Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening. Welcome to the planning commission meeting for the city of Dallas. My name is Andy Gro. I'm the vice chair and because the chair is off gallivanting somewhere, I get to be the chair this evening. So, welcome to the meeting. We will begin. Uh would you call the role, please, Ben? Commissioner Newell, Commissioner Spaford here. Commissioner Schulty here. Commissioner Banford is running a few minutes late. Commissioner Kash Commissioner Grow here. Commissioner Swanson, let staff know he wouldn't be present. Uh quarum is ready.

Thank you. All right, we will move on to the approval of the minutes. Uh if everybody's had a chance to take a look. Um, there wasn't a whole lot going on then, but if anyone has any comments or needs to add anything to the minutes, I would entertain comments. Hearing none, I will entertain a motion to approve the minutes as written. So moved. I'll second.

Thank you. Moved and seconded. All in favor say I. I. Opposed. Apparently not. All right. Thank you very much. We will move on to our first public hearing. And I apologize I'm reading all of these required scripts. So I'm going to do my best. All right. This public hearing is regarding the annexation ANX25-02 zone change. Um annex 1 acre at 415 Hawthorne Avenue and reszone highdensity residential. This is an official public hearing before the Dallas Planning Commission. I now declare this public hearing open at 60:05. As the application is subject to land use proceedings recognized by state law, I will read the following statement. The failure to raise an issue with sufficient detail to afford the 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. Applicable approval criteria are found in the staff report. At this time, I will ask if any member of the planning commission has a conflict of interest, site visit or exparte contact to declare anyone. Seeing none, we will move on. This hearing will be conducted in the following manner. We will begin with a staff report followed by questions of staff. Thereafter, we will hear from the applicant including members of the applicant team for a total of 15 minutes. This may be followed by questions from the commission. Thereafter, we will hear from all others interested in presenting testimony on this item before the commission. Each

person will be provided five minutes to testify. And when you do that, if you'll please come up to the desk and state your name and address for the record. We will then provide the applicant with five minutes for rebuttal. After we have heard all testimony, I will close the hearing and ask the commission to deliberate and then ask if there is a motion for recommendation in response to this proposal. At this time, we'll start with staff report. May we have the staff report, please?

Yes. Uh Chase Belaloo, city planner. Um so uh this uh proposal is a request for annexation of one acre and a zone change uh from the current PK county zoning uh to the city zoning of residential high density. Um the location there is 14415 Southeast Hawthorne Avenue. Um which you can see kind of on the map there. Uh zooming in, we can see that it is a uh 1acre uh rectangular lot um there on Hawthorne Avenue, which is uh you know uh surrounded on on kind of both sides by by city development. Um and and zooming in further, we can see that there is an existing uh single family dwelling on that property. Um, also visible is a vacant lot immediately to the north um that the city owns and has targeted for future extension of Southeast Hankle Avenue through to Hawthorne. Um, so there will be uh an intersection of two uh collector streets there at uh uh Hankle and Hawthorne at some point uh in the future. uh zoning map uh currently shows uh it is being outside of city limits. Uh so we don't provide a color for that. That's just outside our jurisdiction. Uh with the annexation uh it would come inside the city limits. Um and the highdensity residential zoning that is requested um would uh match the adjacent uh highdensity residential zoning for the uh Greenway mobile home park that is adjacent. Uh the uh approval criteria for annexations uh there's six of them. Uh site has to be within the urban growth boundary. Uh the proposed zoning has to be consistent with the comprehensive plan for the city

of Dallas. Uh site has to be contiguous as city limits. Uh public facilities have to have adequ ad adequate capacity to support development of the property. um annexation uh needs to be consistent with the annexation policies in the comprehensive plan and in master plan nodes the request has to include a master plan. That last one uh won't necessarily apply in this circumstance. Um the property although it's in the newly expanded uh L creole mode um the application was received uh prior to the adoption formally of that master plan. So um as of the time of the application it was not in the master plan node. So that last uh approval criteria doesn't technically apply under the goalpost rule uh which requires that we evaluate the proposal under the rules in effect at the time the application was received. Um so yes the site is within the urban growth boundary that's that's quite uh definitive. Uh it is contiguous to city limits. Uh public facilities uh that is uh water uh sewer, storm drainage, streets um have or with development will have uh adequate capacity to support development. Um there's already water manes in uh Hawthorne Avenue and in Hankle Street. Um with uh the city's current Hawthorne Avenue uh sewer project um there will be sewer that will be available within the next uh two years which is sort of the standard horizon for for availability of utilities. So um the uh public facility is appear to have adequate capacity to support development of a 1acre parcel. Um the zoning is consistent with the comprehensive plan uh map. We only have

one zoning designation on the comp plan map for residential. So any of our three residential zones uh would be consistent with the map the map designation. Um so really it comes down to the comprehensive policies um which would call for higher densities at the locations where um uh arterials and collector streets have intersections. So, um, this does seem to be somewhat consistent with those policies, um, as well as being consistent with the adjacent zoning. So, um, moving on, the zone change, uh, has five criteria. Um, that has to be consistent with the statewide planning goals, has to be consistent with the Dallas comprehensive plan. Um, again, those public facilities have to support development of, uh, the site under the proposed zoning. uh the change has to be in the public interest and the request has to conform to the transportation planning rule. Um staff report again goes into greater written detail as to how those are met. Um of note is the transportation planning rule. Uh specifically it's looking at uh proposals uh where the resulting traffic would degrade the performance um of an existing or planned transportation facility. Um and so to the extent that uh the development that would occur from development, the traffic that would occur from development of the property uh would not exceed the thresholds expected to degrade the operation of the of the streets below the acceptable performance standards. Uh it does not violate the transportation planning rule. And so uh with those uh those notes uh staff are recommending that the planning commission uh make a recommendation to the city council uh in

support of the annexation and zone change. That's what I get. Happy to take questions. And do any of the commissioners have any questions? Go ahead.

Just a a teachable moment for me for this may have to do with the criteria of public interest. I'm not sure. Uh, I asked Gemini, Google's AI tool, to help me understand when an applicant, any applicant applies for a zoning change, does that applicant have to state why they want that change? In other words, what the rationale is because I don't see that in these and I I don't know if that's required or not. And in addition to satisfying the technical criteria that the rationale has to be expressed and that somehow that's in the best interest of the city and I kind of missed that here. Is that not right or

so uh the public interest is an interesting uh criteria. It is somewhat squishy in that uh the elected officials part of their role is to figure out what is and isn't in the public interest. Uh but we can refer back to some of the resources that we have some of our documentation. Um our housing needs analysis for example um has identified a shortage of uh you know buildable land for for certain types of housing here in Dallas. Uh we do have uh sort of the the governor's uh declared housing emergency here in Oregon. Um and so kind of things that make housing development uh easier or more feasible or that brings housing to fruition. Um helps address those uh shortcomings, those issues and so could conceivably be seen to be in the public interest. Um it's a very nebulous approval criteria. ask the question a different way. This says that there's a burden of proof upon the applicant to uh put forth the rationale and to state that that rationale is somehow benefits the city. So the burden of proof is upon the applicant and that part of it I don't see. Yes, the applicant uh did not uh directly address that particular point of the approval criteria in a way that is um sort of robust I would say. Um but again it's also a very nebulous uh criteria. So the you you could make almost any argument as to what is or is not in the public interest. ultimately that that's kind of for city council to make the decision because again they're the the elected officials.

One more time.

Sure, please back off. Um I would think somewhere in this somehow in this process there will be some kind of a costbenefit analysis for the city. In other words, the city's going to have to provide some services and presumably it's going to get some taxes for that. Is that not considered in this process? that could also be certainly considered as part of the uh the the public interest. I know when we've been looking at the redevelopment of the mill site, for example, uh the the revenue that the city would derive from that was definitely a consideration and how those plans were developed. Um I will say it's it's fairly common knowledge that uh higher density developments um like the high density that the applicant is requesting um generally provide a higher return on the public investment. So you've got basically uh more doorbells per length of pipe per length of street that the city has to maintain. So, um, to the extent that you're spreading those costs over a greater number of people, that's lowering the cost to the people, it's a arguably a benefit.

You're you're saying there's nothing. John, can I interject real quick? The other thing is this is just the zone change. So, the applicant isn't required to say specifically this is what I'm going to do with it.

Um, we don't have a development application in front of us. That is correct. So, so while I hear your concern, I think what Chase is is trying to why perhap my interpretation of why he's trying to limit why this is so critical is because realistically all we're doing is moving this property from outside the city to inside the city. And I think at least from the city's point of view, I think we can see that a it adds tax revenue to the city and b being high density residential, it's going to add considerably more than, you know, a oneacre lot with one house on it would be.

My technical question was, is there a burden of proof upon the applicant to demonstrate the rationale that you just shared? And I don't see that here. And if the answer is no and it's not needed, let's just go on. That was my question. I think you've already answered it. So perhaps we could make sure the attorney doesn't have any insight into this. Attorney wants to weigh in. No, I think you covered it. Okay.

Yeah. I mean, to the extent that um it would have been nice had the the application been more robust in that regard. Um, I certainly think that would have been to the applicant's benefit, but also um, you know, it it's the the objective here is to determine does the applicant comply with the approval criteria or not. And so there is some ability for you to use your own judgment in whether they've met that burden. Um, thank you and thank you for that insight, John. But it's certainly something that I will keep in mind for further future applications. So, thank you for bringing that up.

There you go. Anyone else have any other questions? I think I think I'm good with that, too. Um, except we did get um this one piece of testimony later. I'll direct you to that. Um, and I believe the question that this person is concerned about was addressed by Chase. Um this person is concerned that the Lacreal node um was um identified this as medium density but as Chase pointed out that document and that requirement wasn't in place at the time that this applicant came in. So while this is a very valid concern legally the way things worked, if I've gotten that correct, Mr. attorney. Um, we we aren't required to address this person's concern. Is that correct? And is that correct?

Yes, that would be correct that the lock node planning wasn't in effect at the time of the application. Um if it had been just hypothetically um there typically is some level of flexibility when it comes time for the actual uh detailed development plan and reszoning. We've seen that with the Wyatt node with the Barbberry node that the concept plan approved by the council did have slight variation by the time it was actually developed by the developer. So moving the boundary between the zones, you know, 100 ft further south. Yeah, that seems a pretty minor distinction as far as that goes. And the the master planning concept would allow for a certain level of flexibility like that. Um, but again, not relevant because the uh master plan wasn't in effect at that time.

When I guess just for clarity, when did the application come in? I should be written at the top. Uh yes. So the application was received uh April 21st. May.

All right. So while we can discuss this, the legal portion of that concern has been met by when the application came in. Am I correct? Okay. If anyone anyone else have any more questions, then we will move on to the hear from the applicant. As a reminder, you have 15 minutes to present. Also, please state your name and address for the record. Do we have the applicant in the room? I was figuring we would have Yeah.

Okay. My name is Brandon Falman. My mailing address is 295 Patterson Street Northwest, Salem, Oregon 97304. And um I don't have much to add. I mean, I have just a few pages that I submitted. I don't have a fancy law degree to tell you how it meets the burden of proof. There's a few things that I talked about with the zoning there um in the couple pages that I submitted and I did reference the 2019 housing and needs analysis. Um, and in with many of the recommendations noted in the key findings and policy recommendations of that report, it was talking about how there's kind of an overabundance of low density residential in the city. And so with this being located at the intersection of the two collector streets, I just figured it was appropriate. Um, I've done a few developments. Um, I grew up out I I live and grew up out in Pulk County. Um, come out here to the city park, have my 30th birthday there, um, here in Dallas. And, uh, spend a lot of time at the aquatic center, take my kids there every now and then. And I'm not looking to do some gigantic development doesn't fit with the area. I know that you guys and others, I don't know if everybody in the room, but I want to address everybody, um, have worked on what they want Dallas to look like. And I've considered the neighborhood anytime I've I've done something, and it hasn't been that many things. There's a small five lot subdivision in South Salem I completed. There was a six-unit apartment building in Northeast Salem. uh in Jefferson like out in the Marian County there was a four lot subdivision um which were 2acre parcels and so for this one my thought right now and I you

know I didn't submit a development application with the zone change because I'm not sure yet but uh I've been interested in the cottage cluster development and I think that that's a missing a missing housing type that nobody builds because they can't afford it to um as a developer and I know A lot of people don't want to hear like, oh, you got, you know, you got to make money to to be able to do something. And and that that's the reality. I And I'm not trying to ruin anyone's neighborhood. Um, you know, my thought is to do with the cottage cluster, two bed, one bath, like roughly 800 foot single levels and um I think arranged around a courtyard. I mean, we used to see that. I didn't I wasn't alive, but there was quite a few of those that were done in the 20s through 50s. And I think that's a missing missing housing type that could serve the needs of of people that maybe don't have the same amount of money to pay for rent. Um or if we were to do now with some of the state laws that have been adopted, there's middle housing subdivisions that allow you to actually break these up and sell them individually and get a little bit more sense of um home ownership with that. So, I I don't want to box myself in and say, "Hey, that's exactly what I'm doing or what we're planning to do, but um that's what seems to be most interesting to me at the at the moment." And so, I don't have a whole lot to add that's going to be the legal stuff or why you should approve this or not. If you guys have a different idea idea for what your city you want it to look like, I'm open to hearing about it not only from this group, but from whoever else gives testimony tonight. So,

thank you very much. Does the commission have any? Nope. You're now you get to answer questions from us and then we'll take people from the audience after you and then you'll have an opportunity to rebut those comments. Sure. So, do any of the commissioners have any questions for the applicant? Um, I was just wondering on this plan. Um, you said you were talking cottage and and I'm not holding you to anything. Please understand. Sure.

Um, I want to think about the traffic for a minute cuz you know that's a small collector at that point and so coming out on Nail and is a little problematic. just wondered how the traffic load might be affected and what you expect to be the number of residents possibly if you did the cottage units. Sure. Just a sense of what it would be.

So, I've done like some really basic layouts and there's going to be pieces of the code that I need to incorporate that will probably further reduce. But, um, when I was looking at there's there's medium density and there's high density. And the medium density I believe gives you up to 16 units per acre. And then the high density, yes, it goes all the way to 40. Um, and I think with the cottage clusters, not only that, not to scare people even more, but I think you can divide that number of 40 divided by 75 to get your actual housing units. Um, so that would take you to 53. It doesn't fit. It just doesn't It doesn't It doesn't fit. The size of the site limits it. Yeah. And so I think something that's more realistic is about two dozen.

Yeah. So as far as what's that's going to do that street. I mean

I know that people that live on Hawthorne they probably this is my assumption because I if I lived on Hawthorne I mean most people don't want something in their backyard. They don't like change and I get that. Um but I think most I would imagine most people in Hawthorne love the fact that it's been a dead end for so long. Now it's getting opened up to Academy to the South. And though maybe the init like the immediate residents of Hawthorne may not like the fact that the street's being opened up, it will provide better life safety. I mean, you get one blockage there at, you know, at Ellenale and you can't get a fire truck through or or emergency services. And um right now we have that same problem on uh on Hankle where that mobile home park they only have one way to get out of there. And so um at least on that side of the street. I think they have another connection on the north or maybe off of uh Lockreal. But um this section of street will need to be improved when we when we apply for development application. And I think it's just going to increase redundancy for emergency services. And then also we're going to have to connect up. Right now, I think there's a sewer line that is short of where the city property there that Hankle extension is going to meet. That's going to have to connect up and then we're going to have redundancy in those systems as well, which makes it easier for public works to get in there and fix things if they break and yeah, isolate. So,

right. Well, thank you very much. You may be seated and we will um take questions and comments from the audience. Um if you would like to raise your hand and I will call on you to come forward and make your comment. Are there any people wishing to speak on this uh application? Nobody's jumping up. We have two. I'll go with you in the corner. I saw you first and you'll take the longest to get up here. Please state your name and address for the record.

My name is Alan Minton. I live at 410 Southeast Hawthorne Avenue in Dallas. I I want to I want to be clear on something here because I'm afraid we're arguing over things that that Brand Brandon has an idea that he wants to to do and it seems to be in line with what the city wants. Is it not true that the city wants to put as many units on that street as it as possible? Is that accurate? Um I I would think that uh the city would like to get the best uh bang for the buck that we can. The return on investment that we're making in the public infrastructure, but um also livability is certainly a concern for us as well. So

city doesn't really control that, the applicant does. When we get to that point, that's when that happens.

Balancing act. But if there are questions as to why he wants to do what he wants to do, the city has already stated, made it clear that that's what they want. That's what they want the use of this property for and and the other properties as well on the street. So my thought at this point is it's sad to the people who recently bought there thinking that they were going to have this private piece of land and and not be disrupted and they're going to be disrupted and and now we're sort of pitting neighbor against neighbor as to who's going to jump first to get rid of their property. And as it stands, um, we might be next in line to sell because I I didn't move into the neighborhood to to be surrounded by apartments and complexes. And uh, but again, it it is growth and sometimes it's that you can't you can't stop the growth as sad as it is. Thank you. you get back 470 Southeast Hawthorne. My question is it sounds like he's going to dump the traffic out onto Hawthorne. Why wouldn't he go the other way on HKLE?

We don't have a development proposal at this time. So all we're doing at this point is bringing the property into the city as highdensity residential if that's what goes through. Um at the time that he comes with a development plan then we'll be addressing that particular question. Does that make sense to you? I mean we can't really say it it's not an issue at this point because we're not we're not we're not not dealing with that at the moment. We're just bringing the property into the city. explained it,

right? But he's not committed to any of that. Um, but he probably has reasons for that and if he'd like to comment on that, he's certainly welcome to address your question, but it's not really an issue at this point. But thank you.

Go ahead. What happens often when people are developing is they'll try to fit a certain scheme into the property and their intention maybe at the beginning is they're going to route it to say Hankle or some other street but when they actually make the plan it ends up changing. So, it's probably good for you to come back when he's got a development that you can look at and see where it's going to dump out and then you can make comments about what you think should be done differently or what may be the risks cuz it changes really often. An engineer gets a hold of it, you never know what's going to happen. Yeah. So, it could be totally different by the time you see it again.

It's also governed by whatever rules are in place at that time, too. So, the only thing that's going on right now is that zone is that annexation and zone change. Thank you. And I believe you had a question. I did.

Come on on its own when I talk. It does. Well, I apologize to everybody because I've just been on my tractor before I came here and I didn't wear my hearing aids in the tractor. Imagine that. I can hear you just fine. I'm I'm struggling to hear everybody else though. So, uh I would ask a question about what is the neighboring properties. I wish we'd have it up on the display here so we could see exactly where the property is and what the zoning is right and left. Where's the legend that tells me what those colors are?

Yes. Uh my apologies for not including the legend. That was an oversight. Um the brown is the high density zoning. Uh the yellow is low density zoning and sort of the orangish middle color is the medium density. So uh yeah, brown brown there is the high density. What is right around it? Because the part that's not in the city. So it's just right for there it's probably low density I assume. Uh so the official uh language that the county has for that is suburban residential. It's basically a 5 acre minimum lot size. Okay. Comparable to low.

The dotted line I see along the southern boundary there is that the city county line or I can't tell where the division is between city and county jurisdictions. Right. So anything that the the properties that are in white on this are county. So all of the things that are in color uh are city um and all of the things that are white are county. And so the existing zoning would look like this. Um and so Hawthorne with the the lots alongside of it currently are in the county and so are shown as being white. Um and the proposal would be to to annex the property and make it uh brown like the adjoining property.

And that string then falls within the city. So, it's adjacent proximity is to the I guess that would be to the west.

Okay. And uh just a comment I guess uh on my properties in Salem, I tried to do something similar to this. They called it hopscotch zoning and it's not allowed in Marian County and city of Salem because it has to be, you know, you'd have to think about all those properties along the line there. and mine's on a minor arterial and it was a big fat no. But anyway, wish him well. Oh, and by the way, I heard something just a little bit about cottages. I think House Bill 2019 allowed those on any lot. Um, in a town of this size, you could build at least a duplex. Uh, once you get to 25,000, then you can have four cottages. So, for what it's worth, somebody wants to wait. We can avoid all this.

That comes later. But thank you. Did we get your name and address? Did he Did Sir, did you give us your address? Oh, no. I didn't. I'll just yell. Mitch Teal. My mailing address is 1418 Arabian Avenue Southeast in Salem. My property is at 2515 East Ellenale. That's a farm of 11.36 acres that is adjacent to the golf course property on the east and crosses the Rickel Creek. I own a little bit on the other side where I can go on the other side and dangle my toes in the creek if I want.

Thank you, Mitch. Does anyone else have questions or a comment to make testimony this evening on this application? Okay, go ahead. and be enthusiastic or I'll close this part of the hearing accidentally regarding putting your hand up, not necessarily how you present. Just to clarify,

my name is Marty Fzen, 390 Southeast Hawthorne Avenue. Um, yeah. Uh, not much to say except just um in everything that I'm listening to and I'm I'm hearing, you know, getting the most bang out of your buck or juice for the squeeze or however I I've been hearing it put. The one thing I think interesting is in all of this that I haven't really heard much talk about the change that this brings to an existing neighborhood and um how you would do that with a degree I guess of finesse and stuff like that as to not override completely what people bought their properties for and everything else. Um, I do understand that uh the zoning wasn't in place when this applicant put it in, but my goodness, it just seems like to go to go from a what was after that proposed as a medium density and to put everything as a high density to put this property in as a high density. It I just I just it just it it it it feels it feels burdensome on those of us who have lived here for a while and and it feels like it's done with a little bit of disregard for us in that you would you would you would just I guess not honor what you came up with as you put in your plan. I I struggle

with that. I struggle with what I feel like you're doing to the neighborhood. It's like you're completely revamping it into a high density and uh and that that does have a sense of disregard, a feel of disregard in it. Thank you. Thank you for letting me talk. Thank you. Go for it. one person. Well, if if you have a Sure. That's why we have two chairs. Not a public speaker, but I've got lots to say.

Speaking in public now, you get five minutes. Okay. Probably talk really fast. Get it over with. Okay. Oh, Shelby Coots. Name and address.

Shelby Coots. I live at 375 Southeast Hawthorne Avenue. And this is my husband, Michael. Um, okay. As someone who has I'm just going to read this. Sorry, it feels very red, but I don't public speak. Okay. as someone who has lived here my whole life in Dallas um and loves the community and as a local realtor that has helped dozens of families and investors purchase property here in Dallas. I understand what's on the table, but this neighborhood is just not the right fit for low-income housing. As mentioned in their application, the proposal to resone reszone this lot on our quiet county street to high density feels like it's abrupt and not thought through and at the expense of people who have lived here for decades. Additionally, there isn't the area isn't ready. There's no sidewalks to keep us safe while walking. Horrible drainage issues that haven't been addressed, which the city may not even know about because it's been a countymaintained street. Our street cannot handle the extra cars that will come with so many more families. With no street parking on Hawthorne, the cars will have to spill out down Hankle directly in front of the manufactured homes that are primarily occupied by senior residents, many of which would require close accessible parking for themselves and visitors. Uh there's just not enough room for the street parking there. Um, I also worry what this will do to our neighborhood's value and character. Going from single family homes to more than 10 families and sounds like up to in the 20s uh just feels overwhelming and out of place. The privacy and peace that we have built will disappear with the potential of numerous two-story homes looking into our yards while our children are playing. With how much the world has been changing and how social ties have been weakening, it is comforting having neighbors who have become like family. And knowing that our children can trust and seek help in the unlikely event of an emergency.

Having lived on busy streets like Ellenale, Levens, and Locker my entire life, it has been such a joy and blessing to have the peace and sense of community that our neighborhood provides. Until I was 17 years old, my family lived um up on Ellenale around the corner, just like five houses down. And so, uh, Hawthorne is where I learned to ride my bike and we would go on family walks. I now get the opportunity to watch other families from adjacent neighborhoods. A lot of like the barberry node will come and walk down our street and their kids will do the same and ride their bikes and sometimes we even will see a horse on the street. So, it just has that sense of country feel still. Uh, my family and I have poured our hearts, time, and money into the home for the last two years, improving it and adding value. and investing in the future of this neighborhood. It hurts to think that all of this could just be overshadowed by this unexpected change that wasn't planned when we brought our home. We were told just a few months ago when the locker node was getting updated that those plans being approved didn't mean that it was happening and may not even happen in our lifetime. But now I worry that the same will be said about this being approved, which has already been said tonight that we'll deal with it at the next meeting. Um, but in all reality, this being approved does mean that it's moving forward and getting closer to the point where we don't have a say. I mean, look at how many people showed up tonight and how many people were at the locker real node meetings. We we care. Not everyone might talk because it's really hard to public speak, but uh we do want our voices heard. Um, so in conclusion, I ask that you consider not just the facts and figures, but the people, your neighbors who have worked so hard to build their lives here. We are not against growth, but it must be thoughtful, appropriate, and in line with the infrastructure and character of the area. High density or even medium medium density development simply just does not fit the fabric of our neighborhood. We want to keep the cl the close-knit environment where families feel secure, children know their neighbors, and we all look out for

one another. I urge you to consider the impact that this resoning would have on the integrity of our neighborhood. And I respectfully ask you to dis to deny this resoning request. husband like to say anything?

Uh yeah, the application mentions that uh the storm water will be routed into the existing ditches along Hawthorne. Uh but they already five six months out of the year have already they they backed up already and overflow. um adding more significantly more um you know storm water to those is is going to be an issue I think and um I don't think that's something that's been looked at yet and that's just one of the things you know that that has come to our attention and you know in the short time that we've had to to look and and consider. Uh

we have two stump pumps that go probably 6 months out of the year every 45 seconds and constantly running. We live north of them. So,

right, the the empty lot, the city lot right now is a swamp in the wintertime and uh all of that water once that's a street is going to get pushed into this probably the same ditches as well. Um so that's something that needs, you know, part of the infrastructure that she's that she's kind of bringing up in her topics. Um I don't know. I I we feel that it's kind of premature and uh there needs to be some more thought of infrastructure uh before anything um is considered in my opinion. Um our opinion I I think a lot of the people on the street would probably tell you the same thing especially down you know toward the end of the street where the where the ditches are a large issue. Um, same thing. I mean, I I think you know, you guys should reconsider. But

do can I ask do you have you guys like do are you aware of the drainage issues? I I mean, it's pretty significant just overflowing of people's driveway like it gets back like I

I I've seen that from other testimony that we have. I would address that by saying that gets dealt with when we actually have a development program and as a civil engineer once infrastructure like streets with storm drains and all that that will happen because it's part of the city and is required to be taken care of that way is intended to address those and give those you know that will be required to be um addressed when a specific development proposal comes in. And that's that's how the city gets this that your property is out in the county and so it was fine the way it was in the county. Um hopefully those things will be addressed when more of these properties are developed including this one that helps

to wait and just hope our home well it'll it'll be the same until somebody develops something and then it'll be addressed. So it won't change because the property is going from county to city. Um, but it will change when something is contemplated to be built on that lot. It just takes one lot for the city to invest in a whole the whole street drainage.

Typically, I don't know if I'm getting ahead of myself, but typically when someone bring and this is a fairly small piece of property, um, if they can address those things on the site, then they they will do that. But typically they're not required to build the entire city just to do one one acre lot. But the the the concerns that you will be able to address at the time that development program proposal or any development proposal comes in will be addressed at that time and there would be an engineered um proposal that comes with that. So, um, but at this point, at this particular stage, nothing's being addressed toward that. It it will stay the same until it's developed. But we definitely hear your concerns. And that's probably one of the major concerns that we hear whenever we get a development proposal, especially in an area that's flat. So, I I'm sorry I can't tell you. We're going to fix it right now, but nothing's going to change until you have another opportunity to have that addressed.

Okay. When was the last time the county was out to ditch? They cleaned them out. They before they started the sewer line, they cleaned them out. Yeah. But is does the city the city maintain the street? roads. Yeah. And even when they're cleared out, it's backed up. There's just nowhere for the water to go. So, I don't understand. Is there a way to fix it? I mean, there might not be a way to fix it. And then the other thing is we're only we're only dealing with one of these 1acre lots. You can talk to the county at any time because they're responsible for all the rest of that and you can make your voice known with them and have them

do whatever they can because it's their jurisdiction. Paul County we get worse conditions with more city coming in I guess but right who's going to take responsibility for it when there's too much water and it's the city then when it's developed it will be addressed right we have to be annexed into the city for our homes not to flood say that again we have to be annexed into the city for the problem to be taken care of no If if the problem comes from that lot then that would be addressed. I don't know where your lot is in relation to it.

But um yeah each each slot as it becomes the city is addressed. So it's still going to be the county's responsibility even though you guys would now have a lot on that street. Correct. Yeah. As long as you're in the county. The county is your person, your entity to address your concerns. Can the county oppose this being taken from county? I guess

they uh they certainly have the ability to submit testimony same as any other party. Um we've not received written testimony from them uh regarding either their uh position for or against the annexation and reasonzoning um or uh regarding storm drainage which which does surprise me. I was not aware of that. Um since that storm drainage does ultimately drain into the city. Um I'm certainly going to speak with with our and uh public works folks to see if there's something on our end that's causing that backup. Uh cuz that's a surprise to me that that drainage is an issue. I I wasn't really uh I guess cognizant of that and it from what I know of that area, it shouldn't be an issue. So, I'm gonna I'm going to talk with our public works folks and see what's going on there because that that seems like a red flag to me.

Is there someone I can contact there? What's their name? Um, yeah. So, uh Megan Johnson is kind of the receptionist for uh the public works department. Um so, yeah, she'd be able to get you in touch with the right person. But yeah, and I was going to say if you'd like to put your written statement into the record, you can just give it to Benjamin and he'll do that. It's got some scribbles on it, but you can have it. Sure. Are you done? I think so. Thank you very much for your comments and concerns. We do hear them. Thank you. Apparently other people heard you, too. Do we have anyone else wanting to speak? Please.

My name is Robert Booth. I'm at 1434 Southeast Academy. Thanks for having us here. Um to that particular point there um you take a look at this map here this Hawthorne here academy and the old Hawthorn here you'll notice these are seriously misaligned and they're going to take a whole lot of work to rectify that. I'm wondering that most of that water they were just talking about is running down those two ditches and collecting here. So when city uh gets to patching this together there that's going to be a real key opportunity to start taking care of that. There's a mitigation pond right here in this lot that also could be used as an overflow. My question is that's going to eat up a whole big chunk of this and probably the next property besides that. What kind of arrangements have we got? Is this going along with the project?

If I if I can respond to that, I was on the planning commission at the time. That piece with the the street that kind of has an angle to it. The reason that street is at an angle was to address that concern. The problem is, as you can see, all those other white properties that are in the county, we had no control over those until that property comes into the city or the city nests to negotiate with that property owner to buy a piece of it to fix that street. Nothing can really happen. that that is the reason for that street being the way it is is so that when that one property comes in or we need to get piece of it that problem will be fixed so we're not entirely ignorant of these things

you're welcome that all you had to say okay do we have any other Okay, come on up. Daryl Gish, 490 Southeast Hawthorne. My wife and I have lived on lived there for 35 years. And uh my question is probably to Chase is does this uh proposed change in zoning um affect all the rest of the properties on Hawthorne that at any time any one of those properties not only on the west side of Hawthorne which are adjoining high density and then the north part that adjoins high density and then you have a section there that is uh um the medium density. What keeps that from what what would keep that precedence from anybody along there wanting to annex into the city and all of a sudden you've got you've got apartments, you've got whatever all over the place.

Yes. Um the the installation of the sewer uh really kind of opens the door to the possibility of annexation. Um obviously these properties have been abuing city limits for a very long time with the the back property line there being inside the city. Um but without a sewer line to connect to that's really limited the ability to develop any of those properties. Um, now that the sewer line is is going in, um, yeah, essentially any of the property owners on Hawthorne who wanted to annex their property, uh, would have the ability, same as this property owner, to come to us and say, "Hey, we want to be in." And we would review it under the same approval criteria that we're reviewing it uh, today uh, with the same public process. Um, so it will likely be sort of a checkerboard kind of uh development pattern for a while until eventually all of them are inside the city, but we're not really trying to force people to annex. So, it's really going to be voluntary as individual properties want to annex. Um, as far as the zoning, now that we have the new lock node master plan in place, um, that uh, that master plan does kind of guide the idea of what the future zoning should be. Um, but kind of as I mentioned previously, there is a little bit of flexibility in the way those master plans are set up and written. So, the exact uh, boundary between the different kinds of zones is a little bit squishy. Um generally the idea was that kind of north of Hankle Street was going to be the high density and and south of Hankle was going to be medium density. But you know whether that uh ends up getting pushed a little

bit one way or the other in aggregate over the entire size of the Lreal node and honestly over the entire size of the city as a whole you know little bit of a change one way or the other doesn't make a huge difference in aggregate. Um that's why the master planning process does have that flexibility in it. Um it it kind of depends somewhat on what the individual property owners want to see when they redevelop their properties. Um but again that's that's largely driven by when the properties get annexed which is for the most part a voluntary process. So,

and if I can just say the one potential reason for that squishiness that Chase described is because circumstances change and we are currently in the middle of a housing crisis for people needing to find homes and the city has identified a lack of medium density housing and high density housing oper properties. ities that could address those needs. So that's typically why we don't, you know, things aren't carved in stone. We need to because, you know, this stuff may not develop for who knows how many years. At that time, there may be different priorities and people may have different um expectations and and what they're living willing to live with depending on how things are going. So I think Chase gave an excellent uh explanation as to what's going on

and and these rulemaking processes are are sometimes challenging because you know on the one time on the one hand we want to give people flexibility. We want to be flexible in kind of what people can do. Um it's really easy to say this is the only thing that you can do with your property. You must do this. But that's not going to work for a whole lot of people. So more flexibility gives them more options, but it also makes it harder to say, "Oh no, the future's going to look exactly like this because well, now you've introduced flexibility and uncertainty." So

the other the other one real quick thing, the other thing is all we're doing as the planning commission is recommending this or not recommending this to the city council. they will have the final say in that decision to to do with it as they as they decide. So we we are only a recommending an advisory body at this point and to take in this kind of uh testimony and input. So did you have any more questions? I I just have one other question.

Sure. So, so somebody um decides to an well anybody who annex would annex on either side, east or west side of Hawthorne. Are curbs and sidewalks required at that time? Because that's a mess. If that's all of a sudden we got one one here and one here and one here and it creates it and and the street we can't handle the the infrastructure obviously can't handle extra traffic you the way it is right now.

Yes. And um typically public infrastructure of that nature is built concurrent with development. So if someone's building uh uh you know a development on one of the properties, they would build the section of street abudding their property. Um as well as any associated infrastructure necessary to serve the development. Um but yeah, it's it's quite actually common. It's very common to see kind of that uh peacemeal uh infrastructure where there's a sidewalk in front of one house and then a gap and then a sidewalk in front of another. Um it's unfortunate. There are ways around that. Um we do have the option of forming uh what they call a local improvement district. Um where the city would kind of go in and do all of the infrastructure all in one go. That way you get the economies of scale doing it cheaper by doing it all at once and it's finished and ready to go. um and then having the the property owners kind of pay that off over a 10 or 20 year period um uh basically being added to their their property taxes. So there are different ways to do infrastructure that doesn't make it be peacemeal but it's also not

annex into the city at the same time. The city is not really in the business of building infrastructure outside the city. Yep. Thank you very much. Did anyone else have any questions? No. Okay. Do we have any other people who'd like to comment or express? Far away. Yeah. I had a question. Chase, your name and address, please.

That's right. Sandra Harris, 1434 Southeast Academy here in Dallas. Um, Chase, you mentioned that we have the the public utilities for this development. it well for the higher density zoning zoning but I was wondering about the infrastructure do we have the police the hospital the schools the fire for higher density um that's uh that's certainly an interesting question um so hospital uh is a a private institution so that's kind of beyond uh the city's scope um fire is definitely aware of this proposal and uh they would expect to see uh fire hydrants installed as as part of any development to make sure that they have the ability to protect it. Um that's also why they're interested in seeing Academy Street connected to Hawthorne and having Hankle Street go through so they can get their fire apparatus to this site uh by multiple routes in the event that there's some kind of blockage uh downed a tree or what have you. Um, I've not heard any concerns about uh, you know, crime, uh, you know, police availability. We're not a very high crime community here in Dallas, so I I don't imagine this will have much of an impact on on police uh, services. So, um, yeah, the most of those uh, services uh, are uh, pretty pretty not significantly affected by a a smallcale development like this. Now, if we were doing a, you know, a 100 acre, you know, subdivision with, you know, thousands of homes, that's a different proposition. But, um, at the scale of this one, uh, 1acre parcel that, uh, it's it's not quite as much of a concern

for this one development. I guess an overall attitude toward development in Dallas, you do have to look at all those things. And I'm hearing a lot of concerns about qu and um I've seen research studies and the higher density you get, the more violence you get, the more drugs you get. It's just a given and it's just something to think about when you're looking at yeah, it's just a little bit higher density here, but it is too over here and here and here and here. So, it's something to think about. Um

and and a lot of the services as well are are sort of funded based on population. So you think of you know how many police officers do we have per thousand residents? How many firefighters per thousand residents? Um one of the benefits of new development is that it gives you additional tax base with which to hire additional employees to provide those kinds of services. So um the benefit of the higher density is that it gives you um sort of a higher uh value per acre. Um so when you have infrastructure so water lines, sewer lines, streets um you're able to spread the the cost of maintaining those over a larger number of people. So, um the the areas where you have, forgive me for saying like, you know, large 1acre lots, um there's not a lot of lots to, you know, distribute that cost over, but if you've got the little postage stamp lots, that's a lot more people who can pay those costs. So, our um property taxes have gone way way up. So, I I haven't seen that spreading out of the pain. I mean, it's getting quite painful. So, that's um something I'm not seeing. Um the other thing I'm concerned about, I know the more that you pave over the land, then you have less land that is able to soak up the water that we all need. And that's getting to be a problem. And the water goes down, you know, all that land slants down towards that creek back there. And so, then I worry about pollution, too. So, those two things. and we're just paving over everything in Dallas and it's just, you know, an overall view. This is just another piece,

right? And so our zoning code does have lot coverage limitations that limit how much of a lot can be paved over um in part because of storm water concerns as well as urban heat island effect, those kinds of uh impacts. Um, when it comes to, you know, infiltration of water specifically, one of the challenges we have is that there are some areas of town where they have soils that just don't absorb water at all. And uh, there's not really anything you can do about that. You just have to build pipes to make the water go somewhere else. And this may well be one of those parts of towns. I'm not familiar with the soil conditions here, but um it sounds like if there's flooding in the yards and and the the ditches, that might also be the case in this area, which additional infrastructure in the form of storm drainage can be another way to mitigate that. But

one real quick thing to hopefully assuage that particular concern. In the last 20 years, cities have been spending more time and effort installing things like um stormage drain storm drainage swailes that collect that water that has all the oil and everything else off the street. And instead of just putting it in a pipe and running it to a river or something that goes into a vegetated area that actually biologically treats that stuff and it goes back in the ground and you know then if it's so much it goes into a pipe but that is being addressed. I'm not sure how much it's still being addressed in Dallas, but if that's one of your concerns, that's something to bring out at at times when you see development is you can ask about, you know, what kind of natural storm water treatment is taking place as part of any development. I guess and the only other thing I had I I know um our governor Cotch is really concerned about available affordable housing and you know we all are but I don't think that's the solution to the problem is building more houses. I think people are raising rents way too high the prices are way too high. I think that would be a better solution in terms of quality for everyone here. I'm hearing a lot of concerns on Hawthorne about quality of life and I think they're real valid

for office. Seriously. I mean, if you're concerned, run, but I I think we're getting a little farther a field, but thank you for your concerns. All right, that was it. Thank you. Anyone else? Going once, going twice, gone. Brandon, if you'd like a chance to I know there's a lot there and you only get five minutes, but um pardon me, uh chair. Um we do have one caller in the queue. I'm not sure if this application is something they'd like to comment on. Um do I forgot about that?

Go and check with them real quick. Uh caller uh 5180. Um did you want to provide public testimony on this application or a later application? I would like to at least address something. Can you provide your name and address, please? My name is Julie Graves and I live at 225 Southeast Hawthorne. Go ahead.

I'm just really concerned not only for the existing residents here on Hawthorne. There's a lot of people that live on this street that we we wanted the tranquility of the road. We wanted these amazing lots that had smaller houses in our case. Um, but our our our land is is is precious to us. And I think moving forward with reszoning one lot I think is kind of a um troublesome to me because then what stops everybody else from doing that? What what what stops the developer to come in here and literally start just taking haxes to to every single one of these residents and having what we thought was going to be a tranquility just turn into a nightmare. I don't think that that the developer is even thinking about the the the cost that this is going to cost these residents, us included, that have built our lives here. We live in Dallas. I I I I heard him say he doesn't even live in Dallas. That's not to me that's not that's not okay. Like I think that if he wants to develop it, he should have to live here. He should have to live through what he is going to make every single resident on Pastor live through. like the the road construction that's going on right now is tremendously horrible. We have small children. There are tons of families on this road and bringing in a cottage or whatever it is that he plans on doing which I think should have been required even having this meeting. He should have had to have a plan in place so we could discuss that because he could change his mind at any moment and and we're left with the consequences of that regardless. It sounds like the city has already made up its mind on on how they're going to proceed, but I do

really want to urge you guys to make the accommodation of no, I'm sorry, there's just too much at risk and at stake for the people that have put in their time on their own properties. And I'm sorry, but to bust my butt and make my house and my and my yard and and my street look amazing, it's been tore up already with the sewer. None of us wanted that. I'm sorry. The city council like they voted this in. I'm sorry. Nobody down here wanted that. So throwing in a high density area for even if it's just one acre doesn't address the issues that nobody wants that here. Nobody. Every person that we have spoke to on our street, our neighbors, our friends do not want that. So Dallas needs to take some accountability and hold people to a higher standard that they hold every single resident down here to. And my answer is absolutely. I really hope that you guys can advise that to an absolute no. And that's that's how I'm going to leave it.

Thank you, Julie. Does anyone have any questions for Nope. Thank you very much. All right. Anybody reconsider whether they want to say something? All right. You're on, Brandon. Can I turn an address? You may do it however you like.

Okay. I get it. I get it. I understand. I I feel the emotions. I really do. I may not agree with the approach to solving a problem that some people think we have. Some people think we don't have it. No, they've got different solutions. And I get it. I can feel the emotions. And I'm not I'm I'm still a human. Like I I understand. I don't want to create something that destroys your neighborhood. That's not my goal. I don't want to create something that towers over the neighbor next to them. When I build when I've built things in the past, I've considered the neighbors. I built an office in West Salem. There was a house right next to me. It was it was 7 ft away. I didn't put any windows on that side of the building. I wanted them to at least have a little bit of privacy. I know that they didn't want the office there to begin with. Um, I do think though if you think about people that you know, whether they're friends, children, grandchildren, cousins, there's probably somebody that's paying rent that's higher than, you know, higher than they they can afford or they want to. And I think there's a missing housing segment that needs to be addressed. And I'm sorry that it's in your neighborhood. I'm I don't want to, you know, everybody everybody has the same kind of thing. Yes, but not in my backyard. And so if not if not in your backyard, then whose backyard is it going to be in? And I guess um all I have to say is I'm sorry. Um my information is on there. If you want to get together and meet, I'll I'll show up. You can throw tomatoes at me, whatever you want to do. But, um, I will talk and I will listen and I will

consider. I can't say that I will change anything specifically, but I might. I might. So, I'm just going to leave that with Thank you, Brandon.

Alrighty. Any final comments from staff or the city attorney? Not for me.

Okay. I had one question that I forgot to ask earlier. Chase, you talked about the sewer is going to be in within two years. I know some development proposals like zone changes and things like that. If something isn't done within two years, does it revert? But this is an annexation. So once it's annexed, it's done. And development is independent of anything happening that would allow that. Okay. I just wanted to make sure I had that clear in my head. I was pretty sure, but that was pretty significant. So, because that two years sticks in my head.

Yeah. If if for some reason they uh abandoned the sewer project and just walked away, which obviously they're not going to do. Um the but if they did for some reason, the annexation would still be valid and effective. So, and yeah, the city I mean, we're not going to walk away from the sewer pipe. Like, that would be dumb. No. Are they already building it? Oh, yeah. No, they've got the whole street torn up, which is probably why some of these folks aren't so happy.

Okay. So, at least that's that's something physical to look at and throw eggs at. All right. Alrighty. All right. I now can we hang on there? I now declare the hearing closed at 7:17. We will now uh have deliberation on this topic by the commission. Anyone have any things they'd like to say or questions or anything else? Please go ahead, Carol. Um, I've been on planning commission for quite a long time and uh, when I first came on commission, there was a request to put in a sewer system in onto Hawthorne at that time that was tabled because they didn't want to change the character of the neighborhood by having it available for annexation. And so that privacy that you all have loved for quite a while for 20 plus years was tabled at that time and now it's coming through in the next two years. So the city did consider it a long time ago and tabled it so that it could stay in the county and not be available for annexation. Um it's unfortunate that at this time we have a lot of affordability issues in this city. A lot of people are struggling to stay in their housing. And I think the sense that I got from the discussions was that if you get a little bit of medium density or or high density that you could serve more people that were really struggling to stay in Dallas and not become homeless. And that was kind of why we went in the slightly

different direction to add a little more density. What's troubling a little bit is that it's hard to put it into a community that has 1 acre lots. And I get that. I totally get that. But I know that you were protected from getting that sewer line for quite a long time because I was part of that conversation way back. And um it's just that we're running out of places where we can put that affordable housing so people can stay in Dallas and don't have to move to Salem or Monmouth or Independence to get affordable housing. And that's kind of what's happening to people. So, I just wanted to put that out there that that's the struggle is trying to figure out what can we do to help people stay in Dallas and be part of the citizenry and not have to move out of town versus what can we do to protect the beautiful neighborhoods that we have that are lower density. And that's always the challenge. So, I just wanted to make that comment.

Thank you, Carol. Does anyone else have a comment or discussion? John, the the squishy bit that gets mentioned is uh one of the criteria I think for something like this is that it is in the public interest, right? So what is the public? And we've talked a lot about the need in this city and this state for for more housing, affordable housing. We understand that. But there's a public right there in those white spaces. And does the voice of that public count in what we're considering here? And is how do we balance that? And does this commission play a role in making a statement on that? Because if we do, my statement would be no. that I would honor uh the needs of the people in that community and cite the need for public interest as the reason for doing it. Is there anything wrong with that logic?

Your logic is fine. Okay? Anyone else have a comment or a question? Right. Is there a motion by the commission? The recommended motion is found on page 10 if you're interested. Again, we are in a situation where we're not making the actual decision.

We're not making the decision. Correct. We the the the recommended motion is to recommend that the city council approve the annexation of the subject property and approve the zone change to residential high density. That's the currently recommended motion at this point. If someone would like to move that or change it. Nobody's feeling brave. No, I wouldn't. That's fine. That's fine. I

think it's important to understand that this is a crummy situation where you have an island in the county. You have all these, they're not small lots. Um my father-in-law owned one of these and we looked at buying it from him a few years ago. Um knowing that maybe there was some development potential. Um, but what we really saw, or at least what I saw from my experience, is you might get one or two of these properties to do to do some 1acre development. But full development where the street really gets improved, you're you're really looking at somebody buying multiple lots that are all adjacent to each other and doing a four or five acre development. Um, just because this one, he's the first. there. Someone's got to be first and you know, you hope he does the neighborhood right. To me, since he's gonna have to do part of Hankle and then he's got access to Hawthorne for what he's doing in this single development makes more sense to me because he's going to they're going to have at least two accesses. Um, so I think that's something that we got to keep in mind. The people that live there now, you don't have I mean you don't have to annex. you don't have to develop and if this is this might be the only one that happens and nothing changes. So it's it's just you know unless people start decide that they want to sell out and and you have a developer that comes in and he wants to buy multiple lots and do a bigger thing then that'll really get the ball rolling. But at this point it's really early. Um so I you know I don't it's it's it's a tough situation and it sucks. I've seen this a hundred times and it's never easy. So

sewer going in is really what made this possible. That's really what's what's driving this. And who's building the sewer? The city is. So anyone recommend this for approval? I'll do it. I'm I'm fine with it. I I can be the bad guy. Um, so I move to recommend the city council approve the annexation of the subject property and approve the zone change to residential high density.

Have a second. Thank you, Carol. Yeah. Recommend the motion is moved and seconded. Is there any discussion? I think we probably discussed it to the max. Um, we will now vote on the motion. The motion is to recommend that the city council approve the annexation of subject property and approve the zone change to residential high density. Um, oh, actually, instead of doing this in a voice vote, I'm going to ask for a roll call vote. Bren, please.

Commissioner Kawash, Commissioner Newell, Commissioner Spaford, Commissioner Schulty, Commissioner Grow. Yes. Do we have approval? What was the vote? I didn't count. 4 to one approved.

I hear more nos in there. Okay, so we only had John's no. Okay, I thought I was hearing something else. Thank you very much. The motion is approved and passes and commission recommendation tonight will be forward to the city council for their consideration at an upcoming meeting. Notice of the public hearing before the city council will be sent to all the participants of record. That means all of you who gave your name and address, you will at the very least get a notification of when the city council is going to address this and there will be public notices as well. For those of you who didn't formally testify, that part of our meeting is closed. If you don't want to stay and hear the rest of it, you're welcome to leave. Uh otherwise, we are going to move on to our second annexation, which is annexation 25001.

Do we want to take a fivem minute break? That probably wouldn't be a bad idea, but we only want to do about five minutes so that we actually keep going because this could be a while. So, five minute break

All right, I find my script again. All right, we are dealing with annexation 251. Uh, this public hearing is regarding uh annex 41.85 85 acres at 11875 ORS Corner Road, the Dallas Golf Club, uh, and reszone to parks and open space. And we are only going to deal with that one at this point, correct? Or are we doing the two together?

So, uh, this is annexation and zone change. There's a second application from the same applicant that we'll deal with next. Previously we did the annexation and ch and established it as highdensity residential. This one is annexing the property of the golf course into the city as well as giving them the zone change to allow the RV park that they would like to do. No. So this is annexation into the city limits and changing the zoning to parks and open space. Okay. And then there's a separate application that we'll deal with after this that defines what is allowed in the parks and open space. So, got it. That's that's the LA2503, correct?

Okay. Now, I knew it was in there. I just wanted to make sure I got it in the right order. Okay. So, all we're doing with this one is dealing with the annexation and the zone change to parks and open space. So, this is an official public hearing before the Dallas Planning Commission. I now declare that this public hearing is open at 7:38. Going to write that down just for my own. All right. Uh, as the application is subject to land use proceedings recognized by state law, I will read the following statement. And I apologize if you were here before, you get to hear the exact same thing. The failure to raise an issue with sufficient detail to afford the 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. Applicable approval criteria are found in the staff report. At this time, I will ask if any member of the planning commission has a conflict of interest, site visit, or exparte contact to CLA. And though I have played golf on that course, I don't think it's a problem. Anyone else need to declare a conflict of interest. All righty. Uh, this hearing will be conducted in the following manner. We will begin with the staff report followed by questions of staff. Thereafter, we will hear from the applicant, including members of the applicant team, for a total of 15 minutes. This may be followed by questions from the commission. Thereafter, we will hear from all others interested in presenting testimony on this item before the commission, including if there are any on the phone. Each person will be provided five minutes to testify. We will then provide the applicant with five minutes for rebuttal. After we have heard all testimony, I will close the hearing and ask the commission to deliberate and then ask if there is a motion for

recommendation in response to this proposal. At this time, we'll start with the staff report. May we have the staff report, please? Thank you, Chase.

Yes. Uh so as I mentioned uh this application uh is to annex uh property into the city limits and to change the zoning from the current county zoning to the city zone uh parks and open space. Um so the property is 11875 Oris Corner Road which you can see there on the far eastern side of town. Um from the vicinity photo we can see that there is the existing golf course uh that occupies that site. Um the uh the golf course was uh an was added into the urban growth boundary back in 2017. Um and so uh it is uh inside the urban growth boundary and this application is to annex it now into the city limits. Uh so we can see under the existing zoning again that it is white uh because it's outside the city even though it is inside the dotted red urban growth boundary. Um proposed zoning would be parks and open space. That's the green color on our zoning map. So fairly straightforward as that goes. Um same uh annexation approval criteria as from the previous application. Uh has to be within the growth boundary. proposed zoning is consistent with the comp plan. Uh site is contiguous to the city limits. Uh public facilities have to be able to support development of the uh property. Uh annexation being consistent with the annexation policies and it's not a master plan uh zone. So that uh that last one doesn't apply about master plan nodes. Um and so the staff report goes into uh some written detail with regards to that. the the applicant uh provided a very uh thoroughly written uh

uh narrative. Um so uh great great thanks to the the applicant on that. Um but in short, the property is uh within the urban growth boundary. It is contiguous to city limits. So those uh those check boxes are checked. Uh the proposed zoning of parks and open space is consistent with the uh public open space designation from the comprehensive plan. So that uh that is uh satisfied and uh public facilities the the water and the sewer uh would have adequate capacities to support the development um at the time of development. So zone change again has the five criteria has to be consistent with the statewide planning goals consistent with the comprehensive plan again the thing on public facilities having capacity uh change has to be in the public interest that's the squishy one for you um and the request has to conform to the transportation planning rule and again the written staff report and the applicants uh narrative go into uh greater detail as to how those are are satisfied um But uh staff uh are concluding that the uh uh uh application approval criteria are satisfied and are recommending that uh the planning commission make a recommendation to city council approving the annexation and the zone change. Happy to answer any questions you may have. Um otherwise we also have the applicants representative here as well. So,

does the commission have any questions of staff or the city attorney? Hearing none, we will move on to we will now hear from the applicant. As a reminder, you have 15 minutes to present. Also, please state your name and address for the record if you please. The floor is yours.

Thank you. Good evening. Uh, for the record, my name is Alan Sorum. My mailing address is 250 Church Street, Southeast Salem, Oregon, Sweet 200. Uh I'm here with David Brinker, senior here on behalf of the applicant. Um we appreciate the work from staff. Uh, I'd like to note um in this application staff made uh in their staff report they did receive some comments from DLCD and with the discussion about whether or not uh a repairarian setback would be needed. Uh the cities of Dallas's adopted code requires a 10-ft setback. Um on our proposed uh site plan, we showed a 35- ft uh area setback originally. Um DLCD made some comments wanting the city of Dallas to extend that to 50 ft. Um the city attorney and the planning uh department commented back you know to DLCD saying well you know the reasons why you want that relate to some administrative rules um that primarily relate to what would have occurred during the the zone change excuse me during the urban growth boundary application because uh importantly we're we're not asking for the planning uh map amendment to be changed. So all that goes to show is is that's why in part in that staff report uh staff said you know didn't need to do it. Although there was still for consideration a recommendation of potentially extending what we showed as 35 ft to to 50. Uh and I'll interject here um that uh the inclusion of that recommended condition of approval in the in the written staff report um was an error. um we did not intend to actually include that in the final recommendation. Um and so that's why it wasn't listed as a recommendation on my slideshow. Um which is also why I forgot to mention that during the staff report.

So that's found on page 25. It's a recommended condition of approval. We're deleting that as part of a textual change. Yes. In the in the written staff report, we explain uh how it is our our belief that the uh testimony from DLCD was not timely and so the requirement for a 50-foot uh setback uh not warranted based on that. Um and so my apologies for the accidental inclusion of that condition of approval. That was that was a mistake.

Uh there's a there's a map if um that we've got on kind of on our proposal. If you can go forward, you would see see this red area. So it it it would be taken from the the high bank point and um our concept plan here shows 35 ft um and and which is kind of three and a half times what the the current code uh would require. But you know it's it's understood that um it's important to have some of a buffer. And then the green area you see is um where the storm water detention basin would likely to be. But I should probably comment um much like some of these other applications, a lot of the discussion tonight has been discussing this distinction between some of the long range planning questions and decisions and processes that we're doing and and development. And we are not requesting site plan approval. We're not requesting conditional use approval tonight. So these are the these are drawings that were prepared by profess Oregon licensed um professional engineer Jim Peek. Um we wanted to make sure that we had adequate room on on the property to go ahead and do this and get a professional's opinion as to whether or not the facilities uh public facilities were all adequate. But these are just concept drawings. So um there this we're not asking for a particular approval. We're not proposing these these specific setback standards. Um but there's always an interest by the city uh you know even when we are doing long range planning people you know in my experience they always want to know well what are you doing why are you doing this like tell tell me you know what it is. So um we wanted to try to be as transparent as possible and get as good uh information from our professional engineer and traffic engineer as we could be detailed. still knowing that even if we were to ob receive a recommendation from planning

commission and from city council, it doesn't actually give us approval to do anything just yet. We would have to go through subsequent land use processes. And and just to clarify, the reason I made the comment about removing that condition is because it was never intended to be in the staff report. So while we can we can discuss it if you like, assume that it's not there. Okay.

So, thank you. Thanks for the, you know, some of that. I I didn't intend to jump into the technical jargon just right away. Uh, you know, sometimes, you know, that you get excited. Um, with me here, I think, is is David Brinker, Senior. David's from the golf course and and can explain a little bit more about who are we, what are we trying to do, you know, what are we trying to accomplish, and and also why do we need this? So, um, and that I think might relate to some of the more broader squishy questions that you you all have as as commissioners. David,

so my name is, uh, David Brinker, uh, 16492 Brown Road, uh, Dallas, Oregon, 97338. Uh, I've been involved in the golf course since 199 since 1988 as or 98, I'm sorry, as either an owner or an overseer with the now Wilson family. And so I have a lot of history with it. Uh from the very beginning of our ownership uh back in the late 90s, we had always anticipated someday bringing it into the city and being able to do other things with some parts of the property, but in all uh maintaining the golf course without getting into the minutia of what happened in the next 15 or 20 years, a lot of things did and we were able to get it in the urban growth boundary and we had a uh a dream of potentially doing an RV park in conjunction with the uh golf course, not in lie of but in conjunction with in order to make it a more financially plausible investment because right now or as it is in its current state, it's okay. We have a great superintendent and Cody Britt. He does a wonderful job on it, but it is a business that we take no money out of. there's no there is not a profit coming out of the golf course to anybody. So that's one of the reasons that we've wanted to uh add this RV park is to generate some more capital to be able to continue to improve the golf course to someday maybe improve the clubhouse and get rid of some of the old buildings that are falling down and all those things. That's our dream and that's the reason that we're here tonight and that's about as simple as I can put it. So

have a dream.

Y um yeah you know additional potential positives with this is is as David said it is intended to ensure the future continuation of the club. Um also though this is it's a 41 acre property and so once that becomes annexed into the city limits uh that it can generate taxes. Uh so that that is always uh something and anytime you're doing a new development or a new thing like that it doesn't it it you get a new maximum assessed value. So for those with you know involved with the city planning on the financial side it it is it is important to go ahead and continue to grow where growth has been intended to be and that's what the urban growth boundary decision decided in 2017. So this is the natural continuation of that. Um, also, you know, uh, David provided a letter into the record, um, detailing how this is a growing, uh, supplemental use that golf courses are doing in the Wamtt Valley. Uh, candidly, before I met David and and started working on the project, I wasn't aware that this that RV courses in particular, some of the smaller, more rural golf courses, um, often are trying to p pair these two uses because there is a solid customer base that enjoys, uh, both using the course and the RV. But obviously we hope it would be you know uh to to not just limited to the golf course season and that it would be available for customers uh year round and and in that doing so would provide a a support to the local businesses um as as individuals who are coming in maybe they're staying associated with uh University of Monmouth games or things like that. Um it's an opportunity for families to uh make use of those facilities and then they bring in their tourism dollars which is always important to to small businesses in Dallas. Um one other thing that you know it's not necessarily the best for us but for the

city of Dallas and in a governance standpoint is when you come into the city limits now you are subject to the general applicable ordinances. So all the things that you know that you think about as far as noise uh ordinances and things of that nature um and connection fees and and by by being part of the public infrastructure um there definitely is both the control and the financial reward from the city. So uh just wanted to speak to some of those kind of broader questions about you know what what is in the the overall general public welfare. Um and uh as I indicated, you know, we do have a TIA transportation memo provided a report. You know, real high level, one of the big questions we look at when we do zone changes are what are the traffic impacts and and when we're asking that question the context of a zone change, we're not asking it about like tell me exactly how many number of trips because and uses can change depending on the zone. And so when we're the the county currently has a public amusement um zone uh on this that that's the county's version and and that would allow like a a public amusement park on on the property as as as a permitted use. The the highest traffic use you you could potentially have on on this zone is not a um golf course, but it would be like a soccer complex. And so when they're compar so the traffic engineer kind of compares the two uses and identifies that yes when we when we're moving um this from the county zoning to the city zoning even though they're both overall within the public uh um area. This would be a lower traffic intensity use. Um similarly I just wanted to let you know you know the the affected intersections none of those are failing either currently or expected to fail uh with with the future development proposed here. So that that's always good news for us. Um we we did have a lot of detailed analysis not just at that zoning level but on uh traffic

safety both kind of turn radiuses in and out knowing that these are going to be RV trucks and wanting to make sure that there's adequate turn radius uh for roads coming on or corner road um and our traffic engineers there that there were no safety concerns and no uh need for on-site mitigation other than um uh an internal stop sign that uh you know prior to the bridge to make sure that there's adequate queuing um in in there. Um and the benefit with RVs as opposed to, you know, your your Honda Civic or something. I mean, while they're longer, they're they're very up high and so people go ahead and have sight distance um that allows them to maneuver those vehicles in a safe manner. So, we got a very complete record. Um we we were very much uh hoping to get the recommendation um of planning commission and then ultimately the city council for both this request and then the next one in in the hearing which would as Chase indicated would be the one that would allow us to actually do this additional use cuz currently it is not a a permitted use as as uh in addition to a golf course. So, um, we'll talk more about that in the next hearing, but if there's any questions on some of the materials that either David or I covered, we're more than happy to answer your questions.

The commission have any questions of the applicant? Thank you for the rationale statement, commissioner. I have a silly ignorance question. Why would you need to come into the city or why would you want to come into the city? Cuz I assume you're going to pay more taxes and if you're already having problems. Um I I don't I've done development. I've done engineering. This is beyond me. Just as a question. You want to start? Yeah. Go ahead. Sure.

So we were going to go for conditional use within the county because in the zone that they had given us when we came Okay. So that went on for quite some time and we already have the city sewers running through the property and actually the clubhouse is hooked up to city sewer. So, so in conversations with the county with county planning, it was actually their recommendation when they said, "Why are you coming through the county to get uh permission to put an RV park in there when you're going to need to annex to get the probably to get the water because of all the RV park?" So, skip this step with the county. Go directly to the city and go for an annexation. Is that oversimplified? and and and the city is not except in in instances of emergency with sewer and things, the city is not allowed to go ahead and provide its urban level services um to to county uses. So, hence the urban growth boundary and now that we're in the urban growth boundary, the expectation is to be within the city limits and operate as a customer of the city.

Thank you. That makes me feel a lot better.

Any other questions of the applicant? Alrighty. Um, we will now hear from those in attendance. If you guys would like to sit back down. Um, we would address uh now hear from those in attendance tonight who would like to address the commission on this item. Please raise your hand if you would like to testify. First hand up. Come on up. State your name and address, please. Mr. Chair, members of the commission, my name is Mike Holland. I live at 2203 Southeast Magnolia Avenue in Dallas. Another way of describing my address is I live on the fourth T of the golf court. Uh we uh the board of directors for the Saras Glenn HOA which is the community that I'm part of uh ran out of good options and so they elected me to represent them in this issue and uh so I'm here just to uh really do a very simple thing. Uh we wish the developer and the golf course owner all the luck in the world with their plans. We hope that the golf course remains viable and more profitable. Uh it is certainly in our interest to have a viable golf course next to our community. Um, but the thing that our HOA board really just sort of wants to be a part of the record is that uh when Sarah Glenn was first developed, uh, the city at that time said to the developers, "Your plan looks great, but

you don't have enough open space." And so the developers looked around and uh noticed that they were building next to a golf course. And together with the city and the owner of the golf course and the developers, uh they entered into a threepart agree three-party agreement uh that uh is registered and recorded as a covenant uh with the property records that has a uh pledge, a promise from the owner that runs with the land. uh that says the golf course will remain a golf course in perpetuity. Uh that promise was secured uh with a payment of $130,000 from the developers to the owner of the golf course and properly recorded. So, as the golf course talks about plans for development, improvements, those kind of things, it's just natural for our HOA to be interested in making sure that uh those plans uh don't compromise that promise uh to have a golf course, a public access golf course uh there in perpetuity. And so, uh, on behalf of the Sarah Glenn HOA, uh, I I do again want to say to the, uh, golf course owners, we wish you well. Uh but we want on the record just so that there's an understanding that there is as you consider as a planning commissioner future plans opportunities that may come uh attached to this property that there is that agreement uh that this must remain a golf course in perpetuity. So that's all I needed to say. Thank you very much.

Thank you. I assume you're not against the annexation. We are not.

Okay. Thank you. Just to make sure. Anyone else have any comments or questions or make a statement? Please feel free. Bruce Moyer uh reside at 2245 Southeast Magnolia Avenue, Dallas. Uh I know where Mike lives. Uh, our house abuts the the golf course at at pole number five. Uh, I I rise to support their request for annexation uh with a caveat that the city will do their due diligence in determining that adequate water and sewer is available to that project. Additionally, I wanted to re reemphasize that there are two agreements between the city of Salem or excuse me, city of Dallas uh the golf course owners and uh series Glenn uh HOA that says that this prop the golf course portion of this property is to remain a golf course in perpetuity. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Feel free. You still have to state your name and address again. Sorry, I'll do that. I realize we're on a different case now. Yeah.

Name is Mitch Teal. I live at 1418 Arabian Avenue. That's Arabian like the horse. Southeast Salem, 97317. I also own the property directly adjacent to the east and it was 15.36 acres and under measure 37 I um went through the process which is similar to a bloodletting and uh created two legal parcels that are now sold and the owners of those are here with us as well and I just know that uh I have no objection to the annexation. I wish them well. I think the RV park is I've seen Malard's Landing is an example where they've got that down in the Lebanon area and seems to work quite well, but um I anticipate in looking at this layout, there's a lot of hair on this deal and uh so I think there'll be a whole lot more to be discussed at the next level. So I'll reserve those comments for that time. Just to clarify, when you say your property is to the east, is it that field up above or the property is adjacent to the road?

You will allow me. I'll point it out. Please feel free. That's always better than trying to describe it. This piece right here. Oh, okay. Over, down, all the way across the creek, back over and up. Okay. I sold this piece and the one next to it.

Oh, okay. I didn't realize there was a road back there. Thank you. There's actually a road. Um, it's called on Google Earth. It's called Maple Tree Drive. And, uh, I'm probably the only one here that knows that story, but my dad worked for the city for 37 years, and he knew where they made the signs. And there's a huge maple tree there on the property. And so he went down, made a sign, put it up on the road, and somebody's now knocked it down. Drunk driver or something, but it's on Google Earth. So there you go.

Uh Maple Tree Drive is a 24 foot wide easement all the way from the center of Ellenale or Highway 223 all the way through and across the creek and to the middle of Or Corner Road. Thank you. But it ends at my barn now. You got it. Thank you. I support the application. Thank you very much, Mitch. Do we have anyone else? No. Hands are going up. Whoops, there's one. Go ahead. Come on up. Name's Jason Duncan. Can you Can you do it in the microphone? This is recorded for

Jason Duncan, 2523 East Ellenale Avenue, Dallas, Oregon, 97338 with my good friend Dave Brinker there. Um, and it's one of our good friends. His name was Sterling Trobridge and he told me he cannot fight city hall, but here I am. Anyway, um my concern with this is there's talk of a emergency exit going down what he calls Maple Tree Lane, which is it's not a uh official driveway. It's just someone decided to name it.

Just for inspecting, all we're dealing with is the annexation at the moment. And I don't know if that's part of it, but if go ahead if you like and we'll we'll keep it in our minds. Well, there was no mention of it tonight, but there was mention of it um in some of the paperwork. I believe we should have the applicant rebutt that. So, go ahead and make your comment. Well, I just wanted to for the record say that I would be opposed to an exit from the RV park through Maple Tree Lane, which runs right through my driveway. Um, well, we're not dealing with that.

We're not dealing with that tonight, then. I don't know why I'm here. Well, the RV park is We actually have two separate things. The RV park is not part of the annexation. After we're finished with this hearing, then we're going to deal with the option of being able to put the RV park on the lot. So, that may be when it's time for you to make your comment, but we've got your comment in here now.

Okay. All we're doing is putting this land from the county to the city. But thank you. So, don't leave. Anyone else? One more. Go ahead. Sandra Harris, 1434 Southeast Academy Street in Dallas. And I am absolutely opposed to this being reszoned. We own property right here along this access road. This I assume is where the RV park would be. And I know this isn't about the RV park, but I don't want any development. That's not why we bought the property.

Okay. Well, I am adamantly opposed and I will oppose everything along the way. Okay. Anyone else? For the record, I can share that easement goes back to 1909. Thank you for the crers.

Thank you for your input. Anyone else want to put their hand up and say something on the record? Going once. Going twice. Alrighty, we will close the comment period and allow for applicant five minutes for rebuttal if you would please. One or both of you. Either way.

Um, thanks. You know, we appreciate the comments. I'll just briefly respond a couple of the things. Um yes, um as Mr. Holland and and Ber you know noted there there are uh agreements um that run with the land. Um they're also reflected I believe in some of the historical conditions of approval for maybe series Glenn as they indicated. Um, so, uh, in I'll repeat these comments in the next hearing, but just for purposes of of of being responsive for people. Uh, one of the the comments was if if this is or recommendations on the proposed use would be that it would be a conditional use, which means that it's going to be uh require a hearing and a description, you know, specifically what would it be? and and at that time um uh they'll the the the city staff will be able to go ahead and take into account the the impacts on the surrounding properties and and and ensuring that there's not a significant impact and that reasonable conditions of approval would be applied. And that's when we would get into to comments regarding um you know uh concerns on access roads or or or neighboring property owners. Um but you know that you know we we had a choice of you know do you provide a lot of information on these types of uh legislative decisions high level decisions long range planning decisions um or or not. Um so we shared a lot of information that's why there was some reference um in the materials uh just to basically say no there's no there's no no need that we would need to take any um uh recreational vehicles um on as a as a secondary axis we have a TIA which shows that um the axis on the or corner is is adequate in size and capacity so um and from a safety standpoint. So that

information is is is provided in the record to try try to assuage concerns. Um and we can talk more about, you know, the processes on the golf course and in the next hearing.

Thank you for putting as much information out there so people can get a heads up early on to know where they might have issues even if it's not something we're dealing with tonight. Thank you. So, I will uh chime in because I realize the the uh agreement is actually not part of the uh materials that were provided to you. Um it is a recorded document. It's uh PK County uh book of record uh 2001 uh 005945. Um and there's nothing that I see in this agreement that would limit the ability of the property to be annexed or uh reszoned. Um the only requirement in this is that uh it continued to to meet the open space requirement for the city's uh standards and that it continued to be used as a 9-hole golf course. Um comprised of uh TE's fairways and greens not less than 2,500 yards in total length. Um and so that's the restriction that's in place. Um, so it doesn't place any restriction on areas of the property being used for maintenance or parking, clubhouse, driving ranges, um, or any other use not comprising TE's, fairways, and greens. So, um, yeah,

thank you for clarifying that. Yes.

All righty. Do Okay, where are we? Uh, we've had rebuttal. Any final comments from city staff attorney? I think that's what we just got. Um, all right. Hearing nothing else, uh, I now declare the public hearing closed at 8:13. Uh, may we have deliberation on this topic from the commission. Everybody's thinking, but I'm not hearing any thoughts. If we don't have any any questions or comments. Um, let's see. Where are we? Uh, is there a motion by the commission? Let me see if I can find where that is.

Council approved the annexation of property and approve the zone change to continue. Well, it says subject to the conditions in the staff report. Oh, wait. But there aren't any conditions. So, let's delete that part. My apologies.

Okay, we got it. So, thank you very much. All right, we are moved and seconded. Uh, is there any discussion? Obviously, I'm not expecting any. Uh, we will now vote on the motion. The motion is to, and I got to get back there, uh, recommend that the city council approve the annexation of the subject property and approve the zone change to parks and open space. Period. Would you please call the the role, please? Commissioner Newell, Commissioner Spaford, Commissioner Schulty, Commissioner Kash, Commissioner Grow, yes.

Approved. Alrighty, the motion passes. The commission's recommendation tonight will be forwarded to the city council for their consideration at an upcoming meeting. Notice of public hearing before the city council will be sent to all the participants of record. That means all of you who spoke again, you're going to get two notices and some of you only get one. And of course the applicant will

um I don't know what the notification requirements are but Chase knows. Yeah. So we uh we send notice to um all of the properties within 150 ft of the property that's subject to the land use action. Um we send 150 150

Yeah. Um, and so the the statutory standard is 50 feet, but we do 150 just to have an extra margin of error. Um, the uh uh notices they get sent to the mailing address that's on file with the P County tax assessor. Um, so it's possible that the address that's on file with them is incorrect, that it got lost in the mail, um, that you're outside of that 150 ft distance. Um, so there's a number of reasons that you may not have gotten one. Um, we're glad that you're here. Obviously, you found out about it somehow. And if you've Right. And if you've given us uh your your name and address as part of testimony, um, then that name and address uh will receive a a notice of the decision in the mail that I've not seen represented in anything so far. So maybe we're going to see it in the next phase here with the uh RV park proposal, but I have not seen what I was mailed.

Okay. Okay. Um can you see if his name is on the notification list? Uh yeah, I can do that.

Okay. and and if there's an issue, maybe you two can coordinate because it could either be that your mailing address is not current at Poke County or um you were considered as not within 150 ft, but it looks like you should have been. So, who knows? Anyway, all righty. Um that's taken care of. We will move on. We are now looking at development code update. Uh LA250-03 amend Dallas development code. Can you guys do that outside please? Thank you. Um to amend Dallas Development Code Chapter 2.5 to allow RV parks in the parks and open space zone. Alrighty. Turn over my thing. Uh, this is an official public hearing before the Dallas Planning Commission. I now declare this public hearing open at 8:18. Alrighty. And we'll give Chase a second to come back. Um, the application is subject to land use proceedings recognized by state law. I will read the following statement. The failure to raise an issue with sufficient detail to afford the 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. Applicable approval criteria are found in the staff report. At this time, I will ask if any member of the planning commission has a conflict of interest, site visit, or exparte contact to declare. I assume nothing's changed. So, we will continue. And now that Chase is back, we will continue. Uh, this hearing

will be conducted in the following manner. We will begin with the staff report followed by questions of staff. Thereafter, we will hear from the applicant including members of the applicant team for a total of 15 minutes. This may be followed by questions from the commission. Thereafter, we will hear from all others interested in presenting testimony on this item before the commission. Each person will be provided five minutes to testify. We will then provide the applicant with five minutes for rebuttal. After we have heard all testimony, I will close the hearing and ask the commission to deliberate and then ask if there is a motion for recommendation in response to this proposal. At this time, we'll start with the staff report. May we have the staff report, please, Miss Chase?

Yes. So, the uh uh staff report that I have for you, um I don't have a PowerPoint on this one. Uh but you do have the uh the written staff report in front of you. Um so in short uh the applicant is requesting um that we uh amend the allowed uses uh in the uh uh parks and open space zone um essentially to allow uh golf courses um to allow RV parks in conjunction uh with golf courses. Um, currently RV parks are not an allowed use in uh the parks and open space zone. Um, and so this this amendment would permit uh an RV park to be uh constructed in conjunction with the existing golf course. Um, the applicant's proposal was that that be sort of an outright permitted use. Um, staff are recommending that it be a conditional use. um given the nature of an RV park, it may have um some sightsp specific kind of impacts on the vicinity that um would warrant a heightened level of review through the conditional use permit process which is primarily a process that looks at what are the uh the impacts of a use to the surrounding uh community. um in addition to the standard sort of site design review approval criteria that we have um anytime that we're doing a development of a property. So um the staff recommendation as I said is uh to allow RV parks in conjunction with golf courses as a conditional use. Um the approval criteria that we have for um for uh text amendments uh which is I'm going to grab the stack report.

Uh so the the approval criteria that we have um it is and I'm pushing all my keyboard buttons. Uh, where did that go?

Uh, I was looking actually for the staff report that I wrote. Um, because that specifies it's a fairly short staff report. Um, again, because the applicant gave us uh such a thorough exhibit 109 and the warranty deed.

Yep, I found it. Um and so yeah, the uh the procedure is specified in chapter 4.7. Um and so all all code amendments kind of follow that uh that type four procedure. Um so to the extent that it's a a legislative uh procedure, um the decisions are made ultimately by city council upon recommendation by the uh the planning commission still has to conform to the transportation planning rule. Um but basically the request has to be consistent with the statewide planning goals. Um has to be consistent with the comprehensive plan. Um and again uh there's that sort of general overarching requirement that the property and affected area is uh presently provided or can be provided with uh adequate public facilities and services. So um the applicants uh narrative again goes into some some great detail as to how those are satisfied. Um staff have concurred with that. We we believe that uh those those approval criteria um are are satisfied. Uh specifically uh staff have called out uh uh Dallas comprehensive plan policy uh 2.8.6 six uh which calls for the city to uh promote the expansion of services for residents of Dallas and visitors to Dallas including services for tourism, agra tourism, outdoor recreation and supporting services that provide food, beverage and hospitality. Um and so to the extent that the RV park the the amendment of the development code to allow an RV park um would be something that promotes the expansion of hospitality that promotes the expansion of tourism um that promotes the expansion of uh you know outdoor recreation opportunities such as the golf course. Um we we believe that uh this this amendment um conforms with

that comprehensive plan policy um to to do that. So, um staff are recommending um that the planning commission uh recommend to city council that the uh the development code amendment uh be be approved um allowing that uh uh RV parks uh can be a conditional use uh in conjunction with a golf course. So, that's what I have for you on that. happy to answer questions. We also have the applicant's representative here as well. So, um, so the change to the development code chapter 2.5 is just adding recreational vehicle park in condition with golf courses. Yes, it is literally a a one sentence change to the development code

addition, but it's to the section of the development code that says what uses are allowed in different zones. So, it is a fairly consequential difference. Sure. And the reason that chapter 4 is referred to in most of the staff report is because that's the procedure to change the development code. Is that correct? Correct. Yes. So the the uh procedures and the approval criteria for changing development code are in chapter 4 or article 4 I should say.

Okay, sounds good. Does anyone else have any more questions? Alrighty. Um got all these pieces of paper all over the place. Okay. Uh if we have no more questions, we will now hear from the applicant. As a reminder, you have Wow, you're already there. 15 minutes to present. Also, please state your name and address. For the record once more,

thank you. Uh again, for the record, my name is Alan Sorum, Million address, 250 Church Street, Southeast Salem, Sweet 200. Uh with me is David Brinker, Senior. Um just David just asked me a question of like does, you know, does the Dallas allow this in in other zones or things, you know, short-term hospitality, hotels, motel, things like that? Those those are allowed in the city of Dallas. seem to primarily be like a commercial retail zone. Um, we did not want to try to change the designation of the golf course. You know, our goal was to keep the golf course going, but to add flexibility. So I'll I make that comment one to answer David's question but two also just to kind cuz you know other people might have that question but also just to call out you know what we what we were looking to do was to we wanted to add the flexibility but you know we're not here to try to suggest that the city need to um change the character of the community in any significant way. And this so this was the smallest text amendment the smallest thing to allow us to be able to come into it. um the the planning department um you know commented and we're okay with and in in in some ways think it's a good edit uh that it not be an outright permitted use but it be subject to conditional use in addition to site plan review and and again for those who are who are concerned and don't necessarily understand what those terms are site plan review primarily geared toward making sure you got adequate public facilities the site siteback standards are right the design standards are Conditional use means that the city gets to look at the the proposal in a broader way. And in addition to ensuring those requirements are met, it gets to ensure the question of is is the applicant, you know, proposal significantly um consistent with the surrounding neighborhood and are there any you know impacts that need to be reasonably

mitigated with conditions of approval. So um there will be you know uh the good news for some you know there'll be other land use hearings and and candidly that was what this whole journey's been about is we don't have the right to even apply to do the thing that we think we need in order to keep the golf course going in a sustainable way you know now and into the future and and to follow the trends of many similarly situated golf courses in the Wamtt Valley. So in order to do that we had to kind of work back. We need water. We need sewer. We have those immediately available, but we don't get to tie in until we go ahead and do the annexation. Well, if you annex the property, you can't keep the county zoning. So, you got to change the zoning, too. Okay. Well, what's we're going to keep the designation cuz it's already been designated public. We'll keep that. But the public zone doesn't let you do the thing you want to do. Okay. Well, how can we go about that? We looked at maybe could we do this as an accessory use? And there's a lot of stuff in the applicant's materials that gets into the weeds of the code analysis, but the short term, the short answer is is we had a request for a minor text amendment in order to clearly be able to do what we're doing. And this is a legislative decision for city council. They'll have broad discretion, but we do feel confident that in our materials, we we demonstrated it complies with comp plan, complies with all of the statewide planning goals, and and in Dallas, you know, special attention is provided to goal 12 in the transportation. We got a great traffic report in there. Um, so we we we that was a little bit about our our process. Um, with that, uh, if there are any other questions from commissioners, we're we're happy to to answer them. If not, we'll we'll yield and allow the rest of the community to to comment. Any questions? I applaud you doing it as a adding the or being okay to it being a conditional use because as a member of the parks

board I really don't want to have people allowed to go putting RV parks in they have a part of parks and open spaces automatically as a conditional use. We get to decide this one specifically. This this just lets the door open for this use on that designation. I'll call attention to the proposal was recreational vehicle park in conjunction with golf courses. So it was also wasn't very

it was very specific. Thank you. Thank you for clarifying that. Does anyone else have any questions? Alrighty. Ah thank you very much. Uh we will now hear from those in attendance tonight who would like to address the commission on this item. Please raise your hand if you would like to testify. And once again to clarify, all we're talking about is for them to be or for us to change the development code to allow for this use. When this use comes up, that will be a to a conditional use requires a separate hearing and the planning commission does make that decision. All we're talking about is being able to change the development code so that this is a possibility. So with that in mind, please testify if you like. Any hands? There you go. You're three for three.

Picture back up. We'll get free lesson. Okay. Not too long. We're getting late, but go for it. I just want you to know. Yeah. We really don't want I understand. Okay. So, we're back to this property. Okay.

And uh I guess the point of order that I could bring at this point, there's a road that runs right here and that was an emergency access when the floods came and I can't remember the year. I apologize, but it wiped out the uh the bridge that comes into the golf course now. So, there's a concrete bridge there now. It was all wood u pillars and so was being the operative word. Sorry. Was being the operative word.

Exactly. Yeah. It's downstream somewhere. Um but anyway, Alennis lived here at the time. He bought the place from the Fergusons. That was Sue Ferguson. Cinderella Modeling. Never understood why they lived here. Anyway, so this road that comes through here um was they asked during the golf course process that they be able to use that as emergency exit. Now obviously it take you right through the golf course that was actually put in to be able to bring a rock down to rip off the banks and construct a new bridge. So it's a good little road, but it's a little narrow road right now. And uh on honestly these people here which uh Jeff is here and Sandra and Robert have this piece. They don't want that traffic going by their house. So I'm in support of doing something with the golf course property. But uh I am not in support of them using that road. if you go back and look at the county records and I've given the city a heads up to go back and look at the record that was uh adamantly addressed by my parents and Bob and Sue Henry who lived right across the road from my parents and uh it was rejected when they got permission to build a golf course. One of the conditions was you're not going to use that road for access.

Emergency access is the key. Yes, that was a key then and even that was denied. There you go. Okay, thank you for they now have a bridge that they can go back and forth with. If they can squeeze two vehicles by there, good luck. But anyway, thank you. That's all I had to say. Okay, thank you very much. Thank you. Oh, and you got the name. Can we get your name in? Okay, you're fine. I think Ben's got it. Um, go ahead, please. I think we've seen him three times. I don't think we're going to ever have to get his name and address anymore.

Hi, I'm Jeff Guyger. I'm at 2513 East Ellenale Avenue. I'm right off Hole number six in uh one of the twoacre lots that Mitch was talking about. My wife and I purchased from him a few years ago. Um I'm actually in favor of the the RV development plan and and wish you guys well on that. And I really just want to keep it short. I sent an email to Chase uh to to say what I'm going to say right now. I feel like like Mitch does. Uh my only concern once you go to your your uh proposal to how you want to put this RV park in is that uh that drive that goes right in front of my house, right in front of my driveway. There's no way big RVs and fifth wheels are going to make it down there. They're going to they're going to fall over into the fence or fall into my field and there's no way they're going to come up and make a a lefthand turn and go up to Ellenale uh with the way it's all put together now. So, if the city wants to come in and improve all that, I'm all for that, too. Not even in the city.

That's all I wanted to say. Thank you. Thank you. Good job. Anyone else? Going once. Whoa. Go ahead. You know, I'm Sandra Harris, 1434 Southeast Academy Street, Dallas. You know where our property is. I don't want to live next to an RV park. I don't think any of you would want to live next to an RV park. I don't think this will be good for Dallas. I don't think it will be successful. So, I am totally totally against it and I will fight it every bit of the way. Thank you.

Anymore? Going once, going twice. Sold. Alrighty. Uh, chance for you to rebut anything if you have any questions or want to talk about the road anymore? No. Okay, that's just fine. Okay. Any final comments from city staff or the city attorney? Everybody still awake over there? Not for me. Okay. Chase, anything? No comments from me.

Okay. I will now declare the hearing closed at 8:36. Make my little note here. All right. Uh, is there any Whoops. I will now did that. May we have deliberation on this topic by the commission? probably isn't at this point to say anything about the emergency exit from the property. Say anything you want. Um would it help at all to say that we don't want that used as part of the RV park at some point or is that part of the site plan?

That would be when we actually have an RV park to look at. Okay. Okay. And if they bring it in and put it on there, then everybody in their brother is going to get a chance to come down and talk about it. It'll be back. Okay. Yeah, we've heard that. Thank you for bringing that up, Carol.

Anyone else? All righty. I will entertain a motion uh by the commission. And the motion is found on It went away. It's around here somewhere. Here we go. Recommended motion is move to recommend the city council approve the modified proposed amendment to the Dallas development code to allow RV parks in the parks and open space zone in conjunction with the golf course subject to a conditional use permit. Anybody want to move that? All right. Second.

Thank you. John moved and Rich seconded. Any discussion? I don't think so. I will call for a vote. Would you call the role please? Commissioner Newell, Commissioner Spaford, yes. Commissioner Schulty, yes. Commissioner Kash, Commissioner Grow, yes. Approved.

All righty. The motion is approved. Passed. Whatever. The commission's recommendation tonight will be forwarded to the city council for their consideration at an upcoming meeting. Notice of public hearing before the city council will be sent to all participants of record, meaning those of you who talked. And you're going to get so much mail. Anyway, um, all right. Last, well, it isn't last on our agenda, but it is the last official thing we're going to deal with is land use, uh, 25-04, development code update, amend Dallas development code chapter 2.10 regarding historic preservation regulations. All right, we'll give the chance for everybody to get out of here who wants to. And I can find where the next one is.

Andy, is this a public hearing? This last one? Yes, they all are. Same thing. That's why I only got one I only got one of these because they're all legislative hearings. Thank you for coming and if you can leave, we can finish.

If you if you don't mind, we want to go home. Thank you. Have a fun talking out there all you want. We got to wait for Benjamin to come back. All right, let's see. I read what it was about. Um, this is an official public hearing before the Dallas Planning Commission. I better wait for Ben to come back.

What do you think? I'm I'm almost out of juice here. I'm going to need another something for my throat. My goodness gracious. Two drops of water. That's not a bad idea. Nah, I'll be okay. I've got a couple more minutes. I'll self-medicate here. Oops. We're waiting for Ben.

Okay. Yep. I was thinking that too, but I can't remember any other reason why he leap. And and Tyler, were you doing the presentation on this one? If you want to speak on it, you're welcome to come up. We have to wait till we start. You can come up anytime you want.

But hey, at least you get paid by the hour [Laughter] to listen to all these fun proceedings. Certainly don't envy your position. Yeah. And the chair who didn't hear is getting my thanks. Oh, yeah. Well, and I'm I'm very sympathetic towards Ben because this is not the only committee that he does this with. So, has a lot of these late nights with different committees, but he doesn't have to talk the whole time. I'm waiting for you. Don't you dare leave. Okay. Is that legal? I don't think you

I don't think you can lock it yet. We're still doing a We're still doing a hearing and it's about to be called to order. Proceed.

All right. This is an official public hearing before I already talked about what it was, so we're good there. This is an official public hearing before the Dallas Planning Commission. I now declare this public hearing open at 8:42. 42, one of my favorite numbers. All right. As the application is subject to land use proceedings recognized by state law, I will read the following statement one more time. The failure to raise an issue with sufficient detail to afford the commission and the parties an adequate opportunity to respond to each issue precludes an 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. Applicable approval criteria are found in the staff report. This time I will ask if any member of the planning commission has a conflict of interest, site visit or exparte conduct to declare. Anybody done yawning? Okay, you're not going to say anything. All righty. The hearing will be conducted in the following manner. We will begin with a staff report followed by questions of staff. Thereafter, we will hear from the applicant including members of the applicant team for a total of 15 minutes. That's you. This may be followed by questions from the commission. Thereafter, we will hear from all others interested in presenting testimony on this item before the commission. Each person will be provided five minutes to testify. We will then provide the applicant with five minutes for rebuttal. After we have heard all testimony, I will close the hearing and ask the commission to deliberate and then ask if there is a motion for recommendation in response to this proposal. At this time, first I'm going to ask Ben, is there anybody in the phone queue?

There is not. Okay. Well, when we get to the point for for questions, I will ask you one more time. Um, all right. I will I'll say after we have heard all testimony, I will close the hearing and ask the commission deliberate and then ask if there is a motion for recommendation in response to this proposal. This time, we'll start with the staff report. May we have the staff report, please? You like to defer to me on that, Chase? Uh, we can do this in whatever order you'd like. the audience has left the building. I will uh I will take it all on. Okay. So, commissioners, uh thank you for the time tonight. If we haven't met, tell us who you are. Yes, I was going to get to that.

My name, if we haven't met before, my name is Tyler Ferrari. I work in our economic and community development department um as our economic development specialist. And part of my role is serving as the chief or the city's um historic preservation officer. Um so the legislative amendment before you tonight is changes to the development code as it relates to historic preservation. Um the code changes you'll see tonight um they are um substantive in the sense that staff um with the assistance of council um as well as the city manager's office have been working to make the necessary adjustments to the development code as it relates to historic preservation um to match the changing um to match the changing landscape of historic preservation um in Dallas. Um, in May of 2024, the um, National Park Service our downtown historic district um, as a nationally recognized um, historic district and with that came um, some need to make changes um, to the development code to match um, that designation as well as um, um, just rectify some errors and um, outdated language that was in there. Um, so the code before you is a modified version of the model code from the state historic preservation office. Um, and what this code establishes is it establishes the definitions um for historic resources in the community. It establishes the process for which we will which um the historic preservation officer evaluates historic appropriateness um for projects in the vicinity of and projects that are associated with um historically identified resources. And what those resources would be are any resources that are on the city's local um landmarks um local landmarks registry

as well as any resources that are on um that are within the historic um downtown district. Um the good news is is a lot of those resources overlap. Um, so a lot of these are so a lot of the language in here is redundant in the sense um that it covers um the same types of properties, but we do have a couple of um private homes that are on the local landmarks list, but not in the downtown district because they're not in the downtown. Um, and so what this um what this code essentially does is it establishes the formal process um that a property owner will go through if they want to make changes to a historic property that is on this list um or if they want to develop a new building within a historic resource like the downtown district. Um and so that is what is before you tonight. I'm happy to answer any questions you all may have. And correctly, exhibit one looks like it becomes the new chapter 2.10. Is that correct?

Yes, it is. Okay. And so it doesn't have the the heading 2.10, 10. But because this is the one that's all going to be deleted, I'm assuming that and and you've thoroughly checked this and you like it cuz even if I read the whole thing, I'm not sure I would know anything enough about it to Yes, we we anything. We've spent um we spent considerable time going through that and making the necessary changes. We also sent it to the state historic preservation office which oversees the statewide um preservation um goals for the state as well as maintains compliance with the national regulations um as they exist currently um and so it was approved um by them as well.

Also notice that the numbering convention is different in the previous it was 2.1.010 and this is now 2.10 10.10 and you start with policy instead of purpose and that's all you're changing the numbering convention.

Yes. And so the parts that were removed that called for that were because portions of the um portions of the previous development code it contained portions for the formation and the purpose of the committee. and those um traditionally exist in municipal code. And so there will be later changes to the municipal code that reflect the that reflect the actual construction and duties of the commission where this solely pertains to its role in terms of the development process. Other words, this isn't elective locally. This is compliance with state and federal government. So it's a short conversation. This is legislative. Yes. Yeah. This is the law. It's like Chipo already approved it. So So like

Yes. Yeah. So the the the so what precipitated the changes um was that the old code did not did not use the language for nationally recognized um resources. Um so if we were to leave the code the same, our the city development code wouldn't have the same protections that are required um under state law, which would put our certified local government um status in jeopardy. Um, and we don't want that because it allows us to access grant funding as well as provides us with resources for historic preservation. And so that's that's really the crux of these changes.

Okay, sounds good. Anybody else have any more questions? All righty. Where am I? We will now hear from the applicant. Is that also you? That is also me and I have nothing else to add. You have nothing else to add. Okay. There. So that 15 minutes is gone. Uh, does the commission have questions of the applicant? I think we kind of already did that. It combined with the presentation. Uh, we're now going to hear from those in attendance tonight who would like to address the commission on this item. Please raise your hand or call us if you would like to testify. Is anyone in the queue? There are no callers in the queue and we lost our one viewer on the live stream.

Oh, well, I guess we're not that interesting anymore. Okay. So, alrighty. I don't have to worry if my beard grew too much now. Okay. Uh I'm not going to start with anybody. We're not going to ask that person. We're now not going to have any rebuttal. Any final comments from staff city attorney? On this I think since January. So I'm glad to get this wrapped up.

All right. I'm glad we can actually get this done after three others that got actually done. Well, so far this all has to go to council. So we're not really doing anything. We're just recommending. But yeah, anyway, we're getting you one more step closer. All righty. Now, I got to keep reading this script. Oh, I now declare the public hearing closed at 8:51. Write that down. I know Ben's doing it, but I want to have it if somebody calls me on it. Uh, may we have deliberation on this topic by the commission? We're all experts. Well, maybe Carol is, but I don't know about anybody else. If you're not saying anything, I'm happy. Okay. Uh, I will ask if there is a motion by the commission, and the motion is to be

I recommend the city council approve the proposed amendment to the Dallas Development Code regarding historic preservation. Okay. As found in exhibit one. Well, actually, we'll just leave it that way. Everybody can find it. Okay. moved and seconded. Anybody want to talk about it? I don't think so. We're now going to vote on the motion. The motion is to recommend that the city council approved the proposed amendment to the Dallas Development Code regarding historic preservation. Would you please call the role? Commissioner Newell. Commissioner Spaford. Yes. Commissioner Schulty. Commissioner Kawash. Commissioner Grow.

Yes. Motion passes unanimously. Commission's recommendations tonight will be forwarded to the city council for their consideration at an upcoming meeting. Notice of public hearing before the city council will be sent to all participants of record. All of us for all the hard work. Well, hey, it was kind of fun. I'm losing my voice. Any commissioner comments? None. Nobody wants to say anything. My voice is about gone anyway. Staff comments. Um, so I was noticing uh you are correct. There was a missing digit in those file uh in those section numbers for the historic preservation text. But they changed it. I'm assuming it's what you said, right? They changed the way they're numbering it.

Yeah, I think that was uh a misunderstanding. So, we'll get that squared away when it goes to city council. Good. Okay, we're at staff comments, but go ahead. No, no, no. Please feel free. I'm I'm anything. If not, it's after this item, so Okay, go for it. Can we get Oh, yes. Yes.

So, um they're uh anytime we're we're doing a comp plan amendment, they always uh request uh or zone change, they always request uh documentation from us as part of their kind of watchdog group uh activities. Um and I think they kind of give us some copy paste kind of responses. Um in this case I I believe that they are uh incorrect in the timing of this because what we were doing was not a comp plan amendment. Um it was simply a uh a zone change. And so I think the the application of that 3% rule um isn't really applicable at this phase. Yeah,

thank you. I think they may have given us a either an incorrect copy paste or one that was not entirely uh accurate to our circumstances. So um that's why we did not really address it during the hearing. Um I have not but I suppose I can get back to them and be like hey I think that was not entirely yeah I don't think that apply that part applies to us we're happy to yeah again they they review every one of the type fours that we do and yeah

and if and if you do that you can let them know we've recommended it to city council if they would like if they don't agree they can address city council it be prior to their hearing and then it can be addressed if they think we're in error. Close up that little loop. Yeah, absolutely. And um

thank you for bringing that on that subject. We are going to be doing a housing needs analysis again um sometime in the next uh I believe two years. We'll start that process. I believe our our timeline is 2027 to start that. Um we may end up starting a little bit early, but yeah, so that is something that's uh coming up fairly rapidly. So, um, it will be relevant in the not too distant future. Okay, we got to finish that transmission system plan update first. One problem at a time. It was kind of cool though. It's nice.

Righty. All right. Anybody else for the good of the order? Very well done. Well, thank you. Did a great job. I have a voice that that is applicable for things like this. You did a great job much for talking to the people that needed to come and visit. Well, I I never know if I'm allowed to do that and John might have slapped my hand, but I kind of Yes. But I did it anyway. It it was it was a good I just I just think it's important even if it's not relevant precisely to what we're doing to let them know why, you know, and

was trying to do with some of my comments is help them understand, okay, well, you have to weigh this thing and you also have to weigh this thing and you have to follow the law and that has to come together. Thank you for being here. You didn't say anything, but you got paid, right? That's That's what I was That's what I was afraid of. Yeah.

Hey, thanks for letting us know that or three or four. My wife might appreciate that. Get out of here. I just