* 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. MORNING. MORNING. [00:00:01] OKAY, WE'RE GONNA START OFF WITH A ROLL [BRIEFINGS] CALL. GOOD MORNING. HOW ARE YOU? GOOD MORNING COMMISSIONERS. DISTRICT ONE, COMMISSIONER BINKI. PRESENT, DISTRICT TWO. COMMISSIONER HAMPTON. DISTRICT THREE. COMMISSIONER HERBERT PRESENT. DISTRICT FOUR. COMMISSIONER FORSYTH HERE. DISTRICT FIVE, CHAIR SHA DID PRESENT DISTRICT. DISTRICT SIX. COMMISSIONER CARPENTER PRESENT? DISTRICT SEVEN. COMMISSIONER WILLIE REAGAN. DISTRICT DATE COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN? DISTRICT NINE. COMMISSIONER SLEEPER. HERE. DISTRICT 10. COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT HERE. DISTRICT 11. COMMISSIONER SIMS HERE. DISTRICT 12 VACANT. DISTRICT 13. COMMISSIONER HALL HERE. DISTRICT 14, COMMISSIONER KINGSTON AND PLACE 15 VICE CHAIR RUBIN, I'M HERE. YOU HAVE QUORUM, SIR. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. GOOD MORNING COMMISSIONERS. TODAY IS THURSDAY, AUGUST 21ST, 2025, 10:06 AM AND WELCOME TO THE BRIEFING OF THE DALLAS CITY PLAN COMMISSION. UH, COMMISSIONERS. WE HAD A, UM, WE HAVE A PRESENTATION TO START OUT WITH, BUT I'M THINKING MAYBE WE WANNA HOLD OFF A LITTLE BIT. UM, I KNOW WE HAD ONE PARTICULAR COMMISSIONER THAT WAS VERY EXCITED ABOUT THIS, SO MAYBE WE WILL, IS IT OKAY TO SKIP AROUND A LITTLE BIT AND HOLD THAT OFF A LITTLE BIT, JENNIFER? IS THAT OKAY? UM, SO I DON'T KNOW, THAT'S, UM, I'M A LITTLE CON COMMISSIONER. LET'S JUST START OFF WITH OUR ZONING CASES AND, UH, UH, COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN'S GONNA BE A LITTLE BIT LATE TODAY, SO WE'RE GONNA HOLD OFF ON THE D EIGHT CASES IN CASE HE WANTS TO BRIEF THEM. WANTS TO BE HERE FOR THE BRIEFING. SO WE'LL START OFF WITH CASE NUMBER SIX. DO WE NEED THAT ONE BRIEFED? WOULD ANYBODY LIKE NUMBER SIX BRIEFED? PARDON ME? NUMBER FIVE IN DISTRICT SIX. MY APOLOGIES. LET'S BRIEF IT. , IT'S, IT'S, IT'S EARLY. YES. NUMBER FIVE. WE'RE GONNA BRIEF NUMBER FIVE FIRST. GOOD MORNING, MS. GARZA. GOOD MORNING. GOOD MORNING. ITEM NUMBER FIVE IS KS. OH, SORRY. ITEM NUMBER FIVE IS KZ 25 DASH UM, 67. THE REQUEST IS AN APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO PLAN DEVELOPMENT 9 24 LOCATED ON THE SOUTH LINE OF EAST BELTS LINE ROAD AND WEST LINE OF SOUTH NORTH LAKE ROAD, APPROXIMATELY 81.85 ACRES. THE LOCATION MAP, THE AERIAL MAP, THE ZONING MAP SURROUNDING USES TOWARDS THE NORTH ZONE DEVELOPED TOWARDS THE EAST IS SINGLE FAMILY TOWARDS THE SOUTH, UNDEVELOPED AND THEN TOWARDS THE WEST UNDEVELOPED. AND THEN, UM, SO THE SITES, THE TOWARDS THE NORTH IS, IS CITY OF CAPEL, TOWARDS THE EAST IS CITY OF URBAN AND A A AGRICULTURE DISTRICT. AND THEN TOWARDS THE SOUTH IS PD 7 41 AND AGRICULTURE DISTRICT. AND THEN TOWARDS THE WEST IS PD 7 41. THE AREA REQUEST IS CURRENTLY ZONED, UM, PLANT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 9 42 AND IS DEVELOPED WITH AN ELECTRICAL SUBSTATION. THE ORIGINAL PD WAS APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL ON APRIL 13TH, 2016 WITH SUB AREA CONSIDERED FOR RESIDENTIAL USE IN SUB AREA BE CONSIDERED FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL USES. HOWEVER, ON NOVEMBER OF 2022, CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN APPLICATION TO AMEND PD 7 41 TO EXPAND AND INCLUDE ARIA B WITHIN PD 9 42. THEREFORE, UH, PD 9 42 ONLY CONSISTS OF SUB AREA A. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO AMEND THE PD TO ALLOW A NEW RADIO, TELEVIS, TELEVISION MICROWAVE TOWER, AND A TOWER ANTENNA FOR CELLULAR COMMUNICATION TOWER. SO ORIGINALLY, RIGHT NOW, UM, THE UH, RADIO MICROWAVE TOWER IS ATTACHED TO THE WATER TOWER AND NOW THEY ARE PROPOSING TO DO A NEW, UM, MONOPOLE. SO THAT IS WHY IT'S BEING AMENDED. THESE ARE SOME OF THE SIDE PHOTOS ON [00:05:01] SIDE LOOKING SOUTH, LOOKING WEST, LOOKING EAST, WEST, SOUTHWEST, AND THEN SURROUNDING USES LOOKING EAST, EAST AGAIN NORTH, NORTHEAST. AND THIS IS A DEVELOPMENT PLAN, THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT PLAN. SO THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT PLAN, THE HIGH STRUCTURE IS 150. THAT IS, UM, ALLOWED, THEY'RE NOW PROPOSING FOR THE HIGH TO BE UM, 200 AS FOR THE PROPOSAL IMPLANT. AND SINCE, UH, THE SUB AREA IS ONLY, UM, A, THEY HAVE REMOVED THE ARIA B FROM THE DILLON PLANT AND WE ARE BEING ALSO REMOVING THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN, UM, LANGUAGE AS WELL. AS I MENTIONED, UM, THEY'RE REMOVING THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN LANGUAGE. AND THEN, UM, AS FOR MAIN USES, THEY ARE NOW UM, REQUESTING FOR THE TOWER ANTENNA FOR CELLULAR COMMUNICATION TO BE, UM, PERMITTED BY RIDE. CURRENTLY. UM, IT IS, UH, IT IS ALLOWED BUT WITH SUP, SO NOW THEY ARE WANTING IT TO BE BY RIGHT. AND THEN AS I MENTIONED, THE HEIGHT, UM, THEY ARE REQUESTING IT NOW TO BE 200 FEET AND THEN STATING THAT THE RESIDENTIAL PROXIMITY SLOPE DEFINED DOES NOT APPLY TO, TO THE TOWERS. AND THEN IT IS WITHIN THE REGIONAL MIXED USE UNDER THE FOUR DALLAS PLACE TYPE. AND THEN STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL, OH, SORRY, SUBJECT TO AMENDED DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND AMENDED CONDITIONS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. QUESTIONS. COMMISSIONER CARPENTER? YES. UM, DO YOU KNOW THE DISTANCE BETWEEN, UM, THE LOCATION FOR THE PROPOSED TOWER AND THE NEAREST PROPERTIES TO THE EAST? I DID NOT. UM, BUT THE APPLICANT DID SEND ME, UM, AN EMAIL STATING IT'S AROUND LIKE 800 I BELIEVE. OKAY. WELL I KNOW ON THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN IT SHOWS THAT THE DISTANCE IS 290 FEET FROM THE LOCATION TOWER TO THE EDGE OF THE STREET TO THE EAST. OH, YES. UM, MY UNDERSTANDING IS IT'S ABOUT 400 FEET FROM THE NEAREST PROPERTY LINE. YES, I BELIEVE. AND THEN TO THE NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE. UM, AM I CORRECT IN UNDERSTANDING THAT THE DISTANCE THERE IS ABOUT 600 FEET? LET ME JUST CONFIRM IT. SO, UM, PER THE APPLICANT, THE PROPOSED HOUSE IS APPROXIMATELY 400 FEET FROM THE NEW YEAR'S EXISTENCE, SINGLE FAMILY PROPERTY AND, UH, 1,250 SOUTH OF BELTLINE ROAD. OKAY. AND TO THE SOUTH THERE IS MOSTLY A, UH, LAKE THAT SERVED AS A COOLING POND FOR A UTILITY PLANT. YES. IS THAT CORRECT? YES. UM, ARE YOU AWARE OF THE, UM, EMAILS THAT WE HAVE GOTTEN IN OPPOSITION EXPRESSING CONCERN ABOUT MICROWAVE RADIATION? YES. I GUESS, UM, I NEED THIS QUESTION, I GUESS WOULD BE FOR LEGAL. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT WE ARE NOT IN MAKING A LAND USE DECISION. THE CPC IS NOT SUPPOSED TO CONSIDER ALLEGATIONS ABOUT PERCEIVED HARM FROM RADIATION, MICROWAVE RADIATION IN THIS KIND OF FACILITY. UH, THAT'S CORRECT. THIS IS LAURA MORRISON, CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1996 PROHIBITS GOVERNMENT SUBDIVISIONS, UH, FROM, UH, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT ANYTHING ABOUT RADIO FREQUENCY WAVES. OKAY. AND AT THE LOCATION RIGHT NOW, THERE IS A MICROWAVE TOWER. IT'S, ITS HEIGHT IS JUST A HUNDRED AND THIRTY, A HUNDRED THIRTY FIVE FEET. IT'S A ATTACHED TO A STRUCTURE. SO THE PROPOSAL IS TO BUILD A FREESTANDING ONE THAT'S 200 FEET? YES, THAT'S CORRECT. MM-HMM . UM, THE OTHER CONCERN THAT I SAW ADDRESSED IN THE EMAILS THAT WE GOT WERE ABOUT TRAFFIC AT THE FACILITY. UM, I'M, I'M FINDING IT DIFFICULT TO THINK OF A USE THAT INVOLVES LESS TRAFFIC THAN A MICROWAVE OR CELL TOWER. WOULD THAT BE YOUR UNDERSTANDING? YES. I, I DID GO TO THE SIDE. THERE WASN'T REALLY TRAFFIC WHEN I WENT. OKAY. AND IS THERE ANY REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE CONSTRUCTION OF THIS POLE WOULD PROVIDE, WOULD, WOULD, UM, CONSTITUTE SOME SORT OF, UM, SITUATION WHERE ACCESS TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO THE EAST WOULD BE BLOCKED? NO. ALRIGHT. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER HALL FA ABOUT VICE CHAIR IT. OOPS, MS. GARZA, COULD YOU GO BACK TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN [00:10:01] AND POINT OUT WHERE THIS TOWER IS OR WHERE IT'S PROPOSED TO BE PLACED? MAYBE USE YOUR MOUSE POINTER OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT TO, OOPS, SO RIGHT ABOUT THERE, WHICH IS STILL ABOUT, UM, 290 FEET TO THE SOUTH NORTH LAKE ROAD. SO RIGHT, RIGHT WHERE YOU'RE HOVERING THAT'S, THAT'S THE APPROXIMATE LOCATION. YES. OKAY. THANK YOU MR. CHAIR RUBEN, JUST ONE FOLLOW UP FOR, FOR MS. MORRISON. I UNDERSTAND THE TELECOM FEDERAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT PREVENTS US FROM MAKING LAND USE DECISIONS BASED ON, WHAT IS IT ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATION OR WHATEVER IS EMITTED FROM THIS TOWER. IS THAT RIGHT? RIGHT. THAT'S CORRECT. THAT DIDN'T MEAN THAT IT'S UNREGULATED, IT'S JUST REGULATED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, CORRECT? THAT'S RIGHT. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. I THINK COMMISSIONER CARPENTER ASKED EVERY SINGLE ONE OF MY QUESTIONS, SO I'LL LET YOU ANSWER THE LAST ONE I HAD IN MY HEAD. SO PLEASE GO AHEAD. OH, WELL I'M NOT SURE IT WILL BE, BUT UM, IS IT ALSO YOUR UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS PARTICULAR POLL WILL ALSO BE REVIEWED BY THE FAA AS FAR AS ITS HEIGHT? THAT IT'S POSSIBLE THAT REGARDLESS OF WHAT GETS APPROVED THROUGH THIS PROCESS, THE FAA COULD REQUIRE THAT IT BE LOWER? YES. THEY, THEY STILL HAVE TO GET APPROVED BY THE FAA FOR THE HEIGHT, YES. 'CAUSE THE, THE FAA COULD REQUIRE A LOWER HEIGHT. THEY COULD, UM, ASK FOR FURTHER REVIEW. UM, SO WHATEVER IS DECIDED THROUGH THIS PROCESS IS NOT THE LAST WORD ON THIS TOWER. CORRECT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. UH, JUST ONE QUICK FOLLOW UP FOR ME, JUST TO HIGHLIGHT ONE POINT IN TERMS OF EQUIPMENT, WHAT, WHAT NEW EQUIPMENT IS, IS, UH, IS GONNA BE PLACED ON THIS SIDE AS A RESULT OF WHAT WE DO HERE TODAY VERSUS WHAT'S ALREADY THERE? SO THE EQUIPMENT, I BELIEVE, UM, WILL BE THE SAME THAT IS ON THE WATER TOWER, BUT NOW IT'S GONNA HAVE THEIR OWN MONOPOLE. OKAY. SO IT'S JUST, IT'S THE SAME EQUIPMENT JUST A LITTLE BIT HIGHER? YEAH, UH, HIGHER. THEY'RE REQUESTING IT TO BE AT HIGHER HEIGHT. YES. UM, AND, BUT IT WILL BE THE SAME EQUIPMENT THAT IT'S BEING RIGHT NOW THAT'S CURRENTLY ATTACHED TO THE WATER TOWER, BUT NOW IT'S GONNA HAVE THEIR OWN MONOPOLE STRUCTURE. OKAY. COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, JUST LIKE TO ELABORATE THAT WHILE IT MAY BE THE SAME TYPE OF EQUIPMENT, IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE UPGRADED AS FAR AS TECHNOLOGY TO IMPROVE THE SERVICE, WHICH IS THE CURRENT, UM, EQUIPMENT IS NOT PERFORMING THE WAY THEY NEED IT TO. THANK YOU FOR THAT. UH, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM? COMMISSIONERS? ALRIGHT, WELL, UH, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE'LL GO BACK AND NOW JUST START FROM THE, THE BEGINNING OF THE AGENDA WITH OUR DA DALLAS NOW TOUR, AND THEN WE'LL GET BACK INTO THE ZONING CASE. IN THIS CASE, OF COURSE, NUMBER FIVE HAS COME OFF CONSENT. GOOD MORNING. GOOD MORNING EVERYBODY. HI, I AM JENNIFER MUNOZ, CHIEF PLANNER OVER THE SPECIAL PROJECTS TEAM. AT THIS TIME WE DO HAVE, UM, JENNIFER GYER WHO WANTED TO COME UP HERE FOR A SECOND BEFORE I GET STARTED. SO GIVE US JUST ONE MOMENT. GOOD MORNING COMMISSIONERS. UM, I DID WANNA JUST MAKE AN ANNOUNCEMENT QUICKLY, UM, REGARDING, UM, SOME INTERNAL PROMOTIONS AND SOME PEOPLE THAT YOU'LL BE SEEING A LITTLE BIT MORE FREQUENTLY IN DIFFERENT CAPACITIES. UH, JEN MUNOZ, YOU KNOW, VERY WELL, HAS BEEN AROUND FOR A WHILE. UM, HOWEVER, SHE'S NOW THE, UH, CHIEF PLANNER WITH THE SPECIAL ZONING PROJECTS TEAM AND IS KEEPING US ALL TRYING TO KEEP US ALL ON TRACK AND ORGANIZED. UM, SHE WORKS PRIMARILY, UM, WITH OUR TWO NEW PLANNER TWOS, SHAYLA AND TASIA, WHO YOU ALSO KNOW, UM, ON THE MINOR AMENDMENTS AND DEVELOPMENT PLANS. AND THEN ALSO JUST YESTERDAY I BECAME OFFICIAL, UM, THAT TIA BLUE HAS BEEN PROMOTED TO SENIOR PROJECT COORDINATOR ON THE TEAM. SO I JUST WANTED TO LET EVERYONE KNOW, UM, AND I'M VERY GRATEFUL FOR THE EXCELLENT TEAM THAT WE HAVE. CONGRATULATIONS TO ALL. THANKS. AND WE'RE GONNA GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED TODAY. WE ARE DOING A LITTLE TOUR OF OUR DALLAS NOW SYSTEM. THE INTENT IS TO [00:15:01] JUST KIND OF PROVIDE YOU AS LIKE A BASELINE OF WHERE WE WERE BEFORE ON HOW INFORMATION WAS PREVIOUSLY PROVIDED TO THE PUBLIC AND ACCESSIBLE, AND THEN HOW THAT COMPARES TO WHAT WE'VE DONE NOW WITH THE NEW SYSTEM. AND THEN I WANNA END WITH A LITTLE LIVE DEMO WE WOULD LIKE FOR EVERYBODY AT THAT POINT, WHEN I LET YOU KNOW TO PULL OUT ANY DEVICES YOU MAY HAVE, IF YOU NEED ONE, WE DO HAVE SOME TABLETS AVAILABLE PRELOADED WITH THE WEBSITE SO THAT YOU WILL BE ABLE TO FOLLOW ALONG IN REAL TIME BECAUSE NOTHING TEACHES YOU BETTER THAN ACTUALLY CLICKING ALONG WITH US AS WE'RE GOING THROUGH THINGS. AND IF YOU THINK OF QUESTIONS YOU'LL BE ABLE TO ASK US AT THAT TIME. WE WILL ALSO HAVE VARIOUS PLANNERS WALKING AROUND BEHIND YOU SO THAT YOU CAN GRAB THE ATTENTION OF SOMEONE TO ASSIST SO THAT WE CAN HELP YOU REALLY BECOME FAMILIAR BECAUSE FAMILIARITY IS KEY WHEN IT COMES TO USING AND REALLY, UM, UTILIZING DALLAS NOW TO ITS HIGHEST, UM, ABILITY. SO LET'S GET STARTED HERE. OKAY, SO PART ONE OF THIS PRESENTATION IS THAT SYSTEM COMPARISON OF THEN OF COURSE WHAT WE HAD PREVIOUSLY, OUR INTAKE LOG AND OF COURSE OUR APPLICATION SYSTEM, WHICH WAS IN PAPER. WE DID MAKE SOME IMPROVEMENTS TO ALLOW FILLABLE APPLICATIONS BACK IN THE FALL LAST YEAR. AND THEN THOSE FILLABLE APPLICATIONS WERE BEING ACCEPTED. HOWEVER, WE STILL HAD TO MAINTAIN PAPER FILES IN OUR OFFICE. WE WEREN'T A DIGITAL SYSTEM YET, SO WE HAD THE SAME APPLICATION FOR WELL OVER A DECADE, TO MY KNOWLEDGE AT LEAST. AND HERE IS WHAT IT LOOKED LIKE. THIS IS JUST ONE VERSION OF OUR APPLICATION PACKET, WHICH WE UPDATED AGAIN LAST YEAR. YOU COULD FILL THESE IN, BUT YOU STILL HAD TO PROVIDE ALL THE PAPERS TO OUR OFFICE. WE STILL HAD TO MAINTAIN THOSE IN OUR, UH, FILE ROOM, HAVE THEM ACCESSIBLE TO THE PUBLIC IN A VARIETY OF WAYS. BUT THIS IS THE GENERAL INFORMATION THAT THEY WOULD INCLUDE WHEN THEY WERE SUBMITTING AN APPLICATION TO US. EVERYTHING FROM, YOU KNOW, THE PEOPLE INVOLVED OR ASSOCIATED CONTACTS WITH A RECORD. AND THEN OF COURSE THE EXISTING ZONING INFORMATION THAT THEY WOULD PULL FROM OUR ZONING MAP. REALLY THE COUNCIL DISTRICT, THE SCHOOL DISTRICT, CENSUS TRACK NUMBER, AND THEN THE LOCATION AND INFORMATION RELATED TO THE REQUEST. NOW AT THE BOTTOM OF THE APPLICATION, THERE WAS THIS WHOLE SECTION THAT WOULD KIND OF SPLIT YOU UP BECAUSE OUR APPLICATION WAS A COMBINED APPLICATION THAT ALLOWED YOU TO SUBMIT ONE ZONING CASE FOR MULTIPLE REQUESTS. SO ONE EXAMPLE WOULD BE LIKE MAYBE YOU HAVE A ART, YOU KNOW, SOME SORT OF A CR DISTRICT AND YOU WANNA CHANGE IT BECAUSE YOU HAVE A D OVERLAY AND YOU WANNA SELL ALCOHOL THERE. MAYBE YOU'RE APPLYING FOR A REZONING TO CHANGE THE D OVERLAY AND FOR AN SUP TO ALLOW YOU TO SELL ALCOHOL AT A FACILITY. SO THERE YOU WOULD HAVE A GENERAL ZONE CHANGE WITH AN SUP. AND SO THEY WOULD BE ALLOWED TO SUBMIT ONE APPLICATION FORM, BUT THEN THEY WOULD HAVE TO LOOK THROUGH THESE DIFFERENT SECTIONS TO IDENTIFY WHICH DOCUMENTS WOULD BE REQUIRED FOR THEIR SUBMITTAL. TYPICALLY COMING INTO OUR OFFICE, CONFERRING WITH US AND GETTING THAT INFORMATION, MAYBE CALLING, MAYBE REVIEWING SOME INFORMATION ON THEIR WEBSITE. WE HAD A CHECKLIST HERE THAT THEY COULD UTILIZE. AND THEN FURTHERMORE, WE HAD A VERY LONG, VERY NICE AND DETAILED SET OF INFORMATION THAT COORDINATED WITH THIS CHECKLIST. SO YOU WOULD LOOK AT THREE OR FOUR DIFFERENT PAGES TO SAY, I NEED THESE. HERE'S MY CHECKLIST OF WHAT I'M GETTING. DID I GET THEM ALREADY? WHERE DO I GET THEM? SO YOU'D BE REFERRING TO ALL THESE DOCUMENTS TO MAKE YOUR DECISIONS AND OF COURSE BECOME AN EXPERT. AND HOW TO SUBMIT A ZONING APPLICATION EVERY SINGLE TIME YOU WOULD SUBMIT ONE. AND THAT WOULD GO FOR NOT JUST THE REPRESENTATIVES WHO ARE FREQUENTLY SUBMITTING WITH US, BUT OF COURSE FOR OUR REGULAR CITIZENS WHO SUBMIT MAYBE ONCE IF EVER IN THEIR LIVES, RIGHT? SO OUR NEW SYSTEM, IT'S BUILT TO TRY TO TAILOR WHAT'S BEING REQUESTED OF YOU WITHOUT YOU HAVING TO BECOME AN EXPERT IN THE SYSTEM. DO WE STILL REQUIRE THOSE DOCUMENTS? YES. IF THEY ARE REQUIRED, WE WILL ASK FOR THEM. WE DO HAVE A GENERAL BASIS OF WHAT'S REQUIRED FOR APPLICATIONS, WHICH WOULD BE LIKE THE DEED, THE TAX CERTIFICATE, AND MAYBE A LIEN STATEMENT STATING THAT THERE'S NO LIENS ON THE PROPERTY. THOSE ARE CODE REQUIRED ITEMS TO IDENTIFY THAT YOU ARE PERMITTED TO SUBMIT A ZONING APPLICATION AND THAT THAT PROPERTY IS ELIGIBLE FOR A ZONING, UM, CHANGE BASED ON THEIR STATUS OF WHETHER OR NOT TAXES HAVE BEEN PAID. SO WE STILL REQUIRE DOCUMENTS, BUT WHEN YOU ENTER THE SYSTEM, YOU'RE LOOKING AT IT LIKE THIS, YOU'LL ENTER THE APPLICATION NAME, WHICH CAN BE GENERAL INFORMATION LIKE YOU USED TO ON THE FRONT OF THAT APPLICATION PAGE. THEN A DESCRIPTION OF YOUR REQUEST, VERY SIMILAR TO A LAND USE STATEMENT, WHICH WAS PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED. AND NOW WE START TAILORING DOWN TO WHAT TYPE OF APPLICATION DO YOU NEED? YOU CHECK THE BOX AND THEN THE SYSTEM AUTOMATICALLY STARTS SELECTING DIFFERENT SECTIONS OF AN APPLICATION [00:20:01] TO HAVE YOU FILL OUT WHAT INFORMATION WILL WE NEED FROM YOU BASED OFF OF YOUR SELECTIONS. ARE YOU DOING AN SUP? ARE YOU AMENDING LANDSCAPE REGULATIONS? IF YOU ARE, THEN WE'LL ASK YOU FOR A LANDSCAPE PLAN. SO WE WILL TRIGGER A LANDSCAPE FEE. YOU'LL BE MORE AWARE OF WHAT'S TO COME BASED OFF OF THE SELECTIONS THAT YOU'VE MADE IN THE SYSTEM. SO AS YOU CONTINUE ON, IT'LL ASK YOU FOR MORE AND MORE DETAILS AND EVERY SELECTION YOU MAKE WILL EITHER OPEN UP A NEW SECTION OR NOT REQUIRE YOU TO EVEN THINK ABOUT THOSE OTHER SECTIONS, THEREBY NOT CONFUSING YOU, NOT MAKING YOU BECOME AN EXPERT IN ALL THINGS ZONING. IN ORDER TO SUBMIT AN APPLICATION TO US, WE DO ASK FOR VERY SPECIFIC INFORMATION AND IT'S WITH THE INTENTION OF OF COURSE, MEETING THE CODE REQUIREMENTS AND MAKING SURE THAT WHEN WE ACCEPT YOUR APPLICATION, IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE CAN TAKE AND THAT IT MEETS ALL THE NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS, ET CETERA. WE ALSO WANNA SET OUR PLANNERS UP FOR SUCCESS. THEY HAVE THE INFORMATION, THEY NEED INFORMATION THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED ON OUR OLD APPLICATION IN THE FORM OF THE LAND USE STATEMENT, A DESCRIPTION, DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THAT REQUEST. SO THAT'S BROKEN DOWN IN THE APPLICATION. THEN YOU GET TO WHAT YOU UPLOAD INTO THE SYSTEM INSTEAD OF HAVING TO GO AND, YOU KNOW, PURCHASE PAPER COPIES OF ITEMS, PAPER PLANS, AND HAVE THOSE ALL SUBMITTED IN PERSON TO US GOING THROUGH MULTIPLE ROUNDS OF REVISION. INSTEAD, YOU'RE HERE AND YOU'RE SUBMITTING OR UPLOADING THESE DOCUMENTS, WHICH MANY ENTITIES HAVE AVAILABLE TO YOU ELECTRONICALLY OR ARE EASILY SCANNED AND THEN UPLOADED INTO THE SYSTEM. AND THEN WHENEVER YOU HAVE UPDATES AND SUCH, AGAIN YOU'RE NOT PRINTING ANYTHING, YOU JUST HAVE TO SEND THEM INTO THE SYSTEM RATHER THAN HAVING TO BRING THEM TO OUR OFFICE OR CONFER WITH ANY STAFF. SO THIS IS HOW YOU WOULD UPLOAD THOSE ITEMS. AND THEN FINALLY, YOU'RE ALLOWED THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE INFORMATION THAT YOU'VE ENTERED AND CONFIRM THAT IT'S ALL CORRECT BEFORE YOU SUBMIT YOUR APPLICATION. ONCE YOU SUBMIT YOUR APPLICATION, YOU DO PAY A TECHNOLOGY FEE OF $15 AND THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT YOUR APPLICATION IS READY TO GO YET. AT THIS POINT, WE ARE PUTTING YOU IN AN APPLICATION INTAKE STATUS DESPITE YOU HAVING A Z NUMBER OR AN MZ NUMBER. THIS JUST MEANS THAT STAFF IS HOLDING ONTO YOUR APPLICATIONS SO THAT THEN WE CAN ASSIGN SOMEBODY TO LOOK AT IT AND CONFIRM THAT YOUR DOCUMENTS ARE ALL CORRECT AND GOOD TO GO. SO AT THIS POINT, WE WOULD HAVE THAT APPOINTMENT WITH THEM. WE WOULD LOOK THROUGH THEIR PAPERWORKS IF NO PAPERWORK, IF NO, UM, APPOINTMENT IS NECESSARY AND EVERYTHING IS GOOD TO GO, WE WOULD SAY PAYMENT DUE AND THEN THEY COULD PAY THE APPLICATION FEE AND WE COULD GET THEM IN THE QUEUE TO GET ASSIGNED TO A PLANNER AND READY TO BE ON A NEXT, UM, STAFF REVIEW MEETING SO THAT THEY COULD GET THEIR REVIEW THAT IT'S NEEDED BEFORE THEY COME TO YOU AT CBC. NOW, SOMETHING THAT'S VERY DIFFERENT ABOUT THIS SYSTEM IS THAT WHILE OUR PLANNERS HAVE A LOT OF CHECK-IN POINTS WITH, UM, WITH CUSTOMERS THROUGHOUT THE APPLICATION PROCESS, THIS STREAMLINES SOME OF THOSE COMMUNICATIONS. AND FROM THE VERY START OF WHEN THEIR APPLICATION IS FIRST SUBMITTED TO WHEN THEIR PLANNER GETS ASSIGNED TO WHEN AN OUTCOME OCCURS, STAFF COMMENT LETTERS, CPCE OUTCOMES, EVERYTHING IS COMMUNICATED TO THEM THROUGH THE SYSTEM ITSELF. SOME OF THOSE COMMUNICATIONS ARE AUTOMATIC. OTHERS THE PLANNER CAN STILL MAKE THROUGH THE SYSTEM OR EVEN DIFFERENT STAFF MEMBERS COULD MAKE THROUGH THE SYSTEM, AND THEN THEY COULD FOLLOW UP THROUGH THERE VERY EASILY. IT SENDS A LINK FOR THE APPLICANTS TO UPLOAD WHATEVER'S BEING REQUESTED OF THEM. AND THEN AT THAT POINT THE SYSTEM IS NOTIFIED THAT A DOCUMENT HAS BEEN UPLOADED. STAFF IS ABLE TO REVIEW THOSE ITEMS AND KEEP THE ITEM MOVING ALONG. IT PUTS IT ALL IN ONE PLACE, VERY TRANSPARENT. AND OF COURSE, ACCESSIBILITY TO ALL OF THIS INFORMATION IS OPEN TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC. SO LET'S TALK ABOUT THE ACCESS TO APPLICATIONS THAT WE PREVIOUSLY HAD. OUR BELOVED INTAKE LOG. IT WAS A FABULOUS SYSTEM THAT WAS CREATED BY OUR GIS TEAM MANY, MANY MOONS AGO. AND ANYBODY COULD ACCESS THIS. THEY WOULD GO, THEY WOULD SCAN A QR CODE AT A ZONING SITE OR THEY WOULD JUST KNOW ABOUT IT OR MAYBE USE OUR EARLY NOTIFICATION EMAIL DISTRIBUTION LIST TO THEN COME HERE AND REVIEW THE ITEMS. AND YOU COULD START HERE BY DOING A SEARCH IN THE ZONING INTAKE LOG. YOU HAVE A VARIETY OF OPTIONS TO SEARCH FROM, PLANNER, REPRESENTATIVE, ALL KINDS OF INFORMATION COUNCIL DISTRICT, AND OF COURSE YOU COULD SEARCH FOR CASE TYPES. AND ONCE YOU SEARCH FOR THEM, YOU HAVE ACCESS TO ALL THE INFORMATION RELATING TO THE CASE. BUT IT'S GENERALLY THE INFORMATION THAT'S ON THE PAGE ONE OF THAT APPLICATION. AND FURTHERMORE, YOU CAN SEE ON THESE OTHER BOXES DOWN BELOW THE HEARINGS THAT HAVE BEEN SCHEDULED FOR CPC CITY COUNCIL AND THAT EARLY NOTICE PACKET, WHICH IS THE FIRST THREE PAGES OF AN APPLICATION THAT WERE SUBMITTED IN PAPER THAT WERE SCANNED AND THEN UPLOADED INTO THE SYSTEM. SO THERE, THERE'S DEFINITELY NO WIZARD OF OZ HERE. STAFF MEMBERS WERE PROCESSING THESE, JUST LIKE IN OUR NEW SYSTEM, PEOPLE HAVE TO KEEP UP TO DATE WITH THE PROCESSING OF RECORDS IN ORDER FOR THE INFORMATION TO BE, YOU KNOW, UP TO DATE. [00:25:01] SO THAT STILL EXISTS. AND THIS IS WHAT WAS THERE BEFORE. YOU WOULD HAVE THE LAND USE STATEMENT, THE FRONT PAGE AND A ZONING MAP COMPARED TO THE NEW SYSTEM WHERE YOU HAVE ALL DOCUMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH A RECORD, INCLUDING MAPS, ANYTHING THAT'S GENERATED. SO THE NEW ACCESS TO INFORMATION IS WHEN YOU GO TO THE PUBLIC FRONTING SYSTEM. WHEN YOU RECEIVE THAT EARLY NOTICE DISTRIBUTION LIST, IT HAS A LINK TO OUR DALLAS NOW, UM, CUSTOMER PORTAL, WHICH THEN YOU CAN SEARCH FOR INFORMATION, YOU COULD ENTER THOSE CASE NUMBERS AND I'LL SHOW YOU THAT IN THE LIVE DEMO IN A MOMENT. HOWEVER, HERE IT SHOWS YOU WHAT YOU WILL SEE ONCE YOU ACCESS A CASE. YOU'LL SEE THE RECORD NUMBER, YOU'LL SEE WHAT KIND OF CASE IT IS, YOU'LL SEE THE RECORD STATUS. THOSE ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT FEATURES OF THAT TOP SECTION. NEXT, IT'LL SHOW YOU A MAP THAT GENERALLY HAS THE LOCATION AND THEN YOU CAN EXPAND THE SECTIONS BELOW TO SHOW ALL THE APPLICATION INFORMATION, WHICH IS MORE DETAILED. IT'S LIKE SOMEBODY REALLY KNEW WHAT THEY WERE DOING WITH A LAND USE STATEMENT AND ANSWERED THE LONG LIST OF QUESTIONS THAT WE HAD IN OUR PACKET FOR TWO DECADES. IF THEY ANSWERED ALL THOSE QUESTIONS THAT ACTUALLY PERTAIN TO THEIR SPECIFIC REQUEST TYPE, THAT'S WHAT YOU GET HERE AND IT TELLS YOU WHAT RELATED RECORDS THERE ARE. IT SHOWS YOU EXACTLY WHAT KIND OF CASE IT IS AND JUST PULLS IT ALL DOWN TO WHAT'S SPECIFIC TO THIS REQUEST. IT EVEN SHOWS YOU THE NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS DOWN AT THE BOTTOM. NOW THERE'S THIS BOX HERE THAT SAYS RECORD INFO IT, YOU CLICK ON THAT LITTLE ARROW NEXT TO IT, IT'LL DROP DOWN. RECORD DETAILS IS WHAT IS ALREADY THERE BELOW IF YOU EXPAND EVERY SECTION, HOWEVER, IT HAS PROCESSING STATUS, RELATED RECORDS AND ATTACHMENTS. PROCESSING STATUS IS SOMETHING THAT'S NEW WHILE THE OLD INTAKE LOG DID SHOW YOU WHETHER THERE HAD BEEN SCHEDULED HEARINGS. THIS ONE WILL TELL YOU EVERYTHING FROM WHEN TO WHO DID WHAT IN THE SYSTEM AND AT WHAT POINT OF REVIEW THEY'RE AT. YOU CAN SEE, AND IT DOES LOOK REALLY, REALLY LONG BECAUSE OF COURSE OUR, OUR REVIEW IS EXTREMELY DETAILED AND IT CAN BE A LONG PROCESS. SO IT SHOWS THAT ENTIRE PROCESS LAID OUT IN THIS SECTION HERE AND WHAT POINT THEY ARE AT. THERE ARE SPECIFIC COMMENTS ADDED TO THE HEARING DATES THERE. IT SHOWS YOU WHEN STAFF REVIEW OCCURS. IT HAS ALL THE INFORMATION THERE AND WHO'S PROVIDED FEEDBACK. ADDITIONALLY, AS I MENTIONED, WE HAVE OUR ATTACHMENT SECTION, WHICH HAS ALL OF THOSE UPLOADED DOCUMENTS. REMEMBER, THIS IS SOMEBODY WHO'S NOT LOGGED IN WHO NO LONGER HAS TO VISIT OUR OFFICE TO REVIEW DOCUMENTS INSIDE OF A PAPER FILE. AND WHO NO LONGER HAS TO MAKE A PUBLIC INFORMATION REQUEST TO VIEW CERTAIN ASPECTS OF A FILE OR A FILE THAT'S BEEN PUT AWAY. IT'S ALL RIGHT HERE FOR THEM ACCESSIBLE AT THEIR FINGERTIPS AS SOON AS THEY VISIT A SITE PASSED BY. HOW MANY TIMES HAVE FOLKS PASSED BY A ZONING SITE AND SCANNED? AND YES, WE DID OUR BEST. WE HAD THREE PAGES OF INFORMATION UP THAT WAS KEPT UP IN OUR INTAKE LOG. NOW THEY GET ACCESS TO THE ENTIRE RECORD IMMEDIATELY. SO THIS IS PART TWO OF OUR PRESENTATION WHERE WE WILL ENTER THE LIVE DEMO. I WOULD LIKE FOR YOU ALL TO CLICK ON THE LINK THAT WAS IN THE PRESENTATION I SENT TO YOU. IF YOU HAVE ANY TROUBLE, WE'LL HAVE OUR PLANNERS WALKING BY TO ASSIST YOU AT THIS POINT. AND I'M GONNA SHOW YOU A FEW SLIDES OF AREAS TO LOOK AT AND THEN WE CAN GO INTO THE SITE ITSELF. SO WHEN YOU ARE LOOKING AT THE SYSTEM, OR SHALL I GIVE EVERYBODY A MOMENT TO GET LOGGED IN? I WANNA BE SURE EVERYBODY, YOU DON'T HAVE TO LOG IN, BUT YOU HAVE THE LINK UP AND EVERYBODY HAS DALLAS NOW RUNNING ON THEIR DEVICES. SO WE ARE GOING TO SEARCH FOR RECORDS AT THIS POINT. JUST LOAD THAT WEBPAGE SO THEN THEY CAN FOLLOW ALONG MS. MUNOZ AND IF YOU NEEDED DEVICE, I'M SORRY, WHEN, WHEN DID THE LINK GET SENT AND WHO SENT IT? I'M, I'M HAVING TROUBLE FINDING IT. IT WAS SENT YESTERDAY BY LILIANA. BY LILIANA. OKAY. IT INCLUDED THE 10 O'CLOCK START TIME AND THE LINKS, THE PRESENTATIONS THAT I SENT SHARMILA, THE LINK IS INSIDE OF THE SHARMILA, THE LINK IS INSIDE OF THE PRESENTATION. HOWEVER, IF YOU JUST GOOGLE THE DALLAS NOW SYSTEM, IT MIGHT BE EASIER. JEN. JEN. JEN, DID YOU HAVE THEM? JEN? YES. DO YOU HAVE THEM SEARCHING FOR A SPECIFIC RECORD OR JUST GETTING TO THE LOCATION? NO, NO. IT'S ALL FOR THEM TO JUST SEARCH FOR INFORMATION. ANYTHING THAT THEY THINK OF AT THIS TIME. [00:31:16] NO, NO, NO ONE HAS TO LOG IN. YOU DON'T NEED AN ACCOUNT. THIS IS HOW TO ACCESS THE SYSTEM AND JUST PERFORM A GENERAL SEARCH AS ANYBODY DRIVING BY A SITE OR JUST THINKING, HAVING A RANDOM QUESTION IN YOUR MIND AND WANTING TO KNOW ABOUT DEVELOPMENT ON A SITE. AT THIS POINT, EVERYBODY IS, IS LOOKING AT THE WEBPAGE. IS THAT CORRECT? SO JUST GENERALLY WHEN YOU'RE PERFORMING A SEARCH HERE, I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT THESE KEY FEATURES. WE HAVE A SEARCH BAR WHERE YOU CAN ENTER INFORMATION INCLUDING A CASE NUMBER. SO YOU SEE SOMETHING, YOU CAN ENTER A CASE NUMBER THERE. HOWEVER, FOR US SPECIFICALLY, WE DO HAVE THE PLANNING MODULE UP HERE. WE HAVE MULTIPLE MODULES, WHICH IS WHERE YOU COULD SEE ACCESS TO DIFFERENT RECORD TYPES. HOWEVER, YOU CAN ALSO JUST SEARCH APPLICATIONS GENERALLY, WHICH IS AVAILABLE RIGHT HERE IN THIS SECTION. IF YOU DO A GENERAL SEARCH, IT ASKS FOR ALL DIFFERENT KINDS OF QUALIFIERS THAT YOU COULD ENTER, INCLUDING A TIMEFRAME OF WHEN APPLICATIONS WERE SUBMITTED. AND YOU CAN SPECIFY RECORD NUMBERS OR YOU CAN LOOK UP RECORD TYPES. SO FOR THE PLANNING MODULE, YOU'LL SEE WE HAVE THIS LONG LIST OF APPLICATIONS, INCLUDING EVERYTHING FROM APPEALS TO CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS, CONSERVATION DISTRICT WORK CERTIFICATES, CURRENT PLANNING REQUEST RECORDS, MISCELLANEOUS ZONING RECORDS AND ZONING CHANGES ALONG WITH SUBDIVISIONS AND ALL DIFFERENT KINDS OF ITEMS THAT COME INTO YOUR PURVIEW. SPECIFICALLY JENNIFER? YES. SO, UM, I HAD A QUESTION FROM, I'M NOT GONNA NAME THE PERSON ABOUT, THEY LOOKED AT THE DETAILS ON THE RECORD AND NOTICED THE CPR NUMBER. UM, SO COULD YOU TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT THE CPR IS AND THE PURPOSE? YES, THANK YOU. THAT IS PART OF THE DISCUSSION HERE OF THE MULTITUDE OF APPS THAT WE HAVE THERE. ONE PROCESS IMPROVEMENT THAT WE PUT INTO PLACE BEFORE WE EVEN WENT LIVE. SORRY. OKAY. OKAY. SO RIGHT NOW LET'S SEARCH FOR A FEW MORE MINUTES AND THEN WE'LL TALK ABOUT THOSE RELATED RECORDS. RIGHT NOW JUST GET COMFORTABLE WITH LOOKING FOR THINGS AND THEN IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, WE HAVE ALL THESE FOLKS TO ADDRESS THEM FOR YOU. SO LOOK UP A FEW RECORDS, LOOK BY ADDRESS, SEE THESE DIFFERENT SECTIONS I PUT IN THE SYSTEM HERE. YOU CAN LOOK UP BY ALL THESE DIFFERENT TYPES OF INFORMATION, SEE WHAT YOU CAN FIND, SEE WHAT, YOU KNOW, VARIETY OF RECORDS YOU CAN FIND ASSOCIATED WITH AN ADDRESS OR MAYBE IN PERSON'S NAME, A CONTRACTOR. AND THEN WE'LL PROCEED TO GO INTO THE SYSTEM TOGETHER. I JEN? YES. DO YOU, DO YOU HAVE ON YOUR LIST OF THINGS TO DISCUSS, UM, THE ENZ REPLACEMENT? SO NOT, NOT NECESSARILY, BUT WE CAN DEFINITELY TALK ABOUT THAT. WE'LL ADD IT TO YOUR LIST. OKAY. YEAH. [00:35:01] AND AS, AS YOU'RE LOOKING, IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS THAT I CAN GENERALLY ADDRESS, PLEASE HIT YOUR MIC AND I'LL TALK ABOUT IT WITH EVERYBODY BUDDY. THE FIRST MILES AWAY. SO FOR ANYBODY WHO'S ALREADY GETTING INTO THE DETAILS, I'M JUST SHOWING UP HERE HOW I SEARCHED FOR ALL ZONING RECORDS. IT PULLED UP THE WHOLE LIST OF EVERYTHING. AND IF YOU SCROLL TO THE RIGHT DOWN HERE, YOU CAN ALSO SEE THE STATUS OF THOSE ITEMS. AND WHAT IF THERE'S ANY ACTIONS PENDING? SEE, I, I'M NOT, I'M NOT LOGGED IN, I'M NOT THE APPLICANT, BUT I CAN SEE WHAT'S HAPPENING. SO IF SOMEBODY MAYBE SAYS THAT A CASE IS STUCK, YOU COULD SEE THAT THIS IS THE POINT THAT IT'S AT THIS CASE IS STUCK BECAUSE THEY HAVEN'T PAID FOR FEES TO ACTUALLY ACCEPT THE APPLICATION AND MOVE IT ALONG. RIGHT? SO THERE'S LOTS OF INFORMATION THAT YOU CAN GET WITHOUT EVEN BEING LOGGED INTO THE SYSTEM. SO RIGHT NOW, I CLICKED ON A RECORD JUST TO LOOK AT THE INFORMATION AND I CAN SEE THE RECORD INFORMATION HERE. AS I NOTED EARLIER, IT HAS THIS MAP HERE THAT SHOWS YOU THE GENERAL LOCATION OF THE REQUEST AND THEN YOU SCROLL DOWN AND YOU SEE THOSE RECORD DETAILS INCLUDING THE APPLICANT INFORMATION, ALL ASSOCIATED CONTACTS, AND THEN THAT APPLICATION INFORMATION. AND RIGHT HERE IT SHOWS YOU THAT THERE'S A RELATED RECORD THAT MEANS THAT THERE'S ANOTHER RECORD ON THIS SITE THAT'S ASSOCIATED WITH THE SITE AND WITH THIS REQUEST SPECIFICALLY. SO IF I'M A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC AND I'M WONDERING WHAT WAS THE NOTIFICATION AREA FOR THIS REQUEST, IT SHOWS IT RIGHT HERE FOR ME. HOW MANY SIGNS SHOULD THEY HAVE ON THE PROPERTY? I DON'T NEED TO GO INTO THE CODE AND BECOME AN EXPERT. I CAN SEE RIGHT HERE EXACTLY WHAT'S REQUIRED. MM-HMM . [00:40:24] . SO AS, AS I NOTED IN MY PRESENTATION, YOU CAN SEARCH FOR CASE NUMBERS HERE ON THE GENERAL SEARCH BAR AND ALSO YOU CAN SEARCH FOR SPECIFIC TYPES OF INFORMATION TO PULL UP RECORDS. SO IF YOU ONLY KNOW THAT IT'S FROM ONE DEVELOPER OR SOMETHING, YOU COULD LOOK FOR THAT INFORMATION TOO. RIGHT HERE I JUST SEARCHED FOR OUR CASE NUMBER SIX BY LOOKING FOR THE APPLICANT'S BUSINESS NAME. AND IT PULLED UP THE RECORD IMMEDIATELY. IF THEY HAD MULTIPLE RECORDS, IT WOULD PULL UP A LIST AND THEN YOU COULD IDENTIFY WHICH ONE YOU'RE LOOKING FOR. AND AGAIN, HERE IN THE RECORD INFORMATION, YOU CAN LOOK AT THE PROCESSING STATUS AND SEE EVERYTHING THAT'S BEEN COMPLETED AND THAT THIS ITEM IS ON THE AGENDA TODAY. ARE WE FINDING ANY QUESTIONS, FOLKS? ANYTHING THAT I CAN EXPLAIN FURTHER ABOUT HOW TO SEARCH FOR INFORMATION? DALLAS? NOW, SO JENNIFER, QUICK QUESTION. IT, THERE'S NOT A SEARCH BY COUNCIL DISTRICT HERE, IS THERE? THERE IS NOT. OKAY. NO, RIGHT NOW YOU'D HAVE TO BE VERY SPECIFIC ABOUT AN ADDRESS OR YOU'D HAVE TO KNOW A RECORD NUMBER. YOU COULD SEARCH BY ZIP CODES. OH, OKAY. YEAH. SO IT HAS ZIP CODE DOWN THERE AND ADDRESS. SO IF YOU ENTER A ZIP CODE, YOU COULD PULL UP ALL THE APP APPLICATIONS IN THAT ZIP CODE. OKAY. NOW IS IT SOMETHING THAT WE ARE WORKING ON TO PROVIDE IN THE FUTURE? ABSOLUTELY. OH, GREAT. 'CAUSE I, 'CAUSE I, WE WERE TALKING A MOMENT AGO THAT IF THERE WAS SOMETHING IN THE WORKFLOW THAT WOULD NOTIFY US THAT A CASE IN OUR, OUR DISTRICT HAD COME IN, THEN WE COULD ADD IT. BUT IF WE CAN SEARCH BY ZIP CODES OR, BUT IF YOU GET IT WHERE WE CAN SEARCH BY DISTRICT, THAT WOULD BE GOOD TOO. UM, WOULD YOU MIND TURNING ON YOUR MICROPHONE? OH, IT IS ON, LEMME TURN. LEMME GOOD. OH, PERFECT. DO I WANNA BE SURE I CAN HEAR YOU, BUT I WANNA BE SURE EVERYBODY ELSE CAME IN MIND. YEAH, IF, YOU KNOW, IF IF WE, IF IT WOULDN'T BE TOO BURDENSOME IN THE WORKFLOW TO NOTIFY A COMMISSIONER THAT A CASE HAD COME IN IN THEIR DISTRICT AND THEN THEY COULD ADD IT TO THEIR FILE. SO THAT IS WHERE WE HAVE OUR EARLY NOTICE, UM, ZONING DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM. RIGHT. SO THE COUNCIL OFFICES STILL RECEIVE EMAILS THAT SAY THERE ARE THESE APPLICATIONS IN YOUR DISTRICT. GOT IT. SO IT'S STILL BEING NOTIFIED BY DISTRICT. OKAY. IT'S JUST TAKING A LITTLE MORE WORK FROM STAFF TO BE ABLE TO ACCOMPLISH THAT. GREAT. AND THEN ADDITIONALLY, UM, LIKE I SAID, THAT'S AN IMPROVEMENT WE PLAN TO MAKE. WE'RE ALSO MAKING UPDATES TO OUR EARLY NOTICE SYSTEM TO MAKE THAT SYSTEM A LOT MORE USER FRIENDLY AND ACCESSIBLE TO MANY, MANY, MANY MORE PEOPLE WHO WANT TO BE TARGETED. RIGHT. BY CERTAIN FEATURES OF INFORMATION. WELL, GOOD. WELL, CONGRATULATIONS. THE SYSTEM'S FABULOUS. THANK YOU. YES. A LOT OF WORK FROM A LOT OF PEOPLE OVER THE LAST TWO AND A HALF YEARS OR SO TO GET THIS DONE. YEAH. AND WE'RE NOT DONE YET. SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE TODAY. WE'RE STILL WORKING ON IMPROVEMENTS, YOU KNOW, LIKE THE COUNCIL DISTRICT BEING MISSED OR OTHER FEATURES THAT WE SEE WOULD BE MORE HELPFUL. WE'RE GONNA CONTINUE TO WORK ON EFFICIENCIES, SO WE WELCOME FEEDBACK FROM THE PUBLIC. WE'RE CONTINUING TO ACCEPT THAT AND FROM ALL USERS IN THE SYSTEM, IF ANYBODY DOES HAVE QUESTIONS ON THIS COMMISSION OR BEYOND, YOU'RE WELCOME TO DIRECT A TO STAFF AND WE'RE HAPPY TO HELP. GREAT. THANK YOU. CERTAINLY. IS THERE MORE TO YOUR PRESENTATION, JENNIFER? SHOULD WE JUST GO TO QUESTIONS OR WHAT, WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO DO? JUST, JUST QUESTIONS. THAT'S WHY WE'RE TRYING QUESTIONS. YES. OKAY. UHHUH . I I WOULD SAY THOUGH THAT I CAN EXPLAIN ABOUT THE CPR AND OTHER RELATED RECORDS AT THIS POINT. YES. ATTENTION , ARE WE COMMISSIONERS? ARE WE READY TO GET BACK TO THE PRESENTATION? I WOULD HIGHLY RECOMMEND. OKAY, LET'S DO IT. PLEASE. I APPRECIATE ALL PLANNERS FOR YOUR ASSISTANCE RIGHT NOW. THANK YOU SO MUCH. AND PLEASE, ALL COMMISSIONERS, IF YOU DO HAVE LINGERING QUESTIONS, WE HAVE GREAT RESOURCES HERE. ALL STAFF MEMBERS, THEY'RE BECOMING EXPERTS DAY BY DAY. I EXPECT THAT EVERY USER AS THEY GET, UM, MORE ACCESS TO THE SYSTEM WILL BECOME MORE FAMILIAR. AND WE'RE HERE FOR QUESTIONS IF YOU DO HAVE ANY MOVING FORWARD. NOW, SPECIFICALLY I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS AS YOU'RE LOOKING AT THIS RECORD HERE, THAT THERE ARE RELATED RECORD TYPES. SO THIS IS THE PROCESSING SECTION, BUT HERE, IF YOU GO TO THE RECORD INFO, CLICK ON THAT LITTLE SECTION, YOU CAN SEE THE RELATED RECORDS. NOW [00:45:01] YOU CAN SEE HERE THAT IT HAS A CPR RECORD THAT IS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS REQUEST. SO PREVIOUSLY, YOU KNOW, UM, WE HAD FOLKS SUBMITTING THE PAPER APPLICATIONS. THEY COULDN'T SUBMIT THEM UNTIL THEIR LEGAL DESCRIPTION HAD BEEN APPROVED. AND DURING THAT PROCESS, OF COURSE THEY WOULD CONSULT WITH STAFF. MANY FOLKS WOULD COME IN FROM A PAPER REFERRAL OR EMAIL REFERRAL SYSTEM FROM DIFFERENT PLACES THROUGHOUT THE CITY. SO YOU WOULD BE TALKING TO PERMITTING AND THEY WOULD SAY, YOU CAN'T COMPLY. YOU KNOW, YOU CAN EITHER COMPLY OR YOU CAN CHOOSE TO REZONE YOUR PROPERTY. YOU HAVE ALL THESE OPTIONS. THEN THEY WOULD REFER THEM TO US TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE ZONING PROCESS. SO WE WOULD INFORM THEM ABOUT THAT FACE-TO-FACE BY APPOINTMENT, PHONE CALL, EMAIL. AND WE'RE STILL DOING THAT. HOWEVER, IT'S A LITTLE MORE ORDERLY. AND OF COURSE IT'S IN OUR NEW DIGITAL SYSTEM. RATHER THAN HAVING FOLKS FILL OUT A PAPER AND SEND THEM OVER TO US, OR RATHER THAN HAVING THEM, YOU KNOW, EMAIL US A REFERRAL FORM, WE HAVE VERY SPECIFIC, SPECIFIC INFORMATION THAT WE'RE REQUESTING OF THEM, OF THESE FOLKS THAT ARE REFERRING. AND IT'S ALWAYS REFERRED BY STAFF. SO THIS CURRENT PLANNING REQUEST RECORD IS AN INTERNAL RECORD THAT'S CREATED TO REFER SOMEBODY OVER TO THE ZONING DIVISION TO LEARN ABOUT WHAT THEY MAY NEED. IT WILL NOT ALWAYS TURN INTO A ZONING CASE. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT THEY ARE DOING TO LEARN ABOUT WHAT THEIR REQUEST IS. HOWEVER, IF YOU SEE ONE LIKE THIS ONE THAT'S CLOSED, COMPLETE ON THE RECORD STATUS, THEN THEY WENT ALL THE WAY THROUGH. THE SECOND PART OF AFTER CONSULTING WITH OUR STAFF, THEY DID A LEGAL DESCRIPTION REVIEW, WHICH MEANS THAT THEY'RE MORE FAMILIAR WITH EXACTLY WHAT THEY WANT TO DO AND THAT THEY DO WANNA PROCEED WITH ZONING OF SOME KIND. AND SO THEY'VE HAD THEIR LEGAL DESCRIPTION COMPLETED SO THAT NOW THEY CAN JUMP INTO REZONING. NOW AT THAT TIME, THEY USED THAT CPR NUMBER AS A KEY TO UNLOCK THEIR ACCESS TO SUBMIT A ZONING APPLICATION TO US. SO THAT WAY IT TIES IT TO THAT LEGAL DESCRIPTION REVIEW AND PULLS OVER THAT PRELIMINARY PROJECT INFORMATION. THERE'S NO LOSS OF THAT INFORMATION ANYMORE. IT'S NOT WHO DID YOU TALK TO? IT'S NOT, WHAT DID THEY TELL YOU? HOW DID THEY COME TO THAT DETERMINATION? WE HAVE THAT INFORMATION HERE GATHERED IN THE CPR RECORD AND WE HAVE YOUR LEGAL DESCRIPTION REVIEW COMPLETED BY THE TIME YOU'RE SUBMITTING YOUR ZONING APPLICATION. NOW, DOES THAT MEAN WHEN THIS IS COMPLETED, YOU'RE AUTOMATICALLY A ZONING RECORD? NO, IT'S ON YOU, IT'S ON THE APPLICANT TO FIT IT INTO THEIR TIMELINE OF WHEN THEY ARE READY TO SUBMIT. BECAUSE AT THIS POINT THEY STILL DON'T HAVE POSSIBLY ALL OF THEIR PLANS DRAWN, ALL OF THEIR CONDITIONS DRAFTED. MAYBE THEY'RE, YOU KNOW, WAITING ON DEED RECORDS, WHATEVER IT MAY BE. WHENEVER THEY'RE READY TO SUBMIT, THEY WILL HAVE ACCESS TO THEN CREATE THE RECORD IN THE SYSTEM AT THEIR CONVENIENCE. SO THIS CPR RECORD SHOWS YOU HERE THE SAME AREA. IT HAS THE PARCEL THERE, IT'S CONNECTED TO CONTACTS. THOSE CONTACTS MAY BE DIFFERENT BECAUSE THIS RECORD WAS ONE THING AT THAT TIME WHEN THEY WERE ASKING FOR INFORMATION PROCESSING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION REVIEW, AND THEN WHOEVER SUBMITS THE ZONING RECORD, IF THEY HAVE ACCESS TO THIS CPR AND IT WAS THEIR RECORD AND THEY WORKED ON IT, THEN THEY'RE ABLE TO USE IT TO CREATE THAT ZONING RECORD. NEXT, THIS INFORMATION THEN, OF COURSE, IS CONNECTED THROUGH THAT RELATED RECORD TO SHOW US THAT THEY WORKED ON IT. AND THEN WE CAN SEE THAT INFORMATION CROSSING BETWEEN THE TWO. AGAIN, JUST TO CAPTURE ALL THE WORK THAT'S BEEN DONE BY THE APPLICANT, BY STAFF TO TRY TO LIMIT THE CONFUSION OR TRY TO LIMIT ANY KIND OF ADDITIONAL CONTACT OR DETERMINATIONS THAT'S REQUIRED TO GET THEM TO THAT REZONING PHASE. QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS PROCESS. HOW, HOW DO THEY KNOW WHO THE REPRESENTATIVE IS ON AN APPLICATION? UM, SO SPECIFICALLY THIS IS A CPR RECORD. CPR RECORDS ONLY REQUIRE AN APPLICANT. YOU DON'T NEED TO HAVE A REPRESENTATIVE HERE. BUT IF I GO BACK TO THE ZONING CASE THAT THIS WAS ASSOCIATED WITH, THERE'S A SECTION HERE UNDER RELATED CONTACTS, AND HERE IT HAS THE AUTHORIZED AGENT. SO THAT'S WHAT WE CUSTOMARILY WOULD CALL REPRESENTATIVES ON OUR OLD FORMS. AND THIS IS WHERE YOU WOULD SEE WHO THE REPRESENTATIVE FOR THIS RECORD IS. AND I'M SORRY, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, YOU HAVE A QUESTION? YES. WHAT HAPPENED TO, UM, INFORMATION ABOUT THE COUNCIL DISTRICT FOR ANYONE LOOKING AT EARLY ZONING NOTIFICATIONS OR, OR FOR US? I MEAN, I KNOW A LOT OF ADDRESSES IN THE CITY, BUT I DON'T KNOW WHERE ALL OF THEM ARE. BUT THAT'S A PIECE OF INFORMATION THAT WE NEED UPFRONT AND CENTER AND I CAN'T FIND IT ANYWHERE. ABSOLUTELY. AND I UNDERSTAND THAT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT IS MISSING FROM HERE. SO WHEN YOU'RE SEARCHING FOR APPLICATIONS FOR NOW, YOU'LL HAVE TO LOOK BY ZIP CODES IN ORDER TO GET THAT INFORMATION. NOW, SPECIFIC TO COMMISSIONERS AND COUNCIL PEOPLE, WE DO SEND OUT AN EARLY NOTICE LIST AND IT DOES HAVE ALL THOSE RECORDS ON THERE. AND WE DO PLAN TO UPDATE OUR EARLY NOTICE SYSTEM TO BE DIVVIED UP BY COUNCIL DISTRICT. SO THAT WAY PEOPLE ARE GETTING INFORMATION FOR WHATEVER SECTIONS THAT THEY'VE SELECTED. THIS IS A PENDING PROCESS IMPROVEMENT, WHICH [00:50:01] WILL OCCUR AFTER WE HAVE BETTER FOOTING ON THIS. ADDITIONALLY, WE'VE ADDRESSED, WE ARE AWARE THAT THE COUNCIL DISTRICT'S SEARCH MECHANISM IS MISSING AND WE'RE WORKING TO IMPROVE THAT. IT'S NOT SO MUCH JUST THAT THE SEARCH MECHANISM IS, THERE'S JUST, THE INFORMATION IS NOWHERE ON THIS RECORD. I MEAN, NOWHERE. YEAH, IT'S NOT REQUESTED FROM THE APPLICATION THAT WE BUILT AND IT WAS NOT, IT WAS SOMETHING WE ASSUMED WOULD BE AUTOMATICALLY IN THE PARCEL DATA AND IT'S NOT. RIGHT. SO NOW THAT WE KNOW THAT WE'RE WORKING TO MAKE THAT CORRECTION, TO MAKE IT BOTH SEARCHABLE AND VISIBLE. SO THOSE ARE THINGS THAT WE, WE, WE WILL CONTINUE TO DISCOVER THESE ISSUES. OKAY. AND WHEN WE DO, WE APPRECIATE THE FEEDBACK SO THAT WE CAN WORK TO MAKE THOSE IMPROVEMENTS. BUT WHEN WE AS, UH, COMMISSIONERS GET THE EMAILS ON THE EARLY ZONING NOTIFICATION, UM, YOU KNOW, AT FIRST WE WERE GETTING LIKE A LITTLE CELL FROM A SPREADSHEET THAT GAVE THE NUMBER, WHICH WAS FINE AND IT GAVE THE COUNCIL DISTRICT AND THEN IT GAVE AT LEAST, YOU KNOW, A BRIEF, YOU KNOW, SUP RENEWAL OR GENERAL ZONING WHAT WHATEVER THE REQUEST WAS, THAT WAS VERY HELPFUL. JUST GETTING THE EMAIL THAT JUST SAYS THIS IS THE NUMBER AND THEN HAVE TO GO INTO IT WOULD BE EXTREMELY HELPFUL IF WE COULD AT LEAST GET THAT MUCH THAT THUMBNAIL INFORMATION AT THAT TIME. AND PERSONALLY, I WANT TO SEE ALL OF THEM, NOT JUST THE ONES IN MY DISTRICT, BUT YES, THAT'S, AND, AND THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT WE, WE, WE HOPE TO HAVE. THERE ARE, AS I MENTIONED, THESE PENDING IMPROVEMENTS TO THE EARLY NOTICE DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM. AND PLEASE JUST BEAR WITH US WHILE WE'RE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT A COMBINATION OF THESE PROCESS IMPROVEMENTS. YEAH, AND I THINK OUR, OUR, ONE OF OUR LAST COUPLE ROUNDS MAYBE DROPPED ALL OF THAT INFORMATION, BUT I THINK THAT WE'RE GOING FORWARD, WE'RE GONNA HAVE ALL THOSE ON THE, ON THE ENC ONES THAT YOU'VE BEEN SEEING WITH THE, THE LITTLE MORE DETAIL IN TERMS OF COUNCIL DISTRICT, MAYBE AN ADDRESS AND THEN THE, UH, THE BASICS OF THE REQUEST. SO YOU'LL, YOU'LL CONTINUE TO SEE THOSE. SORRY FOR ANY INFORMATION BEING DROPPED IN THE LAST COUPLE. THANK YOU FOR THAT. SO THAT WAS THE INFORMATION REGARDING THE RELATED RECORD. IN THE FUTURE YOU WILL ALSO SEE AS SUVS ARE APPROVED, YOU WILL SEE HOW AN SUP IS THEN A RELATED RECORD IN THAT CHAIN. SO IT'LL BE A REALLY INTERESTING THING TO SEE AS OUR DATABASE GROWS HERE. AND WE'LL HAVE LOTS OF ACCESS TO ALL OF THIS INFORMATION. SO PLEASE KEEP THE QUESTIONS COMING AND THOSE COMMUNICATION LINES OPEN, WE'RE HERE TO ANSWER THEM. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. DOES THAT CONCLUDE THE PRESENTATION? IT DOES, UNLESS THERE'S ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS. ANY LAST QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONERS? OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UH, THANK YOU EVERYBODY. COMMISSIONERS, LET'S GET BACK TO THE AGENDA. WE'LL GO BACK TO, UH, OR IS THERE ANY CASES ON CONSENT? WE'LL BEGIN WITH CASE NUMBER TWO. GOOD MORNING, COMMISSIONER. UH, WOULD ANYONE LIKE NUMBER TWO BRIEFED ANY REQUEST FOR BRIEFING ON NUMBER TWO? NUMBER TWO? I DO HAVE A QUESTION, PLEASE. WOULD YOU LIKE A PRESENTATION OR A QUICK QUESTION? JUST A QUICK QUESTION WOULD BE FINE. UM, UH, MR. CHAMBERS, UH, IT, I WAS INTERESTED IN WHY IF, UM, R SEVEN FIVE ZONING IS ONLY ON THE EAST. THERE'S R SEVEN FIVE NEIGHBORHOOD TO THE EAST OF THIS SITE. UM, BUT TO THE SOUTH IT'S R FIVE AND IT, IT LOOKS TO MEAN LIKE THE R SEVEN FIVE NEIGHBORHOOD WAS GIVEN MUCH MORE WEIGHT, I GUESS ON THIS ONE AT, WAS THERE A REASON FOR THAT? I MEAN, THERE'S ALREADY R THEY'RE ASKING FOR R JUST, JUST CURIOUS. IT'S CHANGING. UH, SO ORIGINALLY THE APPLICANT DID REQUEST, UH, R FIVE UHHUH AFTER, UH, COORDINATION THOUGH WITH THE, UM, NEIGHBORING, UM, RESIDENTS OF THE AREA, THOUGH THEY DID, UH, MEND THE APPLICATION TO GO FOR THE R SEVEN, UH, 0.5, WHICH THE NEIGHBORS IN R SEVEN FIVE AREA NEIGHBORHOOD, OR I CAN'T SPEAK SPECIFICALLY FOR WHO IT WAS, BUT THE APPLICANT MET WITH, UH, MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY, UM, TO DISCUSS THEIR CONCERNS. 'CAUSE ORIGINALLY OF COURSE THEY WENT WITH THE R FIVE, WHICH I DO NOT BELIEVE WE WOULD'VE PROBABLY BEEN ABLE TO HAVE PUT OUR SUPPORT FOR, BECAUSE AGAIN, WITH THE CONDITIONS WITH THIS PLAN, WHICH IS WHY WHEN THEY CHANGED IT TO THE R 7.5, IT'S WHERE WE FOUND IT TO BE MORE, UM, APPLICABLE TO WHERE WE WOULD BE ABLE TO APPROVE IT IN THIS CASE. MM-HMM. OKAY. THANK YOU. AND HE WAS SPOT ON. THIS WAS THROUGH THE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT MEETING AND DISCUSSING WITH THE COMMUNITY LEADERS, UH, THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE CLOSE BY AND THEY THOUGHT THAT 7.5 WAS, [00:55:01] UH, MORE CONSISTENT WITH THE, UM, WHAT THEIR IDEALS OF THE AREA WOULD LOOK LIKE IN THEIR VISION. SO THAT'S WHERE THEY END UP AT, AT R SEVEN FIVES. THANKS FOR THE CLARIFICATION. UH, WE'LL GO TO CASE NUMBER THREE OR ANYONE LIKE NUMBER THREE BRIEFED. MR. CARPENTER, I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS, BUT I DON'T NEED A FULL BRIEFING. PLEASE. UM, THE REPORT, UH, SPECIFIED THAT, OR I I THINK THE, UM, MODIFICATION SO THAT THE DUGOUT, THE BLEACHERS AND THE APPROACH TO THE LONG JUMP WOULD NOW BE LOCATED WITHIN A SETBACK. UM, CAN YOU TELL ME HOW, WHERE, WHERE DOES THAT PUT THESE PARTICULAR FACILITIES IN RELATION TO THE ADJOINING NEIGHBORS? SORRY, COULD YOU REPEAT THAT? THE LAST PART? UM, THESE, UM, THE BLEACHERS, THE DUGOUT AND THE, UM, APPROACH TO THE LONG JUMP. IT SAYS THAT THEY, THOSE CAN NOW BE LOCATED WITHIN A SETBACK. UH, CAN YOU TELL ME WHERE THAT PLACES THEM IN RELATION TO NEIGHBORS? IS IT CLOSE TO NEIGHBORING HOUSES? IS IT, SO, UH, I MIGHT HAVE TO PULL UP THE, THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN. SO THOSE WERE ALREADY EXISTING IN THAT LOCATION AND THERE'S A SETBACK THERE. UM, SO THEY JUST WEREN'T IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE SETBACK, SO THEY WASN'T IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE SETBACK. SO THEY'RE ONLY ENCROACHING PROBABLY THE A FOOT OR TWO, BUT ALONG, I THINK THAT'S INDIAN. LET ME OPEN UP THE, IT'S BETTER TO OPEN UP THE CASE THAT WAY. IF YOU LOOK AT THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, WE LOOK AT THE DEVELOPMENT ON THE NORTH SIDE, YOU CAN SEE IT ALONG ON ALGEBRA DRIVE. THAT'S PRIMARILY, AND, AND SO IT'S, THAT'S THE EXISTING CONDITION AS SHOWN ON THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, BUT IS AN EXISTING CONDITION. ITS, IT'S TO AN ADDRESSING EXISTING CONDITION. OKAY. AND I DON'T THINK THERE'S SOME RESIDENTIAL THERE, BUT, UM, I CAN'T REMEMBER ON THAT SIDE. I HAVE TO LOOK AT THE AREA 'CAUSE I KNOW THE FRONT PART OF THAT SIDE, THERE'S NO RESIDENTIAL. THERE'S A CITY OF DALLAS LOT. I THINK FURTHER BACK THERE'S SOME RESIDENTIAL, UH, ACROSS FROM THAT FIELD. OKAY. BUT I MEAN, FINDING OUT THAT IT'S AN EXISTING ENCROACHMENT REALLY JUST ANSWERS MY QUESTION. UM, MY OTHER QUESTION HAS TO DO WITH, UM, THERE'S AN ILLUSION IN THE REPORT TO THAT ALL THE DID SCHOOLS ARE GOING TO MAKE, UM, A REQUEST NOW TO HAVE THE LIGHTING AT A HIGHER HEIGHT. UM, RAISING THE LIGHT STANDARDS, THE, UM, WE USE AN, I THINK THAT THEY, UM, THERE'S A STANDARD LIGHT STANDARDS THAT HAVE BEEN USING FOR SCHOOLS. AND SO WE WENT IN AND ACTUALLY ADDED THAT TO THE CONDITIONS MM-HMM . UM, FOR THE LIGHTS. SO WHEREVER THOSE STANDARDS HEIGHTS ARE THAT THE SCHOOLS HAVE BEEN USING, WE INCLUDED THAT IN THE CONDITIONS. OKAY. SO ONCE AGAIN, WE'RE JUST BRINGING THINGS INTO COMPLIANCE YES, MA'AM. WITH EXISTING CONDITIONS AND THERE'S STILL GOING TO BE A REQUIREMENT THAT THEY HAVE TO BE COMPLIANT WITH DARK SKY STANDARDS. YES. THEY CAN BE POINTED TOWARD RESIDENTIAL. THEY HAVE TO BE POINTED DOWNWARD. YES, MA'AM. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. THAT'S ALL MY QUESTIONS. MM-HMM . THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM? COMMISSIONERS? OKAY. WE'LL GO TO, IS IT NUMBER FOUR? NUMBER FOUR. WE HAVE A REQUEST FOR BRIEFING NUMBER FOUR. OKAY. UH, WE'VE DONE NUMBER FIVE. UH, LET'S BRIEF NUMBER SIX. THERE'S, YES, THERE'S A, JUST AN, I THINK JUST A FEW PEOPLE INTERESTED. NUMBER SIX. YES SIR. YES. IT'S, IT, IT'S GOOD. . I'M SHOCKED. OH, FOR, ALL RIGHT. GOOD MORNING EVERYONE. UH, THIS IS CASE Z 25 DASH 21, AN APPLICATION FOR NEW PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT ON PROPERTY ZONE R 16, A SINGLE FAMILY ON THE NORTH LINE OF WALNUT HILL LANE EAST OF BETTY JANE LANE, APPROXIMATELY 3.7 ACRES IN SIZE. HERE IT IS IN THE LOCATION MAP, UH, HERE IN THE NORTHWESTERN PART OF THE CITY, UH, KIND OF THE, I BELIEVE MIDWAY HOLLOWISH AREA. THERE'S AN AERIAL MAP SHOWING THE SITE. AS YOU CAN SEE, IT'S A ZELLE SHAPED PROPERTY. UH, THERE'S WALNUT HILL TO THE SOUTH, UH, THE ZONING MAP SHOWING THE SURROUNDING ZONING AND USES THE AREA'S PREDOMINANTLY A SINGLE FAMILY AREA. AND WITH RETAIL TO THE WEST. [01:00:01] THERE'S SINGLE FAMILY TO THE NORTH IN A PD 5 84, A SINGLE FAMILY. IN R 16, THERE'S A SINGLE FAMILY THAT THIS BODY REVIEWED RECENTLY OVER TO THE NORTHWEST. AND THEN SOUTH IS AN R SEVEN OR R 10. AND THEN FURTHER DOWN, I BELIEVE R SEVEN FIVE, UM, OR MOSTLY R 10 AREA, SINGLE FAMILY OVER ON MARSH AND WALNUT HILL, YOU HAVE A LARGE AMOUNT OF RETAIL IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE SITE. YOU HAVE A LARGE CHURCH AS WELL AS A FIRE STATION. SO THE SITE IS CURRENTLY VACANT. IT WAS PREVIOUSLY THE HOME OF A CHURCH. MY UNDERSTANDING IS IT WAS DESTROYED, BUT WITH THE TORNADO THAT CAME THROUGH IN, UH, 20 19, 20 20 AR, UH, 2020 AREA ERA. AND THE APPLICANT WISHES TO DEVELOP IT WITH DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY AND IS REQUESTING A NEW PD FOR IT. HERE WE'RE ON WALNUT HILL LOOKING WEST, AND THEN IN THE NORTHEAST WITH THAT FIRE STATION TO THE EAST HERE, LOOKING TO THE NORTH NORTHWEST, YOU'RE LOOKING SOUTH AWAY FROM THE SITE AND LOOKING WEST TOWARDS MARSH. THEN ON SITE LOOKING SOUTH. SO YOU'LL NOTICE HERE IN THE FOREGROUND IS, UH, SOME CONCRETE THAT'S JUST FROM THE OLD DRIVEWAY FOR THE, THAT'S THE CHURCH. THEN LOOKING WEST, YOU SEE THE REMNANTS WITH THE, UH, BUILDING FOUNDATION. SOME OF THESE ARCHWAYS THEN TO THE NORTHWEST WHERE YOU SEE THE, UH, NEAREST ADJACENT, UH, NORTHERN SINGLE FAMILY TO THE NORTH LOOKING EAST OVER THERE IN THE BACKGROUND. I'M KIND OF HOVER AROUND CURSOR OVER THERE, BUT THERE IS A, UH, SOME SINGLE FAMILY THAT IS ON BUTELL COURT. UH, THESE ARE THE PROPOSED CONDITIONS. IT'S QUITE A BIT IN HERE, SO I'LL JUST KIND OF GO THROUGH IT AND OBVIOUSLY ASK ME QUESTIONS AS NEEDED. UH, THE BASE IS USING THE R FIVE A, UH, SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT, UH, NOT REQUIRING A MINIMUM FRONT YARD AND THEN HAVING WHAT WE CODIFIED AS A HALF FOOT SIDE YARD. MY UNDERSTANDING IS IT'S MORE THAT IT'S ABOUT A HALF FOOT ON ONE SIDE AND THEN THREE FEET ON THE OTHER. UH, THAT GETS A LITTLE TRICKY TO ACTUALLY CODIFY. SO WE'LL JUST PUT IN THE LOWEST SIZE IN THERE, 10 FOOT REAR YARD. AND THEN ALONG THE NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE, WHICH I'LL POINT OUT IN THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN IN A MINUTE, THE REAR YARD WILL ACTUALLY BE 14 FEET, 36 FOOT MAX HEIGHT. THAT AGAIN, ALONG THAT NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE WOULD BE LIMITED TO 30 FEET, UH, 50 DWELLING UNITS MAXIMUM, AND 1,650 SQUARE FOOT MINIMUM LOT SIZE, IT WOULD BE DEVELOPED AS A SHARED ACCESS DEVELOPMENT. ADDITIONALLY, WITH SOME URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS, THERE ARE FRONT FACING GARAGE REQUIREMENTS THAT REQUIRE THEM TO BE RECESSED AT LEAST ONE FOOT FROM THE FRONT FACADE REQUIRING PEDESTRIAN SCALE LIGHTING, 10 MINIMUM, 10% OPEN SPACE AS TYPICALLY DEFINED IN OUR, IN OUR CODE. AND THEN REQUIRING ONE THREE INCH CALIPER, MEDIUM OR LARGE TREE EVERY 25 FEET ALONG THE NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE. THIS IS TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL SCREENING AND LANDSCAPING ON THAT AREA. THIS IS THE PROPOSED CONCEPTUAL PLAN. THIS IS THE NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE IN QUESTION. SO TO THE NORTH IS PD, UH, 5 84, I BELIEVE WAS THE NUMBER, UM, WITH A FEW SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES ALONG HERE. SO ALL ALONG THIS PROPERTY LINE, THESE HOUSES ARE GOING TO BE REQUIRED TO SET BACK 14 FEET RATHER THAN 10 FEET FROM THE REAR, AND THEY'LL BE LIMITED TO 30 FEET IN HEIGHT. THE REMAINDER ALONG HERE WILL HAVE THE NORMAL, UH, OR NOT NORMAL, BUT THE REGULAR SETBACKS PRESCRIBED WITHIN THE PD AND WOULD BE ABLE TO GO UP TO 36 FEET IN HEIGHT. BUT THIS NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE WOULD BE 30 FEET AND 14 FEET. UH, WHICH I'LL POINT OUT AS WELL IS THAT 14 FOOT REAR SETBACK IS ACTUALLY MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN THE BASE R 16 SETBACK, WHICH IS 10 FEET, UH, FORWARD. DALLAS DOES DESIGNATE THE SITE AS COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL PRIMARY USES IN THAT ARE SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED OR DETACHED, ANYTHING SUCH AS MULTI-FAMILY AND RETAIL IS SECONDARY USE. SO WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED HERE IS CONSIDERED A PRIMARY USE OF THE COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL. IT'S LOCATED ALONG A MAJOR ROADWAY. IT HAS PROXIMITY TO RETAIL AND OTHER SERVICE SERVICES. THERE ARE TWO SCHOOLS NEARBY AS WELL. AND WE FIND THAT IT IS SUITABLE FOR ADDITIONAL SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT. AND USING THE PD ALLOWS FOR WHAT WE'VE BEEN KIND OF SAYING, TAILORING THE DEVELOPMENT TO TRANSITION BETWEEN THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES FOR DALLAS 2.0 IS NOT ENTIRELY PRESCRIPTIVE IN TERMS OF HOW IT SAYS DIFFERENT LEVELS OF DENSITY OR INTENSITY OF HOUSING CAN BE PUT FORTH. IT JUST CALLS FOR BEING CONTEXT SENSITIVE AND PROVIDING A TRANSITION WHEN POSSIBLE. I THINK THAT WAS CERTAINLY INTENTIONAL AND I'M SURE MR. BLADES COULD NOT ELABORATE ON THAT IF NEEDED. BUT THE IDEA THERE WAS TO PROVIDE SOME FLEXIBILITY BECAUSE AT THE END OF THE DAY, THE DIFFERENT CONTEXTS WITHIN OUR CITY ARE VASTLY DIFFERENT. WE HAVE 14 DIFFERENT DISTRICTS, AND EVEN WITHIN EACH OF THOSE DISTRICTS, THERE'S A LOT OF VARIETY IN WHAT MAKES SENSE AND WHERE, AND BY USING THIS PD, I THINK WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO ACHIEVE SOMETHING THAT CERTAINLY IS A DEVIATION FROM WHAT IS THE PREDOMINANT, UH, THE PREDOMINANT KIND OF DENSITY AND STRUCTURES THAT ARE THERE. BUT WHILE STILL I THINK RESPECTING SOME OF THOSE DISTANCES AND AVOIDING THE CLASSIC ISSUE OF BUILDING UP NEW HOUSES THAT ARE TOWERING OVER SOMETHING [01:05:01] THAT'S NEXT DOOR TO THEM STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO A CONCEPTUAL PLANNING CONDITIONS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS, COMMISSIONER HALL, I'LL FOLLOW YOU. UH, MR. BAT, I THINK YOU'VE DONE AN EXCELLENT JOB ON THIS REPORT. THANK YOU. AND, UH, I KNOW THIS WAS A TOUGHIE BECAUSE THIS IS A LOT OF, UH, A LOT OF UNITS. UH, THIS IS A SHARED ACCESS DEVELOPMENT, IS THAT RIGHT? IT IS, YES. OKAY. OKAY. UH, THESE ARE ZERO LOT SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED HOMES. UH, I WOULD SAY YEAH, ZERO LOT. IF WE WANT TO KIND OF DEFINE IT AS JUST, LET'S SAY A SIDE SETBACK, LESS THAN FIVE FEET, I WOULD SAY YES. AND THEY TAKE UP, I BELIEVE, A SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF EACH LOT THAT'S ASSIGNED TO IT. OKAY. YES. NOT, THEY'RE NOT TOWN HOMES, BUT THEY'RE, THEY'RE INDIVIDUAL HOMES ON SMALL LOTS. THEY ARE FREE STANDING. THEY DON'T, THEY DON'T ATTACH TO EACH OTHER. OKAY. THANK YOU. UM, I THINK LATER THIS AFTERNOON WHEN WE, WE HEAR THIS IN FRONT OF THE PUBLIC, UH, I'LL ASK YOU MAYBE TO ELABORATE A BIT ON HOW YOU, HOW YOU WENT FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDE, MORE TRADITIONAL SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, UH, THIS CONCEPT IN FORWARD DALLAS TOO, ABOUT TRANSITIONING, UH, UH, YOU KNOW, GO, YOU GO TO TWO STORY 30 FOOT HIGH ON LARGER LOTS, AND THEN WE MOVE TO THE THREE, THE THREE STORY 36 FOOT HIGH AS WE APPROACH THE STREET. MM-HMM . I THINK ALL THAT WAS, THAT WAS QUITE GOOD REASONING AND JUSTIFICATION. UM, SO WE MAYBE WE CAN RESERVE SOME OF THIS DISCUSSION, UH, FOR THIS AFTERNOON SO THE, UH, COMMUNITY WOULD BE ABLE TO HEAR THAT REASONING. WE'D BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO ELABORATE ON OUR, ON OUR FINDINGS FOR THE COMMUNITY. YES. OKAY. UM, WERE THERE, UM, WERE THERE ANY RED FLAGS THAT POPPED OUT TO YOU GUYS? I MEAN, UH, INITIALLY WHEN WE FIRST MET WITH THE APPLICANT AND STARTED REVIEWING THE CASE AND APPLYING THE, SORT OF THE PRINCIPLES AND THE IDEAS WITHIN FORWARD DALLAS 2.0, THE FIRST THING THAT STOOD OUT TO US WAS THE PROXIMITY TO THE NEIGHBORING RESIDENTIAL AND THE HEIGHTS THERE. MM-HMM . THE INITIAL REQUEST WAS FOR 60 DWELLING UNITS AND FOR 36 FEET BEING ALLOWED, IT WAS ACTUALLY I THINK, A LITTLE HIGHER, WHICH MAY HAVE BEEN DUE TO A MISUNDERSTANDING OF THE WAY THAT WE CALCULATE MAXIMUM HEIGHTS. AS A REMINDER, WE GENERALLY CALCULATE IT BASED ON THE MIDPOINT OF ROOF SLOPE. UM, SO IT WAS SUBSTANTIALLY HIGHER. IT WAS SUBSTANTIALLY CLOSER, AND THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT GAVE STAFF A LOT OF PAUSE. UH, WE, WE MENTIONED IT IN OUR ZRT ZONING REVIEW TEAM COMMENT LETTER SAYING, HEY, BASED ON WHAT FORWARD DALLAS PROPOSES AND WHAT WE WOULD CONSIDER GOOD PLANNING PRINCIPLES, ESPECIALLY WHEN WE'RE WORKING WITH A PD AND WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ACTUALLY SHAPE WHAT THE PD LOOKS LIKE AND HOW THE DEVELOPMENT IS DONE, OUR BIGGEST CONCERN WAS HAVING THAT ENCROACHMENT RIGHT AGAINST A PROPERTY, UH, AN EXISTING PROPERTY. WE FELT THAT BY REDUCING SOME OF THE UNITS AND BY PULLING BACK AWAY FROM THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES AND LIMITING THE HEIGHT, WE FELT THAT THAT PROVIDED A MUCH MORE APPROPRIATE TRANSITION OF, LET'S SAY, TYPOLOGY FROM THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES TO THIS NEW DEVELOPMENT. I'D BE THE FIRST TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT 36 FEET IN HEIGHT, IT IS DIFFERENT FROM WHAT'S AROUND THERE. WE DON'T FIND THAT IT'S THAT SUBSTANTIAL OF A DEVIATION. IT'S ABOUT SIX FEET AND EXTRA HEIGHT. AND BY PULLING IT BACK AWAY FROM THAT NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE, HAVING A GREATER REAR SETBACK, LOWERING THE HEIGHT THERE, NOT TO MENTION THE ADDITIONAL SCREENING TREES OR LANDSCAPING TREES THAT ARE REQUIRED. IT DOES SEPARATE IT, I THINK, SUBSTANTIALLY. AND WE FELT THAT THAT ANSWERED TO THE BIGGEST, UM, THE BIGGEST CONCERN THAT WE HAD INITIALLY WITH THIS CASE. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. AND ONE FINAL QUESTION. UM, DID YOU, UH, LOOK INTO THE HISTORY OF THIS SITE? I MEAN, WE, WE KNOW AS FAR BACK AS 2008, PROBABLY 2000, IT WAS CHURCH, UH, THERE WAS A CHURCH THERE MM-HMM . AND THEN, UH, A VACANT LARGE PART OF IT WAS VACANT. DID, DID YOU FIND, OR DID YOU LOOK FOR ANY EVIDENCE THAT SINGLE FAMILY HAD EVER BEEN ON THIS SITE? UH, WE HAD NOT DUG INTO THAT, UM, THAT DEEPLY IN TERMS OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE. UM, BASED ON WHAT I'VE SEEN ON JUST BEING ON THE GROUND, IF IT HAD BEEN DEVELOPED AT SOME POINT, YOU KNOW, THEY DID A PRETTY GOOD JOB OF GETTING IT OUTTA THERE BECAUSE FROM WHAT I SAW, THAT ALL THAT'S THERE RIGHT NOW IS A LARGE GREENFIELD AND THEN THE SLAM ON GRADE FOUNDATION OF THE, UH, FORMER CHURCH. MM-HMM . UH, WERE YOU AWARE THAT THE ORIGINAL PLAT FOR THIS AREA OF 1949 TO 1950, UH, DID NOT SHOW THIS AREA AS BEING SUBDIVIDED FOR INDIVIDUAL LOTS? I WAS NOT AWARE. YEAH. IT, IT, UH, THE PLAT SHOWS IT BEING BASICALLY IN THE CONDITION IT IS NOW VACANT. UM, THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. QUICK [01:10:01] QUESTION FOR YOU, MR. VAPE. COULD YOU, UH, LET'S, LET'S FOCUS ON THE NORTHERN PART OF THE PROPERTY AND, UH, I'M WONDERING IF LET'S END UP ON THIS SLIDE, BUT DO YOU HAVE A, A PICTURE OF THE HOMES THAT ARE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT, THE, THE NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE? I DON'T HAVE AN UP CLOSE PHOTO. I'D BE HAPPY TO PULL UP A GOOGLE STREET VIEW, BUT THAT ONE IS THAT, YEAH, THAT SHOWS A LITTLE BIT, RIGHT? YEAH, THAT'S THE NORTHERN, THAT'S THE NORTHERN NEIGHBOR THERE TO THE, THAT HOME. YEAH. SO HERE ON THE LEFT HAND SIDE OF THE PHOTO THAT'S ON THE NORTHERN LINE. YEAH. AND THEN OVER HERE MORE IN THE CENTER. THAT'S KIND OF THE NORTHEAST. SO THIS IS ALONG WIMBERLY COURT. THIS IS ALONG BUTELL COURT. SO THE REASON WHY YOU WOULD KNOW THIS, BUT MAYBE YOU DO KNOW, DO YOU KNOW WHAT, HOW FAR THAT HOME THAT IS SET BACK FROM THE PROPERTY LINE? THAT HOUSE THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT RIGHT THERE? I BELIEVE THE REAR, THE REAR SETBACK WITHIN THAT PD IS A SIX FOOT REAR SETBACK. IT'S A SIX FOOT, RIGHT? YEAH. 'CAUSE I, YOU KNOW, I, I DROVE THAT PIECE AND IT LOOKS REALLY TIGHT. I MEAN, IT'S RIGHT ON TOP OF THE FENCE, RIGHT? IT'S, UM, IT'S CERTAINLY, I THINK WITHIN THE, WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THE, PARDON ME, WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THEIR SETBACK. YEAH. OKAY. AND, UM, DO YOU KNOW IF ANY OF THOSE HOMES ARE TWO STORY? UH, WITHOUT, IT'S ALWAYS A LITTLE TOUGH TO SAY THE STORY SIZE, RIGHT? BECAUSE IT KIND OF DEPENDS ON HOW YOU DEFINE A STORY, UH, CLEAR CLEARLY YOU HAVE, UH, WHAT MIGHT BE A, AND PARDON MY IGNORANCE HERE, I'M NOT AS WELL VERSED ON ARCHITECTURAL TERMS. I BELIEVE THAT MIGHT BE, IS THAT A DORMER, MICHAEL? LET ME REFINE MY QUESTION. SURE. YEAH. DO DO ANY OF THOSE HOMES HAVE WINDOWS ABOVE THE FENCE LINE? UH, THIS ONE CERTAINLY APPEARS TO HAVE SOME SORT OF WINDOW ABOVE THE FENCE LINE. I'M NOT SURE IF IT'S PART OF A ROOM OR JUST TO SORT OF WORK AS A, UH, A CLEAR STORY AS IT WERE. UH, LOOKING HERE, THERE MIGHT BE A COUPLE OTHERS. UH, BUT GENERALLY I THINK, YOU KNOW, YOU LARGELY HAVE ROOF LINES THAT ARE PROTRUDING OVER THERE. OKAY. BUT THERE, THERE ARE MULTIPLE HOMES THERE ON THAT, ON THAT SIDE OF THEIR PROPERTY THAT HAVE WINDOWS ABOVE THE FENCE LINE. SOME OF THEM MAY BE FACING EACH OTHER, MAYBE SOME OF THEM FACING BACK THIS WAY. IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S A LARGE AMOUNT OF WINDOWS THAT FACE, UH, OKAY. SEVERAL DIRECTIONS. AND, AND SO THAT'S A SIX FOOT SETBACK. AND CAN YOU TELL ME THEN WHAT THIS APPLICATION, WHERE THAT SETBACK STARTED THERE ON THE NORTHERN PIECE AND WHERE WE ENDED UP AT THE 14? YEAH, I, I'D HAVE TO PULL UP SOME OF THE ORIGINAL RECORDS. I THINK ORIGINALLY IT WAS A 10 FOOT SETBACK ALL AROUND, BUT THE NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE NOW WOULD BE REQUIRED, OH, PARDON ME. WHERE'S THAT CONCEPTUAL PLAN? BUT YES, THE NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE WOULD BE A 14 FOOT SETBACK. THE ALL ALONG HERE , AND, UH, I THINK YOU PROBABLY MENTIONED THIS BEFORE, IS THERE A HEIGHT LIMITATION THERE ON THAT PIECE OF THE PROPERTY? THAT WOULD BE 30 FEET IN HEIGHT? 30 FEET, YES. SO THAT WOULD MIRROR THE EXISTING R 16 ZONING IN TERMS OF HEIGHT, WHICH IS 30 FEET, AND IT WOULD BE A GREATER SETBACK THAN WHAT'S CURRENTLY REQUIRED UNDER R 16, WHICH IS 10 FEET. OKAY. SO PROBABLY MORE OR LESS MATCH WHAT'S ON THE, THE, THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY THERE IN TERMS OF HEIGHT? SORRY, COULD YOU SAY THE FIRST PART AGAIN? IT WOULD ALIGN WITH WHAT'S NORTH OF THE SITE IN TERMS OF THE HEIGHT? I'D SAY SO, YES, IN TERMS OF HEIGHT, UH, IN TERMS OF GREATER SETBACK, I THINK IT ADDRESSES SOME CONCERNS THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED BY THE COMMUNITY ABOUT SIGHT LINES BY AGAIN, PULLING IT BACK, LIMITING THE HEIGHT. IT WOULD MORE OR LESS BE IN TERMS OF THAT IDENTICAL TO WHAT'S BUILDABLE UP THERE. MM-HMM . YOU'D HAVE MORE HOUSES BECAUSE YOU HAVE SMALLER LOT SIZES, BUT THE HEIGHT AND THE SETBACKS ARE, IT'S, IT'S AN EQUIVALENT RESTRICT, BUT AN INCREASED SETBACK FROM SIX FEET TO 14 FEET. CORRECT. OKAY. SO OVERALL YOU'D HAVE 20 FEET OF DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDING SIDES. RIGHT. OKAY. PERFECT. UH, COMMISSIONERS, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON YES, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER? UM, MY QUESTION IS ABOUT HEIGHT. I KNOW, UM, IN, UH, A NEIGHBORHOOD IN WEST DALLAS THAT HAD A NEIGHBORHOOD STABILIZATION OVERLAY THAT SET A HEIGHT LIMIT, UH, NEIGHBORS WERE SOMEWHAT, UM, PERTURBED WHEN THEY FOUND THAT HOMES WERE GOING UP THAT SEEMED TO BE IN EXCESS OF THE HEIGHT THAT WAS OFFICIALLY ALLOWED BECAUSE OF THIS 12 FOOT EXCEPTION FOR CLARA STORIES, THAT IT, IF YOU BUILD IT A CERTAIN WAY, YOU CAN ACTUALLY SQUEAK OUT A WHAT TO A NORMAL OBSERVER LOOKS LIKE AN EXTRA STORY. SO, WELL, IF YOU'RE SETTING A 30 FOOT OR 36 FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT HERE, GIVEN THE WAY THEY COULD BE DESIGNED, THEY COULD ACTUALLY BE 12 FEET HIGHER THAN THAT. WAS THERE ANY CONCERN ABOUT ALLOWING THAT CLARA STORY OVERAGE IN THIS PARTICULAR PD? UM, IT HADN'T BEEN RAISED, UH, INITIALLY EITHER THROUGH DISCUSSION WITH THE APPLICANT OR, UH, THROUGH THE COMMUNITY SPECIFIC TO CLAIRE STORIES. UM, I KNOW THAT WE HAD, UH, IT HAD BEEN RAISED, UM, COMMISSIONER HALL ACTUALLY REACHED OUT INQUIRING ABOUT THAT. THAT'S ABSOLUTELY SOMETHING THAT WE CAN [01:15:01] LIMIT, UH, WITHIN THE PD CONDITIONS EVEN. WE CAN PUT IN A LIMIT SPECIFIC TO CLAIRE STORIES THAT WOULD LIMIT THEM TO A FIVE FOOT OVERAGE. WE COULD STRIKE THEM ENTIRELY FROM THE, UH, FROM THE STANDARD EXCEPTIONS. THERE'S A LOT OF ROOM TO WORK THERE. OKAY. UH, ANOTHER, UM, CONCERN THAT I HAD UPON READING THE PD AND LOOKING AT THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN AND, AND, AND READING SOME OF THE, UM, EMAILS THAT WE'VE GOTTEN IS CONCERN ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF CONCRETE THAT IS GOING TO BE ON THIS SITE. UM, GIVEN THAT LOTS, UM, CAN BE AS SMALL AS 1,650 SQUARE FEET AND THAT LOT, UM, SIZE CAN INCLUDE THEIR PORTION OF THE SHARED ACCESS EASEMENT IN FRONT OF THEM. THAT WOULD MEAN, YOU KNOW, EVERYTHING IN FRONT OF THE, UH, STRUCTURE COULD BE CONCRETE. YOU KNOW, THE, THE HALF OF THE SHARED ACCESS DRIVE THE STREET, UM, THE DRIVE APPROACH TO THE HOME, AND THEN YOU HAVE SIX INCHES OF SIDE YARD. SO THE ONLY POTENTIAL, POSSIBLY THE ONLY POTENTIAL FOR GREEN ON THE GROUND WOULD BE EITHER THE 10 FEET REAR YARD ON SOME OF THE HOUSES OR 14 FEET ON THE OTHERS. UM, ALTHOUGH THERE ARE SOME AREAS ON THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN IDENTIFIED AS OPEN SPACE, I DON'T SEE ANY COMMITMENT TO GR UH, CERTAIN AMOUNT OF GROUND LEVEL OPEN SPACE IN THE PD IT SAYS 10%, BUT THAT'S ALSO COUPLED WITH LANGUAGE THAT WE USUALLY ONLY ADD TO HIGH RISE DEVELOPMENTS SAYING THAT OPEN SPACE CAN BE ROOF DECKS, I MEAN, ALLOWING ROOF DECKS TO BE OPEN SPACE IN A, IN A SINGLE FAMILY, YOU KNOW, ONE, TWO STORY SEEMS A LITTLE TROUBLESOME TO ME. UM, WAS THERE ANY CONSIDERATION OF PUTTING A SQUARE FOOTAGE REQUIREMENT FOR GROUND LEVEL OPEN SPACE HERE? OR PERHAPS NOT EVEN INCLUDING THAT OTHER LANGUAGE ABOUT THE KIND OF OPEN SPACE THAT WE CONSIDER WITH HIGH RISES? I WILL SAY REALLY QUICK, I WAS READING IT TOO, YOU, 'CAUSE I, YOU KNOW, THAT WOULD BE A CONCERN, BUT IT, WE ALSO HAVE THAT THE PRIVATE BALCONIES, SO I THINK THAT LANGUAGE IS PRETTY COMMON FOR MULTIFAMILY, WHERE THEY'RE LOOKING FOR OPEN SPACE THAT MAY BE SHARED, UM, TO ME DOESN'T MAKE SENSE FOR A SINGLE FAMILY PRODUCT, BUT WE HAVE THAT LANGUAGE THERE. BUT WE ALSO HAVE THE PRIVATE BALCONIES AND, UH, PRIVATE BALCONIES, SIDEWALKS, PARKING SPACES, PARKING LOT DRIVEWAY AREAS ARE EXCLUDED. SO TO ME, PRIVATE BALCONIES IS, IS ANOTHER INDICATION THAT WE'RE SINGLING OUT. UM, WHEN YOU PUT ELEVATED OPEN SPACE, I DO NOT THINK THAT THEY'D BE ABLE TO COUNT ANY, ANYTHING ON TOP OF A PROPERTY OR LIKE THAT AS PART OF THEIR OPEN SPACE AND THAT THEY HAVE TO DO IT ON THE GROUND LEVEL, 10% OF THE DISTRICT AS THEY HAVE THROUGHOUT THE SITE. WELL, I AM, I MISREADING THAT OPEN SPACE, IT SAYS HERE MAY ALSO BE PROVIDED AT OR BELOW GRADE OR ABOVE GROUND BY AN OUTSIDE ROOF DECK, ROOFTOP GARDEN, ALL THAT. HOW WOULD THAT NOT BE INCLUDED? I GUESS WHAT MY QUESTION BOILS DOWN TO IS, IS A COMMITMENT NEEDED TO GROUND FLOOR OPEN SPACE? YEAH, THAT'S, AND AND LIKE I SAID, THAT'S, THAT IS THE COMMON O OPEN SPACE LANGUAGE. YOU COULD STRIKE OUTSIDE ROOF DECK. BUT TO ME, IF IT'S A PRIVATE, IF IT'S PRIVATE AS IN, THEN WE HAVE THAT IN THREE, BUT THEN WE HAVE FOUR THAT TALKS ABOUT PRIVATE BALCONIES. I THINK THE INTENT THERE IS NOT THAT, THAT WOULD CONTROL THAT, THAT YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO COUNT PRIVATE SPACE. IT'S, IT'S THREE IS IS IS OUR OVERARCHING OPEN SPACE LANGUAGE. AND YEAH, IT'S GENERALLY MEANT IN, IN A MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT, BUT IT, IT COULD, THIS, THIS NUMBER THREE CAN WORK HERE. UM, AND I THINK THAT FOUR HELPS US OUT. NOT THAT IT'S NOT INDIVIDUALLY PROVIDED ON A, A ROOF DECK FOR IT. A SINGLE FAMILY HOME. GO AHEAD. NO, PLEASE GO AHEAD. I JUST WANNA FOLLOW UP ON THAT. SO IF, LET'S JUST SAY THE OWNER OR THE, YOU KNOW, RESIDENT AT ONE OF THESE HOMES THAT IS ON THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN PUTS A GARDEN OR, YOU KNOW, PLANTERS ON, ON THEIR ROOFTOP, WOULD THAT COUNT TOWARDS THE OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT OR WOULD THAT BE A PRIVATE BALCONY THAT DOES NOT, AGAIN, YEAH. NO, I, I CAN'T MAKE A FINAL DETERMINATION WHEN WE, WHEN WE GET TO, BEFORE WE GET TO PERMITTING, BUT TO ME, WE'VE, WE'VE GOT FOUR, WHICH IS SINGLING OUT OUR, OUR PRIVATE SPACES. THE INTENT IS DEFINITELY FOR THE OPEN SPACES TO BE ON THE GROUND. SO YOU CAN TAKE THREE, YOU CAN TAKE OUT ROOFTOP, ROOF DECK, ROOFTOP GARDEN, UM, OR LEAN ON THE, THE FOUR TO AS THE EXCLUSION THERE. WELL, I'M SURE WE COULD SPEND ALL MORNING SORT OF DEBATING THE, THE, THE INS AND OUTS OF THREE OR FOUR. WE COULD PROBABLY COME UP WITH AN ELEGANT SOLUTION PRETTY QUICKLY TO RESOLVE THESE CONCERNS. AND WE WILL, BEFORE THE HEARING, I ALSO WANTED TO QUICKLY CHIME IN. JUST, UH, OR ARBORIST MENTION TO ME THAT, UH, FOR OUR, FOR ARTICLE 10 LANDSCAPING ON SHARED ACCESS DEVELOPMENTS, THERE IS A 15% [01:20:01] LANDSCAPE AREA MINIMUM THAT'S BASED ON THE SIZE OF THE LOT. UH, SO THAT WOULD BE, I THINK, IN ADDITION TO YOUR GENERAL OPEN. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM? COMMISSIONERS? OKAY. NO, PLEASE. COMMISSIONER CARPENTER? YES. ON PAGE, UM, LET'S SEE, SIX DASH 13, IT WAS SOMETHING OMITTED HERE BETWEEN F AND H OR IS IT JUST A, A LETTERING ERROR? THAT IS A LETTERING ERROR THAT'S FOR CATCHING THAT. OKAY. BUT IS THERE A REASON WHY WE NEED TO HAVE F WHICH SAYS MINIMUM PAVEMENT WIDTH IS 26 FEET AND THEN FOLLOWED BY THE WIDTH FOR A SHARED ACCESS DRIVE, SERVING HOMES TALLER THAN 30 FEET MUST BE A MINIMUM OF 26 FEET. I MEAN, IF THE MINIMUM PAVEMENT WIDTH IS 26 FEET, THAT WOULD SEEM TO BE ALL WE NEED TO SAY ABOUT IT. IT IS DUPLICATIVE. THAT WAS AN OVERSIGHT ON OUR PART, AND I BELIEVE THE COMMISSIONER IS, UH, READY TO REMEDY THAT THROUGH HIS MOTION LATER. AND SIMILARLY DO OUR I AND K BOTH NEEDED. IF THERE'S NO MORE THAN 50 LOTS THAT COULD BE PLANTED AS A SHARED ACCESS DEVELOPMENT, DO WE NEED A PER ACRE NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS? I THINK WE'D BE FINE WITH JUST HAVING THE FIXED, UH, FIXED NUMBER. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM? COMMISSIONERS? OKAY, WE'LL GO TO NUMBER SEVEN. DO WE NEED A BRIEF SEPTEMBER 8TH? OKAY. FOLLOW. OKAY, PERFECT. THOSE SEPTEMBER DATES ARE SEPTEMBER FOUR AND SEPTEMBER 18TH, 18 18TH. THANK YOU. OKAY, WE'LL HOLD THAT ITEM TO SEPTEMBER 18TH. UH, AND THAT CONCLUDES ALL THE CASES, UH, COMMISSIONERS. IT IS 11:27 AM THAT CONCLUDES THE BRIEFING OF THE LCD PLAN COMMISSION. ENJOY YOUR LUNCH. WE'LL SEE YOU AT 1230. ACCORDING, SIR, WE ARE RECORDING. LET'S START OFF WITH [CALL TO ORDER] THE ROLL CALL, PLEASE. GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONERS. DISTRICT ONE COMMISSIONER DUBINSKI. HE'S HERE. DISTRICT TWO. COMMISSIONER HAMPTON. PRESENT DISTRICT THREE. COMMISSIONER HERBERT? HERE. DISTRICT FOUR. COMMISSIONER FORSYTH, DISTRICT FIVE. CHAIR SHAD PRESENT DISTRICT SIX. COMMISSIONER CARPENTER. PRESENT. DISTRICT SEVEN. COMMISSIONER WHEELER, REAGAN. PRESENT. DISTRICT EIGHT. COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN PRESENT. DISTRICT NINE. COMMISSIONER SLEEPER. HE'S IN THE BACK. DISTRICT 10. COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT. PRESENT. DISTRICT 11. COMMISSIONER SIMS PRESENT. DISTRICT 12 IS VACANT. DISTRICT 13. COMMISSIONER HALL HERE. DISTRICT 14, COMMISSIONER KINGSTON AND PLACE 15 VICE CHAIR RUBIN, I'M HERE. YOU HAVE QUORUM, SIR. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. GOOD AFTERNOON LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. WELCOME TO THE DALLAS CITY PLAN COMMISSION. TODAY IS THURSDAY, AUGUST 21ST, 2020 5, 12 30 6:00 PM A COUPLE OF QUICK ANNOUNCEMENTS BEFORE WE GET INTO OUR AGENDA. UH, IF YOU DO NEED AN AGENDA, WE DO HAVE SOME COPIES DOWN HERE AT THE BOTTOM, UH, ON THAT TABLE ALSO DOWN THERE. UH, YOU'LL FIND THESE LITTLE YELLOW SHEETS HERE. UH, IF YOU PLEASE, AT SOME POINT DURING OUR HEARING TODAY, COME DOWN AND FILL ONE OF THESE OUT, YOU CAN JUST LEAVE IT RIGHT THERE ON THE TABLE. WE REALLY WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A RECORD OF YOUR VISIT WITH US HERE TODAY. UH, OUR SPEAKER GUIDELINES, UH, TYPICALLY ARE OUR SPEAKERS. ON CASES WHERE THERE ARE NOT THAT MANY SPEAKERS, WE GIVE THREE MINUTES. UH, OUR RULES DO ALLOW US TO KIND OF ADJUST THAT ON A, ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS. SO ON THE CASES WHERE WE HAVE SOME, UH, EXTENDED SPEAKERS, WE'RE GONNA GO WITH TWO MINUTES PER SPEAKER. UH, PER OUR RULES, THE APPLICANT, UH, ON CASES WHERE THERE IS OPPOSITION, WE'LL RECEIVE A TWO MINUTE REBUTTAL. UH, WE'LL PLEASE ASK ALL OF OUR SPEAKERS TO BEGIN WITH YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. UH, IT, IT IS A HYBRID MEETING. WE ARE GONNA HAVE SOME SPEAKERS ONLINE. I WILL ASK ALL OF OUR SPEAKERS ONLINE TO MAKE SURE THAT YOUR CAMERA IS ON AND WORKING. WHEN WE COME TO YOU, STATE LAW REQUIRES US FOR TO SEE YOU IN ORDER TO HEAR FROM YOU. AND WITH THAT, WE'RE [APPROVAL OF MINUTES] GONNA GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED RIGHT WITH THE AGENDA. FIRST TOPIC COMMISSIONERS. LET'S GO AHEAD AND GET THE MINUTES GOING. UM, DO I HAVE A MEET, UH, MOTION FOR THE MEETINGS? YES. THANK YOU MR. CHAIR. HOLD ON. I MOVE THAT WE, UM, UH, I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 7TH, 2025 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AS POSTED. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HALL FOR YOUR MOTION AND VICE CHAIR RUBIN FOR YOUR SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? SEE NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? AYES HAVE IT. UH, COMMISSIONERS WILL NOW MOVE [Zoning Cases - Consent] TO OUR ZONING CONS CASES, CONSENT AGENDA, DOCK CONSENTING OF CASES TWO THROUGH [01:25:01] SIX. CASES FIVE AND SIX HAVE COME OFF CONSENT. THAT LEAVES CASES TWO, THREE, AND FOUR ON THE CONSENT AGENDA THAT WILL BE DISPOSED OF IN ONE MOTION, UNLESS THERE ARE SOMEONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON ANY OF THOSE THREE CASES. THAT'S CASE NUMBER TWO, THREE, AND FOUR. IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO BE HEARD ON ANY OF THOSE THREE CASES? AND WE WILL TAKE IT OFF THE CONSENT AGENDA AND, UH, VOTE ON IT SEPARATELY. IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON CASE TWO, THREE, OR FOUR? OKAY. WE'LL GET THOSE RIGHT INTO THE RECORD. OKAY. GOOD AFTERNOON. UM, CASE TWO IS Z TWO, UH, Z 25 0 0 0 37. IT'S AN APPLICATION FOR AN R AN R SEVEN FIVE, A SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT ON PROPERTY ZONE IR INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH DISTRICT WITH THE D ONE LIQUOR CONTROL OVERLAY ON THE WEST CORNER OF ED ROAD IN KLEBERG ROAD. STAFF. RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL. UH, CASE THREE IS Z 2 4 5 1 5 2, ALSO KNOWN AS Z TWO FIVE. UH, CASE NUMBER TWO. AND IT'S AN APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 9 88 ON PROPERTY BOUND BY WEST WHEATLAND ROAD, MCKISSICK, LANE ALGEBRA DRIVE, AND INDIAN RIDGE TRAIL STAFF. RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO AN AMENDED DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND AMENDED LANDSCAPE PLAN AND AMENDED TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN AND CONDITIONS AND CASE FOUR, UH, ALSO KNOWN AS Z TWO FIVE. UH, NUMBER 62, IT'S AN APPLICATION FOR A R 10, A SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT ON PROPERTY ZONED A A AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT ON THE SOUTHEAST LINE OF BICENTENNIAL LANE, SOUTHWEST OF MIDDLEFIELD ROAD STAFF. RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL. THANK YOU, SIR. COMMISSIONERS, ANY LAST QUESTIONS ON ANY OF THOSE THREE CASES? SEE NONE. COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION, SIR? I DO. MR. CHAIR IN THE MATTER OF THE ZONING CASES ON THE CONSENT AGENDA, ITEMS TWO THROUGH FOUR, I MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND FOLLOW STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE DOCKET. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN FOR YOUR MOTION. COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT FOR YOUR SECOND. ANY COMMENTS DISCUSSION? C NONE L IS IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THE AYES HAVE IT TAKES [5. 25-2545A An application for an amendment to Planned Development 942, on the south line of East Belt Line Road and west line of South Northlake Road.] US TO CASE NUMBER FIVE. GOOD AFTERNOON. AFTERNOON. ITEM NUMBER FIVE IS KZ DASH 25 DASH 0 0 0 67. AN APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO PLAN DEVELOPMENT. 9 42 ON THE SOUTH LINE OF EAST BUILT LINE ROAD AND WEST LINE OF SOUTH NORTH LAKE ROAD. RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO AN AMENDED DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND AMENDED CONDITIONS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UH, COMMISSIONERS BEFORE WE GET STARTED, UH, WE'RE GONNA START OFF WITH MS. MORRISON WITH THE CITY ATTORNEYS. CAN YOU PUT THIS CASE INTO CONTEXT IN TERMS OF WHAT WE CONSIDER, UH, WHAT THIS BODY CONSIDERS IN TERMS OF THIS CASE, PLEASE? SURE. THANK YOU MR. CHAIR. UH, THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1996 IMPACTS CELL TOWER PLACEMENT BY PRESERVING LOCAL ZONING AUTHORITY WHILE IMPOSING RESTRICTIONS THAT LIMIT A CITY'S ABILITY TO PROHIBIT OR RESTRICT WIRELESS INFRASTRUCTURE UNDER THE ACT. LOCAL GOVERNMENTS CAN'T BAN WIRELESS SERVICES UNREASONABLY DISCRIMINATE BETWEEN PROVIDERS OR DENY TOWER APPLICATIONS WITHOUT PROVIDING A DENIAL SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD. FURTHERMORE, LOCAL ZONING CANNOT REGULATE RF EMISSIONS BEYOND FCC STANDARDS, NOR THAN CAN THE COMMISSION TAKE THOSE EMISSIONS INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN DELIBERATING THE CASE. THANK YOU FOR THAT. SO IS, IS IT JUST FAIR TO SUMMARIZE THAT THIS BODY FOCUSES ON THE LAND USE PIECE AND THE LAND USE PIECE ONLY? YES. OKAY. UH, OKAY. YES. SORRY. YES, IT'S OKAY. THANK YOU. UH, THEN WE ARE READY FOR OUR SPEAKERS TO SEE THAT THE APPLICANT IS HERE. GOOD AFTERNOON. YES. WE'RE, WE'RE GONNA GO WITH TWO MINUTES PER SPEAKER ON THIS ONE. SO YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES. UH, MS. LOPEZ, WE'LL KEEP, UH, TRACK AND WE'LL LET YOU KNOW WHEN YOUR TIME'S UP. SO WE'LL DO TWO MINUTES PER SPEAKER PLEASE. GOOD AFTERNOON, JENNIFER. HI, MOTO, 1 0 2 3 3 EAST NORTHWEST HIGHWAY, UH, DALLAS, 7 5 2 3 8. UM, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME TODAY. UM, JUST WANTED TO QUICKLY STATE A FEW FACTS ABOUT THE CASE. UM, THE [01:30:01] COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT THAT'S PROPOSED IS FOR ENCORE'S INTERNAL COMMUNICATION AND EMERGENCY COORDINATION. THIS EQUIPMENT IS ESSENTIAL FOR ENCORE OPERATIONS. THE PD CURRENTLY ALLOWS 150 FEET IN HEIGHT AND INCLUDES A MICROWAVE TOWER USE. WE ARE ASKING TO INCREASE THE HEIGHT TO 200 FEET AND ADD THE CELLULAR COMPONENT AS A MAIN USE. THE EXISTING EQUIPMENT MOUNTED ON THE WATER TOWER TODAY IS APPROXIMATELY 130 FEET TALL. IT IS NOT PERFORMING AS WELL AS, AS NEEDED FOR ENCORE'S INTERNAL COMMUNICATION. SO NEW EQUIPMENT WILL BE PLACED ON THE STANDALONE TOWER AND ADD CELLULAR EQUIPMENT TO IMPROVE PERFORMANCE. THE PROPOSED LOCATION IS THE BEST POSSIBLE LOCATION FOR THE TOWER FOR SEPARATION FROM EXISTING AND PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL USES DUE THE, DUE TO THE EXTENSIVE NETWORK OF POWER LINES AND TRANS TRANSMISSION LINES, UH, THAT CROSS THE 80 ACRE SITE FOR THIS, UH, ELECTRICAL SUBSTATION. UM, WE RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT AND HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU FOR JOINING US. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THIS APPLICATION? OKAY, WE'LL GO WITH OUR FOLKS IN OUR POSITION. YES, SIR. YES. COME ON DOWN. GOOD AFTERNOON. THERE'S A LITTLE BUTTON THERE FOR THE, THE MICROPHONE. MAKE SURE THAT IT'S ON. YOU MIGHT WANT TO JUST WAIT UNTIL THAT PRESENTATION'S UP 'CAUSE YOU, YOU'RE TIME STARTS THEM THE MOMENT YOU START SPEAKING. SO YOU WANNA TEE THAT UP FIRST? HE SN. YEAH. UM, I HAVEN'T RECEIVED ANYTHING. OH, MARK. YEAH. GOOD AFTERNOON EVERYONE. MY NAME IS URI. I AM ONE OF THE RESIDENTS OF THE SOUTH HAM COMMUNITY REPRESENTING, UM, THE HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION. UH, SINCE I'M ALSO ON THE HBO BOARD, I'M ALSO A RESIDENT OF THE COMMUNITY. THIS IS IN REQUEST TO THE ENCORE APPLICATION FOR, UM, THE REGIONING OF THE PLANT DEVELOPMENT 9 4 2. BASICALLY WE WENT THROUGH THE CASE STUDY AND I JUST WANT TO PUT SOME THINGS THAT WE WANT TO POINT OUT FROM THE CASE STUDY. UH, THE SUMMARY SAYS THE PURPOSE OF THE REQUEST IS TO ALLOW A NEW RADIO, TELEVISION, OR MICROWAVE TOWER AND A TOWER AND A CELLULAR COMMUNICATION. LOOKS LIKE THEY ADDED THE TNA FOR CELLULAR COMMUNICATION AS PART OF THIS REGIONING REQUEST. HOWEVER, NO DETAILS WERE PROVIDED ABOUT THE TOWER AETNA FOR CELLULAR COMMUNICATION. UM, AS, AS TO THE, PROVIDED THE FEET OF THE, UH, TOWER, THEY WANT TO USE IT FOR, PROBABLY FOR THE MICROWAVE, BUT THEY HAVE NOT PROVIDED ANY DETAILS ABOUT THE CELLULAR ONE AS TO WHERE THE TOWER IS GOING TO BE PUT. AND WITHOUT THOSE DETAILS, WE CANNOT SUPPORT THIS ONE AS WE OPPOSE THE REGIONING REQUEST. THEN THE NEXT ONE, THE CASE REPORT ALSO SAYS THE TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT SERVICES THERE HAS DONE SOME, UM, THIS CASE STUDY ABOUT THE SOME, UH, STUDY ABOUT THE TRAFFIC. AND THEY SAID, UM, THE IMPACT WITH THE SURROUNDING ROADWAY SYSTEM IS PENDING COMMENSURATE IMPROVEMENTS. HOWEVER, ANY PENDING COMMENSURATED IMPROVEMENTS, THEY'RE NOT PROVIDED IN THE CASE REPORT. NOW THAT COMMUNITY HAS GOT ONLY ONE EXIT AND ENTRY FROM THE MAIN, UH, UH, CITY. THIS HAS GOT ONE ENTRY AND WAGON EXIT NOW WITHOUT HAVING PROPER COMMISSURAL IMPROVEMENTS FOR THAT PARTICULAR ENTRY AND EXIT THE, THIS GOING TO BE CAST LOT OF TRAFFIC, UM, IS, UH, TRAFFIC, UH, ISSUES FOR THE PARTICULAR NEIGHBORHOOD. HAS I STRONGLY OPPOSED THE JOINING ATTEMPT. WE ALSO HAD, UH, SOME TRAFFIC INCIDENTS IN THE PAST WHEREIN THE THAT'S YOUR, YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. SORRY, THAT WAS YOUR TWO MINUTES, SIR. THANK YOU. OH, OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR JOINING US. PLEASE STAND BY. THERE MAY BE QUESTIONS FOR YOU NEXT SPEAKER, PLEASE. [01:35:05] YEAH. GOOD AFTERNOON, COUNCIL MEMBERS. I'M SHWETA GUNDA, RESIDENT OF SOUTH HAVEN COMMUNITY. TODAY, I'M HERE TO STRONGLY OPPOSE THE CASE NUMBER Z 2 5 0 0 0 0 6 7 DIRECTLY NEXT TO OUR OMS AND OUR ONLY CHILDREN'S PARK. THIS TOWER POSES SERIOUS SAFETY RISK AT 200 FEET. IT HAS DOCUMENTED FALL ZONE EYE SHEDDING HAZARDS, AND ATTRACTS LIGHTNING HEAVY CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE TRUCKS WILL REGULARLY ENTER OUR OPEN NEIGHBORHOOD MIXING WITH CHILDREN WHO WALK AND BIKE DAILY. THAT IS NOT SAFE. PLANNING. BEYOND SAFETY AND HEALTH, THIS PROJECT WILL LOWER PROPERTY VALUES BY AN ESTIMATED 10 TO 20%, LEAVING FAMILIES TO OBSERVE FINANCIAL LOSSES FROM A DECISION THAT BENEFITS A CORPORATION, NOT THE COMMUNITY. AT 200 FEET, THIS TOWER WILL DOMINATE OUR SKYLINE AND PERMANENTLY ALTER THE CHARACTER OF SOUTH HAVEN COMMUNITY. FINALLY, THE PROCESS LACKS TRANSPARENCY. MULTI-USE TOWERS MAY NOT HOST MULTIPLE, MAY HOST MULTIPLE CARRIERS AND TRANSMITTERS, BUT THE APPLICATION DOES NOT FULLY DISCLOSE THESE USES. OUR RESIDENTS DESERVE CLARITY AND INDEPENDENT OVERSIGHT BEFORE THE STRUCTURE OF THIS MAGNITUDE IS APPROVED. WE ARE NOT AGAINST CONNECTIVITY. WE ARE SIMPLY ASKING FOR RESPONSIBLE SIGHTING ON COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL LAND. LOT OF OUR RESIDENTS HAVE FILED WRITTEN PROTEST. OUR COMMUNITY IS UNITED RESPECTED COUNCIL MEMBERS. YOU HAVE A CHOICE TO PRESERVE CHILD SAFETY, PROPERTY VALUES AND THE INTEGRITY OF SOUTH HEAVEN, OR TO LET AN INDUSTRIAL TOWER OVERRIDE RESIDENTIAL PROTECTIONS ON BEHALF OF HUNDREDS OF FAMILIES. I URGE YOU TO DENY THIS ZONING ZONE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR JOINING US. NEXT SPEAKER, PLEASE. HELLO EVERYONE. UH, MY NAME IS PAVAN KUMAR BKI. I'M THE, UH, UH, UH, FIRST RESIDENT OF, UH, THIS COMMUNITY. WHAT I MEAN TO SAY IS THE, THE FIRST HOME YOU SEE IN THIS LOCATION, UH, ON THIS, ON YOUR SCREEN, I RESIDE OVER THERE. NEXT TO ME IS THE, UH, KIDS PARK AREA, WHICH IS VERY CLOSE AND THERE IS ONLY ONE ENTRANCE AND ONE EXIT. LIKE I, UM, UH, MY COLLEAGUE SAID, UH, UH, I'M OPPOSING THIS ZONE, UH, BECAUSE THE PROXIMITY, UH, OF THIS TOWER IS VERY, VERY CLOSE TO MY HOME. LET'S ASSUME THERE IS A POWER LINE AS WELL. UH, I'M ACTUALLY MARKING IT OVER HERE. THERE IS A POWER LINE HERE AS WELL. SO POWER LINE PLUS THE TOWER, RIGHT? THE KIND OF EMF IT GENERATES. YOU CAN'T IMAGINE. WE, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT IS THE, NOBODY HAS REALLY MEASURED. SO THAT WILL HAVE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON MY CHILD'S HEALTH AND THE, UH, COMMUNITY HEALTH. NOW, HOW WOULD YOU APPROVE, UH, SUCH A CHANGE, SUCH A JOINING CHANGE TODAY IF YOU APPROVE SUCH A JOINING CHANGE WITH THIS KIND OF SETBACK LEVELS TOMORROW SOMEBODY COMES AND PUTS SOMETHING IN YOUR BACKYARD AND ARE YOU GOING TO SET OKAY FOR THIS? UH, IT'S HIGHLY UNACCEPTABLE, UH, FROM A RESIDENTIAL AND, UH, YOU'RE KIND OF TURNING THIS WHOLE SUBSTATION. UH, WE ARE LIVING IN A SUBSTATION, ISN'T IT? WHEN SOMEBODY IS, THERE ARE SO MANY TOWER LINES, WHICH ARE EXISTING, UH, UH, AND WE HAVE PUT LIFE SAVINGS, RIGHT, UH, INTO OUR, UH, HOMES. ALL MY LIFE SAVINGS IS THERE. SUDDENLY YOU SAY, I'M PUTTING A TOWER. THE PROPERTY VALUES SHOULD BE REALISTIC. BE BE REALISTIC. YOU GO CHECK FOR A PROPERTY, YOU ARE YOU GOING TO BUY A PROPERTY, UH, UH, WHICH IS BACK INTO A POWER LINE. ANYBODY CAN THINK OVER IT. I'M JUST, UH, I'M JUST, UH, UH, ALL MY SAVINGS ARE GOING TO GO DOWN. UH, I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH PERCENT NOW ALL MY MONEY I HAVE PUT THERE, MY KIDS' FUTURE, I HAVE PUT THERE MY KIDS' HEALTH. AND YOU ARE ACTUALLY DESTROYING BOTH OF THIS BY, BY PUTTING THE, BY APPROVING THIS, OR PLEASE, I PLEASE, I ASKED THE PANEL TO, UH, REJECT THIS, UH, UH, UH, PROPOSAL AND, UH, REJECT THIS APPLICATION. AND I, I WOULD SAY, I, I WOULD YOUR, YOUR TIME, THANK YOU. TECHNICAL LEAD IN COMMUNICATION, AND THEN THANK YOU, SIR. UH, RIGHT. THANK YOU FOR JOINING US. THANK YOU, SIR. OKAY, THANK YOU. THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON. HEY, GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS ASHOK TI. UH, SO, UH, IN THE SAME PICTURE, IF YOU, IF YOU CAN SEE, UH, I RESIDE IN THE FOURTH HOME, UH, WHICH IS CLOSE TO LIKE, UM, THE TOWER, WHICH THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BUILD. AND, UM, UH, MY KIDS, EITHER THEY STAY AT HOME OR, UH, JUST GO TO THE PARK TO PLAY. SO, UH, 24 HOUR, UH, EXPOSURE TO THE RADIATION, WHATEVER [01:40:01] EVEN IT IS MINIMAL, UH, THAT ISED BY THE TOWER IS GONNA DENT. UH, THE CHANCES OF, UH, IT'S GONNA TAKE AWAY MY KIDS', UH, HEALTH. UM, I'M SO SCARED OUT OF IT. AND, UH, EVEN, UH, YOU HAVE TO CONSIDER, UH, YOURSELF. SO, UH, NOBODY'S GONNA STAY, UH, IF THERE IS A TOWER NEARBY YOU, UM, EVEN THOUGH, UM, UH, WHATEVER, UH, UH, PROOFS YOU GIVE SAYING THAT, UH, IT WON'T AFFECT, UH, BUT, UM, UH, STILL, UH, IT'LL BE DOCK FOR EVERYONE. UM, THERE, UH, THERE IS A CHANCE THAT THERE ARE TALL TOWERS ARE PRONE TO LIGHTNING STRIKES INCREASE THE RISK OF, UH, POWER SUGGESTION NEAR OUR HOMES. UH, THE INDUSTRIAL SCALE, UH, POWER SUBSTATION IS, UH, OPERATIONS COULD GENERATE EXCESSIVE NOISE LEVELS FOR US AS WELL. UH, THERE IS ALSO A CHANCE THAT, UH, HIGH WINDS COULD DAMAGE THE EQUIPMENT POTENTIALLY CAUSING THE FALL NEAR OUR HOMES. SO, UM, I THINK, UH, UH, IT'S BETTER. UH, UH, YOU RECONSIDER, UH, THE APPROVAL OF THIS AND, UH, UH, PLEASE BLOCK THIS FROM, UH, UH, GOING INTO REALITY. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR GIVING THIS OPPORTUNITY. THANK YOU. AFTERNOON. HELLO. GOOD AFTERNOON, EVERYBODY. THIS IS BU THE, AND I LIVE, UH, AT 1 0 6 5 ON KING FISHER ROAD, THE SIXTH HOUSE FROM THE POWER PARK, THE STARTING OF IT. UM, I'M HERE TO OPPOSE KZ 25 0 0 6 7. UM, THERE'S A REZONING REQUEST CONFLICTS WITH THE CITY'S ADOPTER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR DALLAS 2.0, WHICH EMPHASIZES CONTEXT SENSITIVE DEVELOPMENT AND THE PROTECTION OF ESTABLISHED NEIGHBORHOODS. THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES ARE PRIMARILY RESIDENTIAL, AND THIS RE REQUEST IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE EXISTING CHARACTERISTIC OF OUR COMMUNITY. UM, APPROVING IT WOULD UNDERMINE NEIGHBORHOOD STABILITY AND PROPERTY VALUES. THESE ARE OUR HOMES. WE HAVE INVESTED, THEY'RE IN MILLION DOLLAR PROPERTIES RIGHT NEXT TO THAT, UH, ENCORE ZONE, AND WE ARE VERY SCARED. WHAT, UH, ABOUT THE REZONING AND WHAT'S ALL HAPPENING THERE. UM, IT WOULD ALSO, I WOULD ALSO EMPHASIZE ALL MY, UH, NEIGHBOR'S POINTS ABOUT CHILD SAFETY, THE PART NEXT TO THAT AND, UH, THE KIDS GETTING EXPOSED TO THIS RADIATIONS. UM, SO I, I URGE, I RESPECTFULLY URGE YOU TO DENY THE REZONING REQUEST. THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON, SIR. UH, MY NAME IS NICKEL N I'M A, UH, RESIDENT OF SOUTH HAVEN COMMUNITY. SO, UH, LIKE FOUR MONTHS AGO, THIS PLACE WAS DORMANT FOR MANY YEARS, AND NOW THEY'RE BUILDING AN INDUSTRIAL SCALE SUBSTATION TO CATER CYPRUS WATERS COMMUNITY. UH, SO WE USED TO NICKNAME THIS PLACE AT JURASSIC PARK BECAUSE EVERYWHERE THERE ARE TREES, UH, SO NOW IT'S ALL BOOMING WITH CONSTRUCTION. THEY'RE BUILDING 3,600 FOOT PLUS POLES WHERE THEY DON'T REQUIRE ANY REZONING, UH, BECAUSE THEY HAVE A LEEWAY, UH, TO BUILD THAT POLES. AND THEY'RE UPGRADING AND BUILDING THIS LARGE INDUSTRIAL SCALE, UH, SUBSTATION. AND NOW THEY WANT TO COME UP WITH 200 FOOT POLE, UH, TO PUT UP THIS RADIO AND, UH, MICROWAVE COMMUNICATION DEVICES. THAT'S WHAT THEY SAY IN THE REQUEST. SO THIS IS CLOSE PROXIMITY TO OUR HOUSES. AND ALSO WE HAVE A CHILDREN'S PARK. THERE ARE 800 PEOPLE, SIR, 200 HOMES, APPROXIMATELY 800 PEOPLE, 400 UH KIDS, 400 ADULT SENIOR CITIZENS, VETERANS. UH, WE HAVE ALL SORTS OF PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY, SO KINDLY OPPOSE THIS AND, UH, NOT LET THEM. AND IT'S AN 81 ACRE PROPERTY SO THEY CAN, THEY CAN PUT THE POLE IN OTHER SIDE OF THE PROPERTY AND NOT CLOSE TO OUR HOMES. SO THIS IS GOING TO IMPACT, OUR HOME VALUES ARE GONNA PLUMMET. SO WE PAY MORE THAN 3 MILLION IN PROPERTY TAXES EVERY YEAR TO THE DALLAS COUNTY. SO WE REQUEST EVERYONE, UH, PLEASE CONSIDER THIS AND REJECT THE ZONING AND, UH, BUILDING INDUSTRIAL SCALE, UH, SUBSTATION. WE DON'T HAVE CONTROL OVER IT, WE DON'T HAVE OUR VOICE. SO IF POSSIBLE, PLEASE HELP US, PLEASE HELP THE COMMUNITY AND WE, WE REQUEST YOU ALL TO COME THERE AND WE, RESIDENTS WILL SHOW YOU WHAT'S GOING ON THERE. UH, SO PLEASE CONSIDER IT AND REJECT THIS REQUEST. THANK YOU ALL. GOOD AFTERNOON. THANK YOU, SIR. NEXT SPEAKER, PLEASE. HEY EVERYONE, UH, THANKS FOR THE OPPORTUNITY. SO, UH, MY NAME IS GANESH. YOU GOT, CAN YOU COME TO THIS? YEAH, THERE'S SOME FOLKS ONLINE THAT MUST BE ABLE TO HEAR YOU. THANK YOU. CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? THERE'S A LITTLE BUTTON THERE AT THE BASE OF THE, YES. HELLO. PERFECT, THANK YOU. YEAH. OKAY. HEY, UM, UM, THANKS EVERYONE FOR THE OPPORTUNITY. SO MY NAME IS GANESH AND, UH, I'M, I'M LEAVING THE SOUTH ASIAN COMMUNITY. AND, UM, MAINLY I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE, THE THREE POINTS, RIGHT? FIRST OF ALL, WE WANTED TO, UH, PRODUCT OUR HOMES SO WE KNOW, WE, WE GOT KNOW THAT THERE IS A, A REZONING EFFORT GOING ON, SO, WHICH IS DEFINITELY GOING TO AFFECT OUR PROPERTY VALUE. [01:45:01] SO IT'S ALL MILLION DOLLAR HOME. WE ARE, WE, WE MUST OUR LIFE, UH, LIFETIME SAVINGS. UM, SO YOU DEFINITELY WANT TO, UH, PRODUCT, UH, OUR PROPERTY VALUES. AND, UM, ALSO THERE IS A, A KIDS PARK, AS EVERYBODY EVERYBODY WAS SAYING, THERE IS A KID PARK, WHICH IS VERY CLOSE BY. AND, UM, I THINK THE, UM, UM, SO MORE TRAFFIC AND THE CONSTRUCTION. ALSO THE, UH, INDUSTRY SCALED, UH, EQUIPMENTS, THAT'S GONNA DEFINITELY PUT OUR KIDS IN DANGER. AND, UM, ALSO THE ANCHOR, I THINK THEY HAVE, UH, WE HAVE HUGE LAND, MAYBE I THINK AROUND MAYBE LIKE 80 ACRES OR SOMETHING. UH, WE ARE, WE DON'T KNOW WHY THEY'RE COMING CLOSER TO THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY INSTEAD OF, UH, GOING TOWARDS, UH, THE INSIDE OF THEIR PROPERTY. YEAH. ALRIGHT, THANKS. THANK YOU SIR. THANK YOU FOR JOINING US. GOOD AFTERNOON. CAN YOU HEAR ME? GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS KARI MLA. I RESIDE IN 1 0 7 5 KING FISHER ROAD, EXACTLY BACK OF THE TOWER. I'M STRONGLY OPPOSING THE PROPOSED REJOINING FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE TOWER AT THIS LOCATION. AS A RESIDENT OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, I DEEPLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE IMPACT ON OUR COMMUNITY. THE KEY CONCERN FOR MY THING IS THE TOWER WOULD BE ABSOLUTELY DISASTER FOR OUR COMMUNITY. BUILT RIGHT BEHIND OUR HOMES NEAR A CHILDREN'S PARK. PLEASE CONCERN THAT CHILDREN'S PARK UNDERLINE IT. THE INCREASED TRAFFIC NOISE DISTURBANCES WOULD BE UNBEARABLE. WITH ONLY ONE ENTRANCE AND EXIST, OUR COMMUNITY WOULD BE SEVERAL IMPACTED, SEVERELY IMPACTED, AND EMERGENCY SERVICES WOULD BE DE DELAYED. THIS IS A RECIPE FOR DISASTER, I WOULD SAY. EVERY DAY THEY'RE COMING AT FIVE O'CLOCK, FOUR O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING. ALL THESE DAYS WE JUST THOUGHT AS A FRIENDLY NEIGHBOR, GIVING THEM THE OPPORTUNITY. AND IT'S A SEVERE HEADACHE AND EVERYTHING DISASTER FOR ME EARLY IN THE MORNING, RATHER THAN ENJOYING THE NATURE, I GOT THIS HOUSE THINKING THAT THERE IS A GREENERY AND EVERYTHING. EVERYDAY BIG TRUCKS LOAD EVERYTHING. IT COMES. YOU IMAGINE YOU'LL BE IN MY PURE AND IMAGINE HOW IT, YOU'LL FEEL IT WHEN YOU'RE HAVING THAT HOUSE. WE ARE JUST HELPING YOU, THE DEVELOPERS TO DO IT. THE CONSTRUCTION AND OCCUPATION OF THE TOWER WOULD BRING OUR COMMUNITIES TO STAND STILL. DAILY COMMUTES WOULD BE A NIGHTMARE. SAFETY WOULD BE COMPROMISED. WE CANNOT AFFORD TO GAMBLE WITH THE WELLBEING OF OUR RESIDENTS, ESPECIALLY OUR CHILDREN. OUR NEIGHBOR WHO IS A FRIENDLY, FAMILY FRIENDLY ENVIRONMENT THAT WE FIERCELY PROTECT. THE WHO DESTROY ITS CHARACTERS HARM, PROPERTY VALUES, BENEFIT ONLY THE DEVELOPERS. WE WILL NOT STAND IDLY BY WHILE OUR COMMUNITY SACRIFICE FOR THE PROFIT. I DEMAND YOU TO REJECT THE PROPOSAL AND CONSIDER THE RELOCATING THE TOWER TO A SITE THAT DOESN'T COMPROMISE THE SAFETY AND WELLBEING OF THE COMMUNITY. WE DESERVE BETTER THAN TO BE TREATED AS A SACRIFICE ZONE. WE URGE YOU TO PLEASE PRIORITIZE OUR COMMUNITY SAFETY AND WELLBEING, REJECT THIS PROPOSAL, AND YOU EXPLORE ALTERNATIVE LOCATION. THANK YOU FOR JOINING USAM THAT DON'T PUT OUR RESIDENTS AT RISK. WE EXPECT A DECISION. THANK YOU. THAT PUTS OUR COMMUNITY FIRST. THANK YOU, SIR. THANK YOU SO MUCH. NEXT SPEAKER PLEASE. GOOD AFTERNOON, COUNCIL MEMBERS. THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK HERE. UM, MY NAME IS HARISH KRISHNAMURTHY. I RESIDE AT 1 3 2 5 BLUE GIL BAY, WHICH IS, UH, PART OF THE SAME SOUTH HAVEN COMMUNITY. AND I'D LIKE TO OPPOSE THE REQUEST AS IS, UH, FOR Z 25 0 0 0 0 6 7. I HEARD FROM THE APPLICANT THAT THE POSITION OF THE TOWER HAS BEEN STUDIED AND HAS BEEN PLACED AWAY FROM RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITIES. BUT AS PER THE MAP OF THE AREA THAT IS AVAILABLE, THIS IS ACTUALLY, YOU KNOW, I WOULD SAY THERE'S 90% MORE SPACE ON THE OTHER SIDE. AND THIS IS EXTREMELY CLOSE TO THE RESIDENCE AS YOU LOOK AT THE WHOLE AREA ITSELF, RIGHT ON THE WEST, OR I MEAN, I GET MY SIDE WRONG, BUT ON THE WEST OF THIS PROPERTY IS JUST A TRAIN STATION ON THE EAST WE HAVE THE RESIDENCES AND ON THE SOUTH IS A WATER BODY, SO THERE'S PLENTY OF SPACE ON THE OTHER SIDE TO RELOCATE THIS. AND IF IT IS INDEED THE BEST LOCATION, I WOULD REQUEST THE COUNCIL MEMBERS TO ADVISE THE APPLICANT TO PROVIDE THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTATION TO SHOWCASE THAT. AND THE SECOND REQUEST I HAVE IS AROUND THE DESIRABILITY OF THE COMMUNITY. A BUNCH OF TREES ALONG THE LINE OF THE ENTRANCE TO THE COMMUNITY HAVE BEEN CHOPPED DOWN. I REQUEST THAT, YOU KNOW, THE APPLICANT COULD PLAY PLANT SOME TREES BACK THERE TO ENSURE THAT THE DESIRABILITY OF THE RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY IS MAINTAINED. THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY. [01:50:01] THANK YOU, SIR. GOOD AFTERNOON. GOOD AFTERNOON. CAN YOU HEAR ME? YEAH. SO I'M CHRISTOPHER FROM SOUTH HAVEN COMMUNITY. SO AS MY, UH, OTHER, UH, NEIGHBORS, THEY HAVE COME, THEY HAVE CLEARLY BRIEFED OFF, BRIEFED THE PROBLEMS THAT WE WILL FACE. UH, IF WE APPROVE THIS PROPOSAL. UH, MY REQUEST IS WE HAVE LEFT OUR HOME COUNTRY AND COME HERE HOPING THAT WE GET A BETTER LIFE AND WE RAISE OUR KIDS IN A VERY GOOD ENVIRONMENT. SO NOW AFTER PUTTING OUR 20 YEARS OF SAVINGS AND ALL OUR EFFORTS TO, UM, FOR OUR KIDS, WE PURCHASED THIS HOUSE AND WE THOUGHT WE ARE SAFE. ANYTHING THAT'S IMPACTING THAT IS GOING TO BE TOUGH ON US. SO CONSIDER, PLEASE CONSIDER THIS AND, UH, REQUEST THE APPLICANT TO REZONE OR MOVE AWAY FROM THE PROPOSED SITE AT, AT THIS MOMENT. SECOND THING IS, UH, AS A, AS A RESIDENT, I HAVE STAYED HERE FOR FIVE YEARS NOW. I HAVE SEEN A HEAVY VEHICLE MOVEMENT IN THIS AREA, AND THERE ARE CONSTRUCTIONAL DAMAGES, WHICH COULD BE REPAIRED, BUT IF THERE ARE ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN IN THIS AREA, IT COULD BE A RISK FOR OUR RESIDENTS AND THE CHILDREN WHO LIVE THERE. SO I WOULD, UH, REQUEST YOU TO KINDLY CONSIDER AND, UH, MOVE THIS PROPOSED SITE TO A DIFFERENT LOCATION THAT COULD BE SAFER FOR OUR RESIDENTS. THANK YOU FOR GIVING ME THIS OPPORTUNITY. THANK YOU FOR JOINING US. IS THERE, ARE THERE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS? WE HAVE ALL MY, YES. BEFORE WE GO, OUR FOLKS ONLINE, IS THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO BE HEARD? YES. OKAY, WE'LL GO TO OUR SPEAKERS ONLINE. JORGE, CAN YOU GO AHEAD AND JUST START FROM THE TOP? I'M ON, UH, SLA, NO, THE SECOND SPEAKERS ONLINE. JORGE, NO . IS THAT HER? OKAY, WE'RE READY FOR YOUR COMMENTS. MA'AM, CAN YOU PLEASE START WITH YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD? OH, SHE'S GOT THERE. SHE'S WHO SPEAKER IS THIS ONE? WHICH ONE IS THIS ONE? JORGE. OKAY, MS. SARNIA, WE'RE READY FOR YOUR COMMENTS. YES. GOOD AFTERNOON. GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONERS. I'M SARNIA. UH, I LIVE IN 1 3 4 7 AK. I'M A RESILIENT OF SOUTH HAVEN. OURS IS A SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE FAMILIES HAVE INVESTED THEIR LIFE SAVINGS TO BUY A NEW HOME. WE CHOSE TO SAVE QUIET RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD SO OUR CHILDREN CAN GROW UP IN PEACE. BUT NOW ONCA IS TRYING TO TAKE THAT AWAY. IF YOU LOOK AT THEIR COMPREHENSIVE FORWARD DALLAS PLAN, PUBLISHED IN SEPTEMBER, 2024, IN PAGE THREE, ONCA HAD CLEARLY MENTIONED ABOUT THE FUTURE PLAN TO REZONE SOME OF OUR RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES WITHIN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD TO MIXED USE. THAT'S THEIR END GAME. WHAT THEY'RE DOING NOW IS PURELY TACTICAL, REZONING A SMALLER PIECE AND SAYING IT WON'T IMPACT OUR HOMES. BUT THEN USING THAT AS A PRECEDENT TO REZONE OUR PROPERTIES LATER. THAT'S COMPLETELY MISLEADING AND IT IS NOT A TRANSPARENT MOVE. AND HERE IS WHAT MAKES THIS EVEN WORSE. ONCA ALREADY OWNS A MASSIVE 81 ACRE PARCEL OF LAND WITH 81 ACRES. THEY CAN BUILD ANYTHING THEY WANT WITHOUT TOUCHING THE LIVES OF 200 PLUS FAMILIES. THEY HAVE THAT CHOICE, BUT INSTEAD THEY CHOSE TO BUILD INDUSTRIAL SCALE STRUCTURES RIGHT NEXT TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. THEY CHOSE TO PUSH FOR REZONING THAT STRIPS US AWAY FROM OUR PROTECTIONS JUST TO MAXIMIZE THEIR PROFIT. THIS IS NOT A RESPONSIBLE DEVELOPMENT, THIS IS PURE GREED. THIS ALSO CREATES A DIRECT SAFETY RISK. THERE IS A CHILDREN'S PARK RIGHT NEXT TO THE PROPOSED AREA WITH THIS AREA GETTING CONVERTED TO MULTI-USE WHO WILL ENSURE THE SAFETY OF OUR CHILDREN AND WHO WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FINANCIAL LAWS. WHEN OUR PROPERTY VALUES DROP, WE AS A HOMEOWNER OR NO MATCH FOR A CORPORATION LIKE KER, WE ARE TAKING CITY'S HELP. WE WANT YOU TO DO THE RIGHT THING. PROTECT US, PROTECT SOUTH HAVEN, DENY THE REZONING REQUEST, STOP THIS CORPORATE READ AND URGE ON TO MORE INDUSTRIAL SCALE STRUCTURE FROM OUR [01:55:01] NEIGHBORHOOD. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS, UM, RENA. I, UM, YES, SIR. GOOD AFTERNOON. COUNCIL MEMBERS, CAN YOU HEAR ME? HELLO? YES SIR. WE'RE READY FOR YOUR COMMENTS. OKAY, GOOD AFTERNOON, COUNCIL MEMBERS. MY NAME IS BUPA, RESIDENT OF IN SOUTH ISLAND COMMUNITY AND I'M HERE TO STRONGLY OPPOSE CASE NUMBER Z 2 5 0 0 0 0 6 7. THIS PROPOSAL IS NOT JUST ABOUT TOWER, IT IS ABOUT REZONING TACTICS THAT PUT CORPORATE CONVENIENCE AHEAD OF COMMUNITY WELLBEING. WHEN WE PURCHASED OUR HOMES, WE RELIED ON THE CITY'S RESIDENTIAL ZONING PROTECTIONS. NOW THE APPLICANT IS ASKING THE CITY TO UNDO THOSE PROTECTIONS WITHOUT A THOROUGH IMPACT ANALYSIS ON TRAFFIC, SAFETY, PROPERTY VALUES, OR THE CHARACTER OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. THAT IS SIMPLY NOT FAIR GOVERNANCE FIRST ZONING INTEGRITY ZONING EXISTS TO PRESERVE QUALITY OF LIFE IN RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITIES. APPROVING AN INDUSTRIAL SCALE TOWER WITHIN 200 FEET OF HOMES. AND OUR ONLY CHILDREN'S PARK UNDERMINES THAT VERY PURPOSE. IF REZONING CAN BE BANNED THIS EASILY. HOW CAN RESIDENTS TRUST THE CITY'S LAND USE PROMISES. SECOND PROPERTY VALUES THAT EVERYBODY TALKED ABOUT, RIGHT? WE INVESTED OUR LIFE SAVINGS IN SOUTH HAVEN. DIDN'T AGREE TO SUCCEEDED. CORPORATE PROFITS WITH THEIR OWN OWN EQUITY. IF PROPERTY VALUE FALL, WILL ENCORE COMPENSATE RESIDENTS? NO, THIS IMPACTS CITY AS WELL. LESS PROPERTY TAX TO COLLECT HUGE DEBT TO CITY AS WELL. SO WE NEED TO THINK IN THAT PERSPECTIVE. THIRD PROCESS AND TRANSPARENCY. EVEN THOUGH I'M IN RED ZONE NOTICE AREA, I HAVEN'T RECEIVED ANY INFORMATION UNTIL MY FRIENDS TALKED ABOUT IT. THE APPLICATION FAILS TO FULLY DISCLOSE FUTURE USERS. MULTI-USE TOWERS OFTEN HOST MULTIPLE CARRIERS AND EQUIPMENT MULTIPLYING IMPACTS WELL BEYOND WHAT IS CURRENTLY DESCRIBED. THIS PIECEMEAL APPROACH IS AN ENCORED TACTIC APPROVING A ZONING CHANGE. TODAY WITHOUT BEING UPFRONT ABOUT TOMORROW'S REALITIES, SOUTH AFRICAN RESIDENTS DESERVE FULL TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY BEFORE ANY SUCH DECISIONS IS MADE. LET ME BE CLEAR, SIR, WE ARE NOT OPPOSED TO BETTER COMMUNICATIONS INFRASTRUCTURE. THAT'S YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. WE'RE TO THE WRONG LOCATION AND WRONG PROCESS. THANK YOU FOR JOINING US, SIR. THANK YOU. UM, THANK YOU. VIAL KAZA. OKAY. VIAL KAZA. I'M HERE. I HAVE A PRESENTATION TO SHARE. LET ME KNOW WHEN YOU CAN SEE MY SCREEN. WE CAN SEE IT. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. HELLO EVERYONE. UH, GOOD AFTERNOON COUNSEL. MY NAME IS, UH, AL KAZA AND MY ADDRESS IS 1 0 6 3 1 KINGFISHER ROAD. KAEL. I LIVED IN THE SOUTH HAVEN COMMUNITY FOR FOUR YEARS WITH MY WIFE AND NOW HAVE, UH, TWO YOUNG CHILDREN, FIVE AND TWO. AND MY IN-LAWS LIVE WITH US. I'M HERE TO SPEAK AGAINST THE PROPOSED ZONING AMENDMENT AND THE 200 FOOT CELL TOWER. AS YOU CAN SEE ON THIS MAP HERE, THIS IS WHERE THE TOWER, THE PROPOSED TOWER LOCATION IS. AND THIS IS WHERE OUR HOMES ARE. OUR CHILDREN'S PARK IS, UH, ABOUT 80 FEET, 80 METERS AWAY. AND THE CLOSEST HOME THAT MR. PROVINCE SPOKE TODAY, HIS HOME IS LESS THAN 80 FEET AND MY HOME 80 METERS, AND MY HOME IS 180 METERS. AND THIS IS ANOTHER VIEW OF THE SAME, UH, CONSTRUCTION, UH, AREA. THIS IS WHERE THE TOWER IS PROPOSED, AND THIS IS WHERE OUR HOMES ARE. AND RIGHT NEXT TO THIS IS OUR CHILDREN'S PARK. UM, ALONG WITH THIS, UH, THE WORK THAT HAS BEEN DONE SO FAR WITH HEAVY CONSTRUCTION HAS DESTROYED OUR SIDEWALKS, UH, CURBS AND LANDSCAPE. THIS HAS BEEN A VERY UNSAFE, UH, PATH FOR OUR CHILDREN AND SENIOR CITIZENS. WALKING AND REPAIR COSTS HAVE, UM, YOU KNOW, ULTIMATELY FALLEN IN THE RESIDENCE OR THE CITY. UH, REDUCING OUR PROPERTY VALUES, NOT JUST THAT THE TOWER SITS IN A GREEN SPACE, WHICH HAS DISRUPTED THE WILDLIFE. UH, AND THERE'S A HUGE SIX FOOT SNAKE IN OUR BACKYARD. I'VE SEEN A BUNCH OF OTHER WILDLIFE THAT'S BEEN, UH, GOING IN OUR, UH, BACKYARDS LATELY. ALONG WITH THAT, LARGE TRUCKS ARE USING OUR RESIDENTIAL STREETS CAUSING CONGESTION AND HAZARDS. THERE'S A BIG TRUCK STUCK IN OUR ENTRANCE FOR A COUPLE OF HOURS, AND THEN OTHER TRUCKS, UH, DRAWING WATER FROM OUR FIGHT HYDRANTS AND LEAVING THE SIDEWALK SLIPPERY, UH, AND DISRUPTIVE. MY KEY CONCERNS TO SUMMARIZE ARE FOURFOLD, WHICH IS HEALTH RISK, ESPECIALLY FOR OUR CHILDREN AND SENIORS. AND AN ESTIMATED 10 TO 20% DROP FOR THE HOMES NEAR OUR CELL TOWER. DAMAGE TO THE AESTHETICS, GREEN SPACE AND WILDLIFE AND MENTAL STRESS OF LIVING UNDER A TOWER. WHAT WE ASK IS TO RELOCATE THE TOWER. THAT'S YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, SIR. UH, A [02:00:01] J CHOW HUNT. YES, SIR. YES. I GIMME A SECOND. I NEED TO SHARE SOMETHING. PLEASE LET ME KNOW WHEN YOU'RE ABLE TO SEE. WE CAN SEE YOUR PRESENTATION, BUT YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO SPEAK UP. WE, WE DON'T QUITE HEAR YOU. YEAH, SURE. THAT'S GOOD. THANK YOU. YEAH. GOOD AFTERNOON. UH, MY NAME IS AJI JOHAN AND I'M A RESIDENT OF SOUTH EVEN COMMUNITY. I'M HERE TODAY REPRESENTING MANY OF MY NEIGHBORS WHO HAVE REGISTERED A STRONG OPPOSITION. WE ARE DEEPLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE PROPOSED TOWER BEING PLACED RIGHT NEXT TO OUR HOMES AND THE CHILDREN PARK. AS WE CAN SEE IN THE VISUAL HERE, THE CURRENT LOCATION OF THE TOWER IS HERE, BUT THE NOW PROPOSED IS CLOSER TO THE COMMUNITY, WHICH IS LIKE RIGHT NEXT TO OUR DOORSTEPS, TO THE CHILDREN'S PARK AND OUR NEIGHBORS, UH, IF YOU CAN SEE, THERE ARE PROPO, LIKE THE POWER LINES, WHICH ARE HIGH TENSION POWER LINES ALREADY GOING ACROSS OUR COMMUNITY, AROUND OUR COMMUNITY. SO I RESPECTFULLY URGE YOU TO DENY THIS CHANGE, BUT IF THE COMMISSION DECIDES THE PROJECT MUST MOVE FORWARD, WE PROPOSE A CONSTRUCTIVE ALTERNATIVE, MOVE THE TOWER, AT LEAST, UH, TO THE CURRENT LOCATION. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR JOINING US. UH, AB HI. GOOD AFTERNOON. THANK YOU FOR GIVING US THE OPPORTUNITY. I'M BENZI ABULA. I'M A RESIDENT OF 1350 BLUE GALE BAY ROAD. I STRONGLY OPPOSE, UH, THE, UH, THE PROPOSAL OF THE CELL TOWER, THE CASE NUMBER Z 25 0 0 0 0 6 7. AS A RESIDENT AND WITH ALL OTHER RESIDENTS IN THE COMMUNITY, UH, WE URGE TO TAKE A ALTERNATIVE MEASURES. AS YOU SAID, WE ARE NOT OPPOSING TO BUILD A COMMUNICATION TOWER, BUT WE ARE TRYING TO CHANGE THE LOCATIONS, MAKE AS A SAFE LOCATION FOR THE CHILDREN AND THE COMMUNITY MEMBERS AND COMMUNITY RESIDENTS SO THAT WE DO NOT FACE ANY PROBLEMS TODAY AND IN FUTURE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR JOINING US. UH, SIVA RAM KRISHNA. WE'RE READY FOR YOUR COMMENTS. SIVA, RAM KRISHNA. GOOD AFTERNOON COUNCIL MEMBERS. THANK YOU FOR GIVING US AN OPPORTUNITY, OPPORTUNITY TO TALK ABOUT, UH, UH, OUR, UH, DECISION, UH, IN TERMS OF, UH, APPROVING OR OPPOSING. SO WE STRONGLY OPPOSE, UH, CONSTRUCTION OF AND, UH, UH, ON CONSTRUCTION AND REZONING. AND, UH, THIS IS, UH, PURELY, UH, A SAFETY RISK FOR OUR FAMILIES, UH, RESIDING IN THIS COMMUNITY. AND ALSO, YOU KNOW, PROPERTY, YOU KNOW, VALUES DECLINE, UH, YOU KNOW, TO THE TUNE OF 20%. UM, BECAUSE WE HAVE INVESTED OUR, UH, YOU KNOW, EARNED MONEY HERE AND CONSIDERING THIS SAFE FOR ZONE. UH, WE'VE BEEN LIVING HERE FOR THE LAST FOUR YEARS. WE NEVER SAW THIS KIND OF DISRUPTION UNTIL CONCOR STARTED ALL THIS CONSTRUCTION IN THE LAST, UH, FEW WEEKS OR SO. AND, UH, HAVING SAID THAT, WE, I THINK CONCORD HAS GOT ABOUT 85 ACRE LAND OVER THERE. AND PROBABLY OUR REQUEST WOULD BE TO FIND AN ALTERNATE LOCATION RATHER THAN BUILDING THESE CLOSE TO OUR RESERVATION PROPERTIES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR JOINING USAD. OKAY. YEAH, GOOD AFTERNOON. CAN YOU GUYS HEAR ME? GOOD AFTERNOON. OH, THANK YOU VERY MUCH, UH, FOR GIVING ME A FEW MINUTES. SO, UM, MY NAME IS AAD BUSH. I HAVE BEEN LIVING HERE IN THIS COMMUNITY FOR THE PAST FOUR YEARS PLUS. AND, UM, I'M, I LIVE ON THE KINGFISHER ROAD VERY CLOSE TO THE LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED TAVR. UM, NOW A LOT OF THE POINTS THAT I WANTED TO COVER HAVE ALREADY BEEN COVERED, SO LET ME NOT REPEAT THOSE POINTS. SO I WILL FOCUS ON A COUPLE OF THINGS. ONE IS THE CHILDREN'S PARK. THE CHILDREN'S PARK IS VERY CLOSE TO THE PROPOSED SITE FOR THE NEW TOWER. UM, AS DATA HAS BEEN CONVEYED TO YOU BY SLIDES, UM, YOU CAN EASILY VISUALIZE THIS ABOUT THE SAFETY OF OUR KIDS. UH, THAT'S NUMBER ONE. NUMBER TWO, THE IMPORTANT THING IS THIS IS HAD, IS IF THIS PROJECT IS GOING TO GO AHEAD IN THIS FORM, IT'S GOING TO RESULT IN DROP OF THE PROPERTY VALUES. HOW MUCH I DO NOT KNOW RIGHT NOW, BUT DEFINITELY IT'S GOING TO, UH, AFFECT THE PROPERTY VALUES. NOW WE HAVE INVESTED OUR LIFE SAVING EARNINGS AND COME HERE TO THE LEVEL. AND I REMEMBER WHEN WE CAME IN, IT WAS LIKE A GREEN BELT [02:05:01] FULL OF TREES. WE HAVE RECENTLY SEEN TREES ALSO BEING COLD, UM, IN THAT AREA, WHICH WAS PORTRAYED BEFORE. AND THEN, UH, THE OTHER THING IS, UH, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, ENCORE HAS A PARCEL OF 81 PLUS, UM, A GROWTH LAND. WE'RE NOT OPPOSED TO THE MODERNIZATION OF COMMUNICATION FACILITIES AS WAS PRESENTED BY THE REPRESENTATIVE IN THE BEGINNING. ALL WE ARE SAYING IS IF THEY CAN RELOCATE THE LOCATION OF THE TOWER TO A SAFER DISTANCE FROM OUR BORDERS, FROM OUR COMMUNITY, SO THAT IT'S GOING TO BE A SITUATION, NOT ONLY FOR THE CORPORATE WORLD, BUT ALSO FOR US, WE LIVING HERE. UH, AND, AND THEN AT THE SAME TIME WE'RE WILLING TO COOPERATE WITH THEM. SO COMMUNICATION IN, IN, IN THE FORM OF MAIL LETTERS. THAT'S YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, SIR. APPRECIATE IT. UH, GO. NO. OKAY. WE'LL GO WITH, UH, SENATE. OKAY. MY NAME IS, UH, RENEE WATSON BI AND I LIVE IN 1 0 6 1 KINGFISHER ROAD, COPPEL, TEXAS 7 5 0 1 9. RESPECTED CITY COMMISSIONERS AND COUNCIL MEMBERS. I LY OPPOSED THE PROPOSED ZONING CHANGE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS. SOME OTHER REASONS HAVE BEEN VERY EXCELLENTLY BEAUTIFULLY EXPRESSED BY MY COLLEAGUES LIVING HERE. BUT THEN AGAIN, THE FREQUENCY OF THE RADIO WAVES AND THE MICROWAVE, UH, COVERS IT MAY CAUSE SERIOUS EFFECTS INCLUDING HEADACHES, SLEEP DISORDERS, GENETIC CHANGES, GENETIC DAMAGES THAT IS UNDESIRABLE, CHANGES TO THE REPRODUCTIVE SYSTEM AND DAMAGE TO THE CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM. I'M MYSELF, 79 YEARS OLD AND I'M TRULY AFRAID THAT MY NERVOUS SYSTEM WILL BE GONE. I'LL BE AT THE END OF THE ROAD TOO. THE CHILDREN AT THE SOUTH HAVEN THERE OF FUTURE AND, UH, BELIEVE ALL THE HONORABLE MEMBERS, COUNCIL MEMBERS, AND THE COMMISSIONERS. IF YOU LIVE HERE, YOU WILL KNOW THE VALUE OF OUR CHILDREN. AS I SAID, THE PROLONGED EXPOSURE TO THIS RACE, THE CHILDREN WILL BE SUBJECT TO BEHAVIORAL PROBLEMS. AND, UH, WHAT MORE BRAIN TUMOR. THERE IS NO CONCLUSIVE STUDY OF THESE THINGS. BUT THEN I HAVE ENOUGH SCIENTIFIC STUDIES. I HAVE ENOUGH COLLEAGUES IN WHO ARE MDS. THEY HAVE SUGGESTED THAT THE BRAIN TUMOR IS A DISTANT POSSIBILITY. THESE ISSUES AFFECTING OUR CHILDREN ARE OF PARAMOUNT SIGNIFICANCE TO US AS THESE CHILDREN AGAIN OR OF OUR FUTURE. YOU HAVE YOUR FUTURE AND YOUR CHILDREN, AND WE HAVE IN OUR, UH, DISTINGUISHED MEMBERS, THE CHILDREN'S PARK IS LOCATED RATHER CLOSE TO THE PROPOSED TO TOWER. THEY DON'T WANT OUR CHILDREN TO BE THE MAIN VICTIMS OF THE PROPOSED ZONING, CHANGE TECH ISSUES. THERE IS A RISK OF POWER SUGGEST AFFECTING OUR DESKTOPS, LAPTOPS, AND CELL PHONES, AMONG OTHER THINGS. THESE DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY WILL AFFECT THE LIKELIHOOD AS MOST OF US LIVE HERE. AND THAT'S YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR JOINING US. THANK YOU, SIR. THANK YOU FOR JOINING US. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU, SIR. UH, RAVI MANAVA, WELCOME. OKAY, RAVI MANAVA. MANAVA, ARE YOU ON? OKAY, WE'LL COME BACK. HOW ABOUT THE NEXT SPEAKER? ANTE? NO. HOW ABOUT, UH, URI? OKAY. YES, I'M HERE. YES, WE'RE READY FOR YOUR COMMENTS. UH, UH, HIM, UH, THANK YOU FOR GIVING OPPORTUNITY. MY NAME IS . I HOPE YOU CAN SEE MY SCREEN. UH, MY, MY FACE. UM, SO, UH, JUST WANT TO EMPHASIZE, UH, SO I LIVE ON, UH, ON THE SAME COMMUNITY, 1, 3, 5, 6 . UM, AND THEN FIRST THING I WANT TO, UH, THE, THE PRESENCE OF THE SELLER TRAVEL CAN LEAD TO A NOTABLE DEC DECLINE IN PROPERTY VALUES. THAT IS WHAT I [02:10:01] OBSERVED. AND I BEING A REALTOR, PRACTICING FOR, UH, ON THE REAL AND THE REALTY. THEN I, I BELIEVE THE SAME THING BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, AFTER THE NUMEROUS STUDIES I'VE SHOWN THAT, YOU KNOW, HOMES ARE LOCATED HERE. SUCH STRUCTURES OFTEN SAY DECREASE DEMAND AS POTENTIAL BIAS ARE, TEND TO INVEST IN PRIORITIES, PROPERTIES THAT COME WITH THE STIGMA OF LIVING NEAR T. THIS DECLINE ISN'T JUST A MINOR INCONVENIENCE. IT CAN HAVE A LASTING EFFECTS ON OUR COMMUNITIES. FINANCIAL HEALTH. A DECREASE IN PROPERTY VALUES IMPACTS NOT ONLY HOMEOWNERS, BUT ALSO LOCAL BUSINESS AND THE OVERALL ECONOMIC VITALITY OF OUR AREA. SO, LIKE SOMEBODY ELSE ALSO MENTIONED THAT, YOU KNOW, WE ARE CONTRIBUTE ALMOST $3 MILLION ABOVE MORE THAN A $3 MILLION TO THE CITY. SO DEFINITELY WE HAVE A SIGNIFICANT VOICE ON THIS MATTER. UM, MORE OF, UM, UH, MORE OF THE NECESSITY OF REGION TO ACCOMMODATE THIS TOWER ADDITIONAL RED FLAG. SO REASONING OFTEN ALTERS THE CHARACTER, OUR COMMUNITY, PAVING THE WAY FOR FURTHER DEVELOPMENTS THAT MAY NOT ALIGN WITH OUR VALUES OR AESTHETIC PREFERENCES. THIS CHANGE COULD LEAD TO A DOMINANT EFFECT RESULTING IN A MORE COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL STRUCTURES THAT REPLACE THE RESIDENTIAL AND NATURAL SPACES WHICH WISH. SO WE MUST, WE MUST CONSIDER THE LONG TERM IMPLICATIONS OF SUCH SIGNIFICANT SHIFT IN OUR JOINING LOSS. ALLOWING THIS TOWER COULD SET US PRECEDENT FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS THAT PRIORITIZE PROFIT OR THE WELLBEING OF OUR COMMUNITY, ULTIMATELY DIMINISHING THE QUALITY OF LIFE WE ALL ENJOY. UH, THANK YOU FOR GIVING THIS OPPORTUNITY. I HOPE. I THINK, UH, UH, YOU'LL RECONSIDER THIS. UH, AND THEN WE'LL, UH, UH, UH, PROPOSE FOR A RELOCATION OF THE TOWER TO A DIFFERENT, UH, UH, LO LOCATION. UH, THANK YOU. THANK YOU, SIR. UH, RANA, BOTH WHO, NO. HOW ABOUT, UH, NAVEEN? OKAY, GOOD AFTERNOON. GOOD AFTERNOON COUNCIL MEMBERS. THANKS FOR THE OPPORTUNITY. SO, AS MY OTHER, UH, NI NEIGHBOR STATED, MORE OF FAVORABLE LINE TOUCH, EVERYONE'S BUSY. IT'S A ISSUE THAT TOUCHING EVERYONE'S LIFE, ALL THE 200 FAMILIES WITHIN THE COMMUNITY, WHICH IS CHANGING THE WHOLE, UH, APPEARANCE OF THE COMMUNITY. RIGHT NOW, WE ARE ALREADY BOMBARDED WITH THE LOCAL TRAIN COMING ALREADY THERE, A POWER STATION GOING ON TOP OF THAT. WE ARE HAVING THIS ONE, UH, LIKE OUR, LIKE OUR GRANDMOTHER SAY, OR ANYBODY SAY, WE DON'T, WE DON'T, WE DON'T SEE THE ISSUE UNTIL WE STEP INTO THOSE SHOES, RIGHT? SO IN TWO MINUTES TIME, IT MAY BE A LOT OF EMOTIONS. IT MAY BE SAID, WELL SAID, WELL, ART ARTICULATED OR NOT. BUT IT'S A ISSUE GOING TO BE IN A MAMMO INTENSITY THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN. WE DON'T SEE THE INTENT UNTIL WE STEP OUT OF THIS BUILDING. AND SEE, IT MAY BE TOO SMALL ENOUGH TIME TO EXPRESS EVERYTHING IN TWO SEC, TWO MINUTES TIME, DEAR COUNCIL MEMBERS. BUT THE ADDITION YOU TAKE TODAY IS OF PARAMOUNT IMPORTANCE, WHICH IS GOING TO IMPACT 200 KIDS' LIFE? AND ONE SIMPLE QUESTION, DO WE, DO WE GIVE THE SAME PERMISSION TO BUILD A CELL TOWER NEXT TWO YEAR SCHOOL, ELEMENTARY SCHOOL? WHY DO WE SAY YES THEN WE ARE GOOD. BUT IF YOU SAY, NOT IF YOUR SCHOOL, IF YOUR SCHOOL CANNOT HAVE THIS VIA HOME, THE KIDS AND THE FAMILIES AROUND CAN HAVE THIS SO CLOSE TO THE HOMES. SO IT, IT'S NOT ADDITION NOT TO BE TAKEN BY BOOKS OR PAPERS, BUT IT HAS TO BE TAKEN BY SEEING IN REALITY IS WHAT I BELIEVE. SO WHAT ISSUE YOU TAKE TODAY IS OF PARAMOUNT IMPORTANCE AND STATING IT AGAIN, WHICH HAS TO BE STUDIED IN A DEEPER MANNER RATHER THAN JUST BY NUMBERS AND NOT BY, UH, STATING THE NU WHICH STUDIES, WHICH IS NOT EVEN WELL STUDIED YET. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR JOINING US. UH, ANI. HELLO, UH, GOOD AFTERNOON EVERYONE. UM, MY NAME IS RAG ANI. I LIVE IN THE SOUTH HAVEN COMMUNITY. UM, MY REQUEST IS TO DENY THIS AMENDMENT AS WRITTEN AND, UH, I WANT TO PUT STRONG CONDITIONS TO PROTECT, UH, THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE CHILDREN. THIS, THIS AMENDMENT ALLOWS A RADIO, UH, TOWER, A MICROWAVE, CELLULAR TOWER, UP 200 FEET TODAY, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 9 42 FUNCTIONS AS A RESIDENTIAL PD WITH GUARDRAILS. HEIGHT IS TIED TO THE NEARBY HOMES THROUGH RPS, AND THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN PROVIDES TRANSPARENCY ON SITING GOVERNMENT WOULD REMOVE THOSE PROTECTIONS COMPLETELY EXEMPTING THE TOWER FROM THE RPS AND ELIMINATING THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN. THERE IS A CHILDREN'S PARK NEXT DOOR. RIGHT NEXT TO THIS SITE IS A PUBLIC PARK WHERE CHILDREN'S PLAY DAILY. A 200 FOOT TOWER, UH, OBVIOUSLY RAISES SAFETY CONCERNS. IF A TOWER EVER FAIL IN A STORM, THE PARK WOULD BE DIRECTLY IN HARM'S WAY. AND THEN THERE IS A LOSS OF RPS PROTECTION. RPS CITY'S MAIN TOOL TO KEEP TALL STRUCTURES APPROPRIATELY SCALED, UH, NEAR HOMES AND PARKS AND EXEMPTION WOULD REMOVE THAT SAFEGUARD BY RIGHT INTENSITY. THE, TODAY IN THE, IN OUR WHATEVER LETTERS [02:15:01] WE GOT, WE WERE TALKED ABOUT ONLY THE RADIO, THE MICROWAVE TOWER. NOW, THE AMENDMENT SAYS ABOUT PUTTING SOLAR TOWERS ON, ALSO ON THE, ON THE MICROWAVE TOWER, AND BY ALSO ADDING BY RIGHT INTENSITY. EXPANDING THE PERMISSION MEANS LESS OVERSIGHT AND FEWER OPPORTUNITIES TO MITIGATE ANY IMPACTS. THE 200 FEET IS EXCESSIVE, A BLANKET ENTITLEMENT O OBVIOUSLY IGNORES NEIGHBORHOOD'S CHARACTER VISIBILITY AND FALL ZONE. I WOULD ACTUALLY PROPOSE TO PUT ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS ON THIS, UH, TO KEEP THE, TO ACTUALLY RESTRICT ANY OTHER, UH, UH, TOWERS CLOSE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. PUT, UH, ENFORCE THE, KEEP, THE RPS, UH, RESTRICT, UH, LOWER THE CAP OF THAT ONE 50 TO SOME LOWER FEET, AT LEAST 500 FEET FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, THAT WOULD ACTUALLY, UH, HELP THE COMMUNITY TO NOT COME UP. THAT'S YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. UH, THANK YOU FOR JOINING US. THANK YOU, SIR. THANK YOU. UH, VAN SUE RELA. YEAH. ARE YOU ABLE TO HEAR ME, SIR? YES, WE CAN. THANK YOU. YEAH. UH, GOOD AFTERNOON, UH, UH, COUNCILMAN AND, UH, UH, CHAIRMAN, SIR. UH, MY NAME IS RELA. I LIVE IN, UH, SOUTH HAVEN AND ESPECIALLY IN KINGFISHER. THAT'S AT, UH, UH, RIGHT NEXT TO THE PROPOSAL. TOJO CHANGE. IT'S JUST 20 FEET FROM MY, UH, LIKE, YOU KNOW, THE HOME, UH, AND LIKE, YOU KNOW, THE PROPOSED TOWER. IT'S JUST LESS THAN A HUNDRED FEET FROM MY HOME. AND, UH, OR WHATEVER THE GREENERY THAT I HAD WHEN I WAS JOINED THIS COMMUNITY, IT'S ALL GONE. AND, UH, UH, IT'S LIKE, YOU KNOW, JUST, UH, STRUCTURES THAT I SEE RIGHT NOW ABOUT, UH, LIKE, YOU KNOW, UM, FROM, UH, MY BACKYARD, UH, OF, UH, UH, THE ELECTRICITY, UH, LIKE, YOU KNOW, NEW SUBSTATION, CONSTRUCTION. AND, UH, LIKE, YOU KNOW, THIS, THIS POSES A SIGNIFICANT REDUCTION IN THE PROPERTY VALUES, UH, OF, UH, PROPERTY. AND LIKE, YOU KNOW, NOT ONLY MINE, UH, THE, ALL THE, LIKE, YOU KNOW, THE, AT LEAST, UH, SOUTH HAVEN COMMUNITY. AND IT'S GOING TO BE LIKE IN A HUGE IMPACT TO THE, UH, DALLAS, UH, COUNTY, UH, LIKE, YOU KNOW, PROPERTY, UH, TAXES. SO I WOULD, UH, REQUEST COUNCILMAN TO CONSIDER THIS AND REJECT THIS, UH, PROPOSAL TO, UH, MAKE THE JOURNEY CHANGE AND MOVE THE TOWER AWAY FROM THE HOMES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. UH, NANA KAURI? YEAH, I HAVE A PRESENTATION. HI. GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS NANA KAURI, RESIDING IN 1 0 5 6 2 DUCKLING DRIVE. UH, I'M A VICE PRESIDENT OF SOUTH HAVEN COMMUNITY HOA, AND I'M HERE TODAY TO OPPOSE THE PROPOSED ZONING CHANGE THAT WOULD INCREASE THE MAXIMUM TOWER HEIGHT FROM TO 200 FEET, WITH ONLY TWO 90 FEET FOOT SETBACK FROM NORTH LAKE ROAD. THIS IS EXTREMELY CLOSE TO THE ROAD AND OUR COMMUNITY CHILDREN'S PARK, WELL NEAR THE POTENTIAL FALL ZONE, IT POSES A CLEAR SAFETY RISK TO OUR COMMUNITY. WE STRONGLY REQUEST THAT ANY TOWER BE SET BACK AT LEAST FOUR 50 FEET FROM BOTH RESIDENTIAL HOMES AND NORTH LAKE ROAD. WITH THIS BIG TOWER COMING SO CLOSE TO THE COMMUNITY, OUR PROPERTY VALUES WILL GO DOWN, WHICH WILL HAVE FINANCIAL IMPACT ON THE RESIDENTS. AND OUR SOUTH HAVEN COMMUNITY WITH HOMES IS IN A UNIQUE POSITION. OUR ONLY ENTRANCE IS THROUGH DALLAS CITY LIMITS. WHILE OUR UTILITIES ARE IN IRVING AND OUR SCHOOLS AND POSTAL SERVICE ARE IN COPAL, THAT ONE ENTRANCE IS VITAL FOR US, BUT IT ALREADY HAS SIGNIFICANT TRAFFIC ISSUES. THERE IS NO DEDICATED RIGHT TURN LANE AND NO TRAFFIC LIGHT AT THE INTERSECTION, WHICH LEADS TO SUDDEN STOPS AND BACKUPS. WITH THE UPCOMING DARK SILVER LINE, THIS CONGESTION WILL ONLY GET WORSE, AND ANY BLOCKAGE WOULD TRAP RESIDENTS IN OR OUT. AND, UH, THERE IS A PEDESTRIAN SAFETY CONCERN ALSO, BECAUSE WITH THESE TRUCKS, WE DON'T HAVE ANY PATHWAY FOR WALKER AND COMMUTERS TO REACH THE CHAMPION TRAIL. EXTENDING IT TO SHORT DISTANCE TO OUR COMMUNITY ENTRANCE WOULD SAFELY CONNECT OUR RESIDENTS AND DART USERS TO THE TRAIL. WITHOUT IT, PEDESTRIANS ARE FORCED TO WALK DANGEROUSLY ON THE ROAD. AND WE ALSO HAVE SEEN IMPACT OF HEAVY CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC. THE RECENT RO OF AN ENCORED SUBSTATION NEARBY HAS BOUGHT LARGE TRUCKS DOWN NORTH LAKE ROAD, OUR ONLY ACCESS ROAD. LAST MONTH, ONE TRUCK MERELY BLOCKED THE ENTIRE ENTRANCE, LEAVING ONLY A NARROW SPACE FOR CASH TO PASS. EVEN THOUGH OUR COMMUNITY IS UNDER THE CITY OF IRVING. ADDITION MADE HERE IN DALLAS DIRECTLY AFFECT OUR SAFETY AND QUALITY OF LIFE. I URGE YOU TO PROTECT THE RESIDENTS BY REQUESTING THAT'S YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. BACK AND VOTING [02:20:01] AGAINST AS ZONING CLINIC. THANK YOU FOR THE TIME. THANK YOU FOR JOINING US. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS, UH, CAN YOU HEAR ME? WE CAN. OKAY. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS AFR KAIA, AND I LIVE, UH, IN ON 1380 HORSETAIL PLACE IN SOUTH HAVEN. UH, MY MAIN CONCERN WITH THE, UH, POWER, UH, THE CON THE TOWER COMING UP IS ITS PROXIMITY TO THE MR. JOSEPH, PLEASE. WE, WE CAN'T SEE YOU, SIR. PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT YOUR CAMERA IS ON. WE, WE HAVE TO BE ABLE TO SEE YOU. CAN YOU ME NOW? CAN YOU SEE ME NOW? I DON'T THINK WE CAN. CAN YOU SEE HIM, JORGE? NO, WE CANNOT SEE YOU, SIR. OKAY, HOLD ON ONE SECOND. LET ME, LET ME CLICK ON THIS. WHAT ABOUT NOW? NO, THERE WE GO. WE CAN SEE YOU NOW. OKAY, EXCELLENT. AND IT JUST WENT OFF, SO MY , THERE WE GO. YOU'RE BACK ON. OKAY. SO MY MAIN CONCERN HERE IS THE PROXIMITY TO THE, UH, CHILDREN'S PARK. UM, I, I REQUEST, UH, ENCORE AND, AND, YOU KNOW, THE CITY OF DALLAS TO, UM, TO, UH, NOT PASS THIS, UH, ZONING CHANGE UNLESS THEY DECIDE TO MOVE THE, UM, UH, TOWER LOCATION A BIT FURTHER AWAY FROM OUR PROPERTY AND, AND, YOU KNOW, UH, MAKE, MAKE THINGS, UH, SAFER FOR THE, UH, PEOPLE WALKING AROUND IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD, LIVING IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD AND, UH, AND, UH, THE PARK. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, SIR. UM, URI S OH, YOU ALREADY SPOKE. OKAY. THANK YOU. SORRY. UH, SO WE'LL, WAS IT JORGE WHO WE MISSED? YES. SO GOOD, GOOD AFTERNOON, UH, SIR. UM, SO, UH, I'M, UH, LIVING AT, UM, CANOE DRIVE, UH, PART OF, UH, SOUTH EVENT COMMUNITY. SO I JUST WANT TO ADD TWO POINTS, RIGHT? THE FIRST POINT IS, UM, WHATEVER COULD BE THE TECHNICAL PARAMETERS FOR THE, UH, TOWERS THAT ARE, UH, THAT IS PROPOSED SO CLOSE TO OUR, UH, COMMUNITY, UM, THE PERSISTENT RADIATION, RIGHT? SO, UM, UH, THERE IS NO, UM, LIKE, UM, UH, UM, PROVEN, UM, LIKE THE PERSISTENT RADIATION TO THE COMMUNITY, UH, COULD IMPACT OUR, UH, UH, LIFESTYLE, UH, COULD IMPACT OUR LI LIVELIHOOD. AND, UM, UM, UM, SO WE WOULD REQUEST, UM, A MOVE THE TOWER AWAY FROM OUR RESIDENCE, UH, RESIDENCES. AND, UH, SECOND THING IS, SECOND THING IS WE, UH, ALSO WANT, UH, A BUFFER ZONE, UH, BECAUSE THE, THE REZONING IS, UH, PROPOSED VERY CLOSE TO OUR, UH, BACKYARDS, RIGHT? FOR, FOR THE ENTIRE KING FISHER COMMUNITY OR THE, SOME PART OF THE CANOE DRIVE. SO IT'S PROPOSED VERY CLOSE TO OUR COMMUNITY. SO, UH, WE WOULD REQUEST, UH, CONSIDER A ZONING, UH, THAT COULD AVOID, UH, LIKE WILDLIFES ALSO FLOODING INTO THE RESIDENCES AND GIVE THEM SOME, UM, UH, UH, LIKE, UH, ZONE, RIGHT? SO THAT, UH, UH, THE, THE, UH, ANY FUTURE PROPOSALS, RIGHT? ANY NEW, UH, UH, AMENDMENTS TO THESE LOCATIONS DON'T AFFECT OUR RESIDENCES IN THE FUTURE AS WELL. AND, UH, ONE MORE POINT IS, UM, THERE ARE ALREADY HIGH TENSION LINES, UH, RUNNING ACROSS OUR COMMUNITY. SO, UH, AND THIS NEW PROPOSED ZONE IS COVERING THE OTHER SIDE OF THE COMMUNITY. SO WE ARE ALREADY, UM, UH, UH, LIKE, UH, UH, ALMOST, UH, UH, TWO THIRD OF OUR COMMUNITY IS COMPLETELY SURROUNDED BY THIS HIGH TENSION LINES AND, UH, RADIO TRANSMISSION TOWERS AND ALL THAT. SO, UH, THE, THIS WILL, UH, AFFECT US, UH, LIKE OUR PROPERTY VALUES AS OUR, UH, NEIGHBORS MENTIONED ALREADY. SO WE REQUEST YOU TO, UH, RECONSIDER THIS PROPOSAL AND, UH, TAKE NECESSARY ACTIONS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, SIR. JORGE, DID WE MISS ANYBODY ELSE? OKAY, WE'RE READY FOR THE APPLICANT FOR THE TWO MINUTE REBUTTAL. UM, I APPRECIATE THE NEIGHBOR'S COMMENTS. I'D LIKE TO OFFER SOME CLARIFICATIONS. UM, THE TOWER IS DESIGNED TO HAVE A FALL ZONE. IT IS DESIGNED TO CRUMPLE WHEN THERE'S STRONG WINDS OR SOME SORT OF DAMAGE. THE TOWER WILL NOT FALL 200 FEET STRAIGHT DOWN. UM, THE LOCATION IS THE BEST LOCATION TO BE FURTHEST AWAY FROM THE RESIDENTIAL. THERE ARE THREE VIABLE SITES. ONCE YOU CONSIDER THE FULL DEVELOPMENT OF THE SUBSTATION, WHICH IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION, THIS IS THE FURTHEST LOCATION FROM RESIDENTIAL USES. UM, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THIS HAS BEEN AN ELECTRICAL [02:25:01] SUBSTATION SITE SINCE THE 1950S. UM, THE PD FOR 9 42 WAS PUT IN PLACE IN, UH, 2016, AND I BELIEVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD WAS BUILT IN 2020. UM, THERE ARE TWO ACCESS POINTS FOR THE SITE ON BELTLINE ROAD AND TWO ACCESS POINTS ON NORTH LAKE ROAD. UM, AND WITH THAT, I'LL TAKE ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UH, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION COMMISSIONERS? I JUST WANTED, UH, PETITION TO ANSWER ONE MORE QUESTION. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MA'AM. THANK YOU. WE'RE, WE'RE PAST THE QUESTION NOW. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. COMMISSIONER CARPENTER? YES, IN THE MATTER OF CASES Z DASH 25 DASH 0 0 0 0 6 7, I MOVE THAT WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND FOLLOW STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL SUBJECT TO AN AMENDED DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND AMENDED CONDITIONS. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER FOR YOUR MOTION COMMISSIONER HOUSE, RIGHT FOR YOUR SECOND COMMENTS, QUESTIONS FOR ANY OF OUR SPEAKERS DISCUSSION, I WILL START US OFF. UH, MS. ALTO, CAN YOU HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU? DO, DO YOU HAVE A, UH, THE SITE MAP THAT SHOWS THE, THE AREA, KIND OF LIKE THE AREA MAP THAT INCLUDES, UM, UM, MS. GARZA, CAN YOU A SATELLITE? UH OH. AND WHILE YOU PULL THAT UP, UM, COMMISSIONER WHEELER, CAN YOU HEAR US? ARE WE LIVE? JUST STAND BY ONE SECOND. COMMISSIONER WHEELER, CAN YOU HEAR US? JORGE JUST, JUST GOT A NOTE THAT THEY, SHE COULDN'T HEAR US ONLINE. OKAY. THANK YOU, SIR. ABOUT THAT. WE THOUGHT MAYBE THAT, UH, THE ONLINE SYSTEM HAD GONE DOWN. SO, UH, SO I'M HOPING THAT YOU CAN KIND OF TAKE US THROUGH THE PROCESS. SO THIS IS A LITTLE OVER 80 ACRES. YES, SIR. AND I IMAGINE THERE WAS LOTS OF TALKS AND LOTS OF MEETINGS AND DISCUSSIONS ABOUT WHERE TO POTENTIALLY PUT THE TOWER. SO I'M HOPING YOU CAN KIND OF WALK US THROUGH EXACTLY WHERE IT IS ON THIS MAP AND WHY IT'S, IT IS WHERE YOUR, WHERE YOUR PROPOSAL IS, AND I IMAGINE THE POWER LINES PROBABLY HAVE SOMETHING TO DO WITH IT. UM, I'LL DO MY BEST. UM, I BELIEVE A TOWER WAS PROPOSED IN THE CREATION OF PD 9 48, AND THAT'S WHY THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT WAS 150 FEET. UM, THE CURRENT W WATER TOWER, I BELIEVE IS IN THIS AREA. IF IS, CAN YOU SEE THE CURSOR? I I BELIEVE IT'S DOWN HERE. AND THEN THE PROPOSED TOWER IS MOVING TO THE EAST OVER HERE? YES. UH, ROUGHLY. UM, THE ENCORE DID STUDY WHERE THE TOWER COULD GO. UM, I'M NOT PRIVY TO ALL OF THAT, THAT'S ABOVE MY PAY GRADE, BUT THEY DID ASSURE ME THAT THEY HAVE STUDIED THIS LOCATION. THERE'S, LIKE I SAID, THERE'S A CRISSCROSS OF TRANSMISSION LINES AND POWER LINES, THE SUBSTATION EQUIPMENT, AND THERE'S ALSO A RETENTION POND THAT'LL BE LOCATED SOUTH OF THE TOWER. AND BECAUSE OF THOSE SITE LIMITATIONS, THIS IS THE BEST LOCATION. AND WHERE, WHERE ON THIS MAP ARE THE POWER LINES? A LOT OF THE SITE. YEAH, I KNOW A LOT OF THE SITE. AND THEN YOU, MAYBE YOU CAN HIGHLIGHT, UM, YEAH, WHEN, WHEN I FIRST LOOK AT THIS OR ANYONE FIRST LOOK THROUGH, THEY SAY, WELL, OF COURSE THIS TOWER SHOULD GO RIGHT THERE ON THE CORNER ON THE WEST SIDE, BUT WHY CAN IT NOT BE THERE? BUT I DON'T THINK I HAVE AUTHORITY TO GIVE YOU THE, THE MAPS WITH THE LINES. OKAY. JUST TO BE HONEST WITH YOU, ROUGHLY, UM, IT'S PROBABLY 50% OF THE SITE IS COVERED WITH LINES. THERE'S SPACING THAT'S REQUIRED FROM THOSE TRANSMISSION LINES IN ORDER FOR THE EQUIPMENT TO WORK. SO THERE WERE A LOT OF CALCULATIONS THAT WERE PUT IN PLACE TO FIGURE OUT WHERE THIS COULD EVEN GO. UM, UM, SO IT, IT'S NOT JUST AS SIMPLE AS SEEING THIS, WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT HERE AND SAYING, WELL, YOU KNOW, I SEE WHERE THE EXEC, THE FURTHEST SPOT IT IS FROM ANY OF THE SINGLE FAMILY. IT'S NOT THAT SIMPLE. YES. AND WE'RE LOOKING AT, UM, A, AN AERIAL MAP THAT WAS AT ONE POINT IN TIME, AND [02:30:01] THE SUBSTATION IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION, SO THE EXISTING CONDITIONS TODAY ARE NOT, WHAT IS THE END RESULT. OKAY. AND, UH, MY LAST QUESTION IS IN TERMS OF THE EQUIPMENT, WHAT IS GONNA BE PLACED THERE VERSUS WHAT IS THERE TODAY? UM, TODAY THERE'S A MICROWAVE TOWER EQUIPMENT THAT IS ON THE WATER TOWER. UM, THE NEW TOWER WILL INCLUDE THE MICROWAVE TOWER, MICROWAVE EQUIPMENT, BUT ALSO LTE CELLULAR, SO THAT THE COMBINATION OF THOSE TWO ARE EXPECTED TO IMPROVE THE, UM, ABILITY OF THOSE COMMUNICATION, UH, EQUIPMENTS TO SERVE ENCORE FOR THEIR INTERNAL COMMUNICATIONS. SO THE MICROWAVE EQUIPMENT IS THERE NOW? YES, SIR. OKAY. THANK YOU. UH, YES, SIR. COMMISSIONER SIMS QUESTION FOR YOU. I, I HEARD YOU MENTION THE SUBSTATION IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION. SO IS IT, ARE WE CORRECT TO ASSUME THAT A GREAT DEAL OF THE TRAFFIC THAT WE HEARD TESTIMONY ABOUT IS BEING DRIVEN BY THAT SUBSTATION CONSTRUCTION? YES. AND THAT WILL STOP AT SOME POINT? THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING, YES, SIR. OKAY. AND THERE WILL BE SOME TRAFFIC WITH THE TOWER CONSTRUCTION, BUT THAT WOULD STOP AT SOME POINT AS WELL, CORRECT? CORRECT. OKAY, GOOD. THANK YOU. YES. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, PLEASE. ONCE CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETE, WHAT TRAFFIC IS ANTICIPATED TO COME AND GO FROM THIS LOCATION? MY UNDERSTANDING IS JUST MAINTENANCE AND SERVICE. UM, AND THEN WHATEVER'S NEEDED FOR THE OPERATION OF THE SUBSTATION, THAT WAS BEYOND MY SCOPE, SO I DON'T HAVE THOSE DETAILS. DO YOU HAVE ANY SORT OF CONSTRUCTION TIMELINE AT THE PRESENT TIME FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THAT'S GOING ON? NO, MA'AM. I DON'T. OKAY. UM, THE, WE WANT TO INSTALL THE TOWER AS SOON AS POSSIBLE WITH THE HEIGHT CLEARANCE, ZONING APPROVAL, BUILDING PERMITS. YES, MA'AM. RIGHT. BUT, UM, THERE'S ANOTHER FACTOR THAT THIS, UM, PROPOSAL ALSO HAS TO GO THROUGH AN FAA REVIEW. IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT. COULD YOU EXPLAIN THAT A LITTLE BIT? THAT'S CORRECT. UM, THAT'S, UM, WE BEGAN WITH AN FCC REQUEST FOR THE HEIGHT APPROVAL AND WE UNDERSTOOD THAT WAS FINE. UM, DURING THE ZONING REVIEW, THE AVIATION DEPARTMENT ASKED US TO CONTACT FAA BECAUSE A PROCESS HAS CHANGED. SO WE DO NEED THE FAA TO APPROVE THE HEIGHT. UM, THE FAA CAN APPROVE OUR 200 FOOT, THEY CAN APPROVE LESS, THEY CAN ASK US TO DO A STUDY. IS THAT BECAUSE OF POTENTIAL CONFLICT WITH TRAFFIC COMING AND GOING FROM THE AIRPORT? I BELIEVE SO, YES, MA'AM. THANK YOU. UM, DO YOU HAPPEN TO KNOW THE DISTANCE THAT IS, UM, THE PROPOSED SITE FOR THE NEW TOWER? WHAT IS THE DISTANCE, UM, FROM THE CLOSEST PROPERTY TO THE EAST? DIRECTLY EAST? I'M GOING TO GUESS IT'S ABOUT 320 FEET. WHEN YOU GO DIAGONALLY TO THE SOUTHEAST TO A PROPERTY LINE, IT'S JUST SHORT OF 400 FEET. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. MR. FORS, WHERE IS THE, IS THERE AN EXISTING MICROWAVE TOWER TODAY? YOU, YOU WERE POINTING THE LITTLE DOT ON THE MAP AND YES, SIR. OKAY. COULD YOU, I BELIEVE IT'S ON THE, AGAIN, WHERE THAT IS AT? UH, I, I UNDERSTAND IT'S IN THIS GENERAL LOCATION ON THE SOUTH SIDE, AND THAT IS A MICROWAVE TOWER, A CELL TOWER, A MICROWAVE? YES, SIR. OKAY. AND, UM, IT'S 150 FEET, IS THAT CORRECT? 130, 130 FEET. THE PD ALLOWS 150. AND HOW FAR IS THAT TOWER FROM THE, UH, THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND FEET? OH, IT, IT'S MUCH FURTHER. YES, SIR. COULD YOU, I MEAN, COULD YOU GIMME AN ESTIMATE? UM, UH, MY GUESS IS PROBABLY 1200 IS JUST MY GUESS. OKAY. I, IS THERE ANY RESTRICTIONS THAT ARE IN THE EXISTING PD IN TERMS OF, UH, HOW CLOSE THE TOWER COULD BE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD? IT WOULD BE CONTROLLED BY THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND THE LOCATION OF THE TOWER FOOTPRINT SHOWN IN THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN. AND THAT'S SHOWN AT 290 FEET FROM THAT EASTERN PROPERTY LINE. UM, HELP ME TO UNDERSTAND, AGAIN, WHY DO YOU FEEL THAT, WHY CAN'T YOU BUILD A 200 FOOT TOWER THERE IN THIS LOCATION? THE SUB, AS OPPOSED TO MOVING IT? UH, THE WATER TOWER. THE WATER TOWER WILL BE REMOVED. I BELIEVE THAT IS IN THE FOOTPRINT OF THE SUBSTATION THAT'S GONNA BE CONSTRUCTED. SO THAT WILL NOT BE AN OPTION. UH, ONCE THE SUBSTATION IS CONSTRUCTED, THE, SO THEY'RE HAVING PROBLEMS WITH IT BEING MOUNTED EQUIPMENT, AND THEY NEED IT TO BE A STANDALONE TOWER AND SEPARATE FROM THE SUBSTATION SO THAT THERE'S NOT INTERFERENCE. UM, IS MY PLANNER UNDERSTANDING, AND I KNOW THAT I HEARD THAT WE'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO ASK ABOUT HEALTH ISSUES, BUT I MEAN, DO YOU HAVE STUDIES THAT INDICATE THAT IT'S SAFE TO HAVE AN RF TOWER, A MICROWAVE TOWER WITHIN FIVE FEET OF A NEIGHBORHOOD? IT'S LITERALLY WHAT THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE JUST SAID THAT [02:35:01] WE, WE DON'T GET INTO THAT, SIR. IT'S JUST, WE'RE JUST STRICTLY LAND USE. NONE OF US HAVE THE EXPERTISE OR, OR THE STANDING TO EVEN GET INTO THAT. IT'S NOT HERE TO ASK THAT OTHER CITIES HAVE REGULATED THE ASSISTANCE, SIR. NO, SIR. NOW, THE, THE FEDERAL LAW IS, AND INSTRUCTION TO MUNICIPALITIES TO NOT CONSIDER ANYTHING LIKE THAT. BUT IS IT NOT TRUE THAT THERE ARE CITIES THAT HAVE REGULATED THE DISTANCE, UH, OF A TOWER, UH, AN RF TOWER FROM A NEIGHBORHOOD? THAT COULD BE, BUT THEY WERE NOT ALLOWED TO USE, UM, ANY, ANY HEALTH EFFECTS, ANY RADIATION, ANYTHING LIKE THAT? AND DETERMINATION? YOU KNOW, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, YOU KNOW, DON'T, I'M NOT AN EXPERT ON THIS, BUT YOU KNOW, I THINK YOUR MIC IS OFF, COMMISSIONER, AND JUST A CURSORY READING, YOU KNOW, THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF OCCUPATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH REVIEWED, UH, EPIDEMIOLOGICAL STUDIES. MR. CHAIR, CAN I CALL A POINT OF ORDER ON THE COMMENTS BY MY COLLEAGUE THAT I THINK ARE OUTSIDE THE BOUNDS OF WHAT WE'RE LOOKING? YES, SIR. THANK YOU. LET'S STICK, LET'S STICK WITH LAND USE COMMISSIONER, PLEASE. COMMISSIONER HAMPTON. THANK YOU. UM, MR. RAMONA, YOU ANSWERED ONE OF MY QUESTIONS, WHICH IS THAT THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN DEFINES THE MINIMUM DISTANCE OF THE 290 FEET, WHICH IS FOR THE PROPOSED NEW LOCATION. UM, YOU ALSO MENTIONED THAT THE EXISTING TOWER IS ONE 30. THE EXISTING PD ALLOWS A MAXIMUM ONE 50. I THINK I HEARD THAT THE REASON FOR THE INCREASE TO 200 IS BECAUSE OF THE OTHER CHANGES THAT ARE GOING ON RELATED TO THE ELECTRICAL, UM, SUBSTATION AND THE WATER TOWER. IS THAT CORRECT? IS THAT WHY THERE'S AN INCREASE IN HEIGHTS REQUESTED? YES. AND JUST THE, THE GENERAL FRUSTRATION OF WHAT THEY HAVE IS NOT WORKING THE WAY THAT IT NEEDS TO WORK. RIGHT. AND THEN YOU'RE STILL SUBJECT TO THE FAA REVIEW YOU ABSOLUTELY. WHICH MAY END UP REQUIRING THE LOWER HEIGHTS. THAT'S THE MAXIMUM. YES. WE WILL COMPLY WITH ALL REGULATIONS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT FILED BY COMMISSIONER DOKI. UH, MS. HI, MOTO, JUST A, A COMMENT, UM, I THINK I'VE GRASPED EVERY, THE, THE CASE NOW, BUT, UM, NEXT TIME MUCH BETTER GRAPHICS WOULD BE HELPFUL. NO, I, I UNDERSTAND. I THE SITE PLANS WITH THAT WAS MORE CLEAR. THAT WAS LABELED, THAT SHOWED OVERHEAD LINES, SHOWED TOWERS, SHOWED WATER TOWERS SHOWED HOW THE SITE'S GONNA CHANGE, BUT WE DIDN'T GET ANY OF THAT, SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER DUBRINSKY. I'M JUST CURIOUS, I KNOW YOU CAN'T SPEAK TO THE WHY THE LOCATION IS SUPPOSED TO BE THERE BECAUSE OF THE LINES AND EVERYTHING, BUT WAS THIS, ARE YOU SAYING THAT THIS IS THE ONLY LOCATION THAT YOU COULD BUILD THIS ON THE PROPERTY? NO, THERE WERE THREE VIABLE LOCATIONS, AND THIS IS THE FURTHEST LOCATION FROM RESIDENTIAL . OKAY. THANKS. COMMISSIONER HERBERT, PLEASE, SIR. UM, AND SORRY IF I MISSED THIS. SEVERAL OF THE NEIGHBORS, UM, HAD ISSUES WITH THE CONSTRUCTION AND THE ENTRY NEAR THE PARKING OF THE ENTRY OF THEIR, UM, THEIR FACIL, THEIR SUBDIVISION. IS IT POSSIBLE TO DIRECT THE TRAFFIC OF THE CONSTRUCTION TO THE OTHER ENTRANCES TO THIS SITE, OR IS, ARE THERE VARIABLES? UM, I CAN CERTAINLY ASK THE QUESTION, UM, LATER ON. UM, AS I MENTIONED, THERE'S TWO DRIVEWAYS ON BELTLINE, UH, THAT'S SHOWN ON THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND TWO ON NORTH LAKE. UM, AND I, I DO UNDERSTAND THEY ONLY HAVE THE ONE ENTRANCE TO, FROM NORTH LAKE TO BELTLINE FOR THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD. I CAN LOOK INTO THAT AND DO MY BEST. ANY OTHER QUE YES, MY . JUST A, A COMMENT. UM, I FEEL LIKE THIS CASE IS, IS LESS THAN IDEAL IN SOME WAYS, BUT ULTIMATELY, I THINK, UNFORTUNATELY OUR HANDS ARE TIED BY FEDERAL LAW HERE BASED ON THE GUIDANCE THAT WE HAVE, UM, FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. SO I, I DON'T SEE ANY OTHER OPTION TO, BUT TO VOTE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION. SO IT'S NOT WITH, YOU KNOW, ANY PARTICULAR JOY THAT I DO IT, BUT I THINK , UH, YES, THIS IS ESSENTIAL COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT FOR ENCORE THAT YES, WE NEED TO HAVE THIS TOWER. YES, SIR. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? OKAY, COMMISSIONERS, WE HAVE A MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, SECOND ABOUT COMMISSIONER HOUSE RIGHT TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, FALSE RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL SUBJECT TO AN AMENDED DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND AMENDED CONDITIONS. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED OR IN OPPOSITION? MOTION PASSES. COMMISSIONERS. IT'S, UH, 1 52. LET'S TAKE A 15 MINUTE BREAK. OKAY, WE ARE RECORDING. [6. 25-2546A An application for a new planned development district for R-5(A) Single Family District uses on property zoned R-16(A) Single Family District, on the north line of Walnut Hill Lane and the east line of Betty Jane Lane, east of Marsh Lane.] IT'S 2:11 PM WE'RE BACK ON THE RECORD, AND WE ARE ON CASE NUMBER SIX. GOOD AFTERNOON. TEST ONE, TWO. GOOD AFTERNOON. ITEM SIX IS CASE Z 25 21. AN APPLICATION FOR A NEW PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FOR R FIVE, A SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT USES ON PROPERTY ZONE R 16, A SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT ON THE NORTH LINE OF WALNUT HILL LANE IN THE EAST [02:40:01] LINE OF BETTY JANE LANE, EAST OF MARSH. LANE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO CONCEPTUAL PLANNING AND CONDITIONS. THANK YOU, SIR. I SEE THAT THE APPLICANT IS HERE. GOOD AFTERNOON. GOOD AFTERNOON. UH, ROB BALDWIN, 3 9 0 4 ELM STREET, SUITE B I'M TECHNICALLY NOT THE APPLICANT. PHIL KINGSTON'S SUPPOSED TO BE REMOTE. IS HE, UH, ON, THEN I'LL HANDLE IT. UH, HOLD ON JUST A SECOND PLEASE. MR. ROLLIN, WHILE YOU GET THAT PULLED UP. WE'RE GONNA GO WITH TWO MINUTES. DO, DO YOU SEE THAT? YES. WE'RE GONNA GO WITH TWO MINUTES PER SPEAKER. WE CAN SEE THAT. THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON, ROB BALDIN 3 9 0 4 ELM STREET, SUITE B. UH, THIS IS A PROJECT Z 25. A BUNCH OF ZEROS 21, UH, LOCATED, UH, JUST EAST OF MARSH LANE AND WALNUT HILL LANE. THERE. IT IS A L-SHAPED PIECE OF PROPERTY, WHICH IS KIND OF ODD. IT KIND OF WRAPS AROUND AN EXISTING CHURCH, BETTY JANE LANE'S TO THE WEST, ONE MORE STREET TO THE WEST AS MARSH LANE. HERE'S A CLOSEUP OF IT, UH, AS MR. BATES SAID, UH, DURING HIS, UH, BRIEFING. THIS WAS AN OLD CHURCH THAT GOT, I UNDERSTAND, DEMOLISHED DURING THE TORNADO SEVERAL YEARS AGO. UM, SO THE, WHAT'S THE REQUEST? THE REQUEST FOR A NEW PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FOR R FIVE SINGLE FAMILY USES ON LAND THAT'S CURRENTLY ZONED R 16. IT'S ABOUT 3.76 ACRES. UH, IT'S ON WALNUT HILL NORTH SIDE. SO BASICALLY THE STATE, THE CHANGES WE'RE DOING IN THE PD IS TO ALLOW FOR ADDITIONAL HEIGHT FROM 30 TO 36 FEET, BUT ONLY FOR THE HOUSES AWAY FROM OUR NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE. REDUCE, ALLOW FOR REDUCED LOT SIZE AND GREAT GREATER LOT COVERAGE AND ALLOW UP TO 50 HOMES ON A SHARED ACCESS WITH TWO CONNECTION POINTS RATHER THAN A MAXIMUM OF 36. UM, CURRENTLY UNDEVELOPED, BUT A PORTIONS PAVED. WE'RE PROPOSING A TOTAL OF 50 DETACHED HOMES. UH, THE AFTER CONVERSATIONS WITH OUR NEIGHBORS, UH, LOTS ON THE NORTH ARE LARGER AND HOUSE HEIGHT IS REDUCED. UH, WE'VE ADDED PEDESTRIAN AMENITIES, INCREASED OPEN SPACE, AND INCREASED THE O THE TREE PLANTING, UH, ON, ON NORTHERN BOUNDARY. UH, LEO, DO YOU WANNA COME UP AND TALK ABOUT YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH? I'D LIKE TO TURN IT OVER TO MY CLIENT SO WE CAN TALK ABOUT HOW HIS, HIS NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH. THANK YOU, SIR. UH, NAME AND ADDRESS, PLEASE. YEP, GOOD AFTERNOON. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS LEO MAYA AND I AM THE APPLICANT FOR THE PROJECT. UM, I HELD TWO DIFFERENT, OR SEVERAL MEETINGS ACTUALLY WITH THE, UH, NEIGHBORHOODS OF THIS, UH, WITH OUR NEIGHBORS THERE. FIRST ONE WAS AT THE END OF JULY, AND, UM, THAT WAS JUST SOMETHING THAT I DID. UH, TWO, JUST ONE. THERE'S ONLY BEEN ONE. OKAY. WELL, I HAD MEETINGS, ONE MEETING WITH THE NEIGHBORS. I HAD A MEETING WITH THE WHHA PRESIDENT AS WELL, AND THE VICE PRESIDENT HAD ONE WITH THE, UM, ANOTHER MEETING WITH THE, UH, WIMBERLEY HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION PRESIDENT AS WELL, TO GO OVER SOME OF THE PLANS. AND, YOU KNOW, WE'VE ACTUALLY HEARD A LOT OF THE, UH, THE FEEDBACK THAT THEY'VE HAD, CONCERNS, UH, PRIVACY AND, YOU KNOW, THANK YOU MARTIN. AND THANK YOU, UH, COMMISSIONER HALL. WE'VE, UH, KIND OF REDUCED THE DENSITY AND ALSO LISTENED TO THE NEIGHBORS REGARDING THE, THE HEIGHT CONCERNS AND THE PRIVACY CONCERNS THAT THEY MAY HAVE. SO AGAIN, THAT'S WHERE WE'RE AT. THANK YOU, SIR. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UH, HAS MR. KINGSON SHOWED UP? HE SAID HE'S ON. I JUST GOT A TEXT FROM HIM SAYING THAT HE'S ONLINE. OKAY. SO WE'LL KEEP GOING. UH, THIS IS THE PROPOSED, UH, THANK DEVELOPMENT YOU, SIR. THAT'S YOUR TIME. THOSE THREE MINUTES GO BY FAST. OKAY. YEAH, IT WAS GREAT TALKING WITH YOU. I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. I'M SORRY, TWO MINUTES. PARDON ME. THANK YOU. THOSE TWO MINUTES GO BY REALLY FAST. UH, BEFORE WE GO TO OUR REGISTERED SPEAKERS ONLINE, IS THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR BEFORE WE IN FAVOR, BEFORE WE GO TO OUR, YEAH, UH, WE'LL GO TO ELISA. ROBBIE? YEP. WE'RE READY. SO ? YES, GOOD AFTERNOON. GOOD AFTERNOON. UM, SO WE RECEIVED A DOCUMENT FROM [02:45:01] CPC SAYING, WITH STACK RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL, SUBJECT TO CONCEPTUAL PLAN AND CONDITIONS. I HOPE THAT WE AS A NEIGHBORHOOD GET TO SEE, UM, THIS PLAN AND CONDITIONS PRIOR TO THE APPROVAL OF THE REZONING. UM, AS A NEIGHBORHOOD NEIGHBOR IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, I WOULD LIKE IT TO STAY AS AN R 16 AND NOT BE REZONED. UM, WE ARE HAP I AM AS A NEIGHBOR, HAPPY TO HAVE THIS RESIDENTIAL PLAN AND THE DEVELOPER, BUT THE SIZE, QUANTITY IS, SEEMS, UM, NOT FITTING FOR OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. SO I YIELD, THANK YOU, JULIA. OKAY, SO THESE TWO FOLKS ARE NOT, OKAY, SO WE GO HAREL. OKAY. MARLA HAREL, WE'RE READY FOR YOUR COMMENTS. UH, WE'RE GOING WITH OUR FOLKS IN OPPOSITION NOW. OH, THAT WAS, THAT'S OPPOSITION. SHE WAS, SHE WAS AN OPPOSITION. SHE WAS, SHE JUST, SHE REGISTERED AS THE APPLICANT. SO IT'S OKAY. , WE GOT IT FROM THE COMMENTS. OKAY. CAN Y'ALL HEAR ME? UH, YES. GREAT. OKAY. I'M LITERALLY DRIVING. SORRY, I WAS PREPARED TO DO THIS IN A SECOND. OKAY. HI, MY NAME'S MAR. DO YOU SEE YOU? ANYBODY? YOU CAN YOU HEAR ME, MA'AM? WE DON'T, WE HAVE TO BE ABLE TO SEE YOU IN ORDER TO HEAR FROM YOU. YOU HAVE, YOUR CAMERA HAS TO BE ON. CAN YOU SEE ME NOW? YEP, WE CAN NOW. THANK YOU. OKAY, GREAT. MY NAME'S MARLA HARTZEL. I'M THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE WALNUT HILL HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. I SERVED AS A VOLUNTEER IN OUR HOA FOR THE PAST 10 YEARS. WE REPRESENT 950 HOMES, NINE CHURCHES, FIVE SCHOOLS. OUR NEIGHBORHOOD IS KNOWN FOR LOTS OF THINGS, BUT I'M GONNA JUMP TO JUST THE 2019 TORNADO THAT HIT US AND TOOK OUT THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF OUR SQUARE MILE. UM, I FOLLOWED THIS EFFORT CLOSELY, AND I'VE BEEN HOPEFUL THAT THE POSITIVE ONGOING DIALOGUE THAT WE'VE HAD BETWEEN THE BOARD AND THE CPC WOULD RESULT IN A GOOD PRODUCT AND A POSITIVE END RESULT, WHICH IT, AT THIS POINT HAS NOT. WE UNDERSTAND THAT THE CPC HOLDS ALL THE CARDS HERE, AND OUR CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS RELY ON THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS TO MAKE SENSE AND BE THOUGHTFUL. BUT AT THIS POINT, THE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE CPC APPEAR SIMPLISTIC WITH VERY FEW SUGGESTIONS AND EVEN VERY LITTLE BACKGROUND GIVEN, UM, A LARGE PORTION OF THIS PROPERTY Y'ALL MENTIONED WAS A CHURCH. IT WAS DESTROYED BY THE TO TORNADO, AND THE VACANT LOT THAT'S BEING PRESENTED IS, WAS NOT WHAT IT LOOKED LIKE SIX YEARS AGO. WE WOULD ASK BASICALLY THAT THIS VOTE BE DELAYED. THAT IS OUR ASK WHERE THE CPC CAN ACTUALLY CREATE A DEVELOPED PLAN DEVELOPMENT. BECAUSE AT THIS POINT, IT IS VERY, VERY MINIMAL. THERE IS VERY LITTLE INFORMATION ON THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT, AND I THINK THAT OUR CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS DESERVE A VERY DETAILED PLAN TO BE ABLE TO MAKE AN EDUCATED VOTE. UM, RIGHT NOW, IF YOU LOOK AT IT, THIS AREA, IF YOU'VE BEEN DOWN THERE, THEY DESERVE BETTER. THEY HAVE SUFFERED A DEVASTATING TORNADO, A SLUMLORD COMMERCIAL LANDLORD WHO HAS SLOW RULED THE REBUILD OF A SHOPPING CENTER. WE HAVE ALBERTSONS SUBLETTING TO RANK MECADO AND DEDE'S DISCOUNTS. THERE'S A GOVERNMENT BUILDING THAT'S FINALLY BEING TORN DOWN AND REDEVELOPED A CHURCH, THE SCHOOLS, ET CETERA. THE BOARD AND NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD ASK FOR A VOTE TO BE DELAYED UNTIL A FULL AND DETAILED PD IS CREATED, SHARED, AND REVISED OR REVIEWED BY EVERYONE. THAT'S YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. ASSOCIATION. THANK YOU, MA'AM. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR JOINING US. UH, MS. HENDRICKS, THAT WAS MS. HENDRICKS. ARE YOU ALL LYING? IS SHE STILL ON, ON JORGE? OKAY, WE'LL COME BACK TO HER. WE'LL GO TO MS. HART. I'M HERE. OKAY. [02:50:02] YES, MA'AM. MS. HENDRICKS? YES. UH, CAN YOU SEE AND HEAR ME? SORRY. UM, I, I THINK YOU NEED TO SPEAK A LITTLE BIT MORE. MAYBE YOU'RE, YOU'LL COME UP ON OUR SCREEN. I DON'T SEE YOU NOW. OKAY. I'M, I'M SHOWING UP ON THE SCREEN HERE. WE DON'T, WE DON'T SEE YOU YET. OKAY. I HAVE TO TOGGLE YOUR CAMERA ON AND OFF. I WOULD SAY GO TO THE NEXT PERSON AND I'LL WORK ON IT THEN. ALL RIGHT. MS. HART, IS MS. HART ON? YES, SHE'S ON MUTE. SHE'S ON MUTE. MS. HART, IF YOU CAN HEAR US, WE'RE READY FOR YOUR COMMENTS. YOU HAVE TO UNMUTE YOURSELF. NO, SORRY ABOUT THAT. OH, YOU'RE FINE. I'M ON. HI THERE. I'M JULIA HART. MY FAMILY AND I HAVE BEEN RESIDENTS OF WALNUT HILL FOR 20 YEARS. CRESCENT'S REQUEST TO BUILD 50 HOMES ON TINY LOTS IN AN AREA ZONE FOR 16,000 SQUARE FOOT LOTS IS JUST NOT COMPATIBLE WITH OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. THE LOTS WOULD BE 90% SMALLER THAN MOST OF OUR LOTS WITH NO DRIVEWAYS. WE'RE JUST ASKING FOR MODERATION. CLOSER TO THE GENTLE DENSITY COUNCILMAN WILLIS HAS BEEN PROMOTING, PLEASE REDUCE THE NUMBER OF LOTS TO 25 AND INCREASE LOT SIZE TO 4,600 SQUARE FEET WITH TWO STORY HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS AND PREFERABLY NO SIGHT LINES INTO THE SECOND FLOOR OF EXISTING HOMES. THOSE EXISTING HOMES WERE DIRECTLY IN THE PATH OF THE 2019 TORNADO. SO THESE FAMILIES HAVE ALREADY SUFFERED GREATLY. DOING A 25 LOT DENSITY WITH WOULD REPLICATE SHIRE'S DENSITY THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY ZONED R 16 A LIKE WALNUT HILL, 4,600 SQUARE FOOT LOTS WOULD ALLOW FOR DRIVEWAYS WHERE GUESTS COULD PARK, IN ADDITION TO THE 18 DESIGNATED VISITOR PARKING SPOTS WITHOUT DRIVEWAYS FOR 50 HOMES, OVERFLOW GUEST PARKING DURING HOLIDAY EVENTS AND PARTIES WILL HAPPEN ON BETTY JANE WIMBERLEY COURT, CONSTITUTION AND COP. AND THEN WHERE WOULD OUR GUESTS PARK NINE HOMES ON A CUL-DE-SAC WITH ENTRY ON BETTY JANE AND 16 HOMES WITH ENTRY ON WALNUT HILL WOULD REDUCE BETTY JANE TRAFFIC, WHERE YOU SEE STROLLERS, KIDS PLAYING IN THE THREE CUL-DE-SACS WALKERS AND JOGGERS. ANOTHER CONCERN IS HOW SIMILAR THE DEVELOPMENTS DESIGN LOOKS LIKE PROPERTIES USED FOR AIRBNB. SHORT TERM RENTALS OF THESE HOMES COULD LEAVE TO SO MANY ISSUES. THAT'S YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR JOINING US. WE'LL GO BACK TO MS. HENDRICKS. DID YOU GET YOUR CAMERA WORKING? OH, WE SEE YOU NOW. I DID. THANK YOU. I THANK YOU. YEAH, I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT. SO, YES, MY NAME IS SERENA HENDRICKS. UH, I'M THE SECRETARY OF THE, UH, WALNUT HILL HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. I'VE BEEN ASSOCIATED WITH THE BOARD FOR FIVE YEARS NOW, AND IN THE COMMUNITY FOR OVER 35 YEARS. SO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD IS A FABULOUS NEIGHBORHOOD. IT CONSISTS OF SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, YOU KNOW, THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD. WE UNDERSTAND THE CITY'S MOVEMENT FOR WANTING TO GO TOWARD A MORE GENTLE DENSITY, IF YOU WILL. AND OUR BOARD, WE HAVE WORKED DILIGENTLY, WE FEEL TO PARTNER WITH THE CPC AND THE DEVELOPER TO COME UP WITH A COMPROMISE, YOU KNOW, ON THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. UM, AFTER HEARING FROM OUR NEIGHBORS AND GATHERING AS MUCH FEEDBACK AS WE COULD, WE BELIEVE THE REQUESTS THAT WE SUBMITTED FOR EXTREMELY REASONABLE AND THEY STILL ACCOMPLISH WHAT THE CITY IS, IS TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH. HOWEVER, WE WERE KIND OF DISMAYED THAT THE CPC DECIDED AGAINST THE MAJORITY OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WE SENT. UH, AND NOT EVEN, I DON'T BELIEVE TAKING THEM TO THE DEVELOPER. SO NO. HAS THE CPC REQUIRED THE DEVELOPER TO ADD ANY ADDITIONAL DETAILS TO HIS PLAN DEVELOPMENT? WE WOULD ASK THAT THIS BE DONE BEFORE A VOTE IS TAKEN. SO JUST TO HIGHLIGHT, I'M NOT GONNA GO THROUGH ALL THE ITEMS THAT WE SUBMITTED, BUT I WILL HIGHLIGHT A COUPLE OF THEM AND THAT WE WOULD ASK THAT WE WOULD LIKE THE CPC TO RECOMMEND TO THE DEVELOPER. WE WOULD LIKE THESE ITEMS SHOWN IN A DETAILED PD BEFORE THE VOTE'S TAKEN. UH, WE BELIEVE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD DESERVES A DETAILED PD TO UNDERSTAND THE IMPLICATIONS OF THIS ADDITION TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. AND SO OUR CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS COULD SEE IT BEFORE THEY VOTE, SINCE I KNOW THEY RELY ON THE CPCS SUGGESTIONS. SO A FEW OF THE REQUESTS, UH, JUST TO HIGHLIGHT A COUPLE TO, TO ME, I FEEL LIKE IS A COMMON SENSE APPROACH. YOU [02:55:01] KNOW, INCREASE THE LOT SIZE, UH, THE LOT SIZE CURRENTLY IN THE PROPOSAL IS WAY TOO SMALL. UH, WE NEED TO LIMIT THE HEIGHT. UH, TWO, TWO STORIES. WE HAVE NO THREE STORIES IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. AND AGAIN, I KNOW JULIA MENTIONED THE PARKING, THE PARKING SPACE IS MORE INCREASED. THAT'S YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR JOINING US, MA'AM. YOUR TIME IS UP. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. UH, I SEE THAT THE APPLICANT IS ONLINE WITH US NOW. MR. KINGSTON. HEY, CHAIR. SHE, CAN YOU HEAR ME OKAY? YES, WE CAN. UH, WHY DON'T I, UH, WAIT UNTIL THE REBUTTAL AND I'LL HANDLE THAT PART. THAT'LL KEEP OUR PRESENTATION SHORTER. OH, OKAY. THEN WE WILL KEEP WITH OUR SPEAKERS IN OPPOSITION THAT ARE HERE TODAY. PLEASE COME ON DOWN. GOOD AFTERNOON. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS SARAH FULMER AND I LIVE AT 26 WIMBERLEY COURT. I AM ONE OF THE FIVE HOMES THAT BACK RIGHT UP TO THE PARCEL THAT WAS HOME WAS DIS COMPLETELY DESTROYED IN THE 2019 TORNADO. I WOULD LIKE TO VENTURE A BIG GUEST TODAY THAT IF ANY OF YOU LIVED IN MY HOME AND SAW WHAT THIS PLAN IS GONNA GIVE US, THAT YOU WOULD VOTE NO TODAY. YOU DON'T, AND I RESPECT THAT YOU HAVE TO DO YOUR JOB. BUT I, I WANNA MAKE IT CLEAR THAT IN YOUR OWN FOUR DALLAS 2.0 UNDER THE HOUSING ACCESS, UNDER OBJECTIVE D AND I QUOTE, PROTECT AND PRESERVE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD, THIS CURRENT PLAN DOES NOT DO IT. 50 HOMES CRAMMED INTO 3.7 ACRES WITH LOTS AS SMALL AS 1650 SQUARE FEET. THAT'S THE SIZE OF A TENNIS COURT. THIS IS IN A NEIGHBORHOOD. IT'S MORE LIKE A DRIVEWAY WITH A VERTICAL SEMI-TRUCK PLOPPED ON TOP. NO COMPARABLE DENSITY EXISTS IN OUR SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS FOR MILES AND CERTAINLY NOT. ROWS OF THREE STORY HOMES BUILT JUST ONE FOOT APART FROM EACH OTHER, COMPLETELY OUT OF CHARACTER FOR OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, FOR ME AND MY NEIGHBORS. THIS IS NOT JUST ABOUT THE NUMBERS, IT'S ABOUT OUR HOMES AND OUR PRIVACY. THE BACK OF THESE TWO STORY HOMES WOULD ONLY BE 14 FEET FROM MY FENCE LINE. THAT MEANS FROM MY LIVING ROOM WHERE I SPEND A HUNDRED PERCENT OF MY EVENING AND MY MASTER BEDROOM PEOPLE COULD POTENTIALLY BE STARING INTO MY ROOMS, JUST STEPS AWAY. THAT'S NOT A NEIGHBORHOOD, THAT'S A WALL. LET ME GIVE YOU SOME MORE PERSPECTIVE. 14 FEET IS THE SIZE OF A LARGE CONFERENCE TABLE, A CANOE AND A PASSENGER VAN. AND BEYOND PRIVACY, THERE SAFETY WITH NO YARDS INADEQUATE DRAINING. THIS PUTS OUR SURROUNDING HOMES AT A RISK OF FLOOD AND DRAINAGE ISSUES, NOT THE HOMES THEY'RE BUILDING. THIS PRO PROPERTY IS ZONED R 16 FOR A REASON, ALLOWING THIS KIND OF DENSE DEVELOPMENT COMPLETELY. THAT YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. NOR THE WILL OF THE COMMUNITY. THANK YOU, MA'AM. RESPECTFULLY, DO BETTER AND VOTE NO. THANK YOU FOR JOINING US. NEXT SPEAKER, PLEASE. THANK, MY NAME IS JOHN WIMBERLEY. I LIVE AT 25 WIMBERLEY COURT. I'M ALSO THE PRESIDENT OF THE WIMBERLEY COURT HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. UH, FORWARD DALLAS HAS A LOW NOBLE CAUSE TO INCREASE DENSITY, AND WE'RE TOTALLY FINE WITH THAT, BUT YOU CAN'T USE THAT AS AN EXCUSE TO CRAM IN AS MANY HOUSES AS POSSIBLE ON A PIECE OF PROPERTY. AND THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THIS DEVELOPER'S TRYING TO DO. WITHOUT LISTENING TO THE VOICES OF US, HE MET ONE TIME WITH OUR GROUP, AND IT WAS BASICALLY TO THREATEN US WITH AN APARTMENT COMPLEX IF HE, WE DIDN'T GO ALONG WITH WHAT HE WANTED. HIS DENSITY REQUEST IS EXPONENTIALLY MORE THAN IN ANY SINGLE FAMILY ZONING FOUND IN DALLAS. EVEN MORE DENSE INTENSE THAN THE DENSEST TOWNHOME ZONING. TH THREE, WHICH IS 12 UNITS PER ACRE, 50 HOMES ON THIS PROPERTY WOULD BE 13.5 UNITS IN ACRE. THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE HE'S ASKING FOR IS 1650. THAT IS LESS THAN 2000 SQUARE FEET FOR TOWNHOME THREE ZONING, WHICH AGAIN, IF YOU READ THE DOCUMENT, THE, THE, IT SAYS THE ONLY THING THAT'S MORE INTENSE THAN THIS IS MF ONE OR MF TWO. SO YES, IT'S GREAT THAT HE'S CALLING IT R FIVE, BUT IT'S NOT R FIVE AT ALL. HE'S IMMEDIATELY DOING A VARIANCE TO GET IT DOWN TO MORE INTENSE THAN TOWNHOUSE THREE. HE'S ALSO REQUESTING THE CHANGE OF THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT FROM ALL OF OUR WALNUT HILL NEIGHBORHOOD AND ALL THE ONES AROUND. THE HEIGHT IS 30 FEET. TWO STORY. HE'S ASKING TO RAISE THAT TO THREE STORY 36 FEET. THERE IS NOTHING IN ANYWHERE NEAR THIS NEIGHBORHOOD THAT HAS THAT. THERE'S THESE CODED WALNUT MEADOWS AS A 36 FEET HEIGHT, [03:00:01] BUT THEY ALSO HAVE THE CAVEAT THAT IT'S HAS TO BE NO MORE THAN TWO STORIES. SO WE ARE NOT MBS, WE ARE TOTALLY FOR IN DENSITY. AND TO PROVE IT, WE MET WITH, I'VE MET, AND MY NEIGHBORS HAVE MET WITH MOST ALL OF THE NEIGHBORS WITHIN THE 500 FOOT RADIUS. UH, AND NOT ONLY DID WE SAY WE TOTALLY OPPOSE WHAT HE'S PRESENT PROPOSING, BUT WE OFFERED AN ALTERNATE PLAN. AND THAT ALTERNATE PLAN WAS STILL THREE TIMES MORE DENSE THAN THE EXISTING 16,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT AROUND AND TWICE AS INTENSE. THAT'S YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. THAT'S OKAY. IT'S TWICE, TWICE AS INTENSE. AND WHERE ARE YOU ALSO USING THE MELROSE ESTATES PROPERTY AS A GUIDE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SIR. THAT'S YOUR TIME. GOOD AFTERNOON. GOOD AFTERNOON. UH, MY NAME IS DAVE ROGERS. I'M A INTERIM PRESIDENT OF THE WALNUT HILL HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, UH, HERE TODAY TO VOICE CONCERNS ABOUT THIS PROPOSAL FROM NEIGHBORS THAT WILL BE DIRECTLY IMPACTED BY THIS DEVELOPMENT. MOST HERE, UH, THE CONCERNS ARE BASED ON WHAT WE BELIEVE TO BE INCOMPATIBILITIES BETWEEN THE PROPOSAL AND THE ESTABLISHED CHARACTER OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. UH, WALNUT HILL IS A COMMUNITY OF SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ON LOTS AVERAGING 16,000 SQUARE FEET, CONSISTENT WITH OUR 16, UH, THE PROPOSED LOT SIZE 1600 SQUARE FEET IS ONE 10TH OF THAT STANDARD, ONE THIRD OF THE R FIVE A THAT IS LISTED ON THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN. UH, THIS, UH, DEVELOPMENT ALSO ALLOWS FOR THREE STORY HOMES, 36 FEET TALL EX EXCEEDING THE TWO STORY 30 FOOT REQUIREMENT THAT FITS OUR COMMUNITY. UM, WHHA HAS MADE EVERY EFFORT TO ENGAGE ON THIS PROPOSAL IN GOOD FAITH, INCLUDING HOSTING A NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING, PARTICIPATE IN MANY CALLS WITH CPC AND THE DEVELOPER, A SITE WALKTHROUGH, UH, ULTIMATELY ALL LEADING TO A LETTER THAT OUTLINING THE COMMUNITY'S CONCERNS THAT WAS SUBMITTED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION COUNCIL MEMBER WILLIS AND THE DEVELOPER. DESPITE ALL OF THIS, THE DEVELOPER HAS MADE MINIMAL CONCESSIONS. UH, THIS IS ESPECIALLY DISAPPOINTING, GIVING OUR PREVIOUSLY CONSTRUCTIVE AND GOOD WORKING RELATIONSHIP WITH CRESCENT ESTATES ON A NEARBY PROJECT, UM, ON ASSOCIATION. WE HAVE MADE SIGNIFICANT EFFORTS TO INFORM OUR NEIGHBORS ON THIS PROCESS HOW TO VOICE THEIR OPINION. AND WE HAVE HEARD CLEARLY FROM NEIGHBORS IMPACTED BY THIS DEVELOPMENT. UH, SOME SUPPORT AND SOME IN OPPOSITION. UM, OUR NEIGHBORS ARE NOT OPPOSED TO REASONABLE DEVELOPMENT AND WILLING TO WORK WITH CRESCENT ESTATES AS A PROMINENT DEVELOPER, BUT THERE IS A CONCERN THAT THIS CONCEPTUAL PROPOSAL IS IS NOT DETAILED ENOUGH. AND WE WOULD ASK FOR A, A DELAY AND PUT THIS IN ADVISEMENT SO WE CAN GET A MORE DETAILED PLAN. THANK YOU, SIR. NEXT SPEAKER, PLEASE. OH, I AM VIRGINIA WORLEY AND I HAVE LIVED AT 38 16 MARTHA LANE FOR OVER 50 YEARS. I HAVE BEEN HERE BEFORE. I HAVE SEEN A LOT OF PROPOSALS THAT, UH, THE DEVELOPERS HAVE COME TO US. ONE WAS A SAFEWAY STORE AND HIGH DENSITY HOUSING. EACH TIME THE NEIGHBORHOOD WITH THE SUPPORT OF CITY PLAN AND CITY COUNCIL SAW A VISION FOR OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, AND THAT WAS TO KEEP IT A SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD WITH PARKS AND SCHOOLS WHERE THEY PROPOSED THAT SAFEWAY STORE IS NOW A SCHOOL THAT SERVES THE WHOLE COMMUNITY. IN 2019, OUR NEIGHBORHOOD WAS HIT WITH A DISASTROUS TORNADO. YOU'VE ALL SEEN IT IN THE PAPER. OUR NEIGHBORHOOD CAME BACK AND REBUILT. WE DIDN'T GO TO PLANO. OUR, UH, TRICO. WE STAYED WHERE WE LOVED. NOW WE ARE FACING ANOTHER DISASTER, JUST LIKE THE TORNADO. IT WILL BE DISASTROUS FOR ALL THE NEIGHBORHOOD. ALLOWING 50 HOMES, 39 OF THEM, THREE STORIES HIGH WILL BE DEVASTATING TO ALL OF THOSE WHO WILL LOSE THEIR PRIVACY AND THEIR BACKYARDS, THAT PEOPLE WILL BE ABLE TO LOOK INTO THEIR BACKYARDS 24 7. SO IN ADDITION TO THAT, THERE'LL BE ADDITIONAL 50 TO A HUNDRED AUTOMOBILES THAT WILL POUR OUT ONTO WALNUT HILL LANE, WHERE WE HAVE AT LEAST FIVE SCHOOL DISTRICTS. SO I'M ASKING YOU ON THE BEHALF OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND BEHALF OF MY NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, THAT YOU WOULD SHARE THE VISION AND ALLOW US TO KEEP A NICE, QUIET NEIGHBORHOOD LIKE WE HAVE HAD WITH CHURCHES AND SCHOOLS AND PARKS, AND A PLACE FOR PEOPLE TO WALK THEIR DOGS AND PUSH THEIR CHILDREN AND ENJOY THE, THE BEAUTIFUL AMBIANCE THAT WE'VE [03:05:01] HAD FOR OVER 50 YEARS. THANK YOU. THANK, THANK YOU FOR JOINING US. THANK YOU. YES, SIR. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS ROSS COULTER AND I LIVE AT 38 51 REGENT DRIVE. I'M SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF MYSELF AND BOB NOY, THE TWO IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENTS OF THE WALNUT HILL HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. TO STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS PLAN AS PROPOSED OVER NEARLY 25 YEARS, WE WORKED WITH MANY DIFFERENT DISTRICT 13 COUNCIL MEMBERS AND THEIR CPC APPOINTEES. WHILE THEY VARIED IN STYLE, THEY ALL SHARED ONE THING IN COMMON, A COMMITMENT TO BALANCING NEIGHBORHOOD INTERESTS WITH DEVELOPMENT. EVEN WHEN COMPROMISES WERE TOUGH, THERE WAS GENUINE BACK AND FORTH. SO PROJECTS WERE SOMETHING THAT BOTH RESIDENTS AND DEVELOPERS COULD ACCEPT. IN FACT, THIS SAME DEVELOPER SUCCESSFULLY WORKED WITH OUR NEIGHBORHOOD IN THE RECENT PAST. MOST OF OUR NEIGHBORS SUPPORT MORE DENSITY ON THIS PROPERTY, BUT NOT THIS PLAN AS PROPOSED. IT IS COMPLETELY OUT OF SYNC WITH THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD AND ZONING REQUIRING A PLAN DEVELOPMENT TO SHOEHORN IN AN URBAN CORE STYLE PROJECT WHERE IT SIMPLY DOESN'T BELONG. NORMALLY, A PD INVOLVES SIGNIFICANT NEGOTIATION DESIGN CHANGES, RESTRICTIONS AND REQUIREMENTS TO ADDRESS NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS, ASIDE FROM A FEW PARKING SPACES AND TREES. THAT PROCESS DID NOT HAPPEN IN THIS CASE IS VIRTUALLY NO REQUESTS SUBMITTED BY THE HOA, EXCUSE ME, WERE ACCEPTED. IF NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS ARE IGNORED OR DISMISSED LIKE THIS, AND ZONING GYMNASTICS ARE USED TO DROP SUCH A DENSE DEVELOPMENT INTO THE MIDDLE OF AN EXISTING R 16 NEIGHBORHOOD, THEN WE ESSENTIALLY HAVE NO ZONING AT ALL, THAT THIS CAN BE DONE WITH LITTLE TO NO PUSHBACK FROM THE CPC. AND IN THE EVENT OF AN APPROVAL TODAY, OUR COUNCIL MEMBER IS WHY PEOPLE HAVE LOST SO MUCH FAITH IN CITY GOVERNMENT AND WHY TRULY FEAR FOR THE FUTURE OF EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS IN THIS CITY. FOR THESE REASONS, WE STRONGLY URGE YOU TO DENY THIS PROJECT AS PROPOSED. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. MY NAME IS TRICIA PITTMAN, AND I LIVE AT 22 WIMBERLEY COURT. ME AND MOST OF MY NEIGHBORS, UH, OPPOSE THIS PLAN, BUT WE, HOWEVER, WE WOULD ACCEPT A MORE MODIFIED CONSISTENT PLAN WITH THAT OF MILL SHOWER ESTATES, WHICH THIS COMMITTEE AND OUR COUNCILWOMAN GAY WILLIS. UM, AFTER AN EXTENSIVE FIGHT WITH THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD APPROVED, UH, OUR NEIGHBORS ON THE OTHER HAND, ARE WILLING TO GIVE YOU THE SAME PD WITH SIMILAR RESTRICTIONS WITHOUT A FIGHT. WE ASK THAT THERE BE NO THREE STORY HOMES IN THIS DEVELOPMENT. WE AGREE THAT THE R FIVE ZONING SHOULD BE CLOSER TO 5,000 SQUARE FOOT LOTS INSTEAD OF THE 1650, WHICH IS A THIRD OF THE SPACE. ALLOWING FOR LARGER AND FEWER LOTS, ADDRESSES MANY OF THE ISSUES THE NEIGHBORS HAVE WITH THIS PROPOSAL. FEWER HOMES WILL ADDRESS THE CONCERNS WITH INCREASED TRAFFIC AND PEDESTRIAN THAT PE PEDESTRIAN SAFETY THAT THIS CURRENT PLAN WILL CAUSE. IT ALLOWS SPACE FOR DRIVEWAYS NATURALLY PROVIDING MORE PARKING FOR THE UNITS. HOMES WITHIN, WITH SIX INCHES APART WILL HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE AESTHETICS OF THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE HOMES WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT. NOT TO MENTION THE INABILITY TO ACCESS THE SPACE BETWEEN THESE HOMES TO DO THINGS LIKE REPAIRS, MAINTENANCE, AND EMERGENCY SERVICES. UM, FORWARD DALLAS 2.0 SPECIFICALLY ALLOWS FOR ADDITIONAL DENSITY WHEN THIS IT IS ON A MAJOR STREET OR A MAJOR INTERSECTION. ALLOWING THIS PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT TO HAVE ACCESS TO INGRESS OR INGRESS ON TO THE SMALL LANE OF BETTY JANE IS NOT WHAT WAS INTENDED AND IS BEING MISAPPLIED BY THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION FORWARD. DALLAS 2.0 ALSO ALLOWS FOR TRANSITION AND DENSITY BECAUSE THESE SQUARE FOOT LOTS ARE SURROUNDING THIS DEVELOPMENT IS 16,000 SQUARE FOOT AND 10,000 SQUARE FOOT. AN APPROPRIATE TRANSITION WOULD BE LOTS CLOSER TO 5,000 SQUARE FOOT, AN EXTREME MISAPPLICATION OF WHAT IS INTENDED. IF THIS PLAN IS APPROVED AS IT IS, IT WILL SET A PRECEDENCE THAT WILL BECOME A BLUEPRINT FOR THE DEVELOPERS IN REAL THREAT TO THE CURRENT ZONING OF THIS PROTECT THAT HAS PROTECTED DALLAS COMMUNITIES FOR YEARS. SO MY QUESTION IS, ARE YOU GONNA LISTEN TO AND ADDRESS THESE VERY REAL CONCERNS BEING RAISED BY THE COMMUNITY? MY NEIGHBORS ARE VERY WILLING TO PROVE A REASONABLE DENSITY PLAN. THAT'S YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. AND SHOULD, AND THIS SHOULD BE A WIN FOR THE COMMITTEE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR, THANK YOU FOR JOINING US. THANK YOU. YES, MA'AM. HELLO, MY NAME'S TINA ELLI, TOGETHER WITH MY MOTHER, KAY ELLI, WHO'S A RETIREE OF THE CITY OF DALLAS. WE LIVE AT 1 0 1 7 6 BETTY JANE PLACE. I'M ALSO A FORMER, UH, COMMISSIONER, HAVING SERVED IN THE SUBURBS BEFORE MOVING TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. SO I APPRECIATE YOUR SERVICE. WE ARE BOTH OPPOSED TO THIS, UH, ZONING CHANGE AS MANY OF THE NEIGHBORS HAVE POINTED OUT. DALLAS FORWARD 2.0 SHOULD REALLY BE [03:10:01] YOUR GUIDING PRINCIPLE. THE ONLY ANSWER AND THE ONLY VOTE TODAY IS NO. I URGE YOU TO DIRECT YOUR QUESTIONS TOWARDS THE TH THREE VERSUS R FIVE MISNOMER THAT'S BEEN DISCUSSED HERE. UM, IT'S REALLY LARGER DENSITY THAN, THAN, UM, ANYTHING ELSE THAT HAD BEEN PLANNED. IF PLANNERS AND THE DEVELOPER WERE ALLOWED TO CUT OUR INCOMES BY MORE THAN A THIRD, I ASSURE YOU WE WOULD EACH HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT. UM, NY IS THAT WE'RE NOT OPPOSED TO WORKING WITH AND HARMONIZING WITH THE EXISTING CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. WE ENCOURAGE THAT. WE WANT THAT VISUAL COHERENCE. WE URGE YOU TO VOTE NO TO AVOID AN INAPPROPRIATE SOLUTION TO DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY OF DALLAS. THANK YOU. NEXT SPEAKER, PLEASE. HELLO, MY NAME IS VESH PATEL. I LIVE AT 38 37 MARTHA LANE. UM, I AM IN AGREEMENT WITH MY NEIGHBORS HERE. UM, I DO WANT TO ECHO, UM, MY CONCERNS ABOUT THE SAFETY AND INFRASTRUCTURE. UH, BETTY JANE IS A NARROW TWO LANE BLACKTOP ROAD WITH NO CURBS, SHOULDERS, OR SIDEWALKS. ADDING HUNDREDS OF ADDITIONAL VEHICLES FROM UH, 15 NEW HOMES WOULD CREATE DANGEROUS CONGESTION, ESPECIALLY FOR CHILDREN WALKING HOME FROM SCHOOL OR PLAYING OUTDOORS. THE SURROUNDING STREETS ALREADY STRAINED, CANNOT SUPPORT THE INFLUX WITHOUT MAJOR INFRASTRUCTURE UPGRADES. UH, ALSO, MANY OF THE SURROUNDING STREETS DO NOT CONTAIN SIDEWALKS, WHICH AGAIN, POSES A FURTHER SAFE FURTHERING SAFETY RISK WITH INCREASED THOROUGHFARE. I HAVE A 9-YEAR-OLD CHILD. UM, WE GO FOR WALKS CONSISTENTLY EVERY DAY, TWICE A DAY. SOMETIMES IF SHE WAS HERE, SHE WOULD BE UP HERE TALKING WITH ME. UM, UNFORTUNATELY SHE'S AT SCHOOL. UM, BUT I WOULD TELL YOU SHE IS CONCERNED WHEN WE WALK. IT IS KIND OF A LITTLE SCARY ADDING THAT MUCH MORE CONGESTION TO THAT. I MEAN, I WILL TELL YOU, PEOPLE THAT DO WALK OUTSIDE WILL REDUCE THEIR WALKING OUTSIDE BECAUSE IT'S, IT IS A, A HAZARD. UM, SO THAT IS MY CONCERN. SO I WOULD PROPOSE A NOTE TO THAT. THANK YOU FOR JOINING US. NEXT SPEAKER, PLEASE. MY NAME IS KATIE FORD. I LIVE AT 22 WIMBERLEY COURT, DALLAS, TEXAS. ON BEHALF OF MYSELF AND MANY NEIGHBORS, I'M PRESENTING THIS POSITION PETITION WITH 202 SIGNATURES AS OF TODAY IN OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED REZONING OF WALNUT HILL, BETTY JANE SPEAKING TO THE IMPACT ON OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. WE BELIEVE THIS TYPE OF DENSE CHANGE WOULD BE MORE HARMFUL THAN GOOD. WE ARE FOCUSED ON MAINTAINING THE CHARACTER OF WALNUT HILL AREA AND ENSURING GRADUAL MANAGEABLE GROWTH. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WOULD PLACE A STRAIN ON EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE, COMMUNITY RESOURCES, AND IT ALSO COM COMPROMISES. WHAT WE KNOW IS GREAT CURRENT LIFESTYLE, INCREASED TRAFFIC, NOISE, CHANGE IN NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERS, COMMUNITY UNITY, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND DISPLACEMENT RISKS ARE ALL CONCERNS. ONE OTHER THING I'D LIKE TO ADDRESS IS CONCERNING THE DEVELOPER, LEO. WE IN IN THE COMMUNITY HAVE A HISTORY OF WORKING WITH HIM IN THE GOVERNMENT BUILDING PROJECT, WHICH MAKES RECENT BEHAVIOR ALL MORE CONCERNING HIS USE OF LEGAL ACTIONS. THREATS AS A SCARE TACTIC IS NOT A CONSTRUCTIVE WAY TO ENGAGE WITH RESIDENTS. ADDITIONALLY, POSTING MY PERSONAL INFORMATION, INCLUDING MY NAME AND ADDRESS ON SOCIAL MEDIA, IS ENTIRELY INAPPROPRIATE. I FEEL THIS KIND OF UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT AND LACK OF RESPECT FOR THE COMMUNITY UNDERMINES AND TRUST THE REQUIRED FOR A PRODUCTIVE PARTNERSHIP WITH HIM. WE RESPECTFULLY ASK EACH AND EVERY ONE OF YOU TO TAKE THE VOICES OF PEOPLE ON THIS PAPER AND MYSELF AND VOTE NO, PRESERVE OUR 16 CONSIDER ALTERNATE APPROACHES FOR NEW GROWTH. THAT'S THE TIME. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MA'AM. THANK YOU FOR JOINING US. FOLKS, PLEASE. LET'S, I JUST RESPECTFULLY ASKED AND LET'S NOT CLAP AFTER EVERY SPEAKER PLEASE. NEXT SPEAKER. GOOD AFTERNOON. HELLO, MY NAME IS SCOTT WESZEL AND I HAVE LIVED AT 38 50 BUTELL COURT FOR 25 YEARS. MY WIFE AND I RAISED SIX CHILDREN THERE. MY PROPERTY BACKS UP DIRECTLY TO THE CORNER WHERE THE BETTY JANE LANE AND WALNUT HILL PROPERTIES INTERSECT. I WANNA MAKE IT CLEAR THAT I AM IN FAVOR OF A HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ON, ON THE PROPERTY BEHIND MY HOUSE, BUT NOT [03:15:01] AS CURRENTLY PROPOSED BY THE DEVELOPER. GAY WILL SET UP A NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING AND EVERYONE MAY KNOWN THEIR THEIR PROTEST AGAINST THE REZONING PETITION. THEN WE RECEIVED A SURVEY AND, AND THE OVERWHELMING RESPONSE WAS AGAINST THE REZONING PETITION. OUR NEIGHBORHOOD REPRESENTATIVE SENT A, A REQUEST FOR MODIFICATIONS, UM, TO THE REZONING PROPOSAL ASK, ASKING FOR THE DEVELOPMENT TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE EXISTING ZONING REQUIREMENTS, OR AT LEAST MEET THOSE OF OTHER RECENT PROJECTS IN OUR AREA. BUT OUR REQUESTS SEEM TO HAVE BEEN REJECTED OUTRIGHT IN THIS COMMISSION'S RESPONSE TO OUR REQUEST. HERE IS WHAT I REQUEST OF THIS. COMMISSION LIMIT HOMES TO TWO STORIES AND 30 FEET IN HEIGHT. LIMIT THE DENSITY OF HOMES IN THE CURRENT PROPOSAL. OH, SORRY. LIMIT THE DENSITY OF HOMES IN THE CURRENT PROPOSAL. HOMES WILL BE, UH, MORE DENSE THAN TH THREE ZONE PROPERTIES. FINALLY, I ASK THIS COMMISSION AND OUR CITY COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE TO LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE ADJACENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT AND OTHERS IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND STRONGLY CONSIDER THEIR DESIRES FOR HOW OUR COMMUNITY BE CONSTRUCTED. THERE'S MORE THAN ENOUGH PROPERTY TO BUILD A VERY PROFITABLE DEVELOPMENT USING THE MODIFICATIONS TO THE CURRENT PROPOSAL THAT HAVE BEEN PRESENTED TO THIS COMMISSION, PLEASE STAND UP AND, UM, REQUIRE THAT THIS COM THAT, UM, THE, THE DESIGN FIT IN WITH OUR COMMUNITY AS IT CURRENTLY EXISTS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, SIR. NEXT SPEAKER. GOOD AFTERNOON. HI, GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME'S CHRISTINA GOFF. I LIVE NEXT DOOR TO SCOTT WETZEL AT 38 51 BUTELL COURT. MY HOUSE DIRECTLY ABUTS THE PROPERTY THAT IS TO BE DEVELOPED. UM, NOBODY IS MORE IN FAVOR OF IT BEING DEVELOPED THAN I. IT HAS BEEN AN EMPTY LOT SINCE OUR HOUSE WAS STRUCK BY A TORNADO IN 2019. I WOULD LOVE TO SEE HOMES BUILT THERE. I WOULD NOT LIKE TO SEE THEM BUILT IN THIS WAY. I WANNA UNDERSCORE THE COMMENT MADE BY ONE OF MY NEIGHBORS. THIS IS AN EXTREME MISAPPLICATION OF THE INTENTIONS OF THE FORWARD DALLAS 2.0 PLAN. I'M UNCLEAR WHO THIS BENEFITS OTHER THAN THE DEVELOPER. IT IS FOCUSED ON PROFITABILITY CERTAINLY, BUT I'M NOT SURE WHETHER ANY CONCERN HAS BEEN GIVEN TO THE RESIDENTS OF THIS DEVELOPMENT, MUCH LESS THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORS. WOULD YOU PAY $1 MILLION TO LIVE IN A THREE STORY, 1500 SQUARE FOOT LOT, ONE FOOT BETWEEN EACH. NO DRIVEWAY PARKING FOR ONLY REALISTICALLY ONE SUV 18 GUEST SPOTS FOR 50 HOMES. NOBODY WANTS THAT, RIGHT? THEY SAY IT'S FOR EMPTY NESTERS. EMPTY NESTERS. DON'T WANT THREE STORIES. THEY SAY IT'S FOR YOUNG FAMILIES. ARE YOU KIDDING? I HAVE TWO SMALL CHILDREN. I WOULDN'T PAY $200,000 TO LIVE THERE. SO I'M NOT SURE WHO THIS IS INTENDED FOR, BUT IT ISN'T INTENDED TO BE A PART OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, AS MY COLLEAGUES, AS MY NEIGHBORS HAVE SAID, IS FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES WITH CHILDREN PLAYING IN THE STREETS, WALKING DOGS. WE WANT A DEVELOPMENT THERE, BUT WE WANT A DEVELOPMENT THAT IS LESS DENSE. IDEALLY 4,000, 4,500 SQUARE FOOT LOTS. NOT THREE STORIES, BUT TWO STORIES SO THAT IT CAN BE IN KEEPING WITH THE CURRENT INFRASTRUCTURE THAT'S IN THE AREA. THE TRAFFIC IS A REAL CONCERN. THE PARKING IS A REAL CONCERN. IT'S NOT A CONCERN FOR ME ON BUTELL, BUT IT IS FOR BETTY JANE. IT'S GONNA BE VERY DANGEROUS AT THE CURRENT PLAN. SO THESE ARE MY CONCERNS. I WOULD ASK THAT YOU CONSIDER AN ALTERNATIVE TO WHAT'S BEEN PROPOSED AND VOTE NO TODAY. THANK YOU FOR JOINING US. NEXT SPEAKER. RIGHT. THIS PLAN DEVELOPMENT MAKES A MOCKERY OF YOUR RESIDENTIAL ZONING CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM. THE DEVELOPER IS USING A SHARED ACCESS DRIVEWAY TO AVOID COMPLIANCE WITH THE R FIVE ZONING REQUIREMENTS FOR WHICH UPZONING IS SIMULTANEOUSLY BEING SOUGHT. THE SHARED ACCESS PROPOSAL WOULD ALLOW 10 TIMES THE NUMBER OF LOTS PERMITTED UNDER R 16 AND THREE TIMES THE NUMBER OF LOTS PERMITTED UNDER R FIVE. THE SENSE I GET IS THAT BOTH THE CITY AND THE DEVELOPER ARE TRYING TO SQUEEZE AS MUCH REVENUE AND PROFIT OUT OF THIS PIECE OF DIRT. YOUR OWN RECENT CODE DIAGNOSTIC STUDY FOUND SHARED ACCESS DEVELOPMENT USING EASEMENTS INSTEAD OF STREETS WAS INTENDED TO BE USED FOR ATTACHED SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENTS AND IDENTIFIED NUMEROUS OTHER PROBLEMS FOR WHICH PROCEDURES AND POLICIES NEED TO BE ESTABLISHED. THIS INTENSIVE DEVELOPMENT WITH A HIGH PERCENTAGE OF IMPERVIOUS ROOFS AND CONCRETE [03:20:01] WILL JUST ADD TO THE DALLAS HEAT ISLANDS. THE PROPOSED LOTS ARE SMALL, THERE'S SO LITTLE OPEN SPACE, IT'LL BE NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE TO PLANT ANY MEDIUM TO LARGE SHADE TREES OR SHRUBBERY IN THE DEVELOPMENT THAT WOULD PROVIDE TRANSITION BUFFERS. ONE OF YOUR MEMBERS RECENTLY AUTHORED AN OP-ED IN THE DALLAS PAPER. HE SUGGESTS THAT DALLAS NEEDED MORE HOUSING AND CITIZENS TO SHOW UP AT PLAN COMMISSION MEETINGS. WE WELCOME ENGAGING IN BALANCE AND EQUITABLE DISCUSSION. THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE WHEN CITIZENS ARE GIVEN JUST THREE OR LESS MINUTES TO SPEAK. REMEMBER, AS A CONVERSATION IS A TWO-WAY PROCESS. BY THE TIME A MATTER COMES BEFORE THE COMMISSION, THE OUTCOME IS FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES. DEC DECIDED I DON'T HAVE ENOUGH TIME IN THIS FORUM TO ADDRESS ALL OF THE CONTRADICTIONS IN THE OP-ED. BUT UNLIKE THE AUTHOR, I BELIEVE THAT STORMWATER RUNOFF IS A SERIOUS ISSUE. FLOODING AND ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES EXACERBATED, EXACERBATED BY RUNOFF, ENDANGERED PROPERTY AND LIVES. MANY JURISDICTIONS REQUIRE DEVELOPERS TO RETAIN ANY INCREASED RUNOFF ON THEIR PROPERTY. I CLOSE BY SAYING, FOR REAL, CHANGE TO TAKE PLACE, PLAN, COMMISSIONER, CITY STAFF AND DEVELOPERS NEED TO ENGAGE IMPACTED PROPERTY OWNERS. THAT'S YOUR THANK YOU, SIR. YOUR NEW CITY MASTER, COULD YOU PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, SIR? OPPOSITION. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. CASE IT'S NOT AN ISSUE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS, SIR. DEMOGRAPHICS ERASE. THANK YOU SO MUCH. IT DOES NOTHING FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NEXT SPEAKER, I ASK YOU TO VOTE. THANK YOU, SIR. APPRECIATE IT. SAY YOUR NAME, GIVE THEM YOUR NAME. SAY YOUR NAME, YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, SIR. INTER SOMERVILLE. NEXT SPEAKER, PLEASE. I HAVE A GRAPHIC. OKAY, LET'S GET THAT PULLED UP FOR YOU. WE CAN SAVE YOUR TIME. JORGE, UH, SHE'S GOT A GRAPHIC. I HAVE A GRAPHIC. LAURA BAGOT. OKAY. EVERYONE CAN SEE IT ALL. ARE WE READY? YES, MA'AM. THANK YOU. OKAY. LAURA WHITE BAGOT. I'M A LICENSED ARCHITECT, UH, HAVING WORKED IN RESIDENTIAL FOR OVER 25 YEARS. UM, I'M A PROMINENT ARCHITECT IN THE CITY OF DALLAS. UM, AWARD-WINNING, PUBLISHED, ALL THAT GOOD STUFF. UM, AND I WANT, SO I WANT YOU TO UNDERSTAND THAT I'M COMING AT THIS FROM A PROF PROFESSIONAL PERSPECTIVE, RIGHT? UNDERSTANDING ARCHITECTURE. AND I DON'T TAKE IT LIGHTLY COMING BEFORE YOU TODAY BECAUSE I'VE BEEN ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE TABLE. UM, BUT YOU KNOW, I THINK PEOPLE HAVE SAID THE TWO MAIN OPPOSITIONS ARE LOT SIZE AND HEIGHT. AND I HAVE THIS GRAPHIC FOR YOU, JUST SORT OF SO YOU CAN SEE IT VISUALLY, BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S THE BEST WAY TO EXPLAIN THIS. UM, ON THE LEFT, YOU SEE THE R 16. MY HOUSE IS THIS SMALL HOUSE ON THE FAR LEFT, LITTLE MID-CENTURY MODERN. I'M GONNA SAY ABOUT 50% OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS MID-CENTURY MODERN OR RANCH STYLE HOMES. NEXT TO ME IS MY NEIGHBOR, WHICH IS A NEWER HOME, UH, NEWER CONSTRUCTION, BUILT MORE RECENT, FILLS UP MORE OF THE LOT, UH, YOU KNOW, WITHIN THE CODE, THE 30 FOOT HEIGHT. TWO STORIES ON THE FAR RIGHT IS WALNUT MEADOWS, WHICH IS A PD FOUR 16, WHICH IS, UM, AN ESTABLISHED NEIGHBORHOOD. IT'S BEEN HERE FOR A WHILE. IT HAS A 36 FOOT HEIGHT LIMITATION, BUT IT HAS A TWO STORY LIMIT. OKAY? SO YOU CAN SEE THE SCALE OF THIS, AND THEN ALSO THE MALE SHIRE ESTATES, WHICH IS PD 1 10 60, WHICH IS CURRENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION IN A SIMILAR R 16 NEIGHBORHOOD. SO WHAT I WANT YOU TO DO IS VISUALLY SEE THE SCALE OF THESE HOUSES WITH WHAT'S IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD VERSUS WHAT IS PROPOSED, WHICH IS WHAT'S IN THE MIDDLE, WHICH IS THREE STORY MAX 36 HEIGHT. OKAY? THEN THE CITY OF DALLAS, YOU KNOW, 36 HEIGHT IS MIDPOINT OF THE RIDGE. SO IT'S ACTUALLY A LITTLE HIGHER THAN 36. BUT I'M, I'M BEING GENEROUS AND I'M SHOWING THESE HOUSES WITH THE 10 FOOT SETBACK, WHICH SOME OF THEM ARE REQUESTING. AND THEN THERE'S ONE FOOT FOR SOME, OR I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY, I DON'T, I CAN'T REALLY TELL WHAT WHAT IT IS ON THE OTHER ONES, BUT YOU CAN SEE THAT IT IS OUT OF SCALE. LIKE THIS IS NOT TOO SCALE FOR THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. UM, AND THAT IS WHAT'S, UH, THAT'S YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. OKAY. THAT'S IMPORTANT. THANK YOU FOR JOINING US. I JUST WANNA SAY, THINK ABOUT THIS BECAUSE YOU'RE AFFECTING Y'ALL'S NEIGHBORHOODS. THANK YOU SO MUCH. SAY YES TO THIS PD. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR JOINING US INSTEAD OF PRECEDENCE. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR NEXT SPEAKER, PLEASE. NEXT SPEAKER. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO BE HEARD? OKAY. WE'LL GO TO OUR, UH, APPLICANT FOR OUR REBUTTAL TIME. MR. KINGSTON, HOW'S THE AUDIO, TONY? I WAS TOLD THAT IT'S BETTER. [03:25:01] THANK YOU. HAD A LITTLE PROBLEM. CAN YOU HEAR OKAY? YES, WE YES WE CAN. OKAY. THANK YOU. CHAIR SHEAD. UM, UH, WE ARE SO GRATEFUL FOR THE PROCESS THAT, UH, MR. BATE AND, UM, CHAIR AND, UH, UH, COMMISSIONER HALL DID HEAR, UM, THE SUGGESTION THAT THERE WEREN'T COMPROMISES REACHED IS REALLY HARD TO SQUARE WITH THE FACTS. UM, REDUCE, REDUCE HEIGHTS OF STRUCTURES, INCREASED, UM, SETBACKS, UH, REDUCED UNIT COUNT, INCREASED OPEN SPACE. UM, OUR TRAFFIC STUDY SHOW VERY, VERY LITTLE EFFECT ON BETTY JANE LANE. THIS IS PRIMARILY A, A, UH, WALNUT HILL DEVELOPMENT. UM, AND WE SHOULD ALSO MENTION THAT THE, THE GOOD POINTS RAISED BY, UM, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER IN THE BRIEFING ARE THINGS WE AGREE WITH. THERE WAS NEVER AN INTENT TO COUNT, UH, OUTSIDE SPACE, ABOVE GRADE AS OPEN SPACE. AND WE'RE MORE THAN WELCOME TO MAKE THAT, UH, FIRM IN THE ZONING. UM, AND, YOU KNOW, WE ARE, WE'RE SIMPLY NOT TRYING TO DO CLEAR STORIES AT ALL. WE'VE CIRCULATED ELEVATIONS AND WE DON'T INTEND TO MISLEAD ANYBODY ABOUT THE DESIGNS OF THESE UNITS. I'M ALSO STRUCK BY THE PRAISE FOR HEIMER. UM, I, IT, IT SOUNDED A LOT DIFFERENT WHEN WE HEARD FROM THE NEIGHBORS JUST A LITTLE WHILE AGO AT THIS BODY. UH, AND I NOTE THAT SOME OF THE CONCERNS RAISED ARE TO REDUCE OUR ENTITLEMENTS ON THESE PROPERTIES BELOW THAT OF THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES, WHICH IS REALLY HARD TO SQUARE ANYTHING. ANYWAY, THIS IS A GREAT BUFFER DEVELOPMENT BETWEEN INTENSE COMMERCIAL USE AND QUIET SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS. AND IF YOU WANNA LOOK AT A HEIGHT PROBLEM, YOU SHOULD JUST LOOK TO THE EAST AT THE NORTHWAY CHURCH, WHICH IS TALLER THAN ANYTHING IN THE AREA. SO WE VERY MUCH APPRECIATE THE, THE DELIBERATION THAT THAT COMMISSIONER HALL HAS GIVEN US, AND WE HOPE TO, UH, EARN YOUR TRUST ON THIS PROJECT. UM, LEO AND ROB AND I ARE ALL AVAILABLE FOR YOUR QUESTIONS. THANK YOU FOR JOINING US. UH, COMMISSIONER HALL, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? THANK YOU SO MUCH, MA'AM. COMMISSIONER HALL? I DO. MR. CHAIR. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR IN THE MATTER OF CASE Z 2 5 0 0 0 0 2 1, I MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE THIS ITEM, SUBJECT TO STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION FOR A PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, SUBJECT TO A CONCEPTUAL PLAN AND CONDITIONS WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGES TO THE PROPOSED CONDITIONS. HERE WE GO. SECTION 51, P ONE, OH 0.109, SUBSECTION E ITEM TWO, STRIKE SUB ITEM C CLAIRE STORY SECTION 51 P 0.110 AT ITEM B, A MINIMUM OF 17 GUEST PARKING SPACES MUST BE PROVIDED. SECTION 51 P 0.112, STRIKE ITEM H AND ITEM I, SECTION 51 P 0.113, SUBSECTION C ITEM THREE, STRIKE OR ABOVE, GROUND OUTSIDE ROOF DECK, ROOFTOP GARDEN. AND IF I GET A SECOND, I HAVE SOME COMMENTS TO MAKE YOU DO. HAVE A SECOND. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER HOUSE FOR YOUR SECOND COMMISSIONER. QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, DISCUSSION? I HAVE SOME COMMENTS. OKAY. DO YOU ANYBODY ELSE HAVE, LET'S, WE'LL START WITH COMMISSIONER HALL. YES, SIR. I GET TO GO FIRST. THANK YOU. YES, SIR. COMMISSION THIS CASE IS ABOUT BRINGING A DIVERSITY OF HOUSING TO DISTRICT 13. AT FIRST READ, I THOUGHT THE CONCEPT OF BRINGING MUCH NEEDED HOUSING TO THE DISTRICT WAS GOOD, BUT I DID HAVE A FEW CONCERNS. PRINCIPALLY THE NUMBER OF 60 ZERO LOTS, SINGLE FAMILY HOME DETACHED UNITS ON SMALL LOTS TOO FEW GUEST PARKING SPACES AND POSSIBLY INSUFFICIENT OPEN SPACE. THERE WERE NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS AS WELL, AND TWO COMMUNITY MEETINGS WERE HELD TO DISCUSS THEM. THE FIRST MEETING SPONSORED BY THE APPLICANT WAS ATTENDED BY CITY OFFICIALS AND STAFF. THE SECOND MEETING WAS A MEMBERS ONLY EVENT HELD BY THE WALNUT HILL HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION BOARD TO CAPTURE AND SUMMARIZE THE COMMUNITY'S CONCERNS AND QUESTIONS. THE BOARD THEN SENT AN EIGHT PAGE LETTER SUMMARIZING THESE POINTS TO ME, THE COUNCIL MEMBER'S OFFICE AND THE PLANNING STAFF. IT WAS FORWARDED TO THE DEVELOPER AND HIS CONSULTANTS. EVERY ITEM IN THIS LETTER WAS REVIEWED AND DISCUSSED BY ALL THESE PARTIES. AND I WANT TO THANK MR. BATE FOR THE WAY HE INCORPORATED COMMENTARY ON CERTAIN ITEMS INTO HIS REPORT. REGARDING QUESTIONS LISTED IN THE LETTER, THE HOMEOWNERS [03:30:01] ASSOCIATION BOARD DISTRIBUTED A RESPONSE TO THE COMMUNITY LAST WEEK. I WANT TO ELABORATE A BIT MORE ON SOME OF THE POINTS MADE IN THE LETTER. FIRST OF ALL, DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SET BY A PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT IN ANOTHER LOCATION DO NOT SET A PRECEDENT FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS. AND WE TEND TO VIEW EACH CASE AS UNIQUE. IF THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST COMPLIES WITH FOUR DALLAS LAND USE GUIDELINES, IT'S LIKELY TO BE RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL. STAFF'S REPORT DISCUSSES THE REASON FOR THEIR RECOMMENDATION. WE CANNOT MANDATE EXTERIOR FINISHES OR THE PLACEMENT OF WINDOWS OR THEIR TRANSPARENCY. WE CANNOT SOLICIT ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT OR SITE PLANS. I ALSO WANT TO ADD THAT WE CANNOT TELL THE DEVELOPER TO MOVE THIS PROJECT TO ANOTHER DISTRICT. WE CAN DENY THE APPLICATION IF STAFF COMMISSIONER COUNCIL FEEL THAT IT IS NOT APPROPRIATE. LAND USE FOR THE SITE STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL. AND I AGREE WHAT HAPPENS TODAY AND IN COUNCIL AND FINALLY IN PERMITTING REMAINS TO BE SEEN. OPPONENTS TO THE APPLICATION HAD DRAWN UP AND SUBMITTED FOR ADOPTION, THEIR OWN DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR 26 LARGER HOUSING UNITS. SOME LEADERS SUGGESTED A DEVELOPMENT MIRRORING THE NEIGHBORHOOD IMMEDIATELY TO THE NORTH OR A SET OF CONDITIONS COPYING THOSE APPROVED FOR A DIFFERENT DEVELOPMENT SEVERAL MILES AWAY. SOME COMMUNITY MEMBERS IN CONDITIONAL SUPPORT OF THE PROJECT SUGGESTED A MAXIMUM OF 40 HOUSING UNITS. ALL THESE REQUESTS WERE REVIEWED BY STAFF AND DISCUSSED WITH THE DEVELOPER. THE DEVELOPER DECLINED TO ADOPT AN ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, BUT DID RE AGREE TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF UNITS TO 50, LIMIT THE HEIGHT OF UNITS BORDERING EXISTING HOMES ON THE NORTH TO TWO STORIES, INCREASE THE LOT SIZE AND SQUARE FAGE OF UNITS ON THE NORTH, AND INCREASE THE LANDSCAPING BUFFERS ON THE NORTHERN BORDER BEYOND THAT REQUIRED BY ARTICLE 10. THESE CHANGES ARE NOTED IN THE PROPOSED PLAN DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE. SOME OF THE ELEMENTS OF THIS SITE, WHICH INFLUENCED ARE RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL, ARE THAT THE L-SHAPED LOT LIES PRINCIPALLY ON THE MAJOR ARTERIAL OF WALNUT HILL LANE, NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF ARTERIAL'S MARSH LANE AND WALNUT HILL. THE AREA ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF WALNUT HILL BETWEEN MIDWAY ROAD AND MARSH LANE, IS OCCUPIED BY COMMUNITY PARK AND REC CENTER, ANOTHER GATED ZERO LOT SINGLE FAMILY SUBDIVISION OF 25 LARGER HOMES. THOMAS JEFFERSON HIGH SCHOOL, THE FIRE STATION, THREE CHURCHES AND RETAIL AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE ARTERIALS. THIS PROPOSAL IS NOT DEVELOPMENT IN THE MIDDLE OF A SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD. IT DOES SHARE A NORTHERN BORDER WITH SINGLE FAMILY, BUT THE SITE IS PRINCIPALLY LOCATED IN BETWEEN A FIRE STATION AND A CHURCH AND ACROSS THE STREET FROM A CITY WATER PUMPING STATION. THE NOTIFICATION ZONE INCLUDES FOUR CHURCHES, THE PUMP AND FIRE STATIONS, AND COMMERCIAL RETAIL AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF MARSHALL LANE AND WALNUT HILL. THE PROPOSAL DOES NOT DISPLACE SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING OR CHANGE ZONING FROM RESIDENTIAL. IT'S TRUE THAT THE LOTS THAT MAKE UP THE CIDER ZONED R 16, BUT THERE'S NO EVIDENCE OF SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING BEING ON THIS SITE IN RECENT HISTORY. THERE IS NEED FOR ADDITIONAL FORMS OF HOUSING IN THE DISTRICT. THIS, THIS DEVELOPMENT OFFERS POSSIBLE ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE NEARBY WALKABLE RETAIL, NEW MEMBERS FOR THE MANY NEARBY CHURCHES, AND POTENTIAL FOR HOMEOWNERS OF ALL AGES TO MOVE UP AND DOWN THE HOUSING LADDER AT DIFFERENT PRICE POINTS. DISTRICT 13 CONSISTS OF A WIDE RANGE OF TRADITIONAL SINGLE FAMILY HOME TYPES, ALTHOUGH THERE ARE DUPLEXES AND MULTI-FAMILY COMPLEXES SCATTERED ABOUT INCLUDING ZERO LOT SINGLE FAMILY. YOU MAY RECALL THAT THE COMMISSIONING COUNCIL EARLIER THIS YEAR APPROVED A TOWN HOME DISTRICT JUST ACROSS BETTY JANE LANE FROM THIS SITE. THESE SIT ON TWO ACRES WITH AN APPROVED DENSITY OF 16 PER ACRE, GREATER THAN THAT PROPOSED TIER. YES, IN MANY WAYS THIS PROPOSAL WILL BE A NEW TYPE OF DISTRICT. I'LL RESPOND BY SAYING THAT ALL OF DALLAS NEEDS A WIDE RANGE OF HOUSING OPTIONS AT VERY VARYING PRICE POINTS. AND THAT DISTRICT 13 SHOULD NOT, CANNOT BE EXCLUDED FROM PARTICIPATING IN EFFORTS TO PROVIDE THIS HOUSING. I ACKNOWLEDGE THAT APPROXIMATELY 70 OF THE OWNERS LIVING IN THIS AREA ARE IN OPPOSITION. HOWEVER, THERE IS ALSO SUPPORT AND I'D LIKE TO READ SOME BRIEF REMARKS MADE BY FOUR OF THEM. ONE, I THINK THESE HOMES WILL BRING VITALITY. I THINK THEY WILL BRING YOUNGER FAMILIES. I THINK THEY WILL ALLOW PEOPLE WHO WANT TO STAY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD BUT NOT STAY IN BIG HOMES TO RETIRE AND STAY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I AM A VOICE IN FAVOR OF INCREASED DENSITY. [03:35:02] TWO. WHAT THEY ARE DOING ACTUALLY ADDS VALUE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD WHILE SECONDARY, SECONDARILY, ANSWERING THE MUCH NEEDED EXTRA DENSITY TO FULFILL SOME OF OUR CITY HOUSING SHORTAGES. MOST NEIGHBORS I HAVE TALKED TO HAVE BEEN IN SUPPORT OF MORE HOUSING AND LESS COMMERCIAL RETAIL AND CIVIC. THIS PROJECT WILL BRING BEAUTY AND NEW DEVELOPMENT TO A BARREN PROPERTY THAT HAS LAID IDLE FOR MANY YEARS. IT WILL ALSO PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY TO CREATE A COMMUNITY THAT IS ATTRACTIVE, ACCESSIBLE, AND ALIGNED WITH THE FUTURE OF HOUSING NEEDS IN DALLAS. I BELIEVE IT WILL BE A BENEFIT NOT ONLY TO THOSE WHO LIVE THERE, BUT ALSO TO THE BROADER NEIGHBORHOOD AND CITY. AND FINALLY, DALLAS IS FACING A SIGNIFICANT SHORTAGE OF HOUSING OPTIONS FOR THE GROWING NUMBER OF RESIDENTS, PARTICULARLY BABY BOOMERS WHO WISH TO DOWNSIDE WHILE RE UH, REMAINING IN THE COMMUNITIES THEY LOVE. MANY OF MY CLIENTS ARE LOOKING FOR HIGH QUALITY, LOWER MAINTENANCE HOMES IN ESTABLISHED NEIGHBORHOOD. YET OUR CITY CURRENTLY OFFERS FEW SUITABLE OPTIONS. THERE IS STRONG INTEREST FOR THIS TYPE OF HOUSING SOLUTION. DEVELOPMENTS LIKE THE ONE CRESCENT ESTATE HAS PROPOSED DIRECTLY ADDRESSES THIS, UH, NEED FOR OFFERING THOUGHTFULLY DESIGNED HOMES WITH APPROPRIATE DENSITY, REDUCING HEIGHT ALONG NEIGHBORHOOD EDGES, AND INCREASING OPEN SPACE. THE PROJECT PROVIDES AN OPPORTUNITY TO CREATE A COMMUNITY THAT IS ATTRACTIVE, ACCESSIBLE, AND ALIGNED WITH THE FUTURE HOUSE AND NEEDS OF DALLAS. IT WILL BENEFIT NOT ONLY THOSE WHO LIVE THERE, BUT ALSO THE BROADER NEIGHBORHOOD AND CITY COMMISSIONERS. UH, I ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT IN THIS MATTER. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, SIR. THANK YOU, SIR. THANK YOU, SIR. YOU GUYS, THANK YOU VERY MUCH, FOLKS. UH, I'LL GO NEXT. UH, MA'AM, THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MA'AM. THANK YOU. UM, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT. I DON'T KNOW MR. KINGSTON, CAN YOU SEE OUR SCREENS? I CAN, YEAH. OKAY. SO, UH, AS YOU KNOW, THIS HAS, THIS HAS BEEN ONE OF THOSE, UH, THOSE CASES THAT I, YOU KNOW, I ACTUALLY READ ABOUT THIS ONE BEFORE IT WAS EVEN PART OF OUR DOCKET. SO, UH, I WANT, I THANK YOU MR. LANSKY. YES. SO I WANNA THANK COMMISSIONER HALL FOR INVITING ME TO TAKE A SITE VISIT, WHICH I DID. AND THEN I WENT BACK ON MY OWN, UH, AFTER THAT. UH, AND IT, IT WAS INTERESTING THING. 'CAUSE YOU KNOW, AS YOU KNOW, WE, WE PROBABLY GET THE MOST INFORMATION, UH, ABOUT THESE CASES FROM THE SITE VISIT. SO FOR, FOR THOSE OF US THAT MAYBE DIDN'T, YOU KNOW, COULDN'T MAKE IT OUT THERE, UH, I'M HOPING, CAN YOU WALK US THROUGH WHERE THE SITE IS HERE, WHERE IT IS ON WALNUT HILL? WHAT IS THE WIDTH OF WALNUT HILL? WHAT IS THE RIGHT OF WAY THERE? IS IT A ONE LANE, TWO LANE, THREE LANE? WHAT IS SURROUNDING IT? UH, YES SIR, PLEASE. UM, YEAH, IT, YOU KNOW, WALNUT HILL IN THAT AREA IS THE SAME AS IT IS ACROSS MOST OF ITS WIDTH AT THE SIX LANES WITH A DEDICATED TURN LANE. UM, IT'S, YOU KNOW, THAT, THAT DESIGN TYPE, UM, ACCORDING TO TRAFFIC ENGINEERING IS ENGINEERED FOR VIRTUALLY INFINITE TRAFFIC. UH, AND WALNUT HILL CARRIES A GREAT DEAL OF TRAFFIC, BUT NOT NEARLY THE MOST TRAFFIC OF OUR BIG ARTERIALS IN NORTH DALLAS, PARTLY BECAUSE OF LOWER DENSITY IN THE AREA. UM, AND SO THEN YOU'VE GOT MARSH LANE IS ALSO AN IMPORTANT COMMERCIAL STREET IN NORTHWEST DALLAS. AND SO THE INTERSECTION OF THOSE TWO IS QUITE NATURALLY AN IMPORTANT COMMERCIAL NODE. THERE IS SOME CONCERN THAT WAS, UH, UH, ADDRESSED TO ME ON COP THAT PEOPLE SEE THE, UH, COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AS A POTENTIAL SOURCE OF CRIME AND THOUGHT THAT OUR DEVELOPMENT MIGHT SERVE AS A BUFFER TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S TRUE OR NOT, BUT I DO THINK IT IS AN APPROPRIATE STEP DOWN, UM, FROM COMMERCIAL TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL THAT WE DON'T WANT TO DISTURB. AND I THINK THE PROJECT WILL HAVE THAT BENEFIT FOR THE NEIGHBORS OF ACTUALLY STRENGTHENING AND PRESERVING THE EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED NEIGHBORHOODS, WHICH, WHICH OURS ARE TOO. THEY'RE JUST SMALLER. IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE I COULD OFFER ON THAT, MR. CHAIR? THAT'S JUST FINE. I, I, I, I THINK WHEN I FIRST READ ABOUT THIS CASE, I THINK I HAD AN IMAGE IN MY MIND ABOUT, UH, WHERE IT WOULD BE IN TERMS OF A A, A SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD. AND I ENVISIONED SOMETHING A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT THAN WHAT I SAW WHEN I VISITED THE SITE. UH, YOU, YOU MENTIONED THE WORDS, THIS IS A COMMERCIAL NODE. UH, THIS PROPERTY HAS, UH, ACCESS TO WALNUT HILL, BETTY JANE, AND IT'S ALMOST ON THE CORNER OF MARSH LANE. AND I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU, MR. PARDON [03:40:01] ME, PARDON ME. FOR MR. BAIT, UH, THERE WAS A, THERE'S A DEVELOPMENT CURRENTLY GOING ON CLOSE TO THIS SIDE. CAN YOU KIND OF HIGHLIGHT WHERE IT IS HERE ON OUR, ON THE GOOGLE MAP? UH, YES. THE, ARE YOU REFERRING TO PD 1130, WHICH WAS THE NEARBY? UH, YES, SIR. THERE IS. FAIR. YES. SO THAT WOULD BE, IF YOU CAN SEE THE CURSOR HERE, IT'S A LITTLE, NO, IT'S LAGGING BEHIND. OKAY. WELL, IT IS THIS STRUC OR THIS PORTION, THIS LOT HERE, IMMEDIATELY NORTH OF THE EL RANCHO SUPER MECADO, UM, HOME OF THE FORMER DALLAS COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER. THAT WAS REZONED EARLIER THIS YEAR AS PD 1130. OKAY. AND THAT'S CURRENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION, I BELIEVE. RIGHT? UH, I'M NOT AWARE OF THE CURRENT STATUS OF IT. I THINK THEY PULLED A DEMO PERMIT FOR IT. OKAY. I, I THINK I SAW THAT. THERE'S, THERE'S ALREADY DIRT TURNING THERE. SO, AND THE SITE THAT IS CURRENTLY ON THE, UH, WITH A MOTION TODAY IS JUST RIGHT SOUTH OF THERE, SOUTH, IS THAT RIGHT? THE SUBJECT SITE FOR THIS CASE IS THIS, UH, AS WE'VE BEEN SAYING, SORT OF AN L-SHAPED OKAY. PORTION HERE. UH, THE CONCRETE HERE FROM THE, UH, DRIVEWAY AND PARKING WITH THE FORMER CHURCH AND THE CONCRETE PAD HERE OF THE STRUCTURE ITSELF AND THE GREENFIELD SITE TO THE SOUTH. AND, UH, WHAT IS THE, THE DENSITY COMPARED TO THOSE TWO SITES? SO IT'S BEING BUILT VERSUS WHAT'S, UH, WE HAVE A MOTION FOR TODAY. UH, PD 1130 HAS A MAXIMUM DAWN UNIT DENSITY OF 16 UNITS PER ACRE. UH, THE SITE HERE IN QUESTION, UH, THEY ARE, UH, WITH THE COMMISSIONER'S MOTION, IT WOULD BE SIMPLY A FIXED LIMIT OF 50 UNITS, WHICH COMES OUT TO ABOUT 13 AND A HALF UNITS PER ACRE. 13 PER ACRE. OKAY. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER HUS. RIGHT. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. UM, I WANT TO THANK COMMISSIONER HALL FOR HIS GOOD WORK ON THE CASE AND FOR HOSTING ME AT THE SITE, UH, TO, UH, TO SEE THE, SEE THE SITE IN PERSON. UM, I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH THIS STRETCH OF WALNUT HILL. MY, MY FIRM'S DESIGNING, UM, A NEW BUILDING FOR NORTHWAY CHURCH, WHICH WAS DESTROYED IN THIS TORNADO. SO I'M, I'M PRETTY FAMILIAR WITH WHAT HAPPENED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AS A RESULT OF THE TORNADO. UM, I WANTED TO JUST GIVE A LITTLE BACKGROUND ABOUT MY, MY EXPERIENCE WITH, UH, SHARED ACCESS HOUSING IN DISTRICT 10. UH, MY DISTRICT IS BASICALLY A BEDROOM DISTRICT. UH, I DON'T HAVE MANY CASES IN MY DISTRICT, AS YOU ALL KNOW. AND THE CASES I HAVE ARE TYPICALLY SHARED ACCESS CASES. UM, WE HAD OUR FIRST SHARED ACCESS CASE 12 YEARS AGO. UM, SINCE THAT TIME, WE'VE COMPLETED, UH, OVER 450 SINGLE FAMILY, UM, OWNER OCCUPIED DETACHED RESIDENCES IN DISTRICT 10 THAT ARE SHARED ACCESS. THESE HOMES HAVE TWO CAR GARAGES. THEY HAVE BRICK VENEER ON THE OUTSIDE, THEY HAVE FRONT PORCHES. UM, NONE OF THESE PROJECTS, THESE 450 HOMES HAVE CREATED TRAFFIC PROBLEMS, HAVE CREATED STORMWATER DRAINAGE PROBLEMS. UM, THE, UM, HOMES ARE ALL OCCUPIED. THE DEVELOPERS TELL ME THAT THEY ARE SELLING FASTER AND AT HIGHER PRICES THAN THEY PERFORMED, MEANING THAT THERE IS A DEMAND FOR DIFFERENT TYPES OF HOUSING IN THIS CITY. AND I'M VERY PROUD OF DISTRICT 10, UM, FOR EMBRACING THESE, THESE DEVELOPMENTS ARE, BECAUSE WE ARE A, A BEDROOM DISTRICT, ARE INEVITABLY ADJACENT TO TRADITIONAL SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS. THEY HAVE NOT DONE DAMAGE TO THOSE NEIGHBORHOODS. THEY'VE NOT REDUCED THE VALUE IN THOSE NEIGHBORHOODS. THEY'VE BEEN GREAT NEIGHBORS. THEY, THESE, UH, PROJECTS ARE WELL MAINTAINED. THEY'RE NEAT, THEY'RE TIDY, THEY'RE SECURE. THEY'VE NOT CREATED SECURITY PROBLEMS OR CRIME PROBLEMS. THEY, UM, EXCUSE ME, MA'AM, I'M MAKING MY COMMENTS. THANK YOU. WELL, MAN, I'M SORRY. THIS, MA'AM, THIS IS NOT A BACK AND FORTH, MA'AM. I RESPECTFULLY ASKED YOU TO PLEASE LET, LET US SPEAK. I SAID THIS WAS A SHARED ACCESS EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THESE, JUST LIKE THIS PROJECT. AND SO MAY MAYBE YOU'D LIKE YES, MA'AM. AND THIS IS NOT A, DID THESE 450 SINGLE FAMILY OWNER-OCCUPIED RESIDENCES HAVE BEEN SPREAD OVER 10 PROJECTS, MEANING THE AVERAGE SIZE OF THE PROJECTS IN MY DISTRICT ARE 46 OR 47 UNITS. THIS ONE'S 50. THIS IS RIGHT DOWN THE FAIRWAY OF WHAT WE'VE SEEN. I WOULD INVITE ANY AND ALL OF YOU TO GO ON A TOUR OF DISTRICT 10 [03:45:01] WITH ME AND SEE THE, UM, UH, THE PRIDE THAT I HAVE IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD. UM, WITH RESPECT TO A FINAL, UH, DETAIL, UM, OF THIS, THIS CASE. UM, THE FACT THAT THE DEVELOPER IS MOVING HIS THREE STORY UNITS TO THE CENTER OF THE SITE AWAY FROM THE PERIMETER IS, UH, I THINK EXCELLENT PLANNING. AND THE FACT THAT THIS APPLICATION HAS A 14 FOOT SETBACK ON THE FRONT, EXCUSE ME, ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY WHEN THE ADJACENT HOMES HAVE A SIX FOOT SETBACK, UM, TO ME SPEAKS VOLUMES. SO, UM, IN SHORT, I'M, I'M PROUD TO, UM, SUPPORT THIS MOTION. I AGAIN APPRECIATE, UH, COMMISSIONER HALL'S HARD WORK ON IT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, SIR. E CHAIR RUBEN. UM, THANKS. I THINK I HAVE SOME COMMENTS AND THEN MAYBE SOME QUESTIONS FOR, FOR MR. BATE AS WELL. UM, FIRST OFF, I WANNA EXPRESS MY APPRECIATION FOR COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT. I THINK YOU STOLE A, A LOT OF MY THUNDER, WHICH I'M, I'M VERY FINE WITH. AND THAT WE ARE ADDING IN SHARED ACCESS DEVELOPMENTS LIKE THESE ALL ACROSS THE CITIES AND ALL ACROSS THE CITY AND, YOU KNOW, OTHER SORT OF DIFFERENT HOUSING OPTIONS TO MEET OUR HOUSING SHORTAGE AND GROWING HOUSING NEED. AND THIS IS, AS COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT SAID, IN STEP WITH WHAT WE'VE BEEN DOING IN OTHER AREAS ACROSS NORTH EAST AND AND THE REST OF DALLAS. UM, I CAN THINK OF SEVERAL EXAMPLES IN DISTRICT 14 AS WELL AS IN DISTRICT 10. AND I, I JUST WANNA ADD THAT I AM FINE WITH THIS COMING TO MY NEIGHBORHOOD TOO. IN FACT, WE HAD A CASE A COUPLE BLOCKS AWAY FROM ME THAT WAS VERY SIMILAR TO THIS, WHERE IT WAS ALONG A PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL ROAD IN A LONG, SORT OF DORMANT OR UNDERUTILIZED SITE THAT WAS MOSTLY CONCRETE AND WE ADDED IN MULTIFAMILY THERE WITH VERY LITTLE CONSTERNATION. SO I AM FINE WITH IT CLOSE TO ME, AND I AM, AS A RESULT, COMFORTABLE WITH IT HERE. UM, AS WELL, I DO WANT TO JUST MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE CONCERNS ABOUT HEIGHT AND, YOU KNOW, LOOKING INTO PEOPLE'S BACKYARDS OR HOMES. AND I JUST WANNA UNDERSTAND IF THIS REMAINS R 16, UM, BACK IN, I THINK THE CONCERN IS PARTICULARLY ON THE PARTS THAT ARE BACKING UP TO WIMBERLEY COURT. RIGHT? OKAY. SOMEONE WITH AN, IF THEY BUILT ON THE SITE TODAY, R 16 COULD GET WITHIN 10 FEET OF THAT NORTH PROPERTY LINE, RIGHT? THAT IS CORRECT. THE R 16 ZONING IS A 10 FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK. OKAY. AND THEY COULD BUILD A 30 FOOT HIGH HOME RIGHT THERE. 30 FEET, YES. ALL THE WAY TO 10 FEET BACK FROM THAT PROPERTY LINE, RIGHT? THAT IS CORRECT. OKAY. AND THIS ZONING ON THE NORTH SIDE IS ACTUALLY MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN WHAT COULD BE BUILT ON R 16 WITH RESPECT TO THAT BACK PROPERTY LINE? RIGHT. IT HAS A GREATER REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT, 14 FEET, UM, AND IT HAS AN IDENTICAL HEIGHT LIMIT OF 30 FEET. SO YES, IT WOULD BE MORE RESTRICTIVE IN TERMS OF THAT. OKAY. AND THEN ALONG THE EASTERN SIDE, THAT ABUTS THE, THE FIRE STATION? RIGHT. UH, THE MAJORITY OF THE EASTERN SIDE DOES ABUT THE FIRE STATION. THERE ARE, I BELIEVE, TWO OR THREE UNITS THAT ARE ABUTTING TOWARDS, UH, BUTELL COURT. UM, BUTELL COURT IS ALSO R 16. THAT WOULD MEAN 10 FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK. THERE. UH, THERE IS AN ALLEYWAY THERE, WHICH IS PER QUICK GOOGLE MAP MEASUREMENT. IT'S ABOUT, OUR STANDARD ALLEYWAY IS ABOUT 10 FEET, SO IT MIGHT BE 10 FEET THERE. UH, AND THEN AN ADDITIONAL 10 FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK FOR THE PROPOSED PDS, UH, PROPOSED UNITS IN THIS PD. OKAY. GREAT. THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER FORESITE FILED BY COMMISSIONER HAMPTON. AND HOW HIGH ARE THOSE, UH, PROPERTIES THAT ARE ON THE EASTERN SIDE OF THIS DEVELOPMENT THAT, UH, ABUT A BUTYL LANE? UH, THOSE TWO OR THREE THAT YOU MENTIONED THAT ABUT BUTYL BUTYL COURT, UH, RIGHT NOW, THE CONDITIONS AS WRITTEN, THOSE WOULD BE ALLOWED FOR 36 FEET. SO THOSE COULD BE THREE STORIES. UH, YES, THEY COULD BE THREE STORIES, THEY COULD BE TWO STORIES. UM, RIGHT NOW, THE WAY THE PD IS WRITTEN, AND THIS IS SIMILAR TO, UH, ALL OUR SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICTS ACTUALLY, IS THAT IT'S ONLY A HEIGHT LIMITATION. UH, SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICTS DON'T TYPICALLY HAVE A STORY LIMIT. SO, SO BASICALLY, YOU KNOW, THE, THE, THE HOMEOWNER WHO SPOKE, WHO SAID THAT, UH, SHE COULD HAVE A THREE STORY, UH, UNIT FACING DOWN ON HER PROPERTY, SINGLE STORY PROPERTY, SHE WAS CORRECT IN THAT STATEMENT. UM, I, I WOULD'VE TO SEE HOW IT KIND OF IS ACTUALLY BUILT OUT. BUT THEORETICALLY, YES, YOU COULD HAVE A HOUSE [03:50:01] THAT WOULD HAVE POSSIBLE PORTION OF THE PROPERTY. MR. COME UP PLEASE. COULD YOU COME UP PLEASE? I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU. ARE, UH, THE HOMEOWNER PRESIDENT, YOU KNOW, IF YOU'D LIKE TO COME UP. OKAY. YOU KNOW, I WOULD LIKE FOR, YOU KNOW, I WOULD LIKE FOR YOU TO BE ABLE TO COMMENT ON THIS. AND ALSO I'D LIKE TO, UH, FOR YOU TO HELP, HELP ME TO UNDERSTAND WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY IN THIS PROPERTY BEFORE THE HURRICANE. I'M, I'M SORRY, BEFORE THE TORNADO IN, IN 2019, FORGIVE ME, I, BOTH MR. HOUSEWRIGHT AND MR. HALL HAVE TALKED ABOUT OTHER AREAS AND OTHER DEVELOPMENTS, AND THEY USE THOSE AS MODELS FOR WHAT THEY'RE PROUD OF AND WHY THEY WOULD SUPPORT THIS. YET THEY'RE UNWILLING FOR US TO USE ANOTHER NEIGHBORHOOD AND SAY WHAT RESTRICTIONS WERE PUT IN PLACE AND PROTECTIONS FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND WON'T ALLOW US TO MAKE THOSE REQUESTS OR JUST IGNORE THEM. SO IT'S A LITTLE BIT OF HYPOCRISY, I BELIEVE. AND, YOU KNOW, THERE'S WAS SO LIMITED. MR. CHAIR, MR. CHAIR? MR. CHAIR. MR. CHAIR? YES, SIR. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE HORSESHOE, THE MEMBERS OF THIS HORSESHOE NEED TO BE CALLED, CALLED OUT FOR HYPOCRISY. I'M SORRY. UM, MY APOLOGIES. COMMISSIONER. I, SORRY, I I DIDN'T QUITE HEAR IT. WELL, I WAS DISTRACTING. I, I THINK THAT'S TOTALLY OUT OF LINE, SIR. I'LL WITHDRAW THE HYPOCRISY, BUT I'LL SAY THAT WHEN OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS ARE USED TO SAY WHY THIS IS BEING SUPPORTED BY THIS COMMITTEE, YET WE CAN'T BRING ANOTHER NEIGHBORHOOD AS AN EXAMPLE, THAT WE SUPPORT THE RESTRICTIONS IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD AND WE WOULD WELCOME THOSE, UH, DEVELOPMENT SIMILAR TO THAT. AND WE'RE SAYING IT HAS NO RELEVANCE. EXCELLENT. IN THIS PROJECT. THANK YOU, SIR. COMMISSIONER FORSYTH, CAN YOU REFINE YOUR QUESTION, SIR? DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION? WELL, HE DIDN'T ANSWER MY QUESTION. YES, PLEASE REFINE YOUR QUESTION. AND I, I DON'T THINK HE GOT YOUR QUESTION. WANTED TO KNOW, YOU KNOW, WHAT WAS IN THIS, ON THIS PROPERTY THAT'S, UH, BEING THIS PART OF THIS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT BEFORE THE TORNADO? IT WAS A CHURCH. IT WAS ALL A CHURCH. YEAH. AND IT HAD BEEN AN OLD, WHAT, IN THE 1920S? IT WAS A HOME IN 1920, BUT IT'S LONG BEEN A CHURCH LAST SINCE 98. IT'S BEEN, IT IS BEEN A CHURCH SINCE 98. YES. OKAY. AND, UM, SHE'S THE ONE WHO LIVES IN, YEAH. COULD YOU COME UP PLEASE? THE LADY THAT LIVES, SO YOU LIVE ON BUTYL COURT, RIGHT? SO, SO THERE ARE, UM, TWO HOMES ON BUTYL COURT THAT BACK UP TO THIS PROPERTY. SO THE AMENDMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE DEVELOPER ARE ALONG THE NORTHERN LINE OF THE PROPERTY THAT AFFECTS WIMBERLY, AND WE APPRECIATED THOSE, UM, CONCESSIONS. BUT THE TWO HOMES THAT, UM, THE WETZELS AND I LIVE IN ARE, UM, DIRECTLY ABUTTING THE SECTION OF THE PROPERTY AT THE NORTHEASTERN CORNER, WHICH WILL STILL HAVE THE THREE STORY 1650 SQUARE FOOT HOMES. SO OUR TWO HOMES ARE GONNA BE LOOKING AT, UH, A SEMI-TRUCK DROPPED , UM, AS, AS SARAH PUT IT ON A, UM, DRIVEWAY ONE PROPERTY COMMISSIONER, FORESITE, DO YOU HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION, SIR? WELL, OKAY, MY QUESTION IS TO FOLLOW UP ON THIS WITH ME, UH, UH, OUR STAFF, BASICALLY, UH, IS THERE A RESTRICTION THAT RPS WOULD NORMALLY IMP IMPOSE IMPOSE UPON DEVELOPMENT LIKE THIS, UH, NEXT TO A, A SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD? AND, AND ARE WE BYPASSING THAT RRP S RESTRICTIONS WITH THIS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT? BASICALLY, FORGIVE ME FOR NOT BEING AS SMOOTH AS ALL THE OTHER HERE. OKAY. BUT, BUT I REALLY WANNA UNDERSTAND HERE, IT SEEMS LIKE TO ME THAT NORMAL RPS WOULD APPLY AND WOULD PREVENT THIS TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT. I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER THE QUESTION. RPS IS ONLY GOING TO APPLY TO MULTI-FAMILY DISTRICTS AND TO, WELL, MULTI-FAMILY DISTRICTS, NON RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, AND OUR FOREIGN-BASED DISTRICTS, THE RPS SYSTEM, IT DOES NOT APPLY TO EITHER TH THREE OR TO ANYTHING THAT USES THE, UM, OR THE, WITH THE SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT BASED ZONING. SO IF YOU HAD A, THERE ARE A COUPLE, UH, SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICTS THAT ALLOW 36 FOOT HEIGHTS, I BELIEVE IT'S R HALF ACRE AND R ONE ACRE. THOSE ALLOW THE 36 FOOT HEIGHT. SO IF THIS, FOR SOME REASON WERE ZONED R ONE ACRE, YOU COULD BUILD A 36 FOOT HOUSE AND NOT HAVE IT BE AFFECTED BY RRP S THERE WOULDN'T BE ANY RRP S THAT APPLIES THERE. LIKEWISE, IF THIS WERE ZONED, TH THREE RPS DOESN'T APPLY. UM, THIS HAS BEEN, I'LL SAY THAT'S BEEN A CON, YOU KNOW, A THONY ISSUE WITH OTHER ZONINGS IN THE CITY WHERE IT GOES FROM A SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT TO ONE OF THE TH DISTRICTS. RPS DOESN'T APPLY TO THAT. UM, IT'S, IT [03:55:01] SIMPLY ISN'T, UM, APPLIED TO THE SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICTS. SO, OR TO, OR TO A PD THAT USES A SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT AS A BASE. SO HELP ME TO UNDERSTAND THE LOGIC OF SAYING THAT THIS PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT IS BASED ON R FIVE. WHEN R FIVE IS, IS 5,000 SQUARE FEET AND, AND THESE PROPERTIES ARE, ARE 1,650 SQUARE FEET SURE. THE USE OF A BASE IN OUR PDS, IT'S REALLY, YOU COULD SAY THAT IT OFFERS A JUMPING OFF POINT FOR THEN MAKING ADDITIONAL, WHAT WE CALL EITHER ENHANCEMENTS OR DEVIATIONS, ENHANCEMENTS BEING THINGS THAT ARE MORE STRICT THAN THE BASE DEVIATIONS BEING THINGS THAT ARE LESS STRICT. YOU COULD THEORETICALLY USE, YOU COULD USE IM INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURING AS A BASE, AND THEN MAKE ENOUGH, UH, ENHANCEMENTS OR DEVIATIONS THERE SUCH THEY WOULD NO LONGER, THEY WOULD NO LONGER BE, IM, IT'S, IT REALLY IS THERE AS A JUMPING OFF POINT, UM, TH THREE COULD BE USED AS THE BASE HERE. AND WHAT WOULD PROBABLY HAVE HAPPENED IN THAT CASE IS THERE WOULD'VE BEEN SOME CHANGES TO THE, SOME ENHANCEMENTS ON THE SETBACKS, MAINLY REAR YARD SETBACKS. AND THERE WOULD'VE BEEN SOME DEVIATIONS ON DWELLING UNIT DENSITY AND A DEVIATION ON THE SINGLE FAMILY STRUCTURE SPACING, WHICH IS A REQUIREMENT IN TH THREE. UM, THE END RESULT WOULD BE YOU COULD GET TO THE SAME END RESULT WITH TH THREE AS A BASE WITH R FIVE AS A BASE, OR AGAIN, WITH ANY, ANY, THEORETICALLY ANY ZONING DISTRICT AS A BASE, IF YOU CODE IT IN. UM, THAT IS THE, I WOULD SAY THE NATURE OF PDS TO SOME EXTENT. IT IS. IT'S A SORT OF CUSTOM WRITTEN ZONING DISTRICT. UM, WE ALWAYS TRY TO REFER TO A BASE ZONING DISTRICT, BECAUSE WHAT HAPPENS IS IF YOU USE ONE THAT'S PRETTY SIMILAR, YOU JUST DON'T HAVE TO WRITE IN AS MANY DEVIATIONS OR ENHANCEMENTS TO BEGIN WITH. AGAIN, TO, TO GO IN A VERY HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE HERE, YOU COULD USE INDUSTRIAL AND THEN TOTALLY RETOOL IT TO BE A LARGE LOT SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT. YOU WOULDN'T DO THAT BECAUSE IT'S, IT, IT WOULD, IT'S NOT NECESSARY. YOU DON'T NEED TO DO THAT, BUT YOU COULD IT. SO I THINK THAT WAS A ROUNDABOUT WAY OF KIND OF ANSWERING THAT IT IS A DEVIATION FROM THE R FIVE BASE. UM, THE R FIVE WAS USED BECAUSE IT'S, BECAUSE IT'S THERE, IT COULD HAVE BEEN A TH THREE BASE AND IT WOULD STILL, YOU COULD STILL RESULT IN THE SAME, UH, CONDITIONS WE'RE SEEING HERE. BUT, BUT IN YOUR, UH, CASE REPORT ON PAGE SIX FIVE, IT STATES THAT UNDER THE CITY'S EXISTING DEVELOPMENT CODE, THE ONLY ZONING DISTRICTS THAT ALLOW FOR LOTS OF THIS SIZE AND THIS PROJECT ARE MF ONE AND MF TWO MULTIFAMILY DISTRICTS. SO REALLY, THIS IS A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT WITH THE UNDERLINING ZONING OF MF ONE AND MF TWO, NOT, NOT R FIVE. ISN'T THAT THE CASE READING THIS IN YOUR REPORT? I DON'T, I WOULD NOT READ IT THAT WAY. OH, REALLY? THAT'S, IT'S RIGHT HERE ON PAGE SIX FIVE. YES. COMMISSIONER, UH, I'LL SAY THAT THE WAY THAT WAS WRITTEN IS TO SAY THAT MF ONE AND MF TWO ARE THE MULTIFAMILY DISTRICTS THAT DO, IN ADDITION TO MULTIFAMILY ALLOW, UH, SINGLE FAMILY USES WITHIN THOSE DISTRICTS. THEY HAVE SMALLER LOT SIZES FOR SINGLE FAMILY COMPARED TO THE SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICTS. UH, SPECIFICALLY WITH MF TWO, UH, THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE IS 1000 SQUARE FEET. THE, THAT PORTION IN THAT SECTION OF THE REPORT IS REALLY THERE TO TALK ABOUT, WELL, WHY, WHY A PD? WHY NOT USE BASE ZONING? THERE WERE BASICALLY A FEW OPTIONS HERE AVAILABLE TO THE APPLICANT FOR WHAT THEY ARE LOOKING TO DO. THEY COULD GO WITH THE TH THREE ZONING, WHICH IT WOULDN'T ALLOW, UM, THE LOT SIZE THAT THEY'RE, THAT THEY'RE ENVISIONING. BUT THAT WOULD BE AN OPTION. THE OTHER OPTION WOULD BE TO GO WITH A MULTI-FAMILY ZONING, WHICH WOULD ALLOW FOR A 1000 SQUARE FOOT SINGLE FAMILY LOT SIZE. HOWEVER, IT WOULD ALSO ALLOW FOR MULTIFAMILY. SO IF THEY HAD COME IN HERE WITH AN MF TWO, A APPLICATION, FIRST OF ALL, I THINK STAFF WOULD'VE TAKEN, YOU KNOW, POSSIBLY A DIFFERENT LOOK AT THAT BECAUSE IT WOULD BE A DIFFERENT USE PROPOSED OR A DIFFERENT ALLOWABLE USE. UH, BUT SECONDLY, IF THAT WERE TO BE THEN ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL, EVEN IF THEY SAY, OH, WE'RE GOING TO DO SINGLE FAMILY HERE, THEY WOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO MULTIFAMILY IF THEY WERE USING THAT AS A BASE DISTRICT. I APPRECIATE THAT. UH, THE POINT I'M TRYING TO MAKE IS THAT THE PROPOSAL IS SAYING THAT THIS IS A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT WITH AN R FIVE, UH, BASED ON R FIVE, BUT YOU'RE MAKING SO MANY EXCEPTIONS. YOU'RE MAKING EXCEPTIONS ON THE LOT SIZE. IT, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT STATES HERE, THE R FIVE SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT, THE PROPOSAL IS BASED ON, REQUIRES A MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF 5,000 SQUARE FEET. AND YOU'RE, YOU'RE MAKING AN EXCEPTION GOING ALL THE WAY DOWN TO 1,650 SQUARE FEET. AND THEN IT GOES ON TO SAY, ADDITIONALLY, R FIVE DOES NOT ALLOW HEIGHTS GREATER THAN 30 FEET. SO NOW YOU'RE MAKING ANOTHER EXCEPTION WITH THE R FIVE AND YOU'RE GOING UP TO 36 FEET. SO IT'S, IT'S, IT'S REALLY, [04:00:01] I THINK, UM, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S MAKING ALMOST A, UH, YOU KNOW, IT, IT, IT'S, IT'S, IT'S SKIRTING AROUND OUR ZONING LAWS. THE WAY WE'RE TRYING TO, TO STATE THAT THIS DEVELOP, THIS PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT IS BASED ON OUR FIVE. AND THEN ALSO I FIND IT INTERESTING HERE BECAUSE I HEARD COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT TALK ABOUT THIS BEING A SHARED ACCESS DEVELOPMENT. AND IN THE LAST SENTENCE OF THIS PARAGRAPH 1 6 5 SAYS, ADDITIONALLY, BASE SHARED ACCESS DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS LIMIT THE NUMBER OF LOTS WITHIN A DEVELOPMENT TO 36 AND LIMIT THE NUMBER OF LOTS THAT CAN BE SERVED BY AN ACCESS POINT. SO, AND HOW MANY LOTS ARE WE TALKING ABOUT IN THIS PROJECT? 50 LOTS. 50 50. SO YOU'RE MAKING ANOTHER EXCEPTION HERE. WE'RE JUST MAKING EXCEPTIONS ALL OVER THE PLACE. YOU KNOW, I, I'D LIKE TO JUST ADD ON. SO I, I, I DEFINITELY OPPOSE THIS MOTION AND, AND I, AND, AND, AND, AND, AND, AND I THINK THAT IT'S, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU CONSIDER THE FACT THAT YOU'VE GOT R 16 TO THE NORTH AND EAST OF THIS PROJECT, AND YOU'VE GOT R SEVEN FIVE TO THE SOUTH OF THIS PROJECT, AND YOU'RE TRYING TO PUT IN WHAT WOULD BE LIKE R 2.5 IF, IF THAT ZONING CATEGORY EXISTED HERE, WHICH IT DOESN'T EXIST IN OUR DEVELOPMENT CODE, YOU KNOW, THE LEAST WE COULD BE DOING IS, IS, IS IS GIVING THESE FOLKS AN R FIVE DEVELOPMENT, WHICH IS WHAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR, WHICH IS WHAT THIS PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT SAYS. WE'RE, WE'RE, WE'RE SUPPOSEDLY GIVING THEM, BUT WE'RE NOT. WE'RE MAKING ALL KINDS OF EXCEPTIONS TO THAT. AND I, AND I, AND SO THEREFORE, I THINK THAT WE SHOULD BE OPPOSING THIS MOTION AND GOING BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD ON IT. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HAMPTON. I, I WANTED TO ADD ON TO, PARDON ME. I WANTED TO ADD ON TO STAFF'S ANSWER FROM A MINUTE AGO IN REGARDS TO THE DISTRICT AND PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS AND, AND WHY WE HAVE A PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FOR THIS, UH, CASE IN THE FIRST PLACE. AND, AND EVERYTHING MARTIN SAID WAS PERFECTLY CORRECT, AND I'D REINFORCE THAT, BUT THEN USE IT AS A BIT OF A SOAPBOX TO, TO TALK ABOUT A BIGGER, BIGGER ISSUE. BIGGER REASON THAT WE'RE HERE FOR, WITH A PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT IS PARTIALLY WHAT'S THE, THE SMALLEST DISTRICT THAT ONLY ALLOWS SINGLE FAMILY USES IN OUR CITY? IT'S, IT'S R FIVE. AND WHAT I WOULD SAY IS THAT'S PRETTY OUT OF STEP WITH WHAT MOST CITIES ARE DOING. CITIES HAVE R ONE, R TWO, R THREE, THINGS LIKE THAT. AND THE COMMISSIONER ACTUALLY JUST MENTIONED THAT, YOU KNOW, RR 2.5 OR WHAT HAVE YOU. IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE AND, UH, YOU KNOW, LONG, WHETHER IT'S RIGHT OR WRONG, MOST OF OUR CITY HAS BEEN BUILT, UH, OR A LOT OF DEVELOPMENTS IN OUR CITY HAVE BEEN BUILT WITH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS BECAUSE OF THE CODE THAT WE HAVE, WHICH IS FROM 1965 IN, IN THE GREAT BULK OF IT. AND WE DON'T HAVE DISTRICTS THAT CAN ACCOMMODATE THESE KINDS OF, UM, PROJECTS AND THE DIVERSITY OF HOUSING THAT, UM, COULD BE BUILT UNDER A R ONE, R TWO, WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT. UM, BUT I THINK THAT'S WHY WE HAVE A PD STAFF IS GOING TO LOOK AT GOOD REASONS, UH, TO HAVE A PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT. I WOULD SAY THAT THE LACK OF, OF OPTIONS TO BUILD THE KIND OF HOUSING THAT THE CITY NEEDS, UM, IS, IS A GOOD REASON TO HAVE A PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT. I THINK WE ITERATED THAT IN THE REPORT. UH, BUT I WANTED TO MAKE THAT POINT AGAIN HERE AS A SOAPBOX TO SAY, WELL, WE REALLY MIGHT NOT BE IN THIS SITUATION WITH A FULL PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AND, AND ASKING FOR ALTERATIONS, UH, TO THE BAY ZONING IF WE HAD DISTRICTS THAT, THAT FUNCTION THAT WAY. SO, YOU KNOW, ONGOING DISCUSSION AS THE, UH, ZONING REFORM CONVERSATION, UH, CONTINUES, NOT GONNA MAKE A JUDGMENT ABOUT WHAT DISTRICT BELONGS WHERE, UM, IN REGARDS TO THAT. BUT CODE NEEDS TO HAVE OPTIONS. AND FOR THE TIME BEING, WE'RE TRYING TO USE THE TOOLS THAT WE HAVE TO MAKE APPROPRIATE CHOICES, UM, FOR INDIVIDUAL PROJECTS. BUT THANK YOU, YOU, SIR. COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, FOLLOWED BY COMMISSIONER WHEELER. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. UM, I, THIS WAS A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT AND I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF. I THINK WE MAY HAVE LOST, UH, MR. KINGSTON. MR. KINGSTON? NO, NO. ARE YOU ABLE TO HEAR US? THANK YOU. I AM. THANK YOU. SO I HEARD YOU MENTIONED IN YOUR COMMENTS, UM, THAT THERE WERE REDUCTIONS TO THE HEIGHT INCREASES TO SETBACKS, INCREASES TO OPEN SPACE, AND A REDUCTION IN THE UNIT COUNT. I THINK I TRACKED MOST OF THEM, BUT DID I UNDERSTAND THAT THE UNIT COUNT ORIGINALLY CLOSED WITH 60, IT'S GONE DOWN TO THE 50 BEFORE US TODAY? THAT'S CORRECT. AND THEN ON THE HEIGHT WAS, IS IT CORRECT THAT THE OVERALL PROJECT WAS 36 FEET? IT IS NOW PROPOSED TO BE REDUCED ON THE NORTH LOTS TO 30 FEET? THAT'S RIGHT. AND ON THE SETBACKS, IS THAT AGAIN RELATED TO THE NORTH LOTS WITH A 14 FOOT SETBACK BACK? YES. 14 FEET PLUS SOME SCREENING. OKAY. AND SO COULD YOU TELL ME WHERE THAT IS CODIFIED? [04:05:02] AND IT, IT COULD BE THAT IT'S UNDER THE ART ARTICLE X PROVISIONS, AND I KNOW THAT THERE'S ALSO, UM, SOME TREE PLANTINGS WITHIN THE LANDSCAPE, OR IT MAY BE WITHIN URBAN DESIGN. WE COMMITTED TO THE, THE LARGE CALIPER TREES PER LOT. UM, AND THOSE ARE IN THE PD CONDITIONS. IT WAS MY ASSUMPTION THAT THAT 14 FEET IS IN THE PD CONDITIONS. IF IT'S NOT, IT CAN BE ADDED. NO, NO, WE HAVE THAT. I DIDN'T SEE THE BUFFER LANGUAGE. AND AGAIN, I MAY HAVE READ BY IT QUICKLY. I DON'T KNOW THAT THE BUFFER IS REQUIRED BY THE ZONING, BUT WE INTEND TO DO IT. OKAY. AND THEN CAN YOU SPEAK TO THE OPEN SPACE? THE OPEN SPACE WAS A VERY, UM, I WOULDN'T SAY HE WAS STRIDENT ABOUT IT. MR. BAIT WAS STRONGLY IN FAVOR OF GREATER OPEN SPACE. AND SO, UH, HE, HE GAVE US A PERCENTAGE WE NEEDED TO HIT, AND I BELIEVE WE'VE HIT IT IN THE PD CONDITIONS. AND SO WE'VE GOT 10% IN THE PD CONDITIONS. THERE WAS DISCUSSION DURING THE BRIEFING THAT ARTICLE 10 REQUIRES 15%. AND THEN I'M SEEING STAFF SAYING, I NEED GIVING ME A CORRECTION ON THAT. SO I, YOU CAN SPEAK TO IT, BUT I THINK STAFF IS GOING TO, UM, SPEAK TO IT AS WELL. IT, WELL, THEY'RE GONNA BE MORE TECHNICALLY SAVVY THAN I AM ANYWAY. UH, COMMISSIONER, OKAY. I'LL, I'LL SAVE THAT FOR STAFF. QUESTION. SO IN OUR REPLY FORMS AND IN OUR COMMENTS TODAY FROM THE STAKEHOLDERS, THERE WERE SUGGESTIONS ABOUT 40 TO 45 UNITS. WE HEARD 25 UNITS, WE HEARD 30 UNITS. YOU ALL ARE, WERE AT 60, YOU'VE COME DOWN TO 50. COULD YOU HELP ME GIVE, GIVE ME THE CONTEXT ABOUT HOW YOU ARRIVED AT 50? WAS THERE CONSIDERATION OF THE OTHER, UM, COUNTS THAT HAVE, YOU KNOW, BEEN SUGGESTED DURING TODAY'S, UM, COMMENTS IN, IN OUR OPINION, GOING TO 50 PRODUCED THE RESULTS THAT THE, THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD WANTED, AND THAT IN ADDITION TO THAT, THAT MR. BATE AND COMMISSIONER HALL FELT WERE MOST IMPORTANT TO MAKE THE, THE, UH, PROPERTY MORE COMPATIBLE WITH ITS SURROUNDINGS. BUT IN GENERAL, THE, THE TRADING BACK AND FORTH OF UNIT NUMBERS LOST ANY CONNECTION TO A REAL IMPROVEMENT IN THE PROJECT. AND SO THE, THE, THE, THE GRAB FROM NOWHERE, 20 UNITS, I, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE POINT OF THAT IS. IT WASN'T TIED TO ANYTHING THAT ACTUALLY BENEFITS A NEIGHBOR. OKAY. THANK YOU FOR THAT CONTEXT. UM, FINAL QUESTION. SO I'D SEE THAT THERE WAS THE MINI MINIMUM LOT SIZE, AND THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF DISCUSSION I SEE ON THE SITE OR ON THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN, EXCUSE ME, THAT THE LOTS ON THE NORTH ONE THROUGH 11 ARE SHOWN AT A LARGER SIZE, BUT I DON'T SEE ANYWHERE WHERE IT'S DOCUMENTED WHAT THOSE ARE INTENDED TO BE. COULD YOU HELP ME UNDERSTAND HOW, HOW THOSE ARE PLANNED TO BE ESTABLISHED? I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION, COMMISSIONER. UM, AND I CAN ASK STAFF. SO WE HAVE THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN. THE LOTS ARE CLEARLY LARGER, BUT THERE'S NOWHERE. IT SAYS, WHAT IF THERE'S A MINIMUM WIDTH TIED TO THOSE LOTS, IF ANY OTHER TECHNICAL DEFINITION OF WHAT THOSE ARE INTENDED TO BE, OTHER THAN THEY'RE GRAPHICALLY INDICATED THAT THEY'RE LARGER LOTS CURRENTLY. AND I'M HAPPY TO FOLLOW UP WITH STAFF ON THAT ONE IF THAT'S EASIER. 'CAUSE I THINK THEY MAY BE LOOKING, I'M ON PAGE SIX 16 OF THE CASE REPORT. OKAY. I'LL, I'LL WAIT AND COME BACK TO THAT ONE. UM, ONE FINAL QUESTION I HAD THAT I THINK MAY HAVE JUST LEFT ME, I MAY NEED TO FOLLOW UP WITH STAFF ON THAT. UM, BUT MY QUESTION FOR STAFF, SO THANK YOU MR. KINGSTON FOR THAT. UH, THANK YOU. SO STAFF, THE QUESTION ABOUT THE ARTICLE 10 BUFFER, COULD YOU HELP ME UNDERSTAND? YES. AND SO WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE 10% THAT'S CODIFIED IN THE PD VERSUS WHAT THE ARTICLE 10 REQUIREMENT? AND I SEE WE HAVE MR. IRWIN WITH US AS WELL. RIGHT. AND I THINK JUST TO QUICKLY CLARIFY, SO THE 10% OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT, THAT'S NOT PART OF ARTICLE 10. THAT IS A, UM, AS WE KINDA ALLUDED TO IN OUR MOORING DISCUSSION, UM, IT IS SOMETHING THAT WE BORROW FROM. UM, IT'S ACTUALLY FROM THE MIXED INCOME HOUSING DEVELOPMENT BONUS STUFF THAT WE USE FOR, UM, MULTI-FAMILY TYPICALLY. AND WE OFTEN LIKE TO INCORPORATE IT INTO PDS, UH, WHETHER IT'S SINGLE FAMILY OR MULTI-FAMILY, BECAUSE WE, WE WANNA ENCOURAGE OPEN SPACE WITHIN DEVELOPMENT, SO WE DON'T WANT THEM TO BE JUST COMPLETELY CONCRETE ISLANDS. UM, AND AS NOTED EARLIER, UH, SOME OF THAT LANGUAGE CARRIES OVER WITH THINGS ABOUT THE ROOF, UH, ROOF DECKS AND WHATNOT. SO THAT'S BEEN, UM, I BELIEVE PROPOSED TO BE STRUCK OUT WITH THE, UH, COMMISSIONER'S MOTION HERE. UH, THE ARTICLE 10 BUFFERING AND THE LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS. UH, PHIL, IF YOU WANTED TO CHIME IN ON THAT ONE, CERTAINLY THAT, THAT'S A 15% REQUIREMENT FOR LANDSCAPE AREA. THAT'S FOR SHARED ACCESS DEVELOPMENT. [04:10:01] IT'S OVER, UH, OVER 11 UNITS, UP TO 36 UNITS UNDER ARTICLE 10. IN THIS CASE, THIS WOULD CARRY FORWARD TO THE 50 UNIT SHARED ACCESS DEVELOPMENT. OKAY. EVEN THOUGH THE BASE HERE IS R FIVE, IT WILL BE CONSIDERED AS SHARED ACCESS, WHICH WILL THEN TRIGGER THE 15%. THIS IS BEING PLATTED AS A SHARED ACCESS DEVELOPMENT. SO WE WOULD REVIEW IT AS SUCH. OKAY. AND SO IF I UNDERSTAND THAT MEANS ON EACH LOT THERE'S A MINIMUM REQUIREMENT OF 15%, AND THEN THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT WILL BE REQUIRED TO HAVE, AND I'M GONNA CALL IT PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE, BUT COMMON AREA 10% MINIMUM OPEN SPACE. IS THAT CORRECT? YEAH. SO THE TWO SEPARATE ITEMS? CORRECT. OKAY. THANK YOU. I THOUGHT THAT'S WHAT I HEARD AND WANTED TO MAKE SURE I HEARD THAT CORRECTLY. COULD YOU SPEAK TO THIS QUESTION ON THE BUFFER? IS THERE A BUFFER REQUIREMENT ON THE PROJECT TO THE NORTH, OR IS THAT JUST A PROPERTY, UM, PROVISION THAT THEY'VE BROUGHT FORWARD? THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WAS BROUGHT FORWARD UNDER THE P PLAN DEVELOPMENT. OKAY. AND SO THEN BACK TO MR. BATE, ARE YOU AWARE OF WHAT THAT BUFFER IS INTENDED TO BE? AND IS IT ANYWHERE IN THE CONDITIONS THAT ARE BEFORE US TODAY? I WANT, I GUESS I WANNA UNDERSTAND A LITTLE BETTER, UH, THE BUFFER FOR, I HEARD MR. KINGSTON SAY THAT THERE WAS, THERE'S TREE PLANTINGS MM-HMM . THAT ARE WITHIN THE PD, BUT THAT THERE WAS AN INTENT TO HAVE A BUFFER ON THE NORTH LOTS ONE THROUGH 11. GOT IT. THE, YEAH, THERE'S THE LANGUAGE IN THERE FOR THE LANDSCAPING, FOR THE TREES. UM, THERE'S NO SPECIFIC LANGUAGE IN THERE FOR ADDITIONAL BUFFERING, KIND OF BEYOND WHAT ARTICLE 10 WOULD REQUIRE, WHICH IS, UM, OKAY. SO MR. I, THE TREES REALLY ARE THE BUFFER AND THEN THEY'RE PLANTED PER ARTICLE 10 REQUIREMENTS? THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. THANK YOU. AND THEN CAN YOU SPEAK TO THE QUESTION THAT I HAD ON THE NORTH LOTS IN A MINIMUM WIDTH? I MEAN, HOW IS THAT INTENDED TO BE CODIFIED? BECAUSE THE LANGUAGE THAT I SEE IS THAT THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN WILL COME BACK TO US MINOR, UM, REVISIONS ARE ALLOWED, BUT IF THERE'S NOT A CODIFIED STANDARD, I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE WOULD BE REVIEWING AGAINST. I WAS GONNA MENTION THAT, YEAH. REALLY QUICK. THE, BUT THE ONE THING THAT I KEEP IN MIND, THERE'S NOT A MINIMUM WIDTH FOR THOSE. IT MIGHT BE A LITTLE ODD TO, TO CODIFY FOR SOME OF THE LOTS, BUT KEEP IN MIND THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN. THIS IS, THIS IS A CONCEPTUAL PLAN AND WE'VE GOT DIMENSIONS ON OUR, ON OUR CONCEPTUAL PLAN, YOU KNOW, IT'S TO SCALE AND YOU CAN'T AMEND THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN THROUGH A MINOR PROCESS, OR YOU HAVE TO COME FOR A FULL AMENDMENT TO, TO MAKE CHANGES TO LINES ON A CONCEPTUAL PLAN. SO IF I'M HEARING THAT CORRECTLY, THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN COMES THROUGH, SUDDENLY THERE'S 12 LOTS. THAT'S NOTHING THAT COULD BE PROCESSED BECAUSE IT WOULD VARY FROM THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN. CONCEPTUAL PLAN. YES. CONCEPTUAL PLAN HAS TO SHOW WHERE THOSE LOTS ARE GONNA BE. THEY'LL COME WITHIN A MORE REFINED DEVELOPMENT PLAN, BUT IT'S GOTTA WORK WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THIS CONCEPTUAL PLAN, OR THEY'RE COMING BACK FOR AN AMENDMENT, WHICH I DON'T THINK THEY WANT TO DO. THANK YOU. THOSE ARE MY QUESTIONS, AND I WANNA ACKNOWLEDGE EVERYONE THAT'S HERE TODAY. UM, I THINK EVERY ONE OF US AROUND THIS HORSESHOE ARE HAVING THESE TYPES OF DISCUSSIONS IN OUR DISTRICTS. WE ARE ALL GETTING REQUESTS FOR GROWTH IN OUR CITY FOR INCREASING OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND HOW WE BALANCE THAT WITHIN THE BROADER CONTEXT OF OUR ESTABLISHED NEIGHBORHOODS. UM, THEY ARE DIFFICULT CHOICES. AND I KNOW THAT COMMISSIONER HALL HAS SPENT A LOT OF TIME TO TRY TO HEAR YOU. I HAVE HEARD YOU. UM, I AM, I'M NOT SURE HOW I'M GONNA VOTE, QUITE FRANKLY. I COULD CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND THE POINT OF VIEW OF THE COMMUNITY ABOUT WANTING TO UNDERSTAND HOW THE NUMBER OF LOTS AND HOW THAT WILL POTENTIALLY CHANGE, UM, YOUR COMMUNITY. BUT I DO THINK THERE ARE PROVISIONS THAT ARE EMBEDDED IN HERE THAT ARE TRYING TO SPEAK TO THE THINGS THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, ABOUT PUTTING MORE, YOU KNOW, HEIGHT AND MORE DENSITY, UM, ORIENTED TOWARDS THE PERIMETER. UM, AND AWAY FROM THE RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY. I CERTAINLY WOULD SUPPORT FEWER UNITS. UM, COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, THOSE ARE YOUR FIVE MINUTES. MINUTES. AND THAT WAS MY FIVE MINUTES MINUTES. THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER WHEELER. COMMISSIONER WHEELER, CAN YOU HEAR US? YES. COMMISSIONER WHEELER READY FOR YOUR COMMENTS? WE CAN'T HEAR YOU. IF YOU'RE TALKING I [04:15:01] COMMISSIONER HERBERT, THEN WE'LL COME BACK TO COMMISSIONER ER. OKAY. UM, AGAIN, THANK YOU EVERYBODY. UM, THE, THE CHAIR, UH, THE PEOPLE AROUND THE HORSESHOE AND STAFF AND THE COMMUNITY, I'VE TAKEN TIME AWAY FROM MY FAMILY TO READ EVERY LETTER THAT IT'S COME THROUGH. UM, I, I THINK THERE WAS SOME CONFUSION ON THE PROCESS, I THINK, 'CAUSE A LOT OF THE TIMES THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION WAS ALREADY BLAMED FOR MAKING DECISIONS, AND THIS IS OUR FIRST TIME GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT. UM, SO I JUST WANT YOU GUYS TO KNOW THAT WE HAVE TAKEN EVERY OPPOSITION LETTER INTO CONSIDERATION. UM, AND SOME OF THEM BEAT US UP PRETTY BADLY ALREADY. UM, SO MY SUGGESTION WOULD BE, UM, TO CONSIDER THAT WHEN ASKING FOR, UM, UM, A DECISION TO BE MADE, UM, I, I WALKED IN BEAT, BATTERED AND ABUSED THIS MORNING, AND I HADN'T EVEN MADE A DECISION YET. RIGHT? SO JUST ON MESSAGING, WHEN, IF YOU EVER HAVE TO COME BACK OR WHEN YOU GO TO COUNCIL TO THINK ABOUT THAT AS YOU APPROACH, UH, THE COUNCIL MEMBERS, UM, IN THE MEETINGS, BE BOLD, RIGHT? WHEN YOU'RE TALKING IN THE COMMUNITY, THAT'S YOUR OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT. BUT WHEN YOU COME BEFORE THE COMMISSION, A LOT OF US, THIS IS OUR FIRST TIME HEARING OR WE READ AN ARTICLE THAT WAS AGGRESSIVE, RIGHT? SO IT TENSE, IT'S ALREADY TENSE. SO JUST CONSIDER THAT AS YOU COME, COME FORTH. BUT I DO APPRECIATE YOUR TIME AND WANT YOU TO CONTINUE, UM, VOICING YOUR OPINION, UM, WHETHER IT'S GOOD OR BAD. SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU. WE'LL GO WITH COMMISSIONER WHEELER. COMMISSIONER WHEELER, WHEELER. WHEELER. OKAY. OKAY. YOU MAY HAVE TO MUTE YOUR COMPUTER OR WE'RE GONNA GET A FEEDBACK. OH, HEY, WE CAN, WE CAN HEAR YOU. OKAY. OKAY. NOW YOU CAN. UM, SO I, I, I, I, I, I NECESSARILY DON'T, DON'T, I, I KIND OF HAVE WHICH WAY I WANNA GO. UM, UNNECESSARILY DON'T WANNA SUPPORT IT, BUT I DON'T, I THINK THAT, THAT, THAT MAY, MAY PLACE IN THIS CASE ON HOLD, UM, TO ANOTHER DATE. BECAUSE THE DENSITY FOR ME IS AN ISSUE, UM, ESPECIALLY, UM, AROUND IT THAT THEY HAVE R TEN ONE WAY, R 16 THE OTHER WAY, AND THE AMOUNT OF DENSITY THAT THEY'RE PUTTING, WE DO NEED DENSITY. I'M ONE OF THOSE COMPONENTS FOR CHART ACCESS, HAVE WORKED IN SOME CHART ACCESSES FOR THE LAST, UM, EIGHT YEARS. AND, AND, AND, BUT ON THIS PARTICULAR CASE, I THINK WE NEED TO HEAR AND TO SET IT OFF BECAUSE THE, THE, THEY, IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE THE, THAT THE COMMUNITY IS TOTALLY AGAINST IT, BUT THEY ARE SAYING, HEY, WE WANT MORE ROOM FOR AND, AND REDUCING THE, THE AMOUNT DOWN, UM, QUITE A BIT. UM, BUT I, I, I, I, I CAN'T SUPPORT THE MOTION, BUT I COULD SUPPORT A MOTION SAYING THAT, UM, THAT WE'RE BEING HELD TO A LATER DATE. DOES THAT CONCLUDE YOUR COMMENTS? YES. THANK YOU, MR. OKAY. THANK YOU. YES, SIR. YES MA'AM. COMMISSIONERS, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMENTS? OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION, UH, MADE BY COMMISSIONER HALL IN THE MATTER OF Z 2 500 0 21, AND SECOND BY COMMISSIONER HOUSE, RIGHT TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FILE TO RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL, SUBJECT TO A CONCEPTUAL PLAN AND CONDITIONS, AS WELL AS THE CHANGES AS READ INTO THE RECORD BY COMMISSIONER HALL. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY, AYE. FOR A RECORDED VOTE, PLEASE. ABSOLUTELY. LET'S DO A QUARTER VOTE. DISTRICT ONE. AYE. DISTRICT TWO AYE. DISTRICT THREE. AYE. DISTRICT FOUR? NO. DISTRICT FIVE? YES. DISTRICT SIX. AYE. DISTRICT SEVEN? SHE SAID NO. DISTRICT EIGHT. AYE. DISTRICT NINE. AYE. DISTRICT 10. AYE. DISTRICT 11. AYE. DISTRICT 12 IS VACANT. DISTRICT 13? YES. DISTRICT 14, ABSENT AND PLACE 15. YES. MOTION. MOTION PASSES. COMMERS, LET'S [7. 25-2547A An application for a TH-2(A) Townhouse District with consideration for MF-2(A) Multifamily District on property zoned R-10(A) Single Family District, on the southwest corner of Forest Land and Stults Road.] MOVE ON TO CASE NUMBER SEVEN. CAN YOU READ ONE PLEASE? CAN I ASK WHAT THE VOTE WAS? COUNT, VOTE, COUNT ON. THAT WAS RECORDED, PLEASE. IT WAS TO IN OPPOSITION FOUR AND SEVEN. OKAY, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE. ITEM SEVEN IS CASES Z 2 45 DASH 1 38, ALSO KNOWN AS Z 25 16. AN APPLICATION FOR A TH TWO, A TOWNHOUSE DISTRICT WITH CONSIDERATION FOR MF TWO, A MULTIFAMILY DISTRICT ON PROPERTIES ZONE. R 10, A SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF FOREST LANE. STOLTZ ROAD STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL OF AN MF TWO, A MULTIFAMILY DISTRICT IN LIEU OF A TH TWO, A TOWNHOUSE DISTRICT. THANK YOU. UH, [04:20:01] IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? SEEING KNOWN, UH, COMMISSIONER HOUSE. DO YOU HAVE A MOTION, SIR? YES, MR. CHAIR. THANK YOU. UM, AND IF I GET A SECOND, I HAVE A COUPLE OF, UH, COMMENTS. UM, IN THE, UM, MATTER OF Z 2 4 5 DASH 1 38. I MOVE THAT WE KEEP THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AND HOLD THIS ITEM UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL SEPTEMBER THE 18TH. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HOUSER FOR YOUR MOTION. COMMISSIONER HAMPTON FOR YOUR SECOND DISCUSSION. COMMISSIONER HOUSER. UM, THOSE OF YOU THAT HAVE READ THE, THE REPORT, UM, THIS IS AT TRACT LAND THAT THE COUNTY OF DALLAS OWNS. UH, THEY PREVIOUSLY HAD A ZONING CASE FOR A CLINIC, UH, FOR PARKLAND. UH, THE TRACT IS ADJACENT TO A DART STATION. UM, THE COMMUNITY, UM, COULD NOT SUPPORT THAT CASE. AND SO THE COUNTY IS COMING BACK WITH A RESIDENTIAL APPLICATION, UH, THAT YOU'LL SEE SHORTLY. UM, WE, UH, THOUGHT WE WERE DONE WITH COMMUNITY MEETINGS. ANOTHER ONE POPPED UP, REQUEST FOR ANOTHER ONE POPPED UP, UP, UH, JUST YESTERDAY. AND SO UM, UH, THE APPLICANT AND I HAVE, UH, RECOMMENDED THAT WE HOLD THIS TILL THE 18TH OF SEPTEMBER. SO THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER HOUSE, WRIGHT. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? SEE NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? AYES HAVE IT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH MR. BA. GOOD AFTERNOON. GOOD AFTERNOON CHAIR AND [SUBDIVISION DOCKET] COMMISSIONERS. UH, THE CONS IS IN CONSIST OF ONE ITEM, ITEM NUMBER EIGHT. THIS CASE HAS BEEN POSTED FOR A HEARING AT THIS TIME, AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE DOCKET AND AS AMENDED AT THE HEARING. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO BE HEARD ON THIS ITEM? UH, UH, COMMISSION. ANY? OH, WE NEED A MOTION FIRST. COMMISSIONER DOKI. ALRIGHT, I'D LIKE TO MAKE, UM, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION, UH, MOVE TO, UH, APPROVE CASE PLAT DASH TWO FIVE DASH 0 0 0 5 1, SUBJECT TO STAFF'S CONDITIONS AS OUTLINED IN THE CASE REPORT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR MOTION. COMMISSIONER SIMS FOR YOUR SECOND. ANY COMMENTS OR DISCUSSIONS? SEE NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. YOU OPPOSE. AYES HAVE IT. NUMBER NINE. ITEM NUMBER [9. 25-2549A An application to replat a 0.464-acre (20,232-square foot) tract of land containing all of Lot 9 and part of Lot 8 in City Block C/8698 to create one 0.207-acre (9,000-square foot) lot and one 0.257-acre (11,232-square foot) lot located on Tyrone Drive, west of South Ledbetter Drive.] NINE. UH, IT IS AN APPLICATION TO PLET A 0.464 ACRE THAT IS 20,232 SQUARE FOOT TRACK OF LAND CONTAINING ALL OF LOT NINE AND PART OF LOT EIGHT IN CITY BLOCKS. SEA OVER 86 98 TO CREATE ONE 0.207 ACRE 9,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT AND ONE 0.257 ACRE. THAT IS 11,232 SQUARE FOOT LOT LOCATED ON TYRONE DRIVE, WEST OF SOUTH LED BETTER DRIVE 25 NOTICES WE SENT TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE PROPERTY ON AUGUST 6TH, 2025. AND WE HAVE RECEIVED JURY REPLYING FAVOR AND JURY REPLY AND OPPOSITION TO DISTRICT REQUEST. STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITION LISTED IN THE DOCKET AND OR ESTIMATED AT THE HEARING. UH, IS THERE ANYONE WHO'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? ANSWER QUESTIONS. THANK YOU, SIR. UH, COMMISSIONERS, LET'S GET A MOTION FROM COMMISSIONER HERBERT. YES. IN THE RESIDENTIAL PLAT CASE TWO FIVE DASH 0 0 0 4 6, I MOVE TO, UM, CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE, UM, THE CASE SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE DOCKET. THANK YOU, SIR, FOR YOUR MOTION. COMMISSIONER SIMS FOR YOUR SECOND QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, DISCUSSION. SEEING NONE OF THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? AYES HAVE IT. NUMBER 10. ITEM NUMBER [10. 25-2550A An application to replat a 0.286-acre (12,441-square foot) tract of land containing all of Lots 2 and 3 in City Block 4/6889 to create one lot on property located on Plum Dale Road, south of Gooch Street. ] 10. IT IS AN APPLICATION TO PLET A 0.286 ACRE THAT IS 12,441 SQUARE FOOT TRACK OF LAND CONTAINING OLIVE LOTS TWO AND THREE IN CITY BLOCK FOUR OVER 68 89 TO CREATE ONE LOT ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON P PALMDALE ROAD SOUTH OF GOOD STREET. 20 NOTICES WERE SENT TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE PROPERTY ON AUGUST 6TH, 2025, AND WE HAVE RECEIVED ONE REPLY IN FAVOR AND ZERO REPLY IN OPPOSITION TO THIS REQUEST. STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE DOCKET AND AS AMENDED AT THE HEARING. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THERE'S NO ONE IN THE CHAMBER. UH, LET'S HAVE A MOTION. MR. FRANKLIN? YES, IN THE MATTER, THE RESIDENTIAL REPL NUMBER PLA 25 DASH 0 0 0 5 3. I MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND, [04:25:01] UH, FOLLOW STEPS. RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITION LISTED IN THE DOCKET. THANK YOU MR. FRANKLIN FOR YOUR MOTION. COMMISSIONER SIMS FOR YOUR SECOND. ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? DISCUSSIONS. SEE NONE OF THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? I HAVE IT. ITEM [11. 25-2551A An application to replat a 0.289-acre (12,605-square foot) tract of land containing all of Lot 26 in City Block H/7317 to remove an existing 30-foot platted building line including wrap around along Lorwood Drive, and to extend an existing 30-foot platted building line along the east line of Lynbrook Drive to Lorwood Drive and to create one lot on property located on Lynbrook Drive at Lorwood Drive, southeast corner.] NUMBER 11, IT IS AN APPLICATION TO REPORT A 0.289 ACRE, UH, THAT IS 12,605 SQUARE FOOT TRACK OF LAND CONTAINING ALL OF LOT 26 IN CITY BLOCK H OVER 73 17 TO REMOVE AN EXISTING 30 FOOT PLATTED BUILDING LINE, INCLUDING WRAPAROUND ALONG LORD WOOD DRIVE, AND TO EXTEND AN EXISTING 30 FOOT PLATTED BUILDING LINE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF LINBROOK DRIVE TO LOWER TO LORD WOOD DRIVE AND TO CREATE ONE LOT ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON LINBROOK DRIVE AT LOWER WOOD DRIVE SOUTHEAST CORNER. 30 NOTICES WERE SENT TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE PROPERTY ON AUGUST 6TH, 2025. AND WE HAVE RECEIVED THREE REPLIES IN FAVOR AND ZERO REPLY AND OPPOSITION TO THIS REQUEST, THIS REQUEST REQUEST TO MOTION BECAUSE IT IS TO REPLY AND IT INVOLVES THE REMOVAL OF THE PLATY BILLING LINE. THE FIRST MOTION IS TO APPROVE OR DENY REMOVING AN EXISTING 30 FOOT PLATTED BUILDING LINE. AND THE SECOND MOTION IS TO APPROVE OR DENY REPLAT STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON BUILDING LINE APPROVAL AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF ON RELA APPROVAL SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITION LISTED IN THE DOCKET AND OR AS AMENDED AT THE HEARING. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UH, NO ONE HERE IN THE CHAMBER. COMMISSIONERS. CAN WE HAVE A MOTION FROM COMMISSIONER HOUSE, RIGHT? YES, MR. CHAIR. THANK YOU. UM, IN CASE NUMBER S 2 45 DASH 214, I MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE THE REQUEST TO REMOVE THE EXISTING 30 FOOT PLA BUILDING LINE, INCLUDING WRAPAROUND ALONG LO LAURELWOOD DRIVE AND TO EXTEND AN EXISTING 30 FOOT PLANTED BUILDING LINE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF LINBROOK DRIVE TO LAURELWOOD DRIVE. WITH THE FINDING OF FACT THAT REMOVAL OF AN EXTENSION OF THE BUILDING LINES WILL NOT REQUIRE A MINIMUM FRONT SIDE OR REAR YARD SETBACK LINE LESS THAN REQUIRED BY THE ZONING REGULATION BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST, ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES OR ADVERSELY AFFECT THE PLAN FOR THE ORDERLY DEVELOPMENT OF THE SUBDIVISION. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HOUSER FOR YOUR MOTION. COMMISSIONER SIMS FOR YOUR SECOND. ANY COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, DISCUSSIONS? SEEING NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? I HAVE IT. WE'LL GO TO OUR SECOND MOTION. UH, THANK YOU MR. CHAIR. IF I GET A SECOND, I HAVE A BRIEF, BRIEF COMMENT IN, UH, THE CASE NUMBER S 2 45 DASH TWO 14. I MOVE THAT WE, UH, FOLLOW STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE DOCKET. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HARA FOR YOUR MOTION. COMMISSIONER SIMS FOR YOUR SECOND COMMENTS. COMMISSIONER HARA, UH, I WANNA THANK MS. SHARMA FOR, UH, WALKING ME THROUGH THIS RATHER COMPLEX, UH, SITUATION. UM, AND AS, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, UM, WITH, WITH HER PATIENT, PATIENT EXPLANATION, UH, THE APPLICANT STILL HAS TO GO TO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO GET RELIEF TO, UH, UTILIZE HIS SIDE YARD. SO, UH, I BELIEVE, DID I SAY THAT RIGHT, COMMISSIONER? THAT'S CORRECT, YES. YEAH. SO THANK YOU. UH, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UH, THAT CONCLUDES OUR AGENDA COMMISSIONERS. I WANNA, UH, PARDON ME. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION PASSES. CAN I GET A MOTION TO ADJOURN? THANK YOU COMMISSIONER CARPENTER FOR A MOTION. I WILL SECOND IT. UH, COMMISSIONERS. IT'S FOUR O'CLOCK. UH, I WANT TO THANK DR. RE, MS. MORRISON TODAY AND OF COURSE, THANK YOU COMMISSIONERS FOR ALL YOUR HARD WORK AND, UH, FOR STAYING COOL UNDER PRESSURE. YOUR ELECTRICIAN EXACTLY 4:00 PM WE'RE MEETING AS ADJOURNED. * 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.