[00:00:03]
[BRIEFINGS]
EVERYONE.IT IS THURSDAY, MARCH 5TH, 2026, AND THIS IS THE BRIEFING OF THE DALLAS CITY PLAN COMMISSION.
IT IS 11:03 AM UH, MS. LOPEZ, CAN WE START OFF WITH A QUICK ROLL CALL? GOOD MORNING COMMISSIONERS.
DISTRICT ONE, COMMISSIONER SIMS. HERE, DISTRICT TWO, COMMISSIONER HAMPTON.
COMMISSIONER FORSYTH, DISTRICT FIVE.
COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN PRESENT.
DISTRICT 14, COMMISSIONER KINGSTON AND PLACE 15 CHAIR RUBIN.
AS A REMINDER, EVERYONE, THIS IS JUST THE BRIEFING PORTION OF OUR AG OUR MEETING TODAY, WE HAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING IN THE AFTERNOON, WHICH IS THE TIME WHERE WE RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENT ON, UM, ITEMS THAT WE'RE CONSIDERING, AND THAT'S OUR OPPORTUNITY AS COMMISSIONERS AS WELL TO SPEAK ON THESE ITEMS. OUR BRIEFING HERE IS JUST FOR US TO ASK QUESTIONS OF, OF STAFF ON THE ITEMS THAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US.
UM, WITH THAT SAID, WE'LL HOP INTO THE BRIEFING.
COMMISSIONER SUM SIMS, DO YOU NEED NUMBER ONE, BRIEFED? NO.
I UNDERSTAND THAT WE DO HAVE SOME QUESTIONS ON ITEM NUMBER TWO.
IS DR. DUNN HERE THAT OKAY? YES, SIR.
CAN YOU MAKE SURE YOUR MIC IS ON? GOOD MORNING COMMISSIONERS.
TRYING TO BRING THIS UP AND I THINK THIS ONE'S GOING TO BE HELD, AND I DON'T KNOW IF WE NEED A FULL BRIEFING.
I THINK THERE JUST MAY BE SOME, YEAH.
I THINK THAT SINCE WE'RE GONNA BE HELD, WE MAY WANNA BRIEF IT FULLY, BUT I KNOW, I THINK COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, I BELIEVE HAD A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS WITH RESPECT TO THIS ONE.
AND I WAS ATTEMPTING TO ANSWER A QUESTION THAT I RECEIVED.
UH, THE QUESTION THAT I RECEIVED YESTERDAY WAS ABOUT THE ADDITION OF USES.
IN OTHER WORDS, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE USUALLY DON'T BRING BEFORE THE CPC COMMISSION WHEN WE BRING A DESIGNATED OUR REQUEST FOR DESIGNATION.
IT'S, SO I WANTED TO EXPLAIN THAT SINCE IT WAS ASKED OF ME YESTERDAY.
SO IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, WE ARE ASKING FOR THE HISTORIC DISTRICT OVERLAY, AS WE USUALLY DO, BUT WE'RE ASKING FOR TO ARE ASKING TO ADD THE ADDITIONAL USE OF LODGING, BOTH SHORT-TERM AND LONG-TERM ACCOMMODATIONS.
THE REASON FOR THAT REQUEST IS, AND WELL, WHAT GIVES US AS THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION AREA, THE ABILITY TO MAKE SUCH A REQUEST IS SECTION 51, A DASH 4.501 SUBSECTION E ONE, WHICH BASICALLY STATES THAT AS A PART OF DESIGNATING OR APPLYING A ZONING OVERLAY, WE MAY REQUEST THE PERMIT OF ADDITIONAL USES OR PROVIDE ADDITIONAL REGULATIONS.
USUALLY, I THINK IMPLICITLY WHAT WE'RE USED TO IS US REQUESTING ADDITIONAL REGULATIONS THROUGH THE PRESERVATION CRITERIA.
BUT THIS TIME, BECAUSE THE BUILDING IN QUESTION LOST ITS GRANDFATHERING, WERE BASICALLY ASKING NOT FOR A NEW USE, BUT THAT THE USE FOR WHICH IT WAS BUILT IS RESTORED.
IN ADDITION TO US REFERRING TO THE DALLAS CITY CODE, ALSO WE REFER TO THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION, WHICH WE, THE CITY OF DALLAS, AS WE ARE CERTIFIED LOCAL GOVERNMENT, WE ARE BOUND BY, BUT ALSO THE PROPERTY OWNER IN THIS CASE, SINCE HE IS PURSUING NATIONAL, STATE AND LOCAL TAX CREDITS, HE HAS TO ABIDE BY THESE RULES AS WELL.
AND THE FIRST STANDARD SAYS A PROPERTY SHALL BE USED FOR ITS HISTORIC PURPOSE OR BE PLACED IN A NEW USE THAT REQUIRES
[00:05:01]
MINIMAL CHANGE TO THE DEFINING CHARACTERISTICS OF THE BUILDING ITS SITE AND ITS ENVIRONMENT.SO AT THE BOTTOM OF YOUR SCREEN, YOU SEE THE, UH, 1952 SANBORN MAP OF THE BUILDING IN QUESTION.
IT WAS AT THAT TIME, LISTED AS A TWO STORY APARTMENT BUILDING WITH BRICK, WITH BRICK VENEER.
AND AS YOU CAN SEE ARE, IF THOSE, OF THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE FAMILIAR WITH THAT AREA, THE WAY IT LOOKED BACK IN THE LATE 1940S AND EARLY FIFTIES IS THE SAME WAY IT LOOKS TODAY.
THAT'S HOG ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OR PUBLIC SCHOOL ACROSS THE STREET, AND IT'S SURROUNDED BY ONE STORY DUPLEXES ON THE LEFT AND THE RIGHT QUESTIONS.
I DO UNDERSTAND THAT CODE ALLOWS THE ADDITION OF USES.
MY QUESTION HAD TO BE, UH, WAS, I MEAN, 'CAUSE I UNDER, I MEAN, I ALWAYS ENJOY YOUR REPORTS.
THEY'RE, THEY'RE VERY THOROUGH AND THEY'RE, THEY'RE VERY INTERESTING TO READ.
BUT YOU'RE ANALYZING THIS CASE STRICTLY FROM A HISTORIC PRESERVATION POINT OF VIEW.
BUT WHEN WE'RE ADDING USES THAT IN SOME CASES WERE NOT HISTORICALLY ASSOCIATED WITH THAT PROPERTY, SUCH AS OFFICE WAS ADDED, WAS ONE OF THE POTENTIAL USES.
I'M I'M JUST WONDERING WHY THERE ISN'T A ZONING COMPATIBILITY ANALYSIS WITH THIS REPORT, WITH NOT ADDING USES JUSTIFY, UM, AN ANALYSIS.
THE, THE WAY WE NORMALLY GET WITH, BECAUSE WE'RE KIND OF GETTING A TWO IN ONE HERE, WE'RE GETTING A FULL PRESENTATION ON THE HISTORIC OVERLAY, BUT THE USES ARE JUST DROPPED IN WITHOUT ANY ANALYSIS.
AND SINCE, YOU KNOW, THERE'S SOME, UH, FAIRLY CONTROVERSIAL ONES HERE, SUCH AS SHORT TERM RENTALS.
UM, AND, AND, AND ALSO SOME USES WERE, WERE, IT'S LIKE IT WOULD BE VERY DIFFICULT TO GO BACK TO SOME OF THESE USES GIVEN THE WAY, YOU KNOW, THE BUILDING HAS BEEN, UH, REDEVELOPED.
BUT ANYWAY, THAT, THAT'S MY BASIC QUESTION IS WHY IT MAY BE TO MR. PEPE IS WHY WE AREN'T BEING GIVEN AN ANALYSIS OF THE COMPATIBILITY OF THESE PROPOSED USES, GIVEN THE UNDERLYING ZONING.
I DON'T KNOW IF, AND I KNOW THAT'S NOT QUESTION, I KNOW THAT'S NOT A QUESTION FOR YOU AND YOU'VE DONE EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO DO.
BUT MR. MR. CHAIR, I WONDER IF IN THE INTEREST OF TIME, IF WE MIGHT REQUEST THAT STAFF CONSIDER DOING THAT, UH, BETWEEN NOW AND WHEN WE NEXT HEAR THE SURE.
I MEAN, MR. PEPE DID MR. PEPE, DID YOU HEAR THE REQUEST ON THIS ONE TO OKAY.
AND IS THAT FEASIBLE TO, TO PERFORM A LAND USE ANALYSIS OF THE ADDITION? WE'RE, WE'RE DISCUSSING.
AND MR. COMMISSIONER HALL, WHILE THEY'RE DISCUSSING IT, MAY I ASK A QUESTION? THAT'S WHAT, YEP.
UH, WHERE DO PEOPLE, WHERE DO THE RESIDENTS OR THE GUESTS PARK AT THIS TIME? BECAUSE WE DID DO A SITE VISIT AT THIS TIME.
THERE IS A LARGE DRIVEWAY, IF YOU'RE FACING THE PROPERTY TO THE LEFT OF THE PROPERTY, THERE'S ALSO PARKING IN THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY AND THE PLAN TO ADD ADDITIONAL CARPORT SPACE.
SO THERE WAS NO PARKING ON THE STREET THE DAY THAT WE WERE THERE.
SO IS THERE, THERE IS SOME PARKING IN THE REAR, THEY'RE GONNA ADD MORE? YES.
IS THAT SUFFICIENT OR WILL SOME PEOPLE BE REQUIRED TO PARK OFF, UH, ON STREET? I WOULD HAVE TO DEFER TO THE PROPERTY OWNER ON THAT BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEIR REGULAR, UM, RESERVATION.
IN OTHER WORDS, IF THEY'RE FULLY RESERVED, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE.
HOW MANY UNITS ARE, ARE IN THIS? THERE'S 27 ROOMS. 27 RIGHT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER FORSYTH, MR. COMMISSIONER FORSYTH, DO YOU NEED TO TURN YOUR MICROPHONE ON? CAN YOU, UH, TELL ME WHAT THE CURRENT USE IS IN THIS BUILDING? YES.
THE CURRENT USE OF THIS BUILDING, IT'S BRANDED AS A BOUTIQUE UPSCALE HOTEL, IS WHAT IT IS CURRENTLY.
SO NOW IT'S THE MADISON HOTEL.
IT'S NOT BEING USED AS A SHORT TERM RENTALS.
IT'S NOT IF YOU'RE, THE THOUGHT IS EXTENDED STAY? NO, IT'S A, BASICALLY PEOPLE STAY THERE FOR DEFINITELY LESS THAN 30 DAYS.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM? OKAY.
[00:10:01]
ITEM NUMBER THREE.DO WE WANT THIS ONE BRIEFED? NO.
ANYONE QUESTIONS ON THIS ONE? ALRIGHT, QUESTIONS? OKAY.
UH, COMMISSIONER HAMPTON HAS A QUESTION.
WELL, AND THIS IS JUST A PROCESS QUESTION MORE THAN A QUESTION ON THE REQUEST.
UM, I UNDERSTAND THIS WAS, UM, APPROVED QUITE SOME TIME AGO BY LANDMARK COMMISSION AND JUST, YOU DON'T NEED TO ANSWER THIS, UM, IMMEDIATELY, BUT I WAS WANTING TO UNDERSTAND, UM, HOW THOSE ARE EVALUATED TO BRING THOSE FORWARD TO PLAN COMMISSION AND IF IT'S POSSIBLE TO EITHER GET AN UPDATE WHEN SOMETHING IS PASSED AT LANDMARK SO THAT WE'LL KNOW THAT IT IS, UM, COMING OUR WAY.
I CAN SEND, AS YOU ARE OUR LIAISON, COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, I DO PUBLISH A, WHAT WE CALL INITIATIONS MEMO FOR ALL THE, UH, PROPERTIES THAT ARE CURRENTLY IN THE QUEUE.
SO IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO ME TO ADD YOU TO THAT LIST, I WILL HAVE NO PROBLEM IN DOING SO.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? UH, AND I JUST WANTED TO SAY DR. DUNN, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR, ALWAYS VERY THOROUGH OKAY.
COMMISSIONER SERATO, DO WE NEED THIS ITEM BRIEFED? NO.
OH, I DID HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR CASE.
OKAY, MR. LEE, UM, IF YOU COULD COME DOWN FOR A QUESTION ON ITEM NUMBER FOUR.
I WAS WATCHING THE WRONG PERSON.
UM, YES, THIS PARTICULAR CASE, UH, YEAH, THE REPORT INCLUDED, UM, A NUMBER OF, UH, POLICE CALLS AND, YOU KNOW, RESPONSES TO THIS PARTICULAR ADDRESS.
UM, I KNOW I'VE ASKED MR. BALDWIN, I THINK HE'LL BE PREPARED TO ASK, ANSWER THIS, UM, AFTERNOON, BUT I WANTED TO BRING IT UP.
DID YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THAT? WAS THERE ANY PATTERN THAT GAVE YOU ANY CONCERN ABOUT OPERATIONS AT THIS, THIS LOCATION? NO.
DO WE NEED TO PULL THAT OFF CONSENT IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS? YES.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON ITEM FOUR? COMMISSIONER? I WAS JUST GONNA MENTION, UM, UH, MR. BALDWIN AND I DISCUSSED THAT VERY, UH, QUESTION EARLIER IN THE WEEK, SO I'M HAPPY TO DISCUSS IT FURTHER AT PUBLIC HEARING.
I THINK COMMISSIONER HERBERT MIGHT BE JOINING US A LITTLE BIT LATER.
OH, SORRY, I MISSED YOU THERE.
UM, DID YOU NEED THIS ONE BRIEFED? NO, SIR.
I DON'T IF ANYBODY ELSE DOES, BUT I, I'M, I'M OKAY.
ANY QUESTIONS? I DID HAVE ONE QUESTION.
'CAUSE I WASN'T ABLE, UM, WITH THE, UM, RESOLUTION OF THE SITE LANDSCAPE PLAN IN THE DOCKET, UH, THERE WAS A, UH, AN SUP CONDITION THAT REQUIRED A LANDSCAPE BUFFER ON THE EAST AND SOUTH, UM, FRONTAGES AND THEN LA UH, LIVE OAK TREES PLANTED AT 40 FEET INTERVALS.
AND I COULD SEE THAT THE LIVE OAK TREES WERE PLANTED.
I DID NOT SEE ANY LANDSCAPE BUFFER.
IS THERE A LANDSCAPE BUFFER THAT IS SUPPOSED TO BE ON SITE, OR IS THE, ARE, ARE THE TREES CONSIDERED TO BE THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER WHERE THE TREES ARE? IS THAT, THAT'S WHERE THE, THE BUFFER, THAT'S THE ENTIRE BUFFER, YES.
THERE'S NOT, NO OTHER SHROER IS REQUIRED? NO.
NO, IT THERE IS THE, UM, THAT BUMP IN LIKE A HEEL, LIKE A BERM IS WHAT THEY YES, YES.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON ITEM NUMBER FIVE? OKAY.
ITEM SIX, COMMISSIONER SERATO.
DOES THAT ONE NEED BRIEFING? ANY QUESTIONS ON ITEM SIX? ITEM SEVEN, COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, DOES THAT ONE NEED BRIEFING OR QUESTIONS? UM, I JUST HAD ONE QUESTION AND IT WILL BE HEARD INDIVIDUALLY.
I HAD SENT YOU A COUPLE QUESTIONS.
UM, THIS ONE'S A LITTLE BIT UNUSUAL AND YOUR, UH, CASE REPORT DID A GREAT JOB OF OUTLINING, UM, WHY IT'S, UM, IN FRONT OF US, BUT I JUST THOUGHT IT MIGHT BE HELPFUL TO GET THIS ON THE RECORD FOR FOLKS.
IT APPLIED FOR AN AUTO, IS THAT CORRECT? AS ALLOWED UNDER ITS CONDITIONS? YEAH, IT STARTED OFF AS AN AUTORENEW, BUT OPPOSITION CAME IN AND IT REACHED OVER THE 20% MARK.
[00:15:01]
SO THAT'S WHY THEN IT HAD TO COME TO CPC AND THEN COUNCIL.AND SO, UM, AS STAFF REVIEWED IT, THE PD, THE UNDERLYING PD ALLOWS, IN THIS CASE THE FLEA MARKET USE, BUT IT IS ONLY ALLOWED VIA SUP, IS THAT CORRECT? YES.
AND THE COMMENTS THAT I SAW IN THE CASE REPORT AND IN OUR REPLY FORMS ARE STATING THAT THEY BELIEVE IT SHOULD BE A SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT, NOT A SUP.
UM, COULD YOU JUST SPEAK TO WHAT THE DIFFERENCE IS BETWEEN, OBVIOUSLY IT'S AN ALLOWED USE IN THE PD, IS THERE SOMETHING THAT WOULD'VE TRIGGERED IT NEEDING A DIFFERENT TYPE OF PERMIT? TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE? IT SHOULDN'T REQUIRE ANY OTHER TYPE OF PERMIT, AT LEAST WITH THE ONE FROM THE OPPOSITION LETTER.
UM, THAT'S A TEMPORARY TYPE OF PERMIT THAT THEY WOULD NEED TO DO COMPARED TO THEM BEING THERE MORE PERMANENTLY.
IT, THAT WOULDN'T BE PART OF IT.
AND THEN THERE WERE ALSO COMMENTS ABOUT HEALTH INSPECTIONS AND OTHER THAT'S HANDLED AT BILLING INSPECTION WHEN THEY WENT TO GET THEIR CO IS THAT CORRECT? YEAH, THAT'S HANDLED AT PERMITTING.
AND IF, UM, THEY HAVE ANY CONCERNS WITH THAT, IT WOULD BE BEST TO REACH OUT TO 3 1 1 AND WELL, SO THEY CAN INVESTIGATE THAT.
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS, MR. HALL, IS THIS GOING TO REMAIN ON CONSENT? I THINK SHE SAID IT NEEDS, IT'S BEING PULLED.
I I I WILL ASK, WAS THIS EVER A FLEA MARKET OR HAS IT ALWAYS BEEN A FRUIT AND VEGETABLE FARMER'S MARKET? I MEAN, FLEA MARKET CONSISTS OF BASICALLY SELLING FOOD, WHICH IS BASICALLY WHAT PRODUCE IS.
IT'S FOOD AT THE END OF THE DAY.
SO IT'S BEEN A FLEA MARKET FOR A WHILE NOW.
DOES IT MAKE A DIFFERENCE? UH, I I KNOW THE, SOME OF THE, A COUPLE OF THE EMAILS WE GOT SUGGESTED THAT IT MADE, MADE A DIFFERENCE, BUT I DON'T KNOW, FLEA MARKET VERSUS FARMER'S MARKET.
I'M JUST CURIOUS, DOES IT MAKE A DIFFERENCE IF, IF THE SUV'S FOR A FLEA MARKET, BUT IT'S ACTUALLY A FARMER'S MARKET, IF, LET ME JUMP IN ON THAT.
THIS IS FLEA MARKET IS NOT A DEFINED USE IN OUR TYPICAL CODE.
IT'S SPECIFICALLY DEFINED IN THIS PD AND THE, THE USE THAT, THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT MEETS THE DEFINITION OF FLEA MARKET IN THE PD.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALRIGHT, UM, ITEM NUMBER EIGHT.
UM, COMMISSIONER FORSYTH, DID YOU WANT THIS ONE BRIEFED? YES.
MR. LEE, UH, JUST TO CONFIRM, NUMBER EIGHT, CORRECT ON THE LIST? PARDON? I CAN'T.
UH, GEORGE, CAN I GET YOUR HELP REAL QUICK TO SHARE? UH, OKAY, SO THIS IS Z DASH 25 DASH 0 0 0 1 7 7.
UH, THIS IS AN APPLICATION FOR MU DASH ONE MIXED USE DISTRICT ON PROPERTY ZONE MF
[00:20:01]
TWO DASH MF DASH TWO MULTIFAMILY DISTRICT ON THE EAST LINE OF SOUTH POLK STREET, WEST LINE OF SOUTH TYLER STREET.AND IT'S APPROXIMATELY 76, UH, SIX SEVEN SQUARE FEET.
HERE'S THE AERIAL IN THE ZONING MAP.
UH, CURRENTLY IS DEVELOPED AS A VACANT BUILDING.
THE APPLICANT WISHES TO USE THE SITE FOR GENERAL MERCHANDISE OR FOOD STORE 3,500 SQUARE FEET OR LESS.
UH, AS SUCH, THE APPLICANT'S ASKING FOR A MU DASH ONE MIXED USE DISTRICT.
HERE'S THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FACING THE EAST TO THE NORTH, TO THE SOUTH, AND TO THE WEST.
HERE'S THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS COMPARING TO THE EXISTING AND PROPOSED ZONING DISTRICT, UH, CURRENT UNDER FOUR DALLAS.
THE SITE IS LISTED AS CITY RESIDENTIAL, WHICH HAS COMMERCIAL AS A SECONDARY LAND USE.
AND, UH, BASED ON THE ANALYSIS, A SMALL, UH, MERCHANDISE OR FOOD STORE OR FOOD STORE IS AN APPROPRIATE USE FOR THE EXISTING STRUCTURE AND WILL NOT IMPACT THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY OR DIMINISH THEIR COMMUNITY AND SUCH.
THE REQUEST ALIGNS WITH THE GOALS AND POLICIES SET FORTH IN FORWARD DALLAS AND THE ZONING CODE, AND WITH THAT STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL.
UH, DOES THE MU ONE ZONING THAT THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING, UH, ALLOW FOR THE, UH, SALE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES WITHIN THIS, UH, CONVENIENCE STORE AUTOMATICALLY? OR IS, OR IS AN SUP REQUIRED IN ORDER TO DO SO? I CAN, I CAN ANSWER THAT.
SO THIS IS ONE OF LIKE MOST COMMERCIAL AREAS IN THE CITY, NOT GOVERNED BY D OR D ONE OVERLAY.
UM, SO IT'S REGULARLY ZONED RIGHT NOW.
UM, A COMMERCIAL DISTRICT THAT EXISTS HERE, UH, WOULD ALLOW THE SALE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES WITH THE COMPLETION OF PROPER TABC PERMITS.
SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT THE, UH, APPLICANT CAN SELL ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES IN THIS CONVENIENCE STORE WITHOUT GOING THROUGH AN SUP PROCESS JUST BY GETTING A PERMITTING? YEAH, LIKE, LIKE MOST COMMERCIAL AREAS.
SO IF THEY APPROVE ANY COMMERCIAL ZONING THAT ALLOWS TO MERCHANDISE STORE OR A RESTAURANT, UH, THEY GO THROUGH THE PROPER PERMITS.
THERE ARE STILL, UM, ALCOHOL REVIEW UNDER CHAPTER SIX, UM, AND THE STATE CODE, UM, BUT THERE'S NOT A ZONING PROHIBITION ON IT.
AND, UM, FOR THE RECORD, UH, DO YOU, HAVE YOU BEEN OUT TO THIS AREA? OKAY.
UM, ARE YOU AWARE THAT THERE'S ANOTHER CONVENIENCE STORE THAT'S LESS THAN A BLOCK AWAY FROM THIS ONE? YES.
AND, UH, UH, THE, THE FINAL QUESTION IS, DOES THE, UH, APPLICANT DO, YOU KNOW, INTEND TO, UH, TEAR DOWN THE EXISTING STRUCTURE THAT'S VACANT RIGHT NOW TO BUILD THIS CONVENIENCE STORE? NO.
SO THE EXISTING BUILDING WILL REMAIN, THEY'RE JUST MOD REMODELING THE INSIDE, SO THEY'RE GONNA MODIFY THE EXISTING STRUCTURE? YES.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR HELP WITH THESE QUESTIONS.
ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR MR. LEE? OKAY.
AND, UH, BASED ON SOME OF THE FEEDBACK THAT WE'VE GOTTEN, I THINK WE'LL WANT THIS ONE BRIEFED.
THIS IS Z DASH 25 DASH TWO TWO, AND APPLICATION FOR A TERMINATION OF D RESTRICTION Z 7 78 DASH 180 1
[00:25:01]
ON PROPERTY ZONE SUBDISTRICT SIX DAVIS CORRIDOR WITHIN PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT EIGHT 30 DAVIS STREET SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICT, UH, LOCATED ON THE NORTH LINE OF WEST DAVIS STREET, EACH LINE OF NORTH VERNON AVENUE, WEST LINE OF NORTH VAN VERN AVENUE, AND SOUTH LINE OF FOUR ACRES STREET.THE PROPERTY IS APPROXIMATELY 1.6 ACRES.
HERE'S THE LOCATION MAP, HERE'S THE ZONING MAP AND THE AERIAL.
THEIR REQUEST IS CURRENTLY ZONED SUBDISTRICT SIX DAVIS CORRIDOR WITHIN PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT EIGHT 30 DAVIS STREET SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICT, AND IS CURRENTLY UNDEVELOPED THE SURROUNDING AREAS, PREDOMINANTLY COMMERCIAL AND SINGLE FAMILY.
THE APPLICANT WISHES TO DEVELOP THE SITE UNDER CURRENT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT.
AS SUCH, THEY'RE REQUESTING THAT THE DE RESTRICTION BE REMOVED.
UH, HERE'S THE PROPERTY LOOKING TO THE EAST, LOOKING TO THE NORTH, TO THE SOUTH, AND TO THE WEST.
UH, HERE'S THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS UNDER, UH, PLAN DEVELOPMENT EIGHT 30.
UH, HERE'S THE DE RESTRICTION, UH, AND THE SITE IS LOCATED ADJACENT TO BOTH, UH, COMMERCIAL AND SINGLE FAMILY LAND USES AND FRONTS OF MINOR ARTERIAL ROADWAY.
THE PROPERTY IS NEAR COMMERCIAL NODE AND DART BUS SERVICE LINES, UH, MULTIFAMILY APARTMENTS IS APPROPRIATE USE FOR THE SITE AND WILL ESSENTIALLY BLEND IN WELL WITH THE CURRENT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, UH, BY REMOVING THE D RESTRICTION THAT ALLOWED APPLICANT DEVELOP UNDER THE CURRENT, UM, CURRENT CODE STANDARDS SET FORTH IN SUBDISTRICT SIX DAVIS CORRIDOR WITHIN PLAN DEVELOPMENT EIGHT 30.
AND UPON REMOVING THE D RESTRICTION ANY FURTHER, FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS WILL BE UNDER, UM, THE STANDARDS UNDER EIGHT 30 AS WELL, AS WELL AS CHAPTER, UH, 51 A.
AND WITH THAT STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL.
QUESTION, SIR? MR. LEE? COMMISSIONER SIMS? YEAH.
SO, UH, MR. LEE, A QUESTION THAT, THAT I, I COME TO UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S A BIT OF SB EIGHT 40 INTERPLAY HERE, RIGHT? SO WE HAVE THE DEED RESTRICTIONS, WHICH AS YOU SHOWED US, SAY IT'S LIMITED TO A WAREHOUSE.
THE WAREHOUSE IS 14 FEET IN HEIGHT, AND THEN THERE'S A BUNCH OF, THERE'S A SERIES OF RESTRICTIONS ON EIGHT FOOT CONCRETE WALLS AND RETAINING WALLS AROUND THE PERIMETER OF THE PROPERTY.
SO IF WE DID NOTHING TO TODAY, HOW DOES SB EIGHT 40 INTERACT WITH THAT DEED RESTRICTION AND WHAT WOULD THE, UH, WHAT WOULD THE APPLICANT HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO? WELL, I'LL, I'LL ANSWER IT.
EIGHT 40 CAN GET SO, SO COMPLICATED, ESPECIALLY THE WAY IT INTERACTS WITH, IN THIS CASE, A PD BASED SONY AND, UM, DR.
UM, I THINK AS THE REPORT STATES, THE VERY HIGH LEVEL ANSWER IS THAT THEY CAN BUILD, UM, UP TO THE BASE ZONING, WHICH THE BASE OR THE BASE ZONING IS PD EIGHT 30, WHICHEVER SUBDISTRICT THAT PERMITS ABOUT SIX STORIES OF MULTIFAMILY OR OTHER SIMILAR USES.
UM, BUT THEN THE DEED RESTRICTION TAKES IT DOWN.
SO THE RESTRICTIONS THAT YOU SAID, SO BECAUSE OF EIGHT, SO THE DEED RESTRICTIONS RESTRICTED TO OFFICE OR WAREHOUSE USES, BUT BECAUSE THOSE TWO USES PERMIT OR, OR, OR TRIGGER EIGHT 40, THEN WE HAVE TO PERMIT MULTIFAMILY.
THEY CAN BUILD, UM, THE, THEIR, YOU KNOW, THEY CAN BUILD UP TO THE EIGHT 30, EXCUSE ME, EIGHT 30 AND EIGHT 40.
WE GOT BOTH OF THOSE TERMS, RIGHT? THEY CAN BUILD TO THE BASE ZONING STANDARD.
BASICALLY, THE ONLY THING WE CAN STILL ENFORCE ABOUT THE D RESTRICTIONS IS THAT THERE HAS TO BE SOME WEIRD LOOK AND WALL ALONG A MULTI-FAMILY PROJECT, BASICALLY.
RIGHT? SO BASED ON THAT EVALUATION, YOU KNOW, SINCE THEY CAN BUILD THE PROJECT NOW, BUT THEY CAN HAVE TO PUT THIS PARTICULAR VERY PRESCRIBED TYPE OF FENCE AND WALL THERE, IT'S IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITY TO NOT HAVE THAT RESTRICTION.
SO IF I UNDERSTAND YOU CORRECTLY, MR. PE, JUST MAKE IT REALLY SIMPLE THAT IF WE DO NOTHING, WE COULD GET A MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT WITH AN EIGHT FOOT CONCRETE WALL AROUND IT.
IF WE REMOVE THE DEED RESTRICTION, WE GET A POTENTIALLY A DEVELOPMENT, BUT WITH NO REQUIRED EIGHT FOOT WALL.
AND I WILL STATE THAT THE BAY ZONING HAS DESIGN STANDARDS THAT KIND OF MAKE, UH, MULTIFAMILY BUILDINGS KIND OF BUILT OUT IN A WAY THAT INTERACTS WITH THE STREET BE PRETTY DIFFICULT INTERACTION AND IT WOULD DEFEAT THE PURPOSE OF THE, THE ZONING.
[00:30:02]
WE GOT A GREAT, UH, MANY EMAILS IN SUPPORT OF THIS PROJECT AND MANY OF THEM REFERENCED, UM, SUPPORTING A PROJECT, A PRESENTATION THAT THEY HAD BEEN SHOWN WHEN I THINK WE HAVE A PACKET NOW THAT THAT REFLECTS THAT, BUT, UH, THE REQUEST IN FRONT OF US TODAY IS SIMPLY TO REMOVE THE DEED RESTRICTION.IS THERE ANYTHING IN THE UNDERLYING ZONING THAT WOULD THEN CONTROL THAT WOULD NECESSARILY RESULT IN THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT BEING BUILT? OR WOULD IT NOT JUST DEFAULT BACK TO ANYTHING THAT COULD, I MEAN, THIS COULD BE BUILT, BUT IT WOULDN'T BE GUARANTEED TO BE BUILT.
IT COULD BE ANYTHING THAT'S ALLOWED IN THAT PARTICULAR SUBDISTRICT.
IT COULD BE STRAIGHT MULTIFAMILY, IT COULD BE STRAIGHT OFFICE, IT COULD BE A BUILDING, A GENERAL MERCHANDISE STORE UP TO 49,999 SQUARE FEET.
SO I'M NOT TOO FAMILIAR WITH THE PACKET THAT YOU'RE REFERENCING.
WE, WE, WELL, I GUESS THEY DIDN'T GIVE YOU ONE, BUT THEY GAVE US A, A, A PACKET OF, OF PICTURES AND, AND, AND A PROPOSED SITE PLAN.
BUT, UM, MY POINT IS, WHILE THIS MAY HAVE BEEN WHAT WAS SOLD TO THE COMMUNITY FOR SUPPORT REMOVING, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE REMOVING THE DEED RESTRICTIONS WOULD NOT GUARANTEE THAT THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT BE BUILT.
THE ONLY THING I'LL ADD WITHOUT KNOWING MORE ABOUT THIS PACKET IS THAT THERE ARE PRETTY, LIKE I SAID, SERIOUS DESIGN STANDARDS THAT ARE BUILT IN THERE.
SO MAYBE IT'S NOT THIS SITE PLAN, BUT THE WALKABLE DESIGN TYPE THINGS, THOSE ARE ALL BAKED INTO THE PD.
BUT THE EMAILS THAT WE GOT REFERENCED, YOU KNOW, HAVING ALL UNDERGROUND PARKING AND DOG PARKS AND CERTAIN SPECIFIC DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS, THAT WOULD NOT NECESSARILY BE ACHIEVED THROUGH THE STRAIGHT ZONING.
IT'S THIS SPECIFIC SITE PLAN IS NOT PRESCRIBED BY THE ZONING.
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONER COX.
MR. LEE, I'VE GOT A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FOR YOU.
UM, SO I RECEIVED A, A LETTER FROM THE KID SPRINGS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
THEY REFERENCED THAT, UM, ACCORDING TO THE, THE CURRENT ZONING AND THE PD CURRENTLY ALLOWS A HUNDRED PERCENT OF LOCK COVERAGE, PROVIDES REDUCED PARKING AND THE 75 FOOT STRUCTURE.
IS THAT CORRECT? I DON'T SAY YES.
I DON'T REMEMBER THE PD DOCUMENT STANDARDS TOO MUCH, BUT WHOEVER'S IN THE PD STANDARDS IS WHAT'S ENFORCED.
UM, SO LIKE LOT COVERAGE IS A HUNDRED PERCENT, UM, ACCORDING TO THE PD AND, UH, YES, THE BUILDING HEIGHT IS THE REDUCED PARKING, I'M NOT A HUNDRED PERCENT SURE ABOUT.
AND SO I RECEIVED, UM, I KNOW THE FELLOW COMMISSIONERS DID AS WELL A NUMBER OF LETTERS IN SUPPORT.
UM, I LOOKED OVER THE LIST OF NEIGHBORS IN THE AREA THAT WERE NOTIFIED, AND I SAW VERY FEW OF THE INDIVIDUALS THAT SENT LETTERS IN SUPPORT ON THAT LIST.
DO YOU HAVE ANY, CAN YOU GIVE US ANY INSIGHT TO THAT? I MEAN, IS THERE, ARE THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORS IN SUPPORT OF THIS HAVE THE QUE COULD YOU RESTATE THE QUESTION? THE HEART OF THE QUESTION? THE QUESTION IS, WE'RE, WE'RE SEEING A LOT OF LETTERS IN SUPPORT OF THIS PROJECT FROM INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE NOT IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA OR THE NOTIFICATION AREA.
AND I'M ASKING IF, IF THE, THE PLANNER IS AWARE OF ANY OPPOSITION COMING FROM THE SPECIFIC HOMEOWNERS THAT WERE NOTIFIED.
I THINK THE, WHAT WE CAN PROVIDE IS THE, THE PACKET, YOU KNOW, YOU GOT PACKET WITH, UM, PROPERTY OWNERS NOTIFIED WITHIN 200 FEET, BUT I DON'T THINK WE CAN SPECULATE WHY YOU RECEIVE ONE SET OF EMAILS OR ONE SET OF LETTERS.
WELL, I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY FOR MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS, I DID TAKE THE TIME TO DO A COMPARISON OF THE LETTERS THAT I WAS PROVIDED IN SUPPORT AND LOOKED AT THAT AGAINST THE, THE NUMBER OR THE NEIGHBORS THAT WERE NOTIFIED.
UH, AND THERE SEEMED TO BE A TREMENDOUS NUMBER OF THOSE LETTERS AND SUPPORT THAT WERE COMING IN, UH, FROM INDIVIDUALS THAT DIDN'T LIVE IN THAT NOTIFICATION AREA.
JUST CONFIRMING THAT THE PACKET WAS SENT OUT YESTERDAY WITH ALL THE RESPONSES FROM EVERYONE.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM? I, I DID HAVE A QUESTION, COMMISSIONER SERATO.
UM, AND I, I TALKED TO COMMISSIONER SIMS ABOUT THIS A MINUTE AGO, BUT I, AGAIN, THIS, UH, BEAUTIFUL LAID OUT PLAN FOR WHAT WILL BE BUILT ON THIS SPACE OR WHAT, YOU KNOW, IS BEING PROMISED WILL BE BUILT ON THIS SPACE.
UM, SO WE'VE, COMMISSIONER SIMS ASKED LIKE, IF WE DO NOTHING TODAY, THEY CAN BUILD, YOU KNOW, A BUILDING WITH THE EIGHT FOOT WALL AROUND IT.
UM, WHAT COULD BE DONE INSTEAD TO
[00:35:01]
HELP GUIDE AND ENSURE THAT THIS IS BUILT INSTEAD OF, YOU KNOW, I, I JUST, I'M AGAIN, LEARNING THE ROPES AND WHAT WOULD NEED TO HAPPEN IN ORDER TO HOLD THE DEVELOPER TO THIS PROMISE AS OPPOSED TO JUST REMOVING THE DEED RESTRICTION AND HOPING HE HE DOES IT WELL.SO LIKE I SAID, THE, THE BASE ZONING IS A MIXED USE ZONING.
EVERYTHING ALONG THAT CORRIDOR IS, IS GENERALLY MIXED USE.
THIS IS A WEIRD QUIRKY SITE THAT HAS THIS DE RESTRICTION.
THE SOUTHERN HALF DOESN'T HAVE THIS, THIS DE RESTRICTION.
SO GENERALLY THAT USE THE, I MEAN, AGAIN, WE HAVEN'T, I I'LL SAY WE HAVE NOT BEEN PROVIDED THIS PACKET, SO WE DON'T KNOW TONS ABOUT IT.
I, I LOOKED AT THE, THE SITE PLAN.
UM, I WOULD IMAGINE IT IS A BUILDABLE, GENERALLY A BUILDABLE PLAN UNDER THE ZONING, BECAUSE THE ZONING THAT'S THERE, LIKE I SAID, IT'S A MIXED USE ZONING.
UM, AND AT THE SAME RATE, WHAT THE TEETH OF IT IS THAT THE, THE ZONING HAS DEALER, UH, DOES DESIGN STANDARDS BAKED IN, THEY HAVE TO HAVE, UH, GOOD SIDEWALKS.
THEY HAVE TO, UM, SCREEN OR HIDE THEIR PARKING.
I DON'T KNOW IF IT, I DON'T THINK IT SPECIFICALLY SAYS THEY HAVE TO BURY PARKING.
UM, BUT THERE'S, IT'S A MIXED USE ZONING.
SO THERE ARE OTHER THINGS THAT CAN BE BUILT, AND I THINK THAT'S, THAT'S PRETTY COMMON.
MOST, MOST OF THIS CORRIDOR IS, IS ZONED SIMILARLY.
SO, UM, THE, WHAT HOLDS THEM TO ELEMENTS OF IT, I'M SURE THERE, THERE ARE PEOPLE THAT ELEMENTS OF WHAT PEOPLE LIKE IS, YOU KNOW, MAYBE THE DESIGN AND HOW THE STREET TREATMENTS ARE, UM, THAT REMAINS IN PLACE IN, IN THE PD, BUT THERE'S NOT A, THERE'S NOT A MECHANISM RIGHT NOW HERE, UM, TO HOLD THEM TO A VERY SPECIFIC SITE PLAN.
MR. CARPENTER, SORT OF TAGGING ONTO THE QUESTION, IT WOULD, IT WOULD REQUIRE EITHER A SEPARATE SET OF DEED RESTRICTIONS OR AN AMENDED, UM, SUBDISTRICT IN THE PD TO GET CLOSER TO, I MEAN, TO REALLY TO DICTATE, UM, COMPLIANCE WITH, WITH THE FEATURES THAT ARE PROMISED HERE.
IF WE WANT TO MANDATE A SPECIFIC PLAN, A PD SUBDISTRICT CAN DO SOME RIGHT.
BUT AGAIN, PLANS UNDER, UM, EIGHT 40 ARE TO A DEGREE ADMINISTRATIVE.
SO I, WHILE YOU SAY YOU COULD ATTACH A PLAN TO A, UH, A ZONING, I WOULD CAUTION THAT THEY CAN BE AMENDED THROUGH THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS, BUT YOU CAN ALSO GET THEIR SORT OF THROUGH A PD LIGHT, WHICH WOULD BE A SEPARATE SET OF SUB DISTRICT, UH, SUB, UH, OF DEAL RESTRICTIONS, WHICH COULD REQUIRE THINGS LIKE UNDERGROUND PARKING AND WHATEVER THE FEATURES ARE THAT, THAT PEOPLE ARE, UM, ACTUALLY IN FAVOR OF IN THEIR SUPPORT.
YEAH, AND, AND I'LL SAY, YOU KNOW, WE DIDN'T EVALUATE THROUGH THE LENS OF A VERY SPECIFIC PROPOSAL BE EVALUATED THROUGH A A AS, YOU KNOW, THE ZONING THAT'S ON THE GROUND, THE RESTRICTIONS THAT ARE THERE, THIS IS NOT PRESENTED TO US.
IT'S JUST WE, WE GOT A, THE LETTERS THAT WE GOT WHEN I, I READ EVERY ONE OF THEM, AND MOST OF THEM REFERENCED BEING IN SUPPORT OF A VERY SPECIFIC PROJECT.
SO THAT'S WHERE MY QUESTIONS ARE COMING FROM.
COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT FOR MR. PEPE.
UM, DO YOU KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE HISTORY OF PD EIGHT 30 AND HOW IT CAME ABOUT? I MEAN, USUALLY THESE KINDS OF PDS ARE BROUGHT ABOUT BY A LOT OF NEIGHBORHOOD INVOLVEMENT AND ENGAGEMENT AND, YOU KNOW, I I, I WOULD, I WOULD ASSUME THAT THERE WAS A CONSENSUS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT PUTTING THIS MIXED USE ZONING UP AND DOWN DAVIS WAS, WAS, YOU KNOW, ACCEPTABLE TO THEM.
CAN YOU SPEAK INTO ANY OF THAT? YEAH, NO, I THANK YOU FOR THAT.
I MEAN, IT WAS, I UNDERSTAND BROUGHT ON BY UNAUTHORIZED HEARING PROCESS, WHICH INCLUDED COMMUNITY INPUT.
SO THE, THE ZONING IS PRETTY CONSISTENT ALONG THAT COURT OR IT'S GOT THAT, UM, SUBDISTRICT SIX DESIGNATION ALONG THE CORRIDOR.
I WOULD SAY THE QUIRK, UH, AND THIS IS KIND OF A FUN FACT FOR ANYONE WHEN WE HAVE AUTHORIZED HEARINGS, IS THROUGH AN AUTHORIZED HEARING PROCESS IS KIND OF HARD TO, UH, AMEND D RESTRICTIONS BECAUSE WE OFTEN NEED TO GET THAT, THAT VERY SPECIFIC PROPERTY OWNER ON BOARD.
AS A RESULT, YOU'LL SEE AUTHORIZED HEARINGS, UM, INTRODUCE NEW SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICTS LIKE, LIKE EIGHT 30, UM, WITHOUT REMOVING THE DE RESTRICTIONS THAT, UM, ARE CLEARLY MEANT TO REGULATE A INDU, A PREVIOUS INDUSTRIAL ZONING.
UM, SO THAT'S ON ONE HAND WHY MOST OF THIS CORRIDOR FROM, I DON'T KNOW, IT'S OVER, YOU KNOW, FURTHER WEST AND THEN DOWN THE EAST IT'S CALLED THE DAVIS CORRIDOR OR SUBDISTRICT SIX IS VERY CONSISTENTLY ZONED THAT.
BUT THIS ONE VERY PARTICULAR PARCEL HAS DUE RESTRICTIONS BECAUSE IT'S, UH, FROM A PROCEDURAL STANDPOINT, HARD FOR STAFF IN AN AUTHORIZED HEARING TO MODIFY THOSE.
SO THAT'S MY, WITHOUT KNOWING MORE HISTORY, AND I DON'T WANT IT TELL ANYONE, UM, THAT WE KNOW ALL OF THAT HISTORY.
BUT I, I CAN SPEAK TO THAT DE RESTRICTION ANGLE ON THIS VERY PARTICULAR SITE.
THIS IS ONE OF THE ONLY ONES ALONG HERE THAT HAS, UM, QUIRKY DE RESTRICTIONS.
[00:40:02]
JUST AN ADDITIONAL QUESTION REGARDING PARKING.WHAT, DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE APPLICANT'S PLANS ARE FOR PARKING FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT? BECAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE, AND I JUST GOT THIS PACKAGE A HALF HOUR AGO, SO I HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO STUDY IT, BUT IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IF, IF YOU'RE, IF YOU'RE BUILDING A, A MIXED USE, YOU'RE, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE APARTMENTS AND IT LOOKS LIKE, UM, STORES AS WELL, UH, YOU'RE GONNA NEED ADDITIONAL PARKING FROM A CODE STANDPOINT.
DO, FIRST OF ALL, DO YOU KNOW WHAT, WHAT THE PARKING, UH, IS SUPPOSED TO BE? NO, BECAUSE, UM, WITH THE APPLICATION, THERE ARE NO SITE PLANS SUBMITTED.
AND I'M NOT AWARE OF THE DOCUMENT THAT YOU, YOU ALL ARE LOOKING AT.
UM, BUT I'M, I'M ASSUMING THAT IT'LL DEFER TO, UM, WHOEVER THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS ARE UNDER.
I THINK THAT'D BE PARKING REFORM, CORRECT.
WELL, I WILL SAY QUIRKY CASE, UH, AGAIN HERE, UM, THIS PD HAS HIGHER PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR MULTIFAMILY, UM, AND OTHER USES THAN THE BASE CODE DOES NOW.
SO WHEN WE HAVE A PD, IF IT, YOU KNOW, IT DEFAULTS TO CHAPTER 51 AR OUR BASE CODE, OUR CITYWIDE CODE, BUT THEN IF IT GOES AND MODIFIES, UM, A PARTICULAR USES RATIO, THEN THAT WE CAN'T, UH, PARKING REFORM DIDN'T ALTER THOSE RATIOS.
SO THIS AREA, UH, FOR MANY USES, INCLUDING MULTI-FAMILY RESTAURANT AND RETAIL, HAS A HIGHER REQUIREMENT THAN OUR BASE CODE DOES.
SO IF THIS PROJECT WAS BUILT TO THE, I DON'T KNOW, I'M TRYING TO THINK OF AN AREA.
IF THIS PROJECT WAS BUILT DOWN THE STREET BACK IN REGULAR TYPICAL ZONING, IT WOULD HAVE A LOWER PARKING REQUIREMENT THAN THIS PARTICULAR AREA.
UM, THERE ARE PRETTY, THERE ARE DESIGN STANDARDS FOR WHERE PARKING CAN BE, THEY HAVE LIMITS ON WHERE THEY CAN BE, BUT THAT'S MY ANSWER IN TERMS OF THE PARKING NUMBERS, IT'S HIGHER THAN WE WOULD REQUIRE CITYWIDE.
AND JUST A FOLLOW UP QUESTION.
SO WHEN WE TALK ABOUT PARKING FOR A DEVELOPMENT LIKE THIS, UM, AND, AND WE HAVE PARKING REQUIREMENTS OF WHAT ONE SPACE PER UNIT FOR APARTMENTS, UM, HOW DOES THAT PLAY IN WHERE YOU HAVE A, THAT COMMERCIAL ELEMENT AS WELL AND OBVIOUSLY THE PARKING THAT WOULD BE NECESSARY FOR IT? YEAH, GOOD QUESTION.
SO TYPICALLY IN THE CITY WHEN YOU HAVE A MIXED USE PROJECT, YOU HAVE TO PARK YOUR MULTIFAMILY WITH A CERTAIN RATIO IN A CERTAIN TOTAL.
IF YOU HAVE A RESTAURANT THERE, YOU ALSO HAVE TO DO THAT.
YOU CAN'T TYPICALLY DOUBLE COUNT THEM CITYWIDE.
UM, THEY JUST RATIO AS A RATIO.
SO WHEN I, YOU KNOW, IF I'M THE PERMIT REVIEWER, I LOOK AT EVERY USE IN THE PROJECT, UM, AND THEN I ADD UP THE, THE RATIOS THAT EACH USE IS REQUIRED.
THIS PARTICULAR PD DOES HAVE WHAT'S CALLED A MIXED USE SHARING TABLE, WHICH IS A LITTLE COMPLEX, BUT IT MEANS THAT, YOU KNOW, VERSUS OTHER PLACES YOU CAN SHARE PARKING BETWEEN USES TO A DEGREE OR SLIGHTLY REDUCE, UM, THE REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE REQUIRED TO BE BUILT OUT IN A, YOU KNOW, IN A SHARED ARRANGEMENT, IN A MIXED USE PROJECT.
THOSE ARE BASED ON USUALLY THE TIMES THAT, UM, USES TEND TO OPERATE.
SO, YOU KNOW, LIKE OFFICE DOESN'T INTERACT WITH MULTIFAMILY PARKING KIND OF, UH, YOU KNOW, NOT THAT'S A, JUST AS A, AS A PRINCIPLE GENERALLY.
NOT SAYING THAT ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS, BUT THAT'S A LONG WAY OF SAYING THAT TYPICALLY THEY'RE COUNTED SEPARATELY.
IN THIS CASE, THEY GET A SLIGHT REDUCTION BECAUSE THEY'RE IN SHARING A SITE IN A MIXED USE AREA.
BUT I WILL SAY IT'S A VERY, IT'S A VERY WALKABLE AREA.
THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO DO WALK HERE.
UM, SO THAT DOES LEND ITSELF TO, TO SHARING PARKING WHERE PEOPLE CAN PARK ONCE OR NOT PARK AT ALL IF THEY DON'T OWN A VEHICLE.
UM, I WOULD SAY THAT THAT MAKES SENSE FOR THE SITE.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ITEM COMMISSIONER HALL? WELL, I'LL JUST POINT OUT THAT THE, WHAT WE WERE HANDED OUT HERE SHOWS TWO LEVELS OF BELOW GRADE PARKING.
AND I, I DON'T WANNA TAKE THE TIME TO COUNT THE NUMBER OF PARKING UNITS, BUT THERE SEEMS TO BE QUITE A FEW.
SO, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THIS IS JUST QUESTION TIME.
ALRIGHT, LET'S MOVE ON TO, UM, CASE NUMBER 10.
COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, DID YOU NEED THAT BRIEF OR QUESTIONS? UM, I, I DON'T NEED A FULL BRIEFING UNLESS MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS DO, BUT I DO WANT TO ASK MR. PEPE A COUPLE QUESTIONS.
THIS PARTICULAR SITE, IS IT CORRECT THAT IT EXTENDS INTO THE RESIDENTIAL BLOCK FACE? UM, ON SWISS AVENUE? THE PROPERTY ADDRESS IS ONTO GASTON.
THAT'S WHERE IT'S PARKING IN ITS GENERAL USE IS LOCATED, BUT THE SITE ITSELF, AND I DON'T KNOW IF IT MAY BE EASIER TO BRING UP THE AERIAL VIEW.
OH, I MEAN, I DON'T HAVE THE SLIDES, UM, FOR ME RIGHT NOW, BUT, UM, AND I CAN RUN DO IT, BUT I WILL SAY THAT
[00:45:03]
THIS PARCEL, YEAH, THIS PARCEL IS JUST THE PARCEL OF THE GROCERY STORE.IF YOU'VE BEEN OVER THERE TO
AND IN A WEIRD WAY, THIS PARCEL IS JUST THE STORE BASICALLY.
AND THEN THE REST, THE AREAS TO THE WEST ARE PD, UH, 2 98 SUBDISTRICT, SUB AREA 11, AND THEN 13 INCLUDES THE, UM, THE PARKING AREA FOR THE, UH, SHOPPING CENTER.
AND AGAIN, AND I'M ON PAGE, WHAT PAGE AM I ON OF OUR CASE REPORT? 10 11? YES.
BEHIND THE BUILDING THERE'S A SURFACE PARKING LOT, THERE'S SOME GENERAL LOADING THAT IS ALL ATTACHED TO THIS SITE, CORRECT? YES.
SO YOUR PROPERTY LINE IS ROUGHLY AT THE, THE FRONT DOOR OF EL RANCHO.
UM, AND THEN THERE'S A, I, WHAT I PRESUME IS KIND OF EMPLOYEE PARKING BEHIND THERE.
JUST A COUPLE FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS.
UM, THE ENTRANCE THOUGH, FOR THIS BUILDING AS OF RIGHT NOW IS ON THE GASTON SIDE, NOT THE SWISS SIDE, YOUR CUSTOMER ENTRANCE IF, I MEAN, YOU DON'T SEE THESE LINES ON THE GROUND IF YOU'RE A CUSTOMER.
UM, IF YOU'RE A CUSTOMER, YOU'RE ENTERING FROM PROBABLY THE, THE PARKING LOT ON GAS CENTER, THE BUS ON GASTON GOING STRAIGHT IN FROM THERE, YOUR CUSTOMER ENTRANCE IS ON THERE.
AND CAN YOU JUST EXPLAIN WHAT IN THE AREA HAS THE D OVERLAY VERSUS WARRIORS THAT BEEN REMOVED OR DOES IT NOT EXIST? YEAH, AND YOU KNOW, THAT PLAYED INTO OUR ANALYSIS FOR SURE.
THERE'S VERY FEW PROPERTIES THAT REMAIN IN THE AREA THAT ARE COMMERCIAL AND HAVE THIS D OVERLAY.
SO I GO DOWN, UH, GASTON, UH, THERE ARE SOME D OVERLAYS THAT REMAIN OR D OR D ONES THAT REMAIN ON THE DALLAS, WHAT IS IT? DTS, DALLAS THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY SITE AND THE BAYLOR SITE.
BUT AS FOR THE COMMERCIAL ZONING, IT'S REALLY NOT COMMON OVER HERE WHERE THE D UH, OVERLAY STILL OVERLAYS.
THERE'S A NEIGHBOR, UH, BUILT OUT AS TOWN HOMES WHERE THE D OVERLAY STILL, UH, OVERLAYS THEM.
THERE'S NO OTHER COMMERCIAL, UH, COMMERCIAL AREAS THAT HAVE THAT OVERLAY.
UM, AND, AND YOU KNOW, A BIG PART OF IT IS THERE'S A, THERE'S A GROCERY STORE ACROSS THE STREET THAT DOESN'T OPERATE UNDER IN AN OVERLAY, UM, UM, THE ALDI, BUT THEN HERE ACROSS THE STREET, THE, THE RANCHO HAS THE, THE OVERLAY.
SO IT'S REALLY THE LAST, UM, AREA, UM, OVER HERE THAT'S COMMERCIAL THAT HAS THAT OVERLAY AND THAT'S PART OF OUR REASONING.
AND, AND IF WE WANTED TO SEE THE D OVERLAY, WE'D JUST BRING IT UP IN GIS YEAH, SO D OVERLAYS ARE GONNA SHOW UP AS RED ON THE GIS MAP, UM, AND THEY'RE, AND THEN D ONES ARE GONNA SHOW UP AS BLUE.
UM, AND THEN IN THE, THE, UM, MAPS ON OUR CASE REPORT, THEY'RE GONNA LOOK LIKE SOMETHING CRAZY IN BLACK AND WHITE.
UH, THEY'LL LOOK, UH, ON, ON THE CASE REPORT MAPS, THEY'LL LOOK LIKE LITTLE, LITTLE, LITTLE PLUS SIGNS.
UM, MAYBE IF YOU HAVE THE GIS FIRED UP FOR THIS AFTERNOON, I DON'T NEED IT NOW, BUT THAT MIGHT BE HELPFUL.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS MR. CARPENTER? YES.
I HAD A QUESTION ABOUT, UM, THE SENTENCE IN THE, UM, CASE REPORT, TALKING ABOUT THE D ONE OVERLAY.
IT SAYS THIS WOULD REQUIRE THE ONGOING MAINTENANCE OF AN SUP SITE PLAN, WHICH COULD PRESENT PROBLEMS FOR THE LONG-TERM OPERATION OF A GROCERY STORE.
AND I, I, I CAN'T FIGURE OUT WHY HAVING TO HAVE AN SUP SITE PLAN WOULD BE A PARTICULAR PROBLEM FOR A GROCERY STORE.
YEAH, I, I, UH, I MEAN THAT'S BASED ON THE FACT THAT IF THEY'RE OPERATING IN THE LONG TERM, THEY WANT TO ADD A FREEZER TO THE BACK OF THEIR BUILDING, THEY WANNA, YOU KNOW, CHANGE UP, UM, SOME OF HOW THEIR SITE WORKS, THEY WANT TO ADD, UM, SMALL FACILITIES, THEY WANT TO ADD SMALL, UM, OVERHANGS OR OTHER KINDS OF STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS THAT SHOULD BE REFLECTED IN A SITE PLAN.
UM, AND IT, IT'S, I THINK IT'S A LOT TO ASK OF A, OF A GROCERY STORE TO COME AND AMEND A SITE PLAN TO ADD SMALL THINGS OPERATIONALLY WHEN THEY JUST NEED TO PULL A PERMIT.
OTHERWISE, UM, IN MOST COMMERCIAL AREAS, THAT'S THE BURDEN THAT WE'RE REFERRING TO THERE.
BUT I MEAN, SAY SCHOOLS, FOR INSTANCE, WHO HAVE SUVS, THEY, THEY COME IN FOR SUP AMENDMENTS FREQUENTLY FOR, FOR THE KINDS OF, MAYBE NOT A FREEZER, BUT SOME OF THE, THE SMALLER CHANGES.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HAMPTON.
JUST ONE FOLLOW UP, MR. PEPPA.
YOU MENTIONED THE, UM, OTHER SURROUNDING BUSINESSES, A GROCERY STORE, UM, THAT DOES NOT HAVE AN SUP OR EXCUSE ME, A D OVERLAY.
ARE ANY OF THOSE OTHER SITES EMBEDDED WITHIN ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL ZONING WITH FRONTAGE ONTO A RESIDENTIAL STREET? IWI DON'T KNOW IF, WELL, I DON'T KNOW IF I QUALIFY ANY STREET AS AS RESIDENTIAL VERSUS NOT.
UM, THE, THE, ALLOW ME TO REPHRASE WITH FLANKING MULTIFAMILY ZONING THERE.
SO YEAH, THE ALDI BACKS UP TO RESIDENTIAL.
IS THAT ACROSS AN ALLEY OR IS IT EXTENDED INTO THE BLOCK FACE OF THE RESIDENTIAL ZONING? IT'S NOT ACROSS THE MF TWO ZONING.
[00:50:01]
ALLEY.IT, IT BUTTS AGAINST THOSE PROPERTIES AND I THINK THAT'S KIND OF THE SIMILAR CONDITION WE'RE LOOKING AT OVER HERE.
ANYTHING ELSE, COMMISSIONERS? OKAY.
NUMBER 11 IS GOING TO BE HELD AND COMMISSIONER WHEELER IS OUT TODAY, SO I ASSUME WE CAN FOREGO BRIEFING THERE.
THAT'S GONNA BE HELD TO OUR FIRST APRIL MEETING.
UM, NUMBER 12, COMMISSIONER HALL, THAT'S ALSO GOING TO BE HELD.
DO YOU HAVE A DATE, CERTAIN FIRST MEETING IN APRIL? UH, I THINK IT'S APRIL NINE.
UH, NUMBER 13, COMMISSIONER HAMPTON DOES THAT ONE.
DO YOU WANT THAT ONE BRIEF OR QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? NOPE.
NUMBER 14 IS GOING TO BE HELD FOR A MONTH.
I TO BE READVERTISED FOR CONSIDERATION IS MU ONE.
DO WE NEED THAT BRIEFED OR QUESTIONS TODAY? OKAY, GREAT.
UH, COMMISSIONER KINGSTON HAS A CONFLICT ON THAT ONE.
UM, SO IF YOU DO WANNA STEP OUT, I THINK, OH, NO QUESTIONS.
WELL THAT CONCLUDES OUR ZONING DOCKET.
UM, WE HAVE SIGNS AND WE HAVE, WHAT IS IT, THOROUGHFARE PLAN AMENDMENTS.
DO WE WANT ANY OF THOSE BRIEFED OR QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THOSE? OH, DO YOU, DO YOU, DO YOU WANT THEM? YOU'RE YOU'RE GOOD WITH THAT BRIEFING? OKAY, GREAT.
OKAY THEN IT IS 11:55 AM AND THAT CONCLUDES THE BRIEFING OF THE DALLAS CITY CLAN COMMISSION.
WE WILL BE BACK AROUND 1230 FOR A PUBLIC HEARING.
[CALL TO ORDER]
GOOD AFTERNOON EVERYONE.IT IS THURSDAY, MARCH 5TH, 2026 AND THIS IS THE PUBLIC HEARING OF THE DALLAS CITY PLAN COMMISSION.
IT IS 12:36 PM MS. LOPEZ, CAN WE START OFF WITH A BRIEF FOR CALL? GOOD AFTERNOON COMMISSIONERS.
DISTRICT ONE COMMISSIONER SIMS? HERE.
DISTRICT TWO, COMMISSIONER HAMPTON.
HERBERT PRESENT? DISTRICT FOUR.
COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN PRESENT.
COMMISSIONER KINGSTON HERE AND PLACE 15 CHAIR RUBIN, I'M HERE.
UM, JUST A FEW HOUSEKEEPING ANNOUNCEMENTS.
UH, OUR RULES TYPICALLY, UM, PROVIDE ANY PUBLIC SPEAKERS IN ITEM THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK, ALTHOUGH WE DO RESERVE THE DISCRETION TO ADJUST THAT UPWARDS OR DOWNWARDS.
ADDITIONALLY, UM, IF THERE IS OPPOSITIONAL ITEM, OUR RULES ALLOW, UM, THE APPLICANT A TWO MINUTE REBUTTAL PERIOD.
WHEN YOU DO COME DOWN TO SPEAK, PLEASE START WITH YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS SO WE HAVE A RECORD OF THAT.
UM, AND THEN FILL OUT ONE OF THOSE YELLOW, YELLOW FORMS ON MY LEFT, YOUR RIGHT, UM, FOR, FOR OUR RECORDS AS WELL.
[APPROVAL OF MINUTES]
I THINK WE DO, I HAVE A MOTION ON OUR MINUTES FROM FEBRUARY 19TH MEETING WE DO, MR. CHAIR, I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 19TH, 2026 CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AS POSTED ON FEBRUARY 19TH, 2026.THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HALL FOR YOUR MOTION.
VICE CHAIR HERBERT FOR YOUR SECOND.
ANY DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
THE MOTION CARRIES ITEM NUMBER
[1. 26-801A An application requesting relief from the street frontage requirements along N. Beckley Avenue per the site plan on property zoned Subdistrict EWMU-8 Walkable Mixed Urban Use 8 within Planned Development District 468, on the southwest corner of W 6th Street and N. Beckley Avenue. Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to the site plan. Applicant: Aubrey Quarles Mc Caskell Affiliates LLC Planner: Sheila Alcantara Segovia Council District: 1 MZ-25-000045]
ONE.I'M GOING OVER SLEEP TO SLEEP WITH THAT LAUNCH AS WELL.
ITEM NUMBER ONE, AN APPLICATION REQUESTING A RELIEF FROM STREET F REQUIREMENTS ALONG NORTH BECKLEY AVENUE PER THE SITE PLAN ON PROPERTY ZONE SUBDISTRICT EWMU DASH EIGHT WALKABLE MIX, URBAN USE EIGHT WITHIN PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 4 6 8 ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF WEST SIXTH STREET AND NORTH BECKLEY AVENUE STAFF.
RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL SUBJECT TO SITE
[00:55:01]
PLAN.THANK YOU FOR YOUR, UH, THANK YOU MS. SEGOVIA.
IS THERE ANYONE WHO'D LIKE TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THIS ITEM? NUMBER ONE.
ANY SPEAKERS IN OPPOSITION? OKAY, WE'LL GO TO COMMISSIONER SIMS FOR A MOTION.
THANK YOU MS. CHAIR IN THE MATTER OF, UH, CASE NUMBER MZ DASH 25 DASH 0 0 0 4 5.
I MOVE THAT WE FOLLOW STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND APPROVE SUBJECT TO THE SITE PLAN.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER SIMS FOR YOUR MOTION.
COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT FOR YOUR SECOND.
[Zoning Cases - Consent]
OKAY, WE WILL MOVE ON TO OUR ZONING CONSENT AGENDA, UM, WHICH CONSISTS OF ITEMS TWO THROUGH SEVEN.UM, FOR THOSE OF YOU YOU HAVE WHO HAVEN'T JOINED US BEFORE, THE WAY THAT A CONSENT AGENDA WORKS IS ALL OF THE ITEMS ON THE AGENDA WILL BE TAKEN UP AND APPROVED OF IN A SINGLE MOTION UNLESS SOMEONE ON THE UH, PLAN COMMISSION, YOU KNOW, WOULD LIKE TO, UM, HAVE AN ITEM REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION.
AND SIMILARLY, IF THERE'S SOMEONE WHO, YOU KNOW, WANTS TO SPEAK ON ANY ITEMS IN OUR CONSENT AGENDA, UM, WE'RE ALSO HAPPY TO PULL THEM OFF CONSENT ON YOUR BEHALF.
SO, YOU KNOW, AS IT WAS NOTICED, THE CONSENT AGENDA CONSISTED OF ITEMS TWO THROUGH SEVEN.
ITEMS TWO, FOUR, AND SEVEN HAVE COME OFF AND WILL BE CONSIDERED INDIVIDUALLY.
IS THERE ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE ITEM THREE, ITEM FIVE OR ITEM SIX CONSIDERED INDIVIDUALLY.
CAN WE READ OUR CONSENT AGENDA IN CONSISTING OF ITEMS TWO? I'M SORRY, THREE, FIVE AND SIX.
IS THERE SOMEONE WHO CAN READ? MR. PEPE, CAN YOU READ OUR CONSENT AGENDA IN? I GOT IT.
GONE OVER OKAY WITH THE CONSENT AGENDA.
UM, ITEMS THREE, FIVE AND SIX.
UH, ITEM THREE IS Z 2 6 0 0 0 3 1.
IT'S AN APPLICATION FOR A HISTORIC OVERLAY FOR EL CHITO RESTAURANT.
UM, 6 1 0 WEST JEFFERSON BOULEVARD, INCLUDING ADJACENT PARCELS AT 6 0 2 AND 6 0 5 WEST JEFFERSON BOULEVARD ON PROPERTY ZONE PD 3 1 6 SUB AREA ONE FOR COMMERCIAL RESTAURANT USES AT THE INTERSECTION OF WEST JEFFERSON BOULEVARD AND SOUTH LEWELLEN AVENUE.
RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO PRESERVATION CRITERIA WITH EDITS.
UM, AND THEN FIVE, ITEM FIVE IS Z 2 6 0 0 0 5.
THAT'S AN APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO SPECIFIC USE PERMIT.
10 54 FOR AN AUTO AUCTION ON PROPERTY ZONED.
I AM INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURING DISTRICT ON NORTHWEST CORNER OF KEY BOULEVARD AND DUNCANVILLE ROAD.
SEPARATE RECOMMENDATIONS, APPROVAL SUBJECT TO AN AMENDED SITE PLAN AND ITEM SIX IS Z 2 501 63 AND THAT'S AN APPLICATION FOR A NEW SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR A VEHICLE DISPLAY SALES AND SERVICE USE ON PROPERTY ZONE SUB AREA THREE WITHIN PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 360 6, THE BUCKNER BOULEVARD SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICT WITH A D ONE LIQUOR CONTROL OVERLAY ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SOUTH BUCKNER BOULEVARD AND CARR STREET.
RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL FOR A TWO YEAR PERIOD SUBJECT TO SITE PLANNING CONDITIONS.
IS THERE ANYONE WHO'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON THE CONSENT AGENDA WHICH CONSISTS OF ITEMS THREE, FIVE, AND SIX? I SEE THAT WE HAVE ONE SPEAKER AND ITEM SIX WHO I BELIEVE IS THE APPLICANT, SO I DON'T THINK WE'LL NEED TO HEAR FROM THEM.
DO WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE CONSENT AGENDA? COMMISSIONER SIMS? YES, MR. CHAIR, WITH RESPECT TO THE CONSENT AGENDA, I ITEMS THREE, FIVE, AND SIX, I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE ITEMS PER STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION AS LISTED IN THE DOCKET, AS LISTED IN THE DOCKET.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER SIMS FOR YOUR MOTION.
VICE CHAIR HERBERT FOR YOUR SECOND.
ANY DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
[2. 26-802A An application for a historic overlay for The Wesley Inn (1159 N. Madison Avenue), on property zoned PD 830, Subdistrict 1 (Bishop Avenue), to add the additional use of lodging (short- and long-term accommodations), on the north side of N. Madison Avenue and west of Ballard Avenue. Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to preservation criteria, with edits. Landmark Commission Recommendation: Approval. Applicant: Bishop Madison LLC Representative: AJ Ramler Planner: Rhonda Dunn, Ph. D. Council District: 1 Z-26-000030]
TWO I, GOOD AFTERNOON.RHONDA DUNN PRESENTING ON BEHALF OF CITY STAFF CONSENT ITEM TWO, UH, CASE NUMBER Z 26 0 0 0 3 0.
IT'S AN APPLICATION FOR HISTORIC OVERLAY FOR THE WESLEY INN AT 1159 NORTH MADISON AVENUE ON PROPERTY ZONE PD EIGHT 30 SUBDISTRICT ONE TO ADD THE ADDITIONAL USE OF LODGING, SHORT AND LONG-TERM ACCOMMODATIONS ON THE NORTH SIDE OF NORTH MADISON AVENUE AND WEST OF BALLARD AVENUE.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO
[01:00:01]
PRESERVATION CRITERIA WITH EDITS.LANDMARK COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL.
IS THERE ANYONE WHO'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER TWO? OKAY.
SO THAT, THAT'S CORRECT, BUT WE HAVE TO ACTUALLY TO HOLD THE ITEM.
WE HAVE TO READ IT IN, HAVE PUBLIC SPEAKERS.
AND I DO SEE THAT THERE'S SOMEONE SIGNED UP ONLINE TO SPEAK.
COMMISSIONER SIMS, YOUR MOTION BACK TO ME AGAIN, MR. CHAIR.
LOTS OF MOTION GOING ON OVER HERE.
I MOVE THAT WE HOLD THIS UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL OUR MEETING ON APRIL 9TH, 2026.
COMMISSIONER SIMS FOR YOUR MOTION.
COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT FOR YOUR SECOND.
[4. 26-804A An application for an amendment to Specific Use Permit 1730 for an alcoholic beverage establishment limited to a private-club bar on property zoned IM Industrial Manufacturing District and Subarea 4, within Planned Development 366, Buckner Boulevard Special Purpose District, on the northeast corner of S. Buckner Boulevard and Kipling Drive. Staff Recommendation: Approval for a five-year period, subject to conditions. Applicant: Promotions Iguana, LLC / Gabriela Rodriguez Representative: Baldwin Associates / Rob Baldwin Planner: Justin Lee Council District: 5 Z-25-000239]
GO TO ITEM NUMBER FOUR.ITEM NUMBER FOUR AND APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO SPECIFIC USE PERMIT 1730 FOR AN ALCOHOL BEVERAGE ESTABLISHMENT LIMITED TO A PRIVATE CLUB BAR ON PROPERTY ZONE.
I AM INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURING DISTRICT AND SUB AREA FOUR WITHIN PLAN DEVELOPMENT.
360 6 BUCKNER BOULEVARD SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICT ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SOUTH BUCKNER BOULEVARD AND KIPLING DRIVE.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS, APPROVAL FOR A FIVE YEAR PERIOD SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS.
3 9 0 4 ELM STREET, SUITE B IN DALLAS.
I'M REPRESENTING THE FAR WEST NIGHTCLUB AND DIS REQUEST.
UM, I I, I WAS AT THE BRIEFING SESSION AND KNOW THAT, UH, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER HAD QUESTIONS ABOUT THE, THE CRIME STATS THAT WERE IN YOUR, UH, REPORT.
LET ME SEE HOW I CAN MAKE THIS WORK.
WELL, SO I I I'VE ANALYZED THEM AND LEMME SEE.
SO WHAT I DID IS I TOOK THE DAYS WHERE THESE, UH, CRIME STATS WERE REPORTED TO THE POLICE.
IF, AND UNFORTUNATELY, AT LEAST ON MY SCREEN OVER HERE, THE GREEN ONES SHOWED WHEN WE WERE NOT OPEN AND IF, IF THIS HAPPENED WITHIN AN HOUR OF THE CLOSING TIME, THEY'LL ONLY OPEN FRIDAY AND SATURDAY TILL 2:00 AM IF IT WAS WITHIN AN HOUR OF THE OPENING TIME OR CLOSING TIME, I INCLUDED IT IN, UH, A LEGITIMATE CLAIM.
IF IT WAS OUTSIDE THE CLOSING TIME, OUTSIDE AN HOUR AND A HALF, OR ON DAYS WHEN THEY WEREN'T OPEN, I HIGHLIGHTED THOSE IN GREEN.
UM, AND THEN ON THE, THE FAR RIGHT CALL IT, UH, IF IT'S IN BLUE, THERE WAS NO COMPLAINT FILED OR NO REPORT FILED.
SO, UH, I, I'LL GO THROUGH THESE, YOU KNOW, THE, THE, THE TOP ONE, IT WAS AN HOUR AND 20 MINUTES AFTER WE CLOSED THE, THE CLUB HAS A SECURITY DETAIL THAT MONITORS EVERYTHING WHEN THEY CLOSE AT, AT, UM, AT TWO.
EVERYBODY HAS TO BE OUTTA THE PARKING LOT BY, UH, UH, TWO 30.
UH, AND THE, THE GATES ARE CLOSED.
SO THIS HAPPENED AT 3:22 AM UH, THE NEXT ONE, IT WAS ON A WEDNESDAY.
THERE'S TWO RIGHT BELOW EACH OTHER THAT, UM, APPEARS TO BE A DUPLICATE.
AND, UH, BELOW THAT IT WAS ON A WEDNESDAY.
THE OTHER TWO ON THIS SCREEN WERE NO REPORT FILED ON THIS ONE.
THERE WAS A SUNDAY AT 8:49 PM THE NEXT ONE WAS ON A TUESDAY.
THE FOLLOWING ONE WAS ON A THURSDAY CLOSED.
THE NEXT ONE WAS AT 5:12 AM ON A SUNDAY.
THE ONE AFTER THAT WAS ON A MONDAY WHEN THEY WERE CLOSED.
THEN WE HAVE ANOTHER ONE ON A MONDAY, ONE ON A THURSDAY, ONE ON A FRIDAY MORNING, AND, UH, ANOTHER ONE ON A MONDAY.
SO THERE, THERE SEEMS TO BE A LOT OF CALLS, BUT VERY, NOT A LOT OF 'EM HAVE TO DO WITH THIS USE ITSELF IN MY ANALYSIS.
SO, UM, I HOPE THIS ANSWERS, UH, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER'S QUESTION AND I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.
ANY OTHER SPEAKERS IN SUPPORT? ANY SPEAKERS IN OPPOSITION? DO WE HAVE A MOTION? COMMISSIONER SERATO?
[01:05:01]
YES.UM, IN THE MATTER OF CASE Z 2 5 0 0 0 2 3 9, I MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE FOR A FIVE YEAR PERIOD SUBJECT TO, UH, CONDITIONS.
COMMISSIONER SERATO FOR YOUR MOTION.
COMMISSIONER SIMS FOR YOUR SECOND.
ANY DISCUSSION? COMMISSIONER CARPENTER? YES, MR. BALDWIN? DID I HEAR YOU SAY THAT THIS, UM, BUSINESS IS CLOSED CERTAIN DAYS OF THE WEEK? 'CAUSE THE SEP CONDITIONS SHOW SEVEN HOUR, SEVEN DAYS A WEEK? UH, YEAH, THEY'RE ONLY OPEN ON FRIDAY AND SATURDAY NIGHT.
WE DIDN'T ASK FOR ANY CHANGES, THE SUV CONDITIONS.
SO THOSE ARE LEGACY CONDITIONS ALL.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? OKAY, WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SERRATO, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SIMS TO FOLLOW STATUS, RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL.
[7. 26-807A An application for the renewal of Specific Use Permit No. 2175 for a flea market on property zoned Subdistrict 2 within Planned Development District 357 Farmers Market Special Purpose District, on the southwest corner of S. Harwood Street and St. Louis Street. Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to amended conditions. Applicant: Benny Rubio / Dallas Sweet Harverst Representative: Audra Buckley / Permitted Development Planner: Sheila Alcantara Segovia Council District: 2 Z-25-000175]
ITEM NUMBER SEVEN.ITEM NUMBER SEVEN, AN APPLICATION FOR A RENEWAL OF SPECIFIC USE PERMIT NUMBER 2175 FOR A FLEA MARKET ON PROPERTY ZONE SUBDISTRICT TWO WITH PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 3 5 7 FARMER'S MARKET SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICT ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SOUTH HARWOOD STREET AND ST.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL TO SUBJECT OMITTED CONDITIONS.
IS THERE ANYONE WHO'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER SEVEN? COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? I DO.
THANK YOU MR. CHAIR IN THE MATTER OF Z DASH 25 DASH 0 0 0 1 7 5.
I MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE THE REQUEST SUBJECT TO THE, UM, PRIOR TIME LIMIT OF 10 YEARS WITH ELIGIBILITY FOR AUTOMATIC RENEWALS EVERY FI EVERY FIVE YEARS.
UH, COMMISSIONER HAMPTON FOR YOUR MOTION.
COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT FOR YOUR SECOND.
ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NO DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
[8. 26-808A An application for an application for MU-1 Mixed Use District on property zoned MF-2(A) Multifamily District, on the east line of S. Polk Street at the terminus of Nokomis Avenue Staff Recommendation: Approval. Applicant: Blas Garza U/A From: February 5, 2026. Planner: Justin Lee Council District: 4 Z-25-000177]
NUMBER EIGHT.FOUR MU DASH ONE MIXED USE DISTRICT ON PROPERTY ZONE MF DASH TWO MULTIFAMILY DISTRICT ON THE EAST LINE OF SOUTH POLK STREET AT THE TERMINUS OF NO COMAS AVENUE STAFF.
IS THERE ANYONE WHO'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER EIGHT? OKAY.
COMMISSIONER FORSYTH, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? YES.
AND I THINK, UH, IF YOU COULD TURN ON YOUR MICROPHONE PLEASE.
CHAIRMAN RUBIN IN THE, UH, MATTER OF CASE Z DASH 25 DASH 0 0 1 7 7.
I MOVE THAT WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND DENY STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL.
IS THAT STRAIGHT DENIAL OR DENIAL? STRAIGHT? IT'S DENIAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
THEN WE HAVE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CARPENTER.
YOU KNOW, I, UH, TH THIS UH, LOCATION HERE AT POLK IN THE COMAS IS JUST A BLOCK AWAY FROM MY NEIGHBORHOOD THAT I LIVE IN, AND, UH, I DON'T THINK MY NEIGHBORS WOULD BE VERY HAPPY WITH ME IF I WERE TO APPROVE THIS CASE.
FORGIVE ME, IT'S A LITTLE, IT'S A LITTLE HARD TO HEAR.
I, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT MY NEIGHBORS WOULD BE HAPPY IF I, UH, APPROVED THIS CASE.
THE, UH, WE'RE, WE'RE NOT OPPOSED TO REDEVELOPMENT AT THIS LOCATION, BUT A CONVENIENCE STORE IS NOT WARRANTED.
THERE'S ALREADY ONE THAT IS LESS THAN A BLOCK FROM THIS CURRENT, THIS SITE.
AND WE LEARNED TODAY FROM, UH, MR. PEPE THAT THE APPLICANT CAN SELL BEER AND WINE AT THIS LOCATION WITHOUT EVEN GOING THROUGH THIS BODY AGAIN TO GET AN SUP.
SO IT'S CLEAR THAT BEER AND WINE WILL LIKELY BE SOLD TO THIS LOCATION, AND THAT'S INAPPROPRIATE CONSIDERING WHAT'S IN THE VICINITY HERE.
YOU HAVE A CHRISTIAN ACADEMY RIGHT NEXT DOOR, A BAPTIST MISSIONARY RIGHT BEHIND IT,
[01:10:01]
THREE CHURCHES IN FRONT OF IT AND ON THE SIDE OF IT.AND I DON'T BELIEVE THAT HAVING A CONVENIENCE STORE SELLING BEER AND WINE IS APPROPRIATE IN THIS LOCATION BECAUSE OF WHAT'S ALREADY THERE.
PLUS THE FACT THAT IT WILL ALSO CONTRIBUTE TO MORE ISSUES OF CRIME IN, IN AN ALREADY PROBLEMATIC AREA OF TOWN.
WE NEED MORE HOUSING AT THIS LOCATION IN THIS AREA.
WE DON'T NEED ANOTHER CONVENIENCE STORE.
AND I NOTE FROM THE CASE REPORT THAT ALL OF THE PROPERTIES THAT SURROUND AND ABUT THIS LOCATION ARE ALREADY ZONED MF ONE.
AND SO I THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE TO KEEP THE, THE ZONING AT THIS LOCATION, MF ONE, AND I'VE LOOKED THROUGH ALL THE INSTITUTION, ALL THE LAND USES FOR MF ONE AT THIS LOCATION.
AND THE LAND USES THAT ARE AVAILABLE, PARTICULARLY FOR THE INSTITUTIONAL AND THE COMMERCIAL SERVICE, UH, COMMUNITY SERVICE USES ARE APPROPRIATE AND THEY WOULD BE AVAILABLE UNDER THE MF ONE.
SO I ASKED THAT, UH, MY COMMISSIONERS, YOU KNOW, UH, ALLOW US TO HAVE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO PROTECT THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND ENSURE THAT SOMETHING APPROPRIATE GOES INTO THIS LOCATION.
AND I ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT OF MY MOTION.
THANK YOU, COMMISSIONERS, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? I DO HAVE ONE FOLLOW FOLLOW-UP QUESTION FOR STAFF.
UM, I THINK COMMISSIONER FORSYTH'S COMMENT ABOUT THE SCHOOL NEXT DOOR JOGGED MY MEMORY, WOULD THEY BE ABLE TO SELL ALCOHOL AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE SCHOOL NEXT DOOR WITHOUT GOING THROUGH A ALCOHOL VARIANCE? YES.
SO, UH, I THINK WE'RE TRYING TO, THE RULES FOR ALCOHOL DISTANCES ARE ALL VERIFIED AT PERMITTING AND ALL OF THAT.
UM, BUT ON THE OTHER HAND, I WILL SAY THAT THEY'RE DIFFERENT FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS, PRIVATE SCHOOLS AND CHURCHES, BUT THEY, THEY DO VERY MUCH APPLY UNDER, UNDER CHAPTER SIX.
SO ALL OF THAT TO SAY THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT ALCOHOL SURVEYORS.
WHEN THEY GET TO PERMITTING, IT DOES LOOK LIKE IT'S 75, LESS THAN 70, I DON'T KNOW.
THEY'RE PROBABLY 70 FOOT, 75 FOOT LOTS.
IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS 75 FEET FROM THE PRIVATE SCHOOL TO THE SOUTH.
I MEAN, IF THAT PRIVATE SCHOOL'S STILL OPERATING, THAT WOULD, WOULD BAR THEM FROM, UH, SELLING ALCOHOL UNDER CHAPTER SIX.
SO THERE IS SOMETHING TO CONSIDER THERE.
UM, ONE FOLLOW UP QUESTION FOR COMMISSIONER FOREST LIFE.
WHAT IS THE APPLICANT SAID AS THEIR INTENT TO USE THIS, THIS PROPERTY? WELL, FIRST, THE APPLICANT HAS NEVER REACHED OUT TO ME THAT I'M AWARE.
AND SECOND, UH, THE CASE REPORT INDICATES THAT THEY PLAN TO BUILD A CONVENIENCE STORE HERE OR, OR TO RE OR TO REDO THE EXISTING FACILITY SO THAT IT'S A CONVENIENCE STORE.
AND I, I, AGAIN, YOU KNOW, THERE'S ALREADY A CONVENIENCE STORE, LESS THAN A BLOCK AWAY FROM THIS CONVENIENCE STORE.
THERE'S, UH, UH, UH, YOU KNOW, A LOCATION WHERE THERE WAS, UH, A F FOX, UH, GAS STATION JUST RIGHT DOWN FROM HERE.
AND, AND THAT WILL, I KNOW, UH, PROBABLY BE REOPENED AGAIN AS A GAS STATION AT A CONVENIENCE STORE.
WE, WE, WE REALLY DON'T NEED A CONVENIENCE STORE AT THIS LOCATION.
UH, COMMISSIONER COX, I DO HAVE A QUESTION FOR, UH, MY COLLEAGUE MR. UH, FORSIGHT.
I, I NOTICED ON THE NOTIFICATION LIST, THERE ARE A COUPLE OF CHURCHES AS WELL.
DO YOU KNOW IF THE CHURCHES HAVE WEIGHED? IN MY UNDERSTANDING, UH, I ASKED, UH, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, UH, WHAT THE RESPONSES WERE ON THIS, AND THERE WERE NO RESPONSES THAT CAME IN FROM THE NEARBY PROPERTY OWNERS, BUT I CAN'T IMAGINE THAT THE CHURCHES WOULD BE HAPPY WITH THIS TYPE OF, UH, YOU KNOW, UH, BUSINESS BEING LOCATED IN, IN AT THAT LOCATION.
COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, DID YOU HAVE NO, I WAS JUST GONNA ADD THAT I DID GO OUT TO THIS LOCATION, DO A SITE VISIT, AND THERE IS DEFINITELY, UM, SOME SORT OF SCHOOL, A COMBINATION SCHOOL, CHURCH, EARLY CHILDHOOD DEVELOPMENT CENTER, POSSIBLY DAYCARE RIGHT ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH.
SO I DON'T SEE HOW THIS PROPERTY WOULD EVER BE ABLE TO, TO SELL ALCOHOL AS WELL AS, YOU KNOW, MULTIPLE CHURCHES IN THE AREA.
BUT ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM? UM, WHY DON'T WE TAKE A ROLL CALL VOTE.
UM, WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER FORSYTH, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CARPENTER TO NOT FOLLOW STAFF RECOMMENDATION
[01:15:01]
OF APPROVAL, BUT TO DENY IT WITHOUT PREJUDICE.DISTRICT SEVEN, DISTRICT EIGHT? YES.
[9. 26-809A An application for the termination of Deed Restriction Z778-181 on property zoned Subdistrict 6 Davis Corridor within Planned Development District 830, Davis Street Special Purpose District, on the south line of Fouraker Street, between N. Vernon Avenue and N. Van Buren Avenue. Staff Recommendation: Approval. Applicant: Baldwin Associates, LLC / Robert Baldwin U/A From: February 5, 2026. Planner: Justin Lee Council District: 1 Z-25-000202]
NUMBER NINE.UH, CASE NUMBER NINE, AN APPLICATION FOR DETERMINATION OF D RESTRICTION Z 7 78 DASH 180 1 ON PROPERTY ZONE SUBDISTRICT SIX DAVIS CORRIDOR WITHIN PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT EIGHT 30 DAVIS STREET, SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF FOUR ACRES STREET BETWEEN NORTH VERNON AVENUE AND NORTH VAN BUREN AVENUE.
THAT RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL.
I'M JUST TRYING TO GET MY PRESENTATION OF THIS.
NOT LETTING ME SHARE FOR SOME REASON, GEORGE, CAN YOU HELP ME WITH THIS? IT WORKED PERFECTLY LAST TIME ANYWAY, WHILE HE, WHILE HE WAS GOING.
IF, IF YOU WANNA WAIT FOR YOUR PRESENTATION, I'M GONNA MOVE THIS OUT THE WAY SO I CAN
YEAH, PLEASE DON'T TRIP OVER THE CHAIR.
I DON'T MEAN TO BE MOVING YOUR FURNITURE, BUT IT JUST MADE, MADE IT KIND OF AWKWARD.
I PAID FOR A VERY, VERY, VERY SMALL PERCENTAGE OF IT WITH MY TAX DOLLARS.
HE PULLS THROUGH AGAIN AND I APPRECIATE IT.
UH, I'M ROB BALDWIN, 3 9 0 4 ELM STREET, SUITE B IN DALLAS.
NUMBER REPRESENTING THE PROPERTY OWNER IN THIS REQUEST.
UM, TO REMOVE SOME DEED RESTRICTIONS ON THE PROPERTY, UM, LOCATED, UH, SEVEN 15, UH, WEST DAVIS STREET.
IT'S, IT'S IN THE BISHOP ARTS AREA.
INTERESTING THING IS IT'S ONLY THE BACK HALF OF THE PROPERTY.
SO THE PROPERTY IS ZONED PD EIGHT 30, SUBDISTRICT SIX.
THE PROPERTY IN THE BACK HAD DEED RESTRICTIONS PUT ON 1978 THAT LIMIT THE USE TO A WAREHOUSE, AN OFFICE, AND A PARKING LOT.
SO THOSE ARE THE ONLY ISSUES YOU CAN HAVE ON THAT PROPERTY, AND YOU HAVE TO HAVE ALL OF THEM.
INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH, WAREHOUSE USE IS NOT ALLOWED IN PD EIGHT 30 SUBDISTRICT SIX.
SO THE ONLY USES THAT ARE IT'S ALLOWED ON THAT PROPERTY IS A USE THAT'S NOT ALLOWED INTO THE ZONING.
AND SO WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR IS TO REMOVE THESE DEED RESTRICTIONS BECAUSE THEY WERE PUT ON WHEN THIS WAS FOR AN INDUSTRIAL USE.
THE SEWELL AUTOMOTIVE FAMILY OWNED THIS, AND I BELIEVE THEY WERE, THEY REZONED IT TO ALLOW FOR SOME SORT OF AUTOMOTIVE USE BODY SHOP, SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
AND THAT'S WHY THESE DEED RESTRICTIONS WERE PUT ON THE USE, USE RESTRICTIONS WERE PUT ON.
AND, UM, IT ALSO REQUIRED AN EIGHT FOOT CONCRETE SCREENING WALL ALONG FOUR ACRE VAN BUREN AND VERNON STREET.
SO WE HAVE TO HAVE A EIGHT FOOT WALL AROUND THREE, THREE SIDES, UH, TO PROTECT A NEIGHBOR.
AND I UNDERSTAND THAT WITH AN INDUSTRIAL USE, BUT THIS, THE NEW ZONING DOES NOT ALLOW INDUSTRIAL USES.
SO I SENT ALL OF YOU COPIES OF THESE DEED RESTRICTION.
I WON'T GO ALL OVER 'EM AGAIN.
UM, MY CLIENT HAS DESIGNED PROJECT, UH, FOR THIS, AND THAT WAS DISCUSSED, UH, AT THE BRIEFING SESSION.
UH, THE, THE KID SPRINGS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION WAS KIND ENOUGH TO SHARE THAT PRESENTATION WITH YOU.
UM, GRANTED THE, THE CURRENT ZONING DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT, UH, IT, YOU KNOW, IT ALLOWS IT, BUT IT DOESN'T REQUIRE IT.
UH, PD EIGHT 30 DOES NOT REQUIRE DEVELOPMENT PLANS.
AND, UM, THIS WAS JUST A, THE OWNER DEVELOPED THIS TO SHOW WHAT HE WOULD LIKE TO BUILD.
WE SHARED IT WITH THE NEIGHBORS, BUT WHAT HE WANTS TO DO IS A MIXED USE PROJECT MULTIFAMILY.
AND THEN IF YOU NOTICE ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE OF THIS SLIDE, UH, THAT'S A PLAZA AND A
[01:20:01]
PARK, I'VE SPOKEN WITH MY CLIENT, HE'S WILLING TO AMEND THE RESTRICTION TO REQUIRE THAT PARK, UH, FOR THIS USE.AND RATHER THAN DETERMINATING THE RESTRICTION, WE PUT THAT BACK IN, HE WAS ALSO WILLING TO LIMIT THE HEIGHT.
BUT UNDER SB EIGHT 40, THAT WOULD BE MEANINGLESS AS WOULD REQUIRE AN UNDERGROUND PARKING BECAUSE SB EIGHT 40 DOESN'T, DOESN'T ALLOW THE CITY TO REQUIRE STRUCTURED PARKING.
SO THIS IS WHAT WE CAME WITH THAT WOULD WORK WITH THE CURRENT DEED RESTRICTIONS, UH, TO TRY TO ADDRESS SOME NEIGHBOR'S CONCERNS.
AS YOU CAN SEE, IT'S A, A NICE PARK.
UM, SO WE'RE ONLY ASKING TO TERMINATE THE DEED RESTRICTIONS OF THIS CASE.
CAN I HAVE ONE MORE MINUTE? SOMEONE MAY HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU, MR. BALDWIN.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS IN SUPPORT OF ITEM NUMBER NINE? MY CLIENT IS HERE FOR QUESTIONS.
BUT DOESN'T WANT TO SPEAK JUST HERE FOR QUESTIONS.
OH, YOU DO WANNA SPEAK? ALL RIGHT.
GOOD AFTERNOON AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE TO THE CITY.
I'M AN ARCHITECT, LOCAL ARCHITECT WITH OVER 40 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE AND I AM HERE REPRESENTING THE MEXICAN AMERICAN MUSEUM OF TEXAS BOARD.
UM, WE MET WITH THE DEVELOPER, MR. GARZA, UM, LAST YEAR, AND HE SHARED WITH US THE DEVELOPMENT.
WE ARE IN THE PROCESS CURRENTLY OF LOOKING FOR A LOCATION, A PERMANENT LOCATION FOR OUR MUSEUM, WHICH WAS FOUNDED IN JUNE OF 2022.
TALKING THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT AND BEING FAMILIAR WITH, UM, URBAN DEVELOPMENT.
I LIVED IN NEW YORK FOR 20 YEARS.
WE FELT THAT THIS MIGHT BE A VERY, UM, POSSIBLE LOCATION FOR OUR FIRST STOREFRONT LOCATION.
UM, IT IS A NICE MIX OF RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL AND WE BELIEVE THAT IT WOULD BE, UM, A GOOD ADDITION NOT ONLY TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN PARTICULAR, BUT ALSO TO THE COMMUNITY AT LARGE.
UM, OUR LOCATION OF THE MUSEUM WOULD SPEAK TO, UM, THE HISTORICAL AND PRESENT, UM, POPULATION OF MEXICAN-AMERICANS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
SO WE WOULD LIKE TO OFFER OUR SUPPORT FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT AND, UH, WOULD APPRECIATE YOUR CONSIDERATION ON THAT.
ANYONE ELSE YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT? COME ON DOWN.
MY NAME IS MICHAEL DE LOS SANTOS AND I LIVE ON MAY RANT IN NORTH WINDWOOD SUBDIVISION.
I'VE KNOWN RICK GARZA AND HIS TWIN BROTHER ROBERT, WHO SADLY PASSED AWAY A COUPLE YEARS AGO.
THEY BROUGHT ME TO OAK CLIFF 31 YEARS AGO, AND I GREW UP WITH RICK AND HIS TWIN IN CORPUS CHRISTI.
I'VE KNOWN HIM SINCE THIRD GRADE AND I'VE SEEN WHAT HE'S DONE FOR OUR COMMUNITY AND HE'S, HE'S PROBABLY THE REASON WHY WE STILL LIVE IN OAK CLIFF.
UH, IN ALL THIS TIME, WE'VE, WE'VE VENTURED TO OTHER AREAS, BUT WE'VE SEEN THE DEVELOPMENTS.
UH, 30 YEARS AGO, OAK CLIFF WAS KIND OF SCARY TO LIVE IN.
AND TODAY WITH THE ADVANCEMENT OF BISHOP ARTS AND NOW DAVIS STREET, WE'RE IN FULL SUPPORT OF REMOVING THE STATE RESTRICTION AND HOPE TO SEE HIS PROJECT, UH, BE FULFILLED.
ANY OTHER SPEAKERS IN SUPPORT? OKAY, WE'LL GO TO SPEAKERS IN OPPOSITION.
I LIVE AT EIGHT 30 WOODLAWN AVENUE.
I'M A MEMBER OF THE KID SPRINGS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
AS YOU KNOW, UH, WE HAVE HEARD THIS CASE BEFORE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN 2019.
AND, UH, WITH THE SUPPORT OF THE CPC, UM, WE WERE ABLE TO, UH, DENY THE REQUEST TO LIFT THIS, UM, BECAUSE OF ITS IMPACT ON THE NEIGHBORS DIRECTLY BEHIND THE DEVELOPMENT.
UH, THE STREET BETWEEN THE DEVELOPMENT AND THOSE NEIGHBORS IS NOT A TYPICAL WIDTH STREET.
IT USED TO BE AN ALLEY, SO IT'S EXTREMELY NARROW.
SO YOU COULD IMAGINE THE SHADOW THAT A FIVE STORY BUILDING COULD CAST ON THAT.
UM, SO WE ARE HERE AGAIN, UH, TO ASK THAT ON BEHALF OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND THE NEIGHBORS THAT ARE MOST DIRECTLY IMPACTED, UH, WE WORK TO PRESERVE SOME PROTECTION FOR THOSE NEIGHBORS FROM THIS HYPE.
I'M GONNA SPEAK AS FAST AS HUMANLY POSSIBLE 'CAUSE I KNOW I GOT A TIME LIMIT.
I LIVE ON 7 21 WINSTON STREET.
[01:25:01]
JUST ONE BLOCK FROM THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.THIS AREA'S LONG BEEN ZONED FOR DEVELOPMENT OF SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.
IN 2019, OUR COMMUNITY CAME TOGETHER AND PROTECT THIS ESTABLISHMENT IN THE HEIGHT RESTRICTION OF 14 FEET.
WITH Y'ALL'S HELP, WE WERE ABLE TO DO THAT.
THIS IS DECISION REFLECTED ON THE CHARACTER AND VISION OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE CURRENT PROPOSAL CHALLENGE, CHALLENGES THAT PRECEDENT, HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS, UH, WERE PUT IN PLACE FOR A REASON TO PRESERVE PRIVACY, SUNLIGHT, NEIGHBORHOOD SCALE, AND OVERALL QUALITY OF LIFE.
TRYING TO JUMP AROUND 'CAUSE I, AGAIN, UM, THE CLOSEST THING, UH, THE CLOSEST TO THAT, THIS DEVELOPMENT THAT HE IS PROPOSING OF SIX STORIES IS A MILE AWAY FROM ON DAVIS AND ZANG.
AND THE HEART OF BISHOP ARTS, THIS IS KID SPRINGS.
THE MAX HEIGHT OF THE CURRENT BUILDINGS ON THE STRETCH OF LAND BETWEEN TYLER AND ZANG IS ONLY TWO STORIES TALL, WHICH IS 25 TO 35 FEET, WHEREAS HIS PROPOSED IS BETWEEN 70 TO TWO AND 84 FEET.
UM, TODAY YOU'LL HEAR FROM RENTERS, NEIGHBORS, FELLOW DEVELOPERS REGARDING REGARDS TO INTEGRITY, DESIGN, CHOICE, AND OVERALL DEMEANOR.
WE'RE NOT QUESTIONING THAT AT ALL.
WHAT WE ARE ASKING YOU IS TO ASK THEM WHERE DO THEY LIVE, HOW, ASK THEM HOW THIS WILL AFFECT THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD, THEIR COMMUTE TO WORK.
ASK THEM IF THIS WAS THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD, WOULD THEY WANT THAT A BLOCK FROM THEIR HOME.
UM, AND THIS DESIGNS, IT LOOKS LIKE IT SAYS FIVE STORIES, BUT IF YOU NOTICE ON THE DESIGN LEVEL OF THE, UH, MARKET, IT IS ACTUALLY TWO STORY SO TALL.
SO IT TECHNICALLY WOULD BE A SIX STORY BUILDING.
UM, I WOULD LIKELY RES REQUEST THAT THE, THERE ARE STILL SIGNIFICANT CONCERNS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN ADDRESSED MOVING FORWARD AFTER THE PROCEEDING IN 2019, WE ACT RISK GUARDS ARE TO PLEASE MEET WITH US AND NEIGHBORS.
THIS LAST TIME HE SENT HIS, UH, COMMISSIONER, THE GENTLEMAN YOU SPOKE WITH, VERY BEGINNING TO THAT DID THE PRESENTATION.
WE HAVE NEVER MET RICK GARZA IN A MEETING TO COMPROMISE TO TALK ABOUT THIS AREA.
WHAT WE'RE ASKING IS THAT HE JUST KEEPS UP THE INTEGRITY OF THE TYPO AREA OF THE AREA ON DAVIS AND NOT PUT SOMETHING THAT IS OVER SIX STORIES TALL IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
IF YOU DRIVE DOWN DAVIS STREET, IT IS A TWO LANE ROAD.
IMAGINE ADDING ALL OF THOSE RESIDENTS IN THAT AREA ON THAT TWO LANE ROAD.
THERE ARE ONLY 32 PARKING SPOTS AROUND THE DEVELOPMENT IN HIS DESIGN FOR THE MARKET THAT WILL ACTUALLY CUT FOUR ACRE IN HALF MAKING IT TO IF THE, IF THE PARKING'S THERE AND THE FOUR ACRE NEIGHBORS ARE THERE, THERE, I MEAN, IS IT NOW A ONE-WAY STREET DOWN TO FOUR ACRES STREET FOR THOSE NEIGHBORS? I JUST ASK THAT YOU PLEASE, PLEASE RECONSIDER THIS AGAIN.
I WAS HERE IN 2018 ALONG WITH MY WIFE AND A FEW NEIGHBORS.
PLEASE RECONSIDER THIS AND DENY THIS, DENY HIM THE CHANGE OF THE, UM, DEED RESTRICTIONS.
JUST A BLOCK AWAY FROM WHERE THIS DEVELOPMENT IS WANTING TO HAPPEN.
FIRST I WOULD LIKE TO ASK FOR A DELAY ON THE VOTE.
WE HAVE YET TO MEET WITH THE DEVELOPERS.
THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO HAVE WE HAVE HEARD FROM IS HIS LAWYER IN RENTERS.
HIS SUPPORTERS DON'T LIVE BY US OR WILL BE AFFECTED WITH THE DEVELOPMENT THAT HE'S WANTING TO DO.
JUST BECAUSE SOMETHING WANTS TO BE BUILT THAT LOOKS PRETTY DOESN'T MEAN IT SHOULD BE BUILT.
WE DON'T WANT IT OR WE DON'T NEED IT.
THERE ARE TWO STORY BUILDINGS ALONG DAVIS AND TELL ZANG, THE APARTMENTS ON ZANG.
HAVE BUSINESSES FOR RENT, WANNA KNOW HOW MANY ARE EMPTY.
14, WHAT HE'S WANTING DOESN'T WORK.
WE LIKE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD RESTAURANTS AND OUR SHOPS.
WE DON'T SPEND MONEY AT THESE DEVELOPMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN BUILT.
OUR NEIGHBORHOOD CAN'T EVEN STAND THE TRAFFIC THAT WE ALREADY HAVE.
THEN THIS IS GOING TO CAUSE WAY TOO MUCH.
SO I WOULD JUST HOPE THAT WE CAN DELAY THIS VOTE AND IF NOT, WE DON'T WANT THIS IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
I LIVE AT SEVEN 30 WINSTON STREET.
CAN YOU STEP A LITTLE CLOSER TO THE MICROPHONE PLEASE? I'M SORRY.
I PROBABLY LIVE TWO OR THREE FEET AWAY FROM THE NOTIFICATION ZONE.
SO I DID SEND AN EMAIL IN OPPOSITION.
I'M GLAD THAT YOU POINTED OUT THAT YOU GOT SWAMPED WITH LETTERS FROM PEOPLE WHO DON'T EVEN LIVE IN OUR AREA WHO SUPPORT IT.
UM, I AM ASKING YOU GUYS, FIRST OF ALL, YOU CAN POSTPONE THIS OR YOU CAN KEEP IT AND LET THEM BUILD WHATEVER THEY WANNA BUILD WITH AN EIGHT FOOT WALL THAT WE CAN ALL PAINT GRAFFITI ON.
[01:30:02]
BUT I REALLY, REALLY WANT TO REQUEST THAT YOU RECOMMEND TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION THAT THEY REEXAMINE THIS SUBSECTION SIX.THERE'S SOMETHING GOING ON AND IT DOESN'T FIT IN WITH THE REST OF THAT WHOLE DAVIS AIR CORRIDOR.
OKAY, SO I WAS READING THROUGH FOUR DALLAS OR FOUR FOUR DALLAS 2.0 ON A PAGE ONE DASH FOUR IT SAYS THE TEXAS LO LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION TWO 13.005 STATES THAT MUNICIPALITIES MAY HAVE COMPREHENSIVE PLANS AND IT FOLLOWS THAT WITH SECTION TWO.
ONE 1.004 PROVIDES THAT ZONING REGULATIONS MUST BE ADOPTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
AND THERE'S NOTHING IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT SUPPORTS THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.
DOESN'T FIT IN HEIGHT WISE, IT'S NOT ON A TRANSIT CORRIDOR.
I DON'T, I THINK SOMEBODY REFERENCED THAT THERE'S A BUS STOP.
THERE'S BUS STOPS ON TYLER, THE TWO 19 AND THE TWO 20.
ANYWAY, I'M ASKING YOU TO HAVE THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE OR DEPARTMENT, THE ZONING PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT REVIEW.
THE FIRST ONE IS WE NEED A TRAFFIC STUDY DONE.
THE SECOND IS THE TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY NEEDS TO BE CONTACTED.
THERE WAS A CASE OPEN TO REVIEW THE QUALITY OF THE LAND.
AND THEN FINALLY, I'M CONCERNED NOT JUST VISUALLY ABOUT THE IMPACT OF A BIG GIANT BUILDING WHEN ALL THE OTHER BUILDINGS ARE TWO FOOT OR TWO STORIES HIGH, LIKE THE KESSLER THEATERS TWO STORIES HIGH.
BUT I'M ALSO CONCERNED THAT IN OUR AREA WE HAVE, UH, THE DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT HAS A SYSTEM FOR LOCATING GUNSHOTS.
SO WHEN THEY, THEY CAN SENSE AND THEY HAVE SOUND AND THEY CAN FIND OUT WHERE IT'S COMING FROM.
WE'VE GOT THOSE IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND I'D LIKE TO NOT HAVE A BUILDING THAT GOES IN THAT INTERFERES WITH THAT ABILITY.
SO I WANT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION TO LOOK INTO THAT AS WELL AS BROADCAST.
WELL, COULD I JUST HAVE TWO MORE SIR, PLEASE.
UH, I I'M SORRY WE GIVE THE SAME AMOUNT OF TIME TO EVERY SPEAKER.
YOU DID SAY YOU MAKE EXCEPTIONS AT TIMES AND THAT'S GENERALLY ON A CASE.
I'M NOT GONNA, CAN I CAN, CAN I I'M NOT GONNA GO BACK AND FORTH WITH YOU HERE.
CAN I ADDRESS THE, THAT THERE'S TOXIC THAT THIS I APOLOGIZE, SIR.
WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON TO OUR NEXT SPEAKER.
PLEASE READ THE EMAIL THAT I SENT STEVE BEELS AT GMAIL.
HI, I'M PAM CONLEY AND IT WAS QUESTIONED ON WHERE I LIVE.
I AM NOT NEAR THE NOTIFICATION AREA.
I'M IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT I CAN ASSURE YOU I KNOW THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND I KNOW THE NEIGHBORS.
UM, THEY HAVE PARTICIPATED ALL THE WAY THROUGH ON THE, ON THE ZONING CHANGES.
IF I COULD ASK YOU TO LOOK AT THE NOTIFICATION LIST HERE ON YOUR NUMBER TWO IS CONNIE, SHE VOTED NO AGAINST EIGHT 30.
SHE VOTED NO ON WHEN THIS CASE WAS HEARD BEFORE.
AND HER APPLICATION DID NOT, HER BALLOT DID NOT GET TO HER IN TIME, UH, FOR THE FIRST HEARING, IT WAS SHE RECEIPTED ON THE NINTH AS HER BALLOT WILL INDICATE IF YOU LOOK AT IT.
BUT SHE FILLED IT OUT AND SHE HAD A STAMP ON IT.
CONNIE, CONNIE BURIED HER HUSBAND SUNDAY, SATURDAY.
IF YOU'LL GO ACROSS TO BALLOT NUMBER 13, MR. ROSES, THAT WAS HIS SON-IN-LAW THAT HE BURIED SATURDAY.
IF YOU GO ON DOWN FOUR ACRE TO NUMBER 20, I BELIEVE THAT'S VASQUEZ THERE.
THEY'RE, THEY'RE THE CLOSE FRIENDS OF THAT FAMILY.
OUR NOTIFICATION AREA IS NOT VERY BIG
[01:35:02]
AND ON THAT SIDE, THE REST OF THEM ARE RENTERS THAT ARE NOT AROUND.BOTTOM LINE IS, THIS HAS BEEN LOOKED AT BY THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
MOST OF THOSE HAVE BEEN THERE FOR 40 YEARS AND THIS WAS A NO FOR THEM.
NOW TO THE HOW MUCH THEY PARTICIPATED, IT WAS QUESTION ON PD EIGHT 30.
HOW COME IT GOT PASSED? WELL, IT DIDN'T GET PASSED FROM OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
THIS IS PREPARED BY THE CITY SHOWING PROS AND CONS.
THE RED IS IN OPPOSITION, THE GREEN IS FAR, AND THE LARGE GREEN ONES ARE THE DEVELOPERS.
UH, AND IT WAS A VERY CLOSE VOTE, BUT ALL THESE PEOPLE SENT IN THEIR BALLOTS.
THEN SOME OF YOU HAVE BEEN AROUND FOR A WHILE.
YOU REMEMBER THE OAK CLIFF PEOPLE? THAT'S YOUR TIME.
PARDON? THAT, THAT CONCLUDES YOUR THREE MINUTES.
HELLO, MY NAME IS LAURA PALMER.
I LIVE AT NINE 11 NORTH MADISON AVENUE.
I'M THE SECRETARY OF THE KIDS SPRINGS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
UM, YOU HEARD FROM OUR VICE PRESIDENT AND YOU'VE HEARD FROM NEIGHBORS WHO ARE GOING TO BE DIRECTLY AFFECTED BY THIS, UM, CHANGE.
WE DO REALIZE THAT WHAT IS BEFORE YOU IS SOLELY THE QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT TO REMOVE THE DEED RESTRICTIONS ON THE BACK HALF OF THIS PROPERTY.
WE KNOW THAT THOSE DEED RESTRICTIONS ARE WHAT IS PROTECTING OUR NEIGHBORS ALONG FOUR ACRE AND ON WINSTON RIGHT NOW, BECAUSE THIS AREA CAN, IN OUR OPINION, CAN'T SUPPORT THE LEVEL OF DENSITY THAT IS PROPOSED UNDER PD EIGHT 30 SUBDISTRICT SIX.
THIS HAS BEEN A CONVERSATION WITHIN THE NORTH OAK CLIFF COMMUNITY ABOUT PD EIGHT 30, SUBDISTRICT SIX, ACTUALLY ALL THE SUBDISTRICTS AND WHETHER OR NOT THEY NEED TO BE RE-LOOKED AT.
AND THERE IS CONVERSATION THAT THIS NEEDS TO BE DONE.
WHAT WE ARE ASKING IS, IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, EITHER THE CPC HOLD THIS AND ALLOW THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH THE APPLICANT, NOT APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVES SO THAT WE CAN ACTUALLY TALK ABOUT WHAT HE WANTS TO PUT THERE AND HOW WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO FACILITATE THAT.
IF THAT DOES NOT OCCUR, WE WOULD ASK YOU TO DENY THIS BECAUSE THIS IS OUR ONLY, OUR ONLY PROTECTION AT THIS TIME.
THAT WOULD BE, THAT WOULD BE FINE.
THAT WILL ALLOW US TO CONTINUE TO ATTEMPT TO HAVE CONVERSATIONS WITH THE APPLICANT FOLLOWING THIS CASE.
ANY OTHER SPEAKERS AND OPPOSITION TO ITEM NUMBER NINE? OKAY, UNDER RULES, MR. BALDWIN, YOU GET A TWO MINUTE REBUTTAL.
WELL, MS. PALMER IS EXACTLY RIGHT.
THIS CASE IS NOT, WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR A REZONING.
THIS CASE IS TO REMOVE, OR THIS NOW THAT WE'RE OFFERING TO, UH, AMEND THE DEED RESTRICTIONS THAT PROHIBIT DEVELOPMENT ON THE BACK HALF OF THIS PROPERTY.
'CAUSE IT ONLY CURRENTLY ALLOWS A USE THAT'S NOT ALLOWED UNDER THE CURRENT ZONING.
UM, PD EIGHT 30, SUBDISTRICT SIX DONE IN 2008.
I WAS NOT INVOLVED WITH IT, BUT THAT'S THE CULPRIT HERE.
THE UNDERLYING ZONING ALONG THE CORRIDOR.
AND, UH, IT, IT, I KNOW IT'S, IT'S FAIRLY AGGRESSIVE ZONING.
UM, BUT THAT'S WHAT'S IN PLACE TODAY.
UM, THE, THE, THE PROPOSED SITE AS, AS MS. PALMER SAYS, THEY'RE OPPOSING THIS IN ORDER TO KEEP IT FROM BEING DEVELOPED UNTIL IT CAN BE DEVELOPED THE WAY THEY WANT IT.
[01:40:01]
THAT'S NOT WHAT THE CURRENT UNDERLYING ZONING SAYS.NOR DOES SB EIGHT 40 SAY THAT, UH, MY CLIENT WOULD RATHER NOT DO AN SB EIGHT 40 CASE.
BUT IF THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS, THEN HE CAN BUILD WHAT HE WANTS TO DO, BUT THEN HE'D HAVE AN EIGHT FOOT CONCRETE WALL ON THREE SIDES OF IT, WHICH WOULD KEEP IT FROM FOLDING INTO THE, UM, FABRIC OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
I HOPE YOU CAN SUPPORT THIS QUEST.
I THINK IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO.
UM, YOU KNOW, HAVING DEED RESTRICTIONS ON A PROPERTY THAT ONLY ALLOWS A USE THAT'S NOT ALLOWED DOES NOT MAKE SENSE FROM A LAND USE PERSPECTIVE.
UM, TO GO FURTHER ON THE OFFER OF ADVISING THE DEED RESTRICTIONS AFTER SPEAKING WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY, WE CANNOT, UH, SAY IT'S GONNA BE A PARK, BUT WE CAN SAY THAT WE'LL HAVE AT LEAST 10% OPEN SPACE FACING ON FOUR ACRE ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE SITE.
UM, UH, WE'RE HAPPY TO DO THAT.
WE'RE HAPPY TO INCLUDE AN EXHIBIT IF SHE ALLOW US TO DO THAT.
UM, HOPE YOU CAN SUPPORT THIS REQUEST.
I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.
WE'LL GO TO COMMISSIONER SIMS FOR A MOTION.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, IN THE MATTER OF CASE NUMBER Z 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2, I MOVE TO FOLLOW STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE WITH THE ADDITION OF THE VOLUNTEER DEED RESTRICTION BY THE APPLICANT OF 10% OPEN SPACE ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, BOUNDED BY FORKER STREET.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER SIMS FOR YOUR MOTION.
COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT FOR YOUR SECOND COMMENTS.
UH, YES, UH, MR. CHAIRMAN, THANK YOU.
THE, UM, WE RECEIVED AN EMAIL A LITTLE WHILE AGO THAT SAID THAT NOTHING HAD CHANGED ON THIS MATTER EXCEPT FOR THE PERSONNEL AROUND THIS HORSESHOE.
AND WHILE THE PERSONNEL AROUND THIS HORSESHOE HAVE IN FACT CHANGED SINCE THIS CASE WAS LAST BEFORE US, UH, THERE'S BEEN ANOTHER BIG CHANGE AND IT'S BEEN A BIG TOPIC OF DISCUSSION AT SENATE BILL EIGHT 40.
UH, SO FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, HAVING MET WITH THE NEIGHBORS, HAVING SPOKEN WITH STAFF AND HAVING DONE A GREAT DEAL OF RESEARCH, THE QUESTION BEFORE US TODAY, MR. CHAIR, IS NOT WHETHER WE BUILD SOMETHING OR WHETHER WE PERMIT SOMETHING TO BE BUILT, BUT WHAT IT IS THAT WE PERMIT TO BE BUILT HERE.
AND AS THE APPLICANT HAS HIGHLIGHTED, IF THE DEED RESTRICTIONS STAY IN PLACE, A BUILDING UP TO 75 FEET TALL WITH THREE LARGE BRICK WALL OR THREE BRICK WALLS, A BRICK WALL SURROUNDING ON THREE SIDES IS WHAT COULD BE BUILT.
AND AS ONE OF OUR, UH, SPEAKERS SAID TODAY, A WALL THAT HE WANTED TO GO PAINT GRAFFITI ON, AS I DON'T THINK THAT WE WANT AS A LAND USE BODY TO PROMOTE GRAFFITI, UH, ATTRACTING SURFACES, UM, AS WAS POINTED OUT BY MR. PEPE EARLIER THIS MORNING, WE CAN'T REQUIRE THAT THE PRETTY PICTURES BE BUILT.
BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THE TERMS OF PD EIGHT 30 SUBDISTRICT SIX, THERE ARE IN FACT A LOT OF ARCHITECTURAL REQUIREMENTS.
FOR INSTANCE, FRONT ENTRANCES HAVE TO INCLUDE AN ARCH, A FACADE, DECORATIVE ELEMENTS RAISED PARAPETS.
THEY HAVE TO CHOOSE FROM A LIST OF THOSE, UH, PEDESTRIAN AMENITIES MUST BE REQUIRED.
SO AT THE END OF THE DAY, AT LEAST FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, THE PD REQUIRES SOMETHING THAT LOOKS RATHER LIKE THE PICTURES.
AND BY REMOVING THE DEED RESTRICTION, WE GET CLOSER TO GETTING THERE WITH THE VOLUNTEER DEED RESTRICTION FROM THE APPLICANT, WE REQUIRE OPEN SPACE TO BE PROVIDED AS AN AMENITY TO THE COMMUNITY.
AND I THINK WE END UP WITH A MUCH BETTER RESULT BY REMOVING THE DEED RESTRICTIONS THAT BY LEAVING THEM IN PLACE.
COMMISSIONER SHIMP, I BELIEVE THERE WAS A QUESTION FOR MR. BALDWIN TO CLARIFY THAT ON THE DEED RESTRICTIONS.
YEAH, IT, I MEAN, FOR E EITHER OF Y'ALL, JUST TO GET A CLARIFICATION, UM, THE MOTION WOULD BE TO TERMINATE THE EXISTING ONES, BUT ONLY SUBJECT TO THE APPLICATION OF NEW ONES, WHICH APPLY AN OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT.
I THINK THAT IS THE CLEANEST WAY TO DO IT.
OF 10 OF 10% OF THE, FOR OUR PURPOSE, 10% OF THE DE RESTRICTION AREA.
AND IS THAT YOUR UNDERSTANDING AS WELL AS MR. BALDMAN? OKAY.
COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, I'M, I'M HAPPY TO GO.
I DO HAVE A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS,
SO, UM, MR. BALDWIN, DID YOU FINISH, YOU, YOU HAD A PRESENTATION, IT SEEMED LIKE YOU HAD A FEW MORE QUESTIONS.
WELL, I WAS GONNA SHOW YOU IN MY PRESENTATION, UM, I WON'T WASTE YOUR TIME, BUT, UM, IF YOU LOOK AT, UM, THIS IN FOR DALLAS 2.0, THIS IS A COMMUNITY MIXED USE AREA.
UM, AND ONE OF THE, THE, THE INFLAMMATION STRATEGIES FOR THE, THIS DISTRICT SAYS LEGACY INDUSTRIAL OUTDOOR STORAGE AREAS AND PROPERTIES WITH INCOMPATIBLE LAND USES WITHIN PRO CLOSE PROXIMITY TO RESIDENTIAL AREAS, PARTICULARLY THOSE NEAR DART AND BUS AND RAILROAD SHOULD BE PRI PRIORITIZED FOR REDEVELOPMENT.
SO THAT, THAT SOUNDS A LOT LIKE THIS PROPERTY, AN INDUSTRIAL
[01:45:01]
PROPERTY THAT WANTS TO BE REVITALIZED.SO THAT CLEARLY COMPLIES WITH FORWARD DALLAS 2.0.
SO FOLLOW UP QUESTION, AND I THINK MR. UH, COMMISSIONER SIMS MENTIONED THIS, THAT THERE'S A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF ARCHITECTURAL, UH, DESIGN STANDARDS IN THE BASE ZONING.
THOSE ACTUALLY INCLUDE SOME RESTRICTIONS ON HEIGHTS.
I THINK WE'VE HAD A DISCUSSION ABOUT HOW OSB 40 MAY OR MAY NOT APPLY IT SPECIFICALLY REFERENCES INTEGRATING WITH THE HISTORIC CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, WHICH WOULD SEEM TO LEAN TOWARDS THE TYPE OF PROJECT THAT YOUR CLIENT IS, UM, PROPOSING.
UM, DOES HE INTEND TO FOLLOW THOSE REQUIREMENTS, WHICH ACTUALLY WOULD LIMIT THE HEIGHT OF THE YES MA'AM.
PROJECT, NOT ONLY THE ARCHITECTURAL REQUIREMENTS, BUT ALSO THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS ARE MUCH, ARE MUCH MORE ROBUST THAN WHAT'S CURRENTLY ALLOWED UNDER SB EIGHT 40 OR THE CITY'S NEW PARKING REQUIREMENTS.
SO FOLLOW UP QUESTION TO THAT AS WELL.
I KNOW WE HAD ANOTHER RECENT CASE THAT WAS IN MY DISTRICT WHERE WE HAD SIMILAR CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING HEIGHT AND I, AND THIS MAY BE A QUESTION FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY TO ANSWER, BUT WE, MY UNDERSTANDING WAS WE ARE ABLE TO, UM, ADDRESS THE NUMBER OF STORIES IN A PROJECT, UM, EVEN WHILE WE MAY NOT ADDRESS FEET.
SO I WILL ASK THE CITY ATTORNEY TO OKAY.
I WILL SAY, YOU KNOW, WE'RE FAMILIAR WITH THAT CASE.
UM, IF A PROJECT IS COMPLIANT WITH EIGHT 40, YOU KNOW, BASICALLY THE HEIGHTS, THE, UM, THE FLOOR AREA, THE FLOOR AREA STANDARDS, WE CAN'T ACTUALLY APPLY OR WE CAN'T ACTUALLY ENFORCE STORY LIMITS.
WE HAVE TO ALLOW THE HEIGHT BECAUSE IT DOES SAY WE HAVE TO ALLOW, UM, THE HEIGHT PERMITTED AND SO WE CAN'T ACTUALLY ENFORCE THOSE.
I'M LEARNING ABOUT THAT AFTER A SEPARATE CASE.
BUT THANK YOU FOR THAT INFORMATION.
AND FOLLOWING ALONG WITH THAT, WE WERE GONNA VOLUNTEER THE DEED RESTRICTIONS REQUIRE UNDERGROUND PARKING, BUT IT IS SB EIGHT 40 WILL NOT ALLOW YOU TO HAVE STRUCTURED PAR STRUCTURED PARKING.
WELL, I LOOK FORWARD TO CONTINUING THE OTHER QUESTIONS OFFLINE.
UM, I'LL CIRCLE BACK WITH MY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS.
YEAH, SO, UM, THE, WE, WE'VE RECEIVED A, A NUMBER OF LETTERS, UM, AND THEN HEARING FROM SOME OF THE COMMUNITY TODAY, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT WE BELIEVE SOMETHING WILL BE BUILT IN THIS SPACE NO MATTER WHAT.
WHETHER THERE'S DEED RESTRICTIONS OR NOT.
SO IF WE LEAD THE DEED RESTRICTIONS HUGE BUILDING WITH BIG WALL, RIGHT? UM, IF WE REMOVE THE DEED RESTRICTIONS, THIS GLORIOUS PROPERTY THAT'S BEEN PROMISED TO THE COMMUNITY, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT MS. MS. LAURA, I BELIEVE WAS YOUR NAME, THAT SHE VIEWS THESE DEED RESTRICTIONS AS KIND OF LIKE A BARRIER TO ANYBODY WANTING TO BUILD ANYTHING THERE AT ALL.
IS THAT NOT WHAT YOU WERE? OKAY.
COULD YOU CLARIFY WHAT YOU SAID EARLIER ABOUT IF WE LEAVE THE DEED RESTRICTIONS IN PLACE? LIKE WHAT WOULD, LIKE YOU, MY UNDERSTANDING FROM WHAT YOU SAID IS THAT YOU FELT THAT IT WAS PREVENTING ANYBODY FROM WANTING TO BUILD ON THIS PROPERTY AT ALL.
NO, THAT, THAT WAS NOT WHAT I INTENDED TO SAY.
THE NEIGHBORS AROUND THIS PROPERTY DO NOT WANT AN EMPTY LOT.
THEY HAVE GONE ON RECORD SAYING THAT THEY DO WANT DEVELOPMENT THERE.
HOWEVER, THE ISSUE THAT WE HAVE BEFORE US IS THAT THIS IS A ZONING CASE AND THAT WHEN YOU LIFT DEED RESTRICTIONS AND SO FORTH TO ALLOW WHAT THE BASE ZONING UNDER PD EIGHT 30 SUBDISTRICT SIX, WE HAVE NO GUARANTEES THAT PRETTY PICTURES WILL BE BUILT.
WE HAVE NO GUARANTEES THAT THE APPLICANT WILL BE THE ONE WHO ACTUALLY DEVELOPS THAT PARTICULAR PROPERTY.
AND SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE ASKING WHAT WE ARE WHEN IT COMES TO THE DEED RESTRICTIONS.
WE, UH, THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING THAT.
WE DID DISCUSS THAT AT LENGTH THIS MORNING IN, IN, UM, IN OUR BRIEFING.
IF WE WERE TO DO, AS YOU SUGGEST AND TO DENY THIS, HOW DO YOU PROPOSE THAT THIS BODY IMPOSE ANY SORT OF RESTRICTIONS GIVEN THE ZONING THAT'S IN PLACE? WELL, I WAS A LITTLE BIT SURPRISED TO HEAR JUST WITHIN THE LAST 10 MINUTES THAT THE APPLICANT WAS OPEN TO DOING A DEED RESTRICTION WITH REGARDS
[01:50:01]
TO OPEN SPACE.THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT WE NEVER KNEW ABOUT, THAT THAT WAS EVEN A POSSIBILITY.
WE DON'T KNOW WHAT OTHER POSSIBILITIES MIGHT BE OF, UH, AVAILABLE WITH REGARDS TO MAYBE NEW DEED RESTRICTIONS.
AND THAT'S WHY WHEN I MADE MY COMMENTS, I SIMPLY ASKED THAT PERHAPS THE, THE STEP TO TAKE IS TO HOLD THIS MATTER AND TO ALLOW FOR THAT CONVERSATION TO HAPPEN SO THAT WE DO KNOW WHAT PERHAPS DEED RESTRICTIONS COULD BE PUT INTO PLACE THAT WILL, WILL BRING A COMPROMISE ON THIS PARTICULAR PART OF THE PARCEL.
WHAT ARE THE COMPROMISES YOU'RE LOOKING FOR? WE HAVEN'T, I'LL BE HONEST, WE HAVEN'T EVEN BEEN ABLE TO HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH THE APPLICANT TO DISCUSS HEIGHT.
WE, WE, WE HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH THE APPLICANT TO DISCUSS WHAT WE, WHAT, WHERE WE MIGHT COME TO A COMPROMISE.
SO I DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE
I SIMPLY WOULD SAY, I DO KNOW THE NEIGHBORS ARE OPEN TO HAVING THAT CONVERSATION.
WHAT EFFORTS HAVE THE NEIGHBORS MADE TO REACH OUT TO THE DEVELOPER? WE REQUESTED THE COMMUNITY MEETING.
WE HAD THE MATTER HELD IN BEFORE THIS BECAME, BEFORE THIS MAT, BEFORE THIS GROUP.
THE APPLICANT DID NOT ATTEND THAT MEETING.
HE SENT HIS REPRESENTATION REPRESENTATIVE.
WE ASKED TO HAVE THAT CONVERSATION.
I WILL SAY THAT THE NEIGHBORS INTERPRETED THE RESPONSES THAT WE WERE GIVEN TO US, THAT THE APPLICANT WAS NOT OPEN TO HAVING THAT CONVERSATION AND THAT HIS POSITION WAS REMOVE THE DEED RESTRICTIONS AND ALLOW HIM TO PROCEED UNDER PD EIGHT 30 SUBDISTRICT SIX.
WELL, YOU DO UNDERSTAND THAT THIS BODY CANNOT DOWN ZONE THE ZONING THEY ALREADY HAVE, RIGHT? RIGHT, RIGHT.
AND YOU UNDERSTAND THAT WE CAN'T GIVE ZONING THAT WOULD BE IN CONTRADICTION TO SB EIGHT 40, WHICH IS NOW CODIFIED IN THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, RIGHT? YEAH.
SO THAT, SO THINGS LIKE HEIGHT, WE CAN'T, ON HEIGHT, THE, THERE IS AN ISSUE.
I UNDERSTAND PERHAPS WITH RESIDENTIAL PROXIMITY SLOPE PD EIGHT 30, SUBDISTRICT SIX HAS NO RESIDENTIAL PROXIMITY SLOPE WITH RELATIONSHIP TO THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY.
AND, AND I UNDER, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS GUIDANCE WITH REGARDS TO HOW RESIDENTIAL PROXIMITY SLOPE, UH, IS AFFECTED BY S BILL EIGHT 40.
SO ESSENTIALLY YOU ALL ARE ASKING US TO EFFECTIVELY KEEP THE EIGHT FOOT WALL.
UM, I MEAN, FROM TALKING WITH PEOPLE, IT'S NOT GRAFFITI, IT'S MURALS.
WE HAVE THOSE ALL OVER OAK CLIFF.
WE ACTUALLY LOVE OUR MURALS
WE HAVE PEOPLE WHO GO AND WE HAVE AMAZING ARTISTS WHO ARE CREATIVE AND HAVE TURNED OUR WALLS INTO ART.
THAT COULD BE WHAT A CONCRETE WALL WOULD BE AT THIS LOCATION.
UM, I'M GONNA SUPPORT THE MOTION.
I KNOW THAT SV EIGHT 40 HAS TURNED A LOT OF COMMUNITIES, UM, ON THEIR EAR A LITTLE BIT.
WE DEAL WITH IT IN MY COMMUNITIES AS WELL.
BUT THE REALITY IS TEXAS LEGISLATURE MADE THAT CHANGE AS WELL AS A NUMBER OF OTHER CHANGES THAT AS COMMUNITIES WERE GOING TO HAVE TO DEAL WITH.
AND THE IDEA THAT THIS BODY WOULD TURN DOWN, UH, REMOVING DEED RESTRICTIONS THAT KEEP UP AN EIGHT FOOT WALL ON THREE SIDES OF A DEVELOPABLE PIECE OF PROPERTY IN ORDER TO DISCOURAGE DEVELOPING THAT PROPERTY IN A CERTAIN WAY WHEN STATE LAW WOULD ALLOW THEM TO DEVELOP IT IN A DIFFERENT WAY.
DOESN'T MAKE A LOT OF SENSE TO ME.
UM, I, I KNOW THAT'S NOT THE OUTCOME THAT THIS NEIGHBORHOOD WANTS AND, AND CLEARLY THE NEIGHBORHOOD DOESN'T EVEN LIKE THE ZONING THAT'S IN PLACE AND I GET IT.
UM, BUT THIS, IT IS WHAT IT IS.
WE DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO DOWN ZONE THIS PROPERTY AND I DON'T SEE KEEPING AN EIGHT FOOT WALL ON THREE SIDES OF THE PROPERTY TO DO ANYTHING GOOD FOR THIS PROPERTY OR THIS COMMUNITY.
[01:55:03]
THANK YOU MR. CHAIR.I MEAN, I, I CAME ON THIS COMMISSION AND I TOLD, UH, MR. BALDWIN THIS WHEN, AND I'VE TOLD MANY OF YOU, UH, I'M GONNA APPROACH MY JOB ON THE COMMISSION FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF MAKING SURE THAT WE PROTECT OUR NEIGHBORHOODS AND OUR RESIDENTS IN THIS CITY.
AND QUITE FRANKLY, I GET A LITTLE IRRITATED AND I UNDERSTAND THAT THAT CODE IS CODE LAW IS LAW.
BUT AT THE SAME TIME, MY ATTITUDE IS SOMETIMES JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN DOESN'T MEAN YOU SHOULD.
AND IN THIS CASE, JUST BECAUSE THIS INDIVIDUAL CAN DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN THEY SHOULD.
THE HEIGHT IS SCARING THE HELL OUT OF THESE RESIDENTS.
AND I THINK IT WOULD BE CERTAINLY A BENEFIT TO THE PROPERTY OWNER TO TAKE THAT INTO ACCOUNT.
HE'S TALKING ABOUT BUILDING A DEVELOPMENT MULTI-FAMILY WITH MULTI-USE.
AS I TOLD YOU DURING THE BREAK WHEN WE TALKED, AND I APPRECIATED THE DISCUSSION.
UH, I THINK YOU HAVE TO INVOLVE AND ENGAGE THE COMMUNITY HERE.
AND WHAT I'VE HEARD IS THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER IS NOT WILLING TO DO THAT.
I UNDERSTAND YOU'RE HIS ADVOCATE OR HER ADVOCATE, WHOEVER THE PROPERTY OWNER IS.
BUT AT THE SAME TIME, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER TO STAND IN FRONT OF THE COMMUNITY AND TELL THEM WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO WITH THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND I'M NOT SAYING THAT HERE AND IT'S FRUSTRATING.
SO I'LL ASK YOU AT THE BREAK WE TALKED ABOUT WITH MS. PALMER, THE POSSIBILITY OF HAVING A MEETING WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER.
IS THAT SOMETHING THAT CAN HAPPEN MR. BALDWIN? I THINK IT CAN.
UH, RICK YOU WANNA SPEAK TO THAT? YEAH.
RICK, THIS IS RICK GARZA, THE PROPERTY OWNER.
UH, FIRST I WANNA START OFF AND TELL YOU THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR SERVICE.
I, MYSELF, AM A FORMER PLANNING COMMISSIONER.
UH, WHEN LAURA MILLER WAS MAYOR, I WAS HER PLANNING COMMISSIONER.
I ALSO SERVED ON THE URBAN REHABILITATION STANDARDS BOARD.
UH, I RESIDE AT 1314 KINGS HIGHWAY IN OAK CLIFF.
I HAVE THERE FOR THE LAST 37 YEARS.
UH, AND I WILL TELL YOU, NOT A SINGLE PERSON OVER HERE HAS ASKED ME FOR A MEETING IN 2019.
WE HAD A MEETING, WE INVITED KID SPRINGS.
A LOT OF THE KID SPRINGS PEOPLE CAME TO THAT MEETING.
BUT FOR ALL THE BOARD MEMBERS, THEY REFUSED TO SHOW UP AT THE MEETING.
AND UN UNLIKE WHAT YOU HEARD TODAY, UH, MR. SHEAR IN DECEMBER, WE REQUESTED A MEETING IN EARLY DECEMBER, MR. BALDWIN SENT AN EMAIL TO MR. SHEAR.
THE VERY NEXT DAY HE SAW ME AT THE COFFEE SHOP.
HE CAME UP TO ME, HE SAID, WHAT'S, YOU KNOW, HE, I GOT AN EMAIL FROM MR. BALDWIN REGARDING YOUR PROPERTY.
AND I SAID, I'D LOVE TO SIT DOWN WITH YOU AND SHOW YOU WHAT I'M PLANNING.
WE DIDN'T HEAR BACK FROM HIM FOR ANOTHER TWO MONTHS.
AND THEN THEY SAID, OH, WE CAN SQUEEZE YOU IN AT SORT OF SOMETIME IN MARCH.
AND ONLY WHEN THIS CAME UP FOR PLANNING COMMISSION DID HE REACH BACK OUT TO MR. BALDWIN.
SAID, WE FOUND AN EARLIER DATE IN FEBRUARY.
SO THERE HAS BEEN A RELUCTANCE TO EVEN MEET TO SEE WHAT I'M PROPOSING.
MR. SHEER ACTUALLY LIVED IN ONE OF MY PROPERTIES.
HE KNOWS WHAT I HAVE DONE IN OAK CLIFF.
MY COMMITMENT HAS BEEN VERY, VERY STRONG IN OAK CLIFF.
YOU CAN LOOK UP MY PROPERTIES.
I'VE TAKEN SEVERELY RUNDOWN PROPERTIES THAT HAD GANGS, DRUGS, AND PROSTITUTES, AND COMPLETELY RENOVATED THEM BACK TO A CALIBER RENTALS.
WE MAINTAIN OUR PROPERTIES VERY, VERY WELL.
AND SO I HAVE BEEN WILLING TO MEET, NOBODY'S ASKED ME TO MEET.
OKAY, SO AGAIN, DURING THE BREAK IN THE DISCUSSION WITH MR. BALDWIN, MS. PALMER, THERE WAS DISCUSSION ABOUT HAVING A MEETING, A COMMUNITY MEETING WITH YOU IN ATTENDANCE.
AND MR. BALDWIN POINTED OUT THAT THERE APPEAR TO BE, AS THERE OFTEN ARE IN THESE COMMUNITIES, UH, TEMPERS FLARE.
UNFORTUNATELY, SOME INDIVIDUALS DON'T BEHAVE, UH, AS THEY SHOULD.
AND, AND CERTAINLY THAT MAKES THE MEETING MORE CONTENTIOUS.
HAVING SAID THAT, UM, IF THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND THE NEIGHBORS, UH, UH, AGREE TO PLAY NICE, UH, I THINK THEY WOULD LOVE TO HAVE A MEETING WITH YOU TO TALK ABOUT THIS, THIS, UH, DEVELOPMENT AND TRY TO COME TO SOME CONSENSUS, UH, WITH RESPECT TO ADDRESSING THE CONCERNS THAT THEY HAVE.
I'M NOT SAYING THAT YOU SHOULD GIVE THEM EVERYTHING THAT THEY WANT, BUT I AM SAYING THAT YOU SHOULD LISTEN TO, AND THEY PROBABLY HEARD MORE FROM YOU TODAY IN THE LAST FIVE MINUTES THAN THEY HAVE IN THE ENTIRE TIME.
[02:00:01]
THIS DEVELOPMENT'S BEING DISCUSSED.NOW, A AGAIN, THAT'S WHERE I HAVE THE PROBLEM.
I THINK YOU GOT TO TALK TO THE COMMUNITY.
CAN, UH, MR. COX SORT OF OUT OF TOTAL RESPECT, I'VE OWNED THE PROPERTY FOR 18 YEARS.
18, RIGHT? I WAS PULLING THE TRIGGER IN 2019, AND I CAN TELL YOU, UM, WE HAD AN EN UH, ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF MEETINGS.
NOW, IF YOU WILL LOOK CAREFULLY AT ALL THE SUPPORT RESPONSES, YOU WILL NOTICE THAT THERE ARE PROBABLY EIGHT KID SPRINGS RESIDENTS WHO WERE IN FULL SUPPORT.
AND THEY COMMUNICATED TO ME THAT THEY'RE FEARFUL TO, TO SPEAK UP AT THE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS BECAUSE THEY GET PUSHED, PUSHED AWAY, AND THEY DON'T WANT TO HAVE CONFRONTATION, BUT THEY SENT IN LETTERS OF FULL SUPPORT, MORE PEOPLE THAN ARE SITTING RIGHT THERE.
ALL I'M SAYING IS THERE SHOULD BE AN OPPORTUNITY.
I I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO TAKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO MEET WITH THE RESIDENTS, GIVE THEM AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXPRESS THEIR CONCERNS.
I'M SURE YOU DO WONDERFUL WORK IN THE COMMUNITY AND, AND I CERTAINLY APPRECIATE THAT.
UH, BUT I THINK YOU WOULD AGREE IT'S, IT'S VERY IMPORTANT FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE AS THE PROPERTY OWNER TO HAVE THE COMMUNITY ENGAGED AND BUYING INTO TO WHAT YOU'RE, WHAT YOU'RE WANTING TO DO.
I'M NOT WILLING TO DELAY THIS CASE.
AND, AND TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS, IF I COULD JUST FINISH BY SAYING, UNFORTUNATELY THE TEXAS LEGISLATURE LET YOU DOWN.
THEY PASSED SBH 40, WHICH TIES THE HANDS OF COMMUNITIES, MUNICIPALITIES LIKE DALLAS, TEXAS, AND UNFORTUNATELY, YOUR CITY LET YOU DOWN BECAUSE THEY HAVE A CODE THAT IN MANY INSTANCES DOES NOT RESTRICT THE HEIGHT OF A DEVELOPMENT IN THIS CITY.
AND TO ME, THAT IS ABSURD AND IT NEEDS TO CHANGE.
AND HOPEFULLY WITH ZONING REFORM, MAYBE THAT'S SOMETHING WE CAN LOOK AT.
UH, COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT, I'LL BE, UH, SUPPORTING THE, THE MOTION, UH, YOU KNOW, I, I'M LOOKING AT, AT EIGHT 40 AND, UM, IT WAS PASSED, UH, LISA'S DATED IN THE, WHAT I'M LOOKING AT IN 2010.
SO THERE WAS NINE YEARS THAT PASSED FROM, UH, THE ADOPTION OF EIGHT 30 TO THE, UH, FIRST ZONING CASE THAT MR. GARZA HAD NINE YEARS THAT, UH, NO EFFORT THAT I'M AWARE OF TO CHANGE THE ZONING THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD SAYS THEY DON'T LIKE.
AND THEN WE'VE HAD ANOTHER SEVEN YEARS SINCE THAT FIRST APPLICATION TO TODAY FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO TAKE ACTION ON THE, THE PD THAT THEY DON'T LIKE.
AND SO WE'VE GOT, WE'RE, WE'RE LIKE 17, 18 YEARS DOWN THE ROAD.
UM, IF IT'S THAT FLAWED, UM, IT SEEMS LIKE IT WOULD'VE BEEN ADDRESSED BY THEN.
UM, I THINK THE REQUIREMENT, THE INSISTENCE ON MEETING WITH AN APPLICANT IS, IS, UM, NOT THE, UH, PURVIEW OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
I MEAN, IF THE APPLICANTS CHOOSES TO SEND HIS REPRESENTATIVE, THEN HE CHOOSES TO SEND HIS REPRESENTATIVE.
I, I'M NOT GONNA HOLD UP A CASE BECAUSE THE APPLICANT HASN'T, UM, YOU KNOW, HASN'T MET WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, THIS IS NOT AN UPZONING AND THIS IS THE, THE CONVERSATION AROUND THIS HORSESHOE IS THIS KIND OF CONVERSATION I'M ACCUSTOMED TO.
WHEN THERE IS AN UPZONING AND AN APPLICANT IS ASKING FOR MORE THAN IS AVAILABLE TO HIM TODAY, HE'S SIMPLY ASKING FOR ACCESS TO THE EXISTING ZONING.
THERE IS NO INCREASE IN THIS A IN THIS ASK.
SO I, I THINK THAT'S GETTING LOST IN, IN THE CONVERSATION.
UM, YOU KNOW, TO HOLD UP ACCESS TO EXISTING ZONING RIGHTS.
IT JUST SEEMS LIKE A, A, A VERY BLATANT, UH, TACTIC TO PREVENT DEVELOPMENT.
UH, THIS IS WHY, THIS IS ONE REASON WHY WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH HOUSING IN THIS CITY.
THIS IS ONE REASON WHY WE DON'T HAVE THE TAX BASE TO SUPPORT THE KIND OF CITY WE WANT.
AND, UM, SPEAKING OF THE CITY THAT WE WANT, I FIND THE IDEA OF AN EIGHT FOOT WALL RUNNING 850 LINEAR FEET WITH MURALS ON IT TO BE ABSURD.
UH, THE IDEA THAT THOSE PEOPLE SHOULDN'T BE ABLE TO GET TO OUR REAL NEIGHBORHOOD IS WHAT I READ IN THAT REMARK.
UM, SO I, I FIND JUST THE ARGUMENT AGAINST LIFTING THESE DEED RESTRICTIONS, UM, VERY, VERY PROBLEMATIC AND, UM, INDICATIVE OF THE CHALLENGES WE HAVE ON THE CPC TO SOLVE PROBLEMS IN THIS CITY.
[02:05:01]
THE NOTION THAT WE ARE PROTECTING A CERTAIN CLASS OF PEOPLE FROM A CERTAIN TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT, UM, IS JUST SOMETHING THAT, THAT, UH, I, I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ANY BUSINESS DOING, FRANKLY.UM, SO I, I WILL BE SUPPORTING THIS MOTION.
UH, ROB, I HAVE ONE QUESTION FOR YOU.
UH, I SEE ON THE, UH, DESIGN PLAN THAT THE UNITS THAT ARE ON THE SIDE, UH, FOUR ACRE STREET, THEY'RE, UH, IN RED, THEY, IT INDICATES THAT THERE ARE GONNA BE FOUR STORIES.
I, I DON'T HAVE THAT, THAT FULL PRESENTATION.
YEAH, THAT WAS PROVIDED BY THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
SO THE, I HAVE SLIDES THAT SHOW.
YEAH, SO IT WOULD BE FOUR STORIES ON THE NORTH AND THEN FIVE STORIES ON, UH, SIX STORIES ON THE, THE EAST SOUTH.
COULD YOU, UH, HELP ME TO UNDERSTAND WHAT WOULD BE THE APPROXIMATE HEIGHT OF A FOUR STORY BUILDING? YEAH.
ACCORDING TO THIS, IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S 44 FEET, 45 FEET.
SO, SO BASICALLY THEN YOU'RE SAYING, WHAT YOU'RE SAYING TO ME IS, IS THAT THE HEIGHT IS GONNA BE NO MORE THAN 45 FEET OR ABOUT 45 FEET, WHICH IS WHAT THE, THE, THE DEED RESTRICTION WAS.
SO I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT THE ISSUE HERE IS.
YES, THE DEED RESTRICTION WAS 14 FEET, BUT, UM, YEAH, IT WAS A, A WAREHOUSE LIMITED TO 14 FEET IN HEIGHT.
BUT MR. GARZA HA, THIS DESIGN IS THOUGHTFUL AND THAT IT TURNS A, A RESIDENTIAL FACE.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE, UM, THE ELEVATIONS, YOU'LL SEE THAT THERE'S TWO DIFFERENT ELEVATIONS.
THE, THE ONE ON THE FRONT ELEVATION FACING, UH, DAVIS IS A MUCH MORE, UM, NOT COMMERCIAL, BUT MORE OF A MIXED USE FRONTAGE.
UH, IT'S TALLER, IT'S, IT'S MORE MASSIVE.
IT'S, UH, HARDER MATERIALS, BUT THE ONE FACING FOUR ACRE HAS PITCHED ROOFS.
IT'S, UH, MORE OF A RESIDENTIAL FIELD TO TRY TO, UH, FOLD INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, MR. BALDWIN, CAN I GET SOME CLARIFICATION ON THE DEED RESTRICTION THAT YOU OFFERED? YES, MA'AM.
THE WORDING OF IT, THE FINAL, IT WAS 10%.
WAS THERE A LOCATIONAL REQUIREMENT? YES, MA'AM.
WE'RE GONNA HAVE IT FACING FOUR ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY FACING FOUR ACRE, AND IT'S GOTTA BE PUBLIC OPEN SPACE WHERE OUR NEIGHBORS CAN COME IN AND USE IT.
SO THAT LANGUAGE, WAS THAT INCLUDED IN THE MOTION? IT WAS COMMISSIONER.
UM, I UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, THE FRUSTRATION THAT THE NEIGHBORS FEEL, I MEAN, WE FEEL FRUSTRATION ALSO BECAUSE WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE REALITIES OF, YOU KNOW, WHAT SENATE BILL EIGHT 40 ALLOWS US OR DOESN'T ALLOW US TO DO.
WE CANNOT REQUIRE A HEIGHT LESS THAN 45 FEET.
WE JUST CAN'T, WE CAN'T PUT A LIMIT ON THE DENSITY.
UM, THERE, WE CANNOT, UM, REQUIRE UNDERGROUND PARKING.
UM, I APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THE APPLICANT WAS WILLING TO OFFER THAT, THAT I UNDERSTAND THAT, YOU KNOW, WE SIMPLY CAN'T DO IT.
IT'S FRUSTRATING TO ME THAT, UM, OUR HANDS ARE TIED.
UM, YOU KNOW, THIS, A LOT OF THE LETTERS THAT WE GOT IN SUPPORT WERE TIED TO A VERY SPECIFIC VISION THAT THEY WERE SHOWN.
AND I, I BELIEVE THAT MR. GARZA, YOU KNOW, INTENDS TO BUILD WHAT HE IS, IS SAYING.
BUT AT THE SAME TIME, I'M ALSO AWARE THAT, YOU KNOW, THINGS CHANGE THAT, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE GET SICK, PEOPLE DIE, PEOPLE'S FINANCES CHANGE, THAT THERE'S NO GUARANTEE THAT THIS IS GOING TO BE BUILT.
BUT AT THE SAME TIME, UM, I THINK GIVEN THE REALITY OF THE EXISTING ZONING AND THE REALITY OF SENATE BILL EIGHT 40, THIS MAY BE THE CLOSEST THAT WE CAN GET TO IT.
ANY ADDITIONAL FIRST ROUND COMMENTS? UM, I, I DID WANT TO JUST FOLLOW UP WITH A, A COUPLE QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS.
UM, MR. BALDWIN, IS IT UNUSUAL FOR YOU TO MEET, UM, WITH A NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION OR OTHER STAKEHOLDER GROUP WITHOUT YOUR CLIENT, THE APPLICANT? NO, SIR.
MOST OF THE TIMES MY, MY CLIENTS DO NOT SHOW UP FOR NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS.
AND DO YOU COME INTO THOSE MEETINGS WITH, WITH AUTHORITY TO REPRESENT THEM AND TO DISCUSS THE ZONING CASE AND, AND WORK OUT ISSUES HERE? HERE ARE THE NEIGHBOR'S CONCERNS AND SHARING 'EM WITH MY CLIENT AND TRY TO WORK OUT, UH, SOME SORT OF COMPROMISE.
YOU KNOW, THAT'S, IF I CAN WORK OUT A COMPROMISE THAT MAKES MY JOB EASIER.
[02:10:01]
UH, BUT THAT, THAT'S IT.I NORMALLY, MY CLIENTS IN DUCEY DO NOT SHOW UP FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS.
AND, AND JUST HELP ME WITH, WITH TIMELINE HERE, I THINK MR. GARZA MADE SOME REFERENCES TO IT.
UM, WHEN DID, WHEN DID THE APPLICANT FIRST REQUEST A MEETING OR WHEN DID YOU FIRST REQUEST A MEETING? WE WERE, WE FILED THIS, UH, THE 1ST OF DECEMBER, DECEMBER 1ST, SECOND, UH, I WROTE TO ROB, SHE, WHO'S THE VICE PRESIDENT OF KENT SPRINGS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION ON THE 3RD OF DECEMBER.
UM, I WROTE TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND I GOT THEIR ADDRESSES OFF OF, UH, THE NEIGHBORHOOD WEBSITE, KID SPRINGS, HOA WEBSITE.
UH, NEVER HEARD BACK FROM HER EITHER.
UH, I THINK IT WAS TWO OR THREE DAYS BEFORE THE LAST HEARING I HEARD FROM ROB ASKING, SAYING, WE'D LIKE TO MEET AND HE COULD MEET WITH US AT THE END OF MARCH.
UM, AND IF WE'D BE WILLING TO HOLD THE, THE CASE, I TOLD HIM WE'D BE WILLING TO HOLD THE CASE, BUT WE COULDN'T WAIT TILL MARCH AND A TIME OPENED AND I MET WITH THEM LAST WEEK, I THINK IT WAS.
UM, SO THEY WERE ABLE, THEY WERE ABLE TO WORK WITH US AND GET US ON THEIR FEBRUARY MEETING DOCKET, BUT WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO GET IN TOUCH WITH HIM SINCE DECEMBER.
UM, ONE QUESTION FOR MS. PALMER OR MR. SHEER.
I DON'T THINK MS. KING IS HERE.
UM, I GUESS ANYONE WHO'S SIGNED THE LETTER.
I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND WHO THE LETTER'S ON BEHALF OF.
IT SAYS IT'S ON BEHALF OF THE OFFICERS.
SO THE, WHEN WE HAD OUR MEETING, UM, WHICH WAS FEBRUARY 23RD, UM, THERE WAS NO VOTE TAKEN ON BEHALF OF THE MEMBERSHIP AT THAT TIME.
THEREFORE, THIS LETTER IS COMING FROM THE OFFICERS AND REFLECTS OUR UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THE NEIGHBORS IN ATTENDANCE WERE ASKING FOR, BUT DOES NOT COME FROM A RECORDED VOTE.
AND IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, I'VE WORKED ZONING CASES IN KIDS SPRINGS WHEN THE COMMISSIONER IN THE DISTRICT WAS CONFLICTED OUT OR WHEN THE DISTRICT WAS VACANT.
THERE ARE TIMES THAT THE KIDS SPRINGS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION DOES CONDUCT A FORMAL RECORDED VOTE AND ACTUALLY TAKES AN OFFICIAL AND IT YES, AND IT, AND IT ALL DEPENDS UPON SORT OF TIMING AND ALSO I THINK IN THIS CASE TOO, WAS ALSO HOW TEMPERATURES WERE, WERE AT, UM, DURING THE MEETING.
UM, AND SO WE WERE HOPING TO HAVE FURTHER DISCUSSION WHERE THERE COULD BE A LITTLE BIT MORE, UM, CALMNESS
UM, I MAY I SPEAK TO AS TO THE TIMING ON REACHING OUT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION? SURE.
AND YOU MUST KEEP IN MIND, NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS ARE ALL VOLUNTEER.
WE ARE DOING THIS ALL ON OUR TIME.
WE HAVE OTHER LIVES, WE HAVE JOBS, AND WE DO OUR BEST TO FOLLOW UP.
THESE REQUESTS CAME IN DECEMBER WHEN THE HOLIDAYS ARE HAPPENING.
WE WERE FOCUSED ON HOSTING OUR NEIGHBORS AT A TAMALE GET TOGETHER RATHER THAN GEARING UP TO HAVE ANOTHER ZONING FIGHT IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
WHEN A REQUEST COMES IN IN EARLY JANUARY, WE GOT HIT BY AN ICE STORM THAT SHUT DOWN OUR CITY FOR A WEEK, PRACTICALLY IN JANUARY, WHICH WOULD HAVE MADE IT DIFFICULT TO BRING OUR NEIGHBORS TOGETHER TO HAVE A CONVERSATION WE CAN APOLOGIZE FOR, NOT HAVE BEEN AS RES, UH, RESPONSIVE AS WE MAY HAVE, SHOULD HAVE BEEN.
BUT I ASSURE YOU THERE IS A WILLINGNESS TO HAVE A CONVERSATION.
I, I CAN UNDERSTAND HOW IT MIGHT BE DIFFICULT TO ACTUALLY HAVE A MEETING IN THE HOLIDAYS OR, OR IN THE MIDDLE OF AN ICE STORM.
I AM A LITTLE SURPRISED KNOWING HOW ENGAGED THAT, THAT Y'ALL ARE.
THAT, THAT THERE WASN'T A EVEN A RESPONSE TO THE REQUEST TO, TO MEET.
BUT, YOU KNOW, THINGS, THINGS HAPPEN FROM TIME TO TIME.
AND I KNOW THAT Y'ALL ARE VERY ON THE BALL AS A NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND HOPEFULLY, AND I'M SURE, YOU KNOW, WE'LL SEE KID SPRINGS BACK HERE AGAIN AND, YOU KNOW, HOPEFULLY WE DON'T END UP IN, IN, IN THAT SITUATION.
UM, I, I HEAR THE CONCERNS AT THE, THE KID SPRINGS NEIGHBORS.
[02:15:01]
AT THE END OF THE DAY, UH, REALLY THIS CASE WAS, WAS, IS LARGELY TO ME, TURNS ON PD EIGHT 30, WHICH WAS, YOU KNOW, RESOLVED ALMOST OVER 15 YEARS AGO AND, AND PROVIDES THE ZONING AND GETTING RID OF SOME DEED RESTRICTIONS THAT I UNDERSTAND WHY THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLACES SOME VALUE ON THEM, BUT I REALLY SEE THEM AS SORT OF A APPENDAGE, LIKE THE, THE BODY'S APPENDIX ALMOST.IT'S IN THERE, BUT I, I DON'T SEE IT SERVING THAT IMPORTANT OF A PURPOSE GIVEN THE ZONING ALLOWED UNDER, YOU KNOW, EIGHT 30.
AND WHEN YOU LAYER IN 8, 8 40 HERE, I THINK, YOU KNOW, WE'VE REACHED, UH, APPROPRIATE RESULTS.
SO I WILL BE, UM, SUPPORTING COMMISSIONER SIMS MOTION SECOND ROUND OR, OR ANYONE ELSE, FIRST ROUND COMMISSIONER SIMS SECOND ROUND.
JUST, YEAH, VERY BRIEFLY, MR. CHAIR.
I KNOW WE'VE BEEN SPEAKING ABOUT THIS FOR QUITE A WHILE, THAT, UH, MS. PALMER CORRECTLY NOTED THAT THE DEED RESTRICTIONS, UH, APPEARED LATE IN THE GAME.
AND, UH, THAT WAS, I'LL SAY THAT WAS PART OF MY EFFORT.
THE NEIGHBORS WERE KIND ENOUGH TO SPEND A GOOD CHUNK OF SATURDAY AFTERNOON WITH ME STANDING ACTUALLY IN THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND DISCUSSING WHAT WE COULD DO TO TRY TO HELP.
AND SO IN SPEAKING WITH MR. BALDWIN DURING THE WEEK, UH, LOOKING FOR WAYS WE COULD DO, UH, TO TRY TO ADDRESS SOME OF THEIR CONCERNS, THAT WAS WHERE THE DEED RESTRICTIONS CAME FROM.
AND AS COMMISSIONER CARPENTER NOTED, BASICALLY THE ONE WE CAN DO IS THE ONE THAT'S BEFORE US.
AND ANYTHING ELSE IN TERMS OF HEIGHT AND EVERYTHING ELSE, THE LAW PROHIBITS US FROM DOING ANYONE ELSE ON A SECOND ROUND.
COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, THEN COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT, I JUST WANNA ACKNOWLEDGE EVERYONE WHO'S HERE TODAY.
I AM NOT GONNA REPEAT THE COMMENTS FROM MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS, BUT I, I DO SENSE YOUR, UM, FRUSTRATION THAT WE ALL, UM, YOU KNOW, IT WOULD BE GREAT IF WE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS SOME OF THESE OTHER ITEMS. THEY'RE NOT WITHIN ANYTHING WE CAN DO.
I DO THINK THAT THERE ARE PROVISIONS EMBEDDED IN EIGHT 30 THAT WILL, UM, LEAD TOWARDS WHAT'S BEEN PRESENTED TO YOU ALL.
IT WILL CERTAINLY NOT ADDRESS ALL THE COMMENTS AND CONCERNS YOU'VE HAD.
I DID ASK THE APPLICANT ON THE RECORD OR THE REPRESENTATIVE AND, YOU KNOW, WE'LL, UH, TAKE THEM AT THEIR WORD THAT THEY INTEND TO, UM, DELIVER WHAT THEY HAVE PRESENTED TO YOU ALL.
AND I WILL BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT.
UM, YEAH, I JUST, I GUESS JUST HAD A COUPLE OF COMMENTS, BUT, UH, I GUESS TO, TO MS. PALMER'S COMMENTS, UM, I GUESS WE'RE ALL IN THE SAME BOAT BECAUSE WE'RE ALL VOLUNTEERS.
UM, SECONDLY, UM, I FIND THAT THIS, THIS LETTER THAT WE WERE GIVEN THAT MS. PALMER CLARIFIED WAS FROM THE OFFICERS.
UM, I JUST, I FIND IT TROUBLING OR MAYBE JUST MISLEADING THAT IT'S ON THE LETTERHEAD OF THE ORGANIZATION AND YET IT DOES NOT REFLECT THE VOTE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
ACTUALLY, IT REFLECTS THE PREFERENCES, THE PERSONAL PREFERENCES OF THE OFFICERS.
AND SO NEXT TIME I GET A LETTER FROM KID SPRINGS, I'LL BE LOOKING VERY CAREFULLY TO SEE WHAT IT'S ACTUALLY REPRESENTING BECAUSE I WAS MISLED BY THE LETTER.
ANYONE ELSE ON THE SECOND ROUND? OKAY, WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SIMS, SECONDED BY HOUSE RIGHT TO FOLLOW SAS RECOMMENDATION, UH, APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE DEED RESTRICTIONS VOLUNTEERED BY THE APPLICANT.
NAY ONE, NAY TWO FORSYTH, UH, DO WE NEED TO DO A RECORD VOTE? NO.
WE'VE GOT TWO NAYS, FORSYTH AND COMMISSIONER COX.
ALRIGHT, WE WILL TAKE A 10 MINUTE BREAK.
ALL RIGHT, COMMISSIONERS, LET'S GET BACK TO BUSINESS.
IT IS 2:16 PM AND THE CITY PLAN COMMISSIONER IS BACK ON THE RECORD.
[10. 26-810A An application for the removal of D Liquor Control Overlay, with consideration for a D-1 Liquor Control Overlay and a new Specific Use Permit for the sale of alcoholic beverages on property zoned Subarea 11 within Planned Development District 298, the Bryan Area Special Purpose District with a D Liquor Control Overlay, on the southeast line of Swiss Avenue, northeast of North Haskell Avenue. Staff Recommendation: Approval of the removal of D Liquor Control Overlay. Applicant: San Luis Food, LLC / Marcus Schwartz Representative: BrackinSchwartz, PLLC / Marcus Schwartz U/A From: February 5, 2026. Planner: Michael V. Pepe Council District: 2 Z-25-000117]
PEPE, CAN YOU READ NUMBER 10 IN NUMBER 10? NUMBER 10 IS Z 2 5 0 0 0 107 AND IT IS AN APPLICATION FOR THE REMOVAL OF D LIQUOR CONTROL OVERLAY WITH CONSIDERATION FOR A D ONE LIQUOR CONTROL OVERLAY AND A NEW SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR THE SALE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES ON PROPERTY ZONE SUB AREA 11 WITHIN, UH, PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 2 98.THE BRYAN AREA SOCIAL PURPOSE DISTRICT WITH A D LIQUOR CONTROL OVERLAY ON THE SOUTHEAST LINE OF SWISS AVENUE, NORTHEAST HASKELL AVENUE.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL OF THE REMOVAL OF THE LIQUOR CONTROL OVERLAY.
ARE THERE ANY SPEAKERS ON ITEM NUMBER 10? I SEE ONE ON SIGN UP TO SPEAK ONLINE.
[02:20:01]
ONLINE? YES, SIR.THANK YOU SO MUCH, UM, FOR ALLOWING US TO PRESENT HERE TODAY.
UM, I'M LOCATED 5 1 1 WEST SEVENTH STREET HERE IN AUSTIN, TEXAS, 7 8 7 0 1.
I AM THE ATTORNEY REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE APPLICANT, SAN LUIS FOODS, LLC.
IN REGARDS TO THIS, UM, THIS IS THE EL RANCHO LOCATION, NUMBER 25.
IT IS OPERATED AS A GROCERY STORE AT THE LOCATION, AT THIS LOCATION IN DALLAS FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS, AND THROUGH ITS PARENT COMPANY HERITAGE, HERITAGE GROCERS GROUP, LLC OPERATES A NUMBER OF SUCH BUSINESSES THROUGHOUT DALLAS AND THE STATE OF TEXAS.
THE COMPANY'S A SOCIALLY RESPONSIBLE CORPORATE CITIZEN OF DALLAS AND THE OTHER COMMUNITIES IT CALLS HOME, ITS STORES ARE COMMITTED TO CONTINUING WITH THEIR EFFORTS AND COMMUNITY OUTREACH AND THE COMMITMENT TO RESPONSIBLE RETAILING IS AN IMPORTANT BUSINESS PRINCIPLE, THE COMPANY AND PART OF WHAT MAKES IT A WELCOME AND RESPECTED NEIGHBOR.
IN ADDITION TO MYSELF HERE TODAY, TO ANSWER QUESTIONS THAT Y'ALL, YOU ALL MAY HAVE, WE HAVE, UH, MR. JUAN TORRES IS THERE IN PERSON.
UH, HE'S THE VP OF OPERATIONS, UM, AND I BELIEVE HE IS, UH, SIGNED UP TO SPEAK TODAY AS WELL AS A REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE COMPANY.
UM, MR. TORRES, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK OR ARE YOU JUST HERE FOR QUESTIONS? I'M JUST HERE QUESTIONS.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF ITEM NUMBER 10? ANY SPEAKERS IN OPPOSITION? OKAY.
COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? I DO.
UH, IN THE MATTER OF Z DASH 25 DASH 0 0 0 1 1 7, I MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE THE REQUEST, UM, SUBJECT TO A D ONE LIQUOR CONTROL OVERLAY WITH A NEW SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR THE SALE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES, UM, FOR THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR TWO YEARS WITHOUT AUTOMATIC RENEWALS, SUBJECT TO HIS SITE PLANNING CONDITIONS AS LISTED IN THE DOCKET.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND? THANK YOU COMMISSIONER CARPENTER FOR YOUR SECOND.
ANY DISCUSSION, COMMISSIONER HAMPTON? WELL, I JUST WANNA THANK THE APPLICANT FOR TAKING THE TIME WITH MEETING WITH THE COMMUNITY FOR BEING HERE TODAY TO ANSWER A NUMBER OF MY QUESTIONS REGARDING HOW THE OPERATIONS, UM, WORK.
UH, THIS IS AN UNUSUAL SITE AND IT HAS BEEN THIS WAY SINCE AT LEAST THE 1960S.
I BELIEVE IN THAT THE BUILDING ITSELF ACTUALLY EXTENDS INTO WHAT IS A MULTIFAMILY BLOCK FACE ALONG SWISS AVENUE.
THEY HAVE PARKING THAT FACES IN WHAT IS EFFECTIVELY THE FRONT YARD FOR THE ADJACENT RESIDENCES.
UM, THEY HAVE LIMITED TO NO SCREENING.
THERE'S SOME FENCES AT THE ADJACENT PROPERTY.
THEY HAVE BEEN GOOD NEIGHBORS.
THERE WAS A LETTER THAT WAS CIRCULATED BY THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT OF THIS REQUEST.
UM, THERE WERE ANOTHER COMMENTS ABOUT TRYING TO UNDERSTAND TYPE OF LIQUOR SALES.
I ASK THEM QUESTIONS ABOUT HOURS OF OPERATIONS, HOW LOADING, UM, WOULD BE HANDLED.
UM, MUCH OF THAT IS GOVERNED BY TABC.
I'VE NOT RECOMMENDED ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS.
UM, BUT I DO THINK THAT BY HAVING THE SUP RENEWAL, IT ENSURES THAT THE OPERATIONS REMAIN CONSISTENT AS THEY HAVE BEEN PAST THESE MANY YEARS.
AND I FULLY EXPECT THAT WHEN THIS COMES BACK TO US, THAT IT WILL BE APPROVED FOR A LONGER TIME PERIOD.
AND I HOPE MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS WILL SUPPORT THE MOTION.
UM, I'M HAPPY TO SUPPORT THE MOTION.
I DID WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE, UH, A LETTER FROM, UM, THE, UH, PEAKS, UH, EDITION NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND, UM, JUST ACKNOWLEDGE MY SUPPORT FOR THE MOTION DOES NOT INCLUDE ACKNOWLEDGING OR ENDORSING ONE OF THE COMMENTS IN THIS LETTER.
UH, IT WAS THE, THE ONE THAT I, I DON'T WANNA HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH IS THAT, UM, THE, THE STATEMENT WAS THAT, WELL, WE CAN SUPPORT THIS, UH, APPLICATION FOR AN SUP TO SELL ALCOHOL BECAUSE THERE'S NO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES DIRECTLY BEHIND THE, THE, UH, THE GROCERY STORE.
UM, THIS, UM, HABIT WE HAVE IN THIS CITY OF MAKING DIFFERENT ACCOMMODATIONS FOR DIFFERENT KINDS OF PEOPLE, UH, RENTERS VERSUS HOMEOWNERS, UM, IS JUST SORT OF PERVASIVE IN OUR DEBATE AT THIS HORSESHOE.
AND SO I JUST WANTED TO TAKE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SAY THAT I DID SEE THAT AND, UH, WAS NOT ENCOURAGED BY THAT IN, IN THIS LETTER.
AND, UH, I DON'T PLAN TO MAKE DECISIONS IN, ON FUTURE CASES ABOUT ADJACENCIES OF, UH, UH, MULTIFAMILY VERSUS SINGLE FAMILY.
THEY'RE ALL RESIDENTS AND THEY ALL DESERVE THE, UH, EQUAL ATTENTION OF THIS, UH, COMMISSION.
I'M AFRAID MY COMMENT'S NOT GONNA BE AS SERIOUS AS COMMISSIONER HOUSE WRITES.
[02:25:01]
I THOUGHT HE WAS GONNA SAY HE DIDN'T WANNA MESS WITH THE 40 OUNCE MALT LIQUORS.WELL, COMMISSIONER HAMPTON HEADED ME OFF ON THAT, SO IIII WAS GOING THERE, BUT
I WOULD'VE BEEN FINE, YOU KNOW, REMOVING THE D LIQUOR CONTROL OVERLAY AND GOING WITHOUT AN SCP HERE.
BUT I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERNS.
UM, PERHAPS WHEN THIS COMES BACK IN TWO YEARS, UM, I, I DON'T EXPECT TO BE HERE MYSELF, BUT THAT MAY BE A TIME TO DISCUSS WHETHER THIS PROPERTY CAN HAVE THE D ONE OVERLAY REMOVED AS WELL, GIVEN THE LACK OF, OF D ONE ON SIMILAR PRODUCT OR LACK OF ANY SORT OF LIQUOR CONTROL OVERLAY ON, ON, UM, PROPERTIES THAT ARE VERY SIMILAR IN THE AREA AS WELL, PARTICULARLY ALDI ACROSS THE STREET, WHICH HAS, YOU KNOW, MEANINGFUL RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY AS WELL.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? ALRIGHT, SEEING NONE, WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CARPENTER TO, UM, FOLLOW STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL, BUT FOR A D ONE LIQUOR CONTROL OVERLAY, A NEW SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR THE SALE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES WITH A TWO YEAR PERIOD, NO AUTO RENEWAL.
ALL THOSE, UM, OPPOSED, SAY NAY.
[11. 26-811A An application for 1) IM Industrial Manufacturing District and 2) a new Specific Use Permit for an industrial (inside) potentially incompatible industrial use on property zoned CR Community Retail District and IM Industrial Manufacturing District with Specific Use Permit 93 for an electric substation on a portion, on the north line of Scyene Road, east of the UPRR. Staff Recommendation: Denial. Applicant: HFLP, Ltd. Representative: EE Okpa U/A From: January 15, 2026. Planner: Martin Bate Council District: 7 Z-25-000198 / Z245-211]
GOOD AFTERNOON.UH, ITEM 11 IS CASE Z 25 1 98, ALSO KNOWN AS Z 2 4 5 211.
AN APPLICATION FOR ONE IM INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURING DISTRICT AND TWO, A NEW SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR AN INDUSTRIAL INSIDE POTENTIALLY INCOMPATIBLE INDUSTRIAL USE ON PROPERTY ZONE CR COMMUNITY RETAIL DISTRICT.
AND IM INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURING DISTRICT WITH SPECIFIC USE PERMIT 93 FOR AN ELECTRIC SUBSTATION ON A PORTION ON THE NORTH LINE OF SEIN ROAD, EAST OF THE UP, UH, UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD STAFF.
IS THERE ANYONE WHO'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER 11? NO SPEAKERS.
COMMISSIONER HERBERT, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? YES, SHARON, THE CASE OF Z 2 5 0 0 0 1 9 8.
I MOVE TO CLOSE, UH, HOLD THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN UNTIL THE APRIL 9TH, NINTH, UM, HEARING.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HERBERT FOR YOUR MOTION.
COMMISSIONER HAMPTON FOR YOUR SECOND.
ANY DISCUSSION? I'LL JUST BRIEFLY NOTE THAT I, I SPOKE TO COMMISSIONER WHEELER ON THIS ONE AND MY UNDERSTANDING IS I HAD ONE COMMUNITY MEETING, AN ADDITIONAL ONE IS SCHEDULED FOR SOME TIME IN MARCH, SO HOPEFULLY WE'LL BE READY TO GO AND AT OUR APRIL 9TH MEETING.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? NO DISCUSSION.
ANY OPPOSING? THE MOTION CARRIES MR. BATE
[12. 26-812A An application for RTN Residential Transition District on property zoned R-16(A) Single Family District, on the northwest corner of McShann Road and Preston Road. Staff Recommendation: Approval. Applicant: Caleb Mann Representative: Matthew Sheard U/A From: February 5, 2026. Planner: Martin Bate Council District: 13 Z-25-000121]
ITEM 12.ITEM 12 IS CASE Z 25 0 0 0 1 21.
AN APPLICATION FOR RTN RESIDENTIAL TRANSITION DISTRICT ON PROPERTIES ZONED R 16, A SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SHAN ROAD AND PRESTON ROAD STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS, IS APPROVAL.
ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER 12? NO SPEAKERS.
COMMISSIONER HALL, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? I DO.
MR. CHAIR, THANK UM, THANK YOU IN THE MATTER OF CASES E 25 0 0 0 1 21.
I MOVE TO KEEP THE PUBLIC RECORD OPEN AND PLACE THIS ITEM UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL APRIL THE NINTH, 2 0 26.
AND IF I GET A SECOND, I HAVE A COMMENT TO MAKE.
COMMISSIONER HALL, YOU DO HAVE A SECOND.
COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, YOUR COMMENT.
UH, I'M RECOMMENDING THAT THIS BE PLACED UNDER ADVISEMENT AT THE REQUEST OF BOTH THE APPLICANT WITH THE DALLAS AREA TORAH ASSOCIATION AND THE COMMUNITY LEADERS OF THE SHAN ROAD HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION.
AFTER A COMMUNITY MEETING, SEVERAL INDIVIDUAL MEETINGS WITH BOTH PARTIES AND A WALKING TOUR OF SHAN STREET AND THE ALLEY ON THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY OF THE SUBDIVISION WITH BOTH PARTIES, THE REQUEST WAS MADE TO DELAY THE CASE TO ALLOW FURTHER CONVERSATIONS BETWEEN THE TWO GROUPS TO ADDRESS GOOD NEIGHBOR ISSUES.
BOTH PARTIES UNDERSTAND THAT THE COMMISSION'S CHARGE IS TO CONSIDER THE LAND USE OF THE SUBJECT SITE AND NOT CODE VIOLATIONS OR OTHER ISSUES INVOLVING THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND WHILE I REGRET HAVING TO DELAY THE CASE ONE MORE TIME, I'M FINE WITH THE ADDITIONAL TIME BEING GRANTED FOR THE TWO PARTIES TO CONTINUE SOME DISCUSSIONS.
HOWEVER, I DO INTEND THAT THIS CASE WILL BE HEARD AND VOTED UPON ON APRIL THE NINTH WITH NO FURTHER DELAYS.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING THEN WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HALL, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CAMDEN TO HOLD THE CASE TILL APRIL 9TH.
[02:30:01]
SAY NAY.[13. 26-813A An application for a new Specific Use Permit for a bar, lounge, or tavern on property zoned Tract A within Planned Development District 269, the Deep Ellum/Near East Side District, on the northwest corner of N. Crowdus Street and Elm Street. Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject a site plan and staff’s recommended conditions. Applicant: Talex Concepts, LLC / Ross Hines Representative: Permitted Development / Audra Buckley Planner: Justin Lee Council District: 2 Z-25-000234]
13 AND I'LL APPLICATION FOR A NEW SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR A BAR, LOUNGE, OR TAVERN ON PROPERTY ZONE TRACK A WITHIN PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 2 6 9, THE DEEP ELLUM SLASH NEAR EAST SIDE DISTRICT ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF NORTH CROWDO STREET AND ELM STREET STAFF.RECOMMENDATION, APPROVAL SUBJECT TO A SITE PLAN AND CONDITIONS.
ANYONE UH, ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER 13? NO SPEAKERS.
COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? I DO.
IN THE MATTER OF Z DASH 25 DASH 2 34, I MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, APPROVE THE REQUEST SUBJECT TO A SITE PLAN AND APPLICANT'S RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS FOR A ONE YEAR PERIOD WITHOUT AUTOMATIC RENEWAL.
COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, YOUR SECOND COMMISSIONER, HOUSEWRIGHT.
[14. 26-814A An application for an R-5(A) Single Family District, with consideration of TH-1(A) Townhouse District on property zoned LI Light Industrial District, on the south line of Compton Street, west of Glidden Street. Staff Recommendation: Approval of a TH-1 Townhouse District, as an alternative to the R-5(A) Single Family District request. Applicant: New Wave Real Estate Investors LLC / Caster Dickerson Planner: Oscar Aguilera Council District: 4 Z-25-000200]
14.UH, MR. CHAIR MEMBERS OF THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION AS GUI ITEM, UH, NUMBER 14 IS AN APPLICATION FOR AN R FIVE SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT WITH CONSIDERATION OF A TH ONE TOWNHOUSE DISTRICT ON A PROPERTY ZONE, LI LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT ON THE SOUTH, UH, LINE OF CAMPTON STREET WEST OF, UH, GLEEDEN STREET.
A STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL OF A TH ONE, UH, TOWNHOUSE, UH, DISTRICT AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE R FIVE SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT REQUEST.
IS ANYONE WHO'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER 14? NO SPEAKERS.
COMMISSIONER FORSYTH, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? YES.
CHAIRMAN RUBEN, I'M NOT THAT HANDSOME MUSCLE MEMORY, SORRY.
UH, IN THE MATTER OF CASE Z DASH 25 DASH 0 0 200, I MOVE THAT WE KEEP THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AND HOLD THIS CASE UNDER ADVISEMENT, UH, FOR STAFF TO BE ABLE TO WORK WITH THE APPLICANT TO, UH, CONSIDER REZONING THIS, UH, PROPERTY TO MU ONE, UH, WHICH WILL FACILITATE, UH, APPROPRIATE DEVELOPMENT, UH, ON THE REMAINDER OF COMPTON STREET WHERE YOU HAD A CON.
AND IF I CAN, YEAH, WE'LL GET TO YOUR COMMENTS IN JUST A SECOND.
SO JUST TO CLARIFY, IT'S DIRECTING STAFF TO RE ADVERTISE FOR CONSIDERATION OF MU ONE.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER FORSYTH FOR YOUR MOTION COMMISSIONER.
AND DO WE HAVE A DATE THAT WE'RE HOLDING THAT UNTIL, WHAT DO WE NEED TO HOLD THAT THE, IT'S KIND OF A QUIRK OF THIS MONTH WHERE IT COULD GO AS EARLY AS THE 26TH OF MARCH, UH, OR THE 9TH OF APRIL, MARCH 26TH.
WITH YOU TO KEEP THE BALL ROLLING.
I THINK WE OUGHT TO DO MARCH, APRIL, APRIL 9TH, EARLY APRIL TO BE SAFE.
OKAY, SO IT'S A MOTION TO RE ADVERTISE AS MU ONE AND HOLD TILL APRIL 9TH.
UH, THANK YOU COMMISSIONER FORSYTH FOR YOUR MOTION.
COMMISSIONER CARPENTER FOR YOUR SECOND, YOUR DISCUSSION.
COMMISSIONER FORSYTH, I JUST WANTED TO STATE THAT, YOU KNOW, WE HAD A CONVERSATION WITH THE APPLICANT AND THE OWNER, UH, OF, UH, ABOUT NINE LOTS THAT ARE, UH, ON COMPTON STREET AND THEY BOTH MUTUALLY AGREED TO THIS CHANGE, UH, SO THAT, UH, THE APPLICANT WILL BE ABLE TO, UH, CONTINUE TO, UH, PROCEED WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON THIS PROPERTY, BUT IT WON'T AFFECT THE, UH, THE DEVELOPMENT PLANS OF THE, UH, PERSON WHO OWNS THE OTHER NINE LOTS ON COMPTON STREET.
SO I THINK THIS IS A, A WIN-WIN SITUATION FOR BOTH THE BUILDER, THE APPLICANT, AS WELL AS THE, UH, THE, UH, PERSON WHO OWNS THE OTHER PROPERTIES ON COMPTON STREET.
I JUST WANNA SAY THANK YOU COMMISSIONER FORSYTH FOR WORKING ALL THIS OUT.
WAS A VERY INTERESTING CASE COMING IN AND DID NOT EXPECT IT TO GO IN THIS DIRECTION, BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE HEADED TOWARDS A GREAT RESULT.
THANK YOU AND I APPRECIATE YOUR SUPPORT AND ALSO, UH, WOULD LIKE TO ACKNOWLEDGE DEBORAH CARPENTER TOO FOR HELPING US WITH THIS.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, UH, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
[15. 26-815A An application for an amendment to Specific Use Permit 1889 for a late-hours establishment limited to an alcoholic beverage establishment limited to a bar, lounge, or tavern on property zoned Planned Development District 842, on the east line of Greenville Avenue, between Prospect Avenue and Richmond Avenue. Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to staff’s recommended conditions. Applicant: Roger Albright / Sheils Winnunbst PC Representative: Andrea Trimble / Sheils Winnunbst PC Planner: Michael V. Pepe Council District: 14 Z-26-000020]
15 AND COMMISSIONER KINGSTON IS STEPPING OUT BECAUSE SHE HAS A CONFLICT ON THIS[02:35:01]
MATTER.ITEM 15 IS THE 2 6 0 0 0 2 0 AND IT'S AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR AMENDMENTS OF SPECIFIC USE PERMIT 1889 FOR A LATE HOURS ESTABLISHMENT LIMITED TO AN ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE ESTABLISHMENT, LIMITED TO A BAR, BAR, LOUNGE, TAVERN ON PROPERTY ZONE PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 8 42 ON THE EAST LINE OF GREENVILLE AVENUE BETWEEN PROSPECT AVENUE AND RICHMOND AVENUE STAFF.
RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO A STAFF RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS.
MR. PEPE, COULD YOU TURN THE MICROPHONE ON? I THINK IT MAY BE OFF.
UH, MR. CARE MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE, ROCK ALBRIGHT REPRESENTING SINGLE WIDE, UH, WE, UH, SINGLE WIDE HAS BEEN THERE SINCE 2011.
THIS WILL NOW BE OUR FOURTH RENEWAL FOR AN SUP.
WE HAVE THE SUPPORT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, TO MY DOLL.
UH, WE ARE IN FAVOR OF OBVIOUSLY THIS BEING RENEWED, BUT RATHER THAN STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION OF A PERPETUAL SUP, WE ARE ONLY ASKING FOR A FIVE YEAR PERIOD.
IT'S IMPORTANT FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO BE ABLE TO COME BACK AND, AND SORT OF GRADE OUR PAPERS AFTER THAT PERIOD OF TIME AND MAKE SURE WE CONTINUE TO OPERATE AS WELL AS WE HAVE BEEN FOR THE LAST 20 YEARS.
I, IF THERE'S ANY QUESTION, I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER 'EM.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK, UH, IN FAVOR OF ITEM NUMBER 15? NO.
ANY SPEAKERS IN OPPOSITION SAYING NONE? COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, DO WE HAVE A MOTION? I DO.
THANK YOU MR. CHAIR IN THE MATTER OF Z DASH 26 DASH 0 0 0 0 2 0, I MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE THE REQUEST SUBJECT TO APPLICANT'S RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS.
THAT'S FIVE YEAR WITH NO AUTO.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HAMPTON FOR YOUR MOTION.
COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT FOR YOUR SECOND.
ANY DISCUSSION? WELL, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO, IF I MAY, UM, THANK STAFF FOR THE WAY THAT THIS WAS PRESENTED TO CLARIFY THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST WITH THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.
I THINK IT WAS HELPFUL FOR THE COMMUNITY, UM, TO UNDERSTAND THAT.
AND AS MR. ALBRIGHT INDICATED THERE WERE SOME QUESTIONS, UM, ON JUST THE OVERALL DISTRICT.
IT WAS A GREAT AND ROBUST DISCUSSION WITH THE COMMUNITY AND I APPRECIATED THE OPPORTUNITY TO PURSUE THOSE QUESTIONS.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? SEEING NONE.
[SUBDIVISION DOCKET]
CONSENT AGENDA CONSISTING OF ITEM 16 THROUGH 26 AND WE'LL GIVE COMMISSIONER KINGSTON JUST A MOMENT TO STEP BACK IN.GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR AND GOOD AFTERNOON COMMISSIONERS.
THE CONSENT IS IN THAT CONSIST OF 12 ITEMS. ITEM 16, ITEM 17, ITEM 18, ITEM 19, ITEM 20, ITEM 21, ITEM 22, ITEM 23, ITEM 24, ITEM 25, ITEM 26, AND ITEM 27.
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.
UM, THIS IS ANOTHER CONSENT AGENDA, SO, UM, UNLESS SOMEONE WANTS ANY OF THE ITEMS PULLED, THEY'LL ALL BE TAKEN UP IN A SINGLE MOTION AND APPROVED.
DOES ANYONE WANT TO SPEAK ON ANY OF THOSE ITEMS? AND WE HAVE A FEW SPEAKERS ONLINE WHO I BELIEVE ARE JUST THE APPLICANT AND THE REPRESENTATIVES ON 1821 AND 26.
ARE ANY OF THOSE FOLKS ONLINE? ALL BUT ROB, THEY'RE OFF.
UM, I GUESS WE'LL JUST CHECK WITH MR. O'SULLIVAN AND MR. GALLAGHER TO MAKE SURE THAT, UH, MR. ATTICUS O'SULLIVAN, ARE YOU JUST HERE FOR IF THERE ARE QUESTIONS OR WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK ON ITEM 21? ATTICUS O'SULLIVAN, HOW ABOUT JAMIE GALLAGHER? UH, I'M HERE.
I'M JUST HERE TO ADDRESS QUESTIONS.
THEN WE'LL LEAVE THE 26TH ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.
ALRIGHT, COMMISSIONER SERATO, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION ON OUR SUBDIVISION CONSENT AGENDA? YES.
UM, IN THE MATTER OF CONSENT, UH, SUBDIVISION DOCKET CONSENT ITEM 16
[02:40:01]
THROUGH 27 I MOTION TO, UH, TAKE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS AND APPROVE SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE DOCKET.COMMISSIONER SERATO, YOUR SECOND COMMISSIONER, FRANKLIN FRANKLIN.
ANY DISCUSSION? NO DISCUSSION.
THE MOTION CARRIES NUMBER 28, ITEM
[28. 26-828A An application to replat a 0.29-acre tract of land containing all of Lot 15 in City Block 20/6890 to create two 6,249.32-square foot lots on property located on Lebrock Street, southwest of Tracy Road. Applicant/Owner: GC Customs Commercial, LLC Surveyor: CBG Surveying Texas, LLC Application Filed: February 6, 2026 Zoning: R-5(A) Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to compliance with the conditions listed in the docket. Planner: Sharmila Shrestha Council District: 8 PLAT-26-000050]
NUMBER 28.IT IS AN APPLICATION TO REPLAT A 0.29 ACRE TRACK OF LAND CONTAINING ALL LOT 15 IN CITY BLOCK 20 OVER 68 90 TO CREATE TWO 6249.32 SQUARE FOOT LOTS ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON BROOK STREET SOUTHWEST OF TRACY ROAD.
NOTICES WERE SENT TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE PROPERTY ON FEBRUARY 13TH, 2026.
WE HAVE RECEIVED ZERO REPLY IN FAVOR AND ZERO REPLY IN OPPOSITION TO THIS REQUEST.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE DOCKET AND OR AS AMENDED AT THE HEARING.
DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS ON ITEM NUMBER 28? NO SPEAKERS GOING TO YOU, COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN FOR A MOTION.
UH, THANK YOU MR. CHAIR IN THE MATTER OF THE RESIDENTIAL RE PLAT CASE PLAT DASH TWO FIVE DASH 0 0 0 5 0.
I MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND FOLLOW STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE DOCKET.
I THINK YOU SAID TWO FIVE, YOU MEAN TWO SIX.
COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN, YOUR SECOND COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT ANY DISCUSSION? SO NO DISCUSSION.
THE MOTION CARRIES ITEM NUMBER 29,
[29. 26-829A An application to replat a 0.906-acre tract of land containing all of Lot 3A-2 in City Block C/5546 to create one lot and to remove an existing 65-foot platted building line along the north line of Park Lane on property located on Park Lane, west of Rockbrook Drive. Applicant/Owner: Lawrence Piccagli and Stacy Piccagli Surveyor: Burns Surveying Application Filed: February 5, 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-26-000031]
ITEM NUMBER 29.IT IS AN APPLICATION TO REPLAT A 0.906 ACRE TRACK OF LAND CONTAINING OLIVE LOT 3 8 2 3 A DASH TWO IN CITY BLOCK C OVER 55 46 TO CREATE ONE LOT AND TO REMOVE AN EXISTING 65 FOOT PLATTED BUILDING LINE ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF PARKLAND ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON PARKLAND WEST OF ROCK BROOK DRIVE.
12 NOTICES WERE SENT TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE PROPERTY ON FEBRUARY 13TH, 2026.
WE HAVE RECEIVED YOUR REPLY IN FAVOR AND ZERO REPLY IN OPPOSITION TO THIS REQUEST.
THIS REQUEST REQUIRES TWO MOTIONS BECAUSE IT IS REPLA AND IT INVOLVES THE REMOVAL OF THE PLATTED BUILDING LINE.
THE FIRST MOTION IS TO APPROVE OR DENY REMOVING AN EXISTING 65 FOOT PLATTED BUILDING LINE STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON BUILDING LINE REMOVAL 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 REPLA APPROVAL SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE DOCKET AND OR AS AMENDED AT THE HEARING.
GOOD AFTERNOON, ROB BALDWIN 3 9 0 4 ELM STREET, SUITE B, REPRESENTING THE PROPERTY OWNER IN THIS REQUEST.
UM, WELL,
I I'M DOING JUST WHAT YOU, YOU TOLD ME TO DO LAST TIME, BUT ANYWAY, UM, SO THE, THE PROPERTY IS IN, UH, AN R 10 DISTRICT, WHICH REQUIRES A, NORMALLY A 30 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK.
THIS PROPERTY HAS A 65 FOOT PLATTED FRONT YARD SETBACK.
UM, IT'S A, OKAY, IT IT, IT'S UP IN THE PRESTON HOLLOW AREA.
THE, THIS SLIDE IS VERY IMPORTANT.
IT'LL SHOW THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, WHICH IS THE ONLY, YOU KNOW, THERE'S REALLY FOUR HOUSES ON THE BLOCK FACE.
AND THEN OUR NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR TO THE EAST FACES ON ROCK BROOK.
UM, WE HAVE A, AN ODD SHAPE LOT ON THE EAST SIDE.
IT'S ABOUT A, IT'S 130 FEET, UH, ON THAT SIDE AND ABOUT 230 ON 20 SOME ODD FEET ON THE WEST SIDE.
IT'S SHORTEST OF THE, THE LOTS ON THE BLOCK FACE.
AND IF YOU NOTICE THOSE TREES IN THE BACKGROUND, UM, WE'D LIKE TO PROTECT THOSE TREES.
UM, THIS IS A ONE STORY HOUSE THAT MY CLIENT WOULD LIKE TO BUILD.
THE INTERESTING THING IS ON THIS SLIDE, EVERYTHING IN THE GREEN IS OPEN AREA BACK.
SO WE'RE PROPOSING 50 FOOT SETBACK INSTEAD OF THE 65.
BUT YOU'LL CAN SEE THAT NOT A LOT OF THE HOUSE IS REALLY OUT OF 50 FEET.
UH, MOST OF IT IS PUSHED WAY BACK, ESPECIALLY ON THE WEST AND EAST, BUT THERE'S A BIG COURTYARD IN THE FRONT.
SO IT'S NOT LIKE WE HAVE A WALL OF HOUSE RIGHT ALONG A 50 FOOT BUILDING LINE.
[02:45:01]
THAT'S THE LOT AGAIN.I WENT AND WALKED DOWN THE STREET AND TOOK PHOTOS OF THE HOUSES.
SO THIS IS THE HOUSE ON THE CORNER, UM, SAME BLOCK FACE, SAME, YOU WOULD ASSUME HAVE THE SAME 65 FOOT, UH, SETBACK.
HERE'S THE HOUSE NEXT TO THAT SAME BLOCK FACE, 40 FOOT SETBACK INSTEAD OF THE 65 FOOT SETBACK.
HERE'S THE HOUSE RIGHT NEXT TO US.
IT HAS A 65 FOOT SETBACK, BUT IF YOU LOOK TO THE PICTURE ON THE RIGHT, IT'S GOT AN EIGHT FOOT SOLID WALL IN FRONT OF IT.
SO IT'S, YOU KNOW, IT DOESN'T, ONCE YOU'RE BEHIND THE SOLID WALL LIKE THAT, IT DOESN'T MATTER IF YOU'RE AT 50 FEET, 60 FEET.
UM, THIS IS A SUBJECT PROPERTY.
MY CLIENT, UH, WANTS TO BUILD IT 50 FEET, ONE STORY HOUSE.
HE'LL PUT A FENCE OUT THERE, BUT IT'LL BE OPEN AND BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH, UH, UH, REQUIREMENTS OF THE, THE, THE CITY CODE.
HERE'S OUR NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR.
THIS IS A 30 FOOT SETBACK AND THAT'S BECAUSE IT'S TREATED AS A SIDE YARD BECAUSE IT FRONTS ON THE ROCK WORK, BUT TECHNICALLY IT SHOULD HAVE HAD A PROJECTED FRONT YARD COMING INTO IT, UH, 65 FEET AS WELL.
SO I THINK WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR IS REASONABLE.
WE'RE NOT OVERBUILDING THE LOT, WE'RE WE'RE BEING CONSISTENT.
IN FACT, WE'RE PROVIDING MORE SETBACK THAN, UH, THREE OUT THE FOUR LOTS ON OUR STREET.
MY PROPERTY OWNER'S THE LAST ONE IN THE THE ROOM.
HE'S HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS IF YOU LIKE, BUT I HOPE YOU CAN SUPPORT THIS REQUEST.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.
UM, I JUST WANTED TO NOTE FOR THE RECORD THAT I GOT A COUPLE OF EMAILS ON THIS CASE AND JUST NEED TO DISCLOSE THEM BECAUSE IT'S A, UM, IT'S A QUASI-JUDICIAL MATTER, SO I DIDN'T, WERE THOSE THE SUPPORT LETTERS I SENT TO, UH, YOLANDA? YEAH, AND I WILL JUST SAY WE ARE TRYING TO WORK OUT A WAY TO GET THE SUPPORT LETTERS TO US IN AN APPROPRIATE WAY THAT OKAY.
I THOUGHT BY GIVING IT TO HER WAS NOT, UH, BEING INAPPROPRIATE.
IT WE'RE NOT FUSSING WITH YOU, MR. BALDWIN AT ALL.
WE'RE, THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE'RE JUST WORKING OUT AND I'VE HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY.
BUT I DO NEED TO JUST NOTE THAT ON THE RECORD.
UM, ANY OTHER SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM? OKAY.
UH, COMMISSIONER HALL, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? I DO.
I, I HAVE TWO MOTIONS IN THE MATTER OF PLAT 26 0 0 0 0 3 1.
I MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE THE REQUEST TO REMOVE THE EXISTING 65 FOOT PLATTED BUILDING LINE ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF PARK LANE WITH THE FINDING OF FACT THAT THE REMOVAL OF THE BUILDING LINE WILL NOT REQUIRE A MINIMUM FRONT SITE OR REAR YARD.
SETBACKS LESS THAN THAT REQUIRED BY THE ZONING REGULATIONS BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST, ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES OR ADVERSELY AFFECT THE PLAN FOR THE ORDERLY DEVELOPMENT OF THE SUBDIVISION.
COMMISSIONER HALL, YOUR SECOND VICE CHAIR, HERBERT, ANY DISCUSSION? COMMISSIONER HAMPTON? I HAVE A POINT OF CLARIFICATION.
I BELIEVE I HEARD THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST IS FOR A 50 FOOT BUILDING LINE, BUT I THE MOTION IS TO SIMPLY RE REMOVE IT, WHICH WOULD MEAN THERE IS NO BUILDING LINE REQUIREMENT.
IS THAT CORRECT? IT, WE ORIGINALLY ASKED FOR A 50 FOOT BUILDING LINE.
IT'S NOT THE WAY IT WAS ADVERTISED, SO WE'RE GONNA BUILD IT 50 FEET.
SO IF THE MOTION IS TO BUILD IT 50 FEET, WE'RE FINE WITH THAT.
ANY FOLLOW UP? SO, MRS, IS IT CORRECT THAT THE MOTION THAT WAS READ WOULD RESULT IN A ZERO FOOT SETBACK? YEAH.
THE MOTION IS JUST TO REMOVE THE 65 FOOT LINE WOULD REQUIRE A A 30 FOOT, 30 FEET.
I'LL DEFER TO THE WISDOM OF THE BODY.
ANY, ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? OKAY, SEEING NONE.
WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HALL, SECONDED BY THE VICE CHAIR.
UM, FIRST MOTION ON REMOVING THE 65 FOOT PLATTED BUILDING LINE.
THE MOTION CARRIES YOUR SECOND MOTION.
IN THE MATTER OF PLAT 26 DASH 0 0 0 3 1, I MOVE TO FOLLOW STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL FOR THE RELA OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE DOCKET.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HALL FOR YOUR MOTION, YOUR SECOND VICE CHAIR.
[Certificate of Appropriateness for Signs]
YOU.SIGNED CONSENT AGENDA CONSISTENT WITH ITEMS 30 THROUGH 33.
IS THERE ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON?
[02:50:04]
WHENEVER YOU'RE READY, MR. ER.ITEM 30 IS SIGN DASH 25 DASH 0 22 2.
AN APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS BY BITTEN BYRON OF BYAM SIGN LIGHTING INCORPORATED FOR A 78.6 SQUARE FOOT BACKLIT CHANNEL LETTER SIGNED, MOUNTED ON A DIMENSIONAL CLOUD WIREWAY ON THE NORTHERN FACING FACADE AT 4,003 COMMERCE STREET ON THE NORTH ELEVATION.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION WAS APPROVAL.
ITEM 31 IS SIGN DASH 25 DASH 0 2 2 3 IN APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS BY BENTON.
BYRAM OF BYRAM SIGN AND LIGHTING INCORPORATED FOR A 78.6 SQUARE FOOT BACKLIT CHANNEL LETTER SIGN MOUNTED ON A DIMENSIONAL CLOUD WIREWAY ON THE SOUTHERN FACING FACADE AT 4,003 COMMERCE STREET ON THE SOUTH ELEVATION.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL.
SS DAC RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL.
DASH TWO FIVE DASH 0 0 2 1 9 8.
AN APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS BY SLO CARVER OF M THREE GRAPHICS INCORPORATED FOR AN 80 SQUARE FOOT.
LED ILLUMINATED CHANNEL LETTER SIGN AT 200 WEST JEFFERSON BOULEVARD, SUITE A SOUTH ELEVATION STAFF.
S-S-D-A-C RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS THAT THE SIGN MAY NOT EXTEND BEYOND THE LEFT OR RIGHT LIMITS OF THE DOOR WINDOW.
MUL ITEM 33 IS SIGN DASH TWO FIVE DASH 0 2 1 3 4.
AND APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS BY MOSES SIL, SRIO OF MR. MOINE AND OUTDOOR SERVICES FOR A 66.1 SQUARE FOOT.
LED ILLUMINATED CHANNEL LETTER SIGN AT 407 NORTH LAMAR STREET, 180 C NORTHEAST ELEVATION.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL.
ARE THERE ANY SPEAKERS ON ANY OF OUR SIGNED CASES? 30 THROUGH 33 NO SPEAKERS.
WE'LL GO TO COMMISSIONER HAMPTON FOR A MOTION.
IN THE MATTER OF CERTIFICATE APPROPRIATENESS FOR SIGNS CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS 33 33.
I MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE PER STAFF AND S-S-D-A-C RECOMMENDATION.
WHAT ABOUT ON NUMBER 32 WHERE STAFF AND SS DAC DIFFER? ARE WE ABLE TO DEAL WITH THAT ON CONSENT? MS. MORRISON? DO WE NEED TO TAKE THAT UP SEPARATELY? I MEAN THERE, THERE ARE NO RULES ABOUT WHAT GOES ON CONSENT AND WHAT GOES INDIVIDUALLY.
YEAH, IT, YOU CAN DO IT ON CONSENT.
I, I GUESS WE JUST NEED CLARITY IF WE'RE GOING WITH STAFF OR S WELL I WOULD SAY ON UM, ITEM NUMBER 32, THE INTENT WAS TO FOLLOW S-S-D-A-C RECOMMENDATIONS.
COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, YOUR SECOND COMMISSIONER.
[34. 26-834A Amendments to the City of Dallas Thoroughfare Plan to (1) Change the designation of Wheatland Road from the Dallas/Lancaster City Limit line to Lancaster Road from a four-lane undivided residential collector roadway within 60 feet of right-of-way and 40 feet of pavement (M-4-U) to a special four-lane undivided community collector roadway in 96 feet of right-of-way with a bicycle facility (SPCL 4U); and (2) Add Wheatland Road from University Hills Boulevard to the Dallas/Lancaster City Limit line as a special four-lane undivided community collector roadway in 96 feet of right-of-way with a bicycle facility (SPCL 4U). Staff Recommendation: Approval to amend the City of Dallas Thoroughfare Plan to (1) Change the designation of Wheatland Road from the Dallas/Lancaster City Limit line to Lancaster Road from a four-lane undivided residential collector roadway within 60 feet of right-of-way and 40 feet of pavement (M-4-U) to a special four-lane undivided community collector roadway in 96 feet of right-of-way with a bicycle facility (SPCL 4U); and (2) Add Wheatland Road from University Hills Boulevard to the Dallas/Lancaster City Limit line as a special four-lane undivided community collector roadway in 96 feet of right-of-way with a bicycle facility (SPCL 4U). Applicant: City of Dallas Department of Transportation and Public Works Representative: Abel Mulenga Planner: Kierra Williams Council District: 8 Wheatland Road between University Hills Boulevard and Lancaster Road]
THIRD FAIR PLAN AMENDMENTS ITEM NUMBER 34 AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY OF DALLAS.THIRD FAIR PLAN TO ONE, CHANGE THE DESIGNATION OF WHEATLAND ROAD FROM THE DALLAS LANCASTER CITY LIMIT LINE TO LANCASTER ROAD FROM A FOUR LANE UNDIVIDED RESIDENTIAL COLLECTOR ROADWAY WITHIN 60 FEET OF, OF WAY AND 40 FEET OF PAVE TO A SPECIAL FOUR LANE UNDIVIDED COMMUNITY COLLECTOR ROADWAY AND 96 FEET OF RIGHT OF WAY WITH A BICYCLE FACILITY AND TO AT WHEATLEY ROAD FROM UNIVERSITY HILLS BOULEVARD TO THE DALLAS LANCASTER CITY LU LINE AS A SPECIAL FOUR LANE UNDIVIDED COLLECTOR, COMMUNITY COLLECTOR ROADWAY IN 96 FEET OF RIGHT OF WAY WITH A BICYCLE FACILITY.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL TO AMEND THE CITY OF DALLAS THOROUGHFARE.
PLAN TO CHANGE THE DESIGNATION OF WHEATLAND ROAD FROM THE DALLAS LANCASTER CITY LIMIT LINE TO LANCASTER ROAD FROM A FOUR LANE UNDIVIDED RESIDENTIAL COLLECTOR ROADWAY WITHIN 60 FEET OF RIGHT OF WAY AND 40 FEET OF PAVE TO A SPECIAL FOUR LANE UNDIVIDED COMMUNITY COLLECTOR ROADWAY AND 96 FEET OF RIGHT OF WAY WITH A
[02:55:01]
BICYCLE FACILITY.AND TWO, ADD LEY ROAD FROM UNIVERSITY HILLS BOULEVARD TO THE DALLAS LANCASTER CITY LIMIT LINE AS A SPECIAL FOUR LANE UNDIVIDED COMMUNITY COLLECTOR ROADWAY AND 96 FEET OF RIGHT OF WAY WITH A BICYCLE FACILITY.
THANK YOU MS. WILLIAMS. IS THERE ANYONE HERE WHO'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON ITEM 34? OKAY.
COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? UH, YES.
MR. CHAIR IN THE MATTER THAT THERE ARE FAIR PLAN AMENDMENT ITEM 34, I MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND FOLLOW STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN FOR YOUR MOTION.
COMMISSIONER SIMS FOR YOUR SECOND.
ANY DISCUSSION? I I DO HAVE COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN.
UH, ONE QUESTION I JUST WANNA CONFIRM WITH STAFF THAT, UH, THIS ACTUAL AMENDMENT HAD BEEN, UH, PRESENTED TO THE COMMITTEE, THE THIRD FLOOR PLAN COMMITTEE AND APPROVED BY THE THIRD FULL PLAN COMMITTEE.
IT HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE COMMITTEE.
IT'S JUST A LITTLE AMBIGUOUS IN THE ACTUAL REPORT ITSELF.
IT JUST SAYS THAT IT'S BEEN ACTED UPON.
I COULDN'T TELL WHETHER OR NOT IT'S BEEN APPROVED, BUT OKAY.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT? UH, IT'S JUST A, JUST A QUESTION.
SO WE'RE GOING FROM A 60 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY TO A 96 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY? YES.
AND THAT PARTICULAR AREA IS UNDEVELOPED IS MY UNDERSTANDING.
SO IF IT IS TO BE DEVELOPED, THEN THE, UH, FUTURE DEVELOPERS WILL BE REQUIRED TO DEDICATE RIGHT OF WAY TO GET TO THE 60, EXCUSE ME, TO THE 96 FEET.
UH, FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, WE ALREADY HAVE THAT 96 FEET.
UM, THERE WAS A EASEMENT, I BELIEVE LIKE A SLOPE EASEMENT THAT WAS ACQUIRED BACK WHEN THE PROJECT WAS IN A BEGINNING STAGES BACK AT LIKE TWO, 2017, 2018.
ANYONE ELSE? DISCUSSION? OKAY.
WE HAVE MOTION BY COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SIMS TO FOLLOW STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL.
THE MOTION CARRIES BACK TO YOU MS. WILLIAMS.
[35. 26-835A Amendment to the City of Dallas Thoroughfare Plan to remove Old Ox Road, between Camp Wisdom Road and Kirnwood Drive. Staff Recommendation: Approval to amend the City of Dallas Thoroughfare Plan to remove Old Ox Road, between Camp Wisdom Road and Kirnwood Drive. Applicant: City of Dallas Department of Transportation and Public Works Representative: Efrain Trejo Planner: Kierra Williams Council District: 8 Old Ox Road between Camp Wisdom Road and Kirnwood Drive]
ITEM NUMBER 35, AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF DALLAS THOROUGHFARE.PLAN TO REMOVE OLD OX ROAD BETWEEN CAMP WISDOM ROAD AND KERN WOOD DRIVE.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL TO AMEND THE CITY OF DALLAS THOROUGHFARE.
PLAN TO REMOVE OLD OX ROAD BETWEEN CAMP WISDOM ROAD AND KERN WOOD DRIVE.
WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER 35? OKAY.
BACK TO YOU, COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN FOR A MOTION IN THE MATTER OF THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN AMENDMENT.
ITEM 35, I MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND FOLLOW STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN FOR YOUR MOTION.
COMMISSIONER SIMS FOR YOUR SECOND.
ANY DISCUSSION? COMMISSIONER HALL, JUST A QUICK QUESTION.
AM I CORRECT? OLD OX ROAD NO LONGER EXISTS.
OLD OX ROAD EXISTS TO THE NORTH OF CAMP WISDOM ROAD, BUT TO THE SOUTH IS WHERE THE, UH, COLLEGIATE SCHOOL IS.
AND SO IT DOESN'T EXIST AT THAT POINT, AT THAT TURNOVER.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? OKAY, SEEING NONE.
THE MOTION CARRIES ANY OTHER BUSINESS.
IT IS 2:55 PM AND THAT CONCLUDES THE MEETING OF THE DALLAS CITY PLAN COMMISSION.