* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting. ALL [00:00:01] RIGHT. GOOD MORNING EVERYONE. IT IS 9:05 AM ON THURSDAY, JANUARY 15TH, 2020. THIS WEBINAR IS BEING TRANSCRIBED AND SUMMARIZED. THANK YOU. SORRY I CAUGHT YOU UNAWARE, . ALRIGHT. GOOD MORNING [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. HAPPY NEW YEAR. DISTRICT ONE, COMMISSIONER SIMS. I'M HERE. DISTRICT TWO. COMMISSIONER HAMPTON. PRESENT DISTRICT THREE. VICE CHAIR. HERBERT PRESENT? DISTRICT FOUR. COMMISSIONER FORSYTH? HERE. DISTRICT FIVE. COMMISSIONER SERRATO? HERE. DISTRICT SIX. COMMISSIONER CARPENTER. PRESENT. DISTRICT SEVEN. COMMISSIONER WHEELER. REAGAN. DISTRICT EIGHT. COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN DISTRICT? YEAH. OKAY. DISTRICT NINE. COMMISSIONER KUNZ. HERE. DISTRICT 10. COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT. DISTRICT 11. COMMISSIONER COX HERE. DISTRICT 12. COMMISSIONER KAUFMAN. HERE. DISTRICT 13. COMMISSIONER HALL HERE. DISTRICT 14, COMMISSIONER KINGSTON SHALL BE OUT AND PLACE. 15 CHAIR RUBIN? I'M HERE. YOU HAVE QUORUM SIR. ALRIGHT. 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. LET'S BRIEF ITEM ONE. MS. SEGOVIA. ALL RIGHTY. GOOD MORNING COMMISSIONERS. GIMME ONE SECOND. YEP, THERE WE GO. ALRIGHT, THIS IS MZ 25 4. 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. IT IS THE CITY LIMITS. ALL RIGHT. SOME BACKGROUND FOR THIS ONE IS THAT PD 1102 WAS APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL ON AUGUST 23RD, 2023. IT'S CURRENTLY UNDEVELOPED. 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. THANK YOU. AND SO IT'S UM, SENATE BILL EIGHT 40 THAT'S ALLOWING THIS TO BE A COMPLETELY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT WITH NO MIXED USE REQUIREMENTS. CORRECT. ALRIGHT. 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. THANK YOU MR. CHAIR. YOU'RE WELCOME. 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? ? YES, THOSE WILL STILL BE APPLICABLE. THANK YOU. YEAH. 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. OH, NUMBER TWO? NO. YES, YES. SORRY. THIS IS NEW NEIGHBORS ARE INTERESTED IN THAT ONE. I'M SORRY. YES, THANK YOU. OKAY, LET'S BRIEF IT THEN. ALL RIGHT. [00:10:01] MZ 25 14. HERE WE GO. 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. THAT'S WHERE IT'S LOCATED. 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. THANK YOU MS. SEGOVIA. 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. MS. SEGOVIA. ALL RIGHTY. THIS IS MZ 25 32. 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. THANK YOU. UH, COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN, ANY QUESTIONS? NO QUESTIONS. UH, NO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS. OKAY. COLLEAGUES, ANY, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM? OKAY. UH, COMMISSIONER KAUFMAN, DO WE WANT NUMBER FIVE? BRIEFED? TAKE YOUR TIME. NO RUSH. OKAY. 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. OKAY. WOULD YOU LIKE THE ITEM BRIEFED BY STAFF? [00:15:01] SURE. OKAY. 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. OKAY. THAT'D BE GREAT. GREAT. THIS IS NEW PROCESS FOR ME. PERFECT. THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING, CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS. READ THIS PART POPUPS. ALL RIGHT. 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. NOW THEY'RE GONNA DO 556. 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. YES, I DO APOLOGIZE. GOOD MORNING COMMISSIONERS. GOOD MORNING COMMISSIONERS. UM, CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES. OKAY, THANK YOU. 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. THANK [00:20:01] YOU MS. BLUE. THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN. 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. YES. 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 , NICE TO MEET YOU. 37. THERE WE GO. SO LET'S DO GOOD MORNING. THIS IS MZ CASE 25 37. 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 FAR IS 3.2. 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. IT'S UNDER LOCAL UTILITIES. RIGHT. AND THAT'S ALLOWED BY WRIGHT IN A GREAT MANY DIFFERENT, [00:25:01] UM, IT IS YES. IN 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. OKAY. ALRIGHT. 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. YES. 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. THANK YOU. THANK YOU MR. FRANKLIN. WELCOME AND GOOD LUCK ON YOUR NEW POSITION. THANK YOU. THANK YOU MR. CHAIR. 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. OKAY. 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. OKAY. ARE THOSE DIESEL GENERATORS? THEY ARE DIESEL, YES. DIESEL. OKAY. UH, THANK YOU. MM-HMM . YOU'RE WELCOME. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONERS? ALRIGHT. THANK YOU SO MUCH MR. FRANKLIN, YOU'RE, YOU'RE BATTING A THOUSAND WHEN YOU ARE RETIRING. ? MY PLEASURE. THANK YOU. 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. OKAY. ANYONE WANNA PULL 8, 10, 15 OR 16? WELL, I NEED TO PULL EIGHT OFF OF CONSENT. OKAY. AND, ALRIGHT, THAT'S GONNA LEAVE US 10 15 AND 16. 1516 ARE GONNA BE HELD AT THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST. THANK YOU . 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. COMMISSIONER HALL. COLLEAGUES. DO Y'ALL WANT THAT BRIEFED? UH, UH YES, I WOULD. I WOULD LIKE TO. IT BRIEFED. GREAT. MS. LEVY. [00:30:15] HI, MR. CHAIR. COMMISSIONERS. CAN Y'ALL SEE THE PRESIDENT? NO, IT'S NOT. WE'VE GOT JUST A FILE BROWSER UP. JUST I MIGHT NEED HELP. IT'S A DIFFERENT, I THINK WE JUST NEED TO CHANGE. THANK YOU. 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 IN MY WAY, , SORRY. 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, THIS IS THE AREA AGAIN. 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. AND HERE ARE SOME PHOTOS. 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. IT MAY BECOME SOMETHING ELSE. 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. IT WAS TOO LATE. 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. THERE'S REALLY NO CHANGES. 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, SAME THING. 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. SO IT, IT DOES FALL WITHIN [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. THANK YOU SO MUCH MS. LEVY. COMMISSIONERS QUESTIONS. COMMISSIONER HALL. THANK YOU MS. LAURIE. WELL, UH, WELL DONE. 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. I'M NOT SURE. 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. SO, BUT I THINK THAT WAS IT. I DON'T THINK THERE WAS ANYTHING SERIOUS, UH, OPPOSITION TO THE CASE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU SO MUCH. APPRECIATE IT. 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. THIS CASE. 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. THANK YOU. YES, IT JUST ALLOWING ADDITIONAL SIGNAGE WITH THESE PARAMETERS. COLLEAGUES. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY. THANK YOU SO MUCH MS. LEVY. UM, YOU'VE GOT THE NEXT ONE. 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. YEAH, OF COURSE. 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. I DID. WELL LET'S GET MR. LEE UP TO THE PODIUM AS WELL. YES. 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. IS THAT CORRECT? YES. 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. YES, THAT'S, THAT'S CORRECT. IT AND ALSO THE RETAIL USES THAT ARE PRESENT IN NS? YES. YEAH. 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. UM, 24. THANK YOU. 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 QUESTIONS? WELL, AND I'LL TAKE A BREATH. 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. OKAY. 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. OKAY. AND SO LOOKING AHEAD, THIS WILL IN THE FUTURE, UM, BE FACING ONTO IF IT ACTUALLY GETS BUILT A OVERPASS, POTENTIALLY SOME OPEN GREEN SPACE IN A PARK. IS THAT FAIR? WAS THAT ANYTHING Y'ALL HAD REVIEWED AT ALL IN YOUR ANALYSIS? NO. YEAH. OKAY. 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. YEAH. OR [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. TAKE A LOOK AT THAT. 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. THAT'S PART OF PD 1 34. 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. GREAT. COLLEAGUES ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS? DO YOU HAVE ONE COMMISSIONER? SORRY, I THOUGHT I SAW YOUR HAND. COMMISSIONER CARPENTER. 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. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. YEP. COMMISSIONER HALL? UH, YES. 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. YEAH. NOT IN THE, NOT IN THE VICINITY, BUT A LITTLE OUT, A LITTLE OUTSIDE THE VICINITY. OKAY. AND WERE, WERE THOSE LOTS ORIGINALLY SINGLE FAMILY AND CONVERTED TO COMMERCIAL? DO YOU KNOW? UH, I DO NOT KNOW. OKAY. ALRIGHT. THANK YOU. 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. YES. NO, A HUNDRED PERCENT IT IS A VACANT RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE. THAT'S A GOOD CLARIFICATION. 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. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. 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. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANKS. ALRIGHT. CASE NUMBER 10. 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. OKAY. 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. SORRY TO INTERRUPT. I, I NEEDED, UM, NUMBER, UM, 0 0 0 1 7 3. BRIEFED NOT. YEAH. SO MY APOLOGIES. THAT'S, UH, NUMBER 12, MR. AGUILERA? MM-HMM . OH, NO, NO. UM, 13. YEAH, I WANT NUMBER 13. BRIEF 1, 7 2. MY APOLOGIES. SORRY, I I MISSED THAT. CAN YOU REPEAT THAT, COMMISSIONER? YEAH, I'M SORRY. UM, I, I NEED, UH, ITEM NUMBER 13 BRIEF. SO IT'S 1 7 2. OH, OKAY. YEAH. SORRY. 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, UH, MY APOLOGIES. UH, SO YOU NEED 1 72, CORRECT? YES, THE ONE AT LAWN VIEW AND FORNEY ROAD. OKAY, GOOD DEAL. THANK YOU. MY APOLOGIES. NO PROBLEM. 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 HERE, UH, THEY ARE. 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. HERE IS THE SITE VISIT. THIS IS THE SITE. 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. AND I'LL GO REAL QUICK. THAT'S ON FORNEY ROAD. I JUST DID A 360. [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. THIS IS THE CONDITIONS. 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. THANK YOU MR. AGUILERA. 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. OKAY. 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. SO, UM, YEAH, . OKAY. 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. OKAY. 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 THIS COMMISSION IS NOT A FAN OF. SO I WILL DEFINITELY BE MAKING A CHANGE TO THAT. UM, BUT I THINK THOSE ARE ALL THE QUESTIONS I HAD. THANKS. OKAY, THANK YOU. 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. OKAY. 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 PEOPLE IN THAT AREA AND SO ANYTHING CAN HAPPEN, BUT I JUST THOUGHT I, I, I NOTE IT. YEAH. 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. DEFINITELY. ALRIGHT. 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. HERE'S THE SITE VISIT. THIS IS THE SWEET TOOTH. IT'S, UH, THE OFFICIAL NAME IS THE SWEET TOOTH, UH, HOTEL, BUT, BUT IT'S NOT A HOTEL HERE, HERE IS THE SURROUNDING USES. 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. IS THAT CORRECT? UH, YES. OKAY. 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, YES. UH, UH, COMMISSIONER, OKAY. 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. YES. WHICH IS 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. NO, THAT MAKES MORE SENSE. AND THAT, YEAH, IT'S REASONABLE THAT SOMEONE WOULD THINK THAT THE VIDEO BOARD IS, IS PART OF THIS REQUEST, BUT IT'S NOT. OKAY. THANK YOU. COLLEAGUES. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY. THANK YOU MR. AGUILERA. UM, THANK YOU. 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. OKAY. UM, THAT BRINGS US TO THE CONCLUSION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. IT'S 10 16. WHY DON'T WE TAKE A 10 MINUTE BREAK AND BE BACK AT 10 26. ALRIGHT. 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. MR. CHAIR. OKAY. 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. GREAT. 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. THANK YOU. 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. YEP. THANK YOU. OKAY, PERFECT. 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. SURE. 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. YES. 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. OKAY. 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. UNDERSTOOD. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. I WILL SAY, YEAH. 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. THAT'S HOW IT'S DONE. 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. COMMISSIONERS. 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. IT'S A LOT. 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. RIGHT. OKAY. THANK YOU. 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. THAT'S CORRECT. 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. I'VE SEEN THAT DISCUSSION. 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. OKAY. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONERS. 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. OKAY. VERY GOOD. UM, NUMBER 19. COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, I KNOW THERE'S SOME OPPOSITION. CAN WE, IS IT OKAY IF WE BRIEF THAT ONE? OKAY. YEP. MR. AGUILERA, THAT'S . I'M SO SORRY. I, I GOT MY NUMBERS CONFUSED. THAT'S YOURS. 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. UM, STAFF APOL APOLOGIZES. 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. THE SINGLE FAMILY, UH, SITE [01:25:01] THAT YOU SEE TO THE WEST IS NOT WITHIN THE DISTANCE. IT'S ACTUALLY FARTHER AWAY. UM, HERE WAS THE PICTURES OF THE SITE VISIT. I'LL GO REAL, REAL QUICK. 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. OKAY. WHAT, WHAT I DID RECEIVE WAS THE, THE, THE RIGHT SIDE PLAN. OKAY. 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. UH, SO I'LL SHARE THAT. 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. THANK YOU. JUST ONE QUICK QUESTION. WHEN WAS THAT LETTER CIRCULATED? I MAY HAVE MISSED IT, IT MAY HAVE BEEN MY FAULT. I THOUGHT I CIRCULATED IT OKAY. AND SENT IT TO YOU. DIDN'T. OKAY. I WILL RECIRCULATE, IF YOU JUST RECIRCULATE IT, SEND IT TO MS. LOPEZ SO THE COMMISSION CAN HAVE IT BEFORE THIS AFTERNOON. PUBLIC HEARING. THAT WOULD BE WILL DO. FANTASTIC. COMMISSIONERS. 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. MM-HMM [01:30:01] . I JUST, UH, LEFT, LEFT IT, UH, UM, AS, AS IT WAS. BUT THAT CAN OKAY. UH, YOUR RECOMMENDATION CAN CHANGE THAT AS WELL. OKAY. '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. YES. OKAY. THANK YOU. 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. IS MR. NAVAREZ HERE? YES. YEAH. YEAH. 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. GOOD MORNING. GOOD. STILL. MORNING. GOOD MORNING. 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. UM, THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE THAT. 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. YES, MA'AM. 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. IT IS, YES, MA'AM. ALRIGHT. THANK YOU. 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. OH, I SEE. GRAVEL AREA. UM, NO MA'AM. 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. OKAY. BUT WORDING SUCH AS A MATERIAL APPROVED BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL ALTERNATE MATERIAL APPROVED BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL, SOMETHING LIKE THAT. I I HEAR YOU. AND I THINK IT'S, IT'D BE SUPER CLEAN. OKAY. IF WE REMOVE THE WORD. IF WE REMOVE THE WORD, THE WORD GRAVEL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE HAVE QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM? OKAY, THANK YOU MR. AGUILERA. THANK YOU. UH, [01:35:01] HAS NUMBER EIGHT BEEN OR SO NUMBER 20 BEEN BRIEFED BEFORE. DO WE NEED A BRIEF COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN? UH, YES. OKAY. ALRIGHT, MR. GREGORY. GOOD MORNING COMMISSIONERS. I STRUGGLE WITH THIS EVERY TIME. . ALL GOOD. TAKE YOUR TIME. OKAY. TOP LEFT HERE. THANK YOU. I GOT IT. OKAY. EVERY TIME I EVEN MADE NOTES THIS TIME TO REMIND ME. OKAY. COMMISSIONERS, THIS IS CASE. LET'S SEE IF I CAN GET RID OF THIS CASE. UH, Z 25 0 0 0 115. 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. UM, THOSE AREAS ARE ZONED. 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. ALRIGHT. 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. I CAN, I CAN SPEAK TO THAT. YEAH. 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. OKAY. 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. TO BE PERMANENT. OKAY. 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. RIGHT. SO IT DOES FUNCTION AS AN AMENDMENT. IT, IT DOES. OKAY. YEAH. GREAT. WE AMEND THE CONDITIONS EVERY TIME WE CHANGE THE EXPIRATION DATE. PERFECT. ALRIGHT. 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. THAT'S ALL. YEAH, THAT'S ALL CORRECT. 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. YOU JUST HAVE YOUR PERMIT. 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. IT IS WITHIN THE DALLAS CODE. IT IS WITHIN THE DALLAS CODE. YES, SIR. YES SIR. 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. YES, SIR. I THINK WE HAVE COMMISSIONER CARPENTER NEXT AND COMMISSIONER WHEELER. UH, YEAH. 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. OKAY. THANK YOU. 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. IF IT HAD NOT EXPIRED EVER. 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. YOU'RE, YOU'RE VERY CORRECT. 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. THANK YOU. 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. YES. UM, I DON'T THINK IT'S BEEN BRIEFED BRIEF FULLY. DO WE WANT IT BRIEFED? IF YOU DON'T MIND. OKAY, THANK YOU. NO, ABSOLUTELY. WE CAN BRIEF ANYTHING THAT PEOPLE WANT. BRIEFED. GOOD MORNING COMMISSIONERS. 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, THIS IS THE ZONING MAP. 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. THANK YOU MR. BATES. COMMISSIONER HERBERT OR VICE CHAIR HERBERT, DO YOU HAVE QUESTIONS? YES. UM, THANK YOU. 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. RIGHT. 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. THANK YOU. AND CAN YOU CLARIFY WHAT IS THIS, UM, LOT OF LAND ZONED AS TODAY? CURRENTLY? R SEVEN FIVE. R SEVEN FIVE. OKAY. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONERS. 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. YES, SIR. 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. UH, BUT [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. YES. 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. THANK YOU. 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. OKAY. COMMISSIONERS. ANYONE ELSE? ALRIGHT, 23. 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. OF COURSE. MM-HMM . 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. MR. NAVAREZ. AND, AND THANK YOU. 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. I, YES, YES, SIR. 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. OKAY, GREAT. 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. THANK YOU BOTH. THANK YOU, SIR. 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. OKAY. OKAY. GREAT. THANK YOU. AND MEDIAN MODIFICATION. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. [02:00:02] ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON CASE NUMBER 23? ALL RIGHT, LET'S POWER FORWARD. AND, UH, NUMBER 24. COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN, WOULD YOU LIKE THIS ONE BRIEFED? YES. OKAY. MR. LEE, GO TO THE TOP LEFT. THERE'S THE THREE BARS, AND THEN DO TOP LEFT I, THE OTHER LEFT ? YEAH, YEAH, YEAH, YEAH. AND THEN VIEW, IT'S KIND OF HALFWAY DOWN THE PAGE AND THEN FULL SCREEN. SUPER. UH, OKAY. 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. HERE'S THE LOCATION MAP. 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. THANK YOU MR. LEE. 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. I'VE GOT, YEAH. 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. THERE WAS [02:05:01] TWO WRITTEN LETTERS, UH, SUBMITTED IN OPPOSITION, UM, OF THE 63 CENT COMMISSIONER SERATO, DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION? YEAH. SO THERE, THERE ARE. SO YOU SAID A, A RODEO, . YES. 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. MM-HMM . OKAY. THANK YOU. MM-HMM . 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. ALRIGHT. 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. UM, UM, RIGHT. AND IT, IT'S REQUIRED TO CLOSE AT NINE O'CLOCK AND HAVE EVERYONE OFF THE PREMISES BY 10? YES. OKAY. I BELIEVE IT. THE NINE O'CLOCK, UH, THE TWO DAYS A WEEK, I'M NOT, UM, TOO SURE ABOUT. YEAH. 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. OKAY. 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. OKAY. THANK YOU. 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. OKAY. 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. . OKAY. WE WE'RE HOLDING THIS CASE FOR OKAY. OKAY. WELL FOR GOOD. UM, LET'S GIVE A DATE. UM, FIRST MEETING IN MARCH. OKAY. MARCH THREE. IS THAT FOURTH? TWO SECONDS? THAT'S MARCH 5TH. MARCH 5TH. OKAY. GREAT. I HAVE A CONFLICT ON THE NEXT ITEM. SO VICE CHAIR HERBERT WILL TAKE A NUMBER 26. YEAH. SO ON, UH, I'LL WAIT TILL THE CHAIR STEPS OUT. TAKE YOUR TIME, BRENT. TAKE YOUR TIME. ALL RIGHT, PERFECT. 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. UH OH. YES. COMMISSIONER, WILL YOU WANNA TALK? I DON'T THINK, YEAH. OH, OKAY. [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. YES. '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. OKAY. I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY LEGAL OPPOSITION TO WHY WE CAN'T TAKE IT EARLY. YES. OKAY. SO THANK YOU. UM, HEARING NO OTHER OBJECTIONS, WE'LL HOLD IT TILL THIS AFTERNOON AND, UM, OUR CHAIR CAN ENTER THE CHAMBERS AGAIN. OKAY. YEP. 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. YES, THANK YOU MR. CHAIR. I WILL HAVE QUESTIONS, UM, ABOUT A COUPLE OF THE SIGNS, BUT I'M HAPPY TO HOLD THOSE UNTIL THE, UH, MEETING OKAY. THE CHAIR'S BACK. NOW. 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. OKAY. 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. YES, MA'AM. 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. OKAY. 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. OKAY. AND THEN I ALSO JUST WANTED TO VERIFY, UM, THAT THE TASK FORCE REVIEW, AS NOTED IN THE ORDINANCE CONDITIONS, UM, WAS ALSO COMPLETED. SO THAT WAS MY QUESTION. OKAY. I'LL GET THAT FOR YOU. THANK YOU. 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. RIGHT. AND SO THAT'S JUST FOLLOWING THE STANDARD. CORRECT. YOU KNOW, LOCATIONS IN A HISTORIC DISTRICT. WE WOULDN'T NEED TO INCLUDE THOSE NECESSARILY IN OUR MOTION. NO. THEY'RE INCLUDED IN THE, UH, RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS IN THE RECOMME. YEAH. IN THE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION. OKAY. THANK YOU. YEP. THANK YOU MR. CHAIR. 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. ALRIGHT. GOOD AFTERNOON [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 TWO. COMMISSIONER HAMPTON? HERE. DISTRICT THREE, VICE CHAIR HERBERT PRESENT? DISTRICT FOUR. COMMISSIONER FORSYTH? HERE. DISTRICT FIVE. COMMISSIONER SARTO. PRESENT? DISTRICT SIX. COMMISSIONER CARPENTER. PRESENT. DISTRICT SEVEN. COMMISSIONER WHEELER. REAGAN. PRESENT. DISTRICT EIGHT. COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN PRESENT. DISTRICT NINE. COMMISSIONER C***S HERE. DISTRICT 10. COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT HERE. DISTRICT 11. COMMISSIONER COX? STILL HERE. DISTRICT 12. COMMISSIONER KAUFMAN. HERE. DISTRICT 13. COMMISSIONER HALL HERE. DISTRICT 14. COMMISSIONER KINGSTON AND PLACE 15 CHAIR RUBIN? I'M HERE. YOU HAVE QUORUM, SIR. GREAT. THANK YOU SO MUCH MS. LOPEZ. ALRIGHT. GOOD AFTERNOON EVERYONE. 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. ALRIGHT, [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. 26. AND I AM CONFLICTED OUT ON THAT ONE. SO I'M GOING TO STEP OUT AND HAND THE MIC TO COMMISSIONER HERBERT. OH, GREAT. 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. THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR [02:20:01] PATRICK RIGHT NOW ON THE, THIS AUTHORIZED HEARING? YES. COMMISSIONER WHEELER. 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. UH, YES. THAT THE FOCUS SHOULD BE ON, NOT THE RESIDENTIAL PY COMMUNITY ITSELF, BUT THE INDUSTRIAL ADJACENT LAND USES AND ZONING, THAT'S THERE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. 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. SO, UM, WE WILL BEGIN. 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. GREAT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. 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. YES. AND IF YOU CAN START WITH YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. GOOD AFTERNOON PLANNING COMMISSION. MY NAME IS TAMIKA DURROW. I LIVE AT 79 31 KISKA IN THE JPE COMMUNITY FOR 19 YEARS. AND I LOVE IT. 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. IT INCLUDES MY STREET. I WAS UNAWARE OF THAT. THAT'S ONE OF MY CONCERNS. 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 HAVE NO TRUST. 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. THANK YOU. SO, UH, SINCE I TALKED TO, UH, MR. PATRICK, HE HAS REALLY SETTLED SOME OF MY CONCERN. NOT WITH THE BOUNDARY THOUGH. OKAY. I'M GONNA STAND ON THAT ONE. 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. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. CAN WE HAVE THE NEXT SPEAKER PLEASE? THANK YOU. CAN Y'ALL HEAR ME? OKAY? HELLO COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS ALICIA KENDRICK. MY ADDRESS IS 47 41. DROP A CIRCLE, 7 5 2 1 6. 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 IS REALLY GOOD. 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. SO, THANK YOU ALL. THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS KAYLA ROBERTS. CAN YOU HEAR ME? OKAY? GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS KAYLA ROBERTS. 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. SO [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. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENT. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE TO SPEAK? YES. THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON. 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. NO, THANK YOU SIR. APPRECIATE IT. 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, THE YES. THE PERSON WHO DID NOT WANT THEIR STREET INCLUDED IN THIS AUTHORIZED HEARING. TAMIKA DERO. OKAY. 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. OKAY. 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. OKAY. THAT'S MOST LIKELY STAFF'S RECOMMEND. I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW WHY STAFF WOULD RECOMMEND ANYTHING DIFFERENTLY. OKAY. NOW, OKAY. 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 OKAY. IT'S ON SINGLE FAMILIES ZONING. THE WHOLE COMMUNITY IS SINGLE FAMILIES ZONING EXCEPT CARBONDALE. THAT'S HAS LOTS, [02:35:01] UH, IN BETWEEN SINGLE FAMILIES ZONING? YES. BUT THEY COMMERCIAL? YES. OKAY. YEAH. 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. I THINK IT WILL BE. 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. OKAY. 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. THANK YOU. YOU'RE WELCOME. THANK YOU. 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. THANK YOU, PATRICK. COMMISSIONER WILL IMMA COMMISSIONER SERRATO, GO FIRST. HI. 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. YEAH. '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. THANK YOU BOTH. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER WHEELER. UM, I'LL TAKE A SECOND. OH YES. COMMISSIONER FORSYTH. THANK YOU. 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. OKAY. 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. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER WHEELER. AND I THINK COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, YOU WANTED TO ANSWER THAT? NO. OH NO. 45 FEET IS THE LIMIT FOR CFS. GOTCHA. THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU GUYS FOR THE, UM, CONVERSATION AND THE QUESTIONS. UM, AUTHORIZED HEARINGS ARE A BIT OF A, A, A PROCESS. WE HAVE TO APPROVE IT FIRST. 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. ENTERTAIN THE MOTION. I'M SORRY. COMMISSIONER WILLER. 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. AND THEN I HAVE COMMENTS. THANK YOU. UH, THANK YOU FOR THE SECOND. UM, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. OH, IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION BEFORE? SORRY. YES. 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. SO I DON'T HAVE THAT. 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. AND MY VOTE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER WHEELER. UM, HEARING, IS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. THOSE OPPOSED THE ITEM PASSES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER. THE CHAIR CAN ENTER THE CHAMBERS. REENTER THE CHAMBERS. . THANK [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. NEXT CHAIR. [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. GREAT, THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER HALL FOR YOUR MOTION. COMMISSIONER SIMMONS FOR YOUR SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? SAY NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? SAY NAY. THE MOTION CARRIES. ALRIGHT, [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. THE EXTENT [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. THANK YOU. THANK YOU MS. S SHEMA. 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. OKAY. 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. OKAY. ALRIGHT. IS MR. JET ONLINE? DAVID JET. [03:00:01] OKAY. IS REMINGTON WHEAT ONLINE? YES. ALRIGHT. 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. OKAY, THANK YOU. UM, RICHARD SPICER ON ITEM NUMBER 42. RICHARD SPICER. OKAY. CARLOS LEAL? YES. AND JUST HERE FOR QUESTIONS AS WELL. OKAY. THANK YOU. AND TRINA AND OR CLAY SMITH? YES. ARE YOU, DO YOU HAVE COMMENTS OR ARE YOU JUST HERE FOR ANY QUESTIONS? QUESTIONS. OKAY, QUESTIONS. GREAT. 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. THANK YOU MR. CHAIR. 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. GREAT. 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. AYE. ANY OPPOSED, SAY NAY. THE MOTION CARRIES. ALRIGHT, WE'LL [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. GREAT. 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. OKAY. 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. THANK YOU. 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. OKAY. IT'S PLA LOT. AND SO WHAT THEY JUST WANNA DO IS SPLIT IT INTO TWO EQUAL, YES. INTO TWO EQUAL LOTS MM-HMM . 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. OKAY. THANK YOU. YOU'RE WELCOME. 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. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? SAY NAY. THE MOTION CARRIES [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. OKAY. THANK YOU MS. SHARMA. 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. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. BEFORE WE GO TO OUR PUBLIC SPEAKERS, I BELIEVE THAT A MEMBER OR MEMBERS OF THE BODY NEEDS TO MAKE DISCLOSURES ON THIS ONE. THANK YOU MR. CHAIR. I WOULD LIKE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I WAS CONTACTED, UH, REGARDING THIS PLAT, BUT HAD NO COMMUNICATION OUTSIDE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALRIGHT. 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. OKAY, THANK YOU. I DIDN'T WANNA DISCLOSE THAT. ANYONE ELSE? ALRIGHT, WE'LL GO TO OUR PUBLIC SPEAKERS STARTING WITH MR. BALDWIN. GOOD AFTERNOON. 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. THANK YOU. THANK YOU MR. BALDWIN. 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. I'M MR. SIEGEL. OKAY. WE'LL GET TO YOU IN JUST A MINUTE. OKAY. OKAY. UH, MR. ROSENBAUM, ARE YOU ONLINE? MR. ROSENBAUM? SORRY. OH NO. ALL GOOD. AND ARE YOU ABLE TO TURN YOUR CAMERA ON? UH, HOLD ON. STATE LAW DOES REQUIRE ONLINE SPEAKERS TO HAVE THEIR CAMERA ON. OKAY. THERE YOU GO. 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. UH, RUSSELL ROSENBAUM. I'M AT 4 1 4 5 MASON RIDGE. 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 NEVER DID THAT. 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. THAT'S YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU. 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. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS DREW SEGAL. 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. THANK YOU. THAT'S THE REPRESENTATIONS OF THE DEVELOPMENT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. 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. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. 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. 2350. 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. GO AHEAD. 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. THANK YOU, SIR. NEXT SPEAKER. 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. THANK YOU. NEXT SPEAKER. HELLO COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS ROLANDO ANO. 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. THANK YOU. NEXT SPEAKER. 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. GOOD AFTERNOON. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. UH, MY NAME IS KEVIN MOORE. 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 ACTUALLY DID MY HOMEWORK. 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. I READ ALL THOSE. 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. THANK YOU. NEXT SPEAKER. ARE THERE ANY OTHERS IN OPPOSITION? OKAY, MR. BALDWIN, TWO MINUTE REBUTTAL. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 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. THANK YOU MR. BALDWIN. WE'LL GO TO COMMISSIONER HAMPTON FOR A MOTION. THANK YOU. 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. YEP. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. 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. TS THREE, YES. AND THANK YOU. I SHOULD HAVE SAID PD 1 93 IN FRONT OF THAT. THANK YOU. UM, SO I'LL UM, ASK THE SPEAKER TO CLARIFY THAT. UM, SECOND QUESTION. 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. OKAY. AND SO I JUST HEARD YOU SAY THAT. OKAY. 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. YES. YES MA'AM. OKAY. 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. OKAY. 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. ON THE PLAT. 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. YEAH. AND THEN WE'VE GOT THE SQUARE, THAT'S THE OPEN SPACE. SO THOSE ARE IDENTIFIED AS BEING 40 FEET WIDE. YES. 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. OKAY. 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. COMMISSIONER HAMPTON. 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. THANK YOU. 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. THANK YOU COMMISSIONERS. 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. AM I CORRECT? YEAH. 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 WOULD'VE HAVE TO MANDATE IT AT THAT VIA GREEN SPACE. I'M, IF YOU GET WHAT I'M SAYING, IF, IF YES, MS. HAMPTON, MAY, MAY, NO. 'CAUSE MAYBE I'M THINKING THAT 'CAUSE I THINKING THAT'S KIND THE WAY WE'RE GOING. 'CAUSE I THINK THAT'S A, THAT'S, I THINK THAT JUST MIGHT BE THE ISSUE IS WE'RE NOT ALLOWED, BUT IT WAS DESIGNATED AND FOR SURE IN THE PACKAGE AS IT IS ON THE PLA THAT THIS IS A GREEN SPACE FOR THIS PROJECT AT MANY PROJECTS IN THAT AREA. WHEN IN THAT WE COME OUT, ESPECIALLY, I KNOW FOR FACT COMMISSIONER KINGSTON CO IN THESE TYPE OF SIT AS WHERE'S THE GREEN SPACE? AND I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE 'CAUSE IT, IT SEEMS LIKE WE OKAYED WITH THE GREEN SPACE [03:35:02] AND MAYBE COMMISSIONER OKAY. YOU ALLOW ANY OKE THE TIME FOR PUBLIC, UM, COMMENTS HAS PASSED. BUT THANK YOU FOR ASKING. UH, WE HAVE, WE ANSWERED COMMISSIONER WHEELER'S QUESTION YET. WE WERE GONNA ADD, WE WERE GONNA ADD IT JUST FROM A ZONING PERSPECTIVE. THERE'S NO ZONING MECHANISM THAT REQUIRES AN OPEN SPACE. I THINK SO I'M JUST TRYING TO THE PLATT'S ONE THING, BUT THERE, THERE WAS NEVER, THERE WAS NO DEVELOPMENT PLAN, JUST TO CLARIFY BECAUSE IT'S NOT A, IT'S, IT WAS A GENERAL ZONE DISTRICT FOR, FOR FUNCTIONAL PURPOSES. SO THERE WOULDN'T BE A ZONING REQUIREMENT FOR THAT. WE DETERMINED THAT. UM, SO I JUST WANTED TO PUT THAT ON THE RECORD THAT, UH, THERE'S, THERE'S NOTHING TIED THERE. AND WHEN THEY WENT THROUGH THE LAST PROCESS AND PLOTTED THEY, IT, IT WOULDN'T BE TIED TO A DEVELOPMENT PLAN OR EVEN BUILDINGS NECESSARILY BECAUSE, UM, OR, OR MAYBE USES, BUT, UM, NOT, NOT, NOT BASED ON, UM, BUILDINGS OR ANYTHING LIKE A DEVELOPMENT PLAN. I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT. 'CAUSE THIS IS STILL GENERAL ZONING. TH COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, I WON'T BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION BECAUSE I SEE GROUNDS UNDER 8.503 LEAVING THE COMMON AREA ISSUE BEHIND. UM, THE LOTS THAT ARE KNIGHT STREET FACING CONSISTENTLY HAVE A WIDTH PATTERN, WHICH IS 50 FEET BETWEEN SYLVESTER AND, I DUNNO WHAT THE STREET IS TO THE WEST. AND SO THESE NIGHT STREET FACING LOTS THAT ARE PROPOSED ARE ONLY 40 FEET WIDE. TO ME, THAT IS A, THAT DOES NOT MEET THE ESTABLISHED PATTERN OF THE AREA. SO I SEE REASON TO DENY UNDER 8.503 COMMISSIONERS, I'LL JUST HOP IN BRIEFLY. I'VE BEEN LOOKING AT THESE PLATTING CASES IN MY PAST SIX PLUS YEARS ON THIS COMMISSION. AND YOU KNOW, OUR CONSIDERATION IN A SUBDIVISION PLATTING CASE IS VERY NARROW. AS MS. MORRISON SAID. IT'S WHETHER IT, UH, COMPLIES WITH THE ZONING AND OTHER MUNICIPAL REQUIREMENTS AND THE ALLEGATIONS THAT THE PEOPLE IN OPPOSITION HAVE MADE OR ARE, ARE VERY SERIOUS ALLEGATIONS. AND I DON'T WANNA DISCOUNT THOSE AT ALL. BUT, YOU KNOW, I THINK THE FORUM FOR DEALING WITH THOSE ALLEGATIONS ABOUT REPRESENTATIONS MADE TO HOME BUYERS IS NOT AT THIS BODY, BUT PROBABLY THROUGH SOME OTHER, YOU KNOW, LEGAL MECHANISM. YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES WHEN YOU HAVE A HAMMER, EVERYTHING LOOKS LIKE A NAIL. BUT IN MY VIEW, YOU KNOW, THE REPRESENTATIONS THAT WERE MADE TO THE NEIGHBORS WHEN THIS WAS ORIGINALLY BEING REZONED AND PLATTED AND TO THE HOME BUYERS HERE, UM, AREN'T THINGS THAT FALL UNDER OUR CONSIDERATION. UM, WHEN WE'RE DETERMINING WHETHER TO APPROVE OR DENY A PLAT. THAT'S NOT TO SAY THAT THERE'S NOT RECOURSE ELSEWHERE, BUT, UH, UNFORTUNATELY IT, IT'S NOT FOR OUR BODY TO SORT OF LITIGATE AND, AND DETERMINE THOSE ISSUES. UM, ON THE 8.503 ISSUE, I DO SEE THIS IS FOLLOWING WITHIN THE ESTABLISHED, UM, PATTERN IN THE AREAS AND 8.503 SPECIFICALLY, UH, ASK US TO LOOK AT THE AREAS SURROUNDING AREAS PLURAL, NOT SINGULAR. SO WE'RE NOT JUST LOOKING AT THE HOMES, UH, LOTS ACROSS NINTH STREET. WE'RE ALSO LOOKING AT THE, UM, LOTS ADJACENT TO, UM, THIS, UM, TRACT LAND, UM, THAT WAS DESIGNATED AS THE COMMON AREA. SO I DO SEE THE LOT WIDTH THIS FALLING WITHIN, UM, YOU KNOW, THE EXISTING PATTERN IN THE AREA. SO NOT TO SAY THAT THERE AREN'T ALLEGATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE THAT ARE, YOU KNOW, DEEPLY CONCERNING HERE, BUT THEY'RE ULTIMATELY, I THINK FOR ANOTHER BODY TO DECIDE. SO I WILL BE SUPPORTING COMMISSIONER HAMPTON'S. MOTION. COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, DO YOU HAVE A FURTHER COMMENT? UM, WELL, I HAVE A FOLLOW UP BECAUSE I JUST WANNA STATE THAT I WENT AHEAD AND TOOK A MINUTE WHILE WE WERE HAVING OUR DISCUSSION AND PULLED UP PD 1 93 AND SUBDISTRICT TH DOES INCLUDE AN OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT. IT IS TIED TO THE LOT AREA FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND I'M NOT, I DON'T KNOW, MR. UM, COULD, DID WE IN FACT, WHAT WAS THAT ANALYSIS PERFORMED BY STAFF? BECAUSE AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THE PLAT THAT'S IN OUR DOCKET WAS ORIGINALLY A SINGLE, WELL, WE'RE TAKING OUT A PIECE OF WHAT WAS A SINGLE PLAT. AND SO IF THEY BUILT TO THE LARGER LOCK COVERAGE IN THE BASE SUBDIVISION, THAT WOULD I BELIEVE TRIGGER THE OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT THAT IS EMBEDDED IN PD 1 93. AND SO I WOULD ASK THE COMMISSION IF WE COULD CONSIDER AT LEAST TABLING THIS ITEM AND TO DO THAT RESEARCH BECAUSE I'M, I MEAN I DO SEE AN OPEN SPACE PROVISION WITHIN PD 1 93. WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE THAT MOTION? IF [03:40:01] I MAY, I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE THAT THE COMMISSION TABLE, THE ITEM. WE HAVE A SECOND. ALRIGHT. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER FORSYTH FOR YOUR SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE. SO TABLE ME TO THE END OF THE MEETING TILL LATER IN THE MEETING. OKAY. 'CAUSE I KNOW WE CAN, OKAY. ALL RIGHT, COOL. OKAY. UM, ALRIGHT, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALRIGHT, SEEING NONE, WE HAVE A MOTION TO TABLE THE ITEM UNTIL LATER IN THE MEETING BY COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FORSYTH. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSING NAY? THE MOTION CARRIES [52. 26-222A An application to replat a 0.205-acre (8,930-square foot) tract of land containing all of Lot 1 in City Block 3/2748 to create one lot, and to remove an existing 15-foot platted building line along White Rock Road and to extend an existing 30-foot platted building line along the Wildgrove Avenue to the property line, on property located on White Rock Road at Wildgrove Avenue, northeast corner. Applicant/Owner: Craig A. Lashley Surveyor: A & W Surveyors, Inc. Application Filed: December 19, 2025 Zoning: R-7.5(A) Staff Recommendation: Denial. Planner: Hema Sharma Council District: 9 PLAT-25-000181] ITEM 52 PLAT DASH 25 DASH 0 0 180 1. AN APPLICATION TO REPL A 0.205 ACRE, THAT IS 8,930 SQUARE FOOT TRACK OF LAND CONTAINING ALL OF LOT ONE IN CITY BLOCK THREE OVER 3 2 7 4 8 TO CREATE ONE LOT AND TO REMOVE AN EXISTING 15 FEET PLATTED BUILDING LINE ALONG WHITE ROCK ROAD. AND TO EXTEND AN EXISTING 30 FOOT PLATTED BUILDING LINE ALONG WHITE GROVE AVENUE TO THE PROPERTY LINE ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON WHITE ROCK ROAD AT WILL GROVE AVENUE NORTHWEST NORTHEAST CORNER. 24 NOTICES WERE SENT TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE PROPERTY ON DECEMBER 29TH, 2025. WE HAVE RECEIVED ZERO REPLY IN FAVOR AND ONE REPLY IN OPPOSITION TO THIS REQUEST, WE HAVE RECEIVED ONE REPLY IN FAVOR AFTER THE DEADLINE. THIS RE THIS REQUEST REQUIRE TWO MOTIONS BECAUSE IT IS TO RELA AND IT INVOLVES THE REMOVAL OF THE PLATY BUILDING LINE. THE FIRST MOTION IS APPROVE OR DENY, APPROVE OR DENY AN EXISTING 35TH PLATTED BUILDING LINE. AND THE SECOND MOTION IS TO APPROVE OR DENY RELA STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON BUILDING LINE IS DENIAL, HOWEVER, SO THE REQUEST BE APPROVED, WE RECOMMEND THE APPROVAL BE SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE DOCKET OR AS AMENDED AT THE HEARING STAFF. RE RECOMMENDATION FOR A RE REPLY IS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE DOCKET AND OR AS AMENDED AT THE HEARING. THANK YOU. THANK YOU MS. UM, SHARMA, I JUST THINK WE FIRST NEED TO NOTE ON THE RECORD THAT, UM, THE APPLICANT, UH, OR OR SOMEONE DID SEND TO THE COMMISSION, UM, COMMENTS ON THIS CASE THAT WERE EMAILED TO THE ENTIRE COMMISSION. UM, SO WE DO NEED TO DISCLOSE THAT ON THE RECORD. I PERSONALLY DID NOT READ THEM AS SOON AS I SAW THAT THEY WERE ON A PLAT, BUT I'M SORRY, CAN YOU SPEAK UP? YEAH, OF COURSE. UM, THERE WERE COMMENTS ON THIS CASE SENT TO THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION SECRETARY, WHICH WERE FORWARDED TO THE BODY. UM, SO SINCE THIS IS QUASI-JUDICIAL, WE DO NEED TO DISCLOSE THAT. AND I WILL JUST SAY PERSONALLY, ONCE I SAW THAT THIS WAS ON A PLAT CASE, I DID NOT READ THE, UM, COMMENTS SENT TO THE BODY VIA EMAIL. ALRIGHT. UH, MAY, MAY I ASK, WAS THAT THE SUPPORT LETTERS THAT I'VE SHARED? THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. THANK YOU. YEP. SURE. UM, ALRIGHT, MS. HI MOTO. UM, GOOD AFTERNOON. MAY I SHARE MY SCREEN? SURE, GO AHEAD. I MAY NEED SOME INSTRUCTION ON HOW TO DO THAT. UH, IS THERE SOMEONE WHO CAN HELP? MS. HI MOTO WITH THE TECHNOLOGY. I OKAY. UH, THE POWERPOINT? YEAH, CLICK ON THAT. THERE YOU GO AHEAD AND CLICK HERE. JUST SECOND. THERE YOU GO. THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS GOING ON. JUST CLICK ON THIS GUY. I'M SORRY, WHICH ONE? UH, LITTLE POWER WINDOW. GREAT. THERE YOU GO. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. UH, JENNIFER. HI, MOTO 1 0 2 3 3 EAST NORTHWEST HIGHWAY. UM, THIS IS A REQUEST. UH, I MAY NEED MORE HELP , SO SORRY. THAT'S FINE. UH, YOU MIGHT CLICK BACK ON THE PRESENTATION. [03:45:04] YAY. THANK YOU. SO SORRY. UM, YES. UM, ASKING TO, UH, REMOVE AN EXISTING 15 FOOT BUILDING LINE. THIS IS A SIDE BUILDING LINE ALONG WHITE ROCK ROAD. IT IS THE LINE IN GREEN, AND WE'RE LOOKING TO EXTEND THE FRONT BUILDING LINE THAT'S IN BLUE. THE PURPOSE OF THIS APPLICATION IS SO THAT THE HOMEOWNERS CAN CONSTRUCT ACCESSORY STRUCTURES. UM, THE, THE BOTTOM BLACK ARROW IS POINTING TO THE PLATY BUILDING LINE. THE TOP BLACK ARROW IS POINTING TO THE FIVE FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK. UM, THERE IS A, UH, SOLID FENCE THAT WILL BE MAINTAINED, UM, SO THAT PRIVACY IS MAY, UH, CON CONTINUED AND THAT THIS DOES NOT IN CHANGE THE IMPACT OF THEIR BACKYARD ON THE PUBLIC REALM. THE THREE GREEN DOTS ARE THE EMAILS THAT I HAD SHARED, UM, THIS MORNING, UH, THAT WERE IN SUPPORT. I SPOKE TO TWO OF THOSE NEIGHBORS AND THEY WERE SUPPORTIVE, UH, BECAUSE OF THE CONTINUED INVESTMENT IN THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. UM, THE OPPOSITION REPLY FORM THAT YOU RECEIVED AS THE RED DOT, AND THOSE FOLKS ARE NOT HIGHLY IMPACTED BY THIS REQUEST. UM, THIS IS A PHOTO OF THE HOME LOOKING AT THEIR FRONT. UM, AND THEN AS YOU GO DOWN WHITE ROCK ROAD, YOU SEE THE SCREENING FENCE THAT'LL BE MAINTAINED. UM, THE GREEN ARROWS POINTING TO WHAT I BELIEVE IS A TRAMPOLINE CAGE. SO THE COVERED PATIO WOULD PROBABLY HAVE A SIMILAR IMPACT ON THE PUBLIC REALM AS THIS, UH, MR. HIR MOTOR. YOUR SLIDES AREN'T ADVANCING FOR US, SO I'M SORRY. SO IF YOU COULD JUST, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE IT UP. SOMETIMES IT TAKES US LONGER TO I CAN JUST KEEP TALKING. UM, MAYBE THEY'LL CATCH UP. UM, LET'S SEE. SO ONCE YOU SEE WHITE ROCK ROAD, YOU'LL SEE THAT IT'S A 55 FOOT WIDE RIGHT OF WAY. THAT'S, UH, BUILT AS A TWO LANE ROAD WITH BAR DITCHES. UM, I THINK IT SERVES AS TRAFFIC PLUMBING IN THIS AREA, BUT FOR THIS SIDE YARD BUILDING, SIDE BUILDING LINE, IT'S PREVENTING ENJOYMENT OF THE PROPERTY, UM, FOR THESE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES. UM, THE SIDE BUILDING LINE COMPLICATES THE DEVELOPMENT WITHOUT PROVIDING MUCH PUBLIC BENEFIT. UM, THERE'S, SEEMS LIKE THE POWERPOINT STILL STALLED. UM, BUT ANYWAY, UM, THERE'S NO CONTINUITY REQUIREMENT FOR SIDE YARDS AND ZONING. UH, CONTINUITY BY ITSELF IS NOT, UH, ONE OF THE FINDINGS IN THE CODE FOR REMOVAL OF BUILDING LINE, UM, THAT YOU HAVE TO FIND THAT THERE'S NO ADVERSE IMPACT, NO CONFLICT WITH ZONING SETBACKS, NO HARM TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST, AND NO HARM TO ORDERLY DEVELOPMENT. UH, MAINTAINING A BUILDING LINE SOLELY BECAUSE IT EXISTS ELSEWHERE IS NOT THE SAME AS DEMONSTRATING THAT IT SERVES AN ACTIVE PLANNING PURPOSE. TODAY, HUMAN GUYS MAY NOT GET TO SEE THE PHOTOS, BUT I PROMISE YOU IT'S THERE. UM, THE ORIGINAL PLAT WAS, UH, ESTABLISHED IN 1952. THERE YOU GO. OKAY. UM, IT FOCUSED ON ESTABLISHING, UH, FRONT BUILD LINES AND THAT'LL CATCH UP AT SOME POINT. UM, LOVING HAS, UH, CORNER LOTS THAT ARE KEY, LOTS THAT HAVE TWO FRONT YARDS AND, UH, WHITE ROCK ROAD IS A MUCH LARGER ROAD. UM, SO THE PURPOSE OF A SIDE YARD BUILDING LINE IS MINIMAL. THAT'S YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON? ITEM NUMBER 52. OKAY. UH, COMMISSIONER KUNTZ, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION OR MOTIONS ON THIS? YES. MOTIONS. YEAH. UH, IN THE CASE, UH, NUMBER PLAT 25 0 0 0 1 8 1, I MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND FOLLOW STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION TO DENY THE REQUEST TO REMOVE THE EXISTING 15 FOOT PLATTED BUILDING LINE ALONG WHITE ROCK ROAD AND TO EXTEND THE EXISTING 30 FOOT PLATTED BUILDING LINE ALONG WILD GROVE GROVE AVENUE. WITH THE FINDING OF FACT THAT REMOVAL AND EXTENSION OF BUILDING LINES WILL REQUIRE A MINIMUM FRONT SIDE AND REAR YARD SETBACK LINE LESS THAN REQUIRED BY THE ZONING, UH, BE CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTERESTS, ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES, UH, AND ADV ADVERSE ADVERSELY AFFECT THE PLAN FOR ORDERLY DEVELOPMENT OF THE SUBDIVISION. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU COMMISSIONER KUNTZ FOR YOUR MOTION. COMMISSIONER CARPENTER FOR YOUR SECOND, IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED, SAY NAY. THE MOTION CARRIES. DO WE NEED TO MAKE A SECOND MOTION ON THE REPL? OKAY. COMMISSIONER KUNS, YOUR SECOND MOTION IN THE CASE PLAT 25 0 0 0 1 8 1, [03:50:03] I MOVE TO FOLLOW STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION TO DENY THE REQUEST BECAUSE THE PROPOSED REPL DOES NOT COMPLY WITH SECTION 51 A 8.505. OKAY. UH, THANK YOU COMMISSIONER KUNTZ, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER FOR YOUR SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? YEAH, I'LL MAKE, I'LL MAKE JUST, UH, ONE QUICK COMMENT FOR THE APPLICANT. UH, YOU KNOW, ALTHOUGH I UNDERSTAND, UM, THE APPLICANT'S ARGUMENTS, UM, AND THERE MAY BE SOME ARGUMENTS AGAINST SOME OF THE, THE ZONING THAT'S IN PLACE OR THE, THE, THE REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE, THAT ARE IN PLACE. UM, AS WE'VE MENTIONED, WE, WE HAVE, WE HAVE LIMITED ABILITY TO, UM, COMMENT ON THOSE. WE'RE, WE'RE HERE TO JUST, UM, YOU KNOW, LOOK AT THE, LOOK AT THE REQUIREMENTS. SO, UM, THANK YOU COMMISSIONER KONS. I DID HAVE ONE FOLLOW UP QUESTION. UM, I KNOW THAT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION ON THE BUILDING LINE REMOVAL WAS DENIAL, BUT I BELIEVE THAT IT'S RECOMMENDATION ON THE REPL WAS ACTUALLY APPROVAL. CAN YOU SPEAK TO THAT? YEAH, THAT I, I JUST WANNA ASK LAURA, LIKE HOW DOES THAT WORK? OH, YEAH, IF YOU HAVE, IF YOU WANNA BRING IN MS. MORRISON THAT THAT WOULD BE FINE. MM-HMM . I AM SORRY. I I THOUGHT THE QUESTION WAS ABOUT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. SORRY. STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR OUR BUILDING LINE IS DENIAL AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF RE PLAT IS APPROVAL. SO, OH, STAFF RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THE PLAT REPL, BUT BUILDING LINE IS DENIAL. OH, OKAY. SO WHAT HAPPENS, I THINK WE DID THAT LAST ONE OF THE CASES. LET ME JUST DOUBLE CHECK THE CASE REPORT. CAN I GET A CLARIFICATION HERE? 'CAUSE THIS, THE REPORT SAYS STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON REPL SAYS THAT STAFF CONCLUDES THAT THIS REQUEST DOES NOT COMPLY WITH SECTION 51, A 0.8 0.505. THEREFORE STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL OF THE REPL. YEAH, THAT WAS FOR ONE OF, ONE OF THE, FOR DENIAL WAS FOR BUILDING LINE, BUT IT, IT QUALIFIES FOR REPLA. SO WE HAVE DONE THIS IN THE PAST ALSO ONE OF THE CASE, WELL THE REPORT WE HAVE HERE SAYS THE, THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS DENIED BOTH OF THEM. RIGHT. THAT'S WHAT I'M SEEING ON THE REPORT AS WELL. ARE, IS THAT CORRECT MS. SHARMA? THAT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION ON THE RELA IS ALSO DENIAL BECAUSE OF THE NON-COMPLIANCE WITH 8.505 OR HIS STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION CHANGED SINCE THE DOCKET WAS PUBLISHED. IT REMAINS THE SAME DENIAL. SO, SO STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION ON THE REPL IS DENIAL. LEMME TALK. OKAY. LET'S HIT PAUSE FOR FOR JUST A MOMENT ACTUALLY. UM, WE'VE BEEN GOING FOR ABOUT AN HOUR AND A HALF, SO LET'S TAKE A FIVE MINUTE BREAK AND COME BACK AT TWO 15. IT'S NOW TWO 10. ALRIGHT COMMISSIONERS, ARE WE READY TO GO BACK ON THE RECORD? IT'S 2 21, MAKE SURE ONE, I BELIEVE WE HAVE A QUORUM. SO IT IS 2:21 PM AND THIS MEETING OF THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION IS BACK ON THE RECORD. UH, FOLKS, WE'RE WE'RE GOING BACK ON THE RECORD, SO IF YOU COULD JUST, UM, TAKE YOUR CONVERSATIONS OUTSIDE IF YOU HAD THEM, THAT WOULD BE MUCH APPRECIATED. ALRIGHT, WE ARE ON CASE NUMBER 52 AND I BELIEVE MS. SHARMA HAD A CLARIFICATION ON THE CASE REPORT. ITEM 52 FOR THIS PLAT STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS DENIAL FOR THE BUILDING LINE, HOWEVER, SO THE REQUEST BE APPROVED, WE RECOMMEND THE APPROVAL WILL BE SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE DOCKET ARE AS AMENDED IN THE HEARING CORRECTIONS TO THE STAFF REPORT. STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR RE RELA IS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE DOCKET AND AS AMENDED AT THE HEARING. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. UH, MS. SHARMA. ALRIGHT, SO WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR RIGHT NOW BY COMMISSIONER KONZ TO DENY [03:55:01] THE RE PLAT. IS IT STILL YOUR INTENT TO NO COMM COMMISSIONER RUBIN? I'D LIKE TO WITHDRAW THAT PRIOR MOTION AND I BELIEVE COMMISSIONER CARPENTER FOR SECOND. SO THAT'S NOW WITHDRAWN. DO YOU HAVE A FURTHER MOTION? COMMISSIONER KUNTZ? YES. IN THE CASE PLAT 25 0 0 0 1 8 1, I MOVE TO FOLLOW STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE REQUEST, UH, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS LISTED INTO THE DOCKET AND AS STATED BY STAFF. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER KUNTZ FOR YOUR MOTION. COMMISSIONER CARPENTER FOR YOUR SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? I'D LIKE A, A CLARIFICATION THAT THE PLA THAT WE'RE APPROVING SHOWS THE ORIGINAL BUILDING LINES INTACT. YES. WE, WE, WE ARE NOT RECOMMENDING DENIAL, WE ARE NOT RECOMMENDING, I MEAN WE ARE RECOMMENDING DENIAL FOR THE BUILDING LINE REMOVAL. OKAY. BUT THE PLA THAT WE'RE ASKED TO APPROVE NOW IS WITH DOES NOT SHOW THE BUILDING LINES REMOVED. IT, IT MAINTAINS THE BUILDING LINES, IT MAINTAINS THE BUILDING LINES. THANK YOU. THAT'S RIGHT. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? SAY NO. THE MOTION CARRIES. UM, LET'S [53. 26-223A An application to replat a 0.95-acre tract of land containing portion of Lot 2 in City Block A/8100 to create one lot and to remove an existing 45-foot platted building line along Lyndon B. Johnson Freeway/Interstate Highway No. 635 and Skillman Street on property located on Lyndon B. Johnson Freeway/Interstate Highway No. 635 at Skillman Street, southwest corner. Applicant/Owner: NNN Reit, LP Surveyor: Texas Heritage Surveying, LLC Application Filed: December 18, 2025. Zoning: MC-1 Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to compliance with the conditions listed in the docket. Planner: Hema Sharma Council District: 10 PLAT-25-000163] GO TO ITEM 53, MS. SHARMA. ITEM 53 PLAT DASH 25 DASH 0 0 1 63. AN APPLICATION TO RE PLAT IS 0.95 ACRE TRACK OF LAND CONTAINING PORTION OF LOT TO IN CITY BLOCK A OVER 8 1 0 0 TO CREATE ONE LOT AND TO REMOVE AN EXISTING 45 BUILDING FOOT BUILDING LINE ALONG THE LYNDON B JOHNSON FREEWAY INTERSTATE HIGHWAY NUMBER 6 35 AND SKILLMAN STREET ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON LYNDON B JOHNSON FREEWAY INTER INTERSTATE HIGHWAY NUMBER 6 35 AT SKILLMAN STREET SOUTHWEST CORNER. THIS RE REQUEST REQUIRES TWO MOTION BECAUSE IT IS TO REPL AND IT INVOLVES THE REMOVAL OF THE PLAID BUILDING LINE. THE FIRST MOTION IS TO APPROVE OR DENY REMOVING AN EXISTING 30 FOOT PLAID BUILDING LINE. THE SECOND MOTION IS APPROVE OR DENY THE PLAID STAFF RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL FOR THE BUILDING LINE SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE DOCKET OR AS AMENDED AT THE HEARING. STAFF. RECOMMENDATION ON REPL IS ALSO APPROVAL SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE DOCKET OR AS AMENDED AT THE HEARING. THANK YOU MS. SHARMER. IS THERE ANYONE HERE WHO'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON CASE NUMBER 53? ALRIGHT, SINCE THERE ARE NO SPEAKERS, WE'LL GO TO COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT FOR UH, MOTIONS. THANK YOU MR. CHAIR. UH, IN CASE NUMBER PLAT TWO FIVE DASH 0 1 63, I MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE THE REQUEST TO REMOVE THE EXISTING 45 FOOT PLATTED BUILDING LINE ALONG LBJ FREEWAY AND SKILLMAN STREET WITH THE FINDING OF THE FACT THAT REMOVAL OF THE BUILDING LINE WILL NOT REQUIRE A MINIMUM FRONT SIDE OR REAR YARD SETBACK LINE LESS THAN REQUIRED BY THE ZONING REGULATION, BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST, ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES OR ADVERSELY AFFECT THE PLAN FOR THE ORDERLY DEVELOPMENT OF THE SUBDIVISION. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT FOR YOUR MOTION. COMMISSIONER HALL FOR YOUR SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION HOUSE? JUST HAVE A QUESTION FOR MS. SHARMA. I I THINK WHEN YOU READ THIS INTO THE RECORD, YOU MENTIONED REMOVAL OF A 30 FOOT BUILDING LINE, YET EVERYTHING I HAVE IN FRONT OF ME ON IT SAYS 45, BUT JUST MAYBE I'M, I MAY NOT HAVE HEARD YOU CORRECTLY. THAT IS 45 FOOT PLA BUILDING LINE. YEAH. OKAY. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALRIGHT, SEEING NONE ON THE FIRST MOTION TO REMOVE THE, UH, PLA BUILDING LINE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED, SAY NAY. THE MOTION CARRIES YOUR SECOND MOTION. COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT. THANK YOU MR. CHAIR AND PLAT TWO FIVE DASH ZERO UH, 0 0 1 6 3. I MOVE THAT WE, UH, FOLLOW STAFF COMMEND RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE DOCKET. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT FOR YOUR MOTION. COMMISSIONER HALL FOR YOUR SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED, SAY NAY. THE MOTION CARRIES. COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, ARE WE READY TO REVISIT ITEM 51? YES, PLEASE, MR. CHAIR. AND I WOULD LIKE TO WITHDRAW MY EARLIER MOTION, UM, AND, UM, RECOMMEND A REVISED MOTION TO DENY OR IN THE MATTER OF PLAT 2 5 0 0 0 1 7 3 TO DENY THE REQUEST WITH THE FINDING OF FACT THAT THE, UM, PLAT AS SUBMITTED IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE, OR IS UNABLE TO BE DETERMINED THAT IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE EXISTING ZONING PD 1 93 DASH TH THREE. OKAY. THANK YOU [04:00:01] COMMISSIONER HAMPTON FOR YOUR MOTION. COMMISSIONER WHEELER FOR YOUR SECOND. UH, IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? OH, JUST FOR MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS, AS I HAD PULLED UP THE P NINE PD 1 93, UM, REQUIREMENTS, THERE IS AN OPEN SPACE PROVISION THAT IS RELATED TO A TH THREE SUBDISTRICT. IT IS UNCLEAR FROM THE INFORMATION PROVIDED TO US OR AVAILABLE TODAY THAT THE REVISED PLAT WOULD MAINTAIN COMPLIANCE WITH THE ZONING CONDITIONS. THEREFORE, I AM RECOMMENDING DENIAL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HAMPTON. UH, ARE THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION OR QUESTIONS? I DO JUST HAVE ONE QUESTION FOR MS. MS. MORRISON. UM, THIS IS PROCEDURALLY A LITTLE, I DON'T THINK I'VE EVER ENCOUNTERED THE, THE PLATTING CASE EXACTLY LIKE THIS BEFORE, BUT, UH, IS IT CORRECT TO SAY THAT THE APPLICANT IN A PLAT CASE HAS THE BURDEN TO SHOW THAT THE PROPOSED PLAT MEETS THE UNDERLYING ZONING? UH, YES. THE, THE BURDEN IS ON THE PARTY REQUESTING THE REPL. OKAY, THANK YOU. UM, I JUST WANNA SAY COMMISSIONER HAM, THANK YOU FOR, FOR DIGGING DEEP ON THAT AND CONFIRMING THAT THERE IS AN OPEN SPACE PROVISION. UM, I, I DO SEE WHERE YOU'RE COMING FROM AND, AND BASED ON THAT, I AM COMFORTABLE, UM, SUPPORTING YOUR MOTION, UM, BASED SOLELY ON THE, UH, APPARENT INABILITY OF THE APPLICANT TO SHOW THAT THIS APPLICATION DOES NOT MEET THE, UM, REQUIREMENTS OF 51 P 1 93. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE. WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER C WHEELER TO DENY ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? SAY NAY. AYE. THE MOTION CARRIES. ALRIGHT. UM, THANK YOU. THANK YOU. JUST A QUICK [Additional Item] BIT OF HOUSEKEEPING. UH, COMMISSIONER, UH, HERBERT OR VICE CHAIR HERBERT HAD TO GO VIRTUAL AND I'M GOING TO HAVE TO STEP OUT BRIEFLY LATER THIS AFTERNOON. AND, UM, LEGALLY WE'RE REQUIRED TO HAVE THE PERSON PRESIDING OVER THE MEETING TO BE HERE IN PERSON. SO IN THESE INSTANCES WE APPOINT A TEMPORARY VICE CHAIR AND COMMISSIONER CARPENTER HAS GRACIOUSLY AGREED TO DO SO. SO IF WE COULD GET A QUICK MOTION TO APPOINT HER AS TEMPORARY VICE CHAIR FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE MEETING. SO MOVED. GREAT. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER FOR YOUR MOTION. COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT FOR YOUR SECOND IN DISCUSSION SAYING NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? SAY NAY. THANK YOU. UH, TEMPORARY VICE CHAIR CARPENTER . ALRIGHT, WE WILL GO BACK TO OUR ZONING OR OUR, UM, MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET, WHICH STARTS WITH ITEM ONE. I THOUGHT WE HAD TO DO SIGNS. SORRY, I THOUGHT WE HAD TO DO SIGNS. SO ARE WE GOING BACK TO HERE, NUMBER ONE? NUMBER ONE? YEP. [1. 26-171A An application for a minor amendment to the development plan on property zoned Planned Development District 1102 on the west line of University Hills Boulevard, northwest of the intersection of East Wheatland Road and University Hills Boulevard. Staff Recommendation: Approval. Applicant: Jake Brown - LDG Development LLC Representative: Rob Baldwin - Baldwin Associates Planner: Sheila Alcantara Segovia Council District: 8 MZ-25-000004 / Z245-009] I'M ONE. ALL ITEM. ITEM NUMBER ONE, AN APPLICATION FOR A MINOR AMENDMENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN ON PROPERTY ZONE PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 1102 ON THE WEST SIDE OF UNIVERSITY HILL BOULEVARD, NORTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF EAST WHEATLAND ROAD AND UNIVERSITY HILL BOULEVARD STAFF. RECOMMENDATIONS. APPROVAL. THANK YOU MS. SEGOVIA. UM, MR. BALDWIN. GOOD AFTERNOON. ROB BALDWIN, 3 9 0 4 ELM STREET SUITE, BE IN DALLAS. UM, THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A MINOR AMENDMENT. THE ORIGINAL PROJECT HAD THREE FIVE STORY BUILDINGS, 490 UNITS OR 400 UNITS. WE'RE BRINGING IT DOWN TO THREE STORY UNIT, SEVEN, THREE STORY BUILDINGS AND 290 UNITS. UM, WE ARE AT THIS TIME NOT DOING THE, THE RETAIL PORTION OF THE PROJECT, BUT WE'RE TRYING TO GET THE PROPERTY ON THE CORNER, WHICH IS THE HARD CORNER OF UNIVERSITY AND, UH, UNIVERSITY HILLS IN WEST WHEATLAND, EAST WHEATLAND TO, TO DO A RETAIL PORTION, WHICH WE THEN WOULD BRING INTO THIS PD. I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. HOPE YOU CAN SUPPORT THIS REQUEST. GREAT. THANK YOU MR. BALDWIN. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF ITEM ONE? ANY SPEAKERS IN OPPOSITION? OKAY. WE'LL GO TO COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN FOR A MOTION. YES. UH, THANK YOU MR. CHAIR. I HAVE A, A MOTION AND A COMMENT DIRECTLY AFTER. OKAY. SO IN THE MATTER OF MZ 2 5 0 0 0 0 4, I MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND FOLLOWED THE STATUS RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL. GREAT. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER [04:05:01] FRANKLIN FOR YOUR MOTION. COMMISSIONER, UH, SIMS FOR YOUR SECOND, YOUR COMMENTS? YES. WHAT I, I WOULD LIKE TO ACKNOWLEDGE ON THE RECORD THAT THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT FOR THIS AREA IS VERY DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY, UH, PRESENTED. UM, UH, IT DOES GIVE THE AREA, UM, UH, MORE HOUSING ALONG THE STREET, BUT WHAT WE REALLY NEEDED IS, UH, MORE RETAIL AROUND THAT AREA. AND AS A PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT, I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS GOING TO BE, UH, ONE ENTRANCE INSTEAD OF TWO ENTRANCES TO THE EXTENT THAT YOU CAN RESPONSIBLY. 'CAUSE I'M NOT SURE HOW LONG IT'S GOING TO TAKE TO DEVELOP THE, THE, THE, THIS NEW DEVELOPMENT, BUT THE DAMAGE THAT US THAT'S USUALLY CAUSED IN THIS AREA ALONG THE STREETS WITH, UH, WITH COMMERCIAL VEHICLES IS TREMENDOUS. AND I'M, I'M CONCERNED THAT DECREASING THE AMOUNT OF ENTRANCES INTO THIS, UH, DEVELOPMENT MAY CAUSE INCREASED DAMAGE INTO THE ROAD. SO IT MAKES IT A LOT HARDER FOR PEDESTRIANS TO, NOT PEDESTRIANS, BUT, UH, VEHICLES TO, TO PASS THROUGH. SO JUST KEEP THAT IN MIND, UH, WHEN YOU TALK TO YOUR CLIENT TO, TO SEE HOW YOU CAN RESPONSIBLY DEVELOP THIS WITHOUT RUINING THE ROAD, MISSING THE ROADS UP SO MUCH. YES SIR. WE WILL. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, ANY OTHER COMMENTS, DISCUSSION OF THIS ITEM? SEEING DONE WE HAVE A, A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SIMS TO FOLLOW STATUS, RECOMMENDATION OR APPROVAL. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? SAY NAY. THE MOTION CARRIES. [2. 26-172A An application for a minor amendment to the development plan on property zoned North Zone Subdistrict B within Planned Development District 521, on the southeast corner of Mountain Creek Parkway and South Merrifield Road. Staff Recommendation: Approval. Applicant: Roger Sotelo - Dallas Mountain Creek Lodging LLC Representative: Keyur Rathod - Triangle Engineering LLC Planner: Sheila Alcantara Segovia Council District: 3 MZ-25-000014 ] UH, ITEM NUMBER TWO. ITEM NUMBER TWO, AN APPLICATION FOR A MINOR AMENDMENT TO A DEVELOPMENT PLAN ON PROPERTY ZONE NORTH ZONE SUBDISTRICT B WITH PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 5 2 1 ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF MOUNTAIN CREEK PARKWAY AND SOUTH MARYFIELD ROAD STAFF RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL. THANK YOU MS. SEGOVIA. IS THERE ANYONE WHO'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER TWO? ALRIGHT, SINCE THERE ARE NO SPEAKERS, WE'LL GO TO VICE. OH SIR, SORRY. AND YOU CAN LOWER THAT. UM, PODIUM. WE GOOD? YEAH, YOU'RE, YOU'RE GOOD. OKAY. AFTERNOON EVERYONE. THIS IS WITH TRIANGLE ENGINEERING. ADDRESS IS 1782 WEST MC MOND DRIVE, ALLEN, TEXAS REPRESENTING THE PROJECT. THIS IS A FAIRFIELD HOTEL AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF MARYFIELD AND MOUNTAIN CREEK. AS YOU ALL ARE ALREADY AWARE, IT'S AN AMENDMENT TO AN PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DEVELOPMENT PLAN, WHICH PREVIOUSLY WAS A MOTEL SIX. I HAVE THE DEVELOPER HERE, ROGER SOTELO HERE WITH US AS WELL TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS PERTAINING TO OPERATIONS. SO WE ARE MORE THAN HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS, LET US KNOW. THANK YOU. THANK YOU SIR. SIR, YOU ARE STILL HERE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM. UM, ROGER SOTELLO 1424 AUTUMN CREST DRIVE IN ARLINGTON. I'M HERE TO REPRESENT THE DEVELOPMENT INTERESTS IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU SIR. ALRIGHT, ANYONE ELSE WANNA SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER TWO? COMMISSIONER OR VICE CHAIR? HERBERT, WE'LL GO TO YOU FOR A MOTION. VICE CHAIR. HERBERT, CAN YOU HEAR US? I CAN'T CHECK. CAN YOU HEAR ME? YOU CANNOT HEAR. WE'RE ON CASE NUMBER TWO, WHICH IS IN YOUR DISTRICT. ARE YOU PREPARED TO MAKE A MOTION ON IT? YES. OKAY. AND UM, IN THE CASE OF TWO, UH, MZ 2 5 0 0 0 0 1 4, I MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE THE CASE AS, UM, RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. GREAT. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HERBERT FOR YOUR MOTION. COMMISSIONER HAMPTON FOR YOUR SECOND. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? ALRIGHT, SEEING NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? SAY NAY. THE MOTION CARRIES. [3. 26-173A An application for a development plan on property zoned Planned Development District 1104 on the northeast line of W. Northwest Highway, southeast of Shady Trail and south of Willowbrook Road. Staff Recommendation: Approval. Applicant: Nunzio DeSantis - Desantis Development Group, LLC Representative: Rob Baldwin - Baldwin Associates Planner: Tasfia Zahin, M. Arch Council District: 6 MZ-25-00002] NUMBER THREE. UM, ITEM NUMBER THREE. AN APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT PLAN ON PROPERTY ZONE PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 1104 ON THE NORTHEAST LINE OF WEST NORTHWEST HIGHWAY SOUTH EAST OF SHADY TRAIL IN SOUTH OF WILLOWBROOK ROAD. STAFF. RECOMMENDATIONS. APPROVAL. THANK YOU. MS. SEGOVIA. IS MR. BALDWIN JUST HERE FOR QUESTIONS? IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER THREE? [04:10:03] COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? YES IN THE MATTER OF MZ DASH 25 DASH 0 0 0 0 2 4. I MOVE THAT WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND FOLLOW STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL. GREAT. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER CARPENTER FOR YOUR MOTION. COMMISSIONER HAMPTON FOR YOUR SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? ALRIGHT, SEEING NO DISCUSSION, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED, SAY NAY. THE MOTION CARRIES NUMBER [4. 26-174A An application for a new development plan on property zoned Subarea B within Planned Development District No. 975, along the north line of Barnabus Drive and north of Simpson Stuart Road. Staff Recommendation: Approval. Applicant: Christ L. Shropshire - Paul Quinn College Representative: Jennifer Hiromoto - Buzz Urban Planning Planner: Sheila Alcantara Segovia Council District: 8 MZ-25-000032] FOUR. ITEM NUMBER FOUR, AN APPLICATION FOR A NEW DEVELOPMENT PLAN ON PROPERTIES ON SUB AREA B WITHIN PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 9 7 5 ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF BARNABAS DRIVE AND NORTH OF SIMPSON STEWART ROAD. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS APPROVAL. GREAT. THANK YOU MS. SEGOVIA. UH, MS. HIR MOTO JUST HERE FOR QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER FOUR? COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? THANK YOU MR. CHAIR IN THE MATTER OF MZ DASH 25 DASH 0 0 0 0 3 2. I MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND FOLLOW THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL. THANK YOU FOR YOUR MOTION, COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN AND FOR YOUR SECOND, UH, COMMISSIONER HAMPTON. ANY DISCUSSION? ALL RIGHT, SEEING NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? SAY NAY. THE MOTION CARRIES AND I FORGOT TO RECOGNIZE THAT WE HAVE FORMER COMMISSIONER MICHAEL YOUNG WITH US, SO JUST GIVE HIM A FRIENDLY HELLO. UH, IT'S GREAT TO HAVE YOU BACK. . ALRIGHT, UH, [5. 26-175A An application for a minor amendment to the development plan on property zoned Planned Development District 695, on the southeast corner of Coit Road and Frankford Road. Staff Recommendation: Approval. Applicant: Sean Sands, Redwood-ERC Dallas, LLC Representative: Andrew Ruegg, Masterplan Consultants Planner: Tasfia Zahin, M. Arch Council District: 12 MZ-25-000036] CASE NUMBER FIVE. UH, ITEM NUMBER FIVE AND APPLICATION FOR A MINOR AMENDMENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN ON PROPERTY ZONE PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 6 9 5 ON SOUTHEAST CORNER OF COY ROAD AND FRANKFURT ROAD STAFF. RECOMMENDATIONS. APPROVAL. GREAT, THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE WHO'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER FIVE? MR. RIG? JUST HERE FOR QUESTIONS. OKAY, ANY OTHER SPEAKERS ON ITEM NUMBER FIVE, THERE ARE NO SPEAKERS, SO WE'LL GO TO COMMISSIONER KAUFMAN FOR A MOTION. THANK YOU. IN THE MATTER OF CASE NUMBER 25 DASH 0 0 0 3 6. I MOVE APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED MINOR AMENDMENTS PER STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. GREAT. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER KAUFMAN FOR YOUR MOTION. COMMISSIONER HAMPTON FOR YOUR SECOND. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED, SAY NAY. THE MOTION CARRIES [6. 26-176A An application for a new development plan on property zoned Planned Development District No. 1065 along the south line of West Mockingbird Lane, east Hinton Street. Staff Recommendation: Approval. Applicant: Chris Schultz - Equinix, Inc. Representative: Karl Crawley - Masterplan Consultants Planner: Greg Franklin Council District: 2 MZ-25-000037] ITEM NUMBER SIX. SIX, NOW YOU'RE ON. OKAY, GOTCHA. ITEM NUMBER SIX, AN APPLICATION FOR A NEW DEVELOPMENT PLAN ON PROPERTY ZONE PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 10 65 ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF WEST MOCKINGBIRD LANE, EAST OF HINTON STREET. STAFF STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL. THANK YOU MR. FRANKLIN. MR. CROWLEY IS JUST HERE FOR QUESTIONS. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER SIX? ALRIGHT, NO SPEAKERS. SO WE WILL GO TO COMMISSIONER HAMPTON FOR A MOTION. THANK YOU MR. CHAIR IN THE MATTER OF MZ DASH TWO FIVE DASH 0 0 0 0 3 7. I MOVE TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE THE REQUEST. GREAT, THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HAMPTON FOR YOUR MOTION. COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT FOR YOUR SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? NO DISCUSSION. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED, SAY NAY. THE MOTION CARRIES. JUST A HOUSEKEEPING NOTE, IF WE COULD DO A CONSENT AGENDA, UM, FOR MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS GOING FORWARD, THAT WOULD PROBABLY SAVE US A LITTLE TIME, SO LET'S JUST KEEP THAT IN MIND. I KNOW WE'VE DONE IT IN THE PAST. UM, WE'RE [7. 26-177A An application for a new Subarea on property zoned Tract II within Planned Development 314 Preston Center Special Purpose District, on the southeast corner of Berkshire Lane and Lomo Alto Drive. Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to sign plan and amended conditions. Applicant: Karl Crawley - Masterplan Planner: Lori Levy, AICP Council District: 13 Z-25-000167] MOVING ON TO OUR CONSENT DOCKET, WHICH IS NO LONGER CONSENT DOCKET BECAUSE EVERY ITEM AT ONE HAS BEEN POLLED, SO WE WILL TAKE THEM UP INDIVIDUALLY STARTING WITH ITEM NUMBER SEVEN. MS. LEVY, WHENEVER YOU'RE READY. THANK YOU MR. CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS. ITEM NUMBER SEVEN IS AN APPLICATION FOR A NEW SUB AREA ON PROPERTY ZONE TRACK TWO WITHIN PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT THREE 14 PRESTON CENTER, SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICT, AND IT'S ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF BERKSHIRE LANE AND LUMA ALTO DRIVE. STAFF RECOMMENDATION, UM, AS WE BRIEFED IS A LITTLE BIT CHANGED, IT'S SUBJECT TO AMENDED CONDITIONS AND THIS IS CASE Z 2 51 67. THANK YOU MS. LEVY. MR. CROWLEY. UH, GOOD AFTERNOON. CARL CROWLEY, 33 33 WELBURN, DALLAS, TEXAS. [04:15:01] UM, I'M REALLY HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. UM, SOMETHING CAME UP, I WAS LISTENING TO THE BRIEFING THIS MORNING. UM, OBVIOUSLY WE'RE, UH, AND, UH, GOOD WITH THE STAFF CHANGES THERE, THERE WAS SOME CONFUSION AND STUFF. UM, I DID HAVE, UM, ONE OF THE QUESTIONS CAME UP ABOUT, UM, RESPONSES AND STUFF. UM, AND, AND COMMISSIONER HALL TOOK MY, MY SORT OF FUNNINESS OUT OF IT. I DID HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH, UH, SOMEBODY WHO LIVED IN THE SHELTON NEXT DOOR TO US AND THAT'S WAS THE SORT OF A WHOLE THERE NO SIGNS ON THE SOUTH SIDE SHELTON AND ALL THAT KIND OF STUFF. AND OBVIOUSLY NONE OF THE SIGNS ARE ILLUMINATED, WHICH WAS A, UH, I PROBABLY AM THE ONLY PERSON HERE BESIDES MICHAEL YOUNG THAT WAS HERE WHEN PRESTON CENTER WAS PUT IN PLACE AND THAT WAS ILLUMINATION. THE SIGNS WAS OBVIOUSLY A, A, A LARGE DEAL OF IT, BUT THE CONVERSATION I HAD WITH THE GENTLEMAN NEXT DOOR IN THE SHELTON WHO GOT NOTICE AND WE SENT OUT LETTERS TO EVERYBODY IN THE CITY'S NOTIFICATION, UH, IN, UM, NON PLANNING LANGUAGE, IF THAT MAKES SENSE, EXPLAINING THE SIGNAGE AND THEN, UH, ALL THE EXHIBITS THAT YOU SAW THAT SHOWED THE DIFFERENT SIGN LOCATIONS WE PROVIDED TO THE STAFF AND WE PROVIDED TO THE NEIGHBORS AND STUFF. AND HIS BIG COMPLAINT WAS, FIRST HE WANTED TO MAKE SURE HE COULDN'T SEE IT AND, AND I SAID, WELL, YOU KNOW, THERE'S PROBABLY THE SIGN SIX OUT ABOUT EIGHT INCHES FROM THE BUILDING, SO I GUESS YOU COULD SEE EIGHT INCHES OF THE SIDE OF, OF THE SIGN, BUT OTHERWISE NO. AND, AND THAT'S WHEN HE WENT INTO, WELL, I THINK THERE'S TOO MANY BANKS IN PRESTON CENTER. AND I SAID, WELL, I'M, I'M SORRY THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE A PROBLEM. I GUESS THE CAYMAN ISLANDS HAS A LOT OF BANKS IN 'EM TOO, BUT THEY DON'T PROHIBIT BANKS. SO, UM, HE JUST WAS LIKE, I THINK THERE'S TOO MANY BANKS AND WE DON'T NEED MORE BANKS AND SIGNS. SO, UM, OTHERWISE IT, IT REALLY WON'T HAVE ANY EFFECT ON HIM. UM, AND, AND BE HONEST, WE GOT, UH, SOME EMAILS FROM PEOPLE MOSTLY IN THE PRESTON CENTER BUSINESSES AND THINGS OF THAT THAT MIGHT OR OWNERS. UM, BUT, UH, NO EMAILS I GUESS FROM THE RESIDENTIAL OR ANY, UH, I DON'T THINK YOU ALL GOT ANY REPLIES FROM THE RESIDENTIAL ACROSS THE TOLLWAY, WHICH, UH, TALKING TO COMMISSIONER HALL AND I, THAT WAS OUR CONCERN ABOUT THE, THE, THE HOMEOWNERS ACROSS THE TOLLWAY. BUT I THINK THE IDEA OF NOT BEING ILLUMINATED WAS THE KEY TO THAT. SO OTHERWISE I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU MR. CRAWLEY. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON? ITEM NUMBER SEVEN. OKAY. WE WILL GO TO COMMISSIONER HALL FOR A MOTION. SURE. THANK YOU MR. CHAIR IN THE MATTER OF Z 25 0 0 0 1 6 7. I MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE THIS ITEM. SUBJECT TO STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AMENDED CONDITIONS TO PD THREE 14 AS DISCUSSED SPECIFICALLY. SECTION F UH, 51 P 3 14 1 0 3 1. EXHIBITS STRIKE SECTION 51 P 3 14 3, SECTION 51 P THREE 14 H FOUR REVISED TO READ. THE ADDITIONAL ATTACHED SIGNS MAY CONTAIN A MAXIMUM OF FIVE WORDS EACH WITH LETTERS AND SYMBOLS. NO TALLER THAN FOUR FEET, 48 INCHES IN HEIGHT. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER HALL FOR YOUR MOTION. COMMISSIONER CARPENTER FOR YOUR SECOND. UM, AND JUST TO BE CLEAR, THAT MOTION IS SUBJECT TO A SIGN PLAN AS WELL? NO, NO. OH, THEY STRUCK THE SIGN PLAN. RECALL THEY DELETED THE, I, I APOLOGIZE TO THE SIGN PLAN. OKAY. ALRIGHT. A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HALL, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CARPENTER. UM, ANY DISCUSSION? COMMISSIONER HALL? OH, DID YOU NOT PRESS YOUR, YOU WERE, UH, NO NOTICE. OH, YOU'RE TURNING IT OFF NOTICE. OKAY. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? COMMISSIONERS? ALRIGHT, SEEING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. A. ANY OPPOSED, SAY NAY. THE MOTION CARRIES ITEM [8. 26-178A An application for 1) IM Industrial Manufacturing District and 2) an amendment to Specific Use Permit 2003 for an industrial (outside) potentially incompatible use limited to a concrete batch plant on property zoned IR Industrial Research District, on the northeast corner of Luna Road and Ryan Road. Staff Recommendation: Approval for a five-year period with eligibility for automatic renewal for additional five-year periods, subject to an amended site and landscape plans and amended conditions. Applicant: Issam Alshmaisani, Cowtown Redi Mix, Inc. Representative: Santos Catalan, AIA - Studio Mas Architects Planner: Lori Levy, AICP Council District: 6 Z-25-000049 / Z245-184] NUMBER EIGHT. YES. THANK YOU. UM, MR. CHAIR, COMMISSIONERS, ITEM NUMBER EIGHT IS AN APPLICATION FOR AN IM INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURING DISTRICT AND AN AMENDMENT TO SPECIFIC USE PERMIT NUMBER 2 0 0 3 FOR AN INDUSTRIAL OUTSIDE POTENTIALLY INCOMPATIBLE USE LIMITED TO A CONCRETE BATCH PLANT, EXCUSE ME, ON PROPERTY ZONED IR INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH DISTRICT. AND IT'S LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LUNA ROAD AND RYAN ROAD. STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL FOR A FIVE YEAR PERIOD WITH ELIGIBILITY FOR AUTOMATIC RENEWAL FOR ADDITIONAL FIVE YEAR PERIODS, SUBJECT TO AN AMENDED SITE AND LANDSCAPE PLAN AND AMENDED CONDITIONS. UH, THIS IS CASE NUMBER Z TWO FIVE, UH, 49 AND Z 2 45 84. [04:20:01] THANK YOU. UH, MS. LEVY, IS THERE ANYONE HERE WHO'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER EIGHT? OKAY, WE'LL GO TO COMMISSIONER CARPENTER FOR A MOTION. YES, IN THE MATTER OF Z DASH 25 0 0 4 9 SLASH Z 2 4 5 DASH 180 4. I MOVE THAT WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND FOLLOW STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL FOR A FIVE YEAR PERIOD, BUT WITH NO ELIGIBILITY FOR AUTOMATIC RENEWALS AND SUBJECT TO AN AMENDED SITE AND LANDSCAPE PLAN AND AMENDING CONDITIONS. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER CARPENTER FOR YOUR MOTION. COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT FOR YOUR SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? OKAY, THERE'S NO DISCUSSION. COMMISSIONER COX, DID YOU HAVE A COMMENT? SORRY, I THOUGHT I SAW YOUR TRIGGER FINGER. OKAY, NO DISCUSSION. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED, SAY NAY. THE MOTION CARRIES. WE'RE GOING TO ITEM NUMBER [9. 26-179A An application for Subdistrict C on property zoned Subarea A within Planned Development District 134, on the northwest line of Lindsley Avenue and southwest line of S. Munger Boulevard. Staff Recommendation: Approval. Applicant: Alan Rosales Representative: Sean Hodkinson Planner: Justin Lee Council District: 2 Z-25-000097] NINE. UH, ITEM NUMBER NINE, AN APPLICATION FOR SUBDISTRICT C ON PROPERTY ZONE SUB SUB AREA A WITHIN PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 1 34 ON THE NORTHWEST LINE OF LINDSEY AVENUE, SOUTHWEST LINE OF SOUTH SMER BOULEVARD. STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL. THANK YOU MR. LEE. UM, IS THERE ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER NINE? OKAY, WE'LL GO TO COMMISSIONER HAMPTON FOR A MOTION. THANK YOU. AND I HAVE COMMENTS IF I HAVE A SECOND IN THE MATTER OF Z DASH 25 DASH 0 0 0 0 9 7. I MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND FOLLOW STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HAMPTON FOR YOUR MOTION. COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT FOR YOUR SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? COMMISSIONER HAMPTON? THANK YOU. UM, THIS IS AN UNUSUAL CASE. UM, THERE WAS A COMMUNITY MEETING THAT WAS HELD, UM, WITH STAKEHOLDERS WHO WERE GENERALLY SUPPORTIVE OF THE REQUEST. UM, AS YOU HEARD DURING THE BRIEFING, I'D ASKED SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT ENGINEERING AND HOW TRAFFIC CONSIDERATIONS WILL BE REVIEWED. UM, IT IS ALONG AMONG THEIR BOULEVARD. IT CURRENTLY LOOKS INTO THE SIDE OF I THIRTY'S OVERPASS, UM, BUT I 30 IS BEING RECONFIGURED. UM, IT IS ACTUALLY CURRENTLY IN THE SCHEMATIC DESIGN PHASE WITH TXDOT AND THE COMMUNITY IS ACTIVELY INVOLVED IN THOSE CONVERSATIONS AND WHAT WE SEE ON THE GROUND TODAY WILL NOT BE THE FUTURE FOR THIS PARTICULAR LOT. I AM SENSITIVE TO A LOT OF THE DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT STATE LAW AND ITS POTENTIAL IMPLICATIONS, UM, FOR THIS LOT. BUT IT WAS SOMETHING THAT, UM, IN REVIEW WITH THE COMMUNITY, THEY FELT LIKE COULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR THIS SITE. AND I AM CERTAINLY CAUTIOUSLY OPTIMISTIC AT THE, UM, DEVELOPER MAY, UM, UTILIZE THE EXISTING STRUCTURE THAT IS ON SITE AND TURN IT INTO A LOW INTENSITY USE THAT SUPPORTS COMMUNITY USES. THAT OF COURSE, IS NOT WHAT IT WILL BE ALLOWED BY THE ZONING. UM, BUT IT WOULD CERTAINLY BE A GOOD INTERIM USE AND PUT SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN A, UM, DIFFICULT PROPERTY FOR MANY IN THE COMMUNITY FOR MANY, MANY YEARS. SO I HOPE MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS WILL SUPPORT THE MOTION AND I LOOK FORWARD TO WATCHING THIS, UM, AREA REDEVELOP. COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT. THANK YOU. UM, YEAH, I SECOND IT. AND, UH, WANT TO THANK, UH, COMMISSIONER HAMPTON FOR, FOR HER MOTION. I, I THINK THIS IS A GOOD, UM, A GOOD OUTCOME FOR A REALLY UNUSUAL SITE. YES, THERE'S, THERE'S POTENTIAL THAT THERE'S A LARGER BUILDING BUILT HERE AS A RESULT OF SB EIGHT 40, BUT THE PARTICULAR CONDITIONS OF THIS SITE ARE JUST SO, UM, SO URBAN AND SO FREEWAY ORIENTED THAT I I I DON'T SEE ANY DOWNSIDE AND IT'S CLEARLY NO LONGER A SUITABLE LOCATION FOR A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. AND SO, UM, I I THINK THIS HAS A POTENTIAL FOR BEING A, A, A REAL BENEFIT, UH, FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD BOTH NOW AND WITH THE FUTURE CONFIGURATION OF THE HIGHWAY. SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? COMMISSIONER CARPENTER? I'LL JUST SAY I WILL SUPPORT THE MOTION. I HAVE RESERVATIONS ABOUT WHAT COULD HAPPEN HERE UNDER EIGHT 40 AND THE OTHER USES ENABLED BY THE NS SUBDISTRICT. BUT GIVEN THE REALITY OF WHAT, YOU KNOW, THE ENGINEERING REVIEW, THE REQUIRED SETBACKS AND THE COMMISSIONERS AND THE COMMUNITIES OBVIOUS, YOU KNOW, DELVING INTO THE POSSIBILITIES HERE, I I WILL SUPPORT THE MOTION COMMISSIONER WHEELER, UM, IN A, IN A AREA, ME IN A CITY THAT OUR INDUSTRIAL AREAS ARE STRENGTHENING. I SUPPORT THE SUPPORT OF COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT, UM, RECOMMENDATION. UM, 'CAUSE WE HAVE TO FIND DESIGNATED AREAS FOR OUR IM AND OUR INDUSTRIES TO [04:25:01] GO BEFORE WE HAVE ANY THANK YOU. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? ALL RIGHT. UM, SEEING NONE WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED, SAY NAY. THE MOTION CARRIES ITEM [10. 26-180A An application for a new Specific Use Permit for a potentially incompatible industrial (outside) use limited to wood or lumber processing on property zoned IM Industrial Manufacturing District with existing deed restrictions [Z056-308], on the north line of Manana Drive, east line of Spangler Road. Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to a site plan and conditions, for a five-year period. Applicant: Tim Sansone Planner: Justin Lee Council District: 6 Z-25-000165] NUMBER 10, UH, ITEM NUMBER 10, AN APPLICATION FOR A NEW SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR POTENTIALLY INCOMPATIBLE INDUSTRIAL OUTSIDE USE, LIMITED TO WOOD OR LUMBER PROCESSING ON PROPERTY ZONE. IM INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURING DISTRICT WITH EXISTING D RESTRICTION Z 0 5 6 DASH 3 0 8 ON THE NORTH LINE OF MANANA DRIVE, EAST LINE OF SPANGLER ROAD STAFF. RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL. THANK YOU MR. LEE. IS THERE ANYONE WHO'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER 10? ALRIGHT, NO SPEAKERS. SO WE WILL GO TO COMMISSIONER CARPENTER FOR A MOTION YES IN THE MATTER OF Z DASH 25 DASH 0 0 0 1 6 5. I MOVE THAT WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND FILE STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL SUBJECT TO A SITE PLANNING CONDITIONS FOR A FIVE YEAR PERIOD. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER CARPENTER. UH, COMMISSIONER SIMS FOR YOUR SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? ALL RIGHT, NO DISCUSSION. UH, SO ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? SAY NAY. THE MOTION CARRIES. [11. 26-181A An application for a new Specific Use Permit for the sale of alcoholic beverages in conjunction with a restaurant without drive-in or drive-through service zoned Planned Development District 805 with D-1 Liquor Control Overlay, on the north line of Lake June Road, and east line of N. Masters Drive. Staff Recommendation: Approval for a five-year period with eligibility for auto renewals for additional five-year periods, subject to a site plan and conditions. Applicant: Colton Wright Representative: Rob Baldwin Planner: Justin Lee Council District: 5 Z-25-00014] ITEM NUMBER 11, AN APPLICATION FOR A NEW SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR THE SALE OF ALCOHOL BEVERAGES IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE RESTAURANT WITHOUT DRIVING OR DRIVE THROUGH SERVICE ZONE PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 8 0 5 WITH D ONE LIQUOR LIQUOR CONTROL OVERLAY ON THE NORTH LINE OF LAKE JUNE ROAD, EAST LINE OF NORTH MASTERS DRIVE. STAFF RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL FOR A FIVE YEAR PERIOD WITH ELIGIBILITY FOR AUTO RENEWAL FOR ADDITIONAL FIVE YEAR PERIOD SUBJECT TO A SITE PLAN AND CONDITIONS. THANK YOU. MR. LEE. IS THERE, MR. BALDWIN JUST HERE FOR QUESTIONS. OKAY, GREAT. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON? ITEM 11. OKAY. SEEING NONE. COMMISSIONER SERATO, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? YES. UM, IN THE MATTER OF KC 25 1 44, I MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE THE SEP FOR A FIVE YEAR PERIOD, BUT WITH ELIGIBILITY FOR AUTO RENEWALS, UH, SUBJECT TO A SITE PLAN AND CONDITIONS. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER SERATO FOR YOUR MOTION. COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT FOR YOUR SECOND. DO WE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION? OKAY, NO DISCUSSION. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? SAY NAY. THE MOTION CARRIES ITEM [12. 26-182A An application for an amendment to Specific Use Permit 2505 for the sale of alcoholic beverages in conjunction with a restaurant without drive-in or drive-through service use on property located within Subarea 2 of Planned Development District 366, the Buckner Boulevard Special Purpose District with a D-1 Liquor Control Overlay, on the south line of Lake June Road, east of Rose Garden Avenue. Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to a site plan and conditions. Applicant: Hector Lopez - Sole Owner Representative: Andrew Ruegg - Masterplan Planner: Oscar Aguilera Council District: 5 Z-25-000173] NUMBER 12. GOOD AFTERNOON. UH, MR. CHAIR MEMBERS OF THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION. UM, ITEM 12 IS AN APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO, UH, TO A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT 25 0 5 FOR THE SALES OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE IN CONJUNCTION WITH A RESTAURANT WITHOUT DRIVING OR A DRIVE THROUGH SERVICE USE ON A PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN SUB AREA TWO OF, UH, PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 360 6, THE BANKER BOULEVARD SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICT WITH A D ONE LIQUOR CONTROL OVERLAY ON THE SOUTH LINE OF LAKE JUNE ROAD, EAST OF ROSE GARDEN AVENUE. STAFF, UH, RECOMMENDS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO, UH, SITE PLAN AND CONDITIONS. THANK YOU MR. AGUILERA. UH, MR. RIG, DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS? IS THERE ANYONE ELSE YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON? ITEM 12. ALRIGHT, WE DON'T HAVE ANY SPEAKERS, SO WE'LL GO TO COMMISSIONER SERATO FOR A MOTION. UH, YES, MR. CHAIRMAN, IN THE MATTER OF KZ 25 0 0 0 1 73, I MOVE TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE THE SEP FOR A PERIOD OF FIVE YEARS SUBJECT TO A SITE PLAN AND CONDITIONS. GREAT. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER SERRADA FOR YOUR MOTION. COMMISSIONER SIMS FOR YOUR SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? NO DISCUSSION. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? SAY NAY, THEN THE MOTION CARRIES. ALRIGHT, [13. 26-183A An application for a new Specific Use Permit for the sale of alcoholic beverages in conjunction with a general merchandise food store less than 3,500 square feet on property zoned CR Community Retail District with D-1 Liquor Control Overlay, on the south corner of Lawnview Avenue and Forney Road. Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to a site plan and conditions. Applicant: Pritesh Rana Planner: Oscar Aguilera Council District: 5 Z-25-000172] LET'S GO TO ITEM 13 AND I BELIEVE THIS IS THE ONE WHERE WE HAD THE NOTICE ISSUE TO ADDRESS IN THE FIRST INSTANCE. SO MR. AGUILAR, IF YOU COULD, UH, READ IT IN, UM, ITEM 13 IS AN APPLICATION FOR, UH, SPECIFIC FOR A NEW SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR THE CELLS OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE IN CONJUNCTION WITH A GENERAL MERCHANDISE FOOD STORE LESS THAN 3000 SQUARE FEET ON A PROPERTY ZONE CR COMMUNITY RETAIL DISTRICT WITH A D ONE LIQUOR CONTROL OVERLAY ON THE SOUTH, UH, CORNER OF LONGVIEW AVENUE AND FOUR KNEE ROAD STAFF. RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO SIDELINE AND CONDITIONS. OKAY. UM, I BELIEVE THERE'S A NOTICE ISSUE THAT WE HAVE TO TAKE UP FIRST. IS THAT CORRECT? UH, MS. MORRISON? [04:30:01] UM, THAT'S WHAT THE COMMISSIONER HAD INDICATED DURING THE BRIEFING. OKAY. CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO US WHAT, WHAT WE'RE DOING ON THIS NOTICE ISSUE BEFORE WE DIVE IN AND GET OUR PUBLIC SPEAKERS? YES. SO THE ISSUE IS THAT THERE, THERE MIGHT BE SOME QUESTIONS ON THIS CASE AS TO A LACK OF PROPERLY POSTED NOTIFICATION SIGNS. THE NOTIFICATION SIGNS HAVE TO BE POSTED WITHIN 14 DAYS AFTER THE ZONING APPLICATION IS FILED AND THE SIGNS HAVE TO REMAIN POSTED UNTIL A FINAL DECISION IS MADE ON THE CASE BY THE CITY COUNCIL. UM, THE APPLICANT, UM, IT IT'S PRESUMED THAT THE APPLICANT HAS COMPLIED WITH, UH, THE REQUIRED POSTING OF THE NOTIFICATION SIGNS IF ANY LOSS STOLEN OR VANDALIZED SIGNS ARE TIMELY REPLACED AND THE APPLICANT HAS MADE A GOOD FAITH EFFORT TO KEEP THE SIGNS, UH, POSTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH OUR CODE. OKAY. UM, SO WE WILL START OFF WITH ANY SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM AND WE WILL LIMIT THOSE SPEAKERS TO SOLELY THE SIGNAGE NOTIFICATION ISSUE. AND IF WE GET PAST THAT AND TAKE UP THE ITEM SUBSTANTIVELY, THEY MAY HAVE PUBLIC SPEAKERS ON THE UNDERLYING ZONING CASE. SO IS THERE ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK, UM, ON ITEM 13, THAT C 25 0 0 0 1 72 SOLELY ON THE SIGNAGE ISSUE? AND THEN I SEE WE DO HAVE ONE SPEAKER, UM, SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ONLINE. MR. TITZ, HE IS NOT ON ONLINE. OKAY. UM, SINCE THERE ARE NO SPEAKERS ON THE SIGNAGE ISSUE, WILL GO TO COMMISSIONER SERRATO FOR AN ADDITIONAL MOTION. YEAH, I MOVED TO HOLD CASE, UH, NUMBER Z 25 0 0 1 72 UNDER ADVISEMENT, UH, FOR AT LEAST FOUR WEEKS. UM, BECAUSE THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION FINDS THAT THE APPLICANT HAS NOT FULFILLED THE APPLICANT'S OBLIGATIONS UNDER SECTION FIVE ONE A DASH 1 0 6 REGARDING THE POSTING OF ZONING NOTIFICATION SIGNS. UM, BECAUSE THE APPLICANT HAS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THE SATISFACTION OF THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION, THAT THE APPLICANT, UM, HAS MADE, UH, GOOD FAITH EFFORTS TO KEEP THE REQUIRED NOTIFICATION SIGNS POSTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE BY REPLACING ANY LAW STOLEN OR VANDALIZED NOTIFICATION SIGNS IN A TIMELY MATTER. OKAY. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER SERATO. AND DID YOU WANNA HOLD THAT TO A DATE CERTAIN? THAT'S FOUR WEEKS OUT, WHICH MR. CHAIR? I THINK THAT'LL BE FEBRUARY 19TH. FEBRUARY 19TH, OKAY. YEAH, FEBRUARY 19TH. SO IT'S A MOTION TO HOLD UNDER TWO ADVISEMENT TO TWO 19. THANK YOU FOR YOUR MOTION. COMMISSIONER SERATO, YOUR SECOND COMMISSIONER SIMS. ANY DISCUSSION? ALRIGHT, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? SAY NAY. THE MOTION CARRIES. WE MOVE [14. 26-184A An application for an amendment to Specific Use Permit 2467 for an alcoholic beverage establishment limited to a bar, lounge, or tavern and a commercial amusement (inside) on property zoned Planned Development District 619 with Specific Use Permit 2411 for an attached projecting non-premise district activity videoboard sign, on the northwest line of Elm Street, northeast of North Akard Street. Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions. Applicant: Sweet Tooth Hotel, Inc. Representative: Mattin Frost & Hill / Kyle V. Hill Planner: Oscar Aguilera Council District: 14 Z-25-000148] ON TO ITEM NUMBER 14. BACK TO YOU MR. AGUILERA. ITEM, UH, NUMBER 14 IS AN APPLICATION, UH, FOR AN AMENDMENT TO A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT. 24 67 FOR AN ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE ESTABLISHMENT, LIMITED TO A BAR, LOUNGE OR TAVERN AND A COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT INSIDE ON A PROPERTY ZONE PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT SIX 19 WITH A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT. 24 11 FOR NATASHA PROJECTING NON-PREMISE DISTRICT ACTIVITY VIDEO BOARD SIGN ON THE NORTHWEST LINE OF ELM STREET, NORTHEAST OF NORTH ACER STREET. THE STAFF, UH, RECOMMENDS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS AND THANK YOU MR. AGUILERA. IS THERE ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER 14? OKAY, NO SPEAKERS. WE'LL GO TO COMMISSIONER HAMPTON FOR A MOTION. THANK YOU MR. CHAIR IN THE MATTER OF Z DASH 25 DASH 0 0 0 1 48, I MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE THE REQUEST SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS, UM, FOR A FIVE YEAR PERIOD WITH NO AUTOMATIC RENEWAL. THANK YOU FOR YOUR MOTION. COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, COMMISSIONER HOUSE WRIGHT FOR YOUR SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? OKAY. UM, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? SAY NAY. THE MOTION CARRIES. [Items 15 & 16.] ALRIGHT. 15. ARE WE ABLE TO TAKE THESE TWO UP IN A SINGLE TOGETHER? IS IT ADJACENT AND WILL BE BOTH PUT UNDER ADVISEMENT? UH, YEAH, THAT WOULD BE FINE. OKAY, GREAT. UH, IS MS. HASHMI HERE? OKAY, MR. CHEMI, WE'RE GONNA READ IN 15 AND 16 TOGETHER. ITEM 15, AN [04:35:01] APPLICATION FOR A NEW PLAN DEVELOPMENT SUBDISTRICT ON PROPERTY ZONED R 7.5 RESIDENTIAL SUBDISTRICT WITHIN PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 6 31, THE WEST DAVIS SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICT WITH A SPECIAL USE PERMIT. 1 28 FOR CONVENT ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF WEST DAVIS STREET AND SOUTH COCHRAN HILL ROAD. STAFF. RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS. ITEM 16, UH, AN APPLICATION FOR A NEW PLAN DEVELOPMENT SUBDISTRICT ON PROPERTIES ZONE R 7.5 RESIDENTIAL SUBDISTRICT WITHIN PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 6 31, THE WEST DAVIS SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF WEST DAVIS STREET, WEST OF COCH HILL ROAD. STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS. THANK YOU MS. SHEMI. UH, MR. CROWLEY. I SEE HE DOESN'T HAVE ANY REMARKS. HE'S JUST HERE FOR QUESTIONS. DOES ANYONE ELSE WANNA SPEAK ON ITEMS 15 OR 16? YES SIR. HELLO, MY NAME IS, UH, FERNANDO TE HEINA. I LIVE AT 1 1 2 ARCHER. UH, IT'S ABOUT TWO BLOCKS FROM, UH, PROPOSED ZONE ZONING. ANY DEVELOPMENT WOULD MEAN WIDENING COCKER HILL ROAD SOUTH OF DAVIS. AND IN THE PAST, UH, SEVEN TO EIGHT YEARS, IT'S ALREADY BEEN WIDENED ONCE, SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON WITH THE SISTERS OF CHARITY OR ST. MICHAEL'S, BUT MY MY FEELINGS ARE, LEAVE IT ALONE. NOTHING HAS CHANGED THERE FOR 50 YEARS. IT'S ALMOST A SUFFICIENT TYPE CITY. IT'S FENCED IN AND PRIVATE. A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO, A FAMILY OF ROADRUNNERS LIVED THERE AND A FAMILY OF RED FOXES. I HAVEN'T SEEN THEM, SO I DON'T KNOW WHERE THEY'RE AT. AND I'D JUST LIKE TO ADD THAT I UNDERSTAND THE SISTER'S POSITIONS ON THAT PROPERTY. THEY'RE ELDERLY AND THEY HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION ON THAT PROPERTY BECAUSE AFFORDABILITY HAS BECOME A BIG ISSUE. MY, AGAIN, MY CONCERN IS ANY DEVELOPMENT WOULD MEAN WIDENING COCKE HILL ROAD MORE SOUTH OF DAVIS FOR TRAFFIC REASONS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. SIR, MR. CROWLEY, DID YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS IN REBUTTAL? CARL CROWLEY. THREE THREE. THREE THREE WELBURN. UM, UH, I'LL BE BRIEF, UH, 'CAUSE WE'RE GONNA HOLD THIS TILL FEBRUARY, WHATEVER, THE FIFTH, I GUESS. UM, THE SISTERS THAT HE MENTIONED, THE SISTERS OF CHARITY HAVE ACTUALLY SOLD THE PROPERTY. THE PROPERTY IS NOW OWNED BY THE CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF DALLAS. UM, AND THEY ARE REQUESTING IT. AND, AND TO BE HONEST, SOME OF THOSE USES AND THE BUILDINGS ARE PROBABLY CLOSE TO A HUNDRED YEARS OLD, MORE THAN 50 YEARS OLD. THE SISTERS HAVE OWNED THE PROPERTY, HAD OWNED THE PROPERTY SINCE PROBABLY FOR A HUNDRED YEARS. UM, THEY HAD RETIRED OUT, SHALL WE SAY. UM, THERE WERE, THEY HAD, THEIR NUMBERS ARE DWINDLED AND THEY'VE NOW MOVED BACK TO THEIR, FOR THE MOST PART TO THEIR HOME BASE IN OHIO. UM, SO THE DIOCESE, BASICALLY, THE REASON FOR THE ZONING CASE IS ALL THOSE USES THAT ARE ON THERE PRETTY MUCH ARE ALL NON-CONFORMING USES. AND THEY MADE, THEY NEED TO MAKE THEMSELVES CONFORMING. THEY ACTUALLY GOT A BREAK FROM ENCORE. ENCORE USUALLY DOESN'T GIVE C OR THE CITY DOESN'T GIVE COS TO NON-CONFORMING USES. AND ENCORE WON'T CHANGE THE POWER OVER, BUT IT'S THE DIOCESE. SO THEY GAVE 'EM A LITTLE BIT OF BREAK ON THAT ONE. WE'VE WORKED FOR THE STAFF, FIGURED IT OUT. WE NEED SOME MORE TIME 'CAUSE SOME ISSUES CAME UP LITERALLY IN THE LAST 24, 36 HOURS. UM, BUT FOR THE MOST PART IT IS TO MAKE OURSELVES CONFORMING. THE OTHER REQUESTS, I GUESS THE SECOND OF THE TWO REQUESTS, THAT WESTERN TRACT IS A VACANT TRACK OF LAND, AND THAT PROBABLY IS, IS UM, IS MORE PRIME FOR DEVELOPMENT, NOT ON DAVIS STREET. IT HAS ABOUT 50 FEET OF FRONTAGE ON DAVIS STREET, PROBABLY FOR SOME MULTI-FAMILY IN THE BACK PART OF THE PROPERTY. UM, THAT'S, OR, OR, OR SOMETHING [04:40:01] TO, TO THAT FACT. THE DIOCESE, UM, HAS NO DEVELOPERS IN MIND. THERE ARE NO CELL, THERE'S NONE OF THAT SORT OF STUFF. REALLY, THE MAIN PURPOSE OF THIS IS TO MAKE THEMSELVES CONFORMING. UM, IT DOES OBVIOUSLY OPEN UP SOME POTENTIAL, UM, FOR, FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT SOMEDAY IN THE FUTURE. MAYBE THE DIOCESE IS VERY STRICT ON WHO THEY MAY SELL OR LEASE THEIR PROPERTY TO. SO THEIR LIKELIHOOD OF ANYTHING THAT THE DIOCESE WOULD OBJECT TO. AND WE CAN, THAT'S, THAT'S YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. SO THANK YOU MR. CROWLEY. OKAY. UH, THAT CONCLUDES OUR PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE ITEM. COMMISSIONER SIMS, DO YOU, OR THE ITEMS I SHOULD SAY? COMMISSIONER SIMS, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? I DO. THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN, IN THE MATTER OF, UH, CASE Z 2 50 0 0 0 1 5 6 IN CASE Z 2 5 15 7. I MOVE THAT WE HOLD THESE CASES UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL OUR NEXT HEARING ON FEBRUARY 5TH, 2026. THANK YOU, COMM. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER SIMS FOR YOUR MOTION. COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT FOR YOUR SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED, SAY NAY. THE MOTION CARRIES. ALRIGHT, ITEM [17. 26-187A An application for a new planned development district for MF-2(A) Multifamily District uses on property zoned R-7.5(A) Single Family District, on the east corner of Worth Street and N. Peak Street. Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to a development plan and conditions. Applicant: Devonshire Ventures, LLC Planner: Martin Bate Council District: 2 Z-25-000015 / Z234-354] NUMBER 17. GOOD AFTERNOON. ITEM 17 IS CASE Z 25 DASH 0 0 0 0 1 5, ALSO KNOWN AS Z 2 3 4 DASH 3 54. AN APPLICATION FOR A NEW PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FOR MF TWO. A MULTIFAMILY DISTRICT USES ON PROPERTY ZONED R SEVEN FIVE, A SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT ON THE EAST CORNER OF WIRTH STREET IN NORTH PEAK STREET. STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND CONDITIONS. THANK YOU MR. BATE. UH, IS THERE ANYONE HERE WHO'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER 17? OKAY, WE'LL GO TO COMMISSIONER HAMPTON FOR A MOTION. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR IN THE MATTER OF Z DASH 25 0 0 0 0 1 5. I MOVE TO HOLD THE, UH, PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AND KEEP THIS MATTER UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL FEBRUARY THE FIFTH. GREAT. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT FOR YOUR SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? NO DISCUSSION. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED, SAY NAY. THE MOTION CARRIES. [18. 26-188A An application for a MF-2(A) Multifamily District on property zoned R-7.5(A) Single Family District, between the north terminus of North Boulevard Terrace and Plymouth Road. Staff Recommendation: Approval of a TH-3(A) Townhouse District. Applicant: Christian Chernock Representative: Audra Buckley U/A From: September 4, 2025 and October 9, 2025, and November 20, 2025. Planner: Martin Bate Council District: 1 Z-25-000069] ALRIGHT, LET'S GO TO ITEM NUMBER 18. ITEM 18 IS CASE Z 25 DASH 0 0 0 0 69. AN APPLICATION FOR AN MF TWO, A MULTI-FAMILY DISTRICT ON PROPERTY ZONED R SEVEN FIVE, A SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT BETWEEN THE NORTH TERMINUS OF NORTH BOULEVARD, TERRA, AND PLYMOUTH ROAD STAFF'S. RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL OF A TH THREE, A TOWNHOUSE DISTRICT. GREAT. THANK YOU. UH, MR. BATE. UH, MS. BUCKLEY, DID YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON THIS ONE OR JUST HERE FOR QUESTIONS? OKAY, GREAT. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER 18? NO SPEAKERS. WE'LL GO TO COMMISSIONER SIMS FOR A MOTION. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, IN THE MATTER OF Z TWO FIVE DASH 0 0 0 0 6 9. I MOVE. WE HOLD THIS CASE UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL OUR HEARING ON FEBRUARY 5TH, 2026. GREAT. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER SIMS FOR YOUR MOTION. COMMISSIONER CARPENTER FOR YOUR SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED, SAY NAY. THE MOTION CARRIES. ALRIGHT, WHY DON'T WE, UM, TAKE A 10 MINUTE BREAK. IT'S NOW THREE 11, UM, PM LET'S COME BACK AT 3 21. THANK YOU. OKAY. ALRIGHT, COMMISSIONERS, IT IS 3:24 PM AND THIS MEETING OF THE DALLAS CITY PLAN COMMISSION IS BACK ON THE RECORD. [19. 26-189A An application for a new Specific Use Permit for Commercial Motor Vehicle Parking on property zoned CS Commercial Service District with Special Use Permit 890 for a radio, television, or microwave tower, on the southwest line of S. Central Expy., between Youngblood Road and Lyndon B. Johnson Fwy. Staff Recommendation: Approval for a 10-year period with eligibility for automatic renewals for additional ten-year periods, subject to a site plan and conditions. Applicant: Masterplan - Andrew Ruegg U/A From: December 4, 2025. Planner: Oscar Aguilera Council District: 8 Z-25-000152] MR. AGUILERA CASE NUMBER 19. UM, UH, MR. CHAIR C OF THE PLAN COMMISSIONER, UH, CASE NUMBER 19 IS AN APPLICATION FOR A NEW SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR A COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLE PARKING ON A PROPERTY ZONE CS COMMERCIAL SERVICE DISTRICT WITH A SPECIAL USE PERMIT 8 9 0 FOR A RADIO, TELEVISION, OR MICROWAVE TOWER ON THE SOUTHWEST LINE OF SOUTH CENTRAL EXPRESSWAY BETWEEN, UH, YOUNGBLOOD ROAD AND LIGHTEN B JANSSEN FREEWAY STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVED FOR A 10 YEAR PERIOD WITH ELIGIBILITY FOR AUTOMATIC RENEWALS FOR ADDIT FOR AN ADDITIONAL 10 YEAR PERIOD SUBJECT TO A SITE PLAN AND CONDITIONS. GREAT. THANK YOU MR. AGUILERA. UH, MR. RUIC, GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIR MEMBERS OF THE PLAN COMMISSION. I HAVE A BRIEF PRESENTATION JUST TO SHOW YOU GUYS, UM, SOME ADDITIONAL VISUALS. I THINK I CAN PULL IT UP OVER HERE, [04:45:01] LET YOU HELP ME. I MIGHT HAVE A PDF OR MAYBE THAT WAS ONE HERE. LET ME PUT ON MY SIDE REAL QUICK. OKAY. IT WAS THIS ONE. AND IN THE INTEREST OF TIME, I'LL UM, START, UH, JUST TALKING ABOUT THE REQUEST AS, UH, WE GET THE P PRE PRESENTATION PULLED UP. BUT THIS IS AN SUP FOR COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLE PARKING, UH, IN A CS DISTRICT. UH, I THINK, AS YOU HEARD IN THE BRIEFING, THIS IS REQUIRED SINCE IT'S 500 FEET FROM A AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT, WHICH IS CONSIDERED RESIDENTIAL. UM, SITE IS PRIMARILY UNDEVELOPED. AND THIS PARTICULAR COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLE PARKING, I KNOW THAT'S A PRETTY WIDE NET OF WHAT, UM, IS TYPICALLY LOOKED AT FOR THAT. UH, BUT THIS PARTICULAR USE IS FOR, UM, TRUCK TRAILER STORAGE ONLY. I MEAN, THERE MIGHT BE AN OCCASIONAL, UM, TRUCK PARKED THERE, BUT THE, THE PRIMARY INTENT IS FOR EMPTY TRUCK TRAILER STORAGE, UH, IN THIS AREA. THIS IS NEAR THE INLAND PORT, UM, NOT NECESSARILY IN THOSE PD GEOGRAPHICAL BOUNDARIES, BUT THERE IS A NEED FOR THIS TYPE OF USE. AND, UM, WE'RE, YOU KNOW, ASKING FOR PERMISSION RATHER THAN FORGIVENESS LIKE SOME OTHER, UM, OPERATORS OR PEOPLE HAVE ATTEMPTED TO IN THE AREA. UM, THIS IS A, THIS WILL BE A LOW TRAFFIC GENERATING USE. SO IT'S REALLY, IT'S REALLY A STORAGE YARD FOR TRUCK TRAILERS. UH, TYPICALLY WHAT HAPPENS IS IT'LL BE A COMPANY OR AN INDIVIDUAL WILL, UH, DROP OFF THEIR TRUCK TRAILER AT THIS, UH, LOCATION. THEY'LL HAVE IT STORED AND THEN, YOU KNOW, WHEN THEY NEED IT FOR A TRIP DOWN TO HOUSTON OR A TRIP, UH, MAYBE EVEN A LOCAL TRIP, THEY'LL PICK IT UP. UM, BUT THE OPERATOR, UM, HAS WORKED WITH IN THIS BUSINESS FOR A WHILE. THERE'S A MILESTONE TRAILER RENTAL JUST SOUTH, ACTUALLY IN HUTCHINS. OH, HERE WE GO. I THINK I GOT SOME VISUALS TO SHOW YOU TOO. UH, THAT OPERATE SIMILARLY. SO THIS IS NOT CONTAINER STORAGE. UM, IT'S, UH, PRIMARILY FOR TRUCK, UH, TRUCK TRAILER STORAGE. UH, THIS SITES HAS, UH, GREAT ACCESS TO HIGHWAYS, SO IT KIND OF MINIMIZES ANY, UH, TRIPS NEAR EXISTING RESIDENTIAL. SO I THINK I CAN FLIP THROUGH. UM, ARE YOU CONTROLLING IT? OKAY, , THANKS. UM, IF YOU, IF, UH, IF YOU'LL GO, UH, YEAH, THIS IS A GOOD VISUAL. I MEAN, THE SITE IS HERE IN RED, AND AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE AERIAL, IT'S SURROUNDED BY, UH, DENSE VEGETATION. UH, IF YOU'LL JUST KEEP FLIPPING THROUGH, UH, PLEASE. UH, I WANTED TO POINT OUT A COUPLE THINGS HERE. UM, WHAT, WHICH IS WHAT MAKES US THIS FEEL COMPATIBLE? UH, YOU REALLY WON'T BE ABLE TO SEE THIS SITE FROM THE ROAD OR THE SURROUNDING AREA. THERE'S A VERY DENSE VEGETATION SURROUNDING THE SITE. IT HAS AN SUP FOR A CELL TOWER, WHICH IS NO LONGER IN USE, BUT IT'S ESSENTIALLY A SITE THAT'S, UH, MOSTLY CLEARED IN THE MIDDLE OF A VERY, VERY HEAVILY WOODED AREA. SO, UM, PART OF, UH, WHY WE THINK THIS IS APPROPRIATE USE HERE IS IT'S HEAVILY SCREENED ON ALL SIDES. WE'VE INCREASED OUR, UH, TREE PRESERVATION LANDSCAPE AREA SURROUNDING THE SITE AS PART OF, UM, COMMUNICATIONS WITH, UH, STAFF AND, UH, COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN. AND, UM, WE HEARD SOME OF THE DISCUSSION EARLIER THIS MORNING AT THE BRIEFING, UH, TO REMOVE GRAVEL FROM THE SITE PLAN. WE'RE CERTAINLY OPEN TO THAT. UM, ADDITIONALLY, WE HAVE HAD SOME, UH, ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS PROPOSED TO LIMIT THE NUMBER OF TRUCK TRIPS PER DAY, UM, AND ALSO, UH, PROHIBIT STACKING OF FREIGHT CONTAINERS, JUST FRANKLY BECAUSE IT'S NOT PART OF THE, UH, PROPOSED BUSINESS HERE. UM, AND THAT OBVIOUSLY, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE KEEPING THINGS LOWER TO THE GROUND TO PREVENT ANYBODY FROM SEEING THIS AND THINKING OF IT AS A VISUAL NUISANCE. SO, UH, WITH THAT, UH, HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AND I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. MR. RUE. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO'D LIKE TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THIS ITEM? DO WE HAVE SPEAKERS IN OPPOSITION? CASE NUMBER 19 C 25 0 0 0 1 5 2. YOU SEE, WE HAVE AS FEW SPEAKERS ONLINE OR ANY OF THEM ONLINE. OKAY. MEIA MOGAS. MEIA MOGAS. OKAY. NASIR ALI. IS NASIR ALI ONLINE? [04:50:03] HELLO? GREAT. UH, YEAH, ARE YOU ABLE TO TURN ON YOUR CAMERA? STATE LAW REQUIRES YOUR CAMERA TO BE ON IN ORDER FOR US TO HEAR FROM YOU REMOTELY. OKAY. THERE WE GO. UH, MR. ALI, WHENEVER YOU'RE READY. UH, PLEASE START YOUR COMMENTS WITH YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. YES, THANK YOU. HI, MY NAME IS NAALI AND I'M REPRESENTING FOUR PROPERTIES AT JETSON TO THIS PROPERTY. UH, ONE IS A PRIVATE LAND HOUSE, 12,000 SQUARE FEET. WE HAVE A PROPERTY 1.7 ACRE SEVEN, 1.74 ACRE LAND ON THE NEXT TO THIS PROPERTY. ON THE PARALLEL OF THIS DAVIS ROAD, WE HAVE A PROPERTY, THREE ACRE LAND, UH, NEXT TO THIS PROPERTY ALSO THERE, THE HOUSE AND NEXT TO THE HOUSE, THREE ACRE PROPERTY. AND WE HAVE A 11 ACRE LAND, UH, ALSO, UH, NEXT TO THIS PROPERTY. PLUS, UH, I THINK, UH, MAR ASH. SHE WAS, UH, UH, TRIED TO, UH, COME BEFORE ME BECAUSE SHE IS BASICALLY OWNING THE FOR ACRES PROPERTY BEHIND THIS, UH, SURROUNDING ALL THIS, UH, PROPERTY. AND I THINK, UH, THEY'RE WORKING WITH THE CITY OF DALLAS TO DO THE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT OVER THERE. VERY HIGH END, HIGH VALUE. AND THEY'RE REQUESTING US TO GIVE US SOME ACCESS BECAUSE THEY HAVE A SHORTAGE OF, UH, THEY HAVE ONLY ONE ACCESS. AND THEY, THEY ASKED ME TO GIVE US THE ACCESS FROM 1.74 ACRE LAND, WHICH WE ARE AGREED BECAUSE OF THE, UH, COMING UP A VERY NICE PROJECT IN THIS AREA. AND WE THOUGHT THAT THIS IS A GOOD, UH, IDEA TO, UH, IMPROVE THIS AREA. AND SAME TIME, WE HAVE SOME POTENTIAL BUYER WHO IS BASICALLY LOOKING FOR A RESORT AREA ON 1.7, 1.7 ACRE LAND NEXT TO THIS PROPERTY ON THE HILLSIDE, ON THE TOP OF THE MOUNTAIN. AND I THINK, UH, THE, UH, ELEVATION AND THE, UH, VIEW FROM THIS LOCATION WITH THE CITY OF DALLAS IS IN THE NIGHTTIME. AND THE DAYTIME IS AMAZING. AND I THINK THIS IS A GOOD IDEA. SOMEBODY HAS TRIED TO DO A SPECIAL RESORT, UH, UH, UH, UH, KIND OF A PROJECT. UH, THEY SHOW US, UH, VERY GOOD DESIGNING ABOUT, THEY HAVE DONE SOMEWHERE IN OTHER COUNTRIES, WHICH IS A INDIVIDUAL, UH, LOTS, UH, WITH THE INDIVIDUAL, UH, LIVING SHORT TERM LIVING, UH, LIKE A RESORT. AND IT'S A HIGHEND HIGH, UH, HIGH-END, HIGH VALUE PROPERTIES. SO WE HAVE A FIVE VEHICLE LAND ALSO WITH A 12,000 SQUARE FEET HOUSE WITH A 12 BEDROOMS. WE ARE TRYING TO REMODEL THIS HOUSE ALSO MAKING A VERY NICE, WE ALREADY SPENT A LOT OF MONEY TO DEVELOP THIS PROPERTY. PLUS, UH, WE HAVE A LAND, WHICH WE ARE THINKING IS ALL THE DEVELOPMENT IS COMING. SO WE ARE REALLY, REALLY CONSIDERED TO DEVELOP CRITICAL LAND TO SOME, UH, TOWN HOME AND ICAL LAND. ALSO, UH, MAYBE SOME KIND OF, UH, UH, AFFORDABLE HOUSING OR BECAUSE A SHORTAGE OF, UH, HOUSING IS, IS, UH, A LOT OF DEMAND IN THE DALLAS AREA. I SEE THAT THERE'S A LOT OF SHORT SHORTAGE OF HOUSING. SO WE ARE THINKING IF ALL THE DEVELOPMENT IS COMING. SO WE WILL ALSO COMING UP AND WE, THIS IDEA THAT TO MAKE, UH, SOME TOWN HOME OR SOME KIND OF, UH, SMALL AFFORDABLE CONSULTING. AND THAT'S YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, SIR. OH, REALLY? THANK YOU, SIR. AND I DON'T KNOW IF I CAUGHT YOUR ADDRESS. CAN YOU PROVIDE THAT FOR THE RECORD? MY ADDRESS IS, UH, UH, I LIVE IN PRISCO, TEXAS. UH, ADDRESS IS 5 9 4 8 LIN DRIVE, PRISCO, TEXAS 7 5 0 3 4. OKAY. THANK YOU SO MUCH. UH, NEXT ONLINE SPEAKER, UH, HAN NO, NOT ONLINE. AND, UH, MALIK BAHA. I THINK THEY'RE THE WHAT? THEY'RE NOT SORRY. I COULDN'T CATCH THAT, SIR. I SAID THAT THEY'RE, THEY'RE ALSO AVAILABLE THIS MORNING AND WE ARE TALKING, OKAY. BECAUSE THESE ARE THE PEOPLE WHO, WHO'S OWN THE FOR PICKER PROPERTY, AND THEY'RE ASKING THE ACCESS FROM MY PROPERTY. I THINK, I THINK THERE WAS SOME MICROPHONE PROBLEM. THEY'RE AFFECTING ME. SO DOES MALIK BHA, DOES THEY HAVE COMMENTS THAT THEY'D LIKE TO MAKE? HOLD YEAH. CALLING MAYBE. [04:55:02] OKAY. YES, YES, YES. SO I CANNOT, UH, UNMUTE MYSELF. I THINK, UH, YOU HEAR ME? I, I'M SORRY. YEAH. WHO IS THIS SPEAKING? YEAH, THIS IS MAR MOSS. I'M TALKING, I'M DEPARTMENT OF . UH, UH, MS. MOHA DES, COULD YOU PLEASE TURN ON YOUR CAMERA? STATE LAW REQUIRES US TO HAVE A VIDEO IN ORDER FOR YOU TO SPEAK REMOTELY AT THIS MEETING. YEAH, THAT'S THE REASON. I DUNNO IF GIVING A OR IF I CAN'T UNDERSTAND THE CAMERA OR MICROPHONE. THE, THE QUALITY OF YOUR AUDIO IS VERY FUZZY, SO IT'S DIFFICULT TO HEAR YOU. ARE YOU ABLE TO TURN YOUR CAMERA ON? I THINK SHE'S ACTUALLY, I'M BASICALLY PUTTING ON THE TELEPHONE AND SHE'S . OH, SHE'S ON YOUR PHONE. OKAY. YEAH, YEAH. IF YOU DON'T HAVE VIDEO, MA'AM, WE'RE NOT ABLE TO HEAR FROM YOU UNDER STATE LAW. SORRY. IT'S A REQUIREMENT THAT AUSTIN MAKES, UM, NOT ONE THAT WE SET OURSELVES. SO DOCTOR ANNIE IS, ALI IS THE PARTNER WITH ME IN , AND HE, HE'S ON BEHALF OF ME. I, I ALREADY EXPLAINED TO HIM THAT YOU ARE REQUESTING, UH, ACCESS FROM, UH, MY LINE. AND I SAID, OKAY, BECAUSE THIS IS A VERY GOOD PROJECT. I THINK, UH, THEY ALREADY SUBMITTED TO THE PLAN, TO THE, UH, OKAY. UH, IT'S, SO DOES SHE HAVE COMMENTS THAT SHE WOULD LIKE TO GIVE? I'M SORRY. IT'S, WE CAN'T SEE YOUR MOUTH, SIR. IT'S VERY HARD TO FOLLOW YOU. ARE YOU ABLE TO PULL YOUR, CAN YOU HEAR ME RIGHT NOW? YOU STRAIGHT DOWN RECORD THAT. YEAH. IF, IF WE DON'T HAVE VIDEO OF YOU, MA'AM, WE'RE NOT ALLOWED TO HEAR FROM YOU. I, I DO APOLOGIZE. BUT IT'S A STATE LAW REQUIREMENT. YEAH, THAT'S OKAY. ALRIGHT. ARE THERE ANY I CAN VIDEO CALL IF ALLOW ME, I CAN HAVE A VIDEO CALL WITH HER SO I CAN SHOW YOU THE CAMERA WITH YOU GUYS. SIR, I'M GONNA NEED YOU TO, TO SPEAK UP. YOU'RE, YOU'RE KIND OF TRAILING OFF. HOLD ON, MR. CHAIRMAN. POINT OF ORDER. I BELIEVE THE SPEAKER'S TIME HAS EXPIRED AND I DON'T BELIEVE THE LAW PERMITS US TO HEAR OKAY. TESTIMONY BY A, A VIDEO PHONE NEXT POINTING TO A CAMERA. AND, AND THAT'S WHAT MS. MORRISON IS SAYING AS WELL. SO UNFORTUNATELY WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO HEAR FROM MS. MAHO DAS. SO I BELIEVE THAT CONCLUDES OUR LIST OF, OF ONLINE SPEAKERS. OH, MALIK BAHA, ARE YOU ONLINE? IS THAT THE, THE GENTLEMAN IN THE MIDDLE. OKAY. UH, UH, MR. BAHA, IF YOU CAN UNMUTE YOURSELF, UH, WE CAN HEAR YOUR, WE CAN TAKE YOUR COMMENTS. OKAY. CAN YOU, CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? YES, WE CAN HEAR YOU NOW. SO PLEASE START WITH YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND THEN WE'LL BE HAPPY TO HEAR FROM YOU. OKAY. MALIK MALIK BHA 5 7 6 1 BURN LAND, PLANO, TEXAS 7 5 0 2 4. AND, UH, I'M A PARTNER OF, UH, THAT 40 ACRE LAND ON 1 0 4 0 7 SOUTH CENTRAL EXPRESSWAY NEARBY. AND, UH, REALLY APPRECIATE ALLOWING ME TO TALK TO YOU GUYS. YOU KNOW, I'M HERE TO RESPECTIVELY OPPOSE THE PROPOSED ZONING CHANGE TO ALLOW TRUCK PARKING. THE AREA HAS DEVELOPED, LIKE, UH, NASIR ALI HAS ALREADY MENTIONED THAT WE HAVE A PLAN TO DEVELOP WITH THE RESIDENTIAL, WHICH IS, UH, WILL BE THE BENEFIT FOR THE NEIGHBOR SURROUNDING AND, UM, UH, SOME KIND OF RESORT DEAL ALSO, UM, INCLUDING MYSELF, UH, LOOKING FOR THE LONG TERM PLAN FOR SINGLE PLAN FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND ALIGNED WITH THE EXISTING CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. INTRODUCING, I'M, I'M, THAT'S WHAT MY THOUGHT IS, YOU KNOW, TO BRINGING THE TRUCK PARKING IN THAT AREA WITH THE HEAVY, UH, TRAFFIC AND, UM, INCREASING NOISE AND EVERYTHING. UH, IT'S JUST GONNA BE DIFFICULT FOR THE RESIDENTIAL, UH, IN THAT NATURE TO LIVE UP THERE. UH, THAT AREA IS GREAT. I MEAN, I HAVE BEEN ON THIS THING FOR A LONG TIME AND THIS IS WHAT MY VISION HAS ALWAYS BEEN TO HAVE, UH, SUCH A NICE, UH, I WANNA PUT SOMETHING LIKE A JOE POOL AREA. UH, THEY HAVE A, UH, ON A MOUNTAIN HILLY AREA. THEY HAVE A LOT OF, UH, HIGH END RESIDENTIAL [05:00:01] ALSO THAT'S ALSO IN OUR MIND TO DO THAT, YOU KNOW, SO THAT'S, UH, WHY, UH, WE ARE KIND OF OPPOSING THAT, UH, BECAUSE OF THE, THAT AREA IS SURROUNDED BY, UH, RESIDENTIAL ALSO. AND, UH, MR. ALI HAS ALREADY GAVE YOU A LOT OF, UH, BRIEF, UH, REGARDING HOW WE GONNA BE, UH, UH, PROCEEDING FOR THE LONG TERM OF THIS DEVELOPMENT IN THAT AREA WHERE IT BE BENEFIT FOR THE CITY ALSO. AND, UH, AND, UH, AND ALSO TO THE PEOPLE. UH, WE ARE LOOKING AT VERY HIGH END, ALL DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS. ALSO, WE HAD PAST INQUIRY ABOUT PUTTING A LAGOON TYPE RESORT ALSO, BUT UNFORTUNATELY DURING THE COVID TIME, IT DID NOT, UH, GO THROUGH WELL, UH, BECAUSE OF THE COMMUNICATION. AND THERE WAS SOME BIG TIME INVESTOR IN THERE, YOU KNOW, SO WE ARE HOPING AT THIS TIME THAT, YOU KNOW, FOR THE SAFE OF THE, THE NEIGHBOR, UH, SAFETY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, YOU KNOW, UH, THIS IS WHAT WE WANNA DO IT FOR, THE LAND UP THERE TO DEVELOP WITH, UH, SUCH A PRIORITY. THAT'S YOUR TIME. THANK YOU TO PRODUCER. THANK YOU SO MUCH, GUYS. THANK YOU, SIR. I REALLY APPRECIATE. OKAY. ALRIGHT. I BELIEVE THAT CONCLUDES OUR, UM, ONLINE SPEAKERS. GO BACK TO MR. RUE FOR A TWO MINUTE REBUTTAL SINCE THERE WAS OPPOSITION. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. UM, I DID RECEIVE A OPPOSITION LETTER FROM THE FIRST GENTLEMAN THAT SPOKE, UM, I BELIEVE, I THINK HE MENTIONED TO, HE IS PART OF A IN INVESTOR GROUP OR PARTNERS FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS LAND. UM, GAVE 'EM A COUPLE CALLS, DIDN'T RECEIVE A CALL BACK, WHICH IS FINE. UM, BUT I THINK FROM WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT TODAY, UH, FOR THIS PARTICULAR SUP REQUEST, UM, WE DO HAVE A TIME LIMIT IN HERE. AND I THINK THIS USE IS APPROPRIATE FOR TODAY. IF IT DOES CHANGE IN THE FUTURE, IF THE AREA DOES CHANGE OVER, SUCH AS THEIR FUTURE VISION, WE'RE CERTAINLY OPEN TO COMING BACK TO THIS BOARD AND, UH, BRINGING THE REQUEST FORWARD FOR RENEWAL. OR MAYBE THE PLANS CHANGE, UM, TO NOT DO THAT. BUT FOR THE PRESENT TIME, I THINK THIS IS REQUEST IS APPROPRIATE. I THINK WE COULD STILL BE A COMPATIBLE USE WITH OUR, UH, SIGNIFICANT TREE PRESERVATION BUFFERS SURROUNDING OUR SITE. UM, AND WE'RE ALSO, YOU KNOW, FRANKLY, IT'S NOT, UM, THE LARGEST INVESTMENT TO HAVE TRUCK TRAILER PARKING. SO IT'S ALSO SOMETHING THAT CAN BE REPURPOSED IN THE FUTURE. I DO THINK THIS SERVES A NEED FOR TODAY. UM, LIKE I SPOKE TO IN MY COMMENTS EARLIER, THAT THIS IS A NEED IN THE, UH, SURROUNDING INLAND PORT AREA FOR THESE, UM, UH, STORAGE, STORAGE AREAS FOR TRUCK TRAILERS. UM, HOW, YOU KNOW, HOW THE AREA ULTIMATELY CHANGES IN THE FUTURE. THIS, THAT'S THE REASON THIS IS AN SUP. IT'LL HAVE A TIME LIMIT. AND, UM, WITH THAT, I, UH, UH, RESPECTFULLY, UH, REQUEST APPROVAL AND, UH, HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. RUE. OKAY, WE'LL GO TO COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN FOR A MOTION. UH, BEFORE MY MOTION, I ASK MR. ROOK, UH, A QUESTION, UH, TYPICALLY BE DUE, THE, OKAY. OKAY. ALRIGHT. HERE'S THE MOTION IN THE MATTER OF CASE NUMBER Z 2 5 0 0 0 1 5 2. UH, MO MOVE TO APPROVE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGES. UH, THE SUP IS APPROVED FOR FIVE YEARS WITH NO ELIGIBILITY FOR AUTOMATIC RENEWALS. UH, THE SITE PLAN IS AMENDED TO REMOVE THE WORD GRAVEL. INGRESS AND EGRESS OF COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLES IS LIMITED TO SIX PER DAY. AND OUTDOOR STACKING OF FREIGHT CONTAINERS IS PROHIBITED. THANK YOU FOR YOUR MOTION. COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN, FOR YOUR SECOND COMMISSIONER SIMS, ANY COMMENTS OR I GUESS YOU HAD QUESTIONS FOR MR. RIG? WELL, I'LL JUST GO AHEAD WITH MY, MY COMMENTS ON THE OH, YEAH. WHICHEVER YOU'D LIKE TO DO FIRST. YES. UH, 'CAUSE I, I'VE SPENT SOME TIME WITH MR. REIG TO, TO GO THROUGH THIS AND, UM, AND ALSO, UH, ONCE I RECEIVED THE, THE LETTER OF OPPOSITION FROM MR. ALI, UH, REACHED OUT TO HIM IMMEDIATELY AND NEVER GOT A RESPONSE BACK. AND TODAY'S THE FIRST TIME I'VE HEARD FROM HIM. BUT, UH, CONSIDERING WHAT THE, THE FUTURE VISION IS FOR, UH, THIS AREA, WE SPENT A LOT OF TIME ON FORT DALLAS 2.0. AND BASED ON THE FEEDBACK AND THE ULTIMATE VOTE, UH, THIS AREA, UH, WAS IDENTIFIED TO BE AN AREA FOR REGIONAL MIXED USE. NOW, AND I WILL ADMITTEDLY SAY [05:05:01] THAT, THAT THE PROPOSED USE IS NOT IDEAL FOR ME. IT'S A SECONDARY USE AND EVERYTHING THAT THE OPPOSITION HAS ENVISIONED FOR THIS AREA, I THINK THAT THAT'S COMPLETELY AWESOME AND WILL BE BE GREAT IF IT COMES TO PASS. BUT SINCE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TODAY AND LAND USE FOR TODAY, IT'S CURRENTLY DESIGNED, IT IS CURRENTLY ZONED AS CS, WHICH MEANS THAT THERE COULD BE MORE INTENSIVE USES FOR THIS AREA THAN WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED AND WORKING WITH, UH, THE APPLICANT TO TRY TO MINIMIZE THE TRAFFIC AND IMPACT FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT. THIS IS WHAT WE ULTIMATELY CAME BACK WITH, WITH THE LANDSCAPE BUFFERS, NO LIMITING TRAFFIC GOING IN AND OUT AND DECREASING OR REDUCING THE SUP YEARS. SO IF THERE IS FUTURE DEVELOPMENT TO CHANGE IT TO SOMETHING ELSE TO BE MORE CONSISTENT. UH, SO WITH ALL THOSE THINGS COMBINED, I THINK THIS IS THE BEST CASE SCENARIO FOR THIS AREA TO MEET THE NEEDS AS WELL AS, UH, POSITION OF THIS AREA FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH FOR DALLAS 2.0. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN, COMMISSIONER WHEELER, I, WE ARE ALLOWED TO ASK, UM, COMMISSIONER ANDREW. OH, COMMISSIONER. MM-HMM . THIS IS TIME FOR BOTH DISCUSSION AND QUESTIONS. I, I, I AGREE WITH THE MAJORITY OF, UH, WHAT, UH, COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN HAS SAID. UM, BUT I DO HAVE A CONCERN ON THE LIMIT AMOUNT, KNOWING HAVING VAST KNOWLEDGE OF TRUCKING. UM, THE SIX SIX IS, IS SUPER, SUPER, SUPER TIGHT. AND, UM, I WOULD, I WOULD POSSIBLY WANT TO, UM, OFFER AN AMENDMENT TO 10 BECAUSE SIX IS SUPER TIGHT AND IT WOULD ALMOST COULD LEAD THEM TO A, UM, A VIOLATION OF THAT SUP. UM, AND, AND WHAT, WHAT WAS THE PROPOSAL FROM, FROM YOU ALL? OR WAS THERE NO PROPOSAL? SO, UH, KIND OF WHERE WE LANDED ON SIX, UH, TRIPS PER DAY. I MEAN, IT'S GONNA BE A LOW TRAFFIC USE AND WE WANTED TO MEMORIALIZE THAT IN THE PD, OR SORRY, THE SUP CONDITIONS. UM, THE INTENT IS REALLY, YOU KNOW, HONESTLY, WE, UH, THE, THE, THE OWNER SAID, WELL, YOU KNOW, WE'RE PROBABLY GONNA AVERAGE ABOUT THREE TO FIVE TRIPS, UH, PER DAY. AND I'D SAY, LET'S, LET'S PUT AT SIX JUST IN CASE YOU HAVE A HIGH TRAFFIC DAY. I MEAN, 10 WOULD PROVIDE THAT FLEXIBILITY. UM, FOR THERE, IT'S GONNA BE, I THINK WE ALL KNOW IT'LL BE A TOUGH THING TO, UH, ACTUALLY REGULATE, BUT IF YOU HAVE THE RULES IN PLACE, YOU'LL KNOW, HEY, I NEED TO, UM, COORDINATE THE SCHEDULE AROUND WHO CAN COME IN, WHO CAN COME OUT AROUND THESE SUP CONDITIONS. SO THAT WAS THE INTENT OF IT. AND, AND THEN THAT LEADS TO MY CONCERN DOING A PEAK, DOING PEAK TRACK, PEAK TRUCKING PERIOD, WHICH IS HOLIDAYS AND, AND SUMMER THAT SIX IS SIX IS, IS SUPER TIGHT. AND WE, I WAS HOPING AND ASKING, WOULD YOU CONSIDER 10, WHICH IS STILL LOW, I MEAN HIGH, I MEAN YELLOW, UH, BEFORE I, I RESPOND ON THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT. MAY I ASK? YEAH, GO AHEAD. YEAH. BASED ON THE, THE, THE NATURE OF THE BUSINESS THAT THE OPERATOR IS IN, UH, IS IT SEASONAL WHERE THERE WILL BE PEAKS AND AND VALLEYS IN THE, THE, THE USE OF THE TRUCKS? I, I THINK IT IS CORRECT, UM, THAT THERE WILL BE SOME SEASONAL VARIATION, PARTICULARLY AROUND, UH, THE HOLIDAYS. YOU KNOW, THERE'S A LOT MORE DEMAND AND NEED FOR, UM, JUST THE WHOLE BUS, THE, THE TRUCKING BUSINESS IN GENERAL. SO, YOU KNOW, I THINK IT WOULD BE SAFER TO HAVE, UM, A BIT OF A HIGHER NUMBER. BUT WHAT WE'VE COMMITTED TO WAS, UM, THAT I'VE SHARED WITH YOU WAS WE COULD MAKE SIX WORK, UM, BUT OBVIOUSLY, YOU KNOW, WE WANT TO SAY WHAT WE'LL ACT, WHAT WE'LL DO AND, AND HAVE THAT MEMORIALIZED IN THE CONDITIONS. COMMISSIONER WHEELER, DID YOU WANNA POSE A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT? I, I, I DID BECAUSE DOING HIGH A SEASON WHEN, WHEN TRUCK RENTALS, WHEN NOT ONLY TRUCK, TRUCK, UM, TRUCK RENTALS ARE OUTSOURCED MORE, UM, YOU SEE DOING OR HERTZ AND THOSE, THOSE, THOSE ARE EVEN ASKED, THEY START RENTING FROM DIFFERENT COMPANIES INSTEAD OF JUST USING THEIRS. THAT'S JUST THE KNOWLEDGE ME HAVING OF THE TRUCKING BUSINESS, THAT THAT 10 IS STILL LOW. UM, BUT IT'S SAFE SO THAT, THAT IT CAN BE REGULATED. UH, COMMISSIONER, WE'LL GO TO COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN AND WE'LL GO TO YOU. COMMISSIONER SERRATO. UH, COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN, DO YOU ACCEPT THAT FRIENDLY AMENDMENT OR IS THAT AN UNFRIENDLY AMENDMENT THAT WOULD JUST HAVE TO BE MADE THROUGH THE NORMAL PROCESS? I JUST NEED THREE SECONDS TO TO THINK ON THAT, JUST BECAUSE I'M CONSIDERING THE SUP RUNS WITH THE LAND. MM-HMM . AND UNDERSTANDING [05:10:01] HOW ENFORCEMENT MAY WORK. IF SOMEONE ELSE TAKES, YOU KNOW, PURCHASE THE LAND WHERE THEY ABUSE IT AND GO WELL ABOVE 10. ABOVE 10. UM, SO KEEPING THE NUMBER LOW, MAY UM, LEMME THINK ABOUT THAT. DO YOU WANT US TO GO TO COMMISSIONER SERATO WHILE YOU THINK COMMISSIONER SERATO? YES, I WAS GONNA SAY LIKE, UM, AND THIS MAY JUST BE A GAP IN MY KNOWLEDGE HERE, BUT HOW WOULD SOMETHING LIKE THAT EVEN BE REGULATED OR ENFORCED? AND IS THERE A NEED TO INCLUDE THAT LIMIT OR IS THAT JUST TO HOLD THIS, THIS PARTICULAR APPLICANT ACCOUNTABLE? UM, BUT NOT NECESSARILY , IT'S AN ENFORCEABLE THING, YOU KNOW, SO FOR FUTURE, UM, YOU KNOW, OCCUPANTS OF THIS LAND, IT MAY, IT MAY NOT, YOU KNOW, MAKE A DIFFERENCE TO HAVE THAT RE I DON'T KNOW HOW OFTEN SOMETHING LIKE THAT IS INCLUDED IN AN SUP LIKE REGULATING TRAFFIC THAT WAY WHEN IT IS LIKELY NOT GOING TO BE ENFORCED OR REGULATED. THAT A QUESTION FOR MAYBE, MAYBE MAKING WRONG ASSUMPTIONS HERE, BUT IS THAT A QUESTION FOR STAFF? SURE. OKAY. . GREAT. MR. PEPE. YES, I, I DO APPRECIATE THAT. AND, AND WHEN I, WHEN I HEARD IT, I, I, I WAS A LITTLE BIT WORRIED 'CAUSE I, I'LL BE HONEST, LET'S THINK ABOUT THE CONDITIONS THAT WE ARE WELL SET UP TO REGULATE HERE. UH, REALLY COMMONLY IT'S THINGS THAT ARE DEAL WITH THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT. UM, NOT NECESSARILY THINGS THAT OCCUR ON A, ON A TIME BASIS, RIGHT? BECAUSE IF, IF YOU SEE SOMETHING, I MEAN, JUST THINK ABOUT IT WHEN YOU, WHEN YOU HAVE SEE, UH, AN ACTIVITY OCCURRING THAT MAYBE CODE ENFORCEMENT SHOULD OR, OR SHOULD, SHOULD POTENTIALLY ACT ON. UM, IT'S A LOT EASIER TO, TO REGULATE ZONING WHEN IT'S SOMETHING THAT IS ABOUT THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT. SO I WOULD CAUTION THAT IT, IT CAN BE A, I'M, I'M SURE YOU COULD PUT IT IN THE SUP AND THINK, YOU KNOW, THINK THAT IT'S LIKE THE STANDARD OR THE HOPE FOR THE PROPERTY, BUT, UH, I DON'T THINK THE CITY CAN MAKE GUARANTEES ABOUT, UM, ENFORCEMENT OF THAT. YEAH, I WAS JUST THINKING IN, IN A LOT IT WOULD REQUIRE CODE TO KNOW THAT THEIR LIMIT IS 10 OR SIX AND YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW THAT CODE ENFORCEMENT WOULD, WOULD HAVE THAT ON HAND NECESSARILY, KNOWING THAT LIKE, WELL, THERE'S SIX OR 10 AND THEN THEY'RE STANDING THERE ALL DAY, YOU KNOW, WATCHING INCOMING AND UPCOMING TRAFFIC. IT JUST SEEMS LIKE SOMETHING NOT TOTALLY ENFORCEABLE. AND I, I UNDERSTAND THE, THE ACCOUNTABILITY FACTOR HERE WITH THE CURRENT APPLICANT, UM, YOU KNOW, RES, YOU KNOW, KIND OF RESTRICTING THAT OVERFLOW OF TRAFFIC. UM, BUT JUST THINKING PRACTICALLY FOR THE FUTURE, WHETHER SIX OR 10 OR NOTHING MAKES MORE SENSE. THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. YEAH, NO, I MEAN, I, I AGREE , UM, I, I, AND, AND, AND I SAY THAT ONLY WHILE RECOGNIZING THAT THAT, YOU KNOW, THE INTENT I UNDERSTAND THE INTENT IS, IS, IS REALLY A WELL-MEANING UM, THING, BUT I WILL CAUTION THAT, UM, IT, IT, IT CAN'T BE A PROMISE BY THE CITY THAT WE CAN ENFORCE IT. WELL, OKAY, COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN, ARE YOU READY TO MAKE A CALL ON THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT? YES, I'LL ACCEPT THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT. OKAY. YOU WILL ACCEPT THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT. WE WILL GO TO 10. OKAY. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON CASE? I HAVE A, I WAS, BECAUSE CONSIDER CAN I ASK, THAT'S WHAT I WAS ABOUT. WE WILL, I WILL RECOGNIZE YOU COMMISSIONER FORSYTH. SO WE JUST HEARD THE PLAN OR RECOMMEND TO US THAT PUTTING A A AN ARBITRARY NUMBER IS, IS PROBABLY NOT GONNA BE ENFORCEABLE. SO, I MEAN, IS THIS A PRACTICAL THING TO PUT A NUMBER ON OF TRUCK TRIPS PER DAY WHEN IT'S NOT ENFORCEABLE FROM A PRACTICAL PERSPECTIVE? I, I WILL, I MEAN, I GUESS I WOULD, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT SOUNDS LIKE A QUESTION TO COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN ABOUT WHETHER HE'D LIKE TO KEEP THAT REQUIREMENT GIVEN THE PRACTICAL SORT OF ISSUES THAT HAD BEEN RAISED. UH, YES. AND, AND THE REASONS BEING, AND I CONSIDERED THAT AND WE'VE DISCUSSED, YOU KNOW, THE ENFORCEABILITY, 'CAUSE WE HAVE SO MANY ORDINANCES RIGHT NOW BASED ON THE RESOURCES THAT THE CITY HAS. IT JUST AREN'T BEING ENFORCED. BUT THERE IS A POTENTIAL FOR SOMEONE TO ABUSE, YOU KNOW, TO GO WELL BEYOND WHAT WAS STATED TO US AND WHAT THE IMPACT ON THE STREET WOULD BE. BECAUSE THE GOAL HERE IS TO, TO LIMIT, UH, TRAFFIC IN THIS AREA SO THE DEVELOPMENT CAN GO, COULD BE CONSISTENT TO WHAT THE FUTURE LAND USE IS GOING TO BE, RIGHT. SO IF IF WE DON'T HAVE ANY LIMITS TO IT, THEN IT COULD BE ABUSED. IT COULD BE 30, 40 VEHICLES GOING DOWN THIS TWO ROAD STREET OR TWO, TWO OR THREE LANE STREET, WHICH WILL COMPROMISE THE, THE TRAFFIC IN THAT AREA. SO JUST HAVING SOMETHING THERE WILL GIVE US, UH, SOME, SOME ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM FOR THEM TO PULL BACK OR THEY CAN LOSE THEIR SUP. OTHERWISE IT'S JUST WIDE OPEN FOR THE NEXT PERSON TO HAVE 60, YOU KNOW, TRUCKS GOING IN AND OUT, WHICH WOULD IMPEDE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT IN [05:15:01] THIS AREA. BUT YEAH, POINT WELL TAKEN. AND WE, WE DID DISCUSS, YOU KNOW, HOW WILL THIS BE ENFORCED FROM THE PRACTICALITY STANDPOINT, BUT I DON'T THINK THE ANSWER IS NOT HAVING A LIMIT. THERE IS, IS IS BETTER. COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, I DID WANT TO CLARIFY WITH THE COMMISSIONER THAT WHEN YOU'RE ASKING TO REMOVE GRAVEL FROM THE SITE PLAN, WOULD THAT BE TO REPLACE IT WITH BUILDING MA UH, MATERIAL RECOMMENDED BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL? YES. THANK YOU. AND I'LL ALSO COMMENT ON THE ENFOR. I MEAN, WE ROUTINELY SET HOURS OF OPERATION ON SUVS THAT WOULD ALSO HAVE DIFFICULTY IN ENFORCEMENT. I THINK WHEN, UM, I UNDERSTAND THE INTENTION HERE BECAUSE THE EXPRESSED, UM, INTENTION OF THE APPLICANT IS TO PARK TRAILERS HERE, BUT WHEN YOU HAVE COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLE PARKING, ANOTHER OPERATOR COULD COME IN AND PARK, YOU KNOW, AS MANY, UM, YOU KNOW, 18 WHEELERS, DIESEL TRUCKS ON THIS AND RUN, YOU KNOW, 24 HOURS A DAY. AND SO AT LEAST IT'S AN EXPRESSION, IT'S A CLEAR EXPRESSION OF INTENT THAT THAT IS NOT WHAT THIS SITE IS SUPPOSED TO BE. COMMISSIONERS. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM? COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT? I JUST SAY I'M HAPPY TO SUPPORT THE MOTION. I THINK GIVEN THAT THE, THE USES ON THE GROUND TODAY IN THE, THE GENERAL, UH, REGIONAL FUNCTION HERE IN, IN, IN DALLAS OF, UH, LOGISTICS, I THINK THIS IS A FINE USE, PARTICULARLY GIVEN IT, IT'S, IT'S TEMPORARY AND HAS A, HAS A TERMINATION TO IT THAT CAN BE, UH, CONSIDERED, UH, IN THE RELATIVELY NEAR FUTURE. SO I, I'M HAPPY TO SUPPORT THE MOTION COMMISSIONER SERATO. YEAH, I, I APPRECIATE THE CLARITY FROM EVERYBODY AND HELPING ME KIND OF UNDERSTAND LIKE WHAT SOMETHING LIKE THAT WOULD, UM, WHAT, WHAT PURPOSE IT WOULD REALLY SERVE. SO THANK YOU. THANKS. UM, ECHOING COMMISSIONER HOUSE RIGHTS COMMENTS, I'M HAPPY TO SUPPORT THE MOTION. COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN, GOOD JOB ON THIS ONE. I THINK YOU STRUCK A VERY NICE AND APPROPRIATE BALANCE HERE AND I HOPE THIS IS SUCCESSFUL FOR THE NEXT FIVE YEARS AND THEN WE CAN SEE WHERE IT GOES FROM FROM HERE. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALRIGHT, SEEING NONE, WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SIMS. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? SAY NAY. THE MOTION CARRIES AND THAT'S WHAT THE 10, RIGHT? YES. LET'S, WE'RE GONNA GO [22. 26-192A An application for 1) Medium Commercial / Office Subdistrict and 2) a new Specific Use Permit for a car wash with consideration for an amendment to Light Commercial/Office Area 1 Subdistrict on property zoned Light Commercial/Office Area 1 Subdistrict within Planned Development District 631, the West Davis Special Purpose District, on the northwest corner of Tatum Ave and W. Davis St. Staff Recommendation: Denial of 1) Medium Commercial / Office Subdistrict and denial of 2) a new Specific Use Permit for a car wash on property zoned Light Commercial/Office Area 1 Subdistrict, Denial of proposed amendment to Light Commercial/Office Area 1 Subdistrict. Applicant: Sameer Mohammed, Nanu Construction Inc U/A From: November 20, 2025 and December 4, 2025. Planner: Michael V. Pepe Council District: 6 Z-25-000134] OUT OF ORDER. UH, BUT IT'S STILL YOU MR. PEPE? YES. NUMBER 22. I WAS NOT PREPARED. ARE YOU, ARE YOU ABLE TO DO NUMBER 22? WE COULD, YES, DEFINITELY. YEAH. NO, NO, NO, IT'S NO PROBLEM. IT, IT, ITEM 22 IS Z 2 5 0 0 0 1 3 4. IT'S AN APPLICATION FOR ONE MEDIUM COMMERCIAL OFFICE SUBDISTRICT AND TWO, A NEW SPECIFIC USE PERMIT PER CAR WASH WITH CONSIDERATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO LIGHT COMMERCIAL OFFICE AREA. ONE SUBDISTRICT ON PROPERTIES ZONE LIGHT COMMERCIAL OFFICE AREA ONE SUBDISTRICT WITHIN PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 6 31. THE WEST DAVIS OFFICIAL PURPOSES IS ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF TATUM AVENUE AND WEST DAVIS STREET STAFF. RECOMMENDATION IS DENIAL OF ONE. THE MEDIAN COMMERCIAL OFFICE. SUBDISTRICT DENIAL OF THE NEW SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR A CAR WASH AND DENIAL OF A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO LIGHT COMMERCIAL OFFICE AREA ONE SUBDISTRICT. THANK YOU. OKAY, IS THERE ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER 22? ALRIGHT, COME ON DOWN MA'AM. THERE'S A, UM, BUTTON THAT YOU TOUCHED IN FRONT OF YOU TO TURN. PUSH. THERE YOU GO. OKAY. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME'S ALI SANDOVAL. THIS IS SAMIR MOHAMMED, AND WE DID PREPARE A SHORT, UH, PRESENTATION. HOWEVER, UH, WE'RE JUST HERE TO ALSO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE ANY. OKAY. THANK YOU SO MUCH. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK, UH, FOR OR AGAINST? ITEM NUMBER 22. ALL RIGHT. SEEING DONE, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? YES. IN THE MATTER OF CASES Z DASH 25 DASH 0 0 1 3 4. I MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND NOT FOLLOW STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF DENIAL, BUT TO AN APPROVE AMENDMENT TO LIKE COMMERCIAL SLASH OFFICE AREA ONE SUBDISTRICT AND A NEW SUP FOR A CAR WASH FOR A FIVE YEAR PERIOD WITH NO ELIGIBILITY FOR AUTO RENEWAL, SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN AND CONDITIONS. AND I HAVE COMMENT BRIEF COMMENTS IF I HAVE A SECOND. COMMISSIONER CARPENTER? UH, DID WE HAVE A SECOND? UH, THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER HAMPTON? YES, CARPENTER? YES, WE DID HAVE COMMUNITY MEETINGS ABOUT THIS, UM, PARTICULAR REQUEST AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD WAS SUPPORTIVE OF IT. UM, SO, UM, WE MODIFIED THE EXISTING SUBDISTRICT ADDING ONE USE, UH, WITH AN SUP AND, UH, CHANGING ANOTHER USE FROM AN SUP TO [05:20:01] AN RAR THE NEIGHBORHOOD CONSIDERED. THIS WAS ACCEPTABLE PROTECTION FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, GIVEN THE LOCATION ON A BUSY STREET WEST DAVIS AND CLOSE TO THE, UM, FREEWAY ACCESS, UH, ROAD. SO I'VE WORKED CLOSELY WITH THE APPLICANT AND, UH, AS I SAID, THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS IN SUPPORT, SO I HOPE YOU WILL SUPPORT IT. THANK YOU. UH, COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT. I JUST HAVE TO SAY, I DID NOT EXPECT THAT MOTION FROM COMMISSIONER CARPENTER. SO IT , UH, I DIDN'T EXPECT IT EITHER, BUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD WAS IN SUPPORT. I'M, I'M KIND OF DUMBFOUNDED, BUT, UH, BUT, UH, I THINK IT SPEAKS TO COMMISSIONER CARPENTER'S. UM, THERE'S REALLY HARD WORK AND DIGGING INTO THE DETAILS AND, AND, AND MAKING THIS WORK. IF ANYONE COULD MAKE THIS APPLICATION WORK, IT WOULD BE COMMISSIONER CARPENTER. SO WITH, I WILL FOLLOW HER LEAD AND BE HAPPY TO SUPPORT THIS. THANK YOU. AND COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, I DID HAVE A QUESTION. SO THIS I UNDERSTAND THE, UM, CAR WASH BY SUP. THIS ALLOWS THE DRIVE THROUGH RESTAURANT WITH AN RAR WITH AN RAR, RIGHT? UM, NEIGHBORHOOD CONSIDERED THAT THE ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH SIDING, THAT WOULD, COULD BE, YOU KNOW, WE WENT THROUGH THAT, WE'D BE ADDRESSED BY THAT, UM, PROCESS AND THAT, UM, THEY DIDN'T SEE, YOU KNOW, DOWN THE ROAD THAT IT WOULD REQUIRE, UM, YOU KNOW, REHEARING AT THE BY CBC. OKAY. UM, YEAH, THAT IS ONE THAT I WOULD NOT EXPECT TO SUPPORT EITHER ON THE, THE, I DIDN'T EXPECT THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO SUPPORT IT EITHER, BUT THEY DID. AND SO, HEY, WHAT CAN I SAY? I LIKE TO SURPRISE Y'ALL EVERY ONCE IN A WHILE, SO I'M, I'M STRUGGLING. I'M STRUGGLING. I AM STILL A SURPRISE. WHILE YOU'RE ALL DUMBFOUNDED, CAN WE PLEASE VOTE ? I, I, I AM STILL STRUGGLING WITH THIS ONE. UM, WE'LL SEE IF THERE ARE ANY OTHER COMMENTS. UH, COMMISSIONER COX? THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. SO WE'VE HEARD THAT THERE IS NEIGHBORHOOD SUPPORT. HAVE YOU HEARD NEIGHBORHOOD OPPOSITION? NOT A WORD. THERE WERE NO, NO BALLOTS. NO ONE HAS REACHED OUT TO ME. WHAT, AND IN GOING OUT AND SOLICITING OR BEING ABLE TO GET THE SUPPORT, WAS THE SAME EFFORT MADE TO, TO TRY TO FIND PEOPLE THAT MIGHT OPPOSE IT? YES, THERE WERE, PEOPLE WERE TALKED TO ALONG THE STREETS THAT WERE, WERE CLOSEST. OKAY. AND SO THE SECOND QUESTION IS, DO YOU, DO YOU NOT HAVE A CONCERN THAT THIS POTENTIALLY COULD SET A PRECEDENT? I MEAN, OTHER PEOPLE NOT IN DISTRICT SIX . I'M SORRY, NOT IN DISTRICT SIX . FAIR ENOUGH. NO, THIS IS A VERY SITE SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATION. THERE ARE DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS, UM, YOU KNOW, PUT IN FOR THE CAR WASH AND IT'S A, YOU KNOW, IT'S A, A LIMITED TIME PERIOD WITH NO ELIGIBILITY FOR RENEWALS. AND THE APPLICANT IS VERY AWARE THAT, YOU KNOW, THEY'LL HAVE TO COME BACK AT THE END OF THAT FIVE YEARS AND, YOU KNOW, PROVE THAT THEY'RE NOT BEING A NUISANCE. AND SO IT'S A, YOU KNOW, IT'S A RISK FOR THEM AND THEY'RE ONE THAT THEY'RE WILLING TO ACCEPT. AND I HAVE VISITED THEIR OTHER LOCATION AT PINNACLE PARK AND OBSERVED THE, UM, OPERATION THERE. SO, AS I SAY, I'M AS SURPRISED AS THE REST OF YOU, BUT, BUT, UM, IT DOES HAVE SUPPORT AND IT, IT IS A TRICKY LOCATION, UM, GIVEN THE SITE, UH, AND ITS PROXIMITY TO BUSY STREETS. THANK YOU FOR THAT. YOU MAY HAVE A FUTURE IN SALES, . IT'LL BE THE FIRST TIME ANYONE'S EVER SAID THAT TO ME. I WILL JUST SAY, I REALLY HATE TO DO THIS, BUT GIVEN MY LONGSTANDING HISTORY OF CONCERNS WITH DRIVE-THROUGHS, PARTICULARLY, YOU KNOW, NEAR RESIDENTIAL AREAS, UM, THAT I THINK MANY OF Y'ALL WHO'VE BEEN AROUND HERE FOR A WHILE, I'VE HEARD ME VOICE AGAIN AND AGAIN, I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S CONSENSUS HERE, BUT GIVEN THE ISSUES THAT, THAT, THAT USE CAUSES, I AM UNFORTUNATELY NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO SUPPORT THE MOTION. BUT I DO APPRECIATE COMMISSIONER CARPENTER'S, UM, VERY HARD WORK ON HERE IN FINDING A RATHER SURPRISING CONSENSUS. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? COMMISSIONER WHEELER? I, I THINK DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DO DO A, A GREAT, UM, JOB AT THE RAR WHEN IT COMES TO, ESPECIALLY TO DRIVE-THROUGHS. AND THAT, UM, UM, I DO BELIEVE THAT BECAUSE THAT IS PUT INTO PLACE, THAT IS, UM, THAT, THAT THE CONSIDERATION AND THE COMMUNITY, ESPECIALLY KNOWING THE DISTRICT SIX COMMUNITY IS VERY OUTSPOKEN ON WHAT THEY WANT AND DON'T WANT THAT I CAN SUPPORT THIS 100%. ANY FURTHER COMMENTS? ALRIGHT, SEEING NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? SAY NAY. NAY. THAT MAKES ONE LONELY ONE. ALL RIGHT. UH, CAN WE SAY THANK YOU, SEE Y'ALL IN FIVE YEARS? YES. UM, AND I THINK, UH, IF IT WORKS FOR Y'ALL, CAN WE GO TO NUMBER 21? UH, WHICH MR. BAIT IS HANDLING? OH, YEAH, WE, WE PASSED THE CASE, SO, OKAY. IT GOES [05:25:01] ON. I JUST WANTED TO SAY THANK YOU TO, UM, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER. UH, YOU'VE BEEN A JOY TO WORK WITH AND PUTTING US IN CONTACT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO MAKE IT EASY TO SET UP THOSE COMMUNITY MEETINGS. IT WAS A, IT WAS A JOY, REALLY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER CARPENTER. THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANKS SO MUCH. [21. 26-191A An application for MF-2(A) Multifamily District on property zoned R-7.5(A) Single Family District, on the west line of South Cockrell Hill Road, south of Barstow Boulevard. Staff Recommendation: Approval. Applicant: Michele Ann Turnquist Exempt Trust Representative: Michael Coker U/A From: November 6, 2025 and December 4, 2025. Planner: Martin Bate Council District: 3 Z-25-000147 / Z234-225 ] ALRIGHT, MR. BATE, UM, NUMBER 21. THANK YOU. ITEM 21 IS CASE Z 2 501 47, ALSO KNOWN AS Z 2 34 DASH 2 25. AN APPLICATION FOR MF TWO, A MULTIFAMILY DISTRICT ON PROPERTY ZONE RSON FIVE, A SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT ON THE WEST LINE OF SOUTH COCKLE HILL ROAD, SOUTH OF BARSTOW BOULEVARD. STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL. ALRIGHT, UM, NUMBER 21. DO WE HAVE ANY, UM, SPEAKERS? YES, SIR. SO IF THE LIGHT'S LIT, IT'S ON RIGHT. ALRIGHT. MICHAEL COKER, SEVEN 11 WEST MAIN STREET, O VILLA TEXAS, REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT IN THIS CASE. UH, YOU'VE HEARD THIS CASE A COUPLE OF TIMES IN THE PAST. I STARTED OUT WITH A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT THAT HAD HIGHER RESIDENTIAL, 58 FOOT IN THE MIDDLE OF IT, AND SURROUNDED BY TOWNHOUSES. UH, TALKED TO THE STAFF PLANNER AND HE RECOMMENDED THAT WE CONSIDER, UH, MF TWO, WHICH I AMENDED THAT APPLICATION TO SHOW THAT BECAUSE IT LOOKED LIKE WE WERE GONNA BE ABLE TO DO EVERYTHING WE WANTED TO DO WITH MF TWO. BROUGHT THAT TO THE COMMISSION. UH, VICE CHAIR HERBERT, UH, PROVIDED ME SOME GUIDANCE ON THINGS THAT HE WOULD LIKE TO SEE, UH, AS A RESULT OF THAT APPLICATION. AND, AND HE GAVE ME THE TIME WITH YOUR CONSISTENCY TO, UH, HOLD THAT TO TODAY. SO LET ME QUICKLY GO OVER THE THINGS THAT WE HAVE AGREED TO DO. HAVEN'T MODIFIED THE APPLICATION YET BECAUSE I THINK IT'S GOING TO TAKE SOME DEED RESTRICTIONS, BUT I MAY NEED, UH, THE CITY PLANNER TO HELP ME GET THAT. SO, FIRST THING, UH, I DID A LITTLE SKETCH. IT LOOKS LIKE THIS. CAN YOU PUT THAT UP? THERE IT IS. OKAY. AND SO I'M GONNA READ FROM A TEXT NOW AND THE TEXT IS THE NEXT SLIDE, BUT LET ME JUST WALK YOU THROUGH THE GREEN OUTLINE. THERE IS A 30 FOOT NO BUILD AREA AROUND THE PERIMETER OF THE EXISTING 8.78 ACRES THAT WE HAVE. THEN THE BLUE IS A AREA THAT IS BASICALLY, UH, 80 FEET WIDE THAT WOULD PROVIDE FOR A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 26 FEET. THEN THE RED BOX, WHICH IS IN THE CENTER, WOULD BE ALLOWED TO GO TO 36 FEET. NOW, THE REASON I PUT IN 36 FEET IS BECAUSE THAT'S THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT THAT'S ALLOWABLE IN TOWNHOUSE THREE OR FOUR, UH, THREE NOW TOWNHOUSE THREE, MF TWO, AND, AND MF ONE. SO I DID THAT. AND THEN THE PURPLE BOX, WHICH IS THE LARGER ONE THAT'S CLOSEST TO COCKRELL HILL, THAT WOULD ALLOW A 48 FOOT HEIGHT. AND THE IDEA THERE WAS TO HAVE MINIMUM FLOOR TO FLOOR OF 12 FEET. UH, IF YOU GO WITH EIGHT 40, IT CAN SET, CAN KEEP YOU AT 45 FEET. BUT ALL THAT SAID THAT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT, UH, VICE CHAIR HERBERT RECOMMENDED WAS THAT I HAVE A KIND OF A STAIR STEP APPROACH TO HEIGHT AS IT RELATES TO THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY. AS YOU MAY RECALL FROM THE BRIEFING THIS MORNING, WE HAVE LARGE LOTS THAT ARE ZONED R SEVEN FIVE THAT COMPLETELY SURROUND US, EXCEPT FOR ON THE COCKRELL HILL SIDE, IMMEDIATELY ACROSS COCKRELL HILL, WE HAVE IR ZONING, WHICH ALLOWS A FULL PLETHORA OF INDUSTRIAL USES UP TO 200 FEET HIGH. THAT'S YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. OKAY. OKAY. ARE THERE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS ON ITEM NUMBER 21? OKAY. UH, WE'LL GO TO COMMISSIONER HERBERT FOR A MOTION, THEN QUESTIONS COME AFTER THE MOTION. COMMISSIONER FORSYTH UNDER OUR NEW-ISH RULES. THANK YOU, CHAIR. UM, I MOVE TO, IN THE CASE OF Z 2 5 0 0 0 1 47, I MOVED TO DENY THE ZONING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER HERBERT, UH, FOR YOUR MOTION. COMMISSIONER HAMPTON FOR YOUR SECOND, AND IT'S A DENIAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE. UH, I GET CONFUSED. SO I, I THINK THEY, I WOULD LIKE TO GIVE THEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO COME BACK WITHIN TWO YEARS. OKAY. THAT'S, THAT'S GREAT. I JUST WA WANTED TO MAKE SURE I WAS 100% CLEAR SINCE YOU WERE REMOTE. ALL RIGHT. DO YOU HAVE COMMENTS, COMMISSIONER HERBERT? YEAH. UH, DUE TO THE, UH, NUMBER OF UNRESOLVED ISSUES, UM, AND SOME, AS HE MENTIONED RESOLVED, UM, THAT [05:30:01] REQUIRE SIGNIFICANT REVISIONS AND ADDITIONAL COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT, I DENIED IT WITHOUT PREJUDICE, UM, TO ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO RETURN WITH A REVISED PROPOSAL. UM, I HEARD FROM ALMOST EVERY HOUSEHOLD ON THE BARSTOW STREET ADJOINING THIS, UM, UH, PROPOSITION. AND, UM, THEY'RE IN TOTAL DENIAL. UM, OF COURSE SOME OF THEIR DENIAL REASONS AROUND CRIME AND, UM, OTHER ISSUES I DIDN'T TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION. UM, BUT THEIR TRAFFIC, UH, THEIR GRADE ISSUES AND SOME OTHER THINGS I THOUGHT THAT THEY NEEDED, UM, A LITTLE BIT MORE TIME. UM, AS YOU SAW THE CHANGES PRESENTED BY, UH, THE APPLICANT TODAY, UM, I THINK IT, THERE'S SOME MORE WORK THAT HAS TO BE DONE BETWEEN HIM AND THE PLANNER. UM, AND I THINK THIS IS THE BEST, UM, A, UH, BEST ACTION AT THE PRESENT TIME, UM, FOR THE OPPOSITION AND, UM, THE APPLICANT HIMSELF. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER FORSYTH. I, I CERTAINLY SUPPORT, UH, COMMISSIONER, UH, THE COMMISSIONER'S OF MOTION. I DID HAVE A QUESTION THOUGH FOR THE DEVELOPER IN OUR TESTIMONY EARLIER TODAY. IT WAS STATED BY THE PLANNER THAT THERE WOULD ONLY BE ONE EGRESS AND INGRESS POINT, UH, INTO YOUR DEVELOPMENT OFF OF, UH, UH, THE, THE MAIN ROAD THERE. IS THAT, UH, UH, SOUTH, SOUTH COCKLE HILL ROAD, IS THAT THE CASE? THAT IS THE CASE WITH ONE EXCEPTION. THE FIRE CODE REQUIRES THAT WE HAVE A SECOND POINT OF OF ACCESS AND ONE OF THE DEED RESTRICTIONS WHEN IT GETS BACK TO Y'ALL, UH, WOULD BE FOR A EMERGENCY ACCESS ROUTE, EITHER NORTH OR SOUTH OF LOVE BIRD LANE, WHICH IS WHERE THE MEDIAN BREAK IS, WHERE THE MAIN ENTRANCE TO THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. SO YES, ONE MAIN ENTRANCE THAT WILL ONLY, THAT WILL BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC ALL THE TIME. A SECOND ACCESS THAT WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR EMERGENCY SERVICES ONLY. OKAY. MR. COX, MR. COKER, ACROSS FROM THE PROPERTY, CAN YOU TELL US WHAT, WHAT THOSE STRUCTURES ARE? UH, IMMEDIATELY ACROSS AND A LITTLE BIT TO THE NORTH SIDE OF LOVE BIRD, THERE'S A CHURCH, UH, IMMEDIATELY ON THE SOUTH SIDE IS AN AUTO REPAIR FACILITY. AND THEN YOU HAVE, AS YOU MOVE UP, LOVE BIRD LANE, THERE'S A NUMBER OF OTHER COMMERCIAL USES, BUT THE ONES THAT ARE MOSTLY PROXIMATE PROXIMITY TO THIS PROPERTY ARE THOSE TWO, THE CHURCH ON THE NORTH SIDE OF LOVE, BIRD LANE, AND THE AUTO REPAIR ON THE SOUTH SIDE. THANK YOU COMMISSIONERS. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALRIGHT, SEEING NONE, WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HERBERT, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HAMPTON TO NOT FOLLOW STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, BUT TO INSTEAD DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? SAY NAY. THE MOTION CARRIES. ALRIGHT, WE'LL [20. 26-190A An application for an amendment to Specific Use Permit 2480 for the sale of alcoholic beverages on property zoned CR Community Retail District with D-1 Liquor Control Overlay, on the northeast corner of Kleberg Road and Carleta Street. Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to a site plan and conditions. Applicant: SAI KBA LAXMI, Inc. Representative: Elizabeth Alvarez Villaizan U/A From: November 6, 2025 and December 4, 2025. Planner: Jordan Gregory Council District: 8 Z-25-000115 / Z234-183] GO TO NUMBER 20 AND I'M GOING TO HAND IT OFF TO THE TEMPORARY VICE CHAIR TO TAKE OVER. THANK YOU. OKAY. ALRIGHT. CASE NUMBER 20. UH, MR. PEPPY, YOU'RE GONNA READ IT INTO THE RECORD? YES. CASE NUMBER 20 IS Z 2 5 0 0 0 1 1 5, ALSO KNOWN AS TWO Z 2 3 4 180 3. IT'S AN APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO SPECIFIC USE PERMIT 24 80 FOR THE SALE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES ON PROPERTIES ON CR COMMUNITY RETAIL DISTRICT WITH A D ONE LIQUOR CONTROL OVERLAY ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF BURG ROAD AND CARLETTA STREET. STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL SITE TO A SITE PLAN OF CONDITIONS. IS ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS APPLICATION? APPARENTLY NOT. IS THERE ANYONE HERE SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION? I DON'T SEE THAT WE HAVE ANY REGISTERED SPEAKERS EITHER FOR OR AGAINST, SO THE APPLICANT MAY BE ONLINE. OH, OKAY. BUT THEY DIDN'T REGISTER, SO IT WOULD BE AT THE DISCRETION OF THE, IF THEY ARE HERE, IT WOULD BE AT THE DISCRETION OF THE CHAIR TO LET THEM SPEAK, I BELIEVE. ALRIGHT. IS THAT APPLICANT ONLINE? BELIEVE SO, YES. MY NAME IS ROBERT NUNEZ. OKAY. I'M WITH ALCHEMY DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS. OKAY. AND WE ARE REQUESTING A RENEWAL FOR THIS ONE, EVERY CASE. DO YOU HAVE, EXCUSE ME, SIR. UH, WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO SEE YOU. CAN YOU TURN YOUR CAMERA ON? STATE LAW REQUIRES THAT WE BE ABLE TO SEE YOU IN ORDER TO HEAR FROM YOU, AND THEN, SORRY ABOUT THAT. THAT'S ALL RIGHT. WOULD YOU PLEASE START NOW THAT WE CAN SEE YOU, WOULD YOU PLEASE START WITH YOUR, UH, NAME AND ADDRESS? YES. UH, ROBERT NUNEZ. AND MY ADDRESS IS FIVE 13 MULBERRY LANE IN DESOTO, TEXAS. UH, 7 5 1 1 5. OKAY, THANK YOU. GO AHEAD. YES. WELL, WE ARE REQUESTING A RENEWAL FOR THIS PRO, FOR THIS PROPERTY, UH, FOR THIS SUP, UM, THE PREVIOUS, UH, MONTH IT WAS HELD. AND I'M JUST HERE TO ANSWER ANY CONCERNS YOU GUYS MIGHT HAVE OR ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE. THANK YOU FOR THE PROJECT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU GUYS. SURE. [05:35:01] UH, COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? I DO. THANK YOU. IN THE MATTER OF Z 2 5 0 0 0 1 1 5, I MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND FOLLOW STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS OF APPROVAL WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGE, THE SUP WILL BE FOR A PERIOD OF 18 MONTHS. IS THAT SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN AND CONDITIONS? SUBJECT TO SITE PLANNING CONDITIONS. ALRIGHT. DO I HAVE A SECOND? COMMISSIONER HAMPTON. ALRIGHT, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OR A DISCUSSION? COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN? ANY COMMENTS, QUESTIONS FROM ANYONE? UH, THE REAL QUICK, UH, COMMENT IS, YOU KNOW, I, I'VE, I VISITED THE SITE A COUPLE OF TIMES AND THIS QUESTION CAME UP EARLIER, UH, REGARDING WHY WAS IT ONLY APPROVED FOR 18 MONTHS, THE FIRST TIME AROUND? I WASN'T HERE. UM, BUT DOING A DEEPER DIVE INTO SOME OF THE CRIME STATS. UH, THIS IS A, A HIGHER CRIME AREA AT AT LEAST IN, IN TERMS OF, UH, POLICE BEING CALLED. UM, BUT, UH, DOING A DEEPER DIVE INTO THE, THE ACTUAL DATA. MANY OF THE INCIDENTS, UH, DID NOT INVOLVE, UH, ALCOHOL OR DRUGS AND, AND I BELIEVE THAT THE OPERATOR IS DOING THE RIGHT THING BY CALLING THE POLICE WHEN THINGS HAPPEN. SO I DON'T DO NOT WANNA DISCOURAGE THAT. AND THEY'VE COMMITTED TO HAVING SECURITY, UH, ON, ON THE GROUNDS TO HELP WITH THE LOITERING, UH, ISSUE THAT THEY HAVE THERE. SO I'M LEANING TO 18 MONTHS TO SEE HOW WELL THEY DO, IF WE CAN GET ALL THIS CLEANED UP AND THEN MAYBE AT THE NEXT, NEXT GO ROUND, WE CAN EXTEND IT OUT FURTHER. THANK YOU. DOES ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? I HAVE A QUESTION. OH, YES. COMMISSIONER FORSYTH? YES. COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN. I, I WAS CURIOUS IF YOU HAVE ANY CONCERNS ABOUT THE FACT THAT THIS, UH, PROPERTY IS SO CLOSE TO THAT CHURCH AND IT APPEARS TO ME THAT IS PRETTY CLOSE TO THE 300 FEET LIMIT THAT IS IN OUR CODE. AND ALSO WERE THERE ANY NEIGHBORHOOD OPPOSITE? WAS THERE ANY NEIGHBORHOOD OPPOSITION TO, TO THIS, UH, SUP? UH, I DIDN'T RECEIVE ANY, UH, NO LETTERS OR NOTICE OR, UH, INFORMATION ABOUT OPPOSITION, BUT I'M SURE THERE WOULD BE FOR ANY, YOU KNOW, ALCOHOL CELLS NEARBY BY HOMES. UM, BUT AGAIN, LOOKING AT THE CRIME STATS AND THE REASONS FOR THE CRIME IN THE AREA, I CAN'T FIND THE CORRELATION. THEY, THEY DO HAVE A, A NO TRESPASS AFFIDAVIT AND IN FRONT OF THEIR BUILDING SO THEY CAN CALL LAW ENFORCEMENT TO GET PEOPLE FROM LAUNDERING ON THEIR PROPERTY. I WILL SAY HAVING A CHURCH NEARBY DOES PROVIDE SOME CONCERN, BUT DRIVING THROUGH THERE, IT'S CLOSE BUT NOT AS CLOSE. IT'S NOT, THERE'S SEVERAL THINGS IN BETWEEN, UH, THE, THE STORE AND THE ACTUAL CHURCH ITSELF, IF I REMEMBER RIGHT THERE ALONG, UH, CLAYBROOK ROAD. ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? SEEING NONE. WE HAVE A MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN, SECONDED BY, CAN I ASK FOR A ROLL CALL? VOTE, CERTAINLY. THANK YOU. UH, WE HAVE A MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HAMPTON TO APPROVE FOR AN 18 MONTH PERIOD SUBJECT TO SITE PLANNING CONDITIONS. UH, WOULD YOU LIKE TO CALL THE ROLL PLEASE? DISTRICT ONE. DISTRICT TWO. AYE. DISTRICT THREE, DISTRICT FOUR? NO. DISTRICT FIVE? AYE. YES. DISTRICT SIX. AYE. DISTRICT SEVEN, AYE. . DISTRICT EIGHT. AYE. A COUPLE. TOMATO DISTRICT NINE A. AYE. DISTRICT 10? YES. YES. DISTRICT 11? YES. DISTRICT 12, DISTRICT 13? YES. DISTRICT 14 AND PLACE 15. MOTION PASSES. ALL RIGHT. CASE NUMBER 23. MR. PEPE, WOULD YOU READ THAT INTO THE RECORD? YES. SHEMI, SORRY. [23. 26-193A An application for a new Specific Use Permit for a public school other than an open-enrollment charter school on property zoned R-7.5(A) Single Family District, on the south line of Arapaho Road and the north line of La Cosa Drive. Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to a site plan, traffic management plan, and conditions. Applicant: Le Estes, Richardson ISD Representative: Karl Crawley, Masterplan Consultants U/A From: December 4, 2025. Planner: Mona Hashemi Council District: 11 Z-25-000103] CASE NUMBER 23. AN APPLICATION FOR A NEW SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR A PUBLIC SCHOOL OTHER THAN AN OPEN [05:40:01] ENROLLMENT CHARTER SCHOOL ON PROPERTY ZONE R 7.5, SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF ARAPAHO ROAD AND THE NORTH LINE OF LA COSA DRIVE. STAFF. RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO A SIDE PLAN, TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN AND CONDITIONS. THANK YOU. APPLICANT IS PRESENT. WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK? YES. UH, THANK YOU. ADDRESS. THANK YOU. YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS PLEASE FIRST. YES MA'AM. THANK YOU. AND GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS JAMES WATSON, 400 SOUTH GREENVILLE AVENUE, RICHARDSON, TEXAS 7 5 0 8 1. I'M HERE REPRESENTING RICHARDSON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT AND WE WANT TO THANK YOU AGAIN FOR CONSIDERING THIS CASE TODAY. UH, MY ROLE BEFORE, UM, CARL COMES UP AND GIVES YOU ADDITIONAL DETAIL THAT'LL BE MORE BENEFICIAL IS SIMPLY TO EXTEND A SPECIAL THANK YOU, UH, TO COMMISSIONER JACK COX AND COUNCIL MEMBER BILL ROTH, AND HELPING US FACILITATE AND ENGAGE IN A COLLABORATIVE, UH, SESSION WITH OUR COMMUNITY AND OUR NEIGHBORS, UH, AROUND THIS PROJECT, UH, PROVIDING SOME RESOLUTIONS TO SOME CONCERNS EARLY, UH, AND GETTING THE PACKET TO A CONDITION THAT, THAT YOU ARE GONNA CONSIDER HERE TODAY. SO THANK YOU AGAIN TO THE COMMISSIONER FOR HELPING US WITH THAT. AND SO TURN IT OVER TO CARL WHO SHOULD HAVE SOME GOOD DETAILS AND THEN I CAN HANG BACK FOR ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. CARL. CARLEY. 3 3, 3, 3 WILBURN, UH, DALLAS, TEXAS. WE'RE MOVING AND UNFORTUNATELY I WON'T HAVE TO SAY THAT. 3, 3, 3. NOT FOR NOT FOR ANOTHER COUPLE MONTHS. UM, I WANT TO THANK THE COMMISSIONER ALSO. UM, THE, THE CHANGES BETWEEN WHEN WE WERE HERE LAST YEAR, WHICH SOUNDS LIKE A LONG TIME AGO, BUT WASN'T, IS WE HAD HAD SOME MEETINGS AND SOME, A LOT OF CONVERSATIONS WITH THE NEIGHBORS. UM, THE TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN THAT WE WENT OVER THIS MORNING, UH, THE BIG PART OF THE CHANGE OF THAT WAS THE HOODED TURN TO ALLOW LEFT TURNS OUTTA THAT. OTHERWISE THERE'S SOME ADDING OF DOUBLE, DOUBLE ROWS OF STUFF TO, TO HELP CUE INSIDE. UH, WE, UH, EXTENDED A FENCE. THE, UH, THE, THE NEIGHBORS TO THE ALLEY ACROSS THE ALLEY OF US WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT A FENCE. WE EXTENDED A FOUR FOOT CHAIN LINK FENCE ALONG THERE TO JUST SORT OF KEEP PEOPLE FROM GOING BACK AND FORTH. THE OTHER BIG CHANGE THAT WAS THEIR, THEIR MAIN CONCERN. I GUESS TWO OF 'EM WE'RE GONNA LEAVE SOME TREES THAT ARE UP, UP THE NORTH END BY ARAPAHOE EXISTING TREES THAT I BE HONEST, I DON'T KNOW WHY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT TOOK THEM OUT. THERE'S SOME NICE BIG TREES, SO WE'LL LEAVE. THOSE ARE IN A BIG BUFFER STRIP ANYWAY. UM, AND THEN, UH, WERE, WERE THE NOISE AND OTHER FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH THE SERVICE YARD. UH, WE PUT A CONDITION THAT'S IN, I ASSUME IS IN YOUR SUP CONDITIONS ABOUT NOISE. UH, I, I COPIED THOSE, UH, I AUTHORED THEM FIVE OR SIX YEARS AGO FOR THE UH, NORTH DALLAS CAREER CENTER, WHICH IS AT WALNUT HILL, A-D-I-S-D SCHOOL, WHERE THERE WAS CONCERN ABOUT CHILLERS. UH, THOSE CHILLERS WERE ACTUALLY ON THE GROUND AND REAL CLOSE TO NEIGHBORS, BUT I GOT WITH THE ARCHITECT AND WE'VE PUSHED THOSE CHILLERS AT LEAST A HUNDRED FEET AWAY IF THEY'RE ROOF MOUNTED. AND THAT'S ALL ROOF MOUNTED CHILLERS AWAY FROM THE NEIGHBORS AND OUR PROPERTY LINE. AND ACTUALLY THEY'RE FURTHER AWAY ACROSS THE ALLEY AND SOME NOISE DAMPENING AND SOUND DAMPENING SINKS. AND THE OTHER CONCERN WAS, UH, THE TRANSFORMER LOCATION. NOW, OBVIOUSLY ENCORE HAS FINAL ENCORE IS THE ALL POWERFUL ELECTRIC PROVIDER AROUND HERE FOR US, AND, BUT WE'VE, UH, FORCED THAT, UH, NEXT TO THE BUILDING AWAY FROM THE, IN THE BACK PART OF THE SERVICE YARD TO KEEP ANY NOISE ASSOCIATED WITH THAT. THERE WAS CONCERN ABOUT NOISE ASSOCIATED WITH THE CHILLERS AND THAT EQUIPMENT AND STUFF. SO I THINK, UM, I, I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY OPPOSITION. I THINK THEY'VE, UH, WE'VE, THAT WE'VE GOTTEN RID OF MOST OF THEIR ISSUES. UH, I THINK SOMEONE ELSE, YOU SAID SOMETHING LIKE, YOU'RE GONNA GET OPPOSITION NO MATTER WHAT. I DON'T CARE WHAT YOU DID, YOU'RE GONNA GET OPPOSITION. BUT, UM, WE'RE NOT SINGING KUMBAYA, BUT WE, WE KNOW THE WORDS TO IT, AT LEAST, I GUESS. SO, UH, I THINK WE'RE REAL CLOSE. I THINK WE'RE THERE ACTUALLY, WE, WE'VE, UH, SOLVED MOST OF THEIR ISSUES AND STUFF. SO, UH, UH, THE ARCHITECTS HERE, UH, IF YOU REALLY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW BEAUTIFUL A SCHOOL IT IS, UM, AND THEN I GUESS THE PROJECT MANAGERS HERE, IF YOU'VE GOT ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT CONSTRUCTION AND STUFF. SO OTHERWISE, UM, I THINK THANK YOU FOR THE DELAY OF A MONTH AND WE'VE SOLVED PRETTY MUCH ALL THE ISSUES, I THINK, SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. CROWLEY. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE PRESENT WHO WISHES TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS APPLICATION? IS THERE ANYONE HERE WANTING TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION? I DON'T BELIEVE WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS REGISTERED. IS THAT CORRECT? CASE 23? NO, NO SPEAKERS. ALL RIGHT THEN. UH, COMMISSIONER COX, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? I DO. BEFORE I PUT FORTH A MOTION, I WANNA JUST REITERATE WHAT THE OTHER SPEAKERS HAVE SAID. THERE WAS GREAT COLLABORATION HERE, CITY STAFF, MS. SASHIMI WAS VERY HELPFUL. MR. NAVAREZ, AS I MENTIONED THIS MORNING, [05:45:01] UH, COUNCIL MEMBER ROSS OFFICE. UM, TO ME, THIS IS SORT OF A TEXTBOOK, UM, HOW TO MAKE SOMETHING WORK. PEOPLE TALK TO ONE ANOTHER, COLLABORATED, COMPROMISED, UH, AND WE, I THINK WE'VE GOT AS, AS CARL SUGGESTED, A, A BEAUTIFUL PRODUCT THAT'S, UH, ABOUT TO GO IN. PROBABLY A LITTLE BIT TOO PRICEY FOR ME AS A TAXPAYER, BUT THAT'S ANOTHER DISCUSSION. UM, SO IN THAT CASE, IN THE MATTER OF CASE Z 2 5 0 0 0 1, 0 3, I MOVE THAT WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. SECOND. THANK YOU. WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER COX APPRO, UH, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER KAUFMAN. UH, COMMISSIONER COX, DID YOU HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS YOU WANTED TO MAKE? DID YOU HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS THAT YOU WANTED TO MAKE? OKAY, DOES ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? SEEING NONE. UM, WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE SUBJECT TO A SITE PLAN, TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN, AND CONDITIONS. ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU. [24. 26-194A An application for 1) a new Planned Development District for R-10(A) Single Family District uses and standards and 2) a new Specific Use Permit for a commercial amusement (outside), with consideration for A(A) Agricultural District, on property zoned R-10(A) Single Family District, on north line of Leon Drive and south line of Prairie Creek Road. Staff Recommendation: Approval of 1) A(A) Agricultural District and 2) a new Specific Use Permit for a commercial amusement (outside) in lieu of a new Planned Development District, subject to a site plan and SUP conditions. Applicant: Angel Dzul Representative: Audra Buckley Planner: Justin Lee Council District: 8 Z-25-000159] ALRIGHT, CASE NUMBER 24, UM, PLANNER JUSTIN LAKE. THANK YOU. IF YOU JUST READ THAT INTO THE RECORD, PLEASE. UH, CASE 24, AN APPLICATION FOR A NEW PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FOR R DASH 10, A SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT USES AND STANDARDS, AND TO A NEW SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR A COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT OUTSIDE WITH CONSIDERATION FOR AA AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT ON PROPERTY ZONE R DASH 10, A SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT ON NORTH LINE ON LEON ROAD OR LEON DRIVE, AND THE SOUTH LINE OF PRAIRIE CREEK ROAD. STAFF RECOMMENDATION, APPROVAL OF AA AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT AND A NEW SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR A COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT OUTSIDE IN LIEU OF NEW PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, SUBJECT TO A SITE PLAN AND SEP CONDITIONS. THANK YOU. THE, I SEE THE APPLICANT IS HERE. AUDRA BUCKLEY, 1414 BELLEVUE STREET, SUITE ONE 50, DALLAS, TEXAS 7 5 2 1 5 HERE REPRESENTING THE PROPERTY OWNER IN THIS CASE. I DID HEAR THE BRIEFING THIS MORNING. THERE WERE A FEW QUESTIONS THAT WERE RAISED. UH, YES, THIS IS INTENDED TO BE TWO DAYS A WEEK, TWICE A MONTH, BUT WE DIDN'T KNOW HOW TO PUT THAT IN THE CONDITIONS WHERE IT WAS ACTUALLY ENFORCEABLE. BUT WE DID GET THE TWO DAYS, JUST SATURDAY AND SUNDAY. WE ARE FOLLOWING THE NOISE ORDINANCE ON THAT BY HAVING EVERYTHING SHUT DOWN, LIGHTS OFF, PEOPLE OFF BY 10:00 PM UM, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT CAME UP WAS THE OPPOSITION FORMS THAT WERE RETURNED. THIS HAS NOT OPERATED AS A RODEO IN ALMOST THREE YEARS. THERE'S BEEN NOTHING GOING ON OUT HERE. THERE'S A BARN AND SOME HORSES THAT LIVE HERE, BUT THAT'S ABOUT IT. THEY HAD ONE ORIGINALLY, BUT THEY WERE TOLD BY CODE ENFORCEMENT TO GET A CO FOR A PRIVATE STAPLE. SO THEY DID. AND THEN CODE ENFORCEMENT CAME BACK OUT, SAID, NO, WE WERE MISTAKEN. YOU REALLY NEED TO HAVE THIS REZONED IN AN SUP. SO THAT IS WHAT THEY DID. IT TOOK US A WHILE TO GET HERE. WE DO HAVE THE SUPPORT OF THE KLEBERG NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND CRIME WATCH, AND HE HAS BEEN, THE PROPERTY OWNER HAS BEEN PRAISED AS BEING A GOOD NEIGHBOR AND TAKING CARE OF HIS PROPERTY. SO WITH THAT, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, BE HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE WHO'D LIKE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR? ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK? UH, DID YOU WANT TO MAKE A, A COMMENT ABOUT POSSIBLE, UH, NEED FOR TRANSLATION? YEAH. UM, FOR THIS CASE, UH, WE HAD SOME INTEREST FROM, UH, SOME INDIVIDUALS WHO INDICATED THEY MAY NEED HELP WITH INTERPRETATION. SO LEON DRIVE PRAIRIE CREEK ROAD, YOU MIGHT NEED A LITTLE HELP. OKAY. I CAN DO IT. . COOL. THANK YOU. YOU'RE HERE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION. YES. COULD YOU START WITH YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS PLEASE? YES, MY NAME IS ALMA MENDEZ. MY ADDRESS IS 95 3 0 THORNHILL DRIVE. SORRY, COULD YOU PUT THE MICROPHONE A LITTLE CLOSER TO YOUR MOUTH AND YOU CAN LOWER THAT WHOLE, OKAY. ALMA MENEZ. MY ADDRESS IS 9 5 3 0, I'M SORRY. THAT'S FINE. THORN HILL DRIVE, DALLAS, TEXAS 7 5 2 1 7. ALSO, I'M SPEAKING UP FROM MY BROTHERS AND MY MOTHER THAT WE LIVE IN THE SAME STREET. UM, MOST OF THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE THERE DON'T SPEAK ENGLISH, SO I THINK THAT'S THE REASON, YOU KNOW, NOBODY [05:50:01] CAME BECAUSE WE SPOKE AS A NEIGHBOR. UH, THE REASON I, UM, THINK THIS IS NOT A GOOD, UM, ZONING, IT'S BECAUSE IT'S, UH, ALREADY VANDALISM AROUND AND A LOT OF NOISE ON THE WEEKENDS. AND IF THIS IS REGULATED, IS GONNA BE WORSE. OUR COMMUNITY IS VERY CALM. SO MY PARENTS, MOST OF THE PEOPLE ARE RETIRED, SO THIS IS LIKE GUNSHOTS ON THE WEEKENDS. AND, YOU KNOW, I DON'T, WE ARE NOT AGREE TO THIS. UM, THIS IS, LIKE I SAY, A QUIET COMMUNITY. UH, THIS IS WILL DESTROY THE TRANQUILITY AND WE DON'T NEED LIKE, ALCOHOL, PEOPLE DRUNK DRIVING, YOU KNOW, BRING ANY KIND OF DRUGS. THIS IS NOT IMPROVING IN ANY WAY, OUR NEIGHBOR. SO THAT'S MY COMMENT. THANK YOU, MA'AM. AND, UM, OBVIOUSLY WE OPPOSE TO DO THIS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. NO ONE ELSE HERE WISHES TO SPEAK. I DO BELIEVE WE HAVE, UH, SPEAKERS REGISTERED BOTH FOR AND IN OPPOSITION. ARE THEY ONLINE? JUST ONE? THE FOR OR AGAINST? FOR. ALRIGHT. UM, THE PERSON'S NAME, UH, MS. RAMIREZ, ARE YOU ONLINE? YES. CAN YOU SEE ME? WOULD YOU PLEASE START WITH YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE? OF COURSE. MY NAME IS JESSICA RAMIREZ. I RESIDE AT 2 7 2 WEST LAWSON ROAD, TRAILER NUMBER 100, DALLAS, TEXAS 7 5 2 5 3. GO AHEAD AND MAKE YOUR COMMENTS. GOOD AFTERNOON. YES, GOOD AFTERNOON COMMISSIONERS. UM, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR HOLDING THIS CASE. MY NAME IS JESSICA RAMEZ AND I'M HERE REPRESENTING THE K BERG NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND CRIME WATCH. AND WE ARE IN SUPPORT OF THE PROPOSED RODEO EVENTS CENTER, UM, BY MR. HIL. UL HAS BEEN AN INCREDIBLE AND COMMITTED RESIDENT TO OUR COMMUNITY, AND FOR AS LONG AS I CAN REMEMBER AND LIVING IN SOUTHEAST DALLAS, THIS PROPERTY HAS BEEN AN EYESORE, UM, SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE OF THE, OF THE, OF THE LAYOUT OF THE PROPERTY ALONG PRAIRIE CREEK. UM, AND I CAN LET TELL YOU, IT'S BEEN LONG, NEGLECTED, AND FORGOTTEN. UM, INSTEAD OF WALKING AWAY, MR. DUL HAS STEPPED UP, INVESTED HIS TIME, RESOURCES INTO CLEANING IT UP. UM, AND WE ARE, IT'S A RE-IMAGINING SOMETHING POSITIVE FOR RILEY, UM, ESPECIALLY IN SOUTHEAST DALLAS. UH, AS YOU KNOW, THIS AREA IS A HORSE COMMUNITY. NOT TOO LONG AGO, BEFORE THIS VERY BODY, UM, YOU APPROVED THE FIRST EQUESTRIAN VETERINARY CLINIC THAT WOULD BE JUST DOWN THE STREET. UM, THAT DECISION ACKNOWLEDGED, ACKNOWLEDGES ACTUALLY OUR ROLE ROOTS, OUR CULTURE. UM, AND THEN THIS PROJECT CONTINUES THAT SAME VISION AND IT HONORS IDENTITY OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. ACTUALLY. UM, THIS RODEO EVENT CENTER WOULD BE A POTENTIAL ECONOMIC GROWTH, UH, FOR SUPPORTING LOCAL VENDORS, SMALL BUSINESSES, AND CREATING AN OPEN SPACE, A WELCOMING PLACE FOR FAMILIES TO GATHER. UM, AND THEN WE DEFINITELY, UH, AGREE WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE HOURS, UM, AND RESPECT THAT IN ONE'S ORDINANCE. UH, MR. DESO, LIKE I MENTIONED, IS COMMITTED INTO MAINTAINING A HUNDRED PERCENT FAMILY-ORIENTED ENVIRONMENT. SO KEEPING THE PROPERTY CLEAN, OPERATING RESPONSIBLY, AND OPENING IT UP TO THE COMMUNITY. UM, I'VE GONE SEVERAL INSTANCES WITH, YOU KNOW, STUDENTS FROM DALLAS, ISD TO COME SEE THE PROPERTY AND THEY, THEY JUST LOVE IT. UM, WE JUST GO IN AND BE HORSES AND, UM, JUST HAVE A GREAT TIME. SO I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE OPPOSITION, THE OPPOSED OPPOSITION COMMENTS, BUT, UM, WE CAN, I FULLY INTEND TO REMAIN ENGAGED AND SERVE AS A POINT OF ACCOUNTABILITY AND COLLABORATION FOR FUTURE EVENTS HERE. SO THANK YOU AGAIN FOR TIME CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU, MS. RAMIREZ. MS. BUCKLEY, YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES OF REBUTTAL. ALL I CAN SAY ABOUT THIS, IT IS A FAMILY ORIENTED VENUE. SO IF IT PLEASES THE CPC, WE CAN ADD A COUPLE OF CONDITIONS TO THE SUP CONDITIONS. WE CAN ADD THAT WE WOULD HAVE A MINIMUM OF TWO SECURITY OFFICERS HERE ANYTIME IT IS OPEN FOR AN EVENT. AND WE CAN ALSO PROHIBIT ALCOHOL SALES. SO THAT'S UP TO YOU IF YOU WANT TO ADD THAT. THE CONDITIONS. MADAM, MADAM CHAIR, WE CANNOT PROHIBIT ALCOHOL SALES. YOU CANNOT. HM HMM. WELL, YOU HAVE ONE CONDITION. . WE WERE, WE WERE GONNA OFFER IT. SO BECAUSE THIS IS A FAMILY VENUE, HE HAS NO INTEREST IN SELLING ALCOHOL. OKAY. THANK YOU. ANYTHING ELSE MS. BUCKLEY? NO, THAT'S IT. OKAY. THAT BEING THE CASE. UH, COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? YES. IN THE MATTER OF Z TWO FIVE? SURE. [05:55:01] I GET THE NUMBER RIGHT. 0 0 0 1 5 9. I MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND FOLLOW STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGE, UH, UNDER THE SUP CONDITION, WE'LL ADD DURING OPEN HOURS OF OPERATION, A MINIMUM OF TWO SECURITY PERSONNEL MUST BE PRESENT ON SITE. COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN, ARE YOU APPROVING THE AA DISTRICT IN THE SUP OR A PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT? PD? THE PD. THE, THE PD. OKAY. SO YOU'RE APPROVING THE PD SUBJECT TO A SITE PLAN AND SUP CONDITIONS WITH THE ADDITIONAL, UM, REQUIREMENT THAT THERE BE A MINIMUM OF TWO SECURITY OFFICERS PRESENT WHENEVER THE FACILITY IS OPEN. YES. IS THAT CORRECT? OKAY. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? COMMISSIONER SIMS. THANK YOU. DID YOU HAVE ANY, UH, COMMENTS? COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN? UH, YES. UH, WE HAD A, A COMMUNITY MEETING, UH, BEFORE THE HOLIDAYS. IT WAS WELL ATTENDED. UH, THIS PROJECT WAS WELL RECEIVED. UM, I I THINK IT FITS IN WITH THE, THE CULTURE OF THE COMMUNITY AND, UH, WHILE THE OPPOSITIONS CONCERNS REALLY DO HAVE MERIT BECAUSE THERE ARE BAD ACTORS IN THIS AREA THAT ARE, UM, HOSTING ILLEGAL RODEOS, UH, THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED. BUT THIS ISN'T THAT, UH, THESE OPERATORS ARE TRYING TO DO IT THE RIGHT WAY AND, UH, GO THROUGH THE PROPER PROCESS AND WE HAVE A MEANS TO HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE. WE'VE, UH, MINIMIZED THE OPERATING HOURS TO MINIMIZE THE IMPACT OF THE, THE, UH, SURROUNDING COMMUNITY. AND, UM, I THINK IT, IT FITS IN WELL AND THAT'S WHY IT HAS MY, MY FULL SUPPORT AND THAT'S WHY I MOVED, MOVED THE, UH, FOR APPROVAL. THANK YOU. I BELIEVE I OVERLOOKED SOMETHING. SO WE'RE ALSO APPROVING THE NEW SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR A COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT OUTSIDE LIMITED TO A RODEO. AND IS THERE A TIME PERIOD, I BELIEVE THREE IS LISTED IN THE CONDITIONS. I THINK IT WAS A THREE YEAR PERIOD IN THE SUP CONDITIONS. IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE RECOMMENDING? THAT'S, THAT'S CORRECT. WITH NO ELIGIBILITY FOR AUTO RENEWALS? YES. OKAY, THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. UM, ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? SEEING NONE. WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SIMS TO CLOSE A PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE A NEW PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AND A NEW SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT OUTSIDE LIMITED TO A RODEO FOR A THREE YEAR PERIOD SUBJECT TO A SITE PLAN AND SUP CONDITIONS. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION PASSES. THAT WAS LITERALLY MY FIRST RODEO. [25. 26-195A An application for 1) IM Industrial Manufacturing District and 2) a new Specific Use Permit for an industrial (inside) potentially incompatible industrial use on property zoned CR Community Retail District and IM Industrial Manufacturing District with Specific Use Permit 93 for an electric substation on a portion, on the north line of Scyene Road, east of the UPRR. Staff Recommendation: Denial. Applicant: HFLP, Ltd. Representative: EE Okpa Planner: Martin Bate Council District: 7 Z-25-000198 / Z245-211] ALL RIGHT. UH, CASE NUMBER 25. MR. BATE. THANK YOU. UH, ITEM 25 IS CASE Z 25 DASH 0 0 0 1 98, ALSO KNOWN AS Z 2 45 21. AN APPLICATION FOR ONE. I AM INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURING DISTRICT AND TWO, A NEW SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR AN INDUSTRIAL INSIDE POTENTIALLY INCOMPATIBLE INDUSTRIAL USE ON PROPERTY ZONE CR COMMUNITY RETAIL DISTRICT. AND I AM INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURING DISTRICT WITH SPECIFIC USE PERMIT 93 FOR AN ELECTRIC SUBSTATION ON A PORTION ON THE NORTH LINE OF SA ROAD, EAST OF THE UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD STAFF. RECOMMENDATION IS DENIAL. THANK YOU MR. BATE. I SEE NO ONE PRESENT. UM, IS THERE ANYONE ONLINE? NO. UM, THAT BEING THE CASE, UH, COMMISSIONER WHEELER, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? UM, I HAVE A MOTION TO HOLD THIS CASE UNTIL, UH, THE FIRST, FIRST I MOVED TO, I'M IN THE MATTER OF Z TWO FIVE DASH 0 0 1 9 8, ALSO KNOWN AS Z 2 4 5 2 11. I MOVE TO KEEP THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN, UM, UNTIL MARCH 5TH. UM, OKAY. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? COMMISSIONER HAMPTON. ALRIGHT, WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WHEELER, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HAMPTON TO KEEP THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AND TO PUT THE CASE UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL MARCH THE FIFTH. ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? YES, THERE HAS BEEN ABSOLUTELY NO COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT ON, ON THIS MATTER. WE'VE OVERLY COMMUNICATED, UM, WITH THIS PARTICULAR, UM, REPRESENTATIVE TO CONTACT, UM, PARKDALE DIXON CIRCLE, MILL CITY, AND BURRA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS. AND THAT DIDN'T, THAT WAS NOT, THAT DID NOT HAPPEN AND IT STILL HAS NOT [06:00:01] HAPPENED. SO I'LL GIVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO MARCH, UM, BEFORE WE VOTE ON THIS. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER. ER, ANYONE ELSE? IF NOT ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION? I'M SORRY, MR. PEPE? THAT BE YES. WITHOUT PREJUDICE? YEAH. UH, JUST AS A, UH, COMMENT, UH, FOR COMMISSIONER WHEELER, UH, THE APPLICANT DID REACH OUT THIS MORNING, UH, REQUESTING HE WANTED TO WITHDRAW THE CASE. UH, WE INFORMED HIM, GIVEN THAT IT WAS ALREADY NOTICED FOR PUBLIC HEARING, UH, THAT IT WOULD NEED TO BE DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE IF HE WANTED TO DO THAT. UH, I'M NOT SURE IF YOU, UH, HAD A CHANCE TO GET THAT CORRESPONDENCE. UM, I DIDN'T, BUT I MEAN, I'M ACTUALLY WAS GIVING BENEFIT OF THAT WAY. WE WERE READY TO MOVE FORWARD WITH, UH, FOLLOWING STAFF RECOMMENDATION. WE, I JUST STILL WANTED TO GIVE THEM OPPORTUNITY TO REACH OUT, BUT I CAN GO RIGHT AHEAD AND VOTE YES AGAIN, HE DID IT. HE ASKED FOR WITHDRAW AND DO A SO ARE, ARE YOU READY TO WITHDRAW YOUR PREVIOUS MOTION, COMMISSIONER WHEELER? I AM READY TO, UH, WITHDRAW. AND THAT'S ACCEPTABLE BY THE PERSON WHO SECONDED? YES. ALRIGHT. YOUR ALTERNATE MOTION COMMISSIONER, AM I ALTERNATE MOTION IN THE MATTER OF Z TWO FIVE DASH 1 98, ALSO KNOWN AS Z 2 4 5 DASH TWO 11 IS THE FOLLOW STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF DENIAL, BUT ALSO WITH PREJUDICE. WITH PREJUDICE, YES MA'AM. AND TO CONFIRM IS WITH PREJUDICE, SO THE TWO YEAR COOLING OFF PERIOD WITH PREJUDICE, THIS IS, UH, UM, I DO HAVE COMMENTS, BUT THIS IS A, UH, THIS IS, I AM IN A DISTRICT THAT IS ONE THAT IS, EVEN THOUGH, EVEN THOUGH IT IS NEXT TO SOMETHING THAT IS INDUSTRIAL, UM, THAT INDUSTRIAL, THAT PARTICULAR, UH, HAS BEEN THERE FOR, I GUESS I'M NOT FOR SURE IF IT WAS A FORD PLANT OR A GM PLANT. I CAN'T REMEMBER WHAT MY HUSBAND TOLD ME, BUT IT WAS ONE OF THE TWO BLAINE'S, BUT IT IS NOW LANE'S TRANSMISSION. UM, BUT THE CITY, UM, THE COMMUNITY HAS OVERLY COMMUNICATED THAT IT'S, THEY DON'T WANT ANY, IM IN THAT AREA. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE APPLICANT REQUESTED DENIAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE. UM, THAT'S A, THAT'S A, I MEAN, WELL, SO IF IT'S WITH PREJUDICE OR ARE WE WAIT TILL MARCH, MARCH WITHOUT PREJUDICE WOULD ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO COME BACK WITH A, ANOTHER PLAN FOR THE PROPERTY WITHIN TWO YEARS WITH PREJUDICE WOULD I UNDERSTAND, BUT YOU'RE, YOU'RE DISCUSSION. OH, OKAY. UH, DO WE HAVE A SECOND FOR THE MOTION WITH PREJUDICE? OKAY, WE DO HAVE A MOTION. UH, AND A SECOND, UH, COMMENTS. COMMISSIONER WHEELER? YEAH, SO THIS PARTICULAR APPLICANT, THIS IS UM, THIS, THE APPLICANT HAS A HISTORY OF NOT WANTING TO WORK WITH THE COMMUNITY. SAME APPLICANT IS ON THE WINTERS TOWERS CASE. WE'VE OVERLY COMMUNICATED THE NEED TO HAVE COMMUN ENGAGEMENT. THIS IS CLOSE TO THE PARKDALE COMMUNITY. UM, IT HAS, UH, UM, IT WOULD CAUSE SOME ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES. YOU HAVE DIXON CIRCLE WHO IS RIGHT NEXT TO IT ACROSS THE WAY IS ALSO, UH, EXTRA PART ROSE GARDEN NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. UM, THE REFERENCE TO THERE IS SOME, IM THERE IS REALLY ONLY, THERE'S A BATCH PLANT, NOT BATCH PLANT. YEAH. CONCRETE BATCH PLANT THAT IS THE SEA. THAT SHOULD HAVE ALREADY BEEN SHUT DOWN, BUT IT WAS USED FOR THE CITY. UM, BUT THE ONLY INDUSTRIAL USE THAT IS CLOSE TO THAT IS THE BUILDING. BLAINE'S, BLAINE'S, I THINK, UH, MOTORS, BLAINE'S MOTORS. BUT THAT BUILDING HAS BEEN THERE, GOD KNOWS, UH, 20, UH, TWENTIES OR THIRTIES, 40 I SOMEWHERE IT'S BEEN THERE OVER 50 YEARS, LET ME SAY THAT. AND THAT BUILDING, UM, THE CITY HAS OVER THE TRY TO, TO SOME KIND OF WAY PURCHASE OR DO SOMETHING. UM, SO THIS IS NOT A WANTED AT ALL WANTED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. UM, YEAH. AND SO, AND I HAVE NOT HEARD FROM THE APPLICANT AS FAR AS A CONVERSATION SINCE HE FIRST SUBMITTED. HE HAS EMAILED, BUT HE WILL NOT RESPOND VERBALLY. ALRIGHT. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER WHEELER. ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER HAMPTON? THANK YOU. UM, I UNDERSTAND COMMISSIONER WHEELER'S, UM, RATIONALE. I, I THINK MY QUESTION IS, IT'S AN EXISTING, UM, CR DISTRICT, COMMUNITY RETAIL PORTION OF IT IS IM, IT SOUNDS LIKE THE IM IS A SIGNIFICANT CONSIDERATION FOR THE COMMUNITY IN TERMS OF LONG-TERM VISION. AND BY DOING THE, UM, DENIAL, IT ESSENTIALLY KEEPS THAT IM FOR TWO YEARS MM-HMM . INSTEAD OF, AND I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERNS WITH THE APPLICANT AND THE LACK OF COMMUNICATIONS, BUT THINKING OF IT ONLY AS A LAND USE, I'M JUST WONDERING IF WITHOUT PREJUDICE MIGHT GIVE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR A DIFFERENT PLAN TO COME FORWARD IN A SHORTER [06:05:01] AMOUNT OF TIME. AND I CERTAINLY KNOW THERE'S A LOT GOING IN. IT'S GOT ADJACENCY TO PD 5 95, UM, AND JUST A LOT OF OTHER MOVING PARTS. SO THAT WOULD BE MY ONLY, UM, CONCERN AND CONSIDERING THE STRAIGHT DENIAL AND WOULD WELCOME HEARING OTHER COMMISSIONER'S THOUGHTS. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER SIMS? YEAH, I, I THINK I, I SHARE COMMISSIONER HAMPTON'S CONCERNS AND THE, THE OTHER CONCERN THAT I HAVE IS THAT IF AN APPLICANT SAYS REQUESTS TO WITHDRAW, THAT STRIKES ME AS AN APPLICANT WHO'S WANTING TO WORK AND TO DO THE RIGHT THING. AND THEN IT TROUBLES ME TO BAR THE APPLICANT FOR TWO YEARS. I ABSOLUTELY TAKE YOUR POINT COMMISSIONER, BUT IT TROUBLES ME TO BAR THE APPLICANT FOR TWO YEARS FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO COME BACK BEFORE US. SO FOR THAT REASON, I'M NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO SUPPORT THE MOTION. AND COMMISSIONER WHEELER, THIS PARTICULAR APPLICANT DOES NOT DO THE RIGHT THING. THIS PARTICULAR APPLICANT OVER, WE'VE OVERLY COMMUNICATED WITH THIS APPLICANT ON MULTIPLE PROJECTS AND HIS TAKE IS EVERY TIME WE TELL HIM THAT HE NEEDS TO REACH OUT TO THE COMMUNITY, THE QUESTION IS WHY, WHY DO I HAVE TO, UM, WE, WE HAVE A SIMILAR CASE THAT WE HAD TO, THAT THE SAME THING DENIED. IT WASN'T SIMILAR TO THIS CASE, BUT THE APPLICANT IS THE SAME. UM, AND THAT WAS THE WINTERS TOWER. THIS APPLICANT KNOWS THE STANCE ON THE COMMUNITY THAT PROJECTS NEED TO GO THROUGH THEM. UM, UM, SO I, I CAN'T AND NEITHER HAS HE ATTEMPTED TO REACH OUT TO THESE COMMUNITIES AND NE UM, PARKDALE, I VERY SELDOM GET ANY COMMUNICATION FROM PARKDALE. PARKDALE REACHED OUT TO ME AND SAID THAT THIS IS A NO FOR THEM. UM, DIXON, DIXON, I TALKED TO DIXON THIS WEEK. UM, COMMUNITY, THIS WAS A SIMPLE COMMUNITY, UH, DEAL. SO I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW. FOR ME IT'S A STRAIGHT DENIAL. OKAY. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER WHEELER. UM, ANY OTHER COMMENTS? IF NOT, I'M, I'M GOING TO CHIME IN HERE AND SAY THAT I'M NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO SUPPORT THE MOTION WITH PREJUDICE. I, UM, AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER HAMPTON THAT THE EXISTING IM ZONING TO ME IS A, A BIG CONCERN FOR THE SURROUNDING AREA AND IT LOCKS THAT IN FOR A TWO YEAR PERIOD. UM, I UNDERSTAND, UH, WHERE COMMISSIONER WHEELER IS COMING FROM, BUT, UM, BLOCKING OFF THE POSSIBILITY TO CHANGE UNDESIRABLE ZONING TO A MORE DESIRABLE ZONING FOR TWO YEARS. JUST BECAUSE YOU DON'T TRUST OR DISLIKE A PARTICULAR APPLICANT, JUST SEEMS TO, UM, NOT BE THE MOST EFFECTIVE WAY OF DEALING WITH IT. IF, IF A IF A PROJECT COMES FORWARD THAT YOU DON'T LIKE OR THE COMMUNITY DOES NOT LIKE, YOU ALWAYS HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO DENY IT. UM, YOU KNOW, EITHER WITH OR WITHOUT PREJUDICE DOWN THE ROAD. BUT I WOULD PREFER AT THIS POINT TO, UH, DO DENIAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE. BUT IS THERE ANY OTHER, ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS I'D LIKE TO CALL THE QUESTION? VERY WELL, I THINK WE VOTE TO CALL THE QUESTION. I DON'T, THERE'S NO COMMENT ALLOWED. WE JUST TAKE A VOTE. YEAH, IT'S NOT DEBATABLE. IT DOES, UH, REQUIRE A SECOND AND IT REQUIRES A TWO THIRDS VOTE TO PASS. OKAY. IS THERE A SECOND TO CALL THE QUESTION SECOND? COMMISSIONER HALL OR COMMISSIONER COX COX. OKAY. VERY WELL. UM, I GUESS WE NEED A ROLL CALL VOTE THEN TO SEE IF WE HAVE TWO THIRDS. SO THE MOTION IS TO CALL THE QUESTION, UM, WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL DISTRICT ONE? AYE. DISTRICT TWO, DISTRICT THREE, DISTRICT FOUR? NO. DISTRICT FIVE, NO DISTRICT SIX. NO DISTRICT SEVEN. WHAT IS THE NO ORDER? YES. 'CAUSE I'M SO CONFUSED RIGHT NOW. WHAT IS THE, WHAT IS THE ORDER? YES. NO TO NO, TO WHAT I PROPOSED OR YE YES. TO WHAT I PROPOSED. OH YEAH. CALL HIM THE COURSE. YEAH, YEAH. YES, YES. CAN YOU REPEAT THAT? CAN YOU REPEAT THAT? YOUR VOTE IS YES TO CALL THE QUESTION TO TO CALL. THAT'S ALL WE'RE VOTING ON IS TO CALL THE QUESTION TO, YES. OKAY. THANK YOU. YES, YES. OKAY. THANK YOU. YES. OKAY. YEAH. DISTRICT EIGHT? NO. DISTRICT NINE? YES. DISTRICT 10? YES. DISTRICT 11? NO. DISTRICT 12? YES. DISTRICT 13? YES. DISTRICT 14 AND DISTRICT 15. DO WE HAVE A CALCULATION AS TO WHETHER WE HAVE 60%? I HAVE SIX IN, I HAVE SIX AND SIX. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. 1, 2, 3, 4. YEAH, IT FAILED. MOTION FAILS. IT PASSES. FAILS. OH, IT FAILS. MOTION FAILS. ALL RIGHT. OTHER COMMENTS THEN? [06:10:01] COULD STAFF CHIME IN? YEP. JUST CERTAINLY JUST TO ADD A LITTLE COLOR, UH, MAYBE THROW A WRENCH IN. BUT, UH, JUST TO ADD SOME CLARIFICATION WITH REGARDS TO DENIALS AND DENIALS WITHOUT PREJUDICE, UH, WHEN A CASE HAS A STRAIGHT DENIAL OR WITH PREJUDICE OR WHAT HAVE YOU, UH, IT DOES PUT IN A TWO YEAR LIMITATION WHERE NEW ZONING CHANGE OR NEW REQUESTS FOR, UH, ZONING CHANGES CAN'T BE FILED FOR TWO YEARS. UH, THERE IS A WAIVER PROCESS WHERE AN APP, A PROPERTY OWNER CAN REQUEST A WAIVER OF THAT TWO YEAR LIMITATION. UM, IT REQUIRES THEM SUBMITTING A REQUEST TO OUR DEPARTMENT AND THEN WE SCHEDULE IT FOR CPC TO CONSIDER THAT REQUEST. UH, I HAVEN'T DONE ONE OF THOSE MYSELF, SO I'M A LITTLE FUZZY ON THE DETAILS. BUT, UH, IN THE CODE IT SAYS THE COMMISSION WA MAY WAIVE THE TIME LIMITATION IF THERE ARE CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT A NEW HEARING. UH, SO THERE IS SORT OF AN OPTION THERE TO TAKE AWAY THAT TWO YEAR LIMIT. UM, SHOULD SOMETHING COME BEFORE, UH, THIS BODY AGAIN FROM THIS, UH, FROM THE PROPERTY OWNER, UH, ON THIS SITE, JUST TO ADD SOME INFO THERE. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER SERATO? YEAH, AGAIN, A GAP IN KNOWLEDGE HERE. SO JUST TELL ME OUT, UM, WITH PREJUDICE, LIKE WHAT'S THE POINT OF DOING THAT TO A, YOU KNOW, A POTENTIAL APPLICANT? IT JUST, IT'S PUNISHMENT FOR THEM NOT DOING THINGS PROPERLY IN THE PAST OR DOES IT JUST PUT, 'CAUSE ISN'T THE BURDEN ON THEM TO PROVE THAT THEY, THAT THEY HAVE TO, YOU KNOW, HAVE THEIR DUCKS IN ORDER IN ORDER TO GET SOMETHING APPROVED? LIKE DOESN'T THAT BURDEN FALL ON THEM ANYWAYS? SO WHAT'S THE POINT OF DOING SOMETHING WITH PREJUDICE AS OPPOSED TO JUST I THINK THAT'S FOR STAFF. YEAH, I WOULD, I WOULD SAY THAT IT'S SIMPLY THAT'S HOW THE CITY CODE IS WRITTEN. IT'S WRITTEN SUCH THAT, UH, AFTER A FINAL DECISION IS REACHED BY THE COMMISSIONER, CITY COUNCIL DENYING A REQUEST FOR A CHANGE IN A ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION OR BOUNDARY, NO SUBSEQUENT APPLICATIONS MAY BE CONSIDERED FOR THAT PROPERTY FOR TWO YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE FINAL DECISION. YEAH. BUT WHY, WHY IS A GOOD QUESTION THAT PERHAPS ON LIKE, WHAT'S THE WIND? I DON'T UNDERSTAND. LIKE WHAT I CAN, I CAN MAKE US BETTER SO THAT YOU HAVE LIKE LESS LIKE BAD WORK TO DO ON THIS SIDE? I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T KNOW. LIKE I'M TRYING TO YEAH. WELL IN MY EXPERIENCE, YOU KNOW, DENIAL WITH PREJUDICE MEANS THAT YOU THINK THAT THE UNDERLYING ZONING IS CORRECT, THAT YOU'RE NOT WILLING TO ENTERTAIN A A, A MOTION, I MEAN A, A APPLICATION TO COME FORWARD TO CHANGE THE ZONING. UM, THE OTHER THING, OTHER CASE IN WHICH IT'S USED FREQUENTLY IS IF THERE'S BEEN A VERY, VERY CONTENTIOUS CASE, UM, YOU DON'T WANT THE APPLICANT AND THE APPLICANT'S DENIED, YOU DENIED WITH WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE APPLICANT CAN IMMEDIATELY REFILE AND PUT A NEIGHBORHOOD, YOU KNOW, BACK THROUGH FIGHTING IT OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN. BUT THAT'S NOT THE CASE WITH THIS NECESSARILY. NO, IT'S NOT. SO I THINK THIS DEFAULTS BACK TO THE OTHER, UH, CRITERIA. UM, YOU KNOW, WITH PREJUDICE TO ME WOULD SEEM TO INDICATE THAT YOU DON'T WANT TO SEE ANY APPLICATION FOR ANY CHANGE HERE. THAT YOU THINK THE UNDERLYING ZONING IS CORRECT. SO IN THAT CASE IT WOULD BE HERE A COMBINATION OF IM AND CR ZONING WITHOUT PREJUDICE WOULD MEAN THAT YOU WOULD BE WILLING TO CONSIDER AN APPLICATION BECAUSE YOU DON'T THINK THE UNDERLYING ZONING IS CORRECT, WHETHER IT'S THIS APPLICANT OR SOME OTHER APPLICANT. NO, I, I UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PREJUDICE AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE. I JUST, I DON'T GET THE WHY BEHIND THE, WITH PREJUDICE. YOU'VE CLARIFIED THAT A LITTLE BIT NOW. THANK YOU. ANY YES. COMMISSIONER WHEELER. THE UNDERLYING ZONING PORTION OF IT IS I AM, BUT THE MAJORITY OF THE PROPERTY IS, IS CR CS THAT IS COMPATIBLE. THE CS IS, IS IS, UH, CR C IS CR THE CR IS COMPATIBLE, UM, WITH THE, THE BUSINESSES THAT THERE ARE NOW AND THE LAND USE NOW. UM, AND, AND IT'S TO CHANGE THAT LAND USE. SO I DO THINK THAT WHAT IS THERE NOW, UM, IS WHAT THE COMMUNITY WANTS TO SEE NOW. ALRIGHT, ANY OTHER COMMENTS? IF NOT, WE HAVE A QUESTION OF CERTAINLY COMMISSIONER FORSYTH. SO COMMISSIONER RAY REAGAN, IS IT YOUR UNDERSTANDING THEN THAT A, A PART OF THIS, UH, DEVELOPMENT HERE IS ZONED? I AM AND PART OF IT IS CR AND THEY'RE WANTING TO CHANGE IT SO THAT EVERYTHING IS I AM, YES. SO THEY WANT, SO IT WOULD REMOVE THE CR ZONING. THERE'S ALREADY THE CR ZONING THERE. SO CURRENTLY WHAT IS, THERE IS A, A RESTAURANT AND THEN A GAS STATION CONVENIENCE STORE, UH, SLASH LIQUOR STORE. AND WHAT IS IN THE IM COMPONENT? THE IM IS. SO WHAT THEY, NOTHING. IT'S NOTHING PRETTY MUCH BEHIND THE, I BEHIND, UM, THE, THE PROPERTY BEHIND IT IS A TEMPORARY CONCRETE COMPANY THAT IS FOR THE CITY. THE CITY IS USING IT TO BUILD, UM, SOMETHING, A PART OF THE TRAILS, THE CRE, UH, WHAT IS IT? WHAT ARE THEY DOING? IT'S SOMETHING, THERE'S A PARK, I THINK, UH, SOME TRAILS AND WHATNOT THAT ARE BEING, YEAH, THEY'RE BUILDING THE TRAILS AND TUNNELS OR SOMETHING TO, TO FOR DRAINAGE. AND SO THEY, PART OF THE BATCH COMPANY, PART OF THE CONCRETE COMPANY IS ON INE THE OTHER PART IS ACTUALLY ON DIXON CIRCLE. AND DIXON CIRCLE HAS OVERLY COMMUNICATED [06:15:01] ABOUT WHAT THEY, THAT THEY LIKE. THEY'VE WENT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION, FILED COMPLAINTS, ALL KIND OF THINGS. UM, BECAUSE IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE REMOVED SIX MONTHS AGO AND IT HASN'T. UM, BUT AS FAR AS WHAT'S ON THE GROUND RIGHT NOW, IT'S A REST. THERE IS A GAS STATION, THE ONLY GAS STATION ON SA FOR MILE FOR A COUPLE OF MILES, UH, UM, A RESTAURANT. AND THEN THERE'S, NEXT TO IT IS NOTHING. THE NEXT, THE NEXT BUSINESS NEXT TO THAT IS BLAINE'S, UM, MOTORS. SO THERE'S NOTHING THERE. AND SO IF THIS, UH, PROPOSAL WERE TO PASS, THEN THEY WOULD BE TEARING EVERYTHING DOWN. IT WOULD ALL BE ZONED IM AND THEY WOULD BE BUILDING ELECTRIC SUBSTATION THERE. YEAH, SO THERE IS CURRENTLY A PORT. SO THE C IT IS MORE CR THERE THAN IT IS. I AM AND I AM, DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING ON IT. AND JUST TO CLARIFY, THE REQUEST IS NOT FOR A SUBSTATION, UH, WITHIN THE CAPTION, IT'S SIMPLY THERE'S A VERY OLD SUP THERE FOR THE SUBSTATION THAT THE LEGAL BOUNDARIES ARE. IT'S ONE OF THOSE OLD CPS WHERE THEY JUST MANAGE GIGANTIC LEGAL BOUNDARY, BUT PART OF IT GOES ONTO THIS PROPERTY. I DON'T THINK THE SUBSTATION EXISTS ANYMORE. OR IF IT IS, IT, IT'S SOMEWHERE ELSE. IT'S NOT ON THIS PROPERTY. UM, BUT AGAIN, THAT, THAT WAS SIMPLY A DESCRIPTION OF ALL THE ZONING ENTITLEMENTS ON THE AREA OF REQUEST. THE ACTUAL REQUEST IS FOR TO REZONE ALL THAT TO IM AND THEN TO ISSUE AN SUP FOR INDUSTRIAL INSIDE POTENTIALLY INCOMPATIBLE USE. SO, SO TO REZONE IT, TO REZONE IT, IM IS A IS IS GOING TO CREATE A, UM, TO IT, ESSENTIALLY IT WILL REZONE IT WITH A MORE INTENSE USE. THE CR IS THE MAJORITY OF THE USE. SO THAT IS ALSO PART OF THE REASON FOR PREJUDICE BECAUSE, UM, UM, THE CR PORTION OF IT IS THE GREATER PORTION AND IT IS TOTALLY A VERY, I MEAN A LESS USE. SO THE IM THAT THEY HAVE NOW, THEY COULD UTILIZE THE IM THAT THEY HAVE NOW ON THAT PARTICULAR PROPERTY. UM, MADAM CHAIR, CAN I MAKE A COMMENT? CERTAINLY, I, IN LISTENING TO THIS, I, I FEEL THAT WE HAVE TO DEFER TO THE GOOD JUDGMENT OF COMMISSIONER REAGAN. SHE KNOWS HER DISTRICT AND I HAVE TO DEFER TO HER ON THIS. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER. ANYBODY, ANY OTHER COMMENTS? IF NOT, WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR MADE BY COMMISSIONER WHEELER, UM, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FORSYTH TO DENY WITH PREJUDICE. ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? NAY. WHY DON'T WE TAKE A ROLL CALL VOTE. DISTRICT ONE? NO. DISTRICT TWO? NO. DISTRICT THREE, DISTRICT FOUR? YES. DISTRICT FIVE? NO. DISTRICT SIX? NO. DISTRICT SEVEN? YES. DISTRICT EIGHT? YES. DISTRICT NINE? NO. DISTRICT 10? NO. DISTRICT 11? NO. WAS THAT ENOUGH? NO. DISTRICT 12, DISTRICT 13? YES. DISTRICT 14 AND DISTRICT 15. MOTION FAILS. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. I HAVE EIGHT AND NO, EIGHT AND NO, IT FAILED. ALRIGHT. MOTION FAILS. UH, COMMISSIONER WHEELER, DO YOU HAVE AN ALTERNATE MOTION? I DO. UM, IN THE MATTER OF Z 2 4 5 DASH 0 0 1 9 8, MOVE TO KEEP THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AND, AND TO MARCH 5TH. OKAY, WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR BY COMMISSIONER WHEELER, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FORTHY TO PUT THE MATTER UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL MARCH THE FIFTH. COMMENTS. COMMISSIONER WHEELER? UM, I BELIEVE BEFORE WE COULD, BEFORE THAT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION ARE TO CLOSE THIS AND ONLY TO HAVE AN APPLICATION RESUBMITTED TOMORROW THAT I NEED TO HAVE A COMMUNITY MEETING, UM, UM, WITH, WITH, WITH THE COMMUNITY. AND, UM, I DIDN'T INITIATE IT ORIGINALLY. I TRIED AT LEAST ALLOW FOR THE APPLICANT TO INITIATE IT. AND SO NOW I WILL INITIATE A COMMUNITY MEETING AS IT RELATES TO THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY. ALRIGHT, ANY COMMENTS? IF NOT, WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR TO PUT THE MOTION, UH, TO PUT THE CASE UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL MARCH THE FIFTH. ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION PASSES. [Items 56 & 61] MOVING ON TO THE SIGNS. MR. ROPER, IF YOU WOULD PLEASE READ IN ITEMS [06:20:01] 54, 55, 56 AND 61. I THINK WE CAN KEEP THOSE ON A CONSENT AGENDA. PARDON? IF I MAY. MADAM CHAIR, I WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST THAT 54 AND 55 BE HEARD INDIVIDUALLY. OKAY. SO THE CONSENT WOULD BE, I BELIEVE, UM, 56 AND 61. OH, SORRY MA'AM. THANK YOU. 56 AND 61 THEN PLEASE. 56 IS SIGNED. DASH TWO FIVE DASH 0 0 1 72 7. AND APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS BY JOSEPHINE GONZALEZ OF PATTERSON ID FOR A 4 35 SQUARE FOOT. LED ILLUMINATED CHANNEL LETTER SIGN READING SIDLEY AT 2323 CEDAR SPRINGS ROAD, SOUTHEAST ELEVATION. STAFF RECOMMENDATION WAS APPROVAL. S-S-D-A-C. RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL. ITEM 61 IS SIGN DASH 25 DASH 0 1 6 0 5. AN APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS BY MONICA ORTIZ OF BARNETT SIGNS INC. FOR A 164.2 SQUARE FOOT. LED ILLUMINATED FLAT ATTACHED SIGN AT 300 SOUTH PEARL EXPRESSWAY NORTH ELEVATION. STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL. S-S-D-A-C RECOMMENDATION WAS ALSO APPROVAL. THANK YOU. SEEING NO ONE IN THE AUDIENCE AND NO ONE, I DON'T BELIEVE ANYONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK OH, ONE PERSON. OKAY, ON WHICH CASE? UH, 61. ALRIGHT. UM, NICK TBO, ARE YOU ONLINE SIR? IS HE MR. TBO? CAN YOU HEAR ME? MR. NICK TBO, CASE NUMBER 61 SIGNED CASE? I DON'T SEE ANYONE PRESENT. OKAY. ALRIGHT, WELL, UM, GIVEN THE ABSENCE OF A SPEAKER, UM, COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? I DO. THANK YOU. IN THE MATTER OF THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR SIGNS CONSENT TO AGENDA ITEMS 56 AND 51, I'M, OR EXCUSE ME, 56 AND 61. I MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND FOLLOW STAFF AND S-S-A-D-C RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL. KAUFMAN SECONDING, COMMISSIONER KAUFMAN, WAS THAT YOU? OH, THANK YOU. APPRECIATE IT. UM, OKAY, WE HAVE A, A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE ITEMS 56 AND 61. ALL IN FAVOR PLEASE SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION PA HAMPTON, WOULD IT [Items 54 & 55] BE ALRIGHT TO READ 54 AND 55 AND TOGETHER IF THAT'S ACCEPTABLE TO THE COMMISSION? YES. THANK YOU MR. ROPER. 54 AND 55. ITEM 54 IS SIGN DASH TWO FIVE DASH 1 4 4 3. AN APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS BY JOSEPHINE GONZALEZ OF PATTERSON ID FOR 350 SQUARE FOOT. LED ILLUMINATED CHANNEL LETTER SIGN ON A BACKER PANEL TO READ TOWN PLACE SUITES OF BY MARRIOTT AT 5 55 EVERGREEN STREET, WEST ELEVATION. ITEM 55 IS SIGNED DASH TWO FIVE DASH 0 0 1 4 4 4. AN APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS BY JOSEPHINE GONZALEZ OF PATTERSON ID FOR 350 SQUARE FOOT. LED ILLUMINATED CHANNEL LETTER SIGN ON THE BACKER PANEL TO READ FAIRFIELD BY MARRIOTT AT 5 55 EVERGREEN STREET, WEST ELEVATION, BOTH STAFF RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL AND S-S-D-A-C RECOMMENDATION OR APPROVAL. THANK YOU. SEEING NO ONE PRESENT AND NO ONE'S ONLINE TO SPEAK. UH, COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? I DO THANK YOU IN THE MATTER OF SIGN TWO FIVE DASH 0 0 1 4 4 3 AND SIGN 25 DASH 0 1 4 4 4. I MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE THE REQUEST WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS THAT THE MAXIMUM SIZE IS SIX FEET BY 45 FEET FOR A TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE OF 270 SQUARE FEET. THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE, DO I HAVE A SECOND? COMMISSIONER KAUFMAN. THANK YOU. UH, FOR CASE 54 AND 55, WE HAVE A MOTION ON [06:25:01] THE FLOOR BY COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KAUFMAN TO FOLLOW STAFF AND S-S-D-A-C RECOMMENDATIONS FOR APPROVAL WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGE THAT THE MAXIMUM SIZE IS TO BE SIX BY 45 FOR A TOTAL OF TWO HUNDRED SEVENTY TWO HUNDRED AND SEVENTY SQUARE FEET. ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. A AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION PASSES. [Items 57 - 60] COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, IS IT ACCEPTABLE TO READ ITEMS 57 58 59 AND 60 INTO THE RECORD AT THE SAME TIME? YES, PLEASE. AND I'LL HAVE BRIEF COMMENTS. THANK YOU. UH, MR. ROPER, PLEASE. 57, 58, 59 AND 60 57 IS SIGN DASH 25 DASH 0 1 9 1. AN APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS BY POLO PADILLA OF FUSION AE FOR A 33.6 SQUARE FOOT COMBINATION OF NON ILLUMINATED FLAT ATTACHED SIGNS ON THE NORTH HOUSTON STREET FACADE AT 5 0 1 ELM STREET, SUITE 100 WEST ELEVATION. ITEM 58 IS SIGN DASH 25 DASH 0 1 1 9 6. AN APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS BY POLO PADILLA OF FUSION AE FOR A FIVE SQUARE FOOT NON ILLUMINATED FLAT ATTACK SIGN ON THE ELM STREET FACADE AT 5 0 1 ELM STREET, SUITE 100 SOUTH ELEVATION. ITEM 59 IS SIGN DASH 25 DASH 0 0 1 97. AN APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS BY POLO PADILLA OF FUSION AE FOR A 6.8 SQUARE FOOT COMBINATION OF NON ILLUMINATED FLAT ATTACHED SIGNS ON THE NORTH HOUSTON STREET AND ELM STREET FACADES AT 5 0 1 ELM STREET, SUITE 100 WEST AND SOUTH ELEVATIONS. AND ITEM 60 IS SIGN DASH TWO FIVE DASH 0 0 1 1 98. AN APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS BY POLO PADILLA OF FUSION AE FOR A 53.4 SQUARE FOOT COMBINATION OF NON ILLUMINATED CANOPY SIGNS ON ELM ELM STREET FACADE FOR 5 0 1 ELM STREET, SUITE 100 SOUTH ELEVATION. ALL WERE RECOMMENDED APPROVAL BY STAFF AND S-S-D-A-C. THANK YOU MR. ROPER. SEEING NO ONE PRESENT TO SPEAK AND NO ONE SIGNED UP ONLINE. COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? I DO THANK YOU. IN THE MATTER OF CERTIFICATE APPROPRIATENESS FOR SIGN CASES SIGN TWO FIVE DASH 0 0 1 1 91. SIGN 2 5 0 1 96 SIGN 25 DASH 0 1 97. SIGN 25 DASH 0 0 1 1 98. I MOVE TO KEEP THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AND HOLD THIS, THESE CASES UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL FEBRUARY THE FIFTH. SECOND. UM, THANK YOU. WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR BY COMMISSIONER HAMPTON HOUSE, UM, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT TO PUT THESE FOUR CASES UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL FEBRUARY THE FIFTH. ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THANK YOU. MOTION PASSES. I BELIEVE THAT IS THE END OF OUR DOCKET. [OTHER MATTERS] IT IS FIVE OH, VICE CHAIR. YES. I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT. UM, CHAIR RUBEN DID FORWARD SOME INFORMATION REGARDING THE COMMITTEES, COMMITTEES LIST AND, UM, SO I HAVE AN UPDATE. UH, MR. CALEB ROBERTS HAS BEEN APPOINTED TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE. THANK YOU. AND I WILL SEND A REVISED LIST. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER ADDITIONAL BUSINESS? NO, THAT'S IT. IF NOT, UH, 5 0 9. I I DON'T BELIEVE I NEED A MOTION TO ADJOURN. DO I MS. MORRISON? CAN I DECLARE THE MEETING ADJOURNED OR DO I NEED A MOTION? OH, YOU CAN JUST SAY WE'RE ADJOURNED AT 5 0 9. OKAY. MOTION. UH, I MAKE I MOVE TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. 5 0 9. THANK YOU. * This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.