* 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. [00:00:01] GOOD MORNING, COMMISSIONERS. WE'RE GONNA GO [BRIEFINGS] AHEAD AND GET STARTED. PLEASE START US OFF WITH THE ROLL CALL. GOOD MORNING COMMISSIONERS. DISTRICT ONE COMMISSIONER DUBINSKI, DISTRICT TWO. COMMISSIONER HAMPTON. PRESENT, DISTRICT THREE. COMMISSIONER HERBERT PRESENT, DISTRICT FOUR. COMMISSIONER FORSYTH, DISTRICT FIVE. CHAIR SHA. DID PRESENT DISTRICT SIX. COMMISSIONER CARPENTER. PRESENT? DISTRICT SEVEN. COMMISSIONER WHEELER, REAGAN, DISTRICT EIGHT. COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN PRESENT. DISTRICT NINE. COMMISSIONER SLEEPER. DISTRICT 10. COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT. PRESENT. DISTRICT 11. COMMISSIONER SIMS. PRESENT. DISTRICT 12 VACANT. DISTRICT 13. COMMISSIONER HALL HERE. DISTRICT 14. COMMISSIONER KINGSTON DISTRICT IN PLACE. 15 CHAIR? UH, VICE CHAIR RUBIN? I'M HERE. YOU HAVE QUORUM, SIR. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. GOOD MORNING. SEVEN IS HERE. DISTRICT SEVEN IS HERE. YES, MA'AM. THANK YOU. WE, WE GOT YOU. COMMISSIONER. UH, GOOD MORNING LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. WELCOME TO THE DALLAS CITY PLAN COMMISSION. UH, WELCOME BACK COMMISSIONERS. I HOPE YOU'RE EN ENJOYING YOUR, YOUR SHORT SUMMER. GLAD TO BE BACK AT CITY HALL WHERE IT'S NOT 10 DEGREES MINUS ZERO. UH, SO WE'RE GONNA ENJOY THE DAY TODAY. UH, COMMISSIONERS, WE HAVE A FULL AGENDA. WE'RE GONNA BE MOVING LOTS OF CASES AROUND TODAY. WE HAVE LOTS OF, UH, OF MOVING PARTS. A COUPLE OF COMMISSIONERS NEED TO FILL OUT EARLY TODAY. UH, SO WE MAY BE MOVING AROUND A COUPLE OF CASES IN D 14, D 11, UH, AND POSSIBLY D ONE AS WELL. UH, COMMISSIONER DOKI IS STUCK IN A, IN AN AIRPLANE SOMEWHERE. UM, SO BE AWARE OF THAT. WE'RE GONNA BE MOVING SOME CASES AROUND. AND WITH THAT, WE'RE GONNA GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED WITH OUR BRIEFING ON A COUPLE OF CHANGES THAT HAVE BEEN HAPPENING AT THE STATE LEVEL. GOOD MORNING. GOOD MORNING. LET ME GET THIS STARTED, HIRED FOR THIS SESSION. OKAY. OKAY. SO I'LL, I'LL DO THE FIRST COUPLE OF THESE, UM, INTERESTING BILLS FROM THE STATE LEG LEGISLATURE SIGNED OVER THE SUMMER. UM, IF WE CAN, I KNOW THERE'LL BE SOME QUESTIONS. SO WE SAVED SB EIGHT 40 IS LAST. WE'RE ALSO DOING H UH, HB 24 4, 5 0 6, AND SB 15. UH, WE'RE GONNA DO THOSE, UH, FIRST THREE FIRST. UM, SO MAYBE WE SAVE, WE CAN ASK QUESTIONS AS WE GO, KIND OF NOT AS WE GO, BUT AFTER EACH SECTION, UH, POTENTIALLY ABOUT THE BILLS. BUT I, I WOULD JUST KEEP IN MIND THE BIGGER, THE BIGGER ONE. OUR LONGER PRESENTATION IS THAT LAST ONE, SB EIGHT 40. I'LL TRY AND MOVE THROUGH 24 4, 5 0 6 AND 15. KIND OF, KIND OF QUICKLY, JUST A REMINDER. SO I'LL GET STARTED WITH OUR OVERVIEW. LIKE I SAID, UH, HB 45 0 6 IS ELECTRONIC NOTIFICATION. UH, BILL, UM, NOT NECESSARILY A REQUIREMENT BILL, BUT SOMETHING OF AN ADDITION, UH, TO THE OPTIONS THAT WE HAVE, UH, AS A CITY. HB 24, UH, HAS SOME MODIFICATIONS TO THE NOTICE OF PROCEDURES AND THE PROTEST PROCEDURES, PROTESTS BEING, UM, THE, THE WAY IN WHICH, UH, MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC CAN SEND LETTERS AND HOW THAT AFFECTS, UM, THE VOTING AT CITY COUNCIL. SB 15, WE'LL CALL THE SMALL LOT SINGLE FAMILY, UH, BILL AND SB EIGHT 40. UH, WE'LL CALL THE MULTI-FAMILY AND MIXED USE, UH, RESIDENTIAL USES AND DEVELOPMENTS IN, UH, COMMERCIAL ZONING. SO THIS ONE'S QUICK, I, I HOPE. UM, BUT H HB 4 5 0 6, UM, IS AN OPTION FOR ELECTRONIC NOTIFICATION FOR ZONING CASES. SO, AS YOU KNOW, AT THIS TIME, STATE LAW REQUIRES CITIES TO NOTIFY PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET OF A ZONING CHANGE, UH, USING A US MAIL. AND THAT'S 10 DAYS PRIOR TO A ZONING PUBLIC HEARING. UH, THAT ADDRESS DEBT ALSO HAS TO COME FROM THE MOST RECENTLY APPROVED MUNICIPAL TAX ROLL IN OUR CASE D AD. BUT WE HAVE A COUPLE OTHER CADS. UM, SO THAT'S THE SITUATION. NOW. UH, THE BILL ADDED AN OPTION. UH, IT SAYS YOU CAN [00:05:01] NOTIFY BY US MAIL OR BY ELECTRONIC DELIVERY. IT SAYS EMAIL OR TEXT. UM, IT JUST CAN CAVEATS I'LL TALK ABOUT, BUT IT DOES SAY A MUNICIPALITY MAY DELIVER NOTICE ELECTRONICALLY UNDER THE CHAPTER ONLY IF THE REP RECIPIENT ELECTS TO RECEIVE NOTICE ELECTRONICALLY. OTHERWISE, IT, THEY, YOU KNOW, IF, IF NOT PARTICIPATING IN THAT. GOTTA GO BACK TO OUR, OUR EXISTING LAW CALLS FOR PARTICIPATING CITIES TO SET UP PORTALS. SO IT SAYS, SET UP A PORTAL WHERE PEOPLE, UH, CITIZENS CAN SIGN UP, THEY CAN SUBSCRIBE AND MANAGE THEIR DELIVERY PREFERENCES. UM, KIND OF, KIND OF COMMON IN, IN THE, ACROSS THE COUNTRY FOR, UH, SOME SMALL CITIES TO, TO HAVE THOSE THINGS SET UP. UH, HOWEVER, I WOULD SAY, YOU KNOW, THEY ROLL OUT THE OPTION FOR, FOR EDELIVERY, BUT SOME CAVEATS, IT SAYS, IF WE'RE PARTICIPATING IN EDELIVERY, THE CITY MUST RECEIVE AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF, OF RECEIPT BY EVERY INDIVIDUAL E RECIPIENT. SO, UH, IN OUR READING OF IT, SOMEBODY WOULD HAVE TO GET A TEXT, RESPOND TO THAT TEXT. WE RECORD THEM AS HAVING RESPONDED TO IT, UH, PRIOR TO ANY KIND OF MAILING. AND, AND, AND THEN THAT COULD, ACCORDING TO THE BILL, IF EVERYTHING GOES TO PLAN A SUBSTITUTE FOR A MAILER FOR THAT ONLY THAT INDIVIDUAL, IF WE DO NOT RECEIVE THAT ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, THEN WE DO HAVE TO SEND THAT TRADITIONAL NOTICE TO THE PROPERTY OWNER FROM THAT, FOR THAT INDIVIDUAL. UH, AND SO SOME, SOME OF THE CHALLENGE RELATES TO, YOU KNOW, ALL OF OUR NOTIFICATIONS EITHER WAY NEED TO BE SENT THAT 10 DAYS, BUT BEFORE THE HEARING, OUR MAIL TAKES LONG ENOUGH AS IT IS. UM, WE'D HAVE TO SEND THAT ELECTRONIC NOTIFICATION GOOD WAYS BACK FROM THE, THE 10 DAY DEADLINE. UM, ADDS TO OUR ZONING HEADWAY, INCREASES THAT WAIT TIME FOR CASES. AND, UH, BEYOND THAT, MORE, MORE WHAT WE'RE MORE CONCERNED ABOUT IS, IS THE CHANCE FOR MIS NOTIFICATIONS. ANYTIME WE HAD ANY E ANY KIND OF EVIDENCE THAT PART OF A MAILING LIST WASN'T MAILED, AN INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER, UH, I, WE, WE RARELY HAVE EVIDENCE OF AN INDIVIDUAL PERSON. BUT IF WE HAVE ANY KIND OF EVIDENCE THAT ANYTHING RELATING TO THE MAILING LIST, ANYTHING RELATING TO EVEN THE CASE INFORMATION IS IN AN ERROR, WE, YOU KNOW, WE CONSIDER A MIS NOTIFICATION. WE CONSIDER THAT WE CAN'T HEAR THE CASE, WE CAN'T MOVE IT FORWARD. WE HAVE TO SEND ANOTHER NOTIFICATION, AND THAT'S TIME FOR THE DEVELOPER. BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, COST TO THE CITY CHAOS HERE. UM, SO WHAT I WOULD SAY IS IT BECAUSE OF WE HAVE TO MAINTAIN ONE LIST OF WHO'S BEEN NOTIFIED AT ONE POINT VIA EMAIL OR TEXT AND HAS RESPONDED TO US, UM, THEN WE HAVE TO TURN AROUND AND DO A SECOND ONE ON A TIGHT TIMEFRAME. PRESENT SOME CHALLENGES WHERE WE MAY MISS SOMEBODY ON THE SECOND ONE, UM, BECAUSE WE HEARD BACK OR DID NOT HEAR BACK FROM THE FIRST, UM, ROUND OF ELECTRONIC, UH, LITTLE BIT CONCERNING, UM, ON A DEADLINE FOR US AND WITH HOW OUR PROCESS WORKS. UH, THAT SAID, I MEAN, WE RECOGNIZE THOSE, THOSE DIFFICULTIES OF THIS BILL I'D, I'D HOPE THEY TAKE ANOTHER LOOK AT IT AND, AND MAYBE, YOU KNOW, MAKE SOME CHANGES TO EITHER HOW THE, UH, THE FULL LAW INTERACTS WITH IT OR HOW CITIES HAVE TO MANAGE THESE THINGS. UM, I WOULD IMAGINE THAT THIS COULD WORK, UH, FAIRLY WELL FOR A SMALL, SMALL CITY THAT HAS 10,000, 5,000 PEOPLE, UM, AND DOESN'T HAVE AS MANY ZONING CASES AS US. DOESN'T HAVE 200, 300 CASES A YEAR, UM, EVERY, AND, YOU KNOW, 20 EVERY COUPLE WEEKS. UM, I THINK THAT MAKES IT A LITTLE DIFFICULT FOR OUR CITY TO, TO IMPLEMENT IT IN A SAFE WAY. WHEN I SAY SAFE IN A WAY THAT DOESN'T GET US INTO TROUBLE WITH NOTIFICATIONS, BECAUSE, UH, WE DIDN'T, WE DIDN'T GET OUR TEXT BACK IN TIME. WE DIDN'T GET OUR EMAIL BACK IN TIME. UH, DON'T WANT TO BE ALL NEGATIVE BECAUSE OUR DEPARTMENT REALLY STILL LOOK AT OTHER DELIVERY OPTIONS IN THE LONG RUN. WE'RE ALREADY EXPLORING THINGS TO PUT THINGS ONLINE BETTER, OBVIOUSLY. UH, WE HAVE A DALLAS NOW SYSTEM WHERE PEOPLE CAN GET MORE INFORMATION THAN EVER ON CASES, UH, IF THEY ACCESS THAT PORTAL. UM, BUT IN TERMS OF REPLACING, UM, THE REQUIRED THE STATE LAW, 200 FOOT MAILERS, I THINK THAT'S DIFFICULT FOR NOW UNDER THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK THAT WE HAVE. UH, BUT ALWAYS WANT TO WELCOME, UM, MORE INFORMATION AND MORE DELIVERY OPTIONS IN THE FUTURE. SO I THINK, UH, THE CITY'S RECOMMENDATION AND OUR, OUR PATH FORWARD IS, IS NOT DIRECTLY PARTICIPATING IN THE, IN THIS E EDELIVERY THAT REPLACES 200 FOOT MAILERS, BUT GOING FORWARD WITH OUR ADDITIONAL INFORM, OUR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION WE CAN PROVIDE ONLINE. SO THAT WAS, UH, HHP 4 5 0 6. IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS, I CAN TAKE THOSE, SEE IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS THERE. COMMISSIONER'S QUESTIONS ON THIS ONE ITEM? [00:10:01] YES. COMMISSIONER HALT, MR. PARAPET, AM I CORRECT? WE ACTUALLY NOTIFY UP TO 500 FEET AT TIMES, DON'T WE? YEAH. AND, AND, AND I SAY 200 FOOT, BECAUSE 200 FOOT IS WHAT OUR STATE LAW REQUIRES. NOTHING IN STATE LAW SAYS 300, 400, 500 FOOT NOTIFICATIONS. UH, BUT 200 FOOT IS WHAT STATE LAW REQUIRES THAT WE COULD, YOU KNOW, IF YOU READ IT, IF, IF, IF YOU ARE PARTICIPATING, YOU COULD REPLACE PORTIONS OF YOUR 200 FOOT MAILERS. UM, BUT YES, OF COURSE OUR CODE CALLS FOR 200, 300, 400, 500 FOOT NOTIFICATIONS, DEPENDING UPON THE SIZE AND THE TYPE OF APPLICATION. AND, UH, UH, 200, UH, 200 FEET WOULD BE THE MINIMUM, I GUESS. OKAY. UH, SECOND, UM, AM I CORRECT THAT THE NOTIFICATION PROCESS ACTUALLY BEGINS ONCE THE ZONING CHANGE SIGN IS POSTED ON THE PHYSICAL PROPERTY? THAT'S, YEAH. YEAH. SO IN THE, WE'VE GOT OUR CODE, WE GOT STATE CODE. UM, I WILL TALK ABOUT SOME CHANGES TO SIGNAGE, UM, IN THE NEXT SECTION. OH, OKAY. UM, BUT RIGHT NOW YOU, IN OUR CITY CODE, YOU'VE GOTTA HAVE YOUR SIGN UP AND THEN, YOU KNOW, THAT'S AT THE TIME OF THAT SUBMITTAL. UM, AND THEN THROUGH THAT PERIOD YOU HAVE TO MAINTAIN IT. AND THEN YOUR NOTIFICATION WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, HALFWAY THROUGH THAT PROCESS. WE ACTUALLY SEND OUR LETTER. BUT, YOU KNOW, STATE LAW SAYS 10 DAYS, WE TRY FOR 13, 14 DAYS. HMM. UH, I JUST KNOW FROM MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE THAT I PROBABLY GET 40 OR 50 JUNK SPAM EMAILS A DAY. AND I THINK THIS IS A WELL INTENTIONED LAW, BUT I JUST SEE PEOPLE IGNORING, YOU KNOW, STUFF THAT ISN'T FROM PEOPLE THEY OBVIOUSLY, UH, OBVIOUSLY RECOGNIZE, BUT I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU GET AROUND THAT. THANK YOU. AND I FIGURE THAT'S PARTIALLY WHY THEY WANT A EAC ACKNOWLEDGMENT. SO, YOU KNOW, IT WOULDN'T COUNT AS AN, AS WE'VE NOTIFIED THEM IF THEY HAVEN'T OPENED THE EMAIL AND RESPONDED TO IT IN SOME WAY. SO THAT'S PRETTY TRICKY. UM, WHEN WE HAVE POTENTIALLY THOUSANDS OF NOTIFICATIONS ON AN INDIVIDUAL'S ZONING CASE, THAT'S WHERE WE RUN INTO TROUBLE. I WOULD LIKE TO COMMISSIONER FORESIGHT, PLEASE. OF COURSE, PLEASE. IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING. MAKE SURE YOU TURN ON YOUR MIC, SIR. IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING, LISTENING TO YOUR PRESENTATION, THAT THE CITIZEN WOULD HAVE TO SIGN UP FOR TO RECEIVE THESE ELECTRONIC NOTICES THAT THEY WOULD ALREADY BE, AND THEY WOULD INITIATE IT. THEY WOULD BE AWARE OF THE FACT THAT THEY'RE GONNA BE GETTING NOTICES FROM THE CITY, RIGHT? YEAH. AND, AND I THINK THE THINKING BEHIND THAT IS, WELL, A, THEY'RE OPTING IN TO A DEGREE, UM, BUT ALSO WE DON'T HAVE ANY INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS RELIABLE EMAIL ADDRESS JUST TO EMAIL THEM. SO DEFINITELY THAT PORTAL, I, I CAN IMAGINE THAT PORTAL WOULD DEFINITELY HAVE TO EXIST SO THAT THE CITY HAS SOMETHING, UM, ASSOCIATED WITH THEIR, UM, YOU KNOW, OWNERSHIP AND DEED. UM, BUT IT SAYS YOU, THEY GOTTA SIGN UP FOR THE PORTAL TO GET THOSE EMAILS, BUT THEN THEY WILL GET THOSE EMAILS IF THEY'RE PART OF THIS, YOU KNOW, THE MAILING CLUB AND, AND THEY ARE IN 200 FEET, YOU KNOW, OR MORE OF A ZONING NOTIFICATION. AND THEN THEY NEED TO OPEN THEIR EMAIL AND THEN THEY NEED TO RESPOND TO IT. SO, UM, YOU KNOW, WE MAY LOOK AT A, WE MAY LOOK AT A PORTAL FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND MORE NOTIFICATION, BUT RIGHT AT THIS TIME NOT TO REPLACE OUR 200 FOOT MAILERS. WELL, THIS WOULD ALSO APPLY TO NOTIFICATIONS ON PLANNED DEVELOPMENT CASES, RIGHT? WHERE THEY GET 500 PEOPLE WITHIN A 500 FEET RADIUS WOULD GET NOTICES. YEAH, IT, IT, IT COULD, I THINK THEN AGAIN, WE'D BE OVER OVERCUT STATE LAW, WHICH IS, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, WITHIN THE CITY'S ABILITY TO GO ABOVE, UM, THE NOTIFICATION THAT THEY CALL FOR. SO, UM, THEY, THE STATE IS FOCUSED ON THAT 200 FOOT MAILER FOR THAT. 'CAUSE THAT'S WHAT THEY LOOK FOR, UM, FOR ANY KIND OF NOTIFICATION, BUT ALSO BECAUSE OF THE PROTEST PROCEDURES THAT I'LL MENTION IN THE NEXT SECTION. BUT, UM, IN THEORY, YEAH, IF WE IMPLEMENTED THIS WHERE PEOPLE COULD GET NOTIFICATIONS, I PRESUME WE WOULD JUST EXTEND IT TO OUR WHOLE MAILING LIST. SO YOU'RE SAYING THE STATE LAW DOESN'T MANDATE IT FOR THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT CASES? IT, IF A PLAN DEVELOPMENT A CHANGE AT PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT IS STILL A ZONING CHANGE. RIGHT. SO WE STILL HAVE TO NOTIFY. IT'S JUST STATE LAW SAYS, HEY, YOU ONLY HAVE TO NOTIFY 200 FEET OF ANY ZONING, CHANGE OUR CODE. WHENEVER IT WAS WRITTEN, IT, IT SPECIFICALLY SAID, HEY, A PLAN DEVELOPMENT NEEDS TO BE 500. SO WE'RE, WE'RE NOT ALLOWED TO CUT IT DOWN TO A 100 NOTIFICATION DISTANCE, BUT OUR, OUR CODE CAN OVER OVERRIDE IT AND GO TO 500. SO THAT'S WHY PLAN DEVELOPMENTS, UM, HAVE THAT LARGER DISTANCE, NOT BECAUSE OF ANYTHING IN STATE CODE, BUT BECAUSE WE'RE OVERSHOOTING IT WITH, UM, OUR CODE. YOU KNOW, [00:15:01] I, FOR ONE, BASED ON MY EXPERIENCE BEING ON THE CPC, I THINK THIS IS A POSITIVE AND A WIN FOR OUR CITIZENS BECAUSE I KNOW A LOT OF THESE CASES, UH, THE CITIZENS, UH, AREN'T ABLE TO GET THEIR NOTICES PHYSICALLY BACK TO THE CITY IN TIME FOR THEM TO BE RECORDED BEFORE THE MEETING. SO I, I PERSONALLY WOULD LIKE TO SAY IN A RESOUNDING WAY, I THINK WE SHOULD IMPLEMENT THIS. YEAH. AND, AND I THINK THAT'S, THAT'S GREAT. AND I, YOU KNOW, I TEND TO AGREE, UM, MAIL HAS ITS CHALLENGES OF ITS OWN. CERTAINLY. UM, THAT'S WHY I THINK FOR THE TIME BEING, WE, WE MIGHT NOT LOOK TO REPLACE OUR MAILING. WE MIGHT LOOK TO INTEGRATE MORE ONLINE OPTIONS, FOR SURE. ANY OTHER, OH, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MR. PEPE ON THIS ITEM? OR WE READY TO GO ON TO THE NEXT LEGISLATION? ALRIGHT, MR. PEPE, IF YOU'RE READY WITH HP 24. HP 24, SO THIS ONE DEALS WITH, UH, I WOULD CALL IT SOME CLARIFICATIONS, UM, ON EXISTING, UH, NOTICE PROCEDURE, UM, AS WELL AS THE, THE PROTEST, HOW PROTEST AGAINST, UH, EXISTING ZONING CASE WORKS. UM, TO ME, YOU KNOW, THIS IS PERSONAL OPINION. I THINK SOME OF IT ARISES FROM UNCLEAR REQUIREMENTS IN STATE CODE, UH, ESPECIALLY WITH REGARDS TO THINGS LIKE CODE REFORMS, UM, AND SOME OF THE LEGAL ACTION AND OTHER THINGS THAT OCCURRED, MAINLY NOT IN DALLAS, BUT IN OTHER CITIES. UM, BUT SOME OF IT IS, IS IN RESPONSE TO SOME OF THAT SAYING, HEY, BECAUSE STATE LAW WAS TO A DEGREE UNCLEAR LEGAL ACTION KIND OF OCCURRED IN A COUPLE SPOTS. IT'S KIND OF MY, UNDER MY, MY READING FROM THE BACKGROUND OF A COUPLE OF THINGS. SO BULLET BY BULLET ON IT CLARIFIES HOW YOU CAN NOTIFY THINGS LIKE LARGE SCALE ZONING, ZONING CHANGES. UH, I WOULD SAY MOSTLY THAT'S TALKING ABOUT WHAT WE WOULD JUST CALL A CODE REFORM, UH, CITYWIDE ZONING CHANGE. UM, IT CHANGES THE 20% PROTEST RULE, PROTEST RULE BEING SOMETHING ESTABLISHED IN STATE CODE AS WELL, UH, WITH REGARD TO NOTIFICATION. AND IT DOES CLARIFY CYBER SIGN REQUIREMENTS ADDS. UM, AND SO LET'S JUST GET INTO IT. IT DEFINES A NEW, A NEW TERM AT THE STATE LEVEL, A PRO PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE ZONING CHANGE, PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE ZONING CHANGE. UH, TO ME, WHEN I JUST HEAR THAT IT, IT, IT SOUNDS COMPREHENSIVE TO ME, IMPLIES CITYWIDE ZONING CHANGE IMPLIES CHANGING ZONING, UM, PROPOSED IMPLIES, UM, UNDER CONSIDERATION BY THE BODY, NOT NECESSARILY APPROVED YET, BUT UNDER NOTIFICATION, LET'S SEE WHAT THEY ACTUALLY HAVE TO SAY ABOUT IT. SO, CHANGE OF EXISTING ZONING REGULATION. SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT CAN QUALIFY YOU IS THIS, IS YOU'RE CHANGING EXISTING REGULATION, AND IT WILL HAVE THE EFFECT OF ALLOWING, UM, MORE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT THAN THE PREVIOUS REGULATION. SO IT, YOU KNOW, PERMITS MORE, I, I DON'T KNOW, UH, UNITS OR IT PERMITS MORE HEIGHT OR OTHER KINDS OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. AND WE'LL APPLY UNIFORMLY TO EACH PARCEL IN ONE OR MORE ZONING DISTRICTS, UM, TO ANOTHER OPTION TO POTENTIALLY BE CONSIDERED THIS WAY OR NOTIFY THIS WAY. UH, YOU ADOPT A NEW ZONING CODE OR, OR A NEW ZONING MAP OVERALL THAT WILL APPLY TO THE ENTIRE MUNICIPALITY. UH, PRETTY, PRETTY COMMON WHEN CITIES REFORM THEIR CODES. UH, I ALSO THINK THAT THIS IS PARTIALLY WHY WE HAVE SEEN THIS BECAUSE OF DIFFICULTIES OTHER CITIES HAVE FACED, UM, IN NOTIFYING FOR THESE SUCH CHANGES. UH, IT COULD ALSO APPLY TO ADOPTING A ZONING OVERLAY. UM, SO TO ME THAT'S A LITTLE BIT MORE LOCAL THAN CITYWIDE. UM, BUT IT HAS TO HAVE THE EFFECT OF ALLOWING MORE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT THAN ALLOWED WITHOUT THE OVERLAY. AND WE'LL INCLUDE AN AREA ALONG A MAJOR ROADWAY HIGHWAY OR TRANSIT CORRIDOR. NO ADDITIONAL DETAIL, UH, OFFERED THERE. BUT I THINK THE POINT IS THAT YOU'RE, YOU'RE PUTTING AN OVERLAY ON A SPECIFIC AREA WITH A PURPOSE. UM, AND THERE'S A RATIONALE BEHIND, UH, ALLOWING MORE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. SO ANY OF THOSE COULD BE CONSIDERED A COMPREHENSIVE ZONING CHANGE, UM, UNDER THIS LEGISLATION. UH, MY QUICK EXAMPLE MIGHT BE INCREASING THE HEIGHT OF A, OF A TYPE OF DISTRICT BY 10 FEET, YOU KNOW, UNIVERSALLY ACROSS THE BOARD. UM, ANOTHER EXAMPLE, PRETTY OBVIOUS IS ADDING A NEW CHAPTER WITH AN UPDATED ZONING CODE. UM, THE LAST ONE, ADOPTING AN OVERLAY THAT INCREASES DWELLING UNIT DENSITY ALONG A SPECIFIC GEOGRAPHY. THAT BEING LIKE A CORRIDOR, LIKE A DART LINE, IT'S REFERENCES THE LANGUAGE THAT THEY SAY IT HAS TO INCLUDE A, AN AREA ALONG, BUT IT'S AN OVERLAY NONETHELESS, JUST, JUST EXAMPLES, I'M JUST PUTTING OUT THERE TO BE APPLIED AND KIND OF TALK [00:20:01] ON REAL TERMS WITH Y'ALL WHEN YOU'RE CONSIDERING ONE OF THESE. SO THOSE, THOSE DID NOT MATTER UNTIL YOU GET TO THESE CHANGED NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS. SO IT SAYS THE ONLY FOLLOWING NOTICES ARE REQUIRED, AND I THINK STATE LAW WASN'T EXACTLY OUT AND CLEAR ABOUT WHAT THE OLD NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR THOSE WERE. SO HERE THEY ARE, UM, TRYING TO CLARIFY THEM. SO ONE, YOU NEED TO PUBLISH IN THE OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER, NEWSPAPER, GENERAL CIRCULATION, THE MUNICIPALITY. WE DO THAT, UM, FOR ANY ZONING CHANGE. AND SO THAT'S, THAT'S BASED OFF EXISTING LAW. UH, TWO, IF THE MAINTAINS AN INTERNET WEBSITE, WHICH WE DO, UM, IT, IT NEEDS TO BE PUBLISHED ON THAT INTERNET WEBSITE, . AND SO THAT'S, THAT'S A NEW ADDITION. SO IT'S KIND OF SAYING, YEAH, YOU'RE POSTING YOUR, YOUR CHANGE IN THE NEWSPAPER, YOU'RE POSTING YOUR, UH, CHANGE TO THE CODE ON THE INTERNET. AND THEN THREE IS, UM, YOU, YOU'RE FOLLOWING ANY NOTICES THAT ARE REQUIRED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SB 9 29, WHICH WE'VE TALKED ABOUT MAYBE A LITTLE BIT HERE IN THE PAST. UM, BUT THAT'S FROM A PRIOR SESSION, THE LAST LEGISLATURE THAT SAYS, UH, IF, IF WE'RE DOING ANY KIND OF ZONING CHANGE, WHETHER IT'S LOCALIZED, UM, THE CITY IS DOING ANY LO ANY ZONING CHANGE THAT'S LOCALIZED, OR IT'S A CODE REFORM OR ANYTHING THAT TAKES A RIGHT AND MAKES IT NON-CONFORMING, WE HAVE TO GIVE THEM SPECIAL NOTIFICATION. UM, WE CAN TALK MORE ABOUT THAT IF NECESSARY. BUT REALLY IT JUST SAYS, HEY, UH, YOU HAVE TO CONTINUE TO DO THOSE NON-CONFORMING NOTIFICATIONS. UH, NOTHING'S CHANGED ABOUT THAT IF THAT'S OCCURRING. SO LET'S, LET'S TALK ABOUT WHY. ANOTHER REASON THAT OR ANOTHER, ACTUALLY THIS IS A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT KIND OF TOPIC ON THE BILL. SO IT'S, IT'S NOT ONE OF THOSE ZONING CHANGES THAT, UM, IS A CODE REFORM, UM, IS A, UM, AN OVERLAY OR IS A CHANGE TO A CODE. UM, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AN INDIVIDUAL ZONING CASE, LET'S SAY FOR EXAMPLE, UM, OR MAYBE AN AUTHORIZED HEARING THAT DOESN'T MEET THOSE QUALIFICATIONS OF A PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE ZONING CHANGE. UM, MOST ZONING CASES HAVE WHAT IS CALLED THE 20% RULE, UM, WHICH THIS IS UNCHANGED, UM, IF YOU STILL QUALIFY AS ONE OF THESE. AND WHAT THAT SAYS IS THAT IF 20% OF THE LAND, SO THE OWNERS OWNING AT LEAST 20% OF THE LAND, UH, IN THE REZONING OR ARE AROUND THE REZONING, UM, OPPOSED. SO I SAID, YOU KNOW, THE ONES IN THE REZONING MIGHT BE, FOR EXAMPLE, AN AUTHORIZED HEARING OR THE ONES AT 20% AROUND THAT PROPERTY, UH, BEING REZONED IS THE NEIGHBORS. UM, EITHER WAY, IF 20% OF THOSE TWO, UM, CATEGORIES OF PROPERTY OWNERS ARE IN OPPOSITION, IT REQUIRES A THREE QUARTERS VOTE OF MEMBERS OF COUNCIL AT COUNCIL. SO JUST TO SUMMARIZE, A CASE THAT HAS 20% OF PEOPLE NEARBY, NOT PEOPLE, BUT LAND NEARBY OPPOSED, NEEDS A HIGHER VOTE THRESHOLD AT COUNCIL. AND THAT'S THREE QUARTERS OF MEMBERS OF COUNCIL THAT'S STILL IN STATE CODE THAT'S BASED OFF STATE CODE. AND THAT REMAINS. SO THAT'S WHAT WE'VE DONE FOR PAST IT'S 25, 30 YEARS. UM, NEW PROVISION IS ADDED. SO IT SAYS THAT YOU ONLY NEED A MAJORITY OF COUNCIL MEMBERS TO VOTE FOR YOUR ITEM AT COUNCIL IF THIS LOCALIZED ZONING HAS THE EFFECT OF ALLOWING MORE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT THAN THE EXISTING ZONING REGULATION AND DOES NOT HAVE THE EFFECT OF ALLOWING ADDITIONAL OR IN COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL USES. AND THEN IT RAISE. SO IF THAT IS THE CASE, IF IT'S RAISING THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, IT'S NOT ADDING IN COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL USES AND IT'S A LOCALIZED ZONING CHANGE, YOU NEED 60% OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE LAND PROPERTY OWNER OWNED PROPERTY OWNED IN 60 IN 200 FEET TO RESPOND AND NOT POSITION. SO THIS IS WHERE I WAS TALKING ABOUT THE 200% RULE. IT, THE, THE 200% RULE AT OUR CITY HAS NEVER CONSIDERED THE, THE 500 FEET. IT'S ALWAYS HAD TO BE CALCULATED AT THE 200 FOOT LEVEL. UM, BUT NOW WHAT IT DOES IS RAISE THAT THRESHOLD WHEN YOU'RE DOING A RESIDENTIAL UP ZONING TO 60% OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS. AND WHAT THAT TRIGGERS IS A MAJORITY OF COUNCIL MEMBERS VOTING ON THE ITEM. I'LL KIND OF BREAK DOWN 'CAUSE THAT JUST SOUNDS LIKE THE SAME OLD, SAME OLD, BUT BECAUSE OF IT. UH, SO KEEP IN MIND THE EXISTING 20% RULE SAYS THREE FOURTHS OF ALL MEMBERS OF COUNCIL. THAT'S NOT THREE QUARTERS OF MEMBERS WHO ARE SITTING AT THE DAIS THAT DAY. AS LONG AS THEY HAVE A QUORUM, YOU FLAT OUT NEED 12 PEOPLE TO VOTE FOR IT, REGARDLESS OF WHO'S AT THE DESK THAT DAY. UH, THE NEW LAW WOULD FOR THOSE SPECIAL CASES IS MAJORITY OF ALL MEMBERS [00:25:01] OF COUNCIL. SO IT'S KIND OF THE SAME IDEA, BUT IT'S A MAJORITY VOTE OF EIGHT. 'CAUSE KEEP IN MIND, QUORUM IS NINE AT CITY OF DALLAS. SO YOU ONLY, YOU NEED, YOU STILL NEED EIGHT PEOPLE TO BE PRESENT. AND I DRAW THAT DISTINCTION. 'CAUSE IF YOU HAVE A REGULAR MAJORITY, YOU DON'T NEED AS MANY VOTE. YOU COULD, IF, IF THERE WAS ONLY NINE PEOPLE HERE AT THE DY PER CITY COUNCIL, YOU COULD HAVE A ZONING CASE APPROVED WITH JUST FIVE PEOPLE. UM, BUT NOW YOU REALLY NEED NOT JUST A QUORUM, BUT PRESENT, OBVIOUSLY, BUT YOU NEED, UM, MOST OF THE MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL. SO IF YOU'RE A CASE THAT'S OPPOSED YOU, YOU PROBABLY WANT PEOPLE AS MANY PEOPLE AT, AT THE DIOCESE, YOU, YOU CAN. UM, BUT I DRAW THAT JUST BECAUSE IT'S, IT WAS A LITTLE WEIRD AT FIRST WHEN WE WERE READING IT AND SAY THAT'S JUST THE SAME, YOU KNOW, IT'S MAJORITY OF ALL COUNCIL MEMBERS, SO IT'S STILL A HIGHER THRESHOLD THAN A REGULAR ZONING CASE THAT JUST REQUIRES FIVE VOTES AT A MINIMUM. BUT, UM, IT'S A LOWER THRESHOLD, OBVIOUSLY FROM 12 TO EIGHT IN THESE CASES. SO, TRIED TO BREAK DOWN SOME QUICK EXAMPLES OF THE NEW PROTEST. UM, SO WE'RE TAKING AN R FIVE, SENDING IT TO MF TWO. THAT'S ADDITIONAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WITHOUT ADDITIONAL COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL USES. UM, IT WOULD REQUIRE 60% OPPOSITION TO TRIGGER AN EIGHT VOTE CITY COUNCIL REQUIREMENT. SO THAT IS, IS PARTICIPATING IN THE NEW BILL, I GUESS YOU COULD SAY. UM, MF TWO TO MF THREE, UM, IS IN RESIDENTIAL UPZONING WITHOUT ADDITIONAL COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL USES IN A SIGNIFICANT WAY. AND IT REQUIRES, IN THAT CASE, AGAIN, 60% OF OPPOSITION TO TRIGGER THE EIGHT VOTE COUNCIL REQUIREMENT NS TO CR THAT INTRODUCES NEW, UM, NEW COMMERCIAL USES. YOU GO FROM NS, YOU ADD COMMERCIAL USES IN BUNCH OF DIFFERENT THINGS. SO THAT TRIGGERS THE OLD RULE. YOU'RE STILL LEANING ON THE OLD ONE, MF ONE TO MU ONE, THAT SOUNDS LIKE MORE RESIDENTIAL DENSITY, BUT IT'S ADDING IN MORE COMMERCIAL USES THERE. SO IT MAINTAINS THE OLD RULE. UH, R FIVE, YOU KNOW, EVERY PD IS GONNA HAVE TO BE READ VERY CAREFULLY, AND WE WILL OF COURSE DO THAT ON OUR END. UM, BUT R FIVE TO A PD JUST FOR MULTI-FAMILY USES OR RESIDENTIAL USES, UH, THAT SOUNDS LIKE IT'S JUST GOING TO REQUIRE 60% OPPOSITION, UM, TO TRIGGER THAT EIGHT VOTE COUNCIL REQUIREMENT. SO JUST SOME APPLIED EXAMPLES IF I CAN. I'M SURE THERE'LL BE THOUSANDS MORE THAT WE COME UP WITH AS WE REVIEW CASES, BUT WE'LL, WE'LL BE LOOKING AT THAT ON OUR END BECAUSE OF COURSE, THIS IS ABOUT THE COUNCIL VOTE, NOT ABOUT THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION VOTE. UH, LAST THING SAYS NOTICE SIGNS WERE NOT PREVIOUSLY REQUIRED BY STATE LAW. UM, I THINK THAT THIS WAS ADDED IN THE BILL TO MAKE IT CLEAR THE NOTICE SIGNS ARE REQUIRED, UM, TO SOME DEGREE BY STATE LAW. AND NOW WHAT THOSE REQUIREMENTS ARE IS NOTICE SIGNS MUST BE POSTED 10 DAYS PRIOR TO A CPC HEARING. UH, AND THEY MUST REMAIN UP UNTIL THE FINAL DETERMINATION. THOSE TWO, UM, TIME REQUIREMENTS ARE NOT, UM, THOSE ARE LESS THAN THE CITY. SO I THINK BASICALLY WHAT WE DO NOW IS GONNA BE, UH, YOU KNOW, STILL THE CASE. WE STILL HAVE, HAVE YOU PUT IT UP, UH, PRIOR THAN 10 DAYS. WE HAVE YOU KEEP IT UP UNTIL THE FINAL DETERMINATION. THE ONE THING THAT'LL CHANGE, WHICH SHOULDN'T MATTER FOR YOU GUYS, BUT, UM, WE GOT A NEW BUY, A NEW ORDER OF SIGNS BECAUSE THESE ARE, UH, PRETTY BIG SIGNS. SO WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO, UH, UP ZONE OUR SIGNS, I GUESS 24 TO 48. SO THAT'LL BE, UH, COMING DOWN THE ROAD, BUT IT DOESN'T REALLY CHANGE, UH, MUCH OF ANYTHING ELSE. BUT 'CAUSE OUR STATE, OUR, OUR CITY COATS A LITTLE BIT MORE, UM, INCLUSIVE OF SIGNS. UM, BUT WE DO HAVE TO MEET THAT NEW DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENT. BUT THAT'S IT FOR HB 24. I'M HAPPY TO, TO TAKE QUESTIONS ON IT. WE, OUR QUESTIONS. COMMISSIONER HALL. MR. PEPE, IN THE, IN THE EXAMPLES YOU GAVE IT WAS GOING FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO MULTI-FAMILY OR THINGS LIKE THAT. WHAT ABOUT, UH, SINGLE FAMILY TO SINGLE FAMILY? FOR EXAMPLE, IF YOU HAD A ONE ACRE LOT, YOU COULD PUT FIVE OR SIX R SEVEN FIVES THERE. YEAH. SEVEN POINT FIVES. DOES IT COVER THAT? OR CAN, CAN WE ALREADY GO FROM ONE ACRE TO R 7.5 WITHOUT HAVING TRIGGERING ANYTHING? UM, IF I'M UNDERSTANDING YOUR QUESTION PROPERLY, TO, TO US IN R IN R 10 TO AN R FIVE IS ALLOWS ADDITIONAL RESIDENTIAL DENSITY. SO IF YOU'RE GOING SINGLE FAMILY TO A DENSER SINGLE FAMILY, YOU'RE ONE OF THESE, YOU'RE A 60% BECAUSE YOU'RE ALLOWING ADDITIONAL RESIDENTIAL DENSITY, BUT NOT ADDITIONAL COMMERCIAL USES. HMM. SO I WOULD SAY A SINGLE FAMILY TO A DENSER SINGLE FAMILY OR [00:30:01] A TALLER ONE. UH, 'CAUSE THE, THE LANGUAGE THAT WE HAVE IS WHOA, ADDITIONAL MORE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, YOU KNOW, ADDITIONAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT THAN THE EXISTING ZONING REGULATION OR DISTRICT BOUNDARY. SO TO, TO US, YOU KNOW, OUR, OUR SIDE WE'LL MAKE A DETERMINATION ON EACH CASE. IS IT DOING THAT OR NOT? BUT OUR READING R FIVE OR R 10 TO R FIVE, ADDITIONAL RESIDENTIAL DENSITY, IT'S, IT'S ONE OF THESE 60% CASES. IT WOULD TRIGGER THE SAME, THE SAME THING, THE THE NEW 60% RULE. HMM. YOU PROBABLY UNDERSTAND WHY I'M ASKING THAT QUESTION , BUT I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN. BUT, UH, ANYHOW, QUITE OKAY. INTERESTING. THANK YOU. MM-HMM . PUSHER, CARPENTER, HAS THERE EVER BEEN A CASE WHEN 60% OF THE OPPOSITION WAS RECEIVED? I'VE NEVER SEEN ONE. IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT COMMON. 20% IS NOT COMMON. RIGHT? SO THE EFFECT OF THIS BASICALLY IS, AS MOST SAY, I'VE NEVER SEEN A CASE THAT GOT 60% OPPOSITION OF THE PROPERTY WITHIN THAT NOTIFICATION AREA. SO ESSENTIALLY WHAT IT MEANS IS IF YOU'RE GOING FROM, UM, IF YOU WERE JUST DOING A ZONING CHANGE THAT ADDS MORE RESIDENTIAL, ALL THAT'S GONNA BE REQUIRED IS A SIMPLE MAJORITY OF THE MEMBERS PRESENT AT A COUNCIL MEETING TO APPROVE IT. I WOULD SAY, I MEAN, YEAH, THAT'S MY EXPERIENCE AS WELL. IT'S VERY UNCOMMON TO SEE THE 60, BUT IT STILL HAS TO BE VOTED ON AND APPROVED BY THE COUNCIL. SO, OKAY. HOW DOES THIS COEXIST WITH THE RULE WE HAVE NOW? IF A CASE GETS DENIED AT, AS AT, UM, PLAN COMMISSION, IT GOES TO CITY COUNCIL AND IT HAS TO HAVE A SUPER MAJORITY IF, IF THE APPLICANT APPEALS. I DON'T THINK WE ASKED THAT QUESTION. I'D LIKE TO DISCUSS THAT WITH OUR, UH, OUR CREW A BIT MORE, UM, BECAUSE I'D BE CAUTIOUS TO UNDERCUT THE REQUIREMENTS THAT THEY'RE LOOKING FOR. UH, SO DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER ON THAT, BUT GOOD QUESTION. THANK YOU. MR. RUBIN. WAS THAT PROVISION FROM STATE LAW AUTHORIZING THE THREE QUARTERS REVI REQUIREMENT AT COUNCIL? IF CPC RECOMMENDS DENIAL, WAS THAT STRUCK FROM STATE LAW? ARE, ARE YOU AWARE, MS. MORRISON, THAT PROVISION'S NOT BASED ON STATE LAW? IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN? WELL, THERE'S A, I BELIEVE THERE'S A STATE LAW PROVISION THAT AUTHORIZES A CITY TO GO UP TO A THREE QUARTERS MAJORITY ACCOUNTS. GOTCHA. I I BELIEVE THAT WAS STRUCK IN HB 24. SO IT WOULD BE GOOD TO GET SOME GUIDANCE ON WHETHER OUR PROVISION SURVIVES THAT OR WHAT WE'LL, WE'LL STUDY IT. THANK YOU. THANKS COMMISSIONER HALL. I'LL FOLLOW YOU SECOND ROUND. UM, IN A CONVERSATION WE HAD EARLIER THIS WEEK, IT CAME OUT THAT IT'S NOT EXACTLY THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN OPPOSITION. IT'S THE, IT'S THE SIZE OF THE LAND THAT EACH OWNER HAS. SO FOR EXAMPLE, UH, IF AN, IF A LETTER OF NOTIFICATION WENT TO A CHURCH OR TO A SHOPPING CENTER THAT OWNED 10 ACRES, THEY WOULD HAVE MORE CLOUT THAN 10 HOMEOWNERS THAT OWNED ONE ACRE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, BECAUSE THEY JUST PHYSICALLY OWN MORE LAND IN THE NOTIFICATION ZONE. YEAH, THAT'S CORRECT. THAT'S HOW STATE LAW READS PROPERTY OWNERS OWNING AT LEAST 20% OF THE LAND. IT'S, YOU KNOW, WE, SO WHAT WE, JUST SO YOU KNOW, I MEAN WE KEEP A LIST OF ALL THE PROPERTY OWNERS, BUT THEN OUR GIS TEAM ALSO HAS A DATABASE OF WHAT PERCENT EACH PROPERTY OWNER REPRESENTS OF THE TOTAL BUFFER. 'CAUSE WE, WHAT WE DO IS TAKE THE 200 PER FOOT BUFFER, UM, DIVIDE AN INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER'S ACREAGE BY THAT, UM, AND THEN WE MAINTAIN A LIST OF EACH OF THOSE LITTLE PERCENT ACREAGES. AND THEN AT COUNCIL TIME, WE ADD 'EM UP, SEE IF IT CLEARS THAT BAR. SO YEAH, YOU'RE, YOU'RE CORRECT. AND, AND THAT'S WHY YOU MADE THAT COMMENT THAT 60% MIGHT BE HARD TO GET TO, BUT 20% IS HARD TO GET TO AS WELL. IT'S BECAUSE OF THE SIZE OF THE LAND OWNED BY THE INDIVIDUAL OWNERS. YEAH, I'D SAY THAT THE, THE TIMES THAT 20% HAS BEEN HIT, IT'S USUALLY BECAUSE THERE'S ONE BIG, BIG, BIG LOT THAT IS IN OPPOSITION. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. JUST ONE QUICK QUESTION ABOUT THIS. CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE SLIDE ON THE SIGN, UH, 10 DAYS BEFORE THE CPC HEARING? SO JUST, JUST TO VERIFY HERE, YOU KNOW, AS YOU KNOW, WHEN, WHEN, UH, APPLICATIONS ARE FILED, SOMETIMES WE GET AHEAD OF THESE THINGS AND WE HAVE MONTHS OF DISCUSSIONS WITH THE APPLICANT AND COMMUNITY MEETINGS. SO AM I READING THIS CORRECTLY THAT THE APPLICANT NOW ONLY HAS TO HAVE THEIR SIGN OUT [00:35:01] 10 DAYS BEFORE THE CPC HEARING IS SCHEDULED? I DON'T READ THIS ONE IS, UM, SAYING WE CAN'T HAVE MORE INCLUSIVE SIGN REQUIREMENTS, IF YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN. SO WE HAVE A MORE, WHAT'S THE WORD I'M LOOKING FOR? WE HAVE A SIGN REQUIREMENT THAT SAYS YOU HAVE TO HAVE YOUR SIGNERS UP LONGER THAN THIS. I DON'T READ THIS AS SAYING WE CAN'T REQUIRE THAT. UM, IT'S JUST 'CAUSE BECAUSE OURS IS, IS MUCH CLOSER TO YOUR, YOUR SUBMITTAL. AND SO IN THAT CASE, I, I READ IT, OUR CODE WILL STAND IN IN TERMS OF THAT. SO THAT'S WHY IN, IN OUR RATING, IT DOESN'T CHANGE 10 DAYS PRIOR. IT DOESN'T CHANGE, REMAIN UP TO FINAL DETERMINATION. IT'S JUST ALSO GROUNDED IN STATE LAW, BUT IT'S A, IT'S A LOOSER REQUIREMENT EXCEPT FOR THAT SIZE. PERFECT. THANK YOU. MR. ARE YOU AWARE OF INSTANCES IN OTHER CITIES, FOR EXAMPLE, SAN ANTONIO, WHERE THE 20% THRESHOLD PROTEST THRESHOLD HAS BEEN USED AND ULTIMATELY KILLED PROPOSED, YOU KNOW, HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS? UM, IT, YEAH, I, I, I KNOW IT, IT HAS APPLIED, IT HAS OCCURRED IN OTHER CITIES AND, UM, I CAN'T NECESSARILY SAY, WELL, I GUESS YOU CAN CHECK THE COUNCIL VOTES. SO USUALLY WHEN YOU CHECK THE COUNCIL VOTES, THEN YOU CAN KNOW, WELL, DID IT REACH THIS BAR? DID IT NOT? UM, I DO KNOW OF OTHER CASES I COULD NOT TELL YOU OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, BUT I DO KNOW OF OTHER CASES WHERE IT HAS OCCURRED. UM, BUT LIKE I SAID, IT, IT, IT'S A LITTLE MORE COMMON WITH LARGER LOTS IF YOU HAVE AN AREA WITH SMALLER LOTS THAT IT MAY NOT, UM, CATCH THAT IT'S JUST A QUIRK OF GEOMETRY AT THAT POINT, BUT IT, I, I HAVE SEEN IT OCCUR, APPLY AND, AND OCCUR. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONERS WHO WILL KEEP GOING? THANK YOU. OKAY. UM, SB 15, WE'LL CALL THE SMALL OT SINGLE FAMILY BILL. UM, BIG PICTURE, REALLY WHAT IT SAYS GROSSLY IS THE CITY MUST PERMIT SMALL OT SUBDIVISIONS ON TRACKS GREATER THAN FIVE ACRES. IF THEY'RE ZONED FOR SINGLE FAMILY AND UNPLED, WE'LL TALK ABOUT WHAT A SINGLE UN, WHAT A SMALL THAT SUBDIVISION IS AND TIME. UM, THEN IF THEY'RE BUILDING ONE OF THESE, IF THEY MEET ALL THOSE CRITERIA, CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS APPLY THAT, THAT UNDERCUT OUR, OUR DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. UM, THERE ARE ALSO SOME LOCATIONAL EXCLUSIONS THAT SAY, HEY, THIS DOESN'T APPLY AT ALL. EVEN IF YOU MEET UN PLATTERED, FIVE ACRES, SINGLE FAMILY, UH, I'LL JUST GET IT OUTTA THE WAY. SO REALLY QUICK, THOSE ARE 3000 SQUARE 3000 FEET OF CITY AIRPORTS, NOT CITY AIRPORTS, BUT ANY AIRPORT. UM, AND THEN A MILE OF POLICE TRAINING FACILITIES. THIS IS A QUICK MAP THAT WE'VE GOT OF THOSE KINDS OF BUFFERS, WHAT THAT MEANS FOR OUR CITY, UM, WHERE SB 15 CAN'T BE APPLIED, EVEN IF YOU MEET THOSE OTHER CRITERIA. SO THAT'S MAINLY THREE OR FOUR AIRPORTS THAT EXIST HERE OR IN THE SURROUNDING AREA, AS WELL AS A COUPLE TRAINING FACILITIES, UM, THAT EXIST. SO WHAT WHAT'S A SMALL, UH, SUBDIVISION? IT, IT SAYS IF A TRACT LAND PERMITS SINGLE FAMILY, IT'S PERMITTED USE IN THAT EXISTING DISTRICT, IT'S FIVE ACRES OR MORE. IT DOES NOT HAVE A RECORDED PLAT. UH, THEN IF THOSE, ALL THREE OF THOSE THINGS, AND IT'S NOT ONE OF THOSE EXCLUSIONS, IF ALL THREE OF THOSE THINGS ARE MET, THEN THE CITY MUST ALLOW THE SUBDIVISION THEM TO SUB DIVIDE THAT LOT INTO SINGLE FAMILY LOTS. UM, AS SMALL AS 3000 SQUARE FEET, UM, NO MORE THAN 30 FOOT OR 75 FOOT DEEP. OUR TYPICAL CODE DOESN'T HAVE WIDTH AND DEPTH, BUT THE SIZE IS, IS DEFINITELY REGULATED IN OUR CODE. UM, SO WE HAVE TO ALLOW THEM TO SUBDIVIDE SUCH LOTS INTO 3000 SQUARE FOOT LOTS. AND, UH, WE CAN'T HAVE A DENSITY THAT KIND OF OVERRIDES THAT OR, OR CUTS AGAINST THAT. SO WE'LL TALK ABOUT THE ALTERNATE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. UH, SHOULD THEY BE ABLE TO DEVELOP ONE OF THESE SUBDIVISIONS WITH THE OTHER CRITERIA? UM, WE CAN'T HAVE, WE CAN'T HAVE A SETBACK, UH, GREATER THAN 15 FEET IN THE FRONT, GREATER THAN FIVE FEET ON THE SIDE, GREATER THAN 10 FOOT IN THE REAR. UM, WE CAN'T REQUIRE MORE THAN ONE PARKING SPACE, UM, OR REQUIRE THAT SPACE TO BE COVERED, UM, OR, OR REQUIRE AN OFF SPACE, UM, SITE, UH, OR EXCUSE ME, OFFSITE, UM, PARKING, UH, FOR THAT PARTICULAR USE, MOST OF OUR SINGLE FAMILY REQUIRES ONE AT A MAXIMUM NOW AFTER THE COVID REFORM I'D BRING TO LIGHT. SO THAT SHOULDN'T BE A HUGE CHANGE, BUT THOSE OTHER STANDARDS WILL BE RELEVANT. UM, MAY NOT REQUIRE FEWER THAN THREE STORIES. IT DOESN'T SAY A HEIGHT, BUT IT SAYS YOU CAN'T HAVE, UH, A HEIGHT FEWER THAN THREE STORIES, A 10 FOOT IN HEIGHT FROM FLOOR TO CEILING. UM, [00:40:01] SO THREE STORIES AT THE END OF THE DAY IS, HAS TO BE REQUIRED, UM, IS THE MINIMUM WE CAN RESTRICT THEM TO. AND THEN NO MORE THAN 30% OPEN SPACE OR PERMEABLE SURFACE ON, ON AN, IN, ON AN INDIVIDUAL LOT. UH, AND THEN NOMAX BUILDING BULK, UM, IT'S LIKE FLORA RATIO, FOR EXAMPLE. WE DON'T HAVE THAT IN MOST OF OUR SINGLE FAMILY, UH, ALLOWING DISTRICTS. AND THEN NO, UH, THINGS LIKE WALL ARTICULATION, UH, THINGS THAT THE CITY CAN STILL REGULATE IN REGARDS TO THIS. SO A COUPLE OF THESE ARE EXPRESSLY STATED IN THE BILL. UM, YOU KNOW, DRIVEWAY SHARING WITH ANOTHER LOT. SO IF YOU HAVE SMALLER LOTS, WE COULD, UH, SAY YOU HAVE TO SHARE A DRIVEWAY SO THAT THE DRIVEWAYS ARE NOT THE WHOLE FRONTAGE, UM, PERMITTING FEES EQUIVALENT TO REGULAR SINGLE FAMILY, REGULAR IMPACT FEES, REGULAR STORM WATER REGULATIONS. SO THOSE ARE ALL STILL IN PLAY. UM, OF COURSE NONE OF THOSE ARE ZONING, UM, BUT THEY'RE, THEY'RE TRYING TO SAY THAT IT STILL KIND OF APPLIES. UM, AND THEN OTHER EXISTING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. SO WE HAVE OTHER DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS BUILT INTO OUR CODE FOR CERTAIN ZONING THINGS IF THEY'RE NOT STEPPING ON THE FEET OF, OF THE OTHER, UH, STANDARDS THAT THEY PUT IN HERE. UH, SO JUST REALLY QUICKLY, IT'S KIND OF A DRAFT MAP WE'RE STILL WORKING ON, ON THAT. AND IT'S REALLY JUST FOR DEMONSTRATION. YELLOW BEING SINGLE FAMILY LAND. THIS IS NOT GONNA TELL YOU MUCH, BUT YOU CAN SEE BLACK CROSS HATCHED. THOSE ARE FIVE ACRE PARCELS, UM, THAT EXISTS TODAY. UN PLATTED. UH, THEY'RE, AND I BRING THIS TO SAY THEY'RE NOT EXTREMELY, EXCEEDINGLY COMMON TO FIND UN PLATTED LAND IN THE CITY THAT IS FIVE ACRES OR MORE THAT IS OWN SINGLE FAMILY. I THINK IT'S HIGHLY SITUATIONAL. I THINK IT'LL BE RELEVANT IN A COUPLE CIRCUMSTANCES, UM, THROUGHOUT THE CITY, BUT THAT'S GONNA BE HIGHLY SITUATIONAL. SOMETHING WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO LOOK OUT FOR, UM, VERY CAREFULLY. UM, BUT IT'S, AGAIN, THIS IS CASE BY CASE DETERMINATION. WE'RE GONNA DO EARLY IN OUR PLAN REVIEW PROCESS, UM, EARLY ON, EITHER THROUGH THE ZONING SUBDIVISION AS THEY WALK THROUGH THAT PROCESS, IT'S GONNA OCCUR EARLY AND KIND OF SAY, ARE YOU OR AREN'T YOU ONE OF THESE TYPES OF, UM, LOTS. AND THAT'S AGAIN HAPPENING AT OUR, OUR OTHER, UH, BUILDING SO TO SPEAK, NOT NOT SO MUCH THROUGH THIS PROCESS, UM, BUT IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO BE AWARE OF. UH, AND I QUICKLY LISTED THE DISTRICTS THAT PERMIT SINGLE FAMILY USES. IT'S EVERYTHING FROM AG MULTIFAMILY, UM, MF, MMU, AND, AND THEN THE C , EVEN THE CIA DISTRICTS. AND OF COURSE CERTAIN PDS DO PERMIT SINGLE FAMILY. UM, SO THOSE ARE ALL THE DISTRICTS THAT APPLY AND THOSE THAT DON'T. I THINK THAT'S IT FOR THIS SECTION. DO HAVE QUESTIONS? ANY QUESTIONS ERS? COMMISSIONER HANON, CAN YOU GO BACK TO YOUR MAP? THE MAP? I'M JUST TRYING TO FOLLOW, UM, I MEAN, CAN YOU HIGH LEVEL THE AREAS THAT YOU'VE IDENTIFIED THAT HAVE THE FIVE ACRE LOTS WITH THE HATCH HERE, GENERALLY? YEAH. UH, AND, AND, AND I WILL SAY THAT THIS DOESN'T INCLUDE, UM, FOR EXAMPLE, PDS THAT, THAT PERMIT SINGLE FAMILY AND THINGS LIKE THAT. IT ONLY ACTUALLY HAS THE R DISTRICTS, THE D DISTRICTS AND THE TH DISTRICTS. UH, WE TRY, WE TRY TO HAVE HATCHING ON HERE. UM, AGAIN, FIVE ACRE TRACKS. YEAH. SO FOR INSTANCE, A PIECE OF THIS IS WHITE ROCK LAKE, IS THAT CORRECT? YEAH, . YEAH. YOU, YEAH, IF YOU'RE, IF YOU'RE LOST, LOOK FOR, LOOK FOR THE LAKE. UM, AND, AND THEN REALLY COMMONLY ON THESE MAPS WHEN WE DO IT THIS KIND OF ANALYSIS, ARE YOU SINGLE FAMILY ARE YOUNG, PLATTED, MOST OF IT IS PARKLAND OR FLOODPLAIN, UM, THAT'S OWNED BY THE CITY OR THINGS LIKE THAT. SO IF YOU'RE SEEING BIG, UM, HASHED TRACKS FOR THE MOST PART, THOSE ARE, ARE PARKLAND IN, IN THIS CASE. 'CAUSE PARK, UH, PARKLAND IS USUALLY PERMITTED THROUGH, THROUGH SINGLE FAMILY. SO YOU SEE SOME OF THOSE, SOME OF THOSE TRACKS, UM, DON'T HAVE ONE THAT EXCLUDES PARKLAND. UM, BUT I WILL SAY THERE ARE OTHER PARTS. UM, THE SOUTHERN, SOUTHERN SECTOR, THERE'S A LITTLE MORE, I MEAN, WE ALL KNOW THERE'S A LITTLE MORE UNDEVELOPED LAND, UM, AND UN PLATTED LAND. I MEAN, USUALLY IN THE LIFE OF A CITY, UH, PEOPLE COME ALONG AND, AND PLAT ONE WAY OR ANOTHER, UNLESS THEY'VE, YOU KNOW, BEEN THERE A REALLY LONG TIME. UM, BECAUSE THEY WANT TO BUILD SOMETHING YOU USUALLY NEED SOME KIND OF PLATTING TO, TO BUILD SOMETHING. UM, SO MOST OF OUR INNER INNER CITY KIND OF, UM, INFILL TRACKS, I GUESS YOU COULD SAY, MOST OF THOSE ARE PLATTED. IT'S NOT GONNA APPLY TO THEM. UM, AND FOR THE MOST PART, YOU, YOU CAN'T UN UNDO THAT. UM, I THINK JUST, AGAIN, DEMONSTRATION MAP, THIS IS GONNA HAVE EXISTING PARCELS THAT ARE FIVE ACRES. UH, WE DO READ THAT YOU COULD PUT PARCELS TOGETHER, UM, IF THEY WERE TO EQUAL FIVE LOTS, BUT THEY AGAIN, WOULD BOTH HAVE TO BE UN PLATTED, THEY [00:45:01] WOULD HAVE TO BE CONTIGUOUS, THINGS LIKE THAT. SO, UH, WE DON'T HAVE A GOOD WAY TO SAY, HEY, HERE'S A COUPLE PARCELS THAT EQUAL FIVE ACRES AND ARE ADJACENT TO EACH OTHER. IT'S A LITTLE HARD ANALYSIS TO DO. UM, 'CAUSE THEY'RE GONNA BE DIFFERENT OWNERS POTENTIALLY OR THINGS LIKE THAT. UM, BUT SOMETHING I, I MEAN, TO BRING TO OUR AWARENESS. THANK YOU. AND MY ONLY FOLLOW UP WAS, AGAIN, I I KIND OF THOUGHT THAT WAS WHITE ROCK, LIKE, AND THEN FOLLOWS CREEK, WHICH IS LIKELY FLOODPLAIN. AND THERE'S NO CHANGE TO OUR APPROACH ON FLOODPLAIN AND OTHER CONSIDERATIONS, CORRECT? NO, YEAH. THANK YOU. YEAH, NO, THAT'S PRIMARILY REALLY YOU'RE SEEING HASH LAND FOR TRINITY FLOOD PLAIN, TRINITY PARKS, WHITE ROCK PARK, AND , THE OTHER WHITE ROCK CREEK TYPE PARKS. UM, THOSE ARE COMING UP ON THIS ANALYSIS, BUT, UM, I, I'D SAY YOU KIND OF SEE SOME SPOTTY PARCELS THAT ARE UN PLATTED. THOSE, THOSE, THOSE, THOSE MAY APPLY, BUT I, THEY'RE PROBABLY ONES THAT HAVE NEVER BEEN DEVELOPED OR ARE REALLY, UM, BUILT OUT AS MUCH. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. THANK YOU. VICE CHAIR RUBEN, I JUST WANTED TO FOLLOW UP ON, ON SOME OF THOSE QUESTIONS. THE UNPLATTED LAND, UM, THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE ALLOWS UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES, UM, A PLA TO BE VACATED. IF I, I GUESS TYPICALLY, IF ALL OF THE OWNERS OF THE PLOTTED PROPERTY AGREE IS PUTTING THAT IN SHORTHAND, IS MY UNDERSTANDING. YEAH. IF SOMEONE CAME IN AND VACATED A PLA WOULD THEY THEN BE ABLE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF SB 15 IF ALL THE OTHER REQUIREMENTS WERE MET? YEAH, YOU RAISE A GOOD POINT THAT CAME TO OUR MIND PRETTY QUICKLY. SO IT'S YES AND YES AND NO. UM, THE, THE YESS, UH, IT SAYS IF THERE'S NO RECORDED PLAT ON THE PROPERTY, NOT IF IT'S NEVER BEEN PLATTED, BUT IF IT HAS NO RECORDED PLAT, A VACATED PLAT WOULD REMOVE A RECORDED PLAT. HOWEVER, CLOSE WORK WITH MY FRIEND MO SAYS, VERY UN IT'S VERY UNCOMMON TO BE ABLE TO MEET OUR CRITERIA TO VACATE A PLAT. IT'S, IT'S VERY UNCOMMON. SO YOU CAN HAVE THOSE THINGS WHERE YOU'D WANT TO PULL OUT, UH, AND VACATE YOUR PLAT, BUT, UM, YOU, YOU COULD TALK IF YOU WANTED, BUT I'LL TRY AND TRANSLATE, UM, INTO, INTO WHATEVER MY BRAIN THINKS. AND IT'S THAT IF YOU'VE NEVER BUILT OUT ON THAT PROPERTY, UM, YOU MAY BE ABLE TO VACATE THAT PLANT. UM, BUT IT'S, IT'S PRETTY UNCOMMON. I DON'T, I THINK WE ONLY PROCESS A FEW A YEAR, MAYBE. UM, YES, MO IS AN EXPERT HERE, BUT I, TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, UH, UH, THREE WEEKS AGO, WE DID HAVE ALL THE BIG CITIES IN TEXAS TOGETHER, ALL THE PLANNING DIRECTORS. AND THAT QUESTION CAME UP. AND THE OTHER CITY, I THINK I AGREE WITH INTERPRETATION ON THAT IF YOU WAKE IT, YOU'LL, UH, PLAT, UH, YOU, YOU, YOU KNOW, THE PLA JUST FOR THIS PURPOSE, IT'S NOT ELIGIBLE. IT DOES NOT MEET THE INTENT OF THIS LAW. SO THAT'S WHERE WE'RE GOING WITH AS WELL. IF YOU ARE NEVER PLOTTED, YES, IF YOU PLA IT BEFORE NOW YOU WANT TO ATE THOSE SO TO, TO, TO, UH, UH, TRYING TO UTILIZE THIS BILL, AND THEN THAT'S NOT GONNA BE ELIGIBLE. THAT'S JUST THE INTERPRETATION THAT I HEAR FROM OTHER CTS. AND I THINK I AGREE WITH THAT ONE. BUT MO UH, YOU WANT TO CHIME IN? GOOD MORNING, EVERYONE. SO IN ORDER TO VACATE THE PLAT, IF THERE HAS BEEN NO INFRASTRUCTURE, NO, UH, STREET, NOTHING BEEN DONE, YOU CAN JUST VACATE THE PLA. HOWEVER, I AGREE WITH WHAT, UH, THE DIRECTOR SAID FOR THE PURPOSE OF, UH, CREATING A TRACK OF LAND, THIS PROPERTY ALREADY BEEN PLANTED. SO I THINK, UH, I AGREE WITH THE DECISION THAT FOR THIS PURPOSE, EVEN IF YOU VAC YOUR, UH, PLAT, IT STILL DOESN'T QUALIFY FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE SV 15. OKAY. THANK YOU. I GUESS WE'LL SEE HOW THAT SHAKES OUT WHEN SOMEONE TRIES TO DO THIS. COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN, UH, THANK YOU MR. PEPE FOR PULLING THIS MAP TOGETHER. IT'S, IT'S, IT IS VERY INFORMATIVE. I JUST WANNA BE CLEAR ON WHAT THIS IS ACTUALLY ILLUSTRATING. SO THE, THE GRADE GRIDED AREA, ARE THESE THE AREAS THAT ARE FIVE ACRES AND GREATER AND NOT PLATTED OR JUST UNPLANTED LAND? THERE IS MORE UNPLANNED LAND IN THE CITY THAN JUST THESE GRAY, UM, THESE GRAY BOXES WHICH SHOW, JUST, JUST TO BE CLEAR, UH, THERE ARE UN PLATTED SMALLER LOTS. UM, FOR EXAMPLE, THESE ARE THE TRACKS THAT ARE UN PLATTED AND THEY ARE FIVE ACRES AS A SINGLE PARCEL. UH, EVEN IF, SO, LIKE IF THERE WERE MULTIPLE TRACKS THAT ARE NEXT TO EACH OTHER THAT ARE UN PLATTED, UM, OUR READING IS THAT THOSE WOULD, WOULD BE ABLE TO [00:50:01] PARTICIPATE. BUT THERE'S LIMITS TO HOW MUCH DATA THAT WE HAVE. UM, BUT THESE ARE ALL OF THE SINGLE FIVE ACRE UN PLATTED PROPERTIES THAT ARE COMING UP IN, IN HATCH HERE. THANK YOU FOR THAT. OF COURSE. COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, HOW FAR DID, UH, Y'ALL GO IN IDENTIFYING THESE FIVE ACRE UNPLANTED LOTS? I KNOW EVERY, UM, ALMOST EVERY DOCKET WE HAVE ON OUR SUBDIVISION DOCKET, UM, PIECES OF LAND THAT ARE ASKING TO BE PLATTED, THAT, YOU KNOW, TO THE CASUAL EYE LOOKS LIKE A RESIDENTIAL REPL, BUT IT'S DONE FROM A TRACT. AND IT COULD BE JUST IN THE MIDDLE OF A, YOU KNOW, WHAT NORMAL PEOPLE WOULD THINK IS JUST A REGULAR SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD. NOW, I CAN UNDERSTAND IDENTIFYING FIVE ACRE, UH, LOTS, IT WAS PRETTY EASY, BUT HOW FAR DID YOU GO WITH FIGURING OUT IF THEY WERE TRULY EVER PLATTED OR NOT? 'CAUSE I MEAN, IT SEEMS TO BE, IT'S CONCEIVABLE THAT YOU COULD HAVE A, A PIECE OF LAND THAT'S FIVE ACRES OR MORE IN THE MIDDLE OF A SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD THAT JUST NEVER GOT PLATTED. 'CAUSE WHATEVER'S THERE'S BEEN THERE SO LONG. YEAH, I MEAN, THIS IS, THIS IS OUR UNPLANNED, I MEAN, THIS IS OUR UNPLANNED TRACKS THAT ARE FIVE ACRES OR MORE. MM-HMM . I THINK THE ONES THAT WE SEE, THEY COULD BE OLD ENOUGH TO NOT, UM, HAVE NEEDED A PLA THEY COULD BE UNDEVELOPED, THEY COULD BE ONE OF THE FEW USES THAT, YOU KNOW, MAY HAVE EXCEPTION EXEMPTIONS TO IT. UM, AND AGAIN, I MEAN, I'LL, I'LL SAY A LOT OF THESE ARE PARKS THAT YOU'RE SEEING ON HERE, , BUT I DON'T THINK, I, I THINK THERE ARE LIMITATIONS TO THE DATA THAT WE COULD DO TO, TO LOOK DEEPER FOR OTHER, UH, COLLECTIONS OF LAND THAT ARE OF, OF SUCH STATUS. UH, THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. I WANT TO MENTION THAT THIS MAP IS VERY RARE DRAFT. THIS, THIS MAP DOES NOT SHOW WHERE THESE FIVE, UH, SB 15 WILL APPLY THIS, BASICALLY SAY. SO I THINK THIS IS A VERY DIFFICULT, JUST TO PUT IT ON THE MAP. WE HAVE TO DO CASE BY CASE. WHEN WE HAVE APPLICATION COMING IN THAT WANT TO USE SB 15, WE HAVE TO LOOK VERY CLOSELY FOR THAT, EACH INDIVIDUAL CASE. SO I DON'T THINK WE CAN EVER HAVE AN ACCURATE MAP, UH, FOR THE WHOLE CITY. I THINK WE REALLY NEED TO LOOK CLOSELY JUST WHEN WE HAVE THE APPLICATION AT THE TIME. YES, THANK YOU. I UNDERSTAND THAT. I WAS JUST TRYING TO MAKE THE POINT THAT THERE COULD CONCEIVABLY BE PARCELS THAT MEET THE CRITERIA FOR THIS BILL THAT ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF, OF SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS, WHETHER THEY'RE, YOU KNOW, PIECES OF FORMER CHURCH PROPERTY OR SCHOOL PROPERTY. SO WE CAN'T TELL. I MEAN, IT, IT COULD APPLY IN CASES OTHER THAN THOSE THAT ARE IDENTIFIED HERE. YEAH, THESE ARE, THIS IS NOT EXHAUSTIVE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THIS IS OUR LOW HANGING FRUIT MAP TO KIND OF JUST GET YOU PRIMED, TELL A STORY AND THEN KIND OF EXPLAINED. UM, BUT YEAH. OKAY. WE'RE READY FOR THE NEXT ITEM. GOOD MORNING. GOOD MORNING. HOW ARE YOU? AWESOME. LONG TIME. NO, SEE, I THINK I MIGHT NEED TO SIT. IT'S LONG SUMMER. I THINK I MIGHT NEED TO SIT DOWN FOR THIS ONE. OKAY. NOT THAT THERE WILL BE A LOT OF QUESTIONS, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE THIS ONE'S JUST PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD. OH YEAH. IT'S A VERY SIMPLE ONE. . THERE WE GO. JENNIFER ALGAR WITH PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT. SO, UH, WE'RE GONNA TALK ABOUT SB EIGHT 40, WHICH, UH, IS CASUALLY REFERRED TO AS THE MULTIFAMILY IN COMMERCIAL BILL, BUT IT'S QUITE A BIT MORE THAN THAT ACTUALLY. THERE'S, UH, A LOT OF LAYERS TO IT. SO LET ME JUST PREFACE THIS BY SAYING, UM, THIS BILL IS RATHER COMPLICATED . UM, WE'VE DONE A LOT OF OF WORK AND DISCUSSION WITH OUR CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND INTERNALLY TO GET YOU THE MOST UPTODATE AND MO MOST ACCURATE INFORMATION. UM, BUT PLEASE DO UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS STILL A WORK IN PROGRESS. OKAY. SO FIRST, UM, JUST KIND OF A BIG PICTURE, GIVE YOU A LITTLE CONTEXT OF WHAT EIGHT 40 DOES. UH, BASICALLY THERE'S THREE PARTS TO IT. UM, ONE IS THAT WE ARE REQUIRING, OR WE'RE REQUIRED [00:55:01] NOW TO, EXCUSE ME, ALLOW MULTIFAMILY AND MULTI AND MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS IN ADDITIONAL ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS. UH, WE HAVE LIMITS NOW ON OUR AUTHORITY TO REGULATE CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THESE TYPES OF DEVELOPMENTS REGARDLESS OF WHERE THEY OCCUR ACROSS THE CITY. AND THE THIRD PART IS, UH, MAKING IT EASIER, MORE STREAMLINED TO ACTUALLY DO CONVERSIONS OF CERTAIN COMMERCIAL OR NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO MULTIFAMILY AND MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL. UH, ALSO FIRST A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT THE BILL DOES NOT DO. IT DOES NOT CHANGE, UH, A CITY'S ABILITY TO APPLY REG REGULATIONS TO SHORT-TERM RENTAL UNITS IN THESE DEVELOPMENTS. UM, WE'RE STILL ABLE TO HAVE, UH, DENSITY BONUS PROGRAMS, UM, OR OTHER VOLUNTARY PROGRAMS PROVIDED THAT, UH, THE PROVISIONS IN THOSE PROGRAMS DO NOT, UH, ARE NOT MORE, LESS, MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN STATE LAW. SO OUR MIXED INCOME HOUSING DEVELOPMENT BONUS PROGRAM IS STILL APPLICABLE. UM, JUST CERTAIN PARTS OF IT ARE KIND OF, UM, OVERRIDDEN BY THE STATE LAW. AND THEN, UH, OTHER RE REGULATIONS THAT WOULD APPLY TO, UM, OTHER DEVELOPMENTS ACROSS THE CITY, BUILDING CODE, WATER, SEWER ACCESS, STORM WATER MITIGATION, ET CETERA. IF IT WOULD APPLY TO OTHER DEVELOPMENTS OF THIS TYPE, IT STILL APPLIES TO THESE. WE JUST CAN'T OVERSIZE THOSE THINGS. WE NEED TO KEEP IT AT THE MOST BASIC, UM, MINIMUM SIZE NECESSARY. A COUPLE OF DEFINITIONS. UH, MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL IN THIS BILL IS DEFINED SIMILARLY TO OURS. UM, IT IS, UH, USER DEVELOPMENT OF A SITE FOR THREE OR MORE DWELLING UNITS WITHIN ONE OR MORE BUILDINGS. I WILL SAY THAT THERE ARE SOME USES IN OUR CODE THAT TECHNICALLY, UM, MEET THIS DEFINITION THAT WE DON'T NECESSARILY CONSIDER MULTIFAMILY. UM, THE ONE THAT COMES TO MIND WOULD BE, UH, RETIREMENT, HOUSING, AND THEN MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL IN THE BILL IS SPECIFICALLY DEFINED AS, UM, A BASICALLY A MIX OF RESIDENTIAL AND NON-RESIDENTIAL USES WHERE THE RESIDENTIAL PORTION IS AT LEAST 65% OF THE TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE DEVELOPMENT. OKAY. SO WE'RE GONNA WORK OUR WAY THROUGH, UH, THE THREE MAIN IDEAS. UM, FIRST TALKING ABOUT THE NEW AREAS OR WHERE, WHERE THESE NEW DEVELOP, WHERE THESE DEVELOPMENT TYPES WILL BE ALLOWED. NOW UNDER THE STATE BILL. UM, ESSENTIALLY ANY ZONING CLASSIFICATION, UH, THAT ALLOWS OFFICE COMMERCIAL, RETAIL WAREHOUSE, OR MIXED USE AS AN ALLOWED USE, UM, MUST NOW ALLOW MULTIFAMILY MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL USES AND DEVELOPMENTS UNDER STATE BILL EIGHT 40. SO YOU'LL NOTICE ALL OF THE EXAMPLE DISTRICTS THAT WE USE IN THIS PRESENTATION ARE RELATED TO CHAPTER 51 A. UM, OBVIOUSLY WE'LL NEED TO GO THROUGH AND APPLY THIS TO 51 AS WELL. SO THE NEW, THE NEW ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS THAT WILL NOW, UH, THAT WILL NOW BE REQUIRED TO ALLOW MULTIFAMILY AND MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL ARE, UM, SEVERAL THAT YOU SEE HERE, THE AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT, SEVERAL OF THE OFFICE DISTRICTS, RETAIL DISTRICTS, AND THE LIGHTER OF THE INDUSTRIAL. ALSO, I WANNA POINT OUT, UM, PDS, UH, PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS, HISTORIC DISTRICTS AND CONSERVATION DISTRICTS THAT ALLOW THESE SAME USES ARE ALSO INCLUDED IN THE REQUIREMENTS, UM, UNDER STATE BILL EIGHT 40. AND THEN IN ANY OF THESE NEW DISTRICTS, UM, EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE BASICALLY COMMERCIAL OR NON-RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, IF A DEVELOPER WANTS TO COME IN AND BUILD A MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, WE CANNOT REQUIRE THAT THEY ADD A NON-RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT UNLESS THE DISTRICT CURRENTLY, UM, ALLOWS THAT MIX OF USES. SO IN AN RR OR CR, ET CETERA, IT CAN BE STRAIGHT MULTIFAMILY WITH NO REQUIREMENT TO HAVE ANY OF THOSE RRCR [01:00:01] USES. UH, SOME OF THE EXCLUDED DISTRICTS, UM, AGAIN, REFERENCING 51 A, ANY OF THE DISTRICTS THAT DO NOT CURRENTLY ALLOW OFFICE, COMMERCIAL RETAIL WAREHOUSE OR MIXED USE, UM, OR PDS, HD HISTORIC DISTRICTS AND CONSERVATION DISTRICTS THAT DEFAULT TO THESE SAME DISTRICTS, UM, ARE EXCLUDED FROM THE REQUIREMENTS IN SB EIGHT 40. UM, ALSO THERE'S AN EXCLUSION FOR HEAVY INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS, WHICH RIR AND I AM IN DALLAS. AND THEN SOME ADDITIONAL EXCLUSIONS BASED ON, UH, DISTANCE FROM CERTAIN USES WOULD BE LAND LOCATED WITHIN A THOUSAND FEET OF HEAVY INDUSTRIAL USE LAND LOCATED WITHIN 3000 FEET OF AN AIRPORT OR MILITARY BASE AND ANY AREA DESIGNATED BY THE CITY AS CLEAR ZONE OR ACCIDENT POTENTIAL ZONE. THESE THINGS ARE GONNA BE ON A GIS LAYER AND SEARCHABLE. UM, UH, FOR DEVELOPERS AND MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC, I'M OKAY. UH, SO THE CURRENT, CURRENT LOCATIONS THAT ALLOW THESE TYPES OF DEVELOPMENTS ALREADY, AGAIN, REFERENCING 51 A, YOU SEE THE LIST OF DISTRICTS, I'VE INCLUDED THE TOWNHOUSE DISTRICTS ONLY BECAUSE LIKE I SAID, THE RESIDENTIAL OR THE, UH, RETIREMENT HOUSING IS TECHNICALLY A MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT UNDER STATE BILL EIGHT 40, SO THAT'S INCLUDED. UM, BUT I WANNA POINT OUT THAT EVEN IN, UH, THE ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS THAT ALREADY ALLOW THESE TYPES OF DEVELOPMENTS, THE LIMITS ON OUR ABILITY TO REGULATE THESE DEVELOPMENTS UNDER SB EIGHT 40 STILL APPLY TO THE MULTIFAMILY AND MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL USES AND DEVELOPMENTS. SO IT'S NOT NECESSARY THAT THE LOCATION BE AUTHORIZED UNDER THE BILL IN ORDER FOR THE REGULATIONS TO APPLY TO THOSE DEVELOPMENT TYPES. AND THEN BASICALLY, UH, ANY, ANY LOCAL REGULATIONS, UM, CANNOT OVERRIDE ANYTHING IN THE BILL UNLESS WE ARE LESS RESTRICTIVE. AND I WILL GIVE THE SAME DISCLAIMER, UH, THAT DIRECTOR LOU JUST GAVE THESE MAPS ARE FAIRLY PRELIMINARY. UM, BUT THE FIRST MAP IS JUST SHOWING YOU, UM, AREAS OF GENERAL APPLICABILITY. UM, AGAIN, THESE ARE GONNA BE THE DISTRICTS THAT CURRENTLY ALLOW, UH, THE MULTIFAMILY AND MIXED USE DEVELOPMENTS AS WELL AS THE NEW DISTRICTS, UM, UNDER EIGHT 40. UM, ALSO I WILL POINT OUT EVEN IF THESE AREAS ARE, UM, EVEN IF THESE AREAS GENERALLY ARE SUBJECT TO EIGHT 40, EVERYTHING THAT COMES IN IS GOING TO NEED TO HAVE A, UH, CASE BY CASE ASSESSMENT OF WHETHER IT QUALIFIES UNDER THE BILL BECAUSE OF THE DISTANCE, UH, LIMITATIONS THAT WE HAVE FROM HEAVY INDUSTRIAL USES AND SO ON. AND THEN, UH, THE MAP ON THE RIGHT IS SORT OF A COMBINATION OF A FEW DIFFERENT MAPS, BUT IT'S INTENDED TO SHOW THE AREAS OF A GENERAL APPLICABILITY IN GREEN, UM, CASE BY CASE IN RED. AND I THINK, NO, NOT APPLICABLE IN RED. SEE, THIS MAP CONFUSES ME, , IT'S STILL PRELIMINARY. UM, NOT APPLICABLE IN RED AND IN GRAY, UH, THE AREAS THAT WOULD REQUIRE CASE BY CASE, BUT AGAIN, EVEN GREEN NEEDS CASE BY CASE BECAUSE OF THE DISTANCE LIMITATIONS. OKAY, SO MOVING ON TO THE SECOND MAIN POINT OF THE BILL. OUR LIMITS THE LIMITS ON OUR AUTHORITY TO REGULATE CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THESE DEVELOPMENT TYPES. AGAIN, WHEREVER THEY OCCUR, WHEREVER THEY OCCUR ACROSS THE CITY, UH, THE CITY MAY NOT ADOPT OR ENFORCE AN ORDINANCE, ANY KIND OF, UH, REGULATION THAT WOULD BE MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN THESE NEXT FIVE OR SIX, UM, BULLETS THAT WE'RE GONNA TALK ABOUT. SO ONE BEING DENSITY. UM, THE BILL SPECIFIES THAT, UM, WE MUST ALLOW THE GREATER OF THE MAX RESIDENTIAL DENSITY ALLOWED ANYWHERE IN THE CITY, OR 36 UNITS PER ACRE. UM, AND GIVEN THAT WE HAVE DISTRICTS THAT ALLOW, OR THAT ALLOW UNLIMITED DENSITY, UM, THE CITY OF DALLAS NOW HAS NO MAXIMUM DENSITY [01:05:01] FOR MULTI MULTIFAMILY AND MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS UNDER EIGHT 40. ALSO WANNA POINT OUT THAT NO DIRECT OR INDIRECT RESTRICTIONS ON DENSITY CAN BE IMPOSED. THAT WOULD INCLUDE THINGS LIKE THE MINIMUM LOT AREA REQUIREMENT BASED ON THE TYPE OF DWELLING UNIT BEING NO BEDROOM, NO SEPARATE BEDROOM, ONE BEDROOM, TWO BED, BEDROOM, AND SO ON. NEXT IS HEIGHT. THIS ONE IS FUN. WE'RE GETTING A LOT OF QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS ONE . UM, BASICALLY, UH, THE GREATER OF THE HIGHEST HEIGHT THAT WOULD APPLY TO ANY OF THESE LISTED NON-RESIDENTIAL USES THE OFFICE, COMMERCIAL RETAIL WAREHOUSE, OR 45 FEET. UM, THIS IS OBVIOUSLY GONNA NEED TO BE A SITE BY SITE ANALYSIS FOR ALL OF THESE, UH, MULTIFAMILY AND MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS. BUT IN NO INSTANCE CAN WE REQUIRE A HEIGHT LESS THAN 45 FEET. UM, I WILL JUST MAKE A STATEMENT. RPS, IT IS STILL APPLICABLE TO A DEGREE, UM, BUT THE WAY THAT WE MEASURE IT IS, IS SOMEWHAT ALTERED UNDER THE BILL. UM, AND ESSENTIALLY THE SLOPE THAT WE'RE USED TO SEEING, THE, THE SETBACK THAT WE'RE USED TO SEEING, UM, GIVEN ONE OF OUR LATER, UM, DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, UM, BASED ON SETBACKS, UM, WE WON'T BE SEEING THE SLOPED SETBACK ANYMORE WITH RPS AND IT DOESN'T KICK IN UNTIL 45 FEET. I KNEW I SKIPPED SOMETHING. OKAY. SETBACKS AND BUFFERS, THIS WOULD INCLUDE LANDSCAPE BUFFERS, UM, YARD SET, YARD SETBACKS. UH, WE CANNOT REQUIRE, OR WE NEED TO USE THE LESSER OF THE SETBACK THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED FOR THOSE LISTED USES, OR 25 FEET. SO AGAIN, IN NO INSTANCE CAN WE REQUIRE MORE THAN 25 FEET FOR A SETBACK. THIS WOULD INCLUDE SETBACKS THAT ARE, UM, ABOVE GROUND LEVEL. SO WHERE YOU SEE, UM, THE, THE STEPBACK, THE WEDDING CAKE KIND OF STEPBACK ADDITIONAL SETBACKS ABOVE A CERTAIN HEIGHT. IF IT'S LARGER THAN 25 FEET, WE CAN NO LONGER ENFORCE THAT. AGAIN, IT'S GOING TO NEED A SIDE BY SIDE ANALYSIS. AND THIS IS WHERE, UH, ALTHOUGH RPS STILL IMPACTS THESE DEVELOPMENTS. THE SLOPE SETBACK NO LONGER APPLIES BECAUSE WE CANNOT IMPOSE A GREATER SETBACK THAN 25 FEET. UM, FLOOR AREA RATIO, THE BILL SPECIFIES THAT WE MAY NOT RESTRICT FLOOR AREA AS IT RELATES TO THE SIZE OF THE, OF THE LOT. SO MOVING FORWARD, WE HAVE NO MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA RATIO AND PARKING, UH, FOR THESE TYPES OF DEVELOPMENTS, THE MIXED FA OR THE MULTIFAMILY AND THE MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL, WE CANNOT REQUIRE THAT THESE DEVELOPMENTS PROVIDE MORE PARKING THAN ONE SPACE PER DWELLING UNIT. AND WE ALSO, UH, CANNOT REQUIRE THESE DEVELOPMENT TYPES TO PROVIDE MULTI-LEVEL PARKING. A COUPLE OF ADD-ONS THAT THIS BODY WILL BE SUPER INTERESTED IN , UM, AS IT RELATES TO THESE DEVELOPMENT TYPES, AGAIN, MULTIFAMILY AND MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL. UM, WE MAY NOT REQUIRE DISCRETIONARY APPROVALS IN ORDER FOR THESE TO BE ALLOWED OUT, AND THEY MUST BE, THE PLANS MUST BE ADMINISTRATIVELY APPROVED. SO THIS IS GOING TO IMPACT, UM, A LOT OF THINGS. IT'S GONNA IMPACT THE NUMBER OF ZONING CASES THAT WE EVEN HAVE. IT WILL IMPACT THE NUMBER OF BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CASES THAT WE SEE. UM, CERTAINLY WE'LL SEE FEWER, UH, MINOR AMENDMENTS AND DEVELOPMENT PLANS. UM, YEAH, I'LL LEAVE IT AT THAT . UM, AND FINALLY, UH, STREAMLINING OF THE PROCESS FOR THE CONVERSION OF CERTAIN COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS TO MULTIFAMILY AND MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL OCCUPANCY. UM, FIRST OF ALL, IN ORDER TO, UM, QUALIFY UNDER EIGHT 40 FOR THESE STREAMLINE PROCESSES, YOU MUST HAVE, UM, A BUILDING OR STRUCTURAL COMPONENT OF A BUILDING THAT IS BEING USED FOR OFFICE, RETAIL OR WAREHOUSE, PROPOSED TO BE CONVERTED FROM THE NON-RESIDENTIAL [01:10:01] OCCUPANCY TO ONE OF THE TWO DEVELOPMENT TYPES. AND THE RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT MUST BE 65% OR MORE OF THE TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE AND OF EACH FLOOR OF THE CONVERTED, UH, BUILDING. AND THEN FINALLY, UM, IT NEEDS TO BE A BUILDING, UM, THAT WAS CONSTRUCTED AT LEAST FIVE YEARS BEFORE THE PROPOSED DATE TO START THE CONVERSION. AND I DIDN'T WANNA GO TO ANOTHER SLIDE, SO I APOLOGIZE FOR EXTRA BULLETS ON THIS ONE IN REALLY SMALL TEXT. UM, BUT THIS IS ESSENTIALLY WHERE THE STREAMLINING KICKS IN WHEN SOMEONE QUALIFIES UNDER THE CRITERIA TO CONVERT ONE OF THESE, UH, NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO A MULTIFAMILY OR MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF THINGS THAT THE CITY CANNOT REQUIRE THAT THEY PROVIDE. WE CANNOT REQUIRE TRAFFIC, UH, IMPACT ANALYSIS OR OTHER STUDY RELATING TO THE EFFECT THE PROPOSED CONVERTED BUILDING WOULD HAVE ON TRAFFIC OR TRAFFIC OPERATIONS. UM, WE CANNOT REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENTS OR PAYMENTS OF A FEE IN CONNECTION WITH MITIGATING TRAFFIC EFFECTS. WE CANNOT REQUIRE ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACES OTHER THAN THE PARKING SPACES THAT ALREADY EXIST ON THE SITE OF THE PROPOSED CONVERTED BUILDING. CAN'T OVERSIZE THE UTILITIES AND WE CANNOT IMPOSE DESIGN REQUIREMENTS THAT IS MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN THE APPLICABLE MINIMUM STANDARD UNDER THE IBC AS ADOPTED BY THE CITY. AND FINALLY, UM, THIS SLIDE IS REALLY MEANT TO TALK ABOUT NEXT STEPS BASED ON ALL OF THE, THE NEW STATE LAWS THAT WE'VE BRIEFED FOR YOU TODAY. UM, SOME OF THESE ARE ALREADY WELL IN PROGRESS. UH, SOME OF THESE ARE STILL UNDERWAY AND WILL BE FOR QUITE SOME TIME. WE HAVE UNTIL SEPTEMBER 1ST TO GET OUR HOUSE IN ORDER BECAUSE ANYTHING SUBMITTED ON OR AFTER SEPTEMBER 1ST, UM, THIS STATE LAW KICKS IN AT THAT TIME. SO WE ARE WORKING ON, UH, CHECKLISTS, GIS LAYERS AND OTHER TOOLS TO ASSIST THE PUBLIC, UH, PUBLIC OFFICIALS, UM, AND STAFF IN DETERMINING, UM, WHEN AND WHERE THESE STATE LAWS ARE APPLICABLE. SCREENING PROJECTS FOR ELIGIBILITY UNDER THE NEW LAWS. THAT'S GONNA BE A MASSIVE UNDERTAKING. WE'RE GONNA HAVE A DEDICATED TEAM OF PEOPLE DOING THAT. UM, PROJECT PLAN, PROJECT AND PLAN REVIEW UNDER THE NEW LAWS IS GONNA BE QUITE DIFFERENT. WE NEED TO TAKE A CLOSER LOOK AT OUR HISTORIC DISTRICTS CONSERVATION DISTRICTS AND PDS, UM, BECAUSE WE HAVE 1200 OF THEM AND IN VARIOUS, UH, DEGREES OF APPLICABILITY. UM, WE'RE ALSO LOOKING AT TRACKING THESE DEVELOPMENTS, PARTICULARLY UNDER STATE BILL 15 AND STATE BILL EIGHT 40. SO IN OUR NEW LAND MANAGEMENT SYSTEM, WE'RE GONNA ADD, UM, BASICALLY SOME CHECK BOXES THAT WE CAN CLICK IF A DEVELOPMENT IS, UM, COMING IN UNDER ONE OF THE NEW STATE LAWS SO THAT WE CAN PULL DATA AND PROVIDE THAT TO THE PUBLIC AS NEEDED. AND THEN FINALLY, A CODE AMENDMENT. UM, I BELIEVE THE FIRST STEP IS THAT WE ARE LOOKING AT CHAPTER 52, WHICH IS THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE CONSTRUCTION CODES, BASICALLY TO CLARIFY, UM, THAT THE CITY OF DALLAS IS BOUND BY STATE LAW, EVEN IF IT CONFLICTS WITH OUR OWN, UH, CITY CODES. AND THEN, UH, THAT'LL BE THE FIRST STEP, KIND OF QUICK ISH. AND THEN COMING AFTER THAT, WE'RE GONNA LOOK AT HOW WE, UH, MIGHT NEED TO AMEND OUR OWN CODE, UH, TO PUT IT IN LINE WITH THE STATE BILLS. AND WITH THAT, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? YES. COMMISSIONER HOUSE. RIGHT. THANK YOU. I'VE GOT A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. COULD YOU GO BACK TO THE STATEMENT YOU MADE, UH, I THINK YOU SAID THAT WE CAN NO LONGER, UH, REGULATE DENSITY ON MULTIFAMILY. IT SEEMED LIKE A PRETTY BROAD STATEMENT. CAN YOU, DID I MISUNDERSTAND THAT OR QUESTION YOU DID NOT? UM, SO THE, THE STATE BILL IS PRETTY SPECIFIC HERE THAT WE ARE BOUND TO REQUIRE THE GREATER OF THESE TWO OPTIONS, WHICH IS 36 UNITS PER ACRE AS A MINIMUM OR THE HIGHEST RESIDENTIAL DENSITY ALLOWED IN THE MUNICIPALITY. SO IF WE LOOK ACROSS THE ENTIRE CITY, WE LOOK AT OUR GREATEST DENSITY THAT'S ALLOWED [01:15:01] ANYWHERE WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS. AND AS I SAID, WE HAVE DISTRICTS THAT HAVE UNLIMITED DENSITY. UM, SO OUR MAXIMUM DENSITY IS NOW UNLIMITED. OKAY. ALRIGHT. YEP. UM, WELL THAT MAY MAKE MY NEXT QUESTION A LITTLE UNNECESSARY, BUT I'M GONNA, I'M GONNA ASK IT ANYWAY. IT MAY BE A LITTLE, LITTLE RHETORICAL, BUT, UM, THERE WAS A, A, A BRIEFING DOCUMENT AVAILABLE ONLINE TO I THINK A COUNCIL COMMITTEE THAT WAS, UH, ON THIS TOPIC, ON, WELL ON, ON ALL THE LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITIES OF THIS PAST SESSION. AND, UM, IN THIS PRESENTATION, IT CATEGORIZE THE LEGISLATION INTO TWO, TWO BUCKETS, FAVORABLE AND UNFAVORABLE. SO THE, THE SB 15 AND SB EIGHT 40 WERE IN THE UNFAVORABLE BUCKET. UM, SO I YOU WHO PUT THOSE THERE? YEAH, I WAS JUST KIND OF WONDERING IF YOU CARE TO COMMENT ON, ON WHY THEY MIGHT HAVE BEEN, UH, DEEMED UNFAVORABLE. AND I THINK I, I THINK I KNOW, BUT THIS, I JUST, I'M CURIOUS WHAT I THINK, I THINK THAT, UM, WELL, ONE, I DON'T KNOW THE SPECIFIC DOCUMENT THAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO, SO I DON'T REALLY KNOW THE SOURCE OR CONTEXT OF IT. UM, I'M, I SURE THAT WE CAN ALL, AS WE SIT HERE, UM, IMAGINE, UM, HOW THESE BILLS WOULD SEEM UNFAVORABLE TO SOME FOLKS. UM, BECAUSE GREATER DENSITY IS SOMETIMES AN ISSUE, GREATER HEIGHT IS SOMETIMES AN ISSUE. UM, I WILL SAY THAT, UH, CITY STAFF IS, UM, PRETTY EXCITED ABOUT THESE BILLS. , I, I CAN'T ANSWER THE QUESTION DIRECTLY. I THINK, UH, THE CITY AS A WHOLE, UH, THERE WAS A WORRY ABOUT LOCAL CONTROL, UH, ZONING. GOTCHA. IS A LOCAL, MOSTLY. SO THAT'S WHERE THE CITY COME FROM. IT'S REALLY ABOUT, UH, THAT'S THE PERSPECTIVE. NOW, HAVING SAID THAT, THESE LAW PASSES, THIS LAW PASSED IN JUNE, LATE JUNE BY OUR STATE LEGISLATORS. SO WE HAVE TO BE IN COMPLIANCE. SO THAT'S WHERE WE ARE. I JUST WANT TO KNOW WHY THAT IS, BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, UM, A LOT OF CITY, NOT DALLAS, UM, FEEL THAT THE ZONING IS TO BE, UH, CONTROLLED BY LOCAL MUNICIPALITY. BUT THE STATE DOES HAVE THE ABILITY TO REGULATE. ACTUALLY IN THE 1920S, THE STATE, UH, PASSED, UH, THE ZONING ENABLING ACT ACROSS THE COUNTRY. AND THEN THE STATE, GIVEN THAT AUTHORITY TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT NOW LOOK LIKE, UH, THEY WANT TO HAVE SOME OF THEIR AUTHORITIES. BUT THIS IS A STATE LAW, AND WE ARE BOUNDED BY THESE LAWS. SO OUR JOB BETWEEN NOW AND SEPTEMBER 1ST, UH, WHEN THESE LAW BECOME, UH, EFFECTIVE, IT GET READY. I MEAN, WE ALREADY ONE WEEK INTO AUGUST, SO WE HAVE THREE MORE WEEKS. SO THERE'S TWOFOLD. ONE IS GET OUR STAFF READY. UM, THE OTHER ONE IS TO GIVE SOME CLEAR GUIDANCE TO OUR CUSTOMERS. YOU KNOW, SOMEBODY WHO WOULD LIKE TO USE THESE. SO WE HAVE A LOT MORE TO DO WITH, UH, IN THE NEXT THREE WEEKS. I DO WANT TO THANK JENNIFER AND ALL THE OTHER STAFF IN WORKING ON THIS NONSTOP SINCE LATE JUNE, AFTER THIS, UH, LAW, UH, PASSED. UM, JENNIFER HAD BEEN WORKING LIKE IN LATE INTO THE EVENING. I, I CAUGHT HER ONE DAY, LIKE STILL IN OFFICE, THE NINE O'CLOCK IN THE EVENING. AND I ALSO WOULD LIKE TO USE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO THANK OTHER STAFF. UM, MEGAN WEER HAS BEEN WORKING EXTREMELY HARD ON THIS. AND, AND THEY ARE OLD EXPERT. AND OUR, UH, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, UH, ANDREA RIA HAS BEEN WORKING EXTREMELY HARD AS WELL. OUR CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, WE MET WITH THEM. THEY, EVERYTHING THAT WE, WE HAVE ANYTHING WRITING WE WORK WITH AND MAKE SURE, UM, YOU KNOW, UH, LEGALLY, UM, IS OKAY. SO IT'S A LOT OF WORK PUT INTO THIS THAT, UH, YOU CAN SEE MICHAEL PEPPY AND THE OTHER STAFF HAVE BEEN DOING A LOT OF RESEARCH. UM, THIS IS SOMETHING FAIRLY NEW TO US, SO I WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT WE WORK AS HARD AS WE CAN TO PROVIDE SOME GUIDANCE. BUT, UH, AFTER SEPTEMBER 1ST, WE DO EXPECT SOME APPLICATIONS MORE ON THE PERMITTING SIDE. YOU CAN SEE THE ZONING SIDE IS PROBABLY LESS IMPORTANT NOW, OR THE PROCESS. THEY GO STRAIGHT TO PERMITTING. UH, WE PUT, UH, IN PLACE A TEAM. SO ANYTHING COMING IN LIKE, UH, SB EIGHT 40 OR SB 15, WE HAVE TEAM TO REVIEW THEM. SO WE'LL BE CONSISTENT. UM, HAVING SAID THAT, EVEN THOUGH WE PLAN TO GIVE SOME GUIDANCE WITHIN NEXT TWO WEEKS IN WRITING IN THE FORM OF MEMOS, UH, ONCE WE HAVE SEEN SOME ACTUAL CASES, WE MAY WANT TO GO BACK AND REFINE [01:20:01] AND ADD IN MORE DETAILS. SO, UM, AT THE SAME TIME WE HAVE, OUR OFFICE HAS ALREADY HAS CREATED A WEBSITE ON THIS VARIOUS SUBJECT. SO ALL THE MEMOS OR FUTURE INTERPRETATION WILL POSTED ONLINE. SO THAT'S OUR APPROACH, AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING RIGHT NOW IS A LOT OF WORK. AND, BUT WE, UM, WE DEFINITELY HAVE TO BE IN COMPLIANT WITH STATE LAW. AND, UH, JENNIFER ALSO MENTIONED, UM, WE'RE TAKING TO CITY COUNCIL, UH, IN ABOUT THREE WEEKS. UM, SOME AMENDMENT CHAPTER 52, JUST TALKING ABOUT SOME OF THESE LAW, LIKE WE WILL BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE STATE, UM, UH, THESE STATE, UH, LEGISLATION. SO WE ARE WORKING VERY HARD ON THAT. SEPTEMBER 1ST, UM, KENDALL IS EFFECTIVE DAY FOR ALL THESE LAWS. ONE WE TALK ABOUT, INCLUDING SB 8 40 15, AND THE PREVIOUS ONE THAT MICHAEL PEPPE PRESENTED ALL BECOME EFFECTIVE, UM, SEPTEMBER 1ST. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UH, I HAVE ONE QUICK FOLLOW UP, AND COMMISSIONER WHEELER, YOU'LL BE NEXT. UH, DIRECTOR. LOU MENTIONED LOCAL CONTROL. UM, SO, YOU KNOW, AS, AS YOU KNOW, WE SPEND A LOT OF TIME HERE IN THIS BODY THINKING ABOUT THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES, UH, IN FACT THAT AT ZO OAC IS PRACTICALLY ACTUALLY WHAT THEY DO IS THEY JUST, THEY SIT AROUND AND THINK ABOUT WHAT, WHAT ARE THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF THE CHANGES THAT WE COULD BE MADE? UM, AND SO THESE ARE KIND OF CHANGES THAT ARE NOW BEING, UH, DECIDED AND WERE DECIDED AT THE STATE LEVEL. AND SO ISN'T THE REALITY THAT WE WON'T SEE ANY OF THESE CASES HERE AT THIS BODY. UH, AND IN FACT, NOW WE'RE IN A KIND OF, IN A MOMENT OF TRANSITION WHERE WE HAVE CASES TODAY, UH, IN FACT, I HAVE ONE THAT WAS HELD IN MY DISTRICT THAT DOESN'T NEED A ZONING CHANGE ANYMORE. IN FACT, AFTER THIS. SO, YOU KNOW, IT'S, UH, WE WON'T SEE ANY OF THESE CASES, WILL WE? UH, I WOULD ANTICIPATE PROBABLY ZONING CASES OR ANY AMENDMENT TO THE PD WILL BE, UH, LESS. UM, I, I, I DON'T KNOW FOR SURE YET. WE'RE JUST PROJECTING. BUT OUR BUILDING PERMIT SIDE, PROBABLY THE CASES WILL GO UP. PEOPLE JUST GO STRICTLY TO THE PERMITTING. AND THE THING ABOUT THESE BUILD, THEY ARE CITYWIDE, YOU KNOW, IN THE PAST WE DO THE PARK REFORM. WE ALWAYS SAY PD DOES NOT APPLY THOSE PDS. THIS APPLY TO PDS CONSERVATION, UH, DISTRICT, ANYWHERE IN THE CITY. SO THIS IS A CITYWIDE, UH, WE HAVE TO, UH, AND THEN, SO THERE'S DIFFERENT THING, UH, CITYWIDE IN TERMS OF LAND USE WHERE THESE WILL BE ALLOWED AND ALSO THE STANDARDS, UH, SETBACK, BULK HEIGHT, DENSITY, AND ALSO THE PROCESS. THIS DOES NOT, WE CANNOT DO ANY DISCRETIONARY REVIEW ON THESE. SO STAFF ADMINISTRATIVELY REVIEW THIS GOING STRAIGHT. IF MEET THE STANDARDS, WE HAVE TO APPROVE IT. THANK YOU. UH, COMMISSIONER WHEELER. UH, SO I DO HAVE A CONCERN, AND MAYBE I JUST NEED TO EXPLAIN, WE ALL KNOW THAT I HAVE A CASE IN, IN MY, MY DISTRICT, UM, THE TOWER. I, I'M, I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT, 'CAUSE IT IS SAYING, UM, WHEN IT'S SAYING DENSITY DOES THIS, DOES THIS SAY THAT? LIKE, THEY DON'T HAVE TO COME BACK BEFORE US TO BUILD THIS CRAZY 25 FOOT TOWER, WHICH IS THE, UH, UH, THE PRO THE CASE THAT I HAVE DEFERRED TO OCTOBER. UM, BECAUSE THAT IS MY CONCERN. OR, OR, OR, OR DOES IT HAVE, THEY HAVE TO COME BACK BECAUSE OF THE DENSITY, THE HEIGHT. AND THEY WANTED TO BUILD A 26, 24 STORY, 25 4 BUILDING. SO IF ANY CASES THAT HAVE ALREADY COME THROUGH THE PROCESS, UM, IF, IF THERE WAS A PD OR DEED RESTRICTION OR SOMETHING OF THAT NATURE THAT WOULD'VE LIMITED THE HEIGHT OR THE DENSITY OF A MULTIFAMILY OR, UH, MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, UM, THEY CAN GO STRAIGHT TO PERMITTING AND, UM, OBTAIN, UH, PERMITS UNDER THE SB EIGHT 40 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WITHOUT HAVING TO COME BACK THROUGH THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS. SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT THEY CAN BUILD A 26 STORY BY RIGHT BUILDING NOW AND STARTED SEPTEMBER 1ST. THEY ARE ON, ON THAT SITE ON MARTIN LUTHER KING. WE WERE TOLD SOMETHING DIFFERENT. IT'S, IT'S REALLY, IT'S REALLY A SITE BY SITE ANALYSIS. AND, UM, SO I, I WOULD HESITATE TO ANSWER SOMETHING ABOUT A, A SPECIFIC LOCATION AT THIS POINT. SO, OKAY, BECAUSE THAT WAS, THAT WAS 100% BROUGHT UP DURING THE CPC HEARING AND THE COMMUNITY MEETING. HOW WOULD THIS BILL APPLY TO THIS PARTICULAR [01:25:01] PROJECT? SO, UH, COMMISSIONER WHEELER, UM, THIS IS PATRICK BLADES CHIEF PLANNER WITH, UM, PLANNING DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. UM, THE PROJECT THAT YOU'RE REFERENCING, THE 25 STORY, UM, PROPOSED TOWER, UM, THAT WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK THROUGH, UM, A ZONING PROCESS BECAUSE THAT IS AT A HEIGHT THAT IS FAR GREATER THAN, UM, WHAT THE STATE WOULD ALLOW OR THE CHANGE THAT THE STATE HAS SAID WOULD BE ALLOWED. AND SO, SO CAN I ASK YOU ALL THIS? SO NPS THAT HAVE, AND PDS THAT HAVE HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS, UM, THEY NO LONGER WILL BE, UH, THAT HEIGHT RESTRICTION WILL NO LONGER APPLY IT. IT'S, IT'S NOT THAT THE HEIGHT RESTRICTION JUST AUTOMATICALLY DOESN'T APPLY. IT'S THAT IF THERE IS A, A HEIGHT RESTRICTION THAT IS MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN WHAT'S IN THE STATE BILL, WE CANNOT ENFORCE IT. SO, UM, IF, WELL, AGAIN, I DON'T WANT TO GO INTO A SPECIFIC EXAMPLE, BUT, OH, I, OKAY. SO I, I, WELL, WE, WELL, I, WHAT I'LL DO IS BECAUSE BEFORE OCTOBER, I'LL MAKE SURE THAT I DEAL WITH THE STAFF AND, UH, OKAY. UH, MR. UH, MR. BLAZE, BECAUSE I, I KNOW THAT HE'S, HIM AND LIZ IS KIND OF HANDS ON WITH, WITH US IN SOUTH DALLAS. SO I, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE, 'CAUSE I'M SURE THAT CONVERSATION IS GONNA BE BROUGHT UP. SO I'LL CONTACT THEM LATER THIS WEEK, BUT THANK YOU. CERTAINLY. UH, JUST A QUICK LITTLE FOLLOW UP, JUST FOR AN EXAMPLE, BECAUSE I THINK YOU A LOT OF VERBIAGE, THEN IT'S CONFUSING. SO IN TERMS OF THE HEIGHT OF THE DISTRICT, THE HEIGHT IS 46 FEET, THEN THAT'S THE HEIGHT, THAT'S 46 FEET. IF THE DISTRICT IS 35 FEET, THEN THE HEIGHT IS 45 FEET OR LESS. UM, WE HAVE TO ALLOW AT LEAST 45 FEET. UM, IF THE DISTRICT HEIGHT IS 175 FEET OR ANYTHING, THEN IT'S 175 FEET. UM, IF IT'S FOR ONE OF THOSE NON-RESIDENTIAL USES. UM, THE OTHER THING THOUGH IS THAT, UM, RPS IS STILL A HEIGHT LIMITING FACTOR TO A DEGREE. SO, FOR EXAMPLE, IF YOU HAD A, A, A DISTRICT WITH A 200 FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT, UM, BUT THERE WAS RPS ACTING ON THAT SITE, ESSENTIALLY WE WOULD LOOK AT WHAT IS THE, THE HIGHEST HEIGHT THAT COULD BE OBTAINED OR ATTAINED UNDER THAT SLOPE ANYWHERE ON THE PROPERTY. AND THEN THAT HEIGHT BECOMES THE HEIGHT FOR THE ENTIRE SITE WITHOUT THE SLOPE. SO IF RPS LIMITS YOU, UM, INSTEAD OF YOUR MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 200 FOR THE DISTRICT, IF RPS LIMITS YOU AND YOU CAN GET UP TO A MAXIMUM OF 63 FEET, THEN 63 FEET IS THE HEIGHT ACROSS THE ENTIRE SITE. BUT AGAIN, IT'S JUST FOR THESE TWO TYPES OF DEVELOPMENTS, MULTIFAMILY AND MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL. THANK YOU. MM-HMM . COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, FOLLOWED BY LAST CHAIR, RUBEN. BUT GOING FORWARD, THE RESIDENTIAL PROXIMITY SLOPE CALCULATION KICKS IN AT 45 FEET, ESSENTIALLY. YES. BUT THEN THE MAXIMUM SETBACK WOULD BE 25 FEET. YOU, YOU COULD NOT REQUIRE AN ADDITIONAL SLOPE BACK MORE THAN 25 FEET. WE, WE CANNOT REQUIRE A SLOPE. THAT WOULD MEAN THAT WE'RE REQUIRING A SETBACK GREATER THAN 25 FEET. THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. SO GIVEN THAT THERE WILL BE NO FAR GOING FORWARD AFTER SEPTEMBER, THE FIRST AND UNLIMITED DENSITY IN THE, IN THE CITY, BECAUSE WE ALLOW UNLIMITED DENSITY SOMEWHERE IN THE MUNICIPALITY. SO IT NOW APPLIES TO EVERY PARCEL. THE ONLY REAL CAP WILL BE THE LIMITATIONS ON HEIGHT. BUT THAT MEANS THAT YOU'RE, UM, ENTITLED TO 45 FEET AT A MINIMUM, OR THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT THAT'S DICTATED IN THE GENERAL ZONING. NOW, YOU KNOW, IF YOU HAVE CS, YOU GET 45 FEET. IF YOU HAVE, UM, LI YOU HAVE 70 FEET, MU TWO 70, WHATEVER YOU'RE, YOU'RE ENTITLED TO THAT ONLY CONSTRAINED BY HOWEVER RESIDENTIAL PROXIMITY SLOPE IS GOING TO APPLY. I WOULD SAY THAT'S A, A FAIR STATEMENT GENERALLY. OKAY. UM, CHANGING SUBJECTS A LITTLE BIT, UM, I BELIEVE IN ONE OF YOUR EARLY SLIDES, IT SAID THAT THIS PARTICULAR BILL KICKS IN AS LONG AS YOU'RE NOT WITHIN A THOUSAND FEET OF A HEAVY INDUSTRIAL USE. HOW IS HEAVY INDUSTRIAL USE DETERMINED? IS THAT ZONING? IS THAT ACTIVE USE? IS IT SPECIFIC USES? WHAT IS HEAVY? SO IT IS, THIS IS THE SLIDE YOU'RE LOOKING AT, I THINK, UM, SO WE, WE IN CONJUNCTION WITH, WITH OUR CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE HAVE HAD CONVERSATIONS ABOUT WHICH OF [01:30:01] OUR DISTRICTS, AND AGAIN, WE'RE JUST LOOKING AT 51 A. SO GENERALLY SPEAKING, UM, I AM AND IR ARE OUR HEAVIEST INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS. SO WE'RE LOOKING AT THOSE TWO DISTRICTS AS BEING EXCLUDED AUTOMATICALLY. SO SB EIGHT 40 WON'T, WON'T ALLOW SOMEONE TO BUILD A MULTIFAMILY OR MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT IN I AM OR IR. UM, BUT THEN BASED ON THE USES THAT WE SEE IN THOSE TWO DISTRICTS, UM, WE, WE LOOKED AT THE USES THAT ARE ALLOWED IN THOSE HEAVY INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS AND NOWHERE ELSE. UM, MEANING THEY'RE SO HEAVY. UM, THEY'RE NOT MY BROTHER. SORRY, I COULDN'T HELP IT. UM, , I'M SORRY. THAT WAS REALLY BAD. UM, THEY'RE SO HEAVY THAT THEY'RE ONLY ALLOWED IN OUR HEAVIEST INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS. AND WE HAVE A LIST OF NINE, I THINK IN 51 A, UM, I DON'T THINK I HAVE IT HERE, BUT WE CAN CERTAINLY GIVE YOU THAT INFORMATION LATER IF NEEDED. SO, BEING A THOUSAND FEET FROM A PIECE OF PROPERTY ZONED IR, WOULD, UM, MEAN THAT, THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY? NO. WOULD IT HAVE TO BE THAT ONE OF THOSE HEAVY USES? YEAH. IT, IT CAN'T BE WITHIN ONE OF THOSE DISTRICTS. BUT IF IT'S, IF IT'S A BUDDING, IF IT'S IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO AN IM OR IR, BUT THERE'S NO HEAVY INDUSTRIAL USE WITHIN THAT THOUSAND SQUARE FEET, THEN YOU COULD BUILD THE MULTIFAMILY MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL AT THAT LOCATION. EVEN THOUGH THE UNDERLYING ZONING ON THAT HEAVY INDUSTRIAL SITE COULD TRANSFORM BY ROD INTO A USE THAT WOULD NO LONGER BE COMPATIBLE BASED, BASED ON THE WAY THE BILL READS, THAT WOULD BE OUR ASSESSMENT, YES. OKAY. THE OTHER PART AND OTHER PART, NOT THE OTHER PART, AND OTHER PART OF THIS BILL I FIND CONFUSING IS WHERE IT TALKS ABOUT ZONING FOR WAREHOUSES. 'CAUSE WE DON'T HAVE A WAREHOUSE ZONING DISTRICT, YOU KNOW, WAREHOUSES ARE ALLOWED IN CS LI, THE IRIM, THE CA. SO HOW ARE YOU DETERMINING, WHAT, HOW DID YOU DETERMINE THE APPLICABILITY OF, OF THAT PART OF THE LAW WHERE IT SAYS WHERE W WHERE WAREHOUSES ARE ALLOWED? SO, SO, UM, IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY SPECIFY THAT IT'S APPLICABLE IN A WAREHOUSE DISTRICT. IT'S JUST APPLICABLE IN A DISTRICT THAT ALLOWS A WAREHOUSE, USE WAREHOUSE AS A USE. SO ANY OF THOSE DISTRICTS THAT ALLOW WAREHOUSE USES ARE APPLICABLE. BUT, UM, I AM AND IR ALLOW WAREHOUSE USES. BUT YOU'RE SAYING THAT THEY'RE NOT INCLUDED FOR OTHER REASONS, RIGHT? I MEAN, THERE, THERE'S THERE EXCLUSION, THE EXCLUSION ON TOP OF THAT, THAT WOULD KEEP THOSE, EXCUSE ME, THAT WOULD KEEP THOSE DEVELOPMENTS FROM GOING IN THE HEAVY INDUSTRIAL AREAS. CORRECT. UH, ANOTHER UH, THING I, I BELIEVE YOU SAID FOR HISTORIC AND CONSERVATION DISTRICTS IS IF THOSE DISTRICTS ALLOW ANY OF THESE, LIKE OFFICE OR WHATEVER, UM, THEN ANY PARS, ANY PAR. 'CAUSE I'M THINKING OF SOME HISTORIC DISTRICTS THAT, YOU KNOW, HAVE MOSTLY RESIDENTIAL, BUT MAYBE THERE'S A FRINGE WHERE YOU ALLOW SOME OFFICE OR SOMETHING. ARE YOU SAYING NOW THAT EVERY PARCEL IN THAT, UM, DISTRICT WOULD NOW BE SUBJECT TO ALLOWING, UH, THE MULTI-FAMILY OR JUST WHERE THOSE OFFICES OR THE OTHER QUALIFYING USES EXIST? IT, IT, IT KIND OF DEPENDS ON THE WAY THE ORDINANCES ARE WRITTEN. I WOULD SAY THAT IF, IF THOSE, UH, OFFICE RETAIL, UH, ET CETERA USES ARE NOT, UM, SEPARATED OFF INTO THEIR OWN SUBDISTRICT, UM, AND IT'S JUST LISTED AS AN ALLOWED USE, THEN, THEN YES, POTENTIALLY YOU COULD HAVE THESE DEVELOPMENTS IN THE DISTRICT. HOWEVER, I WILL SAY TOO, UM, THE STATE BILL DOES, UM, SAY THAT WE STILL HAVE THE ABILITY TO REGULATE, UM, OR TO, UH, ENFORCE REGULATIONS RELATED TO ACTUALLY PRESERVING HISTORIC BUILDINGS AND, UM, UH, SITES WITHIN A, A HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGNATED BY THE CITY. SO IT'S NOT GONNA BE MOWED DOWN THE BUILDINGS IN A HISTORIC DISTRICT AND PUT UP, YOU KNOW, FREE FOR ALL MULTI-FAMILY AND MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL. UM, WE DO HAVE THE ABILITY TO CONTINUE TO REGULATE PRESERVATION CRITERIA. OKAY. ONE MORE. UM, HOW DOES THIS APPLY TO EXISTING PUBLIC DEED RESTRICTIONS? UM, THE STATE BILL WOULD, UM, RULE OVER [01:35:01] DEED RESTRICTIONS. UM, THE CITY ONLY, UM, ENFORCES PUBLIC DEED RESTRICTIONS. SO IF THERE WERE PRIVATE DEED RESTRICTIONS, WE REALLY WOULDN'T GET INTO THAT PUBLIC. BUT PUBLIC DEED RESTRICTIONS, UM, IF THERE'RE MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN THE BILL, UM, THEN THE BILL WILL CONTROL. THANK YOU. LAST CHAIR. WE WANNA FOLLOW COMMISSIONER HAMPTON. THANK YOU. UH, MS. ER FIRST. UM, I APPRECIATE THE SLIDE DECK. I DON'T SEE IT POSTED. ARE YOU ABLE TO CIRCULATE IT TO THE COMMISSION AFTER THE, THE MEETING SO WE CAN HAVE IT AS A REFERENCE? WE WILL, WE JUST DIDN'T WANNA, YOU KNOW, GIVE IT TOO EARLY. I HAD PLENTY OF STUFF TO READ, SO I WOULDN'T HAVE GOTTEN SURE. WE DIDN'T WANNA GIVE Y'ALL A CHANCE TO STUDY TOO MUCH . AS A MATTER OF FACT, WE'LL BE WORKING ON THIS UNTIL UP UNTIL YESTERDAY. SO THAT ACTUALLY, I, I JUST REVAMPED IT. FINAL VERSION, 10 MINUTES BEFORE NINE TODAY BEST. SO, YEAH. THANK YOU. IT WAS A CONSTANT WORK. OKAY. WELL THANK YOU FOR THE LATE NIGHTS AND ALL THAT AND, AND GETTING READY FOR THIS. I KNOW THIS LEGISLATION GIVES CITIES AND PLANT COMMISSIONERS A LOT TO, TO THINK ABOUT AND, AND CHEW ON. SO I, I DO APPRECIATE YOUR WORK AND ALL OF YOUR CO MR. PEPE AND ALL OF YOUR COLLEAGUES'. HARD WORK ON THIS. UM, JUST FOLLOWING UP ON CHAIR ADE'S QUESTION, I, I THINK THE INTENT OF THIS LEGISLATION WAS TO SORT OF REMOVE BURDENS FROM CERTAIN MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT, BUT WITHOUT IMPOSING ADDITIONAL BURDENS, WILL THERE BE AN EASY WAY OR A WAY THAT THE CITY WILL SORT OF TRACK SB EIGHT 40 DEVELOPMENT SO WE CAN GET UPDATED ON, ON WHAT IS COMING IN AND TOLD X, Y, AND Z WOULD'VE REQUIRED A ZONING CHANGE OR, YOU KNOW, 50 CASES WOULD'VE REQUIRED A ZONING CHANGE, YOU KNOW, BUT FOR SB EIGHT 40, SO THIS IS WHAT YOU'RE NOT SEEING? I, I, I THINK SO. UM, WE WILL LOOK AT IT IN MORE DETAIL, BUT RIGHT NOW, UM, WE, WE HAVE IN PROGRESS TO ADD, UM, CHECK BOXES TO EVERYTHING THAT COMES IN AT PERMITTING. OKAY. THAT WE LOOK AT, THAT WE SEE THAT'S EITHER SB 40 OR EIGHT 40 OR SB 15 BY LOCATION OR BY JUST THE REGS OR WHATEVER. SO WE'LL BE TRACKING THAT. YES. OKAY. GREAT. SO IN OUR TRADITIONAL MULTIFAMILY AND MIXED USE ISSUES, WE HAVE VARIOUS, YOU KNOW, DESIGN STANDARDS AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS WHEN WE'RE GOING TO START PUTTING, YOU KNOW, MULTIFAMILY OR MIXED USE IN AN SB EIGHT 40 ZONING CLASSIFICATION, LET'S JUST SAY A COMMERCIAL OR OR RETAIL ZONING DISTRICT. DO WE HAVE SIMILAR REGS ON THAT? MULTIFAMILY OR MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT AKIN TO WHAT WE HA I MEAN, WOULD THE REGS, I KNOW WE PREEMPT CERTAIN THINGS LIKE HEIGHT, UM, YOU KNOW, DENSITY, THAT SORT OF THING. BUT FOR EXAMPLE, OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS, WOULD THERE BE BE OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS THAT APPLY TO SB EIGHT 40 DEVELOPMENT? ISN'T THAT THE, WHAT'S THE, OR DO WE NEED TO SORT OF TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT WE'RE REQUIRING FOR YOU? TALKING ABOUT LANDSCAPE? PARDON ME? NO, GO AHEAD. SIDEBAR TALKED ABOUT THE 70, THAT'S SB 1515, SB 15. SB 15 HAS A SPECIFIC LANGUAGE ABOUT OPEN SPACE, MAXIMUM OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS. I'M NOT CERTAIN IF EIGHT 40 HAS THE SAME, I, I DON'T BELIEVE EIGHT 40 DOES. UM, I KNEW WE HAD DISCUSSED THAT AT SOME POINT, BUT IT'S, IT'S 15. AND, AND I GUESS LET ME, I MAY HAVE PROBABLY DIDN'T PHRASE MY QUESTION VERY WELL. LET'S JUST SAY THAT THERE SOMEONE WANTS TO BUILD MULTI-FAMILY ON IN MULTIFAMILY, THERE ARE, ARE THERE OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS THAT APPLY RIGHT NOW TO AN MF DISTRICT OR AN NOT, NOT, NOT TO. SO MAYBE IT'S A BAD EXAMPLE. OKAY. NOT TO A BASE DISTRICT. NO. OKAY. NEVERMIND THEN I WILL PULL BACK ON THAT QUESTION. UM, FINAL QUESTION IS, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND. THE RPS EXAMPLE THAT YOU GAVE. SO YOU SAID, I THINK THAT SORT OF THE NEW MAX HEIGHT FOR A SITE WOULD BE THE SORT OF, IF IT'S A UNDER BASE ZONING 200 FEET, IT WOULD BE THE HIGHEST SITE HIGHEST HEIGHT THAT RPS ALLOWED ON THE SITE. SO IF YOU, THE RPS HITS A SITE AT 55 FEET ON ONE SIDE, KEEPS GOING UP, THAT GETS TO 75 FEET ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE SITE. OUR NEW BASE, OUR NEW MAX HEIGHT FOR THE SITE ACROSS THE SITE IS IN 75 FEET. RIGHT? THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. THANK YOU FOR THAT CONFIRMATION. COMMISSIONER DEN, I THINK I'M GONNA HAVE A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS, BUT ONE THING I DO WANNA MAKE SURE THAT I UNDERSTAND, 'CAUSE I KNOW, UM, THE QUESTION ON HOW HISTORIC DISTRICTS WILL, UM, BE INTERPRETED. UM, I WAS LOOKING AT THE SPECIFIC LANGUAGE AND IT SAYS THAT IT'S, IT DOES NOT IMPACT THE CITY'S ABILITY TO [01:40:01] BLAH BLAH REGULATIONS RELATED TO HISTORIC PRESERVATION, INCLUDING PROTECTING HISTORIC LANDLORDS OR PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN HISTORIC DISTRICTS. MM-HMM . SO AS YOU'RE LOOKING AT, AGAIN, IT'S THE DISTRICT AS A WHOLE THAT GETS EVALUATED AND THE REGULATIONS THAT ARE IN PLACE WITHIN OUR CURRENT HISTORIC DISTRICTS, PRESUMABLY FUTURE ONES, IF WE HAVE THEM, THEY'RE ALL GOVERNED BY THOSE HISTORIC REGULATIONS. DO I UNDERSTAND THAT CORRECTLY? SO THIS ONE, LIKE I SAID, WE HAVE, WE HAVE A LOT MORE, UH, WORK TO DO IN THAT REGARD. UM, THE, THE THING THAT CAUGHT MY ATTENTION IN THE WORDING IN THIS BILL WAS, UM, REGULATION OF THE PRESERVATION CRITERIA. SO I THINK IT WOULD, I MEAN, CERTAINLY SOMETIMES THERE ARE, FOR EXAMPLE, I CAN THINK OF, OF AT LEAST ONE HISTORIC DISTRICT THAT INSTEAD OF BEING AN OVERLAY, IT'S ACTUALLY THE PD IS ESSENTIALLY THE, THE HISTORIC ORDINANCE, RIGHT? SO, AND IN THOSE PDS, THERE'S A PRESERVATION SECTION AND THEN THERE'S THE OTHER PART OF THE SECTION THAT ISN'T ACTUALLY PRESERVATION CRITERIA, BUT, UM, ARE MORE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. SO I CAN, I CAN SEE WHERE, UM, I CAN SEE WHERE IT MIGHT BE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. UM, BUT I COULD ALSO SEE, UM, CASES WHERE THAT MIGHT NOT BE THE CASE AND WE JUST, IT'S VERY CASE BY CASE. WELL, AND AGAIN, THIS MAY BE SOMETHING TO VISIT WITH HISTORIC PRESERVATION STAFF AND UNDERSTAND. ABSOLUTELY. 'CAUSE MY, UM, I GUESS UNDERSTANDING HAS BROADLY BEEN THAT THERE'S NO PROHIBITION ON NEW CONSTRUCTION WITHIN, UM, HISTORIC COMMISSIONER TON. YEAH, YOU'RE CORRECT. YOU'RE CORRECT. THAT'S OUR UNDERSTANDING TOO. AND OUR HISTORIC DISTRICT, OUR OVERLAY DISTRICT, THE BASE ZONING APPLY, BUT HISTORIC GUIDELINE, THEY DON'T CALL IT HEIGHT DENSITY. THEY CALL IT, YOU KNOW, MASSING SCALE. ALL OF THOSE GUIDELINE, UH, GUIDELINES DO APPLY. THANK YOU. AND AGAIN, I, I KNOW THERE'LL BE A LOT MORE DETAIL AS THIS STARTS ROLLING OUT. AND THERE'S, UM, SPECIFIC CASES, I HAD SIMILAR QUESTIONS TO COMMISSIONER RUBIN ON SOME OF OUR OTHER, UM, REQUIREMENTS, WHETHER IT BE OPEN SPACE. I KNOW THEY, UM, THERE'S SPECIFIC LANGUAGE ON THE SETBACK, WHICH I UNDERSTAND TO BE THE BUILDING SETBACK. SO IF WE HAD A BUFFER THAT WAS 35 FEET THAT WAS REQUIRED, THAT NOW IS A MAXIMUM OF 25, CORRECT. 'CAUSE OF THE SETBACK REGULATION. UM, BUT I, I THINK MAYBE HAVING A LITTLE BIT MORE CLARITY AS YOU ALL CONTINUE TO, UM, EVALUATE HOW THIS GETS APPLIED. UM, I CAN THINK OF AREAS IN MY DISTRICT WHERE I'VE GOT R SEVEN FIVE DIRECTLY AGAINST REGIONAL RETAIL. I THINK YOU ALREADY COVERED IR, BUT I THINK SOME OF THOSE WILL BE NUANCES THAT MM-HMM . IT WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR COMMUNITIES JUST TO HAVE SOME REFERENCE POINTS ON, ON WHERE THIS MIGHT, WE MIGHT SEE NEW DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES. SO YEAH. AGREED. I THINK THE OPEN SPACE, UM, QUESTION IS A VERY GOOD ONE AND ONE THAT WE'VE NOT FULLY EXPLORED. SO THANK YOU FOR THAT. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. THANK YOU. OKAY. ANY LAST QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, PLEASE. I BELIEVE YOU, UH, WHILE YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT CONVERSIONS OF EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS INTO, UM, MULTIFAMILY OR MIXED USE, YOU TALKED ABOUT, UM, THAT MUNICIPALITIES CANNOT REQUIRE TRAFFICKED IMPACT ANALYSIS, BUT IS THAT CORRECT FOR ALL OF THESE, YOU KNOW, 'CAUSE A LOT OF THE OPPOSITION WE GET TO GOING TO DENSER MULTIFAMILY HAS TO DO WITH, UH, PREDICTIONS THAT THE TRAFFIC IS GOING TO BE UNBEARABLE, BUT THE, UH, THE PROHIBITION ON REQUIRING TIAS IS GOING TO APPLY TO EVERYTHING AFFECTED BY EIGHT 40, NOT JUST OFFICE CONVERSION. IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT. OR AM I MISUNDERSTANDING IT? WELL, I THINK, UM, CONVERSIONS ARE WHERE THIS LANGUAGE SPECIFICALLY MM-HMM . UM, IS IN THE BILL. I THINK THE, THE PROHIBITION HAPPENS INDIRECTLY, UM, IN OTHER SITUATIONS BECAUSE THEY WON'T NEED TO COME TO THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS. SO THERE WON'T BE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR, UM, THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS ITSELF TO INITIATE THAT REQUIREMENT. BUT WHERE, WHERE IT'S IN OUR CODE THAT WE WOULD NORMALLY REQUIRE THAT, UM, WE'RE NOT PROHIBITED FROM REQUIRING THAT AT PERMITTING, IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE DO AS A STANDARD JUST ON THE CONVERSIONS. OKAY. AND, UH, SIMILARLY ON THE AMOUNT OF INFRASTRUCTURE UPGRADES THAT CAN BE REQUIRED, WILL THAT BE SOMETHING THAT THEY WILL HIT AT PERMITTING AS WELL, OR IS THAT, UH, I BELIEVE YOU SAID THEY, WE, THE MUNICIPALITIES CANNOT ALLOW THEM TO, UM, DO MORE THAN JUST THE MINIMUM THAT'S REQUIRED. WE CAN ALLOW THEM TO DO MORE. WE CAN'T REQUIRE THEM TO DO MORE. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UH, COMMISSIONER SAYS GO AHEAD AND, OH, WE DO HAVE A QUESTION, COMMISSIONER [01:45:01] ONLINE. COMMISSIONER HARBERT. AND, AND BEFORE WE, BEFORE WE LEAVE, WE HAVE A, MR. KINGSTON ALSO HAD A QUESTION. UM, YEAH. GO TO YOUR, YOUR FOLLOWING QUESTIONS ON SB EIGHT 40. I'VE GOT TWO CLARIFICATIONS ON 24 I'D LIKE TO MAKE. OKAY. COMMISSIONER HERBERT? YES. SO THERE WAS A MENTION ABOUT ADMINISTRATIVE, UH, APPROVALS. UM, AND I THINK CURRENTLY WHEN WE GET DEVELOPMENT PLANS, I THINK WE'RE TOLD THIS IS ADMINISTRATIVE, YOU HAVE TO KIND OF PASS IT. UM, CAN YOU GO BACK AND KIND OF TALK ABOUT THAT SPECIFICALLY ON HOW, UH, DEVELOPMENT PLANS WILL COME TO US NOW, OR IF THEY'LL COME TO US AT ALL, AND HOW THAT SEPARATES FROM HOW WE HANDLE THEM TODAY VERSUS HOW WE'LL HANDLE THEM AFTER SEPTEMBER? UH, CERTAINLY. UM, SO WHEN THEY COME TO YOU TODAY, THEY ARE A MINISTERIAL APPROVAL, MEANING YOU'RE REQUIRED TO APPROVE IF IT COMPLIES WITH THE REGULATIONS OF THIS, THE UNDERLYING ZONING. UM, WHAT THE STATE BILL IS REFERRING TO HERE IN TERMS OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL IS, IS IN LINE WITH WHAT WE CURRENTLY, UM, SEE AS A DIRECTOR APPROVAL. SO APPROVING SOMETHING ADMINISTRATIVELY MEANS IT'S GOING TO BE APPROVED AT THE STAFF LEVEL. UM, SO IF WE HAVE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT PLANS OR EXISTING SUP SITE PLANS, ANYTHING, UM, WE CANNOT REQUIRE THEM TO COME BACK, UH, TO CPC, UM, AND DO ANY SORT OF APPROVAL PROCESS BEYOND A STAFF LEVEL APPROVAL IF THEY WANT TO ADD MULTIFAMILY OR MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS. OKAY. AND, UM, ANOTHER QUESTION, I KNOW THERE'S SOME CLARIFICATIONS MICHAEL WANTS TO GIVE, BUT ON, UM, THE OTHER DEAL, I THINK YOU TALKED ABOUT, UH, I JUST LOST MY THOUGHT. I'LL LET MICHAEL GIVE THE ANSWERS. OH, AND MELISSA, HER COMMENTS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. PEPE, MS. COMMISSIONER KINGSTON HAD A QUESTION, PLEASE. OH, COMMISSIONER KINGSTON, PLEASE. THANK YOU. I WAS CURIOUS IF STAFF SAW ANY EXAMPLES OF WHERE WE WOULD STILL SEE ZONING CASES IN SPITE OF THESE TWO BILLS WHERE WE WOULD SEE ZONING CASES. YEAH. WHERE EXAMPLES, YOU GAVE A LOT OF EXAMPLES WHERE WE NO LONGER SEE ZONING CASES. HAVE YOU THOUGHT THROUGH EXAMPLES OF WHERE WE WOULD LIKELY STILL SEE ZONING CASES? YEAH, I, I SUPPOSE, UM, SITUATIONS WHERE, UM, YOU WANTED ADDITIONAL HEIGHTS BEYOND WHAT IS CURRENTLY ALLOWED AT THE LOCATION. UM, RIGHT. THAT'S AN EASY ONE. WHAT, WHAT OTHER EXAMPLES HAVE YOU THOUGHT ABOUT? WHAT OTHER THINGS SHOULD WE BE LOOKING AT OR LOOKING FOR WITH RESPECT TO THESE TWO DEVELOPMENT TYPES? UM, WE DO NOT HAVE AN EXHAUSTIVE LIST OR EVEN A, A USEFUL LIST AT THIS POINT, BUT WE CAN, UM, CONTINUE TO BRIEF AND GIVE GUIDANCE ON THAT. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. PIVOT. OKAY. MY, MY QUICK CLARIFICATIONS ON HB 24 IS, YES. SO BECAUSE THE BILL REPEALED SECTION 2 11 0 0 6 F, THAT'S THE SECTION THAT ENABLES CITIES TO, UM, REQUIRES SUPER MAJORITY WHEN THE COMMISSION HAS MADE A DENIAL THAT'S REPEALED. SO IF, IF THIS BODY RECOMMENDS A, A DENIAL, THEY STILL HAVE TO APPEAL, THEY STILL HAVE TO PAY THE APPEAL FEE, UM, AND SOME OF THE OTHER PAPERWORK THAT GOES INTO THAT, BUT THEN THEY STILL GO TO COUNCIL WITH THE SAME VOTE THRESHOLD AS, AS IF THEY WERE AN APPROVAL BY CPC. SO THAT'S ONE, UM, PROCEDURAL CLARIFICATION THAT WE GOT WITH SOME DISCUSSION. AND THEN THE LAST PART OF THE BILL ALSO SAYS THAT THAT APPLIES TO ZONING CHANGES SUBMITTED AFTER SEPTEMBER ONE. SO, UH, IT SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE GONNA CONTINUE TO PROCESS OUR EVERY CASE WE'VE GOT IN THE SYSTEM FOR NOW THROUGH THE OLD RULES OF 20% DENIALS, THOSE KINDS OF THINGS FOR HP 24 PURPOSES. EXCELLENT. THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION. COMMISSIONERS. UH, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A QUICK BREAK. THANK YOU FOR THE, THE PRESENTATION. UH, I'M ASSUMING THAT THIS YOUR, UH, DRAFT WILL BE POSTED TO THE MEETING SECTION OF OUR WEBSITE FOR ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC TO DOWNLOAD. IT SHOULD BE WITHIN THE NEXT TWO WEEKS. PERFECT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UH, LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT COMMISSIONER DUBINSKY HAS JOINED US. GOOD TO SEE YOU, SIR. GLAD TO LET YOU OUT OF THE AIRPLANE. UH, COMMISSIONERS, LET'S TAKE A QUICK 10 MINUTE BREAK AT 10:56 AM WE DO HAVE EIGHT. IT IS [01:50:01] 1110. WE'RE BACK ON THE RECORD. COMMISSIONERS, UH, WE'RE GONNA BRIEF THE CASES, UH, WE'RE GONNA BEGIN WITH THE D 11 CASES AND THEN GO TO THE 14, AND THEN WE'LL GET BACK IN ORDER. WE ARE GONNA BRIEF PER REQUEST, SO DO WE DISTRICT 11? YEAH. NOT CASE 11. DISTRICT 11. WE'LL BRIEF THOSE FIRST, THEN DISTRICT 14, AND THEN WE'LL GET BACK AN ORDER. UM, SO LET'S BEGIN. DO, DO WE NEED NUMBER FOUR BRIEFED? COMMISSIONER SIMS, WOULD YOU OH, YOU DO NOT, MR. NO, NO. MR. CHAIRMAN, YOU DO NOT BRIEF. OKAY. ANYBODY LIKE IT BRIEFED? OKAY. SO WE'LL GO TO NUMBER EIGHT. COMMISSIONER SIMS, WOULD YOU LIKE THAT ONE BRIEFED? UH, NO. NO. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. THANK YOU, SIR. AND THEN WE HAVE, UH, NUMBER 12. WOULD YOU LIKE THAT ONE BRIEFED? YES, PLEASE. OKAY. LET'S, LET'S DO NUMBER 12. LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT COMMISSIONER KINGSTON HAS A CONFLICT ON THIS ITEM AND IS LOGGING OFF. LET'S WAIT ONE SECOND. OKAY. SHE IS OFF. WE'LL BEGIN WITH NUMBER 12, PLEASE. GOOD MORNING, CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS. LET ME GET THIS ONE UP AND RUNNING. ALL RIGHT, GOOD MORNING. AGAIN, THIS IS Z 2 45 DASH 27. UM, ALSO THE NEW DALLAS NOW NUMBER IS Z 25,000,027. IT'S AN APPLICATION FOR A AMENDMENT TO A DEVELOPMENT AND LANDSCAPE PLAN PLAN ON PROPERTY ZONE SUB DISTRICT C WITHIN PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 3 81. IT'S LOCATED ON THE NORTH LINE OF FOREST LANE BETWEEN HILLCREST ROAD AND PARK CENTRAL DRIVE. IT'S APPROXIMATELY 1920, APPROXIMATELY 20 ACRES. IT'S IN COUNCIL DISTRICT 11. HERE'S THE LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS. HERE'S REQUESTS IN DETAIL. UH, THE PURPOSE OF THIS REQUEST IS TO ALLOW FOR CONSTRUCTION OF SINGLE FAMILY LOTS CONVERSION OF A EXISTING BUILDING OFFICE BUILDING INTO A FOUR STORY PARKING GARAGE, AND TO RECONFIGURE THE SURFACE PARK INTO THE NORTHEAST AND EAST OF THE SITE. THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY DEVELOPED AS WITH SURFACE PARKING, A SURFACE PARKING LOT, AND TWO OFFICE BUILDINGS. HERE'S SOME DETAILS ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN REQUIREMENTS IS LAID OUT IN THE PD, SORRY, I'M DEALING WITH A LITTLE SINUS RIGHT NOW. UM, THIS IS NOT A REQUEST FOR A CHANGE IN ZONING OF THE DEVELOP OF THE PROPERTY, HOWEVER, THE PROPOSED CHANGE TO THE DEVELOPMENT LANDSCAPE PLAN DOES NOT MEET THE CRITERIA TO BE CONSIDERED AS A MINOR AMENDMENT. SO PER PD 3 81 AUTHOR, AUTHORIZATION, AUTHOR AUTHORIZATION, AUTHORIZED CITY PLAN COMMISSION TO BE THE FINAL APPRO BODY FOR PLAN ONLY AMENDMENTS, UM, CITY PLAN COMMISSION MAY REQUIRE CHANGES TO THE PROPOSED PLANS, PROVIDED THESE CHANGES DO NOT REQUIRE ANY AMENDMENTS TO THE TEXT OF THE ORDINANCE. HERE IS THE AREA VIEW OF THE PROPERTY SHOWN IN RED. UM, AS I STATED EARLIER, THERE ARE SURFACE PARKING AROUND THE PROPERTY, AND THEN TWO OFFICE BUILDINGS HERE. AND I THINK THIS IS JUST A LITTLE STORAGE SHED. HERE'S THE ZONING MAP, SHOWING THE PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING THE PROPERTY IS ALSO OF SITES. THAT'S IN PD 3 81. AND ALL THESE SITES ARE RESIDENTIAL, UM, HOMES, RESIDENTIAL LOTS. HERE'S SOME SITE PHOTOS. UM, THIS IS LOOKING NORTHWEST. THIS IS LOOKING WEST OF THE EXISTING SURFACE PARKING. [01:55:01] THIS IS LOOKING WEST TOO. THIS IS LOOKING SOUTHEAST. UM, THIS IS LOOKING SOUTH. THIS IS LOOKING SOUTH. THIS IS ALSO LOOKING SOUTHEAST, SOUTHWEST. HERE'S THE EXISTING CONCEPTUAL PLAN, UM, IN THE PD THAT CALLS OUT, UM, THE DIFFERENT DISTRICTS. AND FOR THIS DISTRICT, IT'S SUB AREA C, WHICH ALSO ALLOWS FOR COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL USES. SO HERE IT SAYS RIGHT HERE TO APPLY FOR EQUITABLE REG REGULATIONS THAT NOT EXIST IN THE ARTICLE. UM, FOLLOW THE 51 A DISTRICT, UH, REGULATIONS APPLIED. SO FOR SUB AREA C, WE HAVE COMMERCIAL THAT GOES TO MU THREE, AND THEN ALSO FOR RESIDENTIAL, IT GOES TO TH TWO. HERE IS THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT PLAN SHOWING THE TWO OFFICE BUILDINGS WITH THE SURFACE PARKING. HERE'S AN ENLARGEMENT OF THAT PLAN. HERE IS THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PLAN THAT IS NOW SHOWING RESIDENTIAL LOTS TO THE WEST, NORTH AND SOUTHWEST, AND THEN ALSO TO THE SOUTHEAST OF THE PROPERTY'S KIND OF A L SHAPE. UM, HERE'S AN ENLARGEMENT TO SHOW BETTER. SO ALL THESE WOULD BE RESIDENTIAL LOTS. UM, HERE. AND THEN THIS OFFICE BUILDING TO THE NORTH, THEY'RE GONNA CONVERT THAT INTO A FOUR STORY PARKING GARAGE TO, UM, TO, UM, SO THEY, THEY'RE LOSING PARKING BY PUTTING THE RESIDENTIAL LOT. SO THEY'RE GONNA GO IN AND ADD THAT PARKING, PARKING HERE, THEN ADD PARKING ALSO TO THE NORTHEAST OF THE SITE. HERE IS THE LANDSCAPE PLAN AND THE LANDSCAPE PLAN. THEY DID MULTIPLE, THEY DID A COMMERCIAL AND THEN ALSO A RESIDENTIAL. SO I'LL JUST GO THROUGH THESE. THIS IS THE RESIDENTIAL LANDSCAPE, AND IT'S BASICALLY JUST SHOWING THE SITES AND REQUIREMENTS FOR, UM, TREES ON THOSE INDIVIDUAL RESIDENTIAL LOTS. UM, FOR, I'M SORRY, THIS SLIDE SHOULD HAVE BEEN THE, FOR DALLAS, UM, PLACE TYPE. SO THIS IS IN A COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL, WHICH ALLOWS FOR SINGLE FAMILY DETACH OR ATTACH, UM, UNITS. STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL OF THE AMENDED DEVELOPMENT AND LANDSCAPE PLAN. AND THIS CONCLUDES THIS PRESENTATION. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS. COMMISSIONER SIM PLEASE. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. MS. BLUE, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THIS. I, I KNOW THAT, UH, WE BOTH HEARD FROM THE NEIGHBORS REGARDING THIS. ARE YOU ALSO AWARE THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION SENT A MEMO TO THE COMMISSION, UH, IN SUPPORT OF THIS CHANGE? UM, YES, SIR. I BELIEVE I WAS CCD ON THE EMAIL. YEAH. AND, AND ARE YOU ALSO AWARE THAT WE RECEIVED AN EMAIL YESTERDAY FROM A, UH, ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE OF THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION THAT IS WORKING CLOSELY WITH THE DEVELOPER TO ADDRESS CONCERNS REGARDING THE PARKING GARAGE? UM, YES, SIR. IF IT WAS, UH, DISPERSED OUT TO THE COMMISSION, THEN I BELIEVE I WAS CC'D ON THAT EMAIL AS WELL. GREAT. THANK YOU, MS. WOOD. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS. MA, MR. CHAIRMAN? THANK YOU, SIR. YES, SIR. COMMISSIONER SLEEPER, DID I UNDERSTAND YOU SAY THAT THERE CONVERTING, UH, Y'ALL OLD EDS OFFICE BUILDING INTO A PARKING GARAGE? YES, SIR. IT IS MY, WITH MY KNOWLEDGE, I BELIEVE THEY'RE GONNA KEEP THE STRUCTURE AND GUT THE STRUCTURE AND THEN, UH, PUT THE PARKING, UM, STRUCTURE COULD DO A PARKING STRUCTURE WITHIN THAT BUILDING. THAT'S A, THAT'S AN UNUSUAL CONVERSION. I'M JUST, UM, UH, I I'D LOVE TO SEE HOW THEY'RE GONNA DO IT. I HAVE NO OBJECTION. I'M JUST, I'M JUST, THAT'S A NOT SOMETHING WE OFTEN SEE. YES, SIR. I DON'T THINK I'VE EVER SEEN IT. IN FACT, THE, THE ENGINEERING WOULD, UH, IT'S GONNA BE, THAT WOULD ALLOW, BUT IT'S GONNA BE INTERESTING. AND SO THE, WERE YOU FINISHED COMMISSIONER SLEEPER? JUST A QUICK FOLLOW UP. UH, SO I'M THINKING BACK AT THIS PROPERTY, MAYBE FIVE, SIX YEARS AGO, THERE WAS ANOTHER ZONING CASE. UH, AND, AND NOW THIS ONE IS DIFFERENT. UH, THEY'RE ASKING FOR DIFFERENT THINGS. AND SO I'M, I'M INTERESTED ABOUT THE WHY ARE, WHY DO WE NEED, WHY ARE, DO THEY NEED TO DO THE CONVERSION OF THE BUILDING? I, I THINK I UNDERSTAND WHY, BUT I'M INTERESTED IN WHY DO THEY NEED TO ADD PARKING INSIDE OF A BUILDING? UM, I DO BELIEVE THEY'RE ADDING THE PARKING TO ACCOMMODATE FROM THE PARKING THAT THEY'RE LOSING FOR THE SURFACE PARKING. YEAH. UM, EVEN THOUGH WE HAVE THE PARKING REFORM WITH DALLAS, THAT OFFICE BUILDING, I THINKING THAT THERE'S STILL PEOPLE THAT OCCUPY THAT. AND SO THEY NEED PLACES TO PARK. PERFECT. UM, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, [02:00:03] MS. BLUE, WE GOT SOME, UM, BALLOTS, OR I SAW THEM LAST NIGHT WHEN THE BALLOTS WERE DISTRIBUTED TO THE, UM, PLAN COMMISSION, UM, EXPRESSING SOME CONCERN ABOUT THE EFFECT OF, UM, CARS PARKING ON THE ROOF ON THE, UM, ADJOINING RESIDENTIAL AREAS. DO YOU KNOW IF THERE'S ANY STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS HERE THAT ARE GOING TO SCREEN, UM, LIGHTS FROM THE CARS? UM, THAT WOULD PROBABLY BE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT. OKAY. BUT I'M QUITE SURE THERE'S A PARA PITT WALL OR SOME KIND OF WALL THAT WILL ALLOW THE CAR NOT TO ROLL OFF, UM, THE STRUCTURE. SO I'M QUITE SURE THERE'S SOME KIND OF BARRIER THAT'S GOING TO, UM, BLOCK THAT LIGHTING. OKAY. I, I REALIZE THIS IS A CONVERSION, AS MR. COMMISSIONER SLEEPER SAID, AN UNUSUAL CONVERSION OF AN OFFICE BUILDING DURING A GARAGE, BECAUSE I KNOW THERE WERE CONCERNS ABOUT EXTERIOR RAMPS, BUT I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU WOULD ACCESS THE BUILDING WITHOUT HAVING EXTERIOR RAMPS. BUT I, I CAN ASK THESE QUESTIONS AT THE YES MA'AM. HEARING. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER HALL. UM, COMMISSIONER, JUST FYI, THEY'RE BUILDING A ROUGHLY A SIX AND A HALF FOOT WALL ON THE TOP TO SCREEN. THE CARS WILL PARK ON THE ROOF WITHIN THAT WALL. SO APPARENTLY THE CONCEPT IS THEY WON'T BE VISIBLE FROM, UH, FROM THE COMMU NEARBY COMMUNITY. UH, MS. BLUE, THERE'S, THERE'S TWO BUILDINGS. ONE'S GONNA BE CONVERTED, THE OTHER ONE WILL REMAIN AN OFFICE BUILDING. YES, SIR. UH, AND DO YOU KNOW, UH, WHAT 112 HOMES ARE GONNA BE BUILT? UH, HERE? DO YOU KNOW THE NATURE OF THOSE HOMES? ARE THEY ZERO LOT SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED? ARE THEY TOWN HOMES? WHAT, WHAT, WHAT ARE THEY? UM, FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, UM, BUT THIS COULD BE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT TOO, TO CONFIRM. UM, I THINK ALONG THIS BOUNDARY, I CAN FIND MY MOUSE TO THE WEST HERE. IT'S GONNA BE SINGLE FAMILY, AND I THINK THE SMALLER LOTS TO THE SOUTHEAST ARE GOING TO BE ATTACHED. SINGLE FAMILY. UM, THEY'RE GONNA BE SINGLE FAMILY. 'CAUSE THEY'RE INDIVIDUAL LOTS, BUT THEY'RE ATTACHED. THEY'RE ATTACHED. OKAY. DO YOU KNOW ROUGHLY THE LOT SIZES ON THE, ON THE WEST? UM, NO, NOT OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD. UM, I DID DO THE CALCULATIONS, UM, WITH PHIL, BUT I DON'T KNOW OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD. UM, WE CAN ASK THE APPLICANT YES. THIS AFTERNOON. ALRIGHT. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONERS? OKAY. WE'LL MOVE TO, UH, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALRIGHT. THANK YOU. UH, LET'S SEE. WE WILL GO TO THE D 14 CASES. WE WILL LET, UH, COMMISSIONER KINGSTON SIGN BACK ON. I THINK IT'S JUST ONE. YEAH. OKAY. SHE'S BACK ONLINE. WE'LL GO TO CASE NUMBER, WHAT WAS IT? 22. CASE 22. AND THEN THERE'S ALSO THE SIGN ORDINANCE. OKAY. LET'S DO THAT. LET'S DO 22. DO WE NEED A BRIEFED? I DON'T. DID YOU, DID YOU SAY YES OR NO? COMMISSIONER KINGSTON? NO. OKAY. I PERSONALLY DON'T. OKAY. ANYBODY ELSE NEED A BRIEFED? OKAY. HOW ABOUT NUMBER 20, THE ASSIGNED? DO WE NEED THAT ONE BRIEF? YES. YES. OKAY. WE DO HAVE A REQUEST TO BRIEF THAT ONE. SO LET'S BRIEF THAT. THIS IS NUMBER 26, MR. AGUILERA. GOOD. UH, MORNING, UH, MR. CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION. MY NAME IS, UH, OSCAR GUERRA. I'M A SENIOR PLANNER [02:05:01] NOW WORKING WITH THE SCIENCE, UH, SCIENCE, UH, TEAM. UH, TODAY WE HAVE, UH, APPLICATION, UH, SPSD 180 9 DASH ZERO 10. UH, THIS RE BEAR WITH ME, I'M SORRY. THIS, UH, REQUESTS, REQUESTS AIMED TO, UH, CONSIDER REVISIONS TO THE SIGN REGULATIONS TO PROVIDE A MORE UNIFORM SET OF SIGN REGULATIONS FOR AN EXPANDED AREA. THE PROPOSAL WILL REVISE ADMIN AND EXPAND DESIGN REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO THE ARTS DISTRICT SPSD, UH, REPLACING THE CURRENT ART DISTRICT EXTENSION AREA, SPSD, THE CHASE, UH, TOWER SUB-DISTRICT, AND A PORTION OF THE GENERAL CBD SUB-DISTRICT WITHIN THE DOWNTOWN SPSD. UH, BEAR WITH ME. SO THIS IS, UH, THE APPROXIMATELY, UH, LOCATION OF, UH, THE PROPOSED, UH, AMENDMENT, WHICH, UH, IS SHOWN BY THE ARROW, WHICH IS, UH, IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA. AND, UH, WHAT YOU SEE HERE IS, UH, WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED. SO, PD ONE, UH, 45 AND PD 7 0 8, UH, RECENTLY, UH, WERE AMENDED. AND, UH, WHAT THE ARTS, UH, DISTRICT, UH, STAKEHOLDERS, THEY ONE INCLUDE THESE SECTIONS ALL TOGETHER. SO THIS IS WHAT YOU ARE CURRENTLY SEEING. THE ART DISTRICT SIGN DISTRICT IS THAT, UH, THIS SQUARE AREA, I DON'T KNOW IF, CAN YOU SEE MY, MY MOUSE? AND THEN THE ARTS, UH, DISTRICT EXTENSION AREA. AND THEN THERE'S A PORTION OF THE DOWNTOWN SPSD TO THE SOUTH, UH, UM, EAST, AND THEN THE CHASE SUB-DISTRICT, AND THEN ANOTHER PORTION OF THE DOWNTOWN, UH, SPSD, UH, CBD. SO ON JULY, UH, SIX, 2023, THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AUTHORIZED A PUBLIC HEARING TO AMEND THE DECEMBER 13TH, 2008. SO THIS, UH, APPLICATION HAS BEEN, UH, UH, ACTIVE, UH, SINCE, UH, DECEMBER OF 2018. AND THE REASON WHY IT WAS AMENDED ON JULY SIX, TWO TH 2023 IS BECAUSE THERE WAS A, UH, AND UPDATED FOR THE ART DISTRICT, UH, MASTER PLAN. AND THERE'S ALSO SOME, UH, AREAS THAT, THAT IS NOT, UH, FUNCTIONING PROPERLY. LIKE, UH, SOME OF THE SIGN REQUIREMENTS ARE TOO STRICT. THE ARTS DISTRICT HAS THE, UH, SEVERAL, UH, SUB-DISTRICT A, B, AND C, AND THAT'S CREATING SOME, UH, ISSUES. AND ALSO CURRENTLY THE, THE ARTS, UH, DISTRICT AND, AND THE EXPANDED AREA, UH, THEY WILL NOT BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE CURRENT, UH, APPROVE, UH, MASTER PLAN FOR THE AREA. UH, HERE IS, UH, HERE IS THE MASTER PLAN THAT, UH, IS CURRENTLY, UH, UH, OR WAS APPROVED. AS YOU CAN SEE, THE HASH AREA ON THE, ON THE MASTER PLAN. THAT IS WHAT IS GOING TO BE INCORPORATED ALL INTO THE SPSD, WHICH IS ALSO COMPARABLE WITH THE AMENDMENTS THAT HAPPEN FOR THE PDS, UH, IN THIS, UH, IN THIS AREA. SO THE, THE ANALYSIS OF STUFF, IF, UH, IF YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THE HIGHLIGHTED AREA, THIS, UH, DISTRICT IS, UH, AN ECONOMIC, UH, UH, IT BRINGS ECONOMY PROSPERITY TO, TO THE CITY JUST FROM, FROM THE ART DISTRICT AND, UH, THE STAKEHOLDERS. THEY WANNA KEEP THAT AND ALSO MAKE IT, UH, BETTER. UH, FOR EXAMPLE, THERE'S SOME, UH, RESTAURANTS AND, UH, SOME OTHER BUSINESS THAT THE CURRENT, UH, UH, CODE MAY NOT ALLOW THEM TO DO THE SIGN. AND, UH, THESE, UH, UH, PROPOSAL WILL, WILL ALLOW THAT, UM, AS WELL. SO HERE IS THE CURRENT, UM, UM, BUSINESS, WHICH, UH, IT ALSO INCLUDES THE, THE MUSEUMS, UH, THE CATHEDRAL, [02:10:01] UH, THE PROPOSAL AMENDMENT HAVE BEEN FORMULATED WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE ART DISTRICT COMMITTEE AND THE STAKEHOLDERS. AS I WAS STATED BEFORE. UH, THIS COLLABORATIVE APPROACH ENSURES THAT THE PROPOSED, THE, THE PROPOSAL TO INTEGRATE THE ARTS DISTRICT EXTENSION AREA, SIGN DISTRICT, AND A PORTION OF THE DOWNTOWN SPECIAL PROVISION SIGN DISTRICT THAT INCLUDES, UM, ALL THE CHASE TOWER SUB-DISTRICT AND A PORTION OF THE GENERAL CBD SUB-DISTRICT INTO THE ARTS, UH, DISTRICT SIGN DISTRICT ALIGNED WITH THE MASTER PLAN VISION FOR SIGNAGE. THE EXPANSION INCLUDES, UH, CONSIDERATION OF APPROPRIATE SIGNAGE AND, UH, DECISION IS MADE WITH AN INPUT AND FEEDBACK FROM ALL THE INVOLVED PARTIES. UH, THIS INCLUDES THE PROCESS, UH, MAKES EVERYONE INVOLVED, FEEL VALUE AND, AND INTEGRAL TO THE DISTRICT'S, UH, FUTURE. UM, HERE IS THE CONNECT MASTER PLAN. IT SHOWS SOME PRIORITIES THAT THEY WANT TO ACHIEVE IN RELEVANCE TO, UH, UH, UH, TO HAVE LIKE A GATEWAY BETWEEN DOWNTOWN AND THE ART DISTRICT, AND TO BRING, UH, UH, PEOPLE AND MORE TRAFFIC, UH, INTO THE AREA. THIS IS, UH, THE ART DISTRICT, WHAT IT WAS, UH, WHAT IS CURRENTLY ALLOWED, IF YOU SEE THE, UH, IF YOU SEE THE TABLE, IT HAS THE ART DISTRICT, THE ART DISTRICT, UH, EXTENSION, THE DOWNTOWN, UH, CBD SUBDISTRICT, THE DOWNTOWN CHASE TOWER. AND, UH, PROPOSED OUR DISTRICT, UH, EXPANSION. SO, FOR EXAMPLE, DIGITAL DISPLAY WILL BE, IS CURRENTLY ALLOWED IN, UH, DOWNTOWN CBD IS ALLOWED WITH AN SUP. THE DOWNTOWN CHASE, UH, TOWER IS ALLOWED AS WELL WITH AN SUP. AND THEN, UH, WITH THE PROPOSED, UH, ART DISTRICT, UH, UM, UH, EXPANSION IS ALLOWED WITH, UH, WITH CONDITIONS. SO THE ART DISTRICT WILL, WILL INTEGRATE ALL THESE, UH, SIGNS AND, UH, AND ALLOW OR DISALLOW, FOR EXAMPLE, CURRENTLY THE GATEWAY, UH, ATTACH A PERMIT SIGN IS, UH, UH, PROHIBITED. BUT BECAUSE WE'RE INTEGRATING THE CHASE TOWER INTO IT, AND CURRENTLY IT HAS ONE THAT WILL BE NOW ALLOWED TO COMPLY WITH THAT, BUT ONLY IN THAT, UH, UH, SITE. UH, AND THEN, UM, I WOULD LIKE TO, UH, UH, ADVISE THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION THAT THESE, UH, CONDITIONS THAT ARE, THAT, UH, YOU'RE CURRENTLY SEEING, IT WAS NOT, UH, ADDRESSED DURING THE SIGN DISTRICT. UM, PUBLIC HEARING AND STAFF MAKE THESE RECOMMENDATIONS. AS I STATED, THAT GATEWAY SIGN, UM, WILL BE INCLUDED TO, UM, TO ALLOW THE CURRENT, UH, SIGNAGE FOR THE CHASE TOWER. AND THEN, UH, AS WELL AS, UH, STAFF RECOMMENDATION, A STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND ALLOWING A NON-PREMISE MESSAGE ON A CONSTRUCTION BARRICADE SIGN. UH, PROPOSING SUB, UH, PARAGRAPH E TWO. UH, HERE ARE MORE, UH, STAFF, UH, RECOMMENDATIONS THAT ARE INCLUDED ON, ON THE REPORT, UH, FOR PRIVITY. I WILL JUST MENTION, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE LET ME KNOW, AND I WILL ANSWER TO THE BEST OF MY ABILITY. AND THEN THIS IS THE SIGNAGE, UH, EXAMPLES FOR THE PUBLIC. SO THERE'S A TOUCH, A DIGITAL SIGN, UH, UH, DISPLAYED. UH, IT SHOWS THE, THE PLAZA. THIS IS, UH, CURRENTLY NOT ALLOWED, UH, IN, UH, OR IN THIS DISTRICT, BUT IT IS ALLOWED IN, UH, DOWNTOWN. AND THEN THERE'S THE DETACH, UH, DIGITAL DISPLAY SIGN. THIS IS, UH, UH, CURRENTLY ALLOWED. AND, UH, THE CODE WILL INCLUDE THESE SIGNS TO, TO MEET, UH, UH, OR TO CORRELATE WHAT IS CURRENTLY THERE. THESE ARE SOME, UH, PLA UH, PLAQUES, UH, SIGNAGE THAT, UH, RIGHT HERE IS THE, THE UNITED, UH, CENTER. AND THEN THIS IS AT THE CITY HALL, UH, FROM, FROM ANOTHER, UH, MUNICIPALITY. I'M JUST USING IT AS AN EXAMPLE. HERE IS THE CULTURAL INSTITUTION SIGNAGE THAT, UH, CURRENTLY IS AT THE ARTS. UH, THE CROWN MUSEUM OF ASIAN ARTS. AND THEN THE NA, UH, NATURE, UH, CENTER. HERE IS SOME OTHER, UH, [02:15:01] UH, FACET MOUNTAIN BANNER SIGNS THAT ARE CURRENTLY, UH, AT THE MUSEUM. AND THEN THESE ARE SOME, UH, DISTRICT ACTIVITY SIGNS, UH, AS WELL THAT ARE CURRENTLY ALLOWED. THESE ARE OWNING SIGNS. AND THEN THESE ARE TENANT IDENTITY SIGNS. AND THEN THESE ARE DISTRICT IDENTIFICATION SIGNS, AND THEN FAT ATTACHED SIGNS THAT, UH, ARE SHOWN AS THE HILTON, UH, SECURITIES. AND THEN THE, UH, NEWSPAPER, DALLAS NEWSPAPER, AND AS WELL AS THE CHASE, UH, UH, BANK. THEN THESE ARE MARK, UH, MARKET SIGNS. I USE EXAMPLES FROM, FROM OTHER LOCALITIES AS, UH, YOU CAN SEE. AND THEN THESE ARE, UH, PROJECTING SIGNS, CANOPY SIGNS. THESE ARE INTEGRATED SIGNS. UH, THE MCDONALD'S SIGNS ARE CURRENTLY IN DOWNTOWN, UH, NOT TOO FAR FROM HERE. AND THEN THAT, UH, HOTEL IS, UH, THE IRAQ, UH, HOTEL IN, UH, LAS VEGAS. AND THEN, UM, YOU HAVE SOME WINDOW SIGNS THAT ARE, UH, CURRENTLY ALLOWED. AND THEN THESE ARE THE CONSTRUCTION BARRICADE SIGNS. THESE ARE MONUMENT SIGNS. THESE ARE RETAINING WALL SIGNS. THESE ARE, UH, FREESTANDING DISTRICT IDENTIFICATION SIGNS. I BROUGHT THAT EXAMPLE OF THE DEEP ALBUM, UH, IDENTIFICATION SIGNS, AND THEN I KIND OF MADE A COPY OF, OF THAT TO REFLECT THE DALLAS ART DISTRICT IF THEY WISH TO DO SOMETHING SIMILAR. SO, IN CONCLUSION, THIS PROPOSAL WILL ENHANCE THE IMAGE AND, UH, LIVE, LIVE OF THE ART DISTRICT VIA, UM, ENCOURAGING ARTISTIC YET FUNCTIONAL AND, UH, INFORMATIVE SIGNS. IT WILL PROMOTE THE COMMERCIAL SUCCESS OF EACH TENANT IN THE ART DISTRICT, AND IN TURN, THE COLLECTIVE, UH, COMMERCIAL SUCCESS OF ALL TENANTS IN THE DISTRICT. IT CREATES A SENSE OF DESIGN COMMUNITY BETWEEN SIGNS AND THE OTHER, UH, SCAPE ELEMENTS OF THE ART DISTRICT. IT WILL MAKE THE ART DISTRICT AN ATTRACTIVE, UH, PLACE FOR THE PUBLIC TO FREQUENT. BY PROVIDING, UH, EASY DIRECTIONS TO SPECIFIC CULTURAL INSTITUTIONS, IT WILL CREATE A MEANS OF IDENTIFYING, UH, THE VARIOUS TYPES OF CATEGORIES OF RETAIL ESTABLISHMENT ALONG FLORAL STREET AND ROSE, UH, AVENUE. IT WILL, UH, IDENTIFY AND PROMOTE CULTURAL EVENTS AND ACTIVITIES THAT ALIGN WITH THE, UH, ARTS DISTRICT'S PURPOSE, THEREBY CREATING A, UH, VIBRANT AND ENGAGING CULTURAL SCENE. IT WILL RECOGNIZE THAT, UH, SIGN HARDWARE IS PART OF THE OVERALL VISUAL DESIGN OF, UH, OF A SIGN. AND, UH, IT WILL ENSURE THAT, UH, INVESTMENT IN, UH, SCIENCE AND OTHER STRUCTURES IN THE ART DISTRICT ARE NOT, UH, THE VALUE BY IN, IN APPROPRIATE OR POOR QUALITY SIGN HARDWARE. FINALLY, THE PROPOSED, UH, CONDITIONS WILL PREVENT HAZARDS OR ANNOYANCES TO MOTORISTS AND PEDESTRIANS AND WILL NOT, UH, CONTROVERT THE INTENT OF SECTION 51 A 7.5 HUNDRED. THEREFORE, STAFF RECOMMENDS, UH, APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT AND EXTENSION OF THE ART DISTRICT, SCIENCE DISTRICT, UM, A PROPOSAL THAT, UH, THAT, UH, PREMISES, UH, AN EXCITING AND ENGAGING CULTURAL EXPERIENCE FOR ALL THE STAKEHOLDERS. AND THEN, UH, UM, THE S-S-D-A-C AND THE A-D-S-A-C RECOMMENDED, UH, APPROVAL TO REPEAL PORTION OF THE DOWNTOWN SPSD LIMITED TO THE CHASE TOWER SUB-DISTRICT TO REPEAL THE ART DISTRICT EXTENSION AREA, SPSD, AND, UH, APPROVE THE SDAC AND A DAC RECOMMEND RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS, UH, TO, TO AN EXPANSION OF THE R DISTRICT, UH, SPSD. ANY QUESTIONS? THANK YOU VERY MUCH. COMMISSIONER CARPENTER. YES, I SEE THAT THE, UM, THE PROPOSAL IS TO INCLUDE PART OF THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT AND THIS EXPANSION EX SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITS SUPER GRAPHICS, UH, WHICH WERE PREVIOUS, WHICH WERE ALLOWED IN THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT. ARE THERE ANY EXISTING SUPER GRAPHIC SIGNS IN THIS AREA THAT'S NOW GOING TO BE WRITTEN INTO THE ARTS DISTRICT SIGNAGE DISTRICT? UH, NO COMMISSIONER. OKAY. THERE AREN'T ANY. OKAY. THANK YOU. UM, ANOTHER QUESTION I HAVE IS ABOUT KIOSKS, BECAUSE IT SEEMS THAT [02:20:01] IT'S FAIRLY EXPLICITLY WRITTEN INTO THE ORDINANCE THAT KIOSKS BE PROHIBITED, BUT STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT THEY NOT, UH, THAT, THAT BE STRUCK BECAUSE, UM, IT SAYS THAT THESE TYPES OF NON-PREMISE SIGNS ADS ARE NOT EXCLUDED PER TEXAS STATUTE AND FEDERAL LAW. SO, IS THIS AN EXAMPLE OF, I THINK WHAT WE'RE CALLING DEATH STAR, WHERE WE CAN'T, THE MUNICIPALITIES CANNOT WRITE A MORE RESTRICTIVE ORDINANCE THAN STATE LAW REQUIRES? SO WHEN, UM, WHEN WE HAD THE STAKEHOLDER, UH, MEETINGS, UM, THE STAKEHOLDERS, UH, MADE THE STAFF AWARE THAT THEY DID NOT WANT THOSE, UM, UH, KIOSK, UH, THEY FELT THAT IT WAS A SAFETY ISSUE AND, UH, IT WAS LOCATED IN THE PUBLIC, UM, IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. UM, AS A STAFF, WE MAKE THE RECOMMENDATION TO INCLUDE THAT IN THERE. UH, HOWEVER, OUR LEGAL DEPARTMENT, UH, STATED THAT, UH, WE CANNOT DO THAT ON THE, UM, ON, ON THE CODE. SO WE WERE FOLLOWING THE RECOMMENDATION OF OUR LEGAL DEPARTMENT FOR THAT SECTION. OKAY. IS THERE ALSO, UM, AN IMPLICATION HERE, UH, FROM THE HIGHWAY BEAUTIFICATION ACT? 'CAUSE IT, IT ALSO ADDRESSES THAT BECAUSE I, I THINK THERE ARE SOME CERTAIN ASPECTS OF SIGN REGULATIONS. IF THE PARTS OF THE DISTRICT THAT ARE WITHIN 660 FEET OF A FEDERALLY FUNDED ROAD, THERE ARE SOME RULES THAT APPLY. SO HOW MUCH OF THE DISTRICT, I MEAN, IS IT, IT SAYS MOST OF THE DISTRICT IS, UH, FALLS INTO THAT 660 FEET. DO YOU HAVE A, DO YOU KNOW HOW MUCH OF THAT IS? YEAH, SO, UM, I CAN ANSWER THAT DURING THE, DURING THE PUBLIC, UH, UH, HEARING AND GIVE YOU THE INFORMATION WHICH, WHICH, UH, STREETS ARE WITHIN THE FEDERAL. BUT, UH, YEAH, THAT, THAT IS CORRECT. SO IF THEY WANNA DO A, A NON-PREMISE, UH, SIGN THAT IS ADJACENT TO THE, TO WOOD WOODDALE, UH, ROGERS, UH, UH, FREEWAY, AND, UH, I'M NOT SURE IF ROSS IS, IS ONE, BUT, UH, UM, IT HAS CERTAIN LIMITATIONS THAT IT CAN ONLY DO 1000, UH, 200. SO HENCE ONE OF THE REASONS THAT, UH, WE'RE RECOMMENDING NOT TO HAVE, UM, THE NON-PREMISE SIGNS ON A TEMPORARY BARRICADE, UM, SIGNAGE IS FOR THOSE, FOR THOSE REASONS. UH, HOWEVER, IF LET'S SAY THAT THERE'S A CONSTRUCTION AND THAT, THAT, UH, NEW CONSTRUCTION IS PROPOSING A, A MCDONALD'S OR, OR, UM, CHICK-FIL-A AND IT'S GOING TO BE LOCATED ON THAT AREA, THEN, THEN I THINK THAT, THAT, THAT WILL BE LIKE A LOCAL, UM, A PREMISE SIGN. UH, YOU LED INTO MY NEXT QUESTION, WHICH I WAS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT WOULD BE THE NON-PREMISE ADVERTISING ON A CONSTRUCTION BARRICADE SIGN? I MEAN, IT'S NOT THE NAME OF THE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, IS IT? UH, YEAH, THAT, THAT COULD BE THE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY TOO, BUT, UH, IT, THAT WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED A NON-PREMISE SIGN. OKAY. 'CAUSE THEY, THEY'RE KIND OF WORKING ON IT. OKAY. 'CAUSE I WAS TRYING TO THINK OF ANY CONSTRUCTION BARRICADE SIGN I'D EVER SEEN THAT HAD ANYTHING ON IT, BUT, YOU KNOW, STAY OFF OR HAZARD OR, OR THE NAME OF THE COMPANY. SO I, I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT ISSUE WAS BEING ADDRESSED HERE. YEAH. SO, UM, SO, UH, MR. UH, ROPER, UH, RECOMMENDED, UH, TO STRIKE THAT FOR, FOR THOSE REASONS, FOR THE, UM, H UH, THE HIGHWAY BEAUTIFICATION ACT AND, UH, AS WELL AS THE, THE NON-PREMISE, UM, IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT IF THAT, IF IT IS THE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY OR IF THEY ADVERTISE WHAT IS COMING ON, ON THAT, UH, ON THAT PROPERTY, THAT, THAT THEY CAN ADVERTISE THAT, AND IT WILL, IT WILL BE FOR THE PERIOD WHILE THE CONSTRUCTION IS, UM, HAPPENING. SO IT'S CONSIDERED, UM, UH, TEMPORARY, UH, SIGNAGE. OKAY. UH, MOVING TO MONUMENT SIGNS, IT SAYS HERE THAT MONUMENT SIGNS MAY IDENTIFY A BUILDING'S OWNER OR DEVELOPER AND MULTIPLE TENANTS. I UNDERSTAND THE TENANTS PART, BUT WHY WOULD A MONUMENT SIGN? WHY WOULD WE WANT A MONUMENT SIGN TO IDENTIFY A BUILDING'S OWNER OR DEVELOPER? I MEAN, OWNERSHIP AND REDEVELOPMENT CHANGE ALL THE TIME. MONUMENT SIGNS TEND TO BE PERMANENT. I, I, I CAN'T EVEN THINK OF AN EXAMPLE OF A MONUMENT SIGN THAT IDENTIFIES A DEVELOPER. UM, I MEAN, THE NAME OF THE BUILDING PERHAPS, BUT, SO, UM, TRYING TO SEE IF I HAVE A PHOTO OF, UM, OF THE CHASE TOWER, [02:25:03] RIGHT. . SO, SO ONE EXAMPLE WILL BE THE, THE CHASE TOWER. AND AS YOU STATED, UM, THE CHASE BANK IS NO LONGER, IS NO LONGER THERE, SO THEY'RE NOT PER SE ADVERTISING THAT, UH, HOWEVER, THERE'S SOME, SOME OTHER, UH, BUILDINGS THAT, UH, THAT THEY MIGHT BE, THAT THEY MIGHT WANT TO ADVERTISE THAT. SO, UH, MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THAT'S CURRENTLY ALLOWED, BUT IT WILL BE UP TO, UH, TO YOU COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, IF YOU WANNA MAKE A RECOMMENDATION AND, AND CHANGE THAT. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. UM, UNDER, DID YOU HAVE AN EXAMPLE OF A CANOPY FASCIA SIGN? DO THOSE EXIST AT THIS PARTICULAR TIME? I, UH, LET ME, BECAUSE I THINK THEY'RE ONLY SUPPOSED TO BE ON FLORA, AND I BELIEVE THEY'RE DIGITAL ACCORDING TO THE DEFINITION. BUT MY SPECIFIC QUESTION IS, IT SAID THEY'RE LIMITED TO FOUR FEET IN HEIGHT AND 74 FEET WIDE, BUT THEN IT GOES ON TO SAY IT'S, THAT'S 496 SQUARE FEET OF EFFECTIVE AREA, BUT FOUR TIMES 74 IS 2 96, SO 4 96 A TYPO, OR AM I MISUNDERSTANDING HOW THE EFFECTIVE AREA IS CALCULATED? IS, UM, IS THE EFFECTIVE AREA IF, UH, UM, IF YOU WILL, WOULDN'T MIND. I CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING. OKAY, THANK YOU. THAT'S FINE. THANK YOU. UM, ONE FINAL QUESTION. LET'S SEE. PAGE 5 32 UNDER DISTRICT ACTIVITY SIGN, THE SECOND SENTENCE. IT SEEMS TO BE AN INCOMPLETE THOUGHT TO ME. IT SAYS DISTRICT ACTIVITY SIGNS ARE PERMITTED UP TO ANY SIZE AS THE DISPLAY CONTAINED WITHIN THE TRANSPARENT PORTION OF THE STREET WALL ALONG FLORIST STREET, PERIOD. I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING WHAT THAT'S SAYING. I I WILL, UH, I WILL ADDRESS THAT TOO, AND I'LL GET BACK TO YOU THEN IN THE PUBLIC HEARING TOO. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER SLEEPER, DID I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY THAT, UH, YOU SAID THE, UH, THE AUTHORS OF THIS, UH, PROVISION, UH, THE SPECIAL, UH, PROVISION SIGN DISTRICT, UH, IT, IT WAS THEIR DESIRE TO EXCLUDE THE RECENTLY APPROVED DIGITAL, UH, KIOSKS FROM THIS DISTRICT, AND THAT THAT WAS THEIR, THAT THAT WAS THEIR INTENTION, BUT THAT THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT SAID THEY COULDN'T DO THAT? UH, SO ACCORDING TO THE, LET, LET ME CLARIFY THAT. THE, THESE ARE NOT ALL THE KIOSK THAT, UH, THAT ARE CURRENTLY WITHIN THE, WITHIN THE DISTRICT. THERE'S, UH, LEMME SEE IF I CAN SHOW YOU. UM, OKAY. SO IF YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THIS, UH, UH, AREA BY THE STOP SIGN WHERE THE ARROW IS AT, THOSE, THOSE ARE DIGITALS AND THOSE ARE NOT, UM, AN ISSUE. THE ISSUE ARE THE, UH, CYLINDRICAL, UH, THE, THE CYLINDRICAL KIOSK. UH, ONE IS LOCATED ON, ON ROSE BY THE CHASE, UH, UH, TOWER. AND THEN THE OTHER ONE IS LOCATED ON, UM, IS LOCATED ACROSS THE STREET ON, ON CHASE, AND BOTH THEY BLOCK THE SIDEWALKS. SO MY UNDERSTANDING FROM, UH, TALKING TO THE STAKEHOLDERS IN THE COMMUNITY WHEN WE HAD THE MEETING IS THAT THEY DO NOT WANT THAT, UH, STAFF. WE RECOMMENDED TO INCLUDE THAT WITHIN THE SPSD, AND THAT WILL PREVENT HAVING THOSE, UH, HOWEVER, OUR LEGAL DEPARTMENT, UH, STATES THAT, THAT WE CANNOT MAKE THAT RECOMMENDATION BECAUSE IT DOES NOT COMPLY WITH, WITH THE STATE LAW. SO, SO WHAT YOU'RE DESCRIBING IS THE, THOSE ROUND, UM, UH, KIOSKS THAT WERE APPROVED 20 YEARS AGO OR WHATEVER THAT WAS, THAT ARE MM-HMM . THAT ARE, UH, BEAUTIFULLY LOCATED ALL OVER THE CITY. UM, SO THEY CAN'T EXCLUDE THOSE. BUT WHAT ABOUT ANY FUTURE, UH, DIGITAL KIOSKS SUCH AS THOSE THAT WERE RECENTLY APPROVED BY THE COUNCIL? SO IF, IF, IF IT IS, THERE'S, OH, THERE SOME, SOME ISSUE IF IT [02:30:01] IS IN THE RIGHT OF WAY OR IF IT IS WITHIN THE, THE PROPERTY, UH, LINE. SO IF IT IS IN THE RIGHT OF WAY, THEY'LL HAVE TO DEAL WITH, UH, WITH PUBLIC WORKS, AND THEN THEY'LL HAVE TO DEAL WITH REAL ESTATE TO GET A, A PERMIT ON THAT. AND, UH, SPSD PER SE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO, TO ADDRESS THAT. WHAT THE SPSD HOW IT WILL BE ABLE TO DO IS WITHIN THE PROPERTY LINES OF AN SPECIFIC, UH, UH, PROPERTY. UM, THERE'S, IF CITY, UH, UM, AS LEGAL STATED, UM, UM, LEGAL ASK US TO EXCLUDE THAT FROM THERE. SO THEN THAT WILL NOT PERCEIVE AN ISSUE OR LEGALITY ISSUE IF THEY WANNA CONTINUE WITH THAT, UH, UH, KIOSK. I, I, I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT ANSWER AND I, AND I WISH I UNDERSTOOD IT, BUT, UH, LET, LET ME JUST SEE IF I CAN REPHRASE THAT CORRECTLY. SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT THAT FUTURE KIOSKS, IT MAY BE THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, THEY WILL BE ABLE TO, UH, EXCLUDE THOSE, OR THEY WILL NOT BE ABLE TO EXCLUDE THOSE N NO, THEY, THEY WILL NOT BECAUSE OF, UH, UH, LEGAL DEPARTMENT SAY THAT WE CANNOT INCLUDE THAT ON, ON THE CODE. OKAY. SO E EVEN THOUGH THE DISTRICT WOULD LIKE TO EXCLUDE THEM, THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT SAYS THEY CAN'T EXCLUDE THEM. CORRECT. IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER HAMPTON. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. UM, MR. AGUILAR, I HAD ONE FOLLOW UP ON THE CANOPY FASCIA SIGNS. UM, AS I'M READING THROUGH THIS, I WAS TRYING TO CHECK WHERE WE HAD QUANTITIES AND LOCATIONS, AND ON THIS ONE IN PARTICULAR, IT SAYS THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT IS FOUR FEET. THE MAXIMUM LENGTH IS 74, THE MAXIMUM EFFECTIVE AREA IS 4 96, BUT BY MY MATH, THAT SHOULD BE 2 96. IS THAT JUST A TYPO? I, I WILL, UH, I WILL CHECK ON THAT. AND COMMISSIONER CARPENTER SAID SHE ALREADY TEXTED IT, SO I WAS APPARENTLY TRYING TO DO MATH AS SHE WAS TALKING, SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM? COMMISSIONERS, COMMISSIONER KINGSTON? YES. UM, I WOULD LIKE TO UNDERSTAND WHY LEGAL HAS RECOMMENDED THAT WE, UM, WHY LEGAL SAYS WE CAN'T HAVE KIOSKS EXCLUDED. IN OTHER WORDS, IT'S NOT SATISFACTORY TO ME TO JUST SAY LEGAL SAYS NO. I'D LIKE TO UNDERSTAND THE LEGAL RATIONALE FOR THAT ATION. UM, FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, OUR KIOSK PROGRAM IS GOVERNED BY, UM, SEPARATE CONTRACTS AND IT'S NOT PART OF THE, THE SPECIAL PROVISION SIGNED DISTRICT. YEAH, BUT THE CONTRACTS DON'T SAY WHERE THE CASE GO, DO THEY? I BELIEVE THEY DO. I'M NOT SURE THAT'S ACCURATE. AT, AT, BEFORE WE TAKE A VOTE ON THIS, I'D LIKE TO HAVE SOMEBODY WHO CAN DEFINITIVELY EXPLAIN TO ME WHY LEGALLY THIS PROVISION CAN'T BE INCLUDED. I DON'T WANT, I DON'T WANT SOMEBODY TO GUESS, I DON'T WANT A BROAD, OH, LEGAL SAYS WE CAN'T DO IT. I WANNA UNDERSTAND IN CONCRETE LEGAL TERMS WHY THIS CAN'T BE INCLUDED, BECAUSE WE HAD SEVERAL MEETINGS ON THIS WITH THE STAKEHOLDERS AND THEN THIS WAS, UM, INCLUDED AT THE LAST MINUTE. SO I WANNA UNDERSTAND WHY SPECIFICALLY THIS PROVISION CAN'T BE INCLUDED. YEAH, I'LL NEED TO GO BACK AND LOOK. OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. WE'LL HAVE THAT AT THE HEARING. UM, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM? COMMISSIONERS? OKAY, LET'S GO BACK TO THE ORDER. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, SIR. DO WE NEED ANY OF THE MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS BRIEFED? ANY REQUEST THERE? OKAY. LET'S GO TO THE ZONING CASES ON CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS AT THIS POINT, UH, 11 HAS COME OFF CONSENT. AND 15 AND 12, SORRY. 11, 12, 15, 15 AS FAR AS I KNOW, THOSE ARE THE ONES. [02:35:01] NINE AND NINE. OKAY. LET'S START WITH NUMBER NINE. DO WE NEED NUMBER NINE BRIEF? YOU WANNA LIKE NUMBER NINE BRIEF? YES, THAT'S BRIEF NUMBER NINE. THANKS. GOOD MORNING. OKAY. GOOD MORNING COMMISSION OUR CHAIR AND COMMISSION. THIS ITEM IS Z 2 3 4 3 12, AND THE NEW NUMBER IS Z TWO FIVE DASH 1 0 1. THIS REQUEST IS FOR A, UH, THE INCREASE OF THE AREA OF A CHILDCARE FACILITY AND TO ADD A PARKING AND PLAYGROUND. OH, CAN YOU SEE IT? HMM. IT LOOKS FINE ON HERE. WE ARE, WE SHARING? OKAY. THIS IS A NEW SUP REQUEST TO INCREASE THE CHILDCARE FACILITY THAT'S EXISTING AND ADD PARKING AND A PLAYGROUND. AND IT IS CURRENTLY ZONED R 7.5 AND LOCATED ON THE NORTH LINE OF FORDHAM ROAD BETWEEN SOUTH MARCELLUS AVENUE AND MARYLAND AVENUE. THIS IS THE GENERAL LOCATION. THIS IS THE AERIAL MAP. THE SURROUNDING, UH, ZONING IS OR USES ARE SINGLE FAMILY, AND THERE'S A CHURCH TO THE SOUTH, UM, ACROSS FORDHAM ROAD. THIS IS LOOKING NORTH, STILL LOOKING NORTH TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTY, LOOKING WEST, LOOKING EAST. IT IS LOCATED IN COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL FOR FORWARD DALLAS. THIS IS THE SITE PLAN FOR 3 9 2 2 MARCELLS AVENUE WHERE THE EXISTING, UH, CHILDCARE FACILITY IS. AND THEN THIS IS THE ADJACENT PROPERTY WHERE THE PLAYGROUND AND PARKING IS PROPOSED, AND IT HIGHLIGHTED SHOWS THE, UH, INCREASE IN THE CHILDCARE FACILITY, WHICH IS 3,250 SQUARE FEET. THIS IS THE ENLARGED OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY AND STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL SUBJECT TO ESTATE PLANNING AND CONDITIONS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONER FORSIGHT? YES. UM, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THERE IS A, UH, ALLEYWAY BETWEEN THE TWO PROPERTIES. UH, COULD, UH, YOU DESCRIBE THAT CONDITION OF THAT ALLEYWAY? IS IT A PAVED ALLEYWAY OR IS IT A NON PAVED ALLEYWAY? IS IT AN ACTIVE ALLEYWAY THAT'S BEEN USED BY THE RESIDENTS, UH, WHO LIVE, UH, NEAR, UH, THIS PROPERTY OR IT IS NOT, UH, CURRENTLY USED? IT'S NOT PAVED AND IT, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN SEE ON THE AERIAL VIEW. ONE SECOND. UM, BUT IT IS AN UNIMPROVED ALLEY. NO ONE'S USING IT RIGHT NOW. OKAY. IT'S SUPPOSED TO GO EXTEND BEHIND THE RESIDENTIAL, BUT IT KIND OF DOESN'T BECAUSE OF THE EXISTING FENCES ALONG IT. OKAY. AND AND THERE'S NO GARBAGE PICKUP ON THAT ALLEY OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT? ALL THE GARBAGE PICKUP IS ALONG THE STREET, YES. FROM THIS TO THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. OKAY. AND, UM, THE, UM, THE, THE, THE, THE, [02:40:01] THE EXPANSION PROPERTY, UH, THAT'S IN FORDHAM AND WHAT, WHAT'S THE STREET TO THE EAST OF THE EXPANSION PROPERTY? UH, ANYWAY, MY QUESTION IS, IS THE PLAYGROUND THAT'S GOING TO BE INSTALLED, WILL IT HAVE FENCING AROUND IT? AND WOULD THAT HAVE ANY, UH, ADVERSE, UH, EFFECT IN TERMS OF, UH, OBSTRUCTING TRAFFIC THAT'S GOING ON? FORDHAM AND TRYING TO TURN LEFT OF THAT IN THAT INLET STREET IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING OFFENSE. UM, AND IT'S WITHIN THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE. UH, SO SHE WAS NOTIFIED THAT SHE WOULD HAVE TO GO BEFORE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, UM, TO REQUEST THE PREVIOUS APPROVALS THAT SHE GOT FOR THE EXISTING SITE. 'CAUSE SHE ALSO HAS A FENCE ON THE, ON THE OTHER SIDE AS WELL. OKAY. DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE FENCE IS? IS IT GONNA BE LIKE A CHAIN LINK FENCE? UH, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT GONNA BE LIKE A, UH, UH, AN A FENCE THAT YOU COULDN'T SEE THROUGH LIKE A WOOD FENCE. IT'S GONNA BE LIKE A OPEN FENCE, LIKE A YES, IT'S AN OPEN FENCE FENCE OR, OR A ROD IRON TYPE OF OFFENSE. RIGHT? YES. OKAY. THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. THOSE, THOSE ARE MY MAIN QUESTIONS. THANK YOU, SIR. COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW A SINGLE SUP FOR A PERMANENT TIME PERIOD IS BEING RECOMMENDED FOR THIS WHEN IT'S A USE PER DIVIDED LOT AND THEIR CURRENT, WE DON'T HAVE THE CURRENT SITE PLAN, BUT THE REPORT SEEMS TO INDICATE THAT THEY'RE NOT IN COMPLIANCE. NOW THEY'VE, THEY'VE BUILT ADDITIONAL STRUCTURES OR THEY HAVEN'T DONE WHAT THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO DO ACCORDING TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. CAN YOU CLARIFY A LITTLE BIT WHAT THE STATUS OF, OF THE CURRENT SITE IS? THE BUILT SITE TO WHAT IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE ON THEIR EXISTING SITE? UH, THEY WERE APPROVED THROUGH THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. FOR CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS, THEY ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THOSE EXCEPTIONS. IT'S JUST THAT THOSE EXCEPTIONS DO NOT APPLY TO THE ADJACENT LOT, SO THEY WOULD HAVE TO REQUEST THOSE AS WELL. OKAY. IT SEEMED TO ME THE REPORT SEEMED TO INDICATE THAT THEY HAD BUILT SOME STRUCTURES OR, OR SOMETHING THAT WERE NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THEIR CURRENT SITE PLAN. ARE YOU REFERRING TO THE PLAYGROUND AWNING? I DON'T KNOW. THE, THE REPORT DID NOT SPECIFY WHAT IT WAS. THAT'S MY QUESTION. I CANNOT SAY WHETHER OR NOT THEY'RE IN COMPLIANCE THEN. OKAY. WITH, WITH AN ALLEY SEPARATING THESE TWO LOTS, HOW ARE THE CHILDREN GOING TO GET FROM THE LOT, FROM THE, UH, DAYCARE LOT TO THE PRIVATE RECREATION CENTER LOT? THEY'RE GOING TO WALK DOWN THE SIDEWALK PAST THE, THE EIGHT ROLL OFF GARBAGE CANS THAT ARE CURRENTLY ON THE STREET ACCORDING OR ACCORDING IN THE, IN THE PICTURE HERE. UM, AND TO GO INTO THE DRIVEWAY WHERE CARS WILL BE GOING INTO THAT, THAT SECOND LOT, I THINK THAT WOULD BE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT OF HOW THEY PLAN TO GET THE CHILDREN TO THE OTHER SIDE. OKAY. DO WE KNOW IF THERE'S SUPPOSED TO BE, I, I COULDN'T TELL FROM THE SITE PLAN. IS THERE GOING TO BE ADDITIONAL FENCING THAT SEPARATES THE PLAYGROUND AREA FROM THE PARKING AREA ON THAT SECOND LOT? I WOULD'VE TO LOOK AT THE SITE PLAN AGAIN. OKAY. UM, BECAUSE WE DID ASK THEM TO REMOVE CERTAIN FENCING FROM THE SITE PLAN, BUT IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT, UH, BUILDING SAYS THAT THEY NEED, I WOULD ASSUME THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO PUT THAT IN PLACE. AND I DON'T, WAS THERE A REASON FOR THERE NOT TO BE ANY CONDITIONS IN THE SUP CONDITIONS LIMITING THE USE OF THIS PLAYGROUND LOT AS A PLAYGROUND FOR THE DAYCARE CENTER WITH SOME HOURS OF USE? BECAUSE THE WAY IT IS NOW, THEY, THAT PLAYGROUND LOT COULD BE USED, YOU KNOW, IF THEY WANTED TO RENT IT OUT TO PEOPLE TO HAVE A PARTY OVER THERE, THEY COULD DO THAT THERE. THERE'S NO HOURS OF LIMITATION. THERE'S NO, IT'S NOT TIED TO THE DAYCARE CENTER IN ANY WAY. I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT STAFF WAS TOLD NOT TO, UM, INCLUDE THE HOURS OF OPERATION IN SUVS ANYMORE, BUT I WOULD HAVE TO DEFER TO THE ATTORNEY OR MICHAEL, I WOULD SAY, SO ONE THING I'D SAY FOR AN OUTDOOR UC MIGHT HAVE DIFFICULTY ENFORCING ON, ON HOURS OF OPERATIONS VERSUS AN INDOOR USE THAT HAS YOUR, YOUR HOURS THAT ARE ENFORCED ON A BUILDING. I THINK THAT MIGHT BE A LITTLE MORE DIFFICULT TO ENFORCE. UH, STAFF IS NOT PARTICULARLY CONCERNED ABOUT INTERNAL FENCING. THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO PUT THEIR FENCES WHERE THEY NEED TO INTERNALLY. BUT I, WE'RE NOT GETTING INTO THE, UM, THE DETAILS OF THEIR INTERNAL FENCING OPERATIONS. BUT WELL, WOULD, WOULD THERE BE THEN A FENCE ACROSS THE DRIVE THAT ALLOWS CARS TO ENTER THAT THAT LOT THAT IS, THAT'S SHOWN ON THEIR SITE PLAN. OKAY. I COULDN'T, CAN YOU ELABORATE WHY THERE WOULD BE THE RECOMMENDATION [02:45:01] FOR A PERMANENT S TWO QUESTIONS? WHY IS THIS NOT TWO SEPARATE SUVS AND WHY IS THE RECOMMENDATION PERMANENT? I THINK IT'S, IT'S, IT'S, THE USES ARE LINKED TOGETHER. THEY'RE CONTIGUOUS. IT'S, BUT THEY'RE SEPARATED BY AN ALLEY. THEY'RE, THEY'RE CONTIGUOUS IN A RIGHT OF WAY KIND OF PER UH, PERSPECTIVE BECAUSE OUR, OUR ZONING SENDS TO THE CENTER LINE OF RIGHT OF AWAYS LIKE ALLEYS OR THINGS LIKE THAT, UM, IN OUR ESTIMATION. AND AN ALLEY IS NOT REALLY GONNA SEPARATE THEM. WE CAN STILL CONSIDER THEM AS ONE SUP. IT STILL HELPS, UH, HELPS THEM FROM A PAPERWORK STANDPOINT MAINTAIN LESS, UM, THINGS TO HAVE TO AMEND OR, OR RENEW OVER TIME OR, OR WHAT HAVE YOU. WE HAVE, WE HAVE NO ISSUE WITH FROM A POLICY PERSPECTIVE OF, OF INCLUDING THOSE TWO LOTS, UH, ESPECIALLY SINCE THEY'RE ASSOCIATED. UM, AND THEN WHAT WAS THAT, WHAT WAS THE ADDITIONAL PART OF THE QUE QUESTION? BUT YEAH, FROM THE TIME PERIOD MM-HMM . IF WE'RE, IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A, A LOW IMPACT USE, UM, THAT, YOU KNOW, THESE AREAS, THESE ARE BOTH USES THAT ARE, THEY'RE PRETTY INCIDENTAL TO RESIDENTIAL AREAS. THEY'RE, UM, COMMON AND IN PRIMARY PARTS OF, UM, COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL LAND USE TYPE. UM, IT'S NOT A MATTER OF THE TENANT VERSUS, UM, NOT THE TENANT OR, OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. IT'S, IT'S A MATTER OF THE USE. IT'S A, IT'S A LOW IMPACT USE THAT HAS LIMITS ON IT IN REGARDS TO THE SITE PLAN AND IN REGARDS TO, UM, WHAT CAN BE PUT THERE AND, AND THE LANDSCAPING AND AND SUCH. SO WE HAVE NO ISSUE WITH THAT, BUT THERE'S NO CONSIDERATION OF ADDING A CONDITION THAT TIES THE USE OF THE PRIVATE RECREATION LOT TO THE DAYCARE CENTER. I, BECAUSE I MEAN, I DON'T, THEY'RE TIED TOGETHER IN THIS SUP, THEY HAVE TO BE, THEY HAVE TO MAINTAIN THIS SUP TOGETHER OVER TIME. UM, YOU KNOW, WHEN IT COMES, WHETHER IT'S AMENDMENT OR, OR RENEWALS OR THINGS LIKE THAT, UM, THEY'RE TIED TOGETHER IN THAT REGARD. UH, I'D BE CAUTION, CAUTIOUS OF, OF SAYING THAT IT CAN ONLY BE FOR CERTAIN USERS OR, OR, OR OTHER, UH, USERS. IT'S, IT'S A PRIVATE RECREATION CENTER OR USE, WE DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THE USE REGARDLESS OF WHO THE OPERATOR IS. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER HAMPTON. THANK YOU. UM, I JUST WANTED TO FOLLOW UP ON COMMISSIONER CARPENTER'S QUESTIONS. I HAVE THE SAME, UM, QUESTION. IT NOTES ON PAGE NINE FIVE OF OUR CASE REPORT THAT THE CURRENT SITE PLAN, OR THE CURRENT SITE INCLUDES ADDITIONS THAT ARE NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE APPROVED BOA SITE PLAN. AND I JUST NOTED ONE SPECIFIC ONE IS PARKING. I THINK PARKING NOW HAS THE ABILITY TO NOT REQUIRE THAT BOA, BUT I GUESS WHERE I'M TRYING TO JUST GET ALIGNED IS DO THEY NEED TO SUBMIT A REVISED SITE PLAN INTO, OR THERE ARE OTHER ELEMENTS THAT ARE GOING TO REQUIRE B OF A SO WE DON'T APPROVE A SITE PLAN THAT HAS TO COME BACK AGAIN. I GUESS THAT'S REALLY WHERE MY FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION IS. AND RELATED TO THAT, IT NOTES THAT THERE ARE, UM, TRAFFIC RECOMMENDED ENGINEERING REVIEWS. AGAIN, DO THEY HAVE ANY INDICATION OF WHAT THAT MAY BE THAT AGAIN, WE DO NOT APPROVING A SITE PLAN THAT WILL REQUIRE THEM TO COME BACK BEFORE US? I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S FOR MS. CALDWELL OR MR. PEPPY. I THINK I'M FOLLOW, I THINK I'M FOLLOWING. UM, I THINK, WELL, PART OF IT IS THE PLAN INCLUDES A, A SMALL EXPANSION IN THE BACK. UM, THAT MAY NOT BE PART OF WHAT'S, WHAT'S ON THEIR BOA APPROVALS RIGHT NOW MM-HMM . AND THEN THE OTHER, THE BIGGER ONE IS THAT THEIR VACANT LOT DOESN'T HAVE SUCH APPROVALS, BUT TO, TO MAKE THE BUFFERS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. AND THE FENCING WORK THE WAY THAT THEY WANT TO HAVE ENOUGH PLACE, PLACE, PLACE SPACE FOR THE CHILDREN, UM, THEY, THEY WANT TO PURSUE THOSE, UM, THOSE POTENTIAL VARIANCES FOR THEIR FENCING. AND IF THEY DON'T RECEIVE THEM, THEY COULD POTENTIALLY MOVE THEIR LOT, HAVE LESS PLAY AREA OR THINGS LIKE THAT. I THINK THAT'S PRIMARILY WHAT, WHAT WE WERE GETTING AT. UM, IN TERMS OF THAT. SO I THINK THAT THERE ARE ALTERNATIVES IF THEY DON'T GET THEIR, THEIR BOARD APPROVALS. UM, BUT UM, THEY DID GET THEM FOR, THEY DID GET THEIR VARIANCES TO THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLES, UM, FOR THE INITIAL LOT, THE ORIGINAL LOT. UM, SO THAT WAS A, A PRIMARY THING. SO I, I THINK THEY SHOULD GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS. UM, BUT IF NOT, THEY MAY BE ABLE TO PUT THEIR FENCE SET OUTSIDE OF THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE. UM, JUST THEY HAVE LESS PLAY AREA AND SUCH. SO SHOULD THE BODY RECOMMEND THIS FOR APPROVAL, IS THERE ANY LANGUAGE THAT WE NEED TO RECOGNIZE SINCE IT SOUNDS LIKE STAFF IS ANTICIPATING THEY'RE GOING TO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND THE PLAN THAT THEY'RE SHOWING US MAY OR MAY NOT BE ULTIMATELY APPROVED BY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. WHAT WE DID DO IS PUT ON [02:50:01] OUR SITE PLAN NOTES THAT INDICATE THAT CERTAIN FENCES WILL REQUIRE, UM, THOSE, SO WE PUT THOSE DISCLAIMERS ON THE, UH, ON THE SITE PLAN AND, AND WE'RE, WE'RE COMFORTABLE WITH THAT. THANK YOU MR. CHAIR. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER FORESITE. SECOND ROUND. I WOULD JUST LIKE TO CLARIFY WITH STAFF, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING TALKING TO THE OWNER THAT THE ALLEYWAY IS NOT BEING USED TODAY BY NEIGHBORS AND THAT IT'S NOT IMPROVED. IT'S NOT IMPROVED. IT LOOKS, WOULD BE MIGHTY DIFFICULT TO USE. AND SHE, SHE ALSO SAID THAT, UH, HER PLAN IS TO ULTIMATELY, UH, GET APPROVAL, UH, FOR ABANDONMENT OF THE ALLEY. IS THAT, IS THAT, THAT'S YES. AN OPTION TO THEM? YEAH, I THINK WE'D HEARD THAT, BUT IT'S, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT APPROVED THROUGH, THROUGH THIS PROCESS, BUT IT'S AN OPTION FOR THEM. THEY'D HAVE TO, UM, SUBMIT THAT REQUEST AND THEN THEY COULD, UM, RECEIVE APPROVAL FROM IT, FROM COUNCIL. BUT YEAH, IT'S NOT, UM, IT IS POINT IS IT'S AN OPTION FOR THEM. IT'S NOT APPROVED THROUGH THIS PROCESS THOUGH. WHAT IS THE APPROVAL PROCESS FOR THAT? DID THEY COME TO THE CPC OR IS THAT SOMETHING THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS DOES? IT'S, IT'S NOT CPC, IT'S, IT'S, I UNDERSTAND IT'S PRETTY MUCH A STAFF REVIEW AND THEN, AND THEN COUNCIL ABANDONMENT. OKAY. SECOND ROUND, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, MR. PEPE, WILL THEY BE REQUIRED TO HAVE A LANDSCAPE BUFFER ON THAT ADDITIONAL LOT? BECAUSE THESE ARE SEPARATE USES, UH, RELATIVE ALONG THE ALLEYWAY TO THE RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY TO THE NORTH, BUT EVEN AGAINST THE, THE DAYCARE TO WHATEVER DIRECTION THAT IS EVEN AGAINST THE DAYCARE. 'CAUSE THEY'RE SEPARATE USES. SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT BETWEEN OUR, UM, THE ALLEY ALONG THE ALLEY, I, WE WOULD NOT, WE'VE, WE'VE, WE CAN APPROVE ALTERNATIVE LANDSCAPING THROUGH THE PLAN. SO AS THE CONDITIONS CALL FOR THE LANDSCAPING IS BY THE PLAN. I, I COULDN'T, I COULDN'T TELL YOU OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD IF THEY NEED A ATLAN RESIDENTIAL BUFFER BETWEEN THEIR, UM, PRIVATE RECREATION CENTER LOT AND DIFFERENT ONE BY RIGHT. BUT UNDER THE SUP, IF WE TIE IT TO THE LANDSCAPE PLAN, WE CAN APPROVE THIS PLAN WITH ALTERNATE LANDSCAPING THAT DOESN'T REQUIRE THAT. BUT THE PLAN, THE GOOD THING IS THE PLAN INCLUDES THE BUFFERING RELATIVE TO THE RESIDENTIAL, BUT NOT AMONGST ITSELF. RIGHT. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM? COMMISSIONERS? OKAY. LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A LUNCH BREAK. WE'LL PICK UP THE REST OF THE ITEMS. UH, ON THE OTHER SIDE. IT IS 1212. THAT CONCLUDES THE BRIEFING OF THE DALLAS CITY PLAN COMMISSION AND DURING LUNCH COMMISSIONERS. [CALL TO ORDER] OKAY. LET'S GET STARTED WITH THE ROLL CALL, PLEASE. GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONERS. DISTRICT ONE COMMISSIONER DUBINSKI, DISTRICT TWO, COMMISSIONER HAMPTON PRESENT DISTRICT THREE. COMMISSIONER HERBERT, DISTRICT FOUR. COMMISSIONER FORSYTH, DISTRICT FIVE, CHAIR SHA DEAD PRESENT. DISTRICT SIX. COMMISSIONER CARPENTER PRESENT, DISTRICT SEVEN. COMMISSIONER WHEELER, DISTRICT EIGHT. COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN PRESENT DISTRICT NINE COMMISSIONER SLEEPER. DISTRICT 10. COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT, DISTRICT 11. COMMISSIONER SIMS. DISTRICT 12 VACANT. DISTRICT 13. COMMISSIONER HALL HERE. DISTRICT 14, COMMISSIONER KINGSTON HERE AND PLACE 15 VICE CHAIR RUBIN. YOU HAVE A QUORUM, SIR. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. LET THE RECORD REFLECT COMMISSIONER HERBERT IS ONLINE. GOOD AFTERNOON LADIES. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. WELCOME TO THE HEARING OF THE DALLAS CITY PLAN COMMISSION. TODAY IS AUGUST 7TH, 2020 5, 12 51. COUPLE OF QUICK ANNOUNCEMENTS BEFORE WE GET STARTED. OUR SPEAKER GUIDELINES AS EACH SPEAKER WILL RECEIVE THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK, UH, UH, PLEASE ASK ALL OF OUR SPEAKERS TO BEGIN YOUR COMMENTS WITH YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, THIS IS A HYBRID MEETING. WE WILL HAVE SOME SPEAKERS ONLINE. I WILL ASK ALL OUR SPEAKERS ONLINE TO MAKE SURE THAT YOUR CAMERA IS ON AND WORKING. WE CAN'T HEAR FROM YOU IF WE CAN'T SEE YOU. UH, ON CASES WHERE WE DO HAVE OPPOSITION PER OUR RULES, THE APPLICANT WILL GET A TWO MINUTE REBUTTAL. UH, ALSO WE HAVE THESE LITTLE YELLOW CARDS DOWN HERE AT THE TABLE TO THE BOTTOM ON THE RIGHT. AT SOME POINT TODAY, IF YOU GET A CHANCE, WE WOULD LOVE TO HAVE A RECORD OF YOUR VISIT WITH US. SO PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT YOU FILL ONE OF THESE OUT AND YOU CAN JUST LEAVE 'EM RIGHT THERE ON THE TABLE. AND THERE'S ALSO COPIES OF THE AGENDA IF YOU NEED ONE THERE AT THE TABLE. AND WITH THAT, THANK YOU FOR JOINING US. WE'RE GONNA GET STARTED WITH, UH, THE MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND THEN JUST A QUICK, UH, HEADS UP, WE'RE GONNA TAKE SOME OF THE ZONING CASES [02:55:01] OUT OF ORDER. YES, WE'LL, UH, AND, UM, WE'LL BE TAKING UP CASES IN DISTRICTS 11 AND 14 FIRST FOR THE ZONING CASES. SO THAT WOULD BE CASE NUMBER 1222 AND I THINK, I THINK THAT'S IT AN EIGHT. SO [APPROVAL OF MINUTES] WE'LL BEGIN WITH THE MINUTES. WE GET A MOTION. COMMISSIONER HALL? I DO MR. CHAIR, UH, I MOVE THAT WE ACCEPT THE, UH, MINUTES AS POSTED FOR THE, UH, JULY 10TH, 2025, UH, MEETING. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HALL FOR YOUR MOTION. I WILL SECOND IT. ANY DISCUSSION? SEE NONE OF THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? AYES HAVE IT. [MISCELANEOUS - CONSENT] WE'LL NOW GO TO OUR MISCELLANEOUS ZONING. PARDON ME, MS. ALINA ITEMS? MM-HMM . UH, LET ME JUST, UH, MAKE SURE WE, THESE, THESE CASES, THE FIRST SET OF CASES, CASES TWO THROUGH SEVEN ARE MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS THAT WILL BE DISPOSED OF IN ONE MOTION. UNLESS THERE'S SOMEONE HERE THAT WANTS TO SPEAK ON ANY OF THOSE CASES, THEN WE WILL PULL IT OFF AND, UH, DISPOSE OF IT INDIVIDUALLY. SO IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON ANY OF THOSE FIRST BATCH OF CASES TWO THROUGH SEVEN? YES, SIR. WHICH, WHICH ONE? NUMBER FOUR. OKAY. SO WE'LL TAKE THAT ONE OFF. CONSENT. THAT'S IT. OKAY. WE'LL PULL THAT ONE OFF. SO NUMBER FOUR HAS COME OFF CONSENT COMMISSIONERS, UH, ANY OTHER CASES? TWO THROUGH SEVEN. IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON ANY OF THOSE CASES? 2, 3, 5, 6 OR SEVEN. OKAY, WE'LL GET THOSE READY IN PLEASE. ITEM NUMBER TWO, AN APPLICATION FOR A MINOR AMENDMENT TO A DEVELOPMENT PLAN ON PROPERTY ZONE PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 1110 ON SOUTH SIDE OF LBJ FREEWAY BETWEEN MONFORT DRIVE AND NOEL DRIVE. STAFF RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL ITEM NUMBER THREE AND APPLICATION FOR A MINOR AMENDMENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLANS FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS ON PROPERTY ZONE PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 6 7 8 ON NORTHWEST CORNER OF LBJ FREEWAY AND WILLOUGHBY BOULEVARD. STAFF. RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL ITEM NUMBER FIVE, AN APPLICATION FOR A MINOR AMENDMENT TO A DEVELOPMENT PLAN ON PROPERTIES ON TRACK TWO WITHIN PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 5 6 1 ON THE NORTH LINE OF KELLER SPRINGS ROAD AND WEST OF PRESTON ROAD ON THE NORTH LINE OF KEL SPRINGS ROAD, WEST OF PRESTON ROAD. STAFF RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL ITEM NUMBER SIX, AN APPLICATION FOR A NEW DEVELOPMENT PLAN ON PROPERTIES ON SUBDISTRICT SIX WITHIN PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 6 5 5 ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF POTTER HOUSE WAY AND TRUTH DRIVE. STAFF RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL ITEM NUMBER SEVEN, AN APPLICATION FOR A NEW DEVELOPMENT AND LANDSCAPE PLAN ON PROPERTY ZONE SUB AREA B WITHIN PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 8 1 1 ON THE SOUTH LINE OF DALLAS FORT WORTH TURNPIKE IH 30 EAST OF WEST COLORADO BOULEVARD. STAFF RECOMMENDATION, APPROVAL. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UH, CAN I HAVE A MOTION CONTROL? THANK YOU MR. CHAIR. UH, REGARDING ITEMS, CONSENT ITEMS NUMBER 2, 3, 5, 6, AND SEVEN. AS READ INTO THE RECORD, I MOVE [03:00:01] THAT WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARINGS AND APPROVE THOSE ACCORDING TO RECOMMENDATIONS. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER HALL FOR YOUR MOTION. COMMISSIONER HAUSER FOR YOUR SECOND COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, OR DISCUSSION? SEE YOU NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. THANK [4. 25-2448A An application for a minor amendment to the site plan for Specific Use Permit No. 502 for a private recreation center, club, or area limited to a private tennis club on property zoned an R-16(A) Single Family District, on the south side of Dilbeck Lane, east side of Preston Road. Staff Recommendation: Approval. Applicant: Tennis Club Partners LLC Representative: Victoria Morris, Jackson Walker LLP Planner: Sheila Alcantara Segovia Council District: 11 MZ-25-000022(SAS)] YOU. WE'LL GO BACK TO CASE FOUR. ITEM NUMBER FOUR AND APPLICATION FOR A MINOR AMENDMENT TO THE SITE. PLAN FOR SPECIFIC USE PERMIT NUMBER 5 0 2 FOR A PRIVATE RECREATIONAL CENTER, CLUB OR AREA LIMITED TO PRIVATE TENNIS CLUB ON PROPERTY ZONE R DASH 16 SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF BECK LANE, EAST SIDE OF PRESTON ROAD. STAFF RECOMMENDATION, APPROVAL. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IS THE APPLICANT HERE WOULD LIKE TO BE HEARD? OKAY, JUST HERE FOR QUESTIONS. OKAY. ALRIGHT. IS THERE ANYONE HERE IN SUPPORT THAT WOULD LIKE TO BE HEARD ON THIS ITEM? SPEAKER IN OPPOSITION? YES, SIR. RANDY CARTER. 1 3 1 1 5 COPEN HILL ROAD, DALLAS, TEXAS. I OPPOSE THE MINOR AMENDMENT. FIRST OF ALL, I'M LITTLE DISHEARTENING TO STAND UP HERE KNOWING THAT ALL OF THE CHANGES HAVE ALREADY BEEN PRETTY MUCH IMPLEMENTED ON SITE. UM, MY FIRST OBJECTION IS THAT THE AMENDED SITE PLAN ACTUALLY ADDS A COURT. IT DOES NOT SHOWN IN THE CASE REPORT, BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN AND THE ORIGINAL SITE PLAN, YOU'LL SEE THAT ONE FIDEL COURT HAS BEEN ADDED AND ONE ADDITIONAL COURT. I THINK IT'S MORE APPROPRIATE TO SEND THOSE THROUGH THE FULL ZONING PROCESS FOR THIS SUP THEN TO ALLOW IT GO THROUGH AS A MINOR AMENDMENT. UH, ALSO IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT, UH, TBAR IS LOOKING TO ADD TWO MORE PADELL COURTS AND A GRASS COURT IN THE NEAR FUTURE. BASED ON WHAT I'M READING, THE PUBLICATIONS, AGAIN, THOSE TYPES OF CHANGES ARE BETTER SUITED TO GO THROUGH AN ANALYTICAL PROCESS THAN A MINOR AMENDMENT. IN REGARD TO THE SWITCHING OF THE POEL COURT LOCATION WITH THE CLAY COURTS, I BELIEVE THAT THOSE, THAT RESULTS IN A ALTERATION OF THE BASE RELATIONSHIP OF TAR BARM TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES. BEDELL COURTS COULD GENERATE MORE NOISE. NOISE IS WHAT SOMEWHAT SOMEWHERE TO PICKLEBALL, BUT MAYBE A LITTLE BIT LESS. SEVERAL GOVERNING BODIES, UH, FOR EXAMPLE, THE FRENCH FEDERATION OF TENNIS, THE DUTCH, UH, FEDERATION OF TENNIS AND BEDELL HAVE BASICALLY SAID YOU SHOULD NOT LOCATE PADELL COURTS WITHIN 106 OR A HUNDRED METERS, WHICH IS BASICALLY 3 28 FEET OF RESIDENTIAL AREAS. UH, THESE ARE THE ONES THAT CURRENTLY EXIST ARE PROBABLY WITHIN 60 FEET OF HOMES. THERE ARE MITIGATION TECHNIQUES THAT CAN BE EMPLOYED. THE MOST IMPORTANT ONE IS DISTANCE, WHICH WE'RE KIND OF LOCKED INTO NOW, BUT THE OTHER ONES, UH, WOULD REQUIRE SOME EFFORT. AND I BELIEVE IT. THIS IS A TYPE OF ANALYSIS, AGAIN, SHOULD GO THROUGH THE FULL ZONING PROCESS SO THAT SOME SORT OF GUARDRAILS CAN BE ESTABLISHED WHEN WE GET TO THE SITUATION, IF, IF AND WHEN WE REACH THE NOISE LEVELS THAT OTHER COUNTRIES HAVE EXPERIENCED FROM PLAY. AND I'M WILLING TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS IF ANYONE HAS ANY. THANK YOU. YOU FOR JOINING US. WE HAVE THE APPLICANT. WE GET A TWO MINUTE REBUTTAL. MR. CHAIR. COMMISSIONERS, THANKS FOR YOUR TIME. VICTORIA MORRIS WITH JACKSON WALKER, 2323 ROSS AVENUE, SUITE 600. WE ARE HERE TODAY WITH OUR FULL TEAM, UM, FOR A VERY MINOR AMENDMENT APPLICATION. IT IS, UH, TO ADDRESS THE ENTRYWAY, RECONFIGURATION AND ADJUST COURTS AND LANDSCAPING AS A RESULT OF SITE PLAN CHANGES. UH, AT TIME OF PERMIT THERE WAS A FIRE LANE THAT NEEDED TO BE ADJUSTED. VARIOUS UTILITY CONSTRAINTS THAT ALSO NEED TO BE ADJUSTED, WHICH IS WHY WE'RE HERE NOW. UM, THIS PROJECT HAS PRODUCED ACTUALLY 184% OF THE REQUIRED LANDSCAPING SO WELL OVER WHAT IS REQUIRED. THERE ARE ALSO GOOD NEIGHBOR AGREEMENTS THAT WERE NEGOTIATED AS PART OF THIS SUP, UM, OVER 36 REQUESTS. ONE IS STILL [03:05:01] OUTSTANDING, BUT IS WELL IN THE WORKS. AND THAT IS THE, UM, PAVILION OVER THE PICKLEBALL COURTS. UM, TO ADDRESS, UH, THE OPPOSITION'S COMMENTS WITH REGARD TO PADEL, UM, AND THE NOISE THAT IS GENERATED FROM THAT, THESE PADEL COURTS ACTUALLY DO HAVE GLASS ENCLOSURES AROUND FOUR OF THE SIDES, NOT ON THE ROOF 'CAUSE THAT IS FOR PLAYING PURPOSES, BUT THEY ARE 11 TO 14 FEET, 12 FEET IN HEIGHT. UM, AND SO THOSE DRASTICALLY HELP WITH NOISE ATTENUATION, NOT TO MENTION ALL OF THE LANDSCAPING ALONG THE SOUTHERN PROPERTY LINE. AND, UM, AN EIGHT FOOT TALL WOOD FENCE THAT WAS REQUIRED AS PART OF THE GOOD NEIGHBOR AGREEMENT AS WELL. AND WITH THAT, WE WOULD RESPECTFULLY REQUEST FOR YOUR RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. I'LL NOW GO WITH OUR MOTION. COMMISSIONER SIMS, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION, SIR? I DO. MR. CHAIRMAN, IN THE MATTER OF, UH, CASE MZ 25 DASH 22, I MOVE THAT WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE OF THIS CHANGE PER STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER SENSE FOR YOUR MOTION COMMISSIONER HOUSE, RIGHT? FOR YOUR SECOND COMMENTS, QUESTIONS FOR ANY OF OUR SPEAKERS DISCUSSION? COMMISSIONER CARPENTER? I'D LIKE ONE CLARIFICATION PLEASE. WHAT IS A PADELL COURT? I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S A SPORT OR A SURFACE OR IT IS A SPORT. IT IS A RAPIDLY GROWING SPORT, BUT, UM, IT IS A COMBINATION OF SQUASH AND TENNIS. UM, IT USES A BALL THAT IS MUCH SOFTER THAN A PICKLEBALL, UM, AND HAS A DIFFERENT SOUND. IT USES A THICKER PADDLE. UM, AND IT'S A VERY UNIQUE SPORT. YOU CAN ACTUALLY PLAY ALL OVER THE COURT, WHEREVER THE BALL MIGHT LIE. SO, UM, THAT IS, AND IT LIES WITHIN AN ENCLOSURE? YES, MA'AM. THANK YOU. WE ALL LOOKED IT UP. COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, . YEAH, THERE'S, THERE'S PICTURES ON GOOGLE. UH, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, DISCUSSION QUESTIONS FOR ANY OF OUR SPEAKERS? COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, PLEASE. WELL, I JUST WANTED TO ASK A FOLLOW UP QUESTION OF MS. MORRIS, IF I MAY. UM, I THINK WE HEARD THE, UM, GENTLEMAN WHO WAS EXPRESSING SOME CONCERNS ABOUT THE NOISE IN THE MITIGATION. I THINK I UNDERSTOOD YOU TO SAY THAT PART OF HOW YOU'RE HANDLING THE NOISE MEDICATION IS THROUGH THE ENCLOSURES AROUND THE COURTS THEMSELVES. AND ARE THERE OTHER, I KNOW, I REMEMBER WHEN THIS CAME THROUGH INITIALLY AND THERE WAS LONG CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THE SCREENING REQUIREMENTS, THE TREES REQUIREMENTS, WHILE THEY MAY HAVE BEEN ADJUSTED, THOSE ARE ALL IN PLACE AND AT THE PERIMETER TO, UM, AS INTENDED, UM, BASED ON THE RESIDENT'S COMMENTS. IS THAT CORRECT? YES, MA'AM. ALL OF THE LANDSCAPING FENCING, ALL OF THAT IS ADDED NOISE ATTENUATION IN ADDITION TO THE, UM, SCREENING AROUND THE COURTS THEMSELVES. UM, BUT YES, ALL OF THAT IS, IT'S VERY MUCH AN ACTIVE CONSTRUCTION SITE. MANY, MANY OF THE PLANTINGS ARE ALREADY IN, BUT, UM, IT, THEY'RE, THEY'RE STILL UNDERWAY. THE, THE IVY THAT GROWS ON THE FENCE IS STILL MATURING. AND SO, BUT YES, ALL OF THOSE SOUND ATTENUATION TOOLS THAT WERE REQUIRED ARE STILL BEING PURSUED. AND DO I REMEMBER THAT THERE'S AN ONGOING, UM, COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT, UM, THAT YOU ALL ARE PURSUING SO THAT AS THERE ARE, UM, ISSUES AS YOU ACTUALLY GET INTO USING THE COURTS, UM, THAT THOSE WILL BE ONGOING CONVERSATIONS IN CASE THERE ARE, ARE OTHER MITIGATIONS STRATEGIES THAT ARE NEEDED? YES, MA'AM. WE DID HAVE A MEETING WITH OUR, UH, NEIGHBORS SEVERAL, UH, ABOUT A MONTH AND A HALF AGO. UM, WE FIELDED ALL OF THOSE COMMENTS THEN, BUT WE ALSO, OUR TEAM TAKES COMMENTS ON A DAILY BASIS. WHOEVER HAS FEEDBACK, WANTS TO, UM, PROVIDE ANY INPUT AS TO WHAT IS GOING ON ON THE SITE. THEY ARE WELL RECEPTIVE TO ALL OF THAT FEEDBACK. SOME OF IT IS EVEN BENEFICIAL FOR US. YOU KNOW, A LIGHT IS ACCIDENTALLY LEFT ON BECAUSE, UM, THEY'RE WORKING THROUGH ELECTRICAL. AGAIN, ACTIVE CONSTRUCTION, CONSTRUCTION SITES BENEFICIAL FOR EVERYBODY. SO, UM, OPEN, OPEN LINES OF COMMUNICATION ALWAYS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU MR. CHAIR. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HAMPTON. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? COMMISSIONERS? OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER SIMS, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER HOUSE, RIGHT TO CLOSE UP OPEN HEARING FALSE STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL. THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? [8. 25-2452A An application for a development plan and landscape plan on property zoned Subdistrict C, D & F within Planned Development District No. 750, on the northwest corner of North Central Expressway and Walnut Hill Lane. Staff Recommendation: Approval. Applicant: Preston Hollow Village Phase 3, LP Representative: Suzan Kedron, Jackson Walker LLP Planner: Teaseia Blue, MBA U/A From: June 26, 2025. Council District: 11 D223-007(TB)] THE MOTION CARRIES. WE'LL NOW GO TO CASE NUMBER EIGHT, PLEASE. GOOD AFTERNOON. CASE NUMBER EIGHT [03:10:01] IS D 2 23 DASH 0 0 7. IT'S AN APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND LANDSCAPE PLAN ON PROPERTIES ZONE SUB-DISTRICT, CD AND F, BUT THEN PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER SEVEN 50 ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF NORTH CENTRAL EXPRESSWAY AND WALNUT HILL LANE. STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? IT SAYS ITEM NUMBER EIGHT, PAGE THREE. OKAY. SEEING NONE. COMMISSIONER SIMS, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION, SIR? I DO. MR. CHAIRMAN, THANK YOU. IN LIGHT OF ONGOING CONVERSATIONS BETWEEN THE NEIGHBORS AND THE DEVELOPERS IN THE MATTER OF CASE D 2 23 DASH 0 0 7, I MOVE THAT WE HOLD IT UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL OUR MEETING ON SEPTEMBER 4TH, 2025. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER SIMS FOR YOUR MOTION AND COMMISSIONER HAMPTON FOR YOUR SECOND. ANY COMMENTS OR DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? [Zoning Cases - Consent] MOTION CARRIES. WE'LL NOW MOVE TO OUR ZONING CON AGENDAS, UH, ZONING CASES UNDER CONSENT. THANK YOU. THOSE, UH, CASES ARE NINE THROUGH 16 AT THIS MOMENT. CASE NUMBER 9, 11, 12, AND 15 HAVE COME OFF CONSENT. WE'LL BE DISPOSED OF INDIVIDUALLY. THAT LEAVES CASES 10, 13, 14 AND 16 THAT WILL BE DISPOSED OF IN ONE MOTION, UNLESS THERE IS SOMEONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON ANY OF THOSE ITEMS. THAT'S 10, 13, 14 OR 16. IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON ANY OF THOSE FOUR CASES? 10, 13, 14 OR 16? ARE YOU SAYING YOU'RE GONNA, UH, REMOVE, UH, KEEP 14 ON THE CONSENT AGENDA? I THOUGHT THAT WOULD BE, UH, HANDLED SEPARATELY. 1414 IS ON CONSENT. WOULD YOU LIKE TO TAKE IT OFF? COMMISSIONER FORSYTH? YES, SIR. OKAY. YES SIR. LET'S TAKE IT OFF. OKAY, SO THAT LEAVES 10 13 AND 16. OH, UH, FORGIVE ME. KEEP IT ON THERE. I I I THOUGHT THIS WAS THE DR. HARIN HOLMES. OKAY. FORGIVE ME, FORGIVE ME. I'M SORRY. KEEP IT ON THERE. YEAH, IT'S A BALANCE ONE. OKAY, SO WE'LL KEEP THE 14 ON CONSENT. 16? YES. 10 13. 1416. YES MA'AM. YES, WE, WE WILL NOT DISCUSS IT. WE'RE JUST GONNA GO AHEAD AND, AND VOTE ON IT UNLESS THERE'S SOME, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK ON IT? WOULD YOU LIKE TO BE HEARD? I CAN SPEAK ON, BUT I'M NOT CLOSED. JUST HANG TIGHT. UH, EXCELLENT. SORRY. OKAY, LET'S GET THOSE RIGHT IN PLEASE. OKAY, I CONSENT TO JANA. 10 13 6 14 16, UM, Z 2 3 4 1 40 G UH, IS Z TWO FIVE. UM, 82. IT'S AN APPLICATION FOR A NEW SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR THE SALE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES ON PROPERTY ZONE SUB AREA TWO A WITHIN PLAINTIFF DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 360 6, THE BUCKNER BOULEVARD SOCIAL PURPOSE DISTRICT WITH A D ONE LIQUOR CONTROL OVERLAY IN THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SOUTH BUCKNER BOULEVARD IN ELAM ROAD. STAFF. RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO A SITE PLANNING CONDITIONS. 13 IS Z 2 4 5 2 1 3 Z 2 5 0 0 5 3. IT'S AN APPLICATION FOR A TH ONE TOWNHOUSE DISTRICT ON PROPERTY ZONE CR COMMUNITY RETAIL DISTRICT ON THE WEST LINE OF SOUTH EWING AVENUE, NORTH OF EAST SANER AVENUE. UH, STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL. ITEM 14 IS Z 2 5 0 0 0 4 8. IT'S AN APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO SPECIFIC USE PERMIT NUMBER 2 1 4 7 FOR A COMMUNITY SERVICE CENTER ON PROPERTY ZONE. UH, R 75, A SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SUTHERLAND AVENUE IN BONVIEW ROAD. STAFF. RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS AND 16 IS Z TWO FIVE, UH, 0 0 0 0 9 8. AND IT'S AN APPLICATION FOR AN MU ONE MIXED USE DISTRICT ON THE PROPERTY ZONED IR INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH DISTRICT AND PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 5 2 5 WITH SPECIFIC USE PERMIT NUMBER 98 ON THE EAST LINE OF STONE MESA DRIVE IN THE WEST LINE OF PINNACLE PARK BOULEVARD BETWEEN ROCK QUARRY ROAD AND PINNACLE POINT DRIVE. STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. CAN I HAVE A MOTION? VICE RUBIN. THANK YOU MR. CHAIR. IN THE MATTER OF THE ZONING CONSENT DOCKET CONSISTING OF ITEMS 10 13 14 16, I MOVE THAT WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND FOLLOW STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL AS, UM, LISTED IN THE DOCKET SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS. THANK YOU VICE FOR YOUR MOTION AND COMMISSIONER HAMPTON FOR YOUR SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION OR QUESTIONS? NONE OF THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? AYES HAVE IT. [12. 25-2456A An application for an amendment to the development and landscape plans on property zoned Subdistrict C within Planned Development District 381, on the north line of Forest Lane between Hillcrest Road and Park Central Drive. Staff Recommendation: Approval of the amended development plan and landscape plan. Applicant: MM Swan Lake, LLC and MM Forest Office Park LLC Representative: Robert Baldwin, Baldwin Associates, LLC Planner: Teaseia Blue, B. Arch, MBA Council District: 11 Z245-207(TB) / Z-25-000027] UH, COMMISSIONERS BEFORE WE GET BACK, UH, IN ORDER, LET'S GO AHEAD AND PICK UP THE OTHER. I THINK THERE'S ONE [03:15:01] OTHER D 11 CASE THAT WOULD BE, UM, 1212. LET'S GO TO 12 FIRST. GOOD AFTERNOON. GOOD AFTERNOON AGAIN. ITEM NUMBER. THANK YOU. UH, LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT COMMISSIONER KINGSTON HAS A CONFLICT ON THIS ITEM AND IS LOGGING OFF FOR THE MOMENT. IN FACT, HAS LOGGED OFF. THANK YOU. ITEM NUMBER 12 IS Z 2 34 DASH 2 0 7 IS ALSO Z DASH 25 DASH 27. IT'S AN APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO A DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND LANDSCAPE PLAN ON PROPERTY ZONE SUB DISTRICT C WITHIN THEN PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 3 81 ON THE NORTH LINE OF FOREST LANE BETWEEN WILL HILLCREST ROAD AND PARK CENTRAL DRIVE. STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL OF THE AMENDED DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND LANDSCAPE PLAN. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I SEE THE APPLICANT IS HERE. GOOD AFTERNOON. GOOD AFTERNOON. ROB BALDWIN 3 9 0 4 ELM STREET, SUITE B IN DALLAS HERE REPRESENTING, UH, MM SWAN LAKE, UH, CENTURIAN AMERICAN ON ON THIS ONE. UH, THIS IS, UH, SUBDISTRICT C PD 3 81, WHICH IS THE OLD EDS CAMPUS. UH, BACK IN THE DAY, THIS WAS THE, THE OFFICE AND THERE'S A DATA CENTER AND THEN THERE WAS A GOLF COURSE AROUND IT. THE GOLF COURSE HAS BEEN REDEVELOPED INTO HIGH END SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REQUEST IS TO, UM, AMEND THE CURRENT DEVELOPMENT PLAN THAT SHOWS AN EIGHT STORY, UM, OFFICE BUILDING, UH, A DATA CENTER WHICH WE'D LIKE TO CONVERT INTO A PARKING GARAGE. AND THEN, UH, WITH THE SURFACE PARKING, TURN THAT INTO, UH, SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED AND DETACHED HOMES. THE, THE DETACHED HOMES WILL BE ABOUT 3,500 SQUARE FOOT LOTS. THE ATTACHED HOME IS ABOUT 2000 SQUARE FOOT LOTS. SO, UM, WE'RE, THIS IS KIND OF WEIRD. IT'S KIND OF BE, IT'S KIND OF A HYBRID. IT'S GOT A ZONING CASE NUMBER, BUT IT'S ACTUALLY A, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT AND A LANDSCAPE PLAN AMENDMENT. AND THIS IS SOMETHING REALLY PECULIAR TO PD 3 81 THAT SAYS THAT IF YOU WANNA AMEND A DEVELOPMENT PLAN, YOU BRING IT THROUGH IT THIS WAY. AND, UH, BELIEVE IT OR NOT, WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO GET IT HERE FOR ABOUT A YEAR AND A HALF, WHICH IS THIS, THE WHOLE WAY THAT THE PD WAS PUT TOGETHER. IT WAS CONFUSION ON HOW TO GET HERE. UH, BUT STAFF HAS BEEN GREAT. HERE WE ARE. UH, SO, UH, TO COMMISSIONER SLIPPER'S POINT, SO WE'RE TAKING THE DATA CENTER BUILDING AND WE ARE, UH, GOING TO, UH, PUT RAMPS ON THE OUTSIDE AND, UH, USE THAT AS A PARKING GARAGE. UH, ON THE TOP THERE IS A SIX FOOT FOUR TALL PARAPET THAT WILL BLOCK ANY HEADLIGHTS, UH, TO, TO SURROUNDING NEIGHBORS. UH, THE, THE RAMPS THEMSELVES WILL HAVE, UH, SCREENS ON THE SIDE AND THEN THE PARKING GARAGE WILL BE ENCASED IN A WHERE, WHERE IT'S BEEN OPENED INTO A FINE METAL MESH TO SCREEN HEADLIGHTS SCREEN VIEWS, BUT ALSO ALLOWED IT TO BE VENTILATED, UM, THE HOA FOR, UH, THE LAKE FOREST. AND SINCE YOU'RE AN AMERICAN, BEEN WORKING ON THIS FOR SEVERAL YEARS, UH, IF YOU SAW IN YOUR PACKET, WE DO HAVE A LETTER OF SUPPORT FROM THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE LET ME KNOW. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, SIR. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? YES SIR. PLEASE COME ON DOWN. GOOD AFTERNOON. HELLO. UH, MY NAME IS MICHAEL NEARY AND I LIVE AT 1 2 1 4 3 LOOTERS LANE IN LAKE FOREST. UH, MY HOME BUTS THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY OF TRACK C IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE PRO PROPOSED PARKING GARAGE. UH, I'M A REAL ESTATE DEVELOPER BY CAREER AND ATTORNEY BY EDUCATION, AND I'M NOT OPPOSED TO THIS DEVELOPMENT AT ALL. UM, IN FACT, I WAS A PARTNER IN THE ORIGINAL DEVELOPMENT WHEN IT STARTED 25 YEARS AGO. BUT I'M, I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE PARKING GARAGE AND SOME OF THE OTHER THINGS GOING ON THERE. AND WHAT MY ASK IS, ON BEHALF OF A NUMBER OF NEIGHBORS WHO'VE REACHED [03:20:01] OUT TO ME IS TO, UH, NOT TO DENY THE PLAN AMENDMENT THAT IS HERE, BUT TO KIND OF PAUSE IT FOR 30 DAYS SO THE HOMEOWNERS CAN PUT TOGETHER A COGENT RESPONSE TO THE DEVELOPER PROPOSAL. AND THE, WHEN I SAW THE, THE PLANS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT, THE, UH, THERE WERE NO RAMPS ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE GARAGE THAT ALL OF THEIR, UH, PRESENTATIONS JUST SHOWED THE DATA CENTER AND HAD NO RAMPS ON IT. THEY'RE PROPOSING TO BUILD THE RAMPS OUT FROM THE GARAGE. THEY'RE 40 FEET AWAY FROM THE BUILDING, WHICH IS RIGHT ON TOP OF THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT HEADLIGHTS, AND I WAS PLEASED TO SEE THE SCREENING AS PROPOSED. WE JUST SAW THAT IN THE LAST FEW DAYS. I THINK THE SCREENING'S A GOOD IDEA, BUT I'M VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE NOISE AND I'M VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE DRAINAGE IN THE PARKING GARAGE. WHEN YOU HAVE A PARKING GARAGE THAT HAS ENTIRELY FLAT FLOORS, IT'S REALLY A PROBLEM WHEN IT GETS WET IN THERE. YOU KNOW, MOST PARKING GARAGES ARE SLOPED AND THE PROPERTY DRAINS, ET CETERA. IT'S A CHALLENGING SITE TO DEVELOP. I MEAN, THERE'S A LOT OF ISSUES THAT WENT ON. UH, I THINK CA IS A, UH, GOOD SUBURBAN MASTER PLAN COMMUNITY DEVELOPER, UH, AND, YOU KNOW, A RATIONAL COUNTERPARTY HERE. BUT I KNOW THAT MANY OF THE HOMEOWNERS ARE HIRING CONSULTANTS TO, UH, TRY AND ADDRESS THIS ISSUE. AND WE JUST GOT THE NOTICES FOUR OR FIVE DAYS AGO, AND WE'VE REACHED OUT TO CONSULTANTS TRYING TO GET THEM ENGAGED. WE'VE REACHED OUT TO ZONING ATTORNEYS TO GET ENGAGED AND UNFORTUNATELY THEY ALL LIKE TO WORK FOR PEOPLE LIKE CA AND ME BECAUSE WE PAY A LOT BETTER THAN HOAS DO. AND, YOU KNOW, WE'VE CALLED HALF A DOZEN OF THE MAJOR FIRMS HERE AND HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO STIR ANYBODY UP YET. BUT I'D LIKE TO CONSIDER JUST PAUSING THIS FOR 30 DAYS SO THE HOMEOWNERS CAN MAKE A COGENT RESPONSE TO THE, UH, CHANGES IN THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT, NOT OPPOSED TO DEVELOPMENT. IT IS WHAT IT IS. YOU KNOW, WE KNEW IT WAS GONNA BE DEVELOPED. THAT'S YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU FOR JOINING US IF YOU CONSIDER PAUSING IT. THANK YOU, SIR. NEXT SPEAKER. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS ROBERT SHIRTLIFF. I LIVE AT 12 1 0 8 EDGE STONE ROAD, DALLAS, TEXAS, AND I'M IN LAKE FOREST. AND THE AREA IS ADJACENT TO THE, UH, PLAN DEVELOPMENT. I BELIEVE IN THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT. AS I UNDERSTAND THE, THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT, ITS WHOLE OBJECTIVE WAS TO PREVENT CONGESTION AND LESSEN TRAFFIC IMPACT. AND I WANNA FOCUS ON THE TRAFFIC IMPACT PORTION OF THAT. UM, WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE'S THIS DESIGN TO TR TO MOVE A WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY PLANNED AS A DATA CENTER INTO A PARKING STRUCTURE. IT WASN'T, OR IT'S NOT PLANNED TO BE A PARKING STRUCTURE. SO THEY'VE ADDED THESE RAMPS. OKAY, I CAN SEE HOW THAT CAN BE A REASONABLE, UH, WAY TO MAKE THIS USABLE FOR PARKING. HOWEVER, IN SPITE OF THESE NEW SCREENS THAT THEY'VE, UH, SUGGESTED BE PLACED ON THE RAMPS, THERE'S NO PLAN FOR NOISE ABATEMENT. SO WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE IMPACT WILL BE WITH, UH, 24 HOUR A DAY USE OF THAT PARKING STRUCTURE FOR PURPOSES OF CARS OR MOTORCYCLES OR ANY OTHER VEHICLES GOING UP AND DOWN IN THE USE OF THAT EIGHT STORY COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE. SO FOR THAT REASON, I DON'T, UM, I DON'T OPPOSE THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, BUT I ASK THAT THE BOARD OR THE YOU ALL, UH, CONSIDER DELAYING THIS UNTIL WE HAVE A CHANCE TO UNDERSTAND HOW THAT PARKING STRUCTURE WOULD BE ABATED IN TERMS OF ITS NOISE IMPACT ON THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR JOINING US. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WANTS TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION BEFORE WE GO? YES, SIR. GOOD AFTERNOON. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS CHRISTOPHER MILLER. I LIVE AT 1 2 2 0 4 PARK FOREST AND THAT IS IN THE LAKE FOREST DEVELOPMENT. [03:25:02] UM, IN TERMS OF CONTEXT, WE LIVE ON THE VERY NORTHWEST BORDER OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. OUR LOCAL HOME IS LOCATED PARALLEL TO THE EXISTING WALL. UH, I'M IN OPPOSITION OR WE ARE IN OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING PLAN. FOR CONTEXT, OUR HOME IS A SINGLE FAMILY HOME. YOU CAN SEE THE FOLKS WHO HAVE SPOKEN HERE TODAY ARE NOT THE MOST FLEET OF FOOT. SO WE HAVE A SINGLE FAMILY HOME WE HAVE, AND IT IS ADJACENT TO THE WALL. ADJACENT TO THAT WALL IS OUR MASTER BEDROOM, OUR MASTER BATHROOM, THE OTHER TWO BEDROOMS AND THE OTHER BATH. SO THAT PROPOSED HOMES THAT ARE GONNA BE TWO PLUS TWO STORIES WILL BE PEERING DIRECTLY DOWN ONTO OUR SINGLE FAMILY HOME. UM, THROUGHOUT THE VARIOUS MEETINGS WITH THE DEVELOPER, AN AGREEMENT HAS BEEN REACHED TO PROVIDE LAND. A AGREEMENT HAD BEEN REACHED TO PROVIDE A LANDSCAPE BUFFER ALONG THE WALL ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. AND ALTHOUGH YOU, I CAN'T POINT TO 'EM, THE TWO NORTHERN MOST PROPOSED PROPERTIES WERE ALSO GOING TO HAVE TREES ON THE NORTH SIDE, WHICH WOULD'VE BEEN IN BETWEEN US AND THE PLANNED HOMES. ALL OF THIS WAS DOCUMENTED IN THE POWERPOINT PRESENTATION THAT WAS PROVIDED TO THE RESIDENTS TO VOTE ON, AND THAT WAS THE BASIS FOR THE RENDERING INCLUDED WAS A MINIMUM OF FOUR TREES ALONG THAT BOUNDARY LINE BY OUR PARTICULAR HOME, AND THEN ALSO ADDITIONAL TREES BY THE NORTHERNMOST. LOTS, UH, PROPOSED IN TERMS OF THE, OF THE DEVELOPMENT, THE TODAY'S RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL LANDSCAPING PLAN INDICATES BUFFERING ALONG THE ENTIRE RESIDENTIAL NORTH PORTION OF THE PROPERTY, THE EXCEPTION BEING THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF OUR HOME AND OUR LOT. UM, THIS TOTAL VOID OF LINE OF SIGHT BARRIER DOESN'T INCLUDE A SINGLE PLANTING. HOWEVER, IN THAT WHICH WAS PRESENTED BY CA AND APPROVED BY THE HOMEOWNERS, THERE WERE TREES, QUANTITY FOUR ALONG THE WALL AND TWO ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE, UH, PROPOSED HOMES. REGARDLESS OF EITHER THE OVERSIGHT OR EITHER BEING INTENTIONAL OR MERELY AN OVERSIGHT, WE'RE AS WE'RE ASKING THAT THE RESIDENTIAL LANDSCAPE TIME, THANK YOU LANDSCAPING PLAN, BE AMENDED TO, TO AGREE. THANK YOU, SIR, TO THE DOCUMENTS THAT WERE PROPOSED AND SUBMITTED TO US. THANK YOU FOR JOINING US. IT'S YOUR THREE MINUTES, SIR. ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO BE HEARD? YES, SIR. GOOD AFTERNOON. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE TIME. MY NAME IS LEWIS FOX, FOX. I LIVE AT 1 2 0 0 1 LOOTERS LANE, DALLAS, 7 5 2 3 0. MY HOME IS ON THE, UH, ALONG THE EAST WALL OF THIS PLANNED, UH, DEVELOPMENT OF THAT TRACK C AS WE CALL IT. UM, WHEN I VOTED ORIGINALLY, I, UH, HAD MY MISGIVINGS ABOUT THE INTENT OF THE DENSITY OF THE, UH, HOUSING, BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE RENDERING PLANS ON THE POWERPOINT, THERE WAS, UH, NO PARKING GARAGE WHERE THE DATA CENTER IS, I DON'T EVEN KNOW HOW YOU CONVERT A DATA CENTER INTO A PARKING GARAGE FOR ITS STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS. UM, AS FAR AS THE ROOFTOP PARKING, THAT WILL REQUIRE SOME OVERHEAD LIGHTING, AND THAT WILL CAUSE AMBIENT, UM, UM, LIGHT, UH, POLLUTION, UH, TO NOT ONLY OUR DEVELOPMENT, BUT TO THE NEW RESIDENTS WHO WILL BE MOVING INTO THAT TRE C DEVELOPMENT, UM, THE VENTILATION FANS AND WILL HAVE AN AMBIENT NOISE ISSUE. THE SCREENING OF THE EXTERNAL RAMPS, AS WELL AS BEING AN EYESORE, WILL NOT, UH, OBVIATE THE, UH, NOISE POLLUTION THAT WILL COME WITH IT. THE LANDSCAPING CONCERNS HAVE ALREADY BEEN STATED. UM, OF [03:30:01] NOTE IS, UH, AND LASTLY IS THAT, UM, CENT AMERICAN HAS ELEVATED THE PROPOSED, UH, TOWNHOME SITE AS WELL AS SEVERAL OF THE AREAS OF THE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, UH, 10 TO 15 FEET IN ELEVATION THAT WAS NEVER, UH, SEEN ON THE ORIGINAL RENDERING OF THIS, UH, PROJECT. SO I'M ASKING THE COMMISSION TO POSTPONE ANY VOTE ON THE APPROVAL AS I'M OPPOSED TO THIS AND SEND IT BACK FOR FURTHER DISCUSSIONS WITH THE HOA, UH, TO RESOLVE THESE ISSUES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU, SIR. THERE ANYONE ELSE I'D LIKE TO SPEAK BEFORE WE GET TO? YES, SIR. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME'S LARRY GINSBURG. I'M PRESIDENT OF THE LAKE FOREST HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. UH, I HADN'T PLANNED TO TALK, BUT I WANTED TO, UH, CORRECT THREE POINTS THAT HAVE JUST BEEN MADE. UM, UH, I'VE HAD, UH, UH, EMAIL CONVERSATIONS AND, UH, LIVE CONVERSATION JUST BEFORE, UH, THE MEETING WITH, UH, MR. MILLER AS TO THE, UH, TREES THAT WERE SHOWN ON THE SIDE PLAN BUT ARE NOT SHOWN ON THE LANDSCAPING PLAN. UH, THE, UH, OFFICE TRACK ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE WILL BE REVIEWING THE LANDSCAPE, UH, PLAN, UH, TO MAKE SURE THAT, UH, OMISSIONS LIKE WHAT, WHAT HE POINTED OUT, UH, DO NOT EXIST ELSEWHERE, UH, IN LAKE FOREST. UH, I BELIEVE THAT IT'S AN ISSUE SIMPLY OF WHERE TREES ARE PLACED, NOT THE QUANTITY OF LANDSCAPING. I POINTED OUT TO HIM THAT HIS NEIGHBOR TO THE WEST, UH, WHO HAD, UH, UH, EIGHT TREES IN THE SITE PLAN AND THE LANDSCAPING PLAN, UH, THEIR NUMBER OF TREES IS ACTUALLY 11. SO IT WAS INCREASED, UH, AS TO THE AMBIENT LIGHTING, UH, WE HAVE IN, IN OUR SEPARATE, IN A SEPARATE AGREEMENT WITH CENT CENTURIAN AMERICAN, UH, IN OUR AGREEMENT THAT ALL LIGHTING WILL BE DARK SKY COMPLIANT. SO THE ISSUE OF AMBIENT, UH, LIGHTING IS NOT, UH, A SIGNIFICANT ISSUE. AND THEN LASTLY, UH, MR. FOX TALKED ABOUT THE, UH, UH, GRADE OF THE TOWN HOMES BEING RAISED 10 TO 15 FEET. THAT'S NOT ACCURATE. IT WAS RAISED ONLY FIVE FEET. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM? MR. BALDWIN, YOU REBUTTAL TIME? THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND THANK YOU VERY MUCH MR. GINSBURG, FOR SHOWING UP. SO, UM, WE DID WANNA POINT OUT THAT THERE ARE SEPARATE DEED RESTRICTIONS THAT ARE PRIVATE, THAT DEAL WITH LANDSCAPING AND THAT DARK SKY REQUIREMENTS THAT'S NOT, NOT SUBJECT TO YOUR PURVIEW. YOU KNOW, THIS IS, UH, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND LANDSCAPE PLAN. UH, WE THINK THAT WE HAVE AN ELEGANT SOLUTION TO PROVIDE HOUSING AND, UH, TAKE CARE OF SURFACE PARKING BY PUTTING INSIDE AN EXISTING BUILDING. I THINK THAT HAS, UH, THE BENEFIT OF MOVING THE EXISTING SURFACE PARKING AND, AND CARS AWAY FROM OUR NEIGHBORS AND BRINGING IT TO THE CENTER OF THE SITE. UM, AND WE HOPE YOU CAN AGREE THAT, UH, WHAT WE'RE DOING IS, UH, THOUGHTFUL AND WORTHY OF APPROVAL. SO I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, SIR. UH, COMMISSIONER SIMS, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? I DO. MR. CHAIRMAN, IN THE MATTER OF CASE Z 2 45 DASH 27 AND Z TWO FIVE, UH, Z 2 5 0 0 0 27, I MOVE THAT WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE THE AMENDED DEVELOPMENT PLAN PER STAFFS RECOMMENDATION. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER SIMPSON, YOUR MOTION AND COMMISSIONER HOUSER FOR YOUR SECOND, UH, COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, DISCUSSION? COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, MR. BALDWIN. THANK YOU. YES, MA'AM. I THINK WE HEARD A NUMBER OF, UM, QUESTIONS FROM, UM, THE FOLKS CONCERNED ABOUT, UM, NOISE MITIGATION, I THINK VISUAL MITIGATION LIGHTING YOU SPOKE TO WITH THE DARK SKY PROVISIONS, UM, IN CONTEMPLATING THE SCREENING MATERIALS. WILL YOU ALL BE EVALUATING HOW THAT IS ADDRESSING EVERYTHING? I MEAN, THERE'S HEADLIGHTS, THERE'S SCREENING OF THE LAMPS, UM, WITHIN THE PARKING STRUCTURES THAT ARE BECOMING, I THINK, MORE OF AN ISSUE AS WE'RE GETTING ELEVATED IN OUR PARKING MORE FREQUENTLY. UM, IS THAT ALL? CAN YOU SPEAK TO WHAT THE BASE CODE REQUIREMENT IS AND HOW YOUR, [03:35:01] UM, TEAM IS EVALUATING THOSE AS YOU'RE LOOKING AT MAKING THIS, UM, CHANGE? SURE. UM, THE, GENERALLY THE CODE REQUIRES YOU TO HAVE HEADLIGHT SCREEN OF 42 INCHES. I UNDERSTAND THAT'S BEING DONE. AND THEN THE AREA, UH, BETWEEN, UH, THE, THE, THAT THE CLEARLY PUNCH HOLES IN THE EXISTING WALL TO ALLOW FOR VENTILATION, AND THAT'S WHERE THE SCREEN'S GONNA BE. SO THERE'LL BE, UH, LEAVE OUTS ON THE TOP AND THE BOTTOM TO BLOCK THE HEADLIGHTS AND TO BLOCK ANY LIGHTS THAT ARE, UH, ON THE CEILING. AND THEN AS YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE MESH MATERIAL, WHICH IS INTENDED, I UNDERSTAND, TO MAINTAIN THE, UM, OPEN VENTILATION SO THAT THERE WON'T BE A REQUIREMENT FOR EXHAUST FAN OR OTHER MEASURES, UM, BUT THAT, THAT WILL BE PLACED SUCH THAT IT WILL MITIGATE CONCERNS ABOUT LIGHTING. AND HOW ARE YOU ALL EVALUATING? I KNOW NOISE IS A HARD ONE TO, TO MITIGATE. WE TALK ABOUT IT A LOT, BUT IS IT SOMETHING THAT YOUR TEAM IS CONTEMPLATING JUST IN TERMS OF HOW THAT MIGHT BE IMPACTING YOUR NEW RESIDENTS AS WELL AS EXISTING RESIDENTS? YES, MA'AM. AND, UM, SINCE WE'RE, WE'RE GONNA BE IN A MIXED USE ENVIRONMENT AND THE WAY IT'S DESIGNED, WE HAVE OUR RESIDENTIALS NEXT TO THE RESIDENTIAL, BUT THEN WE ALSO HAVE OUR OFFICE AND PARKING GARAGE NEXT TO SOME OF OUR, THE NEW RESIDENTS. UM, THERE WILL BE THOUGHTFUL DESIGN FOR NOISE MITIGATION BOTH AROUND THE PERIMETER AND INTERIOR. UH, AND I BELIEVE THE CITY OF DALLAS CODE REQUIRES WHEN YOU HAVE COMMERCIAL USES NEXT TO RESIDENTIAL. THAT, AND I THINK WE'LL BE TALKING ABOUT THIS LATER TODAY, UM, YOU, YOU DO HAVE, UH, A DECIBEL LIMITS, UH, FOR ANY NOISE THAT WOULD AFFECT RESIDENTIALS. I THINK IT'S, I WANNA SAY 55, 56 DECIBELS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. THANK YOU. QUESTIONS, DISCUSSION, COMMISSIONERS? OKAY. SEEING NONE, UH, WE HAVE A MOTION MADE COMMISSIONER SIMS SECOND BY COMMISSIONER HOUSE, RIGHT? OH, THAT'S RIGHT. COMMISSIONER WHEELER. MY APOLOGIES, PLEASE. UM, SO I GUESS MY QUESTION WOULD BE, UM, HOLDING THIS CASE, WOULD IT, WOULD, UM, SBA 40 AFFECT, UH, OUR RESPONSE IF WE HELD IT? OR, OR NO, I'M SORRY, COMMISSIONER. I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION. NO, I'M, I'M, I GUESS I'M ASKING SIX STAFF. HOW WOULD THIS, WOULD THIS DEVELOPMENT BE ONE OF THOSE DEVELOPMENTS THAT S IF WE HELD IT THAT SVA 40 WOULD AFFECT IT, UH, AFFECT WHETHER, UH, THEY EVEN NEED TO COME TO US? I'M, I'M HAPPY TO, TO ANSWER THAT ON OUR END. UM, WHILE THE DETAILS OF WHAT THEY WOULD NEED TO DO TO, UH, TO GET TO A POINT OF APPROVAL, BECAUSE THEY HAVE A EXISTING CONCEPTUAL PLAN AT THE SAME RATE. COMMERCIAL USES ARE PERMITTED IN THIS SUBDISTRICT, SO IT'S COVERED BY EIGHT 40. I DON'T KNOW ALL OF THE DETAILS OF IF ONE WANTED TO USE EIGHT 40 TO DEVELOP MULTIFAMILY HERE, THEY THEY COULD, IT IS JUST A MATTER OF WHAT ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS THEY HAD TO GO THROUGH. UM, SO IT DOES APPLY IN THIS CASE. OKAY. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE, SINCE THERE WAS A, THERE WAS A ASK FOR IT TO BE HELD TO MAKE SURE THAT, I GUESS, TO PUT THE LAW IN, IN, IN ORDER, IN REAL TIME . OKAY. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER WHEELER. UM, THAT, THAT WAS THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM. MR. BALL WENT, SO WE WOULD NOT DO EIGHT 40, RIGHT? UH, THAT, THAT SAID, NOT ONLY THAT IS DEED RESTRICTED, UH, BUT WE WOULDN'T DO THAT. WE, WE STILL LIKE TO, TO GET ALONG WITH OUR NEIGHBORS. SO, SO JUST TO CRYSTALLIZE THE, THE OBVIOUS HERE UNDER THE, THE NEW SENATE BILL, YOU COULD DEVELOP MULTIFAMILY HERE, GO STRAIGHT TO PERMITTING, AND, AND NOT GO THROUGH COMMUNITY MEETINGS. CITY PLAN, COMMISSIONER, CITY HALL. THAT'S CORRECT. THANK YOU, SIR. IT'S AFTER SEPTEMBER 1ST, AFTER SEPTEMBER 1ST. UH, THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION? COMMISSIONERS. C AND NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. A AYE. ANY OPPOSED? AYES HAVE IT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, SIR. UM, WHY DON'T WE JUST TAKE A QUICK FIVE MINUTE BREAK, UH, WITH A HEADS UP THAT WE'RE GONNA SKIP FORWARD AND PICK UP THE 2D 14 CASES, 22 AND 26, AND THEN WE'LL COME BACK TO, UH, THE, THE DOCKET AND GO RIGHT BACK IN ORDER. UH, FIVE MINUTE BREAK AT 1 36 I COMMISSIONERS. IT IS 1 43 AND WE'RE GOING TO BE BACK ON THE RECORD. WE'RE JUMPING AHEAD TO CASE NUMBER 22. YOU'RE VERY KIND 26. AND THEN WE'LL GET BACK ON, ON, UH, THE AGENDA. WE'LL SKIP AHEAD TO [22. 25-2466A An application for an amendment to Planned Development No. 153, on the southwest line of Lemmon Avenue, between Carlisle St. and Cole Ave. Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to a development plan and staff’s recommended conditions. Applicant: HC Carlisle Building, LLC Representative: Rob Baldwin, Baldwin Associates LLC Planner: Michael V. Pepe U/A From: July 10, 2025. Council District: 14 Z245-126(LC/MP) / Z-25-000074] CASE NUMBER 22, PLEASE. CASE 22 IS Z 2 4 5 1 12 6 AT Z 2 5 0 7 4. [03:40:03] IT'S AN APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 1 53 ON THE SOUTHWEST LINE 11 AVENUE BETWEEN CARLISLE STREET AND COLE AVENUE. STAFF. RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO A DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND STAFF'S RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS. THANK YOU, SIR. I SEE THAT THE APPLICANT IS HERE. GOOD AFTERNOON. GOOD AFTERNOON. ROB BALDWIN, 3 9 0 4 ELM STREET, SUITE B IN DALLAS. UH, FIRST OF ALL, I'D LIKE TO PUT A BIG SHOUT OUT TO MICHAEL PEPE. HE PICKED THIS ONE UP AFTER LAQUAN LEFT AND DID GREAT WORK, UM, PUTTING IT TOGETHER AND GETTING INTO THE FINAL FORM, WHICH I THINK, UH, EVERYBODY'S BEEN VERY SUPPORTIVE OF. SO THE, THE PROPERTY'S AT 3,400 CARLISLE. UM, IT IS CARLISLE AND LEMON. IT'S RIGHT NEXT DOOR TO PD 1 93, BUT IT'S NOT PD 1 9 1 93. BUT SINCE WE WERE ADJACENT TO IT, WE DID DO A COURTESY REVIEW WITH OAK LAW COMMITTEE, AND ALTHOUGH THEY DIDN'T ISSUE A LETTER OF SUPPORT, THEY, IT WAS WELL RECEIVED. UM, WELL, LET'S SEE HOW I GET THIS THING MOVING. SO HERE'S THE LOCATION. IT'S, UM, OVER BY THE KATY TRAIL. UM, IT'S EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING THERE, UH, THAT WAS BUILT IN THE 1980S, UNREMARKABLE, UH, WITH KIND OF AN UGLY PARKING GARAGE NEXT TO IT. OUR, OUR PLAN, THE WAY WE'VE WRITTEN THIS PD, IS TO, UM, ALLOW FOR THAT EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING TO STAY AND KIND OF MODEL THE REGULATIONS ON THE O2 DISTRICT TO ACCOMMODATE THIS EXISTING PROPERTY. BUT, UH, DO A SPECIAL PROJECT, UH, SECTION THAT IF WE, UH, PROVIDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, THEN WE GET ADDITIONAL HEIGHT, WE GET ADDITIONAL DENSITY. WE GO FROM AN O2 TO AN MU THREE. AND THEN, UH, BUT INCUMBENT OF THAT IS PROVIDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING, UH, ARCHITECTURAL AND DESIGN GUIDELINES. UH, THE INTENT IS TO BUILD A MIXED USE TOWER, UH, TOTALLY ACTIVATED, UH, GROUND FLOOR, UH, WITH RESIDES ABOVE. THIS IS A GREAT DESIGN AND THAT, UH, ALL PARTS OF IT, EXCEPT FOR, UH, A DRIVEWAY ON EITHER END ARE TOTALLY ACTIVATED WITH EITHER, UH, COMMERCIAL OR RETAIL USES OR TOWN HOMES, UH, RIGHT ON THE CORNER OF CARLISLE. AND, UH, LEMON, YOU, YOU, YOU MIGHT RECOGNIZE THE BUILDING DOES HAVE SOME ART. WE'RE GONNA PUT SOME ART BACK OUT THERE, BUT WE'RE GONNA REALLY ENHANCE THE PEDESTRIAN EXPERIENCE, UH, ALONG THE AREA. SO THESE ARE JUST SHOTS OF WHAT, WHAT YOU SEE TODAY VERSUS WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED. THESE ARE THE TOWN HOMES, UH, THAT WE'RE PROPOSING. THEIR TOWN HOME STYLE, UH, KIND OF BROWNSTONES WITH STOOPS, AGAIN, SOME MORE STREET. UH, THERE'S A LOT OF EXISTING TREES ON THE SITE, UH, SURROUNDING THE SITE THAT WOULD BE PRESERVED AS WELL AS THESE TREES, IF YOU CAN SEE TO THE RIGHT. UM, THOSE ARE ENT TREES BETWEEN US AND OUR NEIGHBORS AT THE CONDOS. THOSE WILL ALL BE PRESERVED. UM, I THINK IT'S A GREAT PROJECT, VERY THOUGHTFULLY DONE. UH, WE'RE HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. LIKE I SAY, EVERYBODY WE'VE SPOKEN TO HAVE BEEN VERY WARMLY RECEIVING THIS, AND I, I WOULD HOPE YOU CAN SUPPORT THIS PROJECT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? OKAY. COMMISSIONER KINGSTON, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? I DO IN THE MATTER OF Z 2 45 DASH 12 SIX I THAT WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPT, UH, THIS WITH A PLANNED, I MEAN WITH THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGES IN PARAGRAPH, I'M SORRY, IN SECTION 1 5 3 DASH 1 0 5 B, REMOVE THE WORDS CONCEPTUAL PLAN IN PARAGRAPH 1 5 3 DASH 1 0 6 B TWO. STRIKE THE WORD LABOR HALL. AND THEN IN TERMS OF THE SELECTIONS BETWEEN APPLICANT'S REQUEST AND STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS IN SECTION 1 53 0.113, UM, ADOPT APPLICANT'S REQUEST IN SECTION? OH, I THINK THAT'S THE ONLY ONE. YEAH, I THINK THAT'S THE ONLY, UM, [03:45:02] CHOICE TO BE MADE AT THIS TIME. OKAY. THAT'S IT. AND IF WE, IF I HAVE A SECOND, I DO HAVE COMMENTS. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER KINGSTON FOR YOUR MOTION. AND COMMISSIONER HAMPTON FOR YOUR SECOND COMMENTS, QUESTIONS. DISCUSSION, COMMISSIONER KINGSTON. UM, YOU KNOW, THIS PROJECT HAS ALL THE HALLMARKS THAT WE TYPICALLY SEE WITH PD 1 93, UM, DEVELOPMENTS. IT HAS THE INTEGRATION OF THE HABITAT STANDARDS. IT HAS, UM, A LOT OF THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT FEATURES INCLUDING, UM, WATER REUSE. THIS APPLICANT HAS ELECTED TO EITHER INCLUDE SOLAR OR, UM, SMALLER SCALE WIND TURBINES TO CREATE ALTERNATIVE GREEN ENERGY AT THE SITE. UM, THEY ARE LOOKING TO BURY SOME OF THE PARKING. THE PARKING AT THIS SITE IS PARTIALLY BURIED NOW, SO THEY'RE GONNA REUSE PART OF THAT. UM, AND IT'LL PROVIDE HOUSING, UH, AND, AND LIKELY PAY INTO OUR, UM, B AND L PROGRAM, UH, FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING. IT ALSO HAS MICRO UNITS, AND IT DOES A LOT TOWARDS, AS MR. BALDWIN RECOGNIZED, PRESERVING A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF MATURE OR MATURING SITE TREES, AND ALSO CREATING A MUCH BETTER PEDESTRIAN EXPERIENCE ON THE SITE. IT'S A CONCRETE JUNGLE THERE NOW, AND WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING WILL, UM, PROVIDE A LOT OF, UH, MORE GREEN SPACE, SOFT SPACE SHADE FROM THE ELEMENTS FOR A REQUIRED PORTION OF IT. AND ALSO JUST CREATE A, A BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN THE PEDESTRIAN REALM AND THE BUILDING AND THE SITE ITSELF. AND FOR ALL OF THOSE REASONS, I'M HAPPY TO SUPPORT THE PROJECT. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER KINGSTON. COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS FOR OUR SPEAKER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, UH, WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER KINGSTON, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER HAMPTON TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND FOLLOW STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL SUBJECT TO A DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AS WELL AS THE CHANGES AS READ INTO THE RECORD, NOT COMMISSIONER KINGSTON. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? AYES HAVE IT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU, SIR. WE'LL GO TO NUMBER [26. 25-2470A A City Plan Commission Authorized Hearing to consider appropriate sign regulations contained in Divisions 51A-7.900 Downtown Special Provision Sign District (SPSD), 51A-7.1200 Arts District SPSD, and 51A-7.2100 Arts District Extension Area SPSD of the Dallas Development Code with consideration to be given to amending and expanding the Arts District SPSD and with consideration to be given to repealing or modifying the Arts District Extension SPSD and a portion of the Downtown SPSD, in an area bounded by Woodall Rodgers Freeway, Routh Street, Ross Avenue, Saint Paul Street, San Jacinto Street, and North Central Expressway. Staff Recommendation: 1) Repeal a portion of the Downtown SPSD, limited to the Chase Tower Subdistrict; 2) repeal the Arts District Extension Area SPSD; and 3) approve staff’s recommended amendments to and expansion of the Arts District SPSD. SSDAC and ADSAC Recommendation: 1) Repeal a portion of the Downtown SPSD, limited to the Chase Tower Subdistrict; 2) repeal the Arts District Extension Area SPSD; and 3) approve SSDAC’s and ADSAC’s recommended amendments to and expansion of the Arts District SPSD. Planner: Oscar Aguilera Council District: 14 SPSD189-010(OA)] 26. GOOD AFTERNOON. UH, MR. UH, CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION. UH, WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO ANSWER THE PREVIOUS QUESTIONS OR YOU, WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO STATE THE CASE? OKAY. UM, UH, CITY, UH, PLAN, COMMISSION AUTHORIZED HEARING OR APPLICATION, UH, DOCK, UH, 25 DASH 2 4 7 0 8, UH, CITY PLAN COMMISSION AUTHORIZED HEARING TO CONSIDER APPROPRIATE SIGN REGULATIONS CONTAINING DIVISION 51, A 7.9 HUNDRED DOWNTOWN SPECIAL PROVISION DESIGN DISTRICT 51 A 7 12 0 0 ARTS DISTRICT, S-P-S-D-N 51, A 7.21, OUR DISTRICT EXTENSION AREA, SPSD OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE, WITH CONSIDERATION TO BE GIVEN TO AMENDING AND EXPANDING THE ARTS DISTRICT, AND WITH A CONSIDERATION TO GIVE TO REPEALING OR MODIFYING THE ARTS DISTRICT EXTENSION, SPSD AND PORTION OF THE DOWNTOWN SPSD IN AN AREA BOUNDED BY WOOD WOODLAND ROGERS FREEWAY, ROOT STREET, ROSE AVENUE, ST. PAUL STREET, SAN JACINTO STREET, AND NORTH CENTRAL EXPRESSWAY. A STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO, UH, UH, REPEAL A PORTION OF THE DOWNTOWN SPSD, LIMITED TO THE CHASE TOWER SUBDISTRICT REPEAL, THE ARTS DISTRICT EXTENSION AREA, SPSD, AND APPROVE STAFFS RECOMMENDATION AT AMENDMENTS TO, TO AN EX, UH, EXPANSION OF THE RS DISTRICT, S-P-S-D-S-S-D-A-C. AND A-D-S-A-C. UH, RECOMMENDATION IS TO REPEAL A PORTION OF THE DOWNTOWN SPSD, LIMITED TO THE CHASE TOWER SUB-DISTRICT TO REPEAL THE ARTS DISTRICT EXTENSION AREA, SPSD AND APPROVE SDAS AND A DA'S RECOMMENDED, RECOMMENDED AMENDMENT TO AND EXPANSION OF THE ARTS DISTRICT, SIGNED DISTRICT. THANK YOU, SIR. UH, BEFORE WE TAKE OUR SPEAKERS, I THINK THERE WERE A COUPLE OF OUTSTANDING QUESTIONS FROM THE BRIEFING. YES. SO, UM, I WILL, I WILL ADDRESS THE SECTION, THE, THE CANOPY, UH, OFFICIAL [03:50:01] SIGN. UH, UH, YOU ARE CORRECT. UH, COMMISSIONER, UH, CARPENTER WAS A TYPO, AND IT SHOULD BE 74, AND IT SHOULD BE A MAXIMUM EFFECTIVE AREA OF A CANOPY FACIAL SIGN OF, UH, 2 96, UH, SQUARE FEET. EIGHT. THE, THE, THE SECOND, UM, ISSUE FOR SECTION 51 A SEVEN, UH, POINT 12 0 8. UH, IT SHOULD READ DETACH NON-PREMISE SIGNS, DETACH NON-PREMISE SIGNS, INCLUDING KIOSK. THERE ARE LOCATED IN THE PUBLIC, PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, OR ON A PRIVATE BUILDING SITE, ARE PROHIBITED IN THIS DISTRICT. UM, WE RECOMMEND THEM TO SCRATCHING THAT THIS PROVISION DOES NOT APPLY TO THE SPONSORSHIP THAT WAS BASED ON OUR EXPERT. AND THEN, UH, I MISSPOKE ABOUT WHAT I SAID ABOUT LEGAL. THAT, THAT, UH, THAT THERE CAN, THE, THE PSD CAN PROHIBIT THE KIOSK. CAN, IT, CAN, CAN, CAN, YES. JUST, JUST TO CLARIFY, THE SPSD CAN PROHIBIT OR IT CAN ALLOW KIOSKS. THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION. UH, WE'RE READY TO TAKE OUR, AND I BELIEVE THERE WAS ONE MORE THEN, UH, FOR, UH, SECTION, SECTION, UH, UH, 7 12 10 FOR CULTURAL INSTITUTION SCIENCE. UH, UH, I SPOKE WITH THE STAKEHOLDERS AND, UH, THEY RECOMMEND TO, TO DELETE, UH, THE ENTIRE, UH, SECTION E DELETE, UH, AND, AND REFERENCE, UH, CULTURAL INSTITUTIONAL SIGNS. UH, THEY'RE INTEGRATED TO THE, TO CULTURAL INSTITUTION SIGNS, SO IT SHOULD BE, UH, REMOVED FROM FROM FROM THE CONDITIONS. ANY QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER KINGSTON, I THINK, DID YOU, I SEE YOUR HAND UP. SORRY, I DIDN'T HEAR WHAT IT IS THAT STAKEHOLDERS WANTED REMOVED ON THAT LAST SECTION. YEAH, THE, UM, CAN WE WRITE THAT DOWN AND WE CAN JUST SEND IT TO HER? YEAH. I THINK SHE'S GONNA MAKE THE MOTION. SHE MAY NOT BE ABLE TO, SO IF YOU DON'T MIND STATING IT FOR THE RECORD, THEN WE'LL SEND IT TO HER. YES. SO FOR, FOR THE RECORD FOR, UM, FOR, UH, SECTION 51, A 7.1210 CULTURAL INSTITUTION SCIENCE, UH, SECTION E DISTRICT ACTIVITY SIGN SHOULD BE DELETED. UH, UM, DELETE ALL REFERENCE TO, TO DISTRICT ACTIVITY SIGNS, WHICH INCLUDES, UH, DISTRICT ACTIVITY. SIGNS ARE PERMITTED ONLY ON THE FIRST, UH, TWO FLOORS IN THAT PORTION OF FLORAL STREET FRONTAGE AREA, THAT IT IS AT LEAST 600 FEET AWAY FROM A REGULATED HIGHWAY UNDER THE HIGHWAY, UH, BEAUTIFICATION ACT. AND THEN THE, UH, UH, NUMBER TWO AS WELL, DISTRICT ACTIVITY SIGNS ARE PERMITTED UP TO ANY, UH, SIZE AS THE DISPLAY CONTAINS WITHIN THE TRANSPARENT PORTION OF THE STREET WALL ALONG FLORAL STREET. THANK YOU, SIR. OKAY. COM COMMISSIONERS, IT'S, IT'S 1 57. LET'S TAKE A 10 MINUTE BREAK HERE BEFORE WE GET BACK INTO THIS CASE. JUST A 10 MINUTE BREAK. OKAY. COMMISSIONERS, I THINK WE'RE READY TO GO. IT'S, UH, TWO 11. ARE WE RECORDING? WE ARE RECORDING, OR WE'RE BACK ON THE RECORD. UH, WE'RE BACK ON CASE NUMBER 26. UH, WE HAVE READ IT INTO THE RECORD. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS BEFORE WE GET TO OUR SPEAKERS? OKAY. IS THERE ANYONE THAT WOULD LIKE TO BE HEARD ON? YES, MA'AM. GOOD AFTERNOON. I'LL PUSH IT AGAIN. HERE WE GO. GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONERS. THANK YOU FOR THE JOB THAT YOU DO. WE REALLY APPRECIATE IT. I'M LILY WEISS. I'M EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE DALLAS ARTS DISTRICT. EXCUSE ME, SORRY. OH, THANK YOU. WE JUST TRY AND MAKE IT EXCEPT WE TRY AND BE ACCESSIBLE FOR EVERYTHING. THANK YOU. APPRECIATE THAT. UH, AT, UH, SEVEN 50 NORTH ST. PAUL STREET IN DISTRICT 14. SINCE I JOINED THE DALLAS ARTS DISTRICT IN 2016, IT HAS BEEN THE VISION OF THE BOARD TO UPDATE THE ORIGINAL SUZAKI PLAN AND LOOK FORWARD TO A MORE ACCESSIBLE [03:55:01] ACTIVE DISTRICT WITH A DISTINCT SENSE OF PLACE. THIS IS AN INCREDIBLE NEIGHBORHOOD COMPRISED OF ARTISTS, CULTURAL INSTITUTIONS, PERFORMING ARTS INSTITUTIONS, BUSINESSES, RESIDENCES, HOTELS, AND EVEN A WORLD RENOWNED HIGH SCHOOL. IN DECEMBER, 2020, CITY PLAN COMMISSION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED OUR CONNECT MASTER PLAN AND AMENDMENTS TO PD 1 45 AND 7 0 8. COUNCIL UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED THE PLAN SOON AFTER IN EARLY 2021. TODAY'S AMENDMENT OF THE SPECIAL PROVISION SIGNED DISTRICT IS THE NEXT STEP IN THAT PROCESS TO ALIGN OUR ORDINANCES TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S CURRENT NEEDS AND FUTURE DEVELOPMENT. WE ARE VERY GRATEFUL TO THE STAFF, ESPECIALLY OSCAR AGUILERA, SCOTT ROPER, AND JASON POOLE FOR WORKING HAND IN HAND WITH US IN THE PROCESS TO UPDATE OUR SIGNED ORDINANCE. AND WE'RE ALWAYS APPRECIATIVE TO THE TEAM. IN DISTRICT 14, COMMISSIONER KINGSTON, COUNCIL MEMBER RIDLEY AND DISTRICT 14 STAFF, THE DRAFT ORDINANCES WAS VETTED BY OUR NEIGHBORHOOD STAKEHOLDERS AND APPROVED BY OUR ORGANIZATION'S INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE. IT ALIGNS WITH THE GOALS OF DDI AND THEIR 360 PLAN. THE DRAFT BEFORE YOU TODAY ACHIEVES THREE PRIMARY GOALS, EXPANDS THE AREA TO MATCH THE UNDERLYING PLAN DEVELOPMENT. DISTRICTS OF PD 1 45 AND 7 0 8 CONSOLIDATES THE SUBDISTRICTS INTO ONE UNIFIED ORDINANCE FOR SIMPLICITY AND COHESION, AND CONSIDERS ALL THE APPLICABLE SIGN TYPES THAT EXIST IN THE DISTRICT TODAY, AND THAT WE FEEL WILL BE BENEFICIAL FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT AND PLACEMAKING. WE LOOK FORWARD TO HAVING THIS MORE EFFICIENT, CLEAR, SIGNED ORDINANCE IN PLACE, AND TO WORKING AS A NEIGHBORHOOD TO CONTINUE TO BE A MARQUEE DESTINATION FOR RESIDENTS AND VISITORS ALIKE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR JOINING US, MR. CHAIR COMMISSIONERS VICTORIA MORRIS WITH JACKSON WALKER. 2323 ROSS AVENUE, SUITE 600. I WANNA LEAVE MUCH OF WHAT LILY SAID BECAUSE WHAT SHE SAID WAS BEAUTIFUL AND ELOQUENT, BUT WE HAD THE PLEASURE OF WORKING WITH THE DALLAS ARTS DISTRICT AND CITY STAFF WITH THIS DRAFT AMENDMENT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH TO OSCAR. I KNOW THAT THERE WERE A COUPLE OF CHANGES THAT WERE DISCUSSED VERY MUCH THE DISTRICT'S INTENTION TO ELIMINATE KIOSKS AND CITY KIOSKS FROM THE DISTRICT TO THE EXTENT THAT THAT IS IN OUR CONTROL. UM, AND THE CLARIFICATION FOR THE DISTRICT ACTIVITY SIGN, THOSE WERE REALLY JUST INCORPORATED INTO A DIFFERENT SIGN TYPE. AGAIN, THERE WERE A PLETHORA OF SIGN TYPES IN THE ORIGINAL ORDINANCE. IT WAS VERY CONFUSING TO READ, DIFFICULT FOR USERS WHO WERE TRYING TO, UM, ACTUALLY INSTALL SIGN. SO THAT WAS JUST NO OVERSIGHT. AND WE WOULD RESPECTFULLY REQUEST FOR YOUR RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL AND ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE. WE'RE HERE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR JOINING US. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO BE HEARD ON THIS ITEM? OKAY. BEFORE WE GO TO OUR MOTION, WE DO HAVE, UH, AN AMENDED STAFF RECOMMENDATION. UM, UH, ESTA WILL, UH, LIKE TO STATE THAT, UH, ES STAFF AMENDMENT RECOMMENDATION IS TO STRIKE SUB, UH, SECTION E IN SECTION, UH, 51, A SEVEN POINT 1210, MAXIMUM EFFECTIVE AREA FOR A CANOPY. UH, F FACIAL SIGN IS 2 96 SQUARE FEET AND DELETE THE SECTION 51 A SEVEN POINT 1208 A ONE SPINE SEARCH INFORMATION. THANK YOU, SIR. UH, COMMISSIONER KINGSTON, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? I DO. UM, IN THE MATTER OF S SP SD 180 9 DASH 0 1 0, I MOVE THAT WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC RECORD REPEAL A PORTION OF THE DOWNTOWN SPSD LIMITED TO CHASE TOWER DISTRICT, REPEAL THE ARTS DISTRICT EXTENSION AREA, SPSD AND APPROVE, UH, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS TO, AND AN EXPANSION TO THE ARTS DISTRICT SPSD WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGES. UM, ONE, I, I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THE RECORD'S CLEAR 'CAUSE I'M NOT SURE THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION THAT WAS JUST READ IN HAD THE RIGHT CITATION. 51 A DASH 7.120 SUBSECTION F SUBSECTION SEVEN, CHANGE 4 96 SQUARE FEET TO 2 96 SQUARE FEET. NUMBER TWO, STAFF RECOMMENDATION STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION WILL NOT BE FOLLOWED. [04:00:01] THAT'S SUBSECTION 7.1208 SUBSECTION A REGARDING THE KIOSKS, EXCEPT THAT STEPH'S RECOMMENDATION THAT WAS JUST READ INTO THE RECORD, DELETING SPONSORSHIP INFORMATION WILL BE FOLLOWED. HOPE THAT'S CLEAR. , UM, NUMBER THREE SEVEN, SECTION 7.1208. SUBSECTION B SUBSECTION FIVE. UM, THE SUB SUBSECTION D CHANGE TO BE READ, MONUMENT SIGNS MAY IDENTIFY A BUILDING'S ORIGINAL OWNER, ARCHITECT, OR DEVELOPER AND OR A BUILDING'S MULTIPLE CURRENT TENANTS. I'M NOT SURE I SAID THAT RIGHT. LEMME TRY THAT AGAIN. SUB SUBSECTION D MONUMENT SIGNS MAY IDENTIFY A BUILDING'S ORIGINAL OWNER, ARCHITECT, OR DEVELOPER, OR, AND OR A BUILDING'S MULTIPLE CURRENT TENANTS. AND FINALLY, SECTION 7.1210, DELETE SUBSECTION E. AND THAT'S ALL. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER KINGSTON FOR YOUR MOTION. COMMISSIONER HAMPTON FOR YOUR SECOND COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, DISCUSSIONS. COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, CAN I GET A CLARIFICATION ON DISTRICT ACTIVITY SIGNS? IS IT THE RECOMMENDATION NOW OF STAFF THAT WE, UM, STRIKE THAT PARTICULAR TYPE OF SIGN ALTOGETHER? SO E ONE AND TWO BOTH ARE BEING STRUCK, CORRECT? UH, COMMISSIONER. OKAY. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? COMMISSIONERS, SEE NONE OF THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THE AYES HAVE IT. UH, [9. 25-2453A An application for a new specific use permit for a child or adult care facility and a private recreation center, club, or area on property zoned R-7.5(A) Single Family District on the north line of Fordham Road, between S. Marsalis Avenue and Maryland Avenue. Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to a site plan, landscape plan, and conditions. Applicant: Brena Pace, Pace & Learning Center LLC Planner: Cherrell Caldwell Council District: 4 Z234-312(WK/CC) / Z-25-000101] WE'LL NOW GO BACK TO THE ZONING CASES THAT WERE TAKEN OFF CONSENT. SO WE'LL BEGIN WITH CASE NUMBER NINE. ITEM NUMBER NINE IS AN APPLICATION FOR A NEW SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR A CHILD OR ADULT CARE FACILITY AND A PRIVATE RECREATION CENTER, CLUB OR AREA ON PROPERTY ZONED R DASH 7.5 SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT ON THE NORTH LINE OF FORDHAM ROAD BETWEEN SOUTH MARCELLUS AVENUE AND MARYLAND AVENUE. STAFF. RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO A SITE PLAN, LANDSCAPE PLAN AND CONDITIONS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? THIS IS ITEM NUMBER NINE ON PAGE FOUR OF THE AGENDA. GOOD AFTERNOON. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS BRENDA PACE AND CAROL PACE ROSS LEARNING CENTER. THE ADDRESS IS 39 22 SOPHOMORE AVENUE, DALLAS, TEXAS. I SERVE IN DISTRICT FOUR. AND I WANT TO FIRST THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TO THE, UM, THE COMMISSION TO SHARE MY INSIGHT ON MY EXPERIENCE. I AM THE OWNER AND DIRECTOR OF PACEON ROSS LEARNING CENTER. PACEON ROSS IS A NATIONAL ACCREDITED, UH, CENTER, AND WE HAVE A NATIONAL ACCREDITED SCHOOL PRESCHOOL. AND WE ARE FOUR STAR TEXAS RISING STAR PROVIDERS. WE HAVE BEEN SERVING THE SOUTH OAK CLIFF COMMUNITY AND THE SURROUNDING AREAS FOR THE LAST, FOR OVER 30 YEARS. I ATTEND THE SOUTH OAK. UH, I HAVE ATTENDED DISD SCHOOLS. I'M AN GRADUATE GRADUATE AND I'M ALUMNI OF THE SOUTH OF CLIFF HIGH SCHOOL. MY BUSINESS IS CELEBRATED FOR THE RESILIENCE VALUE AND A AND STABILITY IN THE COMMUNITY FOR SERVING A CHILDCARE SERVICES. MY REQUEST FOR APPROVAL FOR NEW SUP ZONE 2 3 4 3 1 2, UH, WILL ALLOW US TO DO MORE FOR THE COMMUNITY. I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT AND APPROVAL FOR GROWTH. I AM HERE TO ANSWER ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS THAT ANYONE MAY HAVE. THANK YOU FOR JOINING US. BEFORE WE GO TO OUR ONE REGISTERED SPEAKER, IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? OKAY. IS OUR, OUR SPEAKER ONLINE? MS. GIBSON? [04:05:05] NO, NOT ONLINE. OKAY. UH, LET'S GO TO OUR MOTION. COMMISSIONER. FORESITE, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION BEFORE WE GET TO QUESTIONS? THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN, IN THE MATTER OF KC 2 3 4 DASH 312, I MOVE THAT WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL SITE SUBJECT TO THE SITE PLAN AND LANDSCAPE PLAN AND CONDITIONS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER FORSET FOR YOUR MOTION AND VICE CHAIR RUBIN FOR YOUR SECOND COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, DISCUSSION. SEEING? YES. COMMISSIONER FORSIGHT, DO YOU HAVE, I I WAS JUST GONNA ASK BRENDA IF SHE COULD, UH, KIND OF GIVE A LITTLE VISION FOR THE EXPANSION WORK THAT, THAT, THAT, THAT IS UNDERWAY. IF IT'S OKAY WITH YOU, PLEASE. THANK YOU FOR ASKING. I'M REALLY EXCITED TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN THE COMMUNITY. WE WOULD LIKE TO, UM, ADD 3,200 SQUARE FEET FOR, UM, TO ALLOW US TO SERVE MORE CHILDREN. WE ALSO HAVE AN ADJOINING PROPERTY ON 39 25 MARYLAND, WHICH WE WOULD LIKE TO, UM, CREATE A LARGER PLAYGROUND AREA TO INCLUDE A SMALL BASKETBALL COURT, A COVERED READING AREA FOR THE CHILDREN, AND, UM, STORAGE AND ADDITIONAL PARKING. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER? C? NONE OF THOSE? OH YES. COMMISSIONER WHEELER. THANK YOU. THAT PLAYGROUND BE, UM, BECAUSE YOU'RE INCLUDING A, A BASKETBALL COURT WILL AT TIMES THE COMMUNITY CHILDREN THAT'S NOT AT THE DAYCARE BE ABLE TO USE, UTILIZE THAT OR NO? CAN YOU REPEAT IT? I CAN'T QUITE HEAR WHAT YOU WERE SAYING BECAUSE YOU'RE INCLUDING A BASKETBALL COURT. I, I'M, UM, AT ANY TIME ARE THE CHILDREN, UM, IN THE COMMUNITY GONNA BE ALLOWED TO USE THE PLAYGROUND OR IS IT STRICTLY FOR THE DAYCARE CHILDREN THAT IT IS A PRIVATE? YES, MA'AM. OKAY. THANK YOU. MM-HMM . THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? COMMISSIONER C AND ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. A. ANY OPPOSED? I HAVE ONE IN OPPOSITION. MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU. [11. 25-2455A An application for an amendment to Specific Use Permit 2047 for a vehicle auction and storage use on property zoned Tract IIC Industrial -1 District within Planned Development District 37, on the east corner of Sheila Lane and Lakefield Boulevard. Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions. Applicant: Eddy Hackelman Representative: Rob Baldwin Planner: Jacob Rojo Council District: 6 Z245-212(JR) / Z-25-000064] WE'LL GO TO CASE NUMBER 11. I I, WE UNDERSTOOD. THIS ONE IS BEING HELD. WOULD YOU LIKE IT BRIEFED? UH, NO. IF IT'S GONNA BE HELD, IT'S NOT. UH, THIS ONE'S GONNA BE HELD. COMMISSIONER CARPENTER NUMBER 11. OKAY, LET'S BRIEF, JUST READ INTO THE RECORD PLEASE. SO NO BRIEF, WE'RE JUST GONNA READ INTO THE RECORD. JUST THE CAPTION. YEAH. GOTTA TURN IT ON. OKAY. THIS IS FOR Z 2 45 DASH TWO 12, UH, DALLAS. NOW NUMBER Z DASH 25 DASH QUADRUPLE 0 6 4. AND APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO SPECIFIC USE PERMIT 2047 FOR A VEHICLE AUCTION AND STORAGE USE ON PROPERTY ZONED TRACK TWO C INDUSTRIAL ONE DISTRICT WITH PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 37 ON THE EAST CORNER OF SHEILA LANE AND LAKEFIELD BOULEVARD STACK. RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL AS SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS. THANK YOU SIR. SEE THE APPLICANT IS HERE. GOOD AFTERNOON LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. ROB BALDWIN, 3 9 0 4 ELM STREET, SWEEPY IN DALLAS. UM, BEEN WORKING WITH COMMISSIONER CARPENTER ON THIS. UH, I'M GONNA ASK THAT THIS BE HELD, UH, SO WE CAN DO SOME MORE FIELD OBSERVATIONS AND HOST A NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING ON THIS. IT'S A, A RENEWAL FOR AN SUP FOR AN AUTO AUCTION. I THINK THIS IS THE THIRD OR FOURTH TIME WE'VE DONE IT, BUT IT IS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, SO WE WANNA MAKE SURE THAT IT WORKS REALLY WELL. I'VE BEEN OUT THERE, UH, A FEW TIMES OVER THE LAST MONTH AND SEEMS TO BE WORKING, BUT WE WANNA MAKE SURE THAT EVERYBODY THINKS IT'S WORKING. SO WITH THAT, I'D LIKE TO ASK [04:10:01] THAT THIS BE HELD AND THANK YOU. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO BE HEARD? SEE NO ONE? UH, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? YES. IN THE MATTER OF Z 2 45 DASH TWO 12. I MOVE THAT WE KEEP THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AND PUT THIS CASE UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL SEPTEMBER THE FOURTH. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER CARPENTER FOR YOUR MOTION. COMMISSIONER HOUSE FOR YOUR SECOND AND DISCUSSION. SEE, NONE OF THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THE AYES HAVE IT. UH, [24. An application for a new specific use permit for a paraphernalia shop on property zoned Planned Development District 810, on the northeast corner of N. Cockrell Hill Road and I-30 Frontage Road. Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to a site plan and staff’s recommended conditions. Applicant: Anil Pathak Representative: Madhav Regmi Planner: Cherrell Caldwell Council District: 6 Z-25-000081(CC)] COMMISSIONERS APOLOGIES. WE NEED TO PICK UP A CASE HERE. UH, NUMBER 24, THEN WE'LL COME BACK. SKIP AHEAD TO PAGE NUMBER NINE ON THE AGENDA AND PICK UP CASE NUMBER 24. WOULD WE LIKE THAT BRIEFED? UM, DO WE HAVE A REQUEST FOR A BRIEFING? WE DON'T NEED A BRIEF. WE'LL JUST GET IT RIGHT INTO THE RECORD PLEASE. ITEM NUMBER 24 IS Z DASH 25 DASH 0 0 0 0 8 1. AN APPLICATION FOR A NEW SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR A PARAPHERNALIA SHOP ON PROPERTY ZONE PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT EIGHT 10 ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF NORTH COER HILL ROAD AND I 30 FRONTAGE ROAD STAFF. RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO A SITE PLAN AND STAFF RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? THIS IS NUMBER 24. PAGE NINE. OKAY. NO SPEAKERS. COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? YES. IN THE MATTER OF Z DASH 25 DASH 0 0 0 8 1. I MOVE THAT WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND FOLLOW STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL SUBJECT TO A SITE PLAN AND APPLICANT'S RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS, WHICH MEANS THAT PROPOSED SUP CONDITION NUMBER THREE TIME LIMIT READS THIS SPECIFIC USE PERMIT EXPIRES FIVE YEARS FROM THE PASSAGE OF THIS ORDINANCE. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER CARPENTER FOR YOUR MOTION. COMMISSIONER HAMPTON FOR YOUR SECOND COMMENTS OR DISCUSSION QUESTIONS. SEEING NONE OF THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY, AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THE AYES HAVE IT. WE'LL GO BACK. IS [15. 25-2459A An application for a new Specific Use Permit for commercial amusement (outside) on property zoned MU-3 Mixed Use District on the northeast line of Market Center Boulevard, northwest of Turtle Creek Boulevard. Staff Recommendation: Approval for a five-year period with eligibility for automatic renewals for additional five-year periods, subject to a site plan and conditions. Applicant: Fay Charalambopoulos Representative: Santos Martinez Planner: Martin Bate Council District: 6 Z234-217(MB) / Z-25-000088] IT 15? RIGHT. OKAY, WE'RE ON CASE NUMBER 15. GOOD AFTERNOON. GOOD AFTERNOON COMMISSIONERS. UH, WOULD WE LIKE THIS ITEM BRIEFED? WE'RE BRIEFING IT. OH, OH YEAH. DO WE HAVE NO REQUEST FOR BRIEFING? WE'LL JUST RUN IT IN PLEASE. VERY WELL. ITEM 15 IS CASE Z 2 34 DASH 217 OR Z 25 DASH 88. AN APPLICATION FOR A NEW SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT OUTSIDE ON PROPERTY ZONED MU THREE MIXED USE DISTRICT ON THE NORTHEAST LINE OF MARKET CENTER BOULEVARD NORTHWEST OF TURTLE CREEK BOULEVARD. STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL FOR A FIVE YEAR PERIOD WITH ELIGIBILITY FOR AUTOMATIC RENEWALS FOR ADDITIONAL FIVE YEAR PERIODS SUBJECT TO A SITE PLANNING CONDITIONS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT'D LIKE TO BE HEARD ON THIS ITEM? THIS IS ITEM NUMBER 15. OKAY. LET'S GO TO OUR REGISTERED SPEAKERS ONLINE. IS MR. TOSON ONLINE? YES, SIR. MR. TOSON. GOOD AFTERNOON, SIR. GOOD AFTERNOON EVERYONE. UM, THANK YOU FOR HEARING THE CASE. I'M JUST HERE IF ANYONE HAS ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING THE CASE. THANK YOU, SIR. UH, IS THERE, ARE THERE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO BE HEARD ON THIS ITEM? SEEING NONE. COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? YES. IN THE MATTER OF Z 2 3 4 DASH TWO 17, I MOVE THAT WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND FOLLOW STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL, BUT FOR A THREE YEAR PERIOD WITH NO ELIGIBILITY FOR AUTOMATIC RENEWALS SUBJECT TO A SITE PLANNING CONDITIONS. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER CARPENTER FOR YOUR MOTION. COMMISSIONER HAMPTON FOR YOUR SECOND FOR A THREE YEAR AND NO AUTO DISCUSSION QUESTIONS. COMMISSIONER THATRIGHT, I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. UM, THIS CASE WAS FILED IN APRIL OF 2024. I'M JUST CURIOUS WHY IT TOOK 16 MONTHS TO GET TO US. I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER THAT. THERE WAS, I THINK JUST, UH, THERE WAS SOME DIFFICULTY IN, UH, KINDA COMMUNICATION AND PROGRESSING THE CASE. UH, SOMETIMES IT JUST HAPPENS THAT, UH, I THINK SOMETIMES APPLICANTS ARE BUSY AND, UH, IT JUST TOOK A WHILE FOR IT TO BE AS, UH, WORKED ON. UH, ADDITIONALLY WAS PREVIOUSLY ASSIGNED TO ANOTHER PLANNER WHO THEN, UH, WAS NO LONGER WITH THE CITY AND THERE WERE MAYBE A MONTH OR SO OF IT BEING LOST THERE. [04:15:01] UM, BUT I WOULD ASSURE THE COMMISSION STAFF DID, UH, EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO MOVE THIS FORWARD AS EXPEDITIOUSLY AS POSSIBLE. OKAY. I'VE NOTICED A COUPLE OF THOSE ON THIS DOCKET THAT'S TAKEN THAT LONG. A SECOND QUESTION. I'VE ACTUALLY, UH, BEEN A CUSTOMER OR ACTUALLY BEEN TO THIS PLACE, WHICH IS SURPRISING. I, I, I GET OUT EVERY NOW AND THEN. AND, UM, THIS READS LIKE WE'RE CATCHING UP TO THINGS THAT WERE ALREADY GOING ON ON THE SITE. AM I CORRECT ABOUT THAT? YES. YOU ARE. OKAY. JUST CHECKING. THANK YOU. YES, YOU ARE. BUT THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM. UH, COMMISSIONER HALL. WELL, I'LL CONFIRM THAT A SITE VISIT REVEALS THAT THEY HAVE PRETTY GOOD BARBECUE. DITTO. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THIS ITEM? COMMISSIONER CNN. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. THE OPPOSED AYE. HAVE IT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU SIR. [17. 25-2461A An application for a new planned development district on property zoned an R-7.5(A) Single Family District and an IR Industrial Research District, generally bounded by Bonnie View Road, Southerland Avenue, and Arrow Road, south of the terminus of Dalview Avenue, and on the east line of Arrow Road, north of Southerland Avenue. Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to staff’s recommended conditions and a conceptual plan. Applicant: Dr. Horton Homes Representative: Rob Baldwin Planner: Martin Bate U/A From: March 20, 2025, April 24, 2025, and June 12, 2025, and July 10, 2025. Council District: 4 Z234-286(MB)] GO TO NUMBER 17. UH, THREE SIX. YES. WE DON'T NEED A BRIEFED. ALRIGHT. ITEM 17 IS CASES Z 2 34 DASH 2 86. AN APPLICATION FOR A NEW PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT ON PROPERTY ZONE IN R 7.5, A SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT AND THE IR INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH DISTRICT, GENERALLY BOUND BY BON VIEW ROAD, SUTHERLAND AVENUE IN ARROW ROAD SOUTH OF DETERMINANTS OF DW VIEW AVENUE. AND ON THE EAST LINE OF ARROW ROAD, NORTH OF SUTHERLAND AVENUE. STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO STAFF'S RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS AND CONCEPTUAL PLAN. THANK YOU, SIR. I SEE THAT THE APPLICANT IS HERE. GOOD AFTERNOON, ROB BALDWIN. 3 9 0 4 ELM STREET, SUITE B IN DALLAS. UH, FIRST OF ALL, I'D LIKE, THERE'S A LOT OF THANK PEOPLE TO THANK ON THIS ONE, ESPECIALLY MARTIN AND, UH, COMMISSIONER FORSYTH, UH, AND, UH, LAURA AND, AND OUR, ALL OF OUR NEIGHBORS HERE. UM, THIS IS A CASE THAT'S BEEN GOING ON A WHILE, BUT I THINK WE GOT TO A POINT WHERE, UH, WE'VE ADDRESSED ALL THE CONCERNS THAT I KNOW OF. UM, SO THIS IS, THIS PROPERTY IS, UM, OVER BY CEDAR CREST GOLF COURSE. UH, THIS IS THE PROPERTY THAT'S CURRENTLY VACANT. UH, AND BELIEVE IT OR NOT, IT IS PLATTED. BUT, UH, SO BON VIEW'S ON OUR LEFT. UH, KEY IS ON OUR RIGHT. THIS IS THE ZONING MAP. WE'RE IN OUR SEVEN FIVE DISTRICT. WE DO HAVE INDUSTRIAL TO OUR EAST, MULTIFAMILY TO OUR EAST. AND AS YOU SEE AN AREA IN HERE THAT SAYS, UH, THAT BEEN REMOVED WHEN WE FIRST CAME IN, THIS AREA WAS INCLUDED IN OUR APPLICATION. WE'VE TAKEN IT OUT AND IT WILL BE DEVELOPED BY DR. HORTON, BUT AS, UH, UNDER THE CURRENT ZONING, WHICH IS R SEVEN FIVE. SO WE'RE REQUESTING APPROXIMATELY, UH, REZONING OF APPROXIMATELY 28 ACRES FROM R SEVEN FIVE AND IR TO A PD TO ALLOW, UH, SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED JUICES. THE HOMES WILL BE DETACHED, OWNER OCCUPIED MARKET RATE, MIXED OF ONE AND TWO STORY UNITS. UM, AND THIS WAS THE ORIGINAL CONCEPT PLAN. THEY WERE ALL SMALLER, LOTS, UH, 30 FOOT LOTS, AND THERE WAS 395 OF 'EM. UH, THIS IS THE CURRENT CURRENT SITE PLAN. UH, WE WE'RE DOWN TO 126 DWELLING UNITS, UH, WITHIN OUR AREA OF REQUEST, PLUS THE OTHER 33 IN THE FRONT. ANOTHER THING THAT YOU WILL COME IN HANDY IN FURTHER DISCUSSIONS, IF YOU LOOK TO THE NORTHEAST, THERE WAS A DETENTION POND JUST TO EAST OF THAT DETENTION POND IS A METAL SALVAGING AND RECYCLING FACILITY. WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THEM AND THEIR, UH, REPRESENTATIVES TO COME UP WITH LANGUAGE TO BUFFER THEM FROM US BECAUSE WE'RE COMING, WE'RE BRINGING RESIDENTIAL USES TOWARDS THE INDUSTRIAL USES AND THEY DON'T WANT TO GET IN A POSITION WHERE, UM, OUR PROXIMITY CREATES A PROBLEM FOR THEM. SO WE'VE AGREED TO PUT IN SCREENING OUR, OUR HOUSES ARE NOW ABOUT 300 FEET AWAY FROM 'EM. AND, UH, WE'LL BE PUTTING SOME, SOME WALLS AS WELL. SO AS YOU CAN SEE, WE HAVE LOTS OF OPEN SPACE. ALL OF OUR LOTS ARE NOW 40 TO 60 FEET WIDE. AND THIS IS ALL THANKS TO OUR CONVERSATIONS WITH OUR NEIGHBORS WHO'VE BEEN GRACIOUS ENOUGH TO, I THINK WE'VE HAD, UH, FIVE OR SIX FULL NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS AND THEN INDIVIDUAL MEETINGS, UH, WITH MICHAEL BROWN AND HIS TEAM OVER THERE. SO, UM, I THINK IT'S A GOOD PLAN. I HOPE YOU THINK IT'S A GOOD PLAN. I THINK THERE'S OTHERS WHO [04:20:01] ARE GONNA SPEAK TO IT. UM, PROVIDES HOUSING AN AREA THAT NEEDS HOUSING, PROVIDES MARKET RATE HOUSING, AN AREA THAT NEEDS MARKET RATE HOUSING. AND I'LL BE HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS, UH, WHEN THE TIME. RIGHT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, SIR. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? YES, SIR. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS MICHAEL BROWN. MY ADDRESS IS 2 1 3 3 SUTTER STREET, DALLAS, TEXAS. AND I'M HERE TO SPEAK ON THIS PROJECT. FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO THANK MR. BATES AND TO OUR PLAN COMMISSIONER, MR. FORSIGHT, FOR ALL THE DUE DILIGENCE THAT THEY HAVE PROVIDED AND OVERSIGHT AND GETTING US TO THIS POINT. UH, THIS PROJECT MEANS A LOT TO CEDAR, THE CREST, PARTICULARLY THE NEIGHBORHOOD BECAUSE WE HAVE NOT HAD ANY SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT IN WELL OVER A HUNDRED YEARS. THIS WILL BE THE LARGEST DEVELOPMENT THAT WE'VE HAD SINCE CEDAR CRESS ESTABLISHED. AND THAT WAS APPROXIMATELY ABOUT 200 ACRES. SO WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO DO WITH THIS PLAN IS TO TRY TO COME UP WITH THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND CREATE WALK ABILITIES AND THOSE THINGS THERE. THIS PLAN THAT YOU SEE TODAY IS THE RESULTS OF ALL THE MEETINGS THAT MR. BALDWIN HAS SPOKE OF. I BELIEVE IT IS THE BEST PLAN FOR OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND WOULD RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO GO FORWARD. THANK YOU FOR JOINING US. HERE WE GO AGAIN. DOLORES M WILLIAMS, 2228 SUTHERLAND AVENUE, DALLAS, 7 5 2 0 3. NO, STILL IN OPPOSITION OF IT TO A DEGREE. I'M, UH, THE NEIGHBOR. LIKE I HAD SAID TO MR. TONY MY LAST TIME BEING HERE, I KNOW BASED ON THE DATES, THIS IS OUR FIFTH TIME BEING HERE 'CAUSE IT'S BEEN UNDER ADVISEMENT. AND IF YOU WERE TO BUILD A SQUARE, SO DR. HORTON WANTS TO BUILD. SO SINCE WE DO NEED HOUSING, LIKE MR. MICHAEL HAD SPOKE OF, I MOVED THERE 30 YEARS AGO. SO THE PROPOSED SITE THAT'S DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF ME, IF IT WERE A SQUARE, I'D SAY THAT I'M IN FAVOR OF MAKING THE ONE SIDE TO THE SQUARE, THE OTHER SIDE TO THE SQUARE, AND THEN GOING DOWN. BUT WHEN YOU GET TO THAT LAST SIDE, WHICH IS WHERE I AM, BECAUSE I WAS JUST SELLING, TELLING THEM I KEEP MY CURTAINS OPEN BECAUSE THERE'S A GREEN SPACE IN FRONT OF ME. SO THE, THERE WAS A GUY WHO COME TO, WELL, FROM WHERE, WHERE TONY IS, WELL THE CHAIR IS, AND TO WHERE MAYBE A FEW SEATS BACK INTO WHERE OUR DRIVEWAY, YOU CAN PUT THREE CARS BEFORE YOU GET TO OUR DOOR. WELL, A MAN CAME UP TO THE DOOR, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM. AND SINCE MY BLINDS WERE OPEN, I SAW HIM AND I SAID, WHAT DO YOU WANT? HE SAYS, LAY ME IN. AND I WAS LIKE, NO, I'M CALLING THE POLICE. SO WITH THIS NEW PLAN, THE HOUSES THAT COME UP, IF THERE'S SOMETHING IN FRONT OF ME, THE GREEN SPACE IS TAKEN AWAY. I KNOW THIS WOULD BE HOUSING AND THEN THE STREET AND TREES AND ALL THAT. WHEN THE SIDEWALK, IF THEY'RE GONNA DO IT, THAT'S FINE. I HAVE TO HAVE MY VOICE HEARD. BUT IF DR. HORTON IS MAYBE OPEN TO MAYBE PUTTING THE FENCE IN FRONT OF ME, I'M OKAY WITH IT. BUT I JUST WANTED THEM TO KNOW THAT, UM, I'M ALWAYS, I'M FROM GROWTH, BUT IT'S JUST THAT THE LOCATION THAT'S DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF ME. BUT, AND THEN THE FENCE, NOT JUST IN FRONT OF ME, BUT MY NEIGHBOR NEXT DOOR BECAUSE THERE'S ONLY TWO, TWO LOTS. SO IT'S NOT LIKE I'M ASKING FOR A WHOLE LOT, BUT JUST TO BE HEARD. AND PRETTY MUCH THAT'S IT. ROB, PUT THAT IN YOUR NOTES. ALRIGHT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR JOINING US. MM-HMM . YES, OF COURSE. ANY OTHER SPEAKERS? YES, SIR. JUST ME. GOOD AFTERNOON CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION. GOOD TO SEE EVERYONE AGAIN. UH, TRUE TO MY WORD LAST TIME THAT WE SPOKE, UH, WE REPRESENT THE INDUSTRIAL USE. AND, UH, MR. CHAIR, YOU'RE ASKING, UH, 2,500 DALLAS PARKWAY, PLANO, TEXAS, SORRY, SUITE 600. UH, BUT AGAIN, WE HAD WORKED WITH THE DR. HORTON GROUP VIA ROB BALDWIN VIA THE ADJACENT INDUSTRIAL USE TO TRY TO SORT OF SQUEAK OUT SOME OF THE NOISE COMPLAINTS THAT YOU HEARD TODAY ABOUT SOME OF THE ADJACENT DEVELOPMENTS. UH, WE DID SEE THAT THERE WERE SOME REVISIONS THAT WERE MADE AS PART OF THE PLAN AND THEY'RE GOOD. BUT WE DO HAVE ONE THAT DR. HORTON HAS AGREED TO THAT I'D LIKE TO READ INTO THE RECORD. UM, WHERE THIS WOULD BE PLACED WOULD BE AROUND THE SCREENING LANGUAGE UNDER SECTION ONE 10. UH, BUT IF THOSE OF YOU FROM THE COMMISSION WHO DO REMEMBER, I USED TO BE A RANK AND FILE PROSECUTOR FOR THE CITY OF DALLAS IN JUDGE MICHAEL UNA'S COURT WHEN HE WAS HERE. AND SO I WAS THE PERSON WHO HAD TO TRY SOME OF THOSE NOISE COMPLAINT CASES. AND I'LL TELL YOU, IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO PROVE BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT BASED ON THE STANDARDS THAT ARE CURRENTLY HERE. UH, THE STANDARDS THAT ARE HERE ARE A BUFFER MUST BE MAINTAINED BETWEEN THE ADJACENT INDUSTRIAL USE AND RESIDENTIAL USES, INCLUDING TREES, [04:25:01] VEGETATION, BERMS, AND OTHER LANDSCAPING DESIGNED TO MITIGATE SOUND LEVELS. WE HAD CONCERNS ABOUT THAT. AND THIS IS THE LANGUAGE THAT, AGAIN, DR HORTON AND ROB BALDWIN HAVE AGREED TO. BUT WE WANNA MAKE SURE THAT IT DOES, IT IS INCLUDED IN THE RECOMMENDATION. SO IN ADDITION, A SCREENING WALL AND LANDSCAPE BUFFER MUST BE CONSTRUCTED AND MAINTAINED BETWEEN ANY ADJACENT INDUSTRIAL USE AND ANY PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL USE IN THIS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT. SO THAT THE AVERAGE SOUND LEVELS AT A PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL USE DO NOT EXCEED ON AVERAGE 56 DBA. AND FOR THOSE FAMILIAR WITH CHAPTER 51 56 IS NOT A MAGICAL NUMBER. IT IS SPECIFICALLY, UH, ONE OF THE MOST STRINGENT NUMBERS AVAILABLE UNDER THE DALLAS CITY CODE FOR WAREHOUSE USES THAT ARE NEXT TO, UH, OTHER USES THAT ARE RESIDENTIAL. SO AGAIN, WE, WE'VE TALKED IT OUT AND WE DO OFFER OUR SUPPORT CONTINGENT UPON THIS BEING ADDED. BUT I'LL TELL YOU, AS SOMEBODY WHO HAS DONE THIS JOB FOR THE CITY OF DALLAS, IT CERTAINLY HELPS TO HAVE A SPECIFIC DECIMAL NUMBER. SO IF THE PLAN DOESN'T GO OR SOMETHING HAPPENS MANY YEARS FROM NOW WITH ANOTHER INDUSTRIAL, USE YOUR CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICERS AND PROSECUTORS WILL. THANK YOU. SO I'M STILL HERE FOR ANY QUESTIONS FOLLOWING UP ON THAT LANGUAGE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU, SIR. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER SPEAKERS BEFORE WE GET TO OUR REBUTTAL TIME? OKAY, MR. BALDWIN, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UM, WE'RE, WE'RE COMFORTABLE WITH THAT LANGUAGE AS, AS READ IN OR, UH, VERY SIMILAR LANGUAGE WE'RE OKAY. PUTTING THE DECIBEL LIMITS IN THERE. WE DO THINK THIS IS A, A GOOD PROJECT. IT'S A GOOD USE FOR THE LAND. THE NEIGHBORS HAVE BEEN GREAT TO WORK WITH. COMMISSIONER FORSYTH'S BEEN GREAT TO WORK WITH AS IS, UH, MARTIN. SO WE HOPE YOU CAN SUPPORT THIS. IF I CAN BE OF ANY ASSISTANCE OR HAVE ANY ANSWERING QUESTIONS, I'M HERE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU, SIR. UH, COMMISSIONER FORESITE, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION BEFORE WE GET TO OUR QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSION? OKAY. YES, SIR. CHAIRMAN SHADI IN THE CASE, UH, NUM IN THE CASE NUMBER Z 2 34 DASH 2 86, I MOVE THAT WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE THE PD SUBJECT TO STAFF'S RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS. AND CON UH, CONCEPTUAL PLAN WITH THE FOLLOWING, CHANGE THE LANGUAGE IN PARAGRAPH ONE. UNDER SCREENING IS TO BE REPLACED WITH THE FOLLOWING LANGUAGE. A SCREENING WALL MEASURING A MINIMUM OF EIGHT FEET ABOVE GRADE AND CONSTRUCTED OF BRICK, STONE OR AOUS FIBER BOARD MATERIALS IN A LANDSCAPE BUFFER MUST BE PROVIDED AND MAINTAINED BETWEEN A RESIDENTIAL USE AND AN ADJACENT INDUSTRIAL USE. SO THAT THE AVERAGE SOUND LEVELS HAS MEASURED ON THE SIDE OF THE WALL FACING THE RESIDENTIAL LOT AT A RESIDENTIAL USE DO DOES NOT EXCEED OR DO NOT EXCEED AN ON AVERAGE 56 DBA. THE BURDEN IS ON THE PROPERTY OWNER TO PROVIDE THE SCREENING WALL IN LANDSCAPE BUFFER THAT WILL KEEP NOISE FROM AN ADJACENT INDUSTRIAL USE AT OR BELOW THE MINIMUM DECIBEL LEVEL. AND I'D LIKE TO MAKE COMMENTS IF I HAVE A, A SECOND. YOU DO HAVE A SECOND. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT FOR YOUR SECOND COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS. COMMISSIONER FORESIGHT? WELL, I, I, I FIRST WANTED TO ASK, UH, ROB IF HE COULD ADDRESS MS. WILLIAMS' CONCERNS. 'CAUSE MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THERE, UH, IS LIKE A FENCE THAT'S GONNA BE ON THE SOUTHERN PART OF THE PROPERTY ALONG WITH, UH, LANDSCAPE BUFFERING. YES. I, I MEANT TO DO THAT. I WROTE IT DOWN, BUT THEN PROBABLY FORGOT. IF YOU LOOK AT THIS SITE PLAN HERE, IT'S, WE'RE RIGHT HERE ON SUTHERLAND. UM, WE'VE, BASED ON OUR INPUT WITH THE NEIGHBORS, WE'VE TURNED OUR SIDES TO, UH, THE STREETS IN ORDER TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF DRIVEWAYS. AND ALONG THAT WE'LL HAVE A SOLID FENCE AND THEN WE'LL HAVE A SIDEWALK AND WE'LL HAVE TREE PLANTING ZONES. UH, AND SO, UM, IT HELPS THE PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT BECAUSE THERE'S NOT A LOT OF DRIVEWAYS TO GO THROUGH THERE. AND WE THINK IT HELPS THE NEIGHBORHOOD AS WELL FOR THAT. AND COULD YOU ALSO ADDRESS THE CHANGES THE STAFF MADE THAT YOU AGREED TO? YES. UH, ABOUT THE, THE PARKING. SO, YEAH, YOU KNOW, AS YOU KNOW, UM, SHARED ACCESS DEVELOPMENTS AND MULTIFAMILY, YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE AN EXTRA QUARTER SPACE PER DWELLING UNIT FOR GUEST PARKING. THAT'S NOT REQUIRED IN A, IN A REGULAR OUR DISTRICT, BUT BASED ON CONVERSATIONS WITH STAFF, THE COMMISSIONER AND THE NEIGHBORS, WE'VE AGREED TO ADD THAT LANGUAGE IN. SO THERE WILL BE, UH, AT LEAST ONE QUARTER SPACE PER DWELLING UNIT AS GUEST PARKING LOCATED THROUGHOUT THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. AND THEN THE SECOND CHANGE, PARDON ME, THE SECOND CHANGE ON THE SIDEWALK. SO WE'RE ASKING, [04:30:01] UH, CITY STANDARDS A FOUR FOOT SIDEWALK STAFF'S ASKING FOR A SIX FOOT SIDEWALK. WE'RE, WE'RE PROPOSING A FIVE FOOT SIDEWALK IN, UH, IN OURS. AND THEN ALSO, UM, THERE'S A SECTION IN THE CODE THERE THAT SAYS OUR DRIVEWAYS, UH, STAFF SAYS IT HAS TO BE 12 FEET APART. WE'RE SAYING YOU HAVE TO BE 10 FEET APART. AND THAT'S THE ONLY DISAGREEMENT WITH STAFF ON THOSE OR THOSE TWO ITEMS. BUT YOU'RE GOING ALONG WITH ALL THE STAFF CHANGES. YEAH, RIGHT. ALONG WITH THIS MOTION THAT I'VE MADE WITH THESE CORRECT LANGUAGE CHANGES. GREAT. YES, SIR. YOU KNOW, I, I DON'T HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS, BUT I DID WANNA MAKE A SHORT COMMENT. I, I CERTAINLY APPRECIATE ROB'S COOPERATION AND, AND, AND THE WORK OF, UH, MICHAEL BROWN AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION ON THIS MATTER. I MEAN, UH, DR HART AND HOMES HAS MADE A NUMBER OF CONCESSIONS HERE TO ADDRESS THE CONCERNS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. YOU KNOW, THEY, THEY CHANGED ALL THE PROPERTIES THAT, UH, THE NINE PROPERTIES THAT FACE BONVIEW SO THAT THEY'RE ALL, YOU KNOW, TRADITIONAL 7.5, UH, R 7.5 PROPERTIES. UH, THEY INCREASED THE SIZE OF THE OTHER PROPERTIES FROM 3000 SQUARE FEET TO ABOUT 4,000 SQUARE FEET. UH, THEY'VE MADE THESE ADJUSTMENTS ON THE DRIVEWAYS THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IN THE SIDEWALKS. UH, THE, THE, THE CONCERNS, UH, WITH REGARD TO THE, UH, YOU KNOW, SEPARATION ON THE SOUTHERN END, UH, OF SUTHERLAND DRIVE WITH THE, THE FENCING AND THE LIGHTING AND THE, AND THE, AND THE, AND THE LANDSCAPING AND, AND THE SIDEWALKS. SO, AND THEN FINALLY, THE, THE BIG CONCERN THAT CAME UP, OF COURSE, WAS THOSE RAISED BY, UH, THE, UH, FORTUNE MEDALS, UH, REPRESENTED HERE TODAY, UH, WITH THE, WITH CONCERN REGARDING THE SOUND. AND WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT, YOU KNOW, THE, UH, THE NEIGHBORS THAT ULTIMATELY, YOU KNOW, LIVE HERE, THAT THEY'RE GOING TO, UH, BE ABLE TO COEX COEXIST, IF YOU WILL, WITH THAT METAL RECYCLING PLANT IN, IN SUCH A WAY THAT THE SOUND LEVELS ARE KEPT TO A MINIMUM. AND, UH, AND, AND I REALLY DO APPRECIATE THE, UH, CONCESSIONS THAT, UH, HORTON HAS MADE TO ADDRESS THEIR CONCERNS WITH, YOU KNOW, THE FACT THAT THEY'RE PUTTING IN THE SOUND WALL, THAT THEY'RE, UH, UH, PUTTING IN THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER AND THAT THEY REDUCE THE NUMBER OF LOTS THAT ARE ON THAT EAST, THAT, THAT NORTHEAST PART OF THE PROPERTY. SO, UH, THIS IS REALLY, I THINK, A WIN-WIN SITUATION. AND, UH, I JUST WANTED TO, YOU KNOW, UH, EXPRESS, YOU KNOW, ALL OF THESE THINGS THAT I, I THINK, UH, CHANGES THAT HAVE BEEN MADE THAT WILL MAKE THIS A, A GOOD DEVELOPMENT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, SIR. COMMISSIONERS. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS? IS IT COMMISSIONER HERBERT? DO YOU HAVE YOUR HAND UP? COMMISSIONER HERBERT I TO TIME COMMENT A QUESTION? OH, OKAY. THANK YOU, MR. RUBEN. UM, FIRST I, LET ME JUST SAY THAT I DO DO PLAN TO SUPPORT THE MOTION. I JUST WANT TO DIG IN ON A, A COUPLE OF, OF ISSUES OF GOOD WORK ON THIS COMMISSIONER FOR AND MR. BALDWIN IN THE COMMUNITY. UM, SO RIGHT NOW THERE WILL BE 126 DWELLING UNITS ON THE REMAINING AREA OF REQUEST. IF YOU ADD IN THE R SEVEN FIVE, THE PART THAT'S STAYING R SEVEN FIVE TO THE NORTH, THAT'S BEEN TAKEN OUT OF THE AREA OF REQUEST, HOW MANY DWELLING UNITS WOULD YOU GET TO ROUGHLY? YOU MADE ME DO MATH ON THE TOP OF MY HEAD. SORRY. UH, 1 26 PLUS 33. SO THAT'S WHAT, 1 56? 1 56. OKAY. 1 59. THANK YOU. I WENT INTO URBAN PLANNING BECAUSE I DIDN'T KNOW HOW TO DO MATH. AND IF IT STAYED R SEVEN FIVE ON THE ENTIRE SITE, DO YOU HAVE A ROUGH ESTIMATE OF ABOUT THE SAME? OKAY. YEAH, WE'RE WORKING AT, AT ABOUT FOUR AND FOUR TO FOUR AND A HALF, 12 UNITS PER ACRE. OKAY, GOTCHA. UM, I JUST WANNA TAKE A MINUTE. I, I'M HAPPY TO SUPPORT THIS. I THINK IT'S ADDS SOME MUCH NEEDED HOUSING, UM, TO THE CITY'S HOUSING STOCK AND A LITTLE GENTLE BUMP OF DENSITY. UM, I, I DO WANNA COMMENT ON THIS ONE BECAUSE I THINK IT, IT ILLUSTRATES AN IMPORTANT POINT AND, AND COUNTERS A CERTAIN NARRATIVE THAT WE HEAR SOMETIMES IS THAT WE HAVE ALL OF THIS VACANT LAND IN THE SOUTHERN SECTOR THAT IS RIPE FOR REDEVELOPMENT AND WE SHOULD PUT ALL OF OUR DENSE HOUSING IN THE SOUTHERN SECTOR. AND I DEFINITELY THINK, WELL, YOU KNOW, THE SOUTHERN SECTOR SHOULD ADD ADDITIONAL NEW HOUSING AND ADDITIONAL DENSITY. UM, IT'S MY FIRM BELIEF THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, DENSITY NEEDS TO BE ADDED THROUGHOUT THE CITY AND NOT JUST IN THE SOUTHERN SECTOR. AND I THINK THAT THE FACT THAT WE DO HAVE SIGNIFICANT ACREAGE IN THE SOUTHERN SECTOR, UM, THAT PEOPLE TEND TO POINT TO AND SAY ALL THE DENSITY SHOULD GO THERE [04:35:01] IS IN SOME SENSE IS ILLUSORY. UM, YOU KNOW, THIS CASE HAS AN INDUSTRIAL USE NEARBY, WHICH, YOU KNOW, MAKES IT MORE CHALLENGING TO DEVELOP HOUSING ON PART OF IT. AND ADDITIONALLY, THERE ARE THE CONCERNS, THE NEIGHBORS THAT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT UP HERE, JUST, YOU KNOW, NOT EVERY LITTLE LAST BIT OF DENSITY IS ACCEPTABLE TO THE NEIGHBORS IN THE SOUTHERN SECTOR. SO AS WE MOVE FORWARD, I THINK THIS IS AN IMPORTANT CASE TO KEEP IN MIND, UH, PARTICULARLY WHEN THERE'S, YOU KNOW, RESISTANCE TO DENSITY IN NORTH OF I 30 IN CASES THAT WE SEE, UM, THAT, YOU KNOW, THE SOUTHERN SECTOR IS NOT OUR SOLE ANSWER TO, I DUNNO, UM, ADDRESSING THE CITY'S HOUSING SHORTAGE. AND I THINK WE HAVE HAD MANY WINDS NORTH OF I 30 WHERE WE'VE ADDED DENSITY. UM, AND I APPRECIATE ALL OF MY COLLEAGUES EFFORTS ON THAT AS WELL AS, YOU KNOW, THE COMMUNITIES THAT HAVE GOTTEN BEHIND IT. UH, BUT I DO JUST WANNA, YOU KNOW, HAVE PEOPLE KEEP THIS CASE IN MIND WHEN THAT, YOU KNOW, TIME MORE NEAR IT, IT COMES OUT THAT JUST THE SOUTHERN SECTOR IS THE PLACE TO ADD ALL THE HOUSING COMMISSIONER, RIGHT? UM, I'M HAPPY TO SUPPORT THE MOTION, HAPPY TO SUPPORT THE PLAN. UH, LOOKS LIKE WE FINALLY GOT THERE, BUT I JUST, I JUST WANT TO MAKE THE POINT THAT BY MY MATH, WE'VE GOT A A ABOUT FIVE AND A HALF UNITS PER ACRE, UH, ON THIS PLAN THAT, UH, WE'RE GONNA VOTE ON IN A MOMENT. UM, AND I GET THE SENSE THAT THE COMMUNITY FEELS LIKE THAT WE'VE REALLY, UM, STRETCHED THIS TO THE LIMIT IN TERMS OF DENSITY. UM, I WILL SAY THAT IN MY DISTRICT, WE HAVE MANY PROJECTS LIKE THIS THAT HAVE, UH, BEEN SUCCESSFUL AT 8, 10, 12 UNITS AN ACRE CONSIDERABLY MORE DENSE THAN THIS, PARTICULARLY WHEN THERE'S AS MUCH GREEN SPACE AS THIS PLAN HAS. AND SO, UM, I'LL, I'LL JUST SAY I'M A LITTLE, I'M DISAPPOINTED THAT WE DON'T HAVE MORE HOUSING ON THIS SITE. UM, I DON'T THINK IT WOULD BE A DETRIMENT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. UM, I THINK THERE'S A MISUNDERSTANDING, UH, AROUND OUR CITY ABOUT DENSITY, BUT, UH, I'M HAPPY TO SUPPORT THIS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER HARE. UH, ANY OTHER COMMENTS? I'LL JUST BRIEFLY SAY THAT I WILL BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION AS WELL. AND, UH, I WOULD LIKE TO THANK COMMISSIONER FORESITE FOR YOUR WORK ON THIS. I KNOW THIS ONE HAS BEEN A, A DIFFICULT ONE, A LONG ONE, A COMPLICATED ONE. AND, AND JUST TO ADD TO COMMISSIONER HOUSE RIGHT'S COMMENTS, YOU KNOW, ABOUT THE, THE WORD DENSITY, SOMETIMES I THINK THAT WE, WE PUT MORE MEANING INTO IT, UH, THAN IT, THAN IT IS. YOU KNOW, WE TALK ABOUT DENSITY, ABOUT MULTIFAMILY AND, AND, YOU KNOW, THIS IS A DIFFERENT KIND OF DENSITY THAT, YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES SOME OF US GET A LITTLE CONFUSED ABOUT HOW THERE'S SO MUCH RESISTANCE TO, YOU KNOW, QUOTE UNQUOTE DENSITY, UH, IN, IN REGARDS TO FOR SALE SINGLE FAMILY. UH, BUT, YOU KNOW, THIS IS A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION AND A PART OF TOWN THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, MR. BROWN IS RIGHT. THIS IS A SPECIAL PART OF TOWN. SO I'M HAPPY TO SUPPORT THE MOTION. I'M, I'M GLAD THAT WE FINALLY GOT THIS ONE TO THIS, THIS POINT. AND WITH THAT, COMMISSIONERS, ANY OTHER COMMENTS? CNN, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED AYES HAVE IT. WE'LL GO TO THAT. OH, MR BAIT, [18. 25-2462A An application for an amendment to Specific Use Permit No. 145 for a government installation other than listed on property zoned an R -7.5(A) Single Family District and a CR Community Retail District with a D Liquor Control Overlay, on the west line of Algonquin Drive, between Lake June Road and San Leon Avenue. Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to an amended site plan and conditions. Applicant: City of Dallas Representative: Rob Baldwin Planner: Martin Bate U/A From: June 26, 2025. Council District: 5 Z245-203(MB) / Z-25-000006] ITEM 18 IS CASE Z 2 45 DASH 2 0 3 OR CASE Z 25 6. AN APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO SPECIFIC USE PERMIT NUMBER 1 4 5 FOR GOVERNMENT INSTALLATION OTHER THAN LISTED ON PROPERTY, SORRY FOR GOVERNMENT INSTALLATION OTHER THAN LISTED ON PROPERTY ZONED IN R SEVEN FIVE, A SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT AND A CR COMMUNITY RETAIL DISTRICT WITH A DE LIQUOR CONTROL OVERLAY ON THE WEST LINE OF ALGONQUIN DRIVE BETWEEN LAKE JUNE ROAD AND SAN LEON AVENUE. STAFF'S. RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO AN AMENDED SITE PLAN AND CONDITIONS. MR. BALDWIN, I'M SORRY. I'M SURE YOU GUYS ARE TIRED OF ME. UH, COMMISSIONER CHU, DO YOU WANT ME TO DO MY FULL PRESENTATION LIKE WE DID THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION SO I HAVE A FULL PRESENTATION. I KNOW YOU GUYS ARE PROBABLY TIRED AND DEFINITELY TIRED OF ME. SO WHAT THIS IS, WE'RE WORKING WITH THE CITY OF DALLAS. THERE'S AN, UH, AN SUP THAT'S OUT THERE. IT'S A PERMANENT SUP FOR, UH, THE LAKE JUNE PUMP STATION. IT'S THE LARGEST PUMP STATION IN THE AREA. IT SERVES ALL SOUTH DALLAS, BUT IT ALSO TAKES WATER IN, UH, FROM THE VARIOUS LAKES TO WALK AND WHATNOT. AND THEN, UH, PROVIDES THAT WATER TO OUR, OUR SISTER CITIES. UH, RIGHT NOW THEY HAVE A RESERVOIR TO, UH, TO STORE THE WATER THAT THEN THEY PUMP THAT. WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE [04:40:01] IS WE'RE ADDING TWO ABOVE GROUND STORAGE TANKS, UH, TO HELP EQUALIZE THE PRESSURE AND, UH, TO HELP WITH SERVING THE GROWING AREA. UM, THE, THE, THE, THEY'RE APPROXIMATELY 50 FEET TALL, BUT THEY'RE ALSO SUNK 20 FEET IN THE GROUND AND THEN THEY HAVE NICE ARCHITECTURE, THEY HAVE ARCHES ON THEM AND PAINTING TO MAKE IT LOOK, UH, LIKE JUST NOT AN, AN INDUSTRIAL USE. UM, THANKS TO COMMISSIONER SHE DID. WE HAVE AN ENHANCED LANDSCAPING PLAN. THE BEST WE CAN GIVEN. AS YOU CAN IMAGINE, THERE'S A LOT OF WATER LINES COMING IN OUT AND THERE'S A LOT OF EASEMENTS. UM, WE HAD NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING. IT WAS WELL, UH, PEOPLE, THIS IS WELL RECEIVED AT THE TIME. I HOPE YOU CAN SUPPORT IT. WE DO HAVE, UH, CITY OF DALLAS WATER UTILITIES HERE IF YOU HAVE ANY TECHNICAL QUESTIONS. BUT AFTER SEEING THE PRESENTATION ON WHAT THEY HAVE TO DO TO GET THIS PUMP HOUSE GOING, IT WAS AMAZING BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO KEEP THE WATER FLOWING WE'LL, BUILDING NEW PUMPS AND NEW RESERVOIRS. AND SO I HOPE YOU CAN SUPPORT THIS. I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE? NUMBER 18 Z 25 0 0 0 0 6. ALRIGHT, SHE DID. DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? I DO IN THE MATTER OF Z 2 45. 2 0 3. I MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FILE STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL SUBJECT TO AN AMENDED SITE PLANNING CONDITIONS. THANK YOU CHAIR FOR YOUR MOTION. COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT FOR YOUR SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? UH, JUST VERY BRIEFLY, WANTED TO THANK, UH, MR. BALLWIN AND THE APPLICANT AND MR. BATE. WE, WE DID HAVE A COMMUNITY MEETING THAT WAS ACTUALLY KIND OF AMAZING 'CAUSE IT TURNED INTO KIND OF THIS ENGINEERING, UH, PHD LEVEL DISCUSSION ABOUT JUST HOW IMPORTANT THIS SIDE IS IN THIS PROJECT. SO I'M VERY HAPPY TO SUPPORT IT. GREAT, THANK YOU. ANY OTHER, UH, DISCUSSION SAYING NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED, SAY NAY. THE MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE'LL [19. 25-2463A An application for a new Specific Use Permit for a Handicapped Group Dwelling Unit on property zoned a R-7.5(A) Single Family District, on the south line of Plaza Boulevard, between Linda Lane and La Flor Lane. Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to a site plan and conditions. Applicant: Stephanie Chukwukelu Representative: Stephanie Chukwukelu Planner: Rexter Chambers U/A From: July 10, 2025. Council District: 8 Z-25-000044(RC)] GO TO 19. GOOD AFTERNOON. UH, PER ITEM NUMBER 19. UH, THIS IS FOR CASE Z DASH 25 DASH 0 0 0 0 44 LOCATED ON THE SOUTH LINE OF PLAZA BOULEVARD BETWEEN LINDA LANE AND THE FLOOR LANE. UH, IT'S FOR AN APPLICATION FOR A NEW SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR A HANDICAPPED GROUP DWELLING UNIT ON PROPERTY ZONED IN R 7.5. A SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT AND STAFF. RECOMMENDATION IS FOR APPROVAL SUBJECT TO A SITE PLAN AND CONDITIONS. THANK YOU SIR. UH, IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO BE HEARD ON THIS ITEM? IT SAYS ITEM NUMBER 19 ON PAGE SEVEN OF OUR AGENDA. OKAY. SEE NOW, COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? I DO. MR. CHAIR IN THE MATTER OF Z 25 0 0 0 4 4. I MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND FOLLOW STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL SUBJECT TO A SITE PLAN AND CONDITIONS. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN FOR YOUR MOTION AND COMMISSIONER HOUSE, RIGHT FOR YOUR SECOND QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM? SEEING NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? AYES HAVE IT. WE'LL [20. 25-2464A An application for a TH-3(A) Townhouse Subdistrict on property zoned R-5(A) Single Family Subdistrict within Planned Development District No 595, the South Dallas Fair Park Special Purpose District, on the east corner of Colonial Ave and Driskell St. Staff Recommendation: Approval. Applicant: Anish Thakrar Planner: Michael V. Pepe U/A From: July 10, 2025. Council District: 7 Z245-209(LC) / Z-25-000038] GO TO NUMBER 20. GOOD AFTERNOON. Z 2 4 5 2 0 9 SLASH Z 25 38 IS AN APPLICATION FOR A TH THREE TOWNHOUSE SUBDISTRICT ON PROPERTY ZONE R FIVE, A SINGLE FAMILY SUBDISTRICT WITHIN PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 5 9 5 SOUTH DALLAS FAIR PARK SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICT ON THE EAST CORNER COLONIAL AVENUE IN DRISCOLL STREET. STAFF. RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL. THANK QSA. THE APPLICANT IS HERE. GOOD AFTERNOON. GOOD AFTERNOON. UH, ANISH 32 0 8 COLE AVENUE, UM, DALLAS 7 5 2 0 4. UM, I'M JUST HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU SIR. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? OKAY, BEFORE WE GO TO QUESTIONS, WE NEED A MOTION COMMERCIAL WHEELER [04:45:05] IN THE MA IN THE MATTER OF Z HOLD ON. Z 4 5 2 0 9, UM, IN THE MATTER OF Z FOUR FIVE DASH TWO NINE, UH, AND Z UH SLASH Z 2 5 0 0 0 3 8. I'M TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND STOP FOLLOW STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER WHEELER FOR YOUR MOTION. I WILL SECOND IT. COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, DISCUSSION. I SEEING NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? AYE. HAVE IT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU SIR. UH, COMMISSIONER WHEELER WOULD, THAT WAS SUBJECT TO DEED RESTRICTIONS, IS THAT RIGHT? UM, YES, I FIGURED. YEAH, I WAS GONNA, I WAS ABOUT TO ASK, SORRY. SO YEAH, THE, THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS JUST APPROVAL, BUT I THINK YOUR INTENT IS WITH SUBJECT TO DEED RESTRICTIONS. CAN WE RECONSIDER MR. CHAIR? CAN I MAKE A MOTION TO RECONSIDER PLEASE? LET'S THANK YOU COMMISSIONER RUBIN FOR YOUR MOTION. UH, ALL THE, WE'RE GONNA RECONSIDER ITEM TO ADD THE DEED RESTRICTIONS. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION PASSES. OKAY, COMMISSIONER ER MY APOLOGIES. CAN WE HAVE ANOTHER MOTION AGAIN WITH THE DEED RESTRICTIONS? YES. IN THE MATTER IN THE MATTER OF UH, Z 2 45. SOMEBODY'S MIC IS OPEN IN THE MATTER OF Z 2 4 5 DASH 2 0 9 Z TWO FIVE DASH 0 0 0 0 3 8. I MOVE TO PUBLIC. I MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND FILE STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL SUBJECT TO DEED RESTRICTIONS. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER WHEELER. I WILL SECOND IT AGAIN. UH, COMMISSIONERS, WE HAVE MOTION TO MAKE COMMISSIONER WHEELER SECOND BY MYSELF TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FILE STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL, UH, AND ACCEPTING THE DEED RESTRICTIONS. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AND THE OPPOSED AYES HAVE IT. THANK YOU COMMISSIONERS. [21. 25-2465A An application for a new subdistrict within Planned Development District (PDD) No. 598 on property zoned PDD No. 598 Tracts 2, 2A, and 3, on the south line of West Wheatland Road, between South Polk Street and South Hampton Road, north of LBJ Freeway. Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to amended conditions. Applicant: Miller Sylvan [JPI Real Estate Acquisition, LLC] Representative: Jesse Copeland, Winstead Planner: Martin Bate U/A From: May 22, 2025. Council District: 8 Z245-210(MB)] WE'LL GO TO NUMBER 21. ITEM 21 IS CASES Z 2 45 DASH 210 AND APPLICATION FOR A NEW SUBDISTRICT WITHIN PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 5 9 8 ON PROPERTY ZONE PD NUMBER 5 9 8 TRACK 2, 2, 8 AND THREE ON THE SOUTH LINE OF WEST WHEATLAND ROAD BETWEEN SOUTH POLK STREET AND SOUTH HAMPTON ROAD NORTH OF LBJ FREEWAY. STAFF. RECOMMENDATIONS, APPROVAL SUBJECT TO AMENDED CONDITIONS. THANK YOU MR. BATE. UH, IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT'D LIKE TO BE HEARD ON THIS ITEM? SEEING NO ONE? COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION SIR? UH, YES. MR. CHAIR AND THE MATTER OF Z 2 45 DASH 2 1 0, UH, MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND DENY THE ZONING CHANGE WITHOUT PREJUDICE. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN FOR YOUR MOTION. COMMISSIONER HAMPTON FOR YOUR SECOND, UH, COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, DISCUSSION, COMMISSIONER HOUSE? RIGHT. UM, CAN I ASK COMMISSIONER WHY WE'RE DENYING THIS? UH, YES. THIS IS AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT AND THIS WAS THEY PART AND PARCEL TO SB EIGHT 40. OKAY, THANK YOU. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? SEE NONE OF THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? AYES HAVE IT. WE HAVE A TREND THERE WITH . WE'LL GO [23. 25-2457A An application for an amendment to Specific Use Permit No. 798 for a Mining of Sand and Gravel use on property zoned an A(A) Agricultural District, on the southwest line of Kleberg Road, between US 175 Frontage Road and Jordan Valley Road. Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to an amended site plan and conditions. Applicant: Mesquite Landfill TX, LP Representative: Weaver Consultants Group, LLC Planner: Michael Pepe U/A From: February 6, 2025, March 6, 2025, April 10, 2025, May 22, 2025, and June 26, 2025. Council District: 8 Z212-131(MP/SM)] TO 23. ITEM 23, YOU SEE TWO. 1, 2, 1, 3 1. IT'S AN APPLICATION FOR AN SPECIFIC USE PERMIT NUMBER 7 98 FOR MINING OF SAND AND GRAVEL USE ON PROPERTY ZONED IN AA AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT ON THE SOUTHWEST LINE OF CLAYBROOK ROAD BETWEEN US 1 75 FRONTAGE ROAD AND JORDAN VALLEY ROAD. STAFF. RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO AN AMENDED SITE PLAN AND CONDITIONS. THANK YOU SIR. IS THERE ANYONE THAT WOULD LIKE TO BE HEARD ON THIS ITEM? THIS IS NUMBER 23 Z 2 1 2 1 3 1. SEEING NO SPEAKERS. COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN, DO YOU HAVE MOTION? I DO. UH, AND IF I CAN GET A SECOND, I JUST WANNA MAKE A QUICK COMMENT AFTERWARDS. SO IN THE MATTER OF Z 2 1 2 DASH 1 31, I MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND DENY THE ZONING CHANGE WITHOUT PREJUDICE. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN FOR YOUR MOTION. AND VICE CHAIR RUBIN FOR YOUR SECOND COMMENTS. COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN? UH, YES. UH, THANK YOU MR. CHAIR. AND I WAS REALLY HOPING THAT WE WOULD, YOU KNOW, PUT A BUTTON ON THIS CASE AS IT'S BEEN [04:50:01] ON OUR DOCKET FOR A WHILE. I GUESS IN SOME SENSE IT HAS. UM, BUT, UM, UH, THIS WAS AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT. UH, THE APPLICANT HAS BEEN COLLABORATING IN PARTNERING WITH THE COMMUNITY. WE'VE HAD SOME PRETTY GOOD, UM, COMMUNITY MEETINGS TO DISCUSS THIS PARTICULAR CASE. AND THE APPLICANT HAS DECIDED TO REEVALUATE IN THE CONTEXT OF THE ADJACENT SUP UH, 7 99. SO THEY'RE GOING BACK INTO THE DRAWING BOARD AND AGAIN, THEY WILL BE COLLABORATING, UH, WITH THE COMMUNITY, UH, TO COME TO A FINAL SOLUTION. SO, UH, AT THE REQUEST, UH, I'M SEEKING THE DENIAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER. AND ALSO I'D LIKE TO, UH, THANK, UH, COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT AND COMMISSIONER HALL. UH, THEY CAME OUT TO THE LAST COMMUNITY MEETING, UH, TO GET A TASTE OF WHAT THE COMMUNITY CONCERNS WERE AND THE, UM, THE PARTICULAR, LIKE THE SOLUTIONS, UH, THAT WERE IN PLACE. IT WAS GOOD TO HAVE THEIR SUPPORT THERE AND THAT'S WANNA THANK THEM PRESENTLY FOR, FOR ATTENDING. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN. ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONERS? OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN SECOND OF VICE SHA RUBIN TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND DENY THE APPLICATION WITHOUT PREJUDICE. ALTHOUGH IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. YOU POSE [25. 25-2469A An application for the termination of deed restrictions DR Z834-293, with consideration of an NS(A) Neighborhood Service District on property zoned CR Community Retail District with deed restrictions DR Z834-293, on the northwest corner of N. Masters Dr and Bruton Rd. Staff Recommendation: Approval of 1) NS(A) Neighborhood Service District and approval of 2) termination of deed restrictions. Applicant: Anand Gupta Representative: Nazir Moosa Planner: Michael Pepe Council District: 7 Z245-216(LC) / Z-25-000099] AYES HAVE IT GO TO 25. ITEM 25 IS Z 2 4 5 216 A KAZ 2 5 99. IT'S AN APPLICATION. HEY, UH, I'M SORRY. UM, CHAIR, WE'RE GONNA HOLD THIS IS BEING, I AM SORRY. OKAY. THAT'S OKAY. WE'LL HOLD IT. WE'LL, UH, WE'LL READ IN THE RECORD THEN WE'LL MAKE A MOTION TO HOLD IT. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER WHEELER Z 2 4 5 216 A KAZ 2 5 99. IT'S AN APPLICATION FOR THE TERMINATION OF DE RESTRICTIONS Z 8 3 4 2 9 3 WITH CONSIDERATION OF AN NSA NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICE DISTRICT. OUR PROPERTIES ZONE CR COMMUNITY RETAIL DISTRICT WITH THE DESCRIPTIONS DRZ 8 3 2 9 3 ON NORTHWEST CORNER MASTERS DRIVE IN BURTON ROAD. STAFF RECORDATION IS APPROVAL OF ONE AND NSA NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICE DISTRICT AND UP TO APPROVAL OF TERMINATION AND DUE RESTRICTIONS. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? COME ON DOWN. COMMISSIONER WHEELER. WE HAVE A COUPLE OF SPEAKERS HERE, WE'RE GONNA HEAR FROM THEM BEFORE WE GO TO A MOTION. GOOD AFTERNOON, SORRY. GOOD AFTERNOON. HI, MY NAME IS NAZI. UM, I'M JUST THE REPRESENTATIVE SEV, I'M JUST HERE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME. THANK YOU, SIR. THANK YOU FOR JOINING US. DID YOU WANNA COME DOWN, SIR? THAT WAS I. GOOD AFTERNOON. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME'S CARLOS DIAZ. I RESIDE AT 2 1 2 5 NORTH MASTERS DRIVE DIRECTLY RIGHT NEXT TO THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION. I'M HERE TODAY, NOT JUST AS A RESIDENT, BUT AS SOMEONE WHOSE HOME SAFETY AND PEACE OF MIND WILL BE DIRECTLY AFFECTED BY THIS PROPOSED REZONING AND CONSTRUCTION OF GAS STATION NEXT DOOR. WE ARE HERE, WE'RE POSING THE REZO OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION AS THIS CONSTRUCTION WILL NOT BENEFIT OUR COMMUNITY AND IS NOT NEEDED. THERE IS ALREADY A GAS STATION ON THE CORNER AND PROPOSED GAS STATION WILL BE DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM IT. THERE ARE ALSO MANY GAS STATIONS ON EVERY MAJOR INTERSECTION FROM THIS PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION. SO ADDING ANOTHER WILL NOT BENEFIT OUR COMMUNITY. IN FACT, BY REZONING THE PROPERTY, YOU'RE PUTTING THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF OUR COMMUNITY AT RISK. THE CORNER OF MASTERS IN BREWTON HAS BECOME HIGHLY TRAFFICKED, DANGEROUS GUN VIOLENCE, HOMELESSNESS AND MORE L AS WELL AT THE FOOD, BEER AND WINE STORE THAT RESIDES IN THE SAME SHOPPING CENTER. THERE'S ALSO INCREASED CRIMINAL ACTIVITY AND MORE GUN VIOLENCE IN THAT AREA. BY ALLOWING THIS REZONING THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION, YOU'RE WELCOMING THAT CRIME TO ENTER THE RESIDENTIAL SIDE OF THE COMMUNITY. THE REZONING REQUEST COMES FROM OUTSIDERS WHO PRIORITIZE PROFIT OVER THE WELLBEING OF OUR COMMUNITY MEMBERS. ASIDE FROM THE SAFETY CONCERNS, THERE ARE ALSO HEALTH AND REGULATION CONCERNS. ACCORDING TO OUR CITY ORDINANCE, GAS STATIONS SHOULD NOT BE BUILT WITHIN 500 FEET FROM A RESIDENTIAL HOME. OUR HOME IS WITHIN THAT RADIUS. THERE ARE ALSO ENVIRONMENTAL AND HEALTH HAZARDS THAT COME ALONG WITH THIS. ANOTHER ISSUE OF GREAT CONCERN IS THE EXCESSIVE NOISE AND TRAFFIC THAT PROPOSED GAS STATION WILL BRING A STATE OF BEFORE THIS INTERSECTION HAS BECOME HIGHLY TRAFFICKED AND ADDING ANOTHER GAS STATION WILL MAKE THE MATTERS EVEN WORSE. WE ALSO WORRY ABOUT THE NOISE FROM A HIGH TRAFFIC GAS STATION. THE CONSTANT FLOW OF VEHICLES AND RELATED SOUNDS WILL DISRUPT THE PIECE CURRENTLY ENJOYED BY THE RESIDENTS. THIS INCREASED NOISE WILL NOTABLY AFFECT MY WIFE WHO WORKS AND ATTENDS SCHOOL FROM HOME. WITH ALL THIS INFORMATION PROVIDED, WE ASK FOR THE BOARD AND COMMUNITY [04:55:01] REPRESENTATIVES TO DENY THE REZONING REQUEST AND KEEP THE RESIDENTIAL SIDE JUST THAT RESIDENTIAL AS ALLOWING THE REZONING, THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION WOULD BE NEGLIGENT AND WILL NEGATIVELY AFFECT THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF THEIR RESIDENTS OF THIS COMMUNITY, WHICH ARE THE PEOPLE THE BOARD DILIGENTLY STANDS FOR. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND I REALLY HOPE ALL THIS HAS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN MAKING YOUR DECISION AS MY FAMILY AND OUR COMMUNITY IS COUNTING ON YOU. THANK YOU FOR JOINING US, SIR. PER OUR RULES. YOU GET A TWO MINUTE REBUTTAL IF YOU'D LIKE TO. NO. OKAY. UH, LET'S GET A MOTION BEFORE, UM, WE HAVE OUR QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSION. COMMISSIONER WHEELER, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? UM, I DO HAVE A MOTION, UM, IN THE MATTER OF Z 2 4 5 DASH TWO 16 SLASH Z 2 5 0 0 9 9. UM, I, ME, I MOVED TO KEEP THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN, UM, UNTIL, UM, THE FIRST MEETING IS SEPTEMBER S SEPTEMBER 4TH. SEPTEMBER 4TH. YES. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER WHEELER FOR YOUR MOTION. I DO HAVE COMMENTS. COMMISSIONER HAMPTON FOR YOUR SECOND COMMENTS, QUESTIONS. COMMISSIONER WHEELER? UM, YES, SO I, I DIDN'T WANT, UM, I WANTED TO AT LEAST GIVE A CHANCE FOR THE APPLICANT TO GET WITH THOSE COMMUNITY MEMBERS WHO ARE IN THAT AREA, UM, TO, TO SEE IF THERE'S SOME TYPE OF RESOLUTION BEFORE MAKING A VOTE ON THIS. UM, WE DID GET SEVERAL, WE DID GET SEVERAL, UM, UM, OPPOSITIONS. UM, THERE WAS NONE IN, I DIDN'T SEE ANY THAT WERE IN FAVOR AND SO GIVING THE APPLICANT A TIME TO AT LEAST GET WITH THOSE, THOSE COMMUNITY MEETING MEMBERS AND THEN MAKE THAT DECISION OF 1ST OF SEPTEMBER. THERE IS QUITE A BIT OF, UM, WE DO KNOW THERE'S QUITE A BIT OF GAS STATIONS IN COUSIN IN THAT COUSIN GROVE AREA. UM, AND SO ULTIMATELY WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT, THAT THEY ARE WORKING WITH THAT NEIGHBORHOOD, UM, TO SEE IF THEY CAN COME TO SOME RESOLVE BEFORE WE VOTE. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER WHEELER. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? COMMISSIONER? OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION A SECOND TO KEEP THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AND HOLD THE MATTER UNDER ADVISEMENT TO SEPTEMBER 4TH. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THE AYES HAVE IT. THANK YOU SIR. WE'LL SEE YOU BACK. UH, COMMISSIONERS, THAT TAKES US TO OUR [SUBDIVISION DOCKET] SUBDIVISION CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS CONSISTENT OF CASES, UH, NINE THROUGH 16, NOT NINE THROUGH 16. PARDON ME, MY GLASSES ARE OFF HERE. 27 THROUGH 40. 27 THROUGH 40. WE'RE NOT GOING BACK NOW. OKAY. WE'RE NOT IN A TIME MACHINE. NO. OKAY. GOOD AFTERNOON. GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR. GOOD AFTERNOON COMMISSIONERS. UH, WE HAVE 14 CONSENT ITEMS. ITEMS 27, ITEM 28, ITEM 29, ITEM 30, ITEM 31, ITEM NUMBER 32. ITEM NUMBER 33. ITEM NUMBER 34, ITEM NUMBER 35, ITEM NUMBER 36, ITEM NUMBER 37, ITEM NUMBER 38, ITEM NUMBER 39. AND ITEM NUMBER 40 ON ITEM 30. PLAN 25 DASH 0 0 0 3 6. UH, CORRECTION ON ITEM DESCRIPTION, AN APPLICATION TO CREATE NINE LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 0.504 ACRES TO 6.931 ACRES AND TO DEDICATE A RIGHT OF WAY FROM A 14.899 ACRE TRACK OF LAND ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON SKY FROST DRIVE NORTHWEST OF JACOBSON DRIVE. NEW CONDITION TO BE ADDED ON THE FINAL PLAT. PROVIDE A THREE FOOT BARRIER EASEMENT ON PROPOSED LOTS. THREE THROUGH SEVEN ON OAK BOULEVARD ARE SKY FIRST DRIVE SINGLE FAMILY DUPLEX OR TOWNHOUSE LOTS HAVING FRONTAGE ON TWO OPPOSITE SIDES ARE PROHIBITED UNLESS THE COMMISSION FINDS THAT THIS DESIGN IS ESSENTIAL TO PROVIDE PROPER ORIENTATION OF RESIDENTIAL LOSS TO THOROUGHFARE. SECTION 51 A 8 3 5. ALL CASES HAVE BEEN POSTED FOR A HEARING AT THIS TIME. AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITION LISTED IN THE DOCKET AND AS AMENDED AT THE HEARING. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UH, CAN WE HAVE A MOTION MR. RUBIN? YES. IN THE MATTER OF THE SUBDIVISION CONSENT DOCK CONSISTING OF ITEMS 27 THROUGH 40, I MOVE THAT WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND FOLLOWS STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITIONS LISTED DOCKET, OR AS AMENDED AT THE HEARING. THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN, FOR YOUR [05:00:01] MOTION. COMMISSIONER HORAN FOR YOUR SECOND. ANY COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY THE OPPOSED THE AYES HAVE IT [Items 41 - 42] GO TO 41 OR 18? DO WE WANNA GO BACK TO NO, LET'S GO 41 . OKAY, LET'S READ THEM TOGETHER PLEASE, SIR, I HAVE, I HAVE TWO CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATE WITNESSES FOR SIGNS. I'VE GOT SIGN 2 5 0 0 0 4 6 0. AN APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS BY JOSEPHINE GONZALEZ OF PATTERSON ID FOR A 234 SQUARE FOOT. LED ILLUMINATED CHANNEL LETTER SIGN AT 2,700 COMMERCE STREET, SUITE 1500 SOUTH ELEVATION SIGN 2 5 0 0 0 4 6 1. AN APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS BY JOSEPHINE GONZALEZ OF PATTERSON ID FOR 149 SQUARE FOOT. LED ILLUMINATED CHANNEL LETTER SIGN AT 2,700 COMMERCE STREET, SUITE 1500 ON THE WEST ELEVATION. BOTH WERE RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL BY STAFF AND S-S-D-A-C. THANK YOU SIR. COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? UM, I DO, I DO THINK WE HAVE ONE, UH, SPEAKER ONLINE. I UNDERSTAND HE MAY SIMPLY BE HERE FOR QUESTIONS. YES. UH, MATT WILSON, 1 4 2 0 1 SOVEREIGN ROAD WITH PATTISON. ID SIGN COMPANY HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AND WE THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION OF THESE TWO, UH, PROPOSED SIDES. THANK YOU FOR JOINING US. PLEASE STAY ONLINE IN CASE OUR QUESTIONS FOR YOU. COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? I DO. THANK YOU MR. CHAIR, IN THE MATTER OF THE CERTIFICATE, APPROPRIATENESS FOR SIGN SIGN TWO FIVE DASH 0 4 6 AND SIGN TWO FIVE DASH 0 0 4 6 1. I MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOLLOW STAFF AND S-S-D-A-C RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HAMPTON FOR YOUR MOTION. COMMISSIONER HOUSER FOR YOUR SECOND. ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? SEE IF NONE OF THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THE AYES HAVE IT AND I BELIEVE THAT CONCLUDES OUR AGENDA COMMISSIONERS. UH, I WANT TO THANK STAFF, UM, AND ALL OUR APPLICANTS. UH, WHAT CASE ARE YOU FOLKS HERE FOR? 27? IT WAS APPROVED. YES, IT HAPPENS FAST. THANK YOU FOR JOINING US. UH, COMMISSIONERS. THANK YOU. WE'LL SEE YOU IN TWO WEEKS. HAVE A GREAT EVENING. IT'S THREE 20. OUR MEETING IS ADJOURNED. 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.