Link

Social

Embed

Disable autoplay on embedded content?

Download

Download
Download Transcript


[CALL TO ORDER]

[00:00:03]

UM, OKAY, SO WE'RE GOING TO, UH, IF YOU WOULD JOIN ME, WE'RE GONNA, UM, SAY OUR PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND GET STARTED.

I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.

OKAY.

SORRY, YOU'RE WAITING ON ME.

YES, I JUST THANK YOU.

COMMENTS OF PUBLIC INTEREST.

THIS PORTION OF THE MEETING IS TO ALLOW UP TO THREE MINUTES PER SPEAKER WITH 30 TOTAL MINUTES ON ITEMS OF INTEREST OR CONCERN AND NOT ON ITEMS THAT ARE ON THE CURRENT AGENDA.

THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MAY NOT DISCUSS THESE ITEMS BUT MAY RESPOND WITH FACTUAL OR POLICY INFORMATION.

THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MAY CHOOSE TO PLACE THE ITEM ON A FUTURE AGENDA.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER MAY MODIFY THESE TIMES AS DEEMED NECESSARY.

THANK YOU.

DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM? WE DO NOT.

THANK

[CONSENT AGENDA]

YOU.

CONSENT AGENDA, PLEASE.

THE CONSENT AGENDA WILL BE ACTED UPON IN ONE MOTION AND CONTAINS ITEMS WHICH ARE ROUTINE AND TYPICALLY NON-CONTROVERSIAL ITEMS MAY BE REMOVED FROM THIS AGENDA FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION BY COMMISSIONERS OR STAFF.

WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO PULL AN ITEM FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA? SEEING NONE ON, I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS SUBMITTED.

SECOND.

SO I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BROSKY FOR THE SECOND BY COMMISSIONER RATLIFF TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA, PLEASE VOTE AND THAT ITEM CARRIES SEVEN TO ZERO.

WE HOPE AT OUR NEXT MEETING IN ABOUT THREE WEEKS TO HAVE ALL EIGHT OF US HERE.

THAT'LL BE NICE.

OKAY, MOVING ON.

PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS UNLESS INSTRUCT, I'M SORRY.

ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION.

PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS UNLESS INSTRUCTED OTHERWISE BY THE CHAIR SPEAKERS WILL BE CALLED IN THE ORDER.

REGISTRATIONS ARE RECEIVED.

APPLICANTS ARE LIMITED TO 15 MINUTES OF PRESENTATION TIME WITH THE FIVE MINUTE REBUTTAL IF NEEDED.

REMAINING SPEAKERS ARE LIMITED TO 30 TOTAL MINUTES OF TESTIMONY TIME WITH THREE MINUTES ASSIGNED PER SPEAKER.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER MAY MODIFY THESE TIMES AS DEEMED NECESSARY.

ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION ITEMS MUST BE APPROVED IF THEY NEED CITY DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.

LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION ITEMS ARE MORE DISCRETIONARY EXCEPT AS CONSTRAINED BY LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

[Items 1A & 1B]

IF IT PLEASES THE CHAIR.

WILL ITEMS ONE A AND ONE B, CAN THEY BE READ TOGETHER? YES, PLEASE.

OKAY.

AGENDA ITEM NUMBER ONE, A PUBLIC HEARING ZONING CASE 20 2209.

REQUEST TO REZONE 19.1 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF PLANO PARKWAY AND EXECUTIVE DRIVE FROM CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL TO PLAN DEVELOPMENT CORRIDOR.

COMMERCIAL PETITIONER AL PROPERTY OWNER L L C AGENDA ITEM NUMBER ONE B IS PUBLIC HEARING CONCEPT PLAN FRIES ELECTRONIC EDITION BLOCK A LOTS 1 3 37 AND ONE X THROUGH EIGHT X AND BLOCK B LOT ONE MID RICE RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE.

ATTACHED PROFESSIONAL GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE AND HOTEL ON 46 LOTS ON 16.5 ACRES.

LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF PLANO PARKWAY AND EXECUTIVE DRIVE ZONED CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL AND LOCATED THE WITHIN THE ONE 90 TOLLWAY PLANO PARKWAY OVERLAY DISTRICT APPLICANT OWN OUT PROPERTY OWNER L L C.

GOOD EVENING EVERYONE.

MY NAME IS KACHA COPELAND AND I'M THE SENIOR PLANNER WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.

THIS REQUEST IS TO REZONE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL TO PLAN DEVELOPMENT CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL TO ALLOW RESIDENTIAL USES AS A PERMITTED USE WITH MODIFIED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.

THIS REQUEST INCLUDES PLAN A NUMBER OF PLAN DEVELOPMENT STIPULATIONS.

THE SUBJECT PROPERTY HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW, UM, IS HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW, EXCUSE ME, TO THE NORTH ACROSS PLANO PARKWAY.

THE PROPERTIES ARE ZONED CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL TO THE SOUTH ACROSS STATE HIGHWAY ONE 90.

THE PROPERTIES ARE LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY OF RICHARDSON AND ARE VACANT OR DEVELOPED AS MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENCES TO THE EAST ACROSS EXECUTIVE DRIVE.

THE PROPERTY IS ZONED PLAN DEVELOPMENT 4 91 CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL AND IS DEVELOPED AS MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENCE AND TO THE WEST.

THE PROPERTIES ARE ZONED CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL SHOWN ON THE SCREEN AS THE COMPANION CONCEPT PLAN THAT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED WITH THE ZONING REQUEST.

THE CONCEPT PLAN SHOWS THE PROPOSED MID-RISE RESIDENTIAL ALONG

[00:05:01]

PLANO PARKWAY AND EXECUTIVE DRIVE.

IT ALSO SHOWS THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENT ATTACHED UNITS IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PROPERTY.

THE PROFESSIONAL GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE AND PARKING GARAGE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF EXECUTIVE DRIVE.

THE OPEN SPACE IS PROPOSED NORTH OF THE OFFICE AND THE HOTEL IS PROPOSED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF EXECUTIVE DRIVE.

THIS CASE MAY HAVE STARTED TO SOUND FAMILIAR TO SOME OF YOU AND THAT'S BECAUSE THE, A SIMILAR ZONING CASE ON THE SAME PROPERTY WITH A LARGER NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS WAS PROPOSED AND PRESENTED TO THIS COMMISSION IN 2021.

THE COMMISSION DENIED THE ZONING REQUEST IN THE APPLICANT APPEALED THE DENIAL TO CITY COUNCIL ON JUNE 28TH, 2021, BUT WITHDREW THE APPEAL REQUEST.

THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS DESIGNATED EXPRESSWAY CORRIDORS ON THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP.

THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS OF THIS REQUEST INCLUDES SEVERAL POLICIES THAT ARE LISTED ON THE SCREEN.

THE REQUEST MEETS THE GENERAL DESCRIPTIONS AND PRIORITIES OF THE EXPRESSWAY CORRIDOR DASHBOARD.

HOWEVER, THE REQUEST DOES NOT PROVIDE SUFFICIENT MITIGATION FROM THE EXPRESSWAY CORRIDORS.

THE PHASING AND RATIO OF RESIDENTIAL TO NON-RESIDENTIAL USES IN IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE R G M POLICY.

IN ADDITION TO OTHER SITE DESIGN CONCERNS, DUE TO THESE ISSUES AND INCONSISTENCIES WITH THE REDEVELOPMENT AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT POLICY, THE REQUEST WILL REQUIRE FINDINGS BY THE COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL.

THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF 501 MID-RISE RESIDENTIAL UNITS IN THE LOCATION OUTLINED IN RED ON THE SCREEN.

MID-RISE RESIDENTIAL IS A TYPE OF MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENCE AND IS DEFINED AS BUILDINGS CONTAINING NOT LESS THAN FIVE FLOORS.

THAT MAY INCLUDE A MIX OF RESIDENTIAL AND NON RESIDENTIAL USES IN THE SAME STRUCTURE.

THE REQUESTED MID-RISE RESIDENTIAL USE IS NOT IN CONFORMANCE WITH SIGNIFICANT PORTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

ADDING THE SURROUNDING ZONING MAY BE INCOMPATIBLE WITH RESIDENTIAL LIVING.

THE SUBJECT PROPERTY SHOULD BE RETAINED FOR FUTURE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DUE TO THE HIGH VISIBILITY AND ACCESS TO THE SURROUNDING THOROUGHFARE AND EXPRESSWAYS ADDING, THERE ARE 2,638 MULTI-FAMILY UNITS IN THE GENERAL AREA YET TO BE BUILT DUE TO THESE ISSUES.

MID-RISE RESIDENTIAL IS NOT AN APPROPRIATE LAND USE FOR THIS SITE.

THE APPLICANT IS ALSO PROPOSING 33 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENT ATTACHED UNITS IN THE LOCATION OUTLINED IN RED ON THE SCREEN.

THE ADDITION OF THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENT ATTACHED UNITS IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLANS MIX OF USES, BUT IS NOT IN CONFORMANCE WITH SIGNIFICANT RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

THE PROPOSED UNITS ARE SITUATED BETWEEN TWO MID-RISE RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS, OPEN SPACE, NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDING, AND A PARKING GARAGE.

DID THE DESIGN ISOLATES THE SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT AND DOES NOT ESTABLISH QUALITY PLACE MAKING ELEMENTS.

REDESIGNING THE PROPOSED UNITS IN A MORE COMPACT ARRANGEMENT ALLOWS FOR A SENSE OF COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBORHOOD IDENTITY THAT COULD BENEFIT THESE RESIDENTS IN THE LONG TERM.

AS CURRENTLY PROPO PROPOSED STAFF IS CONCERNED THAT THE APPLICANT IS ONLY PROPOSING THE SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED UNITS TO MEET THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MIX OF USES REQUIREMENT AND IS NOT ADEQUATELY CONSIDERING THE QUALITY OF LIFE OR PLACEMAKING ISSUES FOR THESE FUTURE RESIDENTS.

THE CLOSEST DART RAIL STATION IS THE CITY LINE BUSH STATION ACROSS STATE HIGHWAY ONE 90 LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS OF RICHARDSON.

THERE ARE EXISTING PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS TO ACCESS THE STATION AND THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING SIDEWALKS WITHIN AND THROUGHOUT THE PROPERTY.

THE DOWNTOWN PLANO RAIL STATION STOP IS 1.4 MILES AWAY FROM THE LOCATION SINCE 2018.

THE CITY'S LONG-RANGE PLANNING POLICIES HAVE FOCUSED ON LIMITING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN EXPRESSWAY CORRIDORS.

THE PURPOSE OF THE EXPRESSWAY CORRIDOR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AREA ALSO SHORTENED TO E H A IS TO PROTECT SENSITIVE LAND USES BY REQUIRING MITIGATION METHODS, UM, TO ENSURE, UH, MEASURES FROM IMPACTS OF THE EXPRESSWAY, INCLUDING REDUCING NOISE LEVELS BELOW 65 DECIBELS.

THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FALLS WITHIN BOTH E H A ONE AND E H A TWO AREAS SHOWN ON THE SCREEN, NOTING DEVELOPING RESIDENTIAL USES IN THE E H A TWO IS DESIGNATED AS INAPPROPRIATE AND THE APPLICANT IS NOT PROPOSING ANY RESIDENTIAL UNITS WITHIN THE E HHA TWO.

THE APPLICANT IS HOWEVER, PROPOSING RESIDENTIAL UNITS WITHIN THE E HHA ONE AREA RESIDENTIAL USES MAY BE APPROPRIATE IN EHA ONE IF MITIGATION METHODS ARE PROPOSED.

THE EXPRESSWAY CORRIDOR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AREA FOCUSES

[00:10:01]

ON MITIGATING OUTDOOR NOISE LEVELS WHERE SPECIF LAND USES ARE PROPOSED.

THE APPLICANT HAS SUBMITTED AN EHA SITE ANALYSIS WITH MITIGATION METHODS, BUT THE SITE WOULD EXCEED THE RECOMMENDED OUTDOOR NOISE LEVELS.

ADDING THE APPLICANT HAS SHARED THAT THE RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS CAN BE CONSTRUCTED TO ACHIEVE INTERIOR NOISE LEVELS OF LESS THAN 45 DECIBELS.

THIS STANDARD DOES NOT MEET THE CITY'S EHA POLICY GOAL AND THE LACK OF COMMITMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF NON-RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES AS A BUFFER MAY IMPACT THESE FUTURE RESIDENTS.

QUALITY OF LIFE AND ENJOYMENT ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING PLAN DEVELOPMENT STIPULATIONS TO ALLOW FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE RESIDENTIAL USES WITHIN THE CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT.

MANY OF THE STIPULATIONS ARE DESIGNATED FOR TRACK ONE OR TRACK TWO.

TRACK ONE INCLUDES THE ALLOWANCE FOR A MAXIMUM OF 501 MID-RISE RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND A MINIMUM OF 33 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENT ATTACHED UNITS.

TRACK TWO INCLUDES STANDARDS TO ACCOMMODATE A FUTURE HOTEL DEVELOPMENT WITH REDUCED SETBACKS AND A REQUIRED LANDSCAPE EDGE FOR TRACT ONE.

THE STIPULATIONS REQUIRE 1.5 ACRES OF OPEN SPACE WITH A MINIMUM SETBACK OF 150 FEET FROM BOTH EXPRESSWAYS.

THE APPLICANT IS ALSO PROPOSING TO PHASE THE ZONING REQUEST.

THE FIRST PHASE OF DEVELOPMENT CONSISTS OF BUILDING 260 MID-RISE RESIDENTIAL UNITS, THE REQUIRED OPEN SPACE AND 33 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENT ATTACHED UNITS.

THERE ARE NO REQUIREMENTS FOR ANY NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE FIRST PHASE.

WITH PHASE TWO, A BUILDING PERMIT MUST BE ISSUED WITH A MINIMUM OF 70,000 SQUARE FEET OF NON-RESIDENTIAL USES PRIOR TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE REMAINING MID-RISE RESIDENTIAL UNITS.

HOWEVER, AN ISSUED BUILDING PERMIT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE NON-RESIDENTIAL USES WILL EVER BE CONSTRUCTED.

THE LACK OF ESTABLISHED NON-RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES PROPOSED IN PHASE ONE MAY IMPACT THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR THE FUTURE RESIDENTS WHILE THEY WAIT FOR THE NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT TO BUFFER EXISTING NOISE CONCERNS.

THE APPLICANT IS ALSO PROPOSING STANDARDS RELATING TO THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, INCLUDING NOISE LEVELED LEVELS, MODIFIED SETBACKS, HEIGHT LIMITATIONS, FACADE REQUIREMENT, UNIT SIZE, SCREENING, PARKING, AND OUTDOOR LIVING AREAS.

LASTLY, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING PLAN DEVELOPMENT ADJUSTMENTS RELATED TO SETBACKS, LANDSCAPE EDGES, AND DESIGN STANDARDS.

WE RECEIVED THREE UNIQUE RESPONSES IN FAVOR WITHIN THE 200 FOOT BUFFER.

WE RECEIVED ONE RESPONSE FOR A TOTAL OF FOUR RESPONSES AND WE RECEIVED A TOTAL OF 18 UNIQUE RESPONSES, SEVEN IN SUPPORT AND 11 IN OPPOSITION.

WE RECEIVED TWO DUPLICATE RESPONSES AND ONE RESPONSE OUTSIDE THE CITY OF PLANO FOR A TOTAL OF 20 RESPONSES.

TO CONCLUDE, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO REZONE THIS PROPERTY FROM CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL TO PLAN DEVELOPMENT TO A PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, UH, TO ALLOW FOR RESIDENTIAL UNITS WITH MODIFIED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.

THE RESI, THE REQUEST WILL AID IN THE CITY'S GOAL OF REDEVELOPMENT OF THE US 75 CORRIDOR IN ADDITION TO MEETING OTHER STANDARDS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SUCH AS THE MIX OF USES.

HOWEVER, THE REQUEST LACKS ALIGNMENT WITH THE REDEVELOPMENT AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT POLICY AND THE REQUEST DOES NOT PROVIDE SUFFICIENT MITIGATION FROM THE EXPRESSWAYS APPROVAL WILL REQUIRE FINDINGS DUE TO SUBSTANTIAL CONFLICTS WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY GUIDANCE FOR REDEVELOPMENT AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT.

THE ZONING CASE AND COMPANION CONTENT PLAN ARE BOTH RECOMMENDED FOR DENIAL AND THAT CONCLUDES THE PRESENTATION AND STAFF IS HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.

THANK YOU.

OKAY, THANK YOU.

UM, WHEN YOU MENTIONED THAT THERE WERE ALREADY 2300 RESIDENTIAL UNITS IN THE GENERAL AREA TO BE BUILT, IS THAT REALLY BASICALLY IT'S COLLIN CREEK, IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO? YES.

OKAY.

ARE THERE ANY OTHER DEVELOPMENTS BESIDE COLLIN CREEK THAT MAKE UP THAT NUMBER? DON'T KNOW.

NOTHING I KNOW OF.

I BELIEVE COLLIN CREEK IS THE, THE FOCUS ON THAT LARGE NUMBER.

OKAY.

THAT IS THE CORRECT NUMBER OF UNITS AT COLLIN CREEK.

THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT.

SO I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE WEREN'T, THERE WASN'T SOME OTHER DEVELOPMENT THAT WAS GOING ON.

UM, YOU MENTIONED THAT FOR THE SINGLE FAMILY, THAT STAFF FELT A REDESIGN OF THAT LAYOUT

[00:15:01]

MIGHT BE BENEFICIAL.

SO ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT IF THE APPLICANT WAS TO CHANGE THE LAYOUT OF THE SINGLE FAMILY, THAT STAFF WOULD THEN LOOK MORE FAVORABLY UPON THIS OR NOT REALLY? IT'S JUST MAYBE A, UM, A RECOMMENDATION THAT MAYBE THEY SHOULD CONSIDER SOMETHING LIKE THAT? SURE.

I WOULD DEFER THAT TO EITHER MS. DAY OR MR. HILL IF HE'S ON THE LINE.

OKAY.

CERTAINLY, UH, MR. HILL JUST NOTED THAT THERE ARE SOME UNITS REMAINING AT HERITAGE CREEKSIDE THAT UH, OKAY.

HE ALSO WANTED TO NOTE AND SO, I'M SORRY, COULD YOU REPEAT YOUR QUESTION? UH, AS PART OF THE REPORT, ONE OF THE STATEMENTS WAS THAT IF THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL INSTEAD OF BEING KIND OF STRUNG OUT, THEY WHERE THEY WERE, WERE INSTEAD COMBINED INTO A MORE COMPACT AREA, WOULD THAT BE SOMETHING THAT THE STAFF WOULD'VE THEN LOOKED MORE FAVORABLY UPON THE PROPOSAL? RIGHT.

I THINK THAT THERE, YES, THAT THERE ARE A NUMBER OF CONCERNS, BUT THAT WOULDN'T NECESSARILY ALLEVIATE EVERY CONCERN, BUT OF COURSE IT, IT ABSOLUTELY WOULD BE SOMETHING.

IN FACT, WE MADE SOME SUGGESTIONS ALONG THOSE LINES AND AS PART OF OUR REVIEW AND DISCUSSION.

OKAY.

YOU MENTIONED THE DISTANCE TO THE BUSH, UM, STATION AND THE DOWNTOWN STATION.

HOW FAR FROM HERE TO THE NEW 12TH STREET STATION DO WE KNOW THAT INFORMATION? IT WOULD BE CLOSER THAN THE DOWNTOWN PLANO STATION BUT NOT AS CLOSE AS BUSH, NO.

OKAY.

UM, OKAY.

I THINK THAT'S PRETTY MUCH ALL MY QUESTIONS.

ANYONE ELSE FOR STAFF COMMISSIONER RATLIFF? UM, KIND OF FOLLOWING UP ON THE SAME LINE OF THOUGHT, SORRY, I NEED TO LOOK AT MY SCREEN.

SORRY.

UM, THE PHASING SEEMS TO BE AN IMPORTANT QUESTION IN HERE BECAUSE OF THE MITIGATION ISSUE.

IF THE PHASING WAS FLIPPED OVER WHERE YOU COULDN'T GET A BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE MULTI-FAMILY OR THE RESIDENTIAL UNTIL AFTER THE COMMERCIAL WAS BUILT, CUZ IT'S A BIG PART OF THE MITIGATION, HOW WOULD THAT AFFECT STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON, UM, THAT WOULD BE FAVORABLE? I THINK, UM, THAT WOULD BE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION BECAUSE ONE OF OUR MAJOR CONCERNS IS THAT MITIGATION AND, UM, YOU STILL GOT SOME, UM, IT'S STILL NOT GONNA MEET THE BALANCE MM-HMM.

OF USES IN THE R GM POLICY, BUT IT WOULD AGAIN, BE ANOTHER, ANOTHER ISSUE THAT WE WOULD NOT BE ADDRESSING IN OUR STAFF REPORT.

OKAY.

AND THEN, UM, DOES THE CONSTRUCTION ON TRACK TWO, THE HOTEL? UM, I'M SUFFICIENTLY VAGUE ON HOW, IF AT ALL, THAT AFFECTS THE MITIGATION.

I WOULD, MR. HILL IS ON ZOOM IF HE IS AVAILABLE.

UM, HE MAY KNOW MORE ABOUT THIS, BUT I DON'T RECOLLECT THAT BEING AN ISSUE IN THE MITIGATION, BUT I WOULD WANNA LOOK MORE CLOSELY AT THE REPORT.

SO YEAH.

SO I GUESS RESULTING IN, IN MY QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT THE, THE CONSTRUCTION ON TRACK TWO, THE PHASING OF THAT NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERED AS PART OF THIS PHASING PLAN OR IF THAT'S JUST KIND OF A STANDALONE PARCEL AS FAR AS THIS CASE IS CONCERNED, IT SEEMED TO BE KIND OF A STANDALONE PARCEL.

IT PERHAPS THE APPLICANT COULD ADDRESS THAT MORE CLOSELY.

THE HOTEL IS SHOWN, BUT IT'S NOT OUTLINED IN THEIR, LIKE, AS PART OF THE PROPERTY, SO I'M NOT A HUNDRED PERCENT CLEAR.

THANK YOU.

I'D LIKE TO APOLOGIZE TO THE COMMISSION.

WE'VE GOT THE SPEAKERS LINED UP HERE AND I JUST COMPLETELY IGNORED IT, SO MY APOLOGIES.

UH, THE FASTEST ONE ON THE DRAW WAS COMMISSIONER BRUNO, SO WE'LL LET YOU THANK YOU.

YEP.

THERE YOU GO.

TOO MANY BUTTONS.

YES, TOO MANY BUTTONS.

OKAY.

UM, THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN.

UM, I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.

IS THE PROPOSAL INCLUDING ANY NON-RESIDENTIAL USES OTHER THAN THE HOTEL AND PARKING GARAGES? AN OFFICE.

AN OFFICE, YES.

DO WE KNOW WHAT KIND OF OFFICE? GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE.

OKAY.

UH, TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, IS THERE ANY FORM OF INTERACTION OR COMPLIMENTARY USES BETWEEN THE RESIDENTIAL PORTION OF THE, OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND THE NON-RESIDENTIAL PORTION? I MEAN, DOES ANY, DOES ONE OR THE OTHER INTER DO THEY INTERACT WITH EACH OTHER IN ANY WAY SUCH AS, YOU KNOW, RETAIL SERVING THE RESIDENTIAL AREA OR RECREATIONAL THINGS THAT THE RES THAT, THAT WOULD SERVE THE RESIDENTIAL AREA? SURE.

I THINK, UH, THE APPLICANT IS HERE AND I BELIEVE THEY COULD ANSWER THAT QUESTION FOR YOU WELL.

OKAY.

ALRIGHT, WE'LL WE'LL HOLD THAT THOUGHT THEN.

YEAH.

UM, HAS THE STAFF

[00:20:01]

IDENTIFIED ANY ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION ISSUES INVOLVING AIR QUALITY? WE'VE TALKED ABOUT NOISE A LOT, BUT I'M WONDERING ABOUT AIR QUALITY.

ARE THERE ANY AIR QUALITY ISSUES? SURE.

THE EHA DOES ENCOMPASS NOISE AND POLLUTION CONCERNS, AND SO THAT'S WHY WE ALSO WOULD LIKE TO, UM, WE DISFAVOR RESIDENTIAL BEING WITHIN THE EHA ONE DISTRICT BECAUSE WE DO HAVE IMPACTS ON NOISE AND POLLUTION AND WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THAT.

IS THERE ANY DOCUMENTATION OF A POTENTIAL POLLUTION PROBLEM? THAT'S WHAT I MEAN.

THE APPLICANT DID PROVIDE AN EHA STUDY MM-HMM.

AND I BELIEVE IT WAS, UM, IN THE PACKET.

I DID NOT READ THE, IN THE DOCUMENT AND I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT COULD ALSO SPEAK TO THAT IF, UM, POLLUTION WAS INCLUDED.

OKAY.

BUT I'M JUST WONDERING, MAYBE CHRISTINE, YOU CAN ANSWER THIS.

DOES THE STAFF HAVE HAVE ANY CONCERNS ABOUT AIR QUALITY? CERTAINLY.

I THINK THAT, UH, DUE TO THE PROXIMITY, WHAT WE WOULD BE LOOKING FOR IS THEM TO MEET THE STANDARDS WITHIN THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SO MOVING THE INTAKES AWAY FROM THE HIGHWAYS AND THINGS ALONG THOSE LINES.

SO I THINK THAT WAS NOTED IN THE COMMENTS ON THE CONCEPT PLAN MM-HMM.

.

AND SO AS LONG AS THOSE STANDARDS WERE MET, I THINK THAT WE WOULD BE COMFORTABLE, UM, THAT THEY WERE DOING ADEQUATE MITIGATION FROM AN AIR QUALITY PERSPECTIVE.

AND I JUST WANNA POINT OUT THAT THIS IS NOT ORIGINALLY MS. COPELAND'S ZONING CASE.

YES.

FOR, UH, JUST, I JUST WANNA, FOR, FOR EVERYONE'S KNOWLEDGE, SHE IS, UH, STEPPING IN TO ASSIST BECAUSE OF, UH, OTHER PEOPLE BEING UNAVAILABLE, SO THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

OKAY.

THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN? YES.

NEXT UP WAS COMMISSIONER BROSKI.

UH, THANK YOU FOR FILLING IN.

UH, I DO HAVE A WHOLE SERIES OF QUESTIONS.

I WANNA START WITH, UM, A BLOCK PATTERN ON PAGE THREE OF THE LETTER PROVIDED BY THE DEVELOPER BAY WEST.

THEY HAVE A GREEN CHECK MARK NEXT TO BLOCK PATTERN IN STREET SCAPE.

UM, HOWEVER, ON, UM, THE STAFF REPORT, LET ME SEE IF I CAN GET THERE.

SORRY FOR THE DELAY HERE ON THE STAFF REPORT.

PAGE 10 AT THE TOP IT SAYS, UH, THE URBAN STREET STRUCTURE DOES NOT MEET THE TYPICAL UR URBAN BLOCK PATTERN SIZE OR PROVIDE CONNECTIVITY TO SUPPORTING, UH, REDEVELOPMENT OF ADJACENT PARCELS.

CAN YOU GO INTO THAT A LITTLE BIT MORE? YEAH.

UM, MR. BELL CAN HELP WITH THAT ANSWER.

SURE.

UM, SO THIS IS ACTUALLY EXPRESSWAY CORRIDOR, UM, FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY, WHICH CALLS FOR ACTUALLY WIDE SETBACKS.

AND SO IN THIS CASE IT'S MOSTLY ALONG THE EXPRESSWAY THAT THIS IS INTENDED.

SO ALTHOUGH THEY'RE PROPOSING AS A MORE OF A MIXED USE URBAN ENVIRONMENT, AND SO THEY'RE BREAKING UP THE BLOCKS WITH THIS PRIVATE INTERNAL STREET AND THE SETBACKS ARE SHORT BECAUSE OF THAT INTERNAL SYSTEM, BUT THAT'S NOT REALLY IN KEEPING EXACTLY WITH WHAT'S IMAGINED GENERALLY ALONG THE CORRIDOR WHERE WE HAVE WIDER BLOCKS AND DEEPER SETBACKS.

AND SO DOES IT IN FACT CAUSE CONNECTIVITY ISSUES WITH ADJACENT PARCELS THEN? I DON'T BELIEVE IT CAUSES CONNECTIVITY ISSUES.

UM, I BELIEVE IT'S JUST A DIFFERENT, DIFFERENT FORM THAN IS GENERALLY ENVISIONED FOR THIS CORRIDOR.

OKAY.

UM, SECOND QUESTION WAS, UH, AROUND THE SOUND MITIGATION AND, UM, IN THE REPORT IT MENTIONED, UM, THE CONCERN ABOUT THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDINGS AS IT RELATES TO THE SOUND AND THE ABILITY TO RECORD THOSE CORRECTLY.

CAN CAN YOU GO INTO ANY MORE DETAIL ABOUT THAT? I DON'T THINK I CAN, BUT I, IS MR. HILL AVAILABLE TO, I SAW HIM BUT THEN HE LEFT I'M HERE.

CAN YOU ALL HEAR ME? YES.

SO THE NOISE STUDY DOES PROVIDE INFORMATION ON MULTIPLE FLOORS OF THE MIDRISE RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS.

HOWEVER, IT ONLY PROVIDES DATA FOR THE FIRST FLOOR OF SINGLE FAMILY BUILDINGS.

I THINK THAT WAS A CHALLENGE THAT WE NOTED IN OUR STAFF REPORT MM-HMM.

, UH, BASED UPON HOW THE MEASUREMENTS WERE MADE OVER THE STUDY.

IS, IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE ASKING? YES, SIR.

ASKING? YES.

SO YOU CONCLUDED THAT THE ZONING REQUEST IS FOUND INCONSISTENT WITH THE EHA SITE ANALYSIS, UM, AND IS NOT CONFORMANCE, UH, THE EXPRESSWAY CORRIDOR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH MAP FOR THAT REASON? NO, THERE'S MULTIPLE REASONS.

UH, I THINK FIRST AND MOST SIGNIFICANTLY IS THAT THE STUDY, UM, IT IDENTIFIES THE HOTEL, THE OFFICE, AND THE PARKING GARAGE AS MITIGATING, UM,

[00:25:01]

DEVELOPMENTS.

HOWEVER, IF, AS MS. COPELAND NOTED, THOSE DEVELOPMENTS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO BE CONSTRUCTED.

SO THE NOISE STUDY, ALTHOUGH SHOWS THE LEVELS BASED UPON THOSE, UH, STRUCTURES, THEY MAY NEVER BE BUILT.

UM, SO THAT'S A CHALLENGE THAT WE NOTED.

UM, SECONDLY, WE, THERE, THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT PORTIONS OF THE DEVELOPMENT THAT EXCEED THE MAXIMUM 65 DECIBEL LEVEL THAT'S RECOMMENDED.

UM, SO THAT'S KIND OF NUMBER TWO.

AND THEN NUMBER THREE, UM, IS THAT WE DID NOT RECEIVE ALL NOISE LEVEL READINGS FOR THE SINGLE FAMILY, UM, SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.

AND I BELIEVE THAT THE APPLICANT PROVIDED A RESPONSE LETTER, UH, WHICH MENTIONS WHY THAT WAS DONE.

UM, BUT THAT IS ANOTHER ISSUE THAT WE WANTED TO NOTE.

YEAH, AND I THINK IN THE APPLICANT'S, UM, LETTER FOR THE, I CAN'T SEEM TO FIND IT, THE NO, THE NOISE STUDY ITSELF ACTUALLY SAYS, UH, THE RESULTS OF THE ANALYSIS INDICATE THAT THE FUTURE NOISE LEVELS AT THE BUILDING PLAN FOR SENSITIVE LAND USE WILL AT RESIDENTIAL WE'LL NOT EXCEED 75, UH, WHEN IN, WHEN OUR ZONE OR OUR REQUIREMENTS ARE 65 AND IT FINISHES THE LEVEL, THE LEVEL IDENTIFIED BY THE CITY OF PLANO AS UNACCEPTABLE FOR THE RESIDENTIAL USE.

CORRECT.

THERE'S, THERE'S REALLY TWO, UM, EHA AREAS.

THE EHA TWO, WHICH IS THE MORE, UM, EXTREME AREA CLOSEST TO THE EXPRESSWAY THAT REALLY SAYS RESIDENTIAL IS INAPPROPRIATE, AND THOSE AREAS ARE TYPICALLY 75 DECIBELS AND HIGHER, UM, AREAS WITHIN EHA ONE, UM, ARE POTENTIAL AREAS FOR RESIDENTIAL WITH APPROPRIATE MITIGATION.

HOWEVER, THE POLICY, AS YOU NOTED CORRECTLY STATES THAT, UH, REALLY RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND BUILDINGS SHOULD NOT BE PLACED IN AREAS THAT ARE ABOVE 65 DECIBELS.

AND THERE ARE PORTIONS OF THE EXTERIOR THAT ARE ABOVE THAT.

BUT AS YOU KNOW, THE APPLICANTS PRESENTED OR WILL PRESENT THAT THEY'LL, THEY WILL BE MITIGATING INTERIOR NOISE THROUGH CONSTRUCTION, HOWEVER, THE EXTERIOR WILL STILL BE IMPACTED, ESPECIALLY IF THOSE, UM, ADJACENT BUILDINGS IN THE HOTEL ARE NOT CONSTRUCTED.

OKAY.

ON PAGE 11 OF THE STAFF REPORT, THE STAFF MAKES THE COMMENT, THE ADDITION.

ADDITIONALLY, THE PROPOSAL DOES NOT MEET OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MIXED USE DEVELOPMENTS AS STATED IN THE REDEVELOPMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT AND OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

CAN YOU ELABORATE ON THAT AT ALL? HAPPY TO TAKE THAT ONE.

UM, THERE ARE TWO, THERE ARE TWO SPECIFIC ACTIONS IN THE REDEVELOPMENT, UH, IN GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACTION FIVE MM-HMM.

, THERE'S, UM, A IS THAT THERE SHOULD BE A PROPORTION OF NO MORE THAN 50% RESIDENTIAL TO NON-RESIDENTIAL.

IT IS NOT MEANING THAT ACTION AS WELL AS THERE'S A PHASING REQUIREMENT SO THAT, UM, NON-RESIDENTIAL DOESN'T GET OUT TOO FAR AHEAD OF THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.

AND THAT IS ALSO NOT BEING MET BECAUSE OF THE, AGAIN, AS MR. HILL MENTIONED, THERE'S NO COMMITMENT TO THAT NON-RESIDENTIAL PIECE MM-HMM.

.

AND THAT CONTINUES ON TO THE R GM EIGHT AS WELL, CORRECT? CORRECT.

R GM EIGHT, UM, ENCOURAGES THAT MULTI-FAMILY BE LIMITED TO, UM, AREAS WHERE IT MEETS A CITY GOAL, HOUSING GOAL DIVERS, DIVERSIFICATION, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, OR SPECIAL HOUSING NEED.

AND AGAIN, UH, WE FOUND IT DID NOT MEET THOSE GOALS BECAUSE AGAIN, WHEN YOU, WHEN YOU PAIR IT ALL TOGETHER WITH THE OTHER ISSUES, IT'S NOT PROVIDING A SITE DEVELOPMENT THAT HAS, UM, CONDUCIVE TO SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT.

OKAY.

UM, WHERE ELSE HAS I GOT, UH, ON PAGE TH 14 OF THE STAFF REPORT, WHEN IT TALKS ABOUT WASTEWATER DEMAND, UH, IT LEAVES OPEN THE, I THE POSSIBILITY THAT THE PROPOSED LAND USE MAY PROVIDE ADDITIONAL OFFSITE, MAY PROMPT ADDITIONAL OFFSITE WATER WASTEWATER IMPROVEMENTS TO MEET THE DEMAND FLOWS, UH, REQUIRED.

UH, WOULD THERE HAVE TO BE A, IS THAT GONNA BE A SIGNIFICANT EXPENSE TO THE CITY OR WOULD THAT BE OFFSET BY THE DEVELOPMENT AT ALL? UH, THE NEED FOR THAT TO HAPPEN, I BELIEVE THAT, UH, MR. HILL WORKED WITH THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT ON THIS LANGUAGE.

SO DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD? I DID.

NO, I, I, I WISH I HAD ADDITIONAL DETAILS FOR YOU.

THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT IS LOOKING AT THIS SITUATION.

UH, THEY DIDN'T HAVE ANY FURTHER INFORMATION WHETHER IT WOULD BE IMPROVEMENTS, WHAT THE IMPROVEMENTS WOULD BE, WHO WOULD BEAR THOSE COSTS.

UM, SO I, I DON'T HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION UNFORTUNATELY.

OKAY.

[00:30:01]

UH, NEXT ON PAGE 16 OF THE STAFF REPORT, THE, UH, PUBLIC SAFETY RESPONSE TIME, UH, YOU MAKE THE STATEMENT RESIDENTIAL UNITS, UH, IN THIS AREA WILL INCREASE E M S AND FIRE CALLS FOR SERVICE AND MAY IMPACT, UH, FUTURE STAFFING LEVELS AS WELL.

UH, ANY ANY IDEAS ON THAT, EITHER ON WHAT THAT IMPACT COULD BE? NO.

AGAIN, NO, NO DETAILS ON THIS.

THIS IS A TYPICAL, UM, STATEMENT THAT YOU'LL SEE IN OUR RESIDENTIAL ZONING CASES.

THIS WAS PLACED IN OUR RESIDENTIAL REPORTS AT THE REQUEST OF THE FIRE DEPARTMENT.

OKAY.

THANK YOU.

UM, SORRY, I'M TRYING TO SCROLL THROUGH.

OH, AND, UH, ON PAGE 19 WHERE IT TALKS ABOUT ACCESS TO THE DART, UM, FUTURE RESIDENTS WOULD BE REQUIRED TO WALK ALONG PLANO PARKWAY TO ACCESS A TRAIL, AND THEN IT TALKS ABOUT, UH, TO CROSSING OVER, UH, ONE 90, CROSSING THE THREE LANE EASTBOUND SERVICE ROAD IN ORDER TO ACCESS.

IS THAT THE CORRECT MAPPING TO THAT? YES.

AM I UNDERSTANDING THAT PART? WALKING EAST TOWARDS, UH, WALKING EAST ALONG THE ACCESS ROAD AND THEN WALKING UNDER, UH, ONE 90 AND THEN THE DART STATION IS JUST ON THE BORDER OF THE, THE CITY LIMIT LINE.

OKAY.

ALL RIGHT.

UH, SO I JUST WANNA SAY IN CLOSING, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR ALL OF YOUR, UH, ANSWERING ALL OF MY QUESTIONS.

I, UM, UH, THE REFERENCE TO THE, UH, REDEVELOPMENT POLICIES A AND B WERE VERY CLOSE TO ME.

I THINK THE PHASING IS, IS VERY IMPORTANT.

UH, WHEN I SAT AS VICE-CHAIR FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, I FELT THAT WE WERE, IT WA IT WAS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WAS LEAST CONTROVERSIAL WERE THE, UH, 50% AND THE PHASING IN, UH, R G M B.

SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

YOU GUYS DID A VERY THOROUGH JOB ON, UH, ALL OF THIS AND YOUR QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU.

COMMISSIONER KERRY? YES, THANK YOU.

UH, GOOD JOB OF PINCH HITTING SO FAR.

IMPRESSIVE.

YES.

UM, SO COMMISSIONER BROSKY ASKED A COUPLE OF MY QUESTIONS THAT I WAS GOING TO ASK, AND SO I HAVE, I THINK, JUST A COUPLE SIMPLE THINGS.

UM, SO WITH THIS PROPOSAL, IS THERE A LIMIT TO EITHER THE NUMBER OF FLOORS OR THE NUMBER OF UNITS THAT CAN BE BUILT HERE? UM, OR, OR IS IT NOT LIMITED? SURE.

THE MID-RISE RESIDENTIAL NEEDS TO BE AT LEAST FIVE.

AND THEN IN THE CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT IT SAYS MAXIMUM 20.

SO WHILE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT FIVE STORIES, I THINK TODAY IT COULD BE 20.

IS THAT ACCURATE? UH, I BELIEVE THERE'S A STANDARD IN THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT THAT LIMITS IT TO FIVE STORIES FOR THE MULTIFAMILY.

OKAY.

AND THREE FOR THE, UH, RESIDENTIAL AND I WILL VERIFY.

OKAY.

YES, THAT THAT'S CORRECT.

OKAY.

SO IT IS LIMITED THEN? MM-HMM.

.

OKAY.

THANK YOU.

UM, YOU KNOW, WE TALK ABOUT, UH, NO RESIDENTIAL IN EH TWO AND, AND PROBABLY THAT'S TRUE, BUT SOME OF THE RESIDENTIAL IS GONNA BE VERY, VERY CLOSE TO THAT, EH, TWO LINE.

I IT, I THINK, AM I WRONG ABOUT THAT? THAT'S CORRECT.

I CAN GO BACK TO WHERE WE SEE THE MAP OF THE EHA ONE AND THE EHA TWO, AND THEN WHEN YOU OVERLAY THE PROPOSED CONCEPT PLAN WITH THE EHA ONE AND TWO, YOU CAN SEE IT IS VERY CLOSE.

YEAH, I MEAN, I, IT PROBA I THINK THAT STATEMENT'S ACCURATE, BUT I DO THINK IT'S VERY CLOSE.

OKAY.

UM, AND PROBABLY MY NEXT TWO QUESTIONS ARE GONNA BE BETTER SERVED BY THE APPLICANT, BUT MAYBE, YOU KNOW, UM, CUZ YOU SEEM TO KNOW A LOT HERE ABOUT THIS ALREADY, BUT, UM, TIME TO COMPLETE PHASE ONE, ANY, ANY ESTIMATES THAT THEY HAVE ABOUT THIS OR NOT? THAT WOULD BE A GREAT QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.

THANK YOU.

AND, AND FINALLY, UM, I I THINK, UH, COMMISSIONER BRUNO HAS ALREADY ASKED THIS, BUT IT, IT'S HARD TO KNOW WHAT THE COMMERCIAL ASPECTS OF THIS MIGHT LOOK LIKE BECAUSE I THINK BASED ON THEIR PLAN THERE IS, THERE'S NO CLUE TO WHAT THAT MIGHT BE AT ALL.

IS THAT RIGHT? I MEAN, THERE'S OFFICE AND THERE'S A HOTEL MAYBE, BUT THERE'S NOTHING FROM WHAT I COULD TELL IN READING THIS DOCUMENT THAT REALLY WOULD LAY THAT OUT TOO MUCH.

AM I MISSING IT FROM WITHIN THE MID-RISE RESIDENTIAL AS YOU COULD HAVE NON-RESIDENTIAL AND RESIDENTIAL MIXED? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO? YEAH, I, I, WELL I JUST DON'T SEE ANY COMMERCIAL THAT'S REALLY LAID OUT YET AND MAYBE I'M JUST MISSING IT.

I MEAN, THERE'S A VOLUMINOUS DOCUMENT, SO I VERY LIKELY MAY HAVE MISSED IT, BUT RIGHT.

IT, THE REQUEST DOES STATE JUST MID-RISE RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ATTACHED OFFICE AND HOTEL.

YEAH.

OKAY.

OPEN SPACE AND PARKING GARAGE AND THAT SAYS I READ IT, SO IT'S, IT'S FAIRLY VAGUE IN MY OPINION.

OKAY.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COMMISSIONER.

UM,

[00:35:01]

TWO QUESTIONS.

I THINK MOST OF THE QUESTIONS HAS BEEN ASKED, IT SOUNDS LIKE IF THE APPLICANT ADDRESSES, UM, RJM FIVE B FROM A PHASE IN PERSPECTIVE, THEY'LL GO A LONG WAY TO MITIGATING THE ISSUES, UM, ON THE EHA NONCONFORMANCE.

UM, WAS THAT RELATE BACK TO THE APPLICANT TO, I DUNNO, MAYBE IT'S A TIME IN PERHAPS COME UP WITH A DIFFERENT, UM, FACING COMMITMENT, UM, BEFORE BRINGING THIS FORWARD? SURE.

UM, MR. HILL DID THERE, WAS THERE ANY CONVERSATIONS ABOUT FLIPPING THE PHASING OR IS THE APPLICANT ABLE TO ANSWER THEIR PHASING UH, PLAN? SURE.

YEAH, WE, WE HAD A LOT OF CONVERSATION AROUND THE PHASING AND, YOU KNOW, THE COMMITMENTS, UM, THE APPLICANT IS FAMILIAR WITH, I THINK THE, THE FINDINGS POLICIES AND THE RGM POLICIES.

SO STAFF DID ASK SEVERAL TIMES, UM, FOR A STRONGER COMMITMENT TO COMMERCIAL.

UM, BUT THE APPLICANT, UH, PRESENTED WHAT'S BEFORE YOU TODAY.

OKAY.

UM, SECOND QUESTION ON THE DIVERSITY OF HOUSING FOR, I BELIEVE THAT'S R GM EIGHT.

UM, WHAT VIOLATES THAT? IS IT TOO MUCH MULTI-FAMILY OR TOO MUCH SINGLE FAMILY OR NOT ENOUGH PERIOD IN THAT CONCEPT PLAN? I'LL LET MR. BELL ANSWER THAT ONE.

SO FOR R GM A, UM, WANNA ELABORATE ON WHAT I COVERED EARLIER, IT'S THAT IT NEEDS TO MEET A HOUSING GOAL BUT ALSO NEEDS TO COMPLY WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE FUTURE LAND USE, UH, DASHBOARD.

AND IN THIS CASE, BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT COMPLYING WITH THE PHASING AND THE MIX OF USES FROM A, FROM A BALANCE OF RESIDENTIAL, NON-RESIDENTIAL, WE INTERPRET THAT AS NOT MEETING THE FUTURE LAND USE DASHBOARD.

SO IT'S NOT MEETING THE FULL, UH, INTENTION OF THAT ACTION.

SO IT DOESN'T EVEN HIT THE MINIMUM THRESHOLD BEFORE WE START THINKING OF, YOU KNOW, SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED VERSUS SINGLE FAMILY OR CORRECT.

AND I WANNA BE CLEAR THAT IT IS MEETING THE, THE MIX OF USES, GENERALLY SPEAKING FOR THE WHOLE AREA, RIGHT, THE WHOLE 75 CORRIDOR, IT IS COMPLIANT WITH THAT, BUT ON AN INDIVIDUAL SITE BASIS, IT IS NOT MEETING THE MIX OF USES FROM A RESIDENTIAL TO NON-RESIDENTIAL STANDPOINT FROM MIXED USE DEVELOPMENTS.

SOUNDS SORRY, DO YOU HAVE ONE, ONE LAST QUESTION.

IS THERE A, FOR THAT SITE, IS THERE A PERCENTAGE I MAY HAVE MISSED IT.

A PREFERRED 75% COMMERCIAL VERSUS 25 RESIDENTIAL? UM, YES.

SO RGM FIVE A RECOMMENDS, UM, NO MORE THAN 50% RESIDENTIAL FROM EXCUSE DEVELOPMENT AND THAT'S BASED ON SQUARE FOOTAGE.

THANK YOU.

COMMISSIONER RATS.

OH, DID YOU TURN YOUR YOU WERE UP THERE.

OKAY, GO AHEAD.

YOU TURNED IT OFF.

SO I, I JUST WANNA, THERE WAS A QUESTION ASKED, I THINK, UH, BY COMMISSIONER CARRIE ANN TO, UH, COMMISSIONER OIE ABOUT THE DEVELOPER'S POSITION ON SOME OF THE COMMERCIAL, AND I THINK IN PAGES SEVEN AND EIGHT OF THE LETTER THAT THEY SENT, UH, THEY MAKE IT PRETTY CLEAR WHAT THE POSITION IS RELATED TO THE FLIPPING OF THE, UH, FACING THE, THE PLANO SUBMARKET WHERE THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED HAS A GLUT OF COMMERCIAL SPACE AVAILABLE AND IS IN AN UNDERPERFORMING COMMERCIAL AREA AND THEN IT GOES ON TO PART B.

DUE TO THE UNDERPERFORMING NATURE OF THE COMMERCIAL SPACE IN THIS AREA, THERE IS NO DEMAND FOR NEW COMMERCIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE IN THIS AREA TODAY.

I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT THERE WAS IN FACT AN ANSWER.

IT JUST WASN'T LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT ITSELF.

I DON'T SEE ANY MORE BUTTONS LIT UP.

SO DOES THAT MEAN EVERYONE'S GOT THEIR QUESTIONS ANSWERED FROM STAFF? OKAY.

THANK YOU.

NICE JOB PINCH HITTING THERE.

THANK YOU SO MUCH.

OKAY.

I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND I'M ASSUMING THE APPLICANT WANTS TO ADDRESS THIS.

I HAVE FOUR INDIVIDUALS REGISTERED AS APPLICANT.

I WILL CALL THEM ALL.

ARE YOU, I'M SORRY, YOUR NAME? BRIAN WOLF.

BRIAN LIP.

OKAY.

MR. BRIAN WOLF.

AND THEN I HAVE BRIAN MOORE, BILL DAHLSTROM, AND DYLAN CHANDLERS AVAILABLE TO ASK, ANSWER A QUESTIONS ONLINE.

THANK YOU.

YOU'RE WELCOME.

GREAT.

GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS.

THIS IS MY NAME'S BRIAN WOLFF.

I'M A PARTNER AT BAY WEST DEVELOPMENT AND, UH, HEAD OF OUR DALLAS OFFICE.

UH, REALLY EXCITED TO BE HERE TONIGHT AND SHOW YOU GUYS OUR PLANS TO REVITALIZE THIS SITE.

WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON THIS PLAN FOR OVER THREE YEARS.

IT'S BEEN A LONG ROAD.

WE'VE BEEN GOVERNED BY THREE DIFFERENT, SEPARATE COMPREHENSIVE PLANS, SO IT'S A BIT, A BIT OF A MOVING TARGET FOR US, BUT WE THINK THIS DEVELOPMENT NOW BEST REPRESENTS THE NEEDS

[00:40:01]

OF THIS PARTICULAR NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMPLETES THE EXISTING MIXED USE T O D NATURE OF THE AREA.

I'M GONNA GO THROUGH A LOT OF INFORMATION QUICKLY IN THIS PRESENTATION, SO PLEASE BEAR WITH ME.

I HAVE OUR ARCHITECT, CIVIL ENGINEER AND LAND USE ATTORNEY HERE WITH ME TODAY, AND WE'D HAPPY TO EXPAND FURTHER, FURTHER, UH, IN THE Q AND A SECTION.

I, I WANNA START OUT TONIGHT WITH OUR VISION FOR THE SITE.

WE HAVE THE UNIQUE OPPORTUNITY HERE TO TRANSFORM AN UNDERPERFORMING COMMERCIAL AREA INTO A VIBRANT ECONOMIC DISTRICT IN EAST PLANO THAT BRINGS A COMMUNITY TOGETHER.

OUR GOAL WITH THIS PROJECT IS TO SIMPLY FILL IN THE GAP OF THIS ALREADY MIXED USE NEIGHBORHOOD AND APPLY THE GUIDING PRINCIPLES, POLICIES AND PRIORITIES, A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO GUIDE THAT DEVELOPMENT.

WE WANTED TO PROMOTE A SENSE OF PLACE BY INCORPORATING A LIVELY, USABLE OPEN SPACE, UH, CENTERED AROUND, UH, PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE PLAZA GREEN, THAT'S 1.4 ACRES THAT BECOMES A HEART OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.

WE WANTED TO USE THE HIGHEST DESIGN STANDARDS, THE IN THE CITY TO PROVIDE TIMELESS DESIGN AND START ATTRACTING THE HIGH WAGE EMPLOYMENT.

WE WANTED TO PROVIDE MULTIPLE TYPES OF HOUSING PRODUCT, WHICH WILL ALLOW CURRENT AND FUTURE RESIDENTS IN PLANO THE ABILITY TO CHANGE HOUSING TYPES AS THEY ENTER NEW STAGES OF LIFE.

WE WANT TO UTILIZE OUR CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE CITY LINE, TO THE CITY LINE DART STATION TO CR CREATE THIS VIBRANT T O D DISTRICT.

AND FINALLY, IT WAS IMPORTANT FOR US TO DEVELOP THIS PLAN IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE SUPPORT OF OUR NEIGHBORS.

I THOUGHT IT'D BE HELPFUL TO START BY SHOWING THE WHAT THE EXISTING EXISTING PROPERTY LOOKS LIKE TODAY.

THIS IS A VIEW OF THE PROPERTY FROM PLANO PARKWAY.

THIS IS AN AERIAL OF THE PROPERTY LOOKING NORTH.

THIS IS AN AERIAL OF THE PROPERTY LOOKING SOUTH.

YOU CAN SEE HERE THE MIXED USE T O D CITY LINE DEVELOPMENT WITH STATE FARM WHOLE FOODS IN THE DARK STATION ACROSS THE HIGHWAY.

WHEN WE FIRST STARTED LOOKING AT THIS PROPERTY, OUR THESIS WAS WHY CAN'T WE SIMPLY DRAFT OFF THE SUCCESS OF CITYLINE AND BRING THE SAME VIBRANCY TO EAST PLANO? THEY PROVED OUT THE COM, THE CONCEPT OF ECONOMIC SUCCESS.

IF YOU BRING A CONCENTRATION OF PEOPLE AROUND THE DART STATION, HERE'S A MAP TO GIVE CONTEXT TO WHERE WE SIT IN THE LARGER DART RAIL SYSTEM.

OUR PROPERTY IS LESS THAN A HALF MILE FROM THE DART STATION.

IT'S ABOUT AN EIGHT MINUTE WALK TO THE PLATFORM.

WE SEE RESIDENTS OF OUR PROPERTY HOPPING ON THE TRAIN TO GRAB DINNER AND DRINKS IN DOWNTOWN PLANO, OR VISITORS AND CUSTOMERS OF THE HOTEL AND OFFICE HAVING EASY ACCESS TO DFW ONCE THE SILVER LINE IS COMPLETE.

WHEN WE STARTED TO THINK ABOUT SITE PLANNING FOR THE SITE, IT WAS IMPORTANT FOR US TO LOOK AT NEIGHBORING USES.

WE HAVE TWO LARGE OFFICE BUILDINGS TO OUR WEST, AN APARTMENT COMPLEX TO OUR EAST AND FLEX OFFICE, AND RETAIL USES NORTH ACROSS PLANO PARKWAY.

WHAT WE WANTED TO DO WAS SIMPLY FILL IN THIS GAP IN THE CENTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT COMPLETED THIS NEIGHBORHOOD AND BROUGHT A CENTERPIECE GREEN SPACE THAT IS CURRENTLY LACKING IN THE AREA.

THIS IS WHAT WE'VE COME UP WITH.

124,000 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE BUILDING AND A HUNDRED KEY HOTEL ON THE SOUTHERN END OF THE SITE CLOSEST TO THE HIGHWAY, A 1.4 ACRE PLAZA GREEN, 33 TOWNHOMES SITUATED ALONG THE MAIN STREET AND FLANKING THAT PLAZA GREEN AND TWO MID-RISE RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS WITH ABOUT 250 UNITS EACH CLOSEST TO PLANO PARKWAY.

THE FIRST PHASE OF THIS PROJECT WOULD BE THE CENTER OF THE PROPERTY.

WE WOULD BUILD THE PLAZA GREEN TOWNHOMES AND THE APARTMENTS ON THE PLANO PARKWAY AND EXECUTIVE DRIVE CORNER FIRST IN ORDER TO CREATE A SENSE OF PLACE THAT WILL DRIVE DEMAND TO THIS OTHERWISE UNDERPERFORMING COMMERCIAL AREA.

AND THEN WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH A SECOND PHASE OF RESIDENTIAL UNTIL WE PULLED PERMITS AND MOVE FORWARD WITH EITHER THE HOTEL OR THE OFFICE BUILDING WHICHEVER DEMAND RETURNS FIRST.

THIS IS A VISUAL OF WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE FROM PLANO PARKWAY.

LOOKING DOWN THE MAIN STREET THROUGH THE CENTER OF THE SITE, YOU HAVE THE APARTMENTS ON THE LEFT, THE TOWNHOMES IN THE CENTER AND THE O AND AN OFFICE BUILDING IN THE DISTANCE.

THIS IS THE OFFICE BUILDING.

THE DESIGN IS MEANT TO SPILL OUT INTO THE PLAZA GREEN TO ACTIVATE THAT SPACE, NOT ONLY AT NIGHT FOR THE RESIDENTS, BUT ALSO THROUGHOUT THE DAY.

ONE OF THE KEY COMPONENTS OF THIS PROJECT WAS TO FOCUS ON THE QUALITY OF THE ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT.

A LOT OF PEOPLE TALK ABOUT CLASS A PROPERTIES, BUT WE WANTED TO CODIFY THAT WITH OUR DESIGN STANDARDS.

SO WE ASKED STAFF WHAT THE HIGHEST DESIGN STANDARDS AND PLANOS ARE AND WE INCORPORATED THOSE INTO OUR PD STIPULATIONS.

AS YOU CAN SEE HERE, WE SET STANDARDS FOR BUILDING MATERIALS, MAXIMIZE THE NUMBER OF SAFE OUTDOOR SPACES.

WE SET FACADE STANDARDS FOR OUR PARKING STRUCTURES, WHICH CAN OFTEN TIME BE AN EYESORE, AND WE RESTRICT THE TYPE OF FENCING.

WE ALSO INCREASE THE SETBACKS, PROTECT AGAINST NOISE AND AIR QUALITY.

WE MADE MUCH LARGER LANDSCAPE EDGES, ESPECIALLY COMPARED TO OUR NEIGHBORS.

AND FINALLY WE BUILT THIS INCREDIBLE AMOUNT OF OPEN SPACE ANCHORED BY THE 1.4 ACRE PLAZA

[00:45:01]

GREEN, WHICH WILL BE SETBACK FROM HIGHWAYS AND BUILT IMMEDIATELY.

WHY DID WE DO ALL THIS? WE NEED TO CREATE THE BAND IN THIS LOCATION BY BRINGING VIBRANCY AND DELIVERING TO THE MARKET SOMETHING UNIQUE THAT CANNOT BE FOUND ELSEWHERE.

HOW DO YOU DO THAT? ONE, EXCEPTIONAL DESIGN.

TWO, A CONCENTRATION OF PEOPLE, AND THREE, A UNIQUE AMENITY.

THIS IS HOW WE ARE GONNA BUILD ECONOMIC DEMAND FOR THIS ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD.

AS FAR AS HOUSING CON IS CONCERNED, I KNOW STAFF MENTIONED THE REPORT, THEY DO NOT THINK THE AREA IN PLANO HAS ENOUGH DEMAND FOR ADDITIONAL MULTI-FAMILY.

THEY REFERENCED THE REPORT DONE FIVE YEARS AGO IN 2018.

THE MORE RE RECENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ACTUALLY HAS A DASHBOARD THAT CALCULATES THE POTENTIAL NEW HOUSING UNITS.

OUR AREA SHOWS 829 MULTI-FAMILY UNITS AND 87 NEW ATTACHED OR DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY UNITS AVAILABLE.

ADDITIONALLY, WE COMMISSIONED OUR OWN STUDY DONE BY THE CONCORD GROUP.

WHEN WE PURCHASED THE PROPERTY, WHICH WE SHARED WITH STAFF, THAT REPORT STATED THAT OUR COMPETITIVE MARKET AREA TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT THE CONCRETE MALL REDEVELOPMENT WOULD BE UNDERSUPPLIED BY OVER 3,400 UNITS OVER THE NEXT FIVE YEARS.

THEY HAD ACTUALLY SUGGESTED A THOUSAND PLUS UNITS ON OUR SITE, BUT AS PART OF THE REDESIGN PROCESS, WE SPENT A LOT OF TIME TALKING TO THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBORS AND DOING A DEEP DIVE INTO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

ONE COMMON POINT THAT KEPT COMING UP, THERE WERE ONLY REALLY TWO TYPES OF HOUSING PRODUCTS IN THE CITY OF PLANO, SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND APARTMENTS.

SO IT WAS IMPORTANT FOR US IN THIS REDESIGN PROCESS TO PROVIDE A DIVERSITY OF HOUSING.

WE DECREASED THE NUMBER OF APARTMENTS BY OVER 330 UNITS FROM OUR ORIGINAL APPLICATION AND ADDED THE SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED RESIDENCES.

AS YOU CAN SEE IN THIS CHART, THIS ALLOWS THE HOUSING INVENTORY FROM THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO GO FROM OUT OF COMPLIANCE TODAY TO END OF COMPLIANCE WITH OUR PROJECT.

BUT OUR ARCHITECTS WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THE PLACEMAKING OF THESE TOWNHOMES ENCOURAGED HUMAN INTERACTION AND COMMUNITY BUILDING.

TO DO THIS, OUR ARCHITECTS SUGGESTED HAVING THE TOWNHOMES CENTERED AROUND THE MAIN STREET AND PLAZA GREEN TO MAKE SURE THE RESIDENTS WERE THE HEART OF THE COMMUNITY.

ALL MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTS HAVE TO PASS BY THE TOWNHOMES IN ORDER TO UTILIZE THE PLAZA GREEN.

THIS PLACE MAKING DIRECTLY CONNECTS THE TWO USES IN ORDER TO BUILD COMMUNITY.

AND THIS IS WHAT YOU GET A BEAUTIFUL INTERACTION WITH THE TWO PRODUCT TYPES.

THE TOWNHOMES ALSO DO A GREAT JOB AT PROVIDING A STEP BACK FROM THE PLAZA GREEN, FROM THE MULTIFAMILY MASSING.

BUT THE REAL CENTERPIECE FOR THE PROJECT IS OUR 1.4 ACRE PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE PLAZA GREEN.

THIS AMENITY WILL ANCHOR THE ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD AND BE A PLACE FOR ALL TO ENJOY.

WE WORKED WITH THE ADJACENT OFFICE OWNERS TO PROVIDE DIRECT CONNECTIONS TO THE PLAZA GREEN FOR THEIR TENANTS AND EMPLOYEES.

WE WANTED THIS SPACE TO BE ACTIVATED FOR THE ENTIRE ENTIRE DAY AND BE A GATHERING PLACE.

AS I'M SURE YOU ALL KNOW, THIS SECTION OF EAST PLANO HAS VERY LIMITED GREEN SPACE.

WE COMMITTED TO BUILDING THIS PLAZA GREEN IMMEDIATELY TO BRING A BOOST TO THE ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD.

AND FROM A CITY PLANNING PERSPECTIVE, WE ARE TRANSFORMING THIS CONCRETE SURFACE PARKING LOT TO THIS BEAUTIFUL OPEN SPACE.

NOW, I WANTED TO QUICKLY ADDRESS SOMETHING THAT GOT BROUGHT UP IN THE STAFF REPORT THAT CAUGHT US OFF GUARD WHEN WE RECEIVED IT OVER THE WEEKEND.

WE'VE BEEN WORKING FOR YEARS ON THIS PROJECT WITH A NOISE CONSULTANT TO ENSURE THAT OUR DEVELOPMENT MET AND EXCEEDED THE EHA STANDARDS.

WHEN WE BOUGHT THE PROPERTY, WE ACTUALLY ASKED THE CITY WHO THEY USED TO DEVELOP THE HA STANDARDS AND IF WE COULD USE THEM TO ENSURE THAT WE STAYED COMPLIANT.

SO WE HIRED H M M H THE SAME CONSULTANT THE CITY USED TO DEVELOP THE STANDARDS AND THEY HAVE BEEN ANALYZING ALL OF OUR VARIOUS ITERATIONS OVER THE YEARS.

HOPEFULLY YOU'RE ALL RECEIVED A COPY OF THE LETTER THAT H M M H ISSUED IN RESPONSE TO THE STAFF REPORT AND PROVIDES SOME CLARIFICATION TO THEIR ANALYSIS AND SHOWS THAT IN THEIR EXPERT OPINION, WE ARE ACTUALLY IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE EHA MAP, EVEN WITH OUR PROPOSED PHASING.

IF YOU DON'T HAVE A COPY OF IT, I HAVE SOME EXTRA COPIES HERE.

A COUPLE OF THE KEY S, ALL OF OUR RESIDENTIAL IS SITUATED OUTSIDE OF THE 75 D B A CONTOUR LINE AND NO UNITS EXCEED THAT 75 D B A THRESHOLD WITH OR WITHOUT THE COMMERCIAL STRUCTURES.

WE SITUATED THOSE STRUCTURES WHERE THEY ARE TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL PROTECTION AS THAT IS GENERAL GOOD PRACTICE AND THEY WILL PROVIDE ADDITIONAL NOISE MITIGATION OVER TIME.

BUT SIMPLY ENSURING NO BALCONIES ARE AND PATIOS ARE BUILT ON THE SOUTHERN FACADE OF THE BUILDINGS AND UTILIZING ENHANCED BUILDING MATERIAL TO KEEP INTERIOR NOISE LEVELS BELOW ACCEPTABLE LEVELS PROVIDE APPROPRIATE MITIGATION AND PROTECTION FOR OUR RESIDENTS.

WE HAVE H HMA M M H AVAILABLE VIA ZOOM TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY.

NOW, AS PART OF OUR REDESIGN, WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE DID A DEEP DIVE INTO ALL APPLICABLE CITY POLICIES AND, AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

THE FIRST OF THIS IS THE DOWNTOWN VISION STRATEGY UPDATE OF 2019.

THIS POLICY SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSES THE UNDERDEVELOPED PROPERTIES SOUTH OF PLANO

[00:50:01]

PARKWAY THAT ARE WITHIN WALKING DISTANCE TO THE DART STATION AND MENTIONS THAT THEY'RE SUITABLE FOR MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT AND RESIDENTIAL USES WITH IMAGINATIVE DESIGN AND AMENITIES.

THAT THIS, UH, DEVELOPMENT PLAN ACHIEVES ALL OF THE APPLICABLE GUIDING PRINCIPLES OF THE DOWNTOWN PLAN.

THEN WE GET INTO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

2021.

OUR PROPERTY IS DESIGNATED AS EXPRESSWAY CORRIDORS IN THE UPDATED PLAN.

THE EXPRESSWAY CORRIDOR HAS THREE MAIN PRIORITIES.

THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE 75 CORRIDOR, PROTECTING LAND USES IN THE EHA AND UTILIZING RESIDENTIAL USES FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT OF UNDERPERFORMING COMMERCIAL AREAS.

THIS PLAN ACHIEVES ALL THREE OF THOSE PRIORITIES.

THE CHART, UH, THIS IS A CHART OF THE DESIRABLE CHARACTER DEFINING ELEMENTS OF THE EXPRESSWAY CORRIDORS.

AGAIN, WE'VE BEEN IN BELIEF THAT WE'RE MEETING ALL OF THESE ELEMENTS.

NOW WE GET INTO ALL THE APPLICABLE POLICY ACTIONS, UH, OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

OUR PROJECT IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH NINE AND ONE THIRD OF THE 10 APPLICABLE POLICY ACTIONS.

THE FIRST IS LAND USE POLICY ACTION FOUR, WHICH CALLS FOR RE REVITALIZATION OF UNDERPERFORMING RETAIL.

THE NEXT IS L U FIVE, WHICH ENSURES RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY STANDARDS.

OUR PROJECT IS OF SIMILAR HEIGHT AND SCALE TO THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD.

THIRD IS THE T O D POLICY ACTION FIVE, WHICH ENCOURAGES NEW DEVELOPMENT WITHIN A HALF MILE OF A LIGHT RAIL STATION.

NEXT IS T O D FOUR, WHICH DESCRIBES USING STRUCTURED PARKING TO INCREASE OPPORTUNITY FOR MORE OPEN SPACE, WHICH IS WHAT WE'VE DONE.

FIFTH IS THE, UH, REDEVELOPMENT AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT POLICY ACTION ONE, WHICH TALKS ABOUT CONSISTENCY WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE MAPS AND DASHBOARDS, ALL OF WHICH WE BELIEVE WE'VE MET.

SIX IS RGM FOUR, WHICH TALKS ABOUT PROVIDING SUFFICIENT OPEN SPACE.

NEXT IS RGM FIVE, WHICH WE ONLY PARTIALLY MEET.

I'M SURE MANY OF YOU'RE AWARE.

RGM FIVE A AND B, WHICH RESTRICT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT TO KNOW MORE THAN 50% OF THE PROJECT AND REQUIRES A MINIMUM OF 33% NON-RESIDENTIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE THROUGH ANY PHASE DEVELOPMENT, UH, WAS A HIGHLY DISCUSSED TOPIC DURING THE ADOPTION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

THESE MINIMUM AND MAXIMUMS ARE VERY DIFFICULT TO APPLY ACROSS THE ENTIRE CITY.

AS I MENTIONED, DURING THOSE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN HEARINGS.

UNDERPERFORMING COMMERCIAL AREAS LIKE SUCH AS THIS NEED THE ADDITIONAL RESIDENTIAL TO STIMULATE THE ECONOMIC ACTIVITY IN THOSE AREAS JUST AS THE COMP PLAN SUGGESTS ELSEWHERE.

LUCKILY, THE COMP PLAN ALLOWS YOU TO OVERRIDE THAT POLICY ACTION SO LONG AS YOU MAKE FINDINGS.

WE ASK THAT YOU LOOK AT OUR PROJECT IN THE CONTEXT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AS A WHOLE.

THE DEVELOPMENT NEVER PIERCES THE 33% NON-RESIDENTIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE IN PHASE AND TOTALS 51% RESIDENTIAL AT FULL BUILDOUT FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

FINALLY, WE'RE BUILDING OUR GREEN SPACE CONCURRENT WITH THE FIRST PHASE.

OUR GMA IS ANOTHER ITEM FROM THE STAFF REPORT THAT WE WERE A LITTLE CONFUSED ABOUT.

OUR PROJECT IS CONSISTENT, WHICH WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE MAPS AND DASHBOARDS, WHICH ARE DIFFERENT THAN THE POLICY ACTIONS.

AND WE ARE PROVIDING A DIVERSITY OF HOUSING TYPES AND WITHIN A HALF MILE OF THE DART STATION.

THE LAST TWO POLICY ACTIONS ARE FOR THE REVITALIZATION OF RETAIL SHOPPING CENTERS.

OUR RETAIL, UH, CORNER IS CERTAINLY A PRIME CANDIDATE FOR REDEVELOPMENT AND WE ARE CERTAINLY IN, UH, INCLUDING ACTIVE, OPEN AND GREEN SPACE.

LIKE I MENTIONED BEFORE, BECAUSE WE DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE TWO-THIRDS OF SINGLE POLICY ACTION, YOU MUST MAKE FINDINGS THAT OUR PROPOSAL IS CONSISTENT WITH GUIDING PRINCIPLES OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND IS SUBSTANTIALLY BENEFICIAL TO THE IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORHOOD.

WE BELIEVE WE MEET ALL THREE OF THE GUIDING PRINCIPLES AND HERE ARE OUR PROPOSED FINDINGS.

FIRST, AS P PLANO TODAY, WE'LL REVITALIZE AN UNDERPERFORMING COMMERCIAL AREA.

WE HAVE BEEN TRYING TO LEASE THE EXISTING PROPERTY FOR TWO YEARS WITH NO ACTION AND THERE'S NO DEMAND FOR LARGE SCALE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT.

WE'LL CREATE A VIBRANT LIVE WORK PLAY DISTRICT ADJACENT TO DART.

THE PLAN WILL ELIMINATE, ELIMINATE VACANT DARK STRUCTURE AND PROMOTE SAFETY AND VIABILITY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

AND THE PLAN WAS DEVELOPED IN SUPPORT OF OUR NEIGHBORS.

SIR, YOU HAVE ONE MINUTE LEFT.

OKAY.

UH, FOR PLANO 2050, WE'RE PROVIDING FUTURE GENERATIONS THE ABILITY TO CHANGE HOUSING TYPES BUT REMAIN WITHIN THE CITY OF PLANO.

WE ARE RIGHT-SIZING THE COMMERCIAL STATE, UH, UH, SPACE FOR SUSTAINABLE EMPLOYMENT AND HOSPITALITY.

AND THE PROJECT WILL ENCOURAGE INCREASED PUBLIC RIDERSHIP AND THE PLAN WILL HOPEFULLY SPUR FURTHER ECONOMIC INVESTMENT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

FINALLY, PLANO.

TOGETHER THIS PROPERTY IS ONE, ONE OF THE MOST TRANSIT RICH LOCATIONS IN THE CITY OF PLANO.

WE'RE ADJACENT TO A LIGHT RAIL STATION, A RUNNING TRAIL, A MAJOR BUS STOP IN TWO MAJOR HIGHWAYS THAT ALL PEOPLE OF PLANO WE'RE BUILDING THIS 1.4 ACRE PLAZA GREEN, WHICH WILL BRING THE COMMUNITY TOGETHER.

AND THE PLAN WAS DEVELOPED IN COLLABORATION AND SUPPORT OF OUR NEIGHBORS.

ON THAT NOTE, I'VE PERSONALLY SPOKEN WITH EVERY ONE OF OUR NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNERS AND THEY ALL SUPPORT US.

PLEASE SEE HERE SOME

[00:55:01]

OF THE LETTERS THAT WE'VE RECEIVED.

I WANNA PARTICULARLY POINT OUT THE LETTER ON THE RIGHT FROM THE OWNER OF THE AURA ONE 90 APARTMENT COMPLEX.

NEXT TO US, THE RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT OF OUR PROJECT WILL BE A DIRECT COMPETITOR TO THEIR PROPERTY.

DESPITE THIS, THEY SEE THE OVERALL VISION OF OUR PLAN AND HOW THIS CAN TRANSFORM THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS ANOTHER INDICATION THAT THERE'S ENOUGH DEMAND IN THIS AREA FOR OUR PROJECT.

SIR, YOUR TIME IS UP.

JUST WRAP UP REAL QUICK TO SEE.

YEP.

THE, AGAIN, THE VISION THAT OUR NEIGHBORS ARE SEEING IS HAVING THIS BE THE NEW FACE OF PLANO PARKWAY.

WE DO HAVE SLIDES THAT TALK ABOUT ALTERNATIVES IF WE WANT TO DISCUSS THAT.

AND IF A PROJECT LIKE THIS ISN'T APPROVED, YOU KNOW, WHAT WOULD THE OTHERWISE STATUS OF THE PROPERTY BE? WE'RE HAPPY TO GO THROUGH THAT AND Q AND A.

THANK YOU.

YEP.

DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS OTHER THAN THE APPLICANT ON THIS ITEM? WE DO NOT.

OKAY.

SO WITH THAT, I'M GONNA SEE IF WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT.

I'M LOOKING MR. BROSKI FOLLOWED BY COMMISSIONER TOM.

UH, COULD YOU RESTATE WHAT YOU FELT CAUGHT YOU OFF GUARD? WELL, LET ME START LIKE THIS.

I'M REALLY EXCITED ABOUT SOME OF THE THINGS THAT YOU'VE TALKED ABOUT IN HERE.

THE, THE HIGH QUALITY STANDARDS AND THE MATERIAL DESIGN STUFF.

UH, I I THINK WE DEFINITELY NEED TO, TO, UH, ALWAYS BE PUSHING THAT ENVELOPE.

THE SECOND THING THAT YOU MENTIONED THAT I FELT IS VERY CRITICAL, UH, AS SOMEBODY WHO SERVED ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, UM, I BELIEVE THAT UNIQUE DESIGNS, UM, WELL, LET ME, LET ME REPHRASE THAT.

I BELIEVE THAT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ALLOWS US TO HAVE MULTI-FAMILY USE ALMOST ANYWHERE IN THE CITY IF IT'S DELIVERED AT A LEVEL THAT WE FIND, UM, MEETS OUR STANDARDS AND HAS THAT WOW FACTOR, HAS THAT UNIQUE DESIGN.

UH, AND SO I'M VERY GLAD THAT YOU POINTED THAT OUT.

MY FIRST QUESTION FOR YOU WAS, YOU MADE A COMMENT ABOUT SOMETHING RELATED TO THE E H A CAUGHT YOU OFF GUARD, UH, THAT YOU RECEIVED OVER THE WEEKEND.

CAN YOU STATE THAT AGAIN? YEAH.

WE HAD NO INDICATION THAT OUR E HHA SITE ANALYSIS WAS NOT IN CONFORMANCE.

UH, WE DID AN E HHA SITE ANALYSIS WITH H M M H, WHO WAS THE CITY'S CONSULTANT, UH, DURING THE, UH, ADOPTION OF THE EHA, UH, PLAN.

UM, THEY'VE BEEN PART OF THIS PROCESS FOR MULTIPLE YEARS AND WE'VE UTILIZED THEM CONTINUALLY ALONG THE WAY.

UH, THEIR STUDY, UH, AS STATED IN THE RESPONSE LETTER THAT THEY PROVIDED, IS THAT IN THEIR BELIEF THAT WE ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH IT.

AND SO WHEN WE SAW THAT OVER THE, THE FIRST TIME WE HEARD OF IT OVER THE WEEKEND TO THE DETAIL THAT THAT WE DID WAS, UM, WAS THAT, SO THAT CAUGHT US OFF GUARD BECAUSE THE ENTIRE TIME, AS WE'VE EXPRESSED TO STAFF AND EVERYBODY ELSE THAT, THAT WE'VE BEEN DESIGNING THIS ENTIRE PROJECT TO BE COMPLIANT WITH THAT FROM THE VERY BEGINNING.

SURE.

OKAY.

UH, SO MY NEXT QUESTION, UH, IS ERIC STILL ON THE LINE? HE SHOULD BE.

I BELIEVE HE SHOULD BE.

ERIC, CAN YOU, UM, I AM, CAN YOU PLEASE HELP ME WITH THIS? HELP ME TO UNDERSTAND HOW THIS, UH, CAUGHT, UH, MR. WOLF OFF GUARD AND, UH, JUST RECEIVING THIS INFORMATION THAT DOESN'T STRIKE ME AS HOW WE NORMALLY OPERATE.

NO, AND YOU KNOW, I, NOT TO AIR OUR BACK AND FORTH, WE HAVE BEEN COMMUNICATING THIS WITH THE APPLICANT FOR SOME TIME.

UM, WE'VE PROVIDED COMMENTS, I THINK TWO OR THREE ROUND OF COMMENTS ON THE NOISE STUDY.

UM, SO THEY'RE, THEY'RE VERY AWARE THAT WE HAVE THESE CONCERNS AND, UM, YEAH, I I THINK IT'S JUST, UH, MAYBE OUR, OUR UNDERSTANDING IS DIFFERENT THAN THEIR UNDERSTANDING, BUT WE THOUGHT WE COMMUNICATED THIS WELL.

CAN I GO AHEAD.

RESPOND.

YEAH.

UM, SO WE'VE ALWAYS KNOWN THAT THERE'S BEEN A CONCERN ABOUT THE PHASING.

THE PHASING HAS BEEN A BIG TOPIC AND A BACK AND FORTH WITH THE CITY FOR A LONG TIME.

UM, WE'VE MADE OUR STATEMENT CLEAR ON WHAT WE CAN PROVIDE WHEN WE ALSO BELIEVE IT WAS CLEAR IN H HM M H'S STUDY THAT THE, THE, THE COMMERCIAL STRUCTURES BEING BUILT DID NOT HAVE AN IMPACT ON THEIR ANALYSIS.

SO THERE ARE A NUMBER OF UNITS ON THE SOUTH PORTION OF THE SITE CLOSEST TO THE HIGHWAY THAT ARE BETWEEN THAT 65 AND 75 D B A LEVEL.

THAT JUST MEANS THAT THERE NEED TO BE CERTAIN MITIGATIONS THAT PROTECT RESIDENTS.

WE APPLIED THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT H M M H MADE, WHICH WAS NO BALCONIES OR PATIO ON THAT SOUTHERN FACE OF THE SITE.

AND THEN IN ADDITION, I THINK THE PURPOSE OF IT IS TO PROTECT PEOPLE FROM LONG-TERM HIGH NOISE LEVELS, PARTICULARLY WHEN THEY'RE SLEEPING.

AND SO WE COMMITTED TO THE, UM, ENHANCING OUR BUILDING MATERIALS SUCH THAT WE ACHIEVE A NOISE LEVEL OF 45, UH, DBA ON AN INTERIOR LEVEL.

OKAY.

THAT'S, UH, I JUST, I ALWAYS WANNA MAKE

[01:00:01]

SURE WE CLARIFY WHEN ANYONE'S MAKING STATEMENTS THAT ARE REFERENCING OUR DEVELOPMENT STAFF AND HOW THEY'RE RESPONDING.

I JUST WANNA BE CLEAR ABOUT WHERE EVERYBODY'S AT ON THAT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.

YEP.

I MIGHT ADD IT, IT APPEARS TO ME THAT THERE MAY BE SOME MISUNDERSTANDING ON THE PART OF THE CONSULTANT BECAUSE IN THEIR LETTER THEY STATE THAT THE, UH, THEY'RE RESTRICTING BALCONIES AND PATIOS ON THE SOUTHERN FACADE RELATED TO THE SINGLE FAMILY STRUCTURES IN THAT LAST PARAGRAPH.

AND I DON'T FIND THAT IN THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT LANGUAGE.

SO I KNOW, YOU KNOW, THEY GO ON TO TALK ABOUT HOW THE ROOF DECKS HAVE BEEN REMOVED.

WE KNOW THAT.

BUT IN MY READING OF THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT LANGUAGE, THE MULTIFAMILY DOES HAVE THAT RESTRICTION, BUT THE SINGLE FAMILY DOES NOT HAVE THAT RESTRICTION.

MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT FOR THE ENTIRETY OF TRACT ONE, ALL RESIDENTIAL ON THE ENTIRETY OF TRACT ONE RESTRICT PATIOS AND BALCONIES ON THE SOUTHERN FACADE.

I I, I WOULD