[BRIEFINGS]
[00:00:03]
IT IS THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 19TH, 2026, AND THIS IS THE BRIEFING OF THE DALLAS CITY PLAN COMMISSION.
IT'S 10:05 AM CAN WE START OFF WITH THE ROLL CALL, UH, MS. LOPEZ? GOOD MORNING, COMMISSIONERS.
DISTRICT ONE, COMMISSIONER SIMS HERE, DISTRICT TWO.
HERBERT PRESENT, DISTRICT FOUR.
COMMISSIONER FORSEY, DISTRICT FIVE.
COMMISSIONER WILLIE REAGAN, DISTRICT EIGHT.
COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN PRESENT.
COMMISSIONER KINGSTON HERE AND PLACE 15 CHAIR RUBIN.
UM, EVERYONE, JUST AS A REMINDER, THIS IS THE, UM, BRIEFING THAT WE DO IN THE MORNINGS HERE AT THE PLAN COMMISSION.
UM, THAT MEANS IT'S TIME FOR STAFF TO BRIEF THE COMMISSION ON CASE CASES AND FOR US TO ASK QUESTIONS OF, UM, THE CITY STAFF FROM PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT.
YOU KNOW, ANY COMMENTARY OR DISCUSSION CAN TAKE PLACE IN THE AFTERNOON.
SIMILARLY, UM, FOR THOSE OF US JOINING US IN THE AUDIENCE OR, OR ONLINE, UM, THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE YOUR PUBLIC COMMENT ON ANY CASES DOES COME IN THE AFTERNOON AT OUR PUBLIC HEARING.
UM, WITH THAT SAID, WE WILL MOVE ON TO OUR FIRST BRIEFING, WHICH IS MR. PEPE, THE, THE CHIEF PLANNER GIVING UPDATE ON SENATE BILL EIGHT 40.
UM, GREAT TO, TO BE HERE AND TALK ABOUT THIS.
I CALLED THIS AN UPDATE BECAUSE, UH, SOME OF IT WILL, WILL KIND OF JUST CLARIFY ANY INTERPRETATIONS THAT STAFF CAME TO, AS, YOU KNOW, SOLIDIFIED.
I THINK OUR LAST BRIEFING ON THIS WAS AUGUST, UH, JUST BEFORE THE BILL WAS REALLY COMING INTO EFFECT IN SEPTEMBER, ONE OF LAST YEAR.
UM, SO LEGISLATION HASN'T CHANGED.
UH, INTERPRETATION IS, IS SOLIDIFIED, UM, ON THE STAFF SIDE NOW.
AND, UH, A BIG PART OF WHY WE'RE ASKED IS, IS ALSO FOR, FOR PEOPLE WHO HADN'T HEARD BEFORE, UM, THAT WEREN'T ON THE COMMISSION IN, IN AUGUST OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
SO SOME OF THIS IS GONNA BE SIMILAR TO WHAT YOU'VE SEEN BEFORE IN THE SLIDES AND IN AUGUST.
UM, WHAT I DID TRY AND UPDATE WAS SOME STATISTICS ON THE CONVERS THE, UH, CONVERSATIONS WE'VE HAD WITH DEVELOPERS, UM, AND THE PERMIT INFORMATION.
NOT MUCH TO REPORT THERE, BUT, UH, PLENTY TO REPORT ON THE CONSULTATION AND DISCUSSION SIDE, UM, EARLIER ON.
SO I'LL JUMP IN WITHOUT ANY MORE FANFARE.
UM, SO REALLY QUICK TALK ABOUT THE BILL ITSELF.
UH, THE, YOU KNOW, THE GENERAL BASICS, UH, SOME DEFINITIONS THAT ARE IMPORTANT, SOME EXCLUSIONS, DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
I THINK ONE THING WE'LL GO INTO MORE DETAIL THAN PREVIOUS IS, IS, UH, RPS, UH, 'CAUSE I KNOW THERE'S QUESTIONS AROUND THAT, UH, COULD SOME OF THE CONVERSIONS AND, UM, PROCESS, UH, OVERALL FOR, FOR PARTICIPATING.
UH, THE NEW THING IS KIND OF MAYBE SOME STATISTICS THAT WE'VE GOT.
SO MIXED, EXCUSE ME, MULTIFAMILY AND MIXED USE.
RESIDENTIAL IS A NEW TERM FOR THIS BILL.
I WOULDN'T NECESSARILY ALIGN THEM WITH WHAT WE CALL MULTIFAMILY AND MIXED USE, UH, OR MIXED USE HERE.
THEY'RE INDEPENDENT CREATURES THAT LIVE IN STATE CODE NOW, AND THEY WERE CREATED BY THIS BILL.
OVERALL, THE SUMMARY IS THAT THE CITY MUST ALLOW MULTIFAMILY AND MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL.
AGAIN, NEW DEFINITIONS, UH, DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS IN NEW ZONING DESIGNATIONS.
THOSE DESIGNATIONS, UH, ALT DEFINE LATER.
UM, AND IF PROJECT, UM, QUALIFIES FOR THAT, IT'S THOSE TWO USES, MODIFY AND ENHANCED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS APPLY.
THERE ARE SOME LOCAL EXCLUSIONS THAT ARE KIND OF GEOGRAPHIC.
UM, IT ALSO HAS A PROVISION THAT STREAMLINES THE PROCESS FOR CONVERSION OF BUILDINGS, UM, TO THOSE SAME USES.
AND IT DID TAKE EFFECT ON SEPTEMBER ONE OF LAST YEAR.
SO LET'S DRILL DOWN ON THE DEFINITIONS HERE.
SO, MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL, THE USE OR DEVELOPMENT OF A SITE WITH THREE OR MORE UNITS WITHIN ONE OR MORE BUILDINGS.
THAT'S NOT THAT FAR OFF FROM OUR CODE DEFINITION OF MULTIFAMILY.
UM, MIXED USE OR RESIDENTIAL, HOWEVER, USE OR DEVELOPMENT OF A SITE CONSISTING OF RESIDENTIAL AND NON-RESIDENTIAL USES, IN WHICH THE RESIDENTIAL USES ARE 65% OF THE TOTAL, UH, SQUARE FOOTAGE.
SO WE WILL THROW THIS TERM AROUND A MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT.
[00:05:01]
WE ARE USUALLY GONNA BE REFERRING IN EIGHT 40 CENTS TO THIS NEWS TERM IN STATE LAW CALLED MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL.AND THAT MEANS IT'S GOTTA BE 65 OR MORE RESIDENTIAL.
SO YOU CAN KIND OF IMAGINE WHAT THAT COULD LOOK LIKE AS A PROJECT.
THERE'S DIFFERENT PERMUTATIONS, BUT IT'S GOTTA BE A DEVELOPMENT AND IT'S GOTTA BE THOSE, UM, PERCENTAGES, UH, QUICKLY, THE EXCLUSIONS THAT THE BILL SAYS, IT DOES NOT OVERRULE OR, OR AFFECT NECESSARILY, UM, SHORT TERM, UH, RENTAL REGULATIONS.
UH, CITIES CAN STILL REGULATE THOSE IF THEY CHOOSE TO AND ARE PERMITTED BY COURTS.
UM, BUT THAT IS SINGLED OUT IN THE, UH, BILL.
THAT'S SOMETHING THAT IS CITY CAN STILL DO.
UH, WE THREW IN M-I-H-D-B HERE BECAUSE IT IS, UH, STILL APPLICABLE IF THE, UH, STANDARDS ARE STILL USABLE.
SO IT DOESN'T, UH, SAY THAT, UH, CERTAIN PROJECTS CAN'T USE THAT OR CAN'T PARTICIPATE IN THAT.
UH, YOU'LL SEE WHEN WE GET TO, TO DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS THAT IT, IT MAY SUBVERT SOME, UM, ASPECTS OF M-I-H-D-B.
UM, AND I'M SURE THERE'S CONVERSATION WE HAD ABOUT THAT.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION IN TERMS OF THE, UH, HISTORIC CRITERIA FOR DESIGN AND REVIEW AND ALL OF THOSE THINGS.
UH, WE STILL HAVE TO GO ENFORCE ALL OF OUR HISTORIC DISTRICTS, UM, AND OVERLAYS OUT IN THE CITY.
UM, IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT HISTORIC DISTRICTS ARE LITERALLY EXEMPT FROM THE PROVISIONS OF THE BILL.
UH, BUT THEY STILL HAVE TO FOLLOW ALL THAT HISTORIC STUFF, UM, OUT THERE IN THE DISTRICTS THAT'S ALREADY PASSED.
UM, AND THEN THEY, THEY HAVE KIND OF THE, THE BLANKET FOR OTHER REGULATIONS APPLICABLE PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY, WHICH WE WOULD BASICALLY CONSIDER THE STUFF THAT'S OUTSIDE OF ZONING.
SO THAT'S ALL STILL FULLY ENFORCEABLE, UM, UNDER THE BELL.
UH, SO REALLY, REALLY CLEARLY, IT SAYS A MUNICIPALITY SHALL NOT, SHALL ALLOW MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL AND MULTIFAMILY IN A ZONING CLASSIFICATION THAT ALLOWS OFFICE RETAIL WAREHOUSE OR MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT.
OKAY? SO WE NEED TO PERMIT THOSE TWO USES IN ANY CLASSIFICATION THAT ALLOWS ALL THOSE THINGS.
SO THAT'S ANYTHING THAT, YOU KNOW, JUST LIKE THESE LITTLE ACRONYMS, IT'S ANY OF THESE COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS REALLY AT THE END OF THE DAY OFFICE THROUGH, UM, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL WITH ALL THE RETAIL IN BETWEEN.
AND YEAH, IT DOES INCLUDE PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS AND OTHER THINGS THAT PERMIT THOSE SPECIFIED USES.
I'M NOT GONNA SAY NECESSARILY NON-RESIDENTIAL USES, BUT THE ONES THAT PERMIT, UH, RETAIL OFFICE COMMERCIAL WAREHOUSING USES.
SO IT DOES APPLY TO THE PDS 'CAUSE IT TALKS ABOUT ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS.
UM, SO WE HAVE TO INCLUDE THOSE.
UM, BUT YOU'RE ONLY INVOLVED IF YOU, IF THAT YOU GO AND READ THE PD AND IT SAYS, HEY, OFFICE IS ALLOWED, RETAIL'S ALLOWED EXCLUSIONS.
THESE ARE MAINLY GEOGRAPHIC, UM, BUT ALSO REGARDS TO DISTRICTS.
SO THEY, IT SAYS A ZONING CLASSIFICATION.
THE BILL SAYS THAT ALLOWS HEAVY INDUSTRIAL USES.
SO THE INTERPRETATION ON THAT IS INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH DOES ALLOW, UM, HEAVY INDUSTRIAL USES AND IM INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURING ALSO ALLOWS HEAVY INDUSTRIAL USES.
SO YOU CAN'T PARTICIPATE IN EIGHT 40.
UM, IN THOSE TWO DISTRICTS, UH, THERE ARE LIGHTER INDUSTRIAL ONES THAT DON'T ALLOW HEAVY INDUSTRIAL USES.
UM, I THINK I ALSO HAVE A, A SHORT LIST OF SOME OF WHAT THOSE ARE, UM, IN HERE, UM, IN OUR INTERPRETATION.
'CAUSE WE, WE TOOK STATE CODE AND APPLIED IT TO OUR USES AND OUR CODE, UM, OR LAND LOCATED.
SO IF I'M IN AN APPLICABLE DISTRICT, LIKE AN NS UH, LAND LOCATED WITHIN A THOUSAND FEET OF AN EXISTING HEAVY INDUSTRIAL USER DEVELOPMENT, UH, BASICALLY THAT MEANS THAT WHEN A PROPERTY COMES IN AND IT NEEDS TO USE THE, UM, THE USE PROVISION OF EIGHT 40, THEY NEED TO GO SURVEY THE AREA AND LOOK AROUND AND SEE IF THERE IS A HEAVY INDUSTRIAL USER DEVELOPMENT.
AND ONLY THEN CAN WE, CAN WE PERMIT THEM ONCE WE'VE DETERMINED THAT THERE'S NOT A, UH, ONE OF THOSE USES COED AROUND THERE.
CAN'T BE A ILLEGAL OR NON PERMITTED HEAVY INDUSTRIAL USE.
IT'S GOTTA BE, UH, LEGALLY PERMITTED FOR US TO BE ABLE TO, UH, RULE OUT, UH, USE OF EIGHT 40, UH, NEAR ONE OF THOSE USES.
AND THEN 3000 SQUARE FEET FROM AN AIRPORT OR MILITARY BASES.
SO WE'VE GOT THOSE MAPPED ON, UH, THE 3000 SQUARE, THE 3000 FEET.
IT SHOULD BE FEET, UH, 3000 FEET FROM THOSE, UH, ZONES ON OUR GIS MAP.
IT'S PRETTY EASY TO ACCESS AND FOR BOTH THE DEVELOPERS, THE PUBLIC, UM, STAFF.
UM, AND THEN THE BILL ALSO INCLUDES AREAS DESIGNATED AS CLEARED OR ACCIDENT POTENTIAL ZONES.
UM, THE INPUT GIVEN BY OUR TRANSPORTATION AVIATION BASICALLY SAYS
[00:10:01]
THAT'S, UM, THE AREA'S VERY NEAR THE AIRPORTS AND, AND NOT REALLY MEANINGFUL FOR THIS EXERCISE BECAUSE OF THE 3000 SQUARE FEET.ANYWAY, 3000 FEET, UH, REALLY QUICKLY, THE, THE IN HEAVY INDUSTRIAL USES THAT WERE DETERMINED, UH, TO, YOU KNOW, UH, EXCLUDE THE, UM, USE OF EIGHT 40 UNIT COMMERCIAL DISTRICT ARE THE FOLLOWING HERE.
THESE ARE HEAVIER INDUSTRIAL USES.
THE BILL DOES OFFER A DEFINITION OF HEAVY, HEAVY INDUSTRIAL USES.
UM, AND THIS IS THE CITY USES THAT, UM, HAVE BEEN APPLIED TO, TO, UM, THAT DEFINITION.
'CAUSE WE HAVE TO HAVE SOMETHING, SOME CERTIFICATES OF ANCY FOR THE, UH, THE PUBLIC TO LOOK FOR.
UM, AND I WILL SAY BECAUSE THE EXERCISE OF FINDING USES, WE, WE DON'T HAVE A BUFFER MAP FOR, UH, YOU KNOW, THOUSANDS OF POTENTIAL HEAVY INDUSTRIAL USES.
WE DO HAVE A BUFFER MAP FOR, UM, THOSE AIRPORTS, UM, IN AND AROUND THE CITY, UM, FOR FOUR OR FIVE OF THOSE, UM, IN THE, IN THE AREA OR PROJECTING A, A BUFFER INTO OUR CITY.
UM, I THINK THIS IS A QUICK ANALYSIS THEY DID OF SOME OF THE GREEN COMMERCIAL ZONING OR, UH, THOSE ARE JUST STRAIGHT COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS OR, UH, THAT PERMIT OFFICE, RETAIL, ET CETERA.
UH, NOT INDUS AND, AND NOT INCLUDING THE INDUSTRIAL ONES.
PDS, YOU KNOW, CASE BY CASE BASIS, DEPENDING UPON THE USE IS PERMITTED.
AND THEN RED, UM, IS PROBABLY GONNA BE SINGLE FAMILY OR HEAVY INDUSTRIAL, AND IT'S NOT APPLICABLE.
AND THEN WE'VE GOT KIND OF HATCH BUFFERS THERE.
UH, YOU DOESN'T MEAN MUCH TO YOU, BUT THIS, THIS IS ON THE WEBSITE, SO IF YOU WANT US TO ZOOM IN, UM, THAT'S THERE.
UH, ANOTHER THING TO, TO LOOK AT.
SO THE BILL, THE BILL ESTABLISHED, IT KIND OF CHANGES THE VIBE WHEN I GET CLOSER, BUT IT, THE BILL ESTABLISHES THAT HOUSING IS, IS ALLOWED IN THOSE COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS.
BUT THEN ON THE OTHER HAND, IT SAYS THAT WHEN MULTIFAMILY AND MIXED USE ARE ALLOWED, WHEN THOSE USES ARE ALLOWED, UM, THERE ARE NEW STANDARDS ON HOW THE CITY CAN REGULATE THEM.
SO THAT DOES MODIFY HOW MULTIFAMILY DISTRICTS OPERATE BECAUSE THEY'VE DEFINED MULTIFAMILY AT THE STATE LEVEL.
AND THEN THEY'VE SAID, YOU CAN ONLY HOLD MULTIFAMILY TO X UM, CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
UM, AND SO THAT DOES APPLY OUTSIDE OF THOSE COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS.
UH, LET'S TALK ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
UM, IT, IT SAYS THAT WE CAN'T ENFORCE OR ADOPT REGULATIONS THAT REQUIRE THOSE USES TO BE MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN 36 UNITS PER ACRE IS WHAT THE BILL OFFERS TO SET SOME FLOOR OR THE GREATEST HIGHEST, THE GREATER OR THE HIGHEST RESIDENTIAL DENSITY ALLOWED IN THE CITY.
AND IN CITY OF DALLAS, THERE'S NO MAX DWELLING UNIT DENSITY.
SO WE DO HAVE TO DEFAULT TO THAT ONE BECAUSE IT'S THE GREATER OF, UM, SO IF YOU ARE A MULTIFAMILY PROJECT, YOU, YOU'RE NOT CAPS BY THAT, UM, MAX DWELLING UNIT DENSITY HEIGHTS, UM, THE BILL'S PRETTY CLEAR ON THAT.
IT'S THE HIGHEST HIGH THAT WOULD APPLY TO AN OFFICE COMMERCIAL OR RETAIL OR WAREHOUSE DEVELOPMENT ON A SITE OR 45 FEET.
SO IF YOUR OFFICE DISTRICT ALLOWED A HUNDRED FEET, WE HAVE TO ALLOW THAT A HUNDRED FEET.
UM, BUT IF YOUR OFFICE DISTRICT ALLOWED 30 FEET, WE HAVE TO ALLOW 45 FEET, WE GOTTA GO TO WHATEVER IS HIGHER, UM, BECAUSE OF HOW THE BILL IS WRITTEN, THE HIGHEST HEIGHT THAT REPLY TO AN OFFICE, COMMERCIAL, RETAIL, OR WAREHOUSE DEVELOPMENT ON A SITE.
UH, IT MODIFIES OUR RPS BECAUSE IT'S TALKING ABOUT THE HIGHEST HEIGHT, UH, THAT SETS A NEW MAX.
UM, AND, AND TIES OUR HANDS TO A DEGREE OF HOW WE CAN LIMIT RPS, UM, ACROSS A, A PROPERTY THAT'S PARTICIPATING AS AN MF OR MUR, UM, DEVELOPMENT.
I'LL HAVE SOME, UH, GRAPHICS TO HELP WITH THAT.
SO, HEIGHT, WE, WE GAVE SOME DETAIL ON THAT.
UM, SO HERE'S HOW RPS BASICALLY USED TO WORK.
UH, SO FIRST OF ALL, YOU HAVE A SECTION OF THE PROPERTY LINE THAT'S, THAT'S LIMITED TO THE 26 FEET.
RPS DOESN'T REALLY KICK IN UNTIL 26 FEET.
I THINK THIS ONE IS AN MF TWO DISTRICT, YOU KNOW, THAT'S 36 FEET IS MAX HEIGHT.
HOWEVER, YOU'RE LIMITED BY RRP S WHEN YOU'RE NEAR THE PROPERTY LINE IN, IN AN EXISTING, UH, ZONING DISTRICT.
SO THERE IS THAT 26 FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT FOR A WHILE.
THEN AFTER YOU REACH, UM, THREE TIMES 26, YOU START GOING UP AT A SLOPE OF ONE TO THREE.
SO WE, WE FOLLOW, WE FOLLOW THAT.
THAT'S WHERE WE'RE, WHERE WE HAVE BEEN IN, IN THE WORLD OF RPS COMING FROM A SITE OF ORIGINATION.
UM, BECAUSE THE BILL SAYS, UH, WE HAVE TO ALLOW THE HIGHEST HEIGHT, IT MODIFIES THAT.
AND SO, WELL, IN AN MF TWO, ACTUALLY IT'S JUST A 45 FEET BECAUSE IT SAYS WE CAN'T LIMIT IT TO 45 FEET.
RPS DOESN'T CUT INTO THAT 45 FEET.
UM, THE, THE COMMERCIAL EXAMPLE I'LL GIVE
[00:15:01]
WILL BE A LITTLE MORE, UH, TELLING THIS IS A COMMERCIAL SITE ZONED RRRR MAX HEIGHT IS, IS UP TO 70 FEET.SO WHEN YOU LOOK AT RPS CUTTING ACROSS THIS SITE, UM, IT'D BE PRETTY LIMITED, UM, FROM REACHING THAT 70 FOOT IF RPS IS APPLYING TO THIS SITE IN THE TRADITIONAL WAY.
UM, HOWEVER, WE DEFINITELY CAN'T ALLOW UNDER 45 FEET, BUT BECAUSE THE MAX HEIGHT IN THE DISTRICT IS 70 FEET, UM, WE MIGHT HAVE TO ALLOW MORE THAN 45 FEET.
BUT BECAUSE RPS IS ACTING ON THE PROPERTY, IT WOULD ACTUALLY LIMIT, UM, THE SITE STILL, UH, BECAUSE AS THE BILL SAYS, THE HIGHEST HEIGHT THAT WOULD BE PERMITTED TO A COMMERCIAL, UM, RETAIL USE.
UM, SO IF I WAS GONNA GO BUILD A, A RETAIL UA RETAIL USE HERE ON THIS PROPERTY, MY MAX HEIGHT WOULD BE ABOUT 49 BECAUSE THAT'S THE FURTHEST POINT FROM OUR SIDE OF ORIGINATION ON THE WEST OF THIS IMAGE.
UM, BUT BECAUSE THE MAX HEIGHT OF THE MIXED USE MULTIFAMILY PROJECT HAS TO BE THE HIGHEST HEIGHT THAT'S PERMITTED TO THAT COMMERCIAL, THAT NOW APPLIES ACROSS THE BOARD.
SO WE, YOUR, YOUR MAX HEIGHT WHEN YOU'RE BUILDING ONE OF THESE PROJECTS, IT'S NOT ABOUT YOUR, THAT BUILD THAT PORTION OF THE BUILDING'S DISTANCE FROM, UM, THE SITE OF ORIGINATION.
IT'S ABOUT THE PRO, THE FURTHEST POINT FROM A SITE OF ORIGINATION.
SO IT, IT'S, IT'S A LITTLE BIT MORE IMPORTANT IF YOU'RE A PROPERTY OWNER AND YOU WANT MORE HEIGHT, YOU, YOU WANT A LONGER, DEEPER PROPERTY THAT HAS MORE DISTANCE FROM, UH, FROM A SITE OF ORIGINATION, BASICALLY.
SO BECAUSE OF THAT, BECAUSE HOW EIGHT 40 WORKS, WE HAVE TO ALLOW THAT 59, UH, FEET ACROSS THE SITE SO THEY DON'T GET THE FULL 70 OF THE RR BECAUSE RPS STILL LIMITS THE SITE.
UM, BUT BECAUSE THIS PROPERTY IS THREE TIMES 60, UM, IN TERMS OF DEPTH, THEN THEY, THEY DO GET SOME MORE OVER THAT 45 FROM THE BILL THAT WAS DENSE.
UH, LITTLE SIMPLER IS THE SETBACK SECTION.
BASICALLY THEY SAY WE CAN'T HAVE SETBACKS OVER 25.
UM, MOST OF OUR DISTRICTS DON'T HAVE SETBACKS OVER 25 AT THE GROUND LEVEL.
SOME OF THEM DO HAVE SETBACKS OVER 25.
WE CAN'T ENFORCE THOSE AT THIS TIME.
SO LIKE MIXED USE DISTRICTS SOMETIMES HAVE THOSE ADDITIONAL SETBACKS.
IT SAYS WE CAN'T APPLY A SETBACK GREATER THAN 25.
YOU, IF YOUR EXISTING DISTRICT HAS A FIVE FOOT FRONT OR A, YOU KNOW, 10 FOOT FRONT, THEN YOU ACTUALLY APPLY THAT TO THE FRONT.
UM, THEN PARKING FOR ONE OF THESE PROJECTS, UM, ONE SPACE PER UNIT, UH, MAY NOT REQUIRE STRUCTURED PARKING.
IT'S WORTH NOTING THAT THAT'S TALKING ABOUT A MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT ALTOGETHER.
UM, OR A MULTI-FAMILY PROJECT ALTOGETHER.
ONE SPACE PER UNIT NOT SUPER MEANINGFUL IN DALLAS NECESSARILY.
IT MIGHT SIMPLIFY SOME THINGS, BUT YOU KNOW, PARKING REFORM IS GENERALLY LESS RESTRICTIVE.
WHAT WE PASSED LAST MAY, UM, AT ONE UNIT FOR YOUR MAX, FOR YOUR LARGE MULTIFAMILIES AND A HALF FOR FOR THE LESS ONES AND ZERO FOR THE SMALL ONES, UM, STILL MEANINGFUL, BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, THAT MEANS WE CAN'T WRITE THESE INTO PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS OR D RESTRICTIONS THAT, UM, UH, GOVERN THESE USES.
SO GOOD THING TO NOTE, UH, EVEN FOR THIS MIXED USE PROJECTS FLU AREA RATIO, IT'S PRETTY CLEAR WE CAN'T REGULATE FLOOR, FLOOR AREA RATIO.
UM, SO THAT NOT TOO MANY DISTRICTS HAVE LOWER AREA RATIO FOR COMMERCIAL, UH, PROJECTS OR, UM, MULTIFAMILY, BUT WE CAN'T REGULATE THAT AT THIS TIME.
IT ALSO, THE BILL DOES SAY WE CAN'T REQUIRE NON-RESIDENTIAL USES.
I PUT AN ASTERISK THERE BECAUSE BASICALLY IT'S A LITTLE COMPLEX, BUT IT SAYS, UNLESS THAT'S PART OF A MIXED USE DISTRICT THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, IS, IS BAKED IN WHERE MIXED USE IS IS A CORE COMPONENT OF IT.
SO WE DON'T READ THAT TO APPLY TO THE MIXED USE DISTRICTS.
BUT IF THERE ARE, THERE ARE SOME DISTRICTS OUT THERE THAT STRICTLY REQUIRE, UH, GROUND FLOOR THINGS LIKE GROUND FLOOR RESIDENTIAL, UM, IT'S APPLICABLE IN THOSE, IN CERTAIN CASES.
WE, WE STILL HAVE TO, SORRY, YOU'RE SHAKING YOUR
UH, THERE ARE, THERE ARE STILL SOME CASES WHERE THE CERTAIN MIXED USE DISTRICTS WE HAVE TO APPLY, UM, THOSE, UH, THOSE POTENTIAL RETAIL COMPONENTS.
UM, IF THE, AND, AND, AND I WILL SAY THAT'S PRETTY MUCH PDS.
UM, CERTAIN PDS, UH, WE HAVE TO GET INTO THE NITTY GRITTY OF THE LANGUAGE OF EACH PD AND EVERY PD IS ALREADY A, UM, UH, CASE BY CASE BASIS.
BUT THAT NON-RESIDENTIAL REQUIREMENT DOESN'T GENERALLY APPLY TO THE WAY OUR BASE ZONING DISTRICTS ARE WRITTEN.
UM, SO IT, IT ALSO HAS A, A LITTLE BIT MORE OPTION ON HOW APPROVAL WORKS.
UM, THAT, THAT TALKS ABOUT HOW WE HAVE TO APPROACH THESE ISSUES.
UM, BEYOND JUST ALL THOSE PROVISIONS
[00:20:01]
ABOVE, IT SAYS WE SHALL ADMINISTRATIVELY APPROVE THE PERMIT OR THE AUTHORIZATION.UM, WE CAN'T TAKE FURTHER ACTION BY GOVERNING BODIES, UM, YOU KNOW, TO, FOR THE APPROVAL TO TAKE EFFECT.
SO IT TO GIVE SOMEONE A PERMIT, IT'S GOTTA BE AN ADMINISTRATIVE LEVEL.
UM, THAT, YOU KNOW, IS OF COURSE, YOU KNOW, MAKES SENSE WHEN YOU'RE PERMITTING WHEN SOMETHING HAS TO BE PERMITTED.
UH, IT DOES HAVE A MEANING FOR DEVELOPMENT PLANS.
BASICALLY, IF A DEVELOPMENT PLAN MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING AND THE BILL, UM, WE HAVE TO ALLOW A, UM, A PROPERTY OWNER TO AMEND THEIR DEVELOPMENT PLAN WITHOUT TAKING THEM TO THE GOVERNING BODY, UM, TO, TO AMEND.
SO THAT HAS TO DO WITH, UM, YOU KNOW, DEVELOPMENT PLANS AND MINOR AMENDMENTS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
UM, WE CAN'T MAKE THAT DISCRETIONARY FOR THE APPLICANT.
WE HAVE TO, UM, ALLOW THEM TO BUILD.
UH, JUST LONG STORY SHORT, WE'RE ALLOWING THEM TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE AMENDMENT.
SO BECAUSE WE WANT OUR DEVELOPMENT PLAN STILL BE, STILL BE CONSISTENT WITH WHAT'S, WHAT'S BEING BUILT.
SO THEY'RE GOING THROUGH THAT ADMINISTRATIVE, UH, PROCESS TO AMEND DEVELOPMENT PLANS IF THEY, UM, NEED TO DO SO.
UM, AND IF, BUT IF THEY STILL COMPLY WITH THE ZONING AND THE BILL.
SO, UH, SOMETHING TO KNOW THAT MAY AFFECT SOME OF THE, AND THE, UH, OLD MINERS THAT YOU HAD SEEN.
UM, WE ARE VERY LIMITED IN WHAT WE CAN REQUIRE TO GO TO A HEARING AT THAT RATE.
UM, THIS IS A, A, I, I HOPE A SIMPLE SECTION.
UM, IT'S TALKING A, YOU KNOW, WHILE IT DOES ALL THOSE THINGS WITH DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND USES, IT ALSO WAS MEANT TO, UH, MAKE IT EASIER TO, UH, REDEVELOP MAYBE A COMMERCIAL BUILDING.
SO OLD OFFICE BUILDINGS, OLD WAREHOUSE BUILDINGS, IF THEY'RE FIVE YEARS OLD, UM, WE, AND THEN THEY'RE BEING CONVERTED TO A NEW, UH, RESIDENTIAL USE.
IT BASICALLY SAYS WE CAN'T ASK THEM TO DO X, Y, Z THINGS.
NOT EXTREMELY, UM, YOU KNOW, MEANINGFUL FOR THE CITY OF DALLAS BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF TIMES, UH, WHEN YOU'RE OCCUPYING A NEW BUILDING, WE DON'T TRIGGER A LOT OF THESE THINGS.
WE DON'T HAVE, UM, TWO, WE DON'T HAVE TWO OWNERS, A TIA PROCESS FOR, UH, REOCCUPATION OF BUILDINGS OR A PARKING PROCESS OR PARKING'S PRETTY LOW, UH, FOR, AT LEAST FOR THE STATE.
UM, IT, YOU KNOW, THESE OTHER THINGS THAT, THAT SAY WE CAN'T ASK FOR AN UNREASONABLE AMOUNT OF UTILITIES.
I THINK WE ASK FOR A PRETTY REASONABLE AMOUNT OF UTILITIES ALREADY.
UM, OR OTHER DESIGN REQUIREMENTS BESIDES MINIMUM BUILDING CODES.
UM, THERE MAY BE SOME MEANING, UH, POTENTIALLY FOR, FOR CHANGES.
BUT I THINK GENERALLY OUR CODE ALLOWS YOU TO OCCUPY A BUILDING WITHOUT A LOT OF THOSE THINGS ANYWAY.
UM, BUT I THINK IT'S MEANT TO CHANGE THE, THE CULTURE OF, OF CONVERSIONS IN THE STATE STATEWIDE GENERALLY.
UH, SO HOW DID WE IMPLEMENT IT? WE, WE COMPLIED FULLY.
SO SINCE SEPTEMBER ONE, UM, IMPLEMENTED PROCESS CHANGES PRIMARILY THE, THE CODE IS NOT SIGNIFICANTLY CHANGES CHANGE.
51 A WILL HAVE TO BE CHANGED TO INCLUDE ALL OF THESE PROFESSIONS OF, OF STATE LAW, OF COURSE.
UM, AND AT THAT TIME IT'LL BE A CHANGE AMENDED.
UM, BUT OTHERWISE WE'RE COMPLYING ON THE, ON THE PERMITTING SIDE.
UM, AND, AND THE ZONING REVIEW SIDE AND, AND LOOKING AT THINGS, UH, YOU KNOW, GENERALLY CASE BY CASE, UM, ESPECIALLY AS WE, WE STARTED OUT.
BUT, UM, IT'S GETTING A LITTLE SMOOTHER WITH THE GENERAL ZONE, UH, DISTRICTS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
UM, BUT, BUT YEAH, SO WE'RE, WE'RE FULLY COMPLYING AND ISSUING PERMITS, UH, EXCUSE ME, WOULD BE ISSUING PERMITS PREPARED TO ISSUE PERMITS IF, UM, IF THEY COME THROUGH THAT WAY.
AND I SAID, PREPARED TO ISSUE PERMITS.
'CAUSE WE DO NOT HAVE PERMIT APPLICATIONS IN AS OF WHEN I PULLED THIS DATA TO, TO, YOU KNOW, 10 DAYS AGO.
UM, SO NOTHING'S IN FOR PERMIT RIGHT NOW.
I I THINK IT TOTALLY MAKES SENSE.
YOU KNOW, IT ONLY CAME ONLINE IN SEPTEMBER ONE.
UM, THESE PROJECTS ARE, ARE, ARE PRETTY BIG USUALLY, AND IT TAKES SOME TIME.
UM, OTHERWISE WE'VE HAD PLENTY OF CONVERSATIONS WITH DEVELOPERS, WHAT WE CALL, YOU KNOW, CONSULTATIONS.
UM, 121 OF THOSE, UH, I BELIEVE FOR EIGHT 40 ALONE, SOME OTHER, FOR THE OTHER STATE BILLS.
SO INTEREST IS DEFINITELY KEEPING US BUSY, UM, AND HAVING THOSE CONVERSATIONS WITH THEM.
THANKFULLY, WE'RE GETTING BETTER AT IT.
UM, BUT, UH, DEF LOTS OF CONVERSATIONS.
SO I DON'T HAVE PERMIT DATA TO, TO PROVIDE TO YOU MAYBE NEXT YEAR, UM, WE'LL HAVE PERMIT DATA TO PROVIDE TO YOU THAT THAT'S MEANINGFUL.
BUT, UH, THESE CONVERSATIONS, MANY OF THEM ARE, ARE, ARE SERIOUS.
LIKE, YOU KNOW, WE'RE GONNA SUBMIT FOR, PERMIT FOR AND DO THIS AND, AND WE'RE PROFESSIONALS.
BUT WE HAD SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THE INTERPRETATION HERE.
UM, SOME OF THEM ARE LIKE, I OWN THIS PROPERTY AND IT'S COMMERCIAL.
I DIDN'T KNOW I COULD DO ANYTHING WITH IT.
WHAT CAN I DO? SO NOT EVERYTHING'S GONNA, UH, RESULT IN A, IN A PERMIT.
UH, SO LET'S LOOK AT THE DATA THAT
[00:25:01]
I HAVE.AGAIN, IT'S ABOUT 10 DAYS OLD.
UM, WE DID ABOUT 120 1-840-INQUIRIES.
SO THAT'S EITHER LIKE A FORMAL REQUEST FOR INFORMATION OR A MEETING FACE-TO-FACE WITH THE DEVELOPER OR PROJECT TEAM.
UM, THIS HAS BEEN AN EFFORT BETWEEN, UM, PRI PRIMARILY OUR, OUR ZONING REVIEW, UH, TEAM, UM, UNDER, UNDER JENNIFER GYER, MYSELF, MARTIN, UM, TIA, UH, GREG FRANKLIN.
I'M TRYING TO REMEMBER EVERYONE
ANYWAY, BUT, UH, SO DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING? PROBABLY, COULD YOU MAKE THE GRAPH A LITTLE BIT BIGGER FOR THOSE OF US? YEAH, NO, I, I AGREE.
HOW DO YOU USE ZOOM AND ADOBE? UH, ANYWAY, YEAH, SO PLENTY OF THOSE OVER THE PAST MONTHS.
I LOVE THE DATA TOO, SO DON'T WORRY.
THERE, THERE YOU CAN SEE THAT WAS MORE THAN FINDING, UH, COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT WAS ABLE TO SHARE A LARGER VERSION ON HIS SCREEN.
SO DIDN'T MEAN TO DISRUPT YOUR PRESENTATION.
NO, NOW I'M NOT SQUINTING EITHER.
SO I DID WANNA SHOW SOME OF THE INQUIRIES.
WE'RE TRYING TO KEEP TRACK WHEN PERMITS ARE COMING THROUGH.
WE'RE ALSO GONNA TRACK THE DISTRICTS THAT THOSE ARE IN, SO DON'T WORRY ABOUT THAT.
UM, HERE'S WHERE WE HAD OUR, OUR INQUIRIES.
UH, I, I, I HAVE 15 DATA IN HERE.
SO WE DID IT, UM, NOT PRIMARILY A 15, SB 15, UM, CONVERSATION HERE, BUT IT'S HERE.
UM, AND THOSE ARE WHERE YOU EXPECT.
BUT, UM, YEAH, SOME INTERESTING, UH, TRENDS.
DEFINITELY IT'S BUSIER IN OUR, IN OUR BUILT UP AREAS.
UM, YOU KNOW, 2 14, 7, UM, THOSE KINDS OF THINGS WHERE, WHERE WE'VE HAD THOSE, UM, INQUIRIES.
LEMME SEE IF I CAN HAVE MORE MEANINGFUL DATA THAN JUST NUMBER.
THIS IS, UH, THIS IS OVERALL FOR THE SENATE BILL INQUIRY.
SO IT'S BOTH THE EIGHT 40 AND THE 15, UM, WHICH WAS ALSO ON THE PREVIOUS SLIDE.
HERE'S THE BASE ZONING FOR MOST OF THOSE DISTRICTS.
SO 47% OF THEM ARE IN, ARE IN PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS.
UM, SO MAKE OF THAT WHAT YOU WILL.
BUT, UM, WE'VE BEEN PLENTY BUSY WORKING IN THOSE, UM, PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS TO, YOU KNOW, HELP ANSWER QUESTIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS REGARDING THOSE.
UM, NONE OF THEM IN THE CONSERVATION DISTRICTS, A COUPLE WERE IN HISTORICS.
UM, AND SO, AND, AND, AND YES, SOME IN, IN MULTIFAMILY AS WELL.
I THINK AT THE BOTTOM WE HAVE SOME OF THE, THE, THE OTHER ONES THAT WERE A LITTLE LESS CR IS REALLY, REALLY COMMON OUT THERE.
I MEAN, ANY, ANY OLD CORRIDOR YOU GO ALONG IN THE CITY IS USUALLY CR SO IT'S BEEN, UM, A LOT OF INTEREST IN, IN THOSE.
YOU'LL SEE AT THE BOTTOM, A COUPLE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS.
THOSE ARE PRIMARILY GONNA BE, I PRESUME, OUR SB 15, UM, INQUIRIES, UH, AND THE, UH, INQUIRIES BY COUNCIL DISTRICT.
SAME DATA FROM EARLIER, UH, GENERALLY, BUT I WANTED TO PUT IT IN A, IN A PI FORM.
UM, SO LIKE I SAID, DISTRICT TWO PLANNING, DISTRICT 14, DISTRICT SEVEN, IT'S, IT'S DISTRICT SIX.
IT'S OUR, IT'S OUR URBAN CORE, UM, FOR SURE.
SO, AND YOU KNOW, THOSE AREAS I KNOW HAVE HAVE A, A HANDFUL OF PDS.
SO LIKE I SAID, THERE'S 47 OR 47% OF THE INQUIRIES WERE IN PDS.
AND THEN THERE'S OUR, OUR MAP.
I SEE IF I ZOOM OUT JUST A SMIDGE.
YEAH, THERE'S OUR, OUR INTEREST MAP.
AND THIS IS, AGAIN, BOTH STATE BILLS.
UM, IT'S GOT THE MANY OF THOSE FIFTEENS ARE DOWN IN, IN, IN EIGHT.
BUT OTHERWISE, UH, FOR THE MOST PART, EVERYTHING ELSE IS, IS SB EIGHT 40.
AND, AND, AND IN THE CONCENTRATION THAT I KIND OF, KIND OF ALLUDED TO A MOMENT AGO, UM, I AM, I, I'M TRYING TO MAKE SENSE OF IT.
UH, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S INTERESTING.
SO MAYBE I'M JUST, UH, BLOWING SMOKE HERE AND, AND YOU KNOW, EXTRAPOLATING, BUT THERE'S A CORRELATION BETWEEN THE, THE REZONINGS THAT HAD TO OCCUR.
UH, THE, THE CHAIR ASKED ME TO, TO LOOK AT HOW IT'S AFFECTING REZONINGS.
I'M NOT THERE YET WITHOUT PERMIT DATA.
UM, BUT I TRIED TO DRAW A, UH, UH, WHAT DO YOU CALL IT, A CORRELATION LINE, 0.7
I MEAN, THERE WAS A LOT OF ZONING ACTION IN, IN D UH, HOUSING ZONING ACTION, I SHOULD SAY, IN, IN IN D TWO AND, AND, AND, AND SIX AND, AND, AND SOME OTHER SEVEN.
UM, AND THOSE DID HAVE SOME HIGHER, UM, AMOUNTS OF EIGHT 40 INQUIRIES.
SO, UM, JUST, JUST INTERESTING, I'M, I'M SURE THEY'LL PROBABLY TRACK ALONGSIDE WHERE WE HAVE BEEN FOR, FOR REZONINGS.
WE'RE, I'M NOT WORRIED ABOUT CONTINUING TO HAVE
[00:30:01]
REZONINGS.UM, 'CAUSE YOU KNOW, THERE'S STILL THINGS THAT ARE LIMITED UNDER THE BILL.
THERE ARE STILL, UM, YOU KNOW, THEY CAN ALWAYS, UH, CHANGE THEIR MINDS ABOUT PROJECTS AND, AND NEED TO DO SOMETHING.
AND THEY MAY NOT BE ABLE, MAKES, CHOOSE RESIDENTIAL AND MEET THOSE PERCENTAGE THINGS.
SO THEY MAY THOSE STILL BE COMING IN.
AND I'M SHEPHERDING PLENTY OF APPLICATIONS IN THE DOOR RIGHT NOW AS WE SPEAK.
UM, BUT IT, IT IS INTERESTING.
SO I'M NOT, UH, I'M NOT SAYING THAT, UH, REZONINGS ARE, ARE, ARE REPLACED A HUNDRED PERCENT BY THE BILL.
UM, BUT THEY, THE, THE INTEREST IN, IN THOSE CONVERSATIONS MAY, MAY MIRROR SOME OF THE, THE WORK THAT WE HAVE BEEN DOING OVER TWO YEARS.
SORRY, THIS IS TWO YEARS, 20, 20 FISCAL YEAR 23, 24 FISCAL YEAR 24, 25 HOUSING REZONINGS OVER THIS TIME.
SO THAT'S WHERE WE FOUND THAT THAT CORRELATION.
UM, I JUST THOUGHT AS INTERESTING, YOU GAVE ME TOO MUCH DATA.
I'LL JUST PLAY WITH IT FOR A LONG TIME.
THAT'S, THAT'S IT, THAT'S ALL I WANTED TO, TO SHARE AND, AND DEFINITELY LEAVE SOME TIME FOR, FOR QUESTIONS, UM, BY THE BODY.
WE'LL START WITH COMMISSIONER HALL.
COULD YOU GO BACK TO YOUR SLIDE WHERE YOU SHOWED, UH, MAXIMUM DWELLING UNIT DENSITY AND HEIGHTS? HERE IT IS NOW.
UH, UM, IT, IT DEPENDS ON THE ZONING DISTRICT RIGHTS.
SO FOR EXAMPLE, IF IN CR COMMERCIAL RETAIL ZONING WAS 54 FEET, I'M CURIOUS ABOUT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN A PD AND THAT.
AND YOU CAN GUESS WHY I'M ASKING THIS, BUT IF WE, IF WE HAD A DEVELOPER THAT WANTED TO BUILD ABOVE 54 FEET, COULD WE DO, WOULD WE BE ALLOWED TO DO THAT VIA THE PD PROCESS? YES.
SO LET ME LAY OUT THIS SCENARIO, THIS HYPOTHETICAL SCENARIO.
THIS IS A CR, IT'S A CR DISTRICT.
WE HAVE TO PERMIT MULTIFAMILY OR MIXED USE UP TO 54 FEET IN THAT, IN THAT, UM, THAT EXISTING CR THAT IS TOTALLY TRUE.
IF THAT PROPERTY COMES FOR A PD THAT ALLOWS ADDITIONAL HEIGHT, THEN THAT CAN, THAT'S PERMITTED.
AND, AND OFTEN PDS USE, UH, EXISTING BASE DISTRICTS AS THEIR BASE, AND THEN THEY MAKE SPINS ON IT, IF YOU WILL, YOU KNOW, LIKE, UM, TO, TO ADD THIS OR THAT OR GET EXEMPTIONS TO THIS AND THAT, OR ADD DESIGN STANDARDS TO, TO THIS.
SO A PD COULD, IS, IS CERTAINLY A WAY THAT A, A PROJECT PARTICIPATING LIKE THIS CAN HAVE ADDITIONAL HEIGHT.
UM, SO YOU WOULD SAY THE PD, THIS IS MY PD, THIS IS MY MAX HEIGHT IS A HUNDRED RATHER THAN 54.
SO THAT, THEN WE STILL HONOR THAT BECAUSE EIGHT 40 APPLIES TO PD.
SO WE WOULD STILL HONOR THAT NEW HEIGHT HAS TO BE APPROVED BY COUNCIL.
BUT, SO I THINK THAT'S, I MEAN, IT'S AN IMPORTANT QUESTION.
BILL DOESN'T SAY WE HAVE TO APPROVE A PD THAT INCREASES THE HEIGHT.
WE DON'T HAVE TO APPROVE A, A HEIGHT INCREASE.
YOU HAVE TO APPROVE A BUILDING THAT MEETS THESE HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS OF THE BILL.
SO A AS WE'VE ALWAYS DONE, WE'VE, WE CAN USE A PD TO TWEAK, TWEAK THE ZONING CODES.
UH, DO YOU HAVE A BALLPARK FIGURE WHAT THE HEIGHT OF A QUOTE MID-RISE IS? THAT'S NOT, NOT A QUESTION I WAS PREPARED FOR.
I DO THINK IT'S IT'S SUBJECTIVE I'D, UH, I, I FEEL LIKE ONE DEFINITION I'VE HEARD IS, IS 10 TO, TO 12 OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
IS THERE A, THAT'S A DEFINITION I'VE HEARD.
A TYPICAL STORY IS WHAT, 10 FEET OR 12 FEET OR, I USED 12.
AND THAT'S MODERN DESIGN STANDARDS, I ASSUME? YES.
SO, UH, IN YOUR MIND, WE COULD GO UP A QUOTE, MID-RISE COULD BE AT LEAST MAY, PERHAPS 12 STORIES, 144 FEET TALL.
POTENTIALLY, YEAH, THAT'S A DEFINITION.
IT'S SOMEWHAT SUBJECTIVE, BUT YES.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER KINGSTON.
UM, ONE I'D LIKE YOU TO ADDRESS HOW DEED RESTRICTIONS ARE IMPACTED BY THIS.
AND TWO, YOU KNOW, UM, FUNNY TIMING TALKING ABOUT OUR MIXED INCOME HOUSING PROGRAM.
IF YOU'RE WONDERING WHAT PILLOW TALK AT THE KINGSTON HOUSEHOLD
[00:35:01]
IS, NO, HERE WE ARE.I THINK HE'S BEEN APPROACHED BY A COUPLE OF PEOPLE WANTING TO UTILIZE EIGHT 40 WITH THE MIXED INCOME BONUS PROGRAM.
AND THAT'S CURRENTLY NOT AVAILABLE.
AND I KNOW WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THAT IN THE PAST.
AND SO I BROUGHT IT UP AGAIN BECAUSE I THINK THAT LINE WITH THE THOUGHT PROCESS BEHIND EIGHT 40, THERE ARE PROJECTS THAT WOULD BENEFIT BOTH FROM OUR M-I-H-D-B PROGRAM AND EIGHT 40 COMBINED TO ACHIEVE THAT MAXIMUM EFFICIENCIES, IF YOU WILL.
AND HOW WE COULD GO ABOUT DOING THAT NOW INSTEAD OF TRYING TO CRAM IT INTO CODE ENFORCEMENT.
'CAUSE I THINK THAT IT'S A TWEAKING OF JUST THAT ONE SECTION IN THE CODE.
I WILL DO THE QUICK DE RESTRICTION ANSWER.
DE RESTRICTIONS CAN STILL BE ENFORCED BY THE CITY IN THE SAME WAY THAT A PD CAN BE ENFORCED BY THE CITY.
UM, IT APPLIES IF IT DOES NOT RUN AFOUL OF THESE THINGS HERE.
IT DOES NOT, WE CAN'T ENFORCE IT IF IT WERE, IF SO, IF I HAVE A D RESTRICTION THAT SAYS, UM, HEIGHTS LIMITED TO 36 FEET, I HAVE TO ALLOW THIS 45 FEET.
OTHER SECTIONS OF D RESTRICTIONS THAT SAY, UH, YOU HAVE TO PLANT 10 TREES ON THE SITE.
I STILL HAVE TO ENFORCE THAT WHEN THEY GET TO PERMITTING.
UM, BUT SO DEED RESTRICTIONS, I WOULD SAY THINK OF THEM VERY SIMILAR TO PDS.
THE, THE ONLY THING WITH A DEED RESTRICTION IS WHEN I'M GONNA REVIEW A, A PROPERTY FOR, WITH THE DEED RESTRICTION, I HAVE TO LOOK AT MY BASE ZONING.
I HAVE TO LOOK AT MY DE RESTRICTION AND I HAVE TO LOOK AT THE STATE BILL AND FIND OUT WHICH IS MORE INCLUSIVE.
SO YOU LOOK AT THREE SCREENS AT THE SAME TIME, YOU, YOU, YOU KNOW WHAT TO DO.
BUT POINT IS, UH, YEAH, DEED RESTRICTION STILL ENFORCEABLE BY THE CITY IF THEY DON'T RUN AFOUL OF THIS.
AND SO I'LL SAY VERY, VERY SIMPLY, UH, THE, THE VERY SIMPLE, THE OTHER SIMPLE EXAMPLE IS IF WE HAVE SOME OLD DE RESTRICTIONS THAT PER THAT, UH, ALLOW COMMERCIAL USES, OR EXCUSE ME, THE BASE ZONING ALLOWS COMMERCIAL USES, BUT THE DE RESTRICTIONS JUST, UH, PROHIBITED, UM, MULTIFAMILY, WE CAN'T ENFORCE THAT EITHER.
SO THAT'S HOPEFULLY MY SIMPLE ANSWER ON, ON DE RESTRICTIONS.
AND THEN TO GET TO MIXED INCOME HOUSING DEVELOPMENT BONUS.
UM, THANK YOU FOR YOUR EMAIL ABOUT THIS.
MY, MY HOUSEHOLD CONVERSATION'S ALSO SIMILAR, SO DON'T WORRY.
SO, UM, I AGREE AND, AND, AND I HAVEN'T BEEN GIVEN OFFICIAL LINES BY MY DEPARTMENT, AS I SHOULD SAY, IF IT'S A PRIORITY OR NOT.
BUT IT'S, I THINK IT'S A PRIORITY.
I OVERSEE THE MIXED INCOME HOUSING DEVELOPMENT BONUS TEAM OF ONE, UM, THAT, THAT REVIEWS ALL THESE PROJECTS.
SO I REALLY WANT IT TO REMAIN COMPETITIVE.
I THINK IT'S BEEN AN AMAZING TOOL FOR THE CITY.
I WANT IT TO REMAIN COMPETITIVE.
BUT RIGHT NOW, M-I-S-U-B ORDINANCE SAYS IT APPLIES TO ONE, UH, MULTI-FAMILY DISTRICTS MIXED USE DISTRICTS.
AND THEN IT SAYS TYPE TWO IS PDS THAT EXPRESSLY, UH, MENTION IT TYPE THREE PDS THAT MENTION THE TYPE THREE SECTION.
NONE OF NONE OF OUR PDS DO THAT, BUT THEY COULD.
UM, SO WE DO, YES, AN AMENDMENT IS NEEDED TO, UM, APPLY M-I-H-D-B TO COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS, WHICH I, YOU KNOW, IS PRETTY REASONABLE IF WE WANT TO KEEP THE PROGRAM COMPETITIVE AND MAKE PEOPLE USE IT OR LET PEOPLE USE IT.
I, WHY COULDN'T AN AMENDMENT JUST REFERENCE THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE PROJECTS THAT FALL UNDER THIS SECTION OF THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE? UH, I WISH I HAD MY MIXED INCOME HOUSING, UH, PRESENTATION.
THE ONLY THING IS THAT, THINK OF IT THIS IS THAT THE WAY THE BONUSES ARE WRITTEN FOR TYPE ONES FOR GENERAL ZONING DISTRICTS, EACH OF THEM IS CALIBRATED TO, UH, THE BONUSES FOR MF ONE ARE CALIBRATED TO MF ONE, THE BONUSES FOR MU ONE ARE CALIBRATED TO MU ONE.
SO IF YOU'RE GOING TO APPLY IT TO TYPE ONE DEVELOPMENTS, WHICH ARE GENERAL ZONING DISTRICTS, IS I CAN, I CAN DO A-A-M-I-H-D-B TOMORROW WITHOUT A REZONING CHANGE OUT IN MF ONE THAT EXISTS OUT THERE.
IT'S CALIBRATED TO GIVE YOU A HEIGHT BONUS THAT'S RELATED TO THAT.
IF WE, IF WE JUST REFERENCE THE CODE, I DON'T KNOW HOW WELL CALIBRATED THE RESULTS WILL BE BECAUSE FIRST OF ALL, THEY'RE NOT USING 45 FEET AS THEIR BASE 45 FEET.
YOU KNOW, THE BASE FOR AN MF TWO, UM, M-I-H-D-B IS 36 RIGHT
[00:40:01]
NOW.IT'S GOTTA BE STARTING AT 45 OR, OR WE'RE NOT COMPETITIVE.
UM, SO THEY'RE, I I, I, AGAIN, PRIORITY FOR ME, UM, AS A PERSON WHO OVERSEES THE MHDB PROGRAM AND CONSUMES HOUSING
SO THAT SHOULD BE A, I THINK A CONVERSATION.
UM, I THINK THAT THE FOLKS WHO WROTE M-I-H-D-B VERSION ONE AND VERSION TWO WERE MANY HERE.
UM, MOST HERE, UM, NEEDS TO BE A CONVERSATION ABOUT CALIBRATION BECAUSE THE NEW FLOOR DEFINITELY NEEDS TO BE 45.
BUT I THINK THAT IF YOU USE MIH, THE THE MOST, THE LEAST RESTRICTIVE M-I-H-T-B IN LIKE A MULTI-FAMILY, YOU GET LIKE 50 SOMETHING FEET.
IT'S A LITTLE COMPETITIVE, BUT IT'S NOT REALLY THERE.
I DON'T THINK PEOPLE WANT SELL OVER OR GIVE OVER 5% OF THEIR UNITS TO VERY AFFORDABLE IF THEY'RE ONLY GETTING FIVE OR SIX FEET.
BUT I HAVE PLANNERS WHO ARE, I HAVE A PLANNER WHO'S REALLY EXCITED TO WORK ON THAT, UM, WHEN WE GET SOME DIRECTION.
SO KEEP, UM, KEEP THE CONVERSATION GOING.
I THINK I HAD ONE GOING ALL THE WAY BACK TO HOW STAFF IS LOOKING AT THIS.
IN YOUR SLIDE WHERE YOU TALKED ABOUT THE STANDARDS, UM, THAT ARE WHAT ZONING DISTRICTS ARE, UM, SB EIGHT 40 IS APPLICABLE TO, AND SO IT WAS KIND OF EARLY IN ANYTHING THAT IS OFFICE COMMERCIAL AND YOU HAVE ALL THE DISTRICTS LISTED.
UM, AND THEN YOU WENT ON TO TALK ABOUT WHERE IT IS, HOW THAT IS THEN APPLICABLE TO THE STANDARDS AND MULTIFAMILY.
BUT IS IT CORRECT THAT YOU HAVE TO MEET THE STANDARDS OF, YOU HAVE ONE OF THESE LISTED OFFICE RETAIL WAREHOUSE OR MIXED USE USES TO PARTICIPATE IN THE STANDARDS? YES.
SO THEY ARE ESTABLISHED, UH, I MENTIONED THAT THEY'RE ESTABLISHED KIND OF SEPARATELY.
THEY DEFINE WHAT MULTIFAMILY AND MIXED USE, EXCUSE ME, I'LL GET CLOSER.
THEY DEFINE WHAT MULTIFAMILY AND MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL USES ARE, WHAT THESE THINGS ARE.
IT'S A NEW DEFINITION IN STATE CODE.
AND THEN THEY SAID YOU MAY NOT REGULATE THEM IN X, Y, AND Z WAYS.
THEY DIDN'T SAY THAT THIS IS ONLY IN A COMMERCIAL DISTRICT.
UM, SO THE INTERPRETATION IS THAT THIS HAS TO, WE HAVE TO APPLY THIS TO MULTIFAMILY OR A DISTRICT THAT PERMITS MULTIFAMILY.
SO THIS LIST IS NOT MEANT TO BE INCOMPLETE.
THIS IS MEANT TO BE A LIST OF DISTRICTS THAT HAVE TO NOW ALLOW MULTIFAMILY, UH, HOWEVER THIS IS, IS KIND OF A SEPARATE MO LIKE, LIKE ASPECT OF THE BILL THAT SAID, HERE'S WHAT MULTIFAMILY IS, HERE'S HOW YOU CAN REGULATE IT.
SO IT OVERRODE NOT JUST WHERE YOU CAN STICK MULTIFAMILY, BUT HOW MULTIFAMILY CAN BE REGULATED.
IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE PART OF THOSE COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS.
I WILL REVIEW THAT FURTHER, BUT THANK YOU.
I WAS TRYING TO THANK, UNDERSTAND HOW THAT WAS BEING INTERPRETED.
YOU, UM, HAD TALKED ABOUT THE NUMBER OF CASES THAT ARE FILED, WHERE THE DISTRICTS ARE BEING FILED.
UM, AND I THINK YOU MAY HAVE SAID THIS, UM, BUT I'M NOT SURE I HEARD IT.
UM, YOU'VE GOT INQUIRIES, BUT WE DON'T HAVE ACTIVE FILINGS FOR ESSENTIALLY NEW PROJECTS UNDER THESE DISTRICTS YET, OR THESE, UH, I HAVE ZERO ZERO PERMIT APPLICATIONS AS OF 10 DAYS AGO.
YEAH, I'M, I'M EXTRAPOLATING JUST RESTATING IT TO MAKE SURE I HEARD IT CORRECTLY.
I'M EXTRAPOLATING CONSULTATIONS IN INTEREST INTO POTENTIAL, YOU KNOW, UH, POTENTIAL.
I THINK INTEREST WILL PROBABLY, I THINK THERE WILL PROBABLY BE A CORRELATION BETWEEN THIS DATA AND THE PERMITS WE RECEIVE.
IT'S NOT GOING TO BE ONE FOR ONE.
WELL, WELL GET BORED AND WALK AWAY.
AND THEN ON THE, UM, NEXT SLIDE WHERE YOU TALKED ABOUT WHERE THE, WHAT DISTRICTS, THE INQUIRIES ARE COMING IN.
YOU SAID 45, I THINK 47% OF 'EM ARE PDS.
ARE YOU TRACKING THE OTHER TYPES OF DISTRICTS? THE OTHER TYPES OF DISTRICTS? YEAH, I MEAN WE'RE, AND I THINK THAT IS IS IN THE TABLE, SO I CAN TELL PD, YEAH, PD WAS THE MONSTER, BUT THEN YEAH, IN THE TABLE.
THE, THEN THE NEXT ONE ACTUALLY IS CR, THE NEXT ONE IS ACTUALLY CR, UM, IN TERMS OF, OF INQUIRY.
YOU KNOW, CR IS REALLY COMMON IN THE CITY.
UM, AND IT HAS A, A BUILDABLE HEIGHT, UH, THAT THEY'RE WORKING WITH.
SO IT'S LIKE 47 IS THE LARGEST AND CR IS THE SECOND LARGEST.
I THINK, UH, NOW THAT I LOOK CLOSELY AT THIS TABLE, IT'S LIKE THAT, THAT'S A BREAKDOWN OF THE OTHER, NOT THE, NOT THE, THE TOTAL.
[00:45:01]
CR IS 35%, THAT'S THE 35% OF THE OTHER, NOT 35% OF THE TOTAL INQUIRIES.I THINK I MAY HAVE SOME OTHER MORE SPECIFIC D TWO CASE OR QUESTIONS, BUT I'M HAPPY TO FOLLOW UP ON THIS.
UM, A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS AND I'M, I'M INTERESTED IN HOW SB EIGHT 40 IS GOING TO IMPACT FORWARD DALLAS.
HAVE YOU GUYS LOOKED AT THAT? CAN YOU GIVE US AN IDEA? WE KNOW THAT IT, IT GENERALLY OVERRIDES LOCAL ZONING.
UH, PREEMPTS LOCAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS REQUIRES CITIES, UH, TO ALLOW MULTI-FAMILY, UH, CLEARLY IT'S GONNA HAVE AN IMPACT, UH, NOT ONLY ON THE CITY ITSELF, BUT OUR SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS.
I, I WOULD SAY I'M NOT GOING TO, I'M NOT GONNA SPECULATE AND SAY, IS THE BILL COMPLIANT WITH
BUT, UM, AND I DON'T THINK YOU'RE ASKING ME THAT TO BE CLEAR, BUT, UM, I WILL SAY THAT IT, IT JUST IS, IT IS WHAT IT IS.
BUT ON ONE HAND, A BIG, I AM NOT GONNA SUGARCOAT A BIG PART OF FLORIDA, DALLAS WAS SAYING OUR COMMERCIAL CORRIDORS SHOULD PERMIT, UH, MIXED USE, UM, AND MULTIFAMILY.
THAT'S WHY THE PLACE TYPES IN IT ARE NOT, UH, YOU KNOW, ARTERIAL COMMERCIAL.
THEY'RE NEIGHBORHOOD MIXED USE WHEN YOU SEE A COMMERCIAL DISTRICT.
SO, UH, TO A DEGREE, I, I IMAGINE THAT'S, THAT'S A THING THAT WOULD'VE BEEN LOOKED AT IN, UH, CODE REFORM REGARDLESS OF THE BILL OR NOT.
BECAUSE THE FOR, FOR DALLAS, UH, DIRECTS US TO ALLOW TO ALLOW MULTIFAMILY USES IN COMMERCIAL AREAS FOR, TO, YOU KNOW, WITHIN, WITHIN LIMITS GOOD DESIGN AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
BUT GENERALLY, LIKE I SAID, OUR PLACE TYPES ARE NEIGHBORHOOD MIXED USE, NOT ONLY NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL.
UM, SO I THINK THE BILL GOT, YOU KNOW, SOME THINGS DONE, UM, THAT FOR DALLAS PROBABLY WOULD'VE INSTRUCTED OUR CODE REFORM TO DO.
UM, AND OF COURSE FOR DALLAS, ON THE, ON THE OTHER TURN SAYS WE NEED OUR DEVELOPMENT TO BE, YOU KNOW, COMPATIBLE, UH, WITH EXISTING RESIDENTIAL AREAS, THINGS LIKE THAT.
UM, IT DIDN'T MODIFY SINGLE FAMILY ZONING DISTRICTS.
YOU HAVE TO PERMIT THOSE, UM, COMMERCIAL OR MIX OR COMMERCIAL OR MULTIFAMILY USES, UH, FOR THE BILL TO CHANGE ANYTHING ABOUT YOUR SITE.
UM, I GUESS THAT'S HOW WE'D EVALUATE IT.
BUT, UM, WE ARE GOING TO CONTINUE APPROVING OR DENYING DISTRICTS BASED ON FORWARD DALLAS, BUT WITH THE ADDED LAYER OF REALITY THAT OUR DISTRICTS WORK A LITTLE DIFFERENTLY THAN THE CODE SAYS OR HAS SAID.
COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN, UH, MR. PEPE, I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S BEEN NO PERMITS ISSUED, UH, UNDER EIGHT 40, BUT ASSUMING THAT THERE WILL BE ISSUES, I MEAN PERMITS ISSUED IN THE FUTURE, UH, WILL WE AS A COMMISSION HAVE TRANSPARENCY ON WHEN THOSE PERMITS COME THROUGH? BECAUSE THERE WILL DEFINITELY BE PEOPLE IN OUR COMMUNITY WHO SEE THINGS THAT ARE BEING BUILT AND WILL COME TO US AND SAY, HEY, WE DID NOT HEAR ABOUT THIS.
LIKE, WHAT'S GOING ON? SO WHAT WOULD THEIR PROCESS LOOK LIKE? YEAH, NO, GREAT.
I, IT'S GOING TO BE KIND OF LIKE THE TRANSPARENCY THAT'S ALREADY THERE FOR A PERMIT, WHICH THERE, THERE IS WAYS TO LOOK UP THE PERMITS.
THERE'S A COUPLE WAYS TO LOOK UP THE PERMITS, UM, RIGHT NOW.
SO, YOU KNOW, RIGHT NOW I HAVE A, A COMMERCIAL SITE.
UH, WHEN THEY PULL A PERMIT FOR THAT, MOST OF THAT INFORMATION IS PUBLIC.
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC OFTEN NEED HELP NAVIGATING THOSE.
'CAUSE IT'S NOT SUPER EASY AND TRANSPARENT GONNA BE FULL, YOU KNOW, FULLY HONEST ABOUT THAT.
UM, IT'S GONNA WORK THE SAME WAY EXCEPT YOUR PERMIT.
WE'RE GONNA HAVE A CHECKBOX, YOU KNOW, A RADIO BOX TO SAY, HEY, THIS IS, YOU KNOW, UTILIZING EIGHT 40, WHETHER IT'S FOR DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OR WHETHER IT'S FOR THAT PROVISION OF THAT USE, THAT'S GONNA BE A, UH, UH, A THING IN THERE.
WE'RE GONNA BE TRACKING DATA 'CAUSE WE WANNA KNOW, UM, WE CAN REPORT IT AS REQUESTED IN, IN A MACRO SENSE, BUT FOR AN INDIVIDUAL PERMIT, IT WILL BE KIND OF THE SAME PROCESS AS LOOKING UP AN OLD PERMIT.
UM, YOU'D SAY, OH, I'M GONNA LOOK UP THIS PERMIT HERE.
AH, IT LOOKS LIKE THEY'RE BUILDING, UM, AUSE PROJECT, WHICH IS KIND OF THE SAME PROCESS AS,
[00:50:01]
OH, THEY'RE BUILDING A GAS STATION, EXCEPT IT'S GONNA HAVE A CHECKBOX THAT SAYS, OH, THIS IS, UH, PARTICIPATING IN EIGHT 40.THERE'S, THERE'S NOT PUBLIC NOTICE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
IT'S GOING TO BE THE SAME PROCESS AS PULLING A PERMIT.
BUT, UM, IT'S, I I HOPE IT'S GOING TO BE PRETTY TRANSPARENT AND AVAILABLE INFORMATION.
IT, IT WOULD APPEAR THAT THERE WOULD BE SOME TECH, YOU KNOW, TECHNOLOGY SOLUTION THAT WOULD TRIGGER A COMMUNICATION.
IF SOMETHING IS SUBJECT TO EIGHT 40 AND THERE'S A PERMIT, UH, FOR A PROJECT RELATED TO EIGHT 40 THAT COULD, YOU KNOW, SEND A COMMUNICATION TO, TO STAFF OR SEND, UH, COMMUNICATION TO, UH, THE COMMISSION DIRECTLY.
IS THAT SOMETHING THAT STAFF COULD LOOK INTO IF THAT COULD BE IMPLEMENTED? IT, IT, IT'S GONNA, IT'S, IT WOULD BE A LOT.
I, I, I DON'T WANT TO, TO NOT COMMIT, BUT IT WOULD BE A, IT WOULD BE A LOT.
I I THINK IT'S GONNA BE CLEAR THAT A PERMIT IS, UM, DONE UNDER EIGHT 40, BUT, UH, THERE'S PERMITS SUBMITTED ON EVERY CORNER OF EVERY, YOU KNOW, EVERY BLOCK, EVERY DAY.
UH, IT'S, IT'S GOING TO BE A LOT.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANNA RECEIVE THAT MANY EMAILS, BUT, UM, I THINK THERE ARE THINGS WE CAN DO TO MAKE IT TRANSPARENT ONCE WE GET TO THAT, THAT POINT.
I DON'T KNOW IF A NOTIF, A PING IS GONNA BE THE, THE WAY THAT IS GONNA BE BEST FOR THE, THE WAY IT WORKS.
'CAUSE UH, WHEN I GET A PERMIT, WHEN I GO AND DEVELOP A SITE, IT'S NOT JUST I PULL, AH, THIS IS MY BUILDING PERMIT TO BUILD MY MULTIFAMILY PROJECTS.
IT'S LIKE PAVING DRAINAGE, CIVIL, UH, YOU KNOW, UH, IN THE ACTUAL BUILD PERMIT, ALL THOSE OTHER THINGS, THOSE ARE PROBABLY ALL GONNA PROBABLY HAVE THAT DATA FLAG.
UM, BECAUSE WE, BECAUSE ALL THE REVIEWERS ALONG THE LINE OF PAVING DRAINAGE, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, ARE GONNA NEED TO KNOW THAT EIGHT 40 IS IN EFFECT ON THIS OR IS NECESSARY FOR THIS PROJECT.
SO IT'S NOT JUST LIKE, OH, THE MULTIFAMILY ACROSS THE STREET HAS ONE, YOU KNOW, ENTRY IN SYSTEM FOR, UM, FOR EIGHT 40.
WHEN I BUILD A, DEPENDING UPON THE NUMBER OF ZEROS IN YOUR PROJECT, YOU COULD GO FROM TWO OR THREE PERMITS.
I, I USE, YOU KNOW, WE USE PERMIT TO SAY, HEY, HERE, HERE'S THE PERMIT FOR THE PROJECT.
BUT IT'S ACTUALLY LIKE A STACK OF PAPER THAT WOULD, YOU KNOW, FOR, FOR A, FOR MANY ZEROS ON A PROJECT, IT, IT'S DOZENS OF APARTMENTS.
I DON'T WANNA OVER PROMISE, BUT I, WE WILL DO WHAT WE CAN TO MAKE IT TRANSPARENT.
AND I THINK IT WILL BE COMMISSIONERS.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS WE'LL GET, WE'LL GO TO A SECOND ROUND.
UM, IF WE'VE GOT TIME, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, UH, STAYING ON THE SAME SUBJECT, WOULDN'T IT BE POSSIBLE TO JUST CREATE A CATEGORY IN A CELL? YOU KNOW, IN THE ZONING WE HAVE CURRENT PLANNING REQUESTS.
WE HAVE SVS, WE HAVE ZONING CASES, WHETHER OR NOT BE A POSSIBILITY TO JUST CREATE A, A CATEGORY CALLED S SB EIGHT 40 CONSULTATIONS OR SB EIGHT 40, UM, CASES.
WELL, WELL, FOR THE CONSULTATIONS WE COLLECT, I THINK WE ACTUALLY COLLECT THEM TH THROUGH A AELA.
LIKE WE, WE COLLECT THOSE REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION AND, AND WHEN WE ISSUE DETERMINATIONS ON THEM, THEY'RE ALSO THROUGH A CELL.
SO WE TRACK THAT THERE, CONSULTATIONS, CONSERVATION, BUT RATHER THAN DOING A NOTIFICATION FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE INTERESTED ENOUGH TO LOOK, WOULD, COULD IT, COULD IT NOT BE GATHERED IN ONE PLACE UNDER SB EIGHT 40, WHATEVER YOU WANNA CALL IT, TO HAVE, HAVE, UH, AT LEAST PEOPLE HAVE THE, UH, CHOICE THE CHANCE TO SEE WHAT'S BEING REQUESTED IN THEIR AREA.
I THINK THERE'S A WAY WE WILL BE ABLE TO FILTER IT.
UH, MOST LIKELY YOU HAVE IDEAS IS, IT'S A GOOD QUESTION.
UM, THANK YOU FOR ALL THESE QUESTIONS.
WE ARE THINKING, AGAIN, WE DIDN'T ISSUE ANY PERMITS.
WE MAY HAVE ONE OR TWO APPLICATIONS.
I, LAST TIME WE PULLED DATA WAS TWO WEEKS AGO.
WE DO HAVE A CHECKLIST IN ELA FOR SB 40 AND SB 15.
SO ON OUR ON STAFFS AND WE TRACK IT.
UM, MY INTENT WAS TO KIND OF LIKE TALK INTERNALLY TO SEE MAYBE WE CAN CREATE A GIS LAYER WHERE AFTER A PERMIT IS ISSUED, WE HAVE IT PUBLIC FACING THAT THIS PERMIT WAS ISSUED BASED ON ENTITLEMENTS OF SB 40.
SO THAT WAS MY FIRST OFF THE BAT IDEA, BUT I NEED TO HAVE, AGAIN, THE JS MAP TALKING TO ELLA, UH, DIRECTLY BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW, IT MAY BE A PERMIT, IT MAY BE A HUNDRED PERMITS AT ONCE.
BUT TO YOUR POINT AND YOUR POINT, COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN AND COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, WE ARE LOOKING INTO TRACKING IT AND SOMEHOW MAKING THE, THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC SO YOU CAN BE ABLE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.
WHILE I HAVE YOU, ARE WE MAKING ANY PROGRESS IN, UM, IDENTIFYING, MAKING THE COUNCIL
[00:55:01]
DISTRICT, UM, IMMEDIATELY APPARENT WHEN, YOU KNOW, THE PUBLIC LOOKS AT ZONING CASES? YES.SO WE, WE ARE ACTIVELY TALKING ABOUT IT.
WE HAVE A LOT OF THE COMMUNITY, UH, ADVOCATES AND MEMBERS AND OUR PARTNERS THAT NEED THAT INFORMATION.
WE CAN DO IT AND WE CAN SEE IT AND WE CAN FILTER IT.
THAT'S WHY WHEN WE SEND THE ENZ EMAILS, YOU SEE THE DISTRICT, THERE'S NOT A WAY TO JUST FLIP IT TO THE PUBLIC END OR NO, IT'S, NO, IT'S, IT'S, IT HAS TO BE A WHOLE REDO OF THE ELA.
AND WE SEND THOSE FIXES TO ELA, I THINK TWICE A YEAR, AND WE HAVE TO PAY EXTRA.
SO IT IS HIGHEST PRIORITY FOR THE DEPARTMENT.
RIGHT NOW, THE FIRST BATCH OF HIGH PRIORITY WAS TO FIX FEES AND STUFF TO BE ABLE TO OPERATE.
BUT THE SECOND HIGHEST BATCH, THIS IS A BIG PRIORITY.
ONLY OUR DIRECTOR, EMILY LEWIS, SAYS IT LIKE IN EVERY STAFF MEETING THAT THIS IS WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE IMMEDIATELY.
HAS AELA FIXED THE FIRST BATCH THAT WENT THROUGH? YES.
SO THE SECOND SHOULD BE BEING WORKED ON.
UM, I DO HAVE A QUESTION, NOT FOR YOU.
UM, IS SENATE BILL EIGHT 40, THESE, IS IT HAVING A NEGATIVE EFFECT ON THE, UH, MIXED INCOME HOUSING DEVELOPMENT BONUS PROGRAM? OUR, OUR PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN, THAT HAVE GOTTEN CONCESSIONS THROUGH, THROUGH THAT PROGRAM, CAN THEY RETROACTIVELY GO BACK AND SAY, UHUH, WE DON'T REALLY WANNA DO THIS BECAUSE WE COULD GET THAT SAME ENTITLEMENT THROUGH EIGHT 40.
SO ARE WE LOSING AFFORDABLE UNITS IN THE PUSH TO JUST GET MORE UNITS? YEAH, I'M GREAT QUESTION.
UM, ON ONE HAND, ON ONE HAND, I HAVE SEEN A COUPLE ONES THAT WERE EARLY ON IN THE PROCESS WITHDRAW AND NOT GO TO THE M-I-H-T-B ROUTE BECAUSE THEY WERE OVERRIDDEN BY IT.
I DON'T HAVE A, UH, I DON'T HAVE TONS OF DATA.
THERE'S, THERE'S, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A COUPLE A MONTH THAT GO THROUGH, BUT I HAVE SEEN THREE-ISH, UM, WITHDRAW BECAUSE OF THAT.
YOU KNOW, OTHERS ARE PROBABLY WEIGHING THEIR OPTIONS AND DOING MATH WITH, EXCUSE ME, WITHDRAWING BEFORE THEY GOT TO, BEFORE, BEFORE THEY GOT, BUT ONCE, OH, UM, NOT, NOT, NOT BEFORE THEY GOT TO COMMISSION THEIR, THEIR POST.
THEY'RE EITHER IT DIDN'T NEED TO GO TO COMMISSION OR THEY WERE ALREADY APPROVED ZONING PROJECTS, UH, BY COMMISSION.
AND THEY WERE IN BETWEEN, THEY WERE AT THE STAGE WHERE THEY WERE TALKING TO M-I-H-D-B AT MY, MY BA HARRAN.
UM, AND, AND GETTING THEIR PAPERWORK SORTED OUT.
AND THEY SAID, OH, WELL, YOU KNOW WHAT ACTUALLY DOESN'T NEED TO BE USED HERE.
SO THEIR POST POST CPC OR POST, UH, YOU KNOW, ENTITLEMENT.
UM, ANECDOTALLY A COUPLE HAVE, HAVE MOVED AWAY PROJECTS THAT OR PERMITTED ALREADY, UH, RECORDED THE DEED RESTRICTIONS WERE FAR ALONG THE LINE, STILL HAVE TO COMPLY WITH IT.
SO THAT'S, UH, THE GOOD THING IS I DON'T THINK THAT YOU'RE GOING TO SEE A LOT OF PROJECTS FROM LAST THAT WERE PERMITTED LAST YEAR, WENT THROUGH THE M-I-H-D-B APPROVAL PROCESS.
UM, NOT THIS NECESSARILY THE CPC PROCESS, BUT THE, THE M-I-H-D-V APPROVAL PROCESS, WHICH IS HAND IN HAND WITH THE PERMIT PROCESS.
THOSE ONES THAT ARE KIND OF PAST THOSE STEPS ARE PROBABLY GONNA STAY IN PLACE.
IF SOMEONE WAS MAYBE HALFWAY THROUGH THEIR PERMIT, HALFWAY THROUGH THEIR M-I-H-D-B APPLICATIONS, THEY WOULD MAYBE HAVE TO WITHDRAW THOSE AND THEN START OVER.
AND THEY, THAT'S, THAT'S AGAIN, A DECISION FOR THEM TO SAY, IS IT WORTH MY TIME OR, OR NOT.
UM, BUT THE ONES THAT WERE ALREADY IN PLACE AND, AND EITHER PERMANENT PROJECTS, UM, AND BUILT PROJECTS, THOSE ARE PROBABLY STILL SAFE, UM, AS FAR AS I KNOW, UM, AND UNDERSTAND ONES IN THE FUTURE.
LIKE I SAID, THEY, THERE ARE STILL GONNA BE NEW M-I-H-D-B.
MANY PEOPLE STILL NEED THEM FOR HEIGHT AND HEIGHT'S, THE BIGGEST ONE.
UM, THEY CAN ALSO CUT THEIR, DEPENDING UPON THE AREA THAT THEY'RE IN, THEY CAN ALSO CUT THEIR PARKING IF THEY PARTICIPATE.
UM, IF THEY'RE SO, UH, WRITTEN AND SO INCLINED.
UM, BUT I, YOU KNOW, BA HARRON'S STILL BUSY WORKING ON PLENTY THAT, UH, DEFINITELY NEED TO BE INVOLVED, ESPECIALLY WITH HEIGHT.
UM, AND HEIGHT HAS BEEN A REALLY COMMON THING THAT WAS HANDED OUT, UM, UH, EITHER BY THE COMMISSION OR BY THE BASE ENTITLEMENTS FOR M-I-H-T-B.
THE ONLY CAVEAT IS IF YOUR PROJECT WAS, YOU KNOW, NOT IF THAT HEIGHT IS NOT OVERRIDDEN BY THE BILL.
IF, IF I WANT, I REALLY JUST WANT TO BE, I'M GONNA KEEP POUNDING THIS TO BE VERY CLEAR, BUT IF, IF, LIKE WE SET A BASE HEIGHT AT 36 IN AN M-I-H-G-B THAT WE WROTE, UM, BUT THEY WANTED TO BUILD 70 AND YOU KNOW, THIS IS, THE DISTRICT IS LIKE 45, OR EXCUSE
[01:00:01]
ME, EIGHT 40 SAYS WE HAVE TO REQUIRE 45 OR ALLOW 45 FEET OF HEIGHT, BUT THEY WANT TO BUILD THAT 70 FEET.WE'RE STILL, WE'RE, THEY'RE STILL DOING M-I-H-D-B AT THAT RATE.
YOU KNOW, THEY CAN'T, THEY CAN'T END RUN, UM, THAT, SO WE HAVE TO PERMIT THEM 45 FEET.
BUT WHEN WE GO OVER THAT, IF THE BONUS IS WRITTEN IN SUCH A WAY FOR THAT MAYBE 70 FEET OR SOMETHING, UH, THEY'RE STILL GONNA HAVE TO PARTICIPATE OR CALL, YOU KNOW, USE THE BONUS AT THAT RATE.
MANY OF THEM ARE STILL IN PLACE, UM, FOR HEIGHT.
I KNOW THAT BECAUSE OF EIGHT 40 WE'RE TIED TO THE HEIGHT SPECIFICATIONS, EITHER THE 45 FEET OR, OR WHATEVER HEIGHT IS, UH, GRANTED UNDER THE ZONING.
IS THERE ANY PROHIBITION LEGALLY ABOUT TYING HEIGHT TO DESIGN STANDARDS, DIFFERENT HEIGHTS TO DESIGN STANDARDS OR AMENITIES THAT HAVE TO BE PROVIDED? I THINK WE HAVE TO.
I THINK THAT'S A GOOD, THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.
I THINK WE HAVE TO, WE HAVE TO CONTINUE TO MAKE THE, THE BASIC LIKE 45 CONDITIONAL.
UH, YOU'RE PROBABLY TALKING ABOUT LIKE A PD I PRESUME.
A PD THAT HASN'T BEEN WRITTEN YET.
AND SO I I, WITHOUT KNOWING DETAILS, I PRESUME, YOU KNOW, LIKE WE HAVE TO PREVENT THAT 45 MAYBE UNCONDITIONALLY POTENTIALLY.
YOU CAN'T SAY LIKE THIS IS A BONUS THING OR AN OPTION THING.
UH, BUT BEYOND THAT, YOU KNOW, THE, IF, IF THE CITY'S HEIGHT IS A TOOL OR, OR HEIGHT IS A, A LEVERAGE TOOL THAT HISTORICALLY THAT THE CITY HAS USED TO GET THINGS THAT THE CITY NEEDS, LIKE AMENITIES AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
SO IF THERE'S AN UP ZONING ZONING GOING ON, IF THAT'S ABOVE 45 FEET, I WOULD VENTURE TO BET THERE STILL COULD BE SOME KIND OF, UH, UH, BENEFIT RECEIVED FOR THAT.
BUT THE 45 IS KIND OF WHERE WE LOSE OUR BARGAINING POWER.
I I DO HAVE JUST ONE FOLLOW UP QUESTION TO COMMISSIONER CARPENTER'S QUESTIONS.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HOUSING AFFORDABILITY UNDER THE MIXED INCOME HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM.
AND YOUR, YOUR ANSWER TO HER QUESTION, IS THAT RIGHT? YEAH.
AND THERE ARE OTHER FORMS OF CAPITAL A HOUSING AFFORDABILITY PROGRAMS THAT REQUIRE RESERVATION OF UNITS OR FOR CERTAIN INCOME LEVELS, UM, OR SETTING ASIDE UNITS OR, OR RENT SORT OF CAPS.
THAT'S, WE'RE NOT, WE'RE NOT DISCUSSING THAT HERE TODAY.
NOT A, IT IS NOT GONNA TOUCH OTHER HOUSING PROGRAMS THAT THE CITY USES.
IT'S, IT'S ONLY UNDER, IT'S ONLY UNDERCUTTING M-I-H-D-B AND, AND NOT EVERY TIME.
AND THEN SORT OF LOWERCASE A AFFORDABILITY, WHETHER, YOU KNOW, SB EIGHT 40 HAS IMPACTS ON HOUSING AFFORDABILITY ACROSS THE BOARD OUTSIDE OF ANY SORT OF PROGRAM REQUIRING AFFORDABILITY.
THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE REALLY HAVE ENOUGH IMPACT TO KNOW TODAY WHAT THAT IMPACT WE DATA TO KNOW WHAT THAT IMPACT MIGHT BE, IF ANY.
IS THAT FAIR? I CAN, I CAN MAKE SOME ASSUMPTIONS, BUT IT'S NOT, IT'S A YEAR OVER YEAR THING.
UM, ANY FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS ON OUR FIRST ROUND? I KNOW WE'VE BEEN GOING ABOUT AN HOUR.
I KNOW COMMISSIONER COX, YOU HAD ROUND TWO.
OH, COMMISSIONER HERBERT, THEN WE'LL GO TO ROUND TWO JUST BECAUSE IN MY DISTRICT WE SEEM TO GET SOME SLICK SLICKERS.
I JUST WANT TO BE SURE, UM, WHEN GOT A PROPERTY THAT'S COMMERCIAL TODAY, MAYBE HEAVY INDUSTRIAL, BUT NOTHING'S ON IT, IT'S JUST ZONED THAT WAY.
WOULD IT BE EASIER FOR THAT DEVELOPER OR CHEAPER OR LESS EXPENSIVE OR, UM, THINGS THEY CAN GET AWAY WITH MORE IF THEY JUST REZONE THAT LIGHT COMMERCIAL VERSUS GOING WITH ONE OF THE RESIDENTIAL, UM, THINGS, UH, UH, ASPECTS WE HAVE.
WOULD IT BE EASIER WITH RESIDENTIAL? RIGHT? WE CAN SEE DEVELOPMENT PLANS, SOME OTHER THINGS AROUND RESIDENTIAL, BUT IF THEY DID LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, IT WILL GO THROUGH THE PERMANENT PROCESS.
UH, ARE THERE WAYS DEVELOPERS WILL BE ABLE TO GET AROUND, UM, PRESENTING TRUE RESIDENTIAL CASES BY REZONING TO LIGHT COMMERCIAL OR ONE OR THE OTHER OFFICE, UM, USES? I I SEE YOUR POINT.
UM, SO I WILL ADD THE CAVEAT THAT YOU, YOU MENTIONED PLANS.
WE, PLANS ARE GOING TO BE ABLE TO ATTACH, BE ATTACHED TO THINGS LIKE PLAN DEVELOPMENTS FOR RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS.
BUT THE PLANS, LIKE I SAID, HAVE TO, WE HAVE TO ALLOW, IF A PROJECT IS A MULTI-FAMILY OR MIXED USE QUALIFYING PROJECT, WE HAVE TO ALLOW THEM TO AMEND THAT PLAN.
SO I, I MEAN, WE SAID IT LAST YEAR, THERE ARE CAVEATS THAT YOU SHOULDN'T GET TOO ATTACHED TO A DEVELOPMENT PLAN IN THE FIRST PLACE BECAUSE MINOR AMENDMENTS AND, UM, OTHER THINGS ARE DOABLE NOW THAT, THAT,
[01:05:01]
THAT ABILITY BY THE, THE DEVELOPER IS MORE POTENT BECAUSE WE HAVE TO ADMINISTRATIVELY APPROVE AMENDMENTS.UM, YOU KNOW, IF THEY'RE COMPLIANT WITH THE ZONING, IF THEY'RE, WE CAN'T JUST SAY, UH, YOU, YOU ADMINISTRATIVELY GET ALL THIS HEIGHT, BUT WE STILL HAVE TO COMPLY WITH, WITH THE ZONING.
UM, AND THEN YOU SAID, I, I DIDN'T FOLLOW THE PART ABOUT INDUSTRIAL.
COULD YOU REPHRASE WHAT, WHAT WAS SO IN HEAVY INDUSTRIAL DOESN'T FIT UNDER SBA 40 TODAY.
WE CAN'T, OR IF I'VE GOT A ZONING DISTRICT, IR IM OR MAYBE A PD THAT'S SIMILAR, IT DOESN'T TRIGGER EIGHT 40.
YOU CAN'T THROW UNITS INTO AN IR OR IM, BECAUSE THEY ALLOW THAT HIT HEAVY INDUSTRIAL USE.
SO IF I WANTED TO DO RESIDENTIAL THERE, WOULD IT BE EASIER FOR ME TO REZONE THAT LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AND GO THROUGH THE SB EIGHT 40? OR WILL PLANNING HELP ME THROUGH A RESIDENTIAL CASE THAT COULD BE HARDER, WAS MY QUESTION.
THIS IS A, THIS IS AN INTERESTING QUESTION.
I, I AM OF THE MIND THAT, SO WITHOUT COMMENTING LIKE LITERALLY ON LIGHT INDUSTRIAL OR WHATEVER, I'M OF THE MIND THAT CR COMMUNITY RETAIL, THAT'S EASIER FOR ME.
UM, NOW PERMITS MULTIFAMILY, I, I, I DON'T SEE A GOOD REASON WHY THAT SHOULDN'T BE A TOOL IN THE PLANNING.
YOU KNOW, THE, THE PLANNING BODIES, UH, TOOLBOX OR THE STAFFS TOOLBOX OR THE DEVELOPER'S TOOLBOX.
IF, IF THAT DISTRICT IS APPROPRIATE, YOU KNOW, YOU GOTTA, IF SO, LIKE IF THE SPECIFICATIONS OF CR MEET A PROJECT, THE USES OF CR MEET A PROJECT, THE HEIGHT AND, AND FINALLY A CR IS APPROPRIATE FOR A SITE, I THINK IT SHOULD BE A TOOL IN THE DEVELOPER'S TOOLBOX TO BUILD AND MAKES USE PROJECT.
I DON'T, I DON'T SEE WHY THEY SHOULDN'T OR, OR, UH, YOU KNOW, THAT KIND OF THING.
UM, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, I MEAN, IF THE AREA IS STILL LIKE, YOU KNOW, IF LIGHT INDUSTRIAL IS THE CHARACTER OF THAT AREA, YOU COULD USE IT TO GO ABOUT THAT.
SO IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT VERSUS LIKE A MULTIFAMILY DISTRICT, THE MAIN DIFFERENCE IS JUST DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
I, I GUESS I WOULD SAY IF YOU'RE TRYING TO MAINTAIN SOMETHING OF A INDUSTRIAL CHARACTER, THAT THAT ONE'S TRICKY.
THE QUESTION REALLY WAS AROUND WILL DEVELOPERS TRY TO AVOID RESIDENTIAL REQUIREMENTS IN THEIR APPLICATION BY REZONING TO A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY? DO YOU, CAN YOU THINK OF WHAT RESIDENTIAL REQUIREMENTS YOU MIGHT BE THINKING OF? I'M SORRY.
LIKE WHAT RESIDENTIAL REQUIREMENTS MIGHT YOU BE THINKING OF? 'CAUSE WE STILL HAVE TO RESIDENTIAL PROXIMITY.
ANY, ANY OF THE MF TWO, MF THREE, UH, WHETHER IT IS 7.5 OR EVER MAY I COMMISSIONER CARPENTER? YES.
MAY I TRY? UH, I THINK THE QUESTION, IF I'M UNDERSTANDING IT RIGHT, IS IF A DEVELOPER ANTICIPATES A LOT OF PUSHBACK FROM GETTING AN APARTMENT PROJECT THROUGH, WOULD THEY, WOULD IT BE A FEASIBLE SCENARIO FOR THEM TO PURSUE ANYTHING, ANY STRAIGHT ZONING WHERE EIGHT 40 KICKS IN AND LETS THEM GET THEIR, YOU KNOW, SORT OF BYPASSING THE NEIGHBORHOOD? IS THAT IT? I, UH, I GOTCHA.
WE'LL ALWAYS ENCOURAGE EVERYONE TO BE HONEST, AND WE WILL ALWAYS BE HONEST AND SAY, WELL, IT'S C YOU KNOW, SOMEONE COMES TO ME WITH CR I KEEP GOING BACK THERE.
UH, WE'RE NOT GONNA MINCE WORDS AND SAY, UH, THAT MULTIFAMILY IS NOT ALLOWED.
WE'RE GONNA CONS WHEN WE DO OUR ANALYSIS, WE'RE GONNA CONSIDER, YES, MULTIFAMILY IS BUILT INTO THAT.
UM, SO THEY'RE NOT GONNA BE PULLING, PULLING IT OVER US.
UH, WHEN WE HAVE THESE PUBLIC MEETING CONVERSATIONS.
WE SHOULD BE STRAIGHTFORWARD WITH THE COMMUNITIES THAT, HEY, COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS ALLOW, YOU KNOW, THESE THINGS NOW.
AND SO WE SHOULD BE HONEST WITH THEM AT THAT STAGE.
WELL, IT'S GONNA BE A CONSIDERATION FOR US AS WELL TO APPROVE STRAIGHT ZONING CHANGES.
WE HAVE TO CONSIDER THAT THERE'S A POSSIBILITY THAT EIGHT 40 WOULD WHAT IT COULD DO UNDER THAT STRAIGHT ZONING.
I'M SORRY, I WANTED TO ADD SOMETHING TO COMMISSIONER OR VICE CHAIR'S.
UH, HERBERT'S QUESTION ABOUT THE HYPOTHETICAL ALLY, PLEASE DO NOT FORGET THAT THE LAW ALSO SAYS THAT YOU CANNOT BE WITHIN A HUNDRED A THOUSAND FEET OF HEAVY INDUSTRIAL USES, AND THE POSSIBILITY OR PROBABILITY THAT YOU WOULD HAVE A HEAVY INDUSTRIAL USE IN LI IS ACTUALLY BIGGER.
SO THEY MAY NOT EVEN BE ABLE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF SPA 40.
SO DO NOT FORGET THAT, YES, LI WOULD BE ELIGIBLE, CS WOULD BE ELIGIBLE, BUT WE ALREADY PUBLISHED LIKE A LIST OF I THINK SIX OR SEVEN HEAVY INDUSTRIAL USES THAT WOULD EXCLUDE YOU.
ANY FINAL QUESTIONS? I KNOW COMMISSIONER COX, YOU HAD A FOLLOW UP OR AROUND TWO? YEAH.
SO A LOT OF TEXAS CITIES ARE TAKING ACTIONS, WORKAROUNDS, IF YOU WILL, TO TRY TO PRESERVE THEIR LOCAL PLANNING GOALS.
WHAT, IF ANYTHING, IS THE CITY OF DALLAS DOING INFRASTRUCTURE, FOR EXAMPLE,
[01:10:01]
AS I UNDERSTAND IT IS NOT PREEMPTED BY THIS BILL.SO WHAT, WHAT IS DALLAS DOING? YEAH, AND, AND NO, GOOD, GOOD QUESTION.
SO FIRST OF ALL, OUR DEVELOPMENT PROCESS STILL ACCOUNTS FOR, FOR THINGS LIKE INFRASTRUCTURE.
AND THAT'S NOT REALLY AFFECTED OUR, OUR, UH, YOU KNOW, WHEN I, WHEN I COME THROUGH AND I WANNA DO A A MULTI-FAMILY PROJECT, IT'S NOT REALLY, UM, IT DOESN'T REALLY MATTER WHAT DISTRICT I AM TO THE OFFSET I HAVE TO DO TO REPLACE INFRASTRUCTURE IF I STREETS, UTILITIES, THINGS LIKE THAT.
IF I, IF I AM UP, IF I AM UP, IF BUILDING UP A PROPERTY WITH ADDITIONAL UNITS, IT DOESN'T, THE BUILDING CODE REVIEWERS, THE TRANSPORTATION REVIEWERS, THE WATER TEAM, UM, ALL THOSE FOLKS DON'T CARE IF IT'S CR ZONING OR IT'S MULTI-FAMILY ZONING.
THEY CARE ABOUT WHAT USE IS GOING IN AT PERMITTING.
SO WE STILL HAVE ALL OF OUR PROTECTIONS, AS THE BILL SAYS, FOR APPROPRIATE, FOR APPROPRIATE APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENTS FOR PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY, SEWER, WATER, AND ACCESS REQUIREMENTS.
SO, UH, UH, YOU KNOW, UNDER, UM, UNDERRATED IS THAT WHEN A PROJECT GOES IN, THEY ALWAYS HAVE TO OFFSET FOR, FOR THOSE SORTS OF THINGS.
IN, IN OUR CURRENT DEVELOPMENT CODE, YOU, YOU, YOU KNOW, YOU MAY THINK BACK IN THE DAY THOSE, THOSE SORTS OF THINGS FOR TR YOU KNOW, TRAFFIC OFFSETS AND, AND THINGS LIKE THAT, BUILDING LANES, IMPROVING SIGNALS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
WE'RE NOT SO MUCH THE, THE WAY OF THE PAST.
OUR CURRENT CODE DOES REQUIRE THAT, BUT IT'S NOT DEPENDENT UPON THE ZONING DISTRICT.
IT'S DEPENDENT UPON WHAT, UH, WHAT IS BUILT ON THE SITE.
SO SOMEONE IS BUILDING UP A SITE IN CR OR IT'S IN MULTIFAMILY.
THEY ARE UPGRADING THE, UH, THEY ARE UPGRADING THE SEWER WATER, YOU KNOW, TRAFFIC THINGS REQUIRED TO SIGNALS.
AND I GAVE INFRASTRUCTURE AS AN EXAMPLE.
OBVIOUSLY THERE ARE OTHERS, I MEAN, DIFFERENT BUILDING STANDARDS THAT WE HAVE.
UM, SO IF I'M UNDERSTANDING YOUR ANSWER CORRECTLY, DALLAS REALLY ISN'T DOING ANYTHING DIFFERENT TO TRY TO WORK AROUND SB EIGHT 40.
I, I WILL SAY WE'RE NOT TRYING TO WORK AROUND THE BILL 'CAUSE WE NEED TO COMPLY WITH IT A HUNDRED PERCENT.
WE ARE A, WE, WHAT'S THE WORD I'M LOOKING FOR? WE ARE, WE HAVE TO BE COMPLETELY, UH, UM, COMPLIANT WITH THE BILL OR, YOU KNOW, HONESTLY WE'LL BE A TARGET I IMAGINE.
SO, UH, WE'RE A HUNDRED PERCENT COMPLIANT WITH THE BILL.
UM, AND WE, WHILE WE'RE STILL ENFORCING THE REGULATIONS ON THE GROUND, UM, FAIRLY.
UM, I KNOW MR. PEPE IS VERY GENEROUS WITH THIS TIME, SO WE'VE BEEN GOING FOR ALMOST AN HOUR AND 20 MINUTES.
UM, SO LET'S WRAP UP THIS BRIEFING AND IF FOLKS DO HAVE FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS, I KNOW THEY CAN CONTINUE TO SEND IT TO MR. PEPE OR, OR HIS COLLEAGUES IF THAT WORKS.
COMMISSIONER HAMPTON AND THANK YOU MR. CHAIR.
I JUST WANTED, I WAS, UM, REMINDED BY, UM, ONE OF OUR ZONING CONSULTANTS THAT, AND FOLLOW UP TO COMMISSIONER CARPENTER'S QUESTION AND JUST WANTED TO FLAG THIS FROM MR. PEPE AND ALL OF US.
UM, IS IT CORRECT THAT THE ZONING, UM, DETERMINATION LETTERS ARE SEARCHABLE ONLINE AND THAT THAT MAY PROVIDE A TOOL, UM, TO UNDERSTAND WHERE THERE ARE SB EIGHT 40 REQUESTS THAT ALREADY EXISTS? PEOPLE ARE APPLYING FOR THOSE THROUGH ACELA AND I BELIEVE THEY'RE PRETTY VIEWABLE, UM, ON THAT PLATFORM.
SO YES, OPEN, OPEN, OPEN, UH, DETERMINATIONS.
ALRIGHT, LET'S MOVE INTO OUR, UM, BRIEFING OF OUR ZONING CASES.
SEVERAL ITEMS HAVE BEEN REMOVED.
WHAT'S LEFT ON CONSENT AS OF RIGHT NOW? ARE ITEMS 2, 3, 5, 9, AND 12? DO ANY ITEMS NEED TO COME OFF OTHER OF THOSE FIVE? DO ANY OF THOSE NEED TO COME OFF AND WE CAN CERTAINLY TAKE THEM OFF AT THE PUBLIC HEARING AS WELL.
SO OFF CONSENT IS 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, AND 13 ON CONSENT IS 2, 3, 5, 9, AND 12.
I KNOW COMMISSIONER WHEELER, WHO IS GONNA BE JOINING US THIS AFTERNOON SAID THAT SHE DIDN'T NEED TWO OR THREE BRIEFED.
WOULD ANYONE LIKE THOSE ITEMS BRIEFED? COMMISSIONER COX? YEAH.
SO CURRENTLY ON THE CONSENT AGENDA, WHICH WILL BE TAKEN UP IN A SINGLE MOTION OR ITEMS 2, 3, 5, 9, AND 12 OFF CONSENT AND WILL BE CONSIDERED INDIVIDUALLY ARE 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, AND 13.
DOES ANYONE NEED TWO OR THREE BRIEFED OR ANY QUESTIONS ON THOSE ITEMS FOR CITY
[01:15:01]
STAFF? OKAY.COMMISSIONER SIMS. DOES THAT ONE NEED TO BE BRIEFED? UH, NOT FOR ME.
UH, SIX COMMISSIONER KINGSTON, DO WE NEED A BRIEFING? I DON'T, THERE, I KNOW IT'S, IT'S COMING OFF FOR SOME TWEAKS OR, OKAY.
DOES ANYONE ELSE WANT SIX? I DO HAVE ONE QUESTION ON SIX FOR MR. BATE OR MR. ING AND MR. CHAIR WHILE THEY'RE COMING UP.
UM, ONCE WE'RE THROUGH THE ZONING DOCKET, IF WE COULD CIRCLE BACK TO THE MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENT.
I DID HAVE SOME QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.
FOLLOWING THIS CURRENT MM-HMM
YEAH, I, IT'S REAL, REAL SIMPLE.
I THINK I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTOOD.
DOES THE MODIFIED DELTA OVERLAY MD ONE OVERLAY APPLY TO THAT PROPERTY TODAY? UH, DOES IT APPLY TODAY? YES.
AND IT WOULD APPLY WITH THE CHANGE IN ZONING IF THAT WERE GRANTED.
THE MD ONE OVERLAY IS, IT'S AN OVERLAY SO THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU GOT YOUR BASE ZONING, WHICH IN THIS CASE WOULD BE CURRENTLY A CR IF THIS PASSED WOULD BE A PD.
AND THE OVERLAY IS ON TOP OF THAT.
SO IT KIND OF CONTROLS OVER THAT.
SO AS A RESULT OF THAT, THE ZONING, PARKING CODE AMENDMENTS OR THE PARKING, UM, AMENDMENTS THAT WE MADE LAST YEAR AND THE CITY COUNCIL PASSED CARVED OUT MD ONE, IS THAT CORRECT? I BELIEVE THEY DID, YES.
SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE SEEING THIS CASE.
DOES ANYONE ELSE HAVE QUESTIONS ON ITEM SIX, ITEM SEVEN? ANYONE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF FOR, OR NEED A BRIEFING ON THAT ONE? HOW ABOUT ITEM EIGHT? COMMISSIONER KAUFMAN? DO YOU WANT THAT ONE BRIEFED OR QUESTIONS ON THAT? NO.
COMMISSIONER HALL, WOULD YOU LIKE A BRIEFING OR QUESTIONS ON THAT ONE? I DO HAVE A, A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FOR, UH, DR.
I WOULD, I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE IT BRIEF.
UH, KC 25 0 0 0 2 1 8 IS AN APPLICATION FOR ONE AND AMENDMENT TO PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 3 85 AND TWO, TERMINATION OF A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT 2024 FOR AN ILLUMINATED COMPETITIVE ATHLETIC FIELD LOCATED ON SOUTHWEST CORNER OF WALNUT HILL LANE AND INWOOD ROAD.
IT'S LOCATED IN COUNCIL DISTRICT 13 AND HERE IS AN AERIAL MAP.
THE PROPERTIES CURRENTLY DEVELOPED WITH THE URSULINE ACADEMY CAMPUS, INCLUDING ACADEMIC BUILDINGS, ATHLETIC FACILITIES, PARKING AREAS, AND ASSOCIATED OPENNESS SPACES.
AND IN 1993, UH, THE CITY COUNCIL ESTABLISHED PD 3 85.
AND SINCE ITS ADOPTION, UM, SEVERAL AMENDMENT HAVE BEEN APPROVED THERE.
AND A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT 2024 WAS APPROVED IN 2013 FOR AN ELIMINATED ATHLETIC FIELD, AND, UM, INCLUDES AUTOMATIC SIX YEARS RENEWALS.
AND IT HAS BEEN, UM, RECENTLY RENEWED, UM, UH, AND REMAINS VALID THROUGH 2030.
THE PURPOSE OF THE REQUEST IS TO SIMPLIFY AND MODERNIZE THE PD LANGUAGE AND TO MAKE MINOR AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AND LANDSCAPE PLANS.
UH, HERE IS THE, UH, ZONING AND LAND USE MAP.
UH, THE PROPERTY IS SURROUNDED BY, UH, SINGLE FAMILY PROPERTIES, ALL ARE ZONED R
[01:20:01]
ONE.AND, UH, THESE ARE SOME SITE PHOTOS FROM WALNUT HILL LANE LOOKING SOUTHWEST AT THE SITE, UH, LOOKING SOUTH AT THE ENTRANCE, LOOKING SOUTH FROM WALNUT HILL AND, UH, FROM INWOOD ROAD LOOKING WEST AT THE OTHER ENTRANCE.
AND, UM, HERE IS IN THE SIDE LOOKING SOUTH AT THE MAIN ENTRY, UH, LOOKING SOUTHWEST PARKING AREA, LOOKING SOUTHEAST AT THE NEWLY CONSTRUCTED FACILITY AND LOOKING NORTHEAST AT THE ATHLETIC FIELD.
AND THESE ARE SOME, UH, SURROUNDING AREA PHOTOS, UH, FROM WALNUT HILL LANE LOOKING NORTHWEST AT ALL THOSE RESIDENTIAL AREAS, LOOKING NORTHEAST AND LOOKING, UM, EAST.
AND, UH, HERE IS THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND, UM, UM, THIS SHOWS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
UM, THERE HAS NOT BEEN THAT MUCH CHANGES.
UM, AND IT'S JUST REFLECTING, UH, WHAT, UM, HAS BEEN BUILT, UH, SINCE 2020.
AND ALSO THEY WANT TO UPDATE, UH, THEIR MAINTENANCE BUILDING AND, UM, THE, THE, THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PLAN REFLECT THAT.
AND OTHERWISE THE, UM, CAMPUS LAYOUT OF REAL ESTATE.
THE SAME HERE IS THE EXISTING LANDSCAPE PLAN AND PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PLAN THAT REFLECT THE CHANGES.
AND THIS IS SHOWING, UM, THE, UM, COP FOR ATHLETIC FIELD THAT HAS BEEN, UM, PROPOSED TO BE TERMINATED.
AND SOME OF THE CONDITIONS LIKE, UM, LIGHTING HOURS OF OPERATIONS OR LIGHTING STANDARDS WILL BE, UM, CARRIED, UM, FORWARD TO THE PD, UM, CONDITIONS.
AND SOME OF CONDITIONS LIKE PHOTOMETRIC STUDY THAT HAS BEEN, UM, COMPLETED PRIOR, PRIOR TO THE, UM, ISSUE OF CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, UH, WILL NOT RELATED ANYMORE, SO WILL BE REMOVED.
AND, UH, THIS IS THE SUMMARY OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONS.
UH, AS MENTIONED, UH, THEY PROPOSED TO REMOVE THE SEPARATED UP AND, UH, REGULATE THE ATHLETIC FIELD DIRECTLY THROUGH, UH, PD AND, UH, CLEAN UP AND STREAMLINE THE ATHLETIC FIELD STANDARDS AND DELETE OUT DATA AND NO LONGER RELEVANT LANGUAGE AND UPDATE, UH, TRAFFIC STUDY REQUIREMENT.
UH, SO, UH, TMP, UM, UH, WILL BE TIED TO, UM, FUTURE PD AMENDMENT, NOT AUTOMATIC REOCCURRING BIENNIAL CYCLES, AND ALSO MAKE MINOR UPDATES TO DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND LANDSCAPE PLANS.
UM, HERE IS THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO CONDITION.
I JUST WANTED TO FOCUS ON THE PROVISIONS THAT HAS BEEN, UH, CHANGED.
SO THE EXHIBITS, UH, FOR, UH, COMPETITIVE ATHLETIC FIELD, UH, LANDSCAPE PLAN WILL BE REMOVED AND THEN, UM, THE SUP REQUIREMENT FOR ATHLETIC FIELD WILL BE REMOVED.
AND, UH, HERE YOU SEE THE HANDICAPPED GROUP, DWELLING UNIT, UM, SUP REQUIREMENT, UH, THAT PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED.
BUT, UM, I, UH, AFTER BACK AND FORTH WITH, UM, THE APPLICANT, UH, THEY SAID THAT THEY WANT TO RETAIN, UH, THE SUP, UH, REQUIREMENT AND, UH, THESE CHANGES WAS BY MISTAKE.
AND, UH, ON THEIR LAND LANDSCAPING SUBSECTION, UM, THEY WANT TO, UM, KIND OF, UM, MOVE ALL THE UH, UH, UH, LAND LANDSCAPE EXHIBIT TO THE WORDING.
AND, UM, THEY PROPOSED A LARGE CANOPY TREE, UM, MEANS A CATER LIVE OAK WITH A MINIMUM CALIPER OF SIX INCH, UH, WHEN PLANTED.
BUT, UH, NOW AFTER THE DOCKETS, THEY, UM, WANT US TO MAKE THESE CHANGES AND, UM, ALSO WANT TO, UM, BE READ AS, UM, LARGE CANOPY TREE MEANS A CATA LIFE OAK OR ANOTHER LARGE CANOPY TREE SPECIES APPROVED BY THE CITY OF DALLAS.
ARB IS IF CATA LIFE OAKS ARE NO LONGER RECOMMENDED WITH A MINIMUM CALIPER OF SIX INCH.
[01:25:02]
THEY ALSO WANT TO REMOVE TRAFFIC CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENT, WHICH IS NOT APPLICABLE ANYMORE BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED.AND ALSO THE PLAYING FIELD, UH, LANGUAGE THAT HAS BEEN REMOVED.
AND, UM, HERE IS THOSE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT FOR COMPETITIVE ATHLETIC FIELDS.
THEY CHANGE, UM, UH, THEY REPLACE THE AMPLIFICATION BAND WITH SOME TIME, UH, RESTRICTION.
AND ALSO IN THE, IN THE LIGHTING SUBSECTION, THEY CHANGED THE HOURS OF OPERATION.
BUT, UH, THEY ARE FOLLOWING THE SAME LIGHTING STANDARDS THAT THEY HAD IN THE PD.
AND, UM, THE, UM, UH, AREA OF REQUEST IS LOCATED WITHIN COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL PLACE TYPE, UH, IN FORT WORTH, DALLAS, WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CHANGES.
AND A STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO PD 3 85, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS AND APPROVAL TO TERMINATE OF, UH, SUP 2024 FOR AN ILLUMINATED COMPETITIVE ATHLETIC FIELD.
COMMISSIONER HALL, DID YOU HAVE QUESTIONS THAT LET COVER EVERYTHING THAT YOU WANTED TO GO OVER? UH, YEAH, I JUST WANNA CLARIFY, UM, YOU, YOU'RE READING, UH, UH, YOUR CORRECTION OF THE DOCKET ABOUT THE GROUP DWELLING UNIT AND THE LARGE CANOPY TREE IS SUFFICIENT.
UH, THAT CHANGE, THAT CHANGES THE DOCKET THAT'S NOTIFYING THE COMMISSION AND THAT CHANGES THE DOCKET.
SO I DO NOT NEED TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WOULD INCLUDE THOSE REVISIONS TO THE DOCKET.
IS THAT, IS THAT CORRECT? YES, THAT'S CORRECT.
UH, THAT'S REALLY THE ONLY QUESTION I HAD.
JUST FURTHER CLARIFICATION THERE, I THINK THE MOTION ON THE CONSENT AGENDA THAT NEEDS TO BE MADE IS APPROVAL OF THE ITEMS AS LISTED IN THE DOCKET OR AS BRIEFED AT THE PODIUM.
I WILL EMAIL THE LANGUAGE TO COMMISSIONER AND ATTORNEY.
UM, LET SEE IF THAT'S IN MY VIEW, IF THAT'S SUFFICIENT, WE CAN LEAVE IT ON CONSENT THEN.
UH, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER HAD SOME FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS? YES.
UH, NUMBER ONE, THIS IS THE FIRST CASE THAT I HAVE SEEN WHERE, UM, A SCHOOL IS GOING TO BE EXEMPTED FROM HAVING TO DO THE BIENNIAL UPDATES OF THE TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PROGRAM.
SO IS THIS, ARE WE GONNA START EVALUATING CAMPUSES CASE BY CASE OR I MEAN, IS THIS A NEW, HAVE WE CHANGED STAFF POLICY? WHAT, WHAT'S GOING ON HERE? STAFF IS STILL PREFER TO STAY CONSISTENT AND HAVE THAT, UH, BIENNIAL REQUIREMENT, BUT, UH, SPECIFIC TO DECIDE LAYOUT AND ALSO THE OPERATION, UM, UH, WE, UM, WOULD SUPPORT THEIR, UM, REVISION, BUT, UH, FOR OTHER CASES WOULD BE DIFFERENT.
AND, UH, THEY HAD SUBMITTED THEIR UPDATED, UH, TMP IN 2024 AND, UH, THAT HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT AND THEY NEVER HAD ANY PROBLEM WITH THEIR TMP AND ALSO THEY WON'T, UM, UM, THERE WON'T BE ANY CHANGES TO THE CAMPUS LAYOUT AND, UM, AND TO THEIR TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT.
SO THAT'S WHY THEY, UH, WANTED TO, UM, UM, YOU REMOVE THAT REQUIREMENT AND REPLACE IT BY, UM, BY, UH, ANY FUTURE AMENDMENT TO PD.
UM, I REMEMBER, UH, IT'S BEEN SOME TIME AGO WHEN, THIS WAS A VERY, VERY CONTROVERSIAL CASE WHEN LIGHTING THESE ATHLETIC FIELDS WERE FIRST WHEN IT, WHEN IT WAS FIRST PROPOSED.
AND, UM, YOU KNOW, WHEN I READ THE CASE REPORT, UM, I GOT ONE IMPRESSION OF WHAT THE CHANGES WERE GOING TO BE TO THE USE OF THE ATHLETIC FIELDS.
AND THEN WHEN I, UM, YOU KNOW, ASKED FOR THE ORIGINAL COPY OF THE SUP CONDITIONS AND READ IT AGAINST THE PD, THE, UM, THE CHANGES ARE, ARE FAIRLY SIGNIFICANT.
THERE, THERE IS QUITE A LOT MORE USAGE OF THE FIELDS THAN, UH, THERE WAS ORIGINALLY, WHICH IS ONE REASON WHY I WANTED TO BRIEF THE CASE, UH, ASK FOR THE CASE TO BE BRIEFED BECAUSE I THOUGHT THAT, YOU KNOW, IF THERE IS ANYONE LISTENING HERE, THEY NEED TO UNDERSTAND THAT, YOU KNOW, WHILE THE SUP CONDITIONS ORIGINALLY LIMITED THE USE OF THE FIELDS TO 20, UH, GAMES
[01:30:01]
PER, UM, YEAR, AND THOSE GAMES HAD TO BE POSTED ON THE SCHOOL'S WEBSITE, IT COULD ONLY OCCUR, UH, BY USE OF THE LACROSSE AND SOCCER TEAMS AND ONLY DURING THE FALL AND SPRING SEMESTERS, THOSE, UH, UH, PROHIBITIONS OR RESTRICTIONS HAVE NOT BEEN CARRIED OVER.THEY'RE NOW PROPOSING THAT THE FIELDS CAN BE USED 365 DAYS A YEAR, IS THAT CORRECT? AND IT'S NOT.
AND MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY, I MEAN, IT USED TO BE MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY NIGHTS, SEVEN DAYS A WEEK, AND THERE CAN BE LIGHTING FROM, IS IT 6:00 AM TO 10:00 PM SEVEN DAYS A WEEK? MM-HMM
YES, I THINK SO 6:00 AM AND THERE'S NO LONGER A PROHIBITION ON LOUDSPEAKERS OR AMPLIFIED SOUNDS.
UH, IT WOULD JUST BE, I GUESS WHATEVER THE CITY STANDARD IS FOR THAT.
SO, UH, AND BAND PRACTICE AND BAND EVENTS WOULD NOW BE ALLOWED.
UM, I DID HAVE ONE ADDITIONAL QUESTION IN THE PD, THERE WAS ORIGINALLY A PROVISION THAT SAID ELIMINATE, UH, THAT ELIMINATED PLAYING FIELDS OTHER THAN THE PLAYING FIELDS ON THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
NO OTHER COULD BE INSTALLED IN THE BACHMAN BRANCH FLOOD PLANE.
AND I KNOW SOMETIMES WE GET, UH, ATHLETIC FIELDS ADDED THROUGH THE MINOR AMENDMENT PROCESS.
IS THERE ANY POSSIBILITY ON THIS DEVELOPMENT PLAN THAT THERE COULD BE ADDITIONAL PLAYING FIELDS IN THAT AREA? UH, WHAT I HEARD FROM THE APPLICANT IS THEY ARE NOT INTENDED TO INCREASE, INCREASE THE, UH, ACTIVITY OF, UH, ATHLETIC FIELD, OR THEY DON'T WANT TO ADD ANY OTHER, UM, UH, ATHLETIC FIELDS.
AND THE ONE THAT THEY HAD BEFORE, UM, THE ONE THAT YOU MENTIONED, IT'S THE ONE, UH, THAT WAS THERE BEFORE CONSTRUCTING THIS NEW ATHLETIC FIELD.
UM, THAT'S WHY THEY WANTED TO, UH, REMOVE THE, UM, PROVISION BECAUSE IT'S NOT APPLICABLE ANYMORE AND THEY DON'T WANT TO HAVE ANY OTHER MORE, UH, ATHLETIC FIELDS.
AND, UH, I FOLLOWED YOUR CONCERNS ON, UM, ON NOISE AND ALSO, UM, UM, FIRE.
AND THEY, THEY TOLD ME THAT THEY CONDUCTED A STUDY OF ALL OTHER PEER, UM, SCHOOLS IN THE DISTRICT AND ALL OTHER URSELINE PR SCHOOLS AND THEY FOUND IT.
THERE IS NOT A FULL BAN ON, UH, AMPLIFICATION, BUT THERE IS A, A RESTRICTION ON TIME.
THAT'S WHY THEY ARE, UM, PROPOSING SOME TIME LIMITS ON THEIR, UH, AMPLIFI AMPLIFICATION.
ALRIGHT, THANK, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THOSE ARE MY QUESTIONS, COMMERS.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER HAMPTON? WELL, I JUST WILL ASK MR, UM, WELL, MS. WHOEVER WANTS TO ANSWER IT.
WHAT IS THE, I THINK I'M HEARING STAFF THIS REGARDING THE TMP, THAT STAFF WOULD PREFER CONSISTENCY AND THAT THE BIANNUAL SUBMITTAL CONTINUES AS IS NOW TYPICAL AND ALL THE OTHER SCHOOLS, BUT THE PROVISIONS BEFORE US, IF THIS REMAINS ON CONSENT, WOULD REMOVE THAT REQUIREMENT.
AM I CORRECT IN THAT UNDERSTANDING? YES, I THINK, AND, AND DAVID, AND, AND WE, WE DISCUSSED THIS A GOOD AMOUNT BEFORE THIS, HE IS ON THE LINE TOO, AND HE CAN ADD MORE IF HE'D LIKE TO, BUT YES, WE, WE, I, I THINK ALL OF IT TO SAY, WHEN WE SAY WE WANNA BE CONSISTENT, IT IS NOT INDICATING A SPECIFIC SHIFT IN A, IN A POLICY THAT WE HAVE.
UM, THIS IS ONE PER VERY PARTICULAR SITE THAT IS UNUSUAL, BUT UNUSUAL IN, IN THE, THE HISTORY OF THE OPERATION THAT'S OCCURRED THERE.
SO THAT'S THE EXPLANATION GIVEN TO US AND, AND OUR ZONING RATIONALE.
IF YOU WANNA ADD MORE, PLEASE, DAVID NAVAR TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COMMISSION.
WE, WE, WE PREFER CONSISTENCY AND TREATING ALL SCHOOLS THE SAME, ALL SCHOOLS THE SAME.
UM, AND THE RISK OF SOUNDED BIASED THOUGH I DO WANNA POINT OUT TO THE COMMISSION THAT THIS SCHOOL SPECIFICALLY IS ONE OF TWO THAT HAVE CONSISTENTLY PROVIDED US WITH A REPORT ON A BIANNUAL BASIS RIGHT ON TIME.
UM, AND WITHOUT REASON TO CONCERN, TO HAVE CONCERNS THAT HAVE BEEN GOOD STEWARDS OF THEIR FACILITIES.
UM, YOU'RE REVIEWING THIS ON A LAND USE AND SITE RATIONALE, RIGHT? NOT, NOT THE OPERATOR.
AND THAT NEEDS TO BE CLEAR TO THE COMMISSION, YOU KNOW, NEXT TIME YOU SEE A SCHOOL.
BUT, UH, BUT I, WE HAVE NO OBJECTIONS TO THE REQUEST.
UH, SHOULD THEY COME BACK WITH AMENDMENTS, A MINOR AMENDMENT? I THINK THAT, UM, THE COMMISSION AND THE COMMUNITY SHOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THEIR, THEIR, HOW IT AFFECTS THEIR TRAFFIC OPERATIONS.
AS OF RIGHT NOW, WE CAN TELL YOU THEY'VE BEEN GOOD STEWARDS AND HAVE BEEN PROVIDED ONE OUT OF TWO SCHOOLS IN DALLAS WHO
[01:35:01]
HAVE PROVIDED RECURRING UPDATES.SO WITH THAT SAID, I THINK WHAT I ALSO JUST HEARD IS THAT IF THEY DO COME BACK WITH A MINOR AMENDMENT, IF THE ORDINANCE IS APPROVED AS IN OUR DOCKET, THERE WOULD NOT BE THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE TMP.
IS THAT CORRECT? LET WHICHEVER, WHOEVER WANTS TO ANSWER THE QUESTION, THE QUESTION IS, COULD THEY DO A MINOR AMENDMENT TO ATM P? I DON'T KNOW IF WE'VE DONE ONE IN A WHILE.
THERE, THERE IS ONE IN DISTRICT 10 THAT'S COMING UP YOUR WAY, WHICH IS THE FIRST TIME THAT I'VE EVER SEEN A MINOR AMENDMENT COME IN FOR THE TMP.
THE QUESTION IS HOW WOULD THEY AMEND THE P IS, IS THE TMP PART OF THE CONDITIONS IN THERE? YEAH, SO YES.
UH, TMP CAN BE DONE THROUGH THE MINOR AMENDMENT PROCESS.
IF, IF THEY COME IN FOR A MINOR AMENDMENT TO A PLAN AND ALSO ARE SUBMITTING AN UPDATE TO THE TMP, UM, THE REGULAR UPDATES GO TO DAVID AND HIS TEAM.
AND IF THEY DETERMINE THAT THE TRAFFIC PLAN IS WORKING AS CURRENTLY, UM, CODIFIED, THEY WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO AMEND THE PLAN.
UM, BUT IF THEY DECIDED TO AMEND THE PLAN, IT CAN BE DONE THROUGH THE MINOR AMENDMENT PROCESS.
DOES THAT ANSWER MR. COX? DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION? YEAH, JUST A QUICK QUESTION.
HAVING GONE THROUGH RECENTLY A BIG CHANGE AT A SCHOOL, THERE WAS OBVIOUSLY A LOT OF COMMUNITY OUTREACH.
UM, ANY COMPLAINTS, POTENTIAL COMPLAINTS FROM SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS? UM, COMMUNITY MEETINGS? DO YOU KNOW IF THEY HELD COMMUNITY MEETINGS? THEY HAD A COMMUNITY MEETING ON OCTOBER, 2025, BUT, UM, AND THEY HAVEN'T HEARD ANY OPPOSITIONS.
I GOT SOME EMAILS AND, UH, SOME QUESTIONS, UM, FROM NEIGHBORS, UH, ASKING TO, UM, CLARIFY WHAT THEY WANT TO DO, WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE REQUEST, AND THEY ALL, UM, ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THEY ARE A GOOD NEIGHBOR TO US AND WE DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH THEM.
SO WE JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THEY ARE CONTINUING THE WAY THAT THEY ARE.
YEAH, I'LL JUST AMPLIFY ON ON THAT.
UH, THEY DID HAVE A COMMUNITY MEETING IN OCTOBER LAST YEAR.
UH, THEY ON THEIR OWN SENT OUT 60 CARDS TO 60 NEIGHBORS, WHICH COVERS QUITE A BIT.
I MEAN, THESE ARE ONE ACRE LOTS, THESE ARE BIG HOMES.
UH, IT WAS VERY, VERY POORLY ATTENDED
AND SO, UH, AND I, I SPOKE WITH THE APPLICANT, THE DIRECTOR OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, UH, THEY, LIKE DR.
HASHIMI HAS HAD A FEW QUESTIONS TO CLARIFY WHAT THIS IS ALL ABOUT, BUT THEY HAVE NOT HAD ANY PUSHBACK OR OPPOSITION.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM? ALRIGHT, I THINK NUMBER 11, I HAVE A CONFLICT ON THAT ONE THAT'S BEING HELD, SO I DON'T THINK WE'LL BRIEF IT.
UM, NUMBER 13, DOES THAT ONE NEED A BRIEFING OR QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER HAMPTON? I HAVE UH, TWO QUESTIONS FOR STAFF, IF I MAY.
AND THAT, UM, MR. PEP OR MR. NAVARRA, UM, IF HE'S STILL HERE.
UM, GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. NAVARRES.
SO THERE WERE TWO QUESTIONS, UM, AT A RECENT COMMUNITY MEETING, UM, THAT HAD TO DO WITH THE TMP, UM, FOR THIS REQUEST.
UH, ONE WAS, UH, TO DO WITH THE SUGGESTION OF A POTENTIAL EXPANSION OF THE EXISTING SCHOOL ZONE.
THERE'S AN EXISTING SCHOOL SOUTH OF THIS PROPOSED SITE.
UM, HAS THERE BEEN ANYTHING SUBMITTED TO THE CITY OR COULD YOU ADVISE HOW THAT GETS REVIEWED? THIS IS THE LOCATION ON 8 8 0 2 HARRY HINES, MA'AM.
UM, WHAT'S THE NAME OF THE SCHOOL? I I SENT YOU TWO DIFFERENT REQUESTS ON TWO DIFFERENT TRAFFICS.
UM, EX PLEASE EXCUSE ME, I'M DRAWING A BLANK.
UH, WILL YOU REMIND ME OF THE LOCATION OR NAME OF THE SCHOOL? THIS IS WIN.
THIS IS THE WINFREY ON HARRY HINES, WINFREY COUNTY.
[01:40:01]
OKAY.AND YOUR QUESTION IS THE PROCESS FOR YEAH, FOR SCHOOL ZONES EXTENDING OF A SCHOOL ZONE.
I BELIEVE IT WAS MENTIONED IN THE TMB REPORT, AND I THINK YOU HAD INDICATED THAT NOTHING HAD BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE CITY FOR EVALUATION.
WE HAVE, UH, THERE IS NO RECORD OF ANYONE EVER ASKING FOR A SCHOOL ZONE AT THIS LOCATION, UH, FOR EVERY COMMISSION.
IF YOU EVER HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO, UM, EDUCATE NEIGHBORS 3 1 1, WHILE IT MAY NOT BE THE WAY TO GET, UH, THE ANSWERS THAT THEY'RE LOOKING FOR, IT'S THE ONLY WAY WHERE CITY STAFF CAN ACTUALLY GO AND SEE RECORD OF REQUESTS AND I, YOU KNOW, THEY CAN CONTACT THE YOU OR THE MAYOR AND THERE'S NO RECORD OF THOSE CONVERSATIONS.
SO THE ONLY WAY WHERE WE CAN GO BACK AND SEE WHETHER OR NOT THERE HAVE BEEN CONCERNS FROM CITIZENS IS THROUGH THE 3 1 1, UH, ANY OTHER COMMUNICATION WITH THE CITY IS NOT RECORDED.
AND THEREFORE, UH, STANDING HERE IN FRONT OF YOU, I CAN TELL YOU THERE'S NEVER BEEN A, UH, FORMAL REQUEST OR A FORMAL EVALUATION TO, UH, OR A, A FORMAL REQUEST TO EVALUATE SCREW ZONES FOR, FOR THIS, UH, UH, ADJACENT, UH, OR NEARBY SCHOOL.
WE'D BE MORE THAN GLAD TO START EVALUATING IT, BUT WE WOULD ASK THE REQUESTER TO CALL 3 1 1 FIRST WHILE WE'RE STILL EVALUATING IT.
AND I THINK WHAT THE PRIMARY QUESTION IS THAT THE TMP UM, INDICATES THAT THE, THE, UM, PROPOSED, WHAT I'M GONNA CALL PERIODS, UM, FOR THIS SCHOOL, UM, ARE OFFSET FROM THE TRADITIONAL PICK UP AND DROP OFF TIMES FOR THE SCHOOL.
SO THERE WAS A QUESTION AND BECAUSE OF THE STUDENT POPULATION THAT THEY ARE SERVING, UM, THAT THAT SCHOOLS ZONE EXTENSION MAY NOT BE NEEDED.
AND SO THE QUESTION WAS HOW IT GETS EVALUATED.
SO IT GETS EVALUATED BY THE APPLICANT WHO WOULD THEN SUBMIT IT TO ENGINEERING STAFF FOR REVIEW IF IT WAS WARRANTED.
SO IT WAS REALLY JUST IDENTIFIED AS A POTENTIAL TOOL IF NEEDED.
BUT THERE'S NO ACTIVE REQUEST FOR THIS SITE AT THIS TIME.
IS THAT CORRECT? FAIR SUMMARY? YES, MA'AM.
IT SOMEONE PLACES A REQUEST THROUGH 3 1 1 OR THE APP, UH, IT GETS ROUTED TO TRANSPORTATION STAFF.
EVERY DISTRICT HAS A, AN ASSIGNED DISTRICT ENGINEER.
THEY IMMEDIATELY CONTACT OUR OFFICE AND SAY, YOU KNOW, IS THERE A TMP HERE OR IS THIS THE LATEST? UH, WE COME COORDINATE WITH THEM AND IF WE, IF THERE'S ANY HISTORY THROUGH OUR REVIEW, THEN WE PROVIDE ALL THAT INFORMATION.
THEY GO OUT AND DO OBSERVATIONS BASED ON, THEY HAVE SOME GUIDELINES AND THEN THEY MAKE A DETERMINATION, UM, BASED ON THOSE SPECIFIC GUIDELINES THAT THEY FOLLOW.
SO IN ONE, UM, ADDITIONAL QUESTION, MR. CHAIR.
SO THERE'S PROVISIONS WITHIN THE SUP CONDITIONS REGARDING SIDEWALK CONNECTIONS, UH, FOR THE BUILDING.
SO IT'S AN EXISTING BUILDING, UM, NO PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS AT THIS TIME TO THE BUILDING.
UM, THE TMP INDICATES THAT A SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER OF STUDENTS WILL BE UTILIZING PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION.
THERE IS A NEARBY DART STOP, BUT THERE'S NO SIDEWALK TO GET FROM THE DART STOP TO THE BUILDING.
AND SO COULD YOU HELP ME UNDERSTAND HOW THE SUP CONDITIONS WILL BE CONSIDERED AND IF THERE'S ANYTHING THAT WILL TRIGGER THE SIDEWALK, I'LL, I'LL START AND, AND PUT THE, PUT IT OUT THERE THAT RIGHT NOW THEY'RE NOT PLANNING ANY CONSTRUCTION.
UM, IF THEY DO CONSTRUCTION, THEN THEY ARE, THEY ARE TRIGGERING THE SIDEWALKS ONCE THEY IN INSPECT THAT, UM, OTHERWISE THEY CAN WORK WITH THE SIDEWALKS THAT THEY HAVE.
BUT THERE, AS YOU'RE RIGHT, THERE ISN'T ANY ON, ON HARRY HINES.
I DIDN'T KNOW IF YOU WANTED TO ADD ANYTHING IN REGARDS TO HARRY HINES.
THE PROJECT, UH, AN EDUCATIONAL POINT, UH, ONCE, ONCE WE COMPLETE YOUR THIS EXERCISE GOING THROUGH A ZONING AMENDMENT, THE NEXT STEP WOULD BE PLATTING.
THE SITE IS ALREADY PLATTED AND THE BUILDING IS ALREADY THERE.
AND THEN IT COMPLETELY BYPASSES ALL ENGINEERING REVIEW AND IT GOES STRAIGHT TO PERMITTING.
UH, AT PERMITTING, THEY WILL NOT LOOK AT SIDEWALKS UNLESS IT'S A CONDITION, UM, A A A ZONING CONDITION, LET IT BE A PD OR AN SUP.
OTHERWISE THE SIDEWALK IS NOT IT.
THIS OLD SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION IS WITHIN THE PLATTING REGULATIONS.
MAYBE THAT'S A BETTER WAY OF EXPLAINING PLATTING.
THE SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION IS WITHIN THE PLATTING REGULATION.
AND IF WE BYPASS THAT, THEN AT PERMITTING THERE, THERE IS NO SIDEWALK.
AND NOW ANOTHER SECTION OF THE CODE CLEARLY STATES THAT IT'S THE ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER'S RESPONSIBILITY.
IT'S YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO BUILD AND MAINTAIN THE SIDEWALKS IN FRONT OF YOUR PROPERTIES.
FYI LIKEWISE, LIABILITY IF THE SIDEWALK IS UNEVEN OR IF IT'S CONSIDERED A TRIPPING HAZARD.
UH, SECTION 43 OF A CODE STATES THAT IT'S THE, THE ABUTTING PROPERTY'S OWNER'S RESPONSIBILITY TO MAINTAIN, UM, IN THIS CASE, MA'AM, UH, THE, THE CON ADDITION OF A CON ADDING A CONDITION TO AN SUP WOULD BRING IT BACK TO ENGINEERING FOR CONSTRUCTION.
AND AT THAT POINT THEN WE WOULD FIGURE OUT IF IT CAN BE DONE BY PERMIT
[01:45:01]
ONLY OR IF IT NEEDS ENGINEERING REVIEW.PERMIT ONLY GOES THROUGH TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC WORKS AND IT'S HANDLED THROUGH THEIR OWN INSPECTORS.
IF WE HANDLE IT, THEN IT BECOMES A THREE-WAY REVIEW.
SO ITEM NINE IN OUR, UM, SUP CONDITIONS, NOTE THAT EXCEPT AS SPECIFICALLY NOTED BELOW, PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR A PUBLIC SCHOOL AND A BUILDING CONSTRUCTED AFTER, AND IT SAYS AFTER 2026, WHICH WOULD BE THIS YEAR, BUT THAT BUILDING OBVIOUSLY ALREADY EXISTS, SO WE WOULD NEED TO CHANGE THAT LANGUAGE THAT WOULD THEN TRIGGER THE SIDEWALK AND THE BUFFER RELATED TO THIS PROJECT.
SO IT'S REALLY A DATE CHANGE IT SOUNDS LIKE.
IS THAT CORRECT? YES, I, AND I WOULD JUST INVOLVE THE APPLICANT IN THAT DISCUSSION.
THEY'RE TRYING TO MOVE IN, BUT IF THAT, IF THAT IS CHANGED, IF THAT DATE'S CHANGED, THEN, OR, OR IF THE DATE IS REMOVED OR YOU KNOW, THE BUILDING CONSTRUCTION, THEN IT, IT IS TRIGGERED WHEN THEY GET THEIR CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, WHICH IS SOMETIME AFTER ZONING APPROVAL.
THANK YOU MR. PEPE AND MR. CHAIR.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON ITEM 13? ALRIGHT, ITEM 14.
COMMISSIONER SERATO, DO YOU NEED THAT ONE BRIEFED? I DON'T THINK WE BRIEFED IT LAST TIME.
DO YOU NEED A BRIEFING ON THAT ONE? SSUP ITEM 16, COMMISSIONER KINGSTON.
THAT CONCLUDES ALL OF OUR ZONING ITEMS AND WE HAVE TWO, UM, PLAN AMENDMENTS TODAY.
I DUNNO IF WE WANNA BRIEF THOSE NOW OR JUST BRIEF THEM DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING LATER.
OKAY, LET'S DO THAT DURING, LET'S BRIEF THEM BEFORE WE CONSIDER THEM AT THE PUBLIC HEARING.
SO IT IS 11:52 AM THIS CONCLUDES THE BRIEFING OF THE DALLAS CITY PLAN COMMISSION AND WE WILL BE BACK FOR OUR PUBLIC HEARING AT 1230.
[CALL TO ORDER]
WE ARE ABOUT TO GET STARTED.IT IS THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 19TH, 2026 AT 12:34 PM AND THIS IS THE PUBLIC HEARING OF THE DALLAS CITY PLAN COMMISSION.
CAN WE START OFF WITH THE ROLL CALL? GOOD AFTERNOON.
DISTRICT ONE, COMMISSIONER SIMS HERE.
DISTRICT TWO, COMMISSIONER HAMPTON.
HERBERT PRESENT? DISTRICT FOUR.
COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN PRESENT.
COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT HERE.
COMMISSIONER KINGSTON HERE AND PLACE 15 CHAIR RUBIN? I'M HERE.
THANK YOU SO MUCH EVERYONE FOR COMING.
UM, JUST A FEW QUICK HOUSEKEEPING NOTES.
UH, IF YOU ARE HERE AND DO PLAN TO GIVE COMMENT, A PUBLIC COMMENT, PLEASE UH, PICK UP ONE OF THOSE YELLOW CARDS TO MY LEFT, YOUR RIGHT DOWN AT THE FRONT AND FILL THAT OUT.
SO WE HAVE A RECORD, UM, OF WHO HAS COME TO PROVIDE, UM, INPUT TO THE COMMISSION.
UM, OUR RULES ON ANY CASE TYPICALLY ALLOW, UM, THREE MINUTES PER PUBLIC SPEAKER AND IF THERE'S OPPOSITION, THE APPLICANT GETS A TWO MINUTE REBUTTAL PERIOD.
ALTHOUGH, UM, WE DO RESERVE THE RIGHT TO ADJUST THAT TIME, UM, FROM CASE TO CASE.
AND WHEN YOU DO COMMENT, UH, PLEASE BE SURE TO START WITH YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
[APPROVAL OF MINUTES]
OFF, UM, I THINK THE FIRST ITEM ON OUR AGENDA TO TAKE UP IS APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES.COMMISSIONER HALL, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? I DO.
MR. CHAIR, I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 5TH, 2026 CPC MEETING AS REVISED AND POSTED ON FEBRUARY THE 18TH, 2026.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HALL FOR YOUR MOTION.
VICE CHAIR HERBERT FOR YOUR SECOND.
[1. 26-662A An application requesting relief from the street frontage requirements along Corinth Street per the site plan on property zoned Subdistrict 2 within Planned Development District 317, the Cedars Area Special Purpose District, on the northwest corner of Park Avenue and Corinth Street. Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to the site plan. Applicant: Harwood LW LLC Representative: Daniel Can / Keystone Contracting U/A From: February 5, 2026. Planner: Teaseia Blue, MBA Council District: 2 MZ-26-000001]
WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER ONE, UM, ON OUR MISCELLANEOUS ZONING ITEMS, DOCKET, GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS.ITEM NUMBER ONE IS MZ DASH 26 DASH 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.
[01:50:01]
RELIEF FROM THE STREET FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS ALONG CURRENT STREET PER THE SITE PLAN ON PROPERTY ZONE SUB AREA TWO WITHIN PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER THREE 17, THE CEDAR AREA SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICTS ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF PARK AVENUE AND CORINTH STREET.RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO A SITE PLAN.
IS THERE ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF ITEM NUMBER ONE? I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT IS HERE.
MR. CHAIR IS THE APPLICANT ON ITEM ONE HERE, MZ 26 0 0 0 0 1.
SIR, IF YOU COULD HIT THE MUT BUTTON ON THE MICROPHONE IN FRONT OF YOU.
I'M THE, UM, OWNER AND THE APPLICANT FOR THIS PROJECT.
I REALLY JUST CAME DOWN TO SEE IF, UM, IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE FOR ME, UH, AS THE DISCUSSION GOES ON.
UM, AND, UM, IF THERE ARE ANY, UM, SPEAKERS IN OPPOSITION AS THERE WERE IN THE LAST HEARING, I'D LIKE TO THE OPPORTUNITY TO TO PROVIDE MY, UH, ANSWER TO THOSE UH, COMMENTS.
CAN YOU PROVIDE YOUR ADDRESS PLEASE? UH, CERTAINLY.
UM, UH, AGAIN, STEVE JENNINGS, UH, 1900 SOUTH VE IN DALLAS.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS IN SUPPORT ON THIS ITEM? SPEAKERS IN OPPOSITION.
COME ON DOWN AND IF THERE ARE OTHER OPPOSITION SPEAKERS, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO TAKE A SEAT IN THE FRONT ROW.
UM, AND, UH, ADJACENT TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, UM, I JUST WANNA SAY, UM, I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF MYSELF AND, AND, AND OUR COMMUNITY.
UM, THESE ARE MY REASONS WHY I AM AGAINST THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.
UM, THE APPLICATION REQUESTS 0% COMPLIANCE WITH A 70% FRONTAGE REQUIREMENT ALONG CORINTH STREET.
THAT IS NOT A MINOR ADJUSTMENT.
AS REQUEST FOR A COMPLETE WAIVER OF ONE OF THE CORE DESIGN REQUIREMENTS OF PD THREE 17, WE BELIEVE THE SITE PLAN FAILS ALL THREE PRONGS OF SECTION 51 P DASH 3 1 7 DASH 20.
UH, FIRST OF ALL, THE HARDSHIP IS ENTIRELY SELF-CREATED.
THE APPLICANT PURCHASED THESE LOTS WITH FULL KNOWLEDGE OF THE LOT GEOMETRY, THE NARROW CORINTH FRONTAGE, AND THE 70% REQUIREMENT.
HE THEN CHOSE TO DESIGN A 10 UNIT PROJECT THAT MAXIMIZES UNIT COUNT RATHER THAN COMPLY WITH THE FRONTAGE STANDARD.
HE HAS 162 FEET OF FRONTAGE ON PARK AVENUE.
HE ALSO OWNS ADJACENT PARCELS IN THE SAME BLOCK, TRAILING OVER 57,000 SQUARE FEET.
NO ALTERNATIVE DESIGNS WERE PRESENTED.
NO REDUCED UNIT COUNT, NO DIFFERENT BUILDING ORIENTATION, NO RECONFIGURED ACCESS.
HE SIMPLY DESIGNED THE PROJECT HE WANTED TO BUILD AND ASK YOU TO WAIVE THE RULES.
IT DOESN'T MEET UNDER CITY OF DALLAS VCO.
THAT IS THE DEFINITION OF A SELF-INDUCED HARDSHIP.
UH, THE COMMISSION SHOULD NOT SOLVE A PROBLEM THE APPLICANT CREATED FOR HIMSELF.
SECOND CORINTH STREET GETS A BLANK WALL.
PD THREE SEVENTEEN'S FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS EXIST FOR A REASON TO CREATE ACTIVE PEDESTRIAN ORIENTED STREET SCAPES ALONG PRIMARY CORRIDORS.
THIS SITE PLAN DELIVERS THE OPPOSITE.
DEL IS ORIENTED INTO A U-SHAPED COURTYARD.
BOTH BUILDINGS TURN THEIR BACKS ON CORINTH STREET.
NO FACADE FACES THE STREET, NO PEDESTRIAN ENTRANCE, NO STOREFRONT, NO FRONT DOOR, NO ARCHITECTURAL ENGAGEMENT OF ANY KIND.
WHAT CORINTH GETS IS A BLANK WALL AND WHATEVER LANDSCAPING FITS INSIDE THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE, WHICH IS SPACE THE APPLICANT CAN'T BUILD ON.
REGARDLESS, THE APPLICANT IS OFFERING LEFT OR UNUSABLE SPACE AND CALLING IT ENHANCED LANDSCAPING.
THE ORDINANCE DOES NOT PERMIT LANDSCAPING AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR BUILDING FRONTAGE.
THIS IS THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT THIS DISTRICT WAS DESIGNED TO ENCOURAGE.
THIRD, THE DENSITY AND LOT COVERAGE ARE EXTREME.
THE PROJECT PROPOSES 10 UNITS ON ROUGHLY A THIRD OF AN ACRE THAT COMES OUT TO APPROXIMATELY 30 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE.
THE STATE OF PURPOSE IS SUBDISTRICT TWO CALLS FOR MODERATE DENSITY DEVELOPMENT, WHICH IS IN STANDARD PLANNING PRACTICE MEANS EIGHT TO 20 UNITS PER ACRE.
HE'S PROPOSING NEARLY DOUBLE THE UPPER END OF THAT RANGE.
ON TOP OF THAT 89% OF THE LOT IS NONPERMEABLE SURFACE BUILDINGS, DRIVEWAYS AND COURTYARD HARDSCAPE THAT PUSHES LOT COVERAGE TO THE ABSOLUTE CEILING ALLOWED UNDER THE CODE AND LEAVES JUST 11% OF THE SITE AS GREEN SPACE.
WHEN YOU COMBINE A FULLY FRONTAGE WAIVER, NEARLY DOUBLE THE INTENDED DENSITY IN 89% HARDSCAPE COVERAGE.
[01:55:01]
PLAN RELIEF AT THIS.ANY OTHER SPEAKERS IN OPPOSITION? NO, IT'S TIME.
UH, MR. JENNINGS, YOU HAVE A TWO MINUTE REBUTTAL.
UH, I I I DON'T REALLY HAVE A WHOLE LOT TO TO SAY ABOUT THIS BECAUSE THIS GETS INTO TECHNICAL ISSUES AND YOU'RE ALL MUCH BETTER QUALIFIED TO, TO DEAL WITH THAT THAN I AM.
I I WILL JUST SAY THAT, UM, WE'VE DONE A LOT OF WORK AND A LOT OF DEVELOPMENT IN THE CEDARS.
WE'RE PROBABLY THE PRIMARY, UM, CATALYST FOR A LOT OF THE GOOD THINGS THAT ARE GOING ON IN THE CEDARS RIGHT NOW.
AND SO EVERYTHING THAT WE DO WITH THE, WE DO WITH THE, UM, WITH THE INTENT OF MAKING THE CEDARS BETTER AS FAR AS THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT, UM, THE WAY I UNDERSTAND IT AND IT WAS THE WAY IT WAS EXPLAINED TO ME, IS THAT THERE'S BASICALLY A LITTLE BIT OF A CONFLICT BETWEEN THE CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE ZONING CODE AS IT APPLIES IN THIS CASE.
AND OF COURSE THE ZONING CODE IS REALLY A ONE SIZE FITS ALL.
SO THIS IS A SITUATION WHERE WE, UH, WHERE WAIVER WOULD BE APPROPRIATE.
IT'S HARD FOR US TO INCORPORATE THESE, UM, VARIOUS REQUIREMENTS BECAUSE IN SOME CASES ONE, UH, CON CONFLICTS WITH THE OTHER.
UM, AND THAT'S OF COURSE THE PURPOSE FOR FOR WHY WE'RE WE ARE HERE HAD WE BEEN ABLE TO DO IT ANY OTHER WAY WE WOULD HAVE.
UH, THAT'S ABOUT ALL I CAN SAY UNLESS YOU HAVE QUESTIONS FOR ME.
GO TO COMMISSIONER HAMPTON FOR A MOTION.
AND MR. CHAIR, I KNOW WE WEREN'T ABLE TO BRIEF, BUT I WILL HAVE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS UM, FOR STAFF AFTER MY MOTION.
UH, IN THE MATTER OF MZ DASH 26 DASH 0 0 0 0 0 1, I MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE THE REQUEST WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGES TO THE SITE PLAN A 30 FOOT WIDE SCREENING WALL WITH PEDESTRIAN ACCESS THAT IS A MINIMUM OF FOUR FEET IN HEIGHT AND A MAXIMUM OF SIX FEET IN HEIGHT.
MUST BE PROVIDED A MINIMUM OF FIVE FEET FROM CORINTH STREET TO SCREEN THE INTERNAL CONCRETE DRIVE FROM CORINTH STREET AND PROVIDE PEDESTRIAN ACCESS TO THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.
THE PLAN WILL INCLUDE A NOTATION FOR AN ADDITIONAL CAN TREE WILL BE PROVIDED IN ADDITION TO ARTICLE 10 LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS.
DOES THAT CONCLUDES YOUR MOTION? OKAY.
COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, FEAR MOTION COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT FOR YOUR SECOND, YOUR DISCUSSION.
I'M GONNA START BY ASKING SOME QUESTIONS FROM STAFF AND THEN UM, SHARE MY RATIONALE FOR THE MOTION THAT I'VE JUST MADE.
UM, MS. BLUE, AND THIS MAY BE FOR MR. NAVAREZ AS WELL.
THE REQUEST THAT'S BEFORE AS WELL, IT'S THE APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN.
IS IT CORRECT THAT OUR PURVIEW IS LIMITED TO A VARIANCE TO THE UM, STREET FRONTAGE REQUIREMENT IN THE PD? YES MA'AM.
SO THE SITE PLAN IS BASICALLY SHOWING THE PLACEMENT OF THE BUILDING ALONG CORRE STREET AND SO THAT DEVIATION IS WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT TODAY.
SO THERE'S A NUMBER OF OTHER ITEMS THAT ARE IDENTIFIED, UM, ON THE SITE PLAN, SIDEWALK LOCATIONS, UM, HOW THE SITE WILL BE ACCESSED FROM PARK AVENUE.
UM, ALL OF THOSE WILL BE MORE FULLY REVIEWED BY ENGINEERING AT THE TIME OF PERMITTING.
AND THERE'S ALSO A NOTE ON THE PLAN THAT NOTES THAT THE SITE PLAN ILLUSTRATION IS ONLY FOR UM, TO SEE IF THE DEVIATION ALONG COR COMPLIES WITH THE SECTION FOR THE STREET FRONTAGE RELIEF.
AND THEN THERE'S THREE UM, VARIANCE REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE INCLUDED IN THE PD.
YOU HAD NOTED THOSE IN YOUR REPORT WITH THE APPLICANT'S RESPONSE, UM, ONE OF WHICH IS THAT THE, UM, THE HARDSHIP CANNOT BE SELF-CREATED.
UM, IS IT CORRECT THAT PART OF WHAT IS CAUSING THIS IS THE FRONTAGE OF THE TWO LOTS, THEY'RE GEOMETRY RELATIVE TO CORINTH STREET AND THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE? UM, FOR THE SOUTH LOT AGAINST PARK STREET? YES MA'AM.
SO THERE'S TWO DIFFERENT, UH, LOTS.
SO THE LOT THAT'S AT PARK AND CORINTH, UM, THE SOUTH LOT, THERE'S A VISIBILITY TRIANGLE THAT'S THERE THAT'S CAUSING THE BUILDING NOT TO BE PLACED IN THE MEN MAX.
AND THEN ALSO FOR THE UPPER UH, NAR LOT, UM, THE WAY THAT THE LOT IS DRAWN UH, SHOWN OR I GUESS THE BOUNDARIES ARE FOR THE LOT, IT KIND OF GOES INWARDS.
SO IT CAUSED THE BUILDING TO BE PLACED ONLY A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE, UM, WITHIN
[02:00:01]
THAT.AND I THINK IT WAS ONLY MAYBE LIKE, I DON'T KNOW AT THE TIME 20 OR 30%, BUT SINCE THE UH, VARIANCE FOR BOTH LOTS, UM, STAFF WENT WITH A VARIANCE FOR 0%, THAT WAY THEY WOULDN'T HAVE TO COME BACK.
SINCE BOTH LOTS ARE PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT.
'CAUSE IF WE WOULD'VE DID 30% FOR ONE LOT THEN THE OTHER LOT UH, WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN ABLE TO ACTUALLY MEET THE MEN MAX AND THANK YOU.
AND AS STAFF WAS REVIEWING THIS WITH THE APPLICANT TEAM, IS IT CORRECT THAT THERE WERE DIFFERENT BUILDING SIGHTINGS REVIEWED, HOW THEY MIGHT EITHER FOLLOW THE GEOMETRY OF THE STREET STEP, THE BUILDING, ALL OF THAT WAS EVALUATED BY THE APPLICANT WITH STAFF DURING THE PROCESS OF BRINGING THIS FORWARD, IS THAT CORRECT? YES MA'AM.
UM, AND I GUESS IT'S JUST, IT IS A DESIGN THING.
UM, WITH THE SITE BEING SO SLANTED, IT'S KIND OF HARD TO PUT THE BUILDING FACADE UNLESS YOU ACTUALLY SLANT THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING FACADE WITHIN THAT MINMAX REQUIREMENT ALONG CORINTH.
AND THEN, UM, THE VEHICULAR ACCESS, UM, I KNOW THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF DISCUSSION, UM, ON OUR UM, PREVIOUS MEETING ABOUT HOW THE SITE IS BEING ACCESSED OFF OF PARK AVENUE AND THIS, YOU CAN TELL ME IF YOU WANNA COVER THIS OR IF WE WANNA ASK, UM, MR. NEVAREZ, THE REAR ACCESS IS A PUBLIC ALLEY, IS THAT CORRECT? I'LL REFER TO UH, MR. NEVAREZ.
IS HE HERE? DAVID? I GUESS HE'S NOT.
I CAN ANSWER AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE.
UM, SO THE REAR WHERE WHAT I FOUND FROM THE PLAT IS YES, THERE'S A ALLEY BEHIND THE PROPERTY AND I THINK BY LOOKING AT THE AERIAL, THAT ALLEY ACTUALLY EXTENDS, UM, PAST THIS PROPERTY TOWARDS HARWOOD AND THEN TURNS TO THE NORTH.
SO IT'S, EVEN THOUGH IT MAY BE TODAY IS CONFIGURED TO LOOK LIKE IT WAS A PRIVATE DRIVE, IT IS IN FACT PUBLIC ALLEY ACCESS BASED ON WHAT WE'RE ABLE TO DETERMINE.
BUT FROM THE AREA VIEW, IT'S NOT FULLY DEVELOPED.
I MEAN LIKE ONLY PORTION OF THE ALLEY IS DEVELOPED.
AND THAT'S A GOOD CLARIFICATION.
AND SO THE ACCESS IS PROPOSED TO CONTINUE TO PROVIDE ACCESS FOR THE ADJACENT DEVELOPMENT, UM, AND ALSO FOR THIS NEW PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.
BUT AS MUCH AS I'M ASKING THESE QUESTIONS, NONE OF THAT IS A CONSIDERATION FOR THIS BODY, IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT.
WE'RE ONLY LOOKING AT THE PORTION OF THE LOT THAT'S ALONG COR IN THE PLACEMENT OF THE BUILDING, UM, WITHIN THE MINMAX, THE DEVIATION OF THE PLACEMENT OF THE BUILDING IN THE MINMAX.
SO RELATED TO THAT, I THINK I HAD RECEIVED SOME, UM, QUESTIONS ABOUT ALTERNATIVE VEHICULAR ACCESS POINTS, WHETHER ON PARK AVENUE OR WHETHER ON CORIN STREET.
UM, I THINK, AND, AND THIS IS WHERE IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN HELPFUL TO HAVE MR. NE NAVAREZ, UM, BECAUSE OF ITS PROXIMITY BOTH TO PARK AVENUE AND TO HARWOOD STREET, UM, INTERSECTION, WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE TO PUT A CURB CUT ON CORINTH STREET? THAT WOULD BE A UH, ANSWER FOR DAVID, BUT FROM MY PERMIT HISTORY, UM, FOR ALLEYS FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, UM, YOU CAN USE THE ALLEY TO ACCESS, UM, PROPERTIES IN THE REAR, UM, THAT IS ALLOWED WITHIN THE CITY OF DALLAS.
THAT ALLEY JUST NEEDS TO BE IMPROVED AND PAVE.
SO IN, I GUESS LOOKING BACK, I THINK IN THE CASE REPORT IT MENTIONS UM, LOT AND I'M GONNA GET MY, I'M GONNA SAY THE PARKS AVENUE FACING LOT.
UM, IT'S 35 FEET APPROXIMATELY.
SO THAT WOULD MEAN IF THEY DID TRY TO GET THAT CURB CUT IN, IT WOULD BE LESS THAN 50 FEET FROM THE INTERSECTION.
AND GENERALLY, ISN'T THAT TOO CLOSE FROM WHERE ENGINEERING WOULD ALLOW A NEW CURB CUT ON A MAJOR STREET? I THINK THAT WOULD BE A DAVID, UH, QUESTION.
I DON'T KNOW THE ACTUAL MEASUREMENTS FOR CURB CUTS AT THE, FROM THE INTERSECTION.
SO, UM, THEN I'M GONNA GO BACK TO THE OTHER PIECES OF THE STANDARD THEN.
UM, THE EXCEPTION TO THE, SO THE SECOND PRONG IS THE EXCEPTION TO THE STREET FRONTAGE, UM, ADVERSELY AFFECT SURROUNDING PROPERTIES.
UM, I KNOW WHEN STAFF EVALUATED IT, UM, AND AGAIN THE STANDARD IS RELATIVE TO THE STREET FRONTAGE, SO WE'RE REALLY FOCUSED ON HOW THE PROPERTY IMPACTS
AND SO WE HAVE A VACANT LOT ON ONE SIDE WE HAVE PARK AVENUE AND THEN WE HAVE REMNANTS OF A HISTORIC BUILDING, BUT A VACANT PROPERTY ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF PARK STREET.
SO ALONG THAT BLOCK FACE, THERE'S NOT CURRENTLY DEVELOPMENT? NO MA'AM.
I THINK THEY'RE ALL EXISTING, UM, WAREHOUSE BUILDINGS.
I DON'T KNOW IF THEY'RE VACANT OR NOT, BUT THERE ARE SOME VACANT LOTS TOO IN THE AREA.
AND THEN THE THIRD PRONG TALKS ABOUT FURTHERING THE PURPOSE AS ESTABLISHED FOR THE SUBDISTRICT OR FOR THE, WITHIN THE PD AND FOR THIS CASE FOR SUBDISTRICT TWO.
AND SO IT'S PRIMARILY TRYING TO TALK ABOUT ACTIVATION, PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS,
[02:05:01]
PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE, UM, FACILITIES.AND SO AS STAFF EVALUATED THIS REQUEST, I THINK YOUR CASE REPORT AND THE APPLICANT'S, UM, RESPONSE WAS THAT THE TRADE OFF THAT IS BEING PROPOSED IS TO PROVIDE ENHANCED LANDSCAPING.
TO SOFTEN THE BUILDING, THE, THE PART THAT'S IN THE BUILDING, THEN PROBABLY FILL IN WHERE THERE'S NO BUILDING, UM, TO SOFTEN THE HARDSCAPE, UH, FOR PEDESTRIANS TO MAKE IT A MORE FRIENDLY PEDESTRIAN, UH, STREET ALONG THAT FRONTAGE.
AND THEN I'M GONNA GO BACK ALL THE WAY TO THE BEGINNING
SO THE 70% REQUIREMENT THAT IS BASE CODE FOR THE FRONTAGE ON CORIN STREET, IT'S IMPACTED BY THE GEOMETRY, IT'S IMPACTED BY THE, UM, VISIBILITY TRIANGLE.
BUT THE FRONTAGE ITSELF, IF I ADD TOGETHER THE 35 FEET AND I THINK IT WAS 32, I'M GONNA GET MY WRONG NUMBERS ON MY MOUTH, UM, 34.43 AND 35.2.
SO NOT QUITE 70 FEET OF FRONTAGE.
AND SO WE'RE, WE ARE BEING ASKED TO CONSIDER A ZERO PERCENTAGE BECAUSE OF THE IMPLICATIONS FOR THE UM, LOT B, BUT THE OVERALL PROJECT IS NOT A 0% COMPLIANCE.
IS THAT CORRECT? SO NO, LET ME CLARIFY.
SO THERE'S TWO DIFFERENT LOTS.
I THINK EACH LOT IS, I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S 50 OR WHAT'S THE OVERALL MEASUREMENT.
I CAN'T SEE 30 SOMETHING, IT'S 30 SOMETHING.
SO BASICALLY THE VARIANCE IS FOR BOTH LOTS.
WHEN THEY GET TO PERMANENT, IT'S GONNA BE REVIEWED, TWO SEPARATE, IT'S GOING TO BE TWO SEPARATE PERMITS AND EACH LOT WILL HAVE TO MEET THE 70%.
SO LOT 17 AND LOT 18 WILL BE REVIEWED SEPARATELY AND THEY BOTH WILL NEED TO MEET THE 70%.
SO IT'LL BE THE 70% OF WHATEVER EACH LOT FRONTAGE IS ALONG CORINTH.
AND SO THE ONE THAT'S NUMBER 18, THEY CAN'T MEET IT AT ALL BECAUSE OF THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE, UNLESS THEY REFORM THE BUILDING IN AN AWKWARD SHAPE.
SO I KNOW THIS IS NOT THE OUTCOME THAT SOME OF THE ADJACENT RESIDENTS WE'RE HOPING FOR.
UM, AND I UNDERSTAND THEIR CONCERNS.
I WAS ABLE TO MEET WITH THEM, UM, SPEAK TO THEM BY PHONE.
WE'VE TRADED EMAILS ON THIS REQUEST.
I'VE ASKED THE CITY ATTORNEY TO REVIEW INFORMATION THAT WAS SHARED WITH ME.
UM, ON THIS CREST I'VE MET WITH MR. JENNINGS.
UM, I'VE, UM, HAD FEEDBACK FROM THE, UH, CEDARS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION ON THEIR REVIEW OF THIS REQUEST BASED ON WHAT'S IN FRONT OF US AND THE STANDARD THAT IS WITHIN THE PD.
I, I AGREE THERE COULD BE ALTERNATE DESIGN SOLUTIONS, BUT HOW THE APPLICANT CHOOSES TO DEVELOP THEIR PROPERTY, UM, IS SUBSTANTIALLY IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE INTENT OF THE PD, THE LOT COVERAGE THAT IS PROPOSED.
THE, UM, UNIT MIX THAT IS PROPOSED, UM, WHAT IS BEFORE US IS TO THINK ABOUT VEHICULAR ACCESS, WHICH IS WHY I HAVE SUGGESTED THE SCREENING WALL ONE TO SCREEN THE INTERNAL DRIVE, WHICH I DO NOT THINK CONTRIBUTES TO A ACTIVE PEDESTRIAN REALM.
BUT WITH THAT SCREENING TO ALSO REQUIRE PEDESTRIAN ACCESS TO CORINTH FROM THE PROPERTY AND TO DOCUMENT THE, UM, THE FURTHER ENHANCED LANDSCAPE THAT IS PROPOSED.
ONE CANOPY TREE IS NOT SIGNIFICANT, BUT IT IS IN ADDITION TO WHAT WILL ALREADY BE REQUIRED, UM, THROUGH ARTICLE 10, AS WELL AS WHAT I KNOW WILL BE THE ADJUSTMENTS TO THE SIDEWALK BASED ON THE BASE CODE REVISIONS THAT WE'LL PUT IN A LANDSCAPE BUFFER THAT WILL HAVE MINIMUM SIDEWALK WIDTH, NOT ONLY ON CORINTH, BUT ALSO ON PARK AVENUE.
CERTAINLY I WOULD'VE LOVED TO HAVE A MORE, UM, ACTIVATION OF THE UNITS TOWARDS CORINTH.
BUT THIS PROPERTY THROUGH ITS OVERALL DESIGN HAS COMPLIED WITH THE STANDARDS THAT ARE ESTABLISHED WITHIN THE PD FOR THE DESIGN STANDARDS ON CORINTH STREET.
AND I, FOR THAT REASON, I HAVE MADE THE MOTION, UM, AND HAVE ADDED THE ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE SITE PLAN THAT I THINK MAKE IT MORE CONSISTENT, UM, WITH WHAT THE INTENT OF THE PD IS.
AND I HOPE MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS WILL SUPPORT THE MOTION.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION COMMISSIONERS? UM, I'LL JUST ADD, I OH, GO AHEAD.
I JUST, IF I MAY ASK ONE ADDITIONAL FOLLOW UP, UH, TO MS. MORRISON, MS. MORRISON, IS IT CORRECT THAT BASED ON THE LANGUAGE WITHIN THE PD, UM, THAT THE VARIANCE REQUEST IS CONSIDERED AN APPROVED AT PLAN COMMISSION? UH, THAT THAT'S CORRECT.
THIS REQUEST IS, UM, RELIEF BEING SOUGHT FROM THE STREET FACING FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS IN THE PD.
I, I DO JUST HAVE ONE QUICK FOLLOW UP QUESTION OR
[02:10:01]
COMMENT PROBABLY TO MS. MORRISON.I THINK WE'VE USED THE TERM VARIANCE TODAY.
THE PD ACTUALLY DOESN'T DESCRIBE THIS AS A VARIANCE, RIGHT? THAT THAT'S RIGHT.
THE REQUEST IS RELIEF FROM THE STREET FACING FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS.
SO VARIANCES GO TO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, TYPICALLY.
AND THERE ARE CERTAIN RULES THAT APPLY TO VARIANCES LIKE THE SELF-CREATED HARDSHIP RULE THAT ARE REFERENCED.
AND THAT DOESN'T APPLY TO THIS REQUEST, IT'S JUST THE STANDARD IN THE PD.
IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.
I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE EVERYONE UNDERSTOOD WHERE WE WERE, UH, PROCEDURALLY ON THIS, UM, CONSIDERING THE OPPOSITION, BECAUSE THERE ARE VARIOUS THINGS, YOU KNOW, THAT CAN BE DONE WITH RESPECT TO, YOU KNOW, VARIANCES OR CAN'T BE DONE WITH RE RESPECT TO VARIANCES THAT CAN'T BE DONE HERE.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? I WILL JUST THANK MR. CHAIR FOR THE CLARIFICATION ON LANGUAGE.
WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT TO FOLLOW STATUTE RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE SITE PLAN, UM, WITH AMENDMENTS AS READ BY COMMISSIONER HAMPTON.
[Zoning Cases - Consent]
OKAY.WE ARE GOING TO MOVE TO OUR ZONING CONSENT DOCKET, UM, IN THE DOCKET THAT WAS LISTED AS ITEMS TWO THROUGH 13.
UM, FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO HAVEN'T JOINED US FOR A MEETING BEFORE, THE WAY THAT THE CONSENT DOCKET WORKS IS MULTIPLE ITEMS ARE TAKEN UP AND APPROVED AS LISTED IN THE DOCKET OR AS BRIEF BY STAFF DURING OUR BRIEFING IN A SINGLE MOTION.
UM, BUT MEMBERS OF THE BODY CAN PULL ITEMS OFF OF CONSENT AND THEY'RE CONSIDERED INDIVIDUALLY.
SO AS OF RIGHT NOW, SEVERAL ITEMS HAVE BEEN PULLED FROM THE CONSENT DOCKET ITEMS 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, AND 13 HAVE BEEN REMOVED.
SO ITEMS 4, 6, 7, 8, 11, AND 13 HAVE BEEN REMOVED FROM CONSENT ITEMS 2, 3, 5, 5, 9, 10, AND 12 CURRENTLY ARE REMAIN ON OUR CONSENT DOCKET AND WILL BE APPROVED OF IN A SINGLE MOTION.
UM, UNLESS ANYONE WOULD LIKE IT TO REMOVED OR IF ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO, TO COMMENT ON THEM, WHICH WE'RE, WE'RE HAPPY TO DO.
DOES ANYONE PLAN TO COMMENT ON ANY OF THE ITEMS ON CONSENT OR ARE WE GOOD TO KEEP 2, 3, 5, 9, AND 12 ON CONSENT.
OKAY, MR. AGUILAR, CAN WE READ THE CONSENT DOCKET, UM, ITEM, THIS IS THE CONSENT, UH, DOCKET ITEM TWO FOR APPLICATION Z 2 5 0 0 0 2 0 1.
AN APPLICATION FOR MU TWO MIXED USE DISTRICT ON PROPERTIES ZONE MU ONE MIXED USE DISTRICT AND I AM INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURING DISTRICT ON THE NORTHWEST, UH, LINE OF LOUIS AVENUE BETWEEN MALCOLM X BOULEVARD I 45, UH, EXPRESSWAY.
AND ERL THORNTON, UH, FREEWAY STAFF RECOMMENDS, UH, APPROVAL ITEM THREE IS APPLICATION Z 25 0 0 0 2 1 3 IS AN APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT, 2155 FOR RECYCLING BY, UH, BY BACK CENTER, UH, FOR THE COLLECTION OF HOUSEHOLDS AND INDUSTRIAL METALS ON PROPERTY ZONE.
I AM INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURING DISTRICT ON THE SOUTHWEST LINE ON, UH, BOHAM JEAN BOULEVARD BETWEEN MARTIN LUTHER KING JR.
AND, UM, JUNIOR BOULEVARD AND LAND WASTE STREET STAFF RECOMMEND APPROVAL FOR TWO YEAR PERIOD SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS.
ITEM, UH, FIVE IS APPLICATION Z 25 0 0 0 215 IS AN APPLICATION FOR UH, NSA NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICE DISTRICT ON A PROPERTY ZONE R 7.5, A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT ON THE WEST LINE OF URBAN AVENUE SOUTH OF MILITARY PARKWAY.
UH, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL.
ITEM NINE IS, UH, APPLICATION Z 25 0 0 0 2 1 6.
AN APPLICATION FOR R 7.5, A SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT ON A PROPERTY ZONE PLAN DEVELOPMENT EIGHT 17, UH, LOCATED ON THE NORTH CORNER OF BISCAYNE BOULEVARD.
[02:15:01]
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL AND MR. AGUILERA NUMBER 12 HAS COME OFF CONSENT.UM, ITEM, UH, 10 THEN IS AN APPLICATION FOR, I'M SORRY, UH, APPLICATION Z TWENTY FIVE ZERO ZERO ZERO TWO ONE EIGHT AN APPLICATION FOR ONE MICROPHONE.
EVERYONE PLEASE HOLD FOR SOME TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES.
PICK UP WHERE WE SHOULD, SHOULD I CONTINUE ON, UH, MR. CHAIR? YES.
SO, UM, I'LL GO BACK TO, UM, ITEM, UH, 10 FOR, UM, APPLICATION Z 25 0 0 0 2 1 8 IS AN APPLICATION FOR ONE, AN AMENDMENT TO PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 3 85 AND TWO, TERMINATION OF, UH, A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT 2024 FOR AN ILLUMINATED UH, COM, COM COMPETITIVE ATHLETIC FIELD LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF WALNUT HILL LANE AND INWOOD ROAD STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF, UH, ONE AN AMENDMENT TO, UH, PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 3 85, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS AND TWO FOR THE APPROVAL OF TERMINATION OF A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT 2024 FOR AN ILLUMINATED COMPETITIVE ATHLETIC FIELD.
UH, THIS CONCLUDES THE I ITEMS ON CONSENT.
UM, ONE LAST CHANCE, IF ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THE CONSENT DOCKET CONSISTING OF ITEMS 2, 3, 5, 9, AND 10.
UH, CONSISTING OF 2 3, 5, 9 AND 10 12.
COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? YES, I MOVE TO APPROVE THE ZONING CONSENT DOCKET ITEMS 2, 3, 5, 9, AND 10 AS READ INTO THE RECORD AND AS BRIEFED.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER CARPENTER FOR YOUR MOTION.
VICE CHAIR HERBERT FOR YOUR SECOND.
AND I'LL JUST NOTE FOR THE RECORD THAT COMMISSIONER WHEELER HAS JOINED US AT 1 0 5.
[4. 26-665A An application for an amendment to Specific Use Permit 2529 for an alcoholic beverage establishment limited to a bar, lounge, or tavern and a commercial amusement (inside) use limited to a dance hall on property zoned Mixmaster Riverfront Subarea (Downtown Form District) within Planned Development District 784, the Trinity River Corridor Special Purpose District, on the northeast line of Riverfront Boulevard northwest of the Houston Street Viaduct. Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to amended conditions. Applicant: Derrick Shaw / ReView Bar and Lounge Representative: Audra Buckley / Permitted Development, LLC Planner: Lori Levy, AICP Council District: 1 Z-25-000231]
WE WILL MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER FOUR, MR. CHAIR.UH, 2 31 IS AN APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO SPECIFIC USE PERMIT 25 29 FOR AN ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE ESTABLISHMENT, LIMITED TO A BAR, LOUNGE OR TAVERN AND A COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT INSIDE USE LIMITED TO A DANCE HALL ON PROPERTY ZONED MIXED MASTER RIVERFRONT SUB AREA DOWNTOWN FARM DISTRICT WITHIN PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 7 84, THE TRINITY RIVER CORRIDOR SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICT ON THE NORTHEAST LINE OF RIVERFRONT BOULEVARD, NORTHWEST OF THE HOUSTON STREET VIA DUCK.
RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO AMENDED CONDITIONS.
ALRIGHT, JUST HERE FOR QUESTIONS.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON? ITEM NUMBER FOUR Z 25 0 2 3 1.
OKAY, COMMISSIONER SIMS YOUR MOTION? UH, THANK YOU MR. CHAIR IN THE MATTER OF, UH, CASE NUMBER Z 25 DASH 0 2 3 1.
I MOVE TO APPROVE, UH, PER THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS, EXCEPT THAT THE SUP SHALL EXPIRE WITHIN FIVE YEARS WITH NO AUTO RENEWAL.
COMMISSIONER SIMS FOR YOUR MOTION.
VICE CHAIR HERBERT FOR YOUR SECOND, EXCUSE ME.
IS THAT SUBJECT TO AMENDED CONDITIONS? YES.
SUBJECT TO AMENDED CONDITIONS.
UM, ANY DISCUSSION? OKAY, NO DISCUSSION.
[02:20:01]
IN FAVOR SAY AYE.[6. 26-667A An application for a new planned development district for CR Community Retail uses on property zoned CR Community Retail and P(A) Parking, on the northwest corner of Goodwin Avenue and Greenville Avenue, and the east line of Greenville Avenue, north of Vickery Boulevard. Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to development plans for buildings A, B, and C, and conditions. Applicant: Pegasus Ablon 2905 Greenville LLC; Pegasus Ablon 2937 Greenville LLC; Pegasus Ablon 2808 Greenville LLC Representative: Victoria Morris Planner: Martin Bate Council District: 14 Z-25-000108 / Z234-197]
GOOD AFTERNOON.ITEM SIX IS CASE Z 2 5 0 0 0 108, ALSO KNOWN AS Z 2 34 DASH 1 97.
AN APPLICATION FOR A NEW PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FOR CR COMMUNITY RETAIL USES ON PROPERTY ZONE CR, COMMUNITY, RETAIL AND PA PARKING ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF GOODWIN AVENUE AND GREENVILLE AVENUE AND THE EAST LINE OF GREENVILLE AVENUE NORTH OF VICKERY BOULEVARD.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR BUILDINGS, AB AND C AND CONDITIONS.
UM, ARE THERE ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER SIX, VICTORIA MORRIS WITH JACKSON WALKER? 2323 ROSS AVENUE, SUITE 600, UM, JUST HERE FOR ANY QUESTIONS AND WOULD RESPECTFULLY REQUEST FOR YOUR RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL.
ANY OTHER SPEAKERS IN SUPPORT? ANYONE IN OPPOSITION? OKAY.
WE'LL GO TO COMMISSIONER KINGSTON FOR A MOTION IN THE MATTER OF Z 2 5 0 0 0 1 0 8 DASH Z 2 34 DASH 97.
I MOVE THAT WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE SUBJECT TO DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR BUILDINGS A, B, AND C AND CONDITIONS WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGES IN SUBSECTION ONE 12 SUBSECTION A, ADD THE FOLLOWING LANGUAGE, UM, AS MODIFIED FOR THE MD DASH ONE OVERLAY DISTRICT AFTER THE PHRASE 51 A DASH 4 2 0.
ADD THAT SAME LANGUAGE, UM, IN SUBSECTION BI OF SECTION ONE 12 AFTER THE REFERENCE TO 51 A DASH 4 2 0.
ALRIGHT, THANK YOU COMMISSIONER KINGSTON FOR YOUR MOTION.
YOU HAVE A SECOND COMMISSIONER HALL FOR YOUR SECOND.
ANY DISCUSSION? UM, I WANNA THANK THE COMMUNITY AND THE APPLICANT FOR THEIR PATIENTS IN WORKING THROUGH THIS PROCESS AND, UM, CREATING, UH, A FRAMEWORK THAT I HOPE TO SEE EXPANDED IN THIS AREA.
IT IS MIMICKING SOMEWHAT WHAT WE HAVE ON LOIS GREENVILLE AND I THINK THAT IT WILL WORK WELL FOR BOTH THE BUSINESS OPERATORS AND THE COMMUNITY THAT SURROUNDS THEM GOING FORWARD.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER KINGSTON.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT I UNDERSTAND THE IMPORT OF THE ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE.
IS THAT JUST TO, CAN YOU SPEAK TO THAT? YES, THERE IS A REFERENCE IN THE PD CONDITIONS, UM, THAT TO 51 A DASH 4.20 THAT SAYS AS MODIFIED FOR THE MD ONE OVERLAY DISTRICT.
AND THEN THERE ARE OTHER REFERENCES TO 51 A 0.420 THAT DON'T HAVE THAT.
AND PURSUANT TO CANONS OF CONSTRUCTION, I WANNA HAVE SOME CONSISTENCY.
SO THERE'S NO QUESTION THAT THIS DISTRICT IS GOVERNED BY THE MD ONE OVERLAY AND I FELT LIKE BECAUSE IT WAS REFERENCED IN PART OF IT AND NOT OTHER PARTS OF IT, I DON'T WANT SOMEONE TO COME BACK LATER AND ARGUE THAT, WELL, YOU CLEARLY KNEW HOW TO REFERENCE IT WHEN YOU WANTED IT TO APPLY AND YOU DIDN'T REFERENCE IT HERE.
SO THERE MUST BE SOME INTENT THERE.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALRIGHT, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
ANY OPPOSED? NAY? THE MOTION CARRIES NUMBER
[7. 26-668A An application for an amendment to Specific Use Permit 2513 for the sale of alcoholic beverages in conjunction with a restaurant without drive-in or drive-through service on property zoned Subarea 1 within Planned Development District 366, the Buckner Boulevard Special Purpose District, with a D-1 Liquor Control Overlay, on the west line of south Buckner Boulevard, between Scyene Road and Blossom Lane. Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to amended site plan and conditions. Applicant: Buckner Partnership, LP Representative: Jennifer Hiromoto Planner: Liliana Garza Council District: 5 Z-25-000226]
SEVEN.ITEM NUMBER SEVEN IS KZ DASH TWO FIVE DASH 0 0 0 2 2 6.
AN APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO SPECIFIC USE PERMIT 25 13 FOR THE SALE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES IN CONJUNCTION WITH THEIR RESTAURANT WITHOUT DRIVE-IN OR DRIVE THROUGH SERVICE ON PROPERTY ZONE, ZIP AREA ONE WITH IMPLANTED LM DISTRICT 360 6, THE BUCKNER BOULEVARD SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICT WITH A D ONE LIQUOR CONTROL RELAY ON THE WEST LINE OF SOUTH BUCKNER BOULEVARD BETWEEN S ROAD AND BLOSSOM AVENUE.
RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO AMENDED SITE PLAN AND CONDITIONS.
[02:25:01]
RITO.HI, MOTO, 1 0 2 3 3 EAST NORTHWEST HIGHWAY IN DALLAS.
UM, THIS IS THE FIRST RENEWAL OF THIS SUP.
UM, WE WOULD LIKE ADDITIONAL TIME, BUT WE DON'T AGREE THAT THIS IS APPROPRIATE FOR A PERMANENT SUP, UM, BUT WE RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR APPROVAL.
UH, MS. HERMO, IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER SEVEN? COMMISSIONER SERATO, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? UH, YES.
UM, IN THE MATTER OF CASE C 2 5 0 0 0 2 2 6.
I MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE FOR A PERIOD OF FIVE YEARS WITH NO ELIGIBILITY FOR AUTOMATIC RENEWAL SUBJECT TO THE AMENDED SITE PLAN AND CONDITIONS.
THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER, UM, SERATO FOR YOUR MOTION.
COMMISSIONER, UH, CARPENTER FOR YOUR SECOND.
ANY DISCUSSION? NO DISCUSSION.
[8. 26-669A An application for an amendment to Planned Development District 500 on property bounded by Brentfield Drive, Meadowcreek Drive, La Manga Drive, and Shadybank Road. Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to amended development plan, traffic management plan, and amended conditions. Applicant: Masterplan Consultants / Karl Crawley Planner: Liliana Garza Council District: 12 Z-25-000100]
NUMBER EIGHT IS KZ DASH 25 DASH 0 0 0 100.AN APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 500 ON PROPERTY BOUNDED BY BROWNFIELD DRIVE, MEADOW CREEK DRIVE, LA MINOR, DR.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO AMENDED DEVELOPMENT PLAN, TRAFFIC PLAN AND STAFF RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF THIS CASE.
UM, SINCE THE DOCKET THERE WAS CHANGES, UH, THROUGH TO THE CONDITIONS AND STAFFS.
UM, IT'S OKAY WITH THE UPDATED LANGUAGE FOR THE SIDEWALK.
UM, HOWEVER, THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED FOR THE PROJECTION AMENITIES TO BE STRIKED OUT.
STAFF RECOMMENDS TO, TO KEEP THEM.
DO I NEED TO DO ANYTHING SPECIAL? YEAH, I'M OLD.
YOU KNOW, I THINK I'M PROTECTED CLASS AS BEING OLD TOO, AND I'M GONNA USE IT FOR THE REST OF MY LIFE, HOPEFULLY LONGER THAN SHORTER.
RIGHT? MY, UM, UH, HERE REPRESENTING THE RICH AND INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT ON A REQUEST TO THE AMENDMENT TO PD FOR PARK HILL MIDDLE SCHOOL.
WE WERE HERE A MONTH OR SO AGO ON WESTWOOD MIDDLE SCHOOL.
THE, THE DISTRICT IS GOING THROUGH AND CHANGING THEIR JUNIOR HIGHS TO MIDDLE SCHOOLS.
IT, IT, IT IT'S JUST ON ALL THEIR DIFFERENT MIDDLE SCHOOLS.
SO THIS IS THE SECOND ONE IN DALLAS.
THE THIRD ONE IN DALLAS ACTUALLY IS ZONED AG.
WHO KNEW THAT? UH, AND AG DOESN'T REQUIRE ZONING FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS.
WHO KNEW THAT? SO THAT WILL NOT BE IN FRONT OF YOU.
UM, THERE ARE ALSO, UH, SOME SCHOOLS IN, UM, IN THE CITY OF RICHESON THAT THEY'VE ALREADY DONE, OR IN THE PROCESS OF DOING.
CITY OF RICHESON DOESN'T REQUIRE ZONING FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS.
AND, UH, RECENTLY, THE LAST COUPLE YEARS WE DID, UH, LAKE HIGHLANDS JUNIOR SLASH MIDDLE SCHOOL AND FOREST MEADOW MIDDLE SCHOOL.
I DON'T KNOW IF MY TIME HAS STARTED OR NOT, BUT WE'LL SEE.
'CAUSE I'M GONNA HAVE TO TALK FAST.
I HAVE THE JEOPARDY SORT OF THING IF WE'D LIKE TO GO THERE.
TECHNOLOGY, ISN'T IT WONDERFUL? WE USED TO JUST DO HANDOUTS, YOU KNOW, I'M SORRY, DATING MYSELF, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF ANYONE'S ON THE COMMISSION THAN WE USED TO DO HANDOUTS NEVER WERE USED OR MISS, EXCUSE ME, COMMISSIONER DRAWING.
I NEED TO TELL YOU TO CHANGE SLIDES.
LET'S GO TO THE NEXT ONE THEN.
UH, UH, JUST A QUICK RENDERING IN THE FRONT OF THE SCHOOL.
THIS ONE I WANNA STOP AT RIGHT NOW.
YOU CAN SEE THE ISSUE AT HAND.
AND THIS, UH, IT'S, IT IS THE, WHAT WE'VE DONE ON A LOT OF THE DISD SCHOOLS AND OTHER RICHMOND SCHOOLS, UH, THE EXISTING SCHOOLS THERE.
WE BUILD A NEW SCHOOL THAT WE TEAR DOWN THE OLD SCHOOL.
YOU CAN SEE THIS SITE HAS A LOT OF FLOODPLAIN ON IT, WHICH HAS GOTTEN EVEN LARGER SINCE, UH, THE SCHOOL WAS BUILT.
[02:30:01]
PLAN OF THE PROPOSED SCHOOL.UM, YOU CAN SEE OBVIOUSLY WE NOW, FORTUNATELY WE CAN NOW DO ALL THE QUEUING ON SITE AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE.
AND AGAIN, I'M, I'M GONNA GO THROUGH THESE REAL QUICK 'CAUSE I REALLY NEED TO CONCENTRATE ON NEXT SLIDE, UH, ON WHAT I'M HERE ASKING FOR DIFFERENT THAN THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
THAT'S A, A RENDERING BACK AND YOU CAN SEE THE BIG COURTYARD.
THAT'LL BE SORT OF THE MAIN ENTRANCE TO THE SCHOOL.
UM, AND THE QUEUING AND STUFF IN THE DROPOFF RIGHT THERE BY THE NEXT SLIDE.
I'LL GET TO WHAT I NOW TALK ABOUT.
UM, WE'VE ASKED FOR SOME CHANGES TO THE SIDEWALK.
THE SIDEWALK PROPOSED WAS THE NORMAL FIVE FOOT, UM, UH, BUFFER AND A SIX FOOT SIDEWALK IF, UH, ALL THE WAY AROUND THE SIDE EXCEPT THE GREEN LINE ON THE BOTTOM, UM, 80.
THEY HAVE A SIDE SLOPE OF 4% OR MORE.
SO WE'RE GONNA REMOVE THE SIDEWALKS.
WE'RE NOT A PROBLEM WITH THAT.
THE BLUE AREA TO THE NORTH, WHICH IS ALONG BRENT FIELD AND THE TWO SIDE STREETS, WE CAN COMPLY WITH THAT FIVE FOOT IN THE SIX FOOT SIDEWALK.
THE ISSUES ARE ON THE YELLOW SIDE TO THE, TO I GUESS THE LEFT, NO, THE RIGHT SIDE IS A FLOODPLAIN AND CREEK AND TREES.
IF WE PUT A FIVE FOOT BUFFER STRIP AND A SIX FOOT SIDEWALK, WE'RE NOW BUILDING RETAINING WALLS IN THE CREEK AND IT WOULD BE A LOT MORE EXPENSIVE THAN ALL THE SIDEWALKS COMBINED.
SO WE'VE ASKED THERE IN THAT LOCATION TO PUT THE SIDEWALK BACK A CURB AT FIVE FEET.
WE UNDERSTAND THE REASON FOR THE FIVE FOOT SIDEWALK.
AGAIN, THE GREEN, UM, THE GREEN ACTUALLY COMPLIES.
SO IF THAT DOES, THAT'S YOUR HAVE TO GET REPLACED.
WE'RE OKAY WITH THE BUFFER STRIP AND THE, I IMAGINE SOMEONE WILL HAVE A FOLLOW UP QUESTION FOR YOU.
UH, WOULD ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER EIGHT? OKAY.
COMMISSIONER KAUFMAN, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? I DO.
UM, I MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE, UH, AND HAVE A, AND MOVE APPROVAL OF Z DASH 25 DASH 0 0 0 100 PER THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGES, APPROVAL OF AN ALTERNATIVE, UH, DEVELOPMENT PLAN THAT HAS BEEN DISTRIBUTED, SHOWING CHANGES TO THE SIDEWALK REQUIREMENTS IN THE PD CONDITIONS AND THE DELETION OF THE PEDESTRIAN AMENITIES LISTED IN SECTION 501 0 2 B.
AND IS THAT SUBJECT TO AN AMENDED DEVELOPMENT PLAN, TMP AND AMENDED CONDITIONS? YES.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER KAUFMAN FOR YOUR MOTION.
COMMISSIONER COX FOR YOUR SECOND, UH, ANY DISCUSSION, COMMISSIONER KAUFMAN? WELL, I'D LIKE FOR CARL TO CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION ABOUT THE SIDEWALKS.
IT WAS A, A LONG CONVERSATION WITH, UH, THE REPRESENTATIVE FROM RICHARDSON SCHOOL DISTRICT AND, UH, WITH A LOT OF OTHER ISSUES THAT'S IN THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS.
SO I'D LIKE HIM TO FINISH THAT IN SO THAT WE HAVE A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING WHY WE AGREED ON THAT RECOMMENDATION.
SOUNDS LIKE A GOOD IDEA, MR. CRAWLEY.
SO, UM, IF WE COULD GO BACK TO THE SLIDE THAT AT THE, THE LAST ONE THAT WAS ON THE SCREEN.
UM, AS I MENTIONED IN THE BLUE AREA, WE, WE, UH, HAVE TO BE REPLACED.
THERE'S NO POWER POLES OR TREES OR, OR FLOODPLAIN IN THAT AREA.
UM, AND I MENTIONED ON THE RIGHT SIDE, UM, I THINK IT'S THE LAST, NEXT TO THE LAST SLIDE ON THE RIGHT SIDE, WE'VE GOT FLOODPLAIN AND TREES.
AND AGAIN, I, I'LL BE HONEST, I DON'T KNOW IF THEY'D LET US DO A LOT OF THINGS IN THAT FLOODPLAIN ANYWAY.
UM, AND THEN THE BOTTOM SIDE, THE GREEN SIDE, WE HAVE PLENTY OF ROOM.
UM, AND ACTUALLY THOSE SIDEWALKS ARE, ARE, ARE IN GOOD SHAPE.
THEY'RE, THEY'RE A DA COMPLIANT, BUT IF WE DID HAVE TO REPLACE 'EM, WE CAN COMPLY WITH THE FIVE FOOT BUFFER STRIP.
AND THEN ON THE YELLOW SIDE, OVER ON THAT SIDE OF THE PROPERTY ON THE LEFT SIDE, THERE ARE ROW POWER POLES ALONG THERE THAT IF WE HAD TO MOVE AND ENCORE DOESN'T MOVE POWER POLES FOR FREE, UM, THE COST OF THAT WOULD BE FAIRLY ASTRONOMICAL.
AND THERE'S ALSO WATER VAULTS AND OTHER UTILITIES IN THAT AREA.
SO AGAIN, WE'D LIKE TO REPLACE THOSE SIDEWALKS THAT WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO REPLACE FIVE FOOT WIDE BACK A CURB.
UM, SO IT, IT STILL, IT STILL GETS THE IDEA OF A WIDER SIDEWALK.
THERE'S A FOUR FOOT SIDEWALK THERE.
SO THAT'S THE REASONING FOR THE SIDEWALKS.
WE THINK IT'S A, A GOOD SORT OF COMPROMISE BETWEEN THE TWO.
UM, I THINK THE ONES ALONG THE FLOODPLAIN, WE PROBABLY BUILDING INSPECTION AND ENGINEERING WOULD'VE AGREED WITH US.
BUT I THINK IT'S BEST TO GO AHEAD AND PUT IT IN THIS SCENARIO SO SOMEBODY IT DOESN'T COME UP FOR, FOR ANOTHER ONE.
NOW, THE THE OTHER THING THAT WE'VE, UM, WORKED WITH, UH, COMMISSIONER KAUFMAN ABOUT WAS THE, UH, AMENITIES.
UM, WHICH IS THE, THE SCHOOL CLASSIC
[02:35:01]
I'LL CALL IT NOW, UM, FOR THE LAST FOUR YEARS OR SO, UM, IS THE BENCH TRASH CAN AND BICYCLE RACK AT A MAXIMUM SPACING OF EVERY 200 FEET.NONE OF THE OTHER RISD SCHOOLS HAVE THAT.
UM, LAKE HIGHLANDS HIGH SCHOOL, OR EXCUSE ME, LAKE HIGHLANDS HIGH SCHOOL DOESN'T HAVE IT, BUT LAKE HIGHLANDS JUNIOR SLASH MIDDLE SCHOOL NOW MIDDLE SCHOOL, A LOVELY SCHOOL, A PHENOMENAL SCHOOL.
IF YOU EVER GO DOWN WALNUT HILL, IT IS GORGEOUS SCHOOL.
EVERY TIME I GO DOWN THE WAY, IT'S GORGEOUS.
UH, AND FOREST MEADOW, WHICH WE ALSO DID ADDITION TO IN THE LAST COUPLE YEARS, THOSE DON'T HAVE IT.
THE OTHER SCHOOLS IN THE RICHTON ISD WILL NOT HAVE IT.
UM, WESTWOOD, IT WAS PLACED IN THAT THE DISTRICT SORT OF, I'LL BE HONEST, WOKE UP AND WE'RE GONNA ASK THE COUNCIL MEMBER TO REMOVE THAT FROM THAT SCHOOL.
UH, THE ISSUES AT HAND AT THIS SCHOOL ARE, AND THIS ONE ON YOUR SCREEN, ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT FLOODPLAIN, THERE'S A CREEK AND THERE'S A ROW OF TREES.
AND IT'S VERY DENSELY FORESTED.
ACTUALLY, IF YOU GO IN THE CORNER DOWN THERE, THAT SORT OF OPEN AREA IS A, A DOG PARK THAT IS ON CITY OF DALLAS, OR NO, RISD LAND.
THE CITY OF DALLAS ACTUALLY MAINTAINS THAT DOG PARK AND THEY HAVE BENCHES IN THAT DOG PARK, JUST LIKE ANY OTHER DOG PARK.
THEY HAVE A, A LOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE, UH, RISD THAT DALLAS MAINTAINS IT.
THAT THE, THAT PART OF THAT SITE IS NOT BE, YOU CANNOT SEE THAT PART OF THE SITE FROM THE SCHOOL PERIOD WITH THE ROW OF TREES.
AND THEN IF YOU GO ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE WHOLE END OF THE SITE, IT'S A VERY LARGE SITE THAT SECURITY WISE, THE DISTRICT IS CONCERNED ABOUT PLACING THESE BENCHES AND PEOPLE BEING ABLE TO LOITER OR ACTUALLY ENCOURAGING THAT AROUND THE PERIMETER OF THEIR PROPERTY.
UM, UH, I, I'VE HAD A PROBLEM WITH THAT SINCE DAY ONE FOR THE DISD.
AND YOU, YOU KNOW, I'VE BEEN UP HERE FOR D-I-S-D-R-I-S-D-P-I-S-D-I GUESS NO CARROLLTON FARMERS BRANCH RECENTLY, DUNCANVILLE ISD SECURITY IS, IF, IF THE JOB OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT IS EDUCATION THE SECOND HIGHEST, THAT'S 51% SECURITY AND RETURNING THE KIDS SAFE IS 49.9%.
THEY ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THAT.
THEY DON'T HAVE THEIR OWN POLICE DEPARTMENT.
UH, THEY HIRE SROS FROM CITY OF DALLAS OR CITY OF RICHARDSON TO BE THEIR POLICE DEPARTMENT.
THEY JUST DO NOT FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH THAT.
AND THEN THE OTHER ADDED ASPECT IS IF YOU PUT A TRASH CAN OUT THERE, WELL, THEY'RE GONNA HAVE TO GO OUT THERE AND MAINTAIN THAT, UM, AND PICK UP THE TRASH.
AND THAT'S EXTRA EXPENSE FOR THEIR MAINTENANCE STAFF THAT THEY DON'T HAVE AT THEIR OTHER SCHOOLS.
AND, AND IF THEY HAVE LIMITED BUDGETS ON MAINTENANCE, NOW THEY'VE GOT TO THEN DEVOTE SOME OF THEIR TIME FOR THAT.
SO THEY HAVE A CONCERN WITH THAT.
UM, AND THEN FINALLY, I, AND I, I WANT TO, I BROUGHT THIS UP IN A CONVERSATION AND, AND SOME OF US STILL REMEMBER THIS, WHO ARE OLD ENOUGH, UM, CITIES USED TO PUT TRASH CANS IN LEFT TURN LANES.
REMEMBER THE LITTLE CORNER RIGHT THERE WHERE THE LIGHT AND YOU HAVE A LITTLE TRASH CAN THERE AND PEOPLE WOULD THROW THEIR TRASH THERE.
WELL, THEY, THAT ACCUMULATE TRASH AND AS IDEA LIKE, I'LL GO PUT ALL MY TRASH IN THAT.
SO THEY'RE CONCERNED ABOUT A LOT OF DIFFERENT THINGS.
SO THE DISTRICT IS OPPOSED TO THOSE BENCHES ALL, WE'LL HAVE BENCHES INSIDE THE CAMPUS, THINGS OF THAT NATURE, BUT THEY'RE OPPOSED TO THOSE BENCHES THAT ARE OUTSIDE THEIR FENCE, BUT THEY STILL HAVE TO MAINTAIN THEM AND STUFF.
UM, I LOOKED AT SOME, UM, DISD SCHOOLS THAT I'VE WORKED ON IN THE PAST IN THE PAST BOND PROGRAM, AND THERE ARE, IT'S HIT OR MISS.
SOME OF THOSE SCHOOLS HAVE THEM AND SOME OF THEM DON'T.
SO WE FEEL IT'S NOT APPROPRIATE AT THIS LOCATION.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONERS, FURTHER DISCUSSION.
DID YOU HAVE MORE COMMISSIONER, UM, KAUFMAN? WELL, I HAD, UH, A LOT OF DISCUSSION WITH, UH, RISD AND, AND CARL ON THIS PROJECT.
AND, AND I DO DO THINK IT HAS TO BE SOMETHING THAT'S DONE ON AN INDIVIDUAL CAMPUS BASIS.
I THINK THE, UH, COST FACTOR OF REQUIRING, UH, CERTAIN THINGS IS, UH, VERY SUBJECTIVE AND VERY DIFFICULT FOR THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS.
AND I THINK THEY NEED TO SPEND THEIR MONEY ON SECURITY AND, AND, UH, WORRIED ABOUT WHERE THEIR KIDS ARE AFTER SCHOOL AND NOT HANGING OUT SOMEWHERE WHERE THERE ARE OTHER THINGS GOING ON THAT THEY HAVE NO CONTROL OVER.
BUT IT, BUT THE LIABILITY OF IT IS A SERIOUS THING ALONG WITH, AGAIN, THE SAFETY AND SECURITY OF THE STUDENTS AND THE NEIGHBORHOODS IN THE SURROUNDING AREA FOR, UH, SO I HOPE THAT YOU'LL SUPPORT OUR AMENDMENTS AND, UH, LET US MOVE ON.
COMMISSIONER HALL, MR. CROWLEY, IS THERE, UH, WATER IN THAT CREEK? IS IT A FLOWING CREEK OR DOES IT JUST FILL UP WHEN IT RAINS? DO YOU KNOW? I, I, IT PROBABLY IN AUGUST.
NO, THERE'S NO WATER IN IT, BUT THERE'S NO WATER IN TEXAS IN AUGUST.
SO I, I WOULD SAY IF YOU WENT OUT THERE TODAY, THERE'D BE WATER IN THERE.
UM, OBVIOUSLY THE FLOOD PLAIN EXTENDS PRETTY FAR, BUT IT'S FLAT LAND THERE,
[02:40:01]
SO IT DOES, IT DOES HAVE WATER IN IT MOST OF THE TIME.AND IF YOU'VE WENT BY IT, AND I DON'T THINK THE AERIAL, I DON'T THINK THERE'S AN AERIAL.
THE CITY SHOWED YOU AN AERIAL, IT IS VERY DENSELY DENSE UNDERGROWTH AND THINGS AND IT'S PRETTY NATURAL.
AND THE FLOODPLAIN HAS ENCROACHED ALMOST UP TO THE SCHOOL NOW, HASN'T IT? YEAH, IT PROBABLY, IT PROBABLY IS IN SOME OF THE SCHOOL NOW JUST 'CAUSE IT'S BEEN EXPANDED IN THE LAST, AND ACTUALLY I THINK IT'S ACTUALLY GONNA BE EXPANDED AGAIN WITH THE CITY DESERT RELEASE HERE IN A FEW MONTHS.
BUT WE'VE TAKEN THAT INTO ACCOUNT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? UH, I, I DID WANNA JUST FOLLOW UP A LITTLE BIT ON THE SURE.
UM, SIDEWALKS AND, AND PEDESTRIAN AMENITIES AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
SO I SEE YOUR MAP, YOU KNOW, OR THE, THE DRAWING ON THE, THE PRESENTATION AND UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, PRETTY CLEARLY WHY THERE WOULD BE DIFFICULTY DOING THE SIX FOOT SI OR FIVE FOOT SIDEWALK WITH, WITH THE SIX FOOT BUFFER ALL THE WAY.
UM, I JUST WANTED TO DIG IN A LITTLE MORE ON THE PEDESTRIAN AMENITIES BECAUSE ON THAT YOU'VE GONE FROM BASICALLY THE, THE STANDARD PACKAGE ALL THE WAY DOWN TO ZERO.
UM, IS IT FAIR TO SAY THAT THE MOST PROBLEMATIC LOCATION FOR BENCHES WOULD BE IN THE WOOD AREA NEAR THE FLOODPLAIN? THAT'S, I'D SAY IF, IF THAT WAS A HUNDRED PERCENT YES.
AND THEN THE ONES ALL THE WAY AT THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY ARE PROBLEM TWO AND THOSE ARE HOUSES THE BACK TO THAT.
SO, SO I, YES, I'D SAY THE ONE ALONG FLOOD PLAIN, DEFINITELY YOU CANNOT SEE, YOU CANNOT SEE THAT PART OF THE SITE.
AND THEN WHEN YOU GET TO THE OTHER AREA, IT SLOPES DOWN AND YOU REALLY CAN'T SEE WHERE THE GREEN AREA IS TOO.
BUT, BUT ON BRENT FIELD, THERE'S NOT AS NEARLY AS MUCH CONCERN ABOUT PUTTING BENCHES.
IS THAT FAIR? BRENT FIELD? YES.
NOW BRENT FIELD HAS A LOT OF TRAFFIC ON IT AND STUFF, AND, AND WE'RE GONNA PUT THE BUFFER STRIP AND EVERYTHING ON BRENT FIELD.
AND, AND, AND THERE THAT, NOW THAT IS THE, THE SCHOOL IS ORIENTED IN INTERIOR.
UM, SO THERE, THERE WON'T BE ANY DOORS OR ANYTHING.
OBVIOUSLY THERE'S FIRE DOORS FOR EVERYTHING, BUT, BUT OKAY.
THAT'S NOT AN ENTRANCE AND EXIT TO THE SCHOOL AND, AND BIKE RACKS.
WHY ARE THOSE A CONCERN? IS THAT JUST A COST ELEMENT? WELL, THERE'S COST AND SECURITY.
AGAIN, I DON'T HAVE AS MUCH EYES ON THAT PART OF THE PROPERTY ON BRENT FIELD THAN I WOULD ON OTHER EVEN CORNERS OF THE SITE.
YOU KNOW, AND, AND AGAIN, I I YOU, YOU MENTIONED THAT IT'S A STANDARD DEAL, BUT THERE ARE SCHOOLS IN DISD THAT CAME IN AFTER THIS STANDARD WAS IMPOSED THAT DON'T HAVE GENEVA HEIGHTS DOESN'T HAVE THAT REQUIREMENT.
YOU KNOW, IT'S ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS.
AND, AND THE R-I-S-D-I IS LOOKS AT THINGS AS IF I HAVE, I'M A WHOLE DISTRICT AND, AND IF I DON'T HAVE IT ON THE REST OF THE PARTS OF MY DISTRICT, I'M TREATING ONE SCHOOL DIFFERENTLY THAN ANOTHER.
UM, BUT I'M, I'M STRUGGLING WITH GOING TO ZERO ON THE PEDESTRIAN MATTER BASE, BUT, UM, I, I UNDERSTAND IT.
IT'S, YOU KNOW, DOES GO ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? COMMISSIONER WHEELER? I DO HAVE SOME CONCERN, BUT I DO UNDERSTAND THE REDUCTION BECAUSE I RE, I REQUESTED REDUCTIONS BEFORE ON ONE OF OUR SCHOOLS, BUT I DO BELIEVE THAT, UM, MAY MAYBE NOT EVERY 200 FEET THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERATION, ESPECIALLY ON THE STREET SIDES.
UM, AS FAR AS, YOU DON'T NEED BIKE RACKS ON EVERY STREET SIDE.
YOU DO NEED SOME PEDESTRIAN AMENITIES 'CAUSE KIDS STILL WALK AROUND OR THEY MIGHT BE WAITING FOR A PARENT OR WHATEVER.
UM, BUT THE REDUCTION OF HOW MANY, AND ON THOSE TWO MAIN STREETS NEAR THE BACK OF MEAN, ON THE SIDES OF THE SCHOOL, I DO BELIEVE THAT THEY SHOULD HAVE SOME AMENITIES BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO PICK, IF THEY THROW THE TRASH ON THE GROUND, THE SCHOOL STILL HAS TO PICK IT UP.
SO ONE WAY OR ANOTHER, IT HAS TO BE PICKED UP.
I WOULD RATHER HAVE A TRASH CAN THAT THEY CAN PUT TRASH IN.
BUT I DON'T NECESSARILY BELIEVE THAT IT NEEDS TO BE EVERY 200 FEET.
IT MIGHT NEED TO BE MAYBE ONE OR TWO, BUT 200 FEET IS THAT I CAN UNDERSTAND.
UM, BUT JUST TO SAY THAT WE DON'T, WE WANNA GO TO ZERO BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO INCREASE, UH, THE SCHOOL HAVING TO TRASH, IT'S GONNA INCREASE IF THEY'RE THROWING STUFF ON THE GROUND ALSO.
SO, YEAH, I THINK IT NEEDS TO BE SOMETHING, UM, IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE THE FULL SCOPE OF, OF PEDESTRIAN AMENITIES, BUT IT DO NEEDS, IT DOESN'T HAVE TO NECESSARILY BE A BENCH AT EVERY OWNER, BUT THE TRASH CANS AND, AND, AND AT LEAST ONE BENCH ON EACH SIDE.
[02:45:01]
UM, THEN, AND MAYBE SORT OF A COMBINATION OF THE TWO OF Y'ALL TALKED ABOUT, UM, THE, UM, THE, THE, I'M LOOKING AT THE SCREEN, SORRY, BUT THE, AND I CAN'T READ THE STREET NAME, SORRY.THE RIGHT SIDE IS, IS A, THERE'S BUSES AND SERVICE AND STUFF OVER THERE.
I DON'T KNOW IF I REALLY WANT BENCHES OVER THERE JUST FOR CONFLICTS.
UH, BRENT FIELD, I, I UNDERSTAND THAT'S ACTUALLY PROBABLY NOT A BAD LOCATION ACROSS THE STREET FROM THIS ACROSS BRENT FIELD IS BRENT FIELD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL.
UM, WE DID A, A LARGE ADDITION TO THAT THREE, FOUR YEARS AGO, MAYBE.
PROBABLY JUST BEEN OPEN ABOUT A YEAR AND A HALF.
THAT MIGHT BE AN APPROPRIATE PLACE TO PUT SOME BENCHES ALONG THERE.
BUT AGAIN, UH, THE 200 FEET AND, AND I, I, I'M ALWAYS QUESTIONED WHAT THE MAGIC OF 200 FEET IS, TO BE HONEST WITH YOU.
UM, TO ME IT SOUNDS LIKE, SO SOMEBODY CAN WALK 200 FEET AND THEY HAVE TO SIT DOWN, BUT I'M SURE THAT'S NOT IT.
THERE ARE SOME REQUIREMENTS, AND I HAVE ONE OF OUR, UH, STAFF MEMBERS HERE WHO IS RAZ CERTIFIED.
THERE ARE SOME REQUIREMENTS ABOUT RAZ, UH, AND, AND, AND RESTING AREAS EVERY 200 FEET.
UH, BUT A FIVE FOOT SIDEWALK ACCOMPLISHES THAT, AND A SIX FOOT OBVIOUSLY ACCOMPLISHES THAT.
UM, BUT I, I WOULD UNDERSTAND SOME REASON TO HAVE SOME ALONG, ALONG BRENT FIELD BECAUSE I, I THINK MORE, THERE'S NOTHING ELSE 'CAUSE THERE'S NO REQUIRED TO CROSS THE STREET, BUT YOU DO HAVE SOME, SOME JOINT, YOU KNOW, WHAT IS IT, YOU KNOW, ELEMENTARY KIDS AND MIDDLE SCHOOL KIDS THAT THERE COULD BE SOME PARENTS AND STUFF SITTING OUT THERE WAITING FOR BOTH OF THOSE KIDS.
SO I COULD SEE THAT AS A, AS A, AS A GOOD COMPROMISE CHAIR.
COULD I GIVE A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY AND, AND BIGGER PICTURE PLEASE.
CONTEXT AS A, AS A PERSON COORDINATING A LOT OF THESE SCHOOLS THAT GO THROUGH.
SO IT, THE FIRST OF ALL, THE PEDESTRIAN AMENITIES CAME ALONG.
UM, ESPECIALLY THAT ONE TO TWO.
WE DON'T THINK THAT THERE IS ANYTHING SPECIFICALLY MAGIC ABOUT THAT, BUT THAT'S ESTABLISH A RATIO.
I DON'T THINK STAFF IS TIED TO BOOM, BOOM, BOOM.
YOU GO DOWN THE ROAD AND THERE'S LITERALLY ONE EVERY
WE, WE DO WANNA START THERE, YOU KNOW, AND THAT'S A STARTING POINT.
BUT IF A SCHOOL WANTS TO NEGOTIATE, NOT EVEN NEGOTIATE, BUT JUST DISCUSS AND, AND TALK ABOUT A SPECIFIC PLACE.
I, I THINK IT'S VERY VALID FOR US AS A PLANNING STAFF AND A, AND A COMMISSION TO, TO LOOK AT RELOCATING.
SO THERE ARE OTHER TOOLS WE COULD DO, WE COULD TALK ABOUT PUTTING A CONCENTRATION OF THEM IN A SPECIFIC POINT.
A GREAT PLACE TO PUT THEM IS, IS IN A LOCATION WHERE A PEDESTRIAN PATH COMES FROM A SCHOOL AND THEN REACHES A SIDEWALK.
SO IT'S SORT OF AN INTERSECTION FOR, FOR PEDESTRIANS AND STUFF LIKE THAT OR, OR OTHER, OTHER AREAS LIKE THAT.
SO I JUST WANNA SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT THAT WE'RE NOT OPPOSED, WE'RE NOT TIED TO THAT NUMBER VERY SPECIFICALLY.
IT'S A GREAT STARTING POINT AND HAS BEEN FOR US TO ESTABLISH A RATIO.
UM, BUT WE, WE ALWAYS WORK WITH SCHOOLS TO MOVE THEM AROUND.
AND THEN SECOND, WE ARE RECOMMENDING THEM ON, ON EVERY NEW SCHOOL.
NOT JUST, NOT JUST DISD, UM, YOU KNOW, CHARTERS AND PRIVATES.
UM, WE, WE ARE RECOMMENDING THEM.
IT'S, IT'S NOT BEEN REALLY WON EVERY SCHOOL.
IT'S NOT, MAYBE SOME SCHOOLS HAVE NOT ALWAYS BEEN PROVIDED, OR EXCUSE ME, APPROVED BY, BY COMMISSION AT THE END OR THE COUNCIL AT THE END.
UM, BUT WE'RE RECOMMENDING THEM ACROSS THE BOARD.
AND IT'S NOT JUST DISD, IT'S NOT JUST OUR ISD, IT'S OUR PRIVATES, IT'S OUR CHARTERS.
UM, WHEN THEY'RE DOING CONSTRUCTION AND THINGS LIKE THAT, WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NEW FACILITIES, UM, THAT SIGNIFICANTLY DO IT, WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE THOSE FACILITIES IN A WAY THAT ARE, ARE, UM, KID FRIENDLY.
UM, AND GENEVA HEIGHTS I'LL SAY IS ALSO BEFORE WE STARTED DOING THIS.
SO THAT'S MY HISTORY JUST TO HELP, BECAUSE YOU WILL CONTINUE TO SEE THESE.
UM, WE'LL GO TO FINISH OUR FIRST ROUND, THEN WE CAN COME BACK FOR A SECOND ROUND.
I, I CAN'T SUPPORT GETTING RID OF ALL THE PEDESTRIAN AMENITIES.
DID YOU HAVE COMMENTS, COMMISSIONER HERBERT? UM, UH, I, TOO, LOOKING AT THE SITE, IT'S EIGHT BLOCKS ON ONE SIDE, SIX BLOCKS ON ANOTHER SIDE.
UH, A VERY, UH, DENSE COMMERCIAL, I MEAN, UM, RESIDENTIAL AREA.
I THINK THE PEDESTRIAN AMENITIES AND A SITE THAT HAS A SPECIAL USE LIKE A SCHOOL.
UM, THE PEDESTRIAN AMENITIES NOT ONLY HELP THE PARENTS AND STUDENTS ELDER, UH, GRANDPARENTS DROPPING KIDS OFF, BUT HAVING A PLACE TO REST ALONG.
UM, SUCH A HUGE, UM, UM, PIECE OF PROPERTY IS GONNA BE IMPORTANT FOR ME TO APPROVE.
UM, WHERE THEY GO AND HOW THEY'RE PLACED IS IMPORTANT, BUT, UM, THEY, THEY'RE DEFINITELY NEEDED.
AND I ALSO SEE A BIKE RACK CURRENTLY ON SITE THAT'S BEING MAINTAINED.
SO I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY IT WOULD BE HARD TO MAINTAIN, UM, BIKE RACKS.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? FIRST HONOR, COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT.
UM, WHEN I, UH, AGREED TO SERVE ON THE PLAN COMMISSION ANY NUMBER OF YEARS AGO, UM,
[02:50:02]
I WAS IMMEDIATELY SURPRISED BY THE HOOPS WE MAKE OUR SCHOOLS JUMP THROUGH TO EDUCATE OUR KIDS.AND I NEVER IMAGINED THAT I WOULD BE ON A BODY THAT DECIDES WHERE TRASH CANS GO.
ANYONE ELSE IN THE FIRST ROUND? COMMISSIONER KAUFMAN'S, SECOND ROUND? I KNOW IT SOUNDS LIKE A, UM, REALLY IDEAL SITUATION, THE ABOUT THESE PARK BENCHES, BUT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 20 PARK BENCHES.
AND THE OTHER THING THAT YOU HAVE TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION, OR I DO AS A VERY STRONG NEIGHBORHOOD ADVOCATE IS ALL THE, UH, RESIDENCES AROUND THAT, UH, SURROUNDING THAT PROPERTY.
AND YOU'RE ASKING THEM TO LET PARK BENCHES SIT ACROSS THE STREET FOR THEM AND COLLECT, UH, CHILDREN, DRUG DEALERS, UH, PEDOPHILES OR ANYBODY ELSE THAT WANTS TO HANG OUT AROUND THE SCHOOL.
SO I THINK THAT ASKING PARENTS OR THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES IN THE, THAT SURROUND THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY TO HAVE KIDS HANGING OUT, WHETHER IT'S DURING THE DAY, DURING THE NIGHT, IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT AND SO FORTH, BECAUSE THEY HAVE ALL THESE NICE PARK BENCHES AND WE'RE GONNA GO HAVE FUN.
THIS IS YOUR PARK BENCH AND THIS IS MINE.
I DON'T KNOW THAT, UH, WE'VE HAD SIMILAR SITUATIONS WITH BENJAMIN FRANKLIN MIDDLE SCHOOL THAT SITS RIGHT NEXT TO HILLCREST HIGH SCHOOL AND, UH, AND IN THE MIDDLE OF A NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE THE KIDS, THE MIDDLE SCHOOL KIDS WALK AND, UH, AND THEY DO ALL KINDS OF THINGS DURING THE TIME THAT THEY'RE WALKING UP AND DOWN THE ALLEYS AND SO FORTH AND SO ON.
SO, UM, I DID THINK ABOUT IT FOR A LONG TIME, AND I THINK THAT MOST OF THESE KIDS ARE PROBABLY REALLY NICE KIDS AND THEY WOULDN'T DO ANYTHING BAD.
BUT AT THE SAME TIME, I THINK IT'S, UM, UH, PUTTING A FEW PARK BENCHES ON, THERE'S ONE THING, BUT WE'RE MANDATING EVERY SO MANY FEET AND WE'RE MANDATING, UH, TRASH CANS THAT OBVIOUSLY WON'T PROBABLY BE TAKEN CARE OF.
AND THAT'S WOULD BE A CONCERN FOR ME AS THE RESIDENCES THAT LIVE ACROSS THE STREET FROM ALL THESE TRASH CANS AND BENCHES.
SO IT WASN'T A, A, UM, UH, IDEALISTIC THING, BUT IT WAS HARD TO SAY, WELL, DO WE NEED 10 OR DO WE NEED 12 OR DO WE NEED 20? SO I THINK IT'S BETTER THAT THE SCHOOL DISTRICT AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD WORK THAT OUT AMONG THEMSELVES.
IF YOU WANTED TO PUT A LIMIT ON HOW MANY YOU WANTED THEM TO HAVE, I GUESS THEY COULD TALK ABOUT IT.
BUT I'D RATHER START AT ZERO AND HAVE THE SCHOOLS TAKE CARE OF THE SECURITY AND THE SAFETY AND THEIR PARTNERSHIP IN HOW THEY, UH, TAKE CARE OF THEIR SCHOOL AND THEIR STUDENTS IN THE MIDDLE OF A NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, WHEN LINCOLN HIGH SCHOOL WAS GOING, WENT THROUGH A NEW SUP AND CHECK AND THE UP AND THE UPGRADES TO IT, I SAT WITH THE PLANNER AND, AND VERY MUCH VOCALIZED THIS IS, WE KNOW WHAT GOES ON IN OUR AREA, BUT I DO NOT RECOMMEND AS MANY.
SO I'M NOT SAYING, I DON'T THINK NOBODY IS SAYING THAT 20 IS PROBABLY EXTREME OR 10 IS EXTREME.
BUT WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE AMENITIES, WE'RE ASKING SCHOOLS ANY COM, A LOT OF COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES TO DO THESE THINGS.
I THINK THE TENANT IS EXTREME.
MR. PEPE DID SAY THAT THAT WAS JUST A GUIDELINE THAT THEY'RE GOING AND THEY'RE WILLING TO NEGOTIATE MAYBE TWO OR THREE.
BUT THE TRASH CANS, WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE TRASH CANS NOT BEING MAINTAINED, THE PROPERTY IS MAINTAINED, IS BETTER TO HAVE TRASH CANS, MAYBE ONE AT EACH CORNER.
RIGHT? I'M NOT SAYING EVERYWHERE.
ONE AT EACH CORNER, BECAUSE THE TRASH IS GONNA GET THROUGH THAT ONE.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT JUNIOR ELEMENTARY KIDS, MAYBE A LITTLE DIFFERENT, BUT THESE ARE JUNIOR HIGH KIDS WHO ARE WALKING AND EVERY MOST JUNIOR HIGH KIDS I KNOW HAVE A BACKPACK FULL OF SOMETHING, CANDY CHIPS AND THEY'RE, AND WHERE THEY'RE GONNA THROW IT DOWN.
RIGHT? AND THIS GIVES THEM A SPECIFIC PLACE WHICH GIVES, I WOULD RATHER BE PULLING A TRA YOU KNOW, HOW MUCH EASIER IT'S TO PULL A TRASH CAN, A TRASH BAG OUT OF A TRASH CAN THAN HAVING PICKERS AND HAVING TO WALK A PROPERTY THAT BIG.
SO I'M NOT SAYING WE DON'T, I DON'T THINK ANYONE WANTS THAT MANY.
AND I WAS LIKE, ABSOLUTELY NOT.
WE NEED 'EM AT THIS KEY CORNER WHERE IT'S VISUAL, WHERE PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY CAN KEEP AN EYE.
I DON'T WANT PEOPLE LAYING OUT ON THE BENCHES.
WE HAVE A HOMELESS ISSUE ISSUE IN SOUTH DALLAS.
YOU KNOW, THESE, EVEN THOUGH THIS MIGHT BE RICHARDSON, ISD, THESE ARE DALLAS CHILDREN, SO THESE ARE DALLAS CHILDREN.
JUST SO HAPPENED, RICHARDSON GETS TO, GETS TO USE THEM IN THEIR TAX ROLE.
BUT THESE ARE DALLAS CHILDREN, SO I DON'T THINK NO ONE IS SAYING A BUNCH.
I MEAN, WE COULD PUT THAT INTO A STEM LAB OF MOUNT BENCHES, BUT YEAH, ONE, TWO, MAYBE AT EACH CORNER.
WE DON'T NEED THE FULL AMENITIES.
I THINK THE AMENITIES SHOULD BE PICK AND CHOOSE.
AND REMEMBER WE HAVE PEOPLE WHO
[02:55:01]
WALK.COMMISSIONER HAMPTON FIRST ROUND.
I, I THINK I, I SHARE SENTIMENTS OF ALL OF MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS.
UM,
I CERTAINLY AM SENSITIVE TO COMMISSIONER KAUFMAN.
SHE KNOWS HER COMMUNITY, SHE KNOWS HER RESIDENCE, SHE'S VISITED ON THIS REQUEST.
UM, BUT I THINK HAVING SOME ACCOMMODATION BUT LETTING IT BE DETERMINED BY THE SCHOOL DISTRICT AND THE SCHOOL ON WHERE THEY THINK ARE BEST FOR THIS PARTICULAR LOCATION.
AND PERHAPS THE COMPROMISE WOULD BE YOU'VE GOT A FULL FOUR CORNER SITE THAT THERE'S A MINIMUM OF FOUR WITH FOUR BENCHES, FOUR TRASH CANS PLACED AS DETERMINED BY THE SCHOOL MIGHT BE A WAY TO ALLOW FOUR WHAT LIKELY WILL HAPPEN.
SOMEONE MAY NEED A PLACE TO SIT DOWN THAT, THAT MIGHT BE A WAY TO MAYBE BRIDGE THE GAP AND GIVE SOME PRETTY SIGNIFICANT FLEXIBILITY BASED ON THE SIZE OF THE SITE.
COMMISSIONER KINGSTON, DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING? SOUNDS GOOD, MR. CROWLEY.
HOW DO YOU YEAH, UM, UH, IT, IT DOES SOUND GOOD.
UM, UM, WHAT I'D LIKE TO SAY THOUGH, IF I'M, I'M, I'M GONNA TAKE THAT BACK PARTIALLY THE CORNER THAT'S DOWN THERE WHERE THE DOG PARK IS, I, I I, THE CITY HAS A TRASH CAN AND BENCHES DOWN AT THE DOG PARK.
I THINK, I THINK I CAN'T SEE THAT I, I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THAT CORNER MORE THAN ANYTHING ELSE.
SO IF, IF WE'D SAID FOUR TRASH CANS, I'LL BE HONEST, THE LOGICAL PLACES ARE PROBABLY THREE ON BRENT FIELD AND, AND ONE DOWN AT THE OTHER CORNER.
BUT, BUT I, AS LONG AS WE DON'T SAY ALL FOUR CORNERS, JUST BECAUSE THAT, THAT CORNER I THINK IS LIKE, THAT'S, THAT'S A PRETTY FAR AWAY CORNER BEHIND A LOT OF TREES AND I CAN'T SEE THAT.
SO IF YOU, I, I THINK THAT IS A VERY GOOD COMPROMISE.
AND, AND I THINK THE ONES ON RENFIELD, LIKE I SAID, ACROSS MALE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ARE REALLY PROBABLY THE ONES THAT GONNA GET USED, ESPECIALLY THE BENCHES.
COMMISSIONER COX GONNA MAKE A COMMENT AND THEN I DO HAVE A QUESTION.
I THINK THIS DISCUSSION IS SILLY.
I MEAN, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THESE BENCHES AND TRASH CANS BEING REQUIRED EVERY 200 FEET.
IT'S NOT CONSISTENT WITH OTHER CITIES.
SO I THINK WE DEFINITELY NEED A COMPROMISE.
UM, I'D LIVE IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO WESTWOOD JUNIOR HIGH, SOON TO BE A MIDDLE SCHOOL.
WE TALKED ABOUT THAT CASE A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO.
WE DON'T HAVE MAJOR ISSUES WITH TRASH BEING DEPOSITED ON SCHOOL PROPERTY.
SO, AND, AND I'M FAMILIAR WITH PARK HILL.
I DON'T THINK THERE'S AN ISSUE THERE.
AM I WRONG? I MEAN, IS THIS THE NORM FOR OTHER CITIES? UH, WELL I THINK I MENTIONED OTHER CITIES DON'T REQUIRE ZONING FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS, ACTUALLY.
UM, HIGHLAND PARK AND UNIVERSITY PARK DO, UM, MESQUITE DOES, I'VE JUST DONE THE RESEARCH.
MESQUITE REQUIRES SUVS FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS.
'CAUSE THAT WAS A WAY THEY COULD PREVENT CHARTER SCHOOLS FROM COMING INTO MESQUITE.
THAT'S BRUTALLY HONEST ABOUT IT.
BUT NO OTHER SCHOOLS AROUND HERE REQUIRE ZONING FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS.
AND, UH, I'LL BE BRUTALLY HONEST, THE CITY OF DALLAS DOESN'T PUT THESE AROUND THEIR PARKS.
YOU KNOW, LET'S BE BRUTALLY HONEST ABOUT IT.
THERE'S NOT, THERE'S NOT A TRASH CAN EVERY 200 FEET AROUND A PARK.
AND THERE'S NONE OUTSIDE THE CITY HALL.
NO, I, I I MEAN, I THINK WE CAN LOSE THE 200 FEET, YOU KNOW, REQUIREMENT.
I, I WOULD SUPPORT A MINIMUM NUMBER, UM, TO BE PLACED.
I MEAN, WE COULD EVEN SPECIFY ON BRENTWOOD AND WHATEVER THAT OTHER STREET IS TO THE OR.
I MEAN, I WOULD BE FINE WITH HIM JUST ON BRENTWOOD, BUT I, I WOULD SUPPORT A CERTAIN NUMBER, A MINIMUM NUMBER OF BENCHES AND TRASH CANS.
UM, I'M FINE WITH THAT COMPROMISE AS WELL, THE FOUR, WHATEVER IT IS.
AND I DO, I HAVE MADE COMMENTS SIMILAR TO COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT IN THE PAST THAT I THINK WE ARE MICROMANAGING THESE PUBLIC SCHOOLS IN CERTAIN INSTANCES.
UM, BUT WHAT I DO THINK IS IMPORTANT IS WE FIGURE OUT, PARTICULARLY IN SCHOOLS THAT ARE SITUATED IN THE MIDDLE OF NEIGHBORHOODS, HOW TO PROPERLY INTEGRATE THESE SCHOOLS INTO A WALKABLE NEIGHBORHOOD ENVIRONMENT IN A MINIMUM, YOU KNOW, PROVISION OF BENCHES, BIKE RACKS.
I THINK THAT IS SOMETHING IMPORTANT AND MEANINGFUL AND NOT OVERREACHING IN MICROMANAGING OUR, OUR, OUR PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND OUR NEIGHBORHOODS.
AND I, I, I DO WANNA MAKE SURE THAT I ADDRESS THE COMMENT THAT, UM, BENCHES, YOU KNOW, ATTRACT, I THINK I HEARD DRUG DEALERS
[03:00:01]
AND PEDOPHILES RESPECTFULLY.I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD THINK OF BASIC PEDESTRIAN AMENITIES AS THAT WAY.
AND I, I JUST, I THINK THEY ADD SO MUCH TO THE AREA IN TERMS OF WALKABILITY AND, YOU KNOW, I UNDERSTAND THERE MAY BE OCCASIONAL PEOPLE THAT COME AROUND TO SCHOOL THAT DO BAD THINGS, BUT THE THOUGHT OF ADDING PEDESTRIAN AMENITIES, HAVING SOME SORT OF CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP TO PROBLEMS OCCURRING AT THE SCHOOL IS JUST NOT SOMETHING THAT I HAVE SEEN IN MY EXPERIENCE.
I THINK WE'RE ALL VERY CONCERNED ABOUT SAFETY AND, YOU KNOW, MAKING SURE THAT OUR KIDS ARE, ARE IN A SAFE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT.
BUT I, I JUST DON'T SEE THE CONNECTION BETWEEN BENCHES AND ANY MAJOR PROBLEMS IN, IN, IN MY EXPERIENCE.
SO I THINK THE FOUR IS A GREAT, YOU KNOW, COMPROMISE.
IF WE WANNA AMEND THE MOTION TO DO THAT, YOU KNOW, LET'S FOR SURE DO THAT.
UM, BUT I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE, YOU KNOW, I, I DO WANT TO ADDRESS HOW WE SORT OF TALK ABOUT PEDESTRIAN AMENITIES BECAUSE I THINK THEY ARE IMPORTANT BOTH IN TERMS OF THE BENEFIT AND LIKE THE, THE LACK OF RISK THAT I SEE FROM ADDING THEM.
UM, MR. CHAIR, CAN I MAKE A COMMENT? YEAH, SURE.
UM, YEAH, THIS IS THE SECOND TIME THIS MONTH.
WE'VE, UM, WE'VE HEARD ATTEMPTS TO, UM, VILIFY ADOLESCENTS AS WE TIE IT TO SOME KIND OF ZONING REQUIREMENT, RIGHT? WITH LIGHTING OR WITH BENCHES OR, UM, SO I WOULD SAY LIKE, I FEEL SOME OF MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS DO THAT.
THIS CONVERSATION HAS GOTTEN A LITTLE CONVOLUTED AROUND, YOU KNOW, UM, THE IDEAS BEHIND BENCHES OR LIGHTS OR, UM, WHEN, WHEN IT'S REALLY LIKE A MATTER OF LIKE BUILDING A RELATIONSHIP WITH THE SCHOOL IN YOUR COMMUNITY AND, UM, YOU KNOW, MAKING ATTEMPTS TO BRIDGE SOME OF THAT.
BUT LIKE, YOU KNOW, THE VILIFYING OF LIKE ADOLESCENCE IS SEEMS TO BE AN ONGOING THING I'VE SEEN A COUPLE TIMES ALREADY.
SO I, I DON'T KNOW THAT THE ANSWER HERE IS NECESSARILY PUTTING A NUMBER TO THE NUMBER OF BENCHES OR A NUMBER, ALTHOUGH, YOU KNOW, IF IT GIVES PEOPLE PEACE OF MIND, I SUPPOSE.
UM, MR. CARLEY, IF THIS COMPROMISE PASSES THIS BODY, ARE YOU GONNA ASK COUNSEL TO STRIP IT UP? NO.
SO I THINK WE STILL HAVE THE ORIGINAL MOTION ON THE TABLE.
COMMISSIONER KAUFMAN, WERE YOU INTENDING TO MODIFY THAT OR IS, WAS SOMEONE ELSE GONNA OFFER UP AN AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION? WELL, I'D BE GLAD TO, UH, MAKE THE AMENDMENT OR, UH, ACCEPT THE AMENDMENTS, BUT DID WE DECIDE ON THREE OR FOUR? I, I DON'T KNOW.
DID WE DO OKAY? I HEARD MR. CROWLEY SAY HE WOULD BE FINE WITH FOUR, SO, OKAY.
IT'S, IT'S UP TO YOU AS THE MAKE OF THE MOTION IF YOU WANNA MODIFY YOUR MOTION.
I, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE AN AMENDMENT THAT, UH, THE SCHOOL DISTRICT, UH, CONSIDER AND IMPLEMENT, UH, AT LEAST FOUR OF THE PEDESTRIAN AMENITIES SOMEWHERE ON THE SITE.
AND IS THAT FOUR OF EACH OF THE THREE CATEGORIES OR IS THAT JUST FOUR TOTAL? EACH OF THE THREE CATEGORIES.
OH YEAH, FOR TRASH CAN BIKE RACKS AND BENCHES.
WE, I THINK THAT THAT MIGHT BE FOR THE BIKE RACKS MIGHT BE EXTREME, THE BIKE RACKS MAYBE SHOULD BE AT THE FRONT OF THE SCHOOL, BUT AROUND, WELL, LET'S, LET'S JUST LET, MAKE SURE WE GET THAT MOTION OUT CLEARLY, THEN WE CAN DO, SO IT'S, IT'S FOUR.
COMMISSIONER COX, YOU SECONDED THE MOTION.
ARE YOU GOOD WITH THAT? OKAY, THANK YOU.
OKAY, FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION.
I THINK THAT THE BIKE RACK, I KNOW WE WERE GOING WILSON, BUT THE HAVING YOU, YOU DON'T NEED, I DON'T THINK WE NEED BIKE WRECKS AROUND THE WHOLE SCHOOL, BUT THE, THE TRASH CANS AND THE, YOU KNOW WHAT, LEMME JUST LEAVE IT, BUT THAT'S IT.
IT, I MEAN, BECAUSE I DON'T, I MEAN, WHAT WOULD THEY BE FOR THE BIKES TO BE AT THE BACK ON THE SCHOOL SIDE THAT WE'RE IN THE SCHOOL, LIKE ON THE FIELD SIDE? WHAT DOES THAT YEAH, AND, AND I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE WITH MS. GARZA, AND DOES THAT GIVE YOU ENOUGH CLARITY TO PUT SOMETHING UP TO COUNCIL WITH IN THE PD MS. MORRISON? OKAY, SO WE'RE GOOD THERE.
C CAN I GET A CLARIFICATION BECAUSE DID YOU SAY ANYWHERE ON THE SITE? BECAUSE I, I, I THOUGHT THE INTENTION WAS AT LEAST AS FAR AS, UH, BENCHES WAS TO PUT THEM AT STREET EDGES.
WELL, I WAS TRYING, I WAS TRYING TO GIVE THE SCHOOL DISTRICT THE FLEXIBILITY TO FIGURE IT OUT BECAUSE THEY PROBABLY ALREADY GOT BIKE RACKS AT SOME PLACES, SO MAYBE THEY WANNA PUT IT A LITTLE BIT FURTHER ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.
I DON'T WANT TO SPECIFY WHETHER IT'S ON BRENT FIELD OR ON WHATEVER
[03:05:01]
STREET.I THINK THAT, AGAIN, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THE SCHOOL AND THE SCHOOL DISTRICT GOT TO FIGURE OUT.
NO, I, I COMPLETELY AGREE ABOUT BIKE RACKS.
THEY CAN BE INTERNAL WHEREVER, BUT I, I THOUGHT, UM, THE GIST OF MOST OF OUR DISCUSSION HAS BEEN ABOUT THE PLACEMENT OF BENCHES AND TRASH CANS, YOU KNOW, AT THE STREET EDGE, RIGHT? YES.
AND SO THE WAY YOUR MOTION READS, THEY WOULDN'T HAVE TO PUT ANY BENCHES OR TRASH CANS ALONG THE STREET EDGE.
THEY COULD BE INTERIOR TO THE SIDE.
WAS THAT YOUR INTENTION? NO, I THOUGHT THAT WAS MY INTENTION.
BUT COULD I, COULD I READ WHAT OUR TYPICAL LANGUAGE IS SO Y'ALL KNOW WHAT THE, IS POSTED IN THE DOCKET AND JUST REFRESH EVERYONE'S MEMORY ON THAT PARTICULAR SUBJECT.
SO PEDESTRIAN AMENITIES IS B ONE PRIOR TO THE ISSUED CERTIFICATE OCCUPANCY, THEY NEED TO PUT ONE PER 200.
AND THEN IT LISTS OF, OF EACH OF THESE GROUPINGS OF A BENCH, TRASHCAN, BI BENCH, TRASH CAN, AND BIKE RIDE THAT.
SO THEY NEED TO DO ONE OF THOSE GROUPS EVERY, YOU KNOW, CERTAIN AMOUNT.
THEN TWO IS PEDESTRIAN AMENITIES MUST BE ACCESSIBLE FROM THE PUBLIC SIDEWALK AND MAY NOT BE LOCATED IN A MANNER THAT REDUCES THE UNOBSTRUCTED SIDEWALK LANE.
SO THEY NEED TO BE ACCESSIBLE FROM THE SIDEWALK.
IT'S NOT A HUNDRED PERCENT OBVIOUS THAT IT NEEDS TO BE ON, YOU KNOW, RIGHT AT THE SIDEWALK, BUT THERE'S INTENT IN THE CODE THERE, UM, THAT SAYS ACCESSIBLE TO THE SIDEWALK BUT DOESN'T BLOCK IT.
UM, AND THEN THEY, THE THIRD POINT IS JUST TALKING ABOUT INSPECTION.
SO THAT'S IN THERE, UH, WHAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW TO COVER US FOR LOCATION IF IT WANTED TO BE MODIFIED, CERTAINLY MAY.
SO YOU WANT ME TO SAY, EXCUSE ME, BUT THAT LANGUAGE HAS BEEN STRIPPED FROM THE PD IN THE, IN WHAT WE WERE SENT.
ALL OF THAT LANGUAGE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS NOT REMOVING IT.
SO I'M JUST SAYING, I'M JUST SAYING HERE'S WHERE WE WERE IN THE DOCKET.
WE SAID THIS MANY, UH, OF THESE AMENITY GROUPS.
AND TWO IS HERE'S WHERE AMENITIES MUST GO.
THAT'S OUR STANDARD LANGUAGE WE USE FOR EVERY SCHOOL.
UM, SO I'M JUST OFFERING, IF YOU CHANGED THE NUMBER IN 0.1 AND LEFT TWO, IT WOULD BE STANDARD WITH EVERYTHING ELSE.
BUT IT GIVES THEM THE SPACE TO, IT DOESN'T SAY THEY HAVE TO PUT THEM ALL ON THIS ONE CORNER OR ALL ON THIS OTHER CORNER.
RIGHT? THEY CAN PUT THEM AROUND THE SCHOOL, BUT ACCESSIBLE TO THE SIDEWALK.
UH, DO WE HAVE CLARITY ON WHERE THE MOTION IS NOW? DO WE NEED TO TAKE, CAN WE TAKE 10 MINUTES TO TAKE A 10 MINUTE BREAK TO GET THIS HAMMERED OUT? IT'S 1:54 PM AND WE WILL BE BACK IN 10 MINUTES.
IT IS 2:10 PM AND THE DALLAS CITY PLANNING COMMISSION IS BACK ON THE RECORD.
UH, MR. PEPE, I THINK THAT YOU HAD SOME LANGUAGE THAT YOU WANTED TO READ IN TO SORT OF CLEAR, CONFIRM THE, THE INTENT OF THE MOTION TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYONE IS ON THE SAME PAGE.
SO MY, MY, UH, RECOMMENDATION TO KEEP IT SIMPLE AND FULFILL THE INTENT OF THE COMPROMISE I'M HEARING AND DISCUSSED WOULD BE TO LEAVE, UH, SECTION 500.11 0.2, WHICH IS THE DESIGN STANDARDS FOR PUBLIC SCHOOL, UM, AS POSTED IN THE DOCKET, BUT, UH, EXCUSE ME, EXCUSE ME, MOD THE SECTION B OF THAT, WHICH IS THE PEDESTRIAN AMENITIES.
MODIFY THAT TO SAY PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY THAT'S IN THE BASE TEXT, A MINIMUM OF FOUR OF THE FOLLOWING GROUPINGS MUST BE PROVIDED.
AND THEN THE, THE GROUPINGS ARE BENCH, TRASHCAN AND BIKERACK.
AND THEN LEAVE IN PLACE 0.2 AND LEAVE IN PLACE 0.3.
COMMISSIONER, I HAVE A QUESTION BECAUSE THEY DID SUBMIT, UM, AN AMENDED VERSION THAT CHANGED A, I I THINK STAFF WAS ON BOARD WITH A OKAY, SO KEEP A AS IS NOT AS A TAKE THE MODIFIED A.
MODIFY B AS I, UM, RECOMMENDED IS COMMISSIONER KAUFMAN.
ARE YOU OKAY WITH THE LANGUAGES READ BY MR. PEPE? I THINK THAT'S GREAT.
I THINK I DON'T THINK MINE'S ON.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? MR. CARPENTER? I, I'M SORRY, BUT YES.
UH, MR. CROWLEY, WOULD YOU LIKE TO COMMENT ON RETAINING THE, UH, ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF A, BECAUSE YOU WENT THROUGH A FAIRLY NO, I, I, AND I THINK HE WAS OKAY WITH THE, THE MODIFIED A THAT WE DID ABOUT THE SIDEWALKS ON THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
I THINK THE STAFF WAS OKAY WITH THAT.
WELL, MY UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT HE JUST SAID IS HE WANTED A KEPT THE WAY IT WAS, WELL, HE TOOK IT BACK
THE FIRST TIME I SPOKE, I SAID MODIFY THE WHOLE SECTION, BUT YES, STAFF IS, IS OKAY WITH THE MODIFICATIONS TO A AS SUBMITTED.
UM, AND THEN THE MODIFICATION YOU READ FOR B, IT KEEPS B EXACTLY THE SAME, EXCEPT, UM, IT CHANGES EVERYTHING AFTER OCCUPANCY
[03:10:01]
TO FOUR GROUPS.ANYTHING ELSE? I'LL SAY, AFTER DOING THIS FOR SIX PLUS YEARS, IT SOMETIMES SURPRISES ME WHICH ONES GET, GET HARRY IN THE MIDDLE OF A HEARING.
BUT I'M GLAD THAT WE REACHED A GOOD RESULT HERE.
[11. 26-672A An application for a new Planned Development District for a mix of residential, commercial, and light industrial uses on property zoned IM Industrial Manufacturing District and CS Commercial Service District, on the north corner of N. Washington Avenue and Main St., and on the southeast line of Main Street northeast of S. Peak Street. Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions. Applicant: Main Washington Partners, LLC / Thomas Tucker Representative: Baldwin Assocaites, LLC / Robert Baldwin Planner: Justin Lee Council District: 2 Z-25-000132]
ITEM NUMBER 11.AND I HAVE A CONFLICT, SO I'LL BE STEPPING OUT.
I WILL NOW PRESIDE OVER KZ 2 500 0 0 1 3 2.
UM, IT'S AN, UH, UH, SORRY, STAFF YOU WILL PRESENT, UH, CASE 11, AN APPLICATION FOR A NEW PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FOR A MIX OF RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL, AND LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USES ON PROPERTY ZONE.
IM INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURING DISTRICT AND CS COMMERCIAL SERVICE DISTRICT ON THE NORTH CORNER OF NORTH WASHINGTON AVENUE AND MAIN STREET, AND ON THE SOUTHEAST LINE OF MAIN STREET, NORTHEAST OF SOUTH PEAK STREET.
RECOMMENDATIONS, APPROVAL, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS.
AND IS THERE ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK UP? ROB? GOOD AFTERNOON.
UH, ROB BALDIN 3 9 0 4 ELM STREET, SUITE B IN DALLAS.
I, I'VE MET WITH COMMISSIONER HAMPTON.
THIS WILL BE HELD, UH, TO GIVE US TIME TO WORK OUT SOME FINE TUNING OF THE LANGUAGE AND TO WORK WITH OUR, OUR NEIGHBORS THAT I JUST FOUND OUT HAD SOME CONCERNS WITH US.
AND SO, UH, I LOOK FORWARD TO COMING BACK, SEEING YOU NEXT MONTH WITH THIS ONE.
AND I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.
IS THERE, UM, ANY PUBLIC TESTIMONY? ANYONE HERE WISHING TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OR AN OPPOSITION? THANK YOU.
COME ON DOWN AND IF YOU HAVEN'T REGISTERED ALREADY, UM, PLEASE FILL OUT THE YELLOW FORM FOR US.
I'M CATHERINE KOFA, UH, 39 21 ELM STREET.
UM, I'M HERE RIGHT NOW IN OPPOSITION OF IT.
THERE'S SOME VAGUENESS AND SOME DETAILS THAT I'D LIKE FURTHER CLARIFIED OR SPELLED OUT A LITTLE BIT BETTER IN THE REQUEST.
UM, I ALSO HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THE SIZE OF THE SIGN THAT THEY'RE REQUESTING TO PUT ON TOP OF A ROOF, UM, IN THE PARAMETERS OF SIGN USAGE AND DISTRICTS AND THINGS THAT I'VE SEEN.
I'VE REVIEWED OTHER, I HAVEN'T GONE THROUGH ALL OF THEM, BUT I'VE REVIEWED SEVERAL.
I HAVEN'T SEEN REQUESTS APPROVED FOR SIZES THIS LARGE.
UM, SO I JUST WANNA HAVE A DISCUSSION AND MAYBE FURTHER DETAIL OR PLANNING AMONGST EVERYBODY TO MAKE SURE WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE OF WHAT THIS OPENS THE NEIGHBORHOOD UP TO.
ANYONE ELSE HERE TO SPEAK? PERFECT.
COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, YOU HAVE A, UM, YOU WANT TO MAKE A MOTION WITH DISCUSSION? I WILL.
UH, MR. VICE CHAIR IN THE MATTER OF Z DASH TWO FIVE DASH 0 0 0 1 3 2.
I MOVE TO LEAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN, HOLD THE MATTER UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL MARCH 26TH IN DIRECT STAFF TO RE NOTIFY TO EXPAND PD 10 0 0 2, AND FOR A NEW, WITH A NEW SUBDISTRICT AND FOR A NEW PD, UM, FOR THE HEARING.
I THINK I CAPTURE WHAT MR. PEPE ASKED ME TO INCLUDE.
UM, FOR THE MOTION AND COMMISSIONER HOUSEWIFE FOR THE SECOND, AND I'LL JUST, UH, IT HAS, I'M SORRY.
IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED TO HOLD THE CASE UNTIL MARCH 5TH, YOU SAID? NO, 26TH, MARCH 26TH.
UM, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.
OH, ANY COMMENTS? YES, I JUST WILL MAKE VERY, VERY BRIEF COMMENTS.
UM, I DID HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK VERY BRIEFLY, UH, MS. KOVAL.
UM, AND FOR THOSE, UM, COMMUNITY MEMBERS FOR BEING HERE, WE WILL BE IN TOUCH IN CONTINUING OUR OUTREACH.
UM, I HAVE BEEN IN TOUCH WITH THE APPLICANT TEAM OVER MANY, MANY YEARS, UM, WHICH IS PARTLY WHY THIS IS BEFORE US TODAY, BUT WE DO HAVE SOME DETAILS THAT NEED TO GET REFINED AND LOOK FORWARD TO BEING BACK ON THE 26TH.
ANY OPPOSED? THE AYES HAVE IT.
CHAIR, YOU CAN ENTER THE CHAMBERS.
[12. 26-673A An application for a new Specific Use Permit for a private recreation center, club, or area on property zoned Planned Development District 206, on the northeast corner of Meadow Road and Stone Canyon Road. Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions and site plan. Applicant: Meadowstone Place Titlehold, LLC / Timothy Holic Representative: Baldwin Associates, LLC / Robert Baldwin Planner: Justin Lee Council District: 11 Z-25-000176]
AN APPLICATION FOR A NEW SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR A PRIVATE RECREATION CENTER, CLUB, OR AREA ON PROPERTY ZONE PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 2 0 6 ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF MEADOW MEADOW ROAD AND[03:15:01]
STONE CANYON ROAD.RECOMMENDATIONS, APPROVAL SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS AND SITE PLAN.
UM, THIS REQUEST IS TO GET A, IT'S A RETIREMENT COMMUNITY AND THEY WANT TO BE ABLE TO SERVE ALCOHOL AT, IN THE DINING ROOM, A DINNER.
AND SO THE PURPOSE OF THIS IS TO, TO ALLOW FOR THAT TO HAPPEN.
I'VE SPOKE WITH A COMMISSIONER AND, UH, WE AGREED THAT A, A TIME LIMIT IS APPROPRIATE FOR THIS SUP AND IT HAS TO DO WITH ALCOHOL AND I'M HAPPY WITH IT OR WHATEVER HE DECIDES TO, TO ESTABLISH.
AND I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO'D LIKE TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF CASE NUMBER 12? ANYONE IN OPPOSITION GO TO COMMISSIONER COX FOR A MOTION? I DO.
IN THE MATTER OF CASE Z DASH 25 0 0 0 1 7.
COMMISSIONER COX, CAN YOU MAKE SURE YOU'RE SPEAKING INTO THE MICROPHONE? CAN YOU SPEAK INTO THE MICROPHONE SO EVERYONE ONLINE CAN HEAR YOU? OH, IT IS, WE JUST MOVE THE MICROPHONE CLOSER.
CAN YOU HEAR ME? CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? IN THE MATTER OF CASE Z DASH 25 0 0 1 76, I MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE WITH MODIFICATION OF PROPOSED, UH, SPECIFIC USE PERMIT CONDITION NUMBER THREE TO A TIME LIMIT OF FIVE YEARS.
JUST FIVE YEARS WITHOUT AUTO RENEWAL, CORRECT? CORRECT.
COMMISSIONER SECOND COX COMMISSIONER, UH, KAUFMAN FOR YOUR SECOND.
ANY DISCUSSION? IS THAT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS AND SITE PLAN? IS THAT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS AND SITE PLAN? YES, IT IS.
THE MOTION CARRIES CASE NUMBER 13.
[13. 26-674A An application for a Specific Use Permit for an open enrollment charter school on property zoned IR Industrial Research District, on the northeast line of Harry Hines Boulevard and southeast of Wadley Lane. Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to site plan, traffic management plan, and conditions. Applicant: Winfree Academy / Doyle Elkin Planner: Michael V. Pepe Council District: 2 Z-25-000151]
CASE NUMBER 13 IS Z 2 5 0 0 0 1 51.IT'S AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR RENT, OPEN ENROLLMENT, CHARTER SCHOOL ON PROPERTY ZONED IR INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH DISTRICT ON THE NORTHEAST LINE OF HARRY HEES BOULEVARD AND SOUTHEAST WADLEY LANE.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO A SITE PLAN, TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN AND CONDITIONS.
IS THERE ANYONE HERE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER 13? NO.
COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? I DO.
AND I WILL JUST ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE APPLICANTS ARE HERE, BUT THEY'RE HERE FOR QUESTIONS.
UM, IN THE MATTER OF Z DASH 25 DASH 0 0 0 1 51, I MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
UM, APPROVE THE REQUEST SUBJECT TO A SITE PLAN, TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN AND CONDITIONS WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGES, UM, THE PERIOD, UH, 10 YEAR WITHOUT AUTOMATIC RENEWALS IN ITEM NINE, WITHIN THE SUP CONDITIONS, UNDER SIDEWALKS AND BUFFERS TO STRIKE THE WORDS IN THE FIRST SENTENCE IN A BUILDING CONSTRUCTED AFTER JANUARY 1ST, 2026.
AND TO ADD THE, UH, FOLLOWING CONDITION THAT THE SIDEWALK CONNECTION TO THE PRIMARY BUILDING ENTRY BE PROVIDED.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HAMPTON FOR YOUR MOTION.
COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT FOR YOUR SECOND.
ANY DISCUSSION? UM, JUST BRIEFLY, WE WERE ABLE TO HOLD A COMMUNITY MEETING.
UM, THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSION, UM, ON THE SIDE.
IT IS AN EXISTING BUILDING, UM, THAT THIS, UH, NEW CHARTER SCHOOL IS RELOCATING TO.
THEY HAVE AN EXISTING CAMPUS IN IRVING, UM, THAT IS SERVING THIS GENERAL AREA.
I LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING HOW IT FITS WITHIN THE OVERALL COMMUNITY, BUT I DO THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE THEY'RE LEASING THE BUILDING.
UM, AND SO THE PERIOD SUGGESTED IS THE TYPICAL TERM THAT THEY WOULD ANTICIPATE AND IT ALSO ALLOWS FOR THE COMMUNITY TO BE ENGAGED.
THERE IS AN ADJACENT SCHOOL AND THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT HOW THE TWO ARE GONNA OVERLAP, UM, JUST IN TERMS OF THEIR TRAFFIC AND TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT, WHICH WERE MY QUESTIONS TO MR. NAVARRO EARLIER DURING THE BRIEFING.
BUT I LOOK FORWARD TO CONTINUING TO BE ENGAGED WITH WINFREY ACADEMY AND WITH THE LARGER COMMUNITY AND I HOPE YOU ALL WILL SUPPORT THE REQUEST.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HAMPTON.
ANY DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
THE MOTION CARRIES ITEM NUMBER
[14. 26-675A 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 U/A From: January 15, 2026. Planner: Oscar Aguilera Council District: 5 Z-25-000172]
14, MR. CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE PL UH, COMMISSION.ITEM NUMBER 14 IS FOR, UH, APPLICATION Z 2 5 0 0 0 1 72 IS FOR AN APPLICATION FOR A NEW SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR THE SALE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE IN CONJUNCTION WITH A GENERAL MERCHANDISE FOOD STORE, LESS THAN, UH, 3000 SQUARE FEET ON A PROPERTY ZONE ZR COMMUNITY RETAIL
[03:20:01]
DISTRICT WITH D ONE LIQUOR CONTROL OVERLAY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH CORNER OF, UH, LONGVIEW AVENUE AND FORNEY ROAD.STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO SITE PLANNING CONDITIONS.
IS THERE ANYONE WHO'S HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEM
UM, YEAH, SO THIS IS MY FAMILY'S PROPERTY.
CAN YOU JUST START WITH YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS? OH YEAH, SIR.
THE ADDRESS IS 44 41 LAWN VIEW AVENUE, DALLAS, TEXAS 7 5 2 2 7.
UM, I TOOK OVER THIS BUSINESS FROM MY PARENTS, UM, BUT I PLAN TO BE HERE FOR A VERY LONG TIME, SO, UM, YEAH, THIS IS PROBABLY MY THIRD TIME DOING A RENEWAL.
I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A PERMANENT, BUT, UM, I'M DOING THE BEST AS POSSIBLE TO KEEP IT GOING HOW IT IS.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER 14? OKAY.
COMMISSIONER SERRA, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? YES.
IN THE MATTER OF KC 2 5 0 0 0 1 72, I MOVE TO CLOSE THE CO THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE FOR A PERIOD OF FIVE YEARS WITH NO ELIGIBILITY FOR AUTOMATIC RENEWAL SUBJECT TO AMENDED SITE PLAN AND CONDITIONS.
COMMISSIONER SERRANO FOR YOUR MOTION.
COMMISSIONER SIMS FOR YOUR SECOND.
ANY DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
[15. 26-676A An application for an amendment to Specific Use Permit 2569 for a bar, lounge, or tavern and inside commercial amusement limited to a live music venue on property zoned Tract A within Planned Development 269, the Deep Ellum/Near East Side District, on the southwestern corner of Main Street and Malcolm X Boulevard. Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions. Applicant: Rob Baldwin / Baldwin Associates Representative: Michael Ziemer / Puzzle Concepts, LLC U/A From: February 5, 2026. Planner: Oscar Aguilera Council District: 2 Z-25-000183]
YOU FOR ITEM 15.ITEM, UH, 15 IS FOR APPLICATION Z 25 0 0 0 1.
83 IS AN APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT, 25 69 FOR A BAR, LOUNGE OR TAVERN.
AND INSIDE COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT LIMITED TO A LIVE MUSIC VENUE ON A PROPERTY SOUNDTRACK, A WITH THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 2 69, THE DEEP ELLUM NEAR EAST SIDE DISTRICT, UH, LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWESTERN CORNER OF, UH, MAIN STREET AND MALCOLM X BOULEVARD STAFF, UH, RECOMMENDS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON ITEM 15? SEEING NONE, COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? I DO.
THANK YOU MR. CHAIR, IN THE MATTER OF Z DASH 25 DASH 0 0 180 3, I MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE THE REQUEST, UH, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS FOR A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS WITHOUT AUTOMATIC RENEWAL.
COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, COMMISSIONER HOUSE WRIGHT FOR YOUR SECOND.
ANY DISCUSSION? NO DISCUSSION.
[16. 26-677A An application for an amendment to Specific Use Permit 2173 for a winery and tasting room on property zoned Subdistrict E-F-1 Center Core Area within Planned Development District 281, the Lakewood Special Purpose District, on the southeast corner of Kidwell Street and Prospect Avenue. Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to staff’s recommended conditions. Applicant: Robert Baldwin Planner: Michael V. Pepe Council District: 14 Z-25-000225]
16, ITEM 16 IS Z 2 500 0 1, UH, 2 25.IT'S AN APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO SPECIFIC USE PERMIT 2 1 7 3 FOR A WINERY AND TASTING ROOM ON PROPERTY ZONE SUB-DISTRICT EF ONE CENTER CORE AREA WITHIN PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 2 81, THE LAKEWOOD SPECIAL PERMIT DISTRICT ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF KIDWELL STREET AND PROSPECT AVENUE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO STAFF'S RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS.
MR. BALDWIN? GOOD AFTERNOON, ROB BALDWIN.
UH, THIS IS FOR TIME 10 SELLERS IF YOU'VE EVER SEEN BEEN THERE IN LAKEWOOD.
IT'S A, A REALLY NEAT LITTLE WINERY.
UM, IT'S THE THIRD TIME THEY'VE RENEWED IT.
UH, WE'RE ASKING FOR A 10 YEAR RENEWAL FOR SUP, UM, NO AUTOMATIC RENEWALS.
UH, WE THINK IT'S IMPORTANT BEING OUR PROXIMITY TO RESIDENTIALS RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET THAT, UM, THE SUP HAVE A TIME LIMIT AND I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.
ANYONE ELSE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON ITEM 16? COMMISSIONER KINGSTON, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? I DO IN THE MATTER OF Z 2 5 0 0 0 2 2 5 I CLO I RECOMMEND THAT WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND, UH, RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGE.
PARAGRAPH THREE WOULD HAVE A TIME LIMIT OF 10 YEARS.
OKAY, SO THAT'S SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS WITH THE CHANGE TO PARAGRAPH THREE? YES.
SO BUT NOT FOLLOWING STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.
UM, THANK YOU COMMISSIONER KINGSTON FOR YOUR MOTION.
VICE CHAIR HERBERT FOR YOUR SECOND.
[03:25:01]
UM, FIRST OF ALL, TIMES 10 IS A FANTASTIC OPERATOR.UM, THEY DO A LOT FOR OUR COMMUNITY.
I ALSO WANNA MAKE THE POINT THAT I TOOK THIS OFF THE CONSENT AGENDA FOR THE SOLE REASON THAT STAFF INSISTED ON HAVING A RECOMMENDATION THAT IT BE A PERMANENT SUP THE APPLICANT DIDN'T ASK FOR THAT.
STAFF KNOWS, WELL, THAT I'M NOT GONNA SUPPORT IT.
STAFF IS NOT A POLICYMAKING BODY YET.
WE KEEP HAVING THIS DISCUSSION ALMOST AT EVERY ONE OF THESE HEARINGS WHERE STAFF REFUSES TO LISTEN TO THIS BODY AND, AND FRANKLY, COUNSEL BECAUSE THEY KEEP VOTING FOR WHAT WE SEND THEM ON PERMANENT SUVS.
SO, I, I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY STAFF INSISTS ON WASTING OUR TIME.
THIS COULD HAVE BEEN ON THE CONSENT AGENDA AND IT'S NOT THE ONLY ONE.
THERE'S AT LEAST ONE OTHER CASE THAT GOT PULLED FROM CONSENT TODAY ON THE SOLE ISSUE OF WHETHER IT WAS GONNA BE A PERMANENT SUP WHERE THE APPLICANT AND THE COMMISSIONER SAID THAT THEY DIDN'T WANT A PERMANENT SUP AND STAFF INSISTED ON HAVING THIS FIGHT AND WE HAVE IT EVERY WEEK.
AND I REALLY WISH THAT STAFF WOULD STOP DOING THAT.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? I I, I DO WANT TO BRIEFLY WEIGH IN ON THIS.
I, I HEAR COMMISSIONER KINGSTON'S CONCERNS.
I AGREE WITH THEM FROM AN EFFICIENCIES PERSPECTIVE, BUT I UNDERSTAND THAT HA STAFF HAS A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION WITH A LOT OF MEMBERS ON THIS BODY ABOUT WHETHER SUP SHOULD HAVE TIME LIMITS OR NOT.
AND I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS, YOU KNOW, OUR ARGUMENTS ON, ON BOTH SIDES OF THE ISSUE.
BUT I DO SEE STAFF'S ROLE IS TO GIVE THEIR OPINION AS LAND USE PROFESSIONALS WITH TRAINING ON WHAT WE SHOULD OR SHOULDN'T BE DOING.
AND IF STAFF FEELS THAT THAT PERMANENT SUVS ARE APPROPRIATE.
I I, I MAY NOT AGREE WITH IT PARTICULARLY IN EVERY CASE.
UM, BUT I, I DON'T WANT STAFF TO CHANGE ITS OPINIONS JUST BECAUSE WE AS A BODY OR AS INDIVIDUAL COMMISSIONERS VIEW THINGS DIFFERENTLY.
I THINK HAVING A, A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION IS SOMETIMES HEALTHY AND WE CAN DISPOSE OF THESE, YOU KNOW, ITEMS FAIRLY QUICKLY, WHICH IS THE QUICK MOTION.
UM, I DON'T THINK WE NECESSARILY NEED TO GET UP, YOU KNOW, EVERY TIME IN ONE OF THESE, UM, THINGS, YOU KNOW, WHEN ONE OF THESE SUVS COMES UP AND STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION FOR PERMANENT DISAGREE JUST, YOU KNOW, IS DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WE WANT AND WE CAN PROCEED THROUGH IT RATHER QUICKLY.
AND, YOU KNOW, WHETHER THAT CHANGES IN THE FUTURE AND WHAT WE DO WITH THE, THE CODE REFORM I THINK IS, YOU KNOW, THERE'S GOING TO BE AMPLE ROOM FOR DISCUSSION THERE, BUT I, I JUST WANNA SAY, I, I HEAR BOTH SIDES OF THIS ISSUE.
UM, UH, YOU KNOW, STAFF, PLEASE DON'T FEEL LIKE YOU IN, IN MY VIEW, PLEASE DON'T FEEL LIKE YOU NEED TO CHANGE YOUR OPINION JUST BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO, YOU KNOW, MODIFY THEM, MAKE A DIFFERENT RECOMMENDATION HERE AT THE HORSESHOE.
COMMISSIONER CARPENTER? NO, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO ADD THAT NO, WHILE STAFF IS CERTAINLY WITHIN THE RIGHTS TO MAKE WHATEVER RECOMMENDATION THEY, UH, YOU KNOW, FEEL IS, UH, CORRECT.
I THINK WE HAVE CLEARLY ESTABLISHED A PATTERN WHERE THESE CASES ARE GONNA COME OFF CONSENT.
IT MIGHT BE THE MOST EFFICIENT THING TO DO TO PUT THESE AS INDIVIDUAL CASES AND NOT EVEN PUT THEM ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.
THAT DOESN'T CHANGE THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION, IT JUST CHANGES THE PLACEMENT ON THE DOCKET.
I THINK IT, YOU KNOW, I, I'LL I'LL LEAVE.
WE CAN HAVE DISCUSSIONS ABOUT WHETHER THEY COME OFF AND, AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
UM, I THINK THERE PROBABLY ARE SOME USES WHERE A PERMANENT SUP DOES MAKE SENSE, SO I JUST WANNA BE SENSITIVE TO THAT.
YOU KNOW, WE'VE SEEN PATTERNS WITH ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE ESTABLISHMENTS AND THINGS LIKE THAT, BUT THEY'RE ALSO ONES THAT I THINK A PERMANENT SUP IS PRETTY INNOCUOUS, SO WE'LL SEE WHERE IT LANDS.
I THINK THERE'LL BE ONGOING DISCUSSION ABOUT IT, BUT YEAH.
UM, I DO THINK IT MAY BE BENEFICIAL TO HAVE A MAYBE MORE ROBUST DISCUSSION OF IT OUTSIDE OF A SPECIFIC CASE.
UM, BUT DO WANNA ACKNOWLEDGE THAT WE DO REGULARLY RECEIVE STAFF AND APPLICANT REQUESTS.
AND I DON'T THINK THAT IT IS UNUSUAL THAT THOSE COULD BE BROKEN OUT, THAT IF THE APPLICANT IN FACT IS NOT REQUESTING A PERMANENT SUP, THAT THAT BE REFLECTED IN THE INFORMATION, UM, THAT IS INCLUDED IN OUR DOCKET.
AND SO JUST WANTED TO ACKNOWLEDGE, I CERTAINLY RESPECT AND UNDERSTAND THAT STAFF HAS A ROLE, UM, THAT IS DIFFERENT FROM THE APPLICANT THAT IS DIFFERENT FROM THIS COMMISSION AND THEY, UM, SHOULD ABSOLUTELY SHARE THEIR PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT THAT IS THEIR ROLE IN ALL OF OUR PROCEEDINGS.
SO JUST ON HOW WE, UM, CONSIDER THESE MAY BE HELPFUL OVERALL TO THE BODY AS WE MOVE FORWARD.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? COMMISSIONER KINGSTON? SECOND ROUND.
[03:30:04]
WHILE THERE MAY BE CERTAIN TYPES OF CASES THAT ARE APPROPRIATE FOR A PERMANENT SUP, THE POINT OF AN SUP IS COMPLETELY MISSED IF THEY'RE ALL PERMANENT OR IF THEY'RE ALL STUCK ON AUTO RENEWAL.AND PARTICULARLY WITH CERTAIN TYPES OF CASES LIKE ONES INVOLVING ALCOHOL OR ALCOHOL SERVING ESTABLISHMENTS THAT ARE WITHIN NEIGHBORHOODS, I THINK THAT THE BODY HAS CLEARLY REJECTED THOSE BEING PERMANENT AND I DON'T KNOW WHY WE HAVE TO HAVE THOSE PARTICULAR CONVERSATIONS OVER AND OVER AGAIN.
THERE'S CLEARLY A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN, UM, HAVING DISCUSSIONS ABOUT WHETHER MAYBE AN SUP, UM, IS PERMANENT OR SHOULD HAVE A CERTAIN DURATION, UM, FOR SOMETHING, SAY LIKE A SCHOOL.
UM, BUT WE, WE ARE HAVING THE SAME DISCUSSIONS OVER AND OVER AGAIN AND, YOU KNOW, STAFF'S OPINION ON THAT'S BEEN HEARD, WE'VE MADE OUR OPINION ON IT, KNOWN IT'S INEFFICIENT AND, AND FRANKLY KIND OF INSULTING TO JUST KEEP HAVING THE SAME FIGHT OVER AND OVER AGAIN.
AND, AND THAT'S THE POINT I'M TRYING TO MAKE.
IT'S NOT THAT I DON'T THINK STAFF HAS A RIGHT TO MAKE A A POINT, BUT THEY'VE MADE IT AND, AND THEN WE'VE RESPONDED TO IT HOW WE'RE GONNA RESPOND.
ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER WHEELER? UM, MR. PEPE ISN'T, I, I DON'T, I WANNA SAY THAT ONE OF YOU ALL SAID THAT THE REASON THAT YOU ALL ARE RECOMMENDING, UM, THE AUTO, THE, UM, PERMANENT IS BECAUSE IT'S BEST PRACTICES IN INDUSTRY IN MOST, IN MOST OF THE CITIES GENERALLY, YES.
THERE'S NOT A LOT OF EXAMPLES, UM, IN THE PEER CITIES WHERE, UH, ENTITLEMENTS DISAPPEAR AFTER A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME AND THEY HAVE TO RENEW BY WAY OF, UM, UH, A PUBLIC HEARING AND A ZONING CASE.
AND, AND DALLAS IS ONE OF THOSE CITIES THAT DOES NOT, IT'S NOT ONE OF OUR BEST PRACTICES, BUT IT IS A STANDARD IN QUITE A BIT OF CITIES.
UM, IT'S NOT COMMON TO COME AND DO THESE, UM, ZONING CASE RENEWALS FOR, FOR THESE.
UH, I MEAN, AND LIKE I SAID, YOU KNOW, HISTORICALLY MOSTS WERE PERMANENT AND, AND, AND LIKE I SAID, THE MAJORITY 50 60% OF SUVS ARE, ARE PERMANENT.
SO IT HAD BEEN VERY COMMON FOR A VERY LONG TIME, BUT AT SOME POINT WE, YOU KNOW, SWITCHED THAT.
AND I, I ONLY SAY THAT TO SAY THAT THE, I STILL SEE THE VALUE IN TIME PERIODS FOR CERTAIN USES THAT ARE INCOMPATIBLE OR, UH, POTENTIALLY INCOMPATIBLE WITH CERTAIN AREAS.
AND I THINK THAT THE REASON I'M ASKING THAT QUESTION IS THAT I THINK THAT IT IS, IT WILL OUR INTENT AND THEN THE CONVERSATION THAT WE HAVE WITH STAFF HAS TO BE OF A RESPECTFUL ONE BECAUSE STAFF, THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT STAFF MAKE, OFTENTIMES IT IS NOT WHAT THE COUNCILMAN THINKS, NOT WHAT THE COMMISSIONER THINKS.
IT'S WHAT, WHAT THE INFORMATION THAT THEY HAVE GATHERED, THE RESEARCH THAT THEY HAVE DONE, AND THEY MAKE A DECISION WHETHER WE DENY OR APPROVE.
WE, THAT'S, IF THAT'S THE CASE, THEN THEY APPROVE A LOT OF THINGS THAT WE NECESSARILY DON'T NECESSARILY THINK WE WANT.
BUT I THINK THAT WE ALSO HAVE TO BE RESPECTFUL OF THEM IN HOW WE COMMUNICATE WITH THEM BECAUSE, AND OFTENTIMES THE COMPLAINT THAT COMES OR THE IS HOW COMING BEFORE CPC, UM, WHEN THEY LEAVE, THEY STILL HUMAN.
WE HAVE TO HAVE A CONVERSATION ABOUT HOW WE SPEAK AND RESPOND TO THEM.
THEY ARE PROFESSIONALS WHEN THEY GOT EDUCATED.
THEY'RE NOT JUST SITTING HERE BECAUSE THEY JUST THOUGHT UP SOME THINGS.
BUT WE HAVE TO BE RESPECTFUL ON HOW WE COMMUNICATE WITH STAFF WHO IS DOING THE HEAVY LIFTING.
UM, PRIOR TO GETTING THIS TO US, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? OKAY, WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER KINGSTON, SECONDED BY THE VICE CHAIR, UM, TO, UM, APPROVE.
BUT UM, JUST FOR A 10 YEAR TIME PERIOD SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS.
[SUBDIVISION DOCKET - Consent Items]
DOCKET.THE CONSENT IS IN THAT CONSIST OF EIGHT ITEMS. ITEM 17, ITEM 18, ITEM 19, ITEM NUMBER 20, ITEM NUMBER 21, ITEM NUMBER 22, ITEM NUMBER 23 AND ITEM NUMBER 24.
ALL CASES HAVE BEEN POSTED FOR A HEARING AT THIS TIME.
AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE DOCKET AND OR AS AMENDED AT THE HEARING.
[03:35:01]
ESTA.UM, I SEE THAT THERE'S, UM, THE APPLICANT SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ONLINE ON ITEM 20.
ARE THEY ONLINE? DO THEY WANNA SPEAK OR ARE THEY JUST HERE FOR QUESTIONS? UH, COMMISSION.
YOU'RE JUST HERE FOR QUESTIONS.
UM, IS THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE WHO'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON ANY ITEMS ON OUR SUBDIVISION CONSENT DOCKET? THAT'S ITEMS 17 THROUGH 24.
I I THINK THERE WAS AN ONLINE SPEAKER FOR 25.
THEY WERE JUST THERE FOR QUESTIONS.
OH, OH, WAS THAT 20 OR 25? 20.
25 IS INDIVIDUALLY CONSIDERED.
ALRIGHT, UM, COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION ON OUR SUBDIVISION CONSENT DOCKET? YES.
AND THANK YOU MR. CHAIR IN THE MATTER OF THE SUBDIVISION CONSENT AGENDA.
ITEM 17 THROUGH 24, I MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND FOLLOW STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE DOCKET.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN FOR YOUR MOTION.
COMMISSIONER HAMPTON FOR YOUR SECOND.
[25. 26-686A An application to replat a 0.478-acre tract of land containing all of Lot 7 in City Block B/5551 and a tract of land in City Block B/5551 to create one lot and remove an existing 60-foot platted building line along the north line Brookview Drive on property located on Brookview Drive, southwest of Rockbrook Drive. Applicant/Owner: Highlander School, Inc. Surveyor: Spiars Engineering and Surveying Application Filed: January 21, 2026 Zoning: R-10(A) Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to compliance with the conditions listed in the docket. Planner: Sharmila Shrestha Council District: 13 PLAT-26-000019]
ITEM NUMBER 25.IT IS AN APPLICATION TO REPLANT A 0.478 ACRE TRACK OF LAND CONTAINING ALL OF LOT SEVEN IN CITY BLOCK B OVER, UH, 5, 5, 5 1, AND A TRACK OF LAND IN CITY BLOCK B OVER 5, 5, 5, 1 TO CREATE ONE LOT AND TO REMOVE AN EXISTING 60 FOOT PADDED BUILDING LINE ALONG THE NORTHLINE BROOKVIEW DRIVE ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON BROOKVIEW DRIVE SOUTHWEST OF ROCK.
ALL NOTICES WERE SENT TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE PROPERTY ON FEBRUARY 2ND, 2026.
AND WE HAVE RECEIVED ZERO REPLY FAVOR AND THREE REPLIES IN OPPOSITION TO THIS REQUEST.
THIS REQUEST REQUIRES TWO MOTIONS BECAUSE IT IS A REPLY AND IT INVOLVES THE REMOVAL OF THE PLATY BUILDING LINE.
THE FIRST MOTION IS TO APPROVE OR DENY, UH, DENY REMOVING AN EXISTING 60 FOOT PLATY BUILDING LINE STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON BUILDING LINE APPROVAL SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE DOCKET AND OR AS AMENDED AT THE HEARING.
THE SECOND MOTION IS TO APPROVE OR DENY REPLA STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS ON REPL APPROVAL, SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE DOCKET AND OR AS AMENDED AT THE HEARING.
MS. KAY, WHENEVER YOU'RE READY.
YOUR MICROPHONE IS NOT ON KEISHA K MISSION RIDGE CONSULTANTS.
PO BOX 2 6 0 2 0 3 PLANO, TEXAS 7 5 0 2 6.
UM, SO WE'RE HERE TODAY TALKING ABOUT THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 45 0 7 BROOKVIEW AND, UM, UH, WE'RE CURRENTLY ZONED R 10 AND YES, WE'RE PROPOSING A REPL TO REMOVE THE EXISTING PLATTED BUILD LINE OF 60 FEET.
ALL THE PROPERTIES ON THE NORTH SIDE OF BROOKVIEW, UM, HAVE REMOVED THIS BUILD LINE.
THE MOST RECENT ONE WAS REMOVED IN 1999, SO THIS IS THE LAST LOT THAT STILL HAS THAT 60 FOOT BUILD LINE.
THE SETBACK FOR R 10 WOULD BE A 30 FOOT SETBACK.
AND SO BRIEFLY, I JUST WANT TO, OH, WE'RE OKAY.
UM, SO I DO WANT TO KIND OF GIVE YOU A SECOND TO LOOK OVER THIS AND GO THROUGH THE NUMBERS.
SO OUR SITE IS HIGHLIGHTED IN GREEN 45 0 7.
YOU CAN SEE ALREADY WITHOUT A SETBACK IMPLICATION.
IT'S ALREADY THE SMALLEST LOT ON THIS BLOCK FACE.
UM, EVERYBODY ELSE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF BROOKVIEW HAS A 30 FOOT SETBACK.
WE ARE, UM, RESTRICTED TO A 60 FOOT SETBACK.
SO WHEN WE EVALUATE THE LOT AREA THAT'S DEDICATED TO SETBACK, YOU CAN SEE THAT IN THAT NEXT COLUMN.
UM, OUR LOT IS ALMOST 21,000 SQUARE FEET.
7,500 SQUARE FEET OF THAT IS DEDICATED TO SETBACK.
SO IF WE CALCULATE THAT OUT TO A PERCENTAGE, 35.8% OF THIS LOT IS DEDICATED TO A FRONT YARD STEPBACK, AND YOU CAN SEE HOW MUCH, UM, THAT DIFFERS FROM THE OTHER LOTS ON THIS BLOCK FACE.
SO JUST TO SUMMARIZE THAT, WE'VE GOT SEVEN LOTS ON THIS BLOCK FACE.
ONE OF THE SEVEN, WHICH IS OURS, 45 0 7 IS ENCUMBERED WITH A 60 FOOT SETBACK.
UM, IF THE 60 FOOT SETBACK IS TO REMAIN, THAT'S APPROXIMATELY 22% MORE OF LAND THAT'S NON DEVELOPABLE IN COMPARISON TO THE OTHER PROPERTIES ON THIS LOT.
UM, AND SO I'LL STOP THERE AND RESERVE ANY ADDITIONAL TIME FOR QUESTIONS, BUT I DO WANT TO SHARE THAT, UM, I RECEIVED TWO VERBAL NOTIFICATIONS IN
[03:40:01]
OPPOSITION AND ONE VERBAL IN SUPPORT, BUT NOTHING IN WRITING FROM OUR OUTREACH EFFORTS.ARE THERE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS IN SUPPORT? SPEAKERS IN OPPOSITION? SIR, COME ON DOWN.
UH, MY NAME'S DAVID FICK AND, UH, WE'VE LIVED ACROSS THE STREET FROM THIS LOT FOR 44 YEARS, MY WIFE AND I.
AND, UH, WE KNOW PRACTICALLY ALL THE NEIGHBORS IN THIS AREA AND IN A WAY I REPRESENT ALL OF THEM.
THERE'S A GREAT DEAL OF OPPOSITION TO THIS.
UM, AS A WAY OF BACKGROUND, UM, OUR NEIGHBORHOOD'S KIND OF A, IN THE PROCESS OF, UH, IT'S IN A TRANSITIONAL STATE AND WE'VE BEEN FORCED TO DEAL WITH ALL SORTS OF BUILDING ACTIVITY FOR THE LAST FOUR OR FIVE YEARS.
UM, NONE OF THE HOUSES THAT ARE CURRENTLY ON THIS HOUSE HAVE A SETBACK OF 30 FEET.
REALISTICALLY, THEY'RE WELL BACK FROM THE, FROM THE, UH, STREET.
UH, AND IF YOU LOOK AT YOUR STREET VIEW, YOU CAN EASILY SEE THIS, UM, BECAUSE OF THE DESIRABILITY OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND WE'RE TOLD THAT PEOPLE LIKE IT BECAUSE OF THE LARGE LOTS AND TREE LARGE TREES.
UM, IT'S BEEN SORT OF A REAL ESTATE.
IT'S BEEN A KIND OF IN A REAL ESTATE FRENZY.
AND BUILDERS ARE CONSTANTLY, UH, PETITIONING THE OWNERS OF THE CURRENT HOUSES TO, UH, SELL THEM.
AND ESSENTIALLY THERE'S A COMPETITION FOR THE, THIS LOT, THIS LOT IN QUESTION IS THE SMALLEST LOT ON THE STREET.
ONE, A UTILITY SETBACK IN THE BACK AND A, A SETBACK IN THE FRONT, WHICH I THINK IS A VERY REASONABLE, THE BUILDER WHO BUILT THIS, WHO HAS NO SKIN IN THE GAME, 'CAUSE THIS IS A SPEC HOME, UH, KNEW ALL OF THIS GOING IN.
UM, AND, UH, I BELIEVE HE OVERPAID FOR THE LOT.
HE PAID $2 MILLION FOR THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY.
UM, AND AS A RESULT, HE'S TRYING TO RECOUP HIS INVESTMENT, UH, BY BUILDING A 6,500 SQUARE FOOT HOME ON THIS PROPERTY.
AND TO MAKE IT FIT, HE HAS TO MOVE IT, UH, UH, FURTHER TOWARDS THE STREET, WHICH WILL BASICALLY DESTROY THE CHARACTER OF THE STREET.
UM, AND I ENCOURAGE YOU TO LOOK AT STREET VIEW AND SEE THAT WHAT I'M TELLING YOU IS ACCURATE.
AND, UH, THAT'S ESSENTIALLY THE, THE, MY REMARKS.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION? UH, NO, BUT THE SIR THAT, THAT, THAT, IF YOU'VE CONCLUDED YOUR COMMENTS BE NEED TO MOVE ON TO THE NEXT SPEAKER ACTUALLY, OR APPLICANT'S TWO MINUTE REBUTTAL.
OH, DID DAVID, DID YOU SIGN A YELLOW CARD? WHAT'S THAT? DID YOU SIGN A YELLOW CARD? YEAH, I FILED IT.
UM, YEAH, SO ON THE NORTH SIDE OF BROOKVIEW, WHICH IS OUR SIDE OF THE BLOCK, UM, ALL OF THOSE SETBACKS HAVE BEEN REMOVED NOW.
NO, NOT ALL OF THOSE HOUSES HAVE BEEN DEMOLISHED AND REBUILT.
SO, YOU KNOW, IF, IF YOU'RE LOOKING FROM ABOVE, THERE'S GOING TO BE A LITTLE BIT OF DISCREPANCY THERE.
BUT AS FAR AS MAINTAINING CONTINUITY OF BLOCK FACE, YES, THIS IS THE SMALLEST LOT.
AND YES, ON THE NORTH SIDE OF BROOKVIEW, THIS IS THE ONLY LOT THAT STILL MAINTAINS THE 60 FOOT PLATTED BUILD LINE.
UH, COMMISSIONER HALL, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? I THINK YOUR MIC'S NOT ON.
IN CASE NUMBER PLAT 26 0 0 0 0 1 9, I MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE THE REQUEST TO REMOVE THE EXISTING 60 FOOT PLATTED BUILDING LINE ALONG BROOK BROOKVIEW DRIVE.
WITH A FINDING OF FACT THAT REMOVAL OF THE BUILDING LINE WILL NOT REQUIRE A MINIMUM FRONT SIDE OR REAR YARD SETBACK LINES 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.
[03:45:01]
YOU COMMISSIONER HALL FOR YOUR MOTION.THE MOTION CARRIES SECOND MOTION.
IN THE MATTER OF PLAT 26 0 0 0 0 1 9, I MOVE TO FOLLOW STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL FOR THE REPL OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE DOCKET.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HALL FOR YOUR MOTION.
WE'RE GOING TO NOW BRIEF OUR LAST TWO ITEMS ON THE PLAN.
THAT WAS 25 THAT WE JUST DISPOSED
[26. 26-687A Consideration of amendments to the ForwardDallas 2.0 Comprehensive Plan to address economically disadvantaged communities and areas experiencing environmental and infrastructure challenges. BACKGROUND Council Resolution No. 25-1081 directed the City Manager to review and evaluate the City programs and policies to determine whether any adjustments may be necessary for compliance with federal directives. That review identified several council-adopted plans, policies, and programs that require updates. The proposed ordinance and resolution introduce the changes needed to bring the City into alignment with the federal requirements. Because Section 51A-1.108(d) requires the City to follow the zoning-amendment procedure when amending an area plan or any vision, policy, or programmatic plan within ForwardDallas 2.0, these items are being brought forward separately from the items approved on December 10, 2025. PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW (COUNCIL, BOARDS, COMMISSIONS) The City Council was briefed on the Federal Compliance review on August 6, 2025, October 1, 2025, and December 3, 2025. Staff Recommendation: Approval of amendments of amendments to the ForwardDallas 2.0 Comprehensive plan in order to advance the Plan for review and adoption by City Council. Planner: Arturo Del Castillo, AIA Council District: Citywide ForwardDallas 2.0 Amendments]
OF.SO WE'RE ON 26 AND WE'RE GONNA BRIEF 26 AND 27 TOGETHER.
UM, SO TWO PLANS RECENTLY ADOPTED, UH, WITH A LOT OF COMMUNITY INPUT AND CAREFUL CONSIDERATIONS.
SOUTH DALLAS FAIR PARK AND FOR DALLAS 2.0 ARE COMING, UH, BEFORE YOU TODAY WITH MINOR AMENDMENTS, UH, BUT WITH THE OVERALL INTENT AND VISION UNCHANGED, UH, A LITTLE BACKGROUND ON HOW WE GOT HERE.
UM, EARLIER THIS YEAR, FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ISSUED EXEC AN EXECUTIVE ORDER RELATED TO DEI AND APPLYING TO ALL RECIPIENTS OF FEDERAL FUNDS, INCLUDING THE CITY OF DALLAS.
SO IN RESPONSE TO CITY COUNCIL, DIRECTED CITY MANAGER, UH, TO REVIEW ALL CITY PROGRAMS, POLICIES, AND PLANS, AS PART OF THAT REVIEW, A FEW MINISTERIAL ADJUSTMENTS WERE IDENTIFIED IN THESE TWO PLANS THAT DON'T ALTER THE GOALS, STRATEGIES, OR PRIORITIES OF EITHER PLAN AND SIMPLY ENSURE THAT OUR LANGUAGE ALIGNS WITH FEDERAL, UH, MANDATES.
AND BECAUSE THESE ADJUSTMENTS AFFECT ADOPTED POLICY LANGUAGE, WE'RE FOLLOWING THE STANDARD ZONING AMENDMENT PROCESS, WHICH INCLUDES PUBLIC HEARINGS BEFORE THOSE COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL LATER DATE.
UM, SO IN SHORT, UM, WE'RE HERE TO MAKE SMALL COMPLIANCE UPDATES REQUIRED BY FEDERAL LAW.
UM, WHAT'S CHANGING IS JUST THE LANGUAGE, NO CHANGE TO THE INTENT OR SUBSTANCE OF THE PLANS AND WHY IT MATTERS.
IT'S, IT'S KEEPING THE CITY ELIGIBLE FEDERAL FOR, UH, FOR FEDERAL FUNDING AND ENSURES OUR PLANS MEET LEGAL REQUIREMENTS.
UM, I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS IF THERE'S ANYTHING.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. DEL CASTILLO? ALL RIGHT.
LET'S READ ITEM NUMBER 26 IN ITEM 26 DASH, UH, 2 6 6 8 7.
A CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE FORWARD DALLAS 2.0 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO ADDRESS ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES AND AREAS EXPERIENCING ENVIRONMENTAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE CHALLENGES.
UH, STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL OF AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA DALLAS 2.0 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IN ORDER TO ADVANCE THE PLAN FOR REVIEW AND ADOPTION BY CITY COUNCIL.
IS THERE ANYONE WHO'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER 26? OKAY.
COMMISSIONER HERBERT, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? YES.
AND IF I CAN HAVE COMMENTS, I'LL APPRECIATE IT.
UM, IN THE CONSIDERATION OF THE AMENDMENTS TO THE FOUR DALLAS 2.0 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, I MOVE TO APPROVE, UM, THE AMENDMENTS, THE OF THE, UH, APPROVE THE AMENDMENTS TO THE FOR DALLAS 2.0 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IN ORDER TO ADVANCE THE PLAN FOR REVIEW AND ADOPTION BY CITY COUNCIL.
COMMISSIONER HERBERT, WE HAVE A SECOND, UH, COMMISSIONER HAMPTON FOR YOUR SECOND.
ANY DISCUSSION? COMMISSIONER HERBERT? YEAH, I'LL JUST, UM, MAKE THE COMMENTS, UM, AS BECAUSE I'M, UM, THE CHAIR OF THE RULES COMMITTEE, I WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT, UM, STAFF HAS DONE A WONDERFUL JOB OF PRESERVING THE INTEGRITY OF THESE PLANS UNDER CHALLENGING CIRCUMSTANCES FOR DALLAS 2.0 AND THE SOUTH DALLAS FAIR PLAN PARK PLAN THAT WOULD BE UP FOR REVIEW.
NEXT, REPRESENT YEARS OF COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND REFLECT THE VOICES OF DALLAS RESIDENTS WHO CARE DEEPLY ABOUT THE FUTURE OF OUR CITY.
HOWEVER, I MUST SPEAK PLAINLY, WHILE COMPLIANCE WITH STATE AND FEDERAL MANDATES IS LEGAL NECESSITY, IT SHOULD NEVER BECOME A TOOL TO SILENCE LOCAL VOICES OR DIMINISH THE PRINCIPLES THAT HAVE GUIDED TEXAS SINCE ITS FOUNDING.
THESE PLANS WERE DESIGNED TO BE VISIONS FOR, FOR DALLAS, CRAFTED BY DALLAS, NOT DICTATED BY DISTANT BUREAUCRACIES.
OUR RESPONSIBILITIES TODAY IS TO ENSURE THAT THESE AMENDMENTS DO NOT COMPROMISE THE HEART OF THESE PLANS.
AND STAFF HAS DONE A WONDERFUL JOB OF DOING SO.
WE MUST UPHOLD THE TRANSPARENCY, LOCAL CONTROL, AND THE FREEDOM FOR COMMUNITIES TO SHAPE THEIR OWN DESTINIES.
THESE VALUES ARE NOT PARTISAN, THEY'RE FOUNDATIONAL, THEY ARE THE REASON TEXAS HAS ALWAYS STOOD AS A BEACON OF INDEPENDENCE AND SELF-GOVERNANCE.
[03:50:01]
REMINDS US.TEXAS IS A FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATE SUBJECT ONLY TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE MAINTENANCE OF OUR FREE INSTITUTIONS AND THE PERPETUITY OF THE UNION DEPEND UPON THE PRESERVATION OF THE RIGHT OF LOCAL SELF-GOVERNMENT UNIMPAIRED TO ALL THE STATES.
THIS PRINCIPLE IS NOT JUST WORDS ON PAPER, IT IS A MANDATE FOR HOW WE GOVERN AND HOW WE PLAN.
SOUTH DALLAS AND FAIR PARK ARE NOT JUST NEIGHBORHOODS.
THEY ARE LIVING TESTAMENTS FOR RESILIENCE, CULTURE, AND HISTORY.
FOR DECADES, THESE COMMUNITIES HAVE FOUGHT FOR INVESTMENT EQUITY AND RECOGNITION.
COMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL AND STATE DIRECTIVES MAY BE UNAVOIDABLE, BUT IT CANNOT BECOME A SUBSTITUTE FOR LOCAL DECISION MAKING.
THESE PLANS SHOULD NEV, SHOULD EMPOWER SMALL BUSINESSES, PRESERVE CULTURAL HERITAGE, AND STRENGTHEN, STRENGTHEN NEIGHBORHOOD.
OUR DUTY IS CLEAR TO PROTECT THE INTEGRITY OF THESE PLANS IN THE PRINCIPLES OF LOCAL GOVERNANCE THAT HAVE DEFINED TEXAS CENSUS.
EARLIEST DAYS WE CAN MEET LEGAL REQUIREMENTS WITHOUT SACRIFICING THE HEART OF OUR COMMUNITIES.
WE CAN COMPLY WITHOUT COMPROMISING.
TEXAS WAS BUILT ON INDEPENDENCE AND LOCAL GO CONTROL.
THOSE PRINCIPLES ARE NOT NEGOTIABLE.
AS WE ADOPT THESE AMENDMENTS, LET US DO SO WITH A CLEAR MESSAGE.
COMPLIANCE DOES NOT MEAN SURRENDER.
OUR PLANS WILL REMAIN ROOTED IN THE VALUES OF FREEDOM, FAIRNESS, AND COMMUNITY VOICE.
VICE CHAIR HERBERT, UH, COMMISSIONERS, UH, COMMISSIONER KING'S.
WELL, I'M NOT GONNA BE AS ELEGANT AS HE WAS AND I AM GONNA VOTE FOR THE CHANGES BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND THE IMPORT OF IT, BUT I HAVE NO INTENTION OF LETTING THE BIGOTRY OF TODAY INFLUENCE MY DECISIONS AT THIS HORSESHOE COMMISSIONERS.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? COMMISSIONER HALL? YEAH, I'D LIKE TO COMPLIMENT STAFF ON THE, I THINK A WONDERFUL JOB THEY DID OF KEEPING THE CHARACTER OF FORWARD DALLAS TWO INTACT AND THE, THE EDITS OR THE CHANGES THAT YOU MADE.
I, I'LL LEAVE THE POLITICS OUT OF IT, BUT, BUT I THINK YOU DID A, UH, YOU GUYS DID A GREAT JOB ON THAT.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? COMMISSIONER COX? YES.
I JUST ECHO, UM, MY FELLOW COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS.
MR. HALL? UM, I, I DO THINK POLITICS ARE CLEARLY NOT APPROPRIATE IN THIS CHAMBER.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALRIGHT, WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HERBERT, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HAMPTON TO FOLLOW STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL.
[27. 26-688A Consideration of amendments to the South Dallas Fair Park Area Plan to address support for small business and entrepreneurs and areas of historic underinvestment in infrastructure on property generally bounded by Haskell Avenue to the North, the Southern Pacific Central Bypass Rail line to the east, Botham Jean Boulevard to the south, and the Gulf, Colorado and Santa Fe Rail line to the west. BACKGROUND Council Resolution No. 25-1081 directed the City Manager to review and evaluate the City programs and policies to determine whether any adjustments may be necessary for compliance with federal directives. That review identified several council-adopted plans, policies, and programs that require updates. The proposed ordinance and resolution introduce the changes needed to bring the City into alignment with the federal requirements. Because Section 51A-1.108(d) requires the City to follow the zoning-amendment procedure when amending an area plan or any vision, policy, or programmatic plan within ForwardDallas 2.0, these items are being brought forward separately from the items approved on December 10, 2025. PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW (COUNCIL, BOARDS, COMMISSIONS) The City Council was briefed on the Federal Compliance review on August 6, 2025, October 1, 2025, and December 3, 2025. Staff Recommendation: Approval of amendments to the South Dallas Fair Park Area Plan in order to advance the Plan for review and adoption by City Council. Planner: Arturo Del Castillo, AIA Council District: Citywide South Dallas Fair Park Area Plan (AD)]
ITEM NUMBER 27 IS CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE SOUTH DALLAS FAIR PARK AREA.PLAN TO ADDRESS SUPPORT FOR SMALL BUSINESS AND ENTREPRENEURS IN AREAS OF HISTORIC UNDERINVESTMENT IN INFRASTRUCTURE ON PROPERTY, GENERALLY BOUNDED BY HASKELL AVENUE TO THE NORTH, THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC CENTRAL BYPASS RAIL LINE TO THE EAST BOHAM GENE BOULEVARD TO THE SOUTH, AND THE GULF, COLORADO AND SANTA FE RAIL LINE TO THE WEST.
RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL OF AMENDMENTS TO THE SOUTH DALLAS FAIR PARK AREA PLAN IN ORDER ADVANCE THE PLAN FOR REVIEW AND ADOPTION BY CITY COUNCIL.
UM, ANYONE HERE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? OKAY.
WE REGARD TO COMMISSIONER WHEELER FOR A MOTION, UM, IN A MATTER RELATED TO THE SOUTH DALLAS FIRE PARK AREA PLAN.
UM, ITEM 27, MOVE TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING AND FOLLOW STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS OF APPROVAL OF THE AMENDMENTS TO THE SOUTH DALLAS FIRE PARK AIRPLANE IN ORDER TO ADVANCE THE PLAN FOR REVIEW OF ADOPTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL.
COMMISSIONER WHEELER FOR YOUR SECOND COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT.
ANY DISCUSSION? COMMISSIONER WHEELER.
UM, MR. MR. COSTELLO AND STAFF, THANK YOU FOR, UM, BEING VERY INTENTIONAL ON HOW TO, TO FOLLOW THE FEDERAL REGULATIONS, BUT ALSO MAINTAIN THE INTEGRITY OF THIS AREA PLAN THAT WE SO VERILY WORKED ON, UM, CORRIDOR BY CORRIDOR BLOCK BY BLOCK.
UM, SO THAT THE, THE UPDATES DID NOT COMPROMISE THE, THE COMMUNITY'S INPUT.
UM, I WAS CONCERNED WHEN I SAW IT, BUT THAT'S ME SCAN READING IT.
BUT WHEN I WENT IN AND LOOKED AT IT, I SAW THAT IT WAS JUST, JUST FOR COMPLIANCES, BUT IT DID NOT, THE, THE, WHAT WAS THE UPDATED FOR THE COMPLIANCES DID NOT TURN, OVERTURN THE UNDERLYING, UM, INTENTION, ESPECIALLY DURING THIS PIVOTAL TERM WHEN WE ARE ALSO IN THE MIDDLE OF AN AUTHORIZED HEARING PROCESS.
SO THANK YOU SO MUCH AND STAFF ESPECIALLY.
AND, UM, I KNOW THAT LINDSAY AND PATRICK DEFINITELY PROBABLY WERE, UM, WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT SINCE THIS WAS ALSO THEIR BABY ALONG
[03:55:01]
WITH US.WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WHEELER, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT.
ANY OPPOSED, SAY NAY, ANY FURTHER BUSINESS? I DON'T BELIEVE THERE IS.
IT IS 2:58 PM AND THE DALLAS CITY PLANNING COMMISSION IS ADJOURNED.