* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting. [00:00:01] ALL [CALL TO ORDER] RIGHT. GOOD MORNING EVERYONE. IT IS MAY 21ST, 2026 AT 9:32 AM THIS IS THE BRIEFING OF THE DALLAS CITY PLANT COMMISSIONER, MS. LOPEZ, CAN WE START OFF WITH THE ROLL CALL? GOOD MORNING COMMISSIONERS. DISTRICT ONE COMMISSIONER SIMS. I'M HERE. DISTRICT TWO. COMMISSIONER HAMPTON. PRESENT DISTRICT THREE. VICE CHAIR HERBERT? DISTRICT FOUR IS VACANT. DISTRICT FIVE. COMMISSIONER SERRATO. PRESENT? DISTRICT SIX. COMMISSIONER CARPENTER. DISTRICT SEVEN. COMMISSIONER WHEELER, REAGAN. DISTRICT EIGHT. COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN. DISTRICT NINE. COMMISSIONER KONS. PRESENT? DISTRICT 10. COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT. HERE. DISTRICT 11. COMMISSIONER COX HERE. DISTRICT 12. COMMISSIONER KAUFMAN. HERE. DISTRICT 13. COMMISSIONER HALL HERE. DISTRICT 14, COMMISSIONER KINGSTON AND PLACE 15 CHAIR RUBIN? I AM HERE. YOU HAVE QUORUM, SIR. GREAT. THANK YOU SO MUCH. AS A REMINDER TO [BRIEFINGS] EVERYONE, THIS IS THE BRIEFING. UM, WE'LL HAVE TIME FOR DISCUSSING THE MATTERS ON THE MERITS THIS AFTERNOON. THIS IS JUST FOR US TO ASK QUESTIONS OF STAFF. UM, WE WILL START OFF WITH OUR CONSENT AGENDA. UM, ITEM ONE. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT NEEDS TO BE BRIEF, BUT COMMISSIONER OR VICE CHAIR HERBERT ISN'T HERE, SO WE WILL, UM, CIRCLE BACK AROUND TO HIM AND I JUST REC REALIZE THAT MS. BLUE HAS AN ANNOUNCEMENT TO MAKE, SO WE'LL BOUNCE TO HER. GOOD MORNING CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS. I JUST WANTED TO ANNOUNCE THAT WE HAVE A NEW ADDITION. HAMER SHERMER. SHE WAS OVER AT THE SUBDIVISION DEPARTMENT, NOW SHE'S HERE WITH US AT, UH, CURRENT PLANNING. SHE'S PART OF THE SPECIAL ZONING PROJECT TEAM, SO YOU WILL SEE HER MORE DOING, UH, MINOR AMENDMENTS AND DEVELOPMENT PLANS AND ALSO FULL ZONING CASES. SO I JUST WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW, GUYS KNOW TO WELCOME HER IN TO THE CURRENT, UH, PLANNING TEAM, UM, AS OF TODAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU SO MUCH AND, AND WE ARE SO HAPPY TO HAVE YOU. UM, I KNOW YOU'VE BEEN A FACE THAT WE'VE SEEN BEFORE, BUT HAPPY TO HAVE YOU IN THIS, THIS NEW CAPACITY. OKAY. COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN DID WANT NUMBER TWO BRIEF, BUT HE, UM, HASN'T JOINED US YET, SO WE WILL CIRCLE BACK AROUND TO THAT ONE. UH, COMMISSIONER SIMS, DO WE NEED ITEM THREE? I DO NOT. MR. CHAIR. OKAY. ANYONE HAVE QUESTIONS ON ITEM NUMBER THREE? OKAY. NUMBER FOUR IS GOING TO BE HELD. DATE IS STILL BEING DETERMINED. FIVE IS COMING OFF. CONSENT. COMMISSIONER SIMS, YOU WANT THAT ONE BRIEFED? DO NOT NEED A BRIEF. ANYONE HAVE QUESTIONS ON ITEM NUMBER FIVE? OKAY. AND ITEM NUMBER SIX IS COMING OFF BECAUSE COMMISSIONER SERATO HAS A CONFLICT, BUT I DON'T BELIEVE IT NEEDS TO BE BRIEFED UNLESS ANYONE HAS QUESTIONS FOR STAFF. OKAY. WE WILL MOVE TO OUR UNDER ADVISEMENT CASE. UM, I'LL BE COVERING IT SINCE THE D FOUR CASE. MR. BATE, CAN WE GET A BRIEF BRIEFING ON, WE DON'T NEED, YOU KNOW, EVERY SINGLE SLIDE, BUT JUST THE GUTS OF WHAT'S HAPPENED SINCE IT'S COME BACK TO US. THERE WE GO. GOOD MORNING, COMMISSIONERS. THIS IS CASE Z 26 0 0 2. SORRY, LET ME JUST RAM REMOVE SOME OF THESE THINGS HERE. OKAY, THERE WE GO. UH, THIS CASE IS AN APPLICATION FOR A NEW PD FOR WR THREE WALKABLE URBAN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT USES WITH CONSIDERATION FOR WR THREE. JUST TO REFRESH EVERYONE'S MEMORY, IT WAS ORIGINALLY NOTICED JUST AS A STRAIGHT WR THREE ZONING DISTRICT. UH, THE APPLICANT WAS REQUESTING THAT IT BE RENO FOR A PD, SO WE RE-NOTICE IT TO THIS MEETING WITH A PD, UH, JUST UNDER AN ACRE IN SIZE, UH, LOCATED IN KIND OF THE SOUTH CENTRAL PART OF DALLAS. HERE'S ARIEL MAP SHOWING THE SITE. IT'S ON OVERTON ROAD CLOSE TO ILLINOIS AVENUE. UM, THE IMMEDIATE SURROUNDINGS, SO IT IS ZONED R FIVE, A SINGLE FAMILY. THERE'S AN MF TWO TO THE NORTHWEST OF THE SITE, THEN CS TO THE SOUTHWEST, UH, JUST BUFFERED BY ONE R FIVE LOT. UH, THERE'S A MIX OF [00:05:01] COMMERCIAL AND RETAIL USES DOWN THERE, LARGELY AUTO ORIENTED. UH, SO THE AREA OF REQUEST IS DEVELOPED WITH A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE AND THEY WISH TO BUILD TOWN HOMES. UH, PREVIOUSLY THE INFORMATION WE HAD WAS THAT THEY WISHED TO JUST BUILD BROADLY MULTI-FAMILY. UPON FURTHER REVIEW, THEY INDICATED THEY WISH TO BUILD TOWNHOUSES. UM, AS SUCH, APPLICANT REQUESTS A NEW PD FOR WR R THREE, BLOCKABLE ROAD, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH. SO THESE ARE THE SITE PHOTOS. AS YOU CAN SEE, THE, UH, SITE ON OVERTON DRIVE, NOT SHOWING OFF JUST SOME OF THE DIFFERENT VIEWS THERE AND ANGLES. UH, THERE'S THE AERIAL THAT I TOOK SHOWING THE MF TO THE NORTHWEST. UH, THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. SO WHAT WE'RE SHOWING HERE ARE THE EXISTING R FIVE, THE PROPOSED PD, AND FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PLAN COMMISSION. WE ALSO INCLUDED AN ALTERNATE FOR MF TWO A. UM, IT'S NOT PART OF THE OFFICIAL RECOMMENDATION OR ANYTHING, BUT THE COMMISSION COULD RECOMMEND THAT IN LIEU, UM, 'CAUSE IT'S QUOTE UNQUOTE LESS INTENSIVE DISTRICT. UH, BUT THE MAIN DEVIATIONS HERE THAT WE SEE ARE SOME DEVIATIONS FOR THE TOWNHOUSE BUILDING TYPE. SO AS A QUICK REFRESHER ON ARTICLE 13 FORM-BASED DISTRICTS, THE WAY THOSE WORK IS THAT THE DISTRICTS ALLOW CERTAIN BUILDING TYPES AND EACH OF THOSE BUILDING TYPES HAS ITS OWN DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS THAT PERTAIN TO THAT BUILDING TYPE IN ADDITION TO WHATEVER THE ZONING DISTRICT ALLOWS. SO FOR INSTANCE, WR THREE LIMITS YOU TO LIKE THREE AND A HALF STORIES IN HEIGHT, AND IT DOESN'T ALLOW CERTAIN COMMERCIAL BUILDING TYPES, WHEREAS WM U THREE, SAME HEIGHT LIMIT, BUT IT ALLOWS ADDITIONAL BUILDING TYPES. UH, THE MAIN DEVIATIONS THEY'RE ASKING FOR IS A REDUCTION IN THE SIDE SETBACK FOR FIVE FEET MINIMUM RATHER THAN 10 FEET MINIMUM. UH, THE HEIGHT WOULD BE LIMITED TO 36 FEET FOR THE TOWNHOUSE BUILDING TYPE AND THAT THE PRIMARY STREET FRONTAGE REQUIREMENT BE REQUIREMENT BE REDUCED FROM 70% TO 50%, UH, LOCATED IN THE FOUR DALLAS 2.0 PLACE TYPE. IT'S CITY RESIDENTIAL, WHICH DOES CALL FOR JUST MORE MORE DENSE DEVELOPMENT, UH, WHICH IS WHY WE THINK MF TWO COULD BE APPROPRIATE BECAUSE IT WOULD ALLOW FOR A SMALL LOT SIZE FOR SINGLE FAMILY USES SHOULD THEY WISH TO BUILD IT AS WHAT WE CALL WHAT THE AVERAGE PERSON CALLS A TOWNHOUSE, BUT ALSO GIVE THE OPTION FOR MULTIFAMILY AND IT WOULD HAVE SOME OF THE REDUCED SETBACKS JUST TO SHOW OFF HERE, IT ACTUALLY WOULD'VE NO SETBACK REQUIREMENT FOR A SINGLE FAMILY. THE YEAH, CITY RESIDENTIAL IS CONSIDERED A PRIMARY USE AND SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED IS ACTUALLY CONSIDERED SECONDARY. UH, IT DOES RECOMMEND STEPPING DOWN IN HEIGHT. WR THREE PROVIDES STRICTER DESIGN STANDARDS AND THE PD WAS REQUESTED FOR HEIGHTENED SIDE YARD MODIFICATIONS. AGAIN, MF TWO DOES PROVIDE SOME FLEXIBILITY, BUT IT DOES HAVE FEWER DESIGN STANDARDS. SO THAT'S THE TRADE OFF THE CONDITIONS. AS MENTIONED, IT APPLIES TO THE TOWNHOUSE BUILDING TYPE. IT ELIMINATES RPS TO ALLOW THAT HEIGHT, WHICH WAS ACTUALLY ONE OF THE REASONS STAFF FELT COMFORTABLE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE PD. HERE. UH, THE FORM-BASED DISTRICTS ARE SUBJECT TO RPS AND THAT SOMETIMES HAS THE ODD EFFECT OF LIMITING A SITE THAT'S THIS NARROW TO A LOWER HEIGHT THAN EVEN WHAT'S CURRENTLY ENTITLED. SO THE RRP S THE, THE SIZE OF THIS SITE WOULD'VE LIMITED ANYTHING ON THERE TO ABOUT 26 FEET. MAYBE YOU COULD EEK OUT 28 FEET IN SOME PART IN THE CENTER, BUT GENERALLY IT WAS LIMITED TO THAT VERSUS THE CURRENT R FIVE IS 30 FEET. UH, WE ACTUALLY HAD A PD A WHILE BACK FOR WR THREE WHERE THE ONLY THING WE CHANGED WAS THE RRP S BECAUSE EVERYTHING THERE WAS EITHER FORM BASED OR MF TWO, UH, AND TO IN ADVANCE OF SB EIGHT 40. POTENTIAL QUESTIONS. UM, IT DEPENDS ON THE CONFIGURATION OF THE SITE. IF IT'S DEVELOPED AS A MULTI-FAMILY SITE, WHICH IS MULTIPLE DWELLING UNITS ON ONE LOT, SB EIGHT 40 APPLIES, SO IT OVERRIDES THE HEIGHT LIMITS, ET CETERA. UH, IF IT'S BUILT OUT AS INDIVIDUAL DWELLING UNITS ON INDIVIDUAL LOTS, THAT SINGLE FAMILY SB EIGHT 40 DOES NOT APPLY. A RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED NEW PD SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS. THANK YOU, MR. BATE. ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. BATE ON THIS ITEM? MR. HALL? MR. BATE, UM, SIDE YARD SETBACKS FIVE FEET, IS THAT FIVE FEET FROM THE SIDE OF THE UNIT TO THE FENCE LINE AND THEN ANOTHER FIVE FOOT TO THE NEXT HOUSE? OR IS IT FIVE FOOT BETWEEN THE TWO HOUSES? THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION ACTUALLY. I THINK IT WOULD BE, IT WOULD DEPEND I THINK PARTLY ON HOW THE SITE IS BUILT. AND MICHAEL, DO YOU WANT, DO YOU HAVE SOME INFO IF THEY'RE GONNA BUILD THEIR, THEIR PLAN IS TO BUILD IT OUT AS A SHARED ACCESS DEVELOPMENT, CORRECT? I THINK IT WOULD BE A SHARED ACCESS, YEAH, THAT'S PLAN. THAT'S PLAN A WELL, IN A SHARED ACCESS DEVELOPMENT SIDE, SETBACKS ARE ASSESSED AT THE MARGINS OF THE PROPERTY, NOT INTERNALLY. SO IF I SPLIT MY PROPERTY UP, IF I DO A SHARED ACCESS DEVELOPMENT IN ANY OLD ZONING, UM, AND I SPLIT IT UP, THE SETBACKS ARE ASSESSED AT THE SIDE. SO THAT FIVE, IF, IF THEIR PLAN IS, IS TOWNHOUSES ON INDIVIDUAL LOTS, THAT'S GOTTA BE ON THE SIDE MARGIN OF THE PROPERTY, NOT INTERIOR. YEAH. SO THEY WOULD STILL BE ABLE TO DO ATTACHED HOUSES, UM, ATTACHED TOWNHOUSES, UH, WITHIN THE SHARED ACCESS ITSELF. OKAY. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT? [00:10:01] UM, VERY WELL. COULD HAVE BEEN, I WASN'T LISTENING, BUT IT WAS A REALLY, IT WAS GOOD BRIEF. UH, WHAT CHANGED BETWEEN NOW AND THE LAST TIME WE SAW THIS? YES, THE APPLICANT HAD REQUESTED A PD, UM, SO IT WAS INITIALLY NOTICED FOR STRAIGHT WR THREE ZONING. OKAY. UH, AS THE APPLICANT WAS WORKING ON THEIR SITE PLAN, UH, FOR WHAT THEY WISHED TO DEVELOP, UH, NORMAL RWR THREE WOULDN'T HAVE WORKED FOR THEM. THEY NEEDED A LITTLE BIT OF RELIEF ON THE SIDE, SETBACKS AND A LITTLE BIT OF RELIEF ON THE PRIMARY STREET FRONTAGE TO BUILD TO THEIR DESIRED DESIGN. UM, SO IT WAS RENO BY THE COMMISSION FOR PD. OKAY. UM, AND AT THAT POINT THEY PROVIDED SOME CONDITIONS TO US AND WE MADE SOME REVISIONS. ALRIGHT, THANKS. APPRECIATE IT. COMMISSIONER COX. MR. BATE, WOULD YOU COMMENT ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD OPPOSITION, UH, THAT EXISTS FOR THIS PROJECT? SURE. UH, AS FAR AS I'M AWARE, WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY OPPOSITION TO IT. UH, THE COUNT OF THE REPLY FORMS WHEN THE, WHEN OUR, UM, CBC SECRETARY, UH, PUT ALL THAT TOGETHER YESTERDAY, UH, WE HAD RECEIVED ZERO REPLIES IN FAVOR OR OPPOSITION. UH, I'D GOTTEN A COUPLE CALLS FROM SOME NEIGHBORS ASKING ABOUT THE ZONING CHANGE. THE NOTICE THEY GOT, UH, PRETTY TYPICAL OF FOLKS JUST ASKING, YOU KNOW, WHAT IS THIS FORM AND DO I NEED TO DO ANYTHING? UH, BUT I HAVEN'T HEARD ANY STRONG OPPOSITION OR, UH, SUPPORT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, ONE FOLLOW UP QUESTION ON THE HEIGHTS, UM, THE EXISTING HEIGHT R FIVE IS 30 FEET, YOU'RE RECOMMENDING 36. I APPRECIATE KIND OF THE CONTEXT. EVERYTHING ON THE GROUND APPEARS TO BE ONE STORY, SO COULD YOU HELP ME UNDERSTAND WHY THE 30 FEET WOULDN'T PERHAPS BE MORE APPROPRIATE AS THE EXISTING STANDARD? SURE. I THINK THAT FOR THE, GIVEN THE PLACE TYPE DESIGNATION IN FOR DALLAS, THAT'S THE BIGGEST THING DRIVING THE APPROPRIATENESS OF HEIGHT, IS THAT IT IS DESIGNATED AS RESIDENTIAL, WHICH INDICATES THAT DURING THE FORWARD DALLAS PLANNING PROCESS, AT LEAST, THIS WAS ENVISIONED AS BECOMING A DENSER AND MORE BUILT OUT AREA. UH, FOR THAT REASON, I THINK THAT 36 FEET FOR TOWNHOUSES WOULD BE APPROPRIATE HERE. UH, YOU'D STILL HAVE A FIVE FOOT SETBACK, WHICH WOULD BE, WHICH WOULD MIRROR WHAT THE R FIVE HAS, UH, THE, AND THE RRP S REMOVAL, AGAIN, IT ONLY APPLIES TO THE TOWNHOUSE BUILDING TYPE. IF THEY WERE JUST TO DECIDE THAT THEY WERE GOING TO BUILD A MORE TRADITIONAL MULTIFAMILY BUILDING OF THE APARTMENT BUILDING TYPE, THEN RPS WOULD STILL APPLY THERE AND THAT WOULD ACTUALLY LIMIT THEM TO 26 FEET. UM, WELL, SORRY, SBA 40 WOULD KICK IN THERE, SO DISREGARD WHAT I JUST SAID THERE, , UM, THAT WOULDN'T APPLY THERE, BUT, UH, THE MAIN THING IS THE PLACE TYPE DESIGNATION AS CITY RESIDENTIAL, IT SUPPORTS A GREATER HEIGHT AND TRANSITION TO GREATER HEIGHT. AND I, I HEAR YOU AND I GUESS WHAT I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IS WHAT THE, WHAT'S THE PATTERN ON THE GROUND? MM-HMM . VERSUS EVEN EXISTING ENTITLEMENTS IS A SUBSTANTIAL YES. THE PATTERN ON THE GROUND IS LARGELY ONE STORY, PROBABLY 25 FEET AT THE MIDPOINT, 26 FEET AT THE MIDPOINT IF I HAD TO GUESS. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR THE RESPONSE. ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS? OKAY, THANK YOU MR. BATE. WE WILL MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER EIGHT. THAT'S FOR COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN. SO WE WILL CIRCLE BACK AROUND TO IT AS IS NINE. UM, NUMBER 10, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, DO YOU NEED THAT BRIEF OR QUESTIONS? DOES ANYONE HAVE QUESTIONS ON ITEM NUMBER 10? OKAY, WE'RE ON TO ITEM NUMBER 11. UM, I BELIEVE COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONER KINGSTON HAS A CONFLICT ON THAT, SO LET'S LET HER STEP OUT FOR A MINUTE AND WHY DON'T WE DO A BRIEFING ON THAT ONE. ALRIGHT. ALL RIGHT. CASE Z 25 2 24. AN APPLICATION FOR A NEW PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FOR R FIVE. A SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT USES ON PROPERTY ZONED R 16, A SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT ON THE NORTH LINE OF WALNUT HILL LANE IN THE EAST LINE OF BETTY JANEE LANE, EAST OF MARSH LANE, APPROXIMATELY 3.73 ACRES IN SIZE. NOW YOU'RE NOT HAVING DEJAVU. THIS IS A NEW CASE, UH, LOCATED, UH, IN THE NORTHEASTERN PART OR NORTHWESTERN PART OF THE CITY. KIND OF THE, UH, UM, THE WALNUT HILL NEIGHBORHOOD. UH, THIS IS THE AERIAL MAP SHOWING THE SITE IN QUESTION. IT'S AN L-SHAPED LOT. UH, IT WAS PREVIOUSLY OCCUPIED BY A CHURCH AND WAS DESTROYED DURING THE 2019 TORNADO. UH, THE ZONING MAP, YOU SEE THE R 16 TO THE GENERAL, UH, EAST AND NORTHEAST. THAT ALSO INCLUDES THE CHURCH SITE TO THE SOUTHWEST OF THE, OF THE REQUE AREA REQUEST. AND THEN THE NORTH IS A PD WITH SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT. SO THE WEST IS CR USES AND THE SOUTH IS R 10 AND SOME OTHER, UH, I THINK THERE'S A SMALL PD THERE FOR THAT LOCAL UTILITY. SO [00:15:01] THE SITE IS CURRENTLY VACANT AND THEY WISH TO DEVELOP THE SITE WITH DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY ON SMALL LOTS. AND AS SUCH, THEY'RE REQUESTING A NEW PD. UH, THIS IS THE PHOTO OF THE SITE ON WALNUT HILL LOOKING WEST. UH, A FEW OF THESE PHOTOS I'VE, UH, TAKEN FROM THE PREVIOUS ITERATION OF THIS CASE AS NOTHING HAD CHANGED ON THE GROUND, UM, BUT LOOKING EAST TOWARDS THE FIRE STATION, THEN LOOKING NORTH NORTHWEST TO THE NORTH, NORTHEAST, THEN LOOKING EAST AND SOUTH AND WEST. THEN THIS IS ON SITE LOOKING SOUTH AND TO THE WEST AND TO THE NORTHWEST AND TO THE NORTH AND NORTHEAST, AND THEN TO THE EAST ON THE SITE. THIS IS THE BUILDING PAD OF THE FORMER CHURCH. UH, THIS IS AN AERIAL THAT WAS TAKEN, UH, ABOUT 39 FEET IN HEIGHT. UM, THE LITTLE DRONE STARTED YELLING AT ME AS SOON AS I GOT UP AROUND THAT HEIGHT FOR SOME REASON. SO I HAD TO QUICKLY TAKE A PHOTO THERE THEN LOOKING EAST. AND THE INTENT HERE WAS TO KIND OF SHOW WHAT THE HEIGHT IS FOR THE PORTION THAT WOULD BE ENTITLED TO 36 FEET IN HEIGHT. THE PROPOSED CONDITIONS, SO IT IS A BASE OF R FIVE A, IT WOULD BE A 15 FOOT FRONT YARD, UH, HALF FOOT SIDE YARD, INTERNAL LOTS WHERE THAT'S GIVING SOME WIGGLE ROOM. IN TERMS OF WHAT THE SIDE YARDS ULTIMATELY LOOK LIKE, I BELIEVE THERE'S SLIGHTLY GREATER SIDE YARD ON ONE SIDE VERSUS THE OTHER, UH, 10 FOOT REAR YARD FOR THE INTERNAL LOTS. THE NORTHERN LOTS HAVE A MINIMUM OF 14 FEET, 36 FEET IN HEIGHT, EXCEPT THAT THE NORTHERN LOTS AND THE LOTS ADJACENT TO THE NORTHEASTERN SUBDIVISION ARE LIMITED TO 30 FEET IN HEIGHT. UH, THE 41 41 MAXIMUM NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS AND 60% MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE. THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE IS 1,980 SQUARE FEET, AND IT WOULD BE DEVELOPED AS A SHARED ACCESS DEVELOPMENT. UH, FRONT LOADED GARAGES MUST BE AT LEAST ONE FOOT BACK FROM THE MAIN STRUCTURE OF THE FRONT FACADE. THERE'S PEDESTRIAN SCALE LIGHTING REQUIREMENTS. ALL DOLING UNITS MUST BE WITHIN A HUNDRED FEET OF A SIDEWALK, 10% OF THE OPEN 10, IT HAS A 10% OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT, AND 20,000 SQUARE FEET OF THAT MUST BE CONTIGUOUS. AND THE SECOND STORY FACADE THAT FACED THE NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE OR NORTHEASTERN SUBDIVISION ARE LIMITED TO 10% TRANSPARENCY TO ALLOW FOR CLEAR STORIES. INITIALLY IT WAS ZERO TRANSPARENCY, BUT WE PROPOSED 10% FOR ALLOWING FOR CLEAR STORIES JUST SO SOME NATURAL LIGHT CAN GET IN THERE WHILE STILL GENERALLY PROVIDING THAT SORT OF PRIVACY. UH, THE PARKING IS GOING UNDER 51 A PARKING STANDARDS WITH A ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT OF 0.35 GUEST SPACES PER DWELLING UNIT, A REQUIREMENT FOR A MINIMUM EIGHT FOOT TALL SOLID FENCE ALONG THE EASTERN PROPERTY LINE, AN EIGHT FOOT TALL MASONRY DECORATIVE IRON FENCE ALONG BETTY JANE AND WALNUT HILL FOR SIDEWALKS. WE ARE RECOMMENDING THAT ON THE FRONTAGES OF BETTY JANE AND WALNUT HILL, THAT THERE'S A SIX FOOT SIDEWALK WITH A FIVE FOOT BUFFER. THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED A FIVE FOOT WIDE SIDEWALK ALONG WALNUT HILL WITH NO REQUIRED BUFFER AND THEN NO REQUIREMENTS ALONG BETTY JANE LANE. THIS IS A PROPOSED CONCEPTUAL PLAN. OBVIOUSLY IT'S ALMOST A LITTLE HARD TO SEE THESE, UM, BUT YOU SEE THE CONFIGURATION HERE. THE LOTS TO THE NORTH ARE LARGER THAN THE OTHER LOTS HERE. AND THEN THE WEST TURN LINE OF THE, THE, THE DOWN SHAFT, I GUESS YOU COULD SAY OUR UH, LARGER AS WELL. THIS IS THE 20,000 SQUARE FOOT OPEN SPACE. THE CONTIGUOUS OPEN SPACE, UH, FORWARD DALLAS DOES DESIGNATE AS COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL. AND THIS WAS I THINK THE SUBJECT OF A LOT OF DISCUSSION THE LAST TIME THIS CASE CAME AROUND. THE PRIMARY USES WITHIN THIS ARE SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED, DETACHED, MULTIFAMILY, AND THEN RETAIL OFFICE AND MIXED USE OR SECONDARY USES. OUR ANALYSIS SHOWS THAT WELL, IT'S LOCATED ALONG A MAJOR ROADWAY AND IT HAS PROXIMITY TO RETAIL AND OTHER SERVICES, WHICH COULD MAKE IT SUITABLE FOR DENSER SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT. ADDITIONALLY, WHILE IT DOES HAVE AN ENTITLEMENT INCREASE IN HEIGHTS, THE SITE ALSO TRANSITIONS IN HEIGHT, WHICH IS A THING THAT, UH, THE COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL PLACE TYPE PLACES A LARGE EMPHASIS ON IS TRANSITIONS AND HEIGHTS BY LIMITING THE HEIGHTS TO 30 FEET ALONG THE NORTHERN AND EASTERN PROPERTY LINE, OR NOT THE EASTERN PROPERTY LINE, BUT IN THE NORTHEAST SUBDIVISION ADJACENCY. WE FIND THAT THAT CREATES THAT SORT OF TRANSITION AS THE EXISTING ZONING ON THE GROUND ALLOWS FOR 30 FEET AND HEIGHT. SO WE'RE MATCHING THAT SAME HEIGHT HERE AND IT'S JUST GOING TO SMALLER LOT SIZES AND GREATER COVERAGE THERE. THERE REALLY ISN'T A SUITABLE SINGLE FAMILY ONLY DISTRICT THAT ALLOWS THE DESIRED DENSITY OR LOT SIZES. UH, THE TOWNHOUSE DISTRICTS DO GET CLOSE, BUT THEN THEY HAVE A DWELLING UNIT DENSITY LIMIT THAT I THINK THAT EVER SO SLIGHTLY EXCEEDS OR AT LEAST USED TO EXCEED. UH, AND THEN THERE'S OF COURSE THE MULTIFAMILY DISTRICTS WHICH ALLOW FOR VERY SMALL SINGLE FAMILY LOT SIZES, BUT ALSO ALLOW FOR MULTIFAMILY STAFF'S. RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO A CONCEPTUAL PLAN AND STAFF'S RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS. THANK YOU MR. BATE. UH, QUESTIONS. COMMISSIONER COX. SO THIS CASE OBVIOUSLY CAME UP LAST YEAR, WENT TO COUNSEL, WAS UH, WAS, WAS OPPOSED, UH, I BELIEVE WITHOUT PREJUDICE. SO HERE IT IS AGAIN A FEW MONTHS LATER. WHAT'S CHANGED? UH, THE BIG CHANGES HAVE BEEN A REDUCTION IN DWELLING UNIT COUNT. UM, I BELIEVE THE LAST ITERATION THAT WENT TO [00:20:01] CITY COUNCIL WAS 50 DWELLING UNITS OR THEREABOUTS. THIS ONE IS DOWN TO 41 UNITS. UH, THEY DID INCREASE THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE AS WELL. UH, IT WENT FROM I THINK, 1600 SQUARE FEET TO ABOUT 1900 1950 SQUARE FEET THEREABOUTS. THE CONFIGURATION OF THE SITE CHANGED SLIGHTLY AS WELL. I BELIEVE THE PRIOR ITERATION, IT HAD MORE UNITS ON THE NORTHEASTERN SIDE THAT HAD ADJACENCY WITH BUTELL COURT. THE ADDITION OF THE OPEN SPACE THERE RECONFIGURED IT SUCH THAT THERE'S, ALONG THE NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE, THERE'S I THINK ONE HOUSE THAT HAS ADJACENCY TO BUTELL COURT. THEN YOU HAVE THE OPEN SPACE AND SOME PARKING, AND THEN THE HOUSING CONTINUES ALONG THE EASTERN PROPERTY LINE MORE WITH ADJACENCY TO THE FIRE STATION RATHER THAN BUTELL COURT. THERE WAS ALSO THE ADDITION OF THE, UH, WINDOW LIMITATIONS, WHICH MAY MAY HAVE BEEN IN THE PRIOR ITERATION, BUT REGARDLESS OF WHAT HAS CHANGED SLIGHTLY TO THAT 10% LIMIT, UH, IDEALLY WE WOULD SIMPLY JUST SAY THAT IT'S, UM, YOU KNOW, THERE WAS A QUESTION THAT CAME UP FROM THE PUBLIC ABOUT REQUIRING, UH, HAVING OPACITY REQUIREMENTS AS WELL. UNFORTUNATELY, THAT GETS OUTSIDE OF OUR, UH, OUTSIDE OF OUR, WHAT WE CAN REQUIRE, THAT GETS MORE INTO, SORRY, I'M LOSING MY WORDS HERE. THAT GETS, THAT GETS MORE INTO REGULATING BUILDING MATERIALS, WHICH THE STATE HAS PRETTY MUCH LIMITED US ON. UH, WE CAN HAVE TRANSPARENCY REQUIREMENTS, BUT THAT'S ABOUT IT. UM, THERE'S A FEW DIFFERENT WAYS TO ACHIEVE TRANSPARENCY, WHICH IS A THINK WHY WE'RE STILL ABLE TO DO THAT. UM, BUT THOSE ARE THE MAIN CHANGES THAT HAVE HAPPENED. REDUCTION IN DWELLING UNIT COUNT, THE RECONFIGURATION OF THE SITE INCREASE IN LOT SIZES AND, AND THE OPEN SPACE. SORRY. RIGHT. AND SO PREVIOUSLY, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THERE WAS A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF OPPOSITION, UH, BY THE NEIGHBORHOOD. YES, SIR. TO THE, THE 50, NOW WE'RE DOWN TO 41. WHAT, WHAT ARE YOU HEARING FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD? UH, FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD, I WOULD SAY BROADLY THERE'S STILL, UH, I WOULD SAY SUBSTANTIAL OPPOSITION TO IT. OKAY. SO HOW DOES THE PROPOSED HEIGHT LOT COVERAGE AND UNIT COUNT COMPARE TO THE ADJACENT SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD HOMES ON BETTY LANE AND ROSSER SPECIFICALLY? SURE. UH, COULD YOU REPEAT THE SECOND STREET? ROSSER ROSSER. R-O-S-S-E-R-R-O-S-S-E-R. LEMME PULL THAT ONE UP REAL QUICK, BUT IN TERMS OF THE COMPARISON AND WHILE I PULL THAT UP, UH, IT IS DENSER FOR SURE. IT'S GOING FROM A R 16 DISTRICT, WHICH IS 16,000 SQUARE FEET. UH, MINIMUM LOT SIZE TO, UH, 1900 SQUARE FOOT MINIMUM LOT SIZE. SO THAT'S GONNA DRIVE A FAR GREATER AMOUNT OF DENSITY. UH, THE HEIGHTS, THOSE DO DIFFER, AND IT DOES DEPEND PARTLY ON THE LOCATION WITHIN THE SITE AS WELL, BECAUSE EVERYTHING THAT'S GOING ALONG THE NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE IS THE SAME HEIGHT AS WHAT'S ENTITLED RIGHT NOW. 30 FOOT MAX HEIGHT. IT'S ONLY THE PORT, THE LOTS THAT ARE AWAY FROM THE NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE. SO IF WE PULL, UH, PULL UP THE, HERE WE GO, CONCEPTUAL PLAN, AGAIN, ALL OF THESE PROPERTIES HERE WHERE MY CURSOR IS, AND HOPEFULLY THAT'S VISIBLE ENOUGH, THOSE ARE LIMITED TO 30 FEET IN HEIGHT. IT'S THE STRUCTURES ALONG HERE WHERE MY CURSOR IS NOW TRAVELING. THOSE ARE THE ONES THAT WOULD BE ENTITLED TO A 36 FOOT HEIGHT. SO THAT WOULD AT LEAST HAVE A TRANSITION OF HEIGHTS WHERE YOU DO HAVE DENSER HOUSES HERE. THEY ARE LARGER LOT SIZES, SO NOT QUITE AS TIGHTLY PACKED AS YOU SEE HERE, BUT THEY WOULD STILL BE RESPECTING THE SAME HEIGHT THAT'S CURRENTLY ENTITLED THERE. UH, THE DENSITY, IT IS GREATER, UM, WHICH WAS, YOU KNOW, A QUESTION THAT CAME UP AS WELL AS THE LOT COVERAGE. AND ONE OF THE, ONE OF THE PARTS OF OUR ANALYSIS THAT I THINK LED US TOWARDS THE FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION BOTH LAST TIME AND THIS TIME IS THAT WHILE THIS IS CERTAINLY A DEPARTURE FROM WHAT IS PREDOMINANT IN THE BROADER AREA, THE SITE ITSELF, THE LOCATION ITSELF, IT'S NOT NESTLED WITHIN THE EXISTING SUBDIVISION. SO IF WE GO WAY BACK TO THE LOCATION MAP, PARDON ME, THERE WE GO. IF WE WERE TALKING ABOUT, LET'S SAY, WHERE MY CURSOR IS NOW, THIS CUL-DE-SAC HERE, EVEN BUTELL COURT, WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING THAT'S ALREADY NESTLED WITHIN A VERY DEVELOPED SUBDIVISION ITSELF, UH, THAT'S WHERE I THINK IT BECOMES MUCH MORE DIFFICULT TO, UH, RECOMMEND A CHANGE OF THIS NATURE WHERE YOU'RE GOING FROM A WHOLE BUNCH OF R 16 AND THEN A VERY DENSE DEVELOPMENT AND THEN A BUNCH OF R 16. IN THIS CASE, THE WAY THAT WE SEE THE SITE, UM, FROM THE AERIALS AND FROM THE PHOTOS HERE, IN STAFF'S OPINION, IT'S THAT THIS IS NOT REALLY A COHESIVE PORTION OF WHAT'S ALREADY BEEN DEVELOPED. IT'S ITS OWN LITTLE NODE. UH, WITHIN THE BROADER CONTEXT HERE, UH, BECAUSE OF THAT, WE DON'T FIND THAT THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS INCOMPATIBLE. THE HEIGHT REGULATIONS, AGAIN, WE FIND THAT THAT CONTRIBUTES GREATLY TOWARDS IMPROVING THAT COMPATIBILITY BECAUSE AGAIN, YOU'RE RETAINING THE SAME HEIGHT THAT'S ALREADY ENTITLED ON [00:25:01] THE GROUND AND THAT'S PREDOMINANT THROUGHOUT THE AREA. UH, WE CAN SEE HERE THAT, UH, FROM THESE HOUSES, UM, THE, THEY GO TO TWO STORIES. THEY HAVE PRETTY STRONG ROOF PITCHES, SO THEY'RE NOT LOW SLUNG ONE STORY HOUSES. UM, WHATEVER WOULD BE DEVELOPED ALONG, ALONG THE NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, PROBABLY PRETTY SIMILAR, BUT FOR THE STRUCTURE SIZE ITSELF, BECAUSE THE LOT SIZES ARE SMALLER. AND SO WITH THAT, WITH ALL THOSE CONSIDERATIONS IN MIND, THAT'S WHY WE FOUND IT, UH, COMPATIBLE. CAN I MENTION ONE MORE COMPARISON? I DIDN'T CATCH ALL OF WHAT YOU SAID. I WAS GONNA MENTION ONE MORE COMPARISON WHILE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE ENTITLEMENTS TO THE NORTH, ENTITLEMENTS TO THE EAST. ALL OF WHAT YOU SAID IS, IS, IS CORRECT. THE ONLY OTHER THING I'D HIGHLIGHT IS THE SETBACKS REAR SETBACKS. SO REAR SETBACKS TO THE NORTH. UM, FOR, UH, THE HOMES ON WIMBERLEY THAT ARE IN A PD, UH, THOSE HAVE A SIX FOOT REAR SETBACK. THESE ONES ON THAT SAME, UM, ADJACENCY WILL HAVE 14 FEET. YEAH. YEAH. SO THEY HAVE ALMOST, THEY HAVE MORE THAN DOUBLE THE REAR YARD THAN WHAT'S THE REAR YARD SETBACK FOR THAT PD TO THE NORTH. AND THEN ON THE EAST WHERE IT'S, UH, A STRAIGHT, OUR DISTRICT, UM, THOSE HAVE A, OH, WHAT ARE THEY, SIX FOOT? THOSE HAVE A SIX FOOT REAR YARD AS WELL. WAIT A SIX FOOT. YEAH. AND THEN THESE ONES WILL HAVE A 10 FOOT IN THE EAST. YEAH. AND THE SIDE YARD FOR THAT PARTICULAR ADJACENCY ALONG BUTELL, SINCE THAT WOULD BE THE EDGE OF THE SHARED ACCESS DEVELOPMENT. RIGHT. THAT'LL BE A FIVE FOOT SIDE YARD RATHER THAN, UH, THE 0.5. AND I KNOW YOU SAID THERE WAS A FEW THINGS I THINK THAT YOU MISSED FROM ME MOVING ON THE, ON THE MIC. HAPPY TO REPEAT ANYTHING THAT, WELL, OBVIOUSLY THE HEIGHT YEP. IS A CONCERN BY THE, THE HOMEOWNERS. IT'S, IT'S A CONCERN FOR ME AS WELL. AND I'M, I GUESS I'M WONDERING WHY STAFF WOULD APPROVE A 36 FOOT HEIGHT IN AN AREA WHERE THE OTHER HOMES ARE LIMITED, UH, TO LESS THAN THAT. MM-HMM . MY UNDERSTANDING IS THOSE, THOSE ARE LIMITED TO 30 FEET. THEY'RE LIMITED TO 30 FEET. YES. RIGHT. AND WHAT, WHAT IS, WHAT'S THE JUSTIFICATION THERE? UH, THE JUSTIFICATION THERE WOULD BE THAT IT DOES, AGAIN, IT ALLOWS FOR THIS TRANSITION IN HEIGHTS AND DENSITIES FROM THE MUCH MORE TRADITIONAL SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENTS TO THE NORTH AND NORTHEAST. AS YOU GET CLOSER TOWARDS THE MAIN THOROUGHFARE, THAT JUST INHERENTLY, I THINK SUPPORTS SOMEWHAT GREATER HEIGHTS. UH, SO IT MAKES THAT POSSIBLE TO DO SO. UH, I WOULD ALSO SAY THAT THERE'S, I THINK THERE ARE EXAMPLES OF DEVELOPMENTS THROUGHOUT BOTH DALLAS AND IN THE BROADER AREA WHERE YOU DO HAVE A MIX OF HEIGHTS. UH, THERE ARE DIVI SUBDIVISIONS OUT THERE THAT HAVE SECTIONS WITH TRADITIONAL LOW, LONG, SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES, AND THEN THEY'LL HAVE TALLER TWO STORY SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES AND THEY MIGHT HAVE TOWNHOUSES CLOSER AGAIN TO A MAJOR THOROUGHFARE. THEY COULD EVEN INCLUDE MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENTS. UH, I DON'T THINK THAT HAVING 36 FEET AND 30 FEET IS INHERENTLY A CONFLICT. UM, I WOULD ALSO SAY THAT THE FACT THAT IT IS BEING PROPOSED AS A, AS A SUBDIVISION, AS ITS OWN, AS ITS OWN, UH, DEVELOPMENT, THE, I GUESS THE BUILDER THERE, THEY HAVE I THINK AT LEAST SOME, UH, INCENTIVE OR DESIRE AS WELL TO ALSO ENSURE THAT THE DESIGN LANGUAGE, THEY USE THE ARCHITECTURAL VERNACULAR. IT'S DONE IN SUCH A WAY THAT TO THE RESIDENTS THERE, IT WOULDN'T BE JARRING TO LIVE ON A HOUSE THAT'S LIMITED TO 30 FEET AND THEN YOUR NEIGHBOR TO THE SOUTH IS 36 FEET. UM, I KNOW THAT OFTENTIMES ONE OF THE BIG ISSUES WE HAVE, I THINK WITH THE HEIGHT DISCREPANCIES WHERE SOMEONE'S TRYING TO REZONE, LET'S SAY THE TH ZONING OR DUPLEX ZONING, IS THAT THE HOUSE IS GOING TO STICK OUT LIKE A SORE THUMB IN THE MIDDLE OF A NEIGHBORHOOD BECAUSE EVERYTHING AROUND IT WAS BUILT BY MAYBE TWO OR THREE BUILDERS IN THE 1940S AND NOW SOMEONE'S COMING IN WITH 2020S ARCHITECTURAL IDEAS, DESIGN IDEAS, ET CETERA, AND IT LOOKS OUT OF PLACE. IN THIS CASE, IT WOULD BE, I THINK, A PRETTY COHESIVE SETUP SUCH THAT I THINK THERE WOULD BE A LOT LESS KIND OF FRICTION OR CONFLICT IN WHEN YOU'RE ON THE GROUND THERE, LOOKING AT THE 30 FOOT HOUSES OVER HERE AND THE 36 FOOT HOUSES HERE, IT'S GONNA BE COHESIVE. IT'LL LOOK LIKE THESE ARE THE TALLER SIBLINGS OF THE HOUSES OVER HERE. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HAMPTON. THANK YOU MR. CHAIR. MR. BATE, UH, I WANT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT EXISTING ENTITLEMENT, WHAT R FIVE BASE VERSUS WHAT'S PROPOSED. HAS STAFF TAKEN A LOOK AT WHAT THAT CALCULATION IS? YEP. OR I'VE GOT IT SOMEWHERE IN HERE. LEMME PULL UP THE REPORT IS THE QUESTION. HOW MANY DWELLING UNITS IN GENERAL COULD BE BUILT ON THERE? OH, THAT WOULD BE AN EASY-ISH CALCULATION. I TRIED TO DO THE MATH, BUT I'LL ASK YOU TO DOUBLE CHECK MY MATH. ABSOLUTELY. LEMME JUST PULL UP THE ACREAGE. I'LL MULTIPLY THAT BY AREA AND THEN DIVIDE BY 5,000. SO ON A [00:30:01] STRAIGHT, JUST, IF YOU WERE TO TAKE 5,000 SQUARE FEET FOR THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE FROM THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE AREA, YOU GET 32.4. UH, OBVIOUSLY YOU COULDN'T MAKE EVERY SINGLE THING ITS OWN LOT 'CAUSE YOU HAD TO AT LEAST PROVIDE A DRIVE THERE. UM, SO LET ME ACTUALLY MULTIPLY THAT BY 5,000 REAL QUICK. LET'S SAY THAT 10% OF THE AREA NEEDS TO BE DEDICATED FOR STREETS AND SUCH, SO I'LL MULTIPLY THAT BY 0.9 AND THEN DIVIDE THAT BY 5,000. SO LET'S SAY JUST FOR A ROUND NUMBER, I'M GETTING 29.2. SO LET'S SAY 29 DWELLING UNITS UNDER R FIVE AND, AND ONE CAN USE A SHARED ACCESS DEVELOPMENT AS A TOOL IN, IN THE BASE IN EITHER THOSE R YEAH, YOU COULD USE SHARED ACCESS WITH R PODS. IT'S, IT'S AN OPTION IF THEY WANNA MAKE THE ROADS A LITTLE SMALLER. UM, THE LOT SIZE STILL MATTERS THERE, BUT YEAH, ACTUALLY SELLING GREAT R SEVEN FIVE SHARED ACCESS THE OTHER DAY ON THAT'S GREAT. HOME. SO 29 30 UNITS, UM, WE'RE OBVIOUSLY WHAT'S BEFORE US TODAY IS A REDUCTION FROM WHERE THEY STARTED. UM, THEY'RE TRYING TO, AS YOU, UM, OUTLINED AND AS WE SEE IN THE CASE REPORT, UM, HAVE SLIGHTLY LARGER UNITS TOWARDS THE IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORHOOD. MM-HMM . WAS THERE ANY CONSIDERATION, IT IS OBVIOUSLY AN L-SHAPED PARCEL. MM-HMM . OF USING THAT L AS MAYBE THE BOUNDARY LINE OF WHERE THE LARGER PARCEL WAS. WAS THERE ANY DISCUSSION WITH THEM WHICH WOULD THEN THEY'VE ESSENTIALLY SPLIT IT AT THE DRIVE AS A LOOK MM-HMM . AS OPPOSED TO SPLITTING IT AT THAT, YOU KNOW, PROPERTY LINE, WHICH SEEMS TO CREATE MAYBE MORE OF A NATURAL BOUNDARY TO WHERE YOU'VE GOT THE COMMERCIAL ZONING VERSUS WHAT'S MORE EMBEDDED WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I'M TRYING TO, I I'M TRYING TO CONCEPTUALIZE, I GET, I GET WHAT YOUR QUESTION IS. I'M TRYING TO KIND OF CONCEPTUALIZE 30 FEET WAS ON THE NORTH EDGE OF THE CORRECT AND 36 CAME DOWN FROM THE EDGE OF THE PROPERTY LINE. IS THAT A MORE NATURAL BOUNDARY FOR WHAT MIGHT BE CONSIDERED RELATED TO THE COMMUNITY, WHICH I, YOU KNOW, WHETHER IT WAS LOT SIZE OR WHETHER IT WAS SIMPLY HEIGHT, WOULD THAT NOT MM-HMM . BE A NATURAL BREAK POINT? SO IF IT WAS TO BE 30 FEET ALONG THE NORTH AS IT IS PROPOSED AND THEN ALSO 30 FEET WHERE MY CURSOR IS RIGHT NOW? CORRECT. GOTCHA. I WOULD SAY THAT IF THESE, YEAH, IF THESE WERE LIMITED TO 30 FEET IN HEIGHT, THAT WOULD CERTAINLY BE VERY COMPATIBLE. UH, WHETHER I WOULD SAY IT'S COMPARABLY MORE COMPATIBLE OR LESS COMPATIBLE, I THINK THAT'S A LITTLE MORE SUBJECTIVE. BUT, UM, IT COULD CERTAINLY WORK AT THIR, WELL FROM A COMPATIBILITY STANDPOINT IT WOULD WORK AT 30 FEET. UH, I CAN'T SPEAK TO THE APPLICANT'S OWN RIGHT DESIGNS AND SUCH, BUT IT WOULD WORK AS 30 FEET. THERE WAS NO CONCEPTUAL PLAN OR OTHER DISCUSSION WITH STAFF THAT WOULD INDICATE THAT WAS UNDER CONSIDERATION? NO MA'AM. OKAY. UM, I THINK YOU KIND OF WENT THROUGH THE SIDE AND THE REAR SETBACKS. UM, THERE'S A PRETTY BROAD SWING BEFORE BETWEEN WHAT'S PROPOSED AND KIND OF WHERE IT SOUNDS LIKE THEY MAY GO. CAN YOU HELP ME UNDERSTAND WHY THAT LOWER THRESHOLD ON THE SIDE YARD, WHAT THAT IS NEEDED FOR? YEAH, SO IN TERMS OF, TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION, IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU'RE ASKING THAT THEY'LL PROBABLY HAVE IN PRACTICE GREATER SIDE YARDS. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE CONFIGURATION OF IT WILL BE WHERE SOME OF THE SIDES, THEY MIGHT BE PRETTY CLOSE TO EACH OTHER AND THEN OTHER SIDES WILL BE GREATER THAN A HALF FOOT AWAY FROM EACH OTHER. UH, I QUICKLY TRY TO COME UP WITH AN EASY WAY TO CODIFY THAT. AND I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE IS AN EASY WAY TO CODIFY THAT UNLESS IT'S VERY REPETITIVE. YOU KNOW, IF YOU SAY THE WESTERN SIDE YARDS FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL LOT MUST BE THIS AND THE EASTERN SIDE YARDS, WHICH THEN GETS TOUGH WHEN YOU SHIFT DOWN TO THE, AGAIN, I'M CALLING IT THE DOWN SHAFT, I'M THINKING OF LIKE A BOOT OR SOMETHING, BUT, UM, THE OR NOT, THAT'S NOT, BUT ANYHOW, THAT GETS A LITTLE CONFUSING TO, I THINK CODIFY ON A LOT BY LOT BASIS. SO BY PUTTING A, JUST THE SHORTER INTERNAL SIDE YARD, IT GIVES THE BUILDER FLEXIBILITY TO SAY, WELL, IT CAN, IT CAN CERTAINLY GO GREATER THAN THAT MINIMUM, BUT IT DOES AT LEAST REQUIRE THAT MINIMUM AND IT DOES HAVE THE END RESULT OF AT LEAST DETACHING THEM PHYSICALLY. UM, WHETHER IT'S AN APPRECIABLE SIDE YARD, UH, I WOULDN'T SAY THAT IT'S APPRECIABLE OTHER THAN IT JUST PROVIDES A LITTLE BIT OF ACCESS SPACE PERHAPS FOR SOME SORT OF UTILITY RUN. BUT, UM, BUT IT DOES PROVIDE THAT DETACHMENT AS WELL. AND THE NORTHERN LOTS HAVE THAT LARGER, MORE TRADITIONAL SIDE EFFECT BUILT IN? WELL THAT THEY DO, YES. WIKIPEDIA RIGHT AT THREE FEET? WELL, THE INTERNAL ONES, YEAH. WHICH IS LESS THAN THE BASE, UNLESS I'M READING THIS INCORRECTLY, EXCEPT FOR THREE FEET ALONG THE NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE, I'VE GOT FIVE FEET IN. UM, OKAY. I'LL CHECK. I'M LOOKING AT THE TABLE, NOT THE LANGUAGE, SO I'LL CHECK WHAT THE ORDINANCE SAYS. THANK YOU. YEAH, THE, THE PD A TEXT, APOLOGIES IF THERE WAS A DISCREPANCY THERE, BUT I'M LOOKING HERE. YEAH, THE PD TEXT SAYS FIVE FIVE FEE AND THE PD TAX, THAT'S WHAT WOULD BE [00:35:01] REQUIRED. OKAY. THANK YOU FOR THAT. FOR THE NORTHERN MIND CLARIFICATION. YES. AND THANK YOU FOR POINTING THAT OUT. WELL, AND FINAL QUESTION ON THE DIAGRAM WHERE IT APPEARS THEY'RE DOING CLUSTERS OF SIX HOUSES, UM, I'M USING HOUSES, BUT TOWNHOUSES, WHAT, HOWEVER THEY GET STYLED ATTACHED, WAS THERE ANY CONSIDERATION OF OPEN SPACE BETWEEN THOSE OR A CENTRAL GREEN, SOMETHING THAT WOULD, YOU KNOW, THIS IS WRITTEN, IT SOUNDS LIKE THIS IS, UM, ESSENTIALLY PAVING IN HOUSE WITHOUT ANY GREEN SPACE. I REALIZE THEY HAVE ACCESS TO THE NORTHERN OPEN SPACE, BUT NOTHING RELATIVE TO EACH OF THESE UNITS. THE, SO FOR THE INTERNAL LOTS, THE MINIMUM REAR YARD IS 10 FEET. UM, I BELIEVE THAT THOSE, YEAH, FOR THIS CLUSTER HERE, THESE WOULD HAVE 10 FOOT REAR YARDS. IS THAT AN ACCURATE READ BETWEEN THEM? OKAY. BECAUSE AND THE YARD, SO THERE WOULD BE 20 FEET TALL, YOU EASILY SHARED ACCESS. THEY'RE NOT ASSESSED INTERNALLY, BUT IN THIS CASE, THEY'RE WRITTEN TO BE ASSESSED INTERNALLY. SO YES. OKAY. THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. AND JUST ONE OTHER CLARIFICATION AGAIN ON THE CONDITIONS HERE. THE MINIMUM REAR YARD ON THOSE NORTHERN LOTS, IT'S ACTUALLY 19 FEET, SO IT'S ACTUALLY MUCH GREATER THAN WHAT'S REQUIRED, I THINK ON R 10 OR R 16. COMMISSIONER CARPENTER. YES, I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS ABOUT DESIGN STANDARDS. UM, IN THE, UM, CASE REPORT, IT SAYS THAT A MINIMUM OF 10% OF THE SITE MUST BE DEDICATED TO OPEN SPACE, AND THAT'S WHAT IT SAYS IN THE PD AS WELL. BUT THE LATEST, UM, REVISED, UM, I KNOW IT'S NOT THE LAYOUT, THE PROPOSED LAYOUT, UM, SHOW THAT THEY WERE ABLE TO ATTAIN 17.3% OPEN SPACE. WAS THERE ANY CONSIDERATION GIVEN TO RAISING THE PERCENTAGE OF OPEN SPACE IN THE PD TO REFLECT WHAT THEIR, THEIR LATEST PROPOSAL SEEMS TO BE SAYING THEY CAN ACHIEVE? WE HADN'T MADE THAT CALCULATION, BUT I THINK IF, CERTAINLY IF THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN IS SHOWING 17.3, THEN RAISING THE OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT TO BE 15% WOULD BE VERY REASONABLE. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. UH, SECONDLY, UNDER THE DESIGN STANDARDS, THERE IS, IT SAYS THE PROPOSED PD INCLUDES THE FOLLOWING DESIGN STANDARDS, MINIMUM DRIVEWAY WIDTH FOR A GARAGE IS 12 FEET MAXIMUM DRIVEWAY LENGTH IS 18 FEET FROM BACK OF CURB TO GARAGE. I DON'T SEE ANY LANGUAGE IN THE PD HAVING TO DO WITH DRIVEWAY WIDTHS OR LENGTHS. DID, WAS THAT INTENTIONAL OR DID THIS GET, UH, IS THIS A REMNANT OF AN EARLIER? I BELIEVE IT WAS A, UH, AS YOU PUT IT IN YOUR EMAIL EARLIER, A VESTIGIAL REMNANT. OKAY. UM, THAT WAS, I THINK JUST FROM THE ORIGINAL, UM, THE ORIGINAL CONFIGURATION. I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE, UH, PROPOSED DRIVEWAY LENGTHS ARE NOW. OKAY. UM, I WOULD, OUR 2 CENTS, OUR PROFESSIONAL 2 CENTS WOULD BE THAT WE DON'T NECESSARILY NEED THAT LANGUAGE IN THERE BECAUSE I THINK ALL THE OTHER REQUIREMENTS OF THINGS LIKE THE, UM, REAR YARDS AND WHATNOT WILL KIND OF FORCE THEM INTO A CONFIGURATION. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? COMMISSIONER KAUFMAN? I KNOW THIS IS PROBABLY, WELL, I WANT YOU TO GO BACK TO THE PART WHERE YOU SAID THAT SOME OF THE SIDEWALKS REQUIREMENTS ARE NOT GONNA BE ADHERED TO. AND EXPLAIN TO ME WHY YOU CHANGED THAT PART. COULD YOU, UH, YOU SAID THE SIDEWALKS, UH, REQUIRED A, UH, SIX FOOT SIDEWALK, AREA OF SIDEWALKS AREA WITH FIVE YARD? UH, YES. YES. SO, BUT THERE WERE TWO OTHER, UH, SPOTS ON THERE THAT YOU SAID THAT THEY WERE NOT GOING TO FOLLOW. THAT I WILL TRY TO, SO OUR, OUR RECOMMENDATION WITHIN THE CONDITIONS IS THAT ALONG BETTY JANE AND WALNUT HILL MM-HMM . WHICH THOSE WOULD BE CONSIDERED THE PUBLIC STREETS. RIGHT. OUR RECOMMENDATION IS THAT THEY PROVIDE A MINIMUM SIX FOOT WIDTH SIDEWALK WITH A FIVE FOOT BUFFER. RIGHT. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING INSTEAD THAT ALONG WALNUT HILL, IT'S A MINIMUM WIDTH OF FIVE FEET, NO BUFFER, AND THEN NO REQUIREMENT ALONG BETTY JANE. UH, FOR THE COMMISSION'S INFO, I'LL SAY, UH, BETTY JANE IS BUILT RIGHT NOW, DOES NOT HAVE SIDEWALKS, UH, WALNUT HILL. I THINK THE SIDEWALK'S PROBABLY AROUND FOUR AND A HALF OR FIVE FEET. UM, OUR, OUR VIEW IS GENERALLY, ESPECIALLY IF WE'RE BUILDING SOMETHING THAT'S CLOSER TO A THOROUGHFARE AND THAT'S CLOSE TO RETAIL, IT'S GOOD TO START BUILDING SIDEWALKS. WE'LL BE THE FIRST TO ADMIT THAT WHAT WOULD BE BUILT ALONG BETTY JANE WOULD BE PRETTY MINOR. 'CAUSE THEIR LOT ONLY HAS SO MUCH FRONTAGE ALONG BETTY JANE, BUT SOMETHING IS BETTER THAN NOTHING. AND THAT'S WHY WE WOULD PROPOSE WE'RE PROPOSING THE CONDITIONS THAT WE'RE PROPOSING. SO YOU DON'T THINK THEY NEED THAT, UH, SIDEWALK THAT THEY WANT TO DO AWAY WITH IT? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE TELLING ME? WE THINK THEY NEED A GREATER BUFFER AND A WIDER SIDEWALK. I DO TOO THAN WHAT THEY'RE REQUESTING. I DO TOO. TIME, TIME FOR, FOR QUESTIONS. COMMISSIONER KAUFMAN, MAKE COMMENTS THIS AFTERNOON. THANK CHAIR. UH, ANYONE ELSE? FIRST ROUND BEFORE WE GO TO A SECOND ROUND? COMMISSIONER HALL, DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING, MR. BATE, COULD YOU COMMENT ON, UH, THIS, UH, LOT MINIMUM LOT SIZE [00:40:01] OF 1,980 FEET. HOW DOES THAT FIT IN THE BROADER SCOPE OF THE CITY OF DALLAS? I MEAN, IT'S WHAT THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING SEEMS TO BE SIMILAR TO DEVELOPMENTS THAT WE SEE IN OTHER DISTRICTS, BUT, UH, COULD YOU JUST COMMENT ON THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE PLEASE? YEAH, THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE, SO 1,980 SQUARE FEET IS, UH, 20 SQUARE FEET SMALLER THAN THE TH DISTRICTS. SO THE TH DISTRICTS ALL ALLOW FOR OR HAVE A 2000 SQUARE FOOT MINIMUM MOD SIZE FOR SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENTS. UM, LOOKING AT, WE MENTIONED, YOU KNOW, WHAT ARE THE OTHER OPTIONS FOR DEVELOPING THIS SORT OF SITE? MF TWO DOES ALLOW 1000 SQUARE FOOT MINIMUM MOD SIZES FOR SINGLE FAMILY. MF ONE I BELIEVE IS 1500 SQUARE FEET OR 2000 SQUARE FEET. IT'S SOMETHING AROUND THERE, BUT MF TWO ALLOWS IT AT 1000 SQUARE FEET. UH, ADDITIONALLY THERE ARE SOME OTHER PDS THAT HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED IN THE PAST OR APPROVED IN THE PAST THAT HAVE MINIMUM LOT SIZES AROUND THIS. I'M TRYING TO PULL THAT LIST UP RIGHT NOW AND IT MIGHT HAVE EVEN BEEN OVER, IT'S IN THE OLD CASE NOTES ON MY LAPTOP. ONE MOMENT PLEASE. BUT THERE ARE ADDITIONAL, THERE ARE PDS IN THE, IN THE CITY THAT HAVE BEEN APPROVED THAT HAVE LOT SIZES AROUND THIS SIZE. I WOULDN'T SAY IT'S UNHEARD OF. I'VE WORKED ON ONES WITH SMALLER LOT SIZES EVEN. BUT THE LONG AND SHORT ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION IS IT'S 20 SQUARE FEET SMALLER THAN THE TH DISTRICT. OKAY. I, I THINK THAT'S ALL I HAVE RIGHT NOW. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? ROUND ONE? COMMISSIONER COX, ROUND TWO. JUST WANT YOU TO EDUCATE ME HERE IF YOU WOULD, WHEN YOU REFER YOU THE TERM BUFFER, IS THAT THE SAME AS A PARKWAY? I BELIEVE SO, YEAH. FOR SIDEWALKS. I'M SORRY, I'M OLD SCHOOL. IT'S A PARKWAY TO ME. YEAH. YEAH. OKAY. THANK YOU. YEP. SAME THING FOR PURPOSES OF PERMITTING, NEITHER OF THOSE TERMS ARE INTUITIVE TO ME. IT'S THE LANDSCAPE SCRIPT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. UH, I HEAR PARKWAY, I THINK OF A NICE DRIVE, BUT I MEAN DRIVING A PARKWAY PARK IN A DRIVEWAY. . OKAY. ANYONE ELSE QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM? ALRIGHT, COMMISSIONER SIMS, DO WE NEED NUMBER 12 IS GOING TO BE HELD RIGHT? THAT THAT'S CORRECT. WHAT DO WE HAVE A DATE ON THAT ONE? UH, A DATE WILL BE ON JUNE 11TH. JUNE 11TH? YES. OKAY. NO BRIEF. ALRIGHT. UM, DO WE NEED NUMBER SIX BRIEFED THE, SORRY, YOU'RE DISTRICT SIX, NUMBER 13 AND YOU WERE DISTRICT 13. OKAY. YEAH, I THINK WE CAN JUST SAVE QUESTIONS ON NUMBER 13 FOR DR. DUNN AT THE HEARING. UM, COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN, I THINK YOU SAID AT LEAST ONE OF YOUR CASES NEEDED TO BE BRIEFED AND WE WERE GONNA WAIT FOR YOU TO, IS THAT, UH, THANK YOU MR. JONES. TWO. SO I'LL NEED A COUPLE OF CASES BRIEFED, BUT STARTING WITH A, THE CONSENT DOC DOCKET. UH, TWO. TWO. OKAY. MR. LEE. OH, AND COMMISSIONER KINGSTON IS REJOINING US. I APOLOGIZE. THAT WENT ON FOR A WHILE AND IT SLIPPED MY MIND. UH, OKAY. THIS IS, COULD YOU, COULD YOU JUST GO TO, UM, FILE IN THE TOP AND THEN DO VIEW MAYBE. THANK YOU. UH, SO THIS IS Z DASH 26 DASH 55. UH, THIS IS AN APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO SPECIFIC USE PERMIT 24 39 [00:45:01] FOR COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLE PARKING ON PROPERTY ZONE CS COMMERCIAL SERVICE DISTRICT, UH, WITH THE RESTRICTIONS Z 2 0 1 DASH 3 45. AND THE PURPOSE OF THIS APPLICATION IS TO AMEND THE SITE PLAN TO ALLOW FOR ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACES, UH, LOCATED IN COUNCIL DISTRICT EIGHT. HERE'S THE AERIAL OF THE PROPERTY. UH, SO CURRENTLY THE PROPERTY IS SERVING AS A A COMMERCIAL VEHICLES PARKING LOT FOR, UM, FOR, UH, SEMI TRUCKS. ESSENTIALLY, UH, THE AREA IS PREDOMINANTLY INDUSTRIAL WITH INDUSTRIAL LAND USE, UH, TO THE NORTHEAST AND SOUTH. UM, AND A SINGLE FAMILY APPROXIMATELY THREE HOMES, UH, TO THE WEST OF THE PROPERTY. THE APPLICANT WISHES TO CONTINUE UTILIZING THE SITE FOR MOTOR VEHICLE PARKING, BUT TO ALLOW FOR ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACE SHEETS. AS SUCH, THAT'S WHY THEY'RE AMENDING THE SUP AND THE, THERE'S A DE RESTRICTION ON THE PROPERTY, WHICH LIMITS SOME OF THE USES WITHIN THE COMMERCIAL SERVICE DISTRICT, UM, BUT DOES NOT AFFECT APPLICATION. HERE'S THE SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING. A COUPLE OF SITE PHOTOS. UH, HERE'S THE SUBJECT. PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING LOOKING TO THE EAST, TO THE NORTH AND TO THE WEST, ADHERE TO DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THE COMMERCIAL SERVICE DISTRICT. HERE IS THEIR PROPOSED SITE PLAN, UH, THE PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PLAN AS WELL AS THE PROPOSED CONDITIONS. UH, CORNER FOUR OF DALLAS. THIS PROPERTY IS IDENTIFIED IN THE LOGISTICS SLASH INDUSTRIAL PARK PLACE TYPE. AND WITH THAT STAFF RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL FOR A FIVE YEAR PERIOD WITH ELIGIBILITY FOR AUTO RENEWAL FOR ADDITIONAL FIVE YEAR PERIOD SUBJECT TO AMENDED SITE PLANNING CONDITIONS. THANK YOU. MR. LEE, DO YOU HAVE QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN? I DO. UH, THANK YOU. UH, MR. LEE, UH, CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE PHOTOS THAT YOU HAVE FOR THE SITE? I . OKAY. SO I, I'LL FIRST LIKE TO JUST ESTABLISH THAT THERE IS AN EX, AN EXISTING SUP FOR, IS IT 24 39 FOR THIS LOCATION? CORRECT. UH, DO YOU HAVE ANY PHOTOS OF THE, UH, OF THE, THE COMMERCIAL PARKING, LIKE INSIDE OF THE FENCE? NO, I DIDN'T GO INSIDE THE PROPERTY. UH, DID YOU? I WOULD SAY WE DON'T GO INSIDE. OH, YOU DON'T. PRIVATE PROPERTY. IF, IF SOMETHING'S PUBLIC, LIKE A, LIKE A STRIP MALL, VERY, VERY CLEARLY PUBLIC PROPERTY, WE, WE MAY GO ON THE PROPERTY, BUT, UH, WITHIN PRIVATE PROPERTY, WE, UH, FOR, FOR SAFETY AND LIABILITY REASONS, WE STAY ON OUR, OUR PUBLIC FRONTAGES. AND USUALLY THAT IS, IS WHAT WE'RE PRIMARILY CONCERNED WITH AS WELL. WELL, WELL, I GUESS MY QUESTION TO YOU IS HOW DO WE DETERMINE, HOW DO YOU ALL AS STAFF DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT A CURRENT SUP IS AT BEING COMPLIED WITH? UH, PART OF THAT IS WORKING WITH OUR, UM, OUR COLLEAGUES IN, IN CODE ENFORCEMENT. SO, UM, IF SERVICE REQUESTS ARE, ARE OUT FOR, FOR THOSE KINDS OF THINGS, THEY HAVE SOME MORE TOOLS. THEY CAN BE, UM, THEY CAN BE, THEY CAN GO ON TO PRIVATE PROPERTY IN, IN A WAY THAT WE CAN'T. UM, BUT, UH, SO THAT'S, THAT'S A BIG THING ABOUT IT. BUT, UM, WE WORK WITH THE APPLICANT AND ASK THEM TO, TO SUBMIT US SOME THINGS AND WE ALSO USE SOME COMMON SENSE WITH THE IMAGERY TOOLS THAT WE HAVE AS, AS WELL. UM, BUT THOSE ARE THE PRIMARY TOOLS. UH, DO YOU TYPICALLY TAKE THAT STEP TO ENSURE THAT A CURRENT SUP IS BID IN COMPLIED WITH PRIOR TO RECOMMENDING AND AMEND AMENDED OR FOR RENEWAL? GENERALLY, YES. AND, AND WE, WE, IT'S IN EVERYONE'S BEST INTEREST THAT AN AN SUP SITE PLAN IS, IS UP TO DATE AND ALL OF THOSE THINGS. DO WE HAVE ANY EVIDENCE THAT, THAT OCCURRED IN THIS INSTANCE? I THINK, I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN, IS THERE SOMETHING SPECIFIC THAT WE'RE REFERRING TO? BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, IT IS A SITE PLAN AMENDMENT, SO PART OF IT IS GOING TO BE A LITTLE DIFFERENT IN THE, IN THE END GOAL THAN WHAT THEY HAVE RIGHT NOW. SO I'M TRYING TO KEEP IT, UH, INTO QUESTIONS. I, AS A PART OF THE CURRENT SUP, THERE ARE LANDSCAPE AND, UH, BUFFER AREA REQUIREMENTS AS A PART OF THE SUP. UH, WHAT EVIDENCE DO WE HAVE THAT THEY'VE ADHERED TO THE 2024, UH, LANDSCAPING AND BUFFERING REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE SUP? I'D SAY THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION [00:50:01] FOR THE APPLICANT. AND THEY SH CAN PREVENT IF THERE'S ANY QUESTION, THEY COULD, UM, THEY COULD PROPOSE SOME, UM, EVIDENCE OR, OR DOCUMENTATION ON THAT. UH, THE OTHER QUESTION, IT MAY BE FOR OUR TRANSPORTATION EXPERT, BUT THE REQUEST IS TO ESSENTIALLY DOUBLE THE PARKING SPACES, PARKING LOT SPACES FOR THIS, UM, COMMERCIAL PARKING LOT. UH, THAT'S QUITE OF A BIT, UH, IT'S A DRAMATIC INCREASE. AND SO, UH, LOOKING AT THE CASE REPORT, IT, IT, IT STATES THAT THERE'S MINIMAL IMPACT. I JUST WANTED TO KNOW WHAT THE ANALYSIS WAS OF HOW WE GOT THERE, CONSIDERING THAT IT IS SUCH A DRASTIC INCREASE IN PARKING SPOTS OVER A TWO YEAR PERIOD. UH, I'LL HAVE TO REFER TO DAVID, UH, NAVAREZ ON THAT ONE, UM, ON HIS ANALYSIS, BUT I KNOW ON THE CASE HE DIDN'T HAVE ANY COMMENTS. IS HE HERE? LET ME SEE IF I CAN GET AHOLD OF HIM, BUT I SEE HE'S ONLINE IT LOOKS LIKE, BUT I'M NOT SURE IF HE'S AT HIS FIGHT. OH, HE HE DID. YEAH, HE, HE'S WATCHING, UM, I'LL SEE IF HE'S GOING TO, TO CHIME IN. UM, BUT REMINDED US THAT THE, THE, THE SIZE OF THE DEVELOPMENT IS ACCOUNTED FOR AND A BIG PART OF IT WAS, UM, IN THE LAST APPROVAL, I THINK THEY, UNDER, THEY HAD A CONDITION AND, AND IT STILL EXISTS FOR INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT. SO NOT JUST THIS PROPERTY, BUT OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE AREA ARE CONTRIBUTING, UH, TO ONGOING IMPROVEMENTS OF, OF INFRASTRUCTURE INCLUDING, UH, SIGNALS. SO I THINK THAT'S, THAT'S PART OF IT. SO A LOT OF IT IS, IS ACCOUNTED FOR. AND HE ALSO LET ME KNOW THAT THERE'S A, THERE'S A MASTER PLAN AND STUDY FOR, FOR TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION IN THE AREA. SO IT'S A LAND USE THAT TRANSPORTATION IS VERY MUCH EXPECTING. UM, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S THERE, IT'S BEEN DEVELOPED, IT'S SUPPORTIVE OF THE OTHER USES, BUT IT'S ALSO, UM, PART OF THE LAND USE PLAN. AND SO I THINK TRANSPORTATION IS, IS PRETTY AWARE OF, OF THAT. AND, AND SO WHEN THEY REVIEWED, THEY DID REVIEW THE SITE PLAN AS WE WENT THROUGH THE ZONING REVIEW TEAM PROCESS TRAFFIC AND, AND THOSE SOURCES CONSIDERATIONS DID NOT REALLY, UH, RAISE ANY ALARMS. UM, AND, AND THOSE, SO THEY'RE STILL, THEY STILL HAVE THAT, UM, IMPROVEMENTS, UH, EXCUSE ME, THE TRAFFIC, THE INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS CONDITION IN THEIR PD OR EXCUSE ME, IN THEIR SUP CONDITIONS. AND SO THOSE, THOSE REMAIN SO PART OF THAT THEY'RE, THEY'RE GOING TO PAY AND CONTRIBUTE TO THE SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS. OKAY. WELL I HAVE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT LATER. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF DURING OUR BRIEFING THIS MORNING? COMMISSIONER CARPENTER? OKAY, WE'LL START WITH COMMISSIONER CARPENTER THEN. COMMISSIONER WHEELER, REAGAN. UM, I DON'T SEE PAVING MATERIALS ADDRESSED ANYWHERE HERE. DO WE KNOW WHAT THE PAVING CONDITIONS ARE INSIDE THE PROPERTY? I MEAN, I'M ASSUMING THE APPROACHES FROM THE STREET, THE DRIVE APPROACHES ARE PAVED, BUT ARE THE INTERIOR DRIVES PAVED OR IS IT FLEX SPACE OR GRAVEL? I, I DO NOT KNOW THE MATERIAL THAT'S ACTUALLY ON THE PROPERTY. OKAY. THANK YOU. I'LL ASK THIS AFTERNOON WHEN MR. NEVAREZ IS HERE, COMMISSIONER WHEELER, REAGAN, DURING THE PROCESS OF, OF EVALUATING THE SUP OR THE RENEWAL FOR SUP, DO, DO STAFF, UM, CHECK CODE VIOLATIONS AS FAR AS THE, FROM CODE ENFORCEMENT, IF THEY'RE, IF THEY'RE READING CODE VIOLATIONS ON THAT SITE, CO CODE IS LOOPED IN, UM, CODE IS LOOPED IN AND THEY CAN PROVIDE US THOSE, UH, THAT INFORMATION, IT'S SPECIFICALLY CODE VIOLATIONS CAN INFORM US OF, OF THINGS WHERE SITE PLANS ARE, ARE OUT OF WHACK WITH, WITH CONDITIONS. UM, SO THAT'S KIND OF WHERE THEY PLAY IN. WE TRY NOT TO LET, AND, AND I THINK WE REALLY SHOULD, UM, NOT LET THOSE PLAY INTO RECOMMENDATIONS WITH REGARDS TO APPROVAL OR DENIAL IN A PUNITIVE SENSE, BUT RATHER TO JUST GET THINGS TO WHERE THEY NEED TO BE UP TO CODE, UM, GET THEM TO HAVE THEIR PLANS BE ACCURATE. 'CAUSE WE, WE HAVE TO BE COMPLIANT WITH OUR, OUR SITE PLANS AT THE END OF THE DAY. UM, SO THAT'S MAINLY WHERE THESE, UM, THOSE KINDS OF FEEDBACKS ARE INTEGRATED. AND I, I DON'T, I DON'T UNDERSTAND. I I HAVE NOT HEARD THAT WE'VE RECEIVED ANY FEEDBACK FROM, UM, CODE. SO, SO DURING THE RENEWAL PROCESS WE, WE, THEY, THEY WOULDN'T BE A CONSIDERATION, ESPECIALLY IN THE TIME WHERE A LOT OF TIMES THAT IS THE REASON THAT, UM, COMMISSIONERS HAVE SAID THAT THEY'RE LEERY SOMETIME ABOUT APPROVING SOMEONE AT THESE SUVS BECAUSE OF THAT THE, UH, WHO IS GONNA ENFORCE THOSE, THOSE RULES OR THOSE, UM, GUIDELINES THAT'S WITHIN THAT SUP AND, AND SO WHY ON A RENEWAL WE WOULDN'T, THAT STAFF WOULDN'T BE LOOKING AT THAT, UM, TO BRING UP, RIGHT? YES. TO GET THEM TO GET THEM IN COMPLIANCE WITH CODE. DEFINITELY. BUT IT'S, IT'S NOT, WE, WE TRY NOT TO LET EXISTING VIOLATIONS BE A REASON TO DENY ANYONE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. BUT DEFINITELY A, A RATIONALE TO GET SITE [00:55:01] PLANS IN ORDER AND, UH, THEY CAN INFORM OUR, OUR, THEY CAN INFORM OUR RECOMMENDATIONS TO GET SITE PLANS IN ORDER. UH, BUT TO OUR KNOWLEDGE WE HAVEN'T HAD ANY, UH, COMPLAINTS FORWARDED TO US FROM THEM. ANYONE ELSE? ROUND ONE, ROUND NUMBER TWO. DID YOU, I SEE YOUR FINGER ON THE TRIGGER. COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN? NO. OKAY. I GUESS I NEED TO GET MY EYES CHECKED. ALRIGHT. UM, I THINK YOU SAID NUMBER FOUR IS GONNA BE HELD RIGHT? COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN? THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. DO YOU HAVE A DATE ON THAT YET OR ARE WE STILL UH, NOT YET. I'M WAITING ON THE APPLICANT. OKAY, NO PROBLEM. THEN. UH, NUMBER EIGHT OR NINE, DO YOU WANT EITHER OF THOSE TWO BRIEFED? ALL I CAN BOTH BRIEF. OKAY, GREAT. MR. GREGORY AND MS BY THE WAY, MR. NAVAREZ LET LET ME KNOW THAT HE IS IN A MEETING RIGHT NOW, BUT HE WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS THIS AFTERNOON. SO GOOD MORNING COMMISSIONERS. THIS IS CASE, UM, Z 2 5 0 0 0 2 0 7, FORMERLY KNOWN AS Z 2 34 2 75. PRESENTATION OVERVIEW. THIS WAS A REQUEST FOR AN APPLICATION FOR A NEW SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR A VEHICLE DISPLAY SALES AND SERVICE, UH, USE ON PROPERTY ZONE SUBDISTRICT TWO WITHIN PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 5 3 5, THE CF HAN SPECIALIST PURPOSE DISTRICT NUMBER THREE. THIS IS THE, UM, LOCATION OF THE SUBJECT SITES. IT IS IN COUNCIL DISTRICT EIGHT ALONG CF HAN FRONTAGE ROAD. THIS IS THE AERIAL VIEW OF THE SUBJECT SITE. YOU CAN SEE THAT, UM, IT'S A CAR ORIENTED USE. THERE'S ADDITIONAL CAR ORIENTED USES IN THE, IN THE AREA. SO, UM, AS SAID, THE AREA OF REQUEST IS A WITHIN PD 5 35, UM, SUBDISTRICT TWO, UM, SUBDISTRICT TWO REQUIRES A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR A VEHICLE DISPLAY SALES AND SERVICE USE, UM, AVE A VEHICLE OR ENGINE REPAIR OR MAINTENANCE USE AKA BODY SHOP, UM, IS ALLOWED BY WRIGHT AT THIS LOCATION. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY HAS BEEN HOME TO A VEHICLE OR ENGINE REPAIR OR MAINTENANCE USE, UM, SINCE SOMETIME IN 2010. UM, THAT'S WHEN THEY HAD A CON, UH, CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY APPROVED. UM, APPROVAL OF THIS SPECIFIC USE PERMIT WOULD ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO, UM, DISPLAY SERVICE OR RETAIL. UM, NEWER USED AUTOMOBILES THAT WOULD INCLUDE BOATS, TRUCKS, MOTORCYCLES, MOTOR SCOOTERS, RECREATIONAL VEHICLES AND TRAILERS. UM, AND THE LOT HAS SOLE FRONTAGE ALONG CF HAN FREEWAY FRONTAGE ROAD. THIS IS THE ZONING, UH, AND LAND USE MAP. UM, SO YOU CAN SEE IT'S IN PD 5 35 SUBDISTRICT TWO. UM, THERE ARE SOME AUTOMOTIVE USES THAT ARE CURRENTLY PRESENT IN THE AREA AROUND IT. UM, ALSO IN INDOOR PAINT MANUFACTURING, UM, OPERATION. AND THEN THE, UM, PROPERTY TO THE REAR, UM, OR JUST SOUTH IS, UH, CURRENTLY VACANT. LOOKING AT SOME SITE PHOTOS. SO THIS IS LOOKING SOUTHEAST ALONG CF HAHN FRONTAGE ROAD, UM, TOWARDS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THIS IS THEIR GATE. THIS IS LOOKING NORTHWEST, UM, PAST THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. LOOKING DIRECTLY AT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. SO YOU CAN SEE THEY HAVE SOME VEHICLE DISPLAY IN THE FRONT. UM, I'LL GET TO THIS IN A LITTLE BIT, BUT A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY IS PAVED AND A PORTION IS NOT PAVED. [01:00:03] ANOTHER, UM, PHOTO OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THEY HAD THEIR ZONING, UM, SIGNS UP AND THEY DO HAVE VEHICLES, UM, PARKED IN THE UNPAVED AREAS. LOOKING AT SURROUNDING SITE PHOTOS. THIS IS ANOTHER VIEW, UM, LOOKING WEST ALONG CF HAN FRONTAGE ROAD, UM, TOWARDS THE, UM, SUBJECT SITE. THIS IS LOOKING SOUTHEAST, UM, PAST THE SUBJECT SITE DOWN CF HAN FRONTAGE ROAD, LOOKING ACROSS, UM, CF HAN FREEWAY, UM, AT SOME, SOME OTHER INTENSE AUTOMOBILE, UH, RELATED USES AND THEN LOOKING NORTHEAST. UM, SO THIS IS, UH, THE PROPERTY, THE ROAD, UM, COMPLETELY BEHIND THE SUBJECT SITE JUST TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF, UM, WHAT'S IT LOOKS LIKE FROM THAT AREA ACROSS THE VACANT PROPERTY. IT'S A LITTLE BIT LIGHT AND I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT. BUT THIS IS THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN ASSOCIATED WITH THIS, UM, SPECIFIC USE PERMIT REQUEST. UM, SO THEY HAVE A, UM, AUTOMATIC GATE RIGHT OFF OF THE FRONTAGE ROAD HERE, AND THEN THEY HAVE ANOTHER, UM, ELECTRIC GATE, UM, MORE INTERIOR TO THE SITE. SO THIS AREA WOULD PRIMARILY BE THE, UM, VEHICLE DISPLAY. HE HAS MULTIPLE BUILDINGS ON THE PROPERTY, ALL FOR, UM, THE USE. UM, THERE'S AN OFFICE AND THEN SOME ADDITIONAL, UM, STORAGE OR, UM, MAINTENANCE STRUCTURES. UM, I'M GONNA GET ON TO THIS IN A MOMENT, BUT A MAJORITY OF THE PROPERTY CURRENTLY ISN'T SURFACED. UM, AND SO HE WILL NEED TO BRING THE PROPERTY INTO CONFORMANCE BY SERVICING THE PROPERTY AND ADDING, UM, THE REQUIRED STRIPING. THIS IS THE PROPOSED CONDITIONS, UM, FOR THE SPECIFIC USE PERMIT. UM, SO THE ONLY USE AUTHORIZED BY THE SPECIFIC USE PERMIT IS THE VEHICLE DISPLAY SALES AND SERVICE USE, UM, YOU MUST COMPLY WITH THE SITE PLAN, THE TIME LIMIT PROPOSED FOR, UM, THIS USE IS, UM, A FIVE YEAR PERIOD WITH, UM, ELIGIBILITY FOR AUTOMATIC RENEWALS FOR AN ADDITIONAL FIVE YEAR PERIOD. UM, I'LL SPEAK ON THIS A LITTLE BIT FURTHER IN A MOMENT, BUT THAT IS, UM, TO ALLOW THE OPERATOR TO HAVE THE USE, UM, AND RUN HIS BUSINESS, BUT STILL ALLOW, UM, THE AREA TO, UM, TRANSITION STAFF REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION. UM, SO THE CURRENT, UM, FOR THE CONSISTENCY REVIEW, THE CURRENT, UH, FORWARD LAND USE DESIGNATION OR PLACE TYPE IS COMMUNITY MIXED USE. UM, SO THIS IS A COMBINATION OF RETAIL HOUSING OFFICE USES, UM, USES THAT YOU WOULD SEE OFF OF MAJOR, UM, HIGHWAYS. SO OBVIOUSLY A VEHICLE ORIENTED USE PROBABLY DOESN'T MATCH THE FUTURE PLACE TYPE, FUTURE LAND USE PLACE TYPE DESIGNATION. UM, THE REASON THAT STAFF IS STILL IN FAVOR, AND I'LL, I'LL GET TO THE RECOMMENDATION IN A MOMENT OF THIS REQUEST, IS BECAUSE IT DOES MATCH THE CURRENT, UM, MAKEUP AND CHARACTER OF THE AREA. AND SO WITH THE, UM, EXPIRATION DATE AFTER FIVE YEARS AND THEN ELIGIBILITY FOR AN ADDITIONAL FIVE YEARS PERIOD, UM, THE DESIRE OR THE HOPE IS THAT THIS WILL ALLOW THE OPERATOR TO HAVE HIS BUSINESS, BUT STILL ALLOW, UM, THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION TO COME BACK AND DETERMINE AT WHAT POINT, UM, THE AREA IS READY OR HAS BECOME A TRANSITION TO MORE OF THIS COMMUNITY MIXED USE. UM, AS I SAID PREVIOUSLY, THERE ARE SOME ISSUES OR QUESTIONS THAT, UH, SHOULD BE DISCUSSED WITH THE APPLICANT. SO, UM, PORTIONS OF THE SUBJECT SITE ARE SURFACED WITH GRAVEL RIGHT NOW. UM, APPROXIMATELY 61% OF THE SITE. SO YOU CAN SEE THERE'S A PORTION OF THIS DISPLAY AREA THAT'S GRAVEL. AND THEN I BELIEVE EVERYTHING PAST THE INTERNAL, UM, AUTOMATIC ELECTRIC GATE THAT IS ALSO, UM, SURFACED WITH GRAVEL. UM, SECTION 51, A 4.301, UM, SUBSECTION D SUBSECTION FOUR STATES THAT ANY SURFACE WHERE VEHICLES ARE MOVED, PARKED OR DRIVEN MUST BE CONSTRUCTED ON A COMPACTED SUBGRADE OR SURFACE WITH CONCRETE HOT MIXED ASPHALT. UM, SO IF YOU WERE TO APPROVE THIS REQUEST TODAY, HE WOULD BE REQUIRED TO, UM, BRING THE ENTIRETY OF THE PROPERTY INTO CONFORMANCE FOR THE USE. UM, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL FOR A FIVE YEAR PERIOD WITH ELIGIBILITY FOR AUTO RENEWAL FOR ADDITIONAL FIVE YEARS PERIOD, FIVE YEAR PERIODS SUBJECT TO HIS SITE PLANNING CONDITIONS. THANK YOU, MR. GREGORY. QUESTIONS? YES, MR. CHAIR. UH, MR. GREGORY, CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE SITE PLAN? YES, SIR. DOES THIS SUP CONTEMPLATE THAT THE VEHICLE CELLS WOULD BE LIMITED TO THE PARKING SPOTS? I GUESS THAT WOULD BE TO THE [01:05:01] SOUTH ALONG, UM, YOU MEAN IN, IN THIS AREA? YES. BUT FURTHER I THINK YOU HAVE IT. IT'S KINDA HARD TO SEE FROM THE SCREEN. YEAH, I APOLOGIZE. UM, SO PER THE SITE PLAN, THIS AREA IS DESIGNATED AS CUSTOMER PARKING. THIS AREA IS DESIGNATED AS VEHICLE PARKING. UM, AND THEN THE AREAS PAST THAT INTERNAL GATE ARE, UM, MARKED AS INVENTORY AND REPAIR PARKING. UM, BUT IT IS NOT EXPLICITLY BROKEN OUT IN THE CONDITIONS. OKAY. LET ME ASK IT JUST A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENTLY. WHERE WILL THE VEHICLES BE DISPLAYED? I'VE GOT A BIG SITE PLAN. I, I CAN ZOOM IN REAL CLOSE WHERE I AM. AND GENERALLY WHEN WE HAVE THESE GO BACK, YOU KNOW, FOR SALE VEHICLE SPOTS, WE LIKE THEM TO SHOW ON THE SITE PLAN WHERE THOSE ARE GONNA BE. AND SO THOSE ARE UP AT, AT THE FRONT, UM, AT LEAST IN THE FRONT, LET'S SAY THIRD. YEAH, THERE YOU GO. ON THE SOUTHERN SOUTHEASTERN APPROACH. SO THOSE ARE MARKED AS DISPLAY VEHICLES. SO THEY, THEY'RE, THEY'RE FOR SALE CARS NEED TO BE THERE. UM, THE CUSTOMER PARKING IS AT THEIR LIBERTY, BUT, UM, THAT'S GENERALLY WHERE THEY PLAN IT TO BE. I, I SHOULD HAVE SPECIFIED AND I DIDN'T. UM, BUT WITH THE PARKING REFORM THAT HAPPENED LAST YEAR, HIS USE TECHNICALLY, EVEN THOUGH THIS WAS A BIG STRUGGLE ACTUALLY, EVEN THOUGH IT'S A VEHICLE ORIENTED USE, HE HAS NO PARKING REQUIREMENT. YES, HE DOESN'T HAVE A PARKING REQUIREMENT, BUT THERE STILL, STILL SHOULD BE. BUT HE'S STILL REQUIRED TO HAVE PARKING SPACES. YES. YES. AND FOR WHERE THE VEHICLES WILL BE DISPLAYED. MM-HMM . AND MY ASSUMPTION PRESUMPTION BASED ON WHAT'S BEING INDICATED HERE ON THE SITE PLAN, IT'S TO THE SOUTH. YEAH. UH, SO FOR EACH OF THESE PARKING SPOTS, UH, CAN WE CONFIRM THAT THE SUP CONTEMPLATES THAT THERE WILL ONLY BE ONE VEHICLE PER SPOT? YEAH, I MEAN, I, I THINK THAT, I THINK IT'S A REASONABLE ASSUMPTION THAT THEY HAVE TO BUILD OUT THEIR, THEY HAVE TO BUILD OUT THEIR SITE PLAN LIKE THIS. THEY HAVE TO PUT THEIR DISPLAY VEHICLES THERE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SUP. OKAY. 'CAUSE I JUST QUESTIONED THAT, YOU KNOW, JUST DOING A VISUAL OBSERVATION, UH, BECAUSE THIS PARTICULAR SITE DOESN'T HAVE A OFFENSE THAT'S OBSCURING THE, THE ENTRANCE OF IT. MM-HMM . AND SOME OF YOUR PICTURES DIDN'T SHOW THE FULL SPOTS BECAUSE WHEN I WENT OUT THERE, THERE WERE CARS STACKED, OR THERE WERE TWO CARS PER YEAH, YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. MM-HMM . AND THERE WERE BOATS. THERE WERE 18 WHEELERS. IT WAS PRETTY CLUTTERED THERE. SO I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WHAT WE'RE SAYING HERE IS THAT THERE WILL BE ONE VEHICLE PER SPOT AND THAT IS NOT ALLOWED TO HAVE, YOU KNOW, TWO OR THREE VEHICLES IN ONE SPOT THAT'S BEEN INDICATED. YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. UM, I THINK WHAT I CAN TELL YOU IS THAT, UM, I HAD A DISCUSSION WITH HIM ABOUT IMPROVING THE PROPERTY BEFORE COMING BEFORE YOU OR AFTER, UM, HIS CASE HAS BEEN SITTING FOR QUITE SOME TIME. SO, UM, OUR DISCUSSION WAS IN, IN FAVOR OF JUST BRINGING THIS TO YOU, BUT, UM, HE WILL BE REQUIRED IF YOU APPROVE IT, APPROVE THIS TO ADHERE TO THIS PLAN. UM, SO HE WOULDN'T, PER THE PLAN, HE WOULDN'T HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE DOUBLE PARKING THOSE, UM, CARS LIKE HE HAS CURRENTLY. AND, AND TO, TO BILL ON THAT. I, I'D KEEP IN MIND RIGHT NOW, IT'S NOT, UM, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT A SALES USE. THERE'S SOME, YOU KNOW, THINGS WORK A LITTLE DIFFERENTLY WHEN YOU HAVE TO GET THE SALES USE BUILT IN. THEY'RE AUTHORIZED RIGHT NOW BY RIGHT FOR THAT VEHICLE REPAIR, UM, ON THE BASE ZONING AND THAT USE, YOU KNOW, WHETHER, YOU KNOW, ONE WAY OR ANOTHER, UH, LITTLE MORE LAX IN TERMS OF HOW VEHICLES ARE GONNA BE. I CAN'T MAKE A GUARANTEE THAT THAT MEANS THAT THEY CAN OR CAN'T PARK THEM THAT WAY. BUT, UM, THERE IS A LITTLE MORE TEETH WITH THE DISPLAY SALES USE BECAUSE WE HAVE TO HAVE DESIGNATED SPOTS FOR THOSE. MM-HMM . YEAH. UM, THE HOPE IS THAT MANY OF THE, THE PROPERTIES THAT ARE VEHICLE ORIENTED AROUND HIM RIGHT NOW, THEY LOOK SIMILAR TO HIS PROPERTY. AND SO THE DESIRE, THE HOPE IS THAT HE, UM, WILL IMPROVE THE, THE VEHICLE PARKING SITUATION ON HIS PROPERTY. AND HE SHOULD BE AVAILABLE THIS AFTERNOON, UM, TO SPEAK WITH YOU. I, I SPOKE WITH THEM. UH, WE HAD A COMMUNITY MEETING, SO, UM, SO WE HAD SOME CONVERSATIONS, BUT THANK YOU MR. GREGORY. ABSOLUTELY. MR. CHAIR, ANYONE ELSE HAVE QUESTIONS? MR. CARPENTER? I HAVE A QUESTION. I'M, I'M WELL AWARE THAT YOU HAD NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH WRITING PD 5 35, BUT FROM A PURELY PLANNING PERSPECTIVE, WHAT IS THE LOGIC OF ALLOWING MOTOR VEHICLE REPAIR BY RIGHT AND REQUIRING VEHICLE DISPLAY BY SUP? IT SEEMS EXACTLY BACKWARDS [01:10:01] IN MY EXPERIENCE. MM-HMM . THAT SEEMS LIKE A GOOD, GOOD QUESTION FOR ME. UM, WHEN WAS THIS PUT IN PLACE? 99. IF I HAD TO, IF I HAD TO GUESS, I'M LOOKING OVER. THERE'S NOBODY FROM 99 HERE, . UM, IF I HAD TO GUESS IT WAS, IT WAS MAYBE ABOUT A, A CONCENTRATION OF ONE USE OR ANOTHER THAT THEY WERE CONCERNED ABOUT AT THE TIME MM-HMM . BUT, UM, I, I, IF I WAS RIGHT IN THIS PD NOW, THE DAY WOULDN'T BE THAT. I THINK I'D ASSESS IT DIFFERENTLY PERSONALLY. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONERS, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON ITEM NUMBER EIGHT? OKAY, COOL. THANK YOU. MOVING ALONG, ITEM NUMBER NINE, DR. HASHMI. GOOD MORNING COMMISSIONERS. UH, KC 26 1 5, UH, IS AN APPLICATION FOR A NEW PLANT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FOR MH MANUFACTURED HOME AND CR COMMUNITY RETAIL USERS WITH CONSIDERATION FOR MH AND CR DISTRICTS ON PROPERTY ZONED R 10, SINGLE FAMILY AND A AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT. IT IS LOCATED ON THE EAST LINE OF HAY MARKET ROAD AND THE LINE OF HAZELCREST DRIVE, AND IT'S APPROXIMATELY 98, UH, 0.7 ACRES. IT IS IN COUNCIL DISTRICT EIGHT, AND HERE IS AN AERIAL MAP. SOME QUICK BACKGROUND. UH, THE AREA OF REQUEST, UH, CONSISTS OF TWO TRACKS AND, UH, BOTH ARE UNDEVELOPED RIGHT NOW. AND THE PROPOSED SUB-DISTRICT ONE, WHICH IS THE NON-RESIDENTIAL ONE, IS LOCATED SOUTH OF LBJ FREEWAY AND, UH, SUB-DISTRICT TWO, WHICH, UH, WOULD BE THE RESIDENTIAL ONE IS LOCATED EAST OF HAYMARKET ROAD, UH, SUB-DISTRICT. ONE PROPOSED FOR CR AND IS INTENDED TO PROVIDE NEIGHBORHOOD SERVING COMMERCIAL USE SUCH AS RESTAURANTS AND OTHER SMALL SCALE SERVICES AND SUB-DISTRICT TO, UH, TO BE DEVELOPED AS AN RV CAMPGROUND, UH, WITH ALL THE ASSOCIATED AMENITIES. UM, THE CASE IN THE, THE INITIAL REQUEST WAS FOR A STRAIGHT ZONING TO SEE, AND MH, BUT, UM, IT, UH, HAS BEEN HELD AND READVERTISED AS N NEW PD HERE IS SURROUNDING ZONING AND LAND USE. UM, TO THE, UH, EAST IS, UM, ZONED R 10 AND AGRICULTURE AND IS, UM, SINGLE FAMILY AND UNDEVELOPED TO THE SOUTH ZONED AGRICULTURAL, OUR SINGLE FAMILIES. AND TO THE WEST, UM, IT'S ZONED CRCS, UM, A AND ALSO R 7.5 AND IS A MIXTURE OF, UH, NURSERY OPERATIONS, SINGLE FAMILIES AND UNDEVELOPED LANDS. AND, UM, TO THE NORTH, UM, IS THE RIGHT OF WAY OF THE FREEWAY. HERE IS SOME SIDE PHOTOS LOOKING AT THE SITE FROM HAYMARKET ROAD, LOOKING AT THE EXISTING POND, LOOKING NORTH, LOOKING EAST AT THE SIDE, LOOKING SOUTH FROM HA, HAZEL CREST DRIVE. AND THESE ARE SOME SURROUNDING, UH, PHOTOS, UH, FROM HAYMARKET ROAD, LOOKING AT THOSE, UH, SINGLE FAMILIES, UM, LOOKING NORTHEAST, LOOKING WEST AT SINGLE FAMILIES, LOOKING SOUTHWEST AND, UM, LOOKING NORTHWEST, NORTHWEST AND, UM, STILL NORTHWEST. AND THESE, [01:15:01] UH, THIS IS THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TABLE, WHICH COMPARED THE EXISTING ZONING. AND, UH, ALSO I INCLUDED, UH, THE BASE DISTRICT FOR YOUR REFERENCE. UH, UH, THE PROPOSED SUB-DISTRICT ONE AND SUB-DISTRICT TWO, UM, ARE NOT CHANGING THAT MUCH, UH, UH, THOSE BASE DISTRICT EXCEPT, UH, PROBING, UH, SOME, UH, USES AND ALSO LIMITING THE HEIGHT TO 35, UH, AND, UH, HAVING A REAR AND, UH, FRONT AND SETBACK OF 20. AND, UH, I THINK THAT'S IT. AND, AND, UM, IT'S, UH, IT MAY, UH, BE WORSE NOTING THAT THOSE SECTION OF THE SITE, UM, UNDER AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT, UM, COULD PERMIT, UH, MULTI-FAMILY, UH, WITH, WITH HEIGHT OF 45 UNDER SV EIGHT 40. HERE IS THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN. UM, YOU CAN SEE THAT SUB-DISTRICT ONE, THE NON-RESIDENTIAL ONE, UM, ON THE NORTH, AND THE REST, UH, WILL BE SUB-DISTRICT TWO, THE RV CAMPGROUND, UH, WHICH THE MAIN ACCESS WOULD BE THROUGH, UM, UH, THESE, UM, ROAD AND ALSO FROM THE SUB-DISTRICT V. AND, UH, THESE ARE THE PROPOSED, UM, THE SUMMARY OF PROPOSED CONDITION ON SUB-DISTRICT ONE. UM, SOME OF THE, UM, SOME OF THE RETAILS AND, UM, UM, AUTO ORIENTED RETAIL USE IS PROHIBITED AND, UM, UH, IN SUB-DISTRICT TWO MANUFACTURED HOME PARK OR SUBDIVISION PROHIBITED, UH, ARE ALREADY COVERED. THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, UM, THERE ARE SOME PROVISIONS ABOUT COTTAGE STANDARDS MAXIMUM OF ONE 20 COTTAGE PERMITTED MINIMUM OF 17, UH, IN A DESIGNATED LOCATION. AND OUR COTTAGE SIZE IS BETWEEN 200 TO 600. AND, UM, UH, IT NEEDS TO CONTAIN A BATHROOM. UH, PARKING WILL DEFAULT TO 51 A AND ALSO, UM, IS, UM, SO THAT THOSE, UH, TRANSIT, UH, STANDS ARE NOT PARKING. AND, UH, FOR OPEN SPACE, 30%, UH, OPEN SPACE REQUIRED IN SUB-DISTRICT TWO, UH, 30 A CARES OF THAT MUST BE CONTI US. BUT, UM, UH, 25 ACRES OF THAT ACTUALLY IS THE POUND. AND, UH, UM, A MINIMUM ONE MILE, UM, WALKING TRAIL WITH, UM, UM, MINIMUM SIX FEET WHILE, UM, IS REQUIRED. AND, UH, AMENITIES LIKE DUCK PARK, PICNIC TABLES, BENCHES, PAVILIONS DEGREES, AND, UH, PET WASTE RECEPTOR, UH, RECEPTACLES ARE REQUIRED AS WELL. UM, SOME PROVISIONS ABOUT, UH, A SCREENING ACCESS AND, UH, GATED ACCESS REQUIRED FOR THE RESIDENTIAL SUBDISTRICT. UM, SCREENING FENCES REQUIRED ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL AREAS, AND, UM, THERE IS A SECURITY FENCE BETWEEN THE COMMERCIAL AND CAMPGROUND AREAS. UM, MINIMUM SIX FOOT, UH, SIDEWALK, ALLOWING HAZEL CRE DRIVE AND, UM, INTERNAL SIDEWALK IN SUB-DISTRICT, ONE MUST BE AT LEAST SIX UH, FEET. AND, UM, UM, THE DUMPSTERS SHOULD BE, UH, SCREENED FROM PUBLIC VIEW. AND, UM, UH, IN FOR DALLAS, UM, THE AREA IS DESIGNATED AS SMALL TOWN RESIDENTIAL, WHICH DISPLACED TYPE, UM, INTEND TO MAINTAIN THE RURAL AND A SMALL TOWN, UH, CHARACTER OF AREAS, UM, THROUGH A MIX OF SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, RURAL, UM, ESTATE LOTS, AND, UH, AGRICULTURE USE AND OPENNESS SPACE. AND, UM, ALSO IT, IT SUPPORTS SOME, UH, COMMERCIAL AND MIXED USE ALONG MAJOR CORRIDORS. AND, UM, THE, THE, THE PROPOSED ALL, UM, IS, UM, CONSISTENT, UH, WITH THIS PLACE TYPE, IF THE DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION, UM, FOLLOW THE, THE STANDARDS, UM, IN THE PD AND THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO A DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS. THANK YOU SO MUCH, DR. HASHMI. QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN, UH, JUST A REAL QUICK QUESTION. UH, I DO KNOW THAT THE APPLICANT MAY HAVE HAD SOME ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS THAT THEY WANTED TO BE INCORPORATED. DID THEY SEND THAT TO YOU [01:20:01] BY CHANCE? WHERE WAS, WAS THAT RECENTLY? UH, MAYBE BEEN, UH, LAST WEEK. I THINK I, THE LAST THING THAT I GOT FROM DAY WAS LAST WEEK ON MONDAY. OKAY. THERE MAY BE, IF IT WAS AFTER WORK, I, NO, I DIDN'T RECEIVE ANYTHING NEW AFTER THAT. OKAY. THERE MAY BE SOME ADDITIONAL ONES THAT I'LL ADD ON. OKAY. BASED ON MY CONVERSATION WITH THE, THE APPLICANT, IF THOSE HAVE BEEN REDUCED TO WRITING, IF WE COULD GET THOSE CIRCULATED PROMPTLY, THAT WOULD BE FANTASTIC. SO WE CAN HAVE A CHANCE TO REVIEW THEM FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING. COMMISSIONER CARPENTER? NO, JUST CONFIRMING, YOU KNOW, WE GOT A NEW DEVELOPMENT PLAN, BUT WE DID NOT GET A NEW VERSION OF THE PD. SO THE ONE THAT'S IN THE DOCKET IS THE ONE THAT YOU'RE RECOMMENDING, UH, THE NEW, THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, THAT'S THE, YEAH, THE, THE, THE NEW DEVELOPMENT PLAN. BUT THE PD THAT'S IN OUR DOCKET IS WHAT YOU ARE BASING YOUR RECOMMENDATION ON? YEAH. OKAY. SO YOU'RE NOT AWARE THAT THERE'S, OKAY, YOU'RE ASK A QUESTION. YOU'RE NOT AWARE THAT THERE'S A, A FAIRLY MASSIVE REWRITE OF THE PD THAT'S SUPPOSEDLY UNDERWAY. OKAY. I HAVEN'T HEARD ANYTHING ABOUT THAT. COMMISSIONER HALL. THIS, UH, THIS DEVELOPMENT IS ACTUALLY SO THAT PEOPLE CAN LIVE THERE. IS THAT CORRECT? UH, IT'S FOR SHORT TERM, UH, IT'S MORE RECREATIONAL AND TEMPORARY, UM, LIVING A SPACE. IT'S FOR TEMPORARY, YES. UH, IS THERE ANYTHING, IS THERE ANYTHING, UH, UH, THAT WOULD LIMIT THE LENGTH OF STAY IN THE PD? I DIDN'T SEE ANY SPECIFIC THING TO LIMIT THE DURATION OF STAY, BUT, UH, I BELIEVE THE DEFINITION OF TRANSIENT AND ALL THOSE ACTUALLY KIND OF INDIRECTLY IMPLY THAT. OKAY. AND ON YOUR SLIDE, YOU SHOWED THE TERM COTTAGE, COTTAGE. MM-HMM . ARE THESE THE, EACH INDIVIDUAL SITE IS CALLED A COTTAGE SITE? UH, THEY ARE, UM, RECOMMENDING TO HAVE COTTAGE AS WELL. OH, THEY, THEY PER PERMANENT OR, BUT IT'S JUST 17, I BELIEVE FOR NOW. BUT THEY, UH, WHAT THEY, UH, PROPOSE IS THAT THEY CAN HAVE AT LEAST, UM, ONE 20, UH, COTTAGE AS WELL. I, SO YEAH, A BIG PART OF IT IS THE LAND, THE LAND USE IS THE MAIN THING THAT KEEPS IT, IT TEMPORARY LAND USE OF CAMPGROUND. MY UNDERSTANDING IS, THINK OF IT KIND LIKE A STATE PARK WHERE THEY HAVE RENTABLE, UM, INDOOR SPACES, BUT THEY ALSO HAVE RENTABLE OUTDOOR SPACES. BUT ALL, ALL MEANT TO BE TEMPORARY IS MY UNDERSTANDING. OKAY. THANK YOU. YEP. COMMISSIONER HAMPTON. THANK YOU. I HAD A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS ABOUT THE USES THAT ARE INCLUDED, AND IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE MAY BE SOME CHANGES THAT, UH, WILL BE FORTHCOMING, BUT, UH, IN THE SUB-DISTRICT AREA, IT SAYS A MAXIMUM OF TWO RESTAURANTS WITH DRIVE-IN OR DRIVE-THROUGH SERVICE OR PERMITTED. I'M UNCLEAR HOW THE DRIVE-THROUGH WOULD WORK BASED ON THE SITE PLAN CONFIGURATION. IS THAT NEEDED OR INTENDED? UH, MAYBE IT COULD BE, UH, AN APPLICANT QUESTION. I DON'T HAVE A CLEAR IDEA ON THAT, BUT BECAUSE THEY MAY ACCESS IS THROUGH THE LBJ FREEWAY, UH, I, I, I BELIEVE THAT'S WHY THEY RECOMMENDED THAT. OKAY. IT JUST, IT SEEMS TO BE A VERY DIFFERENT FUNCTION THAN WHAT'S PROPOSED, BUT I'LL ASK THE APPLICANT. AND SIMILAR QUESTION ON THE PROHIBITED USES. UM, BEAUTY AND BARBERSHOP IS SPECIFICALLY DEFINED, BUT IT'S ALSO PROHIBITED. SO I DIDN'T KNOW IF THERE WAS ANY CONTEXT FOR THAT JUDICIAL, UH, WHAT I HEARD FROM THE APPLICANT, IT WAS THAT, UM, ON THEIR, UM, UM, CONVERSATION WITH COUNCIL MEMBER, IT'S WHAT, UH, THEY ASKED TO INCLUDE. UM, IT WAS THEIR SPECIFIC REQUEST OF THEM. OKAY. UM, WELL, I CAN ASK APPLICANT. AND FINAL QUESTION. UM, YOU MENTIONED THE REQUIRED SCREENING ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL. I KNOW VERY REGULARLY WHEN WE SEE THESE COME THROUGH THAT THERE'S ALSO A BUFFER THAT'S PROVIDED, BUT I DIDN'T SEE ANY LANGUAGE THAT SPOKE TO THAT OTHER THAN WHAT'S IDENTIFIED AS ESSENTIALLY A DRAINAGE, UM, BEHIND THAT. BUT WAS THERE ANY CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONAL PLANTINGS OR OTHER SCREENING MATERIAL? UM, NOT WHAT THEY HAVE RIGHT NOW IN THE CONDITIONS? UM, AND I GUESS I'LL JUST ASK THE RELATED, I'M NOT A HUNDRED PERCENT CLEAR ON HOW THE FUNCTIONAL OPEN SPACE [01:25:01] IS MEANT TO WORK BECAUSE WE HAVE THE POND THAT I THINK IS ALSO RELATED TO DRAINAGE, AND A PERCENTAGE OF IT IS ALLOWED TO COUNT TOWARDS OPEN SPACE, EVEN THOUGH THAT MAY NOT BE FUNCTIONALLY USABLE. BUT DO YOU HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THE ACTUAL USABLE OPEN SPACE, UM, WILL END UP BEING? UH, WHAT I HEARD FROM THEM IS THAT, UH, THE POND AND THE, UM, TRAIL ALONG THAT, UM, AND, AND THOSE AREAS, UH, WOULD BE, UM, UH, USABLE BY, UH, THE, THE RESIDENTS OF THE SITE, UH, FOR PONDING AND ALL OTHERS RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES. UH, BUT, UH, I'M NOT SURE A HUNDRED PERCENT THAT, UH, WHAT WOULD BE THE EXACT AREA OF THOSE USABLE, UH, OPEN SPACES. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM? OKAY. UM, IT'S 10 58. WHY DON'T WE TAKE A FIVE MINUTE BREAK AND BE BACK AT AROUND 1105. ALL RIGHT. IT IS 11:09 AM AND THE CPC BRIEFING IS BACK ON THE RECORD. UM, MR. BROWN, YOU HAVE THE STEVENS PARK VILLAGE CD. UM, DO WE NEED A FULL BRIEFING ON THIS ONE OR JUST QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? I, FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, JUST A FEW QUESTIONS UNLESS ANYBODY ELSE WANTS A BRIEFING. OKAY. UM, QUESTIONS, DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMISSION? I, I DO. PLEASE. YEAH. MR, IF YOU COULD, UH, JUST KIND OF QUICKLY TAKE US THROUGH FROM A NEIGHBORHOOD ENGAGEMENT STANDPOINT, THE PROCESS, YOU PETITION PERCENTAGES AND THEN THE MEETINGS. JUST KINDA GIVE US A SENSE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD ENGAGEMENT IN YOUR EXPERIENCE WITH THIS. SURE, ABSOLUTELY. UM, SO THE NEIGHBORHOOD INITIALLY APPROACHED THE CITY IN, UH, 2022, UH, TO ASK ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF, UH, STARTING A CONSERVATION DISTRICT FOR THEIR AREA, AT WHICH TIME WE ADVISED THEM OF THE PROCESS AND CERTAINLY ENCOURAGE THEM TO BEGIN ENGAGING WITH THEIR NEIGHBORS SO THAT THEY WERE AWARE OF WHAT THE PROCESS WAS SO THEY COULD ALL GATHER THEIR THOUGHTS ON WHAT THEY WANTED A POSSIBLE CONSERVATION DISTRICT FOR THEIR AREA TO LOOK LIKE. UH, BEFORE, UH, FORMALLY BEGINNING THE PROCESS IN JANUARY OF 2024, WHEN THEY SUBMITTED THEIR DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY, UM, WHICH OF OF COURSE, UH, BEGAN A, A INITI INITIATED THE PROCESS FOR US AS THE CITY. AND WE HELD A, A SERIES OF FOUR PRE-APPLICATION MEETINGS WITH THE NEIGHBORS TO EXPLAIN TO THOSE WHO ATTENDED THE MEETINGS, UH, THE PROCESS THAT THEY WOULD UNDERTAKE, GO OVER ALL OF THE ITEMS THAT THEY COULD POTENTIALLY INCLUDE ON THEIR PETITION, UH, THAT THEY WANTED TO DISCUSS FOR INCLUSION ON THEIR, UH, UH, POSSIBLE ORDINANCE. OF THOSE, THE, THE, AFTER THE FOUR MEETINGS, THE NEIGHBORS DECIDED TO STICK WITH SORT OF THE CORE ELEMENTS OF THE CONSERVATION DISTRICT. EACH CONSERVATION WE ARE REQUIRED BY, UH, DEVELOPMENT CODE TO INCLUDE CERTAIN ITEMS, UH, ON, UH, IN A CONSERVATION DISTRICT. AND THE NEIGHBORS AT THAT TIME DECIDED THAT THEY DID NOT WANT TO ADD ON SORT OF THE ADDITIONAL ITEMS THAT COULD BE COVERED, UH, AS PART OF THAT. SO, UH, THEY UNDERTOOK THE, UH, YEAR LONG PETITIONING PROCESS, UH, WHICH THE RESULT WAS 76% OF THE, UH, PROPERTIES WITHIN THE AREA SIGNING ON, UH, IN FAVOR OF PURSUING A CONSERVATION DISTRICT, WHICH THEN LED TO, UH, A CITY LEADING EIGHT NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS, UH, COVERING ALL OF THE AREAS THAT WERE, WERE INCLUDED ON THE PETITION, GETTING THAT FEEDBACK FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD. UM, IN ADDITION, WE ALSO CONDUCTED AN ONLINE SURVEY, UH, AS A, AN ADDITIONAL MEANS OF GATHERING INPUT FROM THE NEIGHBORS, UM, AND OBVIOUSLY TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMITTEE. UM, AND I THINK THEY'LL SPEAK TO THIS, THIS AFTERNOON IN THEIR PRESENTATION. ALSO CONTINUED TO DO, UH, ADDITIONAL OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE PROCESS. SO. OKAY. GOOD. JUST ONE, ONE MORE QUESTION. SO, UH, IF I REMEMBER RIGHT, AM I CORRECT THAT TO GET A, GET ONE OF THESE STARTED, IT'S 58% OF THE NEIGHBORS ARE REQUIRED TO SIGN, YOU SAID WE HAD 70 76%. THAT'S CORRECT, YES, SIR. SO 58% MUST, UH, SIGN ON FOR THE PETITION TO INITIATE THE PROCESS. OBVIOUSLY, WE ENCOURAGE ANY NEIGHBORHOOD TO, UH, EXCEED THAT, AND, AND THEY DID IN FACT, UH, RECEIVE 76%. ALRIGHT. AND IF I LOOK THROUGH THE REPLY PACKET, UH, AND DO THE MATH, IT LOOKS LIKE ABOUT 74% GIVE OR TAKE, OF THE REPLIES WE RECEIVED WERE IN FAVOR AND THE REMAINDER ARE OPPOSED. IS THAT [01:30:01] CORRECT? YES, SIR. THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING AS WELL. GOOD, THANK YOU. NO, NO FURTHER QUESTIONS. MR. CHAIR. YOU, UH, COMMISSIONER HAMPTON. THANK YOU, MR. BROWN. UM, I NOTE SOME OF THE REPLY FORM COMMENTS SEEMED TO, UH, INDICATE A QUESTION ON HOW DEMOLITIONS WILL BE HANDLED FROM A HIGH LEVEL PERSPECTIVE. UH, HOW DOES THAT WORK WITHIN A CONSERVATION DISTRICT? SO DEMOLITION IS ONE OF THE ITEMS THAT IS PART OF THAT, UM, MAY BE INCLUDED LIST THAT THE NEIGHBORS, UM, EVEN THOUGH THEY DID HAVE IN-DEPTH, UH, DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THAT, I THINK THEY CHOSE TO NOT INCLUDE IT IN THE INITIAL, UH, UH, PETITIONING BECAUSE THEY REALLY WANTED TO KIND OF STAY FOCUSED AND, AND DRIVE THE PROCESS FORWARD TO SUCCESS. UM, THE, OR, YOU KNOW, NEIGHBORS WHO WERE SAYING THAT THIS DOES NOT STOP DEMOLITION. UM, THIS, UH, PARTICULAR, UH, LANGUAGE THAT WAS RECOMMENDED IS VERY CLOSELY, UH, UH, AFFILIATED WITH THE ORDINANCE FOR HOLLYWOOD SANTA MONICA, CD SIX, WHICH ALSO DOES NOT INCLUDE DEMOLITION. HOWEVER, IT HAS BEEN VERY EFFECTIVE IN, UM, LIMITING THE NUMBER OF DEMOLITIONS BECAUSE OF THINGS LIKE LIMITING HEIGHT, UM, UM, MAKING SURE THAT, THAT ANY NEW CONSTRUCTION IS REALLY GOING TO BE ALMOST EXACTLY LIKE WHAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD MAKEUP IS, WHICH IS OF COURSE IS THE, THE PURPOSE OF A, A DISTRICT LIKE THIS. AND SO IT, IT, IN ESSENCE, IF ALL YOU CAN BUILD BACK IS THE SAME THING THAT YOU COULD REMODEL AND ADD ONTO ON THE EXISTING LOT, IT IT, YOU KNOW, FOR A LOT OF, UH, DEVELOPERS ESPECIALLY, IT WON'T MAKE ECONOMIC SENSE TO DEMOLISH A BUILDING THAT COULD BE REMODELED IF ALL YOU'RE GONNA BE ABLE TO PUT BACK IS SOMETHING REMARKABLY SIMILAR. SO THANK YOU. SO, AND THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT I UNDERSTOOD, BUT APPRECIATE HEARING YOU SAY IT. UM, SO REGARDING ADDITIONS TO, UM, EXISTING STRUCTURES, THOSE ARE ALLOWED, I THINK THERE WAS A COUPLE QUESTIONS THAT I SAW REGARDING HOW HEIGHT IS CALCULATED, LIMITING THE ABILITY TO DO ADDITIONS, BUT THEY'RE, THEY'RE ALLOWED WITHIN THE, THE ADDITIONS ARE ALLOWED, UH, SECOND STORY ADDITIONS ARE ALLOWED. THEY ARE, UM, LIMITED TO THE REAR 50% OF THE STRUCTURE, YOU KNOW, UM, AS YOU'LL SEE, WELL, IN THE CASE REPORT AND IN THE, THE PRESENTATION THAT WE HAD, UH, THERE WERE ONLY THREE, TWO STORY BUILDINGS OUT OF THE 137 IN THE ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND SO, UH, IT WAS VERY IMPORTANT FOR THOSE WHO, WHO GAVE FEEDBACK THAT, THAT THEY BE, HAVE FLEXIBILITY TO ADD THOSE SECOND STORIES, BUT THAT THEY WANTED TO MAINTAIN THAT ONE, ONE AND A HALF STORY CHARACTER IN THE FRONT. GOT IT. AND THEN THERE WERE SOME OTHER COMMENTS THAT WERE TALKING ABOUT WINDOW, WINDOW TYPES AS WELL AS HEIGHT. CAN YOU SPEAK TO HOW THOSE ARE CODIFIED IN ANY ADJUSTMENTS THAT WERE MADE IN THE ORDINANCE? SURE. SO, UH, IN A HEIGHT AND STORIES WAS DEFINITELY PROBABLY OUR BIGGEST DISCUSSION THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS, BUT CLOSELY FOLLOWED BY, UH, WINDOWS. AND, UM, THE ORDINANCE RECOMMENDS, UM, YOU KNOW, THAT THAT WINDOW OPENINGS, UM, AND THEIR THEIR SIZE ARE TYPICAL, UH, BUT THE ONLY REAL RESTRICTION IN TERMS OF WINDOW TYPES THAT ARE ALLOWED IN THE, IN THE AREA OF ARCHITECTURAL REGULATION IS THAT THEY MUST AT LEAST HAVE SOME SORT OF DIVISION. UH, THAT WAS A COMPROMISE, UM, BECAUSE COMING OUT OF THE PROCESS FOR THE INITIAL DRAFT THAT WAS PRESENTED TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, IT REQUIRED WINDOWS THAT ARE TYPICAL OF THOSE PARTICULAR STYLES, MINIMAL TRADITIONAL IN RANCH. UH, GENERALLY THOSE ARE GONNA BE, UM, SOMETHING IN THE, IN THE REALM OF A SIX, OVER SIX, A NINE, OVER NINE OR 12 OVER 12. THAT'S THE NUMBER OF DIVISIONS IN EACH SASH. UM, AS PART OF THE DISCUSSIONS IN WITH THE NEIGHBORS AFTER REVIEWING THE DRAFT, UM, THERE WERE, WERE SOME WHO WERE WANTING, UM, TO ALLOW, UH, WHAT ARE PLATE GLASS WINDOWS, THOSE LARGE SHEETS OF GLASS WITH NO DIVISIONS. AND SO, UH, AFTER SEVERAL ROUNDS OF DISCUSSION, A COMPROMISE WAS REACHED THAT AT LEAST THOSE WINDOWS SHOULD HAVE SOME SORT OF DIVISION TO THEM. IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO BE TYPICAL OF WHAT WE WOULD SEE ON AN ORIGINAL HOUSE, NOR HAVE THE OPERABILITY OF AN ORIGINAL WINDOW. SO THERE WAS A, A COMPROMISE MADE ON THE WINDOWS. AND I KNOW THERE'S LANGUAGE IN HERE THAT SAYS IF YOU'VE GOT AN EXISTING, WHAT I'M GONNA SAY, PLAY CLASS, IF YOU'VE GOT A LARGE OPENING, YOU CAN KEEP IT, YOU CAN REPLACE IT WITH, LIKE, YOU JUST CAN'T EXPAND OR NEW CONSTRUCTION THEN WOULD MOVE TO THE DIVISION OF SOME NATURE. IS THAT THAT'S RIGHT. AND, AND THERE WERE A NUMBER OF EXISTING PLATE GLASS WINDOWS, WHICH IS WHY THAT LANGUAGE, UM, WAS CERTAINLY INCLUDED. AND, AND IN ADDITION TO THE, THE ALLOWANCE FOR REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING PLATE GLASS, UM, THE ORDINANCE ALSO INCLUDES [01:35:01] A DOCUMENTED ASSURANCE PROVISION THAT WOULD ALLOW, UM, STRUCTURES THAT CAN, UH, ADEQUATELY DOCUMENT A, A PREEXISTING CONDITION OR A HISTORIC CONDITION TO BE ABLE TO PUT IT BACK IF THE ORDINANCE, IF IT WERE TO, UH, NOT FOLLOW THE ORDINANCE LANGUAGE. THANK YOU. AND THEN REGARDING HEIGHT, IT SOUNDED LIKE THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT, I KNOW THERE'S A GENERAL, UH, MOVE WITHIN THE CITY TO MOVE TO FINISH FLOOR VERSUS GRADE, BUT IT'S KEPT THE GRADE PROVISION, WHICH IS TYPICAL OF THAT ERA OF CONSTRUCTION. IS THAT CORRECT? SO THE INITIAL DRAFT PRESENTED TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, LIMITED HEIGHT TO 26 FEET MEASURED FROM GRADE TO THE HIGHEST PEAK OF THE ROOF. AGAIN, THIS WAS ANOTHER AREA WHERE THERE WAS, UH, HEAVY DISCUSSION, AND ULTIMATELY A COMPROMISE WAS REACHED TO ADJUST THAT TO 26 FEET MEASURED FROM FINISHED FLOOR TO THE HIGHEST POINT OF THE ROOF. AND THAT'S TO ACCOMMODATE EXISTING BUILDINGS, OBVIOUSLY, BUT ALSO THERE ARE SOME LOTS ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE, THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT HAVE, UM, SOME ADDITIONAL TOPOGRAPHY THAT MAY HAVE, UH, LIMITED THEIR ABILITY TO REALLY BE ABLE TO, TO DO WHAT THEY NEEDED TO DO, COMMISERATE TO THEIR NEIGHBORS, UH, IF WE WOULD'VE GONE TO GRADE INSTEAD OF FINISH FLOOR. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR, COMMISSIONER HOUSE. RIGHT. UM, ON THE TOPIC OF HEIGHT, JUST ONE MORE, UH, BRIEF QUESTION. THE HEIGHT IS MEASURED OR THE, THE HEIGHT LIMIT IS MEASURED TO THE RIDGE OF THE ROOF. AND I MAY BE MISTAKEN, BUT I THOUGHT THAT ORDINARILY YOU WOULD, UH, UH, DESIGNATE THE HEIGHT OR, OR MEASURE THE HEIGHT TO THE MID SLOPE OF, OF A, OF A STR STRUCTURE WITH A SLOPED ROOF. WHY IN THIS INSTANCE ARE WE GOING TO THE RIDGE? UH, THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH 90% OF ALL CONSERVATION DISTRICT ORDINANCES ALREADY IN PLACE. UM, IT IS, UH, THE, THE MIDPOINT, UH, MEASUREMENT THAT YOU'RE, UH, REFERRING TO IS HOW THE, THE CITY DOES THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT CODE MEASURE HEIGHT. UM, HOWEVER, IN, IN THESE TYPES OF AREAS, UH, WE'VE FOUND IN ORDER TO BE, IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN THE, THE SORT OF STATUS QUO THAT THAT MEASURE TO PEAK IS AN EASIER, UM, WAY OF APPROACHING THAT. AND AGAIN, IT'S, IT'S CONSISTENT WITH, WITH NEARLY EVERY CONSERVATION DISTRICT ORDINANCE THAT'S ALREADY IN PLACE. OKAY. AND SO YOU'RE TELLING ME THAT THE EXPERIENCE HERE IN THE CITY IS THAT THAT'S A, A BETTER WAY TO, UH, PRESERVE THE INTEGRITY OF THESE CON CONSERVATION DISTRICTS AS OPPOSED TO BEING CONSISTENT WITH THE WAY WE TREAT HEIGHT IN OTHER AREAS? SO THOSE WHO DRAFTED ORDINANCES BEFORE ME FOUND THAT TO BE THE CASE. OKAY. THANKS COMMISSIONERS. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? MR. HALL? UH, MR. EXCUSE ME, MR. BROWN. UM, DID THIS COME ABOUT BECAUSE HOUSES WERE BEING TORN DOWN AND REPLACED WITH MORE MODERN, BIGGER H HOUSES? UH, THAT HAS NOT BEEN THE CASE. UM, BUT CERTAINLY, UH, AREAS LIKE THESE ARE, UH, ENCOURAGED, I WOULD SAY TO BE A LITTLE MORE PROACTIVE CONSIDERING THE DURATION OF THESE PROCESSES. YOU KNOW, AGAIN, THIS HAS BEEN, UH, ONGOING FOR NEARLY TWO AND A HALF YEARS NOW. SO IF AND HOW QUICKLY THINGS ARE CERTAINLY BEGINNING TO CHANGE IN, IN OAK CLIFF, I THINK THE NEIGHBORS WERE, AGAIN, BEING VERY PROACTIVE IN APPROACHING THE CITY. AND THIS HAD BEEN IN DISCUSSION FOR EVEN YEARS BEFORE THEY CAME TO US IN 2022, IS MY UNDERSTANDING. AND CERTAINLY THEY CAN SPEAK TO THAT AS WELL, BUT I THINK THEY HAVE SEEN THE DEVELOPMENT THAT'S STARTING TO COME IN, INCLUDING IMMEDIATE AREA, UH, AND, AND WANTED TO GET OUT AHEAD OF IT. AND WHEN, WHEN A A A HOUSE, AN EXISTING HOUSE IS DEMOLISHED, DOES IT HAVE TO BE REPLACED ON THE SAME FOOTPRINT OR CAN NO, SIR. CAN YOU MAKE IT BIGGER OR AS LONG AS IT ADHERES TO THE GUIDELINES? THAT THAT'S CORRECT? YES. OKAY. YEAH. UH, WHAT, WHAT WOULD BE THE MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE? UH, THE PRESCRIBED OR SUGGESTED, UM, IS 40%, WHICH IS UNDER THE CURRENT, UH, R SEVEN FIVE, A ZONING ALLOWANCE OF 45%. AGAIN, UM, IN OUR STUDY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, MOST OF THE EXISTING PROPERTIES THERE ARE UNDER 35%, UH, LOT COVERAGE, REALLY PROBABLY EVEN UNDER 30 IN A LOT OF INSTANCES. SO, UH, IN ORDER TO, TO MAINTAIN THAT CHARACTER AND NOT SORT OF BUILD OUT, UH, TO THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED, UH, THEY DECIDED TO, UH, GO FORWARD WITH A, A REDUCED LOT COVERAGE OF 40%. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY. WE [01:40:01] WILL MOVE ON TO OUR LAST ITEM THIS MORNING FOR OUR BRIEFING, THE PD 5 95 AUTHORIZED HEARING SCREEN. GOOD MORNING EVERYBODY. HOPE EVERYBODY'S DOING WELL. MY NAME IS JOHN CERVANTES WITH THE, UH, PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ON THE AUTHORIZED HEARING TEAM SPECIFICALLY, AND I'M ALSO HERE JOINED, UH, MY, UH, PATRICK BLADES, LET HIM INTRODUCE HIMSELF. YEAH. GOOD MORNING CHAIR, UH, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, MADAM SECRETARY. UH, WE'RE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS, UM, ABOUT, UH, THE AUTHORIZED HEARING FOR PD 5 9 5. UM, AGAIN, UH, WE BRIEFED, UM, AT THE PREVIOUS, UM, CPC HEARING. UM, AND, UM, AGAIN, I KNOW WE'VE MET WITH, UH, SEVERAL OF Y'ALL. UM, AND, UM, I WILL, UM, FIRST BEGIN BY, UM, THANKING THE COMMISSION. UM, I BELIEVE Y'ALL HAVE BEEN VERY RESPECTFUL, UM, OF, UH, THE VOICES FROM SOUTH DALLAS AND WHAT THEY'VE ASKED FOR, UM, AND THAT HASN'T ALWAYS BEEN THE CASE. SO, UM, I DO WANT TO THANK, UM, ALL THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION FOR THAT. UM, AND AS, UM, I SAID, UM, WE'RE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT, UM, I WENT THROUGH THE PACKET OF, UM, RESPONSES ON THE, ON THIS, UH, APPLICATION OR THIS PROPOSAL. AND BY MY MATH, THE OPPOSITION OUTWEIGHED THE SUPPORT BY ALMOST THREE TO ONE. CAN, UH, CAN YOU JUST SHED SOME LIGHT ON, UH, ANY LINGERING OPPOSITION IN THIS AREA? AND, UM, KIND OF YOUR, YOUR THOUGHTS ON THAT? YEAH. UM, AGAIN, UH, CANNOT SPEAK FOR PEOPLE OF SOUTH DALLAS, BUT FROM JUST WHAT, UM, WE HEARD, UM, AND FROM SOME OF THOSE RESPONSES THAT WE DID SEE, UM, YOU KNOW, A NUMBER OF THEM WERE, UM, RESPONSES THAT SAID, I'M AGAINST THIS BECAUSE I WANT TO KNOW MORE ABOUT IT. UM, JUST BECAUSE IT'S A COMPLICATED THING. UM, SOME OF THE RESPONSES WERE, UM, I'M AGAINST THIS BECAUSE THE CITY HAS A HORRIBLE TRACK RECORD HERE, WHICH, YES. UM, BUT THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN THAT IT'S A BAD, UM, YOU KNOW, THAT THE RECOMMENDATIONS, UM, THAT CAME FROM THE COMMUNITY AREN'T BAD. IT'S JUST GOING ON THAT HISTORY. UM, YOU KNOW, THERE WERE OTHER, UM, COMMENTS THAT CAME BACK THAT SAID, YOU KNOW, THAT THERE WAS A CONCERN ABOUT GENTRIFICATION. UM, AND I THINK, UH, THE MEMBERS OF THE TASK FORCE AND, UM, PROPERTY OWNERS AND NEIGHBORS IN SOUTH DAS HAVE WORKED VERY HARD TO CRAFT, UM, UNIQUE SOLUTIONS TO ADDRESS SOME OF THOSE, UH, GENTRIFICATION ISSUES. UM, INCLUDING THE DESIGN STANDARDS, UM, FOR SOME, ALMOST 9,000 PROPERTIES HERE IN, UH, IN SOUTH DALLAS, UM, WHILE ALSO ALLOWING FOR STUFF LIKE ADU, UM, ALLOWING FOR, UM, THE CORRIDORS TO HAVE TOWN HOMES AND OTHER HOUSING OPTIONS. SO, UM, CREATING A, YOU KNOW, ADDITIONAL OPTIONS TO, UM, TO, TO ADDRESS SOME OF THAT UNWANTED DISPLACEMENT. UM, AGAIN, THERE ARE 11,000 PROPERTIES IN SOUTH DALLAS, UM, SO WE'RE NOT GONNA MAKE 11,000 PROPERTY OWNERS HAPPY OR THE 30,000 RESIDENTS. WE CAN'T MAKE 'EM ALL HAPPY. BUT I THINK, UH, THE TASK FORCE, UM, COMMISSIONER WHEELER, UH, AND STAFF HAVE, HAVE WORKED PRETTY HARD TO, TO MAKE SURE THAT, UM, WE'RE GETTING THE BIGGEST PIECE OF THE PIE HERE. UM, MR. CARPENTER, UH, MR. BLAZE, MY UNDERSTANDING FROM DISCUSSION WE HAD YESTERDAY WAS THAT YOU WERE GOING TO BRIEF SOME CHANGES TO WHAT WE HAD IN OUR DOCKET. UH, WE, WE CAN, IF THAT'S, UM, THE, THAT'S A REQUEST IF, IF THERE ARE CHANGES. 'CAUSE I KNOW WE, WE WENT THROUGH A NUMBER OF THINGS AND MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT YOU WERE GONNA GO AHEAD AND BRIEF THE, UM, CHANGES THAT STAFF WAS RECOMMENDING. SO, UM, IN CONVERSATIONS, [01:45:01] UM, FROM THE BRIEFING UNTIL NOW, UM, WITH, UM, COMMISSIONER WHEELER, MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY AND OTHER COMMISSIONERS, UM, THERE ARE A COUPLE OF, UM, SUGGESTIONS THAT HAVE COME UP. UH, ONE OF THEM IS ABOUT IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE IN THE FRONT YARD. UM, THAT'S THE DRIVEWAYS. UM, SPEAKING WITH SOME COMMISSIONERS, AND GOING BACK TO SOME OF THE STUFF THAT WAS DONE OVER AT ZAC RIGHT NOW, THE MAXIMUM WAS 25%. UM, BASED UPON THE CONVERSATIONS, THEY SAID THE GEOMETRY WORKS BETTER AT 30% THAT, THAT WOULD BE THE MAXIMUM COVERAGE FOR A DRIVEWAY IN THE FRONT YARD. UM, AND THAT WOULD BE FOR THE, UH, THE, THE SOUTH DALLAS FIVE, THE SOUTH DALLAS, UM, R SEVEN FIVE, AND THE SOUTH DALLAS DUPLEX DISTRICT. SO JUST, JUST FOR THOSE SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICTS, UM, THERE WAS A, UH, SUGGESTION THAT SAYS YOU HAVE A MAXIMUM GARAGE WIDTH ON THE FRONT, BUT NO MAXIMUM GARAGE WIDTH ON A SIDE STREET. SO IF YOU ACCESS FROM THE SIDE STREET, UH, RIGHT NOW THE REGULATION SAID YOU COULD HAVE A HUGE GARAGE, RIGHT? SO THERE NOW INCLUDED, UH, SO ONE OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS IS TO INCLUDE A, UM, MAXIMUM WIDTH, A PERCENTAGE ON THE SIDE STREET AS WELL, AGAIN, FOR THOSE SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICTS. UH, ANOTHER ONE CAME UP ABOUT, UH, WINDOWS. UM, RIGHT NOW THE MINIMUM ON THE FIRST FLOOR FOR THOSE SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICTS IS 10%. THAT DOESN'T INCLUDE GARAGES, BUT IT'S MEANT TO SAY THAT IF YOU DO HAVE A FRONT FACING GARAGE, THAT THAT 10% THEN WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, THAT 10% OF THE OTHER FACADE WOULD BE, UH, WOULD HAVE TO HAVE A WINDOW. UM, AND THE COMMENT CAME UP THAT, WELL, IF YOUR GARAGE IS IN THE BACK, THAT 10% CAN BE KIND OF SMALL AND YOU COULD GET KIND OF LIKE A PILL BOX WINDOW AT THE TOP. AND WHEN WE TALK WITH PEOPLE IN SOUTH DALLAS, THEY SAID, OKAY, THAT'S NOT WHAT WE WANTED EITHER. SO IT'S INCREASING THE MINIMUM TRANSPARENCY ON A FRONT FACING FACADE THAT DOESN'T HAVE A GARAGE TO 20%, UM, TO BE MORE REFLECTIVE OF WHAT IS IN OUR FORM BASED CODE. UH, ONE OF THE OTHER, UM, RECOMMENDATIONS WAS, UM, RETIREMENT HOUSING. RIGHT NOW, IT'S ONLY ALLOWED IN ONE OF THE MIXED USE DISTRICTS, UM, BECAUSE WE'RE GONNA ALLOW MULTIFAMILY AND ALL OF THOSE MIXED USE DISTRICTS, IT MAKES SENSE TO ALSO ALLOW RETIREMENT HOUSING IN ALL OF THOSE MIXED USE DISTRICTS AS WELL. UM, LET'S SEE, THE, RIGHT NOW IN THE PD AS WAS BRIEFED IN THE, THERE'S THREE MIXED USE DISTRICTS, NEIGHBORHOOD MIXED USE, COMMUNITY MIXED USE, AND REGIONAL MIXED USE, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD MIXED USE THAT'S LIMITED TO 45 FEET. COMMUNITY MIXED USE IS 45 FEET, BUT YOU CAN GO UP TO A HUNDRED IF YOU MEET CERTAIN DESIGN REQUIREMENTS ABOUT TRANSPARENCY AND GROUND FLOOR. THE REGIONAL MIXED USE DIDN'T HAVE THOSE REQUIREMENTS. IT JUST SAID YOU CAN GO UP TO 200 FEET. AND SO IT'S INCLUDING THOSE SAME DESIGN REQUIREMENTS IN THE MID-RISE DISTRICT THAT WE WOULD HAVE, UM, SORRY, INCLUDING THOSE, UM, UH, IN THE HIGHER RISE DISTRICT THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE IN THE MID-RISE DISTRICT, UM, THERE ARE A COUPLE OF OTHER SUGGESTIONS THAT CAME UP, UM, ABOUT INCREASED, UM, LIGHTING, UM, IN THE MIXED USE DISTRICTS REQUIRING THAT THOSE BUILDINGS HAVE ENHANCED LIGHTING AND THAT THE, UM, THE, THE, THE FOOT CANDLES DON'T SHED TO OTHER PROPERTIES. UM, AND THEN ANOTHER, UM, UH, SUGGESTION, UH, CAME UP ABOUT HAVING CERTAIN TYPES OF DESIGN STANDARDS FOR SMALLER SCALE BUILDINGS. UM, IN, IN TALKING WITH, UM, SOME MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY, THEY EXPRESS A DESIRE FOR THAT. UM, AND SO IF THAT'S THE WILL OF THE COMMISSION, WE HAVE SOME OF THOSE STANDARDS. UM, IF YOU WANTED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THOSE, UM, IS THAT, I THINK THAT GETS TO THE, ALL OF THE CHANGES THAT WE HAVE HEARD. UM, AND, UM, IN THE RECESS WE CAN PROVIDE YOU A COPY, UM, OF THOSE CHANGES. COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, DO YOU HAVE MORE QUESTIONS? BUT I CAN WAIT FOR OTHER PEOPLE TO ASK QUESTIONS. OKAY. LET'S START WITH, OR LET'S GO TO COMMISSIONER WHEELER REAGAN. UM, IN THE DISTRICTS THAT WE, THAT, WELL, WE WERE TALKING ABOUT, UM, THE DESIGN STANDARDS FOR RETAIL, UH, I MEAN FOR THOSE COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS, DO WE ALSO HAVE THAT CONVERSATION THAT ALSO DID NOT WANNA MAKE THE BURDEN SO HEAVY THAT IT WILL, UM, COUNTERACT WHAT WE'RE ACTUALLY TRYING TO DO IN THE, IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD SO THAT THESE PROPERTY OWNERS COULD NOT, I MEAN, UM, SO THEY WOULDN'T BE OF A HIGHER BURDEN OF THEM OPENING RETAIL, BUT DID CONSIDER SHOPFRONT IN, IN THOSE DISTRICTS AND POSSIBLY INGS, BUT DID NOT WANT TO IMPOSE TOO MUCH BECAUSE OF WHAT HAVE ALREADY HAS HAPPENED AND HAVE STALLED RETAIL BUSINESS? Y YES. UM, IT IS A, A GOOD QUESTION, UM, TO, TO WALK THE LINE BETWEEN, UH, CREATING EN ENHANCED BUILDINGS AND, AND HIGH QUALITY BUILDINGS WHILE NOT PROVIDING TOO MANY BARRIERS FOR SMALL BUSINESSES TO OPEN UP IN SOUTH DALLAS. 'CAUSE 100%, WE DID HEAR A LOT OF THAT. THAT WAS A, A BIG BARRIER. UM, AND THAT CREATING TOO MANY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS [01:50:01] WOULD JUST PILE ONTO THAT BARRIER. UM, AND SO, UM, WE TOOK A LOOK AT, THERE'S A ONE PD, UM, THE, THE FORT WORTH AVENUE PD THAT HAS, UM, ESSENTIALLY A, A LIST OF, I WANNA SAY IT'S 12 DIFFERENT OPTIONS THAT YOU CAN INCLUDE AS PART OF A SMALLER BUILDING FROM AN AWNINGS TO A PATIO TO ENHANCE, UM, ARTICULATION. AND IT'S JUST CHOOSING TWO OF THOSE, UM, THAT COULD BE AN OPTION THAT WOULD ALLOW SOME FLEXIBILITY, UM, FOR A SMALLER SCALABILITY TO LOOK BETTER, UM, BUT NOT HAVE TOO MUCH OF A BURDEN. UM, WE CAN ALSO HAVE, UM, THAT, THAT THOSE REQUIREMENTS, UM, WOULD NOT BE, UH, APPLICABLE TO EXISTING STRUCTURES AS WELL. UM, KNOW THERE'S SOME PDS THAT HAVE DONE THAT AS WELL. UM, ARE YOU AWARE THAT, THAT, UM, THAT NIIM AND I ARE ARE DISTRICTS THAT THE COMMUNITY HAD FEW COMPLAINTS ABOUT THOSE DISTRICTS, THE USES THAT ARE CURRENTLY THERE, BUT THOSE, BUT, BUT WE WOULD INCLUDE THAT WE ARE CONSIDERING INCLUDING SOME, UM, UM, EITHER PROHIBITING OR ALIGNED BY A SUP, OTHER, OTHER USE BEING USES THAT, UM, THAT MIGHT BE DEEMED HARMFUL. BUT FOR THE MOST PART THEN IN, IN THE IM DISTRICTS IN OUR DISTRICT, THERE WAS NOT MUCH CONVERSATIONS OR CONCERN FROM THE COMMUNITY. UM, SO IN THE AREA PLANNING PROCESS AND IN THE, THE AUTHORIZED HEARING, I DON'T THINK WE GOT A LOT OF CONVERSATIONS ABOUT INDUSTRIAL LAND USES IN SOUTH DALLAS. WE DID HEAR ABOUT THE FOUNDRY. I WANNA MAKE CLEAR, WE DID HEAR ABOUT THAT ONE. UM, THAT'S ILLEGAL EXISTING NON-CONFORMING AS IT IS TODAY. UM, AND SO CHANGING THE ZONING DOESN'T NECESSARILY AFFECT THAT ONE. UM, BUT THE OTHER INDUSTRIAL LAND USES, UM, WE DIDN'T HEAR A LOT ABOUT, UM, MOST OF THOSE METAL RECYCLERS ALREADY REQUIRE AN SUP AND, UM, THOSE ARE, UM, RENEWABLE ONES THAT ARE RENEWABLE. UM, SO THEY'RE NOT JUST A PERPETUITY ONE, UM, THEY HAVE TO COME BACK. UM, IN FACT, I THINK ONE CAME TO CPC NOT THAT LONG AGO, WITHIN THE PAST YEAR, UM, WHEN WE WENT AND DID THE RESEARCH ABOUT THE LAND USES THAT ARE ALLOWED BY WRIGHT IN THE, UH, IN THE HEAVY MIXED USE DISTRICTS. UH, THE FOUR THAT CAME BACK THAT ARE ALLOWED BY RIGHT, THAT DON'T HAVE AN EXISTING CO, UH, WOULD BE AUTO AUCTION MANUFACTURED BUILDING SALES MINI WAREHOUSE AND OUTSIDE STORAGE. SO IF YOU ALLOWED THOSE BY AN SUP, YOU WOULDN'T BE CREATING ANY NON-CONFORMING, UM, EXISTING BUILDINGS OUT THERE. SO THAT COULD ALSO BE A POSSIBILITY TO CHANGE THOSE FOUR LAND USES TO JUST A REQUIREMENT OF AN SUP INSTEAD OF BUY. RIGHT. AND MOST OF THOSE, I AM, MOST OF THE, I, THE BIGGEST IM DISTRICT IN SOUTH DALLAS IS NOT DIRECTLY, UM, CLOSE TO THE RESIDENTIAL CURRENTLY IN, IN THE PD, SORRY, IN THE, IN 5, 9 5. UM, I WILL POINT OUT THAT, UM, IT, IT'S NOT REALLY AN IM DISTRICT. UM, I OR AN IM YEAH, THAT, THAT, THAT SOME OF THOSE LAND USES WERE TAKEN OUT 20 YEARS AGO OR REQUIRED TO HAVE AN SUP. UM, BUT, UM, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE ALSO SOME, TO YOUR POINT, THOSE ARE FURTHER AWAY FROM, UM, WHAT PEOPLE IN SOUTH DALLAS TOLD US WERE THE NEIGHBORHOODS. UM, AND LAST QUESTION RELATED TO THAT, BUT A QUITE A BIT OF I AM DISTRICT THAT, THAT WHERE CURRENTLY I AM IS BEING UPGRADE THAT IS, IS CALLING FOR IT TO BE, UM, CHANGED TO REGIONAL MIXED USE. WELL, REGIONAL SERVICE MIXED USE. Y YES. THAT, THAT, THAT DISTRICT THAT RIGHT NOW, UM, FUNCTIONS AS MORE OF A HEAVY COMMERCIAL OR LIGHTER INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT, UM, WOULD NOW ALSO INCLUDE RESIDENTIAL LAND USES AS A POTENTIAL OPPORTUNITY FOR THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS TO SELL THEIR PROPERTIES TO THEN REDEVELOP AS, UM, AS MIXED USE BUILDINGS, AS OPPOSED TO RIGHT NOW WHERE THEY DON'T HAVE THAT OPINION OR THAT ABILITY. SO INSTEAD OF BUYING, INSTEAD OF THE CITY HAVING TO BUY SOME OF THOSE BUSINESSES OUT, IT'S AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THEM TO MOVE, UM, BECAUSE OF THE MARKET. COMMISSIONER WHEELER, ARE YOU, I'M FA I'M SORRY. I'M OH, YOU'RE DONE. I'M SO, I'M SORRY. I COULDN'T TELL IF YOU WERE LOOKING FOR YOUR NEXT QUESTION OR NOT Y'ALL, I'M TOO OVERWHELMED. COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, AND IT MAY HELP, I THINK YOU MENTIONED YOU'RE GONNA DISTRIBUTE SOME OF THE COMMENTS THAT YOU JUST RAN THROUGH, BUT I DIDN'T QUITE FOLLOW WHAT THE, UM, IMPERVIOUS DISCUSSION WAS, IS THAT IT IS PROPOSED TO BE REVISED. OKAY, PERFECT. YES, THANK YOU. AND I'LL YES, COMMISSIONER, AND I'LL LOOK AT THAT WHEN IT GETS, UM, DISTRIBUTED. AND, UM, I HAD ASKED A QUESTION ON GARAGES TO UNDERSTAND THAT OFFSET, BECAUSE AS IT'S CURRENTLY [01:55:01] WRITTEN, IT'S EITHER SIX FEET BACK, BUT CAN BE SIX FEET FROM THE PORCH, WHICH APPEARS TO BE AS DRAFTED, THAT YOU COULD HAVE WHAT I'M GONNA CALL A FLAT FRONT FACADE WITH A PORCH ON IT, BUT THERE'S NO OTHER OFFSET THAT'D BE REQUIRED. WAS THERE ANY MINIMUM THAT WAS CONSIDERED JUST TO ENSURE THAT THAT KIND OF RELIEF FROM THE FRONT FACADE? UM, IT IS A, A GOOD QUESTION IF, UH, IF, IF THE, IF MY, YOUR FELLOW COMMISSIONERS, IF YOU'RE NOT SEEING IT IN YOUR MIND'S EYE, IT WOULD ESSENTIALLY BE THAT YOU HAVE A, A, A FLAT FRONT FACADE AND THEN YOU HAVE A PORCH ON THE FRONT. UM, AND SOMETIMES THAT PORCH CAN LOOK A LITTLE BIT LIKE IT'S JUST TACKED ON THE FRONT, UM, AS OPPOSED TO A FULL, A LARGER PORCH. UM, THAT'S THE WAY THE ORDINANCE IS COURTLY WRITTEN. UM, WHAT WE, IN OUR CONVERSATIONS WITH THE COMMUNITY, THEY DID, THEY, EXCUSE ME, WHAT WE HEARD WAS THAT THEY DIDN'T NECESSARILY WEREN'T NECESSARILY A PRO OPPOSED TO THAT CONTINUATION OF THE FRONTAGE AS LONG AS IT HAD A PORCH. UM, BUT, YOU KNOW, IT IS A CONVERSATION THAT WE CAN HAVE, UM, YOU KNOW, IF, IF, IF THERE IS AN IDEA TO OFFSET IT BY EVEN A COUPLE OF FEET SO THAT IT'S NOT THAT, THAT FLAT FRONT WITH THE PORCH ON THE TACKED ON THE FRONT. THANK YOU. AND I THINK THIS PICTURE IS, I THINK WHAT MANY OF US, UM, ENVISION WHEN WE HEAR THAT IDEA OF A PORCH AND THEN HAVING THE GARAGE. SO AGAIN, I JUST WANTED TO UNDERSTAND WHERE THAT CONVERSATION CAME FROM. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER CARPENTER? WAS THERE ANY DISCUSSION OF DATA CENTERS DURING ANY OF THESE MEETINGS? I KNOW THIS HAS BEEN, THIS CONVERSATION. FAIR PARK CONVERSATION'S BEEN GOING ON FOR A LONG TIME AND DATA CENTERS ARE A MORE, UH, RECENT CONCERN. UM, I THINK WE DID NOT HEAR ANYTHING ABOUT DATA CENTERS UNTIL MAYBE LIKE FOUR DAYS AGO. UM, AND THEN THAT'S THE ONLY THING, LIKE THAT'S, I MEAN, 'CAUSE IT'S JUST BEEN SUCH A TOP OF MIND FOR A LOT OF STUFF THAT'S GOING ON, BUT IN THE PLANNING PROCESS, BECAUSE, UM, WE'VE NOT SEEN DATA CENTERS IN SOUTH DALLAS, WE HAVEN'T HAD DEVELOPERS TALK TO US ABOUT DATA CENTERS IN SOUTH DALLAS. UM, HAVEN'T HEARD NECESSARILY FROM MEMBERS IN THE COMMUNITY ABOUT A CONCERN ABOUT DATA CENTERS. UM, YOU KNOW, OUR CURRENT CODE, UM, DOES ADDRESS THEM. UM, BUT I I WOULD SAY, YOU KNOW, THREE YEARS AGO IT JUST WASN'T A THING. AND EVEN THREE MONTHS AGO. RIGHT. I MEAN UNDERSTOOD. BUT I MEAN, CONSIDERING THAT REVISITING A PD LIKE THIS IS LIKE A ONCE IN A GENERATION OPPORTUNITY, I WONDERED IF THERE WAS A, YOU KNOW, 'CAUSE RIGHT NOW LOCAL UTILITIES IS ALLOWED BY RIGHT. AND I THINK ALL OF THESE DISTRICTS, AND WHILE I, WHILE I UNDERSTAND THAT, UM, THE LEGAL AND PLANNING STAFF DON'T, UM, AGREE WITH, UH, PROHIBITING LOCAL UTILITIES OR ADDING AN SUP REQUIREMENT, UM, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT WE COULD PROHIBIT COMMUNICATIONS EXCHANGE FACILITIES IF THAT WAS THE DESIRE TO NOT HAVE TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT DATA CENTERS GOING IN WHERE YOU HAVE RESIDENCES. UM, I, I THINK IF WE GO THROUGH THAT CONVERSATION, I THINK THERE ARE CERTAIN THINGS THAT WE COULD THINK ABOUT IN THOSE REGULATIONS THAT PERHAPS IT'S AN SUP AND PERHAPS IT'S ALSO RELATED TO A, A SIZE MM-HMM . BECAUSE, UM, AS THOSE DATA CENTERS ARE INVOLVING, I DON'T WANT TO HAMSTRUNG SOUTH DALLAS, IF ANY, IN A YEAR IN THE FUTURE THERE IS A, A REALLY GOOD DATA CENTER MM-HMM . ACTIVITY OR LIKE THEY'VE, THEY'VE EVOLVED TO SOMETHING THAT'S DIFFERENT. DON'T NECESSARILY WANT TO PREVENT SOMETHING THAT LIKE NO, I, THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES. SO NO, I UNDERSTAND THE SEP REQUIREMENT, BUT I JUST WANTED TO BRING UP THE ISSUE. ANOTHER THING I NOTICED, UM, READING THROUGH ALL THESE DIFFERENT, UM, DISTRICTS IS THE DIFFERENT TREATMENT OF HANDICAP GROUP DWELLING UNIT. 'CAUSE IN MOST OF THEM IT JUST SAYS THEY'RE ALLOWED BY RIGHT. BUT IN ONE OF THEM IT'S, IT, IT SAID THERE WAS AN SUP UH, REQUIRED. IF THE DISTANCE WAS THE PROPO, THE DISTANCE FOR THE ADDITIONAL PROPOSED, UM, HANDICAPPED DWELLING UNIT WAS CLOSER THAN A THOUSAND FEET. WAS IT THE INTENTION TO TREAT THESE DISTRICTS DIFFERENTLY OR, OR IS THE SUP REQUIREMENT FOR THE 1000 FEET, UM, SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE APPLIED TO ALL THE DISTRICTS? UM, SO IS IS THERE A PACIFIC DISTRICT THAT THAT, THAT HAS THAT LANGUAGE ABOUT I, THERE IS, BUT I, FROM MY NOTES IT MAY BE THE NEIGHBORHOOD MIXED USE. YEAH. I, I THINK WHAT, SORRY. THE INTENT IS IN THE MIXED USE DISTRICTS TO NOT TREAT THAT LAND USE DIFFERENTLY. OKAY. BUT, BUT CAN FOLLOW UP TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S THE CASE IN, IN THE PD. OKAY. AND, UM, COMMUNITY MIXED USE, WHAT WAS THE REASON FOR REQUIRING AN SUP FOR A FOOD OR A BEVERAGE STORE LESS THAN 5,000 SQUARE FEET? UM, SO IF YOU RECALL, UM, FOR, FOR THOSE OF US WHO HAVE BEEN IN DALLAS FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS, UM, IN SOUTH DALLAS, 25 YEARS AGO WHEN THE PD WAS ADOPTED, THERE WAS A PLETHORA OF, UH, CONVENIENCE STORES, UM, THAT SOLD A LOT OF, UM, [02:00:01] A ALCOHOL AND, AND POTATO CHIPS. UM, AND BACK IN 2001 ALSO, THAT WAS WHEN DALLAS WAS WET AND DRY. SO YOU COULDN'T GO TO TOM THUMB IN EAST DALLAS OR OR PLEASANT GROVE AND BUY A SIX PACK OF BEER. YOU HAD TO GO ACROSS BASICALLY DOLPHIN HEIGHTS INTO SOUTH DALLAS. AND SO THERE WAS A PLETHORA OF NOT JUST, YOU KNOW, THERE WAS A CONCENTRATION OF CONVENIENCE STORES THAT SOLD ALCOHOL. AND SO BACK IN 2001, THEY CAME UP WITH THIS DIFFERENTIAL TO SAY A, A SMALLER FOOD STORE WOULD HAVE TO HAVE AN SUP SO THAT THEY COULD START TO CONTROL SOME OF THE BAD ACTING CONVENIENCE STORES. UM, WE SPENT A LONG TIME TALKING IN SOUTH DALLAS ABOUT WHETHER THAT'S STILL SOMETHING THAT THEY WANT TO, TO, TO WORK THROUGH. ULTIMATELY THEY SAID YES, THERE'S STILL BAD ACTING, UH, CONVENIENCE STORES THAT ARE DOING THAT. UM, SO WE ALSO ALTERED THE DEFINITION OF CATERING SERVICE. MM-HMM . TO SAY THAT IF YOU'RE, YOU KNOW, IF YOU'RE BASICALLY A DONUT SHOP, YOU CAN DO THAT. YOU CAN DO FOOD TO GO, UM, IF ALL THEIR STUFF IS PREPARED, UM, AND THEN ALLOW THAT IN THOSE DISTRICTS AS A WAY TO KIND OF NAVIGATE BOTH THE POLICING AND THE BAD, BUT THEN ALLOWING AND EMPOWERING, YOU KNOW, GOOD BUSINESSES. OKAY. 'CAUSE I WAS TRYING TO RECONCILE HOW THE DESIRE FOR WHAT SEEMED LIKE MORE OF THOSE KINDS OF USES THROUGH THE CATERING SERVICE WAS GOING TO CONFLICT WITH THE SUP REQUIREMENT. BUT I THINK YOU'VE, UM, EXPLAINED THAT, UM, THE CONCERN ABOUT CONVENIENCE STORES, UM, SELLING THE LIQUOR AND ALL WAS THE SAME CONCERN ABOUT OUTRIGHT LIQUOR STORES BECAUSE IS THERE A LIQUOR STORE REQUIREMENT FOR, I KNOW, LIKE REGIONAL MIXED USE, THERE'S NO LIQUOR STORE ALLOWED AT ALL. I THINK COMMUNITY MIXED USE IT, JUST KNOW THEY'RE, THEY'RE TREATED DIFFERENTLY THAT IT'S ALLOWED BY, UM, SEP IN ONE OF THE MIXED USE DISTRICTS, BUT NOT ALLOWED BY WRIGHT IN THE OTHER DISTRICTS. RIGHT. THAT, UM, THAT WAS HOW THE PD WAS WRITTEN. UM, WE DIDN'T NECESSARILY GET A LOT OF FEEDBACK THAT THAT IS SOMETHING THAT, THAT SHOULD OR SHOULDN'T CHANGE. OKAY. ALRIGHT. AND I CAN EXPAND ON THAT FOR A REASON. SO INITIALLY, UH, PD 5 95 AS EXISTING HAS ENHANCED DISTRICTS MM-HMM . AND SO THAT IS ONE OF THE DISTRICTS THAT GOT CONSOLIDATED INTO, UH, ONE OF OUR MIXED USE DISTRICTS, WHICH IN THIS CASE IS CMU. SO WHEN YOU SEE THE SUP REQUIREMENT, UM, THAT WAS, UH, BASICALLY INHERITED FROM THE ENHANCED DISTRICT. SO RATHER THAN ELIMINATING IT, WE UH, LEFT IT THERE AS AN SUP. OKAY. WELL, THAT WAS MY CONCERN IS THAT IF THERE HAD BEEN A COMMUNITY-WIDE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE DIFFERENT TREATMENTS OF THESE, UH, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THESE USES ACROSS THE DIFFERENT DISTRICTS. OKAY. I THINK MY LAST QUESTION HAS TO DO WITH THE ADDITIONAL INDUSTRIAL USES. SO YOU CA YOU CALLED OUT FOUR USES THAT YOU THOUGHT WERE NOT PARTICULARLY DESIRABLE IF YOU'RE TRYING TO GO MIXED USE AND YOU DON'T HAVE THEM RIGHT NOW, SO THEY COULD BE STRUCK. SO ARE YOU SAYING THAT RIGHT NOW IN THESE AREAS THERE ARE INDUSTRIAL INSIDE POTENTIAL INCOMPATIBLE USES? UH, YES. IF THERE IS A LAND USE THAT EXISTS RIGHT NOW, UM, THAT IS ALLOWED BY WRIGHT IN THESE AREAS MM-HMM . UM, THAT WE DIDN'T CALL OUT THEN, THAT THERE IS A, THERE WOULD BE A ACTIVE CO FOR THAT LAND USE IF THAT LAND USE RIGHT NOW IS NOT ALLOWED BY WRIGHT MM-HMM . OR IS ALLOWED BY SUP, THAT THAT WOULDN'T BE INCLUDED IN THE FOUR LAND USES THAT WE REFERENCED. OKAY. SO, UH, I'M INFERRING THAT YOUR OPERATING INSTRUCTIONS WERE GENERALLY NOT TO CREATE NON-CONFORMING USES. THAT'S CORRECT. IF THERE IS EXISTING NON-CONFORMING, YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT MAKING IT MORE NON-CONFORMING. OKAY. IF THERE IS AN EXISTING, UH, BUSINESS THAT IS CONFORMING EITHER THROUGH SUP OR BY RIGHT. WE WOULDN'T BE REMOVING THAT, THAT, THAT. RIGHT. OKAY. AND SO THERE ARE EXISTING MACHINERY HEAVY EQUIPMENT USES IN THESE AREAS. SO, UH, BECAUSE I HAVE FOUND THAT, THAT THOSE TEND TO BE REMARKABLY INCOMPATIBLE WITH ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL. AND AGAIN, IF THERE ARE LAND USES THAT IS, THAT IS ALLOWED BY RIGHT. OR BY AN SUP THAT'S IN THE PD, UH, THAT WE DIDN'T REFERENCE, THEN THERE WOULD BE A BUSINESS THAT'S OPERATING WITH THAT TYPE OF CO. OKAY. ALRIGHT. THANK YOU COMMISSIONERS. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY. IT IS 11:47 AM AND THAT CONCLUDES THE BRIEFING OF THE DALLAS CITY PLAN COMMISSION. WE'LL BE BACK AT 1230. ALRIGHT. IT IS 1240 IN THE AFTERNOON ON MAY 21ST, 2026. THIS IS THE PUBLIC HEARING OF THE DALLAS CITY PLAN COMMISSION. CAN WE START WITH THE ROLL CALL PLEASE? MS. LOPEZ? GOOD AFTERNOON COMMISSIONERS. [02:05:01] DISTRICT ONE COMMISSIONER SIMS. I'M HERE. DISTRICT TWO. COMMISSIONER HAMPTON. PRESENT DISTRICT THREE. VICE CHAIR HERBERT PRESENT. DISTRICT FOUR IS VACANT. DISTRICT FIVE COMMISSIONER. PRESENT? DISTRICT SIX. COMMISSIONER CARPENTER. PRESENT. DISTRICT SEVEN. COMMISSIONER WHEELER. REAGAN. PRESENT? DISTRICT EIGHT. COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN PRESENT? DISTRICT NINE. COMMISSIONER KONS. HERE. DISTRICT 10. COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT. PRESENT? DISTRICT 11. COMMISSIONER COX? HERE. DISTRICT 12. COMMISSIONER KAUFMAN. HERE. DISTRICT 13. COMMISSIONER HALL HERE. DISTRICT 14. COMMISSIONER KINGSTON HERE AND PLACE 15 CHAIR RUBIN. I AM HERE. YOU HAVE QUORUM SIR. ALRIGHT. THANK YOU EVERYONE SO MUCH FOR JOINING US. JUST A FEW, UM, GROUND RULES, UM, FOR HOW WE CONDUCT OUR MEETINGS. FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO HAVEN'T COME TO A CPC MOR MEETING TODAY, UM, WE TAKE PUBLIC SPEAKERS ON EACH ITEM. UH, WE START WITH THE SPEAKERS IN SUPPORT, THEN GO TO THE OPPOSITION. IF THERE IS OPPOSITION, THEN THE RULES PROVIDE THE, UM, APPLICANT WITH A TWO MINUTE REBUTTAL PERIOD. UM, IF YOU, IF YOU DO COME TO, I'LL GO THROUGH MY GROUND RULES IN JUST A MINUTE AND WE CAN ADDRESS ANY ISSUES THAT THAT MAY COME UP. UM, WHEN YOU DO START WITH YOUR COMMENTS, PLEASE START WITH YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. AND ALSO PLEASE FILL OUT ONE OF THOSE YELLOW FORMS DOWN THERE TO MY LEFT. YOUR RIGHT. SO WE DO HAVE A RECORD OF EVERYONE WHO'S COME TO SPEAK. OUR RULES GENERALLY ALLOW FOR THREE MINUTES PER SPEAKER, PER ITEM. UM, BUT WE DO HAVE THE FLEXIBILITY TO ADJUST THAT UPWARDS OR DOWNWARDS. AND IF THERE ARE CASES WITH LOTS OF SPEAKERS, WE MAY MAKE AN ADJUSTMENT TO THAT. UM, AND I BELIEVE THAT IS IT. [APPROVAL OF MINUTES] CAN WE GO TO COMMISSIONER HALL FOR A MOTION ON THE MINUTES FROM OUR LAST MEETING? THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. I MOVE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 7TH, 2026, AS POSTED WITH REVISIONS ON MAY 20TH, 2026. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER HALL FOR YOUR MOTION. VICE CHAIR HERBERT FOR YOUR SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED, SAY NAY. THE MOTION CARRIES. [Zoning Cases - Consent] OKAY. WE ARE GOING TO GO TO OUR ZONING CONSENT DOCKET RIGHT NOW. AND FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO AREN'T FAMILIAR WITH THAT, THAT CONSISTS OF ITEMS THAT WILL BE TAKEN UP AND VOTED OFF ON IN A SINGLE MOTION AND BASICALLY APPROVED AS THEY'RE LISTED IN OUR AGENDA OR AS BRIEF BY STAFF THAT ARE EARLIER BRIEFING TODAY. UM, BUT COMMISSIONERS HAVE THE ABILITY TO, YOU KNOW, REMOVE ANY ITEM FROM THE CONSENT DOCKET. SO THE ZONING CONSENT DOCKET WAS LISTED AS ITEMS ONE THROUGH SIX, BUT SEVERAL OF THE ITEMS HAVE COME OFF. 2, 4, 5 AND SIX HAVE COME OFF AND WILL BE CONSIDERED INDIVIDUALLY. UM, ONE AND THREE ARE STILL ON CONSENT. IS THERE ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON ITEMS NUMBER ONE OR THREE. OKAY. CAN YOU, UM, UH, ITEM NUMBER THREE. ITEM NUMBER THREE? OKAY. WE CAN TAKE THAT OFF OF ARE YOU ARE? I'M THE APPLICANT. OH, YOU'RE THE APPLICANT. WE DON'T HAVE TO TAKE OFF. OKAY. GREAT. OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK ON ITEMS ONE OR THREE? I THINK THERE'S A SPEAKER ONLINE. THE APPLICANT, ASHTON MILLER ON ITEM ONE, NOT ONLINE. OKAY. UH, MR. LEE, CAN YOU READ OUR, OUR CONSENT AGENDA, CONSISTENT ITEMS ONE AND THREE INTO THE RECORD? YEP. UH, ITEM ONE, AN APPLICATION TO AMEND AND EXPAND SPECIFIC USE PERMIT 2 75 FOR AN ELECTRIC SUBSTATION ON PROPERTY ZONE R DASH 10, SINGLE FAMILY AND R DASH 7.5 SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT ON THE WEST LINE OF SOUTH HAMPTON ROAD AND THE EAST LINE OF SOUTH FRANKLIN STREET, NORTH OF GIBBS WILLIAM ROAD. STAFF. RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO AN AMENDMENT SITE PLAN AND CONDITIONS ITEM NUMBER THREE, AND APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR SUB AREA B WITHIN PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT EIGHT 11 ON THE SOUTH LINE OF IH DASH 30 BETWEEN WEST COLORADO BOULEVARD AND NORTH C**K ROYAL ROAD. HILL ROAD. STAFF. RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO AN AMENDED DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND AN AMENDED LANDSCAPE PLAN. THANK YOU MR. LEE, VICE CHAIR. HERBERT, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? YES. [02:10:02] ON THE ITEMS LISTED IN THE CONSENT DOCKET, I MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE THEM AS A RECOMMENDED IN THE DOCKET. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HERBERT FOR YOUR MOTION VICE OR VICE CHAIR HERBERT FOR YOUR MOTION. COMMISSIONER HAMPTON FOR YOUR SECOND. ALL THOSE, ANY DISCUSSION? NO DISCUSSION. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? SAY NAY. THE MOTION CARRIES. [2. 26-1767A An application for an amendment to Specific Use Permit 2439 for commercial motor vehicle parking on property zoned CS Commercial Service District with deed restrictions Z201-345, on the southeast line of Telephone Road and the west line of Bonnie View Road.] WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM TWO. ALRIGHT, UH, ITEM TWO AND APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT SPECIFIC. USE PERMIT 24 39 FOR COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLE PARKING ON PROPERTY ZONE CS COMMERCIAL SERVICE DISTRICT WITH THE RESTRICTIONS Z 2 0 1 DASH 3 45 ON THE SOUTHEAST LINE OF TELEPHONE ROAD AND WEST LINE OF BONNIE VIEW ROAD. STAFF. RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL FOR A FIVE YEAR PERIOD WITH ELIGIBILITY FOR AUTO RENEWAL FOR ADDITIONAL FIVE YEAR PERIOD, SUBJECT TO AN AMENDED SITE PLAN, LANDSCAPE PLAN AND CONDITIONS. THANK YOU MR. LEE. MR. BALDWIN, YOU PULLING UP YOUR PRESENTATION? OKAY, TAKE YOUR TIME. GOOD AFTERNOON. UH, MY NAME'S ROB BALDWIN, I OFFICE AT 3 9 0 4 ELM STREET, SUITE B IN DALLAS, AND I'M HERE REPRESENTING CARTRIDGE CAPITAL. UH, WHO HAS THIS PROPERTY UNDER, UH, CONTRACT? UH, THE, WELL LEMME CLOSE THIS DIALOG BOX. UM, IT'S LOCATED DISTRICT EIGHT OFF OF TELEPHONE ROAD IN BON VIEW. IT OPERATES AS A COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLE PARKING RIGHT OVER THE DALLAS LOGISTICS PORT. UH, HERE'S A, AN AERIAL OF IT, UM, LONG AND NARROW. UH, I'VE BEEN INVOLVED WITH THIS PROPERTY SINCE 2024. I CAME IN WHEN THEY DID A RENEWAL IN 2024. UM, THIS DOESN'T EXPIRE UNTIL 2027, BUT WE'RE ASKING FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN ON THIS AT THE SAME TIME ASKING FOR RENEWAL OF THE SUP. SO THE, UH, EXTENT OF THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN IS, YEAH, WE'RE GREATLY INCREASING THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES ON THE SITE AND THE, THE REASON WE'RE DOING THAT IS WANTING TO MAKE IT MORE EFFICIENT. THE ORIGINAL SITE LAYOUT ON THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN WAS PUT TOGETHER BY AN ARCHITECT AND NOT AN ENGINEER. UH, ENGINEER LOOKED AT IT AND FOUND OUT WAYS ON THE SAME PIECE OF GROUND TO MAKE IT MORE EFFECTIVE AND EFFICIENT FOR THE, THE PARKING. UH, SO WE'RE REQUESTING IT TO GO UP FROM 2 85 TO 5 25. STILL SAME PIECE OF DIRT, UH, STEAM OPERATION. THERE'S TWO DRIVEWAYS, BOTH HAVE CURB CUTS. UM, I SPOKE WITH, UH, COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN ABOUT HIS CONCERNS ABOUT THIS, AND THIS IS WHY THIS PHOTO'S IN HERE. UM, THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PLAN HAVE A SEPARATION BETWEEN THE FENCE AND WHERE THE TRUCKS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE PARKED. AND AS YOU CAN SEE, IT'S NOT HAPPENING. UM, I'VE TALKED TO MY CLIENT ABOUT THAT AND HE DOESN'T OWN THE PROPERTY YET, BUT HE SPOKE TO THE OWNER AND SAID THAT HE NEEDS TO FOLLOW THE, THE EXISTING APPROVED LANDSCAPE PLAN AND SITE PLAN. AND I'VE BEEN TOLD THAT THEY WERE GOING TO REMOVE THESE TRUCKS AND KEEP 'EM TO THE APPROVED PLAN. UM, SPEAKING, I WAS AT THE BRIEFING SESSION AND COMMISSIONER CARPENTER'S QUESTIONED ABOUT THE PAVING. UM, THE DRIVEWAY APRONS ARE CONCRETE INSIDE. IT IS CRUSHED GRAVEL ON THE FLEX BASE. UH, I LOOKED INTO CITY'S RECORDS IN 2024. THEY GOT A PAVING PERMIT, UH, FOR THE SITE. UH, AND UH, THAT YEAR THEY ALSO GOT A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, WHICH REQUIRED CITY INSPECTION. SO IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE CITY CAME OUT, LOOKED AT AND FOUND OUT THAT THE PAVING AND OPERATION, UH, IT WAS COMPLIANT WITH THE APPROVED SUP. THIS IS THE EXISTING SITE PLAN. YOU CAN SEE EVERYTHING IS 90 DEGREES, ALL THE PARKING, AND IT IS KIND OF HARD TO SEE HERE, BUT ON THE, ON THIS ONE, ON THE, THAT'S YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU MR. BALDWIN. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER TWO? OKAY. NO FURTHER SPEAKERS. COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? UH, BEFORE I GO INTO A MOTION, I ASK THE, UM, ASK HIM QUESTION. I THINK OUR RULES REQUIRE YOU TO MAKE THE MOTION FIRST. I I IN THE MATTER OF Z 26 DASH 0 0 0 5 5 A MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND FOLLOW STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGES. UH, THE SUP WILL BE FOR TWO YEARS WITHOUT ELIGIBILITY FOR AUTOMATIC RENEWAL [02:15:01] AND SUBJECT TO AN AMENDED SITE PLAN, LANDSCAPE PLAN AND CONDITIONS. OKAY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR MOTION. COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN, YOUR SECOND COMMISSIONER SIMS, THE FLOOR IS YOURS. COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN, UH, CAN YOU, CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO THE COMMISSION THE, UH, THE PARKING OPERATIONS AT THE CENTER IN TERMS OF WHAT IS THE DURATION OF THE, A TYPICAL, UM, COMMERCIAL VEHICLE BEING PARKED AT THIS LOCATION? UM, I DON'T KNOW FOR SURE. IT'S, UH, I DID SPEAK FOR MY CLIENT WHEN WE FILED THIS. IT JUST SO EVERYONE KNOWS, THIS ISN'T THE LOGISTICS PORT AND UM, THERE'S A LOT OF WAREHOUSES, BUT WE NEED A LOT OF TRUCKS, BUT THEY DON'T ALL HAVE ROOM TO STORE THE TRAILER. SO THERE YOU'LL SEE THAT THESE USES ARE, ARE SPREAD OUT. UH, MY UNDERSTANDING IS TYPICALLY THE TRAILERS ARE THERE FOR LESS THAN TWO WEEKS. UH, THEY WOULD BE, UH, STATIONED THERE UNTIL THEIR LOAD OR WHATEVER IS READY TO EITHER DROP OFF OR PICK UP AND THEN THEY WILL LEAVE. IT'S, IT'S NOT LONG TERM. THERE'S TRAILERS THERE ALL THE TIME, BUT ONE TRAILER DOESN'T STAY THERE VERY LONG. AND, AND HOW MANY DAILY? UM, LEMME ASK THE QUESTION DIFFERENTLY. HOW MANY TRUCKS WILL GO IN AND OUT ON A DAILY BASIS? I DON'T KNOW, BUT I'VE BEEN THERE TWICE AND, UH, TWICE IN THE LAST TWO MONTHS. AND WHILE I WAS THERE FOR ABOUT A HALF HOUR EACH TIME I SAW ONE OR TWO TRUCKS COME AND GO EACH TIME. SO I DON'T THINK IT'S A, A HUGE AMOUNT OF GOING BACK AND FORTH. UM, BUT THEY, THEY'RE, I COULD HAVE BEEN THERE AT OFF PEAK TIME. AND THE PROPOSED OPERATOR, UH, THEY'RE PRETTY SOPHISTICATED AND THEY'VE BEEN IN THIS BUSINESS? YES, SIR. SIR, LOT LONGER THAN THE CURRENT OPERATOR, IS THAT CORRECT? THE CURRENT OPERATOR? UM, I THINK HE, HE JUST KIND OF MORPHED INTO THIS BUSINESS. UM, AND I THINK HE, BEFORE HIS INITIAL SUP WAS APPROVED, HE WAS OPERATING WITHOUT AN SUP. IT JUST KIND OF WAS IN THE RIGHT PLACE IN THE RIGHT TIME AND HAD PROPERTY WHERE PEOPLE COULD PARK TRUCKS. UM, HE DID GET THE SUP IN 2024. UM, MY CLIENTS, UH, GROUP CALLED CART CAPITAL OUT OF PHILADELPHIA AND THEY, THEY FOCUS ON OPERATING LARGE, UH, TRUCK TRAILER STORAGE. SO THEY'RE A SOPHISTICATED OPERATOR. UH, THANK YOU MR. BALLING. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM? SEEING NONE. WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SIMS TO APPROVE, BUT FOR A TWO YEAR PERIOD WITH NO ELIGIBILITY FOR AUTO RENEWALS. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? SAY NAY. THE MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. MOVE [4. 26-1769A An application for CR Community Retail District on property zoned R-7.5(A) Single Family District, on the southwest corner of Bonnie View Road and Highland Hills Drive.] ON TO CASE NUMBER FOUR. GOOD AFTERNOON. UH, CHAIR MEMBERS OF THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION ASK LEA. ITEM, UH, FOUR IS AN APPLICATION FOR A COMMUNITY, UH, RETAIL DISTRICT ON A PROPERTY ZONE R 7.5 SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF BONNEY BAY ROAD IN, UH, HIGH HIGHLAND HILLS DRIVE. A STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL. THANK YOU MR. AGUILERA. IS THERE ANYONE WHO'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER FOUR Z 26 0 0 0 0 7 1? NO SPEAKERS. COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN YOUR MOTION? THANK YOU MR. CHAIR IN THE MATTER OF Z DASH 26 DASH 0 0 7 1, I MOVE TO KEEP THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AND HOLD THIS MATTER UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL AUGUST 20TH, 2026. IS THAT EIGHT 20? THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN FOR YOUR MOTION. COMMISSIONER SIMS FOR YOUR SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? NO DISCUSSION. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED, SAY NAY. THE MOTION CARRIES ITEM NUMBER FIVE. ITEM NUMBER FIVE IS AN APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT. 24 94 FOR THE CELLS OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE ON A PROPERTY ZONE. WMU THREE WALKABLE URBAN MIXED USE DISTRICT WITH A D ONE LIQUOR CONTROL OVERLAY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST, UH, CORNER OF SOUTH, UH, HAMPTON ROAD AND, UH, BURLINGTON BOULEVARD AND STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS. THANK YOU MR. AGUILERA. IS THERE ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER FIVE? NO SPEAKERS. COMMISSIONER SIMS, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? I DO MR. CHAIR IN THE MATTER OF CASE NUMBER Z DASH 26 DASH 0 0 0 7 2. [02:20:02] I MOVE TO FOLLOW STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL SUBJECT CONDITIONS EXCEPT THAT THE TIME LIMIT SHALL BE FIVE YEARS WITH NO OPTION FOR AUTO RENEWAL. GREAT. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER SIMS FOR YOUR MOTION. UH, COMMISSIONER SERATO FOR YOUR SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? NO DISCUSSION. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? SAY NAY. THE MOTION CARRIES. I'LL HAND IT OVER TO YOU VICE CHAIR. YES. SO OUR NEXT [6. 26-1771A An application for an amendment to Specific Use Permit 2184 for a mini warehouse on property zoned CR Community Retail District, on the south line of Lake June Road and west line of N. St. Augustine Drive.] CASE IS, UM, CASE NUMBER SIX AND OSCAR ITEM, UH, NUMBER SIX IS AN APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT. 2184 FOR A MINI WAREHOUSE ON A PROPERTY ZONE CR COMMUNITY RETAIL DISTRICT LOCATED ON THE SOUTH LINE OF LAKE JUNE ROAD AND WEST LINE OF NORTH ST. AUGUSTINE DRIVE. STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE AMENDMENT SITE PLAN AND CONDITIONS. THANK YOU OSCAR. AND TO MENTION, UM, COMMISSIONER SERATO HAD A, UM, A CONFLICT ON THIS AND THEN STEPPED OUT OF THE CHAMBERS. UM, THAT BEING SAYS THAT ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM IN SUPPORT COME ON DOWN. UH, PLEASE START WITH YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. UM, TO BEGIN YOUR COMMENTS, GO AHEAD AND HIT THE BUTTON ON THE, SORRY, ROBERT TYRONE, UM, 9,500 LAKE JUNE, UM, BOULEVARD. SO JUST WANTED TO, WE WE CURRENTLY OPERATE AS MANY CELL STORAGE WAREHOUSE THERE. UM, WE, WE TOOK OVER THIS FACILITY, UH, FROM WHEN IT WAS BUILT IN, UH, 2016 AND WE'VE HAD IT FOR THE PAST THREE YEARS NOW. UH, THE 10 YEARS SUP PERMIT IS UP AND WE'RE JUST LOOKING TO EXTEND THAT PERMIT TO CONTINUE TO OPERATE AS A MINI WAREHOUSE. OKAY, THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK IN, UM, SUPPORT? IS THERE ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION HEARING ON COMMISSIONER RUBEN? YOU HAVE A, A MOTION? THANK YOU. I DO. IN CASE Z 26 0 0 0 0 6 2, I MOVE THAT WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND FOLLOW SA RECOMMENDATION RULE SUBJECT TO AMENDED SITE PLAN AND CONDITIONS, BUT FOR ANOTHER 10 YEAR PERIOD AS OPPOSED FOR PERMANENT. OKAY, THANK YOU. UM, CHAIR AND THANK YOU FOR THE SECOND. UM, COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT, UM, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. OH, ANY QUESTIONS? I'M SORRY. YES. UH, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER. MR. AGUILAR, I WANTED TO CONFIRM THAT THE PROPOSED CHANGES IN THE SITE PLAN IN THE BUILDING ARE ACTUALLY, UH, TO REFLECT ALTERATIONS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN MADE. IS THAT CORRECT? UH, CORRECT. UH, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANY MORE QUESTIONS? HEARING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THE AYES HAVE IT. UM, CASE SEVEN AND COMMISSIONER SERATO. THANK YOU. YOU CAN ENTER THE CHAMBER AGAIN. [7. 26-1772A An application for a new Planned Development District for WR-3 Walkable Urban Residential District uses, with consideration for a WR-3 Walkable Urban Residential District, on property zoned R-5(A) Single Family District, on the north line of E. Overton Road, north of E. Illinois Avenue.] GOOD AFTERNOON. ITEM SEVEN IS CASE Z 26 0 0 0 0 0 2. AN APPLICATION FOR NEW PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FOR WR R THREE WALKABLE URBAN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT USES WITH CONSIDERATION FOR A WR THREE WALKABLE URBAN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT ON PROPERTIES ZONED R FIVE, A SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT ON THE NORTH LINE OF EAST OVERTON ROAD, NORTH OF EAST ILLINOIS AVENUE. STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED NEW PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS. OKAY. AND THIS IS CASE SEVEN, CORRECT? UM, YES SIR. ITEM SEVEN, CASE Z 26 2 JEREMY FOUNTAIN AS THE APPLICANT. IS THAT RIGHT? MR. KINGSTON? PARDON ME? ARE YOU UP FOR CASE SEVEN? I'M SORRY. I AM. YOU ARE. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER KINGSTON'S GONNA, UM, STEP AWAY FOR A CONFLICT. THANK YOU. OKAY, SO THANK YOU MR. BATE FOR READING INTO THE RECORD. UM, IS THERE ANYONE HERE TO, UM, COMMENT IN SUPPORT AS THE KING COMMENTS? MR. EGER? OKAY. THANK YOU MR. KINGSTON. YOU'RE UP. THAT'S THE WRONG CASE, MR. KINGSTON. THAT'S MY CASE. WRONG CASE. I'M JEREMY FONT. I THINK THAT'S THE WRONG CASE. OH YEAH, I'LL WAIT ON YOU. YEAH, APPRECIATE IT, . ALRIGHT. UH, JEREMY FONTANO, 1541 FIJI STREET, DALLAS, TEXAS, UH, LOOKING TO DO AN INFIELD DEVELOPMENT AT 32 0 3 EAST OVERTON ROAD. UH, IT'S LOCATED IN A CITY RESIDENTIAL PLACE TYPE UNDER FOUR DALLAS 2.0. UM, AGAIN, A INFIELD DEVELOPMENT, A SHARED CENTRAL DRIVE DOWN THE MIDDLE, UH, 26 FEET WITH UH, SIX ATTACHED UNITS ON EACH SIDE. IT'LL DEAD INTO HAMMERHEAD. TURN AROUND WITH SEVEN GUEST PARKING SPOTS, LOOKING TO DO ABOUT TWO TO THREE STORIES. UM, [02:25:01] UH, AND YOU'RE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS? THANK YOU SIR. STANDBY, THERE MAY BE SOME QUESTIONS. IS THERE ANYONE HERE TO ANYWHERE ELSE HERE TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THIS PROJECT, THIS CASE? IS THERE ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION? HEARING NONE. CHAIR, YOU HAVE A MOTION? YES, I DO. AND IF I, I HAVE A SECOND. I HAVE BRIEF COMMENTS IN CASE NUMBER Z 26 0 0 0 0 0 2, I MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND FOLLOW STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED NEW PD DISTRICT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS. THANK YOU. UM, CHAIR AND UH, COMMISSIONER WHEELER FOR THE SECOND, HAVE ANY COMMENTS? JUST VERY BRIEFLY, I HAD A COUPLE GOOD CALLS AND MEETINGS WITH, UH, MR. FONTANO AND HIS PARTNER WHOSE NAME I AM BLANKING ON AT THE MOMENT. UM, IT SEEMS LIKE THEY'VE DONE A GOOD JOB OF, YOU KNOW, REACHING OUT TO THE COMMUNITY ON THIS ONE. UM, I THINK THIS IS ACTUALLY A PROPERTY IN MR. FONTANA'S FAMILY IS THE RIGHT THAT CORRECT? SOMEONE CHRIS'S FAMILY. YEAH, MY BUSINESS PARTNER. GREAT. NICE TO SEE YOU SIR. UM, THAT, YOU KNOW, THE PERSON HAS NOW MOVED OUT OF AND THEY'RE LOOKING ABOUT WHAT'S, WHAT'S TO HAPPEN THERE NEXT. UM, AND IN THE CITY RESIDENTIAL PLACE TYPE, I THINK A INFIELD DEVELOPMENT LIKE THIS MAKES A LOT OF SENSE. SO, UM, I HOPE YOU JOIN ME IN SUPPORTING MY MOTION. THANK YOU CHAIR. UM, ANY OTHER COMMENTS? HEARING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THE AYES HAVE IT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU MARTIN, TOO. APPRECIATE YOU. ALL RIGHT. ITEM NUMBER EIGHT. ITEM NUMBER [8. 26-1773A An application for a new Specific Use Permit for vehicle display, sales, and service on property zoned Subdistrict 2, within Planned Development District 535, the C.F. Hawn Special Purpose District No. 3, on the south line of CF Hawn Frwy. Frontage Road, northwest of Ellenwood Street. (Part 1 of 2)] EIGHT IS Z 2 5 0 0, UH, 2 0 7, UH, ALSO KNOWN AS TWO Z 2 3 4 2 7 5. IT'S AN APPLICATION FOR A NEW SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR VEHICLE DISPLAY SALES AND SERVICE ON PROPERTY ZONE SUBDISTRICT TWO WITHIN PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 5 3 35. THIS CF HOLLAND SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICT NUMBER THREE ON THE SOUTH LINE IS PON FREEWAY FRONTAGE ROAD NORTHWEST OF ALLENWOOD STREET. STAFF. RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL FOR HIS FIVE YEAR PERIOD WITH ELIGIBILITY FOR AUTOMATIC RENEWAL FOR ADDITIONAL FIVE YEAR PERIOD SUBJECT TO A SIDE PLAN CONDITIONS. GREAT. THANK YOU SO MUCH MR. PEPE. IS THERE ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER EIGHT? OKAY. NO SPEAKERS. COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN, YOUR MOTION. THANK YOU MR. CHAIR IN THE MATTER OF Z DASH 25 DASH 0 0 0 0 2 0 7. I MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE THE SUP FOR A TWO YEAR TIME LIMIT WITH NO ELIGIBILITY FOR AUTOMATIC RENEWAL IN THE FOLLOWING CONDITION, ADDED THE DISPLAY, SALE AND SERVICE OF COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLES AND BOATS IS PROHIBITED. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN FOR YOUR MOTION. COMMISSIONER HAMPTON FOR YOUR SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? COMMISSIONER WHEELER? I, I I WANNA MAYBE ASK, UH, COMMISSIONER, UM, FRANKLIN THE THOUGHT PROCESS FOR THAT MOTION FOR THE VEHICLE, UH, DISPLAY. UM, BECAUSE HIS VEHICLE'S DISPLAYS IN CELL THE REASONING FOR NOT ALLOWING, UM, UM, COMMERCIAL VEHICLES BECAUSE COMMERCIAL VEHICLES AND VEHICLE CELLS AND DISPLAY IS A WIDE RANGE. F THREE 50 IS CONSIDERED A A COMMERCIAL VEHICLE. F FOUR 50 IS CONSIDERED VANS. THERE'S DIFFERENT AS CONSIDERED, ESPECIALLY INSURANCE. I THINK I MAY ASK YOU, WHAT WAS THAT PROCESS? COMMISSIONER ELA? CAN YOU JUST BE SURE TO SPEAK INTO THE MICROPHONE? KIND. SO WHEN, WHEN, WHEN THE MOTION FOR VEHICLE DISPLAYS AND CELLS, WHEN YOU SAY THAT, UH, COMMERCIAL VEHICLES AND BOATS ARE, UM, ARE PROHIBITED VEHICLES, BOATS ARE NOT UP UNDER VEHICLE DISPLAYED SALES AND SERVICE, THEY ARE FALLS UP ON ANOTHER CATEGORY. BUT WHEN IT COMES TO COMMERCIAL VEHICLES, COMMERCIAL VEHICLES ARE NOT LIMITED TO WHAT WE WOULD THINK 18 WHEELERS VEHICLE, UH, ON THE INSURANCE, ANYTHING THAT'S OVER, UH, 1500. 'CAUSE WE CONSIDERED IN INSURED BY INSURANCE AND BY, UH, AS [02:30:01] A COMMERCIAL VEHICLE. AND SO THE THOUGHT PROCESS ON ON WHAT THE LIMITED OR EASE CAN WE ALLOW THAT FOR ME TO ANSWER. UM, THE CONTEMPLATION OF PROHIBITING THE COMMERCIAL VEHICLES IS, TO YOUR POINT, THE 18 WHEELERS. BUT I DON'T THINK THAT WOULD EXCLUDE, UH, THE FORD F1 FIFTIES BECAUSE THEY CAN BE BOTH USED FOR PERSONAL AND COMMERCIAL. I DON'T IF THEY GO AND PURCHASE A VEHICLE THAT'S A F-150, I DON'T THINK IT'D NECESSARILY HAVE TO BE A COMMERCIAL VEHICLE. UH, I CAN ASK, UH, COUNSEL IF, IF THERE'S ANY, ANYTHING ABOVE A TWO 50, ANYTHING ABOVE A F1 50, 2 50 AND HIGHER IS A COMMERCIAL VEHICLE, I WILL ASK OUR ATTORNEY HOW COULD WE RE REWRITE THAT MOTION TO ALLOW, YOU KNOW, TRUCKS THAT ARE, ARE LARGER BUT DO NOT INCLUDE, UM, 18 WHEELERS AS A PART OF THE CELLS. SO YOU WANT TO ALLOW COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLES THAT ARE NOT 18 WHEELERS? THAT'S CORRECT. 'CAUSE IN MY UNDERSTANDING, THERE COULD BE TRUCKS THAT COULD BE USED EITHER PERSONALLY OR PROFESSIONALLY, AND I DO NOT WANT TO EXCLUDE THAT. YEAH, THE CONDITION COULD JUST READ, UH, TO PROHIBIT 18 WHEELERS AND BOATS IF YOU WANTED TO DO THAT. LIKE IF, IF I, IF I MAY THINK OUT LOUD, BUT I THINK IT'LL BE FOR EVERYONE'S BENEFIT. WE CAN READ THE DEFINITION OF VEHICLE DISPLAY SALES OR SERVICE, WHICH IS THE ONLY USE AUTHORIZED BY THE SP. IT'S JUST A FACILITY FOR THE DISPLAY, SAY SERVICE RENTAL OR RE RETAIL SALE OF NEW OR USED AUTOMOBILES, BOATS, TRUCKS, MOTORCYCLES, MOTOR SCOOTERS, RECREATIONAL VEHICLES OR TRAILERS INCLUDING EXCLUDING OVERSIZED MOTOR VEHICLES AND OVERSIZED TRAILERS. SO I THINK WE GET A LOT OF MILEAGE OUT OF, UH, OVERSIZED MOTOR VEHICLES BEING EXCLUDED FROM THAT. BUT, UM, AS YOU KNOW, TO, TO THE POINT OF YOUR MOTION, I THINK, SO TR THAT'S MY READ IS TRUCKS THE REGULAR, YOU KNOW, F1 FIFTIES AND, AND WHATEVER THOSE ARE IN THERE. UM, BUT OVERSIZED ONES ARE NOT IN THERE. I DO SEE BOATS IN THAT DEFINITION, BUT, UM, JUST PUT IT OUT THERE. COMMISSIONER WHEELER AT PERMITTING THAT. SO AT PERMITTING AND AT AT AT LICENSING, THERE IS NOT A SEPARATE LICENSE FOR, UM, FOR, FOR THE 18 WHEELERS, THERE IS A SEPARATE LICENSE FOR BOAT BOATS. THERE'S A SEPARATE LICENSE FOR MOTORCYCLES. BUT WHEN YOU'RE SELLING VEHICLES, THE LICENSING BY THE STATE AND AT, AT, AT PERMITTING, UM, THOSE TRUCKS, UH, IN, IN F-150. LET ME BE CLEAR, WHEN YOU SAY COMMERCIAL VEHICLE, WE, WE GOTTA BE VERY SPECIFIC BECAUSE MY INSURANCE STATUS AND, UM, ANYTHING THAT'S OVER A TON, A HALF TON OR A TON IS CONSIDERED A COMMERCIAL VEHICLE. SO THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT IF THEY'RE SELLING F TWO FIFTIES, F THREE FIFTIES, F FOUR FIFTIES, THAT IS A COMMERCIAL VEHICLE, UM, INSURANCE DOES NOT ALLOW THAT UNDER THE NORMAL, IT BECOMES A COMMERCIAL VEHICLE. I, I FOLLOW WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. I THINK THAT, AND LICENSING IS ONE THING, A BIG PART OF IT WILL BE IN OUR CODE. SO LIKE I SAID, THAT DEFINITION OF, OF THE USE EXCLUDED, UH, OVERSIZED MOTOR VEHICLES, THOSE BEING DIMENSIONAL. LIKE YOU, YOU MAY REMEMBER A COUPLE, UH, A YEAR OR SO BACK, WE, WE TALKED ABOUT THAT OVERSIZED VEHICLES ARE BASED ON THE SIZE, THE 22 FOOT FROM END TO END, EIGHT FOOT AT ITS WIDEST 0.9 FOOT TO THE HEIGHT, UM, TALKS TWO OR MORE. IT TALKS ABOUT TWO OR MORE REAR AXLES THAT KIND OF, YOU KNOW, EXCLUDES THE, THE TRUCK, TRUCK TRUCK TRAILERS OR SIMILAR VEHICLES OR, OR 15 PASSENGERS INCLUDING THE DRIVER. SO, AND THEN THERE'S ANOTHER ONE FOR OVERSIZED TRAILERS, BUT THOSE ARE LARGE TRAILERS MEANT FOR HAULING THINGS. UM, SO I WILL SAY OVERSIZE, UH, THE SALE OF I, IT'S A DIFFERENT USE AND IT'S COM IN COMMERCIAL MOTOR COMMERCIAL BUSINESS SERVICES. IT'S, UH, MACHINERY, EQUIP MACHINERY, HEAVY EQUIPMENT OR TRUCK SALES AND SERVICE. UH, I, I'VE NEVER UNDERSTOOD THAT THE TRUCK PART OF THAT TO MEAN, UH, YOU KNOW, UH, FACT REGULAR FORDS. UM, AND BUT THAT USE IS LIMITED TO THE OVERSIZE. SO I THINK WITH YOUR MOTION, WE JUST, WE JUST NEED TO, IF YOU'RE TRYING TO, WE CAN'T OR WELL, WE COULD, UH, [02:35:01] IT'S A LITTLE COMPLICATED. YOU COULD ADD IN OVERSIZED VEHICLES. I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE INTENT TO ADD IN OVER ANY AMOUNT OF OVERSIZED VEHICLES. THAT DEFINITION I READ ABOUT VERY LARGE, VERY TALL, VERY LONG VEHICLES. THAT'S NOT THE INTENT, RIGHT? 'CAUSE THAT'S A DIFFERENT USE. AND WOULD THOSE BE SUBJECT TO THE SUP? SO YOU KNOW, JUST BY CHANCE, MACHINERY, HEAVY EQUIPMENT OR TRUCK SALES AND SERVICE. SO AGAIN, BASICALLY JUST LIMITED TO MACHINERY AND HEAVY EQUIPMENT, YOU KNOW, CATS AND LIKE OVERSIZED VEHICLES, THOSE ARE A DIFFERENT USE THAT REQUIRES AN SUP. BUT IF I RECALL IN THE PD THAT, UH, ALSO REQUIRES AN SUP. SO YOU KNOW, ONE COULD GET AN SUP AROUND HERE FOR THAT PARTICULAR USE IF THAT USE IS DESIRED TO BE INCLUDED IN THAT, THE OVERSIZED VEHICLES. UM, BEYOND THAT TO GO BACK TO THE VEHICLE, YOU KNOW, REGULAR VEHICLE USE THAT IS IN THE RETAIL AND BUSINESS, RETAIL AND PERSONAL SERVICES. UM, LIKE WE SAID, I READ THAT LONGER, WAY, LONGER LIST OF, OF, UH, USES THAT IF YOU WANTED TO EXCLUDE CERTAIN THINGS FROM THEM, YOU, YOU COULD. UM, BUT THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE ANY OF THOSE OVERSIZED MOTOR VEHICLES. UH, MR. CHAIR, CAN WE HAVE JUST THREE MINUTES TO MAKE SURE WE GET THE MOTION CORRECT? CAN WE JUST TAKE A BRIEF PAUSE? YEAH. OR SHOULD WE TABLE THIS AND CIRCLE BACK AROUND TO IT LATER TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE SUFFICIENT TIME? IS THAT ALL RIGHT? YES. IF WE CAN DO THAT FOR, FOR EIGHT AND FOR NINE AS WELL. NINE? YEAH. I THINK WE'RE WAITING ON OUR APPLICANT FOR NINE, IS THAT RIGHT? YES, I MET WITH THE APPLICANT, BUT WE'RE GONNA GET THE LANGUAGE CORRECT. OKAY. SO IF YOU GIMME TIME ON OR NINE. OKAY. YEAH, WE WILL CIRCLE BACK AROUND TO EIGHT, NINE. AND COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, ARE YOU READY TO GO ON 10? YES. OKAY, LET'S DO 10. THAT'S A GREAT START. OKAY. UH, AGENDA [10. 26-1775A An application for CR Community Retail District on property zoned R-5(A) Single Family District, on the west line of Chalk Hill Road, south of Chippewa Drive.] ITEM NUMBER 10 FOR Z DASH 26 DASH QUADRUPLE 0 34. AN APPLICATION FOR CR COMMUNITY RETAIL DISTRICT ON PROPERTY ZONED R FIVE SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT ON THE WEST LINE OF CHALK HILL ROAD, SOUTH OF CHIPPEWA DRIVE STACK. STAFF RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL AND THE APPLICANT HAS VOLUNTEERED DEED RESTRICTIONS. THANK YOU MR. ROHO. IS THERE ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER 10? UH, ER FCA 2007 CHILD HILL ROAD. UM, SO WE PROPOSED TO HAVE, UH, COMMUNITY, UH, RETAIL HARDWARE STORE WITH, UH, DEAL RESTRICTIONS. UM, NO ALCOHOL, BEVERAGE, UH, OR AUTO, AUTO CENTER, CAR WASH OR COMMERCIAL. UM, VEHICLE, UM, NO COMMERCIAL PARKING, UM, NO RADIO, TELEVISION, TRANSMITTING STATION, FINANCIAL INSTITUTE DRIVING IN WINDOWS WITH, UH, WITH WIND IN THE WINDOW, HOME IMPROVEMENT CENTER, LUMBER, BRICK OR BUILDING, UM, MATERIALS, CELLS ON THE YARD OR HOTELS, MOTELS, LIQUOR STORES. UM, LUNCH AND BORING HOUSE MASSAGE TION. UM, UM, CALLED, UH, FUNERAL HOME, MOTOR VEHICLE, UH, FIELD STATION, OVERNIGHT. GENERAL PURPOSE SHELTERS, PARAGRAPH SHOP, PAWN SHOP, PUBLIC UTILITIES LIMITED TO COMMUNITY COMMUNICATIONS, EXCHANGE FACILITY, RADIO, TELEVISION OR MICROWAVE TOUR RESTAURANT WITH, UH, DRIVING [02:40:01] AND DRIVING THROUGH SERVICE, TATTOO OR BODY, UH, PIERCING, UM, BUSINESS WITH, UM, UH, NOT ALLOWING ANYBODY PIERCING AND PERFORMANCE AND WHAT ELSE? AND ALSO WE, UH, WE PROPOSE THAT THE LIGHTING SHOULD BE, YOU KNOW, FACING DOWN. UH, THE FENCING WOULD BE A FOOT FENCE AND NO STORAGE OUTSIDE. ANYTHING FURTHER, MR. FCA? UM, MAY I CLARIFY, DOES HE NEED TO READ THE DEED RESTRICTIONS EXACTLY THE WAY THEY'RE WRITTEN ON THE, BECAUSE I KNOW HE, HE, CAN WE ASK THE ATTORNEYS? I KNOW HE ALLUDED TO FENCING AND LIGHTING, UM, BUT HE DIDN'T READ IT WORD FOR WORD IN PARKING. YEAH. WHATEVER HE'S OFFERING, IT ALL NEEDS TO BE READ INTO THE RECORD SO THAT WE CAN HAVE IT IN THE RECORD. OKAY. SO MR. FONSECA, YOU, YOU NEED TO GO BACK AND, UM, READ THE PARAGRAPHS THAT START WITH LET'S DO WE MAYBE, DO YOU HAVE A COPY? COMMISSIONER CARPENTER? YES. DO YOU WANT TO READ IT AND ASK HIM IF HE AGREES TO THEM? AM I ALLOWED TO READ IT AND ASK IF HE AGREES? THAT WOULD BE FINE. OKAY. IS THAT ALL RIGHT WITH YOU MR. VASCA? YES. OKAY. OKAY, THANK YOU. OKAY. FENCING FOR THE PROPERTY IS ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTY. A MINIMUM EIGHT FOOT TALL, SOLID WOOD SCREENING FENCE MUST BE PROVIDED. FENCING WITH NO RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY MUST BE CONSTRUCTED OF IRON MASONRY OR A COMBINATION OF IRON AND MASONRY. OKAY. LIGHTING, EXTERIOR LIGHTING SOURCES MUST BE ORIENTED DOWN AND ONTO THE PROPERTY. THEY LIGHT AND AWAY FROM ANY ADJACENT PROPERTY. EXTERIOR LIGHTING SOURCES THAT ARE POSITIONED UP AND ORIENTED ONTO THE BUILDING FACADE ARE PERMITTED. CORRECT. OKAY. AND, UH, PARKING FOR A GENERAL MERCHANDISE STORE GREATER THAN 3,500 SQUARE FEET, A MINIMUM OF ONE PARKING SPACE PER 100 SQUARE FEET MUST BE PROVIDED? YES. CORRECT. OKAY. AND I THINK THERE WAS ONE USE THAT GOT OMITTED, UM, FOR THE FOLLOWING USES ARE PROHIBITED, WHICH IS ALTERNATIVE FINANCIAL ESTABLISHMENT. IS THAT CORRECT? YES. CORRECT. OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER 10? COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? YES. IN THE MATTER OF Z DASH 26 DASH 0 0 0 3 4. I MOVE THAT WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND FOLLOW STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL SUBJECT TO DE RESTRICTIONS AS READ INTO THE RECORD. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER CARPENTER FOR YOUR MOTION. UH, COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT FOR YOUR SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? NO DISCUSSION. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? SAY NAY. THE MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. ITEM NUMBER [11. 26-1776A An application for a new planned development district for R-5(A) Single Family District uses on property zoned R-16(A) Single Family District, on the north line of Walnut Hill Lane and the east line of Betty Jane Lane, east of Marsh Lane.] 11 AND COMMISSIONER KINGSTON'S GONNA BE SPEAKING, STEPPING OUTTA THE ROOM BECAUSE SHE HAS A CONFLICT. ALL RIGHT. ITEM. OH, YEP, WE'RE GOOD. OKAY. ITEM NUMBER 11 IS CASE Z 25 2 24. AN APPLICATION FOR A NEW PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FOR R FIVE. A SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT USES ON PROPERTY ZONED R 16, A SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT ON THE NORTH LINE OF WALNUT HILL LANE AND THE EAST LINE OF BETTY JANE LANE, EAST OF MARSH LANE. STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO A CONCEPTUAL PLAN AND STAFF'S RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS. THANK YOU MR. BATE. MR. KINGSTON. NOW IT'S MY TURN. I GOT EXCITED, UH, PHIL KINGSTON 37 0 1 TURTLE CREEK. UM, GLAD TO BE PARTNERED WITH, UH, ROB BALDWIN AGAIN ON THIS CASE. UM, THE BASIC STORY OF THIS CASE IS YOU ALL HAVE SEEN IT BEFORE LAST YEAR, UH, AND PASSED IT. UM, THE COUNCIL MEMBER, UH, ASKED US TO, UM, MAKE IMPROVEMENTS IN THE PLAN, AND I BELIEVE THAT IS WHAT WE'VE DONE. UM, THE PLAN HAS GONE FROM 50 UNITS ON 3.74, SIX ACRES TO 41. UH, WE'VE ALSO DELETED THE, THE HOUSES THAT COULD HAVE HAD A VIEW INTO PEOPLE'S YARDS ON BUTYL COURT, WHICH IS THE, UH, CUL-DE-SAC IN THE, UH, NORTHEAST CORNER OF THAT, UH, IMAGE. UM, WE HAVE, UH, REDUCED THE, UM, THE BUILT AREA OF THE PROPERTY, UM, AND INCREASED SUBSTANTIALLY THE OPEN SPACE, [02:45:01] INCLUDING, UH, SOME RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES, WHICH I THINK WILL BE WELCOME BECAUSE WE INTEND FOR THIS TO BE A, A MANDATORY HOA, WHICH WILL ALSO ALLOW THE RESIDENTS TO BAN, UH, SHORT-TERM RENTAL, UM, AND MAKE OTHER SORTS OF IMPROVEMENTS IN THEIR QUALITY OF LIFE. THE, THE SHARED OPEN SPACE WILL BE A GOOD PLACE FOR, UH, THEM TO GATHER. UM, AS YOU MIGHT REMEMBER, THIS WAS, UH, ONE OF THE, UH, REALLY SAD VICTIMS OF THE TORNADO. UM, AND, UH, SO WE'RE TRYING TO BRING THIS BACK TO LIFE. IT'S BEEN SITTING VACANT FOR YEARS. UM, THE, UH, WHEN WE, WHEN WE WENT BACK TO MAKE IMPROVEMENTS, UM, MR. MOTI PERSONALLY, UM, MET WITH THE NEIGHBORS TO TALK ABOUT CONCESSIONS AND THE, THE MAJOR STUFF. IT WAS THE SIGHT LINES AND THE NUMBER OF UNITS. UM, AND I THINK THAT WE'VE ACHIEVED, UM, A REAL BALANCE. PART OF THE, PART OF THE ISSUE HERE IS THAT NEIGHBORS WERE CONCERNED ABOUT HOW IT WOULD LOOK FROM THEIR HOUSES OR FROM THE STREET. AND THE TRUTH IS, IS THAT, UH, THESE HOUSES WILL NOT BE VERY VISIBLE FROM WALNUT HILL OR FROM BETTY JANE, AND THEY'RE NOT VISIBLE AT ALL FROM THE EAST, UH, WHERE THERE'S A FIRE STATION THAT'S SUBSTANTIALLY TALLER THAN THE HOUSES THAT ARE PROPOSED. UM, SO WE, WE THINK THAT'S GONNA HELP IT, IT MATCHES FOR DALLAS VERY WELL, AS YOU'VE SEEN FROM MR. BATES'S REPORT. AND TRULY, ROB AND I REALLY APPRECIATE, UH, MR. BATES AND MR. PEPE FOR WORKING HARD ON THIS. THEY HAD TO WORK IT THROUGH TWICE, UH, BUT IT'S BETTER NOW. SO, YOU KNOW, I THINK, I THINK THAT HELPS ALL OF US. THERE ARE SEVERAL OTHER, UM, COMMUNITIES IN DALLAS THAT HAVE BEEN VERY SUCCESSFUL AT HIGHER DENSITY THAN THIS PROPOSAL. UH, BRIAN PLACE BEING PROBABLY THE MOST PROMINENT. UH, AND I PUT TOO LONG A LIST OF CONCESSIONS AND MODIFICATIONS THAT WE'VE MADE, BUT PLEASE FEEL FREE TO TAKE A LOOK AT THAT. WE'VE DONE TWO TRAFFIC STUDIES SHOWING MINIMAL IMPACT. THAT'S YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. THANK YOU SO MUCH, MUCH THANK HEAR TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. NEXT SPEAKER IN SUPPORT. OKAY. ANY OTHER SPEAKERS IN SUPPORT? ALRIGHT, WE'LL GO TO THE OPPOSITION AND WE'LL START OFF WITH THOSE WHO ARE HERE IN PERSON. THERE ARE A FEW ONLINE AS WELL, SO IT'S ON. MY NAME IS KATE KATIE FORD, AND I LIVE DIRECTLY BEHIND THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AT 22 WIMBERLEY COURT DALLAS. THIS TIME LAST YEAR, OR DURING OUR ZONING FIGHT LAST YEAR, COMMISSIONER TOM FORSYTH STOOD UP FOR DALLAS NEIGHBORHOODS AND REMINDED HIT THIS COMMISSION THAT IT'S IS Y'ALL'S RESPONSIBILITY TO NOT MAXIMIZE LOT YIELDS AND FOR DEVELOPERS, BUT TO PROTECT AND PRESERVE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS UNDER DALLAS FORD 2.0 AND THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE. AND TODAY, HERE WE ARE AGAIN FACING THE SAME ISSUE. THE PROPOSED ZONE CASE IS NOT COMPATIBLE, COMPATIBLE AND INFILL. IT INTRODUCES TOWN HOME STYLE DENSITY INTO AN ESTABLISHED SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD THROUGH MODIFIED ZONING AND SHARED ACCESS DESIGN. WE ARE, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THREE STORY HOMES ON BUILDING PADS AS SMALL AS 945 SQUARE FEET. THAT IS NOT TRADITIONAL SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT IN DALLAS, AND IT IS FAR OUTSIDE THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD PATTERN. THIS PROPOSAL INCREASES DENSITY WHILE REDUCING MINI MEANINGFUL OPEN SPACE, BUFFERING LANDSCAPE, PARKING FLEXIBILITY, AND NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY, ALL TO MINIMIZE THE NUMBER OF UNITS ON A CONSTRAINED SITE. THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE EXISTS TO PREVENT EXACTLY THIS TYPE OF OVER INTENSIFICATION. COMMISSIONER FORTH SIDE SAID IT BEST LAST YEAR WHEN HE EXPOSED HOW THESE PROJECTS ATTEMPT TO CIRCUMVENT THE INTENT OF D DALLAS ZONING REGULATIONS THROUGH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT EXCEPTIONS. SO TODAY I RESPECTFULLY ASK EACH AND EVERY ONE OF YOU, PLEASE DO NOT DISREGARD YOUR OWN POLICIES AND OUR CITY'S ESTABLISHED CODES TO SIMPLY ACCOMMODATE EXCESSIVE DENSITY. PLEASE UPHOLD THE PRINCIPLES OF COMPATIBILITY, NEIGHBORHOOD [02:50:01] PRESERVATION, RESPONSIBLE PLANNING THAT THIS COMMITTEE IS CREATED TO PROTECT. THANK Y'ALL VERY MUCH. THANK YOU MA'AM. NEXT SPEAKER. MY NAME IS JOHN WIMBERLEY AND I LIVE AT 25 WIMBERLEY COURT. THE STREET DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO THIS PROPERTY FIRST QUOTING FOR DALLAS, CHANGES TO AREAS WITHIN COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS SHOULD LOOK TO ADD HOUSING IN A WAY THAT IS GENTLE, EQUITABLE, INCREMENTAL, AND SENSITIVE TO THE EXISTING CONTEXT WHILE DOING SO IN A MANNER THAT STRENGTHENS THESE NEIGHBORHOODS AND INCORPORATES INCLUSIVE ENGAGEMENT EFFORTS THAT IT'S THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF WHAT HAS HAPPENED HERE. THE GOAL OF FORD DALLAS IS TO INCREASE HOUSING, NOT LET A DEVELOPER USE IT AS AN EXCUSE TO CRAM IN AS MANY HOMES AS PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE WHILE IGNORING THE FEEDBACK FROM THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD. THERE IS NOTHING ABOUT THIS PD ZONING THAT IS R FIVE. IN REALITY, IT'S ACTUALLY TOWNHOUSE THREE, THE MOST INTENSE ZONING THAT YOU CAN OFFER IN TOWNHOUSE ZONING. THEY HAVE THE SAME NUMBER OF UNITS PER ACRE. THEY'RE ASKING FOR A MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF 1980. TOWNHOUSE THREE IS 2000 SQUARE FEET, AND THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT IS THREE STORY 36 FEET, WHICH IS ALSO DIRECTLY FROM TOWNHOUSE THREE. THE R FIVE ZONING LABEL IS COMPLETELY INACCURATE. THEY'RE TRYING TO CREATE SOMETHING NEW LIKE CALLING IT R FIVE, WHICH IS NOT. SO, THERE'S NO SINGLE FAMILY ZONING IN THE ENTIRE WALNUT HILL NEIGHBORHOOD OR IN ANY OF OUR SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS THAT ALLOWS LOTS THIS SMALL OR THREE STORY SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. WE ARE NOT NIMBYS FROM THE VERY BEGINNING, WE HAVE BEEN VERY CLEAR THAT WE SUPPORT THE GENTLE DENSITY THAT'S DESCRIBED IN FOREIGN DALLAS, NOT EXTREME. WE HAVE REPEATEDLY SAID THAT WHILE WE OPPOSE THIS EXTREME PLAN, WE ARE FULLY, WE FULLY SUPPORT AN ALTERNATIVE PLAN THAT WOULD MORE THAN TRIPLE THE DENSITY THAT'S ALLOWED CURRENTLY ON THIS LOT. SO WE ARE BEING VERY REASONABLE. SO WE WANNA ASK YOU IF YOU WOULD PLEASE VOTE AGAINST THE PROPOSAL AND LET THIS DEVELOPER KNOW THAT WHAT YOU WANT TO WORK WITH HIM, IF HE'LL JUST RESPECT OUR REASONABLE CONCERNS. AND JUST BY THE WAY, WHEN MR. MEDA MET WITH US, NONE OF THE REVISIONS WE ASKED HIM TO DO, HE INCO, HE DID NOT INCORPORATE ANY OF THOSE. HE HAD COME UP WITH A 41 PLAN ON HIS OWN OR THEIR OWN. AND WHEN WE TALKED, MET WITH HIM AND TRIED TO MAKE ANY REVISIONS TO THAT, NONE WERE ACCEPTED. SO IT'S NOT REALLY TRUE WHEN YOU SAY HE'S MET WITH US AND LISTENED TO OUR CONCERNS. THANK YOU. NEXT SPEAKER. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS PETER SOMERVILLE. I RESIDE AT 28 WIMBERLEY COURT AND DALLAS, AND I AM HERE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION OF THE PLAN AS PROPOSED. UH, FIRST THING I'D LIKE TO COMMENT ON WAS THE PICTURE THAT THE APPLICANT PUT UP AS AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT HE'S BUILDING. THAT THAT PICTURE HAD HAD FRONT YARDS. THERE ARE NO FRONT YARDS IN THE PLAN THAT IS BEING SUBMITTED BY, BY THE APPLICANT. WHAT WE HAVE IS A 20 SOME FOOT, YOU KNOW, SHARED ACCESS DRIVEWAY, NOT EVEN A STREET WITH NO SIDEWALKS AND NO FRONT YARDS. AND MOVING FORWARD IS SOMEONE STATED, THIS IS THE SECOND ROUND BEFORE THE COMMISSION LAST YEAR, THE CITY COUNCIL DENIED THE APPLICATION UNANIMOUSLY THE REVISED PLAN FAILS TO ADDRESS THE MAJOR ISSUES THAT WERE IDENTIFIED IN THE PAST, MAINLY DENSITY AND BUILDING HEIGHT. WHILE THE APPLICANT HAS REDUCED THE TOTAL NUMBER OF HOUSES FROM 50 TO 42, IT IS STILL TOO DENSE FOR THE PREDOMINANTLY R 16 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING IN WALNUT HILL NEIGHBORHOOD. THE OTHER MAJOR CONCERN OF THE RESIDENCE IS THE PROPOSAL TO BUILD THREE STORY STRUCTURES IN A PREDOMINANTLY RESIDENTIAL ZONE PROPERTY. THESE STRUCTURES ARE LABELED AS PATIO HOMES, BUT THAT'S A MISNOMER. THE GENERALLY ACCEPTED DEFINITION OF A PATIO HOME IS ONE TO ONE AND A HALF STORIES. THESE ARE THREE STORIES, 36 FEET TALL. THESE ARE IN EFFECT DETACHED TOWN HOMES. THEY ARE [02:55:01] NOT PATIO HOMES. THE OTHER THING THAT PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT DOES NOT DO IS IMPROVE WALKABILITY IN THE AREA OR CONNECTIVITY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. WE HAVE NO SIDEWALKS OR CURB GUTTERS OR EVEN STORM SEWERS ON BETTY JANE LANE, WHICH IS ON ONE SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. THE SIDEWALK ON THE WALNUT HILLSIDE IS, IS IN POOR CONDITION. IT SLOPES, IT'S GOT HEAVED PAVEMENT AND YOU KNOW, NOTHING, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE THIS IS A SHARED ACCESS EASEMENT, IT'S A PRIVATE DRIVE, SO THERE'S NO ABILITY FOR THE NEIGHBORS TO EVEN ACCESS WALNUT HILL LANE WITHOUT GETTING OUT ON TO A BUSY ROAD. SO I WOULD DO IT. AS I SAY, I WOULD ASK THAT THE COMMISSION DENY THE APPLICATION AS IT'S WRITTEN. WE DO SUPPORT, YOU KNOW, IN DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PROPERTY. WE DO SUPPORT, YOU KNOW, INCREASED DENSITY, BUT WE, YOU KNOW, IF WE WANNA MAKE IT R FIVE, THEN LET'S HAVE MEET THE STANDARDS OF R FIVE IN WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED. THAT'S YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. THIS DOESN'T DO IT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU SIR. NEXT SPEAKER IN OPPOSITION. I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE PRESENTATION IS. DO YOU KNOW HOW TO DO THE PRESENTATION? HE'S COMING DOWN. OKAY, GOOD. I HAD A PRESENTATION. CAN YOU HEAR ME? OKAY. I'M TRICIA PITTMAN AND I LIVE AT 22 WIMBERLEY COURT. AND, UM, THIS IS, UM, WELL FIRST OF ALL, DISTRICT SIX. I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU WERE AWARE THAT YOUR COUNCIL PERSON LAST FALL WAS VERY, VERY APPRECIATIVE OF US BRINGING THIS TO HER ATTENTION. THAT THESE TOWN HOMES ARE DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM DISTRICT SIX AND THEY, THEY'RE THE ONES WHO ARE GONNA BE STARING AT THE THREE STORY TOWN HOMES OR, UH, SINGLE FAMILY HOMES THAT ARE THREE OR FOUR FEET APART. UM, AND THEN ALSO ON THE, UH, ACCOMMODATIONS THAT THEY HAVE OR THE CHANGES THAT THEY'VE MADE FOR THIS, UH, DEVELOPMENT THEY'VE IGNORED. THE ONE THING THAT HAS UNANIMOUSLY, UH, TALKED ABOUT AND AND OPPOSED TO IS THE THREE STORY. I MEAN, THERE'S NO ONE WANTS A THREE STORY SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED HOME IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, AND THAT'S REALLY WHERE WE ARE TODAY. SO, UM, MR. KINGSTON WENT THROUGH EXACTLY WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO DO, AND SO I WON'T REPEAT ALL THAT. UM, LAST YEAR WE HAD 97% OF THE PEOPLE SURROUNDING THIS PROPERTY OPPOSED TO THIS DEVELOPMENT AND ALL THE FEEDBACK THAT WE'VE HAD SO FAR, UH, ARE IN THE SAME POSITION. OUR OUR CONCERNS ARE, OBVIOUSLY THEY, THEY DON'T, IT DOESN'T FIT IN AESTHETICALLY BECAUSE WE HAVE R 16, WHICH IS 16,000 SQUARE FOOT LOTS, R TENS, 10,000 SQUARE FOOT LOTS, AND NOW WE'RE BRINGING LOTS DOWN TO AS LOW AND SMALL AS 1,980 SQUARE FEET. AS MR. WIMBERLEY SAID, WE ARE MORE THAN WILLING TO HAVE MORE DENSITY TO TRIPLE THE DENSITY THAT'S IN THIS AREA WITH 30 UNITS LOTS, 4,600 SQUARE FEET, THAT'S CLOSER TO AN R FIVE. UH, BUT [03:00:01] JUST NO THREE STORY. THIS IS A COMPARISON OF, UM, THE DENSITY THAT, THAT WE ARE WILLING TO ACCEPT. AND WHERE IF YOU'RE COMPARING TOWNHOUSE TOWNHOUSE THREE ZONING VERSUS THIS, UH, 41 UNITS, IT'S IN, IN RED. THERE, YOU CAN SEE THESE ARE ALL THE, THE THINGS THAT ARE, IT'S ACTUALLY MORE DENSE THAN TOWNHOUSE THREE ZONING. AND I CAN SHARE THIS WITH YOU GUYS, BUT SO ALL THAT TO SAY IS, YOU KNOW, I'VE, I'VE SPOKEN WITH THE NEIGHBORS, I'VE SPOKEN WITH, WITH THE DEVELOPER, AND THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT THE NEIGHBORS ARE WILLING TO ACCEPT BECAUSE IT DOES NOT MATCH WITH WHAT WE'RE, UM, WHAT WE HAVE THERE. AND IT, AND IT'S A WELL ESTABLISHED NEIGHBORHOOD AND WE JUST DO NOT WANT TOWNHOUSE LEVEL ZONING DENSITY IN THIS AREA. SO I ASK THAT YOU PLEASE VOTE. NO, THANK YOU. THANK YOU. NEXT SPEAKER. THERE'S ANY OF THEM YOU WANNA JUST BACK THEM UP? SURE. MY NAME'S CHRISTINA GOFF. I LIVE AT 38 51 BUTELL COURT, WHICH IS THE CORNER OF THE CUL-DE-SAC THAT WOULD BE BACKING UP TO THE NEWLY PROPOSED GREEN SPACE, WHICH I ACKNOWLEDGE AND AM GRATEFUL FOR. UM, NEVERTHELESS, I THINK, AS MY NEIGHBORS HAVE POINTED OUT, THE PROPOSED REVISION TO THE DEVELOPMENT CONTINUES TO INSIST ON THREE STORY BUILDINGS, UM, THAT ARE NOT AT ALL IN KEEPING WITH THE EXISTING HOMES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD WITH A LOT DENSITY THAT IS FAR TOO SEVERE IN ITS INCREASE, UM, TO MATCH AT ALL WITH WHAT SURROUNDS US. UM, AND IN GENERALLY, GENERALLY SPEAKING THAT THE TENOR, UM, OF THIS DEVELOPMENT IS IN COMPLETE, UM, DISAGREEMENT WITH OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. WE, UM, I APPRECIATE THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE EMOTIONAL TRAUMA THAT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD EXPERIENCED IN 2019 WHEN WE WERE ALL DECIMATED BY A TORNADO. UM, BUT WHAT YOU FAIL TO APPRECIATE IS THE WAY THAT WE'VE REBUILT. UM, IT'S ONE OF THE MOST BEAUTIFUL NEIGHBORHOODS AND OLDEST NEIGHBORHOODS IN DALLAS. WE ARE SURROUNDED BY OTHER OLD NEIGHBORHOODS IN DALLAS, AND NOWHERE IN ANY OF THOSE NEIGHBORHOODS DO YOU SEE A LOT DENSITY OF 1,980 SQUARE FEET HOMES WITH FIVE FEET BETWEEN THEM. UM, SO IT, IT REALLY, UM, FOR ME IS DISHEARTENING TO BE STANDING HERE AGAIN, LOOKING AT SOMETHING SO SIMILAR TO WHAT WE LOOKED AT LAST YEAR AND ARGUED AGAINST. UM, AS I SAID AT THAT TIME, I HAVE TWO SMALL CHILDREN. I JUST RENOVATED MY HOME NOW FOR THE SECOND TIME IN SIX YEARS TO TRY TO STAY THERE FOREVER. UM, IT WAS VERY MUCH MY HOPE THAT I'D BE ABLE TO DO THAT. WE ZONED TO ONE OF THE BEST ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS IN DISD, WHICH WE'RE VERY PROUD OF, AND I'M REALLY GRATEFUL TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SEND MY KIDS TO A NEIGHBORHOOD LIKE THAT. THIS ISN'T THE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT THAT'S GONNA BRING IN MORE YOUNG FAMILIES THOUGH, BECAUSE THIS ISN'T A, A PLAN THAT CAN REALLY ACCOMMODATE FAMILIES. UM, AND SO IT, IT KIND OF IS A POOR USE IN MY OPINION, OF RESOURCES. SO THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY. I'M SORRY. IT'S NOT THE MOST ELOQUENT THING I COULD SAY, BUT I THINK THE POINT IS WELL MADE. NO THREE STORIES PLEASE. BIGGER LOT DENSITY, A LITTLE BIT MORE SIMILAR TO WHAT'S AROUND US. THAT'S ALL WE ASK FOR. THANK YOU. NEXT SPEAKER. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS FRANCIE BELL. I LIVE AT 1 0 1 4 1 BETTY JANE LANE, ABOUT 300 FITBIT STEPS AWAY FROM THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. IT'S GOOD TO BE BACK IN CITY HALL. WE WERE ALL HERE IN NOVEMBER AND UM, WE LOVE DEMOCRACY AS IT WORKS. SO WE'RE ASKING, AS YOU'VE PROBABLY CAUGHT BY NOW, IS TOO MANY HOMES. WE DON'T LIKE THE THREE STORIES. THERE'S NO WAY THAT WE CAN HANDLE THIS INFLUX OF TRAFFIC AT THAT LITTLE INTERSECTION OF BETTY JANE LANE AND, UH, WALNUT HILL ALREADY. NOW, YOU CAN'T TURN RIGHT OR LEFT BASED ON OUR BEAUTIFUL NEW HIGH SCHOOL AT TJ. WE REALLY LOVE THE DEVELOPMENT IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT, UM, LIVED THERE 25 YEARS. WE LOVE OUR NEIGHBORS. WE LOVE THAT WE KEEP SHOWING UP AND I'M WORKING REALLY HARD TRYING TO LEARN HOW CITY HALL WORKS, BUT WE'RE GONNA KEEP FIGHTING BECAUSE THIS IS NOT WHAT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD NEEDS. PLEASE SAY NO THANK YOU. NEXT SPEAKER IN OPPOSITION. OKAY, WE HAVE A FEW SPEAKERS ONLINE IN OPPOSITION. JASON TRAFTON. HAVE WE HEARD FROM MS. BEAL AND MR. WIMBERLEY AND A CATHERINE RAFTER? [03:05:01] OH, BEAL, YEAH. YEP. I SAW YOU BESIDE. HELLO, THIS IS JASON TRAFTON. YEP. MR. TRAFTON, WHENEVER YOU'RE READY. UH, I'M ACTUALLY NOT IN OPPOSITION. I'M, UH, THE ENGINEER ON THIS PROJECT AND, UH, I'M IN SUPPORT. AND FROM AN ENGINEER'S PERSPECTIVE, THE PROJECT COMPLIES WITH ALL CITY STANDARDS AND WILL BE IN COMPLIANCE IF IT MOVES FORWARD IN THE PROCESS. BUT I HAVE NO OTHER, UH, INFORMATION TO ADD. THANK YOU MR. TRAFTON, AND SORRY FOR NOT CALLING YOU DURING THE FIRST PART. CATHERINE RAFTER. IS MS. RAFTER ONLINE? NO. NO. OKAY. ALRIGHT. TWO MINUTE REBUTTAL FROM OUR APPLICANT. UH, THANK YOU VERY MUCH MR. CHAIR. THE, UM, THE CENTRAL PROBLEM WITH THE ARGUMENTS THAT ARE MADE AGAINST THIS PROJECT IS THAT IT CASTS THIS AREA AS BEING IN THE MIDDLE OF AN ESTABLISHED NEIGHBORHOOD, WHEN IN FACT, THIS IS ON WALNUT HILL STEPS AWAY FROM AN INCREDIBLY BUSY INTERSECTION. AND YOU ALL WILL RECALL THE FORWARD DALLAS DEBATE WHEREIN THE NORTH DALLAS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, CERTAINLY NOT A GROUP THAT COULD BE CHARACTERIZED AS PRO DENSITY WROTE TO YOU TO SAY, LOOK, IF WE NEED TO HAVE INCREASED GENTLE DENSITY, IT NEEDS TO GO ON THESE CORRIDORS. UM, AND THAT'S WHERE WE HAVE TRIED TO PUT IT. IT IS A, IT IS A STEP BETWEEN THE COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR AND THE ESTABLISHED SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES. IT SHOULD ALSO BE POINTED OUT THAT ALMOST EVERY SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD HAS 30 FEET MAXIMUM HEIGHT TO THE MIDPOINT. MEANING THAT INDEED THREE STORIES IS AVAILABLE TO OUR NEIGHBORS. UM, WE DO REQUIRE A LITTLE BIT MORE FAR IN OUR DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE THREE STORY TOWNHOUSE IS WHAT PEOPLE ARE BUYING. UM, THERE ARE OTHER PROJECTS OF GREATER DENSITY WITHIN WALKING DISTANCE TO THIS ONE FARTHER DOWN WALNUT HILL, UH, UP ON WEBB CHAPEL. THEY'RE, THEY, THEY EXIST IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD AND THIS IS THE WAY IT IS GOING ON THESE CORRIDORS. AS YOU ALSO RECALL, YOU HAD TO DEAL WITH, UH, MELCHER UP AT FOREST AND THE TOLL ROAD. UM, NOW THAT THAT'S BUILT, I DON'T THINK PEOPLE ARE THAT MAD ABOUT IT. I THINK THEY KINDA LIKE IT. UM, SO WE ARE, WE ARE VERY EXCITED ABOUT THIS PROJECT. THESE ARE GONNA HOUSE FAMILIES, UH, EMPTY NESTERS, YOUNG PEOPLE STARTING OUT. UM, AND IT'S GONNA DO IT AT A PRICE POINT THAT'S NOT AVAILABLE IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. THANK, THANK YOU, MR. KINGSTON. RIGHT. THAT CONCLUDES OUR PUBLIC SPEAKERS. WE WILL GO TO COMMISSIONER HALL FOR A MOTION. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. IN THE MATTER OF CASE C 25 0 0 0 2 2 4. I MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE THE CASE ACCORDING TO STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION AS LISTED IN THE REPORT WITH THE FOLLOWING, CHANGE, UH, TO THE PD SECTION 51 P UH, XXX ONE 13 C TO READ AT LEAST 15% OF THE DISTRICT, UH, SORRY ABOUT THAT. AT LEAST 15% OF THE DISTRICT MUST BE RESERVED FOR AS OPEN SPACE FOR ACTIVITY SUCH AS ACTIVE OR PASSIVE RECREATION, PLAYGROUND ACTIVITY, OR LANDSCAPING. UH, AND IF I GET A SECOND, I DO HAVE A FEW COMMENTS TO MAKE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR MOTION. COMMISSIONER HALL FOR YOUR SECOND VICE CHAIR, YOUR COMMENTS. COMMISSIONER HALL. THANK YOU MR. CHAIR. UH, THE ORIGINAL VERSION OF THIS CASE WITH 50 DWELLING UNITS WAS HEARD BEFORE COMMISSION ON AUGUST 21ST, 2025, AND APPROVED BY THIS BODY IN A VOTE OF 11 TO TWO. AT THAT TIME, I GAVE A DETAILED SUMMARY OF WHY THE DEVELOPER'S PLAN WAS APPROPRIATE FOR THE SUBJECT SITE, INCLUDING THE COMMENT THAT THE CASE WAS ABOUT CREATING A VARIETY OF DIVERSE HOUSING IN DISTRICT 13. IT'S COME BACK TO US NOW, I FEEL IN A MUCH BETTER FORM, MORE ATTUNED TO ADDRESSING THE COMMUNITY'S CONCERNS. STAFF REPORT GIVES A GOOD OVERVIEW AS TO WHY RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL WAS MADE, AND I, I DON'T FEEL A NEED TO GO BACK INTO MY TECHNICAL EVALUATION. TODAY'S VERSION HAS 41 UNITS, BOTH TWO [03:10:01] AND THREE STORIES LARGER, LOTS WITH INCREASED SPACING AND SETBACKS FOR THE UNITS BORDERING THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY, MORE GREEN SPACE AT 17 PLUS PERCENT AND MORE GUEST PARKING MASONRY AND DECORATIVE IRON FENCING ALONG BETTY JANE LANE AND WALL HILL LANE. THE REVISED PD INCLUDES LIMITS ON THE NUMBER OF UNITS, WINDOW TRANSPARENCY ALONG THE NORTH AND EASTERN BOUNDARIES, MINIMUM REAR YARD LINKS ON THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY AND MINIMUM LOT SIZE. I SUPPORTED THE PROJECT IN 2025 AND I SUPPORT IT AGAIN TODAY. I DO WANT TO THANK THE WALNUT HILL HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION FOR THEIR EFFORTS IN MEETING WITH THE DEVELOPER TO WORK ON THESE DETAILS. I HOPE THAT THE COMMISSION CAN AGREE WITH ME AND APPROVE THIS CASE. THANK YOU. NEXT SPEAKER, CHIEF COMMISSIONER COX. THANK YOU MR. CHAIR. I WILL OPPOSE THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR A NEW PD AT 1 0 0 1 0. BETTY JANE LANE. THE PROPOSED ZONING DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE IMPROVED COMPATIBILITY WITH THE SURROUNDING SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD INTRODUCE DENSITY AND SCALE THAT EXCEEDS THE ESTABLISHED RESIDENTIAL PATTERN AND DOES NOT PROVIDE A CLEAR PLANNING RATIONALE FOR REPLACING AN EXISTING PD. THE APPLICANT HAS SHOWN THAT THE CHANGE, EXCUSE ME, THE APPLICANT HAS NOT SHOWN THAT THE CHANGE IS CONSISTENT WITH ADOPTED LAND USE POLICIES OR THAT IT WOULD PROMOTE THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY OR GENERAL WELFARE. THE HEIGHT ON THIS PROJECT IS ENTIRELY TOO TALL. THAT'S AN OBJECTION THAT WE'VE HEARD OVER AND OVER AGAIN FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND I WOULD ENCOURAGE OTHER COMMISSIONERS TO DENY THIS REQUEST, SEND IT BACK TO THE APPLICANT, HAVE THEM REDUCE THE HEIGHT. IT IS MORE IN KEEPING WITH WHAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD WANTS. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER SIMS. THANK YOU MR. CHAIR. UH, I'M GOING TO SUPPORT THE MOTION AND AS, AS I THINK ABOUT THE TERM GENTLE DENSITY, THAT SUGGESTS AN INCREASE FROM ONE STAGE TO ANOTHER. AND, AND I'VE CERTAINLY, I'VE, I'VE HEARD THE CONCERNS OF THE NEIGHBORS, BUT I ALSO HEARD FROM OUR BRIEFING THIS MORNING WITH STAFF THAT THE UNITS ON THE NORTHERN SIDE OF THIS DEVELOPMENT ARE AT THE SAME HEIGHT AS THE HOMES IMMEDIATELY TO THE NORTH OF THE DEVELOPMENT. SO WHEN WE STEP UP AN ADDITIONAL SIX FEET THAT IS AT THE CENTER OF THE DEVELOPMENT, THAT STRIKES ME AS A GENTLE INCREASE THAT STRIKES ME AS A SLOPE. UH, I THINK THE ADDITION OF THE OPEN SPACE, UH, PROVIDES A BENEFIT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND TO THE CONCERN OF SIDEWALKS. I ABSOLUTELY AGREE THAT WALKABILITY IS CRITICAL IN OUR CITY, AND AS I RECALL THIS PROPOSAL DOES, STAFF HAS IN FACT, UH, WORKED WITH THE APPLICANT TO INCLUDE THE ADDITION OF SIDEWALKS, AND THAT'S A PLUS. SO FOR THAT REASON, I ENCOURAGE MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS TO SUPPORT IT. COMMISSIONER WHEELER, I'LL JUST GO DOWN THE LINE. UM, I, I WILL BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION, UM, FOR THE SAME REASONS THAT, UM, UH, PREVIOUS, MY PREVIOUS COMMISSIONER SPOKE OF, UM, COMMISSIONER SIMS. UM, WHEN WE'RE LOOKING FOR DENSITY, UH, ESPECIALLY WHEN THERE IS SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND WE UNDERSTAND, WE UNDERSTOOD THAT DOING FORWARD DOLLARS, THAT WAS THE BIGGEST CURRENT CONCERN. BUT WHEN WE'RE ON THESE CORRIDORS WHERE WE CAN PUT THOSE, THAT DENSITY, WE SHOULD PUT THAT DENSITY AND WHERE IT DOES NOT IMPEDE INTO THE FABRIC OF THE, UH, IN THE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES INTERIOR, BUT ON THE OUTSKIRTS ON THESE CORRIDORS WHERE WE CAN, WE NEED TO, AND WE, WE FIND THESE POCKETS OF LAND COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT, UM, I VOTED FOR THE PREVIOUS APPLICATION ON THIS SITE. I THINK THIS, UM, THIS APPLICATION IS, IS A BETTER ONE. UM, THEY'VE MADE A NUM, NUMEROUS IMPROVEMENTS. UM, I AGREE WITH THE, THE COMMENTS IN SUPPORT ALREADY. I'LL KEEP MY COMMENTS BRIEF AND ASK THE INDULGENCE OF THE COMMISSION WHILE I COVER GROUND THAT I COVER EVERY TIME WE HAVE ONE OF THESE CASES. UH, MY DISTRICT HAS A LOT OF THIS PRODUCT IN IT. IT'S BEEN VERY SUCCESSFUL. IT'S BEEN VERY COMPATIBLE WITH THE TRADITIONAL SINGLE FAMILY IN OUR, IN OUR, UH, DISTRICT. UH, WE HAVE DENSITIES EQUAL OR GREATER THAN THIS AND THIS TYPE OF PRODUCT. UH, THE, UH, HOMES HAVE BEEN OWNER OCCUPIED AND HAVE, UH, BEEN VERY STABLE NEIGHBORHOODS THAT HAVE CONTRIBUTED HOUSING CHOICE IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. UM, I I DO NOT ACCEPT THE ASSUMPTION THAT EVERYONE WANTS A LAWN. I DON'T ACCEPT THE ASSUMPTION THAT FAMILIES ONLY LIVE IN HOUSES WITH LAWNS. UH, I DON'T ACCEPT THE ASSUMPTION THAT YOU CAN'T LIVE IN A PARTICULAR NEIGHBORHOOD IF YOU DON'T LOOK LIKE THIS OR THAT OR HAVE THIS KIND OF, OF RESIDENCE OR THAT. SO, UH, I, I, I LIKE THE CHOICE THESE PROVIDE. [03:15:01] I LIKE THE LOCATION OF THIS PROJECT. IF THIS ISN'T GENTLE DENSITY, I DON'T KNOW WHAT IS. THANK YOU. NEXT SPEAKER. COMMISSIONER HAMPTON. THANK YOU. I HAVE A QUESTION FOR, UH, MR. KINGSTON. YES, MA'AM. I HAD ASKED AT THE BRIEFING IF THERE HAD BEEN CONSIDERATION OF WHAT, UTILIZING WHAT APPEARS TO BE THE NATURAL BREAK IN THIS DEVELOPMENT. YOU HAVE AN L-SHAPED PARCEL, YOU'VE TAKEN THE FARTHEST NORTH PORTION AND CHANGED IT TO 30 FEET. IF YOU SIMPLY USED WHAT IS THE CURRENT LOT LINE AND SAID THAT NORTH OF THAT IS THE 30 FEET, YOU KNOW, THAT SCALE OF, I, I CAN'T TELL FROM THIS WHAT THOSE ACTUAL LOTS ARE ON THAT NORTHERN BOUNDARY, BUT IF THAT BECAME THE TRANSITION POINT, WOULD THAT NOT BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE A WAY TO BRIDGE THE QUESTION BETWEEN WHAT THE COMMUNITY IS ASKING FOR? AND AS YOU OBSERVED, PUT THE DENSER STYLE HOUSING DIRECTLY ON THE CORRIDOR, STILL GIVES YOU SHARED ACCESS, STILL GIVES YOU THE OPPORTUNITY TO LAY THIS OUT, BUT PUTS THE 30 FEET MORE CLOSELY EMBEDDED WITHIN THE ESTABLISHED NEIGHBORHOOD AND OFF A NEIGHBORHOOD STREET. SO I'M UNDERSTANDING, UH, COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE, UH, IS IT NINE, THE NINE HOUSES, UH, THAT ARE ARRANGED TO THE WEST OF THE MAIN LINE OF THE ENTRANCE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD? RIGHT. SO THE ACCESS OFF OF BETTY JANE LANE, BOTH SIDES OF THAT SHARED ACCESS? NO, WE HAVE NOT CONSIDERED THAT BECAUSE WE CAN TELL THAT THE INCREASED HEIGHT ACROSS THE STREET CANNOT BE SEEN. THAT I, I APPRECIATE THE EVALUATION OF IT, BUT WOULD YOU CONSIDER IT? NO. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU MR. CHAIR. NEXT SPEAKER, COMMISSIONER, OR VICE-CHAIR HERBERT? YES, I SECONDED THE MOTION. UM, I TOO, UM, AGREED WITH THE, THE CASE BEFORE AND SEEING IT COME THROUGH NOW, UM, PROVES THE POINT THAT GOING THROUGH TO COUNCIL, GETTING DENIED BRINGING IT BACK SHOWED A LOT OF, UM, COLLABORATION FROM THE LOOKS OF THE, THE REPORT ITSELF AND THE CHANGES THAT WERE MADE. UM, AND THERE ARE CHANGES THAT I COULD APPRECIATE. UM, LIKE BETTY JANE LANE IS A, IS A SMALL STREET. UM, IT WAS NEXT TO A LARGE PARKING LOT THAT HAS LARGELY BEEN UNUSED. UM, THERE'S A LOT OF COMMERCIAL, UM, ACTIONS HAPPENING ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THIS PARKING LOT, INCLUDING A CHURCH AND SHOPPING CENTER AND SO ON AND SO FORTH. UM, AND IS WHY I AGREE WITH THE DENSITY. SO THANK YOU. ANY OTHER SPEAKERS? FIRST ROUND, MR. KAUFMAN, SINCE YOU BROUGHT UP THE ISSUE OF, UH, THE SIDEWALKS. I AM NOT GOING TO SUPPORT THIS FOR TWO OR THREE REASONS, BUT I'M GONNA START WITH THE SIDEWALKS THAT WERE REQUIRED BUFFER AND THE, AND THE, UH, WIDTH OF THE SIDEWALKS. WE KEEP TALKING ABOUT WALKABILITY AND NEEDING MORE SIDEWALKS. WE DON'T HAVE THEM IN NORTH DALLAS AND UH, THERE WAS NO EXCUSE TO DO AWAY WITH THAT. AND, UH, I ALL, IN ADDITION TO THAT, I HAVE REAL PROBLEMS WITH THE HEIGHT, THE THIR 36 FEET HEIGHT AND UH, YES THAT WAS DONE OVER ON SHARRE AND NO, THEY DON'T LIKE IT TODAY AND THEY DIDN'T LIKE IT THEN EITHER. SO I'M GONNA HAVE TO AGREE THAT I DON'T BELIEVE THERE WAS ENOUGH EFFORT TO WORK WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND COME UP WITH MORE, UH, REASONABLE THINGS THAT WOULD BRING Y'ALL TOGETHER. AND I'M SORRY THAT THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN, BUT I WILL BE VOTING. NO ANYONE ELSE FIRST ROUND. ALRIGHT, I'M GONNA HAVE A COUPLE QUICK QUESTIONS, UM, I GUESS FOR THE APPLICANT AND MAYBE ONE, ONE QUICK QUESTION ACTUALLY BEFORE I GET TO MR. KINGSTON FOR MR. BATE. JUST FOLLOWING UP ON COMMISSIONER KAUFMAN'S COMMENT, I DO UNDERSTAND THAT THE MOTION IS FOR STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION ON SIDEWALKS, CORRECT? UH, THAT IS CORRECT. CHAIR. UH, THE COMMISSIONER'S MOTION WAS, AS I HEARD IT FOR THE STAFF RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS, WHICH INCLUDES, UH, SIX FOOT WIDE SIDEWALKS WITH FIVE FOOT WIDE BUFFERS OR PARKWAYS, UH, ALONG BETTY JANE AND WALNUT HILL. OKAY, GREAT. AND THEN THE APPLICANT DID NOT WANT SIDEWALKS ON BETTY JANE. THE APPLICANT REQUESTED NO SIDEWALKS IN BETTY JANE AND A FIVE FOOT SIDEWALK WITH NO BUFFER ALONG WALNUT HILL. OKAY, GREAT. THANK YOU. UH, MR. KINGSTON, JUST A QUICK QUESTION ABOUT THE HEIGHT. BEFORE, WHEN THIS CASE OR A PREVIOUS ITERATION OF IT WAS BEFORE US, [03:20:01] WAS IT CORRECT THAT ALL OF THE HOMES COULD HAVE GONE UP TO 36 FEET? THE FIRST ITERATION OF THIS CASE, WHICH WAS NOT THE ONE THAT WAS CONSIDERED BY THIS BODY, THE ONE THAT WE CONSIDERED? HMM, THE ONE THAT WE CONSIDERED, THE ONE THAT YOU CONSIDERED HAD ALREADY REDUCED THE HEIGHT OF THE HOUSES ALONG THE NORTHERN LINE OF THE PROPERTY TO TWO STORIES. OKAY. AND I SEE SOMETHING ABOUT A LOT BLOCK LOCK, LOT BLOCK ALONG BUTTLE. IS THAT WHERE, WHERE, WHERE IS THAT REFERRING TO WHERE IT'S LIMITED TO 30 FEET? UH, THOSE HOUSES ON THE NORTHERN LINE. SO BUTTLE COURT IS IN THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THAT IMAGE. UM, IF YOU'RE LOOKING WEST INTO THE DEVELOPMENT, WHAT YOU'RE SEEING IS THE FARTHEST EAST TWO STORY HOUSE THAT IS LIMITED TO 30 FEET. OKAY, THANK YOU. SO TO THE EAST OF THIS ON WALNUT HILL IS A FIRE STATION, RIGHT? CORRECT. ABOUT 40 FEET TALL. OKAY. IS IT CORRECT THAT EVERY LOT ON YOUR PROPOSED CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN THAT IS ADJACENT TO A LOT WITH A EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY STRUCTURE TODAY IS LIMITED TO 30 FEET Y YES, THAT'S WHAT WE INTENDED TO DO. OKAY. SO IT'S ONLY WHERE YOU'RE NOT NEXT TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY LOT WHERE IT STARTS STEPPING UP TO 36 FEET. CORRECT? WE THINK FROM EVERY ANGLE, UH, TO THE NORTH AND TO THE EAST, WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING TOWARD THE DEVELOPMENT, YOU EITHER CAN'T SEE ANYTHING OR YOU CAN SEE A 30 FOOT HOUSE. OKAY. AND, AND R FIVE OR R 16 TODAY COULD BE BUILT UP TO 30 FEET? CORRECT. ALL OF THE R CODES, I BELIEVE ARE 30 FEET TO THE MIDPOINT. OKAY. THANK YOU MR. KINGSTON. UM, I AM GONNA SUPPORT THE MOTION. I SUPPORTED IT LAST TIME. ULTIMATELY AN INCREASE IN SIX FEET ON LOTS THAT AREN'T DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO LOTS THAT HAVE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ON THEM TODAY. OR NOT A MAJOR CONCERN. IT'S A LITTLE BUMP IN HEIGHT, BUT IT IS, YOU KNOW, I THINK CONSISTENT WITH OUR COMP PLAN AND STEPPING UP DENSITY JUST A LITTLE BIT ALONG MAJOR CORRIDORS. UM, SO I'M HAPPY TO SUPPORT THE MOTION. UH, ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS? ALRIGHT, WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HALL, SECONDED BY THE VICE CHAIR. MR. CHAIR, I'M SORRY IF I COULD REQUEST A ROLL CALL. OH YEAH. HAPPY TO DO THAT. UM, SECONDED BY THE VICE CHAIR TO FOLLOW STAFF'S. RECOMMENDATION. APPROVAL SUBJECT TO A CONCEPTUAL PLAN, STAFF'S RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS AND COMMISSIONER HALL'S ADDITIONAL CONDITION ON THE 15% OF SPOKE, UH, OPEN SPACE. CAN WE TAKE A ROLL CALL VOTE? DISTRICT ONE? YES. DISTRICT TWO? NO. DISTRICT THREE? YES. DISTRICT FOUR? DISTRICT FIVE? YES. DISTRICT SIX? YES. DISTRICT SEVEN? YES. DISTRICT NINE? YES. DISTRICT 10? YES. DISTRICT 11? NO. DISTRICT 12? NO. DISTRICT 13? YES. DISTRICT 14. DISTRICT 15. YES. MOTION CARRIES. ALRIGHT, THE MOTION CARRIES. IT IS ONE 15 9:00 PM LET'S TAKE A 10 MINUTE BREAK. ALRIGHT, COMMISSIONERS, LET'S GET BACK ON THE RECORD. IT IS 2:12 PM AND WE ARE GOING TO GO TO CASE NUMBER 12, [12. 26-1777A An application for a new Specific Use Permit for a private recreation club or area on property zoned Tract 1A, Planned Development District 160, on the southwest and southeast corners of W. Canty St. and N. Vernon Avenue.] WHICH I BELIEVE IS BEING HELD, BUT WE'RE HAPPY TO HEAR FROM PUBLIC SPEAKERS IF ANYONE'S COME OUT. UH, MR. PEPPY, DO YOU WANNA READ IT IN? ITEM 12 IS Z 2 6 0 0 3 2. UM, IT'S AN APPLICATION FOR A NEW SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR A PRIVATE RECREATION CENTER, CLUB, OR AREA ON PROPERTY ZONE TRACK. ONE, A UH, PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, ONE 60 ON THE SOUTHWEST AND SOUTHEAST CORNERS OF WEST CANTY STREET IN NORTH VERNON AVENUE. STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO A SITE PLAN AND STAFF'S RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS. GREAT. THANK YOU MR. PEPPY. IS THERE ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEM 12? OKAY. NO SPEAKERS. COMMISSIONER SIMS YOUR MOTION? THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. THE MATTER OF CASE NUMBER Z DASH 26 DASH 0 0 0 3 2 I MOVE TO HOLD THIS CASE UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL OUR MEETING ON JUNE 11TH, 2026. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER SIMS, YOUR MOTION COMMISSIONER HAMPTON FOR YOUR SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? NO DISCUSSION. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED, SAY NAY. THE MOTION CARRIES. WE WILL MOVE ON TO CASE [13. 26-1778A Consideration of a hearing to reauthorize a public hearing to determine the proper zoning on property zoned Subdistrict 2A within Planned Development District No. 714 in an area generally located on the west side of Sylvan Avenue between Seale Street on the north and Ft. Worth Avenue on the south and containing approximately 3 acres. Consideration is to be given to an historic overlay for the Belmont [Motor] Hotel. This is a hearing to consider the request to reauthorize the hearing and not the designation of property at this time.] NUMBER 13, DR. DUNN. GOOD AFTERNOON. THIS IS DR. RHONDA DUNN, SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF CITY STAFF ON ITEM NUMBER 13, CASE NUMBER Z TWO 12 DASH 2 57. [03:25:01] THE REQUEST IS FOR CONSIDERATION OF A HEARING TO REAUTHORIZE A PUBLIC HEARING TO DETERMINE THE PROPER ZONING ON PROPERTY ZONED SUBDISTRICT TWO A WITHIN PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 7 1 4 IN AN AREA GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF SYLVAN AVENUE BETWEEN S SEAL STREET ON THE NORTH AND FORT WORTH AVENUE ON THE SOUTH AND CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY THREE ACRES. CONSIDERATION IS TO BE GIVEN TO AN HISTORIC OVERLAY FOR THE BELMONT MOTOR HOTEL. THIS IS A HEARING TO CONSIDER THE REQUEST TO REAUTHORIZE THE HEARING AND NOT THE DESIGNATION OF PROPERTY AT THIS TIME. THANK YOU, DR. DUNN. DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS IN SUPPORT? DAVID PROI WITH 22 AT 2229 LONGDALE, UH, DRIVE. I AM ACTUALLY ON THE DESIGNATION COMMITTEE AND HAVE BEEN WORKING ON THIS DESIGNATION FOR OVER TWO YEARS NOW. UH, 'CAUSE THIS IS THE SECOND TIME IT'S BEEN REINITIATED. OF COURSE, THIS IS A VERY SIGNIFICANT BUILDING BUILT IN 1946 DESIGNED BY CHARLES BECK. IT'S A SIGNIFICANT EXAMPLE OF, UH, ROADSIDE ARCHITECTURE, UH, FROM THE 1940S, UH, WHEN FORT WORTH AVENUE WAS THE A, THE STREET TO FORT WORTH FROM DALLAS. SO WERE MANY OF THESE MOTEL. I TURNED IT OFF BY ACCIDENT. UM, IT'S A MIX OF STREAMLINE MODERN AND SPANISH ECLECTIC STYLE. IT'S VERY, VERY MUCH A DIL BACK, VERY UNIQUE. UH, IT MEETS EIGHT OF THE 10 CRITERIA, UH, THAT, UH, WOULD QUALIFY IT AS A CITY OF DALLAS LANDMARK. UH, SO WE REQUEST, UH, TO REINITIATE THIS PROPERTY SO WE CAN CONTINUE WORKING ON IT AND HOPEFULLY GET IT DESIGNATED VERY SOON. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. NEXT SPEAKER IN SUPPORT, AND I SEE WE HAVE ONE PERSON SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ONLINE. GLENN TLA? YES, I'M HERE. OKAY. UH, MR. TLI, WHENEVER YOU'RE READY. THANK YOU. UM, CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS. I WILL BE BRIEF THIS AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS GLENN TITLIS AND I LIVE IN ZEP CODE 7 5 2 0 8 ON BELOW CLIFFVIEW. I'M HERE TODAY AS THE HOA PRESIDENT FOR THE VILLAS OF JILL BECK COURT, A RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY THAT RUNS PARALLEL ALONGSIDE THE BELMONT HOTEL ON IT LEFT SIDE. SIR, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO TURN YOUR CAMERA ON. STATE LAW REQUIRES MY APOLOGIES. VIDEO THERE. DO YOU WANT ME TO START OVER OR KEEP GOING? YOU CAN. YOU CAN GO AHEAD. OKAY. UH, SO YES, OUR, OUR COMMUNITY THE VS. AT DILBA COURT. IT'S A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD THAT RUNS PARALLEL ALONGSIDE THE BELMONT HOTEL ON ITS WEST SIDE. THERE'S 40 RESIDENTS THAT LIVE IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD NAMED AFTER CHARLES BECK. AND WE ARE ALL STILL VERY MUCH IN FAVOR OF THE PROTECTION PERIOD AND WORKING THROUGH THE PRESERVATION CRITERIA AS WE HAVE BEEN SUPPORTIVE OVER THE LAST FOUR YEARS. WHEN IT WAS RENEWED TWICE, UH, THERE WAS AN ARTICLE AGAIN THIS MORNING ON CANDY DIRT SPEAKING ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF THE BELMONT HOTEL AND TO QUOTE JORDAN FORD FROM HIS AUGUST 7TH, 2025 INTERVIEW ON CANDY DIRT. THE FOCUS IS ON GETTING THE BUSINESS UP AND RUNNING AND SAVING THE ARCHITECTURE BY HAVING THE PROPERTY EMERGE PENDING. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. NEXT SPEAKER IN SUPPORT ANY SPEAKERS IN OPPOSITION. OKAY. COMMISSIONER CARPENTER. YOUR MOTION? YES, I MOVE TO RE AUTHORIZE A PUBLIC HEARING TO DETERMINE THE PROPER ZONING ON PROPERTY ZONE SUBDISTRICT TWO A WITHIN PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER SEVEN 14, WITH CONSIDERATION TO BE GIVEN TO A HISTORIC OVERLAY FOR THE BELMONT MOTOR HOTEL. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER CARPENTER FOR YOUR MOTION. COMMISSIONER HAMPTON FOR YOUR SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION THIS BRIEFLY? THE CURRENT PROTECTION PERIOD WOULD EXPIRE IN AUGUST, WHICH IS WHY WE ARE, UM, MOVING TO GET THIS, UM, EXTENDED TO GIVE THE PROCESS TIME TO PLAY OUT AND TO GET THIS, UM, DESIGNATED, UH, THIS IS AN EXTREMELY IMPORTANT, UH, PROPERTY IN OUR AREA. I GET MORE QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS ABOUT THIS PROPERTY THAN ANY OTHER, SO THERE'S EXTREME, UM, PUBLIC INTEREST IN, IN, IN SEEING THAT THE PROPERTY STAYS PROTECTED. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM? SEEING NONE, WE HAVE A MOTION, UM, TO REAUTHORIZE THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL THIS IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED, SAY NAY. THE MOTION CARRIES. OKAY. WE WILL GO BACK [8. 26-1773A An application for a new Specific Use Permit for vehicle display, sales, and service on property zoned Subdistrict 2, within Planned Development District 535, the C.F. Hawn Special Purpose District No. 3, on the south line of CF Hawn Frwy. Frontage Road, northwest of Ellenwood Street. (Part 2 of 2)] TO ITEM NUMBER EIGHT, AND I BELIEVE WHEN WE TABLED IT, THERE WAS A MOTION ON THE FLOOR, WHICH MIGHT BE CHANGING. DO YOU WANNA REREAD YOUR MOTION? UH, YES. COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN RE READ. WHY DON'T YOU WITHDRAW YOUR PRIOR MOTION, WHICH WAS SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HAMPTON. IS THAT OKAY? OKAY. YES. SO I MOVE TO, AND THEN MAKE A NEW MOTION TO WITHDRAW MY PRIOR MOTION. MM-HMM [03:30:01] . OKAY. AND DO I NEED A SECOND OR YEP. WE'RE, YOU'RE GOOD. SO, OKAY. SO I, UH, I MOVED TO WITHDRAW MY PRIOR MOTION THAT STATED IN THE MATTER OF CASE Z TWO FIVE. I DON'T THINK YOU NEED TO READ IT ALL. REREAD THE WHOLE MOTION. YOU CAN JUST, IT'S, IT'S WITHDRAWN AND I'LL RECOGNIZE YOU TO MAKE A NEW MOTION. OKAY. SO THE NEW MOTION IS IN THE MATTER OF Z DASH TWO FIVE DASH 0 0 0 2 2 0 7. I MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVED THE SUP FOR A TWO YEAR TIME LIMIT WITH NO ELIGIBILITY FOR AUTOMATIC RENEWAL. AND THE FOLLOWING ATTIC CONDITION, THE DISPLAY, SALE AND SERVICE OF BOATS IS PROHIBITED. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN, IS THAT SUBJECT TO A SITE PLAN AND COMMISSION AND CONDITIONS? YES. OKAY, GREAT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR MOTION. COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN, YOUR SECOND COMMISSIONER HAMPTON. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. A. ANY OPPOSED, SAY NAY. THE MOTION CARRIES NUMBER NINE [9. 26-1774A An application for a new Planned Development District for MH(A) Manufactured Home and CR Community Retail uses with consideration for MH(A) Manufactured Home and CR Community Retail Districts on property zoned R-10(A) Single Family and A(A) Agricultural Districts, on the west line of Haymarket Rd, and the south line of Hazelcrest Dr. (Part 1 of 2)] KZ 26 0 0 0 0 1 5. AN APPLICATION FOR A NEW PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FOR MH MANUFACTURED HOME AND CR COMMUNITY RETAIL USERS WITH CONSIDERATION FOR MH MANUFACTURED HOME AND CR COMMUNITY. RETAIL DISTRICT ON PROPERTY ZONE ARE 10 SINGLE FAMILY AND A AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT ON THE WEST LINE OF HAY MARKET ROAD AND THE SOUTH LINEUP HAZEL CREST DRIVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO A DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS. THANK YOU DR. HASHMI. UH, MR. VINCENT? THANK YOU MR. CHAIR. UH, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION. JONATHAN VINCENT, 2323 ROSS AVENUE, UM, HERE ON THIS CASE REPRESENTING, UH, THE APPLICANT 1916 CLUB DEVELOPMENT. AND I HAVE WITH ME MR. JOHN KENDALL, WHO'S ONE OF THE PRINCIPALS AND PARTNERS. UM, I WANT TO THANK EVERYBODY WHO'S BEEN INVOLVED IN THIS TO THIS POINT. UM, IT'S ALL BEEN A, UM, HOPEFULLY COLLABORATIVE PROCESS AND A LOT OF PEOPLE HAVE HAD A LOT OF INPUT, WHICH WE REALLY APPRECIATE AND WE THINK WE'VE IMPROVED THE REQUEST AS A RESULT. UH, I WANNA THANK DR. HASHIMI FOR ALL THE WORK AND TIME SHE'S PUT IN. UM, COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN OBVIOUSLY, AND COMMISSIONER CARPENTER'S HAD A GOOD BIT OF INPUT AND WE APPRECIATE ALL OF THAT. UM, AND I'LL TRY TO BE BRIEF. THIS IS, UM, ABOUT 98 ACRES. IT'S IN SOUTHEAST ALICE IN THE KLEBERG RILEY AREA. UM, THIS IS PARTICULAR PROPERTY IS FORMERLY OWNED BY, UH, THE RU BALL FAMILY AND THEY USED IT FOR, YOU KNOW, THEIR, UM, LANDSCAPE, MATERIALS PRODUCTION, THINGS LIKE THAT. IT'S ACTUALLY A REALLY NICE, UH, PIECE OF PROPERTY. IT'S GOT A POND ON IT, SOME VERY MATURE TREES, THINGS LIKE THAT. SO WHAT WE WANT TO DO IS DO AN INNOVATIVE PRODUCT HERE, WHICH WOULD BE BASICALLY A, AN UPSCALE RV PARK WITH SOME COTTAGES, MAINTAIN THE POND, WHICH IS PRETTY BIG. UM, RECREATIONAL AMENITIES FOR THE RESIDENTS THERE. WE THINK THERE'S A MARKET FOR PEOPLE WHO COME TO THE CITY FOR VARIOUS EVENTS, MAYBE IN AN RV WHO WANT TO STAY THERE ON A NOT A PERMANENT BASIS. OBVIOUSLY IT'S NOT, THAT'S NOT THE BUSINESS MODEL, BUT ON A TEMPORARY, UH, BASIS OF VARYING LENGTHS, UM, WE, UH, WERE INVITED BY COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN TO COME TO A COMMUNITY MEETING AT THE, THE CLEAVER REC CENTER, WHICH WE WENT TO AND PRESENTED EXTENSIVELY. THE POSITIVE FEEDBACK SEEMED TO BE THERE FOR THAT. AND MR. KENDALL, ACTUALLY, HE'S BEEN WORKING ON THIS FOR ABOUT A YEAR OR MORE AND HE'S GONE DOOR TO DOOR IN THE NEARBY RESIDENTIAL AREAS, TALKING TO PEOPLE AND EXPLAINING THIS. UM, WE, UH, HAVE WORKED ON THIS EVEN UP TO THIS MORNING, UM, WITH COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN IN PARTICULAR AND, UM, HAD SOME DISCUSSIONS WITH HIM ABOUT ELEMENTS THAT, UM, HE WOULD LIKE TO, I BELIEVE, I CAN'T SPEAK FOR HIM, BUT I THINK HE'S GONNA INCLUDE IN HIS MOTION, WHICH WE ARE AGREEABLE TO. UM, SO, UH, AGAIN, WE THINK THIS IS A REALLY GOOD USE FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD. IT'S, IT'S GONNA BE SOME RETAIL ON THE NORTH SIDE ALONG WITH A BIG TREE PRESERVATION AREA, THE RETAIL WE ENVISION BEING NEIGHBORHOOD, SERVING RETAIL, UM, NOT, YOU KNOW, ANYTHING LARGE SCALE, BIG BOX, NOTHING LIKE THAT. AND THEN, AS I SAY, THE RV PARK COTTAGES AND OPEN SPACE AND AMENITIES ON THE MUCH LARGER SOUTHERN SUBDISTRICT. SO, UM, HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE STAFF'S RECOMMENDING APPROVAL, WHICH WE APPRECIATE. UM, OTHER THAN THAT, WE WOULD RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL TODAY [03:35:01] AND BOTH I AND MR. KENDALL ARE HERE FOR QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE ANY. THANK YOU MR. VINCENT. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE TO SPEAK ON CASE NUMBER NINE? ALRIGHT, NO FURTHER SPEAKERS. WE'LL GO TO COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN FOR A MOTION. UH, MR. CHAIR, I REQUEST JUST A, A FEW MINUTES. I JUST CIRCULATED WHAT THE CONDITIONS ARE. I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE ALL OF THE COMMISSIONERS, UH, RECEIVE IT, UH, BECAUSE THE ADDITIONS OR MODIFICATIONS ARE PRETTY EXTENSIVE AND I JUST WANNA READ INTO THE RECORD WITHOUT YOU ALL HAVING YOUR EYES ON IT. SO MAYBE FIVE MINUTES. DO YOU WANNA TABLE THE, TABLE IT, TABLE IT, AND THEN MOVE ON TO [SUBDIVISION DOCKET] SUBDIVISION? DID HE ELECTRONICALLY DISTRIBUTE SOMETHING? I DIDN'T GET ANYTHING. OH, SORRY. GOOD AFTERNOON CHAIR AND GOOD AFTERNOON COMMISSIONERS. UH, THE CONSENT AGENDA THAT CONSISTS OF THREE ITEMS. ITEM NUMBER 14, ITEM NUMBER 15, AND ITEM NUMBER 16. ALL CASES HAVE BEEN POSTED FOR A HEARING AT THIS TIME AND STAFF RECOMMENDED INSEPARABLE SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE DOCKET AND AS AMENDED AT THE HEARING. THANK YOU. THANK YOU MS. ESTA. IS THERE ANYONE WHO'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON ANY OF OUR SUBDIVISION ITEMS? I SEE THAT ITEM 15, THAT APPLICANT IS ONLINE. UM, ITEM 16 THERE IS AN OPPONENT. IS MR. SMOOT ONLINE? NO, NOT ONLINE. OKAY. ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO SPEAK ON OUR SUBDIVISION CONSENT DOCKET CONSUME ITEMS 14 THROUGH 16, NO SPEAKERS. WE WILL GO TO COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN FOR A MOTION IN THE MATTER OF THE SUBDIVISION CONSENT AGENDA. ITEMS 14 THROUGH 16. I MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND FOLLOWS STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE DOCKET. THANK YOU SO MUCH, COMMISSIONER FUNKEN FOR YOUR MOTION. VICE CHAIR HERBERT FOR YOUR SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION SAYING NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED, SAY NAY. THE MOTION CARRIES ITEM [17. 26-1782A An application to replat a 1.234-acre (53,733-square foot) tract land containing all of Lot 11E in City Block B/2978 to create one 0.600-acre (26,133-square foot) lot and 0.633-acre (27,600 -square foot) lot on property located between Meadowlake Avenue and Westlake Avenue, west of Wendover Road.] 17, ITEM NUMBER 17, PLAT 26 0 0 18. IT IS AN APPLICATION TO, IT IS AN APPLICATION TO REPLAT A 1.234 ACRE, UH, THAT IS 53,733 SQUARE FOOT TRACK OF LAND CONTAINING ALL OF LOT 11 E IN CITY BLOCK B OVER 29 78 TO CREATE ONE 0.60 ACRE. THAT IS 26,133 SQUARE FOOT LOT AND 0.633 ACRE. THAT IS 27,600 SQUARE FOOT LOT AND PROPERTY LOCATED BETWEEN MIDDLE LAKE AVENUE AND WESTLAKE AVENUE WEST OF WEVER ROAD 18. NOTICES WERE SENT TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE PROPERTY ON MAY 4TH, 2026. WE HAVE RECEIVED ZERO REPLY IN FAVOR AND ZERO REPLY AND OPPOSITION TO THIS REQUEST. STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE DOCKET AND AS AMENDED AT THE HEARING. THANK YOU. THANK YOU MS. RETA. MR. BALDWIN. GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIR. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, ROB BALDWIN, UH, HERE. SO THIS IS A PLAT UP IN NORTHERN PART OF LAKEWOOD. UH, IT'S RIGHT BETWEEN MEADOW LAKE AND WESTLAKE. UH, OUR PROPERTY HERE IS IN THE GREEN PROPERTY TO THE WEST, UH, WAS RE PLATTED JUST LIKE WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO DO PREVIOUSLY. SO IT'S ONE LARGE LOT THAT HAS TWO STREET FRONTAGES. WE'RE JUST PROPOSING TO PUT A LOT LINE THROUGH THE MIDDLE OF IT TO MATCH WHAT, JUST TO THE WEST OF US. UM, HOPE YOU CAN SUPPORT IT. I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU MR. BALDWIN. ARE THERE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS IN SUPPORT ON ITEM 17? ANY SPEAKERS IN OPPOSITION? OKAY. COMMISSIONER KONZ, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION IN THE MATTER OF PLAT 26 0 0 0 1 1 8. I MOVE TO FOLLOW STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE DOCKET. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR MOTION. COMMISSIONER K, YOUR SECOND COMMISSIONER HALL. ANY DISCUSSION? NO DISCUSSION. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? SAY NAY. THANK YOU. [03:40:02] WHY DON'T WE GO TO NUMBER 18 THEN WE'LL CIRCLE BACK TO NINE AND THEN FINALLY WE'LL GET TO PD 5 95. WE MAY TAKE A BREAK SOMEWHERE IN THERE. ALRIGHT, NUMBER 18, MR. BROWN MIC. WHAT'S THAT? OH, THANKS. [18. 26-1783A A City Plan Commission authorized hearing seeking a recommendation regarding a proposal to change the zoning classification from R-7.5(A) single-family zoning district to Stevens Park Village Conservation District, No. 22 being all of City Blocks 7/4809, 5/4808, 3/4807, 2/4806, 3/4725 ½, 4/4725, and a portion of City Blocks 6/4726 and 1/4724 generally bounded by Remond Drive to the north, Hampton Road to the east, the alley west of Walter Drive between City Blocks 7/4809 and 5/4808 with City Blocks 1/6166 and 3/6166 on the west; and a portion of Colorado Boulevard between City Blocks 7/4809 and 1/6167 along with the alley south of Colorado Boulevard splitting City Block 6/4726 and a portion of City Block 1/4724 to the south; and containing approximately 39.70 acres.] ITEM NUMBER 18, CASE Z 26 0 0 0 8 6 OR Z 2 45 DASH 16 EIGHT A CITY PLAN COMMISSION AUTHORIZED HEARING, SEEKING A RECOMMENDATION REGARDING A PROPOSAL TO CHANGE THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM R SEVEN FIVE, A SINGLE FAMILY ZONING DISTRICT TO STEVENS PARK VILLAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT NUMBER 22 BEING ALL OF CITY BLOCKS, SEVEN SLASH 4, 8 0 9 5 SLASH 4, 8 0 8 3 SLASH 4, 8 0 7 2 SLASH 4, 8 0 6 3 SLASH 4 7 2 5 AND A HALF FOUR SLASH 4 7 2 5 AND A PORTION OF CITY BLOCKS SIX SLASH 4 7 2 6 AND ONE SLASH 4 7 2 4. GENERALLY BOUNDED BY REMAN DRIVE TO THE NORTH HAMPTON ROAD TO THE EAST, THE ALLEY WEST OF WALTER DRIVE BETWEEN CITY BLOCKS SEVEN SLASH 4 8 0 9 AND FIVE SLASH 4 8 0 8 WITH CITY BLOCKS ONE SLASH 6 1 6 6 AND THREE SLASH 6 1 6 6 ON THE WEST AND A PORTION OF THE COLORADO BOULEVARD BETWEEN CITY BLOCKS SEVEN SLASH 4 8 0 9 AND ONE SLASH 6 1 6 7 ALONG WITH THE ALLEY SOUTH OF COLORADO, COLORADO BOULEVARD, SPLITTING CITY BLOCK SIX SLASH 4 7 2 6 AND A PORTION OF CITY BLOCK ONE SLASH 4 7 2 4 TO THE SOUTH CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 39.7 ACRES. STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN AND CONDITIONS. THANK YOU SO MUCH MR. BROWN. UM, WE'LL START WITH OUR SPEAKERS IN SUPPORT. HOW DO WE GET THE PRESENTATION UP? IS IT ALRIGHT? LET THANKS. ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. I WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO DO THAT. SO, UH, DAVID POSI 2229 LAWNDALE DRIVE. UH, I'VE BEEN IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR 14 YEARS NOW AND I'M A MEMBER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMITTEE, WHICH WORKED FOR OVER TWO YEARS TO PUT TOGETHER, UH, THIS APPLICATION FOR OUR CONSERVATION DISTRICT. UH, WE HAVE A MAJORITY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN SUPPORT. I THINK 85 REPLY FORMS HAVE BEEN SENT IN, IN SUPPORT. UH, WE HAVE MANY OF THE NEIGHBORS HERE IN ATTENDANCE IN SUPPORT. IF Y'ALL ARE HERE IN SUPPORT, PLEASE STAND UP. STEVENS PARK, UH, VILLAGE WAS ESTABLISHED IN 1939 BY ANNIE STEVENS, WHO IS PART OF THE STEVENS FAMILY, WHO DEVELOPED STEVENS PARK ESTATES AS WELL AS THEY GAVE THE LAND FOR, UH, STEVENS PARK GOLF COURSE. THE BOUNDARIES THAT WERE SELECTED FOR THIS CONSERVATION DISTRICT WERE BASED ON THE HOUSES THAT WERE BUILT PRE-WORLD WAR II WITH A FEW AFTER WORLD WAR II BASED ON THE ORIGINAL PLAT, UH, FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AS YOU SEE ON THE SCREEN HERE, UH, ARE ARCHITECTURAL STYLES IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD ARE VERY CONSISTENT. OVER 90% OF OUR HOUSES ARE IN THE MINIMAL TRADITIONAL STYLE, UH, WITH A FEW RANCH HOUSES AND A COUPLE HOUSES THAT [03:45:01] HAVE BEEN BUILT, UH, MORE RECENTLY SINCE THE 1980S. NEXT SLIDE. OUR CHARACTER IS VERY CONSISTENT SINCE THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS WITH THE STORIES OF HOUSES, THE HEIGHTS, THEY'RE ALL ONE TO ONE AND A HALF STORIES. WE HAVE CONSISTENT SETBACKS. UH, WE HAVE, UH, VERY CONSISTENT, UM, UH, STREETS WITH THE, UH, LOVELY STREET TREES THAT HELP TO, UH, SHADE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. SO WHY DO WE WANT TO DO A CONSERVATION DISTRICT? BASICALLY WITH, UH, RISING PROPERTY VALUES AND AND DEVELOPMENT GOING AROUND THE NEIGHBORHOOD, WE REALLY WANT TO PROTECT THE HISTORIC CHARACTER OF THIS COTTAGE STYLE NEIGHBORHOOD. UH, FROM MUCH LARGER HOUSES THAT MIGHT COME IN, UH, WITH DEMOLITION. UH, AND WE WANT TO PROTECT THE UNIQUE QUALITIES OF THE, OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD WITH THE ARCHITECTURAL CHARACTER, THE CONSISTENCY OF THE HEIGHT, THE BUILDING MATERIALS, AND THE SETBACK OF THE ORIGINAL HOUSES. BASICALLY, WE WANT TO, UH, UM, WE WANT TO AVOID WHAT'S ON THE, UH, RIGHT SIDE OF THE SCREEN, UH, WHICH THE LITTLE TWO HOUSES ARE BASICALLY SIMILAR SIZE HOUSES DO WE HAVE IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. SO WE WANT TO AVOID THIS, UH, MUCH LARGER NEW CONSTRUCTION THAT WOULD OVERWHELM, UH, THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. UH, THROUGHOUT THIS PROCESS, WE'VE HAD A LOT OF COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENTS, WHICH YOU'LL HEAR ABOUT. UM, BUT THESE ITEMS THAT ARE HIGHLIGHTED HERE ARE REALLY THE ITEMS THAT REALLY ROSE TO THE TOP AND HAD THE MOST DISCUSSION DURING THIS WHOLE PROCESS. AND YOU WILL HEAR MORE ABOUT THESE INDIVIDUAL ITEMS, UH, IN A MINUTE. UH, SO WITH THAT, I'M GONNA PASS IT OVER TO, UH, TRUDY NEWTON. UH, BEFORE I'D JUST LIKE TO, UH, ENCOURAGE OR ASK THAT Y'ALL SUPPORT, UH, THE, UH, MOVING FORWARD, THE CONSERVATION DISTRICT, UH, STATUS. TRUDY, NEXT SPEAKER. WE READY? YEP. NOT QUITE AS TALL AS YOU. . TRUDY NEWTON 2323 WEST COLORADO BOULEVARD, DALLAS, TEXAS. AND I'VE LIVED IN STEVENS PARK VILLAGE FOR SIX YEARS. ANOTHER PIECE WE WANT TO SHARE WITH YOU IS OUR NEIGHBORHOOD ENGAGEMENT PROCESS. IT DEMONSTRATES HOW WE COMMUNICATED AND INVOLVED OUR NEIGHBORS IN THE CD PROCESS, AVOIDING THINGS BEING DONE IN A VACUUM. WE USED MULTIPLE TOUCHPOINT, INCLUDING ELECTRONIC PAPER AND MANY INDIVIDUAL CONVERSATIONS. WE ALSO DID AN ELECTRONIC NEIGHBORHOOD SURVEY. WE WANTED TO GET INPUT FROM BEYOND THE COMMITTEE AND THOSE ATTENDING MEETINGS AND TWO TYPES OF PUBLIC MEETINGS. NEIGHBORHOOD LED WITH AFFINITY EXERCISES AND CITY LED WITH AN INTERACTIVE FORMAT AND LOTS OF LISTENING. SO WHEN YOU QUANTIFY ALL OF THESE INTEGRATED TOUCH POINTS AND HOW WE INVOLVED OUR NEIGHBORS, IT ENDS UP LOOKING LIKE THIS. THREE COMMITTEE LED NE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS. YELLOW 12 CITY LED NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS. GREEN 13 COMMITTEE BROCHURES DISTRIBUTED TO EACH HOUSEHOLD. BLUE 32 COMMITTEE EMAILS WITH UPDATES AND REMINDERS. PURPLE AND SIX MEETING NOTICES MAILED TO EACH HOUSEHOLD IN ENGLISH AND SPANISH ORANGE. WE ALSO HAD 20 SUPPLEMENTAL HANDOUTS AND MANY ONE-ON-ONE CONVERSATIONS. 86 WAYS WE INVOLVED THE COMMUNITY AND OUR COMMUNICATIONS WITH NEIGHBORS. WELL, I KNOW THIS ISN'T AN EYE TEST. I KNOW IT LOOKS LIKE IT WHEN YOU FIRST LOOK AT IT. THIS IS A CHRONOLOGICAL VIEW OF OUR ENGAGEMENT PROCESS FROM THE FIRST, FIRST TOUCH POINT, MARCH 16TH, 2024 TO THE LAST TOUCH POINT, MAY 9TH, 2026. IT PROVIDES AN OVERVIEW OF THE VARIETY OF WAYS WE INVOLVED OUR NEIGHBORS. THE COLORS CORRESPOND TO THE ENGAGEMENT MODEL OF 60, EXCUSE ME, 86 THAT WE COMMUNICATED AND INVOLVED WITH COMMISSIONER SIMS ACTUALLY HAS A BINDER WITH EACH OF THE 86 TOUCH POINTS. WILL YOU SHOW THEM THAT? SO IF YOU, IF YOU DON'T HAVE SOME LIGHT READING TONIGHT, TAKE A LOOK AT IT. BUT 86 TIMES WE TOUCHED EVERYBODY. THESE ARE EXAMPLES OF THE 13 COMMITTEE BROCHURES. THEY WERE DISTRIBUTED TO EACH OF OUR NEIGHBOR'S HOMES, PLUS MADE AVAILABLE ELECTRONICALLY. THEY HAVE A CONSISTENT LOOK, FEEL, AND SIZE SO NEIGHBORS COULD EASILY IDENTIFY THEM. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME IN REVIEWING THE STEVENS PARKVILLE HCD ORDINANCE. WE LOOK FORWARD TO YOUR SUPPORT. THANK YOU MA'AM. NEXT SPEAKER IN SUPPORT. [03:50:01] ALL RIGHT. I'M DONOVAN WESTOVER, 2318 LAWNDALE DRIVE. I'VE LIVED IN STEVENS PARK VILLAGE FOR 25 YEARS. I'M THE TEAM LEADER FOR THE CONSERVATION DISTRICT ORDINANCE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMITTEE. THE COMMITTEE IS A DIVERSE REPRESENTATION OF ALL FIVE NEIGHBORHOOD STREETS, YOUNG AND MATURE, WORKING IN RETIRED WITH AND WITHOUT CHILDREN, LIBERAL AND CONSERVATIVE THINKERS, LONGTIME AND NEW NEIGHBORS. AS TRUDY STATED OVER THE LAST 26 MONTHS, THE COMMITTEE GUIDED OUR NEIGHBORS THROUGH THE TECHNICAL CONSERVATION DISTRICT PROCESS VIA A SERIES OF NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS. PRIMARY UPDATES IN THE PROCESS AS WELL AS MEETING DATES WERE COMMUNICATED THROUGH EXTENSIVE USE OF PRINTED BROCHURES AND PERPETUAL EMAIL REMINDERS. THE COMMITTEE DID EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO KEEP THE NEIGHBORHOOD UPDATED ON THE PROCESS WHILE ENCOURAGING PARTICIPATION WHETHER THEY WERE SUPPORTIVE OR OPPOSED. WE WANTED OUR PROPOSED ORDINANCE TO REPRESENT AS MANY NEIGHBORS AS POSSIBLE AND CONTINUOUSLY INVITED EVERYBODY TO CONTRIBUTE. COMMISSIONER SIMS HAS A BINDER TO ATTEST TO THAT. THESE TANGIBLE PIECES DO NOT INCLUDE MY OWN EFFORTS TO PERSONALLY VISIT WITH AS MANY NEIGHBORS AS POSSIBLE TO DISCUSS AND VISUALIZE OUR PROPOSED ORDINANCE AS IT RELATES SPECIFICALLY TO THEIR PROPERTY. THE EDUCATION THAT BOTH PROPERTY OWNERS AND MYSELF RECEIVE THROUGH THESE VISITS HAS BEEN INVALUABLE. MY LISTENING CAMPAIGN TOOK ME TO WELL OVER HALF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND I LEARNED A LOT ABOUT WHERE SOME ADJUSTMENTS COULD BE MADE. OUR FIRST DRAFT ORDINANCE HAD SOME ROOM FOR IMPROVEMENT TO REPRESENT THE WIDELY SHARED CONCERNS. I HEARD THEY INCLUDED LESS CRUCIAL STANDARDS, SUCH AS HOW THE MAXIMUM MAIN STRUCTURE HEIGHT IS MEASURED AND THE ROOF SLOPE OF ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, WHICH WE ADJUSTED THE MOST PREVALENT ADJUSTMENT WOULD REQUIRE A MODIFICATION TO ACCOMMODATE THE CHALLENGING INCONSISTENCY IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD'S. LOT DEPTHS AND SHAPES. WE SURVEYED NEIGHBORHOOD LOT DEPTHS. THE COMMITTEE'S REQUEST FOR THIS ADJUSTMENT INCREASED BUILDABLE SPACE FOR HALF OF OUR NEIGHBORS. THOSE ARE THE MOST SHALLOW LOTS. LANGUAGE FROM OUR FIRST DRAFT ORDINANCE CREATED AN ACCEPTABLE NON-CONFORMITY RATE CONCERNING WINDOWS. THE COMMITTEE SURVEYED NEIGHBORHOOD WINDOWS FOR AN ACCURATE REPRESENTATION AND REQUESTED AN ADJUSTMENT. THE REVISED ORDINANCE MAINTAINS CONFORMITY FOR MOST OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THIS, IN ADDITION TO ASSURED DOCUMENTATION, ALLOWS NEIGHBORS TO MAINTAIN THE CURRENT STREETSCAPE. WE'VE WORKED HARD TO LISTEN TO AND HEAR OUR NEIGHBORHOOD THROUGHOUT THIS PROCESS. OUR PROPOSED ORDINANCE IS MINIMALLY RESTRICTIVE, YET IT WILL DO WHAT WE SET OUT, WHICH IS TO PROTECT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. ANYTHING LESS THAN WHAT WE HAVE WOULD NOT BE A CONSERVATION DISTRICT. WE FEEL WE ARE ON THE RIGHT TRACK BECAUSE THE OVERALL NEIGHBORHOOD RATE OF OPPOSITION HAS SLIGHTLY DECREASED SINCE THE COLLECTION OF PETITIONS. I WANNA THANK Y'ALL FOR YOUR TIME THIS AFTERNOON. THANK YOU. NEXT SPEAKER IN SUPPORT. YEAH, THAT ONE. I THINK THERE ARE ALSO A FEW SPEAKERS ONLINE IN SUPPORT. SUSAN ALVAREZ. I OH, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK MS. ALVAREZ? SURE. I, SUSAN, SORRY. GOOD AFTERNOON. UH, CHAIR RUMAN AND CITY PLAN COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS SUSAN ALVAREZ AND I LIVE AT 1327 WALTER DRIVE. FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE TO THE CITY AND FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE SOME THOUGHTS THIS AFTERNOON ON THE PROPOSED STEVENS PARK VILLAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT. I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO SPECIFICALLY CALL OUT CITY STAFF TREVOR BROWN AND MELISSA PARENT, WHO WORKED VERY PATIENTLY WITH OUR NEIGHBORHOOD TO GET US TO THIS POINT. I AM SPEAKING IN SUPPORT OF THIS ORDINANCE. I MOVED TO STEVENS PARK VILLAGE ABOUT EIGHT YEARS AGO AND I MOVED THERE BECAUSE OF THE FEEL OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD WITH AMPLE SHADY TREES, NICE OLDER, PREDOMINANTLY 1940S ERA AUSTIN CHALK COTTAGES, AND WELL TENDED GARDENS. THE NEIGHBORHOOD AT THAT PARTICULAR TIME WAS AFFORDABLE AND A VERY SHORT COMMUTE TO MY JOB HERE AT CITY HALL. SO IT WAS PERFECT IN EVERY WAY, RIGHT SIZE, PRICE, AND LOCATION TO FIT MY NEEDS. AS I'VE LIVED THERE, I'VE ALSO COME TO KNOW AND LOVE THE PEOPLE, PETS AND PLACES THAT MAKE THE NEIGHBORHOOD SPECIAL. IN THOSE EIGHT TO ALMOST NINE YEARS OF LIVING IN STEVENS PARK VILLAGE, I HAVE ALSO OBSERVED A PLETHORA OF WHAT APPEARS TO BE ARCHITECTURE BY AI. WHITE BOXES IN THE FORM OF HOMES, TOWN HOMES AND APARTMENTS POPPING UP IN BISHOP ARTS IN WEST DALLAS AND ALONG THE FORT WORTH AVENUE CORRIDOR. AND I REALIZED THAT THESE WERE CREEPING CLOSER [03:55:01] EVER CLOSER TO MY NEIGHBORHOOD. AND I REALIZED HOW VULNERABLE THIS NEIGHBORHOOD IS TO LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PRESSURE. AND SO I'VE PER PARTICIPATED IN A VERY COLLABORATIVE PROCESS TOWARDS DEVELOPING A CONSERVATION DISTRICT TO HELP PRESERVE WHAT IS SPECIAL ABOUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD, WHILE BALANCING THE ABILITY FOR INDIVIDUAL HOMEOWNERS TO UPGRADE THEIR PROPERTIES AS THEY FEEL NECESSARY TO FIT THEIR INDIVIDUAL NEEDS. AND LIKE ALL COLLABORATIVE PROCESSES, IT COULD BE MESSY, IT'S PUBLIC PROCESS, UM, AND AT THE END RESULT DOES NOT ALWAYS MATCH WHAT THE INITIAL IDEAS WERE WHILE MAINTAINING A TRUE NORTH TO THE COLLECTIVE DESIRES OF THE MAJORITY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THROUGH DIALOGUE, DISCUSSIONS, POLLS, SURVEYS, AS TRUDY DISCUSSED, THESE IDEAS EVOLVED OVER THE PROCESS OF ABOUT 15 MEETING SURVEYS, ET CETERA. BOTH THE INVITATIONS TO AND THE RESULTS OF ALL OF THESE MEETINGS WERE PROVIDED TO THE PUBLIC IN A MULTITUDE OF DIFFERENT WAYS, THROUGH NEWSLETTERS, THROUGH WEBSITES, THROUGH RECORDINGS IN THESE DISCUSSIONS, THE GROUP AS A WHOLE, THAT'S YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. OKAY, THANK YOU. THANK YOU SO MUCH MS. ALVAREZ. THE THREE MINUTES, SOMETIMES GO FAST, . ALRIGHT. OTHER ONLINE SPEAKERS WHO MAY BE HERE IN PERSON. RENATA WELLS. SO RENADO SAID THAT SHE WAS TRYING TO DOWNLOAD THE APP OKAY. TO GET ONLINE. CAN SHE GO AFTER THE REST OF THE WE? WE CAN, WE CAN TRY OUR BEST. I'M HERE. OH, THERE SHE IS. OH, SHE IS HERE. MS. WELLS, WHENEVER YOU'RE READY. HELLO. CAN YOU GUYS HEAR ME? YES. CAN YOU GUYS HEAR ME? OKAY, I'M GONNA TRY THIS. UM, FIRST I APOLOGIZE. I'M A FIFTH GRADE TRIP HERE IN GALVESTON AND JUST TRYING TO DO MY, UH, MY, UH, DUE DUE DILIGENCE TO HELP, UH, TO HELP PROTECT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. SO MY NAME IS RENATA WELLS. I LIVE AT 2111 BARBERRY DRIVE WITH MY FAMILY. UM, WE HAVE BEEN THERE 16 YEARS WHEN MY HUSBAND AND I PURCHASED OUR HOME, WE PURCHASED INTO SMALL, WE PURPOSELY WANTED A STOP WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND WITH OUR HOUSE. UM, WE ARE TWO ADULTS, TWO CHILDREN, TWO DOGS, AND AN OCCASIONAL FOSTER DOG OR CAT BEAR THERE. AND WE LIVE IN 1200 SCHOOLS. I TELL YOU THIS BECAUSE PROTECT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD NOT ALLOW FAMILIES TO THIS TRUE TRUTH. WE HAVE A LOT OF FAMILIES THAT LIVE HERE. AGAIN, TWOS AND WE'RE MAKING IT WORK. MY MY KIDS HAVE A LOVE HATE RELATIONSHIP. IT'S A GIRL AND A BOY. THEY'RE 12 AND 10, AND IF YOU HAVE KIDS, YOU KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT. BUT THEY HAVE SHARED A ROOM SINCE THEY WERE BORN AND THEY, THEY CAN'T THINK OF DOING IT ANYTHING OTHER THAN THAT, RIGHT? SO THERE'S ROOM FOR US TO GROW. WE WOULD LOVE TO ADD A NEW, A NEW BEDROOM AND A NEW BATHROOM TO OUR HOUSE. AND SO WE HAVE SKIN IN THE GAY POLICE WHEN PEOPLE LEAVE AFTER ATTENDING ABOUT 95% OF THE MEETINGS GOING THROUGH ALL THE MATERIAL THAT THE COMMITTEE PUT OUT THERE, UM, REVIEWING THE FINAL DOCUMENTS OR PROBABLY TWO OR THREE HOURS LAST WEEKEND. AND WE BELIEVE THAT THIS IS A GOOD PLACE THAT PROTECTS OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND IT ALLOWS FAMILIES LIKE US TO GROW WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD IF WE NEED TO, BUT IN A THOUGHTFUL WAY WITHOUT, YOU KNOW, BECOMING FRISCO OR PLANO AND THESE HUGE MID MANSIONS. SO I, UM, FINDING COMMISSIONERS THAT YOU GUYS TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION AND PROTECT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. LET'S KEEP IT SMALL. LET'S KEEP IT IS TODAY. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME TODAY. THANK YOU MS. WELLS. IS THERE AN ADDITIONAL SPEAKER IN PERSON AND SUPPORT? WE HAVE MANY MORE. OH, GREAT. OKAY, WELL LET'S HEAR FROM HIM THEN. GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS JOHN MCCALL. I OWN 2302 BARBERRY. AND PRIOR TO THAT I'VE OWNED HOMES WITHIN TWO MILES, WHICH INCLUDE WEST KESSLER, STEVENS PARK ESTATES, EAST KESSLER, AND NOW STEVENS PARK VILLAGE. NONE OF THOSE NEIGHBORHOODS ARE AS GOOD A CANADA AS THIS ONE FOR AN OVERLAY. THIS NEIGHBORHOOD IS WHAT YOU CONSIDER A POCKET NEIGHBORHOOD, AND THE CITY HAS HELPED US ONCE BEFORE ON THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. AS YOU LOOK AT THIS MAP, IT IS ACTUALLY INCORRECT. THE CITY CLOSED OFF MULTIPLE ENTRANCES FOR OUR NEIGHBORHOOD YEARS AGO TO MAKE THIS A VERY WALKABLE NEIGHBORHOOD. SO WE ONLY [04:00:01] ENTER FROM THE SOUTH, WHICH AGAIN PRESERVES THE INTEGRITY AND THE SAFETY OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. OUR NEIGHBORHOOD IS BEAUTIFUL WITH LOTS OF MATURE TREES, LOTS OF CHARMING COTTAGES AND LOTS OF SINGLE FAMILY. ONE STORY PROPERTIES. WE HAVE A FEW, TWO STORIES, BUT BY AND LARGE MOST OF THEM ARE 1940. STRUCTURES THAT ARE UNIQUE HAVE CHARM AND CHARACTER. NONE OF THEM LOOK ALIKE. NONE OF THEM LOOK COOKIE CUTTER AND NONE OF THEM REPEAT. WE'RE NOT AGAINST CHANGE AND WE'RE NOT HERE TO PREVENT EXPANSION. WE ARE HERE TO KEEP IT IN A VERY TASTEFUL AND LIMITED ORDINANCE SO THAT WE MAINTAIN OUR INTEGRITY, MAINTAIN OUR CHARACTER, AND WE MAINTAIN OUR LOOK. WE'RE HOPING TO KEEP OUR NEIGHBORHOOD MUCH LIKE THE M STREETS WHERE THE HOLLYWOOD HILLS AND NOT LIKE ELM THICKET, EAST OF LOVE FIELD OR WESTERN HEIGHTS JUST TO THE EAST OF US WHERE THEY'RE PUTTING IN THESE LARGE STUCCO STRUCTURES NEXT TO THE SMALLER ONE STORIES MAKING OUR PROPERTIES DECLINE IN VALUE. OUR NEIGHBORHOOD IS CONTINUING TO CLIMB IN POPULARITY AND IN VALUE AND IN BEAUTY. AND WE BELIEVE THIS ORDINANCE BEFORE YOU TODAY WILL CONTINUE TO ENHANCE THAT AND WILL CONTINUE TO PROTECT US AND CONTINUE TO KEEP THE MAJORITY OF THE OWNERS' INTEREST AT HEART. I'VE BEEN TO EVERY MEETING SINCE FEBRUARY OF 24. I'VE HEARD EVERY QUESTION, EVERY REQUEST, EVERY INPUT. AND WE HAVE CAREFULLY MONITORED AND REVISED AND EDITED THIS ORDINANCE FOR ALL OF THOSE. AND WE ALLOW FOR EXPANSION, WE ALLOW FOR REMODEL, BUT WE LIMIT IT TO CONDITIONS THAT MATCH WHAT WE HAVE BECAUSE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD IS A BEAUTIFUL NEIGHBORHOOD AND WE WANT TO CONTINUE TO KEEP IT BEAUTIFUL. AND WE WOULD ASK YOU TO SUPPORT THIS ORDINANCE AS IS BEFORE YOU TODAY. IT'S IN THE BEST INTEREST OF STEVENS PARK VILLAGE. THAT'S YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. NEXT SPEAKER AND SUPPORT. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS ABBY HILES. I LIVE AT 2230 LAWNDALE DRIVE IN STEVENS PARK VILLAGE. UM, MY HUSBAND AND I MOVED TO STEVENS PARK VILLAGE 18 YEARS AGO, UH, BECAUSE IT IS ONE OF THE MOST WALKABLE, LIVABLE, UM, NEIGHBORLY AREAS THAT WE FOUND IN DALLAS, UM, TREELINE STREET SIDEWALKS THAT ACTUALLY GET USED. UM, OUR HOMES ARE BUILT FROM AUSTIN STONE CRAFTED TO LAST. THEY'RE MODEST IN SIZE, BUT RICH IN CHARACTER. THAT'S WHAT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD IS AND THAT IS WHAT WE BELIEVE THE CONSERVATION DISTRICT WILL PROTECT. UM, AS OTHERS HAVE MENTIONED, WE'VE WATCHED SMALL, WELL-BUILT, UM, NEIGHBORHOODS, UM, AROUND US BE TORN DOWN AND REPLACED WITH LARGE STRUCTURES THAT DON'T HAVE RELATIONSHIPS TO THE REST OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND CHANGE THE STREET AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD. UM, SO THE PROPOSED CONSERVATION DISTRICT IS A MEASURED TARGETED RESPONSE THAT HAS BEEN VERY THOUGHTFULLY CALIBRATED TO PRESERVE OUR EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD FABRIC AND ADDRESSES THE THINGS THAT MATTER MOST TO US, ENSURING THAT WHAT GETS BUILT NEXT BELONGS TO STEVENS PARK VILLAGE. SPECIFICALLY THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS REFLECT HOW OUR HOMES IN STEVENS PARK VILLAGE ARE ACTUALLY SITUATED ON OUR LOTS TO PRESERVE THE OPEN, CONSISTENT FRONT YARDS AND THE GENEROUS SPACING BETWEEN OUR NEIGHBORS. UM, THE STORIES REQUIREMENT ALSO ALLOWS US SECOND STORIES BEHIND THE MIDPOINT OF THE STRUCTURE TO PRESERVE OUR SINGLE STORY STREET SCAPE THAT DEFINES STEVENS PARK VILLAGE WHILE STILL ALLOWING HOMEOWNERS THE ABILITY TO GROW IN PROPORTION WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THE HEIGHT REQUIREMENT IS ALSO MORE CONSISTENT WITH THE EXISTING SINGLE STORY HOMES IN STEVENS PARK VILLAGE AND PREVENTS NEW STRUCTURES FROM OVERPOWERING ITS NEIGHBORS ARE DISRUPTING THE SCALE OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD PERSONALLY. UM, WE DO ASK THAT THE STANDARDS MIGHT ADOPT GRADE AND NOT FINISH FLOOR AS THE MEASUREMENT BASELINE. UM, JUST BECAUSE FINISH FLOOR ELEVATION CAN VARY SIGNIFICANTLY FROM LOT TO LOT OR FROM HOUSE TO HOUSE, AND WE BELIEVE MEASURING FROM GRADE IS MORE ACCURATE AND A CLEARER STANDARD. THE CONSERVATION DISTRICT STANDARDS DON'T PREVENT OUR FROM INVESTING IN OUR PROPERTIES. THEY [04:05:01] ALLOW US TO HAVE MEANINGFUL ADDITIONS AND ENSURE THAT GROWTH IS COMPATIBLE WITH WHAT'S ALREADY HERE. IT PROVIDES FLEXIBILITY WITH OUR PROPERTY. WE CAN STILL RENOVATE, ADD ON, AND MAKE OUR HOMES OUR OWN. UM, INCLUDING THE METHOD OF ASSURED DOCUMENTATION FOR THE NON-CONFORMING ITEMS GIVES US PEACE OF MIND THAT WE CAN REPLACE LIKE FOR LIKE IN THE FUTURE. UM, IN CONCLUSION, STEVENS PARK VILLAGE IS WORTH PROTECTING. WE HAVE LIVED HERE FOR 18 YEARS, ALONG WITH MANY OF OUR NEIGHBORS WHO HAVE INVESTED FOR THE LONG TERM IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. THAT WORKS AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO YOUR SUPPORT OF THIS CONSERVATION DISTRICT. THANK YOU. YOU THANK YOU. ANY ADDITIONAL SPEAKERS AND SUPPORT? YES. OKAY. GOOD AFTERNOON COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS ALICE ELLO. I'VE LIVED AT 2, 2 4 3 LAWNDALE DRIVE SINCE 1988. I GREW UP IN NORTH OAK CLIFF, GRADUATED FROM SUNSET AND RAISED MY DAUGHTER IN STEVENS PARK VILLAGE. SINCE THE AGE OF THREE, OUR FAMILY'S ROOTS AND FRIENDSHIPS RUN DEEP IN NORTH OAK CLIFF. I AM HERE IN STRONG SUPPORT OF ESTABLISHING A CD FOR STEVENS PARK VILLAGE. STEVENS PARK VILLAGE IS A NEIGHBORHOOD WITH A DISTINCT IDENTITY. IT'S A MINIMAL TRADITION AND RT STYLE HOMES, WALKABLE STREETS, MATURE TREES, AND LONGTIME RESIDENTS CREATE A CHARACTER THAT IS INCREASINGLY RARE. IN DALLAS, FAMILIES HAVE INVESTED DECADES INTO MAINTAINING THESE HOMES AND PRESERVING THE SENSE OF COMMUNITY THAT MAKES THE NEIGHBORHOOD SPECIAL. LIKE MANY DALLAS NEIGHBORHOODS, STEVENS PARK VILLAGE IS EXPERIENCING GROWING DEVELOPMENT. PRESSURE GROWTH IS IMPORTANT AND CHANGE IS IN INEVITABLE, BUT GROWTH SHOULD BE THOUGHTFUL AND COMPATIBLE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOODS THAT ALREADY EXIST. A CD PROVIDES THAT BALANCE. THIS DESIGNATION HELPS GUIDE DEVELOPMENT SO THAT NEW CONSTRUCTION AND RENOVATIONS RESPECT THE SCALE DESIGN AND RHYTHM OF THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD. IT ALLOWS STEVEN SPARK VILLAGE TO EVOLVE WHILE PROTECTING THE QUALITIES RESIDENTS VALUE. MOST. MOST IMPORTANTLY, THIS EFFORT HAS BEEN COMMUNITY DRIVEN FROM THE BEGINNING. OVER THE PAST TWO YEARS, NEIGHBORS HAVE PARTICIPATED IN FORMAL MEETINGS, INFORMAL DISCUSSIONS AMONG NEIGHBORS AND COLLABORATIVE PLANNING EFFORTS TO HELP SHAPE THE PROPOSAL. WHILE MEETINGS WERE SCHEDULED ON VARIOUS DAYS FOR, FOR, UH, THE PURPOSES OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. UH, NOT EVERYONE COULD ATTEND EVERY MEETING, NOR COULD I BECAUSE OF BUSINESS OBLIGATIONS. BUT PRO THE PROCESS REMAINED ACCESSIBLE. RESIDENTS COULD REVIEW MEETING REC RECORDINGS AND MATERIALS THROUGH THE CITY'S WEBSITE TO STAY INFORMED THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS. THIS LEVEL OF PARTICIPATION REFLECTS SOMETHING IMPORTANT. PEOPLE CARE DEEPLY ABOUT THIS NEIGHBORHOOD AND WANT TO WORK CONSTRUCTIVELY WITH THE CITY TO PROTECT THE CHARACTER. WHILE PLANNING RESPONSIBLY FOR THE FUTURE, APPROVING THE CD WOULD SEND A CLEAR MESSAGE THAT DALLAS VALUES ESTABLISHED NEIGHBORHOODS AND RECOGNIZES THAT PRESERVATION AND PROGRESS CAN COEXIST. IT WOULD HELP PREVENT INCOMPATIBLE DEVELOPMENT, SUPPORT NEIGHBORHOOD STABILITY, AND PROTECT THE CHARACTER THAT DRAWS FAMILIES TO STEVENS PARK VILLAGE IN THE FIRST PLACE. I RESPECTFULLY URGE YOU TO SUPPORT THIS DESIGNATION AND HELP ENSURE THAT STEVENS SPARK VILLAGE REMAINS A VIBRANT, COHESIVE, AND ENDURING PART OF DALLAS FOR GENERATIONS TO COME. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. NEXT SPEAKER IN SUPPORT. HELLO, I AM KATHY CHANDLER AND I LIVE AT 2229 WEST COLORADO. IN 1989, MY HUSBAND AND I PURCHASED A HOME IN STEVENS PARK. WELL, ACTUALLY IT WAS IN KESSLER PARK AT 10 10 NORTH WINDERMERE. WE DECIDED TO RAISE OUR KIDS THERE, BUT IT WAS A PLACE WHERE WE COULDN'T GET ANY SERVICES. A PLUMBER WOULDN'T COME, A ELECTRICIAN WOULDN'T COME. WE COULDN'T EVEN GET A PIZZA DELIVERED BECAUSE WE WERE IN OAK CLIFF. BUT, UM, IN MAY OF 2005, CASTLE PARK BECAME A CONSERVATION DISTRICT AND IT HAS BEAUTIFULLY PRESERVED THE NEIGHBORHOOD, PROTECTING AND ENHANCING THE SIGNIFICANT ARCHITECTURE WHILE BALANCING GROWTH AND PRESERVATION. A CD FOR, UM, STEVENS PARK VILLAGE COULD DO THE SAME. I'VE LIVED IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD FOR THREE YEARS NOW AND I BELIEVE THAT IT HAS A CONSERVATION DISTRICT NEEDED [04:10:01] TO HELP AND PROTECT THE UNIQUE CHARACTER. UM, I HAVE LIVED IN A CD AND I KNOW IT CAN WORK, AND I RESPECTFULLY URGE YOU TO VOTE IN FAVOR OF HAVING US BECOME THE NEXT CONSERVATION DISTRICT IN DALLAS. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER SPEAKERS IN SUPPORT? GOOD AFTERNOON, VAN JOHNSON. 2 3 0 6 LAWNDALE DRIVE, REPRESENTING THE ECCENTRIC OLD MAN DEMOGRAPHIC. I AM, UH, 70 YEARS OLD. I'VE LIVED IN MY HOUSE 29 YEARS, SO COMING UP ON HALF MY LIFE, THERE'S A WONDERFUL NEIGHBORHOOD. IT HASN'T ALWAYS BEEN A GREAT PLACE TO LIVE, BUT AFTER THREE DECADES OF HARD WORK, IT IS FAR FROM WHAT IT USED TO BE. IN THE NINETIES, A MAJOR CONCERT VENUE ACROSS THE STREET MEANT THAT FORT WORTH AVENUE WAS RIFE WITH PROSTITUTION. WE HAD DRUG PARAPHERNALIA IN OUR ALLEYS. THE MORNING AFTER I MOVED IN SEPTEMBER 96, SEPTEMBER 97, I FOUND THE FIRST USED CONDOM ON THE STREET IN FRONT OF MY HOUSE. WEEKLY TRASH AND BULK TRASH WAS IN FRONT OF MOST OF THE HOUSES MOST OF THE TIME, AND A MAJOR EYESORE. I WAS NEIGHBORHOOD BEAUTIFICATION CHAIR FOR TWO YEARS AND ORGANIZED THE FIRST TWO MASS TREE PLANTINGS THEN WAS PRESENT FOR TWO YEARS. ALL OF US HAVE TRANSFORMED THE NEIGHBORHOOD FROM WEEDS AND PILES OF TRASH TO BEAUTIFUL LANDSCAPES AND HEAD TURNING GARDENS. ALTHOUGH MY YARD WAS A DEAD BROWN MOONSCAPE WHEN I MOVED IN, MY GARDEN HAS BEEN FEATURED IN D HOME, D MAGAZINE, THE COVER OF ARTS AND LIFE, THE LIFESTYLE SECTION OF THE DALLAS MORNING NEWS. THE OAKCLIFF ADVOCATE, OF COURSE, AND THE NATIONAL PUBLICATION, UH, FINE GARDENING MAGAZINE, BUT ONLY THE ONLINE EDITION. TO KEEP ME HUMBLE, I'VE ENJOYED BEING PART OF THIS COMMUNITY SO MUCH. I ORGANIZED THE OAK CLIFF CENTENNIAL IN 2003, FOUNDED OAK CLIFF EARTH DAY NOW IN ITS 19TH YEAR. FOUNDED JEFFERSON MEDIAN BEAUTIFICATION PROJECT, A TREE PLANTING INITIATIVE, WHICH INSTALLED TREES IN THE EXTREMELY WIDE, PREVIOUSLY VERY BARREN JEFFERSON MEDIAN AND FOUNDED WESTERN HIGH CEMETERY ASSOCIATION TO RESCUE AND NEGLECTED 170 8-YEAR-OLD CEMETERY. AS YOU CAN SEE, I VALUE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT VERY MUCH. THE NEWER RESIDENTS ARE MOSTLY UNAWARE WHERE WE STARTED FROM AND THE STRUGGLES WE WENT THROUGH TO CREATE WHAT WE ENJOY TODAY. WE NEED TO CONTINUE THE AMAZING PROGRESS WE HAVE MADE. NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT IS A NEVER ENDING JOB. THANK YOU FOR LISTENING AND COME OVER FOR A GARDEN TOUR. ANY OTHER SPEAKERS IN SUPPORT? OKAY, WE WILL TURN TO OUR SPEAKERS IN OPPOSITION ON CASE NUMBER 18 IF WE HAVE ANY. I SEE THERE ARE A FEW PEOPLE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK IN ONLINE IN OPPOSITION. ROBERT SMITH. CYNTHIA, HELLO? CAN EVERYONE HEAR ME? YES. UM, MR. SMITH, ARE YOU ABLE TO GET YOUR CAMERA WORKING? CYNTHIA RODRIGUEZ, GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS CYNTHIA RODRIGUEZ. I'M A HOMEOWNER AT 1219 WALTER DRIVE. I'M ASKING YOU TO DENY THIS PROPOSAL. I WANT TO BE CLEAR I'M NOT HERE BECAUSE I DON'T CARE ABOUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I'M HERE BECAUSE I DO. AND WHAT'S IN FRONT OF YOU TODAY DOESN'T REFLECT WHAT THIS COMMUNITY ACTUALLY WANTS. NEIGHBORS WERE TOLD THIS WAS ABOUT STOPPING OUTSIDE DEVELOPERS FROM DEMOLISHING HOMES AND REPLACING THEM WITH MCMANSIONS. THAT'S WHAT PEOPLE THOUGHT THEY WERE SIGNING AND THAT'S WHAT GOT DOORS OPEN. BUT THERE'S NO DEMOLITION CLAUSE IN THIS DRAFT NOW. ONE, NOT ONE. A DEVELOPER CAN COULD BUY A HOME ON MY STREET TOMORROW. AND THIS PROPOSAL DOES NOTHING TO STOP THEM. WHAT IT DOES IS REGULATE THE PEOPLE ALREADY LIVING HERE, WINDOWS, FENCES, EXTERIOR CHOICES, AND PUTS THE FINANCIAL BURDEN OF COMPLIANCE ON EXISTING HOMEOWNERS. THAT'S NOT PROTECTION. THAT'S THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT PEOPLE WERE TOLD THEY WERE SUPPORTING. AND THIS ISN'T THE FIRST TIME THIS HAS BEEN TRIED. THIS IS THE SAME PROPOSAL. THIS SAME PROPOSAL FAILED BEFORE ON THIS. THE SAME PREMISE. THE DEVELOPERS NEVER CAME IN. THEY HAVEN'T COME NOW. A LOT OF THE PEOPLE MENTIONED THAT THEY'VE BEEN AT THE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR A WHILE. THERE'S NO DEVELOPERS, THERE'S NO BACK MANSIONS. WHAT BE, WHAT KEEPS COMING BACK IS THE COMMITTEE WITH THE SAME ARGUMENT, HOPING THAT THIS TIME THE ANSWER IS DIFFERENT. NOW, UM, LET ME TALK ABOUT HOW THIS DATA WAS COLLECTED BECAUSE THAT'S THE OTHER PROBLEM. THE CITY MILL OFFICIAL BLUE RESPONSE FORMS TO PROPERTY OWNERS. MINE NEVER ARRIVED, NEITHER DID SEVERAL OF MY [04:15:01] NEIGHBORS. THAT'S A KNOWN GAP BEFORE ANYTHING ELSE HAPPENED. WHEN MY FORM NEVER ARRIVED, I REACHED OUT TO THE COMMITTEE LEAD DIRECTLY. HE DIDN'T RESPOND. I FOLLOWED UP BY EMAIL AND COPIED THE CITY STAFF. HE RESPONDED IN WRITING IN WHAT HE SAID MATTERS. HE ADMITTED TO THE, THAT DURING THE WEEKEND, DOOR KNOCKING OPPOSITION AFFIDAVITS WERE ONLY AVAILABLE TO NEIGHBORS WHO ALREADY KNEW TO ASK FOR ONE. SUPPORTIVE FORMS WERE HANDED OUT BY DEFAULT OPPOSITION FORMS WERE WITHHELD UNLESS SOMEONE SPECIFICALLY REQUESTED THEM. THAT'S NOT A NEUTRAL PROCESS. THAT'S THE COMMITTEE DECIDING FOR THEIR NEIGHBORS, WHICH OPTION THEY GET TO SEE. AND IT'S WORTH NOTING THE MAIL FORMS AND THE AFFIDAVIT PROCESS WERE NOT THE SAME EXPERIENCE FOR EVERY RESIDENT. THE CITY'S RESPONSE TO THIS WAS THAT THE NEIGHBORS HAD OPTIONS THAT THEY COULD HAVE MAILED THE FORMS THEMSELVES OR HAND DELIVERING AS I DID WITH MINE. I NEED TO ADDRESS THAT DIRECTLY. THAT DIRECTLY BECAUSE IT DOESN'T HOLD UP. YOU CANNOT MAIL A FORM YOU NEVER RECEIVED. YOU CAN ADD, YOU CANNOT ASK FOR A FORM YOU DID NOT KNOW EXISTED. AND THE FACT THAT ANOTHER PATH TECHNICALLY EXISTED DOESN'T COM MAKE A COMPROMISE PATH ACCEPTABLE. STAFF WAS TOLD IN WRITING WITH DOCUMENTATION THAT THIS COLLECTION PROCESS WAS BIASED. THEY ACCEPTED THE DATA SET ANYWAY BECAUSE THE NUMBERS MATCH WHAT THEY EXPECTED. THAT'S NOT DUE DILIGENCE. THAT'S DECIDING THE ANSWER FIRST IN BACK IN WORKING BACKWARDS. THAT'S YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. OH, AND I NEVER RECEIVED ANY OF THE EMAILS THAT THEY CLAIM THAT THEY SENT, EVEN THOUGH I DIDN'T GO TO ALL MEETINGS. THAT'S YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. OKAY, NEXT SPEAKER IN OPPOSITION. THANK YOU ALL. UM, 1227 WALTER DRIVE, NEMA BAJA. UM, LET'S START WITH WHAT WE ALL AGREE ON. WE LOVE STEVENS PARK VILLAGE. WE LOVE THE HOMES. WE LOVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD. WE LOVE THE TREES, WE LOVE EVERYTHING ABOUT IT. I DON'T THINK ANYBODY ON EITHER SIDE WANTS TO SEE OUR HOMES UNPROTECTED, BUT AS CYNTHIA HAD MENTIONED, THERE IS NO DEMO CLAUSE. THE BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT WAS MENTIONED BEFORE ABOUT KESSLER PARK AND STEVENS PARK VILLAGE IS THAT KESSLER PARK HAS A DEMO CLAUSE. KESSLER PARK HAS, UM, ADDED TO THEIR, YOU KNOW, UH, SQUARE FOOTAGE AND WHATNOT WITH VERY STRICT ORDINANCES TO THE ORIGINAL ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS. WE HAVE REQUESTED OVER AND OVER AGAIN FOR THOSE STANDARDS TO BE CONSIDERED WITH STEVEN SPARK VILLAGE. THIS GROUP BEHIND ME WHO ARE SPEAKING FOR THE, UH, CONSERVATION DISTRICT ARE NOT THE ONLY PEOPLE SPEAKING FOR THE CONSERVATION DISTRICT. IT'S JUST A DIFFERENT CONSERVATION DISTRICT THAN THE ONE THAT WE'VE LANDED ON. THE REASON WE WERE ABLE TO GET OVER 70% VOTES FOR THE APPLICATION FOR THIS CONSERVATION DISTRICT IS BECAUSE THE MESSAGING DID NOT INCLUDE RESTRICTIONS ON SECOND STORIES. IT DID NOT INCLUDE RESTRICTIONS ON YOUR WINDOWS. IT'S SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED THAT WE WOULD HAVE THE LIGHTEST RESTRICTIONS ON OUR CURRENT NEIGHBORS, BUT TO PROTECT OUR CURRENT HOMES FROM DEVELOPERS DEMOING OUR HOMES AND PUTTING UP, AS THEY'VE MENTIONED, MCMANSIONS OR MCMA THAT DO NOT FIT THE CHARACTER OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. IN ADDITION, THEY'VE EXPRESSED THE DESIRE TO HAVE, YOU KNOW, UH, BACKYARDS THAT HAVE PLENTY OF SUNLIGHT AND SO ON AND SO FORTH. AND WE'VE EXPRESSED OVER AND OVER AGAIN THAT THIS 50% MIDLINE FOR SECOND STORIES IS AN IMPEDIMENT TO BACKYARDS FOR PRIVACY AND FOR SUNLIGHT. WE'VE ALSO EXPRESSED A CONCERN ABOUT THIS MIDLINE NOT BEING EQUITABLE BECAUSE SOME OF OUR HOMES HAVE ATTACHED GARAGES, ATTACHED GARAGES THAT PUT THE MIDLINE SO FAR BACK THAT IN ORDER TO, UM, DO A SECOND STORY, YOU'RE SPENDING 35,000, $40,000 OF STRUCTURAL REINFORCEMENT TO YOUR FOUNDATION IN ORDER TO EVEN BEGIN PUTTING SQUARE FOOTAGE ABOVE YOUR HOME. WE ALL KNOW HOW EXPENSIVE LIFE IS ALREADY. WE HAVE PUT AN UNDUE BURDEN ON PEOPLE WITH CHILDREN, MANY OF WHICH HAVE SAID NO TO THIS CURRENT CONSERVATION DISTRICT BECAUSE THEY'RE SCARED WHETHER THEY CAN GROW INTO THEIR HOME. OF COURSE, RENATA AND SOME OTHERS HAVE A DESIRE TO SHARE ROOMS, SHARE BATHROOMS, SHARE. THAT'S, THAT'S NOT MY BUSINESS TO TELL HER HOW TO LIVE HER LIFE. BUT THIS CONSERVATION COMMITTEE, WHICH I'M A PART OF, HAD EX LITERALLY EXPRESSED A DESIRE AND A AND A COMMITMENT TO NOT IMPOSE ON OUR NEIGHBORS. THAT'S YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. APPRECIATE. NEXT SPEAKER IN OPPOSITION, JESSICA CHILES. 1227 [04:20:01] WALTER DRIVE. UM, THE RESIDENTS OF SPV WERE PROMISED THE CD WOULD BE THE, THE LIGHTEST TOUCH WITH THE INTENT TO STOP DEVELOPERS FROM DEMOLISHING HOMES. AS WE KNOW IT DOESN'T DO THAT. I WAS INTERESTED IN THE PROSPECT OF THE CD FOR OUR COMMUNITY. FOR THE PAST TWO YEARS, WE'VE EXPRESSED CONCERNS IN WRITING, PHONE CALLS, EMAILS, AND IN MEETINGS. BUT WE ARE LEFT WITH AN ORDINANCE THAT LACKS THAT CLAUSE AND IMPEDES OUR ABILITY TO INVEST IN OUR HOMES. WE ARE PARTICULARLY WORRIED ABOUT THE IMPACT THIS HAS ON CHILDREN AND FAMILIES. THIS PAST WEEK, NEIGHBORS WERE CONTACTED REPEATEDLY AND AGGRESSIVELY SENT AFFIDAVITS IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDINANCE UNLESS THEY EXPLICITLY REQUESTED OTHERWISE. IF THE ORDINANCE WAS IN LINE WITH WHAT THE NEIGHBORS GENUINELY WANTED, THOSE TACTICS WOULDN'T BE NECESSARY. AS OF NOW, ONE THIRD OF THE ORIGINAL COMMITTEE MEMBERS ARE OPPOSED TO THE CD RETIREES AND EMPTY NRS THAT HAVE HAD THE BANDWIDTH TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCESS MORE THAN THE FAMILIES THAT SPB. THEY REPRESENT THE INTEREST THAT IS HERE TODAY, NOT THE FAMILIES OF SPV THAT LIVE THERE. MY HUSBAND AND I HAVE BEEN RESIDENTS OF STEVENS PARK VILLAGE FOR ALMOST 15 YEARS. OUR 1700 SQUARE FOOT HOME HAS SERVED OUR NEEDS FOR THAT TIME. BUT BOTH WORKING FROM HOME AND SINCE HAVING A CHILD, OUR NEEDS HAVE EVOLVED. I HAVE WORKED IN RESIDENTIAL ARCHITECTURE FOR OVER TWO DECADES, PRIMARILY ON OLDER HOMES. OUR HOME HAS BEEN FEATURED IN D MAGAZINE AND ALSO PART OF THE HERITAGE OF CLIFF HOME TOUR. WE HAVE BEEN PRAISED FOR THE SUBTLE AND MINDFUL INVESTMENTS WE'VE MADE IN OUR HOME. WHEN EXPRESSING OUR CONCERNS ABOUT THIS ORDINANCE, MAKING IT PARTICULARLY DIFFICULT FOR FAMILIES LIKE US TO INVEST IN OUR HOMES. WE WERE TOLD THAT SPV MAYBE ISN'T FOR US. I WORK IN RESIDENTIAL ARCHITECTURE AND THE CD IS NOT REPRESENTATIVE OF HOW I WOULD APPROACH THESE CHANGES. WE ESTABLISH AN ORDINANCE THAT MINDFULLY COULD HAVE, COULD HAVE, I'M SORRY. HAD WE ESTABLISHED AN ORDINANCE THAT MINDFULLY ALLOWED FOR HOMEOWNERS TO UPDATE THEIR HOMES, I WOULD'VE BEEN IN SUPPORT OF THIS CD. INSTEAD, WE HAVE A MIXED BAG THAT CALLS FOR CHAIN LINK FENCES AND SOLAR PANELS, BUT NO ADDITIONS ON THE ORIGINAL FOOTPRINT OF THE HOME AS IT APPEARS FROM THE CURB, THE LACK OF THE NODE DEMO CLAUSE MAKES IT MIXED WITH STRICT RULES. MAKE IT EASIER FOR DEVELOPERS TO DEMOLISH THESE HOMES THAN TO RENOVATE THEM. ARCHITECTURE IS ABOUT SO MUCH MORE THAN WHAT IT APPEARS FROM THE FRONT CURB. AND EACH RESIDENT HAS DIFFERENT NEEDS. WHEN THIS IS DONE, WE WILL HAVE ELIMINATED OUR TREES AND GARDENS IN OUR BACKYARD. WE WILL HAVE REDUCED OUR PRIVACY AND DRAINAGE ISSUES WILL ARISE FROM THE LACK OF IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE. WE HAVE INVESTED YEARS OF BLOOD, SWEAT, AND TEARS INTO THE HOME. THE FOLKS LEADING THIS CHARGE HAVE NOT. THE MAJORITY OF RESIDENTS ON LEANDER AND WALTER ARE OPPOSED TO THIS CD AND I MOVE THAT THOSE STREETS BE REMOVED FROM THE ORDINANCE. ANNIE STEVENS ESTABLISHED THIS NEIGHBORHOOD WITH FAMILIES AND YOUNG PEOPLE IN MIND. IT HAS BEEN A PLEASURE IN OUR ALMOST 15 YEARS OF LIVING THERE TO SEE MORE YOUTH AND VIBRANCY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THE ORIGINAL FAMILIES OF SPD PASSED THESE HOMES DOWN TO THEIR CHILDREN AND THEY STAYED IN THE SAME HANDS FOR NEARLY THREE GENERATIONS. I HOPE THAT TRAJECTORY CAN CONTINUE. A CD THAT ALLOWS FOR THAT IS GREAT. AND THIS ONE IS NOT. IT'S YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER SPEAKERS AND OPPOSITION HERE IN PERSON? WE'LL GO TO ONLINE SPEAKERS AND OPPOSITION. STAN. UH, MR. SMITH, WERE YOU ABLE TO GET YOUR CAMERA WORKING? ROBERT SMITH. OKAY. MARY WALTERS. THANK YOU. I OPPOSE THE PROPOSED CD LIKE THE OTHER OPPONENTS. NOT BECAUSE I DO NOT LIKE STEVENS PARK VILLAGE, IT'S BECAUSE I LOVE STEVENS PARK VILLAGE. I BOUGHT MY HOME. I'M AT 2323 BARBERRY DRIVE. I BOUGHT MY HOME IN 2009, 17 YEARS AGO. I WAS THOUGHTFUL ABOUT IT. I AVOIDED A HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION, A CONSERVATION DISTRICT, AND A HISTORIC DISTRICT. IT WAS NEAR DOWNTOWN AND IT WAS ZONED SEVEN FIVE A. ALL OF THAT PROVIDED QUITE A BIT OF CERTAINTY IN WHAT I COULD SEE FOR THE FUTURE. AND WHAT I SAW FOR THE FUTURE WAS UPSIDE APPRECIATION. I SAW THE POTENTIAL FOR PROPERTY VALUATION, UH, PROPERTY APPRECIATION. THIS CONSERVATION DISTRICT LIMITS THAT WHILE ALSO NOT ACTUALLY ADVOCATING FOR DALLAS FORWARD. THE REASON IT LIMITS THE POTENTIAL PROPERTY APPRECIATION IS THAT IT TAKES AWAY THE RIGHTS THAT I HAD WHEN I BOUGHT MY PROPERTY TO RENOVATE AND EXPAND. AND IT SHRINKS THEM. FEWER BUYERS CONSIDER BUYING IN A CONSERVATION DISTRICT BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING TO BE LIMITED IN WHAT THEY CAN DO. BOTH HOMEOWNERS AND BUILDERS ARE GOING TO BE DISCOURAGED. HOMEOWNERS 'CAUSE THEY CAN'T EXPAND AND BUILDERS BECAUSE THEY WON'T BE ABLE TO MAKE THE PROFIT PER DOLLAR AND PER SQUARE FOOT. SO YOU'VE GOT PEOPLE WHO DON'T WANNA INVEST. YOU'VE GOT INCREASED COST TO REPAIR. I'VE ALREADY PURSUED [04:25:01] POTENTIAL REPAIR WORK AND THERE ARE WINDOW VENDORS WHO WON'T WORK IN CONSERVATION DISTRICTS. THERE ARE VENDORS WHO SAY, OH, YOU LIVE IN A CONSERVATION DISTRICT, I'LL CHARGE YOU MORE. THAT HURTS THE SALES PRICE. IT REDUCES THE INCENTIVE TO INVEST FURTHER. IT ALSO HURTS THE CITY OF DALLAS BECAUSE WHEN A PROPERTY IS LIMITED IN ITS POTENTIAL VALUE, IT REDUCES THE TAX BASE, IT REDUCES THE INCENTIVE FOR HOMEOWNERS OR BUILDERS TO INVEST. IT LIMITS THE TAX REVENUE AND IN THIS CASE, IT DISCOURAGES FAMILIES FROM STAYING. IT ENCOURAGES THEM TO LEAVE BECAUSE AS THEY OUTGROW THE HOUSE AS IT IS, THEY ARE LIMITED IN WHAT THEY CAN DO. WHETHER YOU FAVOR HOMEOWNER PROPERTY RIGHTS AS I DO, OR GENTLE DENSITY, WHICH HAS BEEN MENTIONED SEVERAL TIMES TODAY WITH D DALLAS FORWARD, THIS CONSERVATION DISTRICT ACHIEVES NEITHER. IT UNDERMINES THE HIGHEST VALUE AND THE CERTAINTY WITH PROPERTY RIGHTS. AND IT UNDERMINES THE ABILITY OF DALLAS TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO ALLOW MORE PEOPLE TO LIVE ON ONE PIECE OF PROPERTY. THEREFORE, I RESPECTFULLY ASK THE COMMISSION TO DENY THIS CONSERVATION DISTRICT AND ALLOW HOMEOWNERS TO CONTINUE WITH THE ZONING THAT HAS WORKED. AS EVERYONE HAS SAID FOR, SINCE ANNIE STEVENS DEVELOPED THIS IN 1940. AND IF WE CAN JUST FOREGO APPLAUSE, PLEASE. NO OUTBURST. ALRIGHT. UM, ANY OTHER SPEAKERS IN OPPOSITION? DID MR. SMITH, WERE YOU ABLE TO GET YOUR CAMERA WORKING? OKAY. I DON'T THINK THERE'S AN APPLICANT ON THIS CASE SINCE IT'S CITY INITIATED, SO WE WILL GO TO COMMISSIONER SIMS FOR A MOTION. GREAT. THANK YOU MR. CHAIR. IN THE MATTER OF CASE NUMBER Z DASH 26 DASH 0 0 0 8 6, I MOVE TO FOLLOW THE RECOMMENDATION OF STAFF AND APPROVE SUBJECT TO A CONCEPTUAL PLAN AND CONDITIONS. THANK YOU FOR YOUR MOTION. UH, COMMISSIONER SIMS, YOUR SECOND COMMISSIONER HAMPTON. ANY DISCUSSION PLEASE, MR. CHAIRMAN? UM, YEAH. THIS, THIS IS, UH, THIS IS OBVIOUSLY A BALANCING ACT, RIGHT? THAT WE HAVE HEARD FROM VERY IMPASSIONED NEIGHBORS ON BOTH SIDES OF THIS ISSUE. AND AS I, AS I LISTENED TO IT, I THINK THE THINGS THAT STRUCK ME FIRST AND FOREMOST WAS, UH, THE WORK OF STAFF. UH, MR. BROWN AND THE STAFF HAVE DONE EXTRAORDINARY WORK GETTING THIS HERE. AND ALSO, UH, THE POINT OF THE, UH, 86 TOUCH POINTS. IT FEELS LIKE THAT THE INDIVIDUALS INVOLVED WITH BRINGING THIS FORWARD HAVE WORKED VERY HARD TO BRING THE NEIGHBORHOOD ALONG. UH, AS WE ALL KNOW, YOU'LL NEVER BRING EVERYBODY ALONG, BUT I FEEL LIKE A MAJORITY OF FOLKS HAVE BEEN BROUGHT ALONG. UH, I LISTEN CAREFULLY TO THE, TO THE WITNESS OR THE, UH, COMMENTS AROUND NO DEMOLITION STANDARD THAT HEARD, HEARD THAT PEOPLE WERE CONCERNED ABOUT THE FACT THAT DEMOLITION WAS STILL PERMITTED IN THIS DISTRICT. BUT AS I READ THE ORDINANCE, WHILE A HOUSE COULD BE DEMOLISHED, ANYTHING THAT WILL BE BUILT BACK WILL BE BUILT BACK IN CONFORMITY WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND I THINK THAT ACTUALLY PROVIDES A LIGHTER TOUCH THAN A CONSERVATION DISTRICT THAT SAYS A HOUSE COULD NOT BE DEMOLISHED UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. I HEARD CONCERNS ABOUT HOUSES BEING UNABLE TO BE EXPANDED AS I READ THE ORDINANCE, HOMES CAN BE EXPANDED. IT'S JUST THAT THEY CANNOT BE EXPANDED AT THE VERY FRONT OF THE HOUSE. SO I THINK A BALANCE WAS STRUCK HERE AS WELL. SO I THINK IN CONCLUSION, UM, I THINK WHAT WHAT THIS GROUP HAS ACHIEVED IS BASICALLY A MINIMALLY RESTRICTIVE ORDINANCE THAT, UM, ACHIEVES THE PURPOSE OF RETAINING THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND AT THE END OF THE DAY, BALANCING COMPETING INTERESTS IN AN EFFECTIVE WAY. AND FOR THAT REASON, I ASK MY FELLOW COMMISSIONER TO SUPPORT THE MOTION. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER SIMS. ANY OTHER SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM? MR. KINGSTON? SO, UH, AND I'M NOT SURE WHO TO DIRECT THIS TO, SO MAYBE MR. PREZI CAN ANSWER IT. UM, WHY IS THERE A PROHIBITION AGAINST RENTING ADUS? WHY IS THERE A PROHIBITION AGAINST ADUS? NO RENTING ADUS. I STAFF AS WELL HAVE TO ANSWER THAT. I DON'T ARE YOU REFERRING TO THE REFERENCE TO NON RENTABLE IN THE DEFINITION? CORRECT. UM, THAT, UM, IS IN CONFLICT WITH THE A DU OVERLAY LANGUAGE THAT'S INCLUDED IN THERE. SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD NEED TO CLEAN UP BEFORE THE NEXT, UH, OPPORTUNITY. WELL, WHY COULDN'T WE CLEAN IT UP RIGHT NOW? IF I MAKE A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO REMOVE THE TERM NON RENTABLE FROM THE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT ORDINANCE, I'LL ACCEPT THAT. THANK YOU. OKAY. ANY [04:30:01] OTHER DISCUSSION MR. CARPENTER? I WILL BE SUPPORTING THE ORDINANCE. UM, BEING VERY FAMILIAR WITH FORT WORTH AVENUE, HAVING BEEN INVOLVED WITH EVERY ORGANIZATION ASSOCIATED WITH FORT WORTH AVENUE FOR THE LAST 40 YEARS AND BEING FAMILIAR WITH AT LEAST HALF THE PEOPLE WHO SPOKE HERE TODAY THROUGH THOSE ASSOCIATIONS. UM, THIS NEIGHBORHOOD IS, IS REALLY, UM, A REMARKABLE NEIGHBORHOOD. IT'S, IT'S A TESTAMENT TO THE, THE CHARACTER AND THE VALUE THAT PEOPLE PUT ON THE CHARACTER THAT ONLY TWO HOMES HAVE BEEN BUILT HERE SINCE 1961. AND AS FAR AS THE, UM, ARGUMENT THAT THERE'S NO DEMOLITION, UH, ORDINANCE, NOTHING TO PREVENT DEMOLITION, I THINK IF YOU READ THE ORDINANCE VERY CAREFULLY, WHICH I DID, THE VERY FACT THAT THERE'S LIMITATIONS ON LOT COVERAGE, ON MATERIALS, ON HEIGHT, ON HOW THE SECOND STORY CAN BE EXPANDED AND THEN A, A FLEXIBLE, UH, LIST OF DESIGN CRITERIA. I THINK THEY REALLY DID. THE STAFF IN THE COMMUNITY REALLY DID THREAD THE NEEDLE AND COME UP WITH SOMETHING THAT, UM, PROTECTS THE NEIGHBORHOODS CHARACTER, YET DOES ALLOW REASONABLE, YOU KNOW, EXPANSION AND USE OF THEIR PROPERTY. SO I'LL BE VERY, VERY HAPPY TO SUPPORT THIS MOTION. COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT, UM, I, UH, I WANT TO JUST ECHO WHAT EVERYONE SAID ABOUT WHAT AN EXCEPTIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD THIS IS. UM, I, UH, I WAS ABLE TO DRIVE THE, THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, BEFORE, UH, THIS HEARING, UH, DROVE IT VERY SLOWLY, TWICE. I'M SURPRISED I WASN'T REPORTED FOR STAKING OUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT, UH, IT, IT REALLY IS AN EXCEPTIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD. IN FACT, MY WIFE AND I LOOKED AT A HOME IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD BACK IN THE EIGHTIES, AND, UH, MAYBE WE MADE A MISTAKE NOT LIVING THERE. UM, I, I ADMIRE THE PROCESS YOU'VE BEEN THROUGH AND THE MO AND THE MOTIVATION BEHIND THE PROCESS. I'M JUST GOING TO EXPRESS SOME PERSONAL RESERVATIONS ABOUT CONSERVATION DISTRICTS IN GENERAL. NOT THIS ONE IN SPECIFIC, BUT IN MY MULTIPLE YEARS OF SERVICE ON THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION. I'VE SEEN ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS, UM, A LOT OF CONFLICT BETWEEN NEIGHBORS END UP RIGHT HERE BEFORE US ABOUT WINDOWS AND ABOUT ROOFS AND ABOUT FENCES AND ET CETERA. AND, UM, SOMETIMES I WONDER IF, UH, THE, UH, MEDICINE ON THESE NEIGHBORHOODS ISN'T WORSE THAN THE DISEASE, UH, OF THE RISK. UM, SO I, I'M, I'M REALLY HAVE A GREAT DEAL OF TREPIDATION ABOUT THIS. UH, I, I UNDERSTAND THERE'S A SUBSTANTIAL MAJORITY OF SUPPORT. NEVERTHELESS, WE'RE BRINGING ALONG ABOUT 32 HOMEOWNERS INTO A DISTRICT THAT, UH, IS GOING TO MATERIALLY IMPACT THEIR PROPERTY RIGHTS, UM, WHICH I DON'T TAKE LIGHTLY. UM, I'VE, UH, LISTENED TO, UH, COMMISSIONER SIMS, AND HE'S DONE A GREAT JOB ON THIS CASE. AND COMMISSIONER HAMPTON'S KIND ENOUGH TO SCHOOL ME ON THESE THINGS AS WE SIT HERE. SO, UM, I THINK I'M, I'M GONNA, AS I TOLD COMMISSIONER SIMS MAYBE TWO DAYS AGO, HOLD MY NOSE AND VOTE FOR IT. BUT, UM, I THINK I, I'LL JUST MAKE ONE COMMENT ON OUR CA ORDINANCES. I THINK IT'S UNCONSCIONABLE THAT WE COULD PASS A CA HERE WITH A 58% SUPPORT, AND THAT 40, WE WOULD DRAG 42% OF OUR NEIGHBORS ALONG WITH A CA. THAT'S NOT WHAT WE HAVE HERE. WE HAVE MORE, MUCH MORE SUPPORT THAN THAT. BUT I'M REALLY SURPRISED, UM, THAT, UH, IT ONLY TAKES 58%. UH, I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE WAY TO BUILD COMMUNITY. I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE WAY TO BUILD TRUST, AND THAT'S REALLY WHAT THIS IS ABOUT. I MEAN, YES, THESE ARE BEAUTIFUL HOMES, BUT WE WANT GREAT COMMUNITIES WHERE OUR NEIGHBORS TRUST ONE ANOTHER, AND THERE THERE'S A STRONG KNIT, UH, SOCIAL FABRIC. AND, UM, SO FAR, I DON'T KNOW THAT CAS ALWAYS CREATE THAT. SO THAT'S, THAT'S MY HESITATION. THANKS FOR LETTING ME GET ON MY SOAPBOX, BUT, UH, UM, THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? COMMISSIONER KINGSTON? THANK YOU. SO, I HAVE A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT TAKE ON CONSERVATION DISTRICTS THAN MAYBE SOME OF MY COLLEAGUES. AS SOMEONE WHO STARTED ONE AND LIVE HAS LIVED IN ONE, UM, FOR 20 YEARS, OVER 20 YEARS, UM, I THINK THEY CAN BE DISRUPTIVE IN THE BEGINNING. BUT I THINK BY THE TIME THAT THE ORDINANCE HAS PASSED AND A LITTLE DUST SETTLES, THAT IT BECOMES SOMETHING THAT CAN BE A REAL COMMUNITY BUILDER, BECAUSE THE FOLKS THAT HAVE WORKED THIS HARD TO GET TO THIS POINT FREQUENTLY THEN FIND OTHER WAYS TO WORK TOGETHER TO IMPROVE THEIR COMMUNITIES, WHETHER IT'S SOCIAL EVENTS, TREE PLANTINGS, OR OTHER, UM, THINGS THAT ARE COMMUNITY BUILDERS. AND I'VE SEEN THAT TIME AND TIME AGAIN IN THESE COMMUNITIES THAT GO THROUGH THESE OVERLAY PROCESSES, WHETHER IT BE NEIGHBORHOOD STABILIZATION, HISTORIC DISTRICT OR [04:35:01] CONSERVATION DISTRICT. AND SO I THINK THAT'S A REAL BENEFIT THAT CAN HAPPEN. UM, AND I, AND I HOPE THAT YOU FIND WAYS TO, TO, TO LOOK FOR THOSE OPPORTUNITIES. UM, I ALSO AM NOT, UH, PERSUADED BY THE ARGUMENT THAT CONSERVATION DISTRICTS FINANCIALLY ADVERSELY IMPACT PROPERTY OWNERS. THERE'S A STUDY OUT OF, UH, RUTGERS UNIVERSITY IN UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS. IT'S ABOUT 20 YEARS OLD NOW, BUT IT WENT AND LOOKED AT LIKE PROPERTIES THAT WERE IN A CONSERVATION DISTRICT AND NOT IN A CONSERVATION DISTRICT, AND FOUND THAT THE CONSERVATION DISTRICTS OVER YEARS ACTUALLY IMPROVED PROPERTY VALUES, UM, BECAUSE OF WHAT THEY ACCOMPLISH WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. SO I'M HAPPY TO SUPPORT THIS ORDINANCE AND I APPLAUD THE COMMUNITY, UM, FOR ALL OF THE WORK YOU'VE DONE. AND I'M NOT UN, I'M NOT UNSENSITIVE TO THE FOLKS WHO OPPOSE IT, BUT WHAT I EVEN HEARD FROM THE OPPOSITION WAS THAT YOU WEREN'T SO MUCH OPPOSED TO A CONSERVATION DISTRICT, YOU JUST WANTED TO SEE SOME OF THE LANGUAGE BE A LITTLE DIFFERENT. AND I HAVING HELPED A LOT OF NEIGHBORHOODS WITH CONSERVATION DISTRICTS AND DONE OUR OWN WITH AMENDMENTS A FEW TIMES, ABSOLUTELY ECHO, UM, COMMISSIONER SIMS SENTIMENT THAT A LOT, A LOT OF TIMES IT'S ABOUT COMPROMISE AND YOU CAN'T MAKE EVERYBODY HAPPY. AND TO ME, THIS SEEMS LIKE, UM, A REALLY GOOD COMPROMISE BASED ON THE COMMUNITY FEEDBACK. THANK YOU. VICE HERBERT. UM, YES, I'LL PROBABLY SUPPORT THE CONSERVATION DISTRICT, BUT I, I THINK I HEARD, UM, FROM THE OPPOSITION THAT, UM, THERE'S A FEAR THAT AFFORDABILITY FOR THEM TO MAINTAIN THEIR STRUCTURE, MAINTAIN THEIR LIFESTYLE, UM, MAINTAIN THEIR HOMES OVER TIME, WILL BE HARDER FOR THEM UNDER A CONSERVATION DISTRICT. UM, SO, AND I'M TALKING TO THE SUPPORT NOW. UM, IF YOU HAVE NEIGHBORS IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD THAT ARE ELDERLY OR NOT AS WELL OFF, UM, AND RUN INTO ISSUES, UM, HOLDING UP THE STANDARDS OF THE CONSERVATION DISTRICT THAT YOU GUYS PROVIDE PROGRAMMING AROUND HELPING THEM, GRANTS FOR HISTORIC PROPERTIES, UM, UM, SITUATIONS LIKE THAT, RIGHT? MORE, I LOVE THE TREES, I LOVE THE BEES, BUT THE PEOPLE ARE MORE IMPORTANT. SO IF THAT SITUATION OCCURS, UM, I, I HOPE YOU GUYS HAVE A SETUP OR WORK TOWARDS A PROGRAMMING FOR GRANTS FOR, UM, HELPING THEM. UM, THE REASON I'M SUPPORTING THE CONSERVATION DISTRICT IS RECENTLY THE STATE HAS, UM, INTERTWINED IN WHAT WE DO AS A CITY, AS A COMMISSION, AS A COUNCIL, UM, IN THE LOCAL CONTROLS. UH, CONSERVATION DISTRICTS WILL PROTECT YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD FROM SOME OF THIS INCLUDE IN THIS, THESE ATTACKS. UM, AND IS WHY I WILL SUPPORT 'EM. UM, AND, AND WE'LL BE LOOKING FORWARD TO MORE NEIGHBORHOODS, UM, CAPTURING THE MOMENT. SO, THANK YOU. ANY ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION, COMMISSIONER SERATO? YEAH, I DO APPRECIATE EVERYBODY THAT, UH, CAME OUT TODAY AND, YOU KNOW, SPEAK, SPOKE EITHER IN A SUPPORT OR OPPOSITION. I, I DO STRUGGLE WITH THE NOTION OF PROPERTY RIGHTS AND, AND HANDING THAT OVER. UM, WITH THAT, I, I WILL BE SUPPORTING THE, THE, THE MOTION. BUT, UM, YEAH, I DO, I DO STRUGGLE WITH THAT PIECE A LITTLE BIT. UM, AND I, I, I APPRECIATE, UM, VICE CHAIR HERBERT FOR BRINGING UP THAT IDEA OF SUPPORTING NEIGHBORS IN NEED. UM, IF THE, THE IDEA HERE IS TO CREATE COMMUNITY, THEN YOU NEED TO SUPPORT THAT BEYOND, UM, BEYOND THE, THE CD. UM, AND THE LAST THING I WAS GONNA SAY, ESCAPE ME, BUT YEAH. ANYONE ELSE? MR. KTZ? YEAH, I'LL JUST, I'LL JUST QUICKLY SAY, I THINK, UM, A LOT OF MY THOUGHTS HAVE ALREADY BEEN SAID, BUT I'M ALSO HAPPY TO SUPPORT THE MOTION AND I WANT TO COMMEND EVERYONE WHO WAS PART OF IT. UM, YOU KNOW, I, I AGREE CONSERVATION OVERLAYS CAN BE A VERY VALUABLE TOOL WHEN WRITTEN WELL AND THOUGHTFULLY. AND, UM, I, I APPRECIATE THAT THIS ONE WAS, WAS WRITTEN NOT TO JUST FREEZE THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN TIME. I, I FEEL LIKE IT WAS WRITTEN TO PROVIDE A THOUGHTFUL FRAMEWORK FOR EVOLUTION. SO, UM, COMMEND YOU ON THAT AND HAPPY TO SUPPORT IT. ANYONE ELSE? COMMISSIONER HAMPTON? I SECONDED THE MOTION. UM, I DO SUPPORT THIS. I WILL SAY I'M A 30 YEAR RESIDENT OF A HISTORIC DISTRICT, UM, RENOVATED AND DID ADDITIONS IN MULTIPLE HOMES. UM, I DO WANNA ACKNOWLEDGE THE FOLKS WHO ARE HERE AND THE CONCERNS YOU HAVE ABOUT THE, UM, CONDITIONS THAT ARE PROPOSED. I SIMILAR TO SOME OF MY OTHER COLLEAGUES, DO THINK THERE'S SOME FLEXIBILITY IN HERE AND DO HELP. YOU WILL REMAIN ENGAGED IN THE PROCESS. BUT I DID WANNA ACKNOWLEDGE YOUR COMMENTS AND THAT YOU HAVE CLEARLY ALSO BEEN ENGAGED IN THE PROCESS. UM, IT DOES MOVE FORWARD TO CITY COUNCIL, UM, BUT I DO THINK THERE'S A LOT OF EMBEDDED FLEXIBILITY [04:40:01] HERE, UM, THAT HOPEFULLY WILL BE PROVEN OVER TIME THAT IT IS AVAILABLE. UM, I ACTUALLY DON'T KNOW WHAT THE PERCENTAGE OF, OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICT, UH, WAS. UM, IT WAS PASSED BEFORE I LIVED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UM, BEFORE I MADE IT TO DALLAS, BUT IT HAS OVER TIME. UM, IT'S 52 YEARS OLD AT THIS POINT, SO IT'S BEEN VERY SUCCESSFUL FOR OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. AND DO HOPE THAT YOU TAKE THESE OPPORTUNITIES TO CONTINUE TO BUILD COMMUNITY, UM, AND BE RESOURCES FOR YOUR NEIGHBOR. THE RESOURCES ARE AVAILABLE AND I THINK IT'S A GREAT OPPORTUNITY TO CONTINUE TO STRENGTHEN YOUR COMMUNITY COHESIVENESS. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. THANK YOU. UM, ANYONE ELSE? ALRIGHT, WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SIMS, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HAMPTON TO FOLLOW STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL SUBJECT TO CONCEPTUAL PLAN AND CONDITIONS. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED, SAY NAY. THE MOTION CARRIES. UH, LET'S TAKE A 10 MINUTE BREAK. CAN WE NOW WE'RE ON A BREAK. DO AS YOU PLEASE. YAY. ALRIGHT. IT IS 3:43 PM AND THIS MEETING OF THE DALLAS CITY PLAN COMMISSION IS BACK ON THE RECORD. [9. 26-1774A An application for a new Planned Development District for MH(A) Manufactured Home and CR Community Retail uses with consideration for MH(A) Manufactured Home and CR Community Retail Districts on property zoned R-10(A) Single Family and A(A) Agricultural Districts, on the west line of Haymarket Rd, and the south line of Hazelcrest Dr. (Part 2 of 2)] YOU DO CASE NUMBER NINE. LET'S CIRCLE BACK TO THAT. SORRY. CASE D 26 0 0 0 0 1 5. AN APPLICATION FOR A NEW PLANT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FOR, FOR MH MANUFACTURED HOME AND CR COMMUNITY RETAIL USERS WITH CONSIDERATION FOR MH MANUFACTURED HOME AND CR COMMUNITY, RETAIL DISTRICT AND PROPERTY ZONED R 10, SINGLE FAMILY AND A AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT ON THE WEST LINE OF HAY MARKET ROAD AND THE SOUTH LINE OF HAZEL CREST DRIVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO A DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND THE RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS. ARE THERE ANY SPEAKERS IN SUPPORT ON THIS ITEM OR, THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. UH, MEMBERS OF COMMISSION. JONATHAN VINCENT, AGAIN, 2323 ROSS AVENUE. UM, I ALREADY IMPARTED I THINK THE INFORMATION I NEED TO YOU ALL. I'M JUST LOOKING FORWARD TO HEARING WHAT THE MOTION WILL BE. THANK YOU. GREAT, THANK YOU. ANY OTHER SPEAKERS ON ITEM NUMBER NINE? COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? I DO. FINALLY. SO IN THE MATTER OF CASE NUMBER Z DASH 26 DASH 0 0 0 5 A MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGES. A MINIMUM 10 FOOT WIDE LANDSCAPE BUFFER MUST BE PROVIDED WHERE ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS, AT LEAST ONE LARGE OR MEDIUM TREE, A MINIMUM OF THREE CALIPER INCHES MUST BE PROVIDED. EVERY 30 LINEAR FEET TREE PRESERVATION REGULATIONS DO NOT APPLY TO TREES WITH A CALIPER OF LESS THAN 10 INCHES. A MAXIMUM OF 60 COTTAGES ARE PERMITTED COTTAGES MUST BE A MINIMUM OF 300 SQUARE FEET AND A MAXIMUM OF 600 SQUARE FEET. EACH COTTAGE MUST BE BUILT ON A FOUNDATION WITH PLUMBING AND MUST HAVE A BATHROOM ALONG THE EAST SIDE OF SUBDISTRICT. ONE, A MINIMUM EIGHT FOOT TALL AND MAXIMUM 10 FOOT TALL SCREENING FENCE MUST BE PROVIDED IN LIQUOR STORE AND MOTOR VEHICLE FUELING STATIONS ARE PROHIBIT PROHIBITED USES AND SUBJECT TO DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SITE CONDITIONS. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN FOR YOUR MOTION. COMMISSIONER SIMS FOR YOUR SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? COMMISSIONER HALL? NO, NO, NO. ANY, OKAY. NO DISCUSSION. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED, SAY NAY. THE MOTION CARRIES. ALRIGHT, WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE, UM, MOMENT. COMMISSIONER WHEELER'S BEEN WAITING FOR [19. 26-1784A A City Plan Commission authorized hearing to determine the proper zoning on property zoned Planned Development District No. 595, the South Dallas/Fair Park Special Purpose District, in an area generally bounded by the Union Pacific (DART) Railroad, the Southern Pacific Railroad, C.F. Hawn Freeway, the D.P.& L. Company easement, Central Expressway (S.M. Wright Freeway), the Southern Pacific Railroad, the Santa Fe Railroad, R.L. Thornton Freeway, Second Avenue, Parry Avenue, Robert B. Cullum Boulevard, Fitzhugh Avenue, Gaisford Street, and the common line between City Blocks 1820 and D/1821 and containing approximately 3,335.8 acres.] THE PD 5 95 AUTHORIZED HEARING. ITEM 19. [04:46:12] GOOD AFTERNOON COMMISSION MEMBERS. UH, MY NAME IS JOHN ANTES WITH THE APPLYING DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. UM, HOPE EVERYBODY'S DOING WELL TODAY. UM, I'M ALSO JOINED HERE TODAY WITH, UH, PATRICK BLADES, WHO'S OUR CHIEF PLANNER. UM, WE HAVE ITEM NUMBER 19. THIS IS, UH, CASE Z DASH 26 DASH 0 0 1 0 1, OR, UH, Z 2 23 DASH 21. UM, THIS IS A CITY PLAN COMMISSION AUTHORIZED HEARING TO DETERMINE THE PROPERTY ZONING ON PROPERTY ZONE PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 5 9 5, THE SOUTH DALLAS FAIR PARK SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICT IN AN AREA GENERALLY BOUNDED BY THE UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD, THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD, CF HAN FREEWAY, THE DP AND L COMPANY, EASEMENT CENTRAL EXPRESSWAY, OR, UH, M RIGHT FREEWAY, THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD, THE SANTA FE RAILROAD, RL THORNTON FREEWAY, SECOND AVENUE PERRY AVENUE, ROBERT B CULLUM BOULEVARD, FITZ YOU AVENUE, UH, GAZE FOR STREET AND THE COMMON LINE BETWEEN CITY BLOCKS 1820 AND D 1821 AND CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 3335.8 ACRES, UM, IN STAFF. UH, RECOMMENDATION TODAY IS APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 5, 9 5. THANK YOU MR. CERVANTES. SPEAKERS AND SUPPORT. ALL RIGHT. UM, GOOD, GOOD AFTERNOON EVERYBODY. UH, MY NAME IS SCOTTY SMITH AND I'M HAPPY TO BE HERE TO SPEAK OUT IN SUPPORT OF THE AMENDMENT FOR PD 5 95. FIRST AND FOREMOST, I WANT TO GIVE A SHOUT OUT TO MY COMMISSIONER, UH, COMMISSIONER WHEELER, AS WELL AS THE STAFF AND EVEN THE RETURNING STAFF FOR THE PEOPLE WHO THOUGHT THEY WERE GONNA LEAVE AND THEY CAME BACK TO WORK ON IT. ANYWAY, OVER THE PAST FIVE YEARS, WE'VE WORKED EXTREMELY HARD AT THIS. UH, LAST YEAR WE GOT, UH, PAST THE, UM, THE AREA PLAN AND ADOPTED THAT. AND THIS IS ONE OF THE STEPS IN ENSURING THAT WHAT WE, UH, SAID WE WANTED AS A COMMUNITY, OVER 200 MEETINGS STRONG, THAT WE IMPLEMENTED IT INTO THIS PD. AND SO I'M REALLY, REALLY EXCITED ABOUT WHAT WE WERE ABLE TO PUT TOGETHER WITH THIS DEAL. UH, THE HARD WORK, SWEAT, BLOCK BY BLOCK, HOUSE BY HOUSE ROAD BY ROAD MEETING, BY MEETING WE MADE CERTAIN THAT WE HEARD FROM THE COMMUNITY. AND THAT WAS THE GOAL WITH THIS WHOLE, WITH THIS WHOLE PD, IS TO ENSURE THAT WHAT THE COMMUNITY WANTED AND WHAT WE HEARD FROM THE COMMUNITY WAS DEMONSTRATED AND OUTLINED AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE IN THIS NEW PD. AND SO, UH, WE HAVE PEOPLE HERE THAT ARE SUPPORTING FROM BUSINESS OWNERS, RESIDENTS AND, AND THE LIKES. AND SO I'M REALLY, REALLY EXCITED ABOUT, UH, WHAT'S TO COME FOR SUNNY SOUTH DALLAS, AND I WANT TO HELP EVERYBODY REMEMBER THAT IT'S ALWAYS SUNNY IN SOUTH DALLAS. THANK YOU. NEXT SPEAKER IN SUPPORT, PLEASE. YES, PLEASE. AND THEN I, THAT'S OKAY. AND FIRST, LET ME JUST WELCOME, UH, FORMER COUNCIL MEMBER DIANE RAGSDALE, AND THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR YOUR CITY SERVICE. THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH. SUCH A KIND, KIND THING TO SAY. WELL, UH, I THINK IT'S BEEN ABOUT TWO OR THREE HOURS, BUT IT'S WORTH IT. UH, THE, UH, THE DALLAS CITY COUNCIL, UH, AUTHORIZED [04:50:01] A FIRST OF ALL TO, TO, TO MR. CHAIRMAN, CERTAINLY TO ALL COMMISSIONERS, AND CERTAINLY TO, UH, MY COMMISSIONER, UH, TABITHA, UH, THE DALLAS CITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZED A CITY INITIATED ZONING REVIEW FOR PD 5 95, THE SOUTH DALLAS FAIR PARK SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICT TO DETERMINE THE PROPER ZONING FOR PROPERTIES WITHIN THE DISTRICT. AND THOSE INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE HERE TO SUPPORT IT. IF YOU WANT TO STAY IN, UH, UH, YOU CAN FEEL FREE. THANK YOU. MM-HMM . THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH. IT HAS BEEN FIVE TO SIX. SOME PEOPLE WOULD SAY SEVEN DEPEND UPON, UH, THE YEARS THAT YOU COUNT, INCLUDING, UH, THE PANDEMIC. UH, WE'VE HAD COUNTLESS MEETINGS, DISCUSSIONS, AND LOT OF DEBATE, UH, TO REACH THIS GIVEN DAY, THIS GIVEN POINT. BROADLY SPEAKING, THE ZONING CHANGES, ESTABLISHED DESIGN STANDARDS FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND DUPLEXES. AND THIS HAPPENS TO BE EXTREMELY IMPORTANT BECAUSE IF YOU DRIVE THROUGH SOUTH DALLAS PROPER RIGHT NOW, YOU WOULD SEE NOTHING BUT INCOMPATIBILITY WITH RESPECT TO THE HOMES. AND SO WE ARE, WE ARE ASKING WHAT THIS HIGHLIGHT, WHAT THIS GIVEN PLAN DOES. OF THIS RECOMMENDATION DOES IS, IS INDEED TO, UH, PROMOTE DESIGN STANDARDS FOR SINGLE FAMILY. THESE STANDARDS ARE INTENDED TO PRESERVE THE LOOK AND FEEL OF THE COMMUNITY, WHILE ALSO ALLOWING FOR ADDITIONAL HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES. AND ADDITIONAL HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES, OR ADDITIONAL OPTIONS ARE, UH, TOWN HOMES, CONDOS, UH, FOUR PLEXES, UH, JUST ADDITIONAL HOUSING OPTIONS. ALSO, WE ARE MOVING TOWARD THE HISTORIC DISTRICT FOR QUEEN CITY, WHICH IS ALSO VERY CRITICAL TO US. THE ZONING ENCOURAGES ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES ALONG MAJOR CORRIDORS SUCH AS MARTIN LUTHER KING BOULEVARD, ELSIE, FAYE HAGGINS, ROBERT B CULLUM, UH, AND MALCOLM X BOULEVARD. IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE ZONING SHOULD, LIKE ANY GIVEN ZONING, SHOULD BE REVIEWED, UH, TO ENSURE THAT THE FUTURE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMPLIMENTS THE ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS AS WE INTENDED. ALSO, THERE, THERE IS A CONCERN, HOWEVER, UH, AND THAT IS THAT WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY REQUIREMENTS FOR PROPERTIES NEAR ECONOMIC AND COMMERCIAL CORRIDORS SHOULD BE STRENGTHENED AND EXPANDED. THAT HAS COME TO MEET RECENTLY THAT INDEED, THAT WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE HEIGHT AND THE RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY REQUIREMENTS OVERALL. HOWEVER, THIS ZONING REPRESENTS A SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENT FOR BOTH THE PRESENT AND THE FUTURE OF SOUTH DALLAS FAIR PARK. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU, MS. RAGSDALE. NEXT SPEAKER IN SUPPORT. GOOD AFTERNOON EACH ONE OF YOU, AND A SPECIAL SHOUT OUT TO MS. TABITHA WHEELER, REAGAN. THANK YOU TABITHA, FOR YOUR LEADERSHIP. THANK YOU SCOTTY SMITH FOR YOUR LEADERSHIP. I ALSO WANNA THANK, UH, DIANE RAGSDALE FOR BEING THE GUIDE THAT HAS HELPED US THROUGH THE NIGHT AFTER FIVE YEARS OF, UM, DAY AND NIGHT THROUGH THE PANDEMIC. YOU HAVE ALREADY HEARD. THE REASON THAT I'M HERE IS BECAUSE I HAVE BEEN A RESIDENT FOR THE LAST FOUR DECADES. I HAVE WATCHED SOUTH DALLAS GO FROM WHAT IT WAS TO WHAT IT WASN'T. AND TODAY, I STAND BEFORE YOU TO LET YOU KNOW I AM HERE TO SUPPORT WHAT IT CAN BE. WITH YOUR HELP WITH YOUR VOTES, WE AS A NEIGHBORHOOD WILL BE ABLE TO RELISH IN ALL THE THINGS THAT OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS HAVE RIGHT NOW. THAT'S THE REASON THAT I WORKED SO HARD, WAS TO ENSURE THAT NOT ONLY THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN SOUTH DALLAS NOW [04:55:01] HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY, OPPORTUNITY TO ENJOY WHAT IT IS OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS, BUT ALSO I'VE GOT FOUR GRANDDAUGHTERS AND I WANT THEM GIRLS TO BE ABLE TO SAY, YEAH, MY ME, ME LIVED HERE, AND THIS IS WHAT WE CAN DO TODAY. THAT'S WHAT I AM STRIVING FOR. AGAIN, I WANNA SAY THANK YOU TO EACH ONE OF YOU FOR YOUR TIME. I WANNA THANK THE STAFF FOR THE EXCELLENT GUIDANCE THAT, UH, I GUESS IF I START CALLING NAMES, I'M GONNA MISS SOMEBODY, SO I'M NOT GONNA DO THAT ONE. BUT YES, THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH. I LOOK FORWARD IN TO TURNING THE PAGE IN QUEEN CITY, NOT ONLY QUEEN CITY, BUT IN SOUTH DALLAS. TOGETHER WE'LL MAKE DALLAS STRONG. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MA'AM. AND CAN WE GET YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, PLEASE? WELL, YOU KNOW, I GUESS THAT KIND OF GOT AWAY, HUH? UH, EVEN . MY NAME IS EVA JONES. MY ADDRESS IS 2333 EUGENE STREET. THANK YOU. THANK YOU ALL. CERTAINLY APPRECIATE IT. MR. RUBIN, NEXT SPEAKER IN SUPPORT. ZACH THOMPSON, 36 0 8 SOUTH FIT YOU. I WANT TO COMMEND OUR COMMISSIONER WHEELER FOR HER LEADERSHIP. SCOTTY. UM, WHEN I FIRST PURCHASED PROPERTY IN SOUTH DALLAS, I DIDN'T REALIZE IT WAS GONNA BE THIS MUCH WORK. COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, I THOUGHT ELM THICK, IT WAS A LOT. BUT WHEN I GOT THE INVESTMENT IN SOUTH DALLAS, I FOUND SOME GREAT PEOPLE, BUT I, I DON'T WANNA FORGET WHAT COUNCILWOMAN RAGSDALE DID IN THE INITIAL ASPECT OF PD 5 95 WAS TO SHUT DOWN THOSE LIQUOR STORES, AND THAT'S WHAT THE CORNERSTONE TO BUILD IN SOUTH DALLAS FAIR PARK UP. A LOT OF PEOPLE FORGET THAT THE KIDS HAD TO WALK PAST LIQUOR STORES DRUNKS IN ORDER TO GO TO THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS, AND THEY DON'T HAVE THAT TODAY. AND SO, I WANNA SAY I'M SUPPORTING THE REVISION OF THE PD 5 95, NOT ONLY FROM AN INVESTMENT STANDPOINT, BUT ON THE PROPERTY OF SOUTH FIT YOU WHERE WE OWN PROPERTY. AND AT THE CORNER OF SECOND AVENUE, WE CAN SEE GROWTH BASED ON PD 5 95, WHERE I THOUGHT I COULD JUST BUILD A BASIC HOUSE BASED ON THIS REVISION, I'LL BE ABLE TO ENHANCE WHAT I WAS PLANNING ON BUILDING. SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT. THANK YOU. NEXT SPEAKER AND SUPPORT. GOOD AFTERNOON. UH, MY NAME IS DEREK MITCHUM AND I OWN PROPERTY ON 32 10 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE. I'M POINT SOUTH BUSINESS GROUP INTERIM CHAIR, AND I'M HERE TO SUPPORT THE AMENDMENTS TO PD 5 95 AS WELL. UM, I'M ALSO HERE ON BEHALF OF OUR MEMBERS, UH, OF THE POINT SOUTH BUSINESS GROUP WHO ARE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY OWNERS AND THEIR BUSINESSES AND THEIR COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES ARE LOCATED WITHIN THE SOUTH DALLAS FAIR PARK AREA. OUR MEMBERS HAVE BEEN ACTIVELY ENGAGED AND HAVE PARTICIPATED IN THIS PROCESS, AND WE'RE ALL IN FULL SUPPORT OF THESE AMENDMENTS TO PD 5 95. THESE AMENDMENTS WILL HAVE A POSITIVE IMPACT ON OUR BUSINESS, OUR COMMUNITY AND IN TURN WILL AID IN GROWING OUR ECONOMY IN OUR SOUTH DALLAS FAIR PARK AREA. IN ADDITION TO SUPPORT THESE AMENDMENTS, EXCUSE ME, IN ADDITION TO OUR SUPPORT TO THESE AMENDMENTS, WE ALSO WANT TO THANK, UH, DISTRICT SEVEN COUNCIL MEMBER ADAM VADU FOR HAVING CHAMPIONED THIS EFFORT AND INITIATING THIS HARD LOOK AND RECONSIDERATION OF THE LAND USE IN THE SOUTH DALLAS FAIR PARK AREA. I ALSO WANT TO, UH, THANK OUR COMMISSIONER TABITHA WHEELER. I ALSO WANT TO THANK AND ACKNOWLEDGE, UM, OUR SOUTH DALLAS FAIR PARK AREA PLAN, TASK FORCE CHAIRMAN SCOTTY SMITH, WHO JUST SPOKE. UH, AND AGAIN, I'M HERE TO EXPRESS OUR SUPPORT FOR THIS ZONING CHANGE. THESE CHANGES TO PD 5 95 CORRELATE WITH FOR DALLAS, AS WELL AS THE SOUTH DALLAS FAIR PARK AREA PLAN. AND I CANNOT COME UP HERE AND NOT ACKNOWLEDGE, UH, THE STAFF MEMBERS THAT HAVE WORKED SO HARD AND, AND, AND HAVE KEPT US ALL ENGAGED THROUGHOUT THIS PROCESS. I WANT TO, UH, HAVE A SPECIAL RECOGNITION FOR LINDSEY JACKSON [05:00:01] AS WELL AS PATRICK BLAZE, JOHN ANTES, AND, UH, FOR THEIR HARD WORK AND THEIR ENGAGEMENT THROUGHOUT THIS PROCESS. WE COULDN'T HAVE ASKED FOR A BETTER STAFF ENGAGEMENT AND SUPPORT THAN WHAT WE RECEIVED IN THIS GROUP OF STAFF MEMBERS. SO I WANT TO THANK Y'ALL PERSONALLY. NEXT SPEAKER IN SUPPORT. MY NAME IS BRADLEY PETTY. I AM AT 36 15 LC FAY HIGGINS. UM, I AM HERE REPRESENTING THE BERTRAND NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, AND WE ARE HERE IN SUPPORT OF, UH, THIS ZONING CHANGE, UM, AS A RESIDENT OF SOUTH DALLAS. UM, AND AS A SON OF A FORMER RESIDENT OF SOUTH DALLAS, UM, WE, UH, STRONGLY, UH, SUPPORT THIS BECAUSE WE DO SEE THE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE COMMUNITY. UM, ONE THING I WOULD ASK THE COMMISSION TO CONSIDER IS, UM, IN LIGHT OF THIS, THIS PROVO PROPOSED REZONING THAT THEY KEEP AN OPEN MIND TO OTHER, UM, ADVANCES THAT MAY COME AS A RESULT OF THIS. UH, WE WANNA MAKE SURE THAT, UH, THE RESIDENTS DO MAINTAIN CONTROL OF THEIR COMMUNITY, AND THAT WE ARE ALLOWED THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE A SAY IN WHAT THAT DEVELOPMENT LOOKS LIKE IN THE FUTURE. UM, ONE ADDITIONAL THING I WILL ADD IS THAT I WANT TO THANK, UH, OUR COMMISSIONER, UH, WHEELER, REAGAN, AND AS WELL AS DON RAGSDALE FOR, UH, THEIR CONTINUED SUPPORT OF THIS. AND, UM, WE, I'M SURE YOU'LL HEAR FROM US AGAIN. UH, OH. AND ONE MORE THING BEFORE MY TIME IS UP. UM, I'M ALSO A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE RESTORATIVE FARMS, UH, COMMUNITY, UM, BOARD, AS WELL AS THE DART COM CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE. AND SO WE ALSO, AS, AS RESTORATIVE FARMS, IS ON DART LAND. SO AS, AS, UM, THIS GOES, RESTORATIVE FARMS ALSO SUPPORTS THIS AS WELL AS THE DART CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE. SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER SPEAKERS IN SUPPORT HERE IN PERSON? OKAY. WE WILL GO TO OUR ONLINE. ARE YOU, ARE YOU HERE IN SUPPORT, MA'AM? I THINK SO. OKAY, WELL, LET'S HEAR FROM YOU THEN. HI, MY NAME IS STEPHANIE FRA. UM, I LIVE AT 2 9 1 8 BRIGHAM LANE IN DALLAS. UM, IT IS RIGHT AT THE END OF MALCOLM X STREET. AND, UM, AS FAR AS I KNOW, I CAME HERE BECAUSE I HAD ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA WHAT THE ZONING THING WAS ABOUT. I DIDN'T EVEN KNOW THE, WHAT, WHAT THE WORD ZONING ACTUALLY MEANT. SO, UM, UM, AND AS FAR AS I KNOW NOW, UM, I JUST, I, IT'S NOT A DATA CENTER, RIGHT? IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH DATA CENTERS, THEN I'M FOR IT. OKAY. SO THAT'S, I, THAT'S REALLY WHAT I WANTED TO KNOW, , BECAUSE THERE'S A BIG, BEAUTIFUL LAND OUT BEHIND OR ON THE SIDE OF MY HOUSE OR ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE RAILROAD TRACKS. AND, AND SO I WAS AFRAID Y'ALL WERE GONNA LIKE TAKE IT AND BUILD DATA CENTERS AND I'M WAY AGAINST THAT. OKAY. SORRY. THANKS THOUGH. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER SPEAKERS HERE IN PERSON IN SUPPORT? OKAY. UM, WE HAVE A FEW SPEAKERS SIGN UP ONLINE. KEN SMITH? YES, I'M READY. CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES, SIR. ALRIGHT. UH, MY NAME IS KEN SMITH. I'M PRESIDENT OF REVITALIZED SOUTH DALLAS COALITION. IT'S A 14-YEAR-OLD NONPROFIT, THE CHAMPIONS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN SOUTH DALLAS FAIR PARK. I'M ALSO A LIFELONG SOUTH DALLAS RESIDENT WHO OWNS PROPERTIES AND A BUSINESS IN SOUTH DALLAS. AND I'M A MEMBER OF THE POINT SOUTH BUSINESS GROUP AND THE REAL ESTATE COUNCIL BOARD, AND A FORMER MEMBER OF THE CITY'S LAND BANK BOARD AND THE RCO NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IN SOUTH DALLAS. SO, AS A LONG LI LIFELONG SOUTH DALLAS FAIR PARK RESIDENT OF EX, I'VE EXPERIENCED THE AREA DURING SEGREGATION, DESEGREGATION, WHITE FLIGHT, BLACK FLIGHT, ECONOMIC VIBRANCY, ECONOMIC STAGNATION, BUT GENTRIFICATION AND UNCERTAINTY. HOWEVER, ONE THING I AM CERTAIN ABOUT IS MY SUPPORT AND APPROVAL OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SOUTH DALLAS FAIR FIRE PARK AREA PLAN APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL LAST JUNE. AS A RESIDENT AND A BUSINESS OWNER AND THE COMMUNITY [05:05:01] ADVOCATE, I RECOGNIZED THE NEED AT THE TIME FOR THE CREATION OF, UH, PD 5 95 IN 2001. IT HELPED TO CURTAIL SOME OF THE NEGATIVE INFLUENCES THAT EXISTED 25 YEARS AGO, BUT THOSE LIMITS ALSO HAMMERED DEVELOPMENT AND GROWTH. AND THE PASSAGE OF THE SOUTH DALLAS AREA PLAN PROVIDED A BALANCE NON, UH, COMMON SENSE RATHER APPROACH TO DEVELOPMENT WHILE KEEPING IN CHECK SOME OF THE, UM, EXCESSES, THE CITY'S ZONING IS CHANGING WITH THE TIMES THAT IT SHOULD, LIKE THE LOOSENING OF COMMERCIAL PARKING REQUIREMENTS AND THE APPROVAL OF ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS, ET CETERA. SO WE LIKE THE INTRODUCTION OF MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL ZONING, WHICH WILL SPUR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT THAT IS DESPERATELY NEEDED NEEDED. AND WE SUPPORT THE CREATION OF DESIGN STANDARDS THAT PRESERVE NEIGHBORHOOD CULTURAL AESTHETICS WHILE ALLOWING NEW DESIGNS ALONG MAJOR CORRIDORS. WE SUPPORT THE STREAMLINING OF YOUR PROCESS THAT REDUCES THE NUMBER OF DISTRICTS FROM 25 TO 19. AND WE LIKE THE IDEA OF CREATING MORE HIGH RISE STRUCTURES WITH NECESSARY STATE SAFEGUARDS. WE APPLAUD THE WORK OF OUR COMMISSIONER, MS. WHEELER, THE SOUTH DALLAS TASK FORCE, AND MR. SCOTT, UH, SCOTTY SMITH AND THE CITY'S PLANNING DEPARTMENT, UH, EFFORTS. AND THEY SUCCESSFULLY ENGAGE WITH US FOR FOUR TO FIVE YEARS. AND WE RECOMMEND THIS EFFORT, WHICH WILL SERVE AS A CRITICAL FOUNDATIONAL STEP FOR THE RATIONAL GROWTH OF SOUTH DALLAS FAIR PARK. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. UM, NEXT ONLINE SPEAKER AND SUPPORT. MARIA DEUS SALAZAR. MS. SALAZAR, GUADALUPE SAND, GUADALUPE SAND, ROXY BURTON BETIS ROXY BURTON BETIS. OKAY. I DON'T THINK, IS THERE SOMEONE ONLINE? I AM. OKAY. UH, HI. I THINK MY, UM, MY QUESTION IS SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT. I AM, I'M SPEAKING ON BEHALF OR NOT ON BEHALF, BUT WE RECEIVED A LETTER AND IT'S FOR THE CHURCH, AND I JUST WANTED TO HAVE CERTAINTY THAT THIS ZONING AND CLARIFICATION, WHICH I DID RECEIVE, WOULD NOT AFFECT THE CHURCH, WHICH IS, UH, LOCATED AT 32 31 LC FAYE HAGGINS. SO MY QUESTION HAS BEEN ANSWERED, BUT I JUST WANTED TO COME ON AND COMMEND, UH, JOHN ES FOR EXPLAINING TO ME ON YESTERDAY EXACTLY HOW THE PROCESS IS GOING. AND I THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY. THANK YOU. AND CAN YOU JUST PROVIDE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR OUR RECORD, PLEASE? YOU WANT THE, MY PERSONAL OR THE CHURCHES, WHICHEVER ONE IS FINE. OKAY. IT'S ROXY BURTON, B-U-R-T-O-N, BETIS, B-E-T-T-I-S. 32 31. ELSIE. FAYE. HIGGINS. THANK YOU. MM-HMM . THANK YOU. IS MS. SALAZAR OR MS. ANTE ONLINE? OKAY, WE'LL GO TO OUR SPEAKERS IN OPPOSITION. IS THERE ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION? ALRIGHT, NO OPPOSITION. COMMISSIONER WHEELER, REAGAN, THE FLOOR IS YOURS FOR A MOTION. I'M SORRY, Y'ALL. YOU, YOU CAN ONLY IMAGINE IN THE MATTER OF CASE Z DASH 26 DASH 0 0 0 1 0 1. I MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGES IN SECTION 1 0 6, 1 0 7 AND 1 0 8, MAXIMUM IMPERIOUS SURFACE IS INCREASED FROM 25% TO 30%. AND SECTION 1 0 6, 1 0 7 AND 1 0 8 PROHIBIT GARAGE WIDTH FROM BEING MORE THAN 50% OF THE STREET FACING FACADE. AND SECTION 1 0 6, 1 0 7 AND 1 0 8 FOR STREET FACING GROUND FLOOR FACADES THAT INCLUDE A GARAGE MINIMUM TRANSPARENCY IS 10%. IN ALL OTHER CASES, MINIMUM TRANSPARENCY IS 20%. RETIREMENT HOUSING IS ALLOWED BY RIGHT IN ALL MIXED USE. DISTRICTS AMEND SECTION ONE 16 TO ALLOW THE FOLLOWING USES BY SUP ONLY AUTO AUCTION MANUFACTURED BUILDINGS, SALES LOT, MANY WAREHOUSE AND OUTSIDE STORAGE WITH A VISUAL SCREENING IN SECTION ONE 14 MIRROR THE HEIGHT [05:10:01] REGULATIONS IN SECTION ONE 13, EXCEPT THAT THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT IS 200 FEET. WHEN THE DESIGN STANDARDS IN COMMUNITY MIXED USE ARE MET FOR ALL OTHER STRUCTURES AND MAXIMUM HEIGHT IS 45 FEET IN SECTION 1 12, 1 13, 1 14, 1 15, AND ONE 16. ADD THE REQUIREMENT FOR PRIMARY CUSTOMER INTEREST FOR RETAIL AND PERSONAL SERVICE USES FROM PD TEN SEVEN FOURTEEN, PD NUMBER SEVEN 14 FOUND IN SECTION 51 P DASH 714 DASH ONE 18 E TWO. THE FOLLOWING PROPERTIES ARE CHANGED TO THE, TO CH CLUSTERED HOUSING SUBDISTRICT LOT ONE THROUGH NINE IN CITY BLOCK G 2 4, 2 5, AND LOT 13 IN CITY BLOCK 2 4 2. THE FOLLOWING PROPERTIES ARE CHANGED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. MIXED USE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD MIXED USE DISTRICT LOT 79 A AND CITY BLOCK 2251, LOT 82 IN CITY BLOCK, 2251, LOT FIVE IN CITY BLOCK 2, 2 1 1 7, LOT FOUR IN CITY BLOCK 2 21 17 AND LOT THREE CITY BLOCK TWO OF OF 2117. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER WHEELER, REAGAN FOR YOUR MOTION. VICE CHAIR HERBERT FOR YOUR SECOND, IF YOU HAVE COMMENTS. I HAVE, I HAVE. COME IN AFTER WE VOTE. OKAY. WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO, UH, SPEAK COMMISSIONER SERATO? YEAH. UM, I GREW UP IN PLEASANT GROVE. I THINK MY FAMILY MOVED TO, UH, THE BUCKNER BRUTON AREA IN THE MID EIGHTIES. I WAS LIKE TWO YEARS OLD. UM, I SPENT A LOT OF MY ADOLESCENCE AND YOUTH AND ADULTHOOD IN, IN THE FAIR PARK AREA IN SUNNY SOUTH. UM, I THINK TOO OFTEN PEOPLE IN THE CITY ONLY THINK OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD WHEN IT'S TIME FOR THE STATE FAIR TO OPEN UP. UM, I USED TO EXIT 1 75 DOWN HATCHER AND IT JUST FELT LIKE I WAS HOME. YOU KNOW, I'D COME FROM DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE CITY TO GO BACK HOME TO PLEASANT GROVE AND, UH, REACHING SUNNY SOUTH ALWAYS FELT LIKE, OKAY, I'M HOME. LIKE I'M IN A SAFE SPACE FOR MY, FOR FOR ME NOW. UM, AND SO I LOVE THE DRIVE DOWN. WELL, IT'S NOW LCA PAGANS. IT USED TO BE HATCHER. UM, I LOVE THE DRIVE DOWN MALCOLM X AND, UM, ROBERT B COLLUM. IT'S JUST, UM, I I STILL LIVE IN PLEASANT GROVE, SO JUST, IT'S, IT'S A NOSTALGIC, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD FOR ME. UM, AND I, IT BRINGS ME SO MUCH JOY THAT, UM, THAT THIS EFFORT WAS BROUGHT FORTH BY THE COMMUNITY, BY SUCH A GREAT LEADER AND COMMISSIONER WHEELER AND THAT, UM, WITHOUT TRYING TO SOUND TOO PATRIOTIC, BUT IT'S LIKE FOR THE PEOPLE BY THE PEOPLE KIND OF THING. SO I AM, I'M VERY HAPPY TO SUPPORT TODAY. COMMISSIONER HOUSEWRIGHT. YES. I WANT TO COMMEND COMMISSIONER WHEELER REAGAN FOR THE GREAT WORK ON THIS AND FOR THE ENGAGEMENT OF ALL THE, THE COMMUNITY. AND, UH, UH, JUST SAY THAT I THINK IT'S, IT'S FINE WORK AND THAT I, UM, I'M REALLY OPTIMISTIC ABOUT, UM, THE CONTINUED IMPROVEMENTS TO THE SUNNY SOUTH. THIS, UH, UH, AMENDED ORDINANCE WILL, WILL BRING ABOUT. SO, UM, UH, I LOOK FORWARD TO SUPPORTING THIS MOTION. WHO ELSE HAS COMMENTS? COMMISSIONER OR VICE CHAIR? HERBERT, I WON'T BE LONG, BUT I KNOW HOW MONUMENTAL THIS IS AND HOW IMPORTANT THIS IS TO THE AREA AND TABITHA, BUT I'M GOING TO READ TO MAKE SURE I HIT ALL THE POINTS. UM, TODAY WE DID NOT. TODAY WE DO NOT MERELY FACE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADOPT A PLAN. WE HONOR A COVENANT WRITTEN IN THE LIVES OF THOSE WHO REBUILT SOUTH DALLAS WHEN NO ONE ELSE WOULD CLAIM THEM. FROM BERTRAN TO WHEATLEY PLACE, WHICH CARRIES THE NAME OF A BLACK WOMAN WHO PROVED THAT BRILLIANCE NEEDS NO PERMISSION TO QUEEN CITY AND MILL CITY, WHERE BLACK FAMILIES FORGED DIGNITY, OUT OF DISPLACEMENT AND DETERMINATION. THESE NEIGHBORS NEIGHBORHOODS ARE NOT CHAPTERS IN SOMEONE ELSE'S STORY. THEY ARE THE STORY. I THANK OUR STAFF FOR THEIR FAITHFUL WORK AND COMMISSIONER WHEELER FOR SHEPHERDING THIS PLAN WITH SERIOUSNESS IT DESERVES. I'VE SEEN THE TEARS FROM BOTH STAFF AND COMMISSIONER WHEELER WHEN IT COMES TO THIS. WE STAND IN THE LONG SHADOW OF JUANITA CRAFT, WHO TAUGHT THIS CITY THAT DEMOCRACY IS NOT A SPECTATOR SPORT IN THE LIGHT OF FAIR PARK, WHICH HAS ALWAYS BELONGED MORE TO THE PEOPLE WHO SURROUNDED IT THAN TO THOSE WHO FENCED IT OFF. AND IN THE MEMORY OF ME, MARY STACKER JORDAN, WHO AFTER IMMINENT DOMAIN ERASED HER STATE THOMAS NEIGHBORHOOD, WALKED SOUTH AND PLANTED HERSELF IN THIS VERY SOIL AT 58 YEARS OLD, PETITIONED BISHOP DUNN FOR A CATHOLIC PARISH [05:15:01] AND WON NOT ONLY THE PARISH BUT ST. PETER SCHOOL AS WELL. I KNOW SOMETHING ABOUT WHAT MARY FELT BECAUSE AFTER KATRINA SWEPT ME OUT OF NEW ORLEANS, IT WAS SOUTH DALLAS THAT TOOK ME IN THE PEOPLE, THE CORNER STORES, THE CEMETERIES, EVEN WHERE THE ANCESTORS REST, THE WAY THEY REST BACK HOME IN BERTRAN V LOUISIANA. AND I HAVE BEEN IN ADOPTED CHILD OF THIS COMMUNITY EVER SINCE. SO WHEN I SAY THIS PLAN MATTERS, I AM NOT SPEAKING AS A COMMISSIONER ALONE. I'M SPEAKING AS SOMEONE THIS NEIGHBORHOOD CHOSE TO KEEP. SO THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR WORK. NEXT SPEAKER. ALRIGHT, I WILL JUST SHARE A A FEW WORDS THEN, UH, BEFORE WE VOTE. AND I, I WON'T BE LONG MYSELF, UH, FIRST OFF, IN MY SIX PLUS YEARS, UM, ON THE COMMISSION, I THINK THIS MIGHT BE THE MOST MONUMENTAL AND CONSEQUENTIAL ZONING CASE THAT WE'VE HAD. NOT ONLY IN TERMS OF THE SHEER AREA THAT IT COVERS OVER 3000 ACRES, BUT ALSO IN, IN WHAT IT DOES. AND I THINK IT'S GONNA GIVE US A LOT TO THINK ABOUT, ABOUT HOW WE APPROACH THE PROCESS OF REFORMING OUR DEVELOPMENT CODE. AND I'M SO GLAD TO HAVE HAD SUCH A CRACK TEAM, YOU KNOW, WORKING ON THIS THROUGHOUT, YOU KNOW, FOR A FIVE YEAR PERIOD ON BOTH THE AUTHORIZED HEARING AND AREA PLAN. UM, AND I'LL ALSO SAY I'M JUST SO PLEASED THAT THIS CASE, I, I'M SURE THERE WERE MOMENTS WHERE IT GOT CONTENTIOUS, BUT THE SORT OF SPIRIT THAT EVERYONE'S BROUGHT AND, YOU KNOW, NOW THAT WE'RE AT THE FINISH LINE, NO ONE CAME OUT IN OPPOSITION, WHICH IS JUST, YEAH, EXCUSE ME. WE DO HAVE AN OPPOSITION. I HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY ABOUT IT. OKAY, SIR. I, I, I APOLOGIZE THE TIME FOR, FOR SPEAKERS AND OPPOSITION HAD, HAD, HAD PASSED. WE GAVE WELL, GAVE Y'ALL AN OPPORTUNITY. I I DON'T SEE HOW IT PASSED AND DIDN'T, NO ONE CAME. OKAY. THANK YOU, SIR. OKAY. WELL THERE'S, THERE'S ONE GENTLEMAN IN OPPOSITION, BUT OVERALL JUST THE ABILITY OF, OF THE GROUP WORKING ON THIS TO BRING PEOPLE TOGETHER FOR SUCH A GREAT RESULT. AND LASTLY, YOU KNOW, AS MS. JONES SAID, LIE ME TO BE OBJECTIVE FROM, AND LASTLY IS MS. SI ASK SIR, I, IT'S MY OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK. I'M SORRY THAT YOU DIDN'T GET A CHANCE TO SPEAK WHEN, WHEN YOU HAD AN OPPORTUNITY, BUT I'M GONNA FINISH MY REMARKS HERE. UM, LASTLY, I LIKE, SIR, SIR, IF YOU'RE GONNA, IF YOU'RE GONNA KEEP SPEAKING, I'M GONNA HAVE TO ASK YOU TO, TO LEAVE BECAUSE THAT'S NOT COMPLYING WITH THE RULES OF DECORUM. I I DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO ASK YOU, BUT I'M GONNA NEED YOU TO STOP INTERRUPTING. ALSO, I DON'T MEAN TO BE RUDE TO THE COUNCIL OR STAFF OR ANYTHING, BUT I THINK I SHOULD, YOU KNOW, YOU WANNA PASS IT? SIR, SIR, I GAVE SPEAKERS AN OPPOSITION, AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK AND, AND, AND NO ONE CAME UP TO SPEAK. SO THAT TIME HAS PASSED. I'M SORRY. THAT SO, OKAY. UM, LET ME JUST RESET FOR A MOMENT. I'M SORRY WE HAD THAT DISRUPTION. UM, LASTLY, AS MS. JONES SAID, UM, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE LOTS OF PEOPLE TO THANK HERE, AND I, I DON'T KNOW EVERYONE TO THANK SINCE I WASN'T AT THE HEART OF THIS PROCESS, BUT I DO KNOW A FEW PEOPLE WHO POURED THEIR HEART AND SOUL INTO THIS. UM, AND JUST WANNA RECOGNIZE THEM. UM, FIRST OFF, ON THE STAFF SIDE, UH, LINDSEY JACKSON, PATRICK BLADES, YOU KNOW, WE'VE HAD CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THIS GOING ON FOR YEARS, AND I JUST WANNA SAY THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, MR. CERVANTES. I DON'T KNOW YOU AS WELL, BUT I'VE HEARD WONDERFUL THINGS TOO. AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR HARD WORK. UM, BUT THE PERSON WHO I ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO FINISH WITH THANKING IS COMMISSIONER WHEELER REAGAN. UM, YOU KNOW, I THINK THIS WAS YOUR PATH. THIS, THIS AREA PLAN AND AUTHORIZED HEARING WAS YOUR PATH TO BECOMING MY COLLEAGUE HERE ON THE PLAN COMMISSION. AND, YOU KNOW, WATCHING YOU WORK ON THIS, SPEND SO MUCH TIME ON IT. YOU, WATCHING YOU LEARN AND GROW BOTH IN YOUR FORMAL EDUCATION AND THROUGH THIS PROCESS HAS BEEN SO TREMENDOUS. AND IT'S, IT'S BEEN AN ABSOLUTE HONOR TO WATCH YOUR DEDICATION AND TO HAVE YOU WORK WITH THE COMMUNITY AND SHAPE THIS INTO SUCH A GREAT FINAL WORK PRODUCT THAT, YOU KNOW. I'M JUST, I'M JUST SO PLEASED THAT WE'VE GOTTEN HERE. I KNOW IT'S BEEN A LONG JOURNEY, UM, AND, AND YOU'VE WORKED YOUR, YOU'VE WORKED YOUR TAIL OFF. AND JUST, I WANNA SAY CON IN ADDITION TO, THANK YOU. CONGRATULATIONS COMMISSIONER REALER. SO, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU WANNA SPEAK AFTER WE, WE TAKE A VOTE. SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE. ALL [05:20:01] THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? SAY NAY. NAY. THE MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. [Consideration of Appointments to CPC Committees] ALRIGHT. COMMISSIONER WHEELER FLOOR IS YOURS. BEAR WITH ME. TODAY'S DECISION TO APPROVE THE ADOPTION OF THE AMENDED CHANGES TO PD FIVE NINE FOR THE SOUTH DALLAS FIRE PARK SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICT MARKS A PIVOTAL, PIVOTAL STEP FORWARD FOR THE SOUTH DALLAS PROPER FOR SOUTH DALLAS PROPER INTO A NEW CHAPTER OF GROWTH AND OPPORTUNITY. BACK IN 2001, A DEDICATED GROUP OF COMMUNITY LEADERS RESOLVED TO NO LONGER ACCEPT THE INCOMPATIBLE AND HARMFUL ZONING AND LAND USAGE THAT HAVE LONG PLA THAT HAD LONG PLAGUED OUR NEIGHBORHOOD FOR TOO, FOR FAR TOO LONG, SOUTH DALLAS WERE WAS BURDENED BY UNCON UN CONCENTRATION, UN CONCENTRATION OF CHECK CASHING BUSINESSES, LIQUOR STORES MOTELS, OFTEN REFERRED TO AS HOT CHEAP MOTELS. UH, AS HAS SHEET MOTELS, UM, ASSOCIATED WITH DRUG ACTIVITY, PROSTITUTION, AND AN ABUNDANCE OF CONVENIENCE STORES SELLING OVERPRICED GOODS TO OUR RESIDENTS. WHILE SOME ZONING WITHIN PD 5 9 5 WAS INTENDED TO PROTECT SOUTH DALLAS OVER THE PAST 25 YEARS, IT ALSO UNINTENTIONALLY LIMIT THE AREA'S GROWTH AND DIVERSITY OF BUSINESSES FOR NEARLY SEVEN YEARS. THE SOUTH DALLAS FIRE PARK AREA PLAN, TASK FORCE METIC EXAMINED EVERY CORRIDOR AND NEIGHBORHOOD TO DEVELOP A PLAN THAT COULD SERVE AS THE FOUNDATION FOR TODAY'S HEAR, HEARING AND FUTURE IMPLEMENTATION. OUR PLAN INVOLVED FROM A SIMPLE AREA PLAN TO AN ACTIONABLE AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN. AFTER MORE THAN A HUNDRED MEETINGS, COUNTIES REVISIONS AND STUDYING SUCCESSFUL COMMUNITY REALIZATIONS ELSEWHERE, ALWAYS ASKING THE QUESTION, WHAT DO RESIDENTS LEAVE SOUTH DALLAS FOR? ON SATURDAY MORNINGS, I AM PROUD TO SAY WE'RE NEARING COMPLETION TO THE MEMBERS OF THE SOUTH DALLAS TASK FORCE AND THOSE WHO INITIALLY CRAFTED PD 5 95. I SAY JOB WELL DONE. SPECIAL THANKS TO OUR CHAIR SCOTTY SMITH WHO SAID, FAD LEADERSHIP AND UNWAVERING FOCUS HAVE KEPT US THE COURSE. AS A HOUSTONIAN, YOU COULD HAVE APPROACHED SOUTH DALLAS AS JUST ANOTHER DEVELOPER DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY, BUT INSTEAD YOU MADE IT YOUR HOME AND WORKED TIMELESSLY TO IMPROVE IT. YOU, YOU, YOUR CONSISTENT PRESENCE AND COMMITMENT HAS BEEN INVALUABLE. I ALSO WANT TO RECOGNIZE THE HONORABLE DIANE'S RAGSDALE, NOT ONLY FOR ONE OF THE ORIGINAL AUTHORS OF PD 5 9 5, BUT ALSO AS A FORMER CPC COMMISSIONER AND COUNCIL MEMBER FROM WATCHING YOU AS A LITTLE GIRL MARCHING AND DEMANDING BETTER FOR SOUTH DALLAS. I ADMIRE YOU. THE EARLY STAGES OF THIS PROCESS WAS CHALLENGING AS THEY SHOULD BE. SINCE MEANINGFUL CHANGE OFTEN RAISES CONCERN. YOU UNDERSTOOD DEEPLY THAT YOU UNDERSTOOD DEEPLY WHAT A MISSTEP COULD MEAN FOR THE COMMUNITY. YOU HAVE CHAMPIONED FOR OVER 60 YEARS. WHILE YOU EASE RESTRICTIONS OVER TIME, YOU DILIGENTLY GUIDED YOUR GUIDANCE REMAIN CRUCIAL. WE THANK YOU FOR YOUR DEDICATION AND AN HONORARY LOVE FOR SOUTH DALLAS TO THE ENTIRE TASK FORCE. THANK YOU FOR BELIEVING IN THIS VISION. EVEN WHEN HISTORY SUGGESTED IT MIGHT NOT BE POSSIBLE, YOUR IDEALS EXPERIENCE, NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH, CONTINUAL SUPPORT, AND JUST IN THE PROCESS TRUSTING THE PROCESS HAVE MADE THE DIFFERENCE. FINALLY, HEARTFELT. THANKS TO THE PLANNING DEVELOPMENT STAFF, PATRICK LAYS LINDSEY JACKSON DE FORMER DEPUTY DIRECTOR ANDREA GUYES AND SANDRA BOWIE. YOU HAVE BEEN TRUE CHANGE MAKERS, CHALLENGING THE NORMS, HOSTING EVENING MEETINGS, REVISING PLAN, AND ENSURING THAT OUR NEEDS AND ASPIRATIONS WERE PUT PUT ON PAPER IN CLEAR EFFECTIVE WAYS. YOUR EFFORTS TO EXPLORE ZONING AND USING WHAT, USING THAT TO PROMOTE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS, AND INFIELD DEVELOPMENT HAVE BEEN VITAL. LINDSEY, YOUR LEADERSHIP HAS BROUGHT THE SOUTH DALLAS FAR PARK AREA PLAN RECOGNITION WITHIN THE PLANNING COMMUNITY THROUGH AWARDS AND NOMINATIONS AND PRESENTATION. I AM A LIFETIME SOUTH DALLAS RESIDENT, A IAN AT THAT, WHO AT ONE TIME WAS A PART OF THE PROBLEM THAT PLAGUED IT THROUGH REDEMPTION AND GRACE, MY LIFE TURNED AROUND MOSTLY DUE TO THE GREAT FOUNDATION LAID BEFORE ME. I GOT TO BE A PART OF THE SOLUTION. I WAS NOT QUALIFIED TO DO THIS, BUT THEY SAY IF GOD CALLS YOU, HE QUALIFIES YOU. ALSO, DUE TO THE INCREDIBLE PARTNERSHIP WITH THE SOUTH DALLAS COMMUNITY AND THE CITY OF DALLAS PLANNERS, I WAS INSPIRED TO PURSUE A BACHELOR'S DEGREE IN URBAN PLANNING AND POLICY AND GRADU AND A GRADUATE DEGREE IN CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT. I AM IMMENSELY PROUD OF THE COLLABORATION, WHAT WE HAVE ACCOMPLISHED TOGETHER TODAY. I SAY WELL DONE TO ALL. WE HAVE ONE MORE MEETING, JUNETEENTH, JUNE 10TH. WE PRAY THAT WE WALK AWAY FROM CITY COUNCIL WITH THE FULL SUPPORT OF APPROVAL THAT OUR UPDATED AMENDMENTS ARE [05:25:01] APPROVED. THE FUTURE OF SOUTH DALLAS IS BRIGHT AND TOGETHER WE'RE BUILDING IT BETTER TOMORROW. ALRIGHT. ALL RIGHT. , BELIEVE WE DON'T HAVE ANY FURTHER BUSINESS. IT IS 4:27 PM AND THAT CONCLUDES THE MEETING OF THE DALLAS CITY PLAN COMMISSION. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. GOOD. IT DOES. * 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.