* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting. [00:00:01] GOOD MORNING, COMMISSIONERS. [BRIEFINGS] DISTRICT ONE, COMMISSIONER DUBINSKI. PRESENT, DISTRICT TWO. COMMISSIONER HAMPTON. PRESENT, DISTRICT THREE. COMMISSIONER HERBERT PRESENT, DISTRICT FOUR. COMMISSIONER FORSYTH HERE, DISTRICT FIVE, CHAIR SHADI. HERE. DISTRICT SIX. COMMISSIONER CARPENTER. PRESENT. DISTRICT SEVEN. COMMISSIONER WHEELER, REAGAN. SHE'S ONLINE AND NEEDS TO BE MOVED OVER. DISTRICT EIGHT. COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN. DISTRICT NINE. COMMISSIONER SLEEPER HERE. DISTRICT 10. COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT HERE. DISTRICT 11. COMMISSIONER SIMS. I'M HERE. DISTRICT 12 VACANT. DISTRICT 13. COMMISSIONER HALL HERE. DISTRICT 14, COMMISSIONER KINGSTON AND PLACE 15 VICE CHAIR RUBIN. YOU HAVE QUORUM, SIR. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT COMMISSIONER WHEELER IS ONLINE AND PRESENT. I'M HERE. GOOD MORNING. UH, GOOD MORNING COMMISSIONERS. TODAY IS THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 4TH, 2025, 10:07 AM AND WELCOME TO THE BRIEFING OF THE DALLAS CITY PLAN COMMISSION. UH, COMMISSIONERS, WE'RE GONNA JUMP RIGHT INTO, UH, THE AGENDA, BEGINNING WITH OUR, UH, MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS. WE BEGIN WITH, UH, ITEM NUMBER ONE. COMMISSIONER, DO WE, DO WE NEED NUMBER ONE BRIEFED? I DON'T SEE, NO, I THINK WE'RE GOOD WITHOUT BRIEFING. NUMBER ONE. SORRY ABOUT THAT. NUMBER TWO, I IMAGINE WE WON'T WANT THAT ONE BRIEFED. OH, YES, PLEASE. . GOOD MORNING COMMISSIONERS. THIS IS ITEM D, ITEM D 2 23 DASH 0 0 7. IT'S A APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT AND LANDSCAPE PLAN ON PROPERTIES ON SUB-DISTRICT CDF WITHIN PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER SEVEN 50 ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF NORTH CENTRAL EXPRESSWAY AND WALNUT HILL. IT'S APPROXIMATELY 6.3 23 ACRES IS IN COUNCIL DISTRICT. NUMBER 11. HERE IS THE PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN CITY LIMITS. HERE IS A AREA VIEW OF THE PROPERTY, UM, SHOWING THE AREA REQUESTS HIGHLIGHTED IN RED. HERE IS, UH, ZONING MAPS SHOWING EXISTING LAND USES AROUND THE PROPERTY, UM, TO THE NORTH AND THE NORTHEAST. THERE IS SOME MULTIFAMILY AND ALSO SOME, UM, RETAIL. UM, DOWN TO THE SOUTH THERE'S SOME MULTIFAMILY AND RETAIL. AND TO THE WEST OF THE PROPERTY, THERE'S SINGLE FAMILY. UM, HERE'S, UM, A LITTLE MORE DETAIL. SO, UM, I DO WANT TO APOLOGIZE FOR ERROR I HAVE IN MY CASE REPORT. AND ALSO I JUST NOTICED ALSO IN MY POWERPOINT, UM, EXHIBIT SEVEN 50 A IS THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR TRACK A. UM, SEVEN 50 B IS ACTUALLY THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN. UM, THIS PD HAS A LOT OF THINGS GOING ON, AND SO I RECOGNIZE THAT GOING THROUGH THIS MULTIPLE TIMES. I LOOKED AT IT AND I NOTICED IT, UM, A COUPLE DAYS AGO. SO I DO APOLOGIZE FOR THAT. UM, SO ALSO, UM, THE CODE STATES THAT THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN MUST BE, UH, APPROVED BY CPC AS WELL AS THE LANDSCAPE PLAN. AND THEN THERE'S ALSO EXHIBIT SEVEN 50 D THAT TALKS ABOUT, UH, STREET SCAPES. AND THOSE STREET SCAPES MUST BE SHOWN ON THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AS WELL AND CALLED OUT. HERE'S SOME REQUEST DETAILS. SO THE PURPOSE OF THE REQUEST IS TO ALLOW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A THREE ACRE LARGE OPEN SPACE. UM, SECTION 51 P SEVEN 50 DO DASH 1 0 8 STATES A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR, FOR ANY AREA IN WHICH NEW CONSTRUCTION IS REQUESTED [00:05:01] MUST BE APPROVED BY CITY PLAN COMMISSION PRIOR TO THE APPLICATION OF A BUILDING PERMIT FOR THAT NEW CONSTRUCTION. ALSO, THERE'S A SECTION AT THE BOTTOM THAT STATES, UH, SECTION 51, 51 P 7, 51 14 G STATES. THE LARGE OPEN SPACE MUST BE COMPLETED WITHIN TWO YEARS OF THE FINAL CERTIFICATE OF OCS FOR A MINIMUM OF 500 DWELLING UNITS. SO TO GIVE A LITTLE HISTORY BACKGROUND ON THIS CASE, THIS CASE ACTUALLY CAME IN FOR MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT ON THIS, THESE THREE TRACKS. AND AFTER FURTHER REVIEW, WE NOTICED THAT THE OPEN SPACE THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE PROPOSED OR DEVELOPED WITHIN THE TWO YEARS OF THOSE CERTIFICATE OF OXYS FOR THAT MULTIFAMILY, THAT 500 MINIMUM WAS NOT, UH, PRODUCED OR CONSTRUCTED. SO WE TOLD THE APPLICANT THAT WE HAVE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE DEVELOPMENT AND LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR THE OPEN SPACE, AND THAT HAS TO BE CONSTRUCTION CONSTRUCTED PRIOR TO MOVING FORWARD TO ANY OTHER BUILDING, UH, FOR MULTIFAMILY USES WITHIN THIS PD. UM, SO HERE'S A LITTLE BACKGROUND. SO THE PD, THERE'S DWELLING UNITS, UM, THAT EXCEEDS 500 COUNTS. SO WHEN THE MULTIFAMILY AT THE SOUTH WAS BUILT, UM, UM, HERE'S THE ADDRESS AS 7 7 75, 78, 25, AND 78 65. FAIR, FAIR HALLWAY, FIRE HALLWAY. UM, IT EXCEEDS ACTUALLY, UM, THE 500. THEIR ACCOUNT WAS AT FIVE 12 AND WE ALSO FILED COS ISSUES FOR THAT ISSUED FOR THAT IN 2019. UM, HERE'S SOME MORE DETAILS. SO THIS IS ACTUALLY THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN, SEVEN 50 D. AND SO I PULLED SOME STUFF FROM THE CODE THAT STATES, SO IN SECTION ONE 14 IB, IT STATES, UH, A MINIMUM OF THREE ACRES OF THE ACQUIRED LANDSCAPE AREA MUST BE PROVIDED AND MAINTAINED WITHIN THE LARGE OPEN SPACE, GENERALLY SHOWN ON THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN. AND THEN THE NEXT SENTENCE STATES, THE FINAL LOCATION OF THE LARGE OPEN SPACE MUST BE SHOWN ON AN A DEVELOPMENT PLAN. UM, SO THIS IS THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PLAN, UM, SHOWING, UM, JUST THE OPEN SPACE FOR THIS, UM, AREA FOR CD. I THINK IT WAS F UM, WE HAD THE APPLICANT ACTUALLY TAKE THE BUILDING OFF THE, AND JUST SHOW MAYBE THE FOOTPRINT AND ASK, ALSO ADDED A NOTE FOR PERMANENT AS STATED THAT, UM, IT WOULD BE PHASE FIVE B. UM, WE'LL HAVE TO COME IN FOR ANOTHER DEVELOPMENT PLAN BEFORE THEY CAN MOVE FORWARD AND CONSTRUCT THAT. UM, BUILDING, HERE'S ENLARGEMENT OF THAT DEVELOPMENT PLAN. HERE'S THE LANDSCAPE PLAN SHOWING THE SAME, UH, FOOTPRINT AND ALSO LANDSCAPE IT IN THE LARGE OPEN SPACE. AND ALSO, UM, THERE'S A STREET THAT'S RUNNING THROUGH THE PROPERTY. UM, IN THE PD IT DOES STATE THAT, UM, ADDITIONAL STREETS CAN BE LOCATED, ADDITIONAL PRIVATE STREETS CAN BE LOCATED WITHIN THE DISTRICT, BUT THEY CAN'T HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL ACCESS POINTS THAT MEAN POINTS TO RIGHT AWAY. HERE'S ENLARGEMENT OF THE LANDSCAPE SHOWING THAT, UM, THAT STREET RUNNING TO THE WEST. UM, HERE'S THE STREET SCAPE THAT SHOWS THE DESIGN, UM, THAT THEY CALL OUT FOR, FOR THAT STREET. SO IT'S GONNA BE A TWO-WAY STREET AND IT'S GONNA HAVE A PARALLEL PARKING ON ONE SIDE. UM, AND THIS IS THE OTHER STREET THAT SHOWS TWO-WAY, UH, TRAFFIC AND A SIDEWALK ON ONE SIDE. NO PARALLEL PARKING AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL. AND THAT CONCLUDES THIS PRESENTATION. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. OTHERS. LOTS OF QUESTIONS ON THIS CASE. COMMISSIONERS, COMMISSIONER SIMS. GREAT. THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN. MS. BLUE, I, UH, I AGREE WHOLEHEARTEDLY WITH YOUR, UH, CONTENTION. THERE'S A WHOLE LOT GOING ON WITH THIS PD, SO, UH, THANK YOU FOR THAT. UM, THERE'S BEEN SOME QUESTIONS RAISED BY SOME OF THE FOLKS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT THIS IS A ZONING CHANGE AS OPPOSED TO, UH, JUST A DEVELOPMENT PLAN. COULD YOU ADDRESS FOR US WHY IT'S NOT OR WHY IT IS OR IS NOT A ZONING CHANGE? WELL, IT'S NOT A ZONING CHANGE BECAUSE THIS, THESE TWO TRACKS, THESE THREE TRACKS HAVE NEVER BEEN DEVELOPED. SO THERE'S NO EXISTING DEVELOPMENT PLAN ON IT. UM, EVEN THOUGH THE OPEN SPACE IS SHOWN IN, IN THE GENERAL LOCATION, IT HAS BEEN MOVED OVER A LITTLE. UM, THE LANGUAGE STATES THAT THE FINAL LOCATION CAN BE SHOWN ON A DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ASSISTS THIS DEVELOPMENT PLAN IS DEVELOPING THE OPEN SPACE FOR THESE THREE TRACKS. THEN THERE WAS NO NEED FOR THEM TO GO TO COUNCIL BECAUSE ALL THEY MEET ALL THE CRITERIA THAT'S LISTED IN THE CODE. GOOD. NO, THAT'S, THAT'S VERY, VERY HELPFUL. UM, YOU MENTIONED SOMETHING JUST A SECOND AGO. YOU SAID IT'S BEEN MOVED OVER A LITTLE AND IT HAS, RIGHT? IT'S MOVED OFF A LITTLE LITTLE FROM WHERE IT WAS ORIGINALLY TO THE WEST. CAN YOU ADDRESS THAT? 'CAUSE THAT'S A CONCERN OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT WHEN ONCE THINGS START MOVING AROUND THAT, THAT ACTUALLY BECOMES A MATERIAL CHANGE THAT MAKES A ZONING CHANGE. WHY, WHY IS THAT TRUE OR NOT TRUE? WELL, NOT NECESSARILY. AS I [00:10:01] DID MORE RESEARCH AND I'LL PULL THIS UP, UM, OKAY, THERE'S ALSO, AND I NEVER SEEN THIS, THERE'S ALSO A SITE PLAN THAT'S LISTED FOR A PD AND PD USUALLY DON'T HAVE SITE PLANS. SO THIS PD ALSO HAD A SITE PLAN THAT ACTUALLY SHOWED THAT BUILDING FOOTPRINT THAT'S ACTUALLY SHOWN ON THIS DEVELOPMENT PLAN WITH THE ADDITIONAL GREEN SPACE AROUND IT. SO THE PD IS A LITTLE CONFUSING, BUT ALWAYS IN PDS THE LANGUAGE ALWAYS CONTROL. AND SO SINCE THE LANGUAGE CALLED OUT FOR THEM TO ACTUALLY SHOW THE FINAL LOCATION ON A DEVELOPMENT PLAN, I THINK THAT WAS THE DECISION THAT WE WENT TO. WELL, THAT WAS THE DECISION WE WENT TO. NO, THAT'S, THAT'S VERY, VERY HELPFUL. IS THAT, IS THAT SLIDE 13? IS THAT WHAT WE HAVE UP THERE? UHHUH, THAT'S FOR THE STREET, UH, ESCAPE. YEAH. IF YOU COULD CLICK BACK TO SLIDE 13 PLEASE, MS. BLUE. UH, UH, I DON'T HAVE ANY NUMBERS ON HERE. SO YEAH, THE NUMBERS ARE IN THE BOTTOM DOWN. TWO MORE. YOU'RE ON 11 RIGHT NOW. 12, 13. GREAT. THERE'S THAT ONE. PERFECT. UM, AS I'VE LOOKED AT THE PLAN THAT THE GRAY SHADED AREA AROUND THE BUILDING IS, UM, ABOUT 2.46 ACRES, AND THEN THE STREET ON THE WEST SIDE IS AN ADDITIONAL 0.37 ACRES, WHICH GETS US TO 2.81 ACRES. UH, THE PD AS I READ IT, SAID THAT WE NEED TO HAVE A LARGE OPEN SPACE OF THREE ACRES. AND THE DEVELOPER, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, IS INCLUDING THE GRAY AREA TO THE SOUTH OF IT, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY A HARDSCAPED AREA WITH FOUNTAINS. AND THE DEVELOPER IS SAYING THAT THE PD SAYS THAT THAT SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE LARGE OPEN SPACE. DOES STAFF HAVE A VIEWPOINT ON A DEFINITION OF LARGE OPEN SPACE WITH, OR DOES THE PD SPEAK TO LARGE OPEN SPACE AS DEFINED AS EITHER GRASSY OR HARDSCAPED OR ANYTHING? WELL, THE PD DOES CALL OUT THAT THERE'S DIFFERENT THINGS THAT COULD BE IN THE, THE, UM, IN THE, THE LARGE OPEN SPACE. UM, THE DOG PARK CAN BE IN THE LARGE OPEN SPACE. IT HAS TO HAVE A PATH THAT LEADS ALL THE WAY THROUGH THE, THE, THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN. SO THEY'RE ACTUALLY SHOWING THAT PATH. THEY COULD HAVE WATER FOUNTAIN OR WATER FEATURES WITHIN THE LARGE OPEN SPACE. SO THAT IS CORRECT. THEY COULD HAVE PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT AND THINGS LIKE THAT WITHIN THE LARGE OPEN SPACE TOO. AND I BELIEVE THE PROPERTY THAT, THAT YOU'RE TALKING TO THE SOUTH, I THINK THERE IS SOME GREEN SPACE WITH SOME, UH, PEDESTRIAN AMENITIES, SOME PINCHES AND STUFF LIKE THAT. SO THOSE ITEMS ARE ALSO INCLUDED WITHIN THE LARGE OPEN SPACE. OKAY. SO THAT'S, SO STAFF WOULD SAY THAT, THAT BASICALLY IT'S THE GREEN, IT'S THE DARK GRAY AREA PLUS THE SKINNY GRAY AREA DOWN, DOWN BENEATH THERE. UH, LET ME SHIFT GEARS JUST A SECOND. SO, UH, ONE OF THE CONCERNS THE NEIGHBORS HAVE RAISED IS WITH RESPECT TO NOTICE THAT THEY WERE PROVIDED. WHAT, UH, WHAT DOES EITHER THE PD OR CITY ORDINANCE REQUIRE WITH RESPECT TO NOTICE TO NEIGHBORS WITH RES UH, FOR THIS ACTION? SO THE PD REQUIRES THE APPLICANT BEFORE THEY EVEN FILE AN APPLICATION WITH US TO NOTICE THERE'S A LIST OF, UM, OF NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS, I GUESS THAT, THAT, THAT'S ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PD TO NOTIFY THEM. BUT AS FAR AS A DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND CITY CODE, THERE'S NO CODE THAT REQUIRES TO NOTIFY FOR A DEVELOPMENT PLAN. UM, WE HAVE NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR A MINOR AMENDMENT, BUT WE HAVE NO NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR A DEVELOPMENT PLAN. OKAY, GREAT. UM, AND I GUESS THE, THE LAST QUESTION I HAVE FOR YOU IS, YOU KNOW, WE TALKED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE SHIFTING TO THE EAST OF THIS FROM THE ORIGINAL PLAN, AND THE NEIGHBORS HAVE HIGHLIGHTED THAT THAT SHIFTING TO THE EACH EAST CAME ABOUT AS A RESULT OF RE PLATTING SOME OF THE LOTS TO THE WEST OF IT. DO YOU KNOW WHEN THAT RE PLATTING WAS DONE? AND I ASSUME IT IT CAME BEFORE CPC AT A PREVIOUS TIME. IF SO, IT DID. I DON'T KNOW THE QUITE, UM, THE DATE, UH, THE PD WAS ESTABLISHED I THINK IN SIX OR NINE, I THINK 13. OKAY. BUT THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR TRACK A WAS, UH, APPROVED IN 17. SO THE NUMBERS ARE, YOU KNOW, I THINK IT WAS PLANTED BEFORE THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN CAME IN. SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT DEVELOPMENT HAVE THE DEVELOPER HAS ANY, UH, YOU KNOW, WANNA GO BACK AND ACTUALLY REPLANT IT. AND I DON'T KNOW IF THOSE LOTS ARE SOLD, THOSE INDIVIDUAL LOTS ARE SOLD OR HE STILL OWN THOSE LOTS AND HE CAN CONVERT 'EM BACK INTO THE OPEN SPACE. UM, I DON'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION. OKAY. SO THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING FOR THE OWNER. OKAY. BUT IF I, IF I HEAR YOU CORRECTLY, IT SOUNDS LIKE THAT WAS DONE ON THE ORDER OF EIGHT, 10 YEARS AGO, UH, AT LEAST TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE. YES. GREAT. THANK YOU. THAT'S ALL THE QUESTIONS I HAVE, MR. CHAIRMAN. THANK YOU, SIR. COMMISSIONER HALL, UH, MR. SIMS STOLE SOME OF MY QUESTIONS. , MY APOLOGIES, COMMISSIONER. WELL, NO, WELL DONE. UM, MS. BLUE, UH, THIS, UH, PD WAS ORIGINALLY PUT TOGETHER IN 2006 AND I THINK IT WAS AMENDED IN MAYBE 2015 AND THEN 2017. UM, AND, UH, IN THAT, IN THAT SPAN OF TIME, THE, THE ROUGH LOCATION OF THE [00:15:01] LARGE OPEN SPACE HAS NOT CHANGED IN BASIC LOCATION OR BASIC SHAPE. IT'S BEEN A BIG TRIANGULAR OPEN SPACE IN A PRO IN THIS LOCATION EVER SINCE CONCEPTION. IS THAT CORRECT? UM, YES. IT'S BEEN SHOWN BUT IT'S NEVER BEEN DEVELOPED. RIGHT. YES. OKAY. SO THE GENERAL CONCEPT OF A LARGE OPEN SPACE TRIANGULAR SHAPE, ET CETERA, HAS NOT CHANGED OVER THE YEARS AND THERE SEEMS TO BE A LOT OF, UH, DISCUSSION NOW ABOUT 3.4 ACRES VERSUS 3.2, YOU KNOW, ET CETERA. ONE THING THAT THE DEVELOPER'S ADDING NOW IS THE DOG PARK. WELL, THE DOG PARK IS ALREADY THEIR EXISTENCE, SO YES. WELL, THEY'RE NOT ADDING IT. IT IS ALREADY EXISTING. I, I DON'T THINK THE DOG PARK WAS SHOWN BACK IN 2006. UM, I THINK THERE'S ONE ON SITE 'CAUSE WE HAD A CONVERSATION ABOUT, UM, LEAVING IT THERE UNTIL THEY CAN CONSTRUCT THE BUILDING AND RELOCATING IT. OKAY. OKAY. SO, UH, AT LEAST THERE HASN'T BEEN ANYTHING REALLY MAJOR CHANGING ABOUT THIS. UM, IF THERE WAS A REPL FROM THE ORIGINAL PLAN CALLED FOR FLAT APARTMENTS, UH, ON THE WEST AND NORTHEAST SIDE OF THIS DEVELOPMENT, UH, THAT'S BEEN CHANGED NOW TO, UH, SINGLE FAMILY, SORT OF SMALL SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON THE WEST SIDE. IF THERE WAS A REPL, THAT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A ZONING CHANGE, DOES IT? NO, SIR. SO FOR A PLAT AND A DEVELOPMENT PLAN ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. UM, YOU CAN ACTUALLY GET A DEVELOPMENT PLAN WITHOUT ACTUALLY PLANNING THE PROPERTY. UM, PLATS YOU NEED ACTUALLY A PRELIMINARY PLAT IN ORDER TO MOVE FORWARD WITH ENGINEERING PERMITTING REVIEW AND OTHER PERMITTING REVIEW. SO THEY'RE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. OKAY. UH, SOME OF THE, UH, OPPOSITION IS CLAIMING THAT REPL CONSTITUTED A ZONING CHANGE AND THEREFORE THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN NOTIFICATION. BUT THAT'S, THAT'S NOT THE CASE? NO, SIR. OKAY. AND JUST FINALLY DID, DID THE, UH, FAILURE OF THE DEVELOPER TO DELIVER A, I THINK A STREET BY 2020 AND MAYBE THIS LARGE OPEN SPACE BY 2022, DID THAT IMPACT YOUR EVALUATION OF THIS OR YOUR RECOMMENDATION? WELL, THAT'S THE REASON WE'RE HERE. SO THE REASON THAT WE ARE HERE IS HERE IS BECAUSE THE OPEN SPACE WAS NEVER DEVELOPED AND WE HAD A APPLICANT THAT CAME IN AND TRIED TO DEVELOP WITHIN THE PD AND WE HAD TO TELL THEM THAT WE COULDN'T MOVE FORWARD WITH YOUR DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE IT WAS THESE ITEMS. AND ALSO DAVID LOOKING AT LOOKING AT THE TRAFFIC STUFF. AND THEY DID NEED TO IMPROVE SOME STREETS OR DEVELOP SOME STREETS. AND SO IN ORDER FOR THEM TO COME UP TO CODE, WE ACTUALLY HAD TO JUST DO A DEVELOPMENT PLAN THAT SHOWED LANDSCAPING AND STREET SCAPE AND THEN ALSO A DEVELOPMENT PLAN THAT SHOWED THE SAME. SO THEY CAN GO OUT AND CONSTRUCT THE LARGE OPEN SPACE AND, UH, DEVELOP THE STREETS AND THEN THE OTHER DEVELOPER CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH HIS CONSTRUCTION OF HIS BUILDING, WHICH WE HAVE TO, HE WILL HAVE TO COME IN FOR ANOTHER DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THAT PORTION. OKAY. SO, YES. AND ONE FINAL THING, UM, IS IT UNUSUAL FOR A PD TO HAVE TARGETED COMPLETION DATES? NO, IT'S NOT UNUSUAL. THERE'S PDS THAT CALLS OUT FOR WHEN WE HAD MIXED USE BONUSES THAT THEY HAD TO HAVE SO MANY, UH, DWELLING UNITS FOR SO MANY BUILDINGS. SO NO, AT A TIME OF DATE THEY HAVE TO DEVELOP SO MANY, SO IT'S NOT UNUSUAL. OKAY. UM, I THINK THAT'S ALL I HAVE RIGHT NOW. WE MAY HAVE QUESTIONS FOR LEGAL COUNSEL LATER, BUT, UH, THANK YOU MS. BLUE. YOU'RE WELCOME. UM, I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS THAT I'M ALSO HAPPY TO LET SOMEONE ELSE GO IF THEY, THEY'D LIKE. ALRIGHT, I WILL, UM, DIVE IN. SO I, I'VE GOT A CASE OF LAWYER BRAIN THIS MORNING WHERE I'M TRYING TO SQUARE THE, THE PD ORDINANCE WITH WHAT'S GOING ON IN, IN THE PROPOSED PLAN. SO I THINK IT'S ONE 16 I FIVE IS THE OPERATIVE PROVISION AND IT STARTS WITH A MINIMUM OF THREE ACRES OF THE REQUIRED LANDSCAPE AREA MUST BE PROVIDED AND MAINTAINED WITHIN THE LARGE OPEN SPACE, GENERALLY SHOWN ON THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN. FIRST QUESTION IS ON THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN, HOW LARGE IS THE LARGE OPEN SPACE AREA SHOWN ON THERE? IT'S THREE ACRES, EXACTLY. THREE ACRES OR, UM, I THINK IT WAS A LITTLE BIT OVER, IT WAS 3.4 SOMETHING. OKAY. AND THEN TODAY, HOW MUCH OF THE LANDSCAPE AREA ON THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN IS WITHIN THE AREA MARKED IN THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN AS LARGE OPEN SPACE? I THINK IT WAS, UH, 132 AND SOME CHANGE [00:20:02] SQUARE FEET, WHICH COMES UP TO, UH, JUST ABOUT THREE ACRES. COMES UP TO THREE ACRES. JUST, JUST, SO ARE WE SLIGHTLY UNDER, SLIGHTLY OVER? WELL, IN THE AREA THAT YOU ASKED ABOUT, NOT THE SOUTH PORTION. OKAY. SO JUST THE AREA THAT'S, THAT'S ON THE CONCEPT PLAN IS AS LARGE OPEN SPACE. HOW MUCH OF THE LANDSCAPE AREA, WHAT IN TERMS OF ACRES IS WITHIN ON THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN IS WITHIN THE LARGE OPEN SPACE AREA ON THE CONCEPT PLAN? UH, I WOULD HAVE TO GET THOSE NUMBERS. I'LL HAVE TO CONVERT THE SQUARE FOOTAGE. OKAY. SO, AND THEN IT, THE, THE PD ORDINANCE GOES ON TO SAY FINAL LOCATION OF LARGE OPEN SPACE MUST BE SHOWN ON A DEVELOPMENT PLAN. RIGHT? SO THAT MEANS THERE CAN BE SOME TWEAKS TO WHERE THE LARGE OPEN SPACE ULTIMATELY ENDS UP VIS-A-VIS THE CONCEPT PLAN. IS THAT RIGHT? CORRECT. OKAY. AND I GUESS IS THERE A POINT, SOME SORT OF THRESHOLD WHERE THE LANDSCAPE AREA GETS, YOU KNOW, SO FAR REMOVED FROM THE LARGE OPEN SPACE AREA ON THE CONCEPT PLAN, IF YOU, YOU KNOW, IF YOU HAD ONE ACRE OF LANDSCAPE, IT DOESN'T CALL IT OUT A PACIFIC NUMBER, BUT IT SAYS A MINIMUM OF THREE ACRES OF THE REQUIRED LANDSCAPE AREA MUST BE PROVIDED AND MAINTAINED WITHIN THE LARGE OPEN SPACE AREA. CORRECT. GENERALLY SHOWN. SO I ASSUME THE DEVELOPER WOULDN'T MEET THE REQUIREMENT OF I FIVE. THEY ONLY PUT ONE ACRE OF, OF LANDSCAPE AREA WITHIN THE AREA ON THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN THAT'S SHOWN AS LARGE OPEN SPACE, RIGHT? MM-HMM . YOU'VE GOTTA HIT SOME SORT OF THRESHOLD. CORRECT. AND IT SAYS A MINIMUM OF THREE, RIGHT? YES. SO IF THEY WERE TO GET, YOU KNOW, TWO AND A HALF ACRES WITHIN THE LARGE OPEN SPACE, WOULD THEY BE ON THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, WOULD THEY BE COMPLYING WITH THE ORDINANCE OR WOULD THAT NOT BE IN COMPLIANCE? IT ALL DEPENDS ON, BECAUSE IT SAID GENERALLY LOCATED AND THEN THE FINAL LOCATION. SO THERE'S, THERE'S, IT'S THE, IT IS LIKE THEY'RE COMPETING BETWEEN EACH OTHER. 'CAUSE YOU COULD TELL ME, IT COULD BE GENERALLY LOCATION LOCATED, BUT THEN I COULD FINALLY SHOW, UM, THE LARGE OPEN SPACE WE COULD HAVE BEEN, TOOK HALF OF THE BUILDING AND MOVE OVER TO THE EAST. UM, ALSO COULD HAVE BEEN PART OF THE OPEN SPACE THAT'S OUTSIDE OF WHAT IS GENERALLY SHOWN ON THE, THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN AS WELL. I MEAN, LIKE IT COULD HAVE MOVED EAST WEST. SO IT'S, IT'S, IT WAS A DECISION THAT I HAD INTERNAL WITH STAFF AND WE CAME UP WITH THE CONCLUSION THAT WHAT THEY WERE SHOWING WAS MEETING OUR STANDARDS. OKAY. THANK YOU. YEAH, I I THINK YOU AND I MAYBE SHARE SOME OF THE SAME STRUGGLE TO WRAP YOUR HEAD AROUND THE TEXT OF THE PD. YEAH, IT WAS LOT THE CONCEPT PLAN AND THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PLAN. SO THANK YOU. YOU'RE WELCOME. COMMISSIONERS, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, MS. BLUE, THIS PD DOES NOT HAVE A CUSTOM M DEFINITION OF OPEN SPACE. IS THAT CORRECT? UM, IT TALKS ABOUT WHAT CAN BE LOCATED IN THE OPEN SPACE. IT TALKS ABOUT WHAT CAN BE IN A LANDSCAPE AREA. YEAH. IN THE OPEN SPACE. I GUESS THEY, THEY, THE WAY THEY WROTE IT, THE OPEN SPACE IS ALSO CONSIDERED THE LANDSCAPE AREA WITHIN THE PD. OKAY. THAT, THAT'S WHAT MY QUESTION IS BECAUSE I'M, I'M HAVING DIFFICULTY DISTINGUISHING BECAUSE IN THE DEFINITIONS IT SAYS THE LANDSCAPE AREA CAN BE 100% HARDSCAPE. I MEAN, IT, IT CAN CONSIST OF HARDSCAPE. YES. AND THEN IT GOES DOWN FURTHER WHERE IT TALKS ABOUT IN THE LANDSCAPE AREA TALKS ABOUT THE NUMBER OF TREES AND THEN LIKE WATER FEATURES AND DIFFERENT ITEMS LIKE THAT. RIGHT. UM, AND IT SAYS NO MORE THAN HALF OF THE REQUIRED LANDSCAPE AREA FOR THE ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT CAN BE IN THIS OPEN SPACE, OR AT LEAST HALF OF IT HAS TO. OH, I'M NO MORE THAN 50% OF THE REQUIRED LANDSCAPE AREA MAY BE LOCATED WITHIN THE LARGE OPEN SPACE. YES MA'AM. BUT THAT 50% REQUIRED LANDSCAPE AREA, I GUESS WHERE I'M TRYING TO GET TO IS HOW MUCH OF THE OPEN SPACE, THE LARGE OPEN SPACE AREA CAN BE HARDSCAPE? UM, ACCORDING TO THE PD? ACCORDING TO THE PD. UM, I DON'T KNOW. THAT WOULD BE A QUESTION FOR, UH, THE, THE ARBORIST BECAUSE HE REVIEWED THAT PORTION. OKAY. DO WE HAVE PICTURES OR DO YOU HAVE PICTURES AVAILABLE OF WHAT THE OPEN SPACE LOOKS LIKE AT THIS POINT? UM, THIS ENLARGE ONE RIGHT HERE WHERE THEY'RE SHOWING TREES AND THEN THERE'S SOME GREEN SPACE AND THEN THERE'S, UM, BUT DO YOU HAVE IT BROKEN? I MEAN, IS THERE AN EASY WAY TO, A QUICK AND READY WAY TO FIND HOW MUCH OF THIS IS [00:25:01] ACTUALLY GREEN SPACE LANDSCAPE? GREEN SPACE LANDSCAPE, GREEN SPACE. AND HOW MUCH OF IT IS HARDSCAPE? NO MA'AM. I DON'T HAVE ANY NUMBERS FOR THAT. THANK YOU. MR. CHAIRMAN. OH YES. COMMISSIONER SIMS, MS. BLUE, I, I MAY BE ABLE TO HELP WITH COMMISSIONER CARPENTER'S QUESTIONS. I'VE BEEN STARING AT THIS QUITE A BIT. SO, UH, MS. BLUE, IF YOU MAY NOT HAVE SEEN A DRAWING, BUT SEE IF THIS SOUNDS ABOUT RIGHT TO YOU, THAT AS WE LOOK AT THE DARK GRAY AREA, SO, UH, WOULD YOU AGREE THAT THE TRIANGLE TO THE EAST SIDE OF IT IS THE DOG PARK? DOES THAT SOUND CORRECT TO YOU? MM-HMM . AND THAT WOULD BE LANDSCAPED AREA. AND THEN THE TRIANGLE TO THE WEST SIDE IS, AS I UNDERSTAND, THE DRAWING LANDSCAPED AREA AS WELL. DOES THAT SOUND CORRECT TO YOU? AND, AND AS I, AS I READ, READ THE DRAWINGS FROM THE DEVELOPER THAT THAT WAS 2.46 ACRES OF THAT AREA. DOES THAT SOUND CORRECT TO YOU AS WELL? UM, I GUESS IF I DO THE MATH . OKAY. UH, AND THEN WE SEE A STREET ON THE WEST SIDE OF IT. CORRECT. UH, AND AS I UNDERSTAND THAT STREET TO BE APPROXIMATELY 16,000, UH, 77 SQUARE FEET, WHICH IS ABOUT 0.37 ACRES, UH, WHICH COULD BE GREEN SPACE INSTEAD OF A STREET THERE. SO IF THAT WERE TO BE CHANGED TO GREEN SPACE, MS. BLUE, IF I DO MY MATH RIGHT, 2.46 PLUS THREE SEVEN WOULD GIVE US 2.81. DOES THAT MATH SOUND ABOUT RIGHT TO YOU? ? SO, UH, JUST PHRASING THINGS IN TERMS OF A QUESTION. UH, SO I, I BELIEVE COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, THAT IF, IF I, IF I'M CORRECT, MS. BLUE, THAT THAT GETS US ABOUT 2.81 ACRES TO GO TO COMMISSIONER RUBIN'S QUESTION ABOUT HOW MUCH GREEN SPACE. SO THEN, AS IT SOUNDS TO ME, AND LET ME ASK YOU IF YOU AGREE WITH THIS, THAT THE OPEN QUESTION WE HAVE HERE IS THE TREATMENT OF THE HARDSCAPE AREA IN THE SKINNY AREA TO THE SOUTH, RIGHT? BECAUSE THAT AREA IS APPROXIMATELY, UH, 24,001, 26,143 SQUARE FEET OR SIX TENTHS OF AN ACRE. AND IF WE DO THE MATH HERE AGAIN, MS. BLUE, AND I BET YOU'LL AGREE WITH MY MATH, 2.81 PLUS 0.6 IS 3.41. IT SHOULD COME UP WITH A TOTAL OF THIRTY A HUNDRED AND THIRTY THREE, UM, THOUSAND 133,466 SQUARE FEET. RIGHT? THAT'S WHAT I CALCULATED YESTERDAY. I I THINK THAT'S RIGHT. SO IT SOUNDS TO ME, MS. BLUE, AND, AND WE MAY WORK THIS OUT LATER IN THE HEARING TODAY, THAT WHAT WE'RE REALLY TRYING TO WRESTLE WITH IS WE'VE GOT, YOU KNOW, ROUGHLY 2.81 ACRES OF GREEN SPACE AND THEN WE HAVE THIS LONG, SKINNY, HARD SCAPED AREA TO THE SOUTH OF IT AS TO WHETHER THAT IS SHOULD BE INCLUDED. AND THAT'S, THAT'S, I BELIEVE THAT'S KIND OF WHAT WE'RE, WHAT WE'RE KIND OF WORKING OUR WAY THROUGH. WOULD THAT SOUND ABOUT RIGHT TO YOU? SURE. GREAT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MS. BLUE. MM-HMM . THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN. THANK YOU, SIR. UH, PLEASE. COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT. UM, MS. BLUE, THE, UM, SKINNY, THE, I'M GONNA CALL IT THE HARDSCAPE AREA 'CAUSE I'M JUST REPEATING COMMISSIONER SIMS. UH, HAVE YOU WALKED THAT? HAVE YOU SEEN THAT IN PERSON? UH, I WENT THROUGH THERE. THERE IS WALK, THERE IS A PATH, AND THEN THERE IS A AREA THAT HAS LIKE SOME BENCHES AND, UM, I THINK IT'S TURF. I DON'T THINK IT'S REALLY GRASS. UM, WELL, WOULD YOU AGREE THAT THERE IS NATURAL GREEN GRASS LAWN IN THAT AREA? HAVING WALKED IT THIS MORNING, I WOULD, UM, SAY THAT THERE IS, WOULD YOU AGREE? YEAH. UH, WOULD YOU AGREE THAT THERE ARE, UH, THERE ARE SHRUBS GROWING, THERE ARE TREES GROWING? THERE ARE, WOULD, WOULD YOU AGREE THAT IT IS NOT 100% HARDSCAPE? IT'S NOT 100% HARDSCAPE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, PLEASE. I'M GONNA APOLOGIZE. I'M GONNA GO ALL THE WAY BACK TO THE BEGINNING ON THIS BECAUSE I, I THINK ONE THING THAT I'M TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT I UNDERSTAND CLEARLY IS THAT THE PD SPECIFICALLY STATES, NOW I GOTTA GET BACK TO THE PD LANGUAGE THAT THE LARGE OPEN SPACE MEANS THE AREA IDENTIFIED ON THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN AS LARGE OPEN SPACE. AND SO THEY'RE SHIFTING WHERE OPEN SPACE IS PROPOSED, AND IT'S REALLY PRIMARILY, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, AREA A AND INSTEAD OF BEING A, A, A MORE, CONTIGUOUS ISN'T THE RIGHT WORD, BUT COMPACT AREA, THAT IT'S BECOMING A LINEAR OPEN SPACE. AND THAT'S REALLY THE, I I THINK A LOT OF THE COMMENTS. IS THAT A FAIR ASSESSMENT? YES, BECAUSE THEY, THEY TOOK FROM WHAT WAS LEFT AS COMMON SPACE FROM WHAT WAS PLATTED IN TRACK A, AND THEY USED THAT TOP PORTION THAT IS SHOWN TO THE WEST AS OPEN SPACE. AND THEN IN ORDER TO GET THE COMPLETE NUMBER, UM, TO MOVE FORWARD, UM, THEY ALSO INCLUDED THE SOFT PORTION. OKAY. CORRECT. AND, AND IS [00:30:01] IT ALSO FAIR THAT THIS PD SIMILAR TO WHAT WE HAVE IN, UM, SOME OTHERS THAT DEFINES THAT THERE'S EITHER A MINIMUM WIDTH OR OTHER CONTEXTUAL INFORMATION, THERE'S NO GUIDANCE THAT WOULD SAY THAT A LINEAR OPEN SPACE DOES NOT MEET THE SPIRIT AND INTENT OF THE PD? YES, MA'AM. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM? COMMISSIONERS. OKAY. WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE NEXT CASE. THANK YOU MS. BLUE. THANK YOU'ALL. THANK YOU COMMISSIONERS. UH, WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO REQUEST A BRIEFING OF NUMBER THREE? YES, THIS BRIEF? NUMBER THREE. GOOD MORNING COMMISSIONERS. UM, GOOD MORNING. IF YOU'VE GOT THE, IF YOU'VE GOT THE PDF OPEN, YOU MAY JUST HAVE TO OPEN THE WEBEX APPLICATION AND THEN HIT SHARE FOR OUR PDF. OH, WE GET THAT PULLED UP. UM, CASE NUMBER FOUR HAS COME OFF CONSENT. SO WE WILL DISPOSE OF THOSE TWO CASES INDIVIDUALLY. I WOULD GO TO, UM, IN THE TOP LEFT OF VIEW AND THEN MAKE IT PULL, UH, TOP LEFT I CANNOT FIND. YEP. AND THEN ABOUT HALFWAY DOWN IT'LL SAY VIEW AND THEN FULL SCREEN SO EVERYONE CAN SEE . OKAY. SORRY FOR THAT. OKAY. KC 25 0 0 0 0 7 0. IT'S AN APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO SUP 2160 FOR THE SALE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES IN CONJUNCTION WITH, UH, GENERAL MERCHANDISE OR FOOD STORE 3,500 SQUARE FEET OR LESS. UH, AND PROPERTY WITHIN SUBURB AREA SEVEN, UH, PD 360 6 BUCKNER BOULEVARD, A SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICT WITH A DVA LIQUOR CONTROL OVERLAY. IT'S LOCATED ON NORTHWEST CORNER OF SOUTH PARTNER BOULEVARD AND ION ROAD, AND IT'S APPROXIMATELY 8,849 SQUARE FEET. UH, HERE IS THE LOCATION, IT'S LOCATED ON THE, UM, SOUTH, UH, EAST DISTRICT FIVE. AND, UH, HERE ARE SOME QUICK BACKGROUND OF THE CASE IN NOVEMBER, 2015. UM, THE SUP HAS BEEN APPROVED FOR A TWO YEAR PERIOD WITH NO AUTOMATIC RENEWAL. UM, IN DECEMBER, 2018, IT WAS RENEWED FOR ANOTHER TWO YEARS. AND IN NOVEMBER, 2020, IT WAS APPROVED FOR A THREE YEAR RENEWAL WITH, UH, ANOTHER THREE YEAR AUTOMATIC RENEWAL, UH, IN JUNE, 2024. UH, THE AUTOMATIC RENEWAL WAS DENIED, UH, DUE TO NON-COMPLIANCE WITH CP CONDITIONS AND, UH, PERMIT VIOLATION AND ALSO FIRE AT THE STORE. AND, UH, INSTEAD THE COUNCIL APPROVED A ONE YEAR. UH, NOW THE STORE HAS BEEN REMODELED AND EXPANDED AFTER THE FIRE AND RECENTLY, AND APPLICANT IS SEEKING A FIVE YEAR WITH AUTOMATIC RENEWAL FOR ANOTHER FIVE YEAR. HERE IS AN AREA MAP, UH, SURROUNDING [00:35:01] LAND USES AND ZONING INCLUDES, UH, TOWARD NORTH, UH, WEST AND SOUTH, UH, UM, ARE ZONED, UH, R 7.5 WITH SUP 92 AND USE THAT CEMETERY AND TO TOWARD EAST, UH, EAST PD 360 6 AND, UM, USED, UM, WITH VARIOUS, UH, RETAIL LIKE RESTAURANT AND, UH, AUTO SERVICE CENTER AND PAWN SHOP. HERE ARE SOME, UH, SITE PHOTOS, UH, LOOKING WEST, UM, FROM BUCKNER BOULEVARD, LOOKING NORTHWEST, LOOKING SOUTHWEST, LOOKING NORTH. AND, UM, SOME SURROUNDING USE AS PHOTOS. UH, LOOKING NORTH CEMETERY, SOUTH CEMETERY, UH, LOOKING EAST AT INTERSECTION. AND THOSE RETAIL AND ACROSS THE STREET IS, UM, A RESTAURANT WE DRIVE THROUGH. AND, UH, LOOKING WEST CEMETERY, UH, THE, UM, SITE PLAN HAS REMAINED THE SAME AND, UM, THE REQUEST HAS NOT CHANGED. UM, ANY SPECIFIC, UH, CONDITIONS, UM, EXCEPT, UH, TIME LIMIT AND, UH, THE AREA OF REQUEST FALLS WITHIN, UH, THE COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL PRESS TYPE AND SURROUNDED BY NEIGHBORHOOD MIXED USE BOTH, UH, PROMOTE, UH, VIBRANT, UM, FAMILY FRIENDLY ENVIRONMENT AND SUPPORT SMALL SCALE COMMERCIAL USES. SO THE REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH THE, UH, FOUR DALLAS AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL WITH NO EXPIRATION DATE SUBJECT TO A SITE PLAN AND CONDITIONS. THANK YOU. AND BEFORE WE DO HAVE QUESTIONS, IT WAS, UH, IT GOT PAST ME THAT I SHOULD INTRODUCE OUR NEW SENIOR PLANNER WHO HAS HAD A CASE OR TWO COME THROUGH HERE BUT HAS NOT PRESENTED YET, DR. MONA HASHIMI. SO, UM, WE'RE REALLY HAPPY TO, TO HAVE HER AND HAVE HER TAKING CASES THROUGH. SO I I DID JUST NEED TO TAKE A MOMENT TO, TO INTRODUCE HER. WELL, THANK YOU VERY MUCH AND, AND THANK YOU AND WELCOME ON BOARD. THANK YOU. WE, I LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH YOU QUESTIONS. COMMISSIONER CARPENTER? YES. UM, MS. HASHIMI, UM, DO WE KNOW IF THIS PARTICULAR LOCATION HAS A VALID 12 B INSPECTION CER CERTIFICATE THAT'S CURRENT? YES. OKAY. I CHECKED THAT AND THEY HAVE THE CERTIFICATE. OKAY. THEY ARE IN COMPLIANCE. UM, THE LAST TIME THIS CAME BEFORE US IN 2024, THEY WERE GIVEN A VERY SHORT RENEWAL BECAUSE THEY HAVE, WERE NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH SUP CONDITIONS AND HAD PERMIT VIOLATIONS. UM, GIVEN THAT HISTORY HERE, UH, WHAT'S THE STAFF'S, UM, RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDING A PERMANENT SUP? UH, WE ALREADY, UH, CHECKED ALL THE CP CONDITIONS AND IT SEEMS THAT THEY ARE ALL MET. AND SO AS WE ARE IN THE, UH, PATH OF HAVING, UH, MORE PERMANENT CP, UH, AND SO, UH, THAT'S WHY WE RECOMMEND THAT FOR THIS CASE AS WELL. OKAY. SO THE BASIC, THE DEFAULT RECOMMENDATION WILL BE FOR PERMANENT SUVS? YES. THANK YOU. AND THE GOOD AND YEAH, AND PART OF THAT IS WHEN THEY GOT THEIR CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, UM, THIS YEAR, YOU KNOW, EVERYTHING HAS HAS CHECKED OUT ON THE PERMITTING END. SO EVERY, ALL OF THOSE ISSUES ARE CLEARED UP. UM, YOU KNOW, THEY WERE HERE FOR AUTO RENEWAL IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR, UM, JUST A LITTLE MORE BACKGROUND AND THEN SENT TO CPC BECAUSE OF THE COMPLIANCE WITH SUP CONDITIONS. BUT NOW THAT THEY, YOU KNOW, THEY HAD THEIR FIRE IN ADDITION TO THAT, NOW THEY REOCCUPIED THE BUILDING AND HAVE MET THEIR PERMIT CONDITIONS. SO, UM, BASED ON THAT, EVERYTHING SHE SAID, PLUS REALLY, YOU KNOW, WEIGHING THE USE VERSUS THE SURROUNDING CONTEXT, NOT JUST TO REGULATE USES WITHOUT REGARDING THE CONTEXT, UH, NOT MUCH, UH, CONCERN FOR IMPACT ON SURROUNDING AREAS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YES, COMMISSIONER HERBERT? UM, YES, THANK YOU. SO THANK YOU FOR ACKNOWLEDGING THE FIRE. I, IT WAS IN THE BACK OF MY MIND, SO, UM, I KNOW THEY WERE, HAD A FIRE WHEN THEY CAME BEFORE US. UM, JUST A, WE WE'RE DOING A UNLIMITED SUP HERE, THE SURROUNDING AREA IS RESTAURANT RETAIL. UM, THERE'S SOME RESIDENCES TO THE NORTH. THEY'RE NOT ALIVE, BUT NO, I'M JUST KIDDING. UM, BUT, UM, SO IT, WHEN WE MAKE THESE RATIONALES ON INDEFINITE SUVS, ARE WE CONSIDERING THE, WHAT'S AROUND THESE, THESE AREAS AT ALL? [00:40:01] UM, UH, YEAH. UH, WE, I MEAN WE, UH, ESTABLISH, UH, DEVELOPMENT PATTERN IN THIS AREA. WE FOUND THIS USE COMPATIBLE WITH THOSE, UH, EXISTING USERS. GOTCHA. UM, SO PROBABLY SHOULDN'T BE A SUP AT SOME POINT. UM, THAT, UH, SO THANK YOU. I KNOW WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT CODE AND WAYS WE CAN, IF THERE ARE BAD ACTOR, UM, BRING PARTIES TO THE TABLE. UM, CAN YOU TALK ABOUT THAT RIGHT NOW AT ALL? OR MAYBE MICHAEL, THAT MIGHT BE A, THAT MIGHT BE A CHIEF PLANNER QUESTION. YEAH, WITH ALL , WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO, UH, BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, I'M, I'M TASKED WITH COMMUNICATING THE THINGS THAT COME ACROSS YOUR DAAS AND HOW THEY'LL AFFECT, UM, AMENDING OUR CODE OR IMPROVING OUR CODE AND, AND ALL OF THAT. THAT'S AN ONGOING PROCESS. BUT, UM, MY RESPONSIBILITY IS, IS ENGAGED IN THAT BECAUSE I, I SEE A LOT, I SEE EVERY ZONING APPLICATION THAT COMES THROUGH, UM, THIS CITY AND, AND SO I CAN GIVE A LOT OF FEEDBACK TO OUR CODE AMENDMENT STAFF IN REGARDS TO THAT. I WOULD SAY, UM, MESSAGE IS RECEIVED THAT, YOU KNOW, S CAN REGULATE USES, UM, THEY CAN REGULATE THE WAY SCIENCE ARE, ARE BUILT OUT, UM, WHILE TIME PERIODS AND EXPIRATIONS FOR THOSE ARE NOT BEST PRACTICES IN THE FIELD GENERALLY. AND AGAIN, THAT'S CODE AMENDMENT, UH, RESEARCH THAT'S BEEN GIVEN TO US. WE WOULD DEFINITELY BE LOOKING FOR, YOU KNOW, THE CODE AMENDMENT'S NOT DRAFTED, SO WE'D LIKE TO DEFINITELY TAKE IN MORE IDEAS TO, UM, HAVE LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT OF THOSE, UM, VERSUS THE SUP TIME PERIOD HAVE SOMETHING THAT'S ADMINISTRATIVE THAT'S INTERNAL TO THE CITY VERSUS A PUBLIC HEARING EVERY CERTAIN AMOUNT OF YEARS, AN ARBITRARY AMOUNT OF YEARS. I GOTCHA. SO SOMETHING THANK YOU, MR. KINGSTON. UM, YOU JUST SAID ARBITRARY AMOUNT OF YEARS AREN'T THE LINKS OF THE SUP VETTED AND DECIDED UPON BY THIS BODY AND APPROVED BY COUNSEL. THEY ARE. AND THAT THERE, I WOULD NOT SAY THAT THERE'S A VERY CONSISTENT PATTERN TO, TO BE HONEST. WELL, BUT THERE ARE FACTORS FOR DETERMINING WHEN AN SUP IS APPROPRIATE, AND THOSE FACTORS ALSO CAN BE CONSIDERED FOR DURATION OF SUP, CORRECT? YES. OKAY. YES. YES, MA'AM. UM, AND I HAD ONE QUICK CLARIFICATION FOR THIS CASE IN PARTICULAR, LIKE ALL THESE S IT'S FOR THE SALE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES. SO WE'RE NOT CONSIDERING THE USE OF A CONVENIENCE STORE OR A GAS STATION WE'RE CONSIDERING IS THE SALE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES APPROPRIATE IN THIS LOCATION? AND SO IT, IT'S A VERY INTERESTING THING THAT THE CITY OF DALLAS GAVE US IN THE 1980S WITH THIS CONCEPT IN GENERAL . SO IT'S, WE'RE NOT CONSIDERING IF, IF THEY'RE SELLING COKES OR PEANUTS OR GAS, NONE OF THAT IS REALLY PART OF OUR ROLE IN THIS SUP. IT'S JUST CONSIDERING THE SALE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMERS? COMMISSIONER KINGSTON. SO IS STAFF'S POSITION THAT THE SOUTH ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AT A C STORE IN A NEIGHBORHOOD DOESN'T IMPACT THE USE AT ALL? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO SAY? I WOULD SAY THAT WITH REGARDS TO THIS USE, THAT THERE ARE MANY, MANY AREAS IN THE CITY WHERE THERE ARE NOT REQUIREMENTS FOR S WE CAN'T ADD NEW SUP REQUIREMENTS FOR, UM, THIS USE. I WOULD SAY THAT WE SHOULD BE CAUTIOUS HOW WE APPLY OUR, OUR, UM, POWER WITH REGARDS TO IT. I WOULD NOT SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT WE SHOULD LOOK AT OUR USES AS COMMERCIAL USES, THINGS LIKE RETAIL. I, I WOULD NOT SAY THE SINGLE THAT THIS OUT QUITE SO MUCH. UM, BUT EVERY SINGLE SUP THAT WE, WE TAKE THROUGH, WE'RE GOING TO TO LOOK AT IN IN CONTEXT ESPECIALLY. I'M NOT SURE THAT ANSWERED MY QUESTION. CERTAINLY. UH, IS THERE ANYTHING MORE? RIGHT. MY QUESTION WAS, IS IT STAFF'S POSITION THAT THE SALE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES OR MAYBE THINGS LIKE, UM, THC AT A LOCAL CONVENIENCE STORE DOESN'T IMPACT THE USE AT ALL? AND WE SHOULDN'T CONSIDER THAT AT THE END OF THE DAY, BASED ON THE LAND USE, THE LAND USE IS STILL GENERAL MERCHANDISER FOOD STORE. [00:45:01] I WOULD NOT, I WOULD NOT SAY WE SHOULD SINGLE OUT ALCOHOL SALES BECAUSE MOST PLACES IN THE CITY IT'S TIED INTO THE GENERAL, UH, LAND USE. AND INDEED HERE IT IS THE SAME LAND USE, BUT IT ONLY EXISTS BECAUSE WE HAVE A D OVERLAID THAT WAS OVERLAID, UH, BACK IN THE DAY. WELL, AREN'T THERE OTHER USES OF A, IN A SPECIFIC ZONING CATEGORY THAT WE REGULATE DIFFERENTLY? STRIP CLUBS COMES TO MIND, BUT THAT'S NOT, AND THAT SIMILARLY IS NOT A LAND USE, IT, IT, IT FALLS UNDER A, A USE IN OUR CODE. UH, BUT THAT'S REGULATED THE MAJORITY OF THE REGULATION THAT LIMITS THAT LIVES NOT IN OUR CODE, BUT IN, IN OTHER CODES. AND I THINK THAT IN, IN SOME WAYS, YOU COULD SEE IT KIND OF SIMILARLY, I SUPPOSE THAT THERE MAY BE BETTER TOOLS THAN, THAN OUR CODE TO REGULATE LAND USES, JUST LIKE THERE IS FOR STRIP CLUBS. OKAY. THAT BRINGS ME TO MY NEXT QUESTION. WHAT ARE THOSE TOOLS AND HOW SHOULD WE BE LOOKING TO APPLY THEM GOING FORWARD WITH REGARDS TO ALCOHOL OR, OR OTHER SENSITIVE LAND USES, WHETHER IT'S ALCOHOL, STRIP CLUBS, POKER ROOMS? WELL THAT'S A, THAT NOW THAT'S GETTING EVEN, EVEN MORE, EVEN MORE BROAD. AND I, I GET IT AND, AND I UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU'RE, WHERE YOU'RE HEADED. UM, OBVIOUSLY, YOU KNOW, COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT INDOORS ARE, ARE WHAT OUR BODY REGULATES FOR, UH, THOSE KINDS OF ENTERTAINMENT VENUES. BUT, UH, THOSE ARE REGULATED BY POLICE DEPARTMENT AT THAT POINT. I, I WOULD SAY REALLY AS A CITY, YOU KNOW, WE'VE GOT A COUPLE TOOLS TO REGULATE ALCOHOL. UM, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT THEY'RE GOOD TOOLS. LIKE, I'M GONNA BE HONEST, I DON'T THINK IT'S A GOOD TOOL TO, TO DO IT THROUGH THIS BODY. I, I WOULD SAY THAT WE HAVE OTHER PROSECUTION ARMS OF THE CITY. UH, THERE ARE MEANS TO, UM, TO WORK WITH THE, THE TABC TO WORK WITH OPERATORS. I DO NOT THINK THAT THIS IS, IS A GREAT VENUE FOR IT. BUT WE DO HAVE OTHER TOOLS OUTSIDE OF HERE. AND IF YOU HAVE A GROUP OF PROPERTY OWNERS WHO ARE ALL USING SOMETHING TO CREATE A SIMILAR, UM, IMPACT ON THE COMMUNITY SUCH AS A GROUP OF BARS ARE ALL IN A, IN A CLOSE LOCATION OR A GROUP OF STRIP CLUBS ARE ALL IN A CLOSE LOCATION, YOU JUST THINK THAT THERE, THERE'S NO ZONING IMPACT AND WE SHOULDN'T CONSIDER IT FROM A ZONING PERSPECTIVE. AM I UNDERSTANDING YOUR POSITION CORRECTLY? WELL, SOME OF THOSE ARE USES, SOME OF THOSE ARE, ARE NOT, THAT ARE, ARE DEFINED IN THE CODE. UM, AND SO I THINK THAT WE, WE HAVE TO, BECAUSE OF THE TOOLS THAT WE HAVE, WE HAVE TO FALL BACK TO OUR CODE AND THE DEFINITIONS IN IT. WE ALSO HAVE TO FALL TO, UM, THE REGULATIONS THAT THE STATE, THE THINGS THAT THE STATE ALLOWS US TO REGULATE IN REGARDS TO THAT, UH, I WOULD NOT SAY THAT WE WOULD NOT CONSIDER ZONING IMPACTS OF THOSE THINGS. EACH OF THOSE USES LISTED HAVE ZONING CATEGORIES THAT THEY'RE PERMITTED IN AND THAT THEY'RE NOT PERMITTED IN. UM, BUT WE, WE HAVE TO, WE'RE OBVIOUSLY GONNA LOOK AT EACH OF THOSE, UM, AS THEIR LAND USES, BUT, UM, NOT NECESSARILY DISCRIMINATE ON, ON A, THE DETAILS OF, OF THEIR OPERATIONS. BUT ISN'T THAT THE POINT OF AN SUP, IT'S A SPECIAL USE PERMIT SO THAT IF YOU HAVE A USE THAT MIGHT HAVE GREATER ADVERSE IMPACT ON A COMMUNITY WITHIN A ZONING CATEGORY, THAT IT GETS A SECOND LOOK BY THE POLICY MAKERS? YEAH, AND I WOULD SAY YES, BUT IT'S, YOU KNOW, IT'S GOTTA BE BASED ON, ON EVIDENCE WITH REGARDS TO THE USE. AND, AND WHEN WE SINGLE OUT OPERATORS BASED ON, UM, TRACK RECORDS, WE KNOW THAT'S NOT ACCURATE BECAUSE THEY'RE, THEY'RE TIED TO THE, THE LAND. IT'S TIED TO THE LONGER TERM, UM, USE. SO I AGAIN, NOT, DON'T THINK IT'S A GOOD TOOL FOR, FOR THAT PARTICULAR, UM, STRATEGY. WELL, I GUESS WHAT I'M HEARING, AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, STAFF'S POSITIONS, WE SHOULD GET RID OF SUVS. NO, I THINK SUVS ARE AN, ARE AN OKAY TOOL FOR, UH, PERMITTING LAND USES IN OUR CODE. UM, SUBJECT TO THINGS LIKE CONDITIONS AND SUBJECT TO, UH, THINGS LIKE SITE PLANS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. UM, MANY, MANY CITIES USE THINGS LIKE SUVS TO PERMIT ADDITIONAL USES IN DISTRICTS THAT THEY MIGHT NOT BE TYPICALLY, UM, ALLOWED, UH, NO, NO ISSUE WITH, WITH SUVS AS A, AS A REGULAR, UM, AS A A FUNCTION OF CODE, IT'S WHEN WE HAVE SOME OF THE USES AND THAT ARE ADJACENT TO OUR CODE, LIKE ALCOHOLIC SALES [00:50:01] NOT A USE, IT'S NOT A PART OF THE, UH, CODE USES. THAT'S WHEN WE RUN INTO ISSUE. I THINK, I THINK THAT'S WHERE WE WOULD SAY IT'S NOT, NOT A GREAT, UH, USE OF ZONING. WELL THAT BRINGS ME BACK TO MY QUESTION. I MEAN, IF YOUR ANSWER IS WE DON'T DO IT WITH ZONING AND WE DO IT WITH SOME SORT OF CIVIL ENFORCEMENT WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, THEN I'M, I'M GONNA CHALLENGE THAT A LITTLE BIT 'CAUSE IT SOUNDS LIKE, WELL, JUST BASED ON EXPERIENCE FOR PEOPLE WHO'VE BEEN, WHO'VE BEEN THROUGH THAT PROCESS, IT'S VERY, VERY DIFFICULT AND IT'S NOT SOMETHING A NEIGHBORHOOD REALLY CAN WEIGH IN ON. SO I'M NOT HEARING A SOLU, I'M NOT HEARING A SOLUTION THAT'S PRACTICAL THAT WILL ACTUALLY GET DONE. LIKE, THAT'S LIKE TELLING ME, WELL, WE'LL USE CODE ENFORCEMENT THAT IS, UH, A MIGHTY GOAL GIVEN OUR RESOURCES. SO THIS IS A, THIS IS A TOOL, AND I'M UNDERSTANDING YOU TO SAY THAT STAFF DOESN'T SUPPORT IT AND COMMUNITIES THAT HAVE HISTORICALLY RELIED ON THINGS LIKE SDPS TO REGULATE CERTAIN TYPES OF USES, IF IT WERE UP TO STAFF, WOULD JUST NO LONGER HAVE THAT TOOL AND GOOD LUCK TO THEM GETTING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PROSECUTE A BAD ACTOR OR GETTING SOME OTHER POLITICAL PROCESS IN PLAY. AM I MISUNDERSTANDING WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? I THINK I WOULD SAY AGAIN, SUVS ARE, ARE COMMON IN CITIES AND THEY'RE, THEY'RE A FINE PRACTICE AS A, AS A TOOL. UM, I WOULD SAY THAT CONTINUAL, CONTINUAL RENEWAL OF THEM BASED ON A TIME PERIOD IS, IS REALLY UNCOMMON. I WOULD MORE RECOMMEND WE HAVE, YEAH, I MEAN I, I, I MEAN I CAN CLOSE OUT, BUT UM, WE, WE HAVE IT FOR SUVS FOR CERTAIN USES AND, AND THINGS THAT ARE ADJACENT TO USES. I, WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY IS IF, IF WE'RE, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S AN ACT OF FAITH. WE'RE, WE'RE TRYING TO WORK AS A STAFF TO IMPROVE THE WHOLE CODE, THE WHOLE SYSTEM OF LAND USE IN THE CITY. UM, SO IT'S, IT'S A COLLABORATIVE THING. AND AS WE WORK THROUGH CODE REFORM, I GUESS WORKING FROM MY EXPERIENCE AS A PROFESSIONAL PLANNER IN MULTIPLE CITIES AND DOING THIS JOB, LOOKING AT EVERY ZONING APPLICATION THAT COMES THROUGH HERE, UM, LET'S AIM TO ADD TOOLS TO OUR ZONING CODE AND OUR OTHER CODES THAT ARE OBJECTIVE, UM, AND ALLOW THOSE INDIVIDUAL SITES TO BE EVALUATED ON, ON FAIR MEANS WITHIN OUR CODE. JUST LIKE YOU WOULD FOR MEETING YOUR PERMIT, JUST LIKE YOU WOULD FOR, UM, GETTING YOUR, YOUR BUILDING SHELL OCCUPIED WITH THEIR CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. THAT'S WHAT I'M, I'M URGING MAINLY. WELL, AND I'M NOT OPPOSED TO THAT. I'M JUST NOT HEARING WHAT THOSE OTHER OPTIONS ARE. THAT'S WHAT I'M LOOKING FOR. OKAY. I KNOW YOU WANNA MOVE ON, FEEL FREE. WELL, WE'LL BRING YOU BACK TO THIS CASE. UM, IT, IT IS AN IMPORTANT DISCUSSION THOUGH, COMMISSIONER HAMPTON. YEAH, THANK YOU. AND I WAS JUST HAD SIMILAR QUESTIONS THAT I HEAR REFERENCES TO TOOLS IN THE CASE THAT'S BEFORE US, THE CONDITIONS THAT ARE INCLUDED OR SIMPLY A SITE PLAN IN THE PERIOD. AND SO IF, IF STAFF'S WORKING TO ADDRESS, YOU KNOW, THE PROVISIONS OF THE SUP, WHICH SAYS IT'S COMPLEMENT OR BE COMPATIBLE WITH SURROUNDING USES AND FACILITIES, NOT DETRIMENTAL TO THE, UM, YOU KNOW, SAFETY AND WELFARE, WHAT OTHER TOOLS? IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO UNDERSTAND BECAUSE I DON'T SEE THEM IN THIS REQUEST AND WE CAN TAKE THAT UP SEPARATELY. 'CAUSE I KNOW WE HAVE OTHER CASES TO GET TO, BUT THAT'S THE ANSWER I DIDN'T REALLY SEE, BUT RIGHT. AND THANK YOU MR. PEPPY. THANK YOU MR. CHAIR. AND THERE'S, THERE'S KIND OF TWO DIFFERENT TRACKS ON THAT QUESTION, UM, TO A DEGREE RELATED TO THE CASE AND TO A DEGREE RELATED TO BROADER POLICY DIRECTIONS. SO I THINK THAT THE CITY AND THE COMMUNITY WOULD BE BETTER OFF WITH SUVS THAT HAVE MORE ROBUST STANDARDS OF THINGS THAT WE CAN REGULATE THAT, UM, PUT LIMITS ON THESE SPECIFIC USE PERMITS. I MEAN, THAT'S THE POINT AND SPECIFIC USE PERMIT. IT'S IN THIS PARTICULAR SITE, THIS USE MAY BE PERMITTED OR MAY BE, UM, UH, APPROPRIATE WITH CERTAIN FENCES PUT AROUND IT. UM, DEFINITELY WILL ENCOURAGE THAT FOR SUVS. AND WE, WE ARE ENCOURAGING THAT AND, AND MOVING THAT WAY WITH RECOMMENDATIONS. SEPARATE THING ON THIS USE, AS FOR ALCOHOL SALES, WE'RE, WE'RE PRETTY LIMITED IN THE THINGS THAT WE'RE ALLOWED TO REGULATE BECAUSE OUR ATTORNEYS SAY, AND, AND YOU KNOW, I'D AGREE THAT IT'S DIFFICULT TO DRAW A NEXUS BETWEEN, UM, CERTAIN CONDITIONS THAT ARE, UH, REGARDING THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT TO ALCOHOL SALES. SO ALCOHOL SALES IS MAYBE AN EXCEPTION 'CAUSE IT'S NOT LIKE A LAND USE BUILT INTO OUR CODE. IF WE WERE, UH, PROVING AN SUP FOR, UH, LET'S SAY [00:55:01] WE'RE IN NS ZONING, YOU NEED AN SUP FOR, UH, GAS STATION. UM, I CAN THINK OF THINGS ABOUT THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT. MR. CHAIR, MY MY QUESTION WAS VERY SPECIFIC TO SUP AND THE CONDITIONS HERE. SO I APPRECIATE MR. PEPE SPEAKING TO THE BROADER QUESTION, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT'S RELEVANT TO WHAT'S BEFORE US FOR THIS SITE, FOR ALCOHOL SALES, FOR THIS USE. THERE ARE NOT MANY THINGS WE CAN ADD CONDITIONALLY THAT REGULATE THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT, UM, FOR ALCOHOL SUVS. COMMISSIONER FORSYTH, OH, DR. HAMPTON HAS A FOLLOW UP, PLEASE. I WOULD HAPPY TO CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION LATER. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. OKAY. THIS WAS, IS GONNA BE A A, A BIG LONG CONVERSATION AT ONE POINT. COMMISSIONER FORSYTH, IS IT CORRECT TO ASSUME THAT IT IS THE, THE CURRENT OWNER IS THE SAME OWNER, UH, OF THE PROPERTY THAT, UH, THAT OWNED THE PROPERTY BEFORE THE FIRE, BEFORE THE ARSON? I'M, I'M NOT CERTAIN ON THAT, BUT I WOULD SAY THAT'S NOT SOMETHING WE'VE EVALUATED IT ON. UH, THE, THE APPLICANT IS GONNA BE HERE THIS AFTERNOON AND I BE, I BELIEVE WE, WE CAN ASK HIM, BUT I BELIEVE THAT THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION IS NO. THAT THERE HAS BEEN A TURNOVER AND THERE WAS A, THERE WAS A FIRE THAT WAS, I THINK SET BY A DISGRUNTLED EMPLOYEE. AND SO THERE'S A, THERE'S A BIT OF, OF A SAGA TO THIS CASE THAT WE CAN ASK THE APPLICANT THIS AFTERNOON. HE WILL BE HERE. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER. UM, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM? COMMISSIONERS? OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, DR. HASHMI. COMMISSIONERS, IT'S 1103. LET'S TAKE A 10 MINUTE BREAK. COMMISSIONERS, WE'RE GONNA GET BACK ON THE RECORD. OKAY. COMMISSIONERS, IT'S 11:20 AM WE'RE GONNA GO BACK ON THE RECORD AND MOVE ON TO OUR NEXT CASE. UH, LET'S SEE. OKAY. UH, CASE NUMBER FOUR. DO WE NEED THAT ONE BRIEF COMMISSIONER? UH, YES PLEASE. OKAY, LET'S HAVE A BRIEFING OF NUMBER FOUR, PLEASE. YOU CAN'T HEAR US, DO WE? DO WE NEED TO PAUSE OR WHAT DO WE NEED TO DO? YES. OKAY. LET'S TAKE A QUICK BREAK HERE WHILE WE GET THE TECHNOLOGY SET UP. COMMISSIONERS, JUST STAND BY. THIS IS GETTING HELD. DO WE NEED TO HERE TODAY? I THINK IT WOULD BE. I THINK THIS IS GONNA BE SOMETHING PEOPLE ARE, GOD, IT'S F*****G FREEZING IN HERE. IT'S SO COLD. TIA, HAVE YOU MET YUSUF? MM-HMM. I'M SORRY. IS OUR EXTERN, HOW LONG DO WE HAVE YOU FOR, UH, FOR THE REST OF THE SEMESTER. I'VE BEEN HOPEFUL THAT IF I'M LIKE GONNA GET A LITTLE HOPING AFTER THAT, BUT OH, AWESOME. YEAH, THAT'S REALLY, YOU KNOW, ALL OF OUR EXTERNS AND INTERNS WANT TO END UP WORKING WITH US, NOT BECAUSE SO MUCH THE WORK IS INTERESTING, BUT BECAUSE WE'RE SO MUCH FUN. YEAH, GREAT PEOPLE AND THE PENSION'S NICE. OH YEAH, , THERE'S THAT. YES. WE'RE HAVING, HAVING, YEAH, YEAH, [01:00:01] YEAH. DEFINITELY WORK WITH PROBABLY AS MANY PEOPLE IN THE OFFICE AS YOU CAN AND WE'LL FACILITATE THAT AS WELL SO THAT YOU GET EXPOSED TO A LOT OF DIFFERENT, YOU KNOW, DIFFERENT TYPES OF STUFF THAT CAO WORKS ON. YEAH. UM, WE'RE STILL, STILL WAITING TO IRON OUT, JUST ONE LITTLE PIECE OF TECHNOLOGY KIND OF SEARCH. SCOTTS THE DISTRICT DENY, SO WE'VE BEEN LOOKING FORWARD TO THIS. THERE'S JUST A LITTLE BACKGROUND AND YEAH, BECAUSE THIS NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE HE'S TRYING TO BUILD PROPERTY, SO YEAH. BUT THE, HE'S JUST GONNA GET HELP TODAY, SO I THINK SO WE MANY SPEAKERS, BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT GONNA MAKE A DECISION ON IT TODAY, BUT WE'LL SEE. I THINK THERE'S SOME TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES. WHOEVER WAS ATTENDING VIRTUALLY, I GUESS. SO THEY CAN'T, THEY CAN'T HEAR. OKAY. SO THEY'RE FIGURING THAT OUT. I THINK SO. OH, WE'RE GOOD. DO WE HAVE ANYONE ATTENDING? MARCH? OKAY, WE'RE READY, COMMISSIONERS. GOOD MORNING. GOOD MORNING. UH, RAISE THAT UP A LITTLE BIT. THIS IS CASE Z 2 5 6 9. AN APPLICATION FOR AN MF TWO, A MULTI-FAMILY DISTRICT ON PROPERTY ZONE R SEVEN FIVE, A SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT ON THE NORTH TERMINUS OF NORTH BOULEVARD TERRACE BETWEEN HANTON ROAD AND PLYMOUTH ROAD, APPROXIMATELY 2.86 ACRES IN SIZE. UH, HERE IT IS ON THE LOCATION MAP, AND HERE'S THE AERIAL MAPS SHOWING THE AREA OF REQUEST. SO YOU'VE GOT NORTH PLYMOUTH ROAD HERE. IT'S THE MEANDERING ROAD ON THE WEST, NORTHWEST SIDE, AND THEN HAMPTON ROAD OVER HERE ON THE EAST. THIS IS THE ZONING MAP. UH, INTERESTING KIND OF SLICE HERE. YOU'VE GOT IMMEDIATELY TO THE SOUTH AND MF TWO A DISTRICT AND THEN SOUTH OF THERE, TH THREE R SEVEN FIVE ON THE REMAINDER OF THE BLOCK, INCLUDING THE PARTS THAT ARE FRONTING [01:05:01] ON HAMPTON ROAD. TO THE NORTHWEST IS PD 8 0 1. THIS IS A PD THAT INCLUDES VARIOUS MULTIFAMILY, UH, DEVELOPMENTS IN VARIOUS SUB AREAS. THERE'S ALSO THIS MF TWO, A SLIPPER OVER HERE, UH, RATHER ODD DISTRICT AND PD FOUR 50, WHICH IS FOR SCHOOL. AND THEN TO THE SOUTH IS PD EIGHT 30, I BELIEVE. THAT'S THE WEST DAVIS SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICT, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, UH, WITH A MIX OF, UH, RETAIL RESTAURANTS, UH, THINGS OF THAT NATURE. THE AREA OF REQUEST CURRENTLY IS DEVELOPED WITH A FEW SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AS WELL AS A VACANT LOT, UH, THE APPLICANT THAT IS INCORRECT, UH, WHICH TO DEVELOP 34 DWELLING UNITS, NOT 28. AND AS SUCH, THEY'RE REQUESTING AN MF TWO, A MULTIFAMILY DISTRICT. THESE ARE SOME PHOTOS OF THE SITE ON BOULEVARD TERRACE LOOKING SOUTHWEST. AND YOU'RE GONNA NOTICE THAT IT'S A LITTLE HARD TO SEE MUCH OF THE SITE JUST DUE TO THE NATURE OF THE CONFIGURATION HERE. THAT'S LOOKING NORTH TOWARDS THE END OF THE STREET, THEN TO THE NORTHEAST, LOOKING SOUTHEAST, THEN TO THE NORTHWEST. HERE'S WHERE THE ROAD ENDS RIGHT NOW, LOOKING AWAY FROM THE END, LOOKING NORTH OVER TO JUST KIND OF WHERE THE HINTERLANDS OF THE AREA OF REQUEST WOULD BE. THEN LOOKING SOUTH, UH, THESE WERE A COUPLE THAT I HAD TAKEN, UM, OUT FROM GOOGLE STREET VIEW. JUST I HAD, UH, WHEN I DID MY SITE VISIT, I WAS A LITTLE UNAWARE OF HOW FAR SOUTH THE AREA OF REQUEST STRETCHED. SO I PULLED THESE OUTTA GOOGLE STREET VIEW. UH, BUT THIS IS SHOWING THE TWO HOUSES THAT ARE CURRENTLY THERE THAT ARE WITHIN THE AREA OF REQUEST. AND THEN LOOKING AWAY FROM THE HOUSES TOWARDS THE OTHER SIDE OF BOULEVARD TERRACE. THIS IS A COMPARISON OF THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS HERE. UM, THE EXISTING IS R SEVEN FIVE A, THEN THE PROPOSED IS MF TWO A. UH, THE BIGGEST THING TO NOTE HERE IS THAT THE HEIGHT OF 36 FEET IS LIMITED BY RPS. UH, SO THE RRP S WOULD BE IMPOSED UPON IT BY THE R 75 TO THE EAST ON THE EASTERN LINE OF NORTH BOULEVARD TERRACE. THE SITE AND THE AREAS, UH, DESIGNATED AS COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL, AND THE PRIMARY USES ARE SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED, DETACHED, THEN MULTIFAMILY AND OUR RETAIL OFFICE MIXED USES ARE CONSIDERED SECONDARY USES. SO WHEN WE LOOK AT THAT, UM, THIS IS, I THINK, A DISCUSSION WE'VE HAD SEVERAL TIMES NOW AT THIS, UH, IN FRONT OF THIS BODY. UH, WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT A SECONDARY USE WITHIN THE COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, OR NOT DISTRICTS, BUT THE COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL PLACE TYPES, WE ARE CONSIDERING A VARIETY OF FACTORS TO DETERMINE WHETHER SOMETHING IS APPROPRIATE. IN THIS CASE. WE NOTE THAT THE SITE IS CLOSE TO MAJOR ROADWAYS AS WELL AS BUS TRANSIT. UH, IT IS PROXIMATE TO AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SUPERMARKET AND SOME OTHER RETAIL ALONG WEST DAVIS. UH, THE NEIGHBORHOOD, IT'S AN INTERESTING NEIGHBORHOOD BECAUSE IT IS PREDOMINANTLY SINGLE FAMILY WITH WHAT'S BEEN BUILT THERE. UH, THE MAJORITY OF IT IS ZONED FOR TH THREE A FROM A BALLPARK LOOK, UH, LOOKING AT THE DALLAS, THE DCA TAX PARCELS AND WHATNOT. UH, IT DOESN'T LOOK THAT IT'S NECESSARILY BUILT OUT TO THE LEVEL. IT COULD BE UNDER TH THREE, BUT IT CERTAINLY IS ENTITLED TO, UH, GREATER, UH, DEVELOPMENT UNDER THAT TH THREE. IT'LL, IT IS ALSO ADJACENT TO AN MF TWO, A DISTRICT THAT'S IMMEDIATELY TO THE SOUTH, UH, WHICH IS ABOUT ONE ACRE IN SIZE. UH, ADDITIONALLY, THERE'S A FEW FACTORS THAT COME IN HERE. THERE IS THE RPS THAT WOULD LIMIT THE HEIGHTS OVERALL. UH, AGAIN, FOR AS A REMINDER, THE WAY THE RPS WORKS IS THAT IT IMPOSES A HEIGHT LIMIT OF ABOUT 26 FEET FOR THE FIRST 78 FEET OF THE, IN THIS CASE, IT WOULD BE THE LOT DEPTH. UH, SUBSEQUENTLY FROM THERE FOR EVERY THREE FEET AWAY, YOU GET ANOTHER FOOT IN HEIGHT, UH, YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO BUILD OUT TO THE 36 FOOT MAX HEIGHT, UM, UNTIL YOU'RE ABOUT 108 FEET AWAY FROM THE ADJACENT R 75. UM, AND I THINK GIVEN THE WAY THAT THE SITE'S CONFIGURED, THERE'S SOME FLOODPLAINS TO THE WESTERN PART OF THE SITE, UH, IT KIND OF GREATLY LIMITS WHAT KIND OF THE ACTUAL BUILDING ENVELOPE IT COULD BE THERE. UH, ANOTHER MAJOR FACTOR THAT WENT INTO OUR ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION IS THAT THE CITY PLANS TO CONSTRUCT A CONNECTION BETWEEN NORTH BOULEVARD TERRACE AND NORTH PLYMOUTH ROAD, UH, THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR ADDITIONAL INGRESS, EGRESS AND ACCESS TO HAMPTON ROAD STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL. THANK YOU, SIR. QUESTIONS, QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM? COMMISSIONERS. COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, PLEASE. UH, YOUR LAST SLIDE THAT, UM, PERTAINED TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THIS CONNECTOR. I, I, I SENT AN EMAIL TO MR. NAVAREZ EARLIER IN THE WEEK. I DON'T KNOW IF HE'S AVAILABLE. I DIDN'T GET A, A, A RESPONSE, WHICH IS UNUSUAL. UM, WHAT IS THE RATIONALE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THIS CONNECTOR? UM, A DEAD END RESIDENTIAL STREET AND NORTH PLYMOUTH ROAD DOES NOT SEEM LIKE THE, YOU KNOW, A HIGH PRIORITY PROJECT AND I KNOW THE BUDGET THAT WELL, HE'S HERE. I'LL LET HIM EXPLAIN. YEAH. VARS, UM, GOOD, GOOD MORNING. UM, COMMISSIONERS, DAVID NAVARRES, TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT SERVICES WITH PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT. UM, MA'AM, I HATE TO CORRECT YOU, BUT I DIDN'T REPLY. , UM, WEDNESDAY AT 9 46. [01:10:02] I'M SORRY, I DID NOT SEE IT. A PUBLIC, I GROVEL IN MORTIFICATION AND, AND THIS IS PERFECTLY FINE. I'D RATHER HAVE THIS CONVERSATION, UM, AT, AT THIS TIME. UM, IF YOU DON'T MIND, I WOULD LIKE TO READ A COPY OF WHAT I PRINTED FROM THE EMAIL THAT I SENT YOU. I, UM, PROVIDED YOU FOUR BULLET POINTS. UM HMM. BUT IT'S LENGTHY AND I'LL PLEASE STOP ME. I THINK THAT THE QUESTION SPECIFICALLY ON WHAT TRIGGERED THE CONSTRUCTION OF THIS BRIDGE, WHY IS IT BEING PROPOSED AND WHERE IT STANDS AS OF TODAY? UH, THE PROJECT IS NOT FULLY FUNDED, UH, BUT THAT'S BECAUSE PRIMARILY THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC WORKS HAS THE ABILITY TO REALLOCATE FUNDS, GIVEN PRIORITIES. UH, WHEN A PROJECT IS NOT FULLY DESIGNED, THEN IT FALLS BEHIND, SO TO SPEAK, AND FUNDS ARE GIVEN PRIORITY TO OTHERS. IT'S A GENERAL FUND, AND THEREFORE, JUST LIKE MANY OTHER PROJECTS THAT ARE UNDERDESIGNED TODAY, THEY'RE NOT COMPLETELY FULLY FUNDED, BUT IT IS SCHEDULED TO START CONSTRUCTION BY THE FALL OF 2026 WITH AN ESTIMATED TWO YEAR COMPLETION TIMELINE. SO MY ANSWER LETTING YOU KNOW THAT IT'S NOT, NOT COMPLETELY FUNDED, IT JUST MEANS THAT IT, ALONG WITH MANY OTHER PROJECTS IN THE CITY, UM, IT HASN'T FALLEN INTO A SPECIFIC CATEGORY, BUT AS OF TODAY, THE PROJECT IS AT 60% DESIGN WITH AN ESTIMATED, UM, TENTATIVE CONSTRUCTION START DATE IN THE FALL OF 2026. SO A YEAR FROM NOW, UM, THAT MEANS THAT WE WOULD HAVE FINAL DESIGN SOMETIME EARLY IN THE YEAR, UM, EARLY, EARLY NEXT YEAR. UM, AND THEN AS A, UH, THE, THE, THE CURRENT BUDGET, YOU, YOU MENTIONED AN AMOUNT THAT, UM, YOU CORRECTLY STATED IT WAS, IT SEEMED TOO LOW. UH, SO TODAY THE BUDGET IS $6.7 MILLION FOR THIS PROJECT, ACCORDING TO THE PROGRAM MANAGER OVERSEEING THIS PROJECT. UH, $6.7 MILLION IS WHAT, WHAT IS BUDGETED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE, OF THE, UM, ROAD? THERE, THERE, THERE ARE TWO ITEMS THAT REMAIN PENDING AS FAR AS THE, THE ABILITY FOR THE CITY TO PROCEED WITH THE CONSTRUCTION. ONE IS IT'S IN THE FLOOD ZONE AND, UH, IT WILL NEED A WAIVER SO THAT IT'S NOT ELEVATED. UM, BUT THAT'S, THAT'S A, THAT JUST A TASK THAT HAS TO BE HANDLED BETWEEN NOW AND IN, UM, JANUARY, I WOULD SAY. UM, AND THEN THE SECOND ONE IS THE RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION, WHICH I'M TOLD THAT THERE, THAT, THAT THE CITY HAS HAD AMICABLE CONVERSATIONS WITH THE OWNER SLASH APPLICANT AND, AND THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE PROCEEDING WITH THE, WITH THE PROCESS AS OF TODAY. THANK YOU. UM, I DID CHECK MY EMAIL. I DIDN'T SEE IT, BUT THAT'S, IT COULD BE JUST A GLITCH. I'VE HAD THEM BEFORE. UM, BUT CAN YOU, I MEAN, I'M GETTING QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMUNITY. WHY IS THIS PROJECT A PRIORITY? WHAT IS IT CONNECTING? IS IT PART OF A FUTURE TRAIL SYSTEM OR IT, IT JUST SEEMS LIKE A VERY ODD PROJECT TO BE A PRIORITY AT THIS POINT IN TIME. UM, SO OUR OFFICE DOESN'T HANDLE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS. SURE. OR, OR, OR, OR NECESSARILY COORDINATES IN DETAIL WITH TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC WORKS. BUT, UM, IN MY CONVERSATION WITH THE PROJECT MANAGER, I CALL HIM PROGRAM PROJECT MANAGER, UM, HE STATED THIS IS A, A DESIRE IN, IN THE DISTRICT. UM, THE COUNCIL MEMBER'S OFFICE HAS ALLOCATED THIS TO BE A, A, A PROJECT WITHIN THE PRIORITY LIST OF PROJECTS IN THE CITY. AND, AND WE WE'RE FOLLOWING SUIT. IT'S, IT'S PART OF THEIR BUDGET AND WHAT, UM, WHAT THE C THE CITY HAS BEEN TASKED TO COMPLETE. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. UM, AND, AND IF I CAN GO INTO IT CONCEPTUALLY, UM, YOU KNOW, IT CREATES CONNECTIVITY. IT CREATES AN ACCESS TO A BIKE LANE THAT HAS BEEN ALREADY WORKING AND OPERATING ON BA, BAHAMA BAHAMA ON PLYMOUTH OFF OF PLYMOUTH, PLYMOUTH, AND THEN BAHAMA BAHAMA, AND THEN BAHAMA GOES ALL THE WAY OUT TO, UM, UH, FORT WORTH AVENUE OR, YOU KNOW. SO, BECAUSE THE, UH, PART OF THE LAND AT THE NORTHERN END OF THIS PROJECTED CONNECTOR IS ACTUALLY PARKLAND, IS THAT CORRECT? I'M NOT AWARE OF THAT. OKAY. UH, UM, I, IN FACT, I DO HAVE PLANS, UM, THE ALIGNMENT PLANS AND I MEAN, RIGHT NOW IT, IT'S JUST HEAVILY WOODED PROPERTY WITH A A, A CREEK. IT IS GO GOING THROUGH IT. SO THERE IS NO, ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY PLAN TO DEVELOP ANY SORT OF PARK AMENITIES? NO. IT'S JUST, MA'AM, [01:15:01] THEIR PLANS DO NOT CON CONTEMPLATE ANY PUBLIC, UM, FACILITIES OTHER THAN THE STREET SIDEWALKS. AND THEN CONNECTING TO A INTERSECTION OF PLYMOUTH AND BAHAMA BAHAMA DRIVE. YES. BAHAMA DRIVE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER HALL, ALL BY COMMISSIONER KINGSTON. UH, MR. BATE, A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. UM, ONE, THERE'S ALREADY A, A, A SINGLE FAMILY HOME AND A DUPLEX ON THIS PROPERTY, IS THAT CORRECT? UH, THERE ARE TWO RESIDENCES. I DON'T RECALL OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD IF, UM, WHICH ONE'S A DUPLEX OR A SINGLE FAMILY HOME. BUT YES, THERE ARE TWO ON THE SOUTHERN END OF THE, UH, AREA OF REQUEST. DO YOU KNOW IF THEY'LL BE LEFT? UH, WOULD THEY BE DEMOLISHED OR WOULD THEY BE LEFT? DO YOU KNOW? UH, THE APPLICANT INDICATED THAT AT LEAST FOR THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE, THOSE WOULD REMAIN THERE. UM, THEY WOULD REMAIN THERE. OKAY. JUST ACROSS THE STREET TO THE WEST IS A, A BIG APARTMENT COMPLEX. YES. SOME OF THE NEIGHBORS, UH, YOU KNOW, READING SOME OF THE COMMENT LETTERS THAT HAVE COME IN, THEY COMPLAINED ABOUT THE DENSITY OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. MM-HMM . UH, HOW WOULD THE DENSITY OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT COMPARE TO THE DENSITY OF THOSE APARTMENTS JUST ACROSS THE STREET? WELL, THE APARTMENTS THAT ARE OVER ACROSS THE STREET ON PLYMOUTH ROAD, STILL LOOKING AT IT, GOING OFF OF WHAT GOOGLE MAPS CALLS AND THERE'S RENAISSANCE KESSLER PARK, HOLIDAY HILLS APARTMENTS, UH, THOSE HAVE, UH, SUBSTANTIALLY HIGHER DENSITY, UM, COMPARED TO WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED HERE. UH, IF YOU GIVE ME JUST A MOMENT TO PULL THAT ONE UP. I'VE GOT THE EXACT NUMBERS HERE, BUT I BELIEVE IT VARIES BETWEEN, I WANNA SAY 55 TO 85, AND I JUST WANT TO CONFIRM. YEAH. UH, SORRY. YES. SO 55 TO 85 UNITS PER ACRE. UM, THE SUB AREA TWO AND ONE, WHICH ARE OVER, LEMME PULL UP THE ZONING MAP AGAIN. SO THIS IS SUB AREA TWO, THAT ONE'S ACTUALLY 85 UNITS PER ACRE. AND THEN I BELIEVE SUB AREA ONE IS OVER HERE. THAT ONE'S 80 UNITS PER ACRE. UH, SO 55 TO 85. UM, THIS WOULD BE, WOULD THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSED NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS AND THE SIZE OF THE SITE, UH, THAT COMES OUT TO ABOUT JUST AROUND 12 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE, WHICH IS ACTUALLY AROUND THE SAME AS WHAT THE TH THREE ALLOWS. UH, SO IT WOULD BE SORT OF IN LINE WITH, I'D SAY ABOUT A TWO THIRDS OR A THIRD OF WHAT IS ALLOWABLE ALONG NORTH BOULEVARD TERRACE. I WOULD ALSO CAVEAT, OF COURSE, THAT THE DENSITY OF THIS DEVELOPMENT OVER HERE ON PLYMOUTH ROAD, THOSE APARTMENTS, YOU KNOW, IT IS SEPARATED FROM OTHER SUBDIVISIONS. IT'S SORT OF ITS OWN WORLD AS IT WERE. RIGHT. UM, SO IT'S, IT'S ABLE TO, I THINK YOU COULD SAY IT'S ABLE TO MANAGE AND HAVE THAT SORT OF DENSITY A LITTLE MORE. UH, YOU KNOW, IF WE WERE TALKING ABOUT 80 VOLUME UNITS PER ACRE ON A SITE THIS SIZE AND OF THIS CONFIGURATION, THEN, UH, I THINK THE CONVERSATION WOULD BE VERY DIFFERENT. UH, BUT AGAIN, THE PROPOSED AMOUNT OF 34 DWELLING UNITS, THAT'S 12 DWELL UNITS PER ACRE, UM, ACTUALLY JUST A HAIR UNDER THAT, BUT FOR A SIMPLICITY SAKE WILL ROUND UP AND SAY IT'S 12 UNITS. 12, PARDON ME, 12 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE. OKAY. UM, SO IT WOULD BE ABOUT IN LINE WITH, AGAIN, THAT TH THREE, UM, THE LIMIT FOR TH THREE IS 12 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE. R SEVEN FIVE DOESN'T HAVE DWELLING UNIT, UM, MAX. UM, BUT YOU CAN GET ABOUT, I THINK SIX DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE. 'CAUSE 7,500 SQUARE FEET MINIMUM LOT SIZE. UH, FOR MF TWO, IT'S A LITTLE HARD TO IDENTIFY WHAT EXACTLY THE MAXWELL UNIT DENSITY IS BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT HAS MORE OF A MINIMUM LOT SIZE. IT'S BASED ON THE TYPE OF UNITS BEING, UH, PROVISIONED, WHETHER IT'S A STUDIO, ONE BEDROOM, TWO BEDROOM, ET CETERA. UM, AND WHILE YOU HAVE, YOU KNOW, A GENERAL LOT SIZE OF, OKAY, IF YOU HAVE ONE ACRE, THIS IS ABOUT HOW MANY, LET'S SAY ONE BEDROOM UNITS YOU COULD BUILD, SOME OF THAT IS GOING TO BE NON BUILDABLE BECAUSE OF SETBACKS, BECAUSE OF PARKING REQUIREMENTS, INFRASTRUCTURE, ET CETERA. UH, SO IT'S A LITTLE HARD TO ACTUALLY PINPOINT WHAT THE MAXWELL UNIT POTENTIAL COULD BE HERE. UH, BUT I THINK THAT WAS A VERY LONG ANSWER, JUST TO SAY THAT IT'S WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED AT LEAST WOULD BE ABOUT 12 MILLION UNITS PER ACRE, WHICH WE WOULD SAY IS IN LINE WITH A GOOD PORTION OF WHAT'S ALLOWABLE ALONG BOULEVARD TERRACE TODAY. THAT'S, THAT'S A GREAT, THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER KINGSTON. I, YEAH. HOW MANY, UM, EITHER SINGLE FAMILY OR DUPLEX HOMES ARE LOCATED WITHIN HALF MILE RADIUS OF THE SITE? COULD YOU REPEAT THE LAST PART PLEASE? SURE. HOW MANY, UH, SINGLE FAMILY OR DUPLEX STRUCTURES ARE LOCATED WITHIN HALF MILE OF THE SITE? WITHIN A HALF MILE OF THE SITE? UH, I DO NOT HAVE A NUMBER OF, UH, I DON'T HAVE THAT DATA AVAILABLE. UM, LOOKING AT IT, I MEAN, REALLY TO BALLPARK, WE'VE GOT, YOU KNOW, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, ABOUT 30. YEAH, ABOUT 30 [01:20:01] THERE IN THAT TH THREE. UM, THE MF TWO THERE, I BELIEVE THERE'S A COUPLE, UM, TWO OR THREE STRUCTURES THERE. I GUESS IF YOU HAD TO SAY WITHIN THIS BLOCK OVERALL, UH, YOU PROBABLY HAVE ABOUT A LONG BOULEVARD TERRACE. I WOULD SAY PROBABLY ABOUT 40, UH, STRUCTURES, BUT THAT'S A BALLPARK. I DON'T HAVE A, I'M, WE HAVE, WE DON'T HAVE THAT KIND OF DATA READILY HANDY. WELL, ONE OF THE THINGS IN FOR DALLAS TOO SAYS, CHANGES TO AREAS WITHIN COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS SHOULD LOOK TO ADD HOUSING IN A WAY THAT IS GENTLE, EQUITABLE, INCREMENTAL AND SENSITIVE TO THE EXISTING CONTEXT WHILE DOING SO IN A MANNER THAT STRENGTHENS THESE NEIGHBORHOODS AND INCORPORATES INCLUSIVE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT EFFORTS. DO YOU THINK THIS PROJECT DOES THIS AND AS SO IF, SO, WHY? I THINK THIS PROJECT CAN DO THAT. I THINK THAT WHEN WE LOOK AT WHAT IS CURRENTLY ENTITLED ON THE GROUND HERE IN GENERAL, YOU'D HAVE, AGAIN, I WOULD SAY IT'S AN, AN INTERESTING MIX HERE IF YOU'VE GOT TH THREE, MF TWO AND R 75. SO IN TERMS OF WHAT'S CURRENTLY BUILDABLE AND WHAT YOU CAN BUILD HERE, I THINK THAT THIS NEIGHBORHOOD COULD CERTAINLY, YOU KNOW, TOMORROW EVEN SOMEONE COULD START DEVELOPING IN THE TH THREE ZONING DISTRICT IN THE MF TWO, UH, TO BUILD UP A SMALL APARTMENT COMPLEX TO BUILD DENSER ATTACHED, UH, SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING. UM, IT CURRENTLY DOES NOT LOOK LIKE THAT TODAY, BUT YOU KNOW, WE HAVE TO, WHEN WE DO LOOK AT THESE SORTS OF, UH, REQUESTS AND THESE CASES WRIT LARGE, UH, WE HAVE TO KIND OF JUST ASSESS WHAT THE EXISTING ZONING DOES ALLOW. UH, AND IN THIS CASE, AGAIN, TH THREE, IT WOULD ALLOW FOR, UH, MORE DENSE DEVELOPMENT THAN WHAT'S CURRENTLY ON THE GROUND THERE. THE MF TWO DISTRICT WOULD ALLOW SOME AMOUNT OF APARTMENTS. UM, I THINK THAT BY HAVING SOME OF THE LIMITS THAT ARE PUT IN THROUGH RPS, THROUGH SOME OF THE NA INHERENT LIMITS AS WELL AS THE TOPOGRAPHY OF THE SITE, THE FLOOD PLAINS AS WELL, IT WOULD BE, AGAIN, IT WOULD BE A DEPARTURE, I THINK FROM WHAT'S CURRENTLY ON THE GROUND THERE. THAT'S, UH, WITHOUT QUESTION IT WOULD BE A DEPARTURE FROM WHAT'S THERE. YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT MULTIFAMILY VERSUS SINGLE FAMILY WITH A 34 UNIT DEVELOPMENT. IT WOULD NOT, IN STAFF'S OPINION, BE AS GRAVE OF A DEPARTURE FROM WHAT'S BUILT THERE AND WHAT'S BUILDABLE THERE. 'CAUSE AGAIN, WE WANT TO REALLY FOCUS ON HOW IT IS CURRENTLY ZONED TODAY. THERE'S A LOT THAT COULD BE DEVELOPED THERE. UM, WHETHER IT WOULD BE OR NOT IS KIND OF OUTSIDE OF OUR PURVIEW, IF THAT'S, DEPENDS MORE ON WHAT DEVELOPMENT OF MARKET FORCES SAY. BUT THERE'S A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD THAT IS ENTITLED TO, UM, TO GREATER DEVELOPMENT THAN WHAT'S CURRENTLY ON THE GROUND THERE. SO WITH 34 DWELLING UNITS, IT WOULD BE, IT WOULD BE A DEPARTURE, BUT IT WOULDN'T NECESSARILY BE OUT OF LINE WITH WHAT'S AVAIL ABLE TO BE DONE THERE. MARKETING BACK TO, UH, SOMEONE, WHAT I MENTIONED WITH COMMISSIONER HALL'S QUESTION IS WHEN WE ARE TALKING ABOUT 34 DWELLING UNITS ON JUST UNDER THREE ACRES, IT'S ABOUT 12 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE. UH, SO IT WOULD BE IN TERMS OF OVERALL INTENSITY OF THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE AND SORT OF THE TRAFFIC THAT GETS GENERATED AND WHATNOT, IT'S IN LINE WITH WHAT THE TH THREE THAT MAKES UP A GOOD PORTION OF THIS, UM, THIS STREET, UH, WOULD ALLOW. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER FORESITE. WELL, COMMISSIONER FOLLOWED BY COMMISSIONER HOUSE. RIGHT. SO, UM, YOU MENTIONED THAT THE AREA THAT IS IMMEDIATELY SOUTH OF THIS PROJECT IS ZONED TH THREE IMMEDIATELY SOUTH OF THE AREA OF REQUEST IS MF TWO. SO THE IMMEDIATE, THE IMMEDIATE ONE IS MF TWO THEN RIGHT SOUTH, THAT'S TH THREE. RIGHT. BUT ALL THOSE HOMES THAT ARE IN, ON THAT STREET FROM DAVIS UP TO THE DEAD END, THEY'RE ALL EITHER SINGLE FAMILY OR DUPLEXES. IS THAT CORRECT? YES. RIGHT. SO THERE ARE NO TOWN HOMES. THERE ARE NO APARTMENTS RIGHT NOW. CORRECT. EXACTLY. SO THE, THE CURRENT ZONING WAS FOR SOME REASON MISPLACED. RIGHT. AT SOME POINT IN THE PAST, THEY DIDN'T ZONE THIS CORRECTLY. I CAN'T REALLY SPECULATE ON HOW IT WAS ZONED AND WHETHER IT WAS APPLIED PROPERLY OR NOT. IT COULD HAVE BEEN THAT THE CITY AT THE TIME ENVISIONED THIS BEING DEVELOPED MORE INTENSELY. UM, AND THAT'S WHY IT WAS ZONED THERE. UH, LOOKING AT IT ON OUR ZONING MAP, IT HAS WHAT WE CALL THERAN. I THINK, MICHAEL, YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO CLARIFY, BUT THE TRANSITION LABEL AND THE 1989 DATE, UM, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT'S WHEN THE CITY DID A LARGE SCALE KINDA REZONING AND ZONING UPDATE, RIGHT? YEAH. SO FOR YOUR TH THREE, UM, WHICH MOST OF THE BLOCK IS THAT TH THREE, UM, WHICH ALLOWS DUPLEX, IT'S ONE OF THE BETTER WAYS TO BUILD DUPLEX IN THE CITY, THE EASIER WAYS TO BUILD DUPLEX IN THE CITY. THAT'S A TH THREE THAT WAS ESTABLISHED FROM CARRY OVER FROM THE OLD CODE, AND IT WAS, HAS BEEN THERE SINCE 89, BUT WE DON'T HAVE HISTORY BEYOND THAT. BUT WE KNOW THAT IT WAS ESTABLISHED AS A CARRYOVER FROM A [01:25:01] PREVIOUS, UH, DUPLEX, UH, DISTRICT. BUT, BUT THESE ARE ALL A SINGLE FAMILY FOR THE MOST PART, SINGLE FAMILY OR DUPLEX UNITS? CORRECT. AND THEY'RE ALL AFFORDABLE TYPE OF HOMES, IS THAT CORRECT? UH, THEY'RE ALL DETACHED. UH, I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE PRICE POINTS ARE ON THE HOUSES, BUT THEY'RE ALL, IT'S, UH, PRETTY MUCH, YOU KNOW, MOSTLY HISPANIC TYPE OF NEIGHBORHOOD. UM, THE, UM, YOU, YOU MENTIONED THAT THE, THE DENSITY THAT IS BEING PROPOSED, I, YOU, I THINK YOU SAID 34 UNITS? YES. WITH, UH, 2.86 ACRES. THAT'S 11.88 UNITS PER ACRE, OR YOU SAID 12 UNITS PER ACRE? BA BASICALLY, YEAH, IT'S A ROUNDUP. AND SO YOU SAID THAT IS THE SAME DENSITY AS TH THREE, CORRECT? RIGHT. AND THEN THE, MY UNDERSTANDING READING THE CASE REPORT IS THAT THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING WOULD BE LIMITED TO 36 FEET. IS THAT CORRECT? THEY WOULD BE LIMITED. SO THE MAX HEIGHT IN MF TWO IS 36 FEET. UM, HOWEVER, GIVEN THE LAYOUT OF THE SITE AND THE PROXIMITY TO THAT R SEVEN FIVE, THAT'S TO THE EAST. SO LOOKING HERE ON THE ZONING MAP, YOU HAVE ALL THIS R SEVEN FIVE. SO IF THIS WERE TO BE REZONED, YOU'VE GOT ALL THIS R SEVEN FIVE, THAT'S GONNA IMPOSE RPS. SO WHEN THE RRP S IS IMPOSED FOR THE FIRST 78 FEET GOING INTO THE LOT, UM, IT'S LIMITED ACTUALLY TO 26 FEET, WHICH IS LOWER THAN WHAT R SEVEN FIVE ALLOWS. REMEMBER, R SEVEN FIVE ALLOWS UP TO 30 FEET. IN THIS CASE, IT WOULD BE LIMITED TO 26 FEET. UH, SUBSEQUENTLY AFTER 78 FEET, IT'S THIS RISE OVER RUN THING OF, FOR EVERY THREE FEET OF DISTANCE, YOU GET AN EXTRA FOOT IN HEIGHT, WHICH IS REALLY ALL TO SAY THAT YOU DON'T RECEIVE YOUR FULL ENTITLEMENT OF 36 FEET UNTIL YOU'RE 108 FEET AWAY FROM A SITE OF ORIGINATION OF RPS. SO HE'S GONNA HAVE TO START THE PROJECT 108 FEET IN. NO, HE WOULDN'T HAVE TO START AT 108 FEET IN WHAT? NO, HE COULD START IT AT THE, AT THE SETBACK, WHICH WOULD BE, UM, IT'S A 15 FOOT SETBACK, UH, PULL THAT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AGAIN. BUT, SO A 15 FOOT FRONT SETBACK, HOWEVER, YOU'D BE LIMITED TO 26 FEET IN HEIGHT FOR THE FIRST 78 FEET, WHICH IN PRACTICE, I THINK YOU WOULD SAY, EH, MAYBE ABOUT 30 FEET HEIGHT TOTAL. BECAUSE AGAIN, YOU GET THIS SLOPING EFFECT WITH THE RPS, RIGHT. ONE TO THREE RATIO. AND, YOU KNOW, THEORETICALLY YOU GO OUT, UH, 81 FEET, NOW YOU CAN BUILD 27 FEET HIGH, YOU GO 84 FEET, YOU CAN GO 28 FEET HIGH. NO ONE'S REALLY BUILDING A, A PROJECT THAT KIND OF SLOPE STUFF SLOWLY LIKE THAT. I THINK GENERALLY WHEN YOU HAVE A SITUATION LIKE THIS, IT'S EITHER GOING TO BE TYPICALLY LIMITED TO 26 FEET. OVERALL. YOU MIGHT HAVE, DEPENDING ON HOW YOU CONFIGURE IT, YOU COULD HAVE SOMETHING THAT'S 26 FEET IN THE FRONT AND THEN IT GOES FAR BACK ENOUGH, AND THEN YOU CAN GET IT UP TO 36 IF IT'S, AGAIN, IF IT'S FAR BACK ENOUGH. BUT I THINK GIVEN THE RESTRICT CONSTRAINTS ON THE SITE FROM THE JOG FROM THE TOPOGRAPHY AND THE, UH, UH, GEOGRAPHY, OR NOT GEOGRAPHY, GEOLOGY POINT IS, THERE'S A FLOODPLAIN THERE IN THE BACK AS WELL. SO IT'S, I WOULD FIND IT VERY HARD TO ACTUALLY GET TO THAT FULL 36 FOOT ENTITLEMENT BECAUSE THE RRP S IS GONNA GREATLY LIMIT THAT. AND I THINK JUST GENERAL, THE WAY THE PEOPLE DESIGN BUILDINGS, IT'S, IT'S NOT GONNA REALLY SIMPLY SLOPE UP. IT'S EITHER GONNA STAY AROUND 26 FEET OR IN THE VERY BACK, YOU MIGHT GET UP TO THE MID THIRTIES, BUT, UH, BUT THIS IS A PICTURE OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, RIGHT? MM-HMM . SO THESE UNITS ARE THREE STORIES. THERE'S A, THE GARAGE IN THE BOTTOM, AND THEN THERE'S TWO STORIES, A LIVING SPACE, RIGHT? UH, COULD YOU DO THAT IN LESS THAN 36 FEET? I'D HAVE TO LOOK AT THE, UH, SCHEMATICS. THAT'S, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT AN ACTUAL, UM, WHAT DO YOU CALL IT? IT'S NOT AN ACTUAL ELEVATION VIEW WITH, UH, WITH DRAWINGS THERE, YOU COULD POSSIBLY GET THAT. AGAIN, IF IT'S SET BACK FAR ENOUGH, THEN THEY MIGHT BE ABLE TO PULL THAT OFF. UM, I WILL ALSO, I WILL CAVEAT AS WELL THAT WITH RPS, UM, IT CAN GET A LITTLE, HOW WOULD I PUT IT? IT GETS A LITTLE, UH, TRICKIER WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT SOME SLOPING TOPOGRAPHIES WHERE, UM, I'M NOT AS WELL VERSED ON THIS, BUT MAYBE JENNIFER ALGAR OR, UM, JENNIFER, IF YOU HAPPEN TO BE AVAILABLE, HEY, SORRY TO SURPRISE YOU, UH, BUT TALKING ABOUT RPS AS IT PERTAINS TO AREAS WHERE THE TOPOGRAPHY STARTS SLOPING DOWNWARDS, AND HOW WE CALCULATE HEIGHTS THROUGH THAT. UH, AND, AND WHEN YOU ANSWER THIS, COULD YOU ANSWER IT IN, IN, IN KEEPING IN MIND, THERE'S ALSO MY UNDERSTANDING, A COOMBS CREEK THAT RUNS THROUGH THIS PROPERTY, RIGHT? SO THAT'S GONNA LIMIT HOW FAR BACK YOU CAN BUILD ANYWAY. SO THAT'S GONNA LIMIT HOW FAR BACK YOU CAN GO. SO I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, IS IF YOU GOT THIS RPS SETBACK ISSUE, AND THEN YOU GOT THE COOMBS CREEK ON THE OTHER SIDE, HOW DO YOU HAVE ROOM FOR THIS KIND OF DEVELOPMENT HERE WITH, YOU KNOW? SURE. RIGHT. AND I THINK IN, YOU KNOW, TO ANSWER THAT ONE, I THINK THE APPLICANT MIGHT BE BETTER POSED OR POISED TO PROVIDE SOME FEEDBACK ON THERE. AS, [01:30:01] AS I UNDERSTAND IT, WHEN I SAW THAT, MY UNDERSTANDING WAS IT WAS MORE OF A GENERAL MOCKUP OF THIS IS WHAT IT MIGHT LOOK LIKE IN GENERAL FROM AN ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN STANDPOINT. BUT, UH, ULTIMATELY, YEAH, THEY'RE GONNA HAVE TO COMPLY WITH OUR RPS STANDARDS, WHICH IS GONNA LIMIT THEM IN HEIGHT. THEY'RE GONNA HAVE TO COMPLY WITH ANY FLOODPLAIN ISSUES, WHICH MIGHT LIMIT HOW WELL THEY CAN, UM, WE MIGHT NOT NEED THE FULL EXPLAINER. SORRY. NO, IT'S OKAY. OKAY. THANK YOU. YEAH. UM, YOU KNOW, THAT'S ALL GONNA, I THINK, SEVERELY LIMIT THEM, AND SO IT'S GOING TO AFFECT THEIR OVERALL DESIGN. UM, YOU KNOW, IF THAT BUILDING THERE, IF THAT WAS, YOU KNOW, ABOVE 30 FEET IN HEIGHT OR EVEN REALLY ABOVE 0.6, THAT WOULDN'T BE BUILDABLE WHILE WAITING ON, UH, UH, HER TO BRING THIS UP. CAN I ASK YOU ONE OTHER QUESTION RELATED TO THIS? SURE. IF, IF, IF THE CURRENT DENSITY IS GONNA BE EQUIVALENT TO TH THREE AND THE HEIGHT IS, IS MAXIMUM OF 36 FEET, WHY DON'T WE, UH, REZONE THIS FOR TH THREE, LIKE THE REST OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD? SURE. INSTEAD OF MF TWO, WOULDN'T THAT ALLEVIATE SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT THE NEIGHBORS HAVE ABOUT THE HIGH DENSITY? WELL, I THINK IT WOULDN'T, IT WOULDN'T ADDRESS THE DENSITY CONCERNS PER SE, BECAUSE AT THE END OF THE DAY, IT DOES, UM, YOU END UP WITH THE SAME DUAL UNIT DENSITY, IT WOULD PUT AN ACTUAL CAP ON DUAL UNIT DENSITY AS OPPOSED TO THIS, WHICH, UH, CERTAINLY IS DOABLE. UM, MY UNDERSTANDING IS, YOU KNOW, THE APPLICANT'S INTEREST IS IN DEVELOPING MULTIFAMILY RATHER THAN, UH, SINGLE FAMILY. UH, SO THAT WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, KIND OF THE MAIN DRIVER OF WHY THEY'RE REQUESTING THAT. UH, WE DO THINK THAT IT IS APPROPRIATE HERE, GIVEN WHAT WE'VE DISCUSSED, BUT TH THREE, I THINK ALSO CERTAINLY, CERTAINLY IS AN APPROPRIATE, UM, DISTRICT IN HERE AS WELL. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER HOUSER? I HAD ONE OTHER QUESTION. PLEASE GO AHEAD. I'M, I'M SORRY. YEAH, UH, WHILE SHE'S BRINGING UP, BECAUSE I, I THINK SHE'S STILL GONNA BE WORKING ON THE, THE ANSWER TO MY QUESTION. SORRY, ONE MOMENT. I JUST WANTED TO CONFIRM MY COMMENT, BUT, UH, AND THIS IS FOR DAVID, ACTUALLY, UH, THE GUY FROM TRANSPORTATION. DAVID, COULD YOU COME BACK UP? YES. . YEAH. SO YOU SAID THE CURRENT COST FOR THIS BRIDGE AND EXTENSION IS $6.7 MILLION? YES, SIR. IS THAT RIGHT? THAT'S THE NUMBER THAT I WAS GIVEN BY THE PROJECT MANAGER AS OF NOW. AND YOU SAY THERE'S A SHORTFALL IN THE FUNDING? THE FUNDING IS FROM THE 2017 BOND PACKAGE, IS THAT CORRECT? I DID NOT SAY THAT THERE'S A SHORTFALL, SIR. IT JUST HASN'T BEEN, THE FUNDS HAVEN'T BEEN GOTTEN TO THE ALLOCATION POINTS. UM, OKAY, BUT WHAT IS THE FUNDING? IT'S, THERE'S SHORTFALL IN THERE. WHAT IS THE FUNDING SOURCE FOR THIS PROJECT? THE GENERAL FUNDS FOR DISTRICT ONE IS NOT, NOT THE BOND FUND. IT'S NOT A, UH, THE BOND FUND IS, YES, SIR. IT'S JUST THE FUNDS HAVEN'T GOTTEN TO BE, TO THE ALLOCATION POINT. OH, OKAY. I WANT TO CLARIFY. IS IT THE 2017 BOND FUND? I WOULD NOT, I, I CAN FIND THAT BEFORE THE HEARING. WHAT I CAN FIND OUT BEFORE THE HEARING, THE PLEASE, DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE ORIGINAL AMOUNT WAS IN THAT BOND PACKAGE FOR THIS BRIDGE? MR. CHAIR, I'M GONNA HOP IN HERE. THIS IS LAURA MORRIS, THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. THE FUNDING OF THE BRIDGE IS, IS, IS NOT PART OF THIS ZONING CASE. I WOULD LIKE FOR THE QUESTIONING TO, TO GO BACK TO THE ABILITY OF THIS PROJECT, THE MERITS OF THE ZONING CASE, THE, ON THE BUILDING OF THAT BRIDGE. AND I THINK THE PUBLIC IS ENTITLED TO KNOW WHAT THE STATUS IS ON THIS BRIDGE. THANK YOU, MA'AM, FOR THAT INTERPRETATION. I WILL CONTINUE WITH MY QUESTION. DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE ORIGINAL FUNDING IS IN THAT BOND PACKAGE? I CAN FIND OUT, SIR. OKAY. I DON'T, IS IT, IS IT POSSIBLE THAT THE ORIGINAL FUNDING WAS $3 MILLION AND THERE'S A $3.7 MILLION SHORTFALL THAT YOU HAVE TO MAKE UP? UM, IS THAT POSSIBLE THAT, THAT IS NOT WHAT WAS CONVEYED TO ME, SIR, BUT, UM, I CAN FIND OUT WHAT THE ORIGINAL, PLEASE CONFIRM THOSE NUMBERS FOR US. YES, SIR. THANK YOU. THE, AND IF I MAY CLARIFY, YOU'RE REQUESTING THE ORIGINAL FUNDS OR THE, OR THE ORIGINAL BUDGET FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE BRIDGE. AND, AND THEN YOUR FIRST QUESTION WAS, WAS THE SOURCE OF THE, WHAT WAS THE ORIGINAL SOURCE OF THE FUNDING? MY UNDERSTANDING IS THE 2017 BOND PACKAGE 2017. AND MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE ORIGINAL ALLOCATION, WHAT WAS ACTUALLY PUT IN THAT BOND PACKAGE WAS $3 MILLION FOR THIS PROJECT. UM, AND, AND IF YOU'RE SAYING THAT THE CURRENT COST IS 6.7 MILLION, THAT I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW HOW WE MAKE UP FOR THAT $3.7 MILLION THAT, THAT IN SHORTFALL TO, TO DO THIS PROJECT. UM, ONE, ONE QUICK FOLLOW UP FOR ME. YEP. OR WE KINDA GOT IT STRAIGHT A LITTLE BIT, BUT LET'S JUST TALK ABOUT THIS, THIS PROJECT. IF I MAY, THEN TO MOVE ON TO THE NEXT, TO YOUR TOPIC, SIR. UH, CHAIRMAN, IF I, I'LL, I'LL BE READY TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION DURING, DURING THE HEARING IF, IF YOU, WELL, THIS CASE IS GONNA BE HELD UNDER ADVISEMENT, SO YEAH, THAT I, I'LL HAVE THAT ANSWER FOR Y'ALL, BUT, BUT JUST TO PUT IT ON THE RECORD HERE, YOU KNOW, UM, THE, THE BRIDGE HAS BEEN A BIT OF A, A SAGA, AND IT WAS, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW WHY IT WAS PROPOSED. I DON'T KNOW HOW IT WAS PROPOSED, AND FRANKLY, IT'S NOT WITHIN MY PURVIEW FOR THE ZONING CASE. DOES THIS PROPERTY HAVE ACCESS TO A STREET? YES, SIR. THE, IT HAS ACCESS TO STREET, THE, THE, THE STREET WILL [01:35:01] SPL, WILL, WILL BIFURCATE, WILL, WILL GO THROUGH THIS SUBJECT SITE, RIGHT? SO IF A BREACH HAPPENS NEXT YEAR OR 25 YEARS FROM NOW OR NEVER, THIS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS CASE TODAY. A I DOES IT HAVE ACCESS? DOES THIS, UH, THE, THE, THE SITE HAS ACCESS TO A PUBLIC STREET. UM, THE SITE WOULD NOT HAVE ACCESS TO THE BRIDGE. THE BRIDGE WOULD NOT BE AT THE SAME ELEVATION, UM, AS IT CONTINUES CROSSING THE CREEK. UM, UM, THE SITE WOULD BE DEVELOPED WITH OR WITHOUT THE BRIDGE IS THE QUESTION. YOU YES. THAT'S NOT CORRECT. SH THE POINT OF THE COMMISSION MOVE FORWARD WITH APPROVAL. YES. THE POINT OF ORDER, MR. CHAIRMAN, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE IS HISTORY HERE AND THAT THIS CASE WAS ORIGINALLY PROPOSED 10 YEARS AGO AND THAT IT WAS, UH, THE COUNCIL VOTED IT DOWN. I'M ALMOST TOO, WITH MY QUESTION HERE. THE COUNCIL VOTED IT DOWN. YOU, YOU HAD YOUR CHANCE TO ASK YOUR QUESTION AND NOW IT'S MY TURN TO ASK MY QUESTION. AND, UM, SO MR. BATE, FOR YOU, SIR, UH, THERE'S A DUPLEX CURRENTLY THERE ON THE STREET. DID YOU GET, DO YOU HAVE A PICTURE OF THAT? WELL, LET ME SEE. IT'S, IT'S A LITTLE HARD TO IDENTIFY THE, UH, THE DUPLEXES, UH, VERSUS THE SINGLE FAMILY KINDA RELATIVELY NEW BUILD. YEAH. OKAY. I KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. UM, I, I THINK I'VE SEEN IT GOING ON WHEN I DID THE, WHEN THE SITE, WHEN I DID THE SITE VISIT, I'M LOOKING ON STREET VIEW AS WELL. YEAH. THERE'S A NEWER BUILD THERE THAT'S A DUPLEX. DO YOU, COULD YOU, UH, SINCE YOU DON'T HAVE A PICTURE OF IT, UM, AND, UH, I DON'T HAVE THE BENEFIT HERE, I VISITED THE SIDE FACT, VICE RUBIN AND I TOOK A VERY LONG, UH, AMAZING TOUR OF THE AREA WITH SOME OF THE FOLKS, UH, THAT LIVE ACROSS OF FROM HAMPTON AND ALSO SOME FOLKS THAT LIVE ON THE STREET. AND, UH, WOULD IT SURPRISE YOU TO KNOW THAT, UM, THAT THAT DUPLEX IS KIND OF A SORE SUBJECT THERE WITH SOME OF THE FOLKS THAT LIVE THERE? AND DO YOU, WHY WOULD YOU THINK THAT IS? WHY WOULD IT OR ASKING ME A POSSIBLE QUESTION? YEAH, NO. UM, I, OKAY. BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT IT AND YOU REMEMBER WHAT IT LOOKED LIKE, COULD YOU IMAGINE WHY THERE ARE SOME FOLKS THAT LIVE ON THAT STREET THAT DON'T WANT TO HAVE THAT HAPPEN ON THEIR STREET? SURE. UM, I WOULD JUST SAY THAT FROM, FROM MY EXPERIENCE, UH, WORKING ON THIS, UH, WORKING THIS JOB FOR A COUPLE YEARS NOW, I THINK ACTUALLY HAD MY TWO YEAR ANNIVERSARY A COUPLE WEEKS AGO. THE BIGGEST CONCERN THAT I'VE HEARD FROM NEIGHBORS AND NEIGHBORHOODS ABOUT INFILL DEVELOPMENT, WHETHER IT'S BY RIGHT OR WHAT WOULD BE ACHIEVED VIA ZONING CHANGE, IS THAT WE OFTEN DON'T HAVE, LET'S SAY, CODIFIED STANDARDS OR RULES AROUND BASIC DESIGNS OF HOUSES. UM, THE, OFTENTIMES THE INFILL HOUSING IS MAXIMIZING THE MAXIMUM BUILD HEIGHT THAT'S ALLOWED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT. IT'S MAXIMIZING THE, UH, SETBACKS THAT ARE AFFORDED TO THEM. UH, IT'S, I THINK YOU COULD SAY IT'S PART OF A LARGER TREND OF JUST, I THINK THE, THE REALITIES OF THE ECONOMIES OF HOW IT IS, WHAT IT TAKES, WHAT IT COSTS TO BUILD A HOUSE THESE DAYS FOR WHAT FOLKS WANT TO PAY. THEY'RE EXPECTING SOMETHING PRETTY LARGE. AND THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS, WHEN WE DID, I THINK A LOT OF THESE BIG SORT OF BLANKET, UH, REZONINGS OR MODERNIZATIONS, LIKE EVEN BACK IN THE EIGHTIES, WE APPLIED WHAT, AND THIS IS A BIT OF SPIT BALLING ON MY PART, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS WE APPLIED REALLY THE CLOSEST BEST ZONING DISTRICT TO DIFFERENT NEIGHBORHOODS. BUT THE FACT IS, A LOT OF THOSE NEIGHBORHOODS, THE WAY THAT THEY WERE BUILT, THEY WERE OFTEN BUILT IN THE 19, LET'S SAY 1920S, 1910S, WHERE YOU JUST DIDN'T BUILD AS LARGE HOUSES. AND SO YOU END UP WITH A LOT OF NEIGHBORHOODS WHERE MORE OR LESS, THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THE, THE LOTS AND WHATNOT ARE GENERALLY IN COMPLIANCE WITH, YOU KNOW, IF IT'S AN R SEVEN FIVE, MOST OF THEM ARE 7,500 SQUARE FEET. IF IT'S R FIVE, MOST OF THEM ARE 5,000 SQUARE FEET, SO ON AND SO FORTH. BUT THE ACTUAL VERNACULAR OF WHAT'S BUILT DOWN THERE, IT SIMPLY DOESN'T, IT ISN'T WHAT'S ALLOWED OR IT ISN'T MAXIMIZING WHAT IS ALLOWED IN THERE. AND SO YOU END UP WITH A SITUATION WHERE YOU'VE GOT A WHOLE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT EVERYTHING THERE IS ENTITLED TO A WHOLE LOT MORE THAN WHAT'S ON THE GROUND. AND I THINK THAT HAS LED TO A LOT OF CONSTERNATION WHERE FOLKS ARE CERTAINLY SURPRISED BY WHAT CAN BE BUILT BY A RIGHT. UM, THAT WAS, I THINK, A VERY LONG ANSWER TO BASICALLY SAY, YEAH, I CAN CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND WHAT CONCERNS DO. HOW WOULD, HOW WOULD YOU DESCRIBE THE FRONT YARD OF THE DUPLEX THAT'S THERE? OFTENTIMES THESE DUPLEXES, THEY DO HAVE VERY, UH, LIMITED FRONT YARDS, OR RATHER, THE YARDS ARE LESS YARD AND MORE DRIVEWAY. IT'S BASICALLY ZERO FRONT YARD. IT'S JUST A CONCRETE WITH NO TREES. IT'S JUST A PART. IT'S, IT'S A DRIVEWAY TO THE DUPLEX. I WOULD SAY IT'S A DRIVEWAY RATHER THAN A LAWN. OKAY. IT'S TECHNICALLY A FRONT YARD IN TERMS OF, UH, SETBACKS AND SUCH. BUT YEAH, IT'S, FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES, THE, UH, THE LAY DEFINITION, MOST PEOPLE WOULD NOT LOOK AT THAT AND CALL IT THE YARD. CORRECT. UH, COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT, TAKE US HOME, SIR. QUESTION. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM? COMM? YES, COMMISSIONER DOKI. UM, ALRIGHT, [01:40:01] SO I'M JUST CURIOUS, DID YOU GUYS CONSIDER DOING A PD FOR THIS? UH, NO. A PD WASN'T CONSIDERED, UH, FOR THIS, MAINLY BECAUSE THE, I THINK THE BIGGEST CONCERNS HERE ARE THE GEN, THE GENERAL CONCERNS WE OFTEN SEE WITH PUTTING IN MULTIFAMILY AND HAVING THESE SORT OF DIFFERENT TRANSITIONAL, UH, TRANSITIONAL PROJECTS IS GONNA BE RELATED MORE TO EITHER HEIGHTS OR SETBACKS. UM, IN THIS CASE, THE SETBACKS ARE EITHER GOING TO BE KIND OF COPACETIC WITH THE MF TWO. THAT'S TO ME WITH THE SOUTH, UM, IT KIND OF DEPENDS ON HOW YOU APPLY BLOCK FACE CONTINUITY HERE. UM, BUT IT WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, IN LINE WITH WHAT'S ALLOWED THERE. UH, THE OTHER USUAL CONCERN IS HEIGHT, WHICH AGAIN, WOULD BE GREATLY RESTRICTED BY RPS AND THE NATURE OF THE SITE. UM, REALLY THE ONLY THINGS LEFT WOULD BE MAYBE, YOU KNOW, CODIFYING SOMETHING ON DRAWING UNIT DENSITY AND WHATNOT, WHICH WE WOULDN'T THINK IS NECESSARILY SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY A PD. UM, SO A PD WAS NOT, UH, WAS NOT CONSIDERED AT THIS TIME. SO YOU, YOU GENERALLY, THIS YOU WOULDN'T SUPPORT GOING A PD ROUTE, THEN? I THINK THAT A PD, IT COULD ONLY REALLY, I THINK THE ONLY JUSTIFICATION FOR A PD HERE, AND WE'VE HAD A FEW, I THINK IF YOU LOOK AT SOME OF OUR MORE RECENT REPORTS, WE DO TRY TO DO AN ANALYSIS OF WHEN A PD IS NECESSARY. UM, I THINK IF IT WERE GETTING INTO THE LEVEL OF A VERY DETAILED DESIGN WHERE WE'RE REALLY DICTATING, UH, OVERALL BUILDING CONFIGURATION AND SUCH, UH, TO THAT EXTENT IT MIGHT BE A LITTLE MORE DOABLE. BUT AGAIN, THAT'S SOMETHING WHERE IT'S HARD FOR ME TO GIVE YOU A FIRM ANSWER WITHOUT FIRST LOOKING AT WHAT THE REQUEST WOULD BE, WHAT WOULD BE IN, IN THAT PD, HOW, I GUESS YOU COULD SAY HOW MEATY IT IS. UM, AND IT'D ALSO SAY, YOU KNOW, AT THE SAME TIME, WE'RE NOT LOOKING FOR MEATINESS FOR MEETING THIS'S SAKE. I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW THAT WE, THAT WORD SOUNDS KIND OF WEIRD SAYING THAT, BUT YOU KNOW, THE POINT IS WE DON'T WANT A SUPER HEAVILY FLESHED OUT PD JUST FOR THE SAKE OF SAYING, OH, WELL, YOU KNOW, IT HAS TO BE VERY DETAILED IN ORDER TO BE, UH, RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL. UM, I THINK THAT A STRAY ZONING DISTRICT HERE COULD WORK PRETTY WELL. UM, MF TWO, AGAIN, PER STAFF'S REPORT, MF TWO COULD BE APPROPRIATE HERE. UH, BUT THE FACTORS THAT SUPPORT MF TWO ALSO WOULD SUPPORT SOMETHING LIKE MF ONE OR EVEN DH THREE. GOTCHA. I WOULD, I, THE ONLY THING I'D ADD THAT WAS ALL, THAT WAS ALL PERFECT. THE, THE ONLY THING I'D ADD IS WE, WE LOOK AT PDS AS WHY DO WE HAVE THEM? UM, THE PURPOSE, SO THE CODE SAYS THE PURPOSE OF THE PD IS PROVIDE FLEXIBILITY IN THE PLANNING CONSTRUCTION OF DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS BY ALLOWING A COMBINATION OF LAND USES DEVELOPED UNDER A UNIFORM PLAN THAT PROTECTS CONTIGUOUS LAND USES AND PRESERVES SIGNIFICANT NATURAL FEATURES, PROVIDE FLEXIBILITY IN THE PLANNING OF CONSTRUCTION DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS. THE FIRST PART OF THE PURPOSE STATEMENT FOR PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS, I, I WOULD STRONGLY RECOMMEND IF A PROJECT IS BUILDABLE UNDER BASE OWNING DISTRICTS, WHICH THE APPLICANT HAS DECIDED AT THEIR, AT THEIR RISK IS, IS POSSIBLE. IT'S REALLY BEST TO DO THAT RATHER THAN TO CRACK OPEN OUR CODE AND START PULLING THINGS OUT AND STUFFING THINGS INTO A CODE, UM, THAT MAY NOT WORK WITH OTHER SECTIONS OF OUR CODE. WE MAY ACCIDENTALLY, UM, CALL OURSELVES, UH, RESIDENTIAL AND, AND, AND, AND TAKE AWAY ANY LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS. I, YOU KNOW, JUST AN EXAMPLE, IT'S LIKE IF WE CAN BUILD A PROJECT WHICH THE APPLICANT BELIEVES THEY CAN UNDER A BASE OWNING DISTRICT, AND WE, WE DON'T HAVE EVIDENCE THAT SAYS THAT IT CAN'T BE BUILT UNDER THE BASE OWNING DISTRICT, THAT'S GOING TO BE, IN MOST CIRCUMSTANCES, THE BEST WAY TO FORWARD. GREAT. THANKS. UM, SO WE'RE, WE'VE TALKED A LOT ABOUT BRIDGES, UM, , SO DO YOU THINK, SO IT WAS SORT OF ESTABLISHED, I THINK THAT THE BRIDGE MIGHT NOT BE REQUIRED IN ORDER TO DO THIS DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE THERE'S A ROAD ACCESSING ALL THESE, RIGHT? SO THERE, THERE WOULD NOT BE A, THERE'S NO, UM, WHEN WE HAVE, UH, PROJECTS COME IN FOR DEVELOPMENT AT THE PERMITTING STAGE, SOMETIMES, UH, CERTAIN INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS ARE REQUIRED. TYPICALLY IT'S GONNA BE IN THE FORM OF EITHER, YOU KNOW, COST SHARING FOR, UH, STRIPING IMPROVEMENTS, PUTTING IN A TRAFFIC SIGNAL, THAT SORT OF THING. UH, I DON'T THINK THAT THERE WOULD BE A, A RATIONAL NEXUS HERE TO REQUIRE FUNDING OR CONSTRUCTION OF THE BRIDGE ON THE PART OF THE APPLICANT, UM, OR THE BUILDER. UH, AGAIN, THE INDICATION I'VE GOTTEN FROM OUR, FROM OUR TRANSPORTATION STAFF IS THAT THIS PROJECT IS PRETTY UNDERWAY. IT'S AT THE 60% DESIGN STAGE. IT'S CONTINUING TO MOVE FORWARD. UH, FROM WHAT I'VE, MY UNDERSTANDING AND INTERPRETATION OF WHAT'S BEEN EXPLAINED IS THAT IT'S UNTIL A PROJECT REACHES A CERTAIN, I GUESS, CHECKPOINT OR GATE, IT DOESN'T GET AN EXACT EARMARKED, YOU KNOW, LINE ITEM THAT SAYS, OKAY, X DOLLARS ARE GOING TO PROJECT NUMBER 1, 2, 3, 4, WHICH IS WHATEVER, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER NUMBER THIS WOULD BE. UM, BUT BY ALL INDICATIONS, [01:45:01] IT SOUNDS THAT IT'S WELL UNDERWAY. AND THE FINAL HURDLES ARE THE FLOODPLAIN WAIVER, WHICH I THINK GENERALLY OCCURS AS A MATTER OF COURSE, BUT DON'T QUOTE ME ON THAT. AND THEN THE RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION, UM, WHERE THE CITY JUST WOULD NEGOTIATE, UM, PURCHASE RIGHT OF WAY. I WANNA, I WANNA BE FOCUSED ON THE BRIDGE IN RELATION TO THE APPLICATION. SURE. SO 'CAUSE YOU, YOU MENTIONED IT IN THE REPORT YEAH. LIKE THAT YOU'RE, YOU BASICALLY, YOUR, YOUR RECOMMENDATION IS BASED ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE BRIDGE WILL BE THERE. HAVING THE BRIDGE, MY BIG QUESTION IS, WHAT HAPPENS IF IT'S NOT THERE? DOES YOUR RECOMMENDATION CHANGE? WOULD YOU, YOU KNOW, WHAT WOULD THAT WORLD LOOK LIKE? WOULD YOU PUT LIKE A TURNAROUND THERE OR LIKE SOME HAMMERHEAD OR, RIGHT. SO FROM A, FROM A PERMITTING PERSPECTIVE, I THINK FIRE WOULD REQUIRE, UM, WOULD REQUIRE 'EM TO PUT IN A HAMMERHEAD TURN, UM, AT THE END OF THE ROAD, UH, WOULD PROBABLY GO INTO, YOU KNOW, GOING INTO THE APPLICANT'S PROPERTY AND WHATNOT TO PROVIDE SUFFICIENT TURNAROUND FOR, UH, EMERGENCY VEHICLES. UH, IN TERMS OF KIND OF HOW STAFF WOULD LOOK AT THE, UH, THE REQUEST OVERALL, I THINK THAT WITHOUT THE, WITHOUT HAVING THAT EXTRA CONNECTIVITY, YOU KNOW, YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT SOME ADDITIONAL TRANSPORTATION PRESSURES HERE, UM, I WOULD SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, WITHOUT HAVING IT IN THERE, UM, IT, IT COULD BE MORE PRUDENT TO, UH, TO HAVE SOMETHING THAT IS PERHAPS A LITTLE LESS INTENSIVE. UM, THERE'S, AGAIN, I THINK THERE'S A FEW DIFFERENT ZONING DISTRICTS THAT WOULD WORK WELL HERE. UM, BUT IT'S CERTAINLY, I THINK SOMETHING THAT WOULD, YOU KNOW, REQUIRE CAREFUL CONSIDERATION IF IT'S, IF IT'S NOT GONNA BE BUILT, I WOULD, I WOULD ADD ONE MORE THING. THAT'S, THAT'S ALL GOOD. UM, THIS PROPERTY SPLIT UP INTO FIVE OR SIX LOTS. WHEN, WHEN SOMEONE WANTS TO DEVELOP, UH, A LARGER SITE, UH, UNDER SIX OR SEVEN, SEVEN LOTS, WHAT DO THEY HAVE TO DO? THEY HAVE, THEY HAVE TO COME FOR PLATTING, THEY HAVE TO REPL. UM, WHY, WHAT IS ONE OF THE BIGGER THINGS THAT WE DO, OR, OR THAT WE REQUIRE PLATS FOR IS TO DETERMINE ACCESS AND TO PROVE THAT ADEQUATE ACCESS EXISTS FOR A LOT. SO, UH, WHEN THEY COME FOR PLATTING, BEYOND JUST WHAT WE'VE REFERRED TO FOR DRAINAGE PURPOSES, FOR, UM, UH, YOU KNOW, FINDING THE BARRIERS OF THE SITE AND, AND, AND, UM, STORM WATER, UH, ONE OF THE PRIMARY THINGS THAT MUST BE IDENTIFIED DURING THE PLATTING PROCESS IS ADEQUATE ACCESS TO, TO STREETS. WE DON'T MAKE, UH, LANDLOCKED LOTS TYPICALLY. UH, SO THAT'S GOING TO BE A ABSOLUTE REQUIREMENT OF THAT PROCESS. SO IF I, IF I HEARD YOU RIGHT, YOUR, YOUR BIGGEST CONCERN WOULD BE DENSITY IF THAT BRIDGE DIDN'T EXIST OR WASN'T GONNA GET BUILT? I, I THINK IF THE BRIDGE WASN'T BUILT, THEN WE'D NEED TO, I THINK IF THE BRIDGE WASN'T BUILT, THEN YOU JUST MIGHT HAVE SOME MORE CONCERNS AROUND THE DENSITY IN SO MUCH AS, YOU KNOW, YOU REALLY WANNA MAKE SURE THAT YOU'RE STAYING, I THINK, WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF WHAT'S PREDOMINANT THERE. WHICH AGAIN, AS CURRENTLY PROPOSED TH THREE OR, OR AS CURRENTLY PROPOSED, IT'S PRETTY IN LINE WITH TH THREE. UM, SO IT, IT WOULD BE PRETTY WORKABLE, BUT WE'D MAYBE WANNA MAKE SURE THAT IT'S, UH, GETTING CLOSE THERE, BUT IT'S NOT, I WOULDN'T SAY IT'S THE END ALL BE ALL EITHER. YEAH. SO, AND I'M JUST TRYING TO WRAP MY HEAD AROUND IF IT'S JUST LIKE 6 0 1 HALF A DOZEN OF OTHERS. SO IF YOU'RE SAYING, HEY TH THREE, BUT IF THERE WERE DENSITY LIMITATIONS ON A MF TWO, IT'S ALL THE SAME IN THE CITY'S PERSPECTIVE. 'CAUSE YOU'RE MORE FOCUSED ON, IT'S THE SAME NUMBER OF PEOPLE. YEAH. 'CAUSE DENSITY'S THE MAIN CONCERN. YEP. GOT IT. ALRIGHT, THOSE ARE MY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU, SIR. COMMISSIONER HAMPTON. THANK YOU. I JUST WANTED TO FOLLOW UP ON A QUESTION ABOUT THE PD BECAUSE THAT, IT'S NOT RIGHT IN EVERY SITUATION, BUT THIS SITE SEEMS TO HAVE A LOT OF INDICATORS THAT MIGHT LEAD THAT DIRECTION. I THINK YOU MENTIONED ABOUT THE COMPATIBILITY WITH THE SCALE, WHAT'S ON THE GROUND VERSUS ALLOWED ZONING. UM, IT'S GOT SITE CHARACTERISTICS WITH THE CREEK AND THE FLOODPLAIN MM-HMM . UM, THAT SOMETIMES WE, UH, CONSIDER THOSE AS AMENITIES THAT BENEFIT BOTH, UM, THE LARGER COMMUNITY AS WELL AS SPECIFIC PROJECTS. UM, YOU KNOW, I THINK THE, UH, CHAIR MENTIONED THAT SOME OF THE NEW INFILL HOUSING IS NOT PROVIDING MM-HMM . UM, YOU KNOW, THE, THE CHARACTER OF THE GREEN AND THE SETBACK ON THE STREETSCAPE. RIGHT. AND THOSE ARE ALL THINGS THAT, AS YOU MENTIONED, ARE NOT IN OUR BASE CODE. UM, BUT THAT COULD BE CONSIDERATIONS. UM, IS THAT, AGAIN, AS YOU WERE THINKING THROUGH THAT, WERE THOSE ITEMS, YOU KNOW, WE, UM, WE'RE JUST SPEAKING ABOUT THE BRIDGE AND THE CONNECTOR, WHETHER THAT WAS EVER PUT IN, BUT IS THAT SOMETHING THAT COULD BE A LARGER AMENITY? AGAIN, JUST TRYING TO THINK THROUGH OVERALL COMPATIBILITY AND, AND HOW STAFF EVALUATED THAT AS I WAS LOOKING THROUGH YOUR CASE REPORT NOTES. SURE. UM, I THINK IN TERMS OF, SO IF WE'RE LOOKING AT, PARDON ME. IF WE'RE LOOKING AT, [01:50:04] IF WE'RE, IF WE'RE GONNA EVALUATE, YOU KNOW, USING A PD HERE, THEN I THINK WHAT WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, THE MOST, THE, THE APPROPRIATE USES HERE FOR A PD, MAYBE BY B TWO AGAIN, ADDRESS DESIGN STANDARDS. UH, CERTAINLY WE CAN TALK ABOUT, UM, SORRY, GETTING A BIT OF FEEDBACK THERE. UH, CERTAINLY WE CAN TALK ABOUT EITHER HAVING ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS THAT, UH, MIGHT HAVE A BUILDING FIT IN A LITTLE MORE WITH THE, WITH THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD. UM, THAT'S CERTAINLY AN OPTION THERE. UM, I THINK THAT WITH THE GENERAL IMPACT ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN TERMS OF JUST MORE SETBACKS AND HEIGHTS, YOU ARE GETTING A LOT OF PROTECTION THROUGH THE RPS. I THINK THAT'S GONNA BE THE BIGGEST FACTOR HERE, IS THAT THAT IS GONNA LIMIT THE HEIGHT SIGNIFICANTLY SO THAT IT'S NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO TOWER OVER ADJACENT, UM, ADJACENT HOUSES PLUS THE SETBACKS. I THINK THAT THAT DOES ALREADY PROVIDE SIGNIFICANT PROTECTION. UM, BUT CERTAINLY WITHOUT A PD, UH, THERE'S NOT AS MUCH GUIDANCE ON WHAT CAN BE DONE ON THE, ON THE ARCHITECTURAL SIDE. UH, THAT BEING SAID, ALSO WE WOULD REMIND THAT PDS, THEY CAN TALK ABOUT, YOU KNOW, ROOF SLOPES AND ROOF PITCHES AND THAT SORT OF THING, BUT WE CAN'T GET AS MUCH INTO THE, YOU KNOW, BUILDING MATERIALS OR ANYTHING OF THAT SORT. YEAH, AND I THINK I WAS SPEAKING SPECIFICALLY ABOUT SETBACKS, DRIVE ACCESS, OPEN SPACE CREEK OR, YOU KNOW, ENGAGEMENT WITH THE CREEK FOR THE PROJECT VERSUS BUILDING FORM AND ARCHITECTURE. GOTCHA. YEAH. SO WITH THE SETBACKS AND SUCH, I MEAN, AGAIN, I THINK I WOULD SAY THE SETBACKS THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED HERE WOULD BE PRETTY COMPATIBLE BECAUSE ALONG ALL THAT BLOCK FACE, IT'S EITHER, YOU KNOW, ZONED FOR TH THREE, WHICH AGAIN, MOST OF IT'S NOT BUILT TO THE TH THREE MAXES, BUT IT IS DOABLE. AND THEN SOUTH OF THERE IS MF TWO, UM, WHICH, YOU KNOW, WOULD, IT WOULD BE THE SAME SETBACK THERE. UM, IF IT WAS, IF IT WAS ALONG, IF THERE WAS R SEVEN FIVE ALONG THAT BLOCK, FACE BLOCK, FACE CONTINUITY WOULD KICK IN AND REQUIRE THE LARGER SETBACK. UM, IN THIS CASE IT WOULD BE JUST, YOU KNOW, 15 FEET. UH, ONE OTHER THING THAT I WANT TO TRY AND PULL UP, IF YOU WOULD AFFORD ME A SECOND, UNLESS SOMEONE KNOWS THE ANSWER OFF THE TOP OF THEIR HEAD, BUT I BELIEVE FRONT YARDS, MICHAEL, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, PARKING FOR FRONT YARDS CAN'T BE, OR PARKING FOR MULTIFAMILY CAN'T BE IN THE FRONT YARD. IS THAT ACCURATE? DON'T HAVE THAT OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD. . YEAH, LET ME, LET ME PULL THAT UP REAL QUICK 'CAUSE I KNOW CERTAINLY THE BIG CONCERN WE OFTEN SEE WITH THE DUPLEXES AND EVEN JUST THE BIG, YOU KNOW, UH, LOT MAXING SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES, IS THAT THE YARD TURNED INTO A DRIVEWAY, WHICH AGAIN, MOST FOLKS WOULDN'T CALL IT A YARD. UM, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS, AND I JUST WANNA CONFIRM THIS BY PULLING UP THE YARD LOT AND SPACE REGULATIONS, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THERE IS A RESTRICTION ON WHERE YOU CAN PUT PARKING IN CERTAIN DISTRICTS FOR THE FRONT YARD. 'CAUSE OBVIOUSLY IT'S, EVIDENTLY IT'S ALLOWED IN MR. CHAIR. I'M FINE WITH HAVING THAT ANSWER, UM, AT THE HEARING, IF THAT. OKAY. ACCEPT. AND JUST AS A REMINDER, UH, THIS CASE WILL BE HELD UNDER ADVISEMENT, UH, COMMERS, WE'RE RUNNING A LITTLE SHORT ON TIME. UH, LET'S KEEP MOVING. UH, CASE NUMBER FIVE, UH, WILL BE, UH, A DENIAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT. NUMBER SIX, UH, DO WE NEED IT BRIEFED WHEN YOU ADD YOUR REQUEST BRIEF? OKAY. OKAY. UH, UH, NUMBER SEVEN, WELL, DOES NOT NEED TO BE BRIEFED. SO THEN LET'S JUST GO AHEAD AND WRAP IT UP AND, UH, BRIEF SIX AND EIGHT BEFORE WE HEAR THEM. SIX, SIX AND EIGHT. UH, IT IS 1217 COMMISSIONERS AND THAT CONCLUDES THE BRIEFING WITH DALLAS STATE PLAN COMMISSION AND ENJOY YOUR LUNCH. [CALL TO ORDER] ARE WE RECORDING? OKAY, WE ARE RECORDING. I'LL START OFF WITH THE ROLL CALL, PLEASE. GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONERS. DISTRICT ONE COMMISSIONER DUBINSKI. PRESENT, DISTRICT TWO. COMMISSIONER HAMPTON PRESENT, DISTRICT THREE. COMMISSIONER HERBERT PRESENT, DISTRICT FOUR. COMMISSIONER FORSYTH, DISTRICT FIVE. CHAIR SHA DID PRESENT DISTRICT SIX. COMMISSIONER CARPENTER PRESENT, DISTRICT SEVEN. COMMISSIONER WHEELER, REAGAN, DISTRICT EIGHT, COMMISSIONER , DISTRICT NINE, COMMISSIONER SLEEPER, DISTRICT 10. COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT PRESENT? 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 AFTERNOON, UH, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WELCOME TO THE DALLAS CITY PLAN COMMISSION. TODAY IS THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 4TH, 2020 5, 12 50 3:00 PM A COUPLE OF QUICK ANNOUNCEMENTS BEFORE WE GET TO THE HEARING. UM, FIRST WE DO HAVE THESE LITTLE YELLOW CARDS DOWN HERE. I SAW SOME OF YOU ALREADY FILLING THOSE OUT. THANK YOU, SIR. AT SOME POINT TODAY, IF YOU DO GET A CHANCE TO COME DOWN AND FILL ONE OF THESE OUT, SO WE HAVE A RECORD OF YOUR [01:55:01] VISIT WITH US HERE TODAY, AND YOU CAN JUST LEAVE IT RIGHT THERE ON THE TABLE. THERE ARE ALSO SOME EXTRA AGENDAS THERE. IF YOU NEED AN AGENDA, THERE ARE SOME ALREADY PRINTED OUT THERE FOR YOU. UM, OUR SPEAKER GUIDELINES, EACH SPEAKER WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK. UH, WILL PLEASE ASK ALL SPEAKERS TO BEGIN YOUR COMMENTS WITH YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. UH, MS. LOPEZ WILL, WILL KEEP, UH, TRACK OF THE TIME AND WE'LL LET YOU KNOW WHEN YOUR TIME IS UP. UH, THIS IS A HYBRID MEETING FOR ALL OUR FOLKS THAT ARE REGISTERED TO SPEAK. WE HAVE FOUR REGISTERED SPEAKERS TODAY. PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT YOUR CAMERA IS ON AND WORKING. STATE LAW REQUIRES THAT WE SEE YOU IN ORDER TO HEAR FROM YOU PER OUR RULES IN, UH, CASES THAT WE DO HAVE OPPOSITION, THE APPLICANT GETS A REBUTTAL TIME. UH, [APPROVAL OF MINUTES] AND WITH THAT WE'RE GONNA GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED IN THE AGENDA WITH, UH, APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES. COMMISSIONER HALL. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER HALL FOR YOUR MOTION. COMMISSIONER HARBERT FOR YOUR SECOND. ANY COMMENTS OR DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? AYES HAVE IT. WE'LL BEGIN [1. An application for a minor amendment to development and landscape plans on property zoned Tract C within Planned Development District No. 272, on the West line of Preston Road and north of Alexis Drive. Staff Recommendation: Approval. Applicant: Chick-fil-A, Inc / Fairway Capital Ptnr. Representative: Stacey Ranucci - CPH Consulting, LLC Planner: Tasfia Zahin Council District: 11 MZ-25-000006(TZ)] WITH ITEM NUMBER ONE. ITEM NUMBER ONE. ITEM NUMBER ONE IS MZ DASH 25 DASH 0 0 0 0 6. IT'S AN APPLICATION FOR A MINOR AMENDMENT TO A DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND LANDSCAPE PLAN ON PROPERTIES ON TRACK TRACK C, BUT THEN PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 2 72 ON THE WEST LINE OF PRESTON AND THE NORTH LINE OF ALEX DRIVE. STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL. THANK YOU VERY MUCH MR. SLU. IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? OKAY. DO WE HAVE OUR, THERE'S TWO REGISTERED SPEAKERS. ARE THEY ALL ALL ON MR. TOOL? OH, WHAT ABOUT, UH, MS. UCCI TOOL AND UCCI, R-A-N-U-C-C-I? YES, THE SECOND ONE. MS. UCCI, IF YOU'RE ONLINE AND YOU CAN HEAR ME, WE'RE READY FOR YOUR COMMENTS. HI THERE, CAN YOU HEAR ME? THIS IS STACY UCCI. YES, WE CAN HEAR YOU AND SEE YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON. YEAH, I WAS WAITING. I GUESS I NEEDED TO BE UNMUTED, UM, TO BE ABLE TO SPEAK. I AM THE APPLICANT FOR THIS AND I AND JASON TOOL WE BOTH REGISTERED TO SPEAK IN CASE THERE WERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD, UH, REGARDING THE PROJECT. WE, UH, REPRESENT CHICK-FIL-A ON THIS. THANK YOU FOR JOINING US. STAND BY. THERE MAY BE QUESTIONS FOR YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO BE HEARD ON THIS ITEM? OKAY. SEE NONE. COMMISSIONER SIMS, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION, SIR? I DO. MR. CHAIR, THANK YOU. IN THE MATTER OF, UH, CASE NUMBER MZ 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 6, I MOVE THAT WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE THE APPLICATION PER STATUS REMOVAL. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR MOTION, COMMISSIONER SIMS AND FOR YOUR SECOND COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT. ANY COMMENTS OR DISCUSSION OR QUESTIONS? SEE NONE OF THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. WE'RE [2. An application for a development plan and landscape plan on property zoned Subdistrict C, D & F within Planned Development District No. 750, on the northwest corner of North Central Expressway and Walnut Hill Lane. Staff Recommendation: Approval. Applicant: Preston Hollow Village Phase 3, LP Representative: Suzan Kedron, Jackson Walker LLP Planner: Teaseia Blue, MBA U/A From: June 26, 2025 and August 7, 2025. Council District: 11 D223-007(TB)] GONNA I ITEM NUMBER TWO, PLEASE. ITEM NUMBER TWO IS D 2 23 DASH ZERO SEVEN. IT'S A APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND LANDSCAPE PLAN ON PROPERTY ZONE TRACK C, D, AND F WITHIN PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT SEVEN 50 ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF NORTH CENTRAL EXPRESSWAY AND WALNUT HILL LANE. STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THE SEE THAT THE APPLICANT IS HERE. GOOD AFTERNOON. GOOD AFTERNOON CHAIR MEMBERS OF THE DALLAS CITY PLAN COMMISSION. SUZANNE KEDRON, 2323 ROSS AVENUE. WE ARE EXCITED TO BE HERE TODAY. THIS IS ONE OF THESE CASES I'VE WORKED ON PROBABLY MOST OF MY CAREER. UM, THIS IS PRESTON HOLLOW VILLAGE. IT'S THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF WALNUT AT CENTRAL. UM, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. [02:00:01] UH, THIS CASE, WHEN WE FIRST ENVISIONED THE PD, WE SAT DOWN WITH A LOT OF THE NEIGHBORS. WE HAD A JOINT KIND OF TASK FORCE, UM, AND ON APRIL 6TH WHEN WE WENT TO CPC, THIS PART'S REALLY IMPORTANT. I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE EVERYONE REALIZES THAT THE CASE WAS HELD UNDER ADVISEMENT TO ALLOW MORE TIME FOR FURTHER NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN THE APPLICANT AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD JOINT TASK FORCE COALITION. ADDITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS WERE HELD RESULTING IN THE PARTIES COMING TO A FINAL COMPROMISE ON APRIL 13TH, 2017. AND THE PROPOSED CONDITIONS THAT WERE BEFORE YOU IN THE PDD ARE CONDITIONS THAT EACH AND EVERY ONE OF US SAT AND LABOR LABORIOUSLY, UH, REDLINED AND CAME TO AN AGREEMENT WITH THAT PASSED UNANIMOUSLY AT CPC AND THEN MOVED ON TO COUNCIL THE SAME WAY. THERE WAS NOBODY THAT SPOKE IN OPPOSITION BECAUSE IT WAS A CLEARLY, UH, A CAREFULLY NEGOTIATED PD. UM, FAST FORWARD TODAY WHERE BEFORE YOU WITH AN OPEN SPACE PLAN, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ONE OF THE REQUIREMENTS IN THE PD WAS TO HAVE MAILED CERTIFIED NOTICE. WE SENT THIS ONE, UM, ON JANUARY, 2023. WE MET WITH THE NEIGHBORS BEFORE SENDING IT, SO THIS CASE HAS BEEN PENDING SINCE THEN. UM, AND I JUST WANTED YOU TO SEE THAT WE'VE SENT THE CERTIFIED MAIL NOTICE TO EACH OF THOSE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS BACK IN 2023. AND WITH THAT, I'LL TURN IT OVER TO MY COLLEAGUE, VICTORIA MORRIS. THANK YOU. VICTORIA MORRIS WITH JACKSON WALKER. 2323 ROSS AVENUE, SUITE 600 IN DALLAS. AS YOU'LL SEE ON THE SCREEN, UM, THIS IS, THESE ARE IMAGES OF APPROXIMATELY 0.6 ACRES OF THE LARGE OPEN SPACE AREA THAT IS REQUIRED BY THE PD THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN CONSTRUCTED. THIS AREA COMPLIES WITH THE PD AS PART OF THE LARGE OPEN SPACE BY PROVIDING THREE WATER FEATURES, TREE PLANTINGS, HARDSCAPE AREAS, PEDESTRIAN LIGHTING BENCHES, AND OPEN AMPHITHEATER AREA, UM, AND CONTIGUOUS WITH THE REMAINING PORTION OF THE LARGE OPEN SPACE AREA THAT WE ARE SEEKING YOUR APPROVAL FOR TODAY, THIS IS A COLORED RENDERING OF THE OPEN SPACE DEVELOPMENT PLAN THAT IS BEFORE YOU. AND THIS AREA, IF YOU CAN SEE MY CURSOR, IS THE, THE OPEN SPACE AREA THAT WAS JUST SHARED. UM, AS YOU'LL SEE ON THIS PLAN, THE PROPOSED LARGE OPEN SPACE INCLUDES MEANDERING PATHWAYS, ANOTHER WATER FEATURE. THIS WOULD BE WATER FEATURE NUMBER FOUR. THE PD REQUIRES, UH, TWO CONNECTIVITY TO TRACK A ON THE NORTH PLAN, NORTH SIDE, UH, NEW DOG PARK BENCHES, PEDESTRIAN LIGHTING, ALL OF WHICH COMPLIES WITH THE PD. WE AGREE WITH STAFF'S FINDING THAT THIS DEVELOPMENT PLAN COMPLIES WITH THE PD SEVEN 50 AND WOULD RESPECTFULLY RE REQUEST YOUR RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS APPLICATION? OKAY. ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION? YES, SIR. BUT PARDON ME, SIR. I THINK, I THINK THE MIC IS NOT ON. AND THERE, THE FOLKS ONLINE CAN, THERE'S A LITTLE BUTTON THERE AT THE BASE. IS THAT IT? YES, SIR. PLEASE BE. I'LL START AGAIN. YOUR TIME WILL START AGAIN. THANKS. ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. I'M EDWARD HAYNES, 91 16 CLEAR LAKE DRIVE, DALLAS, TEXAS. UH, UM, AND APPRECIATE YOU, THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS FOR YOUR SERVICE IN, IN HELPING DALLAS, UH, IN ITS DEVELOPMENT AND MOVING FORWARD. I'M A RESIDENT AND AN ORIGINAL MEMBER OF THE TASKFORCE NEIGHBORHOOD TASK FORCE, WHICH CONSISTED OF THE MEADOWS, THE GLEN LAKES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, AND THE WINDSOR PARK HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. WE HAD NINE MEMBERS. I'M ONE OF THOSE FOUNDING MEMBERS. OUR TASK FORCE WAS FORMED TO ADDRESS THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S CONCERNS REGARDING DEVELOPMENT AND USES AND DENSITY. OUR TASK FORCE REPRESENTS ABOUT 2,800 VOTERS AND WAS ORGANIZED IN 2025. WE'VE WORKED OVER 20 YEARS WITH THE COUNCIL, THE STAFF, THE CITY PLANNERS, AND THE DEVELOPER. UM, WE'VE WORKED THROUGH, UM, MITCHELL ROZANSKI, LINDA COOP, AND MARGOLIN LEE KLEINMAN, JENNIFER GATES, JANIE SCHULTZ, GA DARNELL WILLIS, AND ONLY LAST FRIDAY MET MR. UH, BILL ROTH, THE NEW COM, UH, CITY COUNCIL MEMBER. UH, WE'VE WORKED WITH COUNTLESS NUMBERS OF CITY PLAN COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES, CITY STAFF, AND UH, AND THE STAFFS OF THE, UM, CITY COUNCIL PEOPLE. UH, [02:05:01] REGARDING IN, IN, UM, IN THE TIME LEADING UP TO THE 2017 PD SEVEN 50, WE HAD IN-DEPTH MEETINGS WITH CITY PLAN COMMISSIONER MEMBERS JANIE SCHULTZ AND MARGOT BRITO MURPHY. UM, OBVIOUSLY JANIE MOVED ON TO COUNCIL. WE HAD NO ISSUES AT WHATSOEVER. THE PD SEVEN 50 WAS APPROVED AND GAVE THE DEVELOPER THE RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS TO DEVELOP THE NORTHEAST ROAD ON MAR ROAD. THAT WAS DUE MARCH, 2020. UM, THAT'S UNDER SECTION P 51 P DASH 7 51 16. RESULT, NO ROAD DEVELOPED. THEY HAD THE RIGHT AND OBLIGATION TO DEVELOP THE LARGE OPEN SPACE WITHIN TWO YEARS OF OBTAINING 500 CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY THAT OCCURRED IN 2019. THE RESULT IS NO LARGE OPEN SPACE WAS DEVELOPED IN 2023. THEY REQUESTED CHANGES AT THE CITY STAFF, TOLD THEM THEY WERE NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH PD SEVEN 50, THEN THEY FILED AN ACTION IN MARCH OF 2024, DID NOT NOTIFY THE NEIGHBORHOODS. AND, AND THAT IS THE CASE THAT'S BEFORE YOU TODAY. WE WOULD SIMPLY ASK THAT YOU SEND A MESSAGE TO THE DEVELOPER THAT YOU'RE NOT GONNA REWARD. THEY'RE IGNORING THE PD BY DENYING THIS REQUEST. THE NEW ROAD THAT THEY ARE SEEKING IS NOT ON THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN. THE LARGE OPEN SPACE IS ON THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN WE HAVE. ALL RIGHT, THEY HAVE ALL THE RIGHTS THEY NEED TO COMPLY WITH THIS PD. PLEASE DENY THIS REQUEST. THANK YOU FOR JOINING US. THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION? YES, SIR. GOOD AFTERNOON. HELLO, I'M TREY KIMBRO. I'M AT 73 0 5 LAKEHURST AVENUE. I'M IN THE, THE MEADOWS, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION PRESIDENT REPRESENTING, UM, MINE PARTICULARLY AND THE OTHER TWO AS WELL. UM, I'VE WALKED THE PROPERTY A LOT DURING COVID AS THEY WERE BUILDING THE RESIDENTIAL PART OF PRESTON HOLLOW VILLAGE. AND, UM, LOOKING FORWARD TO THE PARK THAT MARK OV AND MAYBE ALL KNOW HIM, HE'S BEEN ON THE TASK FORCE AND SPOKEN HERE BEFORE, ALONG WITH TERRY ABOUT THE OPEN SPACE FOR OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. UM, AND THE ACCESS TO IT. A LARGE OPEN SPACE THAT YOU SEE IN A LARGE, A LOT OF LARGE, UH, COMMUNITIES AROUND THE METROPLEX AND AROUND THE COUNTRY. THOSE THAT HAVE A LARGE OPEN SPACE, IT BRINGS COMMUNITY VERSUS THE DENSITY THAT, UH, THEY DON'T HAVE TODAY. MUCH NORTH OUTSIDE THE LOOPS, UM, HAVE A LOT MORE WATER FEATURES AND, UH, GOLF COURSES. THEY'LL HAVE SWIMMING POOLS AND THINGS LIKE THAT TO BRING IN THE HOMEOWNERS. WE HAVE A VOLUNTARY HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, SO WE DON'T HAVE THOSE BIG DUES TO PAY FOR THOSE KIND OF THINGS. UM, WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT CLOSING OFF OUR PARKS THAT WE HAD, UH, WITH WROUGHT IRON GATES THAT GO ALL THE WAY AROUND HILLCREST HIGH SCHOOL, WE'VE LOST PARKS ON BOTH SIDES OF SOFTBALL FIELDS, BASEBALL FIELDS, AS WELL AS THE TRACK THAT WE ENJOYED USING, UM, AS PER SE, AN OPEN SPACE. UM, SO THIS PARK THAT I'VE MOVED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD SIX YEARS AGO HAS BEEN KIND OF A BIG DEAL. NOW, I GOTTA TELL YOU, I'M A ROOKIE AS A PRESIDENT SINCE APRIL AND WAS NOTIFIED OF THE NOT BEING NOTIFIED OF THE MEETING THAT HAPPENED IN JULY UNTIL THE DAY BEFORE ONE OF OUR CONSTITUENTS, UM, FOUND OUT ABOUT THE MEETING. HE'S THE ONE THAT'S SUPPOSED TO GET THE CERTIFIED LETTER TO HIS HOUSE, DID NOT GET ONE, AND THEY SHOWED UP. AND I UNDERSTAND IT'S A LITTLE CLOSE TO A FIST FIGHT UP HERE WITH SOME OF OUR GUYS, UH, WITH THE DEVELOPERS. SO THAT'S ACTUALLY, I GOT INVOLVED THE NEXT DAY, UM, AND TRIED TO RALLY THE TROOPS AND THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION AND, UH, WE'RE VERY MUCH FOR A THREE ACRE PARK, A WIDE OPEN SPACE AS WE'VE GIVEN A QUID PRO CROW. UM, MANY YEARS AGO WE GAVE THEM THE HEIGHT TO MOVE, JUST NOT THE WIDTH. AND UH, WE'D LIKE FOR THEM TO KINDA OWN UP TO THAT. AND I THINK THE CITY'S LET US DOWN ON A NUMBER OF OCCASIONS THAT WE COULD GO IN MORE DETAIL ON. I CAN'T, TERRY COULD OVER, I THINK IT'S FIVE ISSUES THAT THE CITY OR THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION HAS NOT MADE A RULING. UM, ANYWAY, I THINK, YOU KNOW HOW I FEEL KIND OF SPOKE, UH, FOR THE FIRST TIME IN ANY OF THIS KIND OF EVENT. MIKE, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME LAST MONTH. THAT'S ALL I HAVE. THANK YOU, SIR. WE VOTE AGAINST, THANK YOU FOR JOINING US. YOU BET. ARE THERE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS THAT WOULD LIKE TO BE HEARD ON THIS ITEM? UH, BEFORE WE GO TO A, A MOTION, UH, COMMISSIONER WHEELER I THINK IS ON LINE. IT NEEDS TO BE MOVED TO A PANEL AS BEFORE WE GO TO A VOTE. [02:10:47] OKAY. PRESENT. SHE'S ON LINE NOW. SO WE, WE GO TO OUR REBUTTAL TIME NOW. I'M PRESENT. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER WHEELER. YOU'RE NOW ON. UH, WE'RE GO TO OUR REBUTTAL. WE JUST WANTED TO MAKE ONE POINT OF CLARIFICATION. VICTORIA MORRISE WITH JACKSON WALKER, 2323 ROSS AVENUE, SUITE 600. UM, ONE POINT OF CLARIFICATION, THIS APPLICATION WAS FILED IN 2023. THE MAILED NOTICES THAT YOU SEE ON YOUR SCREEN WERE MAILED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PD. SINCE THAT TIME, THIS APPLICATION HAS BEEN AMENDED, BUT IT IS NOT A NEW APPLICATION. SO, UM, THIS ORIGINAL MAILED NOTICE FROM 2023 IS STILL APPLICABLE TO THIS ZONING APPLICATION. AND WE, AGAIN, RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. UH, CAN WE HAVE A MOTION? COMMISSIONER SIMS. THANK YOU MS. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. UH, AFTER MY MOTION, IF I HAVE A SECOND, I'D LIKE TO BE ABLE TO SPEAK TO THE MOTION, UH, IN THE MATTER OF CASE D 2 2 3 0 7. I MOVE THAT WE HOLD THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AND KEEP THIS UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL OUR NEXT MEETING, SEPTEMBER 18TH. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER SIMS FOR YOUR MOTION. AND COMMISSIONER HAMPTON FOR YOUR SECOND COMMENTS. COMMISSIONER SIMPSON. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. UM, I WAS PARTICULARLY STRUCK BY, UH, MS. KRONS COMMENTS ABOUT 2017 WHEN THE PARTIES SPENT A LOT OF TIME TALKING TO ONE ANOTHER AND CAME TO AN AGREEMENT. AND HAVING SPENT, UM, ALMOST ALL OF MY TERM ON THE COMMISSION THUS FAR, UH, WORKING ON THIS CASE, I REALLY DO FEEL THAT WE ARE IN FACT, VERY CLOSE TO ACHIEVING SOMETHING, ACHIEVING A LARGE OPEN SPACE THAT THE NEIGHBORS CAN LIVE WITH AND THAT IS ACCEPTABLE TO THE DEVELOPER AS WELL. AND I BELIEVE THIS, UH, THIS, THIS TIME UNDER ADVISEMENT WILL GET US THERE. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? SEEING NONE OF THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? AYES HAVE IT. [3. An application for an amendment to Specific Use Permit 2160 for the sale of alcoholic beverages on property zoned Subarea 7 of Planned Development District 366, the Buckner Boulevard Special Purpose District, with a D-1 Liquor Control Overlay, on the northwest corner of S. Buckner Blvd and Scyene Rd. Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions. Applicant: Andrew Ruegg, Masterplan Planner: Mona Hashemi Council District: 5 Z-25-000070(MH)] WE'LL GO TO NUMBER, UH, THREE. UH, MS. HASHMI, WHENEVER YOU'RE READY. UH, NO. OKAY. UH, K ZERO, UH, Z 25 0 0 7 0. AN APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT 2160 FOR THE STATE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE ON PROPERTY ZONE SUB AREA SEVEN OF PLANT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, UH, 360 6, THE BOCHNER BOULEVARD SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICT WITH A DI ONE LIQUOR CONTROL OVERLAY ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SOUTH BUCKNER BOULEVARD AND SCION ROAD. STAFF. RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS. THANK YOU MR. RICK. WHENEVER YOU'RE READY. GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE DALLAS PLAN COMMISSION. ANDREW REIG, THIRTY THREE THIRTY THREE WELLBORN STREET, UH, HERE REPRESENTING THE OWNER AND APPLICANT FOR THIS CASE. UM, SO I, I LISTENED TO THE BRIEFING, UM, AND UNDERSTAND THAT THIS MIGHT HAVE BEEN PART OF A LARGER SUP DISCUSSION, BUT I DO WANT TO GIVE SOME, UH, BACKGROUND AS TO HOW THIS PARTICULAR CASE HAS GOT HERE TODAY. SO WE ARE REQUESTING AN SUP RENEWAL. UM, A BIT OF A UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE HAPPENED THE PREVIOUS TIME WE DISCUSSED THIS, UM, PREVIOUSLY THIS SUP WAS APPROVED FOR A ONE YEAR TIME PERIOD. THE REASONING BEHIND THAT, UH, WE WERE AN AUTOMATIC RENEWAL STATUS, HAD SOME ISSUES WITH STAFF, WE'RE WORKING THROUGH THOSE. AND THEN, UH, THERE WAS AN ARSON FIRE AT THE PROPERTY, WHICH IS THROUGH A WRENCH IN THE WHOLE, UH, TYPICAL PROCESS. YOU CAN'T GET AN AUTO RENEWAL IF THE BUILDING IS IN OPERABLE [02:15:01] NOW. UM, SO WE GOT THE ONE YEAR TIME PERIOD, THEN REAPPLIED THE OWNER. I'VE BEEN WORKING PERSONALLY WITH THE OWNER TO ENSURE ALL NECESSARY, UH, CERTIFICATES AND PERMITS ARE IN PLACE. WE HAVE THOSE ALL TAKEN CARE OF, UH, AT THIS TIME. UH, THE STORE REOPENED A COUPLE MONTHS AGO, I BELIEVE IN JULY OF THIS YEAR. UM, AND WHAT WE ARE RESPECTFULLY REQUESTING TODAY IS APPROVAL FOR A FIVE YEAR TIME PERIOD WITH FIVE YEAR AUTO RENEWALS. UM, SO THAT'S OUR PARTICULAR REQUEST AND HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU MR. REIG. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK ON CASE NUMBER THREE Z 25? LOTS OF ZEROS. SEVEN ZERO. ALRIGHT, MR. CHAIR, DO WE HAVE A MOTION? WE DO IN THE MATTER OF Z 2 5 0 0 0 0 7 0, MOVE TO CLOSE TO PUBLIC HEARING FILE STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL, SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE, UH, TO THE CONDITIONS AS WELL AS THE APPLICANT REQUEST OF FIVE PLUS FIVE. GREAT. THANK YOU MR. CHAIR FOR YOUR MOTION. COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT FOR YOUR SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? ALRIGHT, SEEING NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES. OH, THERE'S ONE NO FORSYTH. WHO'S NUMBER TWO? IS THERE A SECOND? NO VOTE. DO WE NEED TO TAKE, LET'S TAKE A RECORD VOTE. COMMISSIONER WHEELER. COMMISSIONER WHEELER, WERE YOU A YES OR A NO? I WAS A YES. OKAY, GREAT. THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING. ALRIGHT, WHY DON'T WE TAKE A QUICK BREAK BEFORE OUR NEXT CASE. IT'S ONE 15 RIGHT NOW. WHY DON'T WE COME BACK AT 1 25? OKAY. COMMISSIONERS, IT'S 1125. ARE WE RECORDING? AND WE ARE BACK ON THE RECORD. UH, ONE FIVE. OKAY, WE'LL [4. An application for MF-2(A) Multifamily District on property zoned R-7.5(A) Single Family District, between the north terminus of North Boulevard Terrace and Plymouth Road. Staff Recommendation: Approval. Applicant: Christian Chernock Representative: Audra Buckley Planner: Martin Bate Council District: 1 Z-25-000069(MB)] KEEP MOVING TO CASE NUMBER, UH, FOUR. GOOD AFTERNOON. ITEM FOUR IS CASE Z 2 5 6 9. AN APPLICATION FOR MF TWO, A MULTIFAMILY DISTRICT ON PROPERTY ZONE R SEVEN FIVE, A SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT BETWEEN THE NORTH TERMINUS OF NORTH BOULEVARD, TERRACE, AND PLYMOUTH ROAD. STAFF. RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UH, IS THE APPLICANT HERE, ANYONE WANNA SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THIS ITEM? OKAY. ALRIGHT, WE HAVE SOME FOLKS IN OPPOSITION. WOULD FOLKS LIKE TO BE HERE? YES, SIR. GOOD AFTERNOON. GOOD AFTERNOON. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. MY NAME IS JOSEPH BECKHAM. I LIVE AT 8 0 8 NORTH HAMPTON ROAD, DALLAS, TEXAS 7 5 2 0 8. THANK YOU COMMISSIONERS. MR. VICE-CHAIR AND THANK YOU, UH, COMMISSIONER DUBINSKI, UH, FOR MEETING WITH US, UM, LAST WEEK. THANK YOU FOR HEARING OUR CONCERNS. WE VERY MUCH APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. I THINK YOU'RE UNDERPAID DESERVE A RAISE. UM, EXCUSE ME, I APOLOGIZE FOR MY ATTIRE. UH, WE DIDN'T REALLY KNOW THAT THIS CASE WAS GONNA BE HELD OVER OR NOT, SO I HAD TO MADE A HASTY ESCAPE FROM MY CLINICAL DUTIES. UM, BUT LEMME JUST SAY, FIRST OF ALL, UH, ABOUT FORWARD DALLAS. I THINK THIS SHOULD SOLVE THIS ISSUE ACTUALLY. WE SPEND A LOT OF TIME ON FORWARD DALLAS. THIS SHOULD SOLVE EVERY QUESTION WITH THIS PROPOSED, UH, REZONING CASE. NORTH BOULEVARD TERRACE IS A NO OUTLET, STREET DESIGNATED AS RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY PLACE TYPE WITH FORWARD DALLAS LAND USE PLAN. THE CURRENT MAKEUP OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS SQUARELY CONSISTENT WITH FORWARD DALLAS COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL PLACE TYPE WITH PRIMARY USES OF SINGLE FAMILY TOWN HOMES AND DUPLEXES. EVEN STAFF IN THEIR COMMENTS ON THIS PROPOSITION HAD CONCERNS ABOUT MF TWO COMPATIBILITY WITH THE EXISTING UNDERLYING ZONING. JUST FOR THE RECORD, 53% OR 5.5 ACRES OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD IS TH THREE 41% OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, OR 3.7 ACRES IS R 75. AND THAT'S WHY WE BELIEVE IT FIRMLY, UH, SITS SQUARELY IN THE INTENTIONS OF FORWARD DALLAS. THIS PROPOSED REZONING ALSO RAISES SOME PARKING ISSUES. AS YOU KNOW, THERE WAS A NEW RELAXED PARKING REQUIREMENT, ADOPTED MAY 14TH, 2025. [02:20:04] JUST TO GIVE YOU A QUICK LITTLE SCENARIO. AT 35 UNITS THAT WOULD HAVE AN ESTIMATED 45 TO 60 CARS WITH 16 RESERVE PARKING UNITS AND TWO GUEST PARKING, THAT WOULD ESSENTIALLY RESULT IN 20 TO 44 CARS NEEDED FOR STREET PARKING ON THE HIGH END OF THE ALLOWABILITY OF MF TWO FOR THIS AREA, 80 UNITS WOULD HAVE AN ESTIMATED 104 TO 136 CARS WITH 36 RESERVE PARKING UNITS AND FOUR GUEST PARKING THAT WOULD RESULT IN 68 TO A HUNDRED CARS THAT WOULD NEED TO SEEK STREET PARKING. THIS PROPOSED REZONING WILL POTENTIALLY NEGATIVELY IMPACT TRAFFIC AND SAFETY, NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER AND LIVABILITY, INFRASTRUCTURE AND ACCESSIBILITY, PROPERTY VALUES AND PERCEPTION, ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL COSTS. CAN YOU IMAGINE NEIGHBORHOODS COMPETING FOR CAR PARKING SPACES AND THE CONFLICTS THAT MIGHT ENSUE? SO LEMME SWITCH GEARS JUST A LITTLE BIT AND MENTION THAT I AM AN EXECUTIVE BOARD MEMBER OF COOMBS CREEK CONSERVANCY. THIS WAS A 5 0 1 C3 NONPROFIT DEDICATED TO ADVOCATING FOR THE CREEK FROM AN ECOLOGICAL STANDPOINT. AS A MEMBER OF THE EXECUTIVE BOARD OF COOMBS CREEK CONSERVANCY, I URGE THE CITY'S DECISION MAKERS TO PRIORITIZE LAND USE THAT PROTECTS THE HEALTH OF OUR CREEKS, PRESERVES PUBLIC SAFETY AND ENSURES LONG-TERM ENVIRONMENTAL RESILIENCE. THAT'S YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR JOINING US. PLEASE STAND BY THERE. MAY. ANY QUESTIONS FOR YOU, SIR? GOOD AFTERNOON. GOOD AFTERNOON. UH, MY NAME IS CHRIS BOWERS, SISTER LAW GROUP, 1316 VILLAGE CREEK PARKWAY, PLANO, TEXAS, BUT ALSO A PROUD RESIDENT OF DISTRICT 12. UH, I AM HERE TODAY, UH, REPRESENTING DR. BECKHAM AND I WAS ASKED TO BE HERE YESTERDAY. AS YOU'VE HEARD FROM HIM, THERE ARE SEVERAL CONCERNS WITH THIS PROPOSAL AND THEY RANGE FROM COMPATIBILITY WITH SURROUNDING LAND USES ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS, UH, INFRASTRUCTURE CONCERNS IN PARTICULAR, THE BRIDGE. UH, WE NEED TIME TO TRY TO WORK THROUGH THESE ISSUES. AND SO I GREATLY APPRECIATE HEARING EARLIER TODAY THAT, UH, HOPEFULLY THIS COMMISSION WILL CONSIDER A MOTION TO POSTPONE THE CASE FOR TWO WEEKS. I DO THINK THAT, UH, THIS COMMISSION HAS A PROUD HISTORY OF GRANTING POSTPONEMENTS WHEN THERE IS OPPOSITION TO GIVE PEOPLE AN OPPORTUNITY TO TRY TO WORK THROUGH THESE ISSUES. AND SO I DO REQUEST THAT THIS COMMISSION TAKE IT UNDER ADVISEMENT FOR TWO WEEKS. GIVE ME AN OPPORTUNITY TO WORK WITH THE DEVELOPER AND THEIR REPRESENTATIVE AND SEE IF WE CAN WORK, WORK THROUGH SOME OF THESE ISSUES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR JOINING US. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS LAURA KEL. I LIVE AT 91 0 9 CLEAR LAKE, DALLAS, TEXAS 7 5 2 2 5. BUT MY HUSBAND AND I ARE DESIGNING A HOME, HOPEFULLY TO BE PULLING A PERMIT, UH, IN 2026 AT 8 24 HAMPTON ROAD. AND WE OWN THE OTHER TWO LOTS, UH, ADJACENT EIGHT 18 HAMPTON ROAD AND EIGHT 30 HAMPTON ROAD. UM, MY CONCERN ABOUT THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS, IS THE DENSITY, UM, MULTIFAMILY DENSITY PLACED IN A MOSTLY R SEVEN FIVE KIND OF SET OF COMMUNITIES AROUND IT COULD CAUSE AND, AND HAS CAUSED PROBLEMS WITH A THREE STORY STRUCTURE. LOOKING DOWN ON THE BACKYARDS OF THE SINGLE STORY HOUSE DOWN BELOW, UM, THE PARKING THAT WILL BE FORCED OUT ON HAMPTON ROAD IF THEY WANT TO GO NORTH OR SOUTH, THAT IS THE NORTH SOUTH ARTERY. AND JUST THE EXTRA DENSITY OF ALL THE EXTRA CARS OF PEOPLE NEEDING TO LIVE THEIR LIVES AND GO TO WORK AND COME HOME, UH, WILL PUT A STRAIN. BUT THERE'S ALSO STRAIN ON OTHER KIND OF INFRASTRUCTURE SUCH AS THE, UH, GRAVITY, SEWER, ELECTRICITY, UM, JUST, UH, THE CLEAN WATER COMING IN. I MEAN, WHEN OUR CITY PLANNERS DID THE ORIGINAL ZONING AND ALLOWED FOR THAT PARTICULAR USE, DID THEY PUT THE CAPACITY IN TO HAVE THIS MUCH DENSITY COME AT THEM? WILL IT BE A VERY EXPENSIVE PROPOSITION FOR THE CITY TO RIP OUT AND REPLACE ALL THAT INFRASTRUCTURE THAT ALREADY EXISTS? AND IT, IT'S INTERESTING, [02:25:01] IF YOU LOOK AT THE CITY OF DALLAS, UM, CURRENTLY HAS AN AVERAGE DENSITY OF 3,841 PEOPLE PER SQUARE MILE. THE WEST KESSLER AND NORTH OAK CLIFF HAS A DENSITY OF 5,000 0 49 PEOPLE PER SQUARE MILE. SO WE ARE ALREADY IN EXCESS OF THE DENSITY THAT IS EVEN AVERAGE FOR DALLAS. AND I JUST DON'T THINK THE INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIREMENTS CAN HANDLE MORE. I THANK YOU FOR TAKING THIS INTO CONSIDERATION TODAY. THANK YOU FOR JOINING US. GOOD AFTERNOON. HELLO. IS IT ON? FIRST I WANNA THANK, UM, COMMISSIONER DUBRINSKY FOR COMING OUT AND SPENDING TIME WITH US AS A NEIGHBORHOOD, UM, AND COMMISSIONER SHADI FOR COMING OUT ALSO TO A COMMUNITY, UM, OUTREACH WITH THE DEVELOPER. UH, WE APPRECIATE YOUR TIME AND LISTENING TO OUR THOUGHTS. UM, I'M HERE ON BEHALF, UM, THE PRESIDENT OF WEST KESSLER NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. I JUST WANT TO, UM, TO EXPRESS THE, THE THOUGHTS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF WE WANT TO WORK TOWARDS A, A COMPROMISE AND MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT. UM, WE SEE POTENTIAL, BUT WE ALSO SEE A LOT OF, UM, ISSUES, THE AMOUNT OF DENSITY, THE EFFECTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT, UM, THE PARKING, THE INFRASTRUCTURE. WE JUST FEEL LIKE, YOU KNOW, THERE CAN BE A COMPROMISE HERE, THERE CAN BE SOMETHING THAT BENEFITS BOTH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE DEVELOPER. UM, AND WE'RE HOPING THAT WE CAN GET TO THAT PLACE WITH THE DEVELOPER. UM, I, YOU KNOW, THAT'S, THAT'S OUR HOPE IS THAT THIS CAN MOVE FORWARD IN A WAY THAT IT BENEFITS EVERYONE INSTEAD OF BENEFITING ONE. SO I THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU FOR JOINING US. IS THERE, MA'AM, DID, DID WE GET HER NAME? NO. CAN CAN YOU JUST PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD? MY APOLOGIES. SORRY ABOUT THAT. IT'S OKAY. ANGIE MOBLEY, 8 0 8 NORTH HAMPTON. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. GOOD AFTERNOON. GOOD AFTERNOON. I'M REBECCA MOORE, RESIDING AT 27 36 MA MATURE STREET, DALLAS, 7 5 2 1 1. I'M PRESIDENT OF LT LEE PLACE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, WHICH CONSISTS OF 301 HOMES. IT WAS BUILT IN 1945, AND I SPEAK FOR OUR NEIGHBORS. OUR NEIGHBORHOOD IS LOCATED JUST SOUTHWEST OF THE PROPOSED ZONING CHANGE AREA BORDERS PLYMOUTH ROAD, LOCATED AT THE NEXT INTERSECTION SOUTH OF PLYMOUTH. WE HAVE NUMEROUS CONCERNS WITH AN MF DASH TWO DEVELOPMENT AT THIS SITE. AT PRESENT, THERE ARE TREES, BUSHES, GRASSES IN THE AREA AT A HIGH DENSITY OF BUILDINGS AND PARKING LOTS WILL PRODUCE NA NATURAL INFILTRATION INTO THE GROUND LEADING TO RUNOFF. THERE IS NOT MUCH TOP SOIL IN THAT AREA. HOW WILL THIS AFFECT COOMBS CREEK? HOW WILL IT AFFECT STEVENS PARK GOLF COURSE, WHICH IS ACROSS THE STREET AND WHICH IS ALREADY FIGHTING EROSION PROBLEMS? HOW WILL IT AFFECT PLYMOUTH ROAD, WHICH ALREADY HAS FLOODING PROBLEMS DUE TO DEBRIS AND CULVERTS AND WITH ANOTHER CULVERT BRIDGE TO BE ADDED, WHICH WAS INCLUDED IN THE 2017 BOND PACKAGE JUST FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT? IT WAS FUNDED FOR $2,167,000, WHICH I HEAR WILL COST UP TO 6 MILLION NOW. AND IT WAS THE SECOND HIGHEST AMOUNT ON THAT BOND FOR OUR AREA. THE HIGHEST WAS EROSION CONTROL FOR COOMBS CREEK. AND THERE'S STILL MORE EROSION CONTROL THAT HAS YET TO BE FUNDED. WELL, IT CAUSED FLOODING ON HAMPTON ROAD. THE SONOMA APARTMENTS ARE LOCATED JUST SOUTH OF THE PROPOSED AREA, ALSO LOCATED IN THE, ON THE CREEK IN THE FLOODPLAIN. WILL THIS DEVELOPMENT CAUSE THAT COMPLEX TO GET FLOODED? HAS AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY BEEN DONE REGARDING SUCH A HIGH DENSITY DEVELOP DEVELOPMENT JUST ABOVE THE CREEK? WE ARE CONCERNED WITH MORE HIGH DENSITY BUILDINGS, INCREASING TRAFFIC WHERE TRAFFIC ALREADY IS LINED UP IN ON OUR ROADS DURING PEAK HOURS. WE ARE CONCERNED HOW IT WILL CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF OUR AREA SINCE WE ALREADY HAVE HIGH DENSITY DUE TO MULTIPLE APARTMENT COMPACT COMPLEXES. GATED COMMUNITIES EXCLUDE PEOPLE. AND IF THAT CULVERT BRIDGE DOES GET BUILT, WE'D LIKE OUR CHILDREN TO BE ABLE TO WALK OVER THAT BRIDGE TO ATTEND KHAN ELEMENTARY AND NOT [02:30:01] BE BLOCKED BY A METAL GATE. WE FEEL A ZONING CHANGE TO MF TWO IS TOO DETRIMENTAL FOR NORTH BILL OF OUR TERRACE AND NOT EQUITABLE TO OUR COMMUNITY. WE HAVE WORKED WITH THE HOUSING DEVELOPER IN OUR AREA IN THE PAST, WHICH RESULTED IN AN AGREEABLE OUTCOME WITH SO MUCH DIVISIVENESS THESE DAYS. WE'D RATHER WORK TOGETHER WITH RESIDENTS OF NORTH BOULEVARD TERRACE, THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS, AND THE DEVELOPER FOR AN EQUITABLE SOLUTION, WHICH BENEFITS US ALL. THANK YOU FOR LISTENING AND TAKING INTO ACCOUNT OUR CONCERNS. THANK YOU FOR JOINING US. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? OKAY, SEEING NONE, COMMISSIONER DE RINGEY, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION, SIR? YES. SO IN THE MATTER OF, UH, Z DASH 25 DASH 0 0 0 0 6 9, UM, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE THE, UH, KEEP THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AND HOLD THE MATTER UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL OCTOBER 2ND. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER DOMEY FOR YOUR MOTION. AND COMMISSIONER HAMPTON FOR YOUR SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? I HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS. YES, SIR. OCTOBER 9TH? NO, LEMME LET ME CHECK. YEAH, I THOUGHT IT SHOULD BE OCTOBER 9TH. OCTOBER 9TH. THE FIRST ONE? OCTOBER 9TH. OCTOBER 9TH. OKAY. COMMENTS? SO, UM, I'LL TRY TO BE BRIEF WITH THIS JUST 'CAUSE I'M, I'M CURIOUS IF THE FOLKS WHO SPOKE, IF I HAVE ONE QUESTION FOR ALL OF YOU. UM, SO IF YOU DON'T MIND STEPPING UP, I REALLY APPRECIATE YOU TAKING YOUR TIME TO COME OUT HERE. THE PODIUM? YES, PLEASE. YEAH, I, I, I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM ALL OF YOU. SO IT'S A, IT'S ABOUT THE BRIDGE. SO THE CITY STAFF INDICATED THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, THEY WOULD STILL BE OPEN TO THE PROJECT IF THE BRIDGE WASN'T BUILT. UM, THEY DID HAVE SOME DENSITY CONCERNS, BUT THAT'S WHAT, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE PART OF THEIR DECISION OR THEIR RECOMMENDATION BUNDLED IN THE BRIDGE. SO I'M JUST CURIOUS, LIKE IT'S A SIMPLE SUPPORT OR DO NOT SUPPORT. DO YOU GUYS SUPPORT THE BRIDGE OR NOT SUPPORT THE BRIDGE? AND IF YOU FEEL FREE TO DO THIS INDIVIDUALLY, THERE'S NO WAY TO ANSWER THAT WITHOUT A WHAT IS THE ALTERNATIVE? CAN YOU PLEASE STAND UP TO THE MICROPHONE SO THE FOLKS ON LINE CAN HEAR? PLEASE? THERE'S NO WAY TO ANSWER THAT WITHOUT KNOWING WHAT IS THE ALTERNATIVE. I'M JUST ASKING ABOUT THE BRIDGE. I OKAY. UM, COULD I HAVE YOU JUST, YOU KNOW, CLARIFY YOUR QUESTION SO THAT WE CAN GIVE YOU A CONCISE ANSWER. IT'S, DO YOU SUPPORT THE BRIDGE BEING BUILT OR NOT? OKAY. SO I THOUGHT WE WERE HERE FOR A MULTI-FAMILY TWO REZONING APPLICATION. THAT'S FIRST OF ALL, UH, THIS BRIDGE, UM, IS TURNING INTO A $6 MILLION HANDOUT TO A DEVELOPER. THIS PROJECT WILL NOT SUCCEED. HE SAID THAT IN MANY MEETINGS THAT THE CO OF COST OF A BRIDGE FOR HIM IS IT'S COST PROHIBITIVE AND COULD NOT MAKE THIS A VIABLE ECONOMIC PROJECT THROUGH VARIOUS MECHANISMS WITHIN THE CITY. A STREET GOT PROPOSED. OKAY? WE'RE NOT THRILLED ABOUT THAT. WE'RE ALL PAYING LOTS OF TAXES. THERE'S, UH, REVENUE CUTS. WE JUST DID A BUDGET, A HUGE BUDGET, UH, UH, PROCESS HERE IN THE CITY. THEY'RE HAVING TO TRIM EVERYTHING, RIGHT? WE'VE GOT POTHOLES, ALL KINDS OF CONCERNS AS CITIES. THIS IS MONEY THAT CAN BE SPENT ELSEWHERE. WE ARE NOT OBLIGATED AS CITIZENS TO MAKE SURE A DEVELOPER HAS A PROFITABLE PROJECT. WE UNDERSTAND THE CITY'S DESIRE FOR A TAX BASE, DIVERSE HOUSING OPTIONS, BUT THERE'S MANY PLACES TO, TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN. NORTH BOULEVARD TERRACE IS NOT IT ULTIMATELY, I CAN TELL YOU, PARDON ME, SIR, WE HAVE, UH, A COMMENT BY OUR CITY ATTORNEY. JUST ONE POLICY. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. LAURA MORRISON, CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. SINCE THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR IS TO HOLD THE CASE UNDER ADVISEMENT, THE DEBATE ON THE FLOOR AT THIS POINT SHOULD BE LIMITED TO JUST WHETHER OR NOT TO HOLD THE CASE UNDER ADVISEMENT. SO I, I DIDN'T WANT THIS TO BE A DEBATE. I WAS JUST CURIOUS IF I GOT FEEDBACK FROM THE COMMUNITY, WHETHER YOU GUYS SUPPORTED OR NOT. THE BRIDGE, YOU JUST PUT FORWARD A CASE OF HOW IT COULD BE A WASTE OF MONEY. IT'S JUST INTO DEVELOPERS. MY ASSUMPTION IS YOU DON'T SUPPORT THE BRIDGE AND, AND, AND YOU SPOKE ABOUT HOW IT COULD BE IMPACTFUL TOO. SO THAT'S MY TAKEAWAY FROM THIS CONVERSATION, THAT THE FOLKS HERE DON'T SUPPORT THE BRIDGE UNLESS YOU GUYS WANNA SAY OTHERWISE. WE'LL OPEN IT UP HERE, BUT I'M HAPPY TO HOLD IT AT THAT. YEAH. WELL, JUST, JUST TO BE FAIR TO OUR SPEAKERS IS THIS, IS THIS GERMANE TO THE TOPIC? WE, WE RECENTLY ACTUALLY, YOU KNOW, WE RECENTLY CHANGED OUR RULES AND, AND, UH, THE WAY THIS USED TO HAPPEN IS WE ASKED OUR SPEAKERS QUESTIONS BEFORE WE HEARD THE MOTION, AND LITERALLY WITHIN MAYBE JUST THE LAST COUPLE OF MONTHS, WE KIND OF SWITCHED THE ORDER OF [02:35:01] THAT, WHICH NOW UNIN, YOU KNOW, IT'S KIND OF THE, THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES THAT WE KNEW IT WAS, THEY ALWAYS POP UP. IS THAT NOW BECAUSE THE MOTION WAS TO HOLD, IT KIND OF LIMITS WHAT WE ASK YOU QUESTIONS FOR. SO MY APOLOGIES. UH, IT'S JUST KIND OF THIS ROBERTS RULES QUIRK THAT WE ARE LIMITED NOW BECAUSE OF THE MOTION INTO WHAT WE CAN ASK YOU ABOUT. UH, SO THAT IS WHAT, WHAT WHAT IS ON THE FLOOR IS THE DISCUSSION ON HOLDING OR NOT HOLDING THE CASE. MR. RUBIN, I JUST ONE CLARIFYING QUESTION FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, IF THE COMMISSIONER WANTED TO HAVE FURTHER DIALOGUE OUTSIDE OF THE MEETING ABOUT THIS OR, OR ANY OTHER ISSUES, HE'S WELCOME TO, CORRECT? CORRECT. OKAY, GREAT. YES. COMMISSIONER KINGSTON. MR. CHAIRMAN, MAY I MAKE ONE SUGGESTION THAT MAY HELP US ACHIEVE OBJECTIVES, WHICH IS, UH, COMMISSIONER DUBINSKI, MAYBE WE COULD HAVE A COMMUNITY MEETING EX EXPRESSLY TO DISCUSS THE BRIDGE AND THAT MIGHT GIVE YOU ALL THE ANSWERS YOU'D LIKE FROM THE COMMUNITY. THANK, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE ARE JUST FOUR PEOPLE. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER KINGSTON. YEAH, THIS IS A TECHNICAL QUESTION FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY. WHAT'S THE SCOPE OF A DISCUSSION ALLOWED IF WE'RE TRYING TO DETERMINE WHETHER TO SUPPORT A MOTION TO HOLD? I THINK FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, FINDING OUT CERTAIN INFORMATION FROM EITHER THE APPLICANT OR THE COMMUNITY MEMBERS THAT IS RELATED TO THE APPLICATION COULD VERY WELL BE WITHIN THE SCOPE OF WHETHER I AGREE THAT THIS SHOULD BE HELD OR VOTED ON TODAY, JUST USING THIS CASE AS A SAMPLE. BUT, YOU KNOW, ARE WE GONNA CUT OFF DISCUSSION ABOUT THE MERITS OF EVERY CASE? IF SOMEBODY MAKES A MOTION TO HOLD WHEN WE HAVE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO'VE COME DOWN HERE, NO NEED FOR THEM TO COME. AGAIN, QUESTIONS LIKE THAT ARE APPROPRIATE. IF IT'S JUST TO DETERMINE, UH, LIKE HOW YOU'RE GONNA VOTE ON A MOTION TO HOLD THE CASE, I REALLY DON'T UNDERSTAND THE DISTINCTION. THEN DO I HAVE TO PREFACE MY QUESTION WITH, I'M ASKING THIS BECAUSE IT IMPACTS MY DECISION ON WHETHER I SUPPORT THE MOTION TO HOLD AND THEN LAUNCH INTO MY QUESTIONS. YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO THAT, BUT IT IT, I MEAN, YOU CAN PREFACE YOUR QUESTION WITH, WITH THAT IF YOU WANT. OKAY. I I REALLY STILL DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT THE PARAMETERS ARE FOR DISCUSSION AFTER A MOTION TO HOLD. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? MR. CHAIR? I I, I HAVE TO AGREE WITH MS. KINGSTON, UH, COMMISSIONER KINGSTON ON THIS. I MEAN, THIS IS A GERMANE ISSUE HERE, UH, YOU KNOW, AS TO WHETHER THIS, UH, PROJECT IS DEPENDENT UPON THIS BRIDGE. AND, AND I THINK THAT, UH, COMMISSIONER DUBRINSKY IS ASKED A LEGITIMATE QUESTION AND WE, AND IT'S WORTHWHILE TO HEAR FROM THE COMMUNITY WHILE THEY'RE HERE. AND WE DID. I THINK WE DID HEAR FROM MOST FOLKS. YEAH. WE DIDN'T HEAR FROM ALL OF THEM. UH, HE ASKED FOR ALL OF THEM. YEAH. AND I KNOW MISS, UH, REBECCA WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT. WELL, COMMISSIONERS AT THIS POINT, WE HAVE A, A MOTION AND A SECOND AND, UM, IT, IT, WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO JUST IRON THE LITTLE WRINKLE OUT HERE. COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, YOU. WELL, I HAD INTENDED UNDER THE OLD RULES, I, I'M NOT SURE HOW THE NEW RULES ARE PLAYING OUT TO ASK MR. BECKHAM TO ELABORATE ON WHAT THE IMPLICATIONS WERE FOR THE COOMBS CREEK, BECAUSE TO ME THAT WAS GERMANE TO HOW LONG A PERIOD OF TIME MIGHT BE REASONABLE TO DEFER, DEPENDING ON WHAT HIS ANSWER IS. SO, UH, MS. MORRISON, IS THAT A PERMITTED QUESTION? YES. QUESTIONS ARE CERTAINLY ALLOWED AS LONG AS THE, THE QUESTIONS ARE GEARED TOWARD WHETHER OR NOT YOU WOULD VOTE FOR OR AGAINST A MOTION TO HOLD THE CASE OR HOW LONG TO HOLD THE CASE. OKAY. WELL THEN MAY I ASK MY QUESTION? ABSOLUTELY, PLEASE DO. MR. BECKHAM, COULD YOU PLEASE COULD CONTINUE THE REMARKS YOU WERE INTENDING ON THE IMPLICATIONS YOU SEE FOR THIS CASE ON THE, THE CREEK? YES. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER. UH, CARPENTER, UM, COOMBS CREEK IS A VITAL PART OF OUR URBAN ECOSYSTEM PROVIDING FLOOD CONTROL, WILDLIFE HABITAT, GREEN SPACE FOR SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS AND IS PART OF OUR WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM THAT YOU DRINK OUTTA YOUR FAUCET. THIS PROPOSED MULTIFAMILY CONSTRUCTION WOULD PLACE SOME UNSUSTAINABLE PRESSURES ON THE CREEK THROUGH UN INCREASED RUNOFF, EROSION AND POLLUTION, UNDERMINING YEARS OF COMMUNITY INVESTMENT AND CONSERVATION EFFORTS. DALLAS'S OWN GREENINGS ARE GARRETT BOONE HAS REPEATEDLY EMPHASIZED THAT OUR CITY'S 700 MILES OF CREEKS ARE NOT JUST DRAINAGE CHANNELS, BUT LIVING NATURAL ASSETS. HE HAS URGED THAT EACH CREEK REPRESENT SOMETHING UNIQUELY VALUABLE, PROVIDING FLOOD [02:40:01] PROTECTION, WILDLIFE HABITAT, AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR PARKS AND TRAILS THAT KNIT NEIGHBORHOODS TOGETHER. BOONE HAS ALSO WARNED THAT FAILING TO PROTECT THESE WATERWAYS FROM EROSION, POLLUTION AND NEGLECT WOULD BE, IN HIS WORDS, UNCONSCIONABLE. HIS PERSPECTIVE HIGHLIGHTS HOW ESSENTIAL URBAN CREEKS ARE TO DALLAS'S LONG-TERM HEALTH, SAFETY, BEAUTY, AND UNDERSCORES WHY NEW DEVELOPMENT NEAR THEM MUST BE APPROACHED WITH THE UTMOST CARE AND RESPONSIBILITY. AND I URGE YOU TO CONSIDER THOSE STATEMENTS IN YOUR DECISION. YES. MR. BECKHAM, ARE THERE SPECIFIC EROSION CONCERNS ABOUT THE CREEK THAT WOULD IMPACT THIS BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION? UH, ABSOLUTELY. SO THERE'S ESTIMATES, UM, THAT THERE IS LOSING A CREEK BED, UM, STREAM BED AT ABOUT ONE INCH PER YEAR. WHAT ENDS UP HAPPENING IS A PHENOMENON, UM, WHERE THE CITY TRIES TO FIGHT EROSION AND EVERY BOND PACKAGE HAS MILLIONS OF DOLLARS DEDICATED TO IZATION OF CREEK BEDS. AND IT'S VERY COUNTERINTUITIVE, BUT WHAT ENDS UP HAPPENING IS YOU INCREASE THE VELOCITY OF THAT WATER FLOW AND YOU ENHANCE THE STREAMBED EROSION, WHICH FURTHER INCREASES THE VELOCITY, FURTHER INCREASES THE EROSION. IT'S A VERY, UH, CYCLICAL PROBLEM THAT THE CITY HAS JUST, UH, UH, BEEN THROWING MONEY AT IT IZATION, AND IT'S A TERRIBLE RETURN ON INVESTMENT. UM, CREEKS ARE HARD ENOUGH TO, UM, MITIGATE EROSION WHEN YOU START THROWING BRIDGES AND PILLARS. WE'VE ALL SEEN IT IN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS. THEY LOOK GREAT IN THE BEGINNING, AND THEN PRETTY SOON YOU CAN KIND OF SEE THE BASE OF THE PILLAR GONE. THAT WATER HAS TO INCREASE ITS SPEED TO GO AROUND ANY OBJECT IN THAT CREEK. YES, BRIDGES, ANYTIME, OBSTACLES WORSEN THE PROBLEM. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONERS, PLEASE? COMMISSIONER KINGSTON. UM, AND I DON'T KNOW THAT THE APPLICANT, I DON'T THINK I SEE THE APPLICANT PRESENT UNLESS THEY'RE ONLINE. I JUST CAN'T SEE 'EM. BUT THERE WAS A LOT OF CONCERN ABOUT PARKING, AND I THINK THIS PROBABLY GOES RIGHT TOWARDS SOME OF THESE, UM, ISSUES THAT WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING TODAY. REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE PARKING CODE REQUIRES, DOES ANYONE KNOW HOW THIS PROJECT WILL ACTUALLY BE PARKED? YEAH. YEAH. SO WHAT THE INTENTION IS, AT LEAST FROM WHAT THE APPLICANT SHOWED, IS THAT THERE'LL BE TUCK IN PARKING UNDERNEATH THE STRUCTURE. SO HOW MANY SPACES IS THAT PER UNIT? I, I COULDN'T TELL YOU OFF THE BAT ACCURATELY, BUT THAT'S THE INTENTION IS THAT ALL THE PARKING WOULD BE UNDERNEATH BECAUSE OF THE TOPOGRAPHY. STEPH, I THINK STEPH CAN ANSWER. YEAH. UH, FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THIS SIZE, THE PROPOSED, UH, NUMBER DWELLING UNIT 34, OTHER REQUIRED OFF STREET PARKING IS ONE HALF SPACE PER DWELLING UNIT. SO AT 34 DWELLING UNITS, IT'D BE A REQUIREMENT OF 17 UNITS. THAT I APPRECIATE THAT. BUT THAT WASN'T MY QUESTION. I, MY QUESTION WAS NOT WHAT THE PARKING CODE REQUIRES, BUT WHAT THE APPLICANT ACTUALLY INTENDS TO DO. GOT IT. YEAH, I, BECAUSE THAT'S, THAT'S CLEARLY A BIG CONCERN FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND COULD POTENTIALLY IMPACT HOW MUCH PARKING HARD SPACE IS BUILT ON THE SITE, HOW MUCH OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE MAY BE IMPACTED BY IF IT'S NOT PARKED, IF IT IS PARKED, HOW IT'S PARKED, AND SOME OF THESE ISSUES WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, UM, THAT MAY STILL NEED TO BE RESOLVED AND, AND KIND OF RELATE TO HOW MUCH TIME YOU'RE GONNA NEED TO HAVE THOSE DISCUSSIONS. I'M SURE THE APPLICANT WILL BE READY TO ANSWER THAT IN OCTOBER. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? COMMISSIONERS? C AND NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? AYES HAVE IT. NUMBER FIVE. THANK YOU. I CAN I READ THAT ON RECORD, MR. CHAMBERS? IS HE HERE? I CAN READ IT. A GO UP HERE. UH, ITEM FIVE [5. An application for MF-2(A) Multifamily District on property zoned a CR Community Retail District, on the east line of Southgate Lane, between Elam Road and Marvel Drive. Staff Recommendation: Approval. Applicant: Metrocare Services Representative: Baldwin Associates, LLC Planner: Rexter Chambers U/A From: June 12, 2025. Council District: 5 Z245-190(RC) / Z-25-000022] IS CASE Z 2 45 DASH ONE 90, ALSO KNOWN AS Z 2 5 22. AN APPLICATION FOR MF TWO, A MULTI-FAMILY DISTRICT ON PROPERTY ZONE CR COMMUNITY RETAIL DISTRICT ON THE EAST LINE OF SOUTHGATE LANE BETWEEN ALUM ROAD AND MARVEL DRIVE STAFF'S. RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL. THANK YOU MR. BALDWIN. WHENEVER YOU'RE READY. GOOD AFTERNOON, ROB BALDWIN 3 9 0 4 ELM STREET, SUITE B IN DALLAS. UH, THIS IS ONE, ONE OF THE CASES THAT IS, UH, A CLIENT GETS BETTER DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS UNDER SB EIGHT 40 THAN CHANGING THIS FROM CR TO MF TWO. SO I RESPECTFULLY ASK THAT WE THIS BE DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK ON CASE NUMBER FIVE? ALRIGHT, MR. CHAIR, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? I DO IN THE MATTER OF Z 2 4 5 1 9 0, I MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT DENY THE APPLICATION WITHOUT PREJUDICE. THANK YOU MR. CHAIR FOR YOUR MOTION. COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT FOR YOUR [02:45:01] SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? I HAVE A QUESTION. COMMISSIONER, DO YOU HAVE KINGSTON? GO AHEAD. WHAT'S THE IMPACT IF WE DON'T DENY IT? IF WE SAY NO, WHAT HAPPENS NEXT? WHO IS YOUR QUESTION DIRECTED TO? COMMISSIONER KINGSTON? IS IT STAFF? MR. VIN? I WOULD SAY STAFF SHOULD BE ABLE TO TAKE A STAB AT THAT, RIGHT? OR MAYBE THE CITY ATTORNEY IF WE DON'T DENY IT. SO I MEAN, WHAT HAPPENS NEXT? I MEAN, MICHAEL, YOU'RE DON'T FAMILIAR WITH ONE, BUT IF YOU, IF YOU WERE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL, IT GOES TO CITY COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF A MF TWO, A MULTIFAMILY DISTRICT. UM, AND THEN SUBSEQUENTLY, IF THE COUNCIL WERE TO APPROVE THAT, IT WOULD REZONE IT TO MF TWO, WHICH I'M SURE YOU UNDERSTAND IS EXACTLY HOW, HOW THE, UH, PROCESS WOULD WORK. UM, BUT LEMME SEE, UH, WHAT KIND OF, WAS THERE KIND OF MORE DETAIL YOU WANTED ON KINDA WHAT THE CONSEQUENCES ARE OF ONE WAY OR THE OTHER? NO, I JUST, I MEAN, THEY'VE ASKED FOR DENIAL AND IF WE DON'T AGREE TO THAT, AND I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND SOME OF THE PROCESS WE'RE WORKING UNDER NOW. YEAH, I MEAN, THEY COULD IN THEORY, WITHDRAW THEIR APPLICATION. YOU CAN'T, YOU CAN'T BE WITHDRAWN ONCE YOU'RE, YOU'RE PUT ON THE RECORD. OKAY. SO I MEAN, THAT'S WHY PEOPLE COME AND THEY ASK FOR DENIAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE VERSUS JUST WALKING AWAY. THAT'S WHAT I ASSUMED. SO SOME ACTION NEEDS TO BE TAKEN ON THE APPLICATION BECAUSE IT'S BEEN NOTICED FOR HERE. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. ONE QUICK WRINKLE, MS. MORRISON. CAN THEY WITHDRAW IT ONCE WE PASS IT ALONG AND BEFORE IT'S ON A COUNCIL AGENDA? UH, ONCE THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION HAS VOTED ON A RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL IT, NO, THE APPLICATION CANNOT BE WITHDRAWN. OKAY, THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION. ALRIGHT, ANY OTHER DISCUSSION QUESTIONS? WE HAVE A MOTION BY THE CHAIR SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT TO, UM, NOT FOLLOW STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, BUT TO DENY THE CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, SIR. UH, WE NEED TO BRIEF SIX. NO. OKAY. WE HAVEN'T BRIEFED NUMBER SIX. COMMISSIONERS, UH, DO WE ANYBODY WOULD LIKE IT BRIEF BEFORE WE HEAR IT? OKAY, LET'S READ IT IN PLEASE. [6. An application for an amendment to Specific Use Permit 2047 for a vehicle auction and storage use, on property zoned Tract IIC Industrial-1 District within Planned Development District 37, on the east corner of Sheila Lane and Lakefield Boulevard. Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions. Applicant: Eddy Hackelman Representative: Rob Baldwin Planner: Jacob Rojo U/A From: August 7, 20025. Council District: 6 Z245-212(JR) / Z-25-000064] ITEM SIX IS CASE Z 2 45 DASH TWO 12, ALSO KNOWN AS Z 2 5 64. AN APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO SPECIFIC USE PERMIT 2 0 4 7 FOR VEHICLE AUCTION STORAGE USE ON PROPERTY ZONE TRACK TWO C INDUSTRIAL DASH ONE DISTRICT WITHIN PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 37 ON THE EAST CORNER, SHEILA LANE AND LAKEFIELD BOULEVARD STAFF'S. RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS. THANK YOU, SIR. SEE THAT THE APPLICANT IS HERE. GOOD AFTERNOON, ROB BALDWIN. 3 9 0 4 ELM STREET, SUITE B. THIS IS JUST A REQUEST TO RENEW AN SUP FOR AN AUTO AUCTION. UM, IT'S BEEN, I'VE BEEN WORKING ON THIS PROBABLY FOR 10 YEARS, DIFFERENT TIMES WE'VE GONE THROUGH THE PROCESS. UM, WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR ANY CHANGES. UH, THE LAST TIME WE CAME THROUGH, UH, WE WORKED HARD WITH COMMISSIONER CARPENTER TO GET NEW LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS AND OPERATION REQUIREMENTS. UM, I THINK THEY'RE WORKING. UH, SO WE'RE ASKING THAT IT'D BE CONTINUED, BUT I CAN SENSE THAT WE, I DO NOT HAVE THE COMMISSIONER'S SUPPORT FOR, UH, YOU, UH, INDEFINITE PERIOD. SO, UH, I'M FINE WITH THAT. SO I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS, JUST A RENEWAL OF NO CHANGES TO ANY OF THE CONDITIONS. THANK YOU. YOUR SPIDEY SENSES ARE GOOD, SIR. WAS THAT YOUR SPIDEY SENSES ARE ACCURATE? YEAH, . UH, IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO BE HEARD ON THIS ITEM? OKAY, LET'S HAVE A MOTION. COMMISSIONER CARPENTER? YES, IN THE MATTER OF Z 2 45 DASH TWO 12, I MOVE THAT WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND FOLLOW STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL, BUT FOR A TWO YEAR PERIOD WITH NO ELIGIBILITY FOR AUTO RENEWAL SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER CARPENTER FOR YOUR MOTION. AND COMMISSIONER HAMPTON FOR YOUR SECOND, UH, COMMENTS. DISCUSSION? YES. UH, YEAH, COMMENTS. UM, WHILE WE DID MAKE SIGNIFICANT CHANGES TO THIS PARTICULAR SITE, UM, TWO YEARS AGO AND THINGS HAVE IMPROVED, THIS IS A SITE, THIS IS AN OPERATION THAT HA IS VERY IMPACTFUL TO THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD. UM, THEIR OPERATION, UH, THE AUTO STORAGE AND AUCTION, WHILE IT'S LIMITED TO THIS ONE SITE DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE CHARTER SCHOOL, THEY ALSO USE TWO SITES IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY. ONE FOR HANDLING OVERFLOW PARKING, UM, FOR THE SITE ON THEIR AUCTION DAYS, AND ANOTHER SITE, UH, TO A BLOCK TO THE NORTH ON ORELL, [02:50:01] UM, WHERE THEY'VE ATTEMPTED TO MOVE, UM, LOADING AND UNLOADING ACTIVITY. UM, THERE'S ALSO NOTATION IN THE, UM, STAFF REPORT THAT THERE IS CONFLICT WITH THE TRAFFIC OPERATION OF THE, UM, CHARTER SCHOOL ACROSS THE STREET. AND IN FACT, IT, IT SAYS THAT THEIR POSITION IS THAT WHEN THE SEP BE CONSIDERED NEXT, THAT, UM, STAFF MAY RECOMMEND A TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN, COORDINATE ACTIVITIES WITH THE SCHOOLS. WELL, THAT'S NOT POS I MEAN, WITH BETWEEN THE TWO USES, THAT'S NOT POSSIBLE WITH A PERMANENT SUP. UH, AND GIVEN THAT THE AUTO AUCTION, UH, USE IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE VISION FOR THIS AREA, EVEN MID RANGE OR LONG TERM, UM, THROUGH FORWARD DALLAS, UH, I THINK A SHORTER PERIOD OF TIME IS, UM, IS THE, THE WAY TO GO HERE. THERE IS CONSIDERABLE RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY HERE, WHICH THE, UH, STAFF REPORT DOESN'T INCLUDE. THERE'S BOTH MULTIFAMILY AND SINGLE FAMILY, UM, TO THE WEST. AND, UH, I'VE ASKED THAT, YOU KNOW, THEY KEEP, I, I'M HEARING ONGOING COMPLAINTS ABOUT THE WAY IT OPERATES. WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO KEEP A REALLY CLOSE EYE ON THE OPERATIONS FOR THE NEXT COUPLE OF YEARS AND SEE, UM, IF THERE ARE FURTHER CONDITIONS THAT WE CAN IMPOSE THAT WOULD IMPROVE THINGS. SO THAT'S THE REASON FOR MY RECOMMENDATION. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER CARPENTER. COMMISSIONER WHEELER, PLEASE. UM, IT, IT ISN'T, THIS IS THIS SITE, THIS WASN'T THE AUCTION THERE FIRST PRIOR TO THE SCHOOL BEING BUILT, BECAUSE IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, THIS PARTICULAR SITE WAS ORIGINALLY A CITY OF DALLAS SURPLUS AUCTION FOR THE MOTOR VEHICLES THAT THE CITY SALES WANTS THEY'RE DONE WITH. AND IT'S BEEN AN AUCTION. UM, MY DAD HAD AN AUCTION LICENSE IN 2000 AND IT WAS 2000 WHEN THE CITY HAD AS AN AUCTION. SO HAS THIS NOT, WAS THIS NOT, HAS BEEN AN AUCTION FOR WELL OVER 20 YEARS OF SOME SORT. STAFF'S NOT AWARE OF WHO THE OPERATOR WAS IN THE PAST, BELIEVE IT OR NOT, THIS IS ONE OF THE FIRST ZONING CASES I WORKED ON WHEN I MOVED TO DALLAS IN 1995. UH, IT, OR IT WAS ORIGINALLY DONE FOR DALLAS CAN ACADEMIES, THAT'S WHERE THEY HAD THEIR, UH, THEIR OPERATION. IN FACT, JETHRO PUGH CAME DOWN TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS, UH, IF YOU REMEMBER JETHRO PEW FROM THE COWBOYS. ANYWAY, YEAH, SO, SO AND SO THE SCHOOL WASN'T, I DON'T THINK ANYBODY KNOWS WHO THAT IS, BUT WE'LL TRUST YOU. YEAH. IDEAL. SO THAT WAS MY FIRST BRUSH WITH GREATNESS. YEAH. SO THIS HAS BEEN AN AUTO AUCTION SINCE ABOUT 1995 THAT I KNOW OF. UH, SO IT, IT, IT ACTUALLY WAS PRIOR TO 1995. UM, THE CITY ACTUALLY, THIS WAS ORIGINALLY THE CITY'S AUCTION SITE FOR THE, THEIR, THEIR THEIR, UM, YES MA'AM. YEAH. AND SO, YEAH, I, AND SO I, I, I, I'M, I'M, I'M WILLING TO SUPPORT THE APPROVAL, BUT THE PRO, THE REASON IT BEING THE CONFLICT WITH THE SCHOOL, THE AUCTION WAS THERE FIRST. UM, YES MA'AM. AND IT HAS BEEN, AND IT HAS BEEN AN AUCTION SITE FOR CLOSE TO 30 YEARS. 2020 TO 30 YEARS. AND SO A SCHOOL BUILT, BUILT THERE, JUST LIKE EVERY BEING BUILT THERE. THE CONFLICT IS ON THE SCHOOL IS NOT ON, IT'S NOT ON THE, THE AUCTION. THE INDUSTRY WAS THERE FIRST. WE KEEP ON PUTTING, THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN WE PUT INDUSTRY IN PLACES THAT IN 20 YEARS PEOPLE BUILD SOMETHING. THAT'S THAT WE ARE GONNA SAY A CONFLICT. AND THEN THE INDUSTRY IS PUT OUT OF BUSINESS. AND THIS IS THE CONFLICT IS THE SCHOOL, NOT THE INDUSTRY. SO I, I, UM, I SUPPORT THE MOTIONAL APPROVAL, BUT THE REASONING FOR ONLY GIVING THEM TWO YEARS, I DO NOT SUPPORT ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION. COMMISSIONERS. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER CARPENTER. SECOND, MY COMMISSIONER HAMPTON TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. FALSE STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS FOR A TWO YEAR WITH NO AUTO. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. SO GO TO NUMBER SEVEN. UH, COMMISSIONER REALER DOES NOT NEED IT BRIEFED. DOES ANYONE IN THE BODY NEED IT BRIEFED? OKAY, WE'LL GET THAT READY IN, PLEASE. ALL RIGHT. ITEM [7. An application for the termination of deed restrictions DR Z834-293, with consideration of an NS(A) Neighborhood Service District on property zoned CR Community Retail District with deed restrictions DR Z834-293, on the northwest corner of N. Masters Dr and Bruton Rd. Staff Recommendation: Approval of 1) NS(A) Neighborhood Service District and approval of 2) termination of deed restrictions. Applicant: Anand Gupta Representative: Nazir Moosa Planner: Michael Pepe U/A From: August 7, 2025. Council District: 7 Z245-216(LC) / Z-25-000099] SEVEN IS Z 2 4 5 216 A KAZ TWO FIVE, UH, 4 0 99. IT'S AN APPLICATION FOR THE TERMINATION OF D RESTRICTIONS, DRZ 8 34 2 9 3 WITH CONSIDERATION OF AN NSA NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICE DISTRICT ON THE PROPERTY ZONE, CR COMMUNITY RETAIL DISTRICT WITH THESE DIRECTIONS. DRZ 8 3 2 9 3 ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF NORTH MASTERS DRIVE AND BRUTON ROAD. STAFF. RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL, ONE OF AN NSA NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICE DISTRICT, AND TWO, APPROVAL OF, UH, DETERMINATION OF DE RESTRICTIONS. [02:55:01] THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IS THE APPLICANT HERE? WOULD ANYONE WANNA BE HEARD ON THIS ITEM? YES, SIR. PLEASE THAT. GOOD AFTERNOON. AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS CARLOS. I RESIDE AT 2 1 2 5 NORTH MASTERS DRIVE. UM, LAST VISIT WE WERE HERE. WE TALKED ABOUT THE SAFETY OF THE FAMILIES ON THIS SIDE OF THIS PROPERTY. THIS IS A RESIDENTIAL SIDE WITH A COMMERCIAL SIDE RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET. UH, AGAIN, THERE'S NUMEROUS SHOOTINGS, NUMEROUS ACCIDENTS, NUMEROUS HOMELESSNESS, NUMEROUS JUST NOT SAFE SIDE FOR THE RESIDENTIAL SIDE. UM, JUST IN THE PAST THREE WEEKS ALONE, SINCE WE'VE REVISITED WITH YOU FOLKS, THERE'S BEEN 12 ACCIDENTS, NO EMERGENCY RESPONSE WITHIN 30 MINUTES. IT'S JUST A DANGER TO THE RESIDENTS OF THIS SIDE. AND WE JUST ASKED FOR YOU GUYS TO DENY THIS AND KEEP IT RESIDENTIAL. SIR, WHAT WAS YOUR LAST NAME? DIAZ. DIAZ? YES, SIR. DIAZ. OKAY. THANK YOU FOR JOINING US. UH, I CAN DO IT. WHAT, WHEN I START THIS. OH, PERFECT. THAT'S BETTER FOR ME. THANK YOU. HI, MY NAME IS KIMBERLY CRUZ. I ALSO LIVE AT THE RESIDENCE 2025 NORTH MASTERS DRIVE. UM, I'M HERE WITH MY PARENTS, WHICH ARE THE ACTUAL OWNERS OF THE HOME. I LIVE WITH THEM. I TAKE CARE OF MY MOM. SHE HAS, UH, LONG-TERM HEALTH ISSUES. UM, THE LAST TIME WE WERE HERE, WE VOICED ALL OF OUR CONCERNS ABOUT JUST THE SAFETY OF THE COMMUNITY. THIS IS, UM, A LOT OF FAMILIES LIVE THERE. A LOT OF PEOPLE LIKE TO SPEND TIME OUTSIDE. AND THEN, UM, THE PROPERTY THAT THEY'RE TRYING TO BUILD ON IS RIGHT NEXT DOOR TO OUR PROPERTY, BUT IT ALSO BORDERS TWO OTHER HOMES IN THE BACKSIDE. AND, UM, IT'S JUST NOT IDEAL FOR THEM TO WANNA BUILD A GAS STATION THERE FIRST FOR SAFETY OF, LIKE, HEALTH WISE. UM, AS WE STATED, THE LAST TIME WE WERE HERE, THE PERSON THAT APPLIED FOR THE, UM, I GUESS PERMIT SAID THAT THEY WOULD WANTED TO TALK TO US, AND THAT'S WHY IT WAS HELD OVER JUST BECAUSE THEY SAID THAT WANNA GIVE THEM TIME TO SPEAK TO THE COMMUNITY. THEY WERE FIRST VERY RESPONSIVE AND WANTED TO SPEAK TO US, AND THEY JUST KIND OF GHOSTED US . SO WE HAVEN'T HEARD FROM THEM SINCE THEN. UM, WE JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE, THAT IT'S CLEAR THAT WE ARE OPPOSING THIS STILL, IF IT'S GONNA BE A GAS STATION OR HONESTLY ANYTHING. THE LAST TIME WE SPOKE TO HIM, HE SAID THAT IT COULD BE HE THREW DIFFERENT BUSINESSES AT US. HE SAID, OH, WHAT ABOUT A LAUNDRY MAT? WHAT ABOUT JUST A STORE? WHAT ABOUT IF WE'RE NOT OPEN 24 HOURS? WE HAVE ALL THAT. THAT CORNER HAS A GAS STATION, HAS A LA MAT, HAS TWO, A FAMILY DOLLAR AND A DOLLAR GENERAL. AND IT ALSO A SMALL COMMUNION STORE THAT SELLS ALCOHOL. AND THAT'S THE CORNER THAT HAS THE MOST DANGER. THAT'S WHERE, UM, A SECURITY GUARD WAS KILLED NOT THAT LONG AGO. AND THERE HASN'T BEEN SECURITY THERE SINCE. SO WE ARE JUST HERE TO SAY, YOU KNOW, FOR THE SAFETY OF THE FAMILIES THAT LIVE THERE, MY FAM MY PARENTS HAVE LIVED THERE FOR OVER 30 YEARS. IT'S JUST BETTER IF THAT LOT IS LEFT ALONE OR IF IT'S ZONED, JUST KEPT RESIDENTIAL FOR A FAMILY TO HAVE THE ABILITY TO BUILD THERE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR JOINING US, SIR. ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? OKAY. UH, LET'S HAVE A MOTION BEFORE OUR DISCUSSION AND QUESTIONS. COMMISSIONER WHEELER, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? CAN, CAN I ASK A QUESTION FOR MOTIONS BECAUSE I'M CONFUSED ON THE MOTION, UH, ON WHICH PART I CAN, HOLD ON, CAN I, UNFORTUNATELY, COMMISSIONER WHEELER THAT WE, WE CAN'T DO THAT ANYMORE, BUT, UM, YEAH, WE NEED A MOTION FIRST AND THEN WE GO TO, TO QUESTIONS. UM, UM, COMMISSIONER SHADI, IT'S TWO PARTS TO IT AND I'M CONFUSED. UM, WHAT I CAN, IT'S TWO PARTS TO IT. SO IF I VOTE ON THE MOTION AND CAN I VOTE ON ONE PART AND DENY ONE PART OF APPROVAL OR NO? OH, DE IS IT THE DEED RESTRICTIONS VERSUS THE VOTE? THE ZONING. BECAUSE I, BECAUSE BEFORE I, BECAUSE I, I, I KIND OF DON'T, I'M I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT, UM, THE DIFFERENCE IN THE CR AND THE NS [03:00:01] BECAUSE THEY BOTH COMMERCIAL, BUT THE DE RESTRICTIONS YEAH. SHOULD HAVE BRIEFED IT. RIGHT? I SHOULD HAVE, UM, OKAY, MR. CHAIR, I'M READY. MAY I MOVE TO SUSPEND THE RULES? YES. THANK YOU. LET'S SUSPEND THE, UH, UH, SECOND, LET WHEN WE HAVE A MOTION, A SECOND TO SUSPEND THE RULES. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. AYE. ME OPPOSED. AYES HAVE IT. OKAY. COMMISSIONER WHEELER, PLEASE ASK AWAY, UM, WHAT, SO WHAT, THIS IS THE STAFF, WHAT IS THE, WHAT IS THE DRAFT, UH, UM, DIFFERENCE IN CR AND C AND IN NS ZONING? UNDERSTOOD. YEAH. YEAH, GOOD QUESTION. YOU'RE ASKING ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CR AND NS. THEY HAVE CR RIGHT NOW. UM, CR ALLOWS A NUMBER OF USES, UM, IN IT INCLUDING, UH, INCLUDING MOTOR VEHICLE FUELING STATION, THE PROPOSED USE BY, RIGHT. UM, IT ALLOWS A AUTO SERVICE CENTER, IT ALLOWS DRIVE THROUGH RESTAURANT. I'M MAINLY SAYING THESE USES NOT TO SINGLE THEM OUT, TO, TO DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN THE PROPOSED, UH, BETWEEN THE EXISTING CR AND THE RECOMMENDED N SA. THOSE ARE KIND OF THE HIGH LEVEL ONES THAT I, THAT I POINT OUT WHEN I TRY AND SAY, UH, YOU KNOW, THESE ARE MAYBE ONES YOU SHOULD LOOK OUT FOR AS USES WHEN YOU'RE DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE FAMILY. AND, UH, MAYBE, MAYBE BEST TO, TO LOOK AT CLOSELY. SO, UM, THOSE ARE THE DIFFERENCES IN NS TO C ARE IN TERMS OF USES, NSA HAS A DIFFERENT HEIGHT AND SOME OF THE OTHER DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. UM, AND NSAI BELIEVE IS LIMITED TO 30 FEET ROUGHLY. UM, WHEN BUILT OUT AS AN NSA, UH, CR ALLOWS 54 FOOT AND HEIGHT, SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT LOT COVERAGES, UM, AND SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT FLOOR AREA RATIOS, BUT THEY SCALE UP AS YOU GO FROM NSA TO CR. THOSE ARE THE PRIMARY THINGS I WOULD SAY ARE DIFFERENT. AND THEN THE DEED RESTRICTION REALLY QUICK, THE DE RESTRICTIONS. YOU SAY THE NSA IS THE, IS THE LEASE RESTRICTIVE THE DEED RESTRICTIONS RIGHT NOW? NO, NO, NO, NO, NO. IS THE NSA THE LEAST RE WHICH ONE IS THE MOST RESTRICTED? THE CR OR NS CR IS THE, IS THE MORE PERMISSIVE DISTRICT, WHICH IS THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT YOU ASKED. UH, NSA IS MORE RESTRICTIVE, HOWEVER, THERE ARE DE RESTRICTIONS ON TOP OF IT RIGHT NOW THAT LIMIT CERTAIN USES THAT THEIR PRIMARY REQUEST IS TO TERMINATE THEM. OKAY, WE'RE READY. OKAY. AND, AND JUST BY THE WAY, COMMISSIONER WHEELER, YOU, YOU DON'T HAVE TO MAKE A MOTION TO DISPOSE OF THE CASE TODAY. YOU CAN ABSOLUTELY MAKE A MOTION TO HOLD IT IF YOU LIKE. UH, BUT WE, YOU'VE ALREADY HELD IT. WE HELD IT FOR THIS REASON. OKAY. WE'RE, WE ALREADY HELD IT. WE'RE READY FOR YOUR MOTION THEN. UM, IN THE, IN THE MATTER OF Z 2 45 DASH TWO 16, I MOVE TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING AND FOLLOW STAFF RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL ON ITEM ONE AND NOT FOLLOW STAFF APPROVAL. ON, ON ITEM TWO, WE, WE HAVE A MOTION, UH, MADE BY COMMISSIONER WHEELER TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FILE TO OUR RECOMMENDATION ON ITEM NUMBER ONE TO, UH, TO GO TO AN NSA NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICE DISTRICT, BUT NOT APPROVE THE TERMINATION OF THE DEED RESTRICTIONS. UH, CAN I GET A CLARIFICATION? PLEASE GO AHEAD. YOU ASKED THAT I THINK COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, I HAVE THE SAME QUESTION FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY. THE DEED RESTRICTIONS ARE TIED TO THE CR DISTRICT AND APPEAR TO BE MIRRORING OR CLOSELY MIRRORING THE NSA. SO BY CHANGING TO AN NS ZONING, THE D RESTRICTIONS COULD NO LONGER APPLY. IS THAT CORRECT? 'CAUSE THEY'RE TIED TO THE CR ZONING. I MEAN, I IDEALLY, SINCE THE DEED RESTRICTIONS ARE, ARE TIED TO THE CR ZONING, WE WOULD WANT THE DEED RESTRICTIONS TO BE TERMINATED IF THE CR ZONING IS NO LONGER ON THE PROPERTY. BUT IF THE DEED RESTRICTIONS END UP NOT BEING TERMINATED, THEY WILL JUST REMAIN. AND COMMISSIONER WHEELER, I COULD YOU, DID YOU HEAR THAT? I WASN'T SURE IF THAT WAS CLEAR ON THE, I, I MOST DEFINITELY, I MOST DEFINITELY HEARD IT. THAT'S WHY I ASKED FOR WAS A MORE, WAS A MORE RESTRICTIVE AND THAT, BUT, UH, THAT DID HELP OUT. BUT SO THAT EVEN MADE IT, UM, I APPROVE. OKAY. , MR. I I CAN SECOND THE MOTION IF THE CITY ATTORNEY FINDS IT IN ORDER. CAN YOU REPEAT YOUR, YOUR QUESTION, COMMISSIONER? HE AND I THINK THE, IN THE SHUFFLE, WE DIDN'T QUITE GET THAT LAST PIECE. I THINK'S IMPORTANT WHAT YOU SAID. I SAID I WOULD SECOND THE MOTION IF THE CITY ATTORNEY FINDS IT IN ORDER THE AS READ [03:05:01] BY COMMISSIONER WHEELER, WHICH WOULD BE TO APPROVE THE NSA AND TO DENY THE DEED RESTRICTIONS, DENY THE REMOVAL OF THE DEED RESTRICTIONS. AND YOUR QUESTION WAS, CAN YOU SECOND THE MOTION? I'M, I'M, I STILL DON'T KNOW WHAT, WHAT YOUR QUESTION IS. IF THE MOTION WAS IN ORDER. OH, YES. YEAH, IT'S IN ORDER. AND AS THE MOTION WAS MADE, IT'S, IT'S BEEN MADE AS ONE MOTION. UM, BUT THE TWO ITEMS COULD STAND ALONE IF THE COMMISSION CHOSE NOT TO, UH, VOTE ON THE MOTION AS A WHOLE, A MOTION TO DIVIDE THE QUESTION WOULD ALSO BE IN ORDER. MR. RUBIN, I JUST HAVE ONE FOLLOW UP QUESTION FOR LIKE, GUESS CITY STAFF. SO MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE APPLICANT WANTS TO PUT A SERVICE STATION ON THE PROPERTY, RIGHT? THAT'S, THAT'S HIS OR HER WHOLE PURPOSE OF COMING HERE. AND THE DEED RESTRICTIONS YES. PROHIBIT SERVICE STATIONS, RIGHT? THAT'S CORRECT. SO GOING TO NS BUT KEEPING THE DEED RESTRICTIONS WOULD BE A SORT OF DEFACTO, DEFACTO DENIAL. EVEN THOUGH IT APPROVES SOMETHING, IT WOULD PROHIBIT THE USE IN TWO WAYS, BOTH BASED ZONING AND, AND THE DE RESTRICTION. CAN YOU SAY THAT FOR THE RECORD PLEASE? UH, CAN, UM, MAY I ASK STAFF? SORRY, COMMISSIONER WHEELER. I HAD A CLARIFICATION FOR STAFF. I THINK AS I READ THE CHART IN OUR CASE REPORT ON PAGE. UM, MAKE SURE I'M ON THE RIGHT PAGE HERE. NOPE, I'M ON SERVICE CENTER. UH, WELL, IT, MR. PEPPY, IS IT CORRECT THAT THE DEED RESTRICTIONS ARE SILENT ON AN AUTO FUELING STATION, BUT THAT NSA ALLOWS IT BY AN SUP? YES. SO NSA, YOU CAN GET AN SUP FOR A MOTOR VEHICLE FUELINGS TODAY, PAGE SEVEN 11 OF THE CASE REPORT. I FOUND IT. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER HAMPTON. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THE, THE MOTION ITSELF BEFORE WE TAKE A VOTE? SERVICE STATION IS THE OLD TERM, AS I UNDERSTAND. CAN WE GET ANOTHER CLARIFICATION PLEASE? BECAUSE IN THE DEED RESTRICTIONS, IT VERY CLEARLY SAYS THAT SERVICE STATIONS ARE NOT ALLOWED. YES. OKAY. THAT'S, SO I'M SAYING IN, IN NSA YOU MUST GET AN SUP, BUT IF THE DEED RESTRICTIONS REMAIN, THAT'S IT. THAT THEY CAN'T DO IT BECAUSE IT'S PROHIBITED. IN THE DE RESTRICTIONS SERVICE STATION IS THE, THE GR TERM, THE, THE CHAPTER 51 TERM FOR, FOR MOTOR VEHICLE FUEL. MR. CHAIR, PLEASE, CAN I MAKE A MOTION TO HOLD THIS CASE UNTIL OUR SEPTEMBER 18TH MEETING AND I HAVE SOME BRIEF COMMENTS IF I GET A SECOND? YOU DO HAVE A SECOND. UH, THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HAMPTON FOR YOUR SECOND. WE'LL NOW DISCUSS, WELL, WE'LL, WE'LL COMMENTS AFTER THE, THE VOTE? ? WELL, NO, NO, NO. TO HOLD A MOTION TO HOLD IS, IS DEBATABLE. OKAY. SO I THINK I BUT IS IF YOU DEBATABLE AFTER THE VOTE, ISN'T IT? NO. NO. IS THIS AN AMENDMENT TO, UH, COMMISSIONER? OH NO. I MADE AN ALTERNATE MOTION TO VOTE. IT TAKES APOLOGIES. PRECEDENCE, YES. OKAY, SO NOW WE'RE GONNA DEBATE THE, THE MOTION TO HOLD THE, THE MATTER. DOES, UH, COMMISSIONER WHEELER HAVE TO APPROVE THAT? NO, I THOUGHT SO. IT TAKES PRECEDENCE OVER A MOTION ON TO, TO MOVE THE CASE FORWARD. A MOTION TO THE CASE UNDER ADVISEMENT TAKES PRECEDENCE OVER EITHER A MOTION TO APPROVE OR A MOTION TO DENY. OKAY. SO NOW WE'LL, WE'LL, WE'LL DISCUSS THE, UH, HOLDING THE CASE. WE'LL BEGIN WITH VICE TRU AND THEN COMMISSIONER WHEELER. SOUNDS LIKE THERE'S SOME PRETTY SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS THAT REMAIN OPEN AND IT CONCERNS ME THAT THE APPLICANT IS NOT HERE WITH US TODAY TO DISCUSS THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE, THE MOTION THAT HAS BEEN MADE. AND GIVEN THAT HIS INTENT IS TO MOVE FORWARD WITH A MOTOR VEHICLE FUELING STATION, I THINK IT'S, IT'S BEST THAT WE HAVE THE APPLICANT HERE TO, TO DISCUSS THE MATTER BEFORE WE MOVE THIS ONE FORWARD. GIVEN THE NUMBER OF QUESTIONS THAT HAVE COME UP REGARDING THE PERMITTED USES AND WHAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE ALLOWED. UH, COMMISSIONER WHEELER FALLBACK, COMMISSIONER HAMPTON. UM, I'M GOING TO, UM, I'M GOING TO VOTE AGAINST THAT RECOMMENDATION BECAUSE WE HELD THIS CASE FOR A MONTH. WE HELD THIS CASE SINCE AUGUST 7TH, 2025. AND THE, THE APPLICANT, UM, HAS BEEN IN CONTACT AND, UH, CONVERSATIONS, UM, AND, AND THE REASON IT WAS BEING HELD IS [03:10:01] SO THAT THIS COMMUNICATION CAN BE DONE WITH THE, WITH THE COMMUNITY AND WITH MYSELF. AND, UM, I THINK THAT ONCE HE KIND OF FIGURED OUT THAT MAYBE THIS WASN'T GONNA GO FORWARD, THAT'S WHY HE'S NOT HERE. SO THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME THIS APPEARED. UM, THE ONLY REASON WHY I ASKED MR. RESTRICTED EITHER WAY. I MEAN, IF NEED BE, WE CAN, UH, I CAN CHANGE IT AND JUST DENY IT ALL THE WAY. UM, BUT THE COMMUNITY IS WANTING, UM, UH, THE NSA ACTUALLY HELPS WHAT THE COMMUNITY REFLECTS WHAT THE COMMUNITY WANTS. AND THE DEED RESTRICTIONS THEN, AS THEY ARE ALSO, UM, GIVES THE COMMUNITY WHAT THEY WANT. BUT THE APPLICANT WAS WELL AWARE TO BE HERE TODAY AND HAVE HAD, HAS BEEN IN CONVERSATIONS WITH MYSELF. UM, AND, UM, HE, UH, HE STARTED OUT WITH CONVERSATIONS WITH THE COMMUNITY AND THEN HE STOPPED. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER HEMP. THE FOLLOW BY COMMISSIONER KINGSTON. WELL, I SECONDED BOTH, I THINK. I THOUGHT I UNDERSTOOD WHAT WE, WHAT THE ORIGINAL MOTION WAS. HOWEVER, WITH THE FURTHER DISCUSSION ON WHAT IS INCLUDED IN THE DEED RESTRICTIONS, WHICH VARIES FROM WHAT I SAW IN THE CHART THAT WAS IN OUR, UM, CASE REPORT, I'M NOT SURE THAT WE HAVE A FULL PICTURE OF WHAT THE DEED RESTRICTIONS ARE DOING AND TO BE SURE THAT BOTH THE APPLICANT AND THE COMMUNITY UNDERSTANDS WHAT THE OUTCOME OF THIS WOULD BE. UM, AND FOR THAT REASON, IT SEEMS LIKE TAKING A BIT OF EXTRA TIME MIGHT BENEFIT THE BODY, UM, BEFORE WE TAKE THE VOTE. THAT'S WHY I WOULD RESPECTFULLY ASK IF WE COULD CONSIDER A POSTPONEMENT. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER KINGSTON. UM, I'M NOT INCLINED TO HOLD A CASE BECAUSE THE APPLICANT'S A NO-SHOW. THIS IS THE SECOND CASE THAT WE'VE HAD TODAY WHERE WE HAD EXTENSIVE QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSIONS AND THE APPLICANT WASN'T HERE. IF THE APPLICANT DOESN'T SHOW UP FOR THEIR OWN CASE, THEY DO SO AT THEIR OWN PERIL. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF THE DISTRICT HAS A CLEAR IDEA OF WHAT HER COMMUNITY WANTS AND WHAT SHE'S RECOMMENDING. AND I DON'T SEE WHY WE WOULD ADD THIS TO OUR LIST OF HOLDS AND DELAYS THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS BODY AND OTHER BODIES LIKE OURS GET ACCUSED OF ALL THE TIME. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? COMMISSIONERS ON HOLDING THE CASE UNDER ADVISEMENT TO SEPTEMBER 18TH, COMMISSIONER WHEELER'S SECOND ROUND, PLEASE. AND I WOULD TRULY CONSIDER IT IF IT WAS THE FIRST TIME. THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME I, I MADE SURE I GAVE MORE THAN ENOUGH EFFORT TIME TO, TO HAVE THE CONVERSATION, UM, WHO WE WITH THE COMMUNITY AND MYSELF. SO WE GAVE A MONTH. UM, UM, SO THIS IS NOT JUST BEEN ON DRY EARS AND THE AREA, UH, THE AREA IS PLATE WITH, WITH GAS STATIONS AND THERE IS HIGH, HIGH CRIME AT THIS PARTICULAR INTERSECTION AND THE COMMUNITY VOICE HAS BEEN HEARD. UM, UN UN UNFORTUNATELY, THIS PARTICULAR PART OF THE DISTRICT IS NOT, UM, IS, IS CLOSER TO DISTRICT FIVE, UM, AND KIND OF PERS THINGS THAT PEOPLE IN DISTRICT FIVE HAVE SAID. UM, SO IT'S KIND OF THE REASONING. ALSO. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION, COMMISSIONERS, WE HAVE A, A MOTION TO, UH, MADE BY THE VICE, MADE BY VICE CHAIR RUBIN AND SECOND COMMISSIONER HAMPTON TO KEEP THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN, HOLD THE MATTER TO ADVISE 'EM TO SEPTEMBER 18TH. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? WE HAVE TWO AND THREE IN OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. THIS IS WHEELER FORESIGHT AND KINGSTON IN OPPOSITION. AND HERBERT FOR IN OPPO. MOTION PASSES. GO TO NUMBER, [8. An application for D(A) Duplex District with consideration for MF-2(A) Multifamily District on property zoned IR Industrial Research District, on the north line of Ithaca Street between Ivanhoe Lane and Brundrette Street. Staff Recommendation: Approval of an MF-2(A) Multifamily District. Applicant: Jennifer Hiromoto, Buzz Urban Planning Planner: Michael V. Pepe Council District: 6 Z245-204(LC) / Z-25-000040] UH, EIGHT. DO YOU WANT IT BRIEF? DO WE WANT THAT BRIEFED? NO. UH, DO WE HAVE A REQUEST FOR BRIEF NUMBER EIGHT? OKAY, WE'LL READ THAT IN THE RECORD PLEASE. OKAY. ITEM EIGHT IS Z 2 4 5 2 0 4. UH, IT'S Z 2 5 4 AND IT'S AN APPLICATION FOR AD A DUPLEX DISTRICT WITH CONSIDERATION FOR MF TWO, A MULTIFAMILY DISTRICT ON PROPERTY ZONE IR INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH DISTRICT ON THE NORTH LINE OF ITHACA STREET BETWEEN IVANHOE LANE AND BRU STREET STAFF. RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL OF AN MF TWO, A MULTIFAMILY DISTRICT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. SEE THAT THE APPLICANT IS HERE. GOOD AFTERNOON. GOOD AFTERNOON. JENNIFER HIROTO, 1 0 2 3 3 EAST NORTHWEST HIGHWAY IN DALLAS. UM, THIS APPLICATION CONSISTS OF SIX LOTS THAT ARE ZONE INDUSTRIAL. WE'RE REQUESTING THE DUPLEX ZONING TO CONSTRUCT, UH, THE SIX DUPLEXES. UM, THIS AREA [03:15:01] IS WEST OF NORTHAMPTON ROAD, SOUTH OF WEST COMMERCE AND NORTH OF I 30. UM, INTERESTINGLY THIS AREA WAS PLATTED AND THIS CONFIGURATION FOR RESIDENTIAL IN 1911, UM, WE'RE VOLUNTEERING DEED RESTRICTIONS, UM, TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE DESIGN CONCERNS THAT WE HEAR OFTEN AT THIS HORSESHOE, UH, REGARDING, UM, REQUIRING FRONT PORCHES, PROHIBITING CIRCULAR DRIVEWAYS, UH, ADDRESSING GARAGE PLACEMENTS AND MAKING SURE THAT IT IS DEMOTED IN RELATION TO THE FRONT FACADE. UM, REQUIRING THREE OF THE HOMES TO HAVE PITCHED ROOFS OUT OF THE SIX, UM, PROHIBIT SHORT-TERM RENTALS. UH, RESTRICT THE VISIBILITY OF ROOF DECKS, LIMIT HEIGHT TO TWO AND A HALF STORIES, AND REQUIRE TRANSPARENCY ON THE FRONT FACADE. UM, I, I PROVIDED, UM, MR. PEPE SOME CLEANUP ON THE DEED RESTRICTIONS. IT WAS, I HOPE YOU RECEIVED THAT. UM, AND HOPEFULLY THAT MAKES IT A LITTLE BIT MORE CLEAR ON THE DIVISION OF THE PITCH ROOF VERSUS NOT REQUIRING PITCH ROOF. UM, WITH THAT I'LL ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? OKAY, UH, SEEING THOSE SPEAKERS. COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? YES, IN THE MATTER OF Z 2 45 DASH 24, I MOVE THAT WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND FOLLOW STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL, BUT FOR A D DA DUPLEX DISTRICT WITH PUBLIC DEED RESTRICTIONS VOLUNTEERED BY THE APPLICANT. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER CARPENTER FOR YOUR MOTION COMMISSIONER HOUSE. TURN FOR YOUR SECOND COMMENTS DISCUSSION. COMMISSIONER VICE RUBIN, PLEASE. I CANNOT WAIT FOR US TO WORK ON THE DUPLEX DISTRICT AND OTHER DISTRICTS IN CODE REFORM SO WE DON'T HAVE TO DO THINGS LIKE THIS AND LIKE DEED RESTRICTIONS IN THESE CASES. THANK YOU FOR THAT. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? COMMISSIONERS, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, PLEASE. I WILL, UM, REITERATE WHAT MS. HARIMOTO SAID THAT THIS, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD WAS ORIGINALLY LAID OUT AS A SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD. THERE ARE STILL SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBOR, UH, HOMES IN THE AREA. SO WHILE UH, EXTRA DENSITY IS IS MORE APPROPRIATE HERE, WE TRIED OUR BEST TO, UM, WRITE SOME DUE RESTRICTIONS THAT, UH, MADE IT A LITTLE MORE COMPATIBLE THAN WHAT COULD BE DONE BY RIGHT. ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? DISCUSSION, COMMISSIONER, CNN? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. AND THE OPPOSED AYES. ABBOT, I NOW MOVE TO OUR, UH, SUBDIVISION DOCKET CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS CONSISTING OF CASES [Consent Items] NINE THROUGH 15. UH, THOSE WILL BE DISPOSED OF IN ONE MOTION UNLESS THERE IS SOMEONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS OR OPINE ON ANY OF THOSE CASES AND WE'LL PULL IT OFF THE AGENDA. IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON ANY OF THE CASES? NINE THROUGH 15. OKAY, WE'LL GET THOSE READ INTO THE RECORD. GOOD AFTERNOON. GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR. GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONERS. UH, THE CONSENT IS IN THAT CONSIST OF SEVEN ITEMS. ITEM NINE, ITEM 10, ITEM 11, ITEM 12, ITEM 13, ITEM 14, AND ITEM 15. ALL CASES HAVE BEEN POSTED FOR A HEARING AT THIS TIME AND STAFF RECOMMENDED TO HIS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE DOCKET AND ARREST AMENDED AT THE HEARING. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UH, COMMISSIONER WHEELER, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION FOR ITEMS NINE THROUGH 15? I, I DO. UM, HOLD ON IN A MATTER, UH, DO I NEED TO CALL OUT EACH NUMBER OR NO, MA'AM. ITEM NINE? YEP. JUST NINE THROUGH 15. IN, UH, IN, IN A MATTER OF ITEMS NINE THROUGH 13, I MOVED TO, YOU SAID 13 OR 15? I BAD TODAY. OKAY, HOLD ON. NINE THROUGH 15. I MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND FOLLOW STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS OR APPROVAL SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITION OF THIS IN DOCUMENT. THANK YOU CAM, SHARON WHEELER FOR YOUR MOTION AND ADVICE CHAIR, RUBIN, FOR YOUR SECOND. ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS OR DISCUSSIONS? NONE OF THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. YOU OPPOSED AYES HAVE IT. AYE. THANK YOU. GO TO 16. [16. An application to replat a 0.289-acre (12,581-square foot) tract of land containing all of Lots 35 and 36 in City Block 23/7147 to create one lot on property located on Lively Lane, south of Park Lane. Applicant/Owner: Daniel Alejandro Vota Zambrano & Julia Maria Cortes Garza Surveyor: Texas Heritage Surveying, LLC Application Filed: August 6, 2025 Zoning: R-7.5(A) Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to compliance with the conditions listed in the docket. Planner: Sharmila Shrestha Council District: 6 PLAT-25-000067 (S245-218)] ITEM NUMBER 16. IT IS AN APPLICATION TO PLET, A 0.2 89 ACRE THAT IS 12,581 SQUARE FOOT TRACK OF LAND CONTAINING ALL OF LOTS 35 AND 36 IN CITY BLOCK 23 71 47 TO CREATE ONE LOT ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON LIBRARY LANE SOUTH OF PARK LANE. 31. NOTICES WERE SENT TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE PROPERTY ON AUGUST 20TH, 2025. WE HAVE RECEIVED ONE REPLY IN FAVOR AND GENERAL REPLY AND OPPOSITION TO THIS REQUEST. FOUR EMAILS WERE RECEIVED, UH, IN SUPPORT AND WE FORWARDED TO COMMISSIONERS. UH, STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE DOCKET AND OR AS AMENDED AT THE HEARING. UH, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UH, IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE THIS SPEAK ON [03:20:01] THIS ITEM? MR. MR. CHAIR? I THINK I NEED, NEED TO MAKE A DISCLOSURE PLEASE. UM, THAT I DID RECEIVE EMAILS ON THIS MATTER. DIDN'T READ THEM BECAUSE IT'S QUASI-JUDICIAL. OF COURSE. I ALSO RECEIVED THE EMAIL, DID NOT READ THEM. AND I'M HERE. SAME FOR ME. ALL THE COMMISSIONERS ARE SHAKING THEIR HEADS. WE HAVE ALL DISCLOSED, UH, RECEIVING THE EMAIL, UH, AND NOT READING IT. UM, IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM NUMBER 16. OKAY. COMMISSIONERS? UH, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, YOU HAVE A MOTION? YES. IN THE MATTER OF, UH, PLAT 2 5 0 0 0 0 6 7 OR S 2 4 5 2 1 8. I MOVE THAT WE CLO THE PUBLIC HEARING AND FOLLOW STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE DOCKET. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER CARPENTER FOR YOUR MOTION. AND COMMISSIONER HAMPTON FOR YOUR SECOND. ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? YES, MR. I JUST WANNA ASK MS. MORRISON, I DON'T KNOW, UM, WHEN SOMEONE EMAILS CITY STAFF ON PLATS, ARE THOSE SUPPOSED TO BE FORWARDED TO US OR SHOULD THOSE NOT BECAUSE IT'S QUASI-JUDICIAL? YEAH, I THINK THOSE SHOULD NOT BE SENT TO THE COMMISSION. OKAY, GREAT. IF WE COULD JUST GET, I GUESS, WHATEVER INTERNAL OPERATING PROCEDURES THAT WE HAVE UPDATED TO REFLECT THAT GUIDANCE FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY, THAT WOULD BE GREAT. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, DISCUSSION? COMMISSIONER? CAN I ASK A QUESTION? SORRY ABOUT THAT COMMISSIONER. WERE PLEASE. SO, SO THE, UH, THE, THE TEAM WHO PROCESSES, UH, THE PLAQUE, THEY'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO SEND 'EM TO US INDIVIDUALLY 'CAUSE THE ONLY TIME I USUALLY GET SOMETHING IS WHEN IT'S COMING FROM STAFF AND I GET LIKE THE DAY I GET IT THE DAY OF OR THE DAY BEFORE? WELL, I DON'T KNOW. I MEAN, I'LL HAVE, I'LL HAVE TO GET WITH, GET IT FROM MUHAMMAD. I'LL HAVE TO GET WITH STAFF ON THAT TO SEE WHAT THEIR PROCEDURE HAS BEEN. BUT THE PUBLIC SHOULD NOT BE CONTACTING THE COMMISSION ON QUASI-JUDICIAL MATTERS SUCH AS THE SUBDIVISION DOCKET. NO, IT'S NOT THE PUBLIC. I'M TALKING ABOUT THE STAFF. THIS WAS NOT PUBLIC STAFF. SO IT'S OKAY FOR THE STAFF TO SEND IT, RIGHT? ARE YOU SAYING STAFF IS CONTACTING YOU ABOUT THE SUBDIVISION DOCKET? NO, NO. IT'S STAFF. IT'S OKAY FOR STAFF TO SEND IT TO US CORRECTLY. IT'S OKAY FOR STAFF TO SEND IT, SEND, SEND US STUFF. YEAH. I DON'T KNOW IF STAFF IS, IS FORWARDING Y'ALL COMMUNICATIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC? NO, BECAUSE THE PUBLIC IS ASKING FOR THOSE COMMUNICATIONS TO BE FORWARDED. I DON'T KNOW. I'D HAVE TO HAVE THOSE CONVERSATIONS WITH STAFF. I THINK THAT WE'RE, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. SO NO, THIS ISN'T THE PUBLIC, THIS IS JUST STAFF DOING IT. SO I GUESS IT'S OKAY. STAFF IS NOT SENDING THE INFORMATION FROM THE PUBLIC. IT'S JUST THE NOTIFICATION THAT I GUESS THAT WE ARE, THAT WE HAVE A PLAN IN OUR DISTRICT. THAT'S FINE. OKAY. UH, COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, MR. CHAIR, PLEASE. IF I MAY, I THINK WHAT COMMISSIONER MAY BE REFERRING TO IS AS A COURTESY, MS. ESTA WILL SOMETIMES SEND US THE PLATS THAT ARE WITHIN OUR DISTRICT FOR INFORMATION OF WHAT'S ON THE DOCKET. AND IT IS SIMPLY A TRANSMITTAL OF THE PLAT THAT IS PUBLIC RECORD WITH NO COMMUNICATION. AND MS. MORRISON, I BELIEVE THAT IS WITHIN OUR RULES. YES, THAT'S PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE BECAUSE THE, THAT'S JUST THE INFORMATION THAT IS ALSO POSTED ONLINE FOR ANYONE TO ACCESS. YEAH. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HAMPTON. THAT WAS 100% RIGHT. THANK ALL OF YOU. UM, ANY OTHER COMMENTS, QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION? AND UH, AND JUST SO WE HAVE A, A CLEAN RECORD, UH, IT WAS AN, AN ANOMALY TODAY THAT WE RECEIVED ANYTHING ABOUT ANY PLAT OTHER THAN THE PLAT ITSELF. UH, IN FACT, I DON'T REMEMBER EVER RECEIVING AN EMAIL LIKE THAT FROM, FROM STAFF. YOU OCCASIONALLY SOMEONE FROM THE PUBLIC WILL EMAIL US AND WE ALWAYS DISCLOSE. SO WE'RE DOING THAT TODAY. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. AYE. THE OPPOSED MOTION CARRIES. SO GO TO [17. An application to replat a 0.2571-acre (11,201-square foot) tract of land containing all of Lot 12 in City Block C/8292 and a tract of land in City Block 8292 to create one 0.1274-acre (5,550-square foot) lot and one 0.1297-acre (5,651-square foot) lot, on property located on McLarty Drive at Wild Honey Drive, southeast corner. Applicant/Owner: Marcos Madrid, Kacey Simmons Surveyor: Trustar Surveying Application Filed: August 7, 2025 Zoning: R-5(A) Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to compliance with the conditions listed in the docket. Planner: Sharmila Shrestha Council District: 8 PLAT-25-000073 (S245-221)] NUMBER 17. ITEM NUMBER 17. IT IS AN APPLICATION TO PLET A 0.2571 ACRE. THAT IS 11,201 SQUARE FOOT TRACK OF LAND CONTAINING ALL OF LOT 12 AND CITY BLOCK C OVER 80 TO 92 AND A TRACK OF LAND IN CITY BLOCK 82 92 TO CREATE ONE 0.1274 ACRE. THAT IS 5,550 SQUARE FOOT LOT AND ONE 0.1297 ACRE. THAT IS 5,651 SQUARE FOOT LOT ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON MCLARTY DRIVE AT WILD HONEY DRIVE SOUTHEAST CORNER 18. NOTICES WE SEND TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE PROPERTY ON AUGUST 20TH, 2025 AND WE HAVE RECEIVED ONE REPLY IN FAVOR AND ZERO REPLYING OPPOSITION TO THIS REQUEST. STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITION LISTED IN THE DOCKET AND OR SMED AT THE HEARING. THANK YOU VERY MUCH MR. ESTA. IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? [03:25:03] OKAY. SCENE NINE. MR. RUBIN, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? YES. IN PLAT CASE NUMBER 25 0 0 0 0 7, I MOVE THAT WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND FOLLOW SAS RECOMMENDATION, APPROVAL SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE DOCKET. THANK YOU VICE RUBIN FOR YOUR MOTION AND COMMISSIONER HAMPTON FOR YOUR SECOND. UH, ANY COMMENTS OR DISCUSSIONS? SEEING NONE OF THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THE AYES HAVE IT. COMMISSIONER, IS THERE ANY OTHER OUTSTANDING ITEMS? I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN. SO MOVED. THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU. UH, COMMISSIONER SIMS FOR YOUR SECOND, UH, COMMISSIONERS. IT IS 2:34 PM ENJOY YOUR AFTERNOON AND THANK YOU FOR ALL YOUR HARD WORK. OUR MEETING IS 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.