Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

It's uh 6 o'clock and it is uh time to call to order the City of Dallas Planning Commission for Thursday, May the 14th. Uh let's have the roll call, please. Commissioner Swanson here. Commissioner Grow, Commissioner Kash, Commissioner Banford, and Commissioner Schulty let staff know ahead of time they're going to be absent. Commissioner Newell and Commissioner White here. Uh, quorum is present.

Thank you. Uh, agenda item number three is approval of the minutes, the regular meeting from April April 9th. Assuming all the commissioners have read it, are there is there a motion to approve the minutes as read or a motion to amend for whatever reason? Go ahead, Scott.

Yes. Uh, chair, thank you. I have a requested motion to amend uh page three of the packet here under deliberations. starts with uh myself there addressed light lighting and parking concerns and proposed two new conditions of approval which would require shielding on on the lighting and then goes into talking a legal agreement where da da at the end of the sentence there. Um I don't really feel that last part of the sentence accurately describes what I had suggested. I had suggested a parking disclosure statement and that was really all there was to it. So that would be my request for to amend is just uh where uh after would require shielding on shielding on the lighting and then it would just be and a parking disclosure statement period would uh more accurately account for what I was proposing.

Okay. No, with that is a is a amendment to approve with the to appro motion to approve with this with the amendment. I don't recall your exact wording, Scott, but Benjamin over your shoulder there's like a it's okay. Yeah. So, uh it's minutes. It's minutes, but it's also transcribed from a recording. So, exactly. I appreciate you, uh, you know, checking the accuracy of that. Commissioners, do we have Let's just have a discussion here. Does anybody remember it differently than what Scott said? Same discussion.

Okay. Okay. So, we have a motion to approve the minutes with the said uh uh correction. I'll make a second with the said correction.

Thank you. Let's have a voice vote. All those in favor say I. I oppose the same sign. So, we've passed the minutes uh with that change. So, if you'd make sure that change is reflected, Benjamin, I'd appreciate that very much. We now move on to uh agendum agenda item number four, which is a public hearing. It's a conditional use uh request number 2602 for the development of an RV park in conjunction to the golf course on ORS Corner Road. So the way this works folks is uh we open up a public hearing. I read a script as required by law. So we'll go through that and in that reading uh we'll I'll give instructions as to how we proceed. So, this is a public hearing regarding property located at I just saw it at 111875 ORS Corner Road. It's an application for the development of an RV park in conjunction to the existing golf course. The approval criteria is Dallas Development Code 4.4.040. This is an official public hearing before the Dallas Planning Commission, and I now declare this public hearing open at 6:04 p.m. As the application is subject to land use proceedings recognized by state law, I read the following statement. the failure to disclose an issue with sufficient detail to afford the Dallas Planning Commission and the involved parties in adequate opportunity to respond to each issue precludes appeal to the state land use board of appeals based upon that issue. So, please direct

all testimony to the record and the applicable criteria that is lift listed in the staff report or to development code criteria that you believe applies to the decision. The applicable approval criteria are found I said in chapter 4.4.040. And I will ask at this time if any members of our planning commission has a conflict of interest, a site visit or an exparte contact to declare on this agenda item. Go ahead.

Uh Mr. Chair, I have no bias or conflict or interest conflict of interest uh on this proposal. I do want to disclose some early knowledge of this proposal that I had in my employment days at the city of Dallas. This was roughly six years ago when uh there was a pre-application conference and uh I led that con pre-application conference uh as I recall is my title of planning and building director for the city of Dallas at the time and uh it was a discussion generally about annexation of the site as the property was outside the city at the time and so discussion about an annexation agreement and there was interest uh in development of the site specific to the purpose uh of tonight too. So there was some discussion about that. So I have I'm just privy to some early comments about uh this development proposal again six years ago and in my capacity as a city employee there. I am no longer of course employed by the city of Dallas and since my employment of about roughly six years ago again uh I have not been to the site or had any discussions with anybody uh regarding the the project or the site or had any conversations with the applicant or staff. So you don't feel that there's any previous knowledge that you have that would preclude you from making a sound unbiased decision this evening?

Correct. I can make Yes, I I can make an unbiased decision. Objective, unbiased. Yes, for disclosing that, Scott, is that okay with you, council? That works for me.

Okay. I can also say that uh I also have previous employment with the city of Dallas much longer ago than Scott and I just have some historic knowledge of the site and the fact that it was adjacent to the city and there was always you know back in the day when I worked here there was always uh discussion about if and when the property was annexed and how it may be developed further but again uh I don't believe that there's any conflict or I have any knowledge or any background that would would prevent me from rendering a a fair hearing of the proposal that we have tonight? Is that okay, council? Very fair.

Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. Thank you very much. It's important stuff to go through. So, this hearing will be conducted in the following manner. We will begin with the staff report followed by questions from the planning commissioners to the staff. Thereafter, we'll hear from the applicant including any members of the applicant's team that they brought along for a total of 15 minutes and this may be followed by questions uh of the applicant from the planning commission. Thereafter, we'll hear from all other interested parties in presenting testimony on this item before the commission. Each person will be provided five minutes to test to five minutes to testify. Uh thereafter we'll uh then we'll provide the applicant with five minutes more to rebut or respond to any of the testimony that was presented. And after we have heard all testimony, I will close the public hearing and ask the planning commission to deliberate and then uh ask for a motion in response to this proposal. In this case, the planning commission's decision on a conditional use is final unless the decision is appealed and then it would move forward to the Dallas City Council. I will note that we do have a memo that is dated yesterday from Poke County uh director of public works and also uh some written testimony from a resident that lives in the vicinity of the project uh that was submitted on May the 4th. And both of those are part of the public record. So at this time uh we will start with the staff report. So Jess, may we have the staff report on this proposal

please? Uh certainly yes. Um although I I will uh comment uh since you mentioned it uh the memo from PK County which was dated yesterday um was not actually submitted to the city until today. So, I'm not sure if the dating on that was a typo or um just what, but we didn't get it until this afternoon. It is on Is it on time to be relevant for our purposes this evening? Thank you. That's good enough.

Um okay, so uh as mentioned, the request is for a conditional use permit. Uh it's to develop an 80 space RV park in conjunction with a existing golf course. Um the uh Dallas development code uh for parks and open space zones uh does allow RV parks uh in conjunction with golf courses as a conditional use which is why it's before you today. Um the location um is the existing Dallas Golf Club uh uh 1875 Wars Corner Road there in the southeast part of town. Um from the aerial photograph, the golf club itself is highlighted there in the yellow. Um and the existing driving range uh is highlighted there in red. Um that is the location of the proposed RV park. It would replace the existing driving range. Um so approval criteria, there's there's three specific approval criteria for conditional uses. Um the site has to be adequate for the need. Uh negative impacts on adjacent properties can be mitigated and public facilities have adequate adequate capacity to support development of the site. Um the uh the staff report does go into some detail. We'll come we'll come back to that. Um in addition to the conditional use uh approval criteria, um that section of code uh also references the uh site design review standards. Um and so there's five criteria attached to that. Um the application is complete. Uh the underlying land use district standards are met. Uh non-conforming development shall be upgraded. um the design series of article three having been met and pre-existing conditions of approval having been met. Um the site design

review um is relatively straightforward in this instance. Uh there's not a lot of standards that we have for the parks and open space zone um unlike most of our other zones. Um so there's not a lot of site design review necessarily done as part of this. Um it does meet the applicable setbacks. Um, it does meet the applicable lot coverage standards. Um, there isn't really a parking mandate specified for RV parks. So, a lot of, uh, the things that would normally apply for site design reviews just kind of don't apply on this one. And the the staff report goes into some detail on that. Um, as for the conditional use approval criteria, um, those are a little bit more involved. Um the uh the site um is accessed by a uh a private bridge uh 20 foot wide curb to curb width um and so that was highlighted as a potential concern. The applicant has provided us with a traffic impact analysis um showing how that bridge uh could support the the proposed use. Um and so that that has been identified. Um, another potential concern was that um, there's not presently any fire hydrants in the vicinity. So, the ability to protect the site uh, in the event of a fire was a concern. Um, so one of the proposed conditions of approval is that the applicant would need to ensure adequate fire protection um, either by installing hydrants or or similar uh, kinds of protection measure measures. Um, sorry, I should probably flip to that slide. Um, so, uh, that's, uh, section, uh, uh, number, uh, proposed condition of approval number two there, the, uh, the ensuring adequate fire protection. Um,

the site is also located in a flood plane. Um, and so as part of that, a flood plane development permit is required prior to construction. Um and so that will ensure that there's no um adverse impacts to the flood storage capacity by the development. Um as well as ensuring the appropriate mitigations for any environmental impacts that may occur. Um some of those are more like engineering level details. So the fact that we don't have that application in front of us at the current time um isn't necessarily disqualifying. Um uh so because uh uh ORS Corner Road is jurisdiction of PK County, uh we do have a condition of approval here that uh they obtain a a access permit from PK County for the revised use. Um and so PK County's memo um references the need for a uh a new access permit as as part of the the process. Um we we do propose limiting the site to the the 80 RV spaces. uh specified in the approval. If for some reason they wish to expand the development, they would have to come back before this body for um a new conditional use permit or revision of the permit. So it would be capped at the 80 sites that are identified. Um and then uh per the traffic impact analysis um placing a stop sign um as as specified in that analysis. Um, and then to mitigate impacts, uh, making sure all lighting fixtures are aimed downward so we're not having, uh, light shining onto adjoining properties. Um, and, uh, then to protect the the creek, making sure that all development is at least 35 ft back from the the high water mark. Um, that's actually a fairly, uh, sizable increase from our standard of 10 ft. Um, and so the the applicant proposed that greater standard to ensure the protection of the creek. So, um, and

then, uh, an on-site, uh, signs for quiet, uh, times, um, between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. So, um, those are the the conditions of approval that we we had as part of the application. Um, so, uh, staff uh, recommendation was, uh, approval with conditions. Um, and so happy to, um, answer any questions that you may have. Um, we also have the applicant here who can uh answer questions as well.

And the applicant's uh presentation um does include some additional uh imagery of the proposed development. So, um that's why I don't have as many of those pictures here. Didn't want to duplicate the effort. There you go. Thank you very much. Uh commissioners, um I have a couple of questions, but I'll let you folks go first. So, this is our opportunity for us to ask questions of Jess as staff before we have the applicant presentation. Do we have any questions? I I just would like a memor memory refresher because this has been before us not very long ago. And um what was uh what was that? The annexation. the annexation of them.

Um so it would have been before this body uh twice before once for the urban growth boundary expansion um and then once again for the annexation. Um at the same time we were talking about the annexation, we were also talking about uh a development code update uh to allow RV parks in conjunction with golf courses. Um so that was concurrent in time but technically a separate process. Nice. Thank you, Mary. That's right. That's correct. So, we're going through the proper It was outside of the city limits,

even though it was called the Dallas Golf Club. Then, we did the urban growth boundary expansion and then the annexation. So, now that brings us here. This is inside the city and part of our preview. Quick question. Okay, we're going to go around the room. Carol, do you have any questions? Okay, Andy, go ahead. Is the TIA required for this process? Um yes. So the the TIA was required um as part of the annexation and zone change. Um and so that was uh carried forward into this process um due to the the size of the development um and the anticipated traffic impacts. Yes. Scott, go ahead.

Okay. I have a bunch of them. So that's okay. Let's have we're here.

That's right. Well, okay. Uh part of my questions were uh with regard to Pulk County and their uh input. I didn't see anything in the record either produced by the applicant or or staff as far as the packet that we received uh as far as a memo response comments from the county. And so we do have this memo and I've quickly given it a glance here. I wish you had a little bit more time for it, but uh there seems to be one just my quick observation is that uh uh it's not the type of memo that just says, "Yeah, great. Sure. We agree with the um TIA." Uh it looks like they have some concerns about the single lane bridge there. And so that always gives me some pause where all of a sudden um we have something here that I'm I guess that my question to staff and I'll ask ask the applicant some questions as well but I'm um wondering about feasibility structured you know prior to receiving this you propose the condition that we have in the staff report and it simply says that the applicant shall obtain a revised access permit permit from Pulk County Road Authority. Period. Um there's no preface on it as far as prior to the city issuing a X permit or anything like that. That's one of the questions. Um and then the other question I have is kind of feasibility in light of what you just received in the afternoon and maybe you haven't had the opportunity to digest it as well. I'm just sort of wondering about um your your thoughts to uh potential other uh conditions. Maybe it's sort of early for that. We'll also receive uh the applicant's testimony eventually here, but uh just just some some thought again. I'll have some more

questions, but I I'm just kind of wondering about this memo a little bit more before I ask any more questions on other topics. Um yeah, so regarding the Pulk County memo, um I've had essentially two hours to to review it. Um so I have had a chance to to look it over. Um uh part of the concern that I have with regards to um sort of the existing proposed condition of approval that they get a revised access permit um is uh to what extent that's uh discretionary uh findings uh of of uh uh land use uh standards um outside of the land use process. So I I am a little bit hesitant uh uh without knowing kind of the full uh scope of what they would expect uh to to see as part of that um to to move forward um with the existing uh condition of approval as proposed. Um but it you know they don't seem to be indicating that it is impossible to uh meet their standards. um simply that uh there would be some some actions that would need to be taken. Um yeah, I don't know that I have enough information just from this memorandum to to really change the proposed uh staff recommendation. Uh so um

well it's a a followup then I'm just sort of curious I one I I see mention of the um could it be possible that they would through the access permit could they require conceivably the applicant to widen the br or replace the bridge with a different widen sort of bridge and then is that is that something that the city would say yeah you got to do that too um with this with this condition encompass some improvements like a a wider bridge.

Again, not knowing the full scope of of what the county would expect as part of that revised access permit. Um it's conceivable that they could say that. Um whether they'd be able to back that up as a matter of law is a different question. I mean 20 foot uh width is the the standard width for fire apparatus access roads. Um, so if you can get a fire truck down it, I'd think you get an RV down it. So, um, maybe they're they're talking about the two-way. Yeah.

Right. So, uh, again, it's it's, uh, I I just don't have enough information to really be able to uh impact the the staff recommendation. Oh, okay. on this topic. Yeah. Starting the memo. Um I think the most I hesitated to say anything because I felt it was more

Is this is this a question? I think it's more appropriate to deliberations, but so if I can point out that the final sentence on the memo says he's requiring a new TIA to properly um evaluate access to the site. Um which seems to me pretty definitive that they're not going to accept it. So that's all I wanted to say. All right. So go ahead. I'm sorry, Scott.

There was it. Yeah. So, okay. So, yeah, just ask more questions of staff here. Um, one, uh, I didn't see any, uh, comments included from the city fire department. Um, I guess my first question is whether the fire department staff has reviewed and provided comments. I guess they haven't provided any comments although they would otherwise they'd be a part of the record but uh

um yeah they've not provided uh written comment uh the way that Pul County has but uh they have definitely uh been reviewing this uh in our internal staff meetings um both the the Dallas fire chief and also our contracted uh fire marshal um from from Pulk uh Southwest Pulk. So, um the the fire department is definitely aware of this. Um and they were the ones that highlighted the concerns regarding um fire hydrant locations, ability to provide fire protection, um and uh the ability to to uh access the site uh via uh with with fire apparatus. uh not submitted as part of this application but as part of the previous land use process for the urban growth boundary expansion and and the annexation. The they the applicant did provide us with an engineers report regarding the strength of the bridge um which found that it could support the weight of a fire apparatus. Um so that concern at least is is uh somewhat addressed. Um the report was uncertain um if it would still be in a usable condition, if it was uh to be traversed by two fire apparatus at the same time. Um but that's a problem for if that were to occur. Um not necessarily an issue at at this stage. So on the topic of of fire here also I'm just curious about uh secondary fire access. Um uh this is not you know your typical single family housing development where we've seen that in the past where an applicant a certain threshold occurs where we need a secondary fire access. Has there been any uh in review of the proposal uh has that been commented as as far as the need uh from the fire department a need

for a secondary fire access? So, it wasn't something that was identified as needing to be addressed at this point. Um, the fire code with regards to secondary access. Um, is really looking at the protection of structures. Um, and so RVs, as I was understanding, aren't regulated the same way as a structure would be is kind of how I recall this having broken out in in their That's what the fire marshall said. that with my recollection

recollection of the fire marshall's discussion without it being part of the record. You're just orally conveying the the general sentiment of the fire marshall on that topic. That was more code related to structures. Okay. And uh what about fire flow? And you seem to have a condition here too. to its uh recommended condition number two of the report requiring the applicant to demonstrate adequate fire flow for fire protection or equivalent protection measures. However, there's lack of anything mentioned as far as the background on this particular topic, not even from the engineers me memo. Um here's one of those things are I'm I'm sensing that there isn't or there there might not be or has there been any evaluated or

Right. So again, there's no uh there's no fire hydrants on the site. Um and so um one of the things that would be necessary um to uh provide fire protection is uh some way of servicing the site with fire water. Um but typically this is done through city fire hydrants connected to city uh water manes. Um and so as part of that process, you want to make sure that the the water lines, the hydrants are able to supply the appropriate number of gallons per minute. Um there are potentially other ways of providing fire protection. the the fire code, the way it's written, uh gives the the fire chief, the fire marshall, um kind of a fair bit of leeway to um ensure that that protection is provided um sometimes through alternate means. So um we we tried to phrase the condition of approval in such a way that the applicant would have some flexibility in how they actually achieve the the fire protection. um knowing that some ways may be more feasible, more cost effective than others. Um you know, it'd be great to say, hey, put a a fire hydrant every, you know, so many feet, but um to get the fire flow of water for that, they may have to go back a sizable distance and upsize some water manes.

Um so it may be that a better way to do that is to have some kind of on-site holding tank. Um, so there there's different ways that that fire uh uh protection can be can be accomplished. And so it was phrased to try and allow that sort of flexibility. That that's really good summary right there is on-site holding tank and upsize of the line. There are things I will also ask the applicant uh the same question about uh this just so we have an understanding for the record that it is feasible for the applicant to do something on site to address fireflow which we don't it's kind of a mystery still here but okay thank you I I do appreciate that summary and then uh my final question is regarding there's no floodplane development permit married with so we got a site designer review application and a conditional use that's married in this packet that we have tonight. But no flood plane development permit though we have development in the flood plane. Um I see that you know the site's graded and the aerial that you showed was pretty good. I can see that it's not uh anything with a lot of vegetation and complexity to that flood plane development permit. Um, I'm just kind of curious though, there will be vehicles in the flood plane area and I'm just kind of wondering about uh what FEMA code has and the city's code for that matter on uh vehicles or must they be operable? I mean, it's more of an emergency of the event of 100red-year flood. uh can the vehicles get out of there and just kind of questioning what uh is it necessary for those vehicles to be operable in that case.

Um so the the development code does have uh language regarding uh RVs. There are FEMA regulations uh kind of around that. Um so you are are correct on that regard. There's also standards for um uh waterproofing of structures that are inside the flood elevation. So that will um uh likely apply to the proposed shower, restroom, and laundry facility. Um that that be appropriately waterproofed in its design. Um but yes, it's it's uh quite possible there will be some conditions of approval related to um you know, utility hookup pedestals and whatnot. um that would be specific to protecting against damage in the event of a flood. Um part of it uh admittedly is that if if the planning commission had uh conditions of approval which would substantially change kind of the the the scope of the project or the the the the geography of the project, then any sort of preliminary engineering on on the flood plane side would essentially have to be redone. So, you do have a little bit of a a chicken and egg problem um in terms of submitting a flood plane development uh permit concurrently with the land use process because you need a certain amount of engineering to be able to do the the flood plane permit, but you don't want to get your engineering too firmly uh nailed down in case things change in land use. So um that we we do allow the flood plane permits to be processed uh admin administratively as a separate follow-on permit. Um we are uh looking closely at that at making sure that it's designed in such a way as to minimize damage in the event of a flood. Um so like I said uh I don't I don't think that the lack of a flood plane permit is disqualifying at this stage.

um it's something that they will need to get as part of the final approval prior to their building permits. Um and so that is proposed as um condition of approval. Um number uh which one was it? Yes. Number three. Yes. Um, so yeah, not sure if that really answers your question, but

uh, well, I guess I mean it just sounds like we got another permit uh, and separate criteria. It it could have been if had they submitted the application with it, but uh, as the city allows the separate application, we can condition it. Okay, now that that does it for me. I'll now defer it over to my my colleague Scott. All right. I'm just going to ask a couple of clarification questions of staff and then we'll get to the applicant's presentation and this is the hopefully the applicant will be able to address these things. So no change to the bridge is proposed in this. That's

that that's correct. Uh no no change to the bridge itself is proposed as part of this. Now uh recommended conditions of approval. Number two adequate fire protection water flow. Number three uh the necessity to obtain a flood plane permit and item or uh condition four shall obtain uh an access permit from Poke County. So this is just to protect the integrity of the decision that we make. If we if this board tonight uh decides to uh approve the conditional use permit with the recommendations of approval. If they can't meet all three of those things, then our approval is for not because they are conditions of approval. And I'm saying this for clarification. So if Poke County says they need to widen their access, that's going to necessitate a widening of the bridge. So I just want to make sure that we can protect ourselves when we make a decision that these sort of three pretty important uncertainties are part of the conditions of approval. uh we can make a consideration. And again, we still haven't heard from the applicant and asked them questions yet, but it seems like there's three kind of big unanswered questions with this proposal that could all sort of any one of these things could nullify an approval that we grant based on these conditions. Is that correct?

Uh that is that is uh correct. Yes. if if uh either one of those was not able to be accomplished um then they'd have to come back to you and and kind of start over from square one.

Commissioners, you understand why I'm asking these questions. Okay, then I think we're ready to move forward unless we have any more questions. So, we will now go on to the applicant. Uh applicant, please step forward and or and and sit here. Please state your name and your address for the record and go ahead and proceed. You know, our our rules say our rules say 15 minutes. Uh so, but you know, obviously we want to hear a a full presentation and hopefully you'll be able to fold into your presentation some of the concerns that have already been raised.

Yes. Thank you. Um, appreciate the robust um, questions and comments. For the record, my name is Allan Sorum. Uh, I'm a real estate landings attorney um, representing the applicant. Additionally, with me uh, tonight, David Brinker, senior, he is here. Um Tasha Mack from the ownership uh is also here if there's questions um regarding kind of the day-to-day operations and some of the hopes and you know what what the facility is going to be doing. Um I I'll ask David to kind of join me in and help um speak to that. But I I'll go ahead and do an overview a little bit of uh where have we come from? Where are we, you know, how did we get here? Uh between Jess's uh staff report and some of you you the back and forth. I don't need to spend as much time on that and then I'll try to jump into some of the more meteor topics. Uh go over what I can share and and then what uh you know we'll we'll have to to leave for later. Um so just for orientation of of folks uh in the room and and who may not be quite as familiar. Yes, this a Dallas golf course um offers corner road. Um you know we did have a prior multiple prior land use applications. So there was the UGB uh amendment and the annexation. Um the golf course has been there since 1988. Um, and we're proposing to go ahead and keep the golf course as um you currently see it without changes. Uh, it the area for proposed redevelopment would be the former driving range. So, that would be um I'm not sure if this is going to show up. Yep. Yeah, the driving range area over here in in in that larger area. Um, zoning maps again. Yeah, reflecting that we did

have that change in zoning and also as was mentioned um we had a text amendment because prior to the text amendment um we didn't have the opportunity to make the application before you tonight. Um and so we've been able to put together that material uh and make the request. Um I just want to clarify we do have a site plan in the record and and and just the staff report gets into um some of the the site plan review criteria but uh we did make you know um the application itself on the notice and and I think even on the face of the staff report it is just for the conditional use permit. So in addition to the flood plan development permit site plan review is not going to be approved. You know we didn't apply for that. Um and that that's that criteria isn't within the scope of your review before this body. It's just the conditional use. Um as a later limited land use decision, if we do receive this approval um with whatever conditions they may be, you know, then the engineer will go ahead finalize the the site plan review and and make a combined application for the flood plan development permit application site plan. So um I understand often you know that's all consolidated application. We did consider that. Um but on the vice for engineer you know the pros and cons of of trying to redesign it to make you know some kinds of changes uh based on the conditional use criteria. We decided to to submit the application this way um which you know is is as discussed is allowed in the code and and is often you know uh the the structure of applications. Um there were uh comments. So we we we did go ahead and and wanted to highlight um the exit and approach analysis. So these these images are not new. These were part of the TIA um that were originally

provided in the application last year um and incorporated also and provided in in this application. Um what this approach and exit analysis shows is the driveway and the the bridge width of 20 ft can go ahead and accommodate um ingress and egress. Um you know there is uh with with semi-truckss, travel trailers, things of that nature. Um they do need to be mindful of of of timing of that uh as as they're entering into because there can be potential uh conflicts um in those approaches. Uh the comments I think that you're seeing, you know, from the public works department from Pulk County um are best illustrated, you know, by like the right turnin um approach is that as travel um of a of an RV or uh a delivery truck, something of that nature, it's not going to, you know, immed immediately uh come in and and and and stay entirely on inside of 12 ft. It will use the the full 20 ft for uh a small moment in time. And the this was a known um concern. And so what our traffic engineer recommended and was adopted as a condition of approval and and the staff's recommendation is farther back on the facility uh and the site plan that we would have a traffic control device and having to stop um over here to make sure that we're not having um uncontrolled traffic entering and um the bridge lane as it enters on the chorus road. So that will uh assist and ensure that there's uh safe travel um

circulation internal into the facility and as it's exiting the facility. Uh, also I think it's helpful to kind of have in mind um in the event that if you've got a westbound um RV or or or trailer coming in and it has to momentarily slow down the stopping distance between um you know if it had to come to a complete stop which isn't you know generally strictly needed um 495 ft the sight stopping distance um identified in the TIA is you know several hundred feet in excess of that. So there is adequate uh safety uh sight distance for any type of momentarily delay uh in the event that there um as a traveler trailer was entering or exiting uh had to take into account um for cross traffic. So um we disagree in that that that there's a a safety concern. Um, we do believe that we'll be able to obtain the county's access control permit and disagree with the requested alternative condition of approval that was submitted by the public works director. Um, you know, I'll I'll note uh we submitted the the TIA um as part of our initial application in in March. We forwarded it along um to the public works director uh on March 31st and uh there were follow-ups. We did not get any comments from the public works uh staff for PO County in that intern time period and I only got this um forwarded to me by by the platter uh Chase uh you know on 15 minutes before I was heading out the door tonight. Um so you know that that is how it is. But I I'm I'm bringing that to you just to say, you know, I'm trying to answer your your your

questions this evening. Um but I understand you you will want to make an informed decision. You won't want to be rushed. Um we're comfortable. I talked with my traffic engineer um and she can submit a response memo. Um uh so you have that for your file and you can take that in consideration. So we'll have to request the record to be um left open. Uh the proposal is for 14 days for the open record period. Uh so that we can go ahead and get that into the record. Um and you know that just means you'll have to defer your your deliberations on the matter until uh not just after the close of the hearing but close of the record. So sorry for that additional delay for those who have been talking about this for six plus years. Um, but you know, we we want to have all the evidence and and and and address that uh you know, in a in a serious and thorough manner. So, um, we're happy to go ahead and respond to that. Um, but I do have some comments. I mean, cuz it's not it's not an entirely new topic or conversation. Um, and and candidly, the county's jurisdiction is very limited in this instance in in uh issuing a control permit. Um, it's my opinion that they're exceeding their their jurisdiction um and requesting a very uh unclear condition of approval which would effectively defer uh subjective u review over a a quote unquote safety issue um which is a land use that kind of discretionary review needs to be done in the by the jurisdiction that's doing land use and it's not PK and for P County to try to go ahead and have you put a condition of approval that is arguably unlawful and unc unconstitutional. Um, you have to take that information if it comes from the county, it comes from

a neighbor, anybody like you have to take all the comments in and make your your decisions based on your own code and criteria. But I don't believe that condition of approval is uh authorized or required by your approval criterion for the conditional use statement. And just because it's coming from a respected uh partner agency doesn't mean that it needs to be given more weight than anyone else's comments. um and certainly should not be automatically incorporated into any kind of conditional use decision because what that's going to do is um ultimately the county would then say, "Well, I'm just enforcing the city's condition of approval and you you have to go ahead and meet this ambiguous standard and put us in a loop where um the the county would be applying your condition of approval at their request um in a manner that doesn't have the proper procedural rules for for handling the legality and uh and what of the condition or what is actually required. So, um we'd ask you to base the decision on the TIA, the forthcoming uh um response memo um that will hopefully address any outstanding conditions. So, again, thanks for the robust questions. I I try to take notes on that. Um it's always helpful and I understand just cuz you have questions or comments on it doesn't necessarily mean one way or the other. We're just trying to go ahead and and build a good record um for the ultimate recommendation and decision that will that will come. So I respect the process. I I thank you for that. Um on the topic of fire uh and adequacies, we we did have a memorandum um uh from Mr. Jim Peek who's

a civil engineer uh and and it had a utility plan that did include analysis of water availability. Um I believe that encompassed fire suppression uh as as far as the feasibility. It doesn't get into specifics as to a holding tank or a uh a fire pump, but with the the water utility being available at the property, um we do believe that one way or the other, you know, it's going to be feasible to meet the fire code. And so with the the structure of the condition of approval as written, we're we're happy to accept that um and then work with the fire marshall through the fire code, you know, various options at the time um of building permit review. Um so that kind of is my walk through the criteria, walk through the conditions. Um, I'm happy to kind of go ahead and try to to to answer any questions of the commissioners at this time, but

there before you conclude, uh, did you want to have ownership or management of the property address? They don't have to if they don't want to. I just want because once we once you're done and we start asking you questions, then you you've lost your chance to finish your presentation. If there's more to add, I I invite you to do so now. Okay. Uh David or or Tasha, is there anything you would like to to share? No. Just want to make sure that everybody everybody gets their chance. So, commissioners, questions for the applicant and I will I will go last. So, Carol, go ahead.

I have a clarifying question regarding your deliberations should wait until after the time period. Are you saying that we can ask questions, but we should not deliberate if we're going to leave the record open? Or are you saying that we should do our normal deliberation, but the but the record would stay open so that we could add more information? Um, I'll probably let Mr. Goel speak to to that. I don't want to speak out of turn as to how you should handle the meeting. I was just I was just trying to What was you I think the question is what were you recommending? I was asking you I um

so you know you you normally I'm if you're having uh yeah if you're having a mo because you're not really having um a vote right you're so you you typically defer deliberations until you have all the evidence in the record if you deliberate now um and then there's going to be more evidence in the record you're going to have to have a second deliberate eration. So, uh for that purposes, I don't think you should have deliberations. If there are comments of staff, comments and questions of the applicant, this is the time to make use of that. And then when you are truly at the time of all the evidence, like we've put everything into the pot that is the the hearing and then you don't have questions for for new evidence and you're just talking amongst yourselves. That would be the deliberations and that would happen next month. um at that time. That's that would be my recommendation.

That That's correct. Yeah, that's how we would do it. Yeah. Um so I have a couple questions then. Uh if if at the end of this deliberation with Pulk County, we find that we really are going to have to replace the bridge, does that make this project infeasible?

Yes. Yeah, we discussed that um you the cost of replacing the bridge uh I don't have exact costing on it, but having done um other similar projects, you you know, you're expecting something that's going to cost, you know, in the multi-million dollar range to to do it at current standards. Um let alone all of the interruptions to the operation. So that absolutely that would effectively be uh infeasible and would be you know tanamount to a denial. Um that was my guess. Thank you. And then uh I was looking at the blood plane picture.

Yes. It's a little daunting, but I know that we can do a lot with flood planes, and I just wondered if you had a sense of how much of that flood plane is going to be filled so that it can be operational for heavy RVs.

So, the yes, the um it's ve very flat at at at the top of of the driving range. So it is within the flood plane but the expectation is that the driveway aisles and the pads themselves can be taken out of the flood plane through fill but then there's this no net rise calculation that happens. So if if you've uh if you're adding sand to the terrarium you know you can't you you need to kind of move remove it and move it around. So through

cut and fill on site the expectation is that we'll be able to do it in a manner where there'll be no net rise as to the all of the property and so we won't be creating downstream impacts on on others. So that that is um you know the preliminary plan yet. So no sense of how many square I don't know the I don't know that the amount of uh not calculated yet calculations. No we we don't have those those will that'll be as part of that application with the state.

Yes. And as long as there is it meets the adopted standards of the no net rise level it'll be a limited land use decision. It'll go through staff. If it does require more of that and there has to be some kind of variance or things like that, then it would get brought back to this body as a type three application. Okay, Jess, is that you may be reading and listening only with one ear, but it would be a type three application if we went um to a a variance of of the standards. Uh yes, variances are are a type three process. Yes, it's my questions.

Go ahead. I'll just ask a a couple of follow-up questions. I had some questions of staff that you probably were listening to there and in part you addressed uh Fireflow very generally there just you know I don't there's no part of the applicant team an engineer that can talk about that in further detail or no not not not in in a greater detail than what I was able to do unfortunately

that's what I mean I've already stated here that yeah this observation that there's a condition but no background associated with it not the city's engineer however staff did say um well, hey, there would be uh there's a contracted uh city fire marshal that I guess would be involved later on when there is a a building permit as there is a structure I think associated. Not a lot of stuff here that's going to require a building permit. We do have I guess a um a shower and uh laundry type of building there that would require a building permit. So, I'm just kind of wondering about that condition for uh or there's a condition number two there. just as applicant shall demonstrate. This is just broad uh condition here and I'm just sort of your thoughts on maybe prior to the city issuing a building permit as kind of the preface to that and then as required by the city contracted fire marshall your thoughts on on restructuring kind of adding some text to that as a applicant sort of comfortable with that. I'm not we're not getting to the point here of but I'm just just thought right now in this particular moment here if we were to kind of add some language I I I understand kind of you know where you're going as far as a specific textual addition to it. I I um you know referencing whether it be you know fire code a particular fire code standard or or something like that. Um, I don't I don't have um a general concern about it. I just I wouldn't be able to help you, you know, author that at at this moment, but um I I don't mind uh trying to have that cross reference to a to a fire code standard. Am I am I hitting the mark or am I missing?

Just just I Yeah, I'm just sort of thinking that it's so broad and uh that at least we have, you know, somebody looking at it. I just wrote the instructions that later on there would be a check in place to make sure that's followed here. You know, sounds like we've gone through the annexation and the reasonzoning and uh the text amendment and all all of a sudden no one's addressed this uh fireflow issue here. We don't have a hydrant on the site. We don't have a condition that calls for a hydrant either. I I'm just thinking that there could be some additions to that condition number two uh that are reasonable. Uh that would might provide a little bit more direction and just kind of your thoughts on that.

I I I guess I I hear you on that, but I I I would hesitate to do that at the conditional use stage knowing we still have a site plan review application to go through um the the city and the staff and and I do think that is probably the better time and place to to do it. um as opposed to the the conditional use of you know is the property of adequate size and things and when I look at the conditional use criteria it doesn't necessarily require the level of uh development standard that's that's what the site plan review process is. So I guess if if to the extent I my preferences are are relevant um that would be my preference is that we would defer further uh changes or or specifications to it once we get through that. Um that being said I can you know we applicant is requesting for the the record to be left open and I've I've taken note of that if there's something that I can do during the the open record period. I just haven't had an opportunity to res to reach out to my civil engineer. So, but I I've heard your your question.

A couple more questions and I'll I'll stop. Uh applicant uh the number condition number six. Applicant shall place a stop sign at the Y intersection and of the Okay, that's that's the TIA also called for a yield to oncoming vehic oncoming car sign on the north side of the bridge. That was the other one. I didn't see that as part of the uh structured conditions there. Um so I was just kind of wondering your thoughts on that. That's a recommendation addition.

That's a that's that's Yeah. So that that would be one that I would just uh I was just sort of thinking also as it's 20 ft uh of uh lane there. That's the very minimum. Uh no parking fire lane, no parking signs too. Is that uh I would imagine you'd be okay with that. Oh yeah, we wouldn't have any concerns with that. Replacing that bridge. Yeah, some some red paint um you know on on the edge and then no part you know and no parking fire lane um certainly in that uh ingress egress area where the bridge is. Um yeah, it didn't given the nature of it, you know, and where the parking areas are, it didn't uh enter my mind, but it it would be a welcome addition as well.

Well, I'm just kind and also just on the operation end of things. I mean I imagine that the spaces are such that they can uh accommodate the largest of RVs and is there but um yeah every every pad will have uh accommodations for the RV itself and and at least another vehicle um you know in that. So, um, while they're not are not, um, adopted parking standards, as, uh, Jess commented on, um, in our proposed concept site plan, you know, we we've got more than adequate space to go ahead and allow both RV and if you're talking about a truck and a travel trailer or an RV that's towing, you know, a secondary one, you know, we have that. And then we also have the additional um parking facilities for the golf course uh in and of itself. So, um you know, we're not in downtown Portland. We're not expecting to people, you know, we're expecting vehicular traffic and and to be parked um adequately and not need to use those driveway aisles uh for parking standards. So, I imagine, you know, any type of signage uh for safety purposes is welcome. And final question as a followup to the question that uh Commissioner Kawash asked about the oh the the keeping the record open there. Uh I'm just kind of curious also about we're also under the 120 days rule and are you willing to wave a partial waiver of

so applicant requested um um extension of it which which we're doing comes with the waiver that comes with the waiver partial waiver for that time frame 28 days. Okay. I just curious about that. Thank you. Thank you. Anything else? As it um Commissioner G.

Yes. Um since as you stated the bridge would be you can't replace the bridge to do this process in the TIA or in the investigations. it. Looking at the pictures on page 69 in the packet, it appears there's um quite a bit of room on the shoulder. Did at any point you investigate making some kind of a a place where an RV could get out of the travel lane prior to going over the bridge.

So like a would that be a right in? in a right problem where the

um you know we don't have that modeled out or or or or depicted in it but as as you noted that is that there is room there so um that might be feasible uh but I haven't had significant discussions over um that that turn lane as it you know um my you know Kelly Sandos as our PE I mean does work for governments and everybody body and and didn't have that as part of our recommendation package. But um I understand the logic behind the question and as a possibility um and you know I we can talk about it amongst as an applicant team. Um but I I guess it's just the level of uh you know if that is to come. I mean it would I would prefer to see a specific condition of approval rather than um just like the general one that that that the county had which is somewhat of a moving target so that it can be you know evaluated uh because even not all turn lanes are the same that there's there's the Taj Mahal of turn lanes and there's you know standard ones. So, it's it kind of depends on um what are we talking about, but we we we can evaluate that and um I I accept it in the spirit it's offered.

And I and and I guess I brought that up as one of the concerns in the PK County public works director's memo was that a person trying to exit the site wouldn't necessarily see an RV wanting to enter the site until it was already in the way. And you could have all kinds of backup and whatever. You can and if you had a point for the RV to to enter the site and be visible, that might be a way to get over the the traffic engineers problem.

It is. And and if the traffic engineer here today, I mean, what I would share would be to say, well, we're now leaving the arena of safety and we're talking more about congestion and weight times. So, it is not uncommon um for traffic to have to slow down on a two-lane road for turning, you know, certainly left turns, but also right turns when we're talking about our heavy vehicles. We would see a 20 foot wide turn uh private driveway in a commercial setting, certainly in an egg setting all along Oris County Road. So, we're really talking about weight times and um with only 22 peak hour trips projected from from this, I don't think it it warrants additional conditions of approval. Um adding turn lanes, certainly not adding the bridge because it's it's not um that busy of a road. I mean, in the grand grandest scheme of things and um and so that needs to be there there are turn lane warrants that are adopted standards and those weren't triggered. So that's why it's not part of the package is is that's what I think Kelly would say if she was here. So, um, yes, that could potentially assuage, you know, concerns, but, you know, we have standards for a reason, and I I believe the standards have been met, and the turn warrants aren't hit, and that's why it's not part of the the the recommendations. Well, unfortunately, continue that conversation with our our partners um with the Poke County Engineering Standards, but that's what I would share with them um in when we have that analysis. Uh but again, you know, we will submit a memo and there are no bad comments in in an environment like this when we're we're not asking for uh you know, a decision up and down tonight and

we're going to get you more evidence to try to um make you feel good about your decision that day or uh that Yeah, that was I think the the peak um peak in addition to what's already with the golf course Do you happen to know what that is so that we know totally what we could we're really talking about to deliberate on? If I can just have a moment to try to refresh my memory. I'm not sure. I don't want to I don't want to misstate it because sometimes it's easy. You look at one column and and you don't hit everything. Pull that in there. Go back.

You could certainly include this in what you intend to submit after the continuence.

Yeah. Maybe we'll we'll we'll leave it that way as as a summary. I do note that the full TIA is in um is in the the staff report and so only what I gleaned earlier was just the peak. Um but it it's written as the RV spaces are anticipated to generate a total of 22 trips um during the highest generating hour with 14 entering and eight exiting. That's on uh page eight of the TIA. So that's not um as I plainly read that that doesn't that that's not evaluating the golf course. Um but you know your your your golf course typically is not generating peak travel um during the the the PM peak hour um as most coveted time slots are. They're early in the day. tips on page six, but I think it's per day.

Yeah. So, maybe that gets us closer. It's 12. So, thank you. Thank you. Okay. Um, you've requested a continuence. We're going to leave the the record open. So, commissioners, we're not going to deliberate upon this this evening. I just have a couple of

chair just a quick point of clarification. It is the request is to close the hearing um and leave the record open as opposed to a continuence of the hearing. So sometimes we continue the hearing and so like the opportunity for oral testimony. I I I I was thinking that we would be able to just respond in writing and not necessarily have a a second hearing, but if if that that was just that was my request, we we'll honor and we can come back and and um do that if that's going to be beneficial to the commission to have an opportunity to ask us followup questions after that is is done. But I just I just wanted to clar clarify what what the request is. Chair, how I how about we continue the the I mean not as far as the hearing we have uh yet open the hearing for public testimony and of course the applicant will then have an opportunity to to do the rebuttal and maybe we resume this particular conversation during the rebuttal after we've had

Okay. Uh my final question is uh you intend to come back with uh and I I'm totally sympathetic the fact that you didn't see this until today. We didn't either. So you're going to come back with a rebuttal to Poke County uh uh public works director's memo, right? You also made some statements regarding tonight,

you know, beyond their jurisdiction, unconstitutionality. I assume that those points are going to be addressed in what you intend to bring back to the next meeting. I just want to make sure that you know that that you're going to stand by what you give since your presentation is also going to line up with with what's going to be brought back to us. I'm

Mr. Chair, I'm sorry to interrupt. I'm just I I'm just uh I'm interested to hear the public testimony and make sure we have a uh some uh those who are attending tonight. And I would like to the the hearing to hear the the the testimony that we may have this this evening and as the procedures go from what I understand the applicant will have an opportunity to rebut the public testimony that may be here tonight and we will have the applicant back here to address the the procedural items. That's what I'm just sort of thinking.

Appreciate that. No, you you have a lot of knowledge in this, Commissioner White, and No, and I appreciate that. No, that that that that's great. I just I just want to make sure that we handle this correctly and properly and give everybody, you know, a a fair opportunity to, you know, participate in this decision that we're being asked to make. So, with that said, I'm going to uh your your presentation is concluded. Thank you.

Okay. So, thank you very much. So, stand by. You will have an opportunity to rebut any comments uh that we hear. So, we'll now hear from those in attendance tonight who would like to address the commission on this item. Uh we also uh afford the public an opportunity to make comments or participate electronically or online. There's nobody in the queue online. There are no callers in the queue.

Okay. So member uh folks that are here uh for the purposes of this hearing, who would like to testify on this matter before the Dallas Planning Commission, raise your hand. Who'd like to go first? I'm not seeing any. Okay. So in that case, there's nothing to rebut applicant. Thank you. So, final comments from staff and the city attorney and council. I'm looking for direction out of pro uh what our options are procedurally. The applicant has requested that we close the hearing and offer and and and do a a continuence for additional comments so they can address Poke County. Do we also have the option to continue the hearing?

Please, please just walk us through what our options are. So, yeah, I mean, at this point, um, if I recall correctly, they want to leave the record open for 14 days. I'm not really sure if you have any authority to go beyond that, beyond what they're requesting. um it might be prudent on their part to you know come back maybe answer some questions but if they're not offering to do that um I guess I would just go with their request may question of the attorney please oh

if we leave the record open they submit more information if we don't allow the public to ask questions about that information. Are we denying them their rights? I mean, they had the opportunity to come here tonight. Um, so I would say no.

There's information that he wants to put in in the next two weeks that they're not going to have a chance to have seen before. And then so basically we're we're denying them the ability to testify regarding that new information. Wouldn't that mean we would need to continue the hearing as opposed to closing it and doing that? Yeah. No, I I hear what you're saying. Um I guess I don't think you have to. I guess let me say it that way. Um you know, again, they had the opportunity to come here tonight. Um so I don't think you have to now. Sure.

How do we want to proceed? So, I guess we're going to uh I will entertain a motion to close the public hearing with a 14-day continuance for additional information from the applicant based on the late coming memorandum from Poke County Public Works and we will come back with that new information, discuss it and then deliberate.

Yeah. Point of order. I'm just trying to wonder about the the time we'd have to come back and deliberate. Uh so anything we make here as a as a motion should be for a date certain. So that is made public record and that we don't have to renotice this hearing. Uh we have regular planning commission meetings. I think I saw is it June 11th? I thought I June 11th is the next regularly scheduled meeting and yet that's not the time frame to I think it's almost like 30 days from

from today. Um and I'm just not This is where I start asking staff questions about what's kind of on the agenda for that next meeting or do we want to schedule a separate uh you know separate meeting date or something like that? Uh so at this time we do not have anything on the agenda for the the June planning commission date.

So our motion to close the public hearing with the requested uh continuence for 14 days include in that motion that we would reconvene to deliberate on June the 11th would be the appropriate way to go. Do you agree with that, Commissioner Way?

I I'm kind of wondering if we can get the applicant back up here if that's uh the city attorney feels okay with that. I uh applicant has said, "Yeah, hey, um just a uh what 28 days was sort of mentioned. I'm kind of wondering if we can just do the equivalent. Uh we're almost there uh for the waiver of 120 days. Uh just to making sure making sure we have that time frame there to June 11th. though we have no time taken off of the clock and I see the applicant is sitting right there and he may just say yeah sure or he might say no I don't know what is uh chair thank you um no where so there's there's a couple questions you know one uh on your motion to a date certain for deliberations clarifying for the record that that would occur on on June 11th that that that's that's the the planning commission's business to decide when to do it, but it does sound prudent to me to, you know, do it to a date certain so you don't have to to notice specifically when that deliberations would happen. We would like to know when you're deliberating, you know, whether you're holding a special meeting or whatever. As the second issue, you have the 120day clock within the um uh the rules that that's the shot clock in order to issue land use decisions as as the party that's requesting the additional time. Um, just to clarify what what I was okay with as far as time periods um is 14 days as the open record period that allows anybody to submit new evidence. Then 7 days to rebut to anything that was submitted during that 14-day open record period. That second period is usually referred to as the rebuttal period. Then as the applicant since we have the burden of proof this kind of the hearings

procedure statute contemplates that we would have the final um period to submit our legal argument and that again would be likely a 7day window. So it would be 14 7 and 7 we as the applicant would consent to an extension of the 120day rule uh for that intervening 28 days. So in total rather than having 120 you effectively have 148 to do all your local decisions and you're including an appeal if any were to occur to city council. So you should have adequate time to do that. We've consented to um the full 28 days to do that. Um and I think that assuages any kind of concerns about um unfairness or procedural error for not affording anybody to do that. that gets you, you know, and then the the 3 days or whatever you need to go from then to the 11th of June. I'm not going to give like consent more to that. That's just kind of baked into the the needed time to do your,

you know, your original time period. So, I think that all works um and and is is is generally customary um and is consistent with the the procedural rule for uh land use hearing. So, um, that's that's my recommendation and that's what we consented to, you know, importantly. So, um, I think your your minutes will be able to reflect that.

And I'll just say that, you know, I'm the interest is not in fairness because we believe that we're going to give everybody a fair hearing on this. It's the procedural correctness that that I'm most concerned with in case this matter goes beyond our decision. So, thank you. So, a motion commissioners, are you asking for a motion? I'm asking for a motion. qualify what I say.

Okay. And well, got we we've got help in the room. We just want to make sure that we do this correctly. That's the main thing. I move to approve the conditional use permit with the conditions stated in the staff report with modifications to condition number six for two additional signs possible paint and to close the record giving 28 days extra to enable correct deliberation of the additional information reconvening at a date certain of June 11th, 2026 for a decision.

You want some? Yes, please. Is there a second on the the motion? I I I don't think there is there is I'm not going to that's and yeah can I try again if there is no second and I I can kind of try to I think I got the gist. I'm sorry it was I know well I think the start of it was that uh there was a motion to approve and so we're not Yeah.

Yeah. So I think it's it's a little bit it's a little bit strange as we're kind of not continuing the hearing here too. And I think normally we would start off there if we were actually continuing the hearing. So I I'll start off maybe give us a motion here. Motion uh to leave the record open for a 14day period. That's what I'm starting off with a 7-day rebuttal followed by another seven days and to which a sta a revised staff report may be be available uh to the date of June 11th in which case the planning commission will reconvene to review the new evidence to the record. Um, so I don't know if I any and deliberate. Um, that's it.

Then we make a decision. Yeah. Then you can move to approve. Thank you. If you so choose. I try. Okay. Thank you. I think that was I think that was solved. Well stated. Do we have a second? Second. Okay. The motion has been made and seconded. Uh, I won't repeat it because I don't want to get it incorrect, but I think it was stated correctly. We're going to leave the record open, close the hearing, 14 days, 7 days, 7 days, reconvene on June 11th to hear new evidence, deliberate, and then render a decision.

Excellent. So, let's have a roll call vote. Commissioner White. Yes. Commissioner Newell. Commissioner Kash. Commissioner Gro. Yes. Commissioner Swanson. Yes. So, the decision passes and we will come back on uh the motion passes. I mean, and we will come back on June the 11th to continue.

Thank you. This public hearing is closed. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that. Thank you folks for coming in. Yep. Not at all. Not at all. Thank you. And commissioners, always good to stretch. Yeah, it's difficult. Do we want to We've got a few items left. Do we want to take a quick break? Let's just take let's just take a five minutes. We'll come back at 7:30.

reconvening now after break. We're moving on to other business discussion only. We have uh I've read it over the citizen uh committee for citizen involvement initiative which is something that commissioner Schulty who is absent this evening is spearheading in cooperation with our city manager. And what we have to look at tonight is the 2025 report on citizen involvement. And I've looked this over. Uh, I'll just since it's for discussion only, I'll start the discussion and keep my comments brief. I think that the city of Dallas does an adequate job of, uh, citizen involvement in the decisions that we make, whether it's the urban renewal district, whether it's the city council, the noticing, uh, the the means that the city has available to it to communicate with the public. I think that they're they're they're they're doing their job and I think that this is a report that reflects that. That said, there is plans being made by the city manager uh to initiate a CCI committee which is separate and outside of the jurisdiction of this body except that we may be asked uh to participate in a newly formed committee. a few of us, a couple of us if we so choose. So, u that said, is there anything again and I know and John Schulty who couldn't be here this evening for for, you know, very good reasons and he was very apologetic to me about missing a meeting. I was just like, John, it's okay. We're volunteers here. You know, life life comes first. Family comes first. So, uh does anybody have any comments on on citizen engagement? Like I said, I think this is

a pretty good overview of what we're doing right now and what we did last year as a city. I mean, not us uh in terms of citizen involvement and there are plans in in process to increase and enhance that ability. Does anybody have anything to say on the subject? I agree.

Sounds good to me. Okay. So, let's do that. Did anybody read this over and see anything that that that jumped out at? It's like they didn't do that or this could have been done better. I I I read it over. It seemed like pretty straightforward report. Okay. Well, then we will move on to item number six, commissioner comments. Anyone have any comments? any comments on how we handled the public hearing that we just went through? Uh, I just my my whole thing is like I said, I'm not I I'm not concerned about anybody being unfairly considered or you know that we we want to hear from all sides and I respect the jurisdiction of Poke County on that road and uh it's too bad that they got their comments in so late that we couldn't do that. But I just, you know,

thing I I just kind of noticed

sometimes with know I've prepared a number of of scripts for the chair to to read through the years and sometimes they just get chopped up and done differently. I want to make sure kind of noticing in the last couple of public hear for quasi judicial public hearings which are the complicated end of uh that the part of the script the chair asks after we say if we have any conflicts of interest or exparte contact all that kind of stuff that the chair says now is the time to challenge the right of any any member of this commission to proceed. And so that was missing uh tonight and I want to make sure that now I I highly suggest that because as far as procedure that gives whoever's out there the opportunity if if somebody does on this commission say well yeah I

I remember you Scott White and you had an opinion on that. That's right. Yeah. So it just provides that opportunity and I just saw that I've seen that missing in the last couple of them and can just make sure the I know the the the script just gets regurgitated. Uh and that's one of those things little things I've noticed. It's not I don't remember it being scripted. I don't know. It it should be it just Well, yeah. official script from whatever

where where I work right now, you know, I work I work for the community part of Benton County and we're in the process right now under new county council to standardize our planning commission and uh BOC board of commissioners script where they were being written uh uh uh individually and uh customized for whatever was on the agenda at that time. So, so I if if law if law provides the opportunity for a member of the public to challenge a commissioner's uh exark exparte uh contact statement, then it should be included in the script. So maybe we could look at a template. Maybe staff could look at a template or a best practices type uh uh investigation as to what we could do to sort of ironclad our our our process here. It helps me. You know, I'm I'm a communications person. I'm not a lawyer or uh uh you know, I respect the process, but I'm not an expert on it. That's why I keep saying it's like, are we doing this right? Are we doing this right? I'm not worried about fairness or somebody not being heard or being improperly handled. I just if this gets appealed or challenged or ends up

that's really it's the risk. God forbid ends up in a court. Yeah. Yeah. I don't want it to come back to say the planning commission handle their business wrong and that's why you're here and I appreciate that. and Jess, I just, you know, I heir on the side of caution when it comes to legal process. I mean, it's probably not a bad idea to look at the script. Um, and I guess that's something that we can look at over the next month or so. Probably I don't even know the last time they were updated. Um, I imagine Lane probably doesn't know either. spent so long. But now that we've tweaked it a time or two just to, you know, but maybe we ought to just take a hard look at it. Let's, you know,

and look and see if the law has changed or if there's any kind of Yeah. standardization at the state level just to make sure. I mean, the ethics rules have changed over the last few years. That's that's the biggest change. That's Yeah. The Oregon ethics kind of this concert of the Oregon ethics laws and then there's ORS, too. So I mean there the we are a a recogniz I mean planning commissions are recognized by statute and know the function in the county and the city and and and the procedures of course of that OS 197 you probably memorize that one right now.

We are public officials. I whenever my wife is like you've got planning commission again I'm like yeah it's been a whole month. She's I say I'm a public official. You have a responsibility. Yes. See you when you get back. Well, anyway, I I I I appreciate I think that's a great suggestion. Yeah. And I I I appreciate Commissioner White's expertise in this matter. I appreciate all of you. I think we had asked good questions. I I

John, you're a good chair. I I have uh experienced bad as you probably in your uh serving cities have have noticed certain chairs are are responsive and look make sure that the script is followed and other one that the chair would just throw it away and I and then forget about all the things opening the hearing and closing the hearing and all that kind of stuff was just not followed. So again, I just if any of these proposals that come before us or any decision that we make, if it ends up going sideways somewhere down the road, I don't want it to come back on us. Yeah.

You know that if if something got done incorrectly or presented inaccurately or challenged inaccurately, uh it might be a remand by by Luba, right? that that attorneys will do out there is look at the procedural errors and that's lowhanging fruit for for someone that wants to monkey wrench a decision good for good or for ill. Yeah. Really? So despite what the merits are.

All right. Well, that was that was my comment. Does anybody else have any commissioner comments before we adjourn until June 11? I just want to say that I really appreciate how all of us work together to protect the city and I appreciate it very much. And that includes staff. Yeah. Of course. All of us. The attorney.

Well, I don't think anybody could accuse us of not taking our responsibilities here seriously. And none of us is here with an agenda. Uh, you know, and and you got it. I haven't figured it out. So, If your agenda is confusing, so confusing that I haven't picked it up, then I think you're safe. Staff, do you have any comments before we uh adjourn for the evening? I don't have any. I do not believe I have any. Next month, you'll have a new official script. So, thank you. Wow.

All right. So, with that said, uh I'm going to adjourn the Dallas Planning Commission. uh at 7:41 p.m. and we'll see you on June the 11th.