* 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. [Board of Adjustments: Panel A on July 15, 2025.] [00:00:02] GOOD AFTERNOON AND WELCOME TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. MY NAME IS DAVID NEWMAN AND I'M HONORED TO SERVE AS CHAIRMAN OF THE FULL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND THE PRESIDING OFFICER OF OUR PANEL A, WHICH IS OUR HEARING TODAY. TODAY IS TUESDAY, JULY 15TH AND OUR TIME IS 1:00 PM I HEREBY CALL THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PANEL A TO ORDER FOR A PUBLIC HEARING FOR BOTH IN-PERSON AND HYBRID VIDEO CONFERENCE. A QUORUM IS REQUIRED. IT'S A MINIMUM OF FOUR OF OUR FIVE PANEL MEMBERS AND IT, IT IS PRESENT AND THEREFORE WE CAN PROCEED WITH THE MEETING. FIRST, ALLOW ME TO INTRODUCE THE BOARD MEMBERS AGAIN. MY NAME IS DAVID NEWMAN AND I'M CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. TO MY IMMEDIATE LEFT IS KATHLEEN DAVIS, MICHAEL DORN, ANDREW FINNEY, AND MICHAEL OVITZ. OUR OFFICERS ARE TO MY IMMEDIATE RIGHT, THERESA CARLISLE, OUR BOARD ATTORNEY AND ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY, DR. KAMIKA MILLER HOSKINS, OUR BOARD ADMINISTRATOR AND CHIEF PLANNER. AND LAST BUT CERTAINLY NEVER LEAST OUR BOARD SECRETARY AND MEETING MINOR MODERATOR MARY WILLIAMS. UM, I'M GONNA REPEAT THIS A COUPLE TIMES 'CAUSE I WANNA MAKE SURE EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS. IF YOU WANNA SPEAK TODAY IN THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY SECTION, WHICH IS TO BRIEF THE BOARD AHEAD OF TIME FOR THREE MINUTES, YOU NEED TO FILL OUT A BLUE SHEET OF PAPER. WOULD YOU PUT THAT IN THE AIR? MARY, IF YOU WANNA SPEAK IN ONE OF THE FOUR CASES WE HAVE TODAY, YOU NEED TO FILL OUT A BLUE SHEET OF PAPER, MARY, AGAIN, A PIECE OF PAPER AND YOU NEED TO GET, FILL OUT THE PAPER AND GET THIS TO MARY. OTHERWISE YOU WILL NOT BE CALLED TO SPEAK. ALRIGHT, BEFORE WE BEGIN, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A FEW GENERAL COMMENTS ABOUT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND THE WAY WE WILL HANDLE THE HEARING. MEMBERS OF THE BOARD ARE APPOINTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. WE GIVE OUR TIME FREELY AND RECEIVE NO FINANCIAL COMPENSATION FOR THAT TIME. WE OPERATE UNDER CITY COUNCIL APPROVED RULES OR PROCEDURE, WHICH ARE POSTED ON THE WEBSITE. NO ACTION OR DECISION ON A CASE SETS A PRECEDENT. EACH CASE IS DECIDED 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 PROFESSIONAL STAFF PRIOR TO THE HEARING AND HAVE REVIEWED A DETAILED PUBLIC DOCUMENT WHICH EXPLAINS THE CASE AND WAS POSTED SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING CONSISTENT WITH OUR RULES OF PROCEDURE. ANY EVIDENCE YOU WISH TO SUBMIT TO THE BOARD FOR CONSIDERATION ON ANY OF THE CASES THAT WE WILL HEAR TODAY SHOULD BE SUBMITTED TO OUR BOARD SECRETARY MARY WILLIAMS, UH, WHEN YOUR CASE IS CALLED, THE EVIDENCE MUST BE RETAINED IN THE BOARD'S OFFICE AS PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR EACH CASE. APPROVALS OF A VARIANCE, SPECIAL EXCEPTION OR REVERSAL OF A BUILDING ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL DECISION REQUIRES 75% OR FOUR AFFIRMATIVE VOTES OF THE FIVE MEMBER PANEL. I REPEAT. AN APPROVAL OF YOUR REQUESTS TODAY REQUIRES FOUR AFFIRMATIVE VOTES, NOT JUST A MAJORITY, BUT FOUR OF FIVE. ALL OTHER MOTIONS REQUIRE A SIMPLE MAJORITY VOTE. EXAMPLE OF MOTION TO APPROVE REQUIRES FOUR. A MOTION TO DENY REQUIRES THREE. OKAY. LETTERS TO THE BOARD'S ACTION TODAY WILL BE MAILED IN WHAT'S CALLED A DECISION LETTER BY OUR BOARD ADMINISTRATORS WITHIN TWO DAYS AFTER TODAY'S HEARING AND WILL BECOME PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR EACH CASE. ANYONE DESIRING TO SPEAK TODAY MUST REGISTER IN ADVANCE WITH OUR BOARD SECRETARY. EACH REGISTERED SPEAKER WILL BE ABLE TO SPEAK DURING PUBLIC TESTIMONY FOR A MAXIMUM OF THREE MINUTES, UH, OR WHEN A CASE IS FOR THREE MINUTES. IF IT HAS TO DO WITH AN ITEM ON OUR AGENDA. WHEN IT RELATES TO A SPECIFIC CASE, YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES MAXIMUM. UM, A REGISTERED ONLINE. ALL REGISTERED ONLINE SPEAKERS MUST BE PRESENT ON THE VIDEO TO ADDRESS THE BOARD. NO TELECONFERENCING. WE WILL BE ALLOWED VIA WEBEX. ALL COMMENTS WILL BE DIRECTED TO MYSELF AS THE PRESIDING OFFICER AND CHAIRMAN WHO MAY MODIFY SPEAKING TIMES AS NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN ORDER. WE HAVE FOUR CASES TODAY THAT WE WILL HEAR IN A PUBLIC HEARING. EACH APPLICANT WILL BE GIVEN AMPLE TIME BEYOND THE FIVE MINUTES TO PRESENT THEIR CASE. UM, IF I GIVE THE APPLICANT FIVE MINUTES, I GIVE ANY OPPOSITION FIVE MINUTES THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE RULES. IF I GIVE THE APPLICANT 10 MINUTES, THEN THE OPPOSITION GETS 10 MINUTES. THE TYPICAL CASE IS THE APPLICANT SPEAKS, ANYONE ELSE IN FAVOR SPEAKS, THEN THE OPPOSITION SPEAKS, THEN THE APPLICANT'S ALLOWED A FIVE MINUTE REBUTTAL. THAT'S THE TYPICAL PROCESS. SO WE WILL TRY TO FOLLOW OUR RULES. PROCEDURES CONSISTENT WITH THAT. QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD HEARING? NO QUESTIONS ALLOW ME TO PREVIEW. GO AHEAD GUYS. GO AHEAD AND TURN YOUR MONITORS ON VIDEO. MONITORS ON. ALRIGHT, UH, LET ME PREVIEW OUR AGENDA FOR TODAY. UM, WE ARE GONNA REVIEW AND APPROVE OUR MEETING MINUTES FROM JUNE 17TH. WE HAVE TWO HOLDOVER CASES OH FOUR NINE ON OAK OAKLAWN AVENUE OH FIVE OH ON DRAGON STREET. THEN, UH, TWO PREVIOUSLY UNCONTESTED CASES THAT ARE NOW INDIVIDUAL CASES WE'LL HEAR. NUMBER THREE WILL BE 0 0 9 ON RICK CIRCLE AND THEN 0 1 1 ON ELAM ROAD. THAT IS THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA FOR TODAY. WE'RE SWITCHING [00:05:01] THAT UP, HEARING THE HOLDOVERS FIRST BECAUSE I, UH, PROMISED THE APPLICANT AFTER LAST MONTH'S AND THEIR REQUEST TO HOLD OVER THAT WE'D HEAR THEIR CASES. FIRST QUESTIONS ON THE AGENDA BOARD MEMBERS. OKAY, SO FIRST ITEM ON OUR, OUR FIRST ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS PUBLIC TESTIMONY. MS. BOARD SECRETARY, DO WE HAVE ANYONE REGISTERED TO SPEAK? NO PUBLIC SPEAKERS REGISTERED, SIR. OKAY. THANK YOU. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS. THE FIRST ITEM ON OUR AGENDA OF MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS ARE MEETING MINUTES FROM JUNE 17TH, 2025. UH, THE CHAIR WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION I MOVE TO APPROVE THE MEETING MINUTES FROM JUNE 17TH, 2025. MS. DAVIS HAS MOVED TO APPROVE THE MEETING MINUTES FROM JUNE 17TH, 2025. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. SECONDED BY MR. HOP. IT'S DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION HEARING. NO DISCUSSION. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. THOSE OPPOSED MEETING MINUTES ARE APPROVED. FIVE TO ZERO UNANIMOUSLY. THANK YOU BOY. WE'RE GOING EFFICIENTLY HERE TODAY, . ALRIGHT. NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS BDA 2 4 5 DASH 0 4 9 2 4 5 0 4 9. THIS IS A REQUEST AT 1 2 0 1 OAK LAWN AVENUE IS THE APPLICANT HERE. JUST GET SITUATED IN HOLD FOR ONE SECOND SO WE GET OUR PAPERWORK AND EVERYTHING IN LINE. OKAY? I'M GONNA DEAL WITH THIS, THIS HERE. I'M GONNA GET, GET MY EXERCISE HERE IN THE THICKNESS OF YOUR SUBMITTALS, . HOLD ON A SECOND. OKAY. I'M GONNA SEND DOWN TO PANEL MEMBERS AS I DID THIS MORNING IN THE BRIEFING, THE CORRESPONDENCE OF THE BOARD GOT, WE RECEIVED ONE, TWO EMAILS. SO YOU'VE PROBABLY HAVE ALREADY READ THIS, BUT I'M GONNA SEND IT AGAIN FOR ANYONE'S, UH, FYI, UH, THE RECORD WILL SHOW THAT WE RECEIVED FROM OUR BOARD SECRETARY A ONE PAGE, UM, BDA 2 4 5 0 4 9. IS THIS FROM THE APPLICANT, MS. WILLIAMS? THAT IS CORRECT. OKAY. ALRIGHT, SO BEFORE WE BEGIN, UH, WE NEED TO KNOW WHO ALL'S REGISTERED TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF 2 4 5 0 4 9 MS. WILLIAMS. THE APPLICANTS JUST ONE, ONE PER TWO. TWO PEOPLE WHAT? TWO PEOPLE? UM, MR. JONATHAN BENSON AND MR. LLOYD? UH, DE OKAY. SO JUST THE TWO OF YOU SPEAK IN FAVOR OR IS THERE ANYONE REGISTERED TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION? NO. OPPOSITION REGISTER. OKAY. VERY GOOD. ALRIGHT, MR. VINCENT AND MR. DENI, IF YOU WOULD PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND AND OUR BOARD SECRETARY WILL SWEAR YOU IN. DO YOU BOTH SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? I DO. I DO. OKAY, GENTLEMEN, UH, IF YOU GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND THEN, UH, THEN WHEN YOU SPEAK MR. HENMAN, YOU DO THE SAME THING, BUT FOR NOW, IF YOU GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND THEN HOLD. OKAY. THANK YOU MR. CHAIR. MEMBERS OF, UH, PANEL A? MY NAME IS JONATHAN VINCENT. 2323 ROSS AVENUE IN DALLAS. OH, OKAY. SO, UM, THIS IS YOUR TIME TO SPEAK AND WE WILL WITHHOLD OUR COMMENTS UNTIL YOU'RE FINISHED WITH YOUR TIME. UM, AS BEST AS POSSIBLE, WE WILL, UM, THE RULES SAY FIVE MINUTES. I'LL GIVE YOU REASONABLE TIME BEYOND THE FIVE MINUTES, JUST AS LONG AS WE'RE NOT REPEATING OURSELVES. SO, AND THEN, WE'LL, I'M SURE I HAVE A LOT OF QUESTIONS. UM, WE HAD LOTS OF QUESTIONS IN THE BRIEFING THIS MORNING. WE THOROUGHLY WENT THROUGH THE, THE PACKAGE AS WELL AS THE ADDITIONAL INSERT THAT YOU PROVIDED US, WHICH IN THE PACKET IS PAGE 1 35 THROUGH 1 57. THIS IS A PACKAGE DATED JULY 2ND. OKAY. UM, AND WE ARE IN RECEIPT, WE'RE IN RECEIPT OF THIS SINGLE SHEET OF PAPER AS WELL. SO I WOULD STRONGLY ENCOURAGE YOU TO NOT ONLY MAKE YOUR PRESENTATION, BUT ADDRESS THIS PACKET THAT THE LETTER AND SO FORTH. 'CAUSE THERE ARE A LOT OF QUESTIONS THAT CAME OUTTA THAT IN THE BRIEFING. MM-HMM . OKAY. OKAY, MR. VINCENT, PLEASE PROCEED. OKAY. THANK YOU MR. CHAIR AGAIN. UH, MEMBERS OF PANEL A, UM, HERE ON THIS CASE, 2 45 0 0 4 9 AT 1201 OAK LAWN AVENUE REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT, UM, H IN CAPITAL THROUGH THEIR ENTITY, DDD INVESTOR PORTFOLIO. UM, AND IF WE COULD GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. AND WHILE WE'RE DOING THAT, UH, JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, 'CAUSE THE QUESTION DID COME UP IN BRIEFING THE, UM, SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION THAT WE SENT IN ON JULY 2ND, WHICH YOU HAVE THAT IS IN SUPPLEMENT TO EVERYTHING YOU'VE GOTTEN PREVIOUSLY. SO LIKE OUR PARKING STUDY, PARKING DEMAND STUDY IN SUPPLEMENT OR IN REPLACEMENT OF SUPPLEMENT. OKAY. SO IT'S ALL PART OF THE RECORD, IN OTHER WORDS. OKAY. AND, AND I MEAN TO THE, TO THE COMMENTS WE'VE RECEIVED BEFORE, I DIDN'T WANT TO SEND YOU ANOTHER STACK OF PAPER. NO, NO, NO. AND GESTURING TWO INCHES THICK. UM, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE EVERYTHING WE SEND HIM BEFORE STILL APPLIES AND IT'S STILL PART OF THE RECORD. [00:10:01] SO SOME ARE A LITTLE BIT IN CONFLICT BECAUSE BEFORE YOU HADN'T OFFERED CERTAIN THINGS AND NOW YOU'RE OFFERING CERTAIN THINGS. RIGHT. THAT'S WHY I SAY IN ADDITION OR REPLACEMENT. BUT THAT'S YOUR, THAT'S YOUR DISCRETION AS THE APPLICANT. RIGHT. GOOD POINT. I MEAN, TO THE EXTENT WE'VE SUGGESTED ADDITIONAL ITEMS, THOSE ARE OUR SUGGESTIONS, YOU KNOW, BASED ON WHAT WE'VE HEARD PREVIOUSLY. SO ANYWAY, IT'S ALL PART OF THE RECORD. SO, UM, REQUESTS FOR A PARKING SPECIAL EXCEPTION, UM, WE'RE ASKING FOR, YOU KNOW, TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE 73 SPACES. IT'S ABOUT A 45.93% REDUCTION. UM, OTHERWISE WE'D BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE 135. UM, YOU KNOW, THE AREA, THIS IS, UH, 1201 OAK LAWN, UH, MARKET CENTER BOULEVARD, UM, CURRENTLY CONTAINS OFFICE SHOWROOM WAREHOUSE USES AND RESTAURANT USE. AND I UNDERSTAND THERE WERE SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PREVIOUS RESTAURANT USE AND WE THINK WE CAN ADDRESS THOSE. UM, WE ARE IN DISCUSSIONS TO UTILIZE ADDITIONAL SPACES, UM, AT 1201 AT, I'M SORRY, 180 OAK LAWN, WHICH IS THE APEX, UH, PLUMBING SUPPLY. AND THAT IS WITHIN THE NOTICE AREA. IF YOU SEE YOUR DIAGRAM THAT KIND OF CLIPS THE CORNER THERE, IT'S, THERE WAS SOME CONFUSION ABOUT THAT THIS MORNING. CORRECT. WHERE ON THE MAP WILL YOU BE ADDRESSING THAT? UH, I CAN ADDRESS IT RIGHT NOW, ACTUALLY. I MEAN, IT'S, THAT'S, THAT PROPERTY IS WITHIN THE NOTIFICATION AREA. THE 200 FOOT RADIUS, UH, CLIPS THE CORNER OF THAT PROPERTY, SO THEY DID GET A NOTICE. AND WE ARE IN DISCUSSIONS WITH, UM, APEX PLUMBING SUPPLY, WHICH IS A DAYTIME USE TO BE ABLE TO, YOU KNOW, LEASE OR OTHERWISE UTILIZE SOME OF THEIR PARKING FOR OVERFLOW AS NECESSARY. IF IT BECOMES NECESSARY IS APEX. JAKE LK LIMITED? I'M JUST GOING AGAINST OUR DEAL AGAIN. IT CAME UP IN THE BRIEFING. MR. DORN HAD QUESTIONED THE LOCATION WITHIN IT'S NUMBER SIX ON OUR DEAL. IT SAID 180 OAKLAWN. THAT IS CORRECT. YEAH. AND THEN THE DCA, IT REFERENCED JLK LIMITED. RIGHT? THAT'S, THAT'S PROBABLY THE FEE PROPERTY OWNER. THE, OKAY. THE BUSINESS HERE IS APEX, BUT THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT'S THE NAME OF THE OWNER THERE OR WHATEVER APEX? UH, IT MUST BE, I MEAN, I KNOW THE, OKAY. I KNOW IT'S BASED ON THE CERTIFIED TAX LOAN. ALL RIGHT. THERE MAY BE QUESTIONS ON THAT LATER. GO AHEAD. I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT. OKAY. SO, UM, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. YOU KNOW, WE'RE HERE ASKING FOR A PARKING SPECIAL EXCEPTION. UM, I'LL, I'LL TRY TO BE BRIEF BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, WE'VE, YOU'VE GONE OVER THIS BEFORE WITH US ON THE OTHER CASES AS WELL BE BRIEF BUT SUFFICIENT. CORRECT. BECAUSE THERE ARE MEMBERS HERE WHO HAVE NOT HEARD THIS BEFORE. OKAY. ALRIGHT. WELL, IN THAT CASE, UM, SO LET ME BACK UP AND EXPLAIN THAT. IN PD 6 21, WHICH IS THE DESIGN DISTRICT PD PER THE PD PROVISIONS, YOU CAN ASK FOR A PARKING SPECIAL EXCEPTION. NORMALLY UNDER THE CODE, UNDER THE CODE THAT'S LIMITED TO 25%. OTHERWISE, IT HAS TO BE A VARIANCE. WHEN PD 6 21 WAS ADOPTED IN THE EARLY TWO THOUSANDS, THEY PROVIDED, UH, FOR BEING ABLE TO ASK FOR A PARKING SPECIAL EXCEPTION OF UP TO 50%. AND THAT'S SIGNIFICANT BECAUSE THE STANDARD FOR A PARKING VARIANCE AND THE STANDARD FOR A PARKING SPECIAL EXCEPTION ARE SUBSTANTIVELY QUITE DIFFERENT IN MY MIND. UH, A VARIANCE, LIKE ANY OTHER VARIANCE YOU HAVE TO PROVE UP PROPERTY HARDSHIP, UH, FOR A PARKING SPECIAL EXCEPTION. YOU KNOW, IT SETS THE TERMS. UM, AND BASICALLY THE, THE TERMS, THE REQUIREMENT, THE STANDARD FOR A PARKING SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS, UM, PARKING DEMAND GENERATED BY THE USE DOES NOT WARRANT THE NUMBER OF OFF STREET PARKING SPACES REQUIRED. AND I THINK THAT'S KEY AND THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO BEAR IN MIND. AND SO, SECOND ELEMENT SPECIAL EXCEPTION, WOULD NOT CREATE A TRAFFIC HAZARD OR INCREASE TRAFFIC CONGESTION OR ADJACENT OR NEARBY STREETS. AND IT REFERS BACK TO THE UNDERLYING DEVELOPMENT CODE, CHAPTER 51 A FOR CERTAIN THINGS YOU LOOK AT IN CONNECTION WITH THAT. AND, UM, TO THE, YOU KNOW, AND I, I LISTENED TO THE BRIEFING VERY THOROUGH, VERY COMPLETE TO THE POINT OF QUESTIONS RAISED IN THE BRIEFING. YOU KNOW, I TOTALLY A HUNDRED PERCENT AGREE WITH, UM, MR. THOMPSON'S DESCRIPTION OF, YOU KNOW, THE ANALYSIS OF WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR. IN OTHER WORDS, THE MAXIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE OF RESTAURANT, UH, COULD BE ANYWHERE ON THE SITE. AND, UM, MS. CARLISLE'S RESPONSE TO YOU ABOUT REASONABLE CONDITIONS, I A HUNDRED PERCENT AGREE WITH THAT AS WELL. YOU CAN ASK FOR REASONABLE CONDITIONS. SHE SAID, YOU NEED TO MAKE A FINDING OF FACT ON THAT. I DON'T DISAGREE WITH ANY OF THAT. SO, UM, IT'S SOMETHING TO BEAR IN MIND AS YOU HEAR THIS CASE. AND, AND THE SECOND CASE AS WELL. SO REALLY, THE, THE, THE TAKEAWAY, THE HEADLINE FROM OUR PRESENTATION IS THAT, YOU KNOW, PURSUANT TO THE STANDARD, WE ARE THOROUGHLY CONVINCED, AND WE THINK WE HAVE THE DATA AND MR. DENMAN STUDIES TO SUPPORT THIS, THAT THE PARKING DEMAND GENERATED BY THESE USES DOES NOT WARRANT THE NUMBER OF OFF STREET PARKING SPACES REQUIRED. AND THERE ARE A VARIETY OF THINGS THAT GO INTO THAT. AND, AND FIRST OF ALL, I WANNA REMIND EVERYBODY, AS YOU ARE WELL AWARE THAT THE CITY COUNCIL IN MAY JUST RECENTLY DID SOME, UM, VERY SIGNIFICANT PARKING REFORM. UM, WE HAVE IN OUR PRESENT, IN OUR INFORMATION WE GAVE YOU ON JULY 2ND, THERE IS A PAGE THAT SHOWS WHAT WE [00:15:01] WOULD BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE IF WE WERE UNDER CURRENT CODE, UM, AFTER THE, THE PARKING REFORM VERSUS WHAT WE'RE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE. NOW, BECAUSE WE'RE IN A PD THAT HAS ITS OWN PARKING RATIOS, WE CANNOT TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THAT PARKING REFORM THAT WAS DONE IN MAY. WE ARE STUCK, UH, WITH THE PD 6 21 REQUIREMENTS, INCLUDING THIS SPECIAL EXCEPTION, WHICH WE'RE AVAILING OURSELVES OF. SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE EVEN IN FRONT OF YOU TODAY. UM, AND IF YOU LOOK AT WHAT THE COUNCIL DID IN PARKING REFORM, UH, WE CAN TALK A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THAT IN A MINUTE. THEY DRASTICALLY REDUCE THE, THE REQUIREMENTS. FOR EXAMPLE, OFFICE SHOWROOM WAREHOUSE, YOU KNOW, THAT GOES AWAY. UM, RESTAURANT, IT'S BASICALLY CUT IN HALF. SO WE MIGHT NOT EVEN HAVE TO BE HERE WHERE, WHERE IT NOT FOR THAT. IT'S ALSO INTERESTING IN THE, UH, ORDINANCE THAT PASSED, THEY, UH, VERY MUCH BROADENED THE ABILITY TO DO AN ADMINISTRATIVE PARKING REDUCTION OF UP TO 50%. IT WAS KEYED BEFORE TO CERTAIN CRITERIA. NOW IT'S REALLY BROADENED. IT'S ALMOST LIKE A SPECIAL EXCEPTION, UH, IN THE THINGS THAT THEY LOOK AT. BUT IT'S VESTED IN, UM, THE ABILITY OF THE, THE PLANNING DIRECTOR TO GRANT THOSE ADMINISTRATIVELY. SO, YOU KNOW, IT'S A MUCH DIFFERENT WORLD FOR PARKING UNDER CHAPTER 51 A THAN IT WAS BEFORE, BUT WE'RE STILL UNDER PD 6 21. SO IF IT WASN'T FOR THAT, YOU KNOW, LIKE I SAY, WE IF PROBABLY WOULDN'T EVEN HAVE TO BE HERE. UM, THAT BEING SAID, YOU KNOW, WE THINK THE PARKING DEMAND FOR THESE USES, UM, IS MUCH LESS THAN WHAT THE PREVIOUS CODE. I'LL SAY, YOU KNOW, BASICALLY WHAT THE PD CALLS FOR IN TERMS OF PARKING REQUIREMENTS, WHICH ARE BASED ON 51 A WITH A LITTLE BIT OF MODIFICATION, WHICH IN TURN WAS BASED ON PARKING RATIOS AND IN SOME INSTANCES GO BACK TO THE 1960S OR EVEN BEFORE. SO, YOU KNOW, IT WAS, WE WERE WAY OVERDUE FOR PARKING REFORM. FORTUNATELY, COUNCIL, UM, ADOPTED THAT, BUT HERE WE ARE IN PD 6 21, KIND OF RUNNING BEHIND ALL THOSE EFFORTS. SO WE THINK THAT BECAUSE OF THE CURRENT ENVIRONMENT, BECAUSE OF THE USE OF RIDE SHARING, UM, BECAUSE OF THE ABILITY TO USE SHARED PARKING UNDER THE PD, UM, AND THAT'S BUILT IN BY RIDE INTO THE PD, UM, BECAUSE OF DIFFERING PEAK TIMES FOR VARIOUS USES. AND THAT'S JUST COMMON SENSE. I MEAN, OFFICE SHOWROOM WAREHOUSE, THAT, THAT'S A DAYTIME USE, ALMOST PURELY A DAYTIME USE, UH, VERSUS RESTAURANT, WHICH, YOU KNOW, DESTINATION RESTAURANTS IN PARTICULAR, YOU KNOW, THEY HAVE A, A LUNCH RUSH. UM, AND MORE LIKELY MAYBE THE HIGHER END RESTAURANTS HAVE MORE OF A DINNER RUSH. PEOPLE WILL ARRIVE THERE BY RIDE SHARE. UM, YOU KNOW, IF THEY ARE LIVING IN THE AREA, WORKING IN THE AREA, THEY MAY WALK TO IT. SO THERE'S ALL KINDS OF REASONS WHY WE THINK THAT THE PARKING DEMAND IS SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCED IN COMPARISON TO WHAT THE CODE CALLS FOR. UH, NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. AND MR. DENON CAN ADDRESS THAT AS WELL. SO WE TALKED ABOUT THE APPLICABLE PD AND, AND CODE PROVISIONS. I WON'T GO THROUGH ALL THIS BECAUSE YOU ALL ARE WELL AWARE, WELL AWARE OF THAT. UH, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. AERIAL PHOTO OF THE SITE. YOU SEE WHERE IT'S LOCATED? UH, THERE ARE THREE ENTRANCES OFF OF EACH OF THE MAJOR STREETS. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. SO THIS IS A DAYTIME AERIAL PHOTO OF THE SITE. UM, YOU CAN SEE THAT THERE ARE A LOT OF UNUSED SPACES. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. AND THE SITE PLAN THAT WAS DISCUSSED IN BRIEFING. UM, AGAIN, THAT'S, THAT'S A MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF SQUARE FOOTAGE OF RESTAURANT THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO DO. UM, IT COULD BE, YOU KNOW, ONE RESTAURANT, IT COULD BE MORE THAN ONE RESTAURANT. IT'S, IT'S A TOTALITY OF THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THAT USE AND COULD BE LOCATED ANYWHERE WITHIN THE SITE. YOU KNOW, WHETHER IT'S ONE RESTAURANT, TWO RESTAURANTS, THREE RESTAURANTS, CONCEPTUALLY, AT LEAST IN THEORY, THAT SHOULD BE THE SAME AMOUNT OF PARKING DEMAND. UM, THERE ARE DIFFERENT KINDS OF RESTAURANTS. I MEAN, IT MIGHT BE ONE RESTAURANT WOULD HAVE MORE OF A LUNCH BUSINESS. THERE MIGHT BE ANOTHER RESTAURANT THAT MIGHT BE MORE OF AN EVENING BUSINESS THAT'S, YOU KNOW, IMPOSSIBLE TO PREDICT OR EVEN REGULATE. BUT, UM, THERE COULD BE SOME VARIETY THERE. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. UH, AGAIN, THE MIXED USE PARKING CHART. AND THIS IS FROM PD 6 21, LLOYD, IS THAT, THAT'S, YES. YEAH. SO THIS IS, WE CAN MAKE THESE REDUCTIONS BY, RIGHT. UH, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. SO, UH, THERE WERE SOME DISCUSSION AND BRIEFING ABOUT, UH, NEARBY PROPERTIES THAT THE APPLICANT CONTROLS. AND THIS IS A, A DIAGRAM THAT SHOWS THOSE. SO THERE ARE OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE VICINITY IN ADDITION TO THE PROPERTY WE'RE IN DISCUSSIONS WITH. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. SO THIS IS, UM, IF YOU LOOK AT THE PROVISION IN PD 6 21 ABOUT PARKING SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS, IT DOES GRANT, UM, THE 50% THRESHOLD, WHICH I DISCUSSED, AND THEN IT REFERS BACK TO THE UNDERLYING DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION ABOUT PARKING SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS. AND SO THERE ARE A NUMBER OF ELEMENTS TO THAT, WHICH, YOU KNOW, THE BOARD IS CHARGED WITH LOOKING AT. UM, AND THIS IS, [00:20:01] THESE ARE ALL OF THOSE ELEMENTS SET FORTH FOR YOU FOR EASE OF REFERENCE, AND THEN OUR RESPONSE TO THOSE. SO, YOU KNOW, OUR PARKING STUDY AND ANALYSIS, UM, I THINK THAT'S THE MAIN THING. AND IT TALKS ABOUT THE PARKING DEMAND CHARACTERISTICS FOR ALL OF THE USES. AGAIN, YOU KNOW, YOU, YOU'VE HAD THAT IN YOUR PACKET REALLY SINCE, UM, WE STARTED THIS, UH, JOURNEY WITH YOU THAT, UH, IT TALKS ABOUT THE PARKING DEMAND AND HOW WE THINK IT'S REALLY MUCH LESS THAN WHAT THE CODE REQUIRES. APPLICABLE CODE REQUIRES, UH, SURROUNDING STREETS, YOU KNOW, HAVE SUFFICIENT CAPACITY. YOU KNOW, THESE ARE ALL, UH, PRETTY BIG STREETS. SO WE DON'T THINK THIS IS GONNA HAVE ANY IMPACT ON TRAFFIC AT ALL. UM, AND WE DO INTEND TO USE VALET, UH, FOR SOME OR ALL OF THIS. SO THAT HELPS, YOU KNOW, WITH VALET, AS YOU ALL KNOW, AND THAT'S WHY I INCLUDED THE VALET REGULATIONS, WHICH ARE IN A SEPARATE CHAPTER OF THE CODE IN OUR LATEST SUBMITTAL, UH, SUBMITTAL TO YOU. UM, YOU HAVE TO, YOU CAN'T STACK IN THE STREET FOR VALET. UM, YOU KNOW, THE VALET STAND WOULD BE ON THE PROPERTY, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S STRICTLY REGULATED. SO, AND THE VALET OPERATORS, UM, OF WHOM THERE ARE QUITE A FEW IN THE DESIGN DISTRICT THAT HAVE A LOT OF EXPERIENCE THERE, JUST LIKE THERE ARE IN DEVELOPMENT, OTHER PARTS OF THE CITY, YOU KNOW, THEY KNOW HOW TO DO THIS AND MANAGE THE, THE PARKING EFFECTIVELY. AND ACTUALLY, WITH VALET, IT'S VERY TYPICAL TO HAVE WHAT'S CALLED PACKED PARKING AS WELL, WHERE THE VALETS WILL PACK THE CARS, YOU KNOW, AND IT'S REGULATED BY THE CITY. YOU HAVE TO HAVE A PACKED PARKING AGREEMENT TO DO THAT. UH, THERE ARE DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS, BUT IT, IT ALLOWS FOR A MUCH MORE EFFICIENT USE OF WHATEVER PARKING AREA YOU HAVE. SO WE THINK WE MEET ALL OF THESE, UM, AMPLY AND OUR, WE HAVE THE STUDIES TO PACK THAT UP. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. UH, AGAIN, THIS IS MORE, THESE ARE QUOTES FROM MR. DENMAN'S, UM, STUDY, WHICH YOU HAVE, AND HOPEFULLY YOU'VE HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK AT. UM, BUT BASICALLY IT, IT'S, IT'S WHAT I'M SAYING, IT'S, HE TALKS ABOUT RIGHT SIZING OR RIGHT MIXING THE PROPOSED USES TO REALLY TO ADHERE TO WHAT THE ACTUAL PARKING DEMAND IN 2025 IS FOR A MIXED USE ENVIRONMENT IN AN URBAN AREA. AND WE, WE THINK WE CLEARLY MEET THAT, UH, WE EXPECT NO SPILLOVER EFFECT OF TRAFFIC OR PARKED CARS. UH, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. AGAIN, IT GOES ON. THESE ARE, THESE ARE MORE QUOTES FROM MR. DENMAN'S STUDY, SO HOPEFULLY YOU'VE ALREADY HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK AT THIS. BUT, UM, MR. DENMAN, FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO DON'T KNOW HIM, WAS, UM, A CITY ENGINEER FOR MANY YEARS, AND I WORKED WITH HIM A LOT, UM, ON MATTERS WHERE HE WAS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE TABLE REPRESENTING THE CITY. SO DEFINITELY HAS THE BACKGROUND ON THIS. UM, AND WAS BUILDING OFFICIAL, I THINK FOR A YEAR, SERVED IN NUMEROUS CAPACITIES. SO HE, HE ACTUALLY LOOKED AT THESE ADMINISTRATIVE, UM, REDUCTIONS THAT I SPOKE ABOUT EARLIER AND, AND PASSED ON THEM FOR THE CITY. THEY LOOKED TO HIM FOR HIS EXPERTISE. NEXT QUESTION. UH, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. SO, PD 6 21 WAS ESTABLISHED IN 2002, AND I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH YOU'VE DEALT WITH PD 6 21, BUT, UM, I'VE BEEN WORKING IN IT OVER THE YEARS EVER SINCE IT WAS FIRST ADOPTED. I REMEMBER GOING TO SOME OF THE COMMUNITY MEETINGS WHEN THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT ADOPTING IT. AND THE WHOLE POINT OF PD 6 21 WAS TO ENCOURAGE ADAPTIVE REUSE, UM, AS THE AREA BECAME DENSER, UH, TO TRY TO KEEP THE CONTEXT OF THE, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE SMALLER, YOU KNOW, UH, GALLERY BUILDINGS, SHOWROOM BUILDINGS, THINGS LIKE THAT. IT'S A, IT'S A REALLY INTERESTING AREA. AND I THINK THAT PD 6, 6 21 GENERALLY HAS BEEN VERY SUCCESSFUL. UM, IF YOU GO OVER THERE NOW, IT'S, IT'S A MUCH MORE OF A MIXED USE ENVIRONMENT. UM, THERE'S MORE, YOU KNOW, A MIX OF DAYTIME AND NIGHTTIME USES, ALL OF WHICH I THINK IS A GOOD THING. SO, PD 6 21 ACTUALLY GAVE SOME PARKING BREAKS AT THE TIME COMPARED TO WHAT THE UNDERLYING CODE ALLOWED FOR, ONE OF WHICH IS TO RAISE THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION THRESHOLD OF 50% FROM 25%. SO WHEN COUNCIL PASSED THIS IN 2002, THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THEY HAD IN MIND, WAS TO LOOSEN UP THE PARKING REGULATIONS A LITTLE BIT TO TRY TO ENCOURAGE THIS ADAPTIVE REUSE, YOU KNOW, INSTEAD OF KNOCKING DOWN A BUILDING, YOU KNOW, MAYBE AN INTERESTING OLD BUILDING THAT, YOU KNOW, STILL HAD GALLERY SPACE IN IT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. SO THEY COULD POUR SOME ASPHALT FOR PARKING, LET'S MAYBE REDUCE THEIR PARKING REQUIREMENTS A LITTLE BIT AND LET THE, LET THE BUILDING STAY AND BE PART OF THE FABRIC OF THE DISTRICT. AND THAT'S HOW IT'S WORKED OUT. I THINK IT'S WORKED OUT VERY WELL. SO WE'RE HERE TO REALLY KIND OF CONTINUE ALONG THAT LINE, UM, AND REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF PARKING THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED IN THE INTEREST OF INCREASING THAT MIX OF USES AND, UM, FOSTERING, YOU KNOW, THE VIABILITY OF THE DISTRICT AS IT GOES FORWARD. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. UH, I TALKED ABOUT THIS, THIS IS, YOU KNOW, THE PARKING REFORM PASSED BY CITY COUNCIL. I, IF, IF YOU HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK AT THIS IN DETAIL, IT'S REALLY INTERESTING AND I THINK IT'LL INFORM YOUR WORK AS A BOARD. YOU KNOW, THESE PARKING, UM, REDUCTIONS ARE REALLY PRETTY, PRETTY SIGNIFICANT. [00:25:01] I WAS ACTUALLY KIND OF PLEASANTLY SURPRISED THAT COUNCIL WENT AS FAR AS THEY DID WITH THIS, BUT AGAIN, DOESN'T APPLY TO US BECAUSE WE'RE IN PD 6 21. THIS IS MORE FROM A POLICY STANDPOINT THAT THIS IS WHERE WE ARE TODAY IN 2025 AS A CITY, BUT YET, YOU KNOW, WE'RE HAVING TO ADHERE TO THESE OLDER REGULATIONS. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. AND THIS IS JUST, THIS IS ACTUALLY FROM THE, UM, THE PAGE, THE ONE PAGER THAT I INCLUDED IN OUR JULY 2ND PACKET. HOPEFULLY YOU'VE HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK AT THAT. UM, BUT YOU KNOW, IN SUMMARY, UNDER THE NEW STANDARDS, WE'D ONLY BE REQUIRED TO HAVE 78 SPACES. UM, AND WE'RE ASKING TO PROVIDE 73. SO REALLY, IF WE WERE UNDER THIS, WE, WE WOULD JUST ABOUT BE THERE. AND PROBABLY WITH A LITTLE RES STRIPING, WE COULD PROBABLY HIT IT. SO, UM, YOU KNOW, IT JUST BY COMPARISON, UM, YOU KNOW, IT'S MUCH MORE STRINGENT WHAT WE'RE HAVING TO OPERATE UNDER BECAUSE OF THE PD. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. SO, UH, MR. NEWMAN, AS YOU POINTED OUT, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, UM, THAT WE'VE TRIED TO KEEP YOU UPDATED EACH MONTH AS WE'VE COME BACK. UM, THE, THE MOST SIGNIFICANT THING, WELL, WE TALKED BEFORE ABOUT LOOKING AT, UH, 180 OAK LAWN, THE APEX LOT AS A POSSIBLE SOURCE OF AT LEAST LEASED SPACES WHERE WE WOULD HAVE THE LEGAL RIGHT TO USE THAT FOR OVERFLOW, EVEN IF IT'S NOT CODE REQUIRED. IF YOU WERE TO GRANT US THIS SPECIAL EXCEPTION IN SOME FORM, WE'RE STILL WORKING ON THAT. UH, THE MAIN THING. WELL, AND THE 12 MONTH, UH, REASSESSMENT, YOU KNOW, THAT ACROSS THE BOARD, WE ARE HAPPY TO OFFER THAT. UH, UM, AND I THINK THAT COULD DO A LOT TO REALLY, YOU KNOW, MAKE US COME BACK IN FRONT OF YOU AND, AND ALL OF US LOOK AT IT AND SEE HOW IS THIS WORKING? IS THIS WORKING AS WE EXPECTED IT TO? SO THAT'S A, THAT'S A STANDING OFFER THAT'S ON THE TABLE FOR BOTH CASES. UM, THE, THE MOST SIGNIFICANT THING THAT'S NEW THAT YOU HAD NOT SEEN BEFORE THAT'S PART OF THIS PACKAGE IS, UH, MR. DENMAN DID A STUDY REGARDING TRAFFIC SAFETY AND TRAFFIC VOLUME, UM, ASSUMING VALET OPERATIONS AT 1201 OAK LAWN. AND I'M GONNA LET HIM ADDRESS THAT SINCE THAT'S HIS STUDY. BUT, YOU KNOW, THE CONCLUSION IS THAT THIS CAN ALL BE DONE SAFELY WITHOUT ANY TRAFFIC CONGESTION, WITHOUT ANY HAZARDS FOR PEDESTRIANS OR VEHICLES, ANYTHING LIKE THAT. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. UH, TO THAT POINT, UH, IT'S A, IT'S A SHORT, COULD YOU GO BACK TALKING? COULD YOU GO BACK TO THE PREVIOUS SLIDE? I'M SORRY. THERE YOU GO. HOLD ON. LET, LET US, I, I WANNA REREAD THIS. WE DIDN'T GET, I DON'T, IS THAT, IS THIS CONSISTENT WITH YOUR LETTER? IT'S MR. VINCENT, IT'S, OR IS THIS SEPARATE FROM THE LETTER THAT YOU GAVE ON JULY 2ND? IT'S, IT'S THE SAME INFORMATION. IT'S THE SAME. OKAY. YEAH, I JUST WANTED TO PUT IT, THERE AREN'T ANY, THERE AREN'T ANY NEW CONDITIONS FROM THE JULY 2ND LETTER THAT WE RECEIVED? NO, SIR. NOT IN THE POWERPOINT. OKAY. ALRIGHT. THANK YOU. OKAY. SO YOU, YOU CAN SEE HERE, UM, THAT INTERSECTION IS SIGNALED, UM, IT DOES HAVE CROSSWALKS THAT ARE PAINTED ON THE SURFACE. THERE ACTUALLY ARE SIDEWALKS ALSO ON THE OAK LAWN SIDE. AND THE, UM, I BELIEVE IT'S THE MARKET CENTER BOULEVARD SIDE. AND IT'S A SHORT WALKING DISTANCE. IT'S BASICALLY A CATTY CORNER ACROSS THE INTERSECTION FROM THE SIDE. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. SO THE, UM, LORD, DO YOU WANNA TALK ABOUT THIS NOW OR DO YOU WANNA, SO IS THE STUDY THAT MR. DENMAN, SO YOU'RE APPROACHING 15 MINUTES OF WHICH, OKAY. 15 MINUTES OF WHICH I'M OKAY WITH, BUT YOU'RE STARTING TO BE A LITTLE REDUNDANT. OKAY. SO I WANT TO GENTLY SAY, COME TO A CONCLUSION ON YOUR PORTION OF THE PRESENTATION IF MR. DENMAN IS GONNA SPEAK NEXT. SURE. IN FACT, LIKE I, I LIKE SAYING FINISH YOUR SENTENCE. OKAY. WELL I JUST THANK YOU. THAT'S FAIR. UM, THIS IS ACTUALLY MR. DENMAN'S STUDY, SO I'M GONNA LET HIM TAKE OVER. ALRIGHT. SO I'M GIVING YOU THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONCLUDE IN YOUR PRESENTATION. NO, DID YOU WANNA MAKE ANY FINAL COMMENT, UH, BEFORE I CUT YOU OFF ? OH, SURE. NO, I'LL GO AHEAD AND MAKE MY CONCLUSION NOW, WHICH IS WHAT WE THINK WE'VE AMPLY DEMONSTRATED THAT WE MEET THE STANDARD THAT THE PARKING REQUIREMENT IS WAY, WAY MORE THAN WHAT THE ACTUAL PARKING DEMAND IS. AND THAT THERE ARE VARIOUS WAYS TO MITIGATE THAT, WHICH WE'VE TALKED ABOUT. SO THANK YOU. WE RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR APPROVAL. WE'LL HAVE, WE HAVE SEVERAL QUESTIONS COMING. AND AS THE APPLICANT, YOU HAVE A REBUTTAL TIME PERIOD AFTER THE QUESTION PERIOD. SO THAT'S STILL IN YOUR BAIL. OKAY. SO YOUR COMPANION THERE BURNED 15 MINUTES, WHICH IS FINE. I'M NOT ENCOURAGING YOU TO TAKE 15 MINUTES, BUT IF YOU'VE GOT 15 MINUTES OF NEW KNOWLEDGE, WE WELCOME IT. GOOD AFTERNOON, LLOYD DENMAN, 29 28 WESTMINSTER. I KEPT MY HANDOUT BRIEF TO ONE PAGE. I I HEARD THAT COMMENT EARLIER. [00:30:01] IF YOU LOOK AT WHAT'S CURRENTLY ON THE BOARD, IF YOU CAN READ THAT, THIS IS TO ADDRESS ANY SAFETY CONCERNS REGARDING THE VALET OPERATION. NOTE THAT THERE IS AMPLE ROOM FOR STACKING WITHIN THE SITE. OKAY. HELP US WITH THIS MAP. 'CAUSE I'M CONFUSED. SO WHAT'S THE BUILDING TO THE TOP LEFT CORNER? WHAT'S THE BUILDING IN THE BUILDING? WHAT'S THE BUILDING IN? I MEAN, SO THE GRAY BUILDING, YOU GIMME A FRAME OF REFERENCE HERE. THE GRAY BUILDING WITH THE TRIANGLE AT TOP IN THE MIDDLE IS 1201. YES. THAT'S THE SUBJECT SITE. THAT'S THE SUBJECT SITE. OKAY. AND THEN THAT PEDIGREE SITE IS TO THE LEFT. THAT'S YOUR NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR TO THE WEST? CORRECT. OKAY. AND THE, THE BUILDING TO THE SOUTH IS THIS APEX THAT WE QUESTIONED? CORRECT. OKAY. YES. UH, NO, ACTUALLY IT'S PTAP RESTAURANT. IT'S WHAT? THE PTAP RESTAURANT. OH, OKAY. SO ANYWAY, THE, THE DIMENSIONS ARE TO SHOW THAT THERE'S AMPLE ROOM FOR 12 PLUS VEHICLES TO QUEUE ON SITE. AND IT'S INTERESTING TO NOTE THAT NO PARKING IS ALLOWED ON ANY OF THESE PERIMETER STREETS. NO PARKING IS ALLOWED ON OAK LAWN. NO PARKING IS ALLOWED ON IRVING. NO PARKING IS ALLOWED ON MARKET CENTER. THEREFORE VISIBILITIES ENTERING AND EXITING THE DRIVEWAYS ARE CLEAR. OKAY. AND THERE ARE MULTIPLE DRIVEWAYS. I I, I BEG YOUR, BEG YOUR PARDON IF I'M ALLOWED TO INTERRUPT. WHO'S RUNNING THE, THE POWERPOINT. OKAY, MR. THOMPSON, WOULD YOU PUT YOUR ARROW ON THE TOP LEFT BUILDING THAT? ALRIGHT, WHAT'S THAT BUILDING? IS THAT THE PEDIGREE EMPTY BUILDING? I DIDN'T SEE WHERE HE PUT HIS ARROW. SEE THE ARROW IS AT THE WHITISH BUILDING. I'M, THIS STILL IS A CONFUSING PICTURE. WHAT'S THAT BUILDING THERE? THE LARGER BUILDING TO THE LEFT IS, THE PEDIGREE SITE IS IS THE BUILDING ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF YOUR ALLEY? CORRECT. THAT HAS A FRONT PARKING LOT THAT'S EMPTY. CORRECT. THAT'S SEPARATE PROPERTY, RIGHT? YES. OKAY. NOW GO TO THE BUILDING OF THE SUBJECT SITE, MR. THOMPSON. THAT'S THE LIGHT GRAY, CORRECT? CORRECT. OKAY. SO DO YOU KNOW WHEN THIS PICTURE WAS TAKEN? 'CAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S GOT A FULL PARKING LOT. ALL THAT PARKING IS ON SITE. YES. I UNDERSTAND. SO DO YOU KNOW WHEN THIS WAS TAKEN? IS THIS A YEAR AGO? TWO YEARS AGO? THERE WOULD BE A DATE FROM THE GOOGLE. IT'S GOOGLE STREET VIEW. OKAY. I'M JUST CURIOUS. ALRIGHT, NOW TAKE US WHERE THIS, UH, OTHER LOT THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, THE, THE APEX LOT. IS THAT WHAT YOU WERE SAYING? THAT YOU'RE SAYING IT'S SAFE? SO WHERE'S, WHERE SHOULD OUR EYE GO NEXT? OH, WAY DOWN THERE WHAT I SAID WAS THERE'S NO PARKING ALLOWED ON MARKET CENTER OAK LAWN. I GET THAT. OR URBAN. BUT YOU SAID THEY'RE SAFE FOR VALET OPERATIONS. SO WHERE? OH, RIGHT. IT WOULD ALL BE ON SITE. ON SITE. OKAY. AND THERE'S PLENTY OF ROOM FOR Q SO THAT WAS MY POINT THERE. AS FAR AS SAFETY OPERATION IN OPERATION OUT, PLENTY OF ROOM FOR QUEUING VALET. SO THIS PICTURE IS ONLY ZEROING IN ON VALET WITHIN THE PROPERTY, CORRECT? NOT AND A QUEUING NOT HAVING TO DO THIS APEX, CORRECT. LOT ACROSS THE STREET? CORRECT. OKAY. I APOLOGIZE FOR INTERRUPTING. PLEASE PROCEED. THAT'S, AND THEN IF YOU'LL NOTICE ON THE NEXT PAGE, UH, ONE, I CALL IT ONE FORTY ONE ON THE EXHIBIT. I GUESS YOU DID NOT HAVE THAT. SO PAGE 1, 41 OF 3 4 9 ON THE CRITERIA. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN FIND THAT. THAT'S JUST PART OF THE JULY 2ND? YES, THAT'S CORRECT. THIS THING? OKAY. YES, IT'S GOT THE TWO DARK SCREENS. YES. OKAY. I'M TAKING MY BOARD MEMBERS TO IT. 1 41 IN THE DOCKET GUYS. OKAY, SO THAT SHOWS THAT A SIMILAR STREET IN DALLAS CEDAR SPRINGS OF WHICH WE'RE ALL FAMILIAR IS ALSO LIKE OAK LAWN. UH, SIMILAR FOUR LANE UNDIVIDED. BUT IF YOU NOTICE THIS STRETCH OF OAK LAWN BASED ON THESE TRAFFIC COUNTS THAT WERE TAKEN, I BELIEVE THE SAME DAY OR THE SAME YEAR, ONLY ONE THIRD THE VOLUME OF TRAFFIC. SO CEDAR SPRINGS CARRIES THREE TIMES AS MUCH TRAFFIC IN A RESTAURANT RESIDENTIAL SIMILAR AREA AS OAK LAWN. SO THERE IS NO CONGESTION AT THIS PART OF OAK LAWN. AND THEN IF YOU'LL LOOK AT THE NEXT PAGE MEMBERS, IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, I NEED TO HOLD THE QUESTIONS AND MARK IT DOWN AND WE'LL ASK THEM AFTER THEY'RE DONE WITH THEIR PRESENTATION, GO AHEAD. AHEAD. WHICH I BELIEVE IS 1 42 OF 3 49. ALSO SHOWS A COUPLE OF DARK SCREENS. ARE Y'ALL THERE? OKAY. THIS SLIDE SHOWS A COMPARISON [00:35:02] OF MARKET CENTER TRAFFIC, WHICH IS ALONG THE SITE MARKET CENTER. AND IF YOU NOTE THOSE PEAKS, THOSE ARE REPRESENTATIVE OF RUSH HOUR PEAKS. IN OTHER WORDS, MARKET CENTER IS A COMMUTER STREET AND IT SHOWS A DEFINITE AM PEAK INTO TOWN AND A PM PEAK OUT OF TOWN. AND IT'S INTERESTING TO NOTE THAT MARKET CENTER AS A SIX LANE DIVIDED IS ONLY ONE THIRD ITS CAPACITY. THERE IS NO CONGESTION ON MARKET CENTER. AND THEN THIS FINAL PAGE, 1 43 SHOWS WHAT THE STREET CAPACITIES ARE FOR THEIR DESIGN AND LAYOUT AND WHAT THE EXISTING COUNTS SHOW. AGAIN, EMPHASIZING THESE STREETS ARE NOT ONLY NEAR CAPACITY, THEY'RE EXTREMELY BELOW CAPACITY AND THERE IS NO CONGESTION CONCERN FOR OAK LAWN, FOR MARKET CENTER OR FOR IRVING. MATTER OF FACT, THESE STREETS WANT MORE TRAFFIC. IT'S NOT THAT THEY HAVE TOO MUCH TRAFFIC. THEY NEED MORE TRAFFIC FOR WHAT THEY'RE DESIGNED FOR. AND SO LASTLY THEN I GAVE YOU A ONE PAGE HANDOUT. VERY GOOD. YOU'LL NOTICE THIS ARTICLE FROM REAL ESTATE JOURNALS IS DATED JULY 1ST, 2025. IT'S VERY RECENT, BUT YOU MAY HAVE SEEN IN THE DALLAS MORNING NEWS OR SOME OTHER PAPER, OTHER ARTICLES ABOUT INWOOD DESIGN CENTER, WHICH IS NEARBY. IT'S CLOSE TO HERE, INWOOD, UH, I THINK IT'S ABOUT A MILE AWAY. IT'S A DESIGN CENTER, VERY SIMILAR IN LAYOUT. AND A FORT WORTH DEVELOPER JUST PURCHASED IT AND IS WANTING TO DO THE SAME THING. INTRODUCE RESTAURANT RETAIL AND REVITALIZE THE SHOPPING CENTER. WELL THE FORT WORTH DEVELOPER GETS TO COME IN AND COUNT THEIR RESTAURANT AT ONE TO 200. AND THAT'S PER PD 5 96, WHICH WAS PASSED ABOUT THE SAME TIME THIS WAS, IT ALLOWS RESTAURANT TO BE PARKED AT CURRENT CITY CODE. AND CURRENT CITY CODE IS ONE TO 200. SO HN CAPITAL, THIS 1201 OAK LAWN IS REQUESTING TO PARK ITS RESTAURANT SLIGHTLY BELOW 200. ACTUALLY ONE PER 1 94, WHICH IS CURRENTLY WITHIN THE ALLOWANCE OF PD 6 21. IT'S LESS THAN THE NEW STANDARD CODE OF ONE PER 200 THAT'S CURRENTLY REQUIRED. AND IT'S WHAT THE NEW OWNER OF THE INWOOD DESIGN CENTER FROM FORT WORTH IS GONNA BE ALLOWED TO PARK. WHEN I WAS THE BUILDING OFFICIAL, WHEN I WAS THE CHIEF ENGINEER FOR THE DEPARTMENT FOR 10 YEARS AND A CITY EXECUTIVE FOR 10 YEARS, OUR MANTRA FOR THE DEPARTMENT WAS FOLLOW WHAT'S ALLOWED BY CODE AND TREAT EVERYBODY THE SAME. FOLLOW WHAT'S ALLOWED BY CODE AND TREAT EVERYBODY THE SAME. IF YOU ASK MR. NAVAREZ IF HE EVER HEARD ME SAY THAT, HE'LL SAY YES OFTEN FOLLOW WHAT'S ALLOWED BY CODE AND TREAT EVERYBODY THE SAME. THAT'S THE REQUEST FROM OUR 1201 OAK LAWN IS TO BE ALLOWED TO DO WHAT THE FORT WORTH DEVELOPER IS ALLOWED TO DO. BE, YOU KNOW, FOLLOW WHAT'S ALLOWED BY CODE AND BE TREATED THE SAME. UM, I BELIEVE THE CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION WERE BRIEFED AD NAUSEUM THAT ONE TO 200 FOR RESTAURANT IS A REASONABLE STANDARD TODAY. AND TO MR. FINNEY'S COMMENT ABOUT TRAFFIC SAFETY AND PEDESTRIAN SAFETY IN THE AREA. I DID REFERENCE THE VISION ZERO. AND THIS INTERSECTION IS NOT ONE OF THE TOP 50 INTERSECTIONS OF CONCERN WITHIN THE CITY OF DALLAS. AND ALSO TO YOUR POINT, THERE ARE NO CROSSWALKS AT MARKET CENTER AND OAK LAWN THAT ARE CURRENTLY STRIPED. IT IS A SIGNALED INTERSECTION AND A SIGNALED INTERSECTION. THERE'S, UM, CROSSING LIGHTS, BUT THERE ARE NO CROSSWALK STRIPED. SO I CALLED 3 1 1 AND MADE A REQUEST AND THERE'S NOW A SERVICE REQUEST TO STRIPE MARKET CENTER AND OAK LAWN FOR PEDESTRIAN SAFETY AND THAT MAY OH, AND THEN THERE WAS A QUESTION ABOUT DID WE EVER VISIT WITH THE NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR, THE BIG BUILDING. AND IRONICALLY ENOUGH, I HAD A PRIVATE CONVERSATION LAST SEPTEMBER IN ANTICIPATION OF A FUTURE PARKING [00:40:01] STUDY FOR THAT BUILDING. AND THE OWNERS WHO RECENTLY BOUGHT THE BUILDING SAID THEY WORK WELL WITH HN CAPITAL, WHO'S THE OWNER OF 1201 OAK LAWN AND THEY WANNA WORK TOGETHER. THAT WAS WHAT I WAS TOLD. AND I BELIEVE WITH THAT, WE'LL ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. THANK YOU MR. DENMAN. THANK YOU MR. UH, VINCENT. UH, ONE SECOND. THAT WAS 25 MINUTES. YOU GOT A GOOD SHOT AT THAT. OKAY, GOOD. ALRIGHT. QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT, MR. HOPKOS? FIRST I'VE GOT SEVERAL, BUT WE'LL PROCEED. I'M NOT, NOT, EXCUSE ME, I MIGHT NOT HIT ALL MY QUESTIONS FIRST TIME THROUGH HERE, BUT, UM, I'M GONNA START WITH THE MOST RECENT COMMENTS, MR. DIAMOND. FIRST. I PRONOUNCE THAT RIGHT MR. DIAMOND. A LITTLE CLOSER TO THE MICROPHONE. MR. HAITZ DENMAN. DENMAN. DENMAN. SORRY. UM, YOU HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH THE OWNER OF THE BUILDING NEXT DOOR. DID THEY PROVIDE YOU WITH ANYTHING IN WRITING THAT INDICATED THEIR WILLINGNESS TO COOPERATE AND NO, THEY HAD NOT YET PURCHASED THE BUILDING. THEY WERE DOING SOME DUE DILIGENCE ON THEIR OWN PRIOR TO PURCHASE. UM, YOUR COMMENTS ABOUT EVERYONE SHOULD BE TREATED THE SAME. UM, DO YOU FEEL THERE SHOULD BE PROPERTY DISTRICTS THAT HAVE DIFFERENT RULES IN THE CITY OF DALLAS OR SHOULD THEY ALL BE THE SAME? , THAT'S WHY WE HAVE PDS. RIGHT, BUT THIS IS ALLOWABLE PER THE PD ALLOWABLE AS A THIS REQUEST AS AN EXCEPTION. THIS REQUEST, THIS, YES, OF COURSE. YES. UM, BUT THE CITY COUNCIL RECENTLY MADE CHANGES TO SOME PDS FOR PARKING. I BELIEVE PDS ARE EXCLUDED. IT WAS THE GENERAL PARKING REQUIREMENTS. GENERAL PARKING REQUIREMENTS. OKAY. I THINK I CAN ADD A LITTLE BIT TO THAT. SO YOU PROBABLY, IN THE COURSE OF YOUR BOARD SERVICE, YOU'VE PROBABLY SEEN A LOT OF DIFFERENT PDS. WE ARE, I THINK WELL OVER 1100 PDS IN THE CITY OF DALLAS. UM, INTERESTINGLY, SOME PDS SET THEIR OWN PARKING RATIOS, PD SIX 20 ONE'S A GOOD EXAMPLE. PD 1 93 IN OAK LAWN, THE DEEP LMPD, SOME OF THE OTHERS, OTHER PDS, UH, WITH A DIFFERENT FOCUS FOR WHY YOU'RE DOING THE PD. SIMPLY SAY, UNDER OFF STREET PARKING, THAT OFF STREET PARKING IS TO BE PROVIDED AS PER CHAPTER 51 A. THOSE PDS THAT REFER BACK TO CHAPTER 51 A, THEY NOW GET THE BENEFIT OF THE PARKING REFORM THAT WAS PASSED IN MAY BECAUSE IT GO WHATEVER 51 A SAYS AT THE TIME. THAT'S HOW YOU PARK IT. SO THAT'S, THAT'S THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THERE ARE THOSE PDS AND THEN THERE ARE PDS LIKE OURS. UM, SO I'D LIKE TO TALK ABOUT THIS STACKED PARKING. SO, UH, I'M NOT A PARKING EXPERT. DON'T CLAIM TO BE, DON'T WANNA BE. WHEN I GO TO A PLACE, AND I HAVEN'T BEEN TO THE DESIGN DISTRICT A LOT, BUT I'VE BEEN THERE A COUPLE TIMES, UH, YOU COME ALONG, YOU'RE, YOU WANT TO GO TO THAT BUILDING, YOU KIND OF PULL INTO THE PARKING LOT AND THEN YOU FIND THERE'S NO PLACE TO PARK 'CAUSE IT'S FULL. 'CAUSE THE PARKING IS SOMEWHAT SPARSE IN THAT AREA. UM, WHICH IS WHY YOU'RE MAKING THIS REQUEST, RIGHT? 'CAUSE PARKING IS SPARSE. AND SO I PULL INTO THE, I PULL INTO THAT BUILDING, FOR EXAMPLE, HYPOTHETICAL BUILDING. I FIND THERE'S NO PLACE TO PARK AND NOW, BUT, SO NOW I'M PULLED IN, BUT THERE'S NO PLACE TO PARK. AND NOW YOU'VE GOT STACKED PARKING TAKING UP ADDITIONAL SPACE ON SITE IN THE AREA, THE DRIVABLE AREA AROUND THE BUILDING. UM, BUT YOU DON'T FEEL THAT CAUSES ANY ADDITIONAL KIND OF, UH, HAZARD OR, OR, OR TRAFFIC ISSUES, UH, ON THE PROPERTY? DID YOU EXPLAIN THAT PLEASE. SO THERE WOULD BE AMPLE DRIVE AISLE WIDTH ALWAYS MAINTAINED. THAT'S A REQUIREMENT FOR THE FIRE LANE. AND THIS WOULD BE VALET PARKED THE TWO RESTAURANTS NEXT DOOR, THE T TAP AND TOWN HEARTH. OF COURSE I WENT TO TOWN HEARTH. IT'S NICE, BUT IT'S EXPENSIVE. IT'S PART OF MY RESEARCH. YOU TALKING ABOUT THE RESTAURANT OR THE PARKING, THE RESTAURANT AND TO OBSERVE THE PARKING. MY WIFE WANTED TO GO AND I DID MAKE OTHER TRIPS TO OBSERVE JUST THE PARKING AND THEIR, THEIR VALET OPERATORS MAKE IT WORK IS WHAT THEY SAID. YOU KNOW, THEY ARE ABLE TO ACCOMMODATE TWO RESTAURANTS OPERATING WITH THIS, YOU KNOW, NEXT DOOR TO 1201 [00:45:01] OAK LAWN AND THEY MAKE IT WORK. AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT MR. VINCENT WAS REFERRING TO. THE VALET OPERATORS CAN SQUEEZE CARS CLOSER TOGETHER. THEY CAN PARK IN A LOADING ZONE THAT'S NOT ALLOWED TO PARK IN DURING THE DAY, YOU KNOW, AND SO THERE'S EXTRA ACCOMMODATION FOR MORE CARS. BUT WOULD THAT INTERFERE WITH THE PASSAGEWAY THROUGH THE SITE? NO. SORRY, ONE OTHER QUESTION. RIGHT NOW, UM, I'LL GIVE OTHER PEOPLE AN OPPORTUNITY. DO YOU HAVE EITHER OF YOU HAVE ANY DIRECT FAMILIARITY WITH RESTAURANT OPERATIONS? I'VE, I'VE DONE A LOT OF WORK FOR RESTAURANT OPERATORS OVER THE YEARS, BUT I HAVE NEVER BEEN IN THE RESTAURANT BUSINESS MYSELF. UM, WOULD YOU, WOULD YOU HAVE ANY IDEA OF THE ANSWER TO THE FOLLOWING QUESTION? THE AMOUNT OF SPACE? I WAS WONDERING ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF SPACE IN, SO THE, THE REGULATION IS A SPOT FOR 105 SQUARE FEET. IT'S JUST ROUNDED TO A HUNDRED, UH, VERSUS 200, WHICH IS WHAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR. HOW MANY TABLES WOULD GENERALLY FOUR TOP TABLES WOULD FIT IN A 10 SQUARE FOOT? 10 SQUARE FOOT OR A HUN OR, OR A 20 SQUARE FOOT SPACE? UM, I'LL, I HAVE TO CONFESS, I DON'T KNOW, UH, WHAT THE RULE OF THUMB IS FOR RESTAURANTS. I I DO KNOW THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE DIFFERENT KINDS OF RESTAURANTS. I MEAN, SOME SPREAD THEIR TABLES OUT, YOU KNOW, WITH MORE DISTANCE BETWEEN THEM THAN OTHERS. KIND OF DEPENDS ON THE, I GUESS THE, THE TYPE OF RESTAURANT THINGS LIKE THAT. I, LLOYD, DO YOU, I WOULD THINK THERE'S LOTS OF VARIABLES AND CITY STAFF HAD SAID IT'S BASED BY SQUARE FOOTAGE, NOT BY TABLES. AND WELL, AND THAT, I'M SORRY, THAT RAISES A GOOD POINT. I IT, THESE RATIOS, EVEN THOUGH I THINK IN MANY CASES THEY'RE ANTIQUATED, THEY ALL CAME ABOUT, YOU KNOW, DECADES AGO WHEN CITIES ADOPTED ZONING ORDINANCES. I MEAN, PEOPLE ACTUALLY DID STUDIES AT THE TIME, UH, TO LOOK AT, YOU KNOW, WHAT, WHAT MIGHT WORK AT THAT TIME. I, PART OF OUR ARGUMENT IS THAT WE'RE IN A MUCH DIFFERENT ENVIRONMENT NOW, AND THAT PARKING DEMAND IS MUCH LESS THAN WHAT IT WAS. SO I, YOU KNOW, I DON'T THINK THEY JUST PULLED A NUMBER OUT OF THE AIR IN 1950, BUT IT'S, THAT WAS A LONG TIME AGO. WHAT I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IS HOW MANY PARTY, HOW MANY DIFFERENT PARTIES IN A RESTAURANT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT BEFORE YOU HAVE ONE GO TO A SECOND PARKING SPOT. THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO WRAP MY HEAD AROUND IS HOW MANY PEOPLE WE'RE ACTUALLY TALKING ABOUT GOING TO THIS RESTAURANT AND TRYING, IF FOUR PEOPLE GO IN A CAR, YOU'RE NOT GONNA HAVE 20 PEOPLE GOING IN ONE CAR, OBVIOUSLY. SO IF ONE PERSON, FOUR PEOPLE ARE IN A CAR, HOW MANY PEOPLE IS THAT GENERALLY GONNA FILL, PUT IN A RESTAURANT? THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO KIND OF, I THINK THE OWNER WOULD BE ABLE TO ADJUST AS NEEDED PERHAPS BY WHAT THEY OBSERVE AND SEE, YOU KNOW, AND, AND, OKAY. THANK, OKAY. UM, I HAVE QUESTIONS UNLESS SOMEONE ELSE WANTS TO GO FIRST. OKAY. I'LL, I'LL DO MINE RAPID FIRE. AND, UM, I WROTE MY LITTLE NOTES AS YOU COM MADE YOUR COMMENTS, MR. VINCENT AND MR. MOND. SO I'M GONNA TRY TO RESPOND BACK. UM, QUESTIONS. UH, THE CITY COUNCIL'S CHANGES TO THE PARKING ORDINANCE IS A CITY COUNCIL POLICY. WE DON'T MAKE POLICY. THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, WE CREATE, WE APPROVE SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS AND VARIANCES BASED ON WHAT THE CITY COUNCIL SAYS IS POLICY. THEY, DID THEY NOT CHOOSE NOT TO TOUCH ANY PDS WHEN THEY CHANGED THE PARKING ORDINANCE? IS THAT NOT CORRECT? UH, IT'S A YES OR NO. DID THEY CHOOSE TO CHANGE ANY PDS? THEY DID IN THE SENSE THAT ANY PD THAT FALLS BACK ON CHAPTER SPECIFICALLY FALLS BACK ON CHAPTER 51 A. ANY P OKAY, I'LL, OKAY, DON'T, LET'S NOT DO THIS. OKAY, WELL, WELL, OKAY MR. AND ANSWER, MR YOU KNOW WHERE I'M HEADED WITH THIS. THEY CHOSE SPECIFICALLY TO, FOR BASE ZONING, FOR PARKING TO CHANGE. BUT IF A PD HAS A, HAS A PARKING REQUIREMENT, IT STANDS CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. BECAUSE, AND THEY COULD HAVE EASILY GONE IN AT 1 93 OR 6 21 OR ANY ONE OF THESE AND CHANGED THE PD. CORRECT? UH, I'M GONNA HAVE TO DISAGREE WITH THAT BECAUSE, UM, ANY CHANGE THE LAST TIME THEY DID AMENDMENTS TO PD 1 93 WERE IN THE MID NINETIES WHEN I STARTED. WE'RE NOT, I I'M SAYING WHEN THE CITY COUNCIL WHO MAKES THE POLICY IN THE END CHANGE THE BASELINE PARKING ORDINANCE, DID THEY CHANGE THE P ANY PD? IT WOULD BE MY PDS REQUIREMENT. MY POSITION IS THAT THEY COULD NOT LEGALLY DO THAT WITHOUT CALLING A PUBLIC HEARING TO DETERMINE PROPERTIES IN THAT PD AND THAT THAT IS THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE CITY COUNCIL'S WICK, THAT'S NOT OURS. SO IT IS ILLUSTRATIVE TO US TO SEE WHAT'S GOING ON. BUT WHEN [00:50:01] I TURN TO MY BOARD ATTORNEY RIGHT HERE AND SAY WHAT'S, WHAT'S THE STANDARD THAT WE GO TO? SHE ZOOMS UP THE CODE PD 6 21 SAYS, MR. NEWMAN, HERE IT IS. RIGHT? I AGREE. AND THAT ENDS THE DISCUSSION. AND IF WE VEERED OFF OF THAT, SHE'D SAY, MR. NEWMAN, THE PD IS WHAT CONTROLS. SO, UM, THAT'S THAT'S TRUE. BUT I WOULD, YOU MENTIONED, YOU MENTIONED BEFORE THAT PD 61 ENCOURAGE ADAPTIVE REUSE AND YOU SAID FOR SMALLER SITES, FOR ALL SITES. NO, YOU SAID SMALLER SITES. OKAY. WELL AND SO I'M THINKING IS THIS SITE A SMALLER SITE? NO, IT'S LARGE. SO I'M WONDERING HOW YOUR COMMENT ABOUT ADAPTIVE REUSES APPLIES TO THIS SITE. WELL, LET ME AMEND MY COMMENT. AND IT WAS A RESTAURANT BEFORE. SO HOW ARE WE READAPTING THE USE? OKAY, LET ME EXPOUND ON MY PREVIOUS COMMENT VERY BRIEFLY. OKAY. I GAVE YOU 20 MINUTES AND MR. DENMAN 10. OKAY, SO WE HAVE OODLES OF QUESTIONS. I GOT IT. SO MY QUESTION IS, WOULD YOU DETERMINE, WOULD YOU SAY AS THE APPLICANT THAT THIS BUILDING'S BEING READAPTED TO SOME EXTENT, YES. AND I THINK THERE ARE A WIDE VARIETY OF SITES, ALL DIFFERENT SIZES. THE POINT IS YOU CAN DO ADAPTIVE REUSE AND HAVE MORE OF A MIX OF USES IN A SMALL SITE ALL THE WAY UP TO A LARGER SITE. SO IF I DIDN'T MEAN TO LIMIT IT, LIMIT MY COMMENT TO ANY PARTICULAR SIZE SITE. I THINK WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE DISTRICT AS A WHOLE. OKAY. AND THERE ARE LOTS OF DIFFERENT SITES. I WAS MR. DENMAN'S COMMENT ABOUT TALKING TO THE PRO POTENTIAL OWNER OF THE BUILDING NEXT DOOR REALLY RAISED, PIQUED MY INTEREST AND I THOUGHT WOW, HE TALKED TO THE OWNER, BUT IT WASN'T THE OWNER. IT'S SOMEONE PROSPECTING THE PROPERTY. CORRECT. WHO IS NOW THE CURRENT OWNER. OKAY. YES. SO THAT EVEN MORE, WHERE'S THE LETTER OF SUPPORT? YOU'LL, YOU GUY, LET ME FINISH MY COMMENT. YOU GUYS KNOW OUR RULES. PART OF OUR DEAL GOES TO WHAT HAPPENS IN THE SURROUNDING AREA. NOW OUR CRITERIA HAS TO DO WITH NOT WARNING SPACES, TRAFFIC HAZARD AND TRAFFIC CONGESTION. BUT THE LEGISLATURE PUT IN PLACE FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS. THIS WHOLE ISSUE OF NOTERS AFFECTING NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. SO THAT'S KIND OF ONE OF OUR TENTACLES WE GO TO. I'M DISAPPOINTED THAT WE DO DON'T HEAR FROM THAT NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR. 'CAUSE THAT WOULD BE IMPACTFUL IF, IF I COULD JUST SAY SOMETHING ABOUT THAT VERY BRIEFLY. OKAY. WE ARE NOW HERE. I THINK THIS IS THE FOURTH TIME WE'VE BEEN ON YOUR AGENDA. AND THIRD TIME SIR. THIRD TIME YOU ASKED FOR TWO POSTPONEMENTS. OKAY. YOU ASKED FOR TWO POSTMENTS. NO, NO, I'M NOT COMPLAINING ABOUT THAT. IF YOU REMEMBER AT THE LAST MEETING, IT WAS A THREE TO ONE VOTE. YEAH. IT, IT ALMOST DIDN'T PASS. WE ALMOST HEARD THE CASE LAST MONTH. NO, I'M NOT, I'M NOT COMPLAINING ABOUT THAT. SO YOUR POINT BEING, MY POINT BEING IS THAT I BELIEVE THAT THESE HAVE BEEN RENO EACH TIME. YES. THE S HAVE STAYED UP. ABSOLUTELY. WE'RE NOW ON THE THIRD TIME. THIS HAS BEEN PUBLICLY NOTICED AND THERE'S NO ONE HERE TO OPPOSE IT OR, OR IN FAVOR. WELL, OTHER THAN WHAT WE PROVIDED ON OUR PACKET. BUT I, I WOULD SUGGEST TO YOU IF SOMEBODY WAS VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED TO THIS IN PARTICULAR, OUR NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR, I THINK YOU WOULD'VE HEARD ABOUT IT RIGHT NOW. AND BACK TO MY VISITING WITH THE CURRENT OWNER, THEY WERE EXCITED FOR THE SITE AND THEY WANT TO DO THE SAME THING NEXT DOOR. BUT THEY DIDN'T SUBMIT A LETTER. AND THEN WHEN I PERSONALLY SPOKE TO APAC, I'M GIVING YOU MY PERSONAL DIRECT TESTIMONY. YOU GUYS KNOW THE GAME HERE. YOU GUYS KNOW THE GAME WE HEAR ALL THE TIME. MY NEIGHBORS IN FAVOR OR MY NEIGHBORS AGAINST IT. AND WE SAY, WHO, WHERE, WHAT? OKAY. AND WHEN I PERSONALLY MET WITH APEX, THEY WERE EXCITED FOR A NEW RESTAURANT AS WELL. ALRIGHT, LEMME KEEP GOING. YOU GUYS HAD AMPLE TIME, YOU'LL HAVE TIME FOR REBUTTAL. AND THEY HAVE MORE QUESTIONS. YOU MENTIONED RIDE SHARING, SHARED PARKING, RIDE SHARING, AND SHARED PARKING. I DIDN'T SEE ANY STUDIES SPECIFIC TO OTHER BUSINESSES ALONG THIS CORRIDOR RELATING TO RIDE SHARING OR SHARED PARKING. ONE WE WATCH, I WATCHED INTENTLY THIS MORNING, MR. THOMPSON'S VIDEO, AND I LOOKED FOR PEDESTRIANS. NOW HE GOES UNANNOUNCED. HE CHOOSES HIS TIME ON HIS OWN. WE DON'T TELL HIM WHEN AND HOW. UH, SAME THING WITH THE SIGNAGE. HE DOES THAT UNANNOUNCED. I WATCHED FOR PEDESTRIANS. I LIKE MR. KOVI. I'VE LIVED IN DALLAS 45 YEARS OF FREQUENT DIFFERENT AREAS OF THE CITY. AND I HAVE SOMETIMES GONE IN THAT AREA. I RARELY HAVE SEEN PEDESTRIANS. NOW THAT'S NOT A CONTROLLING OPINION, IT'S JUST ONE OF THE MANY ISSUES AS IT RELATES TO PEDESTRIANS. SO THE WHOLE ISSUE OF RIDE SHARING AND SHARED PARKING REALLY GIVES ME PAUSE TO WHERE ARE THE FACTS, UH, STRIPING. YOU MENTIONED THAT ONE OF THE THINGS YOU COULD DO IS STRIFE. ARE YOU SAYING THAT THE STRIPING IS INCORRECT? ARE YOU SAYING THAT BUT YOU BROUGHT UP, YOU BROUGHT IT UP, MR. VINCENT, YOU BROUGHT UP RE STRIPING. THAT WAS ONLY IN THE CONTEXT OF US. IF, IF, WHICH WE ARE NOT, IF WE WERE UNDER THE CURRENT PARKING REFORM, MAYBE PICK UP A FEW SPACES. WE ALL KNOW THAT'S DONE FREQUENTLY ALL OVER TOWN AND IT'S DONE PER CODE BECAUSE YOU CAN, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE DIFFERENT DIMENSIONS YOU CAN DO UP TO 35% COMPACT PARKING, WHICH IS SEVEN POINT HALF PERCENT. OH, COMPACT PARKING. NOBODY LIKES IT, BUT IT'S [00:55:01] IN THE CODE. BUT, BUT YOU'RE RIGHT. AND THAT IS A CITY COUNCIL POLICY, RIGHT? I MAY NOT LIKE COMPACT PARKING RATIOS, BUT I DON'T GET A VOTE. THAT IS THE CITY COUNCIL THAT I'M NOT SAYING. ALL I'M SAYING IS THAT IN A GLOBAL SENSE CITYWIDE MM-HMM . IF YOU NEED TO PICK UP A FEW SPEED SPACES AS A GENERAL PROPOSITION, THAT'S SOMETIMES AN OPTION. AND THAT'S WITHIN YOUR, WITHIN, WITHIN THE WHATEVER THE CODE ALLOWS. A FOLLOW UP TO MR. KOVICH QUESTION, AND I WROTE THIS DOWN BEFORE HE BROUGHT IT UP, AND I DIDN'T GET A CLEAR ANSWER ON HIS QUESTION ABOUT HOW MANY GUESTS MAXIMUM ARE YOU PROPOSING HOLD YOUR ANSWER. WE WERE, WE ASKED IN THE BRIEFING THIS MORNING TO OUR ATTORNEY, TO MR. THOMPSON, TO OUR BOARD ADMINISTRATOR, WHAT ARE WE CONSIDERING HERE? ARE WE CONSIDERING THE LOCATION OF A RESTAURANT OR THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE TOTALITY? AND WE WERE ADVISED OVER AND OVER. NO, NO, YOU'RE NOT CONSIDERING LOCATION. YOU'RE, YOU'RE CONSIDERING SQUARE FOOTAGE WITHIN THE PROPERTY. AND FROM WHAT I SEE, IT'S 12,600 SQUARE FEET. NOW YOU PROVIDED A GRAPHIC THAT SH SHOWS IT AS ONE BLOCK ON THE, GOSH, IS THAT THE NORTHEAST SIDE OF THE BUILDING? I'M TRYING TO THINK OF MY COMPASS. SO MY QUESTION IS, AND YOU MENTIONED BEFORE IT MAY BE ONE, TWO OR THREE RESTAURANTS, AND I BOWED BACK AND THOUGHT, OH MY GOODNESS, ARE YOU REALLY CONSIDERING ONE, TWO, OR THREE? I HAVE NO IDEA. THAT WAS MR. HAITZ RAISED THE QUESTION. AND SO THE ANSWER IS, IT COULD BE MR. BRIAN, MR. THOMPSON WAS A HUNDRED PERCENT CORRECT IN HIS ANSWER TO YOU IN BRIEFING. THAT'S A MAXIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR RESTAURANT USE. UH, YOU KNOW, IT COULD BE ANYWHERE WITHIN THE SITE. THAT'S BEEN OUR INTENT ALL ALONG. UNDERSTOOD. HE, HE COMPLETELY CORRECTLY DESCRIBED THAT TO YOU. SO HOW MANY, MANY GUESTS? HOW MANY GUESTS? BECAUSE THE REASON, AND I ECHO MR. KOVI, I'M NO PARKING EXPERT. I'LL TELL YOU ONE OF THE HARDEST THINGS WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH HERE IS, IS LANDSCAPING EXCEPTIONS AND PARKING EXCEPTIONS. THOSE ARE BUGABOOS BECAUSE WE'RE PRIVATE CITIZENS. WHAT DO WE KNOW? HOW ARE WE EXPERTS ON PARKING OR LANDSCAPE? SO WE HAVE TO TAKE THE INFORMATION WE GET WITH THE EXPERIENCE WE HAVE AND SAY, OKAY, WE THINK THIS. SO LOGICALLY PARKING IS GONNA BE A FUNCTION OF GUESTS. OKAY, WELL HOW MANY GUESTS IN THE RESTAURANT? HOW MANY, HOW MANY STAFF, PEOPLE, HOW DOES THAT ALLOCATE SPACES? SO CAN YOU HELP US AT ALL? AND GUESS, DO YOU SEE HOW I COME UP WITH MY CALCULUS? I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW DOES THIS WORK? I'M TRYING TO GET TO YOUR NUMBER MM-HMM . AND I'M FIGURING OUT, WELL HOW DO YOU GET THERE? AND IT WOULD BE NONE OF OUR BUSINESS. IF YOU FILED THE CODE, WE WOULD HAVE NOTHING. YOU WOULD BE BY YOUR RIGHT. YOU COULD DO IT ACCORDING TO 6 21. YEAH. LET ME ATTEMPT TO GIVE YOU A SHORT ANSWER AND THEN I'M GONNA LET MR. DEAN, I LIKE, I LIKE THE IDEA OF A SHORT ANSWER. OKAY. SO THERE ARE ALL DIFFERENT KINDS OF RESTAURANTS. UM, I CAN'T, YOU KNOW, 12,600 SQUARE FEET WOULD BE BIG FOR A RESTAURANT. UM, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE, AND I DON'T KNOW THIS FOR A FACT, BUT THE BIGGER THE RESTAURANT, IT SEEMS LIKE THE MORE SPREAD OUT PEOPLE WOULD BE, UH, YOU KNOW, AND THEY'RE ALL DIFFERENT KINDS OF RESTAURANTS WITH ALL DIFFERENT KINDS OF CONFIGURATIONS. SO I, WHETHER IT'S ONE, TWO, OR THREE RESTAURANTS, I THINK THE MAXIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE IS WHAT'S IMPORTANT HERE, BECAUSE IT WOULD PROBABLY EVEN OUT, YOU KNOW, YOU MIGHT HAVE A HIGH END RESTAURANT WITH THE TABLES SPACED FAR APART, AND MAYBE THEY TURN THOSE TABLES OVER TWICE A NIGHT VERSUS, YOU KNOW, A PLACE TO SELL HAMBURGERS. SO THE, SO THE ANSWER IS YOU DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER, WHICH IS I RESPECT THAT. YEAH. I'M NOT, I'M NOT, YOU KNOW, NOT AN OPERATION. I CAN ADD TO IT JUST A LITTLE BIT. THE PREVIOUS, MY QUESTION WAS HOW MANY GUESTS? YEAH. THE PREVIOUS RESTAURANT WAS EL BOLERO AND I BELIEVE IT WAS SUCCESSFUL, BUT THERE WAS A PAYMENT ISSUE. OKAY. SO THE CURRENT OWNER WOULD HAD AMPLE PARKING FOR IT AND WOULD LIKE TO EXPAND THE OPPORTUNITY FOR A NEW RESTAURANT, JUST LIKE THE RESTAURANTS NEXT DOOR ARE BEING VERY SUCCESSFUL. SO THEY'RE JUST TRYING TO, TO FIND THE RIGHT BALANCE OF THE PARKING SPACE THEY HAVE. BUT, SO YOU DON'T HAVE A NUMBER EITHER. THEY DON'T HAVE A FUTURE RESTAURANT SIGN. I'M TALKING ABOUT TO MY QUESTION OF HOW MANY GUESTS 'CAUSE THAT DIRECT, RIGHT. THAT'S AN UNKNOWN. OKAY. NO ONE WOULD HAVE THAT NUMBER. AND THAT IS EXACTLY OUR QUANDARY. YES. ALRIGHT. YOU MENTIONED THAT YOU WERE AWARE OF THE PREVI PREVIOUS RESTAURANT. UH, WE NOTICED IN OUR VIDEO THAT WE'VE SEEN THREE TIMES NOW, YOU REGULARLY REMIND US OF HOW MANY TIMES THEY'VE HAD THIS HEARING. UM, AND I NOTICED IN THE PARKING LOT THERE ARE ALL THESE SIGNS THAT SAY PARKING EXCLUSIVE TO THE RESTAURANT THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE PARKING LOT. WHEN I SEE THOSE, THAT TELLS ME THERE'S A RATIONING OF PARKING. AM I WRONG? I WOULDN'T READ IT THAT WAY BECAUSE I THINK YOU CAN GO TO ANY RETAIL CENTER IN THE CITY ALMOST, AND WELL, WHY THERE SIGNS UP THAT SAYS THIS PARKING IS ONLY FOR EL BARRO OR WHATEVER IT'S CALLED. I CAN ONLY ASSUME THAT'S BETWEEN THE LANDLORD AND THE [01:00:01] OPERATOR. BECAUSE AS FAR AS THE CITY IS CONCERNED, IF YOU MEET THE, THE CITY ANALYZE, THEY, THEY LOOK AT A LEGAL BUILDING SITE, WHICH THIS IS, BUT THE CITY DOESN'T REQUIRE THAT SIGNAGE. NOT AT ALL. IN FACT, THE CITY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT. SO MY QUESTION GOES TO WHY DID THE PREVIOUS RESTAURANT PUT SIGNS UP RESTRICTING PARKING? IT WAS PROBABLY IN THEIR LEASE THAT THE OWNER GAVE THEM THE ABILITY TO DO THAT, WHICH IS COMPLETELY OUTSIDE OF WHAT THE CITY REGULATES. I I AGREE. BUT IT JUST BEGS THE QUESTION I'M THINKING, WHY WOULD YOU PUT A SIGN UP RESTRICTING PARKING UNLESS THERE WAS A PROBLEM WITH PARKING? I'M GRASPING FOR FACTS, NOT PROJECTIONS. I, YOU KNOW, I GO TO, LIKE, FOR EXAMPLE, THERE'S A, A BIG SHOPPING CENTER AT MOCKINGBIRD AND UM, ABRAMS THAT WE GO TO A LOT AND IT'S GOT A BIG TOM THUMB AND SOME OTHER STUFF, AND PROBABLY THAT PARKING LOT IS HALF EMPTY OR LESS ALL THE TIME. THOSE ARE BIG, BIG BOXES THOUGH. WELL, BUT THERE ARE SMALLER BUSINESSES IN THERE AS WELL. IT'S A TWO STORY CENTER WITH SOME SMALL BUSINESSES. AND YOU CAN GO AROUND THERE AND SEE LIKE IN FRONT OF THE TOM THUMB, YOU KNOW, THE PARKING IS TOM THUMB ONLY OR WHATEVER IT SAYS. THAT'S NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CITY. WE HAVE TO PRESUME THEY'RE MEETING THEIR CODE REQUIREMENTS AND THAT'S WHY IT'S HALF EMPTY. LAST QUESTION, UH, AND THEN I'LL PASS THIS ON TO MY OTHER MEMBERS. HELP ME TO NOT BE CYNICAL ABOUT YOUR ANALYSIS. WHEN YOUR ANALYSIS SAYS YOU ONLY NEED 73 SPACES AND YIKES, YOU HAVE 73 SPACES. ISN'T THAT CREATING A ANALYSIS TO EQUAL THE NUMBER OF WHAT YOU HAVE? TELL ME, HELP ME TO NOT BE CYNICAL ABOUT THAT ANALYSIS. SO, TO MS. DAVIS'S QUESTION, WHEN SHE ASKED IT ORIGINALLY, YOU KNOW, HOW DID YOU CALCULATE THESE NUMBERS? IT WAS IN ANTICIPATION OF THE NEW ONE TO 200 FOR RESTAURANT. AND THAT WAS KIND OF THE IDEA WAS WITH THE EXISTING PARKING ON SITE, HOW CAN WE BEST UTILIZE WHAT'S THERE? AND THAT WAS THE, BUT IT, I'M, IT MAKES ME CYNICAL TO THINK, WOW, HOW COULD A PROFESSIONALLY CREATED PARKING STUDY COME UP WITH THE SAME EXACT NUMBER AS THE SPACES YOU HAVE IN THE GROUND ALREADY? WELL, AND YOU WOULD THINK IT WOULD BE 75 OR 70 OR 69 OR, BUT IT COMES UP TO THE EXACT NUMBER THAT YOU ALREADY HAVE STRIPED. THAT'S BECAUSE IT'S AN EXISTING SITE WITH EXISTING PARKING. SO WE STARTED OUT WITH THE EXISTING PARKING AND THEN CALCULATED WHAT COULD WE FIT IN HERE WITH THE EXISTING PARKING UP TO A COMFORTABLE MAXIMUM . AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE ASKING. THIS IS NOT EXACTLY WHAT THEY'RE GONNA BUILD. THIS IS TO MEET THE MAXIMUM. AND THERE'S NOTHING CYNICAL OR I, WELL, I SAID I'M CYNICAL, MYSTERIOUS ABOUT THAT. I, I'M ADMITTING THAT I'M BEING CYNICAL BECAUSE IT'S LIKE A, IT'S LIKE A, UM, YOUR, THE STUDY WAS DESIGNED TO REACH THE NUMBER THAT YOU HAVE OPPOSITE THE NUMBER THAT WE HAVE CREATED THIS STUDY. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. YEAH. WELL, CAN I, CAN I JUST EXPOUND ON THAT FOR A SECOND? I MEAN, HE'S RIGHT. YOU KNOW, HERE'S AN EXISTING BUILDING, EXISTING SITE. IT'S NOT GONNA GET ANY BIGGER, THE LAND DOESN'T GET ANY BIGGER. WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO TEAR DOWN PART OF THE BUILDING. THERE ARE 73 SPACES THERE. SO THAT'S HOW WE BACKED INTO THE 12,600. THAT, THAT'S I HEAR YOU. I I'M JUST SAYING IT'S INTERESTING THAT YOUR STUDY CRE IT MIRRORS EXACTLY THE NUMBER OF THE SPACES AS OPPOSED TO A, A STUDY THAT SAYS THIS IS THE TRAFFIC FLOW AND THAT SORT OF THING. THANK YOU. I, I'LL, I'LL PASS FOR NOW. I'M MR. FINNEY. I'VE GOT MR. FINNEY THEN MS. MS. DAVIS. UM, SO I WAS JUST CURIOUS IF YOU COULD REMIND US, I'M SURE IT'S IN HERE. UM, BUT WHAT IS, SO YOU SHOWED US THE MAP OF, UH, ALL THE OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE AREA THAT YOUR CLIENT OWNS, UH, THAT WOULD BE AVAILABLE TO BE USED AS OFFSITE PARKING. CAN YOU REMIND US THE TOTAL NUMBER OF OFFSITE PARKING SPACES THAT WOULD BE AVAILABLE IN THE AREA? I BELIEVE THERE'S 16 PROPERTIES THAT THEY OWN. MM-HMM . THEY HAVE TWO. THEY JUST BUILT A NEW BRAND NEW PUBLIC PARKING LOT THAT HAS OVER A HUNDRED SPACES AVAILABLE, AND THAT IS WITHIN A 10 MINUTE WALK. RIGHT. SO DO YOU HAVE A, A SENSE OF TOTAL NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES THAT WOULD BE AUCTIONS? SO THEY WERE WILLING TO COMMIT, I BELIEVE. WELL, I THINK THAT WAS FOR THE NEXT CASE. SO NEVERMIND THEY HAVE A LOT OF BUILDINGS WITH A LOT OF PARKING, BUT AS FAR AS WHAT THEY'RE GONNA COMMIT TO THIS NO, THAT, THAT HASN'T BEEN DONE WELL, OTHER THAN THE PUBLIC PARKING, I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT WHAT THEY'RE WILLING TO COMMIT TO THIS SPECIFIC CASE. I'M JUST TALKING GENERALLY LIKE HOW MANY PARKING SPACES DO THEY OWN? YEAH, ALL SITES. SO THEY OWN A HUN OVER 150 PUBLIC PARKING SPACES. OKAY. THERE'S 50 RIGHT BY THE, UM, TRAIL, THE STRAND UHHUH, THAT'S PUBLIC PARKING RIGHT NEXT TO THE VIRGIN HOTEL. THERE'S OVER 50 THERE AND THOSE ARE PUBLIC AND WITHIN A 10 MINUTE WALK. AND THEN THEY'RE ADDING OVER A HUNDRED NEW ONES ON HIGHLINE. RIGHT. BY 1400 HIGHLINE. [01:05:01] OKAY. BUT DON'T FORGET YOU ALLOCATED SOME OF THAT ON A PREVIOUS CASE. THAT'S WHY I SAID A HUNDRED. OKAY, GOOD. IT'S 180 SPACES. GOOD. I DON'T WANT PEOPLE TO FORGET THAT. OKAY. AND SO THEN IF, IF YOU WERE TO AGREE TO, UM, USE THESE ADJACENT PARKING SPACES THAT YOU OWN BECAUSE THEY'RE ON YOUR PROPERTY, AND THIS IS A QUESTION MAYBE FOR CITY STAFF, IS A PARKING AGREEMENT REQUIRED IF, IF IT'S, IF IT'S, IF THEY'RE AGREEING TO PROVIDE THESE OFFSITE PARKING SPACES ON THEIR OWN PROPERTY SOMEWHERE ELSE, IS A PARKING AGREEMENT REQUIRED BECAUSE IT'S WITH THEM THEMSELVES? AND IF THERE'S NO PARKING AGREEMENT, HOW DO WE HOLD 'EM ACCOUNTABLE? HOLD THAT QUESTION. SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S TO THE BOARD ATTORNEY OR BOARD ADMINISTRATOR. ONE OR BOTH OF YOU CAN TAKE THAT. I WOULD HOPE YOU'D SAY THERE'D HAVE TO BE A LEGAL DOCUMENT. USUALLY IT WOULD BE A DEEDED ON THE PROPERTY, BUT I KNOW RIGHT. THERE WILL BE, THEY WILL HAVE TO HAVE A PARKING AGREEMENT. A PARKING AGREEMENT WILL BE REQUIRED. SO IT WOULD BE WITH, IT WOULD BE A PARKING AGREEMENT WITH THEMSELVES, BASICALLY. OKAY. HOW DO YOU ENFORCE THAT? OKAY. OR WOULD IT BE BETWEEN THE RESTAURANT TENANT AND THE, THE PROPERTY OWNERS? THE, I THINK IT WOULD BE THE PROPERTY OWNER. SO IT'D BE THE PROPERTY OWNER AND THE PROPERTY OWNER. SO, OKAY. I THINK MR. VINCENT WANTS YOU TO ASK HIM A QUESTION. OKAY. SO HE CAN ANSWER. OKAY. WELL, UM, I, YEAH, SO I, I WOULD LIKE AN ANSWER THAT QUESTION, BUT, UM, I'M CURIOUS WHERE, AS FAR AS THE ONSITE VALET SPOTS, UM, WHERE WOULD YOU KEEP THOSE ON THE SITE? CAN I GO BACK TO YOUR PREVIOUS QUESTION AND GIVE YOU SOME INFORMATION ON THAT? SURE. YEAH. OKAY. OKAY. AND THEN, AND THEN WE'LL ANSWER YOUR CURRENT QUESTION. YEAH. UM, IT, IT SO HAPPENS, I'VE DONE A LOT OF REMOTE PARKING AGREEMENTS OVER THE YEARS. THOSE COME INTO PLAY WHEN YOU NEED TO COME UP WITH ADDITIONAL CODE REQUIRED PARKING. IF IT'S JUST, HEY, NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR, YOU'RE NOT USING YOUR LOT AT NIGHT. CAN I PAY YOU SOME MONEY AND PARK CARS OVER THERE? AND THEY SAY, SURE. AS LONG AS EVERYBODY MEETS CODE, THE CITY DOESN'T CARE ABOUT THOSE. THOSE ARE PRIVATE SITE AGREEMENTS. A REMOTE PARKING AGREEMENT IS ON A CITY PROMULGATED FORM, WHICH THEY'RE VERY STRICT ABOUT MAINTAINING, UM, TO MEET CODE PARKING AND YOU HAVE TO FILL IN THE SQUARE FOOTAGE, THE USES, THE SPECIFIC NUMBER OF SPACES THAT THE, UM, BENEFITED PROPERTY IS GETTING UNDER THAT AGREEMENT. THE CITY IS A PARTY TO THAT. SO IT CAN ONLY BE AMENDED OR TERMINATED WITH THE CITY'S APPROVAL. THE BUILDING OFFICIAL AND THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE ACTUALLY SIGN OFF ON THOSE AND THEY GET FILED FOR RECORD AT THE COUNTY. SO IT'S A VERY, IT'S A PRETTY RIGOROUS THING. BUT, BUT THAT'S FOR, THAT'S FOR CODE REQUIRED PARKING AS OPPOSED TO JUST, HEY, IT'D BE GREAT TO, CAN I HAVE, CAN I PAY YOU TO PARK SOME CARS ON YOUR PROPERTY? IF THAT MAKES SENSE. OKAY. YEAH. BUT, SO IN THIS CASE, YOU WOULD STILL NEED TO HAVE, WELL, IT DEPENDS, DEPENDS ON WHAT, UH, WHAT, IF ANYTHING YOU ALL SEE FIT TO GRANT US TODAY. OKAY. I MEAN, IF YOU GRANT OUR REQUEST IN FULL, THEN YOU KNOW, WE CAN PARK ON THIS PROPERTY SUBJECT TO THE SITE PLAN AND THE SQUARE FOOTAGE. OKAY. AND AS FAR AS THE VALET STANDS, I'M GONNA, LLOYD, DO YOU, YOU PROBABLY KNOW MORE ABOUT THAT. , WHAT WAS YOUR NEXT QUESTION? SO WHERE, WHERE ON WHERE WOULD YOU HAVE YOUR ONSITE VALET PARKING? LIKE WHERE ON THE SITE WOULD, WOULD YOU HAVE THAT? SO AS THAT ONE EXHIBIT SHOWED, THERE'S PLENTY OF ROOM TO QUEUE FOR VALET, YOU KNOW, WITHIN THE DRIVE AISLE OF THE SITE. AND THEN THEY COULD VALET THE WHOLE LOT IF THEY WISHED IN THE EVENING. THAT'S THE MOST POPULAR RESTAURANT TIME. AND THE OTHER VENUES, THE OTHER BUSINESSES WOULD BE CLOSED OR THEY COULD SET ASIDE A CERTAIN NUMBER OF SPACES THAT WOULD REALLY BE UP TO THE VALET OPERATOR TO MAKE IT WORK. OKAY. OKAY. SO LIKELY THERE'S A LIKELY SCENARIO WHERE THEY WOULD USE THE WHOLE PARKING LOT FOR VALET DURING THE EVENINGS? YEAH, THE BUSY TIME. YES. YES. AND ONE THING I NOTICED DURING MY OBSERVATIONS NEXT DOOR, AND ALSO AT OTHER SITES WITHIN THE DESIGN DISTRICT, THERE ARE RESTAURANT EMPLOYEES THAT PARK ON SITE AND THAT TAKES UP PARKING. SO I THINK IT WOULD BE UP TO THE, AND I PUT IN MY REPORT, IT WOULD BE, IT WOULD BEHOOVE THE OWNER TO HAVE THEIR EMPLOYEES PARK REMOTELY. OKAY. OKAY. THANK YOU. I'VE GOT MS. DAVIS, THEN MR. KOVICH, I THINK MS. DAVIS. SO I, I JUST, I WANNA CLARIFY A COUPLE OF THINGS ALSO. SO IN YOUR, YOUR JULY 2ND AMENDED, YOU KNOW, AMENDED INFORMATION YOU SAID THAT YOU WOULD BE WILLING TO REVISIT TO COME BACK AFTER 12 MONTHS AND REVISIT TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYTHING'S RUNNING SMOOTHLY. YOU ALSO MENTIONED, YOU MENTIONED THE VALET PARKING AND YOU ALSO MENTIONED THE OFFSITE PARKING. BUT YOU DON'T STATE THAT YOU'RE AGREEING [01:10:01] TO BOTH OF THOSE. YOU'RE JUST SAYING THAT YOU'RE EXPLORING THOSE. SO IS THIS SOMETHING THAT COULD BE PART OF THIS AGREEMENT? BECAUSE BASICALLY WE'RE FEELING SOME ANXIETY OVER THIS. WE WANNA MAKE SURE IT'S SAFE. WE WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S AMPLE PARKING. SO WHATEVER, YOU KNOW, WHAT CAN YOU DO TO TAKE AWAY OUR RISKS SO WE CAN SUPPORT IT? SO AGREED AND AGREED. SAFETY WAS ALWAYS PARAMOUNT FOR ME AS A CITY EXECUTIVE AND THE BUILDING OFFICIAL AND THE CHIEF ENGINEER. AND YOU HAVE THE ADDED CAVEAT OF PLACING A WINDOW OF TIME ON THIS, UNLIKE THE FORT WORTH DEVELOPER THAT COMES IN AND GETS TO WALTZ IN AND DO THE INWOOD DESIGN DISTRICT AT ONE TO 200, YOU HAVE THE ADDED CAVEAT OF ADDING A WINDOW OF TIME TO REEVALUATE MM-HMM . SO I THINK THAT'S A GOOD THING. AND, AND THAT SHOULD BE A STRESS RELIEF FOR, WE COULD GIVE IT A TRY AND SEE HOW IT WORKS. AND THEN I KNOW THERE WAS A CONCERN. OH NO, THEN WE WOULD CLOSE A RESTAURANT. WELL, PERHAPS BY THEN YOU COULD HAVE A FORMAL OR INFORMAL PARKING AGREEMENT. YOU KNOW, IF NEED BE, IT, IT'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO WATCH IT IN REAL TIME. ONE MORE, MORE, KEEP GOING. SO AS A FOLLOW UP, YOU'RE SAYING WE CAN'T HAVE A, WE CAN'T HAVE HAVING A FORMAL PARKING AGREEMENT AS PART OF THE REQUIREMENT TO THIS IS THAT BECAUSE THE PERSON WHO WOULD BE LEASING THE SPACE, THAT THEY'RE THE ONES THAT WOULD ENTER INTO SUCH AN AGREEMENT, A FORMAL PARKING AGREEMENT MAY NEGATE THE NEED TO EVEN BE HERE IF, YOU KNOW, IF IT WAS, IF IT MET THE STANDARDS. UM, WHAT THE APPLICANT WANTS TO DO IS BALANCE THE ONSITE PARKING THAT THEY HAVE, MAXIMIZE WHAT THEY HAVE, AND, AND MAKE GOOD EFFICIENT USE OF WHAT THEY HAVE. AND THEN THEY DO HAVE, WE HAD MENTIONED THAT RELIEF, THEY OWN SO MANY PROPERTIES THAT THEY DO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE THEIR OWN VALET OPERATORS GO ELSEWHERE WITHOUT A FORMAL AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY. THEY WANT IT TO WORK, THEY WANT TO BE SUCCESSFUL. YEAH. AND IF I COULD JUST ADD TO THAT, I MEAN, WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A FORMAL AGREEMENT, I, I PRESUME YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A, A CITY FORM REMOTE PARKING AGREEMENT LIKE I DESCRIBED. I I GUESS SO AGAIN, GOING BACK TO THE VALET, YOU'RE SAYING THAT THEY COULD DO VALET SO THAT THEY COULD PARK MORE CARS ON PROPERTY. BUT HOW DO WE KNOW THEY'RE GOING TO TAKE STEPS AND DO THAT? THEY MAY JUST SAY, OH, WE DON'T WANNA DEAL WITH THE EXPENSE. WE'LL JUST HAVE REGULAR PARKING. AND IF THERE'S NOT ENOUGH PARKING TO HECK WITH IT, PEOPLE CAN JUST DEAL WITH IT. YEAH. SO I'M ASKING CAN WE HAVE THAT BE A REQUIREMENT IF WE, IF WE VOTE TO APPROVE THIS, THAT NOT ONLY WOULD WE WANT TO REVISIT THE CASE IN 12 MONTHS, BUT THAT YOU WOULD HAVE VALET PARKING ON SITE? I, I'LL, UH, I'LL, I'LL DEFER TO YOUR CITY ATTORNEY ON THAT, BUT I DO CONCUR WITH THE ADVICE YOU WERE GIVEN IN BRIEFING THAT YOU CAN IMPOSE REASONABLE CONDITIONS AND THE OWNER WANT, DOES WANT VALET. OKAY. I THINK MS. DAVIS IS TRYING TO GET YOU AS THE APPLICANT TO COMMUNICATE WHAT SPECIAL CONDITIONS YOU'RE WILLING TO AGREE TO IN ORDER TO INDUCE FOUR OR FIVE VOTES TODAY. OKAY. FAIR QUOTE. THAT'S PUTTING IT VERY SIMPLY. OKAY. UM, WE GOT CONFIRMATION THIS MORNING THAT WE CAN PUT REASONABLE SPECIAL CONDITIONS ON IT AND WE WOULD NOT WANNA DO ANYTHING UNREASONABLE. NOW, THERE'S STILL MORE QUESTIONS, BUT I THINK WHAT MS. DAVIS IS TRYING TO DO IS FIGURE OUT NOT WHAT YOU COULD DO, BUT WHAT YOU WOULD DO, WHAT WE'RE WILLING TO DO. I THINK THAT'S, SHE'S WANTING TO KNOW WHAT YOU WOULD DO. NOW, YOU DON'T HAVE TO GIVE IT AWAY YET THE HEARING'S NOT OVER, BUT THAT'S WHAT SHE'S GOING TO, NOT JUST WHAT YOU WOULD DO, BUT WHAT YOU, NOT WHAT YOU COULD DO, BUT WHAT YOU WOULD DO. IS THAT A GOOD WAY OF PUTTING IT, MS. DAVIS? OKAY. WELL, LET ME, LET ME APPROACH IT FROM THIS DIRECTION. UM, THE, THE 12 MONTH REASSESSMENT, THAT'S A GIVEN. THAT'S, WE TOTALLY AGREE WITH THAT. UM, AND I THINK THAT'S A GOOD THING BECAUSE THAT GIVES US ALL A CHANCE TO REVISIT THIS AND SEE, YOU KNOW, IS THIS WORKING? SO, YOU KNOW, CONSIDER THAT DONE. UM, IN TERMS OF VALET, THEY, THEY WANT IT, THEY, THEY WANT TO DO VALET. IT'S NEEDED. THEY WANT IT. OKAY. SO WHEN IT'S NEEDED, UM, AND, AND VALET, I THINK THE REASON I INCLUDED THE VALET PARKING REGULATIONS IN THERE, WHICH ARE IN A SEPARATE PART OF THE CITY CODE, IS BECAUSE IT, IT'S NOT JUST THE WILD WEST. I MEAN, THERE ARE CITY REQUIREMENTS LICENSING OF VALETS, YOU KNOW, THE PACT PARKING, WHICH IS A FORMAL CITY APPROVED AGREEMENT, THINGS LIKE THAT. SO THERE, THERE ARE ALL KINDS OF OPERATIONAL RULES THEY HAVE TO FOLLOW. SO THE POINT BEING THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, I'M INFORMED THAT THEY DO INTEND TO DO VALET. SO, UM, IF YOU WANTED TO CRAFT SOME KIND OF A CONDITION ABOUT VALET PARKING, I DON'T THINK WE WOULD BE OPPOSED TO THAT BASED ON WHAT I'M TOLD. SO THAT'S A WOULD DO NOT A COULD DO. SURE. OH, THERE, THE BOARD IS NOT ASKING OR DEMANDING THE APPLICANT TO DO ANYTHING. NO. THE BOARD IS THROUGH [01:15:01] IT. MS. DAVIS, AND SHE'S ONE OF FIVE IS TRYING TO FIND OUT WHAT YOU WOULD DO. I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND. AND THAT'S A FAIR QUESTION. AND YES, WE WOULD COMMIT TO PROVIDING VAL, UH, AND I'M, I'M NOT SURE, I CAN'T, I CAN'T GIVE YOU A NUMBER, BUT IF THEY'RE GONNA, I MEAN, I SUPPOSE THEY COULD DO, I MEAN, DO WE KNOW, WOULD IT BE ALL VALET IN THE EVENING OR DON'T, I MEAN, I HATE TO TIE THEIR OPINION TO THAT EXTENT. I DON'T THINK, I DON'T THINK THE SI ONE VOICE, I DON'T THINK THE BOARD'S GOING TO DICTATE OURS. UM, SO AGAIN, UH, WE'RE GONNA COME BACK IN A MINUTE TO WHAT THE CITY'S PROCESS. SO THE BOARD'S PROCESS, BUT WOULD BE AT THIS ONE YEAR, LOOK BACK IN A SECOND, I'VE ASKED THE STAFF TO GIVE US SPECIFIC PROCESS SO THAT YOU ARE AWARE OF IT ON THE FRONT END. AND THEY'RE AWARE OF IT AND WE'RE AWARE OF IT. 'CAUSE WE WANNA MAKE SURE WE HAVE EXPECTATIONS. AND THAT, AND YOU, MS. WIN, MS. MS. BOARD ADMINISTRATOR, YOU'LL LET ME KNOW WHEN YOU'RE READY. IF SHE, IF YOU'RE NOT READY, THEN WE'LL GO TO OTHER QUESTIONS. OKAY. AND, AND JUST TO SAVE A LITTLE TIME, YES. WE WOULD COMMIT TO PROVIDING VALET AS NEEDED OPERATIONALLY. UH, OKAY. SO DID THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION FOR NOW? THE WOOD VERSUS THE COULD. ALRIGHT. I'VE GOT MR. FINNEY. MR. DORN, ANY QUESTIONS? MY QUESTION I HAVE MR. CHAIRMAN HAS BEEN CLEARED UP. OKAY. VERY GOOD. ALRIGHT, MS. MR. FINNEY OR MR. KOVI OTHER QUESTIONS? MY QUESTION IS FOR THE CITY STAFF. OKAY, GO AHEAD. GO ON RECORD FOR THE CITY STAFF. GO AHEAD MR. FINNEY. OKAY, SO I AM, I'M CONFUSED ABOUT WHY, UM, REMOTE PARKING AGREEMENT IS A POTENTIAL CONDITION, UM, THAT WE'RE CONSIDERING. I THINK THE ANSWER TO THAT, AND OUR BOARD ATTORNEY HAS DEPARTED FOR A MOMENT IS IF IT'S A REMOTE PARKING AGREEMENT, IT'S A THREE-WAY AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY, THE OPERATOR. HE'S ASKING THE QUESTION ABOUT THE REMOTE PARKING AGREEMENT. WHY REMOTE PARKING AGREEMENT IS NOT PART OF OUR REQUIREMENT. IS THAT WHAT YOU SAID? NO. WHY? IT IS ACTUALLY WHY IT IS NO, IT'S AN OPTION. WELL, YEAH. WHY IS IT AN OPTION THOUGH, IF, FOR GRANTING, IF WE CHOOSE TO GRANT THE VARIANCE AND THERE'S NO NEED FOR? WELL, IS THAT, IS THAT, AM I WRONG? AM I MISUNDERSTANDING? WELL, SO THIS SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS YOU'RE SAYING THAT THEY CAN REDUCE THE PARKING AND ONLY PROVIDE 73 OFF STREET PARKING SPACES. BUT IF THEY CAN'T PROVIDE ALL OF THOSE 70, 73 OFF STREET PARKING SPACES ON SITE, THEN THEY CAN ENTER INTO A REMOTE PARKING AGREEMENT WITH AN ADJACENT LOT TO SAY, I WILL PROVIDE 30 SPOTS OVER HERE. BUT SO THAT'S EXEC THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO MAKE THEM COMPLY WITH THAT THEY WILL PROVIDE THE 73 SPACES, BUT HOW THEY PROVIDE IT? WELL, YOU'RE SAYING THAT A CERTAIN AMOUNT WOULD BE PROVIDED THROUGH THIS REMOTE PARKING AGREEMENT. OKAY. SO HOW DO WE, BUT THAT'S NOT REQUIRED. IT'S JUST HOWEVER THEY WANT TO PROVIDE THE 73 PARKING SPACES. SO THEN HOW DO WE DETERMINE THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES THAT WE REQUIRE? THAT IS THE, THE AGREEMENT THAT IS THE $10 MILLION QUESTION. THAT'S WHAT, OKAY. THAT IS SOMETHING YOU WOULD HAVE TO DISCUSS WITH THE APPLICANT. FOUR, FIVE OF US AGREE TO THAT NUMBER. MR. HOVIS JUMPED. RIGHT. IT'S WHEN FOUR OR FIVE OF US AGREE IN A NUMBER. SO, UM, IT SEEMS CLEAR THAT THE MINIMUM NUMBER WOULD BE FIVE SINCE THE, ACCORDING PER MR. UM, DENMAN'S EXHIBIT COMPARING THE PD TO THE NEW CITY ZONING, THE NEW CITY, UH, PARKING REQUIREMENTS WOULD REQUIRE 78. UM, AND THEY ARE UH, I THINK PROVIDING 73. IS THAT RIGHT? YEAH. SO THEN THE MINIMUM NUMBER IT SEEMS WOULD BE FIVE. AND SO THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION FIVE, YES. BUT WE, WE HAVE TO IGNORE THE CITIES. 'CAUSE THAT IS NOT WHAT WE'RE COMPARING THIS, THE ONLY THING WE'RE COMPARING AGAINST IS PD 6 21. THAT'S THE ONLY, THAT'S THE LEGAL STANDARD. CORRECT. OKAY. SO THEN WE WOULD START WITH SIX TWO THEN WE ARE COMPARING TO NOT THE NEW PARKING ARRANGEMENT WE'RE COMPARING TO WHAT PD 6 21 REQUIRES. THAT IS CORRECT. AND IN THIS CASE, IT REQUIRES 135 OFF STREET PARKING SPACES AND REMOTE PARKING, WHICH WOULD BE AS DEFINED IN THE CODE, MEANS OFF STREET PARKING PROVIDED ON A LOT NOT OCCUPIED BY THE MAIN USE. SO I GUESS YOU HAVE TO DETERMINE HOW MANY SPOTS ARE AVAILABLE ON SITE. MM-HMM . AND THEN WHATEVER THEY CAN'T PROVIDE ONSITE, THEY COULD USE A REMOTE PARKING AGREEMENT. SO SAY THERE'S ONLY 30 SPOTS ON SITE, THEN YOU WOULD NEED TO FIND 43 PARKING SPOTS, 43 MORE SPOTS TO MEET THE, UM, REQUIREMENT THAT YOU ARE GRANTING HERE. AND THAT COULD BE DONE VIA A REMOTE PARKING AGREEMENT OR THEY COULD, THEY CAN PROVIDE IT ELSEWHERE. THEY JUST HAVE TO PROVIDE [01:20:01] 73 PARKING SPOTS SOMEHOW. AND A REMOTE PARKING AGREEMENT IS, IS A WAY THAT THEY CAN PROVIDE THOSE EXTRA SPOTS OR THE SPOTS THAT ARE REQUIRED. YEAH. BUT WHAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR IS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION OF THOSE SPACES THEY DON'T HAVE. AND IF WE CHOOSE TO GRANT THAT EXCEPTION, THEN THE REMOTE PARKING AGREEMENT DOESN'T REALLY MAKE SENSE, DOES IT? IT WOULD ONLY MAKE SENSE IF WE DENY OR SOMETHING. RIGHT? I DON'T KNOW. I'M, WE START WITH 1 35, CORRECT? YES. THIS YES, THAT'S CORRECT. WE, SO THE WAY I WOULD LOOK AT THIS, WE START WITH 1 35. THAT'S WHAT THE CODE REQUIRES. THAT'S WHAT THEY CAN OPERATE TOMORROW, GET THE REGULAR PERMITS. THEY DON'T EVEN HAVE TO TALK TO US IF THEY DO 1 35, THEY'RE SAYING, OH, NO, NO, NO, WE ONLY WANT TO DO 73. MM-HMM . SO THE QUESTION IS HOW DO YOU MAKE THE DIFFERENCE? WHERE DO YOU MAKE THE DIFFERENCE? DO YOU MAKE THE DIFFERENCE BY US WAIVING 62? SEE THAT 62 OVER THERE? YES. AND IF WE SAY 62 POOF, THEN THE CASE IS CLOSED, THEN YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING. RIGHT. IF, HOWEVER, WE DON'T AGREE TO THE 62, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, THIS BOARD ATTORNEY, IF WE DON'T AGREE TO THE 62 WHERE YOU'RE GONNA COME UP WITH THE SPACES, THAT'S WHERE A REMOTE PARKING COMES IN PLAY. OR WE SOMEHOW ACCOUNT FOR THE, THE SOFT SIDE, WHICH IS A YEAR LOOK BACK OR REMOTE PARK OR, UH, VALET PARKING. BUT THAT'S THE CALCULATION. OKAY. ARE YOU IN A BASIC AGREEMENT WITH THIS? OKAY. UM, NOTICE THOSE ARE BLANK NUMBERS THERE STILL. I'M, I'M GONNA TRY TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, UM, BRIEFLY IF I UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION CORRECTLY. UH, FIRST OF ALL, I THINK YOU WERE ADVISED THIS MORNING THAT THE 62 SPACE REDUCTION IS A MAXIMUM NUMBER. AND YOU KNOW, I'M NOT HERE TO STAND UP AND BID AGAINST MYSELF, BUT I CONCUR WITH THAT ADVICE. THAT'S A MAXIMUM REDUCTION, UH, PER THE NOTICE AND PER OUR APPLICATION. SO JUST NO, YOU COULD GO TO 67. OKAY. 67. OKAY. YOU GO TO 67, THERE'S A LOT OF NUMBERS. FINE. 67 IS 50% OF 1 35. NO, I'M SAYING WE APPLIED, WE DIDN'T APPLY FOR A 50% REDUCTION. WE APPLIED FOR FOR 46. RIGHT. SO THAT'S THE MAXIMUM. SO, AND I AGREE WITH THAT. WHAT I, YES. SO WHAT I'M SAYING TO MY PANEL IS WE START AT 1 35. THE THE PROPERTY HAS 73 MAGICALLY. THEIR STUDY CAME UP WITH 73 TOO. OKAY. SO THE QUESTION IS DO WE AGREE WITH 62 CASE IS OVER OR DO WE SAY WE AGREE WITH 50 AND 12 OTHER SPACES ELSEWHERE WHERE THEY HAVE AND WE COME SOME AGREEMENT OR WHAT? THAT'S THE QUESTION FOR US. WELL, AND, AND, AND I'M SORRY, MR. MR. VINCENT. WELL, I HAD A SECOND. I'M TALKING TO MY BOARD. I HAD A SECOND PART OF MY ANSWER. WHAT I HAD A SECOND PART OF MY ANSWER, AND IT'S REALLY KIND OF MORE OF A QUESTION THAN AN ANSWER. BUT I MEAN, IT'S A VERY INTERESTING DISCUSSION IN THE OAK LAWN PD. WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THAT PD, I UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT THERE IS SUCH A THING AS A REMOTE SHARED PARKING AGREEMENT, , WHERE YOU SHARE SPACES LIKE SAY, BETWEEN AN OFFICE USE AND A RESTAURANT USE REMOTELY. AND I JUST, I MEAN MS. MAY IS HERE. SHE, SHE KNOWS AS MUCH ABOUT THE CODE AS ANYBODY. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S GENERALLY AVAILABLE IN PD 6 21, A REMOTE SHARED PARKING AGREEMENT, WHICH IS DIFFERENT THAN A P STRAIGHT UP REMOTE PARKING AGREEMENT. WHICH MEANS THOSE SPACES HAVE TO BE DEDICATED 24 7, IF THAT MAKES SENSE. SO THAT, THAT'S A QUESTION I'M NOT PART BACK TO YOUR ORIGINAL POINT, MR. FINNEY, YOU ARE CORRECT IN MY OPINION, THAT IF WE GRANTED THE 62 SPACE, THERE WOULD BE NO NEED FOR REMOTE PARKING AGREEMENTS. I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S FOUR VOTES TO GRANT 62 STRAIGHT OFF ON ITS OWN, RIGHT? I DON'T KNOW. WE'D WON'T NO, UNTIL WE VOTE. BUT WE START WITH 1 35, THEY HAVE 73 THE QUESTIONS TO HOW YOU FILL THE MIDDLE, RIGHT? OR NOT. YEAH, I I UNDERSTAND NOW. I WASN'T UNDERSTANDING THE OPTIONAL FUNCTIONALITY OF THESE YES CONDITIONS. THE ATTORNEY, THE ATTORNEY GIVES US OPTIONS FOR US AS A, AS A BOARD TO VOTE ON OR NOT. OKAY. I HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION FOR THE CLIENT. UM, I HAVE THE APPLICANT, FORGIVE ME, UM, MR. VINCENT OR MR. DIMON. SO BACK TO MY PREVIOUS QUESTION, I'M GONNA REPHRASE IT. DO YOU HAVE AT LEAST 62 SPACES OFFSITE THAT YOU COULD USE, UM, ON YOUR ADJACENT PROPERTIES THAT YOUR CLIENT OWNS? DO WE HAVE WHAT? DO WE HAVE AT LEAST 62 SPACES OFFSITE THAT WE CONTROL THAT WE CAN USE IN THE AREA NEARBY? NEARBY? NOT ADJACENT, I THINK. NO, NOT FOR THIS. YOU KNOW, SO NOT FORMALLY. OKAY. I, IF WE DID FORMALLY, WE WOULD NOT BE HERE. YEAH, I, I WOULD OFFER THE SUGGESTION THAT, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE USES THAT H AND CAPITAL CONTROLS AND OPERATES ARE, FOR EXAMPLE, OFFICE USES OR OFFICE SHOWROOM USES MM-HMM . UM, AND I THINK THE PROPERTIES THAT HAVE CODE PARKING FOR OFFICE OR OFFICE SHOWROOM WOULD BE GREAT CANDIDATES [01:25:01] FOR A, YOU KNOW, SOME KIND OF SHARED PARKING. UM, IF THERE IS A REMOTE SHARED KIND OF PARKING, UH, AGREEMENT AVAILABLE, UM, THAT WOULD BE A CITY APPROVED AGREEMENT OR EVEN SOME KIND OF SIDE DEAL WHERE, YOU KNOW, WE PARK ON ANOTHER PROPERTY. SO, SO, UH, PEOPLE CAN GET PRETTY CREATIVE WHEN THEY NEED TO COME UP WITH PARKING. SO I, I, UM, I THINK WE'D WANT TO LEAVE HERE TODAY WITH SOME KIND OF APPROVAL IF WE COULD. UM, AND IT'S UP TO US TO FIGURE OUT IF WE CAN MAKE THOSE CONDITIONS WORK. RIGHT. OKAY. I'LL PUT IT THAT WAY. OKAY. AND SO THEN ONE MORE QUESTION FOR OUR, OUR CITY ATTORNEY. UM, SO WHEN, IF, IF WE WERE TO OFFER, UM, REMOTE PARKING AGREEMENT AS AN OPTION, UM, WOULD, DOES THAT COVER REMOTE SHARED PARKING? IS THAT KIND OF UNDERSTOOD TO BE, UH, UNDER THE UMBRELLA OF REMOTE PARKING AGREEMENT? OR DO WE NEED TO SPECIFICALLY SAY THAT ONE MOMENT? WHO ON THE STAFF'S GONNA TALK US ABOUT THE ONE YEAR LOOK BACK? ARE YOU OR IS MS. MAY. OKAY. SO WHILE THAT QUESTION'S BEING CONSIDERED, I'D LIKE SOMEONE FROM THE STAFF, I'LL ASK MY BOARD ADMINISTRATOR FIRST IF, AND YOU CAN DEFER TO WHOEVER YOU WANT TO, TO TELL US WHAT THE PROCESS WOULD BE AND MAKE SURE THE APPLICANT'S AWARE OF IT IF WE CHOOSE TO DO THIS FOR A ONE YEAR LOOK BACK. ALRIGHT. SO REGARDING A ONE YEAR LOOK BACK OR ONE YEAR ASSESSMENT, UM, THE APPLICANT WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK WITHIN WHATEVER TIMEFRAME YOU GUYS, YOU KNOW, DECIDE 12 MONTHS, ONE YEAR AT THE TIME. THE, ON THE OTHER CASE WE DID ONE YEAR FROM THE CO. RIGHT? RIGHT. SO IF YOU DO THE SAME FOR THIS ONE ONE YEAR FROM THE CO, THEY'LL BASICALLY HAVE TO COME IN AND PRACTICALLY REAPPLY BECAUSE ESSENTIALLY IT'S LIKE THE APPROVAL TERMINATES AT THAT TIME AND THE THEY COME BACK REAPPLY YOU GUYS REIST, AND THEN MAKE ANOTHER DECISION. AND IF SARAH CAN ADD MORE. OH, OKAY. SO ESSENTIALLY THAT'S WHAT THE PROCESS WILL LOOK LIKE. OKAY. IN BOARD MEMBERS HAVE CLEAR UNDERSTANDING. I'M NOT PUSHING ANYTHING. I'M JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THAT IS ONE OF THE OPTIONS THAT IT SOUNDS LIKE THE APPLICANT WOULD DO, NOT COULD, BUT WOULD THE ONE YEAR LOOK BACK? YEAH, DEFINITELY. AND THERE WAS CONCERN BY A MEMBER THIS MORNING THAT THAT WOULD POTENTIALLY THREATEN THE, THE RESTAURANT. AND MY RESPONSE IS NO, WOULDN'T THEY, THEY, THEY'RE GOING INTO THIS WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS IS A, UM, A CONDI A SPECIAL CONDITION, REASONABLE SPECIAL CONDITION AT THE, AT THE HEARING AND THEY AGREED TO IT. SO, YEAH. WELL, AND, AND COLLOQUIALLY, UH, THAT'S OUR PROBLEM. THAT'S OUR ISSUE. YOU KNOW, I, I KIND OF AGREE. I'M GLAD YOU SAID IT AND I DIDN'T. NO, THAT'S, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS ACCORDING TO OUR BOARD ADMINISTRATOR WHAT THAT PROCESS WOULD BE. YEAH. AND I THINK MR. THOMPSON WAS RIGHT THIS MORNING. HE SAID, YOU KNOW, IF WE LOSE PARKING, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER USE IS DEPENDING ON THAT PARKING THAT HAS A CO THEY, YOU KNOW, TECHNICALLY THAT'S A VIOLATION. SO IT'S UP TO US TO FIX IT. AGREED. OKAY. UM, OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT WHILE THEY'RE LOOKING AT, WHILE THEY'RE LOOKING AT MR. FINNEY'S QUESTION, AND THEN WE'LL COME TO A CLOSE. MR. HOPKOS. THANK YOU. UM, HN CAPITAL OWNS A NUMBER OF BUILDINGS IN THE AREA YOU'VE REFERRED TO THAT NUMBER OF TIMES, AND THAT THEY HAVE PARKING AT THOSE BUILDINGS WHICH COULD BE UTILIZED. THAT A FAIR STATEMENT THAT YOU'VE, THAT YOU'VE HEARD OF, THAT CAPITAL OWNS 16 PROPERTIES, TWO OF WHICH ARE PUBLIC PARKING LOTS, WHICH ARE AVAILABLE TO EVERYONE. YES. ARE THEY FREE PUBLIC FREE LOTS, OR PAID PARKING LOTS? THEY'LL PROBABLY BE PAY LOTS BUT PUBLIC. SO, SO, BUT YOU, BUT YOU'RE, ARE YOU, ARE YOU SAYING THAT THOSE PUBLIC LOTS ARE THE ONLY SPOTS THAT YOU WOULD BE SAYING MIGHT BE AVAILABLE OR SPOTS AT THE OTHER BUILDINGS THAT HN CAPITAL OPERATES? SINCE THEY'RE THE OWNERS, THEY COULD TELL THEIR VALET WHAT TO DO, PERHAPS, YOU KNOW, AND, AND MAKE IT WORK. OKAY. SO HN PROPERTIES ALSO IS INVOLVED WITH THIS BUILDING THAT, THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TODAY. CORRECT. SO I WOULD THINK THEY WOULD HAVE A, AN INTEREST, AN INCENTIVE, YEAH. YES. SO WHY, WHY DON'T YOU HAVE A COMMITMENT FROM THEM ABOUT PARKING? THE FORMAL AGREEMENTS THAT ARE RECORDED WOULD OCCUPY THAT PARKING PERMANENTLY. THAT WAS WHAT WE DISCUSSED ABOUT THE PUBLIC PARKING LOT THAT THEY'RE BUILDING WITH 180 SPACES. WELL, THEY DEDICATED A LOT OF THOSE SPACES TO THE DELILAH RESTAURANT. NOW, THEY'RE NO LONGER PUBLIC. THEY [01:30:01] WERE GONNA BE PUBLIC. NOW THEY'RE NOT. SO THERE'S GIVE AND TAKE. I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED. SO, SO THE, THEIR EXISTING BUILDING PARKING GOES WITH THE EXISTING BUILDINGS, RIGHT? EXCEPT THE PUBLIC PARKING IS AVAILABLE AND, AND THEY DON'T WANNA FORMALLY DEDICATE PARKING THAT THEY NEED. ARE THOSE BUILDINGS BUT THEY CAN USE IT. ARE THOSE BUILDINGS PREDOMINANTLY THEY'RE EVERY TIME USE BUILDINGS OR THEY A LOT OF, I THINK A LOT OF IT IS OFFICE SHOWROOM WAREHOUSE, SOME OF MAYBE OFFICE, YOU KNOW, SOME OTHER RESTAURANTS. I'M NOT SURE THERE'S A LOT OF RETAIL, ALTHOUGH THEY MIGHT WANNA DO THAT. AND THAT WAS, THAT WAS REALLY WHERE I WAS COMING FROM. MY QUE MY QUESTION ABOUT THE POTENTIAL AVAILABILITY OF A REMOTE SHARED PARKING AGREEMENT, WHICH IS, UM, WELL ANYWAY, I UM, I WANNA ASK YOU SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS DOCUMENT TO CLOSER TO THE MICROPHONE, MR. HACK, PLEASE. THIS DOCUMENT, UM, THAT HAS VARIOUS OTHER STREETS, UM, I'M SOMEWHAT CHALLENGED VISUALLY. I GUESS IT'S VERY SMALL. I'M HAVING, I'VE BEEN HAVING A LITTLE BIT OF DIFFICULTY WITH THIS PROPERTY, UNDERSTANDING THE LOCATION. AND WHEN I LOOK AT THIS DOCUMENT AS WELL, I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED. SO I'D, I'D LIKE TO, IF YOU'LL ALLOW ME TO ASK SOME SPECIFIC KIND OF LEADING QUESTIONS JUST TO GET A YES OR NO. SURE. UM, THIS BUILDING, SO YOU HAVE DOWNTOWN DALLAS AND YOU HAVE, UH, THE DESIGN DISTRICT, WHICH TO MY KNOWLEDGE IS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF 35 FROM DOWNTOWN DALLAS. CORRECT. AND THAT'S, THIS BUILDING IS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF INTERSTATE 35? CORRECT. OKAY. THE AREA OF CEDAR SPRINGS THAT'S REFERRED TO IN HERE, IS THAT ON THE OTHER SIDE OF 35 AS WELL? YES, IT'S NORTH, ALMOST DUE NORTH. OKAY. I'M, I'M DIRECTIONALLY CHALLENGED IN THE CITY OF DALLAS, UH, WHICH THE, THE SAME SIDE OF 35 AS THE SUBJECT BUILDING HERE. CORRECT. ARE ALL OF THESE AREAS THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT ON THE SAME SIDE OF 35 AS THE SUBJECT BUILDING? YES. YES. THEY WERE MEANT TO BE LIKE, TO LIKE COMPARABLE STREETS. WELL, THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING. I WANT TO SEE IF THEY ACTUALLY ARE. 'CAUSE I, YES. OKAY. THANK YOU. UM, IN THE TRAFFIC STUDY THAT YOU PROVIDED TO US DATED APRIL 3RD MI MR. VINCENT PROVIDED TO US, UM, I'M GONNA QUOTE FROM IT. THERE'S ADEQUATE PARKING AVAILABLE TO SATISFY THE CITY CODE DURING MORNINGS AND AFTERNOONS FOR THE OFFICE. AND SHOWROOM USES THE USE OF VALET AND ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION MODES CAN OFFSET THE EVENING RESTAURANT PEAKS. THE PARKING REDUCTION REQUEST IS ALSO SUPPORTED BY A WALKABILITY ANALYSIS OF NEARBY RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND CURRENT URBAN TREND USES OF ALTERNATIVE MODES OF TRANSPORTATION LIKE WALKING, BICYCLING, AND RIDE SHARE. I'LL PARAPHRASE WHAT IT ACTUALLY SAID. AS MR AS OUR CHAIRMAN INDICATED EARLIER, WE'VE, WE'VE SEEN A VIDEO OF THE AREA. UM, WE DON'T SEE PEDESTRIANS. I I I DON'T THINK WE REALLY SEE A LOT OF SIDEWALKS AND I DON'T THINK WE REALLY SEE A LOT OF STREET LIGHTING. AND I KNOW THAT AREA AT NIGHT IS SOMEWHAT DARK, AT LEAST HISTORICALLY HAS BEEN. MAYBE, MAYBE IT'S CHANGED, BUT, UM, SO I'M JUST OTHER, OTHER THAN ASSERTING THAT IN THIS DOCUMENT, IS THERE ANY, SO THERE, HOW CAN YOU, HOW CAN YOU CONVINCE US THAT THIS AREA IS WALKABLE? SO THERE ARE SIDEWALKS ON BOTH SIDES OF OAK LAWN AND I WALKED THEM MYSELF. AND THERE ARE SIDEWALKS ON BOTH SIDES OF MARKET CENTER. THAT'S THE OTHER PERIMETER STREET HERE. IRVING BOULEVARD HAS NO SIDEWALKS BOX. THERE ARE 20,000 PEOPLE THAT LIVE WITHIN, I THINK IS THREE MILES IS WHAT I FIRST SAID. BUT THERE'S OVER 2000 NEWLY DEVELOPED RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND THE HOTEL THAT ARE ALL WITHIN FIVE TO 10 MINUTE WALK WALKING DISTANCE. SO, AND THEN AS I MENTIONED, I JUST ASKED FOR THE INTERSECTION TO BE STRIPED. RIGHT. UM, THANKS TO MR. FINNEY'S COMMENT. SO IS THAT, HOW MUCH ARE YOU RELYING ON PEOPLE WHO WERE WALKING IN THE AREA? WELL, OH, AND THEN, AND THEN THE OTHER POINT WAS IF YOU BUILD IT, THEY WILL COME. YOU KNOW, YOU'RE RIGHT. YOU DIDN'T SEE A LOT OF PEOPLE WALKING IN THE VIDEO. OF COURSE IT WAS RAINING, BUT THAT'S WHY YOU WANT A RESTAURANT. THIS AREA IS, YOU SEE THE TRAFFIC STUDIES, IT, THEIR STREETS ARE AT ONE THIRD CAPACITY. THIS AREA IS BEGGING FOR MORE TRAFFIC. YOU KNOW, NOT A PUSHBACK AGAINST DEVELOPMENT. IT NEEDS THE DEVELOPMENT, IT WANTS TO REVITALIZE. THAT'S WHAT INWOOD DESIGN CENTER'S DOING A MILE AWAY. THAT'S WHAT WAS IS DONE IN DIFFERENT AREAS AROUND TOWN. WE WANT TO BUILD OUR TAX SPACE AND BE SUCCESSFUL. [01:35:01] SO IF THERE'S A RESTAURANT HERE, PEOPLE MAY WALK, WALK TO IT, AND THERE ARE EXISTING SIDEWALKS ON BOTH SIDES OF OAK LAWN TO BRING THEM THERE WITHIN THOSE RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND THE, UM, BUSINESS OWNERS ASSOCIATION PIT, OR THEY'RE GONNA BUILD SIDEWALKS. 'CAUSE TO MR. NEWMAN'S COMMENT, THERE ARE SOME MISSING GAPS OF SIDEWALK, BUT THOSE ARE BEING CONSTRUCTED. I KNOW 1444 OAK LAWN IS BUILDING SIDEWALK WITH ITS NEW DEVELOPMENT. OKAY. SO ANY OTHER QUESTIONS MR. KOVI? WE'RE COMING TO CONCLUSION NOW? NOT RIGHT NOW, NO. THANK YOU. ANY NEW QUESTIONS? 'CAUSE WE'RE CO WE'RE COMING TO CONCLUSION. OKAY. NEW AND BRIEF. OKAY. AND THEN I'M GONNA MOVE US FORWARD. OKAY. UM, YOU, YOU MENTIONED THE, THE THREE BILL ONE REQUESTS THAT YOU MADE, UH, FOR THE PEDESTRIAN STRIPING, WHICH IS VERY MUCH APPRECIATED. UM, I'M SURE EVERYONE IN THE ROOM HAS MADE IT THROUGH MOMENT REQUEST AND VERY FEW OF US HAVE HAD THEM ADDRESSED. UM, AND SO, UM, NO OFFENSE. AND SO, UM, TO OUR STAFF, UM, HARDWORKING STAFF. UM, BUT SO CAN YOU GIVE US SOME EXAMPLES OF SOME PREVIOUS, UH, PEDESTRIAN INFRASTRUCTURE UPDATES THAT YOU HAVE LIKE SEEN THROUGH TO BEING IMPLEMENTED ON SOME OF YOUR OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE AREA? UM, JUST TO DEMONSTRATE YOUR COMMITMENT TO SEE THIS THROUGH A MOMENT. REQUEST THROUGH. SO WHEN I LOOKED AT THAT VISION ZERO STUDY, WHICH IS MINIMIZATION OF PEDESTRIAN BICYCLE AND CAR CRASHES THAT THE CITY PUT OUT, AND YOU CAN ASK YOUR TRAFFIC ENGINEER DAVID NAVARROS ALL ABOUT THAT PART OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS WERE BETTER SIGNAL BACK PLATES. AND I'VE SEEN THOSE AROUND THIS AREA WHERE THEY HAVE THAT YELLOW, YELLOW BAND AROUND THEM, MAKE SURE THE WALK LIGHTS ARE WORKING. SOMETIMES THEY'RE ADDING AUDIBLE SIGNALS. LOT OF DIFFERENT, AND THEN STREET LIGHTING AS WELL. MM-HMM . UM, AND I FORGOT TO MENTION EARLIER, THESE STREETS ARE 30 MILES AN HOUR. THEY ARE NOT HIGH SPEED STREETS. SO THAT'S CONDUCIVE TO WALKING AND BIKING. WHEREAS THE 35, 40, 45 MILE AN HOUR STREETS ARE NOT. ALRIGHT. OKAY. THANK YOU MR. DIMOND. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME? OH GOODNESS. SORRY. THIS QUESTION'S FOR YOU MR. CHAIRMAN. OKAY, THEN GO AHEAD AND THEN, THEN WE'RE GONNA GIVE, THEN WE'RE GONNA GIVE THE APPLICANT A TWO MINUTE OPPORTUNITY. REBUTTAL. WE WERE ANTICIPATING POTENTIALLY HAVING SOMEONE FROM THE TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT. WAS IT FOR THIS CASE OR THE OTHER CASES? I, I THOUGHT IT WAS CALLED, NO, I DON'T THINK IT WAS FOR THIS ONE. I THINK IT WAS, WELL, I DON'T KNOW. I CAN'T REMEMBER WHICH ONE. I THOUGHT IT WAS A GENERAL REQUEST THAT WE HAVE ONE FOR BOTH CASES. DO WE HAVE ANYONE FROM TRANSPORTATION WITH THIS MISS? 'CAUSE OTHERWISE WE'RE GONNA MOVE FORWARD HERE. HE WAS ONLINE A MOMENT AGO. LET ME CHECK. I THINK WE'RE READY TO MOVE FORWARD. OKAY. MR. VINCENT, OUR RULES OR PROCEDURES SAY THAT YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES, SO I WILL GRANT YOU FIVE MINUTES, BUT I'LL URGE YOU TO USE LESS SINCE YOU'VE, I'VE BEEN GRACIOUS WITH YOUR TIME. I APPRECIATE THAT MR. CHAIR. UM, I'LL USE LESS THAN FIVE MINUTES AND I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO SPEAK TO, WOULD DO NOT, COULD DO. I'M TRYING TO HELP YOU. I UNDERSTAND. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE APPRECIATE YOUR ATTENTION. HOPE YOU'VE, YOU KNOW, HOPE WE'VE BEEN INFORMATIVE TODAY. UM, LET ME START OUT BY AGAIN, REITERATING THAT, UM, I BELIEVE WE DO MEET THE STANDARD TO GRANT THIS SPECIAL EXCEPTION. IT COULD GO UP TO 50%. WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR THAT MUCH. UM, YOU KNOW, I I I THINK WE PROVIDED A LOT OF INFORMATION TO THE EFFECT THAT THE PARKING DEMAND GENERATED BY THESE USES DOES NOT WARRANT THE NUMBER OF OFF STREET PARKING SPACES THAT ARE OTHERWISE REQUIRED UNDER THE PD. THAT'S THE ONE TO 1 0 5 FOR RESTAURANT. UM, AND WE BELIEVE THIS IS NOT GONNA CREATE A TRAFFIC HAZARD OR INCREASE TRAFFIC CONGESTION IN THE AREA. AND I'M NOT GOING TO REPEAT MYSELF ABOUT WHY WE THINK THAT'S THE CASE. 'CAUSE I THINK THAT'S THE RECORD IS REPLETE WITH THAT. AND WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THAT TODAY. AND IT'S, IT'S ALL IN OUR MATERIALS AND OUR PRESENTATION. UM, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, WE ARE OPERATING UNDER A STANDARD, WHICH I THINK IS ANTIQUATED. I THINK THE CITY HAS RECOGNIZED THAT, AND YOU'RE CORRECT, MR. CHAIR, THEY DID NOT OPEN UP PD 6 21 TO CHANGE THE STANDARD AND THAT THAT REQUIRES NOTICING EVERYBODY IN THE PD AND OPENING THAT BIG CAN OF WORMS. SO, NO, THEY CHOSE NOT TO DO THAT AS A COUNCIL. BUT I THINK THE BIGGER PICTURE IS THAT WE'RE IN 2025 NOW. WE HAVE RIDE SHARE. WE HAVE DENSER MORE URBAN, MORE MIXED USE ENVIRONMENTS IN THIS CITY. I THINK THAT'S A GOOD THING. AND SO WE'RE TRYING TO CATCH UP TO THAT AND ADAPTIVELY REUSE THESE BUILDINGS, PROVIDE MORE OF A MIX OF USES, MORE COMMUNITY SERVING USES LIKE RESTAURANTS OR EVEN, YOU KNOW, EVEN A COFFEE SHOP THAT'S COED AS A RESTAURANT. SO IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE A BIG, YOU KNOW, A FANCY RESTAURANT OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. WE'RE, UH, TRYING TO ASSIST THE AREA. [01:40:01] UM, THE FACT THAT WE OWN THIS PROPERTY. OUR APPLICANT OWNS THIS PROPERTY AND MANY OTHERS IN THE DISTRICT, YOU KNOW, AS A LANDLORD, I MEAN, JUST FROM A DOLLARS AND CENTS STANDPOINT, OUR APPLICANT WANTS THIS TO BE SUCCESSFUL. THEY WANT TO HAVE A RESTAURANT, BE ABLE TO HAVE A RESTAURANT AND THEY'RE UP TO 12,600 SQUARE FEET TOTAL COULD BE LESS, UM, THAT'S SUCCESSFUL. IT'S PAYING THE RENT THAT, YOU KNOW, DOESN'T GO GO BUST AFTER SIX MONTHS AND THEY'VE GOT VACANT SPACE THAT THAT'S THE LAST THING THEY WANT. SO THEY BELIEVE THIS CAN BE SUCCESSFUL. YOU KNOW, UM, MR. DENMAN AS AN ENGINEER BELIEVES IT'S SUCCESS CAN BE SUCCESSFUL. AND THAT'S WHAT HE, UM, ARTICULATED IN HIS STUDIES. SO WE'RE HERE TODAY TO RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR APPROVAL. YOU KNOW, THE 12 MONTH REASSESSMENT. ABSOLUTELY. WE AGREE TO THAT. UM, YOU KNOW, THE 12,600 SQUARE FEET, THAT'S A MAXIMUM. UH, AGAIN, I DON'T WANT TO PICK A NUMBER. UM, I MEAN, I THINK THAT'S UP TO YOU AS A, AS A BOARD PANEL TO DETERMINE WHAT YOU'RE COMFORTABLE WITH. UM, BUT WE DO THINK THIS MERITS APPROVAL IN SOME FORM, UM, AND WE, YOU KNOW, WOULD CERTAINLY OFFER TO CONTINUE OUR DISCUSSIONS IN TERMS OF ACQUIRING PARKING SPACES OFFSITE THAT WE WOULD HAVE A RIGHT TO USE AS NEEDED. WHATEVER THAT LOOKS LIKE. BE IT, YOU KNOW, A REMOTE PARKING AGREEMENT. UM, I HAVEN'T HEARD AN ANSWER YET ON WHETHER REMOTE SHARED IS AN OPTION IN THE PD. OKAY. MAYBE THAT'S JUST PD 1 93, UM, OR YOU KNOW, JUST A PRIVATE ARRANGEMENT WHERE WE CAN PARK OFFSITE. AND I THINK THAT'S REALLY WHAT THE REASSESSMENT IS ALL ABOUT IS HOW IS THIS WORKING? WHAT DO WE NEED TO DO? WHAT DO YOU AS A BOARD NEED TO DO TO IMPOSE ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS? SO I'M GONNA LEAVE THAT UP TO YOU ALL. UM, BUT WE ARE HERE TODAY. YES, WE WOULD. UM, WE WOULD LIKE TO GET AN APPROVAL IN SOME FORM. UM, AND I THINK ANY REASONABLE CONDITIONS THAT YOU SEE FIT, UM, YOU, YOU DIDN'T, YOU, ON YOUR WOOD, YOU DID MENTION THE RE UH, THE VALET PARKING. OH YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. YES. VALET PARKING. I'M NOT PUTTING WORDS IN YOUR MOUTH, I'M JUST GIVING YOU THE OPPORTUNITY. ALRIGHT. WE WE'RE AT, WE'RE AT INE GUYS. I'VE BEEN VERY GENEROUS. MY CLOSING COMMENT IS THE LAST SENTENCE OF YOUR ONE PAGE HANDOUT THAT THE FORT WORTH DEVELOPER CAME IN AND PURCHASED INWOOD DESIGN DISTRICT. AND WE'RE ASKING THAT OUR CLIENT BE ALLOWED THE SAME SIMILAR PARAMETERS AS THE FORT WORTH DEVELOPER TO ALLOW THE DALLAS DEVELOPER TO DO JUST WHAT THE FORT WORTH DEVELOPER IS DOING IN DALLAS. THANK YOU. I'M HOLDING BACK MY SMIRK GUYS, YOU KNOW, IS A QUASI-JUDICIAL BOARD THAT CANNOT BE PART OF OUR CRITERIA. WHAT AT FORT WORTH OR WHAT PLANOS DOING OR OTHER, I MEAN, BUT I APPRECIATE, BUT THAT'S OUR REQUEST FOR EQUAL TREATMENT. I, I HEAR YOU. THAT IS NOWHERE NEAR ANYWHERE NEAR OUR CRITERIA. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH GENTLEMEN. WE APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. UH, THE CHAIRMAN ENTERTAIN A MOTION. MS. DAVIS, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 4 5 DASH 0 4 9 ON APPLICATION OF JONATHAN VINCENT GRANT, THE REQUEST OF THIS APPLICANT TO PROVIDE 73 OFF STREET PARKING SPACES TO THE OFF STREET PARKING REGULATIONS CONTAINED IN THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED, WHICH REQUIRES 135 OFF WAIT 135 OFF STREET PARKING SPACES BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY USE IN THE TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT THE 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. THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS GRANTED FOR A RESTAURANT WITHOUT A DRIVE-IN OR DRIVE-THROUGH SERVICE USE AND OFFICE USE AND AN OFFICE SHOWROOM USE ONLY I FURTHER MOVE THAT THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS BE IMPOSED TO FURTHER THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE DALLAS DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE. THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION OF 62 SPACES SHALL AUTOMATICALLY AND IMMEDIATELY TERMINATE IF AND WHEN THE RESTAURANT WITHOUT A DRIVE-IN OR DRIVE THROUGH SERVICE OFFICE OR OFFICE SLASH SHOWROOM USES ARE CHANGED OR CONTINUED DISCONTINUED. DISCONTINUED. THANK YOU. OTHER CONDITIONS AS BRIEFED VALET SERVICES MUST BE PROVIDED AND THE VALET STAND MUST BE LOCATED ON SITE AND THE APPLICANT MUST APPEAR BEFORE THE BOARD FOR REASSESSMENT AND FINAL ISSUANCE OF THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION. WITHIN 12 MONTHS OF THE ISSUANCE OF THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY IN THE MATTER OF BDA 2 4 5 0 4 9, MS. DAVIS HAS MOVED TO GRANT THE 73, UH, OFF STREET PARK, THE 62 SPACE EXCEPTION TO ALLOW FOR 73 OFF STREET PARKING SPACES SUBJECT TO VALET SERVICES AND A 12 MONTH, UM, REASSESSMENT, UH, FROM THE ISSUANCE OF THE CATE CERTIFICATE OCCUPANCY. IS THERE A SECOND? I, ANDREW FINNEY SECOND SECONDED BY MR. FINNEY DISCUSSION OF THE MOTION. MS. DAVIS, THEN MR. FINNEY, I'M SUPPORTING [01:45:01] THIS MOTION, BUT I WANT YOU TO UNDERSTAND THAT YOU'LL BE BACK IN FRONT OF US IN A YEAR AND WE'LL WANT REAL DATA THAT SHOWS THAT THIS IS WORKING. SO WE'LL WANT TO HEAR FROM YOUR NEIGHBORS, YOUR CUSTOMERS. WE'LL WANT THAT DATA NOT JUST COMING IN AND SAYING, HERE'S A TRAFFIC STUDY. SO YOU'LL BE COMING IN FRONT OF US AGAIN AND WE'RE RE YOU KNOW, WE'RE TRUSTING YOU TO DO THE RIGHT THING AND TO MAKE SURE YOU HAVE A STREAMLINED OPERATION SO THAT YOU HAVE GOOD CUSTOMER SERVICE. AND WE DON'T REGRET MAKING THIS DECISION. THANK YOU MS. DAVIS. MR. FINNEY. UM, YEAH. SO PARKING, UM, VARIANCES ARE VERY CONTENTIOUS ISSUE. UM, BUT WE HAVE VERY OBJECTIVE CRITERIA BY WHICH WE MADE THIS DECISION. UM, AND THAT IS THAT THE PARKING DEMAND GENERATED BY THE USE DOES NOT WARRANT THE NUMBER OF OFF STREET PARKING SPACES REQUIRED. AND THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WOULD NOT CREATE A TRAFFIC HAZARD OR INCREASE CONGESTION ON ADJACENT OR NEARBY STREETS. UM, I THINK THAT THE, THE APPLICANT, UH, UH, DID A VERY THOROUGH JOB OF, OF DEMONSTRATING, UM, THAT THE PARKING DEMAND, UM, DOES NOT WARRANT, UM, THE, UH, THE, THE DEMAND IS NOT GENERATED BY THE, BY THE USE. UM, AND, UM, AND I THINK THAT, UM, THE, THE VERY THOROUGH TRAFFIC STUDIES DEMONSTRATE THAT THIS IS NOT, UH, A FACTOR FOR CONGESTION ON ANY OF THE STREETS. AND, UM, AND THAT THEY'RE, UH, GENUINELY CONCERN FOR THE SAFETY OF PEDESTRIANS, UH, WALKING TO THE, TO THE SITE. SO I WILL BE SUPPORTING THIS MOTION. THANK YOU, MR. FINNEY. UH, I'M NOT CONVINCED I'VE PEPPERED YOU WITH QUESTIONS AS IT RELATES TO FACTS, AS OPPOSED TO A PREPACKAGED PRE ANALYZE PARKING STUDY. OUR CRITERIA OF THE PARKING DEMAND GENERATED DOES NOT WARRANT THE NUMBER OF OFF STREET, OFF STREET PARKING SPACES. I'M NOT CONVINCED OF THAT. OUR CRITERIA SAYS THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WOULD NOT CREATE TRAFFIC HAZARD OR INCREASE TRAFFIC CONGESTION ON ADJACENT OR N NEARBY STREETS. YOUR OWN, YOUR OWN MEMO SAYS, WHEN IT DOES, WE'LL DO THIS, WHICH IMPLIES YOU ALREADY KNOW YOU'RE GONNA EXCEED THAT. WE HAVE, WE'LL LOOK FOR RELIEF PARKING. WE'RE LOOKING FOR OTHER SPACES. IT'S ALMOST LIKE YOU'VE ALREADY ADMITTED THAT THE REQUEST THAT YOU'VE MADE, YOU'RE NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO MEET THE VERY REQUEST THAT YOU'VE MADE. THAT BEING SAID, I WILL SUPPORT THE MOTION BECAUSE OF THE CONDITIONS THAT MS. DAVIS PUT IN THE MOTION, UH, THE VALET SERVICES. UM, I, I'M IN AGREEMENT NOT TO SP SPECIFIC HOURS BECAUSE ONE, I DON'T KNOW, RESTAURANT BUSINESS, IT'S NOT MY PLACE TO DO THAT. UM, AND I DID SEE THE QUEUING THAT THE QUEUING SHOULD NOT INTERFERE WITH PARKING, UH, WITH THE TRAFFIC AND THIS REASSESSMENT. I SPECIFICALLY ASKED OUR BOARD ADMINISTRATOR TO SPEAK ON THE RECORD AS IT RELATES TO THIS REASSESSMENT. PZA WANTED TO MAKE SURE YOU AS AN APPLICANT UNDERSTOOD WHAT'S EXPECTED OF YOU. YOU HEARD IN THE MOTION MADE BY MS. DAVIS, WE DON'T WANT SOME 30 PAGE REPORT A YEAR FROM NOW. WE WANNA SEE AND FEEL THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD FEEL SAFE. MR. DENMAN, YOU SAID MANY TIMES SAFETY'S OUR PRIMARY ISSUE. I GET ALL THAT. WE WANNA MAKE SURE WE, THAT THE PEOPLE THAT GO TO THIS PARTICULAR LOCATION HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO PARK AND GET IN AND OUT IN A SAFE WAY THAT OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS DON'T FEEL YOUR CUSTOMERS ARE PARKING IN THEIR LOTS. SO ODDS ARE I'LL BE HERE A YEAR FROM NOW, AS WILL, MS. DAVIS, AS WILL, MR. KOVICH AND OTHERS. THAT'S, THAT'S UP TO THE MAYOR AND OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS TO CHOOSE. BUT IF WE'RE HERE, WE'RE GONNA REMEMBER THIS. SO ASSURE YOU, WE'RE GONNA REMEMBER AND PLEASE HEAR CLEARLY OUR EXPECTATION. I ASKED YOU UNDER, UNDER OATH TO CONFIRM WHAT THE WOODS THAT YOU DO AS OPPOSED TO COULD, AND YOU SAID THOSE TWO CONDITIONS THAT YOU WOULD VERY EASILY SUBMIT TO. SO I DON'T WANT TO HEAR LATER ON, WELL, YOU FORCED ME INTO IT, MR. NEWMAN. NO, WE DID NOT. SO I AM VERY HESITANTLY GONNA SUPPORT THE MOTION BASED ON THE CONDITIONS THAT MS. DAVIS PUT DOWN. THANK YOU, MR. KOVI. I'M SURE YOU'D BE SHOCKED TO FIND THAT I'M NOT GOING TO BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION. UH, AND I'LL TELL YOU WHY. UM, YOU MET WITH THE OWNER, CURRENT OWNER OF A, OF THE ADJACENT BUILDING WHO COULD HAVE, WHO WHO COULD HAVE PROVIDED YOU WITH A WRITTEN LETTER OF SUPPORT, UH, FOR WHATEVER REASON. YOU DON'T HAVE THAT. UM, UH, YOU, YOU HAVE, UH, A BUILDING OWNER HD PROPERTIES, HD CAP, HN CAPITAL, EXCUSE ME. UM, WHO COULD [01:50:01] HAVE PROVIDED YOU WITH, OKAY, WE WE'RE NOT EVEN GONNA TALK ABOUT ANY TYPE OF A PARKING AGREEMENT, BUT, UH, SOME TYPE OF A WRITTEN LETTER OF INTENT TO ENTERTAIN THAT PROCESS TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL PARKING. UH, I'M NOT CONVINCED THAT TRAFFIC IS NOT GOING TO BE NEGATIVE, NEGATIVELY IMPACTED TRAFFIC AND, AND SAFETY OF PEOPLE WHO ARE, WHO ARE THE PEDESTRIANS COMING TO THIS PLACE? UH, I'M SKEPTICAL THAT THERE WILL BE A LOT OF PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC, BUT IF THERE IS, I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE, THE WAY THAT YOU'RE GOING TO USE THESE PARKING SPOTS AND THE WAY YOU'RE GOING TO DO THE STACKED PARKING AND THE VALET PARKING IS GOING TO NEGATIVELY AFFECT THE SAFETY OF PEOPLE TRYING TO GET AROUND IN THAT, IN THAT AREA. SO, UM, UH, YOU'VE BROUGHT IN A LOT OF INFORMATION, BUT IT'S, IT'S, UH, VERY, VERY LITTLE. THAT'S, THAT'S REALLY DEMONSTRABLE, UM, FACTUAL IN MY OPINION. SO I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION. THANK YOU MR. KOVICH. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION IN THE MOTION, MS. DAVIS? UM, I, I JUST WANNA GO BACK TO THE REASON WHY I'M SUPPORTING THIS, WHICH, WHICH, AND I DISAGREE WITH A LOT OF, UM, MR. KOVI IS, UM, UM, OBSERVATIONS. I, I THINK THAT BY GIVING YOU THE OPPORTUNITY, YOU KNOW, WE'RE GIVING YOU A YEAR TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU'RE CREATING A SAFE ENVIRONMENT. UH, I DON'T THINK YOU, OR I'M GUESSING THAT YOUR CLIENTS WILL BE MOVING INTO THIS SPACE OR STUPID PEOPLE. WHY WOULD YOU INVEST ALL OF THIS MONEY INTO A RESTAURANT AND A PROPERTY IF YOU DIDN'T WANT TO BE SUCCESSFUL AND YOU WEREN'T TAKING THOSE, THOSE STEPS OTHERWISE YOU COULD BE LIABLE FOR A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT THINGS. SO I THINK SAYING THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU'VE GOT THE VALET PARKING, I KNOW THAT YOU'RE TALKING TO SOMEBODY ACROSS THE STREET ABOUT POSSIBLY USING THOSE SPACES IF NEEDED. AND THE FACT THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE COMING BACK IN A YEAR AND WE CAN REALLY ASSESS WHETHER OR NOT THIS IS WORKING. BUT I THINK TO NOT GIVE YOU AT LEAST THE CHANCE TO DO IT, UM, REALLY DOES A DISSERVICE TO THE COMMUNITY. THIS AREA, AS YOU MENTIONED, IS, IS REALLY DEVELOPING AND BECOMING SOMETHING. AND, UH, ONE OF THE SPECIAL THINGS ABOUT DELLI, UM, IS OUR NEIGHBORHOODS. SO I'M COMFORTABLE SUPPORTING THIS BECAUSE WE HAVE THOSE TWO REQUIREMENTS IN PLACE AND BECAUSE OF THAT, I FEEL CONFIDENT SUPPORTING THIS MOTION. THANK YOU MS. DAVIS. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? NOPE. THE HEARING IS CLOSED. NOW. WE'RE PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION. I WOULD LIKE TO MR. FINNEY? YES. UM, I, I WOULD LIKE TO RESPOND TO ONE OF MR. KO'S OBSERVATIONS. UM, I THINK ONE, ONE OF THE BIGGEST THINGS THAT WE LOOK AT WHEN WE'RE MAKING THESE DECISIONS ON ANY CASE IS THE APPLICANT'S WILLINGNESS TO ENGAGE WITH ITS NEIGHBORS AND, UH, UH, TALK TO THEM ABOUT POTENTIAL NEGATIVE OR POSITIVE IMPACTS ON THEIR NEIGHBORS. I THINK THAT THE APPLICANT ACTUALLY WENT ABOVE AND BEYOND 'CAUSE NOT ONLY DID THEY TALK TO THEIR CURRENT NEIGHBORS, BUT THEY EVEN TALKED TO, UH, FUTURE POTENTIAL NEIGHBOR, UM, WHICH IS RARE. SO I, I APPLAUD THE APPLICANT FOR DOING THAT. THANK YOU MR. FINNEY. LAST CHANCE FOR ANY DISCUSSION OF THE MOTION. THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR IN BDA 2 4 5 DASH 0 4 9 MS. DAVIS MOVED TO GRANT THE 62 SPACE, UH, SPECIAL EXCEPTION, UH, WITH THE CONDITION OF VALET SERVICES WITH A VALET STAND ON SITE AND APPLICANT REAPPEARING BEFORE THE BOARD FOR REASSESSMENT FOR A FINAL MOTION OF SPECIAL EXCEPTION WITHIN 12 MONTHS OF THE ISSUED CERTIFICATE OCCUPANCY. IT WAS SECONDED BY MR. FINNEY, THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR. THE BOARD SECRETARY WILL CALL FOR THE VOTE. MS. DAVIS AYE. MR. KOVI NAY. MR. FINNEY? AYE. MR. DORN? AYE. MR. CHAIRMAN? AYE. MOTION TO GRANT PASSES FOUR TO ONE IN THE MATTER OF B-D-A-B-D-A 2 4 5 0 4 9. THE BOARD, UH, ON A VOTE OF FOUR TO ONE APPRO GRANTS THE REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE OFF STREET SPARK PARKING SPACES WITH A CONDITION OF VALET SERVICES AS WELL AS A REASSESSMENT ONE YEAR. UH, FROM THE DATE OF THE MENT OCCUPANCY, YOU'LL GET A DECISION LETTER FROM OUR BOARD ADMINISTRATOR WITHIN TWO DAYS. THANK YOU. UH, IT IS 2:54 PM WE'RE GONNA TAKE A SEVEN MINUTE, SIX MINUTE, UM, RECESS AND WE'LL RECONVENE AT 3:00 PM BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PANEL A IS IN RECESS AT 2:54 PM WE WILL RE-ENGAGE AT 3:00 PM THANK YOU. OKAY, IT'S THREE O'CLOCK. THANK YOU. IT IS THREE O'CLOCK [01:55:01] ON TUESDAY, JULY 15TH. THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PANEL A IS HEREBY CALLED BACK TO ORDER. DO WE HAVE TECHNOLOGY, MS. MARY? GOOD. ALRIGHT, SO I NEED MY ATTORNEY AND I NEED MY BOARD ADMINISTRATOR. WE HAVE A QUORUM. ALRIGHT, THE NEXT CASE TO, UH, TO BE HEARD BY THE BOARD IS BDA 2 4 5 0 5 0 2 4 5 0 5 0 1 5 0 0. DRAGON STREET IS THE APPLICANT HERE. OH YES. LOOK YOU THERE. LOOK YOU THERE? HOLD ON ONE SECOND. UM, WE'LL ASSUME YOU'RE STILL SWORN IN BY OUR BOARD SECRETARY FROM THE PREVIOUS HEARING. OKAY? ALRIGHT. UH, 2 4 5 0 5 0. THIS IS AT 1 5 0 0 DRAGON STREET FOR THE APPLICANT. PLEASE INTRODUCE YOURSELF. GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIR. MEMBERS OF PANEL A I AM JONATHAN VINCENT. 23. 23 ROSS AVENUE. OKAY. AND MR. DENMAN, INTRODUCE YOURSELF. LLOYD DENMAN. 29 28 WESTMINSTER. OKAY. UH, YOU'RE AGREEING THAT YOU'RE STILL UNDER OATH? YES. UH, MS. WILLIAMS, DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS REGISTERED FOR THIS CASE? NO. THOSE SPEAKERS REGISTERED. NO OTHER SPEAKERS. OKAY. AS IS CUSTOMARY. I'M FOLD. I'M SENDING DOWN THE RUN. UH, ANY LETTERS THAT WE'VE RECEIVED REGARDING THIS, WE HAVE 1, 2, 3 LETTERS IN SUPPORT. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 LETTERS IN OPPOSITION. I'LL SEND THIS DOWN FOR THE PANEL TO LOOK AT. ALRIGHT, MR. VINCENT, OUR RULES OF PROCEDURES SAY FIVE MINUTES. I'LL BE A LITTLE GRACIOUS HERE, BUT NOT TWO. SINCE THE DAY IS MOVING AND WE STILL HAVE, UH, TWO MORE CASES AFTER YOURS. SO I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO BE, UH, SUCCINCT. THIS, THIS, UH, PARTICULAR CASE HAS BEEN POSTPONED TWICE AT YOUR REQUEST. MM-HMM . UH, WE HOPE TO MAKE A DECISION TODAY. THANK YOU. YOU MAY PROCEED. THANK YOU. OKAY. UH, THANK YOU MR. CHAIR. MEMBERS OF PANEL A. UM, THIS CASE IS THE 1500 DRAGON STREET CASE. UM, WE'RE ASKING FOR, UM, A REDUCTION OF 123 SPACES. IT'S A 41% REDUCTION TO PROVIDE 177 SPACES OUT OF 300 REQUIRED. UH, NEXT LINE, PLEASE. UM, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT GONNA READ ALL OF THIS TO YOU. IT'S A LARGER DEVELOPMENT. PLEASE DON'T, PLEASE DON'T. YEAH, I WON'T. IT'S A LARGER DEVELOPMENT THAN THE ONE YOU JUST SAW. UM, MOSTLY OFFICE, OFFICE, SHOWROOM, WAREHOUSE. UM, WE'D LIKE THE ABILITY TO DO SOME RESTAURANT THERE AND AN EVENT CENTER, UM, WHICH IS USED SPORADICALLY. UM, IT'S A COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT INSIDE USE, BUT YOU KNOW, AGAIN, AS AN EVENT CENTER, LIKE, YOU KNOW, UM, HIGH SCHOOLS HAVE PROMS THERE AND THINGS LIKE THAT, SO IT'S NOT A FULL-TIME USE. UM, ONE OF THE KEY POINTS IS THAT WE ALSO OWN A NEARBY DEVELOPMENT, UH, THE DALLAS DESIGN CENTER AT 10 25 NORTH STEMMONS, 1250 SLOCUM. AND I INCLUDED IN, UH, YOUR PACKET, UM, SOME INFORMATION ABOUT THAT AS WELL, AND THE ABILITY FOR US TO USE THAT. UM, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, IF SAY IN 12 MONTHS, IF WE WERE TO GET THIS APPROVED WITH A REASSESSMENT AND IT APPEARED THAT WE NEEDED TO USE MORE PARKING FOR OVERFLOW, THAT WOULD BE AN OPTION. I'M NOT SUGGESTING BY ANY MEANS THAT WE THINK THAT WE NEED TO USE IT. NOW, WE BELIEVE WE CAN PARK THE USES ON SITE SUFFICIENTLY, BUT THAT IS A BACKSTOP FOR THE FUTURE IN CASE IT WAS NEEDED. UH, NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. UH, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, IT'S SAME THING, SAME ARGUMENTS WE'VE HAD ON ALL THESE CASES, WHICH I THINK GENERALLY APPLY. UM, AGAIN, THIS IS A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT, DIFFERENT PEAK TIMES FOR DIFFERENT USES. THE FACT THAT THE, THERE'S SO MUCH PARKING THERE THAT, UM, IS REALLY HARDLY UTILIZED AT ALL DURING THE DAY. AND I THINK SOME OF THE, IN ILLUSTRATIONS, THE AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY SHOWS THAT, AND THE, THE, UM, THE VIDEO FROM THE STAFF BRIEFING I THOUGHT WAS REALLY INTERESTING BECAUSE IF YOU'D NOTE, UM, AS MR. THOMPSON DROVE AROUND BEHIND THE BUILDING, THE REASON THAT VAN WAS ABLE TO DRIVE ACROSS THOSE PARKING STRIPES, WHICH BY THE WAY I'VE DONE THAT MYSELF IN SHOPPING CENTERS, I THINK WE ALL HAVE, IS BECAUSE THERE ARE NO CARS PARKED BACK THERE. SO I THINK LOOK AT IT FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE. UM, I THINK IT'S INDICATIVE OF THE FACT THAT IT'S WAY OVER PARKED FOR THE USES THAT ARE THERE. AND, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT VALET PARKING, UM, AS AN OPTION, SIGNIFICANT USE OF RIDE SHARING SERVICES, AND IT'S ALL BACKED UP BY MR. DENMAN'S EXTENSIVE TECHNICAL ANALYSIS. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. UM, AGAIN, JUST FOR THE RECORD, UM, I BELIEVE THAT WE DO MEET THE CODE REQUIRED STANDARDS, PD REQUIRED STANDARDS. UM, YOU KNOW, THE USE DOES NOT WARRANT PARKING DEMAND GENERATED BY THE USE DOES NOT WARRANT THE NUMBER OF OFF STREET PARKING SPACES REQUIRED. AND SPECIAL EXCEPTION WOULD NOT CREATE A TRAFFIC HAZARD OR INCREASED TRAFFIC CONGESTION ON ADJACENT OR NEARBY STREETS. AND AGAIN, SOMETHING THAT'S DIFFERENT ABOUT THIS SITE IS IT'S, IT'S, UM, EVEN THOUGH THE PARKING IS AROUND THE PERIPHERY OF THE STRUCTURE, IT'S KIND OF MORE OF A SELF-CONTAINED SITE. YOU HAVE TO, TO [02:00:01] ENTER AND ENTER OFF OF DRAGON STREET AND EXIT OFF THE SAME WAY. UM, AND IF YOU'LL LOOK AT THE AERIAL PHOTOS, WHAT, WELL, LET'S GO AHEAD AND GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE. MAYBE IT'LL SHOW, UH, YEAH, THAT'S, THAT'S A, A GOOD VIEW. AND YOU CAN SEE IN THE FRONT, UM, THERE IS NO PARKING ALONG DRAGON STREET ON OUR SIDE OF THE STREET, ALTHOUGH THERE IS ON THE OTHER SIDE, AND WE CAN TALK ABOUT THAT IN A SECOND. UM, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S BASICALLY KIND OF LIMITED ACCESS. UM, SO IT'S, THE PARKING IS REALLY IN THAT SENSE, INTERNAL TO THE SITE. AND ON THE BACKSIDE, UM, YOU SEE THAT THERE'S NO ACCESS FROM THAT SIDE TO THE BUILDINGS THAT FACE THE NEXT STREET OVER. SO THAT, WE MAY BE COMING BACK TO THAT NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. OKAY. AGAIN, YEAH, AERIAL PHOTO SITE, UH, DAYTIME PHOTO. THERE ARE HARDLY ANY CARS THERE. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. UH, SITE PLAN. UH, AGAIN, MR. THOMPSON EXPLAINED VERY WELL THAT, THAT WHAT WE'RE REALLY TALKING ABOUT IS THE RESTAURANT IS A MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF SQUARE FOOTAGE, UH, OF USE THAT COULD BE WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT, UM, AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS OR A DIFFERENT LOCATION IF IT'S ONE RESTAURANT. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. UH, MIXED USE PARKING CHART UNDER THE PD. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. UH, AGAIN, YOU'VE SEEN THIS, THESE ARE THE NEARBY H AND CAPITAL OWNED PROPERTIES. THIS PARTICULAR ONE IS, IT'S, UH, THE ONE THAT'S ALMOST RIGHT IN THE CENTER OF THE DIAGRAM, JUST SLIGHTLY TO THE LEFT OF CENTER. UM, AND THE ONE ACTUALLY DOWN GOING SOUTHEAST FROM THERE, THE LARGER PROPERTY, THAT'S THE DALLAS DESIGN CENTER, WHICH WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IN OUR SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. UM, I'M NOT GONNA READ THIS TO YOU EITHER. UH, WE DO BELIEVE WE MEET THE STANDARD FOR THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION. WE THINK THAT'S AMPLY DOCUMENTED BY THE STUDIES THAT LLOYD HAS DONE. AND, YOU KNOW, THE OTHER INFORMATION WE PROVIDED. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. SAME THING HERE. THESE ARE EXCERPTS FROM MR. UH, DENMAN'S STUDY, WHICH YOU HAVE AND HAVE HAD ALL ALONG. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. UM, SAME THING. MORE EXCERPTS FROM MR. DENMAN'S STUDY. AND THE, THE GIST OF IT IS THAT WE, WE THINK THE PARKING, UH, REQUIREMENT THAT APPLIES NOW IS, IS WAY MORE THAN WHAT THE ACTUAL DEMAND IN 2025 IS FOR A VARIETY OF FACTORS. SO WE THINK THIS SUPPORTS OUR REDUCTION REQUEST. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. UH, I'M NOT GONNA GIVE YOU THE SAME SPEECH I JUST GAVE ON PD 6 21. UH, IT'S THE SAME, SAME PD, SAME RATIONALE. I THINK IT'S WORKING WELL, AND THIS IS AN EFFORT TO CONTINUE THAT AND BUILD UPON IT. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. PARKING REFORM, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THAT. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. UM, NOW I, IN THE, THE JULY 2ND PACKET THAT I SENT TO YOU, THAT ONE PAGER AT THE END, UM, ACTUALLY BOTH REQUESTS ARE DEALT WITH ON THAT ONE PAGE. AND SO THE, THE ONE AT THE BOTTOM IS THE COMPARISON, THE MATHEMATICAL COMPARISON FOR 1500 DRAGON. SO WE WOULD BE MUCH CLOSER TO MEETING THE REQUIREMENT UNDER THE NEW PARKING REFORM, JUST AS A MATTER OF, UH, THINKING ABOUT IT CONCEPTUALLY. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. SO THAT, AGAIN, THIS IS FROM, UM, FROM THE LETTER. YOU'VE ALREADY READ THIS. UM, JUST LIKE ON THE OTHER CASE, UM, WE ARE HAPPY TO OFFER TO AGREE TO THE 12 MONTH REASSESSMENT. UM, WE THINK THAT'S GOOD FOR EVERYBODY SO WE CAN ALL FIND OUT HOW IT'S WORKING. WE THINK IT'S GONNA WORK, BUT I UNDERSTAND YOU ALL WANNA FIND OUT AS WELL. UM, WE ALSO BELIEVE THAT WE COULD UTILIZE THE DALLAS DESIGN CENTER DOWN THE STREET FOR OVERFILL PARKING IF THAT WERE TO BECOME NECESSARY. AND THAT, I DON'T, I THINK WE'RE REALLY NOT GONNA, WE'RE GONNA FIND THAT OUT OPERATIONALLY. BUT I THINK IN YOUR 12 MONTH REASSESSMENT, I THINK THAT'S WHEN WE'RE REALLY GONNA BE ABLE TO CONFIRM FOR YOU THAT THIS DOES IN FACT WORK. THAT'S, AGAIN, JUST A BACKSTOP. WE DON'T ANTICIPATE NEEDING THAT. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. UH, THIS IS THE DALLAS DESIGN CENTER. IT'S THE, THE LARGER PROPERTY, A COUPLE OF BLOCKS TO THE SOUTHEAST THAT YOU SAW IN THE DIAGRAM. AND YOU CAN SEE, UH, TWO THINGS THAT ARE IMPORTANT ABOUT THIS. YOU KNOW, AS THE NAME IMPLIES, IT'S MOSTLY OFFICE, SHOWROOM, WAREHOUSE, UM, YOU KNOW, WHOLESALERS EVEN TO THE TRADE, THAT KIND OF THING. UH, SO LOW TRAFFIC, DAYTIME USES, AND YOU CAN SEE HOW MUCH PARKING THERE IS AND IT'S INTERNAL TO THE SITE. SO IT, THIS IS A PERFECT CANDIDATE FOR, YOU KNOW, BEING ABLE TO, UM, SHARE SOME PARKING IF IT EVER BECAME NECESSARY. SO THAT, THAT'S OUR BACKSTOP. WE DON'T THINK WE NEED IT. IT'S THERE IF WE NEED IT. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. LLOYD, DO [02:05:01] YOU WANNA TALK ABOUT, THIS IS YOUR DIAGRAM HERE. YES. SO WHAT WE ADDED WITH THIS SLIDE WAS TO ILLUSTRATE THERE ARE NO TRAFFIC SAFETY CONCERNS WITH THE OPERATION ON SITE. THE GRAPHIC SHOWS NEARLY 300 FEET, AND THERE'S EVEN MORE OF QUEUING SPACE FOR ANY VALET. AND THAT WOULD HOLD MORE THAN 14 CARS. AND THAT'S, THAT'S AN EXCESSIVE ALLOWANCE FOR QUEUING ON SITE. IT'S ALSO INTERESTING TO NOTE THAT NO PARKING IS ALLOWED ON THE EAST SIDE OF DRAGON. IT'S NO PARKED, AND THEREFORE THE DRIVEWAYS HAVE CLEAR VISIBILITY FOR ENTRANCE AND EXIT. AND, UM, ON THE NEXT PAGE, WHICH IS PAGE ONE 40, DOES THAT SHOW 1 46? IT'S NOT IN POWERPOINT. OH, BUT IT'S IN YOUR PACKET. IN YOUR PACKET. ARE YOU ABLE TO LOOK AT PAGE 1 46 OF 3 49? WHAT PAGE? 1, 4 6. OKAY. PAGE 1, 4 6 ADDRESSES ANY CONCERNS ABOUT TRAFFIC CONGESTION THAT COULD, COULD POSSIBLY BE ON DRAGON, IF YOU'RE THERE. I'LL CONTINUE ON. DOES EVERYBODY HAVE IT? OKAY. SO IF YOU'LL NOTICE, DRAGON STREET CARRIES ABOUT A HUNDRED VEHICLES PER HOUR. IT'S SEVERELY UNDERUTILIZED. A SIMILAR STREET IN NORTH DALLAS, NOT TOO FAR AWAY, FITS YOU, WHICH YOU MAY ALL BE FAMILIAR WITH. FITS YOU, WHICH ALSO HAS RETAIL, RESTAURANT RESIDENTIAL. IT CARRIES FIVE TIMES THE AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC FOR A SIMILAR ROADWAY. AND THE COUNT ON FITZ U IS SHOWN THERE. IT'S OVER 500 VEHICLES PER HOUR, WHEREAS DRAGON STREET 100 VEHICLES PER HOUR. SO THERE IS NO CONCERN ABOUT CONGESTION ALONG DRAGON, NOR IS THERE A CONCERN ABOUT TRAFFIC SAFETY ENTERING OR EXITING THE SITE OR SPILLING ONTO THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY THROUGH QUEUING FOR VALET. SO, SAFETY CONCERN, CONGESTION CONCERN. SHOULD I ADDRESS MY ONE PAGE HANDOUT OR SHARE THAT LATER? SURE. OKAY. AND THEN LASTLY, I'LL GO AHEAD AND ADDRESS MY ONE PAGE HANDOUT THAT I PROVIDED TODAY. KEEPING IT TO ONE PAGE. AS I HAD JUST MENTIONED, ON THE EAST SIDE OF DRAGON, WHICH IS THE APPLICANT'S SIDE OF DRAGON, THERE'S NO PARKING ALLOWED. BUT ON THE WEST SIDE OF DRAGON, THERE ARE EXISTING STOREFRONTS, AND IT IS PUBLIC PARKING. HOWEVER, IT'S INTERESTING TO NOTE THAT IT IS PUBLIC PARKING. THEREFORE, NONE OF THE BUSINESSES MAY CLAIM THAT THE PARKING BELONGS TO OR MAY BE CONTROLLED IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER TO THE BUSINESS. IT'S PUBLIC PARKING. OUR APPLICANT DOES NOT WANT ANY PUBLIC PARKING. IT'S NOT INTENDING ON UTILIZING ANY OF THAT PUBLIC PARKING. IT'S ALL THEY'RE TRYING TO BETTER UTILIZE AND EFFICIENTLY USE THEIR PRIVATE PARKING ON SITE. THEY'RE NOT ASKING TO UTILIZE ANY OF THE PUBLIC PARKING. HOWEVER, THAT IS ONE OF THE CONCERNS THAT'S BROUGHT UP BY THOSE NEIGHBORS IS THEY'RE GONNA SPILL OVER ONTO OUR BUSINESS PARKING. WELL, MY ONE PAGE HANDOUT IS TO MAKE IT CLEAR, IT'S NOT THEIR BUSINESS PARKING. IT'S PUBLIC PARKING. AND YOU CANNOT RESERVE PUBLIC PARKING, EVEN IF YOU'RE A BUSINESS ADJACENT TO PUBLIC PARKING. BUT THE APPLICANT, JUST TO MAKE IT CLEAR AND KNOWN AND ON THE RECORD, DOES NOT WANT TO CLAIM ANY OF THAT PUBLIC PARKING THROUGH THIS PROCESS. BUT YOU'LL HEAR A COMPLAINT ABOUT THINKING THAT COULD HAPPEN. BUT THAT'S NOT THE INTENT. THE APPLICANT WANTS TO VALET EVERYTHING ON SITE. THERE'S NO PUBLIC PARKING ALLOWED ON THEIR SIDE. AND, UM, THEY HAVE AN ADJACENT SITE WHERE THEY COULD HAVE SOME RELIEF, VALET PARKING, SHOULD THEY NEED IT. AND I BELIEVE THAT'S MY COMMENTS. I REALLY JUST GOT A COUPLE MORE SLIDES IF WE COULD GO TO THE NEXT ONE. UH, SO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, AND THIS WAS IN THE JULY 2ND MATERIALS, AND [02:10:01] I THINK EVEN THE PREVIOUS ONE. UM, WE'VE GOT, WE DO HAVE SOME SUPPORT, UM, FROM ONE OF THE BUSINESS OPERATORS ACROSS THE STREET AT 15 29 31 DRAGON THAT'S ON YOUR, UH, SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION MAP, UH, ASANA PARTNERS, WHICH IS ALSO A MAJOR PROPERTY OWNER IN THE DESIGN DISTRICT, WHICH IS DOING SIMILAR KIND OF WORK TO REVITALIZE THE DISTRICT. AND FROM MIKE CUTNER, WHO YOU ALL MAY OR MAY NOT KNOW, BUT, UM, MIKE CUTNER HAS BEEN, UM, HE WAS ONE OF THE PEOPLE THAT WENT TO EVERY MEETING WHEN THEY WERE DOING PD 6 21 TO BEGIN WITH. SO HE'S A LONG TIME, UM, OWNER, STAKEHOLDER ACTIVIST IN THE AREA. WE HAVE TALKED TO VALET SERVICES, WHICH, UM, ALREADY OPERATE ON NUMEROUS DESIGN DISTRICT SITES. THEY'RE CONFIDENT THEY CAN MAKE THIS WORK. UH, YOU KNOW, THIS CAN BE DONE MUCH MORE EFFICIENTLY IN TERMS OF THE, UH, THE STACKED PARKING AND THE MANEUVERING. AND, YOU KNOW, THE VALETS WILL, UH, MAKE THE PARKING MORE EFFICIENT. UM, AND AGAIN, WITH EMPLOYEE PARKING THAT CAN BE DESIGNATED, IT CAN BE PARALLEL PARKED, UH, IN FRONT OF THOSE SPACES. AND THEN, AS I POINTED OUT, UM, LIKE ON THE OTHER CASE, UH, VALET OPERATIONS ARE HEAVILY REGULATED, UM, AND HAVE TO MEET A LOT OF DIFFERENT CRITERIA OF THE CITY. UH, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. SO THIS IS LOOKING SOUTH ON DRAGON STREET, AND YOU CAN SEE WHAT LLOYD WAS TALKING ABOUT. THE, THE APPLICANT'S SITE IS ON THE LEFT. UM, WE'RE PROPOSING TO DO EITHER, YOU KNOW, VALET, A COMBINATION OF VALET RIDE SHARE OR SOME SELF PARKING. SO WE THINK THERE'S PLENTY OF, WE THINK THERE'S GOOD ACCESS AND WE THINK THERE'S PLENTY OF ROOM TO PARK, UH, THOSE VEHICLES, HOWEVER THAT WORKS. UH, EITHER THROUGH VALET AND STACKED PARKING, UH, RIDE SHARES, WHICH OF COURSE DROP PEOPLE OFF AND THEN GO, OR SELF PARKING. WE THINK THERE'S, YOU KNOW, WITH THE NUMBER OF SPACES ON SITE, WE THINK THERE'LL BE PLENTY OF THAT. WHAT LLOYD WAS TALKING ABOUT ON THE RIGHT, ONE OF THE INCENTIVES TO REDEVELOP IN PD 6 21 THAT WAS PASSED IN, UH, 2002, IS YOU CAN, YOU CAN GET CREDIT FOR HEAD END PARKING ON THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY FOR YOUR CODE PARKING REQUIREMENTS. BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN YOU OWN IT. WE, THE, THE, YOU KNOW, THE PUBLIC OWNS IT AND IT DOESN'T MEAN YOU CAN RESERVE IT BECAUSE THEY'RE PUBLIC SPACES, SO YOU CAN'T RESERVE 'EM. SO, UM, PEOPLE ARE FREE TO PARK THERE, BUT THEY'RE NOT FREE TO DESIGNATE THOSE, UM, EVEN THOUGH THEY MIGHT TRY. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. I, OH, OKAY. SO ANYWAY, JUST IN CONCLUSION, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, WE BELIEVE THIS MEETS THE STANDARD FOR APPROVAL. UM, DOESN'T WARRANT THE NUMBER OF OFF STREET PARKING SPACES OTHERWISE REQUIRED AND WILL NOT CREATE A TRAFFIC HAZARD OR RE INCREASE TRAFFIC CONGESTION. THE, THE VEHICLES WILL PULL OFF OF THE STREET TO ENTER THE SITE. UM, YOU KNOW, IT'S JUST THE HAVING TO PROVIDE EXCESSIVE PARKING, UM, REALLY DAMAGES THE ABILITY TO ADAPTIVELY REUSE THIS AND MAKE IT MORE OF A MIXED USE ENVIRONMENT, MORE COMMUNITY SUPPORTING USES LIKE ANY KIND OF RESTAURANT FROM, YOU KNOW, COFFEE SHOP TO, YOU KNOW, DESTINATION DINING. AND SO WE BELIEVE THIS REQUEST MEETS THE DEVELOPMENT CODE AND PD 6 21 STANDARDS FOR APPROVAL. AND WE RESPECTFULLY ASK THAT YOU APPROVE OUR REQUEST. AND AGAIN, WE'RE OFFERING THE 12 MONTH REASSESSMENT, UM, JUST LIKE WE DID ON THE OTHER CASE. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, SIR. GIVE US ONE MOMENT. OKAY. QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT. MS. DAVIS? I HAVE A QUESTION. UM, SO THIS IS REGARDING THE, THE SPACES ACROSS THE STREET THAT YOU SAID ARE PUBLIC PARKING SPACES AND THAT THESE, THESE, UM, BUSINESSES CANNOT CLAIM THEM. WOULD, WHEN, IF THEY, I MEAN, IS THERE ANY OPPORTUNITY, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'LL KNOW THE ANSWER TO THIS, BUT LET'S SAY I OWN THE LUC CASEY STORE AND I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THOSE TWO PARKING SPACES WERE MINE. COULD I PURCHASE THEM FROM THE CITY? IS THERE ANY WAY THAT I CAN DO THAT AS AN, AS A BUSINESS OWNER ONLY IN THE MOST REMOTE OR RARE CIRCUMSTANCES? I WOULD BE INCLINED TO SAY AS A FORMER 22 YEAR CITY EMPLOYEE WORKING IN TRAFFIC AND BUILDING INSPECTION. NO, YOU CANNOT PURCHASE THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. OKAY. YEAH, I'M FOR PRIVATE USE. YEAH. I MEAN, IN, IN, IN THEORY, I MEAN, WELL, NOT JUST IN THEORY, THERE IS A CHAPTER OF THE CITY CODE, I THINK IT'S TWO A, WHERE THERE IS WHAT THEY CALL THE ABANDONMENT PROCESS, WHICH IS A LITTLE BIT OF A MISNOMER BECAUSE THE CITY'S NOT ABANDONING, ABANDONING PROPERTY, WHAT THEY CONSIDER SURPLUS PROPERTY. THEY'RE SELLING IT TO YOU FOR FAIR MARKET VALUE. UM, BUT I, IN THIS SITUATION, GIVEN THE CONFIGURATION, I MEAN, THAT'S REALLY MORE LIKE SOMETHING WHERE YOU'RE CLOSING OFF A STREET TO REDEVELOP THAT SITE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. I MEAN, I, I, HMM. IT'S HARD TO IMAGINE THEY WOULD DO [02:15:01] THAT FOR ONE OWNER AND THEN EVERY OTHER OWNER WOULD WANNA DO IT. BUT IT'S A VERY ARDUOUS PROCESS. I HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS. UM, I HEARD MR. DENMAN SPEAK, IT'S KIND OF A LITTLE BIT OF A FOLLOW UP TO MS. DAVIS'S COMMENT. UH, YOU SAID IT'S PARK PUBLIC PARKING SPACES, AND YOU SAID, UH, THE APPLICANT DOES NOT WANT TO CLAIM THE PUBLIC PARKING. I WONDER WHAT THOSE PROPERTY ORDERS ACROSS THE STREET FEEL ABOUT YOU CLAIMING OR NOT CLAIMING? UH, I, I FIND IT HARD TO BELIEVE. SO DISPROVE ME, PLEASE, THAT WHEN YOU PUT IN THIS CHANGE OF USE 18,000 SQUARE FEET OF RESTAURANT SPACE, THAT THOSE SPACES ACROSS THE STREET ARE GONNA IMMEDIATELY BE CLAIMED BY YOUR CUSTOMERS. BECAUSE THE OPPOSITE OF THAT IS FOR THEM TO GO TO THE REAR OF THE, OF THE PROPERTY AND HAVE TO WALK TWO BLOCKS TO GET AROUND THE CORNER. SO HELP ME UNDERSTAND YOUR DESIRE NOT TO CLAIM THE SPACES YET LOGICALLY, THE, THE, YOUR CUSTOMERS ARE GONNA CLAIM THEM QUICKLY. SO FIRST OF ALL, I ADDRESS SAFETY. IT, YOU DON'T WANT TO CROSS THE STREET IF YOU DON'T HAVE TO CROSS THE STREET, NUMBER ONE. AND THEN NUMBER TWO, THIS WOULD BE VALET USE FOR THE RESTAURANT. AND IT WOULD BE THE VALET PARKERS. YOU SAW THE, THE LONG QUEUE IN FRONT. SO IT'D BE THE VALET PARKERS TYPICALLY THAT ARE RUNNING BACK AND FORTH AROUND THE REAR OF THE BUILDING. SO YOU'RE SAYING YOUR VALET SERVICE WOULD CLAIM THOSE PUBLIC SPACES? NO, THE VALET WOULD USE THE PARKING IN THE BACK OF THE BUILDING. OKAY. AND, BUT HOLD ON, I'M, I'M NOT TALKING TO THE BACK OF THE BUILDING RIGHT NOW. RIGHT NOW, MY FIRST QUESTION WAS, UH, BECAUSE THE OPPOSITION IS UNITED ACROSS THE STREET, IT'S, THESE ARE ALL THE, THE, THE SAME, SAME DIFFERENT OWNERS, BUT SAME MESSAGE IS THAT, UH, THERE'S A SHORTAGE OF SPACE NOW, AND THIS WOULD BE EVEN MORE SO. SO I GET OUT YOUR MAP THAT YOU PROVIDED US, AND I THOUGHT, OKAY, WHERE, WHERE ARE PEOPLE GONNA PARK? AND WE SAW IN OUR VIDEO, AND SO YOUR COMMENT WAS, THE OWNER DOES NOT WANT TO CLAIM THE PUBLIC PARKING SPACE. HOW IS IT THAT YOU'RE, HOW IS IT THAT YOU'RE GONNA PUT THAT, THOSE WORDS INTO DEEDS AND NOT CLAIM THOSE SPACES ACROSS THE STREET FROM YOU? 'CAUSE IT'S GONNA HAPPEN. OKAY. ONE, YOU DON'T HAVE TO, YOU DON'T WANT TO CROSS THE STREET IF YOU DON'T HAVE TO. IF I'M GOING TO THE STORE, I WANNA PARK IN FRONT OF THE STOREFRONT, NOT ACROSS THE STREET. AND THOSE ARE SPACES IN FRONT OF THE BUSINESS, YOU KNOW, BUT EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE PUBLIC, AND LIKE I SAY, WHEN I SAID CLAIM 'EM, I MEANT CLAIM FOR THE NUMBERS IN THE THING. YOU'RE SAYING, OH, PEOPLE ARE GONNA PARK OVER THERE FOR CONVENIENCE AND THEN CROSS THE STREET AND THEN GO ALL THE WAY TO A BUSINESS, PERHAPS. I DON'T THINK SO. I I WOULDN'T, I'M I'M BEING USING COMMON SENSE OF THAT VERSUS GOING TO THE REAR QUADRANT OF THE BUILDING OR THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE BUILDING. AND I'M SAYING, THIS DOESN'T COMPUTE, AND I, AND I HEAR YOU THAT THEY'RE PUBLIC PARKING SPACES, AND THAT'S NOT FOR ME TO A, A JUDGE THAT'S THE CITY COUNCIL THAT DECIDES THAT'S PUBLIC SPACE. I'M JUST TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE AREN'T CREATING THE VERY THING. WE'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO, THAT WE'RE NOT CREATING PEOPLE WALKING ACROSS THE STREET. 'CAUSE THE PARKING SPACE THAT'S RIGHT THERE. YEAH. ARE WE CREATING A TRAFFIC HAZARD, TRAFFIC CONGESTION ON ADJACENT OR NEARBY STREET LOOKS LIKE WE ARE, BECAUSE I SEE THAT SPACE RIGHT THERE. YEAH. VERSUS THE SPACE I DON'T EVEN SEE ELSEWHERE IN THE PROPERTY. SURE. OKAY. UM, EXCELLENT QUESTION. SO IF YOU SHOW UP TO THE SITE AND YOU'RE GONNA VALET, YOU'RE GONNA PULL IN OFF OF DRAGON TO THE VALET STAND AND DROP YOUR CAR OFF THERE AND THEN GO IN, WHAT IS THE FRONT ENTRANCE OF THE BUILDING? AND THEN THE VALET, OUR THEORY, OUR IDEA, AND LET'S MAKE IT A CONDITION, OUR INSTRUCTION TO THE VALET WILL BE TO NOT PARK IT ACROSS THE STREET, PARK IT BEHIND THE BUILDING. AND I THINK THAT'S A REASONABLE CONDITION. SO, I MEAN, LET'S JUST PUT THAT ON THE TABLE RIGHT NOW. IF A RIDE SHARE SHOWS UP, YOUR UBER DRIVER IS GONNA PULL IN OFF OF DRAGON, GO UP TO THE FRONT ENTRANCE OF THE BUILDING, LET YOU OUT, AND THEN LEAVE AND GO TO THEIR NEXT FAIR. SO I THINK IN THOSE TWO SITUATIONS, THERE'S NO, UM, I WOULD HAVE NO REASON TO THINK THAT THEY, YOU KNOW, THEY WOULD PARK, THEY WOULD PARK A VEHICLE ACROSS THE STREET. UM, I HEAR YOU. I'M JUST TRYING TO PUT IN REAL APPLICATION. UH, WE SAW THE VIDEO THAT MR. THOMPSON SHOWED US, AND I'M THINKING, OKAY. AND WE, IN FACT, UH, I HAD HIM STOP THE VIDEO ON DRAGON PAN TO THE RIGHT AND THEN PAN TO THE LEFT TO LOOK AT THE PARKING SPACES ACROSS THE STREET VERSUS THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING. AND I DON'T KNOW, MAYBE I'M THE TYPE OF PERSON, IF I SAW A PARKING SPACE RIGHT OVER THERE AS I APPROACH IT, I TAKE IT, I WOULDN'T KNOW. I WOULDN'T KNOW THAT I'M INTERFERING [02:20:01] IN THE ACCESS TO A PRIVATE BUSINESS. AND I, I WANNA BE VERY CAREFUL THAT WE ARE NOT CREATING THIS VERY TRAFFIC HAZARD THAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO AVOID. NO, I, I, I GET YOUR QUESTION. LET ME, UM, THERE ARE THREE MORE IMAGES I WANNA SHOW YOU THAT I HAD LOADED UP, UM, FOR WHEN THIS QUESTION CAME UP. UM, BRIAN, IF WE COULD GO BACK TO WHAT ACTUALLY IS THE NEXT SLIDE. AND THERE ARE ONLY THREE OF THEM, SO PLEASE GO. I WONDER IF THESE PROPERTY OWNERS THINK IT'S THEIR PARKING SPACE OR PUBLIC PARKING SPACE. SO, UM, THIS IS THE LUC CASEY STORE AND NEXT TO IT IS A, A JEWELRY STORE CALLED BUDDHA GIRL. UM, FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO, UH, THROW OUT, THESE ARE RETAIL USES. SO THEY'RE DAYTIME USES. THEY'RE NOT GONNA BE OPEN, ESPECIALLY IN THE DESIGN DISTRICT. I DON'T THINK THEY'RE GONNA BE OPEN AT NIGHT. UM, AND YOU CAN SEE, UM, AND THIS'LL BECOME CLEARER IN THE NEXT TWO IMAGES. AND THEN THAT'S ALL. I GOT. THE TWO SPACES IN FRONT OF THE LUCCHESE STORE, THEY HAVE PAINTED, UH, THAT WHITE CURB THERE. I SEE IT. YEAH, IT'S PAINTED ON THEIR LUCCHESE. UM, ON THE LEFT, AGAIN, IT'S HARD TO READ, BUT I, IT SAYS SOMETHING I SEE SAYS SOMETHING LIKE IC. SO GO TO MY QUESTION ABOUT TRAFFIC HAZARD. LEMME THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING. I DON'T NEED TO SEE THESE OTHER PICTURES. I, I WANT YOU TO GO TO SPECIFICALLY TO MY REASONABLE HYPOTHETICAL. YES. SO I CAN ANSWER IT DURING THE DAY. THERE'S PLENTY OF PARKING. I DON'T, ITS THAT'S IT'S NOT WHAT THEY'RE SAYING. NO, IT, IT SAYS, IT SAYS RIGHT HERE ON, THAT'S NOT, THAT'S NOT WHAT THEY'RE SAYING HERE ON THE DRAGON STREET USE CHART. OKAY. OFFICE SHOWROOM REQUIRES 66 SPACES AND THERE'S PLENTY. WE HAVE PLENTY YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT ON YOUR PROPERTY. YES. OKAY. WELL, BUT YOUR PROPERTY IS ABOUT TO CHANGE. IF YOU PUT 18,000 SQUARE FEET OF RESTAURANT, 18,000 SQUARE FEET RESTAURANT WHEN THERE'S ZERO NOW PRIMARILY NIGHT. SO OBVIOUSLY THERE'S EMPTY SPACE NOW. 'CAUSE YOUR BUILDING'S PRIMARILY EMPTY. SO DURING THE DAY THERE'S PLENTY OF PARKING. YES. AND THEN AT NIGHT, WHEN THE RESTAURANT COMES, WE'LL VALET AND UTILIZE ALL THE SPACE IN THE BACK. THAT'S THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION. NO, THE ANSWER TO MY QUESTION IS, IS MY HYPOTHETICAL OF THE PARKING SPACES THAT ARE AN EYE SHOT AS I PULL UP, AND YET THE, THE RESTAURANT AND OR OTHER FACILITIES ACROSS THE STREET, AM I NOT CRE, IS THIS NOT CREATING A TRAFFIC HAZARD? MY RESPONSE WOULD BE NO. 'CAUSE IT'S NOT LIKELY. OKAY. ALRIGHT. I RESPECT YOUR OPINION. I DISAGREE. UM, I AM REALLY SCRATCHING MY HEAD. I HAVE THE GRAPHIC THAT YOU HAVE REGARDING THE SPACE, AND WE ACKNOWLEDGE THAT IT'S NOT WITHIN THE BOARD'S PURVIEW TO SAY WHERE YOUR 18,000 FEET OF RESTAURANT WOULD BE. WHETHER IT'S ONE, TWO, OR THREE. WE'RE JUST RESPONDING TO WHAT YOU GIVE US. AND WHAT YOU GAVE US SAID IT'S IN ONE CORNER. AND SO I AUTOMATICALLY THINK, WELL, HOW ARE PEOPLE GONNA TRAVERSE TO THAT RESTAURANT? THEY'RE WALKING THROUGH A LARGE PARKING LOT, MR. OVITZ THIS MORNING, WAS IT, OR MR. FINNEY TALKED ABOUT THE VEHICLE THAT WENT THROUGH AND THAT REALLY CAUGHT MY EYE. AND I'M THINKING, WHAT'S, HOW ARE WE AVOIDING A TRAFFIC HAZARD WHEN YOU'RE BASICALLY GONNA BE SENDING PEOPLE TO THE BACK LOT? SO ALL OF THAT IS A FIRE LANE, AND THE MINIMUM WIDTH FOR A FIRE LANE IS 20 FEET. AND THAT ALLOWS CARS TO PATH PASS EITHER DIRECTION. I HEAR YOU. I JUST AM ENVISIONING, AND MR. THOMPSON, WHEN HE DID THE VIDEO, DIDN'T REALIZE HE HIGHLIGHTED A POTENTIAL TRAFFIC HAZARD. HE WAS JUST DRIVING THROUGH THE LOT AND IT WAS, SO AGAIN, I'M TRYING TO THINK. I'M GIVING YOU A HYPOTHETICAL, A REASONABLE HYPOTHETICAL. AND IS THERE A TRAFFIC HAZARD? WELL, AND IN THE, IN THE VIDEO, I MEAN, I WATCHED THE BRIEFING IN ITS ENTIRETY, THE VIDEO, UH, THE QUESTION EVEN CAME UP THEN. AND AS MR. THOMPSON INDICATED, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN JUST SEE VISUALLY THERE'S PLENTY OF ROOM FOR TWO VEHICLES TO PASS EACH OTHER. I MEAN, IT'S JUST LIKE ANY OTHER PARKING LOT. I DIDN'T SEE THAT. I SAW THE VAN TO THE LEFT THROUGH THE LOT. AND THE OTHER ONE. NOW THE STAFF SAID THAT WAS EFFICIENT, SUFFICIENT, BECAUSE THAT'S THE BACK WAY. YEAH, BUT I'M JUST SAYING HUH. PEDESTRIANS WALKING THROUGH THERE, IS THERE LIGHTING, ALL THAT SORT OF THING? AGAIN, OUR CRITERIA IS THAT WOULD NOT CREATE A TRAFFIC HAZARD. YEAH. I I MEAN THAT VAN WAS CROSSING THOSE STRIPED PARKING SPACES JUST 'CAUSE THEY COULD, 'CAUSE THERE WERE CARS. AND SOMETIMES WE DO THAT IN PARKING LOTS. I, AND IF I DO IT, MY WIFE CATCHES ME AND SAYS, WHAT ARE YOU DOING? YEAH. 'CAUSE THAT'S A TRAFFIC HAZARD. SO SOME PARKING IF THE, YEAH. SO, OKAY. I'M CONVEYING TO YOU MY CONCERNS. UM, IN YOUR, IN YOUR REPORT, MR. DENMAN, YOU TALKED ABOUT NEW URBANISM. YOU SAID WALKABLE ENVIRONMENT. YET YOU READILY ADMIT THERE'S NO SIDEWALK IN FRONT OF YOUR PROPERTY. ALONG DRAGON THERE IS SIDEWALK IN FRONT OF THE STOREFRONTS AND IT SHOWED ON THE VIDEO, UH, THAT'S I SAID IN FRONT OF YOUR PROPERTY. IT'S IN FRONT OF THE PROPERTY. UH, ONLY IN THE FAR CORNER TO THE ONE CORNER. IF WE, WE ROLL THE VIDEO THAT SIDEWALK FOLLOWS AROUND, WE CAN LOOK AT THE VIDEO. IT [02:25:01] DOES NOT GO ALL LONG. BACK. DOES FOLLOW AROUND TO THE FRONT OF THE, THERE IS, THERE IS BUILDINGS AND THEN IT TURNS AND THEN IT I DID NOT SEE THAT NEXT DOOR. IT'S ON THE VIDEO. IT GOES INTO YOUR PROPERTY. THE SIDEWALK DOES. YES. YES. IT CONTINUES THE REST OF THE WAY TO OAK LAWN IS YOUR SIDEWALK, THE 1444 OAK LAWN. THE IS THE REST OF THE WAY FROM YOUR PROPERTY TO THE, THAT'S 1444 OAK LAWN. AND THEY ARE BUILDING, BUILDING NEW SIDEWALKS SINCE THEY GOT APPROVED RECENTLY TO RENOVATE THEIR SPACE. I DID, DID NOT. I DID NOT SEE THAT. IN YOUR VIDEO. IN THE VIDEO. RIGHT. RIGHT. AND IT'S, UH, ALL PARKING LOT TO OAK LAWN AS WELL. SO IT'S TRAVERSABLE. OKAY. THOSE ARE MY OBSERVATIONS. UH, MR. FINNEY. UM, SO I'M GONNA SHOCK MY COLLEAGUES, SOME OF THEM AND JUST ADMIT THAT I, I SHARE THEIR CONCERN ACTUALLY FOR YOUR ABILITY TO ENFORCE THE PUBLIC PARKING, UM, ACROSS THE STREET. UM, AND SO, UM, HAVE YOU, IF IT DOES BECOME AN ISSUE, UM, HAVE YOU THOUGHT ABOUT, UM, STRATEGIES TO ENCOURAGE YOUR TENANTS TO USE YOUR PARKING OVER THE, THE PARKING ACROSS THE STREET? BECAUSE JUST TO BE CLEAR, I'M ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE THAT HATES VALET. SO IF I SEE PUBLIC PARKING RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET FROM A REALLY FANCY RESTAURANT WHERE I'M ALREADY GONNA BE SPENDING MORE MONEY THAN I WANT TO, I'M GOING TO USE THE PUBLIC PARKING SPACE OVER PAYING FOR VALET. IF IT'S AN, IF IT'S AN OPTION. AND I MEAN, THIS IS RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET. SO, UM, THAT'S A HYPOTHETICAL, BUT, UM, JUST, JUST CURIOUS IF YOU'VE PUT ANY THOUGHT INTO YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. AND I TEND TO BE THE SAME . OKAY. I DON'T HAVE TO. SO WE PROACTIVELY MET WITH THE NEIGHBOR ACROSS THE STREET, TODD ECKER WITH BUDHA GIRL, AND MADE IT CLEAR. AND OF COURSE HE ADMITTED THAT HIS MAIN CONCERN WAS THE NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR, LOU CASEY. THEIR CUSTOMERS WERE PARKING IN FRONT OF WHAT HE THOUGHT WAS HIS SPACES, NOT NECESSARILY HAUL ON DRAGON, BUT I SAID, WE'RE HERE TO BE A GOOD NEIGHBOR. IF THAT HAPPENS, CALL THE OWNER. THEY'RE GOING TO MAKE IT CLEAR TO THEIR TENANT, YOU SHALL NOT PARK ACROSS THE STREET, YOU KNOW, HOWEVER THEY CAN. LET'S WORK TOGETHER. 'CAUSE I THINK THAT HELPS. AND MR. ECKARD APPRECIATED THAT. HE UNDERSTOOD HE WAS STILL NOT WILLING TO WITHDRAW HIS OBJECTION, BUT, UM, IT'S BE A GOOD NEIGHBOR, YOU KNOW, BE A GOOD NEIGHBOR. AND SO ON THAT POINT, I'M GLAD YOU BROUGHT THAT UP, UM, BECAUSE YOU DO HAVE FOUR LETTERS OF OPPOSITION, UM, MR. ECKER, UM, SHIRLEY WILLIAMS, DAVID W****R, LESLIE HICKS. HAVE YOU, YOU, YOU MENTIONED THAT YOU SPOKE TO MR. ZIG, UH, I MEAN, SORRY, THE OWNER OF BUDDHA GIRL. UH, BUT HAVE YOU TALKED TO THE OTHERS AND, YOU KNOW, RATHER THAN MAKE PROMISES ABOUT POTENTIAL FUTURE ISSUES, HAVE YOU THOUGHT OF TANGIBLE COMPROMISES THAT YOU'RE WILLING TO MAKE RIGHT NOW TODAY? LIKE SIGNAGE THAT INDICATES THIS IS NOT FOR SUCH AND SUCH BUSINESSES? UM, SURE. PLEASE DO NOT PARK ACROSS THE STREET. ABSOLUTELY. YEAH. AND BACK TO MR. NEWMAN'S COMMENT ABOUT SAFETY. YES, OF COURSE. WHY WOULD I PARK ACROSS THE STREET IF I DON'T HAVE TO PARK ACROSS THE STREET? I WOULD RATHER PATRONIZE AND PARK ON THE SAME SIDE OF THE STREET WHERE, WHERE I'M HEADED RATHER THAN ACROSS THE STREET. HOWEVER, AS YOU SAW TOO, DRAGON DOES NOT HAVE MUCH TRAFFIC. IT'S BASICALLY EMPTY. SO IT'S NOT A HAZARD TO CROSS BACK AND FORTH ACROSS DRAGON. IT MIGHT BE FITS YOU, FITS YOU HAS FIVE TIMES THE AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC AS WE SAW IN THE TRAFFIC COUNT. BUT DRAGON, I WAS OUT THERE MULTIPLE TIMES. IT, THERE'S HARDLY ANY TRAFFIC. OKAY. SO, BUT CAN I JUST ADD TO THAT AND, AND IF WE COULD GO TO THE NEXT, UH, SLIDE ALSO, IT'LL HELP ILLUSTRATE THIS. UM, I THINK IT'D BE A, SO LET'S, LET'S GO BACK TO MR. FINNEY'S QUESTION. MR. FINN. MR. FINNEY ASKED YOU, WHAT ARE YOU GONNA DO PRO PROACTIVELY TO MITIGATE THIS AS OPPOSED TO REACTIVELY? YEAH. AND, AND I WAS ABOUT TO GET TO THAT. AND HAVE YOU TALKED TO THE OTHER, OTHER OWNERS THAT HAVE LISTED OPPOSITION? THAT WAS, THOSE WERE HIS QUESTIONS. YES. YEAH. WELL, I THINK THE SIGNAGE IDEA IS A GREAT IDEA THERE. I'VE BEEN PLENTY OF PLACES WHERE YOU GO IN AND YOU SEE A SIGN THAT SAYS DON'T PARK AT, YOU KNOW, X BUSINESS NEXT DOOR. THEY WILL TOW NOW IN THIS INSTANCE, AND IF YOU LOOK AT THIS IMAGE, UM, THE, THE, UH, THE GREEN HIGHLIGHT, THAT'S THE, WHERE THE LUCCHESE STORE IS. THE REASON IT'S HIGHLIGHTED GREEN, THIS IS FROM THE APPRAISAL DISTRICT. THAT'S THEIR PROPERTY. SO YOU CAN SEE THE CARS THAT ARE PARKED ON DRAGON, THAT'S IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. AND BECAUSE OF PD 6 21, THEY GET TO GET CREDIT FOR THAT, BUT THEY DON'T OWN IT. OKAY. MR. I COULD TAKE A HARD, OKAY, MR. VINCENT, GO BACK TO MR. FINNEY'S QUESTION. YEAH. MR. FINNEY ASKED THE QUESTION, HAVE YOU [02:30:01] REACHED OUT TO THOSE IN OPPOSITION? MR. FINNEY ASKED, YES. THAT'S THE QUESTION. AND HE LISTED THE NAMES OFF. NUMBER TWO, HE ASKED, WHAT ARE YOU, WHAT WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO DO PROACTIVELY, NOT REACTIVELY. YEAH. SO LET'S ASK, LET'S GO TO THE FIRST QUESTION. OKAY, WELL, SECOND QUESTION FIRST IS, UH, I THINK, SO FIRST QUESTION FIRST. OKAY. HAS THE APPLICANT SPOKE TO THOSE THAT HAVE REGISTERED OPPOSITION? THE FOURTH LETTER CAME OVER THE WEEKEND, SO WE DID NOT SEE IT TILL NOW. HOWEVER, IT'S ON SLOCUM AND THERE'S NO CROSS CONNECTION. WE SAW IN THE VIDEO IT'S ALL CHAIN LINK FENCE 1511 DRAGON 1500 DRAGON. UM, HOLD ON, I'M LOOKING AT THE ADDRESS. IT'S 1611 DRAGON 1427 SLOCUM 1435 SLOCUM. YES. SO THE SLOCUM JUST CAME IN AND THERE'S NO CROSS CONNECT. SO YOU, YOU WOULDN'T PARK OVER THERE. THERE'S A CHAIN LINK FENCE THAT SEPARATES THE, THE PROPERTY. SO TO TO THE QUESTION, HAVE YOU SPOKEN TO THOSE OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS? THE DRAGON OWNERSHIP? YES. ALL FOUR. THE LOCUM? NO, ALL OF THEM. IT'S ONE IN THE SAME, I BELIEVE. YEAH. THEY'RE FOUR SEPARATE PEOPLE, BUT YEAH. HAVE YOU TALKED TO THE TENANTS? RIGHT. UM, 'CAUSE YOUR OPPOSITION IS COMING FROM THE TENANTS, RIGHT? NOT OBVIOUSLY, OBVIOUSLY NOT THE, JUST THE PERSON OWNS, AND IT WAS THE TENANT WHO TOLD ME HE HAD TALKED TO THE OWNER AND THE OWNER WOULD NOT CHANGE HIS MIND. OKAY. OKAY. BUT WHAT ABOUT THE OTHER TENANTS THOUGH? I THINK IT WAS ALL THE SAME. YEAH, IT'S THE SAME OWNER. OKAY. OKAY. SO THREE LETTERS ARE FROM THE SAME SOURCE. OKAY. OKAY. AND THEN THE ONE ON SLOCUM WE JUST GOT, AND THERE'S NO CROSS CONNECT ANYWAY. OKAY. SO, SO BACK TO MY OTHER QUESTION THAT COMPLIMENTS THIS. WHAT ARE YOU WILLING TO DO PROACTIVELY? WHAT KIND OF TANGIBLE COMPROMISE ARE YOU WILLING TO REACH WITH THIS, THIS LANDOWNER? I, I THINK IT WOULD BE VERY REASONABLE TO INSTRUCT THE VALETS AND, YOU KNOW, PUT IT INTO THEIR VALET AGREEMENT AND WHATEVER WE NEED TO DO CAN'T ON PUBLIC PROPERTY ANYWAY, RIGHT? THEY, YEAH, YOU CAN'T DO THAT ANYWAY, BUT LET'S JUST MAKE SURE THEY UNDERSTAND THAT VALET SERVICE, IT HAS TO BE PARKED ON SITE OR ANOTHER PRIVATE SITE THAT WE CONTROL. BUT WHAT ABOUT THE PEOPLE LIKE ME WHO ARE SKIPPING THE VALE AND WALKING ACROSS THE STREET? WELL, I THINK WE NEED TO PUT SIGNS UP THAT SAYS DON'T PARK ACROSS THE STREET, EVEN THOUGH, AND LEGALLY I WOULD MAINTAIN, WE HAVE A RIGHT TO DO THAT, BUT LET'S BE GOOD NEIGHBORS AND PUT A SIGN UP AND SAYS, DON'T PARK ACROSS THE STREET. I'M, I'M GONNA PUSH MY BUTTON AND LOOK UP WHEN YOU SAY LEGALLY WE COULD, AND LEGALLY WE CAN SAY NO TODAY. I UNDERSTAND. SO LET BE CAREFUL WHEN YOU SAY THAT, MR. HANON. NO, I'M, I'M OFFERING SOME WHAT I THINK ARE CONSTRUCTIVE IDEAS. I, I KNOW AND I'M OFFERING IT BACK. OKAY. SO I HAVE A FEW MORE QUESTIONS. SO AS FAR AS THE CURRENT TENANTS OF THE BUILDING, UM, FROM WHO, WHO CURRENTLY OCCUPIES THE BUILDING? ONE IS HALL ON DRAGON AND MY SON JUST HAD HIS HIGH SCHOOL FORMAL THERE, WHICH WAS REALLY FUN. AND I WENT TO OBSERVE DAD DON'T COME WATCH, BUT I DID TO LOOK AT THE TRAFFIC AND IT WAS EMPTY. OKAY. IT WAS ON A SATURDAY NIGHT. THERE WAS NO TRAFFIC ON DRAGON, THERE WAS NOT MUCH OTHER ACTIVITY GOING ON. BUT ANYWAY, THE HALL ON DRAGON IS A BIG TENANT AND THEN THE OTHERS ARE SHOWROOM. OKAY. AND VERY LITTLE TRAFFIC. THAT'S WHY I SAID THERE'S PLENTY OF PARKING DURING THE DAY. YEAH. NOW, THE HALL ON DRAGON WAS SPECIFICALLY CITED BY ONE OF YOUR OPPOSITION, YOUR NEIGHBORS ACROSS THE STREET AS, UH, LEAVING THEIR TRASH IN THE PUBLIC PARKING ACROSS THE STREET INSTEAD OF, I ASSUME, AND I'M, I'M ASSUMING Y'ALL HAVE DUMPSTERS BEHIND THE BUILDING IN THE CROSS HATCHED AREA, BURIED IN THE PARKING. SO I SPOKE DIRECTLY WITH MR. ECKERT AND HE SAID THE CULPRIT IS DOWN THE STREET CALLED THE DECK. OKAY. IT'S NOT THE HAUL ON DRAGON. AND I SPOKE TO ANOTHER BUSINESS ACROSS THE STREET, UH, I'LL HAVE TO REMEMBER HIS NAME. HE HAS ONE OF THE ART GALLERIES. AND HE SAID THE SAME, HE WAS OPPOSED TO A PREVIOUS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CASE NEXT DOOR THAT I REPRESENTED AND WAS APPROVED. AND HE WITHDREW HIS OPPOSITION BECAUSE HE MADE IT CLEAR IT'S THE DECK. THAT'S THE PARTY HOUSE, NOT THE HALL ON DRAGON. OKAY. ALRIGHT. AND IF, ALTHOUGH IT KIND OF GOES WITHOUT SAYING, IF YOU WANTED TO MAKE IT A CONDITION THAT, YOU KNOW, DISPOSAL OF TRASH TAKES PLACE ON SITE, I THINK THAT'S, I MEAN THAT'S PROBABLY CODE ANYWAY, SO WE'RE FINE WITH THAT, RIGHT? . YEAH. UM, AND SO, UM, YOU MENTIONED THAT THERE IS A, AN ADJACENT SITE FOR PARKING RELIEF. UM, HOW FAR AWAY IS IT? HOW MANY SPOTS AVAILABLE TO THIS SITE SPECIFICALLY? ARE THERE POTENTIALLY, UM, AND DO YOU THINK BACK TO CHAIRMAN NEWMAN'S POINT ABOUT A SIDEWALK ACROSS THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY, DO YOU THINK THAT WOULD ENCOURAGE MORE PEOPLE TO PARK OFF SITE, UH, AND WALK SO THAT PARKING WOULD BE VALET ONLY OKAY. AND WOULD NOT ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO PARK OFF SITE. AND I [02:35:01] DID FIND THE OWNER ACROSS THE STREET, IT'S JOEL KONNER GALLERY. OKAY. AND, UH, HE'S JUST A FEW DOORS DOWN FROM BUDHA GIRL. OKAY. AND HE WAS THE ONE WHO MADE IT CLEAR. YEAH, THE HALL ON DRAGON IS A GREAT NEIGHBOR. IT'S THE DECK THAT, OKAY. AND OKAY, I GUESS THIS IS ON PUBLIC RECORD, SORRY, DECK, BUT THAT'S WHAT I WAS TOLD. YOU'RE A BAD NEIGHBOR. . OKAY. THAT'S ALL. THANK YOU MR. FINNEY. OTHER QUESTIONS? MR. KOVI, YOU'RE, YEAH, THE, I BELIEVE YOU SAID THAT THE TWO, TWO OF THE FOUR PEOPLE WHO SENT IN OBJECTIONS WERE ON SLOCUM, WHICH IS, UM, IF I'M LOOKING AT THIS, WHERE EXACTLY IS SLOCUM? IT'S IN THE BACK. IT'S BEHIND AND THERE'S A CHAIN LINK FENCE THAT SEPARATES IT AND IT WAS JUST ONE ON SLOCUM. CAN YOU, CAN YOU KIND OF DIRECT ME TO WHERE EXACTLY SLOCUM, WHICH EXACT IS IT WHERE THE TOP OF THE ORANGE IS? I THINK IT'S BEHIND THE TOP OF THE ORANGE AND THERE'S A CHAIN LINK FENCE BACK THERE. NO ONE'S GONNA PARK OVER THERE. NO, THEY'RE GONNA, THEY'RE GONNA WALK AROUND THE CORNER. 'CAUSE IT'S AN IMMINENTLY WALKABLE NEIGHBORHOOD, RIGHT? MM-HMM . YEAH. UM, AND, UH, IT'S, UH, NUMBER FOUR IN THE, IN THE, UH, PARKING ACROSS THE STREET ON, ON DRAGON. THOSE BUSINESSES THAT HAD OBJECTIONS, UH, THEY'RE, I'M TAKING, I'M, I'M TAKING IT AT FACE VALUE THAT THEY'RE OPEN DURING THE DAY AND NOT AT, NOT LATE INTO THE EVENING, ALTHOUGH I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT'S TYPICALLY TRUE. YES. TYPICALLY THAT, THAT WOULD BE TRUE. BUT SINCE YOU'RE GONNA HAVE RESTAURANTS, THEY'RE GONNA BE PRESUMABLY OPEN TO LUNCH AS WELL. THAT'S NOT THE EMPHASIS, THAT'S POTENTIAL IF THERE'S A COFFEE SHOP, LIKE YOU SAID. BUT THE, BUT THE MAIN RESTAURANT THAT REQUIRES PARKING, IT WOULD BE NIGHTTIME. AND THAT'S WHAT WE SEE AROUND THE DISTRICT. DO YOU HAVE A, LIKE CARBON, DO YOU HAVE A KNOWN TENANT THAT'S GOING IN THERE? NO. SO WHAT'S THE BASIS OF THAT STATEMENT? WHAT'S HAPPENING AROUND THE AREA? BUT YOU'RE CORRECT TO YOUR POINT. YEAH. WHAT IF THEY HAD A BIG LUNCH CROWD? UM, THERE'S A LOT MORE PARKING HERE THAN AT OTHER FACILITIES THAT HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED TODAY. UH, BUT I AM VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THIS AREA IN THE BACK THAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT, WHERE THE PARKING SPOTS ARE ACROSS FROM EACH OTHER. I, I THINK YOU SAID THERE WAS A FIRE LANE. THERE WAS A FIRE LANE 28. IT DIDN'T, IT DIDN'T LOOK AT ALL LIKE THAT. I'VE DRIVEN IT. MR. THOMPSON WAS DRIVING THROUGH IT. I'VE DRIVEN IT AND THERE IT'S A FIRE LANE, BUT REQUIRED BY CODE. UM, IT, IT DIDN'T LOOK LIKE THERE WAS ROOM FOR TWO CARS, BUT I DO SEE THAT THAT'S KIND OF AT THE CORNER OF THE BUILDING. AND IF YOU'RE GOING TO BE RELYING A LOT ON VALET PARKING, THEY, THEY TEND TO EMPHASIZE TAKE THE CAR, PARK IT, GET BACK HERE. THEY'RE NOT SLOW DRIVERS WITH VALET PARKING. AND SO I'M A LITTLE CONCERNED ABOUT PULLING AROUND THE CORNER, THE VALET DRIVERS PULLING AROUND THE CORNER WHEN YOU'VE GOT PARKING SPOTS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE, OF THE PARKING AREA THERE. AND THEY'RE SWINGING AROUND THERE TO GO PARK. BUT YOU CAN SEE THE CORNER HAS NO PARKING, UH, FOR A, FOR A SHORT AREA. THAT'S TRUE. UH, THAT'S TO ALLOW THE SWING, JUST LIKE YOU SAID. BUT THERE, THERE ARE CARS ON ONE SIDE AND, UH, IS THERE A DEDICATED DIRECTION TO DRIVING THERE? OR IS IT TWO WAYS? THE FIRE LANE OF 20 WIDTH MEANT 20 FOOT MINIMUM WIDTH ALLOWS PASSING EITHER DIRECTION. NO. UH, CURRENTLY IS THIS DRIVING AREA ONE WAY OR TWO? WAY? TWO WAY. AND IT'S A MINIMUM 20 FOOT, PLENTY OF ROOM FOR TWO WAY TRAFFIC. SO, SO AS YOU COME AROUND THERE, IF YOU LOOK IN THE VERY CORNER, YOU'VE GOT PARKING SPOT NUMBER 1 22, PARKING SPOT NUMBER 1 47, KIND OF AT THE CORNER, THE TWO ENDS OF THAT CORNER. DO YOU, DO YOU SEE THOSE? CORRECT. UHHUH , I SEE THAT. YEAH. SO IF YOU'RE COMING FROM THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING AROUND THAT WAY, THERE'S, THERE POTENTIALLY COULD BE CARS THERE BECAUSE THAT'S PARKING, RIGHT? SO THERE COULD BE CARS YES. CUSTOMERS PARKING THERE. YES. SO YOU'RE COMING AROUND AND YOU'RE, SO YOU'VE GOTTA GIVE A LITTLE BIT OF BIRTH TO CARS THAT MIGHT BE THERE TO THE PARKING SPOTS. UH, THERE MIGHT BE 20 FEET, BUT YOU'RE NOT GONNA DRIVE WITHIN THREE INCHES OF A CAR THAT'S THERE. HOPEFULLY, THAT YOU'RE GIVING A LITTLE BIT OF BER AS YOU MAKE THAT TURN. AND SO I'M, I'M JUST A LITTLE CONCERNED IF THAT PARKING AREA GETS FILLED, [02:40:01] THAT THAT IS GOING TO BE, PARTICULARLY IF IT'S TWO-WAY TRAFFIC IS POTENTIALLY GOING TO BE A, A PRETTY DECENT PARKING HAZARD. DO YOU KNOW WHAT IS AT, AT THE, AT THAT CORNER OF THE BUILDING ADJACENT TO THE BUILDING, NOT A PARKING SPOT? IS THAT TRASH DUMPS OR, UH, THERE ARE SOME DUMPSTERS AND THERE'S SOME LOADING DOCKS. IT'S, I THINK IT'S LOADING DOCKS. THERE'S SEVERAL LOADING DOCKS, DOCK THE BACK. BUT A 20 FOOT MINIMUM FIRE LANE IS COMMON IN ALL PARKING LOTS. AND FOR FIRE LANES, THERE'S PLENTY OF ROOM TO DRIVE AND PASS AND CARS TO PARK AND EMBARK AND DISEMBARK. THAT'S THE WAY, THAT'S THE WAY IF PEOPLE ARE BEING PATIENT DRIVERS AND NOT IN A HURRY, 'CAUSE THEIR JOB IS TO PARK CARS QUICKLY AND GET BACK TO PARK MORE CARS, UM, THEN THAT GENERALLY IS GOING TO BE TRUE. I'M SIMPLY EXPRESSING A CONCERN ABOUT THE TRAFFIC, POTENTIAL TRAFFIC HAZARD AT THAT PARTICULAR PART OF THE BUILDING. I'M LESS CONCERNED ABOUT ANYWHERE ELSE AROUND THAT BUILDING THAN I AM RIGHT AROUND THE BACK OF THAT. UM, UH, I DON'T, I GUESS IT'S THE EAST, THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE PROPERTY. UM, SO I'M JUST EXPRESSING A CONCERN AROUND THAT. THERE ARE LIGHTS THERE THAT WE SAW IN THE VIDEO. MR. NEWMAN POINTED OUT THE MONTH BEFORE THAT THERE WERE LIGHTS THERE ALONG THAT SIDE OF THE BUILDING. I POINTED THEM OUT. BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT'S SUFFICIENT. I'VE NOT BEEN THERE AT NIGHT TO KNOW THAT IT'S SUFFICIENTLY LIT OR NOT. I HAVE, I'VE DRIVEN IT. BUT THAT AGAIN, WELL, NO, I WAS GONNA SAY THAT'S NOT PART OF OUR PREROGATIVE, BUT IT IS BECAUSE IF WE SAY THERE'S PARKING THERE AS A PART OF THIS SPECIAL EXCEPTION, WE'RE IMPLYING THAT IT'S NOT A TRAFFIC HAZARD, WHICH MEANS THERE'S SUFFICIENT LIGHTING. SO THAT, THAT'S REALLY MY, MY BIGGEST CONCERN IS THAT NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE BUILDING. YEAH. AND WHAT'S GOING TO BE POTENTIALLY, UH, AND I THINK A GOOD POTENTIAL OF HAVING A TRAFFIC HAZARD SITUATION THERE. SO I DROVE IT MANY TIMES. IT'S AT DAY AND NIGHT AND IT'S LIT AND IT'S A FIRE LANE MINIMUM 20 FEET. I SAW NO SAFETY HAZARD. WITH ALL RESPECT, THERE'S, THERE'S REALLY NOTHING GOING ON IN THAT BUILDING THOUGH, RIGHT NOW. YOU SAID IT'S FAIRLY DEAD IN THAT BUILDING. THERE'S NOT A LOT GOING ON THERE. THERE WERE NO CARS THERE WHEN I WAS THERE. YEAH. SO THAT'S WHY WE NEED SOME OF THIS. BUT YOU'RE PLANNING ON OPENING, YOU'RE, YOU'RE PLANNING ON UTILIZING ALL THESE SPACES WITH PATRONS TO, TO THE, TO THE BUSINESSES THAT YOU'RE GONNA LOCATE IN IT. SO WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, THE TRAFFIC PATTERN ON THAT STREET AS YOU OBSERVE IT TODAY IS NOT WHAT YOU HOPE IT WILL BE. I I DO KNOW ALSO MR. UM, OVITZ THAT THE, UH, THE CODE HAS CERTAIN PARKING LOT LIGHTING STANDARDS. SO, I MEAN, ONE THING WE COULD DO, AND I'D BE HAPPY TO OFFER IT AS A CONDITION, IS MAKE SURE WE'RE UP TO CODE ON LIGHTING REQUIREMENTS FOR OFF STREET PARKING LOTS. WELL, I'D BE HOPE YOU'D, I'D HOPE YOU'D BE UP TO ALL THE CODES . ABSOLUTELY. BUT I'M JUST SAYING IF YOU, IF YOU WANNA I ARTICULATE THAT, THAT'S FINE WITH ME. . THAT'S THE, THAT'S THE ONLY QUESTIONS I HAVE. UH, I I I WANT, I'M GONNA HAVE THE CITY ATTORNEY OR OUR BOARD ATTORNEY REFERENCE SOMETHING THAT'S IN THE CODE AS IT RELATES TO VALET. I'M NOT INTERPRETING THIS AS FOR OR AGAINST YOUR REQUEST. I JUST WANT CLARITY. UH, THE QUESTION HAS FLOATED ABOUT THE SPACES ACROSS THE STREET FROM ON DRAGON THAT YOU'VE LABELED AS PUBLIC PUBLIC PARKING, THAT SEVERAL OF THE OWNERS OR TENANTS HAVE CON SPENT CONCERNED ABOUT USE MS. BORDER ATTORNEY, UM, AS IF THEY ARE TO PROVIDE VALET PARKING. YOU WOULD HAVE TO GET A VALET LICENSE WITH THE CITY UNDER CHAPTER 43. AND ONE OF THE STANDARDS, UM, IS THAT THE LICENSEE OF THE CAN ONLY USE AN OFF STREET PARKING LOCATION TO PARK A VEHICLE ACCEPTED FOR VALET PARKING SERVICE AND SHALL NOT PARK THE VEHICLE ON PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. SO THE VALET COULDN'T USE THOSE STREET, THOSE SPACES ACROSS THE STREET. THEY WOULD HAVE TO PARK IT ONSITE. ALL RIGHT, LET'S PAUSE. ABSOLUTELY. LET'S, LET'S, LET'S PAUSE TO MAKE SURE EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS THAT. SO THOSE SPACES THAT I'M VERY CONCERNED ABOUT, THERE'S NO WAY LEGALLY I A VALET SERVICE ANYWHERE COULD USE THAT. THAT'S WHAT IT'S SAYING, CORRECT? WELL, THE VAL THE, THE VALET LICENSEE CANNOT USE PUBLIC. RIGHT. THAT'S THE ONLY THING IT'S SPEAKING TO. IT DOESN'T SAY WHO ELSE. IT'S JUST SAYING THE VALET LICENSEE CANNOT, COULD JUST, IT'S THE LICENSEE, THE PROPERTY OPERATOR OR THE VALET COMPANY. I'M NOT CLEAR ON THE LEGAL TERM. I'M NOT TOO FAMILIAR WITH CHAPTER 43. I I WOULD BELIEVE IT'S WHOEVER APPLIED FOR THAT. SO I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S PROPERTY OWNER. I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK TO SEE WHAT THE APPLICATION STATES. CAN YOU, I CAN SUMMARIZE IT FROM A CITY EMPLOYEE PERSPECTIVE. YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO VALET ON PUBLIC PROPERTY. PERIOD. OKAY. SO I GET YOU, I I WANTED THE BOARD ATTORNEY TO SPEAK TO THAT ISSUE, NOT THE APPLICANT. MR. VINCENT. COME ON. HOLD ON. SO WHAT HE'S SO A VALET SERVICE [02:45:01] CANNOT USE THOSE SPACES ALONG DRAGON STREET SERVICE? WELL, ONE WOULD BE CONNECTED TO THE OTHER IF THERE'S A VIOLATION, PRESUMABLY BECAUSE THE VALET SERVICE HAS TO BE LICENSED AND REGISTERED TO THE CITY, ALL THAT SORT OF STUFF, RIGHT? THAT IS CORRECT. ALL RIGHT. SO I DON'T WANT US TO CHASE THAT ANYMORE. I DON'T THINK THAT, I THINK REALISTICALLY SPEAKING, THOSE SPACES ALONG DRAGON CANNOT BE USED BY A VALET SERVICE. SO I DON'T THINK THAT'S AN ISSUE. NOW YOUR OTHER ISSUES THAT YOU BROUGHT UP ABOUT IN THE BACK AND LIGHTING, THAT'S STILL SUBJECT TO YOU OR, AND THE BOARD'S INTERPRETATION. OKAY. WHAT OTHER QUESTIONS DO WE HAVE FOR THE APPLICANT? YOU MENTIONED BEFORE THAT, AND I DON'T KNOW IF I WANNA LEAD YOU THIS WAY BECAUSE YOU JUST SAID THAT THIS PROPERTY OR SHOULDN'T PUT, BE PUTTING UP SIGNS SAYING YOU CAN'T PARK HERE. YOU SAID BEFORE, I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S TO MR, IT WAS TO MR. FINNEY THAT YOU WOULD BE WILLING TO PUT SOME SIGNAGE UP ALONG THE WHOLE BREADTH OF DRAGON STREET SAYING THIS IS NOT FOR RESTAURANT PARKING. WE WOULD HAVE, WE, WE CAN'T JUST GO PUT SIGNS UP ON PUBLIC PROPERTY. WE'D HAVE TO PUT IT ON OUR PROPERTY. AND I'VE SEEN THIS PLENTY OF TIMES BEFORE WHEN I'VE GONE SOMEWHERE. AND WHERE WOULD YOU PUT IT ON YOUR PROPERTY? I'M SURE WE CAN FIGURE THAT OUT. OKAY. I MEAN, WHERE THE, WHERE THE PEOPLE COME IN LIKE, UH, I I HEAR YOU. UNFORTUNATELY, THE PARKING SPACE IS THERE. YOUR SIGNS HERE, THAT'S SUCH A DISCONNECT. I DON'T SEE HOW THAT CONNECTS. I GO TO MR. FINNEY'S ANALOGY. HE DRIVES UP, HE DOESN'T REALLY, I'M NOT PICKING ON YOU, MR. FINNEY. HE DRIVES UP, HE SEES A SPACE, HE PARKS THERE, OFF HE GOES. AND UNFORTUNATELY HE CROSSES DRAGON STREET, WHICH CREATES A TRAFFIC HAZARD, RIGHT? I MEAN THAT, AS OPPOSED TO MR. FINNEY DRIVING TO THE BACK OF THE LOT WHERE MR. KOVICH SAID, WOO, HOW ARE WE GONNA HANDLE THAT? SO I'M JUST GIVING YOU THE WHAT I MEAN, WHAT WOULD THE ALTERNATIVE BE TO PUT A SIGN UP IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY OR ON THE FACADE OF THE BUILDINGS, PRIVATE BUILDINGS ACROSS THE, THE STREET. I, I, I DON'T, YOU'RE RIGHT. I DON'T KNOW. THAT'S WHY I MENTIONED IT AND THEN WENT, WE REALLY, I REALLY DON'T KNOW IF I CAN SUGGEST THAT 'CAUSE THAT'S SOMEONE ELSE'S PROPERTY AND IT'S IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT AWAY. RIGHT. SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT CAN BE DONE. SO I MEAN, WE'RE TRYING TO BE GOOD NEIGHBORS AND I THINK WE CAN ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO NOT PARK THERE. I MEAN, I DON'T THINK, YEAH, IF YOU READ THE LETTERS HERE OF THE FIVE, THEY'RE ALL CONCERNED ABOUT THE BIG NEIGHBOR TAKING OVER THE SMALL NEIGHBOR. AND, AND THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO BE SENSITIVE TO. BUT I KEEP READING. YEAH. OUR CRITERIA IS THE PARKING DEMAND DOES NOT WARRANT THE NUMBER OF OFFICE SPEED SPACES OR SPECIAL EXCEPT WOULD NOT CREATE A TRAFFIC HAZARD OR INCREASE TRAFFIC CONGESTION. THAT'S OUR CRITERIA. ALRIGHT. I SAY IT OUT LOUD OVER AND OVER BECAUSE THAT'S OUR CRITERIA, NOT ABOUT BEING A GOOD NEIGHBOR. UNFORTUNATELY. THAT'S OUR CRITERIA. QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT. YOU HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL NOW, AND I'M GONNA KEEP TO A TIGHT FIVE MINUTES. OKAY. AGAIN, I'LL USE LESS. 3 53. OKAY. UM, THANK YOU AGAIN, MR. CHAIR. UH, MEMBERS OF PANEL A UM, I THINK WE'VE MADE OUR, OUR CASE TO YOU. UM, YOU KNOW, WE'VE LISTENED CAREFULLY. UM, WE DO BELIEVE THAT WE MEET THE CRITERIA, UH, FOR THE GRANTING OF THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION. YOU KNOW, WE'VE GOT LOTS OF PARKING ON THIS SITE. UM, WE THINK WE HAVE MUCH MORE THAN THE ACTUAL DEMAND IS. WE THINK WITH A COMBINATION OF RIDE SHARING IN VALET, UM, AS WELL AS, YOU KNOW, SOME SELF PARKING ON SITE, PRESUMABLY, THAT WE THINK WE CAN EASILY ACCOMMODATE THE DEMAND. UM, ALSO THE RESTAURANT USE IS PROBABLY GONNA BE PRIMARILY A NIGHTTIME USE. NO GUARANTEE UNDERSTAND THAT. UM, BUT WE THINK THAT'S WHEN MOST OF THE BUSINESS FOR THE RESTAURANT IS GONNA BE. UH, WE ALSO ARE WILLING, AGAIN, TO OFFER UP THE 12 MONTH REASSESSMENT PERIOD SO WE CAN ALL SEE HOW THIS DOES, UM, THE, UH, REQUIREMENT THAT WE USE VALET ON SITE SUBJECT TO ALL OF THIS VARIOUS CITY CRITERIA FOR THAT. UM, SO, YOU KNOW, WE THINK THIS IS A REASONABLE REQUEST. UM, WE HAVE NO INTENTION OF IMPACTING ANYONE ELSE AT ALL. AND YOU KNOW, AS SAID, WE CAN PUT SIGNS UP AND IF YOU WANNA MAKE THIS A CONDITION SIGNS UP ON OUR PROPERTY, WHICH IS THE ONLY PLACE WE CAN DO IT TO SAY PLEASE DON'T PARK ACROSS THE STREET. UM, HOWEVER THAT'S WORDED. YOU KNOW, WE'VE WE PROMISED THE OWNERS WE WON'T DO THAT. I MEAN, WHATEVER THAT IS, YOU KNOW, WE'RE HAPPY TO DO THAT AS WELL. 'CAUSE WE HAVE NO INTENTION OF USING THOSE SPACES EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE PUBLIC SPACES. SO WE RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR APPROVAL AND WITH APPROPRIATE CONDITIONS AS WE'VE DISCUSSED. AND MY CONCLUDING COMMENT WOULD BE VERY SIMILAR TO THE ONE I MADE BEFORE WITHIN THE ALLOWANCES OF CODE. UM, TREAT EVERYBODY THE SAME. AND WE KNOW WHAT TODAY'S PARKING IS FOR RESTAURANT. THE NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR WAS RECENTLY, UH, GIVEN ALLOWANCES BY THE BOARD [02:50:01] OF ADJUSTMENT. NOT THIS PANEL, BUT ANOTHER PANEL. AND THEY'RE DEVELOPING, INVESTING A LOT OF MONEY TO HELP THE CITY GROW ITS TAX BASE. IT'S A WIN FOR THE CITY. AND I SAY THAT AS A FORMER EMPLOYEE, I WANT THE CITY TO SUCCEED. AND SO AGAIN, THE MANTRA WAS ALWAYS FOLLOW WHAT'S ALLOWABLE BY CODE AND TREAT EVERYBODY THE SAME. SO THAT'S MY CONCLUDING STATEMENT. AS MANY TIMES AS YOU SAID, YOU'VE BEEN A FORMER EMPLOYEE, THEY MAY HIRE YOU TOMORROW. BE CAREFUL, . THANK YOU VERY MUCH, GENTLEMEN. UM, THE CHAIR WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION. I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION. MR. FINNEY. I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPEAL NUMBER BDA 2 4 5 DASH FIVE ON APPLICATION OF JONATHAN VINCENT GRANT, THE REQUEST OF THIS APPLICANT TO PROVIDE 177 OFF STREET PARKING SPACES TO THE OFF STREET PARKING REGULATIONS CONTAINED IN THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED, WHICH REQUIRES 300 OFF STREET PARKING SPACES 'CAUSE 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. THIS SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS GRANTED FOR A RESTAURANT WITHOUT A DRIVE-IN OR DRIVE-THROUGH SERVICE, USE AN OFFICE, USE AN OFFICE SHOWROOM USE, AND A COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT INSIDE EVENT CENTER USE ONLY. I FURTHER MOVE THAT THE FOLLOWING CONDITION BE IMPOSED TO FURTHER THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE. THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION OF 123 SPACES SHALL AUTOMATICALLY AND IMMEDIATELY TERMINATE IF AND WHEN THE RESTAURANT WITHOUT A DRIVE-IN OR DRIVE THROUGH SERVICE OFFICE, OFFICE SHOWROOM OR COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT INSIDE EVENT CENTER USES ARE CHANGED OR DISCONTINUED OTHER CONDITIONS AS BRIEFED VALET SERVICES MUST BE PROVIDED AND THE VALET STAND MUST BE LOCATED ON SITE. THE APPLICANT MUST APPEAR BEFORE THE BOARD FOR A REASSESSMENT AND FINAL ISSUANCE OF THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WITHIN 12 MONTHS OF THE ISSUANCE OF THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY IN THE MATTER BDA 2 4 5 0 5. MR. FINNEY HAS MOVED TO GRANT THE REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION SUBJECT TO VALET SERVICES BEING PROVIDED AND A VALET STAND ON SITE THAT THE, AND NUMBER TWO, THAT THE APPLICANT MUST REAPPEAR BEFORE THE BOARD FOR A REASSESSMENT AND FINAL ISSUANCE OF A SPECIAL EXCEPTION WITHIN 12 MONTHS OF THE ISSUANCE OF THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. IT'S BEEN SECOND. AND BEEN MS. DAVIS DISCUSSION IN THE MOTION. MR. FINNEY. I THINK THE APPLICANTS HAVE DEMONSTRATED A VERY THOROUGH, UH, ANALYSIS. UM, I THINK THE, MY BIGGEST CONCERN ON THIS CASE WAS, IS THE PUBLIC PARKING. UM, AND I THINK THAT WAS SHARED BY MOST OF MY COLLEAGUES. UM, BUT I THINK THE OPERATIVE FACTOR HERE IS THE 12 MONTH ASSESSMENT. I THINK THAT WILL REALLY, UM, HOLD YOU ACCOUNTABLE TO MAKE SURE, UM, THAT YOU'RE NOT JUST CONSIDERING THE LANDOWNER ACROSS THE STREET, BUT EACH INDIVIDUAL TENANT ACROSS THE STREET. AND I WOULD CHALLENGE YOU TO DO THAT. UM, SO THANK YOU MR. FINNEY, MS. DAVIS. I'M SUPPORTING THIS MOTION, UM, BECAUSE THERE IS THAT 12 MONTH CHECK-IN, AND AGAIN, YOU'LL BE COMING BACK HERE. AND WE WOULD ALSO WANT TO HEAR FROM THE OTHER BUSINESSES, THE FACT THAT IT'S PUBLIC PARKING IN FRONT OF THOSE BUSINESSES IS ANOTHER REASON WHY I AM SUPPORTING THIS. I I DON'T FEEL IT'S RIGHT TO PENALIZE YOU JUST BECAUSE THERE'S PUBLIC PARKING THERE, BUT KNOWING THAT YOUR VALET, UH, CARS CAN'T GO THERE IS A PLUS BECAUSE YOU'RE DOING VALET TO TAKE CARE OF YOUR PARKING SITUATION. AND, UM, THE FACT THAT YOU'RE WILLING TO PUT UP SIGNAGE, HOPEFULLY MARKET THE FACT THAT YOUR CUSTOMERS NEED TO PARK AT YOUR VENUE. AND THE, AGAIN, THAT 12 MONTH CHECK-IN, WHICH IS WHY I FEEL COMFORTABLE SUPPORTING THIS. BUT AGAIN, WHEN YOU DO COME BACK, WE'LL WANNA KNOW, WE'LL WANNA HEAR FROM THE NEIGHBORS, HOW DID THEY FEEL ABOUT IT? THANK YOU MS. DAVIS. OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION, MR. OVITZ? BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO BE REASSESSING THIS IN 12 MONTHS. I WILL RELUCTANTLY BE SUPPORTING IT. I AM VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE BUILDING AND, UM, POTENTIAL TRAFFIC INCIDENTS TAKING PLACE BACK THERE. UM, I ALSO, UH, NO, I'M NOT GONNA SAY THAT. I'M DONE. THANK YOU MR. KOVIC. OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? I I AM SPLIT. I FEEL THAT THE BIG PROPERTY OWNER IS DWARFING THE SMALL PROPERTY OWNERS. UH, DRAGON IS A COMMERCIAL STREET. [02:55:02] THERE IS NO RESTAURANTS ON DRAGON ANYWHERE NOW, MAYBE THERE WILL BE. UM, I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE TRAFFIC HAZARD THAT IS GOING TO BE OCCURRING AS PEOPLE WALK IN THESE PARKING SPACES. ON ONE SIDE OF DRAGON ACROSS. UM, AND I THINK THAT VIOLATES OUR FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY TO AVOID CREATING TRAFFIC HAZARDS. UM, I LIKE THE IDEA, I, I'M GLAD THAT THE, THE MOTION SAID THE 12 MONTH REASSESSMENT. UH, AND I HAVE A GOOD MEMORY, BUT I DON'T HAVE AS GOOD A MEMORIES. I USED TO, IF I'M SO LUCKY TO BE HERE IN A YEAR FROM NOW, IF THIS PASSES, I DO NOT WANT TO HEAR IN CRY. I DON'T WANNA SEE OR HEAR CRY IN CROCODILE TEARS ABOUT, WELL, WE HAD THIS PROBLEM, WE HAD THIS PROBLEM, WE HAD THIS PROBLEM. AS MS. DAVIS SAID ON THIS CASE IN THE PREVIOUS CASE, UH, WE WANT TO SEE REAL FEEDBACK FROM WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND WHAT THE EFFECT OF THIS, UH, THE COUNCIL'S GIVEN US THE ABILITY TO GIVE A SPECIAL EXCEPTION, BUT IT SHOULD BE A SPECIAL EXCEPTION. IT SHOULDN'T BE JUST BECAUSE YOU BOUGHT A BUILDING AND OH, NOW WE WANT TO CHANGE THE USE. AND I FEEL THAT'S WHAT'S HAPPENING HERE. WE BOUGHT A BUILDING, NOW WE'RE GONNA CHANGE THE USE. AND, UM, AND I THINK THAT, UM, IN MY BONES, I THINK THIS IS NOT A GOOD THING. UM, I THINK IT'S A STRANGE DISPROPORTIONATE AMOUNT OF PARKING IN THE BACK. AND SO I'M THINKING, OKAY, USE THE PARKING IN THE BACK. BUT I JUST DON'T SEE PEOPLE DOING THAT. I SEE AS MR. FINNEY SAID, I'M GONNA DRIVE UP TO THE BUILDING AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT PERCENTAGE PEOPLE DO VALET VERSUS NOT, AND THEY'RE GONNA PARK. AND ONE, IT DISRUPTS THE BUSINESS. TWO, IT CREATES A TRAFFIC HAZARD. PEOPLE WALKING ACROSS DRAGON, AND WE CREATED THE TRAFFIC HAZARD. SO I'M NOT CONVINCED OF THE DISCUSSION AND THE MOTION, THE BOARD, THE BOARD SECRETARY WILL CALL THE ROLE. MS. DAVIS. AYE. MR. DORN? AYE. MR. OVITZ, I'VE CHANGED MY PREVIOUS STATEMENT. I'M GOING TO VOTE NAY. MR. FINNEY? AYE, MR. CHAIRMAN, NO MOTION TO GRANT FAILS IN THE MATTER BDA 2 4 5 0 5 0. THE BOARD DENIES THE REQUEST, UH, FOR THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION. DOES THE APPLICANT WANNA SPEAK? WE APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. OKAY. IS THERE A MOTION THAT ANYONE WANTS TO MAKE? IF THE MOTION IS LEFT ON THE FLOOR, IT BECOMES WITH PREJUDICE BEFORE YOU MAKE THE MOTION. I, I, I'LL BE WILLING TO HAVE A DISCUSSION. OKAY. WE ARE, YOU, YOU HAD YOUR SHOT, MR. VINCENT AND I GAVE YOU THE FIRST SHOT, BUT GO AHEAD. I'VE BEEN VERY GENEROUS WITH OUR TIME TODAY, AND THERE ARE TWO MORE CASES WAITING. YOUR, YOUR MIC'S OFF. I APOLOGIZE. I KNOW THIS IS A LITTLE OUT OF ORDER. YOU KNOW, AS, AS YOU WERE CORRECTLY BRIEFED BY YOUR CITY STAFF AND CITY ATTORNEY THIS MORNING, THE REQUEST IS A MAXIMUM NUMBER. SO IF THERE'S A LESSER NUMBER YOU MIGHT BE COMFORTABLE WITH, AND I DON'T, I'M NOT REALLY GONNA SUGGEST THAT BECAUSE IT'S REALLY UP TO YOU. BUT IF YOU THINK A LESSER REDUCTION IN PARKING WOULD MAYBE MAKE THIS MORE PALATABLE TO YOU, THEN I WE WOULD CERTAINLY, UH, YEAH, I MEAN, IT'S IN YOUR HANDS REALLY IS WHAT I'M SAYING. UH, AND WE HAVE TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT THIS BECAUSE MY BOARD ATTORNEY'S GONNA NUDGE ME IN A MINUTE ABOUT HOW WE, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DOESN'T NEGOTIATE IT, THE PODIUM SORT OF THING, LIKE THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN THE COUNCIL DOES. THAT'S NOT DISPARAGING TO THEM. IT'S A DIFFERENT DYNAMIC HERE. MM-HMM . UM, THAT'S A POSSIBILITY. UM, I AM, IF YOU HEARD, AND I'LL SPEAK TO MY BOARD NOW, MY CONCERN IS THE TRAFFIC HAZARD ACROSS DRAGON STREET, THAT WE ARE CREATING A TRAFFIC HAZARD BY PEOPLE POTENTIALLY WALKING ACROSS. AND THAT'S THE BASIS OF MY, OF MY, OF MY OPPOSITION. UM, I DON'T KNOW HOW, IF WE CHANGE THE, THE NUMBER THAT MR. VINCENT TALKS ABOUT, HOW THAT RELIEVES THAT CONCERN ONE, UM, AND HOW IT ENABLES THE REST. UM, I WAS GONNA SUGGEST PUTTING SIGNS UP THAT SAYS DO NOT PARK ON DRAGON STREET ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. UH, BUT THAT'S A FIG LEAF, YOU KNOW, I DON'T THINK THAT ACCOMPLISHES ANYTHING. [03:00:01] SO I'M JUST DISCUSSING. I WILL, I WILL CAUTION AGAIN THAT IF WE, IF THE BOARD DOES NOT HAVE ANOTHER MOTION, IT BECOMES A TWO YEAR WITH PREJUDICE DENIAL. AND I WOULDN'T, I WOULDN'T AGREE TO A TWO YEAR WITH PREJUDICE DENIAL. SO, HOLD ON A SECOND. LET US HAVE A CONVERSATION. AGAIN, WE DO THIS IN PUBLIC. ALRIGHT, SO MR. OVITZ, AND THEN I HAD MS. DAVIS, THEN MR. FINNEY, NOW THIS IS A QUESTION. IT'S CORRECT THAT THERE ARE 177 PARKING SPOTS ON THIS PROPERTY. IS THAT, IS THAT CORRECT? 1 77 CURRENT? CORRECT. SO ANY LARGER NUMBER REQUIRES ALTERNATIVE ARRANGEMENTS. AND ONE THING THAT OCCURRED TO ME, MR. CHAIRMAN, WHEN YOU WERE SPEAKING BEFORE THE VOTE IS, UH, AND AS THE MOTION WAS MADE WITH VALET SERVICES, IS THAT IT, IT, I REALIZED THAT THERE'S REALLY NO OTHER PLACE THAT'S BEEN DISCUSSED FOR THE VALETS TO TAKE THE CARS TO, UM, ON WITHIN THE 1 77. WITHIN THE ONE. YEAH. I MEAN THAT'S, WHICH MEANS IT'S A ZERO SUM GAME. THERE WAS NO, THERE WAS NO OTHER PROPOSAL FOR THE VALETS. THAT'S NOT TRUE. THEY TALKED ABOUT THE OFFSITE PARKING LOT IN THE MOTION THAT WAS PRESENTED. THEY DID, THEY MENTIONED IT. I, I KNOW, BUT IT'S NOT IN WHAT WAS RECOMMENDED. IT'S, YEAH. OKAY. SO I, I AM WILLING TO, UH, MOVE TO DENY THIS WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ALLOW THEM TO COME BACK SHORTER TIME THAN TWO YEARS FROM NOW. I'M NOT, UM, AND I DON'T THINK MR. FINNEY, I DON'T, THAT'LL PASS MR. FINNEY JUST A SECOND. HE HAS THE FLOOR. I HAVE MR. HOP, MS. DAVIS, THEN MR. FINNEY, I, I WOULD, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT IF, IF YOU DO COME BACK, WHEN YOU DO COME BACK, ASSUMING YOU WILL, UM, STATEMENTS THAT YOU MAKE ABOUT WHAT THIS PERSON WHO HAS A BUSINESS IN THE AREA, OR THAT PERSON WHO'S A PROPERTY OWNER IN THE AREA TOLD YOU ABOUT THEIR AGREEMENT WITH IT, THAT YOU COME IN WITH SOMETHING SIGNED BY THEM THAT SAYS THAT THEY SAID THAT BECAUSE, UH, TAKING, UH, HEARSAY, HEARSAY TESTIMONY REALLY ISN'T PART OF WHAT WE, UM, PUT A LOT OF, UH, STOCK INTO. SO, UM, I'M WILLING TO MAKE THAT MOTION TO ALLOW THEM TO COME BACK IF THE BOARD DECIDES THEY WANT THAT MOTION MADE. SO IS ARE YOU MAKING A MOTION? WELL, OTHER PEOPLE HAD WANTED TO SPEAK, SO I WASN'T GOING TO DO THAT UNTIL OTHER PEOPLE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO OKAY. PRESS THEIR PAGES. THE CHAIR WILL HIT RECOGNIZE YOU AFTER EVERYONE GETS TO SPEAK, MS. DAVIS. ALL RIGHT, SO THIS IS A COMMENT AND HOPEFULLY THIS IS APPROPRIATE. AND IF IT ISN'T, JUST STOP ME. BUT I JUST WANNA ADDRESS YOUR ONE COMMENT. I KNOW THAT, UM, CHAIRMAN, YOU'RE REALLY WORRIED ABOUT THE TRAFFIC HAZARD WITH, YOU KNOW, THE RESTAURANT BEING OVER HERE, AND THEN THERE'S PUBLIC PARKING ACROSS THE STREET. I CAN PROBABLY NAME 10 RESTAURANTS THAT HAVE THAT SAME SITUATION. SO I'M JUST, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S APPROPRIATE TO SAY OR NOT, BUT THERE ARE MULTIPLE PLACES IN DALLAS AND THIS CITY WHERE THEY'VE GOT PARKING, THEY'VE GOT THEIR VALET, AND YOU COULD JUST WALK RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET AND GO TO PUBLIC PARK PARKING AND NOT PAY A THING. THAT'S APPROPRIATE COMMENT. UH, THE DIFFERENCE HERE IS WE'RE LICENSING THAT TRAFFIC HAZARD. IN OTHER CASES IT'S HAPPENING IN THIS CASE, WE'RE CONSENTING TO IT, POTENTIALLY IN THIS ONE MEMBER'S OPINION. MR. FINNEY. WELL, UNFORTUNATELY, WHEN IT COMES TO WHETHER THIS WILL BE A TRAFFIC HAZARD, IT'S NOT A MATTER OF OPINION. IT'S A MATTER OF FACT. WHERE ARE THE FACTS TO SUPPORT THAT? AND THEY'RE JUST NOT HERE. AND, UH, MR. UM, DIM, FORGIVE ME. UM, DINAN DI DINAN, UH, HAS PROVIDED SOME VERY THOROUGH DATA AND I CAN'T FIND THE PAGE THAT HAS THE INFORMATION. UM, BUT I MEAN, I THINK IT'S VERY CLEAR THAT DRAGON STREET IS NOWHERE NEAR, UH, TO ITS, UH, DESIGNED CAPACITY WHEN IT COMES TO VOLUME OF TRAFFIC PER DAY. UM, AND YOU KNOW, IF, YOU KNOW, MR. OVITZ MENTIONED THAT HIS MAIN CONCERN WAS THERE WAS NO MENTION OF, UH, REMOTE PARKING ARRANGEMENT. WELL, WE CAN ADD THAT AS A CONDITION, BUT I'LL TELL YOU THIS. IF, IF MR. OVITZ OR MR. CHAIR, MR. NEWMAN, UH, PROPOSE A MOTION TO, UH, TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE, IT WILL NOT PASS. SO LIKE THE, THE MATTER OF THE, THE QUESTION IS WHAT WILL IT TAKE TO GET IT TO PASS? OKAY, THANK YOU. THE CHAIR WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. ARE WE STILL ALLOWED TO SPEAK OR NOT? UM, MY BOARD ATTORNEY'S GONNA TELL ME NOT AS SOON AS WE MAKE A MOTION, YOU CANNOT SPEAK. 'CAUSE THEN IT'S THE MATTERS WITH THE BOARD. SO I'M GONNA, I'M GONNA USE THE CHAIRMAN'S DISCRETION AND LETS YOU SPEAK. THANK YOU. SO, BUT AS SOON AS WE MAKE A MOTION, YOU CANNOT TO MR. FINNEY'S COMMENT ABOUT THE NUMBER ON DRAGON STREET. [03:05:01] REMEMBER IT WAS 100 CARS PER HOUR. THAT'S THE COUNT THAT WAS SHOWN. THAT'S A PUBLISHED PUBLIC COUNT. 100 CARS PER HOUR IS BARELY A CAR A MINUTE. PEOPLE CROSS THE STREET ALL OVER THE CITY, ALL OVER THE COUNTRY. ALL OVER THE WORLD. IT'S A COMMON THING TO CROSS THE STREET. YOU DON'T ALWAYS GET TO PARK ON ONE SIDE OF THE STREET. HOWEVER, IN OUR PROPOSAL, WE DON'T WANT ANYBODY PARKING ON THE WEST SIDE OF DRAGON. NOBODY. AND WE'LL SIGN IT ACCORDINGLY. BUT TO SAY THAT IT'S A TRAFFIC HAZARD ACROSS THE STREET THAT ONLY HAS ONE CAR A MINUTE IS NOT A TRAFFIC HAZARD. YOU'RE SPEAKING TO HISTORICAL NUMBERS. IF INDEED THAT YOU GET APPROVAL FROM THE BOARD TO CHANGE YOUR PARKING EQUATION, THE NEIGHBORHOOD CHANGES. 'CAUSE YOU'RE PUTTING IN 18,000 SQUARE FEET OF RESTAURANTS. SO THAT'S HISTORICAL NUMBERS. THAT'S NOT A PROJECTED NUMBER, THAT'S HISTORICAL, CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. SO IT'S IRRELEVANT TO THE DISCUSSION AS IT RELATES TO WHAT HAPPENS ONCE A SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS ISSUED OR NOT. THEN IT MAY GO TO 1.5 CARS A MINUTE. IT IS RELEVANT. IT THERE, THERE'S NO TRAFFIC ON DRAGON. THAT'S A HAZARDOUS IN MY MIND. AND I WOULD ALSO JUST OFFER THE COMMENT THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, THIS IS NOT AN ALL OR NOTHING, UH, REQUEST NECESSARILY. WE'VE, WE'VE ASKED FOR A REDUCTION, BUT THE REDUCTION PERCENTAGE REDUCTION COULD BE LESS, YOU KNOW, IT COULD BE TIED TO A SMALLER SQUARE FOOTAGE NUMBER FOR THE RESTAURANT, WHICH IS REALLY DRIVING THIS. UM, WE DO HAVE THE ABILITY TO UTILIZE PARKING AT THE DALLAS DESIGN CENTER DOWN THE STREET, WHICH WE CONTROL, AND WHICH HAS LOTS OF SPACES THAT WOULD BE AVAILABLE IN THE EVENING. SO, I MEAN, THERE ARE, THERE ARE SEVERAL AVENUES THAT I MIGHT RESPECTFULLY SUGGEST. MAYBE IT'S A WAY TO GET TO A PLACE WHERE AT LEAST FOUR OF YOU ARE MORE COMFORTABLE WITH THIS FOR AN APPROVAL. AND I WOULD JUST RESPECTFULLY OFFER THOSE UP FOR CONSIDERATION. AND I DON'T HAVE A NUMBER TO SUGGEST. I MEAN, THAT'S, THAT'S REALLY UP TO YOU ALL. BUT IN OTHER WORDS, IT COULD BE, YOU KNOW, YOU COULD CUT US BACK ON OUR REQUEST. I MEAN, I'LL PUT IT LIKE THAT. IT'S, YOU CAN ALWAYS APPROVE LESS. I MEAN, IT'S NOTICED FOR A CERTAIN REQUEST, BUT IT COULD BE A SMALLER PERCENTAGE OR A SMALLER AMOUNT OF SQUARE FOOTAGE. AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S APPROPRIATE. BUT THAT'S REALLY UP TO YOU ALL. MS. DAVIS, THEN MR. HOPKOS, I, I'M RECOGNIZING YOU SO YOU CAN SAY WHAT YOU'D LIKE. OKAY. UM, JUST, JUST TO COMMENT ON THAT LAST REMARK. I I, I'M CERTAINLY WILLING TO LOOK AT THAT, BUT I DON'T WANT TO GO BACK AND SAY, OKAY, WELL THE NUMBER'S THIS, I'D RATHER THE APPLICANT COME BACK AND SAY, OKAY, WE'VE REVAMPED AND THIS IS WHAT, THAT THIS IS JUST ONE BOARD MEMBER. I DON'T WANNA BE THE ONE SAYING, OKAY, A HUNDRED SPACES, AND THAT'S THE NUMBER WE THINK YOU SHOULD HAVE THE DATA TO SUPPORT WHAT YOU WOULD COME BACK WITH. BUT THAT'S JUST ME. I BELIEVE OUR CURRENT PROPOSAL IS SUPPORTED. SOUNDS LIKE HE DOESN'T WANT TO GIVE YOU ANY NEW DATA. MS. DAVIS, MR. OVITZ, UH, MR. VINCENT, IF YOU HAVE ADDITIONAL SPACES AVAILABLE, THEN THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN PART OF YOUR PROPOSAL. SO, UM, I WOULD SAY IT OUT THERE TO TV LAND. IF YOU COME TO FOR THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, BRING US YOUR BEST OFFER, PLEASE. UM, THIS ISN'T, THIS ISN'T, UH, NEGOTIATION HERE. THIS IS, UH, YOU'RE MAKING A PROPOSAL. WE BASICALLY APPROVE IT OR DON'T APPROVE IT. YEAH, WELL, WE, WE THOUGHT IT WAS SUPPORTABLE, UH, AS MR. DENMAN JUST SAID, I MEAN, CLEARLY THERE'S SOME CONCERN ON THE PART OF THE BOARD. SO, I MEAN, IF, IF, AND I, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE EXACT NUMBER IS. I'M NOT AN ENGINEER OR, YOU KNOW, UM, WELL, WE'D SAY 50 COULD GO REMOTELY TO THE DALLAS DESIGN CENTER. OKAY, WELL, I MEAN, IF THAT'S A, THAT WOULD BE A VERY OBJECTIVE, MEASURABLE CONDITION. IS IT 50 OF, LET'S SAY THE VALET, 50 OF THE CARS PARKED BY VALET HAVE TO GO TO THE DESIGN CENTER, WHICH THIS APPLICANT OWNS, AND WHICH WOULD HAVE THE PARKING AVAILABLE. SO IF, TO THE, TO THE POINT ABOUT THE TRAFFIC, UM, SAFETY ISSUE THAT TAKES THAT MANY CARS DOWN THE STREET AWAY, IT LESSENS THE PRESSURE FOR PEOPLE WHO MIGHT BE TEMPTED TO PARK ACROSS THE STREET. YOU KNOW, AND WE COULD PUT THE SIGNS UP TOO. DON'T PARK ACROSS DRAGONS STREET. I MEAN, THAT'S, THAT WOULD BE EASY FOR US TO DO. WELL, I WOULD SUGGEST YOU INCLUDE THAT IN YOUR PROPOSAL IF YOU COME BACK. THOUGHT WE DID, I THOUGHT IT WAS IN THERE. WELL, OR ARE YOU OPEN TO A MOTION, MR. CHAIRMAN? I AM. I WOULD, UH, HOLD ON A SECOND. MR. KOVI HAS THE FLOOR. OKAY. PLEASE BE RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. MR. KOVI. I MOVE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. MR. HAITZ, I THINK WE HAD ONE OTHER MEMBER THAT HAD A COMMENT BEFORE YOU MAKE YOUR OKAY, YOUR, YOUR MOTION. MR. FINNEY, [03:10:01] DID YOU LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT? YES. MR. FINNEY. SO, UM, I'D LIKE TO ADDRESS MR. HOFF'S COMMENT ABOUT, UM, THIS BEING A PART OF THEIR PROPOSAL FROM AT THE VERY BEGINNING. MY VERY FIRST NOTE, UH, WHEN THE APPLICANT BEGAN SPEAKING, WAS ADJACENT SIGHT FOR PARKING RELIEF. NOW, SAY THAT AGAIN. I CAN'T HEAR YOU. ADJACENT SIGHT FOR PARKING RELIEF, THAT WAS ONE OF THE VERY FIRST THINGS THEY TALKED ABOUT. IT'S THE VERY FIRST THING I WROTE DOWN. THE VERY FIRST THING. UM, SO TO SAY THAT THAT WAS NOT PART OF THEIR PROPOSAL IS, UH, AN EXAGGERATION. UM, AND THEY JUST AGREED TO A NUMBER. SO I, I SEE NO REASON WHY WE CANNOT, UH, ATTACH A CONDITION WITH 50 SPACES FOR REMOTE PARKING AGREEMENT. THAT'S A VERY REASONABLE THING. I MEAN, WE'VE JUST HAD MR. HAW KOVI AGREE TO THAT. SO DID THEY, UM, WHY ARE WE WASTING MORE TIME HAVING THEM COME BACK AGAIN TO HAVE THE SAME CONVERSATION FOR TWO MORE HOURS, UM, FOR PEOPLE TO GET EMOTIONALLY RILED UP. AGAIN, LET'S SETTLE THIS. NOW WE'VE COME TO AN AGREEMENT. SO LET'S, WE WE HAVEN'T COME TO AGREEMENT BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE A REMOTE PARKING IN A LETTER OF INTENT RELATING TO REMOTE PARKING. AND AS WE'VE DISCUSSED, THAT CANNOT HAPPEN UNTIL THEY HAVE A TENANT SIGNED UP. THAT'S A LETTER OF INTENT. IS NOT A, IT'S NOT A SIGNED AGREEMENT. IS THE LETTER OF INTENT REQUIRED TO HAVE A CONDITION OF A REMOTE PARKING AGREEMENT? IT IS AN INDICATION THAT THE PEOPLE WHO WOULD BE PROVIDING THOSE SPACES ARE WILLING TO SAY, YES, I'LL PROVIDE THOSE SPACES. ALL WE HAVE IS SOMEONE SAYING THAT MIGHT BE AVAILABLE. THAT'S NOT A COMMITMENT BY SOMEONE SAYING YES, I WOULD BE WILLING TO AGREE TO THAT. IN, IN MY EXPERIENCE, BUILDING INSPECTION WON'T ENTERTAIN A REMOTE PARKING AGREEMENT UNTIL YOU COME IN WITH A PERMIT OR A CO APPLICATION. AND YOU CAN CONFIRM THAT WITH STAFF. OKAY, MR. OVITZ, I'M GOING TO SUGGEST EITHER YOU OR I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE SUBJECT TO ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE ABOUT THE SIGNAGE AND A STERN CONVERSATION ON THE RECORD TO THE APPLICANT THAT, UH, THAT THE BOARD, AT LEAST I AM VERY CONCERNED ABOUT SAFETY TRAFFIC HAZARD ACROSS DRAGON. UM, I DON'T THINK WE'VE WASTED OUR TIME, MR. FINNEY, AND BE CAREFUL ABOUT SAYING THAT BECAUSE IT'S A COLLECTIVE TIME. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. THIS IS THE PROCESS. THIS AND THE PROCESS WORKS ITS WAY OUT. AND THE MAJORITY DECIDES, AND WE SHOULD NEVER PREDICT WHAT THE MAJORITY'S GONNA DO. AS SOON AS YOU DO IT, THE OPPOSITE HAPPENS. DOES IT CHANGES PEOPLE'S MINDS OR NOT? UM, I'M GONNA BE MAKING A MOTION TO APPROVE SUBJECT TO THE VALET SERVICES ON SITE, THE 12 MONTH REASSESSMENT, AND ALSO SIGNS ON YOUR PROPERTY. IF THE MAYOR WISHES I'LL BE HERE A YEAR FROM NOW. IF NOT, THEN YOU KNOW, YOU CAN DEAL WITH SOMEONE ELSE. BUT IT WILL COME BACK TO THIS PANEL. AND BOY OH BOY, I BETTER NOT HEAR ANY ISSUES ABOUT TRAFFIC ISSUES ALONG DRAGON STREET OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. AND BOY OH BOY, I DON'T WANNA SEE A PARKING STUDY THAT'S JUST ONE MEMBER. I THINK MS. DAVIS WOULD AGREE. WE DON'T WANT A PARKING STUDY. WE WANNA KNOW WHAT ACTUALLY IS HAPPENING ON THE GROUND. 'CAUSE I'M GONNA BE WILLING TO MAKE A CHANGE. DO YOU WANNA MAKE THE MOTION, MR. KOVICH OR I WILL. UH, I DON'T CARE TO. OKAY, JUST A SECOND. YES, I COMMISSIONER . OKAY. ALRIGHT. SO, UH, NO, THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR FAILED. SO IT, THAT IT'S DEAD. THERE IS NO MOTION NOW. WELL, RIGHT, BUT WE ALREADY MADE A MOTION TO, TO GRANT THAT FAILED. NO, WE, AND THAT FAILED. SO THEREFORE THERE'S NO MOTION. WHEN A MOTION FAILS, THERE'S NO MOTION. BUT OUR RULES STATE THAT IF NO OTHER MOTION'S MADE, THEN THE MOTION BECOMES WITH PREJUDICE. BUT IT BRINGS BACK THE, THE MOTION TO GRANT. 'CAUSE WE'VE ALREADY MADE THAT MOTION. IT DIDN'T PASS. SO THEREFORE THERE IS NO MOTION ON THE FLOOR. OKAY? YEAH. IT'S THE CHAIR'S INTERPRETATION THAT THE MOTION FAILED, WHICH MEANS THERE'S NO MOTION ON THE FLOOR. UM, AND OUR RULES STATE THAT IF NO OTHER MOTION'S MADE A MOTION TO DENY, UM, A MOTION TO APPROVE THAT IS, IS THAT FAILS, FAILS WITH PREJUDICE FOR TWO YEARS. I'M WILLING TO MAKE A MOTION. I MOVE TO GRANT THAT THE, I MOVE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IN BDA 2 4 5 0 5 0 ON THE APPLICATION OF JONATHAN VINCENT. GRANT, THE REQUEST THE APPLICANT TO PROVIDE 177 OFF STREET PARKING SPACES ON THE OFF STREET PARKING REGULATIONS CONTAINED THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED, WHICH REQUIRES 300 OFF STREET PARKING SPACES. PIX, OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY, HUH? USE IN THE TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT THIS SPECIAL, EXCEPTIONAL NOT INCREASE TRAFFIC HAZARD. IT DARN WELL, BETTER [03:15:01] NOT, OR PROPER USE. AND THE TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT, UH, IT WILL NOT 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. THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS GRANTED FOR THE RESTAURANT. FOR A RESTAURANT WITH OR WITH WITHOUT A DRIVE-IN. OR DRIVE-THROUGH SERVICE AND OFFICE USE AND OFFICE SHOWROOMS AND COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT INSIDE EVENT CENTER USE ONLY I FURTHER MOVE THAT THE FOLLOWING CONDITION BE IMPOSED AND PURPOSE. THE INTENT OF THE DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT CODE, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION OF A HUNDRED TWENTY TWENTY THREE SPACES SHALL AUTOMATICALLY IMMEDIATELY TERMINATE IF, WHEN, IF AND WHEN THE RESTAURANT WITHOUT A DRIVE IN AND DRIVE THROUGH SPACE OFFICE, OFFICE, SHOWROOM OR COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT INSIDE EVENT CENTER USES ARE CHANGED OR DISCONTINUED THE OTHER CONDITIONS. THREE CONDITIONS, ALL OF WHICH YOU HAVE VOLUNTEERED TO CORRECT. WELL, WAIT, LET ME SAY IT THEN YOU CAN SAY CORRECT. OKAY. VALET SERVICES MUST BE PROVIDED AND VALET STAND MUST BE LOCATED ON SITE. DOES THAT MEAN THAT THE VALET PARKING'S ON SITE OR DOES THAT MEAN JUST THE STANDS ON SITE? THE STAND ON IS ON SITE IN A, PURSUANT TO THE VALET LICENSE, THE PARKING HAS TO BE ON AN OFF STREET PARKING. SO THAT'LL BE ON SITE BECAUSE ALL THE NOT IN THE PUBLIC THING. RIGHT. THANK YOU. TWO, THE APPLICANT MUST APPEAR BEFORE THE BOARD OF, UH, BOARD FOR A REASSESSMENT AND FINAL ISSUANCE OF THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WITHIN 12 MONTHS OF THE ISSUE OF THE CERTIFICATE OCCUPANCY. DO I NEED TO SAY ANY MORE ABOUT THAT? NO, SIR. AND I WILL REMEMBER THIS CONVERSATION. I'LL PROBABLY EVEN KEEP THIS PACKET. AND THREE, AND MR. BOARD ATTORNEY, IF YOU WOULD HELP ME, THE LANGUAGE THAT THE APPLICANT WILL POST SIGNS VISIBLE ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, THAT STATE, WHAT DO YOU WANNA SAY? WHAT DO YOU WANNA SAY? I WAS GONNA SAY, DO NOT PARK ON DRAGON STREET OR, OR NO PARKING IN FRONT OF BUSINESSES OR ADJACENT BUSINESSES. PLEASE DO. PLEASE DO NOT PARK IN. WHAT DO YOU WANT ME TO SAY? PLEASE DO NOT PARKING. I WANT TO SAY PLEASE, TO ADDRESS PARKING. WE'LL ADDRESS PARKING ACROSS THE STREET. I AM USUALLY POLITE. PLEASE DO NOT. PLEASE DO NOT PARK ON DRAGON STREET. HOW'S THAT? BECAUSE YOU CAN'T PARK ON THE NORTH SIDE RIGHT? ON THE OTHER SIDE. SO PLEASE DO NOT PARK ANYWHERE ON DRAGON STREET. YEAH. IS THAT OKAY? THAT'S FAIR. HOW MANY SIGNS? HOW MANY SIGNS? UM, HOW MANY DO YOU WANT? NO, I WANT I WANT YOU TO VOLUNTARILY DO THIS. NOT BE BROWBEAT. WELL, WE CAN'T PUT 'EM YOU SAID YOU DO THE SIGNS. I WANT 'EM TO BE ADEQUATE 'CAUSE OTHERWISE I WILL NOT DO IT. 'CAUSE I'M, I REALLY THINK WE'RE OKAY. GO AHEAD. I I WOULD SAY AT LEAST ONE FOR EACH TENANT SPACE. EACH TENANT? NO, EACH TENANT. EACH. MEANING WHEN YOU ENTER, YOU HAVE TO, ON YOUR ENTER, ENTER THE PREMISES, YOU SEE A SIGN THAT SAYS DO NOT PARK ON DRIVE. YEAH. ON YOUR PROPERTY. I DON'T WANT IT TO DEFACE YOUR PROPERTY. FOUR SIGNS. I YEAH. IT HAS TO BE ON YOUR PROPERTY, CORRECT? YES, THAT IS CORRECT. IT WOULD HAVE TO BE, OKAY. SO IT'S FOUR SIGNS. TOO MUCH. NOT ENOUGH. WHAT'S THAT? UM, POST A AT THE ACCESS POINT OFF THE STREET, I WAS THINKING AS YOU ENTER A AS YOU ENTER A BUSINESS, MAKE IT VISIBLE, NUMBER ONE. AND THEN YOU COULD HAVE SOME SIGNS ALONG THE PARKING SURE. FOR ENFORCEMENT AS WELL. SO WE'LL PUT FOUR SIGNS VISIBLE. SO, SO I'LL SAY FOUR SIGNS, BUT GUYS, A MINIMUM OF IS WHAT I'LL SAY. YES, ABSOLUTELY. AND THEN I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO PUT AS MANY SIGNS AS TO MAKE SURE THAT A YEAR FROM NOW YOU DON'T HEAR ME. SAY, GUYS, I TOLD YOU, LOOK WHAT HAPPENED. AND I GOT, YOU KNOW, AND I CHANGED MY MIND. WE DON'T WANNA GO THROUGH THAT AGAIN. WE ARE FULLY INCENTIVIZED. YES. OKAY. SO THAT'S, YOU KNOW, WE'LL, WE'LL BRING PICTURES OF THE SIGNS NEXT YEAR. I, THAT'S PROBABLY SMART AND NOT A BIG PARKING STUDY. I, YEAH. OKAY. UH, ISO MOVE POINT OF ORDER. YES. IS THERE A SECOND TO THE MOTION? FIRST I ENTER FINNEY SECOND. THE MOTION SECONDED BY MR. FINNEY. I'LL HAVE DISCUSSION BY MY MYSELF. THEN MR. FINNEY, POINT OF ORDER. MR. OVITZ, MR. MR. CHAIRMAN, DOES THE CITY REQUIRE POSTED SIGNS TO BE BILINGUAL? SAY THAT ONE MORE TIME. DOES THE CITY REQUIRE SIGNS POSTED TO BE BILINGUAL? I DON'T KNOW. DO THEY? I'M NOT, I'M NOT SURE. BUT IF THIS, WE'RE GONNA ASSUME NOT. WE'LL SEE SIGNS CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY. WHATEVER, WHATEVER, WHATEVER. HOW'S THAT? YOU WILL, YOU PUT THAT IN THERE? A CONSISTENT WITH CITY CODE? HOW'S THAT? AND THEN THAT'LL APPLY. AND I SAID A MINIMUM OF FOUR. BUT YOU'LL USE YOUR JUDGMENT IN ORDER TO MAKE SURE, AND OF COURSE DO IT IN A WAY THAT'S, THAT, THAT SERVES THE PURPOSE. WITHOUT DEFACING YOUR PROPERTY, WE DON'T WANT YOU TO DEFACE YOUR PROPERTY. OKAY? UH, I'M, I CHANGED MY MIND ON THIS, UH, BECAUSE WITH THE SIGNAGE, WITH THE VALET, WITH THE 12 MONTH DEAL, UH, AND WITH MY PLEADING ABOUT THE SAFETY ISSUE ALONG DRAGON STREET, I DON'T CARE WHAT IT IS NOW, I WORRY ABOUT WHAT IT'S GONNA BE BECAUSE GUYS, YOUR PROPERTY OWNER BOUGHT A BUILDING AND IT'S CHANGING ITS USE THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S ABOUT TO CHANGE AND THAT'S OKAY. THAT'S THE WAY IT WORKS. IT'S WITHIN PD 6 21. [03:20:01] THAT'S BY YOUR RIGHT. BUT THEN YOU HAVE TO COME HERE WHEN YOU DO SOMETHING THAT'S NOT BY YOUR RIGHT. THAT'S THE WAY THE SYSTEM WORKS WHEN YOU CAN DO THINGS BY, RIGHT. YOU DON'T NEED TO TALK TO US. SO THAT WAS THE BASIS OF MINE AND I RECOMMEND THE BOARD APPROVE IT. MR. FINNEY DISCUSSION AND THE MOTION. UM, WELL FIRST I'D LIKE TO APPLAUD, UM, MY COLLEAGUES FOR REACHING A, UH, REASONABLE COMPROMISE, UM, AND THE APPLICANT FOR YOUR DILIGENT, UM, PREPARATION. UM, YOU KNOW, I THINK IT WOULD BE ONE THING IF THIS WAS, UH, AN APPLICANT THAT'S NEW TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT WITH NEARLY 16 PROPERTIES IN THE, IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, I THINK THEY'VE MORE THAN PROVEN THAT THEY'RE A GOOD NEIGHBOR AND THAT THEY'RE COMMITTED TO BEING A GOOD NEIGHBOR. AND I THINK THAT THE CONDITIONS THAT WE HAVE, UH, BAKED INTO THIS, UH, THIS, UH, VARIANCE, UH, IS, UH, MORE THAN ADEQUATE TO HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE. THANK YOU MR. FINNEY. OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? MS. DAVIS? MR. DORN? MR. HOPKOS, NO DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION. MS. BOARD SECRETARY CU VOTE ONE SECOND. THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR IN BDA 2 4 5 0 5 0 WAS TO GRANT THE REQUEST FOR 123 SPECIAL EXCEPTION SUBJECT TO VALET SERVICES PROVIDED AND VALET STAND ON THE SITE. TWO, APPLICANT COMING BACK FOR BOARD REASSESSMENT. AND THREE, UM, THE, THE, THE APPLICANT POSTING SIGNS ON THEIR PROPERTY MINIMUM FOUR OF PLEASE DO NOT. SAY IT AGAIN. MS. THERESA, DO NOT PARK ON STREET. PLEASE DO NOT PARK ON DRAGON STREET AND CONSISTENT WITH CITY SIDE STANDARDS. ALL THAT A MINIMUM OF FOUR. THE BOARD SECRETARY WILL CALL THE VOTE. MS. DAVIS. AYE. MR. DORN AYE. MR. OVITZ PLEASE RECORD. MY VOTE IS NOT VOTING. YOU CAN'T, OUR RULES DO NOT ALLOW THAT. OUR RULES SAY YOU HAVE TO VOTE I OR NAY THEN NAY. MR. FINNEY? AYE. MR. CHAIRMAN, AYE. MOTION TO GRANT PASSES WITH CONDITIONS, UH, IN THE MATTER OF BDA 2 4 5 0 5. THE BOARD ON A VOTE OF FOUR TO ONE APPROVES A SPECIAL EXCEPTION REQUEST WITH THOSE THREE CONDITIONS. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. YOU'LL GET A, A, A LETTER FROM A DECISION LETTER FROM OUR BOARD, UH, UH, ADMINISTRATOR WITHIN TWO DAYS. THANK YOU. YES SIR. THANK YOU. UH, I LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING YOU A YEAR FROM NOW. WE WILL AS WELL THANK YOU WITH BELLS AND WHISTLES. YES, SIR. AND NO BIG PARKING REPORT? YES SIR. IS IT THE BOARD'S PLEASURE TO TAKE A FIVE MINUTE RECESS OR TO CONTINUE? KEEP GOING, SHE SAYS. OKAY. NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS BO OA 25 DASH 0 0 0 0. 9 1 1 3. 1 1 3 2 2 EAST RICK CIRCLE IS THE APPLICANT HERE? YES, SIR. MR. BALDWIN, GOOD AFTERNOON. GOOD AFTERNOON. HOW ARE Y'ALL TODAY? HOW ARE YOU? IF YOU WOULD BE SO KIND TO, UH, GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND BE SWORN IN BY THE BOARD. UH, SECRETARY. WE HAVE THE PROPERTY OWNER HERE TODAY. CAN WE SWEAR IN? THANK YOU. I APOLOGIZE. HOLD THE, HOLD YOUR VOTE. WHO ALL DO WE HAVE SPEAKING TODAY? MS. BOARD SECRETARY? I HAVE THE REPRESENTATIVE AND TWO OTHER SPEAKERS. I'M IN FAVOR OR AND AGAINST IN FAVOR? I DON'T THINK THE THIRD SPEAKER. I DON'T THINK MR. MEIER IS GONNA SPEAK. OKAY. JUST MR. MARSHALL AND MYSELF. OKAY. SO WE HAVE MR. BALDWIN AND MR. WHO? MARSHALL. MR. MARSHALL. ALL RIGHT. SO, UH, IF YOU'D COME UP TO THE MICROPHONE A QUICK SECOND AND JUST GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND THEN YES SIR. UH, IT'S PIERCE MARSHALL 6 4 2 5 BELMEAD DRIVE, DALLAS, TEXAS 7 5 2 3 0. ALRIGHT, NOW IF YOU GUYS GENTLEMEN WOULD BE SWORN IN BY THE BOARD SECRETARY, DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? I DO. I DO. OKAY, THANK YOU GENTLEMEN. UH, MEMBERS, I DON'T HAVE ANY EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ON 0 0 0 0 0 9. SO I'M NOT GONNA SEND YOU DOWN THAT WAY. OKAY. SO, UH, MR. BALDWIN, CONSISTENT WITH OUR RULES OF PROCEDURE, UH, YOU AS THE APPLICANT HAVE FIVE MINUTES TO PRESENT. THE OTHER SPEAKER CAN SPEAK FOR FIVE MINUTES AND THEN THERE'S NO ONE IN OPPOSITION. SO THEN YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES FOR REBUTTAL AND I WON'T BRING UP PARKING AT ALL. THIS IS A FENCE CASE, SO, SO YOU HAVE 10 MINUTES IN TOTAL. USE IT WISELY. I DON'T THINK WE NEED IT ALL RIGHT NOW. UH, SO ROB BALDIN 3 9 0 4 ELM STREET, SUITE B, UH, IN DALLAS. AND I KNOW AT LEAST THREE OF YOU ARE ON THE, THE BOARD WHEN WE WERE HERE IN MARCH. SO WHAT'S DIFFERENT BETWEEN NOW AND [03:25:01] MARCH? TWO BIG THINGS. ONE, UH, MR. MARSHALL AGREED TO LOWER THE HEIGHT OF THE FENCE FROM EIGHT FEET TO SIX FEET. AND TWO, THERE'S NO NEIGHBORHOOD OPPOSITION. HE'S WORKED WITH HIS NEIGHBORS, HE WORKED WITH HIS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND THEY'VE WITHDRAWN THEIR OPPOSITION TO THIS CASE. AND SO THAT'S, THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. SO THIS IS, UH, ON NORTH HAVEN, UH, JUST NORTH OF NORTH HAVEN'S ON EASTRIDGE CIRCLE, JUST WEST OF HILLCREST IN, IN NORTH DALLAS. UH, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. UH, HERE'S THE LOT. THE CARD TO SEE. COME BRING. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE, BRENT. SO THIS THE SLIDE THAT SHOWS THE HOUSES UNDER CONSTRUCTION. WE'RE ASKING FOR THE SIX FOOT FENCE ALONG EAST RICK CIRCLE DRIVE. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. UH, THE REQUEST IS FOR A FENCE TALLER THAN FOUR FEET. IN THIS CASE IT'S SIX. UH, IT'S GONNA BE AN OPEN DECORATIVE FENCE, DECORAT ROD IRON. UH, THE GATE'S GONNA BE A LITTLE BIT MORE SOLID AND IT'S GONNA BE MASONRY PANELS, BUT FOR A MASS, VAST MAJORITY OF IT'S GONNA BE OPEN DECORATIVE PANELS, SIX FEET TALL. NEXT TALL PLEASE. AND WE HAVE NO ENCROACHMENTS ANY SITE VISIBILITY TRIANGLES. I KNOW THIS, THIS IS KIND OF BUSY AND HARD TO READ, BUT IT KIND OF JUST SHOWS THE FENCE LOCATION AND WHY THAT'S IMPORTANT IS IT'S AT LEAST 25 FEET FROM THE EDGE OF THE PAVEMENT AS, UH, THE, THE CHAIR SAID THAT, UH, THE COMMISSIONER NERI IS ALWAYS CONCERNED WHEN YOU HAVE FENCES CLOSE TO STREETS MAKING A CANYON EFFECT. THIS WILL NOT DO THAT EVEN THOUGH WE HAVE A, A TALL FENCE BEHIND A TALL HEDGE RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET. WE'RE SET BACK FAR ENOUGH AND OUR FENCE IS OPEN ENOUGH THAT WE WILL NOT CREATE A CANYON EFFECT. UH, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. THIS IS WHAT THE ENTRY GATES WILL LOOK LIKE. YOU CAN SEE THAT THEY'RE OPEN, BUT THEY ALSO HAVE SOME THICKER PANELS AROUND OUT IN SUMMATION AREA. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. UM, AGAIN, MORE OF THE FENCE. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. UH, THIS SHOWS THAT WE'RE NOT IN ANY VISIBILITY TRIANGLE. UH, NOT ONLY IS THE FENCE BACK AT LEAST 25 FEET, THE GATES BACK EVEN FARTHER THAN THAT. UH, NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. UH, AGAIN, THAT'S THE OTHER GATE. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. NEXT SLIDE. SO I WANT TO KEEP GOING, PLEASE. I, WHAT I WANT TO GET TO IS THIS ONE. OKAY. SO THIS SLIDE IS LOOKING AT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM THE SOUTH. AS YOU CAN SEE, THERE IS A FENCE TALLER THAN SIX FEET JUST TO THE SOUTH OF US. THE WEIRD THING IS THAT IS CONSIDERED THE SIDE YARD OF OUR NEIGHBOR'S FENCE. SO IT IS ALLOWED TO GO UP TO EIGHT FEET IN HEIGHT. IT BECOMES A, AS RICK'S CIRCLE TURNS, IT BECOMES A FRONT YARD AND THEN IT BECOMES A, A FRONT YARD. AND WE'RE LIMITED TO FOUR FEET IN HEIGHT. WE'RE ASKING TO GO TO SIX FEET. SO I KNOW WHEN, UH, MR. BRYANT DID YOU THE TOUR THROUGH THERE, THERE'S NOT A LOT OF FENCES. UM, BUT THERE ARE FENCES AND TWO OF THEM HAPPEN TO BE ONE JUST TO THE SOUTH OF US, ONE JUST RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET FROM US. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. SO AS YOU CAN SEE HERE, RIGHT BEHIND THAT, THAT HEDGE IS AN EIGHT FOOT TALL, UH, IS EITHER BLACK CHAIN LINK FENCE OR DECORATIVE IRON FENCE THAT IS BEHIND THAT FENCE. OUR NEIGHBORS ALSO HAVE SHRUBS AND HEDGES PUSHED RIGHT UP TO THE STREET. WE ARE 25 FEET BEYOND WHERE THESE SHRUBS ARE AND WE'LL BE AN OPEN FENCE. SO I THINK THIS IS, UH, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. THIS IS JUST LOOKING SAL SHOWING THAT THERE ARE, IT'S NOT A CLEAR UNOBSTRUCTED VIEW AS YOU LOOK DOWN RICK'S CIRCLE. UH, I THINK THAT WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING IS IN KEEPING WITH, UH, WHAT WE, THE REASON WE CAME BACK, UH, I THINK THAT IF YOU THOUGHT THAT OFFENSE HERE WAS OUT OF THE QUESTION, YOU WOULDN'T HAVE DENIED US WITHOUT PREJUDICE. AND SO WE CAME BACK WITH A LOWER FENCE AND WITHOUT NEIGHBORHOOD OPPOSITION. AND I HOPE YOU CAN SUPPORT THIS FENCE. I'M HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS AT THE AFTER. UH, MR. MARSHALL SPEAKS, AND THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU, SIR. MR. MARSHALL. THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN. CHAIRMAN, YOU'RE HERE TO TALK ABOUT PARKING. NO, SIR. I'M JOKING. ABSOLUTELY NOT. YOU CAN RAISE THAT FOR YOU. OH, UM, THAT MAGIC. THANK YOU, UH, MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME TODAY. UM, THE REASON THAT WE ACTUALLY, UH, YOU DO REMEMBER MR. BARRETT COMING IN AND, AND TALKING ABOUT HOW ORIGINALLY THIS FENCE WAS ACTUALLY IN VIOLATION OF OUR DEED RESTRICTIONS. THE PROBLEM IS, IS IN, IN 2021, THERE WAS ACTUALLY A NEW LAW PUT IN PLACE THAT ACTUALLY PROHIBITS ANY DEED RESTRICTION FROM PROHIBITING, UH, FROM STOPPING A PERIMETER FENCE BEING BUILT. AND, AND THAT'S THE REASON IN FACT, THAT WE DON'T HAVE ANY OPPOSITION. AND, AND, UH, THE, BOTH THE HOA AS WELL AS THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE NOW UNDERSTANDS THAT THAT NEED RESTRICTION IS ACTUALLY UNENFORCEABLE BY LAW. UH, THAT AND, AND, UH, MS. CARLISLE, THAT'S [03:30:01] PRO TEXAS PROPERTY CODE 200.023 IF YOU, IF YOU NEED IT. UM, UH, PRIMARILY I'M DOING THIS PRIMARILY FOR THE SECURITY OF MY FAMILY. I CAN'T CHANGE THE FACT OF WHAT FAMILY I WAS BORN INTO, BUT I DO HAPPEN TO BE PART OF A HIGH PROFILE FAMILY. I AM DOING THIS STRICTLY FOR THE SECURITY OF, OF MY FAMILY. UM, I DO SUSPECT NOW THAT THIS DEED RESTRICTION IS NO LONGER ENFORCEABLE. I KNOW FOR A FACT THAT MY, MY NEIGHBOR ACROSS THE STREET PLANS ON BUILDING ONE AS WELL. UM, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. OH, OH, I'M SORRY. ARE YOU DONE? NO, NO. YES SIR. I WAS JUST SAYING I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THE BOARD MAY HAVE. THANK YOU. SO QUESTIONS AND QUESTIONS REPEAT THE, WHAT YOU SAID THAT WHAT BUILDING OF WHAT STATUTE CHANGED? YES. SORRY. THE, UM, SO IN 2 20 21 FOR SECURITY, BASICALLY THE GOVERNOR SIGNED A, A LAW INTO LAW, A PROHIBIT A PROHIBITION FOR DEED RESTRICTIONS THAT WOULD PROHIBIT THE BUILDING OF A PERIMETER FENCE. SO OBVIOUSLY THIS FRONT FENCE, SO YOU'RE SAYING IT IS TEXAS LAW? YES, SIR. THAT A NEIGHBORHOOD CANNOT HAVE DEED RESTRICTIONS PROHIBITING A FRONT YARD FENCE, A PERIMETER FENCE, WHICH OBVIOUSLY WOULD INCLUDE A FRONT OKAY. PERIMETER FENCE. YES, SIR. THAT LAW THAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO YES. DOESN'T SAY THAT YOU CAN DO IT BY RIGHT. IT JUST SAYS YOU CANNOT BE PROHIBITED FROM, YOU CANNOT BE PROHIBITED FROM DEED RESTRICTED, PROHIBITED FROM THAT'S CORRECT. THAT THE DEED, THE DEED, THE DEED RESTRICTION IS NO LONGER LEGALLY ENFORCEABLE. OKAY. THAT DOESN'T SAY THAT A CITY OF MUNICIPALITY CAN STILL HAVE ZONING REGULATIONS. NO, SIR. ABSOLUTELY. OKAY. YES, SIR. I, AND I, I APOLOGIZE. YOU'RE, YOU'RE NOT SAYING THAT THE CITY OF DOS CAN'T HAVE A ZONING REGULATION ABOUT HEIGHT, IT'S JUST THE, THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD CAN HAVE A DEED RESTRICTION. YES, SIR. THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I'M SAYING. AND THAT WAS NOT KNOWN IN MARCH WHEN THIS CAME TO US. WELL, UM, IT WASN'T KNOWN TO ME. AND AGAIN, I DO WANNA APOLOGIZE, UH, CHAIRMAN NEWMAN, I, I, I DO YOU NEVER RECALL I HAD TO TRY TO APPEAR VIA VIDEO 'CAUSE I WAS ACTUALLY ON VACATION AND I APOLOGIZE. I DIDN'T, I HAD BOOKED THAT TRIP A YEAR IN ADVANCE, SO I UNDERSTAND. BUT ANYWAY, I JUST, I JUST WANNA APOLOGIZE FOR IT AND I APPRECIATE YOU. I THINK THE BIGGER ISSUE THEN WAS THE EIGHT FEET, BUT I DON'T KNOW. AND ALSO THE CONCERN ABOUT WHAT WAS IMPLIED WHEN YOU PURCHASED THE ATE VERSUS THAT. BUT THAT'S, THAT'S A SEPARATE CASE. YES, SIR. THIS IS ALL YOU START OVER. YES. OKAY. BUT THAT, THAT'S THE REASON YOU DON'T SEE ANY OPPOSITION. SO OUR BOARD ATTORNEY IS LOOKING THAT UP RIGHT NOW. OKAY. TO, TO HAVE VER 'CAUSE THAT'S AN INTERESTING YES. AND, AND I'LL BE HONEST, I DIDN'T KNOW IT AT THE TIME, UH, MR. CHAIRMAN. AND OBVIOUSLY MR. BARRICK DIDN'T KNOW IT AT THE TIME. THAT'S OTHERWISE HUH. OKAY. SO THAT'S THAT NOT, NOT ALL HERE. YES, SIR. OKAY. YOU SAID THERE'S NO NEIGHBORHOOD OPPOSITION. CORRECT. AND I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS MR. BALDWIN OR YOURSELF, SO I'LL ASK AND LET THE EITHER ONE YOU CAN, IS THERE ANY NEIGHBORHOOD SUPPORT? UH, I DON'T, I KNOW THAT MY NEIGHBOR ACROSS THE STREET WAS IN SUPPORT OF IT. UNFORTUNATELY, HE WAS IN, HE WAS IN GREECE AT THE TIME THE VEHICLE WAS SUBMIT. SO, AND, AND I'LL, I DON'T WANNA LECTURE YOU 'CAUSE I'M TIRED LECTURING. I UNDERSTAND. BUT OUR CRITERIA SAYS THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTY. YES. AND GOOD, BAD OR OTHERWISE. THAT'S THE DISCRETION OF THE BOARD. MM-HMM . SO IT, AND THAT IS A EVER EVOLVING, CHANGING SUBJECTIVE FLUID THING THAT WE REACT TO BASED ON THE FACTS THAT ARE PRESENTED. SO IT'S NOT CONTROLLING, BUT IT INFLUENCES THE DECISION. SO I GO RIGHT TO OUR CRITERIA, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTIONAL, NOT A LY AFFECTED NEIGHBORING PROPERTY. I GO TO MY PAGE THAT I ASK IN OUR BRIEFING WHO ALL RESPONDED AND IT'S ZERO ZERO. SO I'M KIND OF PUTTING MY HANDS LIKE, WELL, AND WE CAN'T REALLY RELY TOO MUCH ON THIS PERSON SAYING, WELL, THAT PERSON SAYS IT'S OKAY, NO DISPARAGEMENT TO MR. BALDWIN. HE'S VERY GOOD AND ALL THAT. SO ALL IT'S TOO BAD THAT YOU DON'T HAVE HA LETTERS IN HAND THAT SAY X THAT'S A FAIR POINT. UH, MR. CHAIRMAN, I WOULD POINT OUT THOUGH THAT THERE ARE PROPERTY OWNERS OBVIOUSLY THAT HAVE FENCES IN, IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. SO THIS ISN'T, THIS IS NOT UNPRECEDENTED. UNDERSTOOD. WHEN WE SAW OUR VIDEO THIS MORNING, I SAW VERY FEW FENCES AND I COMMENTED ALONG THE WAY, WHAT AN OPEN, BEAUTIFUL NEIGHBORHOOD OPEN THE FENCE THAT MR. BALDWIN MENTIONED ABOUT YOUR NEIGHBOR ACROSS THE WAY IS ADJACENT IN THE SIDE YARD ADJACENT TO THE POND OR THE CREEK. RIGHT. BUT NOT IN THEIR FRONT YARD. NOW, I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE BIG HOUSE ACROSS THE STREET, WE COULDN'T REALLY DETERMINE WHAT'S GOING ON THERE, BUT THE DANGER WE HAVE THAT WE STRUGGLE WITH EVERY MONTH IS AS SOON AS WE DO A FENCE FOR THIS GUY, THEN THIS GUY HERE SAYS, THAT GUY'S GOT IT. AND THEN THIS GUY HERE SAYS, THAT GUY'S GOT IT. ALL OF A SUDDEN THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S FENCED. SO WE HAVE TO BE VERY CAUTIOUS. CITY COUNCIL MAKES THE POLICY, WE MAKE SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS. I I UNDERSTAND MR. CHAIRMAN. THAT'S KIND OF WHERE, AND, AND, AND WHAT I'M PROPOSING IS CERTAINLY, I THINK AESTHETICALLY MUCH PRETTIER THAN WHAT IS CURRENTLY IN PLACE IN TERMS OF THIS. THE MOST FOLKS THAT HAVE CHOSEN TO GO THIS ROUTE, WHEN THERE WAS A LIMITATION ON ANY FENCE, FRONT FENCE, PEOPLE WERE PUTTING IN LITERALLY 20 FOOT PRIVACY HEDGES. YOU KNOW, WHAT I'M CONTEMPLATING IS OBVIOUSLY MUCH MORE AESTHETICALLY PLEASING, TRANSPARENT. TOTALLY AGREE. AND, AND MANY, MANY TIMES PEOPLE COME TO US AND SAY, IT'S FOR SECURITY, IT'S FOR [03:35:01] PRIVACY. AND THE CODE DOESN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THAT. IT, IT SAYS THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY. AND SO I'M NOT, SO WE HEAR YOU, BUT THAT'S NOT PART OF OUR CRITERIA. SO I'M GONNA LET MY OTHER COLLEAGUES ASK QUESTIONS, BUT THAT'S KIND OF, I'M TRYING TO REACT TO SOME OF THE THINGS MR. BALDWIN SAID. AND YOU SAID, AND SO YOU CAN SPOOL ON IT, YOU STILL HAVE TIME TO RESPOND. UH, MR. FINNEY THEN MR. OVITZ, UM, MR. MARSHALL? YES. UM, SO DID YOU, UM, DID YOU ACTUALLY SPEAK TO THE NEIGHBORS THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY OPPOSED? AND I'M JUST CURIOUS, WERE THEY, WERE THEY BEGRUDGINGLY LIKE, WITHDRAWING THEIR OPPOSITION? OR WAS WELL, THEY WAS THEIR CONSENSUS. YEAH. I I DID HAVE EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE WITH THEM. YES, SIR. OKAY. AND, AND, AND, AND INFORMED THEM OF THE, UH, THE LAW. AND THEY CAME BACK AND SAID, WE, YOU KNOW, AND I'M, I AM I AM AN ATTORNEY. UH, I TOLD THEM THAT THIS IS, THIS IS PRETTY CLEAR CUT. AND I SHOWED THEM THE COPY OF THE LAW AND UH, THAT WAS THE REASON THEY WERE WITHDRAWING THEIR OPPOSITION. OKAY. OKAY. SO YES, I DID HAVE CORRESPONDENCE WITH THEM. YES, SIR. OKAY. OKAY, COOL. UM, AND, AND SO YOU'RE, YOU'RE INSISTING LIVED LIKE ACROSS THE STREET, SO HE'D BE IN THE NOTIFICATION AREA, RIGHT? YES. SO, AND ALSO THE, THE GENTLEMAN WHO WAS HERE LAST TIME, WHO WAS THE ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL COMMITTEE, YEAH. HE LIVES ACROSS THE STREET. SO HE'S IN THE NOTIFICATION AREA. SO, AND HE, THE SIGNS HAVE BEEN UP. SO IF, IF HE HAD A CONCERN, HE, HE COULD HAVE BEEN HERE AT THIS MEETING BECAUSE HE WOULD'VE GOTTEN, GOTTEN A LETTER NOT ONLY FROM THE CITY BUT FROM MY OFFICE AS WELL. OKAY. AND I, I DID. AND HE, HE WAS ON THAT EMAIL, MR. FINNEY. SO I SPECIFICALLY, UH, DID LET HIM KNOW THAT. AND SO THAT WAS, THAT'S I THE REASON, I DON'T THINK THAT IS THE REASON YOU DON'T SEE HIM HERE TODAY. AND THERE IS NO OPPOSITION. OKAY. GREAT. AWESOME. UM, AND THEN, UH, AS FAR AS THE TWO FOOT VARIANCE, THE, UH, DO, DO YOU REALLY THINK THAT THAT THE EXTRA TWO FEET WILL, WILL MAKE A BIG DIFFERENCE SECURITY WISE IS YES, SIR. I DO. FOUR FOOT ALLOWED. YES SIR. YOU DO? OKAY. YES, SIR. ALRIGHT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. OKAY, SO I'VE GOT MR. KOVICH, THEN I'M ASKING OUR, OUR BOARD ATTORNEY TO ASK A QUESTION. AND MS. DAVIS, UH, MR. MARSHALL, THE, SO I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND THE SEQUENCE OF THINGS, THE DEED RESTRICTIONS ON THE PROPERTY CONTAINED THAT RESTRICTION? YES, SIR. AND THAT, AND, AND, AND WHAT THE GOVERNOR SIGNED WAS RETROACTIVE? NO, SIR. IT WAS, HE SIGNED THAT IN 2021. SO, SO IT, IT WAS IN PLACE AT THE TIME WE FIRST CAME IN FRONT OF YOU. SO THE PROB THE PROBLEM IS, I, I HAVE ACTUALLY INFORMED OUR HOA THAT, THAT WE ACTUALLY NEED TO GO AND MODIFY OUR DEED RESTRICTIONS TO TAKE THAT OUT BECAUSE IT'S ACTUALLY NO LONGER LEGALLY ENFORCEABLE. NOW WHAT I'M ASKING IS, SO IN 2021, WHAT THE GOVERNOR SIGNED, WAS THAT RETROACTIVE? I DON'T BELIEVE SO. I THINK IT WAS PROSPECTIVE, BUT OBVIOUSLY IN, IN, IN PLACE AT, AT THIS TIME. WHEN DID YOU ACQUIRE THE PROPERTY? UH, I ACQUIRED THE PROPERTY IN, UH, 2019. OKAY. SO WHEN YOU PURCHASED THE QUA FOR THE PROPERTY, IT HAD THAT IN THE DEED RESTRICTION? I DID, BUT IT AGAIN, IT IS, IT ISN'T ENFORCEABLE ANYMORE. NO, I I I I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS. YES. YES, SIR. UM, AND THEN, UH, IS THE NEIGHBOR ACROSS THE STREET IS THE NEIGHBOR YOU SPOKE TO? I SPOKE TO, UH, THE, I SPOKE TO THE ONE THAT HAS THE, THE LARGE, UH, PRIVACY HEDGE. I SPOKE TO THE ONE DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET. THEY, THEY BOTH ACTUALLY HAD SUBMITTED LETTERS OF SUPPORT THE LAST TIME FOR THE EIGHT FOOT. SO THEY'RE, UM, AND, UH, AND THEN EMAILED, I HAD EMAILED CORRESPONDENCE WITH EVERYONE THAT SUBMITTED OBJECTION LETTERS. UH, UH, PREVIOUSLY MR. BALDWIN, YOU'VE MENTIONED THE ARCHITE PERSON ON THE ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE. THAT'S NOT THE PERSON ACROSS THE STREET. THAT'S, THAT'S MR. BARRETT. HE'S KINDA CA CORNER. OKAY. UH, LAST QUESTION I HAVE FOR YOU, IT'S A TWO FOOT VARIANCE, BUT THE DRAWING THAT WAS UP SHOWED THE GATES TO BE SEVEN FEET SIX. IS THAT INCORRECT? NO, THE, LET ME DOUBLE CHECK THAT. OR MAYBE I, MAYBE I MISREAD THAT. BUT IT APPEARED THE GATES WERE HIGHER. HIGHER WHAT, WHAT PAGE ARE YOU READING ON MR. KOVI? NO, IT WAS WHAT, WHAT WAS SHOWN ON THE SCREEN? OH, ON HIS PRO, HIS PRESENTATION. THE PRESENTATION, YEAH. OKAY. SO THAT WOULD BE THE ARCHITECT, THE ARCHITECTURAL, UH, DRAWING OF THE FENCE? NO, THERE'S A ONE THAT AT LEAST THE, THE PAPER COPY I HAVE SHOWS AS A SIX FEET. THAT'S SIX FEET. COULD COULD WE PUT BACK UP WHAT WAS ON THE SCREEN? OKAY, FOR CLARIFICATION, I'M HEARING FROM THE STAFF. GO AHEAD, MR. THOMPSON. YES. SO I NOTICED THAT AS WELL. WHEN I RECEIVED THE PLANS FROM MR. BALDWIN, I EMAILED MR. BALDWIN, HE REVISED THOSE PLANS. THE PLANS IN MY PRESENTATION, I CAN PULL IT BACK UP. IT WILL SHOW SIX FEET, FIVE FOOT SIX. EXACTLY [03:40:01] WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT WAS FROM THE PREVIOUS DRAWINGS, THEY HAVE BEEN UPDATED. OKAY. HIS PRESENTATION MAY NOT HAVE BEEN, I'M NOT IMAGINING THINGS, BUT HE HAD PUT OUT YES. THE DRAWINGS THAT WE HAVE IN OUR FILE THAT WILL BE, UH, STAMPED OR FOR SIX FOOT AND THE PANEL, THAT FIVE FOOT SIX. OKAY. THANK YOU. I, I HEAR ALL THAT. WHAT MATTERS TO THE BOARD IS WHAT IS IN FRONT OF US RIGHT HERE. THE PLANES THAT YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU ARE SIX FEET. THAT'S WHAT I WANT TO HEAR. THANK YOU. 'CAUSE THAT'S WHAT'S FINDING WHAT'S IN FRONT OF US. OKAY. WE TRUST YOU, ROB. IS IF, IF, BECAUSE WE LOOK AT OURS AND WE SQUINT OUR EYES AND WE GO, WHAT? SO I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE MR. THOMPSON SAID THE PLANS IN FRONT OF US TOP OUT AT SIX. IT DOES SAY SIX. NO, I'M ASKING, I'M CONFIRMING THE PLANS IN FRONT OF US TOP OUT AT SIX FEET. YES, SIR. OKAY. THAT'S WHAT HE SAID. THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. DOES THAT SATISFY YOUR QUESTION? ABSOLUTELY. OKAY, GOOD. IT'S JUST NOT WHAT WAS PUT UP ON. OKAY, GOOD. ALRIGHT. I DON'T KNOW IF I'M GOING TO MS. DAVIS OR THE BOARD ATTORNEY REGARDING THIS DEED THING. I'LL GO TO MS. DAVIS FIRST. WELL, MY QUESTION IS THE DEED THING AND WHAT KIND OF, WHAT THAT MEANS FOR OUR VOTE. SO THAT'S MY QUESTION FOR OUR ATTORNEY. AND THEN MY QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT, IT DID YOU, SO BASICALLY THERE WERE, THERE WERE PEOPLE WHO WERE OPPOSING THIS, AND THEN DID YOU REACH OUT TO THOSE PEOPLE IN OPPOSITION AND SAY YOU CAN'T OPPOSE IT BECAUSE OF THIS DEED RESTRICTION? IS THAT WHY THEY CHANGED THEIR MINDS? THEY ALL, THEY ALL HAD OPPOSED IT SOLELY BECAUSE OF THE DEED RESTRICTION. THERE WAS, IT WASN'T ANYTHING ELSE. AND WHEN I POINTED OUT TO THEM THAT UNFORTUNATELY THAT DEED RESTRICTION IS NO LONGER LEGALLY ENFORCEABLE, THEY SAID, OKAY, THEY UNDERSTOOD AND, AND WEREN'T OBJECTING. AND, AND I'D LIKE, AND I, I LITERALLY HAVE A EMAIL FROM THE HOA PRESIDENT SAYING FAMILY FIRST. I, THEY, HE UNDERSTOOD THE RATIONALE WHY I WAS ASKING FOR THE VARIANCE. SO MY COMMENT'S GONNA BE TO MR. BALDWIN, AND I'M GONNA PUT THIS AS NICELY AND GENTLY AS POSSIBLE, AND THEN I'M GONNA GO TO MY BOARD ATTORNEY TO GIVE US SOME CLARITY ON THE APPLICABILITY OR NOT OF THIS CHANGE IN THE LAW WITH THE DE RESTRICTION. CERTAINLY MR. BALDWIN, WITH THE YEARS, YEARS OF EXPERIENCE YOU HAVE WITH THIS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY COUNCIL, YOU KNOW THAT OUR CRITERIA IS THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ADVERSELY NEIGHBOR AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. AND THE CONTROLLING AN INFLUENCING FACTOR IS LETTERS OF SUPPORT. YES, SIR. WHY DO WE NOT, AND THIS IS A KATHLEEN DAVIS COMMENT, SO I'M STEALING HER THUNDER. WHY DO WE NOT HAVE LETTERS OF SUPPORT? WELL, AS I UNDERSTAND IS MR. MARSHALL WAS EXPECTING AT LEAST TWO TO BE SENT IN AND THEY NEVER GOT SENT IN. OKAY. I'M JUST, WE DON'T HAVE, IT LEAVES US IN LIMBO. I, I, I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT YOU DON'T, AND, AND IT DOESN'T MEAN IT'S A NO, IT JUST LEAVES US IN LIMBO. CORRECT. SO I, I UNDERSTAND. ALRIGHT, MS. BOARD ATTORNEY, CAN YOU DO SOME FINALITY ON THE DEED THING? YES, PLEASE. OBJECTION. 2 0 2 0.023 OF THE TEXAS PROPERTY CODE STATES THAT A PROPERTY OWNER'S ASSOCIATION LIKE A HOA MAY NOT ADOPT OR ENFORCE A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT THAT PREVENTS A PROPERTY OWNER FROM BUILDING OR INSTALLING SECURITY MEASURES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO A SECURITY CAMERA, MOTION DETECTOR OR PERIMETER FENCE. SO THE HOA CAN'T ENFORCE THEIR DEED RESTRICTION SAYING THAT THEY CAN'T HAVE A PERIMETER FENCE THAT HAS, THAT DOES NOT BEAR ANY WEIGHT TO YOUR DECISION HERE AS THE BOARD BECAUSE YOU, YOU HAVE TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT HAVING A SIX FOOT HIGH FENCE WOULD ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. BECAUSE PURSUANT TO OUR CODE, YOU CAN HAVE A FOUR FOOT FENCE AROUND YOUR PROPERTY. SO YOU'RE JUST DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT YOU NEEDED A SIX FOOT HEIGHT FENCE. BUT WHETHER OR NOT HE CAN BUILD THAT PURSUIT INTO HIS HOA, HE WOULD HAVE TO TAKE THAT WITH TO HIS HOA AND BRING UP THIS CODE PROVISION BECAUSE THIS CODE PROVISION APPLIES TO HOAS AND NOT TO THE CITY. SO WE SHOULD JUST IGNORE THAT. THE ISSUE OF THIS DEED CORRECT, BECAUSE THIS IS A PRIVATE DEED RESTRICTION IS NOT A CITY, IS NOT PART OF THIS DEED RESTRICTION. OKAY. UM, MR. KOVI. YEAH. UM, NOW I'M CONFUSED. UM, I HAVE DEED RESTRICTIONS ON MY PROPERTY. I DON'T HAVE AN HOA, THE DEED RESTRICTIONS WERE PUT IN BY THE DEVELOPER WHO DEVELOPED THE, THE, THE NEIGHBORHOOD. SO I'M, I'M ONE ARE THESE DEED RESTRICTION, ARE THESE RESTRICTIONS FROM THE HOA ARE THESE RESTRICTIONS FROM THE DEVELOPER OF THE PROPERTY THAT GO BACK YES. FURTHER THAN THAT? SO, SO THE ORIGINAL DEVELOPER DID PUT THEM IN THE ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM AS THE HOA, BUT I THINK OUR ATTORNEY IS SAYING BOARD, IT'S IRRELEVANT. THE ONLY ISSUE ON THIS IS THAT MAY HAVE SILENCED OR HINDERED PEOPLE COMING AND SAYING YES OR NO BECAUSE OF THEIR NEW INTERPRETATION. BUT AS IT RELATES TO US, IT'S DOESN'T AFFECT OUR DECISION. AND UNFORTUNATELY, PART OF OUR DECISION IS NOT SECURITY OR PRIVACY. I I IT'S STRICTLY BACK TO THE NOT ADVERSE EFFECT, WORST CASE SCENARIO, WE PROVE IT AND THEN YOUR NEIGHBORS GO BONKERS GOING, OH MY GOSH, I CAN'T BELIEVE THE CITY ALLOWED A SIX FOOT FENCE IN. I'M JUST GIVING YOU THAT SIDE. THE OTHER SIDE IS WE APPROVE IT AND THE [03:45:01] NEIGHBORS GO, OH, IT LOOKS GREAT. AND THERE'S OUR QUANDARY. I'M SORRY, I'M STILL, I'M STILL, I'M STILL CONFUSED BECAUSE DEVELOPER'S GONE. OKAY. THE DEVELOPER'S GONE EVERYWHERE. IF YOUR DEVELOPER'S GONE, EVERYBODY'S DEVELOPED, THE DEVELOPERS ARE GONE. BUT THEY PUT IN THE DEED RESTRICTIONS. I THINK THE LAW REFERENCES HOAS. BUT, BUT, BUT MR. YES. SO I'M ASKING, DOESN'T THE SIT WHO ENFORCES IN THE ABSENCE OF AN HOA, I'M NOT SAYING THERE ISN'T AN HOA I'M JUST SAYING IN THE ABSENCE OF AN HOA, ACCORDING TO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, WHO IS THE ENFORCEMENT BODY FOR DEED RESTRICTIONS? OR IS THERE NO LONGER AN ENFORCEMENT BODY FOR DEED RESTRICTIONS? YOU CAN, THERE IS A PRI THERE IS A, I BELIEVE A PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION, MR. KOVI. SO YOUR A NEIGHBOR COULD ALSO, UH, SUE TO ENFORCE THOSE, UH, DEED RESTRICTIONS EVEN IF AN HOA DID NOT. THIS, THAT PARTICULAR ONE THOUGH JUST ISN'T ENFORCEABLE ANYMORE. YES. MR. CHAIR, IF I MAY BRIEFLY, I'LL MAKE THIS BRIEF. YEAH, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THAT WE HOLD THIS FOR A MONTH TO GET LETTERS OF SUPPORT. PLEASE. YOU WORRIED THAT YOU WORRIED THAT IT'S NOT GONNA PASS? NO, I THINK IT'S, YOU ASKED FOR LETTERS OF SUPPORT AND WE'RE GONNA DO OUR, HE, MY CLIENT BELIEVES HE CAN GET 'EM, SO WHY DON'T WE SEE IF WE CAN GET 'EM. OKAY. SO WE'LL JUST, I APPRECIATE YOU WOOD, AS OPPOSED TO COULD YOU GAVE US A WOOD. W-O-U-L-D. OKAY. HOLD ON A SECOND. AND WE'LL, I HAVE A QUESTION. YOU SAID THAT THERE, THIS WOULD NOT HAVE A TUNNELING EFFECT, RIGHT. OR CANYON EFFECT? THAT'S MY OPINION, YES. OKAY. ALRIGHT. SO WHAT'S THE DISTANCE BETWEEN WHERE THE PROPERTY OWNER WANTS TO PUT HIS FENCE AND WHERE THAT ACROSS THE STREET IS? TELL ME WHY IT WOULD NOT BE TELLING YOU. WELL, I'M, I'M EYEBALLING THIS 25 FEET FROM OUR, OUR, OUR FENCE LOCATION TO THE EDGE, UH, THE PAVEMENT, UH, IT IS NO CURB, SO IT'S THE PAVEMENT, UH, EDGE OF PAVEMENT. THE PAVEMENT IS PROBABLY AT LEAST 24 FEET WIDE. SO THERE'S 50 FEET, THEN THERE'S A, A DITCH OR A DRAINAGE THING, WHICH WOULD BE ANOTHER 10 FEET. SO GIVE OR TAKE 80 TO A HUNDRED FEET BETWEEN THE TWO OF THEM. BUT OKAY. SHOULD, SHOULD WE COME BACK? I CAN GET YOU THAT NUMBER. OKAY. SO WHAT IS THE SENTIMENT OF THE BOARD? I I SAY I WAS GONNA, I WAS READY TO SUPPORT IT, SO, OKAY. UM, BUT CAN I ASK A QUESTION? YES. ON THAT SUBJECT, MR. FINNEY, UH, FOR OUR BOARD ATTORNEY, UM, CAN AN EMAIL LIKE MR. MARSHALL REFERENCED WHERE HIS NEIGHBOR, WHERE THERE WAS A THREAD AND THE NEIGHBOR SAID FAMILY FIRST ESSENTIALLY ENDORSING HIS DECISION TO BUILD IT. CAN THAT BE SUBMITTED AS A LETTER OF SUPPORT OR DOES IT HAVE TO BE A FORMAL LETTER? YEAH, WE, WE GET THESE ALL THE TIME. OKAY. EVERY ONE OF THESE ARE EMAILED. OKAY. SO YOU DO ACTUALLY HAVE A LETTER OF SUPPORT. YOU JUST HAVEN'T PRINTED IT OUT OR SUBMITTED IT. SAY MR. MARSHALL THOUGHT THAT THERE WAS A COUPLE COMING IN. WELL, BUT YOU HAVE GUYS, A LETTER OF SUPPORT ISN'T, UNLESS IT'S IN MS. WILLIAMS' HANDS. NO, I UNDERSTAND THAT. , ONCE IT'S IN HER HANDS, THEN IT'S THERE. WELL, AND IT ABSENT THAT IT'S NOT, AND, AND MR. FINNEY, THE, THE, THE HOA PRESIDENT ISN'T WITHIN THE, I GUESS THE 2200 FOOT NOTICE AREA, WHEREAS MY LETTERS OF SUPPORT ARE FROM TWO PEOPLE THAT ARE WITHIN THAT UH, AREA. I GOTCHA. OKAY. ALRIGHT. SO WHAT'S THE SENTIMENT OF THE BOARD TO, TO MOVE FORWARD? SO THE CHAIR WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. MR. HAITZ, I MOVE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER BO OA TWO FIVE DASH 0 0 0 0 0 9 ON APPLICATION OF ROBERT BALDWIN. GRANT, THE REQUEST OF THIS APPLICANT TO CONSTRUCT AND ORAIN A SIX FOOT HIGH FENCE AS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION OF THE HEIGHT REQUIREMENT FOR FENCES CONTAINED IN THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED. BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND THE TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT THIS SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTY, I FURTHER MOVE THAT THE FOLLOWING CONDITION BE IMPOSED TO FURTHER THE PURPOSE AND THE INTENT OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE. COMPLIANCE WITH HEIGHT AND FENCE LOCATION REQUIREMENTS ILLUSTRATED IN THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF ALL SUBMITTED PLANS IS REQUIRED IN THE MATTER OF BO 8 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 9. MR. HOPKOS HAS MADE THE MOTION TO GRANT THE REQUEST FOR A TWO FOOT SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW FOR A SIX FOOT HIGH FENCE. IS THERE A SECOND? I, ANDREW FINNEY SECOND. THE MOTION SECONDED BY MR. FINNEY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION. MR. HOPKOS, I APPRECIATE YOUR MODIFICATIONS FROM, FROM WHAT WE DIDN'T CARE FOR, WHICH WAS AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE TO A MORE ACCEPTABLE SIX FOOT FENCE. AND THE LOCATION OF THE FENCE BEING SO FAR FROM THE STREET AS WELL, UM, MAKES IT, UH, MUCH MORE PALATABLE TO THIS MEMBER. UM, AND I'VE BEEN IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD AND I DON'T THINK THAT'S GOING TO [03:50:01] NEGATIVELY IMPACT THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THANK YOU MR. KOVICH DISCUSSION OF THE MOTION, MR. FINNEY? UH, I'LL BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION BECAUSE, UH, PRIMARILY I THINK, UM, MR. BALDWIN'S WILLINGNESS TO, UH, TO POSTPONE THIS DECISION AND GET THE LETTERS OF SUPPORT, I THINK CLEARLY DEMONSTRATES, UM, A GOOD FAITH EFFORT TO, UH, WORK WITH MISS FOR MR. MARSHALL AND MR. BALDWIN TO WORK WITH, WITH, UH, YOUR NEIGHBORS. UM, AND, UM, AND I THINK ALSO I REALLY LIKE THAT YOU BROUGHT THIS UP, MR. MARSHALL, YOU BROUGHT UP THE, THE TALL 20 FOOT HEDGES. IT'S BEEN BOTHERING ME ALL DAY. I WANTED TO SAY SOMETHING. I I, UH, I DO MY MOUTH SHUT SOMETIMES, MR. CHAIRMAN. UM, BUT, UH, I THINK THAT CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THERE IS, THERE ARE OTHER PEOPLE THAT WANT PRIVACY AND SECURITY. AND SO, UM, AND I THINK THE WAY THAT YOU'VE, UH, THE, YOUR PROPOSAL IS, IS VERY REASONABLE FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD. SO THANK YOU MR. FINNEY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION. MS. DAVIS. THANK YOU. UH, I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION FOR A COUPLE OF REASONS. AND, UM, JUST TO GO BACK TO MR. FINNEY'S COMMENTS ABOUT THE SUPPORT LETTERS, THERE ARE NO SUPPORT LETTERS. SO IT'S, YOU KNOW, IT'S NICE THAT YOU'RE OFFERING TO GO BACK AND DO IT, BUT YOU SHOULD HAVE COME HERE WITH IT. AND BECAUSE THERE'S NO SUPPORT LETTERS AND BECAUSE AS WE LOOKED AT THE VIDEO AND LOOKED AT THE PHOTOS, THERE ARE NOT A LOT OF FENCES. I MEAN, YOU CAN, SHRUB IS ONE THING, BUT THERE ARE NOT A LOT OF FENCES IN THAT COMMUNITY. SO TO ME, THERE'S NO PROOF THAT SHOWING THAT IT'S NOT GOING TO ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTY. IF I HAD THE SUPPORT LETTERS, NOT JUST ONE OR TWO, PROBABLY A FEW OF THEM, UM, I MAY SUPPORT IT. BUT WITHOUT THE SUPPORT LETTERS AND LOOKING AT THE EVIDENCE, LOOKING AT THE, THE PHOTOS AND THE VIDEO, THERE'S NO PROOF SAYING IT WOULDN'T AFFECT, HAVE A NEGATIVE EFFECT ON NEIGHBORING PROPERTY, WHICH IS WHY I'M NOT SUPPORTING THIS MOTION DISCUSSION IN THE MOTION. WELL, I'M GONNA, I'M, I'M GONNA, UH, DO WELL, I WAS GONNA SUPPORT IT BECAUSE AS MR. FINNEY SAID THAT YOU SAID THAT YOU WOULD, YOU COULD, BUT YOU WOULD, BUT MS. DAVIS IS RIGHT. OUR CRITERIA, NO DISRESPECT, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SECURITY OR PRIVACY. THE TALL HEDGES DON'T BOTHER ME. BUT HERE, THIS IS THE WAY IT WORKS. IT BOTHERS SOME, IT DOESN'T BOTHER OTHERS. UH, THE HEDGES ARE BY, RIGHT? UM, SO I'M HESITANT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH NO, NO DATA. AND I'M VERY MUCH RESPECT THE STARTING OF ONE FENCE, TURNING INTO TWO, TURNING INTO THIS NEIGHBOR, THAT NEIGHBOR, NEVER OTHER NEIGHBORS. AND, UH, THAT IS WHY THIS IS PART OF THE CRITERIA. SO, I'M GONNA ASK YOU A QUESTION. IF WE POSTPONE THIS TO AUGUST, DOES THAT INTERRUPT THE, AND, AND IN ORDER TO GIVE YOU THE TIME TO DO THE WOOD, DOES THAT INTERRUPT YOUR ABILITY TO CONTINUE WITH WHAT YOU'RE IN CONSTRUCTING THE HOUSE? YES, SIR. IT WILL. BUT, BUT LOOK, UH, IF, IF THIS IS THE BOARD'S REQUEST, I, I HAVE NO PROBLEM HELPING THE BOARD GET TO THE DECISION THAT, THAT I NEED. SO, IF THAT'S, UH, MS. DAVIS, IF THAT'S WHAT YOU'D LIKE TO SEE, NO PROBLEM. I'LL GO GET 'EM. I, I, I'VE ALWAYS LECTURED MYSELF AND MY PANEL AND THE FULL BOARD THAT WE ARE NOT CONTROLLED BY THE FEEDBACK, BUT WE'RE INFLUENCED BY IT BECAUSE WE DON'T, WE ARE NOT ALL KNOWING. AND YOU SAW A STRUGGLE WITH THE PARKING CASES BECAUSE WE REALLY DON'T KNOW WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN. AND SO WE'RE TRYING TO BE EDUCATED IN THAT PROCESS. SO I'M GONNA, I'M GONNA BE AGAINST THIS MOTION AND ASK THAT WE, UH, GIVE YOU ONE MORE MONTH. AUGUST, WHAT IS OUR DATE? 19TH. WAS IT AUGUST 19TH? AUGUST 19TH. UH, SO THAT'S KIND OF WHERE I'M HEADED. I'M, I'M GONNA BE WITH MS. DAVIS ON IT AND OPPOSING THE MOTION. SO THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR IS MR. CHAIRMAN, I WITHDRAW THE CURRENT MOTION. OKAY. THE MOTION'S WITHDRAWN. MR. FINNEY, DO YOU AGREE TO WITHDRAW YOUR SECOND? THE MOTION'S BEEN WITHDRAWN, MS. DAVIS, FOR YOUR MOTION, PLEASE. I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER BO OA DASH 25 DASH 0 0 0 9 HOLD THIS MATTER UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL TUESDAY, AUGUST 19TH, 2025. I SECOND THE MOTION IN THE MATTER. BO OA 2 5 0 0 0 9. MS. DAVIS HAS MOVED TO HOLD THIS MATTER UNDER ADVISEMENT TO AUGUST 19TH, AND THE CHAIRMAN HAS SECONDED THE MOTION. DISCUSSION OF THE MOTION, MS. DAVIS, NO, NO FURTHER DISCUSSION. OKAY. UM, I'M PREDISPOSED TO SUPPORT, I THINK MS. DAVIS WOULD BE, I CAN'T SPEAK FOR HER. I THINK YOU HEAR OTHER VOTES AS WELL, ASSUMING YOU HAVE SOME POSITIVE FEEDBACK. THAT IS THE WAY THE SYSTEM WORKS. AND I'VE GOT, WE WANNA RESPECT THE SYSTEM. AND IF, IF YOU HEARD MY [03:55:01] COMMENTS THIS MORNING, I HONOR MR. NERI EIGHT YEARS ON THE BOARD WHO WAS ALWAYS WORRIED ABOUT INTERIOR STREETS AND THE NARROWING AND CANYON EFFECT. AND I'M SENSITIVE TO THAT. YES, SIR. OKAY. DISCUSSION OF THE MOTION. MR. KOVI. UM, IN THE PRIOR DISCUSSION ON THIS CASE, WHEN IT WAS HERE BEFORE WE HAD LETTERS OF OBJECTION, WE HAVE NO LETTERS OF OBJECTION, WHICH IS WHY I WAS IN FAVOR OF APPROVING IT DISCUSSION THE MOTION, MR. FINNEY. SO I WILL DEFINITELY SUPPORT THE MOTION. HOWEVER, I, I THINK THAT IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THERE IS CURRENTLY A CANON EFFECT BECAUSE OF THE 20 FOOT FOOT TALL HEDGES. AND I, AND I THINK THAT THE SOONER THE PEOPLE ARE ALLOWED TO CONSTRUCT FENCES, THERE WILL BE MUCH LESS OF A CANON EFFECT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. SO ANYWAYS, JUST MY OBSERVATION. THANK YOU, MR. FINNEY. UM, MR. BALDWIN, IT WOULD BE IN YOUR CLIENT'S BEST INTEREST TO HEED TO SOME OF THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE BOARD AS IT RELATES TO CANYON EFFECT, THE DISTANCE BETWEEN YOUR PROPOSED FENCE AND ACROSS THE STREET, UM, AND THAT SORT OF THING. AND THE CONCERN THAT AT LEAST THE CHAIRMAN MYSELF HAS MADE. UM, SO I HAVE MY HEARING AID AGENDA TODAY. YOU, YOU SEE WHERE WE'RE PREDISPOSED, YOU KNOW, GOD FORBID IF YOU DO THE SOLICITATION, YOU GET A BUNCH OF OPPOSITION LETTERS, BUT, OKAY. SO, OKAY. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION IN THE MOTION, MR. DORN? THE ONE THING THAT WAS STATED EARLY, UM, WAS THAT THE DISCUSSIONS WITH THE NEIGHBORS ONLY FOCUSED ON THE STATE STATUTE. SO THE FOCUS SHOULD EXPAND TO THE, AGAIN, THE CITY OF DALLAS ZONING. YES, SIR. I UNDERSTAND THAT BECAUSE THAT EASILY SET UP THE ROADBLOCK FOR THEM. OH, THE STATE LAW'S BEEN CHANGED. YES, SIR. OKAY. THANK YOU. AND YOU'RE VERY SKILLED AT WORDING WHAT YOU'RE WANTING TO WORD BASED ON THE REQUEST. UM, THAT'S NOT A FLIPPANT COMMENT. THAT'S JUST, THIS IS YOUR BUSINESS, SO, OKAY. ALRIGHT. THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR IS TO HOLD THIS, UH, OVER TO AUGUST 19TH, 2025. THE BOARD SECRETARY WILL CALL THE VOTE. MS. DAVIS. AYE. MR. DORN? AYE. MR. FEENEY? AYE. MR. HAITZ? AYE. MR. CHAIRMAN, AYE. MOTION TO HOLD UNTIL AUGUST 19TH PASSES FIVE TO ZERO IN THE MATTER BOA 2 5 0 0 9. THE BOARD VOTED FIVE TO ZERO TO HOLD THIS MATTER UNDER ADVISEMENT TO AUGUST 19TH, 2025. MR. BALDWIN, I WILL COMMIT TO HAVE THIS ON THE TOP OF THE AGENDA FOR AUGUST MEETING. YEP. SO HE WAS PATIENT TO WAIT TODAY. WE'LL, WE'LL DISPENSE WITH IT. WE'LL DISPENSE WITH IT FIRST THING. I APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU. AH-HUH. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, SIR. WE'LL SEE YOU IN AUGUST. THANK YOU. WE'LL WAIT FOR LETTERS. OKAY. THANK YOU. I'M SORRY. THAT'S EVEN BETTER, SIR. ALRIGHT, OUR LAST ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS BO OA TWO FIVE DASH 0 0 0 0 1 1. THIS IS AT 9 9 0 3 ELAM ROAD. AM I PRONOUNCING THAT CORRECTLY? IS IT ELAM? YES. ELAM. ELAM. OKAY. IS THE APPLICANT HERE? YES. OKAY. UH, MS. BOARD SECRETARY, HOW MANY SPEAKERS DO WE HAVE FOR THIS CASE? ROB? SHE DID NOT SIGN THE SHEET. DID SHE NOT SIGN A, A BLUE CARD? WELL, I'LL MAKE HER SIT DOWN AGAIN. UH, NO, THIS IS HAILEY WITH HABITAT. WE'RE NOT INTRODUCING ANYONE YET UNTIL SHE FILLS OUT A CARD. IF SHE WANTS TO SPEAK, I'D LIKE FOR HER TO SPEAK. OKAY. VERY GOOD. ALRIGHT, SO LET'S GIVE HER A SECOND FOR HER TO FILL THAT OUT AND THEN WE'LL SWEAR YOU IN TOGETHER. BRIAN, DO YOU HAPPEN TO HAVE THE, THE LATER VERSION I SENT YOU OF THIS? PROBABLY. OKAY. YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU LATE LAST WEEK, MR. BALDWIN, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU'RE SPEAKING, YOU'RE ON THE RECORD, SO GO AWAY FROM THE MICROPHONE. OKAY. IF NOT, THIS ONE WILL WORK A LONG DAY. THAT'S TRUE. PRESENTATION. YEAH, I WAS, YEAH. OKAY. WELL LET, WE'LL JUST GO WITH THIS ONE. GO WITH MY PHONE. NO, I, UH, THE BOARD IS BEING GIVEN A COPY OF A MEMORANDUM DATED JUNE 27TH FROM, UH, THE CHIEF ARBORIST PHIL IRWIN. UM, JUST FOR THE RECORD, MARY, YOU HAVE THAT FOR [04:00:01] YOUR RECORD OR SHE NEEDS TO GET ONE OR SHE'S GONNA GET ONE? YEAH, SHE'LL GET ONE. OKAY. WITH HER. WE DON'T HAVE YOUR HONOR. OKAY. SO FOR THE RECORD, UH, THE BOARD ADMINISTRATOR JUST GAVE ME A COPY OF THE, GAVE THE BOARD THE COPY OF THE JUNE 27TH LETTER. UH, SHE MENTIONED MS UH, OUR BOARD ADMINISTRATOR MENTIONED THAT EXCERPTS OF THE LETTER WERE IN THE CASE REPORT. AND I WOULD REINFORCE THIS. WE PREFER THE SKINNY, THE REAL SKINNY, NOT A SUMER SUMMARIZED VERSION. WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO SEE IN DEPTH WHAT YOUR PROFESSIONAL OPINION IS OR CONCERNS AS OPPOSED TO A CONDENSED VERSION. NOTHING AGAINST THE CONDENSED VERSION WE LIKE, JUST LIKE THE TRANSPORTATION ISSUE. WE PREFER TO SEE THE WHOLE THING AS OPPOSED TO A CONDENSED VERSION. THAT'S OUR REQUEST. MS. BOARD ADMINISTRATOR. OKAY. ALRIGHT. SO WE WE'RE, WE'LL DIGEST THIS AS WE GO. UM, ALRIGHT. WHAT SPEAKERS DO WE HAVE FOR 0, 0, 0 0 1 1, MS. BOARD, SECRETARY, THE APPLICANT AND REPRESENTATIVE? OKAY. IF YOU WOULD PLEASE BOTH INTRODUCE YOURSELVES AND THEN THE BOARD SECRETARY WILL SWEAR YOU IN. ROB BALDWIN 3 9 0 4 ELM STREET, SUITE B DALLAS HALEY COATES, HUSMAN 65 64 CHICORY COURT, DALLAS. OKAY. DO YOU BOTH SWEAR OR AFFIRM IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO TELL THE TRUTH TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? I DO. THANK YOU. I DO AS WELL. SO, PROCEED. MR. BALDWIN. GOOD AFTERNOON OR GOOD EVENING NOW, UH, ROB BALDWIN, 3 9 0 4 ELM STREET, SWEEPY IN DALLAS. UM, I, I THINK THE FIRST WORDS OUTTA EVERYBODY'S MOUTH IS, WOW. WHAT, WHAT ARE WE DOING HERE? UM, SO WHAT WASN'T MADE CLEAR DURING THE BRIEFING SESSION IS THAT THE DEVELOPER ON THIS PROPERTY IS DALLAS HABITAT FOR HUMANITY. THEY OWN THIS PROPERTY. THEY WANT TO BUILD 27 AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS ON THE PROPERTY. THE PROPERTY IS ENCUMBERED BY HEAVILY TREE LAND TO TOPOGRAPHY AND AN ODD SHAPE, WHICH WOULD REQUIRE THEM TO BUILD ROADS, REMOVE TREES, ADD WATER LINES, ADD SEWER LINES. THE TREES ALONE ARE GONNA EQUATE TO ABOUT $40,000 PER LOT FOR THE 27 LOTS. AND IT'S GONNA MAKE 'EM VERY DIFFICULT TO, UM, MAKE IT AFFORDABLE. I'M GONNA GO THROUGH THIS PRESENTATION BRIEFLY, BUT I ALSO WANNA SAY ONE THING, AND I, THIS IS NOT PATTING MYSELF ON THE BACK. I JUST WANT YOU TO KNOW I'VE BEEN DOING THIS CASE PRO BONO FOR ABOUT A YEAR. I THINK THIS HABITAT DOES REALLY GOOD WORK AND I DON'T THINK THAT THEY SHOULD BE SPENDING MONEY ON A ZONING CONSULTANT IN ORDER TO GET A TREE MITIGATION. I THINK THAT THAT WORKS CROSS PURPOSES. SO I DON'T ALWAYS WORK PRO BONO FOR, UH, HABITAT, BUT IN THIS CASE I DID JUST, I JUST WANNA LET YOU GUYS KNOW THAT, UM, THEY'RE NOT PAYING ME TO BE HERE TODAY. I'M DOING THIS 'CAUSE I THINK THEY DO GOOD WORK AND THIS, THIS PROJECT NEEDS SOME HELP. UH, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. SO THIS IS DOWN IN PLEASANT GROVE. UH, IT'S AT ON ELAM OVER THERE BY, UH, ST. AUGUSTINE AND SPRUCE HIGH SCHOOL. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. THIS IS THE PROPERTY. AS YOU CAN SEE, IT'S AN L-SHAPE, UH, APACHE, UH, AS MR. THOMPSON WAS SHOWING DURING THE BRIEFING SESSION, WILL BE COMING DOWN THROUGH THE WEST, ALONG THE WEST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY LINE. YOU CAN SEE IT'S HEAVILY WOODED. UM, IT'S ZONED, UH, R 75. WE HAVE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF THE PROPERTY APPROVED. BUT AS WE CAN'T GET OUR, OUR LOTS ACTUALLY PLATTED UNTIL WE WORK THROUGH ENGINEERING. WE CAN'T WORK THROUGH ENGINEERING UNTIL WE DEAL WITH, UH, THE TREE MITIGATION. RIGHT TO THE WEST OF US IS APACHE PARK. UH, IT IS, UH, A NEIGHBORHOOD PARK THAT HABITAT HAS BEEN WORKING WITH, UH, TO HELP STRENGTHEN. RIGHT NOW IT'S DOWN AT THE END OF A, A DEAD END ROAD. AND IT'S MORE OF AN ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE THAN, UH, A PARK THAT PEOPLE REALLY WANNA SPEND TIME WITH ALONG WITH THIS PROPERTY. AND, AND HANGLEY WILL TALK ABOUT THIS LATER, PEOPLE WHO DO BAD THINGS LIKE TO GO WHERE THEY CAN'T BE SEEN. AND THIS IS THE PERFECT PLACE FOR THEM TO BE. UH, NEXT SLIDE. PLEASE REPEAT WHAT YOU JUST SAID. PEOPLE DO BAD THINGS. PEOPLE WHO DO BAD THINGS DON'T LIKE TO BE SEEN DOING BAD THINGS. OKAY. DRUGS, UH, ALTERNATIVE ECONOMY KIND OF THINGS. YEAH, THEY'RE, AND HAILEY CAN SPEAK TO WHAT THEY FIND WHEN THEY GO OUT THERE PERIODICALLY AND CLEAN UP, UH, BOTH THE PARK AND THEIR PROPERTY. UM, YOU KNOW, SO WE'RE ASKING FOR RELIEF FROM THE TREE MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS, UM, TO ALLOW THE PROPERTY DEVELOPED AS AFFORDABLE HOUSING. WE'RE NOT SEEKING TO EXEMPT OURSELVES FROM THE PROVISION OF MEETING ARTICLE 10 REQUIREMENTS [04:05:01] FOR EACH LOT. EACH LOT WILL HAVE TO HAVE THREE TREES, TWO IN THE FRONT, ONE IN THE BACK, BUT WE'RE ASKING TO, FOR RELIEF FOR THE TREE MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS ITSELF. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. THIS IS A SITE HEAVILY TREE. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. SO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CAN APPROVE THE RELIEF IF THEY FIND A STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS DIVISION WILL UNREASONABLY BURDEN THE PROPERTY. THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTY AND THE REQUIREMENTS ARE NOT IMPOSED BY A SITE SPECIFIC LANDSCAPE PLAN OR TREAT MITIGATION PLAN APPROVED BY THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION OR CITY COUNCIL. IN DETERMINING WHETHER TO GRANT A SPECIAL EXCEPTION UNDER PARAGRAPH ONE, WHICH I JUST READ, THE BOARD SHALL CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING FACTORS, THE EXTENT OF WHICH THERE IS RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY, THE TOPOGRAPHY OF THE SITE, THE EXTENT WHICH LANDSCAPING EXISTS, WHERE NO CREDIT IS GIVEN UNDER THIS ARTICLE, THE ABILITY TO PLANT REPLACEMENT TREES SOLD SAFELY ON THE PROPERTY, AND THE EXTENT WHICH ALTERNATIVE METHODS OF REPLACEMENT WILL COMPENSATE FOR THE REDUCTION OF TREE MITIGATION EXTENDED ON THE SITE. SO, AS I SAID, WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH, UH, MR. IRWIN FOR PROBABLY ABOUT A YEAR. HE'S GRACIOUSLY GIVEN A LOT OF HIS TIME TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO MAKE THIS WORK. AT ONE TIME WE WERE EVEN TALKING ABOUT DOING, UH, KEEPING ALL THE TREES IN DRAINAGE EASEMENTS. BUT THE PROBLEM IS THAT IF WE WERE TO GO DOWN THAT ROUTE AND ONE OF THOSE TREES GET D DAMAGE AND IT WAS APPROVED WITH A BOARD, UH, APPROVED PLAN, THEN WE, WE WOULD BE OUTTA COMPLIANCE WITH THE BOARD AND, AND OUR, UH, UNDERSTAND THAT OUR BOARD APPROVAL WOULD BE IN JEOPARDY AT THAT TIME. UH, SO WE COULDN'T DO THAT. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. AND GIVEN THE TOPOGRAPHY OF THIS SITE, IT'S ALL GONNA BE GRADED. SO WE CAN'T SAY THAT WE'RE GONNA SAVE THIS TREE AND THIS TREE AND THIS TREE AND TREE, THIS TREE. 'CAUSE HABITAT WILL BE BUILDING MOST OF THE HOMES, BUT THEY WON'T BE BUILDING ALL OF THEM. AND SO THEY CAN'T CONTROL EXACTLY HOW THE GRADING'S GOING TO DO. SO, UM, TO STRICT CONTROL OF THE TREE REPLACEMENT. UM, WILL IT AFFECT ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES AND WILL REQUIREMENTS ARE NOT OPPOSED BY A SITE SPECIFIC, UH, LANDSCAPE PLAN? NO. THIS PROPERTY HAS NO, IT'S NOT PART OF A PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT. IT'S NEVER BEEN TO THE BOARD. SO IT DOESN'T HAVE A A, A PLAN APPROVED BY CITY PLAN COMMISSIONER, CITY COUNCIL. UH, IT IS OF, WE WOULD BE, EVEN THOUGH WE'RE REMOVING TREES, WE WILL BE BETTERING THE PROPERTY BY GETTING RID OF AN ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE AND PUTTING RESIDENTS IN HOME HOMES THEY OWN ADJACENT TO A PARK. BUT RIGHT NOW WE JUST HAVE, UH, A BUNCH OF WOODS THAT, UM, ARE, ARE NOT BEING USED FOR WHOLESOME ACTIVITIES ALL THE TIME. NEXT TIME. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. UH, WE HAVE RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY, WHICH IS A GOOD THING 'CAUSE WE'RE RESIDENTIAL USE OURSELVES. UM, AS YOU SAW, UH, AT OUR, DURING THE BRIEFING SESSION, WE ARE SAVING TREES. UH, WE'LL BE PLANTING TREES ALONG THE APACHE SIDE, THE WESTERN SIDE AS PART OF OUR MITIGATION AS WELL, AS WELL AS TREES IN THE FRONT YARD AND BACKYARDS OF EACH OF THE HOMES. THE, THE SITE DOES HAVE A, IT DRAINS FROM THE NORTHEAST TO THE SOUTHWEST, UH, FOR DALLAS. THERE'S A FAIR AMOUNT OF TOPOGRAPHY ON THAT SITE. UM, WE REALLY CAN'T REPLACE ALL THE TREES WE NEED TO REPLACE ON SITE. THERE'S JUST TOO MANY COMING DOWN. THE OTHER OPTION IS TO, YOU KNOW, WE CAN PLAN 'EM WITHIN A MILE OR FIVE MILES OF THE PROPERTY. WE CAN BUY A PIECE OF PROPERTY, UH, THAT'S HEAVILY TREE AND GIVE IT TO THE CITY OF DALLAS OR TURN IT INTO CONSERVATION EASEMENT TO BENEFIT THE CITY OF DALLAS. OR WE CAN PAY INTO THE FUND AND HABITAT'S LOOKED AT ALL THOSE ITEMS AND THIS IS THE PATH WE ELECTED TO GO DOWN. UM, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. SO WE'RE IN A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. HABITAT WOULD LIKE TO PROVIDE 24 HOMES. UH, THE, SHE'S WORKED, HALEY AND HER TEAM HAVE WORKED VERY STRONGLY WITH THE ELECTED AND POINT OFFICIALS OF THE AREA, MEMBERS OF THE PARK BOARD. THIS IS A PROJECT THAT, UH, THE COUNCIL MEMBER, THE PARK BOARD, AND EVERYBODY WANTS TO SEE. WE ARE JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO GET IT DONE. UM, THE TREE MITIGATION REQUIREMENT HAS BEEN CALCULATED ABOUT 1.1 MILLION $60,000, GIVE OR TAKE, WHICH WORKS OUT TO $40,000 PER LOT. IF YOU ADD CONSTRUCTION COST OF BUILDING TWO ROADS, UH, ADDING WITH THOSE ROADS, WATER LINES, SEWER LINES, PAVING AND DRAINAGE, UM, YOU'RE, YOU'RE, YOU'RE PROBABLY LOOKING [04:10:01] AT AN ADDITIONAL 60 TO $80,000 PER LOT, GIVE OR TAKE. SO YOU'RE TRYING TO BUILD AFFORDABLE HOUSING ON LOTS. THAT HABITAT HAS TO SPEND AT LEAST 120, $130,000 JUST TO GET READY TO BUILD A HOUSE ON. AND THAT'S USUALLY WHAT, A QUARTER OF THE PRICE OF A HOUSE. SO, YOU KNOW, ALL OF A SUDDEN THESE AFFORDABLE HOMES ARE IN THE $400,000 RANGE ON PLEASANT GROVE. SO THIS, A LOT OF YOU HAVE KNOWN ME FOR A LONG TIME. I'VE BEEN DOING THIS FOR ALMOST 30 YEARS IN DALLAS, AND THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I'VE ASKED FOR RELIEF TO TREE MITIGATION. AND THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I'VE VOLUNTEERED TO REPRESENT SOMEBODY AND IT HAS THIS BIG, BUT I THINK IT'S AN IMPORTANT REQUEST AND I HOPE YOU CAN SUPPORT IT AT THIS POINT. I WANT TO TURN IT OVER TO, TO HALEY WITH HABITAT, IF YOU MIND. DO PLEASE. THANKS ROB. UM, I'M ALMOST, I'M, THANK YOU. THANK YOU MR. BALDWIN. GIVE US YOUR NAME AGAIN, PLEASE. HALEY COATS HUSMAN. I'M THE CHIEF REAL ESTATE OFFICER AT DALLAS HABITAT FOR HUMANITY. OKAY, HOLD ON. SAY YOUR LAST NAME AGAIN. HALEY COATES. C-O-A-T-E-S HYPHEN HUSSMAN, H-U-S-E-M-A-N. GOT IT. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, PROCEED. OKAY. I'M ALSO A LITTLE OVER SEVEN MONTHS PREGNANT, SO IF I CRY IT'S HORMONES, NOT, YOU KNOW, DON'T TRY TO , BUT, OKAY. SO, UM, WE HAD SOME ADDITIONAL SLIDES FOR YOU GUYS TO LOOK AT, BUT IT WAS REALLY JUST, I WANTED TO ADD SOME SORT OF COLOR COMMENTARY TO THE PROJECT BECAUSE HABITAT'S BEEN WORKING ON THIS FOR, YOU KNOW, REALLY A COUPLE OF YEARS, REALLY STRATEGICALLY FOR A YEAR WITH ROB. UM, AND EVERYTHING THAT WE DO IS ALL IN THE NAME OF SINGLE FAMILY HOME OWNERSHIP, UM, AND, AND MOVING INTO, YOU KNOW, MIXED DENSITY HOME OWNERSHIP. THIS SITE, AS HE MENTIONED, WOULD BE 27 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, A MIX OF SINGLE STORY, TWO STORY, ALL OF WHICH WE'VE WORKED WITH, UH, THE COMMUNITY AND THE COUNCIL MEMBER OF THE DISTRICT TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT VISION FOR WHAT THE HOMES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD LOOK LIKE ALIGNED WITH THE VISION FOR THE COMMUNITY AT LARGE. AND SO THE PROJECT HAS A LOT OF SUPPORT, A LOT OF COMMUNITY SUPPORT. UH, UNFORTUNATELY WE COULD NOT TECHNICALLY GET LETTERS OF SUPPORT FROM THE FOLKS THAT DO SUPPORT THE PROJECT BECAUSE I THINK THAT IT WOULD BE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST POTENTIALLY WITH THE BOARD TO HAVE ELECTED OFFICIALS AND OR, UM, OTHERS THAT ARE RELATED TO ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS THAT MIGHT NOT WANNA NECESSARILY BE, UM, IN A LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR THIS, BUT ARE VERY SUPPORTIVE OF THE PROJECT OVERALL. AND SO, JUST WANTED TO KIND OF LET YOU KNOW WHAT ELSE WE'RE DOING IN THE AREA THAT ISN'T SO CUT AND DRY THAT WE COULD REALLY SUBMIT IT WITH OUR BOARD REQUEST. BUT I STILL THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR YOU ALL TO CONSIDER AS YOU CONSIDER WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR. UM, WE ARE ALSO, ASIDE FROM JUST DOING OUR SINGLE FAMILY INFILL DEVELOPMENT HERE AND BUILDING THOSE NEW ROADS, TO ROB'S POINT, UM, WE ARE ALSO DOING A HOME REPAIR PROGRAM IN THE AREA. AND SO EXISTING HOMEOWNERS WILL ACTUALLY BE ABLE TO GET A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF THEIR REPAIRS PAID FOR BY HABITAT THROUGH THAT PROGRAM CALLED NEIGHBOR CARE AND REPAIR, WHICH IS OUR WAY OF KIND OF GOING IN AND ENGAGING THE COMMUNITY SO THAT IT'S NOT STRICTLY US COMING IN, BUILDING SOMETHING AS A TRADITIONAL DEVELOPER AND THEN MAYBE LEAVING, YOU KNOW, THE NEXT DAY. SO, UM, I WANTED YOU ALL TO KNOW THAT PIECE. AND THEN THAT WE'VE ALSO BEEN TALKING TO PARTNERS AT TEXAS TREES FOUNDATION PARTNERS AT, UM, ANDERSON ELEMENTARY, WHICH IS RIGHT DOWN THE ROAD, AS WELL AS FRIENDS OF APACHE PARK TO HELP TO PLANT TREES ON SITE THERE AND ALSO TO, UM, DO SOME COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT EVENTS THERE. BUT AGAIN, WE DON'T KNOW EXACTLY HOW MANY AND WE DIDN'T NECESSARILY WANNA HAVE THAT, WE COULDN'T PROMISE YOU EXACTLY HOW MANY AT THIS TIME, BUT IT IS PART OF THE OVERALL ETHOS OF THE PROJECT WITHIN THE AREA. AND THEN JUST TO SPEAK TO, TO, UM, OH, OH, YAY. MY SLIDES ARE HERE. GREAT, THANK YOU. UM, YOU CAN JUST KIND OF RUN THROUGH STARTING AT THE MISSION SLIDE, I THINK IT WAS. UM, YEAH. 'CAUSE I THINK YOU GUYS HAVE SEEN, HAVE YOU SEEN MOST OF THIS IN ROB'S? I THINK SO. HERE WE GO. GOING. OKAY. SO THE NEXT ONE I THINK. YEAH, YEAH, HERE WE ARE. YEAH. SO WE'VE, AND JUST THIS IS ABOUT HABITAT. WE'VE INVESTED OVER $200 MILLION IN 24 DALLAS NEIGHBORHOODS. AND USUALLY FOR EVERY DOLLAR THAT HABITAT INVESTS IN DEVELOPMENT IT, THE COMMUNITY WILL REAP OVER $3 IN ECONOMIC GROWTH. SO THIS IS JUST SOME STATISTICS. WE'RE ALMOST 40 YEARS OLD. OUR 40TH ANNIVERSARY IS NEXT YEAR. UM, AND THEN ON THE NEXT SLIDE IT'LL SHOW YOU THE AREA MEDIAN INCOME BREAKDOWN OF THE HOME. SO THIS IS WHY THIS IS SO IMPORTANT FOR THIS SITE AND WHY IT DOESN'T QUITE FIT INTO THE NORMAL. YOU KNOW, I'VE WORKED FOR A PRIVATE DEVELOPER. NORMALLY WE WOULD JUST PAY THIS BILL AND MOVE ON WITH OUR LIVES. BUT , UH, BECAUSE THIS IS 18 HOMES DESIGNATED FOR 60 TO 80% A MI, IT MEANS THE SALES PRICE HAS TO BE IN THE LOW TO MID TWO HUNDREDS FOR SOME OF THOSE FOLKS TO BE ABLE TO AFFORD IT. AND THEN FOR THE MIXED INCOME PIECE, THOSE CLOSER TO THE 80 TO [04:15:01] ONE, UH, 20% A MI OR ONE 15% A MI, THOSE HOMES CAN BE KIND OF IN THE LOWER, MAYBE PUSHING MID THREES, BUT DEFINITELY IN THE LOWER THREE HUNDREDS. SO JUST TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO SELL THIS FOR. AND THE TREE MITIGATION FEE COMPLETELY, UH, KNOCKS THIS PROJECT OFF OF ITS, UM, KILTER BASICALLY. BUT NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. AND THEN THIS WAS JUST KIND OF COMMUNITY CONTEXT FOR YOU TO SEE A LITTLE BIT MORE HOW WE LOOK AT THINGS. SO OUR PROJECT IS IN THE BLUE AND THEN IN GREEN IS WHAT, UM, ROB WAS MENTIONING APACHE PARK AND THEN THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AS WELL THAT LITERALLY ABUTS APACHE PARK. AND I'LL JUST SAY I STARTED AT HABITAT IN OCTOBER AND THEN THIS WAS THE FIRST SITE THAT I DROVE BY. AND WHEN I DROVE BY THE PARK, THE SIGN AT APACHE PARK HAD NO LESS THAN A THOUSAND BULLETS IN IT. AND I THINK THAT A BIG PART OF WHAT IS HAPPENING IN THIS CORNER RIGHT NOW OF APACHE PARK AND OUR FENCED IN NOW FENCED IN PROPERTY, BUT THE WOODED PROPERTY IS THAT THERE'S A LOT OF NEFARIOUS ACTIVITY THAT'S HAPPENING. AND WHEN WE FIRST CAME TO CLEAR OUR SITE, WE HAD TO HAVE DUMPSTER LOADS FULL OF JUST, YOU KNOW, DRUG PARAPHERNALIA, OTHER THINGS, CAMPFIRES, TRASH, UM, UH, TEMPORARY STRUCTURES, ALL OF THAT. AND SO WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS WE'RE TRYING TO CONNECT THAT MAIN COURT, OR NOT REALLY MAIN COURT, MAIN COURT OF ELAM THROUGH TO APACHE, WHICH WOULD THEN GIVE THAT PARK MORE LIFE AND NEW LIFE. IT WOULD ALSO GIVE BETTER SECURITY TO THE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES THAT ALREADY EXIST. AND THEN PUTTING IN ADDITIONAL SINGLE FAMILY HOMES REALLY PROVIDES MORE OF THAT CONNECTIVE TISSUE FOR WHAT YOU'RE SEEING IS ALREADY A PRETTY ESTABLISHED SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD. SO, AND IT LISTS SOME OF THE PARTNERS I MENTIONED THAT WE'RE WORKING WITH, UM, TO, YOU KNOW, LOOK AT IT AT MORE BROADER AND IN MORE OF A COMMUNITY CONTEXT AS OPPOSED TO JUST OUR SITE. AND THEN THE LAST SLIDE I HAVE JUST IS ALSO A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT HABITAT, BUT WE ARE RUN BY VOLUNTEERS. WE'RE RUN BY SUBSIDY DONATIONS. I MEAN, WE TRULY DO THIS TO BE THE MOST AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOP, BE BASICALLY THE MOST AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN DALLAS. THERE'S MANY THAT STRUGGLE TO EVEN GET TO THE 60 TO 75% AREA MEETING INCOME AS FAR AS SALES PRICE RIGHT NOW, BASED ON MORTGAGE RATES. WE'RE UNIQUELY SET UP WITH OUR OWN MORTGAGE PRODUCT THAT WE CAN STILL DO THAT. SO WE TRULY ARE ONE OF THE ONLY DEVELOPERS THAT CAN REALLY STILL REACH THIS POPULATION. AND WE THINK IT'S A POPULATION THAT DESPERATELY NEEDS HOUSING, BUT MORE SO DESPERATELY NEEDS HOME OWNERSHIP AND CAN GET THERE. SO, UM, WE DO THAT THROUGH OVER 30,000 HOURS OF VOLUNTEERS ANNUALLY AND ALL THE OTHER THINGS THAT WE DO. SO THAT'S JUST A BIT ABOUT US, BUT THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND THAT ENDS OUR PRESENTATION. UH, WE'RE HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD, MR. DORN? UH, MR. BALDWIN? SORRY, MR. BALDWIN? YES SIR. I HAVE TWO QUESTIONS. ONE, WHAT ARE THE CURRENT REAL ESTATE TAXES ON THAT VACANT PIECE OF LAND? I DON'T KNOW. HAY . WELL, WHEN, AS SOON AS WE, UH, ACQUIRE A PIECE OF PROPERTY, WE APPLY FOR TAX EXEMPTION AS A NONPROFIT. SO WE TEMPORARILY HOLD TAX EXEMPTION UNTIL IT IS RESOLD TO AN INDIVIDUAL, IN WHICH CASE, ONCE IT'S DEVELOPED, THEY WOULD PAY THEIR NORMAL PROPERTY TAXES. SO I ACTUALLY ALSO DON'T KNOW, BUT I CAN FIND OUT FOR YOU. SO RIGHT NOW THIS, THE CITY OF DALLAS RECEIVES NO TAX INCOME FROM THAT PROPERTY, CORRECT? I BE, I BELIEVE THAT IS CORRECT BECAUSE TYPICALLY WE APPLY FOR THAT IMMEDIATELY. OKAY. BUT I CAN DOUBLE OBJECT. SO THEN ONCE THE HOUSES ARE SOLD, THAT PROPERTY OWNER WON'T START PAYING TAXES? YES. OKAY. AND, AND DEPENDING ON THE AFFORDABILITY, THEY MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE A DEED RESTRICTION THAT RESTRICTS THEIR TAXES, BUT IT WILL ESSENTIALLY ACTIVATE THAT SITE. NOW YOU'LL HAVE 27 NEW TAXPAYERS CORRECT. AT VARYING LEVELS. OKAY, THANK YOU. YOU SAID YOU HAD TWO QUESTIONS. THAT WAS ONE, TWO. OKAY. UM, A, A, A FOLLOW UP TO THAT, THEN I'VE GOT MR. FINNEY. ALRIGHT, SO YOU PURCHASED THE PROPERTY AND YOU FILED A, UH, A DEAL TO, UH, BE EXEMPT. AND THEN YOU SAID SOMETHING ABOUT ONCE YOU DEVELOP IT, THEN THE INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER STARTS PAYING TAXES. AND THEN YOU SAID SOMETHING ELSE. IF THEY DO SOMETHING ELSE, THEY'RE, I MISS THAT. I MENTIONED THAT BECAUSE OF THE AFFORDABILITY AND WE WANNA MAKE SURE THE AFFORDABILITY, WE DON'T WANNA HAVE SOMEONE FLIP THE HOUSE. RIGHT? SO WE DON'T WANT SOMEONE TO BUY IT AT TWO 50. OKAY. IT APPRAISES FOR FOUR THE NEXT DAY THEY PAY FOUR PLUS, YOU KNOW, SOMEONE STARTS UP, OKAY. SO WE HAVE DEED RESTRICTIONS ON THOSE PROPERTIES THAT ARE TRULY AFFORDABLE TO 60 TO 80%, WHICH MEANS THAT THEY PAY TAXES, BUT THEIR TAX RATE IS CAPPED BASED ON HOW MUCH THEY CAN SELL THEIR HOME FOR, FOR A PERIOD OF TIME SO THAT THEIR TAX RATE IS AFFORDABLE TO ESSENTIALLY THEIR SALES PRICE THAT THEY ARE, ARE, UM, BEHOLDEN TO. AND THEN ONCE THEIR DEED RESTRICTION LIFTS, AT THAT POINT, THE AFFORDABILITY PERIOD IS NOT FULLY, HOW DOES THAT PREVENT SOMEONE FROM FLIPPING THE HOUSE? THEY HAVE TO SET? SO THEY WOULD HAVE TO RESELL IT TO A 60 TO 80% A MI BUYER, WHICH MEANS THAT THE SALES PRICE WOULD HAVE TO BE INCOME. IS THAT STATE LAW? IT'S A DALLAS HABITAT DEED RESTRICTION, BUT [04:20:01] DALLAS COUNTY RECOGNIZES IT AS A, UM, TAX IMPLICATION. OKAY, I HEAR YOU. THAT'S OKAY. WE'VE CONFIRMED ALSO THAT THERE'S NO TAXES CURRENTLY. OKAY. THAT'S SEPARATE AND ASIDE. YEAH. OUR, OUR CRITERIA. OKAY. YOUR, YOUR NAME'S HAILEY, RIGHT? YES. OKAY. OUR CRITERIA IS THAT THE GRANTING A SPECIAL EXCEPTION. WILL IT? WE CAN, IF HAVING, WITHOUT THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION, IT WILL UNREASONABLY BURDEN THE USE OF THE PROPERTY. THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTY. AND THE REQUIREMENTS ARE, ARE IMPOSED ON SITE SPECIFIC LANDSCAPE PLAN BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION CITY COUNCIL. THAT'S OUR CRITERIA. SO I TRY TO LOOK AT EVERY CASE AND GO TO THE CRITERIA FIRST. SO I DON'T THINK THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION HAS ANYTHING ON THIS ONE. CORRECT? I'M LOOKING TO ONE OF YOU GUYS. RIGHT. PLANNING COMMISSION HAS AN OPINED THEY PLANTED, BUT AS FAR AS A PD OR ZONING, THEY HAVEN'T, IT'S STILL, IS IT STILL R 75, RIGHT? THAT'S CORRECT. IT'S NOT IN A PD, SO THERE'S NO LANDSCAPE. OKAY. SO, SO IT'S BASE ZONING OF R 75. OKAY. UM, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECTING NEIGHBORING PROPERTY. SO THAT GOES TO, HAVE WE HEARD ANYTHING FROM SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS? AND I THINK FROM WHAT WE HEARD THIS MORNING, HOLD ON A SECOND. IT'S ZERO AND ZERO. WE HAVEN'T HEARD ANYTHING AND WE'VE STAFF HAS CONTACTED 19 PROPERTY OWNERS, SO WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY'RE THINKING. THAT'S DOESN'T MEAN GOOD, THAT DOESN'T MEAN BAD. THE LAST CRITERIA IS THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION. UH, IT WILL NOT UNREASONABLY UNBURDEN THE USE OF THE PROBLEM. THE, THE PROPERTY. THAT'S THE $1,084,000 QUESTION. YES, IT IS. AND I'VE ASKED MY ATTORNEY, I'VE ASKED MY BOARD BOARD ADMINISTRATOR, WHERE IN THE CODE DOES IT GIVE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT THE AUTHORITY TO WAIVE $1,084,000? NO, NO. THIS IS RHETORICAL. THIS IS A RHETORICAL. AND THAT STOPS ME DEAD IN MY TRACKS. UH, JUST A MINUTE. OKAY. THAT'S A RHETORICAL QUESTION. NOW YOU CAN ANSWER . I DO THINK I KNOW WHERE THE MONEY GOES IF THAT'S HELPFUL. 'CAUSE I DID LOOK INTO THAT. I REALIZE I DON'T WANNA TAKE A MILLION DOLLARS AWAY FROM THE CITY OF DALLAS EITHER, BUT I ALSO KNOW THE CITY OF DALLAS WANTS AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND THAT WHEN HOUSING IS GENERATED, SO IS ECONOMIC GROWTH. I GET YOU. SO THE NEXT QUESTION I ASKED YEAH. MY BOARD ATTORNEY WAS, WHO ELSE COULD GIVE RELIEF TO A SITUATION LIKE THIS? BECAUSE US WRITING A CHECK FOR 1,000,080 $4,000 OF TAXPAYERS MONEY. WOO, I'M GETTING CLAMMY. AND THE ANSWER WAS, WELL, THEY COULD CALL PUBLIC HEARING, THE PLANNING COMMISSION COULD REZONE IT AND HAVE A LANDSCAPING PLAN OF X, Y, AND Z. CITY COUNCIL APPROVES IT. I KIND OF GO, WHEW. CITY COUNCIL, THEY CONTROL THE BUDGET, THEY CONTROL THE DOLLARS POLICY. WE JUST GRANT SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS. YOU'VE BEEN HERE ALL DAY, YOU'VE HEARD ME SAY THAT. THAT'S ALL WE DO. SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS. HOW DO YOU RESPOND TO THAT? I WILL SAY, AND PHIL CAN PROBABLY CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT, UM, I DO THINK THAT THE MONEY THAT'S GENERATED FROM THE TREE MITIGATION FEES GOES INTO A SEPARATE, UH, WANNA CALL IT CHEAT TREE CONSERVATION SOMETHING OR OTHER BUDGET THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY ALLOCATED TO ANY OTHER GENERAL BUDGET. IT'S, IT SPECIFICALLY GOES YEAH, BUT BE CAREFUL. BE, I'M GONNA LET MR. IRWIN, WHO I DEEPLY RESPECT HAVE KNOWN FOR MORE YEARS THAN, THAN WE CAN COUNT. IT'S OVER 20 NOW, PHIL. UM, BUT EH, BE CAREFUL. THAT MEANS THE CITY HAS SO MANY POCKETS THAT WE DON'T COUNT THIS POCKET. WE, WE COUNT THIS POCKET AND WE DON'T COUNT THIS POCKET. IT'S OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY. SO VERY BRIEFLY, DO YOU WANNA RESPOND TO THAT, MR. IRWIN? THE, ANY MONIES PAID FOR, UH, TREE MITIGATION GOES TO A SPECIAL ACCOUNT CALLED THE REFOREST STATION FUND. AND THAT MONEY IS APPLIED TO BEING ABLE TO PURCHASE TREES, ALSO PURCHASE LAND FOR CONSERVATION PURPOSES, WHICH IS, HAS BEEN DONE. SO, AND THAT, THAT MONEY'S CONTROLLED BY WHOM? THAT'S CONTROLLED, UH, BY THE CITY OF DALLAS. UH, THROUGH OUR, OUR DEPARTMENT. IT'S BY THE CITY COUNCIL. BY CITY WELL CITY COUNCIL. YEAH. YOU CAN'T PULL MONEY OUT OF THAT WITHOUT THE C CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE, CORRECT? YEAH, IT WAS ESTABLISHED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. YEAH. SO THEY, I MEAN, I'M SURE THE MANAGER HAS A SMALLER AMOUNT. THEY, THE MANAGER COULD, BUT ANYTHING OF SUBSTANCE, IS IT 50,000 HOURS OR 25,000? I DON'T KNOW. CORRECT. WE CAN, WE CAN DO, UH, TREE PURCHASES AS WE DO EVERY YEAR FOR CITY PARK PROJECTS. YES. TEXAS TREES FOUNDATION AND OTHERS, BUT THAT'S 25,000 CLICKS, SMALL AMOUNTS. AND THEN FOR ANYTHING OF LAND PURCHASES, THAT DOES GO THROUGH CITY COUNCIL FOR A THIRD. OKAY. SO RESPECTFULLY, WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO, [04:25:01] AND THEN I'M GONNA GO TO THE PANEL HERE FOR OTHER QUESTIONS. I'M, UH, THIS IS A BIG BITE. YOU, WE LOOKED AT THE PRESENTATION HERE AND , IT SAYS, NO PROVISIONAL OR ALTERNATIVE MITIGATION MEASURES ARE PROPOSED BY THE APPLICANT. THEN I LOOKED UP AND I SAW $1,084,467. THAT'S MY QUESTION FOR NOW. WHO'S NEXT? WHO HAS A QUESTION MR. FINNEY? UM, I HAVE SEVERAL QUESTIONS. I'LL, I'LL START WITH THE ONE THAT BUILDS ON WHERE CHAIRMAN NEWMAN LEFT OFF. UM, SO, UM, MR. BALDWIN, YOU MENTIONED THAT THERE ARE TWO OTHER OPTIONS, UH, FOR MEETING THE, THE TREE MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS. AND THAT IS, UH, PLANTING TREES WITHIN FIVE MILES OF THE SITE, UM, PRESUMABLY ON SOMEONE ELSE'S PROPERTY OR RIGHT PROPERTY THAT HABITAT MAY BE ALREADY OWNED, IF THAT'S THE CASE, OR BUYING PROPERTY, UM, AND GIVING IT TO THE CITY, UM, FOR THEIR USE. HOW SERIOUSLY DID YOU GUYS EXPLORE THOSE TWO OPTIONS? AND CAN, DO YOU HAVE ANY FACTS AND DATA TO SHOW US THAT IT WAS NOT FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE AT ALL AND THAT A MILLION DOLLARS WAS THE BEST OPTION AS FAR AS A ACQUIRING NEW PROPERTY THAT WOULD REALLY COST BURDEN THE, THE AGENCY, BUT WE REALLY DID EXPLORE THE PLANTING OF TREES WITHIN THE FIVE MILE RADIUS. AND SO WE ACTUALLY HAVE SOME ACTIVE PARTNERSHIPS THAT WE'RE STILL TRYING TO SOLIDIFY WITH APACHE PARK, WITH EVEN THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, AND THEN ALSO OTHER NEIGHBORS THAT EXIST WITH THOSE HOME REPAIRS. UM, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THEM BEING ABLE TO PLANT ADDITIONAL TREES IN THEIR LAWN. THAT WOULD BE KIND OF COVERED AS PART OF OUR PROGRAM. SO WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THAT. BUT AGAIN, THE, THE PARTNERSHIPS AROUND THAT WERE UNCOMFORTABLE, LIKE FORMALLY SUPPORTING US WITH A TREE MITIGATION WAIVER. BUT THOSE THINGS WILL HAPPEN IN ACTUALITY. SO, UM, THAT'S NOT EXACTLY LIKE A SUPER STRAIGHTFORWARD ANSWER, BUT THAT'S, THAT THE PLAN IS, HAS ALWAYS BEEN TO PLANT ADDITIONAL TREES IN THAT AREA. UM, AND SO WE COULD TRY TO QUANTIFY THAT A LITTLE BIT BETTER AND MAYBE THAT WOULD HELP WITH SOME OF THE OFFSET COSTS. SO JUST TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU SAID, SO YOU'RE PLANNING TO PLANT TREES IN THAT AREA ANYWAYS. UM, BUT THE SPECIFIC ENTITIES INVOLVED WITH THAT, THE SCHOOL, THE PARK WERE UNCOMFORTABLE WITH IT COUNTING TOWARDS THE TREE MITIGATION, FORMALLY SUBMITTING A LETTER TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AROUND WAIVING TREE MITIGATION JUST BECAUSE THEY'RE ENVIRONMENTAL INSTITUTIONS. AND AS YOU CAN IMAGINE, THAT'S PROBABLY NOT SEEN AS, I'M JUST BEING VERY CANDID, THAT'S PROBABLY NOT SEEN AS BEING LIKE THE MOST, UH, JUDICIOUS FROM THEIR PERSPECTIVE. BUT WE WILL BE WORKING WITH THEM ON REPLACING TREES. SO IF THERE'S ANOTHER WAY THAT THE BOARD WOULD RECOGNIZE THEIR SUPPORT OF THE PROJECT OUTSIDE OF A LETTER OF SUPPORT, AND WE COULD, WE COULD SAY WE'RE PLANTING, YOU KNOW, X NUMBER OF TREES OR THIS, THIS, THESE ARE SORTS OF THE PROJECTS THAT WE HAVE TEED UP OVER THE NEXT YEAR. WE COULD, WE COULD DEFINITELY DO THAT. IT WAS JUST THE LETTER OF SUPPORT. OKAY. AND KEEP IN MIND, UH, TO PLANT TREES OFFSITE, YOU NEED TO MAKE SURE THE PEOPLE ARE GONNA ACCEPT THEM. YOU HAVE TO PAY FOR THOSE TREES TO PURCHASE THE TREES AND PLANT THE TREES AND IRRIGATE THE TREES. RIGHT, PHIL? SO, UM, IT'S, IT'S A LITTLE BIT CHEAPER THAN PAYING INTO THE FUND, BUT IT'S A LOT MORE WORK. AND THE HABITAT'S REALLY NOT IN THE BUSINESS OF PLANTING TREES. THEY, YOU KNOW, THEY, THEY DO IT FOR THEIR HOMES, BUT, UM, IT'S, IT'S NOT JUST YOU SNAP YOUR FINGERS AND IT HAPPENS, YOU KNOW, THIS IS 5,000 INCHES OF TREES. SO THAT WOULD BE THEM PLANTING 1500, 1800 TREES, UH, TO, TO MAKE THIS HAPPEN. UH, THEY DID LOOK AT ONE TIME, UH, AT THEY HAD SOME PROPERTY OVER IN PY THAT, UH, THEY WEREN'T USING. AND YOU KNOW, PHIL AND I TALKED ABOUT MAYBE LOOKING AT THAT AND SEEING IF WE COULD USE SOME OF THAT LAND THAT THEY, THEY COULDN'T USE AS AN OFFSET, BUT LOOKING AT THE TREES, THEY, THEY WEREN'T OF HIGH ENOUGH QUALITY AND THERE WASN'T ENOUGH OF 'EM TO DO THAT. SO THEY HAVE LOOKED AT IT, WE'VE LOOKED AT IT. UH, THIS JUST SEEMED AS A, IT'S A HAIL MARY FOR SURE, BUT IT SEEMED LIKE THE MOST EXPEDITIOUS WAY TO MOVE FORWARD AND GET AFFORDABLE HOUSING ON THE GROUND. OKAY. AND THEN, SO THEN DID, WHAT ABOUT, UH, I'M SORRY, THIS IS GETTING INTO THE WEEDS, BUT I, I JUST WANT TO KIND OF EXPLORE THIS THOROUGHLY. WHAT ABOUT FUNDRAISING TO COVER THE MILLION DOLLARS? THERE'S A LOT OF GENEROUS PEOPLE COMMITTED TO SOUTH DALLAS IN, IN THIS CITY. YEAH. THE PROJECT IS $12 MILLION TO COMPLETE. UM, AND SO WE ARE ACTUALLY FUNDRAISING [04:30:01] A GOOD CHUNK OF THAT ALREADY. OKAY. WHICH IS JUST PART OF THE, UM, HAVING TO SUBSIDIZE FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING. THAT'S JUST, IT'S DIFFICULT TO ASK PEOPLE TO PAY A FEE, LIKE FOR THEIR, FOR THEIR FUNDRAISING DOLLARS TO GO TOWARDS A FEE , UM, FOR A TREE MITIGATION WHEN THEY REALLY WANNA PAY TO BUILD A HOUSE AND HAVE A FAMILY MOVE INTO A HOUSE. SO IT'S, IT IS DIFFICULT. UM, AND THEN AGAIN, IT JUST KIND OF COST BURDENS. THE, IT WOULD BE ANOTHER MILLION DOLLARS IN SUBSIDY WE'D HAVE TO RAISE ON TOP OF THE MILLIONS WE ALREADY DO. OKAY. OKAY. AND SO THEN MY NEXT QUESTION, UH, GOING BACK TO ONE OF CHAIRMAN NEWMAN'S POINTS, UH, IS ABOUT, UM, SUPPORT, SHOWING SUPPORT FOR THE PROJECT. HAVE YOU TALKED TO ANY OF THE NEIGHBORS AND REACHED OUT TO THEM? BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY THEY'VE BEEN NOTIFIED, BUT HAVE YOU ENGAGED WITH THEM TO GET THEM TO SHOW SUPPORT, UM, IN, IN A TANGIBLE WAY, ONCE OF BEING, YOU KNOW, SENDING, SENDING A LETTER IN? YEAH, OUR COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT TEAM HAS BEEN IN TOUCH WITH THE PLEASANT GROVE NEIGHBORS THAT ARE SURROUNDING THE AREA, SPECIFICALLY IN THE HOME REPAIR, LIKE FOR THE HOME REPAIR PROGRAM AND STARTING TO KIND OF GAIN SOME, UM, JUST GENERATE SOME LIKE MOMENTUM AROUND THAT JUST SO THAT THEY, BECAUSE THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, IF YOU DROVE THROUGH, IT'S, IT DEFINITELY COULD USE, YOU KNOW, THERE COULD USE SOME DOLLARS INVESTED. AND LIKE I MENTIONED, LIKE THAT CORNER WHERE APACHE PARK IS, IT'S A LITTLE BIT, YOU KNOW, UNDERSERVED, I'LL SAY . AND SO THIS IS PART OF OUR COMING INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND NOT JUST BUILDING IT, IS WE'VE, WE'VE STARTED THOSE CONVERSATIONS. WE DID NOT REQUEST LETTERS OF SUPPORT FOR SPECIFICALLY THIS, BUT WE CERTAINLY COULD, UM, BASED ON THOSE RELATIONSHIPS THAT WE'VE STARTED. AND WE DID TALK TO, UM, PARKS AND REC AND THEN THEY'VE HAVE, I THINK RECENTLY STARTED FRIENDS OF APACHE PARK CHAPTER THAT'S REALLY ENGAGED THERE AND IS ALSO REALLY ACTIVATED IN TRYING TO ENHANCE THAT AREA. AND I KNOW THAT EVEN SINCE WE STARTED SPEAKING WITH THEM, THEY'VE ALREADY, UM, YOU KNOW, THE SIGN I MENTIONED THAT HAD ALL THE BULLETS IN IT, THEY'VE CHANGED THAT SIGN OUT EVEN JUST IN THE LAST COUPLE OF MONTHS. SO THERE'S, THERE'S A LOT OF, UM, COHESION HAPPENING AROUND THESE DIFFERENT COMMUNITY GROUPS IN INCLUDING OURSELVES. SO. OKAY. SO DO YOU THINK THAT WITH MORE TIME YOU COULD HAVE SOME TANGIBLE SUPPORT FROM PROJECT? I DEFINITELY THINK SO. AND I THINK ALSO AFTER HAVING SEEN HOW THIS ALL GOES DOWN, 'CAUSE THIS IS MY FIRST TIME , UM, I DEFINITELY THINK THAT WE COULD COME BACK WITH A LITTLE BIT MORE OF LIKE A TIERED APPROACH. SAY LIKE, HEY, WE'RE DOING THIS AND THEN WE'RE, YOU KNOW, HERE, HERE'S THE THINGS THAT WE'RE ACTIVELY DOING IN THE COMMUNITY. HOW THAT COULD POTENTIALLY BY ORDINANCE LOWER THE FEE IF IT CAN. AND THEN ALSO WITH THE LETTERS OF SUPPORT, UM, TO BE ABLE TO MAYBE PUSH THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION, BUT RIGHT. OKAY. AND THEN BACK TO, UM, TWO MORE THINGS, SORRY. OKAY. UM, BACK TO THE, UM, THE OPTION OF PLANTING TREES WITHIN THE AREA MM-HMM . SO YOU SAID YOU HAD PARTNERS THAT ARE ON BOARD WITH YOU PLANTING TREES, UM, LIKE ON APACHE PARK, THEY DIDN'T WANNA SHOW SUPPORT, BUT I MEAN, IF THEY'RE ALLOWING YOU JUST TO, IF TREES ON THEIR PROPERTY, WHY, WHY CAN'T WE COUNT THAT TOWARDS THE CREDIT? AND MAYBE THIS IS A QUESTION FOR MR. IRWIN, I'LL, I'LL LET WHOEVER RESPOND, WHOEVER FEELS MORE QUALIFIED, BUT I CAN TRY TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION. UH, ANY TREES THAT ARE PLANTED ON BEHALF OF THE PROJECT CAN WITHIN FIVE MILES, BUT ALSO ON ANY CITY PARK, IF THE PARKS DEPARTMENT IS TAKING TREES CAN BE APPLIED TOWARD THE MITIGATION FOR THIS PROJECT. WE JUST NEED TO DETERMINE WHICH TREES ARE GOING AND WHERE. OKAY. SO HAS, WHY HAS THAT, HAS THAT BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR? AND THE NUMBER, THE NUMBER IS ZERO RIGHT NOW, ? WELL, IT HAS, SO IT HASN'T BECAUSE OF THE, WELL, NUMBER ONE, WE WERE STILL KIND OF EARLY ON IN THOSE DISCUSSIONS, BUT WE ALSO, IT'S LIKE OVER, IT'S A TON OF TREES. I MEAN, WE WOULD HAVE TO PLANT 1500 TO 2000 TREES. RIGHT? RIGHT. AND SO IT'S ALSO JUST THE, THE SHEER AMOUNT OF TREES TO OFFSET THE FULL COST. SO WE WERE TRYING TO SEE, YOU KNOW, AND ULTIMATELY, HONESTLY, THIS MAY BE NOT FOR THE WORD OF ADJUSTMENTS, BUT , UM, MY THOUGHT ON THIS IS IT'S A, DO WE WANT AFFORDABLE HOUSING ON THIS SITE OR DO WE WANT TREES ON THIS SITE? AND WHAT SERVES A BETTER PURPOSE TO THE CITY OF DALLAS AND TO THAT NEIGHBORHOOD? THAT'S HOW I LOOKED AT IT. YEAH. SO I WAS LIKE, OH, WELL LET'S GO TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND SEE. UM, BUT I, THERE'S DEFINITELY OTHER THINGS THAT WE CAN DO IF WE'RE TRYING TO JUST BACK THAT NUMBER DOWN TO SAY, OH, INSTEAD OF PAYING A MILLION, WE CAN PAY 500,000 OR WHATEVER. IT'S STILL GONNA BE A BURDEN TO THE PROJECT. SURE. UM, SO WE JUST TRIED THIS ROUTE BEFORE THAT ONE, TO BE HONEST. YEAH. AND SO MR. FINNEY, MY, LET'S WRAP IT UP. OKAY. MY POINT IS, UM, I THINK IF YOU WERE TO COME BACK HAVING [04:35:01] FINESSE THOSE RELATIONSHIPS A LITTLE MORE AND GOTTEN, UH, HAVE MORE SPECIFIC NUMBERS ABOUT HOW MANY TREES YOU CAN FEASIBLY PLANT ON THE PARK OF THE SCHOOL, WHEREVER, AND THEN YOU COME BACK WITH US WITH A LOWER NUMBER, I THINK, I THINK IT WOULD BE MORE REASONABLE TO, I MEAN, WE'D MORE BE MORE WILLING TO, UM, CONSIDER GRANTING THIS VARIANCE. AND SO, UM, THAT WOULD BE MY SUGGESTION. SO THANK YOU MR. FINNEY. I HAVE MS. DAVIS THEN MR. HAITZ. SO I, I LOVE WHAT YOU ALL DO, BUT I'M GONNA BE PRETTY CANDID. WHAT WERE YOU THINKING COMING WITH THIS PROPOSAL? I MEAN, THERE'S NO COMPROMISE HERE WHATSOEVER. YOU'RE LOOKING AT MITIGATING 6%, THE COST IS OUTRAGEOUS. THE NUMBER OF TREES THAT YOU WOULD HAVE HAVE TO CUT DOWN IS OUTRAGEOUS. AND YOU, YOU JUST ADMITTED, YOU BASICALLY WANTED TO COME AND SEE WHAT YOU COULD GET. SO THAT'S, I MEAN, THAT'S A BIT OFFENSIVE TO ME AS A BOARD MEMBER. SO MY QUESTION LIKE, WHY DIDN'T YOU COME UP WITH A PROPOSAL, SOMETHING THAT'S MORE REASONABLE, BECAUSE THIS IS, I I DON'T KNOW HOW, HOW ANYBODY COULD GET BEHIND 6% MITIGATION WHEN YOU ARE SO FAR OFF OF WHERE YOU WOULD NEED TO BE. YEAH, I APOLOGIZE. THAT'S HOW IT CAME OFF. UM, WE DID ACTUALLY CUT, SO ORIGINALLY THE FEE WAS OVER ONE AND A HALF MILLION, SO WE DID REARRANGE SOME OF THE SITE TO GET IT DOWN TO CLOSER TO A MILLION WITH WHAT WE COULD DO WITH CIVIL AND, UM, DIFFERENT SITE PLANNING ESSENTIALLY. UH, SO IT, IT WASN'T LIKE A STRAIGHT, HEY, WE'RE JUST GONNA GO STRAIGHT WITH THE, YOU KNOW, THE ABSOLUTE WORST CASE SCENARIO. BUT, UM, I DO HEAR THAT, AND I HONESTLY, PART OF THIS IS PROBABLY JUST IT BEING OUR FIRST TIME. I DON'T KNOW IF HABITAT'S COME TO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS BEFORE ON ANYTHING, BUT YES, YOU HAVE. WE HAVE. THERE HAVE BEEN OTHER INSTANCES WHERE IF CASE BY CASE, OKAY. YEAH. IN RECENT, IN RECENT YEARS, I DON'T THINK THAT WE'VE APPROACHED THIS. SO IT MIGHT HAVE JUST BEEN ALSO, TO BE HONEST, LIKE A NAIVETY ON OUR, ON OUR PART TO WHAT, WHAT WE NEEDED TO PRESENT. BUT I DUNNO, IF YOU WANNA, AND FRANKLY, I I, AFTER READING THE CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL, I THOUGHT THAT I COULD PROVE OR AT LEAST MAKE AN ARGUMENT FOR THE CRITERIA THAT, THAT WE NEED TO SHOW TO GET IT APPROVED. I MAY HAVE BEEN PATTING MYSELF ON THE BACK ON THAT ONE, BUT I THOUGHT THAT I COULD. THANK YOU, MR. HAITZ. UH, ECHOING SOME OF THE OTHER COMMENTS, I, UH, UH, YOU KNOW, MONEY IS FUNGIBLE AND BASICALLY YOU ARE, YOU'RE ASKING THE TAXPAYERS OF DALLAS TO BASICALLY SUPPORT YOUR PROJECT TO THE TUNE OF OVER A MILLION DOLLARS, UM, BY NOT GETTING THAT MONEY INTO A TREE CONSERVATION FUND THAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE FUNDED SOME OTHER WAY BY THE TAXPAYERS OF DALLAS OR THE CITY OF DALLAS. UM, I THINK YOU SAID YOU HAD SOME PEOPLE OR ENTITIES THAT WERE WILLING TO PAY TO PLANT SOME TREES SOMEWHERE IN THE AREA. UM, PERHAPS INSTEAD OF THEM PAYING TO PLANT A TREE, THEY COULD TAKE THAT MONEY AND, AND YOU COULD COME TO US AND SAY, HEY, WE RAISED $300,000 OF THE MILLION DOLLARS OR WHATEVER THAT WE WILL PUT INTO THE TREE CONSERVATION FUND IF YOU'LL ACCEPT LESS. I'M NOT SUGGESTING 300,000 AS A MAGIC NUMBER, I JUST PICKED THAT OUT OF THE AIR. UH, BUT IT IS, I, IT IT'S, IT IS KIND OF A, UM, UH, IT SEEMS NOT A LOT OF THOUGHT WENT INTO BRING THIS PROPOSAL BEFORE THIS BOARD, UM, IN TERMS OF, OF YOU'RE REALLY OFFERING NOTHING TO THE CITY, , NOTHING TO THE TAXPAYERS, NOTHING TO THE CITY. AND BY WAY OF, UH, RECOMPENSING FOR THE LOSS OF, OF WHAT'S VERY DIFFICULT AND TAKES A LONG TIME TO GET, WHICH ARE MA VERY MATURE TREES. UH, THEY DON'T, THEY DON'T GROW ON TREES, SO TO SPEAK. UH, IT TAKES A LONG TIME FOR THESE TREES TO GROW. AND, UM, IT'S, IT'S AN, IT'S A, IT'S AN ACCOMMODATION THAT THE CITY WILL ACCEPT A LARGER NUMBER OF SMALLER TREES, WHICH ARE GONNA TAKE A HECK OF A LONG TIME TO GROW INTO THESE KINDS OF TREES, TO PUT IN OTHER PARTS OF THE CITY. SO I, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT, UM, YOU GO BACK AND TALK TO YOUR BOARD AND MAYBE REEVALUATE, UH, WHAT Y'ALL ARE WILLING TO, TO DO. I MEAN, THE CITY DOES SUPPORT LOW INCOME HOUSING, UH, ALL OVER THE CITY. SO I DON'T THINK IT'S A, I DON'T THINK IT'S A QUESTION OF THE CITY SUPPORTING LOW INCOME HOUSING BEING BUILT. CITY SUPPORTS A LOT OF LOW INCOME HOUSING BEING BUILT IN THE CITY. SO, UM, BUT I I, I'M SEEING, UH, AS OTHER BOARD MEMBERS HAVE INDICATED, I'M SEEING NOTHING HERE BY WAY OF WE'RE WILLING TO DO THIS IF YOU'LL MAKE AN ACCOMMODATION FOR US. THERE'S NO THIS, SO I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO, TO [04:40:01] RETHINK IT, I THINK. I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE REST OF THE SENSE OF THE BOARD IS IN TERMS OF I WELL, I'LL ASK YOU, HOW LONG DO YOU THINK IT WOULD TAKE YOU TO COME BACK WITH A PROPOSAL THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS MORE SUBSTANTIVE THAN WHAT YOU HAVE HERE? I WOULD PLEASE, I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU NOT TO COME BACK WITH A, WITH A TOKEN PROPOSAL, BUT SOMETHING THAT WAS SUBSTANTIVE, UH, HOWEVER LONG YOU MIGHT THINK. MAYBE YOU COULD INDICATE HOW LONG THAT WOULD TAKE FOR YOU TO COME UP WITH THAT. I DUNNO. UM, PROBLEM IS SHE'S DUE ON SEPTEMBER 13TH. SO, UH, I WOULD SAY WE GET DONE IN AUGUST OR DO WE NEED TO, WE COULD DO IT MAYBE LATER, MAYBE. GOSH, I I, I WOULD CAUTION YOU FROM GIVING A DATE THAT THEN WE ACT ON, UM, I'M, WHILE YOU'RE PROCESSING, I'M GONNA MAKE A COMMENT. I THINK THAT I COULD NOT SUPPORT ANYWHERE NEAR THIS. THAT DOESN'T MEAN I DON'T SUPPORT YOUR EFFORT, YOUR MISSION. UM, THIS IS A CITY COUNCIL DECISION FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF POLICY. MR. KOVI IS CORRECT. THE MONEY'S FUNGIBLE. IN NO WAY POSSIBLY CAN. THE BOARD OF I CAN IMAGINE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPROVE A, A WAIVER OF $1,084,000. IF THE COUNCIL WANTED TO CONNECT FEE WAIVER WITH PHILANTHROPIC AFFORDABLE HOUSING, THEY WOULD'VE SET THAT IN THE POLICY. I'M SOUNDING LIKE A, A BROKEN RECORD. BUT THE COUNCIL MAKES THOSE, THOSE DEALS. THEY DID NOT PROVIDE THAT PROVISION IN OUR RULES AND THAT SORT OF THING. SO JUST A SECOND. UM, AND SO, I MEAN, IT, IT'D BE A FAR STRETCH. UM, I THINK WE NEED TO COME TO CONCLUSION. MR. HAITZ. UH, IS IT CORRECT? THERE ARE NO LETTERS ON THIS. NONE. SO YOU INDICATED THERE WAS A LOT OF, UH, I FORGET THE TERMINOLOGY, CRIMINAL ACTIVITY OR, UM, ACTIVITY PEOPLE WOULDN'T WANT IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOODS. I WOULD THINK THERE WOULD BE STACK THIS HIGH OF PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN THE AREA COMPLAINING ABOUT WHAT'S GOING ON IN THAT WOODED AREA AND WE'RE SEEING NOTHING. AND DID YOU NOT KNOW THAT YOU HAD THIS MITIGATION ISSUE WHEN YOU PURCHASED THE PROPERTY? SHE DID NOT PURCHASE THE PROPERTY. I HAVE DID HABITAT FOR HUMANITY NOT KNOW THAT THEY HAD A TREE MITIGATION CHALLENGE WHEN YOU PURCHASED THE PROPERTY. THIS IS NOT PERSONAL. THEY DID NOT KNOW. WELL, SHAME. SHAME. YEAH. WHAT IF THEY SAY CAVEAT EOR BUYER BEWARE. SO, OKAY. UM, MR. BALDWIN, OUR PROCESS IS THE APPLICANT IS ALLOWED A REBUTTAL AT THE END AND WE'RE AT THE END. SO WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE ANY OTHER CLOSING COMMENTS? OKAY, MR. BALDWIN? YES, I THINK THE, THE PRUDENT WAY FORWARD, THIS IS TO ASK FOR A DENIAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE. SO, UM, HAILEY CAN GO HAVE HER BABY AND NOT WORRY ABOUT THIS, AND THEN WE CAN FIGURE OUT, UH, A MORE, UH, PALATABLE WAY FORWARD. THE CHAIR WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION. MS. DAVIS, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER BO OA DASH 25 DASH 4 0 11 ON APPLICATION OF ROB BALD ONE DENY THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE LANDSCAPE AND URBAN FOREST CONSERVATION REGULATIONS REQUESTED BY THIS APPLICANT WITHOUT PREJUDICE. BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND THE TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF ART ARTICLE X WILL NOT UNREASONABLE BURDEN THE USE OF THE PROPERTY AND OR THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES IN THE MATTER OF BO A 2 5 0 0 0 0 1 1. MS. DAVIS HAS MOVED TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE THE REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION. IS THERE A SECOND? I ANDREW FINNEY. SECOND. MR. FINNEY SECONDED THE MOTION. DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION. MS. DAVIS? NO DISCUSSION MR. FINNEY. UM, I MEAN I THINK WE'VE ALL KIND OF, UH, ECHOED THE SAME CONSENSUS. UM, BUT UM, I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF POTENTIAL FOR THIS TO DO SOMETHING. UM, BUT I THINK YOU JUST GOTTA DO SOME MORE WORK. SO, UM, WE LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING YOU AGAIN. THE BOARD SECRETARY WILL CALL THE VOTE. MS. DAVIS. AYE. MR. OVITZ? AYE. MR. FINNEY? AYE. MR. DORN? AYE. MR. CHAIRMAN, AYE. MOTION TO DENIED WITHOUT [04:45:01] PREJUDICE PASSES FIVE TO ZERO IN THE MATTER BOA 2 5 0 0 0 0 1 1. THE BOARD ON A UNANIMOUS FIVE TO ZERO VOTE DENIES THE SPECIAL REQUEST. SPECIAL EXCEPTION REQUEST WITHOUT PREJUDICE. YOU'LL GET A DECISION LETTER FROM OUR BOARD ADMINISTRATOR IN TWO DAYS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. BOARD MEMBERS. THAT'S THE LAST ITEM ON OUR AGENDA FOR TODAY. OUR NEXT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING FOR PANEL A IS TUESDAY, AUGUST, WHAT'S THE DATE? 19TH. AUGUST 19TH. IT'LL BE AT 10 O'CLOCK IS OUR BRIEFING. UH, WE HAVE SEVEN CASES THAT DAY WITH A BO APPEAL, SO IT'S A FULL DAY. WE MAY EVEN GO START EARLIER THAN 10, BUT RIGHT NOW IT'S ON THE BOARD AT 10 IN THE MORNING. UM, AGAIN, THAT'S TUESDAY, AUGUST 19TH. DID I SAY THAT? 19TH? I'LL SAY IT FOR THE FOURTH TIME. THANK YOU. AUGUST 19TH MEMBERS, IF YOU'RE NOT ABLE TO MAKE IT, PLEASE LET ME KNOW AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. UM, ANYWAY, AUGUST 19TH, ANY OTHER BUSINESS ON THE AGENDA? AND ALSO ONE OTHER THING I'LL MENTION AT THE AUGUST 19TH MEETING, AUGUST MEETING OF ALL THREE PANELS, I'LL BE MAKING A PRESENTATION ALONG WITH MISS, UH, OUR BOARD ADMINISTRATOR ABOUT OUR GOALS AND OBJECTIVES THAT WE ADOPTED LAST OCTOBER, AND GIVE A BRIEF DISCUSSION FOR GOALS AND OBJECTIVES POTENTIALLY FOR THIS NEXT, NEXT, UH, FISCAL YEAR. OUR FULL ANNUAL MEETINGS OCTOBER 29TH. AND SO I WANNA HAVE THIS KIND OF PRE-DISCUSSION IN AUGUST TO GET A LITTLE BIT OF FEEDBACK FROM EVERYONE. UM, AND THEN THE OFFICERS WILL BE MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE BOARD IN OCTOBER. SO THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THE STAFF PRESENTATION PORTION THAT I'LL LEAD AMONGST THE THREE PANELS. SO, ALRIGHT, HEARING NONE, HEARING MORE. UH, IT IS 5:51 PM ON THE 15TH OF JULY. THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PENALTIES HEREBY I MAKE A MOTION TO ADJOURN. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. SECOND BY MS. DAVIS. ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. THOSE OPPOSED? WE STAND ADJOURNED. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I. * 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.