* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting. [00:00:03] GOOD [BRIEFINGS] MORNING EVERYONE. IT IS THURSDAY, APRIL 9TH, 2026 AT 11:03 AM AND THIS IS THE BRIEFING OF THE DALLAS CITY PLAN COMMISSION. CAN WE PLEASE START WITH THE ROLL CALL, PLEASE? MS. LOPEZ? GOOD MORNING COMMISSIONERS. DISTRICT ONE COMMISSIONER SIMS. I'M HERE. DISTRICT TWO. COMMISSIONER HAMPTON. PRESENT DISTRICT THREE. VICE CHAIR HERBERT? DISTRICT FOUR IS VACANT. DISTRICT FIVE. COMMISSIONER SERRATO, DISTRICT SIX. COMMISSIONER CARPENTER. PRESENT? DISTRICT SEVEN. COMMISSIONER WHEELER, REAGAN. DISTRICT EIGHT. COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN PRESENT? DISTRICT NINE. COMMISSIONER KONS. DISTRICT 10. COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT. PRESENT? DISTRICT 11. COMMISSIONER COX? PRESENT? DISTRICT 12. COMMISSIONER KAUFMAN. PRESENT? DISTRICT 13. COMMISSIONER HALL HERE. DISTRICT 14, COMMISSIONER KINGSTON HERE AND PLACE 15 CHAIR RUBIN? I'M HERE. YOU HAVE QUORUM, SIR. GREAT. THANK YOU SO MUCH MS. LOPEZ. UM, JUST AS A REMINDER, THIS IS THE BRIEFING. THIS IS OUR TIME TO ASK QUESTIONS OF STAFF. UM, ANY DISCUSSION AND COMMENTARY SHOULD BE SAVED FOR OUR AFTERNOON PUBLIC HEARING? UM, WE'VE HAD SEVERAL ITEMS COME OFF THE CONSENT AGENDA ALREADY. ITEMS 2, 3, 4, 6, AND EIGHT HAVE COME OFF AND WILL BE CONSIDERED INDIVIDUALLY. AND IF ANYONE WANTS ANY OTHER ITEMS CONSIDERED INDIVIDUALLY, PLEASE DON'T HESITATE TO LET ME KNOW AND WE CAN TAKE THEM UP ONE BY ONE. 10. 10, OKAY. OH, I APOLOGIZE. I HAD THAT IN MY NOTES, BUT IT DIDN'T MAKE IT TO THE LIST. 10 IS ALSO BEING CONSIDERED INDIVIDUALLY. THAT LEAVES FOR THE MOMENT. 1, 5, 7, 9, AND 11 ON OUR CONSENT AGENDA. YES, SIR. COMMISSIONER SERATO, DO WE NEED ITEM NUMBER ONE? BRIEFED? ANYONE ELSE HAVE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR WHEN IT BRIEFED? I DID HAVE A QUESTION. OKAY. BECAUSE IT'S AN SUP FOR MR. LEE. I FORGOT. UH, YES. YES. THANK YOU MR. LEE. UM, THE WAY I READ THE REPORT, IT'S ALREADY OPERATING AS A CAR DEALERSHIP AND HAS A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR THAT USE, BUT SO, BUT NOW THEY'RE COMING IN FOR AN SUP FOR VEHICLE SALES AND DISPLAY IS NOT, NOT THE SAME. USE A CAR DEALERSHIP WOULD HAVE A CO FOR VEHICLE DISPLAY. UM, SO THEY APPLIED FOR THE CO BUT THEY GOT, IT GOT FLAGGED FOR NOT HAVING AN SUP. OKAY. SO THIS IS WHY THEY'RE DOING THE SUP. OKAY. BUT IT'S BEEN OPERATING AS OF, UH, FROM WHEN I WENT OUT THERE FOR A SITE VISIT THOUGH, LIKE IT WAS, UH, WHAT OPERATING AS A USED DEALERSHIP. OKAY. UM, BUT YES. OKAY. BUT THEY DON'T NOW HAVE CURRENTLY HAVE A CO FOR A CAR DEALERSHIP BASED ON THE OH, YEAH. NO. ALRIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I THINK ON OUR SIDE, WE THINK IT WAS BUILT BEFORE THE, UH, THE PD WENT IN AND PROHIBITED THAT USE OR REQUIRED AN SEP OF THE USE COMMISSIONERS. ANY FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM? OKAY. ITEM NUMBER TWO IS GOING TO BE HELD, SO I'M ASSUMING WE DON'T NEED THAT BRIEF COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN? NO. OKAY. ITEM NUMBER THREE. COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, DO YOU NEED A BRIEFING THERE? ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF COMMISSIONERS? ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM? OKAY. UM, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT ITEM NUMBER FOUR IS COMING OFF BECAUSE THE APPLICANT'S REQUESTING THAT IT BE DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. SO NO NEED TO BRIEF THAT. COMMISSIONER SIMS NUMBER FIVE, BRIEFING QUESTIONS FOR STAFF. NO. NO. MR. CHAIRMAN, COLLEAGUES NEED A BRIEFING ON ITEM FIVE. OKAY. ITEM NUMBER SIX. THAT IS COMING OFF. CONSENT. COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, DO YOU WANT A BRIEFING OR DO YOU HAVE QUESTIONS? IT'S NOT NECESSARY. ANYONE ELSE? OKAY. ITEM NUMBER SEVEN, COMMISSIONER SERRATO. NEED A BRIEFING OR QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? NO. ANYONE ELSE? OKAY. ITEM NUMBER EIGHT. UM, THAT'S COMING OFF CONSENT, I BELIEVE. COMMISSIONER SERATO, DO YOU WANT A BRIEFING OR DO YOU HAVE QUESTIONS THERE? UM, NO, I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, BUT YEAH. ANY, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS? OKAY. ITEM NUMBER NINE. COMMISSIONER HALL, DO YOU NEED THIS ONE BRIEFED OR DO YOU HAVE QUESTIONS ON? UH, I DON'T, I DON'T NEED IT BRIEFED UNLESS ANYBODY ELSE HAS QUESTION. OKAY. ITEM NUMBER 10 IS GOING TO BE HELD. UH, COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN, I ASSUME YOU DON'T NEED IT BRIEFED. OKAY, [00:05:01] GREAT. ITEM NUMBER 11, I'M GOING TO HANDLE WHILE DISTRICT FOUR IS VACANT, I DON'T THINK IT NEEDS BRIEFING, BUT IF ANYONE ELSE DOES OR HAS QUESTIONS THERE. OKAY. THAT BRINGS US TO OUR UNDER ADVISEMENT CASES, ITEM 12, COMMISSIONER SIMS, THAT THE HISTORIC OVERLAY, UH, NO. MR. CHAIRMAN, ANYONE ELSE HAVE QUESTIONS? I DO HAVE QUESTIONS. IT WAS THE SAME QUESTIONS I HAD LAST TIME. I I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THE, UM, HISTORIC OVERLAY. MY, UM, QUESTION HAD TO DO WITH USING THE VEHICLE OF THE HISTORIC OVERLAY TO ADD USES THAT WERE NOT PERMITTED IN THE ZONING, CURRENT ZONING WITHOUT ANY SORT OF ZONING ANALYSIS. I MEAN, I SEE PRECEDENT HERE FOR, YOU KNOW, HOTEL. I, I'M NOT GONNA MAKE COMMENTARY, BUT THAT, THAT'S MY QUESTION IS WAS THERE WAS THIS LOOKED AT, UM, IN TERMS OF JUSTIFYING USES SUCH AS SHORT TERM RENTALS IN OFFICE THAT HAVE NEVER OCCURRED THERE. AND I BELIEVE, I BELIEVE STAFF'S ON THE WAY TO ADDRESS THAT QUESTION. COMMISSIONER QUESTION OR MR. PEPE QUESTION? GOOD MORNING. THANK YOU COMMISSIONERS. UH, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER? YES, WE DID GO BACK AND DO A LAND USE COMPATIBILITY ANALYSIS AS WELL AS A TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS. AND I DIDN'T SEE THAT IN THE REPORT. UH, WHAT I SAW SAID THERE WERE NO CHANGES. NO. LILIANA, OUR LAST REPORT DID IT HAVE, BECAUSE THAT'S THE ONE WE UPDATED. OKAY. WELL PERHAPS I ONLY GOT AS FAR AS THE NO CHANGES AND THEN DIDN'T READ THEM. WOULD YOU MIND RUNNING THROUGH THEM? THANK YOU. OKAY, SURE. OR, OKAY. OKAY. SHEAR. ALL RIGHT. TRY TO MOVE SOME OF THESE. LET'S GET TO THE QUESTIONS BEING ASKED. OKAY. IN THE LAND USE SECTION, WE DID GO OVER OUR, WHAT I DO HAVE IS SHOWING COMMERCIAL INSTITUTIONAL, UH, SMALL SCALE MULTIFAMILY AND RESIDENTIAL. AND THEN FOR THE ANALYSIS, THAT'S DUPLEX. OKAY. OF COURSE, COMP COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS, WHICH WE DO ALL THE TIME JUST SAYS IT IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH FORWARD DALLAS 2.0 WITH RESPECT TO NEIGHBORHOOD IDENTITY, ADAPTIVE REUSE, SUSTAINABILITY, REVITALIZATION OF HISTORIC COMMERCIAL CORRIDORS. BUT IN ADDITION TO THAT, SINCE THIS IS A UNIQUE SITUATION, UH, STAFF DID A LAND USE COMPATIBILITY ANALYSIS. IT WASN'T THE STAFF SUPPORT IN THE STAFF REPORT SUBMITTED, I'LL HAVE TO CHECK THAT. BUT BASICALLY WE LOOKED AT IT BEING USED AS LODGING AND UM, WHAT WE CAME AWAY WITH IN THE ANALYSIS IS THAT IT IS EXIST, IT IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE EXISTING ZONING FRAMEWORK. IT IS ALSO CONSISTENT WITH THE SURROUNDING LAND USES, WHICH HAVE BEEN THERE SINCE THE 1950S. UH, IT ALSO ALIGNS WITH THE BUILDING'S HISTORIC FUNCTION. IT WAS PURPOSE BUILT AS A ROOMING AND BOARDING HOUSE. ALSO, WE WENT THROUGH TRAFFIC IMPACT AND TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS. THOUGH IT WAS NOT REQUIRED BECAUSE IT DOES NOT RECEIVE OVER 1000 IN VISITS A DAY OR OVER 100, UM, IN VISITS DURING PEAK HOURS. STILL, WE ASSESSED IT FOR TRAFFIC ANALYSIS AND WE REALIZED, OR WHEN COMPARING IT TO POSSIBLY LONG-TERM RESIDENTIAL, THAT IT ACTUALLY IS A SMALL HOTEL, BOUTIQUE HOTEL. IT WOULD GENERATE LOWER TRAFFIC VAL VOLUMES AND REDUCED LONG-TERM PARKING DEMAND BECAUSE MANY OF THOSE WHO UTILIZE THE THE FACILITY ARE IN TOWN FOR SHORT PERIODS OF TIME AND WOULD USE LIKE RIDE SHARE, ET CETERA. YES, MA'AM. THANK YOU. I I DO UNDERSTAND THE, YOU KNOW, HISTORIC JUSTIFICATION AND THE, YOU KNOW, THE COMPATIBILITY ANALYSIS FOR THE USES THAT IT'S BEEN IN THE PAST SUCH AS HOTEL AND, YOU KNOW, MULTI-FAMILY, THAT SORT OF THING. BUT WHAT WAS THE REASON FOR ADDING THE OFFICE USE, WHICH IS IT'S NEVER BEEN THE OFFICE USE? YEAH, AND THE WAY I READ IT IN THE, UH, ORDINANCE OFFICE IS BEING ADDED AS AN ALLOWED USE BECAUSE WE DID DO A SITE VISIT. IT'S CURRENTLY BEING USED AS A BOUTIQUE HOTEL. RIGHT. UNLESS THEY MEAN MANAGEMENT OFFICE. BUT THERE ARE NO ADDITIONAL OFFICES HOUSED THERE AT THIS TIME. AND I DON'T THINK THE APPLICANT INTENDS TO USE IT FOR OFFICE SPACE BECAUSE RIGHT NOW IT'S 27 INDIVIDUAL ROOMS, INDIVIDUAL BEDROOMS, EACH WITH EN SUITE OR PRIVATE BATHROOMS, AND THEN THERE'S [00:10:01] ONE SHARED KITCHEN, SO THERE'S REALLY NO AREA FOR OFFICE. RIGHT. BUT THE, UM, ON PAGE 12 DASH 37 AND 38, IT SAYS THE FOLLOWING RESIDENTIAL RENTAL USES AS DEFINED BY ARE PERMITTED AS A MAIN OR ACCESSORY USE HOTEL OR MOTEL, SHORT TERM LODGING, EXTENDED STAY, RESIDENTIAL, HOTEL, MULTIFAMILY, SINGLE FAMILY, DUPLEX, RETIREMENT, HOUSING, AND THEN OFFICE. BUT OFFICE WOULD BE, I MEAN, THINK AN OFFICE IS A COMPONENT PART OF A HOTEL, BUT IT'S NOT INTENDED HERE TO LET THAT WHOLE BUILDING BE USED AS AN OFFICE THAT NO, THAT WOULD, OKAY. ALRIGHT. AND FOR THIS BUILDING TO BE USED AS AN EXTENDED STAY HOTEL OR A RESIDENTIAL HOTEL, THERE WOULD'VE TO BE INTERIOR MODIFICATIONS TO MEET THE CODE FOR REQUIREMENTS FOR REST, UH, KITCHENS AND THINGS LIKE THAT, RIGHT? CORRECT. OKAY. ALRIGHT. THANK YOU. MM-HMM . THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HAMPTON. JUST ONE FOLLOW UP TO COMMISSIONER, UM, CARPENTER'S QUESTIONS. IT'S CURRENTLY OPERATING AS A RESIDENTIAL HOTEL, IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S A EXTORT USE. AND THAT'S HOW IT'S OPERATING TODAY. IT'S OPERATING AS A BOUTIQUE HOTEL, BOTH SHORT, SHORT STAY AND LONG-TERM STAY. AND SO IT'S HAS, UM, NON-CONFORMING STATUS, IS THAT CORRECT? AND THIS IS SEEKING TO, UM, BRING IT WITH ESSENTIALLY AN ALLOWED USE IN THE ZONING. RIGHT. IN OTHER WORDS, IT'S TRYING TO RESTORE A USE THAT IT'S HAD AND WHAT IT WAS INITIALLY BUILT FOR. OKAY. AND SO UNDER THE USES SINCE AS IT'S WRITTEN, A PERMITTED USE WOULD BE OFFICE, WOULD IT BE CORRECT THAT THAT SHOULD BE AMENDED TO READ AS AN ACCESSORY OR OTHER LANGUAGE THAT WOULD CLARIFY THAT IT'S NOT INTENDED TO BE THE MAIN USE? I, YES, WE COULD SPEAK TO THEIR PLANNING CONSULTANT ABOUT THAT, YES. OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU MR. CHAIR. MM-HMM . I WAS GONNA QUICKLY ADD THE, THE ZONING SIDE. UM, SO TYPICALLY I UNDERSTAND THAT HISTORICAL RELEASE MAY ADD USES. I THINK 5 0 1 SECTION SAYS THAT THEY MAY ADD USES. IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY SAY THAT THEY TAKE AWAY USES, BUT YES, IF YOU READ THE PD MM-HMM . THOSE OFFICES HAVE TO BE PART OF A, A BROADER PROJECT. UM, SO TO ME IF THE ORDINANCE WAS SILENT ON OFFICE USES, IT WOULD JUST GO BACK TO THE PD, UM, OFFICE ALLOWANCE, WHICH IS AS PART OF A MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT. THE WAY IT IS NOW WITH OFFICE ADDED IS A, IT COULD BE A MAIN USE OFFICE. THAT'S WHAT I THINK WE'RE QUE I KNOW. I'M QUESTIONING. OKAY. THANK YOU. MAKES SENSE TO ME. OKAY. COMMISSION. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER S JUST ONE MORE QUICK QUESTION, SIR. UH, DR. DUNN, UH, ARE YOU AWARE THAT THE, UH, APPLICANT MET WITH THE OFFICERS OF THE KIDS SPRING NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND SINCE WE LAST TALKED ON THIS ISSUE AND THAT THAT ASSOCIATION IS IN SUPPORT OF THIS APPLICATION? I AM NOT AWARE, BUT I DID ENCOURAGE HIM TO DO SO. GREAT. THANK YOU. OKAY. ANYTHING ELSE? COMMISSIONERS? OKAY. ITEM NUMBER 13. UH, COMMISSIONER SIMS. DO WE NEED AN UPDATE ON THAT OR ANYTHING? NO. MR. CHAIR, COLLEAGUES, ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR ANYONE WANT IT BRIEFED? OKAY. NUMBER 14 IS GOING TO BE HELD UNTIL, I BELIEVE IT'S APRIL 23RD, OUR NEXT MEETING. UM, ITEM 15. COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, I THINK YOU'RE HANDLING THAT. DO WE NEED A BRIEFING OR ANY? I DON'T, NO. MM-HMM. ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS? I THINK WE'RE GOOD. ITEM NUMBER 16. WAS THAT BRIEFED AT OUR PRIOR YES. MEETINGS? OKAY. YES. 'CAUSE THERE WERE EXTENSIVE QUESTIONS AND I GUESS COMMISSIONER WHEELER ISN'T HERE, SO IF WE, DOES ANYONE HAVE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS ONE? OKAY. WE CAN ALWAYS ASK THEM THIS AFTERNOON. AND ITEM NUMBER 17, COMMISSIONER KINGSTON, WOULD YOU LIKE A BRIEFING THERE? QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? I DON'T NEED A BRIEFING. COLLEAGUES. OKAY. ALRIGHT. UM, MR. WADE, I THINK IT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA TO GET BRIEFED ON THE DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT. [00:15:06] GOOD MORNING, MICHAEL WADE, UH, CHIEF PLANNER CODE AMENDMENTS WITH PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. I'M GOING TO TALK TODAY ABOUT DCA 2 5 6 0 0 1 RECEPTION FACILITY. IT HAS SINCE BEEN RECOMMENDED TO HAVE A NAME CHANGE, SO I'M INCLUDING, UH, THAT AS WELL. QUICK SUMMARY AND THEN WE'LL DIVE INTO THE DETAILS. UH, THE, THE PROPOSAL IS TO ESTABLISH A NEW LAND USE IN ORDER TO EMPOWER CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICERS TO KEEP RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES TO RESIDENTIAL USE AND TO PROVIDE A MORE APPROPRIATE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR CERTAIN COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENTS THAT DON'T FIT WITHIN OUR LAND USES IN THE CODE. TODAY, THE DEFINITION, AND WE'LL COME BACK TO THE DETAILS, BUT GENERALLY WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS A FACILITY THAT IS RENTED FOR PRIVATE EVENTS FOR INVITED GUESTS SUCH AS CEREMONIES, RECEPTIONS, PARTIES, CELEBRATIONS, BANQUETS, PROFESSIONAL OR INDUSTRY GATHERINGS AND FUNDRAISERS. AND THEN A NOTE ON THE TIMELINE, AND WE'LL COME BACK TO THIS AT THE END OF THE BRIEFING. UH, THIS CODE AMENDMENT WILL BE USEFUL DURING THE FIFA GAMES, WHICH KICK OFF ON JUNE 14TH. AND SO, UH, THIS HAS BEEN MOVING A LITTLE FASTER. I WENT TO ZAC THIS TUESDAY AND I WILL BE REPORTING ON ZAC RECOMMENDATION TODAY. THE BACKGROUND, UH, THIS IDEA FOR THIS LAND USE ORIGINATED IN 2022 DURING THE PUBLIC CONVERSATION ABOUT SHORT-TERM RENTALS. STAFF FROM THE DEPARTMENTS OF PLANNING AND URBAN DESIGN AND CODE COMPLIANCE PRESENTED A DRAFT EVENT CENTER LAND USE TO THE CITY COUNCIL IN 2022 AS A METHOD OF CURBING THE USE OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES FOR COMMERCIAL GATHERINGS. THAT IS A PROPERTY WHERE, UH, RATHER THAN JUST THE HOMEOWNER OR THE PERMANENT RESIDENT HOLDING A GATHERING, THEY'RE ACTUALLY RENTING OUT THE PROPERTY TO SOMEONE ELSE, UH, WHO'S MAKING MONEY BY HOLDING A GATHERING. THERE, UH, NO ACTION WAS TAKEN ON THIS SINCE THAT TIME. AT THE SAME TIME, ESTABLISHMENTS THAT FIT THE DEFINITION THAT I JUST DESCRIBED TO YOU, UH, AREN'T WELL PROVIDED FOR UNDER THE CODE. GENERALLY, THESE LAND USES ARE GIVEN COS FOR COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT. UH, EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE NOT OPEN TO THE PUBLIC, THEY, UH, AND ENTRY FEES ARE NOT ENCOURAGED. CODE COMPLIANCE STAFF CONTINUED TO ENCOUNTER RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES, RENTED OUT COMMERCIALLY FOR HOLDING GATHERINGS AND PARTIES, AND THEY FACED THE, THE TASK WHEN THEY, UH, APPROACHED SOME OF THOSE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES OF GUIDING THE PROPERTY INTO, UH, COMPLIANCE OR EXPLAINING WHY THEY'RE NOT IN COMPLIANCE. THIS LAND USE IS VERY COMMON ACROSS AMERICAN CITIES. THERE'S A WHOLE ARRAY OF NAMES, BANQUET HALL, RECEPTION HALL EVENT CENTER, ET CETERA, THEMES THAT EMERGE IN MANY DIFFERENT CITIES. THE EVENTS ARE PREARRANGED. UH, GUESTS ARE INVITED RATHER THAN THE VENUE BEING OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. THAT'S A VERY IMPORTANT ONE. OPERATIONAL TIMES ARE INTERMITTENT, EVEN IF THEY END UP BEING CONSISTENT, THE FACILITY IS, UH, RENTED OUT CONSISTENTLY. UH, THEY'RE NOT, UH, PUBLICIZING. WE OPEN AT EIGHT EVERY DAY AND CLOSE AT FIVE EVERY DAY, THAT KIND OF A THING. AND THEN CITIES TEND TO PROHIBIT ENTRY FEES WITH SOME CARVE OUTS. SOME PEER CITIES ALSO REQUIRE HEIGHTENED REVIEW OR ACTUALLY PROHIBIT FACILITIES IF THEY ARE WITHIN CERTAIN DISTANCES OF RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTIES. SO, BACK TO THE DETAILS. I'LL READ THE DEFINITION ONE MORE TIME AND JUMP INTO SOME CHARACTERISTICS. A FACILITY THAT IS RENTED FOR PRIVATE EVENTS FOR INVITED GUESTS SUCH AS CEREMONIES, RECEPTIONS, PARTIES, CELEBRATIONS, BANQUETS, PROFESSIONAL OR INDUSTRY GATHERINGS AND FUNDRAISERS. THIS IS NOT AN EXHAUSTIVE LIST. THESE ARE EXAMPLES. UH, SOME VERY IMPORTANT CHARACTERISTICS. AGAIN, THESE ARE PRIVATE EVENTS. UH, THIS IS REALLY THE CRUX OF WHAT MAKES THIS ITS OWN INDEPENDENT LAND USE INSIDE THE CODE. UH, THE PRIVACY OF THE GUESTS MIGHT BE PROVED, FOR EXAMPLE, THROUGH GUEST LISTS, UH, OR THE CONTENT OF INVITATIONS VERSUS PROMOTIONAL MATERIALS THAT SAY, SWING ON BY, WE'VE GOT LIVE MUSIC ENTRY FEES ARE PROHIBITED IN GENERAL. SO ENTRY FEES AT THE DOOR PROHIBITED UNLESS THE GUEST IS PAYING FOR A PRE-REGISTRATION. SO AGAIN, THEY'VE ALREADY SIGNED UP FOR IT, THEY'RE JUST PAYING WHAT THEY OWE FOR THAT PREREGISTRATION OR FOR PARTICIPATION IN QUOTE, BONAFIDE NONPROFITS, PLACES OF WORSHIP OR EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES. THOSE CARVE OUTS ARE PRETTY TYPICAL IN PEER CITIES. UH, THERE ARE A COUPLE OF WAYS OF LOOKING AT THOSE. THE, THE TERM BONAFIDE IS JUST SAYING, ARE YOU A 5 0 1 C3? DO YOU HAVE A HISTORY OF, UM, HOLDING EVENTS AND DOING WORK ACCORDING TO A CORE MISSION? THAT KIND OF A THING. PRETTY EASY FOR A CODE COMPLIANCE TO ASCERTAIN. AND THEN PLACES OF WORSHIP OR EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES. UH, I WAS SPEAKING WITH OUR CODE COMPLIANCE STAFF EARLIER TODAY. GENERALLY, I THINK THE IDEA OF, UM, ALLOWING ENT ENTRY FEES TO BE CHARGED FOR THESE [00:20:01] IS JUST IN GENERAL, THESE ARE COMMUNITY INSTITUTIONS, THEY'RE SCHOOLS, THEY'RE CHURCHES, ET CETERA. AND THESE ARE NOT, YOU KNOW, TRULY FOR-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS THAT ARE HOLDING CONCERTS EVERY WEEKEND. THE PROPOSED DISTRICTS WHERE THIS WOULD BE ALLOWED ALL NON-RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS WITH RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY REVIEW, UH, EXCEPT NO RAR REQUIRED IN CENTRAL AREA DISTRICTS. AND THEN THE ZAC RECOMMENDATION WAS TO BE ALLOWED BY SUP IN NO OFFICE AND NS NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICE, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD OFFICE AND NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICE DISTRICT. SO REGARDLESS OF SIZE, REGARDLESS OF LOCATION, THIS BESIDES THE NAME CHANGE WAS THE ONLY CHANGE IN XX RECOMMENDATION PARKING REQUIREMENTS. ONE SPACE PER 200 SQUARE FEET. FOOD AND ENTERTAINMENT MAY BE PROVIDED ESTABLISHMENTS THAT ALREADY HAVE A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT INSIDE OR COMMERCIAL WEDDING CHAPEL MAY CONTINUE TO OPERATE AS A CONFORMING USE. AND SO, UH, THE PURPOSE OF THIS PROVISION IS FOLKS HAVE BEEN COMING IN, THEY'VE BEEN GRANTED A CFO FOR A COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT, EVEN THOUGH THAT'S NOT THE MOST WELL-TAILORED LAND USE, UH, WE'RE NOT INTENDING TO CAST THEM INTO NON-CONFORMING STATUS BY ACTUALLY IMPROVING OUR CODE TO PROVIDE FOR FUTURE LAND USES LIKE THIS. SO AGAIN, JUST TO REVIEW, ZOAX UPDATES WE'RE TO CHANGE THE NAME FROM RECEPTION FACILITY TO EVENT VENUE AND TO ONLY ALLOW THESE, UH, ESTABLISHMENTS IN NNO AND NS DISTRICTS BY SEP REGARDLESS OF SIZE OR LOCATION. AND THE RECOMMENDATION IS TO FORWARD THIS TO COUNCIL THE RECOMMENDATION OF ADOPTION BACK TO THE TIMELINE. UH, AGAIN, THERE IS CONSIDERABLE INTEREST IN THIS, UH, LAND USE AS A TOOL BEING IN OUR TOOL BELT BY THE TIME THAT FIFA DESCENDS ONTO DALLAS. AND SO IT WENT TO ZAC ON THE SEVENTH. IT, UH, IS COMING HERE TODAY OF COURSE. AND THEN WE WOULD RECOMMEND THAT THIS BODY HAVE AS ROBUST A CONVERSATION AS YOU NEED TO TODAY IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE A RECOMMENDATION AND SEND IT ON TO COUNCIL IN MAY. SO THAT CONCLUDES MY BRIEFING. WE HAVE, UH, ZONING CITY ATTORNEYS AND, UH, CO COMPLIANCE STAFF TO HELP ANSWER QUESTIONS TODAY. THANK YOU SO MUCH MR. WADE. COMMISSIONERS QUESTIONS. COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, I, ONE THING I DID NOT UNDERSTAND WHEN I FIRST READ THE REPORT AND THAT WE DISCUSSED TO A SMALL EXTENT DURING ZAC, WAS THE FACT THAT ALTHOUGH THIS LAND USE HAS BEEN KIND OF CARVED OUT OF COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT INSIDE THE, THE NEW LAND USE OF EVENT U UH, EVENT, VENUE, SORRY, UH, NO LONGER REQUIRES THAT ALL ACTIVITIES BE INDOORS. IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. THERE'S NO REQUIREMENT IN THIS TO BE INDOORS. RIGHT? SO THAT WOULD OPEN UP THE USE OF ROOFTOPS AND DECKS AND OUTSIDE FACILITIES. NOW, COUPLED WITH THE ORDINANCES, UM, UH, LANGUAGE THAT SAYS YOU ALLOW INCIDENTAL MUSIC, WHERE'S THE LINE GONNA BE DRAWN IF A IF ONE OF THESE VENUES HAS, YOU KNOW, A SOUND A STAGE IN THE BACK AND YOU KNOW, HAS AMPLIFIED MUSIC AND SPEAKERS AND, AND THAT SORT OF THING. I MEAN, I THINK WE ALL KNOW WHAT WE THINK INCIDENTAL MUSIC IS, YOU KNOW, SOMEBODY PLAYING SOME BACKGROUND MUSIC. BUT IF YOU'RE ALLOWING, IF THIS USE NOW WILL ALLOW OUTSIDE SPACE, WHERE'S THE LINE GONNA BE DRAWN WITH WITH, WITH MUSIC? THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION AND THERE'S ROOM FOR INPUT ON THAT. UH, SOMETHING THAT I WAS ALSO THINKING ABOUT EARLIER WAS, UH, AN ARTS NONPROFIT WHO WANTS TO ACTUALLY HAVE THEIR STRING QUARTET AS A PERFORMANCE IN A, IN ONE OF THESE EVENT VENUES, SOMETHING LIKE THAT. DOES THAT CONSTITUTE THE ACTUAL EVENT OR INCIDENTAL TO THE EVENT? UM, THE, I THINK THERE'S ROOM FOR HAVING MORE DETAILED REGULATIONS THERE. UM, UNDERSTANDING THAT AS THE ESTABLISHMENTS COME INTO OUR PERMITTING DESK, THAT POTENTIAL WOULD BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT. AND SO IF THEY, UM, AREN'T ABLE TO, UH, THROUGH THE RAR PROCESS KIND OF MANAGE, UM, THAT AND EXPECT THAT, THEN I, YOU KNOW, MAYBE, UM, AND I WOULD INVITE, UM, OUR ASSISTANT DIRECTOR ALSO TO WEIGH IN, UM, THAT THAT WOULD BE PART OF THE NATURE OF THE LAND USE. AND SO IF THAT AS PART OF THE LAND USE ISN'T APPROPRIATE IN A LOCATION, THEN DONEZO, YEAH, I I THINK IT'D BE HELPFUL TO HAVE, YOU KNOW, SOME FIRMER GUIDELINES, YOU KNOW, THROUGH THE, BECAUSE RESIDENTIAL ENCY REVIEW DOESN'T GET ANY, YOU KNOW, PUBLIC INPUT. THERE'S NO APPEAL. IT'S SOMETHING THAT GOES ON COMPLETELY, YOU KNOW, AS A ADMINISTRATIVE BUREAU, UH, FUNCTION. UM, BUT IF THERE WAS A LINE DRAWN AS FAR AS IF YOU WANT TO HAVE, YOU KNOW, AMPLIFIED MUSIC OUTSIDE, THEN THERE NEEDS TO BE YOU, YOU'VE GOTTA BE A CERTAIN DIS I MEAN, IT SEEMS LIKE THERE, IF WE'RE, IF IT'S GOING TO BE ADDRESSED THROUGH RESIDENTIAL JAY'S REVIEW, THE, THE, UH, REQUIREMENTS NEED TO BE CODIFIED A LITTLE BIT MORE OR IT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED THROUGH THE ORDINANCE. THAT'D BE MY SUGGESTION. COMMISSIONER SERATO? YEAH, I, [00:25:01] I HAD A SIMILAR QUESTION ABOUT OUTDOOR USE. UM, IN TERMS OF, UH, THE PARKING, LIKE, UM, DOES THE SQUARE FOOTAGE INCLUDE THE OUTDOOR SPACE USE FOR, UH, PARKING? AND THEN, UM, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER ALSO MENTIONED, UM, YOU KNOW, UH, NOISE OUTSIDE, BUT I'M THINKING ALSO, UM, OUTDOOR VENUES MAY, UH, REQUIRE SOME KIND OF LIGHTING OR PROJECTION. AND WILL THERE BE ANY LIKE, UM, YOU KNOW, RESTRICTIONS AROUND THAT? I IMAGINE FOR FIFA IT'S GONNA BE, YOU KNOW, SCREENS PROJECTING, UM, LIGHTS AND STUFF OUTSIDE. SO JUST, UM, YOU KNOW, EXTENDING HER IDEAS, BUT ALSO THINKING ABOUT PARKING IF WE'RE HAVING OUTDOOR SPACES AS WELL. SURE. AND SO TO BE CLEAR, WHEN YOU'RE ASKING ABOUT PARKING, YOU SAID DOES THE SQUARE FOOTAGE INCLUDE EXTERNAL PARKING? UM, WOULD YOU LIKE TO TAKE THAT? YEAH, UM, MEGAN WEER ASSISTANT DIRECTOR. UM, SO PARKING IS BASED ON FLOOR AREA, SO UNCOVERED OUTSIDE SPACE IS NOT PARKED TYPICALLY. WE DO HAVE SOME PDS THAT, THAT DESIGNATE CALCULATIONS FOR OUTSIDE USES TO BE PARKED. BUT YEAH, BASE CODE DOES NOT. UM, YOURS, ANYONE ELSE? FIRST ROUND, THEN WE'LL GO TO A SECOND ROUND. COMMISSIONER HALL. WAS THERE A SECOND QUESTION ALSO AS FAR AS NOISE LIGHTING AT THE, OF THE LIGHTING AND NOISE? YEAH, LIGHTING, APOLOGIES. I'M SORRY, I WAS TAKING NOTES. YEAH, I MEAN, I, I WOULD SAY THAT WE, IT'S NOT SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSED. WE DO HAVE OTHER PARTS OF THE CODE THAT ADDRESS LIGHTING. UM, YOU KNOW, THAT IT MAY NOT PROJECT ACROSS PROPERTY LINES AND THINGS LIKE THAT AND TO ADDRESS GLARE AND NOISE. UM, THOSE ARE OTHER SECTIONS OF THE CODE. UM, YOU KNOW, THE RAR SITE PLAN DOES REQUIRE FOR THOSE TYPES OF THINGS TO BE SHOWN ON THE PLAN THAT IS REVIEWED. UM, UH, TO SPEAK A LITTLE BIT TO THE OUTSIDE SPEAKERS AND AMPLIFIED SOUND, THAT'S A REQUIREMENT FOR, FOR THE RAR. UM, THEY EXISTING AND PROPOSED LOUDSPEAKERS DO NEED TO BE SHOWN ON THE PLAN AND CAN BE ADDRESSED THROUGH CONDITIONS. COMMISSIONER HALL, UH, REGARDING THE RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY REVIEW, UM, IS THERE ANY, UH, SPECIFIED LOTS, LOT SIZE FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES THAT ARE ADJACENT? UH, SUPPOSE YOU HAD A HOME ON SEVERAL ACRES OF LAND VERSUS A HOME ON 10,000 SQUARE FEET OR SOMETHING. MM-HMM . DOES IT MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE? NO, THAT WAS NOT CONTEMPLATED. OKAY. THANK YOU MR. COX. JUST A, A COMMENT AND THEN A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. ONE, I WANT TO ECHO JUST, JUST QUESTIONS. SORRY, JUST QUESTIONS RIGHT NOW. OKAY. , MY QUESTION IS, IS, IS THE INTENT OF STAFF TO COME UP WITH SOME ADDITIONAL GUIDELINES ON THIS? DEPENDING ON THIS CONVERSATION? I MEAN, IF, IF STANDARDIZED CONDITIONS ARE DESIRED, I DON'T THINK THAT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO COME UP WITH. UH, WE JUST WANNA DO THAT BY THE TIME THAT IT HIT CITY COUNCIL SO THAT WE CAN KEEP THIS MOVING FORWARD. OKAY, THANK YOU. AND THEN ALSO WITH RESPECT TO THE PARKING, HOW DID, HOW DID YOU COME UP WITH THE, THE 200, UH, VERSUS OTHER REQUIREMENTS THAT MIGHT BE IN PLACE? SURE. THIS IS AS FAR AS THE PARKING AND LOADING DIRECTLY MIMICKING COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT INSIDE, SO IT'S THE SAME AS THAT ONE. AND THEN PROXIMITY TO EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, I BELIEVE YOU SHOWED WHAT OTHER CITIES ARE DOING. WHAT, WHAT IS THE, THE CRITERIA THAT, THAT WE PLAN TO USE AT DALLAS? SURE. SO, UM, PARTIALLY IS JUST LIMITING IT TO NON-RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS. OF COURSE, UNDERSTANDING THAT SOMETHING MIGHT BE NON-RESIDENTIAL ZONED RIGHT NEXT TO A RESIDENTIAL. UM, THE RAR IS THE, THE RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY REVIEW IS THE VERY FIRST LINE, JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE UNDERSTANDING WHERE THE SPEAKERS ARE, WHERE THE LIGHTNING IS, THAT KIND OF A THING, AND WEIGH THAT INTO OUR APPROVAL. UM, I THINK THE, THE ZONING INTO A COMMERCIAL DISTRICT THAT'S, OR NON-RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, RIGHT NEXT TO A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, PART OF THAT IS WEIGHING WHETHER THOSE LAND USES, INCLUDING RECEPTION FACILITY OR EVENT VENUE, UH, MAKES SENSE RIGHT NEXT TO THE HOME. AND SO RIGHT NOW IT'S THE RAR, IT'S THE LIMITATION ON DISTRICTS THAT YOU CAN ZONE TO. IF THERE ARE ADDITIONAL STANDARDIZED CONDITIONS THAT WE CAN DRAFT UP THAT ARE BROADLY AGREEABLE, THAT MAKES SENSE AS FAR AS LIGHTING AND THAT KIND OF A THING, UM, THAT, THAT CAN DEFINITELY BE CONTEMPLATED. YEAH. OKAY. AND THEN I'M ASSUMING THE NUMBER OF GUESTS THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED, UM, THAT'S ALREADY IN THE CODE FIRE DEPARTMENT, WOULD IT? CORRECT. EXACTLY. THAT'S RIGHT. OKAY. UM, AND THEN I THINK I HAD ONE OTHER, ANY, ANY OUTREACH AT THIS POINT FOR COMMUNITY INPUT ON THIS? THOSE, [00:30:02] YOU KNOW, UM, OUTSIDE OF ZAC BEING A PUBLIC MEETING, ALTHOUGH, UH, MATERIALS WERE RELEASED KIND OF LATE THERE, THERE WEREN'T, UM, COMMUNITY MEETINGS. THERE HAVE BEEN SORT OF GENERALIZED DISCUSSIONS SINCE 2022, BUT NOTHING CONCERTED. NO, THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER KTZ. SO IT, IT DOES NOT REGULATE THE MAXIMUM OR THERE'S NO MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF EVENTS PER WEEK, CORRECT? CORRECT. AND, AND DO OTHER CITIES IN YOUR RESEARCH, WHAT WAS THE RATIONALE BEHIND THAT? AND WAS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT LIMITING OR NOT LIMITING EVENTS PER WEEK? THERE WAS NO DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT. AS FAR AS THE PEER REVIEW, WHAT WE'VE PRESENTED TO YOU IS THE MOST REGULATED OF ANY OTHER CITIES WHO HAVE A LAND USE LIKE THIS. AND SO WE ARE ALREADY HAVING THE MOST CONDITIONS. UM, WE DIDN'T SEE, YOU KNOW, ANY LIMITATION ON TWO EVENTS A WEEK, TWO DAYS A WEEK, SOMETHING LIKE THAT. NO. OKAY. THANKS. COMMISSIONER KINGSTON. SO WE COULD SAY, FOR EXAMPLE, IF THE OUTDOOR USE IS MORE THAN ANCILLARY, SAY MORE THAN 25% OF THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE BUILDING, IT HAS TO BE PARKED ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, I WOULD ASK YOU. UM, WE, YES, THERE ARE PDS THAT INCLUDE CONDITIONS LIKE THAT, THAT IS SOMETHING THAT COULD BE CONSIDERED, YEAH. OKAY. AND WE COULD SET DECIBEL LIMITS FOR NOISE. THEY, THEY CAN'T EXCEED A CERTAIN AMOUNT. THE, THAT IS, THAT IS POSSIBLE. UM, YES. OKAY. ANYONE ELSE? FIRST ROUND, I JUST HAVE ONE FOLLOW UP QUESTION. AND THIS MAY BE FOR CODE COMPLIANCE. IS THERE A GENERALLY APPLICABLE SOUND REGULATION THAT WOULD APPLY TO THIS SEPARATE, EVEN IF WE DIDN'T, UM, IMPOSE A SPECIFIC DECIBEL LIMIT ON THIS USE? I THINK MR. REED IS HERE FROM CODE COMPLIANCE. GOOD MORNING COMMISSION. JEREMY REED, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF CODE COMPLIANCE. UH, WE WERE JUST DISCUSSING THE LAST COMMENT. WOULD YOU MIND REPEATING THE QUESTION? OH YEAH. ARE COMMISSIONER KINGSTON JUST ASKED IF WE COULD IMPOSE A DECIBEL REQUIREMENT? I'M WONDERING IF THERE'S ANYTHING THAT'S GENERALLY APPLICABLE IN THE CODE OUTSIDE OF THE DEVELOP INSIDE OR OUTSIDE THE DEVELOPMENT CODE THAT WOULD SPEAK TO NOISE GENERATED FROM A USE LIKE THIS? YES. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THE QUESTION. SO TWO WOULD POTENTIALLY, UM, BE AVAILABLE FOR ENFORCING NOISE IN THIS TYPE OF A LOCATION. ONE IS 51 A DASH SIX. OUR ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS, UM, ALREADY IN THE DEVELOPMENT CODE APPLIES TO ALL PROPERTIES. UM, THERE ARE DIFFERENT, DIFFERENT DECIBEL LEVEL THRESHOLDS THAT DIFFERENT DISTRICTS ARE ALREADY. UM, THEY ALREADY HAVE A MAXIMUM DECIBEL LEVEL THRESHOLD CODE COMPLIANCE IS ALREADY EQUIPPED TO COME OUT AND DO DECIBEL READINGS, UM, AT DIFFERENT PROPERTIES AT THAT LOT LINE TO DETERMINE IF A PROPERTY IS IN VIOLATION. UH, A SECOND ONE IS IN CHAPTER 30. WE HAVE OTHER NOISE REGULATIONS THAT, UM, REGULATE PUBLIC SPACES, UM, THAT WE DO FOR LIKE PUBS, CLUBS, AND BARS. AND UH, WE'RE ABLE TO, AFTER A CERTAIN HOUR, UM, WITHIN A CERTAIN DISTANCE FROM RESIDENCES, UM, JUST TO USE THE AUDIBILITY PAST THE PROPERTY LINE AS A A VIOLATION. AND YOU MENTIONED PUBS, CLUBS, AND I CAN'T REMEMBER WHAT THE THIRD ONE WAS. I DON'T THINK IT RHYMED. UM, BARS. I GUESS THE PURPOSE OF THIS USE IS FOR PRIVATE EVENTS. WOULD THAT CHAPTER 30 REGULATION APPLY TO THIS AS WELL, OR, OR NOT? MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT IT, IT WOULD, UH, HAVING A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY MAKES IT A PUBLIC PLACE, EVEN IF THE PRIVATE ITSELF PRI EVEN IF THE EVENT ITSELF IS FOR PRIVATE GUESTS. AND I THINK SOMEONE ELSE ASKED ABOUT WHETHER WE SH COULD OR SHOULD IMPOSE, I GUESS MAXIMUM NUMBER OF ATTENDEES AT A EVENT OR AT ONE OF THESE EVENT SPACES THROUGH EITHER THE SUP OR THE RAR ET CETERA OR THE ZONING. ARE THERE ALREADY ON A USE LIKE THIS SORT OF LIMITS ON HOW MANY PEOPLE CAN, CAN COME THROUGH OTHER PARTS OF THE CODE OR I WOULD SAY THAT'S CURRENTLY ADDRESSED UNDER OTHER, UM, OTHER CODES SUCH AS THE BUILDING AND FIRE CODE. UM, THE OCCUPANCY, UH, LOADS ARE CALCULATED BASED ON FLOOR AREA OF INSIDE AND OF OUTSIDE AREAS. SO THAT IS, THAT'S ADDRESSED IN TERMS OF OCCUPANCY LIMITS. OCCUPANCY LOADS. OKAY. [00:35:01] UH, ANYONE ELSE? FIRST ROUND, SECOND ROUND, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER? YEAH. UM, I'M STILL STRUGGLING WITH THE POINT AT WHICH WHAT MOST OF US CAN CONSIDER AN EVENT VENUE, WHICH IS PRIMARILY INSIDE, BUT HAS OUTDOOR WITH THERE NOT BEING ANY LIMITATION ON OUTDOOR, IS THERE SOME POINT AT WHICH THIS BECOMES A COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT OUTSIDE? WOULD IT MAKE MORE SENSE TO LIMIT THE AMOUNT OF OUTSIDE SPACE RELATIVE TO THE AMOUNT OF INSIDE SPACE? LIKE YOU CAN HAVE, YOU KNOW, 25% AS MUCH OUTDOOR SPACE AS YOU HAVE INDOOR SPACE, WHICH WOULD BRING IT DOWN TO I THINK WHAT MOST OF US ARE THINKING OF AS, AS THIS TYPE OF VENUE. AND THEN IF YOU'RE, IF YOUR UM, UH, YOUR BUSINESS IS PRIMARILY OUTDOORS, IT SHOULD BE IN A COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT OUTSIDE OR WAS, HAS THERE BEEN GIVEN ANY THOUGHT TO, TO THAT SORT OF, UH, CONUNDRUM? I THINK IN GENERAL WE WOULD RECOMMEND, UM, IF THERE ARE CONDITIONS LIKE THAT, UM, THAT THEY'D BE LIMITED TO WITHIN A CERTAIN PROXIMITY OF RESIDENTIAL. I KNOW THAT A LOT OF THESE SPACES WILL BE A, UM, I COULD UNDERSTAND THAT. I MEAN, THERE WOULDN'T BE NEED FOR IT IN CENTRAL AREA AND ALL THAT, BUT YEAH. WHERE THERE IS RESIDENTIAL PROXIMITY, YEAH. MM-HMM . YEP. GENERALLY THIS WAS MODELED OFF AFTER COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT INSIDE MM-HMM . AND SO IF THERE'S SOMETHING FROM COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT OUTSIDE THAT WOULD REALLY MAKE IT, UH, INTEGRATE A LOT BETTER MM-HMM . ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY, I THINK THAT WOULD MAKE SENSE, RIGHT? 'CAUSE I, I DON'T THINK ANYBODY'S WANTING TO ENABLE SOMETHING WHERE THERE'S JUST A TINY LITTLE SHED SOMEWHERE AND THEN A GIGANTIC A, YOU KNOW, HUGE SPACE, WHICH IS ALL OUTDOOR, YOU KNOW, PARTY VENUE. IT JUST DOESN'T SEEM TO FIT IN, IN, IN WHAT, WHAT'S BEING DESCRIBED HERE AS A MORE GENTEEL, UM, SITUATION. MM-HMM . SURE. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMISSIONERS? COMMISSIONER HAMPTON? UM, AS WE ARE DEFINING THIS IN OUR CODE, I CAN THINK OF SOME OTHER INSTANCES AROUND THE CITY WHERE WE HAVE SIMILAR TYPE VENUES, UM, LOCATED IN OUR HISTORIC DISTRICTS. THIS OBVIOUSLY DOES NOT IMPACT THOSE. UM, BUT SOME OF THE QUESTIONS HIGHLIGHTED BY MY COLLEAGUES ABOUT NOISE, HOW OUTDOOR SPACES ARE USED ARE FREQUENTLY, UM, WHERE THERE ARE, UM, THE POTENTIAL FOR CHALLENGES. AND SO, YOU KNOW, A STAFF IS LOOKING AT THIS AND THIS COMES BEFORE US. WOULD THERE BE RECOMMENDED LANGUAGE THAT WOULD GIVE SOME CLARITY AROUND ARTICLE 30, YOU KNOW, WILL APPLY TO THIS TYPE OF USE? UM, I THINK THE QUESTION ON HOW OUTDOOR SPACES THAT DON'T EXCEED THE FOOTPRINT OF THE MAIN STRUCTURE, IF YOU WILL, OR THE MAIN VENUE, UM, IS THAT, I'VE HEARD A COUPLE THINGS, BUT IS THAT ANYTHING AS STAFF HAS EVALUATED OR YOU'VE HEARD THIS DISCUSSION THAT MAY BE APPROPRIATE FOR THIS BODY TO CONSIDER? THANK YOU. I THINK IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE, IF I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY, I HEARD SORT OF TWO CATEGORIES. ONE IS JUST, UH, WITHIN THIS LAND USE REFERENCING WHAT IS ALREADY IN THE CODE TO MAKE SURE THAT FOLKS PULLING THE PERMIT KNOW ABOUT IT AND THE OTHER IS MAYBE ESTABLISHING SOME NEW CONDITIONS. IS THAT CORRECT? YEAH. YES. YES. I I THINK THAT WOULD MAKE SENSE. I THINK THE COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT OUTSIDE WOULD BE A GOOD MODEL AND THEN, UM, EVALUATING HOW IT INTERACTS WITH AND IS IMPACTED BY OR IMPACTS THE HISTORIC DISTRICTS. I THINK THAT THAT, UM, I THINK THAT CAN HAPPEN. I'M TAKING A PAUSE, UM, BECAUSE MY KNOWLEDGE OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICTS ISN'T AS FAST AS DR. DUNN'S, FOR EXAMPLE. UM, BUT I, IT MAKES ABSOLUTE SENSE AND WOULD BE APPROPRIATE. WELL, AND I BELIEVE IN MOST CASES THOSE ARE SEPARATELY DEFINED AND HAVE A SEPARATELY DEFINED USE. UM, IT BEARS SOME SIMILARITIES TO WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE. SO COMMISSIONERS IT, I'M SORRY, MR. CARPENTER. YEAH, IT, IT WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR ME IF, SINCE WE'RE NOT PRIVY TO THE RESIDENTIAL REVIEW REVIEW PROCESS, IF, IF WE COULD, UM, GET SOME INSIGHT OR EXAMPLES OF WHAT KIND OF CONDITIONS, UM, THAT PROCESS TYPICALLY IMPOSES ON THESE KINDS OF, YOU KNOW, WHAT PARAMETERS YOU'RE LOOKING AT AND WHAT KIND OF CONDITIONS ARE IMPOSED, THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL. SO WE COULD PULL SOME EXAMPLES OF ARS BEFORE THE PUBLIC HEARING PORTION, BUT I DO KNOW OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD THAT, UM, AS I MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY, ONE OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE RER IS TO IDENTIFY, UM, EXISTING AND PROPOSED OUTSIDE SPEAKERS. SO THAT IS SOMETHING THAT IS TYPICALLY TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION AND CONDITIONS IMPOSED, SUCH AS, UM, IN SOME INSTANCES NO AMPLIFYING SOUND BEING ALLOWED OR, UM, MAYBE HOURS OF OPERATION. UM, [00:40:01] YOU KNOW, WE, WE KIND OF PREFER NOT TO REGULATE HOURS OF OPERATION AS PART OF ZONING. UM, YOU KNOW, TYPICALLY KIND OF IS SOMETHING BEYOND LAND USE, BUT IT IS SOMETHING THAT WE, I THINK CAN DO. COULD YOU GIMME AN EXAMPLE OF THE KIND OF, UM, REVIEW THAT WOULD, UM, RESULT IN A PROHIBITION ON OUTSIDE SPEAKERS? IS IT BASED ON PROXIMITY TO RESIDENTIAL? YEAH, I WOULD SAY PROXIMITY, UM, TO RESIDENTIAL WOULD BE A CONSIDERATION. UM, THE CODE AN RER IS TRIGGERED IF THERE IS A SINGLE OR A RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT WITHIN 330 FEET. UM, YOU KNOW, IF SOMETHING IS IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT OR IS A BUDDING, THEN I THINK THAT WOULD PROBABLY, YOU KNOW, REQUIRE OR NECESSITATE CONDITIONS THAT ARE, UH, MAYBE DIFFERENT FROM SOMETHING THAT'S 329 FEET AWAY. DO APPLICANTS HAVE THE RECOURSE TO CHALLENGE THE BUILDING OFFICIALS DECISIONS ON THESE RAR CONDITIONS? UM, THEY DO. THERE IS THE, THE APPLICANT CAN CHA CAN APPEAL WITHIN, UM, 10 DAYS OF THE ISSUANCE OF THE RAR. ALRIGHT. I KNOW THIS IS KIND OF OUT THERE, BUT ARE YOU AWARE OF SITUATIONS WHERE, YOU KNOW, THESE TYPES OF PLACES, UM, ARE APPEALING THE FACT THAT THEY CAN'T HAVE AMPLIFIED MUSIC OR OUTDOOR SPEAKERS? UM, SO I, I WILL SAY JUST OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, UM, IN THE MANY YEARS THAT I'VE BEEN DOING THIS, I CAN ONLY RECALL ONE, UM, APPEAL OF AN RAR AND FOR, FOR VARIOUS REASONS, ONE, ONE PERIOD, NOT JUST FOR EVENT VENUES, BUT I MEAN, YES, IT WAS NOT FOR EVENT VENUES. OKAY. JUST, YEAH. YEAH, I'M SORRY, BUT IT WAS, YEAH, IT WAS A, OKAY. SO MOST OF THESE GET RESOLVED DURING THE NEGOTIATION PROCESS? YES. BETWEEN THE APPLICANT AND THE, OKAY, THANK I WOULD SAY THAT'S CORRECT. YES. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS? OKAY, I BELIEVE THAT CONCLUDES OUR AGENDA FOR THE BRIEFING. WE WILL BE BACK AT 12:30 PM GOOD AFTERNOON [CALL TO ORDER] EVERYONE. IT IS THURSDAY, APRIL 9TH, 2026 AT 12:31 PM AND THIS IS THE PUBLIC HEARING OF THE DALLAS CITY PLAN COMMISSION. CAN WE START WITH A ROLL CALL PLEASE? GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONERS. DISTRICT ONE, COMMISSIONER SIMS HERE. DISTRICT TWO, COMMISSIONER HAMPTON. PRESENT DISTRICT THREE, VICE CHAIR HERBERT PRESENT? DISTRICT FOUR IS VACANT. DISTRICT FIVE. COMMISSIONER SERRATO. PRESENT? DISTRICT SIX. COMMISSIONER CARPENTER. PRESENT? DISTRICT SEVEN. COMMISSIONER WHEELER REAGAN. DISTRICT EIGHT. COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN PRESENT? DISTRICT NINE. COMMISSIONER KONS. DISTRICT 10. COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT. PRESENT? DISTRICT 11. COMMISSIONER COX? PRESENT DISTRICT 12. COMMISSIONER KAUFMAN. PRESENT DISTRICT 13. COMMISSIONER HALL HERE. DISTRICT 14, COMMISSIONER KINGSTON HERE AND PLACE 15 CHAIR RUBEN, I'M HERE. YOU HAVE QUORUM, SIR. GREAT, THANK YOU SO MUCH. UM, MS. LOPEZ, THANK YOU EVERYONE FOR JOINING US. JUST A LITTLE BIT OF HOUSEKEEPING, UM, IF YOU ARE GOING TO SPEAK TO US TODAY AND YOU'RE HERE IN THE BUILDING, UM, THERE ARE LITTLE YELLOW CARDS TO MY LEFT, YOUR RIGHT, PLEASE DO FILL THOSE OUT SO WE CAN HAVE A RECORD OF EACH OF OUR PUBLIC SPEAKERS. OUR RULES, UM, ALLOW THREE MINUTES PER PUBLIC SPEAKER ON EACH ITEM, BUT THEY DO ALLOW US TO VARY IT FROM ITEM TO ITEM. SO I'LL LET YOU KNOW IF THE, UM, SPEAKER TIME IS BEING VARIED AND IF THERE IS OPPOSITION ON AN ITEM, THE APPLICANT GETS A TWO MINUTE REBUTTAL. WHEN YOU DO COME DOWN TO SPEAK, PLEASE MAKE SURE TO START FOR YOUR NAME, WITH YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, I THINK WE'LL GO TO COMMISSIONER [APPROVAL OF MINUTES] HALL FOR A MOTION ON OUR MINUTES. THANK YOU MR. CHAIR. I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MARCH 26TH, 2026 CPC MEETING AS POSTED ON MARCH 30TH, 2026. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HALL FOR YOUR MOTION. COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT FOR YOUR SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? SAY NAY. THE MOTION CARRIES. WE'LL MOVE ON TO OUR ZONING [Zoning Cases - Consent] CONSENT, UH, AGENDA WHICH CONSISTS OF ITEMS ONE THROUGH 11. AND THE WAY THAT A CONSENT AGENDA WORKS IS THAT THE ITEMS ARE TAKEN UP ALL IN A SINGLE MOTION IN APPROVED AS THEY'RE LISTED IN OUR AGENDA UNLESS A, A MEMBER OF THE BODY ASKS FOR THEM TO BE CONSIDERED INDIVIDUALLY AND SEVERAL ITEMS HAVE COME OFF. UM, ITEMS [00:45:01] 2, 3, 4, 6, 8 AND 10 WILL BE CONSIDERED INDIVIDUALLY. THAT MEANS WE WILL BE CONSIDERING AS OF RIGHT NOW. ITEMS 1, 5, 7, 9, AND 11 ON CONSENT. THAT'S ITEMS 1, 5, 7, 9 AND 11. IS THERE ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK ON ANY OF THOSE ITEMS THAT WOULD LIKE THEM PULLED OFF OF THE CONSENT AGENDA? THAT'S 1 5 7, 9, AND 11. ALRIGHT, WE WILL CONSIDER THOSE ITEMS ON OUR CONSENT AGENDA THEN. CAN SOMEONE READ IT INTO THE RECORD? UH, ITEM ONE AND APPLICATION FOR A NEW SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR VEHICLE DISPLAY SALES AND SERVICE ON PROPERTY ZONE SUBDISTRICT. ONE WITHIN PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 5 34 CF HA. SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICT NUMBER TWO ON THE EAST CORNER OF CF JUANS AND TURN DRIVE STAFF. RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO A SITE PLAN AND CONDITIONS. ITEM FIVE AND APPLICATION FOR THE REMOVAL OF SHOPFRONT OVERLAY SH DASH SIX ON PROPERTY ZONE WMU FIVE, WALKABLE, WALKABLE, MIXED USE DISTRICT SUBDISTRICT D WITHIN PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 4 68. THE OAK CLIFF GATEWAY SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICT WITH SH DASH SIX SHOP FRONT OVERLAY ON THE EAST CORNER OF EA STREET AND LANGSTON STREET STAFF. RECOMMENDATIONS, APPROVAL ITEM NINE AND APPLICATION FOR MF 7 0 7 OH, SORRY. UH, ITEM SEVEN, ITEM SEVEN, AN APPLICATION FOR MF DASH ONE MULTIFAMILY DISTRICT ON PROPERTY ZONE R DASH 7.5. A SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT ON THE WEST LINE OF SOUTH ST. ST. AUGUSTINE ROAD, NORTH OF SOUTH SEAVILLE ROAD. STAFF. RECOMMENDATIONS, APPROVAL ITEM NINE, AN APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO PLAN DEVELOPMENT. PLAN DEVELOPMENT 4 8 2 ON PROPERTY BOUNDED BY WEST LOVER'S LANE, INWOOD ROAD, BOSE STREET AND GREEN GREENWAY BOULEVARD. STAFF. RECOMMENDATIONS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO AMENDED DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND AMENDED CONDITIONS. AND 11 ITEM 11, AN APPLICATION FOR TH THREE TOWN HOME DISTRICT ON PROPERTY ZONE R DASH FIVE, SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT ON THE WEST LINE OF BONNEY VIEW ROAD, SOUTH OF EAST 11TH STREET. STAFF. RECOMMENDATIONS, APPROVAL. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE WHO'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON ANY OF THESE ITEMS ON OUR CONSENT AGENDA? OKAY, NO SPEAKERS. COMMISSIONER SERATO, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? YES. UM, IN THE MATTER OF CASES ON OUR CONSENT AGENDA, ZONING CASES 1, 5, 7, 9, AND 11, I MOVE TO APPROVE THESE CASES SUBJECT TO SITE PLANS AND AMENDED CONDITIONS. OKAY, GREAT. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER SARADA FOR YOUR MOTION. VICE CHAIR HERBERT FOR YOUR SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED, SAY NAY. THE MOTION CARRIES ITEM NUMBER TWO. [2. 26-1252A An application for LI Light Industrial District on property zoned A(A) Agricultural District, on the south line of Telephone Road, east of N. Dallas Avenue. Staff Recommendation: Approval. Applicant: HSM Equity Partners, Inc. / Mark Smith Representative: Land Use Planning & Zoning Services / Chelsea Thurman Planner: Justin Lee Council District: 8 Z-26-000003] ITEM NUMBER TWO, AN APPLICATION FOR LI LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT ON PROPERTY ZONE AGRICULTURE DISTRICT ON THE SOUTHLINE TELEPHONE ROAD, EAST OF NORTH DALLAS AVENUE. STAFF. RECOMMENDATIONS? APPROVAL. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE WHO'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER TWO? I BELIEVE WE HAVE A COUPLE SPEAKERS SIGNED UP ONLINE. IS EITHER OF THEM ONLINE? OKAY, UH, MS. THURMAN? [00:50:08] MS. THURMAN, ARE YOU ONLINE? CHELSEA THURMAN. OKAY, I GUESS SHE IS NOT ONLINE. COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION IN THE MATTER OF Z DASH 26 DASH 0 0 0 0 3? I MOVE TO KEEP THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AND HOLD THIS MATTER UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL JUNE 11TH, 2026. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER, UH, FRANKLIN FOR YOUR MOTION. VICE CHAIR HERBERT FOR YOUR SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? NO DISCUSSION. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. A. ANY OPPOSED SAY NAY. THE MOTION CARRIES ITEM [3. 26-1253A An application for an amendment to Specific Use Permit 2496 for open storage on property zoned Tract 2, Planned Development Subdistrict 138, within Planned Development 193, Oak Lawn Special Purpose District, on the east corner of Maple Avenue and Vagas Street. Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions. Applicant: Lennox McFadden Enterprise / Jeremy Lennox Representative: Masterplan Consultants / Danielle Chou & Chrystal Lemus Planner: Justin Lee Council District: 2 Z-26-000023] NUMBER THREE. ITEM NUMBER THREE, AN APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT SPECIFIC USE PERMIT 24 96 FOR OPEN STORAGE ON PROPERTY ZONE TRACK TWO PLAN DEVELOPMENT SUBDISTRICT 1 38 WITHIN PLAN DEVELOPMENT, DIS PLAN DEVELOPMENT. 1 93 OAK LAWN SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICT ON THE EAST CORNER OF MAPLE AVENUE AND UH, VARGAS STREET STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS. MR. CORO, YOU, YOU CAN ELEVATE THAT OR SIT WHICHEVER YOU PREFER. THERE'S A LITTLE BUTTON, THERE'S A BUTTON BUTTON ON THE DESK THAT . GOOD. GOOD LUCK WITH THAT ONE. IS YOUR MICRO, IS THE MICROPHONE ON? I'M NOT SURE. IS THAT BETTER? YEAH, THAT'S MUCH BETTER. THERE WE GO. ALL RIGHT. THIRD TIME'S A CHARM. UM, SO HARVEY'S HAS BEEN AT THIS LOCATION 70 YEARS, SO SUVS ARE USUALLY GIVEN OUT TO SEE IF YOU KNOW HOW THEY'RE GONNA DO. WELL, WE'VE BEEN IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD LONGER THAN ANYBODY ELSE. OAK LAWN COMMITTEE, UH, HAS RECOMMENDED THIS. WE'VE MET WITH THE COMMISSIONER. I THINK, YOU KNOW, WE'RE THE ONLY THING WE, WE'D LIKE THE 10 YEARS WITH ONE FIVE YEAR RENEWAL AND WE HAVE 15 YEARS ON OUR GROUND LEASE, SO WE'D LOVE THOSE THINGS TO COINCIDE SO WE DON'T HAVE TO COME BACK. AND I THINK GIVEN THAT WE HAVE A EXTENSIVE RECORD OF OPERATIONS HERE AND YOU KNOW, THIS IS A NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICE USE, I DON'T MEAN LIKE THE CATEGORY, BUT WE DO NEED THESE CLOSE TO WHERE PEOPLE WORK AND LIVE AND YOU KNOW, THEY CAN'T ALL BE OUT IN THE DISTANCE SUBURBS. SO, UM, UH, WE'RE PLEASED THAT THE OAKLAWN COMMITTEE LIKE THIS HAS MADE A LOT OF IMPROVEMENTS ON THIS STORE AND, AND IT LOOKS GOOD. SO THAT'S THE, OUR ONLY REQUEST IS THAT YOU MIGHT CONSIDER THE LONGER TERM THAT RUNS WITH OUR, UH, GROUND LEASE. SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH. HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER THREE? GOOD AFTERNOON. I'M PHIL PERRY AND 36 10 NORTH VERSAILLES AND I'M HERE REPRESENTING OAKLAWN COMMITTEE AND I JUST WANT TO VERIFY THAT THIS WAS SUPPORTED BY OAKLAWN COMMITTEE AND UM, WE'D LIKE TO SEE IT MOVE FORWARD. ANY OTHER SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM? COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? I DO. THANK YOU MR. CHAIR IN THE MATTER OF Z DASH 26 DASH 0 0 0 0 2 3, I MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS FOR A 10 YEAR PERIOD WITHOUT AUTO RENEWAL. OKAY, THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HAMPTON FOR YOUR MOTION. COMMISSIONER CARPENTER FOR YOUR SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? I'LL JUST, UM, THANK THE APPLICANT, UM, AND THEIR LONG-TERM COMMITMENT TO THE COMMUNITY. UM, THIS IS AN SUP THAT IS FOR THE ADJACENT PARKING LOT, UM, NOT THEIR CORE USE. UM, WHEN THIS WAS ORIGINALLY APPROVED, I THINK, UM, GOING ON ABOUT FIVE YEARS AGO NOW, THERE WERE INITIALLY SOME ISSUES WITH THE LANDSCAPING. UM, THEY'VE GOTTEN EVERYTHING THAT WAS A PRIOR CONCERN ADDRESSED AND RESOLVED AND I'M GRATEFUL FOR THAT. IT WAS REFLECTED IN THE, UM, SUPPORT OF THE OAK LAWN COMMITTEE AND THEY HAD ONE MEETING WHERE THEY WERE APPROVED. SO I THINK THAT SPEAKS TO THE FACT THAT THEY ADDRESSED COMMUNITY CONCERNS AND LOOK FORWARD TO SUPPORTING THEM ON AN ONGOING BASIS AND HOPEFULLY A LONGER PERIOD NEXT TIME THERE BEFORE US. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT. UM, I WAS JUST WONDERING IF [00:55:01] MAYBE COMMISSIONER HAMPTON COULD EXPLAIN WHY THE, THE FIVE YEAR RENEWAL WAS NOT OFFERED IN HER MOTION. I HAD ADDRESSED THAT WITH THE APPLICANT WHEN WE MET WITH THEM ORIGINALLY AND HAD A DISCUSSION WITH THEM REGARDING WHAT THE RECOMMENDED TIME PERIOD WAS AND JUST MAKING SURE THAT THEY REMAINED, THEY ARE, THEIR BUSINESS IN THIS LOT ARE SPLIT BY A STREET AND THERE HAD BEEN PREVIOUS ISSUES WITH HOW THAT STREET WAS OPERATING AND JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE REMAIN COMPLIANT WITH THE OVERALL CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. DID YOU HAVE FURTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? UM, I'M STILL LEFT WITH QUESTIONS, BUT THAT'S FINE. THANKS. OKAY. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? COMMISSIONERS? WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CARPENTER TO APPROVE SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS BUT FOR A 10 YEAR PERIOD WITHOUT AUTO RENEWALS. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED, SAY NAY. THE MOTION CARRIES ITEM NUMBER FOUR. [4. 26-1254A An application for a new Specific Use Permit for a commercial amusement (inside) limited to a dance hall on property zoned Planned Development District 498, the Harry Hines Corridor Special Purpose District, on the northwest corner of Harry Hines Boulevard and Joe Field Road. Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to a site plan and conditions. Applicant: Club Babylon / Troy Clark Planner: Justin Lee Council District: 6 Z-26-000021] ITEM FOUR, AN APPLICATION FOR A NEW SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR A COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT INSIDE LIMITED TO A DANCE HALL ON PROPERTY ZONE PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 4 98, THE HARRY HINES CORRIDOR SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICT ON THE NORTH NORTHWEST CORNER OF HARRY HINES BOULEVARD AND JAIL FIELD ROAD STAFF. RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL SUBJECT TO SITE PLANNING CONDITIONS. THANK YOU MR. LEE. IS THERE ANYONE WHO'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER FOUR? NO SPEAKERS. COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? YES ON THE MATTER OF Z TWO SIX DASH 0 0 0 2 1. I MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND NOT FOLLOW STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL BUT TO MOVE TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER CARPENTER FOR YOUR MOTION. VICE CHAIR HERBERT FOR YOUR SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? JUST THAT THE APPLICANT, UH, REQUESTED THIS DENIAL 'CAUSE THEY'RE LOOKING AT A OR CONSIDERING A NEW LOCATION. OKAY, GREAT. ANYONE ELSE WITH COMMENTS? NO FURTHER COMMENTS. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED, SAY NAY. THE MOTION CARRIES ITEM [6. 26-1256A An application for an amendment to Specific Use Permit 1997 for an open-enrollment charter school on property located within Tract 2 of Planned Development District 37, on the west corner of Hargrove Drive and Sheila Lane. Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to amended site plan, traffic management plan, and amended conditions. Applicant: Uplift Education / Alex Berk Representative: Baldwin Associates, LLC / Rob Baldwin Planner: Liliana Garza Council District: 6 Z-26-000010 / Z212-320] NUMBER SIX. ITEM NUMBER SIX IS CASE Z DASH 26 DASH 0 0 0 10 SLASH UH, Z TWO 12 DASH 3 2 0. IT'S AN APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO SPECIFIC USE PERMIT 1997 FOR AN OPEN ENROLLMENT CHARTER SCHOOL ON PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN TRACK TWO OF LUM DISTRICT 37 ON THE WEST CORNER OF HARGROVE DRIVE AND SHAYLA LANE STATE RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO AMENDED SITE PLAN, TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN AND AMENDED CONDITIONS. THANK YOU MS. GARCIA. ANYONE WHO'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? OKAY, NO SPEAKERS. COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? YES, IN THE MATTER OF Z DASH 26 DASH 0 0 0 0 1 OH SLASH Z TWO 12 SLASH UH DASH 3 2 0. I MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND FOLLOW STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL, BUT FOR A FIVE YEAR PERIOD WITH NO AUTOMATIC, WITH NO ELIGIBILITY FOR AUTO RENEWALS, SUBJECT TO AN AMENDED SITE PLAN, TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN, AND AMENDED CONDITIONS. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER CARPENTER FOR YOUR MOTION. COMMISSIONER HAMPTON FOR YOUR SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? YES, I JUST WANT TO, UH, YOU KNOW, POINT OUT THAT UM, YOU KNOW, THE ORIGINAL CASE WAS FILED ALMOST FOUR YEARS AGO. IT'S A Z TWO 12 AND IT WAS NO, UM, FAULT OF THE APPLICANT, MR. BALDWIN, MS. GARZA, WHO RECENTLY GOT THE CASE OR ANY PROBLEM FROM ME OR THE COMMUNITY. THIS WAS JUST A CASE THAT, UM, DUE TO SOME INTERNAL ERROR GOT, UM, GOT KIND OF LOST AND THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN CONTINUOUSLY NOTICED ALL THIS TIME. THAT'S IMPRESSIVE. ANY, UH, FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED, SAY NAY. THE MOTION CARRIES ONTO NUMBER EIGHT. [8. 26-1258A An application for MU-1 Mixed Use District on property zoned MF-2(A) Multifamily District, on the north line of Great Trinity Forest Way, between Hillburn Drive and N. Murdeaux Lane. Staff Recommendation: Approval. Applicant: DDC, Inc., S.I. Abed Planner: Liliana Garza Council District: 5 Z-25-000238] ITEM ITEM NUMBER EIGHT IS KS Z DASH 2 5 2 3 8. IT'S AN APPLICATION FOR MU ONE MIXED DISTRICT ON PROPERTY ZONE MF TWO TWO, A MULTIFAMILY DISTRICT ON THE NORTH LINE OF GRAY TRINITY FOREST WAY BETWEEN HILLBORN DRIVE AND NORTH MOR LANE. RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL. THANK YOU MS. GARZA. IS THERE ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER EIGHT? NO SPEAKERS. COMMISSIONER SERRA, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? I DO. UM, IN THE MATTER OF CASE Z 2 5 0 0 0 2 3 8, I MOVE TO CLOSE A PUBLIC HEARING AND GO AGAINST STAFF RECOMMENDATION. MOVING TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE. WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SERATO, SECONDED BY THE VICE CHAIR, UM, TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE [01:00:01] ANY DISCUSSION? UM, YES JUST TO, I I'VE SPOKEN TO SEVERAL OF MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS ABOUT THIS CASE. UM, THIS IS, UH, A NEW DEVELOPMENT, UM, THAT, UM, IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT WILL, WE'VE SEEN A FEW OF THESE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. SO IT'S ONE OF THOSE LARGE GAS STATIONS WITH A LAUNDROMAT AND LIKE RIA ALL MIXED INTO ONE. UM, WITHIN ONE MILE OF THIS PROPOSED SITE, THERE IS ALREADY ONE FAILED ESTABLISHMENT LIKE THIS. VERY SIMILAR. UM, IT'S CLOSED DOWN. UM, I'M CALLING THESE SORT OF LIKE GAS STATION GRAVEYARDS THAT WE'RE STARTING TO SEE ALL OVER THE NEIGHBORHOOD. UM, THERE IS ANOTHER ONE LESS THAN TWO MILES AWAY FROM THIS VERY SITE, UM, SIMILAR GAS STATION, WASHATERIA, UH, RIA, ALL IN ONE. UM, SO THERE ARE SEVERAL FAILED BUSINESSES JUST LIKE THIS ONE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND, UM, YOU KNOW, ONCE YOU BUILD UP A FACILITY LIKE THAT AND THE BUSINESS FAILS, IT'S NOT VERY LIKELY THAT IT'LL BE TURNED INTO SOMETHING ELSE. UM, SO IT'S DIFFICULT TO CONVERT A SPACE LIKE THAT INTO SOMETHING NEW AND SOMETHING DIFFERENT. AND SO I DON'T WANNA SEE ANOTHER ONE OF THESE DEVELOPED IN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS. SO, UM, I HOPE MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS WILL SUPPORT ANY OTHER DISCUSSION. COMMISSIONERS. OKAY, WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SERATO, SECONDED BY THE VICE CHAIR TO DENY THE APPLICATION WITHOUT PREJUDICE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? SAY NAY. THE MOTION CARRIES ITEM [10. 26-1260A An application for MH(A) Manufactured Home and CR Community Retail Districts on property zoned R-10(A) Single Family and A(A) Agricultural Districts, on the east line of Haymarket Road, and the south line of Hazelcrest Drive. Staff Recommendation: Approval. Applicant: Jon Kendall / 1916 Club Development LLC Representative: Jonathan Vinson/ Jackson Walker LLP Planner: Mona Hashemi Council District: 8 Z-26-000015] 10 THAT WAS ON CONSENT, THAT WAS LIKE FORM KZ 26 0 0 0 0 1 5. AN APPLICATION FOR MH MANUFACTURED HOME AND CR COMMUNITY RETAIL DISTRICTS ON PROPERTY ZONED ART AND SINGLE FAMILY AND A AGRICULTURAL DISTRICTS ON THE EAST LINE OF HAY MARKET ROAD AND THE SOUTH LINE OF HAZEL CREST DRIVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL. MR. VINCENT? GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIR MEMBERS OF COMMISSION. MY NAME IS JONATHAN VINCENT, 2323 ROSS AVENUE, UH, REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT 1916 CLUB DEVELOPMENT. UH, WE'VE HAD SOME VERY, UH, IMPORTANT AND INVALUABLE FEEDBACK FROM CITY OFFICIALS AND FROM THE COMMUNITY AND BECAUSE OF THAT WE'RE ALL ALIGNED ON RECASTING THIS AS A PLAN DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION SO WE CAN INCORPORATE SPECIFICALLY SOME, UH, IMPORTANT ITEMS. SO I'M HERE BEFORE YOU TODAY TO ASK FOR THIS TO BE HELD OVER TO MAY 7TH, UH, TO GIVE US THE CHANCE TO, OF COURSE, RE-NOTICE IT AND, UH, TURN IN PROPOSE CONDITIONS SO WE CAN CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THE COMMUNITY AND WITH OFFICIALS. SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU MR. VINCENT. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER 10? WE'RE JUST ON PUBLIC SPEAKERS RIGHT NOW. OKAY. COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? I DO. MR. CHAIR. SO IN THE MATTER OF Z DASH 26 DASH 0 0 0 0 15, I MOVE TO KEEP THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AND HOLD IT THIS MATTER UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL MAY THE SEVENTH, 2026 AND REQUEST THAT STAFF, WE NOTICE THE CASE IN THE MATTER AS A PD. OKAY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR, UH, MR. PEPPY WAS DO WE NEED, DOES THAT MOTION WORK? DO WE NEED SOMETHING? I, I DID JUST WANNA SAY WE DON'T HAVE A PLAN DEVELOPMENT, YOU KNOW, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN, WE DON'T HAVE CONDITIONS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. I WOULD SAY THAT TYPICALLY FOR A PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, THERE'S A LOT MORE THAT GOES IN THAN A GENERAL ZONE CHANGE. WE MAY NEED MORE TIME THAN THAT. UM, IF WE WANT TO GET EVEN CLOSE TO HAVING A GOOD, GOOD RECOMMENDATION BY THAT NEXT ONE. UM, SO I, THAT'S THE NEXT POSSIBLE ONE, BUT I, I THINK OUR STAFF WOULD BE MORE COMFORTABLE WITH MORE TIME 'CAUSE PD NEEDS WITH A PLAN ESPECIALLY IS GONNA NEED REVIEW WITH A, A COUPLE DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS. COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN, DO YOU HAVE THE, ARE YOU WANNA MODIFY YOUR MOTION? ARE YOU NO, I, I WOULD LIKE TO KEEP THAT DATE. THEY'VE BEEN WORKING ON THE, UH, THE PD FOR, FOR A WHILE. THEY HAD SOMETHING PRIOR TO COMING IN, SO I THINK WE CAN GET IT, UH, VERY CLOSE TO FINISH HERE SHORTLY TO GET IT OVER TO STAFF AND MEET THAT MAY 7TH DATE. OKAY. UM, ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALRIGHT, WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN SECOND BY COMMISSIONER HOUSE RIGHTSY HOLD THE CASE UNTIL, UH, MAY 7TH. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? SAY NAY. THE MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. ITEM NUMBER 12. [12. 26-1262A 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. Landmark Commission Recommendation: Approval. Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to preservation criteria, with edits. Applicant: Bishop Madison LLC Representative: AJ Ramler U/A From: March 5, 2026. Planner: Rhonda Dunn, Ph.D. Council District: 1 Z-26-000030] [01:05:13] GOOD AFTERNOON. THIS IS DR. RHONDA DUNN SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF CITY STAFF. THE ITEM NUMBER IS ITEM NUMBER 12. THE CASE NUMBER IS Z 26 DASH 0 0 0 30. THE REQUEST IS FOR AN APPLICATION FOR A HISTORIC OVERLAY FOR THE WESLEY INN AT 1159 NORTH MADISON AVENUE ON PROPERTY ZONED PD EIGHT 30 SUB DISTRICT ONE BISHOP AVENUE TO ADD THE ADDITIONAL USE OF LODGING, SHORT TERM AND LONG TERM ACCOMMODATIONS ON THE NORTH SIDE OF NORTH MADISON AVENUE AND WEST OF BALLARD AVENUE. LANDMARK COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL, STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE PRESERVATION CRITERIA WITH EDITS. THANK YOU DR. DUNN. UM, I SEE THE APPLICANT IS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ONLINE. IS IS HE ONLINE? I'M HERE. OH, YOU'RE HERE. PERFECT. THIS ONE. I'M AJ RAMBLER, 1923 NORTH EDGEFIELD, DALLAS, TEXAS 7 5 2 0 8. UM, I HAVE A SLIDE DECK. I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS SHARED WITH CPC. NO, MAYBE NOT. OKAY, COOL. VERY GOOD. SO, UM, I'M AJ WITH PROXY PROPERTY. UM, I'M ONE OF THE FOUNDERS OF PROXY. WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON HISTORIC PROPERTIES IN THE OAK CLIFF, UH, AREA OF DALLAS FOR 13 YEARS. WE'VE COMPLETED OVER 50 PROJECTS. UH, WE'VE NEVER TORN ANYTHING DOWN AND WE'VE NEVER BUILT ANYTHING NEW. WE'VE STRICTLY FOCUSED ON DOING RESTORATION WORK. THIS IS THE MADISON HOTEL ORIGINALLY BUILT AS THE WESLEY INN. THIS IS IT TODAY. THIS IS A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE HISTORY. WE COULD JUST CELEBRATE A HUNDRED YEARS OF HISTORY, UH, THIS YEAR, WHICH IS COOL. IT WAS ORIGINALLY BUILT TO SERVE METHODIST HOSPITAL. UM, IT WAS COMPLETED ACTUALLY THE YEAR BEFORE, BUT METHODIST HOSPITAL TOOK FOUR YEARS TO BUILD. SO IT STARTED AFTER METHODIST STARTED AND COMPLETED BEFORE METHODIST WAS COMPLETED. UM, UP HERE WE HAVE GEORGE KEEN, HE WAS THE BUILDER. HE ALSO OWNED THE LUMBERYARD ON BECKLEY, RIGHT WHERE FOR ANYBODY? PRESERVATIONIST FRIENDS. RIGHT NEXT, RIGHT NEXT TO DAVIS HANH LUMBER. UM, AND THIS IS AN OLD AD FROM IT. IT'S KIND OF COOL SHOWING WHERE THEY WERE LEASING THE ROOMS. IT OPERATED UNDER SEVERAL DIFFERENT NAMES THROUGHOUT THE YEARS. UM, BUT IT'S CONTINUALLY OPERATED UNDER THE HOTEL USE FOR A HUNDRED YEARS. SO WE'RE HERE TO UM, HOPEFULLY MAKE IT A LANDMARK. WE ALREADY GET TO STEWARD, UM, THREE OTHER DALLAS LANDMARKS. SO THIS WOULD BE THE F FOURTH ONE TO STEWARD. UM, THIS IS SOME OF THE BEFORE PICTURE. OH, MY SLIDES. THERE WE GO. HERE WE GO. THAT'S SOME OF THE BEFORE PICTURES THAT CAUGHT ON FIRE RIGHT BEFORE WE PURCHASED IT. 'CAUSE AS YOU CAN SEE, IT WAS IN VERY BAD CONDITION. SO THIS IS WHERE IT SITS TODAY. UM, IT'S KEPT THE ORIGINAL LAYOUT, 27 ROOMS. IT'S STILL 27 ROOMS TODAY. UH, THAT'S ALL I HAVE. THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS IN SUPPORT ON THIS ITEM? OKAY, WE'LL GO TO OUR SPEAKERS IN OPPOSITION. NO SPEAKERS IN OPPOSITION. COMMISSIONER SIMS, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? I DO MR. CHAIR IN THE MATTER OF CASE NUMBER Z DASH 26 DASH 0 0 0 0 3 0. I MOVE TO FOLLOW STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL SUBJECT TO PRESERVATION CRITERIA WITH EDITS WITH THE ADDITIONAL EDIT THAT WE WILL STRIKE SECTION 9.1 SUBSECTION I OFFICE. OKAY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR MOTION. COMMISSIONER SIMS, VICE CHAIR HERBERT FOR YOUR SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? NO DISCUSSION. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED, SAY NAY. THE MOTION CARRIES ITEM NUMBER [13. 26-1263A An application for WMU-3 Walkable Mixed Use Subdistrict C on property zoned Residential Transition Subdistrict A within Planned Development 468, the Oak Cliff Gateway Special Purpose District, on the west corner of N. Madison Avenue and Ballard Avenue. Staff Recommendation: Approval. Applicant: Sarkis J. Kechejian / Kechejian Enterprises, LP Representative: Terri McMorris / Kechejian Enterprises, LP U/A From: March 26, 2026. Planner: Liliana Garza Council District: 1 Z-26-000012] 13. [01:10:18] ITEM NUMBER 13 IS KZ DASH 26 DASH 0 0 0 0 1 2. AN APPLICATION FOR WMU THREE WALKABLE MIXED USE SUBDISTRICT C ON PROPERTY ZONE RESIDENTIAL TRANSITION. SUBDISTRICT A WITHIN PLAN DEVELOPMENT, 4 68, THE OAK LIVE GATEWAY SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICT ON THE WEST CORNER OF NORTH MADISON AVENUE AND BAYLOR AVENUE STATE RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL. THANK YOU, MS. GARZA. THERE ANY SPEAKERS IN SUPPORT OF ITEM NUMBER 13? THANK YOU. UH, MY NAME IS DAVID JONES, 65 10 CLUBHOUSE CIRCLE, DALLAS, 7 5 2 4 0. UH, I AM A COMMERCIAL BROKER AND I REPRESENT THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, SAR CHECHEN. DR. CHECHEN, UH, DR. CHECHEN HAS OWNED PROPERTY IN THIS IMMEDIATE AREA SINCE 1970. HE OWNS THE TWO OFFICE BUILDINGS ACROSS THE STREET AS WELL AS THE DUPLEX ACROSS THE STREET, AND HE'S OWNED THIS VACANT LOT AT THE CORNER OF MADISON AND BALLARD SINCE 1995. UM, HE'S BASICALLY DECIDED TO GO AHEAD AND DEVELOP THE PROPERTY AT THE CORNER AND HAS BASICALLY SUBMITTED THE APPLICATION TO CHANGE THE ZONING FOR WMU THREE WALKABLE MISUSE DISTRICT. THE STAFF RECOMMENDED APPROVAL. THE CONCEPT IS TO BUILD THREE RESIDENTIAL, UH, UNITS AND A SMALL OFFICE AT THE VERY BEGINNING. UH, THE NEIGHBORS OBJECTED TO SOME OF THE POTENTIAL USES THAT COULD BE INVOLVED IN THE OFFICE SPACE IF SOMETHING WERE TO HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE. AND THEY BASICALLY SENT, UH, DR. CHECHEN A LIST OF THOSE ITEMS THAT, THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO SEE EXCLUDED AS A BUYRIGHT USE IN THE FUTURE. UH, WE RESPONDED TO THAT. WE THOUGHT WE WERE IN AGREEMENT, DR. KITCH, AND WOKE UP THE NEXT MORNING AND DECIDED THAT HE WAS A LITTLE CONCERNED ABOUT THE, UH, RECOMMENDATION TO BASICALLY TAKE THE EXCLUSIONS UNDER THE, UH, UMBRELLA OF A PRI OF A PUBLIC DEED RESTRICTION. BUT HE'S BASICALLY GONE AHEAD AND AGREED TO THAT. AND SO WE'VE SUBMITTED TO THE COMMISSIONER SIMS THAT WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE THREE AREAS THAT WE'RE AGREEING TO EXCLUDE FROM BUYRIGHT AUTHORIZATION, WHICH IS BARS AND RESTAURANTS, INDOOR RECREATION, AND OF COURSE, OVERNIGHT LODGINGS SINCE THERE SEEMS TO BE ENOUGH OF THOSE ROOMS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. UM, BUT WE APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK WITH THE, THE STAFF, THE COMMISSION, AND THE NEIGHBORS, AND HOPEFULLY EVERYONE'S IN AGREEMENT. THANK YOU. MR. JONES. ARE THERE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS IN SUPPORT? GOOD AFTERNOON AGAIN, UH, SARKA IAN, MY WAY OF HISTORY, UH, I'VE BEEN ON THE METHODIST STAFF. I IN 19 SEVEN. I JOINED THE METHODIST STAFF IN 1970 AND WAS ON STAFF FOR APPROXIMATELY 20 YEARS. I'VE OWNED PROPERTY HERE SINCE 1978, AND AS DAVID MENTIONED, WE OWN THIS CORNER SINCE 1995. UH, YOU KNOW, THE CITY'S BEEN TRYING TO INCREASE DEVELOPMENT, INCREASE THE TAX RATE, AND THEY'VE BEEN VERY EFFECTIVE BECAUSE WE, WE'VE BEEN SITTING ON THIS PROPERTY FOR 20 YEARS, AND OUR TAXES HAVE GONE FROM 14, FROM 1600 TO CURRENTLY 8,000 ON THIS EIGHT, APPROXIMATELY 8,000 SQUARE FOOT OF LAND. SO, UH, WE HAVE MET WITH THE ADJACENT, UH, UH, OR THE MEMBERS OF THE, UH, HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION ON SITE. THEY HAD SOME CONCERNS. UH, UH, WE ASKED IF THEY COULD, IF, UH, WE ASKED IF THEY WOULD, UH, UH, CONSIDER A A, A SUNSET PROVISION. I WAS TOLD BY MR. SIMS THAT PUBLIC DEED RESTRICTIONS ARE NOT POSSIBLE UNDER THAT CATEGORY. SO WE'VE AGREED, AND THE VICE PRESIDENT AND THE HOPE HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION HAVE AGREED WE APPRECIATE POSITIVE VOTE. THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS IN SUPPORT ON THIS ITEM? OKAY, WE'LL MOVE TO OUR SPEAKERS IN OPPOSITION. UH, NO SPEAKER IN, OH, I WAS TOO QUICK. YEAH, YOU WERE MOVING ON. UH, MY NAME IS ROB SHEAR, EIGHT 30 WOODLAWN AVENUE. I'M SPEAKING AS THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE KID SPRINGS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION TODAY. [01:15:01] WE, UH, WE DID NEGOTIATE IN, IN GOOD FAITH, UH, WITH THE APPLICANT, UM, AND WITH THE DEED RESTRICTION, UH, WE'RE, WE'RE SUPPORTIVE. UH, I WILL STATE YOU, YOU GUYS OBVIOUSLY SEE US HERE ON A REGULAR BASIS. UH, KIDS SPRINGS IS FACING A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF DEVELOPMENT PRESSURE, UH, FROM ALL ENDS. UH, WHETHER IT'S BISHOP ARTS OR, OR THE COMMERCIAL AREA AROUND, UH, METHODIST HOSPITAL. YOU'LL SEE US HERE AGAIN, UH, IN THE NEAR FUTURE BECAUSE WE ARE VERY INTENT ON PROTECTING THE HOMEOWNERS AND, AND THE, THE PRIMARILY RESIDENTIAL NATURE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. WE THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT, AND WHEN WE CHIP AWAY AT THE EDGES, IT REALLY HAS AN IMPACT ON THE MIDDLE. SO, UH, WE'RE SUPPORTIVE OF THIS BECAUSE WE BELIEVE IT HAS A LOWER IMPACT THAN IT COULD BE OTHERWISE IF IT WAS JUST LEFT AT, UH, UH, MIXED USE. UM, SO THANK YOU. ANY SPEAKERS IN OPPOSITION? HELLO, MY NAME IS LAURA PALMER. I LIVE AT NINE 11 NORTH MADISON. I LIVE TWO BLOCKS AWAY FROM THIS LOCATION. YOU HAVE SEEN ME UP HERE BEFORE AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF KSNA. I'M NOT SPEAKING TO YOU TODAY AS THAT I'M SPEAKING TO YOU AS A NEIGHBOR HERE, AS SOMEONE WHO HAS GONE THROUGH MULTIPLE ZONING CASES WITH REGARDS TO MY NEIGHBORHOOD THAT HAVE IMPACTED MY STREET. AND I'M TALKING TO YOU ABOUT THAT. I WAS NOT, UH, ON BOARD WITH HAVING CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THIS. IN 2015, WE CAME TO THE TABLE AND WE ARGUED FOR RTN ON THIS LOT. WE DID THAT TO PROTECT THE BLOCK FACE THERE IN THE 1100 BLOCK OF NORTH MADISON TO MAINTAIN IT AS RESIDENTIAL. THE APPLICANT IS NOT TRULY LOOKING TO DO THAT HERE. WE CAME BEFORE YOU IN 2022 WITH A SIMILAR CASE AT THE OTHER END OF MADISON, 6 0 8 NORTH MADISON. THIS BODY VOTED 1320 TO PROTECT MY STREET FROM THE ENCROACHMENT OF DEVELOPMENT. FROM THE ENDS, FROM TAKING BIT BY BIT BY BIT. I'M LOOKING AT COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT, COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, COMMISSIONER RUBIN, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, COMMISSIONER KINGSTON. MS. PALMER, PLEASE DIRECT ALL YOUR REMARKS TO THE CHAIR. I SIMPLY WOULD LIKE TO SAY ALL OF YOU SUPPORTED US IN THAT VOTE IN 2022. I UNDERSTAND THIS IS 2026. HOWEVER, THE ARGUMENTS ARE THE SAME. I EVEN NOTED BY MY FELLOW BOARD MEMBER, EVERY TIME WE HAVE A ZONING CASE BEFORE YOU, IT SHIPS AWAY AT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. THIS IS ANOTHER CHIP. AND HONESTLY, WE DON'T NEED THAT CHIP. WE NEED RESIDENTIAL ON THAT LOT. AND I, AS A RESIDENT OF NORTH MADISON AVENUE, AM ASKING YOU TO PROTECT THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBOR NATURE OF THAT ALONG WITH PROTECTING OUR SCHOOL. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER SPEAKERS IN OPPOSITION? UH, BY RULES, THE APPLICANT GETS A TWO MINUTE REBUTTAL IF YOU'D LIKE. YOU KNOW, WE ARE ON THE EDGE. IF, IF YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH THIS AREA, THIS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION GOES FROM ZANG, UH, WEST, THE KID SPRINGS AREA. REALLY. I'VE BEEN IN THE OAK CLIFF SINCE 1970. THE KID SPRINGS AREA IS WEST OF BISHOP, GOING DOWN TO SYLVAN AND, UH, UH, TYLER IN THAT AREA. DEVELOPMENT IS COMING IN FROM THE EAST METHODIST, AS I SAID, UH, JUST TO THE, JUST TO THE EAST OF THIS INTERSECTION. METHODIST OWNS THE WHOLE BLOCK EXCEPT FOR THE PROPERTIES THAT I HAVE. THEY'VE PURCHASED PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH. DEVELOPMENT IS COMING HERE TO THE NORTH OF US, AS IS THE STRIP SHOPPING CENTER. WE'VE REACHED OUT TO THE IMMEDIATE, UH, HOMEOWNERS AND THEY DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM. [01:20:01] UH, THE PREVIOUS PERSON LAST TIME SAID SHE WAS REPRESENTED AT THE SCHOOL AS A LIAISON. WE'VE REACHED OUT TO THE PRINCIPAL AND SHE DOESN'T HAVE ANY OBJECTIONS OR HASN'T, HASN'T VOICED ANY OBJECTIONS. SO I'M NOT SURE WHAT THIS IS. THIS IS DEVELOPMENT COMING IN. YOU'VE BEEN EFFECTIVE IN RAISING THE, GETTING US TO MOVE BY RAISING TAXES, AND THAT'S GOOD FOR ALL OF US TO INCREASE THE TAX BASE. BUT, UH, UH, REALLY APPRECIATE AND PRAY THAT YOU WOULD, UH, APPROVE THE, UH, DEED RESTRICTION AS, UH, AGREED UPON PREVIOUSLY. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER, OR WAIT? WE'RE DONE WITH SPEAKERS. COMMISSIONER SIMS, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? I DO. MR. CHAIR IN THE MATTER OF CASE NUMBER Z DASH 26 DASH 0 0 0 0 1 2, I MOVE TO FOLLOW STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE DEED RESTRICTIONS VOLUNTEERED BY THE APPLICANT. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER SIMS FOR YOUR MOTION. COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT, UM, FOR YOUR SECOND, ANY DISCUSSION? COMMISSIONER SIMS. GREAT. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. AND, UH, I WANT TO FIRST AND FOREMOST THANK THE, UH, THANK THE APPLICANT AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. I THINK WE ALL AGREE AS I HOPE WE CAN ALL AGREE AS VOLUNTEERS, THAT OUR CITY WORKS BETTER WHEN, UH, CITIZENS PARTICIPATE. AND THIS IS A GREAT EXAMPLE OF CITIZEN PARTICIPATION. I THINK IT IS ALSO A VERY GOOD EXAMPLE OF, UH, CITIZENS WORKING THINGS OUT TO THE BEST OF THEIR ABILITY. UH, INEVITABLY WHEN THERE IS COMPROMISE, NOT EVERYBODY WILL BE HAPPY. AND WE'VE HEARD THAT TODAY. WE'VE HEARD IT LOUD AND CLEAR, BUT I, IN MY VIEW, WHEN YOU LOOK AT WHERE THIS LOT IS AND YOU LOOK AT THE USES ACROSS THE STREET FROM IT TO EITHER SIDE OF IT, UH, AND THIS PARTICULAR USE, WHICH WILL BE A COMBINATION OF RESIDENTIAL AND A VERY LIGHT OFFICE, I THINK IT'S A, AN IDEAL TRANSITION FROM THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD TO THE HEAVIER USES OUTSIDE. AND MR. CHAIR, I URGE MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS TO JOIN ME IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER SIMS? UH, COMMISSIONERS. OTHER DISCUSSION? COMMISSIONER COX? I'D LIKE TO, UH, WHEN WE DO VOTE, REQUEST A ROLL CALL VOTE. WE CAN DO THAT. UM, I DID HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF, AND YOU MAY NOT, THIS, UH, MS. PALMER REFERENCED, I THINK IT WAS A CASE AT 6 0 8 NORTH MADISON. IS THAT RIGHT? YES. YOU WANT THE CASE NUMBER? UH, I DON'T, I DON'T NEED THE CASE NUMBER, BUT THAT THAT'S OKAY. UM, DOES THAT FALL UNDER YOUR REPORT? I CAN'T REMEMBER THE TIMING AND THE, I DON'T THINK IT'S ONE OF THE, IN THE DISTANCE. SO IT'S A FEW BLOCKS AWAY FROM WHERE WE'RE, WE'RE AT, I THINK THREE OR FOUR BLOCKS AWAY. OKAY. WHY? YEAH, I WAS GONNA SAY, SHE MAY NOT BE FAMILIAR. I WORKED ON THAT ONE, BUT I THINK IT'S JUST KIND OF OUT OF THE, THE DISTANCE THAT WE WOULD NORMALLY REPORT ON, IN MY RECOLLECTION OF THAT CASE, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, IS THAT WAS NOT ON THE CORNER OF A CORNER LOT LIKE THIS CASE IS CORRECT. IT'S ACTUALLY, THAT WAS NOT A CORNER LOT. I THINK THERE'S ACTUALLY A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY BETWEEN BISHOP AND THE LOT WHERE THAT, THAT THEY WERE REQUESTING TO REZONE AS SOMETHING NON-RESIDENTIAL. COULD YOU REPHRASE THAT? SORRY, . YEAH, IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, I THINK THIS IS A COUPLE PARCELS IN FROM BISHOP ON MADISON, RIGHT? THE THE OTHER REZONING YEAH. BEING REFERENCED. YEAH, THAT WAS AT MADISON AND, AND DAVIS YOU MEAN? I THINK DAVIS, I APOLOGIZE. SO IT WAS A COUPLE LOT IN FROM DAVIS, NOT THE CORNER OF DAVIS. AND UH, AND IT'S A BIG COMMERCIAL PROPERTY ON THE CORNER, BUT THE, THE SITE THAT THEY WANTED TO REZONE ON THAT END OF MADISON WAS A HOME, CORRECT? YEAH. AND THERE WAS I THINK MAYBE EVEN AN ILLEGAL LAND USE THERE AT THE TIME, OPERATING COMMERCIALLY WITHOUT THE ZONING, CORRECT. I REMEMBER THAT, THAT CONVERSATION, YES. OKAY. SO I I I JUST WANNA SAY THAT I, I JUST WANNA MAKE IT CLEAR FOR THE RECORD BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, NOT EVERYONE WAS HERE AT THE TIME THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS CASE CORNER LOT WITH COMMERCIAL DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET, AND I THINK ON ALL THREE OTHER CORNERS, UM, IS, IS NOT APPLES TO APPLES, BUT THAT CASE THAT WE SAW BACK IN 2022 WHERE IT WAS GOING TO TRY TO TAKE AN EXISTING HOME AND TURN IT INTO A COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENT AND THERE WAS ALREADY AND ILLEGAL ILLEGAL OPERATING COMMERCIAL USE THERE. SO I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT CLEAR BECAUSE IT TOOK ME A SECOND TO REMEMBER WHAT THAT CASE WAS AND, AND I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT, YOU KNOW, NO ZONING CASE SETS A PRECEDENT FOR ANY OTHER ZONING CASE, BUT I, I DON'T REALLY SEE ANY INCONSISTENCY AND OUR DENIAL THERE AND OUR APPROVAL HERE TODAY. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? COMMISSIONER [01:25:01] HAMPTON? JUST ONE QUESTION FOR STAFF. THE PARCEL, SO WE'RE TALKING, THIS SITE IS FRONTING ONTO MADISON. THERE'S A PARCEL, UM, DIRECTLY BEHIND THIS THAT APPEARS TO BE FRONTING ONTO BALLARD. UM, IS THAT ZONING WITHIN PD 4 68? YES. AND DO YOU HAPPEN TO RECALL WHAT THAT, UM, SUBDISTRICT WAS? AND I WILL SAY I HAVE THE MAP UP. I'M HAPPY TO SHARE IT. SO THE, THAT IS WR R THREE, SUBJECT B, UH, WITH AN SH FIVE SHOPFRONT OVERLAY WITHIN PD 4 68. SO IT, IT'S STILL A WALKABLE RESIDENTIAL, BUT INTENDED TO FOSTER, UM, FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS, UM, TRANSPARENCY REQUIREMENTS. SO IS THAT GENERALLY CONSISTENT WITH WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED ON THIS CORNER LOT? SO, UM, THE WR R IS NOT RESIDE NEUTRAL. YEAH, IT'S STRAIGHT RESIDENTIAL DOES NOT ALLOW THE OFFICE, WHICH IS WHAT THEY'RE ONE OF THE USES THAT THEY'RE PROPOSING. OKAY. AND SO WE'RE GONNA HAVE A RESIDENTIAL BLOCK FACE, UM, OF LOW DENSITY MIXED USE. WE'RE PROHIBITING SOME OF THE MORE INTENSE USES. UM, BUT IS THERE ANYTHING THAT WOULD REQUIRE THEM, IT IS A WMU DISTRICT, BUT IT'S NOT REQUIRED TO BE MIXED USE, IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT. AND SO, UM, COULD IT ALL BE, UM, AND I'M GONNA USE THIS BROADLY, A COMMERCIAL USE? YES. OKAY. AND THEN WE'VE GOT WR THREE BEHIND IT, WHICH IS RESIDENTIAL AND THEN UM, FURTHER TO THE GENERALLY NORTH THAT'S CURRENTLY DEVELOPED AS A RETAIL, UH, AREA, UH, PROPERTY ALONG COLORADO. YEAH. UH, ALONG BALLARD? YES. YES. OKAY, THANK YOU. UM, I APPRECIATE COMMISSIONER SIMS WORKS ON THIS. I KNOW THIS IS NOT THE VISION OF, UM, ALL COMMUNITY MEMBERS. IT IS A VARIANCE. UM, IT COULD BE ALL COMMERCIAL, AND THAT'S PARTLY WHY I WANTED TO ASK THOSE QUESTIONS IS I RECOGNIZE THAT THAT IS POTENTIAL I AND MY DISTRICT AND, UM, MANY PLACES IN OUR CITY, WE HAVE A LOT OF THESE CORNER LOTS, THESE WHERE WE'VE GOT TRANSITIONS BETWEEN USES AND TRYING TO STRIKE THE BALANCE BETWEEN ADDING USES, ADDING GROWTH, ALLOWING REDEVELOPMENT, WHILE STILL HONORING THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. UM, I AM GOING TO SUPPORT THIS REQUEST AND I UNDERSTAND THE DIFFICULTY, UM, THAT THE COMMUNITY IS SEEING. WE HAVE MANY, MANY AREAS OF OUR TOWN THAT ARE HAVING THESE SAME, UM, DEVELOPMENT PRESSURES THAT ARE COMING IN. AND STRIKING THAT BALANCE IS A HARD THING TO DO. UM, I THINK THIS GOES SUBSTANTIALLY IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION, AND THAT IS WHAT IS LEADING ME TO SUPPORT. I WILL SAY WITHOUT THE OFFER OF THE DEED RESTRICTIONS AND THOSE MORE INTENSE USES, I PROBABLY WOULD'VE COME TO A DIFFERENT OUTCOME. UM, BUT AS THIS IS CRAFTED BEFORE US TODAY, UM, I APPRECIATE COMMISSIONER SIMS CONTINUED WORK ON THIS AND I WILL BE SUPPORTING THE REQUEST. THANK YOU, COMMERS. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? COMMISSIONER KINGSTON? I ECHO COMMISSIONER HAMPTON'S STATEMENTS. UM, MANY AREAS OF MY DISTRICT HAVE SOME OF THE SAME ISSUES THAT THIS IS PRESENTS AND, YOU KNOW, A THE FACT THAT IT'S VACANT AND HAS BEEN VACANT, UM, INDICATES TO ME THAT THIS ISN'T A SITE THAT SOMEBODY'S CLAMORING TO PUT A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE ON. UM, AND I THINK THAT THE PROPOSED USE WITH THE DEED RESTRICTIONS MAKES THIS A GOOD TRANSITIONAL USE. UM, WITHOUT THE DEED RESTRICTIONS, I WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO SUPPORT THIS, UM, ZONING CHANGE. BUT WITH THE DEED RESTRICTIONS, I THINK THOSE DEED RESTRICTIONS GO A LONG WAY TOWARDS, UH, PROTECTING THE SANCTITY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD WHILE ALLOWING FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS SITE IN A WAY THAT PROVIDES A GOOD TRANSITIONAL USE. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONERS. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? OKAY, SEEING NONE. WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SIMS, SECONDED BY THE VICE CHAIR TO FOLLOW STATUS, RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL, BUT WITH DEED RESTRICTIONS VOLUNTEERED BY THE APPLICANT. AND WE HAVE A ROLL CALL, VOTE REQUESTED. DISTRICT ONE? YES. DISTRICT TWO AYE. DISTRICT THREE? YES. DISTRICT FOUR, DISTRICT FIVE? YES. DISTRICT SIX? YES. DISTRICT SEVEN, DISTRICT EIGHT? YES. DISTRICT NINE? YES. DISTRICT 10? YES. DISTRICT 11? YES. DISTRICT 12? YES. DISTRICT 13? YES. DISTRICT 14? [01:30:01] YES. AND PLACE 15? YES. OKAY. THE MOTION CARRIES. MOVE [14. 26-1285A 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 and March 5, 2026. Planner: Martin Bate Council District: 13 Z-25-000121] ON TO CASE NUMBER 14. CASE NUMBER 14 IS Z 2 5 0 0 1 21. IT'S AN APPLICATION FOR RT AND RESIDENTIAL TRANSITION DISTRICT ON PROPERTIES ON R 16, A SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SHAN ROAD AND PRESTON ROAD. STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL. OKAY. UM, ARE THERE ANY SPEAKERS ON ITEM NUMBER 14? OKAY. SEEING NONE. COMMISSIONER HALL, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? THANK YOU MR. CHAIR. UH, REGARDING CASES Z 25 0 0 0 1 21, UH, I MOVE THAT WE KEEP THE PUBLIC RECORD OPEN AND PLACE THIS ITEM UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL APRIL 23RD, 2026. IF I GET A SECOND, I HAVE A COMMENT OR TWO TO MAKE. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER HALL FOR YOUR MOTION. VICE CHAIR, UH, HERBERT FOR YOUR SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? COMMISSIONER HALL. THANK YOU. UM, UH, I'M NOT HAPPY ABOUT PLACING THIS UNDER ADVISEMENT. ONCE AGAIN, UH, THIS SEEMS TO BE A CASE THAT DOES NOT WANT TO BE RESOLVED, BUT SINCE OUR LAST HEARING, SEVERAL THINGS REGARDING THIS CASE HAVE COME UP. UH, FIRST, THE APPLICANTS FROM THE DALLAS AREA TORAH ASSOCIATION FOLLOWED THE ORTHODOX TRADITION AND REALIZED THAT THEY COULD NOT ATTEND TODAY AS THIS IS THE LAST DAY OF PASSOVER. SECOND, THE SHAN ROAD COMMUNITY MEMBERS RECENTLY APPLIED FOR A HISTORICAL DISTRICT DESIGNATION, AND WE NEEDED TO GET CLARITY ON THE IMPACT OF THIS FILING ON THE CASE. UH, CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE NOW ADVISES THAT SINCE, UH, THAT UH, THE ZONING CASE CAN MOVE, UH, TO RESOLUTION AT THE SAME TIME AS, UH, THE HISTORICAL DESIGNATION CONSIDERATIONS THE ISSUE WOULD COME IN FOR THE APPLICANT IN THE PERMITTING PROCESS AND SO FORTH. AND THIRD, BOTH THE COMMUNITY MEMBERS AND APPLICANTS WANTED TO HOLD ONE MORE COMMUNITY MEETING PRIOR TO A HEARING ON THIS CASE. ONE HAS BEEN SCHEDULED FOR APRIL 15TH OR 16TH. UH, THANK YOU. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE. WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HALL, SECONDED BY THE VICE CHAIR TO HOLD THE CASE UNTIL, UH, APRIL 23RD. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED, SAY NAY. THE MOTION CARRIES. WE'LL [15. 26-1264A An application for MU-1 Mixed-Use District on property zoned LI Light Industrial District, on the south line of Compton Street, west of Glidden Street. Staff Recommendation: Approval. Applicant: New Wave Real Estate Investors LLC / Caster Dickerson U/A From: March 5, 2026. Planner: Oscar Aguilera Council District: 4 Z-25-000200] MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER 15. GOOD AFTERNOON. UH, UH, MR. CHAIR MEMBERS OF THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION. ITEM 15 IS AN APPLICATION FOR, UH, MIXED USE DISTRICT M1 ON A PROPERTY ZONE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT LOCATED ON THE SOUTH LINE OF, UH, HAMPTON STREET, WEST OF, UH, GLEEDEN STREET. THE STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL. THANK YOU MR. AGUILERA. IS THERE ANYONE HERE WHO'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER 15? OKAY, NO SPEAKERS ON ITEM NUMBER 15. COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? YES. IN THE MATTER OF Z DASH TWO FIVE DASH 0 0 0 2 0 0. I MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND FOLLOW STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL. GREAT. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER CARPENTER FOR MOTION. COMMISSIONER SIMS FOR YOUR SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED, SAY NAY. THE MOTION CARRIES. IT IS 1 23. LET'S TAKE A 10 MINUTE BREAK AND BE BACK AT 1 33. ALRIGHT, COMMISSIONERS, IT IS 1:38 PM AND WE ARE BACK ON THE RECORD. UM, JUST A LITTLE BIT OF HOUSEKEEPING ITEMS. NUMBER 17 AND 18, UM, THE, WHICH 18 IS THE CODE, PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT AND 17 IS THE D 14 CASE AND PD 1 93 WILL BE PUSHED TO THE END OF OUR DOCKET TO, UM, ACCOMMODATE A FEW THINGS. [16. 26-1286A 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 and March 5, 2026. Planner: Martin Bate Council District: 7 Z-25-000198 / Z245-211] SO WE'LL GO TO ITEM NUMBER 16, MR. BA. THANK YOU. ITEM 16 IS CASE Z 2 5 1 98, ALSO KNOWN AS Z 2 45 2 1 1. AN APPLICATION FOR ONE, I AM INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURING DISTRICT AND TWO, A NEW SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR INDUSTRIAL INSIDE POTENTIALLY INCOMPATIBLE INDUSTRIAL USE. A PROPERTY ZONED CR COMMUNITY RETAIL DISTRICT. AND I AM AN INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURING DISTRICT WITH SPECIFIC USE PERMIT NINE THREE FOR AN ELECTRIC SUBSTATION ON A PORTION ON THE NORTH LINE OF CYAN ROAD EAST OF THE UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD STAFF'S. RECOMMENDATION IS DENIAL. THANK YOU MR. BATE. ARE THERE ANY SPEAKERS ON [01:35:01] THIS ITEM? NO ONE HAS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ONLINE. COMMISSIONER WHEELER, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? APOLOGIES. UM, YES, IN THE MATTER OF Z 2 5 0 1 9 8, I MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, UM, AND FOLLOW STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF DENIAL, BUT WITH PREJUDICE. AND I HAVE, I HAVE, UH, COMMENTS. OKAY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR MOTION. COMMISSIONER WHEELER, YOUR SECOND COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, YOUR COMMENTS COMMISSIONER WHEELER. UM, WE, WE HAD TWO COMMUNITY MEETINGS, ONE IN THE BEGINNING OF MAY, I MEAN MARCH, AND THEN WE HAD ONE ON, UH, LAST MAYBE THIS LAST TUESDAY. LAST TUESDAY? OR THIS, YEAH, LAST TUESDAY. UM, AND THE COMMUNITY OVERWHELMINGLY DID NOT WANT, UM, THIS PROJECT. UM, WE DID GET TO MEET WITH THE PROPERTY OWNERS WHO VOICE DID FALL. THEY DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT, UM, THAT WE HAD ASKED FOR COMMUNITY MEETINGS. UM, THEY HAD IN THE PAST, UM, MAYBE THEY SAID IN THE LATE EIGHTIES, AND THE EAR IN THE EARLY TWO THOUSANDS WENT IN FOR SOME DIFFERENT USES AND IT WAS ALWAYS DENIED. SO THIS WAS WHAT THEY CAME UP WITH. THEY SENT US OVER SOMETHING FROM 2008 SHOWING THAT THEY HAD, YOU KNOW, LOOKED AT OTHER LAND USES THAT DID INCLUDE RESIDENTIAL AND WAS, AND WAS KIND OF CUT OFF. AND SO, UM, UM, THIS WAS WHAT THEY, THEY CAME UP WITH THROUGH THEIR APPLICANT. THE PERSON, I MEAN THEIR REPRESENTATIVE. UM, BUT WE, THEY OVERWHELMINGLY FROM PARKDALE, PARKDALE COMMUNITY, PARKDALE LONGVIEW, COMMUNITY DIXON, DIXON CIRCLE, BERT TRAIN, AND ROSE GARDEN COMMUNITY. THE NEIGHBORHOODS THAT'S A CLOSE IN PROXIMITY TO THIS OVERWHELMINGLY SAID NO. AND THOSE IN THE GREATER SOUTH DALLAS FAIR PARK WAS LIKE, THIS IS A USE THAT IS DETRIMENTAL TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND NOT, UM, WILL NOT HELP THE COMMUNITY AND ALL MAKE NOTATION THAT WE DO HAVE A TRAIL. UM, THE LOOP THAT IS CONNECTING ALL THE TRAILS THROUGH THE CITY OF, UH, THROUGH THE CITY OF DALLAS IS ALSO, UM, ADJACENT TO THIS PROJECT. COMMISSIONERS. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? I I, JUST ON MY END, I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THIS IS A STRAIGHT DENIAL WITH PREJUDICE. CORRECT. I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT I UNDERSTAND THE IMPLICATIONS OF THAT BECAUSE THAT MEANS UNLESS THEY SEEK A WAIVER, THEY CANNOT COME BACK FOR ANOTHER TWO YEARS TO REZONE THE PROPERTY. IS THAT CORRECT? SORRY, IS THAT MR. BA? OH, THAT WAS, UH, YEAH, THAT IS CORRECT. IF IT'S A DENIAL, A STRAIGHT DENIAL OR DENIAL WITH PREJUDICE, UM, IT DOES NOT ALLOW YOU YOU TO REQUEST A ZONING CHANGE ON THE AREA OF REQUEST FOR THE SUBJECT SITE, UH, WITHOUT FIRST GETTING A WAIVER. UH, SO IT'S SORT OF A TWO STEP PROCESS, WHEREAS IF IT WERE DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, UH, THE PROPERTY OWNER OR THEIR DESIGNEE COULD FILE FOR A ZONING CHANGE AS SOON AS TOMORROW. AND PART OF THE SITE IS CR AND PART OF IT IS I AM CORRECT, CORRECT. AND IM ALLOWS SOME PRETTY HEAVY INDUSTRIAL USES WITHOUT AN SUP. IT, IT, IT DOES ALLOW A FAIR AMOUNT OF HEAVIER USES, UH, CERTAINLY MORE IN TERMS OF, UH, LET'S SAY I THINK THE MOST NOXIOUS USES THOSE DO REQUIRE, UM, AN SUP, UH, EVERYTHING ELSE MIGHT JUST REQUIRE AN RAR AT MOST. UH, CERTAINLY IM, AS YOU SAW IN THE STAFF REPORT, UH, WE DON'T THINK THAT IM, IN GENERAL IS THE APPROPRIATE ZONING, UH, IN THIS AREA, CERTAINLY NOT TO EXPAND IT FURTHER, UM, I'LL LEAVE IT AT THAT. SO IF SOMEONE WANTED TO COME IN AND DEVELOP THIS WHOLE SITE AS COMMUNITY RETAIL, THEY COULDN'T BRING A ZONING CASE FOR THE NEXT TWO YEARS, WOULD HAVE TO TAKE A, SEEK A TWO YEAR A, A WAIVER. THEY WOULD NEED TO SEEK A WAIVER THAT WOULD BE APPROVED OR REVIEWED BY THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION, UM, WITH A STAFF ANALYSIS OF THE REQUEST. I'M HAVING SOME ANGST ABOUT DOING A STRAIGHT DENIAL HERE, NOT BECAUSE I THINK THIS WAS A GOOD APPLICATION FAR FROM IT, BUT BECAUSE THE ZONING ON THE SITE TODAY IS LESS THAN IDEAL AND I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD BE STANDING IN THE WAY OF A, UM, FUTURE APPLICATION TO, UM, BRINGING MORE HARMONIOUS ZONING TO THE AREA I REALLY VIEW DENIAL WITH IS, IS SOMETHING NOT TO A JUDGMENT ON THE MERIT OF THE CASE AT ALL, BUT WHETHER WE THINK THE LAND USE IN THE, UH, ZONING IN THE AREA IS RIGHT AND THAT IT, THERE'S NO NEED TO TOUCH IT FOR AT LEAST THE NEXT TWO YEARS OR WHETHER, YOU KNOW, EVEN THOUGH WE DON'T LIKE THE APPLICATION IN FRONT OF US AND ARE VOTING TO DENY IT, WHICH I AM JUST TO BE CLEAR, FINE WITH RECOMMENDING DENIAL THAT WE ALLOW SOMEONE TO COME BACK SOONER THAN TWO YEARS TO COME BACK WITH A, A BETTER PROPOSAL FOR REZONING THE PROPERTY. SO [01:40:01] COMMISSIONER WHEELER, WOULD YOU CONSIDER MOVING TO A STRAIGHT OR A DENIAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE? UM, LET ME GET, UH, SOME ADDITIONAL, WITHIN TWO YEARS THEY WON'T EVEN BE ABLE TO BUILD ON THE SITE ANYWAY BECAUSE THERE IS STILL THE, THE LOOP DOESN'T, IT WILL BE TWO YEARS BEFORE THE LOOP WORK THAT IS BEING DONE THERE. RIGHT NOW WITH THE BATCH PLANT THAT IS ON CONTRACT WITH THE CITY OF DALLAS ALSO THE MAJORITY OF THE PROPERTY, THE PARTS THAT IM, IS THE PART THAT IS CLOSEST TO THE RAILROAD TRACK THAT DOESN'T, THAT DOES THAT THEY WILL ACTUALLY IS THE IM PORTION, THE MAJORITY OF THE PROPERTY IS CR UH, SO IT'S THE IM PORTION THAT IS BECAUSE, AND AT THE COMMUNITY MEETING, THEY WERE NOT WILLING TO, TO, UH, BACK DOWN THEIR IDEAL IS THAT THIS PROJECT IS WHAT SHOULD BE THERE. AND WE, THE FIRST MEETING DID NOT HAVE THE, THE, THE PROPERTY OWNER, THE SECOND ONE DID. UM, AND WE OVERLY ASKED THEM WOULD THEY RECONSIDER SOMETHING ELSE AND THEY DID NOT RE THEY WOULD NOT, THEY WERE, WERE NOT WILLING TO RECONSIDER. UM, SO THE MAJORITY OF THE PROPERTY IS CR AND THEY COULD BUILD THINGS ON THE CR PORTION, BUT NO ONE, THEY CAN'T BUILD ANYTHING UNTIL THE LOOP IS FINISHED, WHICH IS ESTIMATED ANOTHER TWO YEARS. AND I UNDERSTAND THAT AT, I MEAN, FROM THE NEWS ARTICLE THAT I READ ABOUT IT, THAT THERE'S BATCH PLAN ON THIS PORTION OF THE PROPERTY, BUT IF SOMEONE WANTED TO START PLANNING FOR THE REST OF THE, UM, REDEVELOPMENT OF THE REST OF THE PROPERTY RIGHT NOW, BEING ABLE TO DO THE ZONING, YOU KNOW, RIGHT NOW MIGHT FACILITATE A, A FASTER, YOU KNOW, REDEVELOPMENT IN HARMONY WITH THE LOOP. SO I, I'M REALLY STRUGGLING WITH THE RECOMMENDATION TO DENY WITH PREJUDICE HERE AND I'M NOT SURE THAT I CAN SUPPORT IT. COMMISSIONER SERATO, MAY I JUST ASK A CLARIFYING QUESTION ABOUT, I, I KNOW I'VE ASKED ABOUT WITH PREJUDICE QUESTIONS BEFORE, BUT, UM, WOULD IT NOT ALLOW THE APPLICANT, THIS SPECIFIC APPLICANT TO NOT APPLY FOR ZONING CHANGES FOR TWO YEARS? OR IT'S, OR THE DENIAL WOULD BE, UM, TIED TO THE, THE PROPERTY ITSELF? IS IT THE PROPERTY OR NOT? IT'S TIED OF THE PROPERTY TO THE PROPERTY. COMMISSIONER KINGSTON, I AGREE WITH THE CHAIR. I THINK, UM, A DENIAL WITH PREJUDICE SO THAT NOBODY CAN CONSIDER DOING ANYTHING ELSE WITH THIS PROPERTY. SEEMS A LITTLE HARSH. COMMISSIONER SIMS, I, I'M PERSUADED AS WELL, MR. CHAIR BY YOUR POSITION. AND I, AND I UNDERSTAND COMMISSIONER WHEELER'S POSITION, BUT I THINK HAND CUFFING A PIECE OF LAND FOR TWO YEARS JUST STRIKES ME AS BAD PRACTICE. ANYONE ELSE? COMMISSIONER HALL. I'M SORRY IF I MISSED SOMETHING, BUT JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, DENIAL WITH PREJUDICE, DOES THAT MEAN THEY COULDN'T COME BACK WITH A DIFFERENT ZONING? IT'S, YOU CAN'T, THAT JUST MEANS IT'S LOCKED OUT OF REZONING FOR TWO YEARS IN ORDER TO REQUEST A REZONING ON A PARCEL OR ON A PROPERTY THAT HAS BEEN DENIED OR DENIED WITH PREJUDICE, UH, THE PROPERTY OWNER, THEIR DESIGNEE FIRST HAS TO REQUEST A WAIVER. A WAIVER. SO IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT, WHAT KIND OF ZONING THEY'RE REQUESTING. BASICALLY IT SAYS FOR TWO YEARS YOU MAY NOT REQUEST A ZONING CHANGE FOR THIS SITE WITHOUT FIRST GETTING A WAIVER REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE ZONING CORRECT. OKAY. AND THE WAIVER IS GRANTED BY COMMISSION OR COUNSEL? I BELIEVE IT'S JUST THROUGH THE COMMISSION. YEP. I THINK COMMISSION EITHER ONE COULD DO IT. YEAH, I GUESS THEY COULD. I GUESS COUNCIL COULD AS WELL, BUT NORMALLY IT JUST GOES TO CPC AND CPC MAKES A DECISION THERE. OKAY, THANK YOU. AND IF CPC DECIDES THEN IT ENDS THERE. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? COMMISSIONER HAMPTON? THANK YOU MR. CHAIR. UM, I CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND THE POTENTIAL FLEXIBILITY IN, UM, HAVING THE DENIAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE. HOWEVER, I THINK AS COMMISSIONER WHEELER HAS OUTLINED, THERE'S BEEN A NUMBER OF REQUESTS ON THIS SITE THAT HAVE ALL GENERALLY BEEN VERY INTENSE IN USE AND THAT HAVE CAUSED THE SIGNIFICANT CONCERNS FOR THE COMMUNITY. THE WAIVER PROCESS IS AVAILABLE. UM, AND I, THERE IT NEEDS TO BE CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES. AND I THINK WHAT I HEAR IN THE COMMUNITY'S REQUEST IS THAT THEY'RE OPEN TO CONSIDERING AN ALTERNATE USE, BUT AN ALTERNATE USE THAT IS TRULY DIFFERENT, THAT IT ISN'T AN INTENSE INDUSTRIALLY ORIENTED USE. AND IF THE APPLICANT COMES BACK WITH THAT, WE ROUTINELY SEE WAIVERS, THEY DEMONSTRATE THAT THEY ARE SEEKING TO CHANGE THE REQUEST AND THIS BODY HAS THE ABILITY TO DO THAT INSTEAD OF CONTINUING TO SEE THE MORE INTENSE, MORE INDUSTRIAL TYPE USES. I THINK COMMISSIONER WHEELER HAS DONE HER DUE DILIGENCE WITH THE COMMUNITY AND, YOU KNOW, WANTS TO GIVE THEM SOME CERTAINTY THAT THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE LOOKING AT ADDITIONAL SIMILAR APPLICATIONS UNTIL THEY'VE REALLY THOUGHT ABOUT WHAT THEY CAN DO WITH THE OTHER IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE GOING ON IN THE AREA THAT ARE GONNA LIMIT OPPORTUNITIES FOR THIS SITE. THEY [01:45:01] CAN TAKE THE TIME AND GET IT TEED UP AND BE READY TO GO AT THAT TIME. SO I WILL DEFER TO COMMISSIONER WHEELER, ANYONE ELSE IN THE FIRST ROUND COMM, SECOND ROUND COMMISSIONER WHEELER, UM, TO ENSURE THAT I WAS MAKING AN INFORMED DECISION. I MADE SURE THAT EVERY DEPARTMENT WAS THERE FROM WATER. UM, TC IS IT TCEQ? TCEQ, UM, THOSE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE LOOP, UH, BECAUSE THERE WAS STATEMENTS SAYING THAT THEY COULDN'T BUILD ON TOP OF THE, UM, TUNNELS AND WE FOUND OUT THAT THAT WAS UNTRUE. UM, AND THAT THEY COULD BUILD ON TOP OF THE, UH, TUNNELS, UM, SOMETHING LESS INTENSE, GAVE EXAMPLES OF WHAT IS BEING BUILT ON THE DIRECT OPPOSITE SIDE, WHICH IS THE LAWN VIEW SIDE, TO LET THEM KNOW THAT THEY WAS, UM, EVEN OFFERED TO, HEY, TO GET WHAT WE CAN POSSIBLY GET WITH ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WITH THE COUNCIL'S OFFICE TO SEE WHAT COULD BE THERE IF THAT'S WHAT YOU ALL ARE BELIEVING. AND THEY HAVE ON THE PROPERTY FOR 40, FOR OVER 40 YEARS, AND THEY WERE THAT THEY WEREN'T WILLING TO, IN THEIR EYES, THERE WAS MONEY ON THE GROUND THAT 50 THOU $50 MILLION THAT WAS GONNA BE DONATED FOR THIS SITE AND THAT WAS THE WAY THAT THEY WANTED TO GO. SO WE MADE SURE THAT IT WAS AT LEAST SIX DEPARTMENTS AT THE COMMUNITY MEETING SO THAT IF THERE WAS ANYTHING THAT WE WERE MISSING OR THE COMMUNITY WAS MISSING THAT WE HAD THEM THERE. UM, THE COMMUNITY, THE CONCERN THEY DEFINITELY HAD TO ADDRESS THE CONCERN THAT THE ACTUAL, UM, BATCH PLANT IS, IS ALREADY TWO OR THREE YEARS PASSED IT'S DUE, BUT THAT IS NOT BECAUSE THE APPLICANT, UM, IT'S THE APPLICANT'S FAULT IS WHOEVER'S BUILDING THE LOO, WHICH I BELIEVE IS IN REFERENCE TO THE CITY OF DALLAS. UM, BUT IT IS PAST THAT AND IT, AND IT HAS CAUSED SOME ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES. UM, AND THERE AIR MONITORS, BUT THOSE THINGS, WE DID OUR DUE DILIGENCE TO MAKE SURE THAT ANYONE THAT COULD BE THERE THAT COULD ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS WERE THERE AND THEY JUST WASN'T WILLING TO BUDGE. SO THAT WAS THE REASON FOR THAT. UM, IF THEY WERE WILLING TO MAKE SOME CONCESSIONS OR LOOK AT A DIFFERENT WAY AND THERE WAS OFFERED, WE WOULDN'T BE, WE WOULDN'T BE HERE. BUT THIS IS THE REASON THEY MAY AND THEY, THEY KNEW THAT THERE WOULD BE A DENIAL WITH PREJUDICE AND THEY, THEY COULD'VE CAME, I ENCOURAGED THEM TO COME SPEAK TO YOU ALL TODAY AND THEY DID NOT SHOW UP. THEY DID NOT AT ALL. AND IN THIS TYPE OF CASE, I WOULD'VE SHOWED UP, ESPECIALLY AFTER ARTICLES WROTE COMMISSIONER ADDITIONAL COMMENTS? UH, I JUST WANNA SAY COMMISSIONER WHEELER, I'M NOT, I I THINK YOU DID AN EXCELLENT JOB HANDLING THIS CASE FROM, FROM START TO FINISH. MY MINOR MINOR POINT OF DISAGREEMENT IS, IS SOLELY ON DENIAL WITH PREJUDICE VERSUS WITHOUT DENIAL IS ABSOLUTELY THE RIGHT DECISION HERE. UM, YOU KNOW, WHAT I HEAR IS PART OF THE RATIONALE IS THAT THE APPLICANT DIDN'T EVEN, YOU KNOW, DECIDE TO COME DOWN HERE. YOU KNOW, WHEN, WHEN YOU KNOW, THEY, THEY KNEW THEY WERE HEADED FOR DENIAL. AND I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WHEN WE'RE MAKING DECISIONS ABOUT DENIAL WITH OR WITHOUT PREJUDICE, IT'S NOT A REFLECTION ON THE APPLICANT AND WHETHER THEY DID A GOOD JOB WITH THE ZONING CASE, WHETHER THEY WERE RESPECTFUL OR DISRESPECTFUL, IN MY VIEW, IT SHOULD BE SOLELY A LAND USE CONSIDERATION ABOUT DO WE HAVE THE ZONING RIGHT ON THIS PROPERTY FOR THE NEXT TWO YEARS OR, OR NOT. AND I DON'T THINK OUR, OUR DEFAULT SHOULD BE A DEFAULT OF, NO, THERE'S A TWO YEAR PERIOD NECESSARILY. I THINK WE NEED TO REALLY LOOK AT THE LANE EXISTING ZONING ON THE PROPERTY AND, AND I DO WANT TO JUST SPEAK TO THE ISSUE MORE BROADLY AS I REALLY, REALLY DISLIKE THE TERM WITH PREJUDICE OR, OR WITHOUT PREJUDICE. AND WHEN WE, I JUST DON'T THINK IT SPEAKS TO WHAT THE DECISION WE'RE MAKING HERE IS WHEN YOU, YOU KNOW, USE THE COMMON PARLANCE OF THE WORD, YOU KNOW, PREJUDICE. AND WHEN WE DO OUR CODE, YOU KNOW, REFORM, I WOULD STRONGLY ENCOURAGE STAFF TO COME UP WITH A DIFFERENT NOMENCLATURE IF WE DO SOME SORT OF WAITING PERIOD RIGHT NOW AFTER DENIAL. SO I, I DON'T THINK I'M GONNA BE ABLE TO SUPPORT A MOTION TO DENY WITH PREJUDICE, BUT THAT IS WITH, YOU KNOW, GREAT RESPECT AND APPRECIATION TO COMMISSIONER WHEELER FOR ALL OF HER HARD WORK ON THIS CASE TO GETTING ALL OF THE STAKEHOLDERS IN THE ROOM AND COME TO COMING TO AN APPROPRIATE DECISION, WHICH I OF OF DENIAL. IT'S JUST THE PREJUDICE VERSUS NO PREJUDICE PIECE THAT I'M STUCK ON IT, IT WAS BECAUSE OF IT WAS BECAUSE OF THE LAND USE IN THE COMMUNITY. IT WASN'T BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T SHOW. I JUST THINK THAT THAT'S ANOTHER EFFORT TO SAY HEY TO, TO GET THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS TO GET, SAY, HEY, THIS IS THE REASON WHY. BUT IT WAS [01:50:01] 100%. AND THEN NOT ONLY THAT, LOOKING AT CHOPPY WEST DALLAS, THOSE AREAS WHO THAT HAS ALLOWED. SO WE LOOKED AT THAT LAND USE AND THEN WE HAD FORWARD DALLAS AND THE SOUTH DALLAS AREA PLAN THAT ALSO SAYS IS THIS LAND USE, IT'S NOT APPROPRIATE. SO IT WAS 100% LAND USE. UM, AND IF YOU'VE EVER NOTICED WHEN IT COMES TO INDUSTRY, I'M ONE OF THOSE ONES THAT ALWAYS SAY WHO WAS THEIR FIRST, WHOEVER. THOSE ARE THE THINGS I LOOK AT. SO I'M NOT, I'M VERY PRO BOTH, BUT THIS WAS LAND USE. UM, 100%. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? COMMISSIONER CARPENTER? I GENERALLY JUST VOTE FOR, UM, DENIAL WITH PREJUDICE IF I THINK THE UNDERLYING ZONING IS CORRECT. AND IN THIS CASE, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT IT IS, YOU KNOW, I DON'T THINK THE IM ZONING IS CORRECT HERE. UM, I UNDERSTAND IT'S NOT THAT I DISAGREE WITH WHAT THE COMMUNITY WANTS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, BUT IF THE COMMUNITY WANTS THE USE OF THIS LAND TO CHANGE, YOU KNOW, TO BE SOMETHING THAT'S NOT INDUSTRIAL, THEN WITHOUT PREJUDICE, YOU KNOW, OPENS IT UP TO GET A, A BETTER TYPE OF, UM, UH, PROPOSAL HERE WITHOUT HAVING TO GO THROUGH THE WAIVER PROCESS. I MEAN, I HAVE CONFIDENCE IN THIS BODY THAT ANY BAD PROPOSAL FOR THIS SIDE IS GOING TO BE TURNED DOWN. SO I WOULD PERSONALLY PREFER THE WITHOUT PREJUDICE, BUT I I DO UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU'RE COMING FROM. COMMISSIONERS. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? WHY DON'T WE TAKE A ROLL CALL VOTE DISTRICT ONE? NO. DISTRICT TWO? YES. DISTRICT THREE, DISTRICT FOUR, DISTRICT FIVE? YES. DISTRICT SIX? NO. DISTRICT SEVEN? YES. DISTRICT EIGHT? YES. DISTRICT NINE? YES. DISTRICT 10? NO. DISTRICT 11, DISTRICT 12. DISTRICT 13? YES. DISTRICT 14? NO. AND PLACE 15? NO. SO THAT IS SIX YESES. SEVEN IN OPPOSITION. THE MOTION FAILS. DO WE HAVE ANOTHER MOTION IN THE MATTER OF, IN THE MATTER OF Z DASH 25 DASH 0 0 1 9 8. I MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND CALLED STAFF. IT'S CALLED A STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF DENIAL. IS THAT, THAT WHEN YOU JUST SAY DENIAL, THAT'S DENIAL WITH PREJUDICE. SO IS IT WITHOUT PREJUDICE? THIS TIME WITHOUT PREJUDICE. OKAY. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? OKAY, WE HAVE A MOTION TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? SAY NO. OH, THANK YOU. WILL YOU SECOND THAT? COMMISSIONER CARPENTER? I'M SORRY, I'M AHEAD OF MYSELF. UH, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED, SAY NAY. THE MOTION CARRIES WILL ARE GOING TO, UM, MOVE PAST 17 AND 18 AND COME BACK TO THEM AND GO [SUBDIVISION DOCKET - Consent Items] ON TO OUR SUBDIVISION DOCKET AND I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THERE ARE ANY REGISTERED SPEAKERS ON ONLINE FOR OUR SUBDIVISION, SO I JUST WANTED TO PUT THAT ON THE RECORD. IN MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT CASES 27 AND 28, UH, BECAUSE OF A TECHNICAL ERROR DID NOT MAKE IT INTO OUR FINAL AGENDA. SO WE AS A COMMISSION ARE NOT ABLE TO ACT ON THEM TODAY UNDER THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT OR WHATEVER CITY ORDINANCES ARE APPLICABLE. SO WHAT WILL HAPPEN THERE IS THEY WILL BE APPROVED OF BY OPERATION OF LAW, UM, WITHOUT COMMISSION ACTION. IS THAT CORRECT, MR. MOORE? YES. MR. CHAIR? THAT IS CORRECT. OKAY. AND MS. SCH, DO YOU WANT TO READ THE SUBDIVISION CONSENT DOCKET INTO THE AGENDA OR INTO THE RECORD? GOOD. UH, GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS. UH, THE CONSENT IS THAT CONSIST OF EIGHT ITEMS. ITEM 19, ITEM 20, ITEM 21, ITEM 22, ITEM 23, ITEM 24, ITEM 25, AND ITEM 26. ALL CASES HAVE BEEN POSTED FOR A HEARING AT THIS TIME AND THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITION LISTED IN THE DOCKET AND OR AS ESTIMATED AT THE HEARING. AND DID YOU SAY YOU READ ITEM 29 IN OR DID YOU JUST GET THROUGH 26? I'M SORRY. NO, IT'S ITEM 19 THROUGH ITEM 26. OKAY, THANK YOU. MM-HMM . IS THERE ANYONE WHO'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON ITEMS [01:55:01] 19 THROUGH 26 ON OUR SUBDIVISION CONSENT DOCKET? OKAY. SEEING NO SPEAKERS. UH, DO WE HAVE A MOTION COMMISSIONER KINGSTON, REGARDING THE, UM, SUBDIVISION CONSENT DOCKET ITEMS 19 THROUGH 26 MOVE THAT WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE DOCKET? THANK YOU COMMISSIONER KINGSTON FOR YOUR MOTION. COMMISSIONER CARPENTRY FOR YOUR SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? NO DISCUSSION. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED, SAY NAY. THE MOTION CARRIES. WE'LL MOVE [29. 26-1277A An application to replat a 0.410-acre tract of land containing all of Lot 3 in City Block F/6231 to create one 8,734-square foot lot and one 9,124-square foot lot on property located on Umphress Road at Gillette Street, southeast corner. Applicant/Owner: Benjamin Chester and Ramon Hodges Surveyor: ARA Surveying Application Filed: March 11, 2026. Zoning: R-7.5(A) Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to compliance with the conditions listed in the docket. Planner: Sharmila Shrestha Council District: 5 PLAT-26-000077] ON TO ITEM NUMBER 29, WHICH IS A RESIDENTIAL REFL ITEM NUMBER 29 PLAT 26 DASH 0 0 0 7 7. IT IS AN APPLICATION TO REPLAT A 0.410 ACRE TRACK OF LAND CONTAINING ALL OF LOT THREE IN CITY BLOCK F OVER 62 31 TO CREATE ONE 8,734 SQUARE FOOT LOT AND ONE 9,124 SQUARE FOOT LOT ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON AMPR ROAD AT GILET STREET SOUTHEAST CORNER. 20 NOTICES WERE SENT TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE PROPERTY ON MARCH 23RD, 2026. WE HAVE RECEIVED ZERO REPLY IN FAVOR AND DUE 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. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER 29? NO SPEAKERS. COMMISSIONER SERATO, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? YES. IN THE MATTER OF CASE 2 6 0 0 0 0 7 7. I MOVE TO CLOSE CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE, UH, SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE DOCKET. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER SERRADA FOR YOUR MOTION. COMMISSIONER SIMS FOR YOUR SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? NO DISCUSSION. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED, SAY NAY. [30. 26-1278A An application to replat a 0.593-acre tract of land containing all of Lot 8A in City Block 18/964 to create one lot; to remove an existing 25-foot platted building line along Cole Avenue; and to remove an existing 10-foot platted building line along Sneed Street on property located on Cole Avenue at Sneed Street, northeast corner. Applicant/Owner: AM Cole, LP Surveyor: Spiars Engineering, Inc Application Filed: March 13, 2026. Zoning: PD193 (O-2) Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to compliance with the conditions listed in the docket. Planner: Sharmila Shrestha Council District: 14 PLAT-26-000085 ] ITEM NUMBER 30, ITEM NUMBER 30, PLA 26 DASH 0 0 0 85. IT IS AN APPLICATION TO REP PLAT EIGHT 0.593 ACRE TRACK OF LAND CONTAINING ALL OF LOT EIGHT A IN CITY BLOCK 18 OVER 9 6 4 TO CREATE ONE LOT TO REMOVE AN EXISTING 25 FOOT PLATTED BUILDING LINE ALONG COLE AVENUE AND TO REMOVE AN EXISTING 10 FOOT PLATTED BUILDING LINE ALONG SNEAD STREET ON PROPERTY, LOCATED ON COLE AVENUE AT SNEAD STREET NORTHEAST CORNER. THIS REQUEST REQUIRES TWO MOTIONS BECAUSE IT IS A PLAT AND IT INVOLVES REMOVAL OF THE PLAID BUILDING LINE. THE FIRST MOTION IS TO APPROVE OR DENY THE REMOVING, UH, REMOVING AND EXISTING PLAID BUILDING LINES. STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON BUILDING LINE IS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITION LISTED IN THE DOCKET AND OR AS AMENDED AT THE HEARING. AND THE SECOND MOTION IS TO APPROVE OR DENY THE REPLAT. THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON REPLA IS APPROVAL, SUBSTITUTE COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE DOCKET AND OR AS AMENDED AT THE HEARING. THANK YOU. ANY SPEAKERS ON ITEM 30? OKAY. NO SPEAKERS. COMMISSIONER KINGSTON, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION IN THE MATTER OF PLA TWO SIX DASH 0 0 0 8 5? UH, I MOVED THE CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVED THE REQUEST TO REMOVE THE EXISTING 25 FOOT PLATTED BUILDING LINE ALONG COLE AVENUE AND THE EXISTING 10 FOOT PLATTED BUILDING LINE ALONG SNEAD STREET WITH A FINDING OF FACT THAT REMOVAL OF THE BUILDING LINES WILL NOT REQUIRE A MINIMUM OF FRONT SIDE OR REAR SETBACK LINES LESS THAN REQUIRED BY THE ZONING REGULATION, BE CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST, ADVERSELY AFFECT THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES OR ADVERSELY AFFECT THE PLAN FOR THE ORDERLY DEVELOPMENT OF THE SUBDIVISION. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER KINGSTON FOR YOUR MOTION. COMMISSIONER CARPENTER FOR YOUR SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? NO DISCUSSION. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSING NAY? THE MOTION CARRIES SECOND MOTION. COMMISSIONER KINGSTON, JUST TO APPROVE THE REPL. OH, IN THE SAME MATTER I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE RELA SUBJECT AS REQUESTED, SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE DOCKET. GREAT. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER KINGSTON FOR YOUR MOTION. COMMISSIONER CARPENTER FOR YOUR SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION SAYING NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. WAS OUR MOTION OKAY, MR. MOORE? SORRY. IS OUR MOTION OKAY MR. MOORE? OH, GREAT. OKAY, PERFECT. ANY OPPOSED, SAY NAY. THE MOTION CARRIES [31. 26-1279A An application for a Certificate of Appropriateness by Josephine Gonzales of Pattison ID, for a 65.5-square-foot back lit channel letters sign mounted on an aluminum tube frame on the Northern facing façade at 2323 Cedar Springs Rd, 100 (NORTH ELEVATION). Staff Recommendation: Approval. SSDAC Recommendation: Approval. Applicant: Josephine Gonzales of Pattison ID Owner: 23 Springs, LP Planner: Scott Roper Council District: 14 SIGN-26-000327] ITEM 31. [02:00:02] ITEM 31 IS SIGN DASH 26 DASH 0 0 3 2 7. AN APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS BY JOSEPHINE GONZALEZ OF PATTERSON ID FOR 65.5 SQUARE FOOT BACKLIT CHANNEL LETTER SIGN MOUNTED ON AN ALUMINUM TUBE FRAME ON THE NORTHERN FACING FACADE AT 2323 CEDAR SPRINGS ROAD, SUITE 100 ON THE NORTH ELEVATION. STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL AND S-S-D-A-C RECOMMENDATION WAS APPROVAL. THANK YOU MR. RUPERT. ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEM 31? NO SPEAKERS. COMMISSIONER KINGSTON, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION IN THE MATTER OF SIGN DASH 26 DASH 0 0 3 2 7? I MOVE THAT WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND FOR APPROVAL. THANK YOU FOR YOUR MOTION. COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, YOUR SECOND OR SORRY, COMMISSIONER KINGSTON. YOUR SECOND COMMISSIONER CARPENTER. ANY DISCUSSION? COMMISSIONER HAMPTON? THANK YOU MR. CHAIR. MR. ROPER, JUST ONE QUESTION. UM, I NOTED THAT THERE WAS A SPLIT VOTE AT THE S-S-D-A-C, WHICH IS SOMEWHAT UNUSUAL. IS THERE ANY CONTEXT ON WHAT THE DISCUSSION WAS AT THE COMMITTEE? I WOULD HAVE TO REFER BACK. NO, THAT'S FINE. I WAS JUST WONDERING IF THERE WAS ANYTHING. UM, AND JUST A FOLLOW UP QUESTION. IN OUR DOCKET, IT LOOKS LIKE SOME OF THE TEXT MAY HAVE, UM, UM, PIXELATED, FOR LACK OF A BETTER WORD, UM, BUT IT THE, THE SIGN IS THE LETTERED SIGN BACKLIT CHANNEL LETTERS CORRECT? BETWEEN THE SEVENTH AND EIGHTH FLOOR AS NOTED IN THE YES, YES, THAT DOCUMENTATION. THANK YOU. UH, I I BELIEVE THE, UH, THE DISCUSSION WAS THE SIZE OF THE SIGN BECAUSE IT IS SMALL. A SMALL SIGN FOR THE FRONTAGE. FOR THE FRONTAGE AND THE HEIGHT THAT IT'S BEING MOUNTED PROPOSED AT. YEAH. OKAY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR CLARIFICATION. THANK YOU MR. CHAIR. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON ITEM 31? JUST CLARIFYING. SO THE VOTES AGAINST, WERE THINKING THAT THE SIGN WAS TOO SMALL. OKAY, THANK YOU. NO FURTHER DISCUSSION. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED, SAY NAY. THE MOTION CARRIES. I'M GONNA DO OUR CODE AMENDMENT NEXT. ITEM NUMBER 19. THANK YOU. I'M SORRY. [18. 26-1266A Consideration of amending Sections 51-4.208, 51-4.210, and 51A-4.210 of the Dallas City Code to remove “Commercial Wedding Chapel” and create a new “Reception Facility” land use. ZOAC Recommendation: ZOAC will consider this item the same week as CPC. Staff Recommendation: Forward amendments to the City Council with a recommendation of adoption. Planner: Michael Wade Council District: Citywide DCA256-001] ITEM NUMBER 18. WE ARE WE GOING BACK TO 17? 19. 1919. MICHAEL WADE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS. OH, I'M SORRY. I'LL READ IT IN. HOW ABOUT I TELL US WHAT WE'RE DOING, HUH? THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UM, SO ITEM 1826 DASH 1266, A CONSIDERATION OF AMENDING SECTIONS 51 DASH 4.2 8 51 DASH 4.2 10 AND 51 A DASH 4.2 10 OF THE DALLAS CITY CODE TO REMOVE COMMERCIAL WEDDING CHAPEL AND CREATE A NEW RECEPTION FACILITY, LAND USE. THANK YOU MR. WADE. IS THERE ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER 18? OUR CODE AMENDMENT. OKAY. NO SPEAKERS. UH, COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? UM, POINT OF ORDER MR. CHAIR? AM I GONNA MAKE A MOTION AND THEN ASK MR. WADE TO OFFER THE LANGUAGE THAT HE CAME UP WITH SINCE THIS MORNING? I THINK THAT WOULD BE FINE IF YOU WANTED TO MAKE YOUR MOTION THEN SOMEONE THEN WANTED TO AMEND IT SO WE CAN DISCUSS THE LANGUAGE THAT WAS OKAY. IN THE MATTER OF DCA 2 56 DASH ZERO ONE. I MOVE THAT WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPT, UH, ZAC RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL. OKAY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR MOTION. UH, COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT FOR YOUR SECOND COMMISSIONER SIMS, DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION FOR MR. WADE? COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT? I, I DO. UM, MR. WADE, UM, DID YOU SKIP LUNCH TODAY? MY COOKIE WAS ENOUGH FOR NOW. OKAY. AND, AND WHILE YOU WERE EATING THAT COOKIE, DID YOU, UM, WORK ON THE LANGUAGE OF THIS CODE AMENDMENT A BIT. WE HAVE A, A PROPOSAL THAT COULD WORK, COULD CHECK THE BOXES AND I CAN, UM, READ THAT TO [02:05:01] YOU. AND SO THIS, THIS WOULD BE, IS THERE ANY CHANCE YOU COULD SHARE IT ON YOUR SCREEN? IS THAT DOABLE? YES. LET ME GET IT ON AN APPROPRIATE APP FOR SHARING. SO THIS WOULD BE NOT THE EXACT LANGUAGE BECAUSE IT INCLUDES A REFERENCE AND WE NEED TO NAIL DOWN EXACTLY HOW TO MAKE THAT REFERENCE WELL AND CORRECTLY. GIVE ME ONE MORE MINUTE TO CONNECT TO THE MEETING. TAKE YOUR TIME. THE THING NOW THAT THE SCAR IS ITCHY AND I SAID SOMETHING TO THE THERAPIST YESTERDAY, SHE SAID, THAT'S A GOOD DAY. IT MEANS YOUR BLOOD FLOW'S COMING BACK TO THAT. OKAY. STILL BUGGING THE CRAP FL I HAVE TO ASK. SURE. MY WIFE'S GOT THAT. THANK YOU. MR. MENDOZA IS ALLOWING ME TO SHARE FROM THE COMPUTER ON WHICH I HAVE THE LANGUAGE. OKAY. I CAN ZOOM IN A LITTLE BIT MORE UNLESS WE CAN A LITTLE MORE, A LITTLE MORE WOULD BE GREAT. IT'S TINY ON THE SCREENS IN FRONT OF US. AH, MUCH BETTER. YES. OKAY. SO THIS WENT THROUGH A FEW REVISIONS, UH, IN COORDINATION WITH CODE COMPLIANCE. SO THESE WOULD BE ADDITIONAL STANDARDS ADDED TO THE LAND USE FOR A FACILITY WITHIN 330 FEET OF PROPERTIES ZONED RESIDENTIAL OR MIXED USE DISTRICTS. THE MAXIMUM DECIBEL LEVEL IS REGULATED BY THE PROVISIONS IN CHAPTER 51. A ARTICLE SIX IS 65 DECIBELS BETWEEN 9:00 AM AND 9:00 PM AND 56 DECIBELS BETWEEN 9:00 PM AND 9:00 AM THE OUTSIDE AREA, NOT INCLUDING ONSITE PARKING, SHALL BE LIMITED TO 25% OF THE INDOOR FLOOR AREA. I'M HAPPY TO ELABORATE ON EITHER OF THOSE POINTS. OKAY. I THINK THE FLOOR WAS STILL YOURS. COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT, DO YOU HAVE, I GUESS THE, THE FINAL QUESTION, MR. WADE, UM, YOU BELIEVE THAT THIS LANGUAGE ADDRESSES THE CONVERSATION IN THE BRIEFING THIS MORNING, IS THAT CORRECT? WE DO THIS LANGUAGE IN CONJUNCTION WITH OUR ABILITY TO ADD CONNECTIONS WITH THE RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY REVIEW. OKAY. UM, FURTHER DISCUSSION. DO WE NEED THAT FORMALLY OFFERED UP AS AN AMENDMENT OR A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT OR SOMETHING? JUST FOR RECORD PURPOSES, MR. MOORE IS NODDING HIS HEAD YES. SO MR. CHAIR, I MOVE TO AMEND COMMISSIONER HOUSE RIGHT'S MO MOTION TO ADD THE LANGUAGE AS PROPOSED BY CITY STAFF. OKAY. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER SIM FOR YOUR MOTION. UH, UH, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER FOR YOUR SECOND DISCUSSION OF THE AMENDMENT. I I DO HAVE JUST ONE QUESTION. LOOKING AT THIS OUTSIDE AREA, IS THAT TERM SPECIFIC ENOUGH TO COVER WHAT WE WANT TO COVER HERE? WE BELIEVE SO. IT GIVES CODE COMPLIANCE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW UP AND IDENTIFY WHERE THE ACTIVITIES ARE AND SO WE COULD, WE COULD BEGIN TO MAKE IT MORE SPECIFIC, BUT THEN PER EVENT, THE HOW THEY USE THAT OUTDOOR AREA COULD BE, COULD CHANGE. OKAY. UM, AND SO I THINK IF THERE'S ADDITIONAL NEED WE CAN TALK ABOUT IT, BUT IF, IF Y'ALL ARE COMFORTABLE WITH IT AND CODE COMPLIANCE IS COMFORTABLE WITH IT, I'M COMFORTABLE WITH IT. I DON'T HAVE TO GO OUT THERE AND ENFORCE IT, BUT I JUST WANTED TO ASK, UH, FURTHER DISCUSSION OF THE AMENDMENT. COMMISSIONER HAMPTON. SO REGARDING THE CONSIDERATION OF THE OUTSIDE AREA, UM, I SEE THAT IT IS LIMITED TO 25% OF THE, UM, FLOOR AREAS WRITTEN INDOOR FLOOR AREA. AS THE INDOOR FLOOR AREA IS PARKED AT ONE TO 200, WOULD THAT 25% ALSO BE SUBJECT TO THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS [02:10:02] AS WRITTEN HERE? NO, IT WOULD NOT. AND IF THERE ARE PARKING REQUIREMENTS SUGGESTED, WOULD IT NOT BE APPROPRIATE TO INCLUDE THOSE SO THAT THEY'RE ALL CONSIDERED ON AN EQUAL BASIS? THAT WOULD BE, AGAIN, SORT OF DEPENDENT ON HOW THE, THE PROPERTY USED. WE DON'T EXPECT THAT PEOPLE WOULD BE HOLDING THEIR ACTIVITIES OUTDOORS AND INDOORS AT THE SAME TIME. UM, IT, WE, WE DON'T THINK SO, BUT UM, IT WOULD BE A VERY EASY WRITE UP TO CHANGE THAT. I'LL WAIT AND HEAR THE DISCUSSION FROM MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS. I KNOW THE FEW THAT I'VE BEEN INVOLVED WITH. IT IS, UM, DEPENDING ON THE SIZE, CAN BE A MEANINGFUL IMPACT, UM, IF THAT ADDITIONAL AREA IS UH, UTILIZED. THANK YOU. IS THERE FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE AMENDMENT? OKAY, WE CAN TAKE A VOTE ON THE UM, SIMS AMENDMENT TO THE HOUSE RIGHT. MOTION. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED, SAY NAY. THE MOTION CARRIES. SO WE'RE BACK TO THE MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED. FURTHER DISCUSSION. COMMISSIONERS, COMMISSIONER, UH, SORRY. VICE CHAIR HERBERT. UM, I COULD HAVE MISSED THIS, BUT, UM, WE HAD A SMALL CONVERSATION ABOUT EXISTING RECEPTION HALLS TODAY AND HOW THEY WILL BE LOOKED AT GOING FORWARD AS, AS FAR AS CONFORMING A NON-CONFORMING. CAN YOU EXPLAIN THAT? SURE. SO IF, IF SOMETHING EXISTS TODAY, IT HAS A CO SO I GUESS WHAT YOU'RE CALLING A RECEPTION HALL, IT MIGHT BE PERMITTED AS A COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT OR COMMERCIAL WEDDING CHAPEL, SOMETHING LIKE THAT. UM, WITH THE ORIGINAL PROVISIONS RECOMMENDED, IF THERE IS A CO ALREADY, UM, FOR COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT INSIDE OR FOR A COMMERCIAL WEDDING CHAPEL, THOSE PROPERTIES WOULD BE ALLOWED TO CONTINUE AS CONFORMING PROPERTIES, EVEN IF THEY FIT RECEPTION HALL BETTER. AND SO THEY STILL ALREADY HAVE ANY REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO THEM. UM, OUTSIDE OF THAT, IF SOMETHING LOOKS LIKE A RECEPTION HALL BUT IT HAS A C OF O FOR SOMETHING VASTLY DIFFERENT, THEY WOULD NEED TO COME IN AND WE WOULD'VE TO EVALUATE THE PROPERTY. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION, UM, BY COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT, UM, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SIMS AS AMENDED, UM, TO FOLLOW STAFF'S. THE ZO OAC RECOMMENDATION WITH THE ADDITION OF THE, UM, REGULATIONS FOR USES WITHIN 330 FEET OF A RESIDENTIAL ZONE OR MIXED USE ZONE PROPERTY. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? SAY NAY. THE MOTION CARRIES. [17. 26-1265A An application for an amendment to Planned Development Subdistrict 154 within Planned Development District 193, the Oak Lawn Special Purpose District, on property bounded by McKinney Avenue, N. Akard Street, and N. Saint Paul Street. Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to an amended development plan, amended landscape plan, and staff’s recommended conditions. Applicant: RPC 1889 McKinney LLC Representative: Jackson Walker, LLP / Suzan Kedron Planner: Liliana Garza Council District: 14 Z-25-000158 / Z245-150] GO BACK TO ITEM 17. ITEM 17 IS CASE Z DASH TWO FIVE DASH 0 0 0 1 5 8 SLASH Z 2 4 5 DASH 1 50 0. THIS IS AN APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO PLAN DEVELOPMENT SUBDISTRICT 1 54 WITHIN PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 1 93, THE OAK LAW SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICT ON PROPERTY BOUNDED BY MCKINNEY AVENUE, NORTH ACRE STREET AND NORTH ST. PAUL STREET. OUR RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO AMENDED DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AMENDED LANDSCAPING PLAN, AND STAFF'S RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS. THANK YOU MS. GARZA. MR. BEATTY, CAN YOU TURN YOUR MICROPHONE ON? THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU CHAIR, UH, RUBEN AND, UH, COMMISSIONER KINGSTON FOR BEING FLEXIBLE WITH THE AGENDA ORDER TODAY. UH, SORRY I HAD A CONFLICT EARLIER. UH, I'M EVAN BEATTY WITH GFF DESIGN. UH, AND WE HAVE BEEN, UH, SERVING AS THE ARCHITECT FOR THIS RASTAGAR PROPERTY COMPANY, UH, PROJECT, UH, PROJECT THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY, UH, REZONED. UH, AND WE HAVE HAD TO MAKE CHANGES, UH, TO MAKE THE PROJECT VIABLE UNDER, YOU KNOW, THE CURRENT, CURRENT, UH, CONSTRAINTS OF THE SITE. UH, OUR SITE IS LOCATED, UH, AT A VERY INTERESTING TRI TRIANGLE SHAPED PROPERTY OF, UH, JUST UNDER 19,500 SQUARE FEET. UH, IT'S FOUND BY MCKINNEY ON THE EAST, UH, ST. PAUL ON THE NORTH, UH, AND ACKER ON THE SOUTH. UH, SO IT'S LESS THAN HALF AN ACRE, UH, WITH TWO PRETTY ACUTE ANGLES TO DEAL WITH, UH, WHICH MAKES IT A CHALLENGING SITE TO DEVELOP. UH, IT'S A VERY HIGH OPPORTUNITY LOCATION FOR HOUSING, UH, WITH GOLDMAN SACHS'S HQ TWO UNDER CONSTRUCTION NOW, UH, HERE WHERE IT SAYS, UH, PD ONE I THREE PD SUBJECTS 1 64. UH, AND, UH, WE'VE GOT, UH, BANK OF AMERICA'S, UH, NEW, UH, REGIONAL HEADQUARTERS BUILDING UNDER CONSTRUCTION AS WELL. SO WE'RE HALFWAY BETWEEN THOSE TWO, UH, SIGNIFICANT [02:15:01] INVESTMENTS IN THE CITY OF DALLAS. UH, AND OUR CLIENT, UH, RASTAGAR PROPERTY COMPANY, UH, IS COMMITTED TO BRINGING A PROJECT FORWARD HERE, UH, THAT IS, UH, WORTHY OF THE, THE POTENTIAL UNIQUE POTENTIAL OF THIS SITE IN THIS SPECIAL LOCATION. UH, WE HAVE A SITE THAT'S SURROUNDED BY, UH, ABOVE GRADE PARKING ON SEVERAL SIDES. UH, AND WE HAVE PROPOSED RAISING THE BAR FOR ABOVE GRADE PARKING, WHICH IS NECESSARY FOR US TO BE ABLE TO MAKE THIS PROJECT WORK. UH, AND WE ARE PROPOSING A FULLY SCREENED ABOVE GRADE PARKING STRUCTURE, UH, THAT'S WRAPPED WITH A PRECAST AND GLASS SKIN. UH, SOME LOUVERS, UH, LIMITED USE OF LOUVERS AS NEEDED FOR VENTILATION, UH, THAT WE HAVE DESIGNED TO LOOK AND FEEL LIKE IT'S CREATIVE CLASS OFFICE AT THE LOWER LEVELS OF THE BUILDING. UH, WITH RESIDENTIAL ABOVE. UH, WE'VE DESIGNED, UH, TO HAVE, UH, NICE SIDEWALKS AROUND THE PERIMETER OF THE SITE AND OPEN SPACE IN THE ACUTE ANGLES, UH, THAT WE HAVE AT THE CORNER OF ST. PAUL, UH, SORRY, ACKER AND, UH, MCKINNEY, WHICH YOU'RE SEEING IN THIS IMAGE. THIS IS THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE PROJECT, UH, AS WELL AS MORE OPEN SPACE ON THE, UM, THE NORTHWEST CORNER AS WELL. LEMME GO. THERE WE GO. UH, THIS IS NOW MOVING, UH, LOOKING, UH, TO THE EAST ABOVE ARD, UH, TO, UH, MCKINNEY AVENUE ON THE RIGHT AND THAT OPEN SPACE. UH, WE'VE LIFTED THE BUILDING UP TO OPEN THE GROUND PLANE AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE AND ACTIVATE THE STREET. UH, SO WE'LL HAVE SOME PUBLIC SPACE UNDERNEATH THE BUILDING AT THE LOWER LEVELS, UH, TO REALLY CREATE A, A VIBRANT STREET SCAPE ON THIS QUITE SMALL SITE. THIS IS A ZOOMED IN VIEW OF THAT OPEN SPACE. UH, IN ADDITION TO BEING A TRIANGLE SHAPED SITE, THERE IS ALSO GRADE CHANGE ACROSS THE PROPERTY. UH, I BELIEVE IT'S AROUND 12 FEET OF GRADE CHANGE, UH, THAT WE'RE CONTENDING WITH. SO WE DO NEED SOME STAIRS AND, AND 80 DA RAMPS, UH, THAT WILL WORK ITS WAY THROUGH THIS PUBLIC SPACE. UH, CREATING A NICE POCKET PART, REPAR RESPITE, UH, IN THE MIDDLE OF THE CITY. UH, THIS SITE WAS, IS ALSO, UH, PRETTY CLOSELY. THAT'S YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU MR. BEATTY. NEXT SPEAKER, MR. CHAIR COMMISSIONERS VICTORIA MORRIS WITH JACKSON WALKER. 2323 ROSS AVENUE, SUITE 600 IN DALLAS. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME TODAY. GLAD TO BE HERE FOR THIS VERY EXCITING PROJECT AND ON A VERY UNIQUE PARCEL OF LAND. UH, WE HAVE WORKED CLOSELY WITH COMMISSIONER KINGSTON AND STAFF TO REFINE THE PD CONDITIONS AND TO CREATE ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENTS THAT, UH, WE BELIEVE ARE BETTER ALIGNED WITH THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. AND WITH THAT, WE WOULD RESPECTFULLY REQUEST FOR YOUR RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER SPEAKERS IN SUPPORT ON ITEM 17? I AM PHIL PERRY. I LIVE AT 36 10 NORTH VERSAILLES. I'M HERE REC, UH, REPRESENTING OAK LAWN COMMITTEE. THIS PROJECT WAS PRESENTED TO US ON DECEMBER 4TH OF 24, AND AS IT WAS PRESENTED, THE COMMITTEE DID SUPPORT THIS PROJECT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER SPEAKERS IN SUPPORT? SPEAKERS IN OPPOSITION. OKAY. WE'LL GO TO COMMISSIONER KINGSTON FOR A MOTION. OKAY. IN THE MATTER OF Z DASH 25 DASH 0 0 1 5 8. UH, ALSO Z 2 4 5 DASH 15 ZERO. I MOVE THAT WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE IT. UM, SUBJECT TO WHAT WILL BE AN AMENDED DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND LANDSCAPE PLAN, UM, AND SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CHANGES. OKAY. THE DEFINITION OF STUDIO UNIT WILL BE, UM, ERASED IN SUBSECTION 1 0 8 B THREE. FLOOR AREA RATIO SHALL READ NO MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA RATIO FOR MULTIFAMILY USES, PROVIDED THAT THE MULTIFAMILY USE IS AT LEAST 65% OF THE TOTAL FLOOR AREA. OTHERWISE, MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA RATIO IS 15 TO ONE. NEXT SECTION FOUR WILL BE AMENDED AS FOLLOWS IN SUBSECTION B INSTEAD OF 16 FEET, IT'LL BE 10. AND IN SUBSECTION I, IT'LL READ ELEVATOR PENTHOUSE OR BULKHEAD AND ASSOCIATED SCREENS FOR ELEVATOR PENTHOUSE OR BULKHEAD. SUBSECTION TWO WILL READ MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT OR [02:20:01] MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT ROOM AND ANY VISUAL SCREENS WAS SURROUNDED SURROUND MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT. SUBSECTION SEVEN, REPLACE OBSERVATION DECK WITH PHOTO LACTIC CELLS. NUMBER NINE, STRIKE NEW NUMBER 10. PARAPET WALLS OR GUARDRAILS. SUBSECTION C WILL BE ADDED TO READ THE FOLLOWING MAY PROJECT A MAXIMUM OF 26 FEET ABOVE THE MAXIMUM STRUCTURE HEIGHT PROVIDED. SUCH PROJECTIONS ARE SET BACK A MINIMUM OF FIVE FEET FROM THE BUILDING FACE AND DO NOT EXCEED 65% OF THE TOTAL ROOF AREA. SUBSECTION I, ELEVATOR, PENTHOUSE, OR BULKHEAD AND ASSOCIATED SCREENS FOR ELEVATOR PENTHOUSE OR BULKHEAD. UM, DOUBLE I MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT OR MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT ROOM IN ANY VISUAL SCREENS, WHICH SURROUND MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT. TRIPLE I COOLING TOWER FOUR SKYLIGHTS, FIVE PROPHYLACTIC CELLS FOR CAPTURING SOLAR ENERGY, SIX CHIMNEY AND VENT STACKS, SEVEN PARAPET WALLS OR GUARDRAILS. SECTION FIVE OF THAT PROVISION ADD AFTER THE WORD SECTION AND S AND INCLUDE S DASH 45.110 AND I'M SORRY, 1 5 4 0.110 AND IT'S ALREADY THERE. OKAY. UM, REGARDING PARKING, I AM, UM, NOT TAKING STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, BUT INSTEAD REQUIRING IN SUBSECTION 0.109. PARAGRAPH ONE FOR MULTIFAMILY USES 0.5 SPACES FOR MICRO UNITS AND ONE SPACE FOR ALL OTHER DWELLING TYPES, UNIT TYPES IS REQUIRED. UM, IN SECTION ONE ONE, OH, I'M SORRY, 1 1 0 SUBSECTION B SUBSECTION ONE WILL READ A MINIMUM SIX FOOT WIDE SIDEWALK WITH A MINIMUM FIVE FOOT WIDE PARKWAY IS REQUIRED ALONG AKRON STREET, ST. PAUL STREET AND MCKINNEY AVENUE PLANTINGS IN THE PARKWAY MUST MEET HABITAT GARDEN STANDARDS. UM, IN THAT SAME SECTION ON D I'M SORRY, ON E SUBSECTION FIVE, STRIKE TURRET. ON SUBSECTION G, WE'LL READ STREET ACTIVATING USES, PERIOD. THE GROUND LEVEL OF ANY BUILDING MAY CONTAIN ONE OR MORE OF A COMBINATION OF THE FOLLOWING USES BAR AND RESTAURANT RETAIL USES PROFESSIONAL PERSONAL SERVICE AND CUSTOM CRAFT USES SUBSECTION H. SUB SUBSECTION TWO WILL READ AS FOLLOWS. A MINIMUM OF 30% OF THE ROOF AREA MUST BE COVERED WITH IMPROVEMENTS THAT MINIMIZE HEAT PRODUCTION SUCH AS TURF, SYNTHETIC TURF RAISE, PLANTERS OR PLANTING BEDS, PDE PAVERS, TILE PHOTO, LACTIC CELLS, SWIMMING POOLS, WATER FEATURES AND SHADE STRUCTURES, RECYCLING, I'M SORRY. NEXT PARAGRAPH. THREE. RECYCLING CONTAINERS MUST BE AVAILABLE FOR RESIDENTS AND ONSITE WORKERS. NEXT, PARAGRAPH FOUR. A MINIMUM OF 400 FEET OF PROPHYLACTIC CELLS FOR CAPTURING SOLAR ENERGY MUST BE LOCATED ON THE SITE. FIVE. THE FOLLOWING IRRIGATION TOOLS MUST BE IMPLEMENTED. A DRIP IRRIGATION MUST BE USED FOR MAINTENANCE AND LANDSCAPING AND PLANNING. B CON CONDENSE IT FROM BASE BUILDING. HVAC COOLING COILS THAT ARE GREATER THAN FIVE TONS MUST BE REUSED FOR COOLING TOWER MAKEUP OR IRRIGATION. EXCESS CONDENSATION WILL BE DISCHARGED TO SANITARY SEWER IF THE AMOUNT OF CONDENSATION WASTEWATER EXCEEDS THE IRRIGATION AND COOLING TOWER MAKEUP WATER NEEDS FOR THE PROJECT. PARAGRAPH C, DETENTION AND RAINWATER HARVESTING MUST BE USED FOR IRRIGATION. GOING DOWN TO PARAGRAPH ONE 12, PARAGRAPH FOUR A WILL READ A MINIMUM OF SEVEN CANOPY TREES MUST BE PROVIDED ALONG BOTH ACKER AND ST. PAUL, EXCEPT WHERE UTILITY CONFLICT EXISTS. THEN AN ORNAMENTAL TREE IS ALLOWED. B [02:25:01] WILL READ A MINIMUM OF FOUR CANOPY TREES MUST BE PROVIDED ALONG MCKINNEY AVENUE EXCEPT WHERE A UTILITY CONFLICT EXISTS, THEN AN ORNAMENTAL VARIETY IS ALLOWED. AND THEN IN PARAGRAPH SECTION 1 1 4, ADD PARAGRAPH D USE OF OUTDOOR AMPLIFIED SOUND IS LIMITED TO 63 DECIBELS AND MAY NOT, MAY ONLY BE USED BETWEEN 8:00 AM AND 10:00 PM MONDAY THROUGH SUNDAY. AT PARAGRAPH E, ALL OUTDOOR LIGHTING MUST BE DIRECTED DOWNWARD AND AWAY FROM ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES. I THINK MR. PEPPY HAS A QUESTION ABOUT YOUR MOTION BEFORE I LOOK FOR A SECOND. I, YES, I HAD ONE CLARIFICATION ON THE MOTION. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE BEFORE WE MOVE ON. SO IT WAS SECTION 1 54 1 1 0 URBAN DESIGN REQUIREMENTS FOR A SPECIAL PROJECT. THE SIDEWALK SECTION ONE WAS THE INTENT TO REPLACE THE FIRST. SO IT'S ONE REPLACE THE NA, UH, FIRST SENTENCE OR THE WHOLE ONE WITH, I THINK IT WAS, COULD YOU RESTATE THAT? YEAH. THE, THE CHANGE IN 1 54 0.110 B SIDEWALKS, PARAGRAPH ONE SHOULD READ A MINIMUM SIX FOOT WIDE SIDEWALK WITH A MINIMUM FIVE FOOT WIDE PARKWAY IS REQUIRED ALONG AKRON STREET, ST. PAUL STREET AND MCKINNEY AVENUE PLANTING. AND THE PARKWAY MUST MEET HAP HABITAT GARDEN STANDARDS. OKAY. OKAY. SO REPLACING THE PARAGRAPH WITH THAT, THAT TAKES THE CHASE CHANGES THE SIDEWALK ON MCKINNEY TO SIX FROM THE EIGHT AND INCREASES THE PARKWAY TO FIVE FEET. UNDERSTOOD. THANK YOU. UM, COULD I CONFIRM ON LOT COVERAGE THAT THEY'RE GONNA MEET THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 1 54 0.10 AND S 1 54 0.13? THAT'S WHAT PAGE IS THAT? WHICH SECTION? IT'S 1 0 8, LET'S SEE. 1 0 8 5. YEAH, 1 0 8. NUMBER FIVE. SECTION FIVE. YES. OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? OH, I'LL SECOND. OKAY. THANK YOU. UH, VICE CHAIR HERBERT FOR YOUR SECOND COMMISSIONER KINGSTON COMMENTS. YOU'VE BEEN SPEAKING A WHILE ALREADY, SO IF YOU'RE RETICENT , I APOLOGIZE FOR THE LONG, UM, MOTION. I WAS LATE IN GETTING MY COMMENTS BACK TO THE TEAM, AND SO I TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR PUTTING YOU ALL THROUGH THAT COMMISSIONER CARPENTER. NO, I WAS, I I WAS EVEN LATER IN GETTING QUESTIONS THIS MORNING, WHICH WAS VERY UNUSUAL FOR ME TO THE TEAM AND THEY REPLIED THAT COMMISSIONER KINGSTON HAD ALREADY ADDRESSED, UM, MOST OF MY CONCERNS. SO I DID SEE, UM, A COPY THAT COVERED MOST OF WHAT SHE JUST READ. SO YES, I HAVE SEEN THIS AND IT, IT DID ADDRESS MY CONCERNS. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT. UH, A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS FOR COMMISSIONER KINGSTON, IF I MAY FOR I'M READY. UM, TALK TO ME ABOUT, UM, THE ABOVE GROUND PARKING RELATIVE TO THE EXISTING ORDINANCE AND RELATIVE TO THE LATEST CLASS A DEVELOPMENT IN UPTOWN. IS THIS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE'VE BEEN SEEING LATELY? IT, IT IS A LITTLE INCONSISTENT. I MEAN, GENERALLY SPEAKING, THE OAKLAWN COMMITTEE DOESN'T FAVOR ABOVE GRADE PARKING LIKE THIS. UM, AND, AND USUALLY IF THEY DO, IT'S, IF IT'S COMPLETELY WRAPPED, UM, BY UNITS OR OTHER USES. UM, I WAS PERSUADED AND, AND FRANKLY, THE OAK LAWN COMMITTEE WAS ALSO PERSUADED THAT THIS SITE WITH THE ELEVATION CHANGE AND THE SHAPE AND THE, AND THE SMALL SIZE MADE DOING THE BELOW GRADE PARKING QUITE EXPENSIVE AND DIFFICULT. AND I THINK THAT'S, YOU KNOW, WHY THE COMMUNITY WAS WILLING TO ACCEPT IT HERE. UM, IT'S NOT MY FAVORITE HONESTLY. UM, BUT I THINK THAT THE ARCHITECT TEAM HAS DONE A PRETTY GOOD JOB WITH DISGUISING IT. AT LEAST I HOPE THAT WHEN WE SEE IT BUILT, THAT'S, IT LOOKS AS GOOD ON THE DIRT AS IT LOOKS ON PAPER. UM, BUT I, I, I UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU'RE COMING FROM AND, AND ORDINARILY, UM, I DON'T SUPPORT ABOVE GRADE PARKING, PARTICULARLY IN UPTOWN, BUT I, I FELT LIKE THIS WAS A UNIQUE SITE WITH ALL OF THE CHALLENGES IT HAS AND AM WILLING TO DO. SO IN THIS CASE, WAS THERE A DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT, THE SCALE OF THAT ABOVE GROUND PARKING, THE FACT THAT IT'S TALLER THAN MOST OR ALL THE PODIUMS IN THAT PART OF TOWN? UM, AGAIN, BECAUSE IT'S A VERY SMALL [02:30:01] SITE AND IT'S TRIANGULAR, UM, IN ORDER TO HAVE ENOUGH PARKING TO MEET THE NEEDS OF THE BUILDING, IT'S, IT JUST HAS TO BE A VERY TALL MM-HMM . OKAY. TRUCTURE. UM, I'VE OFFICED NEXT DOOR TO THIS SITE FOR OVER 20 YEARS, AND SO I'M PRETTY FAMILIAR WITH THE CHECKERED HISTORY OF THE PROPERTY AND, UH, A LOT OF FALSE STARTS ON THE PROPERTY. UM, DURING THOSE YEARS, THE PROPERTY HAS CONSISTENT CO CONSISTENTLY BEEN A SIGNIFICANT EYESORE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. UM, IN THIS PROCESS, I SHOULD KNOW THIS, BUT DO WE LOOK FOR ANY OUTSTANDING CODE VIOLATIONS WITH RESPECT TO WEEDS AND GRAFFITI AND HAND BILLS AND BROKEN FENCES, AND DOES ANY OF THAT EVER PLAY INTO OUR, OUR ZONING REVIEWS? I MEAN, IT USUALLY NOT ON CASES LIKE THIS, I MEAN, I THINK THAT THE PART OF WHY OAK LAWN COMMITTEE WAS WILLING TO SUPPORT THIS IS BECAUSE THEY WANT SOMETHING DONE WITH THE SITE. I MEAN, MORE THAN ONE MEMBER TOLD THAT. I THINK WE ALL DO. YEAH. UM, IS THERE AN OPPORTUNITY IN THIS PD TO, UM, SET CERTAIN STANDARDS FOR THE SITE IF NEW CONSTRUCTION DOESN'T HAPPEN? BECAUSE WE'VE, WE'VE SEEN NUMBER NUMEROUS PROPOSALS ON THIS SITE THAT HAVE NOT COME TO FRUITION, AND THE COMMUNITY SITS HERE WITH THIS, UM, DERELICT STRUCTURE AND OVERGROWN SITE AND RAGGED FENCE, AND, UH, IT GOES ON YEAR AFTER YEAR AFTER YEAR. AND SO WHAT'S YOUR PROPOSAL? UM, I'D LIKE TO SEE THE BUILDING TORN DOWN AND THE SITE CLEARED. I, I DON'T KNOW IF I CAN PUT THAT IN A PD. I MEAN, CERTAINLY WE COULD PUT SOME FENCING STANDARDS. UM, WHILE YOU'RE THINKING ABOUT THAT, WHAT, UH, WHAT, CLARIFY FOR ME WHAT YOUR MOTION DID FOR STREET LEVEL USES. I I DIDN'T FOLLOW. IT PERMITS THEM. IT DOESN'T REQUIRE THEM. OKAY. OKAY. THAT DOESN'T, THAT'S NOT REALLY A CHANGE TO THE, IS IT THE WAY I READ IT? WHAT DO YOU MEAN? THAT'S NOT REALLY, THAT'S NOT REALLY A CHANGE TO THE PD THAT WAS IN OUR REPORT. I MEAN, IT WAS NOT REQUIRED, THE WAY I READ IT IN THE REPORT, IT WAS NOT REQUIRED. YOU'RE SAYING IT'S ALLOWED, BUT NOT REQUIRED? CORRECT. OKAY. OKAY. WELL, I WOULD ENTERTAIN SOME, SOME SORT OF, OF PD LANGUAGE THAT, UM, MAKES SURE THAT THIS SITE IS NOT SUCH A DETRIMENT TO THE COMMUNITY SHOULD THIS PROPOSAL NOT GO FORWARD BECAUSE WE, WE'VE, WE'VE LIVED WITH THIS FOR 25 YEARS OR MORE, UM, WITH A, A, A PRETTY POORLY MAINTAINED PIECE OF PROPERTY. IS IT A GOOD TIME FOR A BREAK? SURE. LET'S TAKE 10 MINUTES. WE'LL BE BACK AT 2 47. ALRIGHT. ALL RIGHT. IT IS 12:47 PM AND THIS MEETING OF THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION IS BACK ON THE RECORD. COMMISSIONER KINGSTON, I BELIEVE YOU HIT THE FLOOR BEFORE WE WENT ON A BREAK. I, I DID. THANK YOU. AND I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THE APPLICANT TO PLEASE COME UP TO THE MICROPHONE. HELLO EVERYBODY. HI, COMMISSIONER. THANKS FOR HAVING ME. THANK YOU. UM, THE CONDITION OF THE SITE, WHICH I UNDERSTAND YOU'VE OWNED FOR ABOUT FIVE YEARS, HAS BEEN A SUBJECT TO HERE TODAY, AND I WANTED TO GIVE YOU THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THAT. YES, MA'AM. UM, I, I, I AGREE WITH YOU. I, I HEARD, UM, WHAT YOU SAID, COMMISSIONER, AND, UM, UNFORTUNATELY I KNOW A COUPLE OF THE PREVIOUS OWNERS AND HOW IT'S BEEN, UH, DEALT WITH. UM, WHEN, WHEN WE MADE OUR APPLICATION, AS YOU SAW, THERE ARE NO CODE VIOLATIONS. UM, WE'VE TRIED OUR BEST TO UPKEEP IT, UM, IN THE INTERIM, AND I BELIEVE WE CAN DO BETTER. UM, AND I CAN DEFINITELY COMMIT HERE THAT WE WILL, UM, BRING IN OUR, UM, BRING IN OUR CREW TO BEAUTIFY IT AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. WE'RE KIND OF ON THE TWO YARD LINE WORKING WITH A COUPLE MAJOR MAJOR DEVELOPERS TO BRING THIS SITE TO FRUITION, UH, DURING SOME VERY DIFFICULT, UM, TIME OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS. BUT I CAN ABSOLUTELY, UM, MAKE SURE, UH, DURING THIS TIME, WHICH I BELIEVE IS PRETTY IMMINENT, UH, THAT THE GRASS IS CUT, UM, THAT WE HAVE POWER WASHERS OUT THERE, EVEN ON THE SIDEWALKS AND TO THE BUILDING THAT REMEDIATE, UM, THE, UM, THE GRAFFITI ON THERE, WHICH WE AGREE, UM, HAS BEEN AN ISSUE. I GREW UP HERE IN THIS TOWN. UM, IN FACT, UM, SOME OF YOU KNOW, THIS USED TO BE A NIGHTCLUB THAT KICKED ME OUT 20 YEARS AGO FOR EVERY DIRTY SHOES. UH, IT'S NEITHER HERE NOR THERE. UM, BUT [02:35:01] WE WANT NOTHING MORE TO BRING THIS SITE TO FRUITION. AND, UM, WE HAVE NOW HAVE ALL THE ABILITY TO DO IT. AND I'D REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR SUPPORT. UH, THIS IS OWNED BY ME PERSONALLY. THIS IS NOT ENOUGH FUND OR SOME BIG PRIVATE EQUITY GROUP. UM, BUT WE TAKE IT VERY SERIOUSLY. MY FAMILY NAME'S ON THE SIDE OF THE BUILDING, UM, AND YOU HAVE MY COMMITMENT TO DO EVERYTHING IN THE INTERIM, UH, TO MAKE SURE THAT IT IS LESS OF AN EYESORE IN THE INTERIM. AND WE, UM, FIX THIS MISSING TOOTH OF UPTOWN AND MAKE IT SOMETHING BEAUTIFUL. SIR, CAN WE JUST GET YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD? YES, SIR. UM, MY NAME IS ARIA RASTAGAR AND MY ADDRESS IS 1899 MCKINNEY AVENUE. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER KINGSTON, DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING FURTHER THIS ROUND? WHAT'S YOUR TIMEFRAME FOR DOING THAT? UM, IT, I WILL, I WILL START TO BEAUTIFY THE PROPERTY AS SOON AS TOMORROW. OKAY. THANK YOU. I DON'T HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS, ANY FURTHER SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM. I WILL JUST MAKE ONE COMMENT, NOT ABOUT THE MERITS OF THIS CASE. AND LET ME JUST SAY, COMMISSIONER KINGSTON, I THINK YOU'VE DONE A REALLY GOOD JOB ON THIS. UM, YOU KNOW, THIS AREA IN PARTICULAR HAS SOME OF THE MOST COMPLICATED ZONING CASES THAT WE GET BY THE NATURE OF, OF PD 1 93 AND WHAT DOING ZONING WORK THERE ENTAILS. AND I UNDERSTAND THAT MOTIONS CAN GET REALLY COMPLEX AND DO REQUIRE SOMETIMES WORKING UP UNTIL THE, UM, FINISH LINE TO REALLY GET EVERYTHING HAMMERED OUT TO GET OUR APPLICANTS IN AND OUT. I MEAN, HERE WE ARE. WE DIDN'T HAVE TO DELAY THIS CASE. WE WERE ABLE TO, YOU KNOW, PICK UP AND RUN WITH IT FROM THE FIRST TIME THAT IT WAS POSTED ON OUR DOCKET, WHICH IS FANTASTIC. I AM WONDERING WHEN WE HAVE COMPLEX MOTIONS LIKE THIS FROM SORT OF AN OPEN MEETINGS PERSPECTIVE, AND IF THERE'S ANY WAY TO GET IT CIRCULATED TO US SOONER THAN HAVING THE MOTION MADE AT THE HORSESHOE. JUST SO YOU KNOW, FOR THOSE OF US WHO ARE VISUAL, I THINK I TRACKED EVERYTHING. BUT FOR THOSE OF US WHO ARE MORE VISUAL AND EVEN IF WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, 10 MINUTES BEFOREHAND THAT WE CAN REALLY JUST DIG IN AND DO ONE FINAL SPOT CHECK AS OPPOSED TO, YOU KNOW, HEARING THAT FOR THE FIRST TIME AT, AT THE HORSESHOE. BUT I UNDERSTAND THAT THE OPEN MEETINGS THAT MAY SORT OF IMPOSE SOME LIMITATIONS ON US. SO THIS MAY BE A QUESTION FOR STAFF AT THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE ABOUT WHAT'S PERMISSIBLE ON A CASE LIKE THIS. THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE CAN LOOK INTO TO FIGURE OUT AN EFFICIENT WAY, COMPLYING WITH THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT TO GET THESE LONG, COMPLICATED MOTIONS TO, TO THE BODY IN COMPLIANCE WITH, UH, THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT AND SORT OF THE RULES GENERALLY, MR. CHAIR. GREAT. THANK YOU. I I LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING THAT AND LEARNING MORE. AGAIN, I, I DON'T THINK THAT THAT APPLIES WHEN WE'RE, YOU KNOW, CHANGING AN SUP FROM A STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF FIVE YEARS TO TWO YEARS OR ANYTHING SIMPLE. BUT ONCE WE GET BEYOND FIVE OR SIX CONDITIONS, IT WOULD BE GREAT TO SEE IF THERE'S A WAY THAT WE CAN NOT HAVE THAT DELIBERATION BEFOREHAND, YOU KNOW, WHICH THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT DOESN'T ALLOW, BUT TO JUST, YOU KNOW, GIVE EVERYONE THE BEST OPPORTUNITY POSSIBLE TO GET UP TO SPEED. AND AGAIN, REALLY GOOD WORK ON THIS ONE. COMMISSIONER KINGSTON, I'M NOT FUSSING WITH YOU IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM. IT'S JUST A PROCESS QUESTION. AND THESE COMPLEX CASES HAPPEN TO FALL MOST FREQUENTLY, YOU KNOW, IN YOUR DISTRICT AND MAYBE ONE OR TWO OTHERS. SO HAPPY TO SUPPORT THE MOTION, BUT DID WANNA RAISE THAT, GIVEN THE LENGTH OF THE MOTION HERE. COMMISSIONER SIMS, MR. CHAIR? UH, I THINK IN, IN LIGHT OF THE CHAIR'S COMMENTS, PERHAPS THIS IS SOMETHING THE RULES COMMITTEE WILL TAKE UP, UH, TO SEE IF WE CAN CONSIDER A WAY TO GET SOMETHING BEFORE US, THAT WE CAN DEFINITELY HAVE THAT DISCUSSION THERE. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER KINGSTON, SECONDED BY THE VICE CHAIR TO FOLLOW STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL SUBJECT TO A FURTHER AMENDED DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND AMENDED LANDSCAPE PLAN AND, UH, CONDITIONS CONSIDERABLY, UH, MODIFIED BY COMMISSIONER KINGSTON AT THE HORSESHOE, WHICH I'M NOT GOING TO TRY TO READ BACK. NOW. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED, SAY NAY. THE MOTION CARRIES. OKAY. I BELIEVE THAT INCLUDE, UH, CONCLUDES ALL OF OUR VOTING ITEMS ON OUR AGENDA TODAY. UH, MS. LOPEZ, [OTHER MATTERS] WE DID HAVE A ZAC APPOINTMENT. UM, AND FOR THOSE OF Y'ALL WHO DON'T KNOW, LAWRENCE AGU, WHO WAS WITH THE CITY, UM, PREVIOUSLY AND PLAYED AN INSTRUMENTAL ROLE ON THE FORWARD DALLAS TEAM, AS I BELIEVE HE WAS THE PROJECT MANAGER ON THAT, I DON'T REMEMBER. HIS OFFICIAL TITLE HAS IN FACT REJOINED THE CITY, BUT WAS SERVING ON ZAC WHEN HE WAS MERELY A PRIVATE CITIZEN. SO HE, UM, DID HAVE TO, OR DID DECIDE TO STEP ASIDE ONCE HE REJOINED THE CITY. SO I WANT TO THANK MR. AGU FOR HIS BRIEF SERVICE, UM, ON ZAC, [02:40:01] UM, BUT ALSO VERY HAPPY TO HAVE HIM BACK IN THE CITY. SELFISHLY, I'M NOT SURE WHICH ONE I, I PREFER, BUT THEY'RE BOTH, WE'RE, WE'RE HAPPY TO HAVE HIM IN, IN EITHER ROLE, BUT THAT DOES MEAN A SEAT ON ZAP BECAME, UM, VACANT. SO WE WERE ABLE TO FIND A NEW APPOINTEE, UH, MS. LOPEZ. UM, YES, WE HAVE A NEW, UH, APPOINTEE FOR THE ZAC COMMITTEE. HER NAME IS SARAH WIX. I'M SORRY IF I'M NOT PRONOUNCING THAT CORRECTLY. THINK IT'S, I THINK WEIN. WECH. MM-HMM . OKAY. YES. AND, UM, I'LL UPDATE THE LIST AND UPDATE IT TO OUR, UH, UPLOAD IT TO OUR CPC WEBSITE. AND SHE IS GOING INTO ONE OF THE TECHNICAL SEATS THAT MS. SHE'S AN ARCHITECT AND SHE'S GOING INTO ONE OF THE TECHNICAL SEATS THAT MR. GU, UH, GU FILLED. I BELIEVE THAT CONCLUDES OUR BUSINESS. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE? ANYTHING NEEDS ANYONE NEEDS TO TAKE UP? OKAY. IT'S 2:55 PM AND THIS MEETING OF THE DALLAS CITY PLANNING COMMISSION IS ADJOURNED. * This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.