Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Welcome. It's uh 2 minutes after 6:00, so I'm going to start the meeting here. This is the This is the If you're wondering where you are, you are at the Planning Commission of the City of Dallas. This is our first meeting of 2026. It's Thursday, January the 8th, and I call the meeting to order. May we have the roll call, please? Commissioner Swanson, here. Commissioner Grow here. Commissioner Kash here. Commissioner Banford, let staff know he would be absent tonight. Commissioner Schulty, Commissioner Newell, and Commissioner White here. Chair Quorum is present.

Thank you very much. Uh item three on our agenda this evening is election of officers. So how do we conduct that? I guess make a motion. Okay. So someone would like to motion for someone else to be chair and vice chair. Uh otherwise you can keep the current slate of officers by motion as well. Certainly. And you know I just got done saying it's the first meeting of the year yet. I was like oh wow we got to do that. Uh so commissioners uh would anyone like to make a motion on officers? That would be president and vice president of the planning commission. I make a motion that it stays the same.

Okay. But motion's been made and seconded for myself and Andy Gro to remain as president and vice president of the Dallas Planning Commission for 2026. All those in favor say I. I. All those opposed. Okay. Passes unanimously. Thank you very much for your support and confidence. So, well, they just didn't want to do it. How much does it pay? You'll find out next year when you're there. Yeah.

Okay. Moving on. Uh we're going to have the approval of the minutes from the regular meeting of December 11th, 2025, our last meeting last year. Uh I've read them over and don't see anything. Does anybody have any changes, omissions, additions to the minutes from last meeting? The only thing I see is that I did not prosecute a coup and take over the meeting to adjourn the meeting. So I believe that should be your name at the adjourn. Oh, noted. There we go. I didn't leave early. No.

So, with that minor uh correction, we will approve the minutes. Do we do that by a vote? Okay. Who would like to make a motion to approve the minutes? To approve the minutes as read with that correction,

sir. Okay. Made in second. All those in favor say I. I oppose the same. Okay, we've approved the minutes from last month. We now move on to agenda item number five, which is our public hearings for this evening. We've got two public hearings. The first one is a conditional use permit number 259 for the Jasper Crossing Apartments building. Construction of two apartment buildings totaling 48 apartments in the general commercial zone. The criteria are development code uh chapter 4.4.040 A. I'm going to start the public hearing by uh reading this following statement to make sure that we all stay on board for for legal purposes. This public hearing is regarding property located at Do we have an address here, Chase?

The site does not have an address. Okay, it's the it's Jasper Crossing Apartments is the proposal and it's located at the in the vicinity of the of uh West Ellenale Avenue and Jasper. Is that correct? The Taco Bell. Yep. Next to the Taco Bell and the uh grocery store there. Outlet.

Grocery outlet. Thank you. So, this is an official public hearing before the Dallas Planning Commission. And I now declare this meeting open at 6:05 p.m. As the application is subject to land use proceedings recognized by state law, I read the following statement. The failure to raise an issue with sufficient detail to afford the planning commission and the parties an adequate opportunity to respond to each issue precludes appeal to the state land use board of appeals based upon that issue. So, please direct all testimony to the record and the applicable criteria listed in the staff report or to criteria in the Dallas Development Code you believe applies to that decision. The applicable criteria approval are found in Dallas Development Code Chapter 4.4.040A. And at this time I will ask any members of the planning commission if you have a conflict of interest, a site visit or exparte contact to declare uh on this conditional use proposal. Seeing none, we move on. The hearing will be conducted in the following manner. We'll begin with the staff report followed by questions from the planning commission to the staff. Thereafter, we'll hear from the applicant including members of the applicant team for a total of 15 minutes and this may be followed by questions of the applicant by the planning commissioners. Thereafter, we will hear from all other interested all others that are interested in presenting testimony on this item before the commission and each person will be provided five minutes to testify. We will then provide the applicant with five minutes to rebut any comments or testimony that were made uh uh by

members of the public. After we've heard all testimony, I will close the hearing and ask the planning commission to deliberate and then ask if there is a motion in response to this proposal. In this case of a conditional use permit application, the commission's decision is final unless that decision is appealed. At this time, we'll start with the staff report. So, may we please have the staff report?

Yes. Yes, you may. So, um so uh as you mentioned, this is a conditional use uh application um for an apartment uh complex. Um what brings this to you is that this apartment complex uh would have dwellings on the ground floor and it is located within the general commercial zone um where dwellings on the ground floor uh require conditional use permit approval. Conditional uses to clarify are uses that are allowed in the zone subject to certain conditions. So, um that heightened level review is is why we're we're here. Um in in this case, the the conditional use threshold for uh apartments uh or dwellings on the ground floor um is when it is uh 24 units uh per acre or greater. Um this does exceed that and so that uh qualifies it for the conditional use. Um so the location uh as we mentioned is on Jasper Street uh next to the Taco Bell by Allenale. Um and so zooming in we can see that it is a uh undeveloped uh tract of of land uh which does interestingly enough include a portion of the existing parking lot um that was constructed at the same time that uh the grocery outlet was constructed. there is a a series of joint uh access easements and uh I believe joint uh parking easements um through this complex and so that's why that was constructed at an earlier phase um despite not having a building yet that it served. Um so the approval criteria that we have for uh conditional uses um there are

essentially three. Um the first is that the site size, dimensions, location, topography and access are adequate for the needs of the proposed use. uh considering uh the proposed building mass, parking, traffic, noise, vibration, exhaust, emissions, light, glare, erosion, odor, dust, visibility, safety, uh aesthetics, um you name it. Um so the the the staff uh report goes into a little detail on how um that uh uh approval criteria is satisfied but staff are are satisfied that the uh the site is adequate for the use. Um the second approval that we have approval criteria that we have is that any negative impacts from the proposed use on adjacent properties or on the public um can be mitigated through uh conditions of approval or uh other code standards. Um staff weren't really able to identify any negative impacts that this use would have on the surrounding community. So that uh criteria is is is met. Um and the third criteria that we have is that all required public facilities have acade adequate capacity to serve the proposal. So that is uh the water system has adequate capacity, the sewer system, storm drainage, um uh the the street system so on and so forth. Um and so um again the staff report goes into some greater detail on that but that uh that criteria approve appear to be uh satisfied. Um of of particular note is the the traffic aspect. Um the threshold that we have for requiring uh further traffic impact analysis um is 300 average daily trips. Um this proposal of 48 apartments uh comes in

just under that threshold at an estimated 298 average daily trips. Um so that's 48 apartments at um an average of 6.21 average daily trips per day according to the institute for transportation engineers. So um no traffic impact analysis uh was provided as it did not rise to that level of of uh uh traffic. Um conditional uses uh also have to meet the standards for site design review. So in addition to the special conditions for special approval criteria for conditional uses, there's also sort of our standard site design review approval criteria. Um there are several of those. Uh first is that the application is complete. Um that is sort of a given at this point. Um the second is that the application complies with the underlying land use district standards under article two. Um and so again the written staff report goes into uh detail around that. Um the uh article two is a little bit uh tricky because it also includes the architectural standards that we have in the uh uh commercial zones um which are a little more restrictive than we have in say residential or industrial zones because we want our commercial areas to to look nice. Um and so we do have um architectural standards uh for our commercial areas. Um and without going through the full list of those standards, there were there were three that kind of uh uh it appeared to staff may not have been fully satisfied and those are called out in the staff report. Um the first being uh transparency, window transparency along

the ground level. Um the way the code is written, it's really aimed at uh like storefronts. And so the the storefront window requirement that we have uh not necessarily uh appropriate for dwellings on the ground floor. I think this is kind of an oversight in our code that going forward we may want to consider writing an exception uh to account for this. Um but it does not appear that it meets the 60% glazing standard. Staff are recommending that that standard be adjusted. Uh planning commission has the authority to issue uh adjustments to those standards. Um the second is uh the building base. Uh there's a requirement that buildings have a foundation or a base typically from the ground to the bottom of the lower window sills with a change in volume or material that gives a sense of strength. Uh typically this is a masonry type material. Um the plans that were provided did not uh show that and so there was a proposed condition of approval addressing that. Um the final uh deficiency being pedestrian shelters. Uh there's a requirement for pedestrian shelters uh along 75% of the building length where the building abuts a walkway. Um and it appeared that the balconies that are proposed provide cover for 53% of the building face rather than the required 75%. So there was a condition of approval attached to that um should the planning commission uh wish to impose that. Um, again, these are standards that the planning commission has the authority to um provide adjustments or exceptions to so long as it kind of meets the overall purpose and intent of the uh the standards that we have for the architectural zone for the the

architectural standards that we have for the commercial zones I should say. Um, so the the next criteria that we have is that any non-conforming development uh has to be uh upgraded. um this site has no development on it. So that just kind of doesn't apply. Um and then uh the next uh the fourth criterion is that the proposal has to comply with all of the design standards in article 3. Um and so there's uh uh site access as as one component of that. There are walkways uh that are proposed on the site on the north edge of the parking lot. Um the site plan that was provided didn't show that extending all the way from Jasper to uh the grocery outlet walkway. Um and so a proposed condition of approval is that that walkway form a continuous uh route um and a and a easement for that uh be established if it's not already within the uh the easements uh on the site for cross access. Um there's also uh structural support pillars that are placed in that walkway which appears to narrow the width um below the required 6 ft. The code isn't really clear if you can have obstructions in the 6T walkways. So um if the commission were to find that that's not an allowable um circumstance in those walkways, uh there's a proposed condition addressing that. if you know occasional obstructions in the 6t width are allowable then that wouldn't need to be imposed. Um kind of at the planning commission's uh uh interpretation on that one. Um there's a requirement uh uh on landscaping um that appears to be met in terms of the amount of site that is landscaped. Um again there's no significant landscaping on the site.

It's mostly grass and gravel. So um parking is uh another uh section that occurs under article 3. Um so the code standard that we have uh for parking for multif family uses is tied to the number of bedrooms. Um larger units having more bedrooms in theory having more people needing more parking is kind of the logic behind that. So um based on the the mix of of uh units that are in these buildings um we determined that uh 54 parking spaces uh would be required by code. Um the applicant also has the option of doing their own parking demand analysis if they feel that for whatever reason the code standard isn't the correct number. So we have a fair bit of flexibility in our code towards that end. Um they are proposing uh according to their uh narrative 55 spaces um 32 of which would be new construction as part of the development um and the remainder being within the existing parking area. Um this includes the uh segment of their property that is already developed as a parking lot. Um as well as uh additional spaces off of their property that are part of the larger shopping complex. Um, as I understand there is a set of uh joint access and shared parking easements uh for the Jasper Crossing site. Um, so I I believe that that still is in effect and would apply. Um, obviously I'm I'm not an attorney so perhaps the applicant can provide us greater detail on that, but um, with that in place, my understanding is that the the parking standard is satisfied. Um they will also have a bicycle parking area in the complex meeting the

requirement for bicycle parking. So um as far as public facilities um they're not proposing to construct any public infrastructure. Um the public works department has expressed concern that a new development in this location may cause an increase in pedestrian traffic crossing Jasper. um to get to the businesses on the other side. Um and so they did uh recommend a condition of approval installing a marked crosswalk uh across Jasper in the vicinity of the existing access driveway. Um and so there's a recommended condition of approval uh addressing that. So, um, with that in mind, um, staff are are, uh, believing that the approval criteria have been satisfied and are recommending that the planning commission approve the conditional use permit, uh, with the conditions stated in the staff report, um, which are, sorry, these ones, um, which you can't read because the text is tiny. And fortunately, you have it in front of you on paper, so it's bigger. um questions that you have for me, bearing in mind that we do have the applicant here and they have provided a uh PowerPoint presentation as well. So, they have a bunch of pretty pictures and and so forth. So, didn't want to duplicate their PowerPoint presentation too much.

Okay. Well, let's go around. Commissioners, we've got some questions for staff. Let's start at the end there. Scott.

Um yeah, Chase, thank you. Good summary. Uh, I'm curious about the the parking there. You uh stated um one you stated mentioned a joint parking agreement there. Um I didn't see it as part of the packet, but um I hoping that maybe have some more information or the applicant has some information when the applicant addresses the planning commission. Uh but you mentioned article three and required off- streetet parking and how it's based on the number of uh bedrooms for residential and that 54 is required and 55 is what they provide on site but only uh what 32 is what they construct on site and then the remaining there is what uh we we see as existing and I think you mentioned that they were constructed by grocery outlet. Is that correct? Okay. So my question is um did Grocery Outlet count that as part of their required parking off streetet ratio? I don't know if they had like a four per thousand or whatever that ratio was, but I'm just kind of curious is you know was that part because I think that you know these lines may have changed through time and ownerships and things like that. And I'm just kind of curious um what uh what the numbers are for Grocery Outlet if this uh depletes that. Um and and I might have a follow-up question, but I guess that's the the key question.

Uh so when Grocery Outlet was developed, uh they did have a a minimum number of parking spaces they were required to construct. Um, our code is somewhat uh uh unusual in that we also impose a maximum number of parking spaces that are allowed, not just a minimum. Um, Grocery Outlet essentially asked for a variance to the maximum um in order to construct additional parking spaces in part for the use of surrounding uh uses in the same complex. Um and as part of that there was a recorded uh agreement uh easement uh document um at that time. Um my understanding is that that's still in effect. Um I'm sure the the applicant can probably provide additional context on that but um the because they constructed more parking than um the minimum and actually more than the maximum uh this will not uh impact the required amount of parking.

The minimum. Okay. So it this this is surplus parking then above the minimum it does the reassignment of whatever they are 23 uh spaces does not uh drop it below doesn't create a non-conforming situation for the and commercial and uh residential uses often have different peak hours of use. Uh you know residential parking is usually uh fully utilized in the evening when people are at at home sleeping. uh commercial parking is usually uh fully utilized during the day when businesses are open. So um there's uh also that time aspect between that shared parking.

Well, thank you. And I'll ask the applicant about the agreement there if they're privy to it and that kind of thing. Thank you, Mr. Schulty. Just get under the wire. What about that intersection Jasper and Ellen? Does that would that be would that be included in a study if it were done or is it apart from that?

Um yes. So if it was to the level that a traffic impact analysis was needed um it would include uh the Jasper and Allenale intersection as well as probably several other intersections along Allenale. Um we know from other developments that have been done, other traffic studies that have been done that um Jasper is uh a location, Jasper and Allenale is an intersection that has um some operational challenges. Um and so the public works department has been looking at different ways that that could be addressed. Um so it is something that's on our radar but again to the extent that it doesn't rise to the threshold of them doing analysis um it's hard to say how much their contribution how much additional burden it places on that intersection. So

y do you have any questions for staff on the report? Carol Andy, the first um concern you had about the glazing requirement. I don't see that reflected in the conditions. Do we need to make that a condition or it's just that we can allow that just kind of without addressing it? Uh so it's addressed in the staff report and so uh your approval of the proposal as shown uh would uh de facto be approval of the adjustment request. Yeah.

Plans there are these other conditions that are going to affect the plans i.e. the walkway the crossing of if the commission Mhm. Yeah. If the commission chooses to impose those conditions, that would change the proposal.

If we approve it, addressing all the other ones and we don't address the first one, that seems like that would be a problem cuz cuz we basically approving it leaving the requirement for all that glazing and then they'd come back and say, "Well, you know, you guys didn't think it was necessary. it's not in the conditions of approval to allow them to to not conform to that. Do we have to? So again, if if you approve, you're approving um essentially as as it was presented by the applicant um except as was modified under the conditions. So tell blazing that is under that

and what you're saying is that would be sufficient documentation that we were okay with that. Is that what you're saying? Okay. And I assume the attorney agrees. That's correct. Yeah. Then I'm good. Okay. I have uh a question supplemental to Andy's. Uh so if that adjustment for the first floor glazing uh is built into the proposal, does the same apply for the 6-ft walkway requirement and the 75% pedestrian shelter requirement? It could if you were to choose to approve the proposal without those conditions. Yes, those conditions are in there.

Got that? Okay. I just want to make sure we're perfectly clear. And then one last just for clarification I'm going to ask the question excuse me that the reason that this is a conditional use permit is that ground if this development were proposed with ground floor commercial with apartments above this would be an outright permitted use. What brings it to the level of a conditional use is that we want the the applicant wants uh first floor apartments. Just want clarification on that. So that's why it's here. Yep. It's here because there are dwellings on the ground floor. Gotcha. Gotcha. Uh that's all the questions that I have.

Does that mean if they'd come in with something that conforms to to commercial, you would have approved that on your own or so wouldn't be any need for Well, uh correct. There would not have been a role for the planning commission unless uh this staff's decision was appealed. Okay, thank you. Um, there would still have been notice to uh the surrounding property owners, but it would have ultimately been a staff decision. Um, but because there's dwellings on the ground floor that requires conditional use permit, which brings it to you.

And I always like to clarify what a conditional use is. The permit is is that it's a permitted use, but a public hearing like we're doing this evening allows the opportunity to apply conditions, etc. So, okay. Thank you. Commissioners, do we have any other questions of staff before we move on? Okay. So, we'll now hear from the applicant. So, please step forward. As a reminder, you have 15 minutes to present and please state your name and your address for the record. And please have a seat right there.

Is this mobile? I think so. Your mics are I'm loud. Yeah, I am too. That's why I stay the ears. You can advance by using the left and the right. Okay, awesome. Thank you. Left and right. I can do that. And am I on? It's red. That's bad. Okay. Every time you talk, it turns red.

Oh, love Dallas. Fancy. Okay. Okay. Well, for your record, u my name is Britney Randall with Brand Land Use and I'm representing uh Clutch Industries and the property owners on this project tonight. Um so, we'll just dive right in. Um the first thing I'd like to do is introduce all the people besides your staff. Thank you so much for all your work on this uh who have worked really hard on this so far. So, our applicant is Clutch Industries. Our civil engineering was provided by Josh Wells at Westech. Our architect is Gene Balante of GCB architecture. Traffic was provided by Scott Manser. And the reason that we had a traffic engineer is because we were two trips below the threshold and we wanted a stamp on that. I promise we didn't make that up. Um, and then a survey was provided by Brad Harris. I'll explain later why we needed a surveyor. And then I provided uh land use consulting. Okay, this is a repeat of what uh Chase already told you, but um I just want to make sure that we are talking about the same site. We did receive a piece of paper that had addresses on it. I got very excited, so I put it in the presentation. So, if we are allowed to build these buildings, they will be 191 and 181 Northwest Jasper. uh the properties was actually two and we consolidated the properties in a previous land use action through a property line adjustment which is why we have a survey around the project. So um that uh record of survey has been reviewed by the city and by Pulk County and it's about to be recorded so it'll be official soon that these properties to become one. Makes me think of a song. Um so they will be joined in holy matrimony soon. Uh the property is of course zone

general commercial. Adjacent uses we are our neighbors to the north uh is the Dallas retirement village. We have grocery outlet to our west. We have some other commercial uses to the east and then miscellaneous uh shopping and services in the same kind of parking lot as well as the famous Taco Bell. uh the site really is integrated as you know kind of this whole mixeduse area. So um that's why we zoomed out and tried to recognize our neighbors. We do have a joint parking agreement. We have seen it. We're happy to provide it uh at building permit. We didn't provide it as part of our land use package, but that I think would be an appropriate condition to uh ensure the city is satisfied that we have joint parking agreements, including maintenance and access. Okay. It's a lot easier to see on the big TV. That's good. Okay. So, um we have two buildings here. And the reason that we have two buildings is because of the fire code. It was too long. uh if it if it was attached. We talked about a sky bridge and then you know somebody said that cost money. So we have two buildings. Uh there are three stories in height and uh 19,550 square ft. That's the footprint each. Uh and then each uh building will contain 24 units. So, we have drawn this dashed line around our properties and yes, oddly enough, it does capture some of this existing parking area. Um, we are proposing 45 I'm sorry, 55 parking spaces in total. So, oddly enough, there's this island

right here. If you can see my mouse, we're adding a parking space here, a parking space here, and then rerouting some of the pedestrian connection through this parking through, excuse me, through this landscape island in order to squeeze out as much parking as we can from the site. So, that's kind of a an odd little nuance that I wanted to draw your attention to. And then, of course, all this parking along the building and then this over here, all um is brand new. And then we have this connection that will go to grocery outlet meeting that condition of approval. You guys impose that. Um I will talk a lot more about the um ground floor in our my next slide because that's what brings us here is the ground floor. Um but I want you to know that we are providing 12 ADA compliant units total across the development. um 12 units, this is uh total numbers, 12 units will contain two bedrooms and two bathrooms. Four of those units will be ADA. 26 units will be one bedroom, one bathroom. Six of those will be ADA compliant. And then we're providing 10 studio units. Two of those will be ADA compliant. So, I'll show you all that. Those are on the ground floor right now. Without further ado. Okay, so our ground floor is kind of unique. Um, we have a large recreation room and this is the souththeast corner of the building. So, Jasper is where my words are. Uh, Grocery Outlet is the opposite side. And then this is the parking lot down on the bottom. So, um, on the ground floor we have recreation space. This is flexible

space. It could be it's meant for just tenants. So, of course, if we made this commercial space, we wouldn't be here before you, but that's not as much fun. So, uh we wanted to keep it just for tenants to utilize for parties or meetings, things like that. We are proposing um some flexible storage spaces on the ground floor for tenants to utilize, Christmas decorations, Valentine's decorations. Um, and then we have our ADA units on the ground floor as well as uh this is the trash and laundry in here. And then this space will be utilized for bicycle parking inside secure bicycle parking. And this is the exactly the same as the other building. So I'm just showing you one because it's exactly the same. Um, so wreck room, enclosed trash, uh, secure on-site tenant storage, secure laundry, and then the ADA units are on the main floor. I have a rendering, and elevations are less fun to look at, but they're still important. So, I wanted to show you this is the front of the building. I would say the front because it has the sign on it, but the parking will abut this face. Um, and so we consider this to be the front main view of the um, building. You can see here we have these large windows and then this is the access to that recreation room. And then this over here is how that trash will be serviced by this little rollup door. So, I wanted to bring that to your attention. This is the elevation view from the Jasper street side. So, um it'll be easier to understand when I show you the rendering, but we have a change in uh materials. So, the body of the building

will be like a navy blue, the trim will be white, and then these sort of stripey looking areas will be a nice wood tone. So, I'll show you how that comes together. Um we have fully screened um balconies for two reasons. One for privacy and two for uniformity. People keep different things on their balconies and we'd like that to look nice all the time. So this is our attempt. This is the side that will be visible from well sort of. There's trees and elevation changes and things between us and Dallas retirement village. But if we took all that away, this is the side that they would see. Um, and again, it's uh it's articulated nicely. And then we have the change in materials, which we think is important. This is the side, probably my least favorite side that Grocery Outlet gets to look at. Um, but we reserved the fancy sides for the sides that you could actually see. And here's that rendering. Um, so you can see on the rendering that the stripey things are going to be wood, kind of a a wood I I don't think it's going to be real wood. I think it be a wood look material. Um, the balconies will match the color of the body of the building. Um, and we have a lot of articulation and then I think the the white framing around the windows really articulates those nicely, too. I tried to get him to paint it pink, but the rendering showed up blue. So, here we are. Um, next I will go through the less fun stuff, which is the conditions of approval. So, there were three conditions that we are totally in alignment on. So, that's one, three, and four. Um, we will, yes, we will get building permits. Absolutely. Um, we loved the idea of providing the

pedestrian connection to the east. I actually think that's a huge benefit for um residents because uh we'd like to promote the walkability of the area. Um so we're totally on board with that. And then uh we thought we did show it and I I see it in some of our plans so maybe it got lost but that connection to grocery outlet. Yes, we want to complete the pedestrian network on the campus. So that makes sense. These are the ones that I want to talk to you about further. So condition two, five, and six. Um we'll start with two. So when we look at housing, there's a whole bunch of Senate and House bills that have come out recently. Um, Senate Bill 1537 adopted in 2024 actually permits a full adjustment to the requirement of building materials color or pattern. And that's not what we're asking for, but we would like to hone in the um masonry material just to the base of the pillars. And I'll show you where I mean. So the base of the pillars currently as we proposed is exposed concrete and so we agree that that should be dressed up and look nicer and so we are hoping to apply uh masonry to these pink highlighted areas. So all of these pillars would be wrapped in masonry if you were immunable to that. Um, I go into in my next I put this up again so that you could see easier kind of what the columns would look like, unwrapped, pretty barren, but also to just again express that I think the building is pretty articulated. It's quite busy with all the balconies and the trim and the things. So, I think

that putting a little pop of the masonry in those areas, I think achieves what staff was trying to achieve. I put information in my slide about Senate Bill 1537. I don't want to bore you all to death because I feel like we're having fun here. Um, but I essentially am demonstrating why our application qualifies for Senate Bill 1537, automatic adjustments. Um so the this is the the criterion for how this applies or or when this is applicable. So in this case this is a a land use decision. So it would apply here. Um the development is on land zone to allow for residential uses. Yes, that applies. Uh site information demonstrating that the development proposal in total on the site meets the minimum net residential densities of section 55. So that's um there are thresholds for how much density you have to be providing in order to utilize Senate Bill 1537 and that's based off of uh your population. So I think you guys are just under 20,000 people in population. So um you would fall under subriterion three. So uh we are providing more than six units per acre. So again, we check that box. Um, development is within an urban growth boundary and annexed into a city. We check that box. Um, site site information confirming that the development will create net new housing units that include highlighted that multif family, which is what we're doing. So we check that box. Um, and then the total requested adjustments don't exceed 10 distinct adjustments. It would be one. So we check that box and then we would have to provide a statement of how the following criteria apply. So the adjustment the adjustment makes housing development feasible when it would otherwise not be

due to cost or delay. The delay would be that we would go and reconfigure our plans the cost would be the added masonry. And then of course if we reduce our construction costs that savings is passed on to our tenants. So I believe that we meet all the criteria to utilize Senate Bill 1537 which says that we can eliminate this requirement altogether which is not what we're trying to do. We would just like to narrow it down to just the base of the pillars. That was really boring and I'm sorry. Okay. So, uh, condition five, the walkway along the north edge of the parking lot that you have a six-foot requirement and, um, staff also agrees that your code is silent on can things be in the six feet or is it an unobstructed run of six feet? So, we took a look and what does it look like if we were to change it? Well, unfortunately, um it might eliminate a lot of that parking along the frontage because uh well, I won't go forward yet. I wanted to say that the space that is available, it um is 44 in wide, so 4t wide, allowing um safe passage, meeting ADA requirements. So, we think it's um substantial enough that it meets the intent of why you had this wide standard to begin with. And then there's my graphic. So, I was really proud of that. I made all my staff come and look at this graphic. So, what will happen is we'll pull the balconies and everything out two more feet to make the walkway 6 feet wide. And if we do nothing else, then cars will crash into the base of the and they'll crunch up their hoods and collision and auto body people will be so happy that we did that

in the in the city, but no one else will be happy. So, we're hoping that you find that um we've met the intent. These these pillars as they stand are 7 in wide. when we put the masonry on them, if that is something that we decide to do, they'll be a little bit wider, a couple more inches maybe. Um, but they still provide for the safe passage of someone, you know, if they're using a wheelchair assistance or a walker, they'll still be able to pass through here safely. And then condition number six, so this is kind of an interesting one. So, within the CG zone use table, that's table 2.3.02B, and I have it on a slide so you didn't have to just believe me. Um, it states that residential uses are subject to Dallas Development Code section 2.2.070 and 2.2.100. So, we interpreted that to mean that 2.3.080 was not applicable. And if we decide that all three sections are applicable, then we're in serious conflict with ourselves because we have a set of um design standards for commercial building and then we have a set of design standards for a residential building and in many places they don't say the same thing. So it's sort of this like which one applies. Um, so we are asking here's that table and I even made it bigger because I knew I was violating PowerPoint law by making it that small. So it says new residential buildings not in conjunction with ground floor commercial use must conform to the architectural standards contained in these two sections. So that is what we designed our buildings based off of

rather than um any of the design standards in 2.3.080 08 which is where that condition is pulled from. So we are asking for you to please strike that condition. Okay, I'll take a breath and stop talking and listen now. You have any questions? Just to the west of that building, if I remember correctly, there is a a walkway from DRB. Yes, it it's on the Grocery Outlet property, so it we don't even touch it. Yes. Other question. Is this a lowinccome housing?

No, currently it's not. That could subject to change, but no, currently it's privately funded and market rate. I'm sorry, I didn't hear your question about we were talking about the walkway on grocery outlet side or what was your you were talking very quietly. I couldn't hear you. There's a walkway today from DRV onto this property right at the left. Okay. That and does that remain? And she said yes. Okay. So that's from behind coming forward. And does that go along the grocery outlet? Yeah. So it's a little bit further west. It our site doesn't even touch it. So no no interference.

You're going to connect to it with your connection requirement that we had asked you about. We were going to connect from our parking lot. So, it's really tiny, but right here, we're going to connect to Grocery Outlet. So, we have a continuous pedestrian path. A walkway along Grocery Outlet on that side. Yes. Okay. Yes. So, the only thing that's blocking with this sixoot requirement is those columns themselves. There's no part of the building that sticks out or anything else. That's correct.

Okay, commissioners. Any other questions of the applicant? Scott, go ahead. Thank you. Just to follow up on the questions that I asked staff about the off- streetet parking arrangements there. Um, so what we received as a packet did not include the um, uh, joint parking uh, agreement, but sounds like there there is one and you've reviewed that. And I guess my follow-up question then is um, what that may just the parameters of that. Um this would be now reassigned for the tenant use. And uh is there any intent to share th that those what 23 spaces uh or is it now going to be exclusively for the uh residents or what what do you envision with?

Yeah, that's a good question and we talked about it a lot because it came up in the open house that was you know a big question what what happens with the parking. So what we've decided is that each um unit will have one space assigned and the remainder will be flex remainder will be flexible with the campus as well as any visitors for residents that come by.

Okay. So customers, clients, employees of grocery outlet have the ability to utilize these spaces uh as well and will continue and that's what the agreement says. The agreement is for the parking spaces that are in existence now. So all of our new spaces will be assigned to units. So that but okay. So the the existing spaces is there's kind of a joint maintenance agreement as part of that as well. If it was part of the packet, I would have all those answers, but

yes, you're right. Um and that's good to know for next time. So, uh, maintenance and access is, uh, all included in the joint access agreement and that we, that came up early on because when you pull a title report, it's one of the first things that, so there's some sort of prora share that the applicant that you're provide it so that it's clear.

Well, just I am imagining that staff may have reviewed it and if not that then, yeah, you know, I I'm sensing there's a comfort level with it. Okay. Um I I also just kind of curious about the masonry thing here that uh and you raised Senate Bill 1537. I think as my understanding Senate Bill 15 1537 is going through a lot of rulemaking now and then various interpretations of that. I didn't see it as part of the packet. It wasn't introduced. It's kind of was the first time I think I've seen it is just part of your PowerPoint presentation there. But um I'm kind curious about the masonry. Uh sounds like you were willing to put some masonry to the columns there that that face to the south. Um uh and that that's sort of a compromise and you're agreeable to it. Um and but that wouldn't make the percentage. Is that correct? That that alone,

right? So the um the standard current standard today says the base of the building shall have be articulated with the masonry. Um it doesn't specify if that's just on one side or just street facing. So we take that to mean it means all the way around um the entire foundation of the building. Um and uh regarding the rule making, Senate Bill 1537 is adopted. HPO is established. What you may be hearing about are jurisdictions who are um submitting to be exempt from Senate Bill 1537, which is sort of a farce because they're not actually exempt. They're just exempt from um the automatic process. Um and and people can still utilize the automatic adjustments. They just have to go through the city's adjustment process, which is as confusing. I'm just saying I I my preference is for that to be upfront in as part of your application to the city as opposed to a PowerPoint presentation here at the hearing. I'd rather have it as part of my documents that I would review ahead of the hearing. Um but anyways, uh and what's your thoughts about uh adding masonry to the base maybe to the street facing side there? The building would be what the east elevation there facing Jasper. is that uh you do have a lot of articulation that I can see on this this angle of the building there. I'm just kind of wondering about

Yeah. Uh my direction is from my client is that they're interested in wrapping the concrete exposed portions with some type of masonry to make those look nicer. We have not spoken about the Jasper facing side specifically. Um certainly I think we have the option to hold the record open and submit more information to you or carry this to another day if we want to discuss that further. Um but my direction right now is the base of the columns is what's being offered. What the what your client would is is the limit of what that's what I Yes. Okay. That's what I was

and it seemed like the justification that they're calling for by referring to the Senate bill is that the additional cost of doing either the entire building or whatever um could affect how much these could rent for. And that's why they're I think pulling that in. The other comment I would make to your your concern about putting it along the um the Jasper side is I can see why it would make sense on the commercial side which comes from all this commercial development. Driving along Jasper, I think it's fairly obvious this is an apartment complex and so making it look like a commercial building doesn't seem like it would make sense to me. But that's just me.

Okay. That's I'm asking questions of the applicant and I'm not doing deliberation right now. Oh, no. So, that was my questions of the applicant. Supplementing your question. Yes. Thank you. Commissioners, any other questions for the applicant at this time? To add to the masonry discussion. I is the cost of the masonry. do we feel meets the Senate bill and therefore it's too much money to be a requirement. Therefore, you would try for the automated get rid of it all. Yeah. So, there's

bill sorry I didn't mean to cut you off. That's all right. Um the Senate bill says uh added cost or delay. It doesn't give a dollar. Um and I think that was intentional. I wasn't part of the rulem for Senate Bill 1537. Um but it is quite expensive to add masonry to the bo the base of these buildings both buildings all in its entirety. Um tens of thousands of dollars to do that. So uh that did factor into why we're asking it to be limited. Um, but also we we do feel like our our building is architecturally sound and is appealing um articulated nicely and uh I I we frankly don't feel like it needs the additional curb appeal uh from what we're proposing. Thank you.

Commissioners, last chance. Any other questions for the applicant before we move on to public testimony? One more thing real quick. We've been talking about a joint parking agreement. I believe those are called reciprocal parking and access agreements to designate that they're basically everybody who's using them. They can all basically share. So reciprocal I believe is the correct term. But that's just me. I probably aren't

What was the question? the well, we've been talking about a joint parking, which would think that she'd need to provide a document from every single business, whereas reciprocal just means we can use ours, you can use ours, and we can use yours. So, it's not specific to those that are on their property, I believe. But be more technical, if I'm not mistaken, the code says shared parking agreement. If that's the consistency with the code, that's what I recall as well. Sounds good to me. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Uh so we'll now hear from those in attendance tonight and anyone that might be joining us electronically. Staff, is there anybody online that's uh in the queue to testify? There are no callers in the queue.

So we're only then taking testimony from the folks that are in attendance tonight who would like to address the planning commission on this item. So, please raise your hand if you'd like to testify to this application for a conditional use permit for these apartments. Uh, Mr. Henshaw, I see you had your hand up first, so you go ahead. Sorry. And I also knew his name. Sorry, sir. Well, I would urge state your name and your address, please. Thank you.

Jean Henshaw, 249 Northwest Jasper, number 2318. Okay. The um I would urge the commission to take a second look at the traffic congestion problem. It's been mentioned here that the intersection at Maine and Ellenale would maybe gain congestion and it probably would, but beyond that there's additional uh traffic and cross traffic over Allenale and into Ellenale which backs up traffic on the side road as you go into those three or four or five blocks there. Uh the other issue with regard to traffic is the pedestrian traffic. DRV pass a number of people. Their whole entire campus has a number of people that do not drive. So there's a tremendous amount of pedestrian traffic and the crosswalks have been mentioned. They're ADA accessible and that's great, but it does affect the traffic going both directions on those streets. So I would just ask you to look at that. If it doesn't meet the the standard, it may be still more of a a problem than the standard was was uh trying to eliminate uh certain statistical traffic patterns. There's more to it, I think, than that in in that area. Thank you.

Thank you,

sir. You had your hand up. Yeah. Please step forward. State your name and your address. My name is David Parrot, executive director and represent uh Dallas Retirement Village and um the north of 400 residents on the campus. So, as you can imagine, I it's important for us. This is something that while it doesn't have a a direct impact to us on our campus, it does it does reflect and and impact the community. So to me the what's important for this and again I don't know I'm just making the point that it would be important for us to communicate with the the owners and the interested parties to be able to have some open dialogue and conversation because that will avoid a lot of um unnecessary I guess um comments that that there's been a lot of conversation in the campus and so we certainly just want to make sure that that's on the record that we we would like to have some dialogue to make sure that it we're good neighbors and it fits well in the community. I I guess a couple of the comments that I wanted to address um to this and again I understand this in this particular forum we're talking about a conditional use permit. So you know it's kind of a narrowly uh focused energy on this. I I did also recognize and wanted to make sure that I understood that the 300 daily traffic is what is the criteria that we would you would need to meet correct before any kind of study would be necessary. So it's un long as it's under 300 on a on a daily basis then that does not qualify to have a study. Is that correct?

That's my understanding. We'll let the applicant uh address that when they get a chance to rebut your comments.

And you know, it's I think that it's I would agree that the Ellenell Jasper crossing, you know, is continually becoming more and more um congested. It's not simply this. It's it's everything loaded to it. So certainly there's a lot of other homes and a lot of other businesses that are contri contributing to that. So I I don't you know I'm not arguing that we should that it should not happen because of that in alone. Simply saying is it is getting more and more congested there as as time goes on. Um our interest more has to do with the the facing uh north of the property which basically would be our residents facing south. So this is going to be where that property line is and I and I'd like to hear more about the consideration as far as what is the consideration of that property as it will be the view that our residents are looking at that apartment at you know what types of uh landscaping what type of whether they're plants distance as far as that just understanding more and again I don't know if that if there's a particular criteria that's required in in landscaping along the along our kind of our common uh boundary, but just would like to ask that question. Is that something that is um I I think I heard something about landscaping potentially there, but I would be interested and I don't know if the if the commission is going to require any kind of detail on that. So, I think that's it.

Thank you. Thank you.

Appreciate it. Anyone else in attendance like to present testimony to the planning commission at this time? Seeing none, we will now move on and uh allow the applicant to address uh the concerns that were brought up by the folks that testified. And we appreciate your testimony. Thank you. Okay, thank you for the opportunity. Uh, my name is Britney Randall for your record. Um, and I think I forgot to state my address before, which is 1720 Liberty Street Southeast in Salem. That's my office. Okay. Um, traffic is a thing that comes up in any development. Um and so um we certainly wouldn't want to put any more burden on the systems that exist in the city. Um which is why we worked with our uh traffic engineer and he didn't raise any concern about failing intersections or dangerous intersections in the vicinity of this project. Um, and again, the code does trigger a an additional study at 300 trips and we're at 298. So, that's what I would say about the traffic. Um, as far as landscaping, um, my client, Clutch Industries, uh, hires a landscape architect to design all of their projects. uh we always defer that to the very end because we never know what conditions will be come through and change the way our site looks and we like to just do the landscaping one time. Um so we spoke at length about you know what it would

look like in between these buildings and uh the property line abuing Dallas retirement village with it was only Dallas retirement village that came to our open house. So, uh, we had, I believe, a full hour of just great conversation really with our neighbors. It was a very pleasant experience. We talked about, um, the landscaping in between and the fact that we'd be adding more trees to the site. Um, although it's nestled in this commercial sort of mixeduse area, this is the these will be someone's residence. So, um, the way to enhance that is through landscaping and that is what we plan to do. So, um, at the time of building permit submitt, um, we will be supplying the city with a landscape plan drafted up by our landscape architect. Um, and we're happy to accept that as a condition of approval that we provide that as well.

Okay. Is that it? That's it. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. So, we're now to the point of the hearing where we uh will ask uh staff or the city attorney if there's any final comments you'd like to make on this application. And uh and in including some of the adjustments that are built into the application and uh are there any concerns or points of interest you would like to bring up at this time? I can go first. Yeah. So, I was kind of flipping through Senate Bill 1537 um while the the applicant was testifying as well as when some others came forth and gave their thoughts. So, looking through that, um again, this kind of caught me by surprise since it wasn't in the application. And I looked at section 38, the provision that was cited. And then I scrolled down to subsection two, which um discusses the adjustment. And so kind of my my area of concern is so I think the applicant meets most of the criteria except for I go down to section G and it states the applicant or the application states how at least one of the following criteria applies. So um the and the subsection that was cited by the applicant subsection A states the adjustment will enable development of housing that is not otherwise feasible due to costs or delay resulting from the unadjusted land use regulations. So I don't think we received any direct evidence other than the applicant's testimony that it was expensive. So I'm not quite sure that we met that criteria. Um not saying that it doesn't exist. It's just we didn't receive that tonight. So

I I would uh also add that um my understanding from the the state guidance on on this topic um is that the request for the adjustments uh does have to be part of the original initial application. Um, and so, uh, Scott's, uh, commentary of, you know, bringing it up during the hearing and not part of the original application materials, um, would, under my understanding, be a disqualifying factor for that, which again would not preclude them from withdrawing their application or resubmitting with, you know, uh, documentation requesting it, in which case automatic, uh, granted. Um, so it's certainly something that we can consider, but from a legal standpoint, I'm not entirely clear that it applies at this point. Um, and again, the planning commission has the option to uh provide adjustments um as written in our code um to uh all of those kind of architectural standards. So if you felt that such an adjustment was um warranted or or allowable under our code as written um then the Senate bill doesn't really come into play because it's something that you would already be inclined to allow. So um different ways of looking at that.

Yeah.

Question of staff and city attorney. What remedy do you recommend? What I'm hearing and the reason I asked is what I'm hearing is you're saying that you know it ought to have been included in the application and not just presented uh at the public hearing. So would you recommend that we continue this and ask the applicant come applicant to come back with the appropriate documentation or I I guess kind of my thought is I maybe I could ask Chase this. I mean would they have to completely withdraw the application and resubmit it if they want to get that in? I guess that's kind of my initial thought. Um,

I mean, so our code does have language allowing for applications for for applicants to submit modifications to their applications after notices have been sent. Uh, but the city has the option to disallow that modification. Um, so that that could be one way is having them submit paperwork that we can review as as a modification to the existing application. That's something that could be done. It would probably be more expeditious than fully withdrawing and resubmitting. Um, would it still come back to us?

It would still come back to you. Yeah. So, we would leave because the ultimately the the conditional use component doesn't change. um it's still a quasi judicial conditional use permit. So um we would continue the hearing to another date and wait for the supplemental application material to be submitted and then relook at it at a future time. So then how does that affect the Senate bill where it says unreasonable delay? Is it reasonable to make them come back for another meeting to possibly avoid that Mason?

Well, let's all go in turn. So, go ahead, Carol. So my question is, it seems reasonable to me that they would come back in another 30 days, but would the Senate bill consider that unreasonable when we could just adjust the conditions of approval now? So I mean certainly the city attorney can weigh in on this, but we are under the uh obligation of the 120day rule. We have to provide land use decision with including all appeals within 120 days of complete application which were fully within.

Right. And so to the extent that we're not exceeding the 128 day limit as prescribed by law, I think the argument could be made that that is reasonable. That's that's my question and I I would agree with that. Okay. Thank you. Okay. or let's not let's not bleed into deliberation, but we're specifically asking questions uh of staff and city attorneys. So,

to to that, I just want to make sure I'm clear. What I heard you and the attorney saying is that we could approve this ourselves the way she's talked about without going through the resubmitt and all that. Is that correct? We could do that. That that was just my clarification too based on the merits of their application alone ignoring what's been said about the 1537 here. I I'm thinking that would be my I'm trying to phrase it into a question. And so we're not leaning into deliberation here, but that's the next step here. And that's kind of what I would prefer is to see if we can first uh evaluate it uh based on the merits of the proposal uh and then if we can't then then we can see if the applicant would be interested in a continuence in a voluntary partial waiver of the 120 days uh for that purpose.

Okay. Well, so let's let's move on. Are there any last comments from uh staff and city attorney? Have one more. I'm still confused about the parking a little bit and so I just wanted to tell you where my confusion is. If you have 54 units and you're going to assign one to every one of those 54 and you only have 32 on site,

uh there are 48 dwelling units. So 48 dwelling units, right? Um you still have some that are on the shared area that are assigned, correct? So how does that meet the reciprocal agreement? If Grocery Outlet can't use them, they're assigned. It's a contractual issue between the property owners, so we don't have to be concerned with it. Yeah. Yeah, I mean it's I don't think there's a requirement under the code that the parking units be assigned. Um yeah, we don't require them to be assigned. Um

but they said they were going to assign them which means then there is a conflict of everybody can use it

and we probably Chase is looking up that the question that I asked was you know does G grocery outlet and their numbers are they in compliance with the the city's code and Chase had answered the question that yes, they are over the minimum even if it was lost, even if the applicant were to have gain full control of these 23 spaces that are existing. Uh Grocery Outlet is not short, at least the city's code. And to me, it's kind of like, okay, there's an agreement, there's maintenance agreement, then there's some kind of agreement in there, and it gets into more of a civil matter. Um because

we don't have to concern oursel with that. That's my my thought is it comes into a more of a civil my brain. Thank you. So, um section D of the automobile parking standards uh does not address signage. Um the uh section C regarding on street parking does have uh language that uh parking may not be limited for exclusive uh use by a a user. Um, but there's no such language for the shared parking section of the code. So, um, I would say our code is they can sign it and it's okay as long as Grocery Outlet's okay. I I think

Yeah. I mean, and if they if they weren't okay, that would be a dispute between Well, that would be between them between Okay, I got it.

Hang on. I I I think we're getting into deliberation, and I want to close the hearing before we do that. I think that's the the most appropriate way to do this. And I appreciate that we're all being thoughtful and thorough about how we go through this because this is important and and want to make sure that the process gets its due. Okay. So, what I'm going to do, unless there are any more comments from staff or city attorney, I am going to declare the public hearing closed at 7:18 p.m. And now, let's have this deliberation and discussion and decide how we want to go forward based on these items that we're already discussing. So, who'd like to start?

The property where the parking is belongs to them. So, I can't see how there'd be a problem with them identifying some to be specific. So, all of the spaces are on the well those in that piece of their property. I can't imagine they'd want to try and steal any of Grocery Outlets, but I Is that 22 spots there? 23, I think. 23. Okay. So, they've got more than enough to Gotcha. Sure. Go ahead, John. just one more time.

Traffic study is razor thin. Is there such a thing as an extenduating circumstance? Because that Jasper Ellenale intersection now is a disaster and adding this on it clearly is going to create an issue. But does it matter? I mean the fact that it's technically legally passes this test that it's okay.

So um there are uh seven uh thresholds for when a traffic impact analysis is required. And so the one that we deal with most uh often is that there's an increase in site traffic volume generation by 300 average daily trips or more. Um but there are six other potential criteria. Um whether there's a change in the zoning. Um if the road authority states that there's an operational safety concern. Um if it increases peak hour turning movements off of state highways and arterial streets by 20% or more. Um increase in the use of the street by large trucks. um not meeting minimum sight distances and changes to other traffic uh patterns that may cause safety problems. Um our public works department did not um really indicate that any of those were of uh that any of those were triggered that there weren't any necessarily safety concerns that were triggered by this particular development. Um so to the extent that uh you know 300 average daily trips is the number that's in black and white and uh the number they have is less than that. Um none of the others none of the other criteria seem to be uh triggering. Um then there really isn't further uh further criteria to require it. I didn't realize those extra criteria had been looked at, so I rest my case.

Yeah. Uh again, it's a one of those issues between do we make the written staff report, you know, really long or do we keep it concise? And sometimes the concise uh overlook some of those points, but yes. Um yeah,

I'll clarify that public works has signed off their comments sign off on it as presented. It's okay. A and again um we are aware that there are uh congestion issues at Jasper um and Ellenale. The upcoming installation of the traffic signal at Levens and Ellenale um will have downstream effects in terms of the the flow of traffic. Um and so the expectation is that that will have at least some alleviating effect um in the near future. So when does that go in or what is the target?

Yeah. So my understanding is that um the mast arms that will actually hold the traffic signals up um should be delivered to us sometime late February. Um I don't know how long it'll take the electricians then to actually run the wire, put up the lights. Um so sometime in the spring, but yeah, it should be sometime in the in the next couple of months that we would see that go live. So,

I want to bring up I by my by my notes here, I see four different adjustments that are built into this application proposal. The adjustment for the first floor glazing requirement. I think that we're all in agreement that that's more applicable to commercial development than residential. Uh we you don't have to agree with me, but I I think we heard some some strong arguments for that. The six-foot walk requirement was the adjustment and the argument made by the applicant was that it still meets ADA minimum standards and our code is kind of mute on the subject as to whether or not there can be periodic impediments in that 6 foot wide area. That's the second one that I recall. uh the 75% pedestrian shelter which is not met uh by the balconies was was proposed and then also the last one which we we got into a little bit asking questions of staff the masonry requirement adjustment. So those are the four things that I think that we need to discuss right now before we make a decision further. So any thoughts on any of those? Well, let's just go through it. We How do we feel about the first floor glazing requirement?

This is just a straw poll. We're not voting. I'm just wanting I'm I'm looking for head nods. Looks good to me. Okay. Uh what about the sixoot walkway requirement having that being impeded upon by the periodic columns? You're Does that leave the ADA by the impedment of the columns? Does it allow for the minimum what would be 4 foot is the ADA clearance? She said it did in her presentation. 34 in. So yeah. Okay. I think she said that it did. It would seem to me that the reason you have six foot in commercial in front of a bunch of buildings is because you got a bunch of people running in and out and walking down. Correct.

Well, that's it doesn't seem to be really applicable to this. Yeah. And we'll go maybe down the line there. But I I understand a lot of these standards are main street standards to slow people down. And if it this building were not recessed from the street frontage as it is and if it you know we're up against I I would be more inclined to say okay what do you got for glazing and what do you got for pedestrian awnings and things like that. So we don't and in fact that's why we're here as a conditional use is the ground floor level is residential instead of uh uh commercial and so the adjustments to standards seem to go hand inand with a conditional use to that exp.

Agreed. So, we're okay ad hoc uh uh we're okay with the six-foot walkway requirement adjustment and the pedestrian shelter adjustment again because the reasoning being they're more applicable to ground floor commercial than ground floor residential. So, now it brings us to the one that's we we've got to make a decision on and that's the masonry requirement. The Senate bill uh uh for lack of a better word, what would you call it? A exception or a waiver.

The official term is mandatory adjustment. Do we are we of a mind to require ask the applicant to we either withdraw their application and resubmit with that should take it off and I honestly think we should take it out knowing that they have a pretty much automatic adjustment at some point and let them Yeah, I feel that some they had a they introduced it to at least the columns there that that they said that they were willing as part of their so you want to keep the columns is that

they keep the columns they said yes we're willing to do it it's kind of a strange presentation where it's sort of saying yeah we're willing to do some uh yet hey heads up there's this thing here we didn't introduce it early on as we're supposed to as Chase correctly said. So you're right. I mean that's what they would have to do if we said no you meet that standard and they don't they come back and say gee we don't uh

uh we're not going to do that then then yeah I would like to see if they would entertain a continuence. So they come back and they show us actual numbers actual reduction of uh what what that what that impact of cost would be but I don't think it's that deep of a pocket cost uh for adding that. I think it's negligible. I mean, it's slight in the whole budget. It's dimminimous.

Yes. Correct. So, yeah, I I would be in favor of what the applicant proposed there. It seems like a good compromise given uh that I see some good articulation to the building, but there is a lack of another material element here that uh and we may disagree that no, brick only deserves to be on on uh the exterior of commercial. I don't know. But it it would some kind of masonry element would be uh at least a little bit better than what they have as a concrete. I don't know if that has any sort of texture or anything like that as a base, but that's what I'm just sort of thinking. They've offered it up.

Technically, concrete is almost masonry. So, and I don't know if we've talked about whether it's, you know, what is it, three feet high or not. It I'm not sure it looks like it's that tall on the building, but I'm I'm fine with it being whether they do it or not. Or even just masonry on the side that faces the parking lot because you put it on the other side and it, you know, shortens up that width and not sure that's necessary. But I'm I'm easy on this particular one. And certainly with the at least with the Jasper side, they're introducing some landscaping there. So I don't not sure how much of the building that you would see through the landscaping eventually once it matures. So

since it's short on that side anyway, I kind of would concur that you don't want to shorten it more. It wouldn't be too much, but it still would be shorter.

Okay. Now, we also heard uh testimony from residents and management at Dallas Retirement Village, and I believe that they were more my my opinion is that they're sort of, you know, good neighbor policies. Uh paying attention to pedestrian flow and traffic impacts and landscaping requirements. Uh I know that there was a public meeting that was entire that according to the applicant was exclusively attended by DRV residents. So, uh, the applicant has said that, you know, they'll submit landscaping plans to, uh, at the time of building permit. Uh, do we want to require or the do we want to require the applicant to maybe make a presentation or have another public meeting uh, with the DRV folks uh, at that time or are we comfortable moving forward as as proposed? And I'm just throwing this out there. I want to make sure that we hear the folks that testified and and that the all the the the the good neighbor policies that we try and that we try and encourage are are being met. All that said, Dallas needs residential rental yes units based on our meeting last month

where we had our annual meeting about how we are a rent burdened legally defined rent burdened community and we need to be cognizant of that when we make decisions. Technically, if they're all market rate, it matters not because they're not providing any affordable housing. I thought rent burden applied to market rate as well. It it means yes it helps in that you have more units but the rents are not lower. So it doesn't really meet the objective of hitting the rent burdened people.

Applicant have to uh prove what the landscaping is going to be beyond just the the code. We generally haven't required uh further coordination um with uh the adjoining property owners regarding landscaping um except to the extent that um uh certain uses do require uh privacy landscaping um and so the adjoining property owner has the option to opt out of that. Um, but we haven't really been requiring for commercial projects further consultations. Doesn't mean that you couldn't, I think, but I don't know that it's respectful to

I mean, it it meets kind of the minimum language that's in our code for landscaping um, with what was shown. if they want to provide a more detailed plan in discussion with the the neighbors certainly they're welcome to but I don't know that it's something we really want to require thought it out and heard you articulate that I think you're right

to those points I'd like to point out that I believe they have garages all along their south and westfacing property lines which means the retirement village so all they're going to see is the apartments of above about 8 or 10 feet other than when they can look down from their taller apartment. So, it's somewhat moot in my mind. I just wanted to make sure that we addressed everything. We've gone through everything that I jotted down. So, we're still deliberating. Is planning commissioners, we have anything else we'd like to say?

No, I I would concur with the comments. I I noticed that, too. there's a slight difference in elevation. The uh the retirement village is a little higher there in elevation. And so I would concur with uh uh my fellow commissioner there with respect to uh the impact. I think we can evaluate but because it is a conditional use, we can evaluate what the impact is and try to mitigate that. But it's kind of residential to residential. So that's what I'm kind of having trouble with is the only reason why we're seeing this is because the ground floor retail is is not there. And so we wouldn't have otherwise. I mean conceivably that's sort of the argument that an applicant could raise is to say it's residential. the same residential if they were to put commercial on the ground floor could be done without a conditional use and not have the criteria that speaks to impact and the mitigation of that. Uh I'm also looking at kind of the configuration and the size of the lot there. It's kind of small. I mean, I just I think that they needed to get around the building there. I'm just not I do see some intent to maybe put some sod and maybe some shrubs and things like that, but they'll need to get around the building for safety for the residents. I I would imagine I'm just kind of wondering how much we it's feasible for the applicant to get a a row of trees or something like that. Maybe some arboravida, but I'm still wondering what and and it would have to be very tall arborida at that

gonna grow three three stories of exactly quite honestly in this environment where commercial is a little dicey in Dallas. I think residential is much more desirable. So I think it meets the criteria of providing the need for housing overall and I think that's a good thing. So, this is the point where I ask if any commissioner would like to uh uh entertain uh making a a motion on this application.

Did we decide whether we were leaving two in or taking two out, which would determine whether or not we need a continuence or not? Well, I in deliberation I thought we determined we that the the outcome would be the same if we held them up or not. Uh so tell me if I'm wrong on that. Meaning leave it out or leave it out or leave it in. That's what I don't understand is whether we're leaving it in. Should we adjust it um to saying something about 3 ft of the column? Some of it's been done

pillars only. Is it possible to have the conditions of approval up on the screen again or is maybe we could reference on the the page where um so it is so I don't have the full packet. I only have they're on page nine. Page nine. Six of seven on the staff report. Six of seven on the staff.

It's number two. So, while we're dialing that up on the screen, the applicant has uh asked us to consider striking uh condition of approval number two, final construction plan will show show masonry from the bottom three foot of the building from the window sill to the ground 3 feet and they're proposing to just do it on the columns. So the

bottom three feet of the columns. Yes. Yeah. If we just add of the columns right after feet. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Of the columns instead of the building. that would meet the intent of what they want to supply and then they would not have to come back. Anyone opposed to that? Anyone? I was asking if any any other commissioner was opposed to that. No. Okay.

Would you like to make a motion, Carol? I'll make a motion to approve the conditional use permit with the conditions stated in the staff report with the addition in in condition two below 3 ft to say of the columns of the buildings so that it would meet the intent of the modification that was requested by the presenter.

Okay, that's a motion. The applicant also requested to delete five and six and we haven't I thought we talked about that we were okay getting rid of those cuz cuz we've still left in the six feet wide which totally obligate you know gets rid of all the columns. So is there a second to the motion before we go into Thank you. Okay. So

you could withdraw the the motion. I withdraw the motion and say I move to approve the conditional use permit with the conditions stated in the staff report except um removing condition five and six and adding to condition two but after 3 ft of the columns of the buildings and deleting the rest of that. Um I guess you would have to Yes. Sorry. And deleting from bottom of window sill to the ground.

I usually don't do that as vice president, but in this case, I want it done. So, is there any more discussion? We have a motion. We have a second. Uh, I'm not going to repeat it. I think we have a pretty good understanding of what we're trying to do here. So, is there any additional discussion before we vote? Seeing none, let's go ahead and have a roll call to approve the conditional use permit uh with the conditions modified as outlined in the motion by Commissioner Kash. Roll call, please. Commissioner White, I. Commissioner Newell. Commissioner Schulty. Yes. Commissioner Kawash, yes.

Commissioner Grow, yes. Commissioner Swanson. Yes.

Motion passes and carries unanimously. An order reflecting the planning commission's decision tonight will be mailed to the applicant and all participants of record, including to the folks that testified within 10 business days of now. So, thank you very much. Appreciate everyone's patience, including our next public hearing participants. Uh, I mean, I said I was in a conversation with with Commissioner Schulty just the other day that sometimes when we do this public work that requires transparency, the process is part of the product and and I think that we we we proved that out quite quite nicely here. So, now we're going to move on to our second public hearing of the evening and this one is a little bit different. Do we want to take a break since it's been late? Let's take Let's take a five minute recess. It's 7:43. We'll be back uh in 5 minutes.

We're going to go now to our second public hearing of the evening, which is legislative amendment 25- 0 6 or is that 08?

06 06. Uh, legislative amendment, amendment 256, indoor recreation code amendment, which is an update to the Dallas Development Code to define a new land use category of indoor recreation and specified permitted uses. This is a different public hearing than the one we had previously, and I'll explain uh what the difference is regarding regarding that. So, this is a public hearing regarding a legislative amendment, which is a code amendment, where we're going to be changing our development code to allow a new use in specific zones. So, this is an official public hearing before the Dallas Planning Commission, and I now declare this public hearing open at 7:50 p.m. As this application is subject to land use proceedings recognized by state law, I read the following statement. Failure to raise an issue with sufficient detail to afford the planning commission and the parties an adequate opportunity to respond to each issue precludes appeal to the state land use board of appeals based on that issue. Please direct all testimony to the record and the applicable criteria you believe applies to the decision. The applicable criteria approval criteria are found in the staff report. And at this time I will ask any member of the planning commission if they've got a conflict of interest, a site visit or an exparte contact on this issue. Seeing none, we move on. And I'll point out at this the the difference between the one previously and and this one is because this is a an amendment a proposed amendment to code language. In this case, the planning commission does not make a final decision. uh we make a recommendation to

the city council who then makes a final decision. So there will be another round of public hearings after this one. Chair I just a clarification for a legislative uh hearing like this I don't think what we have to declare any exparte conflicts and I think the attorney would probably uh say yes that that's it's absolutely fine for us to discuss things uh as this is not a quasi judicial application. Also, uh, location. We don't have a physical location in this particular case if I'm correct. So, we can't really report if we've been to the relevant site. Appreciate that. The script is laminated. So, this has taken over a Sharpie. So, thanks. And you are right. As I was saying, like this sounds absurd. Yeah. Uh so we'll conduct the hearing in a following manner. Uh we'll begin with the staff report followed by questions from the planning commissioners of the staff. Thereafter we'll hear from the applicant including members of the applicant team for a total of 15 minutes. This may be followed by questions from planning commissioners to the applicant. Thereafter we can hear from all other interested parties in presenting testimony on this item before the commission. Each person will be provided 5 minutes to testify. We'll then provide the applicant 5 minutes to rebut any testimony that was received. After we have heard all testimony, I will close the public hearing and ask the commission to deliberate and ask if there is a motion for recommendation in response to this proposal. So, we'll start at this time with the staff report. Chase?

Yes, thank you. So, um staff report. So unlike uh the quasi judicial uh applications like we've just uh had previously um there aren't really a lot in the way of criteria for legislative amendments um because they're the creation of policy and so uh yes there are however some parameters that do constrain the policym and so Um it uh legislative aims would need to be uh generally consistent with the Dallas comprehensive plan um as well as the Oregon statewide planning goals and uh uh also the transportation planning rule but since this doesn't affect transportation that doesn't really apply. Um so looking into that um the staff report does um go into how uh this uh is consistent with the statewide planning goals. Um not really a whole lot of uh uh meat on those bones since there's not a lot of impact from this proposed change. It's it's pretty minor in the grand scope of things. Um that said uh goal nine uh the economic development goal um it does have a section uh goal 9 uh section A4 which says that plans should strongly emphasize the expansion of and increased productivity from existing industries and firms as a means to strengthen local and regional economic development. um to the extent that this is brought to us um largely in

order to support uh the expansion of existing uh businesses. Um it could be construed that this proposal is in um compliance with with goal 9 economic development. Um the uh Dallas comprehensive plan um chapter two is our e uh economy section. So that's uh businesses and and whatnot. So um the uh policy 2.84 is to retain and encourage growth of existing businesses. Um much like the statewide planning goal had a provision for that. Um 2.87 is promote development of commercial services. Um and so this would be conceivable as a commercial service. Um and then uh policy 2.88 88 uh promote the development of expanded opportunities in the health and wellness sectors um including healthcare assistance. Um but health and wellness is a fairly broad category and so um gyms, fitness centers, those sorts of things um could be seen as being within that uh that realm. And so uh this uh proposed change would make it easier for those businesses to locate and expand. Um I think we can safely say that uh it's consistent with uh chapter two of the uh Dallas uh comprehensive plan. That said, there are other policies which could conflict with that. So policy 242, it says to maintain, strengthen, and promote the central business district as the principal pedestrian oriented commercial and cultural center of the community. Um and so to the extent that part of the intention of this change is to facilitate businesses moving out of the central business district

that may be contrary to uh that policy. Um the policy 243 uh also says to encourage location of pedestrianoriented commercial businesses in the central business district in order to bring people downtown and create a vibrant downtown environment. Um so similar similar constraints. So um to this is a policy matter um it's really kind of up to the policy makers to uh balance these sort of competing priorities um and figure out kind of what is going to be in the the the public interest. Um so planning commission uh makes recommendation to city council kind of on that matter. Um but uh but yeah, so as far as the uh uh the staff report, that's that's kind of what I've got. You've got some some language there that uh could uh support this change. You've also got some language that um could be used to oppose this change if that is the the route that we go. Um, so kind of a wishy-washy kind of policy question. Um, and then of course you have in front of you the proposed uh code language. Uh, the text in green is the the new language. Um, it creates a new section in article one. Uh, so article 1, section 3.205 205 would be a new category for commercial indoor recreation. Um this is in some ways a counterpart to the existing category of commercial outdoor recreation. Um but it defines kind of what the characteristics of that would be. Um gives example of uh accessory uses and examples of of what this specifically would be and then calls out a couple of

exceptions where things um are elsewhere defined as being different uses. Um it also amends the retail sales and service category to remove uh martial arts uh centers uh dance halls or dance uh classes uh health clubs, gyms, game arcades from the definition of retail sales and service. Um as those would be incorporated in this new category of commercial indoor recreation. Um and then the final section are the three tables we have for land use uh types by zone. Um so the residential districts uh it would be allowed as a conditional use with the special uh provision that activities activities generating noise outside audable outside the property would be prohibited. So if you're doing uh you know deadlift weights or something um can't do that in the residential areas. Um it would obviously be a permitted use in the commercial districts um as it's already you know essentially a permitted use. So no real change with that just uh tax cleanup and then um would be a permitted use in the industrial district. So that's kind of the the core of the the change. Like I said, not a lot of meat on the those bones, but um yeah.

Okay. Thank you. Uh, well, this is an opportunity for planning commissioners to have questions of staff. And normally I ask everybody else first, but I got a question right off the top, Chase. Uh, who's the applicant here? Is it the city of Dallas that's technically the applicant? I see that there was a request by the Chamber of Commerce, and I know that there is specific business that is sort of driving this. So, who's who's our applicant this evening? So, uh, the applicant in this case, uh, would, yes, be the city of Dallas. Um, it was it was brought to, uh, the attention of the city and so the, uh, higherup management decided to initiate a process, uh, bringing us to this point. Yes.

Follow up to that question, please. Was there any alternative consideration other than the text amendment, uh, like a zoning map amendment? Was that considered in response to that request?

Um, so we didn't necessarily consider that explicitly. Um, given the facts on the ground as I know them, a zoning amendment wouldn't really have been, I think, well received. It it could have been possible, but I don't think it would have been as straightforward um or as well received by by the council. um since the council has been um in opposition to reszoning the industrial areas in the past. Um so um yeah your question it is oh I'll have more on deliberation but that answers my question. Thank you.

Okay thanks commissioners. Any other questions from staff on the report?

I'd just like to say it's very well written and I'm impressed. Thank you. Uh so interestingly uh I can assume that uh the applicant the staff report will suffice as the applicant presentation. So we can move on to do we have any other questions of staff or the applicant. I think we've covered that. Um, so we'll now hear from those of in attendance this evening that would like to address the planning commission on this item. And I think those are the folks that have patiently sat through an apartment building consideration. Uh, I hope you learned local uh local land use law this evening. So, uh, we did get some written testimony as well, and you folks may very well be the folks that submitted the written testimony. You may be here, and that's fine. Come on up and and speak your piece. But uh uh we'll allow any uh anyone that wants to make testimony 5 minutes to testify. So who would like to testify on this text amendment which the planning commission will consider a recommendation to the city council. So please state your name and your address and let's hear it.

Um my name is McCall Connors and I live at 116 Southwest Oregon Trail Drive. Um, I wrote something, but I'm just going to kind of speak from my heart a little bit. Um, we brought this to the attention because I own Strive Athletics, which is a recreational gymnastics and cheerleading gym. And, um, we have grown a lot. We serve a lot of kids and families in our community, and we love it, and we love the children. And, um, just in this past year, last year, just our cheer program alone had 15 girls total. This year we have 54. So, it's been awesome to see and we have a lot of ideas and things to do in the community and um yeah, we want to grow and provide more. Uh we just have a lot of problems finding something that's suitable for what we do. We need a warehouse pretty much large space with high ceilings that's safe and obviously not just you know some random warehouse but a a nice well-kept safe space for our kids to train adequately and um yeah and so this would help us but also a lot of other businesses um I know struggle to find areas that fit that. Um, and so I think that this would help us but also as a whole Dallas to grow because we are growing as a community and um, yeah, just open up more doors and opportunity for that to to be the case. So yeah,

thank you. Thank you. Anyone else like to offer testimony? Go right ahead. Thank you.

Hi. Uh, Devin Jones, 1605 Southeast Barberry. Um, we also own Harvest CrossFit. Is it 745 Main Street? I don't know our address. All right. So, uh, 745 Ma, uh, Main Street in Dallas. Um, it used to be a furniture store. Before that, it was a an IG grocery store. Um, and, uh, when we first came to Dallas 10 years ago, 11 years ago, 2014, we opened in uh, 2500 ft² and, uh, and we quickly outgrew that. Um, a CrossFit gym, by the way, sorry. Um, and uh, and then we moved into 5,000 ft². That was awesome. We thought we would never need more space. We outgrew that. Um we now are in uh uh a space that's 11,000 square ft. Um we train um about uh over the in two businesses and multiple uh programs probably about uh 210 people. Uh and so we're out growing that space as well. Um and uh uh uh I know they're not related, but when we talk about building new buildings, uh new housing and things like that, we're only projecting growth. Um the space that we need is also uh a wide open space. Um and uh and also we're very loud. Uh you mentioned like deadlifting and and making lots of noise. Um that's the type of space that we need. So, uh, it's a bit like, um, uh, uh, you have a bar, uh, but you can't serve beer. Um, and there's only three tables. You can't can't do a lot of business that way, right? Um, and so, uh, we just, uh, we we, uh, and I, I really, as a community member, also, I respect, uh, zoning and I think it's important. It's like I'm I'm not the type that's like just let us do whatever we want, right? I think there should be industrial areas and commercial areas and residential areas. So I think as written uh the proposal is like pretty clever like allowing just another use in these industrial places um would be really helpful and so

without that that still protects the zoning um it doesn't doesn't just allow people to run rough shot on on business in town. Um, and then uh uh I like the way I really like the way you brought up uh uh the proposal how it uh meets the needs of uh the um uh uh what's the um the plan, right? The uh and the comprehensive plan, right? But then there's there's two that it may or may not um meet the need of. Um and I would address those. The first one is that uh um uh yes um it would allow us to move out of the business core, but that would also create space for other young entrepreneurs to to move themselves into our building. So um that could be debatable whether or not it uh meets the uh the the comprehensive plan. And then I I I don't recall what was the second one if you don't mind. I don't mean to um

oriented commercial business in the central business district to bring people into the downtown.

That's right. Um and uh uh just uh and I'm not saying that um um we do or don't do that, but a lot of people for our business at least they they uh they come to the gym before work, right? And then they go to work, right? Or they come to the gym after work and then they go home. So, a lot of our foot traffic isn't actually contributing to business downtown as you might think it would. Um, so, uh, that might be a wash as well. So, um, but yeah, we just need space and we want to grow. We love Dallas. We're kind of entrenched. We can't go anywhere. So, uh, if you don't change anything, I just have to be in a building and I got to put out buckets because the because it's raining inside sometimes. Yeah. So, um, uh, yeah. Anyway, thank you.

Okay. Thank you very much. Anyone else like to speak to this issue? Name and address.

426 Northwest Crater Lake Drive. Um I co-own the cheerleading program at Strive Athletics as well. And uh we've had the opportunity to actually move out of Dallas to go to uh Mammoth Independence because they have that space for us and those those zoning uh situations and we have specifically chosen to stay in Dallas when we live here. We want to contribute to our community and we see a lot of kids and it sounds cliche but right we always say that children are our futures and so for us at Strive it's a huge big deal for us to not only create awesome athletes but to also create uh awesome human beings and so we feel that we're really pouring into the community and we want to be able to continue to have more and more kids. Not only are we having gymnastics classes, tumbling classes, cheerleading where kids are coming to a class, we also have um like camps throughout the summer and we try to get into the community and have the community come in because it's such a big important part for us. So, just please know that we could have had the opportunity to leave and we don't want to. We want to be a part of Dallas because we love it here and we love our community. So, that's all.

Thank you. Anyone else care to go on the record in support or opposition or with questions to this proposal? Come reflections. I'm Mike Leupold and I live at 540 Lock Rial Drive and me and my wife own uh property in town here uh that we have room for auditor, you know, we have a lot of room like we have one the big one is like 44 by 60 for these kids to go crazy in

Where's your place at, Mike? Which which property are you? Uh uh Foothill Industrial Square. It's across from the U-Haul. Oh, I know where you mean. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Anyway, I got all this room, but every time a unit comes open, we get a lot of applications, but they're not industrial. And most everything out there really isn't industrial. It's all uh auto repair and all kinds of stuff. And there's a few, you know, that have products, but if you don't have a product, it's not really industrial, you know. It's But you're saying not a lot of manufacturing.

Not a lot of manufacturing.

No manufacturing. Well, there's the uh the sheet metal place right down the street. And when uh they're they're growing like crazy, but you know these people they have a really good business and they don't have no place to expand except Monmouth, you know, or independence. And these kids go to these classes. Well, their parents can't drive them way way over there every day and take time off their work and all that. So, it just makes more sense to change the zoning a little bit and allow these people to expand and stay stay here cuz look at all the houses that we just built all them kids. There's it's crazy. So anyway, we got room for it and when we have room opened up, we get a lot of applications, but they're not none of them are industrial. No. And that's about it. I mean

I mean uh really you know got you know you have a little company and uh you want to grow then if you got to go to a different town you got to start kind of start all over you know and so anyway I just don't like we've been here for 35 years in Dallas and I watch all the time to see what's going on and we need that we need to change a few things to get it to get it rolling, you know. So, that's it. That's all I got. Okay. Well, thank you very much. I appreciate it. Anyone else?

Hi, my name is McLaren Jones. We live at 1605 Southeast Barberry Avenue and have Harvest CrossFit at 745 Main Street. And uh similar to uh what Devin said, we are just projected to continue growing and part of our um plan would be that we would eventually be able to continue to partner with other businesses within the same business structure. So potentially that could be doctors of different sorts. Um that's the first thing that comes to my mind. So I would ask that perhaps we ask the city council if they would consider providing multiuse zoning uh so that things like that in the future could potentially coexist. um because it is to the best of my knowledge right now that that doesn't exist and I just want to make sure that we can expand toward the dreams that we have. Um so although that has brought resistance in the past, I would like to pursue that so that we don't get further down the road and then run into that roadblock. Thank you. you. Anyone else? Seeing none and still we don't have anybody waiting on on the phone. If they were, they probably would be gone by now.

No callers in the queue. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. So, uh applicant staff, is there any comments you'd like to make uh based on the testimony that we heard?

Not for me. Chase, if you have anything. Okay. So, are there any final comments from staff or city attorney before I close the public hearing? Seeing none. Okay. I now declare this public hearing closed at 8:16 p.m. Uh so, it's time for the planning commission to deliberate upon this topic. And again, remember we're making a recommendation to city council where they will go through another public hearing process to adopt these these text amendment. This text amendment thoughts

just make a suggestion for when this goes to city council. It's unclear to me the difference between crossfit and strive and I don't know if that even matters but it's it's just not clear and it it should be as we go forward. Okay. Good suggestion. Um, on exhibit B on the first page, um, we appreciate the planning commission, but it doesn't say who that came from. If we're taking it to city council, we should put whoever that came from, so we know which owner it's the second to the last page. Yeah.

Can we do that so they know? I mean, it seems clear it's one in this group, but I don't know which one.

Any other deliberations? Go ahead, Scott. Okay. Well, I'm going to raise some concerns and hopefully those who are interested not going to take this in the wrong manner. Um, as this is not a quasi judicial hearing, we've got kind of our legislative hats on and we're only making a recommendation to the planning commission is actually the city council let you go to, but the city council will ask, well, what what did the planning commission say in review of this? And so that should be part of the record. And so we may be making some recommendations to planning commission, maybe some tweaks that I'm going to suggest. Um, city council, you mean

the city council? Yeah, I'm sorry. Did they? Yeah, slips out of there, but council and so um a couple of things here. We seem to be focused on one particular property. It looks like sort of reading into it as one area that's sort of of interest and we have to kind of remind ourselves that there are other properties zoned industrial through the city and that this use could be introduced in those industrial areas. There are some very large industrial properties, some over 50 acres in site which um have economic development potential uh possibly for manufactured uh type of of uses that I know the city has been actively pursuing. And so it sort of concerns me when we look at uh this holistically for all industrial zones that we're introducing something uh that may that's of interest in one particular area of the city and that we have, you know, the whole city zoned industrial to consider. Um, so that's kind of my my first thought and that's the reason why I sort of asked, hey, was there, you know, interest in reszoning the the property? Um because if that were the case, we might be looking at well is is uh the property of interest uh suitable maybe for some kind of change in um to retail that would permit it outright. my understanding that we have a lot of indust at least last time we did the EOA there was a surplus in industrial and there was a deficit in retail and we just have from in action of tonight earlier's item we just uh lost some retail space there to to residential so um I'm just kind of wondering you know first the the reszone potential but um that being said um I'm concerned about you know the use in

general too as uh the mix of small children running around with industrial equipment and things like that. Um sometimes that is not the most conducive mix of of uses there. Uh I know of certain cities that have allowed this particular use uh and uh have regretted it when a large use comes uh in like a use that has various spectator seating to it. That may not be the proposal by what's been the testimony that's been received, but um I didn't see anything in the writeup that precluded uh spectator seating. Um, we have some uses in town. The aquatic center, for example, when you have a a swim meet, uh, it's a lot of parking that the the parking is an overflow. It's, uh, well within into the joining residential areas, uh, when there's a a swim meet. And so when you have any sort of gathering of of people, there's lots of parents and all of a sudden there's there's parking issues and things like that. So, I'm not saying that no, this should be a zoning map amendment. No, no, no. I'm just kind of saying uh here I'm I'm leaning more and I'm not sure if the commission feels this way. Uh what s staff is suggesting sort of introducing a new use and definitions and we could either go at and look at that definition in exhibit A or we could make this a conditional use. you know, proposed that their staff has said uh in an industrial district instead of a P, it's a it's a CU and that would allow the applicant to still kind of pursue an area but would have to go through the conditional use process, what they w witness today and questions of parking adequacy and maybe

the impact of something would be subject to a public hearing and we could examine it then on a case-byase basis. So that's kind of my my thought here instead of the suggested uh P that it would be a CU. Um and I'm I'm you know I'm kind of thinking also you know of the dangers of uh to kids and big trucks and things like that. So I I I see see reason for that. Um also I'm guess kind of question why they even introduced into the residential areas. I I haven't heard in the testimony that's received. is all industrial areas. So, I'm not even sure why it's needed to be introduced into residential areas. So, that that's really it. I can see the the policies here. We could we could talk about health and safety of the community and things like that as well uh in support of that direction. But that that's kind of my thoughts. Thank.

So, I just want I just want to remind everybody we're we're talking about changing a use in an industrial zone, not specific to the the businesses. I mean, not that your testimony, it's anecdotal to what we're discussing. And I like Scott's idea to make these a conditional use cuz that way we could uh we could discuss footprint, how size uh adjacent uses uh and I have seen this in other communities and I've seen you know uh fitness and gyms and and and things in industrial areas. That's all well and good, but you know, mixing heavy industry with recreation is tough and it also does create parking problems. So, I'm agreeing with what Scott says and I I like the idea of applying conditional use to all zones for this proposal going forward. That's that's that's what I'm seeing. And I kind of spoke out of turn. I usually go last, but I I wanted to say that was a great idea. I is it's I don't think anybody's going to propose a you know 100,000 square foot uh you know recreational facility or or in indoor stadium or ballpark but I think that we would like to have the ability to do some analysis on that on a case-byase basis where we could examine a cheer academy or a CrossFit gym as opposed to you know an indoor soccer arena or a tennis club or something that's really going to take up a big chunk of our industrial lands. And I'll also say that I have anecdotally had more than one conversation with city councilors who have uh

reiterated to me that they want to see no net loss of industrial lands and opportunities for job creation. So, uh, I think that if we I I think that we should consider Scott's proposal. I'll just stop there. Anyone else have any thoughts on that as we deliberate? So, did we add it to the residential district table just to cover our bases so that it could be in any of those locations? It's a good question. So, um, anything that's added to the table in one zone needs to be listed in the other zone so that it's clear if it's allowed, conditional use, or prohibited. Okay.

Um, thank you. And so, yes, that's why it's shown for all three zones.

The word prohibited, but we've got a P and I'm googling that's permitted. So, P is permitted. N is not allowed. Uh, sorry. Yes. Help me just understand if so this is a legislative amendment here. If it went this other route is still would be.

Yeah. We would be proposing that indoor recreation be a permitted use uh permitted use by condition. Uh if if we go that route, we haven't decided yet, but this is introducing a new category of use into our zoning districts. That have to go to the city council. Yes, it will go to the city council for a final decision. So, if we make a decision, hypothetically, if we make a decision to say this is a this is a a good idea, but we want to apply conditional use standards to all zones, uh that's what we would recommend to the city council and that they would consider. And if we do that, Mhm.

And if we change it to conditional use for industrial areas and city council approves it, then these people are going to have to do a conditional use application, go through the whole thing and get it approved by us. Is that correct? That's correct. Okay. But before that, would they need another hearing like this? Well, it be a hearing like the one we had before. It would be it would be us considering a specific use, a cheer academy or a crossfit gym or a martial arts studio as opposed to just uh looking at these types of businesses that these folks presented as examples of indoor recreation uses.

I I agree. I think it's a great idea and uh should pursue that. That's my opinion.

I think it's a fair compromise. I I'm I'm I'm an advocate for for making clearing making a clear path for businesses to grow and develop. And I think that with the concerns that Scott brought up, I think that applying conditional use standards to indoor recreation in all zoning districts would be a a good uh safety mechanism for us to be able to examine uses and not just permit them outright in an industrial zone. because then we would be in the position like we would be with the apartments that if they put a commercial on the ground floor that we wouldn't even have an opportunity to consider any of the proposal. It would just be an outright permitted use. I I like the idea of having the safety valve of a conditional use permit. that's going to make f folks like you have to jump through an extra hoop, but it allows us to sort of uh have a little bit of control over what types of businesses go into our industrial areas, which are valuable lands because that's where businesses like yours, but also businesses that that uh create jobs in, you know, manufacturing and employment.

It may make the council happier. Certainly would I be correct in saying for these folks that the process would be different but their ability to do what they actually want to do it it it's encumbered a little bit but would have the same chance for sure being there at the end.

Again like we said before a conditional use is a permitted use but we have the opportunity to apply conditions to it. hear the proposal and apply conditions. So, it's a lot different than an apartment building, but the but the the uh the concept is the same. It gives us a safety valve to take a look at a proposed use rather than just creating an outright permitted use. And it sounds like one of our concerns is as opposed to having them go through a zone change and changing the industrial to commercial, we don't we're really concerned about losing industrial land, which is why this was the route we looked at,

right? Because they I mean because they could, you know, apply to change the zoning for their buildings, then that would accomplish the same thing. But this gives them a similar option without having to do a zone change. Yeah. And it also industrial would create the opportunity when the cheer academy graduates to their next spot when they grow again. Uh the space will still be zoned industrial for for another user. And I think that is a good compromise with you know our goal of of not losing or or you know not not losing industrial lands. So,

it also is an important point that by making the change to conditional use, it's much more likely that city council will be favorable to these changes. If we left it the way it was, they might be worried about the loss of industrial land. Same things that we're worried about. Right. Right. Right. And and also, you know, we're free to make our own decisions and city council agree. Well, it's happened before. Yes. So, can't happen. So, what I'm hearing then is based on our our discussion here in deliberation is that uh uh I think we're amendable to Scott's recommendation to make indoor recreation a conditional use.

But yeah, the suggestion to the planning commission would be yeah, instead of the P, a CU for industrial. I'll I'll just uh we didn't talk too much about the residential here, but we'll be introducing the same use to and yeah, I like Chase's explanation is hey, we have to introduce it to other zones too and clarify whether or not it's a it's an NP or a CU. And I'm just kind of wondering, you know, we have the housing crisis that we hear about all the time. And I'm just sort of wondering and and I don't know if I last time I was the RM is that we still uh deficient in RM zone property and how we

uh so I don't have the exact numbers in front of me, but I would say we've reszoneed probably 16 of the 22 acres we were deficient. So, you know, it's a 20-year deficiency and we're six years. I'm just sort of thinking why we need to is this not the interest of the I don't know how many abandoned uh warehouses that are out there that are in the in the residential zones themselves. So I'm sort of just at leaning especially if we have I don't know if haven't haven't kept up with the numbers myself too but if we are deficient in certain uh like RM I'd be leaning at an N instead of a CU. So, I think part of the logic uh behind that proposal was that um many of the you know developments that we've been seeing um you know the the apartments that are going in off of James How for example um they're going to have a fairly sizable community room. They're going to have a fairly sizable gym in their community building um in addition to their pool outside. So, um, you know, what's the difference between a gym that's only open to the members of an HOA or of an apartment complex versus a gym in the same neighborhood that's open to the general public. Um, functionally, there's not really a lot of difference. You're still serving, you know, the same immediate community. So, I think that was kind of the logic of, you know, you'd have sort of these these smaller operations in residential areas. If you're looking for a big warehouse, you're probably looking in the industrial area, but having, you know, small things that you can walk to um nearby to where you live was kind of the thinking on that. Now, obviously, planning commission can uh think otherwise. That's that's totally legitimate. But that was kind of the thinking in in uh adding that as a

conditional use for the residential zones.

Well, in residential neighbor, but it's because kids can walk to it. We asked to drive the other I haven't heard. We're talking about the permitted use outright in commercial zones. Is that are we not worried about that? Are we talking about changing conditional use to all of them?

It seems like it is. I'm I'm kind of confused because we haven't operating them now here in the city and so uh it's just maybe a use that hasn't been fully uh described by the code and here we're kind of doing that and sort of recognizing where it already exists and just solidifying that. Um, so that's I'm comfortable knowing that. Uh, yeah, it's um already occurring. Um, and it's a use that I see. I I like it in the uh commercial zones. Uh, a permitted use. I think it it's that's what's proposed and u but you know that's exactly what it's a good mix with service commercial and things like that. seems to be working in the downtown. Wish it could continue to to to do that, but I understand the spacing needs too sometimes. So anyway,

the permitted use to conditional use in the industrial industrial zones. Um I could go either way. I know come down to the vote as far as a CU in uh the residential areas especially if there isn't any possibility of this being of great demand to which we would see a depletion of our vacant zone and plan residential zone for future needs for future housing needs. Would anyone like to uh float a motion?

I will move to recommend this to city council with the change of the permitted use under table 2.4.020 uh industrial lens to conditional use for this particular commercial indoor recreation. And that would be the only change. Correct. Okay, that's a motion. Second.

Okay, we got a motion and a second to change the proposal from an outright permitted use in industrial zones to a conditional use. Any more discussion before we have a vote? And I and just for so when we're going to we're going to go ahead and vote and a yes is going to be to approve the the conditions or to approve the motion as presented to change it from permitted use to conditional use for industrial zones. So let's have a roll call vote. Commissioner White. Yes.

Commissioner Newell. Commissioner Schulty. Commissioner Kash. Commissioner Gro, yes. Commissioner Swanson,

yes. So, the uh motion passes uh unanimously. The commission's recommendation tonight will be forwarded to the city council for their consideration at an upcoming meeting. Notice of the public hearing before the city council will be sent to the participants of record. I encourage you folks to attend that city council meeting and present your testimony. Uh while this does what we're proposing does add an extra hoop, it gives us a an opportunity to examine not just a blanket permission in industrial zones, but it gives us a lot a chance to look at them case by case. So, I think we made a good decision here tonight and thank you for your patience and I think that's about it for this for that public hearing. So, we're going to go on and and finish up our meeting. You folks, thank you. Thanks. Thanks for coming in. You can go ahead and and trickle out. Uh we're going to go on now to agenda item number six, other business, which we list for discussion only. And the item there is our continuing discussion that we started a few meetings ago for the committee for citizen involvement initiative, which has been spearheaded by John Schulty. And this is to ensure that the city of Dallas is adhering to all of our responsibilities regarding state planning goal one for public participation. Uh if you read the minutes from our last meeting, it said that we were going to uh take the concerns and and the issue to the city manager for discussion and interpretation of some of the findings that John has made. uh Thanksgiving happened and then Christmas happened and we didn't get around to reaching out to Brian until just this week and we are he we are scheduled to or planning to have

a meeting with Brian to develop a strategy to move forward make sure that we are taking care of all of our responsibilities regarding goal one and the necessity and requirement for a CCI committee and uh but we will report back to you after we've had that meeting so that we really don't have any discuss discussion on that point this evening. So, we now move on to commissioner comments. Commissioners, is there anything you'd like to bring up for the good of the order here at our first meeting in 2006?

Happy New Year. Thank you. I was wondering if we wanted to somehow put a docket together for things that people like the young lady tonight made a comment about another code issue that she might want addressed. And I wondered if we wanted to have a docket for maybe addressing things that come up like that. Uh whether or not we want to pursue them, not pursue them. Well, as I recall, we uh were discussing mixeduse zoning at our last meeting and that hearing was carried over. Okay. So, I I I So, we kind of already have addressed it.

We're kind of getting and I think that her idea was was she was speaking about opportunities in the future to have like recreational and fitness facilities in the same complex as massage therapists and acupuncturists and sports medicine and things like that. But that's a much bigger proposal than we were discussing tonight. So what the locker all knows exactly. Yeah. Exactly. Well, and and many of those uses would be classified as office, which is already allowed in the uh industrial zone. So So it may be moot. Yeah. Okay.

That's a good idea though. I mean, when we hear good ideas, there's nothing wrong with saying, "Hey, that's a good idea. Let's let let let's put a pin in that and discuss that at a future time." I'm not trying to give you five million things to do when you already have 5 million. I'm just trying Yeah. I'm just trying to say, well, if we have something that actually we should pursue in some way, we keep track of it. Well, and we have uh you know, period periodically we do get people bringing um uh issues to us and so we'll discuss them internally at the staff level before bringing them to you if if it seems like there's something wrong. So it may already be filtered out by the time it gets to us.

I mean, we try to filter out the bad ideas.

Yeah, I get that. Oh, I get that and I appreciate that. Uh for for example, earlier today we were discussing uh uh some feedback from a local home builder regarding uh housing affordability. Um and it's like well I mean he's not wrong but also he's not really maybe right. So let's give this some thought before we start making a mountain out of this molehill. I I I've often said as a facilitator, it's like there there let's all talk. There's no such thing as a bad idea unless it's a really bad idea and we can all have a good laugh. You know, that's so everything's on the table. So, I I I appreciate that. And I really like the idea of a wellness campus that in that that captures all different areas uh in including office space and gym and fitness space and things like I mean that that to me that's a fascinating idea and I think it's kind of a kind of a cool concept. though.

Yeah, the uh the massage, the uh um acupuncture, those would most likely fall under the uh overall umbrella of like medical office, same like your dentist office and whatnot. So, yeah, right next door to a conditional use permitted uh fitness facility. So, get hurt, you can go right next door and get treatment. So,

okay. Uh staff comments, anything? Yeah. So, um you may have noticed we are not having a continuation of our public hearing on mixed use uh zone classifications. Um we had continued that to this meeting. Um and then the holidays happened. Um and the more I dug into this, the uh the thornier some of the issues got. And so there just wasn't the time and and staff bandwidth to get this done uh by January like I had thought we would be able to. So, um, we'll get that to you as soon as it's ready for for prime time. I recall trying to give you the out. I know you try you to go to February and fast.

And I, in retrospect, I should have taken that, but hindsight's always 2020. Sure it is. So, uh, sorry, sorry about that, but we will have that, uh, for you as soon as it's ready. Me to apologize. We know you're very busy.

No harm, no foul. Uh I guess in a way I'm apologizing to city council because the whole project is kind of a priority for them. So um but the wheels of government turn slowly sometimes. Um other staff comments. Um so I have uh done a name change. So um I am now Jess uh Jess Blue. So uh there will be an email account associated with that uh that went live today. um emails to my old email address will still go through. Um but I have the new uh jess uh.blue dallas.gov. Um although if you're emailing I always encourage folks to email planning.gov. Um that way it goes

business cards so we can actually new business cards are on the way. Okay. Um so yes and then um she they pronouns for those who are paying attention. Um, congratulations. Thank you. Um, were there other staff comments, Ben, that we had? I think that covers it. Okay. Thank you. Um, well, I'm going to back up one step because, you know, we want to hang around a little bit longer. I I I just have to make an announcement and I forgot s I am not going to be present at uh next month's meeting. So, Andy will be presiding. When is next month's meeting? February the 12th. That will be the second Thursday of the month. I believe I will be there.

Well, I I've got plans. I will not be I will not be in state or in country on February the 12th. So, what's that? Got two. It's one. So, I thought that was okay. No, also I'd like to say Oh, yeah. Okay. Or is Okay, gotcha. Just go ahead. I'm sorry. No, no. I was upset. I was just going to say thanks for the vote of confidence. He was looking at his calendar saying I expect to be here. Okay. Gotcha. And and I and I'm sure Andy does too. I appreciate your vote of confidence by leaving us on as the officers for another year. So, all right. With that, we are adjourned. Thank you very much.

Everyone wave hello to Charlie Mitchell who's watching us from home. Hi, Charlie. But he didn't say anything. But usually he sits in the back and he doesn't say anything.