Oct 16, 2023 Planning and Zoning

DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM? NO, WE DO NOT VERY WELL.

LET'S

[CONSENT AGENDA]

MOVE TO CONSENT, PLEASE.

CONSENT AGENDA.

THE CONSENT AGENDA WILL BE ACTED UPON IN ONE MOTION AND CONTAINS ITEMS WHICH ARE ROUTINE AND TYPICALLY NONCONTROVERSIAL.

CONTROVERSIAL ITEMS MAY BE REMOVED FROM THIS AGENDA FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION BY COMMISSIONERS OR STAFF.

I UNDERSTAND WE'RE MOVING REMOVING ITEMS K AND L.

WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO REMOVE ANY OTHER ITEMS FROM THE AGENDA? OKAY, I MOVE.

WE APPROVE THE, UH, THE, UM, CONSENT AGENDA WITH, UH, ITEMS K AND L REMOVED.

SECOND.

K AND IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING MR. LAW, YOU NEED TO RECUSE YOURSELF.

I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRONSKI TO APPROVE CONSENT AGENDA MINUS ITEMS K AND L AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER RATLIFF.

PLEASE VOTE THAT CONSENT CARRIES EIGHT TO ZERO.

WE WILL START WITH ITEM

[k. (RP) Preliminary Site Plan: TRG J Place Addition, Block A, Lot 1 - 325 multifamily residence units on one lot on 4.8 acres located on the west side of J Place, 111 feet north of State Highway 190. Zoned Planned Development-57-Corridor Commercial and located within the 190 Tollway/Plano Parkway Overlay District. Project #PSP2023-024. Applicant: Smith-Lisle Holdings (Administrative consideration)]

YES, WE'RE GOOD.

CONSENT AGENDA ITEM K, PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN, T R G J PLACE EDITION BLOCK A LOT ONE THREE HUNDRED AND TWENTY FIVE MULTIFAMILY RESIDENCE UNITS ON ONE LOT ON 4.8 ACRES LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF J PLACE 110 FEET NORTH OF STATE HIGHWAY ONE 90 ZONE PLAN DEVELOPMENT 57 CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL AND LOCATED WITHIN THE ONE 90 TOLLWAY PLANO PARKWAY OVERLAY DISTRICT APPLICANT IS SMITH LYLE HOLDINGS AND JIM LAKE JR.

I DON'T THINK WE REALLY HAVE A PRESENTATION.

ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON ITEM K? MAKE A MOTION.

WE APPROVE ITEM K AS PRESENTED.

SECOND MOTION BY COMMISSIONER RATLIFF FOR THE SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BROSKY TO APPROVE ITEM K, PLEASE VOTE.

AND MR. ALI, CAN YOU HIT MR. ABSENT? THAT CARRIES SEVEN TO ZERO WITH ONE ABSTENTION.

UH, MR. LYLE.

ALRIGHT, LET'S MOVE BACK

[l. (PM) Extension of Approval Request for Revised Site Plan: Hunters Glen Five-A, Block 7, Lots 2R & 4-6 - Park/playground on four lots on 70.8 acres located at the southeast corner of Independence Parkway and Maumelle Drive. Zoned Single-Family Residence9 with Specific Use Permit No. 66 for Governmental Service Yard. Project #RSP2023- 071. Applicant: City of Plano (Administrative consideration)]

TO, UH, ITEM L.

CONSENT AGENDA ITEM L EXTENSION OF APPROVAL REQUEST FOR RE REVISED SITE PLAN HUNTERS GLEN FIVE A BLOCK SEVEN LOTS, TWO R AND FOUR THROUGH SIX PLAY PARK PLAYGROUND ON FOUR LOTS ON 70.8 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF INDEPENDENCE PARKWAY.

M M L DRIVE ZONE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE NINE WAS SPECIFIC.

USE PERMIT NUMBER 66 FOR GOVERNMENTAL SERVICE YARD.

THE APPLICANT IS CITY OF PLANO AND THIS IS OF COURSE FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION.

GOOD EVENING, MR. CHAIR.

MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.

I'M RAHA PALATE, THE PLANNER WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.

THIS ITEM IS, UM, AN UM, EXTENSION OF APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN AND, UH, STAFF IS, UH, RECOMMENDING THE APPROVAL OF THAT EXTENSION REQUEST.

THIS IS A CITY PROPERTY AND, UH, COMMISSIONER BRUNO REQUESTED MORE INFORMATION ON THE CRITERIA, UM, THAT THE EXTENSION IS, UH, BEING CONSIDERED.

UH, ONE OF THE CRITERIA IS THAT THE REASON OF LAPSE, UH, THE OTHER ONE IS THE ABILITY OF THE PROPERTY OWNER TO COMPLY WITH, UH, ANY CONDITIONS ATTACHED TO THE ORIGINAL APPRO APPROVAL AND THE EXTENT TO WHICH NEARLY ADOPTED REGULATIONS SHALL APPLY TO THE PLAN.

UM, SO AS 40, THE REASONS FOR LAPSED THE, UM, THIS PROJECT WAS UNDER REVIEW AND THE CIVIL SETS, UH, WERE APPROVED.

UM, MS. DELCO, UH, FROM PARKS DEPARTMENT IS, UH, AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AND PROVIDE, UH, REASONS, UH, FOR THE LAPSE

[00:05:01]

OF CONSTRUCTION.

MS. DELCO, DO YOU WANT TO ELABORATE ON THAT? SURE.

MR. BERNOFF, CAN YOU BE SPECIFIC WHY YOU WANTED THIS PULLED, PLEASE? YES.

THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN.

UM, OUR PACKET, IT SAYS THAT IN DETERMINING WHETHER TO GRANT SUCH A REQUEST TO EXTEND AN OTHERWISE LAPSED SITE PLAN, THE COMMISSION SHOULD CONSIDER THE REASONS FOR THE LAPSE.

IN OTHER WORDS, WHY THE PROJECT WASN'T UNDERTAKEN WITHIN THE TIME THE PROPERTY OWNER'S ABILITY TO COMPLY WITH ANY CONDITIONS ATTACHED TO THE ORIGINAL APPROVAL AND THE EXTENT TO WHICH NEWLY ADOPTED REGULATIONS SHALL APPLY TO THE PLAN.

WE WERE GIVEN NO INFORMATION RELATING TO THOSE SPECIFIC CRITERIA AND WE WERE SPECIFICALLY CHARGED TO CONSIDER THOSE CRITERIA.

THAT'S FINE.

I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE SHE UNDERSTOOD WHAT WE WERE ASKING.

GOOD EVENING.

UM, CHAIRMAN BRUNO, UM, FIRST OF ALL, IT IS PARK'S POLICY THAT WE DO NOT HAVE MORE THAN ONE ATHLETIC SITE UNDER CONSTRUCTION AT A GIVEN MOMENT.

IT PUTS TOO GREAT A STRAIN ON OUR SYSTEM.

UM, OVER A YEAR'S TIME.

WE USUALLY ARE THERE, UM, WITH FIVE ORGANIZATIONS, WHICH EQUALS 80 TOURNAMENTS, 550,000, OR I'M SORRY, 55,000, UM, PATRONS INCLUDING YOUTH LEAGUE PATRONS AND 10 RECOGNIZED LEAGUE PARTNERS.

FIELD ALLOCATION FOR THESE TOURNAMENTS TAKES PLACE, UM, FOUR TIMES A YEAR FOR LEAGUE FIELD ALLOCATIONS AND, UH, WITH, WITH SEASONAL SUPPORT PRIORITY AND TOURNAMENT ALLOCATION TAKES PLACE ONCE A YEAR IN ADDITION TO WHICH FIELD ALLOCATION COMMITMENT NEEDS REMAIN THROUGHOUT THE DURATION OF THE PROJECT.

SO THOSE NEEDS STILL HAVE TO BE FULFILLED ON OTHER FIELDS.

SO WE'RE STILL BALANCING THE LOAD THERE.

UM, ALSO WE HAVE HAD SOME STAFF AND STAFFING VACANCIES WITHIN OUR OWN DEPARTMENT AND WITHIN DIVISIONS ACROSS ALL DEPARTMENTS CITYWIDE THAT TOUCH C I P PROJECTS.

SO THAT HAS CREATED SOME DELAYS IN HANDLING AND BIDDING AND ALSO IN AWARDING WE CURRENTLY HAVE ADEQUATE STAFFING TO PROCEED AND SO WE ARE PROCEEDING WITH THAT IN DUE HASTE, BUT AT THIS TIME IT HAS LAPSED.

LAST, BUT CERTAINLY NOT LEAST, THERE ARE ALSO STAFFING VACANCIES IN OUR CONSULTANTS TEAMS. AND THIS IS PRETTY MUCH ACROSS THE BOARD.

UM, THIS IS NOT AN EXCEPTION TO THE RULE AND THAT HAS CREATED DELAYS IN GETTING OTHER APPROVALS REQUIRED BY OTHER DEPARTMENTS.

SO WE'RE STILL WORKING THROUGH THE PROCESS.

UM, WE JUST RAN OUT THE CLOCK.

IS IT PROPER TO ASK QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME OR SHOULD I WAIT? WELL, I, I GUESS IT'S, UNLESS WHAT SHE'S TOLD YOU, YOU FEEL IS IN CON UH, INSUFFICIENT TO GRANT THE EXTENSION.

SHE'S SPOKEN TO THE FIRST, UM, THE FIRST FACTOR, WHICH IS THE REASONS FOR THE LAPSE.

I WAS GONNA ASK HER, IS THE DEPARTMENT ABLE TO COMPLY WITH CONDITIONS ATTACHED TO THE ORIGINAL APPROVAL? YES, SIR.

AND ARE THERE ANY NEWLY ADOPTED REGULATIONS APPLYING TO THE PLAN? THAT NOT, NOT THAT I'M AWARE OF.

IT HAS BEEN RE-REVIEWED, UM, BY STAFF INTERNALLY AND SO THEY WOULD'VE BROUGHT THOSE TO OUR ATTENTION HAD THAT BEEN THE CASE.

I'M SATISFIED.

THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN.

YEAH, SORRY, I NEED TO ELABORATE ON THAT A LITTLE BIT.

THE ONLY REGULATION THAT HAS CHANGED AND IS, UH, AFFECTING THE SITE IS, UM, THE, UM, REMOVAL OF THE FACADE REQUIREMENT FOR THE RESTROOM BUILDING THAT IS SHOWN ON THE PLAN, UH, PER THE ACTION THAT WAS TAKEN ON AUGUST 28TH.

COUNCIL MEETING.

UH, IT MIGHT BE BENEFICIAL, I GUESS IN THE FUTURE IF WE HAVE AN EXTENSION OF, UH, REQUEST.

LET'S JUST GO AHEAD AND ASK WHOEVER THE APPLICANT IS TO GIVE US THAT LITTLE BACKGROUND AND THAT WAY IT AVOIDS THIS SITUATION PROPERLY.

MR. CHAIRMAN, I WOULD'VE BEEN HAPPY IF THE PRESENTATION HAD HAD BEEN IN WRITING IN OUR PACKET.

UNDERSTOOD.

YEAH.

MR. BRONSKI? AYE.

MOVE WE APPROVE ITEM L.

SECOND.

REGISTRATIONS ARE RECEIVED.

SO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM L THANK YOU FOR COMING TONIGHT.

APPRECIATE YOU BEING HERE.

WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM L BY COMMISSIONER BRONSKI WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER KERRY, PLEASE VOTE.

MR. LYLE.

MR. IFF.

YEAH, THERE'S A DELAY OR SOMETHING'S GOING ON.

THAT ITEM CARRIES EIGHT TO ZERO ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION.

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

APPLICANTS ARE LIMITED TO A TOTAL OF 15 MINUTES OF PRESENTATION TIME WITH A 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 MEET CITY DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.

LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION ITEMS ARE MORE DISCRETIONARY EXCEPT AS CONSTRAINED BY

[00:10:01]

LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS AND CHAIR.

MAY I, UM, PUT IN THAT I I NEED TO RECORD INFORMATION SO I'M NOT ABLE TO GET TO THE VOTE AS QUICKLY AS AS WHAT THE COMMISSION WOULD LIKE TO VOTE.

IT DOES TAKE A FEW SECONDS, SO WE'LL EVERYBODY TAKE A DEEP BREATH BEFORE YOU VOTE.

, I THANK YOU ABOUT IT SO MUCH.

I APPRECIATE IT.

YES, STILL LEARNING .

OKAY, AGENDA, I'M

[Items 1A & 1B]

GONNA READ AGENDA ITEM A AND B TOGETHER.

AGENDA ITEM NUMBER ONE, A PUBLIC HEARING ZONING CASE 2023 DASH 18.

REQUEST TO AMEND PLAN DEVELOPMENT 37 RETAIL NEIGHBORHOOD OFFICE ON 7.8 ACRES LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE FOUR OF 14TH STREET, 808 FEET EAST OF LOS RIOS BOULEVARD.

THIS IS SEWN PLAN DEVELOPMENT 37 RETAIL NEIGHBORHOOD OFFICE.

PETITIONER IS 43 0 1 DEVELOPMENT LP.

THIS IS FOR LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION.

AGENDA ITEM ONE B IS A PUBLIC HEARING PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN AND REVISED PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN 5 44 PARTNERS EDITION BLOCK A LOTS TWO THROUGH FOUR INDEPENDENT LIVING FACILITY, ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY, RESTAURANT, RETAIL AND PROFESSIONAL GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE ON THREE LOTS ON SEVEN ACRES.

LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF 14TH STREET, 808 FEET EAST OF LOS RIOS BOULEVARD.

APPLICANT IS 43 0 1 DEVELOPMENT LP.

GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS.

MY NAME IS DONNA SEPULVEDA.

I'M A SENIOR PLANNER WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.

THIS IS A REQUEST TO AMEND PLAN DEVELOPMENT 37 RETAIL NEIGHBORHOOD OFFICE TO ALLOW FOR 6,000 ADDITIONAL SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL AND RESTAURANT USES WITHIN TWO EXISTING BUILDINGS.

THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW.

IT SHOWS THE TWO EXISTING BUILDINGS AS WELL AS A VACANT LOT, WHICH WE DO HAVE PLANS FOR A FUTURE INDEPENDENT LIVING FACILITY.

A PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN AND REVISED PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN HAS BEEN SUBMITTED AND ACCOMPANIES THIS REQUEST, WHICH SHOWS THE ADDITIONAL RETAIL AS WELL AS UPDATED PARKING CALCULATIONS.

THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS DESIGNATED NEIGHBORHOODS ON THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP.

THIS REQUEST WAS REVIEWED AGAINST THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE DESCRIPTIONS AND PRIORITIES, MIX OF USES AND CHARACTER DEFINING ELEMENTS OF THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND DASHBOARDS.

SOME HISTORY ON THIS SITE IN 2018, EXCUSE ME, THE DISTRICT WAS ESTABLISHED TO ALLOW FOR MEDICAL OFFICE AND RETAIL USES UP TO 10,000 SQUARE FEET.

AND APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST ALSO ALLOWED THE INDEPENDENT LIVING FACILITY AS A PERMITTED USE.

IN 2019, PLANS WERE SUBMITTED FOR AN INDEPENDENT LIVING FACILITY, WHICH REPLACED TWO FUTURE OFFICE BUILDINGS AND THE REQUEST ALSO INCREASE THE LIMIT ON RETAIL AND RESTAURANT TO 15,300 SQUARE FEET.

AND TODAY THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO INCREASE THE RETAIL AND RESTAURANT USES TO 21,300 SQUARE FEET AND NO CHANGES TO THE INDEPENDENT LIVING FACILITY ARE PROPOSED.

STAFF GENERALLY DISCOURAGES PROPOSING ADDITIONAL RESTAURANT AND RETAIL USES DUE TO CONCERNS REGARDING EXCESS RETAIL ZONING IN THE CITY.

HOWEVER, THIS SITE'S NON-RESIDENTIAL PORTIONS HAVE BEEN CONSTRUCTED AND MARKET TRENDS CONTINUE TO BE DIFFICULT FOR OFFICE RELATED USES.

ADDING ADDITIONAL RETAIL AND RESTAURANT SQUARE FOOTAGE WILL ALLOW THE SITE TO BE MORE SUCCESSFUL IN THE SHORT TERM.

AND CAPPING THE RETAIL AND RESTAURANT ON 21,300 SQUARE FEET IS NECESSARY TO AVOID PARKING CONSTRAINTS ON THE SITE.

AND WE RECEIVED NO RESPONSES WITHIN THE 200 FOOT BUFFER CITYWIDE.

WE RECEIVED ONE NEUTRAL RESPONSE AND ONE RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION FOR A TOTAL OF TWO RESPONSES.

AND THE NEXT FEW SLIDES SHOW THE UPDATED PLAN DEVELOPMENT LANGUAGE.

THIS SLIDE SHOWS THE CHANGE FROM 15,300 SQUARE FEET TO 21,300 SQUARE FEET AND STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE ZONING CASE, UM, SUBJECT TO THE CHANGES SHOWN ON THE SCREEN AND IN THE STAFF REPORT AND STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE ASSOCIATED PLAN SUBJECT TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THIS ZONING CASE.

HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

DO WE HAVE ANY TECHNICAL QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS ISSUE, MR. RATLIFF? THANK YOU.

UM, UH, I'M ALWAYS DRIVEN BY THESE BUILDINGS.

WE'RE CURIOUS WHY THEY SITTING THERE EMPTY.

SO NOW I UNDERSTAND WHY 'CAUSE THEY'RE NICE LOOKING BUILDINGS.

UM, QUESTION I HAVE, I

[00:15:01]

I WAS LOOKING AT THE PARKING TABLE ON THE SITE PLAN AND COMPARING IT TO THE MEMO IN THE, UH, PD OR ZONING CHANGE IN THE FIRST CASE.

UH, SITE PLAN PART B VERSUS THE MEMO IN PART A AND I WAS JUST HAVING TROUBLE RECONCILING THE MATH OF THE RETAIL AND RESTAURANT BECAUSE IN THE, IN THE IN CASE ONE A YOU KIND OF LOOK AT AS A, AS A COMBINED SQUARE FOOTAGE, BUT IN THE ZONING TABLE, IN THE PARKING TABLE, IT'S VERY SPECIFICALLY BROKEN INTO RETAIL AS A PARKING CATEGORY AND RESTAURANT AS A PARKING CATEGORY.

SO, AND, AND THERE'S NOT ONE SINGLE EXTRA SPACE OUT THERE.

I MEAN THERE WE'VE USED EVERY SPACE OUT THERE WITH THE CALCULATIONS AND, AND SO I JUST, HOW DO WE, HOW DO YOU ENFORCE THAT OR IS THAT AN ISSUE MOVING FORWARD THAT THERE'S ONLY SO MUCH RESTAURANT THAT CAN BE USED AS A PART OF THAT VERSUS RETAIL? HOW DOES THAT, HOW DOES THAT WORK? YES.

WHEN, UM, TENANTS APPLY FOR A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, IT'S SENT UP TO PLANNING AND WE REVIEW THE SQUARE FOOTAGE THEY'RE OCCUPYING AND THE EXISTING TENANTS ON SITE AND WE REVIEW A PARKING CALCULATION TO SEE HOW MANY SITES PARKING SPACES ARE REMAINING.

SO THAT WILL BE VALIDATED IN THE FUTURE.

I JUST, I, I CAN SEE A SITUATION WHERE THERE'S OVERFLOW PARKING INTO THE CHURCH NEXT DOOR AND I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE'VE GOT ADEQUATE PARKING OUT THERE.

SO.

SO YOU'VE RECONCILED ALL THAT IN THE MATH ALL WORKS? MM-HMM.

THAT'S MY ONLY QUESTION.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH COMMISSIONER BRONSKI, I REALLY APPRECIATE UH, I THINK YOU DO AN EXTREMELY THOROUGH JOB AND SO I REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR PRESENTATIONS ALL THE TIME.

I HAVE ONE QUICK QUESTION, UM, FROM MY TIME ON THIS BOARD AND OTHERS, ONE OF THE THINGS I KEEP HEARING ALL THE TIME IS WE'RE ALWAYS OVER RETAILED AND YOU MADE THE COMMENT THAT IT WOULD HELP THIS BE MORE SUCCESSFUL IN THE SHORT TERM.

WHAT ABOUT A LONG-TERM LOOK? IS THIS A GOOD DECISION FOR US TO BE MAKING ON A LONG-TERM BASIS AS WELL? IS THAT A TECHNICAL QUESTION? UH, WELL STAFF , WELL I FELT LIKE IT WAS A QUESTION FOR HER 'CAUSE IT WAS, SHE USED THE TERM MORE SUCCESSFUL IN THE SHORT TERM.

SO THAT WAS WHY I UNDERSTOOD THAT.

I UNDERSTOOD THAT.

I JUST, AGAIN, I WANT US TO FOCUS ON TECHNICAL VERSUS MAYBE AN OPINION ABOUT WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN.

SO, BUT YOU'RE FREE TO ANSWER THE QUESTION IF YOU SURE.

OFFICE USES COULD COME IN IN THE FUTURE, BUT RIGHT NOW THIS WOULD HELP THEM, UM, GET THEIR SITE FULLY OCCUPIED WITH USES.

YEAH.

AND THEN FRANKLY I'M UH, ALL FOUR MORE BUSINESSES COMING TO PLANO AND IF THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO ATTRACT SOME MORE PEOPLE, I THINK IT'S A GREAT IDEA.

I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT.

SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

SO MY TECHNICAL QUESTION IS DOES THIS PREVENT THEM THOUGH FROM INCREASING THE AMOUNT OF OFFICE, GENERAL OFFICE IF THEY WANT TO BECAUSE WE'RE CHANGING THESE, I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'RE CAPPING IT VERSUS WE'RE JUST ADJUSTING, YOU KNOW, MOVING THE NUMBERS AROUND.

SO WHICH, WHICH, WHICH APPROACH ARE WE TAKING HERE? THEY COULD DO OFFICE AT A HUNDRED PERCENT.

THIS RESTRICTION IS ONLY TO RETAIL AND RESTAURANT USES.

I JUST TECHNICALLY WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S WHAT WAS GOING ON.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? OKAY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

OH, SORRY IT POPPED UP.

I DIDN'T SEE IT.

SO WHEN THEY CAME IN 2019, DID WE CLASSIFY IT AS A CAP AT THAT POINT FOR THE 15,000 SQUARE FEET? YES, THERE WAS A CAP AT THAT TIME FOR RETAIL AND RESTAURANT SQUARE FOOTAGE.

I AGREE THEY'RE CHANGING IT TO NOW 21.

MM-HMM AND WE ARE CALLING IT A CAP.

I'M BASICALLY JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IS OUR GUARDRAILS FOR THEM TO COME BACK IN FOUR YEARS AND WE CALL IT A CAP AND IT'S 26,000 AND IT'S A CAP AND IT'S A CAP AND IT'S A CAP.

WHEN IS A CAP? A CAP? I THINK THIS WOULD BE THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF RETAIL AND RESTAURANT JUST DUE TO THE PARKING LIMITATIONS.

IF THEY HAD MORE RETAIL OR RESTAURANT, THEY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO PROVIDE ENOUGH PARKING ON SITE.

SO THE PARKING IS THE ENFORCING GUARDRAILS.

ANYONE ELSE? OKAY, THANK YOU.

I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM? WE DO NOT, BUT THE PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE IS HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION.

DO WE HAVE ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT ON THIS PROJECT? OKAY, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

MR. BRONSON, I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE, UH, THIS ZONING CASE, UM, EXACTLY AS IT'S SHOWN ON PAGE 12, UH, OF THE RECOMMENDATION FROM STAFF.

THAT'S PRETTY SPECIFIC.

OKAY, MR. BRUNO? SECOND.

I'LL SECOND.

YEAH, YOU'LL SECOND IT.

AGENDA ITEM NUMBER TWO, PUBLIC HEARING REPL ST.

SO I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRONSKI TO APPROVE ITEM ONE A, UH, AS PRESENTED BY STAFF WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRUNO AND

[00:20:01]

MR. BRUNO.

THERE WE GO.

AND THAT CARRIES SEVEN TO ONE, MAKING SURE THAT WAS A NO VOTE FOR YOU.

OKAY, SO THAT, THAT ITEM CARRIES SEVEN TO ONE.

NOW ON ITEM ONE B, MR IFF, I MAKE A MOTION.

WE APPROVE ITEM ONE B, SUBJECT TO APPROVAL ABOVE THE CITY COUNCIL OF ZONING CASE 2023 DASH 18 SECOND MOTION BY MR. IFF WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRUNO TO APPROVE ITEM ONE B SUBJECT TO COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE ZONING CASE, PLEASE VOTE MR LAW AND MR. OLLIE.

THERE YOU GO.

UH, AND THAT ITEM CARRIES SEVEN TO ONE ITEM TWO

[2. (JK) Public Hearing - Replat: St. Elizabeth Ann Seton Catholic Church Addition, Block 1, Lot 1R - Religious facility on one lot on 6.3 acres located on the south side of Spring Creek Parkway, 330 feet east of Independence Parkway. Zoned Single-Family Residence-9 and Planned Development-105-Retail/General Office. Project #R2023- 026. Applicant: SEASCP-RC (Administrative consideration)]

ELIZABETH ANN SETON CATHOLIC CHURCH EDITION BLOCK ONE LOT ONE R RELIGIOUS FACILITY ON ONE LOT ON 6.3 ACRES LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF SPRING CREEK PARKWAY 330 FEET EAST OF INDEPENDENCE PARKWAY ZONE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE NINE AND PLAN DEVELOPMENT 1 0 5 RETAIL GENERAL OFFICE.

APPLICANT IS S E A SS C P DASH RC.

GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS.

MY NAME IS JOHN KIM PLANNER WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.

STAFF RECOMMENDS A RELA FOR APPROVAL.

THAT'S SUBMITTED.

I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH MR. KIM.

ANY QUESTIONS FOR HIM ON THIS ITEM? OKAY, THANK YOU.

DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM? NO WE DO NOT.

I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO FIND DISCUSSION.

MR. BRONSKI, I MOVE, WE APPROVE ITEM TWO, UH, AS SUBMITTED.

I'LL SECOND IT.

WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRONSKI WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER ALL TO APPROVE ITEM TWO AS SUBMITTED, PLEASE VOTE THAT CARRIES EIGHT TO ZERO.

WE'RE GETTING OUR TIMING DOWN NOW.

[3. (DS) Public Hearing - Replat: Legacy West Addition, Block E, Lots 2R, 5R, & 8R - Professional/general administrative office on Lot 2R and vacant land on Lots 5R and 8R on 95.6 acres located at the southeast corner of Headquarters Drive and Legacy Drive. Zoned Central Business-1. Project #R2023-029. Applicants: CCI-D 6501 Legacy Owners, LLC and Kintetsu Enterprises Company of America (Administrative consideration)]

MOVING ON TO ITEM THREE.

THANK YOU SO MUCH.

AGENDA ITEM NUMBER THREE, PUBLIC HEARING REPL LEGACY WEST EDITION BLOCK E LOTS TWO R FIVE R AND AR PROFESSIONAL GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE ON LOT TWO R AND VACANT LAND ON LOTS FIVE R AND EIGHT R ON 95.6 ACRES.

LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF HEADQUARTERS DRIVE AND LEGACY DRIVE ZONE CENTRAL BUSINESS ONE.

APPLICANTS ARE C C I DASH D 65 0 1.

LEGACY OWNERS, L L C AND CONSU ENTERPRISE'S COMPANY OF AMERICA.

THIS ITEM IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL AS SUBMITTED AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

ANY QUESTIONS MR. IFF? JUST ONE FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD BECAUSE WE ARE UH, DELETING A DRAINAGE AND FLOODWAY EASEMENT.

I PRESUME THIS HAS ALL BEEN REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE ENGINEERING STAFF.

YES IT HAS.

JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WAS PUBLIC.

THANKS.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALRIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FOUR, PUBLIC HEARING REPL PLANO 5 44 BUSINESS PARK EDITION BLOCK A LOT FIVE R MAJOR VEHICLE REPAIR ON ONE LOT ON 4.1 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF PLANO PARKWAY AND CHARLES STREET ZONED LIKE COMMERCIAL APPLICANT IS SIX S T PLANO, TX, L L C.

DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS? NO, WE DO NOT.

I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC.

I MOVE.

WE APPROVE ITEM THREE AS SUBMITTED.

ALL RIGHT.

WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRONSKI WITH A HAND SIGNED BY MR. RATLIFFE.

THAT MEANS HE WILL SECOND THE MOTION.

UH, TO APPROVE.

ITEM THREE AS SUBMITTED, PLEASE VOTE.

THAT ITEM CARRIES EIGHT TO ZERO.

ITEM FOUR,

[4. (JK) Public Hearing - Replat: Plano/544 Business Park Addition, Block A, Lot 5R - Major vehicle repair on one lot on 4.1 acres located at the southeast corner of Plano Parkway and Charles Street. Zoned Light Commercial. Project #R2023-033. Applicant: 6S T Plano TX, LLC (Administrative consideration)]

STAFF RECOMMENDS THE RELA FOR APPROVAL.

AS SUBMITTED, I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.

ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS ITEM? ALRIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS? UH, NO.

THE APPLICANT IS AVAILABLE ONLINE IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION.

AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FIVE, PUBLIC HEARING REPL ASSEMBLY PARK BLOCK A LOT ONE 312 FAM, MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENT UNITS, RETAIL RESTAURANT AND PROFESSIONAL GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE ON ONE LOT ON 26.3 ACRES LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF SPRING CREEK PARKWAY.

ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT ON THIS ITEM? I CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

I MOVE.

WE APPROVE ITEM NUMBER FOUR AS SUBMITTED.

I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRONSKI WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER TO, TO APPROVE.

ITEM FOUR IS SUBMITTED.

PLEASE VOTE.

THAT ITEM CARRIES EIGHT TO ZERO.

ITEM FIVE.

[5. (DS) Public Hearing - Replat: Assembly Park, Block A, Lot 1 - 312 multifamily residence units, retail, restaurant, and professional/general administrative office on one lot on 26.3 acres located on the north side of Spring Creek Parkway, approximately 475 feet east of K Avenue. Zoned Planned Development-45-Retail. Project #R2023-037. Applicant: Plano Mall Owner, LP (Administrative consideration)]

[00:25:02]

APPROXIMATELY 475 FEET EAST OF K AVENUE ZONE PLAN DEVELOPMENT 45 RETAIL.

APPLICANT IS PLANO MALL OWNER LP.

MS ITEM IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL AS SUBMITTED.

I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

MR. LAW, WHAT IS THIS REPL ACCOMPLISHING? THEY'RE CHANGING EASEMENTS NECESSARY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT ON SITE.

CAN WE ELABORATE ON WHAT EASEMENTS? I MEAN JUST FOR, THERE'S QUITE A FEW EASEMENTS.

WATER EASEMENTS, WATER LANES, WATER, UTILITIES.

YEAH.

FIRE.

WASN'T A SPECIFIC ISSUE.

IT'S IN GENERAL AS THE LAYOUT.

OKAY, VERY GOOD.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? MR. LAU? YOU CAN HIT YOUR BUTTON.

DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM? UH, THE APPLICANT IS AVAILABLE ONLINE FROM QUES FOR QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION.

OKAY, THANK YOU.

DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, CONFINED DISCUSSION TO THE COMMISSION.

I MOVE, WE APPROVE.

UH, AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FIVE AS SUBMITTED.

SECOND.

SO I HAVE A MOTION AGAIN BY MR. BRONSKI WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER ALI, I THINK MR. BRONSKI IS IN A HURRY.

PLEASE VOTE .

I THINK IT'S MORE THAN YOUR DEAL 'CAUSE LIKE IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT EVEN RECORDING MY VOTES.

DO YOU WANNA TRY RESETTING THE BOARD AND LET'S TRY IT AGAIN? NOPE.

NO I'M DOWNSTAIRS.

HAND VOTE PLEASE.

THAT ITEM CARRIES EIGHT TO ZERO.

WE'LL GO TO ITEM

[6. (DS) Public Hearing - Replat & Revised Site Plan: Baylor Medical Center, Block A, Lot 1R - Hospital and medical office on one lot on 34.7 acres located at the southeast corner of Plano Parkway and Allied Drive. Zoned Planned Development-138-Retail/General Office and Planned Development-402-Retail/General Office with Specific Use Permit No.164 for Outdoor Commercial Amusement Facility and located within the 190 Tollway/Plano Parkway Overlay District and Preston Road Overlay District. Projects #R2023-039 and #RSP2023-070. Applicants: Baylor Health Care System and Baylor Medical Center at Plano (Administrative consideration)]

SIX.

AGENDA ITEM NUMBER SIX, PUBLIC HEARING REPL AND REVISE SITE PLAN.

BAYLOR MEDICAL CENTER BLOCK A LOT.

ONE R HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL OFFICE ON ONE LOT ON 34.7 ACRES.

LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF PLANO PARKWAY AND ALLIED DRIVE ZONE PLAN DEVELOPMENT.

1 38 RETAIL GENERAL OFFICE AND PLAN DEVELOPMENT 4 0 2 RETAIL GENERAL OFFICE WITH SPECIFIC USE PERMIT NUMBER 1 64 FOR OUTDOOR COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT FACILITY AND LOCATED WITHIN THE ONE 90 TOLLWAY PLANO PARKWAY OVERLAY DISTRICT AND PRESTON ROAD OVERLAY DISTRICT APPLICANTS ARE BAYLOR HEALTHCARE SYSTEM AND BAYLOR MEDICAL CENTER AT PLANO.

PLANO TELEVISION NETWORK.

CAN YOU PLEASE ADVANCE THE SLIDES TO ITEM SIX? AND WHILE THEY DO THAT, ITEM SIX IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL.

AS SUBMITTED BOTH ITEMS REPOT AND REVISED SITE PLAN.

I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

I THANK YOU.

ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS ITEM? OKAY, WE'RE NOT TRUSTING THIS AT ALL ANYMORE, SO MR. CAREY? YEAH, I HAVE THE SAME QUESTION WAS ASKED BEFORE.

WHAT'S THE PURPOSE OF COMBINING THESE THESE LOTS? WHAT, WHY ARE THEY DOING IT? IT WAS AT THE REQUEST OF THE PROPERTY OWNER.

I BELIEVE THEY, UM, REGISTERED TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU MR. BRUNO.

UH, WHY IS A HOSPITAL INTERESTED IN IN BUILDING A COM AN OUTDOOR COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT FACILITY? I THINK THAT WAS JUST THE UNDERLYING ZONING ALLOWED FOR THAT.

YEAH, IT'S NOT REALLY RELATED TO WHAT THE USE IS TODAY.

I SAY OKAY, I'LL, I'LL, I'LL, I'LL LOOK FOR THE MERRY-GO-ROUND.

I CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION.

IT'S IN THE CHILDREN'S SECTION.

LAUGHTER HELPS HEALING LAUGHTER HELPS HEALING.

THAT IS THE REASON.

YES, THAT'S A GOOD ONE.

ALRIGHT, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? ALRIGHT, WE'RE GOOD.

I'LL OPEN PUBLIC HEARING.

UM, WE DO NOT HAVE ANY SPEAKERS.

SOMEBODY PLEASE MAKE THIS MOTION BEFORE MR. BRONSKI .

I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

I MOVE, WE APPROVE THIS, UH, SUBJECT TO ADDITIONS AND OR OR SUBJECT TO ADDITIONS AND OR ALTERATIONS TO THE ENGINEERING PLAN.

I BET YOU'RE ON SEVEN.

WE'RE ON SIX.

YOU GOT AHEAD OF YOURSELF? YES SIR.

SO HE REALLY IS IN A HURRY.

I AM.

I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE AS SUBMITTED.

ITEM SIX.

ALRIGHT, SO WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BROSKY WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRUNO TO APPROVE.

ITEM SIX IS SUBMITTED HAND VOTE

[00:30:01]

PLEASE.

ALL IN FAVOR, THAT ITEM CARRIES EIGHT TO ZERO.

WE'LL GO TO ITEM SEVEN.

[7. (KC) Public Hearing - Preliminary Replat: Split Trail/Spring Creek Addition, Block A, Lots 1R & 3 - Restaurant with drive-through and superstore on two lots on 16.4 acres located at the southwest corner of K Avenue and Spring Creek Parkway. Zoned Corridor Commercial. Project #PR2023-018. Applicant: Sam’s Real Estate Business Trust (Administrative consideration)]

AGENDA ITEM NUMBER SEVEN, PUBLIC HEARING.

PRELIMINARY REPL SPLIT TRAIL SPRING CREEK EDITION BLOCK A LOTS ONE R AND THREE RESTAURANT WITH DRIVE-THROUGH AND SUPERSTORE ON TWO LOTS ON 16.4 ACRES.

LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST SOUTHWEST CORNER OF KAY AVENUE AND SPRING CREEK PARKWAY ZONE CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL APPLICANT IS SAM'S REAL ESTATE BUSINESS TRUST.

STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY REPL SUBJECT TO, UH, UH, AND ADDITIONS AND OR ALTERATIONS TO THE ENGINEERING PLANS AS, UM, REQUESTED BY THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT.

I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE.

ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS ONE, MR. ALI? JUST ONE.

UM, DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE PARTICULAR CONCERNS THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT MIGHT BE LOOKING AT OR WHAT CONCERNS DO THEY HAVE? THIS IS A NORMAL PRACTICE FOR PRELIMINARY PLATS.

AS THEY, UH, REVIEW CONTINUE REVIEWING THE CIVIL SETS, SOME OF THE, UM, EASEMENTS MIGHT, UM, SLIGHTLY CHANGE ON THE PRELIMINARY REPLY.

UM, WE APPROVE THIS ONE AND THEN, UH, WHEN ENGINEERING APPROVES THE CIVIL SET, THE ENGINEERING, UM, SET WILL BE RELEASED FOR CONSTRUCTION AND BY THE TIME THE CONSTRUCTION IS CONCLUDED, THEY WILL COME BACK WITH A REPL AND THEN AT THAT POINT THE EASEMENT LINES WILL BE, UH, FINALIZED.

SURE.

COMMISSIONER CAREY? UM, SUB DEVISING THIS SENT TO TWO LOTS.

WON'T CHANGE THE UNDERLYING ZONING, WILL IT? NO SIR.

SURE.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? F OKAY, THANK YOU.

DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS? WE DO NOT, BUT THE APPLICANT AND APPLICANT REPRESENTATIVE IS AVAILABLE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION.

HEARING ITEMS. THE PRESIDING OFFICER WILL PERMIT LIMITED PUBLIC COMMENT ON I FOR ITEMS ON THE AGENDA NOT POSTED FOR A PUBLIC HEARING, THE PRESIDING OFFICER WILL ESTABLISH TIME LIMITS BASED UPON THE NUMBER OF SPEAKER REQUESTS, LENGTH OF THE AGENDA, AND TO ENSURE MEETING EFFICIENCY AND MAY INCLUDE A TOTAL TIME LIMIT AGENDA.

DOES ANYONE HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT ON THIS ITEM? OKAY, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

I MOVE TO APPROVE .

AGENDA ITEM NUMBER SEVEN, SUBJECT TO ADDITIONS AND OR ALTERATIONS TO THE ENGINEERING PLANS AS REQUIRED BY THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT.

ALRIGHT, SO WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER TONG WITH THE SECOND BY COMMISSIONER LYLE TO APPROVE ITEM SEVEN, PLEASE VOTE.

THAT'S EIGHT CARRIES EIGHT TO ZERO.

NICE JOB.

NON-PUBLIC

[8. (CC) Discussion and Action: Call for Public Hearing - Request to call a public hearing to consider amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to modify off-street parking requirements. Project #CPH2023-013. Applicant: City of Plano (Administrative Consideration)]

ITEM NUMBER EIGHT, DISCUSSION AND ACTION.

CALL FOR PUBLIC HEARING.

REQUEST TO CALL A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO MODIFY OFF STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS.

APPLICANT IS CITY OF PLANO.

THIS OF THESE ISSUES? 'CAUSE I I ONLY READ THAT THESE ISSUES CAUSE DELAYS AND, YOU KNOW, UM, THE CONSEQUENCES.

I'M MELISSA KLINE, LEAD PLANNER WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.

STAFF HAS INCREASINGLY ENCOUNTERED ISSUES WITH DEVELOPMENT BEING UNABLE TO MEET THE OFF STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS WITHIN THE ZONING ORDINANCE DUE TO A CHANGE OF USE, WHICH IS ALLOWED WITHIN THE ZONING DISTRICT.

THE EXISTING PARKING REGULATIONS ARE GENERALLY DESIGNED FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT WITH LIMITED OPTIONS TO ADDRESS CHANGES OVER TIME.

AT THE SAME TIME THOUGH, MANY SITES APPEAR TO HAVE SUFFICIENT PARKING TO MEET THE ACTUAL DEMAND WITH LIMITED EXCEPTIONS THROUGH THESE ZONING ORDINANCE.

THESE ISSUES CAUSE SUBSTANTIAL DELAYS IN PERMITTING AS STAFF WORKS WITH PROPERTY OWNERS AND LESSEE TO FIND SOLUTIONS THAT WORK WITHIN THE EXISTING REGULATIONS.

THEREFORE, STAFF IS PROPOSING TO BRING FORWARD AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE RELATED TO PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR CONSIDERATION TO ALLEVIATE THESE IMMEDIATE CHALLENGES.

WHILE A FALL REWRITE OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE IS SLATED TO BEGIN SOON, THE PROJECT WILL TAKE SOME TIME AND STAFF'S PREFERENCES TO COMPLETE AN IMMEDIATE FIX FOR THE ISSUE TO RESOLVE CONCERNS WITH PERMITTING.

THIS FIX SHOULD BE TEMPORARY DUE TO THE REWRITE PROJECT AND WILL BE FOLLOWED BY A THOROUGH REVIEW OF PARKING REGULATIONS DURING THAT PROCESS.

STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CALL A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO MODIFY OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS AND RELATED SECTIONS NECESSARY TO RESOLVE THIS CONCERN.

AND I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

I HAVE A QUESTION.

UM, CAN YOU GIVE SOME EXAMPLES ABOUT

[00:35:01]

UM, MY UNDERSTANDING IS WHEN THEY APPLY, UH, WHEN THEY SUBMIT THE APPLICATION OR DO THE SITE PLAN, THEY SHOULD HAVE ALREADY COUNTED THE NUMBER OF PARKINGS OFF STREET OR ON STREET OR WHATEVER.

IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUFFICIENT BEFORE THEY EVEN GET APPROVAL.

IS THAT CORRECT? BEFORE THEY GET A BUILDING PERMIT.

SO THE ISSUES COME IN WITH REDEVELOPMENT IN PARTICULAR AS WELL AS, UM, LIKE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCIES.

SO NEW TENANTS COMING INTO EXISTING BUILDINGS.

SO IF THEY'RE REDEVELOPING AN EXISTING SITE THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, ALREADY HAS THE CONSTRAINTS FOR LANDSCAPE BUFFERS AND EXISTING UTILITIES AND OTHER SURROUNDING USES, IT CAN BE DIFFICULT TO ADD IN ANY ADDITIONAL PARKING NEEDED FOR A USE THAT MIGHT REQUIRE MORE PARKING.

FOR EXAMPLE, RETAIL REQUIRES MORE PARKING THAN OFFICE.

SO IF IT WAS PREVIOUSLY AN OFFICE COMPLEX THAT DIDN'T WORK OUT.

SO RETAIL IS COMING IN.

THEY MIGHT NOT HAVE THE SPACE GIVEN CONSTRAINTS OF THE SURROUNDING AREA TO ADD IN ALL THE PARKING NEEDED.

SO WITH THE OTHER MIX OF USES ON SITE, THEY MIGHT NOT HAVE ENOUGH SPACES AND THAT SUITE WOULD HAVE TO REMAIN VACANT.

SO LET'S DO THIS.

I MEAN, REALLY WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS CALL A PUBLIC HEARING AND THAT WAY SOMEBODY WILL KNOW THAT, HEY, THIS IS BEING DISCUSSED AND THEY CAN BE HERE TO HEAR ALL OF THE INFORMATION VERSUS US GETTING A LOT OF INFORMATION TONIGHT.

MM-HMM.

SO REALLY WE JUST WANT TO CALL THE PUBLIC HEARING SO THEN WE CAN HAVE A LOT OF DISCUSSION AROUND THE ISSUES.

COMMISSIONER BRONSKI? UH, YEAH, SO I'D JUST LIKE TO MAKE THE COMMENT THAT I THINK THIS IS REALLY IMPORTANT.

I BELIEVE THAT, UM, PROVIDING, UH, THE FLEXIBILITY AND THE UNDERSTANDING OF TENANTS THAT ARE LOOKING TO TAKE OVER, UH, OR HAVE A CHANGE OF USE, UM, WHY DON'T YOU CALL THE PUBLIC HEARING? I, I'M WORKING ON IT.

I I'VE EXPERIENCED THIS BEFORE PERSONALLY, OKAY.

UH, IN ANOTHER CITY.

AND SO I DO, I WANT TO CALL A PUBLIC HEARING.

TO AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO MODIFY OFF STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS AND RELATED SECTIONS NECESSARY TO RESOLVE THIS CONCERN.

YOU WANT TO OR YOU MOVE? WE CALL, I MOVE THAT WE DO THAT, SIR.

NINE, DISCUSSION AND ACTION.

AND I HAVE A SECOND.

ALRIGHT.

SO WE HAVE A MOTION BY MR. BRONSKI WITH A SECOND BY, UH, COMMISSIONER LYLE TO CALL A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO THE ALL STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS.

HAND VOTE PLEASE.

AND THAT CARRIES EIGHT TO ZERO.

ALL MOVING ON.

AGENDA ITEM NUMBER.

I KNOW THIS WASN'T, THERE'S NO ONE ELSE HERE.

NEVERMIND.

GO AHEAD.

AGENDA ITEM NUMBER

[9. (JR) Discussion and Action: Call for Public Hearing - Request to call a public hearing to amend the Subdivision Ordinance regarding simplifying the requirements for platted building lines, to allow flexibility in issuing building permits for properties that receive zoning variances for minimum yards and related sections. Project #CPH2023-014. Applicant: City of Plano (Administrative Consideration)]

CALL FOR PUBLIC HEARING.

REQUEST TO CALL A PUBLIC HEARING TO AMEND THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE REGARDING SIMPLIFYING THE REQUIREMENTS FOR PLATTED BUILDING LINES TO ALLOW FLEXIBILITY IN ISSUING BUILDING PERMITS FOR PROPERTIES THAT RECEIVE ZONING VARIANCES FOR MINIMUM YARDS AND RELATED SECTIONS.

APPLICANT IS CITY OF PLANO.