[00:00:01]
RIGHT.IT IS 9:05 AM ON THURSDAY, JANUARY 15TH, 2020.
THIS WEBINAR IS BEING TRANSCRIBED AND SUMMARIZED.
[BRIEFINGS]
EVERYONE.IT IS 9:05 AM ON THURSDAY, JANUARY 15TH, 2026.
THIS IS THE BRIEFING OF THE DALLAS CITY PLAN COMMISSION.
MS. LOPEZ, CAN WE START OFF WITH A ROLL CALL? GOOD MORNING COMMISSIONERS.
DISTRICT ONE, COMMISSIONER SIMS. I'M HERE.
HERBERT PRESENT? DISTRICT FOUR.
COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN DISTRICT? YEAH.
DISTRICT 14, COMMISSIONER KINGSTON SHALL BE OUT AND PLACE.
AND WE HAVE COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN WITH US IN DISTRICT EIGHT.
ALRIGHT, JUST AS A REMINDER, EVERYONE, THIS IS THE BRIEFING PORTION OF OUR AGENDA.
UM, IT'S MEANT FOR ASKING QUESTIONS OF STAFF ON CASES.
THE DISCUSSION SHOULD BE RESERVED FOR THE AFTERNOON, AND WITH THAT WE WILL GO TO OUR MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS. UM, WOULD ANYONE LIKE ANY OF THE MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS BRIEF STARTING WITH ITEM ONE? YES.
THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A MINOR AMENDMENT TO AN EXISTING DEVELOPMENT PLAN ON PROPERTY ZONE PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 1102, APPROXIMATELY 9.5 ACRES IN COUNCIL DISTRICT EIGHT, LOCATED WEST LINE OF UNIVERSITY HILL BOULEVARD, NORTHWEST OF INTERSECTION, EAST WHEATLAND ROAD AND UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD.
THIS IS THE AREA AND ZONING MAP.
IT IS SURROUNDED BY, UH, R SEVEN FIVE WITH PD 7 57 TO THE SOUTH OF IT.
SOME BACKGROUND FOR THIS ONE IS THAT PD 1102 WAS APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL ON AUGUST 23RD, 2023.
THE PURPOSE OF THIS REQUEST IS TO UPDATE THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO REFLECT, UH, ONLY MULTI-FAMILY, REDUCE THE NUMBER OF INGRESS AND EGRESS POINTS, MODIFY THE NUMBER OF THE NUMBER HEIGHT AND LAYOUT OF BUILDINGS TO REDUCE THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS AND THE MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA, PLUS THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES PROVIDED.
THIS IS THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
THIS IS THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PLAN, PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS, APPROVAL.
DO Y'ALL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF MR. CARPENTER? YES.
UM, I, I THINK MOST OF US IN READING THIS WOULD CONSIDER THE, UH, NUMBER OF CHANGES HERE TO BE FAIRLY SIGNIFICANT.
UM, SINCE THIS PROJECT WAS, WHEN IT ORIGINALLY CAME TO US, WAS A MARKET RATE MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT AND NOW HAS TURNED INTO A COMPLETELY RESIDENTIAL, UH, LOW INCOME TAX CREDIT PROJECT.
CAN YOU EXPLAIN HOW THE, UM, MAGNITUDE OF THE CHANGES HERE STILL FALLS WITHIN A A MISCELLANEOUS UH, YEAH, A MINOR AMENDMENT PROCESS? YEAH,
[00:05:01]
SO FROM WHAT WAS INITIALLY SHOWN ON THE ORIGINAL PLAN, UH, IF YOU DON'T MIND, I'M GONNA HEAD INTO THAT ONE REAL QUICK.UM, IT GAVE US A BIT OF INFORMATION AS OF INCREASING THE HEIGHT SHOWN ON THE ORIGINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
THE ONLY THINGS THAT WERE SHOWN RIGHT NOW WERE THE MAXIMUMS. SO THAT IS NOT, UH, AFFECTING IT BY ANY WAVE OR FORM.
UH, DECREASING AMOUNT OF OFF STREET PARKING, UH, SPACE IS SHOWN ON THE ORIGINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AS AS TO CREATE TRAFFIC HAZARD OR TRAFFIC CONGESTION OR FAILED TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE PARKING.
THAT ALL, AS I SAID, THEY INITIALLY SHOWED AROUND 680, I CAN'T REMEMBER THE LAST DIGIT AND THEY HAD REDUCED IT.
SO THEY, AS LONG AS THEY'RE STILL PROVIDING THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT OF PARKING AND THIS DOESN'T CAUSE ANY CONGESTION, UM, THAT'S HOW WE AGREED THAT IT WAS FINE.
UM, AND I ALWAYS WAIT FOR THE, UM, ALTER BASIC RELATIONSHIP TO THE LAST ONE.
REDUCE BUILDING SETBACKS AT THE BOUNDARY OF THE SITE.
THEY'RE STILL WITHIN THEIR SETBACK BOUNDARIES AND UM, SO THEY ARE FINE ON THERE.
AND WITH THE LAST ONE BEING ALTER BASIC RELATIONSHIP, THAT GOES MORE SUBJECTIVE, UH, TO UM, EACH PERSON.
BUT AS I WAS SEEING IT, UH, THEY INITIALLY JUST SHOWED MAXIMUMS FOR EVERYTHING.
WE WERE GONNA END UP GETTING A GARAGE, THIS ONE BIG BUILDING AND THIS UM, ONE RETAIL NON-RESIDENTIAL PLACE, UH, TO NOW GIVING US AN APPRO MORE DETAIL ON WHAT'S GONNA BE COMING IN.
AND SO IT'S UM, SENATE BILL EIGHT 40 THAT'S ALLOWING THIS TO BE A COMPLETELY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT WITH NO MIXED USE REQUIREMENTS.
AND WHAT IS IT ABOUT THE WAY THIS PD IS WRITTEN THAT MAKES SB EIGHT 40 APPLICABLE? BECAUSE IT ALLOWS, UH, MULTIFAMILY WITHIN THE PROPERTY.
UH, THE REASON THAT IT'S BEING HONESTLY BROUGHT UP TO YOU RIGHT NOW IS 'CAUSE THEY ENDED UP SUBMITTING THEIR, UM, APPLICATION IN FOR THIS MZ CASE BEFORE SEPTEMBER ONE, BEFORE IT TOOK INTO COMP, UH, BEFORE IT WAS APPLIED.
BUT WHENEVER THEY HIT BACK INTO PERMITTING, THEY'RE JUST GONNA FOLLOW SB EIGHT 40 REGULATIONS.
ALRIGHT, THANK YOU COLLEAGUES.
ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN? UH, SO BASED ON THE, THE CHANGING OF THE DYNAMICS OF WHAT THIS IS PROJECT WAS INITIALLY GOING TO BE, WERE THERE ANY ADDITIONAL LIKE TRAFFIC IMPACTS THAT WILL RESULT FROM THE NEW DEVELOPMENT? THE NEW CONCEPT OF THIS DEVELOPMENT? UM, WE DIDN'T DO A TRAFFIC IMPACT, UH, ANALYSIS, BUT WE DID FIND THAT SINCE THE RETAIL IS GONNA BE REMOVED, THAT IT'S GONNA INCREASE THE FLOW ONTO THE PROPERTY.
SO WE DID TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION.
AND BASED ON THAT, YOU DIDN'T FIND ANY NEGATIVE IMPACTS IN TERMS OF WEAR AND TEAR ON THE STREET IN THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS? NO SIR.
WE DIDN'T DO ANALYSIS ON THIS, BUT THE SAME, UH, IMPACT FOR THE PREVIOUS DEVELOPMENT, UH, WOULD'VE BEEN THE SAME FOR HERE.
BUT AS I SAID, THESE ARE JUST MULTI-FAMILY UNITS.
THERE'S NO RETAIL, SO YOU DON'T HAVE TRAFFIC COMING IN, A LOT OF TRAFFIC COMING IN.
IT'S JUST A RESIDENCE THAT'S GONNA BE, UH, OCCUPYING THE, THE SPACE.
UH, COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, JUST ONE CLARIFICATION.
THERE ARE DESIGN STANDARDS WITHIN THE, UM, PD REQUIREMENTS.
THOSE WILL STILL BE APPLICABLE, THEY'RE JUST SIMPLY NOT PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW.
IS THAT CORRECT?
AND JUST TO CLARIFY, UM, FOR DESIGN STANDARDS, ANYTHING THAT HAS TO DO WITH VERTICAL WALL OR UM, GLAZING OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, WE DON'T LOOK AT IT AS A DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
UM, WE USUALLY LEAVE THAT UP TO PERMIT MEETING JUST FOR FYI THANK YOU.
ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? ALRIGHT.
UH, COMMISSIONER HERBERT, DO WE NEED ITEM TWO BRIEFED? UM, I'M, I HAVEN'T HEARD ANYTHING.
I THINK WE'RE GOING TO HOLD THAT ONE UNTIL THIS AFTERNOON, BUT I'M SORRY.
THIS IS NEW NEIGHBORS ARE INTERESTED IN THAT ONE.
[00:10:01]
MZ 25 14.SO THIS IS ALSO AN APPLICATION FOR A MINOR AMENDMENT TO AN EXISTING DEVELOPMENT PLAN ON PROPERTY ZONE SUBDISTRICT B NORTH ZONE WITH PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 5 2 1, APPROXIMATELY 3.1 ACRES COUNCIL DISTRICT THREE, SO SOUTH CORNER OF MOUNTAIN CREEK PARKWAY AND MARYFIELD ROAD.
UH, THIS IS THE AERIAL MAP AND ZONING MAP, UH, MOSTLY SURROUNDED BY, UH, PD 5 2 1 SUB AREA BEING NORTH STONE.
AND THE BOTTOM PART IT IS IN, UH, WITHIN ANOTHER SUBDISTRICT BEAT YOU.
SO BACKGROUND ON THIS ONE, THIS IS 5 21 WAS APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL ON NOVEMBER 11TH, 1998.
THE AREA OF REQUEST IS STILL, UH, VACANT ON BERRY 21 20 24.
CITY PLAN COMMISSION APPROVED AN ORIGINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR 85 ROOMS. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REQUEST IS TO MODIFY THE BUILDING COUNT AND FOOTPRINT, RECONFIGURE SURFACE PARKING, AND A BIT OF MODIFYING ON THE EGRESS SLASH EGRESS.
SO THIS IS WHAT WAS APPROVED INITIALLY AND THIS WAS WHAT GOT APPROVED.
WELL THIS IS A PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS, APPROVAL.
AND LET'S JUST NOTE FOR THE RECORD THAT, UH, COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT HAS NOW JOINED US.
ANY QUESTIONS? ALRIGHT, SEEING NONE, WE WILL MOVE ON.
UH, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, DO WE NEED NUMBER THREE, BRIEFED, UH, COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN OR ANYONE ELSE? DO WE NEED NUMBER FOUR BRIEF? THE PAUL QUINN? YEAH, LET'S GO AHEAD AND BRIEF THAT.
THIS IS FOR AN APPLICATION FOR A NEW DEVELOPMENT PLAN ON PROPERTIES ON SUB AREA B WITH PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 9 7 5, APPROXIMATELY 1.879 ACRES WITH COUNCIL DISTRICT EIGHT.
THIS IS THE LOCATION ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF BARNABAS DRIVE NORTH OF SIMPSON STEWARD ROAD.
SO THIS IS THE AERIAL MAP AND ZONING MAP.
THIS IS, UH, PAUL QUINN COLLEGE.
SO BACKGROUND ON THIS, THAT PD WAS, UM, THIS AREA REQUESTED IN SUBURBIA B WITH PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 9 7 5, CURRENTLY UNDEVELOPED.
UM, THIS WAS APPROVED IN JANUARY 25TH, 2017.
THIS PD ALONG PROPERTY THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY SEW 5 4 5, THIS PROPERTY WAS APPROVED, HAS AN APPROVED PRELIMINARY PLA OF S 2 4 5 1 8 3.
THAT WILL BE RELIED UPON ESTABLISHING THE BUILDING SITE FOR DEVELOPMENT.
UH, ANOTHER THING WITH THAT IS DEVELOPMENT AND USE OF THE PROPERTY MUST COMPLY WITH THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN.
THE PURPOSE OF THIS REQUEST IS TO DEVELOP THE AREA WITH DORMITORIES, WHICH REQUIRES THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVED BY CPC.
AND AGAIN, THIS IS KIND OF SHOWING THE REQUEST DETAILS AND THE, UM, BASICALLY DATA TABLE THAT I ENDED UP GOING THROUGH AND REVIEWING THIS PLAN AROUND.
SO THIS IS THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PLAN, STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS, APPROVAL.
UH, COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN, ANY QUESTIONS? NO QUESTIONS.
COLLEAGUES, ANY, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM? OKAY.
UH, COMMISSIONER KAUFMAN, DO WE WANT NUMBER FIVE? BRIEFED? TAKE YOUR TIME.
THIS IS AN APPLICATION FOR A MINOR AMENDMENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN ON PROPERTY ZONE PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 6 9 5 ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF COURT ROAD AND FRANKFURT ROAD.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL.
THIS IS, UH, APPLICATION, UH, COMMISSIONER KAUFMAN.
THIS IS JUST THE BRIEFING RIGHT NOW.
WOULD YOU LIKE THE ITEM BRIEFED BY STAFF?
[00:15:01]
SURE.ALRIGHT, MS. HIN, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME? I, I, I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
IT'S JUST WHETHER WE WANT IT BRIEF BY STAFF.
OH, NO, I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
OH, WOULD YOU LIKE IT? WOULD YOU LIKE MS. BLUE TO BRIEF IT OR ARE YOU OKAY? YES.
NO, I'D LIKE FOR HER TO BRIEF IT.
GOOD MORNING, CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS.
THIS IS ITEM MZ DASH 25 DASH 36.
IT'S AN APPLICATION FOR A REMAIN AMENDMENT TO EXISTING DEVELOPMENT PLAN ON PROPERTY ZONE PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 6 95.
IT'S APPROXIMATELY 85 ACRES IS IN COUNCIL DISTRICT 12.
IT IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH CORNER COURT ROAD AND FRANKFORT ROAD.
UM, HERE IS THE AREA AND ZONING MAP OF THE PROPERTY.
UM, THIS IS THE ZONING MAP SHOWING, UH, ZONE B, WHICH IS ACTUALLY PHASE THREE OF THE DEVELOPMENT.
THE FOUR DEVELOPMENT HAS BEEN ALREADY DEVELOPED AND PHASE THREE IS THE LAST DEVELOPMENT THEY WENT OUTTA ORDER.
AND SO THERE'S ACTUALLY FOUR DIFFERENT PHASES.
AND SO THEY CAME BACK AND FINISHED PHASE THREE AND THEY WERE ADDING SOME UM, MINOR CHANGES.
UM, THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT WAS ESTABLISHED SEPTEMBER THE EIGHTH OF 24.
UM, THE PROPERTY IS PREVIOUSLY ZONED, WAS PREVIOUSLY ZONED R SEVEN FIVE.
UM, THE REQUEST IS CURRENTLY DEVELOPED AS A RETIREMENT HOUSING COMMUNITY USE.
UM, THE CURRENT REQUEST FOR THE MINOR AMENDMENT IS TO MODIFY THE DATA TABLE TO REFLECT PROPOSED NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS, WHICH THEY'RE ACTUALLY, UM, DECREASING.
HOLD ON, LEMME GET MY NOTES THAT THEY'RE ACTUALLY INCREASED AND I DO APOLOGIZE.
UM, THEY HAD 553 IN PHASE THREE.
SO IT'S ONLY ADDITIONAL THREE UNITS.
UM, ALSO PHASE THREE, THEY'RE INCREASING THE OVERALL LOT COVERAGE.
UM, BUT THEY'RE STILL WITHIN THE MAX REQUIRED OR THE MINIMUM REQUIRED FOR LOT COVERAGE.
UM, THEY'RE DECREASING THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS.
UM, AND ALSO THE PROVIDED PARKING.
THEY WERE ACTUALLY PROVIDING MORE THAN WHAT'S REQUIRED FOR THE CODE, WHICH IS ONE PER ONE PER DWELLING UNITS.
AND SO THEY CHANGED THAT NUMBER.
SO FOR PARKING RIGHT NOW, THEY HAD, UM, THEY INCREASED IT BY FOUR ADDITIONAL SPACES.
UM, THERE'S NO OTHER PREVIOUS CHANGES, UH, TO THE LANDSCAPE PLAN, WHICH WAS ALSO APPROVED.
WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT PLAN, WE FELT THAT SINCE THE CHANGES WERE SO MINOR, THEY WERE ADDING THESE, UH, ADDITIONAL THREE UH, ROOMS IN THE PARKING WASN'T CHANGING THAT MUCH, THAT THE LANDSCAPE DIDN'T NEED TO BE AMENDED.
THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT IS NOT CHANGING.
THEY'RE JUST GOING IN AND DOING SOME INTERIOR REMODEL WORK, BUT THEY NEED TO SHOW THE NUMBERS ON THE DATA CHART.
HERE'S THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
HERE'S THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
AS YOU CAN SEE, THE FOOTPRINT AND KIND OF PARKING IS THE KIND OF THE SAME.
UM, THIS IS, UH, PROPOSED ENLARGE SHOWING THE DATA CHANGES WITH THE TA, THE DATA TABLE WITH THE CHANGES, UM, AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL.
UM, THIS CONCLUDES THIS PRESENTATION.
IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS? THANK YOU MS. BLUE.
ANY QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER HAMPTON? I'LL JUST ASK ONE, YOU SAID THAT THE, UH, BUILDING FOOTPRINT DIDN'T CHANGE, BUT ON ITEM TWO IN OUR CASE REPORT, IT SAYS IT'S INCREASING THE OVERALL LOT COVERAGE FROM 23 TO 24.91%.
DO YOU KNOW WHAT THAT INCREASE IS DUE TO? UM, I DO NOT.
TASK VIA SHOULD BE ON THE LINE AND SHE CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION.
UM, YES, I CAN DEFINITELY ANSWER THAT QUESTION.
SO WHEN WE DID THE COMPARISON, BECAUSE FOR A MINOR AMENDMENT WE HAVE TO COMPARE TO THE ORIGINAL, SO THAT NUMBER IS BASED OFF OF THAT ANALYSIS.
UM, THEY WERE INCREASING THE LOT COVERAGE FROM THE ORIGINAL, BUT FROM THE EXISTING MINOR, IT'S ACTUALLY NOT CHANGING.
THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT IS STILL THE SAME, BUT WE STILL HAVE TO NOTE THAT FROM THE ORIGINAL THERE'S AN INCREASE.
THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION.
[00:20:01]
YOU MS. BLUE.COMMISSIONERS, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALRIGHT.
THERE'S BEEN A REQUEST TO HAVE CASE NUMBER SIX, UM, BRIEFED.
UH, MS. BLUE, I BELIEVE THIS IS, UH, MR. FRANKLIN'S FIRST CASE.
SO IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND INTRODUCING HIM.
UM, GREG, COULD YOU COME UP? UM, GREG FRANKLIN IS OUR ZONING GURU THAT CAME OVER TO PLANNING, BUT I ALSO HAVE SOME SAD NEWS.
HE GOT A PROMOTION A COUPLE MONTHS AGO OR MONTHS MONTH AGO AND HE'S GOING BACK TO THE PERMIT SIDE.
SO WE ENJOYED HIM OVER HERE WHILE HE WAS HERE.
SO TODAY IS KIND OF HIS FIRST TIME PRESENTING HIS CASE AND THEN ALSO HIS LAST TIME PRESENTING HIS ZONING CASE.
SO I'LL BRING THAT UP SO HE CAN, UM, PRESENT.
WELL, WELCOME AND I GUESS GOODBYE AS WELL.
AND, AND MR. FRANKLIN, IF YOU WEREN'T UNDERWEAR, YOU'RE NOT THE ONLY, UH, GREG FRANKLIN HERE.
WE ALSO HAVE COMMISSIONER GREG FRANKLIN.
OH, I SHOULD SAY GREG GREGORY FRANKLIN, PLEASE MEET COMMISSIONER GREGORY FRANKLIN
IT'S AN APPLICATION FOR A NEW DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO BUILD THREE FOUR STORY DATA CENTERS WITH FIVE EQUIPMENT YARDS AND A ATTACHED SUBSTATION.
IT'S 32.2933 ACRES IN COUNCIL DISTRICT TWO.
IT'S ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF WEST MOCKINGBIRD LANE AND EAST HINTON STREET.
UH, BETWEEN HARRY HINES AND I 35, PROPOSED FLOOR AREA IS 1,140,000 SQUARE FEET.
EACH DATA CENTER IS TO HAVE FOUR STORIES EACH AT 20 FEET HIGH PROPOSED MAXIMUM STRUCTURE HEIGHT IS 1 45 TO ALLOW FOR ROOFTOP MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT.
189 PARKING SPACES ARE GOING TO BE PROVIDED AND NINE LOADING SPACES ARE PROPOSED AND THEIR PROPOSED LOT COVERAGE IS 25%.
THE SUBSTATION AT THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE IS INCLUDED AS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT.
THIS IS THE AERIAL MAP AND THE ZONING MAP PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 10 65 WAS ESTABLISHED BY ORDINANCE NUMBER 3 1 9 2 2 ON JUNE 23RD, 2021.
AND THIS DISTRICT IS CONSIDERED TO BE A NON-RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT.
THERE IS NO CONCEPTUAL PLAN REQUIREMENT.
THE PD 10 65 DESIGN STANDARDS THAT APPLY TO THE DATA CENTER WILL BE REVIEWED AT THE PERMITTING.
DATA CENTERS ARE ALLOWED BY WRIGHT IN MIXED USE DISTRICTS UNDER UTILITY AND PUBLIC SERVICE USES LOCAL UTILITIES COMMUNICATIONS EXCHANGE FACILITY.
THERE'S A PARKING REQUIREMENT OF ZERO PARKING SPACES AND 11 LOADING SPACES.
THE LANDSCAPE IS REQUIRED TO BE PROVIDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 10 AND THE SIGNS MUST COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS FOR THE BUSINESS ZONING DISTRICT IN ARTICLE SEVEN.
ANY LOADING OR UNLOADING OF THE TRAILERS MUST BE CONCEALED FOR MOCKINGBIRD LANE BY THE MAIN BUILDING.
THE YARD LOT AND SPACE REGULATIONS, THEY HAVE A ZERO FRONT YARD.
HOWEVER, FOR PORTIONS OF A BUILDING ABOVE 50 FEET IN HEIGHT, THE MINIMUM FRONT YARD IS 35 FEET.
THERE IS NO MINIMUM SIDE YARD.
HOWEVER, THERE'S AN ADDITIONAL SIDE AND REAR YARD SETBACK OF ONE FOOT FOR EACH TWO FEET IN HEIGHT ABOVE 45 FEET REQUIRED FOR THE PORTION OF THE STRUCTURE ABOVE 45 FEET IN HEIGHT, UP TO A TOTAL SETBACK OF 30 FEET.
THIS SUBPARAGRAPH DOES NOT REQUIRE A TOTAL SIDE OR REAR YARD SETBACK GREATER THAN 30 FEET.
UH, IT'S THE SAME FOR THE REAR YARD AS WELL.
THE MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE IS 80%.
THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT IS 270 FEET WITH 20 STORIES MAXIMUM ABOVE GRADE.
THERE IS NO MAX DENSITY NOR MINIMUM LOT SIZE.
THIS IS THEIR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PLAN WITH THE SUBSTATION TO THE SOUTH AND A LITTLE BIT ENLARGED.
THEY'RE PROPOSING 16 FOOT HIGH STRUCTURE WALLS OFF THE BUILDING TO SCREEN THE LOADING SPACES FROM MOCKINGBIRD.
AND THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? THANK YOU MR. FRANKLIN.
DO WE HAVE QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER CARPENTER? YES, MR. FRANKLIN.
SO DATA CENTER IS NOT A SEPARATE USE IN THE DALLAS CITY CODE, CORRECT? IT IS NOT.
AND THAT'S ALLOWED BY WRIGHT IN A GREAT MANY DIFFERENT,
[00:25:01]
UM, IT IS YES.VARIOUS OFFICE, MULTIPLE COMMERCIAL RRCS MU.
AND SO THIS USE IS ALLOWED BY WRIGHT BECAUSE, UM, THIS, UH, THE USE IS IN THIS PD DEFAULT TO MU THREE.
AND SO IT'S ALLOWED BY RIGHT IN U THREE, CORRECT? YES.
BUT THE PD WRITES DESIGN STANDARDS, BUT THEY'RE SPECIFICALLY FOR A WAREHOUSE.
SO THOSE DESIGN STANDARDS WOULD NOT APPLY TO THIS PARTICULAR USE, IS THAT CORRECT? IT WAS AMENDED, UH, LAST YEAR FOR NEW DESIGN STANDARDS THAT ARE SPECIFIC TO A COMMUNICATIONS EXCHANGE FACILITY.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HAMPTON.
AND, UH, MR. FRANKLIN, WOULD YOU CONFIRM THAT THE, UM, REVISED STANDARDS WERE WHAT WERE UTILIZED THAT INCLUDE, UM, PLANTING, SCREENING, UM, AND OTHER PERIMETER STANDARDS RELATIVE TO THE DATA CENTER USE? YOU'RE CORRECT.
THEY DID ADD SOME ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS, UH, SUCH AS BUFFERS AND THE ITEMS YOU MENTIONED.
AND AS WE DON'T HAVE A LANDSCAPE PLAN, THOSE WERE SUBMITTED AT PERMITTING, IS THAT CORRECT? YES.
THEY WILL BE REVIEWED AT PERMITTING.
AND, AND THEY WERE REVIEWED BY THE ARBORIST AND FOUND TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS? WELL, HE HASN'T REVIEWED THEM YET, BUT HE SAYS THEY CAN BE ADDRESSED AT THE PERMITTING WHEN HE WILL REVIEW THEM.
WELCOME AND GOOD LUCK ON YOUR NEW POSITION.
COMMISSIONER HALL, THIS, MAYBE THIS ISN'T OUR PURVIEW, BUT CURIOUS.
UH, THE APPLICATION INCLUDES AN ELECTRICAL SUBSTATION.
IS THAT AN ENCORE SUBSTATION OR, I BELIEVE IT IS, YES.
SO THEY'RE GONNA BE DRAWING POWER OFF THE EXISTING GRID? YES.
AND THEY HAVE, UH, FIVE, UH, EQUIPMENT YARD WITH GENERATORS.
THE GENERATORS WILL BE USED FOR EMERGENCY PURPOSES ONLY OR ARE THEY GONNA BE RUNNING? FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, IT'S EMERGENCY PURPOSES ONLY.
THEY'RE PROPOSING 73 DIESEL GENERATORS IN THE EQUIPMENT YARDS.
ARE THOSE DIESEL GENERATORS? THEY ARE DIESEL, YES.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONERS? ALRIGHT.
THANK YOU SO MUCH MR. FRANKLIN, YOU'RE, YOU'RE BATTING A THOUSAND WHEN YOU ARE RETIRING.
OKAY, WE'LL MOVE ON TO OUR CONSENT AGENDA SO FAR.
I KNOW THAT 9 11, 12, 13, 14 AND 17 HAVE BEEN PULLED FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION.
UM, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, I THINK YOU HAD A LIST THAT WAS KIND OF IN FLUX.
ARE THERE ADDITIONAL ONES THAT YOU WANT TO BE HEARD INDIVIDUALLY AT AT THIS TIME? MAY I ASK FOR THOSE NUMBERS TO BE REPEATED WHEN THEY CONFIRMED? RIGHT NOW OFF OF CONSENT ARE 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, AND 17.
AND CURRENTLY ON CONSENT ARE 7, 8, 10, 15, AND 16.
COMMISSIONER HALL, UH, WE'RE GONNA PULL SEVEN AS WELL 'CAUSE WE HAVE TO AMEND THE PD.
ANYONE WANNA PULL 8, 10, 15 OR 16? WELL, I NEED TO PULL EIGHT OFF OF CONSENT.
AND, ALRIGHT, THAT'S GONNA LEAVE US 10 15 AND 16.
1516 ARE GONNA BE HELD AT THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST.
SO WE HAVE OFFICIALLY MELTED AWAY OUR CONSENT AGENDA AND WE WILL BE CONSIDERING EACH ITEM INDIVIDUALLY.
ALRIGHT, LET'S MOVE TO, UM, ITEM NUMBER SEVEN.
DO Y'ALL WANT THAT BRIEFED? UH, UH YES, I WOULD.
[00:30:15]
HI, MR. CHAIR.CAN Y'ALL SEE THE PRESIDENT? NO, IT'S NOT.
WE'VE GOT JUST A FILE BROWSER UP.
IT'S A DIFFERENT, I THINK WE JUST NEED TO CHANGE.
UM, THIS ITEM IS Z 2 5 0 1 6 7 AND IT'S AN APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT WITHIN TRACK TWO OF PD THREE 14.
THIS IS TO CREATE A NEW SUB AREA TO ALLOW THREE ATTACHED SIGNS ON THE EXISTING HIGH RISE OFFICE TOWER, WHICH IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF BERKSHIRE LANE AND LUMA ALTO DRIVE.
UH, THIS IS THE AREA AND WITHIN COUNCIL DISTRICT 13 AREA OF REQUEST.
IT'S SUBJECT PROPERTY IS, UH, AGAIN, ZONED TRACK TWO WITHIN PRE PD THREE 14, PRESTON CENTER OF SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICT.
AND IT IS DEVELOPED WITH THE HIGH RISE OFFICE TOWER, THE BERKSHIRE AT PRESTON CENTER.
THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CREATE A NEW SUB AREA E, WHICH WOULD ALLOW THREE ATTACHED SIGNS EACH ON THE NORTHEAST AND WEST FACADES.
ONE BETWEEN FLOORS TWO AND SIX, SEVEN AND 12 AND 13.
AND THE ROOF, UH, THIS IS FOR A TOTAL OF THREE ATTACHED SIGNS PER EACH OF THOSE FACADES.
UM, DID WANT TO POINT OUT THERE'S NO ADDITIONAL SIGNAGE THAT IS BEING REQUESTED FOR THE SOUTH FACADE OF THE BUILDING THAT FACES THE HIGH RISE RESIDENTIAL UNITS.
THE SHELTON, SORRY, I GUESS THERE'S A DELAY.
UM, IF YOU'LL NOTICE THAT, UM, THE PROPERTY ON THE CORNER OF BERKSHIRE LANE AND LOMA ALTO IS, UM, SURROUNDED ON THE NORTH SIDE, UM, BY OFFICE FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS WITHOUT DRIVE THROUGH.
UM, THIS, THAT'S PART OF PD THREE 14 AS WELL IN TRACK TWO.
UM, IMMEDIATELY TO THE SOUTH IS, UM, THE RESIDENTIAL CONDOS, THE SHELTON, AND THEN ACROSS LIMA ALTO TO THE WEST AND SINGLE FAMILY.
THIS IS LOOKING SOUTH, UM, OFF OF BERKSHIRE LANE.
SO THIS IS, THIS WOULD BE THE NORTH FACADE WHERE THEY'RE PROPOSING, UH, THREE ATTACHED SIGNS.
UH, THIS IS LOOKING SOUTHWEST.
THIS IS LOOKING SOUTHEAST ON BERKSHIRE LANE.
UH, THIS IS LOOKING AT THE EASTERN FACADE OF THE BERKSHIRE, UM, LOOKING WEST.
UH, SO AGAIN, THEY WOULD BE PROPOSING THREE ATTACHED SIGNS, UM, FOR THOSE DIFFERENT FLOORS.
UH, THIS IS LOOKING AT THE SOUTH FACADE.
UM, AGAIN, NO SIGNS REQUESTED ON THIS FACADE BECAUSE IT, I, IT, UH, IS IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE SHE AND RESIDENTIAL UNITS.
UM, THIS IS ON LIMO ALTO DRIVE.
THIS IS LOOKING AT THE WESTERN FACADE, UM, OF THE BUILDING WHERE THEY'RE ALSO PROPOSING THE THREE ATTACHED SIGNS.
[00:35:01]
IT'S LOOKING EAST.THIS IS LOOKING SOUTHEAST OFF LIMO, ALTO DRIVE, AND THE SURROUNDING, UM, BERKSHIRE LANE.
THIS IS LOOKING SOUTHEAST, UH, THE COMPASS BUILDING IMMEDIATELY NEXT DOOR, UM, OR ADJACENT.
THIS IS LOOKING NORTHEAST ACROSS BERKSHIRE LANE.
THIS IS LOOKING NORTH NORTHEAST ACROSS BERKSHIRE LANE.
AND AGAIN, UH, BERKSHIRE LANE, LOOKING NORTH NORTHWEST AT THE CORNER OF LOMA ALTO LANE, LOMA ALTO DRIVE AND BERKSHIRE LANE.
UM, SURROUNDING PHOTOS, THIS IS LOMA ALTO DRIVE LOOKING SOUTH SOUTHEAST.
LOOKING AT, UM, AT THE ADJACENT SOUTH FACADE, UM, AT THE SHELTON.
THIS IS LOOKING LOMA ALTO DRIVE SOUTH.
THIS IS LOOKING WEST LOMA ALTO DRIVE.
UM, AND THEN LOOKING ALL NORTHWEST ON LIMA ALTO DRIVE.
THIS IS LOOKING, UM, ADJACENT TO THE EAST FACADE ON LIMA ALTO DRIVE LOOKING EAST.
UM, WE HAVE SEVERAL, UH, PD AMENDMENTS PROPOSED IN ORDER TO ALLOW FOR THAT SUB AREA.
E UM, THIS IS THE VERBIAGE TO CREATE THAT NEW SUB AREA E.
UM, AND THEN, UM, THERE'S SOME, UM, AMENDED CONDITIONS.
OF COURSE WE HAVE THE TRACK MAP THAT HAD, HAS TO BE AMENDED TO SHOW THAT SUB AREA E.
UM, AND ONE OF THE CHANGES, UM, THERE'S A COUPLE OF CHANGES BEING MADE, UM, AS WHAT WAS SHOWN IN IN THE STAFF REPORT.
UM, WE'RE STRIKING EXHIBIT, UH, THREE, NUMBER 14, EXHIBIT THREE 14 N, WHICH IS THE SIGN PLAN.
WE'RE JUST GONNA LET THE PARAMETERS WITHIN THE PD CONTROL THE SIGNAGE.
IN CASE THAT SIGNAGE CHANGES FOR THE UMB BANK.
UM, THIS IS THE, UH, AMENDED CONDITIONS, UM, FOR EACH OF THE, THE FACADES.
UM, THOSE PARAMETERS I JUST TALKED ABOUT THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR A MAXIMUM THREE ATTACHED SIGNS.
UM, ONE BETWEEN FLOORS TWO AND SIX.
UM, ONE BETWEEN FLOORS SEVEN AND 12, AND ONE BETWEEN FLOORS 13 AND THE ROOF.
UM, SIGNS MAY NOT BE ILLUMINATED AND THE MAXIMUM EFFECTIVE AREA OF EACH SIGN, UM, IS A HUNDRED SQUARE FEET.
UM, IT'S THE SAME FOR THE NORTHEAST IT WEST FACADE.
ONE OF THE CHANGES THOUGH THAT, UM, WE'RE MAKING NOW, UM, TO THE REPORT, WELL, WE'LL DO THAT FOR COUNCIL.
BUT, UM, ONE CHANGE WOULD BE THE SIZE OF THE LETTERING.
UM, SO IT WOULD STILL BE ADDITIONAL ATTACHED SIGNS MAY CONTAIN A MAX MAXIMUM OF FIVE WORDS EACH, BUT THE LETTERS AND SYMBOLS WOULD BE NO TALLER THAN FOUR FEET OR 48 INCHES IN LIEU OF THE NINE, NINE FEET THAT HE HAD BEFORE.
UM, THIS IS THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
AND, UM, THESE ARE SOME, UM, VISUALS, UM, SOME AERIAL PHOTOS JUST KIND OF SHOWING WHAT THAT SIGNAGE WOULD LOOK LIKE ON EACH OF THE FLOORS.
UM, THIS IS JUST KIND OF, OF SHOWING A BIRD'S EYE VIEW OF THAT WESTERN FACADE.
UH, WITH THE LETTER B KIND OF SHOWING WHERE THAT SIGN, ONE OF THE SIGNS MIGHT BE, UM, THIS WOULD BE AN EXAMPLE OF THE NORTH FACADE, UM, AND THE SIGN LOCATIONS WITH THE POSSIBLE SIGN AT THE VERY TOP FLOOR.
UM, IF YOU CAN SEE THAT IN THE RED, IT'S JUST RED BARS KIND OF SHOWING WHAT, WHERE THAT SIGN MIGHT BE.
UM, AND THEN THERE'S AN EXISTING SIGN, UM, IF YOU CAN SEE THAT LABELED KIND OF IN THE MIDDLE, UM, OF THE FLOORS.
AND THEN ANOTHER POSSIBLE SIGN, UM, BELOW THAT IN THE RED.
SO AGAIN, JUST A VISUAL TO GIVE YOU, UM, A PERSPECTIVE OF WHAT THAT COULD LOOK LIKE.
UM, THIS IS ANOTHER ONE ON THE, FOR THE EASTERN EASTERN FACADE.
UH, JUST SHOW AN EXISTING SIGN A POSSIBLE AND POSSIBLE SIGNS WHERE THEY MAY BE LOCATED AND WHAT THAT COULD LOOK LIKE.
STAFF REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION.
UM, THE, THE, UM, PROPERTY IS WITHIN THE COMMUNITY MIXED USE PLACE TYPE.
UM, WHICH BASICALLY IS AN INTENDED FOR, UM, MULTIPLEX APARTMENTS, MIXED USE COMMERCIAL OFFICE BUILDINGS, UM, AND THEN COMMERCIAL CENTERS AND CORRIDORS AND OFFICE PARKS.
[00:40:01]
THAT AND FITS WITHIN FORWARD DALLAS 2.0.UM, AND A LITTLE CHANGE TO THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
UM, SO IT WOULD BE APPROVAL SUBJECT TO AMENDED CONDITIONS.
UM, WE'RE GONNA DROP THAT SIGN PLAN AGAIN SO THAT, AND JUST LET THE PARAMETERS WITHIN THE PD CONTROL WITH THAT, I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS FOR YOU.
UM, WHEN I MAKE MY MOTION, I'LL, I'LL MENTION A COUPLE OF THINGS ABOUT AMENDING THE PD, BUT, UH, THE BIG, THE BIG CATCH AND WE THANK COMMISSIONER CARPENTER FOR CATCHING.
THIS WAS THE, UH, HEIGHT OF THE SIGNS AND THEY WERE NEVER INTENDED TO BE 96 INCHES.
THEY WERE ALWAYS INTENDED TO BE 48.
UH, SO ANYHOW, UH, WE'LL DO THAT.
UH, THERE WERE 129 NOTICES THAT WENT OUT AND I THINK YOU GOT, UH, THREE IN OPPOSITION, BUT I DIDN'T SEE ANY COMMENTS.
DID THEY SUBMIT ANY COMMENTS ON THE OPPOSITION? UM, I DID, I DID SPEAK WITH, UM, THE PRESIDENT OF THE HOA FOR THE SHELTON AND, UM, FORWARDED HER, UM, THE INFORMATION THAT WAS BEFORE WE MADE THESE CHANGES.
AND, UM, SHE SEEMED TO BE OKAY.
IT WAS REALLY JUST GETTING A CLARIFICATION, MAKING SURE THAT THERE ARE NO SIGNS BEING PROPOSED FOR THE, THE SOUTH FACADE FACING THE SHELTON MM-HMM
UM, BUT I DID SEE THAT, YOU KNOW, WE, WE RECEIVED SOME OPPOSITION SINCE THEN, BUT I, I'M NOT REALLY SURE WHAT, WHAT THAT IS.
MAYBE IT'S WAS THE LETTERING OF THE SIGNAGE.
UH, I'LL ASK THE QUESTION OF THE ZONING REP, MR. CROWLEY THIS AFTERNOON.
I THINK THEY ACTUALLY SENT OUT MORE THAN 129 THEMSELVES.
AND I, I KNOW HE HAD ONE FEEDBACK FROM A, A PERSON THAT FELT LIKE WE DID NOT NEED ANOTHER BANK IN PRESTON CENTER,
I MEAN, WE HAVE LIKE 55 ALREADY.
I DON'T THINK THERE WAS ANYTHING SERIOUS, UH, OPPOSITION TO THE CASE.
UM, COMMISSIONER FORSYTH, MY QUESTION IS AN EDUCATIONAL QUESTION.
COULD YOU HELP ME TO UNDERSTAND WHY THIS IS, UH, CASE DOESN'T GO THROUGH LIKE THE SIGNED SUBCOMMITTEE? I, I'M SO SORRY, I I COULDN'T UNDERSTAND.
COULD YOU OR SOMEONE ON THE STAFF HELP ME TO UNDERSTAND WHY A CASE LIKE THIS DOESN'T GO THROUGH OUR SIGNS SUBCOMMITTEE? I, I'M JUST LEARNING HERE.
UH, WHY IT HAS TO COME HERE, COME BEFORE YOU.
THE, THE SIGNAGE IS THAT I, I, I UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION.
SO A LOT OF OUR SIGNS THAT ARE IN SPECIAL PROVISION SIGN DISTRICTS GO THROUGH THE SIGN COMMITTEES, BUT THIS ONE IS NOT IN A SPECIAL PROVISION SIGN DISTRICT.
IT'S IN A, A TYPICAL, IT TECHNICALLY HAS, UH, MORE TYPICAL, UH, SIGN CODING THAT'S DOESN'T RELY ON AN OVERLAY.
SPECIAL PROVISION, SPECIAL PROVISION SIGN DISTRICTS ARE AN OVERLAY.
THIS ONE DOESN'T HAVE A SIGN OVERLAY.
THE SIGNAGE IS WRITTEN STRAIGHT INTO THE PD.
UM, AND SO THAT'S WHY THEY NEED TO AMEND THE PD RATHER THAN GO TO AN SPSD COMMITTEE AND THEN HERE.
YES, IT JUST ALLOWING ADDITIONAL SIGNAGE WITH THESE PARAMETERS.
COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, WOULD YOU LIKE THIS ONE BRIEFED? I DON'T NEED IT BRIEFED, BUT I DON'T HAVE AN OBJECTION TO IT BEING BRIEFED IF ANYONE ELSE WANTS IT.
DOES ANYONE ELSE WANT NUMBER ITEM EIGHT BRIEFED? OKAY, WE WILL FOREGO THE BRIEFING.
UM, ITEM NUMBER NINE IS GOING TO BE, IS HELD WELL IF I MAY ASK MR. PEPE SOME QUESTIONS.
AND I WILL OBVIOUSLY DEFER TO MR. LEE AS WELL, BUT I THINK MR. PE YOU HAD RESPONDED SO I'M GONNA DEFER TO YOU.
WELL LET'S GET MR. LEE UP TO THE PODIUM AS WELL.
SO Y'ALL CAN BOTH FIELD THE QUESTIONS.
SO WE CAN THE, THE DREAM TEAM.
SO THE CASES WITHIN THE, UH, MOUNT AUBURN PD, UH, 1 34 AND THE REQUEST IS TO CHANGE FROM THE R SEVEN FIVE SUBDISTRICT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES SUBDISTRICT.
AND SO WITH THAT IT ADDS THE OFFICE USE, WHICH IF I UNDERSTAND FROM STAFF'S ANALYSIS, WOULD THEN MAKE IT SUBJECT TO SB EIGHT 40.
IT AND ALSO THE RETAIL USES THAT ARE PRESENT IN NS? YES.
AND SO CAN YOU JUST WALK THROUGH AT A HIGH LEVEL WHAT ITEMS WITHIN THE
[00:45:01]
PD WOULD STILL BE APPLICABLE AND WHICH WOULD BE OVERRIDDEN BY SB EIGHT 40? YES, DEFINITELY.SO IT KIND OF, SO BASICALLY WHEN YOU GO TO THE PD FOR THIS SUB AREA, UNLESS I'M FORGETTING SOMETHING, PRETTY MUCH 99% OF IT FOR NS OR DEFAULTS TO NS, NS FROM CHAPTER 51.
UH, 'CAUSE THIS IS AN OLDER PD, UM, SO SB EIGHT 40 SAYS THAT IF THEY BUILD A PROJECT ON THIS SITE THAT'S THREE UNITS OR MORE THAT'S MULTIFAMILY AND THAT FLOOR AREA IS 65% OR MORE RESIDENTIAL AND FLOOR AREA, THEN THE SB EIGHT 40, UM, CHANGES THEIR DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
UM, SO I GUESS THE FIRST PLACE WE STARTED IS THIS IS A 17,000 SQUARE FOOT SITE.
IT'S PRETTY SMALL, SO THEY DO, IF THEY WANTED TO USE THAT, THEY'D HAVE TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO MAKE THAT, UH, SIZE WORK.
UM, IF EIGHT 40, IF AN EIGHT 40 PROJECT IS BUILT, IT DOES HAVE A 45 FOOT MAXIMUM HEIGHT, BUT ONLY IF THEY, YOU KNOW, ONLY IF THEY BUILD THAT KIND OF PROJECT.
SO THAT OVERRIDES THE BASE HEIGHT OF THE NS, WHICH IS I THINK LESS IS IN THE TWENTIES OF FEET.
AND THEN IT DOES HAVE SETBACKS BACK TO NS.
SO 8, 8 40 SAYS YOU CAN ONLY HAVE SETBACKS OF LIKE 25 FEET OR WHATEVER COMMERCIAL WOULD BE TYPICALLY HELD TO.
I THINK MAYBE OUR REPORT, UM, HAD LESS DETAIL ABOUT THE NS, UM, SIDE SETBACK.
BUT, BUT ACTUALLY THE WAY THAT CHAPTER 51 WORKS IS THAT IT HAS UM, SORT OF ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS AND THOSE PROVISIONS FOR COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS LIVE OUTSIDE OF THE DISTRICT.
SO I, I NOTED THIS TO COMMISSIONER CARPENTER IN AN EMAIL THAT A MINIMUM SETBACK MUST OF 20 FEET MUST BE PROVIDED FOR A SIDE YARD OF, OF A BUILDING SITE.
SO I THINK THIS ONE KIND OF HAS SOME LOTS THAT UM, IT'S ACTUALLY JUST LOTS THAT ABUT FROM KIND OF BEHIND.
I KNOW THAT THIS PROPERTY IS MAYBE ONE OR TWO LOTS AT THIS TIME.
UM, IF THEY REPL, UM, THEY LIKELY HAVE SIDE YARD.
UM, SO THAT WOULD APPLY THE 20 FOOT SIDE YARD TO THE, TO THE NORTHWESTERN APPROACH.
SO THEN IT WOULD BE AN ALLEY, THEN IT WOULD BE THE 20 FOOT SETBACK, UM, TO BUILD A COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE ON THAT BUILDING OR AN EIGHT 40 STRUCTURE FOR THAT MATTER.
UM, SO I'M THINKING SIDE YARD APPLIES MOST LIKELY, UM, TO THAT NORTHWEST CORNER.
'CAUSE IT DOES SAY THIS APPLIES WHETHER IT'S ACROSS AN ALLEY FROM A, UM, SINGLE FAMILY TYPE OR SINGLE FAMILY OR DUPLEX TYPE, UH, ZONING DISTRICT.
UM, THAT WAS THE MAIN THING I WANTED TO MENTION.
IS THERE MORE DETAILED QUE
UM, THIS ONE MAY BE FOR MR. LEE 'CAUSE I THINK HE WAS ON THE REVIEW WITH ENGINEERING.
THERE ARE SEPARATE ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS RELATED TO THIS SITE, UM, BECAUSE OF ITS FRONTAGE ON LINLEY AND SO ITS ACCESS WILL IS ANTICIPATED AT ENGINEERING REVIEW, WHATEVER THE PROJECT MAY BE, TO BE LIMITED TO MUNGER.
IS THAT CORRECT? AND WE CAN FOLLOW UP WITH MR. NAVAREZ AS WELL, BUT I BELIEVE THAT WAS THE YEAH, I, THE SUMMARY OF HIS RESPONSE.
YEAH, I WOULD DEFER TO, UH, DAVID FOR THAT ONE.
I SEE HIM OVER THERE SAYING THAT PRIMARILY ACCESS IS LIMITED TO, TO MONGER AND BECAUSE WOULD BE A SMALL FRONTAGE ON LINDSEY.
LINDSEY AND THERE'D BE DETAILING REVIEW THAT HAD TO HAPPEN AT THAT TIME AS WELL.
UM, SO I'LL LET WHOEVER WANTS TO TAKE THIS ONE.
UM, ARE YOU AWARE OF THE REVISIONS THAT ARE PLANNED TO HAPPEN TO I 30? SO TODAY THIS IS A REMAINDER LOT.
IF I, YOU KNOW, JUST BASED ON HOW THE SITE HAS DEVELOPED AND IT FRONTS INTO THE FACE OF THE I 30 OVERPASS CURRENTLY WHEN I 30 IS SUNK, WHICH IS WHAT THE PLAN IS IN SCHEMATIC DESIGN.
THIS WILL BE AN AT GRADE CROSSING AS MUNGER.
ARE YOU AWARE OF THAT? UH, I AM NOT AWARE OF THAT.
AND SO LOOKING AHEAD, THIS WILL IN THE FUTURE, UM, BE FACING ONTO IF IT ACTUALLY GETS BUILT A
IS THAT FAIR? WAS THAT ANYTHING Y'ALL HAD REVIEWED AT ALL IN YOUR ANALYSIS? NO.
AND I GUESS FINAL QUESTION, UM, I KNOW THIS WAS REVIEWED UNDER PD 1 34, WHICH UM, STOPS AT THE CURRENT I 30 BOUNDARY, BUT ON THE OTHER SIDE OF LINLEY, THAT'S THE JUBILEE PARK NEIGHBORHOOD, IS THAT CORRECT? WHICH IS JUST STRAIGHT RESIDENTIAL ZONING ACROSS THE FREEWAY? IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S DD ZONE.
[00:50:01]
D AND THEN IT MOVES INTO, OKAY, THANK YOU.I'LL DEFER IF MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS HAVE OTHER QUESTIONS.
I DO HAVE JUST ONE FOLLOW UP QUESTION.
SO I UNDERSTAND THAT TO THE NORTH IS SINGLE FAMILY, THEN THERE'S THE AREA BETWEEN THE AREA OF REQUEST AND THE FREEWAY, THE PORTION THAT'S NOT DEVELOPED NORTH OF THE FREEWAY, SOUTH OF THE WHAT LOOKS TO BE PLATTED LOTS.
WHAT IS THAT ZONING THERE WITHIN PD 1 34? AND IF YOU DON'T, I REALIZE I DIDN'T ASK THIS IN ADVANCE, SO IF YOU NEED TO TAKE SOME TIME TO LOOK, YOU KNOW, YEAH, I'LL HAVE TO OKAY.
I, I THINK I CAN ANSWER THAT
SO Y'ALL ARE SEEING OUR LITTLE MAP.
IT HAS OUR, OUR COUPLE PROPERTIES OF AREA REQUESTS AND THEN IT'S SHOOTING ALL THE WAY OUT TO THE RIGHTAWAY LINE.
BUT LET'S REMEMBER THAT OUR, OUR ZONINGS ALWAYS EXTEND TO THE RIGHT OF WAY LINE.
IT JUST LOOKS REALLY RIDICULOUS WHEN WE'RE ON A FREEWAY.
UM, BECAUSE THE ZONING WILL TECH OF THAT'S CURRENTLY PD 1 34 SUB AREA A EXTENDS TO THE RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF OF 30.
AND NOW IT'LL BE THE SUB AREA C THAT EXTENDS, UH, TO THE, UH, MIDDLE OF 30.
UM, THAT'S WHY THE MAP LOOKS LIKE THAT.
SO THAT LAND RIGHT NOW IS RIGHT AWAY, YOU KNOW, CAN'T BE USED FOR DEVELOPMENT.
I DON'T KNOW IF IN THE 30 PROJECT THEY INTEND TO RETURN SOME LAND OR ANYTHING, BUT BECAUSE, BECAUSE RIGHT NOW ZONING EXTENDS TO THE RIGHT OF WAY LINE IN THE MIDDLE.
IF THEY WERE TO ABLE TO RECLAIM SOME LAND, THEY PICK UP A LITTLE BIT OF, OF WHATEVER THE, THE CURRENT ZONING IS, WHETHER THAT'S THIS CURRENT A OR OR FUTURE C.
COLLEAGUES ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS? DO YOU HAVE ONE COMMISSIONER? SORRY, I THOUGHT I SAW YOUR HAND.
NOW I JUST WANT TO, UM, CONFIRM THAT DESPITE THE APPLICANT'S EXPRESSED INTENTION TO, UM, CONSTRUCT SOMETHING LIKE A COFFEE SHOP OR AN OFFICE, THE NATURE OF THE, UM, THE CHANGE IN THE SUBDISTRICT WOULD ACTUALLY ALLOW ANY USE ALLOWED IN NS IS DEFINED IN THAT CHAPTER 51.
AND THAT WOULD INCLUDE MULTIFAMILY OR DUPLEX, WHICH WOULD THEN THROW IT INTO, WELL ACTUALLY BEING NS WOULD JUST THROW IT INTO SENATE BILL EIGHT 40.
UH, IN, IN YOUR REPORT YOU NOTED THAT THIS IS A SINGLE FAMILY LOT RIGHT NOW, OR IT'S IN A, IT IS A CORNER LOT IN A SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT YOU SAID THERE'S SCATTERED COMMERCIAL USE ABOUT IN THE, IN THE SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD, UM, TO THE EAST AND THEN TO THE NORTH, TO THE EAST AND THE NORTH.
NOT IN THE, NOT IN THE VICINITY, BUT A LITTLE OUT, A LITTLE OUTSIDE THE VICINITY.
AND WERE, WERE THOSE LOTS ORIGINALLY SINGLE FAMILY AND CONVERTED TO COMMERCIAL? DO YOU KNOW? UH, I DO NOT KNOW.
I'LL STATE MUCH OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD IS, IS PREZONING, YOU KNOW, IT GOES BACK, THIS IS AN INTERESTING AREA, BUT IT'S, IT DEVELOPMENT OF THE AREA GOES FRANKLY BEFORE ZONING.
SO THERE ARE SOME, DEFINITELY SOME CORNER RETAILS, UM, THAT HE'S DESCRIBING ON SOME OF THE BIGGER STREETS, UH, INCLUDING TO THE WEST AND, AND THEN FURTHER UP, UH, I THINK IT'S, I THINK IT'S LINLEY.
ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER HAMPTON? JUST ONE FOLLOW UP.
UM, IT IS AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY LOT WITHIN THE PD, THE LAND USE MAP, AND THERE'S AN EXISTING RESIDENCE ON IT.
IS THAT CORRECT? UH, DURING A SITE VISIT, IT LOOKED LIKE IT WAS VACANT.
NO, A HUNDRED PERCENT IT IS A VACANT RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE.
UM, AND THEN ARE YOU AWARE IF THERE WAS A COMMUNITY MEETING HELD ON THIS? UM, I BELIEVE PERHAPS BACK IN NOVEMBER.
I, YEAH, I BELIEVE IT WAS A WHILE AGO.
ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? UH, COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, IS THIS GONNA BE HELD? ARE YOU GONNA DISPOSE OF IT TODAY OR IF YOU DON'T KNOW YET, THAT'S FINE.
YOU KNOW, I WILL LIKELY DISPOSE OF IT TODAY.
I DON'T KNOW THAT WE HAVE, I KNOW WE DON'T HAVE REGISTERED SPEAKERS, UM, AND I'M NOT CLEAR IF THE APPLICANT INTENDS TO, UH, ATTEND, SO.
UH, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, WOULD YOU LIKE IT BRIEFED? I DON'T NEED IT FURTHER TO BE BRIEFED.
ANYONE ELSE LIKE NUMBER 10 BRIEFED.
OKAY, WE'LL MOVE ON TO NUMBER 11.
UH, COMMISSIONER SERRA, WOULD YOU LIKE THIS ONE BRIEFED? NO, I DON'T NEED 11 OR 12 BRIEF, BUT I'D LIKE 13 BRIEFED POSSIBLE.
UM, COLLEAGUES, WOULD ANYONE ELSE LIKE 11 OR 12 BRIEF BEFORE WE MOVE ON FROM THOSE? OKAY.
WE'LL GO TO MR. AGUILERA ON CASE NUMBER 13.
[00:55:09]
UH, GOOD.UH, UH, MORNING, UH, UH, COMMISSIONERS, UH, HAPPY NEW YEAR IF YOU BEAR WITH ME SO I CAN, UH, UH, MAKE THE PRESENTATION APPLICATION, UH, C 25 0 0 0 1 73 IS, UH, BEAR WITH ME, IS AN APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO A SPECIFIC, UH, USE PERMIT 25 0 5 FOR THE SALE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE IN CONJUNCTION WITH A RESTAURANT WITHOUT DRIVING OR DRIVE THROUGH SERVICE USED ON A PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN SUB AREA TWO.
I, I NEEDED, UM, NUMBER, UM, 0 0 0 1 7 3.
THAT'S, UH, NUMBER 12, MR. AGUILERA? MM-HMM
CAN YOU REPEAT THAT, COMMISSIONER? YEAH, I'M SORRY.
UM, I, I NEED, UH, ITEM NUMBER 13 BRIEF.
CAN YOU BLOW THAT UP ON YOUR SCREEN, MR. AGUILERA? IT'S A LITTLE HARD FOR US TO SEE IN THAT NONS SLIDE SHOW MODE.
UH, SO YOU NEED 1 72, CORRECT? YES, THE ONE AT LAWN VIEW AND FORNEY ROAD.
APPLICATION Z 25 0 0 0 1 7 2 IS AN APPLICATION FOR A NEW SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR THE CELLS OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE IN CONJUNCTION WITH A, A GENERAL MERCHANDISE FOOD STORE, LESS THAN 3,500 SQUARE FEET ON A PROPERTY ZONE CR COMMUNITY RETAIL DISTRICT WITH D ONE LIQUOR CONTROL OVERLAY.
IT'S LOCATED IN THE SOUTH CORNER OF LAND VIEW AVENUE AND FORNEY ROAD.
IT'S APPROXIMATELY 13,306, UH, 24 SQUARE FEET FOR THE, FOR THE SITE.
THIS IS, UH, THE MAP, UH, SHOWS THE LOCATION, THE STAR IN RELATIONSHIP TO THE CITY LIMITS.
UH, HERE IS THE AERIAL, WHICH, UH, CHOSE, UH, UM, A, UH, CHOP, UH, TO THE NORTH, UM, CR OFFICE TO THE EAST, UH, CR RETAIL TO THE SOUTH, AS WELL AS, UH, TOW YARD.
SO STOPS THE TERMINATION IS THAT IS, UH, COMPARABLE WITH THE USE THIS, UH, UH, REQUEST USED TO HAVE, UH, AN OLD SUP.
UM, HOWEVER, THEY MISS THE, THE DEADLINE.
SO ON JANUARY 25TH, 2012, THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVED SUP 1935 FOR A TWO YEAR PERIOD ON JANUARY EIGHT, UH, IT WAS A RENEWED FOR A FIVE YEAR PERIOD.
ON APRIL 24TH, 2019, THE CITY COUNCIL RENEWED THE SUP, UM, FOR A ONE YEAR PERIOD.
THEN ON AUGUST 11, THE CITY COUNCIL RENEWED THE SUP FOR A FIVE YEAR PERIOD.
AND THEN, UH, UH, AGAIN, THE SUP EXPIRE AND THAT'S WHY THEY'RE HERE.
IT HAS THE SIGNS, UH, PROPERLY POSTED ON, UH, BOTH SIDES OF THE STREET.
IT'S A GAS STATION AND A CONVENIENCE STORE.
UM, AND HERE ARE THE SURROUNDING USES, WHICH, UM, STUFF FEELS THAT THEY'RE COMPATIBLE.
[01:00:02]
UH, AND THEN HERE IS THE SITE PLAN.THE HIGHLIGHTED, UH, AREA ON BLUE IS THE, THE STORE, WHICH IS REQUIRING THE, THE SITE PLAN.
AND THEN HERE IS THE DALLAS FORWARD, FORWARD DALLAS TO, UM, GENERAL PLAN.
AND, UM, IF YOU SEE BY THE ARROW IS, UH, UH, IT MEETS THE, THE LAND USES IS COMPATIBLE WITH WHAT THE DALLAS VISION, UH, HAS, UH, UM, IS LOOKING FORWARD FOR THIS PARTICULAR AREA.
AND THEN, AS I STATED, IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING USES.
AND THEN AS STAFF IS RECOMMENDING, UM, APPROVAL WITH, UH, NO TIME LIMIT.
UH, COMMISSIONER SERATO, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? YEAH.
UM, DO YOU HAVE ANY INSIGHT AS TO WHY PERHAPS THEY MISSED THEIR RENEWAL DATE? IS THERE LIKE NEW MANAGEMENT, NEW OWNERS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT? UM, MY MY UNDERSTANDING IS JUST THAT, UH, THEY, UH, THEY FORGOT ABOUT IT AND THEN THEY SKIPPED IT.
UM, AND THEN I WAS IN THE AREA LAST WEEK AND DROVE BY AND I DIDN'T SEE ANY SIGNAGE UP.
SO I DON'T KNOW IF, UM, PERHAPS SOMETHING HAPPENED, I DON'T KNOW, BUT I, I DIDN'T SEE ANY SIGNAGE UP LAST WEEK WHEN I DROVE BY.
UM, SO THAT MAY BE SOMETHING TO, UH, MENTION TO THE APPLICANT.
WHY DON'T WE HAVE MS. MORRISON ADDRESS THE SIGNAGE ISSUE? SORRY TO JUMP IN THERE.
I JUST FIGURED IT WOULD HELP TO HAVE LEGAL FILL US IN ON, ON THAT.
SORRY, WHAT WAS THE QUESTION? UM, I DROVE BY THE PROPERTY LAST WEEK AND I DIDN'T SEE ANY SIGNAGE UP.
THAT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU MIGHT WANNA ASK THE APPLICANT ABOUT DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AND THEN THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION BASED ON THE RESPONSE FROM THE APPLICANT, WILL HAVE TO MAKE A DETERMINATION IF THEY'RE SATISFIED THAT THE SIGNS WERE UP THE WHOLE TIME.
AND IF NOT, UM, I'LL NEED TO CHECK THE CODE, BUT THERE'S GOING TO BE A MANDATORY AMOUNT OF TIME YOU'LL HAVE TO HOLD THE CASE IF THE FINDING OF THE COMMISSION IS THAT THE SIGNS WEREN'T UP THE ENTIRE TIME.
AND THEN I I, FOR ALL THREE OF MY CASES, I SAW THAT THERE WAS, UM, WELL, FOR TWO OF MY CASES TODAY, THERE WAS NO EXPIRATION DATE ON, UM, THE SUP, WHICH I, I KNOW THIS
SO I WILL DEFINITELY BE MAKING A CHANGE TO THAT.
UM, BUT I THINK THOSE ARE ALL THE QUESTIONS I HAD.
AND JUST, JUST SO YOU KNOW, THE, THE APPLICANT, UH, HAS THE KNOWLEDGE AND THEY PROVIDE US A, A SIGN, UH, AFFIDAVIT THAT, UH, THAT THEY WILL COMPLY WITH THE NOTIFICATION SIGNS AND THAT THEY'RE RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT.
AS I STATED, WHEN I WENT TO THE SITE, UH, IT SHOWS THE TWO REQUIRED SIGNS.
AND, UM, UM, OTHER THAN THAT, I, I APOLOGIZE, I, I DIDN'T RECEIVE ANY COMPLAINTS OR ANY ISSUES, SO, ALRIGHT.
AND I'LL JUST FLAG THAT WE WILL DEAL WITH THE SIGNAGE ISSUE THROUGH OUR USUAL PROCESS AT THE, UH, PUBLIC HEARING THIS AFTERNOON.
SO, AND MR. CHAIR, I'LL JUST CLARIFY THAT IF THE CASE NEEDS TO BE HELD DUE TO A FINDING OF, UH, LACK OF POSTED SIGNAGE, UH, IT NEEDS TO BE HELD FOR AT LEAST FOUR WEEKS.
SO WE CAN JUST WAIT TO SEE IF THERE'S ANYBODY PRESENT FROM YEAH, WE CAN, WE CAN ADDRESS IT.
I MEAN, JUST TO PREVIEW, IT'S, IT'S UH, SORT OF A PRELIMINARY QUESTION.
IF THERE'S A QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER THE SIGN HAS BEEN UP AND, YOU KNOW, WE CAN EITHER CONFIRM THAT THE REQUIREMENTS OF THAT CODE PROVISION HAVE BEEN SATISFIED AND MOVE ON TO TAKE UP THE CASE ON THE MERITS, OR WE CAN DETERMINE THAT THEY HAVEN'T AND THEN YOU CAN EITHER CHOOSE TO HOLD IT OR DENY IT.
YEAH, I'M PRETTY FAMILIAR WITH THE AREA, SO I KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF WANDERING
AND MS. MORRISON, IF YOU CAN BE READY WITH THE FULL LEGAL STANDARD THIS AFTERNOON, INCLUDING I THINK THE GOOD FAITH MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENT, THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON ITEM NUMBER 13? OKAY, NUMBER 14, UM, FROM DISTRICT 14, YOU WANT IT BRIEFED? OKAY, LET'S BRIEF THAT.
MR. AGUILERA, UH, THIS IS, UH, APPLICATION Z 25 0 0 0 1 48 IS, UH, FOR
[01:05:01]
AN SUP FOR THE RENEWAL OF, UH, A SPECIFIC USE, UH, PERMIT 24 64 FOR AN ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE ESTABLISHMENT, LIMITED TO A BAR LUNCH OR, OR A TAVERN AND A COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT INSIDE ON A PROPERTY ZONE DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT SIX 19 WITH, UH, A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT.24 11 FOR AN ATTACH PROJECTING NON-PREMISE DISTRICT ACTIVITY, UH, ACTIVITY VIDEO SIGN.
THIS IS LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST, UH, LINE OF ELM STREET, UH, NORTHEAST OF NORTH, UH, ACKER STREET IS APPROXIMATELY POINT 13, UH, ACRES IN, UH, SITE.
IT IS, UH, LOCATED IN THE DOWNTOWN.
UH, HERE IS THE AERIAL THAT, UH, CHOSE THE, THE LOCATION WHICH IS HIGHLIGHTED ON BLUE.
THIS IS WHAT IT IS SURROUNDED, UH, USES ARE, WHICH IS, UH, MULTIFAMILY RETAIL OFFICE PARKING TO THE NORTH, TO THE EAST.
THERE'S A, A RETAIL, A HOTEL OFFICE AND PARKING AS WELL.
UH, TO THE SOUTH IS, UH, RETAIL, RESTAURANT OFFICE AND PARKING.
AND THEN TO THE WEST IS RETAIL, RESTAURANTS, HOTEL OFFICE, AND, UH, PARKING.
UH, THIS IS, UH, CURRENTLY DEVELOPED, DEVELOPED WITH ABOUT, UH, 5,688 SQUARE FEET COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT LOCATED ON, UH, THE GROUND FLOOR.
AND, UH, PART OF A STRUCTURE WITH MULTIPLE USES, INCLUDING MULTIFAMILY PERSONAL SERVICES USE AND COMMERCIAL PARKING LOT OR, UM, GARAGE.
UH, IT HAS BEEN, UH, UH, IT WAS APPROVED BEFORE ON SEPTEMBER 28TH BY CITY COUNCIL, UH, WHICH ALLOWS, UH, FOR WHAT I JUST STATED FOR THAT RENEWAL.
IT'S, UH, THE OFFICIAL NAME IS THE SWEET TOOTH, UH, HOTEL, BUT, BUT IT'S NOT A HOTEL
I JUST DID A, UH, THREE, UH, 60, JUST, UH, TOOK THE PICTURE OF WHAT IS AROUND SO THAT THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION CAN MAKE A DETERMINATION.
UH, AND THEN ON THE TOP IS, UH, PARKING.
AND THEN I PUT THIS TO THE WELCOME OF, UH, SWEET TOOTH, UH, HOTEL.
SO WHAT IT IS, IS, UH, MY UNDERSTANDING IS AN, UH, ART EXHIBIT WITH DIFFERENT ROOMS AND IT DISPLAYS DIFFERENT, UH, THEMES AND THEN PATTERNS GO THERE AND TAKE A PICTURE AND INTERACT WITH THE, WITH THE EXHIBIT.
UH, OUTSIDE IT HAS A BAR WHERE THEY ALSO SELL, UH, FOOD AND THEY DO LIVE, UH, MUSIC EVENTS FROM, FROM TIME TO TIME.
UM, HERE IS THE, THE SIDE PLAN.
AND THEN, UM, AGAIN, STUFF FEELS THAT, THAT, UH, IT MEETS THE, UM, THE REQUIREMENTS.
IT HAS, UM, UM, UH, COMPARABLE USES WITH SURROUNDING PROPERTY AND THE STAFF IS RECOMMENDING, UH, APPROVAL WITH, UH, NO TIME LIMIT QUESTION, UH, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS.
COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, UH, MR. AGUILERA, UH, I KNOW YOU AND I HAVE COMMUNICATED BY EMAIL, SO I'M REPEATING MYSELF, BUT FOR THE RECORD, UM, I HAVE A CONCERN HERE ABOUT THE OPEN-ENDED ENTITLEMENT THAT RUNS WITH THE LAND AND NOT WITH THE OPERATOR BECAUSE THIS SUP IS FOR A PERMANENT TIME PERIOD AND FOR AN UNSPECIFIED COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT INDOORS, WHICH MEANS THAT THOUGH RIGHT NOW IT'S SOME SORT OF INTERACTIVE ART EXHIBIT AND OCCASIONAL LIVE MUSIC, IT COULD TURN INTO ANYTHING THAT FALLS UNDER COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT INSIDE AND WOULD HAVE THE POTENTIAL FOR PERMANENCE.
AND GIVEN THAT, UH, COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENTS HAVE A, UM, UH, SAY A PROPENSITY FOR, UH, AN ABILITY TO BECOME A NUISANCE, IT'S STILL CONSIDERED STAFF CONSIDERS THAT A PERMANENT TIME PERIOD FOR AN UNSPECIFIED COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT IS APPROPRIATE.
UH, WE DID GET ONE BALLOT IN OPPOSITION THAT SPECIFICALLY SAID THAT I BELIEVE IT WAS A, HE OBJECTED BECAUSE OF THE LIGHT POLLUTION ON ELM STREET.
DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT THAT IS TALKING ABOUT? UM, MY, MY BELIEF IS I BELIEVE THAT THEY'RE COMPLAINING ABOUT THE, THE TV, UM, OR THE DIGITAL DISPLAYS, WHICH IS THAT OF THE VIDEO BOARD.
SO I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THAT, UH, ESTABLISHED RECOMMENDATION IS NOT, UH, IT, IT WILL NOT TAKE A PRECEDENT OR IS
[01:10:01]
NOT RECOMMENDING THE VIDEO BOARD, UH, DISPLAY.AND THAT, YEAH, IT'S REASONABLE THAT SOMEONE WOULD THINK THAT THE VIDEO BOARD IS, IS PART OF THIS REQUEST, BUT IT'S NOT.
ITEMS NUMBER 15 AND 16 SAME APPLICANT ARE BOTH GOING TO BE HELD TO OUR FIRST FEBRUARY MEETING, CORRECT? WE NEED, I DON'T BELIEVE WE NEED THOSE BRIEFED.
DO NOT, UM, IN ITEM NUMBER 17 IS ALSO BEING HELD TO OUR FIRST FEBRUARY MEETING.
IS THAT RIGHT? DOES ANYONE NEED THAT ONE BRIEFED? WE TYPICALLY DON'T BRIEF THEM WHEN WE'RE HOLDING THEM.
UM, THAT BRINGS US TO THE CONCLUSION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA.
WHY DON'T WE TAKE A 10 MINUTE BREAK AND BE BACK AT 10 26.
IT IS 10:34 AM AND THE BRIEFING OF THE DALLAS CITY PLAN COMMISSION IS BACK ON THE RECORD.
ON THE NEXT CASE IS NUMBER 18.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THERE IS A GIS NOTIFICATION ISSUED THERE, SO THAT'S GOING TO BE HELD.
IS THAT RIGHT? THAT IS CORRECT.
I JUST HAVE A QUICK QUESTION FOR MR. BATE JUST TO GET US ON THE RECORD, 'CAUSE YEAH, CERTAINLY WE DON'T NEED TO BRIEF THIS ONE AGAIN.
UH, MR. BATE, I KNOW THERE THE, UH, APPLICANT ADDED SOME ADDITIONAL LAND TO THE APPLICATION NOTICES WERE SENT OUT.
COULD YOU BRIEF, BRIEF THE COMMISSION ON SORT OF WHAT OUR NOTICE, UH, STATUS IS RIGHT NOW? CERTAINLY.
COMMISSIONER SIMS. UH, JUST FOR SOME INFORMATION, THE APPLICANT CAME IN, I BELIEVE IN EARLY DECEMBER WITH, UH, AN, AN AMENDMENT TO THE APPLICATION TO EXPAND THE AREA OF REQUEST.
UH, THIS EXPANSION MOVED IT OR NOT MOVED IT, BUT EXPANDED AT WESTWARD A LITTLE BIT.
THERE'S ATTRACTIVE LAND THAT THE APPLICANT PURCHASED.
UH, AND SO THEY FILED A NEW, SET, A NEW LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THAT AREA OF REQUEST.
IT WAS PROCESSED BY OUR GIS TEAM, UH, REVIEWED AND SENT OUT WITH A PUBLIC NOTICE FOR TODAY'S HEARING DATE.
UH, DURING THE REVIEW OF THAT NOTICE, UH, IT WAS FOUND THAT ALMOST SAID IT WAS NOTICED, UH, BUT IT WAS FOUND THAT THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION THAT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT ONCE MAPPED, IT ACTUALLY DIDN'T QUITE INCLUDE ALL OF THE AREA THAT THE APPLICANT HAD PURCHASED.
UH, AS SUCH IT WOULD LEAVE SORT OF A SLIVER OF LAND, NOT REZONED IF THIS WERE TO REACH A FINAL, UH, ADJUDICATION AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE.
UH, AS SUCH, THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED A NEW LEGAL DESCRIPTION, SHORING UP THOSE BOUNDARIES.
OUR GIS TEAM HAS REVIEWED IT, UH, AND WE ARE READY TO SEND OUT A NEW NOTICE, UH, FOR THE, FOR THE CASE THAT REFLECTS THAT, UH, SORT OF FINAL, UH, LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND BOUNDARIES.
UM, I WOULDN'T SAY THAT THERE WAS A NAME A STAKE MADE ON, ON THE GIS PART.
IT WAS SIMPLY JUST THE WAY THAT THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION WAS WRITTEN.
UM, SO WOULD THIS, IF THE CASE WERE TO BE HELD, WE WOULD DO A NEW RE-NOTICE JUST REFLECTING THESE SORT OF FINAL BOUNDARIES THERE.
UH, HAPPY TO TAKE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THAT? YEAH, MR. MR. BETTY, IF WE, IF WE DO HOLD, ARE WE READY? WOULD WE BE READY TO GO FROM A NOTICE PERSPECTIVE AT OUR FEBRUARY 5TH MEETING? I BELIEVE SO, YES.
WE WOULD JUST, YEAH, WE GOT THE, THE DESCRIPTION CLOSED YESTERDAY AFTERNOON SO WE COULD NOTICE IT.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS, MR. CHAIR? COLLEAGUES? ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? MR. COX? MR. BATE, JUST REAL QUICK, THE, UM, THE PROPERTY THAT, THE TRACKS THAT THE, THE APPLICANT IS, IS TRYING TO GET REZONED.
UM, DO YOU KNOW IF THOSE TRACKS WERE PREVIOUSLY PLATTED? UH, THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION.
UH, WE'VE HAD SOME SORT OF INQUIRIES ABOUT THIS, UH, FROM I THINK FROM VARIOUS SOURCES.
UH, WE HAVEN'T DONE A DEEP DIVE INTO THE OVERALL PLATTED STATUS OF THE LOTS.
UH, A BRIEF PERUSAL OF THEM INDICATES THERE MIGHT BE SOME THAT, UH, MAY HAVE BEEN PLATTED TO SOME EXTENT, UH, IN THE PAST.
OTHERS ARE STILL LEGALLY DESIGNATED AS TRACKS OF LAND.
UH, I THINK IN TERMS OF DETERMINING THE SUITABILITY OF THEM AS RECORDED PLANTS OR NOT, UH, ADDITIONAL RESEARCH WOULD NEED TO BE MADE BY OUR TEAM AS WELL AS THE SUBDIVISION TEAM, UH, TO REALLY JUST INVESTIGATE SORT OF THE HISTORY OF THESE DIFFERENT PARCELS OF LAND DETERMINE WHEN AND IF THEY WERE EVER SUBDIVIDED, UM, AS WELL AS WHETHER THEY WERE SUBDIVIDED INTO CITY BLOCKS OR FURTHER DOWN INTO LOTS.
UM, AND I THINK SOME DISCUSSION ON THAT REGARDING SORT OF WHERE THE LINE IS, IS WHEN YOU SAY SOMETHING IS PLATTED OR NOT, RIGHT.
MY QUESTION IS, IS REALLY SORT OF ROOTED IN THE, THE SB 15, FOR EXAMPLE.
IS SB GOING TO APPLY OR NOT? I DON'T EXPECT YOU TO ANSWER THAT RIGHT NOW.
CLEARLY YOU NEED TO ANSWER, UH, THE QUESTION WHETHER OR NOT THE THE TRACKS WERE PREVIOUSLY PLATTED.
AND I DON'T KNOW IF MICHAEL WANTED TO ADD SOME COLOR TO THAT.
UM, YOU KNOW, WE WOULDN'T REALLY BE ABLE TO DETERMINE ANYTHING ABOUT SB 15 ELIGIBILITY AT THIS TIME, OR EVEN NECESSARILY IN THE ZONING CASES.
IT'S MORE OF A SEPARATE KIND OF PROCESS AND
[01:15:01]
PROCEDURE.UM, BUT I THINK KIND OF THE FIRST ORDER, OF COURSE WOULD BE THAT WITH ANY SB 15 REQUEST A, UH, APPLICANT COMES IN AND SORT OF PROVIDES, UH, I GUESS YOU COULD SAY THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SOME EXTENT IS ON THE APPLICANT TO SHOW THAT THE PLAT THE LAND IS NOT, UH, CURRENTLY PLATTED.
UM, AND WE HAVE NOT, UH, HAD ANY SORT OF SUBSTANTIVE LEVEL OF INVESTIGATION, UH, WITH THE APPLICANT ON THAT AT THIS TIME.
WELL, MY UNDERSTANDING IS I, I RECEIVED INFORMATION FROM SOME OF THE HOMEOWNERS SHOWING WHERE SEVERAL LOTS WERE INDEED PLATTED, UH, BACK IN THE, I GUESS 1920S.
SO I THROW THAT OUT ONLY BECAUSE IF, IF THIS THING COMES BACK TO US ON FEBRUARY 5TH, THAT THAT'S PROBABLY GONNA BE A QUESTION THAT NEEDS TO, TO BE ANSWERED.
AND, AND EVERYTHING YOU SAID IS, IS CORRECT.
IT, THE REAL REVIEW FOR ELIGIBILITY OF SB 15 WOULD HAVE TO BE DONE WHEN THAT PRELIMINARY PLAT IS SUBMITTED.
WE CAN PROVIDE SOME INFORMATION ON THE, THE BASICS OF IT, BUT IN, IN THIS FORMAT, WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF DOCUMENTATION TO, TO MAKE THOSE RULINGS.
SO THE BEST PLACE TO DO THAT WILL BE WHEN, WHEN OR IF THEY HAVE TO GO THROUGH A PRELIMINARY PLAN TO OPT INTO 15 AND THEY CAN, UH, THEY CAN PARTAKE IN THAT.
ANY FOLLOW-UP, COMMISSIONER HALL? UH, MR BAT? UH, THIS IS SORT OF FOLLOWING UP ON, UH, COMMISSIONER KNOX.
I BELIEVE THERE'S SOME STRUCTURES ON THIS THERE.
THERE'S MAYBE TWO OLDER HOUSES AND MAYBE WHAT AT ONE TIME LOOKED LIKE A WORKSHOP.
I MEAN, MAYBE, MAYBE BY THEIR EXISTENCE IT INDICATES THAT THERE WERE HO YOU KNOW, HOMES THERE AT, UH, YES, THERE ARE SOME STRUCTURES ON THE SITE AND, UH, THEY MAY HAVE BEEN USED AS HOMES AT SOME POINT.
UH, IN TERMS OF HOW THOSE KIND OF ARE REVIEWED GETTING OUTSIDE OF SB 15, JUST MORE BROADLY, UH, WITHIN THE CITY DEVELOPMENT CODE, WE HAVE THE CONCEPT OF THE BUILD SITE.
UH, SOMETIMES WE CALL IT A LEGAL BUILD SITE, BUT REALLY IT'S JUST A BUILD SITE.
UH, GENERALLY SPEAKING IN THE CITY, IN ORDER TO BUILD A PROPERTY, TO GET A PERMIT, TO BUILD SOMETHING, YOU NEED A BUILD SITE.
AND WE DEFINE A FEW DIFFERENT WAYS THAT WE CAN ARRIVE AT DETERMINING SOMETHING AS A BUILD SITE.
THE EASIEST IS IF YOU HAVE A PLATTED LOT.
SO IF I COME IN AND I SAY I WANT A PERMIT FOR BUILDING ON LOT ONE OF BLOCK F 6 5, 9 3, SOMETHING LIKE THAT, UH, THAT'S USUALLY A PRETTY QUICK CUT AND DRY BUILD SITE.
UH, HOWEVER, THERE ARE SOME OTHER INSTANCES WHERE YOU ARE ABLE TO BUILD SOMETHING WITHOUT HAVING A PLANTED LOT.
UH, GENERALLY THAT HAS TO DO WITH LAND THAT WAS BROUGHT INTO THE CITY PRIOR TO A CERTAIN CUTOFF DATE.
I WANNA SAY IN 1923 OR SO, THEREABOUTS.
UM, AS WELL AS SOME OTHER, THERE'S ABOUT SEVEN OR EIGHT DIFFERENT PROVISIONS IN THERE.
UH, BUT ALL THAT TO SAY THAT IT'S WHOLLY POSSIBLE THAT SOMETHING COULD HAVE BEEN BUILT LEGALLY ON THAT SITE AT SOME POINT WITHOUT IT BEING A PLATTED LOT AND THE PROCESS THAT WE GO THROUGH HERE, WE COULD CHANGE THE ZONING AND THEN THEY WOULD HAVE TO REQUEST A REPL TO ONE LOT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
OR YOU COULD DO IT REVERSE TOO.
THEY COULD REQUEST THE REPL FIRST AND THEN WE COULD DO THE ZONING.
BUT RIGHT NOW WE'RE ADDRESSING THE ZONING.
SO IF THEY DO GET THE ZONING CHANGE, THEN I WOULD ASSUME THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO IN AND REPL THIS TO ONE LOT, UH, MOST LIKELY.
SO IF, YEAH, IF THE APPLICANT'S REQUESTED MF TWO WERE TO BE, UH, GRANTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL, THEY WOULD PROBABLY NEED TO GO IN AND DO A REPL TO ONE LOT TO, UH, TURN IT INTO A BUILD SITE.
AGAIN, IT MIGHT, IT COULD PO SOME OF THE PARCELS OF LAND COULD POSSIBLY QUALIFY AS A BUILD SITE, BUT WE WOULD NEED TO DO FURTHER RESEARCH ON THAT.
GENERALLY SPEAKING, I WOULD ANTICIPATE THEY WOULD DO A REPL.
UH, LIKEWISE, IF IT WAS REZONED TO TH THREE, IT WOULD PROBABLY REQUIRE A REPL AS WELL TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THAT AND BUILD OUT AS MUCH AS NEEDED.
AND, UH, CONVERSELY, UH, YOU KNOW, IF THEY WERE TO, IF THEY WERE FOUND TO BE ABLE TO USE SB 15, THEY WOULD REPL THAT.
BUT THE EXISTING ZONING RIGHT NOW WOULD STILL CONTROL THAT PLAT, UM, IN SO MUCH AS THE TYPES OF USE IS ALLOWED.
SO TELL ME IF I'M CORRECT ON THIS, BUT I WOULD ASSUME WHETHER THERE WERE LOTS THAT HAD BEEN PLATTED PREVIOUSLY DOESN'T REALLY MATTER BECAUSE THAT CAN CHANGE.
I MEAN, GENERALLY YES, YOU CAN ALWAYS REPL SOMETHING, EVEN IF IT'S BEEN PLATTED BEFORE.
I MEAN, RIGHT THERE IN THE WORD RIGHT, RE REPL.
UM, IN TERMS OF SB 15 THOUGH, THAT'S WHERE, UM, THAT'S JUST, I THINK THAT'S MORE OF A DETERMINATION THAT'S MADE.
AT THE POINT OF SOMEONE REQUESTING A PLAT UNDER SB 15, UH, THEY WOULD'VE TO PROVE OUT THAT AS OF RIGHT NOW, IT'S NOT CURRENTLY PLATTED ALL FIVE ACRES OR MORE.
I JUST HAVE A COUPLE FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS.
WE DON'T NEED TO HAVE THIS PROPERTY PLATTED TO
[01:20:01]
MAKE A DECISION ON THE ZONING.WE DON'T NEED TO NECESSARILY BE CONCERNED ABOUT THE PLAT OR, UH, WHETHER A PIECE OF PROPERTY IS PLATTED AT THE TIME OF DETERMINING A REZONING.
UH, IT'S REALLY JUST WITH THE REZONING, WE'RE DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT THE PROPOSED BOTH THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSED USE AND ALSO THE BROADER SORT OF BUNDLE OF RIGHTS UNDER A RE WHATEVER THE NEW ZONING DISTRICT WOULD BE, WHETHER THAT'S APPROPRIATE IN THE AREA, WHETHER IT'S COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING LAND USES.
UH, IN TERMS OF CONSIDERATION OF PLATTING, MAYBE ONCE IN A WHILE IT COMES UP AND WE HAVE AN ODDLY SHAPED PIECE OF PROPERTY.
UH, BUT GENERALLY SPEAKING, UH, WE DON'T, WE DON'T CONSIDER AS MUCH THE IMPLICATIONS FOR PLATTING AT THE ZONING STAGE AND WHETHER OR NOT, YOU KNOW, SOME SORT OF REZONING GETS APPROVED OR DOESN'T GET APPROVED ON THIS, YOU KNOW, ZONING CASE THAT'S GOING TO BE BEFORE US.
AND THE APPLICANT COMES IN AND WANTS TO DO AN SB 15 DEVELOPMENT AND SUBMITS A PLAT AT THAT POINT, CITY STAFF WILL REVIEW IT AND GIVE A, WE RECOMMEND APPROVAL OR WE RECOMMEND DENIAL OF A SB 15 DEVELOPMENT BASED ON THE FULL, PRESUMABLY THE FULL RESEARCH INTO THE, YOU KNOW, HISTORY OF THE YES, I THINK MICHAEL DID.
DO YOU WANNA CHIME IN ON THAT ONE? YEAH.
AND, AND THAT HAS TO COME BEFORE CPC ACTUALLY, LIKE, LIKE MOST PLATS DO YOU KNOW, THEY, THEY WILL COME WITH A, A SUBDIVISION PLAT, UM, IN THE SUBDIVISION DOCKET AND STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION WILL BE ABOUT WHETHER IT MEETS ALL THE REQUIREMENTS TO, TO REPLANT.
AND IN THE SCENARIO WHERE THEY COULD BE USING 15, THEN IT WOULD, IT WOULD, THEY WOULD BE REVIEWING IT IN, IN LIGHT OF THAT.
AND SO THAT'S NOT JUST THE SIZE OF THE LOTS BEING 3000, IT'S ALSO THE MEETING THE BASIC, UH, UH, PRELIMINARY THINGS TO BE A, A SB 15 PLAT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM? ALRIGHT.
AND AGAIN, IT'S GOING TO BE HELD, JUST YOU, YOU INTEND TO MOVE TO HOLD IT TO TWO FIVE? CORRECT.
COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, I KNOW THERE'S SOME OPPOSITION.
CAN WE, IS IT OKAY IF WE BRIEF THAT ONE? OKAY.
COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN, DO YOU WANT THAT BRIEFED? OKAY.
UH, THIS IS, UH, APPLICATION, UH, Z 25 0 0 1 52.
UM, THIS WAS, UH, THIS A CONTINUATION FROM, UH, THE DECEMBER, UH, PUBLIC HEARING.
OKAY, SO THE APPLICATION IS FOR A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR A COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLE PARKING ON A PROPERTY ZONE CS COMMERCIAL, UH, SERVICE DISTRICT WITH SUP NUMBER EIGHT 90.
LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SOUTHWEST SIDE OF, UH, SOUTH CENTRAL EXPRESSWAY BETWEEN, UH, YOUNG BLACK ROAD AND LINWOOD BOULEVARD JOHNSON, UH, FREEWAY.
IT'S APPROXIMATELY, UH, SEVEN ACRES IN, UH, IN TOTAL IN SIZE.
THE, THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONE CS COMMERCIAL SERVICE DISTRICT, AS I STATED, WITH AN SUP FOR RADIO, TELEVISION OR MICROWAVE TOWER, UH, CONSIDERATION.
AND THEN, UM, LET ME, SO, SO HERE'S THE, THE AERIAL SITE.
IF YOU CAN SEE THE, UH, AREA HIGHLIGHTED ON, UH, RED, THAT'S THE SITE.
UM, THE SURROUNDING SUNING, UH, USES IS THERE'S A HODGKIN'S JURISDICTION, UM, TO THE EAST.
UH, THERE'S A UNDEVELOPED SINGLE FAMILY TO THE, UH, TO THE WEST.
UH, AND THEN, UH, THERE IS, UH, AGRICULTURE, UH, ALL THROUGH THE AREA.
AND THIS IS THE REASON WHY THIS SITE REQUIRES, UH, AN SUP, UH, BECAUSE AGRICULTURE IN OUR DEFINITION IS CONSIDERED SINGLE FAMILY.
[01:25:01]
THAT YOU SEE TO THE WEST IS NOT WITHIN THE DISTANCE.UM, HERE WAS THE PICTURES OF THE SITE VISIT.
AND, UH, AS YOU CAN SEE, THIS STILL HAS THAT, UH, UH, CELL TOWER, UM, IN USE.
AND THEN THERE'S A SIMILAR USES, HOWEVER, THAT'S OUTSIDE THE, THE CITY OF DALLAS, UH, JURISDICTION.
AND THEN, UM, THE APPLICANT PROVIDED A REVISED SITE PLAN, UH, THAT, UH, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT YOU RECEIVE, UH, ALL, UH, A COPY OF THE REVISED SITE PLAN FROM, UH, JANUARY, UH, 12TH, 2016.
IF YOU CAN SEE FROM, UH, THE POWERPOINT PRESENTATION, THEY, UH, INCREASE THE LANDSCAPE, UH, AREA, UH, TO PROVIDE, UH, MORE, UH, TREES.
AND, UH, THAT WAS, UH, A CHANGE FROM, FROM THIS APPLICATION.
UM, OTHER THAN THAT, IN REFERENCE TO THE CONDITIONS AND ALSO THE STAFF, UH, RECOMMENDATION, UH, WE STILL RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH A 10 YEAR PERIOD WITH ELIGIBILITY FOR AUTOMATIC RENEWALS FOR ADDITIONAL 10 YEAR PERIOD SUBJECT TO, UH, SITE PLAN AND CONDITIONS.
ANY QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONERS, COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN? UH, YES.
CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE, UH, CONDITIONS PLEASE? UH, THE APPLICANT PROPOSED SOME ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS.
DID YOU RECEIVE THEM? I, I DID NOT.
WHAT, WHAT I DID RECEIVE WAS THE, THE, THE RIGHT SIDE PLAN.
UH, UH, THEY WERE INTENDING TO, UH, LIMIT, UH, THE ACCESS, UH, TO THE SITE IN ADDITION TO THE LANDSCAPE BUFFERS AND IN TERMS OF THE NUMBER OF TRUCK VISITS THAT WILL COME IN AND OUT OF THE SITE EACH DAY.
WE CAN DISCUSS THAT LATER WITH THE, THE APPLICANT.
UM, 'CAUSE THEY WILL BE HERE TO PRESENT.
I, I'LL JUST REFEREE IT SOUNDS LIKE WE, WE DIDN'T RECEIVE THOSE, BUT IF YOU WANTED TO THE APPLICANT, YOU'RE GONNA READ THEM INTO THE RECORD AND YOU CAN MOTION FOR THEM IF YOU WANTED TO INCORPORATE THEM AS A PART OF A, A MOTION.
I DO KNOW THAT THERE WAS SOME OPPOSITION.
UM, THERE WAS A LETTER THAT I CIRCULATED KNOW AMONG THE COMMISSIONERS.
UH, DID YOU ALL RECEIVE ANY BLUE LETTERS AND OPPOSITION TO THIS PROJECT OR THIS SUP? UM, SO I DID RECEIVE THAT, UH, LETTER, UH, WHICH I FORWARD, FORWARD YOU, UM, THAT LETTER.
BUT TO MY KNOWLEDGE, WE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY, UH, BLUE LETTERS UNLESS, UH, I CAN BE CORRECTED BY, UH, OUR STAFF.
AND DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE NATURE OF THE BUSINESS WILL BE INCLUDED IN THIS SUP? SO, UM, SO IF IT IS APPROVED, IT WILL BE FOR THE, UH, TRUCK PARKING.
AND THEN IT WILL ALSO, UH, CONTINUE TO HAVE THE CELL TOWER, UH, USED AS WELL AS PER LETTERS.
WE RECEIVED ONE IN SUPPORT AND ZERO IN OPPOSITION OF THE 7 CENT.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS, MR. CHAIR.
WHEN WAS THAT LETTER CIRCULATED? I MAY HAVE MISSED IT, IT MAY HAVE BEEN MY FAULT.
I THOUGHT I CIRCULATED IT OKAY.
I WILL RECIRCULATE, IF YOU JUST RECIRCULATE IT, SEND IT TO MS. LOPEZ SO THE COMMISSION CAN HAVE IT BEFORE THIS AFTERNOON.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER CARPENTER? YES, MR. AGUILAR? MY, UH, QUESTION IS ABOUT THE RECOMMENDATION FOR THE AUTO RENEWALS BECAUSE IN THE STAFF REPORT IT SAYS, UM, STAFF RECOMMENDS REVISITING THE SUP WITHIN 10 YEARS TO ADDRESS ANY CHANGES IN LAND USE AND LAND COMPATIBILITY.
WELL, THAT WOULD NOT OCCUR WITH AUTO RENEWALS, IS MY UNDERSTANDING.
I, I DISCUSSED THIS WITH MS. DREA AFTER OUR LAST, UM, HEARING WHEN WE PUT UNDER ADVISEMENT.
AND SHE, I DON'T THINK SHE'S HERE, BUT, UM, SHE BASICALLY SAID THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT ISN'T PART OF THE AUTO NORMAL AUTOMATIC RENEWAL, AS LONG AS THEY GET THEIR PAPERWORK IN ON TIME, PAY THEIR FEES, THE SITE PLAN IS IN COMPLIANCE AND THE NEIGHBORS DON'T REACH THE THRESHOLD FOR OPPOSITION.
THERE, THERE ISN'T A DETERMINATION OF COMPATIBILITY.
YOU, YOU, YOU ARE CORRECT ON, ON THAT.
AND YOU MENTIONED THAT ON, ON, ON THE DECEMBER, UH, UH, PUBLIC, UH, HEARING.
[01:30:01]
I JUST, UH, LEFT, LEFT IT, UH, UM, AS, AS IT WAS.
UH, YOUR RECOMMENDATION CAN CHANGE THAT AS WELL.
'CAUSE MY, UM, INFERENCE FROM READING THIS IS THAT IF STAFF CONSIDERS THAT WE SHOULD REVISIT IT IN 10 YEARS, THAT WOULD BE AN ARGUMENT FOR NO AUTO RENEWALS.
UM, THE OTHER THING I EXPRESSED, UH, CONCERN ABOUT THE LAST TIME WAS THE, UM, ALTERNATE SURFACE THAT WAS GOING TO BE THE PAVEMENT HERE.
MR. NAVAREZ, YOU KNOW, ACCORDING TO THE, UH, SITE PLAN AND THE REVISED SITE PLAN, THERE'S GOING TO BE, UH, 220 SOMETHING THOUSAND SQUARE FEET OF GRAVEL ON THIS SITE FOR PARKING, UH, EITHER TRUCKS OR TRAILERS.
UM, THIS SUP WOULD ALLOW TRUCKS TO PARK.
I'VE BEEN TOLD BY THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE THAT IT'S MOSTLY GONNA BE TRAILERS, WHICH ISN'T IN THE SUP CONDITIONS.
BUT, UM, IN MY EXPERIENCE WITH INDUSTRIAL SITES WHERE YOU HAVE THESE HEAVY COMMERCIAL VEHICLES DRIVING ON GRAVEL OR THE SUBSTANCE THEY CALL BASE, UM, WHILE I UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S A BENEFIT TO STORMWATER TO HAVE A PERVIOUS SURFACE, IT'S ALMOST AN INSTANT AIR QUALITY PROBLEM.
CAN YOU COMMENT ON YOUR EXPERIENCE WITH THAT? IS THERE A PERVIOUS, UH, SUBSTANCE THAT, THAT BOTH ADDRESSES THE STORMWATER AND THE AIR QUALITY? 'CAUSE I, I HAVEN'T SEEN IT.
COMMISSIONER STEVEN NEVAREZ IS REPRESENTING ENGINEERING THIS MORNING.
UM, THANK YOU FOR YOUR QUESTION.
I DO BELIEVE THAT THERE ARE MATERIALS THAT WE PROVIDE WITHIN THE MENU OF OPTIONS FOR THE APPLICANTS TO FILE A NON-STANDARD AGREEMENT FOR PARKING.
AND I DON'T HAVE IT IN FRONT OF ME, BUT THERE ARE SEVERAL OPTIONS THAT ARE NOT AS EXPENSIVE AS MAINTAIN, UH, INSTALLING AND MAINTAINING ASPHALT OR CONCRETE.
AND, AND YET, UM, SAFER I WOULD, I WOULD USE THE, THE WORD SAFER TO MA MAINTAIN.
AND BECAUSE IT IS TRUE, I AGREE WITH YOU.
THAT'S ONE OF THE CHALLENGES THAT WE HAVE WITH REQUESTS FOR CRUSH GRANITE OR GRAVEL, WHERE, UM, IN INSTANCES WHERE THE VEHICLES WE KNOW ARE LARGER THAN THE AVERAGE PASSENGER CAR, WE KNOW THAT THEY'LL NEED, REQUIRE ADDITIONAL MAINTENANCE THAT THE CITY CAN'T CONTROL OR ENFORCE.
AND THEREFORE IT BECOMES AN ISSUE, A NU A NEW INCIDENT.
UM, YOU KNOW, EVEN SPILLING OUT ONTO THE SIDEWALK INLETS.
AND I, I, BY ANSWERING YOUR QUESTION, I, I'M LETTING YOU KNOW YES MA'AM, THERE ARE OPTIONS THAT THE APPLICANT MAY WILL BE REQUIRED TO.
BUT THAT SAID, I, IS IT GOING TO BE A PROBLEM THEN FOR THE SUP SITE PLAN TO SPECIFY THAT GRAVEL IS ALLOWED? CAN YOU ZOOM IN HERE? IT'S IN THE DATA TABLE.
SHOULD THAT BE A SUBSTANCE APPROVED BY THE ALTERNATE SUB SURFACE APPROVED BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL? UM, YES.
IT, IT REALLY TIES US THE CITY AS TO WHAT WE CAN OFFER TO THE APPLICANT.
UM, I WOULD ASK THE APPLICANT TO CONSIDER REMOVING THAT AT THIS TIME.
AND THEN THAT ALLOWS US TO EXPLORE OTHER OPTIONS AND, UM, ALLOWING HIM TO CONSIDER OTHER OPTIONS THAT ARE AVAILABLE FOR, BECAUSE RIGHT NOW, IF IT, IF IT GOES THROUGH WITH A SITE PLAN THAT SAYS GRAVEL, THEN PERMITTING IS TIED.
JUST TO CLARIFY, WHERE, WHERE ARE YOU SEEING GRAVEL ON THE SITE PLAN? 'CAUSE I, I THINK WE TRIED TO HAVE THAT, SAY, PROPOSED SURFACE TO BE SELECTED FROM THE NON-STANDARD MATERIAL LIST.
I, SO I SEE THE LEGEND, WHICH IS WHAT WE WOULD PREFER MAINTAIN.
IT REMAINS THAT IT REFERS TO THE NON COMMISSIONER CARPENTER WAS NOTICING ON THE SITE DATA TABLE, IT SAYS PROPOSED TOTAL GRAVEL AREA.
I DON'T THINK THAT THAT WOULD NECESSARILY, WELL, I, I HEAR YOU.
THE WORD GRAVEL THERE COULD BE REMOVED AND MAKE IT SUPER EASY AND CLEAN AND CLEAR.
BUT, UM, I STILL THINK THAT WE, WE WOULD BE ABLE TO WORK WITH THE APPLICANT WITH OTHER OPTIONS.
BUT WORDING SUCH AS A MATERIAL APPROVED BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL ALTERNATE MATERIAL APPROVED BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL, SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
AND I THINK IT'S, IT'D BE SUPER CLEAN.
IF WE REMOVE THE WORD, THE WORD GRAVEL.
ANYONE ELSE HAVE QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM? OKAY, THANK YOU MR. AGUILERA.
[01:35:01]
HAS NUMBER EIGHT BEEN OR SO NUMBER 20 BEEN BRIEFED BEFORE.DO WE NEED A BRIEF COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN? UH, YES.
I STRUGGLE WITH THIS EVERY TIME.
EVERY TIME I EVEN MADE NOTES THIS TIME TO REMIND ME.
LET'S SEE IF I CAN GET RID OF THIS CASE.
THIS IS A RENEWAL OF SUP 24 80.
UM, IT'S LOCATED, IT'S LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST LINE OF KLEBERG ROAD AND CARLETTA STREET.
UM, THIS IS AN APPLICATION TO RENEW 24 80, WHICH, UM, ALLOWED THE SALE OF ALCOHOL IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE GENERAL MERCHANDISE OR FOOD STORE GREATER THAN 3,500 SQUARE FEET.
THE PROPERTY ADDRESS IS 13 3 1 7 KLEBERG ROAD AND IT'S APPROXIMATELY 0.459 ACRES.
THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY DEVELOPED AS A CONVENIENCE STORE WITH FOUR MOTOR MOTOR VEHICLE FUELING POINTS UNDER A SINGLE CANOPY THAT'S BEEN IN EXISTENCE SINCE 1981.
THE SITE IS LOCATED ON PROPERTY ZONED CR COMMUNITY RETAIL DISTRICT WITH A D ONE LIQUOR CONTROL OVERLAY.
IT'S IN COUNCIL DISTRICT EIGHT.
THIS IS THE LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY WITHIN THE DALLAS CITY LIMITS.
THIS IS AN AERIAL MAP SHOWING THE PROPERTY.
YOU CAN SEE THIS IS THE BUILDING HERE AND THE SINGLE CANOPY THAT WAS REFERENCED.
THE ZONING AND USE MAP IS ON THE SCREEN.
UM, SO THE AREA IS CR D ONE COMMUNITY RETAIL AND D ONE LIQUOR CONTROL OVERLAY ACROSS FROM ACROSS KLEBERG ROAD.
THERE IS AN INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH, UH, ZONING AND D ONE CON LIQUOR CONTROL OVERLAY, AND THEN TO THE NORTH, KIND OF EAST AS WELL AS THE NORTHERN AREA.
R SEVEN FIVE, A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.
YOU CAN SEE TO THE EAST THERE IS A CHURCH AS WELL AS TO THE WEST.
UM, OTHER USES LOCATED, THERE IS A LAUNDRY FACILITY TO THE NORTHWEST, UM, AND OTHER GENERAL MERCHANDISE AND FOOD STORE TO THE SOUTHEAST ACROSS KLEBERG ROAD, THERE IS AN OFFICE SHOWROOM WAREHOUSE USE, AND THEN SOME UNDEVELOPED PROPERTY ON KLEBERG LOOKING NORTHWEST.
SO THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
THE THIRD, THE BUILDING THAT'S OVER 3,500 SQUARE FEET, AS WELL AS THE SINGLE CANOPY FOR, UM, FUEL SALES.
THIS IS ON KLEBERG ROAD LOOKING EAST, MORE DIRECTLY AT THE PROPERTY, YOU CAN SEE THAT THEY HAVE SOME PARKING IN FRONT OF THE BUILDING.
LOOKING AT THE PLACE TYPES FOR THE AREA, UM, THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES PLACE, UH, FUTURE PLACE TYPE IS SMALL TOWN RESIDENTIAL.
UM, THERE ARE SOME SIMILAR SMALL TOWN RESIDENTIAL PLACE TYPES TO THE NORTH AND EAST TO THE SOUTH OF THE PROPERTY.
THE PLA FUTURE PLACE TYPE IS THE NEIGHBORHOOD MIXED USE.
AND THEN TO THE WEST IS COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL.
THIS IS THE EXISTING SITE PLAN.
THERE WERE SOME UPDATES MADE TO THE SITE PLAN, YOU CAN SEE HERE.
UM, SO JUST A COUPLE ADDITIONS TO THE PARKING SPACES, UH, FOR CLARITY, A REMOVAL OF PARKING SPACES IN THIS AREA
[01:40:01]
AS THEY'RE NO LONGER BEING USED BY THE SITE.UM, BUT NO ROBUST CHANGES TO THE ORIGINAL SUP SITE PLAN.
SO BEFORE I GET TO MY RECOMMENDATION, I DO WANT TO, UM, EMPHASIZE THAT THIS IS A RENEWAL, UM, AND THAT THE PROPERTY CURRENTLY HAS A-T-A-B-C LICENSE, UM, THAT IS ACTIVE.
UH, IT ISN'T SET TO EXPIRE UNTIL, UM, SOMETIME IN 2027.
THE STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL FOR A PERMANENT TIME PERIOD SUBJECT TO THE UPDATED SITE PLAN AND THE CONDITIONS.
QUESTIONS FOR MR. GREGORY? I THINK YOU CLEARED UP, UM, MY QUESTIONS AT LEAST ONE OF MY QUESTIONS DURING THE, THE PRESENTATION, UH, BECAUSE ON THE AGENDA IT IDENTIFIES THIS AS BEING AN AMENDMENT INSTEAD OF A RENEWAL, BUT THIS IS IN FACT A RENEWAL AND THE SUP EXPIRED IN AUGUST OF 2025, IF THAT'S CORRECT.
SOME OF THAT IS JUST TERMINOLOGY.
SO WE'VE, WE ADVERTISE ALL OF OUR RENEWALS MOSTLY NOWADAYS AS, UM, AMENDMENTS TO GIVE US THE FREEDOM TO ADD CONDITIONS IF WE NEED TO.
UH, TO A DEGREE, IF YOU JUST ADVERTISE IT AS A RENEWAL, IT MIGHT SEEM THAT YOU'RE JUST, YOU KNOW, SNAPPING YOUR FINGERS AND, AND MAKING IT HAPPEN.
BUT IF IT'S ADVERTISED AS AN AMENDMENT, GIVES THE BODY AND THE STAFF THE FREEDOM TO ADD CONDITIONS IF NECESSARY.
IT'S NOT SEEN AS NECESSARY IN THIS CASE, BUT WE LIKE TO HAVE THAT AS AN OPTION BY ADVERTISING IT AS AN AMENDMENT.
AND SO I THINK IT WOULD'VE EXPIRED IN APRIL, BUT THEY'VE GOT THEIR APPLICATION OR AUGUST.
BUT WE GOT THE APPLICATION IN PRIOR TO THAT.
SO WE, WE LEAVE IT OPEN AND IT TREATS AS TREAT DE RENEWAL.
YEAH, IT DOES APPEAR THAT WE ARE PRETTY FAR INTO IT TIME-WISE, BUT THEY DID APPLY FOR THIS APPLICATION SIX MONTHS BEFORE THEIR EXPIRATION.
AND MY LAST QUESTION, UH, JUST SO THAT I HAVE IT ON THE RECORD HERE, THIS THE REQUEST FOR A A PERMANENT TIME PERIOD, THAT'S JUST TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE OVERARCHING GOAL FOR SUVS GOING FORWARD? THAT'S CORRECT.
JUST ONE FOLLOW UP QUESTION THERE.
I DON'T KNOW IF THIS GOES TO MR. PEPPY OR MR. GREGORY, BUT WE, PART OF THE REASON WHY WE CLASSIFY RENEWALS AS AN AMENDMENTS IS WE, THERE IS AN EXPIRATION DATE IN THE SUP AND WE ARE CHANGING THAT EXPIRATION DATE TO A NEW DATE FURTHER IN THE FUTURE WITH A RENEWAL.
SO IT DOES FUNCTION AS AN AMENDMENT.
WE AMEND THE CONDITIONS EVERY TIME WE CHANGE THE EXPIRATION DATE.
UH, WE'LL GO TO COMMISSIONER FORSYTH FIRST THEN COMMISSIONER CARPENTER.
IS THERE ANY, UH, PROVISION IN OUR CODE FOR RESTRICTING, UH, THE SALE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES NEXT TO A CHURCH? UH, HOW CLOSE IS THAT CHURCH TO THIS, UH, CONVENIENCE STORE? SO, THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION.
UM, THE STATE REQUIRES THAT, WELL, THE STATE AND THE DALLAS CITY CODE REQUIRES A 300 FOOT, UM, DOOR TO DOOR, UH, DISTANCE BETWEEN A BUSINESS THAT WANTS TO SELL ALCOHOL AND A CHURCH.
UM, MICHAEL, YOU CAN CORRECT THIS, IF I AM, I'M WRONG, BUT BECAUSE THIS WAS A RENEWAL, THIS BODY HAD PREVIOUSLY APPROVED OF THAT, AND TABC HAD ALSO APPROVED OF IT BECAUSE THERE IS AN ACTIVE TABC LICENSE CURRENTLY.
SO, UM, THE DISTANCE MEASURE MEASUREMENT WASN'T NECESSARILY A PART OF MY REVIEW FOR THIS CASE.
AND YEAH, SO GENERALLY, UM, IT'S, BUT THE ONLY THING I'LL ADD AS A CAVEAT IS THAT THE SUVS ARE NOT REALLY CONSIDERING THE, THE STATE LICENSING, UH, LIMITS, THE STATE LICENSING LIMITS ARE, ARE ROOTED IN STATE CODE.
AND A LOT OF TIMES PEOPLE CAN KEEP A LONG OPEN LIQUOR PERMIT REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OUR STP IS VALID OR NOT.
AND SO THAT'S WHY I, IT'S ACTUALLY PRETTY COMMON, UM, TO SEE MAYBE PEOPLE HAVE A, A PERMIT WITHOUT A VARIANCE, UM, NEAR A CHURCH BECAUSE THEY'VE HAD THAT LIQUOR PERMIT FOR YEARS OR YEARS.
AND, AND THAT'S OFTEN DIVORCED FROM THE SUP.
BUT I WANT TO CLARIFY, YOU'RE SAYING THAT THAT'S THE TABC OR THE STATE REGULATION? IT'S NOT ANYTHING IN OUR CODE.
WE HAVE A PORTION, IT COMES FROM THE STATE, BUT IT IS CODIFIED WITHIN DALLAS CHAPTER SIX.
AND, AND WE DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THE DISTANCE IS BETWEEN THIS PROPERTY AND THE CHURCH.
I DON'T HAVE THAT NUMBER FOR YOU OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, BUT IT IS RIGHT BEHIND THE CHURCH.
THE CHURCH IS RIGHT, THERE IS A CHURCH WITHIN THE AREA, THE STORE.
I THINK WE HAVE COMMISSIONER CARPENTER NEXT AND COMMISSIONER WHEELER.
MY QUESTION HAS TO DO IN THE JUMP IN THE TIME PERIOD FOR APPROVAL, THE LAST TIME THIS SUP WAS APPROVED,
[01:45:01]
IT WAS FOR AN 18 MONTH PERIOD.AND THAT'S KIND OF AN UNUSUAL PERIOD FOR US AND USUALLY INDICATIVE OF SOME SORT OF ISSUES, PROBLEMS ON THE PROPERTY.
UM, ARE I, I DON'T BELIEVE YOU HANDLED THE CASE THE LAST TIME AND I DON'T REMEMBER THE PARTICULAR OF THE CASE.
DO WE, IS THERE ANY MEMORY OF WHAT THE ISSUES WERE AND HAVE THOSE BEEN RESOLVED? IS IT A NEW OWNER, IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, AND PLEASE TAKE THAT CORRECTLY WITH A GRAIN OF SALT.
THERE WERE ISSUES WITH THE, UM, OPERATOR OF THE BUSINESS AT THE LAST, UM, APPROVAL PERIOD.
UM, I CAN'T TELL YOU IF THAT'S THE SAME OPERATOR TODAY, BUT THE SUP THOUGH, A PERMANENT WOULD GO WITH ANY OPERATOR THAT CAME ALONG, SO.
COMMISSIONER WHEELER, ISN'T IT ALSO BEFORE THAT, EVEN THOUGH IF A SUP IS ISSUED THAT PRIOR, THAT THE, UM, PRIOR TO THAT ISSUE, P WHEN THEY WENT TO, WHEN THEY WENT TO GET THEIR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TO GET THE ACTUAL CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY TO RUN THAT TYPE OF BUSINESS, THAT THAT WOULD'VE ALREADY BEEN CONSIDERATION AS FAR AS THE DISTANCE AND THAT IT ALSO, EVEN IF IT WAS 300, IF IT'S LESS THAN 300 FEET, IF THE, THE SUP WAS THERE OR THE LIQUOR, THE, THE, WAS THERE A PRIOR TO THE CHURCH THAT THAT COULD ALSO MAKE IT WHO HAS PRESIDENT OVER IT? YES.
SO, UM, AND MICHAEL, YOU CAN CORRECT THIS AS WELL, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE BODY DID APPROVE THIS CASE AND I BELIEVE IT WAS 2018, THAT MIGHT BE INCORRECT.
UM, BUT AT THAT TIME, THEY WOULD'VE DONE A REVIEW TO DOUBLE CHECK THE DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS, UM, AND THEY APPROVED IT.
AND SO THEY, THEY SAW THAT THE DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS WERE ALLOWED OR WERE MET.
AND SO EVEN THOUGH THIS BODY DOESN'T APPROVE IT, AM I CORRECT MIKE, THAT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES WOULD, WOULD ACTUALLY TO MAKE SURE THAT, THAT WHAT THAT DISTANCE IS PRIOR TO APPROVAL? YEAH, IT'S NOT ABOUT HERE AT THE SUP, IT'S THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY.
SO THAT I DON'T BELIEVE THE CASE WOULD'VE MOVED FORWARD, UM, WITHOUT THAT THEY WOULD'VE HAD TO CHANGE THEIR USE OR GET A VARIANCE PRIOR TO GETTING AN SUP.
BUT THAT PORTION IS DEFINITELY WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MM-HMM
AND THEY DO A GREAT JOB AT DOING THAT.
ALRIGHT, COLLEAGUES, ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY, WE WILL MOVE ON TO CASE 21.
I CAN'T RECALL, UM, SINCE IT'S BEEN ON OUR DOCKET A COUPLE TIMES, HAS THAT BEEN BRIEFED? COMMISSIONER HERBERT? IT'S, SORRY, I WAS THINKING OUT LOUD.
UM, I DON'T THINK IT'S BEEN BRIEFED BRIEF FULLY.
DO WE WANT IT BRIEFED? IF YOU DON'T MIND.
WE CAN BRIEF ANYTHING THAT PEOPLE WANT.
THIS IS CASE Z 2 3 4 2 2 5, ALSO KNOWN AS Z 2 5 1 4 7.
IT'S AN APPLICATION FOR MF TWO A MULTIFAMILY ON PROPERTY ZONE R SEVEN FIVE, A SINGLE FAMILY ON THE WEST LINE OF SOUTH COCKLE HILL ROAD, SOUTH OF BARSTOW BOULEVARD, APPROXIMATELY 8.75 ACRES IN SIZE.
UH, HERE WE SEE THE LOCATION MAP, UH, IN THE SOUTHWESTERN PART OF THE CITY.
UH, THIS IS THE AERIAL MAP SHOWING THE SITE AS IS.
UH, SO WE SEE HERE THAT AS MENTIONED, IT'S ZONED R 75.
THERE'S AN IR, UM, INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH DISTRICT TO THE EAST, UH, THAT CURRENTLY CONTAINS A CHURCH, NOT A SERVICE CENTER.
AND CLOSEST PROXIMITY TO THE SITE TO THE SOUTH IS A NOA NEIGHBORHOOD OFFICE DISTRICT, AS WELL AS SOME VARIOUS RETAIL DISTRICTS INCLUDING CR, R, R, AND CS COMMERCIAL SERVICE DISTRICT.
UH, THE AREA OF REQUEST IS UNDEVELOPED AND THE APPLICANT, WHICH IS TO DEVELOP A MIX OF SINGLE FAMILY AND MULTIFAMILY.
AND AS SUCH, REQUEST AN MF TWO MULTIFAMILY DISTRICT.
UH, THIS IS A SITE, UH, THIS IS TAKEN FROM GOOGLE STREET VIEW.
UH, THESE PHOTOS HERE, UH, FROM MARCH, 2025.
HERE WE ARE SEEING, SORRY, SO HERE WE'RE STILL LOOKING AT THE SITE IN QUESTION ON THE NORTHEASTERN CORNER OF IT.
THEN LOOKING AWAY TOWARDS WHERE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF COCKRELL HILL IS AT IR DISTRICT.
THEN GOING FURTHER SOUTH ALONG THE ROAD, AGAIN, LOOKING AT THE SITE, PRETTY HEAVILY VEGETATED WITH YOUR STANDARD KIND OF CURB CUTS THAT ARE THERE ON THOSE LOTS.
THEN LOOKING AWAY TOWARDS REDBIRD LANE, THEN DOWN ON THE SOUTHEASTERN CORNER OF THE SITE.
LOOKING TOWARDS IT, UH, THIS IS COMPARISON OF THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, OF COURSE, QUITE A BIT OF A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT IS SHOWN IN THE BETWEEN R SEVEN FIVE
[01:50:01]
AND MF TWO.UH, THERE'S DIFFERENCES IN EL LOT AREAS FOR DWELLING UNITS AND HEIGHT OF COURSE, WHICH HAS CHANGED A BIT WITH SB EIGHT 40.
BLOCK FACE CONTINUITY WOULD APPLY ALONG COCKRELL HILL ROAD, SO THAT WOULD REQUIRE 25 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK.
THE SITE IS DESIGNATED AS COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL, WHICH HAS SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED AND DETACHED AS YOUR PRIMARIES OF COURSE.
AND THEN MULTIFAMILY RETAIL OFFICE, MIXED USE OR SECONDARY.
SO WHEN WE GET TO THESE CASES, I THINK WE'VE HAD A FEW NOW WHERE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT MULTIFAMILY AND, UH, COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL PLACE TYPES.
UH, WE KIND OF THINK ABOUT, WELL, WHERE DOES THE SECONDARY USE MAKE SENSE? BECAUSE PER THE PLAN IT SAYS THAT THEY CAN BE DONE, BUT HOW DO WE DO 'EM? UH, IT DOES FACE A MAJOR ROADWAY RATHER THAN BEING NESTLED WITHIN THE, ANY EXISTING SUBDIVISION, UH, AT LEAST THE ONE THAT'S FURTHER OFF TO THE WEST.
UH, THERE IS SORT OF, AND WE WROTE AS TRANSITIONAL BUFFER.
UH, WHAT WE'RE REALLY SAYING THERE IS THAT WHEN YOU HAVE DIFFERENT ZONING DISTRICTS THAT GO FROM MORE INTENSE USES AND MORE INTENSE DEVELOPMENT TO LESS INTENSE USES, IT GENERALLY MAKES SENSE TO TRANSITION THAT FROM MORE INTENSE TO LEAST INTENSE.
UH, SO AS IT IS ZONED RIGHT NOW, THIS WHOLE AREA IS RIGHT NEXT TO AN IR DISTRICT, UH, THERE'S A LOT THAT YOU CAN BUILD WITHIN AN IR DISTRICT.
IT HAS PRETTY GENEROUS HEIGHT LIMITS AND PRETTY GENEROUS SETBACKS OR LACK OF SETBACKS IN SOME CASES.
UH, AND SO WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT WHAT COULD POTENTIALLY BE BUILT THERE VERSUS WHAT COULD BE POTENTIALLY BUILT, JUST TALKING FROM A PHYSICAL PERSPECTIVE, UH, IN R SEVEN FIVE VERSUS SOMETHING LIKE MF TWO, UH, WE DO FIND THAT GENERALLY IT MAKES SENSE TO GO FROM HEAVIER ALLOWANCES OF DEVELOPMENT.
AGAIN, TALKING JUST IN TERMS OF THE KINDS OF BUILDINGS THAT CAN BE BUILT TO MIDDLE INTENSITY AND THEN TRANSITIONING DOWN INTO THE LOW, LOW LOWER INTENSITIES OF RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS OR SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICTS.
STEPH'S RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL AND I'D BE HAPPY TO TAKE QUESTIONS.
COMMISSIONER HERBERT OR VICE CHAIR HERBERT, DO YOU HAVE QUESTIONS? YES.
UM, UM, MR. BATES FOR TAKING THIS CASE AND WORKING WITH US OVER THE LAST COUPLE MONTHS.
UM, YOU'VE SEEN THE CONVERSATIONS BETWEEN THE REPRESENTATIVE ON THIS CASE AND MYSELF.
UM, WE'VE HAD A LOT OF CONVERSATIONS, A LOT OF CHANGES, RECOMMENDATIONS.
I THINK WE GOT TO A POINT WHERE IT WAS, TO ME, ENOUGH CHANGES, UM, TO WHERE THIS CASE MAY NEED TO CHANGE HOW IT'S BEEN PRESENTED TO US.
WOULD YOU AGREE? THAT'S A QUESTION.
I THINK THAT THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF DISCUSSION AND A LOT OF POTENTIAL CHANGES THAT, UM, COULD BE MADE BASED ON WHAT THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSING.
UH, AT THIS TIME WE HAVEN'T RECEIVED ANY SORT OF AMENDMENT TO THE APPLICATION TO CHANGE IT EITHER TO A DIFFERENT TYPE OF REQUEST OR TO INCORPORATE DIFFERENT ITEMS SUCH AS DEED RESTRICTIONS INTO IT.
UH, I HOPE THAT THROUGH OUR CONVERSATIONS THAT I'VE BEEN ABLE TO CONVEY, UH, KIND OF WHAT CAN AND CAN'T BE MANAGED EITHER THROUGH A GENERAL ZONING DISTRICT, THROUGH DEED RESTRICTIONS OR EVEN LET'S SAY A PLAN DEVELOPMENT.
UH, I THINK THERE ARE SOME OPTIONS OUT THERE THAT COULD SHAPE THE DEVELOPMENT AND THE SITE A LITTLE MORE.
UH, BUT WE ALWAYS HAVE TO KEEP IN MIND THAT WITH SBA 40, THAT OUR HANDS ARE TIED A LITTLE BIT AS TO WHAT CAN BE, UH, RESTRICTED EVEN THROUGH A PD OR DE RESTRICTION.
UM, BUT YES, I THINK THAT GIVEN A LOT OF WHAT'S BEEN DISCUSSED, UH, CERTAINLY THERE WOULD BE SOME ROOM FOR, UH, AMENDING THE APPLICATION.
AND CAN YOU CLARIFY WHAT IS THIS, UM, LOT OF LAND ZONED AS TODAY? CURRENTLY? R SEVEN FIVE.
ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM? COMMISSIONER HALL? MR. BAY? THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD DID NOT LOOK VERY DENSE TO ME.
UH, IT LOOKED LIKE SMALL HOMES, BIGGER LOTS.
SO THERE'S NOT, THERE'S, THERE'S NOT A LOT OF DENSITY IN ANYWHERE SURROUNDING THIS.
UH, YEAH, THERE'S NOT A LOT OF DENSITY IN GENERAL ON THE AERIAL.
LET'S GO WITH THE AERIAL MAP HERE.
UH, YOU CAN SEE THAT IT'S, UH, THIS CHARACTERISTIC THAT WE SEE, I THINK OFTEN IN THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF THE CITY, AND ESPECIALLY THE SOUTHWESTERN PORTION WHERE WE HAVE A LOT OF DEEP LOTS, UH, FRANKLY CHARACTERISTIC ALMOST OF MORE WHAT PROBABLY AT SOME POINT WAS MORE AGRICULTURAL AREA.
UM, THE SUBJECT SITES, AGAIN, IT'S THERE ARE IN DEVELOPED, THERE ARE DEEP LOTS, UH, TO THE NORTH AND SOUTH.
IT LOOKS LIKE THIS PARTICULAR LOT WAS SUBDIVIDED, UH, OR PLANTED OUT OR SOMETHING AT SOME POINT WHERE, UH, THE ACCESS TO COCKRELL HILL LOOKS MAYBE QUESTIONABLE.
BUT, UH, REGARDLESS, UH, THEY ARE THESE KIND OF CHARACTERISTIC, NARROW AND WIDTH, DEEP AND IN DEPTH, UH, LOTS.
UH, IF WE WERE TO ZOOM OUT A LITTLE MORE AND GO TOWARDS MORE OF THE, THE WEST AND THE NORTHEAST, OR SORRY, NOT THE NORTHEAST, THE WEST AND NORTHWEST WHERE THERE'S A SUBDIVISION, UH, YOU WOULD SEE THAT IT IS MUCH DENSER, UH, IN THAT SENSE.
IT'S MUCH MORE OF A TRADITIONAL, I THINK, SUBURBAN, UH, SUBDIVISION OUT THERE TO THE WEST, UH, IS KIND OF BUFFERED OUT HERE BY THIS LOT THAT WOULD BE TO THE WEST OF THE SUBJECT SITE.
[01:55:01]
YES, IN THE IMMEDIATE SURROUNDINGS TO THE NORTH AND SOUTH, IT'S THESE NARROW DEEP LOTS.AND, AND I BRING THAT UP BECAUSE, WELL, A SECOND QUESTION.
UH, THE INGRESS EGRESS WILL BE OFF COCKRELL HILL.
IT WOULD NEED TO BE OFF COCKRELL HILL.
THAT'S, THAT'S THE ONLY WAY, UH, FROM LOOKING AT THIS, I THINK, YEAH, THAT'S THE ONLY WAY I'M NOT AWARE OF A ALLEYWAY DEDICATION IN THE, ON THE BACK AND SORT OF BRING THIS UP BECAUSE THERE WERE 59 LETTERS SENT OUT.
SET, UH, NONE IN SUPPORT, UH, SEVEN IN OPPOSITION.
THEY MENTIONED TRAFFIC CRIME, LOSS OF PRIVACY AND CREATING INSTABILITY.
UM, I MEAN, THESE ARE THINGS TYPICALLY THAT WE HEAR, YOU KNOW, FROM EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS.
UH, I I, I HAVE NO COMMENTS OR HAVE NO EXPERIENCE ON THAT AREA TO KNOW IF THESE ARE HOW LEGITIMATE THESE CONCERNS ARE, BUT THEY CERTAINLY ARE CONCERNS.
YES, THOSE ARE, I THINK, VALID CONCERNS FOR RESIDENTS TO BRING UP.
UH, I THINK IS SOMETHING WHERE FOR THIS BODY, UH, TYPICALLY IT FALL, NOT FALLS ON, BUT IT'S, I THINK MORE THE PURVIEW OF THE COMMISSIONER, UM, OF A DISTRICT OR THE BODY AS A WHOLE TO, I THINK, WEIGH SOME OF THOSE CONCERNS JUST BASED ON THEIR OWN EXPERIENCES WITH THESE DEVELOPMENTS, UM, IN THEIR AREA.
AND WHEN IT COMES TO A COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL PLACE TYPE, WHERE WE'RE THINKING ABOUT IT AS A SECONDARY USE, UH, WE HAVE TO KIND OF WEIGH WHETHER, YOU KNOW, DOES IT, DOES IT MAKE SENSE BROADLY AND DO WE SEE THIS? AND WHEN I SAY WE, I MEAN STAFF AND THE COMMISSION, THE CITY WRIT LARGE, UH, WHETHER WE SEE THIS AS AN APPROPRIATE AREA FOR TRANSITIONING INTO SOMEWHAT DENSER DEVELOPMENT OR DENSER DEVELOPMENT THAN WHAT'S CURRENTLY ON THE GROUND THERE.
WHAT'S THE VISION FOR THE AREA OVERALL? DO WE SEE THIS AS TRANSITIONING INTO MORE OF A DENSELY DEVELOPED RESIDENTIAL CORRIDOR OVER TIME WITH SUPPORTING RETAIL USES DOWN THERE ON THE INTERSECTION OF, UH, I BELIEVE IT'S COCKLE HILL AND I WANNA SAY CAMP WISDOM, UH, OR DO WE SEE IT AS STILL RETAINING MORE OF A SINGLE FAMILY CHARACTER? THANK YOU, COMMISSIONERS.
OTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM? COMMISSIONER FORSYTH, WHAT IS ACROSS THE ROAD IN THE, UH, AREA OF THE ZONED IR, UH, WITHIN IR RIGHT NOW, WHAT I FOUND WE'RE A CHURCH IN AN AUTO SERVICE CENTER.
UH, OTHERWISE IT'S FAIRLY, UH, KIND OF EITHER UNDEVELOPED OR VARIOUS, UH, PROPERTIES I COULDN'T PULL A CO FOR.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY, LET'S GO TO NUMBER 22.
UM, DO WE NEED THAT ONE BRIEFED? I DON'T NEED IT, BUT I'M FINE WITH IT BEING BRAVED.
UH, COMMISSIONER COX, WOULD YOU LIKE THIS ONE? BRIEFED? THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
IN THE INTEREST OF TIME, I DON'T KNOW THAT I NEED OR WOULD EXPECT A FULL BRIEF, BUT I DO HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FOR MR. NAVAREZ.
WHILE WE'RE WAITING FOR HIM TO COME UP HERE, IF I COULD JUST ASSURE MY, UH, COLLEAGUES, UH, ON THE COMMISSION HERE.
THIS HAS BEEN, I'M OBVIOUSLY NEW, BUT THIS HAS BEEN A, A GREAT EXPERIENCE FOR ME, HAVING THE OPPORTUNITY TO WORK WITH STAFF THAT WERE VERY HELPFUL, WORKING WITH THE, THE NEIGHBORS WHO HAD CONCERNS ABOUT THE, UH, THE NEW BUILDING.
UH, CERTAINLY THE DISTRICT WAS, UH, VERY ENGAGED AND COMPROMISED, WAS WILLING TO COLLABORATE.
UH, I THINK IT'S, IT WAS A WIN-WIN FOR, FOR ALL CONCERNS.
QUESTION REGARDING THE, THE CUT THROUGH, UH, THE MEDIAN CUT ON ARAPAHOE.
DO WE HAVE ANY CLARIFICATION ON THAT? UM, GOOD STILL, GOOD MORNING COMMISSIONERS.
UH, YOU'RE DOING GREAT ON TIMING.
SO WE, WE HAVE RECEIVED A REVISED REPORT THAT SHOWS, UM, TRAFFIC EXITING AND BEING ABLE TO TURN LEFT AND CONTINUE HEADING WEST OUT OF THE, THEIR ONE EXIT POINT.
UH, IT'S NOT INCLUDED IN YOUR REPORT, BUT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED FOR US FOR REVIEW AND, AND WE CONSIDER IT TO BE THE LATEST AND GREATEST PLAN FOR THE COMMISSION TO CONSIDER.
AND THAT, THAT'S REALLY MY ONLY QUESTION.
IF I COULD JUST FINISH UP BY SAYING THAT, UH, IF, IF MY COLLEAGUES WOULD, UH, GO TO THE CASE REPORT, LOOK AT THE BACKGROUND, UH, INFORMATION AS WELL AS THE TRAFFIC INFORMATION, YOU'LL SEE SOME, A NUMBER OF ISSUES HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW.
AND I THINK THAT'S INDICATIVE OF, AGAIN, THE, THE KIND OF, UH, COLLABORATION WE SAW IN THIS CASE.
UH, TO CORRECT MYSELF, UH, IT IS ON PA ON ON SHEET, UH, 2315 OF THE REPORT.
UH, IT'S THE, THE LATEST AND GREATEST TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN IS SHOWN WITH THAT EXIT.
[02:00:02]
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON CASE NUMBER 23? ALL RIGHT, LET'S POWER FORWARD.COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN, WOULD YOU LIKE THIS ONE BRIEFED? YES.
THERE'S THE THREE BARS, AND THEN DO TOP LEFT I, THE OTHER LEFT
AND THEN VIEW, IT'S KIND OF HALFWAY DOWN THE PAGE AND THEN FULL SCREEN.
UH, SO THIS IS Z DASH 25 DASH 0 0 0 1 5 9.
UH, ITS APPLICATION FOR REZONING TO PLAN DEVELOPMENT AND SPECIFIC USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE OPERATIONS OF COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT OUTSIDE ON PROPERTY ZONE R DASH 10, A SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT LOCATED NORTH OF LEON DRIVE AND SOUTH OF PRAIRIE CREEK ROAD, AND IT'S APPROXIMATELY 6.81 ACRES.
UH, HERE'S THE ZONING AND THE AERIAL.
UH, THE SITE IS CURRENTLY DEVELOPED AS, UH, WITH A BARN.
UM, THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSING, UH, REPURPOSING THE EXISTING STRUCTURE TO USE FOR A COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT FACILITY.
UM, AS OF ORIGINALLY WE HAD DETERMINED THAT IT'S GONNA BE USED AS A RODEO, UM, AND AS SUCH, THE APPLICANT'S REQUESTING A REZONING TO PLAN DEVELOPMENT AND A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT, UH, ON LEON DRIVE HERE IS LOOKING TO THE EAST, LOOKING NORTH TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, LOOKING SOUTH AND LOOKING TO THE WEST.
UH, HERE'S THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, UM, WITH THE CURRENT, CURRENT ZONING AND THE PROPOSED, UH, PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT.
UH, SO CORNER FORWARD DALLAS, UM, AGRICULTURE AND COMMERCIAL USES ARE SECONDARY USES.
UM, THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON A PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL ROADWAY, UH, KNOWN AS PRAIRIE CREEK ROAD.
UH, THE PROPOSED USE IS NOT ANTICIPATED TO INTERFERE WITH THE CURRENT OPERATIONS OR THE NEIGHBORS TO THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY.
UM, ACCESS TO THE SITE WILL BE PROVIDED OFF, UH, PRAIRIE CREEK ROAD AND THIS APPLICATION POTENTIALLY WILL NOT IMPACT THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE COMMUNITY.
UH, HERE'S THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT.
UH, HERE ARE THE SUP CONDITIONS AND HERE'S THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN.
AND WITH THAT, UH, STATS, RECOMMENDATIONS, APPROVAL OF THE AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT AND SPECIFIC USE PERMIT IN LIEU OF THE NEW PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, SUBJECT TO THE SITE PLANT AND SUP CONDITIONS.
AND BELIEVE THIS WEEK EARLIER, UM, THE APPLICANT HAD JUST MINOR EDITS TO THE PD AND SUP CONDITIONS, KIND OF CALLING OUT THE RODEO, UM, WHICH WAS EMAILED, I BELIEVE TO ALL OF YOU.
QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN? UH, I, I DO KNOW THAT THIS PROJECT, I RECEIVED QUITE A BIT OF COMMUNITY SUPPORT AT THE COMMUNITY MEETINGS, BUT HAVE YOU RECEIVED ANY LETTERS OF OPPOSITION REGARDING THIS, THAT, THIS PD? UH, MYSELF, I HAVEN'T RECEIVED ANY LETTERS, BUT I'VE RECEIVED PHONE CALLS IN SUPPORT.
UM, A LOT OF RESIDENTS WERE HAPPY THAT THERE WILL BE GOVERNED BY THEIR SHOULD B CONDITIONS, SO THEY'RE SUPPORTIVE OF THAT.
WHAT ABOUT OPPOSITION? NO, I, I HAD A QUESTION.
AND, AND I, I STATED THIS BEFORE, OUR PLAINTIFFS DON'T USUALLY HAVE TIME TO LOOK AT THE LETTERS, WHICH ARE DUE ON, UH, YESTERDAY AFTERNOON.
UM, BUT I DO HAVE IT PULLED UP.
[02:05:01]
TWO WRITTEN LETTERS, UH, SUBMITTED IN OPPOSITION, UM, OF THE 63 CENT COMMISSIONER SERATO, DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION? YEAH.UM, ARE THERE ANY CONCERNS FOR TRAFFIC OR PARKING REQUIREMENTS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT? I IMAGINE THIS WOULD BE, UH, GIVEN THE AREA AND THE COMMUNITY THERE, IT'S GONNA BE A PRETTY POPULAR THING, I THINK SO.
ARE THERE ANY CONCERNS OR THAT YOU HEARD ABOUT THAT? UH, NO.
NOTHING WITH, UM, ONLY CONCERN I BELIEVE WAS, UM, WITH DAVE NOVAR HE MENTIONED ABOUT ACCESS ALONG PRAIRIE CREEK ROAD.
UM, THAT WAS THE ONLY CONCERN THAT WAS MENTIONED FROM TRANSPORTATION, BUT NOTHING RELATED TO PARKING.
I, COMMISSIONER HALL IS, IS THIS SITE BEING USED AS A RODEO AT PRESENT? UM, AS PRESENT, NO.
IT LOOKED LIKE, UM, IN THE PAST IT DID OPERATE AS A RODEO.
UM, SPEAKING WITH A RESIDENT NEARBY.
SHE'S MENTIONED THAT THEY WERE DOING HORSE SHOWS PREVIOUSLY.
UM, I BELIEVE IT WAS UNREGULATED, UM, FROM HER, WHAT SHE STATED BE, BECAUSE THE, THE TWO LETTERS IN OPPOSITION SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED LOUD MUSIC ISSUES WITH PEOPLE DRINKING LATE NIGHT NOISE.
SO IT SORT OF SOUNDED LIKE THERE'S STUFF, STUFF GOING ON HERE AFTER HOURS.
UH, UH, THAT'S, THAT, THAT'S WHAT THE CONCERNS WERE RAISED, BUT THAT WAS ONLY FROM TWO PEOPLE.
MR. CHAIR, MAY I OPINE ON THAT? OH, SURE.
WELL, JUST, JUST TO INFORM SINCE AT THE COMMUNITY MEETINGS THAT WAS BROUGHT UP.
UH, BUT FROM, I, FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE OTHER AREAS WHERE THERE ARE ILLEGAL RODEOS THAT ARE GOING ON.
SO IT'S SEPARATE AND APART FROM THIS PARTICULAR FACILITY, BUT THAT IS A CONCERN IN, IN THE COMMUNITY AND, AND APPARENTLY THAT IS GOING ON SOMEWHERE IN THE AREA.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER CARPENTER? OH, CAN I JUST CLARIFY, THE, THE, UM, SUP FOR THE RODEO WILL JUST BE FOR TWO DAYS A WEEK? CORRECT.
AND IT, IT'S REQUIRED TO CLOSE AT NINE O'CLOCK AND HAVE EVERYONE OFF THE PREMISES BY 10? YES.
THE NINE O'CLOCK, UH, THE TWO DAYS A WEEK, I'M NOT, UM, TOO SURE ABOUT.
BUT THEY WILL BE OFF, UM, FINAL, I BELIEVE THE FINAL SHOW WILL BE AT NINE, BUT EVERYONE OFF THE PREMISES BY 10 THE LATEST.
AND ARE YOU AWARE THAT THE PREVIOUS, UM, CO THAT THE PROPERTY GOT WAS FOR A PRIVATE STABLE, WHICH IS WHAT THEY WERE ORIGINALLY TOLD BY THE CODE THAT THEY NEEDED AND THEN IT WAS, UH, SUBSEQUENTLY DECIDED THAT THEY NEEDED TO GET A COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT OUTSIDE? OH, NO, I WAS NOT AWARE OF THAT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? ALRIGHT, WE WILL MOVE ON TO NUMBER 25.
IS THAT BEING HELD, COMMISSIONER WHEELER? IT IS BEING HELD.
COMMUNITY MEETINGS HAVE NOT HAPPENED ON THIS CASE.
AND SO, UM, WE ARE DEFINITELY HOLDING THIS.
SO IT SOUNDS LIKE WHEN WE CAN FOREGO THE BRIEFING TODAY, UM, WE COULD BRIEF, I MEAN NO, I, NO, WE DON'T NEED TO BRIEF IT.
WE WE'RE HOLDING THIS CASE FOR OKAY.
IS THAT FOURTH? TWO SECONDS? THAT'S MARCH 5TH.
I HAVE A CONFLICT ON THE NEXT ITEM.
SO VICE CHAIR HERBERT WILL TAKE A NUMBER 26.
SO ON, UH, I'LL WAIT TILL THE CHAIR STEPS OUT.
UM, SO ON THIS CASE, IT'S A, IT'S A HUGE, UM, CASE FOR AUTHORIZED HEARING.
UM, WE'RE GONNA HOLD THE BRIEFING FOR THIS AFTERNOON AND HANDLE THE BRIEFING AND THE VOTE AT THE SAME TIME, UM, JUST TO SAVE TIME AND EFFORTS.
COMMISSIONER, WILL YOU WANNA TALK? I DON'T THINK, YEAH.
[02:10:02]
ARE WE GONNA BRIEF YOU SOON AS WE COME BACK? ARE WE GONNA BRIEF IT EARLY OR ARE WE GONNA WAIT TILL THAT ITEM COMES UP? WE CAN BRIEF IT EARLY IF YOU LIKE.UM, YEAH, BECAUSE, UH, WE WANT, WE'LL TALK OFFLINE.
'CAUSE I HAVE, YEAH, WE'LL TALK OFFLINE, BUT YES, WE'LL WORK THE SCHEDULE TO MAKE SURE THAT'S DONE AND I KNOW WHY.
I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY LEGAL OPPOSITION TO WHY WE CAN'T TAKE IT EARLY.
UM, HEARING NO OTHER OBJECTIONS, WE'LL HOLD IT TILL THIS AFTERNOON AND, UM, OUR CHAIR CAN ENTER THE CHAMBERS AGAIN.
SO I THINK NEXT IS SUBDIVISIONS AND SIGNS, UM, IN WHICH WE USUALLY HANDLE DURING THE CASE, UM, THE HEARING, UM, IF THERE'S ANY OBJECT, ANY OP, ANY OTHER BUSINESS WE NEED TO HANDLE THIS MORNING.
I WILL HAVE QUESTIONS, UM, ABOUT A COUPLE OF THE SIGNS, BUT I'M HAPPY TO HOLD THOSE UNTIL THE, UH, MEETING OKAY.
LET'S SEE, MR. CHAIR, I WILL HAVE QUESTIONS ON SIGNS, BUT I'M HAPPY TO HOLD THOSE UNTIL THE MEETING.
I MEAN, IF MR. ROPER'S HERE, WE'RE ABLE TO ADDRESS THEM NOW.
IF, IF IT'S EASIER FOR YOU AND MR. ROPER, WE'RE HAPPY TO THAT'S HOLD IT TO THE AUDITORS.
YEAH, I JUST SENT HIM AN EMAIL, SO HE MAY NEED A MINUTE, BUT I'M HAPPY TO PUT MY QUESTIONS ON THE RECORD.
AND ARE THEY JUST QUESTIONS THAT, OR DO YOU NEED A FULL BRIEFING? I DON'T THINK, AND MR. ROPE, I'LL JUST, I'LL START TO ASK, AND AGAIN, I'M HAPPY TO HAVE THESE, UM, ANSWERS AT THE HEARING.
BECAUSE I KNOW I JUST SENT YOU THE QUESTIONS.
SO THESE ARE, UM, SPECIFIC TO THE SIGNS THAT ARE IN THE WEST END HISTORIC DISTRICT.
SO YES MA'AM, IT IS THE SIGNS, ITEMS, UM, TO GET THE RIGHT NUMBERS, 57, 58, 59 AND 60, THOSE WERE NOTED THAT THEY WERE REVIEWED BY THE OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION.
THE LANGUAGE THAT WAS IN THE ORDINANCE AS I READ IT, IS THAT THEY WERE ALSO TO BE REVIEWED BY TASK FORCE.
AND I WAS WANTING TO CONFIRM THAT THAT REVIEW HAD TAKEN PLACE.
AND I'M HAPPY TO, UM, FOLLOW UP ON, ON THAT.
I'LL, BUT THAT'S WHAT, SO I WAS ASKING TO SEE THE CA YOU'D REFERENCED THE NUMBER IN THE CASE REPORT, BUT I DIDN'T SEE THE CA ITSELF.
AND THEN I ALSO JUST WANTED TO VERIFY, UM, THAT THE TASK FORCE REVIEW, AS NOTED IN THE ORDINANCE CONDITIONS, UM, WAS ALSO COMPLETED.
AND THEN PART OF IT WAS UNDERSTANDING, I KNOW THERE'S PER, OBVIOUSLY IT'S A HISTORIC DISTRICT GOING ON HISTORIC BUILDINGS, UM, IF THERE WERE ANY CONDITIONS RECOMMENDED, UM, REGARDING THE ATTACHMENTS, UM, HOW THE SIGNS ARE LOCATED.
UM, JUST THAT THEY'LL BE ATTACHED INTO THE MORTAR JOINTS AS OPPOSED TO THE BRICK.
AND SO THAT'S JUST FOLLOWING THE STANDARD.
YOU KNOW, LOCATIONS IN A HISTORIC DISTRICT.
WE WOULDN'T NEED TO INCLUDE THOSE NECESSARILY IN OUR MOTION.
THEY'RE INCLUDED IN THE, UH, RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS IN THE RECOMME.
IN THE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MR. ROPER? ANY OTHER BUSINESS WE NEED TO ATTEND TO DURING THIS MORNING'S BRIEFING? ALRIGHT, THEN WE WILL ADJOURN FOR LUNCH.
UM, IT IS 11:38 AM AND WE WILL BE BACK FOR, UM, OUR PUBLIC HEARING AT 12:30 PM THANKS EVERYONE.
[CALL TO ORDER]
EVERYONE.IT IS THURSDAY, UH, JANUARY 15TH, 2026 AT 12:31 PM AND THIS IS THE PUBLIC HEARING OF THE DALLAS CITY PLANNING COMMISSION.
UH, MS. LOPEZ, CAN WE START OFF WITH A ROLL CALL?
[02:15:02]
GOOD AFTERNOON COMMISSIONERS.DISTRICT ONE, COMMISSIONER SIMS. HERE.
DISTRICT THREE, VICE CHAIR HERBERT PRESENT? DISTRICT FOUR.
COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN PRESENT.
COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT HERE.
COMMISSIONER KINGSTON AND PLACE 15 CHAIR RUBIN? I'M HERE.
UH, THANK YOU ALL FOR JOINING US.
JUST A FEW HOUSEKEEPING NOTES BEFORE WE GET INTO OUR AGENDA.
UM, THERE ARE YELLOW CARDS DOWN TO MY LEFT, YOUR RIGHT, AND IF YOU DO PLAN TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM, PLEASE GO AHEAD AND FILL ONE OF THOSE OUT AND LEAVE IT UP FRONT SO WE HAVE A RECORD OF EACH OF OUR PUBLIC SPEAKERS TODAY.
UM, TYPICALLY EACH UM, APP OR SPEAKER ON AN ITEM UNDER OUR RULES IS GIVEN THREE MINUTES THOUGH, UH, THE CHAIR DOES HAVE THE ABILITY TO ADJUST THAT ON AN ITEM BY ITEM BASIS.
AND IF THERE IS OPPOSITION CA ON A CASE, OUR RULES DO GIVE THE APPLICANT A TWO MINUTE REBUTTAL PERIOD AFTER THE, UM, OPPOSITION CONCLUDES.
SO WE START WITH SPEAKERS AND SUPPORT, THEN GO TO SPEAKERS AND OPPOSITION IF THERE ARE ANY.
AND THEN WE CONCLUDE WITH A BRIEF REBUTTAL BY, UM, THE APPLICANT.
[26. 26-196A Consideration of authorizing a public hearing to determine the proper zoning on property zoned an IR-Industrial Research District with a portion in a Dry Overlay, an IM-Industrial Manufacturing District with a portion in a Dry Overlay, an IM-Industrial Manufacturing District with Specific Use Permit No.1854, an IM-Industrial Manufacturing District with Deed Restrictions D.R No. Z192-176 and D.R No. 078-204, a MH(A)- Mobile Home District, a CR-Community Retail District, a NS(A)-Neighborhood Service District, PD-Planned Development District No. 609, a CS-Commercial Service District with a Specific Use Permit No.1602 in an area generally bound by Julius Schepps Freeway (I-45) on the south; the Trinity River on the west; Union Pacific Railroad Tracks, then Brownville Avenue, Hull Avenue, Ivory Lane, Burma Road, Kiska Street, Solar Lane, the alley behind Carbondale Street, the alley behind Cherbourg Street, Dutch Harbor Avenue, and South Loop 12, then the Trinity Forest Trail on the north; and the Trinity Forest Trail and South Great Trinity Forest Way on the east, and containing approximately 660.39 acres. This is a hearing to consider the request to authorize the hearing and not the rezoning of property at this time Planner: Seferinus Okoth, AICP Council District: 7, 8]
WE WILL, UM, GO A LITTLE BIT OUT OF ORDER TODAY.UM, UH, COMPARED TO OUR AGENDA IS POSTED TO ACCOMMODATE A FEW THINGS GOING ON.
UM, SO THE FIRST THING THAT WE'RE GOING TO TAKE UP IS OUR PUBLIC HEARING, OUR, OUR OUR AUTHORIZED HEARING.
I THINK THAT'S ITEM NUMBER 26.
AND I AM CONFLICTED OUT ON THAT ONE.
SO I'M GOING TO STEP OUT AND HAND THE MIC TO COMMISSIONER HERBERT.
MS. LIENS, OUR CHAIR STEPPED OUT.
UM, PATRICK, YOU WANNA COME ON UP AND OPEN UP THE CASE, READ IT INTO THE RECORD.
I'LL GO AHEAD AND READ IT INTO THE RECORD.
FOR, FOR PATRICK, I'M, UH, JOHN CERVANTES.
I WORK ON THE AUTHORIZED HEARING, UH, TEAM.
UH, UNFORTUNATELY SETH KOTH COULD NOT BE WITH US HERE TODAY.
UM, SO PATRICK BLAZE AND I, UH, ARE FILLING IN FOR HIM.
I WILL GO AHEAD AND, UH, READ IN THE ITEM, UH, NUMBER 26 INTO THE RECORD AND THEN AFTER THAT, IF Y'ALL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, UH, I'M HERE AS WELL AS PATRICK AND WE CAN CLARIFY ANYTHING FOR YOU.
SO TO BEGIN IT'S CONSIDERATION OF ITEM 26, UH, AUTHORIZED HEARING, A PUBLIC HEARING TO DETERMINE THE PROPERTY ZONING ON A PROPERTY ZONED IN IR INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH DISTRICT WITH A PORTION IN A DRY OVERLAY.
AN I AM INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURING DISTRICT WITH A PORTION IN A DRY OVERLAY, AN I AM INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURING DISTRICT WITH SPECIFIC USE PERMIT NUMBER 1854.
AND I AM INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURING DISTRICT WITH DEED RESTRICTION NUMBER Z 1 92 DASH 1 76 AND DEED RESTRICTION NUMBER 0 7 8 DASH 2 0 4 A MH MOBILE HOME DISTRICT, A CR COMMUNITY RETAIL DISTRICT, A NS NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICE DISTRICT PD PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 6 0 9, A CS COMMERCIAL SERVICE DISTRICT WITH A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT NUMBER 1602 IN AN AREA GENERALLY BOUND BY JULIE SHIPS FREEWAY I 45 ON THE SOUTH, THE TRINITY RIVER ON THE WEST UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD TRACKS.
THEN BROWNVILLE AVENUE, HOLE AVENUE, IVORY LANE, BURMA ROAD, KISKA STREET, SOLAR LANE, THE ALLEY BEHIND CARBONDALE STREET, THE ALLEY BEHIND, UH, SHER BUG STREET, DUTCH HARBOR AVENUE AND SOUTH LOOP 12.
THEN THE TRINITY RIVER FOREST TRAIL ON THE NORTH AND THE TRINITY FOREST TRAIL AND SOUTH GREAT TRINITY FOREST WAY ON THE EAST AND CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 660 POINT 39 ACRES.
THIS IS AN AUTHORIZED HEARING TO CONSIDER THE REQUEST TO AUTHORIZE THE HEARING AND NOT THE REZONING OF THE PROPERTY AT THIS TIME.
[02:20:01]
PATRICK RIGHT NOW ON THE, THIS AUTHORIZED HEARING? YES.UM, PATRICK, UM, AS IT RELATES TO THE REASON THAT THIS AUTHOR, THIS REQUEST FOR, UM, AUTHORIZING A PUBLIC HEARING TO DETERMINE THE PROPER ZONING IT, CAN YOU GIVE US, DO YOU HAVE THE HISTORY BEHIND WHY OR AT THIS TIME THAT WE'RE REQUESTING, UM, REQUESTING THIS? UM, SO, UH, GOOD, GOOD AFTERNOON, UM, COMMISSION.
MY NAME IS PATRICK BLADES, CHIEF PLANNER FOR COMMUNITY PLANNING HERE WITH THE CITY OF DALLAS.
UM, I, I CAN ONLY SAY THAT, UM, THROUGH THE FORWARD DALLAS PROCESS, THIS WAS AN AREA THAT WAS IDENTIFIED AS HAVING RESIDENTIAL AND INDUSTRIAL ADJACENCY.
UM, THAT, UH, THE PY COMMUNITY, UM, IS RIGHT THERE ADJACENT TO SOME HEAVY INDUSTRIAL LAND USES.
AND SO, UM, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT CAME UP IN FORWARD DALLAS.
UM, NOT AS IN A PACIFIC GEOGRAPHY, BUT SOMETHING THAT WE WERE MADE AWARE OF.
UM, AND SO, UM, WE ARE HAPPY TO GO INTO THE COMMUNITY, UM, HEAR FROM THEM WHAT THEY PRIORITIZE, UM, AND THEN, UM, COME BACK WITH, UM, SUGGESTIONS ABOUT WHAT ZONING COULD CHANGE IF, UM, IN, IN THIS AREA.
WOULD, WOULD IT BE, WOULD IT BE, UM, YOUR PROFESSIONAL, UM, UM, OPINION THAT AREAS LIKE THIS, A PD COULD, IT COULD BENEFIT FROM A PD BECAUSE IT ALLOWS FOR THEM THE COMMUNITY TO ADD ADDED PROTECTIONS THAT WOULDN'T NORMALLY BE THERE? UM, UP UNDER JUST GENERAL ZONING, UP UNDER THE GENERAL ZONING.
UM, I WOULD SAY IT'S POSSIBLE, BUT WOULD WANT TO SPEND A LOT OF TIME WITH THE COMMUNITY TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY'RE PRIORITIZING AND THEN COME BACK WITH SUGGESTIONS AND BASED OFF OF PREVIOUS CONCERNS AS IT RELATES TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES RELATE TO, UM, UM, THE ZONING ZONING THAT HAS ALLOWED FOR IRR AND IM ZONING THAT HAS BEEN OFFERED TO THE COMMUNITY OVER THE YEARS.
THAT THIS, THAT THAT IS PART OF THAT RECOMMENDATION TO INCLUDE NOT ONLY THOSE PARTS OF CHOPPY, BUT THE, THE I AM IR DISTRICT SAY REACH OUT BACK TO 45 WITHIN THOSE BOUNDARIES.
THAT THE FOCUS SHOULD BE ON, NOT THE RESIDENTIAL PY COMMUNITY ITSELF, BUT THE INDUSTRIAL ADJACENT LAND USES AND ZONING, THAT'S THERE.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OH, YES.
COMMISSIONER SIMS. UH, SO QUESTION I, LOOKING AT THE EASTERN BOUNDARY OF THE PROPOSED AREA, I'M, IF I'M MISREADING THIS, IT LOOKS LIKE SOME RESIDENTIAL LOTS ARE INCLUDED AND OTHERS AREN'T.
COULD YOU SHARE WITH US HOW THAT EASTERN BOUNDARY WAS DRAWN FOR THIS REQUEST? YES, COMMISSIONER.
THE FIRST THING I WILL SAY IS JUST BECAUSE SOMETHING IS INCLUDING IN THE BOUNDARY DOESN'T MEAN THAT THE ZONING, UM, CAN, WE WILL END UP CHANGING.
UM, IT MEANS THAT, UH, JUST TO LOOK AT THAT SECTION AND, UM, I WAS TALKING WITH SOME MEMBERS OF THE DROPPY COMMUNITY EARLIER TODAY.
WE WERE SAYING THEY MAY TELL US, DON'T CHANGE THAT AREA AT ALL.
UM, BUT THIS IS JUST TO SAY WE COULD LOOK AT PART OF THAT AREA BECAUSE MOST OF THAT AREA, UM, THERE'S SOME HOUSING THERE, BUT MOST OF THAT AREA DOESN'T HAVE HOUSING.
AND SO, OKAY, WHAT WOULD NEW HOUSING LOOK LIKE IN THERE IF THEY WANNA MAKE A CHANGE? BUT AGAIN, IT DOESN'T SAY THAT IT, IT SHOULD MAKE A CHANGE.
IT JUST SAYS IT'S ONE OF THE SMALL PART, UM, WHERE, WHERE IT JUST KIND OF POPS UP THERE ON YANCY, UM, TO LOOK AT, TO SAY WHAT, WHAT SHOULD BE HERE.
COMMISSIONER SIMS. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS AROUND THIS SPECIFIC AUTHORIZED HEARINGS OR AUTHORIZED HEARINGS AT ALL? HEARING NONE.
I KNOW WE HAVE, UM, NEIGHBORS FROM THE GREAT CHOPPY COMMUNITY HERE TO SPEAK.
UM, IF YOU'RE HERE TO SPEAK FOR THIS ITEM, YOU, UH, CAN START COMING UP.
I BELIEVE I HAVE ALICIA KENDRICK, CALEB ROBERTS, AND LADY DERE.
AND IF YOU CAN START WITH YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
GOOD AFTERNOON PLANNING COMMISSION.
I LIVE AT 79 31 KISKA IN THE JPE COMMUNITY FOR 19 YEARS.
I'M HERE TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THIS ITEM NUMBER.
I WANNA START OFF TO LET THIS COMMISSION KNOW I REALLY DO SUPPORT THIS, UH, ZONING, UH, PROTECTION FOR THE DROP COMMUNITY AND THE IMPACT THAT IT IS GOING TO HAVE ON OUR ENVIRONMENTAL, UH, IMPACT FOR OUR HEALTH.
I'M, I'M FOR IT, BUT MY CONCERNS ARE THE BOUNDARY MAP THAT I SEEN ON TUESDAY
[02:25:01]
NIGHT.AND MY OTHER CONCERN IS, IS THE ENGAGEMENT WITH THE COMMUNITY TO MAKE SURE THIS ZONING PROCESS IS CONDUCTED WITH INTEGRITY AND TRANSPARENCY FOR THE JOBY RESIDENTS.
FOR OVER THE DECADES, THE JPE COMMUNITY HAS BEEN OUTCASTED BY DEVELOPMENT AND COMMUNICATION WITH PARTNERSHIP WITH THE CITY OF DALLAS.
THEY BARELY COME OUT TO MEETINGS.
BECAUSE OF THAT, I AM TRYING TO REBUILD THAT TRUST WITH MY COMMUNITY.
AND I WANNA START WITH THIS ZONING.
I WANNA MAKE SURE THE COMMUNITY UNDERSTANDS THIS PROCESS CORRECTLY AND THE BENEFITS FOR THEIR PROPERTY AND THEIR COMMUNITY.
AND SO I CAME HERE TO TODAY JUST TO SAY, MOVING FORWARD IN THIS, I HAD WROTE A WHOLE BUNCH OF SPEECHES, BUT AFTER TALKING TO PATRICK, THANK YOU PATRICK, FOR YOUR, UH, PROFESSIONALISM AND EXPLAINING THIS WITHOUT BEING DEFENSIVE WHEN ASKED ME ASKING QUESTIONS.
SO, UH, SINCE I TALKED TO, UH, MR. PATRICK, HE HAS REALLY SETTLED SOME OF MY CONCERN.
BUT AS HE SPEAK, UH, WHEN HE, THE COMMISSIONER, UH, SIMS JUST ASKED ABOUT THAT, HE SAID, WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO CHANGE THAT.
SO I'M GONNA LEAD THAT WITH THE BOUNDARY.
BUT MOVING FORWARD, I JUST WANTED TO LET THIS COMMISSIONER KNOW I AM WELCOMING THIS ZONING, BUT MOVING FORWARD, I WOULD LIKE COMMISSIONER WILLARD TO BE MORE PROFESSIONAL WITH OUR COMMUNITY.
'CAUSE WE WAS CALLED TO A MEETING ON THIS PAST TUESDAY THAT WAS ORGANIZED IN SEVEN DAYS, AND THEN COMMISSIONER WHEELER WAS AN HOUR LATE TO THE MEETING.
THIS CANNOT BE THE CON THE BEHAVIOR FOR THIS PROCESS.
WE NEED THE PERSON THIS PROCESS TO HAVE INTEGRITY, EVERYONE WHO IS GONNA BE CONNECTED TO THIS ZONING FOR THE, THAT'S YOUR NAME.
CAN WE HAVE THE NEXT SPEAKER PLEASE? THANK YOU.
CAN Y'ALL HEAR ME? OKAY? HELLO COMMISSIONERS.
AND FIRST I'D LIKE TO THANK PLANNING AND URBAN DES DESIGN STAFF PAST AND PRESENT FOR WORKING WITH US DURING THE FORWARD DALLAS PROCESS TO CHANGE THAT LAND USE.
AND NOW DURING THIS PROCESS, AND SPECIFICALLY PATRICK AND MR. JOHN THAT CAME AND SPOKE WITH US AND JUST TO ENGAGE WITH US AND TELL US HOW THEY ARE PLANNING TO WORK WITH US IN THIS PROCESS.
SO THANK YOU TO BOTH OF YOU AND TO THE STAFF THAT ARE NO LONGER WITH Y'ALL.
BUT, UM, I AM IN SUPPORT OF THE ZONING CHANGE OR THIS AUTHORIZATION BECAUSE IT WILL BE A SOLUTION TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES THAT THIS THIS COMMUNITY HAS BEEN FACING FOR ALL THIS TIME.
I THANK Y'ALL FOR ACTUALLY TRYING TO FIND A SOLUTION FOR THAT.
I THINK THAT AS A COMMUNITY, WE ARE VERY EXCITED ABOUT IT.
AND IN THIS PROCESS, I KNOW THIS IS NOT A ZONING CHANGE.
I KNOW THIS IS JUST TO START THAT PROCESS.
SO I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO MORE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND EDUCATION ON THIS PART, ON THIS PARTICULARLY, AND SO THAT EVERYBODY HAS A SAY AND THEY CAN UNDERSTAND WHAT IS HAPPENING WITHIN THEIR COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE.
CAN YOU HEAR ME? OKAY? GOOD AFTERNOON.
UH, 2 8 4 7 ALABAMA AVENUE, DISTRICT FOUR.
I'M THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF DOWNWINDERS AT RISK.
UM, AS ALICIA TALKED ABOUT, WE'RE SO THANKFUL TO GET TO THIS POINT.
UM, I WANT YOU ALL TO KNOW AND COMMISSIONER WHEELER TO KNOW THAT THIS IS A LONG TIME COMING AND I, I KNOW THERE'S GONNA BE SOME TRIALS AND TRIBULATIONS AS WE GO THROUGH THIS.
'CAUSE PEOPLE ARE PASSIONATE ABOUT THEIR COMMUNITY AS THEY SHOULD BE.
UM, BUT ALSO THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF HARM, A, A WHOLE LOT OF HARM.
AND IF YOU GO OUT TO JAPE, YOU SPEAK WITH RESIDENTS, YOU SEE HOW MANY THINGS HAVEN'T BEEN DONE, UH, HAVEN'T BEEN DONE, RIGHT, HAVEN'T BEEN ADDRESSED, AND IT'S A LONG PROCESS.
AND EVEN THIS PROCESS, IF IT DOES GET REZONED, STILL DOESN'T SOLVE THE PROBLEMS. SO YOU HAVE A LOT OF ANGST FROM PEOPLE ABOUT WARNING THE THINGS THAT BEING PROMISED BACK IN THE FORTIES, FIFTIES, SIXTIES, SEVENTIES, UM, THAT THEY'RE STILL WAITING FOR NOW.
[02:30:01]
I ASK FOR PATIENCE FOR EVERYBODY AS YOU GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS BECAUSE YOU'RE DEALING WITH GENERATIONS OF MISTRUST, OF, OF, OF ANGER, OF UPSET, UH, ABOUT THE INFRASTRUCTURE, THE CONDITIONS THAT PEOPLE LIVE IN.SO SOMETIMES WHEN WE GET TO THIS POINT, WE'RE SAYING WE'RE DOING THE RIGHT THING, BUT THERE'S SO MANY THINGS TO CORRECT.
UM, SO WHERE WE COME FROM IS ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE HAS BEEN A, A MAJOR THEME THAT WE'VE BEEN PUSHING IN THIS CITY FOR A LONG TIME IN OUR 30 YEAR HISTORY.
AND IT'S JUST RECENTLY THAT WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO GET SOME ZONING CHANGES, FLORAL FARMS BEING THE FIRST OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ZONING CHANGES THAT'S BEEN ABLE TO HAPPEN.
WE HAVE A LONG TIME AND A AND A LONG WAY TO GO, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO THANK THIS COMMISSION, COMMISSIONER WHEELER, AND AS WE GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS FOR ADDRESSING THESE CONCERNS, BECAUSE EVEN THOUGH THE HISTORY OF I'M TALKING ABOUT, WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY NOW TO MAKE CHANGE.
YOU ALL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE SURE PLACES LIKE JAPE GET THAT JUSTICE THAT THEY'VE BEEN LOOKING FOR FOR A LONG TIME.
SO ALTHOUGH THIS IS A CONSIDERATION, I WANT YOU TO KNOW FOR THE COMMUNITY, THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THEM TO DISCUSS A LOT OF THE THINGS THAT THEY HAVEN'T BEEN AND DENIED, UH, BEING DISCUSSED BEFORE.
SO WE KNOW THIS PROCESS IS GONNA TAKE SOME TIME, BUT THANK YOU FOR BEING A PART OF IT.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE TO SPEAK? YES.
UM, MY NAME IS, UH, ANDREW MARTIN.
I LIVE AT, UH, 47 0 5 JO, A CIRCLE.
UH, MY FAMILY AND I ARE IN FAVOR OF REVIEWING THIS MEASURE, UM, BEING REVIEWED, UH, AND MOVING FORWARD.
WE BELIEVE OPEN DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION ARE NECESSARY STEPS FOR PROGRESS.
THAT SAID, AS THE PROGRESS, AS THE PROCESS CONTINUES, WE ASK TO BE GIVEN THE SAME DIGNITY, TRANSPARENCY, AND, UH, RESPECT THAT RESIDENTS OF IN THE NORTHERN PARTS OF THE CITY RECEIVE TO OFTEN, UH, PROPOSALS AFFECTING OUR COMMUNITY MOVE FORWARD WITHOUT OUR, WITHOUT CLEAR COMMUNICATION OR MEANINGFUL ENGAGEMENT WITH THE, UH, PEOPLE WHO LIVE HERE.
I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO ASK TWO QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD.
FIRST, WILL THE RESIDENTS OF JPI, UM, BE INCLUDED IN DISCUSSIONS REGARDING THE TYPE OF ZONING THAT DIRECTLY AFFECTS OUR NEIGHBORHOOD? SECOND, UM, WHO WILL BE OUR OFFICIAL POINT OF CONTACT, UH, FOR THIS PROCESS? I'M A RETIRED, UH, DISABLED VETERAN, AND I SERVE THIS COUNTRY BELIEVING IN FAIRNESS, REPRESENTATION, AND EQUAL TREATMENT.
THOSE VALUES SHOULD APPLY EQUALLY TO EVERY NEIGHBORHOOD IN THIS CITY, INCLUDING JOPPA.
I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR THIS TIME AND I YIELD OR WHATEVER THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE.
IS THERE ANY MORE QUESTIONS AROUND, UM, HERE IN THE AUDIENCE OR ONLINE, UM, REGARDING THIS AUTHORIZED HEARING? YES.
COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE FIRST SPEAKER.
I'M SORRY I DIDN'T CATCH YOUR NAME.
THE PERSON WHO DID NOT WANT THEIR STREET INCLUDED IN THIS AUTHORIZED HEARING.
I DID NOT SAY I DIDN'T WANT MY STREET INCLUDED IN IT.
I JUST WANNA UNDERSTAND WHY MY STREET IS INCLUDED IN IT, BECAUSE MY STREET IS ALL NO VACANT LOTS.
SO I WAS JUST WONDERING WHY KISKA WAS INCLUDED IN IT.
I THINK MAYBE MR. BLADES COULD ANSWER THAT QUESTION BECAUSE I, I DON'T HAVE ANY WAY OF, OF SEEING WHERE YOUR STREET IS IN RELATION TO THIS MAP.
SO AS, AS, AS WE HAD SPOKEN ABOUT EARLIER, UM, AGAIN, TO BEGIN WITH, JUST BECAUSE THE STREET IS INCLUDED IN THE AUTHORIZED HEARING DOESN'T MEAN THAT THE ZONING WILL CHANGE.
UM, IF IT'S HEARD FROM THE COMMUNITY, WE DON'T WANT ANY CHANGE, THEN THAT'S THE MOST LIKELY THE RECOMMENDATION THAT STAFF WOULD GIVE.
UM, I KNOW, UM, THAT THE COMMISSIONERS, UM, HAVE GONE, UH, THROUGH SOME ITERATIONS WITH THE COMMUNITY ABOUT THE DIFFERENT BOUNDARIES OF, OF THE MAP, UM, AND UNDERSTANDING WHAT TO INCLUDE AND WHAT NOT TO INCLUDE.
UM, YOU KNOW, WE'VE WORKED WITH SOME COMMUNITY LEADERS IN JPI, UM, TO SAY, OKAY, ARE THERE PLACES TO INCLUDE OR NOT INCLUDE? UM, AND YOU KNOW, AGAIN, AT THE END OF THE DAY, IF THERE ARE PROPERTIES THAT ARE INCLUDED IN THIS AUTHORIZED HEARING THAT DO NOT WANT THE ZONING CHANGE AND THE COMMUNITY SAYS, WE DO NOT WANT THE ZONING TO BE CHANGED.
THAT'S MOST LIKELY STAFF'S RECOMMEND.
I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW WHY STAFF WOULD RECOMMEND ANYTHING DIFFERENTLY.
SO, UH, TO UNDERSTAND YOUR CONCERN IS JUST YOU'RE CONCERNED ABOUT THE POSSIBLE EFFECT ON YOUR PARTICULAR STREET.
YOU THINK THAT WHAT'S ON YOUR STREET RIGHT NOW IS, IS, IS CORRECT? YES.
IT'S ON SINGLE FAMILIES ZONING.
THE WHOLE COMMUNITY IS SINGLE FAMILIES ZONING EXCEPT CARBONDALE.
[02:35:01]
UH, IN BETWEEN SINGLE FAMILIES ZONING? YES.LEMME JUST SAY THAT I REPRESENT PART OF WEST DALLAS AND WE RIGHT NOW HAVE JUST STARTED ON A SIMILAR AUTHORIZED HEARING ON THE SINGLETON CORRIDOR.
AND WE HAVE LOTS OF VERY SIMILAR ISSUES.
WE HAVE SINGLE FAMILY, UH, CLUSTERS THAT ARE RIGHT NEXT TO HEAVY INDUSTRY.
WE HAVE A LONG HISTORY OF ENVIRONMENTAL INJUSTICE.
WE HAVE A LONG HISTORY OF DISTRUST FROM THE COMMUNITY OF THE PROCESS.
AND I CAN SAY SO FAR, UM, I AND THE COMMUNITY AND I ARE EXTREMELY PLEASED WITH THE WAY THE STAFF IS LISTENING TO THE RESIDENTS GETTING INPUT AND, AND, UM, IT SEEMS TO SEE CHANGE FROM WHAT WE'VE EXPERIENCED BEFORE.
SO I'M HOPING THIS IS A POSITIVE EXPERIENCE FOR Y'ALL.
AND I KNOW A LOT OF PEOPLE, ESTHER RELL, UH, AND EVERYBODY OUT THERE, I KNOW WEST DALLAS ONE AND, UH, MR. HOWARD AND ALL THEM.
SO I HAVE TALKED TO THEM ABOUT Y'ALL PROCESS AND THEY TOLD ME EXACTLY WHAT YOU SAID.
I'M JUST TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT SAME ETIQUETTE THAT WEST DALLAS IS RECEIVING, THAT JOBY RECEIVES IT.
YOU WILL GET THAT CONSIDERATION FROM THIS BOARD.
COMMISSIONER CARPENTER AND COMMISSIONER DERE.
UM, PATRICK, DO YOU MIND ANSWERING MR. ROBERTS' TWO QUESTIONS THAT HE BROUGHT UP IN THE YES.
UH, SO THE FIRST QUESTION, UM, WILL THE RESIDENTS OF JAPI BE INCLUDED IN THIS PROCESS? ABSOLUTELY, 100%.
UM, THOSE ARE THE VOICES THAT WE'RE LOOKING TO HEAR FROM.
UM, AS FAR AS THE POINT PERSON, UM, IF THIS IS A, IF IT IS AUTHORIZED BY CPC, THEN UM, OUR STAFF WOULD GO THROUGH IDENTIFYING APPOINT PERSON.
BUT UNTIL THAT PERSON IS IDENTIFIED, YOU CAN, YOU CAN TALK TO ME.
UM, AND THEN ONCE WE IDENTIFY WHO THAT PERSON WOULD BE, WE WOULD APPOINT OR WE WOULD, UM, UH, SELECT THAT PERSON TO, TO LEAD THAT THE AUTHORIZED HEARING.
COMMISSIONER WILL IMMA COMMISSIONER SERRATO, GO FIRST.
UM, I'M PRETTY NEW TO THE CPC, UM, I'VE ONLY BEEN HERE FOR A COUPLE MONTHS, SO I JUST WANTED TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE SPEAKERS TODAY AND, UM, THE WAY YOU'RE ADVOCATING FOR YOUR COMMUNITY TO HAVE A VOICE AND TO EDUCATE THEM.
UM, IT'S PART OF THE REASON I TOOK THIS, UH, ROLE HERE 'CAUSE I'M FROM PLEASANT GROVE AND WE OFTEN AREN'T, UM, EDUCATED OR INFORMED IN WAYS THAT I'D LIKE TO SEE.
SO, UM, I REALLY COMMEND YOU TAKING YOUR TIME OUTTA YOUR DAY ON A, ON A THURSDAY, UM, TO COME DOWN HERE AND, AND SPEAK ON BEHALF OF YOUR COMMUNITY.
I JUST WANTED TO REALLY COMMEND THAT.
SO, UH, COMMISSIONER WHEELER, UM, I WANT, CAN, COULD CALEB AND ALICIA COME TO COME DOWN PLEASE? UM, 'CAUSE I WANNA MAKE SURE WE CLARIFY SOME THINGS.
UM, CALEB FOR THE, OVER THE LAST YEAR SINCE MAYBE AFTER A POSSIBLE NSO WAS PUT IN THAT WE STARTED, WE STARTED TALKING TO STAFF ABOUT HOW THIS CAME ABOUT IS THAT WE STARTED TALKING TO STAFF ABOUT PROTECTIONS BASED OFF OF THE CONCERNS.
UM, ALICIA, WHO WORKS FOR DOWN WINDERS, WHO MOTHER IS A COMMUNITY WHO LIVES IN THE COMMUNITY, SHE PREVIOUSLY LIVED THERE, WELL, I DON'T KNOW IF SHE'S PROBABLY BACK THERE.
BUT THE CONCERNS WAS HOW DO WE HAVE TO PRETTY MUCH EVERY, EVERY TIME YOU ALL LOOKED UP TO, YOU ALL WAS COMING SAYING, WE NEED SOME ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE, WE NEED SOME ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE, WE NEED THESE THINGS IN PLACE.
AND THAT THE CONSIDERATION WAS WHY HAD NO ONE EVER PROPOSED TO YOU ALL A PD? AND HOW DID WE START THAT CONVERSATION AND PUTTING THE BACKING BEHIND GETTING STAFF TO, TO TO, TO START TO FORMULATE THIS, UH, THESE BOUNDARIES AND AND TO BE ABLE TO GIVE YOU ALL SOMETHING.
YEAH, AND, AND I CAN START WITH THAT.
I MEAN, THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS IN, IN JAPI HAS BEEN LONG TOLD ABOUT, UH, UNION PACIFIC AND THE RAIL YARD, UH, SWITCHYARD THERE, AND JUST THE AMOUNT OF INDUSTRIES THERE.
THERE'S EVEN LESS INDUSTRIES THAN THERE WERE, YOU KNOW, A COUPLE YEARS AGO.
THERE'S SOME INDUSTRIES THAT HAVE LEFT, BUT IF YOU GO TO JAPI, IT IS, AND YOU'RE GOING AROUND, UH, DOWN CENTRAL EXPRESSWAY, IT IS A LINE OF, OF INDUSTRIAL POLLUTERS RIGHT THERE.
UM, SO BACK IN 2024 WHEN WE STARTED TALKING TO COMMISSIONER WHEELER ABOUT WHAT CAN WE DO, UH, ABOUT THESE ISSUES? AND, AND SHE CAME TO AN EVENT, UH, IN JAPI WITH ABOUT A HUNDRED PEOPLE TO TALK ABOUT THIS ISSUE.
WE DIDN'T KNOW, UH, A A PLAN DEVELOPMENT HADN'T BEEN DISCUSSED OR THE ABILITY TO, TO CHANGE AND REALLY AUTHOR WHAT IS HAPPENING IN, IN JPE HADN'T BEEN DISCUSSED OUTRIGHT AS A, A WAY TO DEAL WITH THESE ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES.
AND ONCE WE HAD THAT CONVERSATION, THAT IS WHEN SOME OF THE COMMUNITY MEMBERS WERE DISCUSSING AND WERE IN, UH, WERE IN DISCUSSION WITH COMMISSIONER WHEELER WITH, UH, COUNCILMAN BA'S OFFICE ABOUT WHAT ARE THE WAYS THAT CAN PROTECT
[02:40:01]
THE RESIDENTS FROM THESE ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS, UM, AND ALSO PROVIDE SOME CHANGE FOR THE AREA ABOUT WHAT PEOPLE WANTED TO SEE IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD.SO THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT THIS CONVERSATION THAT'S DATES BACK TO OCTOBER OF 2024 AND A LITTLE BEFORE THAT, AND IT'S TAKEN UP UNTIL NOW TO GET ALL OF THOSE THINGS READY AND MOVING TO GET THIS PROCESS UNDERWAY.
AND I'M SAYING 2024, BUT THIS IS, THIS IS A CONVERSATION ABOUT ENVIRONMENTALISM THAT'S BEEN HAPPENING BEFORE I WAS BORN.
DROPPY HAS BEEN FIGHTING THIS FOR A LONG TIME, SO I DON'T WANNA MAKE IT SEEM LIKE WE'RE THE FIRST ONES TO BRING THIS UP.
BUT JUST IN TERMS OF OUR CONVERSATION, THIS HAS HAPPENED ALREADY, YOU KNOW, SUMMER, UH, FALL OF 2024, AND NOW WE'RE IN 2026 TRYING TO SEE THIS THING THROUGH, UM, ALICIA IN SPRING OF 2023, THE ISSUE WITH TAMCO WAS NOT, NOT TAMCO, WAS IT AUSTIN BRIDGES THAT I WAS VERY MUCH AWARE, NOT AWARE OF, A NEW, AS A NEW COMMISSIONER, REALLY STILL DON'T UNDERSTAND ENVIRONMENT ISSUE OUTSIDE OF WHEN SOMETHING'S IN THE AIR, I HAVE ALLERGIES AND THERE'S A PROBLEM.
AND YOU, AND YOU ALL WANTED ME TO DO A THREE COMMISSIONER MEMO AND I, AND I WAS LIKE, I, I'M NOT, I DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE.
'CAUSE I DON'T KNOW ENOUGH RIGHT NOW, BUT TAKING IT INTO CONSIDERATION THAT WE, OVER THE YEARS, WE'VE GOT TO THIS POINT THAT I COULD NOT BELIEVE THAT THERE WAS NOT A PD DID, DOES THIS HELP WITH THAT PROCESS OF SAYING, SOMEONE SHOULD HAVE TOLD US THIS EARLIER TO GET TO A PD OR THE THOUGHT OF AN AUTHORIZED HEARING TO EVEN THINK ABOUT A PD TO HELP YOU ALL BE ABLE TO BE IN CONTROL OF YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD? SO I KIND OF MISSED YOUR QUESTION, BUT I'M GONNA GO WITH WHAT I THINK THE QUESTION IS.
UM, I BELIEVE THAT US NOT KNOWING THAT THERE IS A PD, AN OPTION FOR A PD, IT JUST SPEAKS TO THE FACT THAT THERE IS A LACK OF EDUCATION AND LIKE THERE IS NO BRIDGE BETWEEN THE COMMUNITY AND THE CITY PROCESSES.
PEOPLE DO NOT KNOW WHAT THE CITY PROCESSES ARE MM-HMM
OR WHAT OPTIONS THEY EVEN HAVE WHEN THEY START ENGAGING WITH THIS PROCESS.
PEOPLE CAN SAY, OH, I HAVE A PROBLEM IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT THEY DON'T KNOW HOW, WHAT THE SOLUTION WOULD BE TO EVEN SOLVE THAT PROBLEM IN A TANGIBLE WAY.
AND I THINK IN THAT PROCESS, FROM 2023 TO NOW, US NOT KNOWING, OH, AUSTIN ASPHALT WAS ON THEIR WAY OUT.
WHAT HAPPENS NOW WHEN INDUSTRY LEAVE? WHAT HAPPENS AFTER? AND THAT WAS WHERE WE STARTED ASKING QUESTIONS LIKE, HOW DO WE PROTECT OURSELVES ONCE INDUSTRY DOES LEAVE, WHEN INDUSTRY DOES PICK UP AND MOVE? CAN WE PROTECT OURSELVES FROM MAYBE WHAT A HIGH RISE APARTMENT BUILDING THAT CAN COME IN THAT AREA, BUY IT UP AND THEN BUILD ON IT? DOES IT SAVE THE RESIDENTS? AND I THINK THAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT.
AND I THINK, AGAIN, THANK YOU FOR ALWAYS EDUCATING US AND BRINGING ALL THE OPTIONS TO THE TABLE, EVEN WHEN THERE IS STRUGGLE IN OUR COMMUNITY MEETINGS.
'CAUSE I WON'T SAY THAT THERE ISN'T BECAUSE THIS IS A, A DEEPLY ROOTED ISSUE THAT PEOPLE HAVE A LOT OF PASSION TOWARDS.
THERE IS ALWAYS EDUCATION THAT COMES FIRST.
AND I THINK WHEN WE LEARN TOGETHER, WE ALL CAN MAKE A DECISION BASED ON THE BEST FOR THE COMMUNITY AND EVERYBODY THAT IS AROUND IT.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER WHEELER.
UH, PATRICK, COULD YOU HELP ME UNDERSTAND, UH, LOOKING AT THE AREA OF REQUEST MAP, UM, THE AREAS THAT ARE EAST OF, UH, CARBONDALE, THERE ARE SEVERAL STREETS THAT APPEAR TO BE SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS IN WHICH PART OF THE STREET IS, OR PART OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS IN THE, UH, AREA OF REQUEST MAP.
AND PART OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS NOT LIKE, FOR INSTANCE, THE KISKA STREET THAT THE LADY WAS REFERRING TO.
SO COULD YOU HELP ME AND UNDERSTAND WHY THIS IS KIND OF DIVIDED UP LIKE THAT? AND PART OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS IN THE AREA REQUEST AND PART OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS NOT.
SO, UH, PART OF THAT REASON IS BECAUSE, UM, ON SOME OF THE, SO CARBONDALE IS ZONED, UM, CS, AND THEN THERE ARE SOME LOTS LIKE THAT CS ZONING GOES INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD ON A COUPLE OF THOSE STREETS WHERE YOU ACTUALLY HAVE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ON CS ZONING.
AND SO PART OF THE REASON WHY IT LOOKS A LITTLE BIT LIKE, UH, JIGSAW E IS BECAUSE WE WANTED TO CAPTURE NOT JUST WHERE YOU MIGHT HAVE SOME VACANT PROPERTY AND YOU KNOW, THINKING ABOUT DIFFERENT TYPES OF HOUSING TYPE, BUT ALSO RIGHT ZONING SOME AREAS WHERE YOU HAVE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, BUT THEY'RE NOT LEGALLY ALLOWED AT THIS POINT.
THOSE AREAS THAT ARE OUTSIDE THE BOUNDARY ON THE EASTERN EDGE THERE, THEY ARE ZONED SINGLE FAMILY AND THE AREAS THAT ARE WITHIN THE AREA OF REQUEST ARE, UH, EAST OF CARBONDALE THAT ARE THERE ZONED CS.
SO THE AREAS THAT ARE TO THE EAST OF THE, THE, THE, OF THE, THE BOUNDARIES, THOSE ARE EITHER ZONED, UM, R FIVE, WHERE THERE'S SOME THAT ARE ZONED COMMERCIAL, UM, UP CLOSER TO WHERE THERE'S SOME COMMERCIAL SPACES IN CHOPPY.
UM, BUT THE AREAS IN THE, THE AREA REQUEST, UM, THAT ARE INCLUDED HERE ARE EITHER CS ZONING THAT HAS SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, OR SOME OF THEM ARE AREAS THAT ARE JUST ADJACENT TO THOSE.
UM, AND AGAIN, WOULD WANT INPUT FROM THE COMMUNITY
[02:45:01]
IS RIGHT ZONING THOSE JUST AN R FIVE RIGHT.YOU KNOW, TO TO TO TO, SIMILAR TO SOME OF THE STUFF IN WEST DALLAS, JUST TO, TO SOLVE THAT INEQUITY AND, AND MORE ABOUT EMPOWERING THOSE COMMUNITIES.
UM, BUT THAT'S PART OF WHAT THE AUTHORIZED HEARING IS TO EXPLORE.
THANK YOU FOR ANSWERING MY QUESTION.
UH, LAST ROUND, COMMISSIONER WILLER AND, AND SO THOSE ONES THAT ARE DIRECTLY NEXT TO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES THAT, THAT, UM, COMMISSIONER FORSYTH JUST TALKED ABOUT BY RIGHT, RIGHT NOW, BECAUSE THERE IS NOT A HEIGHT, A HEIGHT LIMIT OR A PD IN PLACE, IT FALLS ALMOST INTO WHAT DALLAS CITY GENERAL ZONING AND WHATEVER IS ON THE LAND AT THE TIME.
AND THAT CS ZONING, WHAT IS THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT FOR A, A, UH, A BUILDING THAT COULD BE DONE UP UNDER SBA 40? UM, I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK IN TO THAT ZONING DISTRICT AND THE, PARTICULARLY THE PART, THE, THE DETAILS OF THAT AREA TO GIVE AN ANSWER ABOUT THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE HEIGHT.
UM, AND WE CAN GET BACK TO YOU AND ANSWER THAT QUESTION, BUT IT BRINGS UP, UM, A POINT OF THERE ARE SOME ENTITLEMENT ISSUES THAT EXIST BECAUSE OF EIGHT 40 THAT ARE OVER THERE THAT DIDN'T BEFORE EIGHT 40.
WOULD YOU SAY IT'S OVER THE, DO YOU KNOW POSSIBLY IF IT'S OVER THE 45 FEET LIMIT? UH, AGAIN, WOULD HAVE TO EXPLORE THAT QUESTION MORE.
AND, AND MAKE, BUT YOU WILLING TO HAVE THAT INFORMATION PRIOR AS YOU, AS WHOEVER THE TEAM MEMBER WHO IS GONNA BE WORKING WITH, UM, JPE IF THIS AUTHORIZED, UH, THIS, THIS GOES FORWARD TODAY, YES.
AS PART OF THAT PROCESS OF AN AUTHORIZED HEARING, UM, OUR STAFF WOULD GO OUT THERE TO ENGAGE WITH AND EDUCATING THE COMMUNITY ABOUT WHAT YOU, WHAT WHAT COULD POSSIBLY HAPPEN THERE WITHOUT ANY ZONING CHANGES.
AND I THINK COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, YOU WANTED TO ANSWER THAT? NO.
THANK YOU GUYS FOR THE, UM, CONVERSATION AND THE QUESTIONS.
UM, AUTHORIZED HEARINGS ARE A BIT OF A, A, A PROCESS.
UM, AND THEN IT OPENS UP, UM, THE CASE RIGHT FROM THIS POINT ON.
THERE SHOULD BE A LOT OF ACTIVITY FROM PATRICK AND TEAM AND JOCKY COMMUNI IN COMMUNICATIONS AND MEETINGS AND, AND BUILDING THE PROCESS BEFORE THEY COME BACK TO US FOR REAL HEARING WHERE THERE'LL BE MORE QUESTIONS AND MORE DIGGING DOWN FROM OUR BOARD, UM, BACK TO THE, TO THE PUBLIC.
SO THANK YOU GUYS FOR YOUR TIME.
UM, WITH THAT BEING SAID, I WILL ENTERTAIN A VOTE.
WHO'S MAKING THE MOTION? THE MOTION.
UM, IN THE, IN THE MATTER OF, IS THERE, IS THERE A CASE NUMBER, UM, IN, IN THE MATTER OF THE AUTHORIZED HEARING, UM, FOR JPI? UM, UM, I MOVED TO FOLLOW STAFF.
IS THERE A STAFF RECOMMENDATION? YES.
AUTHORIZE A HEARING FOR, UM, JPI, UM, THE JO P AUTHORIZED HEARING MOR MORATORIUM, UM, FOR THE AREA OF REQUESTED MAP.
I GUESS THAT'S HOW YOU SAY IT.
OH, IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION BEFORE? SORRY.
UM, LET ME SAY FIRST TO THE RESIDENTS, UH, JAPE WHO DID COME.
UH, THANK YOU FOR ALL FOR COMING.
UM, LET ME BE CLEAR, UM, AS IT RELATES TO A AUTHORIZED HEARING, I AM CURRENTLY A IN OUR, MY COMMUNITY, WHICH IS SOUTH DALLAS FOR OUR PARK IS IN THE MIDDLE OF AN AUTHORIZED HEARING.
IT TOOK US FIVE, IT TOOK US MANY, MANY YEARS TO GET HERE.
THE FIRST PD WHEN PD 5 95 WAS CREATED SOME 20 YEARS AGO.
IT WAS TO PROTECT OUR COMMUNITY FROM BAD ACTORS AND BAD USES THAT WORKED FOR US.
IT TOOK US ANOTHER 20 YEARS TO GET IT BACK ON THE BOOKS SO THAT WE CAN IMPROVE.
UM, FOR ME, I, I BY NO MEANS DO I UNDERSTAND ENVIRONMENTAL, I, I I CAN'T EVEN TELL YOU WHY.
I'M FOR SURE THAT, UH, EVERYTHING THAT YOU ALL HAVE WENT THROUGH IS TRUE AND I FACTUAL, BUT I, I AM NOT, NEITHER AM I, UM, THE, THE, UH, ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSIONER.
AND I ALWAYS REFER BACK TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSIONER WHEN I DO NOT KNOW, BECAUSE THAT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO.
BUT WHAT I AM IS THE ZONING COMMISSIONER.
AND IF I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ELSE, I AM, I AM IN LOVE WITH ZONING.
I AM IN LOVE WITH DEVELOPING AND LAND THAT WILL HELP US AND EDUCATION OF THAT, RIGHT? I CALL MYSELF THE GRASSROOTS ENVI AND COMMISSIONER BECAUSE I FIGHT FOR THINGS THAT OTHERS MIGHT LOOK OVER
[02:50:01]
BECAUSE I'M IN THE GROUNDS.I'M IN THE, I'M IN THE GROUND WITH THESE PEOPLE EVERY DAY AND ME SAYING, HEY, IT IS IMPORTANT THAT A AUTHORIZED HEARING.
I CANNOT BELIEVE NO ONE EVER SAID THIS TO YOU.
ALL THIS WOULD'VE SOLVED THIS PROBLEM SOME, MANY, MANY, MANY, MANY YEARS AGO.
OR AT LEAST START THE PROCESS BECAUSE PDS ARE CREATING TO ME YOUR LITTLE CITY, AND YOU GET TO SAY WHAT YOU WANT IN YOUR CITY, RIGHT? INSTEAD OF BEING GROUPED IN WITH THE WHOLE REST OF THE CITY.
SO THIS AUTHORIZED THIS, THIS, THIS THREE COMMISSION, UM, MEMO THAT I, THAT WAS DONE.
IT WAS DONE WHOLEHEARTEDLY NOT TO HARM, BUT TO HELP.
UM, BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS A FREEMAN'S TOWN.
I UNDERSTAND THAT, AS I'VE TOLD YOU ALL MANY TIMES, I SPENT MANY YEARS IN MY, MY YOUTH IN PY ON A SATURDAY MORNING.
SO I UNDERSTAND HOW IMPORTANT THIS IS AND WHAT I ONLY THING THAT I CAN DO IS THIS.
I CAN'T UN I CAN'T DO ANYTHING AT, AT ENVIRON, AT THE ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE, CAN'T DO ANYTHING AT COUNCIL.
BUT HERE I CAN START THIS PROCESS TO GIVE YOU ALL SOME HOPE THAT YOU ALL CAN, CAN CHANGE THINGS.
DALLAS, WE HAVE DALLAS FORWARD IN PLACE.
DALLAS IS IT FORWARD DALLAS IN PLACE THAT HELPS.
SAYS THAT THIS PARTICULAR ZONING OR THESE ZONINGS THAT YOU WANT IS WHAT IS NEEDED.
UM, LOOKING TO WEST DALLAS AS A GUIDING POINT AND LOOKING TO THOSE OTHER PLACES THAT HAVE STEPPED OUT AND STARTED AUTHORIZED HEARINGS, I WOULD HOPE THAT YOU ALL WERE LEANED INTO THAT.
UM, BUT THIS WAS NOT DONE IN MALICE IN ANY KINDA WAY.
AND IF THERE WAS ANY TYPE OF MISCOMMUNICATION, I AM SORRY, BUT ME OR DOING THIS WAS SAYING IT IS IMPORTANT.
NOT BECAUSE IT JUST CAME OUTTA MY BRAIN, BUT I AM ALREADY, WE'VE DONE THIS, I SAT FIVE OR SIX YEARS WITH PATRICK AND LINDSEY EVERY SINGLE DAY GOING THROUGH THOSE PROCESSES.
AND SO THIS IS BUILT OFF OF EXPERIENCE ON HOW IT CAN WORK AND THAT YOU ALL ARE OVERDUE FOR AT LEAST THIS PORTION.
AND THEN WE CAN GET, GET YOU ALL EXACTLY WHAT YOU ALL NEED IN THE BEST WAY POSSIBLE.
THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER WHEELER.
UM, HEARING, IS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE.
THOSE OPPOSED THE ITEM PASSES.
THE CHAIR CAN ENTER THE CHAMBERS.
[SUBDIVISION DOCKET - Consent Items (Part 1 of 2)]
YOU MR. VICE CHAIR.UM, AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, WE'RE GONNA GO A LITTLE BIT OUT OF ORDER TODAY.
UM, SO WE'LL MOVE TO OUR SUBDIVISION DOCKET.
[APPROVAL OF MINUTES]
OH, THANK YOU.ACTUALLY, WHILE MR. SHARMA COMES UP, DO YOU, CAN WE GET A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES? COMMISSIONER HALL, PLEASE DO, UH, MR. CHAIR, I MOVE TO APPROVE THE REVISED DECEMBER 4TH, 2025 HEARING MINUTES AS POSTED ON JANUARY 5TH, 2026.
COMMISSIONER HALL FOR YOUR MOTION.
COMMISSIONER SIMMONS FOR YOUR SECOND.
[SUBDIVISION DOCKET - Consent Items (Part 2 of 2)]
MS. SHARMA, WHENEVER YOU'RE READY.GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR, COMMISSIONERS AND EVERYONE.
TODAY'S CONSENT AGENDA CONSISTS OF 23 ITEMS. ITEM 27, ITEM 28, ITEM 29, ITEM 30, ITEM 31, ITEM 32, ITEM 33, ITEM 34, ITEM 35, ITEM 36, ITEM 37, ITEM 38, ITEM 39, ITEM 40, ITEM 41, ITEM 42, ITEM 43, ITEM 44, ITEM 45, ITEM 46, ITEM 47, ITEM 48, ITEM 49 ON ITEM 49, PLAT DASH 25 DASH 0 0 0 180.
ZONING NEEDS TO BE CORRECTED FROM NOA TO RR ON DECEMBER, 2025.
COUNCIL APPROVED ZONING CHAINS ON THIS PROPERTY TO RR ON THE SAME ITEM ON ITEM 49 PLAT DASH 25 DASH 0 0 1 8 FOR TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT.
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS ARE ADDED AND I'M GONNA READ ITEM ONE, UM, CONDITION ONE, HILLCREST ROAD RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION.
THE PLA SHALL PROVIDE SUFFICIENT RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION ALONG HILLCREST ROAD TO ACCOMMODATE THE ULTIMATE DESIGN OF NORTHBOUND RIGHT TURN LANE, INCLUDING ALL ASSOCIATED SIDEWALK PARKWAY AND PEDESTRIAN INFRASTRUCTURE.
CONDITION NUMBER TWO, SOUTH PROPERTY LINE EASEMENT WIDENING.
PRIOR TO PLAT APPROVAL, THE APPLICANTS SHALL WIDEN THE EXISTING EASEMENT ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY TO PROVIDE SUFFICIENT SPACE FOR THE FUTURE.
EXPANSION OF WESTBOUND AROSE LANES OF HILLCREST PLAZA.
[02:55:01]
OF DEDICATION SHALL BE BASED ON FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF AN APPROVED APPROVED TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY AND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE CITY OF DALLAS TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC WORK DEPARTMENTS.CONDITION NUMBER THREE, DEVELOPMENT IMPACT REVIEW.
THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT CELL COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT REVIEW REQUIREMENTS PER DALLAS CITY CODE SECTION 51 A DASH 4.8 HUNDRED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS, A GUARANTEE AND CONSTRUCTION OF TRAFFIC SIGNAL UPGRADES, MODIFICATIONS OR RELATED EQUIPMENT ASSOCIATED BY THE DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC IMPACT INCLUDING SIGNAL TIMING ADJUSTMENTS AS REQUIRED B EXTENSION OF THE SOUTHBOUND LEFT TURN LANE OF HILLCREST ROAD AT THE HILLCREST PLAZA INTERSECTION TO THE LENGTH DETERMINED NECESSARY BASED ON THE APPROVED TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY C, CONSIDERATION OF ELEVATED ACCESS CONNECTION TO THE EASTBOUND FRONTAGE ROAD, PROVIDING DIRECT ACCESS TO THE EXISTING ELEVATED FRONTAGE ROAD, DIRECTLY LEADING TO CO ROAD AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO ROUTING EGRESS TRAFFIC ON THE FRONTAGE ROAD THROUGH PARK CENTRAL DRIVE.
SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE TRA TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION.
ALL THESE CASES HAVE BEEN POSTED FOR A HEARING AT THIS TIME AND STAFF RECOMMENDED AND IS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE DOCKET AND OR AS AMENDED AT HEARING.
UM, FOR THOSE OF YOU IN ATTENDANCE, UM, THESE ITEMS, SUBDIVISION ITEMS 27 THROUGH 49 ARE ON OUR CONSENT AGENDA.
UM, UNLESS ANY ITEM IS REMOVED, BOTH THEY'LL ALL JUST BE APPROVED OF IN A SINGLE MOTION.
UM, IS THERE ANYONE WHO WANTS ANY OF THE ITEMS REMOVED? 27TH THROUGH 49 FROM OUR CONSENT AGENDA.
AND UH, GEORGE, I SEE THAT THERE ARE A NUMBER OF PEOPLE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON SOME OF OUR CONSENT ITEMS. IS THERE ANYONE WHO'S ONLINE THEY LOOK TO ALL BE APPLICANTS OR REPRESENTATIVES THEY'RE GONNA HAVE THE CAMERA ON.
[03:00:01]
OKAY.IS REMINGTON WHEAT ONLINE? YES.
UM, MR. WHEAT, YOU'RE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER 36.
DID YOU HAVE COMMENTS OR WERE YOU JUST HERE FOR QUESTIONS? JUST HERE FOR QUESTIONS.
UM, RICHARD SPICER ON ITEM NUMBER 42.
AND JUST HERE FOR QUESTIONS AS WELL.
AND TRINA AND OR CLAY SMITH? YES.
ARE YOU, DO YOU HAVE COMMENTS OR ARE YOU JUST HERE FOR ANY QUESTIONS? QUESTIONS.
ALRIGHT, WELL THAT CONCLUDES OUR LIST OF ONLINE, UM, SPEAKERS ON OUR SUBDIVISION CONSENT ITEM, UM, SUBDIVISION.
CAN I GET A MOTION ON THE SUBDIVISION DOCKET? UM, I THINK IT WOULD NORMALLY GO TO COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, BUT I THINK SHE'S INDE INDISPOSED.
IN THE MATTER OF THE SUBDIVISION DOCKET CONSENT ITEMS 29 THROUGH 40 27, EXCUSE ME, THROUGH 49, I MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE DOCKET OR AS READ INTO THE RECORD.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HAMPTON FOR YOUR MOTION.
COMMISSIONER HOUSE WRIGHT FOR YOUR SECOND.
ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING? COMMISSIONER COX? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
[50. 26-220A An application to replat a 1.414-acre tract of land containing all of Lot 69A and a tract of land in City Block 5469 to create two 0.707-acre lot on property located on Deloach Avenue, west of Edgemere Road. Applicant/Owner: Bridgeway Properties, LLC Surveyor: Coombs Land Surveying, INC Application Filed: December 17, 2025. Zoning: R-10(A) Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to compliance with the conditions listed in the docket Planner: Hema Sharma Council District: 13 PLAT-25-000146]
MOVE ON TO OUR RESIDENTIAL RELAS, WHICH I BELIEVE STARTS ON ITEM 50.ITEM 50 FLAT DASH 25 DASH 0 0 0 1 46.
AN APPLICATION TO REPL, A 1.414 ACRE TRACK OF LAND CONTAINING ALL OF LOT 69 A AND A TRACK OF LAND IN CITY BLOCK 5 4 6 9 TO CREATE TWO 0.707 ACRE LOT ON PROPERTY LOC LOCATED ON DE DE LODGE AVENUE WEST OF EDGEMERE ROAD.
22 NOTICES WERE SENT TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE PROPERTY ON DECEMBER 29TH, 2025.
WE HAVE RECEIVED ONE REPLY IN FAVOR AND TWO REPLIES IN OPPOSITION TO THIS REQUEST.
UM, THANK YOU SO MUCH MS. SHARMA.
IS THERE ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER 50? SEEING NONE, UH, COMMISSIONER HALL, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? OH YES.
OR CAN YOU MAKE YOUR MOTION FIRST THEN ASK YOUR QUESTION? SURE.
UH, MR. CHAIR, IN THE MATTER OF PLAT 25 DASH 0 0 1 46, I MOVE TO FOLLOW STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE DOCKET.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HALL FOR YOUR MOTION.
COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT FOR YOUR SECOND.
ANY DISCUSSION OR QUESTIONS? YEAH, MS. SHARMA.
UH, UH, JUST CURIOUS, UH, YOU SAY HERE THAT IT'S A TRACK, UH, 1.414 ACRE TRACT OF LAND.
IS IT CURRENTLY JUST ONE LOT? THAT'S 1.414 ACRES OR IS IT TWO? TWO LOTS.
SO THIS IS ALL OF LOT 69 A AND THERE ARE A PORTION OF TRACK THOUGHT WE WERE INVOLVED.
THAT'S WHY IT WENT TO THE RESIDENTIAL REPLA BECAUSE ONE OF THE PORTION IS LOT, LOT 69 A.
AND SO WHAT THEY JUST WANNA DO IS SPLIT IT INTO TWO EQUAL, YES.
AND LOOKING, LOOKING AT THE UH, PLAT, UH, IT LOOKS LIKE THE EXISTING HOMES WILL BE JUST WILL BE REMOVED AND I'M SURE THEY'LL BUILD NEW HOMES.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALRIGHT, WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HALL, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT TO, UH, FOLLOW STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL SUBJECT TO CLIENT'S CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE DOCKET.
[51. 26-221A An application to replat 0.275-acre (12,000-square foot) tract of land containing all of Common Area A in City Block 28/2280 to create three 0.092-acre (4,000-square foot) lot on property located on Knight Street, northeast of Harry Hines Boulevard. Applicant/Owner: Kavyan Corporation, Kay Zafar Surveyor: Bowman Consulting Group LTD Application Filed: December 19, 2025. Zoning: PD 193 (TH-3) Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to compliance with the conditions listed in the docket. Planner: Hema Sharma Council District: 2 PLAT-25-000173]
ITEM 51 PLAT DASH 25 DASH 0 0 0 1 73 AND APPLICATION TO REPL 0.275 ACRE.THAT IS 12 12,000 SQUARE FOOT TRACK OF LAND CONTINUING ALL OF LOT COMMON AREA A IN CITY BLOCK 28 OVER 2 2 8 0 TO CREATE THREE 0.092 ACRE.
THAT IS 4,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON NINTH STREET NORTHEAST OF HARRY HINES BOULEVARD.
32 NOTICES WERE SENT TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE
[03:05:01]
PROPERTY ON DECEMBER 29TH, 2025.WE HAVE RECEIVED ONE REPLY IN FAVOR AND 2027 REPLIES IN OPPOSITION TO THIS REQUEST.
WE HAVE ALSO RECEIVED FOUR REPLIES IN OPPOSITION OUTSIDE THE BOUNDARIES.
I THINK AND, UM, SORRY, I'M SORRY.
AND THE, UM, STAFF RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE DOCKET AND AS AMENDED AT THE HEARING.
BEFORE WE GO TO OUR PUBLIC SPEAKERS, I BELIEVE THAT A MEMBER OR MEMBERS OF THE BODY NEEDS TO MAKE DISCLOSURES ON THIS ONE.
I WOULD LIKE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I WAS CONTACTED, UH, REGARDING THIS PLAT, BUT HAD NO COMMUNICATION OUTSIDE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING.
DOES THAT COVER ALL THE DISCLOSURES THAT ARE NECESSARY? COMMISSIONER FORSYTH? I WAS APPROACHED BY A MEMBER TODAY, UH, ASKING ABOUT THE PROCEDURES AND I BASICALLY INDICATED THAT I REALLY DIDN'T KNOW TOO MUCH ABOUT THE PROCESS OTHER THAN WE HAVE THE MINISTERIAL DUTY TO APPROVE THE, THE, THE, THE LAW.
ANYONE ELSE? ALRIGHT, WE'LL GO TO OUR PUBLIC SPEAKERS STARTING WITH MR. BALDWIN.
ROB BALDWIN 3 9 0 4 ELM STREET, SUITE B HERE REPRESENTING THE PROPERTY OWNER.
THE, THIS IS A A 12,000 SQUARE FOOT TRACT OF LAND THAT'S NOT BEEN BUILT ON.
IT'S LIKE THE LAST UNBUILT TRACK IN THE AREA.
UH, THEY WOULD LIKE TO SUBDIVIDED INTO THREE LOTS OF ZONE TH THREE A WHO HAS A MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF 2000 SQUARE FEET.
WE'RE PROPOSING 4,000 SQUARE FOOT LOTS IN THIS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE LOTS IMMEDIATELY TO THE EAST OF A, OF THIS, WHICH IS A PROJECT THAT MY CLIENT ALSO DEVELOPED.
SO I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.
UM, I BELIEVE THERE'S ALSO A GENTLEMAN WHO SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ONLINE.
MR. ROSENBAUM, IS HE ONLINE? SORRY? ARE YOU MR. ROSENBAUM? I'M NOT MR. ROSENBAUM.
WE'LL GET TO YOU IN JUST A MINUTE.
UH, MR. ROSENBAUM, ARE YOU ONLINE? MR. ROSENBAUM? SORRY.
AND ARE YOU ABLE TO TURN YOUR CAMERA ON? UH, HOLD ON.
ALRIGHT, WHENEVER YOU'RE READY.
UM, SO I, WHEN I PURCHASED THIS LOT, I, SO MR. ROSENBAUM, SORRY, CAN YOU START WITH YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD? SURE, SURE.
UM, THE LOT THAT IS IN QUESTION THERE, UM, IS RIGHT BEHIND MY HOUSE.
UH, WHEN I PURCHASED THIS HOUSE, UM, I WAS TOLD THAT THAT LOT WOULD BE, UH, USED TO BUILD A SWIMMING POOL AND A DOG PARK FOR USE FOR THE HOA.
IF I HAD KNOWN THAT IT HOUSES WERE GONNA BE BUILT THERE, I NEVER WOULD'VE, UM, WOULD'VE PURCHASED THAT LOT, UH, TO BUILD ON, UM, THAT LOT, UM, AGAIN, WAS SOLD TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THERE'S DOCUMENTATION THAT I THINK MR. SIEGEL HAS TO SHOW YOU THAT IS SHOWS THE, UM, SALES BROCHURE THAT SAYS THAT IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE A DOG LOT.
AND IN THE HOA COVENANTS AND BYLAWS, IT SPECIFICALLY STATES THAT THAT LOT WILL BE USED FOR A DOG PARK.
IT WAS SOLD AS A DOG PARK TO BE USED BY THE HOA, THAT HOA, UM, SORRY.
THE, THE LOT BELONGED TO THE HOA FROM, UH, MARCH OF 22 UNTIL MAY OF 25.
UNBEKNOWNST TO THE RESIDENTS OF, UH, THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THAT LOT WAS DEEDED AWAY FROM THE HOA BACK TO A PRIVATELY OWNED COMPANY.
UH, YET OUR HOA FEES ARE BEING USED TO MAINTAIN THAT LOT.
NONE OF US WERE INFORMED OF THIS ACTION.
UM, AND I AM, I AM DREW WILL GO INTO, MR. SIEGEL WILL GO INTO IT MORE, BUT I AM ADAMANTLY OPPOSED TO THIS BECAUSE IT WILL NEGATIVELY IMPACT.
I I WON'T BE ABLE TO RESELL MY HOUSE BECAUSE THERE WILL LITERALLY BE A HOUSE BUILT RIGHT BEHIND MINE THAT AT THE TOP OF THEIR HOUSE, THEY'LL BE ABLE TO LOOK RIGHT INTO MINE.
UM, THAT'S NOT HOW THIS WAS SOLD.
UM, THE, THE BUILDERS TOLD US THAT THEY TRIED TO GET A PERMIT FOR A DOG PARK AND THEN FOR A POOL ON THAT LOT.
UH, I CAN'T FIND ANY RECORD OF THAT ACTUALLY EVER HAPPENING.
UM, WE WERE NOT INFORMED BY THE HOA
[03:10:01]
THAT THEY WERE GOING TO DO ANY OF THIS.AND FINALLY, I'LL SAY, UH, THE HOA THAT'S BEING RUN BY, UH, SKYLINE, PARIS, HOA, UH, THEY SHOULD HAVE TURNED THE HOA OVER TO THE RESIDENTS, UM, AT THE END OF 2024 WHEN A HUNDRED PERCENT OF THE LOTS WERE SOLD.
THEY, THEY HAVE MAINTAINED IT.
UM, AND IT, THEY DIDN'T DO THIS, I BELIEVE BECAUSE THEY KNEW THAT THE RESIDENTS WOULD NEVER HAVE APPROVED THAT LOT TO BE USED, UH, TO BUILD ADDITIONAL HOUSES.
WE WANTED A DOG PARK, WE WANTED A POOL.
IF IT CAN'T BE USED FOR EITHER OF THOSE, WE NEED ADDITIONAL PARKING.
UM, AND AGAIN, ADAMANTLY, THIS IS NOT WHAT I SIGNED UP FOR.
THIS IS NOT WHAT THE BUILDER SOLD US.
UM, AND THAT LOT HAS BEEN DEEDED BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN DIFFERENT COMPANIES, BUT IT WAS THE HOAS WHEN I BOUGHT IT AND NOW IT'S NOT ANYMORE.
AND I'LL, I'LL, I'LL STOP THERE.
ARE THERE ADDITIONAL SPEAKERS IN SUPPORT ON THIS ITEM BEFORE WE GO TO THE OTHERS IN OPPOSITION? OKAY.
I, ANY, LET'S GO TO THE SPEAKERS IN OPPOSITION, MR. SIEGEL OR OTHERS.
I'M A LAWYER IN DALLAS, TEXAS AND I REPRESENT NINE OF THE HOMEOWNERS OF SKYLINE TERRACE VILLAS.
AND WE'RE HERE TO EXPRESS OUR OPPOSITION TO THE REPLAY OF THE 2320 NINTH STREET FOR THREE NEW RESIDENTIAL UNITS TO BE BUILT.
THE PROBLEM WITH IT IS THE TRACK WAS INTENDED TO BE A DOG PARK IN A SWIMMING POOL.
UH, EACH OF THE HOMEOWNERS WAS PROVIDED A DOCUMENT WHICH IS ENTITLED FIRE CRESCENT ESTATES FIREMAN'S ROW AT SKYLINE TERRACE.
BILL'S EXCLUSIVE FEATURES INCLUDED IN YOUR NEW HOME.
AND UNDER LANDSCAPING, THERE'S THREE ITEMS, THE LAST OF WHICH IS NEIGHBORHOOD DOG PARK.
SO IT'S IN, UH, THE SALES MATERIAL THAT WAS GIVEN TO ALL OF MY CLIENTS.
IN ADDITION, UNDER THE DECLARATION OF COVENANTS AND CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS FOR SKYLINE TERRACE VILLAS, THERE'S A PARAGRAPH 4.3, THE COMMON AREA OF THE PROPERTY CONSISTS OF THE FOLLOWING COMPONENTS ON OR ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY, EVEN IF LOCATED ON A LOT OR A PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.
AND, UH, PARAGRAPH C SAYS, OPEN SPACE AND OR DETENTION AREAS, INCLUDING THE DOG PARK TO BE LOCATED ON LOTS ONE C BLOCK 28 DASH 2280.
THAT'S THE LOT THAT'S IN QUESTION.
SO WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS A DEVELOPER TRYING TO ADD NEW HOUSES WHEN IN WRITING.
AND THERE, BY THE WAY, UH, THERE WERE SIX OF MY NINE CLIENTS WHO WERE TOLD THAT THERE WOULD BE A SWIMMING POOL, UH, BUILT ON THE LAND.
SO WHAT WE HAVE IS WE HAVE IN WRITING, WE HAVE THAT IT'S GOING TO BE A DOG PARK AND WE HAVE ORALLY TO SIX OF MY NINE CLIENTS, AND THERE MAY HAVE BEEN, MAY HAVE BEEN MORE THAT THERE WOULD BE A SWIMMING POOL AND NOW THEY WANT TO TURN IT INTO, UH, THREE ADDITIONAL HOUSES.
AND THAT'S JUST CONTRARY TO, UH, WHAT, WHAT MY CLIENTS WERE SOLD ON THE PROPERTY.
WHEN MR. ROSENBAUM MENTIONED THAT THE HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION HAS NEVER BEEN TURNED OVER TO THE HOMEOWNERS AS IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE WHEN 75% OF THE UNITS WERE SOLD AND THEN 100% OF THE UNITS WERE SOLD.
THERE'S SUPPOSED TO BE AN ELECTION WHERE THREE OF THE HOMEOWNERS WOULD BE ON THE HOA THAT WAS NEVER DONE IN ON, UH, MAY 16TH, 2025, THE HOA WITH NO CONTROL FROM ANY OF THE HOMEOWNERS TRANSFERRED THIS PLOT TO CADG HARRY HINES.
AND THEN APPARENTLY IT WAS SOLD TO A PROPERTY BY THE NAME OF, UH, K-A-V-Y-A-N CORPORATION.
I'D DONE SOME RESEARCH, I DON'T KNOW WHO THEY ARE.
AND, AND ALL OF THIS WAS DONE BASICALLY WITHOUT ANY OF THE HOMEOWNERS KNOWING ABOUT IT.
WE'VE ONLY HAD TWO WEEKS TO PREPARE FOR THIS.
THIS WAS ALL DONE UNDER THE COVER OF NIGHT AND THIS TRANSFER WOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN DONE BY THE HOA HAD MY CLIENTS, OR AT LEAST THREE, UH, OF THE RESIDENTS BEEN ON THE HOA THE WAY WOULD NOT HAVE DEEDED THAT PROPERTY AWAY.
SO BASICALLY IN SUMMARY, UH, THE PROPERTY WAS MEANT TO BE FOR A DOG PARK AND A SWIMMING POOL.
AND THAT'S THE, UH, UH, THAT'S YOUR TIME.
THAT'S THE REPRESENTATIONS OF THE DEVELOPMENT.
UM, ARE THERE OTHER SPEAKERS IN OPPOSITION ON THIS ITEM? YES.
HELLO, MY NAME IS ANGELA MEDRANO, 2331 DOUGLAS AVENUE.
I DO NOT LIVE IN THE, UM, HOA AREA, BUT TWO STREETS OVER.
UM, WE HAVE LIVED THERE A LONG TIME AND WHEN THAT AREA WAS FIRST REPLANTED INTO 31 DALLAS SQUARE, IT WAS AGREED THAT THERE WOULD
[03:15:01]
BE 31 UNITS THERE AND NO MORE.AND THAT'S WHY THAT 12,000 FOOT SQUARE, UM, SQUARE FOOT AREA IS AN OPEN AREA OR COMMON AREA.
WE ARE, UM, OPPOSED TO THIS REPL, UM, IT NEEDS TO REMAIN THE COMMON AREA THAT WAS AGREED ON ORIGINALLY.
AND UM, IF HE HADN'T BROUGHT UP ALL THE TRANSFER FROM CABG TO EVERYTHING AND CA AND ALL OF THAT WITH A, UM, A LAND VALUE OF A HUNDRED DOLLARS OVER THERE, I MEAN MAYBE THEY NEED TO LIKE DECREASE OUR PROPERTY TAXES.
IF ALL THAT THAT IS WORTH IS A HUNDRED DOLLARS, UM, WE ARE AGAINST IT.
NEXT SPEAKER, ROBERT MADANO, I THINK IT HAS BEEN CURRENTLY SAID IT, IT WAS A COMMON GROUND AREA.
SIR, CAN YOU PROVIDE YOUR ADDRESS AS WELL? BEG YOUR PARDON? CAN YOU PROVIDE YOUR ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD? ROBERTO MADANO.
OH, 23 15 9 ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE, THE THREE LOTS.
WHAT'S THE STREET THAT YOU'RE ON? 2350 RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE OH, KNIGHT.
OKAY, KNIGHT, I'M SORRY, I HEARD THAT AS NINE.
YEAH, WE WENT TO BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND WON THAT BATTLE.
THEY WERE GONNA BUILD ORIGINALLY THOSE THREE PLUS ONE, THE 31 THAT WERE GONNA BUILD, 34.
AND IT WAS WENT BEFORE THE COMMISSION.
THEY AGREED THAT COMMON GROUND AND THEN BUILD THE 31 UNITS AND THAT BELONGED KIND OF GOOD FAITH BELONGED TO THE COMMUNITY AND IT'S CURRENTLY USED SOFTBALL, BASEBALL, GOLF, DO THE DOGS, EVERYTHING.
WE DON'T HAVE NO, NO PARKS AROUND THE NEIGHBORHOOD THERE.
AND WE USING IT AS A GREEN AREA AND, UH, WE MAINTAIN THAT WE HELP EACH OTHER, UH, MAINTAIN THE DOBY, DO MAINTAINANCE ON IT, SO WE'RE OPPOSED TO IT.
GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONERS.
MY NAME IS RICARDO ANO AND I LIVE AT 2319 NINTH STREET.
AND I'M OPPOSED TO REPLA OF THIS PROPERTY.
IT HAS BEEN, UH, COMPROMISE THAT WE WERE WHATEVER WAS THERE, WE, WE PLANTED IT AND ZONING.
SO WE WANNA LEAVE IT THE WAY IT IS.
I LIVE AT 2331 DOUGLAS AVENUE, BUT I'M THE OWNER OF 2327 NINTH STREET AND A COUPLE OTHER PROPERTIES ON NINTH STREET.
BUT, UH, ECHOING, UH, WHEN WE WERE APPROACHED BE ON THE, ON THE PLANNING OF DEVELOPMENT OF ALL THOSE, OF ALL THOSE HOUSES, THE, THE DEAL WAS, IS THAT THAT TRACK OF LAND THAT THEY'RE TRYING TO REPLANT WAS A COMMON AREA.
OKAY? THEN THEY CAME BACK AND SAID THEY WANTED TO BUILD A SWIMMING POOL.
AND WE SAID, WELL, IF IT'S OPEN TO THE WHOLE COMMUNITY, THEN YES, WE COULD DO A SWIMMING POOL.
AND THEY OPPOSED THAT, THAT THEY WOULDN'T, THEY DIDN'T, THEY DIDN'T WANT IT OPEN TO THE COMMUNITY.
SO WE ALL AGREED THAT IT WOULD STAY, STAY AS COMMON AREA.
NOW, ONE THING THAT I HAVE IS A COUPLE OF MY TENANTS COMPLAINED, AND I'VE SEEN IT ON SECURITY CAMERA.
WE'VE CALLED 3 1 1, YOU KNOW, SO ON AND ON.
AND ALL THEY DO IS GO TO THEIR HOUSE, KNOCK ON A DOOR AND LEAVE THEM DOGGY BAGS SO THEY CAN CLEAN UP THE POOP.
SEVERAL OCCASIONS THAT THERE'S NO, THERE'S NO AREA FOR THEM TO WALK THEIR DOGS TO, YOU KNOW, TO RELEASE.
AND MOST OF THEM GO TO THAT COMMON AREA, BUT A LOT OF 'EM FURTHER UP CROSS THE STREET AND RELEASE THEMSELVES.
SOMETIMES THEY PICK UP THEIR POOP AND SOMETIMES THEY DON'T.
AND SO IF YOU ADD, IF YOU REPLANT THAT, THAT'S THREE MORE HOMES, THAT'S POSSIBLY THREE OR MORE DOGS, YOU KNOW.
AND SO ME, TO ME, IT'S LIKE WE'RE TIRED OF PICKING UP AFTER THEM.
SO YEAH, I'M TOTALLY OPPOSED OF REPLANTING THAT, THAT, THAT AGREEMENT OF IT BEING A COMMON AREA.
HELLO, MY NAME IS, UH, SPANA HAMPTON.
I LIVE AT 4 1 2 7 MASON RIDGE.
JUST REALLY TO REITERATE WHAT HAS BEEN SAID, UH, BASED ON THE VERBIAGE AND THE HOA COVENANT, UH, THAT SPACE WAS INTENDED
[03:20:01]
TO BE SOME FORM OF SHARED COMMUNAL SPACE.UH, NOWHERE IN THAT VERBIAGE WAS IT INDICATED THAT IT WOULD EVER BE PRIVATE RESIDENTIAL HOUSING, WHICH IS WHAT THIS REPL IS PROPOSING TO DO.
UM, WHETHER THE ULTIMATE, YOU KNOW, FORM IT TAKES IS A DOG PARK OR WHATEVER IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE SHARED OPEN SPACE THAT CAN BE SHARED AMONGST THE COMMUNITY.
AND THAT'S WHY I STRONGLY OPPOSE, UH, THE PROPOSITION TO REPL THE THE LAND NEXT SPEAKER.
I AM A NEW HOMEOWNER IN THIS, THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, UM, AT 41 39 MASON RIDGE.
I PURCHASED MY HOME IN MID-JUNE, AND SO THE PROCESS OBVIOUSLY STARTED IN MAY.
AND WHEN I STARTED LOOKING AT THE PROPERTY, UM, AND I'D BEEN LOOKING ACROSS THE WHOLE CITY OF DALLAS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHERE I WANTED TO LIVE.
THIS ONE HOUSE HAD A NICE OPEN AREA BEHIND IT 'CAUSE I AM ONE OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND IT AFFORDED THIS HOUSE A LITTLE BIT OF A SENSE OF PRIVACY, A LITTLE BIT OF SENSE OF NATURE STILL TO IT WHILE IN THE CITY.
AND, UM, I DIDN'T JUST ASSUME THAT THAT HOUSE, THAT PROPERTY WOULD REMAIN VACANT.
I WENT TO THE, UH, CAD WEBSITE AND ACTUALLY FOUND THE RECORDS THAT SHOWED AT THAT MOMENT IT STILL BELONGED TO THE HOA.
UM, I FOUND I, I WAS GIVEN THE HOA DOCUMENTS, THE CCRS PRIOR TO CLOSING.
IT EXPLICITLY STATES THAT IT WOULD BECOME A DOG PARK.
UM, AND THAT FACTORED INTO THIS DECISION FOR ME BECAUSE I HAVE A DOG.
UM, THE, IT IT, IT WAS VERY SURPRISING TO RECEIVE THE NOTICE IN THE MAIL THAT IT WAS, UH, NO LONGER PART OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, NO LONGER PART OF THE HOA, UM, AND THAT IT HAD BEEN BASICALLY GIVEN BACK TO A BUILDER TO MAKE MORE MONEY OFF OF RATHER THAN REMAINING A, A PLACE OF GREEN SPACE.
A PLACE TO REMIND US OF NATURE OF OUR ENVIRONMENT.
UM, SO I PLEAD WITH THE, THE COUNSEL, PLEASE DO NOT LET THEM REPL THIS, LEAVE IT AS ONE PIECE OF GREEN SPACE PROPERTY.
ARE THERE ANY OTHERS IN OPPOSITION? OKAY, MR. BALDWIN, TWO MINUTE REBUTTAL.
UM, I WASN'T INVOLVED IN ANY OF THE EARLIER PLOTTING OF THIS PROPERTY, OR I DON'T KNOW THE HISTORY OF IT, BUT I DO KNOW THAT, YOU KNOW, I LOOKED AT THE ORIGINAL PLAT AND IT CALLED IT OUT FOR A COMMON AREA, BUT DIDN'T HAVE ANY RESTRICTIONS ON WHAT IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE DOING.
DIDN'T CALL IT OUT FOR COMMON AREA FOR PARKING OR COMMON AREA FOR PARK.
UM, MY CLIENT OWNS THE PROPERTY AND WOULD LIKE TO REPL IT.
UH, IT'S CONSISTENT WITH EXISTING LOT PATTERN IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND I KNOW OF NO CITY RESTRICTIONS OR REGULATIONS THAT WOULD KEEP THIS FROM HAPPENING.
I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.
WE'LL GO TO COMMISSIONER HAMPTON FOR A MOTION.
AND I HAVE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.
UM, IS IT POSSIBLE TO DO QUESTIONS FIRST BECAUSE I THINK THE QUESTIONS MAY HELP SOME OF US UNDERSTANDING THE LEGAL STANDARDS AND SOME OF THE QUESTIONS.
UM, SO ONE OF OUR SPEAKER, AND THIS IS FOR EITHER MR. ESTHER OR FOR MS. MORRISON.
ONE OF THE SPEAKERS MENTIONED THAT THERE WAS A ZONING CHANGE ON THE PROPERTY.
UM, WAS THERE ANY INDICATION, UM, THAT THIS LOT IS OR WAS NOT TH THREE AT THE TIME OF THE PLAT THAT CREATED WHAT'S IDENTIFIED AS COMMON SPACE TODAY? UM, I DIDN'T RESOURCE THAT FAR, BUT CURRENT ZONING IS PD 1 93.
I SHOULD HAVE SAID PD 1 93 IN FRONT OF THAT.
UM, SO I'LL UM, ASK THE SPEAKER TO CLARIFY THAT.
THERE IS A DESIGNATION ON THE PLAT THAT'S IN FRONT OF US THAT SAYS THAT THIS IS, UM, COMMON AREA A 31 DALLAS SQUARE NUMBER ONE.
UM, WITHIN OUR PLAT REGULATIONS WITHIN OPEN SPACE AND PARKS, THERE'S A PROVISION, AND I DID NOT WRITE DOWN THE NUMBER THAT SPEAKS ABOUT COMMON SPACE TO BE DESIGNATED ON THE PLOT.
ARE THERE ANY RESTRICTIONS ON BRINGING THAT BACK AS A DIFFERENT PLAT? IN THIS CASE, WHEN THAT WAS PLATTED, IT WAS MUST BE PD 1 93 S3.
AND IT DOESN'T REQUIRE A OPEN AREA.
SO IF SOMEONE COMES WITH THE APPLICATION AND IT DOES MEET EVERYTHING AND THEY WANT AN OPEN AREA, WE, WE HAVE TO ACCEPT THAT APPLICATION.
SO THAT TIME ALSO, THAT DEVELOPMENT DID NOT REQUIRE ANY OPEN AREA REQUIREMENT, BUT THEY WANTED A SPACE
[03:25:01]
AS AN OPEN AREA.THAT'S HOW THE SUBDIVISION WAS ACCEPTED.
AN OPEN AREA WAS THERE, BUT THERE WAS NO REQUIREMENT TO HAVE AN OPEN AREA.
IF IT WAS RESTRICTIONS LIKE, OKAY, SOME PDS HAS OPEN AREA, THEN WE WOULD NOT ACCEPT THIS PLA THIS TIME.
BUT THAT TIME THERE WAS NO RESTRICTIONS TO HAVE ANY OPEN AREA FOR THAT DEVELOPMENT.
AND THIS IS WHERE I'M GOING TO HAVE TO TEST MY PD 1 93 KNOWLEDGE AND HOPEFULLY SOMEONE ELSE CAN ASSIST.
I THOUGHT PD 1 93 INCLUDED OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS.
THE PD 1 93 TS THREE BACKS UP TO TS THREE REQUIREMENTS, AND IT DOESN'T HAVE ANY OPEN SPACE REQ REQUIREMENT FOR THAT.
AND SO I JUST HEARD YOU SAY THAT.
SO TO OUR KNOWLEDGE, IT WAS PD 1 93.
IT CAME IN FOR A SUBDIVISION, REPL, THAT SUBDIVISION IDENTIFIED THE COMMON AREA, BUT THERE WERE NO REQUIREMENTS WITHIN THE SUBDIVISION TO MAINTAIN THE OPEN SPACE.
SO PD 1 93 DOES NOT HAVE ANY OPEN SPACE SPACE REQUIREMENT WHEN THAT SUBDIVISION WAS CREATED, BUT THEY WANTED TO HAVE SOME COMMON AREA.
SO IF THE APPLICANT COMES WITH THE SUBDIVISION, WHICH DOESN'T HAVE OPEN AREA REQUIREMENT, BUT THEY WANNA CREATE, WE WILL ALLOW THAT.
BUT IT, IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT REQUIRED OPEN AREA.
AND WHICH IS, AND I KNOW YOU JUST SAID THIS AND I'M SAYING IT BACK, THAT IS WHY THEY ARE ALLOWED TO COME BACK TO REPL WHAT IS DESIGNATED AS COMMON AREA BECAUSE THAT REQUIREMENT IS NOT THERE IN THE BASE ZONING.
SO THEN WITHIN THE STAFF REPORT, UM, YOU NOTED THAT THERE WAS A VARIANCE IN THE LOT PATTERN, BUT STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL.
COULD YOU HELP GIVE SOME CLARITY ON THAT? SO LET ME GET BACK TO, SO I LISTED THAT THERE IS A VARIOUS AND MEANS THERE ARE DIFFERENT PATTERNS.
SO WHICH SUPPORTS THAT WE CAN ACCEPT THAT PLAT.
OKAY, SO WE, SO THERE ARE SMALLER LOT AND LARGER LOTS AROUND THE SURROUNDING AND THIS, THESE, UH, THREE LOTS IS COMPATIBLE TO THAT ONE.
SO, AND I'M, I'M ON PAGE, UM, 50 1D IN OUR CASE REPORT, WHICH IS WHERE YOU'VE GOT OUR AREA SUMMARIES.
SO ON THE NORTH SIDE OF NINTH STREET WE SEE, YOU KNOW, 77, 52, YOU KNOW THE SEVEN THOUSANDS AND 8,000 YES.
ALL OF THE FRONTAGES ALONG THAT SIDE ARE ALL 50 FEET.
AND THEN WE HAVE THE TOWN HOME DEVELOPMENT, WHICH IS THE DALLAS 31 THAT'S ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF NINTH STREET, WHERE OBVIOUSLY THEY'RE MUCH SMALLER.
AND THEN WE'VE GOT THE SQUARE, THAT'S THE OPEN SPACE.
SO THOSE ARE IDENTIFIED AS BEING 40 FEET WIDE.
AND SO STAFF'S ANALYSIS WAS THAT THE 40 WAS, WAS WITHIN THE ACCEPTABLE PATTERN OF THE 50 FEET ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE STREET, EVEN THOUGH THAT'S A VERY CONSISTENT, UM, DIMENSIONAL CONTROL.
IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S RIGHT.
UM, AND MS. MORRISON, WOULD YOU, UM, GIVE US A LITTLE REFRESHER, WHAT IS THE COMMISSION ALLOWED TO CONSIDER WHEN EVALUATING A A PLA? UH, THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION.
I THINK IT'S AN IMPORTANT QUESTION, ESPECIALLY FOR THIS, FOR THIS SUBDIVISION CASE.
IN ORDER FOR THE COMMISSION, UM, TO EVALUATE THESE CASES, THE COMMISSION CAN ONLY EVALUATE AGAINST, UM, THE, THE ZONING ON THE GROUND AND THE PLAT REGULATIONS OF ARTICLE EIGHT OF CHAPTER 51 A, WHICH IS OUR DEVELOPMENT CODE.
UH, FOR THE COMMISSION TO DENY ANY ITEM ON THE SUBDIVISION DOCKET, THE COMMISSION WOULD HAVE TO FIND THAT THE PLAT VIOLATES A PROVISION OF ARTICLE EIGHT OF CHAPTER 51 A AND MAKE VERY SPECIFIC FINDINGS OF FACT AS TO WHAT THE VIOLATION IS AND WHY THERE'S A VIOLATION THERE.
AND CAN, BASED ON THE DISCUSSION ON THE COMMON AREA, EVEN THOUGH THE COMMON AREA IS INDICATED AND IT IS A, UM, A REGULATION WITHIN OUR PLAT CONDITIONS, THERE IS NOTHING THAT PREVENTS BASED ON EITHER THE ZONING OR THE PLAT REGULATIONS, THE REMOVAL OF A COMMON AREA BASED ON FOR THIS CASE, RIGHT.
THERE'S NOTHING, UM, IN THE ZONING OR THE PLAT REGULATIONS THAT WOULD PREVENT AN APPLICANT FROM COMING IN AND RE PLATTING THIS PROPERTY AND REMOVING, UM, THE OPEN SPACE THAT WAS ON THE PREVIOUS PLAT.
AND JUST FOR CLARITY FOR ME, I, UM, WE HEARD A LOT OF TESTIMONY REGARDING THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION AND THEIR
[03:30:01]
COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS RELATED TO THE DEVELOPMENT.IS THAT ANYTHING THAT THIS BODY OR THAT THIS CITY TAKES INTO CONSIDERATION, THAT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT THE COMMISSION IS ALLOWED TO CONSIDER? UH, BECAUSE THAT COMES OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF THE CITY OF DALLAS.
UM, THE COMMISSION CAN'T CONSIDER ANY, UH, PROMISES THAT A HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION HAS MADE, OR ANY PRIVATE DEED RESTRICTIONS OR PRIVATE COVENANTS THAT MIGHT BE ON THE PROPERTY TO WHICH THE CITY OF DALLAS IS NOT A PARTY.
ARE YOU READY WITH THE MOTION? YES.
IN THE MATTER OF PLAT 25 DASH 0 0 0 1 7 3.
I MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND FOLLOW STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
AND I HAVE COMMENTS IF I HAVE A SECOND.
THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER HAMPTON.
AND YOU DO HAVE A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER CAST WRIGHT.
YOUR COMMENTS, I VERY RELUCTANTLY MAKE THIS MOTION.
UM, I KNOW MANY TIMES I AM A VERY STRONG ADVOCATE FOR ESTABLISHED LOT PATTERN.
I THINK THIS ONE IS A VERY, UM, CLOSE CALL FOR ME.
IT MAY NOT BE FOR OTHER COMMISSIONERS, BUT THE AREA IS CLEARLY CHANGING.
HOWEVER, BASED ON THE TESTIMONY WE RECEIVED, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE INTENT WHEN THE SUBDIVISION WAS PASSED IS THAT IT WAS NOT INTENDED TO BE DEVELOPED.
HOWEVER, THAT IS NOT FACTS THAT THIS BODY IS ABLE TO CONSIDER WHEN MAKING THIS DETERMINATION.
UM, BECAUSE WE ARE VERY LIMITED ON THE ITEMS, UM, THAT WE ARE LOTS SPACE DEPTH, UM, GRADING, UM, DUE CHARACTER OF THE AREA ARE ALL THE REGULATIONS THAT ARE IN THERE.
AND UNFORTUNATELY IN THIS CASE, UM, THERE'S, I, I AM NOT ABLE TO ESTABLISH THAT.
UM, AND THEREFORE I AM FOLLOWING STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION UNDERSTANDING THAT THAT IS OUR MINISTERIAL REQUIREMENT IN THIS MATTER.
OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? COMMISSIONER WHEELER? DID YOU HAVE, UM, I, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE CLARIFICATION SO THAT I DIDN'T HAVE FUTURE REFERENCES WHEN CPC CASES HAS COME.
SO WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS THAT WHEN A SUBDIVISION, OR WHEN THEY COME BEFORE CPC, UM, TO GET WHATEVER ZONING CHANGES OR THAT WE MAY, THAT IF, THAT, IF IT HAS NOT BEEN PUT IN THE DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, UM, THAT THIS AREA MUST HAVE A, UM, COMMON AREA OR DESIGNATED AREA THAT THIS, THAT THEY, THAT LATER A DEVELOPER CAN COME BACK AND CHANGE THEIR MIND.
'CAUSE I WANNA MAKE SURE, BECAUSE IT APPEARS THAT THE REFERENCE CASE, THE CPC CASE, THAT THIS WAS, THAT THE RECOMME THAT IN THE CPC CASE WHEN THEY CAME TO GET THE DEV, GET THIS TYPE OF ZONING OR DEVELOPMENT, THAT THEY SAID THAT THIS IS COMMONARY.
BECAUSE ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I DO KNOW AT THIS BODY THAT WE OFTEN, UM, REQUIRE GREEN SPACE OF SORTS, BUT IF IT WASN'T PUT IN THE DEVELOPMENT PLANS AS A MANDATE THAT THEY CAN COME BACK LATER.
SO IT HAS TO BE STRICTLY SAID IN THAT CPC CASE THAT THIS AREA OR THERE HAS TO BE DESIGNATED AREA OF GREEN SPACE BECAUSE IT APPEARS THAT WHEN IT, THIS, THE TOTAL PROJECT CAME BEFORE CPC, THAT THIS AREA WAS DESIGNATED AND COULD BEEN THE DETERMINING FACTORY ON WHETHER THIS, THIS DEVELOPMENT COULD HAVE WENT THROUGH.
AT THAT TIME, THAT DEVELOPMENT DID NOT REQUIRE OPEN SPACE.
IT WAS JUST A REC, THEY WANTED THAT OPEN SPACE.
IT WAS NOT REQUIREMENT OF THE ZONING BECAUSE THEY HAD DESIGNATED IT AS A GREEN SPACE.
AND, BUT, BUT, BUT THEN THE DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE, IN ORDER FOR IT TO BE BINDING AFTERWARDS, WE