* 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. [*This meeting is joined in progress] [Board of Adjustments: Panel A on April 14, 2026.] [00:00:03] LITTLE BIT OF TECHNOLOGY. ALRIGHT, WE'RE FINE. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, OUR AGENDA TODAY, WE HAVE, UM, UH, APPROVAL OF PUBLIC TESTIMONY, THEN APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES. THEN WE HAVE, UH, ONE CASE THAT'S GONNA BE CONSIDERED FOR ON THE UNCONTESTED DOCUMENT. THREE OF THE OTHER CASES ARE GONNA MOVE TO THE INDIVIDUAL. SO THE ORDER OF OUR AGENDA IS GONNA BE PUBLIC TESTIMONY THAT ARE MEETING MINUTES. THEN WE'RE GOING TO, WE'RE GONNA MAKE A MOTION ON HART STREET IN THE UNCONTESTED DOCUMENT. THEN WE'RE GONNA HAVE PUBLIC HEARINGS ON WOOD SHIRE. ROCK, ROCK, ROCK, ROCK BROOK, SORRY. CREST HAVEN. STRAIGHT LANE IN MAPLE AVENUE. OKAY. QUESTIONS ON THE AGENDA? SEEING NONE. ALRIGHT. FIRST ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS, UH, PUBLIC TESTIMONY. MS. BOARD SECRETARY, DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC TESTIMONY, UH, SCHEDULED? NO PUBLIC, NO PUBLIC SPEAKERS, RIGHT. NO PUBLIC SPEAKERS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALRIGHT, NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS REVIEW AND APPROVAL ARE MEETING MINUTES FROM APRIL, EXCUSE ME, FROM MARCH 17TH. THE CHAIR WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION. I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE MEETING MINUTES FROM THE MARCH 17TH, 2026 PANEL A. IT'S BEEN MOVED BY MS. HAYDEN TO APPROVE THE MEETING MINUTES AS PRESENTED FOR THE PANEL, A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MARCH 17TH MEETING. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND, SECOND BY MR. KOVICH DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION HEARING? NO DISCUSSION. ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED MEETING MINUTES ARE APPROVED. UH, FIVE TO ZERO UNANIMOUSLY. THANK YOU. UM, ALRIGHT. NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA, UH, IS AN ONE CASE FROM OUR BRIEFING THIS MORNING THAT WE AGREED TO KEEP ON THE UNCONTESTED DOCKET, WHICH IS BO A 2 6 0 0 0 0 1 5. THIS IS AT FOUR ONE HEART STREET, FOUR ONE HEART STREET. UM, THE CHAIR WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION. MS. HAYDEN, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION LISTED ON THE UNCONTESTED DOCKET BECAUSE IT APPEARS FROM OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND ALL RELEVANT EVIDENCE THAT THE APPLICATION SATISFIES ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE AND IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE CODE AS APPLICABLE TO WI BOA 2 2 6 DASH 0 0 0 0 1 5 APPLICATION OF WENDELL LOCKHART FOR A VARIANCE TO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK REGULATIONS AND A VARIANCE TO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK REGULATIONS CONTAINED IN THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE IS GRANTED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION. COMPLIANCE WITH THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF ALL SUBMITTED PLANS AS REQUIRED IN THE MATTER OF BO A 2 6 0 0 0 0 1 5. UM, MS. HAYDEN HAS MOVED TO GRANT THE REQUEST FOR, UH, THE TWO VARIANCES. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. SECONDED BY MR. DORN DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION. UM, I THINK THAT THIS, UH, LOT IS CLEARLY IN A, A RESTRICTIVE SIZE AND AND SHAPE COMPARED TO THE OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE, IN THE ZONING DISTRICT AND THE, UM, PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS NOT CONTR, IS NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST AND NOT AS SELF-CREATED HARDSHIP. THANK YOU MS. HAYDEN. DISCUSSION OF THE MOTIONS. MR. DORN? NO, NO DIS ANY OTHER DISCUSSION OF THE MOTION? OKAY. THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR BO A 2 6 0 0 0 0 1 5 IS A MOTION TO GRANT, UH, UH, THE VARIANCE REQUEST FOR THE FRONT YARD SETBACK AND THE SIDE YARD SETBACK. THE BOARD SECRETARY WILL CALL THE VOTE. MS. HAYDEN AYE. MR. OVITZ? AYE. MR. FLEMING? AYE. MR. DEWAN? AYE MR. CHAIRMAN, RIGHT BEFORE I VOTE, LET ME ASK A QUESTION TO THE BOARD ATTORNEY. I APOLOGIZE. THE MOTION DOESN'T SPECIFY THE QUANTITY OF VARIANCE. SHOULD IT, IT JUST SAYS VARIANCE FOR, IT DOESN'T SAY SEVEN FOOT AND FIVE FOOT BECAUSE WE WE'RE GRANTING A SPECIFIC AMOUNT. RIGHT. BUT THAT'S PART OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL REPORT. AND ON THE BUILDING OFFICIAL REPORT IT SAYS THE FIVE AND SEVEN. OKAY. BUT I'M JUST USED TO SEEING THE EXACT AMOUNT ON HERE. OKAY, VERY GOOD. ALRIGHT, VERY GOOD. AYE. OKAY. MOTION IS GRANTED, UH, MOTION TO GRANT PASSES FIVE TO ZERO IN THE MATTER BO A 2 6 0 0 0 0 1 5. THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY ON A FIVE TO ZERO VOTE. UH, GRANTED THE TWO REQUESTS FOR VARIANCES, YOU'LL GET A, UM, A LE A DECISION LETTER FROM OUR BOARD SECRETARY OR BOARD SECRETARY IN THE NEXT TWO, TWO TO THREE DAYS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS BO A 2 5 0 0 0 9 7. THIS IS AT 7 9 4 7 WOOD SHIRE DRIVE 7 9 4 7 WOOD SHIRE DRIVE. HE'S THE APPLICANT HERE. THE APPLICANT IS NOT PRESENT. [00:05:01] OKAY, HOLD ON A SECOND. UH, THE CASE THAT I'M CALLING RIGHT NOW IS BO A 2 5 0 0 0 0 9 7. THIS IS AT SEVEN NINE FOUR SEVEN CHAR DRIVE. I'LL CALL ONE MORE TIME. IS THE APPLICANT HERE? THIS IS A CASE REQUESTING, UH, A FOUR FOOT SPECIAL EXCEPTION AND HEIGHT, A SPECIAL EXCEPTION OF OPACITY AND A SPECIAL EXCEPTION OF THE 20 FOOT VISIBILITY OBSTRUCTION. UM, MS. BOARD ADMINISTRATOR, HAS THE STAFF HEARD FROM THE APPLICANT? DID THE STAFF NOTIFY THE APPLICANT OF THE HEARING TODAY? YES. OKAY. MS. BOARD SECRETARY, HAVE YOU HEARD FROM THE APPLICANT ABOUT THEIR INABILITY TO ATTEND TODAY? UM, I SPOKE WITH HER YESTERDAY AND SHE SAID SHE IS GOING TO BE HERE. OKAY. OKAY. BOARD MEMBERS. UM, SO, UM, WE CAN HOLD OVER. WE CAN DENY ARE WE ALLOWED TO APPROVE WITHOUT A A PERSON THAT'S SHOWING UP? I THINK WE ARE, AREN'T WE? OKAY. SO IT'S WITHIN OUR, OUR, OUR AUTHORITY CONSISTENT WITH OUR RULES OF PROCEDURE TO APPROVE WITHOUT REALLY A PUBLIC HEARING DENY WITH OR WITHOUT PREJUDICE OR HOLDOVER. WHAT IS THE, THE CHAIR WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION. CAN WE MOVE THIS TO THE END OF TODAY? IS THAT WE COULD YES, WE CAN HEAR YES, WE CAN DO THAT. OKAY. I, I'D BE IN FAVOR OF THAT. OKAY. SO, UM HMM. OKAY. DO I HAVE TO SAY ANYTHING OR JUST SAY WE'LL HEAR IT LATER? WELL, I'M NOT GONNA TAKE IT, BUT, ALRIGHT, WE'LL WE WILL, UM, AT YOUR SUGGESTION, MR. FLEMING, WE WILL HOLD OFF ON THIS CASE TILL THE BALANCE OF THE DAY. UH, BUT WE WILL TAKE ACTION TODAY BECAUSE THIS WAS A PUBLICLY ADVERTISED HEARING AND PEOPLE ARE RESPONSIBLE AND IT'S, AND AS WE'VE HEARD FROM THE STAFF ACCORDINGLY. OKAY? ALRIGHT. UH, THE NEXT CASE FOR THE BOARD TO CONSIDER IS BO A 2 6 0 0 0 0 1 3. THIS IS AT 9 6 1 2 ROCK BROOK DRIVE IS THE APPLICANT HERE PLEASE COME FORWARD. OKAY. SO, UM, I'M GONNA HAVE YOU SWEAR IN OUR BOARD SECRETARY WILL SWEAR YOU IN. UM, AND THEN OUR RULES OR PROCEDURE ARE THAT YOU AS AN APPLICANT ARE GIVEN FIVE MINUTES. UM, AND ANYONE ELSE SPEAKING IN FAVOR ARE GIVEN FIVE MINUTES. ANYONE IN OPPOSITION IS GIVEN FIVE MINUTES. AND THEN YOU'RE ALSO GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL. THE REALITY IS I'M GONNA LET YOU SAY WHATEVER YOU'D LIKE TO SAY FOR WHATEVER TIME YOU WILL NEED TO SAY IT SO YOU HAVE AMPLE TIME. UH, JUST DON'T BE REDUNDANT. THAT'S ALL I ASK. SO HOLD ON A SECOND. HOW MANY SPEAKERS DO WE HAVE REGISTERED FOR THIS CASE? THREE SPEAKERS, SIR. THREE. OKAY. ALL IN FAVOR OR OPPOSED? THEY'RE ALL IN FAVOR. THREE IN FAVOR. OKAY. UM, ALL RIGHT. UH, ARE THE THREE SPEAKERS IN THE ROOM CORRECT? 'CAUSE I'M GONNA SWEAR YOU ALL IN AT THE SAME TIME, IS WHAT WE'RE GONNA DO. OKAY? GO AHEAD AND IF YOU'D RAISE YOUR HAND AND MS. WILLIAMS. OH, I APOLOGIZE, SIR. UM, MR. MCKEWAN, UH, SIGN UP ONLINE AND ALSO IN PERSON. HE'S HERE, SO HE'S, SO IT'S ONLY TWO. SO TWO. ALRIGHT, SO THE OTHER SPEAKER IS, IS MS. MARIELLE. OKAY. SO GO AHEAD. DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? OKAY, SIR. OKAY, GOOD. ALRIGHT, MA'AM, YOU CAN SIT DOWN. ALRIGHT, SIR, IF YOU'D, UH, GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND THEN YOU CAN PROCEED. OR, UH, IS THAT LIGHT ON FOR THE MIC RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU? JUST PUSH IT, PUSH IT ONCE. JUST PUSH IT ONCE. THERE YOU GO. JUST PUSH IT ONCE. MY NAME IS PHIL MCEWEN. PERFECT. MY ADDRESS IS 5 3 9 PARK LANE, RICHARDSON, TEXAS 7 5 0 8 1. PLEASE PROCEED. YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES. OH, GO AHEAD AND START, DOUG. YEP. UH, IT'S ALL YOURS. BASICALLY. UM, THIS IS AN EXISTING SWIMMING POOL. UM, IT'S BEEN THERE PROBABLY, UM, SINCE SOME TIME IN THE SIXTIES. UM, WHEN, WHAT THE, UM, UH, APP APPLICATION IS FOR IS TO, UH, EXTEND THE POOL. UH, THE EXISTING POOL WAS ALREADY IN, UH, ENCROACHING INTO THE BUILDING SETBACKS. UM, WE ASSUMED AT THE TIME THAT THERE WOULD'VE BEEN A [00:10:01] BUILDING PERMIT WITH A, UH, VARIANCE. AT THE TIME WE'VE DONE, UH, ALL THE DUE DILIGENCE WE COULD FIND WITH THE CITY LOOKING FOR THE OLD RECORDS, THEY CAN'T FIND THE, UM, EITHER THE ORIGINAL POOL APPLICATION OR THAN THE ORIGINAL HOUSE APPLICATION. SO WE STARTED THE PROCESS, UH, TO GO THROUGH THE BOARD OF REVIEW JUST TO, UM, OR BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS TO MAKE THIS HAPPEN. BASICALLY, IT, WE'RE NOT CHANGING THE ELEVATION OF THE POOL. UM, UH, THE ONLY THING WE'RE DOING IS BUILDING INTO AN EXISTING SITUATION BOARD MEMBERS. YOU, YOU GOT THE LETTERS THAT I PASSED DOWN. I'LL DO IT, PASS IT DOWN AGAIN FOR, FOR YOUR RATIFICATION. UM, OKAY. ANYTHING ELSE AT THIS JUNCTURE? NOT REALLY. ARE YOU THE HOMEOWNER? NO, SIR. I'M THE BUILDING OR POOL CONTRACTOR. YOU'RE THE POOL CONTRACTOR. OKAY. OKAY. UM, QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT. MR. DO CURRENTLY, HOW THE, THE POOL THAT WAS THERE BUILT, THAT WAS BUILT IN THE SIXTIES, HOW FAR DOES IT ENCROACH INTO THAT SETBACK LINE CURRENTLY? PRETTY MUCH, UH, ALL WITHIN A COUPLE FEET OF WHERE WE'RE AT NOW, IF, IF YOU, IF YOU SAW THE DIAGRAM SWORN AND YOU CAN SEE THE OLD POOL AND THE LOOP POOL, BUT IT IS PROBABLY, UM, I WOULD SAY THE OLD, THE OLD POOL WAS PROBABLY IN THE, IN THE LINE, UH, 15 FEET OR SO. AND WE'RE GOING, UM, A LITTLE BIT FURTHER OUT THAN THAT. THAT'S IT. WHAT, WHAT'S A LITTLE BIT, UM, I DON'T HAVE A PLAN. PROBABLY THREE OR FOUR FEET. WHAT DID YOU SAY? YOU DON'T HAVE YOUR PLANS IN FRONT OF YOU? I, I DON'T HAVE THAT. I DO HAVE NOT THE SCALE, WELL, IT'S ABOUT HALF OF IT. WE'RE GOING, UH, ACCORDING TO THIS SURVEY, UM, OR SITE PLAN. UH, WE'RE GOING QUITE A BIT MORE, UM, PROBABLY 10 FEET. THANK YOU. AND WE'RE NOT CHANGING ANY ELEVATIONS. OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? UH, AT THE BRIEFING THIS MORNING, THE BOARD GETS A BRIEFING BY STAFF. THERE WERE A LOT OF QUESTIONS THAT I AND OTHERS HAD REGARDING THIS 50 FOOT BUILDING LINE. AND MY FIRST QUESTIONS OF THE STAFF THIS MORNING WAS, IS THIS BUILDING LINE CONSISTENT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR IS IT UNIQUE TO THIS PROPERTY? AND THE COMMENT THAT THE STAFF MADE WAS, NO, IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. UM, WHY SHOULD WE IGNORE THE 50 FOOT BUILDING LINE FOR YOUR PROPERTY? WELL, IN THIS, OR FOR THE PROPERTY, YOU'RE BUILDING A POOL ON, IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, WE'RE NOT CHANGING ANYTHING REALLY VISIBLE FROM THE STREET THAT YOU COULD SEE IN, IN THE VIDEO THIS MORNING. YOU COULD SEE THE WHOLE, UH, AREA IS, I MEAN, THE WHOLE NEIGHBORHOOD IS BASICALLY A LOT OF TREES, A LOT OF BUSHES. I MEAN, I'VE DONE MANY POOLS IN THAT WHOLE NEIGHBORHOOD, INDEPENDENT, UM, YOU REALLY CAN'T SEE INTO THIS YARD. NOT YOUR NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR TO YOU, TO THE NORTHEAST. IT'S AN OPEN FENCE AND THE HOUSE IS SET BACK AT THE 50 FOOT BUILT ONE. THE, THE, THE POOL OR THE PROPERTY ON ROCKFORD ARE THE ONLY ONES THAT WOULD REALLY BE OF A CONCERN TO AS A NEIGHBOR IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD. EVERYBODY ELSE, YOU CAN'T, LIKE, YOU CAN'T LOOK OUT YOUR FRONT DOOR AND SEE THIS PROPERTY. UH, MYRON IS THE SIDE STREET AND THAT'S THE AREA THAT WE'RE, WE'RE WANTING TO ON. THERE WAS A QUESTION THIS MORNING ALSO ABOUT A FENCE THAT GOES DOWN. MYRON? YES SIR. IT'S ALSO IN THE BUILDING. IN THE BUILDING. YES. IT'S BEEN THERE FOR QUITE A WHILE. I MEAN, I, UM, I MEAN I'VE LITERALLY DRIVE PAST THIS AREA ONCE OR TWICE A WEEK. I'VE NEVER NOTICED THAT HOUSE UNDER CONSTRUCTION UNTIL THEY STARTED DOING THE REMODEL. WELL, AND ALL DUE RESPECT, SIR, YOU'RE NOT THE PROPERTY OWNER, SO YOU WERE HIRED JUST FOR THE POOL. SO I'M REMISS NOT GETTING TO THE PROPERTY OWNER TO SPEAK TO THAT AS WELL. I CAN'T TELL YOU THE PROPERTY. THEY PURCHASED THE HOUSE, UH, IN 2023 AND THE FENCE WAS EXISTING AT THAT TIME. DID YOU BEGIN WORK ON THE POOL? NO, SIR. THEY'RE DOING THE WORK ON THE HOUSE. WE DID DRAIN THE POOL JUST TO KEEP THEM STEELS DOWN, BUT WE HAVEN'T DONE ANY, ANY OTHER LOOK ON. OKAY. MR. FLYNN, IS THERE ANYTHING ABOUT THE ELEVATION OF THE SITE THAT CREATES A HARDSHIP? UM, I'M NOT REALLY UNDERSTANDING THE QUESTION, BUT IT, IT, WE'RE NOT CHANGING THE ELEVATION. THERE'S A SLOPE THAT GOES OFF TOWARDS THE REAR PROPERTY LINE, UH, FROM THE FRONT TO THE BACK. [00:15:01] IT BROUGHT FROM, UH, IT DROPS ABOUT 15 FEET, BUT WE'RE KIND OF IN THE MIDDLE AND WE'RE STAYING, WE'RE NOT DOING ANYTHING TO THE ELEVATION AT ALL. WE'RE BASICALLY JUST EXTENDING THE POOL. SO DID THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, MR. FLEMING? OKAY. LIKE, UH, MS. HAYDEN, THEN MR. HOPKIN IS MS. HAYDEN. SO OUR CRITERIA TO, UM, APPROVE A VARIANCE ARE THE, NOT BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST THAT IT'S NECESSARY TO PREVENT DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE A LOT IS A RESTRICTED AREA, SHAPE OR SLOPE, AND THAT IT'S NOT GRANTED TO RELIEVE A SELF-CREATED OR PERSONAL HARDSHIP. SO WE HAVE TO MEET ALL THREE OF THOSE CRITERIA, OR YOU HAVE TO PROVE THAT YOU'VE MET ALL THREE OF THOSE CRITERIA. SO COULD YOU ELABORATE ON THE RESTRICTIVE AREA, SHAPE OR SLOPE OR THAT WHY THIS WOULD NOT BE GRANTED TO RELIEVE A, RELIEVE A SELF-CREATED HARDSHIP? WELL, I'M NOT, I'M NOT REALLY SURE. I DON'T UNDERSTAND IT. WHAT THE, THE CITY CODE SPEAKS TO, UH, ZONING LAND USE SETBACKS AND EXCEPTIONS TO THEREOF. SO IN YOUR PARTICULAR AREA, IN THE PROPERTY OWNER'S PARTICULAR AREA, IT'S, IT'S ZONED R ONE ACRE. AND IN ONE R ONE ACRE PROPERTIES, IT HAS CERTAIN SETBACKS. THIS HAS A PLATTED BUILDING LINE OF 50 FEET, AND THROUGHOUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD IT'S ALL 50 FOOT SETBACKS. MS. HAYDEN'S QUESTION WENT TO THE CRITERIA BY WHICH A PROPERTY OWNER WOULD COME TO US AND SAY, WE WANT, UH, A VARIANCE TO THE ZONING TO ALLOW US TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTY, THE CRITERIA THAT SHE ALLUDED TO, OR THE THREE COMPONENTS THAT HAVE TO BE MET. ONE, IS IT NOT COUNTRY TO PUBLIC INTEREST? TWO, IS IT NECESSARY TO PERMIT DEVELOPMENT OF A PIECE OF LAND BECAUSE OF RESTRICTED ERIE SHAPE OR SLOPE THAT COULD NOT OTHERWISE BE DEVELOPED? AND THREE IS NOT GRANTED TO RELIEVE A SELF-CREATED HARDSHIP. SO WHAT SHE WAS TRYING TO GET YOU TO DO IS TESTIFY TO THOSE THINGS OR NOT. UH, I, WHEN YOU, I, IF HE CAN'T ANSWER WHEN YOU TESTIFY, WE WILL LET YOU BE ABLE TO ANSWER THAT. THANK YOU. HE'S SPEAKING RIGHT NOW, SO OH, OH, WE'LL FINISH WITH YOU SIR. AND THEN WE'LL GO WITH HER. I WOULD RA I WOULD PREFER MARY ELLEN. OKAY. WELL, SHE'LL, WE'LL ABLE, WE'LL ASK HER QUESTION AGAIN. PERFECTLY FINE. OKAY. OKAY. UM, MS. HAYDEN, SO WE'LL HOLD YOUR QUESTION IN ADVANCE. UM, ALRIGHT, MR. HOROWITZ. SO I JUST WANT TO RECOVER SOMETHING THAT YOU MENTIONED. SO YOU'RE EXTENSION OF THE POOL IS ABOUT 10 FEET? YES, SIR. AND THE SLOPE, THE BACK WHERE THAT, THAT SLOPE THAT GOES IN THE BACK OF THE YARD, YOU SAID YOU'RE NOWHERE NEAR WHERE THAT STARTS? WELL, IT STARTS ACTUALLY AT THE VERY FRONT OF THE PROPERTY. SEE CONTINUOUS SLOPE ALL THE WAY BACK. BUT WHEN, WHEN WE'RE, AND WE'RE BASICALLY, UM, WE'RE NOT CHANGING ANY OF THE SLOPE PAST THE POOL, WE'RE JUST EXTENDING THE POOL FLAT AND THEN IT, IT CATCH THERE'S A EXISTING LANDSCAPING AND WALLS AND STUFF LIKE THAT THAT ABSORB ALL THAT. IS THE SLOPE. IS THE SLOPE BEYOND WHERE YOU'RE PLANNING TO PUT THAT BEYOND THAT, DOES THAT GET GO STEEPER? IT, IT CONTINUES DROPPING. YES, SIR. DOES IT GET STEEPER THAN NOT REALLY STEEPER? IT'S, IT'S A GRADUAL STEADY DECLINE THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE PROPERTY. OKAY, MA'AM, I CAN HOLD MY QUESTION AS WELL. I CAN HAVE YOU SPEAK OFF THE RECORD UNTIL YOU COME TO THE MICROPHONE. GOT IT. SO IF HE'S NOT ABLE TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION, THAT'S OKAY. WE WILL RE-ASK THE QUESTION WHEN IT'S YOUR TIME TO SPEAK. OKAY. I I CAN'T TELL YOU THE, WE'RE WE'RE NOT CHANGING THE ELEVATION OF THE PROPERTY. UM, IT'S JUST THAT WE'LL CONTINUED OUT BASICALLY IN, IN THE AIR, SO TO SPEAK. AND THEN AT THE END OF THAT POOL IT DROPS DOWN TO THE ORIGINAL GRADE. SO I DO HAVE A FOLLOW UP QUESTION. SO IF YOU'RE NOT CHANGING GRADING OR, UH, THE PROPERTY TO DO THIS POOL EXTENSION, UM, IT CAN'T BE MUCH OF A SLOPE. IT, IT'S ABOUT, UM, IT'S ROUGHLY A FOOT EVERY, I'D SAY 10 FEET OR SO. SO YOU'RE BUILDING 10 FEET, YOU'RE, YOU'RE BUILDING 10 MORE FEET. RIGHT. SO THAT WOULD BE A, A ONE FOOT DROP. WELL, THE POOL'S GONNA BE BUILT LEVEL [00:20:01] AND THEN THE SLOPE IS COMING DOWN AND WE'RE JUST EXTENDING, I MEAN, AT THE END OF THE POOL AND THE END OF EVERYTHING WE'RE DOING, IT JUST DROPPED DOWN TO THAT ORIGINAL GRADE. SO WE'RE NOT, WE'RE NOT LIKE RESHAPING THE WHOLE BACKYARD. IT'S JUST GONNA DROP OFF. IT JUST DROPPED OFF. THE, THE SIDE OF THE POOL IS JUST GOING TO HAVE A DROP OFF, RIGHT? OF ABOUT A FOOT? YES, SIR. TO THE YARD. PROBAB. WELL, UM, YEAH, I GUESS YOU COULD SAY THE ONE LOOKS LIKE IT'S TO THE PATIO DECK THAT PUT IN THE, IT LOOKS LIKE TO A PATIO DECK. IF I LOOK AT THEIR DRAWING. SO THE POOL'S NEXT ALL IN THAT DRAWING? YEAH, MAYBE SO. WELL, IT'S AT THE END OF THE POOL. IT'S A NEGATIVE BED, SO THE WATER, IT DROPS DOWN INTO A NEGATIVE VEGETATION, WHICH IS AT EXISTING THE, COMES OVER THE EDGE OF THE POOL. I GOTCHA. OKAY. THANK YOU. YOU WELCOME. ANY OTHER QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT? MR. DORY? IS THE SIZE OF THE POOL HOUSE THAT'S BEING ADDED, IS THIS DRIVING PART OF THE MOVEMENT MIGHT EXTENDING THE POOL? WELL, THE POOL HOUSE DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE POOL. WE'RE GOING THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION FROM WHERE THEY'RE, UH, LOOKING AT PUTTING A POOL. NO, I UNDERSTAND. WE PUT THE POOL THE OTHER DIRECTION. WHAT'S THE POOL HOUSE. OH, OKAY. WE'RE NOT, WE'RE GONNA ENCROACH, WE'RE EXTENDING, WE'RE EXTENDING THE SHALLOW END OF THE POOL THAT IT'S A NINE FOOT EQUAL AND THE, THE NINE FOOT DEPTH END IS AT THE, UM, THE ROCK BOOK END OF THE POOL. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT, MR. HAITZ? SO, UM, OTHER, OTHER THAN THE, OTHER THAN TO SATISFY A DESIRE OF THE HOMEOWNER TO HAVE AN EXTENDED POOL, UM, IS THERE ANY OTHER FACTORS YOU'RE AWARE OF THAT WE SHOULD CONSIDER ALLOWING A VARIANCE TO WHERE THAT POOL SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO GO UNDER THE CURRENT, UM, ZONING RULES? WELL, UM, THE DESIRE FOR THE HOMEOWNER IS THERE. THAT'S WHAT DROVE THE WHOLE THING TO BEGIN WITH. UM, I PERSONALLY DON'T SEE AN ISSUE WITH KNOWING THE PROPERTY AND KNOWING THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND BUILDING A LOT OF POOLS FOR THE NEIGHBORS IN THE AREA. UM, I DON'T REALLY SEE IT WOULD BE AN EFFECT ON ANYBODY AS FAR AS VISIBILITY. NOBODY'S GONNA BE ABLE TO SEE IT ANY BETTER, ANY DIFFERENT. UM, IT DOESN'T AFFECT REALLY ANYTHING, BUT IT IS THE HOMEOWNER'S DESIRE TO DRIVE IN EXPENSE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? OKAY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE'LL BE BACK WITH YOU IN A MINUTE. OKAY. UM, THE OTHER SPEAKER, MS. WILLIAMS, MS. MARY ELLEN, UM, COHEN, MARY ELLEN KA, I'M THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. I'M THE PROJECT. UH, AND TELL ME YOUR NAME AGAIN. MARY ELLEN KALAN. C-O-W-A-N-C-O-W-A. MM-HMM . N THANK YOU. OKAY, PROCEED. OKAY. WELL WE SAW THE HARDSHIP AS, UM, THEY HAVE, THEY'RE ON A CORNER LOT, SO THEY'RE ANSWERING TO A FRONT YARD SETBACK ON ROCK BROOK AND ON MYRON. UM, SO, YOU KNOW, THEN WE GOT DOUBLE DUTY SETBACK ON THERE. EXCUSE ME, MA'AM, CAN YOU PLEASE MOVE THE MICROPHONE TOWARDS YOU OR YOU CLOSER? CAN YOU HEAR BETTER? YES, THANK YOU. DO I NEED TO REPEAT THAT? NO, YOU'RE GOOD. OKAY. UH, THE, THE, UH, THE HUSBAND IS A D ONE SWIMMER WAS FOR SMU. THEY HAVE SMALL KIDS. AS PHIL MENTIONED. THE DEEP END ON THE EXISTING POOL, UH, STOPPED US FROM MOVING TOWARDS THE WEST. SO WE'RE EXTENDING, UH, TO THE EAST. UM, THE, THE OTHER ISSUE IS THERE ARE A LOT OF VERY SIGNIFICANT LIVE OAKS ON THE PROPERTY. AND, UM, WE'RE HUGGING THESE TREES. SO, UH, THAT'S A MAJOR FACTOR IN IT AS WELL. IF THEY'RE WANTING A LARGER POOL, IT SEEMED, UM, RIGHT FROM A BUDGET STANDPOINT TO EXTEND THE EXISTING POOL. AND TWO, WITH, UH, THE CANOPY AND ROOT SYSTEMS OF ALL THE SURROUNDING TREES, THERE REALLY ISN'T ANOTHER PLACE TO PUT A NEW POOL IN. AND WE CERTAINLY DON'T WANNA TAKE DOWN ANY OF THESE LIVE OAKS. THEY'RE SPECTACULAR. I'M NOT FOLLOWING, UM, THE QUESTION IN REGARDS TO THE, UM, FENCING, I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT CAME UP, UH, THIS MORNING. UM, PHIL SAID POTENTIALLY THERE'S AN EXISTING FENCE THAT'S, UM, [00:25:04] NOT ANSWERING TO SOMETHING. MAYBE YOU . SO WHAT IS BEFORE US TODAY IS A REQUEST TO, UH, FOR AN 18 FOOT VARIANCE THROUGH YOUR FRONT YARD SETBACK. MM-HMM . THAT'S WHAT'S BEFORE US TODAY. AND WHAT'S DRIVING THAT IS THE 50 FOOT CORRECT SETBACK THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD. UM, WHAT YOU HAD, WHAT WAS MENTIONED THIS MORNING IN THE VIDEO IS, WOW, THERE'S A FENCE IN THE SETBACK AS WELL. AND IT JUST BEGGED THE QUESTION, WAS THAT A VIOLATION ALSO? IT JUST BEGGED THE QUESTION. GOT IT. IS, IS THAT A VIOLATION AS WELL? BECAUSE THAT'S NOT ALLOWED BY RIGHT, BY RIGHT. IS WITHIN, INSIDE THE 50 FOOT SETBACK, NOT OUTSIDE OF THE 50 FOOT SETBACK. SO THAT'S WHAT WAS MENTIONED THIS MORNING. OKAY. IN THE DRAWINGS THAT YOU SUBMITTED TO THE STAFF, MS. COHEN, IT SHOWS TREES, BUT THE TREES ARE ALL ALONG THE FENCE LINE. I DON'T SEE A TREE, I DON'T SEE TREES IN THE AREA WHERE YOU'RE WANTING TO EXTEND THE POOL. UM, AND I AGREE, I WOULD HATE TO TAKE DOWN CORRECT. I WOULD HATE TO TAKE DOWN TREES AND THAT SORT OF THING, BUT I ALSO AM VERY HESITANT. THIS ONE MEMBER IS VERY HESITANT TO VIOLATE THE SETBACK THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. SO THERE'S MY, THERE'S MY CONUNDRUM AND THERE NEEDS TO BE, UM, COMPELLING EVIDENCE THAT SAYS THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD DO SO WELL, AND YOU, YOU CAN SEE FROM THE LAYOUT OF THE HOME, UH, THIS, THIS PART OF THE PROPERTY IS, IS BACK OF HOUSE, THE, YOU KNOW, E EVERYTHING IS FACING ROCK BROOK AND TO THE NORTH. UM, SO I DO THINK IT'S A HARDSHIP FOR, UH, THIS PROPERTY TO HAVE ALL OF ROCK BROOK AND ALL OF MYRA IN A QUIET SIDE STREET CONSIDERED A FRONT YARD SETBACK. AND ALL DUE RESPECT, WHEN THE PROPERTY OWNER PURCHASED THE PROPERTY, THEY WERE GIVEN A SURVEY THAT HAD BUILDING LINES AND SETBACKS. AND THAT'S THE RESPONSIBILITY OF A PROPERTY OWNER BEFORE PURCHASING TO KNOW WHAT THE LIMITATIONS AND WHAT THEIR THINGS ARE BY RIGHT. IN THAT PROPERTY. AND THAT'S NOT FOR THE CITY OR FOR THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OR FOR THE NEIGHBORS TO ENFORCE THAT AS PART OF THE RESPONSIBILITY OF A PURCHASER OF THE PROPERTY. I THINK HE STATED THAT THE PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY BOUGHT IT IN 2023. SO THAT'S JUST THREE YEARS AGO. THESE, THIS BUILDING SETBACK LINE WAS YEARS IN THE MAKING. SO IT WASN'T SOMETHING NEW THAT WAS CREATED AFTER HE PURCHASED IT. IT WAS IN PLACE AT THE TIME THE PROPERTY OWNER PURCHASED IT. THERE IS AGAIN OUR CONUNDRUM. HE OR SHE WHO PURCHASED IT SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT. WELL, I THINK THE OTHER HARDSHIP IS THAT, UM, THEY PURCHASED A PROPERTY WITH A SWIMMING POOL, UM, WITH EVERY EXPECTATION THAT THE SWIMMING POOL WAS PERMITTED AND INSPECTED. AND, UM, WHEN WE LOOKED AT THIS PROJECT OF EXTENDING THE SWIMMING POOL OVER, THAT'S WHEN PHIL AND MCKEE AND THE POOL CONTRACTORS DISCOVERED THE CITY HAS NO RECORD OF THIS POOL. SO THE HO HOW WOULD THE HOMEOWNER WELL KNOW THIS, THAT BEGS THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE POOL WAS PERMITTED IN THE FIRST PLACE. CORRECT. AND GOSH, WHEN EACH ONE OF US BUY A PIECE PIECE OF PROPERTY FROM THE HOUSE, WE'RE RESPONSIBLE FOR KNOWING WHAT IS IN THAT PROPERTY AND WHETHER IT'S COMPLIANT OR NOT. AND IT'S INCUMBENT UPON THE OWNER, WHOEVER THE PURCHASER IS, TO KNOW WHAT IS ON THE GROUND AND WHETHER IT'S THAT POOL IS, AND IF I, IF I AM SUPERIMPOSING, AS FOR THE DOCUMENTS THAT WERE SUBMITTED, THE THE EXISTING POOL IS ALREADY PAST THE 50 FOOT SETBACK. SO IT WAS BUILT CORRECT. THAT'S THE POINT. IT WAS BUILT POINT, I DON'T WANNA SAY ILLEGALLY, BUT IT WAS BUILT WITHOUT A PERMIT. IT MUST HAVE, BECAUSE THE CITY WOULD NOT PERMIT THAT IF IT CROSSED THAT BUILDING SETBACK LINE, YOU'D COME HERE IN THE PROSPECTIVELY. SO, SO I, I I, IT'S HARD FOR ME TO SPEAK TO YOU 'CAUSE YOU'RE NOT THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, BUT IF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY WAS HERE, I'D BE SAYING TO THE OWNER, WHY DIDN'T YOU CATCH THAT WHEN YOU, WHEN YOU AND YOUR REALTOR BOUGHT IT IN THE SURVEY AND, AND ALL THOSE OTHER THINGS. BUT I, I JUST DON'T KNOW HOW YOU WOULD CATCH THAT. BUT I, IT SHOWS ON YOUR SURVEY, IT WOULD SHOW ON YOUR SURVEY WHERE THE BUILDING SETBACK LINE IS, BUT HOW WOULD THEY KNOW WHETHER THIS POOL THAT WAS BUILT WAS BUILT WITHOUT A PERMIT OR NOT? I MEAN, WHO WOULD EVER THINK THAT? WELL, WE'RE IN A CIRCULAR DISCUSSION, UM, THAT IS INCUMBENT UPON EVERY PROPERTY OWNER IN DALLAS THAT HAS A PLATTED PROP [00:30:01] PIECE OF PROPERTY. AND WE HAVE SIX CASES TODAY AND, AND, YOU KNOW, WE DEAL WITH 230 CASES A YEAR OF THESE SORT OF THINGS THAT COME UP. AND OUR ANSWER HAS TO BE RE HAS TO BE UNIQUE TO THE REQUEST, BUT CONSISTENT IN THE APPLICATION OF THE RULES. I UNDERSTAND. AND WE DID, WE DID GO AROUND AND SPEAK WITH ALL THE NEIGHBORS AND, AND, UM, GOT VERY POSITIVE FEEDBACK FROM ALL THE NEIGHBORS. UNDERSTOOD. WHAT OTHER QUESTIONS, MR. FLEMING? SO, UH, AS FAR AS THE TRYING TO FIND THE PERMIT FOR THE POOL, UH, I BELIEVE IT WAS MENTIONED THAT THEY ALSO FAILED TO FIND THE PERMIT FOR THE HOUSE. IS THAT YOUR UNDERSTANDING? THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING. W WOULD YOU THEN SPECULATE THAT IT SEEMS LIKE I, IT'S HARD TO IMAGINE THAT THEY BUILT THE HOUSE WITHOUT A PERMIT. CORRECT. SO IT SEEMS MORE LIKELY THAT THIS WAS LOST AT SOME POINT. WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THAT? MM-HMM . OKAY, THANK YOU. WELL, THAT'S A LEAP OF FAITH TO SAY IT'S LOST. I MEAN, I'D HATE TO THINK OUR CITY IS LOSING PERMITS, BUT , BUT YOU KNOW, IT'S EASIER TO IMAGINE THAT THAN A HOUSE BEING BUILT WITHOUT . WELL, I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT. A HOUSE WITHOUT A I WOULD AGREE. WHOA. OKAY. THANK YOU MR. FLYNN, MS. HAYDEN. SO I'M GONNA GO BACK TO THE CRITERIA BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE, THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE TO BASE OUR DECISION ON, YOU KNOW, WHETHER, YOU KNOW, WE JUST, YOU KNOW, PERSONALLY AGREE WITH WHAT'S BEING DONE HERE OR NOT IS IRRELEVANT. UM, THE APPLICANT HAS TO MEET THE CRITERIA. SO, UM, THE CRITERIA OF NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST, UM, I COULD, YOU KNOW, SEE THAT WE DON'T HAVE ANY OPPOSITION NECESSARILY, UM, THE RESTRICTIVE AREA SHAPE OR SLOPE. MAYBE THE SECOND FRONT YARD SETBACK COULD, BUT I HAVEN'T REALLY SEEN A LOT OF EVIDENCE TO THAT. BUT WHAT I'M REALLY STRUGGLING WITH IS THAT THIS IS NOT GRANTED TO RELIEVE AS SELF-CREATED OR PERSONAL HARDSHIP, NOR FOR FINANCIAL REASONS ONLY. SO I GUESS THAT'S, THAT'S THE PART THAT I'M STRUGGLING WITH. SO DO YOU HAVE ANY, UM, ANSWER FOR THAT PART OF THE, THE THIRD CRITERIA? SO WE'RE IN AGREEMENT ON THE, UH, FRONT YARD SETBACK. I'M JUST ONE BOARD MEMBER, SO EVERYBODY HAS TO YEAH, I'M JUST, AND THE OTHER CRITERIA IS HARDSHIP ON THE PROPERTY WITH REGARDS TO SLOPE OR EXISTING, I'LL READ IT TO YOU. IT SAYS THE THIRD CRITERIA IS NOT GRANTED TO RELIEVE A SELF-CREATED OR PERSONAL HARDSHIP, NOR FOR FINANCIAL REASONS ONLY NOR TO PERMIT ANY PERSON A PRIVILEGE IN DEVELOPING A PARCEL OF LAND NOT PERMITTED BY THIS CHAPTER TO OTHER PARCELS OF LAND WITH THE SAME ZONING. SO I THINK WERE YOU, WERE YOU GUYS GIVEN THE CRITERIA FOR A VARIANCE BEFORE THE HEARING? I MEAN, USUALLY THE APPLICANT HAS THE CRITERIA AND THEN THEY COME PREPARED TO PRESENT THE CASE. I, I, I DID NOT RECEIVE THAT BILL WITH YOU. THAT, SO THE, THE APPLICANT ON FILE WOULD'VE RECEIVED THE VARIANCE STANDARDS DURING THE INTAKE REVIEW. UM, DIANA DOES SPECIFICALLY GO OVER THOSE VARIANCE, UM, VARIANCE STANDARDS. AND WHEN OUR SENIOR PLANNERS SEND AN INTRODUCTORY EMAIL WITH ALL OF THE PERTINENT DATES, WE INCLUDE VARIOUS STANDARDS AND THAT INFORMATION AS WELL. OKAY. THANK YOU. WHAT ARE THE QUESTIONS FOR THE APP, MR. FLYNN? IF, IF I COULD JUST BUILD ON WHAT SHE'S SAYING, I I THINK THAT, YEAH, I, I'M SYMPATHETIC TO THE ENTIRE ENDEAVOR HERE. UH, BUT IF WE'RE GRANTING THAT THE, UH, THE TWO FRONT YARDS IS THE PROBLEM HERE, WE'RE JUST TRYING TO ESTABLISH HOW THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY SELF-CREATED. AND I, I THINK IT KIND OF SPEAKING TO WHAT DAVE WAS TALKING ABOUT, ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THE PERSON MADE THE CHOICE TO BUY THE HOME WELL AWARE THAT IT HAD THE TWO FRONT YARDS. AND SO AT THAT POINT, YOU KNOW, ARE THEY, AREN'T THEY THEN CREATING THIS PROBLEM FOR THEMSELVES, UH, IS I THINK KIND OF HOW WE'RE GOING TOWARDS SEEING IT. AND SO I JUST WANNA GIVE YOU A CHANCE TO RESPOND TO THAT AND, YOU KNOW, IF YOU SEE IT ANOTHER WAY OR COULD GIVE US ANOTHER LINE OF THINKING ON THIS, WELL, THERE'S AN EXISTING POOL THAT'S OVER THAT, SO I WOULD THINK ANYONE WOULD HAVE THE ASSUMPTION THAT THAT WAS APPROVED. I MEAN, WOULD, WOULD WE NOT ASSUME THAT? YEAH, NO, THEY COULD DEFINITELY HAVE THE POOL, BUT AS FAR AS EXPANDING THE POOL, IT'S, WE'RE MAKING IT MORE USABLE FOR THE FAMILY. WE, WE DISCOVERED THIS, UM, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY WHEN WE WENT IN TO GET THE, NOT, I DIDN'T GO IN TO GET THE PERMIT, BUT WHEN MR. MCEWEN WENT IN TO GET THE PERMIT, THAT'S WHAT DISCOVERED THE CITY HAS NO RECORD OF ANY OF THIS. [00:35:01] WELL, RESPECTFULLY, WHEN YOU SAY THE CITY HAS NO RECORD, THAT DOESN'T MEAN THE CITY LOST IT, THAT DOESN'T MEAN, BUT THAT ALSO BEGS THE QUESTION OF WHETHER ONE WAS NEVER APPLIED TO FOR SO, AND JUST LIKE MR. FLEMING SAID, IT WOULD BE HARD TO BELIEVE A HOUSE WAS BUILT WITHOUT A PERMIT. IT'S, IT SHOULD ALL EQUALLY BE, IT SHOULD BE ASSUMED THAT IT'D BE HARD FOR A POOL TO BE BUILT WITHOUT A PERMIT, BUT APPARENTLY A POOL WAS BUILT WITHOUT A PERMIT. NOW I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE HOUSE, SO, UM, BUT A A A HOMEOWNER WOULDN'T KNOW THAT UPFRONT YOU WERE ASKING ME, YOU KNOW, WOULD THEY IN THE REALTOR REALIZE THAT? HOW, HOW WOULD A HOMEOWNER REALIZE THAT? YEAH, JUST THE MATTER OF THE ORIGINAL POOL. UH, WE'RE, WE'RE NOT DEBATING WHETHER OR NOT THE ORIGINAL POOL CAN BE THERE OR WHAT. IT'S JUST CAN WE EXPAND THE POOL? SO IT'S NOT ENTIRELY UNRELATED, BUT IT'S NOT THE CENTRAL THING THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE, WHETHER OR NOT THE ORIGINAL POOL WAS PERMITTED. RIGHT. OKAY. SO JUST SPEAKING TO THE, UH, EXPANDING THE POOL, WHAT ABOUT THIS IS NOT SELF-CREATED? UH, WELL, I THINK THEY SEE SOME OF THIS IS HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE, UM, FOR THEIR CHILDREN. IT'S A VERY DEEP POOL. UM, THEY'D LIKE TO GET SOME SHALLOW END TO THIS POOL. THEY HAVE, UM, FOUR SMALL CHILDREN, AND IT'S HONESTLY, IN ITS CURRENT STATE, ISN'T A VERY SAFE SWIMMING POOL. WHAT OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE, FOR MS. COHEN? OKAY. UM, SIR, YOU HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO COME BACK AND MAKE ANY OTHER COMMENTS, MR. MCQUINN? YEAH, REALLY THE ONLY THING I'D REALLY LIKE TO REITERATE IS THE FACT WE COULDN'T FIND, UM, ANY RECORD OF A, A PERMIT FOR THE HOUSE, THE POOL. WE, WE DID FIND ONE PERMIT FOR A GAS LINE TO POOL METER. THAT WAS THE ONLY THING THAT IS PERMITTED. UM, AND BUT OTHER THAN THAT, THERE'S NO OTHER OLD RECORDS. AND THE WAY I'M LOOKING AT THAT IS I HAVE WORKED WITH THE CITY OF DALLAS SINCE THE EARLY EIGHTIES. UM, SOMETHING'S MISSING FROM THEIR MICRO FISH OR SOMETHING BECAUSE WE COULD, THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN A VARIANCE ON THIS TOOL IN THE VERY BEGINNING. THAT'S WHAT WE EXPECTED TO FIND AND BE ABLE TO GRANDFATHER IT ONTO THAT. AND WHEN WE TALKED TO PLANNING AND ZONING, THEY THOUGHT THE SAME EXACT THING. WE JUST HAD TO GET A COPY OF THAT. AND THAT'S WHEN WE DID ALL OUR RECORD RESEARCH. AND, UH, AND BY THE WAY, PLANNING AND ZONING, IT IS ALREADY TOLD US THAT IF WE DO GET THIS APPROVED THROUGH Y'ALL, THEY HAVE NO PROBLEM APPROVING IT ON THEIR SIDE OF THINGS. SO, UM, BUT BASICALLY THERE, WE JUST CAN'T FIND RECORDS OF ANY PERMITS ON THIS PROPERTY AND THERE'S NO WAY IN HECK THAT THAT COULD HAVE HAPPENED, UH, WITH THIS BIG HOUSE BEING BUILT, WITH THE BIG RULE BEING BUILT. AND PROBABLY DEFENSE ALSO ALONG MY ROOM. AND THAT'S IT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SIR. THANK YOU. THANKS FOR YOUR TIME, UHHUH. UH, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? OKAY, UH, THE CHAIRMAN TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION, MR. HAITZ, I MOVE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER BO OA 26 DASH 0 0 0 1 3 ON APPLICATION OF PHILLIP MCKEEN DENIED A VARIANCE AT THE FRONT YARD SETBACK REGULATIONS REQUESTED BY THIS APPLICANT WITHOUT PREJUDICE BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND THE TESTIMONY SHOWED THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT ARE LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE CODE AS AMENDED, WOULD NOT RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP TO ASSESS IN THE MANNER OF BO A 2 6 0 0 0 0 1 3. UM, MR. HAVI HAS MOVED TO DENY THE REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FOR THE FRONT YARD SETBACK WITHOUT PREJUDICE. IS THERE A SECOND TO THE MOTION? IT'S SECONDED BY MR. DORN. DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION. MR. HVI THEN MR. DORN, MR. HOP, UH, THIS SEEMS TO ME TO BE VERY MUCH A SELF-CREATED HARDSHIP IN THAT THEY'RE DECIDING THEY WANT TO EXPAND THE POOL. THEY DON'T O OTHER THAN THEY WANT TO HAVE A LARGER POOL. THERE'S NO COMPELLING REASON THAT THE POOL HAS TO BE EXPANDED. UM, I ALSO QUESTION WHETHER THE, WHAT SEEMS LIKE A FAIRLY NOMINAL SLOPE OF THE PROPERTY, UH, CREATES A HARDSHIP IN, IN, IN ANY WAY IN THIS REGARD? I WOULD SUGGEST THAT, UH, I, I STRUGGLE WHETHER TO MAKE THIS MOTION WITH OR WITHOUT PREJUDICE, UH, WITH PREJUDICE, WITH BEING, YOU COULDN'T BRING IT BACK FOR TWO YEARS, UH, BUT WENT WITH WITHOUT PREJUDICE. BUT I WOULD SUGGEST THAT YOU, [00:40:01] UH, GIVE FEEDBACK TO THE HOMEOWNER THAT IF THEY DO DO BRING THIS BACK, THAT THEY KIND OF COME BACK WITH MORE INFORMATION THAT SHOWS THAT THE ENTIRE PROPERTY IS SOMEHOW COMPLIANT WITH, WITH THE RULES OF BUILDING IN THE CITY. UH, RIGHT NOW, WE REALLY HAVE NOTHING THAT THE HOUSE ON PAPER, THE HOUSE DOESN'T EVEN EXIST ESSENTIALLY, UM, IN TERMS OF, IN TERMS OF ANY LEGAL COMPLIANCES WITH, UH, WITH ANY, IN ANY RESPECT. SO, UM, I'M WILLING TO SAY, COME ON BACK, BUT COME ON BACK WITH, UH, A LITTLE MORE JUSTIFICATION FOR, UM, HOW THIS EVEN GOT TO BE WHAT'S THERE RIGHT NOW. THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY. THANK YOU MR. KOVICH DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION. MR. DORN? NO FURTHER DISCUSSION. DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION, MR. FLEMING? YEAH, I, I I THINK THAT I'M AT LEAST SOMEWHAT SWAYED BY THE, UH, TWO FRONT YARD SITUATION CREATED. I, I, IT SOUNDS LIKE WE ALL AGREE THAT THE FIRST CONDITION IS BEING MET, THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT NEIGHBORHOOD SEEMS PRETTY FINE WITH THIS, AND I THINK THAT WE ALL, UH, DO RIGHTLY LOVE SWIMMING POOLS, BUT, UH, YEAH, I, I WOULD, I WOULD JUST, YOU KNOW, I, SO I, I I FEEL COMFORTABLE. UM, YOU KNOW, I, I INTEND TO VOTE NO ON THE MOTION, BUT, UH, I, I JUST SEE THE WHOLE THING AS BEING A LOT MORE SUCCESSFUL IN THE FUTURE. AND I'M GLAD THAT IT IS BEING DENIED WITHOUT IF THERE'S JUST A LOT MORE ATTENTION PAID TO THE, THE SECOND AND ESPECIALLY THE THIRD CRITERIA THAT WE HAVE HERE. THANK YOU, MR. FLEMING. MS. HAYDEN, UM, I'M GONNA BE SUPPORTING THE, THE MOTION TO DENY, UM, PRIMARILY FOR REASONS I'VE ALREADY STATED THAT I, I DON'T FEEL LIKE THE APPLICANT CAME PREPARED TO REALLY STICK THEIR CASE ON ALL THREE CONDITIONS OF THE VARIANCE. AND THAT'S REALLY WHAT WE HAVE TO BASE OUR DECISION ON. SO, YOU KNOW, EVEN THOUGH I AGREE WITH THE, THE IDEA THAT THERE ARE TWO FRONT YARD SETBACKS, THIS, THE FACT, UM, THE ONE CRITERIA THAT I DON'T FEEL WAS MET WAS THE, THE THIS WAS NOT GRANTED TO RELIEVE A SELF-CREATED A PERSONAL HARDSHIP. SO WHEN YOU DO COME BACK, UM, PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT YOU ADDRESS, YOU KNOW, IN GREAT DETAIL AND MAKE A CASE FOR ALL THREE OF THE CRITERIA FOR THE VARIANCE. THANK YOU, MS. HAYDEN. I'LL BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION TO DENY, AND I THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE WITHOUT PREJUDICE, UH, TO BE REDUNDANT, BUT ARTICULATE AS WELL. UH, THE BURDEN IS ON THE APPLICANT AND YOU'RE REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT. UH, THE PROPERTY OWNER'S RESPONSIBLE AND THEY'RE RESPONSIBLE AT THE TIME OF PURCHASE. AND YOU'RE RESPONSIBLE AT THE TIME WHEN YOU ASK FOR SOMETHING BEYOND WHAT THE CURRENT ZONING ALLOWS AND THE PROPERTY IS RESPONSIBLE. UM, I DON'T THINK YOU MET THE BURDEN WHATSOEVER TODAY. UM, WE START OFF KNOWING NOTHING AND THEN WE'RE INFORMED BY VIRTUE OF WHAT THE APPLICANT TURNS INTO THE STAFF AND HOW THE STAFF PRESENTS IN A BRIEFING THIS MORNING. AND WE GET VIDEO TOURS AND WE ASK QUESTIONS AND SO WE GO AND THEN WE RELY ON THE APPLICANT TO SELL. WHAT, WHAT MAKES IT UNIQUE TO THEM? THIS REQUEST IS UNIQUE TO THEM. I AGREE WITH, UH, MS. HAYDEN, THAT, UM, THIS SEEMS VERY, UM, SELF, UM, THIS SEEMS VERY, VERY MUCH SELF-CREATED IN A PERSONAL HARDSHIP. UM, SO, UH, I, THE VERY FIRST QUESTION I ASKED THIS MORNING, THE BRIEFING, AND I MENTIONED EARLIER IN THE, IN THE HEARING TODAY WAS IS THE 50 FOOT BUILDING LINE CONSISTENT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD? AND THE ANSWER FROM THE STAFF WAS YES. AND THAT MEANS THAT IS THE STANDARD IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD 50 FOOT SETBACK. AND WHAT WE HAVE TO BE VERY CAREFUL ABOUT IS HOW ARE WE CHANGING THE NATURE OF A NEIGHBORHOOD BY GRANTING 18 FEET ON 50. SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE MATH IS, 1850, THAT'S 40% CHANGE OR 30% CHANGE IN THE SETBACK. SO, UM, UH, I WOULD SUPPORT THE MOTION TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE OTHER DISCUSSION IN THE MOTION. UM, THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR IN BO OA 2 6 0 0 0 0 1 3 IS A MOTION TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE BOARD SECRETARY WILL CALL THE VOTE. MS. HAYDEN. AYE. MR. KOVIC AYE. MR. DORN AYE. MR. FLEMING NAY, MR. CHAIRMAN? AYE. MOTION TO DENY PASSES BOARD TO ONE IN THE MATTER OF BOA 2 6 0 0 0 0 1 3. THE BOARD ON A VOTE OF FOUR TO ONE DENIES YOUR REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE WITHOUT PREJUDICE. YOU'LL GET A LETTER, UH, AN EMAIL LETTER IN THE, IN THE NEXT COUPLE DAYS. UM, YOU HAVE THE, YOU, [00:45:01] THE APPLICANT HAS THE RIGHT TO REAPPLY TOMORROW IF YOU WANTED TO. YOU GET TO RE DO REPOSTING FEES, THE WHOLE DEAL. UM, BUT YOU'LL GET NOTIFIED IN UH, SPECIFIC DETAIL. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MAY I PLEASE ASK ONE QUESTION IF WE'D LIKE TO REAPPLY? UH, OBVIOUSLY I WAS STUMPED BY YOUR, UH, THIRD, UM, WELL I THINK THE BOARD CONVEYED TO YOU THAT WE WERE CONCERNED ON A VARIETY ACCOUNTS, NOT JUST THE THIRD CRITERIA, BUT THE STAFF HAD COMMUNICATED TO THE APPLICANT, UH, WHAT THE RULES ARE AS IT RELATES TO A VARIANCE. AND THAT'S WHAT THE PROPERTY OWNER OR THE APPLICANT MY ADVICE TO YOU NOW, THE HEARING'S CLOSED ON THIS, BUT I'LL TELL YOU THE A MY ADVICE TO YOU IS FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER TO BE THERE. OKAY. UM, BECAUSE THE COMMENTS THAT WERE MADE TODAY SPEAK TO ALL THE THINGS THAT THE PROPERTY WANTED AND THE, THE THINGS OF THE PROPERTY OWNER'S FAMILY AND THE, THE, THE PROPERTY OWNER'S BUYING OF THE HOUSE AND D ONE SWIMMER AND THOSE ARE ALL GOOD AND WELL, BUT ALL THOSE GO TO SELF-CREATED HARDSHIP. YES. WHICH IS NOT WHAT WE'RE EMPOWERED TO APPROVE. AND SO WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS, AND AS MS. HAYDEN TWICE READ THE CRITERIA, WE NEED TO TAKE WHAT YOUR REQUEST IS, WHAT THE ZONING IS, AND THEN THAT CRITERIA AND IF THEY ALIGN, WE APPROVE. IF THEY DON'T ALIGN, WE DENY THAT SOUNDS NO, I UNDERSTAND CRASS, BUT THAT'S REALLY WHAT WE TRY TO STICK TO. I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND. I JUST WANTED TO ASK ON THE CONSTRAINTS OF THE SITE. UM, THE ARCHITECTURE IS A HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT POWER OF MY RESIDENCE. UM, AND THAT DOES TAKE UP THE PROPERTY. THIS ISN'T A NEW BUILD. IT DOES, BUT MA'AM, RESPECTFULLY YOU'RE EXPANDING THE POOL. I DON'T THINK THE POOL IS HISTORIC. YOU SAID IT'S A RESTORED PROPERTY. WELL I JUST, I WAS JUST ASKING IF PRESERVING A SIGNIFICANT HOME IS A SITE CONSTRAINT AS IF, IF YOU WERE NEW CONSTRUCTION YOU COULD PUT THE HOUSE OR POOL ANYWHERE YOU OR THE APPLICANT COULD ARGUE THAT AT, AT THE NEXT HEARING IF YOU SO CHOOSE. YES. BUT WHAT I WOULD TELL YOU, I WOULD RESPOND. 'CAUSE YOU'LL HAVE TO COME BACK TO THIS PANEL. CORRECT. BECAUSE THAT'S OUR RULES. YOU HAVE TO COME BACK TO THIS PANEL AND MY COMMENT'S GONNA BE A POOL IS HIS HISTORIC, HOW IS THE POOL EXPANDING A POOL FOR SELF-CREATED IMPINGING GUN, THE HISTORIC NATURE OF A HOUSE. SO I'M NOT INTENDING TO PROVE TO BEING HISTORIC. I WAS JUST CURIOUS IF THE HOME IS OKAY. I UNDERSTAND. AND I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU IF YOU, IF THE APPLICANT SO CHOOSES TO REAPPLY, THEY WORK WITH OUR STAFF, RIGHT. 'CAUSE THEY'RE NOT IN A POSITION TO APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE, BUT THEY'RE IN A POSITION TO SAY THE BOARD HAS HISTORICALLY MEASURES THIS, THIS, THIS AND THAT. AND THEN YOU MAKE YOUR CASE IN A PUBLIC HEARING. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH DAVE. DO YOU MIND IF I HAVE ONE COMMENT? OF COURSE. JUST IN ADDITION TO THE STAFF, YOU'RE ALSO VERY MUCH ALLOWED TO HIRE EXPERTS ON THESE PROCEEDINGS AND THEY WOULD HAVE A VERY KEEN IDEA OF WHAT IS, IT ISN'T GOING TO BE SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD LISTEN TO AND UH, WE NEED TO STOP THERE BECAUSE REALLY THIS BECOMES EX PARTE NOW THE HEARING IS CLOSED. YOU MADE YOUR CASE. WE VOTED MY BOARD ATTORNEY'S GIVING ME ALL SORTS OF LOOKS LIKE WE NEED TO MOVE ON. SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I'M NOT TRYING TO BE RUDE AND CUT YOU OFF. I'M JUST TRYING TO BE BE FAIR TO EVERYONE INVOLVED. OKAY. UH, THE NEXT CASE FOR THE BOARD IS BO OA 26 DASH 0 0 0 1 4. THIS IS AT 4 0 1 4 CREST HAVEN ROAD. IS THE APPLICANT HERE. PLEASE COME FORWARD. UH, MS. BOARD SECRETARY, HOW MANY SPEAKERS DO WE HAVE REGISTERED FOR? 0 0 0 0 1 4 2 REGISTERED SPEAKERS. ALL IN FAVOR OR AGAINST? TELL ME WHAT YOU GOT. THEY'RE BOTH IN FAVOR. TWO IN FAVOR. OKAY. UH, WHO ARE THE TWO PEOPLE WANTING TO SPEAK TODAY? THE APPLICANT. YOU BOTH STAND UP PLEASE. ALRIGHT. SHE WILL SWEAR YOU IN AT THE SAME TIME. HOW'S THAT? DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF TRUST MA'AM? I DO. OKAY. UM, ALRIGHT. THE APPLICANT, UH, IF YOU GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND THEN YOU HAVE, AS I SAID IN THE PR LAST CASE, UH, YOU, THE RULES SAY THAT YOU'RE GIVEN FIVE MINUTES TO PRESENT. ANYONE ELSE SPEAKING IN FAVOR IS GIVEN FIVE MINUTES AND ANYONE IN OPPOSITION IS GIVEN THE SAME AMOUNT, THEN YOU CAN COME BACK WITH A REBUTTAL. I'M NOT GONNA CUT YOU OFF UNLESS YOU'RE REDUNDANT. SO WE TAKE AS MUCH TIME AS YOU NEED IN ORDER TO PRESENT YOUR CASE. THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU AS AN APPLICANT. THANK YOU. BOARD CHAIRMAN. MY NAME IS SEAN MCGUIRE. I LIVE AT 1 0 0 3 2 5 LINFORD DRIVE, DALLAS, TEXAS 7 5 2 3 8. UM, WE HAVE SOME PICTURES THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO [00:50:01] SHOW TO THE BOARD AT THIS TIME. UM, THE FIRST PICTURE WE'D LIKE TO SHOW IS THE NEXT SLIDE. THIS IS A UNIMPROVED UNMAINTAINED ALLEYWAY THAT GOES ON THE BLOCK, UM, FACING EAST WEST IN FRONT OF CREST HAVEN FACING NORTH SOUTH. THIS IS THE ALLEYWAY BETWEEN LAKEMONT DRIVE AND RIDGE RIDGE STREET. UM, AND IT'S VISUALLY PRETTY UNSIGHTLY AND IT IS NOT MAINTAINED. AND SO WHEN THE UH, TRASH TRUCKS COME THROUGH, TRASH GETS BLOWN THROUGH THE ALLEY. UH, SHRUBBERY GROWN UP AND IT'S JUST AN UNSIGHTLY ALLEYWAY HERE. UM, YOU WOULD CONTEND ON MR. THOMPSON. THIS IS WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO RECOGNIZE AS THE UH, HARDSHIP, UH, IS THAT THE ALLEYWAY IS UNMAINTAINED. UM, OBVIOUSLY IT WAS THERE WHERE THE PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED. UH, THIS CONTINUES ON, UH, CONTINUE AND THIS IS FROM THE OPPOSITE STREET CAPS. YOU CAN SEE ALL THE WAY DOWN AT THE ALLEYWAYS. VERY UNSIGHTLY AND IT DOES LOOK STRAIGHT INTO THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION. UM, IT CONTINUED. PLEASE CONTINUE. OH, UM, SORRY, DID YOU GET THE OTHER SLIDE? UM, OKAY. UH, THE OTHER PART THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO TALK ABOUT IS TIN PROPERTIES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT, UH, DO HAVE FRONT YARD FENCES. UM, THERE IS ONLY ONE WITHIN THAT IMMEDIATE, UH, OR THERE ARE TWO ACTUALLY ONE ON CREST HAVEN, ONE ON LAKEMONT WITHIN OUR IMMEDIATE 200 FEET RADIUS. UH, ON LAKEMONT. IT EXTENDS FROM THE BACKYARD DOWN THE SIDE YARD, WHICH I UNDERSTAND IS WITHIN THE RIGHT, IT CONTINUES ON, UM, IN FRONT OF THE HOME. SO NOT SAYING THAT IT'S UH, ANYTHING WRONG WITH IT, IT IS JUST TO SHOW THAT THERE ARE OTHER FENCES WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND WE HAVE UM, 10 OF THOSE THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO BRING FORWARD. UM, RYAN, UH, AM I ABLE TO RESUBMIT THOSE PHOTOS VIA EMAIL? OKAY. UM, THAT SHOULD HAVE SENT ARE YOU THE PROPERTY OWNER OR REPRESENTING THE PROPERTY OWNER? REPRESENTING. OKAY, VERY GOOD. THAT'S FINE. SO ARE WE TRYING TO LOAD SOMETHING? OKAY, MY APOLOGIES. I SENT THEM VIA EMAIL AND THAT SEEMS LIKE I MIGHT HAVE TOO LARGE OF A FILE. UM, UH, SO I DON'T HAVE THOSE TO PRESENT, BUT THERE ARE 10 PROPERTIES THAT I CAN LIST WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. UM, I JUST DON'T HAVE THE PHOTOS OF IT. MULTIPLE OF THE OTHER PROPERTIES ARE ON CREST HAVEN, UH, JUST NOT WITHIN THE 200 FOOT RADIUS. UM, ASIDE FROM THAT, UH, WE JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT THE ALLEYWAY, UM, AND THAT THE REQUEST IS NOT FOR THE FENCE TO BE SET ONTO THE PROPERTY LINE, UM, BACK FIVE FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE SO THAT WE DON'T INFRINGE INTO THE OPACITY ISSUE AS WELL AS THE VISIBILITY ISSUE. JUST THIS SPECIAL OBJECTION TO A BUS WOULD, THAT'S HEIGHT. [00:55:07] MR. THOMPSON, ARE WE STILL LOADING? YES. HASN'T RECEIVED ANYTHING? UM, YES SIR. SO WE COULD GO TO THE OTHER SPEAKER AND THEN COME BACK TO YOU IF THAT'S WHAT YOU'D LIKE. YOU TELL ME IT'S YOUR TIME. YES SIR. I THINK THAT WOULD BE BEST. OKAY. VERY GOOD FOR THE THANK YOU. AND YOUR NAME WAS MR. MCGUIRE, CORRECT? YES, SIR. OKAY, VERY GOOD. SO WE'LL HOPE, HOPE THAT COMES THROUGH FOR YOU. UM, OKAY, THE OTHER SPEAKER, MS. BOARD SECRETARY. THE OTHER SECOND SPEAKER? YES. MS. JANET MOORE. MARK. YES. THANK YOU. GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS THEN YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES. UH, JANET E MOBA. I LIVE AT, UH, 4 0 1 4 NORTH FIFTH HAVEN ROAD, ELS, TEXAS 7 5 2 0 9. OKAY. UM, WE PURCHASED THE HOME BACK LAST MARCH AND OVER PROCESS OF THE LAST YEAR, WE FINALLY GOT MOVED IN IN NOVEMBER AND WE WE'RE HAPPY TO BE BACK IN DALLAS. WE BEEN HERE FOR EIGHT YEARS BEFORE AND FOUND TO BE THE PLACE WE DECIDED TO BASICALLY CALL HOME OF MANY OTHER ADDRESS. SO WE FOUND THIS PLACE THAT WE LOVED IT A LITTLE BIT CLOSER TO THE MICROPHONE. WE FOUND THIS PLACE OVER IN, UH, LUCKY THAT WE REALLY LIKE. AND UM, THERE WAS A NEW, MORE OR LESS A NEW BUILD THAT MR. MCGUIRE'S COMPANY BUILT AND WE JUST NEEDED, WANTED TO MAKE A FEW IMPROVEMENTS, BUT IT WAS, UM, THE PEOPLE THAT WE PURCHASED IT FROM THAT ACTUALLY, IT'S KIND OF COMPLICATED. THIS HOME WAS PURCHASED BY ONE GROUP AND THEN THEY KIND OF BACKED OUT. THEN IT WAS PURCHASED BY ANOTHER COUPLE AROUND THE BLOCK AND THEY COULDN'T SELL THEIR HOME AND THEN WE BOUGHT IT FROM THEM. AND THERE WAS ALWAYS AN INTENTION EVEN IN THEIR PLANS FOR A WALL OF SOME SORT IN THE FRONT JUST BECAUSE OF THAT ALLEY BECAUSE, UM, THERE'S AN OFFICE WITH A LARGE WINDOW, AS YOU MIGHT, YOU SAW FROM THE PHOTO THAT LOOKS DIRECTLY AT THE ALLEY AND THERE'S ALWAYS SOMETHING GOING ON OF LIKE TRASH AND, AND CANS AND SUCH LAYING AROUND. AND IT WAS LIKE, OKAY, WE DO, WE NEED TO JUST PUT IN BIGGEST SHRUBS WE CAN FIND ON THE PLANET THAT BLOCKS EVERYBODY'S VIEW OR MAYBE JUST TRY FOR A SHORTER WALL. WAS OUR HOPE. JUST TRYING TO MAKE, IMPROVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD BECAUSE IT'S A NEIGHBORHOOD IN TRANSITION. IT'S BEEN, YOU KNOW, BRIDGE BLOCK VIEW IS MAYBE 75, 80% IN TRANSITION FROM SOME OF THE OLDER HOMES. AND YOU KNOW, OUR GOAL IS JUST TO BEAUTIFY, BEAUTIFY IT AND PUT IN A LOVELY YARD AND HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF PRIVACY AND ALSO BE ABLE TO HAVE SOME PARKING OUT FRONT TOO BECAUSE PEOPLE TEND TO SORT OF PARK IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ROAD. SO WE INTEND AFTER ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE FENCE TO PUT IN SOME GRASS AND THEN ALSO SOME OF THE BLACK, WHATEVER THAT STONE IS CALLED THAT Y'ALL IS USED HERE IN TEXAS A LOT. SO THERE'S A LITTLE PLACE FOR PEOPLE TO PULL OFF AND PARK IF NEED BE, IF THERE'S A CONTRACTOR THERE AND SUCH LIKE THAT JUST SO THAT IT'S FOR SAFE PEOPLE AS WELL BECAUSE IT'S A, IT'S A NARROW ROAD AND UM, MOST OF MANY OF THE OTHER HOMES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAVE THAT. SO WE'RE TRYING TO BE COMPLIANT AND, YOU KNOW, DO THE SETBACK AND ALL THAT STUFF AND, AND ALSO A SAFE PLACE FOR PEOPLE TO PARK IF THEY NEED TO AND MAKE IT LOOK AS PRETTY AS POSSIBLE SO THAT IT, IT IMPROVES OUR PROPERTY VALUES AS WHERE WORLD OUR NEIGHBOR. SO THAT, THAT WAS REALLY THE HOPE WITH A LITTLE BIT HIGHER FENCE THAN JUST THE, THE, THE FOUR FOOT WENT AND WE REALLY DIDN'T WANT TO PUT THE METAL AND I, I, WE, WE MOVED, WE MOVED TO SEATTLE FOR EIGHT YEARS AND WE WERE ON THE BEACH AND WE ACTUALLY HAD A SIX FOOT FENCE THERE THAT WAS ALREADY AT THE PROPERTY IN FRONT JUST, JUST LIKE WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR IN HERE, A BRICK ONE THAT, THAT WAS AN OLDER HOME. BUT, UM, WHAT WE NOTICED AS FAR AS PUTTING METAL IN, I BECAME VERY WARY OF IT, EVEN POWDER COATED IN EVEN WITH A T SKI, BUT IT WAS IN A CREATE PROBLEM, A AND A, AN EXTREME MAINTENANCE ISSUE EVERY FEW YEARS. AND I WAS VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THAT WITH THE HEAT HERE THAT IT MIGHT NOT LAST IT PROBABLY BETTER THAN IT DID AT THE BEACH IN SEATTLE, BUT, UM, CERTAINLY IT WOULD GONNA BE BE A LOT MORE COSTLY IN THE LONG RUN. WE PUT AN INITIAL INVESTMENT INTO A NICE, YOU KNOW, FENCE THAT, YOU KNOW, WOULD, YOU KNOW, HOPEFULLY BEAUTIFY THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND GIVE US A LITTLE BIT OF PRIVACY AND WE WOULDN'T HAVE TO LOOK DIRECTLY AT THE ALLEY ALL THE TIME. AND IT, AND WHEN I WAS WALKING AROUND LAST NIGHT WAS WHEN I ACTUALLY NOTICED THE VIEW FROM THE OTHER OF THE ALLEY. I HADN'T SEEN [01:00:01] THAT BEFORE AND WHEN I COULD SEE RIGHT IN MY FRONT WINDOW THAT IT KIND OF CONCERNED ME TOO JUST FOR SAFETY. SO THAT, THAT'S KIND OF WHY WE'VE COME TO YOU AND ASK YOU FOR THE, THE VARIANCE. UH, AND THAT'S, I'M HAPPY, HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS, YOU KNOW, WHY. THANK YOU. UH, QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT. YOU MENTIONED NARROW STREET WHEN WE SAW THE VIDEOS THIS MORNING AND PICTURES, IT DOES SEEM LIKE A OPEN FEELING NON UNCURBED STREET AND, BUT HAS SOME NARROWED OF IT. UM, HAVE YOU ASKED OF YOUR NEIGHBORS TO THE LEFT, TO THE RIGHT DOWN THE STREET? I'M, I'M ACROSS THE STREET. WHAT THEIR OPINION OF PUTTING UP A SIX FOOT, THREE INCH SOLID FENCE? NO SIR, I HAVE NOT. THE NEXT DOOR NEIGHBORS TO THE RIGHT OF US ARE RENTAL FOLKS AND WE DO NOT KNOW WHO THE O ACTUAL OWNER IS AND THERE'S SOME VERY PRETTY UNMAINTAINED TREES AND SUCH THAT ARE KIND OF, WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO ADDRESS EVEN PUTTING ANY, ANY KIND OF FENCE IN. AND THEN TO THE RIGHT OF US OR THE LEFT OF US, THE THE HOUSES WILL FELL UNOCCUPIED AND THEN IF YOU GO DOWN TWO HOUSES TO THE RIGHT, THAT HOUSE IS ALSO UNOCCUPIED AND FOR SALE. AND WE HAVE NOT SPOKEN TO THE PEOPLE ACROSS THE STREET. WE'VE HONESTLY, IT'S BEEN A VERY CHALLENGING YEAR JUST TRYING TO GET SETTLED BECAUSE MY HUSBAND STILL WORKS FULL TIME AND TRAVEL QUITE A BIT AND JUST TRYING TO GET EVERYTHING KIND OF SQUARED AWAY SINCE WE HADN'T MOVED IN UNTIL THE END OF NOVEMBER. I REALLY HADN'T HAD A CHANCE TO MEET MANY OF THE NEIGHBORS UNTIL RECENTLY WHEN I'VE BEEN WALKING MY DOG AROUND THE AREA AND NOTICED A LITTLE BIT MORE AND LOOKING AT MORE OF THE FENCES. AND THAT'S WHEN I NOTICED LAST NIGHT THE VIEW OF OUR WINDOW AND THE, THE FOLKS ACROSS THE STREET, UM, THE ONLY CONTACT WE'VE HAD WITH THEM, THE ONE DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET THAT HAD THE EIGHT OR 10 FOOT FENCE ON THAT GOES UP ABOUT TWO THIRD OF THE WAY ON THEIR PROPERTY. THEY DROPPED OFF A BOTTLE OF WINE ABOUT TWO MONTHS AFTER WE MOVED IN WITH A VERY KIND OF PASSIVE AGGRESSIVE NOTE ON IT AND OH, PLEASE GET IN TOUCH WITH THIS. OH, BUT BY THE WAY, UM, YOUR CONTRACTORS BROKE OUR SPRINKLERS AND I'M LIKE, WE'RE HAPPY TO PAY FOR THESE. AND I, AND I CALLED AND LEFT HER TWO MESSAGES AND SHE DIDN'T RESPOND. AND I KNOW THAT MR. MCGUIRE IS FAMILIAR WITH THEM AND HE TALKED TO THEM WHEN THE HOUSE WAS BEING BUILT TOO. SO THAT WAS, I I I MADE AN ATTEMPT TO CONTACT THESE PEOPLE, BUT THE, I SAVED THE NOTE CARD, IT WAS LIKE, IT WAS JUST VERY ODD THAT THERE WAS THIS NICE BOTTLE OF WINE AND THEN THIS VERY STRANGE NOTE. SO THAT'S REALLY THE ONLY OTHER CONTACT I'VE HAD WITH THE NEIGHBORS. THE REASON WHY I ASKED MA'AM, AND I APPRECIATE YOUR FORTHRIGHTNESS AND HONESTY ABOUT IT, IS THE CITY OF DALLAS CODE SAYS THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY GRANT A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO DEFENSE REGULATIONS. THAT'S YOUR REQUEST WHEN IN THE OPINION OF THE BOARD, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTY. THAT IS OUR CRITERIA. WE GO ABOUT TRYING TO DETERMINE OPINION OF THE BOARD BY VIRTUE OF READING WHAT THE STAFF PREPARES BY VIRTUE OF READING WHAT YOU OR YOUR CONTRACTOR SUBMITS BY VIRTUE OF THE PICTURES OF THE STREET AND THE 200 FEET AREA AROUND YOUR PROPERTY. AND WE TAKE THAT ALL INTO ACCOUNT AS TO, TO TRY TO DETERMINE THAT CRITERIA CRITICAL TO THIS PARTICULAR CRITERIA IS WHAT IS THE OPINION OF YOUR SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS. NOW, IF THEY'RE ALL IN FAVOR, THAT DOESN'T MEAN WE HAVE TO VOTE IN FAVOR IF THEY'RE ALL OPPOSED, THAT DOESN'T MEAN WE HAVE TO OPPOSE, IT'S JUST INFORMATIVE. OKAY? IT'S JUST INFORMATIVE. BUT WE HAVEN'T HEARD A WORD FROM ANY NEIGHBOR. WE WERE TOLD BY OUR STAFF THIS MORNING THAT 24 PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET, WHICH IS STATE LAW, WE'RE NOTIFIED AND WE HEARD NO RESPONSES. NO ONE IN FAVOR, NO ONE AGAINST. SO WHEN YOU HEAR THAT, YOU CAN'T DRAW ANY CONCLUSIONS, RIGHT? I I WOULDN'T SAY THAT MEANS NO, BUT THAT CERTAINLY DOESN'T MEAN YES. RIGHT. UM, WHEN WE, WHEN I, THIS ONE MEMBER SAW THE PICTURES THIS MORNING, I SUCKED TO MYSELF, WHY WOULD YOU PUT A FENCE UP IN YOUR FRONT YARD? SIX AND A HALF, SIX FEET, THREE INCHES? WOW. YOU'D OBSTRUCT THE VIEW DOWN THE STREET IN FRONT OF THE HOUSE AND THERE WERE NO OTHER HOUSES THAT HAD A FENCE THAT HIGH, LET ALONE A FENCE IN THE FRONT YARD ALONG CREST HAVEN. OKAY? THAT WAS MY CONCLUSION THIS MORNING. AND SO NOW I'M JUST ONE MEMBER AND I'M BEING FORTHRIGHT WITH YOU HEARING, TELLING YOU WHAT THE CRITERIA IS TELLING YOU. WE HAVE NOT HEARD [01:05:01] BACK FROM ANY PROPERTY OWNER, AND YOU ARE CORRECT. TENANTS CAN'T VOTE. TENANTS CAN'T SPEAK FOR PROPERTY. THE PROPERTY OWNER HAS TO. AND SO I, I'M, I'M SITTING WONDERING, WOW, WHY WOULD I VOTE TO PUT A FENCE, THE FIRST FENCE IN A STREET THAT'S NARROW THAT YOU SAID THAT DOESN'T HAVE CURBS, SIX FEET, THREE INCHES. THAT JUST GIVES ME GREAT PAUSE. OH, I UNDER I UNDERSTAND COMPLETELY. THAT WAS REALLY WHY WE PUT IT OUR, YOU KNOW, ASKING IT TO BE THE ONLY VARIANCE OF THE HEIGHT. AND WE'RE PUTTING IT THE, UH, FENCE BACK WHERE THERE'S ADEQUATE ABILITY FOR SOMEONE TO PARK OR WALK AND WITHOUT CREATING ANY HARDSHIP FOR ANYBODY LIKE THAT. AND WE HAVE HAD, I'VE NOTICED PEOPLE WOULD KNOW WALKING THEIR DOG OR THEIR KIDS IN THEIR STROLLERS, LOOK AT OUR SIGN HAS BEEN IN THE FRONT YARD, WHICH IS PROPERLY POSTED IN FRONT AND BATH. UM, AND I WAS EVEN OUT THERE ONE AFTERNOON AND THEY WERE STANDING OUT THERE AND THEY DIDN'T EVEN, AND I SAID, DO YOU LIVE IN THE AREA? AND THEY'RE LIKE, OH NO, WE'RE ABOUT FIVE BLOCKS FROM HERE. AND, AND WE GET FEEDBACK FROM NEIGHBORS THAT ARE ONE HOUSE AWAY OR MILES AWAY. BUT WHAT'S MOST RELEVANT TO US IS WITHIN THIS 200 FEET AREA THAT THE STATE OF TEXAS SAYS TO MUNICIPALITIES FIRST, LOOK AT THE FIRST 200 FEET SEARCH AREA. THEY DON'T TELL US WHAT TO DO WITH THE INFORMATION. THEY JUST SAY, LOOK AT THAT 200 FEET. SO HENCE IS WHY THAT IS FIRST AND FOREMOST IN OUR MIND. RIGHT. THE 200 FEET. THAT'S BY STATE LAW. DID WE GET THE INFORMATION DOWNLOADED? SO MAYBE ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER, MR. KOVICH, THEN MR. FLEMING? YEAH, I'LL JUST REITERATE WHAT CHAIRMAN NEWMAN SAID ABOUT WHAT WE SAW THIS MORNING IN TERMS OF VIDEOS OF THE STREET AND NONE OF THE OTHER HOUSES THAT HAVE A FRONT YARD FACING YOUR STREET HAVE ANY KIND OF A FENCE ACROSS THE YARD. UH, UM, MR. UM, MCGUIRE REFERENCED SOME FENCING THAT WE DID SEE, WHICH WAS KIND OF COMING UP THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE. NOT REALLY, BUT NONE WERE GOING ACROSS THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE, NONE THAT WE SAW. UM, THERE ARE SOME, BUT THOSE ARE SIDE YARD FENCES, UH, OF HOUSES THAT FRONT A DIFFERENT STREET. SO, UM, UH, IT WOULD, IT WOULD BE, UM, THIS MEMBER'S VIEW, UH, OUT OF CHARACTER TO HAVE A SIX FOOT PLUS FENCE ACROSS THE FRONT OF YOUR, UH, PROPERTY. SO IT'S JUST MY COMMENT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. MR. HAITZ. DID YOU WANNA RESPOND TO THAT? NO. UM, JUST I THINK WHEN YOU SEE SOME OF THE OTHER, UM, PHOTOS THAT MS. MCGUIRE HAS, THERE ARE HOUSES WITHIN JUST A BLOCK OR TWO OF MY HOME ALSO THAT DO HAVE THEM IN THE FRONT. SO IT'S NOT UN UNCHARACTERISTIC FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD. WELL, HOPEFULLY YOU WILL SHORTLY, MR. FLEMING. YEAH. SO I'M, I'M UNDERSTANDING THE, UH, THE SITUATION WITH THE, THE ALLEYWAY. YES, SIR. UM, I WAS JUST HOPING YOU COULD SPEAK TO, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE ALLOWED TO BUILD FOUR FEET BY, RIGHT. UH, WHAT, WHAT DIFFERENCE IS THOSE TWO FEET GOING TO MAKE? UH, WITH REGARDS TO THE OBS OR OBSCURING THE VIEW OF THE ALLEYWAY? UM, WE LOOKED AT SORT OF THE ANGLE OF THE VIEW FROM LIKE THE OFFICE, WHICH IS THAT FRONT ROOM WHERE THE BIG WINDOW IS WHERE MY HUSBAND WORKS ALL DAY. UM, AND FOUR FEET WAS REALLY NOT OBSCURE THE ALLEY VERY MUCH FROM WHERE THAT IS. I MEAN, IT, IT NEEDED TO BE A LITTLE BIT HIGHER JUST TO KIND OF, YOU KNOW, WHICH IT, YOU KNOW, SORT OF LIKE ONE OF THOSE LITTLE SITUATIONS WHERE IF WE CAN'T PUT THE FENCE IN, IT'S GONNA PROBABLY FORCE US TO PUT IN AS FAST THE GROWING AND GIANT OR SHRUB IT WE CAN POSSIBLY DO. JUST SO WE DON'T HAVE TO LOOK AT THE ALLEY IF IT'S, WE DIDN'T THINK IT WOULD BE A PROBLEM. WE'VE WORKED JUST THE HOME, BUT IT'S JUST SOMETIMES IT'S TAKEN CARE OF AND SOMETIMES IT ISN'T. YOU KNOW, IF SOMEBODY'S OUT OF TOWN, YOU'VE GOT TRASH LAYING OVER THE PLACE AND CANS FOR, FOR WHOLE DAYS AND IT'S LIKE, OKAY, , I DIDN'T EXPECT THAT AND THAT NEIGHBORHOOD IN DALLAS. SO I WAS JUST KIND OF SURPRISED THAT IT WAS A LITTLE LESS MAINTAINED THAN I WOULD'VE EXPECTED FOR THAT QUALITY OF NEIGHBORHOOD. MR. DO TO FOLLOW UP ON THAT ABILITY TO BUILD A FOUR FOOT FENCE, IF, IF YOU WERE TO PUT EIGHT FOOT SHRUBS IN FRONT OF IT OR, OR EVEN BEHIND IT, THAT WOULD ALSO SOLVE YOUR PROBLEM. IT WOULD SOLVE THE PROBLEM, WHICH WILL PROBABLY BE THE PATH WE END UP HAVING TO TAKE IF YOU ALL WOULD OR NOT IF I CAN'T GET IT APPROVED, BUT I WOULD HONESTLY PREFER [01:10:01] AI'S PRETTY CLEAN WALL AND THEN SOME BEAUTIFUL, YOU KNOW, LANDSCAPING, WHICH WE'VE ALREADY MET WITH A LANDSCAPER THAT MR. MCGUIRE HAS RECOMMENDED INSTEAD OF JUST PUTTING UP SOME, WHATEVER'S, THE UGLIEST STUFF, SCREWING THING WE CAN FIND. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. WHAT OTHER QUESTIONS DO WE HAVE FOR THE APPLICANT? THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UM, AS THE APPLICANT, YOU'RE ALLOWED A REBUT REBUTTAL. MR. THANK YOU ALL. THANK YOU MR. MCGUIRE. THANK YOU. I'M SORRY BOARD MEMBERS THAT THIS WAS NOT PREPARED BEFORE. AND THANK YOU MR. THOMPSON FOR BRINGING THIS UP. UM, SO THESE WERE 10 PROPERTIES THAT WE SAW WITHIN THE IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORHOOD AS YOU DRIVE THROUGH THIS PROPERTY, UM, WHERE IT IS NOT A SEXUAL OFFENSE. I, I KNOW THAT, UM, IT'S JUST THAT THERE ARE FENCES IN FRONT YARDS. UM, SO THIS ONE IS ON MIDWAY ROAD, UH, IN THE MIDDLE OF MIDWAY HEADED TOWARDS LOVER'S LANE. UM, THEN MR. THOMPSON, IF YOU WOULD GO TO THE NEXT PHOTO PLEASE. UM, SO AS YOU CAN SEE BY THE STREET SIGN, THIS IS AT CORNER OF MIDWAY ROAD AND CREST HAVEN, WHICH YOU CAN SEE ESSENTIALLY FROM STANDING IN THE ROAD IN FRONT OF MS. MORBY PROPERTY. UH, THIS HAS A FRONT YARD FENCE AS WELL. UH, AGAIN, IT HAS OPACITY AND IT IS INSURED PERMITTED PROPERLY, UH, BUT IT IS IN A FRONT YARD. UM, AND THEN THE NEXT PHOTO PLEASE. UM, SO THIS IS THE HOME DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM THE MORWICK, AND AS YOU CAN SEE, THE MAJORITY OF THIS IS JUST THE SIDE YARD FENCE. IT DOES RETURN BACK TO THE STRUCTURE OF THE HOME WITH A FRONT YARD WALL THAT LOOKS TO BE OVER SIX FEET. UM, SO JUST AGAIN, ANOTHER FRONT YARD FENCE. NEXT PHOTO PLEASE. SO THIS IS A PROPERTY DIRECTLY AT THE END OF CREST HAVEN ROAD BEFORE YOU GET BACK TO BLUFF VIEW BOULEVARD. UM, SO AGAIN ON NORTH CREST HAVEN AND, UH, A LARGE FENCE IN THE FRONT YARD THAT EXPANDS ACROSS THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF THE PROPERTY. VERY TALL FRONT GATE. THIS IS A PROPERTY ON MIDWAY ROAD AS IT TRANSITIONS INTO CAPS DRIVE. UM, AGAIN, FRONT YARD FENCE, IT DOES SEEM WITHIN THE BUILD SETBACK, BUT, UH, A FENCE NONETHELESS IN THE FRONT YARD. UH, THIS IS ANOTHER PROPERTY JUST ON MIDWAY ROAD, UM, JUST AROUND THE CORNER HERE, AND ANOTHER FRONT YARD FENCE THERE AS WELL. SMALLER ONLY FOUR FOOT. AND, UM, THOSE WERE THE PROPERTIES THAT WE WANTED TO SHOW THAT ARE JUST WITHIN WALKING DISTANCE IMMEDIATELY IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. ANYTHING ELSE, SIR? NO, SIR. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT, MR. FLEMING? SO I APPRECIATE YOUR EFFORTS THERE. UH, JUST I THINK THE THING THAT I'M LASER FOCUSED ON IS, UM, IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S SIX HOUSES HERE BETWEEN THE STREETS, UH, SO YOURS AND THEN FIVE OTHERS. UH, ARE WE IN AGREEMENT THAT THE FIVE OTHERS THERE? NO FENCES IN THE FRONT YARD? UH, YOU'RE SAYING IMMEDIATELY WITHIN VIEW OF THIS PROPERTY, WITHIN THE 200 FOOT RADIUS? UH, YEAH, JUST, YOU KNOW, I'M LOOKING AT THE BLOCK HERE. IS THAT CREST HAVEN IS WHAT THE HOUSE IS ON? YES, SIR. SO THOSE, THOSE FIVE HOUSES BETWEEN THE STREETS, JUST THAT ONE BLOCK OF CREST HAVEN [01:15:01] NO OTHER HOUSES WITH ON THAT FENCE IN THE FRONT YARD SAID ONE BLOCK OF CREST HAVEN MM-HMM . YES. YES. THERE ARE NO OTHER THANK YOU. WHAT HAS A QUESTION YOU WE HAVE FOR THE A? OKAY, THE CHAIR WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION. MS. HAYDEN, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER BO OA DASH 26 DASH 0 0 0 0 1 4 ON APPLICATION OF SEAN MCGUIRE DENY THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION REQUESTED BY THIS APPLICANT TO CONSTRUCT OR MAINTAIN A SIX THREE INCH HIGH FENCE WITHOUT PREJUDICE. BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND THE TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT GRANTING THE APPLICATION WOULD ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTY IN THE MATTER OF BO A 2 6 0 0 0 0 1 4. MS. HAYDEN HAS MOVED TO DENY THIS SPECIAL EXCEPTION REQUEST WITHOUT PREJUDICE. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. IT'S BEEN SECONDED BY MR. DORN DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION. FIRST, MR. MS. HAYDEN, THEN MR. DORN. MS. HAYDEN, I, I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND YOUR CONCERN ABOUT THE ALLEY AND, YOU KNOW, HAVING SOME PRIVACY FROM THAT. I REALLY, I REALLY DO GET THAT. UM, I THINK WHAT I KEEP GOING BACK TO IS, YOU KNOW, FOR NOT ADVERSELY AFFECTING NEIGHBOR NEIGHBORING PROPERTY IS THAT WE DIDN'T SEE IN THE VIDEO THIS MORNING, UM, ANY OTHER SIX FOOT SOLID WALLS IN THE FRONT OF THE, UM, PROPERTIES AND EVEN THE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT YOU TOOK, WHICH I THOUGHT WERE GREAT, UM, THE FENCES THAT I SAW THAT WERE SET UP CLOSER TO THE STREET WERE FOUR FEET HIGH IN SOLID OR NOT. AND THEN THE ONES THAT WERE SET BACK LOOKED TO BE THE HIGHER ONES. SO I I, UM, AND, AND ALSO ON THIS STREET, IT'S A PRETTY NARROW STREET. ON THE OTHER SIDE, WE HAVE A LOT OF TALL FENCES AND WE GET CONCERNED ABOUT THIS KIND OF TUNNEL EFFECT IF YOU HAVE TALL FENCES ON BOTH SIDES OF THE STREET. SO THOSE ARE SOME THINGS THAT I CONSIDERED, UM, ABOUT ADVERSELY AFFECTING NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. UM, SO THAT'S WHY I AM, I'M VOTING TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE. I THINK THERE ARE OTHER THINGS YOU CAN DO BESIDES BUILD A A SIX FOOT SOLID WALL. THANK YOU MS. HAYDEN. DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION. MR. DORN? A AGAIN, YOU'RE LOOKING AT A STREET CREST HAVEN VERSUS YOUR COMPS WERE MAINLY MIDWAY ROAD, WHICH IS, THAT'S A SIX-LANE ROAD VERSUS A TWO-LANE ROAD. UM, JUST A GENERAL COMMENT IF I MAY JUST RESPOND. NOPE. NOPE. PUBLIC HEARING PORTION IS CLOSED. WE'RE NOW, YOU KNOW. UM, ANYTHING ELSE MR. DORN? NOTHING FURTHER. OKAY. THANK YOU. AND YOUR DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION, MOTION ON THE FLOOR IS TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE? I HAVE A COMMENT, BUT I'LL WAIT. MR. FLEMING? YEAH, I WOULD JUST SAY THAT IT, IT WOULD TAKE A LOT FOR ME TO BE ENTHUSIASTIC ABOUT APPROVING THE FIRST FENCE IN THE FRONT YARD FOR THIS LITTLE SECTION. AND I DEFINITELY DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE DOING IT WITHOUT HEARING FROM HEARING A LOT OF POSITIVE COMMENTS FROM THE HOUSES THAT ARE RIGHT ALONG THAT AREA. THAT THAT'S THE ONLY THING THAT WOULD GIMME CLOSE MY COMMENT IS EXACTLY WHAT HE JUST SAID. . NO. UM, WE HAVE FOUND IN OUR DAYS, WEEKS, MONTHS, YEARS IN DOING THIS AS VOLUNTEERS THAT WE TAKE EACH CASE INDEPENDENTLY AND SEPARATE AND ASIDE, BUT OVER AND OVER AGAIN WHEN WE HAVE REQUESTS FOR FENCE HEIGHTS IN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK, WE ARE VERY CAUTIOUS WHEN IT'S THE FIRST OR SECOND IN BECAUSE THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN EVERYONE SAYS, WELL, THEY'VE GOT IT AND THEY'VE GOT IT. AND IT SHOULDN'T BE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT THAT CREATES THE CHANGE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. IT, IT, IT SHOULD NOT BE BECAUSE WE, WE ALL, WE DON'T LIVE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. SO AS MR. FLEMING SAID, HE ZEROED IN ON THAT FRONTAGE ALONG CHRIST HEAD. AS MR. DORN SAID, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A TWO LANE STREET VERSUS MIDWAY, WHICH IS SIX LANE DIVIDED. UH, AS MS. HAYDEN SPOKE ALS OR MS. MR. FLEMING SPOKE TO, WE WANNA HEAR FROM PROPERTY OWNERS. OUR CRITERIA WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT. WE DON'T KNOW ANY BETTER THAN THOSE ON THE GROUND. THOSE ON THE GROUND ARE THE ONES THAT ARE TRULY EMPOWERED TO SAY WHAT'S BEST AND SO I'LL BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION TO DENY IT. THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR IS WITHOUT PREJUDICE, WHICH MEANS YOU CAN COME BACK AND REAPPLY. BUT IF YOU COME BACK, YOU'LL COME BACK TO THIS PANEL. IF YOU COME BACK, UH, YOU NEED TO COME BACK WITH SOME CONCRETE FEEDBACK FROM PROPERTY OWNERS THAT ARE ADJACENT TO YOU THAT SAY YOUR PLANNING, YOUR DESIGN WON'T ADVERSELY AFFECT OUR AND OTHER PROPERTIES. ONE LAST COMMENT NOT TO PILE ON. MR. DORN MADE THE COMMENT, WHY NOT TREES OR SHRUBS, YOU HAVE A BEAUTIFUL HOME. PICTURES ARE WONDERFUL. LOVE [01:20:01] NO CURBS IN THAT TREES OR SHRUBBERY CAN HELP OBSTRUCT THAT VIEW. A SOLID SIX FOOT THREE INCH. THAT'S JUST A HARD REACH. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION IN THE MOTION? HEARING NONE THE BOARD SECRETARY WILL CALL THE VOTE. MS. HAYDEN AYE. MR. GORN AYE. MR. FLEMING AYE. MR. OVITZ AYE. MR. CHAIRMAN AYE. MOTION TO DENY PASSES FIVE TO ZERO IN THE MANNER OF BOA 2 6 0 0 0 0 1 4. THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY VOTES FIVE TO ZERO TO DENY THE REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE. YOU'LL GET A NOTIFICATION FROM THE BOARD IN THE NEXT TWO DAYS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. GIVE ME ONE SECOND. OKAY. UM, THE NEXT ITEM ON AGENDA IS BO A 2 5 0 0 0 0 8 8. THIS IS AT 1 0 2 6 0 STRAIGHT LANE IS THE APPLICANT HERE PLEASE COME FORWARD. ALRIGHT. UM, WE'RE GONNA FIRST SWEAR YOU IN AND THEN AS IS PER OUR RULES OF PROCEDURE, UH, YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES AND FIVE MINUTES TO PRESENT. ANYONE ELSE IN FAVOR HAS FIVE MINUTES ALSO TO SPEAK. ANYONE IN OPPOSITION HAS FIVE MINUTES TO SPEAK, THEN YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES FOR REBUTTAL. UM, BEFORE I ADJUST THOSE TIMES, I'M GONNA FIND OUT FROM OUR BOARD SECRETARY WHO ALL, WHAT'S NUMBER OF SPEAKERS HAVE SIGNED UP FOR THIS CASE. WE'RE ON 88. WE HAVE THE APPLICANT IN ONE OPPOSITION. OKAY. ONE IN ONE. ALL RIGHT. SO WHAT I'M GONNA SAY SIR, IS THAT UM, YOU HAVE WHATEVER TIME IS REASONABLE TO PRESENT. UM, I'LL CUT YOU OFF IF YOU'RE REDUNDANT, BUT I DON'T WANNA CUT YOU OFF UNTIL YOU'VE FINISH BEING ABLE TO SAY WHAT YOU'D LIKE TO SAY. SO, UH, MS. WILLIAMS, WILL YOU GO AHEAD AND SWEAR HIM IN? I IS THE PERSON COMING TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION HERE? CORRECT. WOULD YOU STAND UP TO SIR AND SHE'LL SWEAR BOTH OF YOU GUYS IN. DO YOU BOTH SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? YES. OKAY. HOLD ON ONE SECOND. I AM PULLING OUT OF THE FOLDER OF LETTERS AND FEEDBACK WE HAD ON EIGHT EIGHT I OKAY. WE PASSED THESE DOWN THIS MORNING. I'LL PASS THEM DOWN AGAIN IF ANYONE WANTS TO LOOK AT THOSE. ALRIGHT SIR, IF YOU GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS THEN YOU CAN PROCEED. SADA SHARIF 1 0 2 6 0 STRAIGHT LANE, DALLAS, TEXAS 7 5 2 2 9. OKAY, ONE SECOND. LET ME PUT THE TIME DOWN. ARE YOU THE APPLICANT AND OWNER OR JUST APPLICANT? APPLICANT AND OWNER? VERY GOOD SIR, PLEASE PROCEED. SO I AM WORKING WITH, WE GOT A CA FROM THE HISTORICAL DISTRICT. UH, BUT IT WAS AS YOU ALL KNOW. SO WE ARE WORKING WITH 'EM NOW TO THE MATERIAL CHANGES AND WHAT ALL THEY NEED UH, TO MAKE SURE THERE'S TO THEIR LIKING AS WELL. SO AS WE SPEAK, WE HAVE MULTIPLE EMAILS BACK AND FORTH WITH MY ARCHITECT, BUT JUST THE LAST TIME AS WE STATED, THIS IS SEPARATE ENTITY, THIS IS JUST FOR THE HEIGHT. SO I WILL REQUEST THAT THE HEIGHT IS APPROVED AS EVERYBODY ON STRAIGHT LANE, UH, HAS FENCE THAT'S OVER EIGHT, NINE FEET AND IT WILL NOT AFFECT THE NEIGHBORHOOD. UH, JUST FROM THE LAST POINT WHEN I WAS HERE LAST TIME, IT WAS BROUGHT UP THAT WHAT IF THIS, UH, HISTORICAL DISTRICT IS APPROVED. SO I GOT A LETTER FROM THEM STATING THAT IF YOU GET APPROVED, MAKE SURE TO BUILD THE FENCE EXACTLY THE WAY IT IS. SO WE ARE GOING IN THAT DIRECTION ANYWAYS. WE ARE WORKING WITH 'EM, MAKING SURE UH, THAT THEY LIKE THE MATERIALS, THEY LIKE ARCHITECTURE, WE ARE KEEPING SAME, WE HAVE TAKE THEY OUT SOME OF THE STUFF THAT THEY DIDN'T WANT. SO, UH, WE ARE BACK HERE AGAIN. I FLEW BACK FROM FLORIDA ACTUALLY JUST FOR THIS MEETING, UH, TO SHOW UP MYSELF AND START SENDING THE LEGAL COUNSEL AS MY NEIGHBOR HAS SENT A LEGAL COUNSEL. UH, THEY HAVE EVERYBODY ON STRAIGHT LANE AT 12 FENCES, [01:25:01] UH, ANYWHERE FROM EIGHT TO 16 FEET. SO I WILL REQUEST THE BOARD TO APPROVE MY UH, PERMIT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU SIR. WHAT QUESTIONS DO WE HAVE FOR THE APPLICANT? MS. HAYDEN, DO YOU HAVE, UH, PHOTOGRAPHS OR ANYTHING SHOWING THE OTHER HOMES WITH THE TALL FENCES? UH, IT WAS ALL SENT IN IN THE FOLDERS THAT YOU HAVE. AND I HAVE 48 LETTERS IN SUPPORT FROM THE NEIGHBORS. THE WHOLE NEIGHBORHOOD IS MAYBE ABOUT 90 HOUSES. THEY'RE PRETTY BIG SIZE HOUSES. SO I HAVE MASSIVE SPORT FROM THE WHOLE NEIGHBORHOOD PER SE AND THE TWO HOUSES ACROSS THE STREET. THANK YOU. WE UM, WE'RE TRYING TO FIND THE PHOTOS THAT YOU'RE MENTIONING. HOLD ON A SECOND. OH, I SEE. SO WHEN YOU SAY THEY WERE SENT IN, YOU MEAN THEY WERE EMAILED IN OR, OR, OR YOU WERE SENT TO THE STAFF? I GAVE THE PRINTED COPIES OF AND I GAVE SIX FOLDERS. EVERYTHING. SIX WHAT FOLDERS MADE FOLDERS WITH ALL THE PICTURES AND LETTERS AND MADE COPIES OF THAT. IS THAT WHAT'S IN HERE, MS. WILLIAMS? UM, WE UM, WE GAVE YOU ALL A PACKET ON THE FIRST MEETING. YEAH, I SAVED WHAT HE, WE GOT THE FIRST TIME , I'M A PACK RAT . UM, YOU HAD PROVIDED THESE, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THAT FOLDER? YES. YOU GAVE US LAST TIME. I SAVED THEM THE PICTURES. UH, THESE ARE PICTURES OF HOMES BUT DOESN'T HAVE ADDRESSES. NONE OF 'EM HAVE ADDRESSES. THEY ARE ALL ON STRAIGHT LANE NEXT TO US. I HEAR YOU. THEY'RE, THEY'RE NICE, THEY'RE BIG GATES BUT IT DOESN'T HAVE AN ADDRESS ON ANY ONE OF THEM. THEY'RE ALL BETWEEN WALNUT AND WORLD LANE. RIGHT NEXT. I HEAR YOU. UM, EVERY SINGLE HOUSE ON STRAIGHT LANE, LET'S SAY AS FENCE. OKAY, HOLD ON. DON'T SAY THAT , YOU'RE TESTIFYING RIGHT NOW. DON'T SAY THAT BECAUSE I'LL BET YOU, HERE YOU GO. 'CAUSE I'LL BET YOU THERE'S ONE OR TWO THAT DON'T HAVE FENCES AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN YOU'RE IMPEACHED. SO YOU DON'T WANNA SAY THAT YOU WANNA TAKE THAT BACK FROM WALNUT. TAKE TAKE THAT BACK PLEASE. WALNUT TO ROYAL ON STRAIGHT LANE. EVERY SINGLE HOUSE HAS IT. OKAY. EVERY SINGLE HOUSE HAS A FENCE. EVERY SINGLE, EVERY SINGLE HOUSE. OKAY. I WENT TO EVERY, I MEAN I'VE MET EVERYBODY 'CAUSE I WAS GOING DOWN THE STREET TALKING TO EVERYONE, SO. ALL RIGHT. WELL REMEMBER WHAT YOU SAY. YEP, THAT IS CORRECT. I STAND BY IT. ALRIGHT, WHAT QUESTIONS DO WE HAVE FOR THE APPLICANTS? UH, YOU MENTIONED EARLIER, AND I WANT TO BE CAREFUL WE DON'T GO TOO FAR INTO THIS. YOU SAID YOU GOT A CERTIFICATE OF A, A APPROPRIATENESS, CORRECT? IS THAT WHAT YOU SAID? YES. I THINK WHAT WAS TESTIFIED TO AT THE LAST HEARING AND WHAT WAS BRIEFED TO US THIS MORNING IS A CA CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATE USE WAS ISSUED AND THEN REVOKED. CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT. SO, SO AS OF RIGHT NOW YOU DON'T HAVE A CA CORRECT? WE DON'T AND WE ARE WORKING WITH 'EM TO GET IT. ALRIGHT, SO LET'S LEAVE THAT THAT'S ON THE RECORD. YEAH. YOU SAID YOU HAVE IT. YOU SAID YOU HAD IT, BUT YOU DON'T. NO, I DON'T. OKAY, SO JUST TO BE CLEAR. YEAH, THAT IS CORRECT. YOU GOTTA BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU TESTIFIED TO. 'CAUSE YOU'RE UNDER OATH AND YOU WANT US TO BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU SAY AS AS OPPOSED TO STARTING TO THINK, WELL WHAT IS HE TELLING US? THAT'S CORRECT OR NOT. SO, UM, ALRIGHT, WHAT ARE THE QUESTIONS DO WE HAVE FOR THE APPLICANT, MR. HOPKINS? SO, UH, I THINK THIS MEMBER OF THE BOARD, UH, WOULD BE POSITIVELY INFLUENCED BY YOU GETTING THAT CERTIFICATE, WHICH IS YET TO BE DECIDED, I BELIEVE NEXT MONTH. YES, THAT IS CORRECT. I HAD A MEETING WITH 'EM TWO DAYS AGO AND THEY GAVE US ALL THE SPECIFICATIONS SO WE FIXED EVERYTHING TO THEIR LIGHTING AND SEND IT BACK TO THEM. UM, AND WE DISCUSSED THIS. DID YOU HEAR OUR DISCUSSION THIS MORNING? YES. OKAY. UH, ONE OF THE THINGS WE DISCUSSED WAS WHETHER YOU WOULD BE, IF, IF WE WANNA SEE HOW THAT GOES TO HELP US MAKE THE DECISION ON YOUR CASE, IF YOU WOULD BE INTERESTED IN WAITING UNTIL THAT CASE IS RESOLVED SO THAT WE WOULD KNOW THE OUTCOME OF THAT. DO YOU WANT A DEFINITIVE DECISION ONE WAY OR THE OTHER FROM THIS BOARD TODAY? OR ARE YOU WILLING TO CONSIDER, UH, WAITING UNTIL YOUR OTHER CASE IS ADJUDICATED? SO, MR. HA, BECAUSE THIS BODY IS INDEPENDENT OF THAT BODY, I WOULD LIKE FOR IT TO CONSIDER THE CASE AND UH, GET A DECISION. ALSO THEY MENTIONED IN CASE THEY DON'T PROVE ANYTHING, WILL BILL WITH EXACT SAME STONE, EXACT [01:30:01] SAME THING. SO THAT'S JUST, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE DECIDED THAT WE'RE GONNA BUILD HOWEVER THEY WANT US TO BUILD. SO THERE'S NOT EVEN PROBLEM WITH THAT. THANK YOU. UH, THANK YOU MR. HAITZ. UM, OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? UM, ARE YOU PLANNING ON THIS? IS, THIS IS, UM, UH, INFORMATIVE BUT NOT DIRECTIVE TO OUR DECISION. ARE YOU PLANNING ON UM, UM, 'CAUSE THE CURRENT, YOUR, I'M SORRY, I'M FORMULATING MY QUESTION. THE FENCE ON YOUR PROPERTY THAT WE'VE SEEN, IT HAS TWO ENTRANCES, CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT. AND THE GATES ARE DIFFERENT, CORRECT? CORRECT. AND THE FENCES ARE DIFFERENT, CORRECT? IS THAT WHAT, IS THAT WHAT YOU PLAN TO DO? TWO DIFFERENT GATES? NO, TWO DIFFERENT FENCES. UNIFORM FENCE, ACTUALLY THAT'S WHAT THEY WANT. ONE UNIFORM FENCE WITH SAME MATERIAL, SAME STONE THAT'S ON THE HOUSE. OKAY. OKAY. BECAUSE TWO DIFFERENT HEIGHTS TOO. AT ONE POINT THE FENCE IS SIX FEET TALL. AT ONE POINT IT'S FOUR FEET, SIX INCHES. SO IT'S LIKE ALL DIFFERENT. YEAH, ALL OF IT. AND WE SENT, THEY SENT ONE INSPECTOR ROUTE TO LOOK, THE FENCE IS IN TERRIBLE SHAPE. IT FALLS DOWN WHENEVER THERE'S WIND, IT'S TIED UP WITH ZIP TIES WHERE WE DON'T WORK. SO THEY SEND OUT THE INSPECTOR AND THE SAW THAT IS DONE AND WHAT YOU'RE REQUESTING IS FOR AN EIGHT FOOT, SIX INCH HEIGHT, HEIGHT FENCE THROUGH, UH, FOR THE WHOLE FRONTAGE OF YOUR PROPERTY AT THE HIGHEST 0.8 FOOT SIX AT THE HIGHEST POINT? THAT IS CORRECT. AT THE HIGHEST POINT. AT THE HIGHEST POINT RIGHT NOW AT THE HIGHEST POINT IS SIX FEET, FIVE INCHES. SAY AGAIN? RIGHT NOW THE HIGHEST POINT IS SIX FEET IN FIVE INCHES. OKAY. ALRIGHT. SO IF YOUR PLANS ARE IN FLUX IN ATTEMPTING TO GET AN A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS WITH THE LANDMARK COMMISSION, WHICH IS NOT THE STAFF, IT'S THE COMMISSION. YES. 'CAUSE THEY CAN'T SPEAK FOR THE STAFF FOR THE COMMISSION. RIGHT. IS THAT NOT GONNA CHANGE THE HEIGHT AND THE DESIGN OF YOUR OFFENSE? OF WHICH WE WOULD'VE TO APPROVE OR NOT? BECAUSE IF THE LANDMARK COMMISSION SAYS YES OR NO ON THE TYPE OF FENCE AND OR HEIGHT OF THE FENCE AT WHAT PEAKS? 'CAUSE WE'RE SUPPOSED TO APPROVE WITH A HEIGHT AND ALSO DESIGN SPECIFICATION. YES. SO I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN OR PUTS YOU IN A CATCH 22 BY APPROVING SOMETHING. IT GOES TO MR. HKA. THIS IS COMMON BY APPROVING SOMETHING AND WE'RE OUR APPROVE, IT ALWAYS SAYS SUBJECT TO THE SITE PLANS PROVIDED. AND IF THIS SITE PLAN HERE, RIGHT HERE THAT'S IN OUR PACKET DATED TODAY HAS THIS ELEVATION AND THIS TYPE OF TYPE OF FENCING, IT COULD BE CHANGED BASED ON WHAT THE LANDMARK COMMISSION SAYS THEY LIKE OR DISLIKE. AND YOU DIDN'T HAVE TO POTENTIALLY COME BACK. THAT WOULD BE MATERIALS, NOT THE HEIGHT, YOU KNOW? WELL, I DON'T KNOW. WELL, THE HEIGHT AND THE TYPE OF, WHETHER IT'S REBARB OR IT'S WOOD. 'CAUSE YOUR CURRENT FENCE HAS WOOD SLATS AND METAL AND IT HAS SPIKES AND IT HAS HEIGHTS AT DIFFERENT ELEVATIONS. BECAUSE WHAT IF I'M NOT, IF, IF I'M NOT INCORRECT, WE'RE APPROVING BASED ON A SITE PLAN WITH A HEIGHT. ELEVATION. CORRECT. AND IF THAT IS MODIFIED BY VIRTUE OF DESIGN WITH THE LANDMARK COMMISSION, IF WE APPROVE SOMETHING AND THEY WENT ANOTHER DIRECTION 'CAUSE OF THEIR JUDGMENT, YOU MAY HAVE TO COME BACK AGAIN, THEN I WILL. WELL, UH, BUT THAT'S A WASTE OF EVERYONE'S TIME. I MEAN, AGAIN, I JUST SHOWED OUT, BUT THAT'S A WASTE OF EVIDENCE. I, I FLEW BACK JUST FOR THIS. I, I THAT'S, YOU KNOW, THAT'S YOUR DEAL. UM, WE WERE AWARE THAT WHAT WE DID, WE POSTPONED IT TWO MONTHS IN ORDER FOR YOU TO PROMPTLY REAPPLY WITH THE, OR APPLY WITH THE LANDMARK COMMISSION. YEAH, THAT WAS TWO MONTHS AGO. SO WE APPLIED RIGHT AWAY. I DON'T THINK SO. I THINK YOU, WELL IT SAYS YOU, YOU APPLIED MARCH 17TH. IS THAT, THAT'S WHAT WE WERE TOLD THIS MORNING AND OUR HEARING WAS IN FEBRUARY. SO I DON'T THINK THAT'S RIGHT AWAY. AND I'M GONNA HAVE MR. BROWN COME UP AND TESTIFY IN A MINUTE. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO, BUT IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, MARCH 17TH WHEN YOU APPLIED, AND THAT FEEDS INTO A MAY 4TH AGENDA. SO, UH, RESPECTFULLY, SIR, THAT'S NOT RIGHT AWAY. 'CAUSE OUR LAST MEETING WAS FEBRUARY 17TH. SO YOU APPLIED 30 DAYS AFTER OUR LAST WEEK [01:35:01] BECAUSE WE ARE FIXING AFTER ALL THAT 30, WITH THE 30 DAYS. I'LL LEAVE IT TO YOUR BEST JUDGMENT. I'LL LEAVE IT TO YOUR BEST JUDGMENT. WHATEVER YOU WANNA DO. I I WANNA BE GENTLE HERE. EVERYONE THAT SPEAKS TO US IS UNDER OATH AND, AND SO, OKAY, SO WHAT ARE THE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? MS HA, MS. HAYDEN, I'M NOT SURE THAT THIS IS FOR THE APPLICANT. IT MIGHT BE FOR THE CITY OR FOR YOU . OKAY, GO FOR IT. BUT YOU KNOW, WHEN I, WHEN I LOOK AT THIS AND I LOOK AT THIS FENCE AND I THINK, OKAY, WHAT IF THIS WERE ANY OTHER, YOU KNOW, FENCE HEIGHTS, UM, REQUEST AND THE LANDMARK COMMISSION WERE OUTTA THE PICTURE. THAT'S A SEPARATE DEAL, RIGHT? SO WITH THIS PANEL, LOOK AT THIS FENCE DESIGN, LOOK AT THIS FENCE HEIGHT AND LOOK AT THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES AND MAKE A, MAKE A CALL BASED ON THAT AND BASED ON THE DESIGN THAT'S RIGHT HERE, JUST MAKE A, YOU KNOW, VOTE ON THAT. AND THEN THE LANDMARK COMMISSION DOES ITS THING, WHICH WOULD BE SAY, OKAY, YEAH, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY HAVE APPROVED DEFENSE HEIGHT. IT'S HIGHER IN THIS FENCE STYLE, BUT WE'RE NOT GONNA APPROVE THAT. I MEAN, WHO TRUMPS WHO THE ANSWER IF, CORRECT ME IF I'M INCORRECT HERE. I DON'T THINK EITHER ONE OF US CAN TRUMP EACH OTHER. I THINK IT HAS TO BE CONCURRENT APPROVAL. AND CONCURRENT MAY MEAN ONE BEFORE THE OTHER. ONE BEFORE THE OTHER. BUT BOTH HAVE TO APPROVE. BUT I HESITATE US APPROVING A SET OF PLANS HERE THAT ARE STILL IN FLUX BETWEEN THE APPLICANT AND THE LANDMARK COMMISSION. AND, AND WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO THE STAFF, THEY DON'T MAKE THE DECISION ON THIS. THE, THE LANDMARK COMMISSION MAKES A DECISION. THEY MAY QUALIFY, THEY MAY RECOMMEND TO THE LANDMARK COMMISSION WHEN THEY MEET ON MAY 4TH, BUT THE LANDMARK COMMISSION BY WHATEVER THEIR RULES ARE GONNA SAY, THIS IS WHAT, THIS IS WHAT WE THINK. SO, AND I ASKED THIS MORNING THAT HOW IS THE PROCESS THAT A PROPERTY BECOMES SUBJECT TO THE LANDMARK AND IT'S WAS REQUESTED BY THE PREVIOUS OWNER ON NOVEMBER 9TH, 2022. AND CERTAINLY YOU AS A PROPERTY OWNER KNEW THAT WHEN YOU PURCHASED IT. CORRECT. OKAY. I DIDN'T WANNA CHASE THAT. SO THEREFORE THOSE RULES ARE PREDATE YOUR PURCHASE. SO, SO THE, OKAY, SO YOU'RE RESPONSIBLE THAT, SO I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, BUT I THINK THE DANGER WE HAVE IS WE PROVE WHAT WE HAVE RIGHT HERE IN FRONT OF US. THIS ONLY, AND THEN IT CHANGES SLIGHTLY AND THEN IT CAN'T BE IMPLEMENTED. THAT'S MY OPINION. SO, BUT YES, THEN THEY HAVE COME BACK TO US AS A BRAND NEW CASE PROBABLY. SO IT GOES BACK TO MR. HAITZ COMMENTS. YES, SIR. AND THEN WE'VE GOT ANOTHER SPEAKER TOO, GUYS. SO, UH, AGAIN, THIS QUESTION MAY BE FOR OUR CITY ATTORNEY, MAY BE FOR YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, SHE'S RUNNING AWAY MAYBE FOR SOMEBODY ELSE. NOT REALLY SURE. IT'S NOT FOR THE APPLICANT. I KNOW. WHAT, WHAT, WHAT IS THE PROCESS THAT IS IN PLACE FOR A SCENARIO? WHO, WHO MONITORS WHAT YOU JUST SAID? WE APPROVE THE REQUEST. THE LANDMARK COMMISSION SAYS NO OR SAYS YES BUT MODIFIED. THAT'S WHAT THEY PROBABLY WOULD SAY, BUT I CAN'T SPEAK FOR THEM THEN WHO MONITORS WHAT GETS BUILT? THE LANDMARK COMMISSION? NO, US I'LL TELL YOU WHO DOES THE END JEFFERSON MACH, OAK CLIFF MUNICIPAL CENTER. THE PERMITTING CENTER DOES. SO AN APPLICANT GOES DOWN, NOW YOU'RE GONNA SMIRK, NOW THE APPLICANT GOES DOWN TO MACH. AM I CORRECT, MISS, MISS, BOARD ADMINISTRATOR AND SAYS I WANT A PERMIT. HOPEFULLY THEY SAY, WAIT A MINUTE, YOU NEED BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND LANDMARK AND THEN HOPEFULLY THEY, THE PLANS MATCH. LET'S NOT COMMENT THAT YOUR BOSS'S BOSS'S BOSS. SO BE CAREFUL SAM KINNAR WOULD BE UPSET AND AS WOULD EMILY. SO IS THAT, I THINK THAT'S THE ANSWER. AM I CORRECT? UH, MS. BOARD ATTORNEY. THANK YOU. THAT RIGHT . WOO. OKAY. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THIS APPLICANT? I'D LIKE TO BRING UP THE LETTER THAT WAS SENT BY THE HISTORICAL DISTRICT THAT IF YOU GUYS GET APPROVED TODAY, THAT WAS DATED THE SAME DAY BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS, PLEASE MAKE SURE USE THE SAME MATERIALS. SO THAT LETTER WAS SENT. I, I'M, I'M ALSO CONFUSED JUST LIKE Y'ALL, WHO COMES, WHO, SO THE LETTER WAS SENT THAT IF YOU GET APPROVED BY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS, PLEASE MAKE SURE USE THE SAME MATERIALS THAT ARE ON THE FENCE CURRENTLY. [01:40:01] SO I WOULD SAY THAT IF I GET APPROVED HERE AND I DECIDE THAT I'M JUST GONNA USE THE SAME MATERIALS, EXACT SAME THING WITH DIFFERENT HEIGHT, WOULD THAT BE OKAY? WELL, I CAN'T SPEAK FOR THE BOARD UNLESS I HAVE FOUR VOTES IN MY POCKET AND I DON'T HAVE FOUR VOTES IN MY POCKET UNTIL THE VOTE HAPPENS. BUT I WOULD HESITATE THIS ONE MEMBER IN A HISTORICALLY DESIGNATED PROPERTY TO DICTATE WHAT IT SHOULD BE. THAT'S WHY AT THE LAST MEETING I AND OTHERS SAID, YOU KNOW, WE REALLY SHOULD PROBABLY WAIT FOR THE LANDMARK COMMISSION. 'CAUSE WE DO NOT, AT LEAST, I DON'T WANT TO DICTATE THE STYLE, BUT I HAVE CONTRADICTION HERE THAT YOU ARE SAYING THAT YOU GUYS ARE SEPARATE ENTITIES. AS FOR THE ATTORNEY, YOU KNOW, THE LEGAL COUNSEL AS DO I LISTEN TO MY LEGAL COUNSEL, ALL THAT. SHE, SHE SAID THAT CLEARLY THAT YOU ARE, YOU TWO ARE SEPARATE ENTITIES AND THERE'S NO INTER OVERLAP BETWEEN WHAT YOU DECIDE AND WHAT THEY DO. THEN WHY DO WE KEEP ON BRINGING THEM UP IF THIS IS BY DEFAULT A SEPARATE ENTITY? I, AND I'M GONNA, YOU KNOW, BEFORE I WAS VESTED QUITE A BIT. I JUST DON'T CARE ANYMORE. IT DOESN'T MATTER. YOU KNOW, I TALKED TO MY WIFE, WE DON'T EVEN BUILD IT. WE ARE STILL OKAY WITH IT. BUT, YOU KNOW, MY CONCERN TODAY, I WANNA BRING UP, I'M GONNA LEAVE IT TO YOUR BEST JUDGMENT. THE LAST TIME THERE WAS A LOT OF DEBATE ON THIS AS WELL, AND THREE, TWO WAS THE DECISION YOU'RE GOING AGAINST AT THE END THAT THIS IS A SEPARATE ENTITY YOU GUYS DON'T REPLY TO OR WORK UNDER ANY OTHER ENTITY. THEN HOW CAN YOU KEEP ON BRINGING UP WHAT THE HISTORICAL DISTRICT IS GOING TO DO? I I I JUST WANNA UNDERSTAND THAT PART OF IT. YOU KNOW, YOU ARE DECIDING ON BASIS OF STRICTLY IF THIS IS GOING TO AFFECT THE NEIGHBORS OR THE STREET. AND EVEN THE LAST TIME THAT WAS DECIDED, IT DOES NOT, IT IT'S JUST THE SAME. EVERYBODY ELSE HAS FENCE 10 FEET OR 15 FEET UP TO 18 FEET. SO I GET CONFUSED ON THIS SPOT AND THAT'S WHY I'M BACK HERE MYSELF, MY COUNSEL, MY LEGAL COUNSEL WANTED TO SHOW UP AND THEY WERE LIKE, YOU DON'T NEED TO GO THESE MEETINGS. AND ALL DUE RESPECT, SIR. I'M LIKE, NO, I WANNA SHOW RESPECT AND SHOW UP AND ALL DUE RESPECT, THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE IN OPPOSITION THERE. WE GET A LOT OF LETTERS IN, IN OPPOSITION AND THOSE IN SUPPORT AND AND THERE'S ONE SPEAKER THAT'S GONNA SPEAK AFTER YOU THAT'S GONNA SPEAK IN OPPOSITION. AND SO WE TAKE YOUR INFORMATION, THEIR INFORMATION, PROFESSIONAL STAFF'S INFORMATION, UH, IT DOES DO A DIFFERENT TWIST BECAUSE IT'S DESIGNATED AS A CORRECT HISTORIC PROPERTY, BUT 46 LETTERS IN SPORT AND THEN FOUR AGAINST 46, 6 LETTERS. I'M, BUT YOU'VE HEAR YOU'VE BEEN HERE ENOUGH TIMES. YEAH. AND HAVE HEARD ME SAY JUST BECAUSE THERE'S 46 DOESN'T MEAN IT HAPPENS FOUR OR AGAINST, IT'S NOT YOU'RE GONNA DECIDE. I KNOW, I KNOW THIS. I DECIDE. I I HEAR YOUR FRUSTRATION. I HEAR YOUR FRUSTRATION. THE BOARD WILL HAVE TO MAKE ITS MIND UP. OF COURSE WHEN IT MAKES ITS MIND UP. UH, I JUST CAUTION YOU, UM, TO SPEAK HONESTLY WHEN YOU'RE SWORN IN AND, UM, BECAUSE, UH, 'CAUSE WE WANNA TAKE THE, THE, UH, YOUR TESTIMONY AS GIVEN. SO ANYTHING ELSE THAT YOU WANNA GIVE US RIGHT NOW, YOU HAVE A CHANCE, YOU'LL HAVE A CHANCE WHEN WE'RE, UH, BEFORE WE GO TO A VOTE, ANYTHING ELSE RIGHT NOW? AND REGARDING THAT POINT THAT YOU BROUGHT UP A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, WE WERE GIVEN 10 EQUAL A VOTE. SO I WAS NOT SAYING THAT WE WERE GIVEN THE CERTIFICATE FOR TWO MONTHS. I I SAID THAT TO YOU FOR, FOR TWO AND A HALF MONTHS. I SAID THAT TO YOU AND YOU SAID, YOU SAID YOU APPLIED TO IT RIGHT AWAY AND IT WAS 30 DAYS LATER. NO, I WAS TALKING ABOUT A CIRCUIT OF APPROPRIATENESS. THE CA WE HAD THE CA I MEAN WE, WE GOT THE CA FOR ABOUT TWO AND A HALF MONTHS. WE HAD THE CA AND THEN IT WAS REVOKED THE DAY WE HAVE A HEARING BECAUSE MY NEIGHBOR, HE PULLED SOME STRINGS CALLED IN, DID SOMETHING EVERY, YOU KNOW, EVERYBODY LIVES ON STRAIGHT LANE CAN PULL SOME STRINGS. I UNDERSTAND THAT. UH, BUT THEN AGAIN, I HAD THAT FOR TWO AND A HALF MONTHS. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. YOU'LL GET YOU CHANCE MS. MS? YES. DO YOU HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION FOR HIM OR FOR ME? OKAY, GO AHEAD MR. HAITZ. YEAH, SO THERE ARE GUIDELINES AND, AND STRUCTURES AND THINGS THAT WE'RE, UH, SUPPOSED TO LOOK AT AND CONSIDER, BUT ULTIMATELY WE COME HERE EVERY MONTH TO MAKE, TO MAKE JUDGMENT CALLS. IT'S NOT A, THERE'S NOT A PATH THAT YOU GO DOWN AND IF YOU GO DOWN THE RIGHT ORDER OF THAT PATH, YOU AUTOMATICALLY REACH THE END OF THE, THE GOLDEN TICKET. IT'S OUR JOB TO APPLY OUR JUDGMENT TO THESE MATTERS. AND THAT'S, THAT'S WHY WE'RE BATTLING WITH OURSELVES OVER THIS. THIS IS A COMPLICATED [01:45:01] SITUATION BECAUSE IT'S A LANDMARK HISTORICAL PROPERTY. SO UNDERSTAND, UH, WE DON'T, WE DON'T HAVE TO BY RULE, ARRIVE AT THIS CONCLUSION OR THAT CONCLUSION. WE'RE HERE TO APPLY OUR JUDGMENT TO THE CASE AS WE SEE IT INDIVIDUALLY. THAT IS CORRECT MR. HOCKER. AND THE POINT I WAS GONNA MAKE IS THAT YOUR, THE DECISION THAT YOU MAKE IS BASED ON IF THIS HEIGHT WILL ADVERSELY AFFECT THE NEIGHBORS AND THE SURROUNDING. AND I WAS JUST POINTING OUT THAT THEN HISTORICAL PART DOESN'T COME INTO PLAY WHEN WE ARE JUST FOCUSED ON THAT PART OF IT. I WAS JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND AND I'M GONNA LEAVE THAT TO YOUR BEST JUDGMENT. I, YOU KNOW WHAT, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, IT'S, IT'S, IT'S, UM, THIS IS NOT EVERY OTHER PROPERTY ON THE STREET. THIS IS A HISTORICAL DESIGNATED PROPERTY, NOT THE OTHER ONES ON THE STREET. SO, UM, IT'S NOT JUST ANOTHER PROPERTY ON THE STREET. NO, IT'S NOT. NO IT'S NOT. BUT LIKE OVER HERE WE ARE NOT CONSIDERING THE HISTORICAL PART OF IT. WE ARE CONSIDERING THE HEIGHT PART OF IT. WE CONSIDER, WE CONSIDER BRING OUR JUDGMENT INTO PLAY AND LOOK AT THE SPECIFICS OF EACH CASE. I UNDERSTAND. OKAY. UH, A QUESTION FOR MS. BOARD, ATTORNEY BOARD ADMINISTRATOR IN THE WHOOP WHERE SHE'D GO. OKAY. UH, MR. THOMPSON, IS THIS YOUR CASE? OKAY. IT AND OUR DOCKET, IT SAYS MARCH 20TH, THE APPLICANT PROVIDED REVISED PLAN. OKAY, SO WHAT CHANGED? THE PREVIOUS REQUEST WAS EIGHT FOOT SIX INCHES. THE HEIGHT DID NOT CHANGE. IT WAS A MATTER OF, UH, SOME ADDED INFORMATION ALONG LIKE THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE. UM, BUT WE DIDN'T HAVE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE ISSUE LAST TIME. NO, THEY JUST, I'M JUST SAYING ON THE DRAWINGS THEMSELVES, THEY'RE NOW SHOWING THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLES. YES. UM, AND THERE WAS LIKE A COUPLE OF WORDING CHANGES, UM, UP OFF IN THAT AREA. THE HEIGHT REQUEST DID NOT CHANGE, UM, THE FENCE ITSELF IN TERMS OF LIKE THE ELEVATION, IT PRETTY MUCH WAS THE SAME. SO, AND HERE'S MY CONCERN. THE PACKET THAT WE GOT ON FEBRUARY 17TH FOR OUR PREVIOUS HEARING HAS DRAWINGS. IT'S ON PAGE 180 6 OF THE PREVIOUS DOCKET. AND IT HAS DRAWINGS DATED OCTOBER OF 25. I'M LOOKING AT THE BOTTOM QUARTER ISSUE DATE OCTOBER 20 20TH OF 2025. THE DOCKET WE GOT THIS TIME HAS THE EXACT SAME DATE. ITS OFTEN THAT ARCHITECTS DON'T CHANGE THEIR DATES. THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO. HOW THE HECK DO WE KNOW? WHICH IS THE MOST RECENT PERSON? I MEAN, I MEAN THEY'RE, THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO DO REVISIONS, BUT TYPICALLY, UH, FOR SOMETHING AS SIMPLE AS A FENCE, THEY JUST GO IN AND MAKE THE CHANGES AND RESCIND IT. OKAY. BECAUSE I'M NOW TRYING TO WHAT CHANGED IN YOUR PLAN, SIR? SO THEY HAVE MULTIPLE CHANGES THE WAY THE STONE LAYS OUT, BECAUSE I HAD A, A VIDEO MEETING WITH A HISTORICAL DISTRICT AND THEY DIDN'T LIKE THE WAY THE STONE IS BEING LAID OUT. THEY NEED THE STONE TO BE LAID OUT EXACTLY THE WAY IT'S ON THE HOUSE. YES. THAT SAME PATTERN. SO WE CHANGED THAT ACCORDING TO WHAT THEY WANT. UH, THEY WANTED TO SEE MORE DRAWINGS, SO I SENT 'EM. DO YOU SEE, DO YOU SEE VERY MUCH WHAT YOU'RE JUST SAYING THAT TELEGRAPHS TO US, IT'S PREMATURE FOR US TO MAKE A SITE SPECIFIC DECISION WHEN THESE THINGS ARE STILL IN FLUX. BUT MR. CHAIRMAN, THE POINT IS THE HEIGHT HAS NOT CHANGED INCH ABOVE OR LESS IT'S HEIGHT. WE ARE APPROVING HEIGHT AND SITE PLANS. THESE SPECIFIC DRAWINGS THAT WERE SUBMITTED TO US. THAT'S, YEAH. SO WE HAVE CHANGED THE LAYOUT OR THE STONE ACCORDING TO WHAT THEY WANTED ON THE COLUMNS AND WE WENT BACK AND FORTH WITH 'EM AND MY ARCHITECT IS STILL WORKING WITH HIM, BUT THE HEIGHT PART OF IT, SO THAT'S WHERE I'M CONFUSED. MAYBE YOU'RE RIGHT, YOU'RE RIGHT. IF THIS IS ABOUT THE FULL SCOPE OF IT, SURE. MAYBE YOU'RE RIGHT. BUT I'M JUST TALKING ABOUT JUST THE FACT OF THE HEIGHT. WELL THE, THE LEGAL MOTION THAT IS BEFORE BY OUR BOARD ATTORNEY TALKS ABOUT A HEIGHT OF EIGHT FOOT SIX INCHES, WHICH IS A FOUR FOOT SIX INCH VARIANCE. IT TALKS ABOUT COMPLIANCE WITH THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF ALL SUBMITTED PLANS AS REQ ARE REQUIRED. SO, AND ALL SUBMITTED PLANS ARE THIS SCHEMATIC HERE THAT IS STILL IN FLUX. SO I, I MEAN AND MR. HOP THIS IS CORRECT. THIS IS NOT THE SAME AS EVERY HOUSE ON THE STREET. IT, THIS IS THE ONLY HOUSE ON THAT STREET THAT HAS A HISTORIC DESIGNATION, BUT THAT'S FOR THE HISTORICAL DISTRICT TO WORK WITH. OVER HERE. WE ARE JUST CONSIDERING THE HEIGHT. ALRIGHT. THAT'S WHAT THAT WAS. I WAS UNDER THEIR IMPRESSION. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALRIGHT, THE OTHER SPEAKER, MS. WILLIAMS, [01:50:01] MR. ROME HOLMES. GOOD AFTERNOON SIR. UH, IF YOU WOULD GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND THEN YOU CAN PROCEED. GOOD AFTERNOON. RON HOLMES. 14 2 4 1 DALLAS PARKWAY, DALLAS, TEXAS 7 5 2 5 4. AND I'M AN ATTORNEY. I REPRESENT JOHN AND ANN MC REYNOLDS, UH, WHO LIVE ON STRAIGHT LANE, VERY CLOSE TO MR. STREET. I WAS HERE THE LAST I RECALL. AND, UH, APPRECIATE EVERYTHING THAT'S BEEN SAID TODAY. I WOULD ENCOURAGE, UM, COUNSEL FOR THE BOARD TO LOOK AT A CASE, TEXAS SUPREME COURT CASE CALLED POWELL VERSUS CITY OF HOUSTON, WHICH ANSWERS YOUR QUESTIONS A LOT ABOUT THIS. UM, I WON'T CALL IT A BATTLE, BUT DIFFERENT, UH, CONCERNS THAT EACH OF THESE COMMISSIONS HAVE THE BOARD VERSUS THE LANDMARK COMMISSION BECAUSE IN THAT CASE THE SUPREME TEXAS SUPREME COURT SQUARELY HELD RIGHT ON POINT. SAME SORT OF FACTS AS THIS, THAT A HISTORICAL DESIGNATION IS NOT ZONING. THAT'S THE HOLDING, UH, FOR A LOT OF REASONS GIVEN IN THAT CASE. I WON'T STAND HERE. YOU CAN GIVE 'EM ALL, BUT IT'S, IT'S NOT A ZONING ORDINANCE, IT'S A ORDINANCE DESIGNATED HISTORICAL DISTRICT OR PROPERTY. THEREFORE THE BOARD LOOKS AT ZONING MATTERS HERE, INCLUDING, YOU KNOW, A CHANGE TO SAY R ONE OR WHATEVER IT MAY BE, A FENCE HEIGHT. THEN THAT'S FINE AND THIS BOARD COULD CHANGE A FENCE HEIGHT. IT'S JUST DOING A ZONING MATTER. THIS ORDINANCE THAT GOVERNS THIS PROPERTY IS NOT A ZONING ORDINANCE. TEXAS SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT. SO YOU CAN DO WHAT YOU WANT TO DO. BUT THAT ORDINANCE IS SPECIFIC AND IT SAYS SPECIFICALLY NO DEFENSES WITHIN THE NO BILL ZONE UNLESS THEY'RE EXACTLY THE SAME. THAT'S WHAT THE COMMISSIONS DO WITH RIGHT NOW. SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY'RE GONNA DO, THAT'S UP TO THEM. BUT MY POINT IS THEY'RE THE ONLY ONES THAT CAN CHANGE THEIR ORDINANCE 'CAUSE IT'S NOT A ZONING ORDINANCE. THIS BOARD REALLY CAN'T GRANT A VARIANCE TO IT. YOU COULD GRANT A VARIANCE AND THAT'S WHERE THIS OVERLAPPING COMES INTO PLAY. I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT WOULD WORK AND REALLY DON'T. BUT ANYHOW, I WAS JUST THROWING THAT OUT THERE. I SUBMITTED A PACKET, I DON'T KNOW, DID IT GET IN THE ? I SENT IT THREE 30 DAY FOUR, THE MOST RECENT, UM, DOCUMENT. YEAH, IT WAS YOU'RE MR. HOLMES? YES. UHHUH . UH, THIS WAS ONE DATED FEBRUARY 12TH. NO, NO THIS WAS YESTERDAY. NO, THERE'S THE MOST RECENT ONE. OH, OKAY. LEMME LOOK. UH, THIS IS DATED APRIL 13TH. THAT WOULD BE IT. I'VE GOT AN EMAIL, YES. YEAH, OKAY. WITH AN ATTACHMENT. ALRIGHT, PROCEED. YEAH. AND, AND ALL OF US POINTING OUT HERE, MS. MC REYNOLDS HERSELF WENT OUT AND, AND GOT SOME PICTURES, UH, OF SOME HOUSES. THOSE RIGHT LANE? YES. IN THE, IN THE VICINITY MEASURED FENCES. AND WE GIVE YOU THOSE ADDRESSES AND FENCE HEIGHTS AND YOU'LL SEE NONE OF THE FENCES ARE OVER FIVE FIVE. UM, EXCEPT THERE'S TWO FENCES THAT ARE SIX FEET THAT ARE ACROSS THE STREET FROM HIM. UM, I JUST THROW THAT OUT THERE BECAUSE THERE'S SOME PICTURES I'VE SEEN HERE, INCLUDING THE MCREYNOLDS HAVE REALLY TALL TREES. IT'S NOT A FENCE. SO, WELL THERE'S A FENCE BEHIND IT. I THINK THERE IS, I THINK FROM WHAT WE'VE SEEN IN OUR PICTURES, THE FENCE IS VERY WELL HIDDEN BEHIND THOSE GIGANTIC EXACTLY. YEAH. BEAUTIFUL TREES. YEAH, MAYBE 20 FEET. THERE'S HUGE THERE BLOOD. BUT THE FENCE ITSELF IS IT WITHIN THE LIMITS? I WAS JUST SENDING THAT INFORMATION. SO YOU HAD THAT AND SENT SOME PICTURES SO YOU CAN SEE WHAT THOSE S LOOK LIKE. UH, SO ALL I'M HERE TO SAY AGAIN IS THERE IS NO CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS ISSUED BY UH, THE COMMISSION. THEREFORE I THINK YOU NEED TO LET THEM DO THEIR JOB BECAUSE YOU'RE RIGHT. IF YOU GRANT A VARIANCE TO A ZONING ORDINANCE, WHAT DOES THAT ACCOMPLISH? WHEN THE HISTORICAL COMMISSION AND THE ONLY ONE THAT HAS THE RIGHT TO GRANT A VARIANCE TO THIS ORDINANCE THAT DOES A HISTORICAL DESIGNATION, TWO DIFFERENT ROLES TO D ACCOUNTS. SO FOR THAT, I WOULD JUST SAY IF YOU DID ANYTHING, I'D WAIT ON THE HISTORICAL COMMISSION TO COME BACK AND SEE IF THEY ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATE DISTRICT. I WILL TELL YOU THAT ORDINANCE IS SPECIFIC. NO NEW OFFENSES UNLESS THEY MATCH THE EXISTING. SO LET'S SEE WHAT THEY DO. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UH, LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION. SURE. I'M, I'M [01:55:01] RERE RE-REVIEWING, UH, YOUR, UH, LETTER OF FEBRUARY 12TH AND YOUR EMAIL AND ATTACHMENTS OF APRIL 13TH. UM, IS IT YOUR TESTIMONY YOU ARE REPRESENTING THE PROPERTY ON DIRECTLY TO THE NORTH OR, UH, YEAH, I THINK THAT'S NORTH STRAIGHT LANE IS TO THE NORTH. YEAH. DIRECTLY TO THE NORTH, CORRECT? YES. WHICH IS JOHN AND ANNE MCREYNOLDS? CORRECT. OKAY. AT 1 0 3 0 0 STRAIGHT LANE. CORRECT. OKAY. IS IT YOUR OPINION, IS IT YOUR TESTIMONY, YOUR OPINION THAT THERE ARE NOT OTHER FENCES ON STRAIGHT LANES THAT ARE EIGHT FOOT SIX INCHES? WELL, I HAVE NO IDEA. YOU DON'T, YOU MAY BE OTHER FENCES. I DUNNO. OKAY. I THOUGHT YOU SAID THE MOST ARE FIVE OR SIX FEET. THE LIST AND GOT THAT I GAVE YOU ARE ALL THE FIVE FEET? YES. FIVE FEET. FIVE COUPLE OF 'EM SIX FEET. OKAY. PERSONALLY HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE. ALRIGHT. SO YOU'RE NOT TESTIFYING ONE WAY EXCEPT THAT I'VE DRIVEN THIS STREET A WHOLE LOT OF TIME. OKAY. UNDERSTOOD. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH SIR. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR, UH, THIS SPEAKER? OKAY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. APPRECIATE IT. UM, BEFORE YOU HAVE YOUR OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL, MR. BROWN, WOULD YOU COME FORWARD IF YOU'D GIVE US YOUR NAME AND UH, ADDRESS? OBVIOUSLY 1500 BARILLA, BUT YOU CAN SAY THAT ANYWAY. TREVOR BROWN, 1500 MARILLA. THANK YOU MR. BROWN. UM, SO WE ARE IN RECEIPT OF A COPY OF A LETTER DATED FEBRUARY 17TH FROM MARCUS WATSON WHO'S THE CHIEF, ONE OF YOUR CHIEF PLANNERS, UH, BASICALLY OFFICIALLY REVOKING THE CA, CORRECT? CORRECT. OKAY. SO, AND YOU TOLD US THIS MORNING AT THE BRIEFING THAT THE APPLICANT ON MARCH 17TH MADE APPLICATION TO THE LANDMARK COMMISSION FOR A CA. IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT. OKAY. JUST FOR THE RECORD, THAT IS 30 DAYS AFTER THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PERIOD. A MONTH AFTER THE FACT. OKAY. AND WHEN IS THAT APPLICATION DUE TO BE HEARD BY THE LANDMARK COMMISSION? THAT WILL BE ON THE AGENDA FOR THE MAY 4TH MEETING. OKAY. UM, I, I'M JUST GONNA DO A LITTLE BIT OF PROCESS. UH, DOES THE PROFESSIONAL STAFF MAKE A RECOMMENDATION OR JUST INFORMATION FOR LANDMARK COMMISSION REQUESTS? THEY WILL MAKE A RECOMMENDATION. AND SO YOU ALWAYS MAKE A RECOMMENDATION OR IN THIS TYPE OF A CASE, DO YOU MAKE A RECOMMENDATION? 99%. OKAY. THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. GOTCHA. AND THEN IT'S TOTALLY UP TO THE LANDMARK COMMISSION? 100%. AND THAT'S A PUBLIC HEARING? CORRECT. OKAY. AND MY UNDERSTANDING LANDMARK COMMISSION DECISIONS ARE ONLY APPEALABLE TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION? THAT IS CORRECT. AND THAT'S IT. I GUESS THEY COULD GO TO DISTRICT COURT, BUT THAT'S THE APPEAL ROUTE. CORRECT. OKAY. ALRIGHT. UM, THERE'S BEEN THIS DISCUSSION BACK AND FORTH ABOUT WHETHER THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS SHOULD GO FIRST OR THE LANDMARK COMMISSION SHOULD GO FIRST. WE HEARD FROM THIS, THIS, UH, SPEAKER A MINUTE AGO SAYING THAT HE EVEN IMPLIES THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DOESN'T DRIVE JURISDICTION. WE'RE NOT GONNA LITIGATE THAT HERE TODAY. UM, UH, WILL THE LANDMARK COMMISSION BE MAKING A JUDGMENT ON, UH, THE COMPOSITION OF THE FENCE MATERIALS, LOCATION, HEIGHT DESIGN? OH, HEIGHT INCLUDED? CORRECT. OKAY. SO THEN I, I'LL SHORTEN MY QUESTION. WHAT THINGS WILL THE LANDMARK COMMISSION BE MAKING A DECISION ON? I'LL LEAVE IT OPEN AND I'LL LET YOU FILL THAT IN. SURE. SO THEY'LL MAKE A DECISION ON THE LOCATION, THE DESIGN MATERIALS, HEIGHT, ALL OF IT. OKAY. AND THAT'S BASED ON THE SUBMITTAL PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT. SO, UH, SUBJECT TO WORKING WITH STAFF, I MEAN THEY'RE, THEY'RE TALKING TO YOU JUST LIKE APPLICANTS TALK TO OUR STAFF, I MEAN, AND WOULD GIVE FEEDBACK THAT DOESN'T CONTROL WHAT THE APPLICANT DOES. THE APPLICANT'S RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR OWN APPLICATION. CORRECT. SO THERE, THE APPLICANT TODAY JUST TOLD US HE'S WORKING WITH YOU ALL HE IS AND, AND I THINK THAT SHOWS IN THE MODIFIED, UH, PROPOSAL THAT I BELIEVE YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU. OKAY. UM, ALRIGHT, WHAT QUESTIONS DO WE HAVE FOR MR. BROWN? I WANTED TO MAKE IT VERY CLEAR TO THE BOARD THE SCOPE OF THE LANDMARK COMMISSION. I'LL GO TO YOU IN A SECOND. MS. HAYDEN, THE SCOPE OF THE LANDMARK COMMISSION AND WHAT THEY'RE ABOUT TO DO ON MAY 4TH AND THAT WE CAN USE THAT FOR WHATEVER INFORMATION WE, WE CARE TO [02:00:01] MS. HAYDEN. SO REGARDLESS OF WHAT WE DECIDE TODAY, IF WE APPROVE WHAT'S BEEN SUBMITTED, UM, WHEN IT GOES BEFORE THE LANDMARK COMMISSION, THAT COULD ALL GO OUT THE WINDOW DEPENDING ON WHAT THE LANDMARK COMMISSION DECIDES TO DO. ANY DECISION WE MAKE COULD BE NEGATED BY WHAT THE LANDMARK COMMISSION DECIDES TO DO. WELL, I THINK THE, THE IMPORTANT THING TO CONSIDER IS YOUR DECISION STILL STANDS. IT JUST WON'T BE ALLOWED PER THE LANDMARK COMMISSION, WHICH IS WHY, YOU KNOW, AS I MENTIONED IN THE BRIEFING THIS MORNING, I WAS HOPING THAT, UH, THIS ONE WOULD BE HELD OVER SO THAT THAT DECISION COULD PLAY OUT, UH, IN THAT MANNER. THANK YOU. QUESTIONS FOR MR. BROWN BY ANY MEMBER? MR. HAITZ, ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH ANY INSTANCES PRIOR TO THIS CASE WHERE A SIMILAR SITUATION, UH, FOR WANT OF A BETTER WORD OF CONFLICT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND THE LANDMARK MISSION HAS EXISTED? NO, SIR. AND NONE ARE COMING, UH, IMMEDIATELY TO MIND. I'VE ONLY BEEN MANAGING THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION GROUP FOR ALMOST A YEAR NOW. UH, BUT, BUT NO CASES OF A BOARD DECISION BEFORE COMING TO LANDMARK? UH, COME TO MIND THAT YOU'RE AWARE OF? YES SIR. THANK YOU. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MR. BROWN? THANK YOU VERY MUCH. APPRECIATE IT. OKAY. UM, MR. SHERIFF, UM, CONSISTENT WITH OUR RULES OF PROCEDURE, YOU'RE ALLOWED TO DO A, GIVE US A FIVE MINUTE REBUTTAL. YOU CAN TAKE ZERO OR UP TO FIVE MINUTES. IT'S YOURS MR. CHAIRMAN. IT WAS JUST BROUGHT UP BY UH, MY NEIGHBOR'S ATTORNEY. THE FACT THAT THERE IS NO FENCE OVER FIVE OR SIX FEET IF YOU PLAY THE VIDEO BACK, EXACT WORDS TALLER ON STRAIGHT LANE, WHICH IS INCORRECT. WHICH IS COMPLETELY FALSE. ABSOLUTELY FALSE. MY FRIENDS HAVE HOUSES WHERE THEIR FENCES ARE OVER 90. THEY'RE MY FRIENDS SO I CAN MEASURE 'EM. I WENT AND MEASURED THEM, YOU KNOW, SO THAT IS A FALSE STATEMENT. THE EMAIL THAT WAS SENT TO BOARD AND THE EMAIL THAT WAS SENT TO THIS BOARD BY MY NEIGHBOR, UH, JOHN MCCONNELL, STATED THE SAME EXACT THING. THAT THERE IS NO FENCE OVER SIX FEET ON STRAIGHT LANE, WHICH IS INCORRECT. UH, GREGORY SHIMO RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET FROM ME, HE'S A LAWYER, HE'S MY LAWYER. HIS FENCE IS SEVEN FEET AND NINE INCHES NEXT TO HIM. ARD MOY, HE'S ONE OF THE BIGGEST DEVELOPERS IN DALLAS ARD FENCE IS EIGHT FEET AND NINE INCHES. I WENT AND MEASURE, THEY'RE MY FRIENDS SO THEY ALLOWED ME. SO IT'S NOT, I WAS IN POACHING ON THEIR PROPERTY. I WAS INSIDE THEIR HOUSE AND WE TOOK THEM MEASUREMENTS. SO JUST THAT IS NOT A CORRECT STATEMENT. THERE ARE SOME HOUSES I HAVE NOT MEASURED, BUT THEY HAVE TO BE 14 FEET AND ABOVE, UH, ON STRAIGHT LANE SINCE THEY HAVE WAY TALLER THAN MY FRIEND'S HOUSES. SO I THINK JUST TO BRING THAT INTO ACCOUNT, I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY IN THE EMAIL AND HIS ATTORNEY KEEPS ON BRINGING UP THAT THERE IS NO FENCE TALLER THAN SIX FEET ON STRAIGHT LANE. AND MR. BROWN, UH, HIS STAFF, WE ARE WORKING WITH HIM. WE'RE WORKING, WE WANT TO WORK WITH THEM. THAT'S NOT THAT WE DON'T WANT TO GO AGAINST THEM. SO WE HAVE ASKED THEM, WHAT DO YOU THINK YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS, HOW THE STONE NEEDS TO BE LAID OUT? EXACTLY BACK AND FORTH, OVER 20 EMAILS. THEY SAY, NO, I THINK THIS NEEDS TO CHANGE, CHANGE, CHANGE, CHANGE. SO WE ARE NOT EVEN ACTUALLY, UH, REBUFFING ANY OF THE SUGGESTIONS WE'RE TAKING INTO ACCOUNT EVERYTHING. WE ARE KEEPING THE FENCE IN THE SAME POSITION, SAME POST, SAME PLACE, JUST THE HEIGHT GOES UP. AND THAT IS FOR THE SAFETY. IT IS BROKEN, PART OF IT IS BROKEN. UH, IT'S NOT TALL ENOUGH THERE A LOT OF COYOTES. SO I SPOKE WITH THEM AND THEY'RE LIKE, WE UNDERSTAND FOR THE SAFETY AND SECURITY YOU NEED A BETTER FENCE. SO WE ARE WORKING WITH THE BOARD ON THAT SIDE OF IT. HERE WE ARE FOR THE HEIGHT AND I WOULD REALLY THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UH, I HAVE HAD ONE LAST QUESTION FOR MR. BROWN. SORRY. AND I GOTTA ASK IT ON THE RECORD PLEASE. ONE MORE TIME. I APOLOGIZE. THIS WILL BE QUICK. LUCKY YOU AND THEN WE'LL GO TO A VOTE. [02:05:05] UH, HAS THE, I DON'T KNOW WHAT, WHAT'S THE NAME OF YOUR GROUP? THE LANDMARK COMMISSION STAFF. WHAT'S IT, IS IT CALLED LANDMARK COMMISSION STAFF? IS IT CALLED STORE PRESERVATION STAFF? HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE, YEAH. OKAY. HAS THE STORE PRESERVATION OFFICE MADE ITS RECOMMENDATION TO THE LANDMARK COMMISSION PUBLIC YET? NO, SIR. ALRIGHT, SO I CAN'T ASK YOU WHAT YOUR RECOMMENDATION'S GONNA BE. IS IT'S NOT PUBLIC YET? YES SIR. OKAY, SO, SO I, 'CAUSE THAT'S WHAT I WAS GONNA ASK. I WAS ASKED, WHAT IS YOUR RECOMMENDATION? BECAUSE, UH, IT'D BE REALLY FOOLISH FOR US TO GO ONE DIRECTION. YOU NECESSARILY GO ANOTHER DIRECTION, UH, AS, AS WE TRY TO PULL THIS INFORMATION TOGETHER. BUT IF YOU'RE NOT IN A POSITION TO REVEAL WHAT YOUR RECOMMENDATION IS GONNA BE, OKAY. THAT'S JUST A RECOMMENDATION. THE COMMISSION CAN STILL DO WHAT THEY WANNA DO. I RESPECT THAT. THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE TESTIFYING. 'CAUSE I DON'T KNOW WHAT HEIGHT YOU'RE ALSO TALKING ABOUT. SO, SO THE PROPOSAL THAT YOU HAVE SHOULD BE WHAT THE LANDMARK COMMISSION WILL BE CONSIDERING. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. THE CHAIR WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION. MR. HOROWITZ, I MOVE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER BO OA TWO FIVE DASH 0 0 0 0 8 8 ON APPLICATION OF SARDAR UNIT. A SPECIAL EXCEPTION REQUESTED BY THIS APPLICANT TO CONSTRUCT AND OR MAINTAIN AN EIGHT FOOT SIX INCH HIGH FENCE WITHOUT PREJUDICE. BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY, THE TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT THE GRANTING OF THE APPLICATION WOULD ADVERSELY AFFECT, MAY BRING PROPERTY, UH, IN THE MATTER OF BO 8 2 5 0 0 0 0 8 8. A MOTION BY MR. HOP HAVI WAS JUST MADE TO DENY THE REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE. IS THERE A SECOND TO THE MOTION? UH, I'LL SECOND THE MOTION JUST SO YOU CAN DISCUSS IT. I, I'M PROBABLY NOT GONNA SUPPORT THE MOTION, BUT I'LL, WE CAN'T DISCUSS THE MOTION UNLESS IT GETS A SECOND. SO I'LL SECOND IT FOR PURPOSE OF DISCUSSION. MR. HOROWITZ, I'M VERY CONFLICTED BY THIS SITUATION. UM, I REALLY FEEL LIKE OUR DECISION WOULD BE, UH, BETTER REACHED AFTER WE KNOW WHAT THE LANDMARK COMMISSION IS GOING TO DO. UM, WHICH IS WHY I ASKED YOU, MR. CHERIE AT THE BEGINNING IF YOU WOULD AGREE TO, TO, UH, ANOTHER, UH, UH, POSTPONEMENT OF THIS, UH, SO THAT WE COULD HAVE THAT INFORMATION. UM, IN THE ABSENCE OF HAVING THAT INFORMATION, UH, I AM NOT COMFORTABLE WITH THE DECISION TO APPROVE IT. SO SINCE I SECOND IT, I'LL DISCUSS. SECONDLY, I WOULD THEREFORE RECOMMEND HOLDING IT OVER TO THE 19TH IN, IN ABEYANCE OF THE LANDMARK COMMISSIONS DECISION. I HATE HOLDOVERS 'CAUSE IT TELLS THE PUBLIC WE CAN'T MAKE A DECISION. I AGREE. AND IT PUTS PEOPLE IN THE DISADVANTAGE OF HAVING TO SHOW BACK UP OR RESPONDING. BUT, UH, I AGREE. I AGREE A HUNDRED PERCENT MR. CHAIRMAN, THAT'S WHY I ASKED MR. SRI THE VERY BEGINNING AND HE SAID NO, HE WANTS A DECISION TODAY. OH. SO IF HE WANTS A DECISION TODAY, I HEAR YOU. OKAY. DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION. MS. HAIGHT? I WOULD SUPPORT A HOLDOVER. I DON'T THINK I'LL SUPPORT, UH, THE DENIAL, BUT I WOULD SUPPORT A HOLDOVER BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE WE'RE JUST NOT INFORMED ENOUGH AT THIS POINT TO MAKE A DECISION. I MEAN, IF IT WERE A COMPLETELY SEPARATE ISSUE AND WE COULD SEPARATE THE TWO, WHAT OUR DECISION IS, BA VERSUS LANDMARK DEC UH, LANDMARK COMMISSION WOULD BE A DIFFERENT STORY. BUT, UM, I WOULD SUPPORT A HOLD OF OTHER DISCUSSION IN THE MOTION, MR. DONNER OR MR. FLED, MR. HVE, IF THE SENSE OF THE BOARD IS HOLDING OVER IS AGREEABLE, I'M PERFECTLY FINE WITH DRAWING MY MOTION IF MR. RE IS INTERESTING AND INTERESTED IN HOLDING IT OVER. BUT THAT'S WHY I SPECIFICALLY ASKED HIM IF THE FIRST, AND NOW WE'VE HAD THIS ENTIRE HEARING AND SPENT A LOT OF TIME DISCUSSING THIS, AND SO NONETHELESS, I'M WILLING TO GO ALONG WITH, WITH A, WITH A HOLDOVER. UM, IF YOU WANTED TO DO THAT DISCUSSION OF MOTION, [02:10:01] MR. DORN? YEAH, I WOULD BE IMPLYING FOR A HOLDOVER . MS. HAYDEN, I THINK ISN'T THE DECISION TO HOLD OVER OUR DECISION AND NOT THE APPLICANT'S DECISION. IT IS. UM, THERE ARE TIMES THEN THE WE RESPOND TO A REQUEST BY THE APPLICANT. UM, BUT IT IS OUR DECISION IN THE END IS A BOARD A HOLDOVER IS SIMPLY MAJORITY VOTE AN APPROVAL REQUIRES FOUR VOTES. AND I, I THINK THAT JUST DUE TO THE COMPLEXITY OF THIS CASE, UM, I WOULD FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE WITH THE WHOLE RECORD. UM, I DON'T WANT ANY OF THE OTHER COMMENTS. I'LL MAKE MINE LAST. OKAY. UM, TWO THINGS. ONE, I'M GONNA REQUEST THAT YOU WITHDRAW YOUR MOTION. DON'T DO IT YET. AND I'M GONNA REQUEST YOU WITHDRAW YOUR MOTION AND I'LL WITHDRAW MY SECOND. AND I WOULD RECOMMEND HOLDING OVER, UH, BECAUSE I THINK WE DEFERRED LAST TIME. THE, THE GENESIS OF OUR, OR OUR DEFERRAL TWO MONTHS WAS TO GIVE THE TIME FOR THE APPLICANT TO IMMEDIATELY APPLY. HE TOOK 30 DAYS, BUT HE TOOK 30 DAYS. HE DIDN'T IMMEDIATELY APPLY. UM, AND SO THERE'S DEFERENTIAL TO THE LANDMARK COMMISSION, BUT NOT TOTAL DEFERENCE, JUST BECAUSE WE POSTPONED TO HEAR WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY. DOESN'T MEAN, THIS ONE MEMBER IS GONNA FOLLOW WHAT THEY VOTE, LOCK, STOCK, AND BARREL. BUT IT ADDS CREDIBILITY. IT'S LIKE THE 200 FEET THAT WE GET INFORMATION THAT IS IN CONTROL OF THE DECISION. IT HELPS INFORM THE DECISION. SO MY REQUEST TO YOU, YOUR CHAIRMAN'S REQUEST IS TO WITHDRAW YOUR MOTION. MR. CHAIRMAN. I'M HAPPY TO DO SO. IF THE APPLICANT IS AGREEABLE TO IT, I'M NOT INTERESTED IN FORCING HIM INTO COMING BACK. SO I, I'M WILLING, I'M WILLING TO WITHDRAW MY MOTION IF MR. CHERIE ASKED US TO, TO GIVE HIM ADDITIONAL TIME. SIR, I'LL, I'LL BREAK PROTOCOL IN A MINUTE AND GIVE YOU YOUR CHOICE. WOULD YOU LIKE A DECISION TODAY OR 30 DAYS? WE CAN DO IT IN 30 DAYS. THAT'S FINE. OKAY, MR. CHAIRMAN, I WITHDRAW MY MOTION TO DENY AND I WITHDRAW THE SECOND, THE CHAIR TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION. I MOVED AT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 1 25 0 0 0 8 8, UH, ON APPLICATION OF CHER. I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPEAL, BO 8 2 5 0 0 0 8 8 HOLD THIS MATTER UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL MAY 19TH, 2 26. IT'S BEEN MOVED BY MR. DORN TO HOLD THIS ITEM BO 8 2 5 0 0 0 8 8 UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL MAY 19TH, 2026. IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND. SECOND BY MS. HAYDEN DISCUSSION OF THE MOTION. MR. DORN? NOTHING FURTHER. MS. HAYDEN, NOTHING FURTHER. I, I'LL MAKE ONE COMMENT AND THAT IS I'M SUPPORTING THIS 'CAUSE IT PROVIDES ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND I TRIED TO TIE DOWN MR. BROWN ON WHAT THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION'S GONNA BE AGAIN, TO GET ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. I THINK IF WE APPROVE THIS, WE SHOULD ANTICIPATE THE LANDMARK COMMISSION APPROVING DENYING OR HOLDING OVER. AND IF THEY APPROVE, THEY MAY APPROVE THIS HEIGHT. THEY MAY APPROVE A LOWER HEIGHT. UM, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY'RE GONNA PROVE, BUT WE THEN, AFTER THAT, SHOULD BE SUFFICIENTLY INFORMED TO BE ABLE TO MAKE A DECISION. BUT I DON'T VIEW THIS AS LOCKSTEP WITH NECESSARILY WHAT THEY'RE, THIS IS JUST, IN MY OPINION, IT'S A LITTLE BIT OF DEFERENCE SINCE IT'S BEEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVED LANDMARKED PROPERTY, WHICH IS EXTREMELY UNIQUE IN THE CITY. AND SO, MR. FLEMING, YEAH, I, UH, THINK THAT THERE'S A LOT OF FENCE. I MEAN, I'M, I'M AN ALTERNATE, SO I'M PROBABLY NOT GOING TO BE AROUND FOR THE, UH, THE NEXT, UH, MEETING ABOUT THIS. BUT I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF FENCES ALONG STRAIGHT LANE. UH, I DON'T SEE ANY PROBLEM WITH DIRECTING ANOTHER ONE, BUT IT, IT SEEMS LIKE A MUCH BETTER PROCESS. AND I ALSO JUST AM VERY HAPPY TO DEFER TO MR. BROWN AND WHAT HE WAS SAYING ABOUT HIS REQUEST THAT WE HOLD IT, IT JUST SEEMS LIKE THE MOST EFFICIENT WAY OF GOING ABOUT IT TO, UH, WAIT A MONTH. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR IS THAT BOA 2 5 0 0 0 88 IS HELD UNDER ADVISEMENT TILL MAY 19TH, 2026 AT THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST. MS. BOARD SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE VOTE. MS. HAYDEN [02:15:01] AYE. MR. DAWN? AYE. MR. FLEMING AYE. MR. KOVI RELUCTANTLY. AYE , MR. CHAIRMAN? AYE. MOTION TO HOLD OVER PASSES FIVE TO ZERO IN THE MATTER BO 8 2 5 0 0 0 8 8. UM, THE BOARD ON A FIVE TO ZERO UNANIMOUS VOTES, MOVES TO HOLD OVER TILL MAY 19TH. UH, BY THEN WE SHOULD BE IN A POSITION TO GET INFORMATION FROM THE LANDMARK COMMISSION AND ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT THE APPLICANT MAY PROVIDE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. LET ME ASK THIS QUESTION. IS THE APPLICANT HERE FOR OKAY, MR. CHAIRMAN, RECESS. OKAY, WE'RE GONNA TAKE A, WE'RE GONNA TAKE A RECESS. UH, IT IS 3:21 PM ON THE 14TH OF APRIL. THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT WILL RECESS UNTIL 3:30 PM WE HAVE TWO REMAINING CASES. THANK YOU, MS. BOARD. SECRETARY, HOW MANY SPEAKERS DO WE HAVE FOR THIS CASE? WE HAVE THREE SPEAKERS. ALL IN FAVOR? OKAY. MR. VINCENT, ARE THEY ALL YOUR SPEAKERS OR ARE THEY YOU PLUS INTERESTED PARTIES? UH, MR. CHAIR. I, I WILL BE SPEAKING. UM, I'LL INTRODUCE THE TEAM WE HAVE HERE, AND I BELIEVE WE HAVE TWO PEOPLE LINE, UH, MR. SETH THATCHER WITH VICE FOR PROPERTIES WILL BE SPEAKING IN SUPPORT AND BELIEVE WE ALSO HAVE A REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE COMMITTEE TO BE SPEAKING. HOPEFULLY SHE DID NOT SIGN ONLINE. OH, OKAY. OKAY. WELL, I HAVE THEIR LETTER SO I CAN REACH YOU THERE AT 11, BUT OKAY. WHICH ACTUALLY YOU HAVE A COPY OF. ALRIGHT. IF YOU WOULD GIVE US, UH, WOULD ANYONE THAT'S IN THE CHAMBER, UH, THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK, UH, RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND AND BE SWORN. SWORN IN. ONE, TWO, AND THREE. THERE I GO. GO AHEAD, MS. WILLIAMS. UM, I'M SORRY, ARE YOU MR. SETH OR, OKAY. OKAY. IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK, YOU NEED TO FILL IN A FORM AS WELL. OKAY. TWO, ONLY TWO. UM, AND POSSIBLY ONE ONLINE. OKAY. WELL, WE'LL DEAL WITH THE ONLINE SPEAKER LAST. OKAY. UM, DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? I DO. OKAY. PLEASE PROCEED. OKAY. UM, GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, PLEASE. YES, SIR. MR. CHAIR. UH, JONATHAN VINCENT, 2323 ROSS AVENUE IN DALLAS. AND, UH, JUST A A LOGISTICAL QUESTION, CAN I ASK YOU HOW MUCH TIME WE HAVE? I'M GONNA GIVE YOU AS MUCH TIME AS YOU'D LIKE. I APPRECIATE THAT UNTIL YOU'RE REDUNDANT, AND THEN I'LL CUT YOU OFF. FAIR ENOUGH. AND THAT'S WHAT I'VE SAID ALL DAY LONG, AND THAT'S WHAT I'VE SAID FOR X AMOUNT OF YEARS AND TIME PERIOD. 'CAUSE I DON'T WANT ANYONE EVER TO SAY, I DIDN'T GET A CHANCE TO SAY WHAT I WANTED TO SAY. SO, UM, THE ONLY TIME WE RATION TIME OR HOLD PEOPLE TO THE FIVE MINUTE STATED TIME IS WHEN WE HAVE A LINE OF SPEAKERS. SO I UNDERSTAND. AND WE'VE HAD THAT OCCASIONALLY. SO, NO, YOU HAVE AMPLE TIME TO SAY YOUR PIECE. UH, THERE ARE A LOT OF QUESTIONS THAT WE HAVE. UM, I'LL REMIND YOU, MR. VINCENT, THAT AT YOUR REQUEST, WE HELD THIS CASE TO THE NEXT MONTH AND, UH, WE'RE PREPARED TO HEAR THE CASE AND MAKE A DECISION TODAY, HOPEFULLY. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. APPRECIATE THAT. UH, THANK YOU MR. CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, AGAIN, JONATHAN VINCENT, 2323 ROSS AVENUE, AND, UM, APPRECIATE HAVING A LITTLE EXTRA TIME TO GO THROUGH THIS AS THERE IS SOME LEVEL OF COMPLEXITY TO IT. BUT I, I WILL TRY TO BE RESPECTFUL OF YOUR TIME. UM, AS, UH, THE CHAIR STATED WE WERE BEFORE YOU LAST MONTH, UH, MR. PLUMBING, I KNOW THIS IS NEW TO YOU AS A, AS A, AN ALTERNATE. UM, BUT I THINK YOU'LL GET THE FULL FLAVOR OF IT, UM, BECAUSE THE INFORMATION HAS BEEN UPDATED SINCE THEN. AND AT THAT TIME, IT, IT, UM, BECAME APPARENT TO US THAT WE NEEDED TO REEXAMINE OUR REQUEST IN TERMS OF THE ACTUAL NUMBERS. UH, THIS IS A PARKING VARIANCE REQUEST. UM, AND SO WE HAVE DONE THAT. UM, AND THANK YOU FOR THE ADDITIONAL MONTH BECAUSE WE, UM, GOT TO WORK ON THAT RIGHT AWAY. UH, WE HAD EXTENSIVE CONVERSATIONS BACK AND FORTH WITH CITY STAFF, BOTH THE BOARD STAFF, AS WELL AS, UM, TALKING ABOUT THE ACTUAL, UH, PARKING NUMBERS, WHAT COULD COUNT, WHAT MIGHT OR MIGHT NOT COUNT. SO I'M GONNA GO THROUGH THAT AND BRING EVERYBODY UP TO SPEED [02:20:01] ON THIS NEXT SLIDE. OKAY. SO, UH, FIRST THING I WANNA DO IS TELL YOU WHO'S HERE. UM, I'M HERE REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT, UM, WHICH IS BERETTA, USA, UH, THE PROPERTY OWNER IS GREENWAY PROPERTIES LONGTIME, UH, PROPERTY OWNER, MANAGER, DEVELOPER IN ESPECIALLY THE UPTOWN IN OAK LAWN AREA. UH, WE HAVE MR. TODD PETTY AND MR. TRAVIS BOND WITH GREENWAY ARE HERE. UM, BESIDES MR. MAYS WITH BERETTA, USA, WE HAVE TRAVIS HACKMAN, WHO'S THEIR VICE PRESIDENT, JEFF ALLISON, WHO IS ONLINE. UH, WE HAVE STEVE STONER, UH, WITH WESTWOOD, WHO IS OUR TRAFFIC AND PARTON ENGINEER, UH, ON THIS, UH, THIS PARTICULAR CASE. AND THEN MY COLLEAGUE WILL WARREN WITH, UH, OUR FIRM. UM, AND AS I SAY, MR. THATCHER, SETH THATCHER, PROPERTY ONLINE, UM, AS YOU SAW, WE HAD SUPPORT IN THE COMMUNITY. WE HAD, UM, OF THE SIX, I NEED YOU TO BE A LITTLE BIT CLOSER TO THE MICROPHONE. I'M, WE'RE NOT CATCHING EVERYTHING YOU'RE SAYING. OKAY. IS THAT BETTER? YES. OKAY, GREAT. UH, THERE WERE FIVE, UH, COMMUNICATIONS IN SUPPORT, UH, IN AN OPPOSITION. AND AS I SAY, THE OAKLAWN COMMITTEE IS IN SUPPORT. AND I, I'LL COME BACK TO THAT IN A MINUTE. SO, JUST TO KIND OF SET THE SCENE FOR YOU, THIS IS A PROPERTY THAT'S BEEN THERE, WE BELIEVE IT WAS CONSTRUCTED IN 1979. UM, YOU'RE PROBABLY VERY FAMILIAR WITH IT, IF YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH THE UPTOWN AREA. IT'S ON BASICALLY THE EAST CORNER OF MAPLE AVENUE AND CEDAR SPRINGS. UM, AND I CAN TELL YOU FROM PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, THAT AREA HAS CHANGED A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT IN ENSUING 47 YEARS. UH, THIS PROPERTY IS STILL A LOW RISE, BASICALLY ONE STORY WITH, UM, A PARTIAL SECOND STORY PROPERTY. MR. NEWMAN, YOUR QUESTION DURING THE BRIEFING, IT IS ALL ONE BUILDING. UM, IT DOES HAVE SEVERAL ENTRANCES BECAUSE THAT'S, IT WAS DESIGNED TO ACCOMMODATE SEVERAL USES, VERY SMALL, UM, RETAIL RESTAURANT TYPE CENTER. UM, OBVIOUSLY THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES HAVE DEVELOPED VERY INTENSIVELY IN THE ENSUING MIRROR. UH, BUT WE THINK THIS IS, YOU KNOW, GOOD TO KIND OF MAINTAIN SOME OF THE CONTEXT, UM, IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. SO THE REASON WE'RE BEFORE YOU TODAY IS BECAUSE THE BUILDING IS VACANT RIGHT NOW. UM, WE WANT TO ADAPTIVELY REUSE THE BUILDING WITHOUT EXPANDING IT, WITHOUT ADDING SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR A COUPLE OF RETAIL AND REST. ONE RE RELATED RESTAURANT USE, UM, THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO GET INTO THE PROPERTY. AND I'LL GO INTO THAT A LITTLE BIT MORE IN A FEW MINUTES. BUT IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT ON THE BASIS OF THE SLUR FOOTAGE WE PROPOSE, UM, OUR CURRENT REQUEST IS FOR A VARIANCE OF THE 30 SPACES. AND THAT'S BASED ON A REQUIREMENT UNDER THE OAK LAWN PD, UH, EXHIBIT 1 93 F MIXED USE PARKING CHART. IT COMES OUT TO A FRIDAY PEAK OF 66 SPACES. UM, WE HAVE, AND THIS IS WHERE IT GETS A LITTLE COMPLICATED, BUT IF YOU'LL BEAR WITH ME, THE PROPERTY WAS BUILT AND HAS ACTUALLY PHYSICALLY EXISTING ON THE SITE, 44 SPACES. UM, OF THOSE WE THINK WE CAN COUNT 43. UM, ONE OF OUR CONSULTING TEAM, UH, ROB BALDWIN, WHO YOU ALL KNOW, HAS HAD SEVERAL CONVERSATIONS WITH MR. DAVID NAVAREZ AND MR. NAVAREZ, YOU KNOW, I DON'T WANNA PRESUME TO SPEAK FOR HIM, BUT WHAT WE HAVE EMAILS, HE SAYS, BASICALLY THE ALLEY MANEUVERING SPACES HE THINKS WE CAN COUNT. UM, HOWEVER, YOU KNOW, I DON'T WANNA GET HUNG UP AT PERMITTING. SO WE TOOK A VERY CONSERVATIVE APPROACH IN TERMS OF COUNTING SPACES. WE ARE CONFIDENT THAT WE HAVE 36 SPACES THAT ARE FULLY ACCOUNTABLE FOR CODE PURPOSES. WE THINK WE HAVE AS MANY AS 43 THAT WE CAN PROBABLY COUNT, BUT I DON'T WANT TO GO THROUGH THE BOARD PROCESS. AND THEN IN SIX MONTHS, YOU KNOW, WE'RE TRYING TO GET A PERMIT OR A CO ISSUED. AND, YOU KNOW, PROBABLY IT'S, I I GET NERVOUS WHEN I HEAR THE WORD PROBABLY, YOU KNOW, I, I NEED MORE CERTAINTY THAN THAT AS FINE. SO, UM, THAT'S WHY WE ASKED THE STAFF TO, UH, BEAR WITH US. AND, UH, THEY DID, YOU KNOW, THEY WERE GREAT TO WORK WITH ON THIS. WE RECALCULATED THE NUMBERS AND THE NOTICE WAS AMENDED, UM, TO ACCOUNT FOR THAT. SO IT WAS PROPERLY NOTICED. AGAIN, A 30 SPACE VARIANCE ON THE BASIS OF 66 REQUIRED, 36, YOU KNOW, FOR SURE, CODE COMPLIANCE SPACES. SO THAT'S WHERE THERE'S NUMBERS COMING FROM. AGAIN, WE HAVE 44 ON SITE THAT PEOPLE WILL USE JUST LIKE THEY HAVE BEEN SINCE 1979. UM, OUR PARKING DEMAND STUDY WAS ALSO REVISED SLIGHTLY BY MR. STONER. UM, WE, THE PEAK DEMAND IS 40 SPACES. SO, YOU KNOW, 44 SPACES ON SITE, PEAK DEMAND, 40. WE THINK IT WORKS, YOU KNOW, WITH A FEW SPACES TO SPARE. UM, THE WORLD IS A DIFFERENT PLACE THAN IT WAS IN 1979. WE ANTICIPATE THAT A LOT OF PEOPLE, UM, ESPECIALLY FOR THE RESTAURANT USE, WE'LL WALK TO THE SITE OR WE'LL USE RIDE SHARE. UM, WE'LL COME BACK TO THAT IN TERMS OF WALKABILITY. I KNOW THAT WAS A QUESTION CAME GROUP, AND I DO WANT TO ADDRESS THAT IN A FEW MINUTES. SO [02:25:01] WE THINK THAT WE CLEARLY MEET THE STANDARD FOR A VARIANCE REQUEST. UM, YOU KNOW, IT'S FOUNDED BY THREE FRONT YARDS, YOU KNOW, MAPLE, UM, FAIRMONT AND CEDAR SPRINGS. THERE'S AN ALLEY, PUBLIC ALLEY ON THE NORTH SIDE. UM, THERE ARE THREE FRONT YARDS. IT'S A RELATIVELY SMALL SITE, ESPECIALLY FOR PD 1 93, HEAVY COMMERCIAL DONE. IT'S IRREGULARLY SHAPED. SO THERE ARE ALL KINDS OF CHALLENGES. THE PROPERTY IS ALREADY DEVELOPED. UM, I'LL COME BACK TO THIS IN A FEW MINUTES, BUT IN ORDER TO ADD ANY PARKING WHATSOEVER WOULD REQUIRE EITHER COMPLETELY DEMOLISHING AND REDEVELOPING DEVELOPING THE PROPERTY, PROBABLY WITH A MUCH MORE INTENSIVE, UH, TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT OR TAKING DOWN PART OF THE BUILDING, WHICH, YOU KNOW, WOULD MAKE NO SENSE WHATSOEVER. SO WE THINK THAT'S PART OF OUR PROPERTY HARDSHIP CONDITIONS. UM, THE VARIANCE WOULD ALLOW COMMENSURATE DEVELOPMENT, PD 1 93 HC, ESPECIALLY IN COMPARISON TO WHAT'S SURROUND IT. AND I'LL GO INTO THIS MORE AS WELL. BUT WE THINK THAT THE VARIANCE IS NOT ONLY NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST, WE HAVE REASONS TO BELIEVE THAT IT'S STRONG SUPPORTS THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN THIS CASE. UH, NEXT SLIDE. PLEASE SEE. YEAH, SO JUST, UH, YOU PROBABLY KNOW WHERE THE SIDE IS JUST TO LOCATE. YOU'LL SEE HIGHLIGHTED IN GREEN, YOU SEE THE ODD SHAPE, VERY ODD SHAPE. IT'S CHALLENGING TO, UM, FIGURE OUT WHERE ANY MORE PARKING WOULD GO. UM, THE BUILDING, IF YOU SEE IT'S ALL ONE BUILDING WITH THAT CENTER PORTION POPS UP AND YOU SEE THE SURROUNDING STREET PATTERN. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. THERE WE GO. UH, THIS IS JUST ZONING. MAP X, UH, DOES SHOW PD 1 93 HC. THAT'S A, THAT'S A PRETTY INTENSIVE ZONING CLASSIFICATION IN THE SUBDISTRICT IN PD 1 93 TO COME BACK. THAT, UH, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. YEAH, THERE WE GO. SO THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN, UM, FACES CEDAR SPRINGS AND MAPLE. UM, YOU KNOW, THERE'S NO OPTION TO PROVIDE ANY ON STREET PARKING AT THIS LOCATION. THERE ARE A LOT OF PLACES IN PD 1 93 WHERE WHETHER YOU CAN COUNT IT OR NOT, THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO HEAD END PARKING OR ON STREET PARALLEL PARKING. WE DO NOT HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY HERE. SO THERE'S, YOU KNOW, NOT ONLY IS THERE NO ROOM TO PUT ANY MORE PARKING ON THE SITE, THERE'S NO ROOM TO PUT ANY PARKING IN THE STREET IN THE BASIN. SO THE, THE SITE ITSELF, UM, I KNOW YOU SAW MR. THOMPSON'S ALWAYS EXCELLENT VIDEO IN THE, IN THE BRIEFING, BUT I'M GONNA SHOW YOU A FEW ADDITIONAL STILL PHOTOS. BUT THAT FINE. SO THE, THE SITE ITSELF, YOU KNOW, DESPITE THE FACT THAT IT'S VACANT RIGHT NOW, WE WANT TO REACTIVATE IT. UM, THINK THAT'S GOOD FOR EVERYBODY. YOU SEE HOW WELL MAINTAINED IT IS. THE LANDSCAPING IS VERY ATTRACTIVE. THE BUILDING IS IN PRISTINE CONDITION, IT'S JUST NOT BEING UTILIZED SITE. NEXT SLIDE. AND THIS GIVES YOU A FLAVOR OF SOME OF THE SURROUNDING INTENSIVE DEVELOPMENT. AND MOST OF THE BUILDINGS THAT YOU'LL SEE VERY CLOSE TO THE SITE ARE RELATIVELY NEW KNOWN THE LAST FEW YEARS. UH, FOR EXAMPLE, AT BUILDING . I BELIEVE THAT, I BELIEVE THAT'S 23 PLES. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. AGAIN, UM, THIS IS LOOKING, UM, NORTHWEST ON CEDAR SPRINGS FROM THE SITE TO SEE ADDITIONAL, VERY NEW DEVELOPMENT THERE. AND THAT'S RELEVANT, NOT JUST BECAUSE WE'RE TRYING TO MAINTAIN SOME OF THE, THE OLDER CONTEXT, AND BECAUSE THERE IS INTENSIVE DEVELOPMENT AROUND IT, BUT THAT'S ALSO RELEVANT TO WHO'S GONNA PATRONIZE THE SITE AND HOW IT ACTIVATES THE SITE AND THE PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC. AND SO, SO NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. OKAY, ANOTHER VIEW OF THE SITE, AGAIN, THE INTENSIVE DEVELOPMENT AROUND HERE. NEXT SLIDE. SO I'M NOT GONNA SPEND A LOT OF TIME ON THIS BECAUSE THIS IS IN P 1 93. SO YOU, MR. NEWMAN, I BELIEVE YOU CORRECTLY, UM, ENCAPSULATED THIS IN THE BRIEFING BECAUSE IT'S A PD THAT HAS ITS OWN PARKING RATIOS. WE CANNOT DO A PARKING SPECIAL EXCEPTION HERE. EVEN IF THE NUMBERS WORK IN THIS INSTANCE, WE'D HAVE TO DO A VARIANCE IN ANYTHING. BUT IN PD 1 93, YOU ALWAYS HAVE TO DO A PARKING VARIANCE IF YOU PARKING. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. THE DEVELOPMENT CODE VARIANCE CRITERIA. I'M NOT GONNA READ THIS TO YOU BECAUSE YOU'RE WELL AWARE OF IT. UM, WE THINK WE NEED THIS IN, UH, ON MULTIPLE, UM, FOR MULTIPLE REASONS, UH, WHICH IS THE NEXT SLIDE. SO AGAIN, UH, THE BUILDING IN THE PARKING LOT ARE ALREADY BUILT. THEY'VE BEEN THERE FOR ALMOST 50 YEARS. UM, THERE'S NO WAY TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL PARKING PHYSICALLY. UM, THE ONLY WAY TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL PARKING WOULD BE TO DEMOLISH THE BUILDING, DIG A BIG HOLE, PUT UNDERGROUND PARKING THERE, AND THEN DO SOMETHING MUCH MORE INTENSIVE THERE, WHICH IS, IT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE GONNA DO IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE. AND YOU'LL SEE WHY, UH, BECAUSE THERE'S NO [02:30:01] FEASIBLE WAY TO ADD MORE PARKING. IT'S CURRENT CONDITION. IT'S PHYSICAL PROPERTY CONDITION. YOU'VE SEEN IT'S IRREGULARLY SHAPED. IT'S THREE FRONT YARDS, UM, AND THEN AN ALLEY. AND THEN, UM, WE BELIEVE THAT THIS IS NOT JUST COMMENSURATE DEVELOPMENT, BUT ACTUALLY, YOU KNOW, IS, IS MORE, UM, I GUESS RESPECTFUL OF TRYING TO PRESERVE THE CONTEXT BECAUSE IT IS NOT MAXIMIZING WHAT WE COULD DO UNDER PD 1 93. HC NOT EVEN CLOSE. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. SO THIS IS INTERESTING, THE, THE, AS YOU PRO AS YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, THE STATE LEGISLATURE TWO, THREE YEARS AGO ADDED SOME CRITERIA, WHICH BOARDS OF ADJUSTMENT IN TEXAS CAN TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION, DISCRETIONARY CONSIDERATION. THE, THE TEXT OF THE STATUTE, WHICH IS, UM, OUR DEVELOPMENT CODE PARALLELS THAT IS ON THE BLOCK. AND I'VE HIGHLIGHTED, UH, A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT I THINK ARE VERY RELEVANT HERE. UM, THE BOARD MAY CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING THESE GROUNDS TO DETERMINE WHETHER COMPLIANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. AND IN THIS INSTANCE, UM, I THINK THE MOST DIRECTLY RELEVANT PROVISION IS WHERE COMPLIANCE WOULD RESULT IN A LOSS OF A LOT ON WHICH THE STRUCTURE IS LOCATED. AND YOU'VE SEEN RELATIVELY SMALL, ODDLY SHAPED AT LEAST 25% OF THE AREA ON WHICH DEVELOPMENT PHYSICALLY OCCURRED. SO ON THE LEFT, YOU KNOW, I GOT OUT MY CALCULATOR AND I LOOKED AT THE, THE PARKING, UH, MANUAL FOR THE CITY OF DALLAS AND TRIED TO FIGURE OUT, WELL, IF YOU ADDED 30 SPACES, 30 STANDARD CITY OF DALLAS PARKING SPACES, WHAT WOULD THAT TO, TO, UM, SO THE EXISTING STRUCTURE IS 9,247 SQUARE FEET AT GROUND LEVEL. THAT'S FOR OUR SURVEY. UM, 30 SPACES AT NINE FEET BY 18 FEET. THAT'S 4,860 SQUARE FEET. THAT DOESN'T EVEN TAKE INTO ACCOUNT DRIVE AISLES AND MANEUVERING SPACE AND THINGS LIKE THAT. SO PROVIDING ALMOST 5,000 SQUARE FEET OF PARKING SPACES ON A SMALL PROPERTY WITH A BUILDING THAT'S ONLY NINE, TWO HUNDRED AND FORTY SEVEN SQUARE FEET TO BEGIN WITH, WE THINK IT FAR EXCEEDS THAT THRESHOLD. SO WE THINK THIS IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF A SITUATION WHERE YOU ALL COULD TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION. AND I WOULD, I WOULD RESPECTFULLY, HOPEFULLY DO SO. UH, NEXT SLIDE. GOOD. SO, UM, THE STAFF OF COURSE, AS YOU KNOW, IS RECOMMENDING DENIAL. UM, IT'S NOT, NOT THE FIRST TIME WE RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE WITH STAFF'S POSITION ON THIS, BUT I THINK WHAT'S INTERESTING, HAVING DONE A NUMBER OF VARIANCE CASES OVER THE YEARS, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE, THERE ARE DENIALS AND ARE DENIALS, UM, IN THIS INSTANCE, YOU KNOW, I I THINK THE STAFF REPORT HAS ALWAYS VERY WELL DONE. UM, BUT IT DOES POINT OUT SOME THINGS THAT EVEN, YOU KNOW, THE STAFF, EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE RECOMMENDING DENIAL, THEY HAVE TAKEN THE POSITION THAT THIS IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. I AGREE. I THINK IT'S, IT'S THE PUBLIC PINTEREST, THEY, UH, ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE PROPERTY IS RESTRICTED IN SHAPE. UM, AND THEY ALSO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THIS IS NOT SELF-CREATED, NOR IS IT A PERSONAL HARDSHIP. I MEAN, THE BUILDING IS EXACTLY THE SAME AS IT WAS WHEN IT WAS CONSTRUCTED IN 1979. SO YOU, IT'S, IT'S A, IT'S A DENIAL RECOMMENDATION, BUT IT IS NOT, IN MY OPINION, I'M NOT PRESUMING TO SPEAK FOR THE STAFF. IT'S NOT, UM, AS HARD A DENIAL AS I'VE SEEN BEFORE IN SOME CASES. SO I THINK THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT TAKE AWAY YOU CAN TAKE AWAY FROM THAT, THAT, YOU KNOW, TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION, UM, AS OPPOSED TO SOME, SOME OTHER SITUATIONS. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. SO THIS IS OUR AS-BUILT SURVEY. THIS WAS DATED 2004, BUT IT'S STILL CURRENT. THE BUILDING IS EXACTLY THE SAME AS IT WAS IN 2004 AND REALLY SINCE IT WAS CONSTRUCTED. SO THIS IS JUST TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF THE SHAPE OF THE BUILDING, THE SHAPE OF THE LOT. AND YOU CAN SEE WHERE THE PARKING SPACES ARE LOCATED. AND AGAIN, THOSE ARE EXISTING PARKING SPACES. THEY'VE BEEN THERE SINCE DAY ONE AS FAR AS I CAN TELL. UM, IT'S BEEN A LONG TIME, BUT THERE ARE 44 SPACES THERE THAT PEOPLE CAN ACTUALLY USE. THE POINT, ONE OF OUR POINTS BEING THAT WE WANNA MAKE SURE THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT COUNTING SPACES AND THEN WE GO DOWN FOR PERMIT OR FOR CO AND SOMEONE IN BUILDING INSPECTION, YOU KNOW, QUESTIONS. WHETHER WE CAN ACTUALLY COUNT THOSE OR NOT. THEY'RE THERE, PEOPLE WILL USE THEM. BUT THE QUESTION IS, CAN WE COUNT THEM FOR CODE COMPLIANCE PURPOSES? NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. THE PD 1 93 PARKING REQUIREMENTS, YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THESE ARE. IT'S ONE TO 100 PER RESTAURANT, UNDER TWO ONE RETAIL. UM, WE DID, AS I SAY, MR. BALDWIN COMMUNICATED WITH MR. UH, VAR AND IT WAS DETERMINED THAT EXHIBIT 1 9 3 FUSE PARKING CHART IS CORRECTLY USE. SO WE BASED OUR REQUEST ON THAT. NEXT SLIDE. SO, UH, MR. STONER UPDATED HIS PARKING DEMAND STUDY. UH, PEAK PARKING DEMAND IS 40 SPACES. THAT'S KIND OF THE BOTTOM LINE. [02:35:01] AGAIN, WE GET 44 ON SITE THAT PEOPLE ARE ACTUALLY GOING TO USE, UM, TO THE EXTENT THEY DON'T WALK THERE OR USE RIDE SHARE, COME BACK IN SEVEN AND NEXT SLIDE. SO THIS BREAKS IT DOWN A LITTLE BIT FARTHER BY, UH, BY USE. AGAIN, 66 SPACES. THAT'S BASED ON THE MIXED USE PARKING CHART, . AND WE'VE EVEN, UM, ENUMERATED THAT IN THE TABLE. IT SAYS 36 COMPLIANCE SPACES, 44 ACTUAL SPACES. SO THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT I'VE BEEN SAYING, THAT WE AS A PRACTICAL MATTER, PEOPLE ARE GONNA USE THOSE 44 SPACES. UM, BUT FOR CODE COMPLIANCE, PURPOSE, PURPOSE, TAKING A CONSERVATIVE STAND ON WHAT WE KNOW, WE CAN COUNT IT'S 36 SPACES. SO THE REQUESTED REDUCTION IS, UH, 30 SPACES AS NOTICED BY STAFF, ABOUT 45.5%. AND OUR PEAK PARKING DEMAND IS 40 BASED ON THESE STUDIES. AND YOU KNOW, AS YOU ALL KNOW, UM, A COMPANY LIKE WESTWOOD, AN ENGINEER LIKE MR. STONE, THEY BASE THIS ON HARD DATA, DATA THAT HAS BEEN, YOU KNOW, STUDIED EXTENSIVELY FROM THE FOSSIL COUNTRY, UM, AND IN THE AREA IN TERMS OF WHAT A SMALL RETAIL CENTER CREATES IN TERMS OF TALKING TO THEM. NEXT SLIDE. SO I'M NOT GONNA READ ALL OF THIS TO YOU. THIS IS IN THE STUDY, WHICH YOU SHOULD HAVE A COPY OF THE, THE MOST RECENT ONE DATED APRIL 2ND. UM, AND THAT'S PART OF WHAT WE UTILIZE OUR TIME TO DO, IS TO UPDATE THAT PARKING STUDY. UH, THE BOTTOM LINE HERE IS THAT, UH, THE DEMAND IS 3.1 CREEK PARK VEHICLES FOR THOUSAND SQUARE FEET, THE FLOOR AREA FOR A SMALL RETAIL CENTER. AND THAT'S WHERE WE GET THE PARKING DEMAND OF 40 PARKED VEHICLES AT A PEAK. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. SO AGAIN, THIS WAS MENTIONED IN THE BRIEFING AS WELL, WHICH I THOUGHT WAS AN EXCELLENT POINT, UM, BECAUSE IT'S IN PD 1 93. UM, MR. NEWMAN, YOU WERE CORRECT WHEN YOU DESCRIBED WHAT HAPPENED WITH PARKING REFORM, IT WAS THE BASE CHAPTER 51, A DEVELOPMENT CODE THAT WAS EXTENSIVELY ADMITTED. UM, I'M FULLY IN AGREEMENT WITH THAT. I THINK IT'S GREAT. HOWEVER, UM, IF A PD HAS ITS OWN PARKING RATIOS, LIKE PD 1 93, THAT DID NOT CHANGE WHAT THE PD REQUIRES. A PD THAT DEFAULTS TO CHAPTER 51 A. YES, YOU CAN USE THE, UH, PARKING REFORM, UH, PARKING RATIOS IN THOSE. BUT PD 1 93 OR FOUR SEVEN ITS OWN PARKING RATIOS. SO THAT DID NOT CHANGE. WE'RE STILL, UH, USE USING THE PD 1 93 PARKING RATIOS THAT REALLY DATE BACK TO THE MID 1980S WHEN THE PD WAS ORIGINALLY UH, ENACTED. NEXT LINE. AND THIS IS, UH, TRAVIS BOND WITH GREENWOOD DID THIS EXCELLENT TABLE. IT REALLY SHOWS YOU THE GRAPHIC, UH, FORM, YOU KNOW WHAT OUR REQUEST IS, WHAT THE CODE COMPLIANCE SPACES ARE, AND IF ALL 44 SPACES WERE RECOGNIZED AND WHAT THE, WHAT THE REQUEST WOULD BE, HOW THOSE NUMBERS CHANGE, AND THE MIDDLE COLUMN, UM, SORT OF THE, UH, THE, THE, UH, TAN OR BROWN, IF WE WERE SUBJECT TO CODE, AND I KNOW WE'RE NOT PARKING, PARKING, PERFORM, IF WE WERE, UM, THERE WOULD ONLY BE FIVE SPACES REQUIRED. SO YOU'RE AT 19 MINUTES RIGHT NOW. REALLY? YEAH, 3 36 IS WHEN YOU STARTED AND YOU HAVE REPEATED YOURSELF SEVERAL TIMES. OKAY. AND SO I THINK YOU NEED TO WRAP UP SO THAT WE CAN ASK QUESTIONS. I'VE INTENTIONALLY, UM, NOT ASK QUESTIONS 'CAUSE I DIDN'T WANNA INTERRUPT YOUR PRESENTATION. OKAY. WE DON'T INTERRUPT THE APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION, BUT I'M SURE THERE ARE MANY QUESTIONS THAT I AND OTHER HAVE. SO, UM, WHY DON'T YOU COME TO SOME LEVEL OF CONCLUSION SO WE CAN START ASKING QUESTIONS. OKAY, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. I'VE MADE MY POINT ABOUT, UH, COMMENSURATE DEVELOPMENT. UH, NEXT SLIDE. AND I DO WANNA MENTION THIS AND GET THIS ON THE RECORD. THERE ARE SOME CONDITIONS THAT WERE IMPOSED IN 1979. UM, WE THINK THOSE ARE PROBLEMATIC FROM A RESTAURANT OPERATION STANDPOINT. YOU CAN SEE THAT YOURSELF. IT'S UM, PRETTY SELF-EXPLANATORY BECAUSE THE BOARD HAS THE POWER TO IMPOSE REASONABLE CONDITIONS. IT SEEMS TO ME YOU WOULD ALSO HAVE THE POWER TO REMOVE IT. I'M NOT YOUR ATTORNEY. YOU KNOW, YOU CAN DISCUSS THAT AMONG SELVES. BUT WE WOULD LIKE TO FIND SOME KIND OF MECHANISM TO EITHER REMOVE THESE OR DETERMINE, UH, SOMEHOW THAT THESE WOULD NOT APPLY BECAUSE THEY ARE PROBLEMATIC FOR LUNCH BUSINESS . SO YOU'RE NOW AT 20 MINUTES, WHICH IS VERY GENEROUS FROM OUR FIVE MINUTES. OKAY. SO, UM, IS THAT YOUR CONCLUSION? UM, A COUPLE MORE TIMES. YOU KNOW WHAT I GENERALLY SAY, MR. VINCENT IS WHY DON'T YOU FINISH YOUR SENTENCE. OKAY. WELL LET ME JUST SAY THAT WE HAVE DATA ABOUT THE WALKABILITY. I KNOW THEY CAME UP IN THE BRIEFING. THIS IS 90 PLUS WALK SCORE [02:40:01] AREA. WE HAVE SOME IMAGES BASICALLY, BRIAN, YOU CAN PUT AND FLIP THROUGH THESE QUICK ONE. UM, THE BOTTOM LINE IS WE NOT ONLY DO WE THINK WE MEET THE VARIANCE CRITERIA, WE THINK THAT'S CLEAR IN SEVERAL RESPECTS. WHAT WE'RE REALLY TRYING TO DO HERE, THE BIG PICTURE IS TO RELOCATE TWO VERY HIGH-END RETAIL BUSINESSES, WHICH WILL BE GREAT FOR THE CITY OF DALLAS. GREAT FOR UPTOWN. ONE IS IN HIGHLAND PARK VILLAGE RIGHT NOW. ONE IS IN UNIVERSITY PARK. WE'RE TRYING TO GET THOSE BUSINESSES MOVED INTO UPTOWN DALLAS. SO, AND THE REASON THAT'S RELEVANT TO A VARIANCE REQUEST IS 'CAUSE THAT SUPPORTS THE PUBLIC INTEREST. UM, THE COMMITTEE, YOU SHOULD HAVE A COPY OF THIS LETTER. THEY'RE ALL IN FAVOR OF THIS. UM, THAT'S IN YOUR PACKET SOMEWHERE, PROBABLY IN THE PREVIOUS PACKET. WE HAVE SUPPORT FROM THE COMMUNITY. WE MEET THE VARIANCE CRITERIA. CLEARLY THERE'S ENOUGH PARKING THERE. UM, IT'S SAFE FOR PEDESTRIANS. IT'S A DENSE URBAN AREA. YES. BUT IT'S VERY WALKABLE. AND SO WE ARE RESPECTFULLY ASKING FOR YOU TO, UH, APPROVE OUR REQUEST TODAY. AND I ANTICIPATE THERE'LL BE QUESTIONS WHICH WE'RE HAPPY ANSWER AND THERE MAY BE OTHER, UM, WHO ELSE CAN SPEAK. YES. OKAY, THANK YOU. UM, UH, I HAVE SEVERAL QUESTIONS. UM, LET'S TAKE SOME OF THE BIG ONES FIRST, AND I DON'T KNOW HOW THIS WILL BE HANDLED OR NOT, BUT, UH, IN YOUR PACKET YOU PROVIDED US A LETTER DATED THE 5TH OF SEPTEMBER, 1979, WHERE THE CURRENT, AT THAT POINT IN TIME, THE ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SAID, UH, THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPROVED A OFF STREET PARKING VARIANCE ON AUGUST 28TH, 1979. AND IT LIST FIVE CONDITIONS TO THAT. UM, FIRST QUESTION IS, DID YOU AS THE PROPERTY OWNER COMPLY WITH ALL FIVE OF THOSE REQUIREMENTS? YES, SIR. CERTAINLY DID. AND THIS IS REMINISCENT OF A PREVIOUS HEARING ON A PREVIOUS CASE. SEPARATE. AND ASIDE FROM THIS, THAT IF THE BOARD ORDERS IT, WE EXPECT THINGS TO BE FOLLOWED. SO I'M GONNA GO THROUGH THIS ON THE RECORD FOR EACH ONE. OKAY. THE OWNER WILL EXEC EXECUTE AND FILE A DEED RESTRICTION LIMITING RESTAURANT OPERATION AND OPENING TIME, NOT EARLIER THAN 6:00 PM THE DEED WAS FILED, IT'S ON RECORD THAT WAS FILED, IT'S ON RECORD, UH, MS. CARLISLE AND I BELIEVE MS. SPARK THAT ALL YOU NEED TO DO IS TELL ME WHAT, TELL ME THAT IS SO SINCE THAT POINT IN TIME, NO RESTAURANT HAS OPERATED BEFORE 6:00 PM I BELIEVE THAT TO BE CORRECT. I MEAN, I, BECAUSE THERE USED TO BE A PIZZA RESTAURANT THERE WASN'T THERE, RIGHT? I MEAN I CAN'T, YOU KNOW, I'M NO WIND VINES SOMETHING VINES. COAL VINES. COAL VINES. AND IT WAS OPEN DURING THE DAY BECAUSE I'VE HAD LUNCH THERE. I CAN'T, I'M NOT THE PROPERTY OWNER. I CAN'T SPEAK THAT. OKAY. I'M JUST SAYING I REMEMBER COAL'S, IT'S A PIZZA PLACE. SO THAT'S A PROBLEM. I HAVE A PROBLEM THERE. WE HAVE A PROBLEM THERE. 'CAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE RESTAURANT HAS BEEN OPEN PRIOR TO 6:00 PM GIVEN, THIS SAYS NOTHING BEFORE 6:00 PM OKAY, NUMBER TWO, THAT THE APPLICANT SHOULD COMPLY WITH THE TRAFFIC MEMO DATED AUGUST 16TH. WHAT'S THE TRAFFIC MEMO? I WAS NOT EVEN BACK DALLAS AT THIS POINT. I DON'T KNOW, BUT I'M ASSUMING WELL, YOU'RE VERY MUCH AWARE THAT A PROPERTY OWNER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL THE THINGS THAT RELATE TO THE PROPERTY. UH, THAT THE TENANT'S LEASE MUST STATE THAT THE OPENING TIME, THE REST OF 'EM RESTRICTED AT 6:00 PM I'M I'M TOLD THAT THAT'S, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, BUT COLVIN'S WAS OPEN DURING THE DAY. OKAY, WELL PROPERTY OWNER IS HERE SO MAYBE THEY CAN ADDRESS WELL, WELL I'M SPEAKING TO THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE. RIGHT. AND I'M GOING TO THE LETTER THAT WAS IN THE PACKET. MM-HMM . THAT WAS AN ORDER FROM THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT THAT THE BOARD IS GRANTING THE VARIAL USES PROPOSED THAT THE REST IT DOES NOT TO EXCEED 3,330 SQUARE FEET. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S THE CASE OR NOT. UH, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MUST APPROVE THE DEED RESTRICTION PRIOR TO ISSUING OF THE CO, UH, AND THAT YOU HAVE TO DO THIS OBTAINED WITHIN 90 DAYS. SO MY FIRST QUESTION IS WHETHER THE PROPERTY OWNER IN GOOD FAITH COMPLIED WITH THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? I THINK THERE'S SOME ISSUES THERE. THE SECOND THING IS, UM, I DON'T THINK THIS WAS ADVERTISED TO ADDRESS ANY OF THESE UNDERLYING PREVIOUS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS ORDERS. SO I DON'T THINK WE CAN TALK ABOUT RELIEVING THOSE AT THIS HEARING. CAN WE MS. BOARD ATTORNEY? NO, YOU CANNOT. THAT WAS A SEPARATE CASE. DIFFERENT SEPARATE FROM THIS CASE. SO, BUT THAT IS, THOSE, THOSE RESTRICTIONS ARE STILL IN PLACE. CORRECT. BECAUSE THE BOARD NEVER REMOVED THEM. CORRECT. ALRIGHT. BUT THE, MY QUESTION TO YOU IS, AS MUCH AS THIS IS IN THE RECORD TODAY, REALLY WE CAN'T DO ANYTHING AS IT RELATES TO THE BOARD TAKING ACTION FOR OR AGAINST THESE TODAY? THAT IS CORRECT. HE, THE APPLICANT WOULD'VE TO SEPARATELY COME BACK TO US AND MAKE A REQUEST YES. NOTIFIED, ADVERTISED, ALL THAT SORT OF STUFF. YES. OKAY. IS THE BOARD, I'M GOING TO HIS [02:45:01] QUESTION A MINUTE AGO. I, IS THE BOARD EMPOWERED TO MODIFY THESE SINCE THE BOARD CREATED, CREATED THESE IN THE FIRST PLACE? IS THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IN A POSITION TO MODIFY THESE RESTRICTIONS SINCE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUT THESE RESTRICTIONS IN THE FIRST PLACE? DO WE HAVE THAT AUTHORITY? I WOULD PRESUME SO. IF THEY BRING IT, IF THEY BRING THAT CASE BACK. THAT'S WHAT I MEAN. YES. YES. THAT'S WHAT I MEAN. SORRY. I WAS LIKE, DO WE HAVE THE AUTHORITY IF ASKED? YES. I'M NOT SAYING WE WOULD. I'M JUST SAYING DO WE HAVE THE AUTHORITY YOU'RE SAYING YES BECAUSE HE BEGGED THE QUESTION. BELIEVE ME, I READ WHAT YOU PUT IN THE DOCTOR. CAN I JUST SAY SOMETHING IN RESPONSE? SO THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS BY THE BOARD ADMINISTRATOR BACK THEN SAYING, WE'VE APPROVED THIS SUBJECT TO THESE CONDITIONS AND THESE CONDITIONS ARE IN PLACE. SO LET THEM, I'M GONNA GET THAT ISSUE OUT OF THE WAY FIRST. JIM LISTS HIS PHONE NUMBER. WE COULD JUST CALL HIM . IS HE STILL ALIVE? I HATE, THAT'S DISRESPECTFUL. THAT'S RE RESPECT. I DON'T WANNA DO THAT. I ALMOST, WHEN I SAW THE, I ALMOST THOUGHT IT WAS STEVE LONG, I THOUGHT, OH MY GOSH, IS STEVE LONG ON THIS? WELL, HE'S BEEN HERE, HE WAS AT THE CITY 35 YEARS. OKAY. MR. SHE, IF I COULD JUST PUT ON THE RECORD, I BELIEVE THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER, THE, THE CURRENT OWNER WAS NOT THE OWNER AT THAT TIME. OF COURSE NOT , BUT I BELIEVE EVERY ONE OF YOU GUYS SAID WE HAD A CASE EARLIER TODAY. SOMEONE SAID, WELL I DIDN'T, I WASN'T THE OWNER BACK THEN. I'M NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT. BUT THEY'VE BEEN THE OWNER FOR A WHILE AND THEY'RE AN EXCELLENT OPERATOR. SO I BELIEVE THAT THEY HAVE COMPLIED IN GOOD FAITH. IN ALL DUE RESPECT. I'M JUST LOOKING TO WHAT THE LETTER SAYS. RIGHT. AND, AND ASKING POINT BLANK, DID DID YOU COMPLY OR NOT? RIGHT? MY QUESTION TO MY BOARD ATTORNEY IS IF THE BOARD PUT THESE CONDITIONS IN THE BOARD, HAS THE AUTHORITY TO MODIFY THEM AT AN APPROPRIATE CALLED HEARING? YES. YES. OKAY. WE WON'T TALK ABOUT THIS ANYMORE. 'CAUSE THIS I CAN'T TODAY. SHE'S GONNA SAY IT'S IN THE RECORD, BUT IT'S REALLY NOT SUBJECT TO WHAT'S IN THE REQUEST. OKAY. AND I WOULD JUST SAY FOR THE RECORD THAT, YOU KNOW, I MIGHT HAVE A DIFFERENT OPINION ABOUT WHAT YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO DO AND OTHER WELL I HEAR YOU OTHER APPROACHES, BUT, BUT WHAT I'M GONNA RULE AS THE CHAIRMAN IS THAT, UM, I DON'T THINK SINCE THIS HASN'T BEEN NOTICED FOR THESE TO BE ADJUSTED, I DON'T THINK WE CAN NECESSARILY DO THIS BECAUSE WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT RESTAURANT HOURS. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PARKING AND ALL THAT'S BEEN NOTICED IS PARKING. SO PARKING THINKS WE CAN'T, AM I CORRECT OR INCORRECT? SORRY. IT'S WHAT WE CAN TALK ABOUT TODAY. I CAN'T TALK ABOUT RESTAURANT HOURS. OH, I CAN'T IF IF, IF YOU DON'T MIND. UM, WE DID RAISE THE ISSUE PRIOR TO THE NOTICE BUILDING OFFICIALS BOARD BEING REVISED AND THE NOTICE IS GOING OUT. SO WE HAD INQUIRED ABOUT IT. I'M NOT JUST BRINGING THIS ATTENTION RIGHT NOW. I KNOW, BUT WE ARE TOLD REGULARLY AS A BOARD GUYS, YOU CAN'T REALLY TALK ABOUT THIS ISSUE OR THAT ISSUE BECAUSE IT WASN'T IN PART OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL'S RECORD AND THE ADVERTISEMENT, ALL THAT WAS ADVERTISED TODAY WAS A 30 SPACE VARIANCE TO THE OFF STREET PARKING. SO THAT'S ALL WE'RE SUPPOSED TO TALK ABOUT. ALRIGHT. I JUST WANT SAY FOR THE RECORD, WE DID RAISE THE QUESTION PRIOR TO THE NOTICE, THIS SWEEPING TIME. WELL, DID YOUR APPLICATION TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OFFICE INCLUDE REVISING THESE? WE INQUIRED ABOUT WHAT? NO. DID YOUR APPLICATION, DID YOU IN WRITING SAY WE WANNA MODIFY THESE REQUIREMENTS? I PUT IT IN EMAIL. THE SAME AS PART OF YOUR APPLICATION? NOT AS PART OF THE APPLICATION BECAUSE WE WEREN'T ADVISED. MR. ADMINISTRATOR. NOW HE, THE APPLICANT IS SAYING HE REQUESTED THESE, BUT WE DIDN'T INCLUDE THEM. THE APPLICANT REQUESTED THAT AT THE TIME OF HIS RESUBMITTAL. HOWEVER, THAT WAS NOT A PART OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION THAT WAS NOTICED THAT YOU GOT TO THE X AMOUNT TO HOLD OVER. YEP. THIS, SO ARE YOU SAYING THAT WE SHOULD HAVE INCLUDED THIS IN THIS HEARING? NO, YOU'RE, SO I THINK WE HAVE A DISAGREEMENT BETWEEN THE APPLICANT AND THE STAFF ON THAT. THE APPLICANT CAN REQUEST TO ADD DIFFERENT REQUESTS, BUT IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN A PART OF HIS INITIAL REQUEST WITH THIS CASE. OKAY. AND I DO BELIEVE IT WILL BE AT THE DISCRETION OF STAFF TO ACCEPT OTHER REQUESTS. I DON'T WANNA SAY REASONABLE REQUESTS, BUT IT DEPENDS ON THE TYPE OF REQUESTS. I UNDERSTAND. MR. CHAIRMAN. YES. UH, THIS IS THE HOLDOVER BASIS CORRECT. ON PARKING SPACES, CORRECT? CORRECT. YOU'RE RIGHT. THAT'S WHY I'M, I'M OF THE OPINION, I'M OF THE OPINION THAT, UH, THE APPLICANT REQUESTED A HOLDOVER ON A PARKING REQUEST. THE APPLICANT DIDN'T REQUEST A HOLDOVER ON PARKING PLUS RESTRICTIONS. THIS WAS NOT PART OF YOUR [02:50:01] ORIGINAL REQUEST. 'CAUSE I'VE GOT YOUR ORIGINAL REQUEST RIGHT HERE IN MY PILE. AND I, MY GREEN NOTES ARE ALL OVER THE ORIGINAL REQUEST. SO, UH, IT IS MY OPINION, UNLESS THE BOARD WANTS TO OVERRULE ME, THAT WE ARE NOT IN A POSITION TO TALK ABOUT THESE REQUIREMENTS OR RELIEF OF THESE REQUIREMENTS UNLESS THERE IS A DULY FILED APPLICATION. I THINK THAT'S, SO I'M SPEAKING FOR THE SENTIMENT OF THE BOARD. SO THERE YOU HAVE IT. SO IT'S NOT THE ATTORNEY, IT'S NOT THE STAFF, IT'S THE BOARDS THAT MADE THAT INTERPRETATION. WHEN AND IF YOU DO MAKE A REQUEST AND IT'LL COME HERE, BE PREPARED TO TALK ABOUT HOW THE COMPLIANCE HAS BEEN IN THE PAST BECAUSE THAT'S IMPORTANT TO THE BOARD. ALRIGHT, MOVING ON. OKAY. YOU, IN YOUR PRESENTATION, 21 MINUTES IN YOUR PRESENTATION, YOU MENTIONED SEVERAL DIFFERENT NUMBERS AND I WAS, I WROTE 'EM DOWN BECAUSE, UH, YOU SAID WHOOP, HERE IT IS. OKAY. YOU SAID 36 SPACES ARE WHAT YOU'RE REQUESTING NOW YET IT COULD BE 43 AND THEN YOU SAID 44 AND THEN YOU SAID PEAK 40. THOSE ARE THE FOUR NUMBERS YOU GAVE ME. 36 43. 44 40. OKAY, LET'S TAKE EACH ONE. UH, YOU SAID THERE WERE 44 OR 43 SPACES. HOW MANY SPACES ARE THERE IN THE PROPERTY NOW? OKAY, THERE ARE 44 SPACES THERE. UM, SO SHOULD I CROSS UP 43? WELL, THE REASON THE, GOT IT, THE EXPLANATION FOR THE 43 IS ONE SPACE IS IN A VISIBILITY TRUNK, WHICH MAY OR MAY NOT ULTIMATELY COUNT MR. NAVAREZ. OKAY. SO YOU AS THE APPLICANT NEED TO SPEAK TO THE, WHAT YOU'RE PROFESSING NOT A RANGE OF FOUR, FOUR DIFFERENT NUMBERS. 'CAUSE WE'RE GONNA ACT BASED ON YOUR TESTIMONY AND WHAT THE PROFESSIONAL STAFF SAYS. AND, AND SO IS IT 43 OR 44 FROM WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? 44 OR PHYSICALLY PRESENT. OKAY. I'M CROSSING UP 43. ALRIGHT, SO THEN YOU SAY YOU'RE, YOU'RE GONNA GO DOWN AT 36 SPACES EVEN THOUGH YOU HAVE 44, RIGHT? YOU WANT ME TO EXPLAIN? YES, BRIEFLY. OKAY. THERE ARE SEVEN SPACES THAT REQUIRE MANEUVERING INTO THE ALLEY ON THE NORTH SIDE. THERE'S ONE SPACE THAT MAY ARGUABLY BE INVISIBILITY FROM. SO VERY STRICTLY SPEAKING, WE ARE NOT UNTIL WE GET A PERMIT IN OUR HANDS OR A CO IN OUR HANDS, WE WANNA MAKE SURE THAT SOMEONE IN BUILDING INSPECTION DOESN'T SAY, WELL YOU CAN'T DO THIS AND I DON'T BLAME IT. OKAY. ALRIGHT. SO HOLD ON. ALRIGHT, SO NOW I'M COUNTING NUMBERS 36 PLUS SEVEN IN THE ALLEY PLUS ONE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE THING. THAT'S EIGHT PLUS 36 IS 44. NOW YOUR NUMBERS ALMOST MAKE SENSE. ALRIGHT, LET'S TALK ABOUT THE SEVEN IN THE ALLEY. ARE THOSE CONSIDERED SPACES USABLE TO ACCOUNT OR NOT? YOU'RE SAYING YOU'RE NOT GONNA RELY ON 'EM, CORRECT? WE'RE NOT GONNA RELY ON THAT. NOW, MR. NAVAREZ WITH THE CITY'S ENGINEERING STAFF, I TOLD MR. BALDWIN THAT WE COULD COUNT THEM, BUT THAT'S IN AN EMAIL. I MEAN, IT'S NOT A PERMIT, IT'S NOT A CO. SO YEAH, I I WOULD, I I'M NOT THE TRAFFIC ENGINEER, BUT I'D SAY THAT SEEMS A LITTLE STRANGE. NOW I'VE NOT BEEN IN THAT BACK ALLEY, BUT, AND I COULD JUST IMAGINE IN THE VIDEO THIS MORNING HE SHOWED US THE ALLEY. DIDN'T YOU SHOW US A, A VIDEO ON THAT? AND HE SHOWED US A PICTURE OF THE ALLEY, BUT WE DIDN'T SEE THE SPACES. THAT'S A PRETTY NARROW ALLEY THAT WE SAW THIS MORNING. NOW MR. SONAR IS HERE, WHO'S AN ACTUAL HERE. OH. BUT HE'LL GET HIS CHANCE. I'M TALKING TO YOU NOW. OKAY. OKAY. SO I'M JUST SAYING THAT'S A PRETTY NARROW ALLEY. IS THERE A WALKWAY FROM THOSE SPACES TO THE BUILDING? I BELIEVE THERE IS DOWN THE ALLEY OR SEPARATE FROM THE ALLEY. 'CAUSE I DON'T THINK YOU WANT CUSTOMERS WALKING THROUGH AN ALLEY. UM, I WOULD HAVE TO ASK THE CURRENT OWNERS. OKAY. IF I BELIEVE THERE IS A WAY TO GET FROM THOSE SPACES WITHOUT HAVING TO GO INTO THE ALLEY. OKAY. YES. IF YOU WANT, WANNA DO IT QUICKLY. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT YOU. I THINK YOU DID A, DID A CAMERA SHOT MR. THOMPSON DOWN THE ALLEY. DO YOU REMEMBER THAT? YES. THERE IS. UH, AND THEN ALSO IDENTIFIED BETWEEN THE BUILDING TO THE, WE'RE GONNA CALL IT THE SOUTH AWAY FROM THE STREETS. YEAH. UH, THERE IS A, UH, SIDEWALK THAT SEPARATES UH, IS IT PEDESTRIAN SIDEWALK? YES, IT IS A PEDESTRIAN SIDEWALK. AND SO THEREFORE THERE'S AMPLE SPACE BETWEEN THE EXISTING BUILDING AND THE NEXT HIGHRISE AND THE NEXT HIGHRISE. OKAY. THERE'S A SIDEWALK THAT GOES IN BETWEEN THOSE. OKAY. WELL I'M NO EXPERT, BUT IF THERE'S A PEDESTRIAN SIDEWALK, THEN THERE'S STILL QUESTION IS WHETHER THOSE, THOSE PARKINGS BASED IN THE ALLEY. ALRIGHT, I'LL PROCESS THAT. ALRIGHT. YOU SAID THE BUILDING WAS BUILT IN 1979? YES SIR. AND IT HASN'T CHANGED SINCE THEN. TO MY KNOWLEDGE IT HAS NOT. OKAY. AND YOU GAVE US AS-BUILTS AS OF 2004? CORRECT. ALRIGHT, SO HOW IS IT THAT ALL ALONG, IF YOU'RE UNDER PD 1 93, YOU'VE BEEN LEGAL ON YOUR PARKING IF ALL OF A SUDDEN YOU'RE NOT [02:55:01] BUILDING HASN'T CHANGED. PDD ONE 90 THREE'S BEEN AROUND SINCE THE BEGINNING OF TIME AND NOW ALL OF A SUDDEN YOU'RE OVER PARKED AND YET YOU'RE REALLY UNDER PARKED. SO HELP ME WITH THAT. I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE PREVIOUS PERMIT HISTORY WAS ON THAT. WHY, YOU KNOW. WELL, BUT DO YOU SEE MY NUMBERS? I I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOUR QUESTION IS. PD 90 THREES, WHEN WAS, WHEN DID PD 1 93 COME IN EXISTENCE? MID EIGHTIES. MID EIGHTIES. SO THIS WAS BUILT IN 79, SO I'M SURE IT IT WOULD HAD TO COMPLY AND YET ALL THIS TIME PERIOD, IT MAY HAVE BEEN ILLEGALLY PARKED. WELL, IF IT WAS BUILT IN 1979 AND PD 1 93 CAME IN AND LET'S CALL IT EIGHTY FIVE EIGHTY SIX. OKAY. IT WOULD'VE PREDATED PD ONE THREE. OKAY. HUH. OKAY. SO I'M JUST WONDERING HOW IT LEGALLY PARKED ALL THOSE YEARS. SO THERE WAS A PRIOR, THE 1979 BOARD OF INVESTMENT. OKAY. AND THIS LETTER THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, ABOUT THE COMPLIANCE, I GUESS THAT WE'LL HAVE THIS LETTER WILL COME BACK INTO LIFE. OKAY. UM, SQUARE FOOTAGE IN THE PREVIOUS PANEL, PREVIOUS PRESENTATION, WE ALL STRUGGLED FOR SQUARE FOOTAGE. AND BECAUSE IT WASN'T IN THE REPORT AND THIS SORT THING THAT NOW I SEE IT IN THE CASE REPORT THAT IT HAS 9,486 SPACE OF RETAIL. YOU CONFIRM THAT, CORRECT? YES, SIR. AND THEN 33 98 IN RESTAURANTS. THAT'S CORRECT. AND I'M JUST TRYING TO FOLLOW THE CALCULATION. AND ACCORDING TO PD 1 93, IT REQUIRES A TOTAL OF 77 SPACES AND THEN OH, GOODNESS GRACIOUS. AND THEN IT HAS THIS ADJUSTMENT TO COME DOWN TO 66. THAT'S RIGHT. AND THAT'S, IS THAT WHAT YOU, LAST MONTH IT WAS 68. HOW DID, WHY DID IT CHANGE JUST FURTHER REFINEMENT, . I MEAN, THAT, THAT WAS WHY WE ASKED FOR THE, THE WHOLE IT WENT DOWN, IT DIDN'T GO UP. WELL THAT'S . SO THAT OKAY. THAT'S WHAT THE NUMBERS SAID. OKAY. IS THE BUILDING THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE BUILDING ALL OPEN SPACED? OR IS IT, ARE THERE DEMISING WALLS BETWEEN COMPONENTS OF THE BUILDING? UM, I HAVE NOT BEEN INSIDE THE BUILDING. I ASSUME THERE ARE DEMISING WALLS BECAUSE IT'S, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT SO IT'S MULTI-TENANTS. CORRECT? YEAH. HOW MANY DIFFERENT TENANTS? WELL, WHAT WE PROPOSE IS, UH, ONE TENANT THAT WOULD BE PARTIALLY RETAIL AND HAVE SOME RESTAURANT SPACE AND THEN THE OTHER TENANT. SURE. AND IN OUR PARKING DECISION, WE, WE ARE NOT TELLING YOU WHAT TENANT OR REALLY NOT WHAT TYPE OF TENANT. YOU DISCLOSE THE TYPE OF TENANT SQUARE FOOTAGE AND THEN WE APPLY A PARKING RATIO EITHER BY THE BASE ZONING OR BY THE PD 1 93. SO I'M NOT TELLING YOU WHAT YOU, WHAT WE ARE NOT TELLING YOU WHAT TENANT SHOULD BE, WHERE WE'RE JUST TAKING WHAT SQUARE FOOTAGE YOU'RE HAVING. RIGHT. AND I APPRECIATE THAT BECAUSE IT, LIKE SEVERAL OTHER CASES I'VE HAD WITH PANEL A, WE KNOW THE RESTAURANT SQUARE FOOTAGE, WHAT WE WANT, WE DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WITHIN THE BUILDING. YEAH. BUT THAT SQUARE FOOTAGE DRIVE PARKING. CORRECT. AND WE TRY TO FOLLOW WHAT THE BASE ZONING IS OR WHATEVER THE ZONING AND THE PD IN ORDER TO, TO DRAW AND EXTRAPOLATE WHAT WILL NOT CREATE A PARKING ISSUE. CORRECT. THAT WOULD BE THE CAP ON THE RESTAURANT SQUARE FOOTAGE. EXACTLY WHERE IT WOULD BE. NOT SURE YET. YEP. OKAY. ONE SECOND. I'M MY THING. OKAY. UM, YOU MENTIONED THAT THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT WILL COME TO THIS SPACE BY WALKING OR RIDE CHAIR. DO YOU REALLY THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE WALKING UP AND DOWN, UH, CEDAR SPRINGS, MAPLE OR HOWELL? WOW. I, IF YOU, IF YOU DON'T MIND, I FREQUENTLY MYSELF DRIVING TO UPTOWN AROUND LUNCHTIME TO GO GET SOMETHING TO EAT. AND I'M AMAZED BY THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE, YOU KNOW, LIKE ON MCKINNEY AVENUE IN MAPLE AND CEDAR SPRINGS IN MAPLE AIR WALKING. BUT WE ACTUALLY HAVE DATA ON THAT. UM, THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF NEARBY DEVELOPMENT IS, IS PRETTY MASSIVE. UM, YOU KNOW, 23 SPRINGS, THE QUAD, UM, 24 0 1 CEDAR SPRINGS, THEY'RE ALL LEASING UP SPRING DISTRICT. UM, WITHIN TWO BLOCKS OF THIS SITE, THERE'S 3.5 MILLION SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE, UM, GENERATING AN ESTIMATED 13,000 TO 17,000 OR MORE DAILY WORKERS, RESIDENTS AND VISITS. THAT'S A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT ARE LOOKING FOR SOMEPLACE TO GO FOR LUNCH. UM, AND THE SPRINGS DISTRICT WAS DESIGNED THE DEEP PEDESTRIAN IN FRONT THEM BELOW GREAT PARKING OPEN SPACE. SO IN YOUR PRESENTATION YOU SAID IT'S A ONE STORE BUILDING WITH A HALF A FLOOR, A SECOND FLOOR, ROUGHLY. AND ISN'T THERE A ROOFTOP WE SAW IN THE VIDEO THIS MORNING, A ROOFTOP LOOKED LIKE A BAR OR SOMETHING AT THE TOP? I I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY PLANS. I HEAR, I SEE A HEAD SHAKING YES. BEHIND YOU. OKAY. SO, UH, IS THAT IS PART OF YOUR NUMBERS? WELL, IF IT'S O IF IT'S UNCOVERED, YOU DON'T COUNTER PARKING. AND THAT'S ALWAYS BEEN TRUE IN THE CITY OF DALLAS, [03:00:01] WHETHER IMP PD 1, 9 3 OR, OKAY, I'M GONNA STOP FOR A MOMENT AND LET OTHER PEOPLE ASK QUESTIONS. THIS IS A STRETCH FOR ME. YOU'RE ASKING FOR A 46% REDUCTION IN PARKING. WAH. SO, OKAY. UM, OTHER QUESTIONS? MR. HOP, UH, MR. UH, DORN THEN MR. HOP TO GO TO THE RESTAURANT SIZE? I MEAN, CURRENTLY THE DEED RESTRICTION LIMITS YOU TO 3,330 FEET. NOT TO EXCEED THAT, BUT YOUR SITE PLAN HAS, AGAIN, IT'S MINOR, BUT IT'S 3,398. SO THOSE TWO DON'T, DO NOT LINE UP. RIGHT. I UNDERSTAND. I ACKNOWLEDGE THAT. UM, THERE'S SOME QUESTION AS TO WHETHER IN MY MIND WHETHER THOSE EVEN STILL APPLY AND THAT'S A SEPARATE ISSUE TO DETERMINE WHETHER THOSE ARE IN EFFECT, WHETHER THEY FINE. DOES THAT, NONE, IT'S MY SECOND QUESTION, AND I BELIEVE I ASKED THIS LAST TIME, AND IT WAS RELATED TO A DA PARKING SPOTS. MM-HMM . YOU HAVE AN ANSWER. WE ARE COMPLIANT WITH WHATEVER THE REQUIREMENTS ARE PART YOUR 60 OR EXCUSE ME, 30, 36 SPACES. I BELIEVE SO. AND YOU, WHICH MEANS YOU CAN'T BE USED FOR, IF MR. DORN SHOWS UP, HE CAN'T USE THAT SPACE. HE, IF IT WAS A, A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY COULD RIGHT. BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THOSE STILL COUNT AS PARKING SPACES. I MEAN, MR. STONER'S THE PARKING EXPERT, SO YEAH. AND THIS PART OF BEZO OR 1 93 ZONE PARKING. ALRIGHT, SO MR. THOMPSON'S GONNA GO TO MR. DORAN'S QUESTION. YEAH. SO FOR EVERY SO MANY PARKING SPACES, YOU HAVE TO HAVE AMPLE HANDICAP. SO WHATEVER THAT RATIO IS, I DON'T KNOW IT BY HEART. UM, BUT LIKE IT MAY REQUIRE YOU TO HAVE 1, 2, 5. SO THAT HAS TO BE A PART OF THE PERMITING PROCESS AS WELL, WHICH IS PART OF THE REASON WHY WE SUGGESTED THAT. BUT HIS QUESTION IS, IS THAT INCLUDED OR IS THAT IN ADDITION TO THIS CALCULATION? NO. SO IF 36 PARKING SPACES ARE REQUIRED, THEN IF 36 ARE REQUIRED, THREE OF THOSE MAY HAVE TO BE HANDICAPPED. SO, SO IN ADDITION, NO, NOT IN ADDITION INCLUDED? YES. OKAY, KEEP GOING. . WAIT, SAY THAT ON THE RECORD. IN ESSENCE THEN THEY WOULD HAVE 33 SPOTS FOR THE PUBLIC TO USE. NO, I MEAN, A HANDICAPPED PERSON IN THE PUBLIC. NO. WELL, WELL, HE'S NOT BEING DISRESPECTFUL TO THAT. YEAH, THEY'RE NOT. YEAH, I MEAN, LIKE, SO THAT, THAT'S, THAT'S IN ANY, WHETHER IT'S RESTAURANT, HOTELS, ANY TYPE OF USE, WHENEVER THE REQUIRED PARKING, THEY INCLUDE HANDICAP IN THAT REQUIREMENT. IT'S NOT A SEPARATION OF THE TWO. IT'S, IT'S NOT AN ADDITION TO, NOT AN ADDITION TO. OKAY. MR. HAITZ, SO STAYING IN THE VEIN OF THAT QUESTION, THERE'S A NUMBER OF PEOPLE HERE ALL AFFILIATED WITH THIS PROPERTY IN SOME WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM. HOW MANY DISABLED PARKING SPOTS ARE IN THIS 36 SPOTS TODAY? HOW MANY ARE DISABLED PARKING SPOTS? I THINK IT'S TWO, BUT CAN I, SOMEBODY MUST KNOW. THREE. AND WHAT IS THE REQUIREMENT TO HAVE, I ASSUME IT'S THREE. I'M I'M NOT AN EXPERT ON A DA PARDON THAT NO, NO. I, IF I CAN'T HAVE YOU SHOUT FROM THE AUDIENCE. SO, MR. HOPKINS HOVIS WAS ACTING A QUESTION OF MR. VINCENT. OKAY. IF MR. VINCENT CAN'T ANSWER THE QUESTION, THEN I, WE WILL LET THIS GENTLEMAN COME FORWARD. INTRODUCE HIMSELF. DID YOU GET SWORN IN THERE BEFORE THEN? WE'LL JUST SWEAR HIM IN AND LET HIM ANSWER YOUR QUESTION. OKAY. SO WE'LL DO THAT. HERE WE GO ON AN AUDIBLE. IF YOU GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, DON'T GO AWAY MR. VINCE ON, ON THE MIC. TODD PETTY. I CAN'T HEAR YOU. TODD PETTY. IT'S OFF. IS IT OFF? IS IT ON? CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? JUST BARELY. TODD PETTY. 78 0 3 HANOVER, DALLAS, TEXAS. MS. MS. WILLIAMS? 7 5 2 2 5. DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOTTOM OF YES, MA'AM. I, I DO. OKAY. NOW, MR. HOKA IS, ASK YOUR QUESTION AGAIN. HOW MANY DISABLED PARKING SPOTS ARE PHYSICALLY THERE? THERE ARE THREE HANDED TOUCH BASE ON PROPERTY. THANK I. THAT'S THE ONLY QUESTION I HAD ABOUT THAT MR. BENSON. UM, DO YOU KNOW, IS THE, IS THE PARKING REQUIREMENT INVOLVED WITH THIS PROPERTY TIED [03:05:02] IS IS TIED TO THE STRUCTURE, IS IT NOT? IF YOU WERE TO TEAR DOWN THE BUILDING AND PUT UP ANOTHER BUILDING, THE PARKING REQUIREMENT COULD CHANGE. IT'S DIRECTLY TIED TO THE SIZE OF THE BUILDING THAT'S THERE. THAT'S CORRECT IN THE SENSE THAT PARKING REQUIREMENTS ARE DRIVEN BY SQUARE FOOTAGE OF VARIOUS USES. CORRECT. YOU SAID SQUARE FOOTAGE IN COMBINATION. I MEAN, SO IF SOMEONE REDEVELOPED THE PROPERTY, THE PARKING WOULD CHANGE. IF THE REDEVELOPED THEY PUT UP A FIVE STORY BUILDING THERE, THE PARKING WOULD CHANGE. OKAY. UM, THIS, UH, AND I UNDERSTAND YOU FREQUENT THE AREA AT LUNCH. I'VE BEEN DOWN THERE A FEW TIMES MYSELF AT LUNCHTIME. THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE WALKING AROUND AT NIGHT. IT'S VERY DARK. IT'S NOT AN EXTREMELY WELL LIT AREA. IT'S NOT VERY BRIGHTLY LIT, AT LEAST TO MY RECOLLECTION, BEING DOWN THERE AT THE EVENING AROUND THAT AREA. UH, DO YOU THINK IT'S A, IS YOUR OPINION, HAVE YOU BEEN DOWN THERE A NIGHT AREA? DO YOU, DO YOU SEE WHAT IT'S LIKE AT NIGHT? I I HAVE NOT BEEN MR. PETTON PROBABLY. I I ACTUALLY, TO GET DOWN TO THE MICROPHONE, SIR, I CHALLENGE A WHOLE OF YOU TO GO DOWN THERE. NOW. THE AREA HAS CHANGED DRAMATICALLY, UM, WITH WHAT'S HAPPENED ON MAPLE AVENUE WITH THE HINZ DEVELOPMENT. THERE ARE TWO RESTAURANTS THERE, VIBRANT RESTAURANTS. YOU HAVE A SUSHI RESTAURANT, UM, FROM THE HINZ PROJECT CLOSE TO, UH, MAPLE, I THINK THAT'S OISHI THE NAME OF IT. YOU'VE GOT A VERY HIGH END RESTAURANT AT THE HARD CORNER IN THE JLL OFFICE BUILDING. YOU'VE GOT THE 23 SPRINGS PROJECT WHERE THERE ARE AT LEAST TWO PRO TWO RESTAURANTS OPEN NOW WITH THE THIRD THAT'S PLANNING ON OPENING. AND THEN THE QUAD THAT HAS 350,000 FEET OF OFFICE WITH FIVE RESTAURANTS. IT'S THE MOST VIBRANT, ACTIVE AREA OF DALLAS. I UNDERSTAND THAT. IF, IF YOU HAVEN'T BEEN THERE LATELY, I REALLY, YOU WOULD HAVE A VERY, VERY ENJOYABLE TIME WALKING THROUGH THE QUAD, GOING ON MAPLE AVENUE AT NIGHT ON THE WEEKENDS. IT IS A VERY, VERY PLEASANT EXPERIENCE. IS BRIGHTLY LIT. IT, MAPLE AVENUE HAS BECOME VERY BRIGHT THAT NOW IF YOU LOOK BACK, YOU KNOW, SEVEN YEARS AGO, 10 YEARS AGO, YOU ARE RIGHT. BUT THE AREA HAS TRANSFORMED. THANK YOU. IT IS TRULY A VERY WALKABLE AREA. I OFFICE, EXCUSE ME, I OFFICE AT, UM, AT HOWELL IN FAIRMOUNT, AND I LOOK OUT AND I SEE THE PEOPLE WALKING FROM THE OFFICES TO THE QUADRANT OR WALKING FROM THE OFFICES TO S AND D. I'VE BEEN THERE FOR 26 YEARS. I'VE NEVER SEEN ANYTHING LIKE IT. THIS IS A DUAL FOR THE CITY OF DALLAS. WHAT'S HAPPENED IN THIS AREA WITH THE WALKABILITY, THE PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN PERMITTED, 23 SPRINGS QUAD, ALL HAVE PARKING BELOW GRADE. THEY HAVE COMMON AREAS, THEY'VE GOT RESTAURANTS. THEY WERE DESIGNED FOR WALKABILITY. THANK YOU. AND THAT'S WHAT'S HAPPENING IN THIS AREA. UM, THANK YOU. YOU'RE INDICATING YOU'RE ALSO GOING TO USE, EXPECT A LOT OF TRAFFIC TO COME FROM RIDE SHARE. UM, RIDESHARE THE WAY IT OPERATES, IT PRESUMABLY IS NOT GONNA DROP STOP ON, ON THE STREET AND LET PEOPLE OUT. THEY'RE GONNA PULL IN TO THIS PARKING LOT WHERE IT'S SAFE TO LET SOMEONE OUT. AND SO THAT THERE'D BE TRAFFIC COMING IN JUST TO DO DROP OFFS AND LEAVING. THAT'S THE WAY RIDESHARE WORKS, CORRECT? SURE. I MEAN THAT IS CORRECT. I MEAN THE, THE ISSUE BEFORE US IS REALLY PARKING. SO THE POINT THERE IS THAT IF SOMEONE COMES BY RIDESHARE, THAT'S ONE LESS PARKING SPACE. YES. IT ALSO INCREASES THE TRAFFIC COMING IN AND OUT OF THE PARKING LOT, WHICH IS, WHICH INCREASES THE TRAFFIC STOPPING AND STARTING ON THE STREET WHERE YOUR EXIT AND ENTRANCE IS. IS THAT TRUE? WELL, THAT'S SURE, THAT'S TRUE IN THEORY. I MEAN, THERE'S ALREADY TRAFFIC IN THE AREA, SO A LOT OF, SO, SO IT COULD, IT COULD, IT COULD INCREASE A TRAFFIC HAZARD IF THERE'S A LOT OF CARS COMING IN AND OUT. WELL, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT A, I'M NOT AN ENGINEER, BUT IT SEEMS TO ME THAT A RIDE SHARE TRIP IS THE SAME. IT'S EQUIVALENT TO A SELF-DRIVING TRIP. IT'S A TRIP. SO, YOU KNOW, IT'S A TRIP THAT DOESN'T REQUIRE A PARKING SPOT, BUT DOES REQUIRE SPACE IN THE LOT TO MANEUVER A CAR AND THERE'S . SO TO, TO DROP OFF, MOVE AROUND. ARE YOU PLANNING ON HAVING ANY KIND OF A, A DEDICATED, UH, GREETING AREA WHERE PEOPLE WOULD BE DROPPED OFF? YEAH, WE, WE'VE OWNED THIS PROPERTY FOR 26 YEARS. WE, WE DID NOT DEVELOP IT. I CAN'T SPEAK TO HOW IT WAS OPERATED. UM, YOU KNOW, BEFORE WE OWNED IT. I ACTUALLY CAN'T SPEAK TO HOW IT WAS OPERATED SOME OF THE TIME THAT HAVE A FIVE ASSET MANAGER, COUNTLESS PROPERTY MANAGER. WE HAVE A, A FAIRLY LARGE PORTFOLIO. BUT, UM, THERE ARE PLACES TO PICK UP [03:10:01] DROP OFF IN THE PROPERTY AND THAT'S THE WAY IT'S FUNCTION PRETTY GOOD WITHOUT IMPEDING THE FLOW OF PEOPLE WHO ARE COMING THERE TO PARK THEIR CARS AT THE SAME TIME. IT LOOK, IT DEPENDS ON HOW THE, IT'S BEING OPERATED. YEAH. AGAIN, IT'S BEEN OPERATED FOR A LONG TIME AND THERE HAS NOT BEEN A PROBLEM. I I, I'M AWARE OF THAT. UH, WHEN, WHEN WAS IT LAST OCCUPIED? UM, VARIOUS SPOTS. SO WHEN WAS IT LAST OCCUPIED? WELL, WHEN WAS IT LAST OCCUPIED? A HUNDRED PERCENT OR WITH ANY TENANT WAS LAST, LAST OCCUPIED A HUNDRED PERCENT. PROBABLY A YEAR AND A HALF AGO. UNDER PD 1 93 PARKING REQUIREMENTS. YES. WHICH WOULD BE 66 SPACES. IT, IT'S, YOU CAN COMPLY WITH PD 1 93. WE WANT A BANK ON THIS PROPERTY. WE WANT ANOTHER NAIL SALON. OKAY. WE'RE NOT TALKING. WHAT I'M TRYING TO GET TO, AND I APOLOGIZE FOR INTERRUPTING. THAT'S OKAY. I'M TRYING TO GET TO, IS WERE YOU COMPLIANT BEFORE? WILL YOU BE COMPLIANT IN THE FUTURE? AND SO I'M STILL BED BLED THAT P 90 PD 1 93 CAME IN IN 19, IN THE EIGHTIES. SO I'M WONDERING IF IT WAS OCCUPIED A YEAR AGO, WERE YOU COMPLYING? WE, WE BELIEVE THAT A LOT OF THAT WAS DONE ON THE BASIS OF THAT PREVIOUS VARIANCE. THE OLD VARIANCE, UH, MR. BOND HERE BELIEVES THAT'S HOW THAT WAS DONE. I MEAN, IT HAD TO, OBVIOUSLY PEOPLE WERE ISSUING PERMITS AND COS OVER THE YEARS, I GUESS NEED TO LOOK AT, SEE WHAT THAT VARIANCE OR WHATEVER HAD. SO WE'RE HERE TODAY TO MAKE IT COMPLIANT. , THERE MAY HAVE BEEN TIMES THAT IT WASN'T BEFORE WE OWNED IT. I CAN'T TELL YOU. OKAY. I'M SORRY MR. HAKA CONVINCED WE ARE HERE TODAY TO MAKE IT COMPLIANT. I, I HEAR YOU. AND I'M, I'M AND, AND, AND THE SIZE OF THE BUILDING, UM, WE DIDN'T MEASURE IT WHEN THIS BECAME, WHEN IT CAME BEFORE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS, THE FIRST STOP, WE DIDN'T MEASURE IT WHEN IT WAS BUILT. WE MEASURED IT AS PART OF THIS PROCESS AND WE WERE TRYING TO MAKE IT RIGHT AND MAKE IT COMPLIANT. I'M SORRY MR. HOP CONTINUE. YEAH. JUST AS LONG AS YOU UNDERSTAND WE'RE NOT ADJUDICATING WHAT YOU COULD USE THE BUILDING FOR. YOU CAME TO US AND ASKED US FOR PERMISSION TO HAVE FEWER PARKING SPOTS THAN THE CURRENT, UH, THE CURRENT REQUIRED 46% REDUCTION. SO, SO YOUR USE OF THE PROPERTY IS WHAT YOU'RE DECIDING TO USE THE PROPERTY FOR, NOT WHAT WE'RE DECIDING TO USE THE PROPERTY FOR. RIGHT. AND, AND THE 46% IS FACTORING IN THE CITY'S NOT ALLOWING US TO USE A NUMBER OF THE SPACES THAT EXIST TODAY. IF YOU ALLOW THE 44 SPACES THAT ARE THERE, IT IS NOT THAT MUCH OF A, A, UH, VARIANCE. SO WE, WE COULD NOT GET AN ANSWER FROM THE CITY STAFF. I THINK THAT'S, WHETHER IT CAN BE USED OR NOT, WE WON'T KNOW UNTIL WE GO IN TO TRY TO GET A PERMIT. WELL, I, I THINK IT'S A, A GERMAN QUESTION THE CHAIRMAN RAISES AS CURRENT REQUIREMENTS THAT WERE PUT ON THAT PROPERTY WOULD BEEN FOLLOWED. WHEN YOU'RE ASKING US TO, TO, TO MAKE ADDITIONAL MODIFICATIONS TO THAT, TO KNOW WHETHER WHAT'S BEEN, WHAT'S BEEN AGREED TO BY THIS BOARD IN THE PAST HAS BEEN COMPLIED WITH. AND I UNDERSTAND YOU MAY NOT KNOW, BUT IT'S LEGITIMATE QUESTION FOR US TO ASK. IT'S A LEGITIMATE QUESTION FOR YOU TO ASK. I DON'T DISAGREE WITH THAT. I, YOU KNOW, NONE OF US WERE INVOLVED WITH THIS PROPERTY IN 1979. UM, OR US CERTAINLY TRUE. UM, AS MR. BOND SAID, YOU KNOW, WE, WE BELIEVE RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THESE OLD VARIANCES FROM 1979 AND 1980. UM, YOU KNOW, THE CITY, I MEAN, THINK OF HOW MANY PERMITS, BUILDING PERMITS AND COS WERE ISSUED ON THIS SITE FROM 1979 TO THE MOST RECENT OCCUPANCY. I MEAN, THIS IS, I'M SURE THERE HAVE BEEN A NUMBER OF TIMES WHEN THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS WERE SCRUTINIZED AND APPARENT. EVIDENTLY PERMITS WERE ISSUED ON IT, UH, COS WERE ISSUED ON IT, YOU KNOW, SO I, I HAVE TO BELIEVE THAT IT WAS CONSIDERED TO HAVE ADEQUATE PARKING, AT LEAST FROM A TECHNICAL STANDPOINT. UM, AS MR. PETTY SAYS, WE'RE HERE TODAY TO TRY TO CLEAN ALL THIS UP AND GET IT, YOU KNOW, MAKE IT LEGAL, UM, STRICTLY SPEAKING. UM, AND WE'RE TAKING I THINK, A VERY CONSERVATIVE APPROACH IN TERMS OF WHAT SPACES WE'RE COUNTING. AND AS WELL AS, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S KIND OF A SHAME THAT, UM, HERE WE ARE IN 2026, THE CITY OF DALLAS, YOU KNOW, A CAR-CENTRIC CITY I GREW UP HERE, I KNOW HAS EVEN EMBRACED PARKING REFORM. AND WE CAN'T, YOU KNOW, THAT WOULD'VE REQUIRED FIVE SPACES ON THE SITE, BUT YET WE'RE HERE TALKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, PROVIDING 36 TO 44, SOMEWHERE IN THAT. BUT IT'S NOT FIVE WHERE THIS IS, THAT'S, THAT'S TRUE. I MEAN, I WISH IT WERE FROM A POLICY. I I UNDERSTAND, BUT IT'S REALLY NOT RELEVANT. YEAH. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS BUILDING, THIS LOCATION. I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING FURTHER AT THE MOMENT. THANK YOU, MR. HAVIS. OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? MR. FLEMING? UH, THERE'S BEEN SOME TALK ABOUT RIDESHARE. I WAS WONDERING IF YOU HAD ANY NUMBERS OR STUDIES TO KIND OF BUTTRESS YOUR CLAIMS ABOUT HOW OFTEN RIDESHARE [03:15:01] WOULD BE USED, STEVE, THAT SOMETHING THAT HAVE ANY DATA ON? YOU KNOW, I, I GUESS WE DON'T HAVE ANY HARD DATA ON IT. I THINK ANECDOTALLY, UM, MY OWN EXPERIENCE, MY KIDS' EXPERIENCE, I THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE'S EXPERIENCE, YOU KNOW, USING UBER OR LYFT, UM, YOU KNOW, THAT'S, MY KIDS ARE IN THEIR TWENTIES. THAT'S THE FIRST THING THEY THINK OF WHEN THEY, WHEN THEY WANNA GO SOMEWHERE IS LET'S CALL AN UBER. SO, YOU KNOW, IT'S, THERE'S A LOT OF THAT BEING DONE OUT THERE. UM, AND I THINK IN THIS PARTICULAR AREA, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S DENSIFYING, IT'S IT'S URBAN BY DALLAS STANDARDS. SO I, YOU KNOW, I THINK PEOPLE ARE GONNA WALK FROM THESE BIG OFFICE BUILDINGS. SO THEY'RE . GO AHEAD, MR. HOPKINS. WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, MR. VINCENT, WE'RE THIS IS THE, THIS WE'RE YOU'RE GIVING TESTIMONY ON FACTUAL INFORMATION SUPPOSED TO BE WHAT? ANECDOTAL STUFF REALLY IS ANECDOTAL STUFF. IT'S NOT, NOT PART OF THE FACT THAT'S, WELL, I'M, I'M NOT GONNA PRETEND LIKE I HAVE HARD DATA IF I DON'T. UM, SO I'M, I'M BEING UPFRONT ABOUT THAT. BUT YEAH, I THINK WE'VE ALL EXPERIENCED THAT. I MEAN, IT'S A, IT'S A REAL THING THAT PEOPLE USE RIDESHARE A LOT. CAN I QUANTIFY THAT IN THIS INSTANCE? NOT REALLY. BUT, UH, OTHER QUESTIONS TO THE APPLICANT? WE HAVE A COUPLE OTHER SPEAKERS. SO LET'S DO THE NEXT SPEAKER. WHO'S THE NEXT SPEAKER, MS. LADY? MR. STEVE STONER. OKAY. NEXT SPEAKER. MR. SETH THACHER, IF YOU'RE ONLINE, PLEASE PROVIDE AUDIO AND VIDEO. YES, I'M HERE. OKAY. I'M GOING TO SWEAR YOU IN. DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? I DO. OKAY. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND PROCEED. SETH THATCHER. 6 7 3 6 GATE RIDGE DRIVE, DALLAS, TEXAS 7 5 2 5 4. PLEASE PROCEED. UM, YES, WE'RE HERE IN SUPPORT OF THE PARKING VARIANCE FOR GREENWAY. WE OWN NINE PROPERTIES NEARBY, SO WITHIN A BLOCK ALONG FAIRMOUNT STREET AND ALONG RUTH STREET. WE THINK THIS IS A FANTASTIC REUSE OF THE EXISTING BUILDING. WE DON'T BELIEVE IT WILL CREATE ANY, UH, ISSUES FOR US FOR ADJACENT PROPERTIES. WE DON'T SEE THIS AS A VERY HIGH DENSITY USE WITH HOLLAND AND HOLLAND AND THE BERETTA, UH, GALLERY. SO WE WANT TO EXPRESS OUR SUPPORT. I'VE TALKED TO OTHER STAKEHOLDERS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT ARE ALSO, UH, IN SUPPORT. UH, YOU HEARD OAKLAWN COMMITTEE IS IN SUPPORT, AND I WOULD SPEAK TO THE WALKABILITY BECAUSE WE ALSO SEE THAT, I MEAN, PEOPLE ARE WALKING IN DROVES AND IT IS A VERY WALKABLE AREA, AND MAPLE IS VERY WALKABLE. YOU HAVE NEW MULTI-FAMILY, UH, RIGHT NEXT DOOR. SO FROM OUR OUR STANDPOINT, WE DON'T SEE ANY REASON WHY THE CITY WOULD NOT GET BEHIND, UH, THIS PROPOSED USE. IT WOULD ADD A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF VIBRANCY TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THANK YOU, SIR. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE SPEAKER? THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. OKAY. SO, UH, WHAT OTHER QUESTIONS DO WE HAVE FOR THE APPLICANT? SO, MR. VINCENT, IF YOU COME BACK UP, I'M GONNA ASK YOU A QUESTION OR TWO, AND THEN YOU'LL BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY. REBUT REBUTTAL. UM, YOU, YOUR CALCULATION IS THAT THE PARKING UNDER PD 1 93 IS 66 BASED ON THE SQUARE FOOTAGE USE. AND WHAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR IS A 30 SPACE VARIANCE TO THAT 66. YOU'VE TESTIFIED THAT YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THERE'LL BE HANDICAP COMPONENTS UNDER WITHIN THAT, BUT THAT THE STAFF HAS SAID THAT'S NOT IN ADDITION TO, BUT THAT'S PART OF THE TOTAL. I ASKED, UH, ABOUT WHETHER THE BUILDING, WHEN IT WAS PREVIOUSLY OCCUPIED, COMPLIED WITH THE PARKING UNDER [03:20:01] 1 93, AND WE DIDN'T REALLY HEAR AN ANSWER ON THAT BECAUSE IT WAS THE PREVIOUS OWNER OR WHATEVER. UM, WE TALKED ABOUT THE RESTRICTIONS. MR. DORN ASKED ABOUT THE RESTRICTIONS OF THIS MEMO ON 3,300 SQUARE FOOT, AND COMPARED TO YOUR NUMBER ON YOUR PROPOSED 30 3933 98, THERE'S INCONSISTENCY THERE. THERE'S THIS WHOLE ISSUE OF THE 6:00 PM WHETHER THAT'S STILL VAL VALID OR NOT. I I HEAR THAT AND SO FORTH. UM, IS THERE AN EXISTING VARIANCE THAT YOU CAN POINT TO THAT BRINGS US, BRINGS US BELOW? I'M HEARING CHATTER THAT AFTER THE SUBMISSION DEADLINE FOR THIS HEARING, YOU, UH, SUBMITTED OR REQUESTED THE STAFF CONSIDER SOMETHING THAT HAD A DIFFERENT CALCULATION OR VARIANCE FOR THIS. UH, NO, SIR. THE REASON WE ASKED FOR THE HOLDOVER LAST TIME YEP. WAS TO GO BACK AND REEXAMINE OUR NUMBERS, WHICH IS THE FIRST PART OF YOUR STATEMENT. UH, THE, THE ACTUAL REQUIREMENT UNDER 1 93 F MIXED USE PARKING CHART, THE PEAK DEMAND AND WHAT PARKING SUPPLY WAS THERE, AND WHAT PARKING SUPPLY WE WERE CERTAIN WOULD COUNT FOR CODE PURPOSES. SO THAT, THAT'S THE NUMBERS THAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT. THE 66 IS THE MIXED USE PARKING CHART. PEAK DEMAND 40 IS WHAT OUR PARKING STUDY SAYS IS ACTUAL PEAK DEMAND, REAL PEAK DEMAND. AND THEN THE 36 ARE THE SPACES WE ARE SURE THAT COUNT VERSUS UP TO 44 THAT ARE PHYSICALLY PRESENT. AND AS A PRACTICAL MATTER ACTUALLY USED. NOW, TO YOUR QUESTION OF, WELL, HOW DID THEY PARK IT BEFORE, BEFORE ALL OF OUR TIME BACK IN 1979 AND 1980, APPARENTLY THERE WERE SOME PARKING VARIANCE RELIEF GRANTED, WHICH AS YOU KNOW, RUNS WITH THE LAND ONCE THE VARIANCE IS AFFECTED. SO, UM, HAVE TO ASSUME THAT THEY RELIED ON THAT OVER THE YEARS. SO DO WE HAVE THAT, YOU HAVE THAT IN YOUR POSSESSION? THAT'S, UH, ONE OF THOSE IS THE, THE LETTER THAT YOU HAVE, BUT IT, IT'S, IT SPEAKS TO TRAFFIC MEMO DATED AUGUST 16TH, 1979. THAT'S WHAT IT SAYS, THAT THE APPLICANT SHALL COMPLY WITH THE TRAFFIC MEMO DATED AUGUST 16TH, 1979. WOW. THAT'S WHAT IT SAYS. I, I DO NOT HAVE A COPY OF THAT. I HOPE. WELL, THIS IS YOUR, YOU PROVIDED US WITH THE COPY OF A I HAVE THAT LETTER. YES. I DON'T HAVE THE TRAFFIC. OKAY. WELL, MA'AM, THAT REFERS TO, I I HEAR YOU. OKAY. UM, YOU, YOU HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL. OKAY. WELL, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND YOU KNOW, I, I REALLY DO APPRECIATE ALL THE QUESTIONS. I KNOW THIS IS IMPORTANT AND, AND YOU ALL TAKE THIS SERIOUSLY. IT'S AS YOU SHOULD. UM, JUST TO RECAP, NUMBER ONE, WE BELIEVE WE MEET THE VARIANCE STANDARDS CLEARLY IN SEVERAL RESPECTS. THE SIZE, THE SHAPE, YOU KNOW, THE EXISTING CONDITION. UM, SO TECHNICALLY WE BELIEVE WE FULFILL THE VARIANT STANDARDS. UH, IT'S NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. IN FACT, IT REALLY SUPPORTS THE PUBLIC INTEREST. AND, AND THE BIG PICTURE ON THAT IS WE'RE TRYING TO TAKE THIS PROPERTY IN THE HEART OF UPTOWN. WE'RE TRYING TO BRING IT INTO COMPLIANCE WITHOUT ANY QUESTION IN ORDER TO GET THE RETAIL AND RESTAURANT USES IN THAT WE PROPOSE. AND THIS IS REALLY GOOD FOR THE AREA, IT'S REALLY GOOD FOR UPTOWN, IT'S REALLY GOOD FOR THE CITY OF DALLAS. YOU KNOW, THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF STUFF IN THE MEDIA LATELY ABOUT, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE MOVING OUT OF DALLAS, VARIOUS TYPES OF THINGS. THESE ARE TWO BUSINESSES, HIGH-END BUSINESSES THAT I THINK WOULD BE MET WITH A LOT OF EXCITEMENT AND SUPPORT IN UPTOWN. ONE OF THEM IS CURRENTLY LOCATED IN HIGHLAND PARK VILLAGE. ONE IS CURRENTLY LOCATED ON PRESTON ROAD UNIVERSITY PARK. SO WE'RE TRYING TO ADAPTIVELY REUSE THIS BUILDING, SMALL SCALE BUILDING SOME OF THE OLD CONTEXT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO BRING IN USES THAT WILL WELL SERVE THE OFFICE AND RESIDENTIAL POPULATION IN THE AREA, WHICH IS MASSIVE AND IT'S STILL INCREASING. UM, WE THINK THIS IS A GREAT ADDITION TO THE AREA. YOU KNOW, YOU DON'T HAVE TO TAKE OUR WORD FOR IT. I MEAN, THE OAK LAWN COMMITTEE SUPPORTS IT. UM, THE, UH, YOU'VE HEARD FROM SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS AND THE OAK LAWN COMMITTEE SAYS, UM, UM, EXPANDING PARKING IS NOT FEASIBLE. THE VARIANCE REFLECTS THE PRACTICAL CONDITIONS OF THE SITE, RATHER THAN ANY DEPARTURE FROM RESPONSIBLE PLANNING. GREENWAY HAS BEEN A STRONG AND RELIABLE COMMUNITY PARTNER, AND IT'S CONTINUED STEWARDSHIP OF THIS CORRIDOR IS RECOGNIZED AND APPRECIATED. UM, PRIOR TO THAT, THEY SAY THAT THE DATA INDICATES THAT THE EXISTING PARKING SUPPLY IS ADEQUATE TO SUPPORT THIS MIX OF USES. THIS IS FROM THE OAK LAWN COMMITTEE, WHICH, AS YOU KNOW, THEY'RE VERY, UM, HIGHLY RESPONSIBLE, ENGAGED, AND INFORMED STEWARDS OF THE OAKLAWN COMMUNITY. I DON'T THINK THEY WOULD'VE SAID THAT IF THEY DIDN'T BELIEVE IT. AND OUR OWN STUDY SAYS THAT. SO JUST TO SUM UP AND, AND NOT REPEAT MYSELF, WE THINK THIS IS A GREAT ADAPTIVE REUSE FOR THIS SITE. WE WANT TO BRING IN THESE HIGH-END RETAILERS AND RESTAURANT USE. UM, THESE ARE BRANDS THAT ARE, YOU KNOW, [03:25:01] HIGHLY RESPECTED, UM, INTERNATIONAL BRANDS. UM, THIS WOULD BE THEIR FIRST PRESENCE IN THE CITY OF DALLAS ITSELF. UM, IT REALLY, THEY HAVE VERY FEW LOCATIONS OUTSIDE OF EUROPE. UM, AND SO WE'RE EXCITED ABOUT GETTING, WE THINK IT'S GREAT FOR THE COMMUNITY, GREAT FOR THE CITY. WE THINK THE PARKING NUMBERS WORK, WE THINK THE VARIANCE REQUEST IS JUSTIFIED. AND, YOU KNOW, WE RESPECTFULLY ASK THAT YOU SEE THE BIG PICTURE ON THIS IN ADDITION TO THE VARIANCE STANDARDS AND THE PARKING MEMBERS AND GRANT ART REQUESTS. THANK YOU, SIR. GIVE ME ONE SECOND. I'M VISITING WITH MY BOARD ATTORNEY. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH MR. VINCENT. UM, QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT, MR. DOR? UM, MR. VINCENT, I KNOW SOME BUSINESSES, IF THEY WERE SHORT PARKING SPOTS, THEY WOULD LOOK TO OTHER SURROUNDING AREAS TO LEASE SPACES, ESPECIALLY IF THEY, AGAIN, HAVE CERTAIN HOURS THAT MAY MAKE THOSE SPACES BASIC, THEY WOULD BE SITTING EMPTY, OTHERWISE. IS THAT SOMETHING THE, UM, DEVELOPERS LOOKED AT? UM, I CAN'T SPEAK TO WHETHER THEY HAVE LOOKED AT THAT. I, I, IT JUST SO HAPPENS I'VE DONE A LOT OF THAT KIND OF WORK. SO I, I KNOW HOW THAT WORKS. AND, YOU KNOW, THERE IS REMOTE PARKING, THERE'S A REMOTE SHARED PARKING, AND YOU KNOW, THE STAFF REVIEWS THOSE. IT'S, IT'S SOMETHING YOU COULD DO ADMINISTRATIVELY. UM, USUALLY REMOTE SHARED PARKING IS BASED ON VARYING PEAK TIMES AND PEAK DAYS OF OPERATION. UM, SO I, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S A CONSIDERATION OR NOT. THANK YOU. QUESTION. UH, IT'S IN AGGREGATE, 13,000 SQUARE FEET OF SPACE, 94 86 PLUS 33 98. IT'S, THAT'S 12 PLUS IT'S ALMOST 13,000. HOW MANY EMPLOYEES DO YOU ANTICIPATE? UH, THAT IS A QUESTION I DO NOT KNOW THE ANSWER TO. AND HOW MANY PARKING SPACES THOSE EMPLOYEES? WELL, IT DEPENDS ON THE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES. THAT'S WHY I ASKED THE EMPLOYEES. RIGHT. WELL, AND, AND AS WE DISCUSSED IN THE LAST HEARING, YOU KNOW, IN MY EXPERIENCE, ALL PARKING RATIOS TAKE THAT INTO ACCOUNT. I MEAN, THEY DON'T BREAK IT DOWN BETWEEN CUSTOMERS AND EMPLOYEES, IT'S JUST, IT'S . I WOULD AGREE. BUT YOU, YOU'RE ASKING FOR A 46% REDUCTION AND THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT, A 46% REDUCTION. YEAH. I MEAN, I'M NOT THE OPERATOR. UH, YOU KNOW, AND WE DON'T CHOOSE WHAT, WHAT YOU PUT IN THE SPACE AS MR. KOFA SAID, YOU AS THE APPLICANT SAY, I OWN PROPERTY, I'M GONNA USE, USE IT THIS WAY. THIS IS THE ALLOCATION OF SPACE. AND THEN YOU A APPLY THE, THE PARKING FORMULA BASED ON WHATEVER THE CITY COUNCIL SETS. AND IN THIS CASE IT DEFAULTS TO PD 1 93. AND THEN THAT'S WHAT'S ALLOCATED. AND THEN THEY HAVE DELEGATED TO US THE ABILITY TO LOOK AT THIS PARTICULAR CASE AS IT RELATES TO A VARIANCE. AND OUR VARIANCE STANDARD, AND I LOVE READING THIS OUT LOUD, SO IT'S VERY CLEAR, OUR STANDARD FOR OFF STREET, UH, VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST PERMIT NECESSARY TO PERMIT DEVELOPMENT OF SPECIFIC PARTS OF THE LAND THAT DIFFERS FROM OTHER PARTS OF THE LAND BECAUSE OF RESTRICTIVE AREA SHAPE OR SLOPE. I DON'T KNOW ABOUT SHAPE OR SLOPE OR AREA. AND THAT CANNOT BE DEVELOPED IN A COMMANDER COMMENCEMENT WITH DEVELOPMENT OF OTHER PARTS OF THE LAND. I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THAT. AND THEN NOT GRANTED TO RELIEVE A SELF-CREATED PERSONAL HARDSHIP AGAIN, UH, IN DEVELOPING OF LAND NOT PERMITTED BY THIS CHAPTER OR OTHER PARCELS IN THE SAME ZONING. UH, THE STAFF HAS RECOMMENDED DENIAL. I KNOW YOU SAID IT WAS A SOFT DENIAL. MM-HMM . AND I ASKED MY BOARD ADMINISTRATOR, WHAT IS A SOFT DENIAL? I'VE NEVER HEARD THAT BEFORE. AND ALL SHE DID IS SHAKE HER HEAD. SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT A SOFT DENIAL IS, BUT THE STAFF RECOMMENDED DENIAL AND WE APPRECIATE THEIR OPINION. WE SOMETIMES TAKE IT SOMETIMES, NOT YOU, YOU, YOU KNOW, SO I APPRECIATE THAT. AND, AND WE RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE. WE THINK THAT THE SHAPE IS IRREGULAR. WE THINK THAT THE SIZE IS RELATIVELY SMALL. UM, AND WE THINK IT STRONGLY SUPPORTS THE PUBLIC INTEREST TO BRING THIS INTO COMPLIANCE AND GET THESE USERS IN AS FAR AS THE EMPLOYEES. GOTCHA. ALRIGHT. THE RETAILERS ARE NOT HIGH VOLUME RETAILERS, SO THE WORKFORCE WAS RELATIVELY SMALL, BUT, BUT WE CAN'T MAKE A DECISION ON WHO THE RETAILER IS. RIGHT. BECAUSE THAT'S BEYOND OUR SCOPE OF OUR CRITERIA. THAT'S YOUR BUSINESS AS A PROPERTY OWNER. 'CAUSE YOU COULD TELL US TODAY IT'S THIS REALTOR RETAILER, AND TOMORROW CHANGE IT TO ANOTHER ONE. SO WE, IT'S NONE OF OUR BUSINESS WHO YOU AS A PROPERTY OWNER BRING IN OR NOT. THAT'S ALL WE CAN LOOK AT IS THE TYPE, THE USE, AND THAT'S RETAIL OR RESTAURANT AND THAT SORT OF THING. AND SO I GOTTA [03:30:01] KEEP OURSELVES TO IGNORE WHO THE RETAILER YOU'RE THINKING AND STAY FOCUSED ON THE TYPE OF USE. I, I AGREE WITH YOUR POINT, BUT THE RETAIL IS NOT GONNA EXCEED 9,406 WORTH THE UNDER THIS PHONE. SO THAT'S SMALL FORMAT RETAIL. UNDERSTOOD. ALRIGHT. UM, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? THANK YOU VERY MR. VERY MUCH MR. VINCENT. THANK YOU. UH, THE CHAIRMAN ENTERTAIN A MOTION. MR. HAITZ. I MOVE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER OF BO OA TWO FIVE DASH 0 0 0 1 0 1 ON APPLICATION OF JONATHAN VINCENT DENIED A VARIANCE TO THE OFF-STREET PARKING REGULATIONS REQUESTED BY THIS APPLICANT WITHOUT PREJUDICE, BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND THE TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE THAT AMENDED DID NOT RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP TO THIS APPLICANT IN THE MATTER. B UH, BO, A 2 5 0 0 0 1, 0 1. MR. HOP HAS MOVED TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE THE REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FOR OFF STREET PARKING REGULATION. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. IT'S BEEN SECONDED BY MR. DOREEN DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION FIRST TO MR. HOPPI. UH, IT'S A REALLY LARGE VARIATION YOU'RE ASKING FOR, IN MY OPINION. AND, UM, THERE'S TWO SIDES TO THE COIN THAT THIS, THIS IS A THRIVING PART OF THE CITY. YES, IT'S A THRIVING PART OF THE CITY. THEY CAN ALWAYS USE MORE THRIVING THINGS, BUT ALSO A THRIVING PART OF THE CITY, WHICH, WHICH, UM, EVERY TIME I'VE BEEN THERE, PARTICULARLY IN THE EVENINGS, HAS REALLY BAD TRAFFIC. REALLY, UH, IT, IT'S, IN MY OPINION, NOT SO EASY TO GET AROUND THERE. NOW, IF YOU'RE WORKING THERE DURING THE DAY AND YOU PARKED THE CAR IN THE UNDERGROUND GARAGE AND YOU'RE GOING OUT FOR LUNCH, THAT'S ONE THING. BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE. UM, AND GIVEN THE LARGE NUMBER OF VARIANTS AND, AND A LOT OF, FRANKLY A LOT OF UNKNOWNS, UM, TO MR TO MR. UH, CHAIRMAN'S POINT 36 PARKING SPOTS, WELL, SOME NUMBER OF THOSE ARE GONNA BE USED BY PEOPLE WORKING IN THE BUILDING. HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE GONNA BE THERE? WE DON'T KNOW. BUT RESTAURANTS DON'T RUN ON THREE PEOPLE. YOU NEED WAIT, STAFF COOKS, UH, BARTENDERS, ALL OF THAT. UM, RETAIL REQUIRES WORKERS AS WELL. AND SO HOW MANY PARKING SPOTS OUTTA THIS 36 ARE REALLY GONNA BE AVAILABLE FOR PATRONS? HOW TIGHT THE PARKING AND THE LOT AS IT IS RIGHT NOW. AND NOW WHEN YOU ADD ADDITIONAL, UH, CREW TRAFFIC RIDE SHARE, IT JUST SEEMS TO ME TO BE A STRETCH TO SAY THAT THIS IS, UH, REALLY A GREAT SETUP FOR, UM, AS IT RELATES TO PARKING AND TRAFFIC, UH, UH, IMPACTS. SO I HAVE A HARD TIME, UM, GOING ALONG WITH THE REQUEST. THANK YOU MR. KOVICH DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION. MR. DORY? NOTHING FURTHER. OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION, MR. FLEMING? YEAH, I THINK THAT, UH, A IS, SEEMS EXTREMELY STRONG AND MET MET. I, I, IT FEELS A LITTLE BIT UNCOMMON, UM, TO HAVE THIS LEVEL OF SUPPORT FROM THE NEIGHBORS AND THE SURROUNDING BUSINESSES. UM, IT SEEMS LIKE SOMETHING THEY REALLY WANT. AND SO I, YOU KNOW, AT THAT POINT, I FEEL, UM, PRETTY HESITANT TO, UH, TO, TO TELL THEM NO. UM, ON THE, UH, THE TRAFFIC POINT THAT MR. H RAISES. UH, YOU KNOW, I THINK A LOT OF WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS VERY WELL SAID. UM, THE TRAFFIC STUFF, LIKE, UH, I THINK THE UPSHOT OF DENYING THIS SEEMS TO ME LIKE THE MOST LIKELY THING IS THAT THEY WON'T BE ABLE TO FOR MOVE FORWARD WITH USING THIS BUILDING. AND THAT THE, A MUCH MORE INTENSIVE USE WILL GO IN AND THE TRAFFIC WILL PROBABLY GET WORSE IF WE DENY THEM THE, UH, YOU KNOW, LIKE THEY'RE, WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO DO RIGHT NOW IS TO, YOU KNOW, PUT IN BUSINESSES THAT ARE GOING TO USE AS LITTLE, LIKE, DO THE BEST THEY CAN TO FIT WITHIN THE PARKING THAT'S THERE. IF THEY JUST GOTTA START OVER, THEN THEY'RE PROBABLY GONNA PUT IN SOMETHING THAT HAS MUCH GREATER PARKING REQUIREMENTS. UH, AND THEN THEY'LL JUST MEET THOSE BY PUTTING THOSE SPACES UNDERGROUND, THERE'LL BE A LOT MORE CARS IN THE AREA. UM, I AM SWAYED THAT THIS IS, UH, NECESSARY TO DEVELOPMENT THIS PARCEL BECAUSE OF THE AREA AND SHAPE. UH, I DON'T THINK THAT THAT'S SELF-CREATED. AND I, YOU KNOW, I, I DEFINITELY, THE, THE THING THAT SPEAKS STRONGEST TO ME, I WILL ADMIT, IS THE, [03:35:01] YOU KNOW, OVERALL APPEAL TO, UH, YOU KNOW, THINK ABOUT THIS IN THE BIG PICTURE SENSE. UM, SO, YOU KNOW, I, I'M HEARING EVERYONE ELSE. I, UH, I DOUBT THAT, UH, THIS IS THE WAY THAT THE REST OF THE COMMITTEE FEELS. BUT, YOU KNOW, I, I, I'M LISTENING TO ALL THIS AND I, I JUST, I JUST THINK THIS IS A GOOD IDEA. UH, AND I, I, I THINK THAT THEY'RE, THEY'VE MORE THAN CLEARED THE ABSOLUTE MINIMUM OF THE WAY THAT YOU COULD INTERPRET THESE THINGS. AND GIVEN HOW MUCH OF A, A POSITIVE IT WOULD BE. I, YOU KNOW, I, I, I FEEL GOOD ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT, BUT THANK YOU FOR LETTING ME SAY THANK YOU, MR. FLEMING DISCUSSION. MS. HAYDEN, I DON'T BELIEVE I'LL BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION, UM, FOR SOME OF THE SAME REASONS MY COLLEAGUE HERE JUST STATED. UM, I DO THINK THAT, I KNOW IT'S A PD AND I KNOW IT'S, UM, YOU KNOW, IT IS A BIG ASK FOR THIS PARTICULAR PD, BUT I BELIEVE THAT, YOU KNOW, FORCING WALKABILITY IS A GOOD THING FOR THE CITY OF DALLAS. AND I THINK THAT THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS THAT THE CITY DID CHANGE THEIR PARKING REQUIREMENTS. AND I, UM, YOU KNOW, I, I JUST, AGAIN, I, I KNOW THAT THIS IS A VERY, EVEN THOUGH A LOT OF TRAFFIC INGESTION IS DOWN THERE, I THINK NOT OFFERING THAT, THAT PARKING, UM, TO ME, IN MY OPINION, , THIS IS JUST MY OPINION, UM, WILL ACTUALLY, YOU KNOW, REQUIRE PEOPLE TO FIND OTHER WAYS TO GET THERE WITHOUT DRIVING AND PARKING. THANK YOU, MS. HAYDEN. UH, I'LL BE SUPPORTING MOTION TO DENY. UM, I AM, UH, THE QUESTIONS REGARDING THE PREVIOUS CASE VOTE VARIANCE AND RE AND SQUARE FOOTAGE AND HOURS OF OPERATIONS STILL GO UNANSWERED. THE QUESTIONS OF HOW THE BUILDING OPERATED, UH, LEGALLY OR OR NOT UNDER PD 1 93 JUST A YEAR AGO ARE STILL GO UNANSWERED. UM, THE APPLICANT HASN'T GOTTEN A DEFINITIVE ANSWER AS IT RELATES TO THE PARKING SPACES IN THE ALLEY AND GIVEN US, UH, HEARING ONE PERSON FROM THE CITY TO TALK TO ANOTHER PERSON SAYING, WELL, THEY SAID THIS SAID FOR SEVEN SPACES IN THE BACK ALLEY, USED OR NOT, IS NOT DEFINITIVE. IT NEEDS TO BE CONCRETE THAT THAT IS CONSIDERED USABLE SPACES OR NOT. UM, A 46% REDUCTION IS ENORMOUS. THE COUNCIL ACTED BY CHANGING THE BASE ZONING. THEY DIDN'T TOUCH ONE PD. THE COUNCIL CAN CHANGE ANY PD THEY WANT. UM, I, I JUST THINK THAT'S ENORMOUS. UM, I'M ALL FOR WALKABILITY AND I'M ALL FOR RIDESHARE. WHEN THE QUESTION OF RIDESHARE WAS ASKED TO THE APPLICANT, THE COMMENT WAS NOT, THERE'S NO DATE AVAILABLE. BUT MY KIDS, I'M SORRY THAT MY KIDS, YOUR KIDS, OUR KIDS ARE NOT DATA THAT WE AS A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CAN MAKE DECISIONS ABOUT LAND USE. UH, WE'RE TALKING, TRYING TO DEAL WITH FACTS, UH, AND WE TRIED TO GET DATA AND WE COULDN'T GET EACH ONE OF THESE ARE DATA POINTS THAT ARE STILL HANGING IN, HANGING, UH, IN THE AIR. UM, I THINK THE PROPERTY'S VIABLE, BUT I THINK THE APPLICANT NEEDS TO DO A BETTER JOB OF PROVING UP SPACES IN THE ALLEY OR NOT SPACES THAT EMPLOYEES POTENTIALLY WOULD USE IN ORDER TO, UH, YOU SAID PEAK WAS 40 AND YET YOU'RE ONLY GONNA PROVIDE 36 SPACES. SO YOU'RE GONNA BE OUT OF FOUR SPACES DURING PEAK. THAT'S WHAT YOU SAID. PEAK WAS 40, AND YET YOU'RE ONLY GONNA PROVIDE 36 SPACES. SO YOU'RE ALREADY FOUR UNDERWATER RIGHT FROM THE GET GO. UM, THE ISSUE OF THE, UH, THIRD STORY, THIRD FLOOR OR WHATEVER THAT WAS THAT WE SAW IN THE VIDEO, YOU KNOW, AND I HEARD THE COMMENT THAT'S NORMALLY NOT COUNTED WITH BAR AREA OR SO FORTH. AND, UH, SO I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THAT GENERATES MORE, MORE, UH, SITUATION. I WOULD SAY THAT INTERSECTION IN OUR CITY IS VERY, UH, CONGESTED. THREE, THREE SEPARATE STREETS ARE CONVERGING AT THAT POINT. UM, SO, UH, I THINK THE APPLICANT CAN DO A MUCH BETTER JOB OF TRYING TO PROVE THEIR CASE OF SAYING WHY A REDUCTION IS NECESSARY. UH, I URGE THE APPLICANT AT THE LAST MEETING TO CONSIDER A LONGER HOLDOVER RATHER THAN ONE MONTH. THEY SAID, NO, WE CAN GET IT DONE ONE MONTH. AND YET I ALSO HEARD THAT THINGS WERE PROVIDED TO THE STAFF FOR THE BOARD AFTER THE DEADLINES AND SO FORTH, AND THERE WAS GRITCH. SO, I MEAN, WE HAVE DEADLINES IN ORDER TO BE TRANSPARENT TO THE PUBLIC PUBLIC, WE WANT TO GIVE INFORMATION OUT SEVEN DAYS BEFORE, UH, OUR HEARING SO THAT THE PUBLIC CAN SEE WHAT WE'RE SEEING. AND THOSE ARE BUILT INTO OUR DEADLINES. AND, UH, I JUST DIDN'T THINK THE APPLICANT MET THEIR BURDEN OF PROOF, OUR CRITERIA. AND AS I LOVE TO DO EVERY SINGLE TIME, OUR CRITERIA, UH, IS NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST. THE SU THE SUBJECT SITE IS NOT RE IS, UH, NOT CONTRARY [03:40:01] TO PUBLIC INTEREST. UH, A PARCEL THAT HAS RESTRICTIVE AREA SHAPE OR SLOPE THAT CANNOT BE DEVELOPED IN A MANNER OF COMMENCE WITH, WITH OTHER PARCELS, UH, AND NOT SELF-CREATED OR PERSONAL HARDSHIP. I DON'T THINK YOU MET THE BURDEN, IN MY OPINION. I WOULD AGREE WITH STAFF'S DENIAL. SO THAT'S MY OPINION AT THIS JUNCTURE. SO I'LL BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION TO DENY, UM, UH, WITHOUT PREJUDICE. I'M ALSO DISAPPOINTED THAT THE APPLICANT DIDN'T OFFER VALET. THAT'S, THAT'S THE E ONE OF THE, ONE OF THE EASY ESCAPE VALVES IN A COMPLEX PARKING SITUATION. BUT I WASN'T GONNA OFFER IT UP. THAT'S FOR THE APPLICANT TO DO AS PART OF THE, A APPLICANT'S BURDEN OF PROOF. SO, ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALRIGHT, THE BOARD SECRETARY, I'LL CALL THE VOTE. MS. SATAN. OH, ONE OTHER THING, PLEASE. I APOLOGIZE. I APOLOGIZE. I APOLOGIZE. UH, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE VOTE THE BOARD'S GONNA VOTE. I TOLD YOU EARLIER, I DON'T HAVE PO VOTES IN MY POCKET, BUT, UH, IF THE BOARD VOTES TO DENY, UH, I WOULD STRONGLY SUGGEST IF YOU CHOOSE TO COME BACK TO THE BOARD, YOU COME BACK PREPARED WITH ANSWERS RELATING TO THIS MEMO THAT'S IN THE DOCKET. AND I'LL KEEP THIS FOR MY OWN SAFEKEEPING. THERE'S FIVE ITEMS THAT THE BOARD ORDERED ON AUGUST 28TH, 1979. SO I'M WONDERING WHETHER THEY WERE COMPLIED WITH, UH, AS WELL AS ANY OTHER VARIANCES THAT ARE ASSOCIATED WITH THIS. UH, MR. DORN ASKED THE QUESTION ABOUT THE SQUARE FOOTAGE AND AS WELL AS THE START TIME, THOSE ALL NEED TO BE ADDRESSED BECAUSE WE REALLY CAN'T DO ONE THING WITH ONE HAND AND THEN NOT ALLOW SOMETHING ELSE. TO THE OTHER HAND, IT NEEDS TO BE COMPREHENSIVELY LOOKED AT. SO IT'S A GOOD USE OF YOUR TIME. OUR TIME AND OUR CITY'S STAFF'S TIME. I APOLOGIZE FOR INTERRUPT TO YOU. ALRIGHT, MS. HAYDEN? NO. MR. DORN? NO. MR. OVITZ? AYE. MR. FLEMING? NO. MR. CHAIRMAN. AYE. MOTION FAILS. DID YOU HOLD ON A SECOND. UH, WE'RE GONNA, WE'RE GONNA HOLD UP. WE'RE GONNA REVOTE THE MOTION. I APOLOGIZE. I SHOULD HAVE RESTATED THE MOTION. THAT'S WHAT I'M SUPPOSED TO DO. THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR ON BO 8 2 5 0 0 0 1 0 1 MOTION MADE BY MR. HVI AND SECONDED BY MR. DORN IS TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE. THAT'S THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE. NOW WE'LL TAKE THE VOTE AGAIN. MS. MS. WILLIAMS. MS. HAYDEN? NO. MR. DORN AYE. MR. KOVI AYE. MR. FLEMING NO. MR. CHAIRMAN. AYE. MOTION TO DENY, UM, MS THREE, TWO, MS THREE TWO IN THE MATTER OF BO A 2 5 0 0 0 1 0 1. THE, THE BOARD ON A VOTE OF THREE TO TWO DENIES THE REQUEST FOR VARIANCE OF OFF STREET PARKING WITHOUT PREJUDICE. YOU'LL GET NOTIFIED FROM THE BOARD. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THE LAST ITEM ON THE BOARD'S AGENDA TODAY IS, UH, BO OA 2 5 0 0 0 0 9 7. HE'S THE APPLICANT PRESENT. IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? UH, NOPE. SHE DID NOT PRESENT. OKAY. ALRIGHT. SO, UH, BOARD MEMBERS IN THE CASE OF BO OA 2 5 0 0 0 0 9 7. THIS IS AT 7 9 4 7 WOOD SHIRE DRIVE. UM, THE APPLICANT DID NOT PRESENT HIMSELF HERSELF. IS THE APPLICANT HERE FOR 7 9 4 7 WOOD SHIRE DRIVE IS THE APPLICANT HERE. OKAY. THE APPLICANT IS NOT, UM, UH, THE BOARD CAN HOLD THIS MATTER OVER, CAN DENY WITH OR WITHOUT PREJUDICE OR CAN APPROVE THE CHAIR. WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION POINT OF ORDER? YES, SIR. UH, ACTUALLY POINT OF INFORMATION WE HEARD NOTHING FROM THEM. 'CAUSE AT ONE POINT THEY WERE LOOKED LIKE THEY WERE ONLINE OR SOMETHING. YES SIR. THERE WERE, UM, SHE WAS ONLINE BUT I GUESS MAYBE SHE DOESN'T KNOW HOW THEY DIDN'T, THEY DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING TO YOU ABOUT NO, I, WHY THEY WEREN'T HERE. I TRIED TO REACH OUT BY EMAIL, UH, BECAUSE THAT'S HOW SHE FIRST RESPONDED. AND, UH, I I HAVE NO RESPONSE. I DID YOU HAVE THE IMPRESSION THERE MIGHT BE A LANGUAGE DIFFICULTY? UH, SHE UNDERSTANDS ENGLISH. I SPOKE, I SPOKE WITH HER IN ENGLISH. OKAY. SO I, ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. SO, UH, WHAT IS THE PLEASURE OF THE BOARD? SHE, HER HUSBAND [03:45:01] HAD A DOCTOR'S APPOINTMENT THIS MORNING AND I GUESS THAT'S WHY SHE WAS NOT HERE. AND SO I OFFERED THE LINK SO SHE COULD, YOU KNOW, COULD BE VIRTUAL. AND SHE WAS VIRTUAL OR SHE WAS ONLINE AT ONE POINT, BUT WHENEVER WE CALLED THE FIRST TIME, SHE WAS NOT ON VIDEO OR AUDIO. SO I, AND I TRIED TO REVISIT WITH HER AND TOLD HER THAT WE WERE GOING TO CALL HER CASE AGAIN AT THE END OF THIS CASE AND NOTHING. THANK YOU. WE GOT NO RESPONSE. SO WHAT IS THE PLEASURE OF THE BOARD? I'LL, I'LL MAKE THE MOTION. SURE. UM, I MOVE THAT WE DENY, UH, I MOVE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER BO OA 2 5 0 0 0 9 7 ON APPLICATION OF JESUS SANCHEZ. DENY THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION REQUESTED BY THIS APPLICANT TO CONSTRUCT OR MAINTAIN AN EIGHT FOOT HIGH FENCE, UH, WITHOUT PREJUDICE BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT GRANTING THE APPLICATION WOULD ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTY IN THE MATTER OF BO OA 2 5 0 0 0 0 9 7. MR. FLEMING HAS MOVED TO DENY THE REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR EIGHT FOOT HIGH FENCE WITHOUT PREJUDICE. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND, SECOND BY MR. HOROWITZ, MR. FL DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? YEAH. UM, I CAN'T IMAGINE ANYTHING THAT THEY WOULD SAY THAT WOULD GREATLY CHANGE MY OPINION ON THIS. UH, IT'S A DIFFERENT HEIGHT THAN THE FENCES AROUND IT AND, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S, I-I-I-I-I GUESS I'LL JUST KEEP MY COMMENTS TO THIS ONE 'CAUSE THERE'S TWO OTHER MOTIONS PENDING, RIGHT. UM, BUT YEAH, ON THIS IT JUST, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S A DIFFERENT HEIGHT THAN THE FENCES AROUND IT. I GUESS THAT'S, THAT'S THE END OF WHAT I GOTTA SAY. DISCUSSION OF THE MOTION. MR. H IS, UH, MY, MY, UH, SECOND OF THIS MOTION IS PRETTY MUCH BASED ON THEY HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HERE. THEY HAD WOULD I WOULD'VE BEEN HAPPY TO, UH, UH, POSTPONE THIS IF THEY HAD JUST CONTACTED US AND SAID SOMETHING CAME UP. WE'RE NOT ABLE TO GET THERE TO, WE HAVE THIS SITUATION THAT CAME UP, BUT WE HEARD NOTHING. UM, SO, UH, UM, HAPPY TO GO ALONG WITH THE MOTION. I I'M GONNA SUPPORT THE MOTION BECAUSE WE RESPOND TO WHAT'S IN THE RECORD PRESENTED BY THE APPLICANT, ANALYZED BY THE STAFF AND WHAT'S BROUGHT TO US AT THE PUBLIC HEARING. AND THAT'S, THOSE ARE OUR THREE COMPONENTS. SO, UM, THE BOARD SECRETARY WILL CALL THE MOTION, CALL THE VOTE, UH, WHAT'S PENDING AS BO OA 2 5 0 0 0 0 9 7. A MOTION TO DENY THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR THE EIGHT FOOT HIGH FENCE. MR. FLEMING. AYE. MR. KOVI? AYE. MR. GORN? AYE. MR. CHAIRMAN, AYE. MOTION TO DENY PASSES FOUR TO ZERO. NEXT MOTION MR. FLEMING? TWO OF THREE. I MEAN, IF ANYONE ELSE WANTS TO MAKE NOTE, NOPE. TO YOU GOT IT. OKAY. SURE. I WELL, I I, I GRANT THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPEAL NUMBER BO 8 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 9 7 ON APPLICATION OF A SANCHEZ GRANT. THE REQUEST TO THIS APPLICANT TO CONSTRUCT AND OR MAINTAIN OFFENSE WITH A PANEL HAVING LESS THAN 50% OPEN SURFACE AREA LIKE A LESS THAN FIVE FEET FROM THE FRONT LOT LINE AS THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION OF THE SURFACE AREA OPENED THIS REQUIREMENT FOR FENCES IN THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE. BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND TESTIMONY SHOWS THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTY, I FURTHER MOVE THAT THE FOLLOWING CONDITION BE IMPOSED TO FURTHER THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE. COMPLIANCE WITH THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF ALL SUBMITTED PLANS ARE REQUIRED. IT'S BEEN MOVED IN BO A 2 5 0 0 0 0 9 7 TO GRANT THE REQUEST FOR, UH, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR LESS THAN 50% OPEN SURFACE AREA. IS THERE A SECOND HEARING? NO SECOND, THE MOTION FAILS. THE CHAIR WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION. MR. HOPKOS, I MOVE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. THE APPEAL NUMBER BO OA TWO FIVE DASH 0 0 0 0 9 7 OF APPLICATION OF JESUS SANCHEZ DENIED A SPECIAL EXEMPTION REQUESTED TO CONSTRUCT AND OR MAINTAIN OFFENSE FOR PANELS HAVING LESS THAN 50% OPEN SURFACE AREA LOCATED LESS THAN FIVE FEET FROM THE FRONT HOTLINE, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION OF THE SURFACE AREA OPENNESS BY THIS APPLICANT WITHOUT PREJUDICE BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT THIS SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTY. IT'S BEEN MOVED BY MR. KOVIC AND BO A 2 5 0 0 0 0 9 7 TO DENY THE [03:50:01] SPECIAL EXCEPTION REQUEST FOR LESS THAN 50% OPEN SURFACE AREA WITHOUT PREJUDICE. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. SECOND BY MR. DORN DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION, MR. HAITZ? UH, AGAIN, UM, ON THE BASIS OF NO ONE APPEARING AND PROVIDING ANY EVIDENCE, UM, EITHER TO DENY MR. DORN I AGREE 100%. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? MR. FLEMING? I'LL JUST SAY THAT ON THE BASIS OF THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY STAFF, IT SEEMED TO ME LIKE ALL THE OTHER HOUSES ALONG THE WAY DID HAVE, UH, FENCES THAT WERE PRETTY OPAQUE. SO I'M TOTALLY COMFORTABLE WITH IT, BUT OKAY. THE BOARD SECRETARY WILL CALL THE VOTE. MR. DORN. AYE. FLEMING? NO. MR. HAITZ? AYE. MR. CHAIRMAN, AYE. MOTION, MOTION TO DENIED PASSES 3, 2, 1 IN THE MATTER BO 8 2 5 0 0 0 0 9 7. THE BOARD ON A VOTE OF THREE TO ONE DENIES THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION REQUEST FOR A A LESS THAN 50% O OPACITY, UH, WITHOUT PREJUDICE. LAST MOTION. MR. FLYNN. I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER BO A 2 5 0 0 0 0 9 7 ON APPLICATION OF JESUS SANCHEZ DENY THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION REQUESTED BY THIS APPLICANT TO MAINTAIN ITEMS IN THE VILLAGE ABILITY TRIANGLE TO DRIVE APPROACHING ALONG SOUTH POLK STREET WITH PREJUDICE BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND THE TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT GRANTING THE APPLICATION WOULD CONSTITUTE A TRAFFIC HAZARD. OKAY. IN BO OA 2 5 0 0 0 0 9 7, UM, ON THE, UH, HAS BEEN MOVED TO DENY THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION REQUEST FOR THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE WITH PREJUDICE. IS THERE A SECOND? I'M GONNA SECOND IT FOR DISCUSSION. OKAY. MR. FLEMING MAKE YOUR CASE OF WHY IT SHOULD BE WITH PREJUDICE VERSUS WITHOUT. SURE. I I'M OPEN TO ANYTHING. UH, BUT, UH, IT'S, IT'S A, A DIVIDED, IT'S A BUSY DIVIDED ROAD. UH, YOU KNOW, HAVING A, A DRIVEWAY ENTERING OUT ONTO IT AT ALL SEEMS BONKERS AND MAKING EXCEPTIONS TO THE VISIBILITY TO HAVE A DRIVEWAY OUT ONTO THAT BUSY STREET SEEMS VERY ILL ADVISED. I FEEL TOTALLY COMFORTABLE SAYING THAT THAT'S A FIRM NO. FROM US. UH, SO I WOULD AGREE WITH YOU IN CONTEXT. I JUST ALWAYS HESITATE WITH PREJUDICE BECAUSE THAT'S A TWO YEAR WINDOW. BUT THE QUESTION FOR US IS, AND SAY ABSENT ANYTHING IN FRONT OF US, BUT QUESTION IS WOULD HOW OR WOULD THE, WHAT WOULD A REAPPLICATION LOOK LIKE? WHAT'S GONNA REALISTICALLY CHANGE? YEAH, I, I'M JUST SAYING THEY COULD ASK ME EVERY DAY FOR THE REST OF MY LIFE AND I'D SAY NO IN EACH OF THEM. SO I I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH RE JUST, BUT I'M FINE. DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION. MR. DORM, YOU HAVE DISCUSSION. WELL, IF THE APPLICANT CAME BACK WITH SOMETHING THAT WAS OUT OF THAT VISIBILITY TRIANGLE, THEN THEY WOULD REMOVE THIS ONE AS ONE OF THEIR REQUESTS. SORRY, WHAT'S THAT? IF THE APPLICANT DID COME BEFORE THE BOARD, AGAIN WITHOUT IMPEDING THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE, THEY WOULD JUST REMOVE THIS REQUEST. THE EFFECT OF A, UH, A WITH PREJUDICE IS TWO YEARS. THEY CANNOT COME BACK FOR TWO YEARS ABOUT ANYTHING REGARD NO. INVOLVED IN THIS. LET'S, THIS COMPONENT, IS IT THE, THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE THING? I'M FIRM NO. FOR THE REST OF THE TIME. THE, THE REST OF THE STUFF. WELL, I'LL HEAR NOW. WELL LET'S SAY BASED ON INFORMATION YOU KNOW NOW. SURE. JUST THAT WAY, YOU KNOW, 'CAUSE WE ALWAYS, IT'S FUNCTION OF WHATEVER SURE, SURE, SURE. PRESENT BUT I HEAR YOUR, YOUR, YOUR VITROL I HEAR YOU. SO WITH, WITH PREJUDICE MEANS THE APPLICANT CANNOT COME BACK FOR TWO YEARS? YES. OKAY. I'M WITH YOU. SO TO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, I'M, I'M FINE WITH THINGS THAT DON'T AFFECT IF THEY HAVE REQUESTS THAT AREN'T, IS IT OKAY TO OBSTRUCT THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE AS I'M GOING FROM MY DRIVEWAY TO A BUSY STREET? I'LL HEAR THOSE ALL DAY, BUT THAT'S ALL I'M DENYING RIGHT. IS JUST THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE STUFF. WELL, WE'RE TALKING, I'M COMFORTABLE WITH THAT. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE ON, UH, AS A EGRESS POLK POLK POLK. MR. , CAN YOU CONVINCED ME, UH, I WILL SUPPORT THIS MOTION. SO FOR ME, AND THIS IS TALKING TO MR. DORN, SO YOU AND I CAN TALK ABOUT THIS. SO WHAT WE'RE HEARING IS CONDITIONS AREN'T GONNA CHANGE. THIS IS SOMEONE ENTERING WITH NO VISIBILITY, NO LINE OF SIGHT ON A SIX LANE DIVIDED ROAD. AND IS THAT REALLY GONNA CHANGE? THAT'S NOT, YES, [03:55:01] THEY CAN GET A WAIVER TO THE TWO YEAR IF THEY SAY CONDITIONS HAVE CHANGED THAT WELL, THEY, THE FIRST TWO WERE DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, WHICH MEAN THEY CAN COME BACK TOMORROW AND THEY DON'T HAVE TO REPROVE ANYTHING. THEY CAN REPRESENT WHAT THEY HAVE THIS, AS PROPOSED SAYS, DON'T COME BACK TO US FOR TWO YEARS UNLESS YOU PREVIEW. YOU COME TO US FIRST AND SAY CONDITIONS HAVE CHANGED AND THEY HAVE TO PROVE, FIRST OF ALL, CONDITIONS OF CHANGE. AM I CORRECT MS. BOARD ATTORNEY? ISN'T THAT THE, THE GIST THAT IS CORRECT. SO IT, IT'S A HARSH PENALTY. A TWO YEARS IS HARSH AND USUALLY IT'S WHEN SOMEONE'S CAUGHT FIBBING MM-HMM . OR ABUSING THE ACCESS OVER AND OVER. AND IT'S A A WAY OF SAYING DON'T TALK TO US UNLESS SOMETHING HAS, HAS REALLY CHANGED. NOW, WE'VE HEARD ONE MEMBER SAY VERY OUTSPOKENLY, HE CANNOT IMAGINE CHANGING. HE'S OF COURSE OPEN TO EVIDENCE, BUT HE CANNOT IMAGINE IT. SO IF TO HIM IT'S, SO I'M NOT TRYING TO CONVINCE YOU, I'M JUST TALKING ALOUD ONE WAY OTHER, UM, I THINK GUYS WE SHOULD DO IT WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND JUST LET THE NORMAL COURSE OF ORDER. AND THE PROBLEM WITH THAT IS, I WOULD AGREE WITH YOU, I CAN'T IMAGINE ME AGREEING FOR ON A THREE LANE DIVIDED, SIX LANE DIVIDED WITH A VISIBILITY. AND WE GENERALLY SAY NO, NO TO MOST VISIBILITIES, BUT, YOU KNOW, IT'S ALL FUNCTIONAL FACTS. YEAH, I, I, UM, TOTALLY HAPPY TO BE FLEXIBLE ON THIS. I I'M, I'M HAPPY TO WITHDRAW THE MOTION. I I DEFINITELY TAKE YOUR COUNSEL ON THIS STUFF AND, UH, APPRECIATE SHARING YOUR EXPERIENCE. WELL, I'M JUST WITH, WITH PREJUDICE IS TOUGH. SURE. I, I WITHDRAW. IT'S WITHDRAWN. OKAY, SO YOU'RE JUST GONNA HAVE, ALRIGHT, SO ARE YOU GONNA WITHDRAW? WOULD YOU ACCEPT HIS WITHDRAWN. YOU, YOU SECONDED. DID I DID NOT. OH, I DID WE DID YOU HAVE DISCUSSION? OH, FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSE. OH, I WITHDRAW. OKAY. WOULD YOU RE THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR DISCUSSION. WOULD YOU REFILE YOUR MOTION? YES. . I'M SORRY. WELL, I GUYS WITH PREJUDICE IS A HIGH BAR MOVE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER B BO OA 2 5 0 0 0 0 9 7 ON APPLICATION OF JESUS SANCHEZ. DENY THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION REQUESTED BY THIS APPLICA BY THIS APPLICANT TO MAINTAIN ITEMS IN THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE THAT THE DRIVE APPROACH ALONG SOUTH POLE CREEK WITHOUT PREJUDICE BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT GRANTING THE APPLICATION WOULD CONSTITUTE A TRAFFIC HAZARD IN THE MATTER. BO 8 2 5 0 0 0 9 7. MR. FLEMING HAS MOVED TO DENY THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION REQUEST FOR THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE WITHOUT PREJUDICE. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND, SECOND BY MR. DORN. ANYTHING ELSE NEED TO BE SAID? I MEAN, WE'RE ALL OPEN TO NEW INFORMATION. WE ALL HAVE OUR OPINION. WE'RE ALL OPEN TO NEW INFORMATION, BUT I, I AGREE. ALRIGHT. THE BOARD SECRETARY WILL CALL THE VOTE. MR. FLEMING AYE. MR. DORN? AYE. MR. HAITZ? AYE. MR. CHAIRMAN? AYE. MOTION TO DENY PASSES 4 2 0 IN THE MATTER BO OA 2 5 0 0 0 9 7. THE BOARD ON A VOTE OF 40 ZERO DENIES THE REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. OKAY, MOVE TO ADJOURN. UH, OKAY. OUR NEXT MEETING RIGHT BEFORE I'LL TAKE THAT, OUR NEXT MEETING IS MAY, WHAT DID WE SAY? MAY 19TH, UH, WE'LL HAVE A FULL BOAT AGAIN. SO WE MAY START AT 10 O'CLOCK AGAIN THAT DAY. IT'S NOT BAD. GATING OUT AT FIVE, BUT, ALL RIGHT. SO THAT BEING THE CASE, UH, THERE'S BEEN A MOTION TO ADJOURN. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. THOSE OPPOSED? WE WE STAND ADJOURN AT 5:15 PM BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PANEL. A THANK YOU. * This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.