WHAT WAS OBSERVED. WHAT WAS OBSERVED IN A MIXED USE ENVIRONMENT BASED ON THE DATA. SO WHAT WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO DO, AND WE THINK IT'S BAD FOR THE DISTRICT AND BAD FOR THE CITY, IS, OKAY, WE NEED ANOTHER, LET'S JUST SAY 50 SPACES OR 75 SPACES. HOW DO WE COME UP WITH THOSE? OH, WE BUY THE BUILDING NEXT DOOR AND BULLDOZE IT AND LAY ASPHALT. I'M NOT SUGGESTING THAT. I'M NOT SUGGESTING THAT. AND, AND, AND AGAIN, PART OF MY OWN IS I'M, I'M HOLDING YOUR MAP IN FRONT OF ME, OF ME AND I'M LOOKING AT IT AND SAYING, OKAY, I'M GOING, I'M GONNA MOVE ON TO MY NEXT QUESTION IS, WITH THE BLEED OVER, IS THERE GONNA BE BLEED OVER OUTSIDE OF THIS DEVELOPMENT? WHICH CREATES THE PROBLEMS THAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO PREVENT? OKAY. SO YOU GAVE US A MAP, UH, AND IT SAYS, UM, IT'S OUR, OUR PAGE 75 OF OUR DOCKET, AND IT TALKS ABOUT DECORATIVE CENTER SIDE PLAN, AND IT'S GOT ORANGE, RED, AND, UM, BLUE COLORS. THE RED I ASSUME IS RESTAURANT. THE BLUE IS OFFICE AND THE RED ARE RESTAURANTS. UM, IS THERE A STRATEGY ON THE LOCATION OF THE RESTAURANTS OFFICE AND SHOWROOM THAT WILL IMPACT PARKING? BECAUSE AGAIN, OUR CRITERIA HERE IS IMPACT ON PARKING. IT'S NOT ON MY, NONE OF MY BUSINESS WHERE YOU PUT 'EM UNLESS IT IMPACTS PARKING. AND ARE WE APPROVING SOMETHING THAT'S SPECIFIC TO A USE IN A SPECIFIC PLACE? MR. BOARD ATTORNEY? UH, I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN OR WE SHOULD. NO, THE, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION REQUIRES, OR THE, THE CODE REQUIRES THAT IF YOU GRANT THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION THAT UM, IT AUTOMATICALLY TERMINATE WHEN THE USE IS DISCONTINUED. BUT, BUT I'M SAYING IS THE SPECIFIC LOCATION OF WHAT'S IN THIS SITE, RESTAURANT VERSUS OFFICE IN TERMS OF LIKE THE, THE LAND USES YES. HERE. THEY'RE THERE VERSUS HERE. NO, THAT'S, THAT'S, THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT YOU CAN PUT IN THE MOTION. SO, BUT IF YOU CHANGE THE BOXES IN HERE, DOES THAT IMPACT PARKING [02:15:01] OF WHERE YOU'RE PUTTING THE BOXES? SO I'LL ADDRESS THAT TO SOME. YOU SEE WHAT I'M MEAN PART. AND IF WE CAN ALTERNATE BACK AND FORTH, THIS IS LLOYD DENMAN AGAIN. I DID THE PARKING STUDY. AND I DO WANT TO REMIND YOU, I DID MADE PARKING OBSERVATIONS OF THE EXISTING SITE. AND IN MY PARKING STUDY I SHOW WHERE THERE'S EXCESS PARKING TODAY, THERE ARE TWO RESTAURANTS UTILIZING THE SITE TODAY. THEY'RE ON THE WEST SIDE ALONG OAK LAWN AND THE SMALLER RED AREA. WITH THOSE SUCCESSFUL AND BUSY RESTAURANTS, THERE IS LOTS OF EXCESS PARKING. SO THE OWNER IS BEFORE THE BOARD TODAY TO ASK, PERHAPS WE CAN ADD SOME MORE RESTAURANT. AND LET'S ASK WHAT'S THE PD ALLOWS TO UTILIZE THE EXISTING PARKING AND HELP REVITALIZE THE DESIGN DISTRICT. THEY DO NOT WANT TO EXCEED THAT TO YOUR QUESTION. SO MY QUESTION GOES TO, IF YOU CHANGED WHERE THE LOCATION OF THESE WERE, DOES THAT IMPACT THE CRITERIA FOR OUR CRITERIA FOR PARKING? THAT'S MY QUESTION. 'CAUSE MY BOARD ATTORNEY JUST TOLD ME THAT IT'S NOT WITHIN OUR PURVIEW TO SAY THE USES CORRECT. OTHER THAN TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE. RIGHT. WELL, SO I, I WANNA BACK UP AND MAKE SURE I'M ANSWERING YOUR QUESTION, CHAIRMAN. SO THE, THE CODE BASICALLY HAS A MATH FORMULA. IT SAYS YOU HAVE TO HAVE X NU OR ONE SPACE PER X NUMBER OF SQUARE FEET BASED ON THE USE. YES. SO IF YOU SHUFFLE THE USES AROUND, BUT THE SQUARE FOOTAGE STAYS THE SAME, THE PARKING IS THE SAME, THE REQUIRED PARKING IS THE YES. SO BACK TO MY QUESTION AGAIN. IF YOU SHUFFLED THIS AROUND, DOES THAT IMPACT YOUR ESTIMATION ON THE IMPACT ON PARKING? SO THE WAY THEY HAVE IT? 'CAUSE THERE'S NOTHING THAT BINDS YOU TO THESE BOXES. I'M JUST TRYING TO LOOK OF WHAT'S THE CHANCES THE PARKING IS GONNA CREEP OUT OF YOUR DEVELOPMENT? EXACTLY. BECAUSE THAT, IN MY OPINION, CREATES A RED LINE FOR THIS CASE IN ONE PERSON'S OPINION. SO REMEMBER, THIS IS ALL INTERNAL IF YOU'VE BEEN YES. AND THAT'S TO YOUR ADVANTAGE. SO THE EXISTING RESTAURANTS ARE ON THE WEST END. GOT IT. THE PROPOSED RESTAURANTS ARE ON WHAT I'LL CALL THE EAST END. YEP. AND THAT IMPROVES THE OPERATION BY HAVING TWO DIFFERENT VALET STANDS FOR THE TWO DIFFERENT LOCATIONS. AND I WAS GONNA BRING UP AN ADDITIONAL POINT. WE HOPE ADDITIONAL RESTAURANTS ARE SUCCESSFUL, RIGHT? WE HOPE THAT THEY CAN UTILIZE ALL 300 SPACES HERE. DON'T BITE OUT MORE THAN YOU CAN CHEW BECAUSE YOU'RE ASKING FOR A CHEW OF 25% TODAY. UH, BECAUSE WHAT YOU JUST IMPLIED IS YOU'RE GONNA PUT MORE RESTAURANTS IN, WHICH PUTS MORE STRESS ON PARKING. BUT OKAY, I GOTTA KEEP GOING HERE. IF WE'RE, IF WE'RE EFFICIENT ENOUGH TO FILL THE 300 SPACES AND WE EXCEED AS YOU, AS YOU HAD MENTIONED, YOU KNOW, WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN? THEY'RE BUILDING NEW PARKING LOTS ADJACENT WHERE THEY CAN HAVE OVERFLOW PARKING AND RESERVES. BUT THAT'S NOT CONTINGENT ON THIS CASE. SO NEXT QUESTION. CAN, CAN I ADD JUST ONE THING TO THAT, TO AID IN OUR UNDERSTANDING THIS SITE PLAN WITH THE COLORS ON THIS IS WHAT I'M LOOKING AT. YES. CORRECT. THAT'S THE RESTAURANT SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT'S SHOWN ON THAT IS A MAXIMUM WE YEP. WOULD NOT EXCEED THAT. SO, AND, AND RESTAURANT AND YOU'RE NOT, AND YOU'RE NOT HELD TO THOSE LOCATIONS. I CORRECT. ACCORDING TO MY BOARD ATTORNEY, I THINK THE, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S ONE BUILDING SITE. YES. IT'S ONE PLATTED LOT. YOU KNOW, I THINK THE PRECISE LOCATIONS OF THE USES WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT ARE FRANKLY PRETTY IRRELEVANT. WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS THE MAXIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGES OF THE USERS. WELL, IT, IT IS RELEVANT, RESPECTFULLY. IF THOSE RESTAURANTS MOVE CLOSER TO THE OTHER SIDE WHERE THE OTHER RESTAURANT PRESSURE IS FAIR POINT. IT IS, IT IS IMPACTFUL. OKAY. THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN YOU HAVE SPILLAGE OR WHATEVER THAT MAY BE. WELL, AND I THINK THAT CAN BE CONTROLLED OPERATIONALLY THROUGH MANAGEMENT, THE PROPERTY. AND THAT'S, AND THAT'S THE PROPERTY OWNER'S CHALLENGE, RIGHT. TO FIGURE OUT HOW HE, YOUR COMPANY, WHATEVER INVOLVED, DECIDES TO USE YOUR CAPITAL WITHIN THE CONSTRAINTS OF THE CITY. RIGHT. I'M JUST LOOKING BACK TO OUR CRITERIA YEAH. OF NOT HAVING THE RAF TRAFFIC HAZARD OR TRAFFIC CONGESTION. SO I THINK YOU'RE, LET ME KEEP GOING. LET ME KEEP GOING. WELL, LET ME, LET ME JUST ADD, I THINK YOUR CONCERN AS A BOARD IS THE RESTAURANT SQUARE FOOTAGE BECAUSE THAT DRIVES MORE PARKING. CORRECT. AND, AND IF WE ESTABLISH THIS AS OUR MAXIMUM RESTAURANT SQUARE FOOTAGE, THE PRECISE LOCATION, YOU'RE CORRECT. WE, WE CAN MANAGE THAT WELL, BUT WE WOULD NOT EXCEED THE RESTAURANT SQUARE FOOTAGE. OKAY. AND, AND, AND WE, AND EACH OF OUR CASES ARE HANDLED SEPARATELY OF COURSE, BUT THE TIMES THAT WE'VE HANDLED PARKING ISSUES, WE COLLECTIVELY PAUSE BECAUSE, OKAY, DO WE KNOW BETTER WHAT THIS TYPE OF USE IN THIS LOCATION IS GONNA IMPACT PARKING OR NOT? THE HOPE IS THE PROPERTY OWNER DOES BECAUSE IT'S NOT IN YOUR, IT'S IN YOUR BEST INTEREST NOT TO, TO HAVE YOUR PEOPLE PARKED AS OPPOSED TO STRANDED. UH, BUT AGAIN, CASE BY CASE. NEXT QUESTION IS [02:20:01] THIS PENDING REQUEST CONDITION ON VALET PARKING? I'M TRYING TO READ THAT IN HERE SOMEWHERE. I SAW THE TERM ON PAGE 58. IT SAYS THE RESTAURANTS WILL BE VALET PARKED. SO MY QUESTION IS, ACCORDING TO WHAT YOUR EXHIBIT TWO PROPOSED, USE PARKING, IT SAYS THE RESTAURANTS WILL VALET PARKED. IS THAT A CONDITION THAT WE HAVE IN HERE? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE OFFERING UP AS A CONDITION? IS THAT WHAT WE HAVE IN WHAT'S IN FRONT OF US? I'M CONFUSED. YEAH. I, I THINK IT'S, IT'S PART OF THE PLAN. YOU KNOW, IT'S JUST, IT'S KIND OF STANDARD FOR OPERATIONS OF THESE KINDS OF RESTAURANTS. OKAY. SO WE'RE CONTEMPLATING IT. IT'S PART OF WHAT YOU'RE, YOU'VE REQUESTED TO HAVE VALET PARKING FOR YOUR RESTAURANTS. IT'S PART OF THE SUPPORTING EXPLANATION FOR THIS MIX OF USES, INCLUDING THE AMOUNT OF RESTAURANT. WE THINK THAT'S PROBABLY WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN. IT'S VERY TYPICAL FOR NIGHTTIME, HIGHER END RESTAURANTS. I, I AGREE. BUT WE ARE NOT, WE, WE AREN'T IN A POSITION TO, TO DETERMINE WHAT TYPE OF RESTAURANT WHEN YOU OPERATE. I WOULD PERCEIVE THAT, BUT THAT'S NOT OUR PLACE TO SAY AGREE. WE, WE THINK THAT TYPICALLY THESE, THE HIGH-END RESTAURANTS THAT ARE ATTRACTED TO THIS DISTRICT WANT TO UTILIZE A VALET OPERATION VALET. I PERSONALLY WOULD AGREE, BUT WE'RE NOT, I'M WONDERING WHERE, WHETHER WE'RE BOUNDING BINDING YOU BASED ON THIS SIGNIFICANT, THIS SIGNIFICANT OF A REDUCTION. MY UNDER? NO, THE, YOU'RE NOT BOUND TO THE VALET. VALET AS PRESENTLY CONSTRUCTED, USE THE EXISTING SPACES WITHIN THIS. WE JUST, THE, THE OPERATORS USE IT AS AN AMENITY FOR HIGH END RESTAURANTS TO MAKE IT EASIER FOR THEM TO PARK. OKAY. EXPLAIN TO ME THE SHARED PARKING TABLE. YOU'VE REFERRED TO A SHARED TAR PARKING. DON'T GO TOO DEEP EITHER. AND I DON'T WANT TO TAKE ALL THE TIME OF QUESTIONS, BUT THIS SHARED PARKING TABLE, 'CAUSE I'M LOOKING AT PAGE 58, YOUR EXHIBIT TWO. IT SAYS REQUIRED PARKING UNDER THE CURRENT FORM IS 4 57. AND THEN IT'S GOT A BUNCH OF NUMBERS AND THEN IT SAYS TOTALLY PARKING PROVIDED 300. WHAT IS THIS SHARED PARKING TABLE YOU REFERRED TO? IT'S STRAIGHT FROM PD 6 21. OKAY. I'M GONNA LOOK FOR IT. KEEP GOING. AND IT HAS DIFFERENT PERCENTAGE REDUCTIONS FOR TIME OF DAY BY USE. IT'S ON PAGE 86. OKAY. AND AS I MENTIONED, OUR INITIAL REQUEST, WE, WE OMITTED THIS TABLE FOR SIMPLICITY'S SAKE. IT'S 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 DIFFERENT TIMES OF DAY. I SEE THAT. MULTIPLE DIFFERENT PERCENTAGES. BECAUSE THE PD REQUIRES ITS USE. WE DID GO IN VERY CAREFULLY AND UTILIZE THE TABLE AND THE REQUIRED PARKING IS 3 99 BASED ON THE TABLE AS OPPOSED TO THE CALCULATED OF 4 57. CORRECT. THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE. OKAY. I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THAT. AND THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH WHAT THE PD TELLS YOU TO DO? YES. OKAY. OKAY. I I'M NOT, THIS IS JUST, I'M NOT TOO, BUYING INTO YOUR WALKABILITY IN ALTERNATIVE MODES OR TRANSPORTATION IS THE BASIS. 'CAUSE I DON'T, I DIDN'T SEE ANY PEOPLE WALKING IN THE VIDEOS. WE SAW OTHER PICTURES. WE SAW THAT THAT AREA IS, I WOULDN'T CALL IT INDUSTRIAL, BUT I WOULDN'T NECESSARILY SEE IT AS VERY WALKABLE. UH, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE OWNER SAYS IT'S HOT. I DON'T KNOW WHAT USE THE HIGH END, HIGH END. I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY PEOPLE GO TO HIGH END RESIDENCE WALKING OR BICYCLING. BUT I, I, SO I HAVE TO, I TAKE THAT IN LESSER WEIGHT AS FAR AS, AND FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, AND I'M GONNA DEFER NOW TO THE REST OF THE BOARD ON, UH, BECAUSE YOU'RE INTERIOR PARK, THE CHANCES OF SPILLOVER AND SPILL OUT ARE GONNA BE A LOT LESS. AND IT'S MORE ENCLOSED. BUT AGAIN, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT WOULD HAPPEN ON SLOCUM IF PEOPLE WOULD PARK ON THE STREET OR ON HIGH HIGH LINE. UM, THAT'S THE FEAR THERE IS THE PARKING IS ALLOWED ON SLOCUM AND IS COUNTED FOR THIS PROPERTY. I HEAR YOU. BUT THAT JUST GETS ME NERVOUS BECAUSE WE, WE DON'T WANT THE BUSINESS OF, UH, OF IT, OF THE SPILLOVER. 'CAUSE IT CREATES THE VERY THING WE'RE SUPPOSED TO AVOID, THE INCREASE IN TRAFFIC CONGESTION OR TRAFFIC HAZARDS. SO. OKAY. YOUR ANSWERS HAVE BEEN HELPFUL. WHAT OTHER QUESTIONS DO WE HAVE FOR THE APPLICANT, MR. FINNEY? UH, YES. SO, UM, I WAS WONDERING IF YOU COULD, UM, WHICHEVER ONE OF YOU FEELS MOST QUALIFIED TO ANSWER THIS, UM, KIND OF SHARE WITH US A DAY IN THE LIFE OF, UM, THIS DEVELOPMENT FROM A PERSPECTIVE, UM, AND MAKE SURE YOU INCLUDE A TYPICAL WEEKDAY AND A TYPICAL WEEKEND FROM THE LEAST BUSY TIMES TO THE MOST BUSY TIMES. SO IT'S IN YOUR PARKING STUDY MM-HMM . IF YOU CAN LOOK AT THE PARKING STUDY THAT GOES WITH THIS PARTICULAR CASE. I DROVE THE AREA 20 DIFFERENT TIMES ON DIFFERENT DAYS, DIFFERENT TIMES OF DAY, AND THE NIGHTS. AND MY PARKING STUDY SHOWS THAT VERY BREAKDOWN. OKAY. WITH [02:25:01] VACANT SPACE, STILL INTERIOR TO THE SITE. AND REMEMBER, THERE'S NO PARKING ALLOWED ON EITHER SIDE OF OAK LAWN. SLOCUM IS A DEAD STREET AT NIGHT. I DROVE THAT AREA, LIKE I SAY, 20 PLUS DIFFERENT TIMES DURING THE DAY. 25% PARKED DURING THE PEAK RESTAURANT USE 55% PARKED WITH WHAT'S THERE. MM-HMM . YEAH. SORRY, I SHOULD HAVE BEEN MORE SPECIFIC. I MEANT, UM, AND THE, AND THE MOST BUSY TIME WAS SATURDAY, UM, SATURDAY NIGHTS. RIGHT. AND HOW FULL WAS THE PARKING LOT? 55% WITH BOTH RESTAURANTS. OKAY. FULL, FULL BLAST. OKAY. SO NOW GIVE ME A HYPOTHETICAL VERSION OF THAT. IF WE WERE TO APPROVE WHAT YOU'RE ASKING, WHAT THAT, WHAT THOSE, WHAT THE, WHAT THAT WOULD, WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE. SO ALSO IN THE PARKING STUDY, THAT WAS MY PROPOSED, THAT'S THESE CHARTS. IF YOU LOOK, IF YOU WERE TO LOOK IN MY PARKING STUDY, THERE WAS THE PROPOSED, WHICH WOULD BE THE MAXIMUM USE, AND IT WAS TO FILL UP THE 300 SPACES WITH THE RESTAURANT USE. GOTCHA. AND DURING THE DAY, IT WOULD NEVER BE FULL. THERE'S NOT ENOUGH SHOWROOM DEMAND. EVEN WITH THE RESTAURANT. PROBABLY SOME LUNCHTIME CROWD WOULD STILL NOT FILL THE 300 SPACES WITH WHAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR THE INCREASED SQUARE FOOTAGE OF RESTAURANT. RIGHT. YEAH. BUT THE WAY IT OPERATES TODAY, THERE IS, IT IS OVER PARKED AND UNDERDEVELOPED MM-HMM . RIGHT. BUT REMEMBER, YOU'RE CHANGE, YOU'RE ABOUT TO HAVE A DRAMATIC CHANGE OF THAT INCREMENTAL CHANGE. THAT'S WHY MR. FINNEY'S TRYING TO GET YOU TO YES. OPINE ON WHAT WILL BE, BECAUSE THAT'S THE GOAL. THAT'S THE MODE WE'RE IN RIGHT NOW IS THE GOAL. WHAT WILL BE THE GOAL IS TO INCREMENTALLY INCREASE TO MAXIMIZE WHAT'S THERE. RIGHT. YEAH. WHICH YOU DID ILLUSTRATE FOR US IN THIS CHART ON PAGE 90. OKAY. UM, AND SO, UM, HAVE YOU AT ALL DONE A STUDY OF, UM, THE USERS THAT ARE, UH, COMING TO THE, UH, THE RESTAURANTS, UM, FOR EXAMPLE, UH, AND HOW THEY'RE GETTING THERE, LIKE, AND HOW MANY OF THEM ARE, ARE WALKING OR TAKING A RIDE SHARE SERVICE VERSUS HOW MANY OF THEM ARE ACTUALLY DRIVING THEIR OWN VEHICLE THERE? SO YES. WHEN I WAS DOING THE PARKING OBSERVATIONS AND COUNTS THAT I DID IN APRIL AND MAY OF 2024, I INTERVIEWED THE VALET OPERATORS AND THEY GAVE LOTS OF INFORMATION. THEY SAID THE, UH, HOTEL GUESTS FROM THE VIRGIN DO UTILIZE THE FREE SHUTTLE FROM THE VIRGIN HOTEL AND ARE DROPPED OFF AND PICKED UP. THEY SAID THERE'S A LOT OF UBER AND ALTO. AND I SAW THEM PICKING UP AND DROPPING OFF . AND I DID ASK ARE, DO MANY PEOPLE WALK UP? AND THEY SAID, NO, THERE'S NOT A LOT OF HIGH-END RESTAURANT WALKERS DURING THE DAY. IF THE RESTAURANT WAS OPEN, I I WOULD SEE THAT. AND LET'S SEE, WHAT ELSE DID THEY SAY? UM, WELL, YEAH, AND JUST RIDE, YOU KNOW, RIDE SHARE COMMON. THE TRAIL, THE HIGHLINE TRAIL IS THERE AND JUST COMPLETED. BUT DO PEOPLE WALK THE TRAIL TO RESTAURANT? SOME, I MEAN, WE'RE SEEING THOSE TRENDS. UM, I JUST, I HAVE AN ELECTRIC BIKE AND IT CARRIES ANOTHER PERSON AND IT IS FUN. IT IS FUN TO DRIVE AROUND. SO, AND THERE IS BICYCLE PARKING, BUT WE DON'T GET CREDIT FOR THAT. BUT THAT, BUT I DID INTERVIEW THE VALET OPERATORS AND THAT WAS WHAT THEY SHARED. RIGHT. OKAY. AND THEN, UH, NOT TO BEAT IT OUTTA HORSE, BUT COULD YOU, UM, EXPRESS ONE MORE TIME HOW THE INTERNAL LAYOUT OF THE DEVELOPMENT ACTUALLY, UH, KIND OF DECREASES THE AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC, UM, ON ADJACENT STREETS? YES. THIS PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT HAS TWO POINTS OF ENTRY. AND THEY BOTH HAVE LOTS OF WHAT I CALL Q LENGTH AND SPACE SO THAT YOU TURN IN AND KEEP DRIVING OFF OF HIGHLINE, WHICH IS THE BUSIER STREET. SLOCUM IS DEAD AT NIGHT. THERE'S NO TRAFFIC ON SLOCUM AT NIGHT. BUT DURING HIGHLINE, THE BUSIER STREET YOU TURN IN OFF OF HIGHLINE. AND, AND THERE'S QUITE A WAYS TRAVERSE BEFORE YOU EVER ENTER THE VALET STAND. SO YOU CAN HAVE CAR COMING IN AFTER CAR COMING IN, AFTER CAR COMING IN, AND THEY WOULD NOT BACK UP ONTO HIGHLINE TO SLOW TRAFFIC OR NEGATIVELY HAVE AN IMPACT. RIGHT, RIGHT. AND OF THE THREE STREETS THAT SET ADJACENT TO YOUR SITE, WOULD YOU SAY THAT OAKLAWN IS PROBABLY THE BUSIEST IN TERMS OF TRAFFIC? [02:30:01] YES, BY FAR. AND THERE'S NO ENTRY FROM OAKLAWN AND THERE'S NO PARKING ALLOWED ON EITHER SIDE OF OAKLAWN. SO NO IMPACT. GREAT. AWESOME. THANK YOU. I'M DONE. THANK YOU MR. FINNEY. OTHER QUESTIONS? OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? SO I'M GONNA ASK A FEW, UH, ON THE, ON THE, ON THE UM, DECORATIVE CENTER SITE PLAN ON OUR PAGE 75 THAT YOU PROVIDED. I, UM, IT SHOWS PARKING SPACES, UM, AND IT SHOWS THE INTERNAL, INTERNAL SHARP PARKING SPACES AND IT SHOWS LOCUM TO THE EAST AND HIGHLINE TO THE NORTH. RIGHT. AND IT'S GOT LITTLE SLOTS. IS PARKING ALLOWED ON HIGHLINE? 'CAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE THEY'RE PARKING SPACES YES. THAT YOU'RE COUNTING AND THE PD ALLOWS YOU TO COUNT THAT AS PART OF YOUR PARKING SPACE? YES. WOW. OKAY. I'M GONNA HAVE TO ASK IT AGAIN TO TO BELIEVE IT. SO THIS GRAPHIC THAT YOU'VE GIVEN US THAT SHOWS PARKING SLOTS, SPOTS, ARE THEY STRIPED? YES. ALONG HIGH LINE. THE PD ALLOWS THIS PROPERTY TO COUNT THAT AS PART OF YOUR SPACE PARKING? CORRECT. AND IT IS, WHAT ABOUT THE ONES ALONG SLOCUM? YES. AND NOT TO BE REDUNDANT, BUT WHAT'S ON THE BOTTOM ALLEY? IT'S GOT PARKING SPACES AN ALLEYWAY, AND YOU'RE ALLOWED TO COUNT THAT. CORRECT. THAT REALLY, THAT IS AMAZING TO TAG TEAM ON THAT, THAT THAT'S PART OF WHAT PD 6 21 DID THAT I THINK WAS FORWARD LOOKING TO FOSTER ADAPTIVE REUSE IS YOU CAN COUNT STREET PARKING AND YOU CAN COUNT PARKING SPACES WHERE YOU ARE MANEUVERING IS ONTO THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, WHICH UNDER THE NORMAL CODE YOU CANNOT DO THAT. BUT REALISTICALLY, SOMEONE'S GONNA PARK AT THE BACK OF YOUR, OF YOUR PROPERTY AND WALK OVER TO A RESTAURANT OR INTO A SHOWROOM SPACE. I'M THINKING PRACTICALLY I, IF THAT'S WHERE THE SPACE WAS, I MIGHT DO THAT. I MEAN OKAY, I'LL, I'LL MEET YOU OUT THERE AND SEE IF YOU DO THAT. THAT JUST SEEMS TO BE A LITTLE BIT OF A STRETCH. BUT IF THE PD ALLOWS THAT AS PART OF YOUR ACCOUNT, AGAIN, WE DON'T MAKE POLICY. THEY ALLOW THAT, BASED ON MY OBSERVATION, THEY WERE TYPICALLY EMPTY. YES. NOW THAT I BELIEVE, AND ON HIGHLINE, THEY WERE TYPICALLY CONSTRUCTION WORKERS BECAUSE THE STREET WAS UNDER CONSTRUCTION DURING PART OF THAT TIME. WOW. OKAY. SO, UH, WHAT YOU HAD SAID BEFORE WAS THIS APPLICATION FOR THIS PARTICULAR SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS NOT CONDITIONED ON REQUIRING VALET PARKING. CORRECT. YOU INTEND TO DO IT, BUT IT'S NOT LEGALLY REQUIRED. THAT'S CORRECT. MY UNDER. OKAY, THANK YOU. I'M GONNA KEEP DOING THIS. SO A ROLL CALL THING. ALRIGHT. AND SO WHAT YOU'VE TESTIFIED IS THAT THIS, I'LL CALL THIS, I'M NOT EXTERIOR, BUT EXTERIOR PARKING SPACES ALL AROUND HERE EXCEPT OAK LAWN ARE PART OF YOUR NUMBERS AND THAT'S LEGALLY PART OF YOUR DEAL. LO IS THAT LEGALLY PART OF YOUR DEAL? CORRECT. OKAY. I'M LOOKING. YEAH. UM, THERE IS, ACCORDING TO OUR BOARD ATTORNEY, THE SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT YOU'RE ALLOCATING FOR RESTAURANT IS JUST IN TOTALITY, NOT A SPECIFIC LOCATION. OKAY. KNOWING FULL WELL, THAT'LL CHANGE YOUR MIX OF THE, THE ADJACENCY OF YOUR PARKING IF YOU PUT 'EM ALL ON THE WEST SIDE VERSUS, BUT THAT'S YOUR BUSINESS, NOT OURS. OKAY. MY, OUR BUSINESS IS SPILL OUT PARKING THAT SPILL OUT AND SO FORTH. OKAY. UM, HMM. WELL, ANOTHER ANSWER THAT YOU COULD HAVE GIVEN IS THE PARKING ON THE STREET COULD BE YOUR VALET SLOTS TOO. NO, THAT'S NOT ALLOWED. NO. WELL FORGET MY DEVELOP ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SUGGESTION SO THAT YOUR VALET STAND. SO WHERE DOES YOUR VALET PEOPLE PARK? THAT MUST BE INTERNAL. YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO VALET IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. OH, YOU'RE RIGHT. THAT WASN'T A TRICK QUESTION, BUT OKAY. THAT I WAS THINKING. WELL, YOU'D VALET ON THE EXTERIOR SO THAT THE CUSTOMER DOESN'T HAVE TO WALK THERE. OKAY. YOU'VE ALMOST EXHAUSTED ME AT QUESTIONS AND TO ONCE AGAIN, ASSUAGE PART OF THAT CONCERN OF WHAT IF THERE IS SPILLOVER PARKING? MM. DON'T, WE DON'T WANT TO HEAR THAT. WELL, WHAT ARCH OKAY, ANSWER THE QUESTION. YOU, YOU, YOU INJECTED THE POISON. THIS PARTICULAR OWNER OWNS 16 DIFFERENT PROPERTIES. YES, BUT, AND THEY HAVE THE BUT WE'RE NOT BIND AND THIS PROJECT, THIS ONE'S NOT BINDING TO THAT IS IT. SO THEREFORE IT'S NOT ON THE TABLE. NOW IF HE WANTS TO PUT A BINDING ON IT, THEN IT'S A DIFFERENT SITUATION. I'M NOT ASKING HIM TO YET, BUT, UM, I WAS JUST LETTING YOU KNOW THERE'S AN OPTION. I GET THAT. BUT AT ANY MOMENT HE COULD GO SELL THAT TO SOMETHING ELSE OR USE IT, BUILD ON IT. SO I GET THAT. AND, AND WE, AGAIN, EVERY CASE IS DIFFERENT, BUT WE'VE HAD PARKING CASES WHERE AGAIN, WE SAY, DO WE KNOW BETTER THAN WHAT THE DEVELOPER'S GONNA DO? DOES THE DEVELOPER [02:35:01] REALLY NOT WANNA BE ABLE TO PARK ITS TENANTS OR ITS CUSTOMERS? AND THE ANSWER IS NO. OF COURSE NOT. YEAH. HE WANTS TO. THAT'S A GREAT POINT. AND THAT'S ONE THING I WOULD ADD IS OUR GOAL IS TO REVITALIZE INTO YEP. NOT TEAR DOWN THESE BUILDINGS, BUT TO REUSE THEM. AND INSTEAD OF EMPTY PARKING LOTS, TO USE THOSE PARKING SPACES TO CREATE VIBRANCY AND WALKABILITY OR VISITORS TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. SO TO YOUR YOUR POINT'S EXACTLY RIGHT. WE WANT THEM TO SUCCEED AND IT'S IN OUR COMMERCIAL INTEREST TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CAN OFFER THEM THE PARKING THAT THEY NEED SO THAT THEY CAN, YOU KNOW, SELL THE HAMBURGERS OR WHATEVER IT IS THAT THEY'RE SELLING. IT'S PROBABLY MORE THAN HAMBURGERS, I'M GUESSING. BUT, BUT THAT AGAIN, THAT'S OUTSIDE OUR, THAT'S OUTSIDE OUR WHEELHOUSE OF OUR PER SPECIFIC CONS, CONSTRICTION OF WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO FOCUS ON. ALRIGHT. WHAT OTHER QUESTIONS, MR. FINNEY? OKAY. OH, EXCUSE ME. WE GOT MR. OVITZ. MR. OVITZ, PLEASE FORGIVE ME IF THIS HAS BEEN ALREADY DISCUSSED. I MAY HAVE MISSED IT. UM, IS THERE A SPECIFIC PORTION OF THAT INTERIOR PARKING THAT IS RESERVED FOR SELF PARKING VERSUS VALET? BASED ON MY OBSERVATIONS, YES. THE VAL, AND THAT'S UP TO THE VALET OPERATOR. THEY CONE OFF HALF OF THE PARKING AND THE OTHER HALF IS AVAILABLE TO PATRONS LIKE MYSELF WHO DON'T TYPICALLY VALET . AND THERE WAS ROOM, DON'T HANG YOURSELF THERE AND SAY YOU DON'T VALET. 'CAUSE PART OF WHAT HE'S SAYING IS GONNA VALET THESE PEOPLE, BUT YOU DON'T HAVE TO. I HEAR YOU. TO ANSWER HIS QUESTION BACK TO MR. IT'S, BUT THERE'S NOTHING, THERE'S NOTHING LIKE, UH, LIMITING AS TO YOU. THEY, THEY COULD AT SOME POINT SAY ALL THE PARKING IS VALET PARKING. THERE'S NO RESTRICTION TO THAT. I BELIEVE SO, YES. THANK YOU. WELL, IF YOU OFFER COMPLIMENTARY VALET, THEN IT'S AGAIN, AND THAT'S THE MARKET, RIGHT? THE MARKET WILL TELL US RESPONSE IS IF YOU RUN OUT OF PARKING SPACE, YOU JUST SAY IT'S COMP. YEAH, THAT'S RIGHT. THAT EXACTLY RIGHT. BUT, BUT THAT'S A PRIVATE SECTOR DECISION THAT'S NOT OURS. AND AGAIN, WE DON'T, WE DON'T, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T, UH, ALL THESE RESTAURANTS HAVE THEIR OWN OPERATIONS AND THEY'VE THOUGHT THROUGH THIS IN THEIR OTHER LOCATIONS AND THEY DETERMINE HOW INVEST AND IF THEY COMP THE VALET, IF THEY CHARGE THEM FIVE BUCKS, WHATEVER THE, THE MECHANISM IS THAT THEY HAVE, THEY'VE KIND OF RESEARCHED THEIR BEST PRACTICES AND ARE APPLYING IT IN THESE CASES. OKAY. DID THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? I HAVE A I HAVE A FOLLOW UP QUESTION THEN PLEASE. SO, SO WHEN YOU LEASE A SPACE TO A RESTAURANT, IT'S JUST ENTIRELY LEFT UP TO THE RESTAURANT. UH, I MEAN, WHAT, WHAT EXACTLY THEN DOES THE RESTAURANT PROVIDE? ARE THEY PROVIDED A SPECIFIC NUMBER OF SPOTS PER RESTAURANT? UM, HOW IS, HOW IS THAT PARKING ALLOCATED? IS IT COMPLETELY UNDER CONTROL OF THE RESTAURANT? IF I UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION CORRECTLY, WE ARE NOT DICTATING, UH, THE SPECIFIC PARKING SPACES TO THE RESTAURANT. WE'RE ALLOWING THEM A SHARE PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CODE OF HOW MANY SPACES THEY NEED. THEY WOULD THEN COME BACK TO US JUST FROM AN OPERATIONAL STANDPOINT AND SAY, HEY, WE WOULD LOVE TO USE 30 SPACES FOR VALET. CAN WE USE THIS ROW? AND WE WOULD SAY YES PER OUR AGREEMENT WITH THE VALET OPERATOR. SO, SO IF I'M HEARING YOU CORRECTLY, HOWEVER, THAT'S THE NEGOTIATOR, AT SOME POINT, THESE SPECIFIC PARKING SPACES WILL BE USED BY THAT SPECIFIC RESTAURANT. IS THAT, IS THAT THE FINAL WAY IT ENDS UP? BECAUSE YOU HAVE EXISTING SPACES THAT HAVE SIGNS THAT ARE TENANT SPECIFIC? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE, IS I'M KIND OF DOVETAILING MR. HOPKIN, IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE CONTIN PLANNING AND CONTINUE TO DO OR LEAVE IT ALL OPEN? WELL, SOME OF OUR TENANTS HAVE TIME OF DAY RESTRICTIONS. THE SHOWROOMS, FOR EXAMPLE, WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THEIR CUSTOMERS HAVE DAYTIME AVAILABILITY FOR THEIR VISITORS TO COME AND PARK DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF THEIR SUITE. SO WE CAN PUT PARAMETERS AROUND THE TIME OF DAY THAT THESE SPACES ARE AVAILABLE TO VALET VERSUS NON VALET. SO THE SHOWROOM, OUR GOAL IS TO CONTINUE TO KIND OF HELP CREATE WHAT MADE THIS DISTRICT SPECIAL, WHICH IS THE DESIGNERS AND THE SHOWROOMS AND THE FURNITURE MAKERS. WE WANT THEM TO STAY AND USE THESE SHOWROOMS. SO WE COMMERCIALLY, AGAIN, WANT TO GIVE THEM THE SPACES THAT THEY NEED SO THAT THEIR CUSTOMERS CAN HAVE EASY ACCESS TO THEIR, TO THEIR FRONT DOOR. THE, THE REASON, THE REASON I'M ASKING THE QUESTION IS WE'VE HAD PARKING RELATED AND, AND IT'S NOT INTERIOR PARKING. IT'S, I'M NOT SAYING IT'S THE SAME THING, BUT WE HAVE HAD CASES IN THE PAST WHERE, UH, PARKING SPOTS A BUILDING GET, HAS X NUMBER OF PARKING SPOTS AND DIFFERENT, UH, TENANTS IN THAT BUILDING CAN BASICALLY ALL SELECT THE SAME PARKING COUNT, THE SAME PARKING SPOTS, UM, IN TERMS OF THE ALLOCATION. SO, UM, THIS, THIS STORE SAYS I HAVE FIVE [02:40:01] PARKING SPOTS, BUT THREE OF 'EM ARE THE SAME AS THE STORE NEXT TO THEM. SO, SO, UM, WHAT IS, WHAT IN TERMS OF, UH, DOES EACH PARKING SPOT HAVE ONE DESIGNATION? OR CAN A PARKING SPOT BE CLAIMED? IT'S COMMON? THE MAJORITY MULTIPLE WAYS? YEAH, THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. THE MAJORITY OF IT IS COMMON TO THE PROJECT. AND, AND THAT'S, THAT'S KIND OF THE CONCEPT BEHIND THE SHARED USE, THE MIXED USE PARKING CHART, BECAUSE IT VARIES BY PEAK HOURS OF OPERATION, THINGS LIKE THAT. AND THAT'S VERY MUCH STANDARD IN THE CODE AND IN THE PD. UH, I, I'M NOT TRYING TO OVERSIMPLIFY IT, BUT BASICALLY IT'S, TRUST ME, THIS THIS'LL WORK KIND OF A THING. LOOK LIKE, UM, SAY THAT AGAIN, MR. HOP. I'M NOT, AGAIN, YOU, I, I TEAM GO A LITTLE BIT CLOSER TO THE MICROPHONE. 'CAUSE IT, I WE CAN'T CLEARLY HEAR YOU, SIR. UH, SORRY. IS THAT BETTER OPERATOR? YES. THANK YOU. THEY'RE GONNA MAKE IT HARMONIZE. OOPS, YOU TURNED YOURSELF OFF. SORRY. UH, YOU'RE GOOD. GO AHEAD. CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? YES. UM, IT SOUNDS LIKE THE, THE WHOLE COUNTING OF THE SPOTS AND THE, AND THE NUMBER OF SPOTS NEEDED AND ALL THESE STUDIES ARE BASICALLY, UM, MORE TRUST ME THAN ACTUAL ANY TYPE OF TRAFFIC SCIENCE INVOLVED IN IT. WELL, QUITE HONESTLY, IN THE END, MR. KOVI, THAT'LL , THAT DRIVES OUR DECISION IN THE END. YES. AND I DID MAKE OBSERVATIONS OF THE EXISTING CONDITIONS WITH MIXED USE. THAT INCLUDES RESTAURANT AND THERE WAS AMPLE PARKING AND EXTRA PARKING. AND THAT'S NOT IN THE OWNER'S BEST INTEREST OR THE CITY OF DALLAS'S BEST INTEREST. WE WANT TO UTILIZE WHAT'S ON THE GROUND. AND THIS IS A REQUEST TO MAXIMIZE UP TO ITS POTENTIAL. WHAT'S EXISTING MR. SCHOEN? I HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION IF I CAN GO AHEAD. I'M SORRY. I HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION. YES, PLEASE. YEAH. SO, UM, IS IT, IS IT A, IS IT A CORRECT STATEMENT FOR WHOEVER WANTS TO ANSWER THIS? IT MAY BE STAFF. IS IT A, IS IT A CORRECT STATEMENT THAT IF ADDITIONAL RESTAURANTS ARE OPEN, THEREFORE CHANGING THE REQUIRED PARKING SPOTS THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK, UH, FOR ADDITIONAL VARIANCES OR PARKING? UH, ALLOWANCES, MY INTERPRETATION IS THEIR REQUEST IS A SQUARE FOOTAGE ALLOCATION BY USE, WHICH GENERATES A PARKING REQUIREMENT. THEY'RE HERE TO SAY THEY INTEND X AMOUNT OF TOTAL RESTAURANT USE SHOWROOM AND OFFICE USE. AND THAT CALCULATES OUT A REVISED USE LESS THE PORTION THAT WE ALLOW THEM TO HAVE. SO THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION IS IF THEY CHANGE THAT MIX, IT WOULD CHANGE THE ALLOCATION? YES. 'CAUSE WE'RE, WE'RE AGREEING TO A CERTAIN SQUARE FOOTAGE. YES. IF THEY CHANGE THEIR LAND USE AND THE SQUARE FOOTAGE CHANGES SO THAT THERE'S MORE REQUIRED PARKING, THEY WOULD HAVE TO PROVIDE THAT REQUIRED PARKING OR COME BACK BEFORE YOU FOR ANOTHER SPECIAL EXCEPTION. AND, AND TO TRY TO MAYBE PUT THAT IN EVEN SIMPLER TERMS. I THINK WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR IS A MAXIMUM RESTAURANT SQUARE FOOTAGE, WHICH REALLY DRIVES PARKING DEMAND FOR THAT ALLOWABLE MAXIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE OF RESTAURANT COULD BE LESS, BUT THAT'S THE MAXIMUM. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT, MR. FINNEY? YES. UM, SO YOU, YOU'VE TALKED ABOUT, UM, THE 16 PROPERTIES THAT YOU HAVE AND, YOU KNOW, USING, USING THOSE COLLECTIVELY TO BUILD UP THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UM, SO TO SPEAK. I'M SORRY, I'M NOT USING YOUR WORDS EXACTLY, BUT, UM, I'M CURIOUS, WHAT IS YOUR RELATIONSHIP TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS? AND I GUESS SPECIFICALLY I'M CURIOUS IF ONE OF, IF IF A CONSUMER IS DOING BUSINESS WITH ONE OF YOUR TENANTS AND THEN DECIDES TO WALK ACROSS THE STREET TO GET COFFEE, ARE THEY GONNA GET THEIR CAR TOWED? LIKE DO YOU, DO YOU HAVE ANY SORT OF RELATIONSHIPS WITH ADJACENT, UH, LANDOWNERS TO COUNT FOR THESE THINGS? WE, YEAH, WE HAVE, UH, I HOPE TO, UH, SAY THAT WE HAVE GREAT RELATIONSHIPS WITH OWNERS, PARTICULARLY ON THE, LET'S SEE, UH, THIS SITE TO THE WEST IS A GROUP CALLED ASANA PARTNERS, WHO I BELIEVE SENT IN A LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR, UM, THIS REQUEST. AND WE'VE WORKED COLLECTIVELY WITH THEM TO, AGAIN, MAKE INVESTMENT IN THIS DISTRICT TO BRING PEOPLE HERE TO INCREASE THE KIND OF THE, THE WALKABILITY THAT WE'VE KIND OF TALKED ABOUT A NUMBER OF TIMES. SO WE HAVEN'T, WE DON'T HAVE A FORMAL, UH, AGREEMENT IN PLACE WITH ANYONE TO TOW OR NOT TOW, BUT OUR GOAL IS THAT THIS AREA IS [02:45:01] UTILIZED TO THE BEST OF ITS ABILITY IN THESE PARKING SPACES ARE, UM, ARE NOT EMPTY. RIGHT. THANK YOU, MR. FINNING. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? DID WE HAVE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS? MS. WILLIAMS? NO, THE SPEAKERS REGISTERED, SIR. THANK YOU. OKAY. THE CHAIR WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION. I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION. MR. FINNEY. I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 4 5 DASH 0 4 6 ON APPLICATION OF JONATHAN VINCENT GRANT, THE REQUEST OF THIS APPLICANT TO PROVIDE 300 OFF STREET PARKING SPACES TO THE OFF STREET PARKING REGULATIONS CONTAINED IN THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED, WHICH REQUIRES 399 OFF STREET PARKING SPACES. BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY USE AND THE TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT THIS SPECIAL CEPTION WILL NOT INCREASE TRAFFIC HAZARDS OR INCREASED TRAFFIC CONGESTION ON ADJACENT OR NEARBY STREETS, AND THE PARKING DEMAND GENERATED BY THE USE DOES NOT WARRANT THE NUMBER OF REQUIRED PARKING SPACES. I FURTHER MOVE THAT THE FOLLOWING CONDITION BE IMPOSED TO FURTHER THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE. THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION OF 99 SPACES SHALL AUTOMATICALLY AND IMMEDIATELY TERMINATE IF AND WHEN THE USE HAS CHANGED OR DISCONTINUED. COMPLIANCE WITH THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF ALL SUBMITTED PLANS ARE REQUIRED IN THE CASE OF BDA 2 4 5 DASH FOUR SIX. MR. FINNEY HAS MOVED TO GRANT THE REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION OF 99 SPACES. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. IT'S BEEN SECONDED BY MS. DAVIS. DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION. MR. FINNEY FIRST, THEN MS. DAVIS. MR. FINNEY? YEAH, I THINK YOU GUYS DID A VERY, VERY THOROUGH JOB OF, UM, DEMONSTRATING THAT, UM, THE, THE, THE PARKING DEMAND DOES NOT, UM, IT'S NOT GOING TO, UH, DOES NOT WARRANT THE NUMBER OF REQUIRED SPACES THAT IT'S NOT GOING TO NEGATIVELY IMPACT, UM, SURROUNDING STREETS. UM, AND I I THINK WHERE SOME OF THE CONFUSION CAME IN IS THAT I THINK YOU OVERLOADED US WITH WAY TOO MUCH INFORMATION. YOU GIVE US LIKE A HUNDRED PAGES TO SORT THROUGH AND WE HAVE A WEEK TO GO THROUGH THIS AND WE'RE VOLUNTEERS. WE'RE NOT PAID TO DO THIS. SO MY MY RECOMMENDATION TO YOU FOR NEXT TIME WOULD TO BE TO REALLY BE SELECTIVE ABOUT THE, THE MOST IMPORTANT INFORMATION THAT YOU INCLUDE IN THE DOCKET. SO THAT WAY IT'S A LOT EASIER TO GET YOUR POINTS ACROSS. SO THANK YOU MR. FINNEY, UH, DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION. MS. DAVIS, I'LL SUPPORT THIS MOTION. I THINK YOU DID A REALLY GOOD JOB OF JUSTIFYING THE DECREASE IN NEEDED PARKING SPOTS AND ANSWERED MY QUESTIONS REGARDING, UM, YOU KNOW, 85% OF THE BUILDING WAS OCCUPIED, SEEING ALL OF THOSE AVAILABLE SPACES AND THEN LISTENING, PARDON ME TO YOUR OBSERVATIONS, WHAT'S GOING ON? ALRIGHT. OKAY. BUT, SO YES, SO I APPRECIATE THE INFORMATION AND I WILL BE SUPPORTING THIS MOTION. OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? MR. OVITZ? UM, WELL, I, I AGREE THAT YOU PROVIDED A VERY WELL PRESENTED CASE. UM, HOWEVER, I FIND THE CHAIRMAN'S ARGUMENT A WHILE BACK THAT, UH, DEVELOPMENT PLANS ABOUT REUTILIZING, DIFFERENT AREAS AND, AND SO FORTH. MR. KOVICH, IT'S ECHOING. SO I NEED YOU TO GO A LITTLE BIT CLOSER TO YOUR MICROPHONE. THANK YOU. OKAY. I'M SORRY. I'M, I'M NEW AT DOING THIS REMOTELY. SO, UM, I FIND THE CHAIRMAN'S EARLIER ARGUMENTS RELATING TO, UM, REPURPOSING OF AREAS OF THE CITY TO LIKELY PROBABLY BE SOMETHING REALLY THAT THE CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE DECIDING AND NOT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. ALTHOUGH, AS I SAID, I THINK YOU'VE PRESENTED A GOOD CASE. I I'M CONCERNED THAT THIS IS REALLY OUT OF THE PURVIEW OF WHAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SHOULD BE, UH, SHOULD BE DEALING WITH. AND, UH, BECAUSE I REALLY DON'T THINK WE WANT TO GET IN THE, OF DECIDING PROPERTY BY PROPERTY ON, ON, UH, REPURPOSING AREAS OF THE CITY. I, I WILL, UH, WELL, I'M STOP. I HAVEN'T DECIDED FOR SURE YET, BUT I'M, I'M LEANING TOWARDS NOT SUPPORTING THE MOTIONS. THANK YOU MR. KOVI DISCUSSION OF THE MOTION. I'LL BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION. UM, AND I'M DOING THIS FOR THIS CASE ONLY. RIGHT NOW, WE'RE ONLY TALKING ABOUT THIS CASE. UH, 25% REDUCTION IS NOT A 45 OR 50% REDUCTION. MY COMMENTS BEFORE ABOUT OUR ROLE IS TO BE SPECIFIC, IS SUPPOSED TO BE A SPECIAL EXCEPTION. EXTRAORDINARY. UH, IT'S NOT SUPPOSED TO BE GEOGRAPHIC. IT'S NOT SUPPOSED TO BE, UM, UH, A CHANGE IN POLICY. IT IS, THERE'S GROUNDS TO MAKE [02:50:01] AN EXCEPTION TO WHAT THE POLICYMAKERS DEEMED. UH, AND 25% IS A LOT. BUT, UM, I'M JUST STUNNED THAT YOU'RE ALLOWED TO COUNT THOSE ON STREET. BUT OKAY, THAT'S, IF THAT'S WHAT IT IS. UM, ALSO IN MY THINKING, AND I WILL SAY THIS TO MR. KOVICH, THAT HASN'T MADE UP HIS MIND AND WE HAVEN'T HEARD FROM MR. NAIR YET. 'CAUSE YOU NEED FOUR VOTES. UH, I'M SUPPORTING IT ALSO BECAUSE THE, THE CHANCES OF A SPILL OUT OUTSIDE OF THIS ARE REMOTE AND LESS AND LESS THE MORE I THINK OF THIS 'CAUSE IT'S CONTAINED AND TO SPILL OUT. UH, ONE OF THE COMMENTS THAT WAS ASKED ABOUT THE VALET STAND AND THE QUEUING IN THE LONG QUEUING, UH, THERE WERE OTHER INSTANCES WHERE WE SEE ENTRANCE AND EXITS IN PARKING LOTS AND WE WONDER HOW IS THAT GONNA WORK? AND THAT MAY BE A DIFFERENT ISSUE FOR A DIFFERENT CASE. AND THIS, I DON'T SEE THAT AS AN ISSUE. UM, I HOPE YOU'RE SMART, YOU'RE A BUSINESSMAN, YOU'LL DECIDE WHERE YOU PUT THE RESTAURANTS, BUT THERE'S A NATURAL BALANCING HERE. UM, YOU CLARIFIED THAT YOU WERE NOT WE'RE GONNA REQUIRE OR NOT, WE HAVEN'T CONDITIONED THE VALET PARKING. YOU HAVEN'T OFFERED IT, BUT YOU'RE SAYING YOU UTILIZE IT ACCORDINGLY. I GOTTA THINK THAT THE MONEY THAT YOU'RE PUTTING INTO THIS PROJECT IS SUCH THAT YOU'RE GONNA WANT TO TAKE CARE OF YOUR CUSTOMERS. UH, RESPECTFULLY. I DON'T BUY THE WALKABILITY THING RESPECTFULLY. I DON'T BUY THE SHARED PARKING THING RESPECTFULLY. I DON'T BUY BICYCLING THE BUS LINE MS. DAVIS ASKED YOU ABOUT, YOU WERE HONEST AND DIDN'T, YOU SAID YOU DIDN'T REALLY KNOW WHERE. I DON'T THINK THAT FACTORS INTO THIS. UM, YOU MENTIONED THAT YOUR RESTAURANTS ARE GONNA BE HIGHER END OR WHATEVER THE TERM YOU USED. I AGREE. IT SENSED THAT FROM WHAT I SEE HERE. AND PEOPLE ARE GONNA DRIVE, MAYBE THEY'LL UBER, BUT THEY'RE NOT GONNA WALK AND THEY'RE NOT GONNA, THEY MAY SHUTTLE FROM AREA HOTELS, THE ANTO OR OTHER ONES IN THERE. BUT THIS IS GONNA BE MORE BY, AND SOMEONE SAID CAR CENTRIC TEXANS. YES, CORRECT. AND THAT'S JUST REALITY. BUT I THINK MR. KOVI, I WILL ADDRESS THIS TO YOU. AND THEN MR. NERI THAT ARE, HAVEN'T VOICED YET. I THINK IN THIS PROJECT WE HAVE ENOUGH SAFEGUARDS IN PLACE THAT I DON'T THINK WE'RE GONNA HAVE THIS, UM, TRAFFIC HAZARD OR INCREASED TRAFFIC CONGESTION ON ADJACENT STREETS. AT LEAST THAT'S WHAT I THINK. 'CAUSE THIS IS CONTAINED, THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY TRUE FOR OTHER PROJECTS. THAT'S FOR THIS. SO IN THIS CASE, I THINK IT'S A REASONABLE EXECUTION OF OUR AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITY TO APPROVE IT. DISCUSSION IN THE MOTION. MR. N NO, I, I JUST HAVE ENJOYED, UH, HEARING ALL OF YOUR COACH RATIONALE HERE. SO, UH, I'M PROBABLY INCLINED TO SUPPORT THIS PARTICULAR CASE. I WASN'T TURNED STRONG. ARE YOU JAY? I WAS JUST TRYING TO GIVE YOU A CHANCE TO SAY YOUR PS, BUT OKAY. UM, BUT YOU DON'T HAVE TO COMMENT. THAT'S OKAY. ALRIGHT. UM, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THE PENDING ITEM? WHAT'S BEFORE US IS A MOTION BY MR. FINNEY AND SECONDED BY MS. DAVIS IN BDA 2 4 5 DEAR 0 4 6 TO GRANT A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR 99 SPACES. A COUPLE CLARIFICATIONS FOR MY BOARD ATTORNEY. SO WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE IS WE'RE EMBRACING THE 3 99 NUMBER, NOT THE 4 27 NUMBER, 4 57 NUMBER, CORRECT? YES, SIR. WELL, I'M ON THE RECORD, PLEASE. YES, SIR. THAT'S RIGHT. AND THE REASON WHY IS, IS THAT THE PD SAYS TO GO TO THIS SHARED TABLE, CORRECT? NOT THE, WHICH IS THE 3 99, RIGHT? CORRECT. OKAY. SO IF WE USE AS THE STARTING 0.3 99, WE'RE DOING THE 99 SPACES, WE'LL IGNORE THE FACT THAT THAT'S THE 300 YOU HAVE ON THE GROUND. WE'LL, WE, WE WILL DO THE BACK AND SOLVE FOR X. UM, THIS IS IN EXISTENCE AND IT SAYS ON HERE, SHALL IT AUTOMATICALLY, IMMEDIATELY TRIM IT IF AND WHEN THE USE CHANGE OR DISCONTINUED? CORRECT? YES. AND THAT'S THE SQUARE FOOTAGE COMPONENT, RIGHT? RIGHT. SO IF YOU, IF THEY WANT TO ENLARGE A RESTAURANT, THEY WOULD NEED TO PARK IT. THE USES FOR THOSE OTHER, UM, THE LET CAN I, SO WHICH, GO AHEAD. SO IF THERE IS A OFFICE THAT IS ADJACENT TO A RESTAURANT AND THEY ENLARGE THE RESTAURANT, THE OFFICE USE WOULD BE MOVED SMALLER, YOU'D HAVE TO PROVIDE THE ADDITIONAL PARKING THOSE USES WOULD BE. SO MY MY POINT IS, MR. BOARD ATTORNEY IS WE'RE NOT GRANTING 300. WELL, WE'RE GRANTING A 99 EXCEPTION BASED ON THESE SPECIFIC SQUARE FOOTAGE OF JUICES. IF THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF JUICES CHANGES THE 99 EVAPORATES OR CHANGES, IF THE USES CAN BECOME, I GUESS IN ANY EVENT IT WOULD EVAPORATE THE 99 EVAPORATES. YES. IF THE USES ARE, [02:55:01] IF THE USES ARE, I'M JUST, I I'M ONE SECOND MR. VINCENT. IF, IF THE USE TERMINATES OR IS DISCONTINUED, THEY EVAPORATE, THE 99 DOES. CORRECT. SO THEY'D HAVE TO START ALL OVER? YES. REALLY? I DON'T THINK SO. REALLY. THE, SO IT SAYS, UH, IN GRANTING THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION UNDER PARAGRAPH ONE, THE BOARD SHALL SPECIFY THE USES OR USES TO WHICH THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION APPLIES A SPECIAL EXCEPTION GRANTED BY THE BOARD FOR A PARTICULAR USE AUTOMATICALLY AND IMMEDIATELY TERMINATES IF AND WHEN THE USE IS CHANGED OR DISCONTINUED. SO IF THAT USE IS, IF THE USE CHANGES FROM A RESTAURANT TO SOME OTHER, USE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE IF THE USE CHANGES. SO IF YOU GO FROM RESTAURANT TO COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT INSIDE OR SOME OTHER USE, THAT SPECIAL EXCEPTION WOULD EVAPORATE AND YOU WOULD HAVE TO PARK IT PER WHATEVER THE NEW USE IS. IF YOU SAY YOU DON'T WANNA OPEN A RESTAURANT ANYMORE AND YOU JUST WANT IT TO BE A VACANT, UM, SUITE, IT WOULD BE DISCONTINUED. AND THAT SPECIAL EXCEPTION WOULD EVAPORATE THE PROPORTIONATE SHARE CALCULATION, NOT THE WHOLE 99, BECAUSE I DON'T THINK THE A APPLICANT HAS COMMITTED NECESSARILY TO A RESTAURANT IN A LOCATION YET. THEY'RE IN, THEY'RE IN BALLPARKS RIGHT NOW. IT'S, IT'S WHEN AND WHAT WE'RE APPROVING IS BALLPARKS. RIGHT. IT'S WHEN THAT USE IS CHANGED OR DISCONTINUED. SO WHATEVER THAT USE CHANGED OR DISCONTINUED WITH THE SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT IS TIED TO THAT USE. I WHAT DO YOU MEAN WITH THAT? WELL, ON THIS CHART, IT'S GOT A RESTAURANT, A RESTAURANT OR FOUR RESTAURANTS WITH SQUARE FOOTAGE, WHICH CALCULATES TO A, TO A PARKING, AND THEN IT'S GOT OFFICE, THEN IT'S GOT SHOWROOM. SO WHAT I'M TRYING TO, I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IS WHAT'S THE LEVEL OF FLEXIBILITY WE'RE GIVING THE PROPERTY OWNER, OR ARE WE GIVING THEM FINITE SQUARE FOOTAGE AND PARKING? AH, I SEE. UH, THERE, THERE IS SOME FLEXIBILITY. SO IT'S THE SUM OF THE RESTAURANT SQUARE FOOTAGES THAT WOULD DRIVE HIGHER NUMBERS. RIGHT? SO IF THEY ADD AN ADDITIONAL SQUARE FOOT OF RESTAURANT, THEY WOULD HAVE TO PARK THAT ADDITIONAL ONE. AND THAT'S THE, THE PARKING FOR THE RESTAURANT IS THE MOST INTENSIVE OF THE USES. OKAY. NOW YOU CAN COMMENT, MR. VINCENT, THAT I, I THINK WE CAME TO A PLACE WHERE I THINK I AGREE WITH MR. MOORE THAT THIS CHART HERE, WHICH WE SUBMITTED, THAT'S WHAT I'M LOOKING AT. YES, SIR. UM, THIS SHOWS A MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF RESTAURANT SQUARE FOOTAGE. SO TO TRY TO BOIL IT DOWN WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR, AT LEAST THE INTENT OF WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR IS 36 520. I I GUESS IF THAT'S, IF THAT'S WHAT IT, THAT'S WHAT IT SAYS. YEAH. AND PERMITTING WORKS THAT OUT. SO TO, TO TRY TO STATE IT SIMPLY, WE'RE ASKING FOR, WE'RE ASKING FOR THE ABILITY TO PROVIDE 300 SPACES, WHICH IS WHAT'S THERE NOW WITH A MAXIMUM RESTAURANT SQUARE FOOTAGE OF WHAT'S SHOWN ON THIS SITE. 36 5 20. YES, SIR. WHICH IS PART OF OUR APPLICATION. UM, AND THE REST OF IT REALLY TAKES CARE OF ITSELF BECAUSE IT'S OFFICE SHOWROOM WAREHOUSE, OR OFFICE, WHICH IS A MUCH LESS PARKING DEMAND USE AS WELL AS BEING A DAYTIME USE. SO I, I THINK I STATED THAT CORRECTLY. I, I BELIEVE I'M AGREEING MR. MOORE, I'M JUST TRYING TO MAKE SURE WE'RE ALL SPEAKING THE SAME LANGUAGE OF 85,079 IN OFFICE SHOWROOM, 11,500 OFFICE AND 36,520 RESTAURANTS. IT'S A MAXIMUM FOR THE RESTAURANT. UH, YOU KNOW, THE OFFICE IN THE OFFICE, SHOWROOM WAREHOUSE CAN VARY, BUT THAT'S A MUCH LESS PARK. THAT'S A DAYTIME USE BOTH OF THEM AND MUCH LESS PARKING DEMAND. SO, UM, I THINK, I THINK WE'VE CLARIFIED THAT, YOU KNOW, NOW'S THE TIME TO DO IT. SO THANK YOU. ANY OTHER, UH, QUESTIONS ON THE MOTION? YES. THANK YOU MR. VINCENT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THE MOTION? ALRIGHT, THE BOARD SECRETARY. WELL, UH, THE OTHER THING THAT THE, I JUST WILL MENTION, I'M NOT SUGGESTING MR. FINNEY, UH, THE BOARD HAS THE AUTHORITY TO SET CONDITIONS ON PARKING, SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS. THOSE CONDITIONS BEING, UH, EXPIRATION OF ONE YEAR, EXPIRATION OF TWO YEARS, UH, HAVING THEM COME BACK TO THE BOARD WITH A CHECK-IN ON WHAT'S GOING ON, WHETHER IT'S WORKING OR NOT. I DON'T THINK IN THIS CASE IT REQUIRES THAT THERE MAY BE OTHER INSTANCES WHERE IT'S SO IFFY THAT WE WANT A GUT CHECK AFTER ONE YEAR OR TWO YEAR, BUT I DON'T THINK IT DOES HERE. BUT I'M JUST SAYING THE BOARD ATTORNEY ADVISED ME THAT WE, IT'S WITHIN OUR RIGHT WITHIN THE CODE TO PUT CONDITIONS. IS THAT CORRECT? WOULD YOU VERY BRIEFLY EXPLAIN? YES, THERE'S THREE CONDITIONS THAT THE BOARD MAY IMPOSE FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS THAT'S A TERMINATION DATE OR A REASSESSMENT OF CONDITIONS AFTER A SPEC SPECIFIED PERIOD OF TIME, OR IMPOSE RESTRICTIONS ON ACCESS TO OR FROM THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. SO THOSE ARE IN THE TOOLKIT IF WE WANTED TO USE IT ON THIS ONE. I'M NOT RECOMMENDING [03:00:01] IT FOR THIS ONE, BUT I'M JUST MAKING SURE WE'RE ALL AWARE OF IT PRIOR TO US VOTING. OKAY. QUESTIONS, MS. BOARD SECRETARY WILL CALL THE VOTE TWO FOUR FIVE OH FOUR SIX. UH, A MOTION BY MR. FINNEY SECONDED BY MS. DAVIS TO GRANT A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR NINE NINE SPACES. MS. DAVIS? AYE. MR. FINNEY? AYE. MR. OVITZ? AYE. MR. N AYE. MR. CHAIRMAN? AYE. MOTION TO GRANT PASSES FIVE TO ZERO IN THE MATTER. 2 4 5 0 4 6. THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT UNANIMOUSLY IF I VOTED FIVE TO ZERO GRANTS YOUR REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR PARKING, UH, OF 99 SPACES, YOU'LL BE GETTING A DECISION LETTER FROM THE CITY MOMENTARILY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NEXT CASE BEFORE US IS BDA, UH, 2 4 5 0 4 7 2 4 5 0 4 7 1 6 2 6 HIGHLINE DRIVE. DO I DARE ASK WHO THE APPLICANT IS? IS THE APPLICANT HERE? WE'LL CONSIDER YOU. DO, WE'LL CONSIDER YOU DULY SWORN IN AS WE SAID BEFORE. THANK YOU. UM, MS. BOARD SECRETARY, WHAT SPEAKERS DO WE HAVE? SAME AS THE ONE BEFORE, SO WE HAVE THREE. OKAY, THAT'S FINE. ANYONE REGISTERED IN OPPOSITION? NO. OKAY. THAT'S GOOD. THANK YOU. MR. VINCENT. YOU SHALL PROCEED AGAIN. STANDALONE CASES? YES, SIR. THE PROPERTY OWNER, UH, SITS DOWN. I LOVE THAT. YEAH. 1 1, 1 OF THE THING THAT I FORGOT TO ASK IN THE PREVIOUS CASE, WHICH IS STILL RELEVANT TO THIS, IS ON YOUR APPLICATION ON THIS ONE AND THE OTHER ONE, AND WE'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT THIS ONE NOW, IT SAYS OWNER OF PROPERTY IS DDD PORTFOLIO HOLDINGS, LLC. HE DID NOT, YOUR CLIENT DID NOT INTRODUCE HIMSELF AS BEING PART OF DDD PORTFOLIO HEARING HOLDINGS, LLC. WOULD YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN? YES, SIR. THAT'S AN AFFILIATE ENTITY OF HN CAPITAL PARTNERS. OKAY, SO IT'S WHOLLY OWNED, I BELIEVE THAT'S CORRECT, CORRECT. IT THAT IS CORRECT. OKAY, THAT'S FINE. I JUST WANNA KNOW WHO THE PLAYERS ARE. YES, SIR. ALRIGHT, PROCEED SIR. OKAY, THANK YOU. UH, THANK YOU JONATHAN VINCENT, 2323 ROSS AVENUE, UH, CASE 0 4 7, WHICH IS 1626 HIGHLINE DRIVE. UM, THIS IS A FAIRLY DIFFERENT CASE BECAUSE THE SITE IS DIFFERENT. UM, YOU KNOW, IT'S A MUCH SMALLER SITE, UH, LITTLE OVER HALF AN ACRE, UH, DEVELOPED IN 1955. SO SIMILAR ISSUES WITH, YOU KNOW, BEING, BEING BUILT AND USED, UH, MUCH DIFFERENTLY DECADES AGO. UH, CURRENTLY CONTAINS MOSTLY OFFICE SHOWROOM WAREHOUSE IN ONE RESTAURANT. UH, AND OUR REQUEST IS A 46 POINT 88% REDUCTION FROM 32 REQUIRED SPACES TO 17 REQUIRED SPACES. UH, AND I, AS A SIDE NOTE, UM, THESE PERCENTAGES IN THE REDUCTION, UM, I WOULD JUST MAKE THE OBSERVATION THAT, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE TO ASSUME, I THINK WE HAVE TO ASSUME GENERALLY IN ANY SITUATION THAT WHATEVER THE CODE SAYS OR WHATEVER A PD ORDINANCE SAYS THAT CITY COUNCIL THOUGHTFULLY CONSIDERED THAT AT THE TIME. UM, YOU KNOW, AND WE DON'T HAVE THE BENEFIT OF, UNLESS WE GO BACK AND DO THE RESEARCH OF WHAT THE DISCUSSION WAS AT THE TIME. BUT I HAVE TO ASSUME, AND I THINK IT'S WORTH AT LEAST MAKING THE POINT THAT THIS 50% LIMITATION FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION IN PD 6 21, UM, I HAVE TO ASSUME WAS CAREFULLY CONSIDERED AT THE TIME. I THINK IT WAS VERY INTENTIONAL. UM, SURE, IT SOUNDS LIKE A BIG NUMBER COMPARED TO THE 25% IT IS. I I TAKE YOUR POINT, MR. CHAIR. UM, BUT I THINK IT, AGAIN, I THINK IT WAS INTENTIONAL. I THINK IT WAS INTENDED TO HELP FOSTER THIS ADAPTIVE REUSE, JUST LIKE THE BEING ABLE TO COUNT A SPACE WHERE YOU BACK OUT INTO THE STREET JUST LIKE YOU CAN COUNT, UM, A SPACE, YOU KNOW, PARALLEL PARKING ON THE STREET. SO IT'S, SURE, I MEAN, LET'S JUST BE HONEST. I MEAN, IT'S, IT'S, IT'S MORE THAN 25%, BUT I THINK IT WAS INTENTIONAL. SO TWICE AS MUCH, TWICE AS MUCH. BUT I, I THINK I WOULD ASK YOU NOT TO, YOU KNOW, TO LOOK AT IT IN THE CONTEXT OF WHAT THE PD ALLOWS, WHICH IS 50%. SO THAT BEING SAID, UH, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. I'M NOT GONNA, SOME OF THESE POINTS ARE, UM, SIMILAR TO THE ONES THAT WE MADE BEFORE, UM, YOU KNOW, THAT I JUST DISCUSSED, THE APPLICABLE PD 6 21 CONDITIONS. UM, LET'S MOVE UP A COUPLE OF SLIDES HERE. UH, KEEP GOING. YEAH, THERE WE GO. UM, AGAIN, THE STANDARD, YOU'RE GONNA HEAR THIS A LOT BE, I FEEL LIKE I NEED TO PUT IT ON THE RECORD. THE STANDARD IS IF THE PARKING DEMAND GENERATED BY THE USE DOES NOT WARRANT THE NUMBER OF OFF OFF STREET PARKING SPACES REQUIRED, AND THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WOULD NOT CREATE A TRAFFIC HAZARD OR INCREASED TRAFFIC CONGESTION ON ADJACENT OR NEARBY STREETS. UH, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. AND OF COURSE, WE BELIEVE WE MEET THAT STANDARD, SO DIFFERENT KIND OF SITE. UM, YOU SAW THAT IN MR. THOMPSON'S, UM, EXCELLENT BRIEFING. [03:05:01] UM, THE NEXT SLIDE, AGAIN, A LITTLE BIT CLOSER VIEW FROM GOOGLE MAPS. YOU'LL SEE THAT THE PARKING, UH, RIGHT THERE IS, I DON'T KNOW, THAT LOOKS LIKE WHAT, SEVEN CARS MAYBE ON THAT SIDE. UM, PRETTY EMPTY, UH, DAYTIME PHOTO, UH, THE SITE PLAN OF THE SITE, UM, YOU KNOW, APROPO OF OUR DISCUSSION ON THE PREVIOUS CASE. THAT'S THE, THAT'D BE THE NEXT SLIDE. UM, AGAIN, THIS IS WHAT WE WOULD WANNA BE CONDITIONED TO AS A MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF RESTAURANT SPACE. UM, AND YOU'LL SEE THAT REALLY, YOU KNOW, IN THE SCHEME OF THINGS, THE RESTAURANT SPACE, EVEN AS A MAXIMUM IS, IS NOT A VERY LARGE COMPONENT OF THE SITE. IT'S MOSTLY OFFICE SHOWROOM WAREHOUSE, I PROMISE YOU THAT AT, YOU KNOW, EIGHT O'CLOCK OR NINE O'CLOCK AT NIGHT, THAT OFFICE SHOWROOM WAREHOUSE WILL IN ALL LIKELIHOOD BE CLOSED. SO THE ONLY PART OF THE SITE THAT WILL BE UTILIZED THAT TIME OF NIGHT IS THE RESTAURANT SPACE, WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT THE MIXED USE PARKING CHART INTENDS, WHICH IS THE NEXT SLIDE. AGAIN, THIS IS FROM PD 6 21. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. AND SO THIS IS, UH, A GRAPHIC THAT JUST SHOWS THE H IN CAPITAL CONTROLLED PROPERTIES. THIS ONE IS NUMBER, LOOKS LIKE NUMBER EIGHT. I'M TRYING TO READ THIS HERE ANYWAY, YEAH. OKAY. YEAH. HOW WE MEET THE STANDARD FOR THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS THE NEXT SLIDE. UM, AGAIN, THE SAME POINTS, AND, AND THIS IS GONNA SOUND KIND OF REPETITIVE, BUT THE REASON IT SOUNDS REPETITIVE IS BECAUSE THERE'S SORT OF AN OVERARCHING THEME TO THIS, WHICH IS THAT BY BEING A MAJOR LANDOWNER THAT'S HEAVILY INVESTED IN THE SUCCESS OF THE DISTRICT, THERE'S A LOT OF SYNERGY. UM, AND IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE, AND IN THE NEXT CASE AS WELL, WHICH I KNOW IS A SEPARATE CASE, YOU KNOW, THEY ARE CONSTRUCTING ADDITIONAL PARKING TO ACT AS A RELIEF VALVE FOR THIS. YOU KNOW, ALL THE OTHER FACTORS THAT ARE, THAT WE'VE ARTICULATED BEFORE, YOU KNOW, THE RESTAURANT MAY USE VALET, YOU KNOW, THE, THE RIDE SHARING. UM, THERE IS SOME WALKABILITY. YOU KNOW, IT, I I WOULD HAZARD A GUESS THAT THE WALKABILITY MAY BE MORE SALIENT IN THE EVENINGS. UM, IF YOU LIVE, IF YOU'RE STAYING AT THE VIRGIN HOTEL, OR IF YOU LIVE IN ONE OF THE OTHER APARTMENTS THAT'S NEARBY, YOU KNOW, YOU MAY BE ON A NICE NIGHT, YOU MAY BE MORE LIKELY TO WALK TO A RESTAURANT AS OPPOSED TO SOMEONE WHO WORKS IN THE DISTRICT AND, YOU KNOW, GOES TO A RESTAURANT FOR LUNCH. SO I, I DO THINK THAT THE WALKABILITY IS STILL A FACTOR. UM, WE'VE MENTIONED SOME OTHER THINGS THERE, SUCH AS THE, YOU KNOW, VALET REMOTE PARKING. UM, IN THIS INSTANCE, LIKE I SAY, THE REMOTE PARKING WILL BE A FACTOR THAT SUPPORTS THIS QUITE A BIT. UH, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. YOU KNOW, THESE ARE EXCERPTS FROM MR. DENMAN'S STUDY. UM, AGAIN, WE STRONGLY THINK IT SUPPORTS, UH, OUR REQUEST. UM, AND HE GOES INTO DETAIL HERE. AND THE NEW PARKING IS GONNA BE AVAILABLE AT 1605 AND 1615 NORTH STEMMONS. UH, SO WE THINK THIS IS GONNA WORK VERY WELL AND MEETS THE CONDITIONS. UH, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. AGAIN, MORE EXCERPTS FROM OUR, OUR PARKING STUDY, UM, SIMILAR TO OUR ARGUMENTS THAT ARE MADE OTHERWISE, UH, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, THESE, THESE ARE SMALLER PROPERTIES THAN THE ONE YOU JUST LOOKED AT. UH, THIS ONE AND THE NEXT ONE. BUT FOR THIS ONE IN PARTICULAR, WE BELIEVE THE REMOTE PARKING COMBINED WITH VALET, COMBINED WITH MIXED USE ON A TIME DAY BASIS, UH, STRONGLY SUPPORTS THIS REQUEST. LAST SLIDE. UH, NEXT SLIDE. YEAH. YEAH, WE TALKED ABOUT PARKING REFORM. I'M, I'M NOT GONNA REHASH ALL THAT. I JUST, OTHER THAN TO REITERATE THAT I THINK THAT DALLAS, AS WELL AS MOST OTHER CITIES IN THE REGION AND IN THE COUNTRY ARE HEADING TOWARDS PARKING REFORM. UM, AUSTIN BASICALLY DID AWAY WITH REQUIRED PARKING. A LOT OF, UH, CITIES AND OTHER PARTS OF THE COUNTRY HAVE DONE THAT. AND I THINK AS WE GROW AS A CITY AND ACHIEVE MORE DENSITY AND MORE MIXED USE, PERSONALLY, I THINK THAT'S A GOOD THING. UM, YOU KNOW, I THINK THIS PARKING REFORM IS GONNA, IS GONNA WORK WELL. I THINK THE MARKET WILL DICTATE HOW MUCH PARKING, YOU KNOW, HN CAPITAL AS A PROPERTY OWNER LEASING PROPERTY OUT TO VARIOUS USES. THEY WANT THE PARKING TO WORK. THEY WOULDN'T BE DOING THIS IF THEY DIDN'T THINK IT WOULD WORK. UH, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. UH, NEXT SLIDE. SO, YOU KNOW, TO CONCLUDE, UM, I KNOW I DIDN'T SPEND AS MUCH TIME ON THIS ONE AS I DID ON THE LAST ONE, BUT THE ARGUMENTS ARE GONNA BE VERY SIMILAR FROM CASE TO CASE. WE DO BELIEVE WE MEET THE STANDARD FOR APPROVAL, UH, AND THAT THE PARKING SPACES OTHERWISE REQUIRED ARE NOT WARRANTED COMPARED TO THE DEMAND. WE HAVE THE STUDIES TO PROVE THAT AND THE OBSERVATIONS, THE DATA. UM, AND WE ALSO BELIEVE THIS WILL NOT CREATE A TRAFFIC HAZARD OR INCREASE TRAFFIC CONGESTION ON ADJACENT OR NEARBY STREETS. SO WE WOULD RESPECTFULLY ASK THAT YOU APPROVE THIS REQUEST AS WELL. [03:10:01] AND WE'RE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE. LEMME SEE IF, IF THIS LLOYD WANNA SEE IF LLOYD WANTS TO ADD ANYTHING. LLOYD DENMAN HERE. I WILL ADD A FEW COMMENTS ON THE PARKING FOR THIS PARTICULAR SITE. WE'RE ON 1626. OKAY. SO I OBSERVED, GOTTA MAKE SURE IT'S RIGHT. ONE, THEY'RE NEXT DOOR PROPERTIES, RIGHT? 1626 AND 16. 16. YEAH, WE'RE ON. SO THE 1626. THE 1626 SITE. SO I DID MAKE PARKING OBSERVATIONS IN THIS WHOLE AREA. THEY DO NOT APPLY TO THIS ONE BECAUSE THERE IS NO EXISTING RESTAURANT USE. IT WAS EMPTY MOST ALL THE TIME. THE PARKING REQUEST DOES NOT MAKE THIS A STANDALONE, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT INTERIOR FACING LIKE THE LAST ONE. THIS ONE NEEDS RELIEF PARKING, WHICH THEY ARE PROVIDING. SO THAT'S MY COMMENT ON THIS. IS IT TO WORK? IT WOULD BE VALET, I BELIEVE, BUT MAYBE NOT DURING THE DAY. UM, BUT HN CAPITAL DID PURCHASE AN ADJACENT SITE. THEY DID TEAR DOWN A BUILDING. THEY'RE BUILDING NEW PARKING 185 SPACES THAT ARE NOT THERE TODAY. SO 185 NEW PARKING SPACES THAT ARE NOT THERE TODAY. SO THERE'S A NET GAIN OF PARKING. THIS PARTICULAR SITE DOES NOT TIE ANY OF THOSE DOWN. THE NEXT ONE DOES, BUT THIS SITE WOULD LIKELY USE THOSE, THE NET GAIN OF SPACES. SO I'M PROB I'M ANSWERING A LOT OF YOUR QUESTIONS. PROBABLY, YOU KNOW, THIS DOES NOT STAND ALONE. IT NEEDS THE REMOTE PARKING AND THERE WAS NOT AN AGREEMENT FOR THIS SITE, BUT THERE IS FOR NEXT DOOR, WHICH WE'LL ADDRESS NEXT, BUT JUST LEAVE IT AT THAT. SO, SO WITH THAT KNOWLEDGE IS WHY I PUT IN MY PARKING STUDY. NO TRAFFIC HAZARD OR CONGESTION WOULD RESULT BECAUSE THEY'RE GONNA UTILIZE THE NEW ADJACENT PARKING LOT THAT PROVIDES 185 NEW SPACES THAT ARE NOT THERE TODAY. IT'S WITHIN A, UH, BRYANT'S DRIVE SHOWED YOU THAT WAS LIKE 10 SECONDS FOR THE VALET OPERATOR TO TURN THE CORNER AND GET TO THE RESTAURANT. IT'S RIGHT THERE AND IT'S A SHORT WALK IF THEY PARK. SO THOSE ARE MY COMMENTS. UM, WE WILL PROBABLY GAIN MORE GROUND BY ANSWERING YOUR QUESTIONS THAN ME RAMBLING. SO THANK YOU. ANYTHING ELSE AT THIS POINT IN TIME? OTHERWISE, WE'LL GO TO QUESTIONS. UH, NO THANK YOU MR. CHAIR. OKAY. COUPLE QUESTIONS. ALRIGHT, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 1626 HIGHLINE. THE REQUEST IS 47%, 46.8%. UM, FROM WHAT I'M DEDUCING, UH, THERE ARE 32, THE REQUIREMENT IS 32, UM, LESS 15, WHICH MEANS 17 MAGICALLY IT'S THE 17 ON THE PROPERTY AGAIN, BUT, OKAY. ALRIGHT. UM, IT, THE, THE CURRENT BUILDING IS STRICTLY OFF A SHOWROOM, CORRECT? IT'S NOT USED BY A RESTAURANT? CORRECT. OKAY. UM, IT DOESN'T GIVE YOU CONCERN ABOUT THE TURNAROUND AT THE END OF THAT LACK OF CUL-DE-SAC THERE. THAT'S MY FIRST QUESTION. I'M JUST GONNA GO THROUGH MY SHEETS. YES. SO I'M, I'M LOOKING AT THIS COMPARING TO THE STAFF'S VIDEO AND THAT'S A CHALLENGE TO RE-ENGINEER THAT BACK END OF THAT. OPERATIONALLY THE VALET WOULD MAKE THOSE MANEUVERS AND OPERATE AT SUCH THAT THE PATRONS DON'T. WELL, I HEAR YOU, BUT IS THAT A REQUIREMENT? IS THAT PART OF OUR CONDITION OR IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE VERBALLY SAYING? BECAUSE WHAT RIGHT NOW IS THERE'S NO REQUIREMENT OF WHAT YOU JUST SAID. CORRECT. AND THAT'S JUST WHAT I'M VERBALLY SAYING. I I, YOU KNOW, IT, IT'LL BE UP TO THE PARKING MANAGEMENT YEP. TO ASSUAGE THAT CONCERN. SO THE, THE GRAPHIC THAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US, WHICH IS NOT BINDING BY THE WAY, 'CAUSE THIS GRAPHIC JUST SHOWS ONE SORT OF SPACE. 11,564. THE OTHER IS 2,500. IT SHOWS THE RESTAURANT IN THE FAR BACK. THAT'S YOUR INTENTION. SO THE ENTRANCE IS FROM THE PARKING LOT. CORRECT. WELL, HOW COULD YOU GET INTO THE BACK WHEN YOU HAVE PARKING SPACES THERE, SPACE 13, 12, AND 11, ALL THERE'S A DEAD END INTO THAT BACK SPACE. THAT SITE PLAN MIGHT NOT DEPICT IT A HUNDRED PERCENT. WELL GREAT. BUT BETWEEN 10 AND NINE, THE PARKING SPACES IS BETWEEN 10 AND NINE. THAT LITTLE CURB IS ACTUALLY A RAMP UP WHERE YOU CAN GET IN AND MOVE TO THE, TO THE SUITE [03:15:01] ON THE LEFT. OKAY. WHERE YOU, THIS IS A GREAT, IF YOU'RE IN ELEVATION, YOU CAN SEE IT PRETTY CLEARLY, BUT ON HERE IT'S NOT. OKAY. IT'S NOT A GREAT PLANNED DEPICTION OF IT. AGAIN, I'M TRYING TO GO BACK TO, WOULD NOT CREATE A TRAFFIC HAZARD OR INCREASE TRAFFIC CONGESTION OR ADJACENT OR ADJACENCY ON NEARBY STREETS. SO THIS SEEMS PRETTY CONGESTED. JUST THE ACCESS IN AND THE PARKING ON THIS. SO IT GIVES ME PAUSE ABOUT THIS FUNCTIONAL USE OF PARKING ON THIS WHOLE, WHOLE LOT IS, IS NOT THE SAME AS WHAT WE VIEWED IN PREVIOUS CASES. I DIDN'T SAY WHICH CASE. I'M JUST SAYING. AND THAT, AND YOU KNOW. ALRIGHT. UM, SO THAT'S STILL A CONCERN TO ME. NEXT QUESTION. THE BUILDING NEXT DOOR IN OUR VIDEO THIS MORNING, FROM THE STAFF PRESENTATION, IT SHOWED THE BUILDING NEXT DOOR, WHICH IS NOT OWNED BY THE, IT'S A SEPARATE PROPERTY, NOT OWNED BY THE APPLICANT. UM, HOW ARE YOU GONNA POLICE THE WHOLE ISSUE OF SPACES ACROSS? IT'S NOT AN ALLEY, IT'S KIND OF ACROSS THE PROPERTY LINE. I VIEW THAT AS A CHALLENGE. TELL ME HOW YOU RESPOND TO THAT. BECAUSE PEOPLE TEND TO PARK WHERE THERE'S A SPACE AND THEN YOU GET INTO PARKING WARS, THEN PEOPLE SAY, WHY DIDN'T THE DAM, THE D CITY OF DALLAS SET THIS OUT IN THE FIRST PLACE? WHY DID THE CITY ALLOW THIS? YOU SEE, EVENTUALLY IT COMES BACK. THIS, THOSE CITY STAFFERS. IT'S A GOOD QUESTION. THIS THE BUILDING ON THAT SIDE OF IT YOU'RE REFERRING TO ABOUT LEADS TO THE WEST TO THE CORRECT IS OWNED BY DIANE CARSON. WE HAVE A GREAT RELATIONSHIP WITH DIANE AND, AND IN FACT WE NOTIFIED HER AND SPOKE WITH HER ABOUT OUR APPLICATION. SHE DIDN'T PRESENT ANY CONCERNS ABOUT OUR IDEA TO PUT A, A RESTAURANT IN THE BACK. IN FACT, AND SHE DIDN'T RESPOND ON OUR RESPONSE. CORRECT. BUT THAT'S OKAY. YEAH, YEAH. WE AGREE. WE SPOKE WITH HER AND MET WITH HER. UM, AND SHE WAS SUPPORTIVE OF THE IDEA. I THINK, AND I THINK THAT WAS CONSISTENT WITH MOST OF THE CONVERSATIONS THAT WE HAD IN THIS PROCESS, WAS THAT THEY ARE EXCITED TO BRING NEW RESTAURANTS AND NEW, UH, VITALITY TO THIS DISTRICT. YOU DIDN'T ANSWER MY QUESTION ABOUT THE PARKING. I'M SORRY. MY QUESTION WAS, HOW ARE YOU GONNA DEAL WITH THE NATURAL BLEED OVER INTO YOUR NEIGHBOR'S PARKING LOT AND THEN YOU GET INTO EVENTUALLY PARKING WARS OF PEOPLE PARKING IN OTHER PEOPLE'S PARKING SPACES. AND THEN THERE'S SIGNS THAT GO UP AND SAYING THIS ONLY HERE. AND THAT I I, IT'S A GOOD QUESTION. I THINK OUR INTENT IT IN THIS CASE IS THAT IT'S A VALET OPERATION THAT IS USED AND KIND OF USED THE EXIST OR THE NEW PARKING LOT THAT WE'RE BUILDING AROUND THE CORNER. SO IS THE VALET REQUIREMENT IN THE PROPOSAL THAT YOU HAVE BEFORE US, SO HOW, HOW CAN WE TAKE THAT TO THE BANK? 'CAUSE THAT'S AN OPTION ON YOUR PART. SURE. I THINK THE MARK AND THIS ONE, THE PREVIOUS COMMENT THAT YOU MADE, AGAIN, EVERY CASE STANDS ON ITS OWN. MM-HMM . PREVIOUS, I DIDN'T, ONE PERSON DIDN'T FEEL THAT THE VALET WAS REQUIRED BECAUSE YOU HAD ENOUGH, I THINK CAPACITY. BUT IN THIS ONE IT'S QUITE DIFFERENT IN MY OPINION. I THINK YOUR ELBOW TO ELBOW AND THAT TURNAROUND, SO IT'S THE ADJACENCY OF THE PARKING PLUS THE TURNAROUND IN THAT BACK. NOW, IF YOU WERE TO SAY THE WHOLE THING WOULD BE VALET, EXCEPT MAYBE SOME SPACES UP FRONT AND THEN EVERYONE COMES TO THIS, THIS IS, THEY KNOW UP FRONT IT'S VALET AND THAT'S JUST A REQUIREMENT. THEN YOU COULD GO USE YOUR REMOTE LOTS THAT YOU SAY YOU HAVE AND ALL THAT. BUT, HMM. THIS IS WHERE I'M THINKING RIGHT NOW. I'M JUST THINKING, HUH. SURE. HOW DO YOU GET AROUND THAT? ALRIGHT, SO THOSE ARE TWO QUESTIONS THAT STILL UNANSWERED. I'M NOT COMPLAINING THE ISSUE. ALRIGHT. THE SPILLOVER PARKING, I THINK MR. VINCENT SAID, OR MAYBE LLOYD MR. DENIM SAID SPILLOVER PARKING, UM, IS WHAT'S IN FRONT OF US CONDITIONED ON ACCESS TO THAT SPILLOVER PARKING, NOT BY CONDITION THEN OKAY. THEN IT'S, IT DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING. THEN YOU'RE STILL SITTING WITH 17 SPACES CRAMMED INTO A SHORT ALLEY ADJACENT TO A NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR THAT'S GOT PARKING AND YOU GOT BAD TURNAROUND IN THE FRONT. SO THAT'S ANOTHER ONE. I JUST WANT YOU TO THINK ABOUT THESE. NOW MY REST OF MY PANEL MAY DISAGREE WITH ME, BUT THAT'S THREE UNANSWERED QUESTIONS OF HOW ARE PEOPLE GONNA PARK. OKAY. UM, WE DO HAVE AN OPERATION PLAN, BUT I I, I HEAR YOU, YOU, YOU, YOU SAID IN THE LAST CASE YOU DIDN'T NEED A REQUIREMENT FOR OTHER THINGS 'CAUSE YOU HAD AMPLE SPACE AND THAT YOU WORK OUT. I YOU SOLD US ON THAT FIVE TO ZERO. UH, I'M, I'M, I, I DON'T KNOW. I'M, I'M GOING FOR 50% REDUCTIONS A HELL OF A REDUCTION. UH, THOSE ARE MY QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS AT THIS POINT IN TIME. I LOVE THE CONCEPT THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO REPURPOSE. DON'T, DON'T TAKE US WRONG. I THINK WE'RE EMBRACING THAT. I THINK, BUT ALSO WE GO BACK AGAIN TO WHAT THE PRESCRIBED CRITERIA THAT THE CITY COUNCIL'S GIVEN US, THAT PARKING DEMAND GENERATED BY USE DOES NOT WARRANT THE NUMBER OF OFF STREET PARKING SPACES REQUIRED. I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THAT. AND THAT THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION [03:20:01] WOULD NOT CREATE A TRAFFIC HAZARD AND WOULD NOT INCREASE TRAFFIC CONGESTION ON ADJACENT NEARBY STREETS. THERE ARE MY CONCERNS. WE, WE'VE HAD A LITTLE CONVERSATION AMONG OURSELVES. WE'RE NOT NEGOTIATING AT THE, AT THE PODIUM, ARE WE? THAT'S WHAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION DOES. I'VE NEVER DONE THAT. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DOESN'T DO THAT. UH, WITH THE ADVENT OF THE REMOTE LOT AT 16 0 5, 16 15 STONE, THAT IS CURRENTLY NOT CONTRACTUAL. CURRENTLY NOT, IT'S UNDER CONSTRUCTION. UH, THE REMOTE PARKING AGREEMENT IS DRAFTED. IT'S NOT FULLY EXECUTED. SO THAT COULD STILL BE, YOU KNOW, MODIFIED IF THAT'S APPROPRIATE. UM, WE WOULD BE WILLING, TO YOUR POINT, MR. CHAIR, IF YOU WANTED US TO COMMIT TO MAKE A SPECIFIC NUMBER OF THOSE SPACES AVAILABLE TO PARK THIS SPECIFIC PROPERTY, YOU MENTIONED THERE'S 180 5 IN THAT TWO B CONSTRUCTED LOT, CORRECT? I THINK THAT'S WHAT I HEARD. THAT'S THE NUMBER I WROTE DOWN. SOMEONE SAID 185 SPACES. YEAH, NO, I'M NOT FORCING YOU TO DO ANYTHING. I'M JUST CONVEYING WHAT THE, WHAT THIS SENTIMENT IS OF THIS PARTICULAR REQUEST OF 47% REDUCTION REQUEST IS AND, AND, AND SO THAT, THAT MAY BE ONE OF THE THINGS, BUT DON'T COMMIT TO ANYTHING UNTIL YOU HEAR FROM THE WHOLE PANEL. WELL, I WAS JUST, YOU NEED FOUR VOTES. BUT WE'RE WE'RE ASKING FOR A REDUCTION OF 15 SPACES. AND YOU GUYS CORRECT ME ON THIS IF I'M WRONG, BUT I'M TOLD THAT WE COULD ALLOCATE 15 SPACES IN THE REMOTE LOT FOR THIS SITE. SO, AND DO IT BY A A, A DEEDED AGREEMENT. CORRECT. A CITY FORM CITY APPROVED REMOTE PARKING. YEAH, I THINK THERE'S ONE IN OUR PACKET. THERE'S A, THERE IS. YEAH. IT'S ACTUALLY IN THE CITY. THERE'S A, THERE'S A, A, A, A DEMO FORM HERE. YES. RIGHT. I ASSUME THAT'S THE ONE MR. BOARD ATTORNEY, YOU RIGHT. IT'S GOT A CITY ATTORNEY SIGNATURE LINE ON IT, SO FORTH. YES. SO IT'S SEATED WITH THE CITY. OH, OKAY. THAT'S FOR THE NEXT CASE. YOU'RE RIGHT. AND IN THAT CASE, YOU DON'T NEED US, RIGHT? 'CAUSE YOU MEET THE REQUIREMENT 32 SPACES. WELL, OKAY, HERE'S THE RUB THERE. AND YOU KNOW, THERE'S JANET, JONATHAN, YOU KNOW, THERE'S SOME BOARD MEMBERS THAT START OFF A CONVERSATION WITH AN APPLICANT SAYING, WHY ARE YOU HERE? YOU DON'T NEED US. NO, THAT'S, THAT, THAT IS A FAIR QUESTION. I ALWAYS ASK MYSELF, YOU KNOW, WHAT DOES THE BOARD HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THE, THE THING HERE IS THAT THE RESTAURANT USE PERSPECTIVE, FUTURE RESTAURANT USE IS NOT THERE NOW. AND MY EXPERIENCE WITH PROCESSING REMOTE PARKING AGREEMENTS IS THAT YOU HAVE TO BE REALLY CLOSE TO HAVING A USE, ACTUALLY ASKING FOR A CO FOR THE CITY FOR BUILDING INSPECTION TO ENTERTAIN THAT. YEAH. SO I HAD ASKED THE BOARD ATTORNEY THAT VERY QUESTION AND HE SAID, OH, THEY WON'T GIVE 'EM THE PERMIT UNTIL THEY'RE SURE THAT THAT'S, THERE YOU GO. WELL, SO WE CAN'T GO OUT AND LOOK FOR A RESTAURANT TENANT UNTIL WE KNOW THAT THEY CAN PARK. I I I TOTALLY GET YOU. BUT YOU'RE ASKING TO HAVE A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE CODE. SO THAT'S, THAT'S THE BOX WE'RE IN. I ASKED THE SAME QUESTION. CAN I, I ASKED THE SAME QUESTION OF THE OWNER. I WAS LIKE, WHY NOT JUST COMMIT ALL THE SPACES THAT YOU'RE BUILDING? YOU'VE GOT AMPLE WHY GO BEFORE THE BOARD AND THE, FIRST OF ALL, THE PD ITSELF STATES THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY GRANT A SPECIAL EXCEPTION OF UP TO 50% OF THE REQUIRED OFF STREET PARKING. WELL, SO THEY, HE HAS THAT OPTION TO COME BEFORE THE BOARD, OF COURSE. BUT WHAT'S THE INCENTIVE? BUT WHAT'S THE INCENTIVE? BECAUSE HE'S BUILDING NEW PARKING. WELL, THE RESTAURANT USES EVENING TYPICALLY, AND IF HE COMMITS IT TO THE RESTAURANT, IT'S VACANT DURING THE DAY. IT'S BETTER FOR THE DISTRICT AS A WHOLE TO SHARE THE PARKING LOT PARKING WITHOUT THAT. AND THAT IS, THAT IS THE APPLICANT'S DISCRETION ABOUT HOW THE APPLICANT WANTS TO HANDLE IT. IF YOU ALLOW AN EXCEPTION, AND WE APPRECIATE THE $600, YOU PAID THE CITY TO HAVE THIS APPLICATION AND WE WANT TO HANDLE IT IN A PROFESSIONAL WAY. YEAH. BUT AGAIN, WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE PRESCRIBED. AND OUR, AND AND THEN AGAIN, AND THE REASON WHY WE ASKED THE STAFF SEVERAL YEARS AGO, PUT THAT CRITERIA IN OUR PACKET SO WE SEE IT RIGHT IN FRONT OF US. AND YOU NOTICE I'VE REREAD IT CONSTANTLY BECAUSE THAT'S THE CRITERIA. IT'S NOT WHETHER ONE MEMBER LIKES THIS LOCATION OR NOT. IT IS, OKAY, BASED ON THIS REQUEST, HOW IS THIS GONNA APPLY OR NOT? RIGHT. AND YOU MADE THE DECISION THAT YOU'RE RIGHT. SO WHAT I'M JUST SHOWING YOU IS, HUH, HOW'S THEY GONNA DO THAT TURNAROUND? HUH? HOW ARE THEY GONNA HAVE ACCESS INTO THE RESTAURANT AND THE NEXT IN NEIGHBOR'S PARKING? THOSE ARE SO, AND MY UNDERSTANDING IS THEY LIKELY WILL NOT HAVE A TURNAROUND. THEY'LL HAVE THE VALET GO STRAIGHT ACROSS, SO IT WILL OPERATE EFFICIENTLY. UH, YOU ARE NOW INTERPRETING OTHER THAN THE MAP THAT YOU GAVE US. MM-HMM. 'CAUSE THE MAP THAT YOU GAVE US SHOWED PARKING SPACES. SO THIS IS WHAT WE GO OFF OF. SO YOU, YOU, YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS. . YOU CAN'T SAY, OH, WE'VE GOT THE SPACES. OH, BUT WE'RE NOT GONNA USE THE BACK THERE AS A TURNAROUND. CHOOSE WHICH ONE, BECAUSE IF YEAH, JUST CHOOSE WHICH ONE. SO I DON'T WANNA BE, I'M NOT BEING COMBATIVE. I'M, I, AND I'M GLAD THAT YOU'RE GONNA REPURPOSE, BUT [03:25:01] WE ALSO DON'T WANT TO GO AGAINST WHAT WE ARE SUPPOSED TO DO. SO WHAT OTHER QUESTIONS DO WE HAVE FROM JUST A MINUTE? YEAH, MR. FINNEY. UM, OKAY, SO GOING BACKWARDS. UM, SO ARE YOU SAYING WITH THE TURNAROUND, UH, YOUR INTENTION IS TO HAVE A CUT THROUGH, SO INSTEAD OF HAVING TO TURN AROUND, THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO CUT THROUGH THE BACK OF THE SITE? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? TO THE PARKING LOT? THAT WOULD BE THE BEST WAY TO OPERATE IT. AND MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT'S THE INTENT. OKAY. AND THEY OWN THE PROPERTY ADJACENTLY BEHIND, SO IT WORKS REALLY WELL. OKAY. WHY WAS THAT OTHERWISE, OTHERWISE, I AGREE. IT'S A TOUGH TURNAROUND. WELL, WHY WAS THAT NOT COMMUNICATED IN THE DOCKET? I MEAN, THAT, THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SHOWN IF YOU OWN THE LAND, ESPECIALLY, I MEAN, THAT'S EASY TO SHOW. RIGHT. AND SHOW A PROPOSED SITE PLAN WITH THAT AS AN, I THINK THEY'RE COMING BEFORE THE BOARD TO SEE WHAT THEY CAN OBTAIN AND THEN, AND THEN CREATE THEIR PLANS. OKAY. GOTCHA. OKAY. UM, SO THEN, SO THIS, UM, THIS REMOTE PARKING AGREEMENT THAT'S INCLUDED IN THE DOCKET, IT'S A DEMO RIGHT? FOR ALL THE PROPERTIES? IS THAT RIGHT? IT IS FOR 16. 16. AND CURRENTLY WE'RE ON 1626. I UNDERSTAND THAT. AND 16, 16 HAS A MUCH LARGER RESTAURANT USE. RIGHT. RIGHT. OKAY. SO THAT IS JUST FOR 16. 16. CORRECT. SO HOWEVER WE MAY BE OPEN. YEAH. OKAY. GOTCHA. I THINK WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS WE WOULD ENTERTAIN THE IDEA OF SOME OF THOSE SPACES BEING ALLOCATED FOR 1626 AS WELL, RIGHT? CORRECT. CORRECT. YEAH. RIGHT. IF WE DON'T GIVE YOU THE VARIANCE OF, OF THE 180 5 YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. YES, SIR. OKAY. UM, AND THEN YOU MENTIONED AN OPERATION PLAN. WHERE, WHERE IS THAT OPERATION PLAN? IS THAT IN HERE? DID I MISS THAT? YOU SAID THE VALET LIKELY COME UP WITH OH, RIGHT. WE TYP TYPICALLY, AGAIN, THIS IS, UH, THE USE OF THIS RESTAURANT IN THAT LOCATION IS STILL THEORETICAL. THIS, THIS IS FULLY OCCUPIED BY ANOTHER TENANT AT PRESENT, BUT WE INTEND, LIKE WE DID IN THE OTHER, UH, AT THE DECORATIVE CENTER AT 1617, THAT ALLOW THE VALET OPERATION TO DICTATE THEIR BEST MEANS OF OPERATION. SO THEY CAN SORT OF HELP US FIGURE OUT WHAT THE BEST PATH IS FOR THEM TO USE THEIR O, THEIR VALET OPERATION, EXCE, ET CETERA. SO WE'RE TRYING NOT TO DICTATE THEIR OPERATIONS. SURE. BUT WE HAVE INPUT AND THEY HAVE, WE KIND OF HAVE THEIR, UH, THE RIGHT TO APPROVE THEIR, THEIR PLAN AND PROGRAM. YEAH. OKAY. GOT IT. UM, OKAY. AND SO, UM, I GUESS I'M NOT REALLY UNDERSTANDING THEN IF, IF REALLY ALL WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS WHETHER OR NOT WE SHOULD GIVE YOU THE 50% REDUCTION. WI THINK, I FEEL LIKE WE GOT CAUGHT UP IN ALL THESE OTHER THINGS. ALL THESE OTHER HYPOTHETICALS, IF WE DON'T GIVE YOU THAT. SO PLEASE PUT YOUR FEST FOOT FORWARD ON THAT SPECIFIC ISSUE. WHY SHOULD WE GIVE YOU THE 50% REDUCTION ON THIS PROPERTY AND HOW IS THAT NOT GOING TO ADVERSELY AFFECT CONGESTION AND, YOU KNOW, ALL OF YOUR, THE REST OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD? YEAH. UH, GOOD QUESTION. THE, I THINK THE MAIN REASON WHY WE ARE IN FRONT OF YOU ON THIS TO ASK FOR THE 48, 40 9% REDUCTION, WHATEVER IT IS, IS, AS IS TYPICAL WITH TRYING TO PUT A USE INTO A DEVELOPMENT, IT'S REALLY DIFFICULT TO SIGN PEOPLE UP TO LEASE SPACE. THE FIRST QUESTION THEY'RE GONNA ASK IS, HOW MUCH PARKING DO I GET? DO I, DO I HAVE THE PARKING I NEED? AND SO THIS IS REALLY KIND OF THE FIRST STEP IN US BEING ABLE TO ADAPTIVELY REUSE THIS PORTION OF THE SITE TO HOPEFULLY GET A RESTAURANT TENANT IN THERE. THE RESTAURANT, THE RESTAURATEUR NEEDS TO KNOW THAT, YOU KNOW, BE IT REMOTE, BE IT VALE, BE IT SOME COMBINATION THAT THEY'RE GONNA HAVE ENOUGH PARKING FOR THEIR PATRONS. AND WE WANT THAT TOO. WE, AS I SAID, WE WANT THIS TO BE SUCCESSFUL, BUT THIS IS KIND OF THE FIRST STEP. I MEAN, IT'S, IT'S HARD, YOU KNOW, IF I'M A RESTAURATEUR AND I'M SAY, WELL THIS IS A NICE SPACE HERE, I'D LIKE TO MOVE INTO THE SPACE. DO YOU HAVE ENOUGH PARKING FOR ME? AND ADAM'S GONNA SAY, WELL, WE THINK SO, BUT WE MAY HAVE TO GO TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. YOU KNOW, WE MAY HAVE TO DO SOME OTHER THINGS. THAT'S, THAT'S A DIFFICULT CONVERSATION TO HAVE FROM A, YOU KNOW, A BUSINESS STANDPOINT. SO WE'D LIKE TO HAVE THIS ABILITY IN PLACE TO BE ABLE TO GO OUT AND, AND TRY TO GET A GOOD RESTAURANT TENANT. IS THAT A FAIR STATEMENT? OKAY. OKAY. RIGHT. SO IT'S, IT'S A SELLING POINT TOO, RIGHT? UM, IF YOU DON'T HAVE TO BUILD ADDITIONAL PARKING, UM, DOES THAT TRANSLATE ALSO INTO THE, THE, THE LEASE, THE LEASE THAT YOU NEGOTIATE IF YOU DON'T HAVE TO BUILD ADDITIONAL PARKING, DO THEY GET A BETTER RATE ON THEIR LEASE? YES. OKAY. OKAY. OKAY. I THINK THAT'S ALL OF MY [03:30:01] QUESTIONS AT THIS POINT. THANK YOU, MR. FINNEY. MR. HOP, I, I'M, I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED. FIRST OF ALL, I, I THINK THERE'S WAY TOO MUCH HYPOTHETICAL IN THIS, UM, THAT YOU'RE ASKING US TO TAKE ON FAITH. AND, UH, I'M REALLY COMPLETE CONFUSED THAT YOU, THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION MOST RECENTLY MADE YOU, YOU WANT TO ASSURE OR RUSH WILL HAVE ENOUGH PARKING AND THEY'LL DO THAT BY REDUCING THE PARKING THAT'S RIGHT THERE NOW BY 50%. AM I MISSING SOMETHING THERE IN THAT ARGUMENT? WITHOUT THE REDUCTION, WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO GET A RESTAURANT IN THERE AT ALL. I THINK WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS THAT, YOU KNOW, THE, THE SPACES THAT ARE AVAILABLE ON THIS SPECIFIC SITE, UM, COMBINED WITH, YOU KNOW, PERHAPS SOME REMOTE SPACES WILL BE ENOUGH TO PARK THE RESTAURANT, BUT BEAR IN MIND THAT THE, THE SITE PLAN, INCLUDING THE RESTAURANT, THE PROSPECTIVE RESTAURANT USE, UM, WOULD REQUIRE 32 SPACES, WHICH WE DON'T HAVE ON SITE. WE ONLY HAVE 17. SO THAT'S WHY SPECIFICALLY WE'RE IN FRONT OF YOU TODAY TO ASK FOR THIS REDUCTION TO GET US FARTHER ALONG THAT PATH TO BE ABLE TO PARK A RESTAURANT USE IN THE FUTURE. 'CAUSE WE DON'T HAVE 32 SPACES ON THE SITE. WE PHYSICALLY DO NOT HAVE THEM. RIGHT. THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING THAT FOR ME. UH, I'LL ALSO SAY I'M VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE HYPOTHETICAL OF WHAT TO DO WITH THE END OF THAT PARKING AREA AS FAR AS DRIVING INTO THE ADJACENT LAND, ALBEIT OWNED BY THE SAME PEOPLE. UM, IT, I JUST, TO ME, THERE'S AN AWFUL LOT OF HYPOTHETICAL AND, AND WE'RE KIND OF GOING TO DO THIS OR THAT POTENTIALLY, UM, UM, YOU'RE NOT REALLY LOCKED INTO ANY OF THAT. AND SO, UM, I I THINK I'D BE MORE COMFORTABLE IF THERE WAS, IF YOU WERE SAYING WE'VE GOT, WE'VE GOT A RESTAURANT, THEY'RE COMING IN THERE AND THIS IS WHY WE NEED THIS, THIS IS WHY WE NEED THIS. UH, I, I THINK, I THINK THE BOARD HISTORICALLY, AND, AND IN YOUR OTHER CASE SO FAR OR TODAY HAS SHOWN WE'RE OPEN TO SUCH THINGS. UM, AND I'LL JUST LEAVE IT AT THAT. THANK YOU MR. KOVI. OTHER QUESTIONS, OTHERWISE I'M GONNA ASK A FEW, I DON'T WANNA INTERRUPT ANYONE. OKAY. ALRIGHT. WE'RE GONNA NARROW THIS DOWN TO KEEP US MOVING THROUGH, UH, WHAT WE HAVE ON OUR DOCKET. I'M NOT CONVINCED YET AT ALL. UH, YOU HEARD MR. KOVI ALSO CONCERNED. YOU'VE, UH, OTHERS HAVE VOICED ALL THESE HYPOTHETICALS. UH, IF MY UNDERSTANDING IS CORRECT THAT THE APPLICANT BY RIGHT COULD DO THE 2,500 SQUARE FEET OF RESTAURANT IN HERE IF YOU SIGNED A REMOTE PARKING AGREEMENT AND FILE IT WITH THE CITY. CORRECT. YOU, YOU COULD DO THAT. AND THEN YOU DON'T NEED TO HAVE A SPECIAL EXCEPTION REQUEST 'CAUSE YOU MEET YOUR PARKING. I KNOW THAT MAY NOT WHAT YOU WANT TO DO, BUT YOU COULD DO THAT THEORETICALLY. THE THEORETICALLY, OKAY. UM, HYPOTHETICALLY, I'D, YOU KNOW, I'D HAVE TO REVISIT ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF A REMOTE, REMOTE PARKING AGREEMENT IN TERMS OF DISTANCES AND THINGS LIKE THAT. OF COURSE. AND, AND I'M VERY SUSPICIOUS OF NOT THAT, BUT OF THE WHOLE REMOTE PARKING THING. WHAT'S THE DISTANCE? DO PEOPLE REALLY GONNA WALK THAT? I MEAN, ARE WE FOOLING OURSELVES? WE SETTING IT UP FOR A PIECE OF PAPER? IS IT REALLY AFFECTION? AFFECTION THAT, UM, AND THEN IT GOES BACK TO THE PROPERTY OWNER. WOULD YOU WANNA SET YOURSELF UP FOR SOMETHING THAT YOU'RE GONNA HAVE P****D OFF CUSTOMERS AND THAT SORT OF DEAL? I DON'T KNOW. THAT'S YOUR BUSINESS. I'M JUST NOT SOLD AT ALL. I'M WORRIED ABOUT THE VERY THINGS I BROUGHT UP IN THE BEGINNING. AND THAT IS THE ADJACENCY TO THE PROPERTY NEXT DOOR AND HOW YOU HANDLE THE PARKING ISSUE AND THIS TURNAROUND AND THE PARKING SPACES THAT ARE TUCKED BACK TO THE BACK OF THE RESTAURANT. UM, UH, AND THERE'S NO REQUIREMENT PENDING, UH, WITH YOUR PROPOSAL TO REQUIRE VALET. IT'S, YOU'RE SAYING YOU'LL OFFER IT, BUT IT'S NOT BINDING. WE STILL DON'T HAVE A REMOTE DEAL. I DON'T THINK THE REMOTE PARKING SOLVES IT, BUT IT COULD OBLATES US. ALL I'M CONVEYING TO YOU IS WE'RE COMING TO THE END OF THIS HEARING, AND I, I'M NOT SOLD, I DON'T THINK WE'RE SOLD. SO I HAVE A GRAPHIC THAT MAY HELP IN YOUR PLAN. COULD YOU LOOK AT PAGE 1 35 THAT SHOWS THE NEW PROPOSED PARKING LOT? IF WE COULD PULL THAT UP. PAGE 1 35. YOU'RE TALKING TO THE ONE THAT'S UNDER CONSTRUCTION? MM-HMM. CORRECT. YEAH. UH, AND I GET YOU, [03:35:01] BUT I DON'T SEE IT THERE AND AVAILABLE. AND SO I AM, I, FOR ONE, I WOULD HESITATE GREATLY BUYING INTO SOMETHING THAT IS NOT BUILT OPERATIONAL AND TANGIBLE. I I JUST, THE FIRST ANNOTATION SENTENCE AT THE BOTTOM SAYS, NOTE THAT THERE'S VALET PARKING, STACKED PARKING ON THE WEST SIDE. THERE'S 27 ROW SPACES THAT ARE STRIPED FOR VALET ONLY STACK PARKING. YEAH. BUT YOU DON'T HAVE A REQUIREMENT FOR A VALET, SO IT'S IRRELEVANT. WE COULD ADD SOME, I I'M JUST SAYING, I'M NOT TRYING TO NEGOTIATE FROM THE PHOTO. I'M JUST SAYING YOU DON'T, I'M SAYING YOU HAVEN'T MADE THE CASE IF THE BURDEN, THE BURDEN IS ON THE APPLICANT. UM, SO, UH, AND I THINK WE'RE GONNA COME TO A CONCLUSION HERE. UM, BE I THINK, I THINK, I THINK WE NEED TO, I I'M THINKING, GUYS, WE NEED TO DENY THIS OR HOLD IT OVER AND LET 'EM RETHINK. UM, I, I'M JUST NOT COMFORTABLE WITH 50 47% WITH NO COMMITMENT ON VALET, NO COMMIT AND REMOTE PARKING. EVEN THE REMOTE PARKING, UH, IS, I HESITATE ON. SO, UM, BUT I'M JUST ONE VOICE. MS. DAVIS, DO YOU HAVE A COMMENT? WHAT ABOUT PUTTING A REQUIREMENT THAT WE REVISIT IN, I DON'T KNOW, SIX MONTHS TO 12 MONTHS AND SEE IF, IF THE OFF, IF THE OFF STREET, THE VALET PARKING IS NEEDED? THAT'S A POSSIBILITY. 'CAUSE WE DON'T, WE JUST, WE DON'T KNOW. RIGHT. IT, IT'S, THERE'S NO RESTAURANT THERE. WE WE'RE JUST GUESSING. YOU'RE RIGHT. SO AT LEAST, AT LEAST WE CAN STOP TALKING AND SAY, OKAY, WELL LET'S GIVE IT A SHOT. LET'S TRY IT. AND IF IT'S NOT GOING TO WORK, THEN WE'RE GOING TO REGROUP AND FIGURE OUT SOMETHING THAT WILL WORK. BECAUSE I, I AGREE. I I WOULD ASSUME THAT THE OWNER WANTS IT, WANTS THEIR CUSTOMERS TO BE HAPPY. YOU DON'T WANNA CREATE A, A RESTAURANT AND, AND NOT HAVE PEOPLE BE ABLE TO PARK THERE AND THEN CREATE NEGATIVE PR AND BUZZ. SURE. SO SURE. WHY NOT GIVE IT A SHOT AND JUST SAY SIX MONTHS TO 12 MONTHS, WHATEVER THAT AMOUNT IS. YEAH, THAT'S A GOOD IDEA. MM-HMM . DID YOU WANT TO GIVE US COLOR ON THAT? THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. UM, I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT THE BOARD HAS THREE OPTIONS. WITH THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION, YOU CAN PROVIDE A TERMINATION DATE FOR THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION. IF THAT'S THE ROUTE THE BOARD WANTS TO TAKE, I WOULD RECOMMEND NO EARLIER THAN JULY 15TH, 2027. AND THE RATIONALE FOR THAT IS BECAUSE THERE'S THE TWO YEAR, UH, HOLDOUT PERIOD. SO THEY WOULD HAVE TO COME BEFORE MR. VINCENT WOULD HAVE TO FILE AN APPLICATION. THAT'S A LONG TIME. THAT IS A LONG TIME. THAT IS WAY TOO LONG. SO, BUT THAT IS, THAT IS, IF YOU WANT TO ESTABLISH A TERMINATION DATE FOR THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION, THE OTHER OPTION, LIKE YOU SAID, MS. DAVIS, IS JUST TO PROVIDE FOR A REASSESSMENT OF THE CONDITIONS. I THINK YOU COULD DO THAT SIX MONTHS, 12 MONTHS, SOMETHING LIKE THAT. BUT I WOULD, AND IF YOU WERE TO DO THAT, I WOULD, YOU KNOW, SAY NOT SIX TO 12 MONTHS, LIKE PICK A YES. RIGHT. OKAY. MM-HMM . UH, WHAT OTHER OPINIONS ON THE BOARD BEFORE WE MR. HAITZ? MR. HAITZ, GO AHEAD. YEAH, I WOULD, I WOULD NOT BE IN FAVOR OF REVISITING THIS DOWN THE ROAD AT THAT POINT THEN WE'RE DEALING WITH A SITUATION WHERE, WHERE INSTEAD OF APPROVING SOMETHING, WE'RE HAVING TO DENY A, AN EXISTING RESTAURANT OWNER, UH, POTENTIALLY OF HIS ABILITY TO HAVE HIS BUSINESS. AND I, I, I JUST, UH, MY PERSONAL OPINION IS I WOULDN'T WANT TO GO THERE. THANK YOU, SIR. MS. DAVIS. AND THEN, UH, MR. FINNEY. SO I, I GUESS MY, MY, UM, RESPONSE TO YOUR CONCERN IS A AFTER SIX MONTHS OR 12 MONTHS OR WHATEVER THAT TIME PERIOD IS, IF THE CURRENT PARKING SITUATION ISN'T WORKING, WE COULD SAY TO THE OWNER THAT YOU DO NEED TO PROVIDE VALET PARKING. SO THAT WOULD BE THE SOLUTION. YOU WOULDN'T HAVE TO CLOSE DOWN THE RESTAURANT. YOU WOULD JUST HAVE TO SAY, LISTEN, YOU'VE GOTTA COME UP WITH SOMETHING ELSE AND COME INTO A PARKING AGREEMENT, WHICH THEY CURRENTLY DON'T HAVE. MR. FINNEY. UM, I DO LIKE THE IDEA OF REASSESSMENT. UM, I THINK, YOU KNOW, IT'S, I WAS WONDERING IF, UM, I MEAN, BECAUSE IT TAKES TIME TO GET A TENANT, RIGHT? SO IF WE SET A DATE, IT MAY HAVE TO BE MORE THAN A YEAR. YEAH. FIGURING THE CYCLE TIME. I, WE'RE NOT REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS, SO THAT'S WHAT, ONE SECOND. SO, SO MY CONCERN IS IF WE SET A ONE YEAR, MAYBE NOT ENOUGH. YEAH, YEAH. UH, AN UNREALISTIC DATE. IT'S MAYBE HIS COMMENT ABOUT TWO, EVEN THOUGH IT SEEMS LIKE A LONG TIME FROM NOW. WHY NOT 18 MONTHS? OKAY. THAT'S POSSIBLE. MM-HMM . OKAY. SO WHAT WOULD BE THAT DATE? SO DECEMBER 31ST OF 26. OF 26. OKAY. I DON'T KNOW. IT JUST IS SOMETHING WE CAN CONSIDER. BUT GUYS, WHAT WE'RE, WHAT WE'RE CONSIDERING IN THE, SO WE'RE, THERE'S NOT A MOTION ON THE FLOOR YET. UH, WE'RE JUST TALKING, THIS IS THE WAY IT WORKS. UH, [03:40:01] I STILL AM CONCERNED IF WE GO AHEAD AND APPROVE THIS AS IS WE'RE SETTING OURSELVES UP FOR CONFLICT HERE. I THINK NOW WE DON'T, WE, WE PRESUME THE OWNER HAS GOOD FAITH AND SAY, I DON'T WANNA DEAL WITH ANGRY CUSTOMERS AND AN ANGRY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. THEY'RE GONNA REMEMBER THIS. UM, AND THEY WILL PROVIDE THE RIGHT PARKING. BUT I DON'T KNOW, I DON'T THINK, I'M NOT SOLD YET. THAT'S MY PROBLEM. WELL, I'D LIKE TO RESPECTFULLY MM-HMM . PUSH BACK. UM, I, I THINK THAT, I DON'T THINK WE'RE SETTING OURSELVES UP FOR FAILURE BECAUSE I THINK THAT THE APPLICANT HAS BEEN VERY THOROUGH. UM, THEY'VE MADE IT VERY CLEAR THAT MANY OF THESE RESTAURANTS WILL OPERATE AT A DIFFERENT TIME THAN, YOU KNOW, THE, THE DAY USERS. THEY ALSO OWN MANY ADJACENT PROPERTIES. SO THEY HAVE THE MEANS, AND I THINK THEY'VE DEMONSTRATED CLEARLY THE, THE WILL TO MITIGATE CONFLICT. UM, AND SO I, I THINK, BUT REMEMBER WHAT WE DO HAS TO HAVE SOME BINDING INTO IT. AND OWNERSHIPS CHANGE AND TENANTS CHANGE. AND WE'RE GIVING A RIGHT TO THE PROPERTY REGARDLESS OF WHO OWNS IT. WE DON'T KNOW IF THE NEXT OWNER, WHO THEY SELL IT TO HAS ACCESS TO OTHER PROPERTIES OR NOT. SO WE HAVE TO BE VERY CAREFUL ABOUT, THAT'S WHY PARKING AGREEMENTS TYPICALLY HAVE TO BE DEED AND THROUGH THE CITY. SO THERE'S AN ENFORCEMENT. SO WE HAVE TO BE VERY CAUTIOUS ABOUT THAT. CAN WE TIE THIS, CAN WE TIE THIS TO THE CURRENT OWNERSHIP? UH, NO. NO, I DON'T THINK WE CAN. NO. MR. FINNEY, UM, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DEALS AND WITH LAND USES, NOT LAND USERS. MM-HMM . GOTCHA. SO, I, I, I, I STILL STAND BY MY MS. DAVIS. YEP. I UNDERSTAND. I HEAR YOU WELL. OKAY, MS. DAVIS. SO JUST, UH, SPECIFICALLY TO THAT, IF, IF, IF THE OWNERSHIP WOULD CHANGE AND THEN THE USE WOULD CHANGE. WELL, THERE'S TWO SEPARATE ISSUES. YEAH. THAT WOULD, THAT CHANGES THINGS, RIGHT? A A SUBSEQUENT OWNER COULD CONTINUE, FOR INSTANCE, A RESTAURANT LIKE RIGHT. LIKE YOU COULD, THE, THE MCDONALD'S DOWNTOWN COULD BE SOLD TO A BURGER KING. IT WOULD STILL JUST BE A RESTAURANT WITH DRIVE THROUGH, BUT THE NEXT OWNER WOULDN'T HAVE THE PARKING CAPACITY ELSEWHERE. RIGHT. AND MAYBE, OR MAYBE NOT. RIGHT. AND, AND WHO WOULD WANNA BUY A PROPERTY IF THE PARKING CAN ONLY POTENTIALLY LAST FOR ANOTHER EIGHT MONTHS OR HOWEVER LONG? AGREED KNOW. UM, THAT'S WHY MOST DEALS ARE CONTINGENT ON ZONING. AND THAT HAS SOME CERTAINTY TO IT. AND WHAT I'M SAYING TO YOU TODAY IS WE HAVE MORE UNCERTAINTY THAN CERTAINTY. AND I GO BACK TO MR. KOVICH COMMENT, WE HAVE MORE UNCERTAINTY THAN CERTAINTY TODAY. SO, BUT I DON'T KNOW. SO I I, I'M GONNA BRING THIS TOGETHER 'CAUSE WE HAVE TO KEEP MOVING. SO WE HAVE A COUPLE OPTIONS BOARD, UM, WE CAN APPROVE AS IS. WE CAN, UM, WE CAN, WE COULD APPROVE A LESSER AMOUNT OF A, OF A SPECIAL EXCEPTION. WE COULD ASK THEM TO PUT, UH, A SPILLOVER PARKING OR WHATEVER THE LANGUAGE IS, REMOTE PARKING AGREEMENT WITH THIS. UM, AND OTHER CONDITIONS WE COULD DO ONE YEAR OR TWO YEARS TO A STATE SPECIFIC FOR, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE TERM IS. WHAT'S IT CALLED? DANIEL LOOK BACK OR REASSESSMENT. WHAT'S THAT? REASSESSMENT. REASSESSMENT. THOSE ARE OUR OPTIONS ON THE TABLE. SO HOLD EVERYONE, I WANT YOU TO ABSORB THAT NOW. DO YOU WANNA MAKE A COMMENT AS WE'RE DEBATING BEFORE WE MAKE A MOTION? I THINK SO. UM, WELL, I'M JUST WANTING YEAH. I'M GIVING YOU NO, I APPRECIATE THAT. I'M, TO AVOID, I'M TRYING TO AVOID THE NEGOTIATING AT THE, AT THE PODIUM THING, BUT, SO I, I'M, AS YOU KNOW, I'M FULLY AWARE THAT TO APPROVE ANYTHING, IT TAKES FOUR VOTES. MM-HMM . YES, SIR. UM, SO, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE, THERE HAVE BEEN A LOT OF GOOD QUESTIONS ASKED. UM, I THINK THERE ARE SOME THINGS WE CAN DO TO ADDRESS THOSE QUESTIONS, HOPEFULLY. UM, AND I, YOU KNOW, AS YOU SAY, TRYING TO DO THIS ON THE FLY FROM THE PODIUM, I'M NOT SURE THAT'S THE BEST WAY TO APPROACH THIS. SO DO YOU, WHAT WOULD YOU FEEL ABOUT ASKING TO HOLD IT FOR A MONTH? SO MAYBE THE BEST THING FOR ALL OF US IS JUST TO HOLD THIS OVER FOR A MONTH AND COME BACK AND, YOU KNOW, TRY TO ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS FOR YOU AND MAYBE PRESENT AN OPERATIONAL PLAN OF SOME SORT, THINGS LIKE THAT. WELL, I, I, WE HAVEN'T DIRECTED THAT YET AS FAR AS THE HOLDOVER. UH, IF THAT'S YOUR REQUEST, IF THAT'S YOUR CON REQUEST BASED ON THE CONVERSATION YOU'VE HEARD THUS FAR, I THINK THAT'S A REASONABLE, I HESITATE AT HOLDOVERS BECAUSE IT, IT CREATES ISSUES WITH OPPOSITION, BUT THERE'S NO OPPOSITION PER SE. SO, UM, BOARD MEMBERS, I'M NOT OPPOSED TO A HOLDOVER. AS LONG AS WE HOPEFULLY CAN COME TO SOME CONCLUSION, I THINK A HOLDOVER SEEMS APPROPRIATE. OKAY. ALRIGHT. SO [03:45:01] WHEN IS OUR NEXT MEETING? UH, IT IS MAY. WHAT IS OUR NEXT MEETING? CAMIKA MAY 20TH. OKAY. UH, IN THE MATTER OF BDA 2 4 5 0 4 7, UH, I MOVE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 4 5 0 4 7 HOLD THIS MATTER UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL MAY 20TH, 2025. I ENTER FINNEY SECOND. THAT MOTION PER THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT. OKAY. AND IT'S BEEN MOVED BY CHAIRMAN NEWMAN, SECONDED BY MR. FINNEY DISCUSSION OF THE MOTION. I'LL GET YOU ONE SECOND, MR. HOP. I HOPE YOU'VE, AND I KNOW YOU HAVE, BUT I'M GONNA SAY IT FOR THE RECORD. HAVE HEARD THE CONVERSATION HERE? YES, YOU NEED FOUR VOTES, BUT YOU SHOULD HOPE TO ASSIMILATE FIVE. BUT YES, YOU KNOW, IN COUNCIL YOU NEED EIGHT VOTES, BUT YOU HOPE TO ASSIMILATE TO 10 OR 11 . ALRIGHT, MR. KOVI DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION. UH, I'M, I'M AGREEABLE TO HOLDING THIS OVER. I WOULD JUST HOPE FOR TWO THINGS. ONE, THAT WE GET A MUCH LESS COMPREHENSIVE PRESENTATION NEXT TIME FROM THE APPLICANTS. UH, UH, THIS IS KIND OF REALLY OVERKILL. AND, UH, AND TWO, THAT THERE ARE, THERE'S, THERE'S SOMETHING SUBSTANTIVELY DIFFERENT THAN WHAT GETS PRESENT THAN WHAT WE SAW TODAY. THANK YOU. THAT'S WHAT WILL, THAT'S WILL POTENTIALLY GET ME TO A YES VOTE. IF THE SAME KIND OF DEAL OPENS UP AGAIN, I'LL REMAIN A NO VOTE. THANK YOU, MR. KOVI. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? I, I WOULD, MR. VINCENT, YOU'RE REPRESENTING THE OWNER TODAY, SO I'LL DIRECT THIS TO YOU. I WOULD AGREE. MR. FINNEY MADE THE COMMENT EARLIER, I FELT LIKE SOME OF THESE CASES WERE A, UM, DISCOVERY DATA DUMP. AND I MEAN, IT'S GOOD TO HAVE ALL THIS INFORMATION, BUT ONE OF THE THINGS I WAS GONNA DO, I DIDN'T YET, WAS GONNA HAVE YOU GO THROUGH EVERY PAGE AND GIMME A SUMMARY, A ONE MINUTE SUMMARY OF EACH PAGE JUST TO SAY, DO YOU REALLY THINK WE READ EVERY LINE OF IT? AND I'M A READER AND A GREEN PENER, BUT I THINK LESS IS MORE. MM-HMM . MORE CONCISE. YOU NOW HEAR WHAT WE'RE ZEROING IN ON. I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO SEE THINGS FROM 2016. THERE'S THINGS IN HERE THAT'S REFERENCE 2016. OKAY. UH, THAT'S, THAT'S, THAT'S A, THAT'S A STRETCH. WE, WE, WE TRY TO BE THOROUGH AND WE TRY TO, I I APPRECIATE THAT WE TRY TO CREATE A GOOD RECORD, BUT YOU'VE NOW HEARD ECHOING SEVERAL TIMES, SO, OKAY. AND NOW WATCH YOU COME BACK WITH NOTHING AND WE SAY, WHERE'S ALL THE SUBSTANCE? SO THERE'S A FINE LINE. ALRIGHT. A MOTION'S BEEN MADE BY THE CHAIRMAN TO HOLD THIS. 2 4 5 0 4 7 HOLD OVER UNTIL MAY 20TH, 20 2025 SECONDED BY MR. FINNEY, UM, AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT. ALL IN FAVOR? WE'LL CALL THE VOTE. I'M SORRY, MS. DAVIS. AYE. MR. FINNEY? AYE. MR. HAITZ? AYE. MR. NARY? AYE. MR. CHAIRMAN, AYE. MOTION TO HOLD IT UNTIL MAY 20TH PASS IN THE MATTER BDA 2 4 5 0 4 7. THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY BY FIVE ZERO VOTE, MOVE TO HOLD THE ITEM, UH, OVER, OVER FOR CONSIDERATION TILL MAY 20TH, 2025. NEXT CASE BEFORE US IS BDA 2 4 5 0 4 8. MR. VINCENT, COULD, COULD WE HAVE A MOMENT? I WAS GONNA ASK THAT TOO, . YEAH. ONE MINUTE. SURE. YOU CAN TAKE TWO. [03:51:42] OKAY, GUYS, WHAT ARE WE WAITING FOR HERE? I DON'T UNDERSTAND. YOU ASKED FOR MORE FEW MORE MINUTES. HE'S MAKING A PHONE CALL. OKAY, WELL, BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW IF I'M GONNA WAIT OR AM I, I'M GONNA JUST PROCEED. SO YOU GUYS ARE ON OUR TIME. NO, NO DISRESPECT NOW, IF THE COUNCIL WAS MEETING, WE'D BE ON THE COUNCIL'S TIME. SO THAT'S THE PECKING ORDER. OKAY. WHAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US IS BDA 2 4 5 DASH 0 4 8 AT 1616 HIGHLINE DRIVE. UM, THE REQUEST IN FRONT OF US IS FOR, OH OH, HERE WE GO. 49.6% REDUCTION. THAT IS REQUIRED OF 1 53 LESS 76, WHICH GETS, GIVES US A MAGIC 77 WOBA. MR. VINCENT? YES, SIR. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. UH, JONATHAN, NOW WE, WE WAITED FOR YOU. SO CAN YOU SHARE WITH US? I I APPRECIATE THAT. I HAD TO, UH, LET SOMEBODY KNOW I WAS NOT GONNA BE AT ANOTHER HEARING TONIGHT. WE'LL, WE'LL BE DOING THAT SHORTLY TOO, AND THEN WE'RE GONNA ADJOURN AND, AND WE WON'T BE ABLE TO ADJUDICATE YOUR CASES. SO LET I UNDERSTAND THAT. SO LET'S, LET'S MOVE FORWARD. YES, SIR. UH, JONATHAN VINCENT, 2323 ROSS AVENUE HERE ON, UH, 2 4 5 0 4 8 16 16 HIGHLINE DRIVE. UM, A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT REQUEST. UM, OTHERWISE REQUIRED 153 SPACES. WE'RE LOOKING TO PROVIDE 77, SO THAT'S A 49.67, UH, PERCENT REDUCTION. THIS CASE, UM, IS DIFFERENT IN AN IMPORTANT RESPECT FROM WHAT YOU SAW BEFORE BECAUSE THIS CASE ACTUALLY, AND WE INCLUDED A SITE PLAN THAT SHOWS THE LARGE REMOTE LOT. WE'LL BE USING REMOTE PARKING FOR THIS CASE TO PROVIDE A SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER OF SPACES. UM, BUT AGAIN, THE SAME THING. WE UNTIL THAT REMOTE LOT IS IN PLACE, IT'S UNDER CONSTRUCTION RIGHT NOW. THE REMOTE PARKING AGREEMENT IS IN DRAFT FORM, SO IT'S NOT EXECUTED YET. SO WE NEED TO KNOW THAT WE HAVE THE PARKING REDUCTION AVAILABLE SO WE CAN CONTINUE TO OPERATE AND, AND LEASE THIS SPACE UP. UM, YEAH, I'M NOT GONNA GO THROUGH EVERY PAGE OF THIS. THIS IS, THAT WOULD BE THE THIRD TIME YOU'VE HEARD A LOT OF THIS STUFF. WE KNOW WHAT THE STANDARD IS. WE BELIEVE WE MEET THE STANDARD, YOU KNOW, WE PROVIDED THE, THE DATA AND THE PARKING AGREEMENT. I MEAN, NOT PARKING AGREEMENT, THE, UH, PARKING STUDY TO DEMONSTRATE THAT. UM, AND AGAIN, WE THINK THIS MAKES A LOT OF SENSE FOR THE ADAPTIVE REUSE OF THIS SPACE. UM, WE CAN GO THROUGH SOME SLIDES REAL QUICK. UH, LET'S GO TO THE AERIALS. THERE WE GO. YEAH, YOU SEE THE, IT'S THIS, UH, PROPERTY HIGHLIGHTED IN GREEN THERE. AND LET'S KEEP GOING TO THE NEXT ONE. AGAIN, SIMILAR SITUATION DURING THE DAYTIME. VERY, UH, UNDERUTILIZED IN TERMS OF THE PARKING THAT'S THERE, MUCH LESS THE PARKING THAT'S REQUIRED. UH, THE NEXT SLIDE WOULD BE THE SITE PLAN WITH THE RESTAURANT. UM, AND THAT'S, YOU KNOW, A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF RESTAURANT, BUT AS I SAY, WE HAVE REMOTE PARKING THAT'S IN THE PROCESS OF, UH, ONCE WE GET THE AGREEMENT SIGNED UP AND IT'S THE, UH, 185 SPACES ON THE STEMMONS FRONTAGE ROAD, UH, WE WILL AMPLY TAKE CARE OF THAT. UH, AGAIN, MIXED USE PARKING CHART. WE'VE TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF THAT. [03:55:01] UM, AND ALL THE OTHER FACTORS THAT I'VE MENTIONED TO YOU BEFORE. SO WE THINK THIS MAKES A LOT OF SENSE. WE THINK IT MEETS THE STANDARD. WE THINK IT'S SUPPORTABLE BY THE DATA AND THE STUDY THAT WE'VE DONE. UM, SO RESPECTFULLY WOULD ASK THAT YOU APPROVE THIS ON THAT BASIS. AND AGAIN, I WANT TO EMPHASIZE WHAT'S REALLY DIFFERENT ABOUT THIS IS THE LARGE REMOTE PARKING LOT THAT'S UNDER CONSTRUCTION THAT PEOPLE CAN WALK FROM HERE. THEY CAN, UM, AS YOU SEE ON THE DIAGRAM THERE, THEY CAN WALK OVER TO, UH, HIGHLINE AND COME AROUND TO THE PROPERTY. SO VERY WALKABLE. SO AGAIN, WE'D RESPECTFULLY ASK THAT YOU CONSIDER APPROVAL OF THIS TODAY. THANK YOU SIR. QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT, MS. DAVIS? SO THE REMOTE PARKING LOT, IF YOU COULD JUST AGAIN, UM, EXPLAIN HOW PEOPLE ARE GETTING FROM THE REMOTE PARKING LOT TO THE RESTAURANT, WHAT SIGNAGE WILL BE THERE, WILL THERE BE ANY SHUTTLE GOING BACK AND FORTH, ET CETERA? IT'S THE REMOTE LOT IS ILLUSTRATED ON PAGE 1 35. IF WE COULD BRING THAT UP AGAIN. AND MY UNDERSTANDING IS IT WOULD MOSTLY BE VALET YOUR UNDERSTANDING OR IT'S CONTRACTUAL. I MEAN, WHEN YOU, THAT'S HOW IT WILL OPERATE IS VALET. AND IF YOU DON'T VALET THAT'S, THAT'S PART OF WHAT'S CORRECT THAT WE WOULD BIND INTO THE DEAL OR YOU WOULD, YOU ARE PROJECTING, AGAIN, IT COULD BE BOTH BECAUSE IT'S WITHIN A THOUSAND FEET OF THE NEWLY CONSTRUCTED PARKING LOT IS A THREE MINUTE WALK TO THE RESTAURANT. STRAIGHT DOWN, STRAIGHT UP HIGHLINE. IF YOU GO ON EDISON, HERE IT IS. YEAH. SO EDISON IS THE, UP DOWN NORTH THE ROAD TO THE RIGHT, YOU COULD PULL IN OFF THE SERVICE ROAD OR EDISON, YOU KNOW, HIGHLINE, THERE'S TWO DIFFERENT WAYS TO ENTER THERE. PAY TO PARK AND THEN HAVE A, IT'S LIKE A 500 FOOT WALK. IT'S REALLY SHORT. OR YOU COULD GO TO THE RESTAURANT VALET, THEY WOULD CIRCLE AROUND, GO DOWN HIGHLINE TO OAK LAWN TO THE SERVICE ROAD AND TURN IN FROM THE SERVICE ROAD AND VALET. IF YOU NOTICE ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE DIAGRAM, THOSE ARE STRIPED DOUBLE STACK SPECIFICALLY FOR VALET. THAT'S 54 VALET SPACES THAT WOULD BE COMMITTED TO THESE RESTAURANTS. 49 TO THIS RESTAURANT IN PARTICULAR. AND THERE'S AN AGREEMENT IN PLACE IN YOUR PACKET TOWARD THAT EFFECT. SO THAT IS DIFFERENT. IN THIS CASE, THERE IS A PARKING AGREEMENT FOR THE NEW PARKING LOT AND IT COULD, IT WOULD VALET TO THE VALET SPACES, BUT YOU COULD DRIVE THERE YOURSELF AND HAVE A SHORT WALK TO THE RESTAURANT AS WELL. UM, QUICK FOLLOW UP QUESTION. IF, IF YOU WOULD DRIVE THERE AND PARK AND WALK TO THE RESTAURANT, HOW BUSY IS THAT STREET? SO HIGHLINE IS THE NEW TRAIL, YOU KNOW, HIGHLINE IS THE NEW, UH, PARK TRAIL, THE STRAND. SO YOU COULD WALK ALONG THE TRAIL AND HAVE A NICE LOVELY WALK, BUT THERE'S ALSO A SIDEWALK A ALONG HIGHLINE. CAN I SAY ONE THING TOO AS PART OF THE MR CHAIR? OH SIR, SORRY, GO AHEAD. I WAS JUST GONNA, I THINK WHAT YOU'RE ASKING ALSO WAS ABOUT JUST SAFE, PERHAPS SAFETY. THERE ARE SIDEWALKS AS REQUIRED BY THE PD ON BOTH THETIS ACCESS ROAD AND ON EDISON, ALONG WITH SITE LIGHTING THAT WE WERE INSTALLING. SO IT'S A SAFE WALK. THERE'S A SIDEWALK, A CONTIGUOUS SIDEWALK FROM OUR PARKING LOT DOWN SOUTH, THEORETICALLY ON EDISON INTERSECTS AT HIGHLINE, ALSO SIDEWALK HEAD NORTHBOUND SIDEWALK LIT INTO THE RESTAURANT FRONT DOOR. THANK YOU. WHAT OTHER QUESTIONS DO WE HAVE FOR THE APPLICANT, MR. FINNEY? UM, SO, UH, SO ON THE SUBJECT OF THE HIGHLINE TRAIL, WHERE EXACTLY IS THE HIGHLINE TRAIL? IN THE, ALONG THE CENTER OF HIGHLINE? IT GOES ALL THE WAY FROM OH, RIGHT, GOTCHA. STEMMONS TO THE TRINITY STRAND. BUT THEY HAVE TO GET DOWN TO HIGHLINE FROM THE PARKING LOT, RIGHT? OH, IT, IT'S IMMEDIATELY SOUTH OF THE PARKING LOT. YOU WOULD STAY ON THE SIDEWALK, YOU'D BE ON THE HIGHLINE SIDEWALK. YEAH. BUT IT IS BUILT ACCORDING TO THE PD. IT'S NEW, IT'S LIT. IT'S REALLY NICE. YEAH. SO I GUESS WHAT I'M, I'M REALLY KIND OF DISAPPOINTED IN IS YOU OWN THE PROPERTY DIRECTLY BEHIND THIS PROPERTY AND THE PREVIOUS PROPERTY WE DISCUSSED, RIGHT? UM, AND IN BETWEEN THOSE PROPERTIES IS THIS REMOTE LOT, RIGHT? I CAN THINK OF ABOUT THREE DOZEN CREATIVE WAYS TO USE THAT SPACE TO ESTABLISH A REALLY NICE, MUCH MORE DIRECT CONNECTION BETWEEN THESE, THESE PROPOSED [04:00:01] RESTAURANTS THAT YOU WANT TO PUT IN. THAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR PARKING VARIANCES FROM, UH, TWO, THIS REMOTE PARKING LOT THAT YOU'RE SPENDING A LOT OF MONEY ON, ON VERY PRIME REAL ESTATE THAT A LOT OF DEVELOPERS WILL PROBABLY BE BUILDING HIGH-RISE ON. SO I'M JUST CURIOUS WHY THERE ISN'T A MORE SOPHISTICATED RESPONSE TO HOW PEOPLE GET FROM THESE RESTAURANTS TO THE REMOTE PARKING LOT WHEN YOU OWN THE LAND BETWEEN JUST A ONE ONE CLARIFICATION. WE DO NOT OWN THE LAND DIRECTLY BEHIND THIS BUILDING. OH, THE, THE CAR, UH, THE BUILDING TO THE SOUTH OF US OWNS THAT PORTION OF THE RAIL BED. IT STOPS KIND OF BETWEEN THE TWO, THE BUILDING 16, 16 AND 1626. OKAY. SO WE CANNOT CONNECT DIRECTLY FROM OUR, FROM THIS PARKING LOT THROUGH THE, WHAT WAS A FORMER RAIL BED. IT'S THE RIGHT, IT'S THE RIGHT QUESTION TO ASK. 'CAUSE WE WE'VE TRIED TO ACQUIRE IT TO MAKE THAT EASIER BECAUSE IT'S MAKES A TON OF SENSE. OKAY. THEY UNFORTUNATELY ARE NOT SELLERS. SO WE THOUGHT WE WOULD DO THE NEXT BEST THING, WHICH WAS PROVIDE A LIT PAVED SIDEWALK TO GET FROM A NEW PARKING LOT THAT WE THINK SERVES THE ENTIRETY OF THE DISTRICT AND TAKE THE SIDEWALKS ALONG A LIGHTED PATH TO THE FRONT DOOR. SO YEAH, I AGREE WITH YOU. YEAH. MUCH EASIER IF WE HAD THAT LITTLE BED STRIP, BUT OKAY. SADLY, MY APOLOGIES FOR MY DIRECT TONE. I THOUGHT YOU NO, YOU, I MISUNDERSTOOD. YOU'RE YOU'RE ASKING THE RIGHT QUESTION. 'CAUSE WE THOUGHT THE SAME THING. IT WOULD, IT WOULD MAKE FOR A BETTER EXPERIENCE FOR A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT USER GROUPS, BUT THAT IS UNAVAILABLE AT THIS POINT. RIGHT. GOTCHA. OKAY. SO, UM, BUT FOR THIS PROPERTY, YOU DO HAVE A REMOTE PARKING AGREEMENT AS A PART OF THIS? CORRECT. OKAY. CORRECT. AND SO THE IDEA IS THAT THEY WOULD, THEY, IT, MOST MUCH OF IT WOULD BE PARKED IN THIS PARKING LOT THAT YOU'RE BUILDING AND WHETHER OR NOT THAT'S VALET OR NOT IS UP TO THE USER? YEAH, WE THINK THERE'S A FAIR, THIS ONE, BECAUSE OF ITS PROXIMITY TO THE PARKING LOT, IT'S LIKELY THAT A LOT OF PEOPLE WILL JUST SELF-PARK. AND THAT'S KIND OF WHY WE'RE USING THIS AND THAT'S WHY WE ANTICIPATE THE NEED FOR THIS REDUCTION IS IT'S AROUND THE CORNER. WE MOST, I WOULD, A LOT OF PEOPLE, LLOYD SAID HE WOULD, HE WOULDN'T PAY FOR VALET. HE WOULD PARK AND WALK AROUND THE CORNER. SO WE THINK THAT'S THE CASE FOR A LOT OF PEOPLE. YEAH. OKAY. THANK YOU. SO MY UNDERSTANDING IS, I, I'M REREADING THE NUMBERS HERE, SO I, I GET WHAT THE CURRENT, WHAT YOUR CURRENT ASK IS, UH, ACCORDING TO THE SHARED PARKING CHART, I'M LOOKING AT THAT CHART, NOT THE REQUIRED CHART. IT SAYS IT'S 1 53, YOU'RE ASKING FOR RELIEF OF 76 SPACES, WHICH IS 50%, WHICH WOULD LEAVE YOU WITH 77 AND YOU HAVE 28 ON, UH, 28 ON THE, THE, IN THE EXISTING BUILDING OR, UH, PROPERTY. RIGHT. SO THAT MEANS 28 MINUS 77 WOULD BE 50 IS 49 WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE REMOTE, CORRECT? CORRECT. OF THE, ONE OF THE 180 5 THAT IS PENDING. YOU DO, YOU WOULD ASSUME 49 IS COVERED BY THE 180 5. CORRECT. OKAY. IS A NET GAIN OF NEW PARKING OF 180 5 MINUS 49 BECOMES 1 36? YEAH. WHAT'S THE 1 36? YES. OH, WHAT'S LEFT REMAIN CORRECT? CORRECT. WHAT'S, WHAT'S LEFT? OKAY. REMEMBER AT THE BEGINNING OF TODAY I SAID THE STATUS QUO KEEPS CHANGING THE MORE THAT YOU USE, WE WOULD APPROVE SOMETHING, WE'D APPROVE SOMETHING AGAINST THIS SHARED PARKING LOT THAT IS TO BE BUILT AND THAT SORT OF THING. OKAY. UH, SO 1 53 DOWN TO MINUS 76 IS 77 28 ON THE PROPERTY, IT LEAVES YOU 49. IN THE CURRENT, IN YOUR CURRENT APPLICATION, ARE YOU COMMITTING IN WRITING TO A VALET AGREEMENT OR YOU'RE SAYING THAT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU POTENTIALLY COULD DO? IS IT A WE'RE NOT, IS IT A CONTRACTUAL OR IT'S JUST SOMETHING YOU COULD DO? WE COULD DO BECAUSE WE, WE BELIEVE THAT THAT LOT'S SO CLOSE THAT PUT A LOT OF PEOPLE WILL USE IT. IT'S, SO IT'S NOT A REQUIREMENT. AND IN YOUR CURRENT PROPOSAL, YOU'RE, YOU'RE SAYING YOU'LL EXECUTE THIS REMOTE PARKING AGREEMENT THAT IT WOULD BE THROUGH THE CITY? CORRECT. SO THAT'S IN THE DEAL. OKAY. AND WHAT'S THE DISTANCE BETWEEN 1616 HIGHLINE AND THIS 185 LOTS AND YOU'RE UNDER OATH. WHAT'S THE DISTANCE IN, IN AXLE? YOU CAN SEE ON THIS DIAGRAM THEIR OWNERSHIP MAP, THE NEW PARKING LOT IS THE SHADED AREA TO THE RIGHT WHERE THE MOUSE IS MOVING AROUND. YEP. IT'S IMMEDIATELY DIAGONALLY ADJACENT. OF COURSE THAT'S AS A CROW FLIES. YOU MEAN NUMBER SEVEN? CORRECT. IT'S RIGHT THERE. SO, BUT HOWEVER, YOU CAN'T, YOU CAN'T, THAT'S AS A CROW FLIES, YOU'RE PROBABLY GONNA WALK, BUT YOU COULDN'T, YOU COULDN'T GO DIAGONAL. YOU'D GO DOWN, WHAT'S THAT STREET? YES, IT'S ABOUT, ABOUT 600 FEET. OKAY. YOU GO DOWN EDISON AND OVER? YES. SIDEWALK. OKAY. YEP. I'LL GO TO MR. FINNEY'S COMMENT. WOW. WHAT A PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT YOU'RE GIVING UP FOR PARKING. WELL, WHAT, JUST A MINUTE. I'M NOT FINISHED. BUT THAT'S YOUR BUSINESS. YOU'RE [04:05:01] THE OWNER, YOUR PRIVATE SECTOR. UM HMM. OKAY. MR. N THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN. I, YEAH, I HAVE A QUESTION JUST FOR MY OWN EDIFICATION. YOU'VE REITERATED YOUR DESIRE, UH, TO WORK WITH RESTAURATEURS IN THE AREA. MM-HMM. AND IT APPEARS ON YOUR OWNERSHIP MAP, UH, ADJACENT THERE ON, UH, THE HIGH LINE, I THINK IT'S NUMBER 15. DOES HN ALSO OWN THE LAND WHERE METAL, SOME MOTH AND ASCENSION COFFEE IS LOCATED? YES. OKAY. THANK YOU MR. CHAIR. I HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS, MR. FINNEY. UM, SO THIS 16,000 SQUARE FEET, DO YOU IMAGINE IT BEING SEVERAL TENANTS OR DO YOU IMAGINE IT BEING ONE LARGE TENANT? AND, AND I GUESS I'M, WHERE I'M GETTING AT, DO YOU IMAGINE THIS BEING DIFFERENT TYPES OF TENANTS WHERE, WHERE THEY'RE OCCUPYING THE BUILDING AT DIFFERENT TIMES? UM, THIS IS ONE, IT WOULD BE ONE RESTAURANT. IT WOULD BE ONE RESTAURANT? CORRECT. OKAY. ONE RESTAURANT. UM, YEAH. OKAY. AND WOULD IT BE LIKE PRIMARILY A, AT THIS POINT WHAT THEY'VE, UH, WE HAVE A LEASE SIGNED AT THIS RESTAURANT AT WHAT, WHAT THEY'VE TOLD US IS THAT IT'S, IT'S DINNER ONLY AND THEN IT GOES INTO COCKTAILS AFTERWARDS. NOT A, NOT A CLUB OR NIGHTCLUB OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, BUT THEY DO NOT TYPICALLY SERVE, UH, LUNCH. SO IT'S PRIMARILY NIGHTTIME. OKAY. SO IT'D BE GENERATING DEMAND AT NIGHTTIME THE EVENING, YEAH. WHEN EVERYTHING ELSE IS DEAD. YEAH. YEAH. OKAY. GREAT. UM, AND THEN, UH, BACK TO THE, THE WALK FROM THE PARKING LOT AROUND THE CORNER, UM, IS THERE, WHAT IS THE SHADE LIKE, LIKE AND ARE L DOING ANY LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS TO YES. AS PART, YEAH, AS PART OF THE PD THEY WERE REQUIRED TO DO SITE LANDSCAPING. WE WERE ABIDING BY THE PD REQUIREMENTS FOR SITE LANDSCAPING, SITE LIGHTING, ET CETERA. I MEAN, TO THE COMMISSIONER'S POINT, IT'S QUITE EXPENSIVE TO FOLLOW THOSE REQUESTS, BUT AGAIN, WE THINK IT'S THE RIGHT MOVE FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS TO PROVIDE THIS ADDITIONAL PARKING RELEASE FOR US AND IN THEORY OTHERS OR WILL LIKELY USE IT AS WELL. SO, YEAH. YEAH. OKAY. IT'S A SHADED, PAVED, LIT WALK FOR MOST OF THE CONDITION. YEAH. WHEN IT'S 105. YEAH. OUTSIDE. RIGHT. AND SO IS THIS PARKING LOT INTENDED TO BE, UM, A FREE PARKING LOT OR IS IT SOMETHING THAT YOU WOULD CHARGE FOR OR SORT OF DEPENDS ON HOW THESE, UH, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS HEARINGS GO TRUTHFULLY. 'CAUSE WE, IF WE COULD RELEASE SOME OF THE, UM, SPACES IN THOSE LOTS, THEN WE COULD FREE THEM UP TOWARD TO USE FOR OTHER, UH, BUSINESSES OR THE APARTMENT ACROSS THE STREET. WE DON'T HAVE ANY, WE DON'T HAVE ANY SET PROGRAM YET BECAUSE, YEAH. GOT IT. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU MR. FINNEY. OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? MR. HOP? ANY QUESTIONS? NO QUESTIONS. OKAY. THE CHAIR WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION. MR. FINNEY, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 4 5 DASH 0 4 8 ON APPLICATION OF JONATHAN VINCENT GRANT, THE REQUEST OF THIS APPLICANT TO PROVIDE 77 OFF STREET PARKING SPACES TO THE OFF STREET PARKING REGULATIONS CONTAINED IN THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED, WHICH SHOWS WHICH REQUIRES 153 OFF STREET PARKING SPACES BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY USE AND THE TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT THIS SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT INCREASE TRAFFIC HAZARDS OR INCREASE TRAFFIC CONGESTION ON ADJACENT OR NEARBY STREETS. AND THE PARKING DEMAND GENERATED BY THE USE DOES NOT WARRANT THE NUMBER OF REQUIRED PARKING SPACES. I FURTHER MOVE THAT THE FOLLOWING CONDITION BE IMPOSED TO FURTHER THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE. THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION OF 76 SPACES SHALL AUTOMATICALLY AND IMMEDIATELY TERMINATE IF AND WHEN THE USE HAS CHANGED OR DISCONTINUED. COMPLIANCE WITH THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF ALL SUBMITTED PLANS ARE REQUIRED IN THE MATTER OF BDA 2 4 5 DASH 0 4 8. MR. FINNEY HAS MOVED TO GRANT THE REQUEST FOR A 77 OF 77, EXCUSE ME, UH, TO PROVIDE 77 SPACES, UM, WHICH IS A 76 SPACE SPECIAL EXCEPTION. DOES THIS IN INHERENT IN THE MOTION, INCLUDE THE REFERENCE TO THE SHARED PARKING AGREEMENT? IT DOESN'T SAY IT IN THE, IN THE LEGAL LANGUAGE. SHOULD IT DO, DO YOU MEAN REMOTE PARKING OR SHARED PARKING OR, WELL, REMOTE. REMOTE OR SHARED, WHICHEVER YOU'RE GONNA SAY REMOTE IT, IT DOESN'T SAY IT IN THE MOTION. SHOULD IT APPLICATION. I KNOW, I'M, THAT'S WHAT I WANNA MAKE SURE. DO WE NEED TO CALL IT OUT AS PART OF THE MOTION THAT IT INCLUDES A REMOTE PARKING AGREEMENT? GIMME ONE SECOND, MR. CHAIRMAN. I THINK THAT'S YOUR PREROGATIVE AS A BOARD. I KNOW, BUT [04:10:02] IT WAS PART OF THE APPLICATION. WHAT WHAT WAS TESTIFIED TO WAS THIS, WHAT WAS TESTIFIED TO US IS, OH, THIS IS DIFFERENT. THIS HAS A REMOTE PARKING AGREEMENT AND THE LANGUAGE OF THE MOTION DOESN'T REFERENCE A REMOTE PARKING AGREEMENT. SO ARE WE, ARE, ARE WE ASSUMING THAT? OR IS THAT, OR SHOULD THAT BE SPELLED OUT? THAT INCLUDES COMPLIANCE WITH MOST REVERSION SUPPLY PLANS, INCLUDING A REMOTE PARKING AGREEMENT. I'M JUST ASKING FROM A LEGAL DOCUMENTATION STANDPOINT. I WOULD THINK WE'D WANNA MENTION IT. YEAH, WE CAN. I, I THINK FOR CLARITY WE SHOULD MENTION IT. SO WOULD YOU GIVE US LANGUAGE THAT MR. FINNEY CAN INCLUDE FOR THE MOTION THAT'S PENDING? I AM NOT SAYING HOW THE VOTE'S GONNA GO. I'M JUST SAYING THAT I THINK THAT IF THAT'S INCUMBENT IN THIS DEAL, IT SHOULD BE SPECIFIED REQUIRED. SO COMPLIANCE. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? YES. ALRIGHT. MR. FINNEY, DID YOU WANNA MODIFY YOUR MOTION? YES, PLEASE. YOU JUST CAN SAY WITH THE, THE FOLLOWING CONDITION AND I'LL ACCEPT THAT. THE GREEN THAT YOU PUT IN. YEAH. OKAY. UM, COMPLIANCE WITH THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF ALL SUBMITTED PLANS AND REMOTE PARKING AGREEMENT ARE REQUIRED. OKAY. AS IN THE MATTER, BDA 2 4 5 0 4 8, MR. FINNEY HAS MOVED TO GRANT WITH A SPECIAL EXCEPTION, EXCEPTION OF 76 SPACES WITH A COMPLIANCE PLAN OR ALL SUBMITTED PLANS INCLUDING A REMOTE PARKING AGREEMENT. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. IT'S BEEN SECONDED BY MS. DAVIS. DISCUSSION OF THE MOTION, MR. FINNEY? WELL, I THINK A LOT OF MY COMMENTS COULD BE COPIED AND PASTED FROM THE PREVIOUS MOTION. UM, BUT, UM, I, I THINK THE, THE APPLICANT HAS, UH, DEMONSTRATED, UM, THAT THIS, UH, VARIANCE IS NOT GONNA, UH, SIGNIFICANTLY CONTRIBUTE TO, UH, TRAFFIC CONGESTION. UH, I THINK THEY'VE, UH, THOUGHTFULLY, UM, KIND OF, UH, COME UP WITH A, WITH A, WITH A PLAN FOR THIS AREA. UM, AND, AND I THINK ALSO THE FACT THAT THE, THEY HAVE A SIGNED LEASE WITH A TENANT THAT IS, UH, GENERATING PARKING DEMAND AT A DIFFERENT TIME, UH, THAN THE DAY USERS. DID THEY SAY THEY HAD A SIGNED LEASE ALREADY? YES. YES. I THOUGHT YOU COULDN'T DO A SIGNED LEASE UNTIL YOU HAD THE PARKING IN PLACE. DIDN'T YOU TESTIFY TO THAT BEFORE? YOU CAN'T GET A CERTIFICATE OF OCC. A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY IS MY UNDERSTANDING WITH, OH, YOU HAD SAID BEFORE THAT YOU COULD, OH, YOU'D BE, HAVE A HARD TIME GETTING A LEASE SIGNED UNLESS YOU HAD YOUR PARKING IN PLACE. WELL, YOU KNOW, A LEASE IS A PRIVATE CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT. , BASICALLY. SO MAYBE SOME PEOPLE WILL SIGN A LEASE, YOU KNOW, AND ON THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THEY, OKAY. YOU KNOW, AND THE REMOTE PARKING AGREEMENT, IT'S ACTUALLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION YOU SAW IN MR. THOMPSON'S VIDEO. SO THAT, THAT'S A, THAT'S A PRETTY SAFE BET, I WOULD SAY, UM, MANY TIMES IT'S MUCH MORE SPECULATIVE AS TO HOW, I'M JUST SAYING BEFORE YOU TESTIFIED THAT IT'S HARD FOR YOU TO GET A LEASE UNLESS YOU HAD PARKING IN PLACE. I THINK NOW ALL OF A SUDDEN YOU ALREADY GOT A LEASE IN PLACE BEFORE THE PARKING. WHICH MAKES ME WONDER, WHAT, WHAT WERE YOU SAYING BEFORE? I JUST, WELL, IN MY EXPERIENCE, THAT'S ABSOLUTELY TRUE. I THINK IF YOU HAVE 185 SPACE PARKING LOT THAT'S UNDER CONSTRUCTION, I THINK THAT MAKES IT EASIER. OKAY. I, I'VE JUST LISTENED TO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING AND PLAYING IT BACK. OKAY. I'M SORRY MR. FINNEY. I HEARD WHAT YOU HAD SAID, WHAT HE'D SAID. I WENT, WOO, THAT'S NOT THE SAME, BUT, OKAY. YEAH, I THINK I'M DONE. OKAY, MS. DAVIS, I'M SUPPORTING THIS MOTION BECAUSE I, I MEAN, FIRST OF ALL, THE, THE PARKING REGULATIONS ARE OUTDATED AND I DO BELIEVE YOU HAVE A PLAN IN PLACE, AND I THINK WE SHOULD GIVE THEM A SHOT AT, AT CONTINUING THE DEVELOPMENT IN THIS AREA. I THINK IT WILL BE SUCCESSFUL, AND IF IT'S NOT SUCCESSFUL, THEY WILL COME UP WITH AN ALTERNATE PLAN. SO I THINK WE SHOULD MOVE AHEAD WITH THIS. THANK YOU, MS. DAVIS. ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THE MOTION? I'M UNDECIDED, BUT I'M JUST ONE VOTE. I I'M, I I'M, I'M VERY HESITANT ON 50% THIS REMOTE LOT QUESTION. UM, I, I JUST, SO THAT'S JUST MY OPINION. I'M UNCONVINCED ANY, ANY OTHER DISCUSSION FIRST ROUND BEFORE WE GO TO SECOND ROUND? SO I'M JUST ADDRESSING YOUR, YOUR, UM, YOUR CONCERN. AGAIN, THE, THE PARKING REGULATIONS IN GENERAL ARE OUTDATED AND THEY DO HAVE OFFSITE PARKING. AND IF YOU DON'T WANT TO WALK FROM THE OFFSITE PARKING LOT TO THE RESTAURANT, YOU CAN, [04:15:01] UM, YOU CAN VALET. SO IT'S RIGHT THERE. I MEAN, IF IT'S 120 DEGREES, I'M GOING TO VALET. AND IF IT'S NOT, PERHAPS I'LL WALK. BUT THERE IS THAT OPTION 1 53 MINUS 76, MINUS 49. I, I'M WITH ONLY 28 IN PROXIMITY. THAT IS A HECK OF A JUMP FROM 1 53 TO 28 IN PROXIMITY. THAT'S ALL I'M SAYING. THAT'S A BIG JUMP FROM 1 53 REQUIRED, RIGHT, WRONG OR OTHERWISE, TO ONLY 28 IN PROXIMITY. THAT'S ONE PERSON'S OPINION. IF I MAY, PLEASE SAY, UM, THIS IS THE JOY OF OUR DEBATE. IT'S ALL IN PUBLIC. I I, I THINK IN THE END THE CONSUMERS WILL WIN. UM, BECAUSE IN THE END, IF, IF, IF SOMEHOW THIS DOES GET OUTTA CONTROL AND IT'S OVER CONGESTED, PEOPLE WILL NOT COME TO THIS RESTAURANT OR THIS AREA AND THEY WILL GO ELSEWHERE. 'CAUSE THERE ARE PLENTY OF OTHER OPTIONS. IT'S A VERY COMPETITIVE MARKET. AND SO, YOU KNOW, ULTIMATELY THE, THE APPLICANT IS TAKING THE RISK HERE. SO, AND WE SHOULD LET THEM DO THAT DISCUSSION. AND THE MOTION, MR. KOVI, MY EXPERIENCE, WHICH IS NOT ALL ENCOMPASSING, IS THAT REMOTE PARKING SITUATIONS, WALKING IN THE CITY OF DALLAS TO GET TO A RESTAURANT. YOU KNOW, IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A MICHELIN THREE STAR RESTAURANT, I GUESS THAT COULD HAPPEN, BUT I DON'T REALLY SEE PEOPLE DOING THAT IN DALLAS PART OF THE YEAR. THE WEATHER DOESN'T REALLY PROVIDE MUCH OPPORTUNITY FOR THAT. AND, UM, I WOULD, UH, WHILE I AGREE THAT THE PEOPLE OPERATING THE WOULD BE TAKING THE RISK OF THE PROPERTY, AREN'T TAKING THE RISK, UM, IT'S UP TO US WHETHER TO BELIEVE THAT REASONABLE RISK ALLOWS FOR US TO MAKE AN EXCEPTION TO THE CURRENT STANDARDS. UH, I'M LEANING AGAINST THIS, UH, BUT I'M UNDECIDED AT THIS POINT. I'M WITH YOU. AND CAN I JUST RESPOND TO THAT? YOU KNOW, I THINK THE DIVIDED NATURE OF THIS PANEL, I THINK JUST PROVES THE POINT THAT, UM, THERE ARE PEOPLE IN THIS CITY THAT WILL HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS RESTAURANT BECAUSE OF THE REMOTE PARKING AND THEY WILL GO ELSEWHERE. THERE ARE PEOPLE IN THIS CITY THAT WILL NOT CARE AT ALL. THEY WILL ABSOLUTELY PARK AND WALK AROUND THE CORNER. AND I THINK THAT IN ITSELF, UH, PREVENTS THE CONGESTION ISSUES AND CONCERNS THAT HAVE BEEN EXPRESSED TODAY. UM, SO THAT, THAT'S IT. OH, AND, AND ONE OTHER, ONE OTHER THING, UH, ONE OTHER POINT THAT WAS MENTIONED, UM, EARLIER TODAY IN THE BRIEFING IS THE FACT THAT ONCE YOU GET ABOVE A CERTAIN SQUARE FOOTAGE IN RESTAURANT SPACE, IT HAS BEEN PROVEN THAT, UM, YOU NEED, YOU, THE, THE PARKING RATIOS DON'T HOLD, YOU KNOW, YOU DON'T NEED THE SAME LEVEL OF PARKING, UH, ONCE YOU GET ABOVE A CERTAIN SQUARE FOOTAGE. UM, SO I THINK THAT'S ALSO IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER. SO THANK YOU, SIR. MS. DAVIS. UH, I WANNA GO BACK TO MR. FINNEY'S COMMENT LAST ROUND, THAT BASICALLY IF THE PARKING ISN'T SUFFICIENT, THE RESTAURANT'S GOING TO FAIL. SO IT'S GOING TO, IT'S GOING TO FIX ITSELF. THEY'RE TAKING THE RISK. LET THEM DEVELOP, LET THEM CONTINUE TO DEVELOP AND TAKE THAT RISK. AND IF IT'S NOT WORKING, I HAVE NO DOUBT YOU'RE GONNA COME UP WITH SOME ALTERNATE SOLUTION. AND IF YOU DON'T, THEN YOU'LL, YOU KNOW, YOU'LL FAIL AND SOMEBODY ELSE WILL COME INTO THE BUSINESS. BUT OTHERWISE IT'S JUST SITTING THERE. SO WE WANT TO ENCOURAGE SMART DEVELOPMENT IN OUR CITY, AND I BELIEVE THAT THEY'VE COME UP WITH A PLAN TO DO THAT. AND AT THIS POINT I LIKE, WE'RE, WE'RE JUST SO HESITANT 'CAUSE WE'RE SO SCARED. LET THEM TAKE THE RISK, THEY HAVE A SOLUTION, AND IF THE SOLUTION DOESN'T WORK, THE RESTAURANT WILL FAIL AND SOMETHING ELSE WILL, THEY'LL EITHER HAVE TO FIX THE PROBLEM OR A NEW RESTAURANT OR A NEW PRODUCT WILL COME INTO THAT SPACE. BUT LET THEM TRY. WOULD IT HELP TO INCLUDE A REASSESSMENT TERM IN, I'M, I'M SORRY. WOULD IT HELP TO INCLUDE A REASSESSMENT TERM LIKE IN 18 MONTHS OR WHATEVER? THAT WOULD NEUTRALIZE ME. , MR. OVITZ, UM, MS. DAVIS'S POINT THAT SHE JUST MADE, I, I'M NOT SEEING WHERE THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OF TRACKS OF LAND IS BUSINESS OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. THAT'S FOR THE CITY TO DEAL WITH ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY. UM, I JUST DON'T SEE THAT AS BEING PART OF OUR CHARGE. OKAY. FURTHER DISCUSSION IN THE MOTION, MS. DAVIS. I GUESS [04:20:01] MY RESPONSE TO THAT IS WE'RE HERE FOR THE, THE CITY. I MEAN, WE'RE HERE FOR THAT OVERSIGHT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE A SUCCESSFUL DESTINATION AND THAT THE CHANGES THAT ARE COMING BEFORE US AREN'T HURTING THE DESTINATION. THIS DOES NOT HURT THE DESTINATION. NOT ONLY THAT THE OWNER OWNS MULTIPLE PROPERTIES. SO I GUESS I'M MAKING THE ASSUMPTION THAT YOU KNOW HOW TO MAKE MONEY, YOU'RE GOING TO BE SUCCESSFUL. THIS IS NOT SOMEBODY COMING IN AND TAKING THE SPACE FOR A FIRST TIME ATTEMPT OF TRYING TO TURN A RESTAURANT INTO SOMETHING SUCCESSFUL. YOU'VE HAD MANY SUCCESSES, YOU OWN MANY PROPERTIES. SO THIS IS, THIS IS GOOD FOR THE DESTINATION. IT IS GOOD FOR THIS AREA. I SEE NO REASON WHY WE SHOULDN'T MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS. MAY I ALSO SAY SOMETHING, MS. MR. FINNEY? THANK YOU, MS. DAVIS. UM, I THINK IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT TO RECOGNIZE THAT THIS APPLICANT ISN'T JUST A STAKEHOLDER WITH A SINGLE PROPERTY IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. THEY'RE NOT JUST RISKING THE SUCCESS OF THIS ONE PROPERTY AND THIS ONE TENANT. UH, THERE COULD, BECAUSE IF THIS DOES CAUSE A TON OF CONGESTION, THIS COULD AFFECT A LOT OF THEIR PROPERTIES, A LOT OF THEIR TENANTS. AND YET THEY'VE DONE THE MATH, THEY'VE CLEARLY THOUGHT THIS OUT AND THEY'VE DETERMINED THAT THIS IS, UH, THIS IS A, A RISK THAT IS THAT THAT, THAT THEY CAN SEE WORKING OUT. UM, AND SO I, I THINK THAT THAT SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN FOR GRANTED. THEY OWN 16 PROPERTIES, IS IT 16 PROPERTIES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD? SO THIS, THIS AFFECTS MORE THAN JUST THIS ONE PROPERTY. THIS AFFECTS MANY OF THE OTHER ADJACENT PROPERTIES THAT THEY OWN. AND SO, UM, I THINK THAT, THAT, THAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED, AND I THINK THAT'S, UM, UNDERSTANDABLE, BUT WE DON'T DEAL WITH PROPERTY OWNERS. WE DEAL WITH THE PROPERTY. THIS IS ABOUT LAND USE. THIS IS ABOUT RIGHTS ASSOCIATED WITH PROPERTY. TOMORROW, THIS PROPERTY OWNER OR ANOTHER ONE COULD BUY OR SELL 15 OF THE 16. SO, SO I'VE LEARNED THE HARD LESSON THAT YOU, YOU CAN'T GO BEYOND WHAT YOU SEE IN FRONT OF YOU. AND WE DO, WE DON'T MAKE DECISIONS. WE MAKE SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS, UM, ON UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES AND WITHOUT RE UH, WITHOUT THE CAPACITY OF THE PROPERTY OWNER THAT'S IN FRONT OF US, BECAUSE THAT PROPERTY OWNER COULD DISAPPEAR TOMORROW. SO WE THINK WE HAVE TO BE VERY CAREFUL ABOUT HOW MUCH RELIANCE WE HAVE ON THAT. AGAIN, MY HESITATION IS 1 53 MINUS 76, LEAVE 77, AND THERE'S ONLY 28 IN ADJACENCY. AND THAT'S ASSUMING, THAT'S ASSUMING THAT 1 53. OKAY. IF 1 53 IS TOO HIGH A NUMBER, MAYBE IT SHOULD BE A HUNDRED. STILL THERE'S ONLY 28 IN ADJACENCY. I JUST FIND THAT A REACH, THAT'S JUST MY ONE OPINION. AND AND SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE SPECIAL. THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE EXTRAORDINARY. SO, OKAY, WELL, WE DO YOU WANT US TO KEEP? OF COURSE WE CAN. WE CAN DO THAT UNTIL WE WANT TO FINISH DEBATING. OKAY, SO I'M GONNA GO BACK TO MY FIRST ARGUMENT. NUMBER ONE, THE REQUIREMENTS ARE OUTDATED. NUMBER TWO, I KNOW YOU DON'T LIKE THE OFF STREET OR THE OFFSITE PARKING, BUT IT IS SO CLOSE TO THE PROPERTY AND YOU CAN VALET IF YOU DON'T WANT TO WALK. AND THEN NUMBER THREE, IF THIS ISN'T WORKING, THE RESTAURANT WILL FAIL AND A NEW BUSINESS WILL MOVE IN. YOU'VE SAID IN THE, IN THE MEANTIME, IT'S EMPTY. IT'S JUST SITTING THERE EMPTY. WHAT DOES IT NO, IT'S NOT, IT'S EXISTING. THERE'S A SHOWROOM EXISTING THERE. WELL, BUT THAT'S THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER IS THE ONE BY SELF-INTEREST IS ASKING FOR THIS CHANGE. THE CITY'S NOT FORCING THAT ITEM. THE PROPERTY MANAGER, THIS IS HIS SELF-INFLICTED, SELF-CREATED BURDEN. AND WE'RE, WE'RE NOT FORCING HIM TO DEVELOP THE SPACE. OF COURSE NOT. AND DEVELOPING THE SPACE IS GOING TO BE BETTER, IS GOING TO BE BETTER FOR THE CITY TO HAVE THAT SPACE FILLED THAT, THAT, THAT, OR IT COULD BE SOME OTHER USE. BUT THAT I, AND IT COULD BE, AND IF THIS DOESN'T WORK, THEN IT WILL BE SOME OTHER USE. BUT WHY NOT LET THEM AT LEAST TRY IT? WELL, WHY WOULD WE NOT DO THAT? BECAUSE WE COULD DO THAT FOR ANY DEVELOPER THAT WANTS TO COME IN IF WE'RE SO WORRIED THAT IT'S GOING TO FAIL. RIGHT? THEY'VE GOT A PLAN IN PLACE. NO ONE'S, THEY'VE GOT EXPERIENCE. AT LEAST GIVE THEM THE SHOT OF MAKING THIS HAPPEN. IF IT FAILS, THEN FINE, IT CLOSES, SOMEBODY ELSE COMES IN. BUT WE'RE SITTING HERE BECAUSE WE'RE SCARED, WE'RE NERVOUS. WE'RE MAKING A DECISION BASED ON FEAR. NO ONE'S SCARED, NO ONE'S FEARFUL. WE MAKE DECISIONS BASED ON THE INFORMATION GIVEN BY THE APPLICANT. AND THAT IS THE BURDEN OF THE APPLICANT. IT ALWAYS HAS BEEN. IT'S IN OUR RULES. IT'S THE BURDENS ON THE APPLICANT TO SHOW THAT THEY MERIT THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION. I BELIEVE THAT THEY HAVE SHOWN THAT, OKAY. I MEAN, THEY ARE DEVELOPING LARGE PARTS OF THIS AREA OF DALLAS. THEY'VE [04:25:01] GOT A PLAN IN PLACE. AND WHAT I'M HEARING FROM OTHER BOARD MEMBERS WHO ARE NOT, UM, RIGHT NOW OR WHO ARE NOT SUPPORTING THIS MOTION, I'M HEARING FEAR. SO THAT IS MY OPINION, THAT IT IS FEAR HOLDING Y'ALL BACK. NOT BECAUSE THE, THE APPLICANT HAS GIVEN US EVERYTHING THAT THEY CAN GIVE US. THEY'VE GIVEN US A PLAN, THEY HAVE A WELL THOUGHT OUT PLAN. EVERYTHING IS THERE. SO I I'M REALLY PERPLEXED WHY WE'RE NOT MOVING FORWARD WITH THIS MR. KOVI. YEAH, I I CATEGORI CATEGORICALLY REJECT THE ASSERTION THAT I'M AGAINST THIS BECAUSE I'M AFRAID OF SOMETHING. UH, I'M NOT AFRAID OF APPROVING IT OR NOT APPROVING. I'M LOOKING AT THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. AND AS CHAIRMAN NEWMAN POINTED OUT, I DON'T CARE WHO OWNS THE PROPERTY, WE'RE NOT APPROVING THE OWNER APPROVING A CHANGE TO THE PROPERTY USED. AND, UH, NOW IF YOU, YOU, YOU'RE FREE TO SPEAK FOR YOURSELF AND YOUR OWN FEELINGS ABOUT IT, BUT PLEASE DON'T, UH, TRY TO PUT SOME KIND OF ON ANYBODY ELSE. HEY, MR. N WANTS TO CALL THE QUESTION, DID YOU WANNA MAKE A COMMENT BEFORE WE VOTE? YES, PLEASE. PLEASE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. LLOYD DENMAN. YES. FROM A TRAFFIC ENGINEERING POINT OF VIEW, AND AS A FORMER CITY TRAFFIC ENGINEER, PARKING IS PROHIBITED ALONG THIS NORTH SIDE OF HIGHLINE. THIS PROJECT WOULD NOT CREATE ANY CONGESTION WHATSOEVER ALONG HIGHLINE NOR A TRAFFIC HAZARD. MR. CHAIR, UM, MR. FINNEY, DO WE NEED, UM, ONLY THREE VOTES FOR THIS TO PASS OR DO WE NEED FOUR? OKAY. OKAY. ARE THERE ANY EXCEPTIONS THAT WE COULD ADD TO THIS MOTION THAT WOULD GET, THAT WOULD MAKE YOU FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE GRANTING IT? THERE ARE THOSE THREE, UM, THINGS THAT I MENTIONED EARLIER. YOU COULD ESTABLISH A TERMINATION DATE, A REASSESSMENT OF THE CONDITIONS, OR, UM, IMPOSE RESTRICTIONS ON ACCESS TO AND FROM THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. OKAY. SO WHAT ABOUT A TERMIN, A REASSESSMENT DATE, MR. CHAIR OR MR. HOFF? IT'S, THEY'RE TRYING TO WEAN US OFF . I I WOULD, I WOULD, THAT WAS NOT GONNA CHANGE MY POSITION. OKAY. I'M SORRY. SAY AGAIN. WE DIDN'T HEAR YOU. THAT'S, THAT WOULD NOT CHANGE MY POSITION. OKAY. UH, DO YOU WANT US TO VOTE OR YOU WANT US TO HOLD THIS OVERALL? SO, WELL THEN LET'S NOT HOLD IT OVER. IF THAT'S WHAT YOU SAY, MS. DAVIS, IS THAT, WOULD YOU, WOULD YOU VOTE WITH THE REASSESSMENT DATE OF DECEMBER 31ST, 2026? SO WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE IS GOING FROM A REQUIREMENT OF 153 SPACES, CARVING OUT 76, LEAVING 28 NEXT TO THE BUILDING, 28 OF THE ORIGINAL 1 53 CALCULATION. EVEN IF YOU SAID THE 1 53 WAS 53 OFF AND IT'S A HUNDRED THAT LEADS 72 SPACES THAT ARE REQUIRED TO GO TO REMOTE, 70% OF AN ADJUSTED PARKING DEMAND. THAT IS WHAT I'M ALLOWED. MS. DAVIS, WE'RE ALL ALLOWED OUR OPINIONS AND WE SHOULD NOT CASTIGATE OTHER PEOPLE, BUT FEAR OTHERWISE. THERE'S NO FEAR IN MY VOICE. NO, IT DOESN'T MAKE GOOD SENSE TO ME. I'M NOT CONVINCED THAT'S ALL. SO THERE YOU HAVE, IT SHOULD BE HELD. WELL, COULD I SAY SOMETHING? I, I MEAN RESPECTFULLY, I I UNDERSTAND YOUR POSITION. THE CITY HAS PROVIDED THE OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO SOLVE THIS WITH THE REMOTE PARKING AGREEMENT THAT WE'VE DONE. THEY, WE'VE GONE THROUGH THE PROCESS OF DESIGNING, PERMITTING, FOLLOWING THE PD REQUIREMENTS. WE'RE ABIDING BY EVERYTHING THE CITY AND THE PD HAS, UH, ASKED US TO, SO AS TO SOLVE THIS EXACT PROBLEM, THESE BUILDINGS WERE BUILT IN THE FIFTIES, SIXTIES FOR VERY LIGHT, GAY LIGHT USE. AND WERE NOT PROGRAMMED TO WAY TO ACCOMMODATE THE USES IN THIS DISTRICT AT THIS POINT. AND, AND SIR, RESPECTFUL, YOU'RE CHOOSING TO CHANGE THE USE, RIGHT. BUT THAT'S YOUR BUSINESS. AND WE'RE USING THE TOOLS OF THE SHARED PARKING AGREEMENT OH, OF COURSE. AND COMING TO YOU AND ONE, AND ONE OF THE TOOLS IS TO COME TO A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT THAT'S QUA JUDICIAL AND YOU NEED 75% OF THE, THE VOTE TO GET IT. AND EITHER YOU HAVE IT OR YOU DON'T. [04:30:01] CORRECT. I JUST, AND, AND I I'M NOT BEING, TRYING TO BE COMBATIVE. I'M JUST TELLING YOU THE, AND I I DON'T KNOW HOW EVERYONE'S GONNA VOTE. I THINK YOU CAN KIND OF SEE, SO AGAIN, MY QUESTION, I, SO I THINK WE'RE IN A CIRCLE LOOP, GUYS. UNDERSTOOD. I'M JUST TRYING TO SAY THAT I, I I UNDERSTAND THAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO EVERYTHING WE CAN ABSOLUTELY. TO COME FORWARD AS, AS ARE WE UNDERSTOOD WE'VE OKAY. BUT THIS IS A SELF-INFLICTED THAT YOU ARE THE ONES MAKING THE CHANGE OF USE. THAT'S YOUR BUSINESS. YOU BOUGHT THE BUILDING, WHATEVER, WHATEVER WITH THE USE IN PLACE THAT WAS WITH THE ZONING IN PLACE AND NOW YOU'RE CHANGING THAT. SO, AND THE CITY HAS OFFERED US A MECHANISM TO SEE THIS, THIS CHANGE. CORRECT. AND PUSH FORWARD. CORRECT. AND THAT MECHANISM COMES TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. THERE'S ANOTHER MECHANISM. YOU GET GO TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CHANGE THE ZONING. YOU COULD CHANGE THAT ZONING OR YOU COULD WAIT TILL THE COUNCIL APPROVES OTHER, OTHER, UH, PARKING. THAT'S YOUR CHOICE TOO. SO ABSOLUTELY. YOU'RE, THE CITY GAVE YOU THAT MECHANISM AND YOU CHOSE TO FILE A CASE HERE. SO, OKAY. CAN I, I MADE A MOTION THAT WE CALL THE QUESTION ON THIS. IF, IF THE APPLICANT DOESN'T WISH TO HOLD IT OVER, I CALL A QUESTION. SHOULD WE GIVE US, SHOULD WE HOLD IT UP? YEAH. THAT, THAT FORCES THE VOTE. OKAY. I I'M NOT COUNTING TO FOUR HERE. SO I THINK IT'S BETTER IF WE HOLD IT OVER FOR A MONTH AND SEE WHAT WE CAN DO TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS. IS THAT YOUR REQUEST? THAT IS MY REQUEST. OKAY. IS THERE A MOTION TO THAT EFFECT? YOU HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR. SO IN ORDER FOR THAT TO BE THE CASE, YOU'D HAVE TO WITHDRAW YOUR MOTION. UH, A MOTION TO POSTPONE TO A DAY CERTAIN IS HIGHER RANKING THAN A MAIN MOTION. SO WE COULD JUST MAKE THAT MOTION. YOU KNOW, HE DOESN'T HAVE TO REMOVE, HE DOES NOT HAVE TO. OKAY. THERE YOU GO. I LOVE ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER. UM, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION MR. CHAIR. SURE. MR. FINNEY. OKAY. UM, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 4 5 DASH 0 4 8 HOLD THIS MATTER UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL MAY 20TH, 2025. IN THE CASE OF BDA 2 4 5 0 4 8, MR. FINNEY HAS MADE A MOTION TO SUPERSEDE THE PREVIOUS MOTION TO HOLD THIS ITEM UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL MAY 20TH, 2025. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. IT'S BEEN SECONDED BY MS. DAVIS DISCUSSION OF THE MOTION. I THINK WE'VE DISCUSSED EVERYTHING. OKAY. UH, MR. HAITZ, I BELIEVE HAS A, OH, I'M SORRY. MR. HVI, PLEASE. UM, I GUESS I'M AGREEABLE HOLDING IT OVER, BUT IF, IF IT'S GONNA BE 28 SPACES ADJACENT TO THE BUILDING, I'LL BE A NO VOTE NEXT MONTH. THANK YOU, SIR. UH, THE BOARD SECRETARY WILL CALL THE VOTE. MS. DAVIS. AYE. MR. N AYE. MR. FINNEY? AYE. MR. HAITZ? AYE. MR. CHAIRMAN, AYE. MOTION TO HOLD OVER PASSES FIVE TO ZERO IN THE MATTER OF BDA 2 2 4 5 0 4 8. THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HAS BY MOTION OF, UH, FIVE TO ZERO HELD THIS ITEM OVER FOR MAY 20TH, 2025. THANK YOU, MR. YOU'RE DEPARTING. OKAY. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, UM, UH, WE NEXT ITEM FOR US IS BDA 2 4 5 DASH 0 4 9. MR. VINCENT. THANK YOU MR. CHAIR. UM, THIS IS ON, UH, 1201 OAK LAWN AVENUE, UH, REQUESTING A 45.93% REDUCTION FROM THE 135 OFF STREET PARKING SPACES THAT ARE REQUIRED, UH, PROVIDE A TOTAL SUPPLY OF 73 SPACES. UM, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. DEVELOPED IN 1963 AGAIN, YOU KNOW, UNDER THE PREVIOUS CODE BEFORE, WAY BEFORE PD 6 21, UH, CONTAINS MOSTLY OFFICE SHOWROOM AND SOME RESTAURANT USE. UM, SO AGAIN, THAT'S, THAT'S OUR REQUEST TO APPLY SITE-WIDE AS LONG AS WE DON'T EXCEED THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF RESTAURANT USE THAT'S SHOWN ON OUR PARKING SITE PLAN. UH, WE THINK THE SAME FACTORS APPLY HERE AS APPLIED ON THE OTHER CASES. UH, THE MITIGATING FACTORS, YOU KNOW, THE WHOLE THING IS ABOUT THE MIXED USE, DIFFERING PEAK HOURS OF OPERATION. WE THINK THE RESTAURANT USE WORKS WELL IN COMBINATION WITH THE OFFICE SHOWROOM USES BECAUSE THEY HAVE DIFFERENT PEAK PERIODS AND THE, THE PARKING DEMAND FOR OFFICE SHOWROOM WAREHOUSES EXTREMELY LOW. UM, AGAIN, FOR, FOR RESTAURANT USES IN PARTICULAR, YOU KNOW, WE ASSUME THERE'D BE VALET PARKING AVAILABLE. UM, WE CONTROL OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE AREA, THE RIDE SHARING SURFACES, UH, SERVICES, THINGS LIKE THAT. SO WE THINK THAT, UM, OUR PARKING STUDY SUPPORTS [04:35:01] THIS REQUEST. YOU KNOW, WE THINK IT'S THE PARKING DEMAND GENERATED BY THESE USES DOES NOT WARRANT THE NUMBER OF OFF STREET PARKING SPACES, WHICH WOULD OTHERWISE BE REQUIRED AND DOES NOT CREATE A TRAFFIC HAZARD OR INCREASE TRAFFIC CONGESTION AS YOU OBSERVED DURING THE BRIEFING. YOU KNOW, OAK LAWN IS, UH, THREE LANES IN EACH DIRECTION. UM, THE INTERSECTION OF, I BELIEVE IT'S IRVING, YOU KNOW, THAT'S BIG WIDE STREETS THAT CAN CARRY A LOT OF TRAFFIC. UM, I WOULD HAZARD GUESS THAT AT NIGHT THERE'S PROBABLY LESS TRAFFIC ON THOSE STREETS THAN THERE IS DURING THE DAYTIME. UH, JUST BECAUSE OF THE COMMERCIAL USES IN THE AREA ARE NOT GONNA BE OPEN. I'M SORRY, UM, LET ME INTERRUPT MYSELF THERE AND MAKE THE OBSERVATION THAT WITH MR. NE'S DEPARTURE, I KNOW YOU STILL HAVE A QUORUM. WE DO. BUT THERE ARE ONLY FOUR BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT, CORRECT. WHICH MEANS THAT FOR ANYTHING TO BE APPROVED, IT WOULD TAKE THE UNANIMOUS VOTE. THAT'S CORRECT. OF ALL FOUR, BUT WE STILL HAVE A QUORUM, SO WE CAN STILL DO BUSINESS. DO YOU HAVE A REQUEST ? I THINK WE DO. UM, , , SOMEHOW I KNEW YOU HAD A REQUEST AND, AND ACTUALLY THIS WOULD APPLY TO THE NEXT ONE 1500 DRAGON AS WELL. UM, IN LIGHT OF THE FACT, YOU KNOW, I ALWAYS WOULD PREFER TO HAVE A FULL BOARD PRESENCE OF COURSE, AND WE, FOR OBVIOUS REASONS, WE ALWAYS STRIVE FOR THAT. I, I, YES, I UNDERSTAND. AND I KNOW THAT IT'S LATE IN THE DAY. SO I THINK THIS CASE IN THE NEXT CASE, SINCE WE'VE ALREADY GOT TWO THAT ARE GONNA BE HEARD ON MAY 20TH, UM, PERHAPS WE SHOULD JUST GO AHEAD AND DO THE SAME WITH EASE AS WELL. SO WE CAN HOPEFULLY HAVE A FULL BOARD AT THAT TIME. UH, I HEAR YOUR REQUEST AND UH, WHAT I, WHAT I WOULD SAY IS PROSPECTIVELY WE ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS TRY TO MAKE SURE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PANELS HAVE FIVE MEMBERS. MM-HMM . IN A RARE OCCASIONS WE ONLY HAVE FOUR. UM, IT IS LEGAL FOR US TO START A MEETING, CONDUCT A MEETING AND VOTE WITH FOUR. UM, BUT I BELIEVE THE VALUE OF FIVE IS BECAUSE THAT GIVES ONE DISSENTING VOTE AND IT DOESN'T KILL THE PROJECT. SO, UM, I'M FINE WITH HOLDING OVER UH OH FOUR NINE AND OH FIVE OH IF THAT'S YOUR REQUEST, THAT THAT'S OUR REQUEST. BUT I, I WILL REITERATE THAT YOU STILL, YOU AS AN APPLICANT, AS A PROPERTY OWNER CAN STILL GET A FAIR HEARING WITH FOUR MEMBERS. BUT I, I RES RESPECT YOUR REQUEST. UH, AND THAT'S FAIR. SO I, AS A GENERAL RULE, I WILL ALWAYS HONOR AN APPLICANT'S REQUEST TO HOLD OVER AT LEAST ONCE. NOW, WHEN YOU HOLD OVER MORE THAN ONCE, THEN IT'S LIKE, WHO ARE YOU DODGING? ARE YOU DODGING THE BOARD? ARE YOU DODGING YOUR OPPOSITION? RIGHT? SO, SO IF THAT'S THE CASE, UM, YOUR, YOUR REQUEST IS 49 AND 50 TO BE HELD OVER. THAT'S CORRECT. ALRIGHT. SO BEFORE I, UH, READ A MOTION TO DO BOTH OF THAT INTO THE RECORD, UH, WHICH I'LL BE GLAD TO DO WITH THE CONSENT OF THE, OF THE BOARD, UH, I WANNA REITERATE SOMETHING AND EVERY CASE STANDS ON THEIR OWN. I HOPE THE APPLICANT HAS HEARD FROM THE BOARD TODAY. UH, WE'VE BEEN, UH, LISTENING HARD 'CAUSE I DON'T, I DON'T THINK THOSE SENTIMENTS ARE GONNA NECESSARILY CHANGE, BUT WE'RE ALWAYS OPEN. WE WANT TO BE FAIR. WE WANT TO HANDLE THIS IN A WAY THAT IS THE RIGHT WAY TO DO IT. SO I JUST HOLD OVER IS EITHER FOR NEW INFORMATION OR REFLECTION ON THE INFORMATION YOU GOT. THAT'S, THAT'S MY MIND, YOU KNOW, NEW INFORMATION OR REFLECTION ON WHAT, WHAT YOU, WHERE YOU SEE THINGS. AND THAT APPLIES THE PLANNING COMMISSION, THE CITY COUNCIL. IT'S IT'S REFLECTION OR NEW INFORMATION. SO, AND YOU MAY COME UP WITH BOTH, YOU MAY HAVE REFLECTION TIME OR YOU MAY ALSO BE ABLE TO HAVE NEW INFORMATION. SO THAT BEING CASE, IS THAT YOUR REQUEST? YES SIR. OKAY. IN THE MATTER OF BDA 2 2 4 5 0 4 9, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 4 5 0 4 9 HOLD THIS MATTER UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL MAY 20TH, 2025. I IF SO MOVED. IS THERE A SECOND? I SECOND. SECONDED BY MR. FINNEY. DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION BOARD SECRETARY WILL TAKE THE VOTE. 2 4 5 0 4 9 HELD OVER TO MAY 20TH FOR REFLECTION AND NEW INFORMATION, MS. DAVIS. AYE. MR. FINNEY? AYE. MR. OVITZ? AYE MR. CHAIRMAN AYE. MOTION IS GRANTED FOR JUST 4 2 0 IN THE MATTER 2 4 5 0 4 9. THE BOARD IN A UNANIMOUS FOUR ZERO VOTE. MOVED TO, UH, HELD AN UNDER ADVISEMENT. UH, I MOVE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 4 5 DASH 0 5 0 HOLD THIS MINOR UNDER ADVISEMENT PER THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST. THE SAME WITH THE PREVIOUS ONE PER THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST TILL MAY 20TH, SAME BAT TIME, SAME BAT STATION, SAME BAT LOCATION, MAY 20TH, 2025. I SO MOVE. IS THERE A SECOND? [04:40:02] I SECOND. SECONDED BY MR. FINNEY DISCUSSION IN THE MOTION. SEEING NO DISCUSSION, THE BOARD SECRETARY WILL CALL THE VOTE. MS. DAVIS. AYE. MR. N OH, I'M SORRY MR. OVITZ. AYE. MR. FINNEY? AYE. MR. CHAIRMAN AYE. MOTION TO HOLD OVER PASSES 4 2 0 IN THE MATTER BDA 2 4 5 0 5 THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO HOLD THIS ITEM AT THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL MAY 20TH, 2025 FOR BY A VOTE OF FOUR TO ZERO. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE WILL SEE HERE MAY 20TH. UM, THAT IS THE CONCLUSION OF OUR AGENDA TODAY. UM, BOARD MEMBERS OUR NEXT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PANEL A MEETING IS TUESDAY, MAY 20TH AT 10:30 AM FOR BRIEFING. UM, AND HERE, HERE IN THIS, IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, UM, UH, I'M THINKING OUT LOUD. I THINK MARY, YOU ASSIGNED A SIX CASES FOR MAY, IS THAT RIGHT? SIX. HOLD ON A SECOND. 7, 8, 9, 10. SO WE MAY START AT 10 FOR THE BRIEFING THAT MORNING. IS THAT PRESENT A PROBLEM? IS 10 O'CLOCK PRESENT A PROBLEM THAT MORNING? NO, BUT I, I'VE GOTTA LEAVE AT LIKE FIVE. WELL THAT'S WHY I'M, I'M, I CAN COME AS EARLY. MR. HAITZ, CAN WE DO A LITTLE BIT EARLIER ON THE 20TH? SAY AT LEAST START AT 10? UH, I, I CERTAINLY WILL DO MY BEST. OKAY, SO LET'S, I'M GONNA, YOU'LL GET NOTIFICATION FROM MARY OR I, BUT WE'LL TRY TO SHOOT FOR 10. THE PUBLIC HEARING HAS TO START AT ONE, BUT WE'LL GET THE BRIEFINGS OUT OF THE WAY AND IN THE BRIEFING PROCESS WE CAN ALSO ASK ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS ON REFLECTION. ALRIGHT, SO WE'LL DO 10 O'CLOCK. MARY, IF YOU'D MAKE NOTE OF THAT, WE'LL HAVE THE CHAMBER FOR THAT DAY. 10. RIGHT. AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE ONE BUT 10 O'CLOCK. ALRIGHT, WITH THAT BEING SAID, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, UM, I MOVE FOR ADJOURNMENT AT 6:01 PM IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. SECOND BY MS. DAVIS. ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. A THOSE OPPOSED, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PANEL A ON APRIL 15TH IS ADJOURNED AT 6:01 PM THANK YOU. * This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.